# Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?



## RWHeathenGamer

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?


----------



## KNB

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

KNB said:


> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.



So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?


----------



## Peach

KNB said:


> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.



Yes, and the answer is "NO".


----------



## Katzndogz

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



That will become the same battleground here as it is now in England.


----------



## KNB

Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.


----------



## koshergrl

When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away. 

No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.


----------



## koshergrl

And the state never will have that authority. Regardless of what the progressive admin attempts to force upon us. The churches will prevail, and Christians will die before they will give up that right. And I'm sure progressive scum will have no qualms about killing them. They never have.


----------



## Clementine

KNB said:


> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.



Do you include mosques in that sentiment?


----------



## Ibentoken

KNB said:


> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.



I agree.  Those who holler "Separation of church and state" appear to forget that when it comes to pushing their agenda.  Hypocrites.


----------



## koshergrl

It has been tried many times before.

Historically, when the state has sought authority over the church, the leaders will do it in the name of this religion or that..but it is always the state that is exerting the authority. Thus the horrific bloody persecutions of the past are a result not of Christianity attempting to establish itself (this is what our school children come out of school believing, based on the half-formed claptrap they hear from their illiterate teachers) but have been a result of a state body exerting force  over the church. 

", Soviet authorities suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on the particular era. Soviet policy, based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs.[1]

The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept.[4][5] The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 millions.[6][7][8]

Religious beliefs and practices persisted among the majority of the population,[4] in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognised its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war."

Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, nobody has ever done it so well as atheists.


----------



## Ibentoken

KNB said:


> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.



If you were king of the USA would you close all churches?


----------



## shart_attack

Katzndogz said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That will become the same battleground here as it is now in England.
Click to expand...


Meanwhile you are actually letting some Muslims practice Sharia Law there.

I don't think _their_ birthrate will wane anytime soon.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

KNB said:


> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.



What if they married gays and wore rainbow robes, would you spare them?

Also, you burning churches reminded me of the spanish civil war, kind of funny how far the modern left has fallen. You anarchists used to burn down churches and fight fascists on the front lines, now the closet thing you get to a fight is challenging a transphobic comment on an internet forum.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

koshergrl said:


> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.



So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?


----------



## Peach

KNB said:


> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.



"Religion" is one matter, faith in God is a separate subject.


----------



## KNB

Clementine said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you include mosques in that sentiment?
Click to expand...

All religions.  Churches, mosques and synagogues.  Anyone who thinks that there is an invisible man in the sky, but especially anyone who is willing to kill to prove just how much their invisible man in the sky loves us.  You find them in every culture.

Christians, Muslims and Jews all pray to the One True Invisible Man in the Sky.  They only kill each other over what name to call it.  And they pollute and poison God's paradise called Earth because they think that they're going to be able to sit around in Never Never Land and play harps in outer space after they die.

Human adults need to grow up and stop having imaginary friends.


----------



## Ibentoken

RWHeathenGamer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
Click to expand...


Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?


----------



## KNB

Peach said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Religion" is one matter, faith in God is a separate subject.
Click to expand...

I agree with that.  For the most part, religion is a wall between individuals and what we perceive as "God".  You'll find God a lot easier when you're alone in a forest than surrounded by strange strangers in a mega-church.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

KNB said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Religion" is one matter, faith in God is a separate subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with that.  For the most part, religion is a wall between individuals and what we perceive as "God".  You'll find God a lot easier when you're alone in a forest than surrounded by strange strangers in a mega-church.
Click to expand...


Yea MAAAN, I get real spiritual after I smoke a jay in the forest.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

Ibentoken said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?
Click to expand...


I agree, then I also agree businesses should be able to refuse services for whatever reason as well. But I believe in something called freedom of association and private property, novel concepts in today's america.


----------



## bripat9643

KNB said:


> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.


Wrong.  The claim that democracy is the cure - all for the ills of society is the single greatest lie in all of human history.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## KNB

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Religion" is one matter, faith in God is a separate subject.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that.  For the most part, religion is a wall between individuals and what we perceive as "God".  You'll find God a lot easier when you're alone in a forest than surrounded by strange strangers in a mega-church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea MAAAN, I get real spiritual after I smoke a jay in the forest.
Click to expand...

".....and God saw that it was good."


----------



## KNB

bripat9643 said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The claim that democracy is the cure - all for the ills of society is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
Click to expand...

Democracy gave us the right to vote, not God.  God doesn't actually exist.


----------



## koshergrl

RWHeathenGamer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
Click to expand...


Yes indeed. 

Because after all, marriage is primarily a civil union. The state can marry whomever they will.

Churches are not obliged to. They are separate from the state.


----------



## Ibentoken

KNB said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The claim that democracy is the cure - all for the ills of society is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democracy gave us the right to vote, not God.  God doesn't actually exist.
Click to expand...


Not according to our founders.


----------



## koshergrl

Now, if the state REQUIRED its people to attend church and adhere to a particular religion..THEN it would have the right to impose whatever restrictions it chooses to upon the churches. 

Which is why Christians are always adamantly supportive of the separation of church and state.

Unlike murderous atheists and criminal progressives.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Pastors who perform weddings are acting as civil servants and should thus be required to comply with non-discrimination laws applicable to such.

They should not have to perform ceremonies in their church as a religious ceremony, however.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The claim that democracy is the cure - all for the ills of society is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy gave us the right to vote, not God.  God doesn't actually exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to our founders.
Click to expand...


Demo-cracy is rule by the People.  Theo-cracy is rule by a Religion, or by God.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

it's disturbing that this question is even being asked....


----------



## KNB

Ibentoken said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The claim that democracy is the cure - all for the ills of society is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy gave us the right to vote, not God.  God doesn't actually exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to our founders.
Click to expand...

That's nice.  Slave owners believed that all men were created equal in the likeness of the all-loving invisible man in the sky.

You still have the right to believe that bullshit because America legalized marijuana in 1942.


----------



## Ibentoken

NYcarbineer said:


> Pastors who perform weddings are acting as civil servants and should thus be required to comply with non-discrimination laws applicable to such.
> 
> They should not have to perform ceremonies in their church as a religious ceremony, however.



Did you read that in the same book where you got school districts are sovereign?


----------



## Katzndogz

koshergrl said:


> It has been tried many times before.
> 
> Historically, when the state has sought authority over the church, the leaders will do it in the name of this religion or that..but it is always the state that is exerting the authority. Thus the horrific bloody persecutions of the past are a result not of Christianity attempting to establish itself (this is what our school children come out of school believing, based on the half-formed claptrap they hear from their illiterate teachers) but have been a result of a state body exerting force  over the church.
> 
> ", Soviet authorities suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on the particular era. Soviet policy, based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs.[1]
> 
> The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept.[4][5] The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 millions.[6][7][8]
> 
> Religious beliefs and practices persisted among the majority of the population,[4] in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognised its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war."
> 
> Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Of course, nobody has ever done it so well as atheists.



Ironically, today its the old Soviet Union remnants building Churches instead of tearing them down.


----------



## rightwinger

Nobody is asking them to

They are free to pursue their archaic hatred


----------



## Ibentoken

KNB said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy gave us the right to vote, not God.  God doesn't actually exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to our founders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Slave owners believed that all men were created equal in the likeness of the all-loving invisible man in the sky.
> 
> You still have the right to believe that bullshit because America legalized marijuana in 1942.
Click to expand...


Do you respect the Bill of Rights and Constitution?


----------



## KNB

Ibentoken said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to our founders.
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.  Slave owners believed that all men were created equal in the likeness of the all-loving invisible man in the sky.
> 
> You still have the right to believe that bullshit because America legalized marijuana in 1942.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you respect the Bill of Rights and Constitution?
Click to expand...

More than the Founders who signed it.  How did slave-owners convince you that they respect freedom?


----------



## Yarddog

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...




Its understanadable that some churches may feel they are following their concience by not allowing Homosexual marriage.Because there are  scriptures that says that is a sin ,  whether or not I agree with that, I think they should be allowed to choose to marry them or not. There are plenty of churches and other places they can get married if they get turned down by one.

Where inthe bible does it say to discriminate by race ?  If a church discriminates by race I dont see how that is the same thing.


----------



## JakeStarkey

If a church holds itself out as a public service for weddings, then, certainly yes.

If it does not, then certainly not.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pastors who perform weddings are acting as civil servants and should thus be required to comply with non-discrimination laws applicable to such.
> 
> They should not have to perform ceremonies in their church as a religious ceremony, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read that in the same book where you got school districts are sovereign?
Click to expand...


I never said that.


----------



## NYcarbineer

This will be moot point in a few years as more and more churches find God again and become tolerant.


----------



## westwall

No.  Churches have the right to deny service to those who do not follow their belief systems.  The separation of Church and State has meaning.  You don't get the one without the other.


----------



## Antares

RWHeathenGamer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
Click to expand...


(yawn) Ain't ya'll jus the clever one?


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

KNB said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The claim that democracy is the cure - all for the ills of society is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democracy gave us the right to vote, not God.  God doesn't actually exist.
Click to expand...


There is no right to vote.


----------



## Ibentoken

JakeStarkey said:


> If a church holds itself out as a public service for weddings, then, certainly yes.
> 
> If it does not, then certainly not.



If a church conducts weddings, you can't force them to marry queers.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

NYcarbineer said:


> Pastors who perform weddings are acting as civil servants and should thus be required to comply with non-discrimination laws applicable to such.
> 
> They should not have to perform ceremonies in their church as a religious ceremony, however.



Exactly, this is what I figured, wouldn't licensed pastors refusing to supervise a marriage ceremony violate civil rights/discrimination laws?


----------



## Ibentoken

NYcarbineer said:


> This will be moot point in a few years as more and more churches find God again and become tolerant.



Those churches will not be Christian.  There are many false churches that will gladly marry queers, but not a true Christian church.


----------



## Statistikhengst

ScreamingEagle said:


> it's disturbing that this question is even being asked....





Even more disturbing are a number of responses.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

Yarddog said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its understanadable that some churches may feel they are following their concience by not allowing Homosexual marriage.Because there are  scriptures that says that is a sin ,  whether or not I agree with that, I think they should be allowed to choose to marry them or not. There are plenty of churches and other places they can get married if they get turned down by one.
> 
> Where inthe bible does it say to discriminate by race ?  If a church discriminates by race I dont see how that is the same thing.
Click to expand...


So government should force churches to perform mixed race ceremonies but not homosexual ceremonies?


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

JakeStarkey said:


> If a church holds itself out as a public service for weddings, then, certainly yes.
> 
> If it does not, then certainly not.



Don't churches do this?

What I don't understand is that more homosexual couples dont put these bigots feet to the fire and force churches to marry them under anti-discrimination laws. Bigotry, should be run out of every facet, public and private, in our society.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

Statistikhengst said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's disturbing that this question is even being asked....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more disturbing are a number of responses.
Click to expand...


Agreed, don't synagogues already marry gays, why can't the bigoted goys get with the times?


----------



## JFK_USA

RWHeathenGamer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, then I also agree businesses should be able to refuse services for whatever reason as well. But I believe in something called freedom of association and private property, novel concepts in today's america.
Click to expand...


If they provide services to the public, they can't deny services to a certain group of people just because they are that certain group of people. If you are open to anyone, then to serve anyone.


----------



## Ibentoken

RWHeathenGamer said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pastors who perform weddings are acting as civil servants and should thus be required to comply with non-discrimination laws applicable to such.
> 
> They should not have to perform ceremonies in their church as a religious ceremony, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, this is what I figured, wouldn't licensed pastors refusing to supervise a marriage ceremony violate civil rights/discrimination laws?
Click to expand...


That's the problem, the state forcing people to go against their beliefs.  Bricks and Bats Day is coming.


----------



## Ibentoken

JFK_USA said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, then I also agree businesses should be able to refuse services for whatever reason as well. But I believe in something called freedom of association and private property, novel concepts in today's america.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they provide services to the public, they can't deny services to a certain group of people just because they are that certain group of people. If you are open to anyone, then to serve anyone.
Click to expand...



 Nope. Freedom of religion.  That's why. I can kick you out of my church anytime I want to.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

JFK_USA said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, then I also agree businesses should be able to refuse services for whatever reason as well. But I believe in something called freedom of association and private property, novel concepts in today's america.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they provide services to the public, they can't deny services to a certain group of people just because they are that certain group of people. If you are open to anyone, then to serve anyone.
Click to expand...


Agreed, I don't know what I was thinking, private property doesn't exist. Property is a form of violence, primarily by white capitalist bosses, against non-property owners.


----------



## Statistikhengst

The real question is: why in the world we are mixing a legal issue up with a religious issue?

Marriage is a religious issue when it takes place within the church (or any other religious body).

But for the purposes of the state, it is a legal issue. A marriage conferred by a justice of the peace has absolutely nothing to do with a "church" ceremony.

I see no reason in the world why Christian Churches, Synagogues or Mosques (or any other religious organization) should have to allow gay marriage if they don't want to. And why in the world would gay people want to get married in a place where they are not wanted, anyway? That makes no sense.

But those same churches have no right in saying whether gay people can become legally married, i.e., via Justice of the Peace, and with a legal and binding marriage certificate. Technically, once outside of their buildings of worship, those religious people actually have nothing to say about this. You see, the sword cuts both ways.

I also believe that those religous organizations that use the power of the pulpit to sway politics in this way should lose their tax-exempt status.


Any why in the world are so many people obsessed with things "gay" these days?!?!?

WTF?


----------



## Ibentoken

Statistikhengst said:


> The real question is: why in the world we are mixing a legal issue up with a religious issue?
> 
> Marriage is a religious issue when it takes place within the church (or any other religious body).
> 
> But for the purposes of the state, it is a legal issue. A marriage conferred by a justice of the peace has absolutely nothing to do with a "church" ceremony.
> 
> I see no reason in the world why Christian Churches, Synagogues or Mosques (or any other religious organization) should have to allow gay marriage if they don't want to. And why in the world would gay people want to get married in a place where they are not wanted, anyway? That makes no sense.
> 
> But those same churches have no right in saying whether gay people can become legally married, i.e., via Justice of the Peace, and with a legal and binding marriage certificate. Technically, once outside of their buildings of worship, those religious people actually have nothing to say about this. You see, the sword cuts both ways.
> 
> I also believe that those religous organizations that use the power of the pulpit to sway politics in this way should lose their tax-exempt status.
> 
> 
> Any why in the world are so many people obsessed with things "gay" these days?!?!?
> 
> WTF?



Freedom of speech doesn't end when I walk into a church.  Politics are often talked about in churches.  Sharpton and Jackson made a career doing it.


----------



## sealybobo

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



Absolutely not.  I'm as liberal as they come, anti religion, pro gay etc. and I don't think churches should be forced to marry gays.  

But the city hall should be.

When people get divorced, they go through the government/courts, not the church.  

No one wants to force anti gay churches to accept gays.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Ibentoken said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real question is: why in the world we are mixing a legal issue up with a religious issue?
> 
> Marriage is a religious issue when it takes place within the church (or any other religious body).
> 
> But for the purposes of the state, it is a legal issue. A marriage conferred by a justice of the peace has absolutely nothing to do with a "church" ceremony.
> 
> I see no reason in the world why Christian Churches, Synagogues or Mosques (or any other religious organization) should have to allow gay marriage if they don't want to. And why in the world would gay people want to get married in a place where they are not wanted, anyway? That makes no sense.
> 
> But those same churches have no right in saying whether gay people can become legally married, i.e., via Justice of the Peace, and with a legal and binding marriage certificate. Technically, once outside of their buildings of worship, those religious people actually have nothing to say about this. You see, the sword cuts both ways.
> 
> I also believe that those religous organizations that use the power of the pulpit to sway politics in this way should lose their tax-exempt status.
> 
> 
> Any why in the world are so many people obsessed with things "gay" these days?!?!?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of speech doesn't end when I walk into a church.  Politics are often talked about in churches.  Sharpton and Jackson made a career doing it.
Click to expand...



No, freedom of speech does not end when a parishioner enters a church, but the law is crystal clear as to what makes for tax-exempt status, and what does not. You are aware of this fact, right?


----------



## indiajo

Statistikhengst said:


> Any why in the world are so many people obsessed with things "gay" these days?!?!?
> 
> WTF?



That is the core question. I remember the seventies or eighties, some people were gay, no one cared and they made no drama out of it. 
Today, I'm fed up with having it shoved into my face at every opportunity.
As if there would be nothing more important in the world as to let it know about their sexual preferences.


----------



## Ibentoken

Statistikhengst said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real question is: why in the world we are mixing a legal issue up with a religious issue?
> 
> Marriage is a religious issue when it takes place within the church (or any other religious body).
> 
> But for the purposes of the state, it is a legal issue. A marriage conferred by a justice of the peace has absolutely nothing to do with a "church" ceremony.
> 
> I see no reason in the world why Christian Churches, Synagogues or Mosques (or any other religious organization) should have to allow gay marriage if they don't want to. And why in the world would gay people want to get married in a place where they are not wanted, anyway? That makes no sense.
> 
> But those same churches have no right in saying whether gay people can become legally married, i.e., via Justice of the Peace, and with a legal and binding marriage certificate. Technically, once outside of their buildings of worship, those religious people actually have nothing to say about this. You see, the sword cuts both ways.
> 
> I also believe that those religous organizations that use the power of the pulpit to sway politics in this way should lose their tax-exempt status.
> 
> 
> Any why in the world are so many people obsessed with things "gay" these days?!?!?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of speech doesn't end when I walk into a church.  Politics are often talked about in churches.  Sharpton and Jackson made a career doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, freedom of speech does not end when a parishioner enters a church, but the law is crystal clear as to what makes for tax-exempt status, and what does not. You are aware of this fact, right?
Click to expand...


Yes, I am.  Speaking about politics in church doesn't equate to losing tax exemption.


----------



## Darkwind

KNB said:


> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.


Oh, look at the funny primate who says, "Stop using tools, you make me look bad!"


----------



## Ibentoken

indiajo said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any why in the world are so many people obsessed with things "gay" these days?!?!?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the core question. I remember the seventies or eighties, some people were gay, no one cared and they made no drama out of it.
> Today, I'm fed up with having it shoved into my face at every opportunity.
> As if there would be nothing more important in the world as to let it know about their sexual preferences.
Click to expand...


It's part of the leftist agenda.  It's deliberate.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



This fails as a straw man fallacy. 

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only government entities, not private individuals or organizations, such as religious institutions.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Yarddog said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its understanadable that some churches may feel they are following their concience by not allowing Homosexual marriage.Because there are  scriptures that says that is a sin ,  whether or not I agree with that, I think they should be allowed to choose to marry them or not. There are plenty of churches and other places they can get married if they get turned down by one.
> 
> Where inthe bible does it say to discriminate by race ?  If a church discriminates by race I dont see how that is the same thing.
Click to expand...


What follows is everything that Jesus had to say about homosexuality:















































The End


----------



## Sallow

That would be against the Constitution of the United States.

Absolutely not.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Statistikhengst said:


> The real question is: why in the world we are mixing a legal issue up with a religious issue?
> 
> Marriage is a religious issue when it takes place within the church (or any other religious body).
> 
> But for the purposes of the state, it is a legal issue. A marriage conferred by a justice of the peace has absolutely nothing to do with a "church" ceremony.
> 
> I see no reason in the world why Christian Churches, Synagogues or Mosques (or any other religious organization) should have to allow gay marriage if they don't want to. And why in the world would gay people want to get married in a place where they are not wanted, anyway? That makes no sense.
> 
> But those same churches have no right in saying whether gay people can become legally married, i.e., via Justice of the Peace, and with a legal and binding marriage certificate. Technically, once outside of their buildings of worship, those religious people actually have nothing to say about this. You see, the sword cuts both ways.
> 
> I also believe that those religous organizations that use the power of the pulpit to sway politics in this way should lose their tax-exempt status.
> 
> 
> Any why in the world are so many people obsessed with things "gay" these days?!?!?
> 
> WTF?



you make alot of sense...

but when it comes to religious people having a say 'outside their buildings of worship' they have as much say as the next guy....the secular left is attempting to corral Christian attitudes to only their 'houses of worship'....      

States should have the right to make their own marriage laws....not the Feds.....per the Constitution We The People have the right to make our own marriage laws....not because it is religion but because marriage is a societal issue.....

people are 'obsessed' with all things 'gay' these days because the leftists are pushing it....they are using it as a wedge issue to destroy Christianity.....every commie movement has attacked God....and these anti-American cross-knockers are out in full force these days....


----------



## Ibentoken

LoneLaugher said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its understanadable that some churches may feel they are following their concience by not allowing Homosexual marriage.Because there are  scriptures that says that is a sin ,  whether or not I agree with that, I think they should be allowed to choose to marry them or not. There are plenty of churches and other places they can get married if they get turned down by one.
> 
> Where inthe bible does it say to discriminate by race ?  If a church discriminates by race I dont see how that is the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What follows is everything that Jesus had to say about homosexuality:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The End
Click to expand...


Matthew 19.  Marriage is a man and woman.


----------



## LoneLaugher

ScreamingEagle said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real question is: why in the world we are mixing a legal issue up with a religious issue?
> 
> Marriage is a religious issue when it takes place within the church (or any other religious body).
> 
> But for the purposes of the state, it is a legal issue. A marriage conferred by a justice of the peace has absolutely nothing to do with a "church" ceremony.
> 
> I see no reason in the world why Christian Churches, Synagogues or Mosques (or any other religious organization) should have to allow gay marriage if they don't want to. And why in the world would gay people want to get married in a place where they are not wanted, anyway? That makes no sense.
> 
> But those same churches have no right in saying whether gay people can become legally married, i.e., via Justice of the Peace, and with a legal and binding marriage certificate. Technically, once outside of their buildings of worship, those religious people actually have nothing to say about this. You see, the sword cuts both ways.
> 
> I also believe that those religous organizations that use the power of the pulpit to sway politics in this way should lose their tax-exempt status.
> 
> 
> Any why in the world are so many people obsessed with things "gay" these days?!?!?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you make alot of sense...
> 
> but when it comes to religious people having a say 'outside their buildings of worship' they have as much say as the next guy....the secular left is attempting to corral Christian attitudes to only their 'houses of worship'....
> 
> States should have the right to make their own marriage laws....not the Feds.....per the Constitution We The People have the right to make our own marriage laws....not because it is religion but because marriage is a societal issue.....
> 
> people are 'obsessed' with all things 'gay' these days because the leftists are pushing it....they are using it as a wedge issue to destroy Christianity.....every commie movement has attacked God....and these anti-American cross-knockers are out in full force these days....
Click to expand...


Nope. You are obsessed with all things gay these days because the country is passing you by. What leftists want is for one's sexuality to NOT BE AN ISSUE AT ALL. 

There is no god to attack. But you can believe there is if you want. You can also believe that prosperity trickles down and that the earth is flat. Believe it.  Live it. But please.....don't use it as an excuse to be a bigot. 

Thanks.


----------



## Ibentoken

LoneLaugher said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real question is: why in the world we are mixing a legal issue up with a religious issue?
> 
> Marriage is a religious issue when it takes place within the church (or any other religious body).
> 
> But for the purposes of the state, it is a legal issue. A marriage conferred by a justice of the peace has absolutely nothing to do with a "church" ceremony.
> 
> I see no reason in the world why Christian Churches, Synagogues or Mosques (or any other religious organization) should have to allow gay marriage if they don't want to. And why in the world would gay people want to get married in a place where they are not wanted, anyway? That makes no sense.
> 
> But those same churches have no right in saying whether gay people can become legally married, i.e., via Justice of the Peace, and with a legal and binding marriage certificate. Technically, once outside of their buildings of worship, those religious people actually have nothing to say about this. You see, the sword cuts both ways.
> 
> I also believe that those religous organizations that use the power of the pulpit to sway politics in this way should lose their tax-exempt status.
> 
> 
> Any why in the world are so many people obsessed with things "gay" these days?!?!?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you make alot of sense...
> 
> but when it comes to religious people having a say 'outside their buildings of worship' they have as much say as the next guy....the secular left is attempting to corral Christian attitudes to only their 'houses of worship'....
> 
> States should have the right to make their own marriage laws....not the Feds.....per the Constitution We The People have the right to make our own marriage laws....not because it is religion but because marriage is a societal issue.....
> 
> people are 'obsessed' with all things 'gay' these days because the leftists are pushing it....they are using it as a wedge issue to destroy Christianity.....every commie movement has attacked God....and these anti-American cross-knockers are out in full force these days....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You are obsessed with all things gay these days because the country is passing you by. What leftists want is for one's sexuality to NOT BE AN ISSUE AT ALL.
> 
> There is no god to attack. But you can believe there is if you want. You can also believe that prosperity trickles down and that the earth is flat. Believe it.  Live it. But please.....don't use it as an excuse to be a bigot.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


We will practice our religious freedom.  Nothing much you can do about it.  We're going to kick your agenda out of our schools too.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

LoneLaugher said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real question is: why in the world we are mixing a legal issue up with a religious issue?
> 
> Marriage is a religious issue when it takes place within the church (or any other religious body).
> 
> But for the purposes of the state, it is a legal issue. A marriage conferred by a justice of the peace has absolutely nothing to do with a "church" ceremony.
> 
> I see no reason in the world why Christian Churches, Synagogues or Mosques (or any other religious organization) should have to allow gay marriage if they don't want to. And why in the world would gay people want to get married in a place where they are not wanted, anyway? That makes no sense.
> 
> But those same churches have no right in saying whether gay people can become legally married, i.e., via Justice of the Peace, and with a legal and binding marriage certificate. Technically, once outside of their buildings of worship, those religious people actually have nothing to say about this. You see, the sword cuts both ways.
> 
> I also believe that those religous organizations that use the power of the pulpit to sway politics in this way should lose their tax-exempt status.
> 
> 
> Any why in the world are so many people obsessed with things "gay" these days?!?!?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you make alot of sense...
> 
> but when it comes to religious people having a say 'outside their buildings of worship' they have as much say as the next guy....the secular left is attempting to corral Christian attitudes to only their 'houses of worship'....
> 
> States should have the right to make their own marriage laws....not the Feds.....per the Constitution We The People have the right to make our own marriage laws....not because it is religion but because marriage is a societal issue.....
> 
> people are 'obsessed' with all things 'gay' these days because the leftists are pushing it....they are using it as a wedge issue to destroy Christianity.....every commie movement has attacked God....and these anti-American cross-knockers are out in full force these days....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You are obsessed with all things gay these days because the country is passing you by. What leftists want is for one's sexuality to NOT BE AN ISSUE AT ALL.
> 
> There is no god to attack. But you can believe there is if you want. You can also believe that prosperity trickles down and that the earth is flat. Believe it.  Live it. But please.....don't use it as an excuse to be a bigot.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


Bull.....you are nothing more than a useful idiot...

the Left has been using sexual perversion for decades to undermine and degrade our moral society....from pornography to 'art' to prostitution to 'free love' to the Pill to single parenthood to abortion to 'gay rights'......

here's a partial list of the 1958 goals of communism...



> 22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
> 
> 23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
> 
> 24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
> 
> 25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
> 
> 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
> 
> 27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
> 
> 28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
> 
> Current Communist Goals (1958)


----------



## LoneLaugher

Ibentoken said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> you make alot of sense...
> 
> but when it comes to religious people having a say 'outside their buildings of worship' they have as much say as the next guy....the secular left is attempting to corral Christian attitudes to only their 'houses of worship'....
> 
> States should have the right to make their own marriage laws....not the Feds.....per the Constitution We The People have the right to make our own marriage laws....not because it is religion but because marriage is a societal issue.....
> 
> people are 'obsessed' with all things 'gay' these days because the leftists are pushing it....they are using it as a wedge issue to destroy Christianity.....every commie movement has attacked God....and these anti-American cross-knockers are out in full force these days....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. You are obsessed with all things gay these days because the country is passing you by. What leftists want is for one's sexuality to NOT BE AN ISSUE AT ALL.
> 
> There is no god to attack. But you can believe there is if you want. You can also believe that prosperity trickles down and that the earth is flat. Believe it.  Live it. But please.....don't use it as an excuse to be a bigot.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We will practice our religious freedom.  Nothing much you can do about it.  We're going to kick your agenda out of our schools too.
Click to expand...


You can do that all you want. You are free to. Clearly. But you won't turn the tide against equality. That train has left the station. 

Is there an agenda in your schools?


----------



## Ibentoken

The leftist agenda is to bring down everything traditional about America to weaken us because the traditional family is the backbone of America.  Utopia is a land where everyone thinks the same way.  That's why they control the school system. If you won't go along then you are a bigot and a hater, ignorant hillbilly, homophobic, the enemy, and you must be destroyed.  There is a cancer in America.


----------



## LoneLaugher

ScreamingEagle said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> you make alot of sense...
> 
> but when it comes to religious people having a say 'outside their buildings of worship' they have as much say as the next guy....the secular left is attempting to corral Christian attitudes to only their 'houses of worship'....
> 
> States should have the right to make their own marriage laws....not the Feds.....per the Constitution We The People have the right to make our own marriage laws....not because it is religion but because marriage is a societal issue.....
> 
> people are 'obsessed' with all things 'gay' these days because the leftists are pushing it....they are using it as a wedge issue to destroy Christianity.....every commie movement has attacked God....and these anti-American cross-knockers are out in full force these days....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. You are obsessed with all things gay these days because the country is passing you by. What leftists want is for one's sexuality to NOT BE AN ISSUE AT ALL.
> 
> There is no god to attack. But you can believe there is if you want. You can also believe that prosperity trickles down and that the earth is flat. Believe it.  Live it. But please.....don't use it as an excuse to be a bigot.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.....you are nothing more than a useful idiot...
> 
> the Left has been using sexual perversion for decades to undermine and degrade our moral society....from pornography to 'art' to prostitution to 'free love' to the Pill to single parenthood to abortion to 'gay rights'......
> 
> here's a partial list of the 1958 goals of communism...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
> 
> 23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
> 
> 24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
> 
> 25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
> 
> 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
> 
> 27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
> 
> 28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
> 
> Current Communist Goals (1958)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Such silliness. Using sexual perversion? Only for decades? Funny stuff.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Ibentoken said:


> The leftist agenda is to bring down everything traditional about America to weaken us because the traditional family is the backbone of America.  Utopia is a land where everyone thinks the same way.  That's why they control the school system.



And that is ridiculous. I am a leftist. Married to a woman for 28 years. Three kids. I love my country. I dig many of our traditions. I have no interest in thinking like anyone else. I don't have anything to do with the school system. 

Next?


----------



## Ibentoken

LoneLaugher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. You are obsessed with all things gay these days because the country is passing you by. What leftists want is for one's sexuality to NOT BE AN ISSUE AT ALL.
> 
> There is no god to attack. But you can believe there is if you want. You can also believe that prosperity trickles down and that the earth is flat. Believe it.  Live it. But please.....don't use it as an excuse to be a bigot.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will practice our religious freedom.  Nothing much you can do about it.  We're going to kick your agenda out of our schools too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do that all you want. You are free to. Clearly. But you won't turn the tide against equality. That train has left the station.
> 
> Is there an agenda in your schools?
Click to expand...


The leftist agenda has nothing to do with equality and rights.  Those are just buzz words to make the useful Idiots believe they are part of a righteous cause.  It's about submission and silencing the opposition.  

There is a leftist agenda in our government schools, yes.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



Yer gonna fit right in here but really, its hard to take you very seriously while looking at your avatar. 

But to address your question, read the First Amendment. Better still, read my advice in my signature. Then, turn off your video games and think about it for a few minutes.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Ibentoken said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> We will practice our religious freedom.  Nothing much you can do about it.  We're going to kick your agenda out of our schools too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can do that all you want. You are free to. Clearly. But you won't turn the tide against equality. That train has left the station.
> 
> Is there an agenda in your schools?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda has nothing to do with equality and rights.  Those are just buzz words to make the useful Idiots believe they are part of a righteous cause.  It's about submission and silencing the opposition.
> 
> There is a leftist agenda in our government schools, yes.
Click to expand...


Interesting. Do you know any leftists? 

What is the leftist agenda in schools?


----------



## Ibentoken

LoneLaugher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda is to bring down everything traditional about America to weaken us because the traditional family is the backbone of America.  Utopia is a land where everyone thinks the same way.  That's why they control the school system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is ridiculous. I am a leftist. Married to a woman for 28 years. Three kids. I love my country. I dig many of our traditions. I have no interest in thinking like anyone else. I don't have anything to do with the school system.
> 
> Next?
Click to expand...


You aren't representative of the leftist agenda.  That doesn't mean there isn't one.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Ibentoken said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> We will practice our religious freedom.  Nothing much you can do about it.  We're going to kick your agenda out of our schools too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can do that all you want. You are free to. Clearly. But you won't turn the tide against equality. That train has left the station.
> 
> Is there an agenda in your schools?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda has nothing to do with equality and rights.  Those are just buzz words to make the useful Idiots believe they are part of a righteous cause.  It's about submission and silencing the opposition.
> 
> There is a leftist agenda in our government schools, yes.
Click to expand...


The leftist agenda is equality as is guaranteed by our Constitution. 

The right wing agenda is to deny equality, as guaranteed by our Constitution. 

The left has always won this battle. 

The left will always win this battle.


----------



## Ibentoken

LoneLaugher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can do that all you want. You are free to. Clearly. But you won't turn the tide against equality. That train has left the station.
> 
> Is there an agenda in your schools?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda has nothing to do with equality and rights.  Those are just buzz words to make the useful Idiots believe they are part of a righteous cause.  It's about submission and silencing the opposition.
> 
> There is a leftist agenda in our government schools, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. Do you know any leftists?
> 
> What is the leftist agenda in schools?
Click to expand...


Homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality.


----------



## Avatar4321

No. It's precisely because government uses force to meet it's objectives that government should be limited in authority


----------



## LoneLaugher

Ibentoken said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda has nothing to do with equality and rights.  Those are just buzz words to make the useful Idiots believe they are part of a righteous cause.  It's about submission and silencing the opposition.
> 
> There is a leftist agenda in our government schools, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Do you know any leftists?
> 
> What is the leftist agenda in schools?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality.
Click to expand...


It isn't as prevalent....but it is as normal. And the subject of homosexuality never came up in any school related activity for any of my children in a combined 36 years of public school education. 

What is your child's school doing to advance the homosexual agenda?


----------



## Ibentoken

Luddly Neddite said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can do that all you want. You are free to. Clearly. But you won't turn the tide against equality. That train has left the station.
> 
> Is there an agenda in your schools?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda has nothing to do with equality and rights.  Those are just buzz words to make the useful Idiots believe they are part of a righteous cause.  It's about submission and silencing the opposition.
> 
> There is a leftist agenda in our government schools, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda is equality as is guaranteed by our Constitution.
> 
> The right wing agenda is to deny equality, as guaranteed by our Constitution.
> 
> The left has always won this battle.
> 
> The left will always win this battle.
Click to expand...


The leftist agenda has nothing to do with equality and rights.  Are you going to allow children in your government schools to speak out freely if they oppose homosexuality?  Nope.  You're going to tell that child that opposing homosexuality is bigotry and hate.


----------



## Ibentoken

LoneLaugher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Do you know any leftists?
> 
> What is the leftist agenda in schools?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't as prevalent....but it is as normal. And the subject of homosexuality never came up in any school related activity for any of my children in a combined 36 years of public school education.
> 
> What is your child's school doing to advance the homosexual agenda?
Click to expand...


You admit that teaching homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality is the agenda.  That's not a topic for my child in school.  Math, English, science, biology, history, etc.  That's teaching.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Ibentoken said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda has nothing to do with equality and rights.  Those are just buzz words to make the useful Idiots believe they are part of a righteous cause.  It's about submission and silencing the opposition.
> 
> There is a leftist agenda in our government schools, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda is equality as is guaranteed by our Constitution.
> 
> The right wing agenda is to deny equality, as guaranteed by our Constitution.
> 
> The left has always won this battle.
> 
> The left will always win this battle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda has nothing to do with equality and rights.  Are you going to allow children in your government schools to speak out freely if they oppose homosexuality?  Nope.  You're going to tell that child that opposing homosexuality is bigotry and hate.
Click to expand...


It is bigotry. You want it to not be.....but it is. 

Time for you to catch up. The rest of us have waited long enough.


----------



## kaz

KNB said:


> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.



You mean like Catholics can't be forced to provide contraceptives because that violates their religion?


----------



## Bloodrock44

KNB said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The claim that democracy is the cure - all for the ills of society is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democracy gave us the right to vote, not God.  God doesn't actually exist.
Click to expand...


So you, in your infinite wisdom, have irrefutable proof? Care to share, dickweed?


----------



## LoneLaugher

Ibentoken said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't as prevalent....but it is as normal. And the subject of homosexuality never came up in any school related activity for any of my children in a combined 36 years of public school education.
> 
> What is your child's school doing to advance the homosexual agenda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You admit that teaching homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality is the agenda.  That's not a topic for my child in school.  Math, English, science, biology, history, etc.  That's teaching.
Click to expand...


Your child isn't gay. If he or she were, it would become a topic for you real quick. You wouldn't want the teacher to tell your child that he or she is abnormal, would you? Would you want your gay child to be discriminated against, outcast.....bullied? 

I'm guessing not.  But that gives you some benefit of the doubt.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Bloodrock44 said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The claim that democracy is the cure - all for the ills of society is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy gave us the right to vote, not God.  God doesn't actually exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you, in your infinite wisdom, have irrefutable proof? Care to share, dickweed?
Click to expand...


That wasn't very nice. I thought you were a nice guy. Was I wrong?


----------



## Avatar4321

I didn't realizing telling someone they are normal or abnormal has any effect on whether they are. By definition homosexuality is abnormal because normal is hetrosexuality


----------



## Statistikhengst

Ibentoken said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of speech doesn't end when I walk into a church.  Politics are often talked about in churches.  Sharpton and Jackson made a career doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, freedom of speech does not end when a parishioner enters a church, but the law is crystal clear as to what makes for tax-exempt status, and what does not. You are aware of this fact, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am.  Speaking about politics in church doesn't equate to losing tax exemption.
Click to expand...



No, but encouraging a specific directions of politics does.


----------



## Statistikhengst

ScreamingEagle said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real question is: why in the world we are mixing a legal issue up with a religious issue?
> 
> Marriage is a religious issue when it takes place within the church (or any other religious body).
> 
> But for the purposes of the state, it is a legal issue. A marriage conferred by a justice of the peace has absolutely nothing to do with a "church" ceremony.
> 
> I see no reason in the world why Christian Churches, Synagogues or Mosques (or any other religious organization) should have to allow gay marriage if they don't want to. And why in the world would gay people want to get married in a place where they are not wanted, anyway? That makes no sense.
> 
> But those same churches have no right in saying whether gay people can become legally married, i.e., via Justice of the Peace, and with a legal and binding marriage certificate. Technically, once outside of their buildings of worship, those religious people actually have nothing to say about this. You see, the sword cuts both ways.
> 
> I also believe that those religous organizations that use the power of the pulpit to sway politics in this way should lose their tax-exempt status.
> 
> 
> Any why in the world are so many people obsessed with things "gay" these days?!?!?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you make alot of sense...
> 
> but when it comes to religious people having a say 'outside their buildings of worship' they have as much say as the next guy....*the secular left is attempting to corral Christian attitudes to only their 'houses of worship'.*...
> 
> States should have the right to make their own marriage laws....not the Feds.....per the Constitution We The People have the right to make our own marriage laws....not because it is religion but because marriage is a societal issue.....
> 
> people are 'obsessed' with all things 'gay' these days because the leftists are pushing it....they are using it as a wedge issue to destroy Christianity.....every commie movement has attacked God....and these anti-American cross-knockers are out in full force these days....
Click to expand...



Nope. No attempt to corral anyone.

And I doubt that Leftists are pushing a "gay" agenda.  I find it all a little bizarre.


----------



## Ibentoken

Statistikhengst said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, freedom of speech does not end when a parishioner enters a church, but the law is crystal clear as to what makes for tax-exempt status, and what does not. You are aware of this fact, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am.  Speaking about politics in church doesn't equate to losing tax exemption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, but encouraging a specific directions of politics does.
Click to expand...


Says who?


----------



## Ibentoken

LoneLaugher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't as prevalent....but it is as normal. And the subject of homosexuality never came up in any school related activity for any of my children in a combined 36 years of public school education.
> 
> What is your child's school doing to advance the homosexual agenda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You admit that teaching homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality is the agenda.  That's not a topic for my child in school.  Math, English, science, biology, history, etc.  That's teaching.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your child isn't gay. If he or she were, it would become a topic for you real quick. You wouldn't want the teacher to tell your child that he or she is abnormal, would you? Would you want your gay child to be discriminated against, outcast.....bullied?
> 
> I'm guessing not.  But that gives you some benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...


You're not going to teach my child homosexuality is normal in the school I'm paying for.  Get used to it.


----------



## Ibentoken

LoneLaugher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda is equality as is guaranteed by our Constitution.
> 
> The right wing agenda is to deny equality, as guaranteed by our Constitution.
> 
> The left has always won this battle.
> 
> The left will always win this battle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda has nothing to do with equality and rights.  Are you going to allow children in your government schools to speak out freely if they oppose homosexuality?  Nope.  You're going to tell that child that opposing homosexuality is bigotry and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is bigotry. You want it to not be.....but it is.
> 
> Time for you to catch up. The rest of us have waited long enough.
Click to expand...


Nope.  You're not going to teach my child he/she is a bigot.  I'm paying for the education.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Ibentoken said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> You admit that teaching homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality is the agenda.  That's not a topic for my child in school.  Math, English, science, biology, history, etc.  That's teaching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your child isn't gay. If he or she were, it would become a topic for you real quick. You wouldn't want the teacher to tell your child that he or she is abnormal, would you? Would you want your gay child to be discriminated against, outcast.....bullied?
> 
> I'm guessing not.  But that gives you some benefit of the doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not going to teach my child homosexuality is normal in the school I'm paying for.  Get used to it.
Click to expand...


What if your child were gay? Any thoughts? 

If your child isn't gay, nothing that is said in his school will make him gay. That is the point where you go off the reservation. It puts your stupidity on full display. 

You've lost this one, by the way. The world knows that homosexual people are normal. One day...your kid will likely look at you and shake his or her head...wondering how you could be so dumb. 

Young people have it figured out. There is no turning back.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

LoneLaugher said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. You are obsessed with all things gay these days because the country is passing you by. What leftists want is for one's sexuality to NOT BE AN ISSUE AT ALL.
> 
> There is no god to attack. But you can believe there is if you want. You can also believe that prosperity trickles down and that the earth is flat. Believe it.  Live it. But please.....don't use it as an excuse to be a bigot.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.....you are nothing more than a useful idiot...
> 
> the Left has been using sexual perversion for decades to undermine and degrade our moral society....from pornography to 'art' to prostitution to 'free love' to the Pill to single parenthood to abortion to 'gay rights'......
> 
> here's a partial list of the 1958 goals of communism...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
> 
> 23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
> 
> 24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
> 
> 25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
> 
> 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
> 
> 27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
> 
> 28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
> 
> Current Communist Goals (1958)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such silliness. Using sexual perversion? Only for decades? Funny stuff.
Click to expand...


yes for decades.....or how do you think we've gotten to the point where the President of the United States honors a pederast and a statuatory rapist with an honorary U.S. postage stamp....?



> What would you call a 33-year-old man who both had and axiomatically acted upon a deviant sexual appetite for underage, drug-addicted, runaway boys? (No, not Jerry Sandusky.)
> 
> What would you call a man of whom, as regards sexual preference, his own friend and biographer confessed, Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems?
> 
> In a recent interview with OneNewsNow.com, I called this man demonstrably, categorically an evil man based on his [statutory] rape of teenage boys.
> 
> But you can call him Harvey Milk.
> 
> Harvey Milks only claim to fame is that he was the first openly homosexual candidate to be elected to public office (San Francisco city commissioner). His chief cause was to do away with the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. In 1978 Milk was murdered over a non-related political dispute by fellow Democrat Dan White.
> 
> And a progressive martyr was born.
> 
> Sexual Predator Honored With U.S. Postage Stamp - Matt Barber - Page 1


----------



## LoneLaugher

Ibentoken said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda has nothing to do with equality and rights.  Are you going to allow children in your government schools to speak out freely if they oppose homosexuality?  Nope.  You're going to tell that child that opposing homosexuality is bigotry and hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is bigotry. You want it to not be.....but it is.
> 
> Time for you to catch up. The rest of us have waited long enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  You're not going to teach my child he/she is a bigot.  I'm paying for the education.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to teach your child anything. Life will do that. The crap you fill his head with will not stay with him. We, as a society, are beyond that. Your only hope is to avoid contact with the human race.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

Statistikhengst said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real question is: why in the world we are mixing a legal issue up with a religious issue?
> 
> Marriage is a religious issue when it takes place within the church (or any other religious body).
> 
> But for the purposes of the state, it is a legal issue. A marriage conferred by a justice of the peace has absolutely nothing to do with a "church" ceremony.
> 
> I see no reason in the world why Christian Churches, Synagogues or Mosques (or any other religious organization) should have to allow gay marriage if they don't want to. And why in the world would gay people want to get married in a place where they are not wanted, anyway? That makes no sense.
> 
> But those same churches have no right in saying whether gay people can become legally married, i.e., via Justice of the Peace, and with a legal and binding marriage certificate. Technically, once outside of their buildings of worship, those religious people actually have nothing to say about this. You see, the sword cuts both ways.
> 
> I also believe that those religous organizations that use the power of the pulpit to sway politics in this way should lose their tax-exempt status.
> 
> 
> Any why in the world are so many people obsessed with things "gay" these days?!?!?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of speech doesn't end when I walk into a church.  Politics are often talked about in churches.  Sharpton and Jackson made a career doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, freedom of speech does not end when a parishioner enters a church, but the law is crystal clear as to what makes for tax-exempt status, and what does not. You are aware of this fact, right?
Click to expand...


Exactly, pastors dont have free speech, didnt you christ bigots see the asterisk in the Constitution?

Imams, on the other hand, have the free speech to speak in loud condemnation of our vile zionist foreign policy.

Allah Akbar.


----------



## Ibentoken

LoneLaugher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your child isn't gay. If he or she were, it would become a topic for you real quick. You wouldn't want the teacher to tell your child that he or she is abnormal, would you? Would you want your gay child to be discriminated against, outcast.....bullied?
> 
> I'm guessing not.  But that gives you some benefit of the doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not going to teach my child homosexuality is normal in the school I'm paying for.  Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if your child were gay? Any thoughts?
> 
> If your child isn't gay, nothing that is said in his school will make him gay. That is the point where you go off the reservation. It puts your stupidity on full display.
> 
> You've lost this one, by the way. The world knows that homosexual people are normal. One day...your kid will likely look at you and shake his or her head...wondering how you could be so dumb.
> 
> Young people have it figured out. There is no turning back.
Click to expand...


I'm not gonna worry about gay kids.  I'm talking about the agenda.  That crap doesn't belong in public schools.  If parents of a child believe their child is gay then that's their problem, not mine.


----------



## Ibentoken

LoneLaugher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is bigotry. You want it to not be.....but it is.
> 
> Time for you to catch up. The rest of us have waited long enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  You're not going to teach my child he/she is a bigot.  I'm paying for the education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to teach your child anything. Life will do that. The crap you fill his head with will not stay with him. We, as a society, are beyond that. Your only hope is to avoid contact with the human race.
Click to expand...


Whatever.  Blah, blah, blah.


----------



## Ibentoken

RWHeathenGamer said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of speech doesn't end when I walk into a church.  Politics are often talked about in churches.  Sharpton and Jackson made a career doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, freedom of speech does not end when a parishioner enters a church, but the law is crystal clear as to what makes for tax-exempt status, and what does not. You are aware of this fact, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, pastors dont have free speech, didnt you christ bigots see the asterisk in the Constitution?
> 
> Imams, on the other hand, have the free speech to speak in loud condemnation of our vile zionist foreign policy.
> 
> Allah Akbar.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  The Democrats want the Muslim vote so they have deemed Muslims a protected class like queers.  Christians are the enemy.  Sick stuff.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Statistikhengst said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real question is: why in the world we are mixing a legal issue up with a religious issue?
> 
> Marriage is a religious issue when it takes place within the church (or any other religious body).
> 
> But for the purposes of the state, it is a legal issue. A marriage conferred by a justice of the peace has absolutely nothing to do with a "church" ceremony.
> 
> I see no reason in the world why Christian Churches, Synagogues or Mosques (or any other religious organization) should have to allow gay marriage if they don't want to. And why in the world would gay people want to get married in a place where they are not wanted, anyway? That makes no sense.
> 
> But those same churches have no right in saying whether gay people can become legally married, i.e., via Justice of the Peace, and with a legal and binding marriage certificate. Technically, once outside of their buildings of worship, those religious people actually have nothing to say about this. You see, the sword cuts both ways.
> 
> I also believe that those religous organizations that use the power of the pulpit to sway politics in this way should lose their tax-exempt status.
> 
> 
> Any why in the world are so many people obsessed with things "gay" these days?!?!?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you make alot of sense...
> 
> but when it comes to religious people having a say 'outside their buildings of worship' they have as much say as the next guy....*the secular left is attempting to corral Christian attitudes to only their 'houses of worship'.*...
> 
> States should have the right to make their own marriage laws....not the Feds.....per the Constitution We The People have the right to make our own marriage laws....not because it is religion but because marriage is a societal issue.....
> 
> people are 'obsessed' with all things 'gay' these days because the leftists are pushing it....they are using it as a wedge issue to destroy Christianity.....every commie movement has attacked God....and these anti-American cross-knockers are out in full force these days....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. No attempt to corral anyone.
> 
> And I doubt that Leftists are pushing a "gay" agenda.  I find it all a little bizarre.
Click to expand...


i find that a little 'out of touch'....


----------



## LoneLaugher

Ibentoken said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not going to teach my child homosexuality is normal in the school I'm paying for.  Get used to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if your child were gay? Any thoughts?
> 
> If your child isn't gay, nothing that is said in his school will make him gay. That is the point where you go off the reservation. It puts your stupidity on full display.
> 
> You've lost this one, by the way. The world knows that homosexual people are normal. One day...your kid will likely look at you and shake his or her head...wondering how you could be so dumb.
> 
> Young people have it figured out. There is no turning back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not gonna worry about gay kids.  I'm talking about the agenda.  That crap doesn't belong in public schools.  If parents of a child believe their child is gay then that's their problem, not mine.
Click to expand...


If you or your kid run around a public school that this gay kid attends.....telling him that he's abnormal.....then you become the problem. Public school...rightfully....will discourage you and your child from being bigots.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

LoneLaugher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your child were gay? Any thoughts?
> 
> If your child isn't gay, nothing that is said in his school will make him gay. That is the point where you go off the reservation. It puts your stupidity on full display.
> 
> You've lost this one, by the way. The world knows that homosexual people are normal. One day...your kid will likely look at you and shake his or her head...wondering how you could be so dumb.
> 
> Young people have it figured out. There is no turning back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not gonna worry about gay kids.  I'm talking about the agenda.  That crap doesn't belong in public schools.  If parents of a child believe their child is gay then that's their problem, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you or your kid run around a public school that this gay kid attends.....telling him that he's abnormal.....then you become the problem. Public school...rightfully....will discourage you and your child from being bigots.
Click to expand...

I bullycided a crossdressing kid at my high school. Junior year, good times.


----------



## candycorn

If the authority empowered to "rent" out a church sign an agreement with a couple, they should honor the agreement regardless of their sexual orientation.


----------



## Ibentoken

LoneLaugher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your child were gay? Any thoughts?
> 
> If your child isn't gay, nothing that is said in his school will make him gay. That is the point where you go off the reservation. It puts your stupidity on full display.
> 
> You've lost this one, by the way. The world knows that homosexual people are normal. One day...your kid will likely look at you and shake his or her head...wondering how you could be so dumb.
> 
> Young people have it figured out. There is no turning back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not gonna worry about gay kids.  I'm talking about the agenda.  That crap doesn't belong in public schools.  If parents of a child believe their child is gay then that's their problem, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you or your kid run around a public school that this gay kid attends.....telling him that he's abnormal.....then you become the problem. Public school...rightfully....will discourage you and your child from being bigots.
Click to expand...


My kid doesn't call people abnormal.  You're not going to teach my kid he's a bigot because he believes homosexuality is wrong.   Parents run the school and pay for it.  Remember that.  Start your own gay school.


----------



## Yurt

KNB said:


> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.



well....you're not biased and are sure tolerant of other people's beliefs while demanding people be tolerant of your beliefs


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

Yurt said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well....you're not biased and are sure tolerant of other people's beliefs while demanding people be tolerant of your beliefs
Click to expand...


I am not tolerant at all, I think all atheist conventions should be burned down, so the feeling is mutual.


----------



## koshergrl

LoneLaugher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your child isn't gay. If he or she were, it would become a topic for you real quick. You wouldn't want the teacher to tell your child that he or she is abnormal, would you? Would you want your gay child to be discriminated against, outcast.....bullied?
> 
> I'm guessing not.  But that gives you some benefit of the doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not going to teach my child homosexuality is normal in the school I'm paying for.  Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if your child were gay? Any thoughts?
> 
> If your child isn't gay, nothing that is said in his school will make him gay. That is the point where you go off the reservation. It puts your stupidity on full display.
> 
> You've lost this one, by the way. The world knows that homosexual people are normal. One day...your kid will likely look at you and shake his or her head...wondering how you could be so dumb.
> 
> Young people have it figured out. There is no turning back.
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as a *gay* child. *Gay* children have been hyper-sexualized from a young age by their parents or other queer advocates, who are always on the lookout for impressionable young kids. Those are the kids who become *born gay*. Poor things.


----------



## koshergrl

Kids are born gay after they are trained by their parents or other members of the homo community.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

candycorn said:


> If the authority empowered to "rent" out a church sign an agreement with a couple, they should honor the agreement regardless of their sexual orientation.



to be 'fair' and 'equal' i believe half your 'public talk' here should be left wing....and half right wing....

agreed...?


----------



## Ibentoken

No social experiments in school.  Teach.


----------



## koshergrl

Scandanavians are *enlightened*?

Lolol...


----------



## bripat9643

KNB said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The claim that democracy is the cure - all for the ills of society is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democracy gave us the right to vote, not God.  God doesn't actually exist.
Click to expand...


God has nothing to do with the fact that democracy is huge practical joke.  Democracy gives morons like you the ability to take my property and my freedom.  Only a brain damaged boot-licking toady would find that arrangement acceptable.


----------



## Jarlaxle

RWHeathenGamer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## bripat9643

NYcarbineer said:


> Pastors who perform weddings are acting as civil servants and should thus be required to comply with non-discrimination laws applicable to such.
> 
> They should not have to perform ceremonies in their church as a religious ceremony, however.



They are not acting as civil servants, you witless git.  Libturds view every social function as an extension of the government.


----------



## bripat9643

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy gave us the right to vote, not God.  God doesn't actually exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to our founders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Demo-cracy is rule by the People.  Theo-cracy is rule by a Religion, or by God.
Click to expand...


I knew that point would go right over your head.  Democracy is rule by the bottom 51% of the voters.


----------



## koshergrl

Hahahaha...

the progressives wish the church was controlled by the state. The church is the only thing that stands between them and the psychotic totalitarianism, genocide, and utter depravity that is their utopian vision. 

They necessarily want to control the church, because the church influences people to behave like humans, instead of the depraved animals (Mengele) that are the heroes of the left.


----------



## koshergrl

I bet nyc thinks mengele was a man before his time...


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> Nobody is asking them to
> 
> They are free to pursue their archaic hatred



Liberal Dictionary:
==================
Hate - truth.


----------



## koshergrl

What can you expect from the group that thinks Kinsey should be the final word on all things juvenile?


----------



## bripat9643

KNB said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.  Slave owners believed that all men were created equal in the likeness of the all-loving invisible man in the sky.
> 
> You still have the right to believe that bullshit because America legalized marijuana in 1942.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you respect the Bill of Rights and Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More than the Founders who signed it.  How did slave-owners convince you that they respect freedom?
Click to expand...


"No," you don't respect the Bill of Rights and Constitution, in other words.


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> If a church holds itself out as a public service for weddings, then, certainly yes.
> 
> If it does not, then certainly not.



It doesn't hold itself out as a public service, adult diaper lord.  Even if it did, where does the Constitution say they are forced to perform weddings for whoever asks them to?


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

Ibentoken said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its understanadable that some churches may feel they are following their concience by not allowing Homosexual marriage.Because there are  scriptures that says that is a sin ,  whether or not I agree with that, I think they should be allowed to choose to marry them or not. There are plenty of churches and other places they can get married if they get turned down by one.
> 
> Where inthe bible does it say to discriminate by race ?  If a church discriminates by race I dont see how that is the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What follows is everything that Jesus had to say about homosexuality:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The End
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matthew 19.  Marriage is a man and woman.
Click to expand...



LMAO OOOOOOOOOoooooooooo SMackdown


----------



## koshergrl

It doesn't. Statist starkey is just doing what he does..pretending to be Christian when he's anti-Christian, and pretending to be right wing when he's progressive.

Just another lying pig....


----------



## bripat9643

JFK_USA said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, then I also agree businesses should be able to refuse services for whatever reason as well. But I believe in something called freedom of association and private property, novel concepts in today's america.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they provide services to the public, they can't deny services to a certain group of people just because they are that certain group of people. If you are open to anyone, then to serve anyone.
Click to expand...


They don't provide services to the public.  They only provide services to believers.  Even if they did provide services to the public, the Constitution does not allow the federal government to force them to serve anyone.


----------



## bodecea

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



No...just like churches should not be forced to accomodate inter-racial marriages.

Just like churches should not be forced to accomodate inter-faith marriages.

Just like churches should not be forced to accomodate marriages of previously divorced people.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

Don't you just love the tyrannical language a leftist uses?? "ALLOW"  "Should we allow a church,"  "Should we allow"  Amazing.. their entire brain is fucking warped.


----------



## Jarlaxle

RWHeathenGamer said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not gonna worry about gay kids.  I'm talking about the agenda.  That crap doesn't belong in public schools.  If parents of a child believe their child is gay then that's their problem, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you or your kid run around a public school that this gay kid attends.....telling him that he's abnormal.....then you become the problem. Public school...rightfully....will discourage you and your child from being bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I bullycided a crossdressing kid at my high school. Junior year, good times.
Click to expand...


Too bad he didn't gut-stab you with a dull, rusty butcher knife.


----------



## bripat9643

LoneLaugher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda is to bring down everything traditional about America to weaken us because the traditional family is the backbone of America.  Utopia is a land where everyone thinks the same way.  That's why they control the school system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is ridiculous. I am a leftist. Married to a woman for 28 years. Three kids. I love my country. I dig many of our traditions. I have no interest in thinking like anyone else. I don't have anything to do with the school system.
> 
> Next?
Click to expand...


Yeah, and if someone put an amendment on the ballot to hand out school vouchers to parents, you would be the first in line to vote "yes" on it, right?


----------



## Jarlaxle

RWHeathenGamer said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well....you're not biased and are sure tolerant of other people's beliefs while demanding people be tolerant of your beliefs
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not tolerant at all, I think all atheist conventions should be burned down, so the feeling is mutual.
Click to expand...


In other words: you are psychotic and should probably be locked up.  You should CERTAINLY never be permitted to raise children.


----------



## Statistikhengst

RWHeathenGamer said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not gonna worry about gay kids.  I'm talking about the agenda.  That crap doesn't belong in public schools.  If parents of a child believe their child is gay then that's their problem, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you or your kid run around a public school that this gay kid attends.....telling him that he's abnormal.....then you become the problem. Public school...rightfully....will discourage you and your child from being bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I *bullycided* a crossdressing kid at my high school. Junior year, good times.
Click to expand...



You did what?


----------



## Jarlaxle

koshergrl said:


> What can you expect from the group that thinks Kinsey should be the final word on all things juvenile?



What the heck does a fictional private detective have to do with anything?  Are you in the right thread?  Are you on the right FORUM?!


----------



## westwall

RWHeathenGamer said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its understanadable that some churches may feel they are following their concience by not allowing Homosexual marriage.Because there are  scriptures that says that is a sin ,  whether or not I agree with that, I think they should be allowed to choose to marry them or not. There are plenty of churches and other places they can get married if they get turned down by one.
> 
> Where inthe bible does it say to discriminate by race ?  If a church discriminates by race I dont see how that is the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So government should force churches to perform mixed race ceremonies but not homosexual ceremonies?
Click to expand...










Government should not be allowed to force ANYTHING on anybody that violates their belief systems.  Government should not be involved in marriage at all.   Heck, my wife and I held hands and jumped over a stick.  Why do we need a license for that!


----------



## bripat9643

LoneLaugher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can do that all you want. You are free to. Clearly. But you won't turn the tide against equality. That train has left the station.
> 
> Is there an agenda in your schools?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda has nothing to do with equality and rights.  Those are just buzz words to make the useful Idiots believe they are part of a righteous cause.  It's about submission and silencing the opposition.
> 
> There is a leftist agenda in our government schools, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. Do you know any leftists?
> 
> What is the leftist agenda in schools?
Click to expand...



Teach kids the homosexuality is no different that heterosexuality.

Teach kids that capitalism is evil and that it's destroying the earth.

Teach kids that government is the solution to ever problem.


----------



## Meister

KNB said:


> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.



Wow!  That is one strange post.  I guess you don't believe in religion, but you believe there is a hell.


----------



## bripat9643

Ibentoken said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda is to bring down everything traditional about America to weaken us because the traditional family is the backbone of America.  Utopia is a land where everyone thinks the same way.  That's why they control the school system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is ridiculous. I am a leftist. Married to a woman for 28 years. Three kids. I love my country. I dig many of our traditions. I have no interest in thinking like anyone else. I don't have anything to do with the school system.
> 
> Next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't representative of the leftist agenda.  That doesn't mean there isn't one.
Click to expand...


YEs he is.  Like all leftists he's lying about what he believes.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

Why don't we just let everyone decide what they want to force on the populace.. 

I'll go first..

I'd like the government to force liberals to accept that abortion is the slaughter of a child and outlaw it.

See how that works???? Don't like it when the shoes on the other foot..


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ScreamingEagle said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real question is: why in the world we are mixing a legal issue up with a religious issue?
> 
> Marriage is a religious issue when it takes place within the church (or any other religious body).
> 
> But for the purposes of the state, it is a legal issue. A marriage conferred by a justice of the peace has absolutely nothing to do with a "church" ceremony.
> 
> I see no reason in the world why Christian Churches, Synagogues or Mosques (or any other religious organization) should have to allow gay marriage if they don't want to. And why in the world would gay people want to get married in a place where they are not wanted, anyway? That makes no sense.
> 
> But those same churches have no right in saying whether gay people can become legally married, i.e., via Justice of the Peace, and with a legal and binding marriage certificate. Technically, once outside of their buildings of worship, those religious people actually have nothing to say about this. You see, the sword cuts both ways.
> 
> I also believe that those religous organizations that use the power of the pulpit to sway politics in this way should lose their tax-exempt status.
> 
> 
> Any why in the world are so many people obsessed with things "gay" these days?!?!?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you make alot of sense...
> 
> but when it comes to religious people having a say 'outside their buildings of worship' they have as much say as the next guy....the secular left is attempting to corral Christian attitudes to only their 'houses of worship'....
> 
> States should have the right to make their own marriage laws....not the Feds.....per the Constitution We The People have the right to make our own marriage laws....not because it is religion but because marriage is a societal issue.....
> 
> people are 'obsessed' with all things 'gay' these days because the leftists are pushing it....they are using it as a wedge issue to destroy Christianity.....every commie movement has attacked God....and these anti-American cross-knockers are out in full force these days....
Click to expand...


This is ridiculous and ignorant. 

The states do have the right to compose their own marriage laws; and the 14th Amendment requires the states to allow all persons access to a states laws, including marriage law  where both same- and opposite-sex couples are eligible to enter into the marriage contract. 

Consequently the states are in the wrong, where gay Americans have no other recourse than to seek relief in the Federal courts from state overreach, as laws denying gay Americans their equal protection rights are repugnant to the Constitution. 

Last, the issue has nothing to do with the left, and when the states err and enact un-Constitutional measures such as those intended only to seek to deny gay Americans their civil liberties, invalidating those laws has nothing to do with religious expression or belief  as again: 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, where religious entities remain at liberty to practice their dogma of ignorance and hate, and exclude gay Americans from their churches accordingly.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

Meister said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  That is one strange post.  I guess you don't believe in religion, but you believe there is a hell.
Click to expand...




Ohhhhhhhhhh BOOYA!!


----------



## koshergrl

bripat9643 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda has nothing to do with equality and rights.  Those are just buzz words to make the useful Idiots believe they are part of a righteous cause.  It's about submission and silencing the opposition.
> 
> There is a leftist agenda in our government schools, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Do you know any leftists?
> 
> What is the leftist agenda in schools?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Teach kids the homosexuality is no different that heterosexuality.
> 
> Teach kids that capitalism is evil and that it's destroying the earth.
> 
> Teach kids that government is the solution to ever problem.
Click to expand...


*Teach children that it's okay to engage in sex before one is old enough to drive.
*De-sensitize children to sex at a very young age, so they are accepting of all sexual deviances, and act as willing acolytes.


----------



## bripat9643

LoneLaugher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your child isn't gay. If he or she were, it would become a topic for you real quick. You wouldn't want the teacher to tell your child that he or she is abnormal, would you? Would you want your gay child to be discriminated against, outcast.....bullied?
> 
> I'm guessing not.  But that gives you some benefit of the doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not going to teach my child homosexuality is normal in the school I'm paying for.  Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if your child were gay? Any thoughts?
> 
> If your child isn't gay, nothing that is said in his school will make him gay. That is the point where you go off the reservation. It puts your stupidity on full display.
> 
> You've lost this one, by the way. The world knows that homosexual people are normal. One day...your kid will likely look at you and shake his or her head...wondering how you could be so dumb.
> 
> Young people have it figured out. There is no turning back.
Click to expand...


No child under the age of 12 has any clue about whether he/she is gay.  For children older than that, it's none of the school's business.  The school should just butt out and leave it to the parents to decide how to handle the situation.


----------



## bripat9643

LoneLaugher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is bigotry. You want it to not be.....but it is.
> 
> Time for you to catch up. The rest of us have waited long enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  You're not going to teach my child he/she is a bigot.  I'm paying for the education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to teach your child anything. Life will do that. The crap you fill his head with will not stay with him. We, as a society, are beyond that. Your only hope is to avoid contact with the human race.
Click to expand...


Whether you do it isn't the question.  Whether government schools do it is the issue.  It's none of their damn business.


----------



## Ibentoken

bripat9643 said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is ridiculous. I am a leftist. Married to a woman for 28 years. Three kids. I love my country. I dig many of our traditions. I have no interest in thinking like anyone else. I don't have anything to do with the school system.
> 
> Next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't representative of the leftist agenda.  That doesn't mean there isn't one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YEs he is.  Like all leftists he's lying about what he believes.
Click to expand...


Yep, and they have no problem with it.  Just like Islamists.


----------



## Kosh

This is the "gay" agenda, to punish the church.

It is not about any type of rights, never has been.  

Although the far left loved this "cause" so others could plunder the Social Security system.


----------



## bripat9643

LoneLaugher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your child were gay? Any thoughts?
> 
> If your child isn't gay, nothing that is said in his school will make him gay. That is the point where you go off the reservation. It puts your stupidity on full display.
> 
> You've lost this one, by the way. The world knows that homosexual people are normal. One day...your kid will likely look at you and shake his or her head...wondering how you could be so dumb.
> 
> Young people have it figured out. There is no turning back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not gonna worry about gay kids.  I'm talking about the agenda.  That crap doesn't belong in public schools.  If parents of a child believe their child is gay then that's their problem, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you or your kid run around a public school that this gay kid attends.....telling him that he's abnormal.....then you become the problem. Public school...rightfully....will discourage you and your child from being bigots.
Click to expand...


If your kid calls some other kid abnormal, that's a discipline problem for your kid, not an excuse to brainwash all the other kids in school.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Why don't we just let everyone decide what they want to force on the populace..
> 
> I'll go first..
> 
> I'd like the government to force liberals to accept that abortion is the slaughter of a child and outlaw it.
> 
> See how that works???? Don't like it when the shoes on the other foot..



This is also ridiculous and ignorant. 

The courts invalidating un-Constitutional laws that seek only to deny gay Americans their civil liberties is not forcing anything on anyone  you and others on the right remain at liberty to express your ignorance and hate however and whenever you see fit, including in your churches. 

You and others on the right are not at liberty, however, to seek to codify that ignorance and hate in secular laws all must obey, and where in particular gay Americans are disadvantaged. 

Otherwise, this issue has nothing to do with abortion, and your argument fails as a false comparison fallacy.


----------



## Oscar Wao

Don't worry about churches.  They are slowly evolving over time.

In fact, the PCUSA just voted to allow gay weddings in their churches, joining ELCA and the UCC.

I'm pretty sure the UMC is next.


----------



## Kosh

The far left truly does not know what "rights" are other than what their far left programming tells them.

I really wish the true liberals would take back their party from these brain dead far left Obama drones.


----------



## bodecea

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Why don't we just let everyone decide what they want to force on the populace..
> 
> I'll go first..
> 
> I'd like the government to force liberals to accept that abortion is the slaughter of a child and outlaw it.
> 
> See how that works???? Don't like it when the shoes on the other foot..



Haven't you already gone to the courts for that?   How'd that work out?

And all those RW legislators and Presidents you guys vote for....in order to get rid of abortion since_ Roe v. Wade_....how'd that work out?


----------



## bripat9643

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real question is: why in the world we are mixing a legal issue up with a religious issue?
> 
> Marriage is a religious issue when it takes place within the church (or any other religious body).
> 
> But for the purposes of the state, it is a legal issue. A marriage conferred by a justice of the peace has absolutely nothing to do with a "church" ceremony.
> 
> I see no reason in the world why Christian Churches, Synagogues or Mosques (or any other religious organization) should have to allow gay marriage if they don't want to. And why in the world would gay people want to get married in a place where they are not wanted, anyway? That makes no sense.
> 
> But those same churches have no right in saying whether gay people can become legally married, i.e., via Justice of the Peace, and with a legal and binding marriage certificate. Technically, once outside of their buildings of worship, those religious people actually have nothing to say about this. You see, the sword cuts both ways.
> 
> I also believe that those religous organizations that use the power of the pulpit to sway politics in this way should lose their tax-exempt status.
> 
> 
> Any why in the world are so many people obsessed with things "gay" these days?!?!?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you make alot of sense...
> 
> but when it comes to religious people having a say 'outside their buildings of worship' they have as much say as the next guy....the secular left is attempting to corral Christian attitudes to only their 'houses of worship'....
> 
> States should have the right to make their own marriage laws....not the Feds.....per the Constitution We The People have the right to make our own marriage laws....not because it is religion but because marriage is a societal issue.....
> 
> people are 'obsessed' with all things 'gay' these days because the leftists are pushing it....they are using it as a wedge issue to destroy Christianity.....every commie movement has attacked God....and these anti-American cross-knockers are out in full force these days....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is ridiculous and ignorant.
> 
> The states do have the right to compose their own marriage laws; and the 14th Amendment requires the states to allow all persons access to a states laws, including marriage law  where both same- and opposite-sex couples are eligible to enter into the marriage contract.
> 
> Consequently the states are in the wrong, where gay Americans have no other recourse than to seek relief in the Federal courts from state overreach, as laws denying gay Americans their equal protection rights are repugnant to the Constitution.
Click to expand...


The Constitution says nothing about gays, so your claim is bullshit on its face.


----------



## Oscar Wao

bripat9643 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> you make alot of sense...
> 
> but when it comes to religious people having a say 'outside their buildings of worship' they have as much say as the next guy....the secular left is attempting to corral Christian attitudes to only their 'houses of worship'....
> 
> States should have the right to make their own marriage laws....not the Feds.....per the Constitution We The People have the right to make our own marriage laws....not because it is religion but because marriage is a societal issue.....
> 
> people are 'obsessed' with all things 'gay' these days because the leftists are pushing it....they are using it as a wedge issue to destroy Christianity.....every commie movement has attacked God....and these anti-American cross-knockers are out in full force these days....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is ridiculous and ignorant.
> 
> The states do have the right to compose their own marriage laws; and the 14th Amendment requires the states to allow all persons access to a states laws, including marriage law  where both same- and opposite-sex couples are eligible to enter into the marriage contract.
> 
> Consequently the states are in the wrong, where gay Americans have no other recourse than to seek relief in the Federal courts from state overreach, as laws denying gay Americans their equal protection rights are repugnant to the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution says nothing about gays, so your claim is bullshit on its face.
Click to expand...

The Constitution says nothing about blacks, Hispanics, women, the disabled, etc., yet there are SCOTUS decisions about them.

In fact, the only demographic the Constitution explicitly refers to are Native Americans.


----------



## bodecea

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will be moot point in a few years as more and more churches find God again and become tolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those churches will not be Christian.  There are many false churches that will gladly marry queers, but not a true Christian church.
Click to expand...


Ah...here we go...."no true scotsman" gambit.


----------



## Oscar Wao

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will be moot point in a few years as more and more churches find God again and become tolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those churches will not be Christian.  There are many false churches that will gladly marry queers, but not a true Christian church.
Click to expand...

anthropologist: When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite



> Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale Universitys history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
> 
> These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.



I guess the early Christian Church wasn't a "true" Christian Church either...


----------



## Unkotare

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?





No, they shouldn't - and won't - be forced to accommodate you.


----------



## bripat9643

Oscar Wao said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is ridiculous and ignorant.
> 
> The states do have the right to compose their own marriage laws; and the 14th Amendment requires the states to allow all persons access to a states laws, including marriage law  where both same- and opposite-sex couples are eligible to enter into the marriage contract.
> 
> Consequently the states are in the wrong, where gay Americans have no other recourse than to seek relief in the Federal courts from state overreach, as laws denying gay Americans their equal protection rights are repugnant to the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution says nothing about gays, so your claim is bullshit on its face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution says nothing about blacks, Hispanics, women, the disabled, etc., yet there are SCOTUS decisions about them.
> 
> In fact, the only demographic the Constitution explicitly refers to are Native Americans.
Click to expand...


Wrong again.  Allow me to quote the relevant sections:

15th Amendment:

_"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."​_
That would include blacks and Hispanics.

19th Amendment:

_"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."​_
That means women.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

bodecea said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't we just let everyone decide what they want to force on the populace..
> 
> I'll go first..
> 
> I'd like the government to force liberals to accept that abortion is the slaughter of a child and outlaw it.
> 
> See how that works???? Don't like it when the shoes on the other foot..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't you already gone to the courts for that?   How'd that work out?
> 
> And all those RW legislators and Presidents you guys vote for....in order to get rid of abortion since_ Roe v. Wade_....how'd that work out?
Click to expand...



<Knocks on Bodey's fat head> Hello???? I used it as an example.. Learn to fucking read.


----------



## bodecea

LadyGunSlinger said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't we just let everyone decide what they want to force on the populace..
> 
> I'll go first..
> 
> I'd like the government to force liberals to accept that abortion is the slaughter of a child and outlaw it.
> 
> See how that works???? Don't like it when the shoes on the other foot..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't you already gone to the courts for that?   How'd that work out?
> 
> And all those RW legislators and Presidents you guys vote for....in order to get rid of abortion since_ Roe v. Wade_....how'd that work out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <Knocks on Bodey's fat head> Hello???? I used it as an example.. Learn to fucking read.
Click to expand...


Yes you did....oh, wait....your example can't stand up to scrutiny.....bummer.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

Unkotare said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they shouldn't - and won't - be forced to accommodate you.
Click to expand...


That's cool I don't want to go to your gay scat porn church anyways.


----------



## Meister

Oscar Wao said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will be moot point in a few years as more and more churches find God again and become tolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those churches will not be Christian.  There are many false churches that will gladly marry queers, but not a true Christian church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anthropologist: When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale Universitys history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
> 
> These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the early Christian Church wasn't a "true" Christian Church either...
Click to expand...


Not sure if Boswell didn't have an agenda.....being gay.  I would really need to see more unbiased work on the subject.
Sad he died of AIDS at a relatively young age.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

bodecea said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't you already gone to the courts for that?   How'd that work out?
> 
> And all those RW legislators and Presidents you guys vote for....in order to get rid of abortion since_ Roe v. Wade_....how'd that work out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <Knocks on Bodey's fat head> Hello???? I used it as an example.. Learn to fucking read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you did....oh, wait....your example can't stand up to scrutiny.....bummer.
Click to expand...


Pathetic, seriously.. STFU already dummy.


----------



## Oscar Wao

Meister said:


> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those churches will not be Christian.  There are many false churches that will gladly marry queers, but not a true Christian church.
> 
> 
> 
> anthropologist: When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale Universitys history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
> 
> These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the early Christian Church wasn't a "true" Christian Church either...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if Boswell didn't have an agenda.....being gay.  I would really need to see more unbiased work on the subject.
> Sad he died of AIDS at a relatively young age.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.  John Lott is a writer who does studies on why gun control doesn't work.  If John Lott is a gun owner, does that mean he has an agenda just because he owns guns?


----------



## bodecea

Statistikhengst said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you or your kid run around a public school that this gay kid attends.....telling him that he's abnormal.....then you become the problem. Public school...rightfully....will discourage you and your child from being bigots.
> 
> 
> 
> I *bullycided* a crossdressing kid at my high school. Junior year, good times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You did what?
Click to expand...


I think it's a sexual term of some kind.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

Statistikhengst said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you or your kid run around a public school that this gay kid attends.....telling him that he's abnormal.....then you become the problem. Public school...rightfully....will discourage you and your child from being bigots.
> 
> 
> 
> I *bullycided* a crossdressing kid at my high school. Junior year, good times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You did what?
Click to expand...


I bullied a cross dressing kid to suicide. I put part of the his meltdown on youtube, I will link it if I can find it.


----------



## Jughead

> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?


As a practicing Catholic, I do not believe the Catholic Church should accommodate gay weddings. The Catholic faith does not endorse homosexuality. It would need to be at a place of worship for a faith that condones homosexuality.


----------



## Crystalclear

No, they should not. Government should not be involved in marriage at all.


----------



## Slyhunter

What about a church that baked cakes for profit, can they be forced to make a homo cake. So that baker should declare himself a church and then the government will leave him alone.


----------



## Meister

Oscar Wao said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> anthropologist: When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the early Christian Church wasn't a "true" Christian Church either...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if Boswell didn't have an agenda.....being gay.  I would really need to see more unbiased work on the subject.
> Sad he died of AIDS at a relatively young age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm.  John Lott is a writer who does studies on why gun control doesn't work.  If John Lott is a gun owner, does that mean he has an agenda just because he owns guns?
Click to expand...


Hmm, there are a lot of studies from different sources on that subject.

But, Boswell seems to be a loner on the subject.  If there was meat to it, more would have been involved with their studies.

I probably could have made myself a little more clear in my previous post.  My apologies.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

Slyhunter said:


> What about a church that baked cakes for profit, can they be forced to make a homo cake. So that baker should declare himself a church and then the government will leave him alone.



and he can be tax exempt as well. win win.


----------



## Two Thumbs

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



No, but they will be.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Crystalclear said:


> No, they should not. Government should not be involved in marriage at all.



That's a great idea. Private sector marriage licenses. Look out for the fine print. There may be an early withdrawal penalty.


----------



## Unkotare

Crystalclear said:


> Government should not be involved in marriage at all.




There has to be some legal oversight of contracts or they become meaningless.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

Meister said:


> Not sure if Boswell didn't have an agenda.....being gay.  I would really need to see more unbiased work on the subject.
> *Sad he died of AIDS at a relatively young age.*


----------



## Slyhunter

Unkotare said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government should not be involved in marriage at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has to be some legal oversight of contracts or they become meaningless.
Click to expand...


Legal oversight of contracts as contracts no different from any partnership or incorporation contract in existence out there. That way we can have group marriages too.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

Slyhunter said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government should not be involved in marriage at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has to be some legal oversight of contracts or they become meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legal oversight of contracts as contracts no different from any partnership or incorporation contract in existence out there. That way we can have group marriages too.
Click to expand...


Like Polyandry!

I think our progressive and enlightened society would take to this well.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

RWHeathenGamer said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I *bullycided* a crossdressing kid at my high school. Junior year, good times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bullied a cross dressing kid to suicide. I put part of the his meltdown on youtube, I will link it if I can find it.
Click to expand...


Negged for even saying some stupid shit like this..


BTW- I never neg rep anyone.. very very rare.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

LadyGunSlinger said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bullied a cross dressing kid to suicide. I put part of the his meltdown on youtube, I will link it if I can find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Negged for even saying some stupid shit like this..
Click to expand...


LOL at "conservatives" defending cross dressing deviants.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

RWHeathenGamer said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bullied a cross dressing kid to suicide. I put part of the his meltdown on youtube, I will link it if I can find it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negged for even saying some stupid shit like this..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL at "conservatives" defending cross dressing deviants.
Click to expand...




What you have said here today is beyond the scope of disgusting and that you laughed about it, shows me just how fucking nutty you are.. I want NOTHING to do with you or anyone who claims they harm someone to the point of suicide, then comes on a public forum laughing and boasting about it. GO FUCK YOURSELF and stay the FUCK OFF of my radar.


----------



## koshergrl

I think he's a progressive posing as a conservative.

They think this sort of stuff is funny.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

koshergrl said:


> I think he's a progressive posing as a conservative.
> 
> They think this sort of stuff is funny.



Yep.. Wayyyy too obvious.


----------



## bodecea

Crystalclear said:


> No, they should not. Government should not be involved in marriage at all.



Easy to say....what have YOU actively done to get government out of marriage?   Can we assume that you've NOT acquired a legal marriage license at any time?


----------



## MaryL

RWHeathenGamer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
Click to expand...


Race isn't comparable to sexuality. It's a forced comparison, one I don't choose to make, but there it is.  Broken minds and/or dysfunctional sexuality especially is not comparable to race. A handicap like homosexuality isn't the same as an able bodied  healthy heterosexual and hence, needs no protection under the constitution as a class of people that is protected and has civil rights. Actually, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone, period. Not more,  and not less. THE SAME. But it's not enough, that tells you something right there.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

LadyGunSlinger said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he's a progressive posing as a conservative.
> 
> They think this sort of stuff is funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.. Wayyyy too obvious.
Click to expand...


Hate to break it to you, you aren't conservative, neither is the Republican party. Just because you oppose the 2% tax hikes of the democrats and support wars for Israel in the middle east, doesn't make you a conservative.


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> I think he's a progressive posing as a conservative.
> 
> They think this sort of stuff is funny.



He sounds like Brave Sir Warbler, whom you adore.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

MaryL said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Race isn't comparable to sexuality. It's a forced comparison, one I don't choose to make, but there it is.  Broken minds and/or dysfunctional sexuality especially is not comparable to race. A handicap like homosexuality isn't the same as an able bodied  healthy heterosexual and hence, needs no protection under the constitution as a class of people that is protected and has civil rights. Actually, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone, period. Not more,  and not less. THE SAME. But it's not enough, that tells you something right there.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question. Should Churches be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples?

You can't pick and chose. Either you support government dictating to Churches or you don't. There is no middle ground, there is only one conservative answer.


----------



## Slyhunter

RWHeathenGamer said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Race isn't comparable to sexuality. It's a forced comparison, one I don't choose to make, but there it is.  Broken minds and/or dysfunctional sexuality especially is not comparable to race. A handicap like homosexuality isn't the same as an able bodied  healthy heterosexual and hence, needs no protection under the constitution as a class of people that is protected and has civil rights. Actually, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone, period. Not more,  and not less. THE SAME. But it's not enough, that tells you something right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer the question. Should Churches be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples?
> 
> You can't pick and chose. Either you support government dictating to Churches or you don't. There is no middle ground, there is only one conservative answer.
Click to expand...


yes.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Legally, a church ceremony means nothing. 

I have friends in Tucson who go to a gay church and what I've always wondered is why anyone would want to go to a church who does not want them?

The mythological "Jesus" would never have treated gays the way his so-called followers do so why go to a phony christian church?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

RWHeathenGamer said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Race isn't comparable to sexuality. It's a forced comparison, one I don't choose to make, but there it is.  Broken minds and/or dysfunctional sexuality especially is not comparable to race. A handicap like homosexuality isn't the same as an able bodied  healthy heterosexual and hence, needs no protection under the constitution as a class of people that is protected and has civil rights. Actually, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone, period. Not more,  and not less. THE SAME. But it's not enough, that tells you something right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer the question. Should Churches be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples?
> 
> You can't pick and chose. Either you support government dictating to Churches or you don't. There is no middle ground, there is only one conservative answer.
Click to expand...


"allowed"??

Are you in the United States?


----------



## bodecea

MaryL said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Race isn't comparable to sexuality. It's a forced comparison, one I don't choose to make, but there it is.  Broken minds and/or dysfunctional sexuality especially is not comparable to race. A handicap like homosexuality isn't the same as an able bodied  healthy heterosexual and hence, needs no protection under the constitution as a class of people that is protected and has civil rights. Actually, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone, period. Not more,  and not less. THE SAME. But it's not enough, that tells you something right there.
Click to expand...


Churches are allowed  to refuse to marry inter-racial couples, you know.


Oh....and one more thing....do you believe that civil rights should only be based on race?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he's a progressive posing as a conservative.
> 
> They think this sort of stuff is funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He sounds like Brave Sir Warbler, whom you adore.
Click to expand...


If you're talking about the newest nutter, RWHeathenGamer, as long as he uses that avatar, no one can take him seriously. (Well, except for fellow nutters, like koshergurl.)

What if that pudgy little glob is really him?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will be moot point in a few years as more and more churches find God again and become tolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those churches will not be Christian.  There are many false churches that will gladly marry queers, but not a true Christian church.
Click to expand...


Actually, you mean just the opposite. 

The fictional character, "Jesus" would not turn them away but fake christian churches would. 

By the way, I notice that this thread started out asking if "churches should be forced" but now its changed to "allowed". Do the anti-Constitution RWs know the difference?


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

RWHeathenGamer said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he's a progressive posing as a conservative.
> 
> They think this sort of stuff is funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.. Wayyyy too obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you, you aren't conservative, neither is the Republican party. Just because you oppose the 2% tax hikes of the democrats and support wars for Israel in the middle east, doesn't make you a conservative.
Click to expand...


Don't address me you scum.. and don't pretend like you know where I stand on any issue-  Quite frankly at this point I don't care whether you're conservative or liberal.. you're a lowlife piece of trash.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

Luddly Neddite said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will be moot point in a few years as more and more churches find God again and become tolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those churches will not be Christian.  There are many false churches that will gladly marry queers, but not a true Christian church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fictional character, "Jesus"
Click to expand...


Equality is the only fiction here. Equality is a myth.


----------



## candycorn

ScreamingEagle said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the authority empowered to "rent" out a church sign an agreement with a couple, they should honor the agreement regardless of their sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to be 'fair' and 'equal' i believe half your 'public talk' here should be left wing....and half right wing....
> 
> agreed...?
Click to expand...


Where I have strong feelings; I'll be happy to pronounce the far left wrong as they are on voter registration, securing our borders, not wanting armed guards in schools, etc...

Where I have strong feelings; I'll be happy to pronounce the far right wrong as they are on abortion, Iraq, Syria, Lybia, the environment, the ACA, women's rights, immigration reform, public assistance, contraception, school vouchers, etc...

Where I have strong feelings; I'll be happy to pronounce both sides wrong as they are on campaign reform, the electoral college, NASA funding and development, the deficit, and allowing corporations to enjoy the same rights as people while getting greater rights as corporations.  

Not sure what you're point is but that is where I come out.


----------



## MaryL

This thread is a indication of why Muslim extremist  hate us. Don't mess with religion. Gays want this, and they want THAT, you can't force people to accept a broken dysfunctional  sexuality that normal people find abhorrent. They kind of react opposite. No matter what mommy and daddy and the store-bought supreme court folks deem.


----------



## koshergrl

Luddly Neddite said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will be moot point in a few years as more and more churches find God again and become tolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those churches will not be Christian.  There are many false churches that will gladly marry queers, but not a true Christian church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you mean just the opposite.
> 
> The fictional character, "Jesus" would not turn them away but fake christian churches would.
> 
> By the way, I notice that this thread started out asking if "churches should be forced" but now its changed to "allowed". Do the anti-Constitution RWs know the difference?
Click to expand...


Jesus wouldn't turn them away from his person..but he might turn them away from the steps of the church, if he believed they were there for some other purpose than to glorify God. He wasn't very accommodating to people who exploited the church


----------



## Freewill

Should atheist groups be forced to hold religious services?


----------



## Ibentoken

I think Christians should be forced to marry queers and queers should be forced to attend the Westboro Baptist Church. Sounds fair.


----------



## Kondor3

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...

The holy writings and teachings of various religions do not condemn the color of a man's skin.

The holy writings and teachings of various religions DO condemn homosexuality as unclean, impure, filthy, corrupt, perverse, abhorrent, and an aberration in the eyes of Nature, Man and God - a twisted and evil thing to be shunned.

You cannot force a religious institution to commit a sin.

Not even the worst socialist and communist countries do that.

They know that doing so would incite civil war.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

RWHeathenGamer said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Race isn't comparable to sexuality. It's a forced comparison, one I don't choose to make, but there it is.  Broken minds and/or dysfunctional sexuality especially is not comparable to race. A handicap like homosexuality isn't the same as an able bodied  healthy heterosexual and hence, needs no protection under the constitution as a class of people that is protected and has civil rights. Actually, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone, period. Not more,  and not less. THE SAME. But it's not enough, that tells you something right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer the question. Should Churches be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples?
> 
> You can't pick and chose. Either you support government dictating to Churches or you don't. There is no middle ground, there is only one conservative answer.
Click to expand...


Its not a matter of should, they currently are allowed. 

Private organizations have the First Amendment right to exclude whomever they wish for whatever hateful, ignorant reason (_BSA v. Dale_ (2000)).


----------



## Peach

koshergrl said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those churches will not be Christian.  There are many false churches that will gladly marry queers, but not a true Christian church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you mean just the opposite.
> 
> The fictional character, "Jesus" would not turn them away but fake christian churches would.
> 
> By the way, I notice that this thread started out asking if "churches should be forced" but now its changed to "allowed". Do the anti-Constitution RWs know the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus wouldn't turn them away from his person..but he might turn them away from the steps of the church, if he believed they were there for some other purpose than to glorify God. He wasn't very accommodating to people who exploited the church
Click to expand...


He turned away the money lenders, but accepted the prostitute, remember?


----------



## thereisnospoon

KNB said:


> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.



Actually that's incorrect. 
"Congress shall make now respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting of the free expression thereof"..
In many places, for reasons based on religion, laws are established that prohibit certain activities. Such as gambling, shopping, certain kinds of work on certain days of the week, the sale and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages, outdoor activities.
For example....
IN Bergen county NJ, malls department stores, home improvement stores cannot open on Sundays
In North Carolina, it is illegal to fish and hunt on Sunday.
In hundreds of counties across the country, alcohol sales are illegal 24/365.
In many others, on premise liquor service is illegal.
In about 20 states, most forms of gambling are illegal.
Each instance mentioned above, these laws are established due to religious considerations.


----------



## thereisnospoon

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


I thought this was a serious thread. Looks like you are trolling.


----------



## thereisnospoon

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


Since you opened the door to the stupid dept....Yes. Churches can basically do whatever they wish. 
There are African Methodist Evangelical( AME) in which only blacks are welcome.
Synagogues are for Jewish people only.
Mosques exclude non Muslims. 
In fact private individuals and their organizations are free to admit or ban anyone who they see fit. 
I cannot simply walk into a private club of any kind and take part in the club activities.
In essence non members are excluded based on the practice of self determination which is a form of discrimination.


----------



## bodecea

thereisnospoon said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this was a serious thread. Looks like you are trolling.
Click to expand...


They CAN discriminate against racial minorities if they wish to, you know.


----------



## Rozman

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



Did you pop the question?
And did he say yes?


----------



## thereisnospoon

Katzndogz said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That will become the same battleground here as it is now in England.
Click to expand...


England has royally screwed itself. 
By mandating so called enlightened society, the country is well l on its way to trouble.


----------



## thereisnospoon

KNB said:


> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.



Yes. Seek to destroy that which you fear.


----------



## Unkotare

thereisnospoon said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That will become the same battleground here as it is now in England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> England has royally screwed itself.
> By mandating so called enlightened society, the country is well l on its way to trouble.
Click to expand...


England's main handicap in regard to such matters is a lack of a written constitution.


----------



## Unkotare

RWHeathenGamer said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they shouldn't - and won't - be forced to accommodate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's cool ...
Click to expand...



So you'll have to take your business elsewhere, doughboy.


----------



## Unkotare

Slyhunter said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government should not be involved in marriage at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has to be some legal oversight of contracts or they become meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legal oversight of contracts as contracts no different from any partnership or incorporation contract in existence out there. That way we can have group marriages too.
Click to expand...


If society accepts such contracts and wishes to see them enshrined in law, I suppose.


----------



## jillian

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



no. and they won't be. the first amendment would prohibit that. 

you're not really wondering that, are you?


----------



## NYcarbineer

jillian said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no. and they won't be. the first amendment would prohibit that.
> 
> you're not really wondering that, are you?
Click to expand...


Excellent point.  They won't be, but pretending they will be is the strawman that the anti-gay rights crowd has constructed in lieu of a good argument against same sex marriage.


----------



## NYcarbineer

thereisnospoon said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Seek to destroy that which you fear.
Click to expand...


Religion seeks to destroy mortality.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> This thread is a indication of why Muslim extremist  hate us. Don't mess with religion. .




That's not why extremists hate us.


----------



## NYcarbineer

MaryL said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Race isn't comparable to sexuality. It's a forced comparison, one I don't choose to make, but there it is.  Broken minds and/or dysfunctional sexuality especially is not comparable to race. A handicap like homosexuality isn't the same as an able bodied  healthy heterosexual and hence, needs no protection under the constitution as a class of people that is protected and has civil rights. Actually, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone, period. Not more,  and not less. THE SAME. But it's not enough, that tells you something right there.
Click to expand...


Homosexuality is not dysfunctional sexuality.  You're retarded, which, ironically, IS a handicap.


----------



## Redfish

NYcarbineer said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Race isn't comparable to sexuality. It's a forced comparison, one I don't choose to make, but there it is.  Broken minds and/or dysfunctional sexuality especially is not comparable to race. A handicap like homosexuality isn't the same as an able bodied  healthy heterosexual and hence, needs no protection under the constitution as a class of people that is protected and has civil rights. Actually, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone, period. Not more,  and not less. THE SAME. But it's not enough, that tells you something right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not dysfunctional sexuality.  You're retarded, which, ironically, IS a handicap.
Click to expand...




are you claiming that homosexuality is a normal human condition?     If so, I suggest a biology 101 course for you.


----------



## jillian

Redfish said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Race isn't comparable to sexuality. It's a forced comparison, one I don't choose to make, but there it is.  Broken minds and/or dysfunctional sexuality especially is not comparable to race. A handicap like homosexuality isn't the same as an able bodied  healthy heterosexual and hence, needs no protection under the constitution as a class of people that is protected and has civil rights. Actually, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone, period. Not more,  and not less. THE SAME. But it's not enough, that tells you something right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not dysfunctional sexuality.  You're retarded, which, ironically, IS a handicap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you claiming that homosexuality is a normal human condition?     If so, I suggest a biology 101 course for you.
Click to expand...


you giving a rat's patoot about others' sexuality is far more abnormal.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Countries like France have it right.  France only recognizes civil marriages performed by certain civil authorities;

religious marriages are optional and only ceremonial.


----------



## Ibentoken

NYcarbineer said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Race isn't comparable to sexuality. It's a forced comparison, one I don't choose to make, but there it is.  Broken minds and/or dysfunctional sexuality especially is not comparable to race. A handicap like homosexuality isn't the same as an able bodied  healthy heterosexual and hence, needs no protection under the constitution as a class of people that is protected and has civil rights. Actually, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone, period. Not more,  and not less. THE SAME. But it's not enough, that tells you something right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not dysfunctional sexuality.  You're retarded, which, ironically, IS a handicap.
Click to expand...


Homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Redfish said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Race isn't comparable to sexuality. It's a forced comparison, one I don't choose to make, but there it is.  Broken minds and/or dysfunctional sexuality especially is not comparable to race. A handicap like homosexuality isn't the same as an able bodied  healthy heterosexual and hence, needs no protection under the constitution as a class of people that is protected and has civil rights. Actually, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone, period. Not more,  and not less. THE SAME. But it's not enough, that tells you something right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not dysfunctional sexuality.  You're retarded, which, ironically, IS a handicap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you claiming that homosexuality is a normal human condition?     If so, I suggest a biology 101 course for you.
Click to expand...


Sure it is.  Just because only a minority of people engage in certain behaviour doesn't mean that it isn't normal.  It is very normal for a minority of humans to be homosexual.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Race isn't comparable to sexuality. It's a forced comparison, one I don't choose to make, but there it is.  Broken minds and/or dysfunctional sexuality especially is not comparable to race. A handicap like homosexuality isn't the same as an able bodied  healthy heterosexual and hence, needs no protection under the constitution as a class of people that is protected and has civil rights. Actually, homosexuals have the same rights as anyone, period. Not more,  and not less. THE SAME. But it's not enough, that tells you something right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not dysfunctional sexuality.  You're retarded, which, ironically, IS a handicap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature.
Click to expand...


Are they brown-eyed by nature?  Righthanded by nature?


----------



## NYcarbineer

If churches have a 1st amendment right to determine what is or isn't a marriage, doesn't that make laws against polygamy unconstitutional?

Islam recognizes plural marriage.


----------



## Redfish

NYcarbineer said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not dysfunctional sexuality.  You're retarded, which, ironically, IS a handicap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you claiming that homosexuality is a normal human condition?     If so, I suggest a biology 101 course for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it is.  Just because only a minority of people engage in certain behaviour doesn't mean that it isn't normal.  It is very normal for a minority of humans to be homosexual.
Click to expand...




Do you understand what the word "normal" means?   What is a "norm" ?   

homosexuality is an aberation of the human norm.   It is not "normal" for human beings to desire sex with members of the same sex.


----------



## Redfish

NYcarbineer said:


> If churches have a 1st amendment right to determine what is or isn't a marriage, doesn't that make laws against polygamy unconstitutional?
> 
> Islam recognizes plural marriage.



Islam also beheads gays.   what's your point?


----------



## Freewill

NYcarbineer said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no. and they won't be. the first amendment would prohibit that.
> 
> you're not really wondering that, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent point.  They won't be, but pretending they will be is the strawman that the anti-gay rights crowd has constructed in lieu of a good argument against same sex marriage.
Click to expand...


No, one would be forced to bake a cake or go out of business either.


----------



## Ibentoken

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not dysfunctional sexuality.  You're retarded, which, ironically, IS a handicap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they brown-eyed by nature?  Righthanded by nature?
Click to expand...


Of course.  Eye color is genetic, and I believe left or right handed is determined as an embryo.  Did you know that a female is born with all the eggs in her lifetime?  I think that would make her heterosexual by nature.


----------



## Freewill

Peach said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you mean just the opposite.
> 
> The fictional character, "Jesus" would not turn them away but fake christian churches would.
> 
> By the way, I notice that this thread started out asking if "churches should be forced" but now its changed to "allowed". Do the anti-Constitution RWs know the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus wouldn't turn them away from his person..but he might turn them away from the steps of the church, if he believed they were there for some other purpose than to glorify God. He wasn't very accommodating to people who exploited the church
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He turned away the money lenders, but accepted the prostitute, remember?
Click to expand...


....go and sin no more.  Jesus never accepted sin.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are they brown-eyed by nature?  Righthanded by nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  Eye color is genetic, and I believe left or right handed is determined as an embryo.  Did you know that a female is born with all the eggs in her lifetime?  I think that would make her heterosexual by nature.
Click to expand...


If homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature, and heterosexual sex is the function for human reproduction,

why do humans put so much effort into preventing pregnancy?

Is that in their nature, or is it a form of deviancy, or dysfunction?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Freewill said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> no. and they won't be. the first amendment would prohibit that.
> 
> you're not really wondering that, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point.  They won't be, but pretending they will be is the strawman that the anti-gay rights crowd has constructed in lieu of a good argument against same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, one would be forced to bake a cake or go out of business either.
Click to expand...


A bakery is not a church.


----------



## Ibentoken

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they brown-eyed by nature?  Righthanded by nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  Eye color is genetic, and I believe left or right handed is determined as an embryo.  Did you know that a female is born with all the eggs in her lifetime?  I think that would make her heterosexual by nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature, and heterosexual sex is the function for human reproduction,
> 
> why do humans put so much effort into preventing pregnancy?
> 
> Is that in their nature, or is it a form of deviancy, or dysfunction?
Click to expand...


It's every woman's right to make a choice on pregnancy.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  Eye color is genetic, and I believe left or right handed is determined as an embryo.  Did you know that a female is born with all the eggs in her lifetime?  I think that would make her heterosexual by nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature, and heterosexual sex is the function for human reproduction,
> 
> why do humans put so much effort into preventing pregnancy?
> 
> Is that in their nature, or is it a form of deviancy, or dysfunction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's every woman's right to make a choice on pregnancy.
Click to expand...


That wasn't the question.

Sex for purposes other than reproduction is NORMAL in humans.  That makes homosexuality NORMAL.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are they brown-eyed by nature?  Righthanded by nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  Eye color is genetic, and I believe left or right handed is determined as an embryo.  Did you know that a female is born with all the eggs in her lifetime?  I think that would make her heterosexual by nature.
Click to expand...


Human females are also (at least theoretically lol) receptive to sexual intercourse at all times,

not just during or near ovulation, as in most other species,

  which makes sex a human behaviour designed by nature to be for more than reproduction.

If sex for non-reproductive purposes is a natural, normal human behaviour, then homosexual sex has to considered normal, all else being equal.


----------



## jillian

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are they brown-eyed by nature?  Righthanded by nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  Eye color is genetic, and I believe left or right handed is determined as an embryo.  Did you know that a female is born with all the eggs in her lifetime?  I think that would make her heterosexual by nature.
Click to expand...


where do you get this stuff?

your making things up in your head don't give them a scientific basis


----------



## Redfish

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature, and heterosexual sex is the function for human reproduction,
> 
> why do humans put so much effort into preventing pregnancy?
> 
> Is that in their nature, or is it a form of deviancy, or dysfunction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's every woman's right to make a choice on pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Sex for purposes other than reproduction is NORMAL in humans.  That makes homosexuality NORMAL.
Click to expand...


Uhhh,  no.   heterosexual sex for pleasure does not make homosexual sex normal.


----------



## Ibentoken

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature, and heterosexual sex is the function for human reproduction,
> 
> why do humans put so much effort into preventing pregnancy?
> 
> Is that in their nature, or is it a form of deviancy, or dysfunction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's every woman's right to make a choice on pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Sex for purposes other than reproduction is NORMAL in humans.  That makes homosexuality NORMAL.
Click to expand...


Homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature, so heterosexual behavior would be NORMAL.


----------



## Ibentoken

jillian said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they brown-eyed by nature?  Righthanded by nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  Eye color is genetic, and I believe left or right handed is determined as an embryo.  Did you know that a female is born with all the eggs in her lifetime?  I think that would make her heterosexual by nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where do you get this stuff?
> 
> your making things up in your head don't give them a scientific basis
Click to expand...


If you disagree then present your points.  Reading books is a good thing.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?



The ignorance and stupidity of the premise of this thread is truly multifaceted. 

For example, who, and by what &#8216;authority,&#8217; would &#8216;force&#8217; churches to accommodate same-sex couples, even if there were a 'consensus' to do so.


----------



## Katzndogz

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorance and stupidity of the premise of this thread is truly multifaceted.
> 
> For example, who, and by what authority, would force churches to accommodate same-sex couples, even if there were a 'consensus' to do so.
Click to expand...


That would be the authority of the state.  The force would be to deny the church tax exempt status.   Close them as an unlawful assembly.   Use zoning laws to seize Church property.   Arrest and prosecute every clergyman for hate speech.  Then move on to the individual congregants.


----------



## Kondor3

Katzndogz said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorance and stupidity of the premise of this thread is truly multifaceted.
> 
> For example, who, and by what &#8216;authority,&#8217; would &#8216;force&#8217; churches to accommodate same-sex couples, even if there were a 'consensus' to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be the authority of the state.  The force would be to deny the church tax exempt status.   Close them as an unlawful assembly.   Use zoning laws to seize Church property.   Arrest and prosecute every clergyman for hate speech.  Then move on to the individual congregants.
Click to expand...

This is not going to happen.

Mostly because if such a thing began, the country would collapse into civil war, for the second time in 200+ years.

Secular Statists on one side, Religious Freedom types on the other side.

And, I'm guessing, that Statists would be in the minority.

Temporarily in control of The State (_they would have to be, in order for such church-smashing to get underway_)...

Losing control as much of the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement went over to the Rebels; protecting the Constitution and The People rather than the Government.

Frankly, 999 out of 1000 scenarios for civil war in the United States are simply unrealistic and unlikely.

*Smashing the churches like that is one of those rare one-in-a-thousand scenarios that would trigger civil war.*

In the words of that old humorist and TV Cajun chef, Justin Wilson...







*"I garrrrrree--rrrrroonnnnn--ttteeeeeeeee!!!"*


----------



## Katzndogz

Kondor3 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorance and stupidity of the premise of this thread is truly multifaceted.
> 
> For example, who, and by what authority, would force churches to accommodate same-sex couples, even if there were a 'consensus' to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the authority of the state.  The force would be to deny the church tax exempt status.   Close them as an unlawful assembly.   Use zoning laws to seize Church property.   Arrest and prosecute every clergyman for hate speech.  Then move on to the individual congregants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not going to happen.
> 
> Mostly because if such a thing began, the country would collapse into civil war, for the second time in 200+ years.
> 
> Secular Statists on one side, Religious Freedom types on the other side.
> 
> And, I'm guessing, that Statists would be in the minority.
> 
> Temporarily in control of The State (in order to effect such radical church targeting).
> 
> Losing control as much of the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement went over to the Rebels.
> 
> 999 out of 1000 scenarios for civil war in the United States are simply unrealistic and unlikely.
> 
> *Smashing the churches like that is the 1 out of 1000 scenario that would trigger civil war.*
> 
> In the words of that old TV cajun chef, Justin Wilson...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I garrrrrree--rrrrroonnnnn--ttteeeeeeeee!!!"*
Click to expand...


Liberal secularists believe they have an overwhelming majority and religious freedom types are just a few, a fringe.  A civil war, if it happened at all, would be quickly put down by both military means and the acquiescent public.    The "haters" must be dragged along whether they like it or not.   There wasn't any protest when individual businesspeople have been punished for their religious beliefs.  There's no reason to believe that Churches who become the new Melissa's Sweetcakes would get any more protest than she did.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's every woman's right to make a choice on pregnancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Sex for purposes other than reproduction is NORMAL in humans.  That makes homosexuality NORMAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature, so heterosexual behavior would be NORMAL.
Click to expand...


Homo sapiens are not exclusively heterosexual by nature.  That is nonsensical.


----------



## Misty

Why would homosexuals want to be married by any religion that believes what they are doing is wrong?

There are plenty of non demoniational ministers or civil servants that will marry homosexuals without judgement.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Redfish said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's every woman's right to make a choice on pregnancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Sex for purposes other than reproduction is NORMAL in humans.  That makes homosexuality NORMAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhhh,  no.   heterosexual sex for pleasure does not make homosexual sex normal.
Click to expand...


Of course it does.  Within the realm of human sexual activity for pleasure homosexuality is a naturally occurring subset.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Freewill said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus wouldn't turn them away from his person..but he might turn them away from the steps of the church, if he believed they were there for some other purpose than to glorify God. He wasn't very accommodating to people who exploited the church
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He turned away the money lenders, but accepted the prostitute, remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ....go and sin no more.  Jesus never accepted sin.
Click to expand...


How many churches don't accept sinners?


----------



## Kondor3

Katzndogz said:


> Liberal secularists believe they have an overwhelming majority and religious freedom types are just a few, a fringe. A civil war, if it happened at all, would be quickly put down by both military means and the acquiescent public. The "haters" must be dragged along whether they like it or not. There wasn't any protest when individual businesspeople have been punished for their religious beliefs. There's no reason to believe that Churches who become the new Melissa's Sweetcakes would get any more protest than she did.


We see this differently.

You are talking about a relative silence as various court rulings, etc., slowly overturn older laws and practices, in connection with the servicing of customers.

That's simply not enough to get to most of the American People at the gut-level.

Smash their churches, however, as was suggested as a possibility, above, by one of our colleagues, and you've got a hornet's nest on your hands.

That WILL hit the American People at the gut-level.

Keep in mind that the people who comprise our Armed Forces and Law Enforcement are part of We The People, and that they are all sworn to defend the Constitution and, either implicitly or explicitly, The People themselves.

Any armed force can be co-opted, given the appropriate provocation.

Civil war without the backing of the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement is always a long-shot and possesses poor prospects for success, here or anywhere else.

Civil war WITH the backing of the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement carries with it a FAR more likely prospect for success, here or anywhere else.

So, the question would be...

"_Would a smashing of the churches in the United States, and a persecution of believers, be sufficient to drive the membership of the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement over the edge, to foment or join a rebellion?_"

Personally, I believe that the answer is 'yes', which is why the Government will not dare to attempt such, for many years to come, if ever.

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Churches tend to teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but marriage removes the sin from the sex.

Common sense would suggest that if churches logically applied that thinking to gay sex,

then gay sex would be a sin outside of marriage, but gay marriage would remove the sin from the sex.


----------



## Kondor3

NYcarbineer said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> He turned away the money lenders, but accepted the prostitute, remember?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....go and sin no more.  Jesus never accepted sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many churches don't accept sinners?
Click to expand...

Sinners who repent, or who want to repent.

Sinners who consciously insist upon continuing to sin?

Not so much.


----------



## Katzndogz

All churches accept sinners even if the object of religious instruction is to guide people away from sin.  Not celebrate it.


----------



## Katzndogz

Kondor3 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal secularists believe they have an overwhelming majority and religious freedom types are just a few, a fringe. A civil war, if it happened at all, would be quickly put down by both military means and the acquiescent public. The "haters" must be dragged along whether they like it or not. There wasn't any protest when individual businesspeople have been punished for their religious beliefs. There's no reason to believe that Churches who become the new Melissa's Sweetcakes would get any more protest than she did.
> 
> 
> 
> We see this differently.
> 
> You are talking about a relative silence as various court rulings, etc., slowly overturn older laws and practices, in connection with the servicing of customers.
> 
> That's simply not enough to get to most of the American People at the gut-level.
> 
> Smash their churches, however, as was suggested as a possibility, above, by one of our colleagues, and you've got a hornet's nest on your hands.
> 
> That WILL hit the American People at the gut-level.
> 
> Keep in mind that the people who comprise our Armed Forces and Law Enforcement are part of We The People, and that they are all sworn to defend the Constitution and, either implicitly or explicitly, The People themselves.
> 
> Any armed force can be co-opted, given the appropriate provocation.
> 
> Civil war without the backing of the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement is always a long-shot and possesses poor prospects for success, here or anywhere else.
> 
> Civil war WITH the backing of the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement carries with it a FAR more likely prospect for success, here or anywhere else.
> 
> So, the question would be...
> 
> "_Would a smashing of the churches in the United States, and a persecution of believers, be sufficient to drive the membership of the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement over the edge, to foment or join a rebellion?_"
> 
> Personally, I believe that the answer is 'yes', which is why the Government will not dare to attempt such, for many years to come, if ever.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...


Yet religion has been pretty much scrubbed from the military.  How much protest has there been?   Bibles are not allowed in military hospitals.  Chaplains may not say the word Jesus.    Whether or not you are correct, assume that you are, the course of past circumstances at least would give the government the opinion that ending the existence of Churches that do not conform to the normalcy of homosexuality would be acceptable.


----------



## Kondor3

NYcarbineer said:


> Churches tend to teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but marriage removes the sin from the sex.
> 
> Common sense would suggest that if churches logically applied that thinking to gay sex,
> 
> then gay sex would be a sin outside of marriage, but gay marriage would remove the sin from the sex.


The trouble is, most religions, and their various branches and sects, have a multi-millennia -long tradition of teaching that homosexuality is a grievous sin far more onerous than adultery.


----------



## Kondor3

Katzndogz said:


> Yet religion has been pretty much scrubbed from the military.  How much protest has there been?   Bibles are not allowed in military hospitals.  Chaplains may not say the word Jesus.    Whether or not you are correct, assume that you are, the course of past circumstances at least would give the government the opinion that ending the existence of Churches that do not conform to the normalcy of homosexuality would be acceptable.


Agreed. And therein lies the danger, and the Realism Factor, when computing the odds on such a scenario materializing.


----------



## koshergrl

NYcarbineer said:


> Churches tend to teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but marriage removes the sin from the sex.
> 
> Common sense would suggest that if churches logically applied that thinking to gay sex,
> 
> then gay sex would be a sin outside of marriage, but gay marriage would remove the sin from the sex.



Well even God and primitive man knew that homosexuality spreads disease and social dysfunction.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

KNB said:


> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.



*Amen!*


----------



## NYcarbineer

koshergrl said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches tend to teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but marriage removes the sin from the sex.
> 
> Common sense would suggest that if churches logically applied that thinking to gay sex,
> 
> then gay sex would be a sin outside of marriage, but gay marriage would remove the sin from the sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well even God and primitive man knew that homosexuality spreads disease and social dysfunction.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how two married gay persons would be spreading either disease or social dysfunction.


----------



## NYcarbineer

koshergrl said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches tend to teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but marriage removes the sin from the sex.
> 
> Common sense would suggest that if churches logically applied that thinking to gay sex,
> 
> then gay sex would be a sin outside of marriage, but gay marriage would remove the sin from the sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well even God and primitive man knew that homosexuality spreads disease and social dysfunction.
Click to expand...


Syphilis has killed more heterosexuals in history than AIDs has killed gays.


----------



## koshergrl

Syphillis is spread between homos as well.

And one of the distinguishing characteristics of homo love is infidelity. Within or outside marriage. As I'm sure you're aware.
Deadliest diseases:
Syphillis is #10
Aids is #2

http://crunkish.com/top-ten-deadliest-diseases-in-the-world/


----------



## Kondor3

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Amen!*
Click to expand...

A lie, or merely perceiving Existence differently?


----------



## onecut39

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


Churches, and indeed any organization not serving the general public, are free to discriminate as they will.  You don't expect a christian church to perform muslim services do you?

They can even become paid political organizations, if they give up their tax exempt status.


----------



## Kondor3

NYcarbineer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches tend to teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but marriage removes the sin from the sex.
> 
> Common sense would suggest that if churches logically applied that thinking to gay sex,
> 
> then gay sex would be a sin outside of marriage, but gay marriage would remove the sin from the sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well even God and primitive man knew that homosexuality spreads disease and social dysfunction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syphilis has killed more heterosexuals in history than AIDs has killed gays.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter.

AIDS is deeply embedded in the collective psyche as connected to AIDS, given that that plague first manifested broadly in the tiny sliver of the population that comprises the homosexual population in this country.

In the public mind, Homosexual = AIDS carrier, with exceptions and variations on the theme; CDC stats notwithstanding.

Perception.

It's bad enough that their brains are wired the wrong way...

Homosexuals also have to carry the Typhoid Mary burden.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches tend to teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but marriage removes the sin from the sex.
> 
> Common sense would suggest that if churches logically applied that thinking to gay sex,
> 
> then gay sex would be a sin outside of marriage, but gay marriage would remove the sin from the sex.
> 
> 
> 
> The trouble is, most religions, and their various branches and sects, have a multi-millennia -long tradition of teaching that homosexuality is a grievous sin far more onerous than adultery.
Click to expand...


Well, if you're beheading people for adultery, what's the worse fate for homosexuals.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a church holds itself out as a public service for weddings, then, certainly yes.
> 
> If it does not, then certainly not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't hold itself out as a public service, adult diaper lord.  Even if it did, where does the Constitution say they are forced to perform weddings for whoever asks them to?
Click to expand...


 Such a tall tiny human intellect for a anarcho-commie

You understand public accommodation law, and you don't like it.

No one cares.


----------



## NYcarbineer

koshergrl said:


> Syphillis is spread between homos as well.
> 
> And one of the distinguishing characteristics of homo love is infidelity. Within or outside marriage. As I'm sure you're aware.
> Deadliest diseases:
> Syphillis is #10
> Aids is #2
> 
> Top Ten Deadliest Diseases in the World - Crunkish



The number one demographic for patrons of female prostitutes is a middle-aged married man.


----------



## Kondor3

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches tend to teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but marriage removes the sin from the sex.
> 
> Common sense would suggest that if churches logically applied that thinking to gay sex,
> 
> then gay sex would be a sin outside of marriage, but gay marriage would remove the sin from the sex.
> 
> 
> 
> The trouble is, most religions, and their various branches and sects, have a multi-millennia -long tradition of teaching that homosexuality is a grievous sin far more onerous than adultery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you're beheading people for adultery, what's the worse fate for homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Stoning?

Hanging?

Both far more painful and potentially long-lasting than a split-second encounter with a blade.


----------



## NYcarbineer

koshergrl said:


> Syphillis is spread between homos as well.
> 
> And one of the distinguishing characteristics of homo love is infidelity. Within or outside marriage. As I'm sure you're aware.
> Deadliest diseases:
> Syphillis is #10
> Aids is #2
> 
> Top Ten Deadliest Diseases in the World - Crunkish



Marriage is meant to promote fidelity, whether it succeeds or not is irrelevant.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The trouble is, most religions, and their various branches and sects, have a multi-millennia -long tradition of teaching that homosexuality is a grievous sin far more onerous than adultery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you're beheading people for adultery, what's the worse fate for homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stoning?
> 
> Hanging?
> 
> Both far more painful and potentially long-lasting than a split-second encounter with a blade.
Click to expand...


Ok, so you assert that societies tend to have an ingrained irrational bias against homosexuals.

Does that make it right, or does that simply mean that it is one more problem in the fabric of human civilization that we need to remedy?


----------



## Siete

babies born with social diseases .. a sure sign of homosexuality


Syphillis is spread between homos as well.

And one of the distinguishing characteristics of homo love is infidelity. Within or outside marriage. As I'm sure you're aware.
Deadliest diseases:
Syphillis is #10
Aids is #2


----------



## Kondor3

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you're beheading people for adultery, what's the worse fate for homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Stoning?
> 
> Hanging?
> 
> Both far more painful and potentially long-lasting than a split-second encounter with a blade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so you assert that societies tend to have an ingrained irrational bias against homosexuals...
Click to expand...

No.

I assert that societies tend to have an ingrained bias against homosexuals.

We differ with respect to the rationality that may be attributed to such a bias.

I see that bias as entirely rational, and justified, by both historical and contemporary analysis.



> Does that make it right, or does that simply mean that it is one more problem in the fabric of human civilization that we need to remedy?


No.

That does not make it right.

Even though it IS right.

No.

That does not simply mean that it is one more problem.

Because it is NOT a problem.

It is part-and-parcel of any sane, vigorous society, interested in self-preservation and avoiding a decades- or centuries -long slide into debauchery and a weakening and poisoning of the nation.

This inherent bias is NOT a problem.

This inherent bias is part our built-in Collective Survival Instincts.

Phukk with those at your (collective) long-term peril.

It ain't broke.

It ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Any wedding performed by a religious institution should not be recognized by the state.

There should be a required civil ceremony to make a marriage legal.


----------



## kaz

RWHeathenGamer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
Click to expand...


Isn't making life fair at all times with all people in the Bill of Rights?

No private or institution should be forced by government guns to do anything that doesn't harm anyone else.  I'm in a 25+ year mixed marriage, why would I have wanted a marriage in a church that was forced to do it anyway?


----------



## Kondor3

Skull Pilot said:


> Any wedding performed by a religious institution should not be recognized by the state.
> 
> There should be a required civil ceremony to make a marriage legal.


I'm pretty sure that the laws of most jurisdictions, world-wide, disagree with you.


----------



## OriginalShroom

10 years ago if you told me that Churches would have to sue the Government because the Government, when controlled by Democrats, tried to force them to provide abortion coverage, I would have told you that you were crazy.

Since Obama, Pelosi, and Reid tried to do exactly that, why would a future group of Democrats try to force Churches to perform Gay Marriages or lose their tax exempt status?   Even Colleges today are trying to force Christian groups to accept non-Christians as leaders of their group or lose their Official Status on that campus.


----------



## Howey

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



No, of course not. All they have to do is give up their non-profit status and start paying taxes like any other business.

Sock.


----------



## Howey

koshergrl said:


> Syphillis is spread between homos as well.
> 
> And one of the distinguishing characteristics of homo love is infidelity. Within or outside marriage. As I'm sure you're aware.
> Deadliest diseases:
> Syphillis is #10
> Aids is #2
> 
> Top Ten Deadliest Diseases in the World - Crunkish



That's worldwide, idiot.

Here's the US:

HowStuffWorks "15 Most Common Causes of Death in the United States"

Where you live has a good deal to do with how you will die. In the United States, the top two causes of death are responsible for more than 50 percent of the annual death toll. In the world at large, there's a lot more variety in how you meet your Maker. Here is our list of the 15 most common causes of death in the United States:

Cause 
Percent of Total
1. Diseases of the heart 
28.5
2. Malignant tumors	 22.8
3. Cerebrovascular diseases	 6.7
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases	 5.1
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)	 4.4
6. Diabetes mellitus	 3.0
7. Influenza and pneumonia	 2.7
8. Alzheimer's disease	 2.4
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis	 1.7
10. Septicemia (blood poisoning)	 1.4
11. Suicide	 1.3
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis	 1.1
13. Primary hypertension and hypertensive renal disease	 0.8
14. Parkinson's disease (tied)	 0.7
15. Homicide (tied)	 0.7

*Source: CDC/NHS, National Vital Statistics System
*


Fortunately for you, stupid isn't on the list.


----------



## Howey

And really, [MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]ergirl *"Crunkish"*?????


from *2008??????*


----------



## kaz

Howey said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, of course not. All they have to do is give up their non-profit status and start paying taxes like any other business.
> 
> Sock.
Click to expand...


This is why you're an authoritarian leftist, not a liberal.  No one is free to do anything you don't approve of.  And you're an idiot to want to force someone who doesn't want to marry you to do so.  There are plenty of churches who will.  What is gained by going to a police State?


----------



## Papageorgio

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


Religious freedom and civil rights would prevent forcing religious institutions from performing any marriage that would go against their conscience or the their religious beliefs. You can always go to a judge.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## kaz

Papageorgio said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious freedom and civil rights would prevent forcing religious institutions from performing any marriage that would go against their conscience or the their religious beliefs. You can always go to a judge.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using an Android.
Click to expand...


As long as any freedom to chose anything on our own remains, it will be under attack from the Left.


----------



## Papageorgio

Skull Pilot said:


> Any wedding performed by a religious institution should not be recognized by the state.
> 
> There should be a required civil ceremony to make a marriage legal.




They don't need a ceremony, just getting a license and having it signed by a judge should be sufficent.


----------



## Ibentoken

Misty said:


> Why would homosexuals want to be married by any religion that believes what they are doing is wrong?
> 
> There are plenty of non demoniational ministers or civil servants that will marry homosexuals without judgement.



To rub their noses in it.  This is not about equality and rights to the homo mafia.  This is about power, submission, and silencing opposition.


----------



## Ibentoken

Howey said:


> And really, [MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]ergirl *"Crunkish"*?????
> 
> 
> from *2008??????*



Did you take biology in school?  The asshole is not a sex organ.


----------



## Katzndogz

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Amen!*
Click to expand...


This is the reason why the government would believe that it had the mandate from the people to smash the Churches.  

The danger is that Christians would see that the government intends to destroy their religion and align with an external threat that offers freedom of religion.


----------



## GISMYS

IT IS THE FOOL THAT SAYS THERE IS NO GOD!!!!and you??????????The Lord can rescue you and me from the temptations that surround us, and continue to punish the ungodly until the day of final judgment comes. 10 He is especially hard on those who follow their own evil, lustful thoughts. 2 PETER 2:9-10==God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God&#8217;s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

32 They were fully aware of God&#8217;s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
Romans 1:26-32== Don&#8217;t you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don&#8217;t fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals&#8212;will have no share in his Kingdom. 
1 corinthians 6:9


----------



## bodecea

Ibentoken said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And really, [MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]ergirl *"Crunkish"*?????
> 
> 
> from *2008??????*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you take biology in school?  The asshole is not a sex organ.
Click to expand...


Boobs aren't either.


----------



## GISMYS

bodecea said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And really, [MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]ergirl *"Crunkish"*?????
> 
> 
> from *2008??????*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you take biology in school?  The asshole is not a sex organ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boobs aren't either.
Click to expand...


DO THOSE LIVING IN THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION  REALLY WANT TO LIVE LIFE AS OR LOWER THAN ANIMALS AS BITCH DOGS!!! WHERE IS YOUR HONOR,PRIDE LOVE?????? MAN WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD NOT AS A BITCH dog!!!!


----------



## Luddly Neddite

NYcarbineer said:


> Countries like France have it right.  France only recognizes civil marriages performed by certain civil authorities;
> 
> *religious marriages are optional and only ceremonial*.



The same is true here in the US.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

GISMYS said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you take biology in school?  The asshole is not a sex organ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boobs aren't either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DO THOSE LIVING IN THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION  REALLY WANT TO LIVE LIFE AS OR LOWER THAN ANIMALS AS BITCH DOGS!!! WHERE IS YOUR HONOR,PRIDE LOVE?????? MAN WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD NOT AS A BITCH dog!!!!
Click to expand...


You really are one disgusting sicko. 

And way beyond merely ignorant.


----------



## GISMYS

Luddly Neddite said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boobs aren't either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DO THOSE LIVING IN THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION  REALLY WANT TO LIVE LIFE AS OR LOWER THAN ANIMALS AS BITCH DOGS!!! WHERE IS YOUR HONOR,PRIDE LOVE?????? MAN WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD NOT AS A BITCH dog!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are one disgusting sicko.
> 
> And way beyond merely ignorant.
Click to expand...


NO ANSWER TO THE QUESTION????????????????===
DO THOSE LIVING IN THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION  REALLY WANT TO LIVE LIFE AS OR LOWER THAN ANIMALS AS BITCH DOGS!!! WHERE IS YOUR HONOR,PRIDE LOVE?????? MAN WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD NOT AS A BITCH dog!!!!


----------



## jasonnfree

GISMYS said:


> IT IS THE FOOL THAT SAYS THERE IS NO GOD!!!!and you??????????The Lord can rescue you and me from the temptations that surround us, and continue to punish the ungodly until the day of final judgment comes. 10 He is especially hard on those who follow their own evil, lustful thoughts. 2 PETER 2:9-10==God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.
> 
> 32 They were fully aware of Gods death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
> Romans 1:26-32== Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom.
> 1 corinthians 6:9



Such an angry person you are after reading the bible.  What's your real problem?  You're attracted to  the same sex but you're fighting it is my guess.  Read what Jesus said about not being judgemental in the meantime.


----------



## GISMYS

jasonnfree said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> IT IS THE FOOL THAT SAYS THERE IS NO GOD!!!!and you??????????The Lord can rescue you and me from the temptations that surround us, and continue to punish the ungodly until the day of final judgment comes. 10 He is especially hard on those who follow their own evil, lustful thoughts. 2 PETER 2:9-10==God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.
> 
> 32 They were fully aware of Gods death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
> Romans 1:26-32== Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom.
> 1 corinthians 6:9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such an angry person you are after reading the bible.  What's your real problem?  You're attracted to  the same sex but you're fighting it is my guess.  Read what Jesus said about not being judgemental in the meantime.
Click to expand...


I POSTED WHAT GOD HAS TO SAY ABOUT THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION=RE-READ THE POST!!! duh!!!!


----------



## Ibentoken

Luddly Neddite said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boobs aren't either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DO THOSE LIVING IN THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION  REALLY WANT TO LIVE LIFE AS OR LOWER THAN ANIMALS AS BITCH DOGS!!! WHERE IS YOUR HONOR,PRIDE LOVE?????? MAN WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD NOT AS A BITCH dog!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are one disgusting sicko.
> 
> And way beyond merely ignorant.
Click to expand...


He's right.  Animalistic behavior.  That's not "progressive."


----------



## Statistikhengst

Ibentoken said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO THOSE LIVING IN THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION  REALLY WANT TO LIVE LIFE AS OR LOWER THAN ANIMALS AS BITCH DOGS!!! WHERE IS YOUR HONOR,PRIDE LOVE?????? MAN WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD NOT AS A BITCH dog!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are one disgusting sicko.
> 
> And way beyond merely ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's right.  Animalistic behavior.  That's not "progressive."
Click to expand...



Uh, sex in all of it's forms is "animalistic behavior". That includes hetero-sex.


----------



## GISMYS

Statistikhengst said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are one disgusting sicko.
> 
> And way beyond merely ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's right.  Animalistic behavior.  That's not "progressive."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, sex in all of it's forms is "animalistic behavior". That includes hetero-sex.
Click to expand...






GOD'S WORD SAYS==&#9668; Hebrews 13:4 &#9658; 
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. WE ARE TO LIVE HIGHER THAN BITCH dogs!!!


----------



## Statistikhengst

GISMYS said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's right.  Animalistic behavior.  That's not "progressive."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, sex in all of it's forms is "animalistic behavior". That includes hetero-sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD'S WORD SAYS==&#9668; Hebrews 13:4 &#9658;
> Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. *WE ARE TO LIVE HIGHER THAN BITCH dogs!!!*
Click to expand...




Does the bible really refer to "BITCH dogs"?!?!?!?!?


Wow....


----------



## GISMYS

Statistikhengst said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, sex in all of it's forms is "animalistic behavior". That includes hetero-sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD'S WORD SAYS==&#9668; Hebrews 13:4 &#9658;
> Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. *WE ARE TO LIVE HIGHER THAN BITCH dogs!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the bible really refer to "BITCH dogs"?!?!?!?!?
> 
> 
> Wow....
Click to expand...


WHY WASTE TIME POSTING YOUR IGNORANCE?????????????"""WE ARE TO LIVE HIGHER THAN BITCH dogs!!!""" ARE MY WORDS!!! DUH!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Siete said:


> babies born with social diseases .. a sure sign of homosexuality
> 
> 
> Syphillis is spread between homos as well.
> 
> And one of the distinguishing characteristics of homo love is infidelity. Within or outside marriage. As I'm sure you're aware.
> Deadliest diseases:
> Syphillis is #10
> Aids is #2



And both are spread between heterosexuals in far, far greater numbers.

Stop the silliness, please.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Statistikhengst said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, sex in all of it's forms is "animalistic behavior". That includes hetero-sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD'S WORD SAYS==&#9668; Hebrews 13:4 &#9658;
> Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. *WE ARE TO LIVE HIGHER THAN BITCH dogs!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the bible really refer to "BITCH dogs"?!?!?!?!?
> 
> 
> Wow....
Click to expand...


Notice how the latent homosexuals on the far right get all hwat emotionally when they discuss this.  

Pop23, LockeJaw, and so on.  Wannabee faggots, you know.


----------



## Ibentoken

jasonnfree said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> IT IS THE FOOL THAT SAYS THERE IS NO GOD!!!!and you??????????The Lord can rescue you and me from the temptations that surround us, and continue to punish the ungodly until the day of final judgment comes. 10 He is especially hard on those who follow their own evil, lustful thoughts. 2 PETER 2:9-10==God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.
> 
> 32 They were fully aware of Gods death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
> Romans 1:26-32== Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom.
> 1 corinthians 6:9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such an angry person you are after reading the bible.  What's your real problem?  You're attracted to  the same sex but you're fighting it is my guess.  Read what Jesus said about not being judgemental in the meantime.
Click to expand...


Jesus said marriage is a man and woman.  Was Jesus judgmental?


----------



## Ibentoken

bodecea said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And really, [MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]ergirl *"Crunkish"*?????
> 
> 
> from *2008??????*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you take biology in school?  The asshole is not a sex organ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boobs aren't either.
Click to expand...


Homos are boobophobic and vaginaphobic.


----------



## Statistikhengst

bodecea said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And really, [MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]ergirl *"Crunkish"*?????
> 
> 
> from *2008??????*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you take biology in school?  The asshole is not a sex organ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boobs aren't either.
Click to expand...




I beg to differ. 

When I see incredible boobs, I wanna have sex.

That makes them sexual organs, thank you very much!


----------



## Cecilie1200

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



Completely aside from the fact that churches are protected by the religious provisions of the First Amendment, I don't think ANY privately-owned business or organization should be forced to accommodate anyone.


----------



## Cecilie1200

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


Why is it that so many people cannot differentiate between "That is bad behavior" and "Therefore, it should be illegal"?


----------



## Unkotare

NYcarbineer said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Seek to destroy that which you fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion seeks to destroy mortality.
Click to expand...




The political left seeks to destroy morality.


----------



## Kondor3

Statistikhengst said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you take biology in school?  The asshole is not a sex organ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boobs aren't either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ.
> 
> When I see incredible boobs, I wanna have sex.
> 
> That makes them sexual organs, thank you very much!
Click to expand...

Heck, any cartoonist worth his salt knows _that_...


----------



## Cecilie1200

koshergrl said:


> It has been tried many times before.
> 
> Historically, when the state has sought authority over the church, the leaders will do it in the name of this religion or that..but it is always the state that is exerting the authority. Thus the horrific bloody persecutions of the past are a result not of Christianity attempting to establish itself (this is what our school children come out of school believing, based on the half-formed claptrap they hear from their illiterate teachers) but have been a result of a state body exerting force  over the church.
> 
> ", Soviet authorities suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on the particular era. Soviet policy, based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs.[1]
> 
> The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept.[4][5] The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 millions.[6][7][8]
> 
> Religious beliefs and practices persisted among the majority of the population,[4] in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognised its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war."
> 
> Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Of course, nobody has ever done it so well as atheists.



Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have never been able to comprehend the fact that humanity will not give up its sovereign right to believe and act in accordance with the dictates of individual conscience.  The instant the state tries to intrude into the reaches of mankind's heart and soul, it creates the authors of its own downfall.


----------



## Ibentoken

Your rights do not include the denial of my rights.


----------



## Cecilie1200

RWHeathenGamer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
Click to expand...


You say that as if you think, "Ah hah, but RACE!" is some sort of universal trump card to play, a boundary over which nothing can EVER be allowed to cross and the defense of which is sacrosanct.

Let me advance what is probably a radical notion to you.  It is completely legal for someone to be an asshole, and even a racist asshole, and while it is repugnant and immoral behavior for one to be such, it is far more repugnant and immoral for someone to try to impose by law their own preferred behaviors onto said racist asshole.

I would rather live in a society where people have the freedom to be ignorant bigots than one where everyone is a well-behaved slave.


----------



## Ibentoken

Now Mexico is in trouble.  Free speech or discrimination?
Mexico?s World Cup Coach Defends Homophobic Chant | FUSION Soccer | FusionSoccer.net


----------



## NYcarbineer

Cecilie1200 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that as if you think, "Ah hah, but RACE!" is some sort of universal trump card to play, a boundary over which nothing can EVER be allowed to cross and the defense of which is sacrosanct.
> 
> Let me advance what is probably a radical notion to you.  It is completely legal for someone to be an asshole, and even a racist asshole, and while it is repugnant and immoral behavior for one to be such, it is far more repugnant and immoral for someone to try to impose by law their own preferred behaviors onto said racist asshole.
> 
> I would rather live in a society where people have the freedom to be ignorant bigots than one where everyone is a well-behaved slave.
Click to expand...


You would rather live in the segregated south than modern day America.

No surprise there.  You're an excellent representative of modern day conservatism.


----------



## Cecilie1200

LoneLaugher said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its understanadable that some churches may feel they are following their concience by not allowing Homosexual marriage.Because there are  scriptures that says that is a sin ,  whether or not I agree with that, I think they should be allowed to choose to marry them or not. There are plenty of churches and other places they can get married if they get turned down by one.
> 
> Where inthe bible does it say to discriminate by race ?  If a church discriminates by race I dont see how that is the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What follows is everything that Jesus had to say about homosexuality:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The End
Click to expand...


Well, when you start your very own First Church of Only The Red Quotes, feel free to adhere to that doctrine.  Those churches which know there's more to the teachings of Christianity than just the rather brief direct quotes of Christ's ministry on Earth will continue to not give a flying fuck about the limitations you attempt to impose upon their beliefs, just as though anyone asked you to vet and approve them.

I do hope this has cleared up for you how very much your understanding of Christianity does NOT mean to anyone.


----------



## Oscar Wao

Ibentoken said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> IT IS THE FOOL THAT SAYS THERE IS NO GOD!!!!and you??????????The Lord can rescue you and me from the temptations that surround us, and continue to punish the ungodly until the day of final judgment comes. 10 He is especially hard on those who follow their own evil, lustful thoughts. 2 PETER 2:9-10==God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.
> 
> 32 They were fully aware of Gods death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
> Romans 1:26-32== Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom.
> 1 corinthians 6:9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such an angry person you are after reading the bible.  What's your real problem?  You're attracted to  the same sex but you're fighting it is my guess.  Read what Jesus said about not being judgemental in the meantime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus said marriage is a man and woman.  Was Jesus judgmental?
Click to expand...

If you read Matthew 19 further, He also talks about eunuchs, which in the Greek is translated to homosexuals.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ibentoken said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda has nothing to do with equality and rights.  Those are just buzz words to make the useful Idiots believe they are part of a righteous cause.  It's about submission and silencing the opposition.
> 
> There is a leftist agenda in our government schools, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Do you know any leftists?
> 
> What is the leftist agenda in schools?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality.
Click to expand...


Which is your opinion, and in no way invalidates the rights of others to disagree, or conveys upon you the right to impose your opinion on them as some sort of objective moral standard.


----------



## WorldWatcher

OriginalShroom said:


> 10 years ago if you told me that Churches would have to sue the Government because the Government, when controlled by Democrats, tried to force them to provide abortion coverage, I would have told you that you were crazy.



My understanding is that Churches are exempt from abortion and contraceptive coverage.

Hospitals, education organizations, etc. - which are not Churches - are not.



OriginalShroom said:


> Since Obama, Pelosi, and Reid tried to do exactly that, why would a future group of Democrats try to force Churches to perform Gay Marriages or lose their tax exempt status?   Even Colleges today are trying to force Christian groups to accept non-Christians as leaders of their group or lose their Official Status on that campus.



Please state it correctly, groups cannot base membership on religious beliefs thereby excluding participation based on religious beliefs.  It is still up to the membership to elect members into leadership positions.  If the members of a group don't want to elect a non-Chrisitian, they are not required to.  If they do, then the majority of the group did - so what is the complaint?

Two different things.


>>>>


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And really, [MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]ergirl *"Crunkish"*?????
> 
> 
> from *2008??????*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you take biology in school?  The asshole is not a sex organ.
Click to expand...


Actually you are quite a dick.

Seriously, who are you to decide which parts of the body are 'sex organs'?  

Is your hand a sex organ?


----------



## Ibentoken

NYcarbineer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you think, "Ah hah, but RACE!" is some sort of universal trump card to play, a boundary over which nothing can EVER be allowed to cross and the defense of which is sacrosanct.
> 
> Let me advance what is probably a radical notion to you.  It is completely legal for someone to be an asshole, and even a racist asshole, and while it is repugnant and immoral behavior for one to be such, it is far more repugnant and immoral for someone to try to impose by law their own preferred behaviors onto said racist asshole.
> 
> I would rather live in a society where people have the freedom to be ignorant bigots than one where everyone is a well-behaved slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would rather live in the segregated south than modern day America.
> 
> No surprise there.  You're an excellent representative of modern day conservatism.
Click to expand...


Speaking of segregation........Tell us all about the inner city black ghettos in big northern democrat run cities.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> IT IS THE FOOL THAT SAYS THERE IS NO GOD!!!!and you??????????The Lord can rescue you and me from the temptations that surround us, and continue to punish the ungodly until the day of final judgment comes. 10 He is especially hard on those who follow their own evil, lustful thoughts. 2 PETER 2:9-10==God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.
> 
> 32 They were fully aware of Gods death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
> Romans 1:26-32== Dont you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexualswill have no share in his Kingdom.
> 1 corinthians 6:9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such an angry person you are after reading the bible.  What's your real problem?  You're attracted to  the same sex but you're fighting it is my guess.  Read what Jesus said about not being judgemental in the meantime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus said marriage is a man and woman.  Was Jesus judgmental?
Click to expand...


I doubt it.  Not His style.

Post the scripture please, and who supposedly wrote it.

And The Bible is not The Constitution.

The far right evangelical entitlement to legislate how people live has ended in this country.

Do notice those who reject the far right are not telling them how to live their personal lives.


----------



## Ibentoken

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Do you know any leftists?
> 
> What is the leftist agenda in schools?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is your opinion, and in no way invalidates the rights of others to disagree, or conveys upon you the right to impose your opinion on them as some sort of objective moral standard.
Click to expand...


I'm not.  The queers are demanding we accept their behavior as normal.  You're confused.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Cecilie1200 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Completely aside from the fact that churches are protected by the religious provisions of the First Amendment, I don't think ANY privately-owned business or organization should be forced to accommodate anyone.
Click to expand...


SCOTUS and the Rule of Law determine that.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Luddly Neddite said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Countries like France have it right.  France only recognizes civil marriages performed by certain civil authorities;
> 
> *religious marriages are optional and only ceremonial*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same is true here in the US.
Click to expand...


Yes and no, I think the difference is that in Europe the church guys aren't given the legal authority to perform the civil marriage.


----------



## bripat9643

Cecilie1200 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that so many people cannot differentiate between "That is bad behavior" and "Therefore, it should be illegal"?
Click to expand...


That's the libturd _modus operandi_.  "We don't like that" or "we don't approve of that" automatically translates into "we must outlaw that" in their minds.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kondor3 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boobs aren't either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ.
> 
> When I see incredible boobs, I wanna have sex.
> 
> That makes them sexual organs, thank you very much!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heck, any cartoonist worth his salt knows _that_...
Click to expand...



Who wants to play patty cake?


----------



## GISMYS

FACE THE TRUTH!!!==LIVING IN THE SEXUAL PERVERSION OF homosexuality ""IS"" a choice!!! Men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved. Romans 1:27 ==== SIN IS A CHOICE=A BAD CHOICE. THEIVES DESIRE TO STEAL SO THEY CHOOSE TO STEAL, LIARS DESIRE TO LIE SO THEY CHOSE TO BE LIARS. SIN IS A CHOICE!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat9643 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that so many people cannot differentiate between "That is bad behavior" and "Therefore, it should be illegal"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the libturd _modus operandi_.  "We don't like that" or "we don't approve of that" automatically translates into "we must outlaw that" in their minds.
Click to expand...


Actually that is the American way: all of us, including bripatty, want to tell everyone else how to live.

However the responsible right to responsible left have the Constitution on this one.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GISMYS said:


> FACE THE TRUTH!!!==LIVING IN THE SEXUAL PERVERSION OF homosexuality ""IS"" a choice!!! Men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved. Romans 1:27 ==== SIN IS A CHOICE=A BAD CHOICE. THEIVES DESIRE TO STEAL SO THEY CHOOSE TO STEAL, LIARS DESIRE TO LIE SO THEY CHOSE TO BE LIARS. SIN IS A CHOICE!!!



You obviously do not love your neighbor as yourself.

Let's move along.


----------



## Statistikhengst

GISMYS said:


> FACE THE TRUTH!!!==LIVING IN THE SEXUAL PERVERSION OF homosexuality ""IS"" a choice!!! Men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved. Romans 1:27 ==== SIN IS A CHOICE=A BAD CHOICE. THEIVES DESIRE TO STEAL SO THEY CHOOSE TO STEAL, LIARS DESIRE TO LIE SO THEY CHOSE TO BE LIARS. SIN IS A CHOICE!!!




If you increase your font size to 4 or 5, maybe, use bold and lots of colors, we may start to remember that you also post here.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is your opinion, and in no way invalidates the rights of others to disagree, or conveys upon you the right to impose your opinion on them as some sort of objective moral standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not.  The queers are demanding we accept their behavior as normal.  You're confused.
Click to expand...


All you have to do is accept it as legal and within their rights to equal treatment under the law.


----------



## alang1216

Marriage confers legal rights that are derived from the state.  I don't think a religious organization should be the decider of who gets legal rights.  

I think marriages should only be performed by a religious institution but that marriage comes with no legal status.  The state should sanction civil unions and only those come with legal rights.  This way religions decide whom they'll marry and civil society decides who gets legal benefits.

The state should sanction a civil union between any gender or number of consenting adults.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

Cecilie1200 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that as if you think, "Ah hah, but RACE!" is some sort of universal trump card to play, a boundary over which nothing can EVER be allowed to cross and the defense of which is sacrosanct.
> 
> Let me advance what is probably a radical notion to you.  It is completely legal for someone to be an asshole, and even a racist asshole, and while it is repugnant and immoral behavior for one to be such, it is far more repugnant and immoral for someone to try to impose by law their own preferred behaviors onto said racist asshole.
> 
> I would rather live in a society where people have the freedom to be ignorant bigots than one where everyone is a well-behaved slave.
Click to expand...

Good response.

Awesome post, great job. I agree 100%, finally someone gets it.

All I was trying to do is get someone to be consistent and and not ignore the question, because the issues are interconnected. This is a question of free association and property rights.

 It is not a question of "my FEELINGS!" or "I am owed goods and services by merely existing(public accommodations)" in regards to liberal, or in the case of so called conservatives who say "race and sexual orientation are two different things, how could you compare them, btw did I tell you I would love for my kids to get mixed race married". 

Glad there is someone on the boards that actually believes in the novel idea of freedom and negative liberties.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Kondor3 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boobs aren't either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ.
> 
> When I see incredible boobs, I wanna have sex.
> 
> That makes them sexual organs, thank you very much!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heck, any cartoonist worth his salt knows _that_...
Click to expand...


I got her number in my little black book...


----------



## NYcarbineer

Statistikhengst said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACE THE TRUTH!!!==LIVING IN THE SEXUAL PERVERSION OF homosexuality ""IS"" a choice!!! Men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved. Romans 1:27 ==== SIN IS A CHOICE=A BAD CHOICE. THEIVES DESIRE TO STEAL SO THEY CHOOSE TO STEAL, LIARS DESIRE TO LIE SO THEY CHOSE TO BE LIARS. SIN IS A CHOICE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you increase your font size to 4 or 5, maybe, use bold and lots of colors, we may start to remember that you also post here.
Click to expand...


Comon now be nice to Mr. Swaggart.


----------



## bripat9643

NYcarbineer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches tend to teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but marriage removes the sin from the sex.
> 
> Common sense would suggest that if churches logically applied that thinking to gay sex,
> 
> then gay sex would be a sin outside of marriage, but gay marriage would remove the sin from the sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well even God and primitive man knew that homosexuality spreads disease and social dysfunction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syphilis has killed more heterosexuals in history than AIDs has killed gays.
Click to expand...


Syphilis wasn't curable until penicillin was discovered, so that statistic is totally meaningless.


----------



## GISMYS

Statistikhengst said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACE THE TRUTH!!!==LIVING IN THE SEXUAL PERVERSION OF homosexuality ""IS"" a choice!!! Men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved. Romans 1:27 ==== SIN IS A CHOICE=A BAD CHOICE. THEIVES DESIRE TO STEAL SO THEY CHOOSE TO STEAL, LIARS DESIRE TO LIE SO THEY CHOSE TO BE LIARS. SIN IS A CHOICE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you increase your font size to 4 or 5, maybe, use bold and lots of colors, we may start to remember that you also post here.
Click to expand...


THEN YOU NOW CONFESS,"YOU NOW WILL HAVE NO EXCUSE ON YOUR FINAL JUDGMENT DAY"!!! Think!


----------



## Oscar Wao

GISMYS said:


> FACE THE TRUTH!!!==LIVING IN THE SEXUAL PERVERSION OF homosexuality ""IS"" a choice!!! Men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved. Romans 1:27 ==== SIN IS A CHOICE=A BAD CHOICE. THEIVES DESIRE TO STEAL SO THEY CHOOSE TO STEAL, LIARS DESIRE TO LIE SO THEY CHOSE TO BE LIARS. SIN IS A CHOICE!!!


He was talking about shrine prostitutes in that verse.


----------



## bripat9643

onecut39 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches, and indeed any organization not serving the general public, are free to discriminate as they will.  You don't expect a christian church to perform muslim services do you?
> 
> They can even become paid political organizations, if they give up their tax exempt status.
Click to expand...


If they discriminate, then the aren't serving the general public.  Your claim is self refuting.


----------



## Peach

bripat9643 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well even God and primitive man knew that homosexuality spreads disease and social dysfunction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syphilis has killed more heterosexuals in history than AIDs has killed gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syphilis wasn't curable until penicillin was discovered, so that statistic is totally meaningless.
Click to expand...


How so, AIDS is as of now, "incurable", yet treatments advance. Antibiotics were not an AHA moment either. Many years between 'discovery' and widespread treatments.


----------



## Oscar Wao

bripat9643 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well even God and primitive man knew that homosexuality spreads disease and social dysfunction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syphilis has killed more heterosexuals in history than AIDs has killed gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syphilis wasn't curable until penicillin was discovered, so that statistic is totally meaningless.
Click to expand...

Translation: I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears, sing "La la la!", and ignore the facts.


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a church holds itself out as a public service for weddings, then, certainly yes.
> 
> If it does not, then certainly not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't hold itself out as a public service, adult diaper lord.  Even if it did, where does the Constitution say they are forced to perform weddings for whoever asks them to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such a tall tiny human intellect for a anarcho-commie
> 
> You understand public accommodation law, and you don't like it.
> 
> No one cares.
Click to expand...


I understand that the Constitution doesn't authorise "public accommodation law."  

Did you find a good source for your diapers yet?


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

alang1216 said:


> Marriage confers legal rights that are derived from the state.  I don't think a religious organization should be the decider of who gets legal rights.
> 
> I think marriages should only be performed by a religious institution but that marriage comes with no legal status.  The state should sanction civil unions and only those come with legal rights.  This way religions decide whom they'll marry and civil society decides who gets legal benefits.
> 
> The state should sanction a civil union between any gender or number of consenting adults.



I disagree, I think marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage licenses should be issued by the state with incentives to promote procreation and family formation to support the continuity, stability, and the strengthening of the fabric of society going forward. This blind egalitarianism you are pushing serves no purpose outside of itself and is irrational.


----------



## Ibentoken

JakeStarkey said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such an angry person you are after reading the bible.  What's your real problem?  You're attracted to  the same sex but you're fighting it is my guess.  Read what Jesus said about not being judgemental in the meantime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said marriage is a man and woman.  Was Jesus judgmental?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt it.  Not His style.
> 
> Post the scripture please, and who supposedly wrote it.
> 
> And The Bible is not The Constitution.
> 
> The far right evangelical entitlement to legislate how people live has ended in this country.
> 
> Do notice those who reject the far right are not telling them how to live their personal lives.
Click to expand...


I don't care what you doubt.  Post your points.


----------



## GISMYS

Over 40,000,000 dead from aids another 40 million plus hiv positive and countless millions with other std's and ruined lives of shame and guilt!!! For what your sick burning lust for the abomination of sexual perversion. God loves you and wants you to live but your choice!!!


----------



## Marie888

ScreamingEagle said:


> it's disturbing that this question is even being asked....



Exactly   



.


----------



## Ibentoken

AIDS was first discovered in America in gay men.  The left continues to try to rewrite history.


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> babies born with social diseases .. a sure sign of homosexuality
> 
> 
> Syphillis is spread between homos as well.
> 
> And one of the distinguishing characteristics of homo love is infidelity. Within or outside marriage. As I'm sure you're aware.
> Deadliest diseases:
> Syphillis is #10
> Aids is #2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And both are spread between heterosexuals in far, far greater numbers.
> 
> Stop the silliness, please.
Click to expand...


Homosexuals have a much higher incidence of venereal disease than heterosexuals because they are much more promiscuous.


----------



## WorldWatcher

bripat9643 said:


> I understand that the Constitution doesn't authorise "public accommodation law."




You realize that pretty much every State has a Public Accommodation law, are you saying States don't have the power under the 10th Amendment to regulate commerce inside the State?



>>>>


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

Cecilie1200 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that as if you think, "Ah hah, but RACE!" is some sort of universal trump card to play, a boundary over which nothing can EVER be allowed to cross and the defense of which is sacrosanct.
> 
> Let me advance what is probably a radical notion to you.  It is completely legal for someone to be an asshole, and even a racist asshole, and while it is repugnant and immoral behavior for one to be such, it is far more repugnant and immoral for someone to try to impose by law their own preferred behaviors onto said racist asshole.
> 
> I would rather live in a society where people have the freedom to be ignorant bigots than one where everyone is a well-behaved slave.
Click to expand...


Good response.

Awesome post, great job. I agree 100%, finally someone gets it.

All I was trying to do is get someone to be consistent and and not ignore the question, because the issues are interconnected. This is a question of free association and property rights.

It is not a question of "my FEELINGS!" or "I am owed goods and services by merely existing(public accommodations)" in regards to liberal, or in the case of so called conservatives who say "race and sexual orientation are two different things, how could you compare them, btw did I tell you I would love for my kids to get mixed race married".

Glad there is someone on the boards that actually believes in the novel idea of freedom and negative liberties.


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD'S WORD SAYS==&#9668; Hebrews 13:4 &#9658;
> Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. *WE ARE TO LIVE HIGHER THAN BITCH dogs!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the bible really refer to "BITCH dogs"?!?!?!?!?
> 
> 
> Wow....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how the latent homosexuals on the far right get all hwat emotionally when they discuss this.
> 
> Pop23, LockeJaw, and so on.  Wannabee faggots, you know.
Click to expand...


Calling someone who is debating so-called "gay marriage" a homosexual is standard operating procedure for libturds, diaper lord.


----------



## WorldWatcher

bripat9643 said:


> Homosexuals have a much higher incidence of venereal disease than heterosexuals because they are much more promiscuous.




True, which is why supporting Same-sex Civil Marriage is a good thing as it supports monogamy for those that are married.


Good point.



>>>>


----------



## Cecilie1200

LoneLaugher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda is equality as is guaranteed by our Constitution.
> 
> The right wing agenda is to deny equality, as guaranteed by our Constitution.
> 
> The left has always won this battle.
> 
> The left will always win this battle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda has nothing to do with equality and rights.  Are you going to allow children in your government schools to speak out freely if they oppose homosexuality?  Nope.  You're going to tell that child that opposing homosexuality is bigotry and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is bigotry. You want it to not be.....but it is.
> 
> Time for you to catch up. The rest of us have waited long enough.
Click to expand...


You don't understand.  The question isn't whether something is or isn't bigotry.  The question is whether or not you have the right to force people to adhere to YOUR personal moral standards.  You don't, nor should you.


----------



## Statistikhengst

JakeStarkey said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD'S WORD SAYS==&#9668; Hebrews 13:4 &#9658;
> Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. *WE ARE TO LIVE HIGHER THAN BITCH dogs!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the bible really refer to "BITCH dogs"?!?!?!?!?
> 
> 
> Wow....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how the latent homosexuals on the far right get all hwat emotionally when they discuss this.
> 
> Pop23, LockeJaw, and so on.  Wannabee faggots, you know.
Click to expand...



Indeed, some do get their "lather" all up about it...


----------



## WorldWatcher

Ibentoken said:


> AIDS was first discovered in America in gay men.  The left continues to try to rewrite history.



AIDS started in Africa and is prevalent in heterosexuals and only later came to the US.


Please don't try to rewrite history.


.>>>


----------



## bripat9643

NYcarbineer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you think, "Ah hah, but RACE!" is some sort of universal trump card to play, a boundary over which nothing can EVER be allowed to cross and the defense of which is sacrosanct.
> 
> Let me advance what is probably a radical notion to you.  It is completely legal for someone to be an asshole, and even a racist asshole, and while it is repugnant and immoral behavior for one to be such, it is far more repugnant and immoral for someone to try to impose by law their own preferred behaviors onto said racist asshole.
> 
> I would rather live in a society where people have the freedom to be ignorant bigots than one where everyone is a well-behaved slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would rather live in the segregated south than modern day America.
> 
> No surprise there.  You're an excellent representative of modern day conservatism.
Click to expand...


The South was segregated by law, penis wrinkle.  No one endorses government enforced discrimination.

You're an excellent representation of a jackass.


----------



## Katzndogz

Cecilie1200 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist agenda has nothing to do with equality and rights.  Are you going to allow children in your government schools to speak out freely if they oppose homosexuality?  Nope.  You're going to tell that child that opposing homosexuality is bigotry and hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is bigotry. You want it to not be.....but it is.
> 
> Time for you to catch up. The rest of us have waited long enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand.  The question isn't whether something is or isn't bigotry.  The question is whether or not you have the right to force people to adhere to YOUR personal moral standards.  You don't, nor should you.
Click to expand...


Then you agree that gays have no right to force someone else to adhere to their personal moral standards.


----------



## alang1216

RWHeathenGamer said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage confers legal rights that are derived from the state.  I don't think a religious organization should be the decider of who gets legal rights.
> 
> I think marriages should only be performed by a religious institution but that marriage comes with no legal status.  The state should sanction civil unions and only those come with legal rights.  This way religions decide whom they'll marry and civil society decides who gets legal benefits.
> 
> The state should sanction a civil union between any gender or number of consenting adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, I think marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage licenses should be issued by the state with incentives to promote procreation and family formation to support the continuity, stability, and the strengthening of the fabric of society going forward. This blind egalitarianism you are pushing serves no purpose outside of itself and is irrational.
Click to expand...


Why is marriage between a man and a woman?  Is it a religious dictate?  If so which religion?  I seem to recall other cultures (native american?) allowed same sex marriage, shouldn't their traditions be respected?

If marriage is for procreation we should NOT allow marriage to anyone infertile or anyone past the age of child-bearing.  Right?

If you dislike egalitarianism I think it falls on you to show why it should not be allowed.


----------



## Cecilie1200

LoneLaugher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your child were gay? Any thoughts?
> 
> If your child isn't gay, nothing that is said in his school will make him gay. That is the point where you go off the reservation. It puts your stupidity on full display.
> 
> You've lost this one, by the way. The world knows that homosexual people are normal. One day...your kid will likely look at you and shake his or her head...wondering how you could be so dumb.
> 
> Young people have it figured out. There is no turning back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not gonna worry about gay kids.  I'm talking about the agenda.  That crap doesn't belong in public schools.  If parents of a child believe their child is gay then that's their problem, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you or your kid run around a public school that this gay kid attends.....telling him that he's abnormal.....then you become the problem. Public school...rightfully....will discourage you and your child from being bigots.
Click to expand...


Public school has no business "discouraging" personal opinions and beliefs of any sort.  They exist for academic education, not religious or moral education.  If I want that, I'll send my kids to a private school, which almost certainly will teach the opposite of what you have personally approved.

And if you think life isn't going to teach homosexuals that they're out of the norm, whatever warm-and-fuzzy PC ideas you push in schools, you're seriously delusional.  Life is harsh, and nothing you do is going to change that.


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that so many people cannot differentiate between "That is bad behavior" and "Therefore, it should be illegal"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the libturd _modus operandi_.  "We don't like that" or "we don't approve of that" automatically translates into "we must outlaw that" in their minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that is the American way: all of us, including bripatty, want to tell everyone else how to live.
> 
> However the responsible right to responsible left have the Constitution on this one.
Click to expand...


No, that isn't the American way.  At least it wasn't until quite recently.  That's how we know this country is swirling down the toilet bowl.  It's actually the Stalinist way.  You have to despise freedom to want to make everything you dislike or disapprove of illegal.

I have no desire to tell you how to live.  You can continue wallowing in your own shit for as long as you like.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Cecilie1200 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not gonna worry about gay kids.  I'm talking about the agenda.  That crap doesn't belong in public schools.  If parents of a child believe their child is gay then that's their problem, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you or your kid run around a public school that this gay kid attends.....telling him that he's abnormal.....then you become the problem. Public school...rightfully....will discourage you and your child from being bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Public school has no business "discouraging" personal opinions and beliefs of any sort.  They exist for academic education, not religious or moral education. * If I want that, I'll send my kids to a private school, which almost certainly will teach the opposite of what you have personally approved.
> 
> And if you think life isn't going to teach homosexuals that they're out of the norm, whatever warm-and-fuzzy PC ideas you push in schools, you're seriously delusional.  Life is harsh, and nothing you do is going to change that.
Click to expand...


The bolded: absolute agreement.

But the one does not exclude the other.

Having personal beliefs is one thing. Acting them out in a way that hurts someone else is something completely different.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> If the authority empowered to "rent" out a church sign an agreement with a couple, they should honor the agreement regardless of their sexual orientation.



Way to utterly dodge the question by pretending to be too dense and obtuse to understand it.  I have no idea why you would consider it a win to present yourself as a moron, but I have to applaud your consummate skill in pulling off that performance.  Brava!  

Now possibly you could address the REAL question of whether or not churches should be forced into making those agreements in the first place, you disingenuous poltroon.


----------



## bripat9643

Peach said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Syphilis has killed more heterosexuals in history than AIDs has killed gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syphilis wasn't curable until penicillin was discovered, so that statistic is totally meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so, AIDS is as of now, "incurable", yet treatments advance. Antibiotics were not an AHA moment either. Many years between 'discovery' and widespread treatments.
Click to expand...


Almost every single death from syphilis occurred before it was curable.  That's how it's irrelevant.


----------



## occupied

Cecilie1200 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not gonna worry about gay kids.  I'm talking about the agenda.  That crap doesn't belong in public schools.  If parents of a child believe their child is gay then that's their problem, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you or your kid run around a public school that this gay kid attends.....telling him that he's abnormal.....then you become the problem. Public school...rightfully....will discourage you and your child from being bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public school has no business "discouraging" personal opinions and beliefs of any sort.  They exist for academic education, not religious or moral education.  If I want that, I'll send my kids to a private school, which almost certainly will teach the opposite of what you have personally approved.
> 
> And if you think life isn't going to teach homosexuals that they're out of the norm, whatever warm-and-fuzzy PC ideas you push in schools, you're seriously delusional.  Life is harsh, and nothing you do is going to change that.
Click to expand...


Go ahead and send your kids to a school that never challenges any of your beliefs and start adding on a room because they will never leave.


----------



## bripat9643

Oscar Wao said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Syphilis has killed more heterosexuals in history than AIDs has killed gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syphilis wasn't curable until penicillin was discovered, so that statistic is totally meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears, sing "La la la!", and ignore the facts.
Click to expand...


Translation:  you're a moron who doesn't have anything relevant or intelligent to respond with.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ibentoken said:


> No social experiments in school.  Teach.



Agreed.  When public schools stop graduating classes with a large percentage of students who are functionally illiterate and couldn't figure sales tax for themselves if their lives depended on it, perhaps we can discuss the possibility of them teaching other things.  I don't believe I want questions of morality addressed by a group of incompetent boobs who can't adequately address 2 + 2 and subject/predicate.


----------



## bripat9643

WorldWatcher said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that the Constitution doesn't authorise "public accommodation law."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that pretty much every State has a Public Accommodation law, are you saying States don't have the power under the 10th Amendment to regulate commerce inside the State?
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


States have the authority do pass such laws.  The federal government doesn't.  I think most state laws were passed under threat by the federal government if they didn't.


----------



## bripat9643

WorldWatcher said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have a much higher incidence of venereal disease than heterosexuals because they are much more promiscuous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, which is why supporting Same-sex Civil Marriage is a good thing as it supports monogamy for those that are married.
> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


You're extremely gullible if you believe marriage terminates homosexual promiscuity.


----------



## Statistikhengst

bripat9643 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have a much higher incidence of venereal disease than heterosexuals because they are much more promiscuous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, which is why supporting Same-sex Civil Marriage is a good thing as it supports monogamy for those that are married.
> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're extremely gullible if you believe marriage terminates homosexual promiscuity.
Click to expand...


It sure as hell don't "terminate" hetero promiscuity!


----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not gonna worry about gay kids.  I'm talking about the agenda.  That crap doesn't belong in public schools.  If parents of a child believe their child is gay then that's their problem, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you or your kid run around a public school that this gay kid attends.....telling him that he's abnormal.....then you become the problem. Public school...rightfully....will discourage you and your child from being bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your kid calls some other kid abnormal, that's a discipline problem for your kid, not an excuse to brainwash all the other kids in school.
Click to expand...


Apparently, our society has completely lost the ability to understand when their personal opinions are irrelevant and unwanted, and to mind their own business.  God forbid anyone teach their children to wait until they're asked what they think of someone else's life before sharing.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Oscar Wao said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This will be moot point in a few years as more and more churches find God again and become tolerant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those churches will not be Christian.  There are many false churches that will gladly marry queers, but not a true Christian church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anthropologist: When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale Universitys history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
> 
> These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the early Christian Church wasn't a "true" Christian Church either...
Click to expand...


Ahh, yes.  "You are practicing your beliefs wrong, because someone posted THIS on the Internet.  Therefore, I have the right to force you by law to practice your beliefs the way I have determined is correct!"  One of my personal favorite arguments.

Let me draw you a picture, Punkin, since I don't think you have the brain wattage to read the previous paragraph and understand how fucking stupid you sound without a detailed Crayola diagram to explain it.

1)  No one gives a fuck what you can and can't find posted on the Internet.  Doesn't make it correct or factual.

2)  Even if it WERE proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, it has no bearing whatsoever on what other people believe, or whether or not you, in the guise of the state, have or should have any control over what they believe.  You do not "allow" people's beliefs, you do not define them, and however wrongheaded people are, they could never match the level of immorality implicit in EVER allowing others to control the dictates of an individual's conscience.

3)  If you actually have to have the morality of freedom of conscience explained to you, you are by definition incapable of understanding it, and I pity you for your incurable state of mental slavery.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Interweebs: very, very important.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Peach said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you mean just the opposite.
> 
> The fictional character, "Jesus" would not turn them away but fake christian churches would.
> 
> By the way, I notice that this thread started out asking if "churches should be forced" but now its changed to "allowed". Do the anti-Constitution RWs know the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus wouldn't turn them away from his person..but he might turn them away from the steps of the church, if he believed they were there for some other purpose than to glorify God. He wasn't very accommodating to people who exploited the church
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He turned away the money lenders, but accepted the prostitute, remember?
Click to expand...


You will notice, however, that when He accepted people despite their sins, He did still include the _caveat_, "Go and sin no more."  He accepted THEM, not their behaviors.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

alang1216 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage confers legal rights that are derived from the state.  I don't think a religious organization should be the decider of who gets legal rights.
> 
> I think marriages should only be performed by a religious institution but that marriage comes with no legal status.  The state should sanction civil unions and only those come with legal rights.  This way religions decide whom they'll marry and civil society decides who gets legal benefits.
> 
> The state should sanction a civil union between any gender or number of consenting adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, I think marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage licenses should be issued by the state with incentives to promote procreation and family formation to support the continuity, stability, and the strengthening of the fabric of society going forward. This blind egalitarianism you are pushing serves no purpose outside of itself and is irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is marriage between a man and a woman?  Is it a religious dictate?  If so which religion?  I seem to recall other cultures (native american?) allowed same sex marriage, shouldn't their traditions be respected?
> 
> If marriage is for procreation we should NOT allow marriage to anyone infertile or anyone past the age of child-bearing.  Right?
> 
> If you dislike egalitarianism I think it falls on you to show why it should not be allowed.
Click to expand...


Well yes, initially it was a religious dictate coming out of our Christian tradition here in the west. So I am talking about what the government's policy on marriage ought to be in Western Societies.

If on Indian Reservations they wish to issue same sex marriage licenses I wouldn't oppose it, I support full tribal autonomy. I don't know what tribes you speak of, but no, I don't think government policy should be reflective of the traditions of these supposed tribes, it should be reflective of our own historical traditions as emerging from European Christian civilization. 

Also for practical considerations. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose. It makes no sense to put the lifestyle on par with a union that results in children and therefore a family except to not hurt the feelings of people and be "fair". As though fairness, equality, basically FEELINGS, should trump practical considerations and reality. 

Infertile couples can still adopt, and being a man and woman still form the foundation of the nuclear family. But most people aren't infertile, and these minute exceptions to the rule in no way negate the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and family formation. 

I just outlined why homosexual couples and heterosexual couples shouldn't be treated the same. Though the burden is on you why we should treat them the same as you are making an affirmative case to change the law.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  Eye color is genetic, and I believe left or right handed is determined as an embryo.  Did you know that a female is born with all the eggs in her lifetime?  I think that would make her heterosexual by nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If homo sapiens are heterosexual by nature, and heterosexual sex is the function for human reproduction,
> 
> why do humans put so much effort into preventing pregnancy?
> 
> Is that in their nature, or is it a form of deviancy, or dysfunction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's every woman's right to make a choice on pregnancy.
Click to expand...


What a ridiculous notion.  Human beings also eat and shit by nature, but they control THOSE natural functions.  Why do leftists always have so much trouble understanding the concept of self-control and personal responsibility?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Misty said:


> Why would homosexuals want to be married by any religion that believes what they are doing is wrong?
> 
> There are plenty of non demoniational ministers or civil servants that will marry homosexuals without judgement.



They don't want to be married by a religion that believes they're wrong.  What they want is to use the law to bludgeon those religions into silence and agreement.


----------



## Kondor3

Cecilie1200 said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would homosexuals want to be married by any religion that believes what they are doing is wrong?
> 
> There are plenty of non demoniational ministers or civil servants that will marry homosexuals without judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't want to be married by a religion that believes they're wrong.  What they want is to use the law to bludgeon those religions into silence and agreement.
Click to expand...


----------



## Papageorgio

bripat9643 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that so many people cannot differentiate between "That is bad behavior" and "Therefore, it should be illegal"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the libturd _modus operandi_.  "We don't like that" or "we don't approve of that" automatically translates into "we must outlaw that" in their minds.
Click to expand...


Sadly, the intolerance of the left is all about banning or making laws against differing opinions.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't hold itself out as a public service, adult diaper lord.  Even if it did, where does the Constitution say they are forced to perform weddings for whoever asks them to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such a tall tiny human intellect for a anarcho-commie
> 
> You understand public accommodation law, and you don't like it.
> 
> No one cares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that the Constitution doesn't authorise "public accommodation law."
> 
> Did you find a good source for your diapers yet?
Click to expand...


You understand no such thing, just merely believe it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skull Pilot said:


> Any wedding performed by a religious institution should not be recognized by the state.
> 
> There should be a required civil ceremony to make a marriage legal.



There is.  It's called "purchasing and signing a marriage license in front of witnesses and filing it with the appropriate legal authorities."  What, you thought it was the pretty words that made you married?  Hell, the officiator at a wedding doesn't have to do anything but sign the license.  The words are just for emotional effect.

A pastor, or anyone with the legal power to act as officiator at a legally-recognized wedding, must follow legally-prescribed procedures and meet legal requirements in order to gain that ability.  Not just anyone has the ability to perform weddings.

And no, for you crazed leftists in the audience, meeting those legal requirements and gaining the legally-recognized authority to officiate at weddings does NOT make pastors "civil servants", any more than gaining a license to practice medicine makes a doctor a "civil servant".


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said marriage is a man and woman.  Was Jesus judgmental?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it.  Not His style.
> 
> Post the scripture please, and who supposedly wrote it.
> 
> And The Bible is not The Constitution.
> 
> The far right evangelical entitlement to legislate how people live has ended in this country.
> 
> Do notice those who reject the far right are not telling them how to live their personal lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care what you doubt.  Post your points.
Click to expand...


Iben, no one cares here what you think.  You have no points.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> babies born with social diseases .. a sure sign of homosexuality
> 
> 
> Syphillis is spread between homos as well.
> 
> And one of the distinguishing characteristics of homo love is infidelity. Within or outside marriage. As I'm sure you're aware.
> Deadliest diseases:
> Syphillis is #10
> Aids is #2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And both are spread between heterosexuals in far, far greater numbers.
> 
> Stop the silliness, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have a much higher incidence of venereal disease than heterosexuals because they are much more promiscuous.
Click to expand...


No proof, so I will simply note that if true, the number of incidents makes those of the homosexuals insignificant.

Heterosexual fuck like rabbits.  You know that.


----------



## Ibentoken

America has to be destroyed before Utopia can be erected.  Kinda like Hitler's Thousand years III Reich.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Howey said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, of course not. All they have to do is give up their non-profit status and start paying taxes like any other business.
> 
> Sock.
Click to expand...


Pretty sure being a non-profit organization does not convey control of one's mission statement, beliefs, or behavior to the government.  I feel certain I'd have heard if that clause was included anywhere in the paperwork.  Of course, I don't suffer from the apparent autophobia that all leftists seem to have, so freedom of conscience doesn't frighten me.


----------



## GISMYS

JakeStarkey said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it.  Not His style.
> 
> Post the scripture please, and who supposedly wrote it.
> 
> And The Bible is not The Constitution.
> 
> The far right evangelical entitlement to legislate how people live has ended in this country.
> 
> Do notice those who reject the far right are not telling them how to live their personal lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what you doubt.  Post your points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iben, no one cares here what you think.  You have no points.
Click to expand...


And Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him by asking, Is it lawful to divorce ones wife for any cause? He answered, Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. They said to Him, Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away? (Matthew 19:3-7, E Jesus has just defined marriage as a male (man) to a female (woman), and that's how the men to whom He was speaking understood it.


----------



## Ibentoken

JakeStarkey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And both are spread between heterosexuals in far, far greater numbers.
> 
> Stop the silliness, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have a much higher incidence of venereal disease than heterosexuals because they are much more promiscuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No proof, so I will simply note that if true, the number of incidents makes those of the homosexuals insignificant.
> 
> Heterosexual fuck like rabbits.  You know that.
Click to expand...


AIDS was first discovered in America among gay men.  Your butt buddies.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the bible really refer to "BITCH dogs"?!?!?!?!?
> 
> 
> Wow....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the latent homosexuals on the far right get all hwat emotionally when they discuss this.
> 
> Pop23, LockeJaw, and so on.  Wannabee faggots, you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling someone who is debating so-called "gay marriage" a homosexual is standard operating procedure for libturds, diaper lord.
Click to expand...


Now you know you are lying.

It is the far right tards, the reactionary loons, and the funny anarcho commies who say that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Papageorgio said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious freedom and civil rights would prevent forcing religious institutions from performing any marriage that would go against their conscience or the their religious beliefs. You can always go to a judge.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using an Android.
Click to expand...


Or you could go to one of the many churches that has abandoned their religious precepts in order to suck up to worldly interests and chase public popularity.

It's not like there's a shortage of people in the world willing to pander to delusions.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Katzndogz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is bigotry. You want it to not be.....but it is.
> 
> Time for you to catch up. The rest of us have waited long enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand.  The question isn't whether something is or isn't bigotry.  The question is whether or not you have the right to force people to adhere to YOUR personal moral standards.  You don't, nor should you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you agree that gays have no right to force someone else to adhere to their personal moral standards.
Click to expand...


Silly reactionary   Equal right to personal and civil liberty is not subject to opinion.

Step along.


----------



## Ibentoken

Poor pitiful confused creatures.  It's a shame what's happening in America.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the libturd _modus operandi_.  "We don't like that" or "we don't approve of that" automatically translates into "we must outlaw that" in their minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that is the American way: all of us, including bripatty, want to tell everyone else how to live.
> 
> However the responsible right to responsible left have the Constitution on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that isn't the American way.  At least it wasn't until quite recently.  That's how we know this country is swirling down the toilet bowl.  It's actually the Stalinist way.  You have to despise freedom to want to make everything you dislike or disapprove of illegal.  I have no desire to tell you how to live.  You can continue wallowing in your own shit for as long as you like.
Click to expand...


An anarcho commie like you certainly does believe in making others do want you want.


----------



## GISMYS

And Pharisees came up to Him(JESUS) and tested Him by asking, &#8220;Is it lawful to divorce one&#8217;s wife for any cause?&#8221; He answered, &#8220;Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 

&#8216;Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh&#8217;? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.&#8221; They said to Him, &#8220;Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?&#8221; (Matthew 19:3-7, E Jesus has just defined marriage as a male (man) to a female (woman), and that's how the men to whom He was speaking understood it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Statistikhengst said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, sex in all of it's forms is "animalistic behavior". That includes hetero-sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD'S WORD SAYS==&#9668; Hebrews 13:4 &#9658;
> Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. *WE ARE TO LIVE HIGHER THAN BITCH dogs!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the bible really refer to "BITCH dogs"?!?!?!?!?
> 
> 
> Wow....
Click to expand...


Probably not, since the phrase would be redundant, the correct definition of "bitch" being "female dog".


----------



## Ibentoken

JakeStarkey said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand.  The question isn't whether something is or isn't bigotry.  The question is whether or not you have the right to force people to adhere to YOUR personal moral standards.  You don't, nor should you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you agree that gays have no right to force someone else to adhere to their personal moral standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly reactionary   Equal right to personal and civil liberty is not subject to opinion.
> 
> Step along.
Click to expand...


I really don't care who you have sex with.  The problem is when you make it my business by forcing me to accept it against my religious Liberty in my Constitution.  Go fuck yourself.


----------



## TheJedi

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


Marriage is a legal contract between two people. It does not need to be codified by the Church to be recognized by the State. Therefore, there is no reason to force a Church to officiate gay weddings since any Judge or Mayor can do it. There are also plenty of Churches that do officiate gay weddings for those gay couples that are religious.

So, really, this thread is yet another in a long list of non-starters that have been posted as of late. Nowhere have I heard of a legal challenge to a Church that refuses to host gay weddings.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> No social experiments in school.  Teach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  When public schools stop graduating classes with a large percentage of students who are functionally illiterate and couldn't figure sales tax for themselves if their lives depended on it, perhaps we can discuss the possibility of them teaching other things.  I don't believe I want questions of morality addressed by a group of incompetent boobs who can't adequately address 2 + 2 and subject/predicate.
Click to expand...


What you think is immaterial to the subject.


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the latent homosexuals on the far right get all hwat emotionally when they discuss this.
> 
> Pop23, LockeJaw, and so on.  Wannabee faggots, you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling someone who is debating so-called "gay marriage" a homosexual is standard operating procedure for libturds, diaper lord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you know you are lying.
> 
> It is the far right tards, the reactionary loons, and the funny anarcho commies who say that.
Click to expand...


Nope.  It's always the libturds in forums like this one who accuse people of being homosexual.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat9643 said:


> States have the authority do pass such laws.  The federal government doesn't.  I think most state laws were passed under threat by the federal government if they didn't.



Of course the federal government has such a role enforcing nondiscrimination in accordance with the 14th amendment.


----------



## alan1

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



That's a retarded question.
It's like asking if a Mosque should be forced to accommodate for a Catholic wedding.


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that is the American way: all of us, including bripatty, want to tell everyone else how to live.
> 
> However the responsible right to responsible left have the Constitution on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that isn't the American way.  At least it wasn't until quite recently.  That's how we know this country is swirling down the toilet bowl.  It's actually the Stalinist way.  You have to despise freedom to want to make everything you dislike or disapprove of illegal.  I have no desire to tell you how to live.  You can continue wallowing in your own shit for as long as you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An anarcho commie like you certainly does believe in making others do want you want.
Click to expand...


ROFL!  How do you figure that?  I'm dying to see your "logic" behind this claim.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Cecilie1200 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus wouldn't turn them away from his person..but he might turn them away from the steps of the church, if he believed they were there for some other purpose than to glorify God. He wasn't very accommodating to people who exploited the church
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He turned away the money lenders, but accepted the prostitute, remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will notice, however, that when He accepted people despite their sins, He did still include the _caveat_, "Go and sin no more."  He accepted THEM, not their behaviors.
Click to expand...


He also instructed to not judge one another but instead to love one another as thy self.


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand.  The question isn't whether something is or isn't bigotry.  The question is whether or not you have the right to force people to adhere to YOUR personal moral standards.  You don't, nor should you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you agree that gays have no right to force someone else to adhere to their personal moral standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly reactionary   Equal right to personal and civil liberty is not subject to opinion.
> 
> Step along.
Click to expand...


You have no right to force anyone to accept your lifestyle, do business with you or serve you in any way.


----------



## Ibentoken

JakeStarkey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> No social experiments in school.  Teach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  When public schools stop graduating classes with a large percentage of students who are functionally illiterate and couldn't figure sales tax for themselves if their lives depended on it, perhaps we can discuss the possibility of them teaching other things.  I don't believe I want questions of morality addressed by a group of incompetent boobs who can't adequately address 2 + 2 and subject/predicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you think is immaterial to the subject.
Click to expand...


Such a cute little nazi.


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> States have the authority do pass such laws.  The federal government doesn't.  I think most state laws were passed under threat by the federal government if they didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the federal government has such a role enforcing nondiscrimination in accordance with the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...


Nope.  The 14th amendment only mandates equal protection of the laws.  It prevents the government from discriminating, not private citizens.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Oscar Wao said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such an angry person you are after reading the bible.  What's your real problem?  You're attracted to  the same sex but you're fighting it is my guess.  Read what Jesus said about not being judgemental in the meantime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said marriage is a man and woman.  Was Jesus judgmental?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you read Matthew 19 further, He also talks about eunuchs, which in the Greek is translated to homosexuals.
Click to expand...


Nice try, Sparkles, but no.  Once again, just because you can find someone online saying what you want to hear does NOT make it true.

The word "eunuch" comes from both Latin and Greek roots; the Greek word "eunukhous" translates to "castrated man", although it derived its own roots from the words "eune", meaning "bed", and "okhos", meaning "keeper of".  Eunuchs, of course, were popular as harem guards, since they could obviously be trusted not to violate the women.


----------



## Ibentoken

JakeStarkey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> States have the authority do pass such laws.  The federal government doesn't.  I think most state laws were passed under threat by the federal government if they didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the federal government has such a role enforcing nondiscr
> imination in accordance with the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...


Bull.  Shove your federal government enforcement up your lying faggot ass.


----------



## Peach

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> States have the authority do pass such laws.  The federal government doesn't.  I think most state laws were passed under threat by the federal government if they didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the federal government has such a role enforcing nondiscrimination in accordance with the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  The 14th amendment only mandates equal protection of the laws.  It prevents the government from discriminating, not private citizens.
Click to expand...


Unless they are involved in Interstate Commerce, or run public businesses. Of course churches are not businesses, and cannot be forced to violate their faith, a moot point.


----------



## Cecilie1200

alang1216 said:


> Marriage confers legal rights that are derived from the state.  I don't think a religious organization should be the decider of who gets legal rights.
> 
> I think marriages should only be performed by a religious institution but that marriage comes with no legal status.  The state should sanction civil unions and only those come with legal rights.  This way religions decide whom they'll marry and civil society decides who gets legal benefits.
> 
> The state should sanction a civil union between any gender or number of consenting adults.



Interesting.  So what you're telling us is that you equate not wanting to personally participate in someone's life as denying him the ability to live that life as he wishes.

Of course, you're also telling us you are utterly ignorant of how marriages work in the legal sense, and therefore should be listened to and taken seriously no more than my five-year-old would be.

Here's a tip:  Just because you have the right to express uninformed and laughably stupid opinions in public doesn't make it a good idea.


----------



## Cecilie1200

RWHeathenGamer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you think, "Ah hah, but RACE!" is some sort of universal trump card to play, a boundary over which nothing can EVER be allowed to cross and the defense of which is sacrosanct.
> 
> Let me advance what is probably a radical notion to you.  It is completely legal for someone to be an asshole, and even a racist asshole, and while it is repugnant and immoral behavior for one to be such, it is far more repugnant and immoral for someone to try to impose by law their own preferred behaviors onto said racist asshole.
> 
> I would rather live in a society where people have the freedom to be ignorant bigots than one where everyone is a well-behaved slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good response.
> 
> Awesome post, great job. I agree 100%, finally someone gets it.
> 
> All I was trying to do is get someone to be consistent and and not ignore the question, because the issues are interconnected. This is a question of free association and property rights.
> 
> It is not a question of "my FEELINGS!" or "I am owed goods and services by merely existing(public accommodations)" in regards to liberal, or in the case of so called conservatives who say "race and sexual orientation are two different things, how could you compare them, btw did I tell you I would love for my kids to get mixed race married".
> 
> Glad there is someone on the boards that actually believes in the novel idea of freedom and negative liberties.
Click to expand...


It doesn't take very much time living as an adult to realize that 1) life is unfair, 2) human beings frequently suck, and 3) any attempt to change 1 and 2 by legislation will be futile and ultimately make them both worse.


----------



## Ibentoken

Fun to watch the pitiful creatures demand equality and rights while trampling and abusing constitutional rights of others.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Katzndogz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is bigotry. You want it to not be.....but it is.
> 
> Time for you to catch up. The rest of us have waited long enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand.  The question isn't whether something is or isn't bigotry.  The question is whether or not you have the right to force people to adhere to YOUR personal moral standards.  You don't, nor should you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you agree that gays have no right to force someone else to adhere to their personal moral standards.
Click to expand...


Um, pretty sure I just said that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

alang1216 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage confers legal rights that are derived from the state.  I don't think a religious organization should be the decider of who gets legal rights.
> 
> I think marriages should only be performed by a religious institution but that marriage comes with no legal status.  The state should sanction civil unions and only those come with legal rights.  This way religions decide whom they'll marry and civil society decides who gets legal benefits.
> 
> The state should sanction a civil union between any gender or number of consenting adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, I think marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage licenses should be issued by the state with incentives to promote procreation and family formation to support the continuity, stability, and the strengthening of the fabric of society going forward. This blind egalitarianism you are pushing serves no purpose outside of itself and is irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is marriage between a man and a woman?  Is it a religious dictate?  If so which religion?  I seem to recall other cultures (native american?) allowed same sex marriage, shouldn't their traditions be respected?
> 
> If marriage is for procreation we should NOT allow marriage to anyone infertile or anyone past the age of child-bearing.  Right?
> 
> If you dislike egalitarianism I think it falls on you to show why it should not be allowed.
Click to expand...


What part of the phrase "I think" was confusing to you when he used it?

Of course, you apparently didn't understand anything else he said, so perhaps you just have a reading comprehension problem in general.


----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the libturd _modus operandi_.  "We don't like that" or "we don't approve of that" automatically translates into "we must outlaw that" in their minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that is the American way: all of us, including bripatty, want to tell everyone else how to live.
> 
> However the responsible right to responsible left have the Constitution on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that isn't the American way.  At least it wasn't until quite recently.  That's how we know this country is swirling down the toilet bowl.  It's actually the Stalinist way.  You have to despise freedom to want to make everything you dislike or disapprove of illegal.
> 
> I have no desire to tell you how to live.  You can continue wallowing in your own shit for as long as you like.
Click to expand...


Pretty sure the American Way is to resist the natural human urges to judge and to understand when something is none of your damned business and go tend to your own knitting.

We didn't coin the phrase "rugged individualism" for nothing.

I myself would consider it a great personal favor if people would stop telling me _ad nauseam_ about their personal business so that I could get on with utterly ignoring them and not caring.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Statistikhengst said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you or your kid run around a public school that this gay kid attends.....telling him that he's abnormal.....then you become the problem. Public school...rightfully....will discourage you and your child from being bigots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Public school has no business "discouraging" personal opinions and beliefs of any sort.  They exist for academic education, not religious or moral education. * If I want that, I'll send my kids to a private school, which almost certainly will teach the opposite of what you have personally approved.
> 
> And if you think life isn't going to teach homosexuals that they're out of the norm, whatever warm-and-fuzzy PC ideas you push in schools, you're seriously delusional.  Life is harsh, and nothing you do is going to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bolded: absolute agreement.
> 
> But the one does not exclude the other.
> 
> Having personal beliefs is one thing. Acting them out in a way that hurts someone else is something completely different.
Click to expand...


You need to learn the difference between making someone unhappy and actually harming them, I think.

I don't have a problem with schools insisting that children should be civil and polite to each other and keep their personal opinions to themselves (particularly when not requested).  That's what I teach my children myself, and those are important behaviors for social animals such as humans.  But there's a big difference between teaching children when and where it's appropriate to express opinions, and teaching them whether or not their opinions are "good" or "bad".

On the other hand, it's also important for children to learn that they have neither the right to nor the reasonable expectation of universal approbation, and to adjust to the fact that some people aren't going to like them or be nice to them, and that's just how the world works.

No one can hurt me without my permission.  - Ghandi


----------



## ron4342

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?


No, they should not.  Church's are basically business' and should have the right to deny people from marrying in the church.  The thing is, they would be stupid not to allow gay marriages.  Getting married in a church is not free.  In other words if the person in charge of the church says no to gay marriage in they church they are turning down money that would help the church.


----------



## GISMYS

GOD'S WORD SAYS,"WHAT PROFIT IS IT TO YOU TO GAIN ALL THE GOLD AND RICHES OF THE WORLD BUT LOSE YOUR SOUL"!!! THERE ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Think!


----------



## NYcarbineer

Katzndogz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is bigotry. You want it to not be.....but it is.
> 
> Time for you to catch up. The rest of us have waited long enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand.  The question isn't whether something is or isn't bigotry.  The question is whether or not you have the right to force people to adhere to YOUR personal moral standards.  You don't, nor should you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you agree that gays have no right to force someone else to adhere to their personal moral standards.
Click to expand...


No one's forcing you to become a lesbian.


----------



## koshergrl

ron4342 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> No, they should not.  Church's are basically business' and should have the right to deny people from marrying in the church.  The thing is, they would be stupid not to allow gay marriages.  Getting married in a church is not free.  In other words if the person in charge of the church says no to gay marriage in they church they are turning down money that would help the church.
Click to expand...


Er...no, churches are not business in the traditional sense. Their purpose is not to turn a profit. If it was we'd have disintegrated long ago and Christianity would not exist.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ron4342 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> No, they should not.  Church's are basically business' and should have the right to deny people from marrying in the church.  The thing is, they would be stupid not to allow gay marriages.  Getting married in a church is not free.  In other words if the person in charge of the church says no to gay marriage in they church they are turning down money that would help the church.
Click to expand...


Churches are NOT businesses.  They are non-profit charitable organizations, and as such, making money is not on their list of priorities.  If it was, I don't believe I would care to attend that church.

Churches exist to promote spiritual well-being among their adherents according to their individual definitions of what constitutes "spiritual well-being".  It's a little hard to do that if you're contradicting those definitions in order to make money.


----------



## NYcarbineer

alang1216 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage confers legal rights that are derived from the state.  I don't think a religious organization should be the decider of who gets legal rights.
> 
> I think marriages should only be performed by a religious institution but that marriage comes with no legal status.  The state should sanction civil unions and only those come with legal rights.  This way religions decide whom they'll marry and civil society decides who gets legal benefits.
> 
> The state should sanction a civil union between any gender or number of consenting adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, I think marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage licenses should be issued by the state with incentives to promote procreation and family formation to support the continuity, stability, and the strengthening of the fabric of society going forward. This blind egalitarianism you are pushing serves no purpose outside of itself and is irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is marriage between a man and a woman?  Is it a religious dictate?  If so which religion?  I seem to recall other cultures (native american?) allowed same sex marriage, shouldn't their traditions be respected?
> 
> If marriage is for procreation we should NOT allow marriage to anyone infertile or anyone past the age of child-bearing.  Right?
> 
> If you dislike egalitarianism I think it falls on you to show why it should not be allowed.
Click to expand...


They can't.  No one has ever made a good argument against marriage equality because there is none.

De facto same sex marriage has always existed.  The fact that legal or religious systems have not recognized them, or outlawed them, or persecuted them, 

is irrelevant.


----------



## NYcarbineer

It's quite amusing how the bigots argue so hard over an issue they've already lost on.


----------



## GISMYS

NYcarbineer said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, I think marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage licenses should be issued by the state with incentives to promote procreation and family formation to support the continuity, stability, and the strengthening of the fabric of society going forward. This blind egalitarianism you are pushing serves no purpose outside of itself and is irrational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is marriage between a man and a woman?  Is it a religious dictate?  If so which religion?  I seem to recall other cultures (native american?) allowed same sex marriage, shouldn't their traditions be respected?
> 
> If marriage is for procreation we should NOT allow marriage to anyone infertile or anyone past the age of child-bearing.  Right?
> 
> If you dislike egalitarianism I think it falls on you to show why it should not be allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can't.  No one has ever made a good argument against marriage equality because there is none.
> 
> De facto same sex marriage has always existed.  The fact that legal or religious systems have not recognized them, or outlawed them, or persecuted them,
> 
> is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


ALMIGHTY GOD MAKES THE RULES THAT COUNT FOR ETERNITY NOT little man and ALMIGHTY GOD SAYS SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION.


----------



## ron4342

GISMYS said:


> GOD'S WORD SAYS,"WHAT PROFIT IS IT TO YOU TO GAIN ALL THE GOLD AND RICHES OF THE WORLD BUT LOSE YOUR SOUL"!!! THERE ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Think!


Oh really!!!!!  Have you discussed this with your Senators or Representatives.  How about your governor, mayor, and city councilmen.  How about people like Pat Robertson or some of the other evangelicals?
In case you haven't been keeping track almost every day their is a politician being caught using his office for personal profit.  Do you really think the ministers and other religious leaders are above that.  Check out some of their private jets and get back to me.


----------



## GISMYS

ron4342 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD'S WORD SAYS,"WHAT PROFIT IS IT TO YOU TO GAIN ALL THE GOLD AND RICHES OF THE WORLD BUT LOSE YOUR SOUL"!!! THERE ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Think!
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really!!!!!  Have you discussed this with your Senators or Representatives.  How about your governor, mayor, and city councilmen.  How about people like Pat Robertson or some of the other evangelicals?
> In case you haven't been keeping track almost every day their is a politician being caught using his office for personal profit.  Do you really think the ministers and other religious leaders are above that.  Check out some of their private jets and get back to me.
Click to expand...


YES!!! GOD LOVES TO BLESS HIS FAMILY WITH MANY GIFTS,HE HAS SURE BLESSED ME!!!and you??


----------



## Katzndogz

ron4342 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> No, they should not.  Church's are basically business' and should have the right to deny people from marrying in the church.  The thing is, they would be stupid not to allow gay marriages.  Getting married in a church is not free.  In other words if the person in charge of the church says no to gay marriage in they church they are turning down money that would help the church.
Click to expand...


That's why so many churches preach against elevating love of money to sin and evil.  If a church would sell its Christian principles like that, it has no business being a church.


----------



## ron4342

GISMYS said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD'S WORD SAYS,"WHAT PROFIT IS IT TO YOU TO GAIN ALL THE GOLD AND RICHES OF THE WORLD BUT LOSE YOUR SOUL"!!! THERE ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Think!
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really!!!!!  Have you discussed this with your Senators or Representatives.  How about your governor, mayor, and city councilmen.  How about people like Pat Robertson or some of the other evangelicals?
> In case you haven't been keeping track almost every day their is a politician being caught using his office for personal profit.  Do you really think the ministers and other religious leaders are above that.  Check out some of their private jets and get back to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! GOD LOVES TO BLESS HIS FAMILY WITH MANY GIFTS,HE HAS SURE BLESSED ME!!!and you??
Click to expand...

Arn't you still supposed to be in church.  Remember, you have Bible school today.


----------



## Political Junky

Ibentoken said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The claim that democracy is the cure - all for the ills of society is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy gave us the right to vote, not God.  God doesn't actually exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to our founders.
Click to expand...

Who was the last American politician that said they didn't believe in God?


----------



## ron4342

Katzndogz said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> No, they should not.  Church's are basically business' and should have the right to deny people from marrying in the church.  The thing is, they would be stupid not to allow gay marriages.  Getting married in a church is not free.  In other words if the person in charge of the church says no to gay marriage in they church they are turning down money that would help the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why so many churches preach against elevating love of money to sin and evil.  If a church would sell its Christian principles like that, it has no business being a church.
Click to expand...

Does your church take up collections?  How about if you offered it a $1000 donation.  Do you think they would accept it?


----------



## GISMYS

ron4342 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they should not.  Church's are basically business' and should have the right to deny people from marrying in the church.  The thing is, they would be stupid not to allow gay marriages.  Getting married in a church is not free.  In other words if the person in charge of the church says no to gay marriage in they church they are turning down money that would help the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why so many churches preach against elevating love of money to sin and evil.  If a church would sell its Christian principles like that, it has no business being a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does your church take up collections?  How about if you offered it a $1000 donation.  Do you think they would accept it?
Click to expand...


need and use are not the same as love. THE LOVE OF MONEY IS EVIL,IF YOU LOVE MONEY AND PUT YOUR TRUST IN WEALTH YOU WILL NOT LOVE AND TRUST GOD!!!


----------



## bripat9643

NYcarbineer said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, I think marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage licenses should be issued by the state with incentives to promote procreation and family formation to support the continuity, stability, and the strengthening of the fabric of society going forward. This blind egalitarianism you are pushing serves no purpose outside of itself and is irrational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is marriage between a man and a woman?  Is it a religious dictate?  If so which religion?  I seem to recall other cultures (native american?) allowed same sex marriage, shouldn't their traditions be respected?
> 
> If marriage is for procreation we should NOT allow marriage to anyone infertile or anyone past the age of child-bearing.  Right?
> 
> If you dislike egalitarianism I think it falls on you to show why it should not be allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can't.  No one has ever made a good argument against marriage equality because there is none.
> 
> De facto same sex marriage has always existed.  The fact that legal or religious systems have not recognized them, or outlawed them, or persecuted them,
> 
> is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Plenty of good arguments against the oxymoron known as "gay marriage" have been made.  You simply label any argument against "gay marriage" as "not good."

What the hell is "de facto gay marriage?"


----------



## koshergrl

I think he means queers who live together.


----------



## Ibentoken

Here's a man who gets it.
Abstinent gay man: Gay ?marriage? is really about ?incremental totalitarianism? | News | LifeSite


----------



## Gracie

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



No. Religion, faiths, beliefs are individual. If gays wish to be married then they need to go to a church that believes the same thing they do. Same with businesses that have no desire to serve gay customers. There are plenty of gay business that need the client base...they can go there but forcing someone paying taxes, the overhead of a business, etc is wrong.


----------



## Ibentoken

Gracie said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Religion, faiths, beliefs are individual. If gays wish to be married then they need to go to a church that believes the same thing they do. Same with businesses that have no desire to serve gay customers. There are plenty of gay business that need the client base...they can go there but forcing someone paying taxes, the overhead of a business, etc is wrong.
Click to expand...


Of course it's wrong.  That's why they do it.  They're pawns for totalitarianism.  This is about submission.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Kondor3 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any wedding performed by a religious institution should not be recognized by the state.
> 
> There should be a required civil ceremony to make a marriage legal.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that the laws of most jurisdictions, world-wide, disagree with you.
Click to expand...


Not in the united states.

A minister or priest ends the ceremony with "By the power vested in me by the state of _____, I now pronounce......."

No state should be giving the clergy any legal power.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Papageorgio said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any wedding performed by a religious institution should not be recognized by the state.
> 
> There should be a required civil ceremony to make a marriage legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't need a ceremony, just getting a license and having it signed by a judge should be sufficent.
Click to expand...


Yeah I'll give you that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> States have the authority do pass such laws.  The federal government doesn't.  I think most state laws were passed under threat by the federal government if they didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the federal government has such a role enforcing nondiscr
> imination in accordance with the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  Shove your federal government enforcement up your lying faggot ass.
Click to expand...


Sexual flaming by the far right means they know they have lost once again.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Peach said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the federal government has such a role enforcing nondiscrimination in accordance with the 14th amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  The 14th amendment only mandates equal protection of the laws.  It prevents the government from discriminating, not private citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless they are involved in Interstate Commerce, or run public businesses. Of course churches are not businesses, and cannot be forced to violate their faith, a moot point.
Click to expand...


The 14th does prevent citizens in public business from discriminating.

Tough that, bripat.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you think, "Ah hah, but RACE!" is some sort of universal trump card to play, a boundary over which nothing can EVER be allowed to cross and the defense of which is sacrosanct.
> 
> Let me advance what is probably a radical notion to you.  It is completely legal for someone to be an asshole, and even a racist asshole, and while it is repugnant and immoral behavior for one to be such, it is far more repugnant and immoral for someone to try to impose by law their own preferred behaviors onto said racist asshole.
> 
> I would rather live in a society where people have the freedom to be ignorant bigots than one where everyone is a well-behaved slave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would rather live in the segregated south than modern day America.
> 
> No surprise there.  You're an excellent representative of modern day conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of segregation........Tell us all about the inner city black ghettos in big northern democrat run cities.
Click to expand...


Note that one city is still under court-ordered school integration.  That  city is *Boston!*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> Fun to watch the pitiful creatures demand equality and rights while trampling and abusing constitutional rights of others.



I know, Iben, it is pitiful for the far right to cry and fart.

Yes, the cons will fail in discriminating against those they don't like.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JakeStarkey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that so many people cannot differentiate between "That is bad behavior" and "Therefore, it should be illegal"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the libturd _modus operandi_.  "We don't like that" or "we don't approve of that" automatically translates into "we must outlaw that" in their minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that is the American way: all of us, including bripatty, want to tell everyone else how to live.
> 
> However the responsible right to responsible left have the Constitution on this one.
Click to expand...


See, you're projecting again!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Cecilie1200 said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> No, they should not.  Church's are basically business' and should have the right to deny people from marrying in the church.  The thing is, they would be stupid not to allow gay marriages.  Getting married in a church is not free.  In other words if the person in charge of the church says no to gay marriage in they church they are turning down money that would help the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches are NOT businesses.  They are non-profit charitable organizations, and as such, making money is not on their list of priorities.  If it was, I don't believe I would care to attend that church.
> 
> Churches exist to promote spiritual well-being among their adherents according to their individual definitions of what constitutes "spiritual well-being".  It's a little hard to do that if you're contradicting those definitions in order to make money.
Click to expand...


Far right silliness.

If a church sells its facilities for weddings, then, yes, it is a business.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Plenty of churches offer marriage equality.

Many don't.

If a church makes money from offering its facilities for marriages, that it must follow public accommodation laws.

To you who don't like that: no one of importance cares.


----------



## Mac1958

.

Businesses should be forced to do whatever the American Left says they should be forced to do.

They're all mean and evil and greedy and they didn't build that and that didn't earn that and roads and bridges 'n stuff.

Churches too!

I thought we all already stipulated to that.

.


----------



## Papageorgio

JakeStarkey said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the federal government has such a role enforcing nondiscr
> imination in accordance with the 14th amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  Shove your federal government enforcement up your lying faggot ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sexual flaming by the far right means they know they have lost once again.
Click to expand...


Jake and his left wing drama.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## Papageorgio

JakeStarkey said:


> Plenty of churches offer marriage equality.
> 
> Many don't.
> 
> If a church makes money from offering its facilities for marriages, that it must follow public accommodation laws.
> 
> To you who don't like that: no one of importance cares.



Which court decided that?


----------



## koshergrl

Churches don't*make money* from offering their facilities for marriages. 

Unless they rent out accomodations. In which case, obviously they aren't going to rent to those they don't want to. Which is their right. 

But churches accommodate marriages for their congregations and their families. They aren't obligated to perform marriages for any asshole off the street.


----------



## Papageorgio

I don't understand why people would want to be married by a person or a religion that doesn't subscribe to the same line of thought. Unless it is a big fuck you, then it is just agenda pushing and proves what many have maintained all along.


----------



## Papageorgio

koshergrl said:


> Churches don't*make money* from offering their facilities for marriages.
> 
> Unless they rent out accomodations. In which case, obviously they aren't going to rent to those they don't want to. Which is their right.
> 
> But churches accommodate marriages for their congregations and their families. They aren't obligated to perform marriages for any asshole off the street.



If they are non-profit, then they are not a business, they are organization.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## Kosh

Papageorgio said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches don't*make money* from offering their facilities for marriages.
> 
> Unless they rent out accomodations. In which case, obviously they aren't going to rent to those they don't want to. Which is their right.
> 
> But churches accommodate marriages for their congregations and their families. They aren't obligated to perform marriages for any asshole off the street.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are non-profit, then they are not a business, they are organization.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using an Android.
Click to expand...


Incorrect..

Blue Cross Blue Shield is NON-Profit and yet the far left wants to destroy them..


----------



## alang1216

GISMYS said:


> ALMIGHTY GOD MAKES THE RULES THAT COUNT FOR ETERNITY NOT little man and ALMIGHTY GOD SAYS SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION.



Has God spoken directly to you or are you just putting your faith in what others have told you?

and why are you shouting?


----------



## Ibentoken

JakeStarkey said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the federal government has such a role enforcing nondiscr
> imination in accordance with the 14th amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  Shove your federal government enforcement up your lying faggot ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sexual flaming by the far right means they know they have lost once again.
Click to expand...


That's funny.  I'll be here after election day to laugh at you mighty federal government getting put back where it belongs.


----------



## GISMYS

alang1216 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALMIGHTY GOD MAKES THE RULES THAT COUNT FOR ETERNITY NOT little man and ALMIGHTY GOD SAYS SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has God spoken directly to you or are you just putting your faith in what others have told you?
> 
> and why are you shouting?
Click to expand...


READ GOD'S ETERNAL LIVING WORD IF YOU WANT TO HEAR GOD'S WORDS=I DO!!! And you??


----------



## Ibentoken

JakeStarkey said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fun to watch the pitiful creatures demand equality and rights while trampling and abusing constitutional rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, Iben, it is pitiful for the far right to cry and fart.
> 
> Yes, the cons will fail in discriminating against those they don't like.
Click to expand...


You pitiful ignorant twit.


----------



## Ibentoken

Papageorgio said:


> I don't understand why people would want to be married by a person or a religion that doesn't subscribe to the same line of thought. Unless it is a big fuck you, then it is just agenda pushing and proves what many have maintained all along.



Yes, it's about submission.


----------



## Kondor3

Judgment Day's a-comin'...

For the _Homosexual Mafia_, it begins January 20, 2017...


----------



## koshergrl

They are trying to pretend churches are a public marriage business, and they are not. 

Progressives are always about *redefining* things so they can remove freedom, or justify murder.

In this case, they are attempting to justify state control over churches. To follow, imprisonment and murder of those who dare object.


----------



## Oscar Wao

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said marriage is a man and woman.  Was Jesus judgmental?
> 
> 
> 
> If you read Matthew 19 further, He also talks about eunuchs, which in the Greek is translated to homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, Sparkles, but no.  Once again, just because you can find someone online saying what you want to hear does NOT make it true.
> 
> The word "eunuch" comes from both Latin and Greek roots; the Greek word "eunukhous" translates to "castrated man", although it derived its own roots from the words "eune", meaning "bed", and "okhos", meaning "keeper of".  Eunuchs, of course, were popular as harem guards, since they could obviously be trusted not to violate the women.
Click to expand...

http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/cardiff.htm

Homosexual eunuchs, according to history, were often gay men or lesbians.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Papageorgio said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  Shove your federal government enforcement up your lying faggot ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual flaming by the far right means they know they have lost once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake and his left wing drama.
Click to expand...


The flamers are far right fools.  Not to worry: they were doused.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Papageorgio said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of churches offer marriage equality.
> 
> Many don't.
> 
> If a church makes money from offering its facilities for marriages, that it must follow public accommodation laws.
> 
> To you who don't like that: no one of importance cares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which court decided that?
Click to expand...


Public accommodations law, sonny.


----------



## koshergrl

Good grief, what a ridiculous lefty twit you are fake.


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they should not.  Church's are basically business' and should have the right to deny people from marrying in the church.  The thing is, they would be stupid not to allow gay marriages.  Getting married in a church is not free.  In other words if the person in charge of the church says no to gay marriage in they church they are turning down money that would help the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are NOT businesses.  They are non-profit charitable organizations, and as such, making money is not on their list of priorities.  If it was, I don't believe I would care to attend that church.
> 
> Churches exist to promote spiritual well-being among their adherents according to their individual definitions of what constitutes "spiritual well-being".  It's a little hard to do that if you're contradicting those definitions in order to make money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Far right silliness.
> 
> If a church sells its facilities for weddings, then, yes, it is a business.
Click to expand...


If a church sells doughnuts after mass, does that make it a business?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  Shove your federal government enforcement up your lying faggot ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual flaming by the far right means they know they have lost once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's funny.  I'll be here after election day to laugh at you mighty federal government getting put back where it belongs.
Click to expand...


  You clown.  Iben, that does not make any sense.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fun to watch the pitiful creatures demand equality and rights while trampling and abusing constitutional rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, Iben, it is pitiful for the far right to cry and fart.
> 
> Yes, the cons will fail in discriminating against those they don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pitiful ignorant twit.
Click to expand...


Projecting again.  Someday you may grow up


----------



## koshergrl

It might not make sense to a statist mole..but the majority knows what he means.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kondor3 said:


> Judgment Day's a-comin'...
> 
> For the _Homosexual Mafia_, it begins January 20, 2017...



You hetero-sexuals are going to be amazed to have the rest of America standing on your face that day.


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  The 14th amendment only mandates equal protection of the laws.  It prevents the government from discriminating, not private citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless they are involved in Interstate Commerce, or run public businesses. Of course churches are not businesses, and cannot be forced to violate their faith, a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th does prevent citizens in public business from discriminating.
> 
> Tough that, bripat.
Click to expand...


Not even the Supreme Court has ruled that way, diaper lord.

As always, you simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat9643 said:


> If a church sells doughnuts after mass, does that make it a business?



ah, another anarcho-commie false equivalency


----------



## bripat9643

Peach said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the federal government has such a role enforcing nondiscrimination in accordance with the 14th amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  The 14th amendment only mandates equal protection of the laws.  It prevents the government from discriminating, not private citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless they are involved in Interstate Commerce, or run public businesses. Of course churches are not businesses, and cannot be forced to violate their faith, a moot point.
Click to expand...


The interstate commerce justification by the SC is a load of horsecrap.  When written, interstate commerce did not mean any kind of business activity whatsoever.  It referred only the the transportation and exchange of goods across state lines.  It gave the federal government the authority only to regulate those activities.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The statist here is kg who wants to use big government to enforce her moral beliefs.

Won't happen, sis.


----------



## Kondor3

JakeStarkey said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judgment Day's a-comin'...
> 
> For the _Homosexual Mafia_, it begins January 20, 2017...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hetero-sexuals are going to be amazed to have the rest of America standing on your face that day.
Click to expand...

Given that a minimum of 97% of America is heterosexual, that doesn't sound very intimidating... 

Please continue to think in those terms... arrogance and hubris on your part will work in favor of the rest of us, once the window of opportunity opens once again, for some fancy legal juggling and footwork.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless they are involved in Interstate Commerce, or run public businesses. Of course churches are not businesses, and cannot be forced to violate their faith, a moot point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th does prevent citizens in public business from discriminating.
> 
> Tough that, bripat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even the Supreme Court has ruled that way, diaper lord.
> 
> As always, you simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Click to expand...


You don't know what you are talking about.  You don't get to discriminate in public service.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat9643 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  The 14th amendment only mandates equal protection of the laws.  It prevents the government from discriminating, not private citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless they are involved in Interstate Commerce, or run public businesses. Of course churches are not businesses, and cannot be forced to violate their faith, a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The interstate commerce justification by the SC is a load of horsecrap.  When written, interstate commerce did not mean any kind of business activity whatsoever.  It referred only the the transportation and exchange of goods across state lines.  It gave the federal government the authority only to regulate those activities.
Click to expand...


Your opinion and 50 cents won't even buy a cup of coffee.

No one is concerned about an uninformed anarcho-commie's opinion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kondor3 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judgment Day's a-comin'...
> 
> For the _Homosexual Mafia_, it begins January 20, 2017...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hetero-sexuals are going to be amazed to have the rest of America standing on your face that day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given that a minimum of 97% of America is heterosexual, that doesn't sound very intimidating...
> 
> Please continue to think in those terms... arrogance and hubris on your part will work in favor of the rest of us, once the window of opportunity opens once again, for some fancy legal juggling and footwork.
Click to expand...


Yes, your arrogance and hubris is setting you and the failures like you up for a big fall.

Most heterosexuals support marriage equality

You freak false Christians of the far right no longer get to dictate what other people do in their lives.  Tough that.


----------



## Kondor3

JakeStarkey said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hetero-sexuals are going to be amazed to have the rest of America standing on your face that day.
> 
> 
> 
> Given that a minimum of 97% of America is heterosexual, that doesn't sound very intimidating...
> 
> Please continue to think in those terms... arrogance and hubris on your part will work in favor of the rest of us, once the window of opportunity opens once again, for some fancy legal juggling and footwork.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, your arrogance and hubris is setting you and the failures like you up for a big fall.
> 
> Most heterosexuals support marriage equality
> 
> You freak false Christians of the far right no longer get to dictate what other people do in their lives.  Tough that.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your feedback.

January 20, 2017 approach-eth... tick... tick... tick...


----------



## Noomi

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



No. Churches can choose to marry whomever, and refuse whomever.


----------



## Noomi

Ibentoken said:


> I'm not.  The queers are demanding we accept their behavior as normal.  You're confused.



It is normal.


----------



## koshergrl

What "public service" does the church provide?

And who pays them for it?


----------



## Kosh

Noomi said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not.  The queers are demanding we accept their behavior as normal.  You're confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is normal.
Click to expand...


Only if you want to punish the church and use the term "marriage" as well as plunder the Social Security system..


----------



## koshergrl

"public service noun
: the business of supplying something (such as electricity, gas, or transportation) to the members of a community

: something that is done to help people rather than to make a profit

: work that someone does as part of a government : the work done by public servants."

Public service - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## eflatminor

KNB said:


> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.



Let me get this straight...

You're claiming that Hell is an actual place in which people, and apparently buildings meant for religious worship, can burn for the sin of lying...while also saying that a believe in such matters constitutes a "lie".

Are you fucking retarded?


----------



## Noomi

Kosh said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not.  The queers are demanding we accept their behavior as normal.  You're confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is normal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you want to punish the church and use the term "marriage" as well as plunder the Social Security system..
Click to expand...


Straight people have been doing that for decades.


----------



## Noomi

If a church gets taxpayers money then they have to hold gay weddings. But if not then they have the right to choose.


----------



## WorldWatcher

JakeStarkey said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  The 14th amendment only mandates equal protection of the laws.  It prevents the government from discriminating, not private citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless they are involved in Interstate Commerce, or run public businesses. Of course churches are not businesses, and cannot be forced to violate their faith, a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th does prevent citizens in public business from discriminating.
> 
> Tough that, bripat.
Click to expand...



No Jake it doesn't.  The 14th Amendment limits the functions of government when it comes to discrimination against it's citizens.

Public Business conduct is governed under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution based on the interstate nature of pretty much every business relying out out of state traffic, goods, and services.

At the State level State governance of Public Businesses is based on the 10th Amendment and the State power to regulate commerce internal to the State.

Regulation of private business does not fall under the 14th Amendment.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher

bripat9643 said:


> If a church sells doughnuts after mass, does that make it a business?




Depends.


If the Church is selling them only to members of the congregation after mass, probably not.

On the other hand if they are taking the donuts to the local MegaMart parking lot and setting up a booth for sale to the general public those actions would probably fall under State Public Accommodation laws.  The specifics would vary by State.



>>>>


----------



## Freewill

Noomi said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not.  The queers are demanding we accept their behavior as normal.  You're confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is normal.
Click to expand...


I don't know what you use for definitions but I use a dictionary.  And if you think sodomy, as practiced by gay men, is normal, as usual, typical or expected, then I suggest you are very wrong.

nor·mal
/&#712;nôrm&#601;l/
adjective

adjective: normal
1. conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
"it's quite normal for puppies to bolt their food"

synonyms: usual, standard, ordinary, customary, conventional, habitual, accustomed, expected, wonted; More


----------



## koshergrl

Noomi said:


> If a church gets taxpayers money then they have to hold gay weddings. But if not then they have the right to choose.



Does this apply to welfare/foodstamp recipients as well?

If you receive taxpayer's money, then you have to accomodate homeless dudes, say....


----------



## Freewill

JakeStarkey said:


> The statist here is kg who wants to use big government to enforce her moral beliefs.
> 
> Won't happen, sis.



Actually fake isn't it just the opposite?  YOU want to force YOUR morals onto bakers, Priest, Rabbis, and anyone else who doesn't believe that anal sex is natural.  You will have it no other way then YOUR way.


----------



## GISMYS

Freewill said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The statist here is kg who wants to use big government to enforce her moral beliefs.
> 
> Won't happen, sis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually fake isn't it just the opposite?  YOU want to force YOUR morals onto bakers, Priest, Rabbis, and anyone else who doesn't believe that anal sex is natural.  You will have it no other way then YOUR way.
Click to expand...


YES PERVERTS They were fully aware of Gods death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.


----------



## Noomi

GISMYS said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The statist here is kg who wants to use big government to enforce her moral beliefs.
> 
> Won't happen, sis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually fake isn't it just the opposite?  YOU want to force YOUR morals onto bakers, Priest, Rabbis, and anyone else who doesn't believe that anal sex is natural.  You will have it no other way then YOUR way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES PERVERTS They were fully aware of Gods death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
Click to expand...


Then why hasn't God killed any of the gay people? They are still alive.


----------



## koshergrl

If we refuse to endorse anal screwing, the homos  will (are) bombard us with images and comments about it, until we become so desensitized to it, we will no longer   notice when lefty loons are screwing in the streets, schools and on our doorsteps.


----------



## Ibentoken

JakeStarkey said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual flaming by the far right means they know they have lost once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake and his left wing drama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The flamers are far right fools.  Not to worry: they were doused.
Click to expand...


You're the typical leftist who tries to use my constitution the take away my rights.  My Constitution limits government.  No me.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Skull Pilot said:


> Any wedding performed by a religious institution should not be recognized by the state.
> 
> There should be a required civil ceremony to make a marriage legal.



That's the way it is now.

Legally, marriage in a church means nothing. You still have to file your decision to marry with your county.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake and his left wing drama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flamers are far right fools.  Not to worry: they were doused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the typical leftist who tries to use my constitution the take away my rights.  My Constitution limits government.  No me.
Click to expand...


Actually, the whole point of marriage equality or any other equality is make sure "you" keep your constitutionally guaranteed rights.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

koshergrl said:


> If we refuse to endorse anal screwing, the homos  will (are) bombard us with images and comments about it, until we become so desensitized to it, we will no longer   notice when lefty loons are screwing in the streets, schools and on our doorsteps.



What does any particular sex act have to do with this? 

You're delusional. 

As usual. 

Oh my fucking gawd, I can't help myself:

koshergurl, Eat shit and die.


----------



## Kosh

Noomi said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually fake isn't it just the opposite?  YOU want to force YOUR morals onto bakers, Priest, Rabbis, and anyone else who doesn't believe that anal sex is natural.  You will have it no other way then YOUR way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES PERVERTS They were fully aware of Gods death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why hasn't God killed any of the gay people? They are still alive.
Click to expand...


God gave people freedom of will or were not aware of this?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Freewill said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The statist here is kg who wants to use big government to enforce her moral beliefs.
> 
> Won't happen, sis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually fake isn't it just the opposite?  YOU want to force YOUR morals onto bakers, Priest, Rabbis, and anyone else who doesn't believe that anal sex is natural.  You will have it no other way then YOUR way.
Click to expand...


If we care about our freedom and our Constitution, neither side will want government to control our morals or our choices sexual activity. If you love your country you'll fight for the rights of ALL Americans.

Between consenting adults - nobody's business but those involved.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Kosh said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES PERVERTS They were fully aware of Gods death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why hasn't God killed any of the gay people? They are still alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God gave people freedom of will or were not aware of this?
Click to expand...


Whatever you believe your god "gave" you, is your business and you're welcome to it. 

Our constitution gives us freedom of choice.

Are you aware of that?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

koshergrl said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a church gets taxpayers money then they have to hold gay weddings. But if not then they have the right to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this apply to welfare/foodstamp recipients as well?
> 
> If you receive taxpayer's money, then you have to accomodate homeless dudes, say....
Click to expand...


Only if they own a poodle.

(IOW, you really are a delusional cuckoo.)


----------



## Kosh

Luddly Neddite said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why hasn't God killed any of the gay people? They are still alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God gave people freedom of will or were not aware of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever you believe your god "gave" you, is your business and you're welcome to it.
> 
> Our constitution gives us freedom of choice.
> 
> Are you aware of that?
Click to expand...


See the far left talking points come out based on programmed talking points.

However being far left you have no clue what you posted other than it is part of the far left matrix.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUQACDo8Ino"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUQACDo8Ino[/ame]


----------



## GISMYS

Luddly Neddite said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why hasn't God killed any of the gay people? They are still alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God gave people freedom of will or were not aware of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever you believe your god "gave" you, is your business and you're welcome to it.
> 
> Our constitution gives us freedom of choice.
> 
> Are you aware of that?
Click to expand...


satan is happy to kill perverts and over 40,000,000 have died from HIV AIDS AND ANOTHER 40 MILLION HIV POSITIVE FOR WHAT?? SICK BURNING LUST OF SEXUAL PERVERSION!!!


----------



## Kosh

Luddly Neddite said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The statist here is kg who wants to use big government to enforce her moral beliefs.
> 
> Won't happen, sis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually fake isn't it just the opposite?  YOU want to force YOUR morals onto bakers, Priest, Rabbis, and anyone else who doesn't believe that anal sex is natural.  You will have it no other way then YOUR way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we care about our freedom and our Constitution, neither side will want government to control our morals or our choices sexual activity. If you love your country you'll fight for the rights of ALL Americans.
> 
> Between consenting adults - nobody's business but those involved.
Click to expand...


Good then do not force other to accept gay "marriage", get the government out of the business of marriage.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

NYcarbineer said:


> Churches tend to teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but marriage removes the sin from the sex.
> 
> Common sense would suggest that if churches logically applied that thinking to gay sex,
> 
> then gay sex would be a sin outside of marriage, but gay marriage would remove the sin from the sex.



read your Bible and learn.


----------



## Kosh

Marriage is not a "right"

Another far left myth that needs to be dispelled...


----------



## deltex1

KNB said:


> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.



Thanks for your opinion, douche bag.


----------



## koshergrl

AvgGuyIA said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches tend to teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but marriage removes the sin from the sex.
> 
> Common sense would suggest that if churches logically applied that thinking to gay sex,
> 
> then gay sex would be a sin outside of marriage, but gay marriage would remove the sin from the sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read your Bible and learn.
Click to expand...


NYC may or may not be able to read...but learning is out of the question.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AvgGuyIA said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches tend to teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but marriage removes the sin from the sex.
> 
> Common sense would suggest that if churches logically applied that thinking to gay sex,
> 
> then gay sex would be a sin outside of marriage, but gay marriage would remove the sin from the sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read your Bible and learn.
Click to expand...


Churches don't teach that sex outside of marriage is bad, but sex within the marriage is good?

Prove that.


----------



## NYcarbineer

koshergrl said:


> If we refuse to endorse anal screwing, the homos  will (are) bombard us with images and comments about it, until we become so desensitized to it, we will no longer   notice when lefty loons are screwing in the streets, schools and on our doorsteps.



Anal is the new oral.  Get with it.


----------



## flacaltenn

*Moderation  Message:

Reminder.. This is a Zone2 thread.
Every post must have a nugget of the topic 
that moves the convo forwards.

If you have had posts deleted on the last few pages --
you are hereby warned to stay on topic.. 

FlaCalTenn*


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Kosh said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually fake isn't it just the opposite?  YOU want to force YOUR morals onto bakers, Priest, Rabbis, and anyone else who doesn't believe that anal sex is natural.  You will have it no other way then YOUR way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we care about our freedom and our Constitution, neither side will want government to control our morals or our choices sexual activity. If you love your country you'll fight for the rights of ALL Americans.
> 
> Between consenting adults - nobody's business but those involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good then do not force other to accept gay "marriage", get the government out of the business of marriage.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

The constitution doesn't say 'equality for some'. Its equality for all. Glad you agree the government has no right to say who can and cannot get married.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

bripat9643 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  The 14th amendment only mandates equal protection of the laws.  It prevents the government from discriminating, not private citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless they are involved in Interstate Commerce, or run public businesses. Of course churches are not businesses, and cannot be forced to violate their faith, a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The interstate commerce justification by the SC is a load of horsecrap.  When written, interstate commerce did not mean any kind of business activity whatsoever.  It referred only the the transportation and exchange of goods across state lines.  It gave the federal government the authority only to regulate those activities.
Click to expand...


Incorrect. 

This is subjective and irrelevant opinion  and absent case law in support, wrong. 

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, where the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, as originally intended by the Framers. 

Regulatory policy pursuant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence is necessary, proper, and Constitutional, as it reflects the wisdom of the Founding Generation and their desire to safeguard the markets and ensure their integrity. 

We will never return to a pre-_Lochner_ economic paradigm, to believe such is reactionary nonsense, where liberty to contract is an anachronistic relic, as the relationship between the employer and employee has forever changed, with the advantage clearly going to the former (_West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish _(1937)). 

Regulatory policy is therefore appropriate to protect workers and consumers alike from capricious business owners willing to maximize profits at the expense of safety and the viability of the markets.  

Again, unless you can cite case law where the Supreme Court has overturned the whole of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, your post is factually and comprehensively wrong.


----------



## eflatminor

Luddly Neddite said:


> The constitution doesn't say 'equality for some'. Its equality for all. Glad you agree the government has no right to say who can and cannot get married.



The government has no right to be involved in marriage at all.  How about that one?!

This is, even if by happenstance, the true libertarian take on marriage, which is to say that we believe anyone should be able to "marry" anyone they like, but the government should have no place in the definition of or the market for marriage.  

If the Church of the Sacred Beaver is cool with marrying two of a it's female parishioners, that should be nobody's business.  

In other words, we have free speech here, so if you and another consenting adult want to call yourself married, have at it.  You need not be granted such status by government, state or federal.  No government needs to know your personal relationships with the possible exception of the military.  

If governments stopped attempting to define who can and who cannot be married and stopped giving tax credits or other incentives to couples they deemed married, this wouldn't be an issue.  This shouldn't be an issue.  It is only an issue because of meddlers...those that are just SURE they know what's best for everyone else.  The institution of marriage has been around a lot longer than any current government.  It requires no defense by bureaucrats!

Gay people are misguided to seek approval from government.  Liberals are wrong to support such inclusion from central planners.  Conservatives are wrong to attempt to exclude some and include others in government's definition of married.  Once again, this is a problem of meddlers...but isn't that always the case...


----------



## eflatminor

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, where the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, as originally intended by the Framers.



Incorrect.

The PEOPLE ultimately decide.  Either through new law, nullification or when necessary, revolution.  The SC is NOT the final words on what is and what is not Constitutional.  If that were the case, we'd still have slavery.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

koshergrl said:


> If we refuse to endorse anal screwing, the homos  will (are) bombard us with images and comments about it, until we become so desensitized to it, we will no longer   notice when lefty loons are screwing in the streets, schools and on our doorsteps.



This doesnt make any sense. 

Gay Americans seek only to realize their comprehensive civil liberties and conduct their private lives free of harassment from you and other deranged social rightists seeking to codify your ignorance and hate.  

And that you and others on the right would refer to gay Americans as homos serves only as confirmation of your bigotry, ignorance, and hate.


----------



## GISMYS

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we refuse to endorse anal screwing, the homos  will (are) bombard us with images and comments about it, until we become so desensitized to it, we will no longer   notice when lefty loons are screwing in the streets, schools and on our doorsteps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesnt make any sense.
> 
> Gay Americans seek only to realize their comprehensive civil liberties and conduct their private lives free of harassment from you and other deranged social rightists seeking to codify your ignorance and hate.
> 
> And that you and others on the right would refer to gay Americans as homos serves only as confirmation of your bigotry, ignorance, and hate.
Click to expand...


lol!!! thieves just want to steal!!!


----------



## Freewill

koshergrl said:


> If we refuse to endorse anal screwing, the homos  will (are) bombard us with images and comments about it, until we become so desensitized to it, we will no longer   notice when lefty loons are screwing in the streets, schools and on our doorsteps.



What do you think the parades are all about?


----------



## Ibentoken

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we refuse to endorse anal screwing, the homos  will (are) bombard us with images and comments about it, until we become so desensitized to it, we will no longer   notice when lefty loons are screwing in the streets, schools and on our doorsteps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesnt make any sense.
> 
> Gay Americans seek only to realize their comprehensive civil liberties and conduct their private lives free of harassment from you and other deranged social rightists seeking to codify your ignorance and hate.
> 
> And that you and others on the right would refer to gay Americans as homos serves only as confirmation of your bigotry, ignorance, and hate.
Click to expand...


Queers and fags works.  It's worked for generations.  I'm not gonna change regardless of how many times you call me a bigot.  You're a Christophobic bigot.  There, were even.  Queer.


----------



## Papageorgio

Luddly Neddite said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we care about our freedom and our Constitution, neither side will want government to control our morals or our choices sexual activity. If you love your country you'll fight for the rights of ALL Americans.
> 
> Between consenting adults - nobody's business but those involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good then do not force other to accept gay "marriage", get the government out of the business of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> The constitution doesn't say 'equality for some'. Its equality for all. Glad you agree the government has no right to say who can and cannot get married.
Click to expand...


And the government has no right or force religion to perform marriage they have no belief in.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Freewill said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The statist here is kg who wants to use big government to enforce her moral beliefs.
> 
> Won't happen, sis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually fake isn't it just the opposite?  YOU want to force YOUR morals onto bakers, Priest, Rabbis, and anyone else who doesn't believe that anal sex is natural.  You will have it no other way then YOUR way.
Click to expand...


Yep, you use the language of the KKK, the anti-women lobby, so forth and so on.

You want to use Big Government, just like kg, to deny people the same civil rights you have.

You don't get to discriminate in a business in the public sector.

You make cakes, then you make them for everybody.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Papageorgio said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good then do not force other to accept gay "marriage", get the government out of the business of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> The constitution doesn't say 'equality for some'. Its equality for all. Glad you agree the government has no right to say who can and cannot get married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the government has no right or force religion to perform marriage they have no belief in.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using an Android.
Click to expand...


No one ever said it could or should. 

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or organizations, such as churches.  

One of the many reasons why the OPs premise is ignorant idiocy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake and his left wing drama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flamers are far right fools.  Not to worry: they were doused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the typical leftist who tries to use my constitution the take away my rights.  My Constitution limits government.  No me.
Click to expand...


You are not a responsible conservative, and I am not a leftist.

The Constitution and the law is clear: you do not get to discriminate against others when it comes to civil rights.

You disagree?  Then you are in harmony with the Jim Crow laws and segregation.

Go find a time machine.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kosh said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually fake isn't it just the opposite?  YOU want to force YOUR morals onto bakers, Priest, Rabbis, and anyone else who doesn't believe that anal sex is natural.  You will have it no other way then YOUR way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we care about our freedom and our Constitution, neither side will want government to control our morals or our choices sexual activity. If you love your country you'll fight for the rights of ALL Americans.
> 
> Between consenting adults - nobody's business but those involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good then do not force other to accept gay "marriage", get the government out of the business of marriage.
Click to expand...


Marriage equality is for everybody, including you.  You don't get to define it for others is the point.

Step along.


----------



## JakeStarkey

AvgGuyIA said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches tend to teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but marriage removes the sin from the sex.
> 
> Common sense would suggest that if churches logically applied that thinking to gay sex,
> 
> then gay sex would be a sin outside of marriage, but gay marriage would remove the sin from the sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read your Bible and learn.
Click to expand...


The Constitution is secular, and the Bible is for the church.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kosh said:


> Marriage is not a "right"
> 
> Another far left myth that needs to be dispelled...



You are obviously a product of home schooling.

It is not a myth.  SCOTUS has said so.

Step along.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The hetero fascists keep pissing on themselves.

The facts remain: SCOTUS is heading for a marriage equality decision, the majority of Americans and a super majority of millenials want it.

If SCOTUS rules against it, the decision will be left to the states.

It will be a state by state battle which inevitably will minimalize the far right.

Marriage equality is coming soon.


----------



## d_tyler

KNB said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Religion" is one matter, faith in God is a separate subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with that.  For the most part, religion is a wall between individuals and what we perceive as "God".  You'll find God a lot easier when you're alone in a forest than surrounded by strange strangers in a mega-church.
Click to expand...


You'll find what?  How can you agree with that statement when you spend so much time blasting the very concept of 'God'?

I can't figure where your problem with religion starts and stops.  It's odd to see your responses about "imaginary friends" and then read how easy it is to find "God" in a forest.  

Help me understand....  Is it the organized religion part you don't like (mega-church as you refer to)?  Or some other part of it.  Or is it just the whole idea of an omnipresent being with more power than any of us can comprehend?


----------



## d_tyler

JakeStarkey said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The statist here is kg who wants to use big government to enforce her moral beliefs.
> 
> Won't happen, sis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually fake isn't it just the opposite?  YOU want to force YOUR morals onto bakers, Priest, Rabbis, and anyone else who doesn't believe that anal sex is natural.  You will have it no other way then YOUR way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, you use the language of the KKK, the anti-women lobby, so forth and so on.
> 
> You want to use Big Government, just like kg, to deny people the same civil rights you have.
> 
> You don't get to discriminate in a business in the public sector.
> 
> You make cakes, then you make them for everybody.
Click to expand...


mmmm....not necessarily.  There are more businesses that support the idea of "Right to refuse service" than you would be willing to admit.  So, yes, to a degree, you DO get to discriminate if you so choose.  It can be for a number of reasons.  

Does that make it right?  That depends on who you ask.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Oscar Wao said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read Matthew 19 further, He also talks about eunuchs, which in the Greek is translated to homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, Sparkles, but no.  Once again, just because you can find someone online saying what you want to hear does NOT make it true.
> 
> The word "eunuch" comes from both Latin and Greek roots; the Greek word "eunukhous" translates to "castrated man", although it derived its own roots from the words "eune", meaning "bed", and "okhos", meaning "keeper of".  Eunuchs, of course, were popular as harem guards, since they could obviously be trusted not to violate the women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/cardiff.htm
> 
> Homosexual eunuchs, according to history, were often gay men or lesbians.
Click to expand...


"Oh, look, someone wrote a paper saying so and posted it on the Internet!  It MUST be true!"

And GayChristian 101?  Seriously, fuckstain?  What part of "Just because you can find someone online saying what you want to hear does NOT make it true" has too many syllables?  Exactly which STD has rotted your brain to this extent?

Your "sources" do not impress me with how right you are.  They do not impress me with how knowledgeable and believable you are.  The more you post, the more convinced I become that I'm right, just because any position you disagree with has to be right by definition. 

Congratulations.  What's it like to know that the biggest favor you could do for homosexuals is to shut your cakehole and stay as far away from supporting their cause as you can get?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Noomi said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not.  The queers are demanding we accept their behavior as normal.  You're confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is normal.
Click to expand...


Oh, WELL, if YOU say it's normal, then . . . I'm twice as convinced it's a mental disorder.  The more you support something, the more wrong it has to be, since you're congenitally too stupid to hold a correct opinion even by accident.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Anyone can refuse service, Votto, if it does not involve violating the civil liberties of others.

I can be thrown out of the store for not wearing a shirt and shoes.

If it is a bakery that holds itself out to the public as a make of wedding cakes, it cannot deny me a memorial cake for my wife and I.

And it cannot deny such to a homosexual couple because they are same sex.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Noomi said:


> If a church gets taxpayers money then they have to hold gay weddings. But if not then they have the right to choose.



Churches don't get taxpayer money in the United States, you dumb bitch.  That would be the "separation of church and state" that people are always hollering about.  

Cripes, why do you bother commenting on the politics of a nation that you know nothing about, and that wouldn't have you if you paid us, anyway?  It can't possibly be because you think you add anything to the conversation.


----------



## Kosh

JakeStarkey said:


> Anyone can refuse service, Votto, if it does not involve violating the civil liberties of others.
> 
> I can be thrown out of the store for not wearing a shirt and shoes.
> 
> If it is a bakery that holds itself out to the public as a make of wedding cakes, it cannot deny me a memorial cake for my wife and I.
> 
> And it cannot deny such to a homosexual couple because they are same sex.



More far left propaganda based on failed logic.

The far left often claims they want separation of church and state, but yet the want the government involved in marriage..


----------



## Cecilie1200

Luddly Neddite said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we care about our freedom and our Constitution, neither side will want government to control our morals or our choices sexual activity. If you love your country you'll fight for the rights of ALL Americans.
> 
> Between consenting adults - nobody's business but those involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good then do not force other to accept gay "marriage", get the government out of the business of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> The constitution doesn't say 'equality for some'. Its equality for all. Glad you agree the government has no right to say who can and cannot get married.
Click to expand...


And if your disingenuous goalpost-moving had anything to do with the topic at hand, that would be useful.

Unfortunately for you, the topic isn't "who can be married", as you keep trying to pretend it is.  It's which relationships the government will officially sanction and recognize, and the government pretty much has to have a say on what that criteria is.


----------



## Kosh

JakeStarkey said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is not a "right"
> 
> Another far left myth that needs to be dispelled...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are obviously a product of home schooling.
> 
> It is not a myth.  SCOTUS has said so.
> 
> Step along.
Click to expand...


Marriage is not a "right".

It is a far left myth, promoted by far left Obama drones, because they know no better due to faulty programming.


----------



## d_tyler

JakeStarkey said:


> Anyone can refuse service, Votto, if it does not involve violating the civil liberties of others.
> 
> I can be thrown out of the store for not wearing a shirt and shoes.
> 
> If it is a bakery that holds itself out to the public as a make of wedding cakes, it cannot deny me a memorial cake for my wife and I.
> 
> And it cannot deny such to a homosexual couple because they are same sex.



Sure they can....there are COUNTLESS ways to refuse service without showing your hand...   

"Sorry, we're booked solid.  I don't have time to provide you with proper service."  

"Sir, I'm sorry, but this coming Friday is the LAST day that we are going to be making wedding cakes for a unspecified length of time while we update the area of the bakery where we produce large specialty baked goods."

"I'm all out of icing."


Here's the question I've always had about this very volatile situation....

Why would you want to FORCE a bakery to do something that they don't want to do?

Wouldn't you be concerned about the quality of service?  Is your wedding day something you want to gamble that on?  

Why not go find a bakery that LOVES to do wedding cakes for ANYBODY?  

It just wreaks of making a point and drawing attention because they can.  Ridiculous. 

And stupid.


----------



## Kosh

Luddly Neddite said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we care about our freedom and our Constitution, neither side will want government to control our morals or our choices sexual activity. If you love your country you'll fight for the rights of ALL Americans.
> 
> Between consenting adults - nobody's business but those involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good then do not force other to accept gay "marriage", get the government out of the business of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> The constitution doesn't say 'equality for some'. Its equality for all. Glad you agree the government has no right to say who can and cannot get married.
Click to expand...


More proof that the far left does not understand anything beyond their programming!

Marriage is not a "right".

Get the government out of the business of Marriage.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

NYcarbineer said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, I think marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage licenses should be issued by the state with incentives to promote procreation and family formation to support the continuity, stability, and the strengthening of the fabric of society going forward. This blind egalitarianism you are pushing serves no purpose outside of itself and is irrational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is marriage between a man and a woman?  Is it a religious dictate?  If so which religion?  I seem to recall other cultures (native american?) allowed same sex marriage, shouldn't their traditions be respected?
> 
> If marriage is for procreation we should NOT allow marriage to anyone infertile or anyone past the age of child-bearing.  Right?
> 
> If you dislike egalitarianism I think it falls on you to show why it should not be allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can't.  No one has ever made a good argument against marriage equality because there is none.
> 
> De facto same sex marriage has always existed.  The fact that legal or religious systems have not recognized them, or outlawed them, or persecuted them,
> 
> is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Well yes, initially it was a religious dictate coming out of our Christian tradition here in the west. So I am talking about what the government's policy on marriage ought to be in Western Societies.

If on Indian Reservations they wish to issue same sex marriage licenses I wouldn't oppose it, I support full tribal autonomy. I don't know what tribes you speak of, but no, I don't think government policy should be reflective of the traditions of these supposed tribes, it should be reflective of our own historical traditions as emerging from European Christian civilization.

Also for practical considerations. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose. It makes no sense to put the lifestyle on par with a union that results in children and therefore a family except to not hurt the feelings of people and be "fair". As though fairness, equality, basically FEELINGS, should trump practical considerations and reality.

Infertile couples can still adopt, and being a man and woman still form the foundation of the nuclear family. But most people aren't infertile, and these minute exceptions to the rule in no way negate the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and family formation.

I just outlined why homosexual couples and heterosexual couples shouldn't be treated the same. Though the burden is on you why we should treat them the same as you are making an affirmative case to change the law.


----------



## Noomi

Cecilie1200 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a church gets taxpayers money then they have to hold gay weddings. But if not then they have the right to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches don't get taxpayer money in the United States, you dumb bitch.  That would be the "separation of church and state" that people are always hollering about.
> 
> Cripes, why do you bother commenting on the politics of a nation that you know nothing about, and that wouldn't have you if you paid us, anyway?  It can't possibly be because you think you add anything to the conversation.
Click to expand...


STFU, troll.


----------



## Papageorgio

Noomi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a church gets taxpayers money then they have to hold gay weddings. But if not then they have the right to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches don't get taxpayer money in the United States, you dumb bitch.  That would be the "separation of church and state" that people are always hollering about.
> 
> Cripes, why do you bother commenting on the politics of a nation that you know nothing about, and that wouldn't have you if you paid us, anyway?  It can't possibly be because you think you add anything to the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STFU, troll.
Click to expand...


How is she trolling? Your comments with no basis in any facts is more like trolling.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## alang1216

GISMYS said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALMIGHTY GOD MAKES THE RULES THAT COUNT FOR ETERNITY NOT little man and ALMIGHTY GOD SAYS SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has God spoken directly to you or are you just putting your faith in what others have told you?
> 
> and why are you shouting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> READ GOD'S ETERNAL LIVING WORD IF YOU WANT TO HEAR GOD'S WORDS=I DO!!! And you??
Click to expand...


Read what?  OT, NT, Book of Mormon, Q'ran, or some other book?  And how do I know which is the word of God and which is a fraud?  How do you?


----------



## alang1216

RWHeathenGamer said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is marriage between a man and a woman?  Is it a religious dictate?  If so which religion?  I seem to recall other cultures (native american?) allowed same sex marriage, shouldn't their traditions be respected?
> 
> If marriage is for procreation we should NOT allow marriage to anyone infertile or anyone past the age of child-bearing.  Right?
> 
> If you dislike egalitarianism I think it falls on you to show why it should not be allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't.  No one has ever made a good argument against marriage equality because there is none.
> 
> De facto same sex marriage has always existed.  The fact that legal or religious systems have not recognized them, or outlawed them, or persecuted them,
> 
> is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, initially it was a religious dictate coming out of our Christian tradition here in the west. So I am talking about what the government's policy on marriage ought to be in Western Societies.
> 
> If on Indian Reservations they wish to issue same sex marriage licenses I wouldn't oppose it, I support full tribal autonomy. I don't know what tribes you speak of, but no, I don't think government policy should be reflective of the traditions of these supposed tribes, it should be reflective of our own historical traditions as emerging from European Christian civilization.
> 
> Also for practical considerations. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose. It makes no sense to put the lifestyle on par with a union that results in children and therefore a family except to not hurt the feelings of people and be "fair". As though fairness, equality, basically FEELINGS, should trump practical considerations and reality.
> 
> Infertile couples can still adopt, and being a man and woman still form the foundation of the nuclear family. But most people aren't infertile, and these minute exceptions to the rule in no way negate the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and family formation.
> 
> I just outlined why homosexual couples and heterosexual couples shouldn't be treated the same. Though the burden is on you why we should treat them the same as you are making an affirmative case to change the law.
Click to expand...


Many of your arguments were raised when interracial marriages were made legal here in Virginia.  And that was not so very long ago.  Tradition doesn't hold much sway with me.  To say people should be denied legal rights because they've always been denied such rights is a pretty weak argument.

Gay couples have always formed long-term relationships and children are often involved.  By denying the gay couple the same legal rights as other couples harms them but it also harms the children involved.  I see no justification for that.

You didn't answer the question: Should eldery couples be allowed to wed?


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a church gets taxpayers money then they have to hold gay weddings. But if not then they have the right to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches don't get taxpayer money in the United States, you dumb bitch.  That would be the "separation of church and state" that people are always hollering about.
Click to expand...


You know...if your are going to be rude and nasty, you should at least be right. You're not. 

Executive Order 13199 - Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

That does not mean that Churches should be or will be forced to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. That will never happen in the United States. 

Now, a church that rents it's property to the public must abide by the public accommodation laws of the locality in which they are doing *business*. (not religion, business)


----------



## Seawytch

RWHeathenGamer said:


> Also for practical considerations. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose. It makes no sense to put the lifestyle on par with a union that results in children and therefore a family except to not hurt the feelings of people and be "fair". As though fairness, equality, basically FEELINGS, should trump practical considerations and reality.



Can you name the state or locality in which procreation is a requirement for civil marriage? I can name about a half dozen in which procreation is *prohibited *for certain couples _before _they are allowed to civilly marry. Doesn't that completely render your "point" moot?



> Infertile couples can still adopt, and being a man and woman still form the foundation of the nuclear family. But most people aren't infertile, and these minute exceptions to the rule in no way negate the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and family formation.



Gays have children too. About 16% of same sex couples are raising children. Gays adopt. 

Research suggests that gay and lesbian parents are actually a powerful resource for kids in need of adoption. According to a 2007 report by the Williams Institute and the Urban Institute, 65,000 kids were living with adoptive gay parents between 2000 and 2002, with another 14,000 in foster homes headed by gays and lesbians. (There are currently more than 100,000 kids in foster care in the U.S.)

An October 2011 report by Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that, of gay and lesbian adoptions at more than 300 agencies, 10 percent of the kids placed were older than 6  typically a very difficult age to adopt out. About 25 percent were older than 3. Sixty percent of gay and lesbian couples adopted across races, which is important given that minority children in the foster system tend to linger. More than half of the kids adopted by gays and lesbians had special needs.​
And you say "most people" aren't infertile. Well, according to currently available statistics, there are more infertile couples than gay couples.  



> I just outlined why homosexual couples and heterosexual couples shouldn't be treated the same. Though the burden is on you why we should treat them the same as you are making an affirmative case to change the law.



No, you tried to justify bigotry against a group of people. Gay couples are no different than straight couples. Some want children, some don't. Some have children, some don't. You only want to keep the gay ones from civilly marrying.


----------



## Mac1958

.

People who work in churches drive on roads and bridges to get to work 'n stuff, so they need to just shut the fuck up and do as they're told by The Collective.



.


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flamers are far right fools.  Not to worry: they were doused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the typical leftist who tries to use my constitution the take away my rights.  My Constitution limits government.  No me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a responsible conservative, and I am not a leftist.
> 
> The Constitution and the law is clear: you do not get to discriminate against others when it comes to civil rights.
> 
> You disagree?  Then you are in harmony with the Jim Crow laws and segregation.
> 
> Go find a time machine.
Click to expand...


You're a commie, diaper lord.  You were caught posting communist propaganda to this forum.


----------



## bripat9643

Noomi said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not.  The queers are demanding we accept their behavior as normal.  You're confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is normal.
Click to expand...


It's "normal" only in the same sense that Spina Bifida is "normal."   Birth defects are a common feature of life.  It certainly isn't healthy or well adjusted.


----------



## Seawytch

bripat9643 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not.  The queers are demanding we accept their behavior as normal.  You're confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is normal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's "normal" only in the same sense that Spina Bifida is "normal."   Birth defects are a common feature of life.  It certainly isn't healthy or well adjusted.
Click to expand...


So people with birth defects can't be well adjusted? Guess we should just leave 'em all out in in the elements to die like they did in "olden times"...like when Jesus was walking the earth?


----------



## Howey

RWHeathenGamer said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is marriage between a man and a woman?  Is it a religious dictate?  If so which religion?  I seem to recall other cultures (native american?) allowed same sex marriage, shouldn't their traditions be respected?
> 
> If marriage is for procreation we should NOT allow marriage to anyone infertile or anyone past the age of child-bearing.  Right?
> 
> If you dislike egalitarianism I think it falls on you to show why it should not be allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't.  No one has ever made a good argument against marriage equality because there is none.
> 
> De facto same sex marriage has always existed.  The fact that legal or religious systems have not recognized them, or outlawed them, or persecuted them,
> 
> is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, initially it was a religious dictate coming out of our Christian tradition here in the west. So I am talking about what the government's policy on marriage ought to be in Western Societies.
> 
> If on Indian Reservations they wish to issue same sex marriage licenses I wouldn't oppose it, I support full tribal autonomy. I don't know what tribes you speak of, but no, I don't think government policy should be reflective of the traditions of these supposed tribes, it should be reflective of our own historical traditions as emerging from European Christian civilization.
> 
> Also for practical considerations. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose. It makes no sense to put the lifestyle on par with a union that results in children and therefore a family except to not hurt the feelings of people and be "fair". As though fairness, equality, basically FEELINGS, should trump practical considerations and reality.
> 
> Infertile couples can still adopt, and being a man and woman still form the foundation of the nuclear family. But most people aren't infertile, and these minute exceptions to the rule in no way negate the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and family formation.
> 
> I just outlined why homosexual couples and heterosexual couples shouldn't be treated the same. Though the burden is on you why we should treat them the same as you are making an affirmative case to change the law.
Click to expand...



I know you'd like us to think you're new around here and all that but here's a news flash.

Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.


----------



## Howey

I swear to God I'm so sick of these silly homophobic comments from the right. Shall we ban adoption because its not really the babies REAL parents raising it? While were at it let's take away all the children being raised by single mothers and fathers cuz, ya know, they don't have a mommy and daddy raising them. While were at it, let's lock up all those grandmas raising the unwanted children their libertarian millennial breeder brats don't have the time to raise!


----------



## bripat9643

Seawytch said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's "normal" only in the same sense that Spina Bifida is "normal."   Birth defects are a common feature of life.  It certainly isn't healthy or well adjusted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So people with birth defects can't be well adjusted? Guess we should just leave 'em all out in in the elements to die like they did in "olden times"...like when Jesus was walking the earth?
Click to expand...


They can't be healthy and well adjusted when the defect is in their brain, and that is what homosexuality is:  a birth defect in the brain.

I love the way homos try to twist every thing you say to mean that you believe homos should be killed.  It only shows what a bunch of dishonest weasels you are.

I never had a problem with homos until I started debating them in forums like this.  That's when I discovered they are all liars.  Almost everything they say is a lie.


----------



## bripat9643

Howey said:


> I swear to God I'm so sick of these silly homophobic comments from the right. Shall we ban adoption because its not really the babies REAL parents raising it? While were at it let's take away all the children being raised by single mothers and fathers cuz, ya know, they don't have a mommy and daddy raising them. While were at it, let's lock up all those grandmas raising the unwanted children their libertarian millennial breeder brats don't have the time to raise!



Truth is what you are sick of.

If the mother can't afford to raise an illegitimate child, it should be taken away from her and put up for adoption because she's an unfit mother.  That's what used to happen before all the Johnson "Great Society" programs came online.

The rest of your suggestions are pure nonsense.  No one has ever suggesting anything of the sort.


----------



## Ibentoken

JakeStarkey said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flamers are far right fools.  Not to worry: they were doused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the typical leftist who tries to use my constitution the take away my rights.  My Constitution limits government.  No me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a responsible conservative, and I am not a leftist.
> 
> The Constitution and the law is clear: you do not get to discriminate against others when it comes to civil rights.
> 
> You disagree?  Then you are in harmony with the Jim Crow laws and segregation.
> 
> Go find a time machine.
Click to expand...


This has nothing to do with equality and rights.  It's about submission.  You can't push citizens around who don't agree with you.  This is America.


----------



## bripat9643

Howey said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't.  No one has ever made a good argument against marriage equality because there is none.
> 
> De facto same sex marriage has always existed.  The fact that legal or religious systems have not recognized them, or outlawed them, or persecuted them,
> 
> is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, initially it was a religious dictate coming out of our Christian tradition here in the west. So I am talking about what the government's policy on marriage ought to be in Western Societies.
> 
> If on Indian Reservations they wish to issue same sex marriage licenses I wouldn't oppose it, I support full tribal autonomy. I don't know what tribes you speak of, but no, I don't think government policy should be reflective of the traditions of these supposed tribes, it should be reflective of our own historical traditions as emerging from European Christian civilization.
> 
> Also for practical considerations. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose. It makes no sense to put the lifestyle on par with a union that results in children and therefore a family except to not hurt the feelings of people and be "fair". As though fairness, equality, basically FEELINGS, should trump practical considerations and reality.
> 
> Infertile couples can still adopt, and being a man and woman still form the foundation of the nuclear family. But most people aren't infertile, and these minute exceptions to the rule in no way negate the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and family formation.
> 
> I just outlined why homosexual couples and heterosexual couples shouldn't be treated the same. Though the burden is on you why we should treat them the same as you are making an affirmative case to change the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know you'd like us to think you're new around here and all that but here's a news flash.
> 
> Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.
Click to expand...


The jury is still out on that issue.  Common sense would indicate that being raised by a couple of homosexuals would not be a healthy environment for a child.


----------



## Mac1958

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the typical leftist who tries to use my constitution the take away my rights.  My Constitution limits government.  No me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a responsible conservative, and I am not a leftist.
> 
> The Constitution and the law is clear: you do not get to discriminate against others when it comes to civil rights.
> 
> You disagree?  Then you are in harmony with the Jim Crow laws and segregation.
> 
> Go find a time machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with equality and rights.  It's about submission.  You can't push citizens around who don't agree with you.  This is America.
Click to expand...



For now.

Ultimately, they're going to get their way.

.


----------



## Ibentoken

JakeStarkey said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is not a "right"
> 
> Another far left myth that needs to be dispelled...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are obviously a product of home schooling.
> 
> It is not a myth.  SCOTUS has said so.
> 
> Step along.
Click to expand...


You like that "step along" a little too much.  The Nazis also liked that term when they loaded the trains to the ovens.


----------



## Seawytch

bripat9643 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's "normal" only in the same sense that Spina Bifida is "normal."   Birth defects are a common feature of life.  It certainly isn't healthy or well adjusted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So people with birth defects can't be well adjusted? Guess we should just leave 'em all out in in the elements to die like they did in "olden times"...like when Jesus was walking the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can't be healthy and well adjusted when the defect is in their brain, and that is what homosexuality is:  a birth defect in the brain.
> 
> I love the way homos try to twist every thing you say to mean that you believe homos should be killed.  It only shows what a bunch of dishonest weasels you are.
> 
> I never had a problem with homos until I started debating them in forums like this.  That's when I discovered they are all liars.  Almost everything they say is a lie.
Click to expand...


You're right, I apologize. I did take it to the hyperbolic extreme. 

You think being gay is a birth defect. Okay....still deserving of equal treatment under the law, yes?


----------



## Moonglow

Fortunately getting married in a church by a religious leader is not a requirement, since it was the last place I ever wanted to get married and I never have..


----------



## Seawytch

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the typical leftist who tries to use my constitution the take away my rights.  My Constitution limits government.  No me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a responsible conservative, and I am not a leftist.
> 
> The Constitution and the law is clear: you do not get to discriminate against others when it comes to civil rights.
> 
> You disagree?  Then you are in harmony with the Jim Crow laws and segregation.
> 
> Go find a time machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with equality and rights.  It's about submission.  You can't push citizens around who don't agree with you.  This is America.
Click to expand...


Of course it does. Gays want equal treatment under the law. Some people don't want them to. There are now more people than want them to have that equal treatment than don't want them to have it. 

Public opinion has now shifted and you can't be as anti-gay in public as you used to be able to...just as you can no longer be as racist in public as you used to be...because they were "pushed around" by people that didn't agree with them. 

It's still America and it's still the "free market" telling you to keep your bigoted opinions to yourself.


----------



## Seawytch

No church has ever been "forced" to perform an interracial or interfaith ceremony in the United States. The same will be true for same sex marriages. Churches will bend to popular opinion, not "government control".


----------



## Howey

bripat9643 said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I swear to God I'm so sick of these silly homophobic comments from the right. Shall we ban adoption because its not really the babies REAL parents raising it? While were at it let's take away all the children being raised by single mothers and fathers cuz, ya know, they don't have a mommy and daddy raising them. While were at it, let's lock up all those grandmas raising the unwanted children their libertarian millennial breeder brats don't have the time to raise!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is what you are sick of.
> 
> If the mother can't afford to raise an illegitimate child, it should be taken away from her and put up for adoption because she's an unfit mother.  That's what used to happen before all the Johnson "Great Society" programs came online.
> 
> The rest of your suggestions are pure nonsense.  No one has ever suggesting anything of the sort.
Click to expand...


Sure...let's go back to the days of Dickens and take away those children and lock them up in huge prison like structures to waste away. Why not put them to work in sweatshops for pennies a day?

Do you really think single family homes only consist of illegitimate children? How about those where the white trash breeder father skips out? 
You, Sir, are a fucking moron. And wouldn't know sarcasm if it slapped you in your face. If only you had been aborted or ran over by a bus. This world would be a better place.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kosh said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can refuse service, Votto, if it does not involve violating the civil liberties of others.
> 
> I can be thrown out of the store for not wearing a shirt and shoes.
> 
> If it is a bakery that holds itself out to the public as a make of wedding cakes, it cannot deny me a memorial cake for my wife and I.
> 
> And it cannot deny such to a homosexual couple because they are same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More far left propaganda based on failed logic.  The far left often claims they want separation of church and state, but yet the want the government involved in marriage..
Click to expand...


Silly comment by you.  We can leave it at that, because it made no sense.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

Howey said:


> I swear to God I'm so sick of these silly homophobic comments from the right. Shall we ban adoption because its not really the babies REAL parents raising it? While were at it let's take away all the children being raised by single mothers and fathers cuz, ya know, they don't have a mommy and daddy raising them. While were at it, let's lock up all those grandmas raising the unwanted children their libertarian millennial breeder brats don't have the time to raise!



While I understand your disgust by some attitudes, your own isn't peachy. Calling heterosexual couples, "Breeders" doesn't put you on a clean slate.

My personal opinion is that there are plenty of children who need good homes. If two people who have been deemed fit, can love a "lost in the system" child.. there's only good that can come from that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

> Marriage is not a "right".



14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right


----------



## JakeStarkey

d_tyler said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can refuse service, Votto, if it does not involve violating the civil liberties of others.
> 
> I can be thrown out of the store for not wearing a shirt and shoes.
> 
> If it is a bakery that holds itself out to the public as a make of wedding cakes, it cannot deny me a memorial cake for my wife and I.
> 
> And it cannot deny such to a homosexual couple because they are same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can....there are COUNTLESS ways to refuse service without showing your hand...
> 
> "Sorry, we're booked solid.  I don't have time to provide you with proper service."
> 
> "Sir, I'm sorry, but this coming Friday is the LAST day that we are going to be making wedding cakes for a unspecified length of time while we update the area of the bakery where we produce large specialty baked goods."
> 
> "I'm all out of icing."
> 
> 
> Here's the question I've always had about this very volatile situation....
> 
> Why would you want to FORCE a bakery to do something that they don't want to do?
> 
> Wouldn't you be concerned about the quality of service?  Is your wedding day something you want to gamble that on?
> 
> Why not go find a bakery that LOVES to do wedding cakes for ANYBODY?
> 
> It just wreaks of making a point and drawing attention because they can.  Ridiculous.
> 
> And stupid.
Click to expand...


What is stupid is violating the law.  Opponents of fair housing, etc., are easily caught and sued.  Make the cake, make money.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the typical leftist who tries to use my constitution the take away my rights.  My Constitution limits government.  No me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a responsible conservative, and I am not a leftist.
> 
> The Constitution and the law is clear: you do not get to discriminate against others when it comes to civil rights.
> 
> You disagree?  Then you are in harmony with the Jim Crow laws and segregation.
> 
> Go find a time machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a commie, diaper lord.  You were caught posting communist propaganda to this forum.
Click to expand...

  You lie as easily as you breathe.  You post ONLY anarcho commie nonsense.  Shooting yourself in the foot, sonny.


----------



## Seawytch

bripat9643 said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, initially it was a religious dictate coming out of our Christian tradition here in the west. So I am talking about what the government's policy on marriage ought to be in Western Societies.
> 
> If on Indian Reservations they wish to issue same sex marriage licenses I wouldn't oppose it, I support full tribal autonomy. I don't know what tribes you speak of, but no, I don't think government policy should be reflective of the traditions of these supposed tribes, it should be reflective of our own historical traditions as emerging from European Christian civilization.
> 
> Also for practical considerations. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose. It makes no sense to put the lifestyle on par with a union that results in children and therefore a family except to not hurt the feelings of people and be "fair". As though fairness, equality, basically FEELINGS, should trump practical considerations and reality.
> 
> Infertile couples can still adopt, and being a man and woman still form the foundation of the nuclear family. But most people aren't infertile, and these minute exceptions to the rule in no way negate the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and family formation.
> 
> I just outlined why homosexual couples and heterosexual couples shouldn't be treated the same. Though the burden is on you why we should treat them the same as you are making an affirmative case to change the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you'd like us to think you're new around here and all that but here's a news flash.
> 
> Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The jury is still out on that issue.  Common sense would indicate that being raised by a couple of homosexuals would not be a healthy environment for a child.
Click to expand...


No, the Jury is in.

World Largest Study of Same Sex Parents


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the typical leftist who tries to use my constitution the take away my rights.  My Constitution limits government.  No me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a responsible conservative, and I am not a leftist.
> 
> The Constitution and the law is clear: you do not get to discriminate against others when it comes to civil rights.
> 
> You disagree?  Then you are in harmony with the Jim Crow laws and segregation.
> 
> Go find a time machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with equality and rights.  It's about submission.  You can't push citizens around who don't agree with you.  This is America.
Click to expand...


It is about the law, and you will submit: ask the KKK and the white citizen council members.


----------



## Howey

bripat9643 said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, initially it was a religious dictate coming out of our Christian tradition here in the west. So I am talking about what the government's policy on marriage ought to be in Western Societies.
> 
> If on Indian Reservations they wish to issue same sex marriage licenses I wouldn't oppose it, I support full tribal autonomy. I don't know what tribes you speak of, but no, I don't think government policy should be reflective of the traditions of these supposed tribes, it should be reflective of our own historical traditions as emerging from European Christian civilization.
> 
> Also for practical considerations. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose. It makes no sense to put the lifestyle on par with a union that results in children and therefore a family except to not hurt the feelings of people and be "fair". As though fairness, equality, basically FEELINGS, should trump practical considerations and reality.
> 
> Infertile couples can still adopt, and being a man and woman still form the foundation of the nuclear family. But most people aren't infertile, and these minute exceptions to the rule in no way negate the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and family formation.
> 
> I just outlined why homosexual couples and heterosexual couples shouldn't be treated the same. Though the burden is on you why we should treat them the same as you are making an affirmative case to change the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you'd like us to think you're new around here and all that but here's a news flash.
> 
> Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The jury is still out on that issue.  Common sense would indicate that being raised by a couple of homosexuals would not be a healthy environment for a child.
Click to expand...



You have no common sense. You are an amoebic single cell spittle undeserving of commenting on what's right for children.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat9643 said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you'd like us to think you're new around here and all that but here's a news flash.
> 
> Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The jury is still out on that issue.  Common sense would indicate that being raised by a couple of homosexuals would not be a healthy environment for a child.
Click to expand...


No, it's not.  It is clear and substantiated that same sex marriages raise people just as well.


----------



## Freewill

JakeStarkey said:


> Marriage is not a "right".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights
> 
> 14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right
Click to expand...


Already went through those fourteen and none of them concern ruling that marriage is a right.  And all of them presume the definition of marriage as between a man and a women.  The one I am sure is of particular interest to you and it legalized sodomy.

So if you want to use those 14 then we can agree, that marriage between a man and a woman is a right and you have the right to sodomy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is not a "right"
> 
> Another far left myth that needs to be dispelled...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are obviously a product of home schooling.
> 
> It is not a myth.  SCOTUS has said so.
> 
> Step along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like that "step along" a little too much.  The Nazis also liked that term when they loaded the trains to the ovens.
Click to expand...


Learn your history: it comes from the Birmingham police trying to stop marchers for civil rights.


----------



## JakeStarkey

1st Amendment will protect churches in their private behavior.

If a church, however, advertises and holds out its property as a wedding center for a fee, then that would not be very smart if the congregation did not want homosexual marriages performed there.


----------



## Kondor3

JakeStarkey said:


> d_tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can refuse service, Votto, if it does not involve violating the civil liberties of others.
> 
> I can be thrown out of the store for not wearing a shirt and shoes.
> 
> If it is a bakery that holds itself out to the public as a make of wedding cakes, it cannot deny me a memorial cake for my wife and I.
> 
> And it cannot deny such to a homosexual couple because they are same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can....there are COUNTLESS ways to refuse service without showing your hand...
> 
> "Sorry, we're booked solid.  I don't have time to provide you with proper service."
> 
> "Sir, I'm sorry, but this coming Friday is the LAST day that we are going to be making wedding cakes for a unspecified length of time while we update the area of the bakery where we produce large specialty baked goods."
> 
> "I'm all out of icing."
> 
> 
> Here's the question I've always had about this very volatile situation....
> 
> Why would you want to FORCE a bakery to do something that they don't want to do?
> 
> Wouldn't you be concerned about the quality of service?  Is your wedding day something you want to gamble that on?
> 
> Why not go find a bakery that LOVES to do wedding cakes for ANYBODY?
> 
> It just wreaks of making a point and drawing attention because they can.  Ridiculous.
> 
> And stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is stupid is violating the law.  Opponents of fair housing, etc., are easily caught and sued.  Make the cake, make money.
Click to expand...

Capitulate to wrong-headed judicial rulings on the subject, and thereby implicitly aid-and-abet the wrongful legitimizing of homosexuality... an aberration in the eyes of God, Nature and Man?

Whatever for?

Far better to resist as best as possible within the framework of the law under present circumstances, throwing-up as many road-blocks and challenges and forestalling tactics as may be practicable, and fighting a rear-guard action, while waiting for a changing of the guard, in order to exploit a more favorable and receptive environment, to begin using the law, to reverse recent judicial rulings in that vein.

It will require fresh conservative rulings regarding homosexuality, on the Federal level, in connection with health, safety, public order and public morals - causing it to revert to its former status, in order to use the law, to overturn recent gains by the Homosexual Mafia.

But it can be done, and probably will be done - 3% cannot impose their will upon the other 97% forever.

Judgment day (_reversals of fortune for homosexuals in the courts_), if-and-when it comes, will be sweet, as more Conservative courts wipe the smug, arrogant grins from the faces of these perverts.

Sounds like fun.

It's also a necessity, for the long-term welfare of the Republic.

Far from being all-but-over, as the Homosexual Mafia and their fellow travelers would like for all of us to believe ('resistance is futile'), this fight has, in all probability, only just begun.

January 20, 2017, may prove to be such a changing of the guard.

Hurry the day.

Tick... tick... tick.

And, if not, it will come soon enough, as history measures time.


----------



## bripat9643

Howey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I swear to God I'm so sick of these silly homophobic comments from the right. Shall we ban adoption because its not really the babies REAL parents raising it? While were at it let's take away all the children being raised by single mothers and fathers cuz, ya know, they don't have a mommy and daddy raising them. While were at it, let's lock up all those grandmas raising the unwanted children their libertarian millennial breeder brats don't have the time to raise!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is what you are sick of.
> 
> If the mother can't afford to raise an illegitimate child, it should be taken away from her and put up for adoption because she's an unfit mother.  That's what used to happen before all the Johnson "Great Society" programs came online.
> 
> The rest of your suggestions are pure nonsense.  No one has ever suggesting anything of the sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...let's go back to the days of Dickens and take away those children and lock them up in huge prison like structures to waste away. Why not put them to work in sweatshops for pennies a day?
Click to expand...


In typical dishonest queer fashion you're putting words in my mouth that I never said.  Having a mother and father who have the financial means to support is much better for a child than being raised by some crack whore on AFDC.



Howey said:


> Do you really think single family homes only consist of illegitimate children? How about those where the white trash breeder father skips out?
> You, Sir, are a fucking moron. And wouldn't know sarcasm if it slapped you in your face. If only you had been aborted or ran over by a bus. This world would be a better place.



I didn't refer to children who aren't illegitimate, so they aren't the subject of this discussion.  I'm talking only about sluts who are too stupid to use birth control and get themselves knocked up.  They aren't qualified to raise a child.

Current illegitimacy rates in the U.S. are 29% for whites and 73% for African Americans.  So it's obviously a major social problem.  The problem of white trash fathers who disappear is far down the list of social pathologies.

Whether your words are sarcastic or not, you're still putting them in my mouth.  That's utterly dishonest, but that's what I've come to expect from queers.  Qualities like honesty and integrity simply aren't in their make up.


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you'd like us to think you're new around here and all that but here's a news flash.
> 
> Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The jury is still out on that issue.  Common sense would indicate that being raised by a couple of homosexuals would not be a healthy environment for a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not.  It is clear and substantiated that same sex marriages raise people just as well.
Click to expand...


Wrong, as always, penis wrinkle.   Nothing of the sort has been "substantiated."


----------



## bripat9643

Howey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you'd like us to think you're new around here and all that but here's a news flash.
> 
> Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The jury is still out on that issue.  Common sense would indicate that being raised by a couple of homosexuals would not be a healthy environment for a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have no common sense. You are an amoebic single cell spittle undeserving of commenting on what's right for children.
Click to expand...


Translation:  I spoke the truth.


----------



## Howey

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I swear to God I'm so sick of these silly homophobic comments from the right. Shall we ban adoption because its not really the babies REAL parents raising it? While were at it let's take away all the children being raised by single mothers and fathers cuz, ya know, they don't have a mommy and daddy raising them. While were at it, let's lock up all those grandmas raising the unwanted children their libertarian millennial breeder brats don't have the time to raise!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I understand your disgust by some attitudes, your own isn't peachy. Calling heterosexual couples, "Breeders" doesn't put you on a clean slate.
> 
> My personal opinion is that there are plenty of children who need good homes. If two people who have been deemed fit, can love a "lost in the system" child.. there's only good that can come from that.
Click to expand...


Its called sarcasm, dear. And I'll continue until they stop calling us fags.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

No; but because laws already exist affording official recognition of certain religious ideas like the Sabbath and how some businesses may be closed or restricted in their operation (like no alcohol to be sold.) Since the law does that, turning around and forcing actual religious institutions to do non-religious things like perform homosexual weddings (assuming that that religion denounces homosexuality) is both hypocritical and legally inconsistant.

Marriage is a religious rite. If a religion denounces homosexuality, forcing it to do homosexual marriages is the government defacto taking over the religion. If you wanna get married as a homosexual don't be that particular religion if it denounces it. The government will (or soon will, resistance is futile) recognize it regardless. The religion doesn't enter into it.


----------



## GISMYS

THOSE THAT LIVE IN THE ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION SHOULD NOT BE PARENTS OF CHILDREN,THAT WOULD BE CHILD ABUSE OF THE WORST SORT. Think


----------



## bripat9643

Seawytch said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you'd like us to think you're new around here and all that but here's a news flash.
> 
> Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The jury is still out on that issue.  Common sense would indicate that being raised by a couple of homosexuals would not be a healthy environment for a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Jury is in.
> 
> World Largest Study of Same Sex Parents
Click to expand...


It's obviously flawed because it's based on self reporting.  Do you actually believe that any homosexual couple is going to honestly report any abnormal behaviour in the kids they are parenting?  Furthermore, this "study" only looks at children currently being raised.  It doesn't examine any adults who were raised by homosexual couples.  

It's nothing but homo propaganda.


----------



## AquaAthena

*PLEASE keep all comments and insults, relevant to the OP, so we can keep it open.

Thanks,

~AquaAthena*


----------



## Ibentoken

Leftist bullying.
17 &#8216;Right-Wing&#8217; Restaurants That Dared to Take a Stand Against the Liberal Agenda


----------



## Unkotare

The answer to the OP is "NO." So, what the hell else is there to say?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Kosh said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is not a "right"
> 
> Another far left myth that needs to be dispelled...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are obviously a product of home schooling.
> 
> It is not a myth.  SCOTUS has said so.
> 
> Step along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is not a "right".
> 
> It is a far left myth, promoted by far left Obama drones, because they know no better due to faulty programming.
Click to expand...


Even if marriage weren't a right,

equal protection under the law IS, so once you have laws in place regarding civil marriage,  equal protection applies, including applying to same sex couples.


----------



## Unkotare

Comprehensive Civil Unions could address any equal protection concerns. When all is said and done, it comes down to a 'fight' over a term and one minority group trying to use the judicial system to impose social acceptance that might take place on its own over the next 4-5 generations. All the fussin' and fightin' over this issue is rarely about 'rights' anymore.


----------



## NYcarbineer

I would say however that churches who wish to exert a right to discriminate against same sex couples regarding church weddings should be required to eliminate the civil/legal portion of the marriage from the church ceremony, if they don't already,

and the actual civil marriage should take place separately.


----------



## Moonglow

GISMYS said:


> THOSE THAT LIVE IN THE ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION SHOULD NOT BE PARENTS OF CHILDREN,THAT WOULD BE CHILD ABUSE OF THE WORST SORT. Think



Like Mary's baby's daddy, God? No child support and was never around to raise the kid...had a child out of wedlock...tsk,,tsk...hell they lived off of donations by the Magi's..


----------



## Ibentoken

NYcarbineer said:


> I would say however that churches who wish to exert a right to discriminate against same sex couples regarding church weddings should be required to eliminate the civil/legal portion of the marriage from the church ceremony, if they don't already,
> 
> and the actual civil marriage should take place separately.



Do you believe in the separation of church and state?


----------



## usmcstinger

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


You need to do more research on who goes to what churches. Hispanics are predominantly Roman Catholics.  The Church welcomes all who believe in it's teachings.

Overall, about 41% African-Americans think homosexuals should be accepted by soiciety and 46% do not.
However, you need to read the following link to become better educated.

A Religious Portrait of African-Americans | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you'd like us to think you're new around here and all that but here's a news flash.
> 
> Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The jury is still out on that issue.  Common sense would indicate that being raised by a couple of homosexuals would not be a healthy environment for a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not.  It is clear and substantiated that same sex marriages raise people just as well.
Click to expand...


Yes - *but what kind of people* ??? 

Gay Connecticut couple accused of raping adopted children will face trial - NY Daily News

http://rt.com/news/pedophile-syndicate-russian-boy-481/

Gay Adoption Horror: Duke University Official Molested Adopted African American Son, Pimped Son to Cop in Web Sting - RPVNetwork

Moonbattery » Homosexual Couple Busted for Raping Adopted Child

Adoption and Foster Care Horror Stories and Successes | The Toxic Environment of Child Protection


----------



## Nosmo King

Churches sanctify marriages.  The state provides licenses for marriage.  The state should not prohibit access to marriage licenses.  What churches do is up to them, but Gay marriage will be legal regardless of sectarian approval.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say however that churches who wish to exert a right to discriminate against same sex couples regarding church weddings should be required to eliminate the civil/legal portion of the marriage from the church ceremony, if they don't already,
> 
> and the actual civil marriage should take place separately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe in the separation of church and state?
Click to expand...


Yes, that's why the church should have to separate the civil proceeding from the religious ceremony if they want the church marriage to be protected under the 1st amendment.


----------



## Unkotare

Howey said:


> Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.






Just how much of a hypocrite are you? Using the term "breeder" derisively while defending the notion of gay couples raising children? You do now where children come from, don't you? Your attitude undermines your own position.


----------



## koshergrl

I actually could care less if the church has state authority to marry people or not.


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> 1st Amendment will protect churches in their private behavior.
> 
> If a church, however, advertises and holds out its property as a wedding center for a fee, then that would not be very smart if the congregation did want homosexual marriages performed there.



Jake - you seem to have contradicted yourself - *was that just your usual stupidity or a typo *


----------



## GreenBean

Unkotare said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how much of a hypocrite are you? Using the term "breeder" derisively while defending the notion of gay couples raising children? You do now where children come from, don't you? Your attitude undermines your own position.
Click to expand...


He picks his out of the cabbage patch


----------



## Ibentoken

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say however that churches who wish to exert a right to discriminate against same sex couples regarding church weddings should be required to eliminate the civil/legal portion of the marriage from the church ceremony, if they don't already,
> 
> and the actual civil marriage should take place separately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe in the separation of church and state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's why the church should have to separate the civil proceeding from the religious ceremony if they want the church marriage to be protected under the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...


It already is.  Once the license is purchased from the state, the marriage is now the church's marriage.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Capitulate to wrong-headed judicial rulings on the subject, and thereby implicitly aid-and-abet the wrongful legitimizing of homosexuality... an aberration in the eyes of God, Nature and Man?"

Complain to God and Nature then.

Man disagrees with you.

Wrong headed is in the eye of the beholder.

Get SCOTUS to change it if you can, but, remember, the Constitution is a secular document.


----------



## g5000

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The jury is still out on that issue.  Common sense would indicate that being raised by a couple of homosexuals would not be a healthy environment for a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.  It is clear and substantiated that same sex marriages raise people just as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes - *but what kind of people* ???
> 
> Gay Connecticut couple accused of raping adopted children will face trial - NY Daily News
> 
> Gay couple accused of sexually abusing adopted Russian boy for years ? RT News
> 
> Gay Adoption Horror: Duke University Official Molested Adopted African American Son, Pimped Son to Cop in Web Sting - RPVNetwork
> 
> Moonbattery » Homosexual Couple Busted for Raping Adopted Child
> 
> Adoption and Foster Care Horror Stories and Successes | The Toxic Environment of Child Protection
Click to expand...


I give you...Woody Allen.


----------



## Unkotare

Marriages are legal contracts. Weddings are conducted at churches (often).


----------



## g5000

bripat9643 said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you'd like us to think you're new around here and all that but here's a news flash.
> 
> Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The jury is still out on that issue.  Common sense would indicate that being raised by a couple of homosexuals would not be a healthy environment for a child.
Click to expand...


Yeah.  That gay couple might teach their kids that homosexuals are not evil!  

THE HORROR!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say however that churches who wish to exert a right to discriminate against same sex couples regarding church weddings should be required to eliminate the civil/legal portion of the marriage from the church ceremony, if they don't already,
> 
> and the actual civil marriage should take place separately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe in the separation of church and state?
Click to expand...


You clearly do not.


----------



## GreenBean

g5000 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.  It is clear and substantiated that same sex marriages raise people just as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - *but what kind of people* ???
> 
> Gay Connecticut couple accused of raping adopted children will face trial - NY Daily News
> 
> Gay couple accused of sexually abusing adopted Russian boy for years ? RT News
> 
> Gay Adoption Horror: Duke University Official Molested Adopted African American Son, Pimped Son to Cop in Web Sting - RPVNetwork
> 
> Moonbattery » Homosexual Couple Busted for Raping Adopted Child
> 
> Adoption and Foster Care Horror Stories and Successes | The Toxic Environment of Child Protection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I give you...Woody Allen.
Click to expand...


Yup Woody got a woody for his adopted daughter -but that's not really relevant cause he's only half a fag .


----------



## g5000

GreenBean said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - *but what kind of people* ???
> 
> Gay Connecticut couple accused of raping adopted children will face trial - NY Daily News
> 
> Gay couple accused of sexually abusing adopted Russian boy for years ? RT News
> 
> Gay Adoption Horror: Duke University Official Molested Adopted African American Son, Pimped Son to Cop in Web Sting - RPVNetwork
> 
> Moonbattery » Homosexual Couple Busted for Raping Adopted Child
> 
> Adoption and Foster Care Horror Stories and Successes | The Toxic Environment of Child Protection
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I give you...Woody Allen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup Woody got a woody for his adopted daughter -but that's not really relevant cause he's only half a fag .
Click to expand...


You are a dumbshit if you think there aren't any heteros molesting their adopted kids.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - *but what kind of people* ???
> 
> Gay Connecticut couple accused of raping adopted children will face trial - NY Daily News
> 
> Gay couple accused of sexually abusing adopted Russian boy for years ? RT News
> 
> Gay Adoption Horror: Duke University Official Molested Adopted African American Son, Pimped Son to Cop in Web Sting - RPVNetwork
> 
> Moonbattery » Homosexual Couple Busted for Raping Adopted Child
> 
> Adoption and Foster Care Horror Stories and Successes | The Toxic Environment of Child Protection
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I give you...Woody Allen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup Woody got a woody for his adopted daughter -but that's not really relevant cause he's only half a fag .
Click to expand...


How many straight men molest their daughters?  Or their friends' daughters?  Or their other relatives' daughters?  Or their step-daughters?


----------



## g5000

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



Do you have evidence of a church in the US being forced to perform a gay wedding?


Didn't think so.


----------



## JakeStarkey

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The jury is still out on that issue.  Common sense would indicate that being raised by a couple of homosexuals would not be a healthy environment for a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.  It is clear and substantiated that same sex marriages raise people just as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes - *but what kind of people* ???
Click to expand...


Heterosexual couples rape children.

Heterosexual and Homosexuals prey against young children.

Foster care horror stories occur in heterosexual homes as well.

So you have proved heterosexuals are bad for children like homosexuals?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The use of "breeder" is contemptible from one who is supposedly fighting for civil rights.  Asshole.   See how that works.  Grow up, Howey


----------



## JakeStarkey

If a church is not an advertised wedding center for fee then there is no problem.


----------



## Moonglow

> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?



What school did you attend??


----------



## koshergrl

g5000 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you'd like us to think you're new around here and all that but here's a news flash.
> 
> Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The jury is still out on that issue. Common sense would indicate that being raised by a couple of homosexuals would not be a healthy environment for a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. That gay couple might teach their kids that homosexuals are not evil!
> 
> THE HORROR!
Click to expand...

 
Nobody teaches kids that homosexuals are evil.

What they do is NOT teach them the specifics of homosexuality before they're out of diapers. 

You fags can teach your kids that stuff. I'm sure it will serve them well as 10 year olds to know that if they want to put their peters in their best friends' mouth, that's normal behavior for a 10 y.o.

We prefer to teach our children that sex is for adults, and when they are adults they can explore the specifics of it, hopefully within the confines of a marriage. If you see that as some sort of indictment against queers, meh, who cares. It isn't like you're normal to begin with.


----------



## g5000

koshergrl said:


> Nobody teaches kids that homosexuals are evil.


----------



## JakeStarkey

g5000 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody teaches kids that homosexuals are evil.
Click to expand...


And she follows that with "fags."


----------



## koshergrl

g5000 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have evidence of a church in the US being forced to perform a gay wedding?
> 
> 
> Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

 
Did you miss the question?

SHOULD places of worship be forced to accommodate...it's a QUESTION.

Is English your second language?


----------



## bodecea

JakeStarkey said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.  It is clear and substantiated that same sex marriages raise people just as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - *but what kind of people* ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heterosexual couples rape children.
> 
> Heterosexual and Homosexuals prey against young children.
> 
> Foster care horror stories occur in heterosexual homes as well.
> 
> So you have proved heterosexuals are bad for children like homosexuals?
Click to expand...


The most common denominator is that most most most molestors are male....by a loooooong shot.


----------



## koshergrl

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I give you...Woody Allen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup Woody got a woody for his adopted daughter -but that's not really relevant cause he's only half a fag .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many straight men molest their daughters? Or their friends' daughters? Or their other relatives' daughters? Or their step-daughters?
Click to expand...

 
Are you saying Woody is a gay pedophile?


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have evidence of a church in the US being forced to perform a gay wedding?
> 
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the question?
> 
> SHOULD places of worship be forced to accommodate...it's a QUESTION.
> 
> Is English your second language?
Click to expand...


And the answer is NO....just like places of worship should NOT be forced to accomodate either inter-racial, inter-faith, or formerly divorced couple marriages.

Has any of that happened yet?


----------



## Ibentoken

JakeStarkey said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say however that churches who wish to exert a right to discriminate against same sex couples regarding church weddings should be required to eliminate the civil/legal portion of the marriage from the church ceremony, if they don't already,
> 
> and the actual civil marriage should take place separately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe in the separation of church and state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly do not.
Click to expand...


If you're gonna debate then make your points.  Telling me what I believe or don't believe isn't a debating point.  Idiot.


----------



## GreenBean

koshergrl said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup Woody got a woody for his adopted daughter -but that's not really relevant cause he's only half a fag .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many straight men molest their daughters? Or their friends' daughters? Or their other relatives' daughters? Or their step-daughters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying Woody is a gay pedophile?
Click to expand...


No indication that Woody Allen is a Fag.  Now Woody Wood Pecker - that's another thing altogether .


----------



## Ibentoken

GreenBean said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many straight men molest their daughters? Or their friends' daughters? Or their other relatives' daughters? Or their step-daughters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying Woody is a gay pedophile?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No indication that Woody Allen is a Fag.  Now Woody Wood Pecker - that's another thing altogether .
Click to expand...


Woody has a wood pecker.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe in the separation of church and state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's why the church should have to separate the civil proceeding from the religious ceremony if they want the church marriage to be protected under the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It already is.  Once the license is purchased from the state, the marriage is now the church's marriage.
Click to expand...


When the pastor, in the church ceremony, says:

"By the power vested in me by the state of..."  or the equivalent,  he has made the church wedding a civil proceeding.

I believe in that case the chuch is offering to conduct a civil marriage in the church setting, but to deny that to a same sex couple who otherwise can legally obtain a civil marriage might be discriminatory outside any religious exemption the church might claim.

I am not against churches having a religious exemption, as long as they stick to religion.


----------



## Ibentoken

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's why the church should have to separate the civil proceeding from the religious ceremony if they want the church marriage to be protected under the 1st amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It already is.  Once the license is purchased from the state, the marriage is now the church's marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the pastor, in the church ceremony, says:
> 
> "By the power vested in me by the state of..."  or the equivalent,  he has made the church wedding a civil proceeding.
> 
> I believe in that case the chuch is offering to conduct a civil marriage in the church setting, but to deny that to a same sex couple who otherwise can legally obtain a civil marriage might be discriminatory outside any religious exemption the church might claim.
> 
> I am not against churches having a religious exemption, as long as they stick to religion.
Click to expand...



Who says?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> It already is.  Once the license is purchased from the state, the marriage is now the church's marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the pastor, in the church ceremony, says:
> 
> "By the power vested in me by the state of..."  or the equivalent,  he has made the church wedding a civil proceeding.
> 
> I believe in that case the chuch is offering to conduct a civil marriage in the church setting, but to deny that to a same sex couple who otherwise can legally obtain a civil marriage might be discriminatory outside any religious exemption the church might claim.
> 
> I am not against churches having a religious exemption, as long as they stick to religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who says?
Click to expand...


That's not debating.  That's asking a question that is unrelated to my post.  What do you disagree with?  And why?


----------



## Ibentoken

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the pastor, in the church ceremony, says:
> 
> "By the power vested in me by the state of..."  or the equivalent,  he has made the church wedding a civil proceeding.
> 
> I believe in that case the chuch is offering to conduct a civil marriage in the church setting, but to deny that to a same sex couple who otherwise can legally obtain a civil marriage might be discriminatory outside any religious exemption the church might claim.
> 
> I am not against churches having a religious exemption, as long as they stick to religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not debating.  That's asking a question that is unrelated to my post.  What do you disagree with?  And why?
Click to expand...


Answer the question.  Who says the pastor is now a civil servant when he says.."by the power vested, etc.   Who says?  You?   Making up stuff isn't a debating skill.  Tell me who.


----------



## sealybobo

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



I'm a big 400 lb male biker.  My male lover is bigger than me.  We're going to a catholic church, then a born again church, then a synagog, then a presbyterian, lutheran, protestant, mormon then a mosque and we're insisting they marry us.  And our tradition says the priest/rabbi/shaman or whoever is performing the ceremony has to hold each of us by our manhood until we both finish on the alter.


----------



## koshergrl

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have evidence of a church in the US being forced to perform a gay wedding?
> 
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss the question?
> 
> SHOULD places of worship be forced to accommodate...it's a QUESTION.
> 
> Is English your second language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the answer is NO....just like places of worship should NOT be forced to accomodate either inter-racial, inter-faith, or formerly divorced couple marriages.
> 
> Has any of that happened yet?
Click to expand...

 
Nobody said it had happened.

Again. It was a question. Not a claim that it was happening.


----------



## Ibentoken

sealybobo said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a big 400 lb male biker.  My male lover is bigger than me.  We're going to a catholic church, then a born again church, then a synagog, then a presbyterian, lutheran, protestant, mormon then a mosque and we're insisting they marry us.  And our tradition says the priest/rabbi/shaman or whoever is performing the ceremony has to hold each of us by our manhood until we both finish on the alter.
Click to expand...


Need a photographer?


----------



## koshergrl

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe in the separation of church and state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're gonna debate then make your points. Telling me what I believe or don't believe isn't a debating point. Idiot.
Click to expand...

 
Haha, meet fake.

Don't worry, we have all gone through this stage with him. It happens right before you put him on ignore because he's such a vapid moron...eventually you take him off ignore because you realize, he's not even relevant enough to put on ignore. Everybody treats him the same way.


----------



## koshergrl

sealybobo said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a big 400 lb male biker. My male lover is bigger than me. We're going to a catholic church, then a born again church, then a synagog, then a presbyterian, lutheran, protestant, mormon then a mosque and we're insisting they marry us. And our tradition says the priest/rabbi/shaman or whoever is performing the ceremony has to hold each of us by our manhood until we both finish on the alter.
Click to expand...

 
Which is why we aren't interested in marrying freaks. As you know, there are children in the church.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe in the separation of church and state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're gonna debate then make your points.  Telling me what I believe or don't believe isn't a debating point.  Idiot.
Click to expand...


I am not debating an already clear point: you don't believe in separation based on your comments.  You are a Big Government right wing Progressive, just like Pop23 and LockeJaw and Vigilante and koshergrl, who wants government to deny marriage equality.


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're gonna debate then make your points. Telling me what I believe or don't believe isn't a debating point. Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha, meet fake.
> 
> Don't worry, we have all gone through this stage with him. It happens right before you put him on ignore because he's such a vapid moron...eventually you take him off ignore because you realize, he's not even relevant enough to put on ignore. Everybody treats him the same way.
Click to expand...


An excellent projection of your own self loathing, koshergrl.


----------



## koshergrl

Nobody gives a crap about your revisionist garbage, jake.

You're like a less intelligent, unfunny, pogo.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

alang1216 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't.  No one has ever made a good argument against marriage equality because there is none.
> 
> De facto same sex marriage has always existed.  The fact that legal or religious systems have not recognized them, or outlawed them, or persecuted them,
> 
> is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, initially it was a religious dictate coming out of our Christian tradition here in the west. So I am talking about what the government's policy on marriage ought to be in Western Societies.
> 
> If on Indian Reservations they wish to issue same sex marriage licenses I wouldn't oppose it, I support full tribal autonomy. I don't know what tribes you speak of, but no, I don't think government policy should be reflective of the traditions of these supposed tribes, it should be reflective of our own historical traditions as emerging from European Christian civilization.
> 
> Also for practical considerations. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose. It makes no sense to put the lifestyle on par with a union that results in children and therefore a family except to not hurt the feelings of people and be "fair". As though fairness, equality, basically FEELINGS, should trump practical considerations and reality.
> 
> Infertile couples can still adopt, and being a man and woman still form the foundation of the nuclear family. But most people aren't infertile, and these minute exceptions to the rule in no way negate the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and family formation.
> 
> I just outlined why homosexual couples and heterosexual couples shouldn't be treated the same. Though the burden is on you why we should treat them the same as you are making an affirmative case to change the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of your arguments were raised when interracial marriages were made legal here in Virginia.  And that was not so very long ago.  Tradition doesn't hold much sway with me.  To say people should be denied legal rights because they've always been denied such rights is a pretty weak argument.
> 
> Gay couples have always formed long-term relationships and children are often involved.  By denying the gay couple the same legal rights as other couples harms them but it also harms the children involved.  I see no justification for that.
> 
> You didn't answer the question: Should eldery couples be allowed to wed?
Click to expand...

Yea, when you lose on the merits, you revert to in a indirect way calling me a racist.

Guess what, I oppose interracial marriage as well. But then again, I oppose a society of depressed, mixed race rootless cosmopolitans with identity crises and mental issues. 

It's funny, you traditions mattered when you mentioned indian tribes that supposedly gay married in the past. So you will make appeals to tradition when it serves your ends. But otherwise, you just don't care. I am not surprised though, libertarians are antisocial hedonistic materialist that have no conception of community. Since you don't care about community, and believe in the primacy of the individual, why would you care about the communities  and the traditions that underlie them?

LOL at another appeal to tradition(there have always been gays), I thought tradition didn't sway you? This just shows your intellectual laziness, you can't even form a consistent argument Children are harmed more by gay adoption than a lack of gay marriage.
A Married Mom and Dad Really Do Matter: New Evidence from Canada | Public Discourse

I did answer, the question, I will repeat myself though, yes, elderly couples should be allowed to wed.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not debating.  That's asking a question that is unrelated to my post.  What do you disagree with?  And why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer the question.  Who says the pastor is now a civil servant when he says.."by the power vested, etc.   Who says?  You?   Making up stuff isn't a debating skill.  Tell me who.
Click to expand...


Because the state has vested him with the power to officiate over a civil action that requires someone with that power.


----------



## koshergrl

I think the church should just surrender the civil authority
Screw the state.


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss the question?
> 
> SHOULD places of worship be forced to accommodate...it's a QUESTION.
> 
> Is English your second language?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is NO....just like places of worship should NOT be forced to accomodate either inter-racial, inter-faith, or formerly divorced couple marriages.
> 
> Has any of that happened yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said it had happened.
> 
> Again. It was a question. Not a claim that it was happening.
Click to expand...


Why do you think none of those things have happened, "koshergrl"?


----------



## Ibentoken

JakeStarkey said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're gonna debate then make your points.  Telling me what I believe or don't believe isn't a debating point.  Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not debating an already clear point: you don't believe in separation based on your comments.  You are a Big Government right wing Progressive, just like Pop23 and LockeJaw and Vigilante and koshergrl, who wants government to deny marriage equality.
Click to expand...


Mental masturbation.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

Gay men do not differ from straight men in the size and shape of any facial feature. Rather, the use of certain expressions can become ingrained in the musculature of the face over time. Since effeminate gay men utilize similar facial expressions as women, they develop female aging and muscle contraction patterns in their face. For example, gay face includes tightness around the mouth from pursing the lips, a facial expression common to gay men and women - but not to heterosexual men. Also, gay men are more emotionally expressive, leading to a general tightness and muscular activation through out the entire face. Gay face includes an eye expression that is both surprised looking and predatory. Eyebrows are usually arched higher than that of straight men, and eyebrow hair is manicured. There is often a slightly tan and/or leathery look to the skin, especially among older gay men. Lesbians also have a version of gay face that emulates the facial muscular usage patterns straight men. They exhibit an under expression of emotion, relaxed brows, relaxed eyes, and less taut mouth and cheek muscles than straight women. The skin is usually pale and splotchy.


----------



## Unkotare

RWHeathenGamer said:


> Guess what, I oppose interracial marriage as well. But then again, I oppose a society of depressed, mixed race rootless cosmopolitans with identity crises and mental issues.






Guess what, Pillsbury DoughSock?  Your little act has already gotten old.


----------



## koshergrl

RWHeathenGamer said:


> Gay men do not differ from straight men in the size and shape of any facial feature. Rather, the use of certain expressions can become ingrained in the musculature of the face over time. Since effeminate gay men utilize similar facial expressions as women, they develop female aging and muscle contraction patterns in their face. For example, gay face includes tightness around the mouth from pursing the lips, a facial expression common to gay men and women - but not to heterosexual men. Also, gay men are more emotionally expressive, leading to a general tightness and muscular activation through out the entire face. Gay face includes an eye expression that is both surprised looking and predatory. Eyebrows are usually arched higher than that of straight men, and eyebrow hair is manicured. There is often a slightly tan and/or leathery look to the skin, especially among older gay men. Lesbians also have a version of gay face that emulates the facial muscular usage patterns straight men. They exhibit an under expression of emotion, relaxed brows, relaxed eyes, and less taut mouth and cheek muscles than straight women. The skin is usually pale and splotchy.


 
Pedophiles likewise primarily exhibit a certain appearance as well. They also utilize particular mannerisms in their verbal and physical interactions with other people.

I'm a pedo water witch. I've got what seems to others to be a sixth sense when really it's just that I'm supremely observant and have a lot of experience with the weirdos..I can single them out of a crowd.


----------



## koshergrl

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is NO....just like places of worship should NOT be forced to accomodate either inter-racial, inter-faith, or formerly divorced couple marriages.
> 
> Has any of that happened yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said it had happened.
> 
> Again. It was a question. Not a claim that it was happening.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think none of those things have happened, "koshergrl"?
Click to expand...

 
When did I say I thought that? 



Try to stick to the topic. Your frantic attempts to derail/change the subject are just kind of lame and pathetic.


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said it had happened.
> 
> Again. It was a question. Not a claim that it was happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think none of those things have happened, "koshergrl"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I say I thought that?
> 
> 
> 
> Try to stick to the topic. Your frantic attempts to derail/change the subject are just kind of lame and pathetic.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that none of those things have happened, "koshergrl"?

or, if you wish....WHEN have any of those things happened?


----------



## freedombecki

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not debating. That's asking a question that is unrelated to my post. What do you disagree with? And why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question. Who says the pastor is now a civil servant when he says.."by the power vested, etc. Who says? You? Making up stuff isn't a debating skill. Tell me who.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the state has vested him with the power to officiate over a civil action that requires someone with that power.
Click to expand...

Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 I believe in equal rights for everyone, up to property lines of reservations and churches. We should love and consider the person who is gay and cannot help it, but we should not be forced to go against our understanding of what the Holy Bible says is offensive (aka, an abomination).

 There are many churches that allow gay marriages, and many that don't. Pick one that allows your beliefs.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're gonna debate then make your points.  Telling me what I believe or don't believe isn't a debating point.  Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not debating an already clear point: you don't believe in separation based on your comments.  You are a Big Government right wing Progressive, just like Pop23 and LockeJaw and Vigilante and koshergrl, who wants government to deny marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mental masturbation.
Click to expand...


Yes, that is  what you are doing: fun but sterile.


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay men do not differ from straight men in the size and shape of any facial feature. Rather, the use of certain expressions can become ingrained in the musculature of the face over time. Since effeminate gay men utilize similar facial expressions as women, they develop female aging and muscle contraction patterns in their face. For example, gay face includes tightness around the mouth from pursing the lips, a facial expression common to gay men and women - but not to heterosexual men. Also, gay men are more emotionally expressive, leading to a general tightness and muscular activation through out the entire face. Gay face includes an eye expression that is both surprised looking and predatory. Eyebrows are usually arched higher than that of straight men, and eyebrow hair is manicured. There is often a slightly tan and/or leathery look to the skin, especially among older gay men. Lesbians also have a version of gay face that emulates the facial muscular usage patterns straight men. They exhibit an under expression of emotion, relaxed brows, relaxed eyes, and less taut mouth and cheek muscles than straight women. The skin is usually pale and splotchy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophiles likewise primarily exhibit a certain appearance as well. They also utilize particular mannerisms in their verbal and physical interactions with other people.
> 
> I'm a pedo water witch. I've got what seems to others to be a sixth sense when really it's just that I'm supremely observant and have a lot of experience with the weirdos..I can single them out of a crowd.
Click to expand...


koshergrl exhibits online the classic symptoms of delusion.

When it comes to "identifying pedophiles by their markings", she sounds just like Julius Streicher and his campaign against Jews.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think none of those things have happened, "koshergrl"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did I say I thought that?
> 
> 
> 
> Try to stick to the topic. Your frantic attempts to derail/change the subject are just kind of lame and pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think that none of those things have happened, "koshergrl"?
> 
> or, if you wish....WHEN have any of those things happened?
Click to expand...


kg is trapped in the bottle just like the fly.

She is buzzing and frantically trying to escape.

Bodecea has just put the lid on the bottle.


----------



## JakeStarkey

freedombecki said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question. Who says the pastor is now a civil servant when he says.."by the power vested, etc. Who says? You? Making up stuff isn't a debating skill. Tell me who.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the state has vested him with the power to officiate over a civil action that requires someone with that power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> I believe in equal rights for everyone, up to property lines of reservations and churches. We should love and consider the person who is gay and cannot help it, but we should not be forced to go against our understanding of what the Holy Bible says is offensive (aka, an abomination).
> 
> There are many churches that allow gay marriages, and many that don't. Pick one that allows your beliefs.
Click to expand...


99% will agree with that.  And to protect against the 1%, simply do not advertise facilities for weddings; it will go out by word of mouth.


----------



## Katzndogz

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not debating.  That's asking a question that is unrelated to my post.  What do you disagree with?  And why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.  Who says the pastor is now a civil servant when he says.."by the power vested, etc.   Who says?  You?   Making up stuff isn't a debating skill.  Tell me who.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the state has vested him with the power to officiate over a civil action that requires someone with that power.
Click to expand...


The pastor is not a civil servant because he doesn't work for the state.  The state does not pay him a salary.

The state gives you a driver's license.  Having that license doesn't make you a municipal bus driver or even a cab driver.


----------



## Ibentoken

JakeStarkey said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not debating an already clear point: you don't believe in separation based on your comments.  You are a Big Government right wing Progressive, just like Pop23 and LockeJaw and Vigilante and koshergrl, who wants government to deny marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mental masturbation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that is  what you are doing: fun but sterile.
Click to expand...

I know you are but what am I - Pee Wee: [ame=http://youtu.be/Cs4Gj7JsET4]I know you are but what am I - Pee Wee - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## NYcarbineer

Katzndogz said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.  Who says the pastor is now a civil servant when he says.."by the power vested, etc.   Who says?  You?   Making up stuff isn't a debating skill.  Tell me who.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the state has vested him with the power to officiate over a civil action that requires someone with that power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pastor is not a civil servant because he doesn't work for the state.  The state does not pay him a salary.
> 
> The state gives you a driver's license.  Having that license doesn't make you a municipal bus driver or even a cab driver.
Click to expand...


Having a driver's license and being a pastor doesn't let you ignore the rules of the road on religious grounds.


----------



## Kondor3

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not debating.  That's asking a question that is unrelated to my post.  What do you disagree with?  And why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.  Who says the pastor is now a civil servant when he says.."by the power vested, etc.   Who says?  You?   Making up stuff isn't a debating skill.  Tell me who.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the state has vested him with the power to officiate over a civil action that requires someone with that power.
Click to expand...

Fine.

If you are a public official who is licensed to perform Marriages, then I have the right to expect that you will perform such a ceremony, on public premises tasked for that purpose.

If you are private individual who is licensed to perform Marriages, then I have *no* right to expect that you will perform such a ceremony, at your place *OR* mine.

Churches (_generically used here, and understood to include synagogues, temples, mosques, religious meeting houses, revival tents, etc._) are akin to Private Clubs on Steroids, and, legally, they enjoy many of the same protections and attributes of Private Clubs, as well as extended financial advantages which range beyond those which Clubs enjoy.

Churches are free to admit into communion those who meet their criteria, and churches are free to refuse communion to those who fail to meet their criteria.

You have no _right_ to communion nor membership nor admission nor services.

These are all at the sole discretion of church authorities.

This is an integral and inviolable attribute of Freedom of Religion.

A church official obtains a license to perform marriages much like someone obtains a Notary Public or license to practice accounting (CPA) or law, etc.

And, like many Notary Publics, CPAs and lawyers, religious clerics engage in private practice, independently, or under the aegis of their church.

Private practice.

Conducted on private premises.

Empowered to perform marriages as a long-standing and wholesome concession to history and tradition and the religious beliefs of a vast percentage of the population.

Choosing to employ that licensure within the confines of a private practice, and, thus, free of the constraints of public service delivery.

Unless, of course, you also wish to force every sort of public licensure out of private practice and into the public domain, with respect to operations and service delivery.

No doctors, nurses, therapists, CPAs, lawyers, plumbers, bus-drivers - anybody who needs a license in order to conduct business - may engage in private practice, shielded from public service delivery obligations.

This one ain't gonna fly, Wilbur...


----------



## NYcarbineer

freedombecki said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question. Who says the pastor is now a civil servant when he says.."by the power vested, etc. Who says? You? Making up stuff isn't a debating skill. Tell me who.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the state has vested him with the power to officiate over a civil action that requires someone with that power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> I believe in equal rights for everyone, up to property lines of reservations and churches. We should love and consider the person who is gay and cannot help it, but we should not be forced to go against our understanding of what the Holy Bible says is offensive (aka, an abomination).
> 
> There are many churches that allow gay marriages, and many that don't. Pick one that allows your beliefs.
Click to expand...


Then pastors should leave the job of officiating over civil marriages to those who will follow the law and the Constitution.

Nobody is going to stop you from having a church marriage recognized by the church, or Jesus, or God, or whatever other supernatural being you'd like it to be recognized by.


----------



## GreenBean

g5000 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I give you...Woody Allen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup Woody got a woody for his adopted daughter -but that's not really relevant cause he's only half a fag .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a dumbshit if you think there aren't any heteros molesting their adopted kids.
Click to expand...


And you're a dumbshit for suggesting that someone said they don't.  Most child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature - but then again *heteros comprise roughly 95% of the population.*

Homosexual *Men * comprise roghly 2% - 3%  of the population, yet are responsible for roughly 33 - 35% of all child molestation cases against boys - that alone should tell you something is rotten in Denmark.   Can't people such as you break out of your Liberal induced stupor - escape from your socio-fascist blogospheres just long enough to realize that there are kids - real kids sufferring every fucking day because of your ignorance.


----------



## Ibentoken

NYcarbineer said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the state has vested him with the power to officiate over a civil action that requires someone with that power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pastor is not a civil servant because he doesn't work for the state.  The state does not pay him a salary.
> 
> The state gives you a driver's license.  Having that license doesn't make you a municipal bus driver or even a cab driver.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having a driver's license and being a pastor doesn't let you ignore the rules of the road on religious grounds.
Click to expand...


Though the rules of the road have been lodged.  It's people's games you've got to dodge.
Bob Dylan.

You're full of crap.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.  Who says the pastor is now a civil servant when he says.."by the power vested, etc.   Who says?  You?   Making up stuff isn't a debating skill.  Tell me who.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the state has vested him with the power to officiate over a civil action that requires someone with that power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine.
> 
> If you are a public official who is licensed to perform Marriages, then I have the right to expect that you will perform such a ceremony, on public premises tasked for that purpose.
> 
> If you are private individual who is licensed to perform Marriages, then I have no right to expect that you will perform such a ceremony, at your place OR mine.
> 
> Churches (_generically used here, and understood to include synagogues, temples, mosques, religious meeting houses, revival tents, etc._) are akin to Private Clubs on Steroids, and, legally, they enjoy many of the same protections and attributes of Private Clubs, as well as extended financial advantages which range beyond those which Clubs enjoy.
> 
> Churches are free to admit into communion those who meet their criteria, and churches are free to refuse communion to those who fail to meet their criteria.
> 
> You have no right to communion nor membership nor admission nor services.
> 
> These are all at the sole discretion of church authorities.
> 
> This is an integral and inviolable attribute of Freedom of Religion.
> 
> A church official obtains a license to perform marriages much like someone obtains a Notary Public or license to practice accounting (CPA) or law, etc.
> 
> And, like many Notary Publics, CPAs and lawyers, religious clerics engage in private practice, independently, or under the aegis of their church.
> 
> Private practice.
> 
> Conducted on private premises.
> 
> Empowered to perform marriages as a long-standing and wholesome concession to history and tradition and the religious beliefs of a vast percentage of the population.
> 
> Choosing to employ that licensure within the confines of a private practice, and, thus, free of the constraints of public service delivery.
> 
> Unless, of course, you also wish to force every sort of public licensure out of private practice and into the public domain, with respect to operations and service delivery.
> 
> This one ain't gonna fly, Wilbur...
Click to expand...


Same sex marriages have only recently become legally recognized, so tradition as it relates to the law does not necessarily apply.


----------



## jillian

GreenBean said:


> And you're a dumbshit for suggesting that someone said they don't.  Most child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature - but then again *heteros comprise roughly 95% of the population.*
> 
> Homosexual *Men * comprise roghly 2% - 3%  of the population, yet are responsible for roughly 33 - 35% of all child molestation cases against boys - that alone should tell you something is rotten in Denmark.   Can't people such as you break out of your Liberal induced stupor - escape from your socio-fascist blogospheres just long enough to realize that there are kids - real kids sufferring every fucking day because of your ignorance.



most pedophiles are heterosexual.

if there are incidents of molestation of adopted or biological children BY ANYONE they should be prosecuted. or are you saying that there are no heterosexual parents, adopted or otherwise, who molest their kids? that would be laughable.

and your repetition of lies and innuendos as regards homosexuals, they are a last-ditch effort to justify bigotry and are largely ignored by normal people.


----------



## auditor0007

KNB said:


> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.



I was just going to respond with "stupid question", but we'll go with your response.


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a big 400 lb male biker. My male lover is bigger than me. We're going to a catholic church, then a born again church, then a synagog, then a presbyterian, lutheran, protestant, mormon then a mosque and we're insisting they marry us. And our tradition says the priest/rabbi/shaman or whoever is performing the ceremony has to hold each of us by our manhood until we both finish on the alter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why we aren't interested in marrying freaks. As you know, there are children in the church.
Click to expand...


Get use to it kids.  Bill and Larry kissing at the alter.  Adopting the bastards you breeders put up for adoption.  That's right.  If you won't get an abortion and choose to adopt know that your kid might end up with two queer dads. 

Question.  Where should the two queer dads take their new son to be baptized?  Your church won't marry the two guys but will they baptize the little bastard?


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a big 400 lb male biker. My male lover is bigger than me. We're going to a catholic church, then a born again church, then a synagog, then a presbyterian, lutheran, protestant, mormon then a mosque and we're insisting they marry us. And our tradition says the priest/rabbi/shaman or whoever is performing the ceremony has to hold each of us by our manhood until we both finish on the alter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why we aren't interested in marrying freaks. As you know, there are children in the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get use to it kids.  Bill and Larry kissing at the alter.  Adopting the bastards you breeders put up for adoption.  That's right.  If you won't get an abortion and choose to adopt know that your kid might end up with two queer dads.
> 
> Question.  Where should the two queer dads take their new son to be baptized?  Your church won't marry the two guys but will they baptize the little bastard?
Click to expand...

"BAPTIZING" children too young to understand right from wrong does nothing for them but get them wet!!! BELIEVING IN JESUS,CONFESSING AND REPENTING OF YOUR SINS AND ACCEPTING JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR IS WHAT GETS YOU INTO THE ETERNAL FAMILY OF GOD!!!Nothing else!!


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

sealybobo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a big 400 lb male biker. My male lover is bigger than me. We're going to a catholic church, then a born again church, then a synagog, then a presbyterian, lutheran, protestant, mormon then a mosque and we're insisting they marry us. And our tradition says the priest/rabbi/shaman or whoever is performing the ceremony has to hold each of us by our manhood until we both finish on the alter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why we aren't interested in marrying freaks. As you know, there are children in the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get use to it kids.  Bill and Larry kissing at the alter.  *Adopting the bastards you breeders put up for adoption. * That's right.  If you won't get an abortion and choose to adopt know that your kid might end up with two queer dads.
> 
> Question.  Where should the two queer dads take their new son to be baptized?  Your church won't marry the two guys but will they baptize the little bastard?
Click to expand...



SOCK  "Breeders."


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mental masturbation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is  what you are doing: fun but sterile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you are but what am I -
Click to expand...


Son, far right and far left kooks mentally masturbate when they can't objectively and logically talk about these matters.

I don't care if you are a homophobe.

I do care that our society does not let folks like you deny civil rights of others.


----------



## Kondor3

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the state has vested him with the power to officiate over a civil action that requires someone with that power.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.
> 
> If you are a public official who is licensed to perform Marriages, then I have the right to expect that you will perform such a ceremony, on public premises tasked for that purpose.
> 
> If you are private individual who is licensed to perform Marriages, then I have no right to expect that you will perform such a ceremony, at your place OR mine.
> 
> Churches (_generically used here, and understood to include synagogues, temples, mosques, religious meeting houses, revival tents, etc._) are akin to Private Clubs on Steroids, and, legally, they enjoy many of the same protections and attributes of Private Clubs, as well as extended financial advantages which range beyond those which Clubs enjoy.
> 
> Churches are free to admit into communion those who meet their criteria, and churches are free to refuse communion to those who fail to meet their criteria.
> 
> You have no right to communion nor membership nor admission nor services.
> 
> These are all at the sole discretion of church authorities.
> 
> This is an integral and inviolable attribute of Freedom of Religion.
> 
> A church official obtains a license to perform marriages much like someone obtains a Notary Public or license to practice accounting (CPA) or law, etc.
> 
> And, like many Notary Publics, CPAs and lawyers, religious clerics engage in private practice, independently, or under the aegis of their church.
> 
> Private practice.
> 
> Conducted on private premises.
> 
> Empowered to perform marriages as a long-standing and wholesome concession to history and tradition and the religious beliefs of a vast percentage of the population.
> 
> Choosing to employ that licensure within the confines of a private practice, and, thus, free of the constraints of public service delivery.
> 
> Unless, of course, you also wish to force every sort of public licensure out of private practice and into the public domain, with respect to operations and service delivery.
> 
> This one ain't gonna fly, Wilbur...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same sex marriages have only recently become legally recognized, so tradition as it relates to the law does not necessarily apply.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter.

The 'Private Practice' concept, utilizing a publicly-issued license, should suffice, to beat-back the Homosexual Mafia on this one.


----------



## JakeStarkey

LadyGunSlinger said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why we aren't interested in marrying freaks. As you know, there are children in the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get use to it kids.  Bill and Larry kissing at the alter.  *Adopting the bastards you breeders put up for adoption. * That's right.  If you won't get an abortion and choose to adopt know that your kid might end up with two queer dads.
> 
> Question.  Where should the two queer dads take their new son to be baptized?  Your church won't marry the two guys but will they baptize the little bastard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> SOCK  "Breeders."
Click to expand...


It's a clue and may be true.


----------



## CrazedScotsman

Here's what I know about the church I belong.

They will only perform a wedding ceremony if the couple being married is Christian. 

Now, here's the thing. Can a gay couple be considered Christian?

There's your answer.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup Woody got a woody for his adopted daughter -but that's not really relevant cause he's only half a fag .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a dumbshit if you think there aren't any heteros molesting their adopted kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're a dumbshit for suggesting that someone said they don't.  Most child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature - but then again *heteros comprise roughly 95% of the population.*
> 
> Homosexual *Men * comprise roghly 2% - 3%  of the population, yet are responsible for roughly 33 - 35% of all child molestation cases against boys - that alone should tell you something is rotten in Denmark.   Can't people such as you break out of your Liberal induced stupor - escape from your socio-fascist blogospheres just long enough to realize that there are kids - real kids sufferring every fucking day because of your ignorance.
Click to expand...


What percentage of molesters are men?  Hmm?


----------



## GreenBean

jillian said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're a dumbshit for suggesting that someone said they don't.  Most child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature - but then again *heteros comprise roughly 95% of the population.*
> 
> Homosexual *Men * comprise roghly 2% - 3%  of the population, yet are responsible for roughly 33 - 35% of all child molestation cases against boys - that alone should tell you something is rotten in Denmark.   Can't people such as you break out of your Liberal induced stupor - escape from your socio-fascist blogospheres just long enough to realize that there are kids - real kids sufferring every fucking day because of your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most pedophiles are heterosexual.
> 
> if there are incidents of molestation of adopted or biological children BY ANYONE they should be prosecuted. or are you saying that there are no heterosexual parents, adopted or otherwise, who molest their kids? that would be laughable.
> 
> and your repetition of lies and innuendos as regards homosexuals, they are a last-ditch effort to justify bigotry and are largely ignored by normal people.
Click to expand...




> most pedophiles are heterosexual.



I'm sorry Jillian,but you seem to have missed the point  Yes ROUGHLY 95% of the population is heterosexual - So Yes the majority of cases would naturally be heterosexual in nature.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why we aren't interested in marrying freaks. As you know, there are children in the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get use to it kids.  Bill and Larry kissing at the alter.  Adopting the bastards you breeders put up for adoption.  That's right.  If you won't get an abortion and choose to adopt know that your kid might end up with two queer dads.
> 
> Question.  Where should the two queer dads take their new son to be baptized?  Your church won't marry the two guys but will they baptize the little bastard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "BAPTIZING" children too young to understand right from wrong does nothing for them but get them wet!!! BELIEVING IN JESUS,CONFESSING AND REPENTING OF YOUR SINS AND ACCEPTING JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR IS WHAT GETS YOU INTO THE ETERNAL FAMILY OF GOD!!!Nothing else!!
Click to expand...


So all the christians who were baptized when they were babies are going to hell?  Pretty much every Catholic?  I love it!!!  I have been trying to get the churches to admit this.  I want the born agains to start fighting with the catholics.  

But then the Catholics say they want this to be a christian nation.  Do they realize it won't be Catholicism?  Anyways, I love it Gismys in your mouth.  Thank you for admitting that anyone not born again as an adult, even other christians, will not go to heaven, correct?  

And is this the official position of your church because often times the priests sugar coat this or they are vague.  I like your directness Gismys in your mouth.  I like it a lot.  Tell the Catholics they're going to hell.


----------



## NYcarbineer

GreenBean said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup Woody got a woody for his adopted daughter -but that's not really relevant cause he's only half a fag .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a dumbshit if you think there aren't any heteros molesting their adopted kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're a dumbshit for suggesting that someone said they don't.  Most child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature - but then again *heteros comprise roughly 95% of the population.*
> 
> Homosexual *Men * comprise roghly 2% - 3%  of the population, yet are responsible for roughly 33 - 35% of all child molestation cases against boys - that alone should tell you something is rotten in Denmark.   Can't people such as you break out of your Liberal induced stupor - escape from your socio-fascist blogospheres just long enough to realize that there are kids - real kids sufferring every fucking day because of your ignorance.
Click to expand...


Who commits the other 67% of molestations of boys?

What percent of child molestations of girls are committed by homosexual men?


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a dumbshit if you think there aren't any heteros molesting their adopted kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're a dumbshit for suggesting that someone said they don't.  Most child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature - but then again *heteros comprise roughly 95% of the population.*
> 
> Homosexual *Men * comprise roghly 2% - 3%  of the population, yet are responsible for roughly 33 - 35% of all child molestation cases against boys - that alone should tell you something is rotten in Denmark.   Can't people such as you break out of your Liberal induced stupor - escape from your socio-fascist blogospheres just long enough to realize that there are kids - real kids sufferring every fucking day because of your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What percentage of molesters are men?  Hmm?
Click to expand...


I don't really know OFF HAND - But male sex drive and female sex drive are two different creatures .  I can't think of a single case of females molesting children , except of course the occassiona  lteacher who bangs an under age student. 

What's your point ?  and why don't you google it and get back to us .


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get use to it kids.  Bill and Larry kissing at the alter.  Adopting the bastards you breeders put up for adoption.  That's right.  If you won't get an abortion and choose to adopt know that your kid might end up with two queer dads.
> 
> Question.  Where should the two queer dads take their new son to be baptized?  Your church won't marry the two guys but will they baptize the little bastard?
> 
> 
> 
> "BAPTIZING" children too young to understand right from wrong does nothing for them but get them wet!!! BELIEVING IN JESUS,CONFESSING AND REPENTING OF YOUR SINS AND ACCEPTING JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR IS WHAT GETS YOU INTO THE ETERNAL FAMILY OF GOD!!!Nothing else!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all the christians who were baptized when they were babies are going to hell?  Pretty much every Catholic?  I love it!!!  I have been trying to get the churches to admit this.  I want the born agains to start fighting with the catholics.
> 
> But then the Catholics say they want this to be a christian nation.  Do they realize it won't be Catholicism?  Anyways, I love it Gismys in your mouth.  Thank you for admitting that anyone not born again as an adult, even other christians, will not go to heaven, correct?
> 
> And is this the official position of your church because often times the priests sugar coat this or they are vague.  I like your directness Gismys in your mouth.  I like it a lot.  Tell the Catholics they're going to hell.
Click to expand...


PUT YOUR FAITH AND TRUST ONLY IN GOD AND GOD'S WORD NOT IN ANY little man's ideas and opinion.====BAPTIZING" children too young to understand right from wrong does nothing for them but get them wet!!! BELIEVING IN JESUS,CONFESSING AND REPENTING OF YOUR SINS AND ACCEPTING JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR IS WHAT GETS YOU INTO THE ETERNAL FAMILY OF GOD!!!Nothing else!!


----------



## Kondor3

CrazedScotsman said:


> Here's what I know about the church I belong.
> 
> They will only perform a wedding ceremony if the couple being married is Christian.
> 
> Now, here's the thing. Can a gay couple be considered Christian?
> 
> There's your answer.


Depends upon the branch of Christianity in question.

Depends upon the diocese or synod in question.

Depends upon the parish in question.

That's the beauty of it.

Those who wish to admit such folk into communion, and to provide services to such, are entirely free to do so.

Those who wish to deny communion to such folk, and to deny services to such, are entirely free to do so.

If you're "one of those", you merely need to find a church more tolerant of "those people".

But we cannot force a church to admit various people or categories of people into communion.

And we cannot force a church or its authorities to perform Service A or B to people who have not been admitted into communion.

That's just about as Taboo as it gets.

We phukk with that principle at our very great peril.


----------



## CrazedScotsman

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get use to it kids.  Bill and Larry kissing at the alter.  Adopting the bastards you breeders put up for adoption.  That's right.  If you won't get an abortion and choose to adopt know that your kid might end up with two queer dads.
> 
> Question.  Where should the two queer dads take their new son to be baptized?  Your church won't marry the two guys but will they baptize the little bastard?
> 
> 
> 
> "BAPTIZING" children too young to understand right from wrong does nothing for them but get them wet!!! BELIEVING IN JESUS,CONFESSING AND REPENTING OF YOUR SINS AND ACCEPTING JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR IS WHAT GETS YOU INTO THE ETERNAL FAMILY OF GOD!!!Nothing else!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all the christians who were baptized when they were babies are going to hell?  Pretty much every Catholic?  I love it!!!  I have been trying to get the churches to admit this.  I want the born agains to start fighting with the catholics.
> 
> But then the Catholics say they want this to be a christian nation.  Do they realize it won't be Catholicism?  Anyways, I love it Gismys in your mouth.  Thank you for admitting that anyone not born again as an adult, even other christians, will not go to heaven, correct?
> 
> And is this the official position of your church because often times the priests sugar coat this or they are vague.  I like your directness Gismys in your mouth.  I like it a lot.  Tell the Catholics they're going to hell.
Click to expand...


Later, there's a "Confirmation" ceremony.


----------



## Ibentoken

Jesus is the head if the church and he said marriage is a man and woman.  Case closed.


----------



## GreenBean

NYcarbineer said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a dumbshit if you think there aren't any heteros molesting their adopted kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're a dumbshit for suggesting that someone said they don't.  Most child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature - but then again *heteros comprise roughly 95% of the population.*
> 
> Homosexual *Men * comprise roghly 2% - 3%  of the population, yet are responsible for roughly 33 - 35% of all child molestation cases against boys - that alone should tell you something is rotten in Denmark.   Can't people such as you break out of your Liberal induced stupor - escape from your socio-fascist blogospheres just long enough to realize that there are kids - real kids sufferring every fucking day because of your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who commits the other 67% of molestations of boys?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What percent of child molestations of girls are committed by homosexual men?
Click to expand...


Who commits the other 67% of molestations of boys?

*GOOD QUESTION !! * 








> What percent of child molestations of girls are committed by homosexual men?



BY exclusively Homosexual men - zero 

BY Bi-sexuals - I don't know - why don't you google and get to us ?


----------



## GISMYS

Kondor3 said:


> CrazedScotsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I know about the church I belong.
> 
> They will only perform a wedding ceremony if the couple being married is Christian.
> 
> Now, here's the thing. Can a gay couple be considered Christian?
> 
> There's your answer.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends upon the branch of Christianity in question.
> 
> Depends upon the diocese or synod in question.
> 
> Depends upon the parish in question.
> 
> That's the beauty of it.
> 
> Those who wish to admit such folk into communion, and to provide services to such, are entirely free to do so.
> 
> Those who wish to deny communion to such folk, and to deny services to such, are entirely free to do so.
> 
> If you're "one of those", you merely need to find a church more tolerant of "those people".
> 
> But we cannot force a church to admit various people or categories of people into communion.
> 
> And we cannot force a church or its authorities to perform Service A or B to people who have not been admitted into communion.
> 
> That's just about as Taboo as it gets.
> 
> We phukk with that principle at our very great peril.
Click to expand...


NO!!!!!!!! GOD MAKES THE RULES NOT little man and ALMIGHTY GOD SAYS SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION AND HOMOSEXUALS LIVING IN PERVERSION  WILL NOT BE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD.


----------



## bodecea

Ibentoken said:


> Jesus is the head if the church and he said marriage is a man and woman.  Case closed.



Um not everyone is a christian, you know.


----------



## TheJedi

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the typical leftist who tries to use my constitution the take away my rights.  My Constitution limits government.  No me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a responsible conservative, and I am not a leftist.
> 
> The Constitution and the law is clear: you do not get to discriminate against others when it comes to civil rights.
> 
> You disagree?  Then you are in harmony with the Jim Crow laws and segregation.
> 
> Go find a time machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with equality and rights.  It's about submission.  You can't push citizens around who don't agree with you.  This is America.
Click to expand...


No one in the gay rights movement is forcing you to accept homosexuality or forcing you to be homosexual. They are insisting that they be recognized as equals under the law. You can keep hating gays and you can keep preaching your hatred of gays. What you or the law cannot do is tell gays that they cannot have the same rights and privileges as you.

You are either for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or you are not. If your idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is depriving others of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness then prepare to be unhappy because there is nothing you can do at this point but whine and throw temper tantrums like a child being deprived of ice cream before bed time. Gay rights are real and the SCOTUS is going to uphold the lifting of gay marriage bans nationwide. There is NOTHING you or anyone else can do about it.


----------



## GISMYS

bodecea said:


> ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> jesus is the head if the church and he said marriage is a man and woman.  Case closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> um not everyone is a christian, you know.
Click to expand...


you being or not being a christuian changes no truth= Almighty God is still the one and only Almighty God.


----------



## Kondor3

GISMYS said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrazedScotsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I know about the church I belong.
> 
> They will only perform a wedding ceremony if the couple being married is Christian.
> 
> Now, here's the thing. Can a gay couple be considered Christian?
> 
> There's your answer.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends upon the branch of Christianity in question.
> 
> Depends upon the diocese or synod in question.
> 
> Depends upon the parish in question.
> 
> That's the beauty of it.
> 
> Those who wish to admit such folk into communion, and to provide services to such, are entirely free to do so.
> 
> Those who wish to deny communion to such folk, and to deny services to such, are entirely free to do so.
> 
> If you're "one of those", you merely need to find a church more tolerant of "those people".
> 
> But we cannot force a church to admit various people or categories of people into communion.
> 
> And we cannot force a church or its authorities to perform Service A or B to people who have not been admitted into communion.
> 
> That's just about as Taboo as it gets.
> 
> We phukk with that principle at our very great peril.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO!!!!!!!! GOD MAKES THE RULES NOT little man and ALMIGHTY GOD SAYS SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION AND HOMOSEXUALS LIVING IN PERVERSION  WILL NOT BE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
Click to expand...

That works too, but, at-law (which is the root of our discussion here), the same thing will be accomplished by focusing upon the legal aspects of the question, rather than relying upon divine pronouncements... there is no conflict in employing alternative means to accomplish the same goals.


----------



## GreenBean

TheJedi said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a responsible conservative, and I am not a leftist.
> 
> The Constitution and the law is clear: you do not get to discriminate against others when it comes to civil rights.
> 
> You disagree?  Then you are in harmony with the Jim Crow laws and segregation.
> 
> Go find a time machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with equality and rights.  It's about submission.  You can't push citizens around who don't agree with you.  This is America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one in the gay rights movement is forcing you to accept homosexuality or forcing you to be homosexual. They are insisting that they be recognized as equals under the law. You can keep hating gays and you can keep preaching your hatred of gays. What you or the law cannot do is tell gays that they cannot have the same rights and privileges as you.
> 
> You are either for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or you are not. If your idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is depriving others of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness then prepare to be unhappy because there is nothing you can do at this point but whine and throw temper tantrums like a child being deprived of ice cream before bed time. Gay rights are real and the SCOTUS is going to uphold the lifting of gay marriage bans nationwide. There is NOTHING you or anyone else can do about it.
Click to expand...




> You are either for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or you are not.



I agree - which is why I grudgingly refuse to argue against Gay Marriage - let them be. 

*However *- what you and like minded people fail to realize is that the "GAY AGENDA"  is not a tin hat conspiracy theory  - it is a true concerted effort by homosexual elitists for not just acceptance but domination . Destruction of the Family Unit and indoctrination or neutralization of Youth.   It is Degeneration on a Mass Scale.

Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?



> Remember, Prop 8 passed along age lines with the very old voting largely in favor of it. The younger generation doesn&#8217;t fear homosexuality as much because they&#8217;re exposed to fags on TV, online, and at school. And I don&#8217;t know a single lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person who wants that to stop. I for one certainly want tons of school children to learn that it&#8217;s OK to be gay, that people of the same sex should be allowed to legally marry each other, and that anyone can kiss a person of the same sex without feeling like a freak. And *I would very much like for many of these young boys to grow up and start fucking men. I want lots of young ladies to develop into young women who voraciously munch box. *


----------



## Kondor3

TheJedi said:


> ...because there is nothing you can do at this point but whine and throw temper tantrums like a child being deprived of ice cream before bed time. Gay rights are real and the SCOTUS is going to uphold the lifting of gay marriage bans nationwide. There is NOTHING you or anyone else can do about it.


Until the time comes, to revisit the issue with a Conservative White House, Congress and Supreme Court, all sitting simultaneously.

Pitch homosexuality as immoral and detrimental to the public health and public morals and the good working order of the Republic, and declare it outlawed once again, and you have the legal basis for reversing and overturning the unfortunate developments of recent years.

Whether that materializes or not is another matter, and something for the future to decide.

For now, holding the line as best as practicable is the order of the day, awaiting January 20, 2017.

Gotta love the hubris and arrogance which holds that it will not and cannot happen.

Using the Law, to change the Law.


----------



## GISMYS

Kondor3 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends upon the branch of Christianity in question.
> 
> Depends upon the diocese or synod in question.
> 
> Depends upon the parish in question.
> 
> That's the beauty of it.
> 
> Those who wish to admit such folk into communion, and to provide services to such, are entirely free to do so.
> 
> Those who wish to deny communion to such folk, and to deny services to such, are entirely free to do so.
> 
> If you're "one of those", you merely need to find a church more tolerant of "those people".
> 
> But we cannot force a church to admit various people or categories of people into communion.
> 
> And we cannot force a church or its authorities to perform Service A or B to people who have not been admitted into communion.
> 
> That's just about as Taboo as it gets.
> 
> We phukk with that principle at our very great peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO!!!!!!!! GOD MAKES THE RULES NOT little man and ALMIGHTY GOD SAYS SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION AND HOMOSEXUALS LIVING IN PERVERSION  WILL NOT BE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That works too, but, at-law (which is the root of our discussion here), the same thing will be accomplished by focusing upon the legal aspects of the question, rather than relying upon divine pronouncements... there is no conflict in employing alternative means to accomplish the same goals.
Click to expand...


JUST KNOW YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE THE little guy trying to argue and fight against ALMIGHTY GOD!! NO little man HAS OR EVER WILL WIN.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> Jesus is the head if the church and he said marriage is a man and woman.  Case closed.



The Jews just called.  They want their religion back.


----------



## jillian

GreenBean said:


> I agree - which is why I grudgingly refuse to argue against Gay Marriage - let them be.
> 
> *However *- what you and like minded people fail to realize is that the "GAY AGENDA"  is not a tin hat conspiracy theory  - it is a true concerted effort by homosexual elitists for not just acceptance but domination . Destruction of the Family Unit and indoctrination or neutralization of Youth.   It is the Degeneration on a Mass Scale.



for someone who claims not to be arguing against gay marriage, you sure spend a lot of time disparaging gays.

as for the tin foil hat thing... I think yours might be too tight. near as normal people can tell, all gays want is equal treatment. 

they're entitled to that IF you believe in the constitution.


----------



## Ibentoken

bodecea said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is the head if the church and he said marriage is a man and woman.  Case closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um not everyone is a christian, you know.
Click to expand...


That post is directed to those who claim to be Christian, yet support queer marriage.


----------



## jillian

Ibentoken said:


> Jesus is the head if the church and he said marriage is a man and woman.  Case closed.



Jesus never said anything about gays.

he did talk a lot about feeding the poor and not throwing stones unless you were without sin. 

don't you even know your own religion?


----------



## Ibentoken

jillian said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree - which is why I grudgingly refuse to argue against Gay Marriage - let them be.
> 
> *However *- what you and like minded people fail to realize is that the "GAY AGENDA"  is not a tin hat conspiracy theory  - it is a true concerted effort by homosexual elitists for not just acceptance but domination . Destruction of the Family Unit and indoctrination or neutralization of Youth.   It is the Degeneration on a Mass Scale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for someone who claims not to be arguing against gay marriage, you sure spend a lot of time disparaging gays.
> 
> as for the tin foil hat thing... I think yours might be too tight. near as normal people can tell, all gays want is equal treatment.
> 
> they're entitled to that IF you believe in the constitution.
Click to expand...


Many states marry queers now.  You can stop now.


----------



## jillian

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is the head if the church and he said marriage is a man and woman.  Case closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews just called.  They want their religion back.
Click to expand...


I don't recall the bible saying anything about a definition of marriage. you?


----------



## Kondor3

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is the head if the church and he said marriage is a man and woman.  Case closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews just called.  They want their religion back.
Click to expand...

OK... now *THAT* was funny...


----------



## Ibentoken

jillian said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is the head if the church and he said marriage is a man and woman.  Case closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus never said anything about gays.
> 
> he did talk a lot about feeding the poor and not throwing stones unless you were without sin.
> 
> don't you even know your own religion?
Click to expand...


Jesus said marriage is a man and woman.  Period.


----------



## Ibentoken

jillian said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is the head if the church and he said marriage is a man and woman.  Case closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews just called.  They want their religion back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recall the bible saying anything about a definition of marriage. you?
Click to expand...


You must have skipped Matthew 19.


----------



## jillian

Ibentoken said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is the head if the church and he said marriage is a man and woman.  Case closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus never said anything about gays.
> 
> he did talk a lot about feeding the poor and not throwing stones unless you were without sin.
> 
> don't you even know your own religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus said marriage is a man and woman.  Period.
Click to expand...


like I said... you don't even know your own religion.

now feel free to post the verse.

or you can always be quiet.


----------



## GreenBean

jillian said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree - which is why I grudgingly refuse to argue against Gay Marriage - let them be.
> 
> *However *- what you and like minded people fail to realize is that the "GAY AGENDA"  is not a tin hat conspiracy theory  - it is a true concerted effort by homosexual elitists for not just acceptance but domination . Destruction of the Family Unit and indoctrination or neutralization of Youth.   It is the Degeneration on a Mass Scale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...




> for someone who claims not to be arguing against gay marriage, you sure spend a lot of time disparaging gays.



Show me one post where I argued against Gay Marriage  - other than to state that it cheapens conventional marriage - but that a moot point 



> as for the tin foil hat thing... I think yours might be too tight. *near as* normal people can tell, all gays want is equal treatment.



Key words in your statement being *near as* .  You're simply too engrossed in your LIberal Blogospheres and near-do-gooder attitudes that most of you Liberals wouldn't know reality if it bit you in the ass 



> they're entitled to that IF you believe in the constitution


Yup


----------



## jillian

Ibentoken said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews just called.  They want their religion back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall the bible saying anything about a definition of marriage. you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have skipped Matthew 19.
Click to expand...


that was a discussion about divorce.

you seem reading impaired

he responded to a question about a man divorcing his wife. the question had nothing to do with sexuality.


----------



## Ibentoken

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is the head if the church and he said marriage is a man and woman.  Case closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews just called.  They want their religion back.
Click to expand...


Jesus answered the call and told them to repent and believe the head Jew, Jesus Christ.


----------



## jillian

GreenBean said:


> Show me one post where I argued against Gay Marriage  - other than to state that it cheapens conventional marriage - but that a moot point



did I stutter? I said for someone who "claims" not to oppose gay marriage you spend an inordinate amount of time disparaging gays.



> Key words in your statement being *near as* .  You're simply too engrossed in your LIberal Blogospheres and near-do-gooder attitudes that most of you Liberals wouldn't know reality if it bit you in the ass



you wish that were true. i'm not big on any blogosphere, unlike you. but if it makes you feel better to use my phrases, have at it if it makes you feel better.



> Yup



then the rest of your rants are just rants. get over the homophobia and worry about your own self.


----------



## Ibentoken

jillian said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus never said anything about gays.
> 
> he did talk a lot about feeding the poor and not throwing stones unless you were without sin.
> 
> don't you even know your own religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said marriage is a man and woman.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> like I said... you don't even know your own religion.
> 
> now feel free to post the verse.
> 
> or you can always be quiet.
Click to expand...


There it is.....shut up.  That's the typical leftist reply when they can't compete.  It's in Matthew 19.  Now you shut up.


----------



## Ibentoken

jillian said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me one post where I argued against Gay Marriage  - other than to state that it cheapens conventional marriage - but that a moot point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did I stutter? I said for someone who "claims" not to oppose gay marriage you spend an inordinate amount of time disparaging gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Key words in your statement being *near as* .  You're simply too engrossed in your LIberal Blogospheres and near-do-gooder attitudes that most of you Liberals wouldn't know reality if it bit you in the ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you wish that were true. i'm not big on any blogosphere, unlike you. but if it makes you feel better to use my phrases, have at it if it makes you feel better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then the rest of your rants are just rants. get over the homophobia and worry about your own self.
Click to expand...


Christophobic bigot hater.  Get over your own bigotry and hate.


----------



## koshergrl

jillian said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus never said anything about gays.
> 
> he did talk a lot about feeding the poor and not throwing stones unless you were without sin.
> 
> don't you even know your own religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said marriage is a man and woman. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> like I said... you don't even know your own religion.
> 
> now feel free to post the verse.
> 
> or you can always be quiet.
Click to expand...

 
Jesus didn't come to break the law, but to fulfill it.

So if marriage is between a man and wife in the OT, and Christ does not say otherwise in the NT, marriage remains between a man and a woman.

But homos are free to do whatever they like. That's the wonderful thing about Christianity. It's about accountability. Go ahead and pretend you're married to your gay lover if that is what you want to do. As long as we aren't forced to subsidized your depraved and dependent lifestyle.


----------



## jillian

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is the head if the church and he said marriage is a man and woman.  Case closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews just called.  They want their religion back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus answered the call and told them to repent and believe the head Jew, Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...







jesus was a jew. he was never anything BUT a jew.

and you understand that your arrogant nonsense has no more resonance for me than if a muslim were saying that the only true religion is islam, right?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews just called.  They want their religion back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall the bible saying anything about a definition of marriage. you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have skipped Matthew 19.
Click to expand...


That passage says that sex after a divorce for any other reason than an unfaithful spouse is adultery.


----------



## NYcarbineer

koshergrl said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said marriage is a man and woman. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> like I said... you don't even know your own religion.
> 
> now feel free to post the verse.
> 
> or you can always be quiet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus didn't come to break the law, but to fulfill it.
Click to expand...


"We come to seize her berry, not to praise it!"

(I now take the lead for best Flip Wilson reference ever on USMB LOLOL)


----------



## Ibentoken

jillian said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews just called.  They want their religion back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus answered the call and told them to repent and believe the head Jew, Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jesus was a jew. he was never anything BUT a jew.
> 
> and you understand that your arrogant nonsense has no more resonance for me than if a muslim were saying that the only true religion is islam, right?
Click to expand...


Um, yeah.  You resonance resonates resoundingly in your rotund resonator.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is the head if the church and he said marriage is a man and woman.  Case closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus never said anything about gays.
> 
> he did talk a lot about feeding the poor and not throwing stones unless you were without sin.
> 
> don't you even know your own religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus said marriage is a man and woman.  Period.
Click to expand...


Technically, in legal sense, we don't know that Jesus said that.

What we have is someone saying Jesus said that.


----------



## Ibentoken

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall the bible saying anything about a definition of marriage. you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have skipped Matthew 19.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That passage says that sex after a divorce for any other reason than an unfaithful spouse is adultery.
Click to expand...


Yes, it does.  It also says a man and a woman.  It won't go away just because you ignore the truth.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must have skipped Matthew 19.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That passage says that sex after a divorce for any other reason than an unfaithful spouse is adultery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  It also says a man and a woman.  It won't go away just because you ignore the truth.
Click to expand...


Do you hold to Christ's rule about divorce?  Should our laws adhere strictly to those rules?


----------



## jillian

Ibentoken said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus answered the call and told them to repent and believe the head Jew, Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jesus was a jew. he was never anything BUT a jew.
> 
> and you understand that your arrogant nonsense has no more resonance for me than if a muslim were saying that the only true religion is islam, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, yeah.  You resonance resonates resoundingly in your rotund resonator.
Click to expand...


in other words, you're a total and complete moron.

ah well... it's not like we couldn't tell.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must have skipped Matthew 19.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That passage says that sex after a divorce for any other reason than an unfaithful spouse is adultery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  It also says a man and a woman.  It won't go away just because you ignore the truth.
Click to expand...


It's also followed by the passage where Christ explains how difficult it will be for a rich man to get into heaven.

Do you hold to that as an absolute truth?


----------



## Ibentoken

jillian said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jesus was a jew. he was never anything BUT a jew.
> 
> and you understand that your arrogant nonsense has no more resonance for me than if a muslim were saying that the only true religion is islam, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah.  You resonance resonates resoundingly in your rotund resonator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in other words, you're a total and complete moron.
> 
> ah well... it's not like we couldn't tell.
Click to expand...


Go read your bible, heretic.


----------



## Ibentoken

Articles: Windmills of Faith, Family, and Freedom


----------



## Ibentoken

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That passage says that sex after a divorce for any other reason than an unfaithful spouse is adultery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  It also says a man and a woman.  It won't go away just because you ignore the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also followed by the passage where Christ explains how difficult it will be for a rich man to get into heaven.
> 
> Do you hold to that as an absolute truth?
Click to expand...


Quote the entire passage you are referring to.


----------



## Pop23

KNB said:


> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.



That was a joke right?

Hell is a religious concept. 

If it were a joke it was funnier than...... well......hell

If not, you are a complete freaking idiot


----------



## JakeStarkey

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're a dumbshit for suggesting that someone said they don't.  Most child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature - but then again *heteros comprise roughly 95% of the population.*
> 
> Homosexual *Men * comprise roghly 2% - 3%  of the population, yet are responsible for roughly 33 - 35% of all child molestation cases against boys - that alone should tell you something is rotten in Denmark.   Can't people such as you break out of your Liberal induced stupor - escape from your socio-fascist blogospheres just long enough to realize that there are kids - real kids sufferring every fucking day because of your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of molesters are men?  Hmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really know OFF HAND - But male sex drive and female sex drive are two different creatures .  *I can't think *of a single case of females molesting children , except of course the occassiona  lteacher who bangs an under age student. What's your point ?  and why don't you google it and get back to us .
Click to expand...


Indeed, you don't think, Greanbean, you simply emote.

You have no factual, objective evidence for your opinions, and they are not evidence.  You are flatly wrong.  And, in fact, the numbers overwhelmingly of abusers are heterosexual adult males.

Greenbean Snow, you know nothing.


----------



## Ibentoken

NAMBLA is a queer organization.  Isn't it? I'm sure most of them vote democrat.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Right wing social con progressive drive: "However - what you and like minded people fail to realize is that the "GAY AGENDA" is not a tin hat conspiracy theory - it is a true concerted effort by homosexual elitists for not just acceptance but domination . Destruction of the Family Unit and indoctrination or neutralization of Youth. It is Degeneration on a Mass Scale."

So called Christians like Greenbean, etc., are every bit as hateful as the few homofascists of the far left.

No one is going to make government make churches have to marry gays as a part of being churches.

Won't happen.

No one is going to let churches make money as wedding centers without them having to marry whoever applies.


----------



## Howey

Ibentoken said:


> NAMBLA is a queer organization.  Isn't it? I'm sure most of them vote democrat.



Ask at the next meeting.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> NAMBLA is a queer organization.  Isn't it? I'm sure most of them vote democrat.



Most of them apparently are quite well off; thus, they will vote Republican.  This does not relate to the OP.


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> You're so boring, fake.



Only to the dull minded like you.

Now do you have anything on the OP?


----------



## Ibentoken

Howey said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> NAMBLA is a queer organization.  Isn't it? I'm sure most of them vote democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask at the next meeting.
Click to expand...


Can't make it.  Is your sexual identity the most important thing about you?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> NAMBLA is a queer organization.  Isn't it? I'm sure most of them vote democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of them apparently are quite well off; thus, they will vote Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the ignorant post of the day.
Click to expand...


Not hardly. You and koshergrl and Greenbean regularly post stupidly all day.

NAMBLA, though, has nothing to do with the OP.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  It also says a man and a woman.  It won't go away just because you ignore the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also followed by the passage where Christ explains how difficult it will be for a rich man to get into heaven.
> 
> Do you hold to that as an absolute truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quote the entire passage you are referring to.
Click to expand...


You Bible mongers always end up at the same deadend.

Why is it you insist that we must take the alleged words of Jesus Christ literally and at full strength in one passage,

because it happens to fit your agenda,

but in the next passage, or the next, or the next, well maybe not so much and not so literally,

because it doesn't happen to fit your agenda?

You know, Christ also said in Matthew (allegedly)

"If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." 

Now we all know that prayers go unfulfilled all the time, so what was Christ saying?

Was he completely wrong, just talking some religiousy bullshit, or,

was he just reminding the lot of you that you really aren't believers, despite all your protestations and proclamations to the contrary,

and THAT"S why prayer doesn't get you what you want?


----------



## Howey

Ibentoken said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> NAMBLA is a queer organization.  Isn't it? I'm sure most of them vote democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask at the next meeting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't make it.  Is your sexual identity the most important thing about you?
Click to expand...


So you admit you go to the meetings?

And yes, my sexual identity is important to me. As well as my intelligence, good looks, compassion, political acumen, and the ability to prove you homophobes for the absolute ignorant fools you are.


----------



## NYcarbineer

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That passage says that sex after a divorce for any other reason than an unfaithful spouse is adultery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  It also says a man and a woman.  It won't go away just because you ignore the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you hold to Christ's rule about divorce?  Should our laws adhere strictly to those rules?
Click to expand...


And with that stunned silence as the only response, there go the inviolable laws of the Christ under the bus.

Funny how that works isn't it?


----------



## koshergrl

I didn't notice a stunned silence. 

Perhaps your hiv drugs are causing you to hallucinate.


----------



## Ibentoken

NYcarbineer said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  It also says a man and a woman.  It won't go away just because you ignore the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you hold to Christ's rule about divorce?  Should our laws adhere strictly to those rules?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And with that stunned silence as the only response, there go the inviolable laws of the Christ under the bus.
> 
> Funny how that works isn't it?
Click to expand...


You're funny.  You try so hard. This thread is about queer marriage.  You're distracted too easily.  Jesus allowed divorce.  Did you read it?


----------



## bendog

Imo it's pretty clear that so long as a church's hierarch or dogma (Catholic/Presbyterian) say no gay marriage, or so long as an "independent church's by laws say no gay marriage, court's aren't going to intervene in forcing marriages.

The problem would come about if they are renting out facilities to the public or other church groups that don't share their views.


----------



## Ibentoken

The left desperately needs everything under govt control.  They're very insecure frightened creatures.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ah, good.  Let's hope kg and Iben remember the rules.

No court will interfere with a church's right to private association in marriage.  If a church does it for profit, it will get the judicial whip.


----------



## Ibentoken

JakeStarkey said:


> Ah, good.  Let's hope kg and Iben remember the rules.
> 
> No court will interfere with a church's right to private association in marriage.  If a church does it for profit, it will get the judicial whip.



Spoken like a true nazi.  Seig heil.


----------



## JakeStarkey

What does that, Iben, have to do with the OP?

The courts will protect the 1st Amendment rights of churches.

Godwin's law is invoked, and Iben loses.  Again.


----------



## koshergrl

Churches don't conduct marriages for profit.

That was easy.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you hold to Christ's rule about divorce?  Should our laws adhere strictly to those rules?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And with that stunned silence as the only response, there go the inviolable laws of the Christ under the bus.
> 
> Funny how that works isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're funny.  You try so hard. This thread is about queer marriage.  You're distracted too easily.  Jesus allowed divorce.  Did you read it?
Click to expand...


Yeah, divorce for infidelity.  What about all other divorces?  Why don't you really follow the teachings of Jesus the way you pretend to?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that, Iben, have to do with the OP?
> 
> The courts will protect the 1st Amendment rights of churches.
> 
> Godwin's law is invoked, and Iben loses.  Again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're more confused than a drunk termite in a yo yo.
Click to expand...


Of course the courts will protect the churches' rights to private association.


----------



## Howey

koshergrl said:


> Churches don't conduct marriages for profit.
> 
> That was easy.



GOOD GOD.

CAN'T YOU GET *ANYTHING* RIGHT? *ANYTHING?????*

Cost of a Wedding Chapel or Site - Weddings - CostHelper.com


----------



## koshergrl

It's not for profit. They take a fee to cover the expense. 

Try again, loon.


----------



## Kondor3

koshergrl said:


> It's not for profit. They take a fee to cover the expense.
> 
> Try again, loon.


So long as the overarching organization qualifies as a nonprofit, and so long as any subsidiary organization or paper-shell under which the rental occurs qualifies as a nonprofit, confidence is reasonably high that they may be as selective as they wish, in approving such rentals, and, if they are ever successfully challenged, then they simply cease rental operations and find some other source of funding-supplement; letting the community know who was responsible for spoiling it for everyone else, as part of the shutdown process.

The more P(ublic) R(elations) disasters for these freaks, the better.


----------



## koshergrl

As you know, they aren't the freaks.

The freaks are the homo lobby lunatic extremists who want to use the state to *force* churches to marry them.

Thankfully, you're a tiny minority of the population.


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> It's not for profit. They take a fee to cover the expense. Try again, loon.



You know better than to lie like this.

We will get you every time.

Rent My Church | Home is stone cold proof that you are wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kondor3 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not for profit. They take a fee to cover the expense.
> 
> Try again, loon.
> 
> 
> 
> So long as the overarching organization qualifies as a nonprofit, and so long as any subsidiary organization or paper-shell under which the rental occurs qualifies as a nonprofit, confidence is reasonably high that they may be as selective as they wish, in approving such rentals, and, if they are ever successfully challenged, then they simply cease rental operations and find some other source of funding-supplement; letting the community know who was responsible for spoiling it for everyone else, as part of the shutdown process.
> 
> The more P(ublic) R(elations) disasters for these freaks, the better.
Click to expand...


Kondor, give it up.  If  you are a lawyer trying to gin up business, you are going to lose big time if you actually try it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The far left homofascists freaks, as kg points out, are wrong and will be defeated.

And the hetero-fascist far right social con freaks, like kg, who are opposed to marriage equality are wrong also, and are losing the fight as we speak.


----------



## Kosh

The far left wants "separation of church and state", but wants the government to control "Marriage".

The far left Hypocrisy on this issue is an eye opener.

Well not really.


----------



## koshergrl

JakeStarkey said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not for profit. They take a fee to cover the expense. Try again, loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know better than to lie like this.
> 
> We will get you every time.
> 
> Rent My Church | Home is stone cold proof that you are wrong.
Click to expand...

 
No it's not, loon.


----------



## Ibentoken

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And with that stunned silence as the only response, there go the inviolable laws of the Christ under the bus.
> 
> Funny how that works isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're funny.  You try so hard. This thread is about queer marriage.  You're distracted too easily.  Jesus allowed divorce.  Did you read it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, divorce for infidelity.  What about all other divorces?  Why don't you really follow the teachings of Jesus the way you pretend to?
Click to expand...


What about all the other divorces?  It appears that all the other divorces have traumatized you.  Jesus can heal you and make it all better.  Try him.  He never fails.


----------



## Ibentoken

JakeStarkey said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that, Iben, have to do with the OP?
> 
> The courts will protect the 1st Amendment rights of churches.
> 
> Godwin's law is invoked, and Iben loses.  Again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're more confused than a drunk termite in a yo yo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the courts will protect the churches' rights to private association.
Click to expand...


I have a constitution.


----------



## Ibentoken

koshergrl said:


> As you know, they aren't the freaks.
> 
> The freaks are the homo lobby lunatic extremists who want to use the state to *force* churches to marry them.
> 
> Thankfully, you're a tiny minority of the population.



They're noisy faggots always wanting attention.....look at me, look at me, I'm queer and I'm here.....look at me.....


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're funny.  You try so hard. This thread is about queer marriage.  You're distracted too easily.  Jesus allowed divorce.  Did you read it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, divorce for infidelity.  What about all other divorces?  Why don't you really follow the teachings of Jesus the way you pretend to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about all the other divorces?  It appears that all the other divorces have traumatized you.  Jesus can heal you and make it all better.  Try him.  He never fails.
Click to expand...


*They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"  4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'  5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ?  6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." 

 7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"  8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.  

9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."  10*

See?  If you're going to claim Jesus as the authority on marriage, then no divorce except for infidelity is legitimate.

Do you support that law?


----------



## koshergrl

And then when you tell them to shut the fuck up, they demand to know why you care what they do in their bedrooms.

If they'd just keep it in their bedrooms, nobody would say a word!


----------



## koshergrl

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, divorce for infidelity. What about all other divorces? Why don't you really follow the teachings of Jesus the way you pretend to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about all the other divorces? It appears that all the other divorces have traumatized you. Jesus can heal you and make it all better. Try him. He never fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" 4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." *
> 
> *7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. *
> 
> *9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." 10*
> 
> See? If you're going to claim Jesus as the authority on marriage, then no divorce except for infidelity is legitimate.
> 
> Do you support that law?
Click to expand...

 
Er...what does this have to do with forcing homosexual marriages on churches?


----------



## koshergrl

PS..churches don't perform divorces, so it's completely irrelevant anyway.


----------



## Kondor3

JakeStarkey said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not for profit. They take a fee to cover the expense.
> 
> Try again, loon.
> 
> 
> 
> So long as the overarching organization qualifies as a nonprofit, and so long as any subsidiary organization or paper-shell under which the rental occurs qualifies as a nonprofit, *confidence is reasonably high* that they may be as selective as they wish, in approving such rentals, and, if they are ever successfully challenged, then they simply cease rental operations and find some other source of funding-supplement; letting the community know who was responsible for spoiling it for everyone else, as part of the shutdown process.
> 
> The more P(ublic) R(elations) disasters for these freaks, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kondor, give it up.  If  you are a lawyer trying to gin up business, you are going to lose big time if you actually try it.
Click to expand...

Oh, I claim no particular _legal_ expertise in the matter, despite the fact that I have 20+ years of nonprofit -focused middle-management experience.

If you believe that my assessment of nonprofit status, in connection with the rental of facilities, is incorrect, then, by all means say so, and offer-up a few words of wisdom as to why you believe that to be the case.

Otherwise, you're shootin' blanks on this one, mine good colleague.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said marriage is a man and woman. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> like I said... you don't even know your own religion.
> 
> now feel free to post the verse.
> 
> or you can always be quiet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus didn't come to break the law, but to fulfill it.
> 
> So if marriage is between a man and wife in the OT, and Christ does not say otherwise in the NT, marriage remains between a man and a woman.
> 
> But homos are free to do whatever they like. That's the wonderful thing about Christianity. It's about accountability. Go ahead and pretend you're married to your gay lover if that is what you want to do. As long as we aren't forced to subsidized your depraved and dependent lifestyle.
Click to expand...


Okay...so if Christians are supposed to abide by the laws of the OT...when do we start stoning adulterers and children who bad mouth their parents? 

The only time Jesus ever talks about marriage, he's referring to divorce. There were no legal same sex unions in his time so he could not have spoken of them. What did Jesus say about gays? Well, if you keep reading Matthew, he alludes to gay men. 

_Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can. (Matthew 19:11-12)_

I don't have to "pretend" I'm married, I *am *married. Legally married and Federally recognized. My spouse just got her military ID this past December. We filed our first joint Federal taxes despite being together for almost 20 years now. 

It's actually by not letting us legally marry that the taxpayer is more likely to have to "subsidize" one of the partners instead of them being on their spouse's healthcare. One partner can stay home, collect unemployment, welfare, food stamps, Medicare, etc...because they are treated like a single jobless individual instead of, oh say, a stay at home spouse or parent.


----------



## Ibentoken

NYcarbineer said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, divorce for infidelity.  What about all other divorces?  Why don't you really follow the teachings of Jesus the way you pretend to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about all the other divorces?  It appears that all the other divorces have traumatized you.  Jesus can heal you and make it all better.  Try him.  He never fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"  4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'  5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ?  6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
> 
> 7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"  8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
> 
> 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."  10*
> 
> See?  If you're going to claim Jesus as the authority on marriage, then no divorce except for infidelity is legitimate.
> 
> Do you support that law?
Click to expand...


It's not law.  It's church doctrine.  Do you understand the difference?


----------



## Seawytch

Kosh said:


> The far left wants "separation of church and state", but wants the government to control "Marriage".
> 
> The far left Hypocrisy on this issue is an eye opener.
> 
> Well not really.



Civil marriage is not religious. The government already "controls" civil marriage, gays want equal access to it, equal protection under the _law_. It has absolutely *N-O-T-H-I-N-G* to do with religion. 

Religions will be free, *as they always have*, to not perform marriage ceremonies that violate the tenants of their faith. How do I know this? By all the churches that were forced to perform interracial or interfaith marriages. 

Churches will change through public opinion...just as they ALWAYS have.


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not for profit. They take a fee to cover the expense. Try again, loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know better than to lie like this.
> 
> We will get you every time.
> 
> Rent My Church | Home is stone cold proof that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not, loon.
Click to expand...


Yup, they pay taxes on your bed side.  Means they will have to marry same sex if they want to continue after the court rules marriage equality is the law of the land.


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far left homofascists freaks, as kg points out, are wrong and will be defeated.
> 
> And the hetero-fascist far right social con freaks, like kg, who are opposed to marriage equality are wrong also, and are losing the fight as we speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how mentally ill you sound when you rattle off multiple posts like this?  I'm just trying to be helpful. If your parole officer reads this stuff, he's going to drag your ass in for not abiding by the terms of your probation...i.e., taking your prescribed meds (and not taking the street ones).
Click to expand...


 koshergrl melt down.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're more confused than a drunk termite in a yo yo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the courts will protect the churches' rights to private association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a constitution.
Click to expand...


Yes, you do, and the courts will interpret it for you on questions like the OP.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kondor3 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So long as the overarching organization qualifies as a nonprofit, and so long as any subsidiary organization or paper-shell under which the rental occurs qualifies as a nonprofit, *confidence is reasonably high* that they may be as selective as they wish, in approving such rentals, and, if they are ever successfully challenged, then they simply cease rental operations and find some other source of funding-supplement; letting the community know who was responsible for spoiling it for everyone else, as part of the shutdown process.
> 
> The more P(ublic) R(elations) disasters for these freaks, the better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor, give it up.  If  you are a lawyer trying to gin up business, you are going to lose big time if you actually try it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I claim no particular _legal_ expertise in the matter, despite the fact that I have 20+ years of nonprofit -focused middle-management experience.
> 
> If you believe that my assessment of nonprofit status, in connection with the rental of facilities, is incorrect, then, by all means say so, and offer-up a few words of wisdom as to why you believe that to be the case.  Otherwise, you're shootin' blanks on this one, mine good colleague.
Click to expand...


Rent My Church | Home demonstrates that churches advertise publicly their wedding facilities for rent.

Public accommodation law, my friend.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about all the other divorces?  It appears that all the other divorces have traumatized you.  Jesus can heal you and make it all better.  Try him.  He never fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"  4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'  5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ?  6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
> 
> 7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"  8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
> 
> 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."  10*
> 
> See?  If you're going to claim Jesus as the authority on marriage, then no divorce except for infidelity is legitimate.
> 
> Do you support that law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not law.  It's church doctrine.  Do you understand the difference?
Click to expand...


Then it has nothing to do with courts at all or this OP.


----------



## Wyld Kard

*Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? *

Absolutely not.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Kosh said:


> The far left wants "separation of church and state", but wants the government to control "Marriage".
> 
> The far left Hypocrisy on this issue is an eye opener.
> 
> Well not really.



This doesnt make any sense. 

It was the original intent of the Framers that church and state remain separate, liberals understand and acknowledge this fact.  

And government has always controlled marriage, as the states write the marriage laws and administer those laws in state courts. The 14th Amendment requires that the states allow all persons access to the laws of the states, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law theyre eligible to participate in. 

Consequently, theres no hypocrisy on the part of liberals, as their position is consistent with the Constitution and its case law. 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, and can in no way interfere with religious practice. 

Which brings us once again back to the idiocy of the OP, where no one is seeking to compel any Christian denomination to marry same-sex couples in their churches, and no government has the authority to compel them to do so.


----------



## Kondor3

JakeStarkey said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor, give it up.  If  you are a lawyer trying to gin up business, you are going to lose big time if you actually try it.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I claim no particular _legal_ expertise in the matter, despite the fact that I have 20+ years of nonprofit -focused middle-management experience.
> 
> If you believe that my assessment of nonprofit status, in connection with the rental of facilities, is incorrect, then, by all means say so, and offer-up a few words of wisdom as to why you believe that to be the case.  Otherwise, you're shootin' blanks on this one, mine good colleague.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rent My Church | Home demonstrates that churches advertise publicly their wedding facilities for rent.
> 
> Public accommodation law, my friend.
Click to expand...


Are you operating under the impression that I disputed the idea that churches rent-out their premises for various events?

Sent from my HP 7 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of molesters are men?  Hmm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really know OFF HAND - But male sex drive and female sex drive are two different creatures .  *I can't think *of a single case of females molesting children , except of course the occassiona  lteacher who bangs an under age student. What's your point ?  and why don't you google it and get back to us .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you don't think, Greanbean, you simply emote.
> 
> You have no factual, objective evidence for your opinions, and they are not evidence.  You are flatly wrong.  And, in fact, the numbers overwhelmingly of abusers are heterosexual adult males.
> 
> Greenbean Snow, you know nothing.
Click to expand...


Do you understand percentages and per capita ?  Apparently not - well where I went to school that was taught in Junior High -percentages in Grade School - have you gotten to level yet ? 

*When less than 5% of the Population is committing about 1/3 of the child molestation cases  then yes - that is an indication that something is drastically wrong with that minute percentage of people.*


----------



## Kosh

Seawytch said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far left wants "separation of church and state", but wants the government to control "Marriage".
> 
> The far left Hypocrisy on this issue is an eye opener.
> 
> Well not really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil marriage is not religious. The government already "controls" civil marriage, gays want equal access to it, equal protection under the _law_. It has absolutely *N-O-T-H-I-N-G* to do with religion.
> 
> Religions will be free, *as they always have*, to not perform marriage ceremonies that violate the tenants of their faith. How do I know this? By all the churches that were forced to perform interracial or interfaith marriages.
> 
> Churches will change through public opinion...just as they ALWAYS have.
Click to expand...


Another far left myth being promoted so the hate for the church can flow and be justified by those who only want to punish.


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of them apparently are quite well off; thus, they will vote Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the ignorant post of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not hardly. You and koshergrl and Greenbean regularly post stupidly all day.
> 
> NAMBLA, though, has nothing to do with the OP.
Click to expand...


Yet you are unable to refute - why because it's true and you're an asshat.


----------



## GreenBean

Seawytch said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far left wants "separation of church and state", but wants the government to control "Marriage".
> 
> The far left Hypocrisy on this issue is an eye opener.
> 
> Well not really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil marriage is not religious. The government already "controls" civil marriage, gays want equal access to it, equal protection under the _law_. It has absolutely *N-O-T-H-I-N-G* to do with religion.
> 
> Religions will be free, *as they always have*, to not perform marriage ceremonies that violate the tenants of their faith. How do I know this? By all the churches that were forced to perform interracial or interfaith marriages.
> 
> Churches will change through public opinion...just as they ALWAYS have.
Click to expand...


Let's get something straight puss bucket -

*YOU ARE A RACIST*

Your repeated attempts to link African Americans with Sexual Perverts is a vile and disgusting  antic 
- there is no correlation between the two - *Got It !?*


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Seawytch is correct and there's nothing racist about it.


----------



## TemplarKormac

To the 3 people who voted in favor of forcing churches to accommodate homosexual marriage, what planet are you from?


----------



## Kosh

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far left wants "separation of church and state", but wants the government to control "Marriage".
> 
> The far left Hypocrisy on this issue is an eye opener.
> 
> Well not really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesnt make any sense.
> 
> It was the original intent of the Framers that church and state remain separate, liberals understand and acknowledge this fact.
> 
> And government has always controlled marriage, as the states write the marriage laws and administer those laws in state courts. The 14th Amendment requires that the states allow all persons access to the laws of the states, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law theyre eligible to participate in.
> 
> Consequently, theres no hypocrisy on the part of liberals, as their position is consistent with the Constitution and its case law. 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, and can in no way interfere with religious practice.
> 
> Which brings us once again back to the idiocy of the OP, where no one is seeking to compel any Christian denomination to marry same-sex couples in their churches, and no government has the authority to compel them to do so.
Click to expand...


Of course the far left does not understand as it is not part of their programming.

Marriage is a product of religion despite the far left myths being promoted.

Thus the far left wants to control "Marriage"..

So we should no longer ever see the far left claim they want a "separation of church and state", which is not in the Constitution.

The Separation Of Church and State

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 1st Amendment erected a "wall of separation" between the church and the state (James Madison said it "drew a line," but it is Jefferson's term that sticks with us today). The phrase is commonly thought to mean that the government should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion.

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


----------



## Kosh

Luddly Neddite said:


> Seawytch is correct and there's nothing racist about it.



A far left Obama drone poster agreeing with another far left Obama drone poster proves nothing!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kondor3 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I claim no particular _legal_ expertise in the matter, despite the fact that I have 20+ years of nonprofit -focused middle-management experience.
> 
> If you believe that my assessment of nonprofit status, in connection with the rental of facilities, is incorrect, then, by all means say so, and offer-up a few words of wisdom as to why you believe that to be the case.  Otherwise, you're shootin' blanks on this one, mine good colleague.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rent My Church | Home demonstrates that churches advertise publicly their wedding facilities for rent.
> 
> Public accommodation law, my friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you operating under the impression that I disputed the idea that churches rent-out their premises for various events?
Click to expand...


You wrongfully disputed that by doing so publicly they will open themselves to homosexual weddings.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really know OFF HAND - But male sex drive and female sex drive are two different creatures .  *I can't think *of a single case of females molesting children , except of course the occassiona  lteacher who bangs an under age student. What's your point ?  and why don't you google it and get back to us .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, you don't think, Greanbean, you simply emote.
> 
> You have no factual, objective evidence for your opinions, and they are not evidence.  You are flatly wrong.  And, in fact, the numbers overwhelmingly of abusers are heterosexual adult males.
> 
> Greenbean Snow, you know nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand percentages and per capita ?  Apparently not - well where I went to school that was taught in Junior High -percentages in Grade School - have you gotten to level yet ?
> 
> *When less than 5% of the Population is committing about 1/3 of the child molestation cases  then yes - that is an indication that something is drastically wrong with that minute percentage of people.*
Click to expand...


Do you understand that your opinions, your numbers, are not facts.

But it is a fact to which you agreed that the overwhelming numbers of abuse are heterosexuals.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kosh said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far left wants "separation of church and state", but wants the government to control "Marriage".
> 
> The far left Hypocrisy on this issue is an eye opener.
> 
> Well not really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil marriage is not religious. The government already "controls" civil marriage, gays want equal access to it, equal protection under the _law_. It has absolutely *N-O-T-H-I-N-G* to do with religion.
> 
> Religions will be free, *as they always have*, to not perform marriage ceremonies that violate the tenants of their faith. How do I know this? By all the churches that were forced to perform interracial or interfaith marriages.
> 
> Churches will change through public opinion...just as they ALWAYS have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another far left myth being promoted so the hate for the church can flow and be justified by those who only want to punish.
Click to expand...


 Kosh is a far right myth maker.  As long as churches do not publicly hold themselves out as wedding centers for rent, they will be shielded by the 1st Amendment.

The overwhelming number of real Christians (not the heretics of the social con far right) understand this truth.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the ignorant post of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not hardly. You and koshergrl and Greenbean regularly post stupidly all day.
> 
> NAMBLA, though, has nothing to do with the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you are unable to refute - why because it's true and you're an asshat.
Click to expand...


Your nonsense, your opinions posting as facts on this OP, have been constantly and correctly refuted.

Churches, as long as they are not renting out their facilities public for weddings, will be shielded by the 1st Amendment from having to host weddings by your types.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GreenBean said:
			
		

> Let's get something straight puss bucket



Your vileness on this board confirms your heterofascism, your bigotry against women and people of color, and against the majority of Christians who disagree with you.

The behavior of you and those who think like you are exactly why marriage equality is required.


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not hardly. You and koshergrl and Greenbean regularly post stupidly all day.
> 
> NAMBLA, though, has nothing to do with the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you are unable to refute - why because it's true and you're an asshat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your nonsense, your opinions posting as facts on this OP, have been constantly and correctly refuted.
> 
> Churches, as long as they are not renting out their facilities public for weddings, will be shielded by the 1st Amendment from having to host weddings by your types.
Click to expand...




> Your nonsense, your opinions posting as facts on this OP, have been constantly and correctly refuted.



 

*Case in Point ? *


----------



## JakeStarkey

TemplarKormac said:


> To the 3 people who voted in favor of forcing churches to accommodate homosexual marriage, what planet are you from?



Amen! Just as there exists a far right religious social con agenda to deprive people of their civil liberties, there is a group of homofascists on the far left that wish to "corral" churches to their perverted world view.


----------



## Noomi

TemplarKormac said:


> To the 3 people who voted in favor of forcing churches to accommodate homosexual marriage, what planet are you from?



Planet disrespect, I guess.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GreenBean said:


> Case in Point



Already presented and proved by several posters.

You got nothing.

Anyone can peruse here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=8070152


----------



## JakeStarkey

Noomi said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the 3 people who voted in favor of forcing churches to accommodate homosexual marriage, what planet are you from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planet disrespect, I guess.
Click to expand...


Planet Unconstitutional


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get something straight puss bucket
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your vileness on this board confirms your heterofascism, your bigotry against women and people of color, and against the majority of Christians who disagree with you.
> 
> The behavior of you and those who think like you are exactly why marriage equality is required.
Click to expand...


Let's get something straight Jake the Fake - Fun and games is one thing - taunting one another and so forth - it's all part of the game - Don't you ever ever say that again -do you fucking got that asshat !!!  I am a "person of color"  and I will not tolerate racist innuendos by you or any of the other liberal asshats who infest the internet under various guises.  You will also refrain from using the struggles of my people for equal rights to aid and abed perverts .

Other than that -feel free to throw out all the insults you'd like - 

*Have a Nice Day*


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Case in Point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already presented and proved by several posters.
> 
> You got nothing.
> 
> Anyone can peruse here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=8070152
Click to expand...


You posted a dead link Jake - system error - I'm still waiting .


----------



## Kondor3

JakeStarkey said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rent My Church | Home demonstrates that churches advertise publicly their wedding facilities for rent.
> 
> Public accommodation law, my friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you operating under the impression that I disputed the idea that churches rent-out their premises for various events?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wrongfully disputed that by doing so publicly they will open themselves to homosexual weddings.
Click to expand...

I did?

You haven't got a link to that by any chance, do you?


----------



## Silhouette

Wow, 86% of pollers here seem to not be as supportive of so-called "gay marriage" as the LGBT cult would have the media [and politicians keeping an eagle-eye on prospective votes] believe.

Weird.  Also weird how avid they are to force their value system upon the sovereign states when they report at the same time that "a clear majority of Americans support gay marriage'

Something just ain't adding up?


----------



## Ibentoken

JakeStarkey said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the courts will protect the churches' rights to private association.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you do, and the courts will interpret it for you on questions like the OP.
Click to expand...


No interpretation needed here.   It's as plain as the wart on the tip of your nose.  I wanna see your court force an unwilling pastor perform a queer wedding.


----------



## koshergrl

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> like I said... you don't even know your own religion.
> 
> now feel free to post the verse.
> 
> or you can always be quiet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus didn't come to break the law, but to fulfill it.
> 
> So if marriage is between a man and wife in the OT, and Christ does not say otherwise in the NT, marriage remains between a man and a woman.
> 
> But homos are free to do whatever they like. That's the wonderful thing about Christianity. It's about accountability. Go ahead and pretend you're married to your gay lover if that is what you want to do. As long as we aren't forced to subsidized your depraved and dependent lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay...so if Christians are supposed to abide by the laws of the OT...when do we start stoning adulterers and children who bad mouth their parents?
> 
> The only time Jesus ever talks about marriage, he's referring to divorce. There were no legal same sex unions in his time so he could not have spoken of them. What did Jesus say about gays? Well, if you keep reading Matthew, he alludes to gay men.
> 
> _&#8220;Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.&#8221; (Matthew 19:11-12)_
> 
> I don't have to "pretend" I'm married, I *am *married. Legally married and Federally recognized. My spouse just got her military ID this past December. We filed our first joint Federal taxes despite being together for almost 20 years now.
> 
> It's actually by not letting us legally marry that the taxpayer is more likely to have to "subsidize" one of the partners instead of them being on their spouse's healthcare. One partner can stay home, collect unemployment, welfare, food stamps, Medicare, etc...because they are treated like a single jobless individual instead of, oh say, a stay at home spouse or parent.
Click to expand...




I would bet money you're getting foodstamps now. Sounds like you've got it down. 

Yup, you can leech off the system better if you're not married. The system has always been about subsidizing failure.


----------



## Crystalclear

Silhouette said:


> Wow, 86% of pollers here seem to not be as supportive of so-called "gay marriage" as the LGBT cult would have the media [and politicians keeping an eagle-eye on prospective votes] believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Weird.  Also weird how avid they are to force their value system upon the sovereign states when they report at the same time that "a clear majority of Americans support gay marriage'
> 
> 
> 
> Something just ain't adding up?




This discussion is totally not about supporting gay marriage. I am very supportive of gay marriage and so are most Americans, but I guess most people don't like the fact of a government dicating private organisations what to do.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Silhouette said:


> Wow, 86% of pollers here seem to not be as supportive of so-called "gay marriage" as the LGBT cult would have the media [and politicians keeping an eagle-eye on prospective votes] believe.
> 
> Weird.  Also weird how avid they are to force their value system upon the sovereign states when they report at the same time that "a clear majority of Americans support gay marriage'
> 
> Something just ain't adding up?



1.  The poll is not a measure of support for gay marriage

2.  This forum is conservative by about 6 to 1, so no poll here accurately reflects public opinion.


----------



## DriftingSand

No! Any so-called "Christian church" that holds gay weddings has fallen an is anathema to the Word of God as written in the Bible. They now do Satan's bidding and the false teachers/preachers of said churches have a nice, warm placing waiting for them.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ibentoken said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about all the other divorces?  It appears that all the other divorces have traumatized you.  Jesus can heal you and make it all better.  Try him.  He never fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"  4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'  5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ?  6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
> 
> 7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"  8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
> 
> 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."  10*
> 
> See?  If you're going to claim Jesus as the authority on marriage, then no divorce except for infidelity is legitimate.
> 
> Do you support that law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not law.  It's church doctrine.  Do you understand the difference?
Click to expand...


Then stop citing Jesus when the legal rights of same sex couples are the issue.


----------



## NYcarbineer

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really know OFF HAND - But male sex drive and female sex drive are two different creatures .  *I can't think *of a single case of females molesting children , except of course the occassiona  lteacher who bangs an under age student. What's your point ?  and why don't you google it and get back to us .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, you don't think, Greanbean, you simply emote.
> 
> You have no factual, objective evidence for your opinions, and they are not evidence.  You are flatly wrong.  And, in fact, the numbers overwhelmingly of abusers are heterosexual adult males.
> 
> Greenbean Snow, you know nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand percentages and per capita ?  Apparently not - well where I went to school that was taught in Junior High -percentages in Grade School - have you gotten to level yet ?
> 
> *When less than 5% of the Population is committing about 1/3 of the child molestation cases  then yes - that is an indication that something is drastically wrong with that minute percentage of people.*
Click to expand...


Once again, what percentage of molested girls were molested by homosexual men?


----------



## NYcarbineer

DriftingSand said:


> No! Any so-called "Christian church" that holds gay weddings has fallen an is anathema to the Word of God as written in the Bible. They now do Satan's bidding and the false teachers/preachers of said churches have a nice, warm placing waiting for them.



And the ones who hold weddings for the divorced to remarry others?  More of Satan's work?


----------



## GreenBean

NYcarbineer said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, you don't think, Greanbean, you simply emote.
> 
> You have no factual, objective evidence for your opinions, and they are not evidence.  You are flatly wrong.  And, in fact, the numbers overwhelmingly of abusers are heterosexual adult males.
> 
> Greenbean Snow, you know nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand percentages and per capita ?  Apparently not - well where I went to school that was taught in Junior High -percentages in Grade School - have you gotten to level yet ?
> 
> *When less than 5% of the Population is committing about 1/3 of the child molestation cases  then yes - that is an indication that something is drastically wrong with that minute percentage of people.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, what percentage of molested girls were molested by homosexual men?
Click to expand...



What percentage of elves were molested by fake santa clauses ?


----------



## NYcarbineer

GreenBean said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand percentages and per capita ?  Apparently not - well where I went to school that was taught in Junior High -percentages in Grade School - have you gotten to level yet ?
> 
> *When less than 5% of the Population is committing about 1/3 of the child molestation cases  then yes - that is an indication that something is drastically wrong with that minute percentage of people.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, what percentage of molested girls were molested by homosexual men?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of elves were molested by fake santa clauses ?
Click to expand...


Your numbers are bullshit.  Get over it.


----------



## GreenBean

NYcarbineer said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, what percentage of molested girls were molested by homosexual men?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of elves were molested by fake santa clauses ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your numbers are bullshit.  Get over it.
Click to expand...


If that's what you believe than I would like to see you prove it . 
Your simple minded drive by comments prove nothing other than *your ignorance of  reality.*


*Put Up or Shut Up *


----------



## Seawytch

Kosh said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far left wants "separation of church and state", but wants the government to control "Marriage".
> 
> The far left Hypocrisy on this issue is an eye opener.
> 
> Well not really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil marriage is not religious. The government already "controls" civil marriage, gays want equal access to it, equal protection under the _law_. It has absolutely *N-O-T-H-I-N-G* to do with religion.
> 
> Religions will be free, *as they always have*, to not perform marriage ceremonies that violate the tenants of their faith. How do I know this? By all the churches that were forced to perform interracial or interfaith marriages.
> 
> Churches will change through public opinion...just as they ALWAYS have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another far left myth being promoted so the hate for the church can flow and be justified by those who only want to punish.
Click to expand...


What is the "myth" you refer to? The struggle for gay and lesbian civil rights and the right to civilly marry has nothing to do with the church or religion. They are not related in any way, shape or form. 

Gays have always had equal access to religious marriage. We can be religiously married by any church that will marry us, just like everyone else. It's the legal, civil marriage we care about having equal access to because that's the one many are denied.


----------



## Seawytch

NYcarbineer said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, what percentage of molested girls were molested by homosexual men?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of elves were molested by fake santa clauses ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your numbers are bullshit.  Get over it.
Click to expand...


Of course they are because Green Bean isn't interested in knowing the actual facts he's just interested in painting gays as child molesters. Tiresome canard of homophobes. 

He doesn't understand that men that molest boys are not gay, but *pedophiles*. 

_According to Dr. Fred Berlin, a Johns Hopkins University professor who founded the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma in Baltimore, Md., pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation marked by persistent, sometimes *exclusive, attraction to prepubescent children*. _​
Pedophiles are attracted to children. That they are children matters more than their gender. The sex of victim has more to do with *access *.

This is from a study by John Jay University commissioned after the Catholic priest sex abuse scandal. 

_"What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse. At this point, *we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse *from the data that we have right now."_​


----------



## Seawytch

DriftingSand said:


> No! Any so-called "Christian church" that holds gay weddings has fallen an is anathema to the Word of God as written in the Bible. They now do Satan's bidding and the false teachers/preachers of said churches have a nice, warm placing waiting for them.




Yeah, they said that about interracial marriage too. Some still do. Meh, I'll wait to hear it direct from god that she doesn't like the way she made me.


----------



## GreenBean

Seawytch said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of elves were molested by fake santa clauses ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are bullshit.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are because Green Bean isn't interested in knowing the actual facts he's just interested in painting gays as child molesters. Tiresome canard of homophobes.
> 
> He doesn't understand that men that molest boys are not gay, but *pedophiles*.
> 
> _According to Dr. Fred Berlin, a Johns Hopkins University professor who founded the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma in Baltimore, Md., pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation marked by persistent, sometimes *exclusive, attraction to prepubescent children*. _​
> Pedophiles are attracted to children. That they are children matters more than their gender. The sex of victim has more to do with *access *.
> 
> This is from a study by John Jay University commissioned after the Catholic priest sex abuse scandal.
> 
> _"What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse. At this point, *we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse *from the data that we have right now."_​
Click to expand...


*Very Good SeaWytch * - you really put the old thinking cap on for that one - just hope it isn't too tight.

The papers you cited - which I am somewhat familiar with, present one theory - and a *semi-plausible one* at that .  The preposition being that somehow *Males who molest other males should not be considered honosexual* even though those males predominantly and exclusively attack males [under age]  because it makes all Gays look bad ... correct me if I'm wrong - because I don't have the time at the moment to scour through the articles and tear them apart -  I'll be back a tad later to  check on your progress . Regards

PS: Regarding your other post that followed that - kindly cease and desist your Racist Tripe - Attempting to link African Americans to your silly little sexual agenda - *You're a Racist *


----------



## Papageorgio

Seawytch said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil marriage is not religious. The government already "controls" civil marriage, gays want equal access to it, equal protection under the _law_. It has absolutely *N-O-T-H-I-N-G* to do with religion.
> 
> Religions will be free, *as they always have*, to not perform marriage ceremonies that violate the tenants of their faith. How do I know this? By all the churches that were forced to perform interracial or interfaith marriages.
> 
> Churches will change through public opinion...just as they ALWAYS have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another far left myth being promoted so the hate for the church can flow and be justified by those who only want to punish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the "myth" you refer to? The struggle for gay and lesbian civil rights and the right to civilly marry has nothing to do with the church or religion. They are not related in any way, shape or form.
> 
> Gays have always had equal access to religious marriage. We can be religiously married by any church that will marry us, just like everyone else. It's the legal, civil marriage we care about having equal access to because that's the one many are denied.
Click to expand...


So, do you feel religions should be forced to perform gay marriages?


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GreenBean said:


> You posted a dead link Jake - system error - I'm still waiting .



Then you broke the link to your own posts, which anyone can find from your page, to your statistics, to your posts.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kondor3 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you operating under the impression that I disputed the idea that churches rent-out their premises for various events?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wrongfully disputed that by doing so publicly they will open themselves to homosexual weddings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did?
> 
> You haven't got a link to that by any chance, do you?
Click to expand...


Yup, you did, and anybody can go back and findit.

We are not going to let you play obstructionism.  You don't get "just once more."


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ibentoken said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you do, and the courts will interpret it for you on questions like the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No interpretation needed here.   It's as plain as the wart on the tip of your nose.  I wanna see your court force an unwilling pastor perform a queer wedding.
Click to expand...


Failed attempt by to shift argument.

Any church that holds public weddings for a fee will be subject to contempt of court and massive fines if it does not comply with the law.


----------



## JakeStarkey

NYcarbineer said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, you don't think, Greanbean, you simply emote.
> 
> You have no factual, objective evidence for your opinions, and they are not evidence.  You are flatly wrong.  And, in fact, the numbers overwhelmingly of abusers are heterosexual adult males.
> 
> Greenbean Snow, you know nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand percentages and per capita ?  Apparently not - well where I went to school that was taught in Junior High -percentages in Grade School - have you gotten to level yet ?
> 
> *When less than 5% of the Population is committing about 1/3 of the child molestation cases  then yes - that is an indication that something is drastically wrong with that minute percentage of people.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, what percentage of molested girls were molested by homosexual men?
Click to expand...


Silhouette and Pop23 and others won't answer that question as well as the one "how has marriage equality harmed your civil and personal liberties?"

The obstructionists know they have lost this debate from the beginning,


----------



## I.P.Freely

*Pastor Defrocked For Marrying Gay Son Delivers Sermon in Binghamton*


----------



## JakeStarkey

GreenBean said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of elves were molested by fake santa clauses ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are bullshit.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's what you believe than I would like to see you prove it .
> Your simple minded drive by comments prove nothing other than *your ignorance of  reality.*
> 
> 
> Put Up or Shut Up[/SIZE][/B]
Click to expand...


The assertion, Greenbean, is yours, and you have failed to prove it.

NYC does not have to disprove your assertion.


----------



## Seawytch

Papageorgio said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another far left myth being promoted so the hate for the church can flow and be justified by those who only want to punish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the "myth" you refer to? The struggle for gay and lesbian civil rights and the right to civilly marry has nothing to do with the church or religion. They are not related in any way, shape or form.
> 
> Gays have always had equal access to religious marriage. We can be religiously married by any church that will marry us, just like everyone else. It's the legal, civil marriage we care about having equal access to because that's the one many are denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, do you feel religions should be forced to perform gay marriages?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using an Android.
Click to expand...


By the government, no. By public opinion, yes.


----------



## Seawytch

JakeStarkey said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are bullshit.  Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's what you believe than I would like to see you prove it .
> Your simple minded drive by comments prove nothing other than *your ignorance of  reality.*
> 
> 
> Put Up or Shut Up[/SIZE][/B]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The assertion, Greenbean, is yours, and you have failed to prove it.
> 
> NYC does not have to disprove your assertion.
Click to expand...


Not only that, I disproved it already. Actually, I didn't, social science did a long time ago. It's only desperate homophobes in the last gasps of their fight _against _equality that still cling to it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The clown who wrote "because I don't have the time at the moment to scour through the articles and tear them apart" does not understand the OP.

It is about churches having to perform LGBT marriages, not whether he can tear any argument up: he can't.

Larry Craig and he could not find their way out of a men's room together.


----------



## bripat9643

GreenBean said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are bullshit.  Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are because Green Bean isn't interested in knowing the actual facts he's just interested in painting gays as child molesters. Tiresome canard of homophobes.
> 
> He doesn't understand that men that molest boys are not gay, but *pedophiles*.
> 
> _According to Dr. Fred Berlin, a Johns Hopkins University professor who founded the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma in Baltimore, Md., pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation marked by persistent, sometimes *exclusive, attraction to prepubescent children*. _​
> Pedophiles are attracted to children. That they are children matters more than their gender. The sex of victim has more to do with *access *.
> 
> This is from a study by John Jay University commissioned after the Catholic priest sex abuse scandal.
> 
> _"What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse. At this point, *we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse *from the data that we have right now."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Very Good SeaWytch * - you really put the old thinking cap on for that one - just hope it isn't too tight.
> 
> The papers you cited - which I am somewhat familiar with, present one theory - and a *semi-plausible one* at that .  The preposition being that somehow *Males who molest other males should not be considered honosexual* even though those males predominantly and exclusively attack males [under age]  because it makes all Gays look bad ... correct me if I'm wrong - because I don't have the time at the moment to scour through the articles and tear them apart -  I'll be back a tad later to  check on your progress . Regards
> 
> PS: Regarding your other post that followed that - kindly cease and desist your Racist Tripe - Attempting to link African Americans to your silly little sexual agenda - *You're a Racist *
Click to expand...


I've seen this idea before, and it's utter bullshit.  You're right, the only basis for it is the fact that gays don't want it known that so many of them are child molesters.


----------



## NLT

Seawytch said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's what you believe than I would like to see you prove it .
> Your simple minded drive by comments prove nothing other than *your ignorance of  reality.*
> 
> 
> Put Up or Shut Up[/SIZE][/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assertion, Greenbean, is yours, and you have failed to prove it.
> 
> NYC does not have to disprove your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only that, I disproved it already. Actually, I didn't, social science did a long time ago. It's only desperate homophobes in the last gasps of their fight _against _equality that still cling to it.
Click to expand...



I will pay for a one way trip to uganda for you


----------



## bripat9643

NYcarbineer said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, what percentage of molested girls were molested by homosexual men?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of elves were molested by fake santa clauses ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your numbers are bullshit.  Get over it.
Click to expand...


Why would homosexual men molest girls?  His numbers are quite accurate.  However, your bullshit theory about child molestation is the result of propaganda, not science.


----------



## bripat9643

Seawytch said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's what you believe than I would like to see you prove it .
> Your simple minded drive by comments prove nothing other than *your ignorance of  reality.*
> 
> 
> Put Up or Shut Up[/SIZE][/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assertion, Greenbean, is yours, and you have failed to prove it.
> 
> NYC does not have to disprove your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only that, I disproved it already. Actually, I didn't, social science did a long time ago. It's only desperate homophobes in the last gasps of their fight _against _equality that still cling to it.
Click to expand...


You haven't disproved jack shit.  All you did is post some bullshit homo propaganda.


----------



## bripat9643

Seawytch said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of elves were molested by fake santa clauses ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are bullshit.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are because Green Bean isn't interested in knowing the actual facts he's just interested in painting gays as child molesters. Tiresome canard of homophobes.
> 
> He doesn't understand that men that molest boys are not gay, but *pedophiles*.
> 
> _According to Dr. Fred Berlin, a Johns Hopkins University professor who founded the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma in Baltimore, Md., pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation marked by persistent, sometimes *exclusive, attraction to prepubescent children*. _​
> Pedophiles are attracted to children. That they are children matters more than their gender. The sex of victim has more to do with *access *.
> 
> This is from a study by John Jay University commissioned after the Catholic priest sex abuse scandal.
> 
> _"What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse. At this point, *we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse *from the data that we have right now."_​
Click to expand...


That's homosexual propaganda.  There isn't an iota of evidence to support it.


----------



## bripat9643

GreenBean said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are bullshit.  Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are because Green Bean isn't interested in knowing the actual facts he's just interested in painting gays as child molesters. Tiresome canard of homophobes.
> 
> He doesn't understand that men that molest boys are not gay, but *pedophiles*.
> 
> _According to Dr. Fred Berlin, a Johns Hopkins University professor who founded the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma in Baltimore, Md., pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation marked by persistent, sometimes *exclusive, attraction to prepubescent children*. _​
> Pedophiles are attracted to children. That they are children matters more than their gender. The sex of victim has more to do with *access *.
> 
> This is from a study by John Jay University commissioned after the Catholic priest sex abuse scandal.
> 
> _"What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse. At this point, *we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse *from the data that we have right now."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Very Good SeaWytch * - you really put the old thinking cap on for that one - just hope it isn't too tight.
> 
> The papers you cited - which I am somewhat familiar with, present one theory - and a *semi-plausible one* at that .  The preposition being that somehow *Males who molest other males should not be considered honosexual* even though those males predominantly and exclusively attack males [under age]  because it makes all Gays look bad ... correct me if I'm wrong - because I don't have the time at the moment to scour through the articles and tear them apart -  I'll be back a tad later to  check on your progress . Regards
> 
> PS: Regarding your other post that followed that - kindly cease and desist your Racist Tripe - Attempting to link African Americans to your silly little sexual agenda - *You're a Racist *
Click to expand...


What's plausible about that theory?  It seems highly implausible to me.  Furthermore, there isn't a shred of proof for it.


----------



## Seawytch

bripat9643 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are bullshit.  Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are because Green Bean isn't interested in knowing the actual facts he's just interested in painting gays as child molesters. Tiresome canard of homophobes.
> 
> He doesn't understand that men that molest boys are not gay, but *pedophiles*.
> 
> _According to Dr. Fred Berlin, a Johns Hopkins University professor who founded the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma in Baltimore, Md., pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation marked by persistent, sometimes *exclusive, attraction to prepubescent children*. _​
> Pedophiles are attracted to children. That they are children matters more than their gender. The sex of victim has more to do with *access *.
> 
> This is from a study by John Jay University commissioned after the Catholic priest sex abuse scandal.
> 
> _"What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse. At this point, *we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse *from the data that we have right now."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's homosexual propaganda.  There isn't an iota of evidence to support it.
Click to expand...


Um, no actually, that is the evidence that supports it. Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children and it is about access, not gender. 

Gays are no more a danger to children than anyone else on the planet. Seriously, if you really want to "tra la la" down that road, only women should be able to marry each other and have and raise children since the overwhelming majority of molesters are *MEN*.


----------



## Seawytch

NLT said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assertion, Greenbean, is yours, and you have failed to prove it.
> 
> NYC does not have to disprove your assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that, I disproved it already. Actually, I didn't, social science did a long time ago. It's only desperate homophobes in the last gasps of their fight _against _equality that still cling to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I will pay for a one way trip to uganda for you
Click to expand...


Gosh, no thanks. Nice of you to offer. It sounds like someplace you'd be happy though. You could kill those queers to your hearts content. Happy trails.


----------



## Seawytch

bripat9643 said:


> I've seen this idea before, and it's utter bullshit.  You're right, the only basis for it is the fact that gays don't want it known that so many of them are child molesters.



Yup...desperate homophobes and their dying last throes. 

You know how there are "It Get's Better" videos? We need a new series for the 'phobes called "It Gets Worse".


----------



## Kondor3

So, have we figured out yet, that churches should not be forced to commit sinful acts, by marrying homosexuals - whom many churches consider to be unnatural, perverse, unclean, sinful and abhorrent individuals, practicing unnatural, perverse, unclean, sinful and abhorrent sexual behaviors, and manifesting an unnatural, perverse, unclean, sinful and abhorrent lifestyle - aberrations in the sight of God, Nature and Man?


----------



## Kondor3

Let us hope that the next Conservative Administration finds new and interesting and fun ways _at-law_ to re-cast homosexuality as immoral and detrimental to society and the good working order of the Republic, in order to form the legal basis for beginning to reverse some of the insane advances that they've won in the past several years - using the law, and macro-level marketing techniques, even better than the Homosexual Mafia has - in order to beat back this latest wave of filth and perversion.

January 20, 2017 cannot arrive quickly enough.


----------



## Kosh

So far here are the high lights based on the far left comments:

1) They believe "Marriage" is  a Constitutional right - Of curse it is not.

2) They believe Marriage is not connected to religion. - Marriage is a product of religion now matter how they want t spin it.

3) They believe that the churches should be forced into marrying same sex couples. So much for the whole "separation of church and state".

4) The far left is upset because the can not get to the churches money. Although it was a paranoid LBJ that banned churches from being able to donate to political campaigns in fear of losing to a Catholic.

Once again the far left does not deserve to  be in power and should never be in power.


----------



## bendog

Notice how the thread went to "Oh my, the gays are gonna tell our churches what to do" to "Gays are perverts."

That's pretty much why public opinion turned the way it did.  Most people don't like bullies, and it's pretty clear who's doing the bullying on this issue.  Really, of all the GLBT people wanting to get married, a very small % would want anything to do with the church of Phil Robertson.


----------



## GISMYS

YES!! A ANOTHER SIGN OF THE LAST DAYS IS "churches" that deny the TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD and call evil good and good evil. WE ARE IN THOSE DAYS NOW!!!


----------



## GreenBean

bripat9643 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are because Green Bean isn't interested in knowing the actual facts he's just interested in painting gays as child molesters. Tiresome canard of homophobes.
> 
> He doesn't understand that men that molest boys are not gay, but *pedophiles*.
> 
> _According to Dr. Fred Berlin, a Johns Hopkins University professor who founded the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma in Baltimore, Md., pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation marked by persistent, sometimes *exclusive, attraction to prepubescent children*. _​
> Pedophiles are attracted to children. That they are children matters more than their gender. The sex of victim has more to do with *access *.
> 
> This is from a study by John Jay University commissioned after the Catholic priest sex abuse scandal.
> 
> _"What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse. At this point, *we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse *from the data that we have right now."_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Very Good SeaWytch * - you really put the old thinking cap on for that one - just hope it isn't too tight.
> 
> The papers you cited - which I am somewhat familiar with, present one theory - and a *semi-plausible one* at that .  The preposition being that somehow *Males who molest other males should not be considered honosexual* even though those males predominantly and exclusively attack males [under age]  because it makes all Gays look bad ... correct me if I'm wrong - because I don't have the time at the moment to scour through the articles and tear them apart -  I'll be back a tad later to  check on your progress . Regards
> 
> PS: Regarding your other post that followed that - kindly cease and desist your Racist Tripe - Attempting to link African Americans to your silly little sexual agenda - *You're a Racist *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen this idea before, and it's utter bullshit.  You're right, the only basis for it is the fact that gays don't want it known that so many of them are child molesters.
Click to expand...




> I've seen this idea before, and it's utter bullshit. You're right, the only basis for it is the fact that gays don't want it known that so many of them are child molesters.



*Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses*: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: *Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.*

A study of 457 male sex offenders against children in Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy found that "approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males."



> "The proportional prevalence of offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent." See also, Kurt Freund, et al., "Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference," "A*pproximately one-third of these individuals had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls. This finding is consistent with the proportions reported in two earlier studies,*"
> 
> "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy"



The Archives of Sexual Behavior : "





> One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender."



*Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.*


----------



## GreenBean

Kosh said:


> So far here are the high lights based on the far left comments:
> 
> 1) They believe "Marriage" is  a Constitutional right - Of curse it is not.
> 
> 2) They believe Marriage is not connected to religion. - Marriage is a product of religion now matter how they want t spin it.
> 
> 3) They believe that the churches should be forced into marrying same sex couples. So much for the whole "separation of church and state".
> 
> 4) The far left is upset because the can not get to the churches money. Although it was a paranoid LBJ that banned churches from being able to donate to political campaigns in fear of losing to a Catholic.
> 
> Once again the far left does not deserve to  be in power and should never be in power.





> 4) The far left is upset because the can not get to the churches money. Although it was a paranoid LBJ that banned churches from being able to donate to political campaigns in fear of losing to a Catholic.



The same LBJ who made the statement "I'll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years"  and  who Bobby Kennedy blew up at with the statement "Why did you kill my Brother ?!"  Yup -typical Democrat.


----------



## bendog

Is there a huge outbreak of churches being sued?  I mean if a church "welcomes" all, but then refuses to marry a same sex couple, I can see an issue.  But, I just don't see a horde of querr's lining up to sue the Pope or Mormons on this.


----------



## GreenBean

bendog said:


> Notice how the thread went to "Oh my, the gays are gonna tell our churches what to do" to "Gays are perverts."
> 
> That's pretty much why public opinion turned the way it did.  Most people don't like bullies, and it's pretty clear who's doing the bullying on this issue.  Really, of all the GLBT people wanting to get married, a very small % would want anything to do with the church of Phil Robertson.



Good Point Benji - An important aspect of the Jennings [Gay} strategy involves *linking the Gay Agenda to universal values that all members of society share. *Basically to latch onto tolerance, diversity, safety, and peaceful coexistence amongst children of many variations - which is a good thing. It's a tactic referred to as Framing.  From this simple dirt path, they seek to build a super-highway into the minds of our youth. Anybody who objected to the Gay Agendas planned indoctrination would be heretofore be labeled a heartless bully, a homophobic demon with a complete disregard for children and students.


*This framing short-circuited their arguments [heterosexuals] and left them back-pedaling from day one, .... [N]o one could speak up against our frame and say, Why, yes, I do think students should kill themselves , This allowed us to set the terms for debate. - Kevin Jennings*

An important goal of the framing campaign, as well as the Gay Agenda in general according to Jennings, is that eventually when normal straight people hear that someone is promoting homosexuality, they would say -Yeah, who cares? - because they would not necessarily equate homosexuality with what it really is - evil, bad, devious and in opposition to common human morality .   Gay Agenda in Public Schools


----------



## koshergrl

GreenBean said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Very Good SeaWytch * - you really put the old thinking cap on for that one - just hope it isn't too tight.
> 
> The papers you cited - which I am somewhat familiar with, present one theory - and a *semi-plausible one* at that .  The preposition being that somehow *Males who molest other males should not be considered honosexual* even though those males predominantly and exclusively attack males [under age]  because it makes all Gays look bad ... correct me if I'm wrong - because I don't have the time at the moment to scour through the articles and tear them apart -  I'll be back a tad later to  check on your progress . Regards
> 
> PS: Regarding your other post that followed that - kindly cease and desist your Racist Tripe - Attempting to link African Americans to your silly little sexual agenda - *You're a Racist *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen this idea before, and it's utter bullshit.  You're right, the only basis for it is the fact that gays don't want it known that so many of them are child molesters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses*: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.
> 
> Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: *Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.*
> 
> A study of 457 male sex offenders against children in Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy found that "approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The proportional prevalence of offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent." See also, Kurt Freund, et al., "Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference," "A*pproximately one-third of these individuals had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls. This finding is consistent with the proportions reported in two earlier studies,*"
> 
> "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Archives of Sexual Behavior : "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.*
Click to expand...


Of course they are. The homo lobby likes to lie about this, which combined with their hysterical pro-abortion stance, proves that child safety/life is far, far down on their list of priorities. They're fine with sacrificing the lives and well being of children to their depraved lifestyle.


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are bullshit.  Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's what you believe than I would like to see you prove it .
> Your simple minded drive by comments prove nothing other than *your ignorance of  reality.*
> 
> 
> Put Up or Shut Up[/SIZE][/B]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The assertion, Greenbean, is yours, and you have failed to prove it.
> 
> NYC does not have to disprove your assertion.
Click to expand...


The assertion is not mine - it is that of basic science.  follow the links little fella


----------



## koshergrl

bendog said:


> Notice how the thread went to "Oh my, the gays are gonna tell our churches what to do" to "Gays are perverts."
> 
> That's pretty much why public opinion turned the way it did.  Most people don't like bullies, and it's pretty clear who's doing the bullying on this issue.  Really, of all the GLBT people wanting to get married, a very small % would want anything to do with the church of Phil Robertson.



People don't like people who try to impinge upon their religious liberty. Queers will find they're hated much less when they stop trying to force everybody to accommodate their perversions.


----------



## bendog

koshergrl said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the thread went to "Oh my, the gays are gonna tell our churches what to do" to "Gays are perverts."
> 
> That's pretty much why public opinion turned the way it did.  Most people don't like bullies, and it's pretty clear who's doing the bullying on this issue.  Really, of all the GLBT people wanting to get married, a very small % would want anything to do with the church of Phil Robertson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People don't like people who try to impinge upon their religious liberty. Queers will find they're hated much less when they stop trying to force everybody to accommodate their perversions.
Click to expand...


KG, I doubt any gay people care how your marriage works.  I certainly don't.  No hard feelings intended.  But I'm pretty sure gays are leaving me alone, and I'm content to let them be as well.


----------



## NYcarbineer

koshergrl said:


> [
> 
> A study of 457 male sex offenders against children in Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy found that "approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males."



So by 2 to 1, sex offenses against children are heterosexual.

Okay...and?

btw, shouldn't you be counting all those females who have sex with underage males??????


----------



## koshergrl

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's what you believe than I would like to see you prove it .
> Your simple minded drive by comments prove nothing other than *your ignorance of  reality.*
> 
> 
> Put Up or Shut Up[/SIZE][/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assertion, Greenbean, is yours, and you have failed to prove it.
> 
> NYC does not have to disprove your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The assertion is not mine - it is that of basic science.  follow the links little fella
Click to expand...


He proved it. If NYC contests the numbers, then he needs to prove they are wrong.

Otherwise, he fails.

Which he is used to. I'm sure he started groaning the minute jake started *helping*.


----------



## Seawytch

Kosh said:


> So far here are the high lights based on the far left comments:
> 
> 1) They believe "Marriage" is  a Constitutional right - Of curse it is not.



Actually, what it is is a Fundamental Right...affirmed by the SCOTUS on more than a dozen occasions. 



> 2) They believe Marriage is not connected to religion. - Marriage is a product of religion now matter how they want t spin it.



Civil marriage is not. Since you can get a marriage license from a _government agency_ and then be married by a _civil servant_, not a *religious *leader, civil marriage has nothing to do with religion no matter how you spin it. 



> 3) They believe that the churches should be forced into marrying same sex couples. So much for the whole "separation of church and state".



No, "they" do not. Churches and religions will change because of public opinion, not government intervention. No church will ever be forced by the government, in the United States, to perform a wedding ceremony against the tenants of their faith. This is an absolute with no possible argument. How do I know? Because of all the churches that were forced to perform interfaith or interracial marriages. All zero of them. 



> 4) The far left is upset because the can not get to the churches money. Although it was a paranoid LBJ that banned churches from being able to donate to political campaigns in fear of losing to a Catholic.



Okay, yeah...that does kind of piss me off, the tax exemption thing...especially since they can get even more "cash and prizes" thanks to "faith based initiatives" and so many of them politic from the pew. I don't mind the little parishes and small churches that are just churches having a tax exempt status, but these big mega billion dollar mega churches and these TV evangelicals...I think they should be taxed all the way to hell and back. 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drMMBE6KRbI"]Would Jesus Wear a Rolex?[/ame] 



> Once again the far left does not deserve to  be in power and should never be in power.



 Get used to saying President Hillary Clinton


----------



## Seawytch

NYcarbineer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> A study of 457 male sex offenders against children in Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy found that "approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So by 2 to 1, sex offenses against children are heterosexual.
> 
> Okay...and?
> 
> btw, shouldn't you be counting all those females who have sex with underage males??????
Click to expand...


No, what we should be doing is separating statutory rape from pedophilia.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the thread went to "Oh my, the gays are gonna tell our churches what to do" to "Gays are perverts."
> 
> That's pretty much why public opinion turned the way it did.  Most people don't like bullies, and it's pretty clear who's doing the bullying on this issue.  Really, of all the GLBT people wanting to get married, a very small % would want anything to do with the church of Phil Robertson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People don't like people who try to impinge upon their religious liberty. Queers will find they're hated much less when they stop trying to force everybody to accommodate their perversions.
Click to expand...


Your religious liberty is not being infringed upon.


----------



## JakeStarkey

NLT said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assertion, Greenbean, is yours, and you have failed to prove it.
> 
> NYC does not have to disprove your assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that, I disproved it already. Actually, I didn't, social science did a long time ago. It's only desperate homophobes in the last gasps of their fight _against _equality that still cling to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will pay for a one way trip to uganda for you
Click to expand...


I certainly believe that some on the social con so-called Christain far right believe in genital mutilation to maintain a masculinist society.

Your comment has nothing to do with homosexual marriages though.


----------



## Kondor3

bendog said:


> Notice how the thread went to "Oh my, the gays are gonna tell our churches what to do" to "Gays are perverts."...


That's inevitable.

Within the universe of those churches which refuse to conduct Homosexual Unions...

The primary objection is the sinful, perverse nature of homosexuality...

One cannot competently nor comprehensively discuss such refusals, nor contemplate statutory overriding of such refusals, without clearly identifying the objection itself...

Q.E.D.

And, as a thread progresses, it is appropriate to restate the objection, from time to time, as we see here...

The objection being that homosexuality and its practitioners are viewed by many religious and civic authorities, and by history itself in example after example, as unnatural, perverse, sinful, unclean, and an aberration in the eyes of God, Nature and Man...

No big deal...

Just restating the obvious, from time to time, as a necessary housekeeping chore...

Your level of comfort with that restatement is immaterial to the task at hand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat9643 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are bullshit.  Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are because Green Bean isn't interested in knowing the actual facts he's just interested in painting gays as child molesters. Tiresome canard of homophobes.
> 
> He doesn't understand that men that molest boys are not gay, but *pedophiles*.
> 
> _According to Dr. Fred Berlin, a Johns Hopkins University professor who founded the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma in Baltimore, Md., pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation marked by persistent, sometimes *exclusive, attraction to prepubescent children*. _​
> Pedophiles are attracted to children. That they are children matters more than their gender. The sex of victim has more to do with *access *.
> 
> This is from a study by John Jay University commissioned after the Catholic priest sex abuse scandal.
> 
> _"What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse. At this point, *we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse *from the data that we have right now."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's homosexual propaganda.  There isn't an iota of evidence to support it.
Click to expand...


Since you can't disprove the study's conclusion, you can slink off.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kondor3 said:


> So, have we figured out yet, that churches should not be forced to commit sinful acts, by marrying homosexuals - whom many churches consider to be unnatural, perverse, unclean, sinful and abhorrent individuals, practicing unnatural, perverse, unclean, sinful and abhorrent sexual behaviors, and manifesting an unnatural, perverse, unclean, sinful and abhorrent lifestyle - aberrations in the sight of God, Nature and Man?



As long as churches do not hold out publicly their fee-drivn wedding services.  If they do, then contempt of court, loss of tax-exempt status, and massive fines will do the trick.


----------



## GreenBean

koshergrl said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assertion, Greenbean, is yours, and you have failed to prove it.
> 
> NYC does not have to disprove your assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assertion is not mine - it is that of basic science.  follow the links little fella
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He proved it. If NYC contests the numbers, then he needs to prove they are wrong.
> 
> Otherwise, he fails.
> 
> Which he is used to. I'm sure he started groaning the minute jake started *helping*.
Click to expand...


Thanks  [I Think ]


----------



## JakeStarkey

Someone ignorantly wrote, the government hopefully "finds new and interesting and fun ways at-law to re-cast homosexuality as immoral and detrimental to society and the good working order of the Republic".  Neither the Bible nor a false natural morality have standing with the courts.


----------



## Seawytch

bendog said:


> Notice how the thread went to "Oh my, the gays are gonna tell our churches what to do" to "Gays are perverts."
> 
> That's pretty much why public opinion turned the way it did.  Most people don't like bullies, and it's pretty clear who's doing the bullying on this issue.  Really, of all the GLBT people wanting to get married, a very small % would want anything to do with the church of Phil Robertson.



That's because the the thread's premise is bovine feces. Churches can't be forced to perform a ceremony that goes against the tenants of their faith in the United States of America so the thread was a fail from the get-go. All their arguments have failed. 

I just watched "The Case Against 8" last night on HBO and every single one of the arguments against marriage equality was shot down with stunning precision in that case. The people they brought in to defend Prop 8 looked pathetic...and they didn't even _try _the "gays as molesters" bullshit.


----------



## bendog

Kondor3 said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the thread went to "Oh my, the gays are gonna tell our churches what to do" to "Gays are perverts."...
> 
> 
> 
> That's inevitable.
> 
> Within the universe of those churches which refuse to conduct Homosexual Unions...
> 
> The primary objection is the sinful, perverse nature of homosexuality...
> 
> One cannot competently nor comprehensively discuss such refusals, and contemplate statutory overriding of such refusals, without clearly identifying the objection itself...
> 
> And refreshing the objection, from time to time, as a thread progresses...
> 
> Q.E.D.
Click to expand...


Well, the OP was whether YOUR church would be forced to marry "the perverts"  (your view)?  So far, I don't see any real danger to y'all on this.  Unless, as Jake pts out, you hold open your church to make money from gays.


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are because Green Bean isn't interested in knowing the actual facts he's just interested in painting gays as child molesters. Tiresome canard of homophobes.
> 
> He doesn't understand that men that molest boys are not gay, but *pedophiles*.
> 
> _According to Dr. Fred Berlin, a Johns Hopkins University professor who founded the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma in Baltimore, Md., pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation marked by persistent, sometimes *exclusive, attraction to prepubescent children*. _​
> Pedophiles are attracted to children. That they are children matters more than their gender. The sex of victim has more to do with *access *.
> 
> This is from a study by John Jay University commissioned after the Catholic priest sex abuse scandal.
> 
> _"What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse. At this point, *we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse *from the data that we have right now."_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's homosexual propaganda.  There isn't an iota of evidence to support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you can't disprove the study's conclusion, you can slink off.
Click to expand...


It's been done Jake - IT's been done ....  Again and Again and Again ... The Studies conclusion has been thoroughly debunked - beyond even being debateable - did you even read it ????   *I sincerely doubt that you did *  - you just saw the headline and thought it was something that would supportt your warped little fuzzy logic.  OY !


----------



## Kondor3

JakeStarkey said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, have we figured out yet, that churches should not be forced to commit sinful acts, by marrying homosexuals - whom many churches consider to be unnatural, perverse, unclean, sinful and abhorrent individuals, practicing unnatural, perverse, unclean, sinful and abhorrent sexual behaviors, and manifesting an unnatural, perverse, unclean, sinful and abhorrent lifestyle - aberrations in the sight of God, Nature and Man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as churches do not hold out publicly their fee-drivn wedding services.  If they do, then contempt of court, loss of tax-exempt status, and massive fines will do the trick.
Click to expand...

Reliance upon the Private Club model, with all its discretionary trappings, should hold them in good stead...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kosh's silliness is easily rebutted below.



Kosh said:


> So far here are the high lights based on the far left comments:
> 
> 1) They believe "Marriage" is  a Constitutional right - Of curse it is not.  *SCOTUS rulings opine differently.*
> 
> 2) They believe Marriage is not connected to religion. - Marriage is a product of religion now matter how they want t spin it.  *Your opinion is immaterial to the court.*
> 
> 3) They believe that the churches should be forced into marrying same sex couples. So much for the whole "separation of church and state".  *As long as the churches conduct private and not fee-driven commercial weddings, no court in the land will breach the 1st Amendment protections.*
> 
> 4) The far left is upset because the can not get to the churches money. Although it was a paranoid LBJ that banned churches from being able to donate to political campaigns in fear of losing to a Catholic.  *No one wants the churches money, and any church can donate all it wants if it gives up its tax-exempt status.*
> 
> Once again the far left does not deserve to  be in power and should never be in power. *It's not and your conclusion is anti-American.[/*QUOTE]


----------



## Seawytch

bendog said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the thread went to "Oh my, the gays are gonna tell our churches what to do" to "Gays are perverts."...
> 
> 
> 
> That's inevitable.
> 
> Within the universe of those churches which refuse to conduct Homosexual Unions...
> 
> The primary objection is the sinful, perverse nature of homosexuality...
> 
> One cannot competently nor comprehensively discuss such refusals, and contemplate statutory overriding of such refusals, without clearly identifying the objection itself...
> 
> And refreshing the objection, from time to time, as a thread progresses...
> 
> Q.E.D.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the OP was whether YOUR church would be forced to marry "the perverts"  (your view)?  So far, I don't see any real danger to y'all on this.  Unless, as Jake pts out, you hold open your church to make money from gays.
Click to expand...


Well, not exactly. If a church has a building that they rent out to the public to make money off of *anyone*, they have to rent it to whomever that localities Public Accommodation laws cover. Some include gays, some don't. Know the laws of your locality.


----------



## Katzndogz

NYcarbineer said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No! Any so-called "Christian church" that holds gay weddings has fallen an is anathema to the Word of God as written in the Bible. They now do Satan's bidding and the false teachers/preachers of said churches have a nice, warm placing waiting for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the ones who hold weddings for the divorced to remarry others?  More of Satan's work?
Click to expand...


To Catholics it is.


----------



## Kondor3

bendog said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the thread went to "Oh my, the gays are gonna tell our churches what to do" to "Gays are perverts."...
> 
> 
> 
> That's inevitable.
> 
> Within the universe of those churches which refuse to conduct Homosexual Unions...
> 
> The primary objection is the sinful, perverse nature of homosexuality...
> 
> One cannot competently nor comprehensively discuss such refusals, and contemplate statutory overriding of such refusals, without clearly identifying the objection itself...
> 
> And refreshing the objection, from time to time, as a thread progresses...
> 
> Q.E.D.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the OP was whether YOUR church would be forced to marry "the perverts"  (your view)?  So far, I don't see any real danger to y'all on this.  Unless, as Jake pts out, you hold open your church to make money from gays.
Click to expand...

Then we're done here...


----------



## Seawytch

Katzndogz said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No! Any so-called "Christian church" that holds gay weddings has fallen an is anathema to the Word of God as written in the Bible. They now do Satan's bidding and the false teachers/preachers of said churches have a nice, warm placing waiting for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the ones who hold weddings for the divorced to remarry others?  More of Satan's work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To Catholics it is.
Click to expand...


Why just Catholics? Jesus spoke very, _very _strongly against divorce. (He was mum on the gays) Jesus was actually being the original feminist telling men they couldn't just easily discard women as they had been.


----------



## bendog

Seawytch said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's inevitable.
> 
> Within the universe of those churches which refuse to conduct Homosexual Unions...
> 
> The primary objection is the sinful, perverse nature of homosexuality...
> 
> One cannot competently nor comprehensively discuss such refusals, and contemplate statutory overriding of such refusals, without clearly identifying the objection itself...
> 
> And refreshing the objection, from time to time, as a thread progresses...
> 
> Q.E.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the OP was whether YOUR church would be forced to marry "the perverts"  (your view)?  So far, I don't see any real danger to y'all on this.  Unless, as Jake pts out, you hold open your church to make money from gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, not exactly. If a church has a building that they rent out to the public to make money off of *anyone*, they have to rent it to whomever that localities Public Accommodation laws cover. Some include gays, some don't. Know the laws of your locality.
Click to expand...


Well, that's true.  I suppose a church could put up a sign that says "we rent to anybody but gays."  I never considered that.  LOL  But, it's possible.  As more that one episcopal priest said "God has a sense of humor, but it's ironic."

Are we actually debating that pedophiles are primarily gay because pedophiles prefer raping boys to girls by a 2-1 margin?  Again, the priest quote.


----------



## bendog

Seawytch said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the ones who hold weddings for the divorced to remarry others?  More of Satan's work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To Catholics it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why just Catholics? Jesus spoke very, _very _strongly against divorce. (He was mum on the gays) Jesus was actually being the original feminist telling men they couldn't just easily discard women as they had been.
Click to expand...


well, with all respect, I think one can get too caught up in literally applying Jesus's commentary to today's society.  Jesus's primary ministry was to the 90-95% of Jews who were near destitute.  The Jewish Priests took money for service.  The poor could barely afford an animal to sacrifice, which the Priests said was necessary to gain God's attention.  Jesus set out to put an end to that.  Divorce was simply not an option for Jesus's congregation.  In the end, the whole thing got Jesus nailed to a tree.  

But, yeah, love your neighbor as you'd love god.  Don't dump a wife to let her live in poverty.


----------



## Seawytch

bendog said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the OP was whether YOUR church would be forced to marry "the perverts"  (your view)?  So far, I don't see any real danger to y'all on this.  Unless, as Jake pts out, you hold open your church to make money from gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not exactly. If a church has a building that they rent out to the public to make money off of *anyone*, they have to rent it to whomever that localities Public Accommodation laws cover. Some include gays, some don't. Know the laws of your locality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's true.  I suppose a church could put up a sign that says "we rent to anybody but gays."  I never considered that.  LOL  But, it's possible.  As more that one episcopal priest said "God has a sense of humor, but it's ironic."
Click to expand...


They can in some places, not in others. Some localities have laws that prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation. If they rent to the public in those places, they rent to ALL the public, gays included. 

It is ironic because Jesus would have refused service to nobody...and I mean nobody.  



> Are we actually debating that pedophiles are primarily gay because pedophiles prefer raping boys to girls by a 2-1 margin?  Again, the priest quote.



Pedophiles don't prefer raping boys by a 2-1 margin. Over 85% of molestations are of girls by men...usually a friend or family member. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent *children *and their targets are usually about access, not gender. 

As for the Catholic priest scandal, the root of that whole thing is in their ridiculous and archaic celibacy rule.


----------



## Silhouette

The abstract core of this thread is not what the title would seem to make it to be.  It is in fact instead that in spite of the fact that the cult of LGBT declares a majority supports gay marriage, it would seem that 86% of people don't think gay marriages should have to be performed in churches.  If they were in full support and not just lukewarm support [subject to change with new information: see my signature for example], they would be in favor of making churches come into line with "the new religion".  

But they're not.

And that's a very telling revelation.  

86% here.  Wow.


----------



## Kondor3

Silhouette said:


> The abstract core of this thread is not what the title would seem to make it to be.  It is in fact instead that in spite of the fact that the cult of LGBT declares a majority supports gay marriage, it would seem that 86% of people don't think gay marriages should have to be performed in churches.  If they were in full support and not just lukewarm support [subject to change with new information: see my signature for example], they would be in favor of making churches come into line with "the new religion".
> 
> But they're not.
> 
> And that's a very telling revelation.
> 
> 86% here.  Wow.


It's a small and atypical sampling universe but at least it's spontaneous and outside the control of people with an agenda to support.

Of course, once one gets beyond the major urban areas and their snobbery, and out into mainstream suburbs and rural areas, the demographic tends to shift, but they'll never conduct polling with its primary focus outside the cities.

An aspect of the sampling base which they're loathe to focus upon.

Mostly because they'd get their asses kicked (metaphorically, with respect to public opinion) beyond the city limits.

There is a vast and seething 'larger America' beyond the city limits, disgusted with recent developments, and hoping for a champion, to take up the standard, to combat this recent and most unfortunate trend.

Whether (a) that champion ever materializes and (b) whether such a champion can be successful, are matters for the future to decide.


----------



## Seawytch

Kondor3 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The abstract core of this thread is not what the title would seem to make it to be.  It is in fact instead that in spite of the fact that the cult of LGBT declares a majority supports gay marriage, it would seem that 86% of people don't think gay marriages should have to be performed in churches.  If they were in full support and not just lukewarm support [subject to change with new information: see my signature for example], they would be in favor of making churches come into line with "the new religion".
> 
> But they're not.
> 
> And that's a very telling revelation.
> 
> 86% here.  Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a small and atypical sampling universe but at least it's spontaneous and outside the control of people with an agenda to support.
> 
> Of course, once one gets beyond the major urban areas and their snobbery, and out into mainstream suburbs and rural areas, the demographic tends to shift, but they'll never conduct polling with its primary focus outside the cities.
> 
> An aspect of the sampling base which they're loathe to focus upon.
> 
> Mostly because they'd get their asses kicked (metaphorically, with respect to public opinion) beyond the city limits.
> 
> There is a vast and seething 'larger America' beyond the city limits, disgusted with recent developments, and hoping for a champion, to take up the standard, to combat this recent and most unfortunate trend.
> 
> Whether (a) that champion ever materializes and (b) whether such a champion can be successful, are matters for the future to decide.
Click to expand...



Actually it's because most people understand that there is a difference between civil and religious marriage. Churches are and always have been free to discriminate. My government cannot.


----------



## Kondor3

Seawytch said:


> Actually it's because most people understand that there is a difference between civil and religious marriage...


Given that most people in this country are religious, I wonder if you're right.



> ...Churches are and always have been free to discriminate. *My government cannot.*


Unless legal interpretations and rulings are revisited and recast to portray homosexuality as dangerous and detrimental, in which case such discrimination once again becomes legal, and pitched as for the good of the nation and its people.

That will be the challenge, as we transition from a Liberal to a Conservative government once again.

And, given just how badly Obumble has screwed the pooch over the past several years, and how weary people have become of Liberal autocracy, that next round of Conservative political dominance is probably just around the corner.

In the context of a Conservative revisiting of such recent developments, some folks would call that prospect 'the light at the end of the tunnel'.

In any event, we'll know soon enough.


----------



## Katzndogz

Seawytch said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the ones who hold weddings for the divorced to remarry others?  More of Satan's work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To Catholics it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why just Catholics? Jesus spoke very, _very _strongly against divorce. (He was mum on the gays) Jesus was actually being the original feminist telling men they couldn't just easily discard women as they had been.
Click to expand...


Why does any religion have their particular beliefs.  If someone wants to start a gay church where gay sex is mandated to belong, they can do that.  They should.  They can rewrite their own Bible that says Jesus and all the apostles were gay.  

Catholics do not permit divorce.  A Catholic church will not marry someone who was previously divorced.


----------



## Ibentoken

The left can't figure out why Christians dont evolve.


----------



## Katzndogz

Christians aren't supposed to evolve.   If they evolve they aren't Christians any more.


----------



## bendog

Kondor3 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The abstract core of this thread is not what the title would seem to make it to be.  It is in fact instead that in spite of the fact that the cult of LGBT declares a majority supports gay marriage, it would seem that 86% of people don't think gay marriages should have to be performed in churches.  If they were in full support and not just lukewarm support [subject to change with new information: see my signature for example], they would be in favor of making churches come into line with "the new religion".
> 
> But they're not.
> 
> And that's a very telling revelation.
> 
> 86% here.  Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a small and atypical sampling universe but at least it's spontaneous and outside the control of people with an agenda to support.
> 
> Of course, once one gets beyond the major urban areas and their snobbery, and out into mainstream suburbs and rural areas, the demographic tends to shift, but they'll never conduct polling with its primary focus outside the cities.
> 
> An aspect of the sampling base which they're loathe to focus upon.
> 
> Mostly because they'd get their asses kicked (metaphorically, with respect to public opinion) beyond the city limits.
> 
> There is a vast and seething 'larger America' beyond the city limits, disgusted with recent developments, and hoping for a champion, to take up the standard, to combat this recent and most unfortunate trend.
> 
> Whether (a) that champion ever materializes and (b) whether such a champion can be successful, are matters for the future to decide.
Click to expand...


Where did I hear this "the polls are wrong" before?  Actually, what you have is an issue that just isn't very important to most of us.  Most don't give a rat's ass what religious haters want nor do they care if gays and lesbians can't marry.  At least we're not motivated to get out in the street or to vote.  In California, the Mormons energized their base.

What changes that is the perception that one side is unfairly beating up on the other side.  I suspect the vote in calif would be a bit different today.

And, as to gays and pedophiles, note that the law has distinctly different provisions for statutory rape and some bastard raping a three year old.  And statutory rape is often basically decriminalized if the age difference is minimal.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Seawytch said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the ones who hold weddings for the divorced to remarry others?  More of Satan's work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To Catholics it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why just Catholics? Jesus spoke very, _very _strongly against divorce. (He was mum on the gays) Jesus was actually being the original feminist telling men they couldn't just easily discard women as they had been.
Click to expand...


You quoting a fictional character that you don't even believe in is quite comical


----------



## GreenBean

Seawytch said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the ones who hold weddings for the divorced to remarry others?  More of Satan's work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To Catholics it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why just Catholics? Jesus spoke very, _very _strongly against divorce. (He was mum on the gays) Jesus was actually being the original feminist telling men they couldn't just easily discard women as they had been.
Click to expand...


Oh really - not trying to challenge your assertion - I'm just curious where you pulled that from [And - I hope you didn't  pull it out of  "There"]


----------



## Ibentoken

There are gay churches all over the place.  That's not good enough.  It's way more fun to force someone.


----------



## bendog

Ibentoken said:


> There are gay churches all over the place.  That's not good enough.  It's way more fun to force someone.



It's a fcking outrage this is happeneing everyday all over this nation.  It's time to take back or jesusland.


----------



## koshergrl

Crap the Episcopalians are straight up Rainbow.


----------



## koshergrl

Catholics won't marry you, but you and your lover can join a convent or the priesthood, and join in the bonds of matrimony with each other and the church.

Mormons..I think it's a requirement that you be gay and get married to someone of the opposite sex. But if you take care of your straight family, the church will take care of your gay lovers.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Ibentoken said:


> There are gay churches all over the place.  That's not good enough.  It's way more fun to force someone.




Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...

1.  ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

2.  ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

3.  ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?

4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​


>>>>


----------



## koshergrl

Sorry that was offensive but every now and then I can't help myself.

For the record, I love Catholics, Mormons and Episcopalians. I think they will have some splaining to do but that's not my problem.


----------



## koshergrl

WorldWatcher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are gay churches all over the place. That's not good enough. It's way more fun to force someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...
> 1. ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 2. ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 3. ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​
> >>>>
Click to expand...

 
NOBODY SAID THE GOVERNMENT HAD FORCED THE CHURCH TO DO ANYTHING.

The RHETORICAL question was...SHOULD the government force the churches to marry queers.

There's something wrong with you progressive nutbags that you don't understand plain English...and yet insist on starting a completely separate dialogue as if it's somehow pertinent to the discussion at hand.


----------



## bendog

WorldWatcher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are gay churches all over the place.  That's not good enough.  It's way more fun to force someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...
> 
> 1.  ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 2.  ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 3.  ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Gay marriage incompatible with religious freedom | Fox News

I looked at this yesterday.  I don't see much of anything to this issue.  However, if a church's dogma of bylaws don't specify it refuses to recongnize non hetero marriage, and a member of the church requests a gay/lesbian marriage, I guess there could be an issue.  Similarly, if a church rents out to the general public, it could run afoul of a state public accomodations law.

But now, Anton Scalia, John Roberts and Alito are not going to be excommunicated for telling Pope Francis to get busy marrying all these gays.


----------



## WorldWatcher

koshergrl said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are gay churches all over the place. That's not good enough. It's way more fun to force someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...
> 1. ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 2. ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 3. ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOBODY SAID THE GOVERNMENT HAD FORCED THE CHURCH TO DO ANYTHING.
> 
> The RHETORICAL question was...SHOULD the government force the churches to marry queers.
> 
> There's something wrong with you progressive nutbags that you don't understand plain English...and yet insist on starting a completely separate dialogue as if it's somehow pertinent to the discussion at hand.
Click to expand...



Why just queers?  To this day there are multiple demographics that indivdiual Churches can't be forced to perform religious cerememonies if the religious dogma of that Church is against it.

Oh and by the way the idea that the thread is not about the government using "force" is something addressed by the creator of the thread:



Kondor3 said:


> "Unless legal interpretations and rulings are revisited and recast to portray homosexuality as dangerous and detrimental, in which case such discrimination once again becomes legal, and pitched as for the good of the nation and its people.
> 
> That will be the challenge, as we transition from a Liberal to a Conservative government once again.




>>>>


----------



## Ibentoken

The leftist loves the big government hammer used on American citizens.  Look how they cheered the Bundy incident.  True Nazis.


----------



## bendog

Next the IRS will come after us cause we didn't pay taxes.


----------



## koshergrl

Oh one of them already posted their fantasy of that scenario, in this thread....moonglo? I don't remember.


----------



## JakeStarkey

There is only the cult of Sil's delusion elaborated in this thread.

No one, I would think, interfere with a church's private association.

If it holds itself out as a business, then the laws apply.


----------



## WorldWatcher

bendog said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are gay churches all over the place.  That's not good enough.  It's way more fun to force someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...
> 
> 1.  ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 2.  ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 3.  ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay marriage incompatible with religious freedom | Fox News
> 
> I looked at this yesterday.  I don't see much of anything to this issue.  However, if a church's dogma of bylaws don't specify it refuses to recongnize non hetero marriage, and a member of the church requests a gay/lesbian marriage, I guess there could be an issue.  Similarly, if a church rents out to the general public, it could run afoul of a state public accomodations law.
> 
> But now, Anton Scalia, John Roberts and Alito are not going to be excommunicated for telling Pope Francis to get busy marrying all these gays.
Click to expand...



Probably not an issue at all.  

The SCOTUS, in addition to the 1st Amendment protections for Churches to perform (or not perform) religious ceremonies for members of their congregations, there is in addition the case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale where the court clearly established that a true private club based organization is not subject to the normal rules under which Public Accommodation laws function.  Because they limit membership and provides goods (and or services) to only their private members, they are not required to comply with anti-discrimination laws aim at businesses which service the general public.

Because the BSA was a membership based business, they can (and did) win the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation or religion.



A Church that provides goods and services to members of it's congregation only, would of course fall under the same protections.

Now, if the Church rents meeting halls to the general public - those specific activities wouldn't be protected, just as if a Church enters the public business marketplace by setting up a food booth (for profit sales) in a summer carnival at the park.  Since goods and services are being offered to the public those activities may be regulated under Public Accommodation laws (specifics of which vary by State).


>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey

WorldWatcher said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...
> 
> 1.  ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 2.  ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 3.  ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage incompatible with religious freedom | Fox News
> 
> I looked at this yesterday.  I don't see much of anything to this issue.  However, if a church's dogma of bylaws don't specify it refuses to recongnize non hetero marriage, and a member of the church requests a gay/lesbian marriage, I guess there could be an issue.  Similarly, if a church rents out to the general public, it could run afoul of a state public accomodations law.
> 
> But now, Anton Scalia, John Roberts and Alito are not going to be excommunicated for telling Pope Francis to get busy marrying all these gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not an issue at all.
> 
> The SCOTUS, in addition to the 1st Amendment protections for Churches to perform (or not perform) religious ceremonies for members of their congregations, there is in addition the case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale where the court clearly established that a true private club based organization is not subject to the normal rules under which Public Accommodation laws function.  Because they limit membership and provides goods (and or services) to only their private members, they are not required to comply with anti-discrimination laws aim at businesses which service the general public.
> 
> Because the BSA was a membership based business, they can (and did) win the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation or religion.
> 
> 
> 
> A Church that provides goods and services to members of it's congregation only, would of course fall under the same protections.
> 
> Now, if the Church rents meeting halls to the general public - those specific activities wouldn't be protected, just as if a Church enters the public business marketplace by setting up a food booth (for profit sales) in a summer carnival at the park.  Since goods and services are being offered to the public those activities may be regulated under Public Accommodation laws (specifics of which vary by State).
> >>>>
Click to expand...


^^^^ That


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

koshergrl said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are gay churches all over the place. That's not good enough. It's way more fun to force someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...
> 1. ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 2. ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 3. ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOBODY SAID THE GOVERNMENT HAD FORCED THE CHURCH TO DO ANYTHING.
> 
> The RHETORICAL question was...SHOULD the government force the churches to marry queers.
> 
> There's something wrong with you progressive nutbags that you don't understand plain English...and yet insist on starting a completely separate dialogue as if it's somehow pertinent to the discussion at hand.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.

WW's question is perfectly appropriate and warranted given the fact most on the social right hostile to gay Americans' civil liberties are attempting to propagate the lie that churches will somehow be "forced" to accommodate same-sex couples.

It's more of the same dishonesty and demagoguery.


----------



## koshergrl

I don't think public accommodation laws require people to marry homos on demand.


----------



## koshergrl

What it comes down to...queers think that if they walk up to you and say "Make me a penis gake for my wedding" you have to do it. And if they march up to you dressed in angel wings and a g-string and say "Marry us fucker" you have to do it.


----------



## koshergrl

I think queers are delusional.


----------



## Bush92

Nope.


----------



## Katzndogz

WorldWatcher said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are gay churches all over the place.  That's not good enough.  It's way more fun to force someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...
> 
> 1.  ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 2.  ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 3.  ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


In all those instances, the beliefs of the Churches were respected.   Gays do not respect the beliefs of others and demand that religious principles be violated.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Katzndogz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are gay churches all over the place.  That's not good enough.  It's way more fun to force someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...
> 
> 1.  ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 2.  ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 3.  ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all those instances, the beliefs of the Churches were respected.   Gays do not respect the beliefs of others and demand that religious principles be violated.
Click to expand...



I doubt blacks respect Churches that deny them equal treatment also.

Interracial Couple Spurned - ABC News
Church bans interracial marriages; ?I am not racist? *said former pastor* - NY Daily News


>>>>


----------



## koshergrl

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...
> 1. ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 2. ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 3. ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY SAID THE GOVERNMENT HAD FORCED THE CHURCH TO DO ANYTHING.
> 
> The RHETORICAL question was...SHOULD the government force the churches to marry queers.
> 
> There's something wrong with you progressive nutbags that you don't understand plain English...and yet insist on starting a completely separate dialogue as if it's somehow pertinent to the discussion at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> WW's question is perfectly appropriate and warranted given the fact most on the social right hostile to gay Americans' civil liberties are attempting to propagate the lie that churches will somehow be "forced" to accommodate same-sex couples.
> 
> It's more of the same dishonesty and demagoguery.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, on the queer bloc part.

Whether or not churches have historically been forced to accommodate queers in the past has nothing to do with whether or not they will be forced to accommodate queers in the future. 

We have queers on this board advocating for the imprisonment of Christians. I have discussed many times on this board, whether or not the government should "allow" Christians to preach the bible in their churches. We've had posters here who maintain that Christians should not be allowed to take their own children to church, who say that Christians should have their children taken from them if they send them to Sunday school, and who claim that Christians should be barred from politics and teaching.

Routinely people say that the bible must be declared "hate speech"..the most recently was when Phil Robertson was accused of employing "hate speech" when he quoted the bible with regard to homosexuality.

Whether or not homosexuals IN THE PAST have forced the church is irrelevant. We are interested in what is happening now.

And what is happening now is a push to criminalize Christianity, and exert state control over the churches. If you want to talk about how totalitarian regimes become established, then go ahead and start a thread about that. We can compare the murderous tyrannies that exerted control over religion and the churches, and compare their histories with the history of the US. Whether or not churches have been controlled by the state in the past is not a blanket promise that the state will not exert control over them in the future. Particularly when you have an active and well funded movement to do exactly that.


----------



## Ibentoken

Here's a good church.
One Church&#8217;s Way To Get More People To Show Up Has People Up In Arms &#8211; Literally


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Cult of Heterofascism is in full bay the last couple of days.

Fun to watch.

Fact: no one is going to make a church perform same sex marriages as long as it is in accordance with public accommodation laws.

Fact: no one has demonstrated any personal liberty injury to them from marriage equality.

Fact: no one has demonstrated any civil liberty injury to them from marriage equality.

Fact: no one has been able to demonstrate that _Windsor _means something differently than as dictated by SCOTUS.

Fact: church opinion, Bible scripture, and so-called natural morality will be given no or little consideration by SCOTUS.

The conclusion is that our future of marriage equality is in good hands and headed in the right direction.

No need for me to post further.


----------



## koshergrl

Yes, we know.

We won't allow statist drones like yourself to exert control over the churches, fakey. So it's all good.


----------



## koshergrl

And you and all your fag friends can get married as often as you like. Nobody cares.

But we won't be performing the marriages.


----------



## emilynghiem

KNB said:


> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.



Except for the Democratic Party which isn't counted as a "religious institution" yet
until its platform is publicly established to be a political religion, which it is.

So is Constitutionalism, but the Democrats don't recognize that either as protected.
They only recognize those beliefs as "not what they believe in," so they defend their own.
Pushing these BELIEFS into laws and govt is unconstitutional, but nobody is challenging it on those grounds
because they are too busy pushing their OWN "political religion/beliefs" and would be hypocrites.
Thus the problem is not getting addressed or solved.
Just whole parties slamming each other's beliefs while pushing their own through govt.


----------



## bendog

I read that three times.


----------



## koshergrl

It won't work unless you click your heels at the same time.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> What it comes down to...queers think that if they walk up to you and say "Make me a penis gake for my wedding" you have to do it. And if they march up to you dressed in angel wings and a g-string and say "Marry us fucker" you have to do it.



What is a penis gake? No, actually "queers" don't. And neither do gays and lesbians. What we expect is that if you live in a locality where gays and lesbians are protected by public accommodation laws, is that you will abide by those laws or you won't sell products that might require you to violate your principals. If you don't sell penis cakes in the first place, you don't have to make one. If you don't want to make wedding cakes that might potentially be eaten at a same sex wedding, don't bake wedding cakes.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> And you and all your fag friends can get married as often as you like. Nobody cares.
> 
> But we won't be performing the marriages.



Who is "we"? Are you a member of the clergy? A civil servant?


----------



## koshergrl

"We" are those of "us" who choose not to marry homos in our churches, cupcake.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> "We" are those of "us" who choose not to marry homos in our churches, cupcake.



Oh...those churches will be a minority soon enough.


----------



## koshergrl

No, they won't.

And they aren't now.

But feel free to dream big, punkin.


----------



## koshergrl

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5KeGccP9Jk]JIM NABORS ( GOMER PYLE )-THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## WorldWatcher

koshergrl said:


> JIM NABORS ( GOMER PYLE )-THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM - YouTube





Interesting that you post Jim Nabors singing "To Dream the Impossible Dream", a man that after a 38 year relationship with his long term partner was finally able to marry that partner a month after Same-sex Civil Marriage became legal in Washington State.

I guess he and his husbands dreams really did come true.


>>>>


----------



## Howey

koshergrl said:


> JIM NABORS ( GOMER PYLE )-THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM - YouTube



lol...he's gay


----------



## 1776

You can't force people to think a certain way. 

You have no right to make me attend your gay wedding or host your gay wedding. 

If the liberals believe they can start making churches violate the Bible to accommodate them, then all hell will break loose.


----------



## koshergrl

Howey said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> JIM NABORS ( GOMER PYLE )-THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol...he's gay
Click to expand...

 
How asstute of you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> No, they won't.
> 
> And they aren't now.
> 
> But feel free to dream big, punkin.



Your defiance is so cute.  Well, maybe not.  But it is ineffective.

Yup, you far right social cons are the diminishing minority in the country, and, yes, you have lost your religious entitlement to legislate morality in the country.

LDS Social Services can see the future and will not be doing adoption services in the future.

Anything that a church does as a business in the public sector is fair game.  So perform weddings as a private association and you are fine.

Do business in the public sector, you will be regulated just like everyone else.


----------



## koshergrl

What utter claptrap, fakey.


----------



## JakeStarkey

^ that


----------



## Indofred

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



NO.
Why should the rights of one section of the community be forced upon the other, ignoring their rights?
The same goes in reverse, the church, whilst being able to remain free to live by the rules of their bible, should not force its opinions on sections of society that don't wish to follow those rules.
The same applies to all other religious groups.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Indofred said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO.
> Why should the rights of one section of the community be forced upon the other, ignoring their rights?
> The same goes in reverse, the church, whilst being able to remain free to live by the rules of their bible, should not force its opinions on sections of society that don't wish to follow those rules.
> The same applies to all other religious groups.
Click to expand...


Generally true until churches go into public sector businesses; they lose the cover of the 1st Amendment and rightfully so.


----------



## Ibentoken

JakeStarkey said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO.
> Why should the rights of one section of the community be forced upon the other, ignoring their rights?
> The same goes in reverse, the church, whilst being able to remain free to live by the rules of their bible, should not force its opinions on sections of society that don't wish to follow those rules.
> The same applies to all other religious groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generally true until churches go into public sector businesses; they lose the cover of the 1st Amendment and rightfully so.
Click to expand...


What do you think the punishment should be if a Christian pastor refuses to perform a queer fake marriage?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We" are those of "us" who choose not to marry homos in our churches, cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...those churches will be a minority soon enough.
Click to expand...



The Federal Government has no grounds to impose their views on a religious institution that dictates the government's view over the individual freedom of expression of one's own religious conscience - as clearly stated under the First Amendment. Those who feel that government CAN impose it's will over an individual's religious conscience, quite honestly has no knowledge of the foundational basis nor its historical significance surrounding the amendment's intended purpose. In short they need a lesson in American history, backed up with historical views of those Founders that were actually present where the Amendment was being drafted.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

JakeStarkey said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO.
> Why should the rights of one section of the community be forced upon the other, ignoring their rights?
> The same goes in reverse, the church, whilst being able to remain free to live by the rules of their bible, should not force its opinions on sections of society that don't wish to follow those rules.
> The same applies to all other religious groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generally true until churches go into public sector businesses; they lose the cover of the 1st Amendment and rightfully so.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately your reasoning is not historically accurate when you consider the bible was a part of required reading in "public" schools during our nation's early founding (even well after the US Constitution was passed). If your interpretational view was accurate, no religious book (especially the bible) would ever have been a part of required educational teaching in American history.


----------



## Katzndogz

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO.
> Why should the rights of one section of the community be forced upon the other, ignoring their rights?
> The same goes in reverse, the church, whilst being able to remain free to live by the rules of their bible, should not force its opinions on sections of society that don't wish to follow those rules.
> The same applies to all other religious groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Generally true until churches go into public sector businesses; they lose the cover of the 1st Amendment and rightfully so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately your reasoning is not historically accurate when you consider the bible was a part of required reading in "public" schools during our nation's early founding (even well after the US Constitution was passed). If your interpretational view was accurate, no religious book (especially the bible) would ever have been a part of required educational teaching in American history.
Click to expand...


Of course the Bible was required reading in the nation's early days.  It would never have been different.   Books were expensive.   Few people owned a book almost no one could buy a book for use in a school.   Everyone had a Bible.


----------



## Indofred

Ibentoken said:


> What do you think the punishment should be if a Christian pastor refuses to perform a queer fake marriage?



I disagree with gay weddings but, with that in mind, why do you have to promote hatred of homosexuals, when I disagree with the idea but don't feel the need to hate anyone?


----------



## GISMYS

EVERYONE IN A "church" that is pro gay marrage=pro sexual perversion leave now!!! FIND A BIBLE BELIEVING,BIBLE TRUTH TEACHING CHURCH!!! and hurry!!!


----------



## GreenBean

Indofred said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the punishment should be if a Christian pastor refuses to perform a queer fake marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with gay weddings but, with that in mind, why do you have to promote hatred of homosexuals, when I disagree with the idea but don't feel the need to hate anyone?
Click to expand...


Perhaps Ben and a rapidly growing number of like minded people are tired of beimg manipulated by an organized gang of facist queers - who think they have the right to bulldoze over society and demand it be rebuilt it to suit their depraved desires.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

Indofred said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the punishment should be if a Christian pastor refuses to perform a queer fake marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with gay weddings but, with that in mind, why do you have to promote hatred of homosexuals, when I disagree with the idea but don't feel the need to hate anyone?
Click to expand...


I agree, no hate. We need jailings or fines, but not mean words on the internet.

LGBT rights in Indonesia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Crystalclear

GreenBean said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the punishment should be if a Christian pastor refuses to perform a queer fake marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with gay weddings but, with that in mind, why do you have to promote hatred of homosexuals, when I disagree with the idea but don't feel the need to hate anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Ben and a rapidly growing number of like minded people are tired of beimg manipulated by an organized gang of facist queers - who think they have the right to bulldoze over society and demand it be rebuilt it to suit their depraved desires.
Click to expand...



And then there are the religious fascists who want to forcibly bring morals to groups who don't agree with religious values.


----------



## koshergrl

Really?

How?


----------



## Crystalclear

koshergrl said:


> Really?
> 
> How?




Easy, by banning gay marriage (officialy, not only religious), banning abortion, banning terminally ill patients to commit suicide with approval of a physician and some trying to mix religion and politics.


----------



## Politico

*Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?*

Of course not. What a stupid question. Oh wait. I forgot this was a troll thread.


----------



## Crystalclear

It's always the same with social right-wingers. They ask you to provide examples and then don't reply anymore.


----------



## Slyhunter

Crystalclear said:


> It's always the same with social right-wingers. They ask you to provide examples and then don't reply anymore.



It would help if you quoted the "right-winger" you were talking about so the rest of us would know wtf you were talking about.


----------



## Crystalclear

Koshergrl


----------



## Slyhunter

Sometimes I think my arguments are too harsh on gays. Maybe they should have equal rights. But just like the political parties they go and take things too far. They parade into a church wearing outlandish gear making me want to outlaw their entire lifestyle. Or put on some parade that totally disgusts me which also makes me want to outlaw their entire behavior.

If they would simply act like normal people I could cope. I don't care who fucks who as long as it isn't me.

I have the same problem with morons who wear their pants halfway off their asses.


----------



## koshergrl

Crystalclear said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy, by banning gay marriage (officialy, not only religious), banning abortion, banning terminally ill patients to commit suicide with approval of a physician and some trying to mix religion and politics.
Click to expand...


Oh. So if our Christian morality, that is, our objection to murder, the exploitation of women and children, and licentious and unhealthy practices happens to coincide with the law, then the law must give way...because at no time must the law, and Christian morality, co-exist.

How patently ridiculous.

You force babies to die, you want to also kill the old, infirm, weak, and confused... and you force us to subsidize a huge population of disgusting, criminal, and diseased freaks. I think your days of forcing need to come to an end. It is time you were brought to heel. As humans, we abide by a code of honor and behavior..if you do not wish to abide by it...then by all means, remove yourself from our society. Create your own. Elsewhere. With your own kind.


----------



## Seawytch

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We" are those of "us" who choose not to marry homos in our churches, cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...those churches will be a minority soon enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Government has no grounds to impose their views on a religious institution that dictates the government's view over the individual freedom of expression of one's own religious conscience - as clearly stated under the First Amendment. Those who feel that government CAN impose it's will over an individual's religious conscience, quite honestly has no knowledge of the foundational basis nor its historical significance surrounding the amendment's intended purpose. In short they need a lesson in American history, backed up with historical views of those Founders that were actually present where the Amendment was being drafted.
Click to expand...


What are you blathering about? You response has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.


----------



## Indofred

RWHeathenGamer said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the punishment should be if a Christian pastor refuses to perform a queer fake marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with gay weddings but, with that in mind, why do you have to promote hatred of homosexuals, when I disagree with the idea but don't feel the need to hate anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, no hate. We need jailings or fines, but not mean words on the internet.
> 
> LGBT rights in Indonesia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...




			
				link above said:
			
		

> The national criminal code does not prohibit private, non-commercial homosexual relations between consenting adults. A national bill to criminalize homosexuality, along with cohabitation, adultery and the practice of witchcraft, failed to be enacted in 2003 and no subsequent bill has been reintroduced



The province mentioned after that is a less than popular mess of a place, hastily cobbled together to promote peace with extremist bastards.
Personally, I think the fucking lot of the extremist bastards should have been shot whilst they were in disarray after the tsunami. The rest of the population would have been far better off.

Wiki is one thing, living here is another. With the exception of a few extremists (you have plenty of the American versions on this forum), no one gives a fat rat's arse about gays.
They live openly, are not excluded from jobs or other sections of society. Out of my five barbers since I've lived here, three were openly gay - I didn't care, save for one who wouldn't stop asking me for sex. I told him to fuck off, but that wasn't homophobia, just a reaction to sexual pestering. If anyone objects to that, you equally have to support any man pestering any woman for sex, even when she isn't interested.
Two work at my school, one extremely camp, no one cares either way. They're teachers, nothing else, and as long as they do their jobs, so what if they're gay?

Now, if you want to explain the problems of gays in Indonesia, come and live here for the best part of a decade, then lecture me; until then, fuck off.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> No, they won't.
> 
> And they aren't now.
> 
> But feel free to dream big, punkin.



They are now. Churches will adapt or die...

Gay-Friendly Churches And Houses Of Worship Growing, According To National Congregations Study

Young people are turning away from churches...but not religion. They are attracted to the religion, but turned away by the fundies. 


Why millennials are leaving the church


----------



## Wildman

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

*NO !*


because most homos are atheists. 

oooh !! define Church !


----------



## Crystalclear

koshergrl said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy, by banning gay marriage (officialy, not only religious), banning abortion, banning terminally ill patients to commit suicide with approval of a physician and some trying to mix religion and politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You force babies to die,
> 
> 2.you want to also kill the old, infirm, weak, and confused...
> 
> 3. and you force us to subsidize a huge population of disgusting, criminal, and diseased freaks.
> 
> 4. I think your days of forcing need to come to an end. It is time you were brought to heel. As humans, we abide by a code of honor and behavior..if you do not wish to abide by it...then by all means, remove yourself from our society. Create your own. Elsewhere. With your own kind.
Click to expand...



1. No, I believe in the woman's right to abortion. Forcing a mother to have a baby will not work.

2. No, people who are very ill and are in a lot of pain who know that they will die in 3 weeks should have the right to end their suffering. Nobody forces them to die, it's their own choice. It's more humane than forcing the ill to stay alive and suffer.

3. No, just giving the same rights to a group of people, I don't like discrimination.

4. Totally BS, I don't force anyone anything. Instead, I support freedom to let people decide their own lifes and do not support a theocracy that decides how people should live their lifes. Your group of religious fundamentalists who want to their force their values onto the rest of society are by far a minority.


----------



## JakeStarkey

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO.
> Why should the rights of one section of the community be forced upon the other, ignoring their rights?
> The same goes in reverse, the church, whilst being able to remain free to live by the rules of their bible, should not force its opinions on sections of society that don't wish to follow those rules.
> The same applies to all other religious groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Generally true until churches go into public sector businesses; they lose the cover of the 1st Amendment and rightfully so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately your reasoning is not historically accurate when you consider the bible was a part of required reading in "public" schools during our nation's early founding (even well after the US Constitution was passed). If your interpretational view was accurate, no religious book (especially the bible) would ever have been a part of required educational teaching in American history.
Click to expand...


(1) insignificant and immaterial

(2) this is 2014, not 1714


----------



## GreenBean

koshergrl said:


> JIM NABORS ( GOMER PYLE )-THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM - YouTube



You do realize that Jim Nabors was a Fruit Cake don't you ?


----------



## MHunterB

RWHeathenGamer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
Click to expand...


That has nothing to do with 'church doctrine':  it is illegal in the US to forbid 'mixed-race' marriages.

And there is a difference between using a church hall for a reception, and getting married in the church by church clergy.  I think it should be obvious that Church(denomination) clergy retain the right to marry only those who are accepted as Church members - thus a RC priest cannot be *forced* to marry a RC to someone who's been divorced.

But where Church law and civil law do not agree, civil law is to be obeyed:  that is what most Churches have always taught.  To do otherwise is to make 'good citizenship' optional rather than required - a couple of the "Peace" Churches tried using the religious excuse for not paying taxes during a war.  They lost every case.


----------



## WorldWatcher

MHunterB said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with 'church doctrine':  it is illegal in the US to forbid 'mixed-race' marriages.
Click to expand...



Just a technical point, it is  not illegal in the US to forbid "mixed-race" marriages.  It is unconstitutional for government to make "mixed-race" marriages illegal.  It is illegal for private businesses to deny equal goods and services (Public Accommodation Laws) to potential customers based on race.

However it is not illegal for a Church to refuse to perform a religious ceremony that conflicts with the dogma of that Church.  So Churches in fact can forbid "mixed-race" marriages in their congregation.


>>>>


----------



## koshergrl

Crystalclear said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy, by banning gay marriage (officialy, not only religious), banning abortion, banning terminally ill patients to commit suicide with approval of a physician and some trying to mix religion and politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You force babies to die,
> 
> 2.you want to also kill the old, infirm, weak, and confused...
> 
> 3. and you force us to subsidize a huge population of disgusting, criminal, and diseased freaks.
> 
> 4. I think your days of forcing need to come to an end. It is time you were brought to heel. As humans, we abide by a code of honor and behavior..if you do not wish to abide by it...then by all means, remove yourself from our society. Create your own. Elsewhere. With your own kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. No, I believe in the woman's right to abortion. Forcing a mother to have a baby will not work.
> 
> 2. No, people who are very ill and are in a lot of pain who know that they will die in 3 weeks should have the right to end their suffering. Nobody forces them to die, it's their own choice. It's more humane than forcing the ill to stay alive and suffer.
> 
> 3. No, just giving the same rights to a group of people, I don't like discrimination.
> 
> 4. Totally BS, I don't force anyone anything. Instead, I support freedom to let people decide their own lifes and do not support a theocracy that decides how people should live their lifes. Your group of religious fundamentalists who want to their force their values onto the rest of society are by far a minority.
Click to expand...


1. So you coerce and kill the mothers, and kill the babies. Killing an innocent is *force*
2. Killing. 
3. Stealing from one group to support another group that is needy because it make bad choices.
4. If we refuse to marry loons in our churches, that is not force. Loons may go elsewhere.

This is not *religious fundamentalism* and it is not the minority. The majority of the US feels this way. The extremist whackos are the ones who kill babies, want to kill the old and vulnerable, and want to eliminate religious freedom.


----------



## koshergrl

GreenBean said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> JIM NABORS ( GOMER PYLE )-THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that Jim Nabors was a Fruit Cake don't you ?
Click to expand...



Wow. Yes, I do. Hence my choice.


----------



## Crystalclear

koshergrl said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You force babies to die,
> 
> 
> 
> 2.you want to also kill the old, infirm, weak, and confused...
> 
> 
> 
> 3. and you force us to subsidize a huge population of disgusting, criminal, and diseased freaks.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. I think your days of forcing need to come to an end. It is time you were brought to heel. As humans, we abide by a code of honor and behavior..if you do not wish to abide by it...then by all means, remove yourself from our society. Create your own. Elsewhere. With your own kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. No, I believe in the woman's right to abortion. Forcing a mother to have a baby will not work.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. No, people who are very ill and are in a lot of pain who know that they will die in 3 weeks should have the right to end their suffering. Nobody forces them to die, it's their own choice. It's more humane than forcing the ill to stay alive and suffer.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. No, just giving the same rights to a group of people, I don't like discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Totally BS, I don't force anyone anything. Instead, I support freedom to let people decide their own lifes and do not support a theocracy that decides how people should live their lifes. Your group of religious fundamentalists who want to their force their values onto the rest of society are by far a minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So you coerce and kill the mothers, and kill the babies. Killing an innocent is *force*
> 
> 2. Killing.
> 
> 3. Stealing from one group to support another group that is needy because it make bad choices.
> 
> 4. If we refuse to marry loons in our churches, that is not force. Loons may go elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not *religious fundamentalism* and it is not the minority. The majority of the US feels this way. The extremist whackos are the ones who kill babies, want to kill the old and vulnerable, and want to eliminate religious freedom.
Click to expand...



1. They choose for it. The mothers do often not even die.

2. No, killing is something else. This is assisted SUICIDE. The patients do not want to live anymore. Keeping them alive in their pain is torture and force.

3. Beig gay is not a choice.

4. I do not support forcing churces to marry gays as well. But the difference is that you want to take away their civil marriage.

Try again.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Sure seems like usmb is infested with faggots.


----------



## bendog

Grampa Murked U said:


> Sure seems like usmb is infested with faggots.



Calling people names is not very nice.  And, it's why the dems keep winning.


----------



## JakeStarkey

MHunterB said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with 'church doctrine':  it is illegal in the US to forbid 'mixed-race' marriages.
> 
> And there is a difference between using a church hall for a reception, and getting married in the church by church clergy.  I think it should be obvious that Church(denomination) clergy retain the right to marry only those who are accepted as Church members - thus a RC priest cannot be *forced* to marry a RC to someone who's been divorced.
> 
> But where Church law and civil law do not agree, civil law is to be obeyed:  that is what most Churches have always taught.  To do otherwise is to make 'good citizenship' optional rather than required - a couple of the "Peace" Churches tried using the religious excuse for not paying taxes during a war.  They lost every case.
Click to expand...


American law counts, not church doctrine.


----------



## JakeStarkey

WorldWatcher said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with 'church doctrine':  it is illegal in the US to forbid 'mixed-race' marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just a technical point, it is  not illegal in the US to forbid "mixed-race" marriages.  It is unconstitutional for government to make "mixed-race" marriages illegal.  It is illegal for private businesses to deny equal goods and services (Public Accommodation Laws) to potential customers based on race.
> 
> However it is not illegal for a Church to refuse to perform a religious ceremony that conflicts with the dogma of that Church.  So Churches in fact can forbid "mixed-race" marriages in their congregation.>>>>
Click to expand...


. . . except for churches engaged in a for profit wedding and reception business.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Grampa Murked U said:


> Sure seems like usmb is infested with faggots.



But far less than the far right reactionary social con goobers.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

bendog said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure seems like usmb is infested with faggots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling people names is not very nice.  And, it's why the dems keep winning.
Click to expand...


No, the dems keep winning because too many Americans are just plain ignorant.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

JakeStarkey said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure seems like usmb is infested with faggots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But far less than the far right reactionary social con goobers.
Click to expand...


Exibit: A ^^^^^^^^^


----------



## bendog

Grampa Murked U said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure seems like usmb is infested with faggots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling people names is not very nice.  And, it's why the dems keep winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the dems keep winning because too many Americans are just plain ignorant.
Click to expand...


Ignorant assholes call other people names.


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You force babies to die,
> 
> 2.you want to also kill the old, infirm, weak, and confused...
> 
> 3. and you force us to subsidize a huge population of disgusting, criminal, and diseased freaks.
> 
> 4. I think your days of forcing need to come to an end. It is time you were brought to heel. As humans, we abide by a code of honor and behavior..if you do not wish to abide by it...then by all means, remove yourself from our society. Create your own. Elsewhere. With your own kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. No, I believe in the woman's right to abortion. Forcing a mother to have a baby will not work.
> 
> 2. No, people who are very ill and are in a lot of pain who know that they will die in 3 weeks should have the right to end their suffering. Nobody forces them to die, it's their own choice. It's more humane than forcing the ill to stay alive and suffer.
> 
> 3. No, just giving the same rights to a group of people, I don't like discrimination.
> 
> 4. Totally BS, I don't force anyone anything. Instead, I support freedom to let people decide their own lifes and do not support a theocracy that decides how people should live their lifes. Your group of religious fundamentalists who want to their force their values onto the rest of society are by far a minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. So you coerce and kill the mothers, and kill the babies. Killing an innocent is *force*
> 2. Killing.
> 3. Stealing from one group to support another group that is needy because it make bad choices.
> 4. If we refuse to marry loons in our churches, that is not force. Loons may go elsewhere.
> 
> This is not *religious fundamentalism* and it is not the minority. The majority of the US feels this way. The extremist whackos are the ones who kill babies, want to kill the old and vulnerable, and want to eliminate religious freedom.
Click to expand...


*Yes, it *"is not *religious fundamentalism"* and yes, "it is [in the vast] the minority."

*This is a lie*: "So you coerce and kill the mothers, and kill the babies. Killing an innocent is *force*"

*It is *not "Killing." 

*It is not* "Stealing from one group to support another group that is needy because it make bad choices."

*If you follow the law, then you may* "refuse to marry loons in our churches,".


----------



## JakeStarkey

Grampa Murked U said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure seems like usmb is infested with faggots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But far less than the far right reactionary social con goobers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exibit: A ^^^^^^^^^
Click to expand...


Exibit: B ^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

bendog said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling people names is not very nice.  And, it's why the dems keep winning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the dems keep winning because too many Americans are just plain ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorant assholes call other people names.
Click to expand...


That is Well Informed Asshole to you.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

JakeStarkey said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But far less than the far right reactionary social con goobers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exibit: A ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exibit: B ^^^^^^^^^
Click to expand...


Clever........ 






Have you decided to make your coming out announcement yet fake jake? I bet the ensuing party will just be spectacular.  Queer & liberal, just admit it


----------



## JakeStarkey

Grampa Murked U said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exibit: A ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exibit: B ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clever........
> 
> Have you decided to make your coming out announcement yet fake jake? I bet the ensuing party will just be spectacular.  Queer & liberal, just admit it
Click to expand...


Grampa, your attitude is what led to your felony.

You are not as clever as others, and you just have not grown up.

The TeaP peep defeat in Mississippi, along with all of the others, excluding Brat (who is really libertarian) and Patrick (who merely wants Cruz's seat when the time comes) makes it clear that the party does not want to go to the far right.

The American people certainly want nothing to do with the bad far right.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

JakeStarkey said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exibit: B ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clever........
> 
> Have you decided to make your coming out announcement yet fake jake? I bet the ensuing party will just be spectacular.  Queer & liberal, just admit it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grampa, your attitude is what led to your felony.
> 
> You are not as clever as others, and you just have not grown up.
> 
> The TeaP peep defeat in Mississippi, along with all of the others, excluding Brat (who is really libertarian) and Patrick (who merely wants Cruz's seat when the time comes) makes it clear that the party does not want to go to the far right.
> 
> The American people certainly want nothing to do with the bad far right.
Click to expand...


You just shouldn't try to insult others jake. As a fake gay liberal black man you are just awful at it.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
Click to expand...


Only in their worship rituals. 



> How about against racial minorities as well?



A Church can close the doors to the church building itself based on race. If they open up a hospital, they may not close those doors based on race.


pretty simply stuff


----------



## koshergrl

Refusing to provide a service that someone demands, when the person who demands it is welcome to find another provider for the same service, is not *forcing* our values on anybody.

It's like progressive pigs have never been told "no" in their lives, the little creeps.


----------



## Silhouette

RWHeathenGamer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
Click to expand...


Except for the fact that race, which is different from LGBT behaviors/cult, is protected by the 14th.  The LGBT cult is not.


----------



## Ibentoken

As long as someone has a church building, a bible, and a cross, the left heathen creatures will believe Christianity is being forced upon them.  They're very insecure sensitive creatures.


----------



## Andylusion

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


What part of "The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions" did you not get?

Which of those words, do you need to be further defined?

If my church says that absolutely no one without a Tuxedo, and blue suede shoes, is allowed....   not the government, nor the public, has any right to say otherwise.  Period.  End of discussion.

We live in a land based on freedom.  Not government regulation.   No one has the right to 'impose' themselves on others.     At all.  Period.     The end.

Thanks for stopping by.


----------



## koshergrl

And religion is separate from the state.

The state has no authority over it.


----------



## Andylusion

Ibentoken said:


> As long as someone has a church building, a bible, and a cross, the left heathen creatures will believe Christianity is being forced upon them.  They're very insecure sensitive creatures.



I have to admit, this has been one of the more confusing aspects of Athiests.

Athiests.....   do not believe in G-d.   More than just 'not believe', but reject the entire concept.

How can something that does not exist.....  offend an Athiest?   Do tooth fairies and easter bunnies also offend them?    Do you hear them talk about how Santa Clause and the elves are being 'forced' on them?    If they truly believe that G-d is just as mythical as elves, faries, and the like....  why is it they don't seem to have a problem with any other mythical things?

I'm convinced the answer is at some level deep inside, they must know that G-d, unlike elves and faries, is in fact real, and they hate that, and thus they lash out at those who love G-d.

I can't think of any other logical explanation.   Can you?


----------



## Crystalclear

JakeStarkey said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exibit: B ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clever........
> 
> 
> 
> Have you decided to make your coming out announcement yet fake jake? I bet the ensuing party will just be spectacular.  Queer & liberal, just admit it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa, your attitude is what led to your felony.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not as clever as others, and you just have not grown up.
> 
> 
> 
> The TeaP peep defeat in Mississippi, along with all of the others, excluding Brat (who is really libertarian) and Patrick (who merely wants Cruz's seat when the time comes) makes it clear that the party does not want to go to the far right.
> 
> 
> 
> The American people certainly want nothing to do with the bad far right.
Click to expand...



The Tea Party should move more libertarian. Social cons are becoming less and less popular in this country. I would support them if they turned away from the social conservatives


----------



## koshergrl

They covet what they cannot have, and they seek to destroy those who are different from themselves.

It's nothing more complicated than that. They hate Christians and Christianity because they are an obstacle to their vision of a completely depraved, disgusting world. These people are the enemy of freedom, liberty and humanity. Of course they want to eliminate God, and the people who love him.


----------



## RKMBrown

Crystalclear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clever........
> 
> 
> 
> Have you decided to make your coming out announcement yet fake jake? I bet the ensuing party will just be spectacular.  Queer & liberal, just admit it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa, your attitude is what led to your felony.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not as clever as others, and you just have not grown up.
> 
> 
> 
> The TeaP peep defeat in Mississippi, along with all of the others, excluding Brat (who is really libertarian) and Patrick (who merely wants Cruz's seat when the time comes) makes it clear that the party does not want to go to the far right.
> 
> 
> 
> The American people certainly want nothing to do with the bad far right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party should move more libertarian. Social cons are becoming less and less popular in this country. I would support them if they turned away from the social conservatives
Click to expand...

Ayup the religious right and war hawk authoritarians mucked up the republican party.  If the republicans don't boot em the folks that love liberty should move to the libertarian party.


----------



## koshergrl

Bullshit.

Democrats who flooded our ranks in the 70s-80s destroyed our party. The Republican Party now is what the Democrat Party was in the 60s (and many of the same people) and the Dems are straight up progressive pigs.


----------



## JakeStarkey

RKMBrown said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa, your attitude is what led to your felony.  You are not as clever as others, and you just have not grown up.  The TeaP peep defeat in Mississippi, along with all of the others, excluding Brat (who is really libertarian) and Patrick (who merely wants Cruz's seat when the time comes) makes it clear that the party does not want to go to the far right.  The American people certainly want nothing to do with the bad far right.
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party should move more libertarian. Social cons are becomingless and less popular in this country. I would support them if they turned away from the social conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ayup the religious right and war hawk authoritarians mucked up the republican party.  If the republicans don't boot em the folks that love liberty should move to the libertarian party.
Click to expand...


The 10th Circuit Court just threw out Utah's appeal.

Moving to libertarian economic principles, socially liberal and economically conservative, would help the GOP immeasurably.


----------



## Ibentoken

Androw said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as someone has a church building, a bible, and a cross, the left heathen creatures will believe Christianity is being forced upon them.  They're very insecure sensitive creatures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to admit, this has been one of the more confusing aspects of Athiests.
> 
> Athiests.....   do not believe in G-d.   More than just 'not believe', but reject the entire concept.
> 
> How can something that does not exist.....  offend an Athiest?   Do tooth fairies and easter bunnies also offend them?    Do you hear them talk about how Santa Clause and the elves are being 'forced' on them?    If they truly believe that G-d is just as mythical as elves, faries, and the like....  why is it they don't seem to have a problem with any other mythical things?
> 
> I'm convinced the answer is at some level deep inside, they must know that G-d, unlike elves and faries, is in fact real, and they hate that, and thus they lash out at those who love G-d.
> 
> I can't think of any other logical explanation.   Can you?
Click to expand...


It's an internal battle each athiest is waging with themselves.  Their soul vs their intellect.


----------



## RKMBrown

koshergrl said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> Democrats who flooded our ranks in the 70s-80s destroyed our party. The Republican Party now is what the Democrat Party was in the 60s (and many of the same people) and the Dems are straight up progressive pigs.



Thx for updating my list... lets make that people with religious right authoritarian views, war hawk authoritarian views, and ex democrats who switched hats to be rinos and move the republican party to marxism, mucked up the republican party.


----------



## koshergrl

There is no "religious right authoritarian". It's in your imagination.

People see any form of rejection of depravity as "authoritarianism" yet if you have depravity thrust upon you (and you're fined/charged/put in jail for failing to acquiesce) that somehow = equality and freedom.

Freaking morons.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> There is no "religious right authoritarian". It's in your imagination.




Really? Never heard of "Blue Laws" I see...


----------



## RKMBrown

koshergrl said:


> There is no "religious right authoritarian". It's in your imagination.
> 
> People see any form of rejection of depravity as "authoritarianism" yet if you have depravity thrust upon you (and you're fined/charged/put in jail for failing to acquiesce) that somehow = equality and freedom.
> 
> Freaking morons.



Are gays forcing you to perform gay acts?  This is a yes or no question.
Are gays forcing you to say you love gay people?  This is a yes or no question.

Are you pushing for laws that legislate (force) and/or continue to legislate (force) that gays cannot be married?  This is a yes or no question.

Forcing people is authoritative.  Some authoritative actions are justified, such as stopping people from unjustly taking away other peoples life and liberty, such as stopping people from killing each other.

Being gay is not equivalent to murder, or rape.  Being gay does not hurt anyone.  No one's liberty is taken away by a gay couple getting married, because liberty is not the liberty to take liberty away from people.

You appear to be one of those religious right people who think government is there to force the evil gay people out our society and legislate their relationships.  Is that a correct?


----------



## koshergrl

1. No, gays aren't forcing me to perform gay acts. However they are forcing my children to be exposed to gay acts by exposing THEM to them in school.

2. Gays are forcing me to say I love gay people in that it is "hate" speech (and therefore a crime) to say I don't love them.

3. No I'm not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married. I'm resisting legislation that will force everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not.

I could care less if queers marry each other. But my church will not marry them. And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them.

As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part. 

It's on the part of the homo lobby.


----------



## g5000

She says this:


koshergrl said:


> But my church will not marry them. And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them.




And then in the same breath says this:



koshergrl said:


> As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part.



BWA-HA-HA-HA!


----------



## g5000

Nope.  No bigots on the Right.  No, sir.


----------



## koshergrl

Er...so forcing churches to marry people they do not believe have the blessing of God is not authoritarian...

But telling gays that _you_ aren't willing to marry them, is.

There's something wrong with you people. You don't understand the words you use, and you seem to think that not getting what you WANT is the same as being forcibly denied what you NEED. 

I went through this with my kids as well..but I ended up teaching them the difference between being told "I'm not doing that for you" and being told "You aren't allowed to do that"....what a shame extremist statist weirdos can't grasp the concept. Queers can get queer clergy to marry them. There are plenty of churches and bizarro cults and new age whackos that will marry them. There are certain states that will marry them. In no way does my church refusing the marry them deny them the right to go to someone else and get married.

They do not have the right to force people to marry them. The idea is ludicrous.


----------



## RKMBrown

koshergrl said:


> 1. No, gays aren't forcing me to perform gay acts. ok good However they are forcing my children to be exposed to gay acts by exposing THEM to them in school. deflection... I agree, that exposing children to gay acts, encouraging sexual behavior of any kind in school is bad.. leave it to parents to teach sex education.
> 
> 2. Gays are forcing me to say I love gay people in that it is "hate" speech (and therefore a crime) to say I don't love them. please link to where your first amendment rights have been infringed... I call bs.
> 
> 3. No I'm not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married. I'm resisting legislation that will force everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not. can you provide a link to legislation that would force "everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not?" I call bs.  If the government provided allowance for marriage licenses that would not mean a church has to marry the couple.  You think a catholic church is forced to marry jewish couples? Nah... not gonna happen.
> 
> I could care less if queers marry each other. But my church will not marry them. You run your church? If so that would be your right, so what?
> 
> And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them. Make up your mind first you say your are "not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married" now here you say you are.  The state does not marry people, the state manages the marriage license.  People get married of their own volition.  The person who witnesses the signing of the contract is not a part of the marriage contract/license.  You appear to be confused about the government's role here.
> 
> As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part.  I see that you wish to believe this to be true.  But you have not convinced me.  Maybe with clearer answers to the above.
> 
> It's on the part of the homo lobby. I've seen authoritative actions pushed by authoritarians of both groups.  I don't think the bulk of gays want to force you to personally to marry them.


In blue above.


----------



## jillian

RKMBrown said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. No, gays aren't forcing me to perform gay acts. ok good However they are forcing my children to be exposed to gay acts by exposing THEM to them in school. deflection... I agree, that exposing children to gay acts, encouraging sexual behavior of any kind in school is bad.. leave it to parents to teach sex education.
> 
> 2. Gays are forcing me to say I love gay people in that it is "hate" speech (and therefore a crime) to say I don't love them. please link to where your first amendment rights have been infringed... I call bs.
> 
> 3. No I'm not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married. I'm resisting legislation that will force everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not. can you provide a link to legislation that would force "everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not?" I call bs.  If the government provided allowance for marriage licenses that would not mean a church has to marry the couple.  You think a catholic church is forced to marry jewish couples? Nah... not gonna happen.
> 
> I could care less if queers marry each other. But my church will not marry them. You run your church? If so that would be your right, so what?
> 
> And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them. Make up your mind first you say your are "not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married" now here you say you are.  The state does not marry people, the state manages the marriage license.  People get married of their own volition.  The person who witnesses the signing of the contract is not a part of the marriage contract/license.  You appear to be confused about the government's role here.
> 
> As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part.  I see that you wish to believe this to be true.  But you have not convinced me.  Maybe with clearer answers to the above.
> 
> It's on the part of the homo lobby. I've seen authoritative actions pushed by authoritarians of both groups.  I don't think the bulk of gays want to force you to personally to marry them.
> 
> 
> 
> In blue above.
Click to expand...


teaching kids to be tolerant of others is not sex ed.

no. they're asserting their rights to equal treatment... which they are entitled to as citizens of this country

no one is saying churches should marry gays. nice try, though.


----------



## koshergrl

"Section 7 of the SB 6239 says the following:
Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.
Let me break down this legalese.  What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex &#8220;marriage&#8221; ceremony"

"a judge in New Jersey recently ordered that a church must allow its facilities to be used for same-sex &#8220;wedding&#8221; ceremonies despite the church&#8217;s religious beliefs against such relationships.  The Judge&#8217;s rationale in ordering the church to open its facility to same-sex &#8220;weddings&#8221; was that  the Constitution allows &#8220;some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.&#8221;

"&#8220;when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict,&#8221; she admitted, &#8220;I&#8217;m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.&#8221;  For those like Feldblum, the New Jersey judge, and the Washington State legislators in favor of SB 6239, the church&#8217;s freedom to follow its own religious beliefs simply do not matter.  As the New Jersey judge put it, the Constitution allows &#8220;some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.&#8221;  Put simply, religious freedom takes a back seat to sexual liberty."

Washington Same-Sex ?Marriage? Bill Is A Threat To Churches |


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> There is no "religious right authoritarian". It's in your imagination.
> 
> People see any form of rejection of depravity as "authoritarianism" yet if you have depravity thrust upon you (and you're fined/charged/put in jail for failing to acquiesce) that somehow = equality and freedom.
> 
> Freaking morons.



You, my dear, are a banner bearer for the religious right authoritarians.  The 10th just kicked you in your butt.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Feldblum's ruling is overreaching and far to intrusive.

he is a wack of the far left as koshergrl is  wck of the far right.


----------



## koshergrl

jillian said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. No, gays aren't forcing me to perform gay acts. ok good However they are forcing my children to be exposed to gay acts by exposing THEM to them in school. deflection... I agree, that exposing children to gay acts, encouraging sexual behavior of any kind in school is bad.. leave it to parents to teach sex education.
> 
> 2. Gays are forcing me to say I love gay people in that it is "hate" speech (and therefore a crime) to say I don't love them. please link to where your first amendment rights have been infringed... I call bs.
> 
> 3. No I'm not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married. I'm resisting legislation that will force everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not. can you provide a link to legislation that would force "everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not?" I call bs. If the government provided allowance for marriage licenses that would not mean a church has to marry the couple. You think a catholic church is forced to marry jewish couples? Nah... not gonna happen.
> 
> I could care less if queers marry each other. But my church will not marry them. You run your church? If so that would be your right, so what?
> 
> And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them. Make up your mind first you say your are "not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married" now here you say you are. The state does not marry people, the state manages the marriage license. People get married of their own volition. The person who witnesses the signing of the contract is not a part of the marriage contract/license. You appear to be confused about the government's role here.
> 
> As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part. I see that you wish to believe this to be true. But you have not convinced me. Maybe with clearer answers to the above.
> 
> It's on the part of the homo lobby. I've seen authoritative actions pushed by authoritarians of both groups. I don't think the bulk of gays want to force you to personally to marry them.
> 
> 
> 
> In blue above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> teaching kids to be tolerant of others is not sex ed.
> 
> no. they're asserting their rights to equal treatment... which they are entitled to as citizens of this country
> 
> no one is saying churches should marry gays. nice try, though.
Click to expand...

 
They aren't teaching them to be tolerant of others.

They're teaching them the specifics of depraved sex acts.

And yes, people are saying that churches should marry gays. Have you become a compulsive liar, or have you always been one?


----------



## Andylusion

g5000 said:


> She says this:
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> But my church will not marry them. And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then in the same breath says this:
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BWA-HA-HA-HA!
Click to expand...


You just made yourself look like a complete idiot to absolutely everyone on this forum with a brain.

Me saying you can't make me marry a homo, is now me being authoritarian?   Really...   ?   You idiot lol.   Man, just when you think you've met the dumbest person on the forum, someone proves you wrong.


----------



## RKMBrown

koshergrl said:


> "Section 7 of the SB 6239 says the following:
> Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.
> Let me break down this legalese.  What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex &#8220;marriage&#8221; ceremony"  All that means is that they can't offer up their facilities and marriage services for sale to the public at large.  They could still offer it for sale to private members only.  But I see where you might think this is getting close.  I don't like the language of this law either, but I see how it would not apply to churches that provide weddings for members (private not public). Please don't ask me to look up case law on private vs public, I've got to much work to do today
> 
> "a judge in New Jersey recently ordered that a church must allow its facilities to be used for same-sex &#8220;wedding&#8221; ceremonies despite the church&#8217;s religious beliefs against such relationships.  The Judge&#8217;s rationale in ordering the church to open its facility to same-sex &#8220;weddings&#8221; was that  the Constitution allows &#8220;some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.&#8221;  I'm against this judge's ruling.
> 
> "&#8220;when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict,&#8221; she admitted, &#8220;I&#8217;m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.&#8221;  For those like Feldblum, the New Jersey judge, and the Washington State legislators in favor of SB 6239, the church&#8217;s freedom to follow its own religious beliefs simply do not matter.  As the New Jersey judge put it, the Constitution allows &#8220;some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.&#8221;  Put simply, religious freedom takes a back seat to sexual liberty."
> 
> Washington Same-Sex ?Marriage? Bill Is A Threat To Churches |


in red this time...
Thx for the links... yes we should not allow one side of a moral dispute to force the others to literally and/or figuratively "bless" their view.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

koshergrl said:


> What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex &#8220;marriage&#8221; ceremony"



Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You can't have it both ways.

Note this is just the _facilities_. I don't see anything that requires the priest or pastor of the Church perform the ceremony - unless of course he's in the business of performing wedding ceremonies for non-members for a fee.


----------



## Andylusion

g5000 said:


> Nope.  No bigots on the Right.  No, sir.



I won't speak for anyone else, but I will speak for me, and me alone.

Sir, I am a bigot.

"a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race "

Race:   I don't believe in race.   Only leftist believe in race.  I believe that all humans are humans.... because that's what the science shows.  Genetically, all humans are the same.  But leftists support race, because then they can gain votes by giving special treatment based on 'race'.

That aside.. on G-d, and Politics, yeah I am absolutely a bigot.   I am intolerant of wrong ideas, and I know I am right.   Leftist politics are bad and damaging.  Supporting what is good and right, is a virtue.   Being against what is right, just to not be a bigot, makes you an idiot.


----------



## Andylusion

OohPooPahDoo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex marriage ceremony"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Note this is just the _facilities_. I don't see anything that requires the priest or pastor of the Church perform the ceremony - unless of course he's in the business of performing wedding ceremonies for non-members for a fee.
Click to expand...


Ok let's try this again........

What part of "The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions" did you not get?

Which of those words, do you need to be further defined?

If my church says that absolutely no one without a Tuxedo, and blue suede shoes, is allowed.... not the government, nor the public, has any right to say otherwise. Period. End of discussion.

We live in a land based on freedom. Not government regulation. No one has the right to 'impose' themselves on others. At all. Period. The end.

You can't say we can't have it both ways, or neither ways, or whatever ways we want.  It's our freedom.  You have no right to impose anything on it.   That's all there is too it.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Androw said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex &#8220;marriage&#8221; ceremony"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Note this is just the _facilities_. I don't see anything that requires the priest or pastor of the Church perform the ceremony - unless of course he's in the business of performing wedding ceremonies for non-members for a fee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok let's try this again........
> 
> What part of "The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions" did you not get?
Click to expand...


Sorry, it doesn't. It only forbids the the government  from establishing religion and from violating free exercise of religion. _Renting a building for a fee to members of the public isn't a religious exercise - its a business exercise,_ ya fuckin' idiot.


----------



## WorldWatcher

koshergrl said:


> "Section 7 of the SB 6239 says the following:
> Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.
> Let me break down this legalese.  What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex &#8220;marriage&#8221; ceremony"



Correct.  This is inline with the SCOTUS decision of BSA v. Dale, if the Church want's to function as a private club they are free to do so.  They can then restrict the usage of their facitlities.  On the other hand when they function as a public business, i.e. renting their facilities to the general public, then those activities fall under Public Accommodation laws.



koshergrl said:


> "a judge in New Jersey recently ordered that a church must allow its facilities to be used for same-sex &#8220;wedding&#8221; ceremonies despite the church&#8217;s religious beliefs against such relationships.  The Judge&#8217;s rationale in ordering the church to open its facility to same-sex &#8220;weddings&#8221; was that  the Constitution allows &#8220;some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.&#8221;



You should try researching things from sites that will not lie to you:
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1



WorldWatcher said:


> Did you read your link before posting beyond reading the incorrect title?
> 
> 
> 1.  The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not a Church, it's a non-profit 501(c)3 organization.
> 
> 2.  The OGCMA was not asked to perform the ceremony.  IIRC the ceremony was performed by the towns Mayor not a Church official.
> 
> 3. The OGCMA association had applied for and received special tax exempt status for the pavilion in question and one of the the requirements was that the property be open to the public.  The lesbian couple were/are members of the public and they were refused equal access to the property under the rules the OGCMA had agreed to when they made  the request for the special tax exemption under the "Green Acres Program".  THe Methodist Church was not sued and the Methodist Church did not loose it's religoius tax exempt status.  A non-profit had a complaint filed for non-compliance *with rules they agreed to when they applied for the program*.  The pavilion was not under a religious tax exemption.
> 
> 
> >>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher

RKMBrown said:


> I'm against this judge's ruling.




Here is the actual ruling -->> http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1



>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey

Schools are teaching tolerance.

kg is unhappy that the previously entitled evangelical Protestantism is not taught in school.

Tough to be you, kg, it sux.


----------



## koshergrl

Androw said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She says this:
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> But my church will not marry them. And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then in the same breath says this:
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BWA-HA-HA-HA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just made yourself look like a complete idiot to absolutely everyone on this forum with a brain.
> 
> Me saying you can't make me marry a homo, is now me being authoritarian? Really... ? You idiot lol. Man, just when you think you've met the dumbest person on the forum, someone proves you wrong.
Click to expand...

 

Oh, these morons are a dime a dozen. There are so many, and they are so uniformly stupid that I vacillate between thinking it's just one person with a thousand socks...or complete depressed hopelessness thinking that this calibre of human is what is being produced by our country, en masse.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> They aren't teaching them to be tolerant of others.
> 
> They're teaching them the specifics of depraved sex acts.



Links to curriculum. 



> And yes, people are saying that churches should marry gays. Have you become a compulsive liar, or have you always been one?




Who is saying that? Churches will be "forced" to more inclusive through public opinion, not government intervention.


----------



## koshergrl

Good grief. How stupid ARE you?

I've posted multiple links to multiple examples of legislation that expresses the intent to exert state authority over churches, specifically, to force them to serve the homosexual community regardless of whether or not they want to.

Still, every couple of posts one of you assholes pops up and says "nobody has ever tried to force the churches to marry/put up with/serve faggots! Post the evidence!" So I do. And then another one pops up and says "Nobody is saying the church should be forced to accommodate queers!" Whereupon I say, "Yes they have, in this thread" whereupon they say "Post the evidence!" So I do...and two posts later...

Read the fucking thread.

You people are too stupid to breathe.


----------



## koshergrl

"
&#8220;Why would you put it in front of 13 year-old students?&#8221; he asked. 
The poster, entitled, &#8220;How Do People Express Their Sexual Feelings?&#8221; lists sex acts such as: Oral Sex, Sexual Fantasy, Caressing, Anal Sex, Dancing, Hugging, Touching Each Other&#8217;s Genitals, Kissing, Grinding, and Masturbation."

Kansas Middle School: Poster Listing Sex Acts Part of 'Health and Science' Curriculum


----------



## bendog

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't teaching them to be tolerant of others.
> 
> They're teaching them the specifics of depraved sex acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Links to curriculum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, people are saying that churches should marry gays. Have you become a compulsive liar, or have you always been one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who is saying that? Churches will be "forced" to more inclusive through public opinion, not government intervention.
Click to expand...


I don't think so seawytch.  The episcopals have suffered from an anti-gay civil war, and not only is the church near broke but attendance dwindles.  Perhaps some non-denomiationals will start up.  But basically organized religion's response to gays and the politically powerless have had an enduring negative effect.  The catholics will endure, as their laity has learned to just ignore Rome and the bishops.


----------



## koshergrl

"Module 2 of the program, which is called &#8220;Understanding Adolescent Sexuality and Abstinence,&#8221; offers &#8220;an overview of reproductive anatomy, discusses messages about sex, discusses how people express themselves sexually [apparently reinforced by the poster], and the benefits of abstinence.&#8221; 

"According to HHS, in the original study that explored the effectiveness of the Making A Difference program, the participants were African-Americans, aged 11-13. 
Nevertheless, Ellis thinks the curriculum should change. 
&#8220;_This has nothing to do with abstinence or sexual reproduction_, actually, a lot of these things,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I would like to see that this particular portion of the curriculum is removed from the school.&#8221; "

Kansas Middle School: Poster Listing Sex Acts Part of 'Health and Science' Curriculum


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> "
> Why would you put it in front of 13 year-old students? he asked.
> The poster, entitled, How Do People Express Their Sexual Feelings? lists sex acts such as: Oral Sex, Sexual Fantasy, Caressing, Anal Sex, Dancing, Hugging, Touching Each Others Genitals, Kissing, Grinding, and Masturbation."
> 
> Kansas Middle School: Poster Listing Sex Acts Part of 'Health and Science' Curriculum




You'll have to link to the actual curriculum,  I won't click on Breitbart.


----------



## Seawytch

bendog said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't teaching them to be tolerant of others.
> 
> 
> 
> They're teaching them the specifics of depraved sex acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Links to curriculum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, people are saying that churches should marry gays. Have you become a compulsive liar, or have you always been one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is saying that? Churches will be "forced" to more inclusive through public opinion, not government intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so seawytch.  The episcopals have suffered from an anti-gay civil war, and not only is the church near broke but attendance dwindles.  Perhaps some non-denomiationals will start up.  But basically organized religion's response to gays and the politically powerless have had an enduring negative effect.  The catholics will endure, as their laity has learned to just ignore Rome and the bishops.
Click to expand...



There has been a 10% increase in gay friendly churches from 2009 to 2013. Young people aren't attending church and the number one reason? Not inclusive enough. 

Churches will adapt or die.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Links to curriculum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is saying that? Churches will be "forced" to more inclusive through public opinion, not government intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so seawytch.  The episcopals have suffered from an anti-gay civil war, and not only is the church near broke but attendance dwindles.  Perhaps some non-denomiationals will start up.  But basically organized religion's response to gays and the politically powerless have had an enduring negative effect.  The catholics will endure, as their laity has learned to just ignore Rome and the bishops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a 10% increase in gay friendly churches from 2009 to 2013. Young people aren't attending church and the number one reason? Not inclusive enough.
> 
> Churches will adapt or die.
Click to expand...




churches have lost members because they have failed to live up to the principles of their religions,  sorry, wytch, but it has nothing to do with gay people.   Damn but you are


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> Good grief. How stupid ARE you?
> 
> I've posted multiple links to multiple examples of legislation that expresses the intent to exert state authority over churches, specifically, to force them to serve the homosexual community regardless of whether or not they want to.
> 
> Still, every couple of posts one of you assholes pops up and says "nobody has ever tried to force the churches to marry/put up with/serve faggots! Post the evidence!" So I do. And then another one pops up and says "Nobody is saying the church should be forced to accommodate queers!" Whereupon I say, "Yes they have, in this thread" whereupon they say "Post the evidence!" So I do...and two posts later...
> 
> Read the fucking thread.
> 
> You people are too stupid to breathe.




The thread is bullshit. No church in the US will ever be forced to perform a religious ceremony contrary to the tenants of their faith. This is an absolute.

Public Accommodation laws regarding businesses is another topic altogether and has NOTHING to do with civil marriage equality. (Neither does religious marriage for that matter)


----------



## koshergrl

No, I won't have to do anything.

I said the schools are teaching our children the details of depraved sex. 

And I have proven it. 

That fact that you're an idiot really has no bearing on anything.

"
District spokeswoman, Leigh Anne Neal, says the poster needs to be viewed in the context of a bigger curriculum, which she calls abstinence-based for students in middle school.
&#8220;The poster that you reference is actually part of our middle school health and science materials, and so it is a part of our district approved curriculum,&#8221; Neal said. &#8220;However the item is meant to be part of a lesson, and so certainly as a standalone poster without the context of a teacher-led discussion, I could see that there might be some cause for concern.&#8221;
She said that the approved curriculum is in line with what other schools around the country do as well.
&#8220;The curriculum it is a part of, it aligns with national standards around those topics, and it&#8217;s part of our curriculum in the school district,&#8221; she said.
But Ellis thinks if that&#8217;s the case, the curriculum needs to change.
&#8220;This has nothing to do with abstinence or sexual reproduction,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I would like to see that this particular portion of the curriculum is removed from the school.&#8221;

Father upset with terms on school?s sexual education poster | fox4kc.com


----------



## koshergrl

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief. How stupid ARE you?
> 
> I've posted multiple links to multiple examples of legislation that expresses the intent to exert state authority over churches, specifically, to force them to serve the homosexual community regardless of whether or not they want to.
> 
> Still, every couple of posts one of you assholes pops up and says "nobody has ever tried to force the churches to marry/put up with/serve faggots! Post the evidence!" So I do. And then another one pops up and says "Nobody is saying the church should be forced to accommodate queers!" Whereupon I say, "Yes they have, in this thread" whereupon they say "Post the evidence!" So I do...and two posts later...
> 
> Read the fucking thread.
> 
> You people are too stupid to breathe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is bullshit. No church in the US will ever be forced to perform a religious ceremony contrary to the tenants of their faith. This is an absolute.
> 
> Public Accommodation laws regarding businesses is another topic altogether and has NOTHING to do with civil marriage equality. (Neither does religious marriage for that matter)
Click to expand...

 
The OP isn't bullshit. It's a question. It doesn't assert anything.

Though through it, we have asserted that the anti-christian hysterics are a bunch of morons.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> No, I won't have to do anything.
> 
> I said the schools are teaching our children the details of depraved sex.
> 
> And I have proven it.
> 
> That fact that you're an idiot really has no bearing on anything.
> 
> "
> District spokeswoman, Leigh Anne Neal, says the poster needs to be viewed in the context of a bigger curriculum, which she calls abstinence-based for students in middle school.
> The poster that you reference is actually part of our middle school health and science materials, and so it is a part of our district approved curriculum, Neal said. However the item is meant to be part of a lesson, and so certainly as a standalone poster without the context of a teacher-led discussion, I could see that there might be some cause for concern.
> She said that the approved curriculum is in line with what other schools around the country do as well.
> The curriculum it is a part of, it aligns with national standards around those topics, and its part of our curriculum in the school district, she said.
> But Ellis thinks if thats the case, the curriculum needs to change.
> This has nothing to do with abstinence or sexual reproduction, he said. I would like to see that this particular portion of the curriculum is removed from the school.
> 
> Father upset with terms on school?s sexual education poster | fox4kc.com




Is Kookbart the only link you have? 

The curriculum is fine for middle schools. You can opt out you know. (Your kids will talk to other kids though  )


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief. How stupid ARE you?
> 
> I've posted multiple links to multiple examples of legislation that expresses the intent to exert state authority over churches, specifically, to force them to serve the homosexual community regardless of whether or not they want to.
> 
> Still, every couple of posts one of you assholes pops up and says "nobody has ever tried to force the churches to marry/put up with/serve faggots! Post the evidence!" So I do. And then another one pops up and says "Nobody is saying the church should be forced to accommodate queers!" Whereupon I say, "Yes they have, in this thread" whereupon they say "Post the evidence!" So I do...and two posts later...
> 
> Read the fucking thread.
> 
> You people are too stupid to breathe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is bullshit. No church in the US will ever be forced to perform a religious ceremony contrary to the tenants of their faith. This is an absolute.
> 
> Public Accommodation laws regarding businesses is another topic altogether and has NOTHING to do with civil marriage equality. (Neither does religious marriage for that matter)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP isn't bullshit. It's a question. It doesn't assert anything.
> 
> Though through it, we have asserted that the anti-christian hysterics are a bunch of morons.
Click to expand...



It's a stupid question since it's never going to happen in the United States.


----------



## koshergrl

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I won't have to do anything.
> 
> I said the schools are teaching our children the details of depraved sex.
> 
> And I have proven it.
> 
> That fact that you're an idiot really has no bearing on anything.
> 
> "
> District spokeswoman, Leigh Anne Neal, says the poster needs to be viewed in the context of a bigger curriculum, which she calls abstinence-based for students in middle school.
> The poster that you reference is actually part of our middle school health and science materials, and so it is a part of our district approved curriculum, Neal said. However the item is meant to be part of a lesson, and so certainly as a standalone poster without the context of a teacher-led discussion, I could see that there might be some cause for concern.
> She said that the approved curriculum is in line with what other schools around the country do as well.
> The curriculum it is a part of, it aligns with national standards around those topics, and its part of our curriculum in the school district, she said.
> But Ellis thinks if thats the case, the curriculum needs to change.
> This has nothing to do with abstinence or sexual reproduction, he said. I would like to see that this particular portion of the curriculum is removed from the school.
> 
> Father upset with terms on school?s sexual education poster | fox4kc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Kookbart the only link you have?
> 
> The curriculum is fine for middle schools. You can opt out you know. (Your kids will talk to other kids though  )
Click to expand...

 
No, you moron. The link I provided here was to the local television station.

The list of sex acts was posted in the common areas of the school. Undoubtedly by a teacher of indeterminate sexual orientation looking for recruits.


----------



## koshergrl

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is bullshit. No church in the US will ever be forced to perform a religious ceremony contrary to the tenants of their faith. This is an absolute.
> 
> Public Accommodation laws regarding businesses is another topic altogether and has NOTHING to do with civil marriage equality. (Neither does religious marriage for that matter)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP isn't bullshit. It's a question. It doesn't assert anything.
> 
> Though through it, we have asserted that the anti-christian hysterics are a bunch of morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a stupid question since it's never going to happen in the United States.
Click to expand...

 
Oh, ok.


----------



## JakeStarkey

kg, the village idiot, thinks others believe her position on this is real.

Only if churches violate public accommodation laws will they be vulnerable to such suits.

As they should be.


----------



## koshergrl

Shut up fakey, you have never had any relevance in this thread. Or any other for that matter. You just take up space.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> There has been a 10% increase in gay friendly churches from 2009 to 2013. Young people aren't attending church and the number one reason? Not inclusive enough.
> 
> Churches will adapt or die.



Sure, numbers of young people are lining up and declaring they won't seek salvation because they expect churches to drop their firm stance on morality and accomodate the Spring Break/gay pride parade crowd, right?

You DO realize why churches exist, right?  It's not to cater to the devil's handiwork.  You're asking churches, like marriage and every other good and decent mooring to unhinge themselves to accomodate your oversized barge in their sweet harbor of self-restraint and sobriety.

When you remove the brakes from a car and start heading downhill really fast, at first I'll admit, all that wind in your hair is really fun..


----------



## Crystalclear

koshergrl said:


> They covet what they cannot have, and they seek to destroy those who are different from themselves.
> 
> It's nothing more complicated than that. They hate Christians and Christianity because they are an obstacle to their vision of a completely depraved, disgusting world. These people are the enemy of freedom, liberty and humanity. Of course they want to eliminate God, and the people who love him.



Are you talking about libertarians? 
In that case, they don't seek to destroy anyone. Force is not approved of in this ideology, instead of the social conservatism.
I and almost all other libertarians don't hate Christianity. I only dislike the people who think that religion is a thing to force upon others.


----------



## Andylusion

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Note this is just the _facilities_. I don't see anything that requires the priest or pastor of the Church perform the ceremony - unless of course he's in the business of performing wedding ceremonies for non-members for a fee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's try this again........
> 
> What part of "The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions" did you not get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, it doesn't. It only forbids the the government  from establishing religion and from violating free exercise of religion. _Renting a building for a fee to members of the public isn't a religious exercise - its a business exercise,_ ya fuckin' idiot.
Click to expand...


AGAIN.............

What part of "The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions" did you not get?

Do you see "unless they rent the building for a religious ceremony" or any other clause in there?

No you do not.   Why?  Because they didn't intend for there to be a hundred qualifications, or rationalizations, to give an excuse to leftists to control religious organizations.

And by the way........

The way in which you are responding to me, is as if you think that I care what you think.

If I have given you that impression, I do apologize.

Let me make this as clear as is possible between two people, and everyone else on this thread, and even on this forum.

I do not care what you think about me... about my church.... about my views... or about the law.    I will go to court... I will go to jail....  I will go to prison.... on this issue.


Is that clear enough for you?    My church will do weddings for people, for a fee, and allow use of the entire complex.   We will not do a homosexual marriage.

We intend to continue that policy.   My parents church is the same way.    And they will continue that policy.

If you have a problem with that.... I don't care.  They don't care.  WE don't care.   My pastor will go to prison, and one of the others will replace him, and continue the same policy.   If you send him to jail... we'll replace him, and continue the same policy.    If you send all of them to jail, *I* personally will preach on Sunday, and continue the exact same policy.

You will have to jail EVERYONE on this issue.  At least half of my church, and nearly all of my parents church, will be more than willing to go to PRISON over this issue.

We won't bend on this.  You don't have the right to tell us how our church operates, and I will *DIE* before accepting your dictation over my church, or my views.

You don't seem to grasp the heritage of the Christian world view do you?  Christians were slaughtered, torn apart by lions, thrown into freezing water, all because they were not willing to change their views, just because some arrogant windbags in society thought we had to be like them.

Well... we don't.  And we're not going to.   And I personally will fight this to my death, and be happy about it.   I'll go to prison, I'll go to the chair, with a smile on my face    But you WILL NOT change me to fit your views.

Thank you.... have a nice day sir.


----------



## g5000

This topic is classic fearmongering.  No one has forced a church in America to perform a gay wedding.


----------



## koshergrl

NOBODY SAID THEY HAD.

The question isn't HAVE they, the question is SHOULD they.

Morons.


----------



## g5000

koshergrl said:


> NOBODY SAID THEY HAD.
> 
> The question isn't HAVE they, the question is SHOULD they.
> 
> Morons.



That's what fearmongering is...moron.  Plant the idea that they will.

When you have no evidence of harm, make shit up.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief. How stupid ARE you?
> 
> I've posted multiple links to multiple examples of legislation that expresses the intent to exert state authority over churches, specifically, to force them to serve the homosexual community regardless of whether or not they want to.
> 
> Still, every couple of posts one of you assholes pops up and says "nobody has ever tried to force the churches to marry/put up with/serve faggots! Post the evidence!" So I do. And then another one pops up and says "Nobody is saying the church should be forced to accommodate queers!" Whereupon I say, "Yes they have, in this thread" whereupon they say "Post the evidence!" So I do...and two posts later...
> 
> Read the fucking thread.
> 
> You people are too stupid to breathe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is bullshit. No church in the US will ever be forced to perform a religious ceremony contrary to the tenants of their faith. This is an absolute.
> 
> Public Accommodation laws regarding businesses is another topic altogether and has NOTHING to do with civil marriage equality. (Neither does religious marriage for that matter)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP isn't bullshit. It's a question. It doesn't assert anything.
> 
> Though through it, we have asserted that the anti-christian hysterics are a bunch of morons.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. 

The OP is ignorant idiocy given the fact that 14th Amendment jurisprudence doesn't apply to private organizations such as churches. As the courts continue to strike down un-Constitutional measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties, such as those in Utah and Oklahoma today, churches will be in no way impacted or compelled to accommodate same-sex couples.


----------



## koshergrl

No, it's not. Nothing is made up, you fucking retard.

It's a POLL asking if you think churches should be forced to marry queers.

Multiple choice. You can't fear monger with multiple choice questions, nitwit.


----------



## koshergrl

You fucking idiots think that because your ANSWER to the poll is in favor of authoritarian measures leveled agains the church, that the QUESTIONS are fear mongering.

NO, they aren't. 

Your answers are scary, though. And that's not the OP's fault. You guys always object when you are exposed.


----------



## g5000

koshergrl said:


> No, it's not. Nothing is made up, you fucking retard.
> 
> It's a POLL asking if you think churches should be forced to marry queers.
> 
> Multiple choice. You can't fear monger with multiple choice questions, nitwit.



See: Push poll.

Fearmongering.


----------



## Andylusion

g5000 said:


> This topic is classic fearmongering.  No one has forced a church in America to perform a gay wedding.



Dur..... that was the poll at the start of this thread.  Can't you read?

" Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"

That was one of you people, writing that.   It was a bunch of you people, supporting that.

We didn't make that up.  You guys on the left did.

I'm just telling you up front.... not going to happen.   In no ambiguous terms, that is not going to happen.... period.

I didn't say it did happen.... I just said... it won't.  You people on the left, are not going to do it.  Period.


----------



## koshergrl

We're not supposed to ask the fascists if they want state-controlled religion because their answers will frighten us.


----------



## koshergrl

Example of REAL fear-mongering:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-rubber-room/361330-tea-party-nutjobs-gang-rape-underaged-girl.html


----------



## mikegriffith1

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


Ah, there's the trick: If a church doesn't want to host a gay wedding, just accuse it of "discrimination" and then suggest it's akin to refusing to host a black or interracial wedding.  By that logic, every time anyone or any institution does not want to provide a service that gays want, they are automatically guilty of discrimination.

Sooo, let's apply that fascist logic to other scenarios.  This means that if two open Nazis want to get married in an Orthodox Jewish synagogue, well, gosh, we must force the rabbi to agree to have the wedding in the synagogue, since to deny the Nazi couple their choice of wedding location would be "discrimination."

Or, how about if two Christians want to marry in a mosque?  Yeah, you bet: Using the OP's twisted logic, we should force the mosque to host the wedding, because to refuse them would be "discrimination."  

Or, what if some Christians wanted to hold a seminar on the documented health risks of homosexuality in a gay bar?!  Hey, sorry, boys, but you must allow the Christians to use your bar for their seminar, because to refuse them would be "discrimination."

In short, let's use the charge of "discrimination" and the banner of "equal rights" to destroy basic constitutional rights like the freedom of religion and the freedom of association.


----------



## Seawytch

g5000 said:


> This topic is classic fearmongering.  No one has forced a church in America to perform a gay wedding.




Or an interracial wedding or an interfaith wedding...nor will they ever.


----------



## koshergrl

So do you think they should be forced?


----------



## koshergrl

If you don't, just say so.


----------



## koshergrl

But we all know you do.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> So do you think they should be forced?




Yes, through PUBLIC OPINION....just like they always have.


----------



## Peach

Androw said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This topic is classic fearmongering.  No one has forced a church in America to perform a gay wedding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dur..... that was the poll at the start of this thread.  Can't you read?
> 
> " Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"
> 
> That was one of you people, writing that.   It was a bunch of you people, supporting that.
> 
> We didn't make that up.  You guys on the left did.
> 
> I'm just telling you up front.... not going to happen.   In no ambiguous terms, that is not going to happen.... period.
> 
> I didn't say it did happen.... I just said... it won't.  You people on the left, are not going to do it.  Period.
Click to expand...


"You people"; divide and fail to conquer, actually.


----------



## koshergrl

So you think they should be forced.

I know you think that by using the term "public opinion" you're somehow hiding the fact that you are saying that you think the churches should be forced, but it's all the same. Public opinion was AOK and 100 percent behind the "forcing" of Jews to get onto train cars, too. Those Jews voluntarily boarded those trains because they thought it was the right thing to do..because public opinion was against them.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

koshergrl said:


> So you think they should be forced.
> 
> I know you think that by using the term "public opinion" you're somehow hiding the fact that you are saying that you think the churches should be forced, but it's all the same. Public opinion was AOK and 100 percent behind the "forcing" of Jews to get onto train cars, too. Those Jews voluntarily boarded those trains because they thought it was the right thing to do..because public opinion was against them.



This is hyperbolic nonsense and demagoguery. 

In its ruling today invalidating Utah's Amendment 3, which violated gay Americans' right to due process and equal protection of the law, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged the fact that the decision in no way compels religious institutions to accommodate same-sex couples, thus confirming the idiocy of the OP:



> We also emphasize, as did the district court, that todays decision relates solely to
> civil marriage. See Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1214 ([T]he court notes that its decision
> does not mandate any change for religious institutions, which may continue to express
> their own moral viewpoints and define their own traditions about marriage.). Plaintiffs
> must be accorded the same legal status presently granted to married couples, but religious
> institutions remain as free as they always have been to practice their sacraments and
> traditions as they see fit. We respect the views advanced by members of various religious
> communities and their discussions of the theological history of marriage. And we
> continue to recognize the right of the various religions to define marriage according to
> their moral, historical, and ethical precepts. Our opinion does not intrude into that
> domain or the exercise of religious principles in this arena.
> 
> http://extras.mnginteractive.com/li.../20140625_111714_utah-gay-marriage-ruling.pdf


----------



## koshergrl

I'm not interested in that.

The question, the OP, is whether or not YOU THINK the church should be forced.

We got our answer.

You do.

You can argue "but it's never happened" till the cows come home..that's not what the question was.

The question was not "Has it happened yet". It was "Do you want to force the church to serve homos".

And you do.


----------



## RKMBrown

WorldWatcher said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against this judge's ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the actual ruling -->> http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Well that changes things.  I agree with the ruling. The ruling recites:


> Based on the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that respondent violated the LAD when it
> refused to conduct a civil-union ceremony for Ms. Bernstein and Ms. Paster. Thus,
> petitioners&#8217; motion is GRANTED; respondent&#8217;s motion is DENIED



It would appear the article was incorrect about what the ruling entailed.   I can only surmise there was confusion over the typo in the phrase "refused to conduct a civil-union ceremony."  The ruling pertained to the renting of a non-religious pavilion for conduction of a civil union ceremony, not the marrying of the couple that wanted to rent the pavilion.  Whoever wrote the ruling for the judge put a typo in there.  Or it was a lib trying to change what the case was about using the typo.

The phrase should have said "refused a conduction of the civil-union ceremony at the pavilion."


----------



## RKMBrown

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief. How stupid ARE you?
> 
> I've posted multiple links to multiple examples of legislation that expresses the intent to exert state authority over churches, specifically, to force them to serve the homosexual community regardless of whether or not they want to.
> 
> Still, every couple of posts one of you assholes pops up and says "nobody has ever tried to force the churches to marry/put up with/serve faggots! Post the evidence!" So I do. And then another one pops up and says "Nobody is saying the church should be forced to accommodate queers!" Whereupon I say, "Yes they have, in this thread" whereupon they say "Post the evidence!" So I do...and two posts later...
> 
> Read the fucking thread.
> 
> You people are too stupid to breathe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is bullshit. No church in the US will ever be forced to perform a religious ceremony contrary to the tenants of their faith. This is an absolute.
> 
> Public Accommodation laws regarding businesses is another topic altogether and has NOTHING to do with civil marriage equality. (Neither does religious marriage for that matter)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP isn't bullshit. It's a question. It doesn't assert anything.
> 
> Though through it, we have asserted that the anti-christian hysterics are a bunch of morons.
Click to expand...


The link you provided was in error.  That judge did not force the church to marry the gay couple as was reported. There was a typo in the ruling. See my comments and read the actual ruling. If you need more detail I can explain.  

Or switch to another link that provides an actual case where a church was forced to marry a gay couple.


----------



## WorldWatcher

RKMBrown said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against this judge's ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the actual ruling -->> http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that changes things.  I agree with the ruling. The ruling recites:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that respondent violated the LAD when it
> refused to conduct a civil-union ceremony for Ms. Bernstein and Ms. Paster. Thus,
> petitioners motion is GRANTED; respondents motion is DENIED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would appear the article was incorrect about what the ruling entailed.   I can only surmise there was confusion over the typo in the phrase "refused to conduct a civil-union ceremony."  The ruling pertained to the renting of a non-religious pavilion for conduction of a civil union ceremony, not the marrying of the couple that wanted to rent the pavilion.  Whoever wrote the ruling for the judge put a typo in there.  Or it was a lib trying to change what the case was about using the typo.
> 
> The phrase should have said "refused a conduction of the civil-union ceremony at the pavilion."
Click to expand...



Actually the phrase should have been "Non-Chruch entity violates civil contract by refusing Civil Union ceremony on property open to the public."



>>>>


----------



## koshergrl

For the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh time...

NOBODY asserted that the church had been forced to accommodate gays. The OP poses the question, in poll form....DO YOU THINK CHURCHES SHOULD BE FORCED to accommodate gays.

My link was not submitted as evidence that churches had been forced to accommodate gays. My link was submitted as evidence that there are people who seek to force the church to submit. 

But the premise of the thread...once again...is SHOULD churches be forced.

It is NOT "churches are being forced!" It's "do you THINK churches should be forced"?

And you have all answered with a resounding "YES BUT IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET". As if we didn't know that, lol. Or as if it's even pertinent to the discussion.

It's not. We know it hasn't happened yet. And whether or not it has happened in this country, in the past, is completely irrelevant to the question, in poll form...

do you THINK the church should be FORCED to serve homosexuals?

And you do.


----------



## koshergrl

Do you people not understand the difference between statements and questions?

Between the words "should" and "did"? Because you seem to have difficulties with these concepts.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> So you think they should be forced.
> 
> I know you think that by using the term "public opinion" you're somehow hiding the fact that you are saying that you think the churches should be forced, but it's all the same. Public opinion was AOK and 100 percent behind the "forcing" of Jews to get onto train cars, too. Those Jews voluntarily boarded those trains because they thought it was the right thing to do..because public opinion was against them.



Yes...just as churches were "forced" to perform interracial marriages...by public opinion. Remember the Mormons? They were among the last to be "forced" to accept blacks...by public opinion. 

Really? Hitler?


----------



## Silhouette

RWHeathenGamer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
Click to expand...


Race and deviant sexual behaviors are not the same thing.  So your question is nonsensical.  Of course behaviors can be regulated by the majority.  Unless your cult of LGBT have applied for federal recognition?  Do you have a tax-exempt status and federal recognition yet?

No?

Well then I guess you're out of luck.  Mere minority behaviors don't qualify as "minorities".


----------



## koshergrl

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think they should be forced.
> 
> I know you think that by using the term "public opinion" you're somehow hiding the fact that you are saying that you think the churches should be forced, but it's all the same. Public opinion was AOK and 100 percent behind the "forcing" of Jews to get onto train cars, too. Those Jews voluntarily boarded those trains because they thought it was the right thing to do..because public opinion was against them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...just as churches were "forced" to perform interracial marriages...by public opinion. Remember the Mormons? They were among the last to be "forced" to accept blacks...by public opinion.
> 
> Really? Hitler?
Click to expand...


Churches were never forced to marry interracial couples, you nitwit.

You fail..and you keep on failing over and over and over again. I think perhaps you have drug induced brain damage.


----------



## koshergrl

BTW...why don't you provide me with a "force by public opinion" citation, reference and link.


----------



## koshergrl

I want to see that ebonics phrase used by some other idiot than yourself.

I know I won't, because it's a term you made up. What a tard.


----------



## koshergrl

I'm beginning to think all dykes are illiterate retards. There's you, and there's Bode...that's enough to convince me.


----------



## Gadawg73

No church is forced now to marry any heterosexual couples.
No church will ever be forced to marry anyone ever.


----------



## koshergrl

Nobody said they were. You're late to the party

The question is..do you think they SHOULD be. It's a poll. I know, it's confused all the other fags as well.


----------



## Gadawg73

What Christian church now is forced to conduct Jewish weddings?
What Jewish church is forced to conduct Muslim weddings.

You people are dumb as a box of rocks.


----------



## koshergrl

Er...it's a poll. 

I take it you're already intoxicated. Usually we get to watch you get progressively more sodden..this time you've skipped the trip!


----------



## Gadawg73

koshergrl said:


> Nobody said they were. You're late to the party
> 
> The question is..do you think they SHOULD be. It's a poll. I know, it's confused all the other fags as well.



Sticks and stones Ms. Piggy. I have been shot at, beat up and left for dead. Played 4 quarters against some of the best.
Married 37 years with 3 kids and grand kids.

Anyone that votes in a poll worded like this is an idiot.

"Hey, let us take a poll: Do you think Muslim churches should be forced to marry Midget Jews?"

You folks are dumb as a box of rocks.


----------



## koshergrl

It's a poll. Nobody said that churches were being forced to do anything.

The QUESTION is..should they?

If you want to talk about something else, you should (try to) start your own thread.


----------



## koshergrl

Good grief.

Have some starbucks, loser.


----------



## Gadawg73

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think they should be forced.
> 
> I know you think that by using the term "public opinion" you're somehow hiding the fact that you are saying that you think the churches should be forced, but it's all the same. Public opinion was AOK and 100 percent behind the "forcing" of Jews to get onto train cars, too. Those Jews voluntarily boarded those trains because they thought it was the right thing to do..because public opinion was against them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is hyperbolic nonsense and demagoguery.
> 
> In its ruling today invalidating Utah's Amendment 3, which violated gay Americans' right to due process and equal protection of the law, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged the fact that the decision in no way compels religious institutions to accommodate same-sex couples, thus confirming the idiocy of the OP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also emphasize, as did the district court, that todays decision relates solely to
> civil marriage. See Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1214 ([T]he court notes that its decision
> does not mandate any change for religious institutions, which may continue to express
> their own moral viewpoints and define their own traditions about marriage.). Plaintiffs
> must be accorded the same legal status presently granted to married couples, but religious
> institutions remain as free as they always have been to practice their sacraments and
> traditions as they see fit. We respect the views advanced by members of various religious
> communities and their discussions of the theological history of marriage. And we
> continue to recognize the right of the various religions to define marriage according to
> their moral, historical, and ethical precepts. Our opinion does not intrude into that
> domain or the exercise of religious principles in this arena.
> 
> http://extras.mnginteractive.com/li.../20140625_111714_utah-gay-marriage-ruling.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


It is not cliche now to bash black folk so they go with the gays instead.

They are mentally weak and have to find someone to feel superior to.


----------



## Gadawg73

koshergrl said:


> Good grief.
> 
> Have some starbucks, loser.



I own a bank and get free coffee.


----------



## koshergrl

Awesome! Start swilling that stuff down..., that's something you're good at I'm sure.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> No church is forced now to marry any heterosexual couples.
> No church will ever be forced to marry anyone ever.



You got that right.

By the way, completely off topic, and unrelated to anything on this thread...

About your avatar....   about 5 years back, I had a bunch of Mexicans move in next door to me.  Perfectly nice people, but they did exactly that.  Between 1 AM and 3 AM, they would start playing Mexican music.   They were not obnoxious about it, but I could hear them dancing and singing through the walls.

It must be a cultural thing...


----------



## MarcATL

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?


No.


----------



## Indofred

koshergrl said:


> Nobody said they were. You're late to the party
> 
> The question is..do you think they SHOULD be. It's a poll. *I know, it's confused all the other fags as well.*



Why do you have to promote hate?
Surely you can disagree with an idea without hating those who disagree with you.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think they should be forced.
> 
> I know you think that by using the term "public opinion" you're somehow hiding the fact that you are saying that you think the churches should be forced, but it's all the same. Public opinion was AOK and 100 percent behind the "forcing" of Jews to get onto train cars, too. Those Jews voluntarily boarded those trains because they thought it was the right thing to do..because public opinion was against them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...just as churches were "forced" to perform interracial marriages...by public opinion. Remember the Mormons? They were among the last to be "forced" to accept blacks...by public opinion.
> 
> Really? Hitler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches were never forced to marry interracial couples, you nitwit.
> 
> You fail..and you keep on failing over and over and over again. I think perhaps you have drug induced brain damage.
Click to expand...


Seriously, are you 12? Actually, that's an insult to 12 year olds. I have one and she has better comprehension. 

Yes churches were forced to accept interracial couples, but it wasn't by the _government_, it was by *public opinion*, you idiotic skank. Even that last little racist church in whatever backwoods state it was caved to *public pressure*. That is how churches change, public opinion. They will on gays too.


----------



## Indofred

Seawytch said:


> Yes churches were forced to accept interracial couples, but it wasn't by the _government_, it was by *public opinion*, you idiotic skank. Even that last little racist church in whatever backwoods state it was caved to *public pressure*. That is how churches change, public opinion. They will on gays too.



Where in the bible does it mention race based laws regarding marriage?
I don't recall any, perhaps someone could enlighten me.

However, the bible is very clear on sexually active homosexual relationships.


----------



## Seawytch

Indofred said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes churches were forced to accept interracial couples, but it wasn't by the _government_, it was by *public opinion*, you idiotic skank. Even that last little racist church in whatever backwoods state it was caved to *public pressure*. That is how churches change, public opinion. They will on gays too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the bible does it mention race based laws regarding marriage?
> I don't recall any, perhaps someone could enlighten me.
> 
> However, the bible is very clear on sexually active homosexual relationships.
Click to expand...


Well, according to segregationists and those opposed to interracial marriage, there were plenty. They used the bible to justify their bigotry just like some Christians do today with gays. 

_Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. _~ Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)​
These folks seemed to be able to find some stuff in the bible about interracial "mixin'"...

Save Your Heritage

When Religious Liberty Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia

Bigots don't change, just their targets apparently.


----------



## LeftofLeft

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



It will be a moot point when sharia law gets here.


----------



## Gadawg73

New poll:

How many times a week do you beat your wife?

A. 2

B. 4

C. 6

D. Felt so good can not remember


----------



## koshergrl

The question isn't "how many churches have been forced to marry queers" it's SHOULD churches be forced to marry queers.

It doesn't beg the question.

But illiterate drunks and ding dongs don't know that, because they apparently have never learned what the word "should" means.


----------



## koshergrl

Indofred said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said they were. You're late to the party
> 
> The question is..do you think they SHOULD be. It's a poll. *I know, it's confused all the other fags as well.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you have to promote hate?
> Surely you can disagree with an idea without hating those who disagree with you.
Click to expand...


I should have said "all the other fags on this site" I suppose.


----------



## Gadawg73

If a church RENTS their facilities for receptions and weddings also then they will be required to take anyone.
But even a dumbass can read The Constitution and know that the church is separate from government, something most of these religious kooks bitch about all the time, and can not require a church to go against their freedom of religion.
The Constitution has a deep rooted history of safeguarding those religious rights which allow them to refuse to perform weddings for gay couples for as long as they choose to. 

Now government could step in and punish individual churches by taking away their tax exempt status as we all know religious institutions rely on not paying taxes so this is important to them. I doubt that will ever happen with the ceremony as case law does not support that.

But the government has NEVER used either power to tell religious groups who they have to marry. 

And to correct the myth here about interracial marriages, when the court struck down state bans in _Loving v. Virginia _in 1967 there was NEVER any suggestion that private religious groups that would not perform interracial marriages would be shut down.


----------



## Gadawg73

Read the Constitution you fools.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Androw said:


> What part of "The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions" did you not get?



That's not what the first amendment actually says you ignorant moron. Pick up a Constitution, shut your stupid mouth,  and try READING for a change.  




> You don't seem to grasp the heritage of the Christian world view do you?



Actually, I studied Christianity 1 hour a day, 5 days a week, 9 months a year, for 8 years total. However, unlike you - it wasn't the only thing I studied. So go fuck yourself.



> Christians were slaughtered, torn apart by lions, thrown into freezing water, all because they were not willing to change their views, just because some arrogant windbags in society thought we had to be like them.


 I like how your history of Christianity ends at Constantine! What an ignorant fucktwad you are! If you knew history you'd realize that Christians have quite a long history of murder in the name of God - in fact, they have quite a long history of murdered OTHER CHRISTIANS in the name of God. There's a place, maybe you've heard of it, called "England". You should check out their religious history!

I wouldn't worry one bit about gay weddings at your Church, BTW. Most of the gay people I know don't want to get married in a shit-hole operated by total morons. Its only the Churchs that actually provide a decent place for folks to get married that have to worry about the gays.


----------



## Silhouette

Gadawg73 said:


> If a church RENTS their facilities for receptions and weddings also then they will be required to take anyone.
> But even a dumbass can read The Constitution and know that *the church is separate from government, something most of these religious kooks bitch about all the time, and can not require a church to go against their freedom of religion*.
> The Constitution has a deep rooted history of safeguarding those religious rights which allow them to refuse to perform weddings for gay couples for as long as they choose to.
> 
> *Now government could step in and punish individual churches by taking away their tax exempt status *as we all know religious institutions rely on not paying taxes so this is important to them. I doubt that will ever happen with the ceremony as case law does not support that.
> 
> But the government has NEVER used either power to tell religious groups who they have to marry.
> 
> And to correct the myth here about interracial marriages, when the court struck down state bans in _Loving v. Virginia _in 1967 there was NEVER any suggestion that private religious groups that would not perform interracial marriages would be shut down.



I offer that they cannot take away a tax-exempt status of a church refusing to perform gay marriages.  Because that too would be an arbitrary favoritism of the government against a religion.  And that can be construed as a violation of the 1st.  A church may not be at once federally-recognized and at the same time punished for the faith it adheres to..

Also, race has NOTHING to do with this topic and I tire of hearing that false premise inserted time and again on the gay marriage subject.  Gays are an incomplete grouping of sexually deviant behaviors.  They are NOT a race of people.  They are an as-yet unrecognized religion, de facto.  A cult.  And cults don't get special protections from the 14th or Loving or any of the rest of it.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Stop bumping these stupid liberal hate threads


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Silhouette said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a church RENTS their facilities for receptions and weddings also then they will be required to take anyone.
> But even a dumbass can read The Constitution and know that *the church is separate from government, something most of these religious kooks bitch about all the time, and can not require a church to go against their freedom of religion*.
> The Constitution has a deep rooted history of safeguarding those religious rights which allow them to refuse to perform weddings for gay couples for as long as they choose to.
> 
> *Now government could step in and punish individual churches by taking away their tax exempt status *as we all know religious institutions rely on not paying taxes so this is important to them. I doubt that will ever happen with the ceremony as case law does not support that.
> 
> But the government has NEVER used either power to tell religious groups who they have to marry.
> 
> And to correct the myth here about interracial marriages, when the court struck down state bans in _Loving v. Virginia _in 1967 there was NEVER any suggestion that private religious groups that would not perform interracial marriages would be shut down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I offer that they cannot take away a tax-exempt status of a church refusing to perform gay marriages.  Because that too would be an arbitrary favoritism of the government against a religion.  And that can be construed as a violation of the 1st.  A church may not be at once federally-recognized and at the same time punished for the faith it adheres to..
Click to expand...


That's not punishing anyone for faith. Its punishing them for operating a business enterprise not in accord with the law.

Though you're probably right they can't take away tax-exempt status for it. 



> Also, race has NOTHING to do with this topic and I tire of hearing that false premise inserted time and again on the gay marriage subject.  Gays are an incomplete grouping of sexually deviant behaviors.  They are NOT a race of people.  They are an as-yet unrecognized religion, de facto.  A cult.  And cults don't get special protections from the 14th or Loving or any of the rest of it.



Homosexuality is genetic just like race.  Its not a cult, nor is homosexual sex per se deviant. 

I'm pretty sure God intended our mouths for talking and eating (and for the right wingers - breathing)  - so why do so many straight guys stick their penises in their girlfriend or wive's mouth? Sounds like deviant behavior to me! It can't possibly result in pregancy, thus it is an abomination before the lord! (woman on top also is deviant, but you know that I"m sure)


----------



## Andylusion

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions" did you not get?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the first amendment actually says you ignorant moron. Pick up a Constitution, shut your stupid mouth,  and try READING for a change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to grasp the heritage of the Christian world view do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I studied Christianity 1 hour a day, 5 days a week, 9 months a year, for 8 years total. However, unlike you - it wasn't the only thing I studied. So go fuck yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians were slaughtered, torn apart by lions, thrown into freezing water, all because they were not willing to change their views, just because some arrogant windbags in society thought we had to be like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like how your history of Christianity ends at Constantine! What an ignorant fucktwad you are! If you knew history you'd realize that Christians have quite a long history of murder in the name of God - in fact, they have quite a long history of murdered OTHER CHRISTIANS in the name of God. There's a place, maybe you've heard of it, called "England". You should check out their religious history!
> 
> I wouldn't worry one bit about gay weddings at your Church, BTW. Most of the gay people I know don't want to get married in a shit-hole operated by total morons. Its only the Churchs that actually provide a decent place for folks to get married that have to worry about the gays.
Click to expand...


Would that make a difference?

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

So do you see "unless they rent out the church for religious ceremonies" in there?   If not, then what was the point of your complaint?

No... you don't.   My argument has not changed.

Yet even then, what part of:


> I do not care what you think about me... about my church.... about my views... or about the law. I will go to court... I will go to jail.... I will go to prison.... on this issue.



did you not grasp?

I don't care.    Do you understand?  I do not care.

Let's pretend for a moment that the constitution did say that we have accommodate everyone?   I *STILL* do not care.

You need to grasp who you are talking to.   I'm not a 'cultural christian', where I'm just christian because everyone I know, and all my neighbors are christians.

I'm not a 'social christian', where I'm only a christian, because all my friends and buddies are all christians, and I like to hang out and chat at the church.

I'm not a 'hereditary christian' where I'm just a christian because will my father was, and my grand father was, and therefore I am just because.... well that's what the family was.

I am an actual Christian.  I believe that there was in fact a man named Jesus of Nazareth.   That he was born of a virgin, killed on a cross, and rose up from the dead, and is waiting in Heaven for his coming return, which on an explicitly personal note, I think will happen in the next century.

Jesus is King. Jesus is Lord.  And Jesus is G-d.

So when you say "The constitution doesn't say that"....  I don't care.

The absolute highest authority in my life, is not the police, the Supreme Court, the President, or even the constitution.    I obey all of those authorities up to the point where they conflict with G-d.   The moment they conflict with G-d, G-d wins, they lose.

Lastly, did I not already tell you I don't care what you think of my church?  Yet you try and insult something you have no information about.   What does that say about you?

Here's the reality.  My Church is a target, and that is one of the reasons this topic concerns me.   My church is the largest in the area.  We have some of the best facilities in our city.  We have 20 acres of land, seating for 1000 people or more depending room configuration, a reception area, carpeted multipurpose room, child care facilities, and many other amenities I could list.   There is no better place for a wedding than our church, which is exactly why people are willing to pay us to use it.

But we're not going to 'marry' homos.  Marriage is between a man and a woman, as defined by G-d.  It's not possible to marry two men or two women.     Trying to do that is an abomination against G-d.  We're not going to do it.

Period.   Not going to do it.  Not an option, not up for discussion, don't care what anyone says on the matter.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Seawytch said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...those churches will be a minority soon enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Government has no grounds to impose their views on a religious institution that dictates the government's view over the individual freedom of expression of one's own religious conscience - as clearly stated under the First Amendment. Those who feel that government CAN impose it's will over an individual's religious conscience, quite honestly has no knowledge of the foundational basis nor its historical significance surrounding the amendment's intended purpose. In short they need a lesson in American history, backed up with historical views of those Founders that were actually present where the Amendment was being drafted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you blathering about? You response has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.
Click to expand...


Churches can NOT be forced to adapt to a behavior belief or lifestyle that contradicts with their own freedom of religious expression or conscience. I don't care if that behavior acceptance comes from a particular group or the Federal Government itself, it goes against the First Amendment and what our Founders had originally intended for "freedom of religion" without government intervention, that's what "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" clearly states and those who drafted our Constitution intended. I sometimes wonder if people even bother to educate themselves in early American history. If they had, this thread would have been settled within the first few posts.


----------



## Andylusion

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Government has no grounds to impose their views on a religious institution that dictates the government's view over the individual freedom of expression of one's own religious conscience - as clearly stated under the First Amendment. Those who feel that government CAN impose it's will over an individual's religious conscience, quite honestly has no knowledge of the foundational basis nor its historical significance surrounding the amendment's intended purpose. In short they need a lesson in American history, backed up with historical views of those Founders that were actually present where the Amendment was being drafted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you blathering about? You response has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches can NOT be forced to adapt to a behavior belief or lifestyle that contradicts with their own freedom of religious expression or conscience. I don't care if that behavior acceptance comes from a particular group or the Federal Government itself, it goes against the First Amendment and what our Founders had originally intended for "freedom of religion" without government intervention, that's what "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" clearly states and those who drafted our Constitution intended. I sometimes wonder if people even bother to educate themselves in early American history. If they had, this thread would have been settled within the first few posts.
Click to expand...


You have to remember, there is a large section of the population today that doesn't care about the rights they have, but rather, want rights that don't exist, and would even like to have the 'right' to force others to adapt to themselves.

It's not that they don't know, but that they actively wish to tare down.


----------



## Cecilie1200

WorldWatcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...
> 
> 1.  ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 2.  ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 3.  ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all those instances, the beliefs of the Churches were respected.   Gays do not respect the beliefs of others and demand that religious principles be violated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt blacks respect Churches that deny them equal treatment also.
> 
> Interracial Couple Spurned - ABC News
> Church bans interracial marriages; ?I am not racist? *said former pastor* - NY Daily News
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


What you lefties never understand is that you do not have to respect - or like - the person in order to respect that person's rights.  I neither respect nor like you.  In fact, I think you're the (nominally) human equivalent of the stuff restaurants clean out of their grease traps.  That in no way affects the fact that I recognize that you have rights, and respect your legal right to exercise those rights.

I think the use to which you put your right to freedom of speech is abhorrent in its stupidity and arrogance, but I would never consider allowing the government to in any way prevent you from doing it.

Homosexuals need to stop gazing at their belly-buttons and petting their little woes . . . "sob, sob, I'm an outcast, I'm abused" . . . wrap their self-absorbed brains around the three facts that 1) they will never force everyone to like them, 2) they do not NEED to force everyone to like them, and 3) the more they try to force everyone to like them, or at least pretend that they do, the more people they convince to NOT like them, and then get the fuck on with their pathetic lives.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We" are those of "us" who choose not to marry homos in our churches, cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...those churches will be a minority soon enough.
Click to expand...


It amuses me that lefties, desperate as they are for the illusion of popularity, inclusion, and normality, think that everyone in the world aspires to that.  You really cannot grasp that the Church does not care, and has never cared, about whether they're "the minority" or not.  They usually are, and that suits them fine.  Your approbation is not required or requested, and frankly, the Church would prefer not to have it, since it would be seen as an indication that they're doing something wrong.

You really don't even bother to try to understand the people you vilify and demonize, do you?  You're like a kid drawing horns on people's pictures:  smear and move on.  No thought required.


----------



## Cecilie1200

WorldWatcher said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> JIM NABORS ( GOMER PYLE )-THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that you post Jim Nabors singing "To Dream the Impossible Dream", a man that after a 38 year relationship with his long term partner was finally able to marry that partner a month after Same-sex Civil Marriage became legal in Washington State.
> 
> I guess he and his husbands dreams really did come true.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


He spent a lot of time dreaming about the approval of others, did he?  Can't imagine why.  Did it make his relationship more "real"?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Indofred said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO.
> Why should the rights of one section of the community be forced upon the other, ignoring their rights?
> The same goes in reverse, the church, whilst being able to remain free to live by the rules of their bible, should not force its opinions on sections of society that don't wish to follow those rules.
> The same applies to all other religious groups.
Click to expand...


I have to wonder why you felt the need to add the part about churches "forcing their opinions on others".  Have you an example of that actually happening, or anyone even trying to make it happen, that required that _caveat_, or did you just think it made you sound "fair"?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Katzndogz said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Generally true until churches go into public sector businesses; they lose the cover of the 1st Amendment and rightfully so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately your reasoning is not historically accurate when you consider the bible was a part of required reading in "public" schools during our nation's early founding (even well after the US Constitution was passed). If your interpretational view was accurate, no religious book (especially the bible) would ever have been a part of required educational teaching in American history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the Bible was required reading in the nation's early days.  It would never have been different.   Books were expensive.   Few people owned a book almost no one could buy a book for use in a school.   Everyone had a Bible.
Click to expand...


And, of course, the Bible has always been and continues to be the #1 source of reference material for other literature, which means you are going to lose a lot of understanding of those texts if you have no knowledge of the Bible.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Crystalclear said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with gay weddings but, with that in mind, why do you have to promote hatred of homosexuals, when I disagree with the idea but don't feel the need to hate anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Ben and a rapidly growing number of like minded people are tired of beimg manipulated by an organized gang of facist queers - who think they have the right to bulldoze over society and demand it be rebuilt it to suit their depraved desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And then there are the religious fascists who want to forcibly bring morals to groups who don't agree with religious values.
Click to expand...


I'm sure I'm not the only one who looked in vain for the substantiated example that CERTAINLY was intended to follow that statement.  Perhaps your computer accidentally cut that part of your post off?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Crystalclear said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy, by banning gay marriage (officialy, not only religious), banning abortion, banning terminally ill patients to commit suicide with approval of a physician and some trying to mix religion and politics.
Click to expand...


Uh huh.  Saying, "You cannot do bad things to other people" is DEFINITELY equivalent to saying, "You must perform actions you do not agree with."  Yup.  Absolutely.  As is saying, "You cannot force us to recognize and sanction things we do not agree with" is exactly the same as saying, "You must recognize and sanction things you do not agree with".  You betcha.

Epic fail.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Crystalclear said:


> It's always the same with social right-wingers. They ask you to provide examples and then don't reply anymore.



Hey, dimwit, when you're posting after midnight, you might want to consider that people GO TO BED.  Just because your life revolves around the Internet doesn't mean other people don't have to get up the next morning.

Why don't you try not being such a spoiled, demanding little punk and fucking wait until people get around to the incredibly low place you occupy on their priority lists?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Crystalclear said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy, by banning gay marriage (officialy, not only religious), banning abortion, banning terminally ill patients to commit suicide with approval of a physician and some trying to mix religion and politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You force babies to die,
> 
> 2.you want to also kill the old, infirm, weak, and confused...
> 
> 3. and you force us to subsidize a huge population of disgusting, criminal, and diseased freaks.
> 
> 4. I think your days of forcing need to come to an end. It is time you were brought to heel. As humans, we abide by a code of honor and behavior..if you do not wish to abide by it...then by all means, remove yourself from our society. Create your own. Elsewhere. With your own kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. No, I believe in the woman's right to abortion. Forcing a mother to have a baby will not work.
Click to expand...


You must not be a woman.  I've had three children, and the only thing "forcing" me to have them was Mother Nature, when those contractions started.  Your view is the equivalent of me saying that the state is "forcing" me to be divorced because it won't let me kill my ex-husband.  Illogical much?



Crystalclear said:


> 2. No, people who are very ill and are in a lot of pain who know that they will die in 3 weeks should have the right to end their suffering. Nobody forces them to die, it's their own choice. It's more humane than forcing the ill to stay alive and suffer.



They already have the "right" to "end their suffering".  What are we going to do, have a seance and put their ghosts on trial?  You wanna die?  Off yourself, with my blessing.  That's not the same as making it okay and legal for someone else to kill you, even if you want them to because you're too damned chickenshit to do it yourself.  Butch up and stop trying to drag other people into your fuckery.



Crystalclear said:


> 3. No, just giving the same rights to a group of people, I don't like discrimination.



Yes, I have no doubt that you have an utterly miserable time making decisions, judging by the standards of thought and logic exhibited here.

What "right" is it you think you're trying to award homosexuals that you think other people have?  And despite your lack of experience in doing so, think carefully about your answer.



Crystalclear said:


> 4. Totally BS, I don't force anyone anything. Instead, I support freedom to let people decide their own lifes and do not support a theocracy that decides how people should live their lifes. Your group of religious fundamentalists who want to their force their values onto the rest of society are by far a minority.



Riiiiight.  You're just ALL about live-and-let-live . . . until someone wants their life to include acting in a way that you don't approve of, and don't even bother to try to deny it.  You'll just embarrass yourself.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Katzndogz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are gay churches all over the place.  That's not good enough.  It's way more fun to force someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...
> 
> 1.  ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 2.  ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 3.  ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all those instances, the beliefs of the Churches were respected.   Gays do not respect the beliefs of others and demand that religious principles be violated.
Click to expand...


Ignorant nonsense and demagoguery.  

Gay Americans seek only their comprehensive civil liberties, in particular the right to access marriage law they're eligible to participate in, having nothing whatsoever to do with private organizations such as churches, who remain at liberty to practice their faith as they see fit, absent interference from the state.


----------



## RandallFlagg

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a concrete example of any time the United Sates (since we have a Constitution) government has forces a Church to perform a religious wedding ceremony...
> 
> 1.  ...in the case of interracial marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 2.  ...in the case of interfaith marriage when such marriage are claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 3.  ...in the case of a marriage when one or more of the participants are divorced for reasons claimed to be against the beliefs of that Church?
> 
> 4. ...And since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal for a decade, the case of a same-sex marriage when such marriages are claimed to be against the religious beliefs of a Church?​
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all those instances, the beliefs of the Churches were respected.   Gays do not respect the beliefs of others and demand that religious principles be violated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorant nonsense and demagoguery.
> 
> Gay Americans seek only their comprehensive civil liberties, in particular the right to access marriage law they're eligible to participate in, having nothing whatsoever to do with private organizations such as churches, who remain at liberty to practice their faith as they see fit, absent interference from the state.
Click to expand...




....and the hypocrite speaks.  And, as usual is full of shit.


----------



## Crystalclear

Cecilie1200 said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always the same with social right-wingers. They ask you to provide examples and then don't reply anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, dimwit, when you're posting after midnight, you might want to consider that people GO TO BED.  Just because your life revolves around the Internet doesn't mean other people don't have to get up the next morning.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you try not being such a spoiled, demanding little punk and fucking wait until people get around to the incredibly low place you occupy on their priority lists?
Click to expand...



Wrong 2 times. It's not that my life revolves around the Internet. I come from Europe, so we have a time difference . For me, it is now late in the morning.
Included the fact that the one I was talking to kept responding on other posts, but tried real hard to ignore my post.


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We" are those of "us" who choose not to marry homos in our churches, cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...those churches will be a minority soon enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amuses me that lefties, desperate as they are for the illusion of popularity, inclusion, and normality, think that everyone in the world aspires to that.  You really cannot grasp that the Church does not care, and has never cared, about whether they're "the minority" or not.  They usually are, and that suits them fine.  Your approbation is not required or requested, and frankly, the Church would prefer not to have it, since it would be seen as an indication that they're doing something wrong.
> 
> You really don't even bother to try to understand the people you vilify and demonize, do you?  You're like a kid drawing horns on people's pictures:  smear and move on.  No thought required.
Click to expand...


It's really adorable that you think Churches don't care. Of course they care. There were plenty of churches that swore they'd never let a good, god fearing white person marry one of those N words in their church, but they did. 

It's just a matter of time...


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Ben and a rapidly growing number of like minded people are tired of beimg manipulated by an organized gang of facist queers - who think they have the right to bulldoze over society and demand it be rebuilt it to suit their depraved desires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then there are the religious fascists who want to forcibly bring morals to groups who don't agree with religious values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure I'm not the only one who looked in vain for the substantiated example that CERTAINLY was intended to follow that statement.  Perhaps your computer accidentally cut that part of your post off?
Click to expand...


Blue Laws


----------



## Freewill

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...those churches will be a minority soon enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amuses me that lefties, desperate as they are for the illusion of popularity, inclusion, and normality, think that everyone in the world aspires to that.  You really cannot grasp that the Church does not care, and has never cared, about whether they're "the minority" or not.  They usually are, and that suits them fine.  Your approbation is not required or requested, and frankly, the Church would prefer not to have it, since it would be seen as an indication that they're doing something wrong.
> 
> You really don't even bother to try to understand the people you vilify and demonize, do you?  You're like a kid drawing horns on people's pictures:  smear and move on.  No thought required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's really adorable that you think Churches don't care. Of course they care. There were plenty of churches that swore they'd never let a good, god fearing white person marry one of those N words in their church, but they did.
> 
> It's just a matter of time...
Click to expand...


I will bet money that for every 1 "church" that may have taken a  position against bi-racial marriage 10 fought the fight against discrimination.  Just as if it were not for the "church" the democrat party would still be putting the black man in chains.  Homosexuality is different then being born of a certain color.  Homosexuality is not natural thus it goes against the natural laws.  Which means that society can just accepts the behavior but for the "church" it is obviously harder to accept that which goes against God's natural law.


----------



## Gadawg73

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We" are those of "us" who choose not to marry homos in our churches, cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...those churches will be a minority soon enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amuses me that lefties, desperate as they are for the illusion of popularity, inclusion, and normality, think that everyone in the world aspires to that.  You really cannot grasp that the Church does not care, and has never cared, about whether they're "the minority" or not.  They usually are, and that suits them fine.  Your approbation is not required or requested, and frankly, the Church would prefer not to have it, since it would be seen as an indication that they're doing something wrong.
> 
> You really don't even bother to try to understand the people you vilify and demonize, do you?  You're like a kid drawing horns on people's pictures:  smear and move on.  No thought required.
Click to expand...


I R NOT a "leftie"

Own 3 businesses and vote Republican since 1972. Voted against Carter TWICE.

As hard as you folks keep to trying to make this thing a "conservative versus leftie" thing the stupider it makes the GOP look.

This is a rights issue. Gay folk want equal rights.

And it is absurd that anyone would rally around a political party to force government to deny them equal rights. 

Ridiculous is the only word that comes to mind. 
Focus on winning elections and leave the rest to God.


----------



## Gadawg73

Freewill said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It amuses me that lefties, desperate as they are for the illusion of popularity, inclusion, and normality, think that everyone in the world aspires to that.  You really cannot grasp that the Church does not care, and has never cared, about whether they're "the minority" or not.  They usually are, and that suits them fine.  Your approbation is not required or requested, and frankly, the Church would prefer not to have it, since it would be seen as an indication that they're doing something wrong.
> 
> You really don't even bother to try to understand the people you vilify and demonize, do you?  You're like a kid drawing horns on people's pictures:  smear and move on.  No thought required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really adorable that you think Churches don't care. Of course they care. There were plenty of churches that swore they'd never let a good, god fearing white person marry one of those N words in their church, but they did.
> 
> It's just a matter of time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will bet money that for every 1 "church" that may have taken a  position against bi-racial marriage 10 fought the fight against discrimination.  Just as if it were not for the "church" the democrat party would still be putting the black man in chains.  Homosexuality is different then being born of a certain color.  Homosexuality is not natural thus it goes against the natural laws.  Which means that society can just accepts the behavior but for the "church" it is obviously harder to accept that which goes against God's natural law.
Click to expand...




Son, you would lose all your $$$ with that foolish bet.
You would have better luck with Russian roulette. 
Fun game for a betting man like you.


----------



## GreenBean

Gadawg73 said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really adorable that you think Churches don't care. Of course they care. There were plenty of churches that swore they'd never let a good, god fearing white person marry one of those N words in their church, but they did.
> 
> It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will bet money that for every 1 "church" that may have taken a  position against bi-racial marriage 10 fought the fight against discrimination.  Just as if it were not for the "church" the democrat party would still be putting the black man in chains.  Homosexuality is different then being born of a certain color.  Homosexuality is not natural thus it goes against the natural laws.  Which means that society can just accepts the behavior but for the "church" it is obviously harder to accept that which goes against God's natural law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Son, you would lose all your $$$ with that foolish bet.
> You would have better luck with Russian roulette.
> Fun game for a betting man like you.
Click to expand...


So you make a statement like that - so cock sure in your opinion being fact - that you can't present any facts to prove your opinion - you're a truly opinionated little fella aren't you ? do you have any basis for those opinions other a "gut feeling" ? 

Come on "Bombs away"  - put your money where your mouth is - instead of putting some one elses cock sure attitude in it .  Put up or shut up


----------



## Seawytch

Freewill said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It amuses me that lefties, desperate as they are for the illusion of popularity, inclusion, and normality, think that everyone in the world aspires to that.  You really cannot grasp that the Church does not care, and has never cared, about whether they're "the minority" or not.  They usually are, and that suits them fine.  Your approbation is not required or requested, and frankly, the Church would prefer not to have it, since it would be seen as an indication that they're doing something wrong.
> 
> You really don't even bother to try to understand the people you vilify and demonize, do you?  You're like a kid drawing horns on people's pictures:  smear and move on.  No thought required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really adorable that you think Churches don't care. Of course they care. There were plenty of churches that swore they'd never let a good, god fearing white person marry one of those N words in their church, but they did.
> 
> It's just a matter of time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will bet money that for every 1 "church" that may have taken a  position against bi-racial marriage 10 fought the fight against discrimination.  Just as if it were not for the "church" the democrat party would still be putting the black man in chains.  Homosexuality is different then being born of a certain color.  Homosexuality is not natural thus it goes against the natural laws.  Which means that society can just accepts the behavior but for the "church" it is obviously harder to accept that which goes against God's natural law.
Click to expand...


You'd lose. 

The bible was used as justification by both sides of the segregation argument. God and the bible were well used, even in arguments supporting anti miscegenation laws _in court_.

_Connections and alliances so *unnatural *that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion. _(Virginia Supreme Court ruling, 1878) 

_*Almighty God *created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. _(Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)

_"The amalgamation of the races is not only *unnatural*, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."_ (Scott v. Georgia 1869)

_"By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because *natural instinct* revolts at it as wrong." _(Senator James R. Doolittle, 1863)

_moral or social equality between the different racesdoes not in fact exist, and never can. *The God of nature made* it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity._ (Georgia Supreme Court 1869)

Such familiar language eh?

But, but, but...they were wrong and you are right...right?


----------



## Crystalclear

Gadawg73 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...those churches will be a minority soon enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amuses me that lefties, desperate as they are for the illusion of popularity, inclusion, and normality, think that everyone in the world aspires to that.  You really cannot grasp that the Church does not care, and has never cared, about whether they're "the minority" or not.  They usually are, and that suits them fine.  Your approbation is not required or requested, and frankly, the Church would prefer not to have it, since it would be seen as an indication that they're doing something wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't even bother to try to understand the people you vilify and demonize, do you?  You're like a kid drawing horns on people's pictures:  smear and move on.  No thought required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I R NOT a "leftie"
> 
> 
> 
> Own 3 businesses and vote Republican since 1972. Voted against Carter TWICE.
> 
> 
> 
> As hard as you folks keep to trying to make this thing a "conservative versus leftie" thing the stupider it makes the GOP look.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rights issue. Gay folk want equal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> And it is absurd that anyone would rally around a political party to force government to deny them equal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous is the only word that comes to mind.
> 
> Focus on winning elections and leave the rest to God.
Click to expand...


I feel the same about this. I consider myself to be more of a right-winger than a left-winger, but when you are not a religious right-winger that opposes equal right for people, you are immediately called a 'leftie' or 'libtard'.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really adorable that you think Churches don't care. Of course they care. There were plenty of churches that swore they'd never let a good, god fearing white person marry one of those N words in their church, but they did.
> 
> It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will bet money that for every 1 "church" that may have taken a  position against bi-racial marriage 10 fought the fight against discrimination.  Just as if it were not for the "church" the democrat party would still be putting the black man in chains.  Homosexuality is different then being born of a certain color.  Homosexuality is not natural thus it goes against the natural laws.  Which means that society can just accepts the behavior but for the "church" it is obviously harder to accept that which goes against God's natural law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd lose.
> 
> The bible was used as justification by both sides of the segregation argument. God and the bible were well used, even in arguments supporting anti miscegenation laws _in court_.
> 
> _Connections and alliances so *unnatural *that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion. _(Virginia Supreme Court ruling, 1878)
> 
> _*Almighty God *created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. _(Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)
> 
> _"The amalgamation of the races is not only *unnatural*, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."_ (Scott v. Georgia 1869)
> 
> _"By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because *natural instinct* revolts at it as wrong." _(Senator James R. Doolittle, 1863)
> 
> _moral or social equality between the different racesdoes not in fact exist, and never can. *The God of nature made* it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity._ (Georgia Supreme Court 1869)
> 
> Such familiar language eh?
> 
> But, but, but...they were wrong and you are right...right?
Click to expand...




Sorry, wytchey.   But sexual orientation and race are not analogous.   Repeating it 100 times does not make it so.


----------



## GISMYS

Obama&#8217;s State Department, no longer concerned with any kind of actual foreign policy, is now focusing on events like it&#8217;s annual Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies Pride Day. At this year&#8217;s event, one of the keynote speakers was Masha Gessen, noted LGBT Mafia spokesman. Gessen is not simply an advocate for queer marriage, she states that the true aim of the LGBT Mafia is the removal of marriage altogether. She said this at the Sydney Writers Festival in 2012:


&#8220;I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we&#8217;re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don&#8217;t think it should exist.&#8221;
NTEB


----------



## GISMYS

This is the true intent of the LGBT Mafia, and of Barack Obama, with their relentless push to force queer values on America. Marriage is an institution ordained by God Himself in the book of Genesis. One man, one woman, that is what marriage is. This attack on marriage is a spiritual attack, led by the Devil himself, and that&#8217;s what makes it all the more terrifying. Barack Obama hates heterosexual marriage, and in the spirit of Antichrist is doing everything he can do to cripple it.

By the time Obama leaves office, if he ever does, the damage he will have inflicted on this nation will be irreversible. No president who would come after him will take the time to undo what has been done. It&#8217;s just too much to clean up.

America has fallen, and she can&#8217;t get up.
NTEB


----------



## Redfish

GISMYS said:


> This is the true intent of the LGBT Mafia, and of Barack Obama, with their relentless push to force queer values on America. Marriage is an institution ordained by God Himself in the book of Genesis. One man, one woman, that is what marriage is. This attack on marriage is a spiritual attack, led by the Devil himself, and thats what makes it all the more terrifying. Barack Obama hates heterosexual marriage, and in the spirit of Antichrist is doing everything he can do to cripple it.
> 
> By the time Obama leaves office, if he ever does, the damage he will have inflicted on this nation will be irreversible. No president who would come after him will take the time to undo what has been done. Its just too much to clean up.
> 
> America has fallen, and she cant get up.
> NTEB





The liberal agenda as implemented by the kenyan messiah has done much damage to this country.   But, we cannot give up, we can beat them,  freedom can reclaim the country.   We are on the edge of the abyss, but we can survive.   The elections of Nov 2014 and 2016are the most critical in our history.


----------



## GISMYS

Redfish said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the true intent of the LGBT Mafia, and of Barack Obama, with their relentless push to force queer values on America. Marriage is an institution ordained by God Himself in the book of Genesis. One man, one woman, that is what marriage is. This attack on marriage is a spiritual attack, led by the Devil himself, and thats what makes it all the more terrifying. Barack Obama hates heterosexual marriage, and in the spirit of Antichrist is doing everything he can do to cripple it.
> 
> By the time Obama leaves office, if he ever does, the damage he will have inflicted on this nation will be irreversible. No president who would come after him will take the time to undo what has been done. Its just too much to clean up.
> 
> America has fallen, and she cant get up.
> NTEB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal agenda as implemented by the kenyan messiah has done much damage to this country.   But, we cannot give up, we can beat them,  freedom can reclaim the country.   We are on the edge of the abyss, but we can survive.   The elections of Nov 2014 and 2016are the most critical in our history.
Click to expand...




&#9668; 2 Chronicles 7:14 &#9658; 
if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will bet money that for every 1 "church" that may have taken a  position against bi-racial marriage 10 fought the fight against discrimination.  Just as if it were not for the "church" the democrat party would still be putting the black man in chains.  Homosexuality is different then being born of a certain color.  Homosexuality is not natural thus it goes against the natural laws.  Which means that society can just accepts the behavior but for the "church" it is obviously harder to accept that which goes against God's natural law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd lose.
> 
> 
> 
> The bible was used as justification by both sides of the segregation argument. God and the bible were well used, even in arguments supporting anti miscegenation laws _in court_.
> 
> 
> 
> _Connections and alliances so *unnatural *that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion. _(Virginia Supreme Court ruling, 1878)
> 
> 
> 
> _*Almighty God *created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. _(Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)
> 
> 
> 
> _"The amalgamation of the races is not only *unnatural*, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."_ (Scott v. Georgia 1869)
> 
> 
> 
> _"By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because *natural instinct* revolts at it as wrong." _(Senator James R. Doolittle, 1863)
> 
> 
> 
> _moral or social equality between the different racesdoes not in fact exist, and never can. *The God of nature made* it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity._ (Georgia Supreme Court 1869)
> 
> 
> 
> Such familiar language eh?
> 
> 
> 
> But, but, but...they were wrong and you are right...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, wytchey.   But sexual orientation and race are not analogous.   Repeating it 100 times does not make it so.
Click to expand...



They were wrong but you're right...right?


----------



## Cecilie1200

koshergrl said:


> Refusing to provide a service that someone demands, when the person who demands it is welcome to find another provider for the same service, is not *forcing* our values on anybody.
> 
> It's like progressive pigs have never been told "no" in their lives, the little creeps.



More like they've been told nothing but, and want to use the government to get them what they can't get by their own personal desirability.


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd lose.
> 
> The bible was used as justification by both sides of the segregation argument. God and the bible were well used, even in arguments supporting anti miscegenation laws _in court_.
> 
> _Connections and alliances so *unnatural *that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion. _(Virginia Supreme Court ruling, 1878)
> 
> _*Almighty God *created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. _(Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)
> 
> 
> 
> _"The amalgamation of the races is not only *unnatural*, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."_ (Scott v. Georgia 1869)
> 
> 
> 
> _"By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because *natural instinct* revolts at it as wrong." _(Senator James R. Doolittle, 1863)
> 
> 
> 
> _moral or social equality between the different racesdoes not in fact exist, and never can. *The God of nature made* it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity._ (Georgia Supreme Court 1869)
> 
> 
> 
> Such familiar language eh?
> 
> 
> 
> But, but, but...they were wrong and you are right...right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, wytchey.   But sexual orientation and race are not analogous.   Repeating it 100 times does not make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They were wrong but you're right...right?
Click to expand...


Yes, they are wrong.... and she is right.

You do understand that simply getting a person with a title, or a degree, to say something, doesn't automatically mean it's true.... right?    Are are you one of those mindless lemmings that blindly believes anything some 'important person' says must be true?


----------



## Gadawg73

GreenBean said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will bet money that for every 1 "church" that may have taken a  position against bi-racial marriage 10 fought the fight against discrimination.  Just as if it were not for the "church" the democrat party would still be putting the black man in chains.  Homosexuality is different then being born of a certain color.  Homosexuality is not natural thus it goes against the natural laws.  Which means that society can just accepts the behavior but for the "church" it is obviously harder to accept that which goes against God's natural law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Son, you would lose all your $$$ with that foolish bet.
> You would have better luck with Russian roulette.
> Fun game for a betting man like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you make a statement like that - so cock sure in your opinion being fact - that you can't present any facts to prove your opinion - you're a truly opinionated little fella aren't you ? do you have any basis for those opinions other a "gut feeling" ?
> 
> Come on "Bombs away"  - put your money where your mouth is - instead of putting some one elses cock sure attitude in it .  Put up or shut up
Click to expand...


I am from the deep south. 95 out of 100 churches OPPOSED interracial marriage.
Hell, they opposed opening their doors to accept black folks for a long time.
Interracial marriage was against the law in Alabama until 2000.
95% of the churches there would not marry an interracial couple before that. They wouldn't be prosecuted but it gave them the excuse they needed.
As of last year 21% of Alabama Republican voters still opposed interracial marriage Pew Research Center.
Loving overturned those laws in 1967 but that was for criminal charges only but the states still kept the laws and most all churches stuck by it.
But the subject is the churches down here opposing it and not what the law is after Loving.
Bob Jones University opposed it until 2000.
Real world I have lived in.
How are things in Lah Lah land today?


----------



## Cecilie1200

OohPooPahDoo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex marriage ceremony"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Note this is just the _facilities_. I don't see anything that requires the priest or pastor of the Church perform the ceremony - unless of course he's in the business of performing wedding ceremonies for non-members for a fee.
Click to expand...


Oh, okay.  So it's okay to force the church to rent its facilities to someone it doesn't want to, as long as you don't ALSO force the pastor to participate in the event?  So much for private property ownership.  That church raised the money to build the building, pays the mortgage if there is one, and pays all the bills and upkeep, but the building REALLY belongs to the government and anyone who can convince the government to expropriate it for them.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't teaching them to be tolerant of others.
> 
> They're teaching them the specifics of depraved sex acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Links to curriculum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, people are saying that churches should marry gays. Have you become a compulsive liar, or have you always been one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who is saying that? Churches will be "forced" to more inclusive through public opinion, not government intervention.
Click to expand...


Yes, because the Church has such a history of knuckling under to peer pressure.


----------



## Gadawg73

Redfish said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the true intent of the LGBT Mafia, and of Barack Obama, with their relentless push to force queer values on America. Marriage is an institution ordained by God Himself in the book of Genesis. One man, one woman, that is what marriage is. This attack on marriage is a spiritual attack, led by the Devil himself, and thats what makes it all the more terrifying. Barack Obama hates heterosexual marriage, and in the spirit of Antichrist is doing everything he can do to cripple it.
> 
> By the time Obama leaves office, if he ever does, the damage he will have inflicted on this nation will be irreversible. No president who would come after him will take the time to undo what has been done. Its just too much to clean up.
> 
> America has fallen, and she cant get up.
> NTEB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal agenda as implemented by the kenyan messiah has done much damage to this country.   But, we cannot give up, we can beat them,  freedom can reclaim the country.   We are on the edge of the abyss, but we can survive.   The elections of Nov 2014 and 2016are the most critical in our history.
Click to expand...


I R Not a liberal and have never had any "liberal agenda", have owned 3 businesses for over 30 years. 

Gay marriage has nothing to do with being a strong fiscal conservative. It affects no one. 

Time for the busy body mother hens to quit being sissies and focus on beating Democrats at the polls. There are many gays and lesbians that vote GOP now and as soon as folks quit acting like children more will come.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GreenBean said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will bet money that for every 1 "church" that may have taken a  position against bi-racial marriage 10 fought the fight against discrimination.  Just as if it were not for the "church" the democrat party would still be putting the black man in chains.  Homosexuality is different then being born of a certain color.  Homosexuality is not natural thus it goes against the natural laws.  Which means that society can just accepts the behavior but for the "church" it is obviously harder to accept that which goes against God's natural law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Son, you would lose all your $$$ with that foolish bet.
> You would have better luck with Russian roulette.
> Fun game for a betting man like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you make a statement like that - so cock sure in your opinion being fact - that you can't present any facts to prove your opinion - you're a truly opinionated little fella aren't you ? do you have any basis for those opinions other a "gut feeling" ?
> 
> Come on "Bombs away"  - put your money where your mouth is - instead of putting some one elses cock sure attitude in it .  Put up or shut up
Click to expand...


Greenbean, you are a 'blow hard' (yeah, pun intended) with your silly statement.

You make a silly statement about what churches will or will not do in a given situation without evidence, you get called out on it, and then you demand the other guy refute your non-evidenced affirmation.

That is not how it works, and you know it.

And, yup, my opinion is Gadawag is right and you are not.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will bet money that for every 1 "church" that may have taken a  position against bi-racial marriage 10 fought the fight against discrimination.  Just as if it were not for the "church" the democrat party would still be putting the black man in chains.  Homosexuality is different then being born of a certain color.  Homosexuality is not natural thus it goes against the natural laws.  Which means that society can just accepts the behavior but for the "church" it is obviously harder to accept that which goes against God's natural law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd lose.
> 
> The bible was used as justification by both sides of the segregation argument. God and the bible were well used, even in arguments supporting anti miscegenation laws _in court_.
> 
> _Connections and alliances so *unnatural *that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion. _(Virginia Supreme Court ruling, 1878)
> 
> _*Almighty God *created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. _(Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)
> 
> _"The amalgamation of the races is not only *unnatural*, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."_ (Scott v. Georgia 1869)
> 
> _"By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because *natural instinct* revolts at it as wrong." _(Senator James R. Doolittle, 1863)
> 
> _moral or social equality between the different racesdoes not in fact exist, and never can. *The God of nature made* it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity._ (Georgia Supreme Court 1869)
> 
> Such familiar language eh?
> 
> But, but, but...they were wrong and you are right...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, wytchey.   But sexual orientation and race are not analogous.   Repeating it 100 times does not make it so.
Click to expand...


In your mind only.  The courts disagree with you as you well know in that they have recognized the similarity between race and orientation when it comes to marriage.


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Why should churches be forced by fascists to perpetrate a farce ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Androw said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, wytchey.   But sexual orientation and race are not analogous.   Repeating it 100 times does not make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> They were wrong but you're right...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are wrong.... and she is right.  You do understand that simply getting a person with a title, or a degree, to say something, doesn't automatically mean it's true.... right?    Are are you one of those mindless lemmings that blindly believes anything some 'important person' says must be true?
Click to expand...

The programming of the far right now has them flailing for any certitude for their position.


----------



## JakeStarkey

LogikAndReazon said:


> Why should churches be forced by fascists to perpetrate a farce ?



The courts are doing nothing of the sort.


----------



## Cecilie1200

koshergrl said:


> "Module 2 of the program, which is called Understanding Adolescent Sexuality and Abstinence, offers an overview of reproductive anatomy, discusses messages about sex, discusses how people express themselves sexually [apparently reinforced by the poster], and the benefits of abstinence.
> 
> "According to HHS, in the original study that explored the effectiveness of the Making A Difference program, the participants were African-Americans, aged 11-13.
> Nevertheless, Ellis thinks the curriculum should change.
> _This has nothing to do with abstinence or sexual reproduction_, actually, a lot of these things, he said. I would like to see that this particular portion of the curriculum is removed from the school. "
> 
> Kansas Middle School: Poster Listing Sex Acts Part of 'Health and Science' Curriculum



It's amazing that these people expect parents to tolerate the schools having conversations with their children that would have them screaming for the cops if the next-door neighbor did it.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Son, you would lose all your $$$ with that foolish bet.
> You would have better luck with Russian roulette.
> Fun game for a betting man like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you make a statement like that - so cock sure in your opinion being fact - that you can't present any facts to prove your opinion - you're a truly opinionated little fella aren't you ? do you have any basis for those opinions other a "gut feeling" ?
> 
> Come on "Bombs away"  - put your money where your mouth is - instead of putting some one elses cock sure attitude in it .  Put up or shut up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am from the deep south. 95 out of 100 churches OPPOSED interracial marriage.
> Hell, they opposed opening their doors to accept black folks for a long time.
> Interracial marriage was against the law in Alabama until 2000.
> 95% of the churches there would not marry an interracial couple before that. They wouldn't be prosecuted but it gave them the excuse they needed.
> As of last year 21% of Alabama Republican voters still opposed interracial marriage Pew Research Center.
> Loving overturned those laws in 1967 but that was for criminal charges only but the states still kept the laws and most all churches stuck by it.
> But the subject is the churches down here opposing it and not what the law is after Loving.
> Bob Jones University opposed it until 2000.
> Real world I have lived in.
> How are things in Lah Lah land today?
Click to expand...


No, I agree with all of that.

And there certainly are many churches that change their views to fit the societal norms.    I completely agree with that statement.

There are thousands of churches that are that way.

However...  there are a minority of actual Christian, Bible believing churches, such as mine, that honestly do not care at all what society thinks.

The whole race crap, is just that.  There was nothing in the Bible that supports racism, and plenty that denies it.   Even from Genesis 1, we know that all mankind was created from just Adam and Eve..... well doesn't that sort of shatter the idea of Racism, given we obviously are all the same race?

Doesn't Acts 10:34 when it says "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" shatter the idea of Racism?

Does not Acts 8:26-40 say that G-d sent Philip to the Ethiopian court official?

Does that not shatter the idea of Racism?

So why did those churches promote racism?   I have no idea.  Ask them.  But it didn't come from Christianity or the Bible (which is what Christianity is based on).

And if you look at where the push to end slavery and racism came from, it was from Christianity.

Now Homosexuality, is completely different.  Unlike Racism which the Bible is explicitly against, Homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin.  It's wrong, and an abomination.

The only way a church can accept homosexuality, is if they abandon the Bible.   Given that the Bible is the fundamental basis for Christianity, that means they have to Abandon Christianity.

Yes, I am absolutely saying that any Church which accepts Homosexuality, is in fact NOT a Christian church.   Those two concepts are mutually exclusive.  You can't be both.   Not an option.

And for those of us who are real Christians, we will never accept homosexuality, and we don't care what the rest of you think.

Game over.  Have a nice day.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Links to curriculum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is saying that? Churches will be "forced" to more inclusive through public opinion, not government intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so seawytch.  The episcopals have suffered from an anti-gay civil war, and not only is the church near broke but attendance dwindles.  Perhaps some non-denomiationals will start up.  But basically organized religion's response to gays and the politically powerless have had an enduring negative effect.  The catholics will endure, as their laity has learned to just ignore Rome and the bishops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a 10% increase in gay friendly churches from 2009 to 2013. Young people aren't attending church and the number one reason? Not inclusive enough.
> 
> Churches will adapt or die.
Click to expand...


Fads come and go.  The Church endures, and history shows it's those "adaptations" - ie. those who betray their faith for worldly popularity - who end up dying out.

Children fall away from the beliefs that they're taught while they're young and arrogant and think that they can invent something new and different and smarter than anything that's come before, but they return to their foundations when they get older, learn wisdom, and begin to be buffeted about by the realities of life.


----------



## Gadawg73

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you make a statement like that - so cock sure in your opinion being fact - that you can't present any facts to prove your opinion - you're a truly opinionated little fella aren't you ? do you have any basis for those opinions other a "gut feeling" ?
> 
> Come on "Bombs away"  - put your money where your mouth is - instead of putting some one elses cock sure attitude in it .  Put up or shut up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am from the deep south. 95 out of 100 churches OPPOSED interracial marriage.
> Hell, they opposed opening their doors to accept black folks for a long time.
> Interracial marriage was against the law in Alabama until 2000.
> 95% of the churches there would not marry an interracial couple before that. They wouldn't be prosecuted but it gave them the excuse they needed.
> As of last year 21% of Alabama Republican voters still opposed interracial marriage Pew Research Center.
> Loving overturned those laws in 1967 but that was for criminal charges only but the states still kept the laws and most all churches stuck by it.
> But the subject is the churches down here opposing it and not what the law is after Loving.
> Bob Jones University opposed it until 2000.
> Real world I have lived in.
> How are things in Lah Lah land today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I agree with all of that.
> 
> And there certainly are many churches that change their views to fit the societal norms.    I completely agree with that statement.
> 
> There are thousands of churches that are that way.
> 
> However...  there are a minority of actual Christian, Bible believing churches, such as mine, that honestly do not care at all what society thinks.
> 
> The whole race crap, is just that.  There was nothing in the Bible that supports racism, and plenty that denies it.   Even from Genesis 1, we know that all mankind was created from just Adam and Eve..... well doesn't that sort of shatter the idea of Racism, given we obviously are all the same race?
> 
> Doesn't Acts 10:34 when it says "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" shatter the idea of Racism?
> 
> Does not Acts 8:26-40 say that G-d sent Philip to the Ethiopian court official?
> 
> Does that not shatter the idea of Racism?
> 
> So why did those churches promote racism?   I have no idea.  Ask them.  But it didn't come from Christianity or the Bible (which is what Christianity is based on).
> 
> And if you look at where the push to end slavery and racism came from, it was from Christianity.
> 
> Now Homosexuality, is completely different.  Unlike Racism which the Bible is explicitly against, Homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin.  It's wrong, and an abomination.
> 
> The only way a church can accept homosexuality, is if they abandon the Bible.   Given that the Bible is the fundamental basis for Christianity, that means they have to Abandon Christianity.
> 
> Yes, I am absolutely saying that any Church which accepts Homosexuality, is in fact NOT a Christian church.   Those two concepts are mutually exclusive.  You can't be both.   Not an option.
> 
> And for those of us who are real Christians, we will never accept homosexuality, and we don't care what the rest of you think.
> 
> Game over.  Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


Old Testament Laws do speak against homosexuality.
And eating pork is a sin under Old Testament.
If you eat bacon you are a sinner, same as homosexuality.
Exactly the same as sin is sin.
Jesus never condemned homosexuality and he WAS A JEW HIMSELF.
A rabbi Jesus was.
And the Jews that did condemn homosexuality in that time viewed Jesus as a radical for his day for his acceptance of everyone.
That is what Christianity is. 
If you are a Christian you never have to go around with a Big C on your game jersey.
They will know it by your actions. 

Most folks here talk like Tarzan but post like Jane.
Next time put your cleats and helmet on before you cross the lines. 
You need them.


----------



## Cecilie1200

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think they should be forced.
> 
> I know you think that by using the term "public opinion" you're somehow hiding the fact that you are saying that you think the churches should be forced, but it's all the same. Public opinion was AOK and 100 percent behind the "forcing" of Jews to get onto train cars, too. Those Jews voluntarily boarded those trains because they thought it was the right thing to do..because public opinion was against them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...just as churches were "forced" to perform interracial marriages...by public opinion. Remember the Mormons? They were among the last to be "forced" to accept blacks...by public opinion.
> 
> Really? Hitler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches were never forced to marry interracial couples, you nitwit.
> 
> You fail..and you keep on failing over and over and over again. I think perhaps you have drug induced brain damage.
Click to expand...


What's funny to me is that leftists think THEY were the ones leading the fight for racial equality - REAL racial equality, not this Affirmative Action bullshit - and dragging churches kicking and screaming behind them, when it was actually churches who fought to change public opinion on race.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am from the deep south. 95 out of 100 churches OPPOSED interracial marriage.
> Hell, they opposed opening their doors to accept black folks for a long time.
> Interracial marriage was against the law in Alabama until 2000.
> 95% of the churches there would not marry an interracial couple before that. They wouldn't be prosecuted but it gave them the excuse they needed.
> As of last year 21% of Alabama Republican voters still opposed interracial marriage Pew Research Center.
> Loving overturned those laws in 1967 but that was for criminal charges only but the states still kept the laws and most all churches stuck by it.
> But the subject is the churches down here opposing it and not what the law is after Loving.
> Bob Jones University opposed it until 2000.
> Real world I have lived in.
> How are things in Lah Lah land today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I agree with all of that.
> 
> And there certainly are many churches that change their views to fit the societal norms.    I completely agree with that statement.
> 
> There are thousands of churches that are that way.
> 
> However...  there are a minority of actual Christian, Bible believing churches, such as mine, that honestly do not care at all what society thinks.
> 
> The whole race crap, is just that.  There was nothing in the Bible that supports racism, and plenty that denies it.   Even from Genesis 1, we know that all mankind was created from just Adam and Eve..... well doesn't that sort of shatter the idea of Racism, given we obviously are all the same race?
> 
> Doesn't Acts 10:34 when it says "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" shatter the idea of Racism?
> 
> Does not Acts 8:26-40 say that G-d sent Philip to the Ethiopian court official?
> 
> Does that not shatter the idea of Racism?
> 
> So why did those churches promote racism?   I have no idea.  Ask them.  But it didn't come from Christianity or the Bible (which is what Christianity is based on).
> 
> And if you look at where the push to end slavery and racism came from, it was from Christianity.
> 
> Now Homosexuality, is completely different.  Unlike Racism which the Bible is explicitly against, Homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin.  It's wrong, and an abomination.
> 
> The only way a church can accept homosexuality, is if they abandon the Bible.   Given that the Bible is the fundamental basis for Christianity, that means they have to Abandon Christianity.
> 
> Yes, I am absolutely saying that any Church which accepts Homosexuality, is in fact NOT a Christian church.   Those two concepts are mutually exclusive.  You can't be both.   Not an option.
> 
> And for those of us who are real Christians, we will never accept homosexuality, and we don't care what the rest of you think.
> 
> Game over.  Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Old Testament Laws do speak against homosexuality.
> And eating pork is a sin under Old Testament.
> If you eat bacon you are a sinner, same as homosexuality.
> Exactly the same as sin is sin.
> Jesus never condemned homosexuality and he WAS A JEW HIMSELF.
> A rabbi Jesus was.
> And the Jews that did condemn homosexuality in that time viewed Jesus as a radical for his day for his acceptance of everyone.
> That is what Christianity is.
> If you are a Christian you never have to go around with a Big C on your game jersey.
> They will know it by your actions.
> 
> Most folks here talk like Tarzan but post like Jane.
> Next time put your cleats and helmet on before you cross the lines.
> You need them.
Click to expand...


What part of "we don't care what the rest of you think", did you not get?

I'm not here to debate the Bible with you.  I could not possibly even try to care less about your views on what the Bible says.

What I believe about the Bible is between me.... the Bible... and G-d.

You want to start a thread on whether we should eat pork, that's fine.  I still don't care, and I wouldn't respond to that thread.

This thread is about Homosexuality and the Church.

My Bible says Homosexuality is a sin.   You want to debate that?  

In my book... the Bible... it's a sin.  Period.

My church will not support homosexuality.  We won't have a homosexual wedding.  We won't allow homosexuals in any position in our church.   If we find out you are, you're gone.  Just like if we find out you are cheating on your wife, you're gone.

So to recap the bottom line.....   all your blaw blaw blaw old testement... balw blaw blaw pork blaw blaw blaw shell fish blaw blaw blaw blaw.....

I DO NOT CARE.     You opinion on this matter, has zero value to me.  Not trying to be insulting... I am trying to be transparent.  What you think about the Bible is immaterial to this topic.  I don't care.

Homosexuality is a sin, and my church, will not be a part of it.  Period.  End of story.

And all of you people have NO SAY in the matter.  None.


----------



## Andylusion

Cecilie1200 said:


> What's funny to me is that leftists think THEY were the ones leading the fight for racial equality - REAL racial equality, not this Affirmative Action bullshit - and dragging churches kicking and screaming behind them, when it was actually churches who fought to change public opinion on race.



You have to remember....   leftists control the school system.   It wasn't until years later that I even found out churches had anything to do with the end of slavery and such.

And I was part of an upper middle class school system.   They never taught that Wilberforce was devout Christian convert, and that it was explicitly because of that, that he devoted his life to end the slave trade.

The school system has been libtardified to the point, that the most basic fundamentals of history are barely taught.

So these ignorant leftists on here, are only this ignorant because of how pathetically bad our education system.  The Chinese know more about how our Christian faith formed our country, than we do (average Americans do). 

The leftards have succeeded in stupidifying our people.   This is why the push for vouchers is so violently opposed.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Crystalclear said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always the same with social right-wingers. They ask you to provide examples and then don't reply anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, dimwit, when you're posting after midnight, you might want to consider that people GO TO BED.  Just because your life revolves around the Internet doesn't mean other people don't have to get up the next morning.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you try not being such a spoiled, demanding little punk and fucking wait until people get around to the incredibly low place you occupy on their priority lists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong 2 times. It's not that my life revolves around the Internet. I come from Europe, so we have a time difference . For me, it is now late in the morning.
> Included the fact that the one I was talking to kept responding on other posts, but tried real hard to ignore my post.
Click to expand...


Pardon me if I in some way gave you the impression that by criticizing your hyper-rushed attempt to demand answers when you wanted them, I was interested in having anything about your pathetic existence explained to me.

Let me clarify.

People go do other things.  You are not particularly important to them, and so they answer you when they damned well fucking feel like it, and it's inappropriate and retarded of you to post demands for answers or declare victory for yourself simply because other people don't post as often or at the same time of day.

Write that down somewhere.  YOU ARE NOT IMPORTANT.  It will be an invaluable memory aid in your "life", I have no doubt.

Please refrain from ever again telling me anything about yourself as though you think I view you as a person, or could ever be convinced to view you as a person.  Not interested, don't care, feel free to cease existing at this moment if you wish.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way a church can accept homosexuality, is if they abandon the Bible.   Given that the Bible is the fundamental basis for Christianity, that means they have to Abandon Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is certainly one opinion, but you can't tell others if they are Christian or not.
> 
> Up to Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> That is certainly one opinion, but you can't tell others if they are Christian or not.
> 
> Up to Jesus.



Jesus' brother authored Jude 1 of the New Testament [the Christian Bible]:  To ask these people to promote homosexuality in any way, shape or form is tantamount to asking them to burn the Bible and renounce their faith...such emphasis is placed on not failing from the task of resistance that those who do fail are warned they are going to the pit of blackness forever if they do...  That's what's known in religion as "a mortal sin".




> 1  Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
> 
> 2  Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
> 
> 3  *Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith* which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> 4  For *there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness*, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 5  *I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.*
> 
> 6  And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
> 
> 7  *Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example*, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
> 
> 8  Likewise also *these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities*.
> 
> 9  Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 
> 10  But *these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves*.
> 
> 11  *Woe unto them!* for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 
> 12  These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: *clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots*;
> 
> 13  Raging waves of the sea, *foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever*.
> 
> 14  And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> 15  To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that *are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed*, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
> 
> 16  These are *murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage*.
> 
> 17  But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18  How that they told you *there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts*.
> 
> 19  *These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit*.
> 
> 20  But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21  Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
> 
> 22  *And of some have compassion, making a difference*:
> 
> 23  *And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire*; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24  *Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy*,
> 
> 25  To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.


.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...those churches will be a minority soon enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amuses me that lefties, desperate as they are for the illusion of popularity, inclusion, and normality, think that everyone in the world aspires to that.  You really cannot grasp that the Church does not care, and has never cared, about whether they're "the minority" or not.  They usually are, and that suits them fine.  Your approbation is not required or requested, and frankly, the Church would prefer not to have it, since it would be seen as an indication that they're doing something wrong.
> 
> You really don't even bother to try to understand the people you vilify and demonize, do you?  You're like a kid drawing horns on people's pictures:  smear and move on.  No thought required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's really adorable that you think Churches don't care. Of course they care. There were plenty of churches that swore they'd never let a good, god fearing white person marry one of those N words in their church, but they did.
> 
> It's just a matter of time...
Click to expand...


It's not the least bit adorable to me that you're ignorant enough to not know the history of the Church, and to think your piddling little disapproval will make any more difference than anyone else's has throughout time.

Christianity came to life during the time of the Roman Empire.  History records ten specific Roman persecutions of Christians:

1)  Nero - According to the Roman historian Tacitus:

Besides being put to death they [the Christians] were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clad in the hides of beast and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open his grounds for the display, and was putting on a show in the circus, where he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in his chariot. All this gave rise to a feeling of pity, even toward men whose guilt merited the most exemplary punishment; for it was felt that they were being destroyed not for the public good but to satisfy the cruelty of an individual.

2)  Domitian - Domitian is recorded as having executed members of his own family on charges of atheism and Jewish manners, who are thus generally assumed to have been Christians. 

3)  Marcus Aurelius - It was during the reign of Marcus Aurelius that Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, was martyred. Later, there is record of "new decrees" making it easier for Christians to be accused and have their property confiscated. In 177, 48 Christians were martyred in the amphitheater in Lyons (modern France).

4)  Trajan - In 112 AD, Roman governor Pliny the Younger was sent by the emperor Trajan (r. 98-117) to the province of Bithynia on official business. During his visit, Pliny encountered Christians, and he wrote to the emperor about them. The governor indicated that he had ordered the execution of several Christians, "for I held no question that whatever it was they admitted, in any case obstinancy and unbending perversity deserve to be punished." However, he was unsure what to do about those who said they were no longer Christians, and asked Trajan his advice. The emperor responded that Christians should not be sought out, anonymous tips should be rejected as "unworthy of our times," and if they recanted and "worshipped our gods," they were to be freed. Those who persisted, however, should be punished. 

5)  Septimus Severus - The emperor Severus may not have been personally ill-disposed towards Christians, but the church was gaining power and making many converts and this led to popular anti-Christian feeling and persecution in Catharge, Alexandria, Rome and Corinth between about 202 and 210. The famed St. Perpetua was martyred during this time, as were many students of Origen of Alexandria. 

6)  Decius - The persecution under Decius was the first universal and organized persecution of Christians, and it would have lasting significance for the Christian church. In January of 250, Decius issued an edict requiring all citizens to sacrifice to the emperor in the presence of a Roman official and obtain a certificate (libellus) proving they had done so.

This method of persecution created a crisis of conscience for many Christians, as a certificate could be obtained without actually sacrificing by bribing Roman officials. It was clear that Christians should not sacrifice to a false god, but whether it was acceptable to save one's life by buying a certificate was a bit more of a gray area. Many Christians chose to defy the edict outright, refusing to buy a certificate, and were arrested or executed. Among those martyred under Decius were the bishops of Rome, Jerusalem and Antioch. However, the bishop of Smyrna performed the sacrifice, as did many others.

7)  Valerian - Under Valerian, who took the throne in 253, all Christian clergy were required to sacrifice to the gods. In a 257 edict, the punishment was exile; in 258, the punishment was death. Christian senators, knights and ladies were also required to sacrifice under pain of heavy fines, reduction of rank and, later, death. Finally, all Christians were forbidden to visit their cemeteries. Among those executed under Valerian were St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Sixtus II, Bishop of Rome. According to a letter written by Dionysus during this time, "men and women, young and old, maidens and matrons, soldiers and civilians, of every age and race, some by scourging and fire, others by the sword, have conquered in the strife and won their crowns." The persecution ended with the capture of Valerian by Persia. Valerian's son and successor, Gallienus, revoked the edicts of his father.

8)  Maximinus the Thracian - In Cappadocia, the president, Seremianus, did all he could to exterminate the Christians from that province. 

The principal persons who perished under this reign were Pontianus, bishop of Rome; Anteros, a Grecian, his successor, who gave offence to the government by collecting the acts of the martyrs, Pammachius and Quiritus, Roman senators, with all their families, and many other Christians; Simplicius, senator; Calepodius, a Christian minister, thrown into the Tyber; Martina, a noble and beautiful virgin; and Hippolitus, a Christian prelate, tied to a wild horse, and dragged until he expired.

During this persecution, raised by Maximinus, numberless Christians were slain without trial, and buried indiscriminately in heaps, sometimes fifty or sixty being cast into a pit together, without the least decency. 

9)  Aurelian - The principal sufferers were: Felix, bishop of Rome. This prelate was advanced to the Roman see in 274. He was the first martyr to Aurelian's petulancy, being beheaded on the twenty- second of December, in the same year. 

Agapetus, a young gentleman, who sold his estate, and gave the money to the poor, was seized as a Christian, tortured, and then beheaded at Praeneste, a city within a day's journey of Rome. 

These are the only martyrs left upon record during this reign, as it was soon put to a stop by the emperor's being murdered by his own domestics, at Byzantium. 

10)  Diocletian and Galerus - The last major Roman persecution of Christians occurred under Diocletian, and it was the worst of all. It is known as the "Great Persecution." The reasons for this persecution are unclear, but Diocletians actions may have been based on the influence of his junior colleague Galarius (a fanatical adherent of Roman religion), Porphyry (an anti-Christian Neoplatonist philosopher), or the usual desire for political unity. In any case, Diocletian published four edicts of 303-04. The emperor ordered the burning of Christian books and churches, but promised not to spill any blood. In actuality, the Diocletian persecution turned out to be extremely violent. This violence "did not succeed in annihilating Christianity but caused the faith of the martyrs to blaze forth instead."

Official persecution of Christians ended with the Edict of Milan, signed by the Christian convert Constantine and his co-emperor Licinius. This did not make Christianity the official religion of the empire (that happened under Emperor Theodosius in 381), but granted it legal status.

(Thanks go to religionfacts.org for most of the quotes here.)

That's just at the START of Christianity, and didn't manage to wipe them out.

In my own lifetime, the former Soviet Union closed nearly all Russian Orthodox churches, killed scads of Christians, and imprisoned many more in gulags.  China has been doing the same since the 1960s.  Uganda, Vietnam, the Middle East . . . pick a spot outside of Western Civilization on the modern maps, and you will find Christians being imprisoned, brutalized, and killed.  And it continues to survive and flourish.

And you're going to do what to bend Christians to your will?  Call them names?  Fine them?  Make them pay taxes?  Refuse to be their friends?  Oooh, THAT'LL break 'em.  Excuse me while I yawn.

Oh, I don't doubt that you'll find a lot of false Christians, who go to church mainly to feel "spiritual" or maintain social standing in their communities, who will go along with you.  Those people have always existed, and always been the first to fall away.  They aren't the Church, and never have been.  True Christianity is only hardened and strengthened by persecution; it's designed to be that way.  The Christian faith is more endangered by the comfort and prosperity of its adherents than it could ever be by their suffering.


----------



## JakeStarkey

One, the brother of Jesus was speaking for the brother of Jesus, not for Him.

Two, to accept biblical literalism is to accept heresy that leads to apostasy.

Three, the Lord loves you despite your errancy.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is certainly one opinion, but you can't tell others if they are Christian or not.
> 
> Up to Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus' brother authored Jude 1 of the New Testament [the Christian Bible]:  To ask these people to promote homosexuality in any way, shape or form is tantamount to asking them to burn the Bible and renounce their faith...such emphasis is placed on not failing from the task of resistance that those who do fail are warned they are going to the pit of blackness forever if they do...  That's what's known in religion as "a mortal sin".
Click to expand...

Christians do many things the Bible says not to do, and ignore much of what it says to do.  Accepting homosexuality in a secular society will hardly kill the faith.  You had to stop burning witches a while back and the churches and the Bible managed to survive.


----------



## longknife

I have a GREAT suggestion!

Why don't YOU invite people from all forms of different viewpoints to come to YOUR house to get married?


----------



## Cecilie1200

longknife said:


> I have a GREAT suggestion!
> 
> Why don't YOU invite people from all forms of different viewpoints to come to YOUR house to get married?



Who would want to get married in a ghetto tract house with rusted cars up on blocks in the front yard?  ESPECIALLY gay men.  Come on, now.


----------



## JakeStarkey




----------



## Crystalclear

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I agree with all of that.
> 
> And there certainly are many churches that change their views to fit the societal norms.    I completely agree with that statement.
> 
> There are thousands of churches that are that way.
> 
> However...  there are a minority of actual Christian, Bible believing churches, such as mine, that honestly do not care at all what society thinks.
> 
> The whole race crap, is just that.  There was nothing in the Bible that supports racism, and plenty that denies it.   Even from Genesis 1, we know that all mankind was created from just Adam and Eve..... well doesn't that sort of shatter the idea of Racism, given we obviously are all the same race?
> 
> Doesn't Acts 10:34 when it says "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" shatter the idea of Racism?
> 
> Does not Acts 8:26-40 say that G-d sent Philip to the Ethiopian court official?
> 
> Does that not shatter the idea of Racism?
> 
> So why did those churches promote racism?   I have no idea.  Ask them.  But it didn't come from Christianity or the Bible (which is what Christianity is based on).
> 
> And if you look at where the push to end slavery and racism came from, it was from Christianity.
> 
> Now Homosexuality, is completely different.  Unlike Racism which the Bible is explicitly against, Homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin.  It's wrong, and an abomination.
> 
> The only way a church can accept homosexuality, is if they abandon the Bible.   Given that the Bible is the fundamental basis for Christianity, that means they have to Abandon Christianity.
> 
> Yes, I am absolutely saying that any Church which accepts Homosexuality, is in fact NOT a Christian church.   Those two concepts are mutually exclusive.  You can't be both.   Not an option.
> 
> And for those of us who are real Christians, we will never accept homosexuality, and we don't care what the rest of you think.
> 
> Game over.  Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Testament Laws do speak against homosexuality.
> And eating pork is a sin under Old Testament.
> If you eat bacon you are a sinner, same as homosexuality.
> Exactly the same as sin is sin.
> Jesus never condemned homosexuality and he WAS A JEW HIMSELF.
> A rabbi Jesus was.
> And the Jews that did condemn homosexuality in that time viewed Jesus as a radical for his day for his acceptance of everyone.
> That is what Christianity is.
> If you are a Christian you never have to go around with a Big C on your game jersey.
> They will know it by your actions.
> 
> Most folks here talk like Tarzan but post like Jane.
> Next time put your cleats and helmet on before you cross the lines.
> You need them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "we don't care what the rest of you think", did you not get?
> 
> I'm not here to debate the Bible with you.  I could not possibly even try to care less about your views on what the Bible says.
> 
> What I believe about the Bible is between me.... the Bible... and G-d.
> 
> You want to start a thread on whether we should eat pork, that's fine.  I still don't care, and I wouldn't respond to that thread.
> 
> This thread is about Homosexuality and the Church.
> 
> My Bible says Homosexuality is a sin.   You want to debate that?
> 
> In my book... the Bible... it's a sin.  Period.
> 
> My church will not support homosexuality.  We won't have a homosexual wedding.  We won't allow homosexuals in any position in our church.   If we find out you are, you're gone.  Just like if we find out you are cheating on your wife, you're gone.
> 
> So to recap the bottom line.....   all your blaw blaw blaw old testement... balw blaw blaw pork blaw blaw blaw shell fish blaw blaw blaw blaw.....
> 
> I DO NOT CARE.     You opinion on this matter, has zero value to me.  Not trying to be insulting... I am trying to be transparent.  What you think about the Bible is immaterial to this topic.  I don't care.
> 
> Homosexuality is a sin, and my church, will not be a part of it.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> And all of you people have NO SAY in the matter.  None.
Click to expand...



That your Bible says gay people are sinners doesn't mean that this cannot change over time.
The point he was making is that the Old Testament said eating pork was a sin. This could also be changed in the New Testament.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Crystalclear said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old Testament Laws do speak against homosexuality.
> And eating pork is a sin under Old Testament.
> If you eat bacon you are a sinner, same as homosexuality.
> Exactly the same as sin is sin.
> Jesus never condemned homosexuality and he WAS A JEW HIMSELF.
> A rabbi Jesus was.
> And the Jews that did condemn homosexuality in that time viewed Jesus as a radical for his day for his acceptance of everyone.
> That is what Christianity is.
> If you are a Christian you never have to go around with a Big C on your game jersey.
> They will know it by your actions.
> 
> Most folks here talk like Tarzan but post like Jane.
> Next time put your cleats and helmet on before you cross the lines.
> You need them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "we don't care what the rest of you think", did you not get?
> 
> I'm not here to debate the Bible with you.  I could not possibly even try to care less about your views on what the Bible says.
> 
> What I believe about the Bible is between me.... the Bible... and G-d.
> 
> You want to start a thread on whether we should eat pork, that's fine.  I still don't care, and I wouldn't respond to that thread.
> 
> This thread is about Homosexuality and the Church.
> 
> My Bible says Homosexuality is a sin.   You want to debate that?
> 
> In my book... the Bible... it's a sin.  Period.
> 
> My church will not support homosexuality.  We won't have a homosexual wedding.  We won't allow homosexuals in any position in our church.   If we find out you are, you're gone.  Just like if we find out you are cheating on your wife, you're gone.
> 
> So to recap the bottom line.....   all your blaw blaw blaw old testement... balw blaw blaw pork blaw blaw blaw shell fish blaw blaw blaw blaw.....
> 
> I DO NOT CARE.     You opinion on this matter, has zero value to me.  Not trying to be insulting... I am trying to be transparent.  What you think about the Bible is immaterial to this topic.  I don't care.
> 
> Homosexuality is a sin, and my church, will not be a part of it.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> And all of you people have NO SAY in the matter.  None.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That your Bible says gay people are sinners doesn't mean that this cannot change over time.
> The point he was making is that the Old Testament said eating pork was a sin. This could also be changed in the New Testament.
Click to expand...


You're going to write your very own Testament and convert people to following it?  Knock yourself out, and good luck with that.

As long as you leave the rest of us alone to think you're a heretical lunatic, we don't care.  It's the rewriting of OUR Testaments, and attempting to force us to follow your revisions, that we have a problem with.


----------



## Andylusion

Cecilie1200 said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, dimwit, when you're posting after midnight, you might want to consider that people GO TO BED.  Just because your life revolves around the Internet doesn't mean other people don't have to get up the next morning.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you try not being such a spoiled, demanding little punk and fucking wait until people get around to the incredibly low place you occupy on their priority lists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong 2 times. It's not that my life revolves around the Internet. I come from Europe, so we have a time difference . For me, it is now late in the morning.
> Included the fact that the one I was talking to kept responding on other posts, but tried real hard to ignore my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pardon me if I in some way gave you the impression that by criticizing your hyper-rushed attempt to demand answers when you wanted them, I was interested in having anything about your pathetic existence explained to me.
> 
> Let me clarify.
> 
> People go do other things.  You are not particularly important to them, and so they answer you when they damned well fucking feel like it, and it's inappropriate and retarded of you to post demands for answers or declare victory for yourself simply because other people don't post as often or at the same time of day.
> 
> Write that down somewhere.  YOU ARE NOT IMPORTANT.  It will be an invaluable memory aid in your "life", I have no doubt.
> 
> Please refrain from ever again telling me anything about yourself as though you think I view you as a person, or could ever be convinced to view you as a person.  Not interested, don't care, feel free to cease existing at this moment if you wish.
Click to expand...


It is strange that people on forums think all of us are just sitting here.... just waiting.... just in case they might respond.      Like there is absolutely nothing else like..... work.... family.... job.... even just other things we like to do other than waiting to have bestowed on us the absolute privilege to respond to their divine words of wisdom.

Seriously people...  check your medication.  If other poster don't respond, it's either because we don't care to, or we don't have time to, or we do but we just have other things more important than you that we wish to do.


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't teaching them to be tolerant of others.
> 
> They're teaching them the specifics of depraved sex acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Links to curriculum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, people are saying that churches should marry gays. Have you become a compulsive liar, or have you always been one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who is saying that? Churches will be "forced" to more inclusive through public opinion, not government intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the Church has such a history of knuckling under to peer pressure.
Click to expand...


Yes, churches do have a history of changing due to public opinion...interracial marriage is a prime example. What church is "The Church"...The Catholic Church? Even this new Pope is less, shall we say, "antagonistic" than previous Pontiffs when it comes to "the gheys". 

Here in the good old U S of A, Catholics are among the strongest supporters of marriage equality. The evangelicals are bringing up the rear...again. I imagine they were among the last to let "those people" {the blacks} into their churches too. 









In the end, churches need butts in the seats. Old crusty anti gay attitudes are dying off...and if their kids won't go to church because they're nasty and bigoted,the church will go out of "business".


----------



## RKMBrown

Ayup just as we do eat pork these days... it won't be long before folks figure out that monogamous gay relationships are not the great and evil sin that their parents told them it was.


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, wytchey.   But sexual orientation and race are not analogous.   Repeating it 100 times does not make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were wrong but you're right...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are wrong.... and she is right.
> 
> You do understand that simply getting a person with a title, or a degree, to say something, doesn't automatically mean it's true.... right?    Are are you one of those mindless lemmings that blindly believes anything some 'important person' says must be true?
Click to expand...


You aren't very bright are you? They thought they were just as "*right*", just as _justified _in their racist bigotry as people are in their anti-gay bigotry. Both are bigotry and discrimination is still discrimination 50 years later.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Links to curriculum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is saying that? Churches will be "forced" to more inclusive through public opinion, not government intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because the Church has such a history of knuckling under to peer pressure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, churches do have a history of changing due to public opinion...interracial marriage is a prime example. What church is "The Church"...The Catholic Church? Even this new Pope is less, shall we say, "antagonistic" than previous Pontiffs when it comes to "the gheys".
> 
> Here in the good old U S of A, Catholics are among the strongest supporters of marriage equality. The evangelicals are bringing up the rear...again. I imagine they were among the last to let "those people" {the blacks} into their churches too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, churches need butts in the seats. Old crusty anti gay attitudes are dying off...and if their kids won't go to church because they're nasty and bigoted,the church will go out of "business".
Click to expand...


That you do not know the difference between your use of the word "churches" and my use of the phrase "the Church" just illustrates that you're too busy self-righteously demonizing those who disagree with you to bother educating yourself about them and understanding them.

Ignorance is never a winning strategy, which is why tyrannical fucktards like you disappear onto the ashheap of history and the Church continues on.


----------



## Kondor3

Seawytch said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were wrong but you're right...right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are wrong.... and she is right.
> 
> You do understand that simply getting a person with a title, or a degree, to say something, doesn't automatically mean it's true.... right?    Are are you one of those mindless lemmings that blindly believes anything some 'important person' says must be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't very bright are you? They thought they were just as "*right*", just as _justified _in their racist bigotry as people are in their anti-gay bigotry. Both are bigotry and discrimination is still discrimination 50 years later.
Click to expand...

Only if the rest of us allow the Homosexual Mafia to continue to dominate American politics to an extent far beyond its demographic reach...

With any luck, that begins to end, on January 20, 2017...


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Links to curriculum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is saying that? Churches will be "forced" to more inclusive through public opinion, not government intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because the Church has such a history of knuckling under to peer pressure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, churches do have a history of changing due to public opinion...interracial marriage is a prime example. What church is "The Church"...The Catholic Church? Even this new Pope is less, shall we say, "antagonistic" than previous Pontiffs when it comes to "the gheys".
> 
> Here in the good old U S of A, Catholics are among the strongest supporters of marriage equality. The evangelicals are bringing up the rear...again. I imagine they were among the last to let "those people" {the blacks} into their churches too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, churches need butts in the seats. Old crusty anti gay attitudes are dying off...and if their kids won't go to church because they're nasty and bigoted,the church will go out of "business".
Click to expand...


Nifty.  Still don't care.  Thanks for stopping by.


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were wrong but you're right...right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are wrong.... and she is right.
> 
> You do understand that simply getting a person with a title, or a degree, to say something, doesn't automatically mean it's true.... right?    Are are you one of those mindless lemmings that blindly believes anything some 'important person' says must be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't very bright are you? They thought they were just as "*right*", just as _justified _in their racist bigotry as people are in their anti-gay bigotry. Both are bigotry and discrimination is still discrimination 50 years later.
Click to expand...


Nice.  Still don't care.  Thanks for stopping by.

BTW, when have I *EVER* cared if others think I'm stupid?  Oh... right... never.  Still don't.


----------



## Crystalclear

Cecilie1200 said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "we don't care what the rest of you think", did you not get?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not here to debate the Bible with you.  I could not possibly even try to care less about your views on what the Bible says.
> 
> 
> 
> What I believe about the Bible is between me.... the Bible... and G-d.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to start a thread on whether we should eat pork, that's fine.  I still don't care, and I wouldn't respond to that thread.
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is about Homosexuality and the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> My Bible says Homosexuality is a sin.   You want to debate that?
> 
> 
> 
> In my book... the Bible... it's a sin.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> My church will not support homosexuality.  We won't have a homosexual wedding.  We won't allow homosexuals in any position in our church.   If we find out you are, you're gone.  Just like if we find out you are cheating on your wife, you're gone.
> 
> 
> 
> So to recap the bottom line.....   all your blaw blaw blaw old testement... balw blaw blaw pork blaw blaw blaw shell fish blaw blaw blaw blaw.....
> 
> 
> 
> I DO NOT CARE.     You opinion on this matter, has zero value to me.  Not trying to be insulting... I am trying to be transparent.  What you think about the Bible is immaterial to this topic.  I don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is a sin, and my church, will not be a part of it.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> And all of you people have NO SAY in the matter.  None.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That your Bible says gay people are sinners doesn't mean that this cannot change over time.
> 
> The point he was making is that the Old Testament said eating pork was a sin. This could also be changed in the New Testament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to write your very own Testament and convert people to following it?  Knock yourself out, and good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you leave the rest of us alone to think you're a heretical lunatic, we don't care.  It's the rewriting of OUR Testaments, and attempting to force us to follow your revisions, that we have a problem with.
Click to expand...


No, the point is that the religious stance will change over time, just like it has changed on the pork issue


----------



## Andylusion

Crystalclear said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> That your Bible says gay people are sinners doesn't mean that this cannot change over time.
> 
> The point he was making is that the Old Testament said eating pork was a sin. This could also be changed in the New Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to write your very own Testament and convert people to following it?  Knock yourself out, and good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you leave the rest of us alone to think you're a heretical lunatic, we don't care.  It's the rewriting of OUR Testaments, and attempting to force us to follow your revisions, that we have a problem with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the point is that the religious stance will change over time, just like it has changed on the pork issue
Click to expand...


No, actually you would be wrong on that pork issue.

There have been other aspects of Church belief, not outlined in the Bible that have changed over time.    But the key is that they are not outlined in the Bible.

This, IS.

It's not going to change.  Period.  Not going to happen.    Only those churches which either do not, or stop believing the Bible is the fundamental authority of our faith, will change their views.

The rest of us, are not going to.   I'm not going to.  My church isn't going to.

Sorry.  Have a nice day.


----------



## Silhouette

Crystalclear said:


> No, the point is that the religious stance will change over time, just like it has changed on the pork issue



The entire reason religion was given to men is so that it stands as a solid mooring over the pushes and pulls of time and human trends to degradation.  So if religion changes its base foundations [like the mortal sins outlined in Jude 1 below], it has died by definition. 

And of course, famous homosexual activists have declared that this is the end game of all their efforts.



> 1  Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
> 
> 2  Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
> 
> 3  *Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith* which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> 4  For *there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness*, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 5  *I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.*
> 
> 6  And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
> 
> 7  *Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example*, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
> 
> 8  Likewise also *these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities*.
> 
> 9  Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 
> 10  But *these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves*.
> 
> 11  *Woe unto them!* for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 
> 12  These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: *clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots*;
> 
> 13  Raging waves of the sea, *foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever*.
> 
> 14  And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> 15  To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that *are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed*, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
> 
> 16  These are *murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage*.
> 
> 17  But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18  How that they told you *there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts*.
> 
> 19  *These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit*.
> 
> 20  But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21  Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
> 
> 22  *And of some have compassion, making a difference*:
> 
> 23  *And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire*; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24  *Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy*,
> 
> 25  To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.


----------



## 1776

Liberals want to control everyone's thoughts, except themselves....


----------



## LittleNipper

RWHeathenGamer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
Click to expand...


Absolutely


----------



## LittleNipper

Can the Church require all schools to open with a reading from the Bible? If a separation exists between Church and State, how can the State require anything from the Church? They do not rule over each other.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Cecilie1200 said:


> It's not the least bit adorable to me that you're ignorant enough to not know the history of the Church, and to think your piddling little disapproval will make any more difference than anyone else's has throughout time.
> 
> Christianity came to life during the time of the Roman Empire.  History records ten specific Roman persecutions of Christians:
> 
> 4)  Trajan - In 112 AD, Roman governor Pliny the Younger was sent by the emperor Trajan (r. 98-117) to the province of Bithynia on official business. During his visit, Pliny encountered Christians, and he wrote to the emperor about them. The governor indicated that he had ordered the execution of several Christians, "for I held no question that whatever it was they admitted, in any case obstinancy and unbending perversity deserve to be punished." However, he was unsure what to do about those who said they were no longer Christians, and asked Trajan his advice. The emperor responded that Christians should not be sought out, anonymous tips should be rejected as "unworthy of our times," and if they recanted and "worshipped our gods," they were to be freed. Those who persisted, however, should be punished.



Hmm...any that converted were freed?  Well, that is considerably LESS than what the Church did for centuries!  Those who converted were often still killed (or died from the forced "conversion"), just not quite so horribly.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Androw said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to write your very own Testament and convert people to following it?  Knock yourself out, and good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you leave the rest of us alone to think you're a heretical lunatic, we don't care.  It's the rewriting of OUR Testaments, and attempting to force us to follow your revisions, that we have a problem with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the point is that the religious stance will change over time, just like it has changed on the pork issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually you would be wrong on that pork issue.
> 
> There have been other aspects of Church belief, not outlined in the Bible that have changed over time.    But the key is that they are not outlined in the Bible.
> 
> This, IS.
> 
> It's not going to change.  Period.  Not going to happen.    Only those churches which either do not, or stop believing the Bible is the fundamental authority of our faith, will change their views.
> 
> The rest of us, are not going to.   I'm not going to.  My church isn't going to.
> 
> Sorry.  Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


Then in thirty years...maybe I'll order a pizza or buy motorcycle boots from what was once your church!


----------



## Kosh

LittleNipper said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely
Click to expand...


And this proves why "Marriage" is not a "right"...


----------



## Andylusion

Jarlaxle said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the point is that the religious stance will change over time, just like it has changed on the pork issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually you would be wrong on that pork issue.
> 
> There have been other aspects of Church belief, not outlined in the Bible that have changed over time.    But the key is that they are not outlined in the Bible.
> 
> This, IS.
> 
> It's not going to change.  Period.  Not going to happen.    Only those churches which either do not, or stop believing the Bible is the fundamental authority of our faith, will change their views.
> 
> The rest of us, are not going to.   I'm not going to.  My church isn't going to.
> 
> Sorry.  Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then in thirty years...maybe I'll order a pizza or buy motorcycle boots from what was once your church!
Click to expand...


That's fine.  I'll be at another church with the same Biblical views.   But I'm not changing my views, and neither will the church I'm at.

Remember, before Constantine, Rome believed in homosexuality too, and they slaughtered Christians.... almost 2,000 years later, we're still here, and homosexuality is still wrong.

We'll see who outlasts who.


----------



## Pheonixops

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



No.


But there's nothing wrong with people creating their own  religion to that accepts gay marriage and heterosexual marriages.


----------



## Silhouette

Pheonixops said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> But there's nothing wrong with people creating their own  religion to that accepts gay marriage and heterosexual marriages.
Click to expand...


Exactly!  And since LGBT is a cult anyway, they should apply for federal-recognition [and probably get it with Obama's blessings] and then the issue of the 14th would be laid to rest.


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Son, you would lose all your $$$ with that foolish bet.
> You would have better luck with Russian roulette.
> Fun game for a betting man like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you make a statement like that - so cock sure in your opinion being fact - that you can't present any facts to prove your opinion - you're a truly opinionated little fella aren't you ? do you have any basis for those opinions other a "gut feeling" ?
> 
> Come on "Bombs away"  - put your money where your mouth is - instead of putting some one elses cock sure attitude in it .  Put up or shut up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Greenbean, you are a 'blow hard' (yeah, pun intended) with your silly statement.
> 
> You make a silly statement about what churches will or will not do in a given situation without evidence, you get called out on it, and then you demand the other guy refute your non-evidenced affirmation.
> 
> That is not how it works, and you know it.
> 
> And, yup, my opinion is Gadawag is right and you are not.
Click to expand...


Jakey Boy- I'm telling you the same thing I just told that cigar coddling cum lord winter born -  *Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth or misquoting me *-  I did not make a statement about what churches will or won't do , I simply challenged Gadawg to prove his "cock-sure" assertion.  So far the only repy I got is not worth responding to , because he loaded it with his fantasy "personal experiences"  which he seems to have  in  great abundance.


----------



## GreenBean

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you make a statement like that - so cock sure in your opinion being fact - that you can't present any facts to prove your opinion - you're a truly opinionated little fella aren't you ? do you have any basis for those opinions other a "gut feeling" ?
> 
> Come on "Bombs away"  - put your money where your mouth is - instead of putting some one elses cock sure attitude in it .  Put up or shut up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am from the deep south. 95 out of 100 churches OPPOSED interracial marriage.
> Hell, they opposed opening their doors to accept black folks for a long time.
> Interracial marriage was against the law in Alabama until 2000.
> 95% of the churches there would not marry an interracial couple before that. They wouldn't be prosecuted but it gave them the excuse they needed.
> As of last year 21% of Alabama Republican voters still opposed interracial marriage Pew Research Center.
> Loving overturned those laws in 1967 but that was for criminal charges only but the states still kept the laws and most all churches stuck by it.
> But the subject is the churches down here opposing it and not what the law is after Loving.
> Bob Jones University opposed it until 2000.
> Real world I have lived in.
> How are things in Lah Lah land today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I agree with all of that.
> 
> And there certainly are many churches that change their views to fit the societal norms.    I completely agree with that statement.
> 
> There are thousands of churches that are that way.
> 
> However...  there are a minority of actual Christian, Bible believing churches, such as mine, that honestly do not care at all what society thinks.
> 
> The whole race crap, is just that.  There was nothing in the Bible that supports racism, and plenty that denies it.   Even from Genesis 1, we know that all mankind was created from just Adam and Eve..... well doesn't that sort of shatter the idea of Racism, given we obviously are all the same race?
> 
> Doesn't Acts 10:34 when it says "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" shatter the idea of Racism?
> 
> Does not Acts 8:26-40 say that G-d sent Philip to the Ethiopian court official?
> 
> Does that not shatter the idea of Racism?
> 
> So why did those churches promote racism?   I have no idea.  Ask them.  But it didn't come from Christianity or the Bible (which is what Christianity is based on).
> 
> And if you look at where the push to end slavery and racism came from, it was from Christianity.
> 
> Now Homosexuality, is completely different.  Unlike Racism which the Bible is explicitly against, Homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin.  It's wrong, and an abomination.
> 
> The only way a church can accept homosexuality, is if they abandon the Bible.   Given that the Bible is the fundamental basis for Christianity, that means they have to Abandon Christianity.
> 
> Yes, I am absolutely saying that any Church which accepts Homosexuality, is in fact NOT a Christian church.   Those two concepts are mutually exclusive.  You can't be both.   Not an option.
> 
> And for those of us who are real Christians, we will never accept homosexuality, and we don't care what the rest of you think.
> 
> Game over.  Have a nice day.
Click to expand...




> The whole race crap, is just that. There was nothing in the Bible that supports racism, and plenty that denies it.



Very True - in fact there's  a strong case for the theory that Jesus may have been Black himself.


----------



## GreenBean

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am from the deep south. 95 out of 100 churches OPPOSED interracial marriage.
> Hell, they opposed opening their doors to accept black folks for a long time.
> Interracial marriage was against the law in Alabama until 2000.
> 95% of the churches there would not marry an interracial couple before that. They wouldn't be prosecuted but it gave them the excuse they needed.
> As of last year 21% of Alabama Republican voters still opposed interracial marriage Pew Research Center.
> Loving overturned those laws in 1967 but that was for criminal charges only but the states still kept the laws and most all churches stuck by it.
> But the subject is the churches down here opposing it and not what the law is after Loving.
> Bob Jones University opposed it until 2000.
> Real world I have lived in.
> How are things in Lah Lah land today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I agree with all of that.
> 
> And there certainly are many churches that change their views to fit the societal norms.    I completely agree with that statement.
> 
> There are thousands of churches that are that way.
> 
> However...  there are a minority of actual Christian, Bible believing churches, such as mine, that honestly do not care at all what society thinks.
> 
> The whole race crap, is just that.  There was nothing in the Bible that supports racism, and plenty that denies it.   Even from Genesis 1, we know that all mankind was created from just Adam and Eve..... well doesn't that sort of shatter the idea of Racism, given we obviously are all the same race?
> 
> Doesn't Acts 10:34 when it says "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" shatter the idea of Racism?
> 
> Does not Acts 8:26-40 say that G-d sent Philip to the Ethiopian court official?
> 
> Does that not shatter the idea of Racism?
> 
> So why did those churches promote racism?   I have no idea.  Ask them.  But it didn't come from Christianity or the Bible (which is what Christianity is based on).
> 
> And if you look at where the push to end slavery and racism came from, it was from Christianity.
> 
> Now Homosexuality, is completely different.  Unlike Racism which the Bible is explicitly against, Homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin.  It's wrong, and an abomination.
> 
> The only way a church can accept homosexuality, is if they abandon the Bible.   Given that the Bible is the fundamental basis for Christianity, that means they have to Abandon Christianity.
> 
> Yes, I am absolutely saying that any Church which accepts Homosexuality, is in fact NOT a Christian church.   Those two concepts are mutually exclusive.  You can't be both.   Not an option.
> 
> And for those of us who are real Christians, we will never accept homosexuality, and we don't care what the rest of you think.
> 
> Game over.  Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Old Testament Laws do speak against homosexuality.
> And eating pork is a sin under Old Testament.
> If you eat bacon you are a sinner, same as homosexuality.
> Exactly the same as sin is sin.
> Jesus never condemned homosexuality and he WAS A JEW HIMSELF.
> A rabbi Jesus was.
> And the Jews that did condemn homosexuality in that time viewed Jesus as a radical for his day for his acceptance of everyone.
> That is what Christianity is.
> If you are a Christian you never have to go around with a Big C on your game jersey.
> They will know it by your actions.
> 
> Most folks here talk like Tarzan but post like Jane.
> Next time put your cleats and helmet on before you cross the lines.
> You need them.
Click to expand...


Going by the Gospels he never spoke of it , either in a negative or positive light.  The rest of your post is simply insane twisted fuzzy logic -  OY VAY !


----------



## Cecilie1200

Crystalclear said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> That your Bible says gay people are sinners doesn't mean that this cannot change over time.
> 
> The point he was making is that the Old Testament said eating pork was a sin. This could also be changed in the New Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to write your very own Testament and convert people to following it?  Knock yourself out, and good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you leave the rest of us alone to think you're a heretical lunatic, we don't care.  It's the rewriting of OUR Testaments, and attempting to force us to follow your revisions, that we have a problem with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the point is that the religious stance will change over time, just like it has changed on the pork issue
Click to expand...


Um, no the "pork issue" didn't "change over time", dumbass.  Either read the book, or stop commenting on it.  I'm not getting paid to give your worthless, ignorant ass Sunday School lessons.  If you don't even know why Christians don't observe the same dietary rules that observant Jews do, then you have exactly two things to say on the subject of Christianity:  Jack and shit . . . Jack just left town, and the latter is what you just posted.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the least bit adorable to me that you're ignorant enough to not know the history of the Church, and to think your piddling little disapproval will make any more difference than anyone else's has throughout time.
> 
> Christianity came to life during the time of the Roman Empire.  History records ten specific Roman persecutions of Christians:
> 
> 4)  Trajan - In 112 AD, Roman governor Pliny the Younger was sent by the emperor Trajan (r. 98-117) to the province of Bithynia on official business. During his visit, Pliny encountered Christians, and he wrote to the emperor about them. The governor indicated that he had ordered the execution of several Christians, "for I held no question that whatever it was they admitted, in any case obstinancy and unbending perversity deserve to be punished." However, he was unsure what to do about those who said they were no longer Christians, and asked Trajan his advice. The emperor responded that Christians should not be sought out, anonymous tips should be rejected as "unworthy of our times," and if they recanted and "worshipped our gods," they were to be freed. Those who persisted, however, should be punished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...any that converted were freed?  Well, that is considerably LESS than what the Church did for centuries!  Those who converted were often still killed (or died from the forced "conversion"), just not quite so horribly.
Click to expand...


Oh, really?  And you're now going to cite the proof for that, knowing that no one's word is worth shit on a message board, PARTICULARLY yours, right?

And don't think I didn't notice that you completely skipped the entire post except for one sentence that let you spew a little more "Christians are BAD!  Nothing is bad except Christians!  I hate Christians, and . . . and I hate Christians, and I can't think of anything but how I hate Christians!"  Topic?  What topic?  You don't need to know nothing 'bout no stinking topic except how much you hate Christians, and they are therefore the only bad thing that has ever existed in the world.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the point is that the religious stance will change over time, just like it has changed on the pork issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually you would be wrong on that pork issue.
> 
> There have been other aspects of Church belief, not outlined in the Bible that have changed over time.    But the key is that they are not outlined in the Bible.
> 
> This, IS.
> 
> It's not going to change.  Period.  Not going to happen.    Only those churches which either do not, or stop believing the Bible is the fundamental authority of our faith, will change their views.
> 
> The rest of us, are not going to.   I'm not going to.  My church isn't going to.
> 
> Sorry.  Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then in thirty years...maybe I'll order a pizza or buy motorcycle boots from what was once your church!
Click to expand...


See, this would relate to that whole topic you missed on that earlier post that you saw as nothing but a chance to say, "Christians BAD!!!"  Had you managed to reign in your rampant bigotry for two seconds, you might have noticed that the actual topic of the post was that Christians have been persecuted by the best for centuries, and are still hanging on.  You aren't going to wipe them out of existence with your pallid excuse for hatred, however much it overwhelms your consciousness.  And certainly not in thirty years.


----------



## Cecilie1200

GreenBean said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am from the deep south. 95 out of 100 churches OPPOSED interracial marriage.
> Hell, they opposed opening their doors to accept black folks for a long time.
> Interracial marriage was against the law in Alabama until 2000.
> 95% of the churches there would not marry an interracial couple before that. They wouldn't be prosecuted but it gave them the excuse they needed.
> As of last year 21% of Alabama Republican voters still opposed interracial marriage Pew Research Center.
> Loving overturned those laws in 1967 but that was for criminal charges only but the states still kept the laws and most all churches stuck by it.
> But the subject is the churches down here opposing it and not what the law is after Loving.
> Bob Jones University opposed it until 2000.
> Real world I have lived in.
> How are things in Lah Lah land today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I agree with all of that.
> 
> And there certainly are many churches that change their views to fit the societal norms.    I completely agree with that statement.
> 
> There are thousands of churches that are that way.
> 
> However...  there are a minority of actual Christian, Bible believing churches, such as mine, that honestly do not care at all what society thinks.
> 
> The whole race crap, is just that.  There was nothing in the Bible that supports racism, and plenty that denies it.   Even from Genesis 1, we know that all mankind was created from just Adam and Eve..... well doesn't that sort of shatter the idea of Racism, given we obviously are all the same race?
> 
> Doesn't Acts 10:34 when it says "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" shatter the idea of Racism?
> 
> Does not Acts 8:26-40 say that G-d sent Philip to the Ethiopian court official?
> 
> Does that not shatter the idea of Racism?
> 
> So why did those churches promote racism?   I have no idea.  Ask them.  But it didn't come from Christianity or the Bible (which is what Christianity is based on).
> 
> And if you look at where the push to end slavery and racism came from, it was from Christianity.
> 
> Now Homosexuality, is completely different.  Unlike Racism which the Bible is explicitly against, Homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin.  It's wrong, and an abomination.
> 
> The only way a church can accept homosexuality, is if they abandon the Bible.   Given that the Bible is the fundamental basis for Christianity, that means they have to Abandon Christianity.
> 
> Yes, I am absolutely saying that any Church which accepts Homosexuality, is in fact NOT a Christian church.   Those two concepts are mutually exclusive.  You can't be both.   Not an option.
> 
> And for those of us who are real Christians, we will never accept homosexuality, and we don't care what the rest of you think.
> 
> Game over.  Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole race crap, is just that. There was nothing in the Bible that supports racism, and plenty that denies it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very True - in fact there's  a strong case for the theory that Jesus may have been Black himself.
Click to expand...


And that case would be . . . ?


----------



## koshergrl

There were so many black Jewish families in Nazareth at the time, dontcha know, lol.


----------



## I.P.Freely

GreenBean said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am from the deep south. 95 out of 100 churches OPPOSED interracial marriage.
> Hell, they opposed opening their doors to accept black folks for a long time.
> Interracial marriage was against the law in Alabama until 2000.
> 95% of the churches there would not marry an interracial couple before that. They wouldn't be prosecuted but it gave them the excuse they needed.
> As of last year 21% of Alabama Republican voters still opposed interracial marriage Pew Research Center.
> Loving overturned those laws in 1967 but that was for criminal charges only but the states still kept the laws and most all churches stuck by it.
> But the subject is the churches down here opposing it and not what the law is after Loving.
> Bob Jones University opposed it until 2000.
> Real world I have lived in.
> How are things in Lah Lah land today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I agree with all of that.
> 
> And there certainly are many churches that change their views to fit the societal norms.    I completely agree with that statement.
> 
> There are thousands of churches that are that way.
> 
> However...  there are a minority of actual Christian, Bible believing churches, such as mine, that honestly do not care at all what society thinks.
> 
> The whole race crap, is just that.  There was nothing in the Bible that supports racism, and plenty that denies it.   Even from Genesis 1, we know that all mankind was created from just Adam and Eve..... well doesn't that sort of shatter the idea of Racism, given we obviously are all the same race?
> 
> Doesn't Acts 10:34 when it says "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" shatter the idea of Racism?
> 
> Does not Acts 8:26-40 say that G-d sent Philip to the Ethiopian court official?
> 
> Does that not shatter the idea of Racism?
> 
> So why did those churches promote racism?   I have no idea.  Ask them.  But it didn't come from Christianity or the Bible (which is what Christianity is based on).
> 
> And if you look at where the push to end slavery and racism came from, it was from Christianity.
> 
> Now Homosexuality, is completely different.  Unlike Racism which the Bible is explicitly against, Homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin.  It's wrong, and an abomination.
> 
> The only way a church can accept homosexuality, is if they abandon the Bible.   Given that the Bible is the fundamental basis for Christianity, that means they have to Abandon Christianity.
> 
> Yes, I am absolutely saying that any Church which accepts Homosexuality, is in fact NOT a Christian church.   Those two concepts are mutually exclusive.  You can't be both.   Not an option.
> 
> And for those of us who are real Christians, we will never accept homosexuality, and we don't care what the rest of you think.
> 
> Game over.  Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole race crap, is just that. There was nothing in the Bible that supports racism, and plenty that denies it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very True - in fact there's  a strong case for the theory that Jesus may have been Black himself.
Click to expand...

does that mean god is black?


----------



## I.P.Freely

koshergrl said:


> There were so many black Jewish families in Nazareth at the time, dontcha know, lol.


jebus was a falsha? this fairy tale gets better.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Cecilie1200 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the least bit adorable to me that you're ignorant enough to not know the history of the Church, and to think your piddling little disapproval will make any more difference than anyone else's has throughout time.
> 
> Christianity came to life during the time of the Roman Empire.  History records ten specific Roman persecutions of Christians:
> 
> 4)  Trajan - In 112 AD, Roman governor Pliny the Younger was sent by the emperor Trajan (r. 98-117) to the province of Bithynia on official business. During his visit, Pliny encountered Christians, and he wrote to the emperor about them. The governor indicated that he had ordered the execution of several Christians, "for I held no question that whatever it was they admitted, in any case obstinancy and unbending perversity deserve to be punished." However, he was unsure what to do about those who said they were no longer Christians, and asked Trajan his advice. The emperor responded that Christians should not be sought out, anonymous tips should be rejected as "unworthy of our times," and if they recanted and "worshipped our gods," they were to be freed. Those who persisted, however, should be punished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...any that converted were freed?  Well, that is considerably LESS than what the Church did for centuries!  Those who converted were often still killed (or died from the forced "conversion"), just not quite so horribly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, really?  And you're now going to cite the proof for that, knowing that no one's word is worth shit on a message board, PARTICULARLY yours, right?
> 
> And don't think I didn't notice that you completely skipped the entire post except for one sentence that let you spew a little more "Christians are BAD!  Nothing is bad except Christians!  I hate Christians, and . . . and I hate Christians, and I can't think of anything but how I hate Christians!"  Topic?  What topic?  You don't need to know nothing 'bout no stinking topic except how much you hate Christians, and they are therefore the only bad thing that has ever existed in the world.
Click to expand...


I do not hate Christians...but like Jesus, I hate *hypocrisy!*


----------



## Gadawg73

Cecilie1200 said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to write your very own Testament and convert people to following it?  Knock yourself out, and good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you leave the rest of us alone to think you're a heretical lunatic, we don't care.  It's the rewriting of OUR Testaments, and attempting to force us to follow your revisions, that we have a problem with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the point is that the religious stance will change over time, just like it has changed on the pork issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no the "pork issue" didn't "change over time", dumbass.  Either read the book, or stop commenting on it.  I'm not getting paid to give your worthless, ignorant ass Sunday School lessons.  If you don't even know why Christians don't observe the same dietary rules that observant Jews do, then you have exactly two things to say on the subject of Christianity:  Jack and shit . . . Jack just left town, and the latter is what you just posted.
Click to expand...


Old Testament statements condemning homosexuality would also be old Jewish law.
Where is it Christian law condemning homosexuals?
Speaking of dumbasses.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the point is that the religious stance will change over time, just like it has changed on the pork issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no the "pork issue" didn't "change over time", dumbass.  Either read the book, or stop commenting on it.  I'm not getting paid to give your worthless, ignorant ass Sunday School lessons.  If you don't even know why Christians don't observe the same dietary rules that observant Jews do, then you have exactly two things to say on the subject of Christianity:  Jack and shit . . . Jack just left town, and the latter is what you just posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Old Testament statements condemning homosexuality would also be old Jewish law.
> Where is it Christian law condemning homosexuals?
> Speaking of dumbasses.
Click to expand...


If you had read the Bible, you wouldn't be asking that question.

And yes, I am telling you to go look it up yourself.   We're not talking about a research paper on CO2 greenhouse effects.   We're talking about the Bible, which is the top selling book world wide, and has dozens of extremely easy to find web sites with the complete text of the Bible.

Go read it yourself.  Figure it out.


----------



## Gadawg73

Doesn't matter anyway sports fans.
Same as now that Navy Seal can serve openly as a gay man in the military and the lies about how that would cause "unit cohesion to break down" that Navy Seal will be able to marry his partner now legally.
And it will have ZERO effect on everyone's heterosexual marriage and on society.
Get over it, no matter how many lies and bull shit claims you make it is going to happen.
Move to Iran, they do it your way over there. They hold up a Book and claim it teaches them to condemn gay folks.


----------



## Gadawg73

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no the "pork issue" didn't "change over time", dumbass.  Either read the book, or stop commenting on it.  I'm not getting paid to give your worthless, ignorant ass Sunday School lessons.  If you don't even know why Christians don't observe the same dietary rules that observant Jews do, then you have exactly two things to say on the subject of Christianity:  Jack and shit . . . Jack just left town, and the latter is what you just posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Testament statements condemning homosexuality would also be old Jewish law.
> Where is it Christian law condemning homosexuals?
> Speaking of dumbasses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had read the Bible, you wouldn't be asking that question.
Click to expand...


LOL, I went to a private military school from 1966-1968 and religion class was mandatory.
There is NO Christian LAW condemning homosexuality. 
The Bible's authors condemned homosexuality and that came from ancient cultures and Jewish law.
Jesus was A JEW. He did not follow Old Jewish Law concerning homosexuality as he accepted everyone.


----------



## GreenBean

Cecilie1200 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I agree with all of that.
> 
> And there certainly are many churches that change their views to fit the societal norms.    I completely agree with that statement.
> 
> There are thousands of churches that are that way.
> 
> However...  there are a minority of actual Christian, Bible believing churches, such as mine, that honestly do not care at all what society thinks.
> 
> The whole race crap, is just that.  There was nothing in the Bible that supports racism, and plenty that denies it.   Even from Genesis 1, we know that all mankind was created from just Adam and Eve..... well doesn't that sort of shatter the idea of Racism, given we obviously are all the same race?
> 
> Doesn't Acts 10:34 when it says "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" shatter the idea of Racism?
> 
> Does not Acts 8:26-40 say that G-d sent Philip to the Ethiopian court official?
> 
> Does that not shatter the idea of Racism?
> 
> So why did those churches promote racism?   I have no idea.  Ask them.  But it didn't come from Christianity or the Bible (which is what Christianity is based on).
> 
> And if you look at where the push to end slavery and racism came from, it was from Christianity.
> 
> Now Homosexuality, is completely different.  Unlike Racism which the Bible is explicitly against, Homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin.  It's wrong, and an abomination.
> 
> The only way a church can accept homosexuality, is if they abandon the Bible.   Given that the Bible is the fundamental basis for Christianity, that means they have to Abandon Christianity.
> 
> Yes, I am absolutely saying that any Church which accepts Homosexuality, is in fact NOT a Christian church.   Those two concepts are mutually exclusive.  You can't be both.   Not an option.
> 
> And for those of us who are real Christians, we will never accept homosexuality, and we don't care what the rest of you think.
> 
> Game over.  Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole race crap, is just that. There was nothing in the Bible that supports racism, and plenty that denies it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very True - in fact there's  a strong case for the theory that Jesus may have been Black himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that case would be . . . ?
Click to expand...


I didn't say I agreed with it - I justsaid there was a case for it . IMO Jesus was a Nyth.



> While many people have a fixed mental image of Jesus, drawn from his artistic depictions, these images often conform to stereotypes which are not grounded in any serious research on the historical Jesus, but are based on second or third hand interpretations of spurious sources
> 
> In explaining the development of racial theories in the context of scripture, Colin Kidd, in his book The forging of races, argues that the assignment of race to biblical individuals has been a mostly subjective practice based on cultural stereotypes and societal trends rather than on scientific methods. Kidd reviews a number of theories about the race of Jesus, *ranging from a white Aryan Jesus to a black African Jesus, illustrating that there is no general agreement among scholars on the race of Jesus*
> Race and appearance of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## GreenBean

I.P.Freely said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I agree with all of that.
> 
> And there certainly are many churches that change their views to fit the societal norms.    I completely agree with that statement.
> 
> There are thousands of churches that are that way.
> 
> However...  there are a minority of actual Christian, Bible believing churches, such as mine, that honestly do not care at all what society thinks.
> 
> The whole race crap, is just that.  There was nothing in the Bible that supports racism, and plenty that denies it.   Even from Genesis 1, we know that all mankind was created from just Adam and Eve..... well doesn't that sort of shatter the idea of Racism, given we obviously are all the same race?
> 
> Doesn't Acts 10:34 when it says "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" shatter the idea of Racism?
> 
> Does not Acts 8:26-40 say that G-d sent Philip to the Ethiopian court official?
> 
> Does that not shatter the idea of Racism?
> 
> So why did those churches promote racism?   I have no idea.  Ask them.  But it didn't come from Christianity or the Bible (which is what Christianity is based on).
> 
> And if you look at where the push to end slavery and racism came from, it was from Christianity.
> 
> Now Homosexuality, is completely different.  Unlike Racism which the Bible is explicitly against, Homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin.  It's wrong, and an abomination.
> 
> The only way a church can accept homosexuality, is if they abandon the Bible.   Given that the Bible is the fundamental basis for Christianity, that means they have to Abandon Christianity.
> 
> Yes, I am absolutely saying that any Church which accepts Homosexuality, is in fact NOT a Christian church.   Those two concepts are mutually exclusive.  You can't be both.   Not an option.
> 
> And for those of us who are real Christians, we will never accept homosexuality, and we don't care what the rest of you think.
> 
> Game over.  Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole race crap, is just that. There was nothing in the Bible that supports racism, and plenty that denies it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very True - in fact there's  a strong case for the theory that Jesus may have been Black himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> does that mean god is black?
Click to expand...


No - but Adam and Eve were probably were .


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Doesn't matter anyway sports fans.
> Same as now that Navy Seal can serve openly as a gay man in the military and the lies about how that would cause "unit cohesion to break down" that Navy Seal will be able to marry his partner now legally.
> And it will have ZERO effect on everyone's heterosexual marriage and on society.
> Get over it, no matter how many lies and bull shit claims you make it is going to happen.
> Move to Iran, they do it your way over there. They hold up a Book and claim it teaches them to condemn gay folks.



What part of "I don't care" did you not get?

First, the military has an extremely high control over public relations, as any government agency does.    Whatever problems homosexuality in the military has, will be buried for as long as they can cover it.

But let's even say you are right.

"I do not care"

Not trying to be insulting.... I don't care.

Whether homosexuality causes millions of problems, or zero problems.... I don't care.

Whether you think I should get over it or not... I don't care.

Whether you think I should move to Iran or not.... I don't care.

Your opinion on my view of Homosexuality has ZERO value to me.  Again, not trying to be insulting.... just trying to be transparent.   I will DIE over this issue.  You can march me to the electric chair, and I will still hold the same view up to the moment you throw the switch.

I won't change.  Not for you.  Not for society.  Not for the government.  Not for the constitution.   Not for any Earthly reason you can come up with.

Don't care what you think.   Too bad.  Thanks for stopping by.


----------



## guno

Churches and religious institutions should be taxed as any other business unless they can prove what money they used to help in charity . Then we can say there is separation of church and state.

When people donate to religious groups, it's tax-deductible. Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and Imams  get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes . The estimate is a total subsidy at $71 billion  year.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old Testament statements condemning homosexuality would also be old Jewish law.
> Where is it Christian law condemning homosexuals?
> Speaking of dumbasses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had read the Bible, you wouldn't be asking that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I went to a private military school from 1966-1968 and religion class was mandatory.
> There is NO Christian LAW condemning homosexuality.
> The Bible's authors condemned homosexuality and that came from ancient cultures and Jewish law.
> Jesus was A JEW. He did not follow Old Jewish Law concerning homosexuality as he accepted everyone.
Click to expand...


Thanks, that's all I needed to know.    You opinion has been filed away in the oval bin of my mind.

So back to me and my church....  Homosexuality is a sin.  We won't have homosexual weddings, and no homosexual will be on our staff.  Period.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Andylusion

guno said:


> Churches and religious institutions should be taxed as any other business unless they can prove what money they used to help in charity . Then we can say there is separation of church and state.
> 
> When people donate to religious groups, it's tax-deductible. Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and Imams  get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes . The estimate is a total subsidy at $71 billion  year.



Tell me you did not just suggest that allowing people to pay less tax, is us "subsidizing" them?


----------



## Gadawg73

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter anyway sports fans.
> Same as now that Navy Seal can serve openly as a gay man in the military and the lies about how that would cause "unit cohesion to break down" that Navy Seal will be able to marry his partner now legally.
> And it will have ZERO effect on everyone's heterosexual marriage and on society.
> Get over it, no matter how many lies and bull shit claims you make it is going to happen.
> Move to Iran, they do it your way over there. They hold up a Book and claim it teaches them to condemn gay folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "I don't care" did you not get?
> 
> First, the military has an extremely high control over public relations, as any government agency does.    Whatever problems homosexuality in the military has, will be buried for as long as they can cover it.
> 
> But let's even say you are right.
> 
> "I do not care"
> 
> Not trying to be insulting.... I don't care.
> 
> Whether homosexuality causes millions of problems, or zero problems.... I don't care.
> 
> Whether you think I should get over it or not... I don't care.
> 
> Whether you think I should move to Iran or not.... I don't care.
> 
> Your opinion on my view of Homosexuality has ZERO value to me.  Again, not trying to be insulting.... just trying to be transparent.   I will DIE over this issue.  You can march me to the electric chair, and I will still hold the same view up to the moment you throw the switch.
> 
> I won't change.  Not for you.  Not for society.  Not for the government.  Not for the constitution.   Not for any Earthly reason you can come up with.
> 
> Don't care what you think.   Too bad.  Thanks for stopping by.
Click to expand...


You care a lot.
Your post was long.


----------



## Gadawg73

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had read the Bible, you wouldn't be asking that question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, I went to a private military school from 1966-1968 and religion class was mandatory.
> There is NO Christian LAW condemning homosexuality.
> The Bible's authors condemned homosexuality and that came from ancient cultures and Jewish law.
> Jesus was A JEW. He did not follow Old Jewish Law concerning homosexuality as he accepted everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, that's all I needed to know.    You opinion has been filed away in the oval bin of my mind.
> 
> So back to me and my church....  Homosexuality is a sin.  We won't have homosexual weddings, and no homosexual will be on our staff.  Period.
> 
> Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


I support that and your right to do that.
And that will never change per the Constitution.
NO church now is forced to marry anyone. 
So you do not oppose other churches marrying gay folks as that is not your church.
Got it.


----------



## Gadawg73

I oppose, and it would never happen anyway, ever, government mandates forcing churches to marry anyone.
Because I support The Constitution.
And as a supporter of the Constitution I also oppose government banning gays from getting married.

You can not have it both ways based on religious beliefs. 
You believe homosexuality is a sin then I support your church not ever having to marry gay folk.
But that gives you NO right to stop other churches from marrying gay folk.


----------



## Gadawg73

Religious know it all higher than thou types get really pissed when they are stopped from throwing their moral guidance mandates out and expecting us to support government to enforce them.

Ain't going to happen so get over it.


----------



## Redfish

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, I went to a private military school from 1966-1968 and religion class was mandatory.
> There is NO Christian LAW condemning homosexuality.
> The Bible's authors condemned homosexuality and that came from ancient cultures and Jewish law.
> Jesus was A JEW. He did not follow Old Jewish Law concerning homosexuality as he accepted everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, that's all I needed to know.    You opinion has been filed away in the oval bin of my mind.
> 
> So back to me and my church....  Homosexuality is a sin.  We won't have homosexual weddings, and no homosexual will be on our staff.  Period.
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support that and your right to do that.
> And that will never change per the Constitution.
> NO church now is forced to marry anyone.
> So you do not oppose other churches marrying gay folks as that is not your church.
> Got it.
Click to expand...


How many of you gay marriage supporters are petitioning mosques and islamic mullahs to perform gay marriages in islam?   

You are fine with forcing Christian and Jewish churches and synagoges to marry gays, but you are silent on islamic treatement of gays.

Why is it off limits for liberals to criticize anything about muslims?   

question 2----why did obama participate in the muslim day of prayer and cancel the non-denominational national day of prayer?


----------



## Redfish

Gadawg73 said:


> I oppose, and it would never happen anyway, ever, government mandates forcing churches to marry anyone.
> Because I support The Constitution.
> And as a supporter of the Constitution I also oppose government banning gays from getting married.
> 
> You can not have it both ways based on religious beliefs.
> You believe homosexuality is a sin then I support your church not ever having to marry gay folk.
> But that gives you NO right to stop other churches from marrying gay folk.





Sorry dude, I understand your position,  but  "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

I agree that gays should be able to enter into a legally binding union that gives them inheritence and tax rights, but it is not, and will never be, a marriage.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter anyway sports fans.
> Same as now that Navy Seal can serve openly as a gay man in the military and the lies about how that would cause "unit cohesion to break down" that Navy Seal will be able to marry his partner now legally.
> And it will have ZERO effect on everyone's heterosexual marriage and on society.
> Get over it, no matter how many lies and bull shit claims you make it is going to happen.
> Move to Iran, they do it your way over there. They hold up a Book and claim it teaches them to condemn gay folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "I don't care" did you not get?
> 
> First, the military has an extremely high control over public relations, as any government agency does.    Whatever problems homosexuality in the military has, will be buried for as long as they can cover it.
> 
> But let's even say you are right.
> 
> "I do not care"
> 
> Not trying to be insulting.... I don't care.
> 
> Whether homosexuality causes millions of problems, or zero problems.... I don't care.
> 
> Whether you think I should get over it or not... I don't care.
> 
> Whether you think I should move to Iran or not.... I don't care.
> 
> Your opinion on my view of Homosexuality has ZERO value to me.  Again, not trying to be insulting.... just trying to be transparent.   I will DIE over this issue.  You can march me to the electric chair, and I will still hold the same view up to the moment you throw the switch.
> 
> I won't change.  Not for you.  Not for society.  Not for the government.  Not for the constitution.   Not for any Earthly reason you can come up with.
> 
> Don't care what you think.   Too bad.  Thanks for stopping by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You care a lot.
> Your post was long.
Click to expand...


Sorry.  Still don't.  You can keep repeating, and I can keep repeating.  You will never change my view on this.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Religious know it all higher than thou types get really pissed when they are stopped from throwing their moral guidance mandates out and expecting us to support government to enforce them.
> 
> Ain't going to happen so get over it.



I have no intention of trying to force you to do anything.

I am making it absolutely 100% clear.... my church... will *NEVER* accept homosexuality.   Period.    Never.

The topic of this thread is NOT... 'should churches force everyone to be hetrosexual'.

I would not be on such a thread.

The topic of this thread *IS*.... 'should churches be forced to accommodate for homosexuals'.

The answer to that question is not relevant to me....  because we are *not* going to do it.   Period.

Don't care what you think the Bible says.  Not going to do it.
Don't care what the law says.   Not going to do it.
Don't care what you think of 'higher than thou' people.  Not going to do it.

Are you getting the idea?    We are not going to follow your dictates.  Period.  Don't care what you think.   Not going to happen.


----------



## Redfish

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious know it all higher than thou types get really pissed when they are stopped from throwing their moral guidance mandates out and expecting us to support government to enforce them.
> 
> Ain't going to happen so get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no intention of trying to force you to do anything.
> 
> I am making it absolutely 100% clear.... my church... will *NEVER* accept homosexuality.   Period.    Never.
> 
> The topic of this thread is NOT... 'should churches force everyone to be hetrosexual'.
> 
> I would not be on such a thread.
> 
> The topic of this thread *IS*.... 'should churches be forced to accommodate for homosexuals'.
> 
> The answer to that question is not relevant to me....  because we are *not* going to do it.   Period.
> 
> Don't care what you think the Bible says.  Not going to do it.
> Don't care what the law says.   Not going to do it.
> Don't care what you think of 'higher than thou' people.  Not going to do it.
> 
> Are you getting the idea?    We are not going to follow your dictates.  Period.  Don't care what you think.   Not going to happen.
Click to expand...


but, but, but what if you offend someone, or hurt their widdle feeeeeeeeeeeellings ?


----------



## Andylusion

Redfish said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious know it all higher than thou types get really pissed when they are stopped from throwing their moral guidance mandates out and expecting us to support government to enforce them.
> 
> Ain't going to happen so get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no intention of trying to force you to do anything.
> 
> I am making it absolutely 100% clear.... my church... will *NEVER* accept homosexuality.   Period.    Never.
> 
> The topic of this thread is NOT... 'should churches force everyone to be hetrosexual'.
> 
> I would not be on such a thread.
> 
> The topic of this thread *IS*.... 'should churches be forced to accommodate for homosexuals'.
> 
> The answer to that question is not relevant to me....  because we are *not* going to do it.   Period.
> 
> Don't care what you think the Bible says.  Not going to do it.
> Don't care what the law says.   Not going to do it.
> Don't care what you think of 'higher than thou' people.  Not going to do it.
> 
> Are you getting the idea?    We are not going to follow your dictates.  Period.  Don't care what you think.   Not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but, but, but what if you offend someone, or hurt their widdle feeeeeeeeeeeellings ?
Click to expand...


Then I'd be following in the foot steps of Jesus Christ.... which.... did the same thing when he was alive.

Truth hurts.  That's why people hate the truth.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Androw said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches and religious institutions should be taxed as any other business unless they can prove what money they used to help in charity . Then we can say there is separation of church and state.
> 
> When people donate to religious groups, it's tax-deductible. Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and Imams  get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes . The estimate is a total subsidy at $71 billion  year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me you did not just suggest that allowing people to pay less tax, is us "subsidizing" them?
Click to expand...



Often when examining a complex problem it's much easier to break it down into a simplified model to show how a system works.

*Baseline:*
1.  Let's say there is a community that consist of 10 buildings.
2.  9 Buildings are owned by individuals and 1 Building is owned by a religious organization.
3.  The community provides roads, police and fire to each building which costs $10,000 per year or $1,000 per building.  (Don't nit-pic the numbers which are chosen to provide the scenario's, look at the flow of logic instead.)


*Scenario #1:*
Individuals owning the buildings use the roads provided by the community, in the event of a crime each can call for police assistance, and in the event of a fire each can call the Fire Department.  Each of the 10 buildings is taxed at a rate of $1,000 per year to reach the required $10,000 to bay the community bill.

*Scenario #2:*
Individuals owning the buildings use the roads provided by the community, in the event of a crime each can call for police assistance, and in the event of a fire each can call the Fire Department.  The bill of $10,000 per year for the community remains the same, however the religious organization is tax exempt - they do not pay the $1,000 to support the services to which they have access.  Therefore the $10,000 bill is not divided amongst the 10 using the services, instead it is divided between remaining 9 meaning they pay $1111.11 per year.

*Conclusion:*
It it logically consistent to point out that under #1 there is no "subsidy" since each is paying an equal share for the services rendered.  It is also logically consistent to point out that under #2 the one tax exempt entity is being subsidized by the other 9 since they enjoy the same services yet do not pay the taxes that support the services.


*************************

NOTE:  The above is an examination of logic and does not indicate whether I think religious organizations or other tax exempt entities should receive tax breaks on baseline taxes (property & sales) or revenue taxes (income & profit from sales).



>>>>


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because the Church has such a history of knuckling under to peer pressure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, churches do have a history of changing due to public opinion...interracial marriage is a prime example. What church is "The Church"...The Catholic Church? Even this new Pope is less, shall we say, "antagonistic" than previous Pontiffs when it comes to "the gheys".
> 
> Here in the good old U S of A, Catholics are among the strongest supporters of marriage equality. The evangelicals are bringing up the rear...again. I imagine they were among the last to let "those people" {the blacks} into their churches too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, churches need butts in the seats. Old crusty anti gay attitudes are dying off...and if their kids won't go to church because they're nasty and bigoted,the church will go out of "business".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you do not know the difference between your use of the word "churches" and my use of the phrase "the Church" just illustrates that you're too busy self-righteously demonizing those who disagree with you to bother educating yourself about them and understanding them.
> 
> Ignorance is never a winning strategy, which is why tyrannical fucktards like you disappear onto the ashheap of history and the Church continues on.
Click to expand...


That you decide to be a nasty twat and not actually address any of the points I made, leads me to believe I hit the nail on the head. 

Even "the Church" won't be able to survive on just 3rd world money...it will need money from places like the US that thinks gays should be treated equally and they want their gay loved ones to worship alongside them. 

Among Americans who left their childhood religion and are now religiously unaffiliated, about one-quarter say negative teachings about or treatment of gay and lesbian people was a somewhat important (14%) or very important (10%) factor in their decision to disaffiliate. Among Millennials who no longer identify with their childhood religion, nearly one-third say that negative teachings about, or treatment of, gay and lesbian people was either a somewhat important (17%) or very important (14%) factor in their disaffiliation from religion.​
A Decade of Change in American Attitudes about Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Issues

Here's an opinion from a Millennial:

What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.

We want an end to the culture wars. We want a truce between science and faith. We want to be known for what we stand for, not what we are against.

We want to ask questions that dont have predetermined answers.

We want churches that emphasize an allegiance to the kingdom of God over an allegiance to a single political party or a single nation.

We want our LGBT friends to feel truly welcome in our faith communities.

We want to be challenged to live lives of holiness, not only when it comes to sex, but also when it comes to living simply, caring for the poor and oppressed, pursuing reconciliation, engaging in creation care and becoming peacemakers.

You cant hand us a latte and then go about business as usual and expect us to stick around. Were not leaving the church because we dont find the cool factor there; were leaving the church because we dont find Jesus there.​
This is why His Holiness, Pope Frankie has been modifying the Church's position regarding gays. The part of the world with all the cash, doesn't hate the gays so much.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, churches do have a history of changing due to public opinion...interracial marriage is a prime example. What church is "The Church"...The Catholic Church? Even this new Pope is less, shall we say, "antagonistic" than previous Pontiffs when it comes to "the gheys".
> 
> Here in the good old U S of A, Catholics are among the strongest supporters of marriage equality. The evangelicals are bringing up the rear...again. I imagine they were among the last to let "those people" {the blacks} into their churches too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, churches need butts in the seats. Old crusty anti gay attitudes are dying off...and if their kids won't go to church because they're nasty and bigoted,the church will go out of "business".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you do not know the difference between your use of the word "churches" and my use of the phrase "the Church" just illustrates that you're too busy self-righteously demonizing those who disagree with you to bother educating yourself about them and understanding them.
> 
> Ignorance is never a winning strategy, which is why tyrannical fucktards like you disappear onto the ashheap of history and the Church continues on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you decide to be a nasty twat and not actually address any of the points I made, leads me to believe I hit the nail on the head.
> 
> Even "the Church" won't be able to survive on just 3rd world money...it will need money from places like the US that thinks gays should be treated equally and they want their gay loved ones to worship alongside them.
> 
> Among Americans who left their childhood religion and are now religiously unaffiliated, about one-quarter say negative teachings about or treatment of gay and lesbian people was a somewhat important (14%) or very important (10%) factor in their decision to disaffiliate. Among Millennials who no longer identify with their childhood religion, nearly one-third say that negative teachings about, or treatment of, gay and lesbian people was either a somewhat important (17%) or very important (14%) factor in their disaffiliation from religion.​
> A Decade of Change in American Attitudes about Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Issues
> 
> Here's an opinion from a Millennial:
> 
> What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.
> 
> We want an end to the culture wars. We want a truce between science and faith. We want to be known for what we stand for, not what we are against.
> 
> We want to ask questions that don&#8217;t have predetermined answers.
> 
> We want churches that emphasize an allegiance to the kingdom of God over an allegiance to a single political party or a single nation.
> 
> We want our LGBT friends to feel truly welcome in our faith communities.
> 
> We want to be challenged to live lives of holiness, not only when it comes to sex, but also when it comes to living simply, caring for the poor and oppressed, pursuing reconciliation, engaging in creation care and becoming peacemakers.
> 
> You can&#8217;t hand us a latte and then go about business as usual and expect us to stick around. We&#8217;re not leaving the church because we don&#8217;t find the cool factor there; we&#8217;re leaving the church because we don&#8217;t find Jesus there.​
> This is why His Holiness, Pope Frankie has been modifying the Church's position regarding gays. The part of the world with all the cash, doesn't hate the gays so much.
Click to expand...




you left muslim, hindu, shinto, buddist, and several others off your chart.

"pope frankie"   come on wytch.   thats below even you.


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the point is that the religious stance will change over time, just like it has changed on the pork issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no the "pork issue" didn't "change over time", dumbass.  Either read the book, or stop commenting on it.  I'm not getting paid to give your worthless, ignorant ass Sunday School lessons.  If you don't even know why Christians don't observe the same dietary rules that observant Jews do, then you have exactly two things to say on the subject of Christianity:  Jack and shit . . . Jack just left town, and the latter is what you just posted.
Click to expand...


Wait...didn't the Church modify it's position regarding meat on Fridays? Anyone munching a burger on Friday used to go to purgatory didn't they? 

All places of worship modify their positions over time due to changing societal norms. They adapt or die.


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> you left muslim, hindu, shinto, buddist, and several others off your chart.
> 
> "pope frankie"   come on wytch.   thats below even you.



I would imagine that the numbers were too few to register. 

Why is Pope Frankie below me? I'm not Catholic. I'm not worried about burning in hell. I should give the Pope more respect than ya'll give the President because why?


----------



## Peach

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> you left muslim, hindu, shinto, buddist, and several others off your chart.
> 
> "pope frankie"   come on wytch.   thats below even you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would imagine that the numbers were too few to register.
> 
> Why is Pope Frankie below me? I'm not Catholic. I'm not worried about burning in hell. I should give the Pope more respect than ya'll give the President because why?
Click to expand...


Pope Francis stated quite clearly: "Who am I to judge"? I agree with him(.) No, no house of worship should be *forced* to allow same gender marriage; it is to be hoped, as time passes, more & more will. Civil marriage must be for all of sound mind, legal age, and without ulterior motive.


----------



## Seawytch

Peach said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> you left muslim, hindu, shinto, buddist, and several others off your chart.
> 
> "pope frankie"   come on wytch.   thats below even you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would imagine that the numbers were too few to register.
> 
> Why is Pope Frankie below me? I'm not Catholic. I'm not worried about burning in hell. I should give the Pope more respect than ya'll give the President because why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pope Francis stated quite clearly: "Who am I to judge"? I agree with him(.) No, no house of worship should be *forced* to allow same gender marriage; it is to be *hoped*, as time passes, more & more will. Civil marriage must be for all of sound mind, legal age, and without ulterior motive.
Click to expand...


Bingo. More and more people are "hoping"  for their churches to be inclusive of their gay loved ones and fewer will attend the churches they don't find that inclusiveness in.


----------



## Peach

Seawytch said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would imagine that the numbers were too few to register.
> 
> Why is Pope Frankie below me? I'm not Catholic. I'm not worried about burning in hell. I should give the Pope more respect than ya'll give the President because why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pope Francis stated quite clearly: "Who am I to judge"? I agree with him(.) No, no house of worship should be *forced* to allow same gender marriage; it is to be *hoped*, as time passes, more & more will. Civil marriage must be for all of sound mind, legal age, and without ulterior motive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo. More and more people are "hoping"  for their churches to be inclusive of their gay loved ones and fewer will attend the churches they don't find that inclusiveness in.
Click to expand...


Yes, some will find faiths that accept *all *as children of God(.)


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> That you decide to be a nasty twat and not actually address any of the points I made, leads me to believe I hit the nail on the head.
> 
> Even "the Church" won't be able to survive on just 3rd world money...it will need money from places like the US that thinks gays should be treated equally and they want their gay loved ones to worship alongside them.
> 
> Among Americans who left their childhood religion and are now religiously unaffiliated, about one-quarter say negative teachings about or treatment of gay and lesbian people was a somewhat important (14%) or very important (10%) factor in their decision to disaffiliate. Among Millennials who no longer identify with their childhood religion, nearly one-third say that negative teachings about, or treatment of, gay and lesbian people was either a somewhat important (17%) or very important (14%) factor in their disaffiliation from religion.​
> A Decade of Change in American Attitudes about Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Issues
> 
> Here's an opinion from a Millennial:
> 
> What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.
> 
> We want an end to the culture wars. We want a truce between science and faith. We want to be known for what we stand for, not what we are against.
> 
> We want to ask questions that don&#8217;t have predetermined answers.
> 
> We want churches that emphasize an allegiance to the kingdom of God over an allegiance to a single political party or a single nation.
> 
> We want our LGBT friends to feel truly welcome in our faith communities.
> 
> We want to be challenged to live lives of holiness, not only when it comes to sex, but also when it comes to living simply, caring for the poor and oppressed, pursuing reconciliation, engaging in creation care and becoming peacemakers.
> 
> You can&#8217;t hand us a latte and then go about business as usual and expect us to stick around. We&#8217;re not leaving the church because we don&#8217;t find the cool factor there; we&#8217;re leaving the church because we don&#8217;t find Jesus there.​
> This is why His Holiness, Pope Frankie has been modifying the Church's position regarding gays. The part of the world with all the cash, doesn't hate the gays so much.



Two things:

1. I hope Pope "Frankie" or one of his advisors has read your post.  And I hope the Imams of the world are reading it too.  

2. With all the popular support you claim exists for the cult of LGBT, or just the forcing of churches internal foundation doctrines to accomodate heresy to placate the masses, why does the poll at the top of this page show 86% of people believing churches & mosques should not have to perform gay marriages? [86% don't really suppport gay marriage as much as they say in public]?


----------



## Silhouette

Peach said:


> Yes, some will find faiths that accept *all *as children of God(.)



OK, here is where your ignorance of the Bible and Jesus' teachings becomes glaringly apparent.  Jesus taught that all men are God's children.  But he in no way shape or form taught that what all men DO is sanctioned or approved of by God.

And herein lies the danger of allowing youthful idiots access to redaction tools for the 1,000's year old christian faith.

I offer Jude 1 as an example.  Jude travelled everywhere with Jesus and heard his teachings first hand on an almost daily basis.  The message below says in a nutshell "love your bretheren when they are foul, but in no way encourage their foulness.  Because if you do, you're going to the pit with them".  In other words, there are certain behaviors that God forbids to spread in a culture as "norms".  One of them happens to be homosexuality.  Because even way way back then, it's uncanny how closely the tactics of "smooth speech" and "complaining" the gays did to try to normalize what they did in Sodom.  And we can see where it got that civilization.  Everyone went to the Pit.  Even those that just ignored God's words and weren't gay themselves.  Even if they just enabled the LGBT takeover in their town, they went down...



> 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
> 
> 2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
> 
> 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
> 
> 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
> 
> 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
> 
> 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
> 
> 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 
> 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
> 
> 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 
> 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
> 
> 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
> 
> 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
> 
> 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
> 
> 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
> 
> 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
> 
> 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
> 
> 22 *And of some have compassion, making a difference*:
> 
> 23 *And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire*; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
> 
> 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.




Basically this direct, non-nonsense commmandment and warning of punishment for the mortal sin of enabling homosexuality says at its end "do whatever it takes, but drag them away from their insanity...save them....save them with compassion and/or fear".  And "earnestly contend" for this to happen.  If you don't you're going to the Pit with them.


The very fact that homosexuals are trying to change that is what it warns in the very body of its own text.  [See underlined text in Jude 1 above]  Their smooth speeches are at this instant as I type this trying to dethrone the christian faith precisely because they've read Jude 1 and are "complaining it isn't fair".  God isn't fair and doesn't give these commandments lightly.  Religion isn't always about touchy-feeling feel good stuff.  It's about keeping your head between the fence posts.  _It's about discipline with compassion.  Never one without the other.._


----------



## Gadawg73

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you do not know the difference between your use of the word "churches" and my use of the phrase "the Church" just illustrates that you're too busy self-righteously demonizing those who disagree with you to bother educating yourself about them and understanding them.
> 
> Ignorance is never a winning strategy, which is why tyrannical fucktards like you disappear onto the ashheap of history and the Church continues on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you decide to be a nasty twat and not actually address any of the points I made, leads me to believe I hit the nail on the head.
> 
> Even "the Church" won't be able to survive on just 3rd world money...it will need money from places like the US that thinks gays should be treated equally and they want their gay loved ones to worship alongside them.
> 
> Among Americans who left their childhood religion and are now religiously unaffiliated, about one-quarter say negative teachings about or treatment of gay and lesbian people was a somewhat important (14%) or very important (10%) factor in their decision to disaffiliate. Among Millennials who no longer identify with their childhood religion, nearly one-third say that negative teachings about, or treatment of, gay and lesbian people was either a somewhat important (17%) or very important (14%) factor in their disaffiliation from religion.​
> A Decade of Change in American Attitudes about Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Issues
> 
> Here's an opinion from a Millennial:
> 
> What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.
> 
> We want an end to the culture wars. We want a truce between science and faith. We want to be known for what we stand for, not what we are against.
> 
> We want to ask questions that dont have predetermined answers.
> 
> We want churches that emphasize an allegiance to the kingdom of God over an allegiance to a single political party or a single nation.
> 
> We want our LGBT friends to feel truly welcome in our faith communities.
> 
> We want to be challenged to live lives of holiness, not only when it comes to sex, but also when it comes to living simply, caring for the poor and oppressed, pursuing reconciliation, engaging in creation care and becoming peacemakers.
> 
> You cant hand us a latte and then go about business as usual and expect us to stick around. Were not leaving the church because we dont find the cool factor there; were leaving the church because we dont find Jesus there.​
> This is why His Holiness, Pope Frankie has been modifying the Church's position regarding gays. The part of the world with all the cash, doesn't hate the gays so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you left muslim, hindu, shinto, buddist, and several others off your chart.
> 
> "pope frankie"   come on wytch.   thats below even you.
Click to expand...


Buddhist have no issues with gay marriage.


----------



## Gadawg73

Silhouette said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, some will find faiths that accept *all *as children of God(.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, here is where your ignorance of the Bible and Jesus' teachings becomes glaringly apparent.  Jesus taught that all men are God's children.  But he in no way shape or form taught that what all men DO is sanctioned or approved of by God.
> 
> And herein lies the danger of allowing youthful idiots access to redaction tools for the 1,000's year old christian faith.
> 
> I offer Jude 1 as an example.  Jude travelled everywhere with Jesus and heard his teachings first hand on an almost daily basis.  The message below says in a nutshell "love your bretheren when they are foul, but in no way encourage their foulness.  Because if you do, you're going to the pit with them".  In other words, there are certain behaviors that God forbids to spread in a culture as "norms".  One of them happens to be homosexuality.  Because even way way back then, it's uncanny how closely the tactics of "smooth speech" and "complaining" the gays did to try to normalize what they did in Sodom.  And we can see where it got that civilization.  Everyone went to the Pit.  Even those that just ignored God's words and weren't gay themselves.  Even if they just enabled the LGBT takeover in their town, they went down...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
> 
> 2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
> 
> 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
> 
> 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
> 
> 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
> 
> 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
> 
> 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 
> 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
> 
> 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 
> 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
> 
> 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
> 
> 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
> 
> 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
> 
> 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
> 
> 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
> 
> 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
> 
> 22 *And of some have compassion, making a difference*:
> 
> 23 *And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire*; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
> 
> 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Basically this direct, non-nonsense commmandment and warning of punishment for the mortal sin of enabling homosexuality says at its end "do whatever it takes, but drag them away from their insanity...save them....save them with compassion and/or fear".  And "earnestly contend" for this to happen.  If you don't you're going to the Pit with them.
> 
> 
> The very fact that homosexuals are trying to change that is what it warns in the very body of its own text.  [See underlined text in Jude 1 above]  Their smooth speeches are at this instant as I type this trying to dethrone the christian faith precisely because they've read Jude 1 and are "complaining it isn't fair".  God isn't fair and doesn't give these commandments lightly.  Religion isn't always about touchy-feeling feel good stuff.  It's about keeping your head between the fence posts.  _It's about discipline with compassion.  Never one without the other.._
Click to expand...


Lead attorney pro bono in the California case lead that charge.
And he is a straight conservative Republican.
Something about The Constitution, not gays and straight folk.
It is over, gayfolks are getting married.
And nothing will change in your or my life, ever.


----------



## Silhouette

Gadawg73 said:


> Buddhist have no issues with gay marriage.



That's not saying much.  Buddhists have no issues with ANYTHING.  The point of religion is not just touchy-feely apathy.  It's also discipline.  Men need discipline and this is why religion exists in the first place; a guide, not just a suggestion.

There may be a scant few enlightened people sprinkled here and there on the earth.  But the herd mentality of homo sapiens and his penchant for getting up to all sorts of mayhem and monkey business means that for the masses in general, a disciplinary schematic had to be handed down..._and enforced_...



Gadawg73 said:


> Lead attorney pro bono in the California case lead that charge.
> And he is a straight conservative Republican.
> Something about The Constitution, not gays and straight folk.
> It is over, gayfolks are getting married.
> And nothing will change in your or my life, ever.



I wasn't saying that attorney did a good job.  The question here isn't gay marriage.  It's whether or not that cult can force christians to perform it.  Your attorney may think they are one and the same: but they are not.  You cannot allow a group of minority behaviors to tell recognized religions to perform heresy to their faith.  You cannot allow one group of citizens to force another to abdicate their religion in violation of the 1st Amendment.  I don't envy the Supreme Court on this one.  They literally are going to be choosing between the Devil and God.  When you render it down, that is PRECISELY what's going on here..


----------



## Andylusion

WorldWatcher said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches and religious institutions should be taxed as any other business unless they can prove what money they used to help in charity . Then we can say there is separation of church and state.
> 
> When people donate to religious groups, it's tax-deductible. Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and Imams  get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes . The estimate is a total subsidy at $71 billion  year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me you did not just suggest that allowing people to pay less tax, is us "subsidizing" them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Often when examining a complex problem it's much easier to break it down into a simplified model to show how a system works.
> 
> *Baseline:*
> 1.  Let's say there is a community that consist of 10 buildings.
> 2.  9 Buildings are owned by individuals and 1 Building is owned by a religious organization.
> 3.  The community provides roads, police and fire to each building which costs $10,000 per year or $1,000 per building.  (Don't nit-pic the numbers which are chosen to provide the scenario's, look at the flow of logic instead.)
> 
> 
> *Scenario #1:*
> Individuals owning the buildings use the roads provided by the community, in the event of a crime each can call for police assistance, and in the event of a fire each can call the Fire Department.  Each of the 10 buildings is taxed at a rate of $1,000 per year to reach the required $10,000 to bay the community bill.
> 
> *Scenario #2:*
> Individuals owning the buildings use the roads provided by the community, in the event of a crime each can call for police assistance, and in the event of a fire each can call the Fire Department.  The bill of $10,000 per year for the community remains the same, however the religious organization is tax exempt - they do not pay the $1,000 to support the services to which they have access.  Therefore the $10,000 bill is not divided amongst the 10 using the services, instead it is divided between remaining 9 meaning they pay $1111.11 per year.
> 
> *Conclusion:*
> It it logically consistent to point out that under #1 there is no "subsidy" since each is paying an equal share for the services rendered.  It is also logically consistent to point out that under #2 the one tax exempt entity is being subsidized by the other 9 since they enjoy the same services yet do not pay the taxes that support the services.
> 
> *************************
> 
> NOTE:  The above is an examination of logic and does not indicate whether I think religious organizations or other tax exempt entities should receive tax breaks on baseline taxes (property & sales) or revenue taxes (income & profit from sales).
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


I don't completely disagree, but I was looking at it from a more fundamental level.   Subsidy is money given to someone.   Ethanol producers actually get a real life subsidy.   They get an actual check from the government, of money stolen from tax payers.

If you consider a deduction, or a reduction is taxes collected, to be a subsidy.....   then.... EVERYONE is subsidized.    I don't know anyone that is paying the absolute full amount of taxes they owe according to the tax tables.

I have deductions.   I make $20,000 a year.  I get many deductions.   Apparently despite getting a tax bill of over $700, over the several thousand they stole from my check throughout the year.... apparently I'm being 'subsidized' by ya'll.   Wish ya'll would subsidize me a bit more.

But let me back up to the body of your argument.   Your claim is that if someone pays less tax, then someone would have to pay more tax, to cover the expenses.

Is that true?   I would argue it is not.   Another way to look at it, is if a business moves in and starts paying property taxes, do taxes lower for the rest of the public?   Of course not.  Never happens.

My church was built on an empty plot of farm land, which was paying very little in property taxes before hand.

The road in front of the church was already built.   If the church had never existed, that street would still have been there, still be paved, still be maintained.    The difference in cost to the city, and therefore the tax payers, is completely unchanged.

What is changed is that the church has several full time employees, which pay city taxes on their income, and property taxes on their residences.

I happen to have my property tax statement right here in front of me.

Tax distribution, is as follows.... (not in any particular order)

Children Services
Parks
Zoos
Schools

All of those involve children.  Churches do not use those services.  Families create that cost, and families are paying property taxes for it.

Senior programs
Library
Rehab programs
Disability programs

Church not only don't use those services, but often provide those services themselves.  My church has hired people with disability, which reduces the cost on society, not increases it.   We have programs for Seniors, and we have a library of sorts (yes I know, it's religious in nature), and we have in times past paid for people in our church to go through rehab, which again reduces the cost of that service on society.

To put that in perspective, out of my total property tax bill, less than 4% of my bill goes to roads, police, fire, and public services.

So my argument is this.  Churches create very very little cost on society, and provide many many benefits.  People choose not to use those benefits by choosing not to go to church, but that reflects on them, not the church.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


Oh good grief.. not this stupid shit again.


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, churches do have a history of changing due to public opinion...interracial marriage is a prime example. What church is "The Church"...The Catholic Church? Even this new Pope is less, shall we say, "antagonistic" than previous Pontiffs when it comes to "the gheys".
> 
> Here in the good old U S of A, Catholics are among the strongest supporters of marriage equality. The evangelicals are bringing up the rear...again. I imagine they were among the last to let "those people" {the blacks} into their churches too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, churches need butts in the seats. Old crusty anti gay attitudes are dying off...and if their kids won't go to church because they're nasty and bigoted,the church will go out of "business".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you do not know the difference between your use of the word "churches" and my use of the phrase "the Church" just illustrates that you're too busy self-righteously demonizing those who disagree with you to bother educating yourself about them and understanding them.
> 
> Ignorance is never a winning strategy, which is why tyrannical fucktards like you disappear onto the ashheap of history and the Church continues on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you decide to be a nasty twat and not actually address any of the points I made, leads me to believe I hit the nail on the head.
> 
> Even "the Church" won't be able to survive on just 3rd world money...it will need money from places like the US that thinks gays should be treated equally and they want their gay loved ones to worship alongside them.
> 
> Among Americans who left their childhood religion and are now religiously unaffiliated, about one-quarter say negative teachings about or treatment of gay and lesbian people was a somewhat important (14%) or very important (10%) factor in their decision to disaffiliate. Among Millennials who no longer identify with their childhood religion, nearly one-third say that negative teachings about, or treatment of, gay and lesbian people was either a somewhat important (17%) or very important (14%) factor in their disaffiliation from religion.​
> A Decade of Change in American Attitudes about Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Issues
> 
> Here's an opinion from a Millennial:
> 
> What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.
> 
> We want an end to the culture wars. We want a truce between science and faith. We want to be known for what we stand for, not what we are against.
> 
> We want to ask questions that dont have predetermined answers.
> 
> We want churches that emphasize an allegiance to the kingdom of God over an allegiance to a single political party or a single nation.
> 
> We want our LGBT friends to feel truly welcome in our faith communities.
> 
> We want to be challenged to live lives of holiness, not only when it comes to sex, but also when it comes to living simply, caring for the poor and oppressed, pursuing reconciliation, engaging in creation care and becoming peacemakers.
> 
> You cant hand us a latte and then go about business as usual and expect us to stick around. Were not leaving the church because we dont find the cool factor there; were leaving the church because we dont find Jesus there.​
> This is why His Holiness, Pope Frankie has been modifying the Church's position regarding gays. The part of the world with all the cash, doesn't hate the gays so much.
Click to expand...


So what?   Why would I care what the Pope does?   Why would care what other people do?

Do you think I hold the views I do because of what is popular?  I promise you, I do not.  Never will.

Homosexuality is a sin.  Period.  Last I checked, G-d doesn't care about your opinion polls.

Have you never read Psalm 2?

Why do the nations rage, and the people plot in vain?
He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord holds them in derision.

Go read Psalms 2.   You post all your opinion polls....  He who sits in the heavens..... LAUGHS....   LAUGHS!

That's what G-d thinks about all your opinion polls... and that's what I think about them.

We don't care about your opinion polls.  Homosexuality is a sin.  We won't accommodate it ever.  Period.


----------



## Kosh

And still no matter how much the far left posts, "Marriage" is not a right!


----------



## Redfish

Peach said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pope Francis stated quite clearly: "Who am I to judge"? I agree with him(.) No, no house of worship should be *forced* to allow same gender marriage; it is to be *hoped*, as time passes, more & more will. Civil marriage must be for all of sound mind, legal age, and without ulterior motive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo. More and more people are "hoping"  for their churches to be inclusive of their gay loved ones and fewer will attend the churches they don't find that inclusiveness in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, some will find faiths that accept *all *as children of God(.)
Click to expand...


All Christian and Jewish churches accept all as children of God.   That does not mean that God accepts the sins of all of his children.   

You are mixing gay marriage with the basics of religious beliefs.   

I don't personally know what God thinks about homosexuals,  I suspect that he loves them as they are.   

Gay marriage is a civil issue, not a religious issue.   Civil issues of what is considered right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, etc should be decided by a majority of the citizens of the city, state, or country.   If the federal govt wants to have a referendum on gay marriage as part of a national election------I say go for it, do it.   But be ready to accept the will of the people after the votes are counted.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Kosh said:


> And still no matter how much the far left posts, "Marriage" is not a right!


I agree, however the courts do not, and Equal Before The Law is a right, which is what Marriage Equality is actually about.


----------



## Lovebears65

KNB said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you include mosques in that sentiment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All religions.  Churches, mosques and synagogues.  Anyone who thinks that there is an invisible man in the sky, but especially anyone who is willing to kill to prove just how much their invisible man in the sky loves us.  You find them in every culture.
> 
> Christians, Muslims and Jews all pray to the One True Invisible Man in the Sky.  They only kill each other over what name to call it.  And they pollute and poison God's paradise called Earth because they think that they're going to be able to sit around in Never Never Land and play harps in outer space after they die.
> 
> Human adults need to grow up and stop having imaginary friends.
Click to expand...

How can you prove 100 percent there is not a higher power?? You cant.. This is your opinion..


----------



## Andylusion

KNB said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you include mosques in that sentiment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All religions.  Churches, mosques and synagogues.  Anyone who thinks that there is an invisible man in the sky, but especially anyone who is willing to kill to prove just how much their invisible man in the sky loves us.  You find them in every culture.
> 
> Christians, Muslims and Jews all pray to the One True Invisible Man in the Sky.  They only kill each other over what name to call it.  And they pollute and poison God's paradise called Earth because they think that they're going to be able to sit around in Never Never Land and play harps in outer space after they die.
> 
> Human adults need to grow up and stop having imaginary friends.
Click to expand...


Just looking at Christianity, Islam, and Judaism....  there dozens of differences far beyond 'the name'.

And nothing else you've talked about is anything close to what my Bible says, and certainly isn't believed in either of the other two.

I think you really don't have any idea what you are talking about.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Lovebears65 said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you include mosques in that sentiment?
> 
> 
> 
> All religions.  Churches, mosques and synagogues.  Anyone who thinks that there is an invisible man in the sky, but especially anyone who is willing to kill to prove just how much their invisible man in the sky loves us.  You find them in every culture.
> 
> Christians, Muslims and Jews all pray to the One True Invisible Man in the Sky.  They only kill each other over what name to call it.  And they pollute and poison God's paradise called Earth because they think that they're going to be able to sit around in Never Never Land and play harps in outer space after they die.
> 
> Human adults need to grow up and stop having imaginary friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you prove 100 percent there is not a higher power?? You cant.. This is your opinion..
Click to expand...

God cannot be proven either way...


----------



## TooTall

RWHeathenGamer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
Click to expand...


Yes. And, they can refuse to marry you and your sister or your pet as well.


----------



## Andylusion

PaintMyHouse said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still no matter how much the far left posts, "Marriage" is not a right!
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, however the courts do not, and Equal Before The Law is a right, which is what Marriage Equality is actually about.
Click to expand...


If you find an old dictionary, before people started screwing with the words....

The definition of "marriage" is:

'a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife'

Husband.... and wife.   Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as male and female.

You could have multiple females.   But it was still between a man, and a woman.

Even in societies that were very open to homosexuality, you could have partners as such, but they were still not "married".  They were partners, and had some level of legal standing, but they were not "married".

Marriage was between a man and woman.   If there is such a example of any historical society where man and man, or woman and woman, could marry, I don't know of it.

So to that end, I would say to you that everyone is legally equal under the law.  Everyone has the ability to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.

Now if society wants to allow some sort of legal partnership....  I would be ok with that.   I'd feel sad for the people who agreed to it, but let the pagans be pagans, in my book.   If that's what they want, knock themselves out.


----------



## Andylusion

PaintMyHouse said:


> Lovebears65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> All religions.  Churches, mosques and synagogues.  Anyone who thinks that there is an invisible man in the sky, but especially anyone who is willing to kill to prove just how much their invisible man in the sky loves us.  You find them in every culture.
> 
> Christians, Muslims and Jews all pray to the One True Invisible Man in the Sky.  They only kill each other over what name to call it.  And they pollute and poison God's paradise called Earth because they think that they're going to be able to sit around in Never Never Land and play harps in outer space after they die.
> 
> Human adults need to grow up and stop having imaginary friends.
> 
> 
> 
> How can you prove 100 percent there is not a higher power?? You cant.. This is your opinion..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God cannot be proven either way...
Click to expand...


Which again, is our point.  It's just opinion that he doesn't.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Androw said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lovebears65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you prove 100 percent there is not a higher power?? You cant.. This is your opinion..
> 
> 
> 
> God cannot be proven either way...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which again, is our point.  It's just opinion that he doesn't.
Click to expand...

It's just opinion that he does.  Now what?


----------



## Kosh

Androw said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lovebears65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you prove 100 percent there is not a higher power?? You cant.. This is your opinion..
> 
> 
> 
> God cannot be proven either way...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which again, is our point.  It's just opinion that he doesn't.
Click to expand...


Well that is not entirely true as God could very easily be proven to exist, but it would require those with open minds to understand it.

Being agnostic I believe that something more powerful than humans exists in this universe.

Some may call it god other may say that the universe itself has a conscience, but then again the person in question would have to be open minded. The far left on this board has proven that they are the most closed minded people on the planet.


----------



## GISMYS

PaintMyHouse said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> God cannot be proven either way...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which again, is our point.  It's just opinion that he doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just opinion that he does.  Now what?
Click to expand...


GOD SAYS MAN HAS PROOF AND NO EXCUSE TO NOT KNOW GOD IS REAL!!!===For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness,

19 because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shown it unto them.

20 For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

21 For when they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God, nor were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Romans 1:18-21


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Androw said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still no matter how much the far left posts, "Marriage" is not a right!
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, however the courts do not, and Equal Before The Law is a right, which is what Marriage Equality is actually about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you find an old dictionary, before people started screwing with the words....
> 
> The definition of "marriage" is:
> 
> 'a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife'
> 
> Husband.... and wife.   Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as male and female.
> 
> You could have multiple females.   But it was still between a man, and a woman.
> 
> Even in societies that were very open to homosexuality, you could have partners as such, but they were still not "married".  They were partners, and had some level of legal standing, but they were not "married".
> 
> Marriage was between a man and woman.   If there is such a example of any historical society where man and man, or woman and woman, could marry, I don't know of it.
> 
> So to that end, I would say to you that everyone is legally equal under the law.  Everyone has the ability to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.
> 
> Now if society wants to allow some sort of legal partnership....  I would be ok with that.   I'd feel sad for the people who agreed to it, but let the pagans be pagans, in my book.   If that's what they want, knock themselves out.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a word.  Equal Before The Law is a concept, an American value.  Go with that.

And the tradition was to beat your wife but we're past that now, mostly, just as we should be past worrying about two gay people having the same legal standing in a secular nation as two straight people.

You are hung up on a word, a tradition, when there is a higher principle at stake, equality.


----------



## Andylusion

PaintMyHouse said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> God cannot be proven either way...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which again, is our point.  It's just opinion that he doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just opinion that he does.  Now what?
Click to expand...


That depends on you.   When people like you try telling us that you know for certain G-d does not exist, you are full of crap.

Now if you are ok being full of crap, off somewhere else doing whatever you pagans do.... that's fine with me.

But... if you want to tell me, or my church, that we have to accept homosexuality because your opinion is that our G-d does not exist...... 

With all due respect.... tough snot.   Not going to happen.

Sucks to be you, too bad we can vote, eh?


----------



## GISMYS

MARRAGE IS GOD'S PLAN FOR MAN AND WOMAN. OBEY GOD OR PAY THE PRICE!!! and you??


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Androw said:


> That depends on you.   When people like you try telling us that you know for certain G-d does not exist, you are full of crap.


Atheists and Theists are both morons.  Don't lump me in with those groups.

And what you do in church is mostly, up to you...


----------



## Andylusion

PaintMyHouse said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, however the courts do not, and Equal Before The Law is a right, which is what Marriage Equality is actually about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you find an old dictionary, before people started screwing with the words....
> 
> The definition of "marriage" is:
> 
> 'a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife'
> 
> Husband.... and wife.   Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as male and female.
> 
> You could have multiple females.   But it was still between a man, and a woman.
> 
> Even in societies that were very open to homosexuality, you could have partners as such, but they were still not "married".  They were partners, and had some level of legal standing, but they were not "married".
> 
> Marriage was between a man and woman.   If there is such a example of any historical society where man and man, or woman and woman, could marry, I don't know of it.
> 
> So to that end, I would say to you that everyone is legally equal under the law.  Everyone has the ability to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.
> 
> Now if society wants to allow some sort of legal partnership....  I would be ok with that.   I'd feel sad for the people who agreed to it, but let the pagans be pagans, in my book.   If that's what they want, knock themselves out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a word.  Equal Before The Law is a concept, an American value.  Go with that.
> 
> And the tradition was to beat your wife but we're past that now, mostly, just as we should be past worrying about two gay people having the same legal standing in a secular nation as two straight people.
> 
> You are hung up on a word, a tradition, when there is a higher principle at stake, equality.
Click to expand...


You have the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like anyone else.

There is equality under the law.

Equality is a word too.
Law is a word too.

Can we just redefine all those words, because you want to redefine marriage?   Or have you decided arbitrarily that only the words you want to redefine, can be?


----------



## KNB

GISMYS said:


> MARRAGE IS GOD'S PLAN FOR MAN AND WOMAN. OBEY GOD OR PAY THE PRICE!!! and you??


There is no God.  Marriage is a human invention, open to interpretation by humans.

Listen to this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTgKRCXybSM]A Perfect Circle - Judith - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Andylusion

GISMYS said:


> MARRAGE IS GOD'S PLAN FOR MAN AND WOMAN. OBEY GOD OR PAY THE PRICE!!! and you??



Congrats!    You have proved yourself completely unworthy to be read by me.    When I talk to these people, I'm just trying to be transparent.

You are intentionally insulting.   Jesus never did that to pagans.  You are not following him, or his belief system, and you are a terrible poster in general.

You have been ignored!  And I will never see your posts ever again.


----------



## GISMYS

KNB said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> MARRAGE IS GOD'S PLAN FOR MAN AND WOMAN. OBEY GOD OR PAY THE PRICE!!! and you??
> 
> 
> 
> There is no God.  Marriage is a human invention, open to interpretation by humans.
> 
> Listen to this:
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTgKRCXybSM]A Perfect Circle - Judith - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


SO SAYS THE FOOL,"THERE IS NO GOD"!!! and you??


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...any that converted were freed?  Well, that is considerably LESS than what the Church did for centuries!  Those who converted were often still killed (or died from the forced "conversion"), just not quite so horribly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, really?  And you're now going to cite the proof for that, knowing that no one's word is worth shit on a message board, PARTICULARLY yours, right?
> 
> And don't think I didn't notice that you completely skipped the entire post except for one sentence that let you spew a little more "Christians are BAD!  Nothing is bad except Christians!  I hate Christians, and . . . and I hate Christians, and I can't think of anything but how I hate Christians!"  Topic?  What topic?  You don't need to know nothing 'bout no stinking topic except how much you hate Christians, and they are therefore the only bad thing that has ever existed in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not hate Christians...but like Jesus, I hate *hypocrisy!*
Click to expand...


Oh, spare me.  You're such a kneejerk anti-religious bigot, they'd use you on recruiting posters, if they had any.  You're a walking cliche.


----------



## Andylusion

KNB said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> MARRAGE IS GOD'S PLAN FOR MAN AND WOMAN. OBEY GOD OR PAY THE PRICE!!! and you??
> 
> 
> 
> There is no God.  Marriage is a human invention, open to interpretation by humans.
> 
> Listen to this:
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTgKRCXybSM]A Perfect Circle - Judith - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Right....   so now a music video is our proof G-d doesn't exist.   G-d must spend most of his time just laughing at the people of Earth.

Seriously, don't waste your time with GISMYS.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Androw said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you find an old dictionary, before people started screwing with the words....
> 
> The definition of "marriage" is:
> 
> 'a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife'
> 
> Husband.... and wife.   Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as male and female.
> 
> You could have multiple females.   But it was still between a man, and a woman.
> 
> Even in societies that were very open to homosexuality, you could have partners as such, but they were still not "married".  They were partners, and had some level of legal standing, but they were not "married".
> 
> Marriage was between a man and woman.   If there is such a example of any historical society where man and man, or woman and woman, could marry, I don't know of it.
> 
> So to that end, I would say to you that everyone is legally equal under the law.  Everyone has the ability to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.
> 
> Now if society wants to allow some sort of legal partnership....  I would be ok with that.   I'd feel sad for the people who agreed to it, but let the pagans be pagans, in my book.   If that's what they want, knock themselves out.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a word.  Equal Before The Law is a concept, an American value.  Go with that.
> 
> And the tradition was to beat your wife but we're past that now, mostly, just as we should be past worrying about two gay people having the same legal standing in a secular nation as two straight people.
> 
> You are hung up on a word, a tradition, when there is a higher principle at stake, equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like anyone else.
> 
> There is equality under the law.
> 
> Equality is a word too.
> Law is a word too.
> 
> Can we just redefine all those words, because you want to redefine marriage?   Or have you decided arbitrarily that only the words you want to redefine, can be?
Click to expand...

We have a word for Equality but it is an American value.  Marriage is a word and also a legal standing here, based upon a license issued by the State, a secular state.

And I've been married since before dirt was old.  Now I'm watching as people who didn't have the same rights as I had are granted them, and I'm very pleased about it even if none of them ever use said right.


----------



## GISMYS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHY DO PEOPLE WASTE THEIR LIFE TRYING TO ARGUE AND FIGHT AGAINST GOD? GOD LOVES YOU,GOD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANY PERISH, WHY NOT JUST BELIEVE,CONFESS AND REPENT, ACCEPT JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND BECOME A son OF ALMIGHTY GOD? THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE TO LIVING YOUR LIFE AS A son OF ALMIGHTY GOD!!!! 
HEAR GOD'S WARNING TO YOU!!! Scream in terror, for the Lord&#8217;s time has come, the time for the Almighty to crush you. 7 Your arms lie paralyzed with fear; the strongest hearts melt 8 and are afraid. Fear grips you with terrible pangs, like those of a woman in labor. You look at one another, helpless, as the flames of the burning city reflect upon your pallid faces. 9 For see, the day of the Lord is coming, the terrible day of his wrath and fierce anger. The land shall be destroyed and all the sinners with it. 10 The heavens will be black above them. No light will shine from stars or sun or moon.

11 And I will punish the world for its evil, the wicked for their sin; I will crush the arrogance of the proud man and the haughtiness of the rich. 12 Few will live when I have finished up my work.

Men will be as scarce as gold&#8212;of greater value than the gold of Ophir. 13 For I will shake the heavens in my wrath and fierce anger, and the earth will move from its place in the skies.
ISAIAH 13:6-13


----------



## JakeStarkey

I believe God is and always has been and always be.

I care nothing for atheism, for it is a fool's dream without proof.

The Constitution is secular, and We the People through our legislatures and courts decide marriage law.

Twenty straight court decisions, the majority of American opinion, and the overwhelming supermajority of American opinion are clear indicators that marriage equality is inevitable.


----------



## Kosh

JakeStarkey said:


> I believe God is and always has been and always be.
> 
> I care nothing for atheism, for it is a fool's dream without proof.
> 
> The Constitution is secular, and We the People through our legislatures and courts decide marriage law.
> 
> Twenty straight court decisions, the majority of American opinion, and the overwhelming supermajority of American opinion are clear indicators that marriage equality is inevitable.



And once again the far left Obama drones show that that they do want the state merged with religion.

Get government out of the business of "Marriage".


----------



## Andylusion

PaintMyHouse said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a word.  Equal Before The Law is a concept, an American value.  Go with that.
> 
> And the tradition was to beat your wife but we're past that now, mostly, just as we should be past worrying about two gay people having the same legal standing in a secular nation as two straight people.
> 
> You are hung up on a word, a tradition, when there is a higher principle at stake, equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like anyone else.
> 
> There is equality under the law.
> 
> Equality is a word too.
> Law is a word too.
> 
> Can we just redefine all those words, because you want to redefine marriage?   Or have you decided arbitrarily that only the words you want to redefine, can be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a word for Equality but it is an American value.  Marriage is a word and also a legal standing here, based upon a license issued by the State, a secular state.
> 
> And I've been married since before dirt was old.  Now I'm watching as people who didn't have the same rights as I had are granted them, and I'm very pleased about it even if none of them ever use said right.
Click to expand...


But they are not married.    Marriage is between a man and woman.   Two men, can't be married.  Don't care what the law says.  They are not married.    No bit of paper changes that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

GreenBean said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very True - in fact there's  a strong case for the theory that Jesus may have been Black himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that case would be . . . ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say I agreed with it - I justsaid there was a case for it . IMO Jesus was a Nyth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While many people have a fixed mental image of Jesus, drawn from his artistic depictions, these images often conform to stereotypes which are not grounded in any serious research on the historical Jesus, but are based on second or third hand interpretations of spurious sources
> 
> In explaining the development of racial theories in the context of scripture, Colin Kidd, in his book The forging of races, argues that the assignment of race to biblical individuals has been a mostly subjective practice based on cultural stereotypes and societal trends rather than on scientific methods. Kidd reviews a number of theories about the race of Jesus, *ranging from a white Aryan Jesus to a black African Jesus, illustrating that there is no general agreement among scholars on the race of Jesus*
> Race and appearance of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


In other words, "I just say shit to be saying it.  I have no real fucking clue what I'm talking about, and as soon as someone asks me to actually explain the dribble coming out of my mouth, I backpedal."

Next time, just save everyone the time and don't bother talking at all.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Androw said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like anyone else.
> 
> There is equality under the law.
> 
> Equality is a word too.
> Law is a word too.
> 
> Can we just redefine all those words, because you want to redefine marriage?   Or have you decided arbitrarily that only the words you want to redefine, can be?
> 
> 
> 
> We have a word for Equality but it is an American value.  Marriage is a word and also a legal standing here, based upon a license issued by the State, a secular state.
> 
> And I've been married since before dirt was old.  Now I'm watching as people who didn't have the same rights as I had are granted them, and I'm very pleased about it even if none of them ever use said right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they are not married.    Marriage is between a man and woman.   Two men, can't be married.  Don't care what the law says.  They are not married.    No bit of paper changes that.
Click to expand...

You are welcome to stand your ground, as it moves beneath you, but society is leaving you in the past and moving on, and there's nothing you can do about it.


----------



## bripat9643

Cecilie1200 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, really?  And you're now going to cite the proof for that, knowing that no one's word is worth shit on a message board, PARTICULARLY yours, right?
> 
> And don't think I didn't notice that you completely skipped the entire post except for one sentence that let you spew a little more "Christians are BAD!  Nothing is bad except Christians!  I hate Christians, and . . . and I hate Christians, and I can't think of anything but how I hate Christians!"  Topic?  What topic?  You don't need to know nothing 'bout no stinking topic except how much you hate Christians, and they are therefore the only bad thing that has ever existed in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not hate Christians...but like Jesus, I hate *hypocrisy!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, spare me.  You're such a kneejerk anti-religious bigot, they'd use you on recruiting posters, if they had any.  You're a walking cliche.
Click to expand...


It's impossible to be a liberal if  you truly hate hypocrisy.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Lovebears65 said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you include mosques in that sentiment?
> 
> 
> 
> All religions.  Churches, mosques and synagogues.  Anyone who thinks that there is an invisible man in the sky, but especially anyone who is willing to kill to prove just how much their invisible man in the sky loves us.  You find them in every culture.
> 
> Christians, Muslims and Jews all pray to the One True Invisible Man in the Sky.  They only kill each other over what name to call it.  And they pollute and poison God's paradise called Earth because they think that they're going to be able to sit around in Never Never Land and play harps in outer space after they die.
> 
> Human adults need to grow up and stop having imaginary friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you prove 100 percent there is not a higher power?? You cant.. This is your opinion..
Click to expand...


And, apparently, its your opinion that there is. 

Cool. You go with that. Makes no difference to anything at all and you're welcome to it.

But, KNB's point is valid. All the various religions all say basically the same thing - my god can beat up you god. 

Again, believe whatever gets you through the night but there ain't no way your "god" is happy about the mess his followers have made.


----------



## GISMYS

PaintMyHouse said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a word for Equality but it is an American value.  Marriage is a word and also a legal standing here, based upon a license issued by the State, a secular state.
> 
> And I've been married since before dirt was old.  Now I'm watching as people who didn't have the same rights as I had are granted them, and I'm very pleased about it even if none of them ever use said right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they are not married.    Marriage is between a man and woman.   Two men, can't be married.  Don't care what the law says.  They are not married.    No bit of paper changes that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to stand your ground, as it moves beneath you, but society is leaving you in the past and moving on, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Click to expand...


NO!!! Society is moving backwards to sodom and we have already been there=not a good place!!!


----------



## Cecilie1200

guno said:


> Churches and religious institutions should be taxed as any other business unless they can prove what money they used to help in charity . Then we can say there is separation of church and state.
> 
> When people donate to religious groups, it's tax-deductible. Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and Imams  get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes . The estimate is a total subsidy at $71 billion  year.



It would have been faster for you to just post, "I have no fucking clue how the tax laws for churches work, I just assume they're crooked and getting a deal they don't deserve."  Same result for less space.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Kosh said:


> And still no matter how much the far left posts, "Marriage" is not a right!


.[/QUOTE]

It is a right. So is not marrying. And, its no one's business what you choose for yourself or why. Its no one's business if you want to marry another of the same sex or a damn bridge. 

The only time it becomes the business of others is if the participants are not consenting adults. 

Otherwise, MYOB.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Androw said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches and religious institutions should be taxed as any other business unless they can prove what money they used to help in charity . Then we can say there is separation of church and state.
> 
> When people donate to religious groups, it's tax-deductible. Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and Imams  get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes . The estimate is a total subsidy at $71 billion  year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me you did not just suggest that allowing people to pay less tax, is us "subsidizing" them?
Click to expand...


You say that like you didn't know that all money and income in the world actually belongs to the government, which generously distributes some of it to us and allows us to use it, provided we do so in a way deemed acceptable by the leftists slavishly sucking government's dick.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Kosh said:


> Get government out of the business of "Marriage".


It's too late for that not, way too late.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Androw said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still no matter how much the far left posts, "Marriage" is not a right!
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, however the courts do not, and Equal Before The Law is a right, which is what Marriage Equality is actually about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you find an old dictionary, before people started screwing with the words....
> 
> The definition of "marriage" is:
> 
> 'a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife'
> 
> Husband.... and wife.   Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as male and female.
> 
> You could have multiple females.   But it was still between a man, and a woman.
> 
> Even in societies that were very open to homosexuality, you could have partners as such, but they were still not "married".  They were partners, and had some level of legal standing, but they were not "married".
> 
> Marriage was between a man and woman.   If there is such a example of any historical society where man and man, or woman and woman, could marry, I don't know of it.
> 
> So to that end, I would say to you that everyone is legally equal under the law.  Everyone has the ability to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.
> 
> Now if society wants to allow some sort of legal partnership....  I would be ok with that.   I'd feel sad for the people who agreed to it, but let the pagans be pagans, in my book.   If that's what they want, knock themselves out.
Click to expand...


----------



## PaintMyHouse

GISMYS said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they are not married.    Marriage is between a man and woman.   Two men, can't be married.  Don't care what the law says.  They are not married.    No bit of paper changes that.
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to stand your ground, as it moves beneath you, but society is leaving you in the past and moving on, and there's nothing you can do about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO!!! Society is moving backwards to sodom and we have already been there=not a good place!!!
Click to expand...

The rock group Boston can help you out, Don't Look Back...


----------



## Howey

GISMYS said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they are not married.    Marriage is between a man and woman.   Two men, can't be married.  Don't care what the law says.  They are not married.    No bit of paper changes that.
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to stand your ground, as it moves beneath you, but society is leaving you in the past and moving on, and there's nothing you can do about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO!!! Society is moving backwards to sodom and we have already been there=not a good place!!!
Click to expand...


You were there????????????


----------



## GISMYS

GOD'S PLAN FOR MARRAGE OF MAN TO WOMAN=====And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.

22 And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made He a woman and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, &#8220;This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.&#8221;

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.
Genesis 2:21-24


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, churches do have a history of changing due to public opinion...interracial marriage is a prime example. What church is "The Church"...The Catholic Church? Even this new Pope is less, shall we say, "antagonistic" than previous Pontiffs when it comes to "the gheys".
> 
> Here in the good old U S of A, Catholics are among the strongest supporters of marriage equality. The evangelicals are bringing up the rear...again. I imagine they were among the last to let "those people" {the blacks} into their churches too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, churches need butts in the seats. Old crusty anti gay attitudes are dying off...and if their kids won't go to church because they're nasty and bigoted,the church will go out of "business".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you do not know the difference between your use of the word "churches" and my use of the phrase "the Church" just illustrates that you're too busy self-righteously demonizing those who disagree with you to bother educating yourself about them and understanding them.
> 
> Ignorance is never a winning strategy, which is why tyrannical fucktards like you disappear onto the ashheap of history and the Church continues on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you decide to be a nasty twat and not actually address any of the points I made, leads me to believe I hit the nail on the head.
> 
> Even "the Church" won't be able to survive on just 3rd world money...it will need money from places like the US that thinks gays should be treated equally and they want their gay loved ones to worship alongside them.
> 
> Among Americans who left their childhood religion and are now religiously unaffiliated, about one-quarter say negative teachings about or treatment of gay and lesbian people was a somewhat important (14%) or very important (10%) factor in their decision to disaffiliate. Among Millennials who no longer identify with their childhood religion, nearly one-third say that negative teachings about, or treatment of, gay and lesbian people was either a somewhat important (17%) or very important (14%) factor in their disaffiliation from religion.​
> A Decade of Change in American Attitudes about Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Issues
> 
> Here's an opinion from a Millennial:
> 
> What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.
> 
> We want an end to the culture wars. We want a truce between science and faith. We want to be known for what we stand for, not what we are against.
> 
> We want to ask questions that dont have predetermined answers.
> 
> We want churches that emphasize an allegiance to the kingdom of God over an allegiance to a single political party or a single nation.
> 
> We want our LGBT friends to feel truly welcome in our faith communities.
> 
> We want to be challenged to live lives of holiness, not only when it comes to sex, but also when it comes to living simply, caring for the poor and oppressed, pursuing reconciliation, engaging in creation care and becoming peacemakers.
> 
> You cant hand us a latte and then go about business as usual and expect us to stick around. Were not leaving the church because we dont find the cool factor there; were leaving the church because we dont find Jesus there.​
> This is why His Holiness, Pope Frankie has been modifying the Church's position regarding gays. The part of the world with all the cash, doesn't hate the gays so much.
Click to expand...


"How dare you not address my points as though they're valid, instead of pointing out that they're based on a fallacy, and therefore not worth noticing?!  Look, Huffington Post!  I win!"

Sounds like someone is a sandy twat.  Grab some Vagisil.  Then say something that A) demonstrates that you know what the fuck you're talking about, and B) cite a source that isn't even more laughable than your ignorant, fallacy-based "points".  Huffington Post?  Fucktard, please.  

You're not even the ashheap of history.  You're the ashheap of short-term memory.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Peach said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pope Francis stated quite clearly: "Who am I to judge"? I agree with him(.) No, no house of worship should be *forced* to allow same gender marriage; it is to be *hoped*, as time passes, more & more will. Civil marriage must be for all of sound mind, legal age, and without ulterior motive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo. More and more people are "hoping"  for their churches to be inclusive of their gay loved ones and fewer will attend the churches they don't find that inclusiveness in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, some will find faiths that accept *all *as children of God(.)
Click to expand...


No one said you weren't a child of God, dear.  We said your behavior sucks.  This isn't public school, where you get applauded for how well you breathe in and out.  If you want to live your whole life like a Special Ed student, knock yourself out.  Just understand that the rest of us aren't "haters" for not living like we're "handi-capable".

God, I am so tired of this "everyone gets a trophy" mentality.


----------



## Luddly Neddite




----------



## Jarlaxle

Cecilie1200 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, really?  And you're now going to cite the proof for that, knowing that no one's word is worth shit on a message board, PARTICULARLY yours, right?
> 
> And don't think I didn't notice that you completely skipped the entire post except for one sentence that let you spew a little more "Christians are BAD!  Nothing is bad except Christians!  I hate Christians, and . . . and I hate Christians, and I can't think of anything but how I hate Christians!"  Topic?  What topic?  You don't need to know nothing 'bout no stinking topic except how much you hate Christians, and they are therefore the only bad thing that has ever existed in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not hate Christians...but like Jesus, I hate *hypocrisy!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, spare me.  You're such a kneejerk anti-religious bigot, they'd use you on recruiting posters, if they had any.  You're a walking cliche.
Click to expand...


Yes, I "hate" Christians so much that I entirely SUPPORT the baker who refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding.  I hate them so much that I entirely support the photographer who refuses to photograph a gay wedding.

You'll blow an ACL if you keep jerking your knee like that, sweetie!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Let's get back on-topic.  I don't have to justify my beliefs to you.  I don't even have to prove that they ARE my beliefs.  The question is, should the government be able to force me and the other members of my church to behave against our beliefs in order to accommodate what someone else wants?  The answer is "NO."  It remains "NO" whether you agree with our beliefs, whether you think we're "practicing them wrong; this is what the Bible REALLY says", whether you think we're bad people for believing them, whether whatever-the-fuck-else you want to divert the topic over to.  There is nothing you can say about churches and their beliefs that is going to make it okay for you to use the government to violate people's fundamental right to act in accordance with their own consciences.  There is nothing you are going to say that is not going to make you any less of a morally repugnant tyrant.  Period.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Translation: "I concede!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> Translation: "I concede!"



Translation:  "Anything you say will be viewed as my win, because that's the only way I CAN win!  Bonus that I don't have to address your points!"

Not even a good try.  Take your spanked ass and move along.


----------



## Andylusion

Jarlaxle said:


> Translation: "I concede!"



You really don't grasp that none of us who believe in G-d, have to justify ourselves to you.

Why is that so difficult for you?   We don't care what you think about our belief system.   That's it.   Your opinion on the matter is not required for us to continue to believe whatever we will.



			
				Jarlaxle said:
			
		

> You hate gays!



Ok, so you think I hate gays.  Whether I do or not, doesn't matter.  I could care less what you think I hate, or don't hate.

Again, you are assuming that your opinion of my views matters to me....   um.... no.... no I don't think so.   Not at all in fact.

So go ahead and say whatever you want.  I don't care.   The Bible says homosexuality is a sin, and we won't accommodate it..... ever...  at any time.   Period.  End of discussion.   Thanks for stopping by.


----------



## Andylusion

Luddly Neddite said:


>



So in your world.....   you think the fact people gave their daughters away for goats and such, means that marriage wasn't defined as a man and woman.....   really....

Do fairies and unicorns in your world also redefine marriage?

Thanks for the humor, but at least you are admitting the fact you are trying to change the fundamental definition of marriage.  That is what I oppose. You have justified my entire position.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, I went to a private military school from 1966-1968 and religion class was mandatory.
> There is NO Christian LAW condemning homosexuality.
> The Bible's authors condemned homosexuality and that came from ancient cultures and Jewish law.
> Jesus was A JEW. He did not follow Old Jewish Law concerning homosexuality as he accepted everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, that's all I needed to know.    You opinion has been filed away in the oval bin of my mind.
> 
> So back to me and my church....  Homosexuality is a sin.  We won't have homosexual weddings, and no homosexual will be on our staff.  Period.
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support that and your right to do that.
> And that will never change per the Constitution.
> NO church now is forced to marry anyone.
> So you do not oppose other churches marrying gay folks as that is not your church.
> Got it.
Click to expand...


Of course not.   The only issue I have with those churches, is if they call themselves Christian.  They are not Christian.  Homosexuality violates Christian doctrine, and is defined as a sin.   You can not be a Christian, and support homosexuality.

Now if they call themselves Scientologists, and or believe the mother ship is in the next comet that flies past, oh fine they can do whatever they want.   But if they call themselves 'Christian', that's going to have me in an rage.  They are NOT Christian.

I never rage at pagans who are homos.  I will rage at fake Christians saying they support homosexuality, when it's a clear violation of Christian belief.

Beyond that, the only outstanding issue is that I will never recognize two men, or two women as married.

If those people have no problem with that, then we're good.  But if they come to me and say "Here's my spouse"... I'm going to say... uh no... nope don't think so.   Sorry.  You are not married in my book.   Marriage is between a man and women.

"Well I'll sue!!!"  Don't care!.   "The government will fine you!"  Oh well.  Still won't recognize homos as married.  Marriage is between a man and women.  It's not possible to be married to someone of the same sex.

"Well the law says!  And we have a paper that says!"  Don't care.  It's not married in my book, and I'm not calling you married no matter what you do.


----------



## Andylusion

Luddly Neddite said:


>



That's nice... but none of that changes the legal definition of marriage.

Women as property, is not a change in the definition of marriage.  Daughters were property too, and it has nothing to do with marriage.

Polygamy and Monogamy, doesn't change the definition of marriage.
In both cases, it's a man and woman, and has been through history.

Women owning property has nothing to do with the definition of marriage.

Nor does it have anything to do with blacks, race, credit, rape, or contraception.

So you use nine completely separate and unrelated issues, to justify same sex marriage, when none of them had anything to do with marriage.

Again.... I just posted the old dictionary definition of Marriage, as it was written in the dictionary for over a century or more.

'a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife'

Now which of the above mindless crap, violates anything in that definition of marriage?

Um... counting... er... ZERO!    Got it.  So nothing you just blabbered on about has anything to do with the definition of marriage.  Moving on.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

KNB said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you include mosques in that sentiment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All religions.  Churches, mosques and synagogues.  Anyone who thinks that there is an invisible man in the sky, but especially anyone who is willing to kill to prove just how much their invisible man in the sky loves us.  You find them in every culture.
> 
> Christians, Muslims and Jews all pray to the One True Invisible Man in the Sky.  They only kill each other over what name to call it.  And they pollute and poison God's paradise called Earth because they think that they're going to be able to sit around in Never Never Land and play harps in outer space after they die.
> 
> Human adults need to grow up and stop having imaginary friends.
Click to expand...


I'm beginning to think you might be an atheist.


----------



## DriftingSand

Luddly Neddite said:


>



Your chart assumes that just because something was not legal in the past that it should be legal in the present.  Using that logic then we MUST assume that it will be okay for a father to marry his 5 year old daughter at some point in the future.  Sometimes ... wrong is simply wrong no matter what century you're in.  Homosexuality is one of those wrongs right that is up there with incest and bestiality.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kosh said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God is and always has been and always be.
> 
> I care nothing for atheism, for it is a fool's dream without proof.
> 
> The Constitution is secular, and We the People through our legislatures and courts decide marriage law.
> 
> Twenty straight court decisions, the majority of American opinion, and the overwhelming supermajority of American opinion are clear indicators that marriage equality is inevitable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again the far left Obama drones show that that they do want the state merged with religion.  Get government out of the business of "Marriage".
Click to expand...


The state mandates the laws for marriage: always have, which you were for before you were not.

You are losing the contest.

Tough


----------



## DigitalDrifter

4 votes to force churches to marry gays.

Wonder if those individuals are serious, or just pranking the board for the hell of it ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

DriftingSand said:


> Your chart assumes that just because something was not legal in the past that it should be legal in the present.  Using that logic then we MUST assume that it will be okay for a father to marry his 5 year old daughter at some point in the future.  Sometimes ... wrong is simply wrong no matter what century you're in.  Homosexuality is one of those wrongs right that is up there with incest and bestiality.



And, yes, despite the century, DS, you are wrong.

Consent is the mountain you cannot get over.


----------



## Yurt

jake declares himself the winner again, because no one else will.

fact is, the government's involvement in marriage is purely a legal construct, eg, a contractual union between two parties.  the government has zero business in religious marriage.  

that is the truth and of course being the truth, fakey will not accept it and will declare himself the winner anyway.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Androw said:


> But they are not married.    Marriage is between a man and woman.   Two men, can't be married.  Don't care what the law says.  They are not married.    No bit of paper changes that.



If the law says they are married, what you and your church teach matters not.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yurt said:


> jake declares himself the winner again, because no one else will.
> 
> fact is, the government's involvement in marriage is purely a legal construct, eg, a contractual union between two parties.  the government has zero business in religious marriage.  that is the truth and of course being the truth, fakey will not accept it and will declare himself the winner anyway.



That is not the truth.

Government rules in marriage, always has, not Yurt.

If you want to create religious unions outside of state law, go right ahead.


----------



## DriftingSand

KNB said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you include mosques in that sentiment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All religions.  Churches, mosques and synagogues.  Anyone who thinks that there is an invisible man in the sky, but especially anyone who is willing to kill to prove just how much their invisible man in the sky loves us.  You find them in every culture.
> 
> Christians, Muslims and Jews all pray to the One True Invisible Man in the Sky.  They only kill each other over what name to call it.  And they pollute and poison God's paradise called Earth because they think that they're going to be able to sit around in Never Never Land and play harps in outer space after they die.
> 
> Human adults need to grow up and stop having imaginary friends.
Click to expand...


Funny -- you took the topic from forcing a church to embrace homosexuality to "killing" in the name of God.  I accepted Christ in 1988 and have never had the desire to kill anyone in His name. On the other hand, I reject the notion that homosexuality is "normal" and that I and my church should accept it as "normal" by law.  

The Bible says that where two or three are gathered together in His name that He will be with us in our midst.  Therefore, I can hold "church" while driving my car down the highway if I have one or more Christian passengers with me.  We can talk about and believe whatever we want and the government will never have to know.  Therefore, no amount of pro-gay laws will ever have any real affect on how I worship or how I believe.


----------



## JakeStarkey

DigitalDrifter said:


> 4 votes to force churches to marry gays.  wonder if those individuals are serious, or just pranking the board for the hell of it ?



No government will force a church to marry those it does not want to marry as long as it is not in the public business of weddings, facilities, and so forth.

The perfect model is the LDS church.

It stays out of the public marriage business, never has had a problem, never will.


----------



## Andylusion

JakeStarkey said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your chart assumes that just because something was not legal in the past that it should be legal in the present.  Using that logic then we MUST assume that it will be okay for a father to marry his 5 year old daughter at some point in the future.  Sometimes ... wrong is simply wrong no matter what century you're in.  Homosexuality is one of those wrongs right that is up there with incest and bestiality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, yes, despite the century, DS, you are wrong.
> 
> Consent is the mountain you cannot get over.
Click to expand...


I don't care.  I'll fight it until I die.  And if you have to kill me to win, so be it.   I am most certainly not the first Christian to die for his faith, and I won't be the last.

There are things that are higher and more valuable than even life.  G-d's law is one of them.

And by the way, I just don't care what other churches do.  We are a Christian church, we conduct Christian weddings, we rent out our property for such purposes, and we will continue to do so.   Don't care what other churches do.

It's none of my business what cults do, and none of your business what we do.

Don't care what you think.  Thanks for stopping by.


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> jake declares himself the winner again, because no one else will.
> 
> fact is, the government's involvement in marriage is purely a legal construct, eg, a contractual union between two parties.  the government has zero business in religious marriage.  that is the truth and of course being the truth, fakey will not accept it and will declare himself the winner anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the truth.
> 
> Government rules in marriage, always has, not Yurt.
> 
> If you want to create religious unions outside of state law, go right ahead.
Click to expand...


everything i said was 100% true jake.  but i knew you would not discuss the issue and only proclaim yourself the winner.  

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=marrirriage+is+a+contract

^ read it and weep fakey


----------



## DriftingSand

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


I hosted a Bible study in my home for several years.  We "discriminated" against anyone who failed to accept the Bible as the Word of God.  My Bible study was a "church" and it was by invitation.  The two, main prerequisites was that the attendee had to believe in Christ as Lord and Savior and had to believe that the Bible was the Word of God.  Not all of us agreed on everything else but the group was made up of married couples who believed in the biblical and traditional definition of marriage.  Practicing homosexuals would NOT have been invited.  

We all "discriminate" every day of our lives.  Have you ever heard of the term: discriminating palate?  Everyone has one. We each have preferences where food is concerned.  We make similar choices in everything we do.  The clothes we wear; the car we drive; etc.  I have every right to choose the company I keep as well and so do you.


----------



## DriftingSand

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> jake declares himself the winner again, because no one else will.
> 
> fact is, the government's involvement in marriage is purely a legal construct, eg, a contractual union between two parties.  the government has zero business in religious marriage.  that is the truth and of course being the truth, fakey will not accept it and will declare himself the winner anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the truth.
> 
> Government rules in marriage, always has, not Yurt.
> 
> If you want to create religious unions outside of state law, go right ahead.
Click to expand...


Totally not true.  The government does NOT rule in marriage.  My second wife and I had a large and elaborate wedding ceremony.  We had lots of family and friends in attendance; we had food catered in; we had a huge cake; we dressed in formal attire; we had a Christian pastor perform the ceremony; we went on a honeymoon; etc.  But guess what?  We chose not to have a three-party marriage so the government was not invited.  We had a common-law marriage without the government's "permission."


----------



## JakeStarkey

"the government has zero business in religious marriage."  t

That is not the truth.  Government rules in marriage, always has, not Yurt.  If you want to create religious unions outside of state law, go right ahead.

"everything i said was 100% true jake"

Tough.  You lie.  Ever since the federal and state constitutions and their district court systems were created, the federal courts protected religion and the absence of religion, while the state courts created legal laws for marriage.


----------



## JakeStarkey

DS recognizes that private association of religion is protected.

When it intrudes to the public square, then it is regulated.


----------



## JakeStarkey

DriftingSand said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> jake declares himself the winner again, because no one else will.
> 
> fact is, the government's involvement in marriage is purely a legal construct, eg, a contractual union between two parties.  the government has zero business in religious marriage.  that is the truth and of course being the truth, fakey will not accept it and will declare himself the winner anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the truth.
> 
> Government rules in marriage, always has, not Yurt.
> 
> If you want to create religious unions outside of state law, go right ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally not true.  The government does NOT rule in marriage.  My second wife and I had a large and elaborate wedding ceremony.  We had lots of family and friends in attendance; we had food catered in; we had a huge cake; we dressed in formal attire; we had a Christian pastor perform the ceremony; we went on a honeymoon; etc.  But guess what?  We chose not to have a three-party marriage so the government was not invited.  We had a common-law marriage without the government's "permission."
Click to expand...


If you married in a state with common property laws, then, yes, the state was involved.

If you decide to split up and a fight develops over children and property, yes, the state was involved.

It it was simply a private union, you could call it "marriage" but it in fact was not.


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the truth.
> 
> Government rules in marriage, always has, not Yurt.
> 
> If you want to create religious unions outside of state law, go right ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally not true.  The government does NOT rule in marriage.  My second wife and I had a large and elaborate wedding ceremony.  We had lots of family and friends in attendance; we had food catered in; we had a huge cake; we dressed in formal attire; we had a Christian pastor perform the ceremony; we went on a honeymoon; etc.  But guess what?  We chose not to have a three-party marriage so the government was not invited.  We had a common-law marriage without the government's "permission."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you married in a state with common property laws, then, yes, the state was involved.
> 
> If you decide to split up and a fight develops over children and property, yes, the state was involved.
> 
> It it was simply a private union, you could call it "marriage" but it in fact was not.
Click to expand...




so you can't get married unless the government says so?  

what a leftwing fascist


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Totally not true.  The government does NOT rule in marriage.  My second wife and I had a large and elaborate wedding ceremony.  We had lots of family and friends in attendance; we had food catered in; we had a huge cake; we dressed in formal attire; we had a Christian pastor perform the ceremony; we went on a honeymoon; etc.  But guess what?  We chose not to have a three-party marriage so the government was not invited.  We had a common-law marriage without the government's "permission."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you married in a state with common property laws, then, yes, the state was involved.
> 
> If you decide to split up and a fight develops over children and property, yes, the state was involved.
> 
> It it was simply a private union, you could call it "marriage" but it in fact was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you can't get married unless the government says so?  what a leftwing fascist
Click to expand...


It's not a marriage if it does not comport to law.

The law 'defines' marriage not the Yurt.


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> "the government has zero business in religious marriage."  t
> 
> That is not the truth.  Government rules in marriage, always has, not Yurt.  If you want to create religious unions outside of state law, go right ahead.
> 
> "everything i said was 100% true jake"
> 
> Tough.  You lie.  Ever since the federal and state constitutions and their district court systems were created, the federal courts protected religion and the absence of religion, while the state courts created legal laws for marriage.



you clearly cut out the part of my post with the link.  i know why, because you don't want to see the truth and admit i'm right.  

go ahead, call me a liar, when i gave you tons of links that proved everything i said is 100% accurate.  tell you what, since i know you will just ignore the link or claim i never gave it, here is this which you can't ignore:

here is wiki and here is their cite -- 



> Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized *union or legal contract* between spouses
> 
> Haviland, William A.; Prins, Harald E. L.; McBride, Bunny; Walrath, Dana (2011). Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge (13th ed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-0-495-81178-7. "A nonethnocentric definition of marriage is a culturally sanctioned union between two or more people that establishes certain rights and obligations between the people, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws."



Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

poor jake, can't back up his own claim with anything but....._you're a liar, i'm right, you're wrong because i say so_

immature troll


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you married in a state with common property laws, then, yes, the state was involved.
> 
> If you decide to split up and a fight develops over children and property, yes, the state was involved.
> 
> It it was simply a private union, you could call it "marriage" but it in fact was not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you can't get married unless the government says so?  what a leftwing fascist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a marriage if it does not comport to law.
> 
> The law 'defines' marriage not the Yurt.
Click to expand...


wrong, the law defines what are permissible legal contracts.  you fail again.


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you married in a state with common property laws, then, yes, the state was involved.
> 
> If you decide to split up and a fight develops over children and property, yes, the state was involved.
> 
> It it was simply a private union, you could call it "marriage" but it in fact was not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you can't get married unless the government says so?  what a leftwing fascist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a marriage if it does not comport to law.
> 
> The law 'defines' marriage not the Yurt.
Click to expand...


using your logic, if i marry in another country, i never married because i did not do so under US laws


----------



## JakeStarkey

"go ahead, call me a liar, when i gave you tons of links that proved everything i said is 100% accurate."  

MARRIAGE  Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

DEFINITION

The *legal *union of a couple as spouses.  The basic elements of a marriage are: 
(*1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, 
(2) mutual consent of the parties, 
and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.*

_*Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states.* The Supreme Court has held that *states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry and how the marriage can be dissolved*. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. *For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.*_

*Shut the fuck up *until you have any idea about what you are talking.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"using your logic, if i marry in another country, i never married because i did not do so under US laws" *unless US law recognized it*

*Did you go to private or home school?*


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> "using your logic, if i marry in another country, i never married because i did not do so under US laws" *unless US law recognized it*
> 
> *Did you go to private or home school?*



thanks for proving my point.  

in essence, your claim is that someone is only married IF they marry under US laws. how can you claim such when they married in another country?  how can you claim they were never married?


----------



## Yurt

Yurt said:


> jake declares himself the winner again, because no one else will.
> 
> fact is, the government's involvement in marriage is purely a legal construct, eg, a *contractual union between two parties*.  the government has zero business in religious marriage.
> 
> that is the truth and of course being the truth, fakey will not accept it and will declare himself the winner anyway.





JakeStarkey said:


> "go ahead, call me a liar, when i gave you tons of links that proved everything i said is 100% accurate."
> 
> MARRIAGE  Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> DEFINITION
> 
> The *legal union of a couple *as spouses.  The basic elements of a marriage are:
> (*1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other,
> (2) mutual consent of the parties,
> and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.*
> 
> _*Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states.* The Supreme Court has held that *states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry and how the marriage can be dissolved*. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. *For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.*_
> 
> *Shut the fuck up *until you have any idea about what you are talking.



that is what i originally said and you claimed i was wrong



gawd you're a retard


----------



## Yurt

what cracks me up is that when i have cut out portions of jake's post in the past, he claimed that doing so proved i was a liar.  and now we have jake cutting out portions of nearly every post i've made in this thread.


 [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]


----------



## MaryL

Nobody is forced to join or remain a member of  ANY religion. But MAKING people accept Homosexuality, or any other fetish, I draw the line there. Freedom, it means a lot of things. Freedom means I don't have to accept perverts as normal and  then let them corrupt my family, religion or politics.


----------



## JakeStarkey

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "using your logic, if i marry in another country, i never married because i did not do so under US laws" *unless US law recognized it*
> 
> *Did you go to private or home school?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...


the point is you have no point

law regulates marriage


----------



## JakeStarkey

> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> jake declares himself the winner again, because no one else will.
> 
> fact is, the government's involvement in marriage is purely a legal construct, eg, a *contractual union between two parties*. * the government has zero business in religious marriage.  *
> 
> that is the truth and of course being the truth, fakey will not accept it and will declare himself the winner anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "go ahead, call me a liar, when i gave you tons of links that proved everything i said is 100% accurate."
> 
> MARRIAGE  Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> DEFINITION
> 
> The *legal union of a couple *as spouses.  The basic elements of a marriage are:
> (*1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other,
> (2) mutual consent of the parties,
> and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.*
> 
> _*Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states.* The Supreme Court has held that *states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry and how the marriage can be dissolved*. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. *For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.*_
> 
> *Shut the fuck up *until you have any idea about what you are talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that is what i originally said and you claimed i was wrong
Click to expand...


the *bold above* is what you were driving at and I outed you on it; you are wrong

nothing new there


----------



## Yurt

if a marriage, as defined by US law, is simply a contractual union between two parties....then guess what, it is not religious marriage.  want to know why?  i'll tell you:

because religious marriages have different rules and different meanings than does the US government when it comes to marriages.  in fact, the US government's definition of marriage is recent and does not comport the world over.  

but according to fakey, the only "real" marriages are those recognized by the US government.  how does the US government get jurisdiction over marriage?  HINT:  by making the word "marriage" a LEGAL CONSTRUCT that is called a contractual civil union.

if the government never created the legal construct, it would have zero jurisdiction over marriage.


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "using your logic, if i marry in another country, i never married because i did not do so under US laws" *unless US law recognized it*
> 
> *Did you go to private or home school?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the point is you have no point
> 
> law regulates marriage
Click to expand...


and how does the law get authority to regulate marriage?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Marriage is a legal construct when religious unions seek the privileges and perks and reciprocities as shown in #1267.  A church ceremony privately telling two folks they can shack up is not a marriage in the legal sense.  The *red above bolded* outs Yurt.

Do some research, Yurt,  I am going to find some airline tickets to Denver to see family and Rockie Dodgers baseball.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

MaryL said:


> Nobody is forced to join or remain a member of  ANY religion. But MAKING people accept Homosexuality, or any other fetish, I draw the line there. Freedom, it means a lot of things. Freedom means I don't have to accept perverts as normal and  then let them corrupt my family, religion or politics.


You don't have to accept it, but the majority of your fellow citizens already have so when the invitations start to dry up or your kids find play-dates harder to get, start buying more boardgames since you will be yelling into the wind, mostly by yourself...


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> Marriage is a legal construct when religious unions seek the privileges and perks and reciprocities as shown in #1267.  A church ceremony privately telling two folks they can shack up is not a marriage in the legal sense.  The *red above bolded* outs Yurt.
> 
> Do some research, Yurt,  I am going to find some airline tickets to Denver to see family and Rockie Dodgers baseball.



do you even know what a legal construct is?  i don't think you do.  because marriage was around LONG before the good USofA jake.  

the law does not create marriage.  the law creates certain rights with regards to marriage.  

enjoy your game, perhaps it will give you time to reflect on the wisdom i've given you.  have fun!  and enjoy a good hot dog for me.


----------



## GreenBean

Cecilie1200 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that case would be . . . ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I agreed with it - I justsaid there was a case for it . IMO Jesus was a Nyth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While many people have a fixed mental image of Jesus, drawn from his artistic depictions, these images often conform to stereotypes which are not grounded in any serious research on the historical Jesus, but are based on second or third hand interpretations of spurious sources
> 
> In explaining the development of racial theories in the context of scripture, Colin Kidd, in his book The forging of races, argues that the assignment of race to biblical individuals has been a mostly subjective practice based on cultural stereotypes and societal trends rather than on scientific methods. Kidd reviews a number of theories about the race of Jesus, *ranging from a white Aryan Jesus to a black African Jesus, illustrating that there is no general agreement among scholars on the race of Jesus*
> Race and appearance of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, "I just say shit to be saying it.  I have no real fucking clue what I'm talking about, and as soon as someone asks me to actually explain the dribble coming out of my mouth, I backpedal."
> 
> Next time, just save everyone the time and don't bother talking at all.
Click to expand...


Cecile -if your last name were brains -your first name would be shitfer - I said there was a case for jesus being black - you asked for proof and I posted a link . 

Now I do realize that among your crowd of Ninja Turtle and spongebob fans intellectual curiousity beyond what kinda pizza ninja turtles eat is not that intense - so if you have no interest in a particular topic , and youcan't be a hero by challenging me on a factual basis - than do the world a favor and stfu.


----------



## DriftingSand

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "using your logic, if i marry in another country, i never married because i did not do so under US laws" *unless US law recognized it*
> 
> *Did you go to private or home school?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for proving my point.
> 
> in essence, your claim is that someone is only married IF they marry under US laws. how can you claim such when they married in another country?  how can you claim they were never married?
Click to expand...


Fantastic point!!!


----------



## DriftingSand

MaryL said:


> Nobody is forced to join or remain a member of  ANY religion. But MAKING people accept Homosexuality, or any other fetish, I draw the line there. Freedom, it means a lot of things. Freedom means I don't have to accept perverts as normal and  then let them corrupt my family, religion or politics.



Wow! We agree on something. Proof that there's a first for everything.


----------



## DriftingSand

PaintMyHouse said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is forced to join or remain a member of  ANY religion. But MAKING people accept Homosexuality, or any other fetish, I draw the line there. Freedom, it means a lot of things. Freedom means I don't have to accept perverts as normal and  then let them corrupt my family, religion or politics.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to accept it, but the majority of your fellow citizens already have so when the invitations start to dry up or your kids find play-dates harder to get, start buying more boardgames since you will be yelling into the wind, mostly by yourself...
Click to expand...


LOL. "The majority of my fellow citizens" have accepted "gay marriage?"  That's total BS.  Almost every state that has voted on the issue has voted it down. It's taken an activist Federal Judge to overturn the will of the people in almost every case. I don't personally know anyone who believes that "gay marriage" is normal or acceptable.  You really do have mush for brains ... don't you!?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

DriftingSand said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is forced to join or remain a member of  ANY religion. But MAKING people accept Homosexuality, or any other fetish, I draw the line there. Freedom, it means a lot of things. Freedom means I don't have to accept perverts as normal and  then let them corrupt my family, religion or politics.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to accept it, but the majority of your fellow citizens already have so when the invitations start to dry up or your kids find play-dates harder to get, start buying more boardgames since you will be yelling into the wind, mostly by yourself...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. "The majority of my fellow citizens" have accepted "gay marriage?"  That's total BS.  Almost every state that has voted on the issue has voted it down. It's taken an activist Federal Judge to overturn the will of the people in almost every case. I don't personally know anyone who believes that "gay marriage" is normal or acceptable.  You really do have mush for brains ... don't you!?
Click to expand...

Learn to read polls, and when given a chance to vote, which they have no business doing, they vote for equality now.  The war is over, you lost.  Move on...

http://www.marriageequality.org/national-polls


----------



## Silhouette

DriftingSand said:


> LOL. "The majority of my fellow citizens" have accepted "gay marriage?"  That's total BS.  Almost every state that has voted on the issue has voted it down. It's taken an activist Federal Judge to overturn the will of the people in almost every case. I don't personally know anyone who believes that "gay marriage" is normal or acceptable.  You really do have mush for brains ... don't you!?



Exactly.  Even fruit and nut bar California kept it out twice by ballot measure.  It's still illegal there today.

And just since I was here last the poll against requiring churches to perform gay marriage has risen to 87%.  87% against gay marriage in churches.  I wonder if that means they still believe gay marriage should be done at all?  Looks like any support that may exist for gay marriage is tepid at best.  Once this gets out, it might just slip down into "chilly": http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...-the-woman-s-vote-and-political-strategy.html


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. "The majority of my fellow citizens" have accepted "gay marriage?"  That's total BS.  Almost every state that has voted on the issue has voted it down. It's taken an activist Federal Judge to overturn the will of the people in almost every case. I don't personally know anyone who believes that "gay marriage" is normal or acceptable.  You really do have mush for brains ... don't you!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Even fruit and nut bar California kept it out twice by ballot measure.  It's still illegal there today.
> 
> And just since I was here last the poll against requiring churches to perform gay marriage has risen to 87%.  87% against gay marriage in churches.  I wonder if that means they still believe gay marriage should be done at all?  Looks like any support that may exist for gay marriage is tepid at best.  Once this gets out, it might just slip down into "chilly": http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...-the-woman-s-vote-and-political-strategy.html
Click to expand...

No one cares what the churches do, that matters not at all, and Harvey Milk has left the building, along with your arguments.

The churches could be at 113%, it's irrelevant, just as they are in this matter.


----------



## Tuatara

DriftingSand said:


> LOL. "The majority of my fellow citizens" have accepted "gay marriage?"  That's total BS.  Almost every state that has voted on the issue has voted it down. It's taken an activist Federal Judge to overturn the will of the people in almost every case. *I don't personally know anyone who believes that "gay marriage" is normal or acceptable. * You really do have mush for brains ... don't you!?


You either don't get out much or your friends are a bunch of bigoted homophobic christian zealots. Your country has serious issues.


P.S. Your Thomas Jefferson quote is a lie.


----------



## Kosh

No matter how the far left wants to spin it, "marriage" is not a "right".


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you do not know the difference between your use of the word "churches" and my use of the phrase "the Church" just illustrates that you're too busy self-righteously demonizing those who disagree with you to bother educating yourself about them and understanding them.
> 
> Ignorance is never a winning strategy, which is why tyrannical fucktards like you disappear onto the ashheap of history and the Church continues on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you decide to be a nasty twat and not actually address any of the points I made, leads me to believe I hit the nail on the head.
> 
> Even "the Church" won't be able to survive on just 3rd world money...it will need money from places like the US that thinks gays should be treated equally and they want their gay loved ones to worship alongside them.
> 
> Among Americans who left their childhood religion and are now religiously unaffiliated, about one-quarter say negative teachings about or treatment of gay and lesbian people was a somewhat important (14%) or very important (10%) factor in their decision to disaffiliate. Among Millennials who no longer identify with their childhood religion, nearly one-third say that negative teachings about, or treatment of, gay and lesbian people was either a somewhat important (17%) or very important (14%) factor in their disaffiliation from religion.​
> A Decade of Change in American Attitudes about Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Issues
> 
> Here's an opinion from a Millennial:
> 
> What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.
> 
> We want an end to the culture wars. We want a truce between science and faith. We want to be known for what we stand for, not what we are against.
> 
> We want to ask questions that dont have predetermined answers.
> 
> We want churches that emphasize an allegiance to the kingdom of God over an allegiance to a single political party or a single nation.
> 
> We want our LGBT friends to feel truly welcome in our faith communities.
> 
> We want to be challenged to live lives of holiness, not only when it comes to sex, but also when it comes to living simply, caring for the poor and oppressed, pursuing reconciliation, engaging in creation care and becoming peacemakers.
> 
> You cant hand us a latte and then go about business as usual and expect us to stick around. Were not leaving the church because we dont find the cool factor there; were leaving the church because we dont find Jesus there.​
> This is why His Holiness, Pope Frankie has been modifying the Church's position regarding gays. The part of the world with all the cash, doesn't hate the gays so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?   Why would I care what the Pope does?   Why would care what other people do?
> 
> Do you think I hold the views I do because of what is popular?  I promise you, I do not.  Never will.
> 
> Homosexuality is a sin.  Period.  Last I checked, G-d doesn't care about your opinion polls.
> 
> Have you never read Psalm 2?
> 
> Why do the nations rage, and the people plot in vain?
> He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord holds them in derision.
> 
> Go read Psalms 2.   You post all your opinion polls....  He who sits in the heavens..... LAUGHS....   LAUGHS!
> 
> That's what G-d thinks about all your opinion polls... and that's what I think about them.
> 
> We don't care about your opinion polls.  Homosexuality is a sin.  We won't accommodate it ever.  Period.
Click to expand...


I'm not all that worried about god. If god exists and he/she is all that ya'll say he/she is, then god made me gay and cannot possibly view it as a "sin".

Sin is a man made invention as a means of controlling the masses.


----------



## Seawytch

Kosh said:


> No matter how the far left wants to spin it, "marriage" is not a "right".



You can keep repeating it to get your post count up, but the courts disagree with you. 

So, in one hand I have your opinion and in the other hand we have the legal opinions of judge after judge after judge ruling in favor of marriage equality. Hmmmm....

Tough one.


----------



## JakeStarkey

DriftingSand said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "using your logic, if i marry in another country, i never married because i did not do so under US laws" *unless US law recognized it*
> 
> *Did you go to private or home school?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for proving my point.
> 
> in essence, your claim is that someone is only married IF they marry under US laws. how can you claim such when they married in another country?  how can you claim they were never married?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fantastic point!!!
Click to expand...


There is no point, DS.

Marriage is governed by law


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> If you find an old dictionary, before people started screwing with the words....
> 
> The definition of "marriage" is:
> 
> 'a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife'
> 
> Husband.... and wife.   Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as male and female.
> 
> You could have multiple females.   But it was still between a man, and a woman.
> 
> Even in societies that were very open to homosexuality, you could have partners as such, but they were still not "married".  They were partners, and had some level of legal standing, but they were not "married".
> 
> Marriage was between a man and woman.   If there is such a example of any historical society where man and man, or woman and woman, could marry, I don't know of it.
> 
> So to that end, I would say to you that everyone is legally equal under the law.  Everyone has the ability to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.
> 
> Now if society wants to allow some sort of legal partnership....  I would be ok with that.   I'd feel sad for the people who agreed to it, but let the pagans be pagans, in my book.   If that's what they want, knock themselves out.



Marriage was always white people and white people or black people and black people...until it wasn't. Women used to not be able to own property in the marriage...until they could. 

Know what they told those interracial couples that wanted to marry? That they weren't being discriminated against because they could marry someone of the same race...just like you are telling me I'm not discriminated against because I can marry someone of the opposite gender. Same discrimination, different day.

Now, if you don't like that civil marriages are called civil marriages, the onus is on you and others that don't want gays to say "married" to change the name of ALL civil marriages to civil unions...not just for the gays. 

By the way, marriage is a pagan tradition. The wedding ring? Pagan to it's roots.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kosh said:


> No matter how the far left wants to spin it, "marriage" is not a "right".



SCOTUS disagrees with you, and DS, and Yurt.

You can have your opinions, of course, but they don't count in the Rule of Law.


----------



## Gadawg73

DriftingSand said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is forced to join or remain a member of  ANY religion. But MAKING people accept Homosexuality, or any other fetish, I draw the line there. Freedom, it means a lot of things. Freedom means I don't have to accept perverts as normal and  then let them corrupt my family, religion or politics.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to accept it, but the majority of your fellow citizens already have so when the invitations start to dry up or your kids find play-dates harder to get, start buying more boardgames since you will be yelling into the wind, mostly by yourself...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. "The majority of my fellow citizens" have accepted "gay marriage?"  That's total BS.  Almost every state that has voted on the issue has voted it down. It's taken an activist Federal Judge to overturn the will of the people in almost every case. I don't personally know anyone who believes that "gay marriage" is normal or acceptable.  You really do have mush for brains ... don't you!?
Click to expand...


Integration and interracial marriage would have been voted down also.
We do not live in a mob majority rule nation even though in many states the polls clearly state that gay marriage is "accepted" by the majority.
And the majority never vote as only 50% of the citizens register to vote and less than 50% vote most of the time.
Our laws protect the rights of the individual, not the majority.
Something about The United States Constitution.
An interesting document. Federal Judges go by it and no where in the Constitution does it state anyone can deny 2 same sex folks that love and are committed to each other from a marriage license. Marriage is a CONTRACT in this country. 
We are a nation OF LAWS, not men and their various and changing like the wind religious opinions.


----------



## Gadawg73

The CONSTITUTION is the law of the land here.
NOT THE BIBLE.


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you do not know the difference between your use of the word "churches" and my use of the phrase "the Church" just illustrates that you're too busy self-righteously demonizing those who disagree with you to bother educating yourself about them and understanding them.
> 
> Ignorance is never a winning strategy, which is why tyrannical fucktards like you disappear onto the ashheap of history and the Church continues on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you decide to be a nasty twat and not actually address any of the points I made, leads me to believe I hit the nail on the head.
> 
> Even "the Church" won't be able to survive on just 3rd world money...it will need money from places like the US that thinks gays should be treated equally and they want their gay loved ones to worship alongside them.
> 
> Among Americans who left their childhood religion and are now religiously unaffiliated, about one-quarter say negative teachings about or treatment of gay and lesbian people was a somewhat important (14%) or very important (10%) factor in their decision to disaffiliate. Among Millennials who no longer identify with their childhood religion, nearly one-third say that negative teachings about, or treatment of, gay and lesbian people was either a somewhat important (17%) or very important (14%) factor in their disaffiliation from religion.​
> A Decade of Change in American Attitudes about Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Issues
> 
> Here's an opinion from a Millennial:
> 
> What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.
> 
> We want an end to the culture wars. We want a truce between science and faith. We want to be known for what we stand for, not what we are against.
> 
> We want to ask questions that dont have predetermined answers.
> 
> We want churches that emphasize an allegiance to the kingdom of God over an allegiance to a single political party or a single nation.
> 
> We want our LGBT friends to feel truly welcome in our faith communities.
> 
> We want to be challenged to live lives of holiness, not only when it comes to sex, but also when it comes to living simply, caring for the poor and oppressed, pursuing reconciliation, engaging in creation care and becoming peacemakers.
> 
> You cant hand us a latte and then go about business as usual and expect us to stick around. Were not leaving the church because we dont find the cool factor there; were leaving the church because we dont find Jesus there.​
> This is why His Holiness, Pope Frankie has been modifying the Church's position regarding gays. The part of the world with all the cash, doesn't hate the gays so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "How dare you not address my points as though they're valid, instead of pointing out that they're based on a fallacy, and therefore not worth noticing?!  Look, Huffington Post!  I win!"
> 
> Sounds like someone is a sandy twat.  Grab some Vagisil.  Then say something that A) demonstrates that you know what the fuck you're talking about, and B) cite a source that isn't even more laughable than your ignorant, fallacy-based "points".  Huffington Post?  Fucktard, please.
> 
> You're not even the ashheap of history.  You're the ashheap of short-term memory.
Click to expand...


Ah, but they aren't based on a fallacy and I provide plenty of evidence to support _my _contention...and from more than just the Huffington Post, I might add. 

So what do you do in response? Get nastier...which I will assume means I was right again and you have no response. 

It is the anti gay churches that will eventually end up in the ash bin of history.


----------



## Seawytch

In the end, Churches will be "forced" to perform gay marriages...but it won't be the government doing the "forcing", it will be the family, the friends, the loved ones of gays and lesbians that will do the "forcing" through public opinion. 

Who will be last, the Mormons again? I'm putting my money on white evangelicals...


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> I'm not all that worried about god. If god exists and he/she is all that ya'll say he/she is, then god made me gay and cannot possibly view it as a "sin".
> 
> Sin is a man made invention as a means of controlling the masses.



Oh of course.   No one is responsible for anything they do, because someone somewhere, caused everyone to be the way they are.... and if we can't blame a person, then we can always just blame G-d for it.

Tell me... does that mean that you can't blame those people over in the middle east who stone you to death for being gay either?   After all...  I'm sure G-d just 'made them that way' too, right?

I learn this years ago, from a very old man....   where I am, and the situation I am in, is due 90% to my own choices, and only 10% to circumstances.

It's been 20 years since then, and I've found that old farts words to be genuinely true.   Are there things you can't control, things that are the way they are and there is nothing you can do about it?   Sure.   But very few.

Most of the reason you are bitter, and angry, and are trying to strike back at people around you, is duo mostly to you reaping the results of your own choices.   I know because I've been there.   I've done that.   Never again.

But if you want to stay bitter and angry, and blame everyone and G-d for the rest of your life...   that is your choice.   I think it's a bad choice, but it is yours.    Best to you.   Later.


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you find an old dictionary, before people started screwing with the words....
> 
> The definition of "marriage" is:
> 
> 'a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife'
> 
> Husband.... and wife.   Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as male and female.
> 
> You could have multiple females.   But it was still between a man, and a woman.
> 
> Even in societies that were very open to homosexuality, you could have partners as such, but they were still not "married".  They were partners, and had some level of legal standing, but they were not "married".
> 
> Marriage was between a man and woman.   If there is such a example of any historical society where man and man, or woman and woman, could marry, I don't know of it.
> 
> So to that end, I would say to you that everyone is legally equal under the law.  Everyone has the ability to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.
> 
> Now if society wants to allow some sort of legal partnership....  I would be ok with that.   I'd feel sad for the people who agreed to it, but let the pagans be pagans, in my book.   If that's what they want, knock themselves out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was always white people and white people or black people and black people...until it wasn't. Women used to not be able to own property in the marriage...until they could.
> 
> Know what they told those interracial couples that wanted to marry? That they weren't being discriminated against because they could marry someone of the same race...just like you are telling me I'm not discriminated against because I can marry someone of the opposite gender. Same discrimination, different day.
> 
> Now, if you don't like that civil marriages are called civil marriages, the onus is on you and others that don't want gays to say "married" to change the name of ALL civil marriages to civil unions...not just for the gays.
> 
> By the way, marriage is a pagan tradition. The wedding ring? Pagan to it's roots.
Click to expand...


Nothing of what you said changed anything of what I said.    Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.   

The race issue.... is a RACE issue.   Not a redefining of marriage between a man and a woman.

Yes, I am well aware of where the wedding ring came from.   So what?    Does that change what it stand for between a man and woman today?   No.   Does it change what it means to me?  No.   Does it matter at all to anything we're talking about in this coversation?  No.

Moving on.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> The CONSTITUTION is the law of the land here.
> NOT THE BIBLE.



Still don't care.    You don't get it do you?    I don't care what you think the law of the land is.  I don't care what the constitution says, if it violates the Bible.

I'm a Christian.  As a Christian, the Bible is the highest authority in my life.  Higher than you... higher than the law.... higher than the Constitution, the President, or the Supreme Court.

Now as long as all those things do not contradict the Bible.... we're good.

But the moment they contradict the Bible... you lose.  I'm going with the Bible.   And that sir, is all there is to it.


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> In the end, Churches will be "forced" to perform gay marriages...but it won't be the government doing the "forcing", it will be the family, the friends, the loved ones of gays and lesbians that will do the "forcing" through public opinion.
> 
> Who will be last, the Mormons again? I'm putting my money on white evangelicals...



Yeah, so said the Romans.    Friends rejected friends.  Children turned against parents, and parents against children.   Neighbor against neighbor.

Even to this very day, Christians are rejected by Jews in Israel.  Christians are rejected by Muslims throughout the middle east.

I can even point to people I know right now that have been disowned by their families because they became Christian.   I know of situations where because they would not accept their Homosexual relatives 'partner', they were completely abandoned by their family.

None of them have turned away from Christianity, and none of started accepting Homosexuality.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure some people have.  The ones I know have not, but no doubt there are some.

But if you think that Bible believing Christianity is going to accept homosexuality.... you do not know your history.    People like you have been saying that for 2,000 years.   It's not true, and never will be.

*I will promise you, right here, right now, the Generation of Bible based Christianity will stand against what G-d calls sin, until the very last second, of the last day, of this Earth.  Until the end of time.    I will put every single thing I own in this world, on that bet.*


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how the far left wants to spin it, "marriage" is not a "right".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS disagrees with you, and DS, and Yurt.
> 
> You can have your opinions, of course, but they don't count in the Rule of Law.
Click to expand...


i never said marriage was not a right you dumbass liar


----------



## Yurt

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a legal construct when religious unions seek the privileges and perks and reciprocities as shown in #1267.  A church ceremony privately telling two folks they can shack up is not a marriage in the legal sense.  The *red above bolded* outs Yurt.
> 
> Do some research, Yurt,  I am going to find some airline tickets to Denver to see family and Rockie Dodgers baseball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you even know what a legal construct is?  i don't think you do.  because marriage was around LONG before the good USofA jake.
> 
> the law does not create marriage.  the law creates certain rights with regards to marriage.
> 
> enjoy your game, perhaps it will give you time to reflect on the wisdom i've given you.  have fun!  and enjoy a good hot dog for me.
Click to expand...


 [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]


----------



## JakeStarkey

You can believe whatever you wan, Androw.  So can you, Yurt.

But we live by Rule of Law, not Rule of Man.


----------



## Yurt

i see jakey simply can't debate and resorts to his standard:

i'm right you're wrong because i say so

schtick

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

and throws out his strawman about rule of law vs rule of man....which i never even talked about.  he is a dishonest poster who can't make a point without lying.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Androw said:


> Still don't care.    You don't get it do you?    I don't care what you think the law of the land is.  I don't care what the constitution says, if it violates the Bible.
> 
> I'm a Christian.  As a Christian, the Bible is the highest authority in my life.  Higher than you... higher than the law.... higher than the Constitution, the President, or the Supreme Court.



So you're against the 13th amendment then?


----------



## Andylusion

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still don't care.    You don't get it do you?    I don't care what you think the law of the land is.  I don't care what the constitution says, if it violates the Bible.
> 
> I'm a Christian.  As a Christian, the Bible is the highest authority in my life.  Higher than you... higher than the law.... higher than the Constitution, the President, or the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're against the 13th amendment then?
Click to expand...


Pretty dumb question.

Who led the fight against slavery?  Oh right... Christians....  not just any Christians, but specifically Bible believing Christians.

And does the Bible support racism of any type?    Nope.

Did I not already post, even on this very thread, Acts 10:34:

Then Peter began to speak: "Now I understand that God shows no partiality."

What does that say?   There is no racism.  The fact all men came from Adam, suggest there is only one race.

We Christians, who believed there was a higher authority than man's law, are the very ones who ended slavery sir.

And now you ask me if I'm against the 13th amendment?

Do you not see what a dumb question that was?


----------



## Kosh

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how the far left wants to spin it, "marriage" is not a "right".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS disagrees with you, and DS, and Yurt.
> 
> You can have your opinions, of course, but they don't count in the Rule of Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i never said marriage was not a right you dumbass liar
Click to expand...


And "marriage" is not a "right"..


----------



## Kosh

JakeStarkey said:


> You can believe whatever you wan, Androw.  So can you, Yurt.
> 
> But we live by Rule of Law, not Rule of Man.



Oh my the racist far left Obama drones are reaching down deep now and posting things not even connected to reality.


----------



## Andylusion

JakeStarkey said:


> You can believe whatever you wan, Androw.  So can you, Yurt.
> 
> But we live by Rule of Law, not Rule of Man.



That's nice.  I still don't care.

I'm not trying to change your belief system.

I'm just TELLING YOU what our belief system is.  G-d's law, is above everything you say, believe, or do.

That's all there is to it.   And we're not changing, no matter what 'rule of law' you come up with.    We will only abide your laws until they violate G-d's law.   When your law, violates G-d's law.... we're going with G-d.  Sucks to be you.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Androw said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe whatever you wan, Androw.  So can you, Yurt.
> 
> But we live by Rule of Law, not Rule of Man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.  I still don't care.
> 
> I'm not trying to change your belief system.
> 
> I'm just TELLING YOU what our belief system is.  G-d's law, is above everything you say, believe, or do.
> 
> That's all there is to it.   And we're not changing, no matter what 'rule of law' you come up with.    We will only abide your laws until they violate G-d's law.   When your law, violates G-d's law.... we're going with G-d.  Sucks to be you.
Click to expand...

God's law was invented, like God.

Do you know why the first commandment reads as it does, because the Jews had some many gods before that, and you don't even pray to that one, you went them one better and choose Jesus, the son of a god...


----------



## Andylusion

PaintMyHouse said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe whatever you wan, Androw.  So can you, Yurt.
> 
> But we live by Rule of Law, not Rule of Man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.  I still don't care.
> 
> I'm not trying to change your belief system.
> 
> I'm just TELLING YOU what our belief system is.  G-d's law, is above everything you say, believe, or do.
> 
> That's all there is to it.   And we're not changing, no matter what 'rule of law' you come up with.    We will only abide your laws until they violate G-d's law.   When your law, violates G-d's law.... we're going with G-d.  Sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God's law was invented, like God.
> 
> Do you know why the first commandment reads as it does, because the Jews had some many gods before that, and you don't even pray to that one, you went them one better and choose Jesus, the son of a god...
Click to expand...


Thank you for submitting your opinion.  It has been properly filed away in the Oval Cabinet, for permanent storage.  Thanks for sharing.

When I care what you think about the Bible, I'll let you know. Until then, you can assume that I am a Christian.   A Bible believing, G-d fearing Christian.

You can also feel free to assume I will remain that way until I die, which is also the point where I'll stop opposing Homosexuality being anywhere near my family, my church, and my faith.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Androw said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still don't care.    You don't get it do you?    I don't care what you think the law of the land is.  I don't care what the constitution says, if it violates the Bible.
> 
> I'm a Christian.  As a Christian, the Bible is the highest authority in my life.  Higher than you... higher than the law.... higher than the Constitution, the President, or the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're against the 13th amendment then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty dumb question.
> 
> Who led the fight against slavery?  Oh right... Christians....  not just any Christians, but specifically Bible believing Christians.
Click to expand...


That's funny. Who led the fight FOR slavery? Oh right...Christians. not just any Christians, but specifically Bible believing Christians (as opposed to Christians that don't believe in the Bible? LOLZ!)



> And does the Bible support racism of any type?    Nope.
> 
> Did I not already post, even on this very thread, Acts 10:34:
> 
> Then Peter began to speak: "Now I understand that God shows no partiality."
> 
> What does that say?   There is no racism.  The fact all men came from Adam, suggest there is only one race.
> 
> We Christians, who believed there was a higher authority than man's law, are the very ones who ended slavery sir.
> 
> And now you ask me if I'm against the 13th amendment?
> 
> Do you not see what a dumb question that was?







> The Bible supports slavery. So you should opposed the 13th amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what the 13th amendment has to do with racism. You must be confusing it with the 14th.
Click to expand...


----------



## Yurt

Kosh said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS disagrees with you, and DS, and Yurt.
> 
> You can have your opinions, of course, but they don't count in the Rule of Law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i never said marriage was not a right you dumbass liar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And "marriage" is not a "right"..
Click to expand...


according to scotus it is a fundamental right


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you find an old dictionary, before people started screwing with the words....
> 
> The definition of "marriage" is:
> 
> 'a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife'
> 
> Husband.... and wife.   Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as male and female.
> 
> You could have multiple females.   But it was still between a man, and a woman.
> 
> Even in societies that were very open to homosexuality, you could have partners as such, but they were still not "married".  They were partners, and had some level of legal standing, but they were not "married".
> 
> Marriage was between a man and woman.   If there is such a example of any historical society where man and man, or woman and woman, could marry, I don't know of it.
> 
> So to that end, I would say to you that everyone is legally equal under the law.  Everyone has the ability to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.
> 
> Now if society wants to allow some sort of legal partnership....  I would be ok with that.   I'd feel sad for the people who agreed to it, but let the pagans be pagans, in my book.   If that's what they want, knock themselves out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was always white people and white people or black people and black people...until it wasn't. Women used to not be able to own property in the marriage...until they could.
> 
> Know what they told those interracial couples that wanted to marry? That they weren't being discriminated against because they could marry someone of the same race...just like you are telling me I'm not discriminated against because I can marry someone of the opposite gender. Same discrimination, different day.
> 
> Now, if you don't like that civil marriages are called civil marriages, the onus is on you and others that don't want gays to say "married" to change the name of ALL civil marriages to civil unions...not just for the gays.
> 
> By the way, marriage is a pagan tradition. The wedding ring? Pagan to it's roots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing of what you said changed anything of what I said.    Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
> 
> The race issue.... is a RACE issue.   Not a redefining of marriage between a man and a woman.
> 
> Yes, I am well aware of where the wedding ring came from.   So what?    Does that change what it stand for between a man and woman today?   No.   Does it change what it means to me?  No.   Does it matter at all to anything we're talking about in this coversation?  No.
> 
> Moving on.
Click to expand...


You were ranting about pagans...sorry, just thought you should know. 

Marriage isn't anymore. Marriage is now also between two men or two women. Moving on.


----------



## Kosh

Yurt said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i never said marriage was not a right you dumbass liar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And "marriage" is not a "right"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> according to scotus it is a fundamental right
Click to expand...


It is not a "right"!

Driving is not a "right"

voting is not a "right".


----------



## 1776

I wonder what liberal scum would think about the GOV forcing you to attend church and to change your views in support of that church....


----------



## emilynghiem

PaintMyHouse said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is forced to join or remain a member of  ANY religion. But MAKING people accept Homosexuality, or any other fetish, I draw the line there. Freedom, it means a lot of things. Freedom means I don't have to accept perverts as normal and  then let them corrupt my family, religion or politics.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to accept it, but the majority of your fellow citizens already have so when the invitations start to dry up or your kids find play-dates harder to get, start buying more boardgames since you will be yelling into the wind, mostly by yourself...
Click to expand...

  [MENTION=47594]PaintMyHouse[/MENTION]

"Majority of citizens" I know are tolerant of Christianity, Crosses, Christmas, and Bibles.

But all it takes is one Atheist to sue in court, and a Cross has to come down.


----------



## Seawytch

OohPooPahDoo said:


> The Bible supports slavery. So you should opposed the 13th amendment.





> Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)


 
Yes, the bible was used by both sides of the slavery debate...and modern day Christians are finding that the bible is a lot less anti gay than they were led to believe.

There Are 6 Scriptures About Homosexuality In The Bible. Here's What They Really Say.

Why the New Testament Doesn't Condemn Gay People


----------



## Seawytch

Kosh said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And "marriage" is not a "right"..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> according to scotus it is a fundamental right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a "right"!
> 
> Driving is not a "right"
> 
> voting is not a "right".
Click to expand...


*Fundamental Right*
Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment.  These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process.  Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.  *Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel*.​
You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. It is a fact that marriage is a fundamental right.


----------



## Seawytch

1776 said:


> I wonder what liberal scum would think about the GOV forcing you to attend church and to change your views in support of that church....



We would think the same thing as if someone was trying to force a church to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. Neither is going to happen, Drama Queen.


----------



## emilynghiem

Kosh said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS disagrees with you, and DS, and Yurt.
> 
> You can have your opinions, of course, but they don't count in the Rule of Law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i never said marriage was not a right you dumbass liar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And "marriage" is not a "right"..
Click to expand...


Dear [MENTION=1528]Yurt[/MENTION] [MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]
Regardless if marriage is a right or not (which again is a political belief either way)

people BELIEVE in gay marriage or they don't
people BELIEVE in marriage going through govt or they don't
people BELIEVE in marriage equality or sanctity of traditional marriage or they don't

These are EQUAL BELIEFS
whether it is one person's political belief versus another

Last I checked the Constitution was supposed to recognize
equal religious freedom and equal protection of the laws
from discrimination by creed

 [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]
if people don't have the same political beliefs
that the Court has the right to decide marriage laws for the people

how can you possible say that the ruling
by the Court is valid law or not?

Unless there is a consensus on that ruling coming out of that Court
* if the Court rules in favor of one political belief it is discriminating against the other
* if the Court rules in favor of the other political belief, the other belief is denied 
equal protection and representation

There is no way to win because beliefs were involved in the first place

I would recommend that Courts require mediation and consensus
and only policies that meet public standards of representing all interests
and beliefs of the populations in those states can be enforced by govt

so either write an agreement, agree how to interpret laws, and/or separate and agree to separate policies per church or party or other institution; but don't endorse laws through govt unless the public agrees on writing/interpretation/enforcement policy where all beliefs are accommodated and no one is denied or discriminated against on the basis of creed


----------



## Kosh

Seawytch said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> according to scotus it is a fundamental right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "right"!
> 
> Driving is not a "right"
> 
> voting is not a "right".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Fundamental Right*
> Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment.  These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process.  Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.  *Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel*.​
> You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. It is a fact that marriage is a fundamental right.
Click to expand...


So you find a racist far left wing blog to prove your point. Good for you!

Still doe snot make it a "right".

Just goes to show that the far left Obama drones do not understand the government is supposed to work via the constitution.


----------



## emilynghiem

[MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]
already there were photographers and bakers sued, harassed, fined or shut down
over forcing them to provide services against their faith

YES the force came from courts, and fines were through govt commissions



Seawytch said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what liberal scum would think about the GOV forcing you to attend church and to change your views in support of that church....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We would think the same thing as if someone was trying to force a church to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. Neither is going to happen, Drama Queen.
Click to expand...


----------



## 1776

Uh idiot....there are plenty of liberals pushing for group think. 



Seawytch said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what liberal scum would think about the GOV forcing you to attend church and to change your views in support of that church....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We would think the same thing as if someone was trying to force a church to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. Neither is going to happen, Drama Queen.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kosh

emilynghiem said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i never said marriage was not a right you dumbass liar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And "marriage" is not a "right"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear [MENTION=1528]Yurt[/MENTION] [MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]
> Regardless if marriage is a right or not (which again is a political belief either way)
> 
> people BELIEVE in gay marriage or they don't
> people BELIEVE in marriage going through govt or they don't
> people BELIEVE in marriage equality or sanctity of traditional marriage or they don't
> 
> These are EQUAL BELIEFS
> whether it is one person's political belief versus another
> 
> Last I checked the Constitution was supposed to recognize
> equal religious freedom and equal protection of the laws
> from discrimination by creed
> 
> [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]
> if people don't have the same political beliefs
> that the Court has the right to decide marriage laws for the people
> 
> how can you possible say that the ruling
> by the Court is valid law or not?
> 
> Unless there is a consensus on that ruling coming out of that Court
> * if the Court rules in favor of one political belief it is discriminating against the other
> * if the Court rules in favor of the other political belief, the other belief is denied
> equal protection and representation
> 
> There is no way to win because beliefs were involved in the first place
> 
> I would recommend that Courts require mediation and consensus
> and only policies that meet public standards of representing all interests
> and beliefs of the populations in those states can be enforced by govt
> 
> so either write an agreement, agree how to interpret laws, and/or separate and agree to separate policies per church or party or other institution; but don't endorse laws through govt unless the public agrees on writing/interpretation/enforcement policy where all beliefs are accommodated and no one is denied or discriminated against on the basis of creed
Click to expand...


"Marriage" is not a "right". If the racist far left Obama drones could accept fact, then we would not have these problems.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

emilynghiem said:


> But all it takes is one Atheist to sue in court, and a Cross has to come down.


That's usually because it's in a place where it doesn't belong.  I have no problem with all faiths sharing the public square, as long as all of them can, not just the majority faith as in the past.


----------



## GISMYS

PaintMyHouse said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But all it takes is one Atheist to sue in court, and a Cross has to come down.
> 
> 
> 
> That's usually because it's in a place where it doesn't belong.  I have no problem with all faiths sharing the public square, as long as all of them can, not just the majority faith as in the past.
Click to expand...


" majority "  RULES IN THE USA =ITS CALLED VOTING!!!


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Kosh said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And "marriage" is not a "right"..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear [MENTION=1528]Yurt[/MENTION] [MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]
> Regardless if marriage is a right or not (which again is a political belief either way)
> 
> people BELIEVE in gay marriage or they don't
> people BELIEVE in marriage going through govt or they don't
> people BELIEVE in marriage equality or sanctity of traditional marriage or they don't
> 
> These are EQUAL BELIEFS
> whether it is one person's political belief versus another
> 
> Last I checked the Constitution was supposed to recognize
> equal religious freedom and equal protection of the laws
> from discrimination by creed
> 
> [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]
> if people don't have the same political beliefs
> that the Court has the right to decide marriage laws for the people
> 
> how can you possible say that the ruling
> by the Court is valid law or not?
> 
> Unless there is a consensus on that ruling coming out of that Court
> * if the Court rules in favor of one political belief it is discriminating against the other
> * if the Court rules in favor of the other political belief, the other belief is denied
> equal protection and representation
> 
> There is no way to win because beliefs were involved in the first place
> 
> I would recommend that Courts require mediation and consensus
> and only policies that meet public standards of representing all interests
> and beliefs of the populations in those states can be enforced by govt
> 
> so either write an agreement, agree how to interpret laws, and/or separate and agree to separate policies per church or party or other institution; but don't endorse laws through govt unless the public agrees on writing/interpretation/enforcement policy where all beliefs are accommodated and no one is denied or discriminated against on the basis of creed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Marriage" is not a "right". If the racist far left Obama drones could accept fact, then we would not have these problems.
Click to expand...

Equal Before The law is the right, and why your side has lost this argument.


----------



## Seawytch

emilynghiem said:


> [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]
> already there were photographers and bakers sued, harassed, fined or shut down
> over forcing them to provide services against their faith
> 
> YES the force came from courts, and fines were through govt commissions



For the last time, a business is NOT A *TAX EXEMPT* CHURCH.

You know businesses can be fucking sued for not serving a Christian, a black, a cripple...but no church can be forced to *marry *them. 

Gays are not more powerful than all the other minorities...despite the ever present fear of {duh, duh, duh}...THE


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]
I noticed this list leaves out
"right to free choice of health care"

Isn't it a form of "political discrimination by creed" to use govt
to enforce only free choice of abortion for liberals who believe in that,
but to deny free choice of health care and free choice of reparative therapy
for those who have EQUAL BELIEFS about health care choices?

Why is it okay to regulate and penalize free choice of health care?

How does choosing to pay for health care for oneself and others
without using insurance "more harmful" than choosing abortion?



Kosh said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "right"!
> 
> Driving is not a "right"
> 
> voting is not a "right".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fundamental Right*
> *Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel*.​
> You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. It is a fact that marriage is a fundamental right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you find a racist far left wing blog to prove your point. Good for you!
> 
> Still doe snot make it a "right".
> 
> Just goes to show that the far left Obama drones do not understand the government is supposed to work via the constitution.
Click to expand...


 [MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]
gay marriage and marriage equality 
is a BELIEF, or a Political Belief if you want

It is protected from discrimination by creed
by the Fourteenth Amendment

if we want the liberal Democrats to recognize 
Natural Rights or Religious Liberty as a "BELIEF protected by law"
we must also recognize
Right to Health Care or Marriage Equality as a "BELIEF protected by law"

Instead of fighting to deny or discredit/discriminate AGAINST each other's beliefs,
the point is to argue
1. they cannot be IMPOSED by law because they are BELIEFS
2. they can only be DEFENDED by law from infringement because they are BELIEFS

To enforce Equal Protection of Constitutional Beliefs
we must acknowledge the others are equally defended beliefs,
and in doing so, establish in public these CANNOT BE IMPOSED BY LAW


----------



## Seawytch

Kosh said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "right"!
> 
> Driving is not a "right"
> 
> voting is not a "right".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fundamental Right*
> Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment.  These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process.  Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.  *Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel*.​
> You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. It is a fact that marriage is a fundamental right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you find a racist far left wing blog to prove your point. Good for you!
> 
> Still doe snot make it a "right".
> 
> Just goes to show that the far left Obama drones do not understand the government is supposed to work via the constitution.
Click to expand...


Cornell Law is "leftist" blog? Are you really as stupid as the moron you portray on the internet?


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]

Given that the liberals ARE using govt as their church,
they are forcing the govt to recognize the marriages against the
will of at least HALF the population that is opposed

I agree with removing BANS on gay marriage so churches can follow their beliefs.
But forcing govt to recognize gay marriage violate the beliefs of the 
dissenting population. This is not something that can be resolved
constitutionally using majority rule or court order because it involves religious beliefs.

the people per state would have to agree on a policy,
and have govt follow that, NOT force a policy through govt against anyone's beliefs
or technically it is unconstitutional.

Citizens and govt should be trained to distinguish political beliefs
and how to mediate to resolve conflicts, BEFORE making laws that touch on these beliefs.

Otherwise you are going to violate someone's beliefs either way,
similar to Hindus and Muslims suing each other and asking Courts to pick
one over the other, and force all their members to follow the policy of the winning side

NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.



Seawytch said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]
> already there were photographers and bakers sued, harassed, fined or shut down
> over forcing them to provide services against their faith
> 
> YES the force came from courts, and fines were through govt commissions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the last time, a business is NOT A *TAX EXEMPT* CHURCH.
> 
> You know businesses can be fucking sued for not serving a Christian, a black, a cripple...but no church can be forced to *marry *them.
> 
> Gays are not more powerful than all the other minorities...despite the ever present fear of {duh, duh, duh}...THE
Click to expand...


----------



## Seawytch

emilynghiem said:


> Dear [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]
> I noticed this list leaves out
> "right to free choice of health care"
> 
> Isn't it a form of "political discrimination by creed" to use govt
> to enforce only free choice of abortion for liberals who believe in that,
> but to deny free choice of health care and free choice of reparative therapy
> for those who have EQUAL BELIEFS about health care choices?
> 
> Why is it okay to regulate and penalize free choice of health care?
> 
> How does choosing to pay for health care for oneself and others
> without using insurance "more harmful" than choosing abortion?



 [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]  I noticed you brought up a total non sequitur.  

I believe in people's free choice to have Angel Therapy, but it shouldn't be in a major parties platform nor should it be paid for with taxpayer dollars. 

I've also never heard of Angel Therapy being harmful like reparative therapy...


----------



## DriftingSand

PaintMyHouse said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to accept it, but the majority of your fellow citizens already have so when the invitations start to dry up or your kids find play-dates harder to get, start buying more boardgames since you will be yelling into the wind, mostly by yourself...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. "The majority of my fellow citizens" have accepted "gay marriage?"  That's total BS.  Almost every state that has voted on the issue has voted it down. It's taken an activist Federal Judge to overturn the will of the people in almost every case. I don't personally know anyone who believes that "gay marriage" is normal or acceptable.  You really do have mush for brains ... don't you!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn to read polls, and when given a chance to vote, which they have no business doing, they vote for equality now.  The war is over, you lost.  Move on...
> 
> National Polls | MarriageEqualityUSA
Click to expand...


I just did a poll today. 100% of the folks I polled were opposed to gay marriage.  So I guess it all depends on who's conducting the poll and whether or not they have an agenda.


----------



## Seawytch

emilynghiem said:


> Dear [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]
> 
> Given that the liberals ARE using govt as their church,
> they are forcing the govt to recognize the marriages against the
> will of at least HALF the population that is opposed
> 
> I agree with removing BANS on gay marriage so churches can follow their beliefs.
> But forcing govt to recognize gay marriage violate the beliefs of the
> dissenting population. This is not something that can be resolved
> constitutionally using majority rule or court order because it involves religious beliefs.
> 
> the people per state would have to agree on a policy,
> and have govt follow that, NOT force a policy through govt against anyone's beliefs
> or technically it is unconstitutional.
> 
> Citizens and govt should be trained to distinguish political beliefs
> and how to mediate to resolve conflicts, BEFORE making laws that touch on these beliefs.
> 
> Otherwise you are going to violate someone's beliefs either way,
> similar to Hindus and Muslims suing each other and asking Courts to pick
> one over the other, and force all their members to follow the policy of the winning side
> 
> NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.



Learn the difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. Denying me a marriage license because I'm gay is no different than denying me a driver's license for the same reason. 

Churches have never been forced to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage have they? No, but the government "forced" recognition of interracial marriage on a population that was *80% opposed *to it. 

Civil marriage is secular, your religion, their religion have nothing to do with it.


----------



## emilynghiem

Seawytch said:


> [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]  I noticed you brought up a total non sequitur.
> 
> I believe in people's free choice to have Angel Therapy, but it shouldn't be in a major parties platform nor should it be paid for with taxpayer dollars.
> 
> I've also never heard of Angel Therapy being harmful like reparative therapy...



Hi [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] thanks for an interesting link which I will explore and possibly refer to other friends.

I believe spiritual healing should replace any reference to "conversion therapy"
as the focus of medical and psychiatric research

If people are pushing for or against stem cell research,
or marijuana research, why not give taxpayers a choice to invest in more
NATURAL healing methods that are more cost effective with no risk of side effects?

What I am against with the ACA is that it mandates insurance as the ONLY
choice, and FINES other choices of covering health care for oneself and others

so it PRECLUDES penalizes and discriminates against these other choices

It would be one thing if people have free choice,
and we don't force anyone to fund spiritual practices.

But to force people and businesses to PURCHASE insurance as the ONLY CHOICE
and penalize any other forms of health care,
that is where I believe ACA mandates and regulations are Unconstitutional

*You should not be "fined" for choosing to use Angel Therapy or other natural healing
instead of buying insurance. To me that is religious discrimination and unconstitutional.*


----------



## Seawytch

emilynghiem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]  I noticed you brought up a total non sequitur.
> 
> I believe in people's free choice to have Angel Therapy, but it shouldn't be in a major parties platform nor should it be paid for with taxpayer dollars.
> 
> I've also never heard of Angel Therapy being harmful like reparative therapy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] thanks for an interesting link which I will explore and possibly refer to other friends.
> 
> I believe spiritual healing should replace any reference to "conversion therapy"
> as the focus of medical and psychiatric research
> 
> If people are pushing for or against stem cell research,
> or marijuana research, why not give taxpayers a choice to invest in more
> NATURAL healing methods that are more cost effective with no risk of side effects?
> 
> What I am against with the ACA is that it mandates insurance as the ONLY
> choice, and FINES other choices of covering health care for oneself and others
> 
> so it PRECLUDES penalizes and discriminates against these other choices
> 
> It would be one thing if people have free choice,
> and we don't force anyone to fund spiritual practices.
> 
> But to force people and businesses to PURCHASE insurance as the ONLY CHOICE
> and penalize any other forms of health care,
> that is where I believe ACA mandates and regulations are Unconstitutional
> 
> *You should not be "fined" for choosing to use Angel Therapy or other natural healing
> instead of buying insurance. To me that is religious discrimination and unconstitutional.*
Click to expand...


Oh for god's sake, start a thread on your "alternative medicine" theories. The ACA is *private insurance*. Find me a private insurance company anywhere that covers any of these kooky therapies.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> Learn the difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. *Denying me a marriage license because I'm gay is no different than denying me a driver's license for the same reason*.
> 
> Churches have never been forced to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage have they? No, but the government "forced" recognition of interracial marriage on a population that was 80% opposed to it.
> 
> Civil marriage is secular, your religion, their religion have nothing to do with it.



No, you are being denied a marriage license because the sexual behavior and the people you choose to want to play-marriage at are of your same gender. Ergo you do not qualify.  We all make choices in life.  Your behaviors don't get to rewrite the framework of the description of the PRIVELEGE of marriage.  Marriage is not a right.  It isn't because not only you cannot legally marry still in California, neither can incest couples, polygamists or minors.  None of you qualify.  

Just like blind people do not qualify for the PRIVELEGE of driving.  Driving requires sight.  Marriage requires opposite gender, only two people, people not related closely by blood and adult people to boot.  The two examples you cannot layer one atop the other as "denying you a driver's license because you're gay".  Unless you're finally in the advanced stages of AIDS, I can't see for the life of me how your being gay affects your ability to drive.  Likewise, I cannot for the life of me see how even though blind people cannot drive, why we should deny them marriage licenses as long as they are one man and one woman.

Your desire to completely rewrite the construct of the institution you're applying for acceptance to is unacceptable to the majority.  Ergo, you will soon find that Windsor will once again aver that your case is to convince each sovereign state, state by state, that you changing that construct is a good idea beneficial to the state.

Marriage, like driving, is not a "right" that is a false premise.  Either you qualify state by state or you don't.


----------



## emilynghiem

Seawytch said:


> Learn the difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. Denying me a marriage license because I'm gay is no different than denying me a driver's license for the same reason.
> 
> Churches have never been forced to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage have they? No, but the government "forced" recognition of interracial marriage on a population that was *80% opposed *to it.
> 
> Civil marriage is secular, your religion, their religion have nothing to do with it.



Like I said before
I agree that BANS are unconstitutional because not all people agree to ban gay marriage

* marriages/civil contracts recognized through the STATE should be AGREED upon by the people: in the terms using in writing, the interpretation and enforcement
as long as it is through GOVT -- there must be agreement

* marriage/ceremonies/etc recognized through Churches can be done according to those beliefs, and people DO NOT need to agree, they can go through their own churches/etc.

* if people don't agree to ban certain things through the State, they can't be banned
and likewise
* if people don't agree to endorse certain things through the State, they can be forced

Either way, if you take your beliefs about marriage
and "impose that through the State against the beliefs of others"
that is unconstitutional

The State can neither BAN nor IMPOSE a policy against other people's beliefs.

 [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] I think the problem here is that some people do have political beliefs.
They believe in traditional marriage only, but want to impose that through the State.
If they kept it separate through their church only, then NO marriages would
be through the State.

This is why I'm saying as soon as a political belief is involved,
which crosses the line and involves both church and state,
consensus is necessary to represent/include all beliefs equally
or it causes discrimination against the opposing creed.

If people cannot agree on a consensus policy, they should pull marriage
completely out of the State level and keep it private only.


----------



## emilynghiem

the point is not to have to go through insurance at all

but to directly access the choices, regardless of buying insurance which remains an option

I believe ACA should be OPTIONAL
so that all choices are legal with  no fines or penalties for
NOT going through insurance as ACA requires.

I believe you should have equal free choice to access health care provisions DIRECTLY
and are not PENALIZED for "not buying insurance" because you get coverage without this



Seawytch said:


> Oh for god's sake, start a thread on your "alternative medicine" theories. The ACA is *private insurance*. Find me a private insurance company anywhere that covers any of these kooky therapies.



????
Who says you have to go through insurance as the only way?
Who says you have to go through ACA as the only way?

The fines/penalties in the mandates are imposed by federal govt!
This is ALREADY not a free choice.

I'm sorry Seawytch I am totally misunderstanding you

It sounds like you "accept the regulations set up under ACA"
then complain the choices are not under it
and not the fault of govt because it is private insurance?

I am saying don't be forced by govt to go through ACA as the only choice to begin with!

If people set up a separate network that you could access these service through,
then you get the health care through that NOT ACA NOT govt regulations
NOT through private insurance that doesn't offer it.

You get those choices directly. Create your own health coop if you need
to but you get what you want and don't pay for programs you don't want.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi [MENTION=44514]Silhouette[/MENTION]
1. for your beliefs about why or why not, that part is not believed by all people
so it counts as either religious belief, or as political where it involves govt policy
2. your beliefs are equally protected from infringement 
as beliefs in gay marriage

So neither one should be imposed by the state
As long as YOU do not believe in gay marriage, it is a belief, cannot be imposed
by the state, and you have the right to defend and include your beliefs equally

Likewise, if [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] believes in gay marriage equality
this is a religious belief, or political when it involves state policy
And her belief can neither be banned or imposed by law,
but can be defended equally on the same level as belief in traditional marriage

both beliefs are equal, and neither can be imposed on the other by the state



Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. *Denying me a marriage license because I'm gay is no different than denying me a driver's license for the same reason*.
> 
> Churches have never been forced to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage have they? No, but the government "forced" recognition of interracial marriage on a population that was 80% opposed to it.
> 
> Civil marriage is secular, your religion, their religion have nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are being denied a marriage license because the sexual behavior and the people you choose to want to play-marriage at are of your same gender. Ergo you do not qualify.  We all make choices in life.  Your behaviors don't get to rewrite the framework of the description of the PRIVELEGE of marriage.  Marriage is not a right.  It isn't because not only you cannot legally marry still in California, neither can incest couples, polygamists or minors.  None of you qualify.
> 
> Just like blind people do not qualify for the PRIVELEGE of driving.  Driving requires sight.  Marriage requires opposite gender, only two people, people not related closely by blood and adult people to boot.  The two examples you cannot layer one atop the other as "denying you a driver's license because you're gay".  Unless you're finally in the advanced stages of AIDS, I can't see for the life of me how your being gay affects your ability to drive.  Likewise, I cannot for the life of me see how even though blind people cannot drive, why we should deny them marriage licenses as long as they are one man and one woman.
> 
> Your desire to completely rewrite the construct of the institution you're applying for acceptance to is unacceptable to the majority.  Ergo, you will soon find that Windsor will once again aver that your case is to convince each sovereign state, state by state, that you changing that construct is a good idea beneficial to the state.
> 
> Marriage, like driving, is not a "right" that is a false premise.  Either you qualify state by state or you don't.
Click to expand...


----------



## Silhouette

emilynghiem said:


> 1. for your beliefs about why or why not, that part is not believed by all people
> so it counts as either religious belief, or as political where it involves govt policy
> 2. your beliefs are equally protected from infringement
> as beliefs in gay marriage
> 
> So neither one should be imposed by the state
> As long as YOU do not believe in gay marriage, it is a belief, cannot be imposed
> by the state, and you have the right to defend and include your beliefs equally
> 
> Likewise, if [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] believes in gay marriage equality
> this is a religious belief, or political when it involves state policy
> And her belief can neither be banned or imposed by law,
> but can be defended equally on the same level as belief in traditional marriage
> 
> both beliefs are equal, and neither can be imposed on the other by the state



The people of any state vote on laws that impose their beliefs that govern behavior and how others behave and interact within that discreet community.  Read Windsor, that's almost verbatim what they said.

You may have heard that we live in a democracy where the majority rules and regulates the behaviors of themselves and how they interact and what norms are preserved and promoted on a daily basis.  The only exceptions to that majority rule is the provisions in the 14th.  Gay behaviors, incomplete and arbitrary with a contested theory of genesis, do not qualify for the 14th.  So unless the LGBTs can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that theirs are not behaviors, or, failing that, they apply for federal recognition as a religion, they are not going to get to set a precedent where behaviors in minority get to dictate to the majority [democracy] rule.

That would be a _horrific_ precedent to set.  You can't limit it JUST to LGBT once the precedent for "it feels good so we have rights" is set.


----------



## emilynghiem

PaintMyHouse said:


> Equal Before The law is the right, and why your side has lost this argument.



1. "My side" is believing in CONSENSUS
so it loses no matter which side loses!

* progay winning over antigay VIOLATES MY BELIEFS IN ISONOMY/consensus
* antigay winngin over progay VIOLATES MY BELIEFS IN ISONOMY/consnesus

Banning or Imposing one belief over the other through govt is 
UNEQUAL
it is denying equal protection of the law to the other belief

So EITHER WAY it violates my Constitutional beliefs in Equal Protection
from discrimination by creed

My belief [MENTION=47594]PaintMyHouse[/MENTION] is in ISONOMY 
so I am NOT represented EITHER WAY

As long as one side wins and one side loses
I am denied MY BELIEF IN EQUAL protection of BOTH VIEWS in EITHER CASE:

The only way I can have MY VIEWS included is
by a consensus AGREEMENT between the other two

*BOTH SIDES WOULD HAVE TO WIN BEFORE "MY SIDE" WINS*
because I treat them equally as protected beliefs/creeds under law


----------



## JakeStarkey

Emily and the rest of you who have trouble with majority rule and SCOTUS.

Our Rule of Law is not going to change.

Opine all you want, but our society changes in these ways and always has and will except once when the far right reactionaries got out of hand.  They will never do that again

This is how it is done.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi [MENTION=44514]Silhouette[/MENTION]
1. Yes, if all people in a state agree to subject their BELIEFS to majority rule

in the case of ACA/health care, and gay marriage, NO they DON'T agree

there are BELIEFS involved which both sides DO NOT agree to compromise
to majority rule

2. for normal issues or areas where people AGREE to majority rule, 
YES what you say applies

3. Would you and I agree that if the majority of the state voted to impose gay marriage over all other people's beliefs, or voted to impose Muslim law? NO, because beliefs
are not subject to state imposing by majority



Silhouette said:


> *The people of any state vote on laws that impose their beliefs that govern behavior and how others behave and interact within that discreet community.*  Read Windsor, that's almost verbatim what they said.
> 
> You may have heard that we live in a democracy where the majority rules and regulates the behaviors of themselves and how they interact and what norms are preserved and promoted on a daily basis.  The only exceptions to that majority rule is the provisions in the 14th.  Gay behaviors, incomplete and arbitrary with a contested theory of genesis, do not qualify for the 14th.  So unless the LGBTs can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that theirs are not behaviors, or, failing that, they apply for federal recognition as a religion, they are not going to get to set a precedent where behaviors in minority get to dictate to the majority [democracy] rule.
> 
> That would be a _horrific_ precedent to set.  You can't limit it JUST to LGBT once the precedent for "it feels good so we have rights" is set.



4. YES that is why you can't go by majority rule and let BELIEFS of others be imposed this way.

ACA ALREADY set a horrible precedent by allowing a Majority of Congress
and a Court ruling to impose "Political Beliefs" in right to govt health care
above equal political beliefs in Free Market health care.

So this trend of imposing Political Beliefs through Majority rule or Courts
needs to be addressed and stopped. it is unconstitutional.


----------



## Kosh

Seawytch said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Fundamental Right*
> Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment.  These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process.  Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.  *Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel*.​
> You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. It is a fact that marriage is a fundamental right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you find a racist far left wing blog to prove your point. Good for you!
> 
> Still doe snot make it a "right".
> 
> Just goes to show that the far left Obama drones do not understand the government is supposed to work via the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cornell Law is "leftist" blog? Are you really as stupid as the moron you portray on the internet?
Click to expand...


Yes and your highlighted section shows why it is a far left blog site!

"Marriage" is not a "right"...


----------



## Kosh

emilynghiem said:


> Dear [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]
> I noticed this list leaves out
> "right to free choice of health care"
> 
> Isn't it a form of "political discrimination by creed" to use govt
> to enforce only free choice of abortion for liberals who believe in that,
> but to deny free choice of health care and free choice of reparative therapy
> for those who have EQUAL BELIEFS about health care choices?
> 
> Why is it okay to regulate and penalize free choice of health care?
> 
> How does choosing to pay for health care for oneself and others
> without using insurance "more harmful" than choosing abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Fundamental Right*
> *Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel*.​
> You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. It is a fact that marriage is a fundamental right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you find a racist far left wing blog to prove your point. Good for you!
> 
> Still doe snot make it a "right".
> 
> Just goes to show that the far left Obama drones do not understand the government is supposed to work via the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [MENTION=42632]Kosh[/MENTION]
> gay marriage and marriage equality
> is a BELIEF, or a Political Belief if you want
> 
> It is protected from discrimination by creed
> by the Fourteenth Amendment
> 
> if we want the liberal Democrats to recognize
> Natural Rights or Religious Liberty as a "BELIEF protected by law"
> we must also recognize
> Right to Health Care or Marriage Equality as a "BELIEF protected by law"
> 
> Instead of fighting to deny or discredit/discriminate AGAINST each other's beliefs,
> the point is to argue
> 1. they cannot be IMPOSED by law because they are BELIEFS
> 2. they can only be DEFENDED by law from infringement because they are BELIEFS
> 
> To enforce Equal Protection of Constitutional Beliefs
> we must acknowledge the others are equally defended beliefs,
> and in doing so, establish in public these CANNOT BE IMPOSED BY LAW
Click to expand...


"Marriage" is not a "right"..

"Marriage" is a product of religion and many governments have chosen to recognize a "religious" marriage. It does not mean that it is must be applied equally. Statements like the far left makes shows that many do not know what they are talking about.

If you are "Married" and on partner wants to end the "Marriage" to the other partner that just violated someone's "rights".

Government should not be in the business of "Marriage".

The "gay" agenda has never been abut "equal" rights it has been using a term that has been well established in religion and trying to force the church to accept them. The far left grab onto this "cause" due to the potential of getting at the money of the churches.

Many of the so called "rights" that the far left takes up are not true "rights".

Although for the far left to want government involved in "Marriage" then want to claim "separation of church and state" on many other issues just to go that this an agenda and not based on "rights", but something else.

If they wanted the could have pushed for Civil Unions and it would have met with much less resistance.


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> Emily and the rest of you who have trouble with majority rule and SCOTUS.
> 
> Our Rule of Law is not going to change.
> 
> Opine all you want, but our society changes in these ways and always has and will except once when the far right reactionaries got out of hand.  They will never do that again
> 
> This is how it is done.



notice how jake never debates.  he just make empty platitudes.


----------



## MaryL

No, of course not. Forcing people to violate their religious or moral principals violates the spirit of the constitution. I don't want to split hairs here, use common sense, most of you can be fair and objective and differentiate between religion and  extreme fringe weirdo haters. Of course, you folks CAN be objective on this issue, right?  I hope so.


----------



## Seawytch

Kosh said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you find a racist far left wing blog to prove your point. Good for you!
> 
> Still doe snot make it a "right".
> 
> Just goes to show that the far left Obama drones do not understand the government is supposed to work via the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cornell Law is "leftist" blog? Are you really as stupid as the moron you portray on the internet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and your highlighted section shows why it is a far left blog site!
> 
> "Marriage" is not a "right"...
Click to expand...


You're just going to keep repeating incorrect information even after being given evidence to the contrary? What purpose does that serve?

Again, let us suppose that the SCOTUS did not declare marriage a fundamental right in Loving v Virginia (1967), Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978) and Turner v Safley (1987)...what reason could you have to deny what you believe to be a privilege, to gays and lesbians?


----------



## Yurt

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily and the rest of you who have trouble with majority rule and SCOTUS.
> 
> Our Rule of Law is not going to change.
> 
> Opine all you want, but our society changes in these ways and always has and will except once when the far right reactionaries got out of hand.  They will never do that again
> 
> This is how it is done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> notice how jake never debates.  he just make empty platitudes.
Click to expand...


 [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]


----------



## JakeStarkey

That SCOTUS opinions and majority decisions that do not injure minority rights protected by the 14th Amendment indeed is how we function by the Rule of Law.

Those who oppose ACA have the right to opine but not obstruct the action of the law except in the legislatures and in the courts.

Those who oppose marriage equality have the same rights.

All of the continuing simple denial by opponents mean squat.

It is what it is.


----------



## Gadawg73

Kosh said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you find a racist far left wing blog to prove your point. Good for you!
> 
> Still doe snot make it a "right".
> 
> Just goes to show that the far left Obama drones do not understand the government is supposed to work via the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cornell Law is "leftist" blog? Are you really as stupid as the moron you portray on the internet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and your highlighted section shows why it is a far left blog site!
> 
> "Marriage" is not a "right"...
Click to expand...


Marriage is a CONTRACT

Please show us where gays are banned from entering into a marriage contract.
The Constitution does not ban it.
Sorry about that.


----------



## Tuatara

Androw said:


> Still don't care.    You don't get it do you?    I don't care what you think the law of the land is.  I don't care what the constitution says, if it violates the Bible.
> 
> I'm a Christian.  As a Christian, the Bible is the highest authority in my life.  Higher than you... higher than the law.... higher than the Constitution, the President, or the Supreme Court.
> 
> Now as long as all those things do not contradict the Bible.... we're good.
> 
> But the moment they contradict the Bible... you lose.  I'm going with the Bible.   And that sir, is all there is to it.


Now this is the problem I have with Christians. When they claim their bigotry and homophobic beliefs on the bible. I'm sorry but not one christian follows the bible as a moral guide on any kind of authority. Yes, they pick and choose certain snippets to hide their racist or bigoted or homophobic issues and claim the bible for their moral compass. Yet they chose to ignore other parts of the bible such as slavery and killing someone who works on the sabbath to name a few. You're all cowards to take refuge in certain passages in the bible while completely ignoring and dismissing others. At least stand up to your own decisions and quit hiding under the skirt of the bible.

Also the bible contradicts itself many times over so you better start over or bow out and admit that you're homophobic. What else scares you?


----------



## Seawytch

Tuatara said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still don't care.    You don't get it do you?    I don't care what you think the law of the land is.  I don't care what the constitution says, if it violates the Bible.
> 
> I'm a Christian.  As a Christian, the Bible is the highest authority in my life.  Higher than you... higher than the law.... higher than the Constitution, the President, or the Supreme Court.
> 
> Now as long as all those things do not contradict the Bible.... we're good.
> 
> But the moment they contradict the Bible... you lose.  I'm going with the Bible.   And that sir, is all there is to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is the problem I have with Christians. When they claim their bigotry and homophobic beliefs on the bible. I'm sorry but not one christian follows the bible as a moral guide on any kind of authority. Yes, they pick and choose certain snippets to hide their racist or bigoted or homophobic issues and claim the bible for their moral compass. Yet they chose to ignore other parts of the bible such as slavery and killing someone who works on the sabbath to name a few. You're all cowards to take refuge in certain passages in the bible while completely ignoring and dismissing others. At least stand up to your own decisions and quit hiding under the skirt of the bible.
> 
> Also the bible contradicts itself many times over so you better start over or bow out and admit that you're homophobic. What else scares you?
Click to expand...


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still don't care.    You don't get it do you?    I don't care what you think the law of the land is.  I don't care what the constitution says, if it violates the Bible.
> 
> I'm a Christian.  As a Christian, the Bible is the highest authority in my life.  Higher than you... higher than the law.... higher than the Constitution, the President, or the Supreme Court.
> 
> Now as long as all those things do not contradict the Bible.... we're good.
> 
> But the moment they contradict the Bible... you lose.  I'm going with the Bible.   And that sir, is all there is to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is the problem I have with Christians. When they claim their bigotry and homophobic beliefs on the bible. I'm sorry but not one christian follows the bible as a moral guide on any kind of authority. Yes, they pick and choose certain snippets to hide their racist or bigoted or homophobic issues and claim the bible for their moral compass. Yet they chose to ignore other parts of the bible such as slavery and killing someone who works on the sabbath to name a few. You're all cowards to take refuge in certain passages in the bible while completely ignoring and dismissing others. At least stand up to your own decisions and quit hiding under the skirt of the bible.
> 
> Also the bible contradicts itself many times over so you better start over or bow out and admit that you're homophobic. What else scares you?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Could you please give us the quotes from the Bible, Torah, or Koran where God condones gay "marriage" ?

No one is scared of gays.   No one is scared of gays living together in a legal committed relationship.  But no matter how many ways you try to spin it,  "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.


----------



## Redfish

The poll at the beginning of this thread sums it up pretty well.   

At least as to the members of this forum,  freedom is their primary concern.


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is the problem I have with Christians. When they claim their bigotry and homophobic beliefs on the bible. I'm sorry but not one christian follows the bible as a moral guide on any kind of authority. Yes, they pick and choose certain snippets to hide their racist or bigoted or homophobic issues and claim the bible for their moral compass. Yet they chose to ignore other parts of the bible such as slavery and killing someone who works on the sabbath to name a few. You're all cowards to take refuge in certain passages in the bible while completely ignoring and dismissing others. At least stand up to your own decisions and quit hiding under the skirt of the bible.
> 
> Also the bible contradicts itself many times over so you better start over or bow out and admit that you're homophobic. What else scares you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please give us the quotes from the Bible, Torah, or Koran where God condones gay "marriage" ?
> 
> No one is scared of gays.   No one is scared of gays living together in a legal committed relationship.  But no matter how many ways you try to spin it,  "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...


I can quote passages from the bible that prohibits interracial marriage, will that do?


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> The poll at the beginning of this thread sums it up pretty well.
> 
> At least as to the members of this forum,  freedom is their primary concern.



Yeah, most of us agree that churches will never be forced to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. Most of the liberals insist upon it...it's the nutty RWers that are screaming about the sky falling. Ain't gonna happen, but it's fun when ya'll get all drama queeny.


----------



## emilynghiem

JakeStarkey said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the courts will protect the churches' rights to private association.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you do, and the courts will interpret it for you on questions like the OP.
Click to expand...


Dear  [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] and  [MENTION=49484]Ibentoken[/MENTION]
Clearly on issues of Constitutional/federal law, the Supreme Court is designated authority for determination where govt authority applies according to the Constitution.

The issue with gay marriage, health care through govt, etc.
is that people are projecting their BELIEFS that inherently involve govt as part of those beliefs or process of exercising those beliefs.

Because both govt authority and religiously held beliefs are inherently entangled in these cases, they cannot be separated like "church from state."

So that is what is causing irresolvable conflicts: once conflicted political beliefs are injected into govt and especially when Courts are asked to RULE on such cases.

Like JakeStarkey pointed out in other words, the biased conflicting agenda on both sides is going to fail because that is those people's beliefs and it is wrongful to project them through govt. The other side is going to object.

Instead of SETTING UP govt and Courts to fail, by this no-win situation of forcing Courts to take one side over the other, I believe in protecting both sides' religious and/or political beliefs EQUALLY: either separate or resolve the conflicts, and only write/pass/rule on laws that both sides AGREE respects and includes their beliefs IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Do NOT do the equivalent of taking a rule, like defining marriages to be sacraments anointed using pork oil or using beef oil, and cause Hindus and Muslims to sue the Govt, both claiming the oil cannot contain pork or it cannot contain beef or it violates the sacred beliefs of their religion. Why make the court/govt choose either pork or beef, "one side over the other" Someone is going to lose their EQUAL religious freedom by doing that. 

Instead either write the law where it doesn't require or specify either pork or beef products, or let each church decide its own sacraments, or something. But not this!

It is logically false and emotionally cruel to set both sides up to fail, including the courts/govt, by forcing the question in such a state that either side or both sides will not have equal protection of their beliefs.

I suggest handling political beliefs, or religious beliefs that become political when injected into govt, by mediation and consensus so all beliefs/sides are equally protected.

If people cannot believe consensus is possible, that is yet ANOTHER political belief that is involved in this dilemmas. I DO believe consensus is possible, by being open to remove religious beliefs from govt AND making sure all objections are resolved. Just imposing beef oil, and expecting Hindus to remove their beliefs from govt is NOT equal protection. Or Just imposing pork oil, and expecting Muslims to remove their beliefs from Govt is not equal. But that is what is happening here, because both sides go into the Court NOT respecting what happens to the other person's beliefs. They only seek to defend theirs and don't care if it imposes on the others, which they do not respect as valid beliefs.

I see the progay and antigay as Hindus and Muslims. I don't agree with either viewpoint but I believe they should be equally protected by law, and the laws carefully written not to violate either the beliefs of Hindus or Muslims, here representing the pro and anti gay.

You absolutely have the right to be either pro or anti gay when it comes to marriage, as Hindus or Muslims can be anti pork or anti beef about food and products. They also have the right to "let it slide" and not raise an issue if they can forgive a little pork or beef oil being used; but that cannot be forced on them by govt, if people choose to relinquish some of their beliefs it must be by consent or sure they have a right to sue, as the Atheist who sues over a cross while other atheists don't and let that slide if they want. 

So the govt must be neutral and cannot impose policies without the consent of people whose beliefs are affected. I don't have to agree with one side or the other to respect laws that meet the standard of equal protection of the laws. Why set ourselves up to fail?


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please give us the quotes from the Bible, Torah, or Koran where God condones gay "marriage" ?
> 
> No one is scared of gays.   No one is scared of gays living together in a legal committed relationship.  But no matter how many ways you try to spin it,  "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can quote passages from the bible that prohibits interracial marriage, will that do?
Click to expand...


please do, but include the entire context of the quote.


----------



## strollingbones

yes or give up their tax exemptions....one or the other..they cant have it both the ability to discriminate on the taxpayers who support them?  when a church becomes involved in political issues they should give up the tax exempt status


----------



## Redfish

strollingbones said:


> yes or give up their tax exemptions....one or the other..they cant have it both the ability to discriminate on the taxpayers who support them?  when a church becomes involved in political issues they should give up the tax exempt status



Does that also apply to unions and organizations like planned parenthood?


----------



## emilynghiem

[MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]
Yes, it will support the argument that marriage should be kept out of the govt altogether, since even as it stands, it already imposes on some people's religious beliefs.

Some atheists sue and win their cases to have crosses removed from public institutions.
Many atheists don't sue and just put up with the imposition. I know a friend who has more right to sue than cases that have won, but he puts up with it for fear of reprisal.

But govt CANNOT MAKE you forgive these impositions that are going on religiously.
You STILL have the right to sue and change the laws if you want to.
If people choose not to sue, it doesn't mean there ISN'T a religious imposition by govt.

The death penalty is another imposition on a lot of people's religious beliefs, and war is for people who don't believe but still pay taxes to the military.

If we write the laws better, this doesn't have to happen, the conflicts can be bypassed.

One state allowed gay marriages in churches, but did not have the state endorse them.



Seawytch said:


> I can quote passages from the bible that prohibits interracial marriage, will that do?



Yes, I have spoken with Klan who still believe this today against race mixing.

And the bone marrow registry can verify it is harder to find matches for biracial patients that have practically 0 chance of finding a match, compared with pure Caucasian patients having 90% and minority patients of pure race having 10% chance of a match where their highest chances are to find a match within their own ethnicity or nationality.

So there are differences with biracial children, not found in those of pure race.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes or give up their tax exemptions....one or the other..they cant have it both the ability to discriminate on the taxpayers who support them?  when a church becomes involved in political issues they should give up the tax exempt status
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that also apply to unions and organizations like planned parenthood?
Click to expand...


Are they social education and awareness organizations?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Pure race arguments are incorporated into those who approve of Scientific Darwinism.


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please give us the quotes from the Bible, Torah, or Koran where God condones gay "marriage" ?
> 
> No one is scared of gays.   No one is scared of gays living together in a legal committed relationship.  But no matter how many ways you try to spin it,  "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can quote passages from the bible that prohibits interracial marriage, will that do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> please do, but include the entire context of the quote.
Click to expand...


Numbers: 36:1-6

1 The family heads of the clan of Gilead son of Makir, the son of Manasseh, who were from the clans of the descendants of Joseph, came and spoke before Moses and the leaders, the heads of the Israelite families. 2 They said, "When the LORD commanded my lord to give the land as an inheritance to the Israelites by lot, he ordered you to give the inheritance of our brother Zelophehad to his daughters. 3 Now suppose they marry men from other Israelite tribes; then their inheritance will be taken from our ancestral inheritance and added to that of the tribe they marry into. And so part of the inheritance allotted to us will be taken away. 4 When the Year of Jubilee for the Israelites comes, their inheritance will be added to that of the tribe into which they marry, and their property will be taken from the tribal inheritance of our forefathers." 5 Then at the LORD's command Moses gave this order to the Israelites: "What the tribe of the descendants of Joseph is saying is right. 6 This is what the LORD commands for Zelophehad's daughters: *They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within the tribal clan of their father.*

Deuteronomy 7:1-4

When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nationsthe Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you 2 and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 *Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lords anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. *

Nehemiah 13:25-27

25 And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves.26 Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin.27 Shall we then hearken unto you to *do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives?*


----------



## Seawytch

emilynghiem said:


> [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]
> Yes, it will support the argument that marriage should be kept out of the govt altogether, since even as it stands, it already imposes on some people's religious beliefs.
> 
> Some atheists sue and win their cases to have crosses removed from public institutions.
> Many atheists don't sue and just put up with the imposition. I know a friend who has more right to sue than cases that have won, but he puts up with it for fear of reprisal.
> 
> But govt CANNOT MAKE you forgive these impositions that are going on religiously.
> You STILL have the right to sue and change the laws if you want to.
> If people choose not to sue, it doesn't mean there ISN'T a religious imposition by govt.
> 
> The death penalty is another imposition on a lot of people's religious beliefs, and war is for people who don't believe but still pay taxes to the military.
> 
> If we write the laws better, this doesn't have to happen, the conflicts can be bypassed.
> 
> One state allowed gay marriages in churches, but did not have the state endorse them.
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can quote passages from the bible that prohibits interracial marriage, will that do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have spoken with Klan who still believe this today against race mixing.
> 
> And the bone marrow registry can verify it is harder to find matches for biracial patients that have practically 0 chance of finding a match, compared with pure Caucasian patients having 90% and minority patients of pure race having 10% chance of a match where their highest chances are to find a match within their own ethnicity or nationality.
> 
> So there are differences with biracial children, not found in those of pure race.
Click to expand...


WTF over?!?


----------



## Silhouette

Why are you quoting the Old Testament when Christianity is about the New Testament?  You know, Jesus' testament?

Try quoting Jude 1 or something.  Jude was a one of Jesus's homies.  He palled around with him everywhere.  Remember, Jesus came to modify the Old Testament.  Hence the name "the New Testament"?

Or are you trying to be the new messiah, where you get to rewrite the New Testament with "The Testament of Seawytch", where Jude 1 gets _heavily_ redacted?...


----------



## Gadawg73

I oppose government mandating forcing churches to marry anyone.

Has not happened yet and never will.


----------



## Gadawg73

How do you keep marriage "out of government altogether" when there are children, divorces, tax law, child support, division of property, on and on and on?
Marriage was arranged for centuries, youth were told who to marry and that was the norm.

Works a lot better if we allow folks to marry who they fall in love with as long as it is 2 consenting adults.


----------



## Silhouette

Gadawg73 said:


> I oppose government mandating forcing churches to marry anyone.
> 
> Has not happened yet and never will.



And it's pretty impressive that this poll has so many voters and the votes are in at 86% in favor of freedom of religion over the gay agenda.  That also can be rendered out to say that 86% of people believe states should be able to weigh in on gay marriage for themselves instead of having it forced upon the states by a federal decision.

Kind of makes you wonder if all those polls declaring "most people support gay marriage"  the gay-dominated media have been reporting all these years are accurate?  

Poor democrats.  The smoke and mirrors worked on their "strategic team" at the top...


----------



## Seawytch

Gadawg73 said:


> How do you keep marriage "out of government altogether" when there are children, divorces, tax law, child support, division of property, on and on and on?
> Marriage was arranged for centuries, youth were told who to marry and that was the norm.
> 
> Works a lot better if we allow folks to marry who they fall in love with as long as it is 2 consenting adults.



You don't. They know it's *impossible *which is why they just bitch about it on message boards. None of them *do *anything like actually call their legislators and demand that the government get out of the "marriage business".


----------



## Gadawg73

"Pro gay"
What a ridiculous term.
I am pro law abiding citizens.
NO thinking adult has a problem with gay folk falling in love with someone of the same sex.
Anti gay is really anti people as guaranteed they are anti some other kind of folk also.


----------



## Gadawg73

Silhouette said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I oppose government mandating forcing churches to marry anyone.
> 
> Has not happened yet and never will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it's pretty impressive that this poll has so many voters and the votes are in at 86% in favor of freedom of religion over the gay agenda.  That also can be rendered out to say that 86% of people believe states should be able to weigh in on gay marriage for themselves instead of having it forced upon the states by a federal decision.
> 
> Kind of makes you wonder if all those polls declaring "most people support gay marriage"  the gay-dominated media have been reporting all these years are accurate?
> 
> Poor democrats.  The smoke and mirrors worked on their "strategic team" at the top...
Click to expand...


I fully support gay marriage.
Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth that only a dumb ass would believe.
It is not part of any agenda much less the catch phrase for morons "the gay agenda".

"Do you support government forcing churches to marry gay couples" is the same as asking "How many times did you beat your wife this week?" question.


----------



## Gadawg73

For the uninformed:
Do you support government forcing churches to marry gay folks OR ANYONE
is* NOT THE SAME AS*:
Do you support gays having the right to marry?

The anti gay agenda tries to be clever with their prejudices but thinking folk know better.

Gay marriage is a non issue only mother hen busy body gossipers worry about.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, it cannot "be rendered out to say that 86% of people believe states should be able to weigh in on gay marriage for themselves instead of having it forced upon the states by a federal decision."

The majority of Americans (including African Americans now), and an overwhelming majority of millennial approve gay marriage.

As Windsor clearly pointed out that if states violate the 14th amendment, they lose the right regulate marriage.


----------



## GreenBean

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I oppose government mandating forcing churches to marry anyone.
> 
> Has not happened yet and never will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it's pretty impressive that this poll has so many voters and the votes are in at 86% in favor of freedom of religion over the gay agenda.  That also can be rendered out to say that 86% of people believe states should be able to weigh in on gay marriage for themselves instead of having it forced upon the states by a federal decision.
> 
> Kind of makes you wonder if all those polls declaring "most people support gay marriage"  the gay-dominated media have been reporting all these years are accurate?
> 
> Poor democrats.  The smoke and mirrors worked on their "strategic team" at the top...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fully support gay marriage.
> Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth that only a dumb ass would believe.
> It is not part of any agenda much less the catch phrase for morons "the gay agenda".
> 
> "Do you support government forcing churches to marry gay couples" is the same as asking "How many times did you beat your wife this week?" question.
Click to expand...


Well Gaydawg - you're finally right about something - Congratulations !

- *Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth* -  Now if you could kindly get your head out of your ass and face the music on the subject you ran away from with your tail betweenst your legs .  

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/361541-gays-have-won-so-what-s-next-14.html#post9361289   <<< What are you Afraid of ?


----------



## Silhouette

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I oppose government mandating forcing churches to marry anyone.
> 
> Has not happened yet and never will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it's pretty impressive that this poll has so many voters and the votes are in at 86% in favor of freedom of religion over the gay agenda.  That also can be rendered out to say that 86% of people believe states should be able to weigh in on gay marriage for themselves instead of having it forced upon the states by a federal decision.
> 
> Kind of makes you wonder if all those polls declaring "most people support gay marriage"  the gay-dominated media have been reporting all these years are accurate?
> 
> Poor democrats.  The smoke and mirrors worked on their "strategic team" at the top...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fully support gay marriage.
> Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth that only a dumb ass would believe.
> It is not part of any agenda much less the catch phrase for morons "the gay agenda".
> 
> "Do you support government forcing churches to marry gay couples" is the same as asking "How many times did you beat your wife this week?" question.
Click to expand...


Then it's nice to see you supporting Windsor's finding that the government shouldn't force gay marriage on the states as well as not on churches.  And that "the government forcing gay marriage on the states is a myth that only a dumb ass would believe".

I'm assuming you support people's rights in the secular world as well to support or not support gay marriage as they see fit with their vote?  Since, you know, of the hundred or so who voted on the poll above, 86% believe it shouldn't be forced on people?


----------



## Silhouette

Yep, silence.  That's what I thought...  Hard to argue with 86%.


----------



## Gadawg73

GreenBean said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it's pretty impressive that this poll has so many voters and the votes are in at 86% in favor of freedom of religion over the gay agenda.  That also can be rendered out to say that 86% of people believe states should be able to weigh in on gay marriage for themselves instead of having it forced upon the states by a federal decision.
> 
> Kind of makes you wonder if all those polls declaring "most people support gay marriage"  the gay-dominated media have been reporting all these years are accurate?
> 
> Poor democrats.  The smoke and mirrors worked on their "strategic team" at the top...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support gay marriage.
> Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth that only a dumb ass would believe.
> It is not part of any agenda much less the catch phrase for morons "the gay agenda".
> 
> "Do you support government forcing churches to marry gay couples" is the same as asking "How many times did you beat your wife this week?" question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Gaydawg - you're finally right about something - Congratulations !
> 
> - *Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth* -  Now if you could kindly get your head out of your ass and face the music on the subject you ran away from with your tail betweenst your legs .
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/361541-gays-have-won-so-what-s-next-14.html#post9361289   <<< What are you Afraid of ?
Click to expand...


I am a heterosexual flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids.

I have never run away from anything at 6'5" and 280 lbs. Chasing QBs and cracking heads of fugitives was my hobby for 10 years. Got a full ride for 5 and paid big $$$ the other 5.

Am not scared of the gay boogeyman like milk weak sissies are.
Govern yourself accordingly.


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support gay marriage.
> Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth that only a dumb ass would believe.
> It is not part of any agenda much less the catch phrase for morons "the gay agenda".
> 
> "Do you support government forcing churches to marry gay couples" is the same as asking "How many times did you beat your wife this week?" question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Gaydawg - you're finally right about something - Congratulations !
> 
> - *Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth* -  Now if you could kindly get your head out of your ass and face the music on the subject you ran away from with your tail betweenst your legs .
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/361541-gays-have-won-so-what-s-next-14.html#post9361289   <<< What are you Afraid of ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids.
> 
> I have never run away from anything at 6'5" and 280 lbs. Chasing QBs and cracking heads of fugitives was my hobby for 10 years. Got a full ride for 5 and paid big $$$ the other 5.
> 
> Am not scared of the gay boogeyman like milk weak sissies are.
> Govern yourself accordingly.
Click to expand...


Bullying people around might work on the football field, but it's not gonna work out so well in the courts I think.


----------



## Silhouette

Gadawg73 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support gay marriage.
> Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth that only a dumb ass would believe.
> It is not part of any agenda much less the catch phrase for morons "the gay agenda".
> 
> "Do you support government forcing churches to marry gay couples" is the same as asking "How many times did you beat your wife this week?" question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Gaydawg - you're finally right about something - Congratulations !
> 
> - *Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth* -  Now if you could kindly get your head out of your ass and face the music on the subject you ran away from with your tail betweenst your legs .
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/361541-gays-have-won-so-what-s-next-14.html#post9361289   <<< What are you Afraid of ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids.
> 
> I have never run away from anything at 6'5" and 280 lbs. Chasing QBs and cracking heads of fugitives was my hobby for 10 years. Got a full ride for 5 and paid big $$$ the other 5.
> 
> Am not scared of the gay boogeyman like milk weak sissies are.
> Govern yourself accordingly.
Click to expand...


So if people object to gay marriage they are "weak sissies"?  Weird.  You do sound desperate. 

Sounds like you're scared actually of the 86% who voted here that they don't believe gay marriage should be forced upon people.  Speaking of fear and sissies...


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Gaydawg - you're finally right about something - Congratulations !
> 
> - *Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth* -  Now if you could kindly get your head out of your ass and face the music on the subject you ran away from with your tail betweenst your legs .
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/361541-gays-have-won-so-what-s-next-14.html#post9361289   <<< What are you Afraid of ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids.
> 
> I have never run away from anything at 6'5" and 280 lbs. Chasing QBs and cracking heads of fugitives was my hobby for 10 years. Got a full ride for 5 and paid big $$$ the other 5.
> 
> Am not scared of the gay boogeyman like milk weak sissies are.
> Govern yourself accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people object to gay marriage they are "weak sissies"?  Weird.  You do sound desperate.
> 
> Sounds like you're scared actually of the 86% who voted here that they don't believe gay marriage should be forced upon people.
Click to expand...

Forced upon churches.  And there's no reason that shouldn't be 100%.  The churches can do as they please.  The secular American government cannot.


----------



## Howey

Gadawg73 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support gay marriage.
> Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth that only a dumb ass would believe.
> It is not part of any agenda much less the catch phrase for morons "the gay agenda".
> 
> "Do you support government forcing churches to marry gay couples" is the same as asking "How many times did you beat your wife this week?" question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Gaydawg - you're finally right about something - Congratulations !
> 
> - *Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth* -  Now if you could kindly get your head out of your ass and face the music on the subject you ran away from with your tail betweenst your legs .
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/361541-gays-have-won-so-what-s-next-14.html#post9361289   <<< What are you Afraid of ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids.
> 
> I have never run away from anything at 6'5" and 280 lbs. Chasing QBs and cracking heads of fugitives was my hobby for 10 years. Got a full ride for 5 and paid big $$$ the other 5.
> 
> Am not scared of the gay boogeyman like milk weak sissies are.
> Govern yourself accordingly.
Click to expand...


I know you're on our side, but....

I've known quite a few homos that fit that description,  even with kids.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Gaydawg - you're finally right about something - Congratulations !
> 
> - *Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth* -  Now if you could kindly get your head out of your ass and face the music on the subject you ran away from with your tail betweenst your legs .
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/361541-gays-have-won-so-what-s-next-14.html#post9361289   <<< What are you Afraid of ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids.
> 
> I have never run away from anything at 6'5" and 280 lbs. Chasing QBs and cracking heads of fugitives was my hobby for 10 years. Got a full ride for 5 and paid big $$$ the other 5.
> 
> Am not scared of the gay boogeyman like milk weak sissies are.
> Govern yourself accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullying people around might work on the football field, but it's not gonna work out so well in the courts I think.
Click to expand...


True, the courts are the bullies


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Gaydawg - you're finally right about something - Congratulations !
> 
> - *Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth* -  Now if you could kindly get your head out of your ass and face the music on the subject you ran away from with your tail betweenst your legs .
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/361541-gays-have-won-so-what-s-next-14.html#post9361289   <<< What are you Afraid of ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids.
> 
> I have never run away from anything at 6'5" and 280 lbs. Chasing QBs and cracking heads of fugitives was my hobby for 10 years. Got a full ride for 5 and paid big $$$ the other 5.
> 
> Am not scared of the gay boogeyman like milk weak sissies are.
> Govern yourself accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullying people around might work on the football field, but it's not gonna work out so well in the courts I think.
Click to expand...


Who said anything about bullying anyone?


----------



## Gadawg73

Silhouette said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Gaydawg - you're finally right about something - Congratulations !
> 
> - *Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth* -  Now if you could kindly get your head out of your ass and face the music on the subject you ran away from with your tail betweenst your legs .
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/361541-gays-have-won-so-what-s-next-14.html#post9361289   <<< What are you Afraid of ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids.
> 
> I have never run away from anything at 6'5" and 280 lbs. Chasing QBs and cracking heads of fugitives was my hobby for 10 years. Got a full ride for 5 and paid big $$$ the other 5.
> 
> Am not scared of the gay boogeyman like milk weak sissies are.
> Govern yourself accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people object to gay marriage they are "weak sissies"?  Weird.  You do sound desperate.
> 
> Sounds like you're scared actually of the 86% who voted here that they don't believe gay marriage should be forced upon people.  Speaking of fear and sissies...
Click to expand...


Not what I said. 
How is gay marriage forced on you?
Who is forcing you to marry a gay person?
If you do not like it fine with me, not a problem.
Don't marry a gay person and it never affects you.
Gay marriage affects you IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER.
How does interracial marriage affect you?
How does 2 midgets marrying affect you?


----------



## Gadawg73

Howey said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Gaydawg - you're finally right about something - Congratulations !
> 
> - *Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth* -  Now if you could kindly get your head out of your ass and face the music on the subject you ran away from with your tail betweenst your legs .
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/361541-gays-have-won-so-what-s-next-14.html#post9361289   <<< What are you Afraid of ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids.
> 
> I have never run away from anything at 6'5" and 280 lbs. Chasing QBs and cracking heads of fugitives was my hobby for 10 years. Got a full ride for 5 and paid big $$$ the other 5.
> 
> Am not scared of the gay boogeyman like milk weak sissies are.
> Govern yourself accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you're on our side, but....
> 
> I've known quite a few homos that fit that description,  even with kids.
Click to expand...


No offense to anyone but I am not gay as I was not born that way.


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids.
> 
> I have never run away from anything at 6'5" and 280 lbs. Chasing QBs and cracking heads of fugitives was my hobby for 10 years. Got a full ride for 5 and paid big $$$ the other 5.
> 
> Am not scared of the gay boogeyman like milk weak sissies are.
> Govern yourself accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullying people around might work on the football field, but it's not gonna work out so well in the courts I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about bullying anyone?
Click to expand...


What kind of football did you play? Flag?

Cracking heads of fugitives didn't involve bullying the fugitives?


----------



## Gadawg73

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids.
> 
> I have never run away from anything at 6'5" and 280 lbs. Chasing QBs and cracking heads of fugitives was my hobby for 10 years. Got a full ride for 5 and paid big $$$ the other 5.
> 
> Am not scared of the gay boogeyman like milk weak sissies are.
> Govern yourself accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullying people around might work on the football field, but it's not gonna work out so well in the courts I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, the courts are the bullies
Click to expand...


How has any court specifically bullied you on the gay marriage issue?

This ought to be rich.


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullying people around might work on the football field, but it's not gonna work out so well in the courts I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about bullying anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of football did you play? Flag?
> 
> Cracking heads of fugitives didn't involve bullying the fugitives?
Click to expand...


Sure, right, a full ride for flag football, that is the ticket.

"bullying fugitives" what is that?


----------



## hazlnut

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...



Have the right?


Do you understand how our "rights" work?  They protect the individual citizen from the Government.


Churches are not public accommodations that engage in interstate commerce -- thus not prohibited from excluding races.


I'm sure there are quite a few churches in the Red little shitholes that slam the door on minorities.


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about bullying anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of football did you play? Flag?
> 
> Cracking heads of fugitives didn't involve bullying the fugitives?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, right, a full ride for flag football, that is the ticket.
> 
> "bullying fugitives" what is that?
Click to expand...


bul·lied bul·ly·ing
transitive verb
1:  to treat abusively
*2:  to affect by means of force or coercion*

Websters.


Tell me you did not get your way on the football field and/or "crack heads of fugitives" by asking your opponents to please do as you please.   Tell me you did not use force or coercion.


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullying people around might work on the football field, but it's not gonna work out so well in the courts I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, the courts are the bullies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How has any court specifically bullied you on the gay marriage issue?
> 
> This ought to be rich.
Click to expand...


Never heard the phrase bully pulpit? The courts, like it or not, hold great sway over how our liberties are regulated.

I'm gonna guess you're leaning on the libtard definition of bullying that relates to beating up kids in school for their lunch money, or just because the kids are strange.  That's just one use of the term.  If you use words in context, you don't have to assume someone is using the words out of context.


----------



## kaz

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullying people around might work on the football field, but it's not gonna work out so well in the courts I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, the courts are the bullies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How has any court specifically bullied you on the gay marriage issue?
> 
> This ought to be rich.
Click to expand...


Any violation of the Constitution harms all citizens, that particular judicial legislation directly harms me is irrelevant, it harms be because it further establishes that the courts can decree anything they want based on nothing but their own politics.  Yeah, that harms me, you and everyone else, including the people it directly "helps."  Their next fiat could be anything.


----------



## emilynghiem

Tuatara said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still don't care.    You don't get it do you?    I don't care what you think the law of the land is.  I don't care what the constitution says, if it violates the Bible.
> 
> I'm a Christian.  As a Christian, the Bible is the highest authority in my life.  Higher than you... higher than the law.... higher than the Constitution, the President, or the Supreme Court.
> 
> Now as long as all those things do not contradict the Bible.... we're good.
> 
> But the moment they contradict the Bible... you lose.  I'm going with the Bible.   And that sir, is all there is to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is the problem I have with Christians. When they claim their bigotry and homophobic beliefs on the bible. I'm sorry but not one christian follows the bible as a moral guide on any kind of authority. Yes, they pick and choose certain snippets to hide their racist or bigoted or homophobic issues and claim the bible for their moral compass. Yet they chose to ignore other parts of the bible such as slavery and killing someone who works on the sabbath to name a few. You're all cowards to take refuge in certain passages in the bible while completely ignoring and dismissing others. At least stand up to your own decisions and quit hiding under the skirt of the bible.
> 
> Also the bible contradicts itself many times over so you better start over or bow out and admit that you're homophobic. What else scares you?
Click to expand...


   [MENTION=16831]Tuatara[/MENTION]
1. Since Christianity and the Bible call followers to forgive, all the conflicts can be avoided by forgiving which is consistent with the teachings.
I agree the #1 problem with Christianity is when Christians cannot forgive, which contradicts the whole message and process of salvation.
However, this cannot be fixed by not forgiving them, which adds to the unforgiveness; the only way to break that cycle is by forgiveness or it goes in a loop.
So yes it is a mess, but that mess can be fixed. By choosing to forgive and trusting the only sure way to teach forgiveness is by offering it.
2. I have more trouble with political leaders not following the Constitution.
If you are going to throw out the Bible because it cannot be followed consistently,
are you going to throw out the Constitution also?
3. Note: throwing out both and starting over, still leaves all the people behind causing our own problems in the first place.
If we don't forgive conflicts, we project them onto each other and repeat the same cycles.
Regardless if we use religion or politics to do it.

All people are equally to blame, not just Christians not following the Bible
or politicians not following the Constitution. We are all responsible for  correcting problems, using whatever laws or languages help us with that democratic process of conflict resolution. Thank you.


----------



## emilynghiem

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullying people around might work on the football field, but it's not gonna work out so well in the courts I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, the courts are the bullies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How has any court specifically bullied you on the gay marriage issue?
> 
> This ought to be rich.
Click to expand...


I agree with KAZ that courts harm the public and integrity of the Constitution/govt
with rulings that are flawed.

In particular I find the ruling on ACA as a tax to be flawed,
as the ACA imposes the right to health care through govt as a nationalized belief
that excludes and discriminates by creed against those who believe in free market health care as a natural right, and requires a Constitutional Amendment to authorize govt.

I believe courts are not authorized to takes sides on marriage laws that involve religious or political beliefs, such as "the right to marriage" or "marriage as between one man and one woman only".

If marriage laws being contested are not equally protecting beliefs, or the ACA is written to force regulations mandates and fines instead of reserving free choice for people of all beliefs, those laws should be revised and not pushed to the courts to rule yes or no.

If I were a judge in court and two parties came to me with this kind of religiously based conflict, I would order them to mediate and rewrite the contracts where they can both sign their names to it. Not fight over two different versions of the contract, and then expect me to order one party or the other to sign their names to the version they disagree with.

Sorry, to me that is violating consent, the spirit of the laws, and the Constitution.
I believe in equal protection of the laws, and supporting unobstructed justice and due process to establish agreement on laws that all parties respect and consent to.

otherwise we have a zoo of politics making decisions based on who paid the bigger bully to lobby, legislate or lawyer for them. that isn't equal for all people, so that's why we don't have Equal Justice under Law as inscribed on the Supreme Court.

Equal consent to the laws makes all parties equal regardless of belief, party, standing or status. if you buy and sell people's interest and consent, you have lawlessness and people making money off the process to make it even more biased and unfair. NO THANKS!


----------



## emilynghiem

Gadawg73 said:


> How do you keep marriage "out of government altogether" when there are children, divorces, tax law, child support, division of property, on and on and on?
> Marriage was arranged for centuries, youth were told who to marry and that was the norm.
> 
> Works a lot better if we allow folks to marry who they fall in love with as long as it is 2 consenting adults.



You stick to "civil contracts and custody/estate agreements" with the parties involved.
There is no need to make any big deal about gender of the parents in a church marriage.

Frankly I would love to be able to have a ceremonial marriage
SEPARATE
and not be automatically rooked into or imposed upon
assuming business and ownership agreements with property etc.

People write out prenuptial and partnership contracts all the time.
Marriage ceremonies and sacraments in churches can remain private.
I think that would solve the problem.


----------



## emilynghiem

PaintMyHouse said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get government out of the business of "Marriage".
> 
> 
> 
> It's too late for that not, way too late.
Click to expand...


  [MENTION=47594]PaintMyHouse[/MENTION]
if lobbyists can push to change the age old definition of marriage
where it isn't between one man and one woman
YES why not change the whole system and take it completely out of govt

If it's not too late to change the definition of marriage
it's not too late to change the tradition of marriage through govt either.

It would be more consistent with "separating church and state"
if you are going to argue that traditional marriage violates religious beliefs
so does imposing gay marriage, so keep all that private
and rewrite laws to be "neutral contracts" so religious issues are bypassed altogether.


----------



## emilynghiem

[MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]  [MENTION=14617]Cecilie1200[/MENTION]  [MENTION=39447]Jarlaxle[/MENTION]


bripat9643 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not hate Christians...but like Jesus, I hate *hypocrisy!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, spare me.  You're such a kneejerk anti-religious bigot, they'd use you on recruiting posters, if they had any.  You're a walking cliche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's impossible to be a liberal if  you truly hate hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


But to forgive hypocrisy on all sides in all forms,
takes full inclusion of diversity, which liberals are supposed to aspire to.

Liberals who practice political discrimination and exclusion
are just as difficult to deal with as
Christians who can't forgive or
Constitutionalist who don't respect the consent or dissent of others with equal protection

It is impossible to be a perfect human being, no matter what system we commit to.
The most we can do is help point out each other's flaws for the purpose of correction, and try to support each other in succeeding, instead of competing to make each other wrong or fail. We can either all fail, or all succeed. What is going to help us more?


----------



## emilynghiem

Gadawg73 said:


> Not what I said.
> How is gay marriage forced on you?
> Who is forcing you to marry a gay person?
> If you do not like it fine with me, not a problem.
> Don't marry a gay person and it never affects you.
> Gay marriage affects you IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER.
> How does interracial marriage affect you?
> How does 2 midgets marrying affect you?



1. That's fine if it's done privately through whatever church/group or community someone belongs to

2. but if people do not believe in state/govt laws endorsing "gay marriage" or 'same sex' marriage, or if people DO believe in marriage equality/right to marriage
Those are religious or political beliefs and cannot be imposed on people of conflicting beliefs without violating constitutional equal protections against discrimination by creed.

3. these beliefs are so deeply engrained people do not even BELIEVE these are beliefs.
They believe they are just true. That's how deeply people BELIEVE in this rights/laws.

 [MENTION=18558]Gadawg73[/MENTION]
it doesn't even matter the content or subject of the beliefs/laws if you look at the construct:
if people have conflicting beliefs
they have the right to consent to how laws are written and enforced through the state,
or else agree to separate these from the state and keep them in private so there is no conflict

but the minute you go through the state and it involves the public, then all other beliefs must be accommodated for equally. so if you can't all agree, it cannot be made public law

if you agree to compromise, that's fine, too, but I don't see either side letting up.
that's because there are inherent religiously held beliefs that cannot change.
a sure sign that this issue belongs to the people to decide and out of state hands.
the state can endorse an agreed contract between people, but cannot impose on beliefs.


----------



## GISMYS

God must not and will not be mocked!...Heed his judgments with fear(respect), and to remember God said in Gen.6:5-God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. God destroy the first world time period, and because man cannot naturally see God with his eyes, he has no fear, and believes he is his own self god, yet one day to every man all things will be made clear by God. His judgment will open all eyes to know that he is God and a true God of his word! Also some people are deceived by Satan to look at nature as a lawful guide for homosexuality. Just because same sex acts are done by animals(mammals) of different kinds is no rightful reason ,that mankind should behave and do as animals do. Animals don't go to "Hell and Fire",after they die, but perverted mankind does according to the judgement of God's word. God didn't speak his word against the animals,God spoke unto mankind, and that they must not commit the acts of homosexuality. Animals aren't made in the "image of God", but man is. Therefore, man is required to give account of the things he has done. Eccl.12:13-Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.14. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.


----------



## emilynghiem

[MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] it is still unconstitutional to uphold any law that violates other laws.
People voted on Affirmative Action, but it was later overturned as unconstitutional.
Laws on slaves as property were later changed.

GISMYS when laws are passed by majority rule that you don't agree with, if they violate your religious beliefs, you have the right to defend your beliefs by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Normally you go through court and sue to strike down the contested law as unconstitutional on religious grounds.

here, to save time money and public resources on lawsuits,
why not acknowledge IN ADVANCE BEFORE passing laws that religious beliefs are involved?

why write a biased law, force it through by majority rule, and then fight it in court? if we can agree there is religious conflict to begin with, why not rewrite the law before passing it. why not resolve the conflicts up front, instead of wasting taxpayer money fighting?

See CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVT SERVICE
about seeking to employ the most economic means of accomplishing tasks:

*"Any person in government service should...
IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished."* Public Law 96-303, 1980 -- ethics-commission.net



GISMYS said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But all it takes is one Atheist to sue in court, and a Cross has to come down.
> 
> 
> 
> That's usually because it's in a place where it doesn't belong.  I have no problem with all faiths sharing the public square, as long as all of them can, not just the majority faith as in the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " majority "  RULES IN THE USA =ITS CALLED VOTING!!!
Click to expand...


 [MENTION=47594]PaintMyHouse[/MENTION] My point was many Atheists will NOT sue even if it IS in a place it doesn't belong and they could win because it is a violation. Many Atheists whose beliefs could be argued as violated, same as the ones who go to court and win, COULD win but do not pursue it. 

My point is you CAN choose to forgive violations of religious freedom, but cannot be forced to forgive by govt.

So here, even if the solution is for those who don't believe in gay marriage to FORGIVE the fact it contradicts their beliefs, this CANNOT be forced by govt. You cannot impose some law that requires someone to forgive impositions on their faith.


----------



## GISMYS

When Jesus was crusified, His death paid the price for all the sins of the world, and His Resurection is what makes Christianity the ONLY True religion in the WORLD!!! 
Mohammad, or allah, or budah, or any other religous "guru" 
could not even save themselves, let alone the rest of the world! 
They are ALL still dead and buried....Jesus is the ONLY way we can get to Heaven (Acts 4: 12) 
And for those of you that think homosexuals are "born" that way, that is a lie straight from the pit of hell! Anyone that spreads lies like that is Truly the Hateful one, and NOT a friend ...And I do not hate you or anyone else, so don't call me a homophobe!!! I love you enough to tell you the TRUTH !!!, NOT all the LIES that everyone rlse is spewing about homosexuality.......You were NOT born "gay" and it is NOT an "alternative lifestyle" to be a homosexual.....It is a perversion...That is why the Homosexual Lobby is pushing so hard, they are trying to make the rest of society think their "lifestyle" is on equal footing as normal Heterosexuality..


----------



## emilynghiem

[MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] I found some good points here Thanks:



GISMYS said:


> God must not and will not be mocked!...Heed his judgments with fear(respect), and to remember God said in Gen.6:5-God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. God destroy the first world time period, and because man cannot naturally see God with his eyes, he has no fear, and believes he is his own self god, yet one day to every man all things will be made clear by God. His judgment will open all eyes to know that he is God and a true God of his word! Also some people are deceived by Satan to look at nature as a lawful guide for homosexuality. Just because same sex acts are done by animals(mammals) of different kinds *is no rightful reason ,that mankind should behave and do as animals do.* Animals don't go to "Hell and Fire",after they die, but perverted mankind does according to the judgement of God's word. God didn't speak his word against the animals,God spoke unto mankind, and that they must not commit the acts of homosexuality. *Animals aren't made in the "image of God", but man is. Therefore, man is required to give account of the things he has done.* Eccl.12:13-Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.14. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.



In general, animals fight for seniority and territory in the pecking order.
But man is supposed to rise above our animal "pack mentality,"
and only call God as our Father and receive each other as equal children of the one God, not have tribal warfare over who's earthly father or leader makes them better than another group's.

We are supposed to be made equal, perfect and whole in Christ Jesus,
submitting one to another as equal children of God, 
forgiving and correcting one another as equals. All tribes are to be joined as one in harmony
with God's truth through Christ Jesus, not divided as Jew from Gentile, or churched from secular.
Christ Jesus as lord or authority of all laws fulfills both the church laws as Salvation through Grace
and the state laws as Justice and Peace.

Christ Jesus fulfills the secular laws as Restorative Justice to 
establish "equal justice under law" or "equal protections of the law"

We must seek this together, in unity and agreement, and 
not fight for control of the process like animals in a pack.
thank you GISMYS  please pray that this wisdom is received by all who benefit.


----------



## RKMBrown

emilynghiem said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, the courts are the bullies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How has any court specifically bullied you on the gay marriage issue?
> 
> This ought to be rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with KAZ that courts harm the public and integrity of the Constitution/govt
> with rulings that are flawed.
> 
> In particular I find the ruling on ACA as a tax to be flawed,
> as the ACA imposes the right to health care through govt as a nationalized belief
> that excludes and discriminates by creed against those who believe in free market health care as a natural right, and requires a Constitutional Amendment to authorize govt.
> 
> I believe courts are not authorized to takes sides on marriage laws that involve religious or political beliefs, such as "the right to marriage" or "marriage as between one man and one woman only".
> 
> If marriage laws being contested are not equally protecting beliefs, or the ACA is written to force regulations mandates and fines instead of reserving free choice for people of all beliefs, those laws should be revised and not pushed to the courts to rule yes or no.
> 
> If I were a judge in court and two parties came to me with this kind of religiously based conflict, I would order them to mediate and rewrite the contracts where they can both sign their names to it. Not fight over two different versions of the contract, and then expect me to order one party or the other to sign their names to the version they disagree with.
> 
> Sorry, to me that is violating consent, the spirit of the laws, and the Constitution.
> I believe in equal protection of the laws, and supporting unobstructed justice and due process to establish agreement on laws that all parties respect and consent to.
> 
> otherwise we have a zoo of politics making decisions based on who paid the bigger bully to lobby, legislate or lawyer for them. that isn't equal for all people, so that's why we don't have Equal Justice under Law as inscribed on the Supreme Court.
> 
> Equal consent to the laws makes all parties equal regardless of belief, party, standing or status. if you buy and sell people's interest and consent, you have lawlessness and people making money off the process to make it even more biased and unfair. NO THANKS!
Click to expand...


The ACA tax/fine is a tax/fine.  The issue of "whether ACA imposes the right to health care through govt as a nationalized belief that excludes and discriminates by creed against those who believe in free market health care as a natural right" did not come up and was not the point of the ruling.  You are just making stuff up, or parroting someone else who did.  The issue of whether the government can tax us for health care is long past.  See medicare, see medicaid, ...

You'll note that the ACA health care plans are being run by the states.  The feds are merely setting the guidelines. Not a subtle deflection. Again see medicaid and medicare for similar systems.  The feds circumvent the constitutional issue by using the states as proxy.  The taxing stuff is in the 16th amendment.  Life liberty and all that jazz can be taken with due process by the states.  See 14th amendment due process clause if the states follow due process.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> When Jesus was crusified, His death paid the price for all the sins of the world, and His Resurection is what makes Christianity the ONLY True religion in the WORLD!!!
> Mohammad, or allah, or budah, or any other religous "guru"
> could not even save themselves, let alone the rest of the world!
> They are ALL still dead and buried....Jesus is the ONLY way we can get to Heaven (Acts 4: 12)
> And for those of you that think homosexuals are "born" that way, that is a lie straight from the pit of hell! Anyone that spreads lies like that is Truly the Hateful one, and NOT a friend ...And I do not hate you or anyone else, so don't call me a homophobe!!! I love you enough to tell you the TRUTH !!!, NOT all the LIES that everyone rlse is spewing about homosexuality.......You were NOT born "gay" and it is NOT an "alternative lifestyle" to be a homosexual.....It is a perversion...That is why the Homosexual Lobby is pushing so hard, they are trying to make the rest of society think their "lifestyle" is on equal footing as normal Heterosexuality..



 [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]

1. Matthew 19:12 reminds us that some eunuch are *born from the womb*, some made by man, and some for the spiritual purposes of God.

2. What makes Christianity the unifying message to save all humanity is
a. Agreement by Christ or by CONSCIENCE to establish universal TRUTH
b. Christ Jesus as RESTORATIVE JUSTICE which brings healing grace to right all wrongs
c. CHARITY and forgiveness to bring the love of truth, justice and peace to all humanity

Let us please pray in a unifying spirit that is universal to all people of all faiths.
Let us ask God's help to remove any thing preventing healing and harmony in Christ Jesus to unify all tribes and nations as one, all made new and whole for God's purpose. Amen.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi  [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION] 
1. I totally agree the problems were in the ACA to begin with, and even the Court could not fix those. But they did change the interpretation to a tax, which would not have passed through Congress in that way. So that is a problem with the Court changing the law indirectly by changing the interpretation instead of striking it down as requiring a Constitutional Amendment because of its contents. Sure, if the people failed to present the argument to the Court, the problem is with the legal teams, including the one that argued it was a tax if it was sold through Congress as not a tax, due to political bias and conflict of interest with party (in violation of the Code of Ethics of Govt Service not to put party before Constitutional duty to the public)

2. the mandates still impose either a tax penalty for people who do not believe in govt-required insurance. You cannot avoid the fine just because you believe govt does not have authority to require buying private insurance, and that health care belongs to the free market, and/or requires a Constitutional amendment to add to federal govt. if you believe in free choice to pay for health care other ways, that  belief and choice is fined and thus discriminated against by creed. you are required to comply with beliefs that govt has the jurisdiction to require buying private insurance even without passing a Constitutional Amendment first granting federal govt this authority.

So I agree the ACA was flawed to begin with, and the Courts can only answer arguments as presented. 

3. In general both the 
A. Arguments about gay marriage "assume the belief that marriage is a right"
and many people disagree and have a completely different belief about marriage
B. Arguments about health care "assume the belief that health care is a right or in the jurisdiction of federal govt" and many people have a different belief this goes
against natural laws (which their opponents don't believe in either)

RKMB it just seems fair to me, 
that if belief in "natural laws" CANNOT be imposed on people who believe govt has the authority to alter those or impose anything by majority rule regardless of such "beliefs"

then likewise THOSE people's beliefs that govt can impose such laws
CANNOT be imposed on people who believe in natural laws and limits on govt
unless the people consent

I am just trying to be fair.
I recognize that not all people recognize these views as beliefs.
People are used to seeing their views as right and the others wrong,
not as conflicting beliefs that both should be equally accommodated by law.

I do NOT expect this to apply to ALL conflicts, such as whether to make a road go this direction or that direction through a city, that is not a religious belief or conflict.

but for inherent religiously held beliefs, I do not BELIEVE these should be subject to majority rule or one-sided court rulings.

I do not need to "parrot" other people, I am just explaining their beliefs in opposition.
My point is to show they cannot  be reconciled and so the laws should be revised
to avoid these irreconcilable conflicts, regardless how people express their objections.



RKMBrown said:


> The ACA tax/fine is a tax/fine.  The issue of "whether ACA imposes the right to health care through govt as a nationalized belief that excludes and discriminates by creed against those who believe in free market health care as a natural right" did not come up and was not the point of the ruling.  You are just making stuff up, or parroting someone else who did.  The issue of whether the government can tax us for health care is long past.  See medicare, see medicaid, ...
> 
> You'll note that the ACA health care plans are being run by the states.  The feds are merely setting the guidelines. Not a subtle deflection. Again see medicaid and medicare for similar systems.  The feds circumvent the constitutional issue by using the states as proxy.  The taxing stuff is in the 16th amendment.  Life liberty and all that jazz can be taken with due process by the states.  See 14th amendment due process clause if the states follow due process.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Windsor's finding is that the states cannot violate civilian civil liberties.

14th trumphs, Sil.


----------



## RKMBrown

JakeStarkey said:


> Windsor's finding is that the states cannot violate civilian civil liberties.
> 
> 14th trumphs, Sil.



Wrong.  It says the opposite.  

They can't violate civil liberties without first providing for due process.  IOW we were better off wrt liberties before the 14th amendment.


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of football did you play? Flag?
> 
> Cracking heads of fugitives didn't involve bullying the fugitives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, right, a full ride for flag football, that is the ticket.
> 
> "bullying fugitives" what is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bul·lied bul·ly·ing
> transitive verb
> 1:  to treat abusively
> *2:  to affect by means of force or coercion*
> 
> Websters.
> 
> 
> Tell me you did not get your way on the football field and/or "crack heads of fugitives" by asking your opponents to please do as you please.   Tell me you did not use force or coercion.
Click to expand...


You left out the "fugitives" 
What is "bullying fugitives" 

How is coercion bullying? 

Not "Websters", just common sense.


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, the courts are the bullies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How has any court specifically bullied you on the gay marriage issue?
> 
> This ought to be rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard the phrase bully pulpit? The courts, like it or not, hold great sway over how our liberties are regulated.
> 
> I'm gonna guess you're leaning on the libtard definition of bullying that relates to beating up kids in school for their lunch money, or just because the kids are strange.  That's just one use of the term.  If you use words in context, you don't have to assume someone is using the words out of context.
Click to expand...


How are your liberties "bullied" or "affected" by the courts ruling gay folk can marry?

That claim would be "leaning libtard" wimpy. 
Unlike you, I can articulate my opinions without guessing.


----------



## emilynghiem

RKMBrown said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Windsor's finding is that the states cannot violate civilian civil liberties.
> 
> 14th trumphs, Sil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It says the opposite.
> 
> They can't violate civil liberties without first providing for due process.  IOW we were better off wrt liberties before the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...


Dear [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]

For ACA it is argued that the mandates "deprive lawabiding citizens
of the liberty" to buy health care other ways by free choice,
besides insurance or else pay a fine to govt.

There is no "due process" for distinguishing WHICH citizens would otherwise
impose on the public by not having other means of paying their costs.

Instead ALL citizens are treated the same, assuming they have no choice but to buy insurance or pay a fine (unless they fit regulations on exemptions that thus far are determined based on religious affiliation or political which is even worse -- either way govt is regulating exemption from tax/fine based on creed, where believing in paying for health care other ways DOES NOT COUNT as an exempted choice)

Proponents argue that there was "due process" by going through Congress and Courts to pass this bill. Opponents argue their beliefs in natural rights not taken away by govt without a Constitutional Amendment were violated by political agenda (where the votes and pushing the bill as a tax to get it past the Court can be argued as Politically biased and following Party affiliation and agenda as a Conflict of Interest in violating the Code of Ethics for Govt Service).

What do we do now, sue the President and Party for passing a law without passing a Constitutional Amendment first? 
Petition both Parties to set up their own systems and revise ACA to be optional, but required just for members of the groups that agree to enforce it?

If people do not even believe there is a problem, imposing on the other side's beliefs but only if their beliefs are violated, how is this ever going to be fixed?

Aren't both sides, pushing their own political beliefs as law through govt, violating the equal protection of the others who disagree and demand due process to restore their rights?


----------



## Gadawg73

kaz said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, the courts are the bullies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How has any court specifically bullied you on the gay marriage issue?
> 
> This ought to be rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any violation of the Constitution harms all citizens, that particular judicial legislation directly harms me is irrelevant, it harms be because it further establishes that the courts can decree anything they want based on nothing but their own politics.  Yeah, that harms me, you and everyone else, including the people it directly "helps."  Their next fiat could be anything.
Click to expand...


Uh, hate to tell you but there has never been any ruling ever that allowing gays to marry based on the Constitution is illegal
Why?.
Because the Constitution does not ban it or address it. 
The Constitution does not address heterosexual marriage.

So under your theory all marriage is a violation of the Constitution.
Heterosexual marriage according to you if it is addressed by the courts and deemed legal is going to then open the door for anything and everything based on politics only.

Wow, amazing the ignorance spread here as hardly anyone understands anything about the Constitution.

Deary, The United States Constitution protects the rights of THE INDIVIDUAL, not the majority. The Constitution tells the GOVERNMENT what it can not do, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL.

You need to go and read the Constitution, an interesting document, you will learn something.


----------



## RKMBrown

emilynghiem said:


> Hi  [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]
> 1. I totally agree the problems were in the ACA to begin with, and even the Court could not fix those. But they did change the interpretation to a tax, which would not have passed through Congress in that way. So that is a problem with the Court changing the law indirectly by changing the interpretation instead of striking it down as requiring a Constitutional Amendment because of its contents. Sure, if the people failed to present the argument to the Court, the problem is with the legal teams, including the one that argued it was a tax if it was sold through Congress as not a tax, due to political bias and conflict of interest with party (in violation of the Code of Ethics of Govt Service not to put party before Constitutional duty to the public)
> 
> 2. the mandates still impose either a tax penalty for people who do not believe in govt-required insurance. You cannot avoid the fine just because you believe govt does not have authority to require buying private insurance, and that health care belongs to the free market, and/or requires a Constitutional amendment to add to federal govt. if you believe in free choice to pay for health care other ways, that  belief and choice is fined and thus discriminated against by creed. you are required to comply with beliefs that govt has the jurisdiction to require buying private insurance even without passing a Constitutional Amendment first granting federal govt this authority.
> 
> So I agree the ACA was flawed to begin with, and the Courts can only answer arguments as presented.
> 
> 3. In general both the
> A. Arguments about gay marriage "assume the belief that marriage is a right"
> and many people disagree and have a completely different belief about marriage
> B. Arguments about health care "assume the belief that health care is a right or in the jurisdiction of federal govt" and many people have a different belief this goes
> against natural laws (which their opponents don't believe in either)
> 
> RKMB it just seems fair to me,
> that if belief in "natural laws" CANNOT be imposed on people who believe govt has the authority to alter those or impose anything by majority rule regardless of such "beliefs"
> 
> then likewise THOSE people's beliefs that govt can impose such laws
> CANNOT be imposed on people who believe in natural laws and limits on govt
> unless the people consent
> 
> I am just trying to be fair.
> I recognize that not all people recognize these views as beliefs.
> People are used to seeing their views as right and the others wrong,
> not as conflicting beliefs that both should be equally accommodated by law.
> 
> I do NOT expect this to apply to ALL conflicts, such as whether to make a road go this direction or that direction through a city, that is not a religious belief or conflict.
> 
> but for inherent religiously held beliefs, I do not BELIEVE these should be subject to majority rule or one-sided court rulings.
> 
> I do not need to "parrot" other people, I am just explaining their beliefs in opposition.
> My point is to show they cannot  be reconciled and so the laws should be revised
> to avoid these irreconcilable conflicts, regardless how people express their objections.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ACA tax/fine is a tax/fine.  The issue of "whether ACA imposes the right to health care through govt as a nationalized belief that excludes and discriminates by creed against those who believe in free market health care as a natural right" did not come up and was not the point of the ruling.  You are just making stuff up, or parroting someone else who did.  The issue of whether the government can tax us for health care is long past.  See medicare, see medicaid, ...
> 
> You'll note that the ACA health care plans are being run by the states.  The feds are merely setting the guidelines. Not a subtle deflection. Again see medicaid and medicare for similar systems.  The feds circumvent the constitutional issue by using the states as proxy.  The taxing stuff is in the 16th amendment.  Life liberty and all that jazz can be taken with due process by the states.  See 14th amendment due process clause if the states follow due process.
Click to expand...


You are dead wrong. 

Change what interpretation?  nah that's not what happened..

They looked at the mandate and decided, correctly that the so called mandate was not a mandate in the literal sense, it was a tax in the literal sense.  They could have called the mandate a marriage license.  The name of the thing does not matter it is merely a name.  To many people look at names and associate meaning.  Unfortunately the ass hats in congress pulled one over the media and most republicans. 

The people who named it a mandate and said it was not a tax were effing liars who were attempting to redefine the english language to confuse the media, citizens, and other fools.

Congress is in charge of themselves, it's not the courts job to teach them the english language, and tell them how to enforce their own rules.  Irregardless, the house originated the final bill throwing the point out the door that only the house can originate a taxing bill.  The republicans caved.

And you were lied to.  Both in what the mandate was, which was a tax, and also as to whether or not the house originated the final bill which they did.  If the house originates the final bill it does not matter whether it has taxes or not.  Thus for every reason the whole mandate thing was just a red-herring. 

Additionally, you are also wrong with regard to your statement that "the Courts can only answer arguments as presented." They also do their own investigations and their own reading and draw their own conclusions and make their own arguments and answers to the issue presented.  The issue presented however was not whether or not the ACA is constitutional.  The issue was one minor point in the ACA.  For example, it had nothing to do with the other minor point that they just struck down, regarding whether the ACA can force a private company to provide contraceptives in general, and abortifacents in particular against the owner's personally held religious beliefs.


Marriage is a part of the right to life protected by the first amendment.  This has already been ruled by the courts.  The issue, thus has been whether the states have used due process (see 14th amendment) in taking away the right to life of gays.   I honestly don't think the states have, nor do I think the federal laws have.  I really don't see how the laws restricting life of gays can stand to any reasoned honest scrutiny. 

Access to health care is a part of the right to life.  The question thus, is can our government(s) restrict access to health care through legislation.  Note I said access not free health care.  No one ever said life would be fair or free or accommodating.  That is not a right.  That is a pipe dream.


----------



## emilynghiem

Gadawg73 said:


> How are your liberties "bullied" or "affected" by the courts ruling gay folk can marry?
> 
> That claim would be "leaning libtard" wimpy.
> Unlike you, I can articulate my opinions without guessing.



1. there is nothing wrong with affirming the freedom to marry in church or in private
2. if people do not agree with state endorsing gay marriage by law that is different than just allowing it

atheists don't have a problem with people "praying" wherever they want on their own,
but not have public institutions endorsing and incorporating prayer through govt functions


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi  [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]
> 1. I totally agree the problems were in the ACA to begin with, and even the Court could not fix those. But they did change the interpretation to a tax, which would not have passed through Congress in that way. So that is a problem with the Court changing the law indirectly by changing the interpretation instead of striking it down as requiring a Constitutional Amendment because of its contents. Sure, if the people failed to present the argument to the Court, the problem is with the legal teams, including the one that argued it was a tax if it was sold through Congress as not a tax, due to political bias and conflict of interest with party (in violation of the Code of Ethics of Govt Service not to put party before Constitutional duty to the public)
> 
> 2. the mandates still impose either a tax penalty for people who do not believe in govt-required insurance. You cannot avoid the fine just because you believe govt does not have authority to require buying private insurance, and that health care belongs to the free market, and/or requires a Constitutional amendment to add to federal govt. if you believe in free choice to pay for health care other ways, that  belief and choice is fined and thus discriminated against by creed. you are required to comply with beliefs that govt has the jurisdiction to require buying private insurance even without passing a Constitutional Amendment first granting federal govt this authority.
> 
> So I agree the ACA was flawed to begin with, and the Courts can only answer arguments as presented.
> 
> 3. In general both the
> A. Arguments about gay marriage "assume the belief that marriage is a right"
> and many people disagree and have a completely different belief about marriage
> B. Arguments about health care "assume the belief that health care is a right or in the jurisdiction of federal govt" and many people have a different belief this goes
> against natural laws (which their opponents don't believe in either)
> 
> RKMB it just seems fair to me,
> that if belief in "natural laws" CANNOT be imposed on people who believe govt has the authority to alter those or impose anything by majority rule regardless of such "beliefs"
> 
> then likewise THOSE people's beliefs that govt can impose such laws
> CANNOT be imposed on people who believe in natural laws and limits on govt
> unless the people consent
> 
> I am just trying to be fair.
> I recognize that not all people recognize these views as beliefs.
> People are used to seeing their views as right and the others wrong,
> not as conflicting beliefs that both should be equally accommodated by law.
> 
> I do NOT expect this to apply to ALL conflicts, such as whether to make a road go this direction or that direction through a city, that is not a religious belief or conflict.
> 
> but for inherent religiously held beliefs, I do not BELIEVE these should be subject to majority rule or one-sided court rulings.
> 
> I do not need to "parrot" other people, I am just explaining their beliefs in opposition.
> My point is to show they cannot  be reconciled and so the laws should be revised
> to avoid these irreconcilable conflicts, regardless how people express their objections.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ACA tax/fine is a tax/fine.  The issue of "whether ACA imposes the right to health care through govt as a nationalized belief that excludes and discriminates by creed against those who believe in free market health care as a natural right" did not come up and was not the point of the ruling.  You are just making stuff up, or parroting someone else who did.  The issue of whether the government can tax us for health care is long past.  See medicare, see medicaid, ...
> 
> You'll note that the ACA health care plans are being run by the states.  The feds are merely setting the guidelines. Not a subtle deflection. Again see medicaid and medicare for similar systems.  The feds circumvent the constitutional issue by using the states as proxy.  The taxing stuff is in the 16th amendment.  Life liberty and all that jazz can be taken with due process by the states.  See 14th amendment due process clause if the states follow due process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are dead wrong.
> 
> Change what interpretation?  nah that's not what happened..
> 
> They looked at the mandate and decided, correctly that the so called mandate was not a mandate in the literal sense, it was a tax in the literal sense.  They could have called the mandate a marriage license.  The name of the thing does not matter it is merely a name.  To many people look at names and associate meaning.  Unfortunately the ass hats in congress pulled one over the media and most republicans.
> 
> The people who named it a mandate and said it was not a tax were effing liars who were attempting to redefine the english language to confuse the media, citizens, and other fools.
> 
> Congress is in charge of themselves, it's not the courts job to teach them the english language, and tell them how to enforce their own rules.  Irregardless, the house originated the final bill throwing the point out the door that only the house can originate a taxing bill.  The republicans caved.
> 
> And you were lied to.  Both in what the mandate was, which was a tax, and also as to whether or not the house originated the final bill which they did.  If the house originates the final bill it does not matter whether it has taxes or not.  Thus for every reason the whole mandate thing was just a red-herring.
> 
> Additionally, you are also wrong with regard to your statement that "the Courts can only answer arguments as presented." They also do their own investigations and their own reading and draw their own conclusions and make their own arguments and answers to the issue presented.  The issue presented however was not whether or not the ACA is constitutional.  The issue was one minor point in the ACA.  For example, it had nothing to do with the other minor point that they just struck down, regarding whether the ACA can force a private company to provide contraceptives in general, and abortifacents in particular against the owner's personally held religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> Marriage is a part of the right to life protected by the first amendment.  This has already been ruled by the courts.  The issue, thus has been whether the states have used due process (see 14th amendment) in taking away the right to life of gays.   I honestly don't think the states have, nor do I think the federal laws have.  I really don't see how the laws restricting life of gays can stand to any reasoned honest scrutiny.
> 
> Access to health care is a part of the right to life.  The question thus, is can our government(s) restrict access to health care through legislation.  Note I said access not free health care.  No one ever said life would be fair or free or accommodating.  That is not a right.  That is a pipe dream.
Click to expand...


So states can take away the rights of heterosexuals to marry also?


----------



## emilynghiem

1. Yes, [MENTION=18558]Gadawg73[/MENTION] it can be argued that all marriage violates limits on govt jurisdiction.
The death penalty can also be argued as crossing into religious areas outside govt.
The difference is if people AGREE to laws even if they cross the line.

We used to have a general consensus to leave marriage laws alone, even though technically, as you point out, they already cross the line between church and state. yes they do, that is the problem; when the public generally agreed on policy, it didn't matter; but when people don't agree, then it becomes pronounced that the state is technically crossing the line with marriage and getting into church or private territory



Gadawg73 said:


> Uh, hate to tell you but there has never been any ruling ever that allowing gays to marry based on the Constitution is illegal
> Why?.
> Because the Constitution does not ban it or address it.
> The Constitution does not address heterosexual marriage.
> 
> *1. So under your theory all marriage is a violation of the Constitution.*
> Heterosexual marriage according to you if it is addressed by the courts and deemed legal is going to then open the door for anything and everything based on politics only.
> 
> Wow, amazing the ignorance spread here as hardly anyone understands anything about the Constitution.
> 
> Deary, *2. The United States Constitution protects the rights of THE INDIVIDUAL, not the majority. The Constitution tells the GOVERNMENT what it can not do, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL.*
> 
> You need to go and read the Constitution, an interesting document, you will learn something.



2. by the Constitution and its amendments, Govt is supposed to respect equal religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.

if people cannot agree on their BELIEFS about marriage, then laws cannot be made endorsed or enforced through the state that violate or exclude BELIEFS.

either treat beliefs equally or remove those laws from jurisdiction of the govt.
people used to consent to the marriage laws as was, but if they can't agree now they can't be imposed either way if that is going to deny equal protection to those of other beliefs.


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, right, a full ride for flag football, that is the ticket.
> 
> "bullying fugitives" what is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bul·lied bul·ly·ing
> transitive verb
> 1:  to treat abusively
> *2:  to affect by means of force or coercion*
> 
> Websters.
> 
> 
> Tell me you did not get your way on the football field and/or "crack heads of fugitives" by asking your opponents to please do as you please.   Tell me you did not use force or coercion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You left out the "fugitives"
> What is "bullying fugitives"
> 
> How is coercion bullying?
> 
> Not "Websters", just common sense.
Click to expand...


I don't really think you are asking me to show you the definition of coercion...

I believe you are incorrectly assuming the word bullying means only unwarranted bullying, and not realizing that there is also warranted bullying.  Parents use force (bully) their children when the kids get out of line.  Police use force (bully) suspects for the safety of both and other citizens.


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi  [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]
> 1. I totally agree the problems were in the ACA to begin with, and even the Court could not fix those. But they did change the interpretation to a tax, which would not have passed through Congress in that way. So that is a problem with the Court changing the law indirectly by changing the interpretation instead of striking it down as requiring a Constitutional Amendment because of its contents. Sure, if the people failed to present the argument to the Court, the problem is with the legal teams, including the one that argued it was a tax if it was sold through Congress as not a tax, due to political bias and conflict of interest with party (in violation of the Code of Ethics of Govt Service not to put party before Constitutional duty to the public)
> 
> 2. the mandates still impose either a tax penalty for people who do not believe in govt-required insurance. You cannot avoid the fine just because you believe govt does not have authority to require buying private insurance, and that health care belongs to the free market, and/or requires a Constitutional amendment to add to federal govt. if you believe in free choice to pay for health care other ways, that  belief and choice is fined and thus discriminated against by creed. you are required to comply with beliefs that govt has the jurisdiction to require buying private insurance even without passing a Constitutional Amendment first granting federal govt this authority.
> 
> So I agree the ACA was flawed to begin with, and the Courts can only answer arguments as presented.
> 
> 3. In general both the
> A. Arguments about gay marriage "assume the belief that marriage is a right"
> and many people disagree and have a completely different belief about marriage
> B. Arguments about health care "assume the belief that health care is a right or in the jurisdiction of federal govt" and many people have a different belief this goes
> against natural laws (which their opponents don't believe in either)
> 
> RKMB it just seems fair to me,
> that if belief in "natural laws" CANNOT be imposed on people who believe govt has the authority to alter those or impose anything by majority rule regardless of such "beliefs"
> 
> then likewise THOSE people's beliefs that govt can impose such laws
> CANNOT be imposed on people who believe in natural laws and limits on govt
> unless the people consent
> 
> I am just trying to be fair.
> I recognize that not all people recognize these views as beliefs.
> People are used to seeing their views as right and the others wrong,
> not as conflicting beliefs that both should be equally accommodated by law.
> 
> I do NOT expect this to apply to ALL conflicts, such as whether to make a road go this direction or that direction through a city, that is not a religious belief or conflict.
> 
> but for inherent religiously held beliefs, I do not BELIEVE these should be subject to majority rule or one-sided court rulings.
> 
> I do not need to "parrot" other people, I am just explaining their beliefs in opposition.
> My point is to show they cannot  be reconciled and so the laws should be revised
> to avoid these irreconcilable conflicts, regardless how people express their objections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are dead wrong.
> 
> Change what interpretation?  nah that's not what happened..
> 
> They looked at the mandate and decided, correctly that the so called mandate was not a mandate in the literal sense, it was a tax in the literal sense.  They could have called the mandate a marriage license.  The name of the thing does not matter it is merely a name.  To many people look at names and associate meaning.  Unfortunately the ass hats in congress pulled one over the media and most republicans.
> 
> The people who named it a mandate and said it was not a tax were effing liars who were attempting to redefine the english language to confuse the media, citizens, and other fools.
> 
> Congress is in charge of themselves, it's not the courts job to teach them the english language, and tell them how to enforce their own rules.  Irregardless, the house originated the final bill throwing the point out the door that only the house can originate a taxing bill.  The republicans caved.
> 
> And you were lied to.  Both in what the mandate was, which was a tax, and also as to whether or not the house originated the final bill which they did.  If the house originates the final bill it does not matter whether it has taxes or not.  Thus for every reason the whole mandate thing was just a red-herring.
> 
> Additionally, you are also wrong with regard to your statement that "the Courts can only answer arguments as presented." They also do their own investigations and their own reading and draw their own conclusions and make their own arguments and answers to the issue presented.  The issue presented however was not whether or not the ACA is constitutional.  The issue was one minor point in the ACA.  For example, it had nothing to do with the other minor point that they just struck down, regarding whether the ACA can force a private company to provide contraceptives in general, and abortifacents in particular against the owner's personally held religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> Marriage is a part of the right to life protected by the first amendment.  This has already been ruled by the courts.  The issue, thus has been whether the states have used due process (see 14th amendment) in taking away the right to life of gays.   I honestly don't think the states have, nor do I think the federal laws have.  I really don't see how the laws restricting life of gays can stand to any reasoned honest scrutiny.
> 
> Access to health care is a part of the right to life.  The question thus, is can our government(s) restrict access to health care through legislation.  Note I said access not free health care.  No one ever said life would be fair or free or accommodating.  That is not a right.  That is a pipe dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So states can take away the rights of heterosexuals to marry also?
Click to expand...


Not only can they, they already do.


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> bul·lied bul·ly·ing
> transitive verb
> 1:  to treat abusively
> *2:  to affect by means of force or coercion*
> 
> Websters.
> 
> 
> Tell me you did not get your way on the football field and/or "crack heads of fugitives" by asking your opponents to please do as you please.   Tell me you did not use force or coercion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You left out the "fugitives"
> What is "bullying fugitives"
> 
> How is coercion bullying?
> 
> Not "Websters", just common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really think you are asking me to show you the definition of coercion...
> 
> I believe you are incorrectly assuming the word bullying means only unwarranted bullying, and not realizing that there is also warranted bullying.  Parents use force (bully) their children when the kids get out of line.  Police use force (bully) suspects for the safety of both and other citizens.
Click to expand...


No Brown,  I am showing you that you have missed the boat straying off subject with lame attacks.
The subject is what? Bullying? 
Not here, you were the one that went sideways with that nonsense.

Back to the subject at hand, stick with it.


----------



## emilynghiem

Gadawg73 said:


> So states can take away the rights of heterosexuals to marry also?



Anyone has religious freedom to marry anyone in their own church service or private ceremony etc. 
So no, [MENTION=18558]Gadawg73[/MENTION], the state cannot take that away. And the state "bans" on gay marriage get struck down as unconstitutional. 

Only the people can agree how to write the laws so they preserve the rights/freedoms they already have.
So only the people can decide to removed marriage from state jurisdiction and keep it private if they all agree; they cannot be forced by the state,
but the people form a consensus and get the state to endorse that policy.

The laws that will likely end up lasting would be neutral where they neither ban nor impose "gay marriage" but accommodate all beliefs and interests equally to the satisfaction of the people of that state, where everyone consent to them as the best solution they agree to.


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How has any court specifically bullied you on the gay marriage issue?
> 
> This ought to be rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never heard the phrase bully pulpit? The courts, like it or not, hold great sway over how our liberties are regulated.
> 
> I'm gonna guess you're leaning on the libtard definition of bullying that relates to beating up kids in school for their lunch money, or just because the kids are strange.  That's just one use of the term.  If you use words in context, you don't have to assume someone is using the words out of context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are your liberties "bullied" or "affected" by the courts ruling gay folk can marry?
> 
> That claim would be "leaning libtard" wimpy.
> Unlike you, I can articulate my opinions without guessing.
Click to expand...


>> How are your liberties "bullied" or "affected" by the courts ruling gay folk can marry?

They are not.  FYI I'm a libertarian leaning conservative.  Thought you knew that.  My opinion is that the laws restricting gays marriages should be thrown out by the court.

>> That claim would be "leaning libtard" wimpy.  Unlike you, I can articulate my opinions without guessing.

Again, not my fault you don't know how to use the word bullying.   But it is apparent that you are practiced at the art of bullying.  For example, by using terms like wimpy, and telling people they can't articulate their opinions without guessing.  You're not the only one that played football and can carry themselves.


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are dead wrong.
> 
> Change what interpretation?  nah that's not what happened..
> 
> They looked at the mandate and decided, correctly that the so called mandate was not a mandate in the literal sense, it was a tax in the literal sense.  They could have called the mandate a marriage license.  The name of the thing does not matter it is merely a name.  To many people look at names and associate meaning.  Unfortunately the ass hats in congress pulled one over the media and most republicans.
> 
> The people who named it a mandate and said it was not a tax were effing liars who were attempting to redefine the english language to confuse the media, citizens, and other fools.
> 
> Congress is in charge of themselves, it's not the courts job to teach them the english language, and tell them how to enforce their own rules.  Irregardless, the house originated the final bill throwing the point out the door that only the house can originate a taxing bill.  The republicans caved.
> 
> And you were lied to.  Both in what the mandate was, which was a tax, and also as to whether or not the house originated the final bill which they did.  If the house originates the final bill it does not matter whether it has taxes or not.  Thus for every reason the whole mandate thing was just a red-herring.
> 
> Additionally, you are also wrong with regard to your statement that "the Courts can only answer arguments as presented." They also do their own investigations and their own reading and draw their own conclusions and make their own arguments and answers to the issue presented.  The issue presented however was not whether or not the ACA is constitutional.  The issue was one minor point in the ACA.  For example, it had nothing to do with the other minor point that they just struck down, regarding whether the ACA can force a private company to provide contraceptives in general, and abortifacents in particular against the owner's personally held religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> Marriage is a part of the right to life protected by the first amendment.  This has already been ruled by the courts.  The issue, thus has been whether the states have used due process (see 14th amendment) in taking away the right to life of gays.   I honestly don't think the states have, nor do I think the federal laws have.  I really don't see how the laws restricting life of gays can stand to any reasoned honest scrutiny.
> 
> Access to health care is a part of the right to life.  The question thus, is can our government(s) restrict access to health care through legislation.  Note I said access not free health care.  No one ever said life would be fair or free or accommodating.  That is not a right.  That is a pipe dream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So states can take away the rights of heterosexuals to marry also?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only can they, they already do.
Click to expand...


They did. And they have restrictions still on heterosexuals in some if not all states.
But not 2 ordinary folk. 
A mass murderer in prison is restricted how if he wants to marry someone?
If they are the opposite sex. 
If they are same sex 2 law abiding citizens they can not.
And folk come up with wishy washy 9 paragraphs to defend that?

Absurd. We are in shooting wars and folks believe this is a real issue.
If folk were really about the "sanctity of marriage" mumbo jumbo and the "it will violate the Constitution" and "open up a can of worms" then how can they justify the can of worms of:

50%+ of all heterosexual marriages now end in divorce
Mass murderers, convicted child abusers and domestic violence offenders can now LEGALLY MARRY.

If folk were really interested in "the sanctity of marriage" no way a guy that has beaten his 4 prior wives, has done 22 years in prison could legally marry again.

Common sense points to folk that oppose gay marriage and then offer BS really have a problem with gay folk obtaining equal rights.

And that shit has to end.


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never heard the phrase bully pulpit? The courts, like it or not, hold great sway over how our liberties are regulated.
> 
> I'm gonna guess you're leaning on the libtard definition of bullying that relates to beating up kids in school for their lunch money, or just because the kids are strange.  That's just one use of the term.  If you use words in context, you don't have to assume someone is using the words out of context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are your liberties "bullied" or "affected" by the courts ruling gay folk can marry?
> 
> That claim would be "leaning libtard" wimpy.
> Unlike you, I can articulate my opinions without guessing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> How are your liberties "bullied" or "affected" by the courts ruling gay folk can marry?
> 
> They are not.  FYI I'm a libertarian leaning conservative.  Thought you knew that.  My opinion is that the laws restricting gays marriages should be thrown out by the court.
> 
> >> That claim would be "leaning libtard" wimpy.  Unlike you, I can articulate my opinions without guessing.
> 
> Again, not my fault you don't know how to use the word bullying.   But it is apparent that you are practiced at the art of bullying.  For example, by using terms like wimpy, and telling people they can't articulate their opinions without guessing.  You're not the only one that played football and can carry themselves.
Click to expand...


"But it is apparent that you are practiced at the art of bullying"
You are full of shit and do not know me.
I have never, ever bullied anyone in my life. Defended myself apprehending felon criminals fleeing the justice system. You may support them but someone has to go get them. And when they attacked me I defended myself. 
And never bullied anyone on the football field also. Not even a late hit 15 yard penalty in 15 years on the field.
So stick to the subject Brown because you are an Ofer bust in your weak attempts to bash me. 
I do not know you and do not make childish claims about you.


----------



## warwulf

Fag weddings are the epitome of irony. The bible and Nature both condemns fags yet some fags are alleged xtians and AIDS is a direct result of degenerate sexual non-natural activities brought forth by Nature to nip it in the bud. 
  Shouldn't they be getting married in some circus with the rest of the freaks? But I digress and back to the original poast: hell yes, let the fudge packers and carpet munchers get married in a church! Make those straight, hetero hypocritical churcher haters turn the other cheek, suck it up and do what their idiot god tells them to do.


----------



## RKMBrown

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Gaydawg - you're finally right about something - Congratulations !
> 
> - *Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth* -  Now if you could kindly get your head out of your ass and face the music on the subject you ran away from with your tail betweenst your legs .
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/361541-gays-have-won-so-what-s-next-14.html#post9361289   <<< What are you Afraid of ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids.
> 
> I have never run away from anything at 6'5" and 280 lbs. Chasing QBs and cracking heads of fugitives was my hobby for 10 years. Got a full ride for 5 and paid big $$$ the other 5.
> 
> Am not scared of the gay boogeyman like milk weak sissies are.
> Govern yourself accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullying people around might work on the football field, but it's not gonna work out so well in the courts I think.
Click to expand...


Yeah, cause I was the one deflecting here....   Oh and I see you still don't understand the use of the term bully off your playground use of the term.


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are your liberties "bullied" or "affected" by the courts ruling gay folk can marry?
> 
> That claim would be "leaning libtard" wimpy.
> Unlike you, I can articulate my opinions without guessing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> How are your liberties "bullied" or "affected" by the courts ruling gay folk can marry?
> 
> They are not.  FYI I'm a libertarian leaning conservative.  Thought you knew that.  My opinion is that the laws restricting gays marriages should be thrown out by the court.
> 
> >> That claim would be "leaning libtard" wimpy.  Unlike you, I can articulate my opinions without guessing.
> 
> Again, not my fault you don't know how to use the word bullying.   But it is apparent that you are practiced at the art of bullying.  For example, by using terms like wimpy, and telling people they can't articulate their opinions without guessing.  You're not the only one that played football and can carry themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "But it is apparent that you are practiced at the art of bullying"
> You are full of shit and do not know me.
> I have never, ever bullied anyone in my life. Defended myself apprehending felon criminals fleeing the justice system. You may support them but someone has to go get them. And when they attacked me I defended myself.
> And never bullied anyone on the football field also. Not even a late hit 15 yard penalty in 15 years on the field.
> So stick to the subject Brown because you are an Ofer bust in your weak attempts to bash me.
> I do not know you and do not make childish claims about you.
Click to expand...


How do you play football without applying force? You think late hits are the only way to apply force on the football field?  Are you mentally handicapped?


----------



## emilynghiem

RKMBrown said:


> You are dead wrong.
> 
> Change what interpretation?  nah that's not what happened..
> 
> They looked at the mandate and decided, correctly that the so called mandate was not a mandate in the literal sense, it was a tax in the literal sense.  They could have called the mandate a marriage license.  The name of the thing does not matter it is merely a name.  To many people look at names and associate meaning.  Unfortunately the ass hats in congress pulled one over the media and most republicans.
> 
> The people who named it a mandate and said it was not a tax were effing liars who were attempting to redefine the english language to confuse the media, citizens, and other fools.
> 
> Congress is in charge of themselves, it's not the courts job to teach them the english language, and tell them how to enforce their own rules.  Irregardless, the house originated the final bill throwing the point out the door that only the house can originate a taxing bill.  The republicans caved.
> 
> And you were lied to.  Both in what the mandate was, which was a tax, and also as to whether or not the house originated the final bill which they did.  If the house originates the final bill it does not matter whether it has taxes or not.  Thus for every reason the whole mandate thing was just a red-herring.
> 
> Additionally, you are also wrong with regard to your statement that "the Courts can only answer arguments as presented." They also do their own investigations and their own reading and draw their own conclusions and make their own arguments and answers to the issue presented.  The issue presented however was not whether or not the ACA is constitutional.  The issue was one minor point in the ACA.  For example, it had nothing to do with the other minor point that they just struck down, regarding whether the ACA can force a private company to provide contraceptives in general, and abortifacents in particular against the owner's personally held religious beliefs.
> 
> Marriage is a part of the right to life protected by the first amendment.  This has already been ruled by the courts.  The issue, thus has been whether the states have used due process (see 14th amendment) in taking away the right to life of gays.   I honestly don't think the states have, nor do I think the federal laws have.  I really don't see how the laws restricting life of gays can stand to any reasoned honest scrutiny.
> 
> Access to health care is a part of the right to life.  The question thus, is can our government(s) restrict access to health care through legislation.  Note I said access not free health care.  No one ever said life would be fair or free or accommodating.  That is not a right.  That is a pipe dream.


 [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]
1. Yes Marriage is protected under the First Amendment as part of religious freedom, I agree. So that is why I do not endorse Govt regulating Marriage in ways that other people do not believe in either. You have the right to your beliefs about Marriage, and likewise with other people who do not come to the same conclusions about Marriage.

If people cannot agree about Marriage, just like Religion, keep Govt out of it
and don't make a law at all that imposes some kind of bias unfair to any person's beliefs.

2. As for the ACA

It does not work to nitpick where the violation or problem occurs with the bill or process

You and I both know that is not going to solve the problem. Why? Because the whole thing violates people's beliefs. I also do not believe in govt mandating that I buy private insurance. I believe in a number of better ways to provide more health care for more people without violating any beliefs, and just using free choice. 

But my choice is not allowed under this law and would be fined by tax penalty. 

So no I do not agree that such taxation is constitutional as it violates my beliefs and I do not consent. the mandate penalizes people who would choose spiritual healing, or build teaching hospitals and other means, that are discriminated against as not an equal choice.

The whole FLAW could be prevented by writing and passing the law by consensus and not imposing it this way, where it divided along political beliefs. 
So I'm sorry I cannot explain it better to you why the whole thing is flawed.
all the nitpicky points you and I could argue about are symptoms of the problem.

If it wasn't passed by consent of the people affected, and it violates beliefs about law and choice and due process, it is not fully Constitutional.

RKMB you cannot make anyone who doesn't believe it is constitutional
change their minds because it violates their beliefs, on principle regardless of the points.

The political belief that govt does not have jurisdiction to mandate such a system of health care, regardless of taxation or not, without consent of the people, using a Constitutional Amendment and/or other means of representation as needed; and the belief that the vote in Congress demonstrates a PARTISAN bias in political beliefs, is enough to argue that the ACA is unconstitutional and violates the Code of Ethics for govt service.

Anyone like you is free to follow it, but not impose on others whose beliefs are violated.
I support consent of the governed as part of my Constitutional beliefs protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

So no I do not approve of anyone violating the consent of others by imposing this law or its fines. People must consent to a law as a contract, especially if it contains business requirements such as buying something or paying a fine or tax to government.

that is my belief, and it is protected by Constitutional law as EQUAL to yours.
You cannot impose your belief on me nor mine on yours. so you are free to follow ACA but I will not consent to it being imposed on those who do not believe the same as you.

Thank you! You are very kind, patient and thoughtful and I appreciate your points.
but the principles still apply and no opponent I know is going to be convinced otherwise.


----------



## emilynghiem

RKMBrown said:


> My opinion is that the laws restricting gays marriages should be thrown out by the court.



Yes I also agree that since Marriage is spiritual/religious, the state cannot enforce laws that impose on people's beliefs about marriage.

On that same note, neither can the state endorse laws that impose beliefs or bias
that violate other people's beliefs.

So that is why the laws must be written carefully to be neutral
and passed by consent of the people to ensure no biases are imposed.

If people object because their beliefs are violated, that means to go back and
revise them to remove the bias causing objection. If this cannot be resolved
through the state, then keep it private for the churches and people to decide.
If they can reach an agreement, the state can endorse that; but cannot
impose marriage laws that impose or discriminate against anyone's beliefs
affected in that state.


----------



## JakeStarkey

RKMBrown said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Windsor's finding is that the states cannot violate civilian civil liberties.
> 
> 14th trumphs, Sil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It says the opposite.
> 
> They can't violate civil liberties without first providing for due process.  IOW we were better off wrt liberties before the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...


Backwards, thinking.  None of the last 20 courts finding for marriage equality agree with you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Only a hater of liberties writes this garbage: "Any violation of the Constitution harms all citizens, that particular judicial legislation directly harms me is irrelevant, it harms be because it further establishes that the courts can decree anything they want based on nothing but their own politics."

You wish to punish inoffensive folks who want their liberties that don't hurt you in any way or fashion, only wishing to live their lives quietly.  But you hetero-fascists wish to judge them and damn them in the public's eye.

What you don't get is that you have been damning yourselves in the public's eyes for some time now.

You will lose because truth, justice, and the American way will prevail.


----------



## RKMBrown

emilynghiem said:


> 1. Yes Marriage is protected under the First Amendment as part of religious freedom, I agree. So that is why I do not endorse Govt regulating Marriage in ways that other people do not believe in either. You have the right to your beliefs about Marriage, and likewise with other people who do not come to the same conclusions about Marriage.
> 
> If people cannot agree about Marriage, just like Religion, keep Govt out of it
> and don't make a law at all that imposes some kind of bias unfair to any person's beliefs.
> 
> 2. As for the ACA
> 
> It does not work to nitpick where the violation or problem occurs with the bill or process
> 
> You and I both know that is not going to solve the problem. Why? Because the whole thing violates people's beliefs. I also do not believe in govt mandating that I buy private insurance. I believe in a number of better ways to provide more health care for more people without violating any beliefs, and just using free choice.
> 
> But my choice is not allowed under this law and would be fined by tax penalty.
> 
> So no I do not agree that such taxation is constitutional as it violates my beliefs and I do not consent. Your consent is not needed, the constitution states that they just have to provide due process as they are screwing you over.  No different than taking your income for roads, or taking your home for the public good.  Welcome to the 14th amendment due process clause. We are all slaves to our government.  You should be grateful they let you keep some of your stuff or start voting for libertarians.
> 
> the mandate penalizes people who would choose spiritual healing, or build teaching hospitals and other means, that are discriminated against as not an equal choice.
> I don't believe this to be a factual statement.  My understanding is that there are a significant number of various types of co-ops forming, up to and including ones that include spiritual healing, use of teaching hospitals etc.  What you need to do is find a co-op that fits you.
> 
> The whole FLAW could be prevented by writing and passing the law by consensus and not imposing it this way, where it divided along political beliefs.
> So I'm sorry I cannot explain it better to you why the whole thing is flawed.
> all the nitpicky points you and I could argue about are symptoms of the problem.
> I disagree.  The way to solve obama care is to throw it out not write more federal laws.
> 
> If it wasn't passed by consent of the people affected, and it violates beliefs about law and choice and due process, it is not fully Constitutional.
> 
> That's not how our system of government works. You have the freedom to complain about the tyrants but that does not mean you are free from the tyrants we have elected to take our income and use as they see fit.  We (right after the civil war) allowed them to pass amendments to the constitution that allow this soft tyranny we are living under.
> 
> RKMB you cannot make anyone who doesn't believe it is constitutional
> change their minds because it violates their beliefs, on principle regardless of the points.
> Your belief is not relevant to the constitutionality.  Your vote does not count.  You might aw well be telling me you don't believe the sun rises.
> 
> The political belief that govt does not have jurisdiction to mandate such a system of health care, regardless of taxation or not, without consent of the people, using a Constitutional Amendment and/or other means of representation as needed; and the belief that the vote in Congress demonstrates a PARTISAN bias in political beliefs, is enough to argue that the ACA is unconstitutional and violates the Code of Ethics for govt service.
> 
> There are elements of the ACA that are unconstitutional that have not yet come to the court.  This is because ACA is not fully implemented yet and all the harms have not been seen.  Until there is harm the court does not look at a case.
> 
> Anyone like you is free to follow it, but not impose on others whose beliefs are violated.
> I support consent of the governed as part of my Constitutional beliefs protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendment.
> The Fourteenth Amendment does not use consent of the governed.  Just the opposite.  You have it backwards.  The Fourteenth Amendment is the amendment that provides for soft tyranny without consent. You are confused.
> 
> So no I do not approve of anyone violating the consent of others by imposing this law or its fines. People must consent to a law as a contract, especially if it contains business requirements such as buying something or paying a fine or tax to government.
> No, consent is not asked for nor required.  You think Obama asks citizens for consent before he kills them with a drone attack?
> 
> that is my belief, and it is protected by Constitutional law as EQUAL to yours.
> You cannot impose your belief on me nor mine on yours. so you are free to follow ACA but I will not consent to it being imposed on those who do not believe the same as you.
> 
> Thank you! You are very kind, patient and thoughtful and I appreciate your points.
> but the principles still apply and no opponent I know is going to be convinced otherwise.
> Your belief is not backed up by our current laws. Change your belief to wish or desire or goal or should be and you have a point.  However, as stated your beliefs are, respectfully, a fantasy.  You might as well be believing in unicorns.


in blue


----------



## Howey

Gadawg73 said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids.
> 
> I have never run away from anything at 6'5" and 280 lbs. Chasing QBs and cracking heads of fugitives was my hobby for 10 years. Got a full ride for 5 and paid big $$$ the other 5.
> 
> Am not scared of the gay boogeyman like milk weak sissies are.
> Govern yourself accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you're on our side, but....
> 
> I've known quite a few homos that fit that description,  even with kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No offense to anyone but I am not gay as I was not born that way.
Click to expand...


lol...and I didn't mean to imply you were. I just wanted to point out that many, many gays are "flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids."


And they're not lesbians before some smartass says something.


----------



## RKMBrown

JakeStarkey said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Windsor's finding is that the states cannot violate civilian civil liberties.
> 
> 14th trumphs, Sil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It says the opposite.
> 
> They can't violate civil liberties without first providing for due process.  IOW we were better off wrt liberties before the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Backwards, thinking.  None of the last 20 courts finding for marriage equality agree with you.
Click to expand...

Huh? Nah you just don't understand my statement. Due process is anything government says it is.  If they say due process is they pay you fair market value for your home when they take it, that's due process. If they say due process is a public vote on gay marriage when they take that away from you then that's due process.  If they say due process is Obama makes the decision to kill you with a drone attack then that's due process.  It sucks, but that's where we have been.

It's not the same type of due process we have for our criminal system.


----------



## RKMBrown

emilynghiem said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is that the laws restricting gays marriages should be thrown out by the court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I also agree that since Marriage is spiritual/religious, the state cannot enforce laws that impose on people's beliefs about marriage.
> 
> On that same note, neither can the state endorse laws that impose beliefs or bias
> that violate other people's beliefs.
> 
> So that is why the laws must be written carefully to be neutral
> and passed by consent of the people to ensure no biases are imposed.
> 
> If people object because their beliefs are violated, that means to go back and
> revise them to remove the bias causing objection. If this cannot be resolved
> through the state, then keep it private for the churches and people to decide.
> If they can reach an agreement, the state can endorse that; but cannot
> impose marriage laws that impose or discriminate against anyone's beliefs
> affected in that state.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It happens all the time.  If your beliefs on marriage are in opposition to the tyrannical majority you are screwed.


----------



## emilynghiem

RKMBrown said:


> Wrong. It happens all the time.  If your beliefs on marriage are in opposition to the tyrannical majority you are screwed.



B I N G O !! We have a winner! [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]

YES it happens all the time and doesn't make it right

YES it means the minority gets screwed

You are proof you are advanced and not backwards (as Jake got it backwards?)

Very few are willing to admit the system isn't perfect and is screwing some things up.
Even fewer are willing to try to fix those flaws.

The marriage equality advocates are willing to challenge the laws
because it leaves out gays

Is the public ready to enforce that both sides need to be represented.
Most people are saying this, but just for their own side.
Many people are saying it for both sides.

How many are ready to change govt to start recognizing BOTH sides?


----------



## emilynghiem

JakeStarkey said:


> Only a hater of liberties writes this garbage:
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Any violation of the Constitution harms all citizens, that particular judicial legislation directly harms me is irrelevant, it harms be because it further establishes that the courts can decree anything they want based on nothing but their own politics."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wish to punish inoffensive folks who want their liberties that don't hurt you in any way or fashion, only wishing to live their lives quietly.  But you hetero-fascists wish to judge them and damn them in the public's eye.
> 
> What you don't get is that you have been damning yourselves in the public's eyes for some time now.
> 
> You will lose because truth, justice, and the American way will prevail.
Click to expand...


??? What  [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]?
I read this the other way.

I read this as equally defending you and other minority beliefs you support!

So YES if YOU also believe YOU are being infringed upon or threatened
by some other group that is "overreaching,"
this interpretation would include YOUR right to equal protection
and not have Courts going with what is politically popular that is infringing on you,
knowingly or not.

What is being said here that doesn't also apply to Equally Protecting YOU
and all other minority beliefs, seen or unseen, from overreaching?

Am I reading this wrong?


----------



## RKMBrown

emilynghiem said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It happens all the time.  If your beliefs on marriage are in opposition to the tyrannical majority you are screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B I N G O !! We have a winner! [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]
> 
> YES it happens all the time and doesn't make it right
> 
> YES it means the minority gets screwed
> 
> You are proof you are advanced and not backwards (as Jake got it backwards?)
> 
> Very few are willing to admit the system isn't perfect and is screwing some things up.
> Even fewer are willing to try to fix those flaws.
> 
> The marriage equality advocates are willing to challenge the laws
> because it leaves out gays
> 
> Is the public ready to enforce that both sides need to be represented.
> Most people are saying this, but just for their own side.
> Many people are saying it for both sides.
> 
> How many are ready to change govt to start recognizing BOTH sides?
Click to expand...


I don't think the answer is to recognize both sides, I think the answer is to have our government leave both sides alone.

The only valid restriction is that the marriage be between consenting adults.  Two consenting adults of the same sex, consenting adults of opposite sexes, three consenting adults, ten consenting adults.  Whatever.

Further there should be no advantages thrown at the feet of married people to the exclusion of single people. Why should we shower riches on people who get married and thus punish people who do not get married? 

Less is more here.


----------



## emilynghiem

koshergrl said:


> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.



The people running churches must still abide by and cannot violate civil laws.
Being a 'religious institution' with its own rules for disciplining the members and leaders
does NOT justify
* covering up child abuse
* violating due process
* forbidding members from seeking medical help for a child, etc.

Because churches, like any other collective organization, have "greater influence and authority" than a single individual, we still have to make sure that "justice is not obstructed" if a civil or criminal violation occurs, or complaints of abuse or threats that still warrant SOME process of resolving the issue to prevent or correct any abuse by anyone.

I believe there should be more clear standards and process to address
religious, political and corporate abuses, where people are trained to 
respect civil process and conflict resolution to prevent abuses of power,
especially by collective institutions. Not just churches or corporations,
but also political parties and media.


----------



## emilynghiem

RKMBrown said:


> I don't think the answer is to recognize both sides, I think the answer is to have our government leave both sides alone.
> 
> The only valid restriction is that the marriage be between consenting adults.  Two consenting adults of the same sex, consenting adults of opposite sexes, three consenting adults, ten consenting adults.  Whatever.
> 
> Further there should be no advantages thrown at the feet of married people to the exclusion of single people. Why should we shower riches on people who get married and thus punish people who do not get married?
> 
> Less is more here.



YES! More Bingo! Across, up and down! 
We should open up a casino. This looks like a winning streak!


----------



## JakeStarkey

> I read this as equally defending you and other minority beliefs you support!



Yes, you are reading it wrongly.  

No one is constitutionally guaranteed to not be offended by others' opinions.  

No citizen has the constitutional right to prevent marriage equality,  whereas SCOTUS does, if it so wishes.

Marriage equality injures no one, has not injured or harmed anyone's civil or personal liberties on this Board.  No one on the Board has posted a compelling interest or reason that marriage equality will harm or injure the citizenry.  The statistics that have been posted indicate that adults sexually assault children, whether heterosexual or homosexual, at almost the same rate, while, in fact, the overwhelming number of assaults are by heterosexual adults.

No constitutional issue of civil or personal liberty exists to deny marriage equality.


----------



## Kosh

emilynghiem said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the answer is to recognize both sides, I think the answer is to have our government leave both sides alone.
> 
> The only valid restriction is that the marriage be between consenting adults.  Two consenting adults of the same sex, consenting adults of opposite sexes, three consenting adults, ten consenting adults.  Whatever.
> 
> Further there should be no advantages thrown at the feet of married people to the exclusion of single people. Why should we shower riches on people who get married and thus punish people who do not get married?
> 
> Less is more here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES! More Bingo! Across, up and down!
> We should open up a casino. This looks like a winning streak!
Click to expand...


Gee that is what I have been saying all along!

Get the government out of the business of "Marriage".


----------



## JakeStarkey

Why?  Call it marriage or civil union, the govt will still be involved.

And marriage equality is open to hetero and LGBT.

It is not the sole purview of ultra social conservative religion.

There are Christian churches that wed LGBT now: can't take 'marriage' away from them.


----------



## Kosh

JakeStarkey said:


> Why?  Call it marriage or civil union, the govt will still be involved.
> 
> And marriage equality is open to hetero and LGBT.
> 
> It is not the sole purview of ultra social conservative religion.
> 
> There are Christian churches that wed LGBT now: can't take 'marriage' away from them.



Ok I realize that your racist far left Obama drone programming will not let you see anything other than government involvement.

How will the government be involved if they get out of the business of "Marriage"?


----------



## JakeStarkey

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Call it marriage or civil union, the govt will still be involved.
> 
> And marriage equality is open to hetero and LGBT.
> 
> It is not the sole purview of ultra social conservative religion.
> 
> There are Christian churches that wed LGBT now: can't take 'marriage' away from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will the government be involved if they get out of the business of "Marriage"?
Click to expand...


It won't because it can't, because of the perqs and responsibilities and the reciprocity that protects members of families from being abused by other members.

It won't because American churches who marry LGBT will continue to marry them.

You can't stop them.


----------



## Kosh

JakeStarkey said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Call it marriage or civil union, the govt will still be involved.
> 
> And marriage equality is open to hetero and LGBT.
> 
> It is not the sole purview of ultra social conservative religion.
> 
> There are Christian churches that wed LGBT now: can't take 'marriage' away from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will the government be involved if they get out of the business of "Marriage"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It won't because it can't, because of the perqs and responsibilities and the reciprocity that protects members of families from being abused by other members.
> 
> It won't because American churches who marry LGBT will continue to marry them.
> 
> You can't stop them.
Click to expand...


More racist far left Obama drone propaganda!

Yes I know the far left wants government to control every aspects of a person life. That is no secret. And yes you can get government out of "Marriage", but the problem is that the racist far left Obama drones will not allow this to happen.


----------



## JakeStarkey

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will the government be involved if they get out of the business of "Marriage"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It won't because it can't, because of the perqs and responsibilities and the reciprocity that protects members of families from being abused by other members.
> 
> It won't because American churches who marry LGBT will continue to marry them.
> 
> You can't stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More *racist *far left Obama drone propaganda!
Click to expand...


What idiocy.  Neither far left, left, center left, center, center right, right, or far right would ever get government out of marriage.

Do you live in an echo chamber?


----------



## Silhouette

Howey said:


> .. I just wanted to point out that many, many gays are "flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids."
> 
> 
> And they're not lesbians before some smartass says something.




Well some lesbians do look act and talk like that; about half of them anyway.  Kind of makes you wonder what their partners are really attracted to.  Plenty of closeted heterosexuality in the homo camp from all appearances.

Of all those guys you mentioned though, how come 86% of them are voting that gay marriage should not be forced on churches by the fed?

Look at the poll at the top of this page.  That's how many people feel gay marriage should not be forced upon people.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> Look at the poll at the top of this page.  That's how many people feel gay marriage should not be forced upon people.


Forced upon Churches.  Exactly how many times must I correct you on this?


----------



## Gadawg73

Howey said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you're on our side, but....
> 
> I've known quite a few homos that fit that description,  even with kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No offense to anyone but I am not gay as I was not born that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol...and I didn't mean to imply you were. I just wanted to point out that many, many gays are "flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids."
> 
> 
> And they're not lesbians before some smartass says something.
Click to expand...


I totally agree with that 100% and that is one of the reasons I support their rights now. Did not fully see your point.
I played with a guy that came out years later in his mid 30s. He fits that definition to a T.
Guy coached high school ball in another state and he stayed on a few years and just teaches there now.
But he has no kids as he never dated women other than a few in college but looking back that was strange.


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >> How are your liberties "bullied" or "affected" by the courts ruling gay folk can marry?
> 
> They are not.  FYI I'm a libertarian leaning conservative.  Thought you knew that.  My opinion is that the laws restricting gays marriages should be thrown out by the court.
> 
> >> That claim would be "leaning libtard" wimpy.  Unlike you, I can articulate my opinions without guessing.
> 
> Again, not my fault you don't know how to use the word bullying.   But it is apparent that you are practiced at the art of bullying.  For example, by using terms like wimpy, and telling people they can't articulate their opinions without guessing.  You're not the only one that played football and can carry themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But it is apparent that you are practiced at the art of bullying"
> You are full of shit and do not know me.
> I have never, ever bullied anyone in my life. Defended myself apprehending felon criminals fleeing the justice system. You may support them but someone has to go get them. And when they attacked me I defended myself.
> And never bullied anyone on the football field also. Not even a late hit 15 yard penalty in 15 years on the field.
> So stick to the subject Brown because you are an Ofer bust in your weak attempts to bash me.
> I do not know you and do not make childish claims about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you play football without applying force? You think late hits are the only way to apply force on the football field?  Are you mentally handicapped?
Click to expand...


"Playing foot ball is bullying people." Brownie 

"applying force" in football is "bullying people" Brownie  

Brownie believes playing football and "applying force" is bullying people.

And Brownie claims I am "mentally handicapped"

Brownie can not articulate his points so he goes with the trash talk. 
Always knew when I had my man beat, or bullied as Brownie calls it, when the trash talk started.


----------



## GreenBean

Gadawg73 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "But it is apparent that you are practiced at the art of bullying"
> You are full of shit and do not know me.
> I have never, ever bullied anyone in my life. Defended myself apprehending felon criminals fleeing the justice system. You may support them but someone has to go get them. And when they attacked me I defended myself.
> And never bullied anyone on the football field also. Not even a late hit 15 yard penalty in 15 years on the field.
> So stick to the subject Brown because you are an Ofer bust in your weak attempts to bash me.
> I do not know you and do not make childish claims about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you play football without applying force? You think late hits are the only way to apply force on the football field?  Are you mentally handicapped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Playing foot ball is bullying people." Brownie
> 
> "applying force" in football is "bullying people" Brownie
> 
> Brownie believes playing football and "applying force" is bullying people.
> 
> And Brownie claims I am "mentally handicapped"
> 
> Brownie can not articulate his points so he goes with the trash talk.
> Always knew when I had my man beat, or bullied as Brownie calls it, when the trash talk started.
Click to expand...


He's not the one trying to pass himself off as internet tough guy - you are - you seem to think claiming you're 6'5" and 200 + lbs  - is supposed to intimidate people  or somehow garner you some extra respect -* it ain't happening candy ass - *this is the internet - you earn your laurels by the quality of your posts -not by some fantasy life you built in your overly vivid imagination  - "Stay Thirsty My Friend"


----------



## Unkotare




----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Why should we shower riches on people who get married and thus punish people who do not get married? ...





Because it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children.


----------



## Unkotare

Kosh said:


> Get the government out of the business of "Marriage".





You can't. Marriage is a public contract. Without the support of enforcement, contracts have no validity. If that circumstance were applied to marriage, then the same argument could be made to render all contacts unenforceable. In this specific case, even in this day and age, women would largely be far more disproportionately ill affected. 

Not gonna happen. Let's be practical.


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "But it is apparent that you are practiced at the art of bullying"
> You are full of shit and do not know me.
> I have never, ever bullied anyone in my life. Defended myself apprehending felon criminals fleeing the justice system. You may support them but someone has to go get them. And when they attacked me I defended myself.
> And never bullied anyone on the football field also. Not even a late hit 15 yard penalty in 15 years on the field.
> So stick to the subject Brown because you are an Ofer bust in your weak attempts to bash me.
> I do not know you and do not make childish claims about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you play football without applying force? You think late hits are the only way to apply force on the football field?  Are you mentally handicapped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Playing foot ball is bullying people." Brownie
> 
> "applying force" in football is "bullying people" Brownie
> 
> Brownie believes playing football and "applying force" is bullying people.
> 
> And Brownie claims I am "mentally handicapped"
> 
> Brownie can not articulate his points so he goes with the trash talk.
> Always knew when I had my man beat, or bullied as Brownie calls it, when the trash talk started.
Click to expand...


Listen, retard.  Can you effing read?  How many times do I have to show you the definition of bullying? I effing put in it bold once already for you numb nuts.  Affect by means of force or coercion.  The line backer bullied the QB into submission by sacking him 5times in the first quarter.  Run your own company and you can't frigging read a simple definition with even a modicum of comprehension? Besides bullying which word do you not understand?  Affect? Means? Force? Coercion? Which one?

bul·lied bul·ly·ing
transitive verb
1:  to treat abusively
2:  *to affect by means of force or coercion*
Bully - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## Tuatara

PaintMyHouse said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the poll at the top of this page.  That's how many people feel gay marriage should not be forced upon people.
> 
> 
> 
> Forced upon Churches.  Exactly how many times must I correct you on this?
Click to expand...

I'm more liberal here than most. I support gay marriages but I don't think churches should be forced to marry anyone.


----------



## Silhouette

Tuatara said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the poll at the top of this page.  That's how many people feel gay marriage should not be forced upon people.
> 
> 
> 
> Forced upon Churches.  Exactly how many times must I correct you on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm more liberal here than most. I support gay marriages but *I don't think churches should be forced to marry anyone*.
Click to expand...


Then why should voters be forced to allow anyone to marry?  I suppose you support that churches must be made to marry blacks, jews or Latvians, right?


----------



## Seawytch

emilynghiem said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is that the laws restricting gays marriages should be thrown out by the court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I also agree that since Marriage is spiritual/religious, the state cannot enforce laws that impose on people's beliefs about marriage.
> 
> On that same note, neither can the state endorse laws that impose beliefs or bias
> that violate other people's beliefs.
> 
> So that is why the laws must be written carefully to be neutral
> and passed by consent of the people to ensure no biases are imposed.
> 
> If people object because their beliefs are violated, that means to go back and
> revise them to remove the bias causing objection. If this cannot be resolved
> through the state, then keep it private for the churches and people to decide.
> If they can reach an agreement, the state can endorse that; but cannot
> impose marriage laws that impose or discriminate against anyone's beliefs
> affected in that state.
Click to expand...


Civil Marriage:_ a marriage solemnized as a civil contract without religious ceremony._

Religious Marriage: _When clergy or congregations of religious faith communities marry couples it is a religious rite/ceremony, not a civil contract. Clergy and congregations choose whom they marry. They are not compelled or required to accept the government's definition of marriage._

There is a *distinct *difference between the two. There is nothing to reconcile. If some people don't like gays using the word marriage, then it is up to those individuals to petition their government to change the name.


----------



## Seawytch

Kosh said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the answer is to recognize both sides, I think the answer is to have our government leave both sides alone.
> 
> The only valid restriction is that the marriage be between consenting adults.  Two consenting adults of the same sex, consenting adults of opposite sexes, three consenting adults, ten consenting adults.  Whatever.
> 
> Further there should be no advantages thrown at the feet of married people to the exclusion of single people. Why should we shower riches on people who get married and thus punish people who do not get married?
> 
> Less is more here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES! More Bingo! Across, up and down!
> We should open up a casino. This looks like a winning streak!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee that is what I have been saying all along!
> 
> Get the government out of the business of "Marriage".
Click to expand...


And I'm sure you've contacted your legislator and told him to remove all the benefits and protections associated with Civil Marriage, right?

*Tax Benefits*
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

*Estate Planning Benefits*
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

*Government Benefits*
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

*Employment Benefits*
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

*Medical Benefits*
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

*Death Benefits*
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
*
*Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Etc...


----------



## Seawytch

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we shower riches on people who get married and thus punish people who do not get married? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children.
Click to expand...


But these benefits and protections are not relegated only to those that procreate. Gays and lesbians also provide stable homes in which to raise children.


----------



## Seawytch

Tuatara said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the poll at the top of this page.  That's how many people feel gay marriage should not be forced upon people.
> 
> 
> 
> Forced upon Churches.  Exactly how many times must I correct you on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm more liberal here than most. I support gay marriages but I don't think churches should be forced to marry anyone.
Click to expand...


I'm more liberal than most and gay and I know churches will never be forced by the government to marry anyone. They will by public opinion just as they always have.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GreenBean ironically writes, "this is the internet - you earn your laurels by the quality of your posts" and wondering why everyone laughs at him on the Board


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forced upon Churches.  Exactly how many times must I correct you on this?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more liberal here than most. I support gay marriages but *I don't think churches should be forced to marry anyone*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why should voters be forced to allow anyone to marry?  I suppose you support that churches must be made to marry blacks, jews or Latvians, right?
Click to expand...


Another statement by Sil that demonstrates her constitutional illiteracy.

The 21st straight ruling for gay marriage was made in Ky yesterday.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we shower riches on people who get married and thus punish people who do not get married? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children.
Click to expand...

So productive single people are not in the interest of society at large? They don't also procreate?  They don't also provide stable homes in which children are raised? 

I know plenty of married couples that do not have children. I know plenty of marred couples that no longer have children in their home.  I know plenty of married couples who do not have stable homes.


----------



## Andylusion

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're against the 13th amendment then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty dumb question.
> 
> Who led the fight against slavery?  Oh right... Christians....  not just any Christians, but specifically Bible believing Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's funny. Who led the fight FOR slavery? Oh right...Christians. not just any Christians, but specifically Bible believing Christians (as opposed to Christians that don't believe in the Bible? LOLZ!)
Click to expand...


Slavery has existed for thousands on thousands of years, long long before Christianity even existed.   Sorry, you are wrong.



> The Bible supports slavery. (lie) So you should opposed the 13th amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what the 13th amendment has to do with racism. You must be confusing it with the 14th.
Click to expand...


I already said on this thread, that I'm not going to debate the Bible on this this.

Why?  Because I don't care what your private interpretation of the Bible is.   Not being insulting...  just transparent.

The name on this thread is:
"Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"

Not "What is your view of verses that discuss slavery in the Bible?"

Now if you want to start a thread on slavery in the Bible, and how it relates to the 18th century version of slavery, start a thread on that, and start with Exodus 21:16.    Go look that one up.

But for me, here, now... I don't give a crap.   Figure it out yourself if you know the Bible so well.

Still don't care... still not accommodating homosexuality in the church, because the Bible says clearly, it's a sin.   That is it.


----------



## Andylusion

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we shower riches on people who get married and thus punish people who do not get married? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So productive single people are not in the interest of society at large? They don't also procreate?  They don't also provide stable homes in which children are raised?
> 
> I know plenty of married couples that do not have children. I know plenty of marred couples that no longer have children in their home.  I know plenty of married couples who do not have stable homes.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah, they pop out kids in broken homes with screwed up situations.







Now let's think about that a second.... which family structure should a wise and thoughtful society encourage?

How many prisoners grew up with both parents? | Family Inequality

Citation of numerous different research, which all show that prisons are filled primarily with people from single parent homes.

www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf

This 2002 report shows that 60% or more came from single parent homes.
Additionally, it suggest that most of the people in prison, are themselves part of broken, or single parent homes.

Married and Widowed, only 16%.   Never married, Divorced, Separated, make up the other 84%.

Again, which family structure should we as a wise society, encourage?

This isn't rocket science.

Kids who grow up in non-traditional families....

63 percent of teen suicides.
90 percent of homeless juveniles and runaways.
71 percent of high school dropouts.
75 percent of all drug users.
85 percent of behavioral disorders.

"well I know Timmy and he turned out fine!"

Right, and the exception doesn't disprove that trend.

"But but! That single person had a stable home!"

Doesn't matter.  I know single people with stable homes too, and their kids are nutz.   Parenting a child is not a solo sport.  It's very very hard for a stable intact married couple to do.   Single, it's nearly impossible.    Not totally impossible.... but we've seen the numbers, and kids from single parent homes, have terrible track records.

That doesn't mean that Traditional Marriage Families, are all perfect.... of course not.  Nothing in this world is a guarantee for perfection.    But I know MANY kids who grew up in families where the parents really didn't like each other, and even screamed and yelled at each other... and the kids turned out..... fine.    Why?  Because they still had an intact home, and a Father, and a Mother.

The idea that if mommy and daddy don't like each other, billy will turn into a psycho, is wrong.   Billy can handle that.   It's when mommy and daddy break up, destroy the family, and then daddy has girl friends, and mommy has boy friends, and you have step fathers, and step mothers, and step brothers, and step sisters, and then billy grows up to be a psycho, doing drugs, and an alcoholic, and if he's not committing crime and in prison, he's jumping off a bridge.

Then we wonder why our society is all messed up.


----------



## RKMBrown

Androw said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children.
> 
> 
> 
> So productive single people are not in the interest of society at large? They don't also procreate?  They don't also provide stable homes in which children are raised?
> 
> I know plenty of married couples that do not have children. I know plenty of marred couples that no longer have children in their home.  I know plenty of married couples who do not have stable homes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, they pop out kids in broken homes with screwed up situations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now let's think about that a second.... which family structure should a wise and thoughtful society encourage?
> 
> How many prisoners grew up with both parents? | Family Inequality
> 
> Citation of numerous different research, which all show that prisons are filled primarily with people from single parent homes.
> 
> www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf
> 
> This 2002 report shows that 60% or more came from single parent homes.
> Additionally, it suggest that most of the people in prison, are themselves part of broken, or single parent homes.
> 
> Married and Widowed, only 16%.   Never married, Divorced, Separated, make up the other 84%.
> 
> Again, which family structure should we as a wise society, encourage?
> 
> This isn't rocket science.
> 
> Kids who grow up in non-traditional families....
> 
> 63 percent of teen suicides.
> 90 percent of homeless juveniles and runaways.
> 71 percent of high school dropouts.
> 75 percent of all drug users.
> 85 percent of behavioral disorders.
> 
> "well I know Timmy and he turned out fine!"
> 
> Right, and the exception doesn't disprove that trend.
> 
> "But but! That single person had a stable home!"
> 
> Doesn't matter.  I know single people with stable homes too, and their kids are nutz.   Parenting a child is not a solo sport.  It's very very hard for a stable intact married couple to do.   Single, it's nearly impossible.    Not totally impossible.... but we've seen the numbers, and kids from single parent homes, have terrible track records.
> 
> That doesn't mean that Traditional Marriage Families, are all perfect.... of course not.  Nothing in this world is a guarantee for perfection.    But I know MANY kids who grew up in families where the parents really didn't like each other, and even screamed and yelled at each other... and the kids turned out..... fine.    Why?  Because they still had an intact home, and a Father, and a Mother.
> 
> The idea that if mommy and daddy don't like each other, billy will turn into a psycho, is wrong.   Billy can handle that.   It's when mommy and daddy break up, destroy the family, and then daddy has girl friends, and mommy has boy friends, and you have step fathers, and step mothers, and step brothers, and step sisters, and then billy grows up to be a psycho, doing drugs, and an alcoholic, and if he's not committing crime and in prison, he's jumping off a bridge.
> 
> Then we wonder why our society is all messed up.
Click to expand...


How is taxing single people higher than married people with kids going to fix broken homes?


----------



## Andylusion

RKMBrown said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, they pop out kids in broken homes with screwed up situations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now let's think about that a second.... which family structure should a wise and thoughtful society encourage?
> 
> How many prisoners grew up with both parents? | Family Inequality
> 
> Citation of numerous different research, which all show that prisons are filled primarily with people from single parent homes.
> 
> www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf
> 
> This 2002 report shows that 60% or more came from single parent homes.
> Additionally, it suggest that most of the people in prison, are themselves part of broken, or single parent homes.
> 
> Married and Widowed, only 16%.   Never married, Divorced, Separated, make up the other 84%.
> 
> Again, which family structure should we as a wise society, encourage?
> 
> This isn't rocket science.
> 
> Kids who grow up in non-traditional families....
> 
> 63 percent of teen suicides.
> 90 percent of homeless juveniles and runaways.
> 71 percent of high school dropouts.
> 75 percent of all drug users.
> 85 percent of behavioral disorders.
> 
> "well I know Timmy and he turned out fine!"
> 
> Right, and the exception doesn't disprove that trend.
> 
> "But but! That single person had a stable home!"
> 
> Doesn't matter.  I know single people with stable homes too, and their kids are nutz.   Parenting a child is not a solo sport.  It's very very hard for a stable intact married couple to do.   Single, it's nearly impossible.    Not totally impossible.... but we've seen the numbers, and kids from single parent homes, have terrible track records.
> 
> That doesn't mean that Traditional Marriage Families, are all perfect.... of course not.  Nothing in this world is a guarantee for perfection.    But I know MANY kids who grew up in families where the parents really didn't like each other, and even screamed and yelled at each other... and the kids turned out..... fine.    Why?  Because they still had an intact home, and a Father, and a Mother.
> 
> The idea that if mommy and daddy don't like each other, billy will turn into a psycho, is wrong.   Billy can handle that.   It's when mommy and daddy break up, destroy the family, and then daddy has girl friends, and mommy has boy friends, and you have step fathers, and step mothers, and step brothers, and step sisters, and then billy grows up to be a psycho, doing drugs, and an alcoholic, and if he's not committing crime and in prison, he's jumping off a bridge.
> 
> Then we wonder why our society is all messed up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is taxing single people higher than married people with kids going to fix broken homes?
Click to expand...


How is taxing uninsured people higher than insured people, going to fix uninsured people?


----------



## RKMBrown

Androw said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, they pop out kids in broken homes with screwed up situations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now let's think about that a second.... which family structure should a wise and thoughtful society encourage?
> 
> How many prisoners grew up with both parents? | Family Inequality
> 
> Citation of numerous different research, which all show that prisons are filled primarily with people from single parent homes.
> 
> www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf
> 
> This 2002 report shows that 60% or more came from single parent homes.
> Additionally, it suggest that most of the people in prison, are themselves part of broken, or single parent homes.
> 
> Married and Widowed, only 16%.   Never married, Divorced, Separated, make up the other 84%.
> 
> Again, which family structure should we as a wise society, encourage?
> 
> This isn't rocket science.
> 
> Kids who grow up in non-traditional families....
> 
> 63 percent of teen suicides.
> 90 percent of homeless juveniles and runaways.
> 71 percent of high school dropouts.
> 75 percent of all drug users.
> 85 percent of behavioral disorders.
> 
> "well I know Timmy and he turned out fine!"
> 
> Right, and the exception doesn't disprove that trend.
> 
> "But but! That single person had a stable home!"
> 
> Doesn't matter.  I know single people with stable homes too, and their kids are nutz.   Parenting a child is not a solo sport.  It's very very hard for a stable intact married couple to do.   Single, it's nearly impossible.    Not totally impossible.... but we've seen the numbers, and kids from single parent homes, have terrible track records.
> 
> That doesn't mean that Traditional Marriage Families, are all perfect.... of course not.  Nothing in this world is a guarantee for perfection.    But I know MANY kids who grew up in families where the parents really didn't like each other, and even screamed and yelled at each other... and the kids turned out..... fine.    Why?  Because they still had an intact home, and a Father, and a Mother.
> 
> The idea that if mommy and daddy don't like each other, billy will turn into a psycho, is wrong.   Billy can handle that.   It's when mommy and daddy break up, destroy the family, and then daddy has girl friends, and mommy has boy friends, and you have step fathers, and step mothers, and step brothers, and step sisters, and then billy grows up to be a psycho, doing drugs, and an alcoholic, and if he's not committing crime and in prison, he's jumping off a bridge.
> 
> Then we wonder why our society is all messed up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is taxing single people higher than married people with kids going to fix broken homes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is taxing uninsured people higher than insured people, going to fix uninsured people?
Click to expand...


Who said uninsured people are broken?


----------



## Andylusion

RKMBrown said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is taxing single people higher than married people with kids going to fix broken homes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is taxing uninsured people higher than insured people, going to fix uninsured people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said uninsured people are broken?
Click to expand...


How is taxing uninsured people higher than insured people, going to fix the problem of uninsured people?


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we shower riches on people who get married and thus punish people who do not get married? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So productive single people are not in the interest of society at large? They don't also procreate?  They don't also provide stable homes in which children are raised?
Click to expand...


I didn't say any of those things, I said: "It is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children."


----------



## Unkotare

Almost no couples with children who stay unmarried stay together, study claims - Telegraph


The Communitarian Network


Report Finds More Unmarried Couples Are Having Babies | TIME.com


----------



## Silhouette

Unkotare said:


> I didn't say any of those things, I said: "It is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children."



That certainly is what Utah is arguing.  And now that they also have a religious edge to lever their objections to gay marriage with [Hobby Lobby verdict], and the real concerns for orphans placed in the state's care and trust: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html Utah has even more of a case for the Supreme Court.

That and 86% of pollers here saying they don't think gay marriage should be forced on people's convictions against it..  That would include voters.


----------



## BillyP

What if you're homosexual and black? Would a church accomodate you? Or be labelled racist?


----------



## Silhouette

BillyP said:


> What if you're homosexual and black? Would a church accomodate you? Or be labelled racist?



No, it's your homosexuality they can reject because it's a behavior [not an inborn state of being] that they cannot promote as a matter of mortal sin for doing so.  The fact that you happen to be black isn't relevant here.


----------



## Andylusion

Silhouette said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say any of those things, I said: "It is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That certainly is what Utah is arguing.  And now that they also have a religious edge to lever their objections to gay marriage with [Hobby Lobby verdict], and the real concerns for orphans placed in the state's care and trust: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html Utah has even more of a case for the Supreme Court.
> 
> That and 86% of pollers here saying they don't think gay marriage should be forced on people's convictions against it..  That would include voters.
Click to expand...


I'm not yelling at you, I just hate the way the Hobby Lobby verdict is portrayed.

Gah....    The Hobby Lobby verdict was simply to avoid forcing companies to pay for things that are not health illnesses issues.   Being pregnant is not a 'health illness'.    It's not a religious issues.  It's a "pull your head out of your butt" issue.

Worse, it's not even an important issue.   Have you been the to drug store?   Contraception is not that expensive.  Unless your monthly budget is $200, contraception if you choose to use it, shouldn't even be a budget item  (not that completely idiotic Americans ever budget anymore).

Making health care cover contraception, would drive up health care premiums by hundreds of dollars..  It would be like demanding that they cover Aspirin, and Sudafed.

Do American's not understand 'math', that you want insurance to cover trillions of dollars in non-health-care needs, and yet think this won't increase premiums?    What is wrong with you people?

And by the way.....   the research routinely shows that women who get pregnant are often more healthy, and have less health problems, than women who don't.   Just like women who do not breast feed, have a higher chance of cancer than those who don't.

So now you want premium payers, to pay for something, that will cause more health costs later on.    I thought you idiots on the left favored preventing health problems.   Apparently not.   Or only when it requires the public to pay more money.


----------



## Andylusion

BillyP said:


> What if you're homosexual and black? Would a church accomodate you? Or be labelled racist?



I would wager that some elements of the left, would try and portray it that way.   I don't care.  They would be wrong.


----------



## Silhouette

Androw said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you're homosexual and black? Would a church accomodate you? Or be labelled racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would wager that some elements of the left, would try and portray it that way.   I don't care.  They would be wrong.
Click to expand...


Race and sexual behavior are not even in the same ballpark.  If I were black I'd be heatedly-offended by the constant erroneous comparison.  I know they want the 14th sooooooo badly to apply to their cult.  But insulting black people as a rung in the ladder of misplaced hopes is not acceptable at all.


----------



## Tuatara

Silhouette said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forced upon Churches.  Exactly how many times must I correct you on this?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more liberal here than most. I support gay marriages but *I don't think churches should be forced to marry anyone*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why should voters be forced to allow anyone to marry?  I suppose you support that churches must be made to marry blacks, jews or Latvians, right?
Click to expand...

Churches can marry whomever they do and don't want. If a church refuses to marry you, then find another establishment that will. There are many other options.


----------



## Silhouette

Tuatara said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more liberal here than most. I support gay marriages but *I don't think churches should be forced to marry anyone*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why should voters be forced to allow anyone to marry?  I suppose you support that churches must be made to marry blacks, jews or Latvians, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches can marry whomever they do and don't want. If a church refuses to marry you, then find another establishment that will. There are many other options.
Click to expand...


That's a very clever dodge of the point I was making.

That being: that the poster DOES believe that churches should be forced to marry blacks, jews or Latvians without grounds for refusal [as to the 14th Amendment] but that even he concedes that when it comes to homosexual behaviors [which he inadvertently lets the cat out of the bad he agrees don't qualify for the 14th], a church may object within their legal rights to do so.


----------



## Tuatara

Silhouette said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why should voters be forced to allow anyone to marry?  I suppose you support that churches must be made to marry blacks, jews or Latvians, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Churches can marry whomever they do and don't want. If a church refuses to marry you, then find another establishment that will. There are many other options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a very clever dodge of the point I was making.
> 
> That being: that the poster DOES believe that churches should be forced to marry blacks, jews or Latvians without grounds for refusal [as to the 14th Amendment] but that even he concedes that when it comes to homosexual behaviors [which he inadvertently lets the cat out of the bad he agrees don't qualify for the 14th], a church may object within their legal rights to do so.
Click to expand...

I did not say any of that. Also, where exactly is this dodge?


----------



## Silhouette

The original flow of conversation:



> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more liberal here than most. I support gay marriages but *I don't think churches should be forced to marry anyone*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why should voters be forced to allow anyone to marry?  I suppose you support that churches must be made to marry blacks, jews or Latvians, right?
Click to expand...


Followed by:



> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you're homosexual and black? Would a church accomodate you? Or be labelled racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's your homosexuality they can reject because it's a behavior [not an inborn state of being] that they cannot promote as a matter of mortal sin for doing so.  The fact that you happen to be black isn't relevant here.
Click to expand...


Followed by:



Androw said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you're homosexual and black? Would a church accomodate you? Or be labelled racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would wager that some elements of the left, would try and portray it that way.   I don't care.  They would be wrong.
Click to expand...


Followed by:



Tuatara said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches can marry whomever they do and don't want. If a church refuses to marry you, then find another establishment that will. There are many other options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very clever dodge of the point I was making.
> 
> That being: that the poster DOES believe that churches should be forced to marry blacks, jews or Latvians without grounds for refusal [as to the 14th Amendment] but that even he concedes that when it comes to homosexual behaviors [which he inadvertently lets the cat out of the bad he agrees don't qualify for the 14th], a church may object within their legal rights to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not say any of that. Also, where exactly is this dodge?
Click to expand...


Either you missed my point on purpose or by accident.  In either event, I cleared up the lack of clarity for you here:



> That's a very clever dodge of the point I was making.
> 
> That being: that the poster DOES believe that churches should be forced to marry blacks, jews or Latvians without grounds for refusal [as to the 14th Amendment] but that even he concedes that when it comes to homosexual behaviors [which he inadvertently lets the cat out of the bad he agrees don't qualify for the 14th], a church may object within their legal rights to do so.



You're welcome.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*That's funny. Who led the fight FOR slavery? Oh right...Christians. not just any Christians, but specifically Bible believing Christians (as opposed to Christians that don't believe in the Bible? LOLZ!)*
How inappropriate without referring to the good Christians who supported slavery, who split the Baptist and Methodist and other denominations in defense of slavery.

Keep your mouth shut so we don't really know if you are a fool.  That's no ad hom , just a very wise observation.


----------



## JakeStarkey

all of you have the right to believe as you will

so do your opponents, and they will treat you as you treat them

Silhouette the Ad Hommer, I challenge you to set the standard from now on for worthy discussion


----------



## Yurt

JakeStarkey said:


> all of you have the right to believe as you will
> 
> so do your opponents, and they will treat you as you treat them
> 
> Silhouette the Ad Hommer, I challenge you to set the standard from now on for worthy discussion



you mean like this:



JakeStarkey said:


> GreenBean ironically writes, "this is the internet - you earn your laurels by the quality of your posts" and wondering why everyone laughs at him on the Board


----------



## Mathbud1

candycorn said:


> If the authority empowered to "rent" out a church sign an agreement with a couple, they should honor the agreement regardless of their sexual orientation.



I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here. Who rents a church? And in what situation would they "sign an agreement?"


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> all of you have the right to believe as you will
> 
> so do your opponents, and they will treat you as you treat them
> 
> Silhouette the Ad Hommer, I challenge you to set the standard from now on for worthy discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean like this:
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean ironically writes, "this is the internet - you earn your laurels by the quality of your posts" and wondering why everyone laughs at him on the Board
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Why is everyone laughing at him right now, including you?

Do you condemn him for his recent postings?


----------



## RKMBrown

Androw said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is taxing uninsured people higher than insured people, going to fix uninsured people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said uninsured people are broken?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is taxing uninsured people higher than insured people, going to fix the problem of uninsured people?
Click to expand...


Who said uninsured people are a problem?


----------



## Redfish

Tuatara said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more liberal here than most. I support gay marriages but *I don't think churches should be forced to marry anyone*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why should voters be forced to allow anyone to marry?  I suppose you support that churches must be made to marry blacks, jews or Latvians, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches can marry whomever they do and don't want. If a church refuses to marry you, then find another establishment that will. There are many other options.
Click to expand...


Thought control does not work that way-----------its not about freedom -------------- its about government mandated societal acceptance of a lifestyle that a majority of people in the world find aberant and abnormal.


----------



## emilynghiem

JakeStarkey said:


> I read this as equally defending you and other minority beliefs you support!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are reading it wrongly.
> 
> No one is constitutionally guaranteed to not be offended by others' opinions.
> 
> No citizen has the constitutional right to prevent marriage equality,  whereas SCOTUS does, if it so wishes.
> 
> Marriage equality injures no one, has not injured or harmed anyone's civil or personal liberties on this Board.  No one on the Board has posted a compelling interest or reason that marriage equality will harm or injure the citizenry.  The statistics that have been posted indicate that adults sexually assault children, whether heterosexual or homosexual, at almost the same rate, while, in fact, the overwhelming number of assaults are by heterosexual adults.
> 
> No constitutional issue of civil or personal liberty exists to deny marriage equality.
Click to expand...


Correct when the policies are within private practices.

That is why Kosh RKMBrown Kaz and I say to get marriage out of the public laws.
Stick to just the civil contracts that are neutral, as RKMB spelled out for example.

This is like the difference between using
"religious freedom" to cover Islam, etc.
or changing the First Amendment to specify "Islam Christianity or Atheism" and cause a huge blowout over "imposing or leaving one out"!

Keep public laws NEUTRAL and there is no issue.
You can do what you want in private, and
exercise the same ability to make contracts by NOT specifying gender at all!


----------



## emilynghiem

JakeStarkey said:


> *That's funny. Who led the fight FOR slavery? Oh right...Christians. not just any Christians, but specifically Bible believing Christians (as opposed to Christians that don't believe in the Bible? LOLZ!)*
> How inappropriate without referring to the good Christians who supported slavery, who split the Baptist and Methodist and other denominations in defense of slavery.
> 
> Keep your mouth shut so we don't really know if you are a fool.  That's no ad hom , just a very wise observation.



Who are you referring to [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]?

And it was also the Quaker Christians who pushed for abolition.

There are Christians on both sides of the death penalty, prolife and prochoice,
immigration amnesty or responsibility for lawbreaking, 
the homosexuality issue and marriage issues.

The real issue I look at is WHO is willing to work with BOTH sides
to form consensus -- agreement on law joined by Conscience or
as "neighbors joined in Christ." The narrow gate of righteousness where
all sides AGREE but very few shall find.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children.
> 
> 
> 
> So productive single people are not in the interest of society at large? They don't also procreate?  They don't also provide stable homes in which children are raised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say any of those things, I said: "It is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children."
Click to expand...


If you did not mean "it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children" over other something else then it is meaningless.  You might have just said it is in the interest of society to promote stuff like procreation, or stable homes, or raising children.  To which my questions still apply why do I have to be married to procreate, have stable homes, and raise children?  If two parents are better than one, why not 3 parents?  Why not hand out a triple bonus award for having two wives?


----------



## JakeStarkey

emilynghiem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That's funny. Who led the fight FOR slavery? Oh right...Christians. not just any Christians, but specifically Bible believing Christians (as opposed to Christians that don't believe in the Bible? LOLZ!)*
> How inappropriate without referring to the good Christians who supported slavery, who split the Baptist and Methodist and other denominations in defense of slavery.
> 
> Keep your mouth shut so we don't really know if you are a fool.  That's no ad hom , just a very wise observation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you referring to [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]?
> 
> And it was also the Quaker Christians who pushed for abolition.
> 
> There are Christians on both sides of the death penalty, prolife and prochoice,
> immigration amnesty or responsibility for lawbreaking,
> the homosexuality issue and marriage issues.
> 
> The real issue I look at is WHO is willing to work with BOTH sides
> to form consensus -- agreement on law joined by Conscience or
> as "neighbors joined in Christ." The narrow gate of righteousness where
> all sides AGREE but very few shall find.
Click to expand...


What I am not accepting from the far right is their narrow one-sided nonsense.

They talk about the good Christians that supported abolition while ignoring that a solid evangelical grouping  argued unequivocally that God approved of slavery and posted scripture to support it.

Emily, you are mistaken if you can get them to work with the right of center.

They won't.

After this fall's election, you will have new folks to work with who have replaced them, and I suspect you will do much better.


----------



## JakeStarkey

emilynghiem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read this as equally defending you and other minority beliefs you support!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are reading it wrongly.
> 
> No one is constitutionally guaranteed to not be offended by others' opinions.
> 
> No citizen has the constitutional right to prevent marriage equality,  whereas SCOTUS does, if it so wishes.
> 
> Marriage equality injures no one, has not injured or harmed anyone's civil or personal liberties on this Board.  No one on the Board has posted a compelling interest or reason that marriage equality will harm or injure the citizenry.  The statistics that have been posted indicate that adults sexually assault children, whether heterosexual or homosexual, at almost the same rate, while, in fact, the overwhelming number of assaults are by heterosexual adults.
> 
> No constitutional issue of civil or personal liberty exists to deny marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct when the policies are within private practices.
> 
> That is why Kosh RKMBrown Kaz and I say to get marriage out of the public laws.
> Stick to just the civil contracts that are neutral, as RKMB spelled out for example.
> 
> This is like the difference between using
> "religious freedom" to cover Islam, etc.
> or changing the First Amendment to specify "Islam Christianity or Atheism" and cause a huge blowout over "imposing or leaving one out"!
> 
> Keep public laws NEUTRAL and there is no issue.
> You can do what you want in private, and
> exercise the same ability to make contracts by NOT specifying gender at all!
Click to expand...


You will find that it is correct as public policy.

Your minority will not dictate the conclusion of this debate.

SCOTUS will, and you may do whatever you wish in private.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I find it very hypocritical that the debate of civil union under whatever name it can be code is back as an alternative to marriage equality.  If offered honestly as a resolution to marriage question, I believe the same sex community would have overwhelmingly accepted it.

Yet it was not and we know why that was so.  How fortunate for our country that it was not accepted.  

Marriage belongs to all Americans, not just one group.


----------



## Andylusion

JakeStarkey said:


> I find it very hypocritical that the debate of civil union under whatever name it can be code is back as an alternative to marriage equality.  If offered honestly as a resolution to marriage question, I believe the same sex community would have overwhelmingly accepted it.
> 
> Yet it was not and we know why that was so.  How fortunate for our country that it was not accepted.
> 
> Marriage belongs to all Americans, not just one group.



Marriage does belong to all Americans.  Absolutely anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like all of us can.

LOL!  Love you all lol


----------



## candycorn

Mathbud1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the authority empowered to "rent" out a church sign an agreement with a couple, they should honor the agreement regardless of their sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here. Who rents a church? And in what situation would they "sign an agreement?"
Click to expand...


WTF?  

You just don't show up on a Saturday and have a wedding.  You pay the church--likely you're already a member but they often charge.  And guess what, you sign an agreement that the church will be open, heated/cooled, lights on, clean, etc...  

Ask a grown up.


----------



## zen

KNB said:


> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.



Dude,
READ what you just wrote...if religion is a lie...never mind...


----------



## dadsgm

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


The main problem is not discrimination. It is the fact that it is called 'marriage' in the first place.  Historically marriages have been sanctioned and performed by a church, a religious entity guided by its beliefs which are not to be over ridden by the state.  The problem comes in when a couple desires 'state sanction' for the benefit of benefits derived from the state and federal agencies.   Just because the state sanctions same sex marriage the church does not have to if it goes against its beliefs. Therefore they do not have to perform the same sex marriage and it is not discrimination.  That religious right is granted by the constitution and various various court precedents


----------



## zen

What we need to do is repeal the laws requiring a license/permission and registration of marriages...do that, and marry who ever you choose...marriage licensing laws are Jim Crow laws...


----------



## Mathbud1

candycorn said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the authority empowered to "rent" out a church sign an agreement with a couple, they should honor the agreement regardless of their sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here. Who rents a church? And in what situation would they "sign an agreement?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> You just don't show up on a Saturday and have a wedding.  You pay the church--likely you're already a member but they often charge.  And guess what, you sign an agreement that the church will be open, heated/cooled, lights on, clean, etc...
> 
> Ask a grown up.
Click to expand...

That was... nice...

I've used church property my whole life for family non-church events. All three of my sisters were married and/or held their wedding receptions on church property. All of us, including me, were married by church officials.

None of us ever paid or signed any kind of an agreement with the church.

Perhaps churches in your area routinely sign agreements with people to perform ceremonies or open their doors for the ceremony. In my experience though, it is not the norm. Typically it is a voluntary association.

If your point is that a church who enters into such a legally binding agreement should not be able to suddenly back out when they find out their "clients" are gay, perhaps you are right.

If you are saying, on the other hand, that they should be forced to enter such an agreement against their will and against their beliefs, I cannot agree.


----------



## Andylusion

candycorn said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the authority empowered to "rent" out a church sign an agreement with a couple, they should honor the agreement regardless of their sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here. Who rents a church? And in what situation would they "sign an agreement?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> You just don't show up on a Saturday and have a wedding.  You pay the church--likely you're already a member but they often charge.  And guess what, you sign an agreement that the church will be open, heated/cooled, lights on, clean, etc...
> 
> Ask a grown up.
Click to expand...


Er....  I have only a limited amount of information on this.  I admit that openly.

But I do know that for our church members, there would be no 'rental contract'.

Of course you don't just show up... you would go to the pastor, or the staff, inform them you wish to get married, go through counseling, and then you would set a date, which of course would have to be a date the church is available, and if you want it decorated, you pretty much have to do that, and organize that, yourself.

We don't pay for any decorations, or hosting, catering, or anything else.  That's all on you.

There is a church usage fee I think... but it's not a rental fee.  It's a flat fee to cover the clean up, and prepare for the Sunday service.

I don't have the exact fee on hand, but the fees in our area varies based on Church size, and of course different denominations have different amounts.  As near as I can tell from what limited information is on the internet, the average rate is between $300 to $500.

Other religions tend to not even have an option.  From what I understand Islam, Buddhist, Jewish and Catholic, all of them you are either a member of that Mosque, Synagogue, temple, or Diocese, or you don't get married there, and that's it.

As Bible based church, we don't have a denomination.  So if people outside our church wish to be married there, I think you have to have some connection to the church, or a church we have a good relation to.

The pastor still counsels the people involved that they meet our requirements of Christian values.  If you don't, that's it.  End of story.  And if you do get married there, you are married by one of the Pastors of our church.  There is no finding pastor Bob, and having him come and marry you.

Again, you are not 'renting' the facility.   You might pay a fee, but it's our facility, our building, our people, our property.    

But the church is not 'rented out' as far as I know.  At least I personally have never been in, or at a Wedding in which the church had a "rental agreement" that you can point to.

Now receptions often do.   Typically a reception location, is at an external site, that is rented.

For our church, we have reception facilities, and I'm not sure, but there might be a rental agreement, because the reception can be many hours, and often has special setups and things like sound systems, and Catering, and a dance floor, and special lighting, and such.

However, since we would never marry a homo couple to begin with, they would never get to the point of signing a rental on the reception facilities.  And no, we don't allow people married elsewhere, to rent out the reception facilities.

I suppose that you could be right about some other church somewhere.   What you are describing sounds like Scientology or something.    I can see them doing that.

I'm just kidding.  I wouldn't be too surprised if there are some Unity Churches and such that rent out their building.    But I don't think that is standard practice.

I could be wrong.


----------



## BillyP

Silhouette said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you're homosexual and black? Would a church accomodate you? Or be labelled racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's your homosexuality they can reject because it's a behavior [not an inborn state of being] that they cannot promote as a matter of mortal sin for doing so.  The fact that you happen to be black isn't relevant here.
Click to expand...


People are born gay, now you know. That a church would discriminate against some of god's creation is the sin.


----------



## Andylusion

zen said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude,
> READ what you just wrote...if religion is a lie...never mind...
Click to expand...


Trying to force logic on an Atheist?  I'm humored.  Remember truth itself, is relative to some people.   Good luck.


----------



## Andylusion

BillyP said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you're homosexual and black? Would a church accomodate you? Or be labelled racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's your homosexuality they can reject because it's a behavior [not an inborn state of being] that they cannot promote as a matter of mortal sin for doing so.  The fact that you happen to be black isn't relevant here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People are born gay, now you know. That a church would discriminate against some of god's creation is the sin.
Click to expand...


The whole point of the Bible, is to repent of what you were born as.   We were all born rebelling against G-d from our birth.

The entire message of the Bible is... Repent and you will be forgiven.

We're discriminating against unrepentant sin.   Repent, and you will be welcome in the Church of Christianity.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Liberals should be forced to pay everyone else for having fried their brain cells after listening too and reading garbage like this.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> I find it very hypocritical that the debate of civil union under whatever name it can be code is back as an alternative to marriage equality.  If offered honestly as a resolution to marriage question, I believe the same sex community would have overwhelmingly accepted it.
> 
> Yet it was not and we know why that was so.  How fortunate for our country that it was not accepted.
> 
> Marriage belongs to all Americans, not just one group.



Polygamists and incest couplings too?  Really?  What makes 'LGBT' behaviors so special Jake?

One of the main reasons civil unions are a situation some states consider is that marriage often comes with the privelege of adoption too.  And here's the reason with the cult of LGBT why the overwhelming majority of states object to gay marriage proper: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

You constantly omit the discussion of the most important people involved in marriage: children.  And since children must not be exposed to the behaviors in that link seen and discussed in the OP, gay marriage has hit a wall.  With Harvey Milk brought on board willingly by them and defended adamantly by their cult values, they've built that wall high and wide themselves.  And they have only themselves to blame..


----------



## BillyP

Androw said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's your homosexuality they can reject because it's a behavior [not an inborn state of being] that they cannot promote as a matter of mortal sin for doing so.  The fact that you happen to be black isn't relevant here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are born gay, now you know. That a church would discriminate against some of god's creation is the sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole point of the Bible, is to repent of what you were born as.   We were all born rebelling against G-d from our birth.
> 
> The entire message of the Bible is... Repent and you will be forgiven.
> 
> We're discriminating against unrepentant sin.   Repent, and you will be welcome in the Church of Christianity.
Click to expand...


So you should repent for how god made you? That's possibly the dumbest thing I've heard in ages.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So productive single people are not in the interest of society at large? They don't also procreate?  They don't also provide stable homes in which children are raised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say any of those things, I said: "It is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did not mean "it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children" over other something else then it is meaningless.  You might have just said it is in the interest of society to promote stuff like procreation, or stable homes, or raising children.  To which my questions still apply why do I have to be married to procreate, have stable homes, and raise children?  If two parents are better than one, why not 3 parents?  Why not hand out a triple bonus award for having two wives?
Click to expand...



Did you check out the links I provided?


----------



## Silhouette

BillyP said:


> So you should rent for how god made you? That's possibly the dumbest thing I've heard in ages.



You mean, "repent"?  My gay family friend who died of HIV/AIDS, but not before he had unprotected sex with 1,000s of other likewise "made" men, was "made" gay not by God, but by a dude who molested him repeatedly as a boy and who imprinted him sexually thereby with compulsive behaviors he did not want and couldn't control.

God had _nothing_ to do with how our dead friend was "made gay"...

And today, this man-made disaster that was our friend can't even be addressed in therapy in two states because gays in those states have decided that it's pretty darn hard to get at those kiddies and "turn them out" gay.  And so, if they do succeed, they don't want any therapist meddling to undo their handiwork or to [god forbid!] get the idea out in the mental health community that sexual orientations can be artificially induced and therefore are not "born that way"...are not "made by God"...and are ultimately about something being broken that might be fixed.



> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is *pervasive among gay men* and is so intricately intertwined with *epidemics of* depression, partner abuse, and *childhood sexual abuse *that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at *the Centers for Disease Control *and Prevention, Atlanta





> *Mayo Clinic 2007*
> 
> *One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
> factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
> an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child*.
> This relationship is known as the victim-to-abuser cycle
> or abused-abusers phenomena.
> 5,23,24,46...
> 
> ...
> why the abused abusers phenomena occurs: identification with the aggressor,
> in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
> identity by becoming the abuser; *an imprinted sexual
> arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
> leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place *http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf


----------



## Cecilie1200

BillyP said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are born gay, now you know. That a church would discriminate against some of god's creation is the sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of the Bible, is to repent of what you were born as.   We were all born rebelling against G-d from our birth.
> 
> The entire message of the Bible is... Repent and you will be forgiven.
> 
> We're discriminating against unrepentant sin.   Repent, and you will be welcome in the Church of Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you should repent for how god made you? That's possibly the dumbest thing I've heard in ages.
Click to expand...


So you really think all the urges that are part of human nature, that we spend our childhoods learning to control, are good and acceptable because "that's how God made us"?  Really?  You don't think it's possible for people to be born with or develop defects in their hardwiring that make them inclined to do things that are a bad idea?  Human behavior has nothing in it that qualifies as "bad" or "wrong" to you?

Think about what you're saying before you vomit it up for everyone else to see.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say any of those things, I said: "It is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you did not mean "it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children" over other something else then it is meaningless.  You might have just said it is in the interest of society to promote stuff like procreation, or stable homes, or raising children.  To which my questions still apply why do I have to be married to procreate, have stable homes, and raise children?  If two parents are better than one, why not 3 parents?  Why not hand out a triple bonus award for having two wives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you check out the links I provided?
Click to expand...

didn't see any links


----------



## dblack

KNB said:


> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.



No it doesn't. It prevents Congress from writing laws that target religions, or religious practice, for special treatment. It prevents them from persecuting or favoring religions via legislation. That doesn't mean government can't force religious people to obey the law. And that's only sensible. Would you really want your local death cult to claim that their child sacrifice tradition should be exempt from murder laws?


----------



## Unkotare

zen said:


> What we need to do is repeal the laws requiring a license/permission and registration of marriages......





And then anytime a 'married' woman decides to stay home and raise her children she is a virtual prisoner of her 'husband' because if he ever decides to walk at a moment's notice she has no recourse to legal protections for herself and her children. Golly, what a great idea.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you did not mean "it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children" over other something else then it is meaningless.  You might have just said it is in the interest of society to promote stuff like procreation, or stable homes, or raising children.  To which my questions still apply why do I have to be married to procreate, have stable homes, and raise children?  If two parents are better than one, why not 3 parents?  Why not hand out a triple bonus award for having two wives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you check out the links I provided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> didn't see any links
Click to expand...




Have another look-see.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you check out the links I provided?
> 
> 
> 
> didn't see any links
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have another look-see.
Click to expand...


No links... just loony toon vid.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> didn't see any links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have another look-see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No links... just loony toon vid.
Click to expand...



After that. Anyway, the gist is that 'families' where the couple is unmarried are at least twice as likely to end up separated and the children left without the aforementioned stable family environment. The children of such circumstances are left with few resources and more psychological and material deprivation with attendant consequences. All sorts of living situations are legal, tenable, and within the purview of free people, but "it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children."


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have another look-see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No links... just loony toon vid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> After that. Anyway, the gist is that 'families' where the couple is unmarried are at least twice as likely to end up separated and the children left without the aforementioned stable family environment. The children of such circumstances are left with few resources and more psychological and material deprivation with attendant consequences. All sorts of living situations are legal, tenable, and within the purview of free people, but "it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children."
Click to expand...

So we tax / fine people based on a statistical likely hood that a certain type of behavior getting married is better than another not getting married.  Sounds like the department of pre-crime.  Get married, heterosexually to one woman, or else we punish you because you are likely to be less of a valuable citizen.  Ick.  Your not helping


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No links... just loony toon vid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After that. Anyway, the gist is that 'families' where the couple is unmarried are at least twice as likely to end up separated and the children left without the aforementioned stable family environment. The children of such circumstances are left with few resources and more psychological and material deprivation with attendant consequences. All sorts of living situations are legal, tenable, and within the purview of free people, but "it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So we tax / fine people based on a statistical likely hood that a certain type of behavior getting married is better than another not getting married.
Click to expand...



No, we incentivize "procreation and stable homes in which to raise children." Not such a difficult or shocking concept. If the 'gub'ment' is going to tax at all, they can take a little less from those providing an absolutely indispensable social good. Want to lose some of the ridiculous waste in government spending and tax everyone else less as well? That sounds fine too.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> After that. Anyway, the gist is that 'families' where the couple is unmarried are at least twice as likely to end up separated and the children left without the aforementioned stable family environment. The children of such circumstances are left with few resources and more psychological and material deprivation with attendant consequences. All sorts of living situations are legal, tenable, and within the purview of free people, but "it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children."
> 
> 
> 
> So we tax / fine people based on a statistical likely hood that a certain type of behavior getting married is better than another not getting married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, we incentivize "procreation and stable homes in which to raise children." Not such a difficult or shocking concept. If the 'gub'ment' is going to tax at all, they can take a little less from those providing an absolutely indispensable social good. Want to lose some of the ridiculous waste in government spending and tax everyone else less as well? That sounds fine too.
Click to expand...


IMO personal income tax is indentured servitude.  It's not a "little" the deductions are large, the difference massive over a lifetime.  The idea that singles owe a longer length of time in  indentured servitude than say a couple that is married with children is distasteful to me. Oh yeah if you give the slavers more children to tax they will shorten your servitude.  

For example if you are paying 33% tax rate then the first FOUR MONTHS of every year are taken before you get a single dime.  This is the very definition of indentured servitude.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> It's not a "little" the deductions are large, the difference massive over a lifetime.





So are the costs - and benefit to society - of raising the next generation in stable, committed, two-parent homes.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> IMO personal income tax is indentured servitude.




That may be a laudable notion, but you'll have to tilt at that windmill alone because even Sancho knows better than to waste his time and energy.


----------



## elektra

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



Only until Liberal/Democrats destroy the country, after which when they build a Utopian Society, than the Liberal/Democrats can do what has happened repeatedly in History, the Liberal/Democrats than will physically kill and destroy the Churches, catching the Homosexuals with them.


----------



## BillyP

We accomodate pedophile priests performing sex acts on children, so why wouldn't the church perform gay marriages? Suddenly, they have morals?


----------



## dblack

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> After that. Anyway, the gist is that 'families' where the couple is unmarried are at least twice as likely to end up separated and the children left without the aforementioned stable family environment. The children of such circumstances are left with few resources and more psychological and material deprivation with attendant consequences. All sorts of living situations are legal, tenable, and within the purview of free people, but "it is in the interest of society at large to encourage procreation and stable homes in which to raise children."
> 
> 
> 
> So we tax / fine people based on a statistical likely hood that a certain type of behavior getting married is better than another not getting married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, we incentivize "procreation and stable homes in which to raise children." Not such a difficult or shocking concept. If the 'gub'ment' is going to tax at all, they can take a little less from those providing an absolutely indispensable social good. Want to lose some of the ridiculous waste in government spending and tax everyone else less as well? That sounds fine too.
Click to expand...


We really have to decide whether we want a government that tells us how to live, or what that protects our freedom to live the way we want.


----------



## candycorn

Mathbud1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here. Who rents a church? And in what situation would they "sign an agreement?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> You just don't show up on a Saturday and have a wedding.  You pay the church--likely you're already a member but they often charge.  And guess what, you sign an agreement that the church will be open, heated/cooled, lights on, clean, etc...
> 
> Ask a grown up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was... nice...
> 
> I've used church property my whole life for family non-church events. All three of my sisters were married and/or held their wedding receptions on church property. All of us, including me, were married by church officials.
> 
> None of us ever paid or signed any kind of an agreement with the church.
Click to expand...

I would say it was very unusual.



Mathbud1 said:


> Perhaps churches in your area routinely sign agreements with people to perform ceremonies or open their doors for the ceremony. In my experience though, it is not the norm. Typically it is a voluntary association.


We were always members of pretty popular congregations back when I went to church regularly.  



Mathbud1 said:


> If your point is that a church who enters into such a legally binding agreement should not be able to suddenly back out when they find out their "clients" are gay, perhaps you are right.


Anyone--church, bakery, band, painter, etc--who agrees to Do X for Y payment should not be able to back out unless it is dangerous or illegal.  At that point, I say you're within your rights to pull out.  If you find it immoral, I'm sorry; as a professional you have a responsibility to deliver your service.



Mathbud1 said:


> If you are saying, on the other hand, that they should be forced to enter such an agreement against their will and against their beliefs, I cannot agree.



I agree.  You should be able to not perform services at your discretion.  I used a Taylor Swift example earlier.  Let's say her "going rate" is $25,000 a show.  

If I have $25K and want to hire her to play my niece's 10th birthday party, should she have to perform?  I don't think so. 

Now, if she or her reps ink a deal with me and she then decides it's not in her "best interest" to play a kid's party...then we have a problem.  

You honor your agreement as a professional.


----------



## candycorn

Androw said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here. Who rents a church? And in what situation would they "sign an agreement?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> You just don't show up on a Saturday and have a wedding.  You pay the church--likely you're already a member but they often charge.  And guess what, you sign an agreement that the church will be open, heated/cooled, lights on, clean, etc...
> 
> Ask a grown up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er....  I have only a limited amount of information on this.  I admit that openly.
> 
> But I do know that for our church members, there would be no 'rental contract'.
> 
> Of course you don't just show up... you would go to the pastor, or the staff, inform them you wish to get married, go through counseling, and then you would set a date, which of course would have to be a date the church is available, and if you want it decorated, you pretty much have to do that, and organize that, yourself.
> 
> We don't pay for any decorations, or hosting, catering, or anything else.  That's all on you.
> 
> There is a church usage fee I think... but it's not a rental fee.  It's a flat fee to cover the clean up, and prepare for the Sunday service.
> 
> I don't have the exact fee on hand, but the fees in our area varies based on Church size, and of course different denominations have different amounts.  As near as I can tell from what limited information is on the internet, the average rate is between $300 to $500.
> 
> Other religions tend to not even have an option.  From what I understand Islam, Buddhist, Jewish and Catholic, all of them you are either a member of that Mosque, Synagogue, temple, or Diocese, or you don't get married there, and that's it.
> 
> As Bible based church, we don't have a denomination.  So if people outside our church wish to be married there, I think you have to have some connection to the church, or a church we have a good relation to.
> 
> The pastor still counsels the people involved that they meet our requirements of Christian values.  If you don't, that's it.  End of story.  And if you do get married there, you are married by one of the Pastors of our church.  There is no finding pastor Bob, and having him come and marry you.
> 
> Again, you are not 'renting' the facility.   You might pay a fee, but it's our facility, our building, our people, our property.
> 
> But the church is not 'rented out' as far as I know.  At least I personally have never been in, or at a Wedding in which the church had a "rental agreement" that you can point to.
> 
> Now receptions often do.   Typically a reception location, is at an external site, that is rented.
> 
> For our church, we have reception facilities, and I'm not sure, but there might be a rental agreement, because the reception can be many hours, and often has special setups and things like sound systems, and Catering, and a dance floor, and special lighting, and such.
> 
> However, since we would never marry a homo couple to begin with, they would never get to the point of signing a rental on the reception facilities.  And no, we don't allow people married elsewhere, to rent out the reception facilities.
> 
> I suppose that you could be right about some other church somewhere.   What you are describing sounds like Scientology or something.    I can see them doing that.
> 
> I'm just kidding.  I wouldn't be too surprised if there are some Unity Churches and such that rent out their building.    But I don't think that is standard practice.
> 
> I could be wrong.
Click to expand...


Basically what I said;

You pay a fee; call it what you wish

You make plans but at some point, you have an agreement with the church to have your wedding on X-day.  I would want something in writing myself; it protect me.

We've had homosexual church members.  TTBOMK, none ever had a same sex wedding or union in the church hall or cathedral.  But if Joan and John want to get married, are church members, pay the fee, and go through the process with the Pastor and are allowed to do so, Joan and June should have the same right to pay the fee, go through the process and be allowed to do so.


----------



## usmcstinger

A very dumb subject Read the US Constitution.


----------



## JakeStarkey

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very hypocritical that the debate of civil union under whatever name it can be called is back as an alternative to marriage equality.  If offered honestly as a resolution to marriage question, I believe the same sex community would have overwhelmingly accepted it.
> 
> Yet it was not and we know why that was so.  How fortunate for our country that it was not accepted.
> 
> Marriage belongs to all Americans, not just one group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polygamists and incest couplings too?
> 
> One of the main reasons civil unions are a situation some states consider is that marriage often comes with the privelege of adoption too.
Click to expand...


The question above is merely smoke and mirrors: inconsequential practically and philosophically.

Accepted scientific studies demonstrate that children are abused at about the same statistically rate by adults despite their sexual orientation.

Heterosexuals abuse children in incredibly greater numbers and have been demonstrated to be no better parents than homosexuals.

The propagandists of the Cult of Hetero-fascism expose its failings in every post.


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very hypocritical that the debate of civil union under whatever name it can be code is back as an alternative to marriage equality.  If offered honestly as a resolution to marriage question, I believe the same sex community would have overwhelmingly accepted it.
> 
> Yet it was not and we know why that was so.  How fortunate for our country that it was not accepted.
> 
> Marriage belongs to all Americans, not just one group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage does belong to all Americans.  Absolutely anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like all of us can.
> 
> LOL!  Love you all lol
Click to expand...


And in 18 states and counting anyone can marry someone of the same sex. It will be all 50 within 10 years.


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of the Bible, is to repent of what you were born as.   We were all born rebelling against G-d from our birth.
> 
> The entire message of the Bible is... Repent and you will be forgiven.
> 
> We're discriminating against unrepentant sin.   Repent, and you will be welcome in the Church of Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you should repent for how god made you? That's possibly the dumbest thing I've heard in ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you really think all the urges that are part of human nature, that we spend our childhoods learning to control, are good and acceptable because "that's how God made us"?  Really?  You don't think it's possible for people to be born with or develop defects in their hardwiring that make them inclined to do things that are a bad idea?  Human behavior has nothing in it that qualifies as "bad" or "wrong" to you?
> 
> Think about what you're saying before you vomit it up for everyone else to see.
Click to expand...


But being gay isn't "bad", it just is. What is bad is when people who are gay are forced by society to live against their nature. Nobody's happy then. Not the person pretending to be straight and certainly not the family they are lying to. 

Being born left handed isn't "bad" and yet segments of society used to force the left handed to use their right hand.

Not every anomaly is a "bad idea".


----------



## Gadawg73

Seawytch said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very hypocritical that the debate of civil union under whatever name it can be code is back as an alternative to marriage equality.  If offered honestly as a resolution to marriage question, I believe the same sex community would have overwhelmingly accepted it.
> 
> Yet it was not and we know why that was so.  How fortunate for our country that it was not accepted.
> 
> Marriage belongs to all Americans, not just one group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage does belong to all Americans.  Absolutely anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like all of us can.
> 
> LOL!  Love you all lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in 18 states and counting anyone can marry someone of the same sex. It will be all 50 within 10 years.
Click to expand...


Friend of mine we nick named Vike, career Army 20 years and 20 years APD, part American Indian and is married to a black woman.
His take on the gay boogeyman issue is just like mine but Vike says it this way and I have copied this:
"30 years from now when gay marriage has been legal in most all or all states folks are going to look back and see how ridiculous opponents were with their claims"

He said the same thing with gays in the military hysteria from the kooks claiming all kinds of whacked out scenarios.

No matter how one spins it with their 9 paragraphs of gobbly gook gay marriage is still and will always be a NON ISSUE to thinking adults.
I am off to work, there is bullying to be done at $100 a hour.


----------



## Unkotare

dblack said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we tax / fine people based on a statistical likely hood that a certain type of behavior getting married is better than another not getting married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we incentivize "procreation and stable homes in which to raise children." Not such a difficult or shocking concept. If the 'gub'ment' is going to tax at all, they can take a little less from those providing an absolutely indispensable social good. Want to lose some of the ridiculous waste in government spending and tax everyone else less as well? That sounds fine too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We really have to decide whether we want a government that tells us how to live, or what that protects our freedom to live the way we want.
Click to expand...



The line between those two is a matter of perspective, and certainly not absolute.


----------



## dblack

Unkotare said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we incentivize "procreation and stable homes in which to raise children." Not such a difficult or shocking concept. If the 'gub'ment' is going to tax at all, they can take a little less from those providing an absolutely indispensable social good. Want to lose some of the ridiculous waste in government spending and tax everyone else less as well? That sounds fine too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We really have to decide whether we want a government that tells us how to live, or what that protects our freedom to live the way we want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The line between those two is a matter of perspective, and certainly not absolute.
Click to expand...


Agreed. But we're not even drawing the line, and that's the problem. It seems like a lot of us see government as synonymous with society, and think that anything good, anything we value as a society, should be encoded into law.


----------



## LogikAndReazon

No.  Some civil servant at the county clerks office can enjoin them...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Unkotare said:


> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we need to do is repeal the laws requiring a license/permission and registration of marriages......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then anytime a 'married' woman decides to stay home and raise her children she is a virtual prisoner of her 'husband' because if he ever decides to walk at a moment's notice she has no recourse to legal protections for herself and her children. Golly, what a great idea.
Click to expand...


The day marriage stops having a legal and financial impact on people's lives is the day it will stop constituting a legally-enforceable contract in the eyes of the government.  Which is to say, never.


----------



## nodoginnafight

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



No.
Not IMHO.

Allowing a church religious freedom doesn't impact a gay couples ability to get married.

Free speech does not provide you with your choice of venue, why should marriage equality?


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we need to do is repeal the laws requiring a license/permission and registration of marriages......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then anytime a 'married' woman decides to stay home and raise her children she is a virtual prisoner of her 'husband' because if he ever decides to walk at a moment's notice she has no recourse to legal protections for herself and her children. Golly, what a great idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The day marriage stops having a legal and financial impact on people's lives is the day it will stop constituting a legally-enforceable contract in the eyes of the government.  Which is to say, never.
Click to expand...


Correct...and gays will have full equal access to it (not just in 18 states), eventually. We already have equal access to  religious marriage in all 50.


----------



## Mathbud1

candycorn said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> You just don't show up on a Saturday and have a wedding.  You pay the church--likely you're already a member but they often charge.  And guess what, you sign an agreement that the church will be open, heated/cooled, lights on, clean, etc...
> 
> Ask a grown up.
> 
> 
> 
> That was... nice...
> 
> I've used church property my whole life for family non-church events. All three of my sisters were married and/or held their wedding receptions on church property. All of us, including me, were married by church officials.
> 
> None of us ever paid or signed any kind of an agreement with the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would say it was very unusual.
> 
> 
> We were always members of pretty popular congregations back when I went to church regularly.
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your point is that a church who enters into such a legally binding agreement should not be able to suddenly back out when they find out their "clients" are gay, perhaps you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone--church, bakery, band, painter, etc--who agrees to Do X for Y payment should not be able to back out unless it is dangerous or illegal.  At that point, I say you're within your rights to pull out.  If you find it immoral, I'm sorry; as a professional you have a responsibility to deliver your service.
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are saying, on the other hand, that they should be forced to enter such an agreement against their will and against their beliefs, I cannot agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  You should be able to not perform services at your discretion.  I used a Taylor Swift example earlier.  Let's say her "going rate" is $25,000 a show.
> 
> If I have $25K and want to hire her to play my niece's 10th birthday party, should she have to perform?  I don't think so.
> 
> Now, if she or her reps ink a deal with me and she then decides it's not in her "best interest" to play a kid's party...then we have a problem.
> 
> You honor your agreement as a professional.
Click to expand...

We don't disagree in principle, I think. If you sign a contract you obviously have to uphold the contract unless the other party is willing to let you back out. I just don't see a signed contract being all that normal for religious marriage ceremonies. Again, maybe they are, but not around here.

If you don't sign a contract, even paying a fee isn't binding. Without a contract the fee can simply be returned and you would not really have any recourse to force the other party to render you services.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Mathbud1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was... nice...
> 
> I've used church property my whole life for family non-church events. All three of my sisters were married and/or held their wedding receptions on church property. All of us, including me, were married by church officials.
> 
> None of us ever paid or signed any kind of an agreement with the church.
> 
> 
> 
> I would say it was very unusual.
> 
> 
> We were always members of pretty popular congregations back when I went to church regularly.
> 
> 
> Anyone--church, bakery, band, painter, etc--who agrees to Do X for Y payment should not be able to back out unless it is dangerous or illegal.  At that point, I say you're within your rights to pull out.  If you find it immoral, I'm sorry; as a professional you have a responsibility to deliver your service.
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are saying, on the other hand, that they should be forced to enter such an agreement against their will and against their beliefs, I cannot agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  You should be able to not perform services at your discretion.  I used a Taylor Swift example earlier.  Let's say her "going rate" is $25,000 a show.
> 
> If I have $25K and want to hire her to play my niece's 10th birthday party, should she have to perform?  I don't think so.
> 
> Now, if she or her reps ink a deal with me and she then decides it's not in her "best interest" to play a kid's party...then we have a problem.
> 
> You honor your agreement as a professional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't disagree in principle, I think. If you sign a contract you obviously have to uphold the contract unless the other party is willing to let you back out. I just don't see a signed contract being all that normal for religious marriage ceremonies. Again, maybe they are, but not around here.
> 
> If you don't sign a contract, even paying a fee isn't binding. Without a contract the fee can simply be returned and you would not really have any recourse to force the other party to render you services.
Click to expand...


There's a big difference between the legal contract of marriage and the religious sacrament of marriage.

The discussion gets garbled when you try to mix the two together.

There is no legal justification for denying marriage equality.

Churches have the right, however, to define their sacrament of marriage as THEY choose.


----------



## Silhouette

nodoginnafight said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> Not IMHO.
> 
> Allowing a church religious freedom doesn't impact a gay couples ability to get married.
> 
> Free speech does not provide you with your choice of venue, why should marriage equality?
Click to expand...


It's more than that.  Free speech does not entitle you to force someone else to speak out in favor of [via voice or action] your behavior in violation of their closely held religious beliefs.  

Keep in mind that LGBTs are an incomplete grouping of sexual behaviors.  So far, they're not a federally-recognized religion, but merely a cult.  That unfortunate but wholly accurate premise is going to bump them up against a wall in the very near future:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html


----------



## JakeStarkey

LBGT is religious only in the disorganized intellect.

But if an organization does legally incorporate as the Church of the LGBT, there is nothing you can do about it, Sil, except yell.

Which is what  you are doing now to little effect.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> LBGT is religious only in the disorganized intellect.
> 
> But if an organization does legally incorporate as the Church of the LGBT, there is nothing you can do about it, Sil, except yell.
> 
> Which is what  you are doing now to little effect.



Aha!  You're finally coming around to your senses.  You KNOW they don't qualify for the 14th!  

I would LOVE to see the cult of LGBT sell itself off as a legitimate religion.  You know, with its messiah Harvey Milk and its belief in punishing and destroying heretics and anyone who doesn't blindly promote it as dominant to other long-established religions.  Suddenly after decades of insisting they are "born that way", they decide to discard that for a faith-based ritualistic philosophy-lifestyle?  Y'all certainly are _flexible_...I'll give you that..

Bring it on!


----------



## nodoginnafight

No one has ever suggested that LGBT is a religion. You are garbling the legal contract of marriage and the religious sacrament of marriage.

Atheists have a right to enter into the legal contract of marriage too.

Until you can learn to separate church and state (and you've only had a couple of hundred years to wrap your mind around that)  then you are not going to be able to understand the difference between the courts ruling that their is no legal justification to deny equal marriage rights and the church's right to offer their sacraments on their own terms.


----------



## Kondor3

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> LBGT is religious only in the disorganized intellect.
> 
> But if an organization does legally incorporate as the Church of the LGBT, there is nothing you can do about it, Sil, except yell.
> 
> Which is what  you are doing now to little effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aha!  You're finally coming around to your senses.  You KNOW they don't qualify for the 14th!
> 
> I would LOVE to see the cult of LGBT sell itself off as a legitimate religion.  You know, with its messiah Harvey Milk and its belief in punishing and destroying heretics and anyone who doesn't blindly promote it as dominant to other long-established religions.  Suddenly after decades of insisting they are "born that way", they decide to discard that for a faith-based ritualistic philosophy-lifestyle?  Y'all certainly are _flexible_...I'll give you that..
> 
> Bring it on!
Click to expand...

I can just see the clerical aspect of that shaping up...

Father Fudgepacker...

Mother Muncher...

Brother Butch...

Sister Swish...

Metrosexual Monastary...

Tribbing Trinity College...

Seafood Sem*e*nary...

The possibilities are endless...

All tucked safe-and-sound under a 501(c)(3) shell, of course...


----------



## Silhouette

Kondor3 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> LBGT is religious only in the disorganized intellect.
> 
> But if an organization does legally incorporate as the Church of the LGBT, there is nothing you can do about it, Sil, except yell.
> 
> Which is what  you are doing now to little effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aha!  You're finally coming around to your senses.  You KNOW they don't qualify for the 14th!
> 
> I would LOVE to see the cult of LGBT sell itself off as a legitimate religion.  You know, with its messiah Harvey Milk and its belief in punishing and destroying heretics and anyone who doesn't blindly promote it as dominant to other long-established religions.  Suddenly after decades of insisting they are "born that way", they decide to discard that for a faith-based ritualistic philosophy-lifestyle?  Y'all certainly are _flexible_...I'll give you that..
> 
> Bring it on!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can just see the clerical aspect of that shaping up...
> 
> Father Fudgepacker...
> 
> Mother Muncher...
> 
> Brother Butch...
> 
> Sister Swish...
> 
> Metrosexual Monastary...
> 
> Tribbing Trinity College...
> 
> Seafood Sem*e*nary...
> 
> The possibilities are endless...
> 
> All tucked safe-and-sound under a 501(c)(3) shell, of course...
Click to expand...




I know, right?  Can you imagine the terrible PR-work their spindoctors would have in that sell?  We'd have to allow any and all cults a sanctioned religious status.  The Warren Jeffs and Applewhites with squirming minds tucked away in shanty cabins from sea to shining sea will be giddy with joy..


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are delusional when you write, "You KNOW they don't qualify for the 14th!"

Twenty-one straight court rulings and eighteen states and DC defy your claim.

The post immediately above this reveals the absolution delusional state of the opponents to gay marriage.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> You are delusional when you write, "You KNOW they don't qualify for the 14th!"
> 
> *Twenty-one straight court rulings and eighteen states and DC defy your claim.*
> 
> The post immediately above this reveals the absolution delusional state of the opponents to gay marriage.



And the US Supreme Court is foreshadowing how they're going to put an end to all that judicial activism.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...photos-and-marriage-itself-foreshadowing.html

Hey, it ain't SCOTUS' fault that those activist-judges failed to read or refused to read the United States vs Windsor Opinion; or were too scared of what they erroneously believed was "overwhelming public opinion".  As you know Jake, but are being once again intellectually-dishonest about, there is only ONE Court that matters for the purposes of this discussion...  And they may be paying attention to polling data like this one with 86% opposed to gay marriage being force upon people who object to it, either at church or the polls.  Look at the poll at the top.  That's _impressive_.


----------



## nodoginnafight

SCOTUS is not bound by previous case law.

SCOTUS has reversed itself numerous times.


----------



## Silhouette

nodoginnafight said:


> SCOTUS is not bound by previous case law.
> 
> SCOTUS has reversed itself numerous times.



Within a year or two of its own decision on Windsor?  Well, you can hold your breath but I wouldn't recommend it..  The only hope the cult of LGBT has in overturning Windsor's findings that a state's broad consensus has the ultimate power to decide the quesition of gay marriage is if the 14th applies to their behaviors.  It doesn't.  So, yeah...



> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional when you write, "You KNOW they don't qualify for the 14th!"
> 
> *Twenty-one straight court rulings and eighteen states and DC defy your claim.*
> 
> The post immediately above this reveals the absolution delusional state of the opponents to gay marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the US Supreme Court is foreshadowing how they're going to put an end to all that judicial activism.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...photos-and-marriage-itself-foreshadowing.html
> 
> Hey, it ain't SCOTUS' fault that those activist-judges failed to read or refused to read the United States vs Windsor Opinion; or were too scared of what they erroneously believed was "overwhelming public opinion".  As you know Jake, but are being once again intellectually-dishonest about, there is only ONE Court that matters for the purposes of this discussion...  And they may be paying attention to polling data like this one with 86% opposed to gay marriage being force upon people who object to it, either at church or the polls.  Look at the poll at the top.  That's _impressive_.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are getting it, finally, almost, about the 14th.

SCOTUS will say it applies to their person for marriage equality not behaviors.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...those churches will be a minority soon enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amuses me that lefties, desperate as they are for the illusion of popularity, inclusion, and normality, think that everyone in the world aspires to that.  You really cannot grasp that the Church does not care, and has never cared, about whether they're "the minority" or not.  They usually are, and that suits them fine.  Your approbation is not required or requested, and frankly, the Church would prefer not to have it, since it would be seen as an indication that they're doing something wrong.
> 
> You really don't even bother to try to understand the people you vilify and demonize, do you?  You're like a kid drawing horns on people's pictures:  smear and move on.  No thought required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's really adorable that you think Churches don't care. Of course they care. There were plenty of churches that swore they'd never let a good, god fearing white person marry one of those N words in their church, but they did.
> 
> It's just a matter of time...
Click to expand...


No one has been able to cite any biblical reference that speaks against interracial marriages because there is none. If you are going to speak against something being acceptable, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be able to prove you can back that point of view through specific scripture reference .. otherwise all your left with is your personal opinion of the subject.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Same sex marriages will achieve legal recognition in all 50 states long before all denominations accept it. So what? doesn't matter.

The legal picture is clear and bound by the Constitution.

The religious status is more murky and will be determined by each denomination on their own.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> The only hope the cult of LGBT has in overturning Windsor's findings that a state's broad consensus has the ultimate power to decide the quesition of gay marriage...



They didn't say that, they said "The States interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than  routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits."

They didn't not say the State "has the ultimate power".




Silhouette said:


> is if the 14th applies to their behaviors.  It doesn't.  So, yeah...




They already ruled that homosexuals enjoy the same 14th Amendment protections as everyone else, see Romer v. Evans.



>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yep, but Sil, although she has been shown that dozens, of times is sure she is right.

So she is out of step with world, and the world is at fault.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> You are getting it, finally, almost, about the 14th.
> 
> SCOTUS will say it applies to their person for marriage equality not behaviors.



Whose person?  Just LGBTs or polygamists too?  Any consenting adult "in love"?

Gonna have to work out that kink in the mean time, pun intended.  And when you do, remember this thread:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...-the-woman-s-vote-and-political-strategy.html

If you think the democratic party is going to get behind your movement even if it means losing millions of middle bloc women's votes, you may be in for a surprise.  Will politicians sacrafice their elections for the LGBT agenda?   I think we have arrived at the junction of "push" and "shove".


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> They didn't say that, they said "The States&#8217; interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than  routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits."
> 
> *They didn't not say the State "has the ultimate power*".



You're right.  Their actual words in Windsor with regards to a state's right to define marriage for itself was "unquestioned authority" and "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended".

Thanks for the correction!


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't say that, they said "The States&#8217; interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than  routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits."
> 
> *They didn't not say the State "has the ultimate power*".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  Their actual words in Windsor with regards to a state's right to define marriage for itself was "unquestioned authority" and "in the way the Framers of the
> Constitution intended".
> 
> Thanks for the correction!
Click to expand...


The term "unquestioned authority" appears in exactly one place in the whole decision, so lets read what it says in context.

DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates 
basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. 
See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954). The Constitution&#8217;s 
guarantee of equality &#8220;must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to
harm a politically unpopular group cannot&#8221; justify disparate treatment of that group. 
Depart*ment of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534&#8211;535 (1973). In determining
whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose, &#8220; [d]iscriminations of an 
un-usual character&#8217;&#8221; especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting 
Romer, supra, at 633). DOMA cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility
of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the 
substantial societal impact the State&#8217;s classifications have in the daily lives and customs
of its people. DOMA&#8217;s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and 
accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of 
the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their
marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of
disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in
question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who
enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.​


#1 - You are on record as saying that only 3 States have legal Same-sex Civil Marriage becasue in only 3 States was it passed by a direct vote (Maine, Maryland, and Washington - with Minnesota voting not to put discrimination in it's State Constitution).  Yet here the SCOTUS specifically acknowledges that Same-sex Civil Marriage is valid in New York and New York didn't vote on it at the ballot box.

#2 - When you read the use of "unquestioned authority" in context the court is clearly indicating the New York accepted SSCM and recognized it as valid under their law.  That of course they could do, no question about it, they had "unquestioned authority".  The paragraph DOES NOT say they they can discriminate against them.  The paragraph says that because they choose not to discriminate, that there is no basis for the Federal government to overrule that acceptance and deny them equal treatment under the law.

#3 - You have said numerous times that homosexuals are not eligible for equal protection under the law as a "class".  Yet Windsor points out that "DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect." and "This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class."  Right there is recognition that your "behavior" v. "biology" argument is invalid because the SCOTUS did recognize that the law was intended to injure a class of persons.

#4 - You have also repeatedly in the past said the SCOTUS has never recognized that homosexuals are due equal protection under the laws.  As has been pointed out numerous times, that is false.  The SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional Amendment 3 in Colorado which targeted homosexuals in the case of Romer v. Evans.  That case is also sited in the paragraph above.  ("In determining whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose, &#8220; [d]iscriminations of an un-usual character&#8217;&#8221; especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, at 633).")




How will the SCOTUS rule next year?  I don't claim to know, but I do know it's not the slam dunk you think it is.



>>>>


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Cecilie1200 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex marriage ceremony"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Note this is just the _facilities_. I don't see anything that requires the priest or pastor of the Church perform the ceremony - unless of course he's in the business of performing wedding ceremonies for non-members for a fee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, okay.  So it's okay to force the church to rent its facilities to someone it doesn't want to, as long as you don't ALSO force the pastor to participate in the event?  So much for private property ownership.  That church raised the money to build the building, pays the mortgage if there is one, and pays all the bills and upkeep, but the building REALLY belongs to the government and anyone who can convince the government to expropriate it for them.
Click to expand...



Your response also leads towards a very interesting point. We have a group (and if they have their way, even the Federal Government) that believes pastors and the church should be FORCED to recognize the "world view" of same sex marriage. This would include the view of forcing churches to perform same sex ceremonies. However, at the same time, the church as a whole is not allowed to pray at public events or make reference to Jesus' name. For an unbeliever to be exposed to prayer, even so much as seeing a cross or nativity scene, is to FORCE them to have to tolerate a view which is contrary to their own ... and what the secular world is willing to accept. So the church is to express an open door policy to what the world condones and believes, yet the world has no tolerance at all towards a church that shares and expresses any point of view different from their own. So the world wants to present themselves as a group of hypocrites, while demanding that the church become the "tolerant" ones to accept what the world wants to see.


----------



## Andylusion

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't say that, they said "The States interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than  routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits."
> 
> *They didn't not say the State "has the ultimate power*".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  Their actual words in Windsor with regards to a state's right to define marriage for itself was "unquestioned authority" and "in the way the Framers of the
> Constitution intended".
> 
> Thanks for the correction!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term "unquestioned authority" appears in exactly one place in the whole decision, so lets read what it says in context.
> 
> DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates
> basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.
> See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954). The Constitutions
> guarantee of equality must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to
> harm a politically unpopular group cannot justify disparate treatment of that group.
> Depart*ment of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534535 (1973). In determining
> whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose,  [d]iscriminations of an
> un-usual character especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting
> Romer, supra, at 633). DOMA cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility
> of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the
> substantial societal impact the States classifications have in the daily lives and customs
> of its people. DOMAs unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and
> accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of
> the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their
> marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of
> disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in
> question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who
> enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.​
> 
> 
> #1 - You are on record as saying that only 3 States have legal Same-sex Civil Marriage becasue in only 3 States was it passed by a direct vote (Maine, Maryland, and Washington - with Minnesota voting not to put discrimination in it's State Constitution).  Yet here the SCOTUS specifically acknowledges that Same-sex Civil Marriage is valid in New York and New York didn't vote on it at the ballot box.
> 
> #2 - When you read the use of "unquestioned authority" in context the court is clearly indicating the New York accepted SSCM and recognized it as valid under their law.  That of course they could do, no question about it, they had "unquestioned authority".  The paragraph DOES NOT say they they can discriminate against them.  The paragraph says that because they choose not to discriminate, that there is no basis for the Federal government to overrule that acceptance and deny them equal treatment under the law.
> 
> #3 - You have said numerous times that homosexuals are not eligible for equal protection under the law as a "class".  Yet Windsor points out that "DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect." and "This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class."  Right there is recognition that your "behavior" v. "biology" argument is invalid because the SCOTUS did recognize that the law was intended to injure a class of persons.
> 
> #4 - You have also repeatedly in the past said the SCOTUS has never recognized that homosexuals are due equal protection under the laws.  As has been pointed out numerous times, that is false.  The SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional Amendment 3 in Colorado which targeted homosexuals in the case of Romer v. Evans.  That case is also sited in the paragraph above.  ("In determining whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose,  [d]iscriminations of an un-usual character especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, at 633).")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will the SCOTUS rule next year?  I don't claim to know, but I do know it's not the slam dunk you think it is.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


I have never argued that homos shouldn't have the same equality under the law, that everyone else has.

They simply want more rights than being equal.

Being equal means that everyone is under the same laws.

They *ARE* under the same laws.

They want to change the law to fit their personal views.   That's where I tend to have a problem.

*When I run around saying this is the new color RED* when clearly it's not red, and saying "Equal protection!  This is my version of red!  You can't tell me my personal preferences are wrong!"

I'm not being 'oppressed by society, or the law'.... I'm being moron.

Equally, when you run around saying there is not equality under the law, when you follow the exact same laws everyone else does.... you are not being oppressed.... you are being an idiot.

In order for you to claim that you are not being treated equally under the law, you have to prove there is something that one group can do, than anther group can not.

Can you prove that?  Er... no?

Say that you, or whoever, is the homo, and I'm me.
Tell me...

Can the homo not marry a member of the opposite sex (which is what marriage is, and always has been) just like I can, or anyone else?

Yes.    So we are both treated equally.

Can *I* marry a member of the same sex, like you or the homo can not?

Nope... I can't either.

So we are both treated equally under the law.

There is nothing that I can do, that you can not, under the law.

So don't tell me, homos are not treated equally.  They are.    That's the problem.  They want special treatment.  They want to redefine a fundamental institution of civilized society.

They want to normalize what is sick and disgusting, and causes health problems, and suicide.

They want to force others to accept whatever they 'make up' is marriage.

Well... you might get some politicians to do that... but you'll never get us to do it.


----------



## Gadawg73

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Note this is just the _facilities_. I don't see anything that requires the priest or pastor of the Church perform the ceremony - unless of course he's in the business of performing wedding ceremonies for non-members for a fee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, okay.  So it's okay to force the church to rent its facilities to someone it doesn't want to, as long as you don't ALSO force the pastor to participate in the event?  So much for private property ownership.  That church raised the money to build the building, pays the mortgage if there is one, and pays all the bills and upkeep, but the building REALLY belongs to the government and anyone who can convince the government to expropriate it for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your response also leads towards a very interesting point. We have a group (and if they have their way, even the Federal Government) that believes pastors and the church should be FORCED to recognize the "world view" of same sex marriage. This would include the view of forcing churches to perform same sex ceremonies. However, at the same time, the church as a whole is not allowed to pray at public events or make reference to Jesus' name. For an unbeliever to be exposed to prayer, even so much as seeing a cross or nativity scene, is to FORCE them to have to tolerate a view which is contrary to their own ... and what the secular world is willing to accept. So the church is to express an open door policy to what the world condones and believes, yet the world has no tolerance at all towards a church that shares and expresses any point of view different from their own. So the world wants to present themselves as a group of hypocrites, while demanding that the church become the "tolerant" ones to accept what the world wants to see.
Click to expand...


Lot of what ifs and maybes in that argument.
No church is forced to marry anyone now and never will be.
What Jewish rabbi is forced to marry a Muslim now?
Come on man.


----------



## Gadawg73

Androw said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  Their actual words in Windsor with regards to a state's right to define marriage for itself was "unquestioned authority" and "in the way the Framers of the
> Constitution intended".
> 
> Thanks for the correction!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term "unquestioned authority" appears in exactly one place in the whole decision, so lets read what it says in context.
> 
> DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates
> basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.
> See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954). The Constitutions
> guarantee of equality must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to
> harm a politically unpopular group cannot justify disparate treatment of that group.
> Depart*ment of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534535 (1973). In determining
> whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose,  [d]iscriminations of an
> un-usual character especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting
> Romer, supra, at 633). DOMA cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility
> of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the
> substantial societal impact the States classifications have in the daily lives and customs
> of its people. DOMAs unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and
> accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of
> the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their
> marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of
> disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in
> question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who
> enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.​
> 
> 
> #1 - You are on record as saying that only 3 States have legal Same-sex Civil Marriage becasue in only 3 States was it passed by a direct vote (Maine, Maryland, and Washington - with Minnesota voting not to put discrimination in it's State Constitution).  Yet here the SCOTUS specifically acknowledges that Same-sex Civil Marriage is valid in New York and New York didn't vote on it at the ballot box.
> 
> #2 - When you read the use of "unquestioned authority" in context the court is clearly indicating the New York accepted SSCM and recognized it as valid under their law.  That of course they could do, no question about it, they had "unquestioned authority".  The paragraph DOES NOT say they they can discriminate against them.  The paragraph says that because they choose not to discriminate, that there is no basis for the Federal government to overrule that acceptance and deny them equal treatment under the law.
> 
> #3 - You have said numerous times that homosexuals are not eligible for equal protection under the law as a "class".  Yet Windsor points out that "DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect." and "This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class."  Right there is recognition that your "behavior" v. "biology" argument is invalid because the SCOTUS did recognize that the law was intended to injure a class of persons.
> 
> #4 - You have also repeatedly in the past said the SCOTUS has never recognized that homosexuals are due equal protection under the laws.  As has been pointed out numerous times, that is false.  The SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional Amendment 3 in Colorado which targeted homosexuals in the case of Romer v. Evans.  That case is also sited in the paragraph above.  ("In determining whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose,  [d]iscriminations of an un-usual character especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, at 633).")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will the SCOTUS rule next year?  I don't claim to know, but I do know it's not the slam dunk you think it is.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never argued that homos shouldn't have the same equality under the law, that everyone else has.
> 
> They simply want more rights than being equal.
> 
> Being equal means that everyone is under the same laws.
> 
> They *ARE* under the same laws.
> 
> They want to change the law to fit their personal views.   That's where I tend to have a problem.
> 
> *When I run around saying this is the new color RED* when clearly it's not red, and saying "Equal protection!  This is my version of red!  You can't tell me my personal preferences are wrong!"
> 
> I'm not being 'oppressed by society, or the law'.... I'm being moron.
> 
> Equally, when you run around saying there is not equality under the law, when you follow the exact same laws everyone else does.... you are not being oppressed.... you are being an idiot.
> 
> In order for you to claim that you are not being treated equally under the law, you have to prove there is something that one group can do, than anther group can not.
> 
> Can you prove that?  Er... no?
> 
> Say that you, or whoever, is the homo, and I'm me.
> Tell me...
> 
> Can the homo not marry a member of the opposite sex (which is what marriage is, and always has been) just like I can, or anyone else?
> 
> Yes.    So we are both treated equally.
> 
> Can *I* marry a member of the same sex, like you or the homo can not?
> 
> Nope... I can't either.
> 
> So we are both treated equally under the law.
> 
> There is nothing that I can do, that you can not, under the law.
> 
> So don't tell me, homos are not treated equally.  They are.    That's the problem.  They want special treatment.  They want to redefine a fundamental institution of civilized society.
> 
> They want to normalize what is sick and disgusting, and causes health problems, and suicide.
> 
> They want to force others to accept whatever they 'make up' is marriage.
> 
> Well... you might get some politicians to do that... but you'll never get us to do it.
Click to expand...


******* wanted special rights also.
That was the argument we heard in the 50s and 60s.

"They can marry their own now and interracial marriage is giving the ******* special rights"

Give it up.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, okay.  So it's okay to force the church to rent its facilities to someone it doesn't want to, as long as you don't ALSO force the pastor to participate in the event?  So much for private property ownership.  That church raised the money to build the building, pays the mortgage if there is one, and pays all the bills and upkeep, but the building REALLY belongs to the government and anyone who can convince the government to expropriate it for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your response also leads towards a very interesting point. We have a group (and if they have their way, even the Federal Government) that believes pastors and the church should be FORCED to recognize the "world view" of same sex marriage. This would include the view of forcing churches to perform same sex ceremonies. However, at the same time, the church as a whole is not allowed to pray at public events or make reference to Jesus' name. For an unbeliever to be exposed to prayer, even so much as seeing a cross or nativity scene, is to FORCE them to have to tolerate a view which is contrary to their own ... and what the secular world is willing to accept. So the church is to express an open door policy to what the world condones and believes, yet the world has no tolerance at all towards a church that shares and expresses any point of view different from their own. So the world wants to present themselves as a group of hypocrites, while demanding that the church become the "tolerant" ones to accept what the world wants to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lot of what ifs and maybes in that argument.
> No church is forced to marry anyone now and never will be.
> What Jewish rabbi is forced to marry a Muslim now?
> Come on man.
Click to expand...


I can remember when people said "you are crazy!  no one is going to try and force people to eat health! They'll never ban food and drinks"

Then suddenly large soda drinks were banned in New York, and all the nay sayers quietly disappeared.

We'll see.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term "unquestioned authority" appears in exactly one place in the whole decision, so lets read what it says in context.
> 
> DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates
> basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.
> See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954). The Constitutions
> guarantee of equality must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to
> harm a politically unpopular group cannot justify disparate treatment of that group.
> Depart*ment of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534535 (1973). In determining
> whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose,  [d]iscriminations of an
> un-usual character especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting
> Romer, supra, at 633). DOMA cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility
> of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the
> substantial societal impact the States classifications have in the daily lives and customs
> of its people. DOMAs unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and
> accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of
> the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their
> marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of
> disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in
> question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who
> enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.​
> 
> 
> #1 - You are on record as saying that only 3 States have legal Same-sex Civil Marriage becasue in only 3 States was it passed by a direct vote (Maine, Maryland, and Washington - with Minnesota voting not to put discrimination in it's State Constitution).  Yet here the SCOTUS specifically acknowledges that Same-sex Civil Marriage is valid in New York and New York didn't vote on it at the ballot box.
> 
> #2 - When you read the use of "unquestioned authority" in context the court is clearly indicating the New York accepted SSCM and recognized it as valid under their law.  That of course they could do, no question about it, they had "unquestioned authority".  The paragraph DOES NOT say they they can discriminate against them.  The paragraph says that because they choose not to discriminate, that there is no basis for the Federal government to overrule that acceptance and deny them equal treatment under the law.
> 
> #3 - You have said numerous times that homosexuals are not eligible for equal protection under the law as a "class".  Yet Windsor points out that "DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect." and "This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class."  Right there is recognition that your "behavior" v. "biology" argument is invalid because the SCOTUS did recognize that the law was intended to injure a class of persons.
> 
> #4 - You have also repeatedly in the past said the SCOTUS has never recognized that homosexuals are due equal protection under the laws.  As has been pointed out numerous times, that is false.  The SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional Amendment 3 in Colorado which targeted homosexuals in the case of Romer v. Evans.  That case is also sited in the paragraph above.  ("In determining whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose,  [d]iscriminations of an un-usual character especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, at 633).")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will the SCOTUS rule next year?  I don't claim to know, but I do know it's not the slam dunk you think it is.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never argued that homos shouldn't have the same equality under the law, that everyone else has.
> 
> They simply want more rights than being equal.
> 
> Being equal means that everyone is under the same laws.
> 
> They *ARE* under the same laws.
> 
> They want to change the law to fit their personal views.   That's where I tend to have a problem.
> 
> *When I run around saying this is the new color RED* when clearly it's not red, and saying "Equal protection!  This is my version of red!  You can't tell me my personal preferences are wrong!"
> 
> I'm not being 'oppressed by society, or the law'.... I'm being moron.
> 
> Equally, when you run around saying there is not equality under the law, when you follow the exact same laws everyone else does.... you are not being oppressed.... you are being an idiot.
> 
> In order for you to claim that you are not being treated equally under the law, you have to prove there is something that one group can do, than anther group can not.
> 
> Can you prove that?  Er... no?
> 
> Say that you, or whoever, is the homo, and I'm me.
> Tell me...
> 
> Can the homo not marry a member of the opposite sex (which is what marriage is, and always has been) just like I can, or anyone else?
> 
> Yes.    So we are both treated equally.
> 
> Can *I* marry a member of the same sex, like you or the homo can not?
> 
> Nope... I can't either.
> 
> So we are both treated equally under the law.
> 
> There is nothing that I can do, that you can not, under the law.
> 
> So don't tell me, homos are not treated equally.  They are.    That's the problem.  They want special treatment.  They want to redefine a fundamental institution of civilized society.
> 
> They want to normalize what is sick and disgusting, and causes health problems, and suicide.
> 
> They want to force others to accept whatever they 'make up' is marriage.
> 
> Well... you might get some politicians to do that... but you'll never get us to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ******* wanted special rights also.
> That was the argument we heard in the 50s and 60s.
> 
> "They can marry their own now and interracial marriage is giving the ******* special rights"
> 
> Give it up.
Click to expand...


The difference is, there was actually inequality under the law, and quite frankly, you are insulting every single black person in this country with your comparison.     Trying to compare living as a complete slave, to people who want to impose a personal preference on society?

You need to give it up.  You are an insult to everything the anti-slavery movement fought, and died for.   Stop being such a disgusting and dishonest person.   No wonder you are so full of bitterness and hate.   Being so unrespectible has consequences in life.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Androw said:


> I have never argued that homos shouldn't have the same equality under the law, that everyone else has.
> 
> They simply want more rights than being equal.



We are talking about Civil Marriage....

So please list for us what rights, responsibilities, and privileges of Civil Marriage will be available to same-sex couples that aren't available to different-sex couples when both couples are Civilly Married?


Go...







Androw said:


> *When I run around saying this is the new color RED* when clearly it's not red, and saying "Equal protection!  This is my version of red!  You can't tell me my personal preferences are wrong!"
> 
> I'm not being 'oppressed by society, or the law'.... I'm being moron.




I'll just leave that statement to stand on it's own.




Androw said:


> In order for you to claim that you are not being treated equally under the law, you have to prove there is something that one group can do, than anther group can not.
> 
> Can you prove that?  Er... no?




Actually yes.

On the individual level if you have three people John, Martha, and Cathy, assuming each is an adult and consents:  John can marry Martha, however Cathy is denied the ability to marry Martha.  John and Cathy are being treated differently.

Taken to the general level, men can marry women, women on the other hand are denied the ability to marry women.




Androw said:


> Can the homo not marry a member of the opposite sex (which is what marriage is, and always has been) just like I can, or anyone else?
> 
> Yes.    So we are both treated equally.




The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same logic in Loving v. Virginia.  Coloreds could marry.  Whites could marry.  Just not each other and therefore they were treated equally under the law.  They were serious about it.

The SCOTUS rejected such logic and today most people laugh at it.



>>>>


----------



## Mathbud1

nodoginnafight said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say it was very unusual.
> 
> 
> We were always members of pretty popular congregations back when I went to church regularly.
> 
> 
> Anyone--church, bakery, band, painter, etc--who agrees to Do X for Y payment should not be able to back out unless it is dangerous or illegal.  At that point, I say you're within your rights to pull out.  If you find it immoral, I'm sorry; as a professional you have a responsibility to deliver your service.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  You should be able to not perform services at your discretion.  I used a Taylor Swift example earlier.  Let's say her "going rate" is $25,000 a show.
> 
> If I have $25K and want to hire her to play my niece's 10th birthday party, should she have to perform?  I don't think so.
> 
> Now, if she or her reps ink a deal with me and she then decides it's not in her "best interest" to play a kid's party...then we have a problem.
> 
> You honor your agreement as a professional.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't disagree in principle, I think. If you sign a contract you obviously have to uphold the contract unless the other party is willing to let you back out. I just don't see a signed contract being all that normal for religious marriage ceremonies. Again, maybe they are, but not around here.
> 
> If you don't sign a contract, even paying a fee isn't binding. Without a contract the fee can simply be returned and you would not really have any recourse to force the other party to render you services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a big difference between the legal contract of marriage and the religious sacrament of marriage.
> 
> The discussion gets garbled when you try to mix the two together.
> 
> There is no legal justification for denying marriage equality.
> 
> Churches have the right, however, to define their sacrament of marriage as THEY choose.
Click to expand...

You may be missing part of the conversation between candy corn and myself. I'm not talking about the contract between the two members of a marriage couple.


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same logic in Loving v. Virginia.  Coloreds could marry.  Whites could marry.  Just not each other and therefore they were treated equally under the law.  They were serious about it.
> 
> The SCOTUS rejected such logic and today most people laugh at it.



As you know and have been constantly reminded, race does not equal sexual behaviors.  Behaviors are regulated by the majority.  Race is not.  There's the snag.  Stop trying to insert a false premise into the gay marriage debate.


----------



## Andylusion

WorldWatcher said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never argued that homos shouldn't have the same equality under the law, that everyone else has.
> 
> They simply want more rights than being equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about Civil Marriage....
> 
> So please list for us what rights, responsibilities, and privileges of Civil Marriage will be available to same-sex couples that aren't available to different-sex couples when both couples are Civilly Married?
> 
> 
> Go...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When I run around saying this is the new color RED* when clearly it's not red, and saying "Equal protection!  This is my version of red!  You can't tell me my personal preferences are wrong!"
> 
> I'm not being 'oppressed by society, or the law'.... I'm being moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just leave that statement to stand on it's own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order for you to claim that you are not being treated equally under the law, you have to prove there is something that one group can do, than anther group can not.
> 
> Can you prove that?  Er... no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually yes.
> 
> On the individual level if you have three people John, Martha, and Cathy, assuming each is an adult and consents:  John can marry Martha, however Cathy is denied the ability to marry Martha.  John and Cathy are being treated differently.
> 
> Taken to the general level, men can marry women, women on the other hand are denied the ability to marry women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can the homo not marry a member of the opposite sex (which is what marriage is, and always has been) just like I can, or anyone else?
> 
> Yes.    So we are both treated equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same logic in Loving v. Virginia.  Coloreds could marry.  Whites could marry.  Just not each other and therefore they were treated equally under the law.  They were serious about it.
> 
> The SCOTUS rejected such logic and today most people laugh at it.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


That was a totally stupid post.  You mixed in unrelated topics, and didn't, and could not, provide an example of a person with a right, another did not have.

Moving on.


----------



## AmericanFirst

KNB said:


> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.


Then the Gov't. and others need to stop forcing their agenda on religious institutions.


----------



## AmericanFirst

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?


Absolutely not.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same logic in Loving v. Virginia.  Coloreds could marry.  Whites could marry.  Just not each other and therefore they were treated equally under the law.  They were serious about it.
> 
> The SCOTUS rejected such logic and today most people laugh at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you know and have been constantly reminded, race does not equal sexual behaviors.  Behaviors are regulated by the majority.  Race is not.  There's the snag.  Stop trying to insert a false premise into the gay marriage debate.
Click to expand...



I didn't insert behaviors into the discussion the SCOTUS did.  They have ruled multiple times in favor of homosexuals (and other "behavior") deserving (and other "behavior") the same protections as all citizens even their behavior is outside what some might find acceptable.

1.  Lawrence v. Texas made regulation of private sexual "behavior", the SCOTUS ruled it was unconstitutional.

2.  Colorado tried to exclude homosexuals from government protections based on behavior, that resulted in Romer v. Evans and the SCOTUS ruling that it was unconstitutional.

3.  In Loving v. Virginia colored could marry and whites could marry, the SCOTUS though ruled that barring the behavior of colored marrying whites was unconstitutional.

4.  The SCOTUS also rejected the Federal governemnt trying to reject legal Civil Marriage as a "behavior" failed in Windsor.



The "behavior" argument does note have a very good history with the SCOTUS.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher

Androw said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never argued that homos shouldn't have the same equality under the law, that everyone else has.
> 
> They simply want more rights than being equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about Civil Marriage....
> 
> So please list for us what rights, responsibilities, and privileges of Civil Marriage will be available to same-sex couples that aren't available to different-sex couples when both couples are Civilly Married?
> 
> 
> Go...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just leave that statement to stand on it's own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually yes.
> 
> On the individual level if you have three people John, Martha, and Cathy, assuming each is an adult and consents:  John can marry Martha, however Cathy is denied the ability to marry Martha.  John and Cathy are being treated differently.
> 
> Taken to the general level, men can marry women, women on the other hand are denied the ability to marry women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can the homo not marry a member of the opposite sex (which is what marriage is, and always has been) just like I can, or anyone else?
> 
> Yes.    So we are both treated equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same logic in Loving v. Virginia.  Coloreds could marry.  Whites could marry.  Just not each other and therefore they were treated equally under the law.  They were serious about it.
> 
> The SCOTUS rejected such logic and today most people laugh at it.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a totally stupid post.  You mixed in unrelated topics, and didn't, and could not, provide an example of a person with a right, another did not have.
> 
> Moving on.
Click to expand...



Sure I did, you just don't like the example.

You desire to ignore it doesn't discount the validity of the counter-example.



>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same logic in Loving v. Virginia.  Coloreds could marry.  Whites could marry.  Just not each other and therefore they were treated equally under the law.  They were serious about it.
> 
> The SCOTUS rejected such logic and today most people laugh at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you know and have been constantly reminded, race does not equal sexual behaviors.  Behaviors are regulated by the majority.  Race is not.  There's the snag.  Stop trying to insert a false premise into the gay marriage debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't insert behaviors into the discussion the SCOTUS did.  They have ruled multiple times in favor of homosexuals (and other "behavior") deserving (and other "behavior") the same protections as all citizens even their behavior is outside what some might find acceptable.
> 
> 1.  Lawrence v. Texas made regulation of private sexual "behavior", the SCOTUS ruled it was unconstitutional.
> 
> 2.  Colorado tried to exclude homosexuals from government protections based on behavior, that resulted in Romer v. Evans and the SCOTUS ruling that it was unconstitutional.
> 
> 3.  In Loving v. Virginia colored could marry and whites could marry, the SCOTUS though ruled that barring the behavior of colored marrying whites was unconstitutional.
> 
> 4.  The SCOTUS also rejected the Federal governemnt trying to reject legal Civil Marriage as a "behavior" failed in Windsor.
> 
> 
> 
> The "behavior" argument does note have a very good history with the SCOTUS.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Perhaps the behavior of exposing children purposefully as a matter of pride to lewd sexual acts in the gay parades in anytown USA might gain a foothold then with SCOTUS:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html


----------



## Crystalclear

BillyP said:


> We accomodate pedophile priests performing sex acts on children, so why wouldn't the church perform gay marriages? Suddenly, they have morals?



Religious people can be very hypocrite


----------



## BillyP

AmericanFirst said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not.
Click to expand...


Everyone should follow the laws of the land. Don't like them? Then get out. Churches shouldn't be exempt from taxes either.


----------



## Seawytch

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It amuses me that lefties, desperate as they are for the illusion of popularity, inclusion, and normality, think that everyone in the world aspires to that.  You really cannot grasp that the Church does not care, and has never cared, about whether they're "the minority" or not.  They usually are, and that suits them fine.  Your approbation is not required or requested, and frankly, the Church would prefer not to have it, since it would be seen as an indication that they're doing something wrong.
> 
> You really don't even bother to try to understand the people you vilify and demonize, do you?  You're like a kid drawing horns on people's pictures:  smear and move on.  No thought required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really adorable that you think Churches don't care. Of course they care. There were plenty of churches that swore they'd never let a good, god fearing white person marry one of those N words in their church, but they did.
> 
> It's just a matter of time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has been able to cite any biblical reference that speaks against interracial marriages because there is none. If you are going to speak against something being acceptable, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be able to prove you can back that point of view through specific scripture reference .. otherwise all your left with is your personal opinion of the subject.
Click to expand...



_"Let them marry to whom they think best;* only to the family of the tribe of their father *shall they marry." _

And it doesn't matter if YOU think the justification is there, they thought it was...to this extent:

Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix.

- Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never argued that homos shouldn't have the same equality under the law, that everyone else has.
> 
> They simply want more rights than being equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about Civil Marriage....
> 
> So please list for us what rights, responsibilities, and privileges of Civil Marriage will be available to same-sex couples that aren't available to different-sex couples when both couples are Civilly Married?
> 
> 
> Go...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just leave that statement to stand on it's own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually yes.
> 
> On the individual level if you have three people John, Martha, and Cathy, assuming each is an adult and consents:  John can marry Martha, however Cathy is denied the ability to marry Martha.  John and Cathy are being treated differently.
> 
> Taken to the general level, men can marry women, women on the other hand are denied the ability to marry women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can the homo not marry a member of the opposite sex (which is what marriage is, and always has been) just like I can, or anyone else?
> 
> Yes.    So we are both treated equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same logic in Loving v. Virginia.  Coloreds could marry.  Whites could marry.  Just not each other and therefore they were treated equally under the law.  They were serious about it.
> 
> The SCOTUS rejected such logic and today most people laugh at it.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a totally stupid post.  You mixed in unrelated topics, and didn't, and could not, provide an example of a person with a right, another did not have.
> 
> Moving on.
Click to expand...


That post was spot on...which is why you attempted to deflect it...poorly.


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about Civil Marriage....
> 
> So please list for us what rights, responsibilities, and privileges of Civil Marriage will be available to same-sex couples that aren't available to different-sex couples when both couples are Civilly Married?
> 
> 
> Go...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just leave that statement to stand on it's own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually yes.
> 
> On the individual level if you have three people John, Martha, and Cathy, assuming each is an adult and consents:  John can marry Martha, however Cathy is denied the ability to marry Martha.  John and Cathy are being treated differently.
> 
> Taken to the general level, men can marry women, women on the other hand are denied the ability to marry women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same logic in Loving v. Virginia.  Coloreds could marry.  Whites could marry.  Just not each other and therefore they were treated equally under the law.  They were serious about it.
> 
> The SCOTUS rejected such logic and today most people laugh at it.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was a totally stupid post.  You mixed in unrelated topics, and didn't, and could not, provide an example of a person with a right, another did not have.
> 
> Moving on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That post was spot on...which is why you attempted to deflect it...poorly.
Click to expand...


No...  That was retarded.  If someone else wants to waste their time arguing idiocy, that's their choice.  For me, you have to have something at least at the high school level of intelligence, before I'll bother with it.


----------



## bripat9643

Seawytch said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really adorable that you think Churches don't care. Of course they care. There were plenty of churches that swore they'd never let a good, god fearing white person marry one of those N words in their church, but they did.
> 
> It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has been able to cite any biblical reference that speaks against interracial marriages because there is none. If you are going to speak against something being acceptable, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be able to prove you can back that point of view through specific scripture reference .. otherwise all your left with is your personal opinion of the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _"Let them marry to whom they think best;* only to the family of the tribe of their father *shall they marry." _
> 
> And it doesn't matter if YOU think the justification is there, they thought it was...to this extent:
> 
> Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix.
> 
> - Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965
Click to expand...

The law of land says churches don't have to pay taxes, dumbass.  Do you want to follow the law of the land, or do you want to change it?

Think before you respond.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat9643 said:


> The law of land says churches don't have to pay taxes, dumbass.  Do you want to follow the law of the land, or do you want to change it?
> 
> Think before you respond.



One, you don't think rationally.

Two, you have repetitively stated you don't support the law of the land.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has been able to cite any biblical reference that speaks against interracial marriages because there is none. If you are going to speak against something being acceptable, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be able to prove you can back that point of view through specific scripture reference .. otherwise all your left with is your personal opinion of the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Let them marry to whom they think best;* only to the family of the tribe of their father *shall they marry." _
> 
> And it doesn't matter if YOU think the justification is there, they thought it was...to this extent:
> 
> Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix.
> 
> - Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law of land says churches don't have to pay taxes, dumbass.  Do you want to follow the law of the land, or do you want to change it?
> 
> Think before you respond.
Click to expand...


That should definitely change.


----------



## flacaltenn

*Moderation Message:

Thread is temporarily closed for moderation. 
Will re-open soon.. 

FlaCalTenn*


----------



## Seawytch

bripat9643 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has been able to cite any biblical reference that speaks against interracial marriages because there is none. If you are going to speak against something being acceptable, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be able to prove you can back that point of view through specific scripture reference .. otherwise all your left with is your personal opinion of the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Let them marry to whom they think best;* only to the family of the tribe of their father *shall they marry." _
> 
> And it doesn't matter if YOU think the justification is there, they thought it was...to this extent:
> 
> Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix.
> 
> - Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law of land says churches don't have to pay taxes, dumbass.  Do you want to follow the law of the land, or do you want to change it?
> 
> Think before you respond.
Click to expand...



That has nothing to do with what I stated or responded to.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> _"Let them marry to whom they think best;* only to the family of the tribe of their father *shall they marry." _ ...



Preserving a race of people isn't the same as discrimination.  We have several breeds of goats for example and we try to keep their breed true to each one.  We like them all equally but they all have different traits that are desireable in different situations.  They all get to eat at the same hayrack, drink the same water, bed in the same barn and get all the same treats.  We have some nice cross-breds too; and of course this is how one developes a new breed ultimately.

And I'm pretty sure that that old jewish law doesn't come with a warning to those who fail to do so and occasionally interbreed are condemned to hell forever, like the warning about failing to resist homosexuality in Jude 1 comes with...


----------



## AmericanFirst

BillyP said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone should follow the laws of the land. Don't like them? Then get out. Churches shouldn't be exempt from taxes either.
Click to expand...

What does traces have to do with this issue? Hint, nothing.


----------



## protectionist

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


Of course they should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals, in fact that ought to be required to do that (as was proposed in the Briggs Initiative in California, years ago)

PS - there is only one thing worse than a suit jacket without a collar and tie.  That is a bald head with a mustache and goatee.

Wait, there is one thing even worse than that >>  a bald head with a mustache and goatee, and holding a cigarette.


----------



## protectionist

RWHeathenGamer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
Click to expand...


Stupid, senseless question.  Homosexuality and race are two entirely different subjects.


----------



## Seawytch

protectionist said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> 
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid, senseless question.  Homosexuality and race are two entirely different subjects.
Click to expand...



It was a bad question because they do have the right not to perform interracial marriages. No church has to, by law, perform any ceremony against the tenants of their faith.


----------



## BillyP

AmericanFirst said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should follow the laws of the land. Don't like them? Then get out. Churches shouldn't be exempt from taxes either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does traces have to do with this issue? Hint, nothing.
Click to expand...


Traces? Wtf is that?


----------



## Andylusion

BillyP said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone should follow the laws of the land. Don't like them? Then get out. Churches shouldn't be exempt from taxes either.
Click to expand...


Yeah.... and religious freedom itself, was one of the primary founding ideals of this land.   Most of us, and likely yourself, simply would not be here if not for that founding principal.

So here you are demanding that everyone obey the law of the land, when the founding laws of this land, were that people had religious freedom from government.


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should follow the laws of the land. Don't like them? Then get out. Churches shouldn't be exempt from taxes either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.... and religious freedom itself, was one of the primary founding ideals of this land.   Most of us, and likely yourself, simply would not be here if not for that founding principal.
> 
> So here you are demanding that everyone obey the law of the land, when the founding laws of this land, were that people had religious freedom from government.
Click to expand...


How do you _not _have religious freedom "from government", exactly?


----------



## GISMYS

THOSE LIVING IN THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION GOD can free you from demon control,believe,confess and repent and accept JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND HE will forgive you and wash you clean. Lasciviousness is all lustful and sexual forms of perverseness. Its the loss of reason to bridle ones desires and causing one to adventure into any and all forms of lustful desires. Its having no control of and living with no boundaries. Lascivious is a demon. Theyre the demons that influence and control the mind of man, causing him not to accept any and all things that are of the natural or normal. For an example, its natural and normal for a man to only want a woman, and a woman to only want a man. But with this demon inside of you, he has your mind in a sexual perverseness of confusion. Thats why, it becomes normal to you if youre a man and want to lie down with a man, and vice versa for a woman being with a woman. Now you live your life with this spirit causing you to go against nature and God, therefore reaping up the Judgement of God against you. Another perfect plan of Satan and his demons.(Rom.1: 24-32/Gal.5: 19)


----------



## Seawytch

GISMYS said:


> THOSE LIVING IN THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION GOD can free you from demon control,believe,confess and repent and accept JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND HE will forgive you and wash you clean. Lasciviousness is all lustful and sexual forms of perverseness. Its the loss of reason to bridle ones desires and causing one to adventure into any and all forms of lustful desires. Its having no control of and living with no boundaries. Lascivious is a demon. Theyre the demons that influence and control the mind of man, causing him not to accept any and all things that are of the natural or normal. For an example, its natural and normal for a man to only want a woman, and a woman to only want a man. But with this demon inside of you, he has your mind in a sexual perverseness of confusion. Thats why, it becomes normal to you if youre a man and want to lie down with a man, and vice versa for a woman being with a woman. Now you live your life with this spirit causing you to go against nature and God, therefore reaping up the Judgement of God against you. Another perfect plan of Satan and his demons.(Rom.1: 24-32/Gal.5: 19)



The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision. ~ Lynn Lavner


----------



## Seawytch




----------



## GISMYS

Truth is Hate to those that Hate Truth!!  ALMIGHTY GOD SAYS SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION!!!


----------



## Luddly Neddite

So, should we reverse all these changes?


----------



## Seawytch




----------



## GISMYS

ROFLMAO!!! SEXUAL PERVERTS COME IN ALL COLORS!!!and you??


----------



## dblack

GISMYS said:


> ROFLMAO!!! SEXUAL PERVERTS COME IN ALL COLORS!!!and you??



It's true. I come in all colors! Taste the rainbow!


----------



## GISMYS

Satan only has power if you believe his lies! BELIEVER! PUT ON THE ARMOR OF GOD AND FIGHT EVIL== be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. 14 Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Ephesians 6:12-17


----------



## emilynghiem

candycorn said:


> If the authority empowered to "rent" out a church sign an agreement with a couple, they should honor the agreement regardless of their sexual orientation.



 [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]
if the conflict in beliefs
is between the "authority who signed the agreement"
and the other members/owners/leaders or others associated with that church,
shouldn't they resolve their issues first BEFORE signing a rental agreement with
same sex couples?

If that church or authority was "misled" to sign an agreement they didn't really agree to,
I don't think it is fair to force them to uphold it.

For example, if I didn't know the couple was an older person and an underaged minor who does not have parental consent either, if I found out later I would ask to void the agreement.

I just happen to respect consent of people and would not force people to uphold contracts they don't agree to, but support mediation to fix the problem where all people agree to the new solution. I don't believe in forced revocation or forcing a change to a contract, but any changes should be by consensus of the people affected.

If you are saying that a separate authority can rent out a church separately from the congregation members and their beliefs, I would still recommend an agreement with those members before doing anything controversial.

Maybe my standards are just different. I believe in resolving conflicts locally between the people directly involved, and not impose conflicts on the state to step in as a third party and decide for people.  I believe in people forming their own policies by mediation, and whatever all people can agree needs to be legislated publicly that is authorized to govt.

Marriage is definitely a personal private decision and people should be empowered to handle it locally and not depend on the state for rights to it. That seems backwards to me.


----------



## emilynghiem

[MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
more specifically
1. if you have Fear
2. if you Unforgiveness
3. if you are Divided from some other person or group
then this is where "Satan" can play divide and conquer

the solutions:
1. perfect LOVE overcomes Fear
Love and faith in Truth overcomes Fear of the unknown
Love and faith in Justice overcomes Fear of change and loss of control to outside interests
Love and faith in Humanity overcomes Fear of conflict and confrontation
2. asking help with Forgiveness overcomes Unforgiveness
especially where we cannot forgive that is where we ask divine help beyond us
3. remembering that all people are included in God's plans or Universal Laws for humanity.
the Devil "divides" us in order to conquer by preventing unity that would correct problems



GISMYS said:


> *Satan only has power if you believe his lies!* BELIEVER! PUT ON THE ARMOR OF GOD AND FIGHT EVIL== be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. 14 Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Ephesians 6:12-17



Standing firmly on God's laws that INCLUDE all people in the spiritual salvation process

GISMYS if your interpretation divides and leaves people out,
then the Devil is in the division in your mind. cast that "spirit of division and fear" out
and the Devil can no longer play your or your neighbors against each other.

YES the gentiles under secular/natural laws are SEPARATE as in DISTINCT (not "separated as in divided against") from
the believers under sacred laws, but Jesus governs both folds of the one flock.
so unite in Christ Jesus and the devil cannot play this division with fear and unforgiveness
to scatter and confuse the flock. Embrace and include, do not divide and conquer.

the corrections made in Christ Jesus are between Neighbors in Christ
who receive and correct each other as equal peers seeking truth.


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
> more specifically
> 1. if you have Fear
> 2. if you Unforgiveness
> 3. if you are Divided from some other person or group
> then this is where "Satan" can play divide and conquer
> 
> the solutions:
> 1. perfect LOVE overcomes Fear
> Love and faith in Truth overcomes Fear of the unknown
> Love and faith in Justice overcomes Fear of change and loss of control to outside interests
> Love and faith in Humanity overcomes Fear of conflict and confrontation
> 2. asking help with Forgiveness overcomes Unforgiveness
> especially where we cannot forgive that is where we ask divine help beyond us
> 3. remembering that all people are included in God's plans or Universal Laws for humanity.
> the Devil "divides" us in order to conquer by preventing unity that would correct problems
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Satan only has power if you believe his lies!* BELIEVER! PUT ON THE ARMOR OF GOD AND FIGHT EVIL== be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. 14 Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Ephesians 6:12-17
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standing firmly on God's laws that INCLUDE all people in the spiritual salvation process
> 
> GISMYS if your interpretation divides and leaves people out,
> then the Devil is in the division in your mind. cast that "spirit of division and fear" out
> and the Devil can no longer play your or your neighbors against each other.
> 
> YES the gentiles under secular/natural laws are SEPARATE as in DISTINCT (not "separated as in divided against") from
> the believers under sacred laws, but Jesus governs both folds of the one flock.
> so unite in Christ Jesus and the devil cannot play this division with fear and unforgiveness
> to scatter and confuse the flock. Embrace and include, do not divide and conquer.
> 
> the corrections made in Christ Jesus are between Neighbors in Christ
> who receive and correct each other as equal peers seeking truth.
Click to expand...


YES!!!""ALL"" who deny JEASUS AS KING OF KINGS, LORD OD LORDS and refuse to accept JESUS AS their SAVIOR ARE BOUND FOR THE ALL TO REAL HELL!!!and you??


----------



## emilynghiem

Luddly Neddite said:


> So, should we reverse all these changes?



 [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] [MENTION=32558]Luddly Neddite[/MENTION]
If you keep Marriage out of the state altogether,
you don't have to fight any of these battles.

It equally contradicts "separation of church and state"
to impose EITHER "belief in marriage equality including same sex"
OR "belief in traditional marriage between one man and one woman"

What the liberals need to decide is 
A. if we BELIEVE in separating beliefs from govt, then shouldn't we apply that equally to OUR own beliefs other people don't believe in so we don't impose on others
B. if we BELIEVE in legislating based on one set of beliefs
shouldn't ALL groups have the right to impose THEIR beliefs by majority or political lobby

Which way is it?

If BOTH parties can only function by imposing their members' beliefs on the public by majority rule, they should both be censured or banned for religious abuse of authority.

There is nothing wrong with defending and practicing one's own beliefs,
but imposing on other people who believe differently is unconstitutional
where govt laws, authority or process is used to discriminate against others.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> YES!!!""ALL"" who deny JEASUS AS KING OF KINGS, LORD OD LORDS and refuse to accept JESUS AS their SAVIOR ARE BOUND FOR THE ALL TO REAL HELL!!!and you??



OK [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
I do believe Christ Jesus is Restorative Justice embodied as divine authority over all laws.
Yes, this includes secular gentiles under natural and civil laws
"Equal Justice Under Law" Equal Protections of the laws
and Consent of the Governed as the Spirit of natural laws for the Gentiles under Christ.

Do you believe in Christ Jesus
as bringing Universal Salvation to all people
Jews and Gentiles included together?

I believe this, and believe that Jews are addressed using Jewish laws,
Gentiles are addressed using natural laws, Buddhists are addressing using Buddhist laws,
and all these laws are under the SAME authority of Jesus as "Equal Justice Under Law"

Do you believe Jesus addresses all people using their own native laws and tongues?


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!!""ALL"" who deny JEASUS AS KING OF KINGS, LORD OD LORDS and refuse to accept JESUS AS their SAVIOR ARE BOUND FOR THE ALL TO REAL HELL!!!and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]
> I do believe Christ Jesus is Restorative Justice embodied as divine authority over all laws.
> Yes, this includes secular gentiles under natural and civil laws
> "Equal Justice Under Law" Equal Protections of the laws
> and Consent of the Governed as the Spirit of natural laws for the Gentiles under Christ.
> 
> Do you believe in Christ Jesus
> as bringing Universal Salvation to all people
> Jews and Gentiles included together?
> 
> I believe this, and believe that Jews are addressed using Jewish laws,
> Gentiles are addressed using natural laws, Buddhists are addressing using Buddhist laws,
> and all these laws are under the SAME authority of Jesus as "Equal Justice Under Law"
> 
> Do you believe Jesus addresses all people using their own native laws and tongues?
Click to expand...


NO 10000% NO!!! THERE IS NO  Universal Salvation to all people,THAT IS A DEMONN INSPIRED LIE FROM THE PIT OF HELL. BILLIONS have and will choose to reject JESUS AS LORD AND AS THEIR PERSONAL SAVIOR.
.


----------



## Silhouette

The poll here is impressive.  85% of the over 100 people who voted believe gay marriage shouldn't be forced on people who don't want to participate in promoting it.  It just about matches the number of people who can't stand Dick Cheney.

It's just an interesting number in light of all those stories you hear about "American's support gay marriage".  Where?  In the 15%?


----------



## KNB

Do any of you undestand that gay marriage is already legal in all 50 states?  Does anyone realize that yet?

Gay marriage is legal because gay marriage is not illegal.  Does everyone understand this?  It really isn't complicated.  Since America can't outlaw gay marriage based on religious scripture (unless the First Amendment to the US Constitution is abolished), gay marriage is therefore legal and open to every couple, regardless of the Bible.

Get used to it, America.  Your only chance to ban gay marriage is to trash the First Amendment so that religious dogma can become public law.  Is that what Christian Conservatives want?


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> The poll here is impressive.  85% of the over 100 people who voted believe gay marriage shouldn't be forced on people who don't want to participate in promoting it.  It just about matches the number of people who can't stand Dick Cheney.
> 
> It's just an interesting number in light of all those stories you hear about "American's support gay marriage".  Where?  In the 15%?



What the poll says, retard, is that people don't agree that we should force a church to marry a couple against their religion.  It has nothing to do with Dick Cheney.  And nothing to do with support or not of gay marriage.  What a retard you are.


----------



## BillyP

GISMYS said:


> YES!!!""ALL"" who deny JEASUS AS KING OF KINGS, LORD OD LORDS and refuse to accept JESUS AS their SAVIOR ARE BOUND FOR THE ALL TO REAL HELL!!!and you??



No they're not, Jesus paid everyone's sin debt by dying on the cross, so actually, that makes hell empty.


----------



## Andylusion

Luddly Neddite said:


> So, should we reverse all these changes?



We've been over those.  The entire pict is wrong.  So are you.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

A church is not a building. It's the people inside that make up the church.

Those people can burn down the building if they decide to. 

I am a Christian and belong to the Mohawk Cumberland Presbyterian Church. It's a small Christian church, we average around 35 people a week, and we are a united family. We would not allow a gay wedding inside our church. It is against our beliefs. If the government decided to force that, we would burn the church building to the ground and gather on Sunday mornings on top of the ashes, before allowing that to happen.

No worries though, that will never happen. It's just a dream some people who despise religion and religious freedom have.


----------



## candycorn

emilynghiem said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the authority empowered to "rent" out a church sign an agreement with a couple, they should honor the agreement regardless of their sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]
> if the conflict in beliefs
> is between the "authority who signed the agreement"
> and the other members/owners/leaders or others associated with that church,
> shouldn't they resolve their issues first BEFORE signing a rental agreement with
> same sex couples?
> 
> If that church or authority was "misled" to sign an agreement they didn't really agree to,
> I don't think it is fair to force them to uphold it.
> 
> For example, if I didn't know the couple was an older person and an underaged minor who does not have parental consent either, if I found out later I would ask to void the agreement.
Click to expand...

Well, you're talking about illegalities where as they wouldn't have been granted a license and no court would enforce such a contract.  So yes, I would ask to void the contract as well.



emilynghiem said:


> I just happen to respect consent of people and would not force people to uphold contracts they don't agree to, but support mediation to fix the problem where all people agree to the new solution. I don't believe in forced revocation or forcing a change to a contract, but any changes should be by consensus of the people affected.
> 
> If you are saying that a separate authority can rent out a church separately from the congregation members and their beliefs, I would still recommend an agreement with those members before doing anything controversial.


Well, I was talking about the Senior Pastor or someone in the church hierarchy.  Not someone "outside the congregation unless you think that the church officers are "outside".  I would argue that the congregation has no say in the matter since they are not being injured by such an event.


----------



## JoeB131

In 20 years, most churches will do gay weddings and will try to pretend they had nothing to do with the foolishness going on right now.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> In 20 years, most churches will do gay weddings and will try to pretend they had nothing to do with the foolishness going on right now.



Funny... Romans said that about Christians too.  In fact, they slaughtered and killed them.

Nearly 2000 years later... hmmm... we're still here, and still won't accept homosexuality.

No, I don't think so Joe.  Just don't think that's going to happen.


----------



## Andylusion

UllysesS.Archer said:


> A church is not a building. It's the people inside that make up the church.
> 
> Those people can burn down the building if they decide to.
> 
> I am a Christian and belong to the Mohawk Cumberland Presbyterian Church. It's a small Christian church, we average around 35 people a week, and we are a united family. We would not allow a gay wedding inside our church. It is against our beliefs. If the government decided to force that, we would burn the church building to the ground and gather on Sunday mornings on top of the ashes, before allowing that to happen.
> 
> No worries though, that will never happen. It's just a dream some people who despise religion and religious freedom have.



Exactly.   I go to a large church of just under 1,000 people, and we are in the same boat.   We will *never* do gay weddings.  It won't happen.  Period.  I'll sit on a folding chair, on an empty lot, before doing a gay wedding.


----------



## BillyP

UllysesS.Archer said:


> A church is not a building. It's the people inside that make up the church.
> 
> Those people can burn down the building if they decide to.
> 
> I am a Christian and belong to the Mohawk Cumberland Presbyterian Church. It's a small Christian church, we average around 35 people a week, and we are a united family. We would not allow a gay wedding inside our church. It is against our beliefs. If the government decided to force that, we would burn the church building to the ground and gather on Sunday mornings on top of the ashes, before allowing that to happen.
> 
> No worries though, that will never happen. It's just a dream some people who despise religion and religious freedom have.


Wouldn't religious freedom allow a gay Christian to be married in a church? Your homophobic church?


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> We've been over those.  The entire pict is wrong.  So are you.



The picture is "dead on balls accurate". I know it's uncomfortable to find out you have so much in common with anti-miscegenationists, but that's just the way it is.  Discrimination, whether it is for gender or race, is still discrimination.


----------



## Andylusion

BillyP said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A church is not a building. It's the people inside that make up the church.
> 
> Those people can burn down the building if they decide to.
> 
> I am a Christian and belong to the Mohawk Cumberland Presbyterian Church. It's a small Christian church, we average around 35 people a week, and we are a united family. We would not allow a gay wedding inside our church. It is against our beliefs. If the government decided to force that, we would burn the church building to the ground and gather on Sunday mornings on top of the ashes, before allowing that to happen.
> 
> No worries though, that will never happen. It's just a dream some people who despise religion and religious freedom have.
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't religious freedom allow a gay Christian to be married in a church? Your homophobic church?
Click to expand...


Well you can call it whatever you like.  If homophobic makes you feel better or whatever, that's fine with us.

Here's the bottom line....   The Christian Bible, the book which is the fundamental basis for all Christian belief, and which we consider to be the very word of G-d of the Universe, says that Homosexuality is a sin.

Sin, meaning that is wrong in the eyes of G-d.

Therefore, our church will not accommodate, accept, provide services to, do weddings for, or allow anyone within our church to engage in, homosexual acts.

If we find out a member of the church is practicing homosexuality, whether it is a person who just sits in a pew, or is a pastor, they will be removed.

Equally, we will not marry them.   Period.

Now you can slap whatever label on us that you wish... I don't care.  Homosexuality is against our beliefs, and we will not accommodate it.


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've been over those.  The entire pict is wrong.  So are you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The picture is "dead on balls accurate". I know it's uncomfortable to find out you have so much in common with anti-miscegenationists, but that's just the way it is.  Discrimination, whether it is for gender or race, is still discrimination.
Click to expand...


I already addressed each of the claims before.  You can repeat your lies all you like, that doesn't make them anything more than lies.   I know it's uncomfortable for you to be called out for the lies and crap you spew, but the solution is for you not to spew such crap over and over.


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've been over those.  The entire pict is wrong.  So are you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The picture is "dead on balls accurate". I know it's uncomfortable to find out you have so much in common with anti-miscegenationists, but that's just the way it is.  Discrimination, whether it is for gender or race, is still discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already addressed each of the claims before.  You can repeat your lies all you like, that doesn't make them anything more than lies.   I know it's uncomfortable for you to be called out for the lies and crap you spew, but the solution is for you not to spew such crap over and over.
Click to expand...


Yes, we all saw your deflection on them. 


Bet You Cant Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes


"They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage

This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.

It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nations survival in the long run.

Be sure to let us know how you scored.


----------



## Seawytch

emilynghiem said:


> If you keep Marriage out of the state altogether,
> you don't have to fight any of these battles.
> 
> It equally contradicts "separation of church and state"
> to impose EITHER "belief in marriage equality including same sex"
> OR "belief in traditional marriage between one man and one woman"
> 
> What the liberals need to decide is
> A. if we BELIEVE in separating beliefs from govt, then shouldn't we apply that equally to OUR own beliefs other people don't believe in so we don't impose on others
> B. if we BELIEVE in legislating based on one set of beliefs
> shouldn't ALL groups have the right to impose THEIR beliefs by majority or political lobby
> 
> Which way is it?
> 
> If BOTH parties can only function by imposing their members' beliefs on the public by majority rule, they should both be censured or banned for religious abuse of authority.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with defending and practicing one's own beliefs,
> but imposing on other people who believe differently is unconstitutional
> where govt laws, authority or process is used to discriminate against others.



Really? After all this discussion and you still don't understand the difference between civil and religious marriage? A civil marriage imposes "beliefs" on no one. Religious marriage imposes beliefs only on those that want to be imposed upon. 

The separation is already there, I'm sorry you can't see it.


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The picture is "dead on balls accurate". I know it's uncomfortable to find out you have so much in common with anti-miscegenationists, but that's just the way it is.  Discrimination, whether it is for gender or race, is still discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already addressed each of the claims before.  You can repeat your lies all you like, that doesn't make them anything more than lies.   I know it's uncomfortable for you to be called out for the lies and crap you spew, but the solution is for you not to spew such crap over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we all saw your deflection on them.
> 
> 
> Bet You Cant Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes
> 
> 
> "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage
> 
> This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."
> 
> State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.
> 
> It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nations survival in the long run.
> 
> Be sure to let us know how you scored.
Click to expand...


I don't care how I scored.  Have I not told you people enough times that I don't give a crap what you think of me, or my views?

You have the right to be wrong.  You are still wrong.   Repeating wrong over and over, just solidifies the fact you are wrong, and consistently wrong.

The two topics of slavery / race, and homosexuality, are not the same.  And never will be no matter what crap you spew, what picts you post, or what comparisons you make.

There is no race.   We all started from Adam and Eve.   Even if you are ignorant enough to believe "boom there it is" evolutionary THEORY....  even under that ignorance, you still have all of us starting from a common origin, which indicates there is no such thing as race.

Having us fighting against arbitrary distinctions between one group of humans and another group of humans, is against Biblical doctrine, and the reason Christians led the fight against it.

Trying to compare that with changing the fundamental definition of marriage, between a man and a woman, which has been true throughout the ages, is not a valid comparison.

You are wrong.  You are consistently wrong.  And I really couldn't care less what a person who pushes wrong comparisons, thinks about me or my views.

I don't care what you think.  It's that simple.


----------



## Seawytch

People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".



Which changes nothing of what I said.  Not a single thing.   Nifty factoid, irrelevant to the conversation.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".



What does race have to do with deviant sexual behaviors again?  Could you explain that to me in legal terms?

And when you're explaining that, can you tell me how any legal advances for these behaviors/cult can be limited to just those types of behaviors but no others?

Ie: when a precedent is set for a group of minority behaviors to dictate to the majority that objects to them [see the 85% in the poll above] forcing their ideology upon them, where do we draw the line on that same thing happening with other cults?  And for what reasons?  Because they are "icky" or "bad" or otherwise objectionable to the majority?

Behaviors don't have rights.  Check your local penal and civil codes for details...


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

BillyP said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A church is not a building. It's the people inside that make up the church.
> 
> Those people can burn down the building if they decide to.
> 
> I am a Christian and belong to the Mohawk Cumberland Presbyterian Church. It's a small Christian church, we average around 35 people a week, and we are a united family. We would not allow a gay wedding inside our church. It is against our beliefs. If the government decided to force that, we would burn the church building to the ground and gather on Sunday mornings on top of the ashes, before allowing that to happen.
> 
> No worries though, that will never happen. It's just a dream some people who despise religion and religious freedom have.
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't religious freedom allow a gay Christian to be married in a church? Your homophobic church?
Click to expand...


There may be people who think they are Christian and gay, but in reality, they aren't! 

Religious freedom gives the people that are the church the right to worship and practice those beliefs as they see fit, and as they understand Scripture. As long as those same people are not doing any harm to others. That being said, I could see a gay couple wanting to be married in a church, and raising the argument that if a church would not let them marry there, they are being unfairly harmed, but that is just people wanting to cause trouble. It would be no different if I came into your house, because I grew up in it, and said this is where I am going to get married on July 25 of this year, and you can't do anything about it.

One more thing. There is no such thing as homosexuality. It is just perverted people wishing to carry out disgusting acts. If you don't believe me, show me the science that proves homosexuality.

Is my church homophobic, you bet your ass it is. They are an abomination before God. Do I love them as I do anyone else, you bet your ass I do. You can love the sinner, and not the sin, and all have sinned, you, me, Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, all but Jesus have committed sin and still do every day they live.


----------



## Silhouette

UllysesS.Archer said:


> There may be people who think they are Christian and gay, but in reality, they aren't!
> 
> Religious freedom gives the people that are the church the right to worship and practice those beliefs as they see fit, and as they understand Scripture. As long as those same people are not doing any harm to others. That being said, I could see a gay couple wanting to be married in a church, and raising the argument that if a church would not let them marry there, they are being unfairly harmed, but that is just people wanting to cause trouble. It would be no different if I came into your house, because I grew up in it, and said this is where I am going to get married on July 25 of this year, and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> One more thing. There is no such thing as homosexuality. It is just perverted people wishing to carry out disgusting acts. If you don't believe me, show me the science that proves homosexuality.
> 
> Is my church homophobic, you bet your ass it is. They are an abomination before God. Do I love them as I do anyone else, you bet your ass I do. You can love the sinner, and not the sin, and all have sinned, you, me, Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, all but Jesus have committed sin and still do every day they live.



I saw a documentary the other day where some ancient texts revealed that Jesus in his youth was a bit of an asshole...dabbling in the dark arts no less.  I guess he had talents early on.  He came to realize the errors of his ways and pledged himself to the Higher Power.  Pretty sure his overall message and the message of God through him was to the common man, "If I can do it, you can do it".  

Of course that all got turned around when they made him into a demi-god...a thing he did not want.  I think that's why Muhammed came into the game.  No images, no worshipping the messenger.  That sort of thing.


----------



## GISMYS

Silhouette said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There may be people who think they are Christian and gay, but in reality, they aren't!
> 
> Religious freedom gives the people that are the church the right to worship and practice those beliefs as they see fit, and as they understand Scripture. As long as those same people are not doing any harm to others. That being said, I could see a gay couple wanting to be married in a church, and raising the argument that if a church would not let them marry there, they are being unfairly harmed, but that is just people wanting to cause trouble. It would be no different if I came into your house, because I grew up in it, and said this is where I am going to get married on July 25 of this year, and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> One more thing. There is no such thing as homosexuality. It is just perverted people wishing to carry out disgusting acts. If you don't believe me, show me the science that proves homosexuality.
> 
> Is my church homophobic, you bet your ass it is. They are an abomination before God. Do I love them as I do anyone else, you bet your ass I do. You can love the sinner, and not the sin, and all have sinned, you, me, Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, all but Jesus have committed sin and still do every day they live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw a documentary the other day where some ancient texts revealed that Jesus in his youth was a bit of an asshole...dabbling in the dark arts no less.  I guess he had talents early on.  He came to realize the errors of his ways and pledged himself to the Higher Power.  Pretty sure his overall message and the message of God through him was to the common man, "If I can do it, you can do it".
> 
> Of course that all got turned around when they made him into a demi-god...a thing he did not want.  I think that's why Muhammed came into the game.  No images, no worshipping the messenger.  That sort of thing.
Click to expand...


SO YOU BELIEVE THE DEMON INSPIRED lies?? WHY NOT RERAD GOD'S WORD,THERE IS WHERE THE REAL JESUS IS REVEILED!!!


----------



## Silhouette

GISMYS said:


> SO YOU BELIEVE THE DEMON INSPIRED lies?? WHY NOT RERAD GOD'S WORD,THERE IS WHERE THE REAL JESUS IS REVEILED!!!



WHY DON'T YOU STOP ROLE-PLAYING A PSYCHO BIBLE-THUMPER WHO IS MILKING THE ABSURD-STANCE IN OPPOSITION IN ORDER TO GAIN SYMPATHY FOR THE LGBT CULT!!!

REPENT OR BE DAMNED I SAY!!


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".



Remember that people who thought themselves to be Christians slayed thousands of people trying to make those people turn to Christianity. Were those people true Christians? Hell no.

A person has no choice to be born American, or white, or black, or Hispanic, or anything else. No one would choose to have a child born with a disability.

Homosexuality IS a choice. Just as adultery, and promiscuity, and even a consenting man and woman living together sleeping in the same bed. Those are all choices that people make.

Interracial marriage is not a sin, a Christian marrying an unbeliever, that is considered a sin, according to what I know of the Bible. Others believe differently than I do, but we still search the Scriptures for the answers to all kinds of questions, the key is to keep on searching, for Christianity is a learning religion, and as we grow, we learn and we adapt. The basis for our faith is the one true constant. John 3:16, if you have that, and you truly believe that, you will want to learn more.


----------



## Silhouette

GISMYS said:


> SO YOU BELIEVE THE DEMON INSPIRED lies?? WHY NOT RERAD GOD'S WORD,THERE IS WHERE THE REAL JESUS IS REVEILED!!!



WHY DON'T YOU STOP ROLE-PLAYING A PSYCHO BIBLE-THUMPER WHO IS PLAYING UP THE ABSURD IN ORDER TO GAIN SYMPATHY FOR THE LGBT CULT!!!

REPENT OR BE DAMNED I SAY!!  [ALL CAPS ADDED FOR EMPHASIS!]


----------



## GISMYS

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that people who thought themselves to be Christians slayed thousands of people trying to make those people turn to Christianity. Were those people true Christians? Hell no.
> 
> A person has no choice to be born American, or white, or black, or Hispanic, or anything else. No one would choose to have a child born with a disability.
> 
> Homosexuality IS a choice. Just as adultery, and promiscuity, and even a consenting man and woman living together sleeping in the same bed. Those are all choices that people make.
> 
> Interracial marriage is not a sin, a Christian marrying an unbeliever, that is considered a sin, according to what I know of the Bible. Others believe differently than I do, but we still search the Scriptures for the answers to all kinds of questions, the key is to keep on searching, for Christianity is a learning religion, and as we grow, we learn and we adapt. The basis for our faith is the one true constant. John 3:16, if you have that, and you truly believe that, you will want to learn more.
Click to expand...




&#9668; 2 Corinthians 6:14 &#9658; 
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Silhouette said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There may be people who think they are Christian and gay, but in reality, they aren't!
> 
> Religious freedom gives the people that are the church the right to worship and practice those beliefs as they see fit, and as they understand Scripture. As long as those same people are not doing any harm to others. That being said, I could see a gay couple wanting to be married in a church, and raising the argument that if a church would not let them marry there, they are being unfairly harmed, but that is just people wanting to cause trouble. It would be no different if I came into your house, because I grew up in it, and said this is where I am going to get married on July 25 of this year, and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> One more thing. There is no such thing as homosexuality. It is just perverted people wishing to carry out disgusting acts. If you don't believe me, show me the science that proves homosexuality.
> 
> Is my church homophobic, you bet your ass it is. They are an abomination before God. Do I love them as I do anyone else, you bet your ass I do. You can love the sinner, and not the sin, and all have sinned, you, me, Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, all but Jesus have committed sin and still do every day they live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw a documentary the other day where some ancient texts revealed that Jesus in his youth was a bit of an asshole...dabbling in the dark arts no less.  I guess he had talents early on.  He came to realize the errors of his ways and pledged himself to the Higher Power.  Pretty sure his overall message and the message of God through him was to the common man, "If I can do it, you can do it".
> 
> Of course that all got turned around when they made him into a demi-god...a thing he did not want.  I think that's why Muhammed came into the game.  No images, no worshipping the messenger.  That sort of thing.
Click to expand...



I'm sure those who did the documentary interviewed all the people they needed to, to find out how big terror He was. They probably interviewed all His friends and schoolmates. 

13 men went to their graves, many of them under pain of death, proclaiming Jesus is Lord. I'll take their word over yours for all of eternity.


----------



## Silhouette

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There may be people who think they are Christian and gay, but in reality, they aren't!
> 
> Religious freedom gives the people that are the church the right to worship and practice those beliefs as they see fit, and as they understand Scripture. As long as those same people are not doing any harm to others. That being said, I could see a gay couple wanting to be married in a church, and raising the argument that if a church would not let them marry there, they are being unfairly harmed, but that is just people wanting to cause trouble. It would be no different if I came into your house, because I grew up in it, and said this is where I am going to get married on July 25 of this year, and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> One more thing. There is no such thing as homosexuality. It is just perverted people wishing to carry out disgusting acts. If you don't believe me, show me the science that proves homosexuality.
> 
> Is my church homophobic, you bet your ass it is. They are an abomination before God. Do I love them as I do anyone else, you bet your ass I do. You can love the sinner, and not the sin, and all have sinned, you, me, Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, all but Jesus have committed sin and still do every day they live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw a documentary the other day where some ancient texts revealed that Jesus in his youth was a bit of an asshole...dabbling in the dark arts no less.  I guess he had talents early on.  He came to realize the errors of his ways and pledged himself to the Higher Power.  Pretty sure his overall message and the message of God through him was to the common man, "If I can do it, you can do it".
> 
> Of course that all got turned around when they made him into a demi-god...a thing he did not want.  I think that's why Muhammed came into the game.  No images, no worshipping the messenger.  That sort of thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure those who did the documentary interviewed all the people they needed to, to find out how big terror He was. They probably interviewed all His friends and schoolmates.
> 
> 13 men went to their graves, many of them under pain of death, proclaiming Jesus is Lord. I'll take their word over yours for all of eternity.
Click to expand...


Well, um, let's see.  First of all I'm on your side with this debate.  Secondly, Jesus himself went to his death proclaiming he was not a God but merely a man sent to portray that all men could be like him: god-like.  But never God Itself.  You can't even know what God is, much less claim to be Him/Her/It.  It always stuns me how this insertion was made to waylay the actual and best purpose of Jesus: the lesson that all can be like him.

Instead, a dark influence took that great pragmatic tool to save the souls of men and twisted it to blind them and put them on their knees, worshipping yet another dull, lifeless idol..  As they sit and cluster together, inert, with their favorite brand...all patting each other on the back that they are "saved" and therefore not required to do one more ounce of personal work to make sure that that is so.  Right there is the fodder of the weeds of evil to grow: Idle hands/idle spirits.


----------



## GISMYS

Silhouette said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw a documentary the other day where some ancient texts revealed that Jesus in his youth was a bit of an asshole...dabbling in the dark arts no less.  I guess he had talents early on.  He came to realize the errors of his ways and pledged himself to the Higher Power.  Pretty sure his overall message and the message of God through him was to the common man, "If I can do it, you can do it".
> 
> Of course that all got turned around when they made him into a demi-god...a thing he did not want.  I think that's why Muhammed came into the game.  No images, no worshipping the messenger.  That sort of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure those who did the documentary interviewed all the people they needed to, to find out how big terror He was. They probably interviewed all His friends and schoolmates.
> 
> 13 men went to their graves, many of them under pain of death, proclaiming Jesus is Lord. I'll take their word over yours for all of eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, um, let's see.  First of all I'm on your side with this debate.  Secondly, Jesus himself went to his death proclaiming he was not a God but merely a man sent to portray that all men could be like him: god-like.  But never God Itself.  You can't even know what God is, much less claim to be Him/Her/It.  It always stuns me how this insertion was made to waylay the actual and best purpose of Jesus: the lesson that all can be like him.
> 
> Instead, a dark influence took that great pragmatic tool to save the souls of men and twisted it to blind them and put them on their knees, worshipping yet another dull, lifeless idol..  As they sit and cluster together, inert, with their favorite brand...all patting each other on the back that they are "saved" and therefore not required to do one more ounce of personal work to make sure that that is so.
Click to expand...


YOUR IGNORANCE IS SHOWING!!! IF YOU WANT TO TRY TO DEBATE GOD'S WORD read it first!!!


----------



## BillyP

UllysesS.Archer said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A church is not a building. It's the people inside that make up the church.
> 
> Those people can burn down the building if they decide to.
> 
> I am a Christian and belong to the Mohawk Cumberland Presbyterian Church. It's a small Christian church, we average around 35 people a week, and we are a united family. We would not allow a gay wedding inside our church. It is against our beliefs. If the government decided to force that, we would burn the church building to the ground and gather on Sunday mornings on top of the ashes, before allowing that to happen.
> 
> No worries though, that will never happen. It's just a dream some people who despise religion and religious freedom have.
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't religious freedom allow a gay Christian to be married in a church? Your homophobic church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There may be people who think they are Christian and gay, but in reality, they aren't!
> 
> Religious freedom gives the people that are the church the right to worship and practice those beliefs as they see fit, and as they understand Scripture. As long as those same people are not doing any harm to others. That being said, I could see a gay couple wanting to be married in a church, and raising the argument that if a church would not let them marry there, they are being unfairly harmed, but that is just people wanting to cause trouble. It would be no different if I came into your house, because I grew up in it, and said this is where I am going to get married on July 25 of this year, and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> One more thing. There is no such thing as homosexuality. It is just perverted people wishing to carry out disgusting acts. If you don't believe me,* show me the science that proves homosexuality*.
> 
> Is my church homophobic, you bet your ass it is. They are an abomination before God. Do I love them as I do anyone else, you bet your ass I do. You can love the sinner, and not the sin, and all have sinned, you, me, Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, all but Jesus have committed sin and still do every day they live.
Click to expand...


Right after you show me the science that says the world was created in six days. 
Anyways, even if gays are sinning, Jesus already paid their debt by dying on the cross for their sins. So god has no issue with gays. Plus, god wanted Adam not to have sex with the woman and stay in gay heaven with him. Good thing Adam refused.


----------



## GISMYS

BillyP said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't religious freedom allow a gay Christian to be married in a church? Your homophobic church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be people who think they are Christian and gay, but in reality, they aren't!
> 
> Religious freedom gives the people that are the church the right to worship and practice those beliefs as they see fit, and as they understand Scripture. As long as those same people are not doing any harm to others. That being said, I could see a gay couple wanting to be married in a church, and raising the argument that if a church would not let them marry there, they are being unfairly harmed, but that is just people wanting to cause trouble. It would be no different if I came into your house, because I grew up in it, and said this is where I am going to get married on July 25 of this year, and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> One more thing. There is no such thing as homosexuality. It is just perverted people wishing to carry out disgusting acts. If you don't believe me,* show me the science that proves homosexuality*.
> 
> Is my church homophobic, you bet your ass it is. They are an abomination before God. Do I love them as I do anyone else, you bet your ass I do. You can love the sinner, and not the sin, and all have sinned, you, me, Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, all but Jesus have committed sin and still do every day they live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right after you show me the science that says the world was created in six days.
> Anyways, even if gays are sinning, Jesus already paid their debt by dying on the cross for their sins. So god has no issue with gays. Plus, god wanted Adam not to have sex with the woman and stay in gay heaven with him. Good thing Adam refused.
Click to expand...

===================== YOUR Ignorance is showing, jesus paid the sin debt of believers,those thet deny JESUS as their LORD AND SAVIOR must pay their own sin debt!!!= death and hell!!! and you??


----------



## Richard-H

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that people who thought themselves to be Christians slayed thousands of people trying to make those people turn to Christianity. Were those people true Christians? Hell no.
> 
> A person has no choice to be born American, or white, or black, or Hispanic, or anything else. No one would choose to have a child born with a disability.
> 
> Homosexuality IS a choice. Just as adultery, and promiscuity, and even a consenting man and woman living together sleeping in the same bed. Those are all choices that people make.
> 
> Interracial marriage is not a sin, a Christian marrying an unbeliever, that is considered a sin, according to what I know of the Bible. Others believe differently than I do, but we still search the Scriptures for the answers to all kinds of questions, the key is to keep on searching, for Christianity is a learning religion, and as we grow, we learn and we adapt. The basis for our faith is the one true constant. John 3:16, if you have that, and you truly believe that, you will want to learn more.
Click to expand...


So if homosexuality is a choice, do YOU have to constantly choose whether you are a homosexual or not? Is that something you have to choose on a daily basis?

Funny, I'm strictly heterosexual, I've never contemplated whether I chose to be heterosexual or homosexual. I have no choice, I'm heterosexual and that's all there is to it.

I feel really sorry for all you religious repressed homosexuals that have to CHOOSE on a daily basis not to be homosexual.


----------



## GISMYS

Richard-H said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that people who thought themselves to be Christians slayed thousands of people trying to make those people turn to Christianity. Were those people true Christians? Hell no.
> 
> A person has no choice to be born American, or white, or black, or Hispanic, or anything else. No one would choose to have a child born with a disability.
> 
> Homosexuality IS a choice. Just as adultery, and promiscuity, and even a consenting man and woman living together sleeping in the same bed. Those are all choices that people make.
> 
> Interracial marriage is not a sin, a Christian marrying an unbeliever, that is considered a sin, according to what I know of the Bible. Others believe differently than I do, but we still search the Scriptures for the answers to all kinds of questions, the key is to keep on searching, for Christianity is a learning religion, and as we grow, we learn and we adapt. The basis for our faith is the one true constant. John 3:16, if you have that, and you truly believe that, you will want to learn more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if homosexuality is a choice, do YOU have to constantly choose whether you are a homosexual or not? Is that something you have to choose on a daily basis?
> 
> Funny, I'm strictly heterosexual, I've never contemplated whether I chose to be heterosexual or homosexual. I have no choice, I'm heterosexual and that's all there is to it.
> 
> I feel really sorry for all you religious repressed homosexuals that have to CHOOSE on a daily basis not to be homosexual.
Click to expand...


YES!!! Any sinner can choose to do acts of sick sexual perversion,but count the cost!!!


----------



## BillyP

GISMYS said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There may be people who think they are Christian and gay, but in reality, they aren't!
> 
> Religious freedom gives the people that are the church the right to worship and practice those beliefs as they see fit, and as they understand Scripture. As long as those same people are not doing any harm to others. That being said, I could see a gay couple wanting to be married in a church, and raising the argument that if a church would not let them marry there, they are being unfairly harmed, but that is just people wanting to cause trouble. It would be no different if I came into your house, because I grew up in it, and said this is where I am going to get married on July 25 of this year, and you can't do anything about it.
> 
> One more thing. There is no such thing as homosexuality. It is just perverted people wishing to carry out disgusting acts. If you don't believe me,* show me the science that proves homosexuality*.
> 
> Is my church homophobic, you bet your ass it is. They are an abomination before God. Do I love them as I do anyone else, you bet your ass I do. You can love the sinner, and not the sin, and all have sinned, you, me, Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, all but Jesus have committed sin and still do every day they live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right after you show me the science that says the world was created in six days.
> Anyways, even if gays are sinning, Jesus already paid their debt by dying on the cross for their sins. So god has no issue with gays. Plus, god wanted Adam not to have sex with the woman and stay in gay heaven with him. Good thing Adam refused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ===================== YOUR Ignorance is showing, jesus paid the sin debt of believers,those thet deny JESUS as their LORD AND SAVIOR must pay their own sin debt!!!= death and hell!!! and you??
Click to expand...

Wrong! Jesus died for my sins and everyone else's, including gays. You don't have to believe in gravity for it to have an effect on you.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

BillyP said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right after you show me the science that says the world was created in six days.
> Anyways, even if gays are sinning, Jesus already paid their debt by dying on the cross for their sins. So god has no issue with gays. Plus, god wanted Adam not to have sex with the woman and stay in gay heaven with him. Good thing Adam refused.
> 
> 
> 
> ===================== YOUR Ignorance is showing, jesus paid the sin debt of believers,those thet deny JESUS as their LORD AND SAVIOR must pay their own sin debt!!!= death and hell!!! and you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong! Jesus died for my sins and everyone else's, including gays. You don't have to believe in gravity for it to have an effect on you.
Click to expand...


Yes, Jesus did die for the sins of everyone. If you believe in Him and renounce your sins, that means your sinful ways as well. 

However, if you or I willfully go out and and commit sins thinking that Jesus will forgive for whatever we may do, there is no forgiveness for those sins. You can't murder someone all the time thinking I'll be forgiven for this. It doesn't work that way, as much as some people want it to.


----------



## BillyP

UllysesS.Archer said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ===================== YOUR Ignorance is showing, jesus paid the sin debt of believers,those thet deny JESUS as their LORD AND SAVIOR must pay their own sin debt!!!= death and hell!!! and you??
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! Jesus died for my sins and everyone else's, including gays. You don't have to believe in gravity for it to have an effect on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Jesus did die for the sins of everyone. If you believe in Him and renounce your sins, that means your sinful ways as well.
> 
> However, if you or I willfully go out and and commit sins thinking that Jesus will forgive for whatever we may do, there is no forgiveness for those sins. You can't murder someone all the time thinking I'll be forgiven for this. It doesn't work that way, as much as some people want it to.
Click to expand...

True story that I read in our local paper: a Hell's Angel was gunned down so they held his funeral in a church. So the reporter asked the priest how he could give such a bad apple a church service. The priest replied that the guy might have repented half a second before he died. So in other words, you can sin your whole life and repent just before you die, so there's really no point to repent now, you can knowingly sin and repent later, god won't care.


----------



## GISMYS

BillyP said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! Jesus died for my sins and everyone else's, including gays. You don't have to believe in gravity for it to have an effect on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jesus did die for the sins of everyone. If you believe in Him and renounce your sins, that means your sinful ways as well.
> 
> However, if you or I willfully go out and and commit sins thinking that Jesus will forgive for whatever we may do, there is no forgiveness for those sins. You can't murder someone all the time thinking I'll be forgiven for this. It doesn't work that way, as much as some people want it to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True story that I read in our local paper: a Hell's Angel was gunned down so they held his funeral in a church. So the reporter asked the priest how he could give such a bad apple a church service. The priest replied that the guy might have repented half a second before he died. So in other words, you can sin your whole life and repent just before you die, so there's really no point to repent now, you can knowingly sin and repent later, god won't care.
Click to expand...

LOL!!! little man cannot fool GOD. god KNOWS YOUR THOUGHTS EVEN BEFORE YOU CAN THINK THEM.  PLUS YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN OR HOW YOU WILL DIE.


----------



## itfitzme

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



The real question is why do you ask?  Has anyone suggested they should?  Some lawsuit?  Some complaint?  Or are you just making shit up to argue about?

I ask because when I went searching, I got

U.S. Presbyterian Church Votes to Allow Same-Sex Marriage Ceremonies


""The largest Presbyterian denomination in the U.S. voted today in Detroit to allow the clergy to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies in the states where gay marriage is recognized. Passed by 76 percent of its 1.8 million members, the provision will amend the church's Book of Order, or constitution, to now read "two persons" instead of "a man and woman" in its language about marriage."

This is  representative of the results, completely contrary to what you are positing.

So, I gotta ask...why are you making shit up that seems to not exist?  Why not ask if pixies should be allowed to own unicorns as both are as equal true?

Because you are a shit stirrer.  You have to make shit up in order to justify your delusions.   Your question has no relationship to reality. And for some matter of a mental dissorder, you have no reality filter.

No sane person is ever going to force a church or pastor to perform a wedding that he doesn't want to.   It is preposterous when it is easier to get Joan Rivers to perform the ceremony.


----------



## itfitzme

GISMYS said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jesus did die for the sins of everyone. If you believe in Him and renounce your sins, that means your sinful ways as well.
> 
> However, if you or I willfully go out and and commit sins thinking that Jesus will forgive for whatever we may do, there is no forgiveness for those sins. You can't murder someone all the time thinking I'll be forgiven for this. It doesn't work that way, as much as some people want it to.
> 
> 
> 
> True story that I read in our local paper: a Hell's Angel was gunned down so they held his funeral in a church. So the reporter asked the priest how he could give such a bad apple a church service. The priest replied that the guy might have repented half a second before he died. So in other words, you can sin your whole life and repent just before you die, so there's really no point to repent now, you can knowingly sin and repent later, god won't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL!!! little man cannot fool GOD. god KNOWS YOUR THOUGHTS EVEN BEFORE YOU CAN THINK THEM.  PLUS YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN OR HOW YOU WILL DIE.
Click to expand...


I'll tell you again, I have seen God.  God has spoken to me.  And God has made it perfectly clear that you are a moron and God detests your very existance. Of all the souls that graces life, God hates you?


----------



## GISMYS

itfitzme said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> True story that I read in our local paper: a Hell's Angel was gunned down so they held his funeral in a church. So the reporter asked the priest how he could give such a bad apple a church service. The priest replied that the guy might have repented half a second before he died. So in other words, you can sin your whole life and repent just before you die, so there's really no point to repent now, you can knowingly sin and repent later, god won't care.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! little man cannot fool GOD. god KNOWS YOUR THOUGHTS EVEN BEFORE YOU CAN THINK THEM.  PLUS YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN OR HOW YOU WILL DIE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll tell you again, I have seen God.  God has spoken to me.  And God has made it perfectly clear that you are a moron and God detests your very existance. Of all the souls that graces life, God hates you?
Click to expand...


Satan is a liar and the father of liars!!!and you????


----------



## JoeB131

Androw said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 20 years, most churches will do gay weddings and will try to pretend they had nothing to do with the foolishness going on right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny... Romans said that about Christians too.  In fact, they slaughtered and killed them.
> 
> Nearly 2000 years later... hmmm... we're still here, and still won't accept homosexuality.
> 
> No, I don't think so Joe.  Just don't think that's going to happen.
Click to expand...


Uh, actually, guy, Roman persecution of the Christians is a myth.  It never really happened.  Christians made that shit up later because it was added to the 'backstory' and let the Christians overwrite certain local cults as their own. 

I should also point out that all the way up until the Civil War, "Christians" used the bible to justify slavery.  And then one day, people finally figured out, "Duh" some people owin g other people was just wrong.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 20 years, most churches will do gay weddings and will try to pretend they had nothing to do with the foolishness going on right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny... Romans said that about Christians too.  In fact, they slaughtered and killed them.
> 
> Nearly 2000 years later... hmmm... we're still here, and still won't accept homosexuality.
> 
> No, I don't think so Joe.  Just don't think that's going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, actually, guy, Roman persecution of the Christians is a myth.  It never really happened.  Christians made that shit up later because it was added to the 'backstory' and let the Christians overwrite certain local cults as their own.
> 
> I should also point out that all the way up until the Civil War, "Christians" used the bible to justify slavery.  And then one day, people finally figured out, "Duh" some people owin g other people was just wrong.
Click to expand...


No, they rationalized slavery.   Huge difference.  And I really don't care about your personal private interpretation of history, where Christians were never killed, and in fact rode on unicorns with little faeries flying around their heads.    Grow up.  Learn some history.


----------



## Silhouette

itfitzme said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real question is why do you ask?  Has anyone suggested they should?  Some lawsuit?  Some complaint?  Or are you just making shit up to argue about?
> 
> I ask because when I went searching, I got
> 
> U.S. Presbyterian Church Votes to Allow Same-Sex Marriage Ceremonies
> 
> 
> ""The largest Presbyterian denomination in the U.S. voted today in Detroit to allow the clergy to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies in the states where gay marriage is recognized. Passed by 76 percent of its 1.8 million members, the provision will amend the church's Book of Order, or constitution, to now read "two persons" instead of "a man and woman" in its language about marriage."
> 
> This is  representative of the results, completely contrary to what you are positing.
> 
> So, I gotta ask...why are you making shit up that seems to not exist?  Why not ask if pixies should be allowed to own unicorns as both are as equal true?
> 
> Because you are a shit stirrer.  You have to make shit up in order to justify your delusions.   Your question has no relationship to reality. And for some matter of a mental dissorder, you have no reality filter.
> 
> No sane person is ever going to force a church or pastor to perform a wedding that he doesn't want to.   It is preposterous when it is easier to get Joan Rivers to perform the ceremony.
Click to expand...


Here, itfitzme expects everyone with a brain capable of making basic logical connections from patterns in very recent history [the consistent litigious nature of the LGBT cult pushing pushing pushing as far as it can go to force EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE to accept their practices] to suspend that basic brain function and submit to his hypnotic drone.

"Look carefully at the spinning rainbw spiral disc...your eyes are getting heavy...you're forgetting all the LGBT lawsuits filed to date...you're forgetting how they're connected and escalating...you're forgetting the witch hunts of anyone who refuses to accomodate the LGBT agenda in the media....you are getting sleepy...sleepy....forgetful.."


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> The poll here is impressive.  85% of the over 100 people who voted believe gay marriage shouldn't be forced on people who don't want to participate in promoting it.  It just about matches the number of people who can't stand Dick Cheney.
> 
> It's just an interesting number in light of all those stories you hear about "American's support gay marriage".  Where?  In the 15%?



I support gay marriage.
I would vote for it were it a ballot question.
I voted that churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages.
Anything else you want to be wrong on today, Silly?


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which changes nothing of what I said.  Not a single thing.   Nifty factoid, irrelevant to the conversation.
Click to expand...


It puts your position in stark relief...

Same bigots, different day


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that people who thought themselves to be Christians slayed thousands of people trying to make those people turn to Christianity. Were those people true Christians? Hell no.
> 
> A person has no choice to be born American, or white, or black, or Hispanic, or anything else. No one would choose to have a child born with a disability.
> 
> Homosexuality IS a choice. Just as adultery, and promiscuity, and even a consenting man and woman living together sleeping in the same bed. Those are all choices that people make.
> 
> Interracial marriage is not a sin, a Christian marrying an unbeliever, that is considered a sin, according to what I know of the Bible. Others believe differently than I do, but we still search the Scriptures for the answers to all kinds of questions, the key is to keep on searching, for Christianity is a learning religion, and as we grow, we learn and we adapt. The basis for our faith is the one true constant. John 3:16, if you have that, and you truly believe that, you will want to learn more.
Click to expand...


YOU don't think interracial marriage is a sin, but people did in large numbers and some still do. You feel justified in your bigotry just like they did. Same/Same.

Oh, and religion is a choice, being gay is not.


----------



## GISMYS

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that people who thought themselves to be Christians slayed thousands of people trying to make those people turn to Christianity. Were those people true Christians? Hell no.
> 
> A person has no choice to be born American, or white, or black, or Hispanic, or anything else. No one would choose to have a child born with a disability.
> 
> Homosexuality IS a choice. Just as adultery, and promiscuity, and even a consenting man and woman living together sleeping in the same bed. Those are all choices that people make.
> 
> Interracial marriage is not a sin, a Christian marrying an unbeliever, that is considered a sin, according to what I know of the Bible. Others believe differently than I do, but we still search the Scriptures for the answers to all kinds of questions, the key is to keep on searching, for Christianity is a learning religion, and as we grow, we learn and we adapt. The basis for our faith is the one true constant. John 3:16, if you have that, and you truly believe that, you will want to learn more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU don't think interracial marriage is a sin, but people did in large numbers and some still do. You feel justified in your bigotry just like they did. Same/Same.
> 
> Oh, and religion is a choice, being gay is not.
Click to expand...


DEMON inspired sexual perversion=Those that love their demon possession,in their ignorant defense they accept the LIE that God has made them this way! God is the reason they are homosexuals. They say,"Ive been this way all my life, even since my childhood", or "Ive tried the opposite sex and it just doesnt feel right to me", or "I hate the opposite sex, dont even want to live with them"Yes, one can be demon possessed from their childhood. This means you can begin a lifetime from your youth, having a demon living inside of you, causing you to become more and more, one with the perverseness of homosexuality. This is why we face this shameful movement of "we are proud", "we are not ashamed", and "I dont care who knows, I want to tell the world".   This is why all over the world where it can, tries to convert the society and governments, that this is love ,this is normal, this is no sin against God at all, but Jesus said "remember the days of Noah and remember the days of Lot." This shows Jesus himself condemnes this type of lifestyle.


----------



## AmericanFirst

BillyP said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right after you show me the science that says the world was created in six days.
> Anyways, even if gays are sinning, Jesus already paid their debt by dying on the cross for their sins. So god has no issue with gays. Plus, god wanted Adam not to have sex with the woman and stay in gay heaven with him. Good thing Adam refused.
> 
> 
> 
> ===================== YOUR Ignorance is showing, jesus paid the sin debt of believers,those thet deny JESUS as their LORD AND SAVIOR must pay their own sin debt!!!= death and hell!!! and you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong! Jesus died for my sins and everyone else's, including gays. You don't have to believe in gravity for it to have an effect on you.
Click to expand...

Gay is a choice to sin.


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which changes nothing of what I said.  Not a single thing.   Nifty factoid, irrelevant to the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It puts your position in stark relief...
> 
> Same bigots, different day
Click to expand...


If you want, I can briefly pretend I care what you think of me.......      Ok that's over.    Now speak to the hand... 

Yes, I am mocking you, because as I said before, I could not possibly care less what you think of me.

I am a bigot.  And I don't care what you think.  I'm Christian, and I know G-d, and he laughs at you people too.   Psalms 2.  He who is in Heaven, laughs...... LAUGHS....


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that people who thought themselves to be Christians slayed thousands of people trying to make those people turn to Christianity. Were those people true Christians? Hell no.
> 
> A person has no choice to be born American, or white, or black, or Hispanic, or anything else. No one would choose to have a child born with a disability.
> 
> Homosexuality IS a choice. Just as adultery, and promiscuity, and even a consenting man and woman living together sleeping in the same bed. Those are all choices that people make.
> 
> Interracial marriage is not a sin, a Christian marrying an unbeliever, that is considered a sin, according to what I know of the Bible. Others believe differently than I do, but we still search the Scriptures for the answers to all kinds of questions, the key is to keep on searching, for Christianity is a learning religion, and as we grow, we learn and we adapt. The basis for our faith is the one true constant. John 3:16, if you have that, and you truly believe that, you will want to learn more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU don't think interracial marriage is a sin, but people did in large numbers and some still do. You feel justified in your bigotry just like they did. Same/Same.
> 
> Oh, and religion is a choice, being gay is not.
Click to expand...


Funny given I know several preachers who grew up gay, and converted to Christianity, and now are straight, have a wife, and kids, and live a heterosexual life.

But according to you, they don't have a choice....  wow, they must be super humans!   With super intellect they determined how human anatomy works, and rejected their inability to conduct themselves as homos!   Wow......     Incredible people.


----------



## zen

AROUND and AROUND we go, same shit day in, day out..."Born." "No, made." "Civil rights issue." "Mental health issue."...

Here's the issue: Don't involve me in your insane lifestyle (and it is insanity). You want to spend your life with a penis up your rectum, that's your business, don't make it mine. 

Here's the issue: Articles of faith, not my faith, YOUR faith. I find the secular humanist faith to be JUST as ridiculous as you find Christianity. ARTICLE ONE in your Articles of Faith is the assertion that sticking your penis up another man's rectum is healthy and normal. I question the validity of this statement. It is my right to question EVERYTHING. I don't have to regurgitate your nonsense just because your high-priests (psychologists, who are academic frauds) and their minions demand it.

Who won the Nobel Prize for identifying the "Gay Gene"?...If homosexuals are born, it should be easy to identify the gay gene. The scientist that isolated that gene would be famous, rich and famous...so who won? Nobody. Because the gay gene doesn't exist...up and down the genome they have searched, desperate to find the gene...but it is not there....science doesn't support the theory...pseudoscience (psychology) must be the default...


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that people who thought themselves to be Christians slayed thousands of people trying to make those people turn to Christianity. Were those people true Christians? Hell no.
> 
> A person has no choice to be born American, or white, or black, or Hispanic, or anything else. No one would choose to have a child born with a disability.
> 
> Homosexuality IS a choice. Just as adultery, and promiscuity, and even a consenting man and woman living together sleeping in the same bed. Those are all choices that people make.
> 
> Interracial marriage is not a sin, a Christian marrying an unbeliever, that is considered a sin, according to what I know of the Bible. Others believe differently than I do, but we still search the Scriptures for the answers to all kinds of questions, the key is to keep on searching, for Christianity is a learning religion, and as we grow, we learn and we adapt. The basis for our faith is the one true constant. John 3:16, if you have that, and you truly believe that, you will want to learn more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU don't think interracial marriage is a sin, but people did in large numbers and some still do. You feel justified in your bigotry just like they did. Same/Same.
> 
> Oh, and religion is a choice, being gay is not.
Click to expand...


Religion is a choice, homosexuality is a choice, having a grilled cheese is a choice. 

You can call me a bigot if you like, doesn't bother me. I won't call you names or put you down. I am confident in my beliefs.


----------



## JoeB131

Androw said:


> [
> 
> No, they rationalized slavery.   Huge difference.  And I really don't care about your personal private interpretation of history, where Christians were never killed, and in fact rode on unicorns with little faeries flying around their heads.    Grow up.  Learn some history.



I've got a history degree from the University of Illinois, thanks.  

and here's the thing.  The only source we have for Christians being killed by Romans are Christian sources in the fifth century and later. 

In fact, the majority of Roman sources in the first and second centuries don't mention Christians at all.

It wasn't until the Fourth Century that Constantine needed to cobble together a state religion to justify his new political order. Sadly, he picked Christianity, leading to the Dark Ages, or as I like to refer to it, "The First Faith-Based Initiative".


----------



## JoeB131

zen said:


> AROUND and AROUND we go, same shit day in, day out..."Born." "No, made." "Civil rights issue." "Mental health issue."...
> 
> Here's the issue: Don't involve me in your insane lifestyle (and it is insanity). You want to spend your life with a penis up your rectum, that's your business, don't make it mine.



And once again, we have a homophobe who can't stop thinking about the mechanics of gay sex. 





zen said:


> Here's the issue: Articles of faith, not my faith, YOUR faith. I find the secular humanist faith to be JUST as ridiculous as you find Christianity. ARTICLE ONE in your Articles of Faith is the assertion that sticking your penis up another man's rectum is healthy and normal. I question the validity of this statement. It is my right to question EVERYTHING. I don't have to regurgitate your nonsense just because your high-priests (psychologists, who are academic frauds) and their minions demand it.



Secular Humanism isn't a 'faith', dude.  And frankly, you are perfectly welcome to your sexual hangups.  You just can't discriminate on the basis of them. 



zen said:


> Who won the Nobel Prize for identifying the "Gay Gene"?...If homosexuals are born, it should be easy to identify the gay gene. The scientist that isolated that gene would be famous, rich and famous...so who won? Nobody. Because the gay gene doesn't exist...up and down the genome they have searched, desperate to find the gene...but it is not there....science doesn't support the theory...pseudoscience (psychology) must be the default...



first, no one has seriously looked for the gay gene. 

Second, it doesn't necessarily have to be genetic.  One study showed that if you are the third or fourth male child born to a woman, your likelihood of being gay increased, indicating that the mother's immune system might cause gayness. 

But it doesn't matter if mom passed on a gay gene, or her immune system rigged one during pregnancy or she let him watch Bravo instead of Sesame Street when he was a kid.  

Nature or Nurture, it isn't a choice.


----------



## JoeB131

Androw said:


> *Funny given I know several preachers who grew up gay, and converted to Christianity, and now are straight,* have a wife, and kids, and live a heterosexual life.



You mean like Ted Haggard? 




Androw said:


> But according to you, they don't have a choice....  wow, they must be super humans!   With super intellect they determined how human anatomy works, and rejected their inability to conduct themselves as homos!   Wow......     Incredible people.



Naw, I would call them sad and pathetic people. I guess growing up Catholic where I would get the brainwashing from the light in the loafers priests who would tell us how bad homosexuality was and how we need to turn to Jesus, and generally what we knew was we never wanted to be caught in a room along with these guys before the Church inflicted them... er... reassigned them to another parish.


----------



## BillyP

Churches should be forced to pay taxes. Gay weddings? Well, they should follow our laws as well. People who don't follow our laws and don't pay taxes are called criminals. Pretty simple really.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

BillyP said:


> Churches should be forced to pay taxes. Gay weddings? Well, they should follow our laws as well. *People who don't follow our laws and don't pay taxes are called criminals. Pretty simple really.*



So you are talking about illegal immigrants, I thought this was a thread about homosexual weddings.


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which changes nothing of what I said.  Not a single thing.   Nifty factoid, irrelevant to the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It puts your position in stark relief...
> 
> Same bigots, different day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want, I can briefly pretend I care what you think of me.......      Ok that's over.    Now speak to the hand...
> 
> Yes, I am mocking you, because as I said before, I could not possibly care less what you think of me.
> 
> I am a bigot.  And I don't care what you think.  I'm Christian, and I know G-d, and he laughs at you people too.   Psalms 2.  He who is in Heaven, laughs...... LAUGHS....
Click to expand...


Obviously you DO care or you wouldn't keep posting.


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that people who thought themselves to be Christians slayed thousands of people trying to make those people turn to Christianity. Were those people true Christians? Hell no.
> 
> A person has no choice to be born American, or white, or black, or Hispanic, or anything else. No one would choose to have a child born with a disability.
> 
> Homosexuality IS a choice. Just as adultery, and promiscuity, and even a consenting man and woman living together sleeping in the same bed. Those are all choices that people make.
> 
> Interracial marriage is not a sin, a Christian marrying an unbeliever, that is considered a sin, according to what I know of the Bible. Others believe differently than I do, but we still search the Scriptures for the answers to all kinds of questions, the key is to keep on searching, for Christianity is a learning religion, and as we grow, we learn and we adapt. The basis for our faith is the one true constant. John 3:16, if you have that, and you truly believe that, you will want to learn more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU don't think interracial marriage is a sin, but people did in large numbers and some still do. You feel justified in your bigotry just like they did. Same/Same.
> 
> Oh, and religion is a choice, being gay is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny given I know several preachers who grew up gay, and converted to Christianity, and now are straight, have a wife, and kids, and live a heterosexual life.
> 
> But according to you, they don't have a choice....  wow, they must be super humans!   With super intellect they determined how human anatomy works, and rejected their inability to conduct themselves as homos!   Wow......     Incredible people.
Click to expand...


Sure, and lots of people did just fine when they were forced to use their right hand instead of their left. They're still left handed just as those people that choose to deny their god given orientation are still gay.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that people who thought themselves to be Christians slayed thousands of people trying to make those people turn to Christianity. Were those people true Christians? Hell no.
> 
> A person has no choice to be born American, or white, or black, or Hispanic, or anything else. No one would choose to have a child born with a disability.
> 
> Homosexuality IS a choice. Just as adultery, and promiscuity, and even a consenting man and woman living together sleeping in the same bed. Those are all choices that people make.
> 
> Interracial marriage is not a sin, a Christian marrying an unbeliever, that is considered a sin, according to what I know of the Bible. Others believe differently than I do, but we still search the Scriptures for the answers to all kinds of questions, the key is to keep on searching, for Christianity is a learning religion, and as we grow, we learn and we adapt. The basis for our faith is the one true constant. John 3:16, if you have that, and you truly believe that, you will want to learn more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU don't think interracial marriage is a sin, but people did in large numbers and some still do. You feel justified in your bigotry just like they did. Same/Same.
> 
> Oh, and religion is a choice, being gay is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion is a choice, homosexuality is a choice, having a grilled cheese is a choice.
> 
> You can call me a bigot if you like, doesn't bother me. I won't call you names or put you down. I am confident in my beliefs.
Click to expand...


So you could choose to eat grilled cheese off a dick and *like *it? You're bi.


----------



## Kondor3

Oh, my, are the vile, disgusting fudge-packers and carpet-munchers still at it in here?


----------



## BillyP

UllysesS.Archer said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should be forced to pay taxes. Gay weddings? Well, they should follow our laws as well. *People who don't follow our laws and don't pay taxes are called criminals. Pretty simple really.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are talking about illegal immigrants, I thought this was a thread about homosexual weddings.
Click to expand...


Well, those too, lol. But churches here don't follow our laws and don't pay taxes. Who do they think they are? The Mafia? The Taliban?


----------



## Seawytch

BillyP said:


> Churches should be forced to pay taxes. Gay weddings? Well, they should follow our laws as well. People who don't follow our laws and don't pay taxes are called criminals. Pretty simple really.



Taxes I agree with. I do think churches should be taxed on everything except their charitable functions...money they give to the poor and such, but a church should never be forced, by the government, to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. Churches will be forced, of that there is no doubt, but it will be public opinion, not the government, that will "force" the issue.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should be forced to pay taxes. Gay weddings? Well, they should follow our laws as well. *People who don't follow our laws and don't pay taxes are called criminals. Pretty simple really.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are talking about illegal immigrants, I thought this was a thread about homosexual weddings.
Click to expand...


Illegal immigrants do pay taxes and are also considered criminals...imagine that.


----------



## Seawytch

Kondor3 said:


> Oh, my, are the vile, disgusting fudge-packers and carpet-munchers still at it in here?



Yup...and you can't stay away...like a moth to a flamer...er, I mean flame. Sorry, Freudian slip.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No, they rationalized slavery.   Huge difference.  And I really don't care about your personal private interpretation of history, where Christians were never killed, and in fact rode on unicorns with little faeries flying around their heads.    Grow up.  Learn some history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a history degree from the University of Illinois, thanks.
> 
> and here's the thing.  The only source we have for Christians being killed by Romans are Christian sources in the fifth century and later.
> 
> In fact, the majority of Roman sources in the first and second centuries don't mention Christians at all.
> 
> It wasn't until the Fourth Century that Constantine needed to cobble together a state religion to justify his new political order. Sadly, he picked Christianity, leading to the Dark Ages, or as I like to refer to it, "The First Faith-Based Initiative".
Click to expand...


Yes of course.  Thanks for giving me your opinion.   When I care, I'll let you know.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Funny given I know several preachers who grew up gay, and converted to Christianity, and now are straight,* have a wife, and kids, and live a heterosexual life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like Ted Haggard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> But according to you, they don't have a choice....  wow, they must be super humans!   With super intellect they determined how human anatomy works, and rejected their inability to conduct themselves as homos!   Wow......     Incredible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, I would call them sad and pathetic people. I guess growing up Catholic where I would get the brainwashing from the light in the loafers priests who would tell us how bad homosexuality was and how we need to turn to Jesus, and generally what we knew was we never wanted to be caught in a room along with these guys before the Church inflicted them... er... reassigned them to another parish.
Click to expand...


No, and no.  I care what the Catholics do either.  If you want to debate their policies, go talk to one of them.

Nevertheless, I know several formerly gay people, who are now hetero, and have families, after becoming Christian.   Apparently they could 'choose' to not be gay.   What your excuses are for them, I don't care, and neither do they.


----------



## Andylusion

BillyP said:


> Churches should be forced to pay taxes. Gay weddings? Well, they should follow our laws as well. People who don't follow our laws and don't pay taxes are called criminals. Pretty simple really.



I'll be more than happy to go to jail, before doing what you suggest.  Thanks.


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It puts your position in stark relief...
> 
> Same bigots, different day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want, I can briefly pretend I care what you think of me.......      Ok that's over.    Now speak to the hand...
> 
> Yes, I am mocking you, because as I said before, I could not possibly care less what you think of me.
> 
> I am a bigot.  And I don't care what you think.  I'm Christian, and I know G-d, and he laughs at you people too.   Psalms 2.  He who is in Heaven, laughs...... LAUGHS....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you DO care or you wouldn't keep posting.
Click to expand...


Whatever rationalization makes you feel better, knock yourself out.


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU don't think interracial marriage is a sin, but people did in large numbers and some still do. You feel justified in your bigotry just like they did. Same/Same.
> 
> Oh, and religion is a choice, being gay is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny given I know several preachers who grew up gay, and converted to Christianity, and now are straight, have a wife, and kids, and live a heterosexual life.
> 
> But according to you, they don't have a choice....  wow, they must be super humans!   With super intellect they determined how human anatomy works, and rejected their inability to conduct themselves as homos!   Wow......     Incredible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, and lots of people did just fine when they were forced to use their right hand instead of their left. They're still left handed just as those people that choose to deny their god given orientation are still gay.
Click to expand...


lol.     That got me to chuckle.    At least you are good for a laugh.  Carry on.


----------



## JoeB131

Androw said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Funny given I know several preachers who grew up gay, and converted to Christianity, and now are straight,* have a wife, and kids, and live a heterosexual life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like Ted Haggard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> But according to you, they don't have a choice....  wow, they must be super humans!   With super intellect they determined how human anatomy works, and rejected their inability to conduct themselves as homos!   Wow......     Incredible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, I would call them sad and pathetic people. I guess growing up Catholic where I would get the brainwashing from the light in the loafers priests who would tell us how bad homosexuality was and how we need to turn to Jesus, and generally what we knew was we never wanted to be caught in a room along with these guys before the Church inflicted them... er... reassigned them to another parish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, and no.  I care what the Catholics do either.  If you want to debate their policies, go talk to one of them.
> 
> Nevertheless, I know several formerly gay people, who are now hetero, and have families, after becoming Christian.   Apparently they could 'choose' to not be gay.   What your excuses are for them, I don't care, and neither do they.
Click to expand...


No, what you probably know are some gay folks who are pretending to be straight because they have a bunch of douchebag Christian friends.   Probably more than a few of them are getting some on the "down-low".  

Frankly, you seem awfully obsessed about the sex lives of others.


----------



## JoeB131

Androw said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No, they rationalized slavery.   Huge difference.  And I really don't care about your personal private interpretation of history, where Christians were never killed, and in fact rode on unicorns with little faeries flying around their heads.    Grow up.  Learn some history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a history degree from the University of Illinois, thanks.
> 
> and here's the thing.  The only source we have for Christians being killed by Romans are Christian sources in the fifth century and later.
> 
> In fact, the majority of Roman sources in the first and second centuries don't mention Christians at all.
> 
> It wasn't until the Fourth Century that Constantine needed to cobble together a state religion to justify his new political order. Sadly, he picked Christianity, leading to the Dark Ages, or as I like to refer to it, "The First Faith-Based Initiative".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes of course.  Thanks for giving me your opinion.   When I care, I'll let you know.
Click to expand...


So you just spent the last six posts telling us how you don't care about the opinions of people who disagree with you.


----------



## Seawytch

You know what I do when I "don't care" about something? I post over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and OVER...in a thread about it.


----------



## Kondor3

Seawytch said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my, are the vile, disgusting fudge-packers and carpet-munchers still at it in here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup...and you can't stay away...like a moth to a flamer...er, I mean flame. Sorry, Freudian slip.
Click to expand...

Nahhhhh... just pitching-in with a bottle of Lysol, every so often, as a community health service.


----------



## zen

Joe,
I could have posted your reply for you...first of all, it is homosexuals who are obsessed with anal sex. I can go the rest of my life without thinking about it, you guys are perpetually after it.

I am not a "phobe"...fecal play is not sanitary. You should have learned this in potty training. My completely normal reaction to your nasty habits are not "my mental problem"  (with pseudoscience psychology rearing it's head once again). 

Nature vs. nurture matters...and your mother's immune system would have to cause a shift, substitution, or deletion on your DNA to make it an issue of nature...then we get to decide if an overwhelming desire to play in shit is a congenital defect, or a happy, healthy, "alternative lifestyle"...

When you say that nurture is the same as nature, you mean that you just can't stop that thing you do...yes you can...it's bad for you, Joe, so stop it...

Your assertion that no one has looked for the gene is factually incorrect.


----------



## JoeB131

zen said:


> Joe,
> I could have posted your reply for you...first of all, it is homosexuals who are obsessed with anal sex. I can go the rest of my life without thinking about it, you guys are perpetually after it.
> 
> I am not a "phobe"...fecal play is not sanitary. You should have learned this in potty training. My completely normal reaction to your nasty habits are not "my mental problem"  (with pseudoscience psychology rearing it's head once again).



Guy, first, I'm straight.  I am although an atheist who fucking hates religion in all forms, so supporting the gays is just sticking a thumb in the eye of religious assholes.  That's what's in it for me, in case you are interested.  

Second, half of homosexuals - you know, Lesbians - don't do anal sex.  Meanwhile, 38% of heterosexuals have tried it. There's a lot more straights doing anal than gays.  





zen said:


> Nature vs. nurture matters...and your mother's immune system would have to cause a shift, substitution, or deletion on your DNA to make it an issue of nature...then we get to decide if an overwhelming desire to play in shit is a congenital defect, or a happy, healthy, "alternative lifestyle"...



Guy, what is your obsession with feces today?  



zen said:


> When you say that nurture is the same as nature, you mean that you just can't stop that thing you do...yes you can...it's bad for you, Joe, so stop it...
> 
> Your assertion that no one has looked for the gene is factually incorrect.



Again, not into the gay.  What I am into is pissing of religious fucks. 

and, no, there has not been a serious study about finding the "gay gene". Understandably so.  The HOmophobes don't want to find it, and then discover that they can't discriminate, and the gays don't want to find it and have straight start screening for the gay gene like they do for Down Syndrome or Tay-Sachs.


----------



## Seawytch

zen said:


> Joe,
> I could have posted your reply for you...first of all, it is homosexuals who are obsessed with anal sex. I can go the rest of my life without thinking about it, you guys are perpetually after it.
> 
> I am not a "phobe"...fecal play is not sanitary. You should have learned this in potty training. My completely normal reaction to your nasty habits are not "my mental problem"  (with pseudoscience psychology rearing it's head once again).
> 
> Nature vs. nurture matters...and your mother's immune system would have to cause a shift, substitution, or deletion on your DNA to make it an issue of nature...then we get to decide if an overwhelming desire to play in shit is a congenital defect, or a happy, healthy, "alternative lifestyle"...
> 
> When you say that nurture is the same as nature, you mean that you just can't stop that thing you do...yes you can...it's bad for you, Joe, so stop it...
> 
> Your assertion that no one has looked for the gene is factually incorrect.



_'I hate the word homophobia. It's not a phobia. You are not scared; you are an asshole.' _~ Tweets from God (not Morgan Freeman)

As for anal sex, you better look again sweetie, it's not just gay men doing it...

*When it comes to the rear end, youre OK with:*
 Nothing. stay away from there. 41.7% (and I bet that's mostly woman saying so...straight men love to fuck a woman's ass)
 Some fingering. 19.5%
 Mouth/tongue action. 10.0%
 Anal sexbring it! 28.8%


----------



## GISMYS

JoeB131 said:


> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe,
> I could have posted your reply for you...first of all, it is homosexuals who are obsessed with anal sex. I can go the rest of my life without thinking about it, you guys are perpetually after it.
> 
> I am not a "phobe"...fecal play is not sanitary. You should have learned this in potty training. My completely normal reaction to your nasty habits are not "my mental problem"  (with pseudoscience psychology rearing it's head once again).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, first, I'm straight.  I am although an atheist who fucking hates religion in all forms, so supporting the gays is just sticking a thumb in the eye of religious assholes.  That's what's in it for me, in case you are interested.
> 
> Second, half of homosexuals - you know, Lesbians - don't do anal sex.  Meanwhile, 38% of heterosexuals have tried it. There's a lot more straights doing anal than gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature vs. nurture matters...and your mother's immune system would have to cause a shift, substitution, or deletion on your DNA to make it an issue of nature...then we get to decide if an overwhelming desire to play in shit is a congenital defect, or a happy, healthy, "alternative lifestyle"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, what is your obsession with feces today?
> 
> 
> 
> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you say that nurture is the same as nature, you mean that you just can't stop that thing you do...yes you can...it's bad for you, Joe, so stop it...
> 
> Your assertion that no one has looked for the gene is factually incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, not into the gay.  What I am into is pissing of religious fucks.
> 
> and, no, there has not been a serious study about finding the "gay gene". Understandably so.  The HOmophobes don't want to find it, and then discover that they can't discriminate, and the gays don't want to find it and have straight start screening for the gay gene like they do for Down Syndrome or Tay-Sachs.
Click to expand...


TO ENGAGE in sick acts of sexual perversion is a CHOICE. NO one is forced to do acts of abomination it is ALL CHOICE!!! THINK!


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> You know what I do when I "don't care" about something? I post over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and OVER...in a thread about it.



Comprehension fail?

I never said for a second that I don't care about homos trying to force themselves on my church, and my people.

I absolutely do care about that, which is why I'm here standing up for my Church, and my Christianity which will NEVER accommodate homos.

What I don't care about, is your opinion of me, or my Church, or Christianity.

I'm sorry you didn't grasp that, but hopefully this will clear it up.


----------



## zen

Didn't mention religion, Joe, just hygiene.

Nice try at table turning, but I am not the one with the obsession, not the one with the problem..,sorry, a fail...

You didn't piss me off, so, another fail...

I think that you are gay and just won't admit it, Joe...you can't be pissed off by my theory, BTW, otherwise you are a homophobic gay man......THIS WOULD BE A REALLY BIG FAIL!!!

You are correct, I did not mention lesbians.. I think that you are right, Joe. Anybody with half a brain can see that strapping on a fake penis and pretending to be a man is COMPLETELY NORMAL BEHAVIOR...people with a whole brain might disagree...

There are people looking for the gene every day...and the gays would love to find it. The people who you assert would screen (and abort is implied) are people who don't abort babies, Joe.

Still not pissed, still not particularly religious, just thinking for myself, Joe...

And secular humanism IS a religion...it's god is "The Great Collective" a living god that demands sacrifice and obedience, the most dangerous kind of god and religion...one of it's central tenets, designed to brow-beat people of other faiths into recanting (mostly by threats of mob action) is  that ass fucking is healthy and normal, and if you don't repeat the tenet when it is demanded, you will get mobbed (a form of menacing mass-criticism, straight from the Stalin/Mao book of social control). 

Still not pissed, though, Joe...


----------



## Silhouette

zen said:


> Didn't mention religion, Joe, just hygiene.
> 
> Nice try at table turning, but I am not the one with the obsession, not the one with the problem..,sorry, a fail...
> 
> You didn't piss me off, so, another fail...
> 
> I think that you are gay and just won't admit it, Joe...you can't be pissed off by my theory, BTW, otherwise you are a homophobic gay man......THIS WOULD BE A REALLY BIG FAIL!!!
> 
> You are correct, I did not mention lesbians.. I think that you are right, Joe. *Anybody with half a brain can see that strapping on a fake penis and pretending to be a man is COMPLETELY NORMAL BEHAVIOR...people with a whole brain might disagree*...
> 
> There are people looking for the gene every day...and the gays would love to find it. The people who you assert would screen (and abort is implied) are people who don't abort babies, Joe.
> 
> Still not pissed, still not particularly religious, just thinking for myself, Joe...
> 
> And secular humanism IS a religion...it's god is "The Great Collective" a living god that demands sacrifice and obedience, the most dangerous kind of god and religion...one of it's central tenets, designed to brow-beat people of other faiths into recanting (mostly by threats of mob action) is  that ass fucking is healthy and normal, and if you don't repeat the tenet when it is demanded, you will get mobbed (a form of menacing mass-criticism, straight from the Stalin/Mao book of social control).
> 
> Still not pissed, though, Joe...



And people with a whole brain and an ability to simply see what is right in front of their face would notice that a "lesbian" attracted to a mannish lesbian wearing a strapon for sex is not a lesbian.  She is a closted heterosexual probably engaged with another woman because she has had a bad experience with men in her past and mistakenly thinks a woman acting like a man will somehow be better.   Lesbians have a very high rate of domestic abuse for such a tiny subpopulation.  So what's really needed here for that woman is a psychiatrist's couch and not a strapon attached to another woman.

The same is true of butch gay men attracted to the effeminant types.  They're really looking for a woman in that septic hole but for mental reasons of their own are unable to make that leap.

Closeted heterosexuality: It's a "stay-away" topic.  But we need to talk about it.  Those of us with whole brains that is.


----------



## BillyP

People who are against gays are against god's creation. If god didn't want gays, he wouldn't have made any, nor would he have invented homosexual behaviour or sex. The animal kingdom is rife with homosexual behaviour, look it up. And god made them as well.


----------



## zen

I apologize for not seeing/responding to your drivel earlier, Wytch...yes, 38% of heteros have "tried" anal sex...most discover that shit flies everywhere (yuck) and it hurts and they never do it again...(tried that, got the T-shirt, moving on.) Gays are the assholes...they wanted tolerance, they got it...they wanted acceptance, OK...now they are demanding that we renounce our faith and participate/accommodate them in their perversion. That's what we get for tolerating in the first place.


----------



## JakeStarkey

To pin one&#8217;s hopes on HL is mistaking fool&#8217;s gold for the real thing, for it was about only contraception and abortifacients, not marriage equality.  We have folks here who are being rationally deceitful about SCOTUS and Windsor on DOMA.  That is exactly the ruling on which 21 straight court rulings have hung it collective hat.  SCOTUS is the only court in the end that counts and its history on DOMA and the inferior courts&#8217; rulings have made it quite clear that marriage equality is inevitable.

Gallup Poll. May 8-11, 2014. N=1,028 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.
						.
"Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"
						.
		Should	Should not	Unsure		
		%	%	%		
	5/8-11/14	55	42	3		
	7/10-14/13	54	43	3		
	5/2-7/13	53	45	3		
	11/26-29/12	53	46	2		
	5/3-6/12	50	48	2		
	12/15-18/11	48	48	4		
	5/5-8/11	53	45	3		
	5/3-6/10	44	53	3		
	5/7-10/09	40	57	3		
	5/8-11/08	40	56	4		
	5/10-13/07	46	53	1		
	5/8-11/06	42	56	2		
________________________________________


----------



## Andylusion

BillyP said:


> People who are against gays are against god's creation. If god didn't want gays, he wouldn't have made any, nor would he have invented homosexual behaviour or sex. The animal kingdom is rife with homosexual behaviour, look it up. And god made them as well.



That's nice Billy.    So back to the Bible, which Christianity is based on, and clearly says is a sin....

Your opinion is not irrelevant.  Thanks.   When G-d created laws of His word, he wasn't really concerned with what Billy thinks.

And.... neither are we.   So in the mean time, no homos in our church.  Thanks for stopping by.


----------



## zen

Yep, those number are creeping up slowly...those numbers move both ways though...I was in favor of tolerance and secular acceptance (I figured it was none of my business and God could handle the queers in his own way.) Then, they walked into a bakery and tried to coerce a man into making a cake for them. They tried to swarm/mob Chik-fil-a (epic fail). Then, here on this board, they are plotting to force their way to the altar of the church and demand to be "married" (I suppose they will try and coerce the minister into performing the ceremony). You over played your hand with me, and you lost both tolerance and acceptance. I can guarantee you that I am not the only one that has come to my senses over the past year, or so. Those numbers that you are so proud of (just a little over half in one poll, YAAYY!!!) work both ways on any issue, you lost me and you are losing others by pushing too hard. Welcome to push back...


----------



## BillyP

Androw said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who are against gays are against god's creation. If god didn't want gays, he wouldn't have made any, nor would he have invented homosexual behaviour or sex. The animal kingdom is rife with homosexual behaviour, look it up. And god made them as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice Billy.    So back to the Bible, which Christianity is based on, and clearly says is a sin....
> 
> Your opinion is not irrelevant.  Thanks.   When G-d created laws of His word, he wasn't really concerned with what Billy thinks.
> 
> And.... neither are we.   So in the mean time, no homos in our church.  Thanks for stopping by.
Click to expand...

God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden for having sex, because god wanted Adam to stay in homo heaven with him and not eat the hetero apple. Have fun with your gay religion.


----------



## Andylusion

BillyP said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who are against gays are against god's creation. If god didn't want gays, he wouldn't have made any, nor would he have invented homosexual behaviour or sex. The animal kingdom is rife with homosexual behaviour, look it up. And god made them as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice Billy.    So back to the Bible, which Christianity is based on, and clearly says is a sin....
> 
> Your opinion is not irrelevant.  Thanks.   When G-d created laws of His word, he wasn't really concerned with what Billy thinks.
> 
> And.... neither are we.   So in the mean time, no homos in our church.  Thanks for stopping by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden for having sex, because god wanted Adam to stay in homo heaven with him and not eat the hetero apple. Have fun with your gay religion.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's very interesting.  Your opinion has been filed in the oval cabinet of permanent storage.   Have a nice day.


----------



## BillyP

Androw said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice Billy.    So back to the Bible, which Christianity is based on, and clearly says is a sin....
> 
> Your opinion is not irrelevant.  Thanks.   When G-d created laws of His word, he wasn't really concerned with what Billy thinks.
> 
> And.... neither are we.   So in the mean time, no homos in our church.  Thanks for stopping by.
> 
> 
> 
> God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden for having sex, because god wanted Adam to stay in homo heaven with him and not eat the hetero apple. Have fun with your gay religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's very interesting.  Your opinion has been filed in the oval cabinet of permanent storage.   Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Jesus only hung around with guys, wore a dress and only banged a women once, once means that he didn't like it. 
And he rode a donkey, which only women and slaves rode. And he wasn't a slave! Lol.


----------



## JakeStarkey

zen said:


> Yep, those number are creeping up slowly...those numbers move both ways though...I was in favor of tolerance and secular acceptance (I figured it was none of my business and God could handle the queers in his own way.) Then, they walked into a bakery and tried to coerce a man into making a cake for them. They tried to swarm/mob Chik-fil-a (epic fail). *Then, here on this board, they are plotting to force their way to the altar of the church and demand to be "married" (I suppose they will try and coerce the minister into performing the ceremony). *You over played your hand with me, and you lost both tolerance and acceptance. I can guarantee you that I am not the only one that has come to my senses over the past year, or so. Those numbers that you are so proud of (just a little over half in one poll, YAAYY!!!) work both ways on any issue, you lost me and you are losing others by pushing too hard. Welcome to push back...



zen, you are hyperinflating a none problem.  No one can make a minister marry gays in his church in violation of private association laws.  Almost all of the polls say the #s are approaching 60%, and among the millennials the numbers are higher.

The "push back' by the opponents of marriage equality is ineffective and will continue to be so.

Androw, your opinions about gay in church is merely that: you don't speak for Jesus.

Many, many churches actively invite LGBT to their services.


----------



## GISMYS

JakeStarkey said:


> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, those number are creeping up slowly...those numbers move both ways though...I was in favor of tolerance and secular acceptance (I figured it was none of my business and God could handle the queers in his own way.) Then, they walked into a bakery and tried to coerce a man into making a cake for them. They tried to swarm/mob Chik-fil-a (epic fail). *Then, here on this board, they are plotting to force their way to the altar of the church and demand to be "married" (I suppose they will try and coerce the minister into performing the ceremony). *You over played your hand with me, and you lost both tolerance and acceptance. I can guarantee you that I am not the only one that has come to my senses over the past year, or so. Those numbers that you are so proud of (just a little over half in one poll, YAAYY!!!) work both ways on any issue, you lost me and you are losing others by pushing too hard. Welcome to push back...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zen, you are hyperinflating a none problem.  No one can make a minister marry gays in his church in violation of private association laws.  Almost all of the polls say the #s are approaching 60%, and among the millennials the numbers are higher.
> 
> The "push back' by the opponents of marriage equality is ineffective and will continue to be so.
> 
> Androw, your opinions about gay in church is merely that: you don't speak for Jesus.
> 
> Many, many churches actively invite LGBT to their services.
Click to expand...


KNOW WHAT GOD HAS TO SAY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS== Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.1 Corinthians 6:9-10


----------



## BillyP

GISMYS said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, those number are creeping up slowly...those numbers move both ways though...I was in favor of tolerance and secular acceptance (I figured it was none of my business and God could handle the queers in his own way.) Then, they walked into a bakery and tried to coerce a man into making a cake for them. They tried to swarm/mob Chik-fil-a (epic fail). *Then, here on this board, they are plotting to force their way to the altar of the church and demand to be "married" (I suppose they will try and coerce the minister into performing the ceremony). *You over played your hand with me, and you lost both tolerance and acceptance. I can guarantee you that I am not the only one that has come to my senses over the past year, or so. Those numbers that you are so proud of (just a little over half in one poll, YAAYY!!!) work both ways on any issue, you lost me and you are losing others by pushing too hard. Welcome to push back...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zen, you are hyperinflating a none problem.  No one can make a minister marry gays in his church in violation of private association laws.  Almost all of the polls say the #s are approaching 60%, and among the millennials the numbers are higher.
> 
> The "push back' by the opponents of marriage equality is ineffective and will continue to be so.
> 
> Androw, your opinions about gay in church is merely that: you don't speak for Jesus.
> 
> Many, many churches actively invite LGBT to their services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> KNOW WHAT GOD HAS TO SAY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS== Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Click to expand...


God never spoke, that's a book written by men.


----------



## JoeB131

zen said:


> Didn't mention religion, Joe, just hygiene.
> 
> Nice try at table turning, but I am not the one with the obsession, not the one with the problem..,sorry, a fail...
> 
> You didn't piss me off, so, another fail...
> 
> I think that you are gay and just won't admit it, Joe...you can't be pissed off by my theory, BTW, otherwise you are a homophobic gay man......THIS WOULD BE A REALLY BIG FAIL!!!



I think you are pissed off all the time, as if you spewed this kind of hateful shit at work, you'd be asked to clean out your desk.  I'm sure this infuriates you to no end, that the culture wars are over and you lost. 



zen said:


> You are correct, I did not mention lesbians.. I think that you are right, Joe. Anybody with half a brain can see that strapping on a fake penis and pretending to be a man is COMPLETELY NORMAL BEHAVIOR...people with a whole brain might disagree...



Not all Lesbians have that kind of sex.  I know lesbian couples where they are both kind of fem.  I don't ask the the details if they go in for the strap-ons, the Muff Diving or the bumping clams, because it really isn't any of my business.  



zen said:


> There are people looking for the gene every day...and the gays would love to find it. The people who you assert would screen (and abort is implied) are people who don't abort babies, Joe.



Actually, Christians and FUnditards are MORE likely to have abortions because they are too dumb to practice proper birth control.  



zen said:


> Still not pissed, still not particularly religious, just thinking for myself, Joe...
> 
> And secular humanism IS a religion...it's god is "The Great Collective" a living god that demands sacrifice and obedience, the most dangerous kind of god and religion...one of it's central tenets, designed to brow-beat people of other faiths into recanting (mostly by threats of mob action) is  that ass fucking is healthy and normal, and if you don't repeat the tenet when it is demanded, you will get mobbed (a form of menacing mass-criticism, straight from the Stalin/Mao book of social control).
> 
> Still not pissed, though, Joe...



Could have fooled me.  Honestly, hiding behind a fake name on a message board hardly impresses.


----------



## GISMYS

BillyP said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> zen, you are hyperinflating a none problem.  No one can make a minister marry gays in his church in violation of private association laws.  Almost all of the polls say the #s are approaching 60%, and among the millennials the numbers are higher.
> 
> The "push back' by the opponents of marriage equality is ineffective and will continue to be so.
> 
> Androw, your opinions about gay in church is merely that: you don't speak for Jesus.
> 
> Many, many churches actively invite LGBT to their services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNOW WHAT GOD HAS TO SAY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS== Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.1 Corinthians 6:9-10
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God never spoke, that's a book written by men.
Click to expand...


YOU DENY THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD AT YOUR OWN RISK=YOUR PLACE IN ETERNITY!!!Think!


----------



## JoeB131

GISMYS said:


> [
> 
> YOU DENY THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD AT YOUR OWN RISK=YOUR PLACE IN ETERNITY!!!Think!



I have thought about it.  

I refuse to believe the universe is so badly designed that a God is punishing people for all eternity for having the wrong kind of sex.  

I also think that a God with a 14 billion year plan for a universe wouldn't waste time torturing one tribe of assholes in the desert.  It's kind of like Donald Trump taking a magnifying glass and tormenting one ant hill on his whole real estate empire.


----------



## GISMYS

JoeB131 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> YOU DENY THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD AT YOUR OWN RISK=YOUR PLACE IN ETERNITY!!!Think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have thought about it.
> 
> I refuse to believe the universe is so badly designed that a God is punishing people for all eternity for having the wrong kind of sex.
> 
> I also think that a God with a 14 billion year plan for a universe wouldn't waste time torturing one tribe of assholes in the desert.  It's kind of like Donald Trump taking a magnifying glass and tormenting one ant hill on his whole real estate empire.
Click to expand...


THE ONLY SIN THAT SENDS YOU TO HELL IS THE SIN OF REJECTING GOD AND GOD'S LOVE AND FORGIVNESS!!! YOU CHOSE HELL,DON'T TRY TO BLAME GOD!!! Think!


----------



## JoeB131

GISMYS said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> YOU DENY THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD AT YOUR OWN RISK=YOUR PLACE IN ETERNITY!!!Think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have thought about it.
> 
> I refuse to believe the universe is so badly designed that a God is punishing people for all eternity for having the wrong kind of sex.
> 
> I also think that a God with a 14 billion year plan for a universe wouldn't waste time torturing one tribe of assholes in the desert.  It's kind of like Donald Trump taking a magnifying glass and tormenting one ant hill on his whole real estate empire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE ONLY SIN THAT SENDS YOU TO HELL IS THE SIN OF REJECTING GOD AND GOD'S LOVE AND FORGIVNESS!!! YOU CHOSE HELL,DON'T TRY TO BLAME GOD!!! Think!
Click to expand...


I have.  

I was done with your God when my Mom died of cancer and some skanky old nun told me that "God had a reason". 

Maybe if this old bat hadn't been so full of bullshit and just got herself some scented candles and some Indigo Girl albums, she'd have been a happier person.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GISMYS said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> YOU DENY THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD AT YOUR OWN RISK=YOUR PLACE IN ETERNITY!!!Think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have thought about it.
> 
> I refuse to believe the universe is so badly designed that a God is punishing people for all eternity for having the wrong kind of sex.
> 
> I also think that a God with a 14 billion year plan for a universe wouldn't waste time torturing one tribe of assholes in the desert.  It's kind of like Donald Trump taking a magnifying glass and tormenting one ant hill on his whole real estate empire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE ONLY SIN THAT SENDS YOU TO HELL IS THE SIN OF REJECTING GOD AND GOD'S LOVE AND FORGIVNESS!!! YOU CHOSE HELL,DON'T TRY TO BLAME GOD!!! Think!
Click to expand...


The day will come with GISMYS will tremble with the devils who also knew the name and power of Jesus before the throne of God, and it will begin, "GISMYS, you idjit, you have done more harm than twenty of these other deluded souls."


----------



## GISMYS

JakeStarkey said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have thought about it.
> 
> I refuse to believe the universe is so badly designed that a God is punishing people for all eternity for having the wrong kind of sex.
> 
> I also think that a God with a 14 billion year plan for a universe wouldn't waste time torturing one tribe of assholes in the desert.  It's kind of like Donald Trump taking a magnifying glass and tormenting one ant hill on his whole real estate empire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE ONLY SIN THAT SENDS YOU TO HELL IS THE SIN OF REJECTING GOD AND GOD'S LOVE AND FORGIVNESS!!! YOU CHOSE HELL,DON'T TRY TO BLAME GOD!!! Think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The day will come with GISMYS will tremble with the devils who also knew the name and power of Jesus before the throne of God, and it will begin, "GISMYS, you idjit, you have done more harm than twenty of these other deluded souls."
Click to expand...

I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING GOD SAY,"WELL DONE GOOD AND FAITHFUL SERVANT WELL DONE NOW  HAPPY BLESSED REWARD""!! Thank You LORD!!


----------



## BillyP

GISMYS said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> KNOW WHAT GOD HAS TO SAY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS== Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.1 Corinthians 6:9-10
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God never spoke, that's a book written by men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU DENY THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD AT YOUR OWN RISK=YOUR PLACE IN ETERNITY!!!Think!
Click to expand...


Not god's words, man's writing. Think!


----------



## GISMYS

BillyP said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> God never spoke, that's a book written by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU DENY THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD AT YOUR OWN RISK=YOUR PLACE IN ETERNITY!!!Think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not god's words, man's writing. Think!
Click to expand...


I did my duty,I WARNED YOU!! YOU NOW HAVE NO EXCUSE!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

GISMYS said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE ONLY SIN THAT SENDS YOU TO HELL IS THE SIN OF REJECTING GOD AND GOD'S LOVE AND FORGIVNESS!!! YOU CHOSE HELL,DON'T TRY TO BLAME GOD!!! Think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The day will come with GISMYS will tremble with the devils who also knew the name and power of Jesus before the throne of God, and it will begin, "GISMYS, you idjit, you have done more harm than twenty of these other deluded souls."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING GOD SAY,"WELL DONE GOOD AND FAITHFUL SERVANT WELL DONE NOW  HAPPY BLESSED REWARD""!! Thank You LORD!!
Click to expand...


As your post immediately above testifies, you are like most misguided souls who will find out judgement day that your witnessing was unrighteously exercised.


----------



## BillyP

GISMYS said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU DENY THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD AT YOUR OWN RISK=YOUR PLACE IN ETERNITY!!!Think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not god's words, man's writing. Think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did my duty,I WARNED YOU!! YOU NOW HAVE NO EXCUSE!!
Click to expand...


Do you actually think that if a god did exist that it would need an imbecile like you to convince people of its existence?


----------



## GISMYS

BillyP said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not god's words, man's writing. Think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did my duty,I WARNED YOU!! YOU NOW HAVE NO EXCUSE!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually think that if a god did exist that it would need an imbecile like you to convince people of its existence?
Click to expand...


 For the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who perish; but unto us who are saved, it is the power of God.

19 For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.
1Contrians 1:18-21


----------



## Andylusion

zen said:


> I apologize for not seeing/responding to your drivel earlier, Wytch...yes, 38% of heteros have "tried" anal sex...most discover that shit flies everywhere (yuck) and it hurts and they never do it again...(tried that, got the T-shirt, moving on.) Gays are the assholes...they wanted tolerance, they got it...they wanted acceptance, OK...now they are demanding that we renounce our faith and participate/accommodate them in their perversion. That's what we get for tolerating in the first place.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That right there, is the answer folks.  It's that simple.


----------



## Andylusion

BillyP said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden for having sex, because god wanted Adam to stay in homo heaven with him and not eat the hetero apple. Have fun with your gay religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's very interesting.  Your opinion has been filed in the oval cabinet of permanent storage.   Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus only hung around with guys, wore a dress and only banged a women once, once means that he didn't like it.
> And he rode a donkey, which only women and slaves rode. And he wasn't a slave! Lol.
Click to expand...


Your posts have been far too consistently boring.  Not even humorous, just really boring..

I've placed you on my ignore list, with the rest of the boring posters.  At least other gays here are actually making an attempt at discussing things.   You, make them, look bad.


----------



## Andylusion

JakeStarkey said:


> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, those number are creeping up slowly...those numbers move both ways though...I was in favor of tolerance and secular acceptance (I figured it was none of my business and God could handle the queers in his own way.) Then, they walked into a bakery and tried to coerce a man into making a cake for them. They tried to swarm/mob Chik-fil-a (epic fail). *Then, here on this board, they are plotting to force their way to the altar of the church and demand to be "married" (I suppose they will try and coerce the minister into performing the ceremony). *You over played your hand with me, and you lost both tolerance and acceptance. I can guarantee you that I am not the only one that has come to my senses over the past year, or so. Those numbers that you are so proud of (just a little over half in one poll, YAAYY!!!) work both ways on any issue, you lost me and you are losing others by pushing too hard. Welcome to push back...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zen, you are hyperinflating a none problem.  No one can make a minister marry gays in his church in violation of private association laws.  Almost all of the polls say the #s are approaching 60%, and among the millennials the numbers are higher.
> 
> The "push back' by the opponents of marriage equality is ineffective and will continue to be so.
> 
> Androw, your opinions about gay in church is merely that: you don't speak for Jesus.
> 
> Many, many churches actively invite LGBT to their services.
Click to expand...


No I never said I did.  The Bible does.  It's very very clear.

Whether or not the push back will be effective, I don't know, I don't care.  I'm not going to tolerate gays trying to force my church to do anything.   If I have to oppose this by myself alone, with zero effect, so be it.   But I will oppose it.

Inviting them to church, and letting them dictate how my church is run, are entirely different things.

Again.... read the thread title.

"Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"

It doesn't say "Should Churches invite LGBT to church, to repent, and join the love that comes to repentant sinners?"

If that was the title, I would be saying "yes absolutely.  More the better".

Slightly different than "You must marry me because I'm gay, and my rights supersede yours.".


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have thought about it.
> 
> I refuse to believe the universe is so badly designed that a God is punishing people for all eternity for having the wrong kind of sex.
> 
> I also think that a God with a 14 billion year plan for a universe wouldn't waste time torturing one tribe of assholes in the desert.  It's kind of like Donald Trump taking a magnifying glass and tormenting one ant hill on his whole real estate empire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE ONLY SIN THAT SENDS YOU TO HELL IS THE SIN OF REJECTING GOD AND GOD'S LOVE AND FORGIVNESS!!! YOU CHOSE HELL,DON'T TRY TO BLAME GOD!!! Think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have.
> 
> I was done with your God when my Mom died of cancer and some skanky old nun told me that "God had a reason".
> 
> Maybe if this old bat hadn't been so full of bullshit and just got herself some scented candles and some Indigo Girl albums, she'd have been a happier person.
Click to expand...


So it was G-d's fault your mother died?

Just out of curiosity...  what exactly do you know about that nun?  You know she was unhappy?


----------



## JoeB131

Androw said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE ONLY SIN THAT SENDS YOU TO HELL IS THE SIN OF REJECTING GOD AND GOD'S LOVE AND FORGIVNESS!!! YOU CHOSE HELL,DON'T TRY TO BLAME GOD!!! Think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have.
> 
> I was done with your God when my Mom died of cancer and some skanky old nun told me that "God had a reason".
> 
> Maybe if this old bat hadn't been so full of bullshit and just got herself some scented candles and some Indigo Girl albums, she'd have been a happier person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it was G-d's fault your mother died?
Click to expand...


Nope. as usual, you miss the point.  The nuns comment made the whole concept of Catholicism so absurd I became an Atheist.   Not that this was the first totally retarded thing I heard Clergy say.  My second favorite was the other nun who said that God drowned every baby in the world because they were "wicked".  But this one was just retarded enough to get me to walk away from religion.  




Androw said:


> Just out of curiosity...  what exactly do you know about that nun?  You know she was unhappy?



I know she was a lesbian.  they all were.  Then it became cool to be a lesbian and women stopped becoming nuns.  It was a wonderful and lovely thing.  

I know she was an absolutely miserable, horrible human being. Seriously, I had her for Fifth and Eighth grades.  

And this is the tragedy of you homophobes.  Not only the gay folks you make miserable by denying them jobs, but the ones who make everyone around them miserable pretending to be straight to please you assholes.  

Maybe what we need is a cure for religion.


----------



## JoeB131

zen said:


> Yep, those number are creeping up slowly...those numbers move both ways though...I was in favor of tolerance and secular acceptance (I figured it was none of my business and God could handle the queers in his own way.) Then, they walked into a bakery and tried to coerce a man into making a cake for them. They tried to swarm/mob Chik-fil-a (epic fail). Then, here on this board, they are plotting to force their way to the altar of the church and demand to be "married" (I suppose they will try and coerce the minister into performing the ceremony). You over played your hand with me, and you lost both tolerance and acceptance. I can guarantee you that I am not the only one that has come to my senses over the past year, or so. Those numbers that you are so proud of (just a little over half in one poll, YAAYY!!!) work both ways on any issue, you lost me and you are losing others by pushing too hard. Welcome to push back...



somehow, I doubt you were "okay with dem queers until they tried to mob Chik-Fil-A." 

Here's the thing. You guys are trying to hold on to the last little bit of bigotry you think you can hold on to. 

"Well, well, can I at least hate them in the privacy of my home and business?"


----------



## Toro

Mmm.  Chick-Fil-A.

I know what I'm having for lunch tomorrow!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Androw said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, those number are creeping up slowly...those numbers move both ways though...I was in favor of tolerance and secular acceptance (I figured it was none of my business and God could handle the queers in his own way.) Then, they walked into a bakery and tried to coerce a man into making a cake for them. They tried to swarm/mob Chik-fil-a (epic fail). *Then, here on this board, they are plotting to force their way to the altar of the church and demand to be "married" (I suppose they will try and coerce the minister into performing the ceremony). *You over played your hand with me, and you lost both tolerance and acceptance. I can guarantee you that I am not the only one that has come to my senses over the past year, or so. Those numbers that you are so proud of (just a little over half in one poll, YAAYY!!!) work both ways on any issue, you lost me and you are losing others by pushing too hard. Welcome to push back...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zen, you are hyperinflating a none problem.  No one can make a minister marry gays in his church in violation of private association laws.  Almost all of the polls say the #s are approaching 60%, and among the millennials the numbers are higher.
> 
> The "push back' by the opponents of marriage equality is ineffective and will continue to be so.
> 
> Androw, your opinions about gay in church is merely that: you don't speak for Jesus.
> 
> Many, many churches actively invite LGBT to their services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I never said I did.  The Bible does.  It's very very clear.  Whether or not the push back will be effective, I don't know, I don't care.  I'm not going to tolerate gays trying to force my church to do anything.   If I have to oppose this by myself alone, with zero effect, so be it.   But I will oppose it.
> 
> Inviting them to church, and letting them dictate how my church is run, are entirely different things.
> 
> Again.... read the thread title.  "Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"  It doesn't say "Should Churches invite LGBT to church, to repent, and join the love that comes to repentant sinners?"
> 
> If that was the title, I would be saying "yes absolutely.  More the better".
> 
> Slightly different than "You must marry me because I'm gay, and my rights supersede yours.".
Click to expand...


You have every right to oppose it, of course, but the Bible is not to be taken literally: that is heresy, which in your case, if you keep it up, will lead to apostasy from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Once again you are opposing a non-issue: no one is going to force churches to accommodate LGBT weddings in their right to private association.

Your crowd is as numerous as the group that you say says, "You must marry me because I'm gay, and my rights supersede yours."  Fourteen of you in each group.


----------



## GISMYS

JakeStarkey said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> zen, you are hyperinflating a none problem.  No one can make a minister marry gays in his church in violation of private association laws.  Almost all of the polls say the #s are approaching 60%, and among the millennials the numbers are higher.
> 
> The "push back' by the opponents of marriage equality is ineffective and will continue to be so.
> 
> Androw, your opinions about gay in church is merely that: you don't speak for Jesus.
> 
> Many, many churches actively invite LGBT to their services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I never said I did.  The Bible does.  It's very very clear.  Whether or not the push back will be effective, I don't know, I don't care.  I'm not going to tolerate gays trying to force my church to do anything.   If I have to oppose this by myself alone, with zero effect, so be it.   But I will oppose it.
> 
> Inviting them to church, and letting them dictate how my church is run, are entirely different things.
> 
> Again.... read the thread title.  "Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"  It doesn't say "Should Churches invite LGBT to church, to repent, and join the love that comes to repentant sinners?"
> 
> If that was the title, I would be saying "yes absolutely.  More the better".
> 
> Slightly different than "You must marry me because I'm gay, and my rights supersede yours.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have every right to oppose it, of course, but the Bible is not to be taken literally: that is heresy, which in your case, if you keep it up, will lead to apostasy from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Once again you are opposing a non-issue: no one is going to force churches to accommodate LGBT weddings in their right to private association.
> 
> Your crowd is as numerous as the group that you say says, "You must marry me because I'm gay, and my rights supersede yours."  Fourteen of you in each group.
Click to expand...


even satan and demons know GOD'S WORD IS TRUE!!! BUT YOU LOW LIFE????


----------



## Jarlaxle

JakeStarkey said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The day will come with GISMYS will tremble with the devils who also knew the name and power of Jesus before the throne of God, and it will begin, "GISMYS, you idjit, you have done more harm than twenty of these other deluded souls."
> 
> 
> 
> I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING GOD SAY,"WELL DONE GOOD AND FAITHFUL SERVANT WELL DONE NOW  HAPPY BLESSED REWARD""!! Thank You LORD!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As your post immediately above testifies, you are like most misguided souls who will find out judgement day that your witnessing was unrighteously exercised.
Click to expand...


Maybe...doesn't God have compassion for the mentally ill?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Toro said:


> Mmm.  Chick-Fil-A.
> 
> I know what I'm having for lunch tomorrow!



Indigestion?


----------



## JakeStarkey

GISMYS said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I never said I did.  The Bible does.  It's very very clear.  Whether or not the push back will be effective, I don't know, I don't care.  I'm not going to tolerate gays trying to force my church to do anything.   If I have to oppose this by myself alone, with zero effect, so be it.   But I will oppose it.
> 
> Inviting them to church, and letting them dictate how my church is run, are entirely different things.
> 
> Again.... read the thread title.  "Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"  It doesn't say "Should Churches invite LGBT to church, to repent, and join the love that comes to repentant sinners?"
> 
> If that was the title, I would be saying "yes absolutely.  More the better".
> 
> Slightly different than "You must marry me because I'm gay, and my rights supersede yours.".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have every right to oppose it, of course, but the Bible is not to be taken literally: that is heresy, which in your case, if you keep it up, will lead to apostasy from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Once again you are opposing a non-issue: no one is going to force churches to accommodate LGBT weddings in their right to private association.
> 
> Your crowd is as numerous as the group that you say says, "You must marry me because I'm gay, and my rights supersede yours."  Fourteen of you in each group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> even satan and demons know GOD'S WORD IS TRUE!!! BUT YOU LOW LIFE????
Click to expand...


Biblical literalism is a late Christian heresy, the which, if one become so mired as you, GISMYS, leads to apostasy.


----------



## AmericanFirst

So you became an atheist because of one nun in one denomination. How pitiful.


----------



## AmericanFirst

He happens to be correct. But don't let the truth hamper your idiocy.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> You have every right to oppose it, of course, *but the Bible is not to be taken literally*: that is heresy, which in your case, if you keep it up, will lead to apostasy from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Once again you are opposing a non-issue: no one is going to force churches to accommodate LGBT weddings in their right to private association.
> 
> Your crowd is as numerous as the group that you say says, "You must marry me because I'm gay, and my rights supersede yours."  Fourteen of you in each group.



The US Supreme Court just found in Hobby Lobby that closely held faith of taking the Bible literally is legal means to object to enabling certain behaviors.  I would think that would apply particularly in the case of warnings of eternal damnation for mortal sins....you know, like the warnings of Jude 1 in the New Testament..

You've been paying attention to that I assume?


----------



## JakeStarkey

> The US Supreme Court just found in Hobby Lobby that closely held faith of taking the Bible literally is legal means to object to enabling certain behaviors.



(1) Since you are not much of a believer, please accept my skepticism of your biblical understanding and theological prowess.

(2) The HL protects religious liberties, personal liberties, not "certain behaviors."  You can walk down the middle of the street nakes and SCOTUS will not consider that protected liberties.

(3) Your misunderstanding of Windsor and HL is your issue, not to anyone else who understands the issues.


----------



## BillyP

Androw said:


> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize for not seeing/responding to your drivel earlier, Wytch...yes, 38% of heteros have "tried" anal sex...most discover that shit flies everywhere (yuck) and it hurts and they never do it again...(tried that, got the T-shirt, moving on.) Gays are the assholes...they wanted tolerance, they got it...they wanted acceptance, OK...now they are demanding that we renounce our faith and participate/accommodate them in their perversion. That's what we get for tolerating in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> That right there, is the answer folks.  It's that simple.
Click to expand...


Don't worry, gays and the rest of us don't accept homophobes are normal people either, so you're pretty much equal to gays.


----------



## BillyP

Androw said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's very interesting.  Your opinion has been filed in the oval cabinet of permanent storage.   Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus only hung around with guys, wore a dress and only banged a women once, once means that he didn't like it.
> And he rode a donkey, which only women and slaves rode. And he wasn't a slave! Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts have been far too consistently boring.  Not even humorous, just really boring..
> 
> I've placed you on my ignore list, with the rest of the boring posters.  At least other gays here are actually making an attempt at discussing things.   You, make them, look bad.
Click to expand...


No, it just makes you a homo worshipper.


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what I do when I "don't care" about something? I post over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and OVER...in a thread about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comprehension fail?
> 
> I never said for a second that I don't care about homos trying to force themselves on my church, and my people.
> 
> I absolutely do care about that, which is why I'm here standing up for my Church, and my Christianity which will NEVER accommodate homos.
> 
> What I don't care about, is your opinion of me, or my Church, or Christianity.
> 
> I'm sorry you didn't grasp that, but hopefully this will clear it up.
Click to expand...


Oh, well, I hope you live to see the day you are sorely disappointed because your church ends up welcoming the gheys with open arms...but your attitude is reminiscent of someone older...so you may not make it.


----------



## Seawytch

zen said:


> I apologize for not seeing/responding to your drivel earlier, Wytch...yes, 38% of heteros have "tried" anal sex...most discover that shit flies everywhere (yuck) and it hurts and they never do it again...(tried that, got the T-shirt, moving on.) Gays are the assholes...they wanted tolerance, they got it...they wanted acceptance, OK...now they are demanding that we renounce our faith and participate/accommodate them in their perversion. That's what we get for tolerating in the first place.



Hmmm...there was nothing in the poll to indicate they would never do it again. 

Every straight guy I know want to stick their dick in a girls ass. This is a fact. The girls aren't as accommodating as the guys would like.

Yeah, tolerance...it often leads to more tolerance. How terrible. 

Oh, and most often it's the family members of gays that are demanding that churches "accommodate" them.


----------



## Seawytch

zen said:


> Yep, those number are creeping up slowly...those numbers move both ways though...I was in favor of tolerance and secular acceptance (I figured it was none of my business and God could handle the queers in his own way.) Then, they walked into a bakery and tried to coerce a man into making a cake for them. They tried to swarm/mob Chik-fil-a (epic fail). Then, here on this board, they are plotting to force their way to the altar of the church and demand to be "married" (I suppose they will try and coerce the minister into performing the ceremony). You over played your hand with me, and you lost both tolerance and acceptance. I can guarantee you that I am not the only one that has come to my senses over the past year, or so. Those numbers that you are so proud of (just a little over half in one poll, YAAYY!!!) work both ways on any issue, you lost me and you are losing others by pushing too hard. Welcome to push back...



Except the numbers haven't moved "both ways" have they? No, they've only gone up and fast. 

As for religious marriage, we've always had equal access to that, it's civil marriage that we demand equal access to.


----------



## Seawytch

zen said:


> You are correct, I did not mention lesbians.. I think that you are right, Joe. Anybody with half a brain can see that strapping on a fake penis and pretending to be a man is COMPLETELY NORMAL BEHAVIOR...people with a whole brain might disagree...



Except a lot of lesbians don't use dildos or strap ons. Some of us are quite content to use what god gave us. You obviously think about this a lot though...


----------



## Seawytch

JakeStarkey said:


> The US Supreme Court just found in Hobby Lobby that closely held faith of taking the Bible literally is legal means to object to enabling certain behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1) Since you are not much of a believer, please accept my skepticism of your biblical understanding and theological prowess.
> 
> (2) The HL protects religious liberties, personal liberties, not "certain behaviors."  You can walk down the middle of the street nakes and SCOTUS will not consider that protected liberties.
> 
> (3) Your misunderstanding of Windsor and HL is your issue, not to anyone else who understands the issues.
Click to expand...


(4)Justice Kennedy made clear that the majority isnt rewriting RFRA to protect anti-gay discrimination.


----------



## Gadawg73

116 pages here and still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any church anywhere has been, will be or ever will be forced to marry anyone.


----------



## Silhouette

Gadawg73 said:


> 116 pages here and still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any church anywhere has been, will be or ever will be forced to marry anyone.



Yet as we speak, faithful within their religion to a given church are being sued in courts by gays and lesbians to be forced to support their "gay weddings" with cakes and photography.  

Did you forget about that?  How far of a legal step from forcing a faithful person in their business to defy their Biblical teachings in Jude 1 and the mortal sin of abetting homosexuality is it from there to inside the doors of a church?  Not far friend.  Not far at all.  Because if you can force a person to defy their faith on a mortal-sin level, getting through those church doors with that precedent is a cake-walk for even a flunkie attorney.


----------



## JakeStarkey

One, Sil has given no evidence for her political statements.

Two, she is no authority on Christian theology pertaining to sin, and if she were, such would mean nothing here since SCOTUS will not be reading Jude in context with its coming expansion of incorporating LGBT civil liberties IAW the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> One, Sil has given no evidence for her political statements.
> 
> Two, she is no authority on Christian theology pertaining to sin, and if she were, such would mean nothing here since SCOTUS will not be reading Jude in context with its coming expansion of incorporating LGBT civil liberties IAW the 14th Amendment.



A lie and a hope all in one post.  Speaking of flunkie attorneys...


----------



## Gadawg73

Silhouette said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 116 pages here and still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any church anywhere has been, will be or ever will be forced to marry anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet as we speak, faithful within their religion to a given church are being sued in courts by gays and lesbians to be forced to support their "gay weddings" with cakes and photography.
> 
> Did you forget about that?  How far of a legal step from forcing a faithful person in their business to defy their Biblical teachings in Jude 1 and the mortal sin of abetting homosexuality is it from there to inside the doors of a church?  Not far friend.  Not far at all.  Because if you can force a person to defy their faith on a mortal-sin level, getting through those church doors with that precedent is a cake-walk for even a flunkie attorney.
Click to expand...


Been there, done that, debated it and solved it.
Where have you been?
When your team did not want to serve the ******* they ruled you had to.
Sorry about that, you lose again.
That is not marrying people so quit being foolish with your maybes, ifs and it coulds.
Get over it. No cry babies. African Americans and gays, everyone deserve equal rights.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> One, Sil has given no evidence for her political statements.
> 
> Two, she is no authority on Christian theology pertaining to sin, and if she were, such would mean nothing here since SCOTUS will not be reading Jude in context with its coming expansion of incorporating LGBT civil liberties IAW the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lie and a hope all in one post.  Speaking of flunkie attorneys...
Click to expand...


That is an excellent description of your approach.

Pertaining to Gadawag's comment above: are you racist as well as homophobic?


----------



## Gadawg73

100% separate matter altogether and NOT related to in any way but:

Anyone that would deny homosexuals service based on religious grounds is not Christian and probably Muslim.
Christians love thy neighbor and do not judge.


----------



## Silhouette

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 116 pages here and still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any church anywhere has been, will be or ever will be forced to marry anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet as we speak, faithful within their religion to a given church are being sued in courts by gays and lesbians to be forced to support their "gay weddings" with cakes and photography.
> 
> Did you forget about that?  How far of a legal step from forcing a faithful person in their business to defy their Biblical teachings in Jude 1 and the mortal sin of abetting homosexuality is it from there to inside the doors of a church?  Not far friend.  Not far at all.  Because if you can force a person to defy their faith on a mortal-sin level, getting through those church doors with that precedent is a cake-walk for even a flunkie attorney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been there, done that, debated it and solved it.
> Where have you been?
> When your team did not want to serve the ******* they ruled you had to.
> Sorry about that, you lose again.
> That is not marrying people so quit being foolish with your maybes, ifs and it coulds.
> Get over it. No cry babies. African Americans and gays, everyone deserve equal rights.
Click to expand...


Look at the prejudice in the liberal far left.  

I'm a registered democrat, have voted democrat since the early 1980s consistently.  Until now.  Now I'm questioning that as a viable stance in regard to the platform you've shoved on my party.

One of my best friends growing up was black.  We used to hang out all the time and neither of our parents had a problem with it.  My family lines come from the Upper Midwest, not the South bro.  Duly noted you equate "*******" with ass-sex.  I'm sure my friend would LOVE the comparison...

You haven't addressed the cake and photography precedents.  If you did, intellectually you would have to admit that if a faithful person can be forced to abandon their closely-held religious beliefs, so too can the church proper, in order to accomodate your deviant sex cult.


----------



## Tuatara

Gadawg73 said:


> 100% separate matter altogether and NOT related to in any way but:
> 
> Anyone that would deny homosexuals service based on religious grounds is not Christian and probably Muslim.
> Christians love thy neighbor and do not judge.


First, christians (most of them) are the most judgemental people around and they do not love their neighbors especially if they are different. Christians do deny homosexuals which they say is based on religious grounds but as I pointed out earlier this is not true. One cannot point to the bible as a source of rules and morals and then only cherry pick certain items from it. They reject homosexuals because they are homophobic bigots.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No one on this Board has shown

(1) that churches are under any attack for exercising their rights of private association

(2) that marriage equality has injured the civil liberties of any one on the Board who protest such equality

(3) any credible set of stats that are not cherry picked to support LGBT are a significantly greater threat to children than heterosexuals


----------



## Gadawg73

JakeStarkey said:


> No one on this Board has shown
> 
> (1) that churches are under any attack for exercising their rights of private association
> 
> (2) that marriage equality has injured the civil liberties of any one on the Board who protest such equality
> 
> (3) any credible set of stats that are not cherry picked to support LGBT are a significantly greater threat to children than heterosexuals



Same as no facts existed to support "unit cohesion will be affected by allowing gays to serve openly in the military".

Who will be the first one to admit they were dead wrong on that claim? 
That will take guts to do that and I believe we have some here that will admit that.

Who will come out of the closet and admit they were wrong about allowing gays to serve openly in the military?


----------



## Gadawg73

Silhouette said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet as we speak, faithful within their religion to a given church are being sued in courts by gays and lesbians to be forced to support their "gay weddings" with cakes and photography.
> 
> Did you forget about that?  How far of a legal step from forcing a faithful person in their business to defy their Biblical teachings in Jude 1 and the mortal sin of abetting homosexuality is it from there to inside the doors of a church?  Not far friend.  Not far at all.  Because if you can force a person to defy their faith on a mortal-sin level, getting through those church doors with that precedent is a cake-walk for even a flunkie attorney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been there, done that, debated it and solved it.
> Where have you been?
> When your team did not want to serve the ******* they ruled you had to.
> Sorry about that, you lose again.
> That is not marrying people so quit being foolish with your maybes, ifs and it coulds.
> Get over it. No cry babies. African Americans and gays, everyone deserve equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the prejudice in the liberal far left.
> 
> I'm a registered democrat, have voted democrat since the early 1980s consistently.  Until now.  Now I'm questioning that as a viable stance in regard to the platform you've shoved on my party.
> 
> One of my best friends growing up was black.  We used to hang out all the time and neither of our parents had a problem with it.  My family lines come from the Upper Midwest, not the South bro.  Duly noted you equate "*******" with ass-sex.  I'm sure my friend would LOVE the comparison...
> 
> You haven't addressed the cake and photography precedents.  If you did, intellectually you would have to admit that if a faithful person can be forced to abandon their closely-held religious beliefs, so too can the church proper, in order to accomodate your deviant sex cult.
Click to expand...


Not on this issue, the liberal left has it right.
On fiscal issues they are dead wrong most all the time.
I am non partisan.


----------



## Gadawg73

"the press of other business has it where I have no time to work your wedding"
works every time.
If one is really interested in protecting something, anything instead of grandstanding.
The cake and photography cases were to gain Christian victim status.


----------



## Silhouette

Gadawg73 said:


> "the press of other business has it where I have no time to work your wedding"
> works every time.
> If one is really interested in protecting something, anything instead of grandstanding.
> The cake and photography cases were to gain Christian victim status.



So then you would require christians as a matter of law to lie to their customers?  So they get to choose between two sins [and renunciation of their faith's core values] either to lie or to enable the spread of a homosexual culture.?

Unacceptable.

That ain't gonna work pal.  Hobby Lobby's Decision means you're going to have to stop being so lazy and work much harder at your justification for forcibly wrenching people's 1st Amendment rights away from them.  And as I said and you haven't refuted yet at all: once a singular man's legal rights to adhere to closely held faith principles is ripped away from him, the church that taught him those principles will have its doors legally wrenched open as well to promoting the gay cult values.


----------



## Gadawg73

Silhouette said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the press of other business has it where I have no time to work your wedding"
> works every time.
> If one is really interested in protecting something, anything instead of grandstanding.
> The cake and photography cases were to gain Christian victim status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then you would require christians as a matter of law to lie to their customers?  So they get to choose between two sins [and renunciation of their faith's core values] either to lie or to enable the spread of a homosexual culture.?
> 
> Unacceptable.
> 
> That ain't gonna work pal.  Hobby Lobby's Decision means you're going to have to stop being so lazy and work much harder at your justification for forcibly wrenching people's 1st Amendment rights away from them.  And as I said and you haven't refuted yet at all: once a singular man's legal rights to adhere to closely held faith principles is ripped away from him, the church that taught him those principles will have its doors legally wrenched open as well to promoting the gay cult values.
Click to expand...


They are already telling a lie if they deny service to gays because they claim to be Christians.
A Christian would never do that. They are liars if they claim their religion requires them to deny service.
A Christian loves and respects thy neighbor and does not judge them.
What about The Bible do you not understand?
And do you admit you were wrong about gays in the military?


----------



## Gadawg73

The Christian Victim doctrine:
"Disagreement is not hate, we demand everyone respect our right to disagree"\

I agree with that half. 

All the while they are telling everyone else that does NOT agree with them on any issue THEY are wrong.

Some kind of respect of different opinions there.
They are hypocrites and apply a DOUBLE STANDARD.


----------



## koshergrl

Why on earth would you claim that people who disagree with you are RIGHT?

You think that Christians should believe what they believe, without actually claiming that what they believe is correct. They should never seek to tell people the Way to attain heaven...and should tell people who are lost that they are *right* when we know otherwise...

That's just stupid.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Gadawg73 said:


> 100% separate matter altogether and NOT related to in any way but:
> 
> Anyone that would deny homosexuals service based on religious grounds is not Christian and probably Muslim.
> Christians love thy neighbor and do not judge.



True, no Christian church should deny entrance to, or counseling for anyone, For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. 

However, having any marriage ceremony in a particular church is up to the members of that church. If it against their faith to perform a ceremony, it will be denied. I have seen them denied because someone wanted to do a hillbilly wedding with shotguns and overalls. I have seen them denied because someone wanted a Jewish ceremony, and I have seen a Catholic Priest deny to marry a couple in a church that was not Catholic. 

As I have said, a church is the people, not the building. The people own the building, that is just a place they gather together to share their faith and worship at. It would be no different than someone knocking on your door, and stating that they were going to be getting married on your lawn tomorrow at noon, and there is nothing you can do about it.


----------



## Gadawg73

koshergrl said:


> Why on earth would you claim that people who disagree with you are RIGHT?
> 
> You think that Christians should believe what they believe, without actually claiming that what they believe is correct. They should never seek to tell people the Way to attain heaven...and should tell people who are lost that they are *right* when we know otherwise...
> 
> That's just stupid.



And you claim I drink.

I tell people that claim I am lost and do not know how to "attain heaven" to go fuck themselves.


----------



## GISMYS

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why on earth would you claim that people who disagree with you are RIGHT?
> 
> You think that Christians should believe what they believe, without actually claiming that what they believe is correct. They should never seek to tell people the Way to attain heaven...and should tell people who are lost that they are *right* when we know otherwise...
> 
> That's just stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you claim I drink.
> 
> I tell people that claim I am lost and do not know how to "attain heaven" to go fuck themselves.
Click to expand...


YES!!! IT IS HARD TO HELP A FOOL!!!and you??


----------



## Gadawg73

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% separate matter altogether and NOT related to in any way but:
> 
> Anyone that would deny homosexuals service based on religious grounds is not Christian and probably Muslim.
> Christians love thy neighbor and do not judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, no Christian church should deny entrance to, or counseling for anyone, For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
> 
> However, having any marriage ceremony in a particular church is up to the members of that church. If it against their faith to perform a ceremony, it will be denied. I have seen them denied because someone wanted to do a hillbilly wedding with shotguns and overalls. I have seen them denied because someone wanted a Jewish ceremony, and I have seen a Catholic Priest deny to marry a couple in a church that was not Catholic.
> 
> As I have said, a church is the people, not the building. The people own the building, that is just a place they gather together to share their faith and worship at. It would be no different than someone knocking on your door, and stating that they were going to be getting married on your lawn tomorrow at noon, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Click to expand...


I fully support the policy now that is not and has never been challenged.
Churches can deny a marriage ceremony to anyone they want to.
Jews do not marry Muslim couples now and should not.
Same as no one is asking for any church now to marry gay couples.
The churches that WANT TO MARRY them now want them to legally get a marriage license.
Something that is no one's business.
If a church now wants to legally marry gay folk they should be able to.


----------



## Gadawg73

GISMYS said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why on earth would you claim that people who disagree with you are RIGHT?
> 
> You think that Christians should believe what they believe, without actually claiming that what they believe is correct. They should never seek to tell people the Way to attain heaven...and should tell people who are lost that they are *right* when we know otherwise...
> 
> That's just stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you claim I drink.
> 
> I tell people that claim I am lost and do not know how to "attain heaven" to go fuck themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! IT IS HARD TO HELP A FOOL!!!and you??
Click to expand...


You have enough on your plate already in yourself. 
I am happy and comfortable in my own skin, strong and fit and healthy mind, body and soul.
I do not follow holier than thou dumb asses like you. You do more harm to Christianity than  good.


----------



## Gadawg73

How many Christian churches or ANY CHURCH NOW is forced to marry gays? ZERO.
And that never will change. 
Anyone that believes there will be a law in this country to force churches to marry people is a DUMB ASS.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Rather simplistic to think this issue is about a matter of lying to their customers or of getting into evaluating the sin business.  

A business in public service openly advertised as to a set of services offered is going to have public accommodation laws with which to contend.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Gadawg73 said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% separate matter altogether and NOT related to in any way but:
> 
> Anyone that would deny homosexuals service based on religious grounds is not Christian and probably Muslim.
> Christians love thy neighbor and do not judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, no Christian church should deny entrance to, or counseling for anyone, For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
> 
> However, having any marriage ceremony in a particular church is up to the members of that church. If it against their faith to perform a ceremony, it will be denied. I have seen them denied because someone wanted to do a hillbilly wedding with shotguns and overalls. I have seen them denied because someone wanted a Jewish ceremony, and I have seen a Catholic Priest deny to marry a couple in a church that was not Catholic.
> 
> As I have said, a church is the people, not the building. The people own the building, that is just a place they gather together to share their faith and worship at. It would be no different than someone knocking on your door, and stating that they were going to be getting married on your lawn tomorrow at noon, and there is nothing you can do about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fully support the policy now that is not and has never been challenged.
> Churches can deny a marriage ceremony to anyone they want to.
> Jews do not marry Muslim couples now and should not.
> Same as no one is asking for any church now to marry gay couples.
> The churches that WANT TO MARRY them now want them to legally get a marriage license.
> Something that is no one's business.
> If a church now wants to legally marry gay folk they should be able to.
Click to expand...


I pretty much agree with that statement. If a church accepts homosexual marriage, they have every right to perform the ceremony. 

In my faith, I don't believe in homosexuality, it's just immoral people doing disgusting acts. But, that is no different than someone claiming to be a Christian, endangering everyone on the road, by driving drunk. Both are sins, and God only sees sin one way. He does not differentiate between sin. From a little white lie, to murder, to God, they are all the same.

The key question in this thread is should churches be forced to perform gay weddings(marriage), and the answer is NO! Every religion should be free to practice however they believe. From snake handlers, to Muslims, to Jews and devil worshipers as well. With no restrictions from the government.


----------



## Pete7469

Katzndogz said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That will become the same battleground here as it is now in England.
Click to expand...


Looking forward to the mass beheadings of leftist english dipshits by mobs of pissed off muslims.


----------



## Seawytch

Gadawg73 said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% separate matter altogether and NOT related to in any way but:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that would deny homosexuals service based on religious grounds is not Christian and probably Muslim.
> 
> Christians love thy neighbor and do not judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, no Christian church should deny entrance to, or counseling for anyone, For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
> 
> 
> 
> However, having any marriage ceremony in a particular church is up to the members of that church. If it against their faith to perform a ceremony, it will be denied. I have seen them denied because someone wanted to do a hillbilly wedding with shotguns and overalls. I have seen them denied because someone wanted a Jewish ceremony, and I have seen a Catholic Priest deny to marry a couple in a church that was not Catholic.
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said, a church is the people, not the building. The people own the building, that is just a place they gather together to share their faith and worship at. It would be no different than someone knocking on your door, and stating that they were going to be getting married on your lawn tomorrow at noon, and there is nothing you can do about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support the policy now that is not and has never been challenged.
> 
> Churches can deny a marriage ceremony to anyone they want to.
> 
> Jews do not marry Muslim couples now and should not.
> 
> Same as no one is asking for any church now to marry gay couples.
> 
> The churches that WANT TO MARRY them now want them to legally get a marriage license.
> 
> Something that is no one's business.
> 
> If a church now wants to legally marry gay folk they should be able to.
Click to expand...



Remember...churches have been marrying gays, sans the legal status, for decades. We've always had equal access to religious marriage.


----------



## Seawytch

Gadawg73 said:


> How many Christian churches or ANY CHURCH NOW is forced to marry gays?




The same number that have been forced to perform interracial or interfaith marriages.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Seawytch said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many Christian churches or ANY CHURCH NOW is forced to marry gays?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same number that have been forced to perform interracial or interfaith marriages.
Click to expand...


The trash of hetero fascism is easily swept up and dumped.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Seawytch said:


> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize for not seeing/responding to your drivel earlier, Wytch...yes, 38% of heteros have "tried" anal sex...most discover that shit flies everywhere (yuck) and it hurts and they never do it again...(tried that, got the T-shirt, moving on.) Gays are the assholes...they wanted tolerance, they got it...they wanted acceptance, OK...now they are demanding that we renounce our faith and participate/accommodate them in their perversion. That's what we get for tolerating in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm...there was nothing in the poll to indicate they would never do it again.
> 
> Every straight guy I know want to stick their dick in a girls ass. This is a fact. The girls aren't as accommodating as the guys would like.
Click to expand...


I do not see the appeal.  I won't say it repulses me, but I have no particular interest in it.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Seawytch said:


> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, I did not mention lesbians.. I think that you are right, Joe. Anybody with half a brain can see that strapping on a fake penis and pretending to be a man is COMPLETELY NORMAL BEHAVIOR...people with a whole brain might disagree...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except a lot of lesbians don't use dildos or strap ons. Some of us are quite content to use what god gave us. You obviously think about this a lot though...
Click to expand...


Would you be offended if I asked for photographic evidence? 

*ducks and runs from Seawytch and my wife*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Judas holy Priest, I am tired of women telling men what men want from women.

That is as wrong as men telling women what they think.

Heteros and homos, you all grow up those of you who have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Seawytch said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really adorable that you think Churches don't care. Of course they care. There were plenty of churches that swore they'd never let a good, god fearing white person marry one of those N words in their church, but they did.
> 
> It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has been able to cite any biblical reference that speaks against interracial marriages because there is none. If you are going to speak against something being acceptable, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be able to prove you can back that point of view through specific scripture reference .. otherwise all your left with is your personal opinion of the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _"Let them marry to whom they think best;* only to the family of the tribe of their father *shall they marry." _
> 
> And it doesn't matter if YOU think the justification is there, they thought it was...to this extent:
> 
> &#8220;Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix.&#8221;
> 
> - Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965
Click to expand...


If you read the Bible, what is consistently being repeated is the belief of marrying like minded believers who share the same faith. It was believed if you marry outside your FAITH, that you be influenced by another's belief in their religion and religious practice. Obviously you didn't read enough of the old testament to pick up on that common thread little detail, but would rather take a segment of scripture out of context. Have you ever seriously read the Bible? I believe intermingling outside your religion was very clearly expressed throughout those old testament scriptures, the fact you don't care what the justification is there suggests you are willing to twist scripture to suit your purpose.


----------



## Seawytch

Jarlaxle said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, I did not mention lesbians.. I think that you are right, Joe. Anybody with half a brain can see that strapping on a fake penis and pretending to be a man is COMPLETELY NORMAL BEHAVIOR...people with a whole brain might disagree...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except a lot of lesbians don't use dildos or strap ons. Some of us are quite content to use what god gave us. You obviously think about this a lot though...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you be offended if I asked for photographic evidence?
> 
> *ducks and runs from Seawytch and my wife*
Click to expand...


You wanna see how some use their fingers and tongues? Okay...


----------



## Seawytch

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has been able to cite any biblical reference that speaks against interracial marriages because there is none. If you are going to speak against something being acceptable, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be able to prove you can back that point of view through specific scripture reference .. otherwise all your left with is your personal opinion of the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Let them marry to whom they think best;* only to the family of the tribe of their father *shall they marry." _
> 
> And it doesn't matter if YOU think the justification is there, they thought it was...to this extent:
> 
> Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix.
> 
> - Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the Bible, what is consistently being repeated is the belief of marrying like minded believers who share the same faith. It was believed if you marry outside your FAITH, that you be influenced by another's belief in their religion and religious practice. Obviously you didn't read enough of the old testament to pick up on that common thread little detail, but would rather take a segment of scripture out of context. Have you ever seriously read the Bible? I believe intermingling outside your religion was very clearly expressed throughout those old testament scriptures, the fact you don't care what the justification is there suggests you are willing to twist scripture to suit your purpose.
Click to expand...


Look at you, trying to cover for *their *bigotry. It doesn't matter what YOU believe, they were sure they were right in that allowing blacks to marry whites was a sin. 

Kinda like you're sure that allowing gays to marry is a sin.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Those of us who read the Bible daily realize it is for insight and guidance in our, not your, lives.

The Biblical literalist needs to be counseled for the sin of pride.


----------



## Gadawg73

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, no Christian church should deny entrance to, or counseling for anyone, For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
> 
> However, having any marriage ceremony in a particular church is up to the members of that church. If it against their faith to perform a ceremony, it will be denied. I have seen them denied because someone wanted to do a hillbilly wedding with shotguns and overalls. I have seen them denied because someone wanted a Jewish ceremony, and I have seen a Catholic Priest deny to marry a couple in a church that was not Catholic.
> 
> As I have said, a church is the people, not the building. The people own the building, that is just a place they gather together to share their faith and worship at. It would be no different than someone knocking on your door, and stating that they were going to be getting married on your lawn tomorrow at noon, and there is nothing you can do about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support the policy now that is not and has never been challenged.
> Churches can deny a marriage ceremony to anyone they want to.
> Jews do not marry Muslim couples now and should not.
> Same as no one is asking for any church now to marry gay couples.
> The churches that WANT TO MARRY them now want them to legally get a marriage license.
> Something that is no one's business.
> If a church now wants to legally marry gay folk they should be able to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pretty much agree with that statement. If a church accepts homosexual marriage, they have every right to perform the ceremony.
> 
> In my faith, I don't believe in homosexuality, it's just immoral people doing disgusting acts. But, that is no different than someone claiming to be a Christian, endangering everyone on the road, by driving drunk. Both are sins, and God only sees sin one way. He does not differentiate between sin. From a little white lie, to murder, to God, they are all the same.
> 
> The key question in this thread is should churches be forced to perform gay weddings(marriage), and the answer is NO! Every religion should be free to practice however they believe. From snake handlers, to Muslims, to Jews and devil worshipers as well. With no restrictions from the government.
Click to expand...


They are free now and nothing will change.
No one is out there wanting to force churches to change.


----------



## Gadawg73

The Founders were smart.
NO mention of God in the Constitution, no mention of a Supreme Being at all.
Because they did not want God in government, people are all different and the law is freedom of religion, any religion.
And there is NO religious test for public office written into the law.
Because of respect for those who do or do not practice religion.


----------



## NLT

Seawytch said:


> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, I did not mention lesbians.. I think that you are right, Joe. Anybody with half a brain can see that strapping on a fake penis and pretending to be a man is COMPLETELY NORMAL BEHAVIOR...people with a whole brain might disagree...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except a lot of lesbians don't use dildos or strap ons. Some of us are quite content to use what god gave us. You obviously think about this a lot though...
Click to expand...


Fists?


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> The Founders were smart.
> NO mention of God in the Constitution, no mention of a Supreme Being at all.
> Because they did not want God in government, people are all different and the law is freedom of religion, any religion.
> And there is NO religious test for public office written into the law.
> Because of respect for those who do or do not practice religion.



Yes and no.  The constitution restricted the federal government in this fashion, but did not say the state governments could not have religious tests.  More particularly it left that sort of decision to the states, well at least it did till after the civil war when the federalists changed the constitution through incorporation of the civil war amendments that the southern states were forced to sign up to or be killed.


----------



## WorldWatcher

RKMBrown said:


> The constitution restricted the federal government in this fashion, but did not say the state governments could not have religious tests.




Article VI:  "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."


>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73

WorldWatcher said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution restricted the federal government in this fashion, but did not say the state governments could not have religious tests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI:  "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


The states did it anyway as many to this date have insane laws that one has to be a believer to run for state office.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BillyP said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize for not seeing/responding to your drivel earlier, Wytch...yes, 38% of heteros have "tried" anal sex...most discover that shit flies everywhere (yuck) and it hurts and they never do it again...(tried that, got the T-shirt, moving on.) Gays are the assholes...they wanted tolerance, they got it...they wanted acceptance, OK...now they are demanding that we renounce our faith and participate/accommodate them in their perversion. That's what we get for tolerating in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> That right there, is the answer folks.  It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry, gays and the rest of us don't accept homophobes are normal people either, so you're pretty much equal to gays.
Click to expand...


The difference, of course, is that you ladies are shitting your frillies, worrying what people think of you and how you can force them to think differently, while we don't give a rat's ass what you think.  Which makes your constant pounding on the "homophobe!  Homophobe!  Look, I has given you a LABEL!" button really fucking amusing.


----------



## Gadawg73

Cecilie1200 said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> That right there, is the answer folks.  It's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, gays and the rest of us don't accept homophobes are normal people either, so you're pretty much equal to gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference, of course, is that you ladies are shitting your frillies, worrying what people think of you and how you can force them to think differently, while we don't give a rat's ass what you think.  Which makes your constant pounding on the "homophobe!  Homophobe!  Look, I has given you a LABEL!" button really fucking amusing.
Click to expand...


"force them to think differently"



Explain what it was the last time someone forced you to do anything other than paying taxes?


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution restricted the federal government in this fashion, but did not say the state governments could not have religious tests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI:  "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states did it anyway as many to this date have insane laws that one has to be a believer to run for state office.
Click to expand...


Define religious test... pretty vague.


----------



## Silhouette

Gadawg73 said:


> "force them to think differently"
> 
> 
> 
> Explain what it was the last time someone forced you to do anything other than paying taxes?



Just this week millions of California voters were forced to have their vote not count in their own initiative system when legislators there voted to usurp the constitutional-provision of a man and a woman and change the language to gender-neutral on Prop 8.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...future-attempt-another-coup-on-democracy.html 

Note, they did not remove Prop 8 as the case would be if the law wasn't binding.  They're just gutting it from the inside out of its core meaning; a gender-specific definition of marriage.

And of course, by constitutional law, the legislature MAY NOT amend or repeal any initiative law without the permission of the voters.  So that's two constitutional rights stripped in one week, forced upon millions in California.  

Spearheading this overthrow of democratic rule is one man named Mark Leno: gay state senator from ground zero: San Francisco's gay district.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Seawytch said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Let them marry to whom they think best;* only to the family of the tribe of their father *shall they marry." _
> 
> And it doesn't matter if YOU think the justification is there, they thought it was...to this extent:
> 
> Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix.
> 
> - Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read the Bible, what is consistently being repeated is the belief of marrying like minded believers who share the same faith. It was believed if you marry outside your FAITH, that you be influenced by another's belief in their religion and religious practice. Obviously you didn't read enough of the old testament to pick up on that common thread little detail, but would rather take a segment of scripture out of context. Have you ever seriously read the Bible? I believe intermingling outside your religion was very clearly expressed throughout those old testament scriptures, the fact you don't care what the justification is there suggests you are willing to twist scripture to suit your purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at you, trying to cover for *their *bigotry. It doesn't matter what YOU believe, they were sure they were right in that allowing blacks to marry whites was a sin.
> 
> Kinda like you're sure that allowing gays to marry is a sin.
Click to expand...



Never in my post did I say that interracial marriage is wrong, neither can you cite where I made anything close to that claim, I only stated what the old testament spoke regarding the concerns of mingling with people of other religious beliefs that were contrary and against the Israeli beliefs. Again you would love to twist scripture into what YOU would want it to believe to fit your reasoning. Your approach is no different than those who had twisted the bible to say what it clearly didn't, regarding interracial marriages. Let's stick to actual scripture interpretation when referencing the Bible.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> Note, they did not remove Prop 8 as the case would be if the law wasn't binding.  They're just gutting it from the inside out of its core meaning; a gender-specific definition of marriage.




False, the legislature is not empowered to change the Constitution of California:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2  VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL

SEC. 10.  (a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a
majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election
unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is
filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed
from going into effect.
   (b) If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same
election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest
affirmative vote shall prevail.
   (c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It
may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that
*becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the
initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their
approval.*​


#1  Prop 8 didn't include provisions for Legislative amendment or repeal, therefore the Legislature cannot remove it on their own.  It would take a new initiative vote to actually remove the language.


#2 Yes, contrary to what you keep repeating, laws that are still on the books can be invalid and unenforceable.  Many states still have Sodomy laws between consenting adults on the books, those laws are invalid and unenforceable under Lawrence v. Texas.  In 1967 the SCOTUS ruled that bans on interracial Civil Marriage were unconstitutional, Alabama didn't remove the language from their Constitution for 33 years (2000).  During the period 1967-2000 interracial marriages were legal in Alabama even though the State Constitution (amended by a vote) contained invalid language.


#3 Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional and the SCOTUS allowed that ruling to stand in their decision as they only vacated the Circuit Courts ruling.  If they had intended to over-rule the District Court they could have invalidated that decision - but they didn't.



>>>>

>>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey

> #3 Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional and the SCOTUS allowed that ruling to stand in their decision as they only vacated the Circuit Courts ruling.  If they had intended to over-rule the District Court they could have invalidated that decision - but they didn't.



^ that


----------



## Seawytch

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read the Bible, what is consistently being repeated is the belief of marrying like minded believers who share the same faith. It was believed if you marry outside your FAITH, that you be influenced by another's belief in their religion and religious practice. Obviously you didn't read enough of the old testament to pick up on that common thread little detail, but would rather take a segment of scripture out of context. Have you ever seriously read the Bible? I believe intermingling outside your religion was very clearly expressed throughout those old testament scriptures, the fact you don't care what the justification is there suggests you are willing to twist scripture to suit your purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at you, trying to cover for *their *bigotry. It doesn't matter what YOU believe, they were sure they were right in that allowing blacks to marry whites was a sin.
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like you're sure that allowing gays to marry is a sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never in my post did I say that interracial marriage is wrong, neither can you cite where I made anything close to that claim, I only stated what the old testament spoke regarding the concerns of mingling with people of other religious beliefs that were contrary and against the Israeli beliefs. Again you would love to twist scripture into what YOU would want it to believe to fit your reasoning. Your approach is no different than those who had twisted the bible to say what it clearly didn't, regarding interracial marriages. Let's stick to actual scripture interpretation when referencing the Bible.
Click to expand...



Read again and sound out the big words.

I said that people who thought interracial marriage was bad felt just as justified in their racist beliefs as you feel justified in anti gay ones.


----------



## JakeStarkey

This "Again you would love to twist scripture into what YOU would want it to believe to fit your reasoning" excellenty defines Shakles how Shakles himself reasons.

He will twist data to fit his thesis.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> This "Again you would love to twist scripture into what YOU would want it to believe to fit your reasoning" excellenty defines Shakles how Shakles himself reasons.
> 
> He will twist data to fit his thesis.



Jake, NEWSFLASH:  Look at the top of this page at the poll.  Notice that 85% of the over hundred voters here believe that gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it.  That's 85% of people in favor of the findings of Windsor that say that states' broadest consensuses must decide for themselves.  ie: democratic rule.

Also notice that SCOTUS granted a stay for Utah on keeping gay marriage illegal there.  That's saying the High Court has not found constitutionally for gay marriage as a federally-protected "right".

Also notice that with the Hobby Lobby Decision, SCOTUS found that people who hold strong religious convictions to not promote behaviors they are mandated by their religion to not promote, have a right to "refuse service" to those behaviors.

Also note that LGBT is an incomplete grouping of sexually deviant behaviors, with a child sex predator as their socio-sexual icon.

......................Add them all together and what do you get as a prognosis for a federal blanket for gay marriage?


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "Again you would love to twist scripture into what YOU would want it to believe to fit your reasoning" excellenty defines Shakles how Shakles himself reasons.
> 
> He will twist data to fit his thesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, NEWSFLASH:  Look at the top of this page at the poll.  Notice that 85% of the over hundred voters here believe that gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it.  That's 85% of people in favor of the findings of Windsor that say that states' broadest consensuses must decide for themselves.  ie: democratic rule.
> 
> Also notice that SCOTUS granted a stay for Utah on keeping gay marriage illegal there.  That's saying the High Court has not found constitutionally for gay marriage as a federally-protected "right".
> 
> Also notice that with the Hobby Lobby Decision, SCOTUS found that people who hold strong religious convictions to not promote behaviors they are mandated by their religion to not promote, have a right to "refuse service" to those behaviors.
> 
> Also note that LGBT is an incomplete grouping of sexually deviant behaviors, with a child sex predator as their socio-sexual icon.
> 
> ......................Add them all together and what do you get as a prognosis for a federal blanket for gay marriage?
Click to expand...

Liar.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "Again you would love to twist scripture into what YOU would want it to believe to fit your reasoning" excellenty defines Shakles how Shakles himself reasons.
> 
> He will twist data to fit his thesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, NEWSFLASH:  Look at the top of this page at the poll.  Notice that 85% of the over hundred voters here believe that gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it.  That's 85% of people in favor of the findings of Windsor that say that states' broadest consensuses must decide for themselves.  ie: democratic rule.
> 
> Also notice that SCOTUS granted a stay for Utah on keeping gay marriage illegal there.  That's saying the High Court has not found constitutionally for gay marriage as a federally-protected "right".
> 
> Also notice that with the Hobby Lobby Decision, SCOTUS found that people who hold strong religious convictions to not promote behaviors they are mandated by their religion to not promote, have a right to "refuse service" to those behaviors.
> 
> Also note that LGBT is an incomplete grouping of sexually deviant behaviors, with a child sex predator as their socio-sexual icon.
> 
> ......................Add them all together and what do you get as a prognosis for a federal blanket for gay marriage?
Click to expand...


(1) No one cares what the dim bulbs think.  Windsor is not what you hoped it would be.

(2) Newsflash for Sil: Sotomayor granted the final stay for Utah as she builds consensus in the courts across the country for marriage equality.

(3) HL was a decision to protect a certain group of people's business right under very particular and prescribed circumstances, not to prevent behaviors themselves.

(4) You can't add is your problem.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil is not a deliberate liar, I don't think, about the OP: she truly believes what she is saying.

I do believe she is cognitively damaged because of unwise ****** behavior choices.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> Also notice that with the Hobby Lobby Decision, SCOTUS found that people who hold strong religious convictions to not promote behaviors they are mandated by their religion to not promote, have a right to "refuse service" to those behaviors.




No they didn't.

The ruling in the HL case was that the HHS could not require them to pay (as part of their company health insurance policy) for contraceptives.  The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with "refusing service" to homosexuals.  The HL case was measured against the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  You do know that the RFRA only applies to Federal law right?  It's provisions that attempted to make it applicable to the States was found unconstitutional in City of Boerne v. Flores.


As a matter of fact during this same term of the SCOTUS, the court refused to hear the appeal in the case of Elane Photography v. Willock.  The photographer case out of New Mexico where the photographer "refused service" to a lesbian couple based on sexual orientation in violation of the New Mexico Public Accommodation law.  The case went though the NM Supreme Court that ruled that the law was valid, the SCOTUS denied the writ, which means the NMSC decision was upheld as the final ruling in the case.



>>>>


----------



## brandonisi

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



No. So long as gay couples do not attempt to force a church into marrying them, they're not forcing their "lifestyle" (I hate that term) down their throats. So, until this becomes an issue (and it hopefully wont), churches and religious people who claim "the gay agenda" (something I never got a copy of, apparently) is being forced upon them are being dramatic.


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also notice that with the Hobby Lobby Decision, SCOTUS found that people who hold strong religious convictions to not promote behaviors they are mandated by their religion to not promote, have a right to "refuse service" to those behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> The ruling in the HL case was that the HHS could not require them to pay (as part of their company health insurance policy) for contraceptives.  The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with "refusing service" to homosexuals.  The HL case was measured against the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  You do know that the RFRA only applies to Federal law right?  It's provisions that attempted to make it applicable to the States was found unconstitutional in City of Boerne v. Flores.
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact during this same term of the SCOTUS, the court refused to hear the appeal in the case of Elane Photography v. Willock.  The photographer case out of New Mexico where the photographer "refused service" to a lesbian couple based on sexual orientation in violation of the New Mexico Public Accommodation law.  The case went though the NM Supreme Court that ruled that the law was valid, the SCOTUS denied the writ, which means the NMSC decision was upheld as the final ruling in the case.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Trying to pretend that you don't understand how "same or similar" precedent law works again are you?

Then I could just as easily say that because Lawrence v Texas was a win for sodomy, no future extrapolations can be taken from it to advance gay marriage or any other gay agenda item, right?  Nor could that be done with Loving v Virginia, right?

Let me guess, suddenly in those cases any number of twists and machinations can be applied to forward the gay agenda?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also notice that with the Hobby Lobby Decision, SCOTUS found that people who hold strong religious convictions to not promote behaviors they are mandated by their religion to not promote, have a right to "refuse service" to those behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> The ruling in the HL case was that the HHS could not require them to pay (as part of their company health insurance policy) for contraceptives.  The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with "refusing service" to homosexuals.  The HL case was measured against the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  You do know that the RFRA only applies to Federal law right?  It's provisions that attempted to make it applicable to the States was found unconstitutional in City of Boerne v. Flores.
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact during this same term of the SCOTUS, the court refused to hear the appeal in the case of Elane Photography v. Willock.  The photographer case out of New Mexico where the photographer "refused service" to a lesbian couple based on sexual orientation in violation of the New Mexico Public Accommodation law.  The case went though the NM Supreme Court that ruled that the law was valid, the SCOTUS denied the writ, which means the NMSC decision was upheld as the final ruling in the case.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to pretend that you don't understand how "same or similar" precedent law works again are you?
> 
> Then I could just as easily say that because Lawrence v Texas was a win for sodomy, no future extrapolations can be taken from it to advance gay marriage or any other gay agenda item, right?  Nor could that be done with Loving v Virginia, right?
> 
> Let me guess, suddenly in those cases any number of twists and machinations can be applied to forward the gay agenda?
Click to expand...



Same or similar precedent applies to like situations.

Lawrence was a case based on State law and so had application as to what other States can or cannot do.

Hobby Lobby is a case based on Federal law and it's applicable to what States can or cannot do.




You realize there are 20+ States that required (and did before ObamaCare) employers to have health insurance and provide contraceptive coverage (specific vary by State) and that the HL case didn't change those laws right?  The HL case was decided based on the Federal RFRA which is not applicable to the States.



>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil doesn't get it, ww, because she can't cognitively understand it.

Something happened, I don't know what, and don't want to know.

But her perception of what is happening legally and cuturally is sieved.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil doesn't get it, ww, because she can't cognitively understand it.
> 
> Something happened, I don't know what, and don't want to know.
> 
> But *her perception of what is happening legally and cuturally is sieved*.



So then if that was true, you wouldn't need to keep batting back what I say here over and over and over again because you'd feel confident that, without a word, my interpretation would go down in the courts as a "fail".

Yet here you are, nervously beating back what I'm talking about.  And so I conclude you're lying about your certainty.  We have Windsor and Hobby Lobby as examples of what has you shaking in your boots that old Sil might have a point...  To clear up any further doubt, just read the results of the poll at the top of the page...


----------



## JakeStarkey

85% loony vote equal loony vote.  When dealing with folks like you who are delusional, the guidance is always to keep repeating, "Sil, no, that is not rational, this is what is rational."

Windsor, Sil, is not what you think it is; we have been over and over it, and you are still wrong.

HL is about abortifacents not marriage equality.  Focus, Sil, focus.


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article VI:  "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The states did it anyway as many to this date have insane laws that one has to be a believer to run for state office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define religious test... pretty vague.
Click to expand...


Any law that says one has to be a believer in The Almighty, God, The Spaghetti Monster, Blondes with Big Titties or the Father in Heaven.

I believe it should be vague as religious beliefs include everything.
The Founders in their time knew what a terrible thing religion in government was as every European state at the time was set up that way. 
Anything to stop the crown monarchy, or anyone else, from dictating that they had divine right from God to rule over people.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> 85% loony vote equal loony vote.  When dealing with folks like you who are delusional, the guidance is always to keep repeating, "Sil, no, that is not rational, this is what is rational."
> 
> Windsor, Sil, is not what you think it is; we have been over and over it, and you are still wrong.
> 
> HL is about abortifacents not marriage equality.  Focus, Sil, focus.



So the overwhelming majority who believes these people shouldn't be able to use a loophole via marriage to legally adopt are "looney"?  http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Seawytch said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at you, trying to cover for *their *bigotry. It doesn't matter what YOU believe, they were sure they were right in that allowing blacks to marry whites was a sin.
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like you're sure that allowing gays to marry is a sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never in my post did I say that interracial marriage is wrong, neither can you cite where I made anything close to that claim, I only stated what the old testament spoke regarding the concerns of mingling with people of other religious beliefs that were contrary and against the Israeli beliefs. Again you would love to twist scripture into what YOU would want it to believe to fit your reasoning. Your approach is no different than those who had twisted the bible to say what it clearly didn't, regarding interracial marriages. Let's stick to actual scripture interpretation when referencing the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Read again and sound out the big words.
> 
> I said that people who thought interracial marriage was bad felt just as justified in their racist beliefs as you feel justified in anti gay ones.
Click to expand...



I said that people who read the Bible and manipulated it to mean that it speaks against interracial marriage, have taken the bible "out of context".  The  bible however is very explicit and detailed when describing homosexual acts, such as in Romans 1:26-27

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful

There is no way to misinterpret a scripture that is so detailed in nature as one which describes to the point of leaving a vivid picture. There is no scripture as detailed, however, in explicitly pointing the finger to marriage with a different color. Tribe could mean Jews mingling with Amish, clearly both are of the same race as it doesn't specifically isolate and identify those of a different skin color. Sorry but generalities aren't the same as specifics.


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states did it anyway as many to this date have insane laws that one has to be a believer to run for state office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define religious test... pretty vague.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any law that says one has to be a believer in The Almighty, God, The Spaghetti Monster, Blondes with Big Titties or the Father in Heaven.
> 
> I believe it should be vague as religious beliefs include everything.
> The Founders in their time knew what a terrible thing religion in government was as every European state at the time was set up that way.
> Anything to stop the crown monarchy, or anyone else, from dictating that they had divine right from God to rule over people.
Click to expand...


So the socialists pray to government as their god.  Does that mean government should be kept out of government?


----------



## Seawytch

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never in my post did I say that interracial marriage is wrong, neither can you cite where I made anything close to that claim, I only stated what the old testament spoke regarding the concerns of mingling with people of other religious beliefs that were contrary and against the Israeli beliefs. Again you would love to twist scripture into what YOU would want it to believe to fit your reasoning. Your approach is no different than those who had twisted the bible to say what it clearly didn't, regarding interracial marriages. Let's stick to actual scripture interpretation when referencing the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read again and sound out the big words.
> 
> I said that people who thought interracial marriage was bad felt just as justified in their racist beliefs as you feel justified in anti gay ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said that people who read the Bible and manipulated it to mean that it speaks against interracial marriage, have taken the bible "out of context".  The  bible however is very explicit and detailed when describing homosexual acts, such as in Romans 1:26-27
> 
> For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful
> 
> There is no way to misinterpret a scripture that is so detailed in nature as one which describes to the point of leaving a vivid picture. There is no scripture as detailed, however, in explicitly pointing the finger to marriage with a different color. Tribe could mean Jews mingling with Amish, clearly both are of the same race as it doesn't specifically isolate and identify those of a different skin color. Sorry but generalities aren't the same as specifics.
Click to expand...


You're just reiterating my point. YOU think they are wrong, but they KNEW they were right.

And there are people who think you take the bible out of context when you use that passage, unrelated to consenting adults who love each other, and apply it to today's gays and lesbians.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> You're just reiterating my point. YOU think they are wrong, but they KNEW they were right.
> 
> And there are people who think you  take the bible out of context when you use that passage, unrelated to consenting adults who love each other, and apply it to today's gays and lesbians.



Time to revisit Jude 1 of the New Testament:




> 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
> 
> 2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
> 
> 3 *Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints*.
> 
> 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
> 
> 6 *And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day*.
> 
> 7 *Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.*
> 
> 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
> 
> 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 
> 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
> 
> 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 
> 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
> 
> 13 *Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever*.
> 
> 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> 15 *To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him*.
> 
> 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
> 
> 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18 *How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts*.
> 
> 19 *These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit*.
> 
> 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21 *Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life*.
> 
> 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
> 
> 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24 *Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy*,
> 
> 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.



Remember that EVERYONE in Sodom, gay and gay-enabling straights were sent to the eternal pit of fire for the MORTAL SIN of enabling the spread of a homosexual culture that destroys God's man/woman Construct.


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define religious test... pretty vague.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any law that says one has to be a believer in The Almighty, God, The Spaghetti Monster, Blondes with Big Titties or the Father in Heaven.
> 
> I believe it should be vague as religious beliefs include everything.
> The Founders in their time knew what a terrible thing religion in government was as every European state at the time was set up that way.
> Anything to stop the crown monarchy, or anyone else, from dictating that they had divine right from God to rule over people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the socialists pray to government as their god.  Does that mean government should be kept out of government?
Click to expand...


Nothing to do with praying. Some people pray to Democrats or Republicans as their god also. So what? Freedom of religion is far different than religion in government.


----------



## Gadawg73

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just reiterating my point. YOU think they are wrong, but they KNEW they were right.
> 
> And there are people who think you  take the bible out of context when you use that passage, unrelated to consenting adults who love each other, and apply it to today's gays and lesbians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time to revisit Jude 1 of the New Testament:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
> 
> 2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
> 
> 3 *Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints*.
> 
> 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
> 
> 6 *And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day*.
> 
> 7 *Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.*
> 
> 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
> 
> 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 
> 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
> 
> 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 
> 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
> 
> 13 *Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever*.
> 
> 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> 15 *To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him*.
> 
> 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
> 
> 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18 *How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts*.
> 
> 19 *These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit*.
> 
> 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21 *Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life*.
> 
> 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
> 
> 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24 *Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy*,
> 
> 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember that EVERYONE in Sodom, gay and gay-enabling straights were sent to the eternal pit of fire for the MORTAL SIN of enabling the spread of a homosexual culture that destroys God's man/woman Construct.
Click to expand...


I do not believe that stupid shit.


----------



## Silhouette

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just reiterating my point. YOU think they are wrong, but they KNEW they were right.
> 
> And there are people who think you  take the bible out of context when you use that passage, unrelated to consenting adults who love each other, and apply it to today's gays and lesbians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time to revisit Jude 1 of the New Testament:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
> 
> 2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
> 
> 3 *Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints*.
> 
> 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
> 
> 6 *And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day*.
> 
> 7 *Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.*
> 
> 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
> 
> 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 
> 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
> 
> 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 
> 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
> 
> 13 *Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever*.
> 
> 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> 15 *To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him*.
> 
> 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
> 
> 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18 *How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts*.
> 
> 19 *These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit*.
> 
> 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21 *Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life*.
> 
> 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
> 
> 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24 *Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy*,
> 
> 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember that EVERYONE in Sodom, gay and gay-enabling straights were sent to the eternal pit of fire for the MORTAL SIN of enabling the spread of a homosexual culture that destroys God's man/woman Construct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not believe that stupid shit.
Click to expand...


Well christians and others DO.  Hobby Lobby says your/that _opinion_ is now legally defunct.


----------



## Gadawg73

Silhouette said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to revisit Jude 1 of the New Testament:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that EVERYONE in Sodom, gay and gay-enabling straights were sent to the eternal pit of fire for the MORTAL SIN of enabling the spread of a homosexual culture that destroys God's man/woman Construct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe that stupid shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well christians and others DO.  Hobby Lobby says your/that _opinion_ is now legally defunct.
Click to expand...


I am Christian and this is what Genesis says about the details of of the encounter at Sodom  at 18:16 - 19 : 29 are that Lot was violating the laws of Sodom by entertaining unknown guests within the walls at night without obtaining permission from the city elders. When the men of Sodom gathered around the strangers be brought out to them "that they might know them" then meant NO more than to KNOW who they were and the city was subsequently destroyed not for the sin of sexual immorality but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers, a sin in most all ancient religions including Muslim recognize. The men wanted to interrogate Lot's guests to see if they were spies. 
But a student of the Bible looks further, far further into the New Testament as Jesus never said a bad word about homosexuals YET ALWAYS condemns those who turn their backs on strangers and the most vulnerable citizens among us. 
Jesus says straight up that WHOEVER FAILS to welcome such people HAVE FAILED TO WELCOME HIM. 
Time for you to learn what a Christian really is, someone that follows JESUS, not someone that holds up an old book that has old Jewish laws and customs in it.


----------



## Silhouette

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe that stupid shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well christians and others DO.  Hobby Lobby says your/that _opinion_ is now legally defunct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am Christian and this is what Genesis says about the details of of the encounter at Sodom  at 18:16 - 19 : 29 are that Lot was violating the laws of Sodom by entertaining unknown guests within the walls at night without obtaining permission from the city elders. When the men of Sodom gathered around the strangers be brought out to them "that they might know them" then meant NO more than to KNOW who they were and the city was subsequently destroyed not for the sin of sexual immorality but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers, a sin in most all ancient religions including Muslim recognize. The men wanted to interrogate Lot's guests to see if they were spies.
> But a student of the Bible looks further, far further into the New Testament as Jesus never said a bad word about homosexuals YET ALWAYS condemns those who turn their backs on strangers and the most vulnerable citizens among us.
> Jesus says straight up that WHOEVER FAILS to welcome such people HAVE FAILED TO WELCOME HIM.
> Time for you to learn what a Christian really is, someone that follows JESUS, not someone that holds up an old book that has old Jewish laws and customs in it.
Click to expand...


Christians follow the New Testament and only refer to the Old Testament as more or less of an antiquated history book.  You may have heard that Jesus was the messiah set to correct some of the older jewish laws by his new message.  Jude was a personal servant to Jesus and went everywhere with him.  Jude is a book of the New Testament.  Genesis is the first book of the Old Testament.  Jude's passages are right from first hand contact with Jesus.  His testament is pretty much as direct as you can get to the words of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just reiterating my point. YOU think they are wrong, but they KNEW they were right.
> 
> And there are people who think you  take the bible out of context when you use that passage, unrelated to consenting adults who love each other, and apply it to today's gays and lesbians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time to revisit Jude 1 of the New Testament:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
> 
> 2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
> 
> 3 *Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints*.
> 
> 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
> 
> 6 *And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day*.
> 
> 7 *Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.*
> 
> 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
> 
> 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 
> 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
> 
> 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 
> 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
> 
> 13 *Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever*.
> 
> 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> 15 *To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him*.
> 
> 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
> 
> 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18 *How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts*.
> 
> 19 *These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit*.
> 
> 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21 *Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life*.
> 
> 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
> 
> 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24 *Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy*,
> 
> 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember that EVERYONE in Sodom, gay and gay-enabling straights were sent to the eternal pit of fire for the MORTAL SIN of enabling the spread of a homosexual culture that destroys God's man/woman Construct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not believe that stupid shit.
Click to expand...


The prior poster (Seawytch) was making statement regarding what is written about in the Bible.

If the prior poster did not believe in what is in the Bible, why were they referring to the Bible?

Because when you refer to the Bible, that implies that you believe what the Bible says.  Why refer to something you don't believe?  That is illogical and stupid.

Crazy person:  "I don't believe in the Necronomicon, but in it, it says..."

When a poster start referring to what is in the Bible, people who believe the Bible are going to start quoting it.

If you don't like that.... TOUGH.  We don't give a crap what you like or don't.   Have we not made this clear?

You people on the gay side, if you don't want us quoting the Bible, then don't bring it up.  Seawytch brought it up, and someone started quoting it.

Whose fault is it for bring it up?  Not ours.

I'm not going to start quoting the Bible at people unless they want me to.   But if someone else here, hears you people butchering the Bible to fit your stupidity, don't be surprised when someone smacks you in the face with verses from the Bible.   Again, you don't like it TOUGH.  We don't care what you think.

Homo:  The bible doesn't say blaw blaw blaw.....

Christian:  Well... actually verse x and y and z say this and that!

Homo:  GAH!!! We don't believe the Bible!!!

Hello?   If you don't want to hear it.... stop talking about it.   Is this 5th grade all over again?

And by the way.... don't ask us why we believe the things we do either.... because the reason we believe what we believe.... is because of the Bible.  * And you people know this.*

Homo:  "I want to know why you believe X, and I already know it's because of the Bible, but I don't want to hear about the Bible.... so answer?"

Christian:  "Well the Bible says...."

Homo:  GAHHHHHHH!!!

That's dumb.   If you know why we believe what we believe..... but don't want to hear it.... don't ask!

When you see my on other threads talking about whatever, do I spontaneously break out in " oh and by the way the, the Bible says"....  No, maybe once in a thousand posts....  but generally no.   I don't go around beating people on the head with the Bible.

But if you ask me... yeah I'm going to tell you why I believe what I do.  That's how that works.  Welcome to civilized discussion.   If you don't want to hear it....  dur..... no one forced you to come to this forum, or this particular thread.   This is like yelling at the radio, and calling the station that you don't want hear the program....  dur... change the channel Einstein.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe that stupid shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well christians and others DO.  Hobby Lobby says your/that _opinion_ is now legally defunct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am Christian and this is what Genesis says about the details of of the encounter at Sodom  at 18:16 - 19 : 29 are that Lot was violating the laws of Sodom by entertaining unknown guests within the walls at night without obtaining permission from the city elders. When the men of Sodom gathered around the strangers be brought out to them "that they might know them" then meant NO more than to KNOW who they were and the city was subsequently destroyed not for the sin of sexual immorality but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers, a sin in most all ancient religions including Muslim recognize. The men wanted to interrogate Lot's guests to see if they were spies.
> But a student of the Bible looks further, far further into the New Testament as Jesus never said a bad word about homosexuals YET ALWAYS condemns those who turn their backs on strangers and the most vulnerable citizens among us.
> Jesus says straight up that WHOEVER FAILS to welcome such people HAVE FAILED TO WELCOME HIM.
> Time for you to learn what a Christian really is, someone that follows JESUS, not someone that holds up an old book that has old Jewish laws and customs in it.
Click to expand...


2,000 years later, internet poster Gadawg finds his own personalized version of the Bible, that no one anywhere has ever seen before, and proclaims everything the Jews, and the Church has taught for centuries is all wrong.

Yeah.... Thanks, but your input on what my Bible says is no longer, or ever was, required.


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe that stupid shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well christians and others DO.  Hobby Lobby says your/that _opinion_ is now legally defunct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am Christian and this is what Genesis says about the details of of the encounter at Sodom  at 18:16 - 19 : 29 are that Lot was violating the laws of Sodom by entertaining unknown guests within the walls at night without obtaining permission from the city elders. When the men of Sodom gathered around the strangers be brought out to them "that they might know them" then meant NO more than to KNOW who they were and the city was subsequently destroyed not for the sin of sexual immorality but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers, a sin in most all ancient religions including Muslim recognize. The men wanted to interrogate Lot's guests to see if they were spies.
> But a student of the Bible looks further, far further into the New Testament as Jesus never said a bad word about homosexuals YET ALWAYS condemns those who turn their backs on strangers and the most vulnerable citizens among us.
> Jesus says straight up that WHOEVER FAILS to welcome such people HAVE FAILED TO WELCOME HIM.
> Time for you to learn what a Christian really is, someone that follows JESUS, not someone that holds up an old book that has old Jewish laws and customs in it.
Click to expand...


Read it again.. this time in context.  The next sentence explains it, when he says take my virgin daughters instead.  It was about sex not getting to know them in the familiar sense.


----------



## Silhouette

I can speak about the Bible as a former christian or a secular historian.  It's a free country.  I'm just advocating for the christians whose voices are being drowned out by the deviant sex cult that's trying to eradicate their faith by increments.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe that stupid shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well christians and others DO.  Hobby Lobby says your/that _opinion_ is now legally defunct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am Christian and this is what Genesis says about the details of of the encounter at Sodom  at 18:16 - 19 : 29 are that Lot was violating the laws of Sodom by entertaining unknown guests within the walls at night without obtaining permission from the city elders. When the men of Sodom gathered around the strangers be brought out to them "that they might know them" then meant NO more than to KNOW who they were and the city was subsequently destroyed not for the sin of sexual immorality but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers, a sin in most all ancient religions including Muslim recognize. The men wanted to interrogate Lot's guests to see if they were spies.
> But a student of the Bible looks further, far further into the New Testament as Jesus never said a bad word about homosexuals YET ALWAYS condemns those who turn their backs on strangers and the most vulnerable citizens among us.
> Jesus says straight up that WHOEVER FAILS to welcome such people HAVE FAILED TO WELCOME HIM.
> Time for you to learn what a Christian really is, someone that follows JESUS, not someone that holds up an old book that has old Jewish laws and customs in it.
Click to expand...


About Sodom, and the people who dwelt there. Well.
Genesis 19:5 and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them." 

That seems pretty clear cut to me.


----------



## Gadawg73

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to revisit Jude 1 of the New Testament:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that EVERYONE in Sodom, gay and gay-enabling straights were sent to the eternal pit of fire for the MORTAL SIN of enabling the spread of a homosexual culture that destroys God's man/woman Construct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe that stupid shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The prior poster (Seawytch) was making statement regarding what is written about in the Bible.
> 
> If the prior poster did not believe in what is in the Bible, why were they referring to the Bible?
> 
> Because when you refer to the Bible, that implies that you believe what the Bible says.  Why refer to something you don't believe?  That is illogical and stupid.
> 
> Crazy person:  "I don't believe in the Necronomicon, but in it, it says..."
> 
> When a poster start referring to what is in the Bible, people who believe the Bible are going to start quoting it.
> 
> If you don't like that.... TOUGH.  We don't give a crap what you like or don't.   Have we not made this clear?
> 
> You people on the gay side, if you don't want us quoting the Bible, then don't bring it up.  Seawytch brought it up, and someone started quoting it.
> 
> Whose fault is it for bring it up?  Not ours.
> 
> I'm not going to start quoting the Bible at people unless they want me to.   But if someone else here, hears you people butchering the Bible to fit your stupidity, don't be surprised when someone smacks you in the face with verses from the Bible.   Again, you don't like it TOUGH.  We don't care what you think.
> 
> Homo:  The bible doesn't say blaw blaw blaw.....
> 
> Christian:  Well... actually verse x and y and z say this and that!
> 
> Homo:  GAH!!! We don't believe the Bible!!!
> 
> Hello?   If you don't want to hear it.... stop talking about it.   Is this 5th grade all over again?
> 
> And by the way.... don't ask us why we believe the things we do either.... because the reason we believe what we believe.... is because of the Bible.  * And you people know this.*
> 
> Homo:  "I want to know why you believe X, and I already know it's because of the Bible, but I don't want to hear about the Bible.... so answer?"
> 
> Christian:  "Well the Bible says...."
> 
> Homo:  GAHHHHHHH!!!
> 
> That's dumb.   If you know why we believe what we believe..... but don't want to hear it.... don't ask!
> 
> When you see my on other threads talking about whatever, do I spontaneously break out in " oh and by the way the, the Bible says"....  No, maybe once in a thousand posts....  but generally no.   I don't go around beating people on the head with the Bible.
> 
> But if you ask me... yeah I'm going to tell you why I believe what I do.  That's how that works.  Welcome to civilized discussion.   If you don't want to hear it....  dur..... no one forced you to come to this forum, or this particular thread.   This is like yelling at the radio, and calling the station that you don't want hear the program....  dur... change the channel Einstein.
Click to expand...


I believe in reading the Bible, not stupid shit ignorant people claim is in it.
I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, not old Jewish law written by crazy fuckers wandering around in the desert. 
Something about Love thy neighbor, do unto others and do not judge.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe that stupid shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The prior poster (Seawytch) was making statement regarding what is written about in the Bible.
> 
> If the prior poster did not believe in what is in the Bible, why were they referring to the Bible?
> 
> Because when you refer to the Bible, that implies that you believe what the Bible says.  Why refer to something you don't believe?  That is illogical and stupid.
> 
> Crazy person:  "I don't believe in the Necronomicon, but in it, it says..."
> 
> When a poster start referring to what is in the Bible, people who believe the Bible are going to start quoting it.
> 
> If you don't like that.... TOUGH.  We don't give a crap what you like or don't.   Have we not made this clear?
> 
> You people on the gay side, if you don't want us quoting the Bible, then don't bring it up.  Seawytch brought it up, and someone started quoting it.
> 
> Whose fault is it for bring it up?  Not ours.
> 
> I'm not going to start quoting the Bible at people unless they want me to.   But if someone else here, hears you people butchering the Bible to fit your stupidity, don't be surprised when someone smacks you in the face with verses from the Bible.   Again, you don't like it TOUGH.  We don't care what you think.
> 
> Homo:  The bible doesn't say blaw blaw blaw.....
> 
> Christian:  Well... actually verse x and y and z say this and that!
> 
> Homo:  GAH!!! We don't believe the Bible!!!
> 
> Hello?   If you don't want to hear it.... stop talking about it.   Is this 5th grade all over again?
> 
> And by the way.... don't ask us why we believe the things we do either.... because the reason we believe what we believe.... is because of the Bible.  * And you people know this.*
> 
> Homo:  "I want to know why you believe X, and I already know it's because of the Bible, but I don't want to hear about the Bible.... so answer?"
> 
> Christian:  "Well the Bible says...."
> 
> Homo:  GAHHHHHHH!!!
> 
> That's dumb.   If you know why we believe what we believe..... but don't want to hear it.... don't ask!
> 
> When you see my on other threads talking about whatever, do I spontaneously break out in " oh and by the way the, the Bible says"....  No, maybe once in a thousand posts....  but generally no.   I don't go around beating people on the head with the Bible.
> 
> But if you ask me... yeah I'm going to tell you why I believe what I do.  That's how that works.  Welcome to civilized discussion.   If you don't want to hear it....  dur..... no one forced you to come to this forum, or this particular thread.   This is like yelling at the radio, and calling the station that you don't want hear the program....  dur... change the channel Einstein.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in reading the Bible, not stupid shit ignorant people claim is in it.
> I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, not old Jewish law written by crazy fuckers wandering around in the desert.
> Something about Love thy neighbor, do unto others and do not judge.
Click to expand...


Right.  I believe that too, which is why I don't give crap what you think the Bible says.  I can read it myself too, and see that you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Seawytch

Dawg, people using the bible to justify their bigotry is as old as the book itself. What's amusing is that the bigots using it today are no different than the bigots that used it to justify slavery, segregation and anti-miscegenation...but they think they are.


----------



## Gadawg73

OK we have some homosexuals that post here.

Take a poll of them:

How many of you gay folk support forcing churches to marry gay folks?


----------



## Gadawg73

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prior poster (Seawytch) was making statement regarding what is written about in the Bible.
> 
> If the prior poster did not believe in what is in the Bible, why were they referring to the Bible?
> 
> Because when you refer to the Bible, that implies that you believe what the Bible says.  Why refer to something you don't believe?  That is illogical and stupid.
> 
> Crazy person:  "I don't believe in the Necronomicon, but in it, it says..."
> 
> When a poster start referring to what is in the Bible, people who believe the Bible are going to start quoting it.
> 
> If you don't like that.... TOUGH.  We don't give a crap what you like or don't.   Have we not made this clear?
> 
> You people on the gay side, if you don't want us quoting the Bible, then don't bring it up.  Seawytch brought it up, and someone started quoting it.
> 
> Whose fault is it for bring it up?  Not ours.
> 
> I'm not going to start quoting the Bible at people unless they want me to.   But if someone else here, hears you people butchering the Bible to fit your stupidity, don't be surprised when someone smacks you in the face with verses from the Bible.   Again, you don't like it TOUGH.  We don't care what you think.
> 
> Homo:  The bible doesn't say blaw blaw blaw.....
> 
> Christian:  Well... actually verse x and y and z say this and that!
> 
> Homo:  GAH!!! We don't believe the Bible!!!
> 
> Hello?   If you don't want to hear it.... stop talking about it.   Is this 5th grade all over again?
> 
> And by the way.... don't ask us why we believe the things we do either.... because the reason we believe what we believe.... is because of the Bible.  * And you people know this.*
> 
> Homo:  "I want to know why you believe X, and I already know it's because of the Bible, but I don't want to hear about the Bible.... so answer?"
> 
> Christian:  "Well the Bible says...."
> 
> Homo:  GAHHHHHHH!!!
> 
> That's dumb.   If you know why we believe what we believe..... but don't want to hear it.... don't ask!
> 
> When you see my on other threads talking about whatever, do I spontaneously break out in " oh and by the way the, the Bible says"....  No, maybe once in a thousand posts....  but generally no.   I don't go around beating people on the head with the Bible.
> 
> But if you ask me... yeah I'm going to tell you why I believe what I do.  That's how that works.  Welcome to civilized discussion.   If you don't want to hear it....  dur..... no one forced you to come to this forum, or this particular thread.   This is like yelling at the radio, and calling the station that you don't want hear the program....  dur... change the channel Einstein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in reading the Bible, not stupid shit ignorant people claim is in it.
> I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, not old Jewish law written by crazy fuckers wandering around in the desert.
> Something about Love thy neighbor, do unto others and do not judge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  I believe that too, which is why I don't give crap what you think the Bible says.  I can read it myself too, and see that you don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


You do "give crap" what I think because you posted back.
Who u trying to shit?


----------



## Kondor3

Should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings? No.


----------



## Seawytch

Gadawg73 said:


> OK we have some homosexuals that post here.
> 
> Take a poll of them:
> 
> How many of you gay folk support forcing churches to marry gay folks?




By the government, no. By loved ones attending church, yes.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK we have some homosexuals that post here.
> 
> Take a poll of them:
> 
> How many of you gay folk support forcing churches to marry gay folks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the government, no. By loved ones attending church, yes.
Click to expand...


And the devout of Utah?  Do you also not support the government forcing gay marriage on them as well...you know, the 2/3rds who voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> And the devout of Utah?  Do you also not support the government forcing gay marriage on them as well...you know, the 2/3rds who voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman?




I'm 100% against the government forcing any individual into a same-sex civil marriage.


Of course, I'm also 100% against the government forcing any individual into a different-sex marriage.


I stand firmly on the position that all participation in Civil Marriage should be voluntary.



>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the devout of Utah?  Do you also not support the government forcing gay marriage on them as well...you know, the 2/3rds who voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 100% against the government forcing any individual into a same-sex civil marriage.
> 
> 
> Of course, I'm also 100% against the government forcing any individual into a different-sex marriage.
> 
> 
> I stand firmly on the position that all participation in Civil Marriage should be voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Well I just heard of an adult son who wanted to volunteer to marry his mother.  By your yardstick we should recognize that.

No, you're not going to rip away the definition of a longstanding iconic foundation of our democratic society, the hub of all governments because the family is the nucleus of all outward communities.  The majority gets to rule on marriage with the only exception being the 14th.

And the 14th doesn't apply to a limited or incomplete group of sexually deviant behaviors outside 1 man/1 woman not related by blood or family.  So, states get to decide.  I'm pretty certain, around 90% certain, that this will be the same or simliar language used in the Final Ruling on gay marriage vs state's rights to define marriage.  And the reason I'm that certain is because I've read Windsor.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> And the 14th doesn't apply to a limited or incomplete group of sexually deviant behaviors outside 1 man/1 woman not related by blood or family.  So, states get to decide.



Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evens prove you wrong.

Both are cases in which the 14th Amendment were applied to homosexuals.



Silhouette said:


> I'm pretty certain, around 90% certain, that this will be the same or simliar language used in the Final Ruling on gay marriage vs state's rights to define marriage.  And the reason I'm that certain is because I've read Windsor.




#1 SHRUG - we won't know for certain until probably next June.

#2 You haven't demonstrated that you comprehend what Windsor says.  You take snippets of  stare decis out of context and try to say that Windsor says SSCM is only legal in 3-states because SSCM was achived at the ballot box.  That is factually wrong for a couple of reasons:

A.  The majority opinion points out the decision is about federal law and not whether States can say "No".

B.  The Chief Justice of the SCOTUS points out in his writings that Windsor does not asnwer the question about if it is legal for States to discriminate against homosexuals (without a compelling government interest)

C.  The opinion itself shows that (at the time the opinion was written) there were 12 States + DC with legal SSCM.  Some through court action, some though legislation, and some at the ballot box.

D.  Finally, under your logic the Windsor decision makes no sense.  Under your premise New York didn't have SSCM since it wasn't voted on so how could the court have ruled on Windsor if Ms. Windsor wasn't married to begin with.  Makes no sense.​


>>>>


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in reading the Bible, not stupid shit ignorant people claim is in it.
> I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, not old Jewish law written by crazy fuckers wandering around in the desert.
> Something about Love thy neighbor, do unto others and do not judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  I believe that too, which is why I don't give crap what you think the Bible says.  I can read it myself too, and see that you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do "give crap" what I think because you posted back.
> Who u trying to shit?
Click to expand...


No, I don't.   I posted back, because I wanted to.  How is that so hard for you to grasp?

Your opinion of what my Bible says, couldn't possibly be lower on my care-o-meter.

I'm here to stand of for my Bible, and my beliefs.  You are allowed to be wrong, and that's fine.  You can have your personal private "adaptive bible" over there, in your little corner by yourself.  I don't care.

To everyone else, the Bible is very clear Homosexuality is a sin.  It says it hundreds of times.    Do we forgive?  Absolutely.  The entire point of the Bible is that G-d will forgive those who repent.  But repent means accepting what you are doing is wrong, and changing what you do to the right.

"Well I think the Bible says"  I don't care.  Stuff it.   No one cares what your opinion of what the Bible says is, except perhaps other rationalizers.    The rest of us can read it ourselves.  Thanks for your opinion, it has been filed in the oval cabinet of permanent storage.  Have a nice day.


----------



## JoeB131

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK we have some homosexuals that post here.
> 
> Take a poll of them:
> 
> How many of you gay folk support forcing churches to marry gay folks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the government, no. By loved ones attending church, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the devout of Utah?  Do you also not support the government forcing gay marriage on them as well...you know, the 2/3rds who voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman?
Click to expand...


While i think nothing would improve Mormonism more than turning Utah into a huge Cult Deprogramming Camp, it doesn't matter what the majority voted.  A majority cannot vote away the rights of a minority. 

At least in theory. 

If Utah's ban is in violation of the 14th Amendment or the Full Faith and Credit Clause, then it is constitutionally invalid.


----------



## Silhouette

Clementine said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you include mosques in that sentiment?
Click to expand...


You'll have to forgive KNB.  S/he is a little snippy since Hobby Lobby.  S/he knows that in Utah where gay marraige vs Utah is pending appeal to SCOTUS, 2/3rds of the religious state rejected gay marriage.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> I can speak about the Bible as a former christian or a secular historian.  It's a free country.  I'm just advocating for the christians whose voices are being drowned out by the deviant sex cult that's trying to eradicate their faith by increments.



Well they can't touch my faith... and you lost yours.  So...


----------



## Seawytch

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the devout of Utah?  Do you also not support the government forcing gay marriage on them as well...you know, the 2/3rds who voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 100% against the government forcing any individual into a same-sex civil marriage.
> 
> 
> Of course, I'm also 100% against the government forcing any individual into a different-sex marriage.
> 
> 
> I stand firmly on the position that all participation in Civil Marriage should be voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Me too! (But if the government does start forcing people...can I sign up for Angelina Jolie? I'll even take Brad Pitt if it's a package deal so the government would also have to force polygamist marriages...dang, this gets so complicated)


----------



## Redfish

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the government, no. By loved ones attending church, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the devout of Utah?  Do you also not support the government forcing gay marriage on them as well...you know, the 2/3rds who voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While i think nothing would improve Mormonism more than turning Utah into a huge Cult Deprogramming Camp, it doesn't matter what the majority voted.  A majority cannot vote away the rights of a minority.
> 
> At least in theory.
> 
> If Utah's ban is in violation of the 14th Amendment or the Full Faith and Credit Clause, then it is constitutionally invalid.
Click to expand...




Hmmmm,  then I guess the minority who refuse to pay federal taxes cannot be forced to do that by majority vote-----------

In a free democratic society, majority opinion rules.   The majority set the rules.  The majority selects leaders, the majority of leaders make the laws.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the devout of Utah?  Do you also not support the government forcing gay marriage on them as well...you know, the 2/3rds who voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 100% against the government forcing any individual into a same-sex civil marriage.
> 
> 
> Of course, I'm also 100% against the government forcing any individual into a different-sex marriage.
> 
> 
> I stand firmly on the position that all participation in Civil Marriage should be voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too! (But if the government does start forcing people...can I sign up for Angelina Jolie? I'll even take Brad Pitt if it's a package deal so the government would also have to force polygamist marriages...dang, this gets so complicated)
Click to expand...


you just made the case against gay marriage   

because the next natural legal step is multiple marriages of all forms and numbers.   If a gay union of two people is called a marriage then there is no possible legal defense that can be brought against polygamy and bigamy or all forms.   Maybe you and your "partner" can bring your dog into the "marriage".


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 100% against the government forcing any individual into a same-sex civil marriage.
> 
> 
> Of course, I'm also 100% against the government forcing any individual into a different-sex marriage.
> 
> 
> I stand firmly on the position that all participation in Civil Marriage should be voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me too! (But if the government does start forcing people...can I sign up for Angelina Jolie? I'll even take Brad Pitt if it's a package deal so the government would also have to force polygamist marriages...dang, this gets so complicated)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you just made the case against gay marriage
> 
> because the next natural legal step is multiple marriages of all forms and numbers.   If a gay union of two people is called a marriage then there is no possible legal defense that can be brought against polygamy and bigamy or all forms.   Maybe you and your "partner" can bring your dog into the "marriage".
Click to expand...


Oh Fishy...you have no idea how much folks like you help marriage equality along...


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me too! (But if the government does start forcing people...can I sign up for Angelina Jolie? I'll even take Brad Pitt if it's a package deal so the government would also have to force polygamist marriages...dang, this gets so complicated)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you just made the case against gay marriage
> 
> because the next natural legal step is multiple marriages of all forms and numbers.   If a gay union of two people is called a marriage then there is no possible legal defense that can be brought against polygamy and bigamy or all forms.   Maybe you and your "partner" can bring your dog into the "marriage".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Fishy...you have no idea how much folks like you help marriage equality along...
Click to expand...


As I have told you many times, I am in favor of equality for everyone.   I want you and your lesbian lover to have equal rights to inheritence, insurance, joint ownership, taxes, and everything else.   I want your relationship and committment to be legally recognized in every state.   

But two women in a committed legal union is NOT a marriage.   If the govt calls it a marriage, then the door is thrown open for all forms of joining, copulating, and co-habitating in "marriages".

Our statutes should establish homosexual two person civil unions as equal in every way to a man/woman marriage.   

But I forgot--------its not equality that you really want.    What you really want is government mandated societal acceptance of an abnormal life style.    THATS why you are so hung up on the word 'marriage'.  

Until you admit that, its a waste of time to discuss this.


----------



## Silhouette

RWHeathenGamer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
Click to expand...


No, of course not.  Race is covered under the 14th.  A cult of just some types of deviant sexual behaviors is not covered under the 14th. 

You ask the easiest questions.


----------



## KNB

Silhouette said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you include mosques in that sentiment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll have to forgive KNB.  S/he is a little snippy since Hobby Lobby.  S/he knows that in Utah where gay marraige vs Utah is pending appeal to SCOTUS, 2/3rds of the religious state rejected gay marriage.
Click to expand...


"Religious state"?

Explain how that is Constitutional.

Come on, really.  Have you read the First Amendment?  Do you even remember that we're supposed to have a Constitution?

Go ahead and support the Mormon "religious state" of Utah.  Be sure to emphasize how much you LOVE democracy, too.  It's the epitome of Democracy, right?  The People of the State of Utah voted to respect an establishment of religion which bans gay marriage.

That is entirely unconstitutional.


----------



## BlackSand

KNB said:


> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.



*If it is a lie ... What Hell are you talking about burning in?*

.


----------



## KNB

BlackSand said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If it is a lie ... What Hell are you talking about burning in?*
Click to expand...


Facetious - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Trust me, there is nothing waiting for us when we die.  No thought, no vision, no senses, nothing.  Religion is an outdated lie which tries to explain the universe to simpletons.  Much in the same way that the story of Santa Claus is used to condition children to behave a certain way, religion is a story used to condition societies to behave a certain way.

But since humanity is capable of great acts of kindness and simultaneously great acts of evil, the contradictions inherent in human nature carry into humanity's religions, causing an irreconcilable dichotomy within the teachings of the religion.  Contradictions such as "God loves you unconditionally, unless you don't believe in Him in which case He will punish you forever in lava."  Religion is a very bad, very sick joke which has been used to justify some of the worst atrocities that humans can think of.

The sooner that people realize that we don't need religion to explain the world to us anymore, the sooner we can begin to look at the reality of our situation and stop looking for salvation and redemption in the clouds and start to work together towards salvation and redemption here on Earth, because this is the only home that We the Human Race will ever know.

The major religions even try to tell us that this world is unimportant, and we shouldn't care about what happens here because "Heaven" is forever.  Heaven doesn't exist.  It is a lie.  We need to work to stop the lies which are destroying our home and killing our people.  One of the lies that is causing strife and misery for humans is the idea that gay marriage will somehow destroy civilization.  It won't.  That is a religious lie that should be identified and rejected.


----------



## Silhouette

KNB said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you include mosques in that sentiment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to forgive KNB.  S/he is a little snippy since Hobby Lobby.  S/he knows that in Utah where gay marraige vs Utah is pending appeal to SCOTUS, 2/3rds of the religious state rejected gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Religious state"?
> 
> Explain how that is Constitutional.
> 
> Come on, really.  Have you read the First Amendment?  Do you even remember that we're supposed to have a Constitution?
> 
> Go ahead and support the Mormon "religious state" of Utah.  Be sure to emphasize how much you LOVE democracy, too.  It's the epitome of Democracy, right?  The People of the State of Utah voted to respect an establishment of religion which bans gay marriage.
> 
> That is entirely unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


You interviewed each individual voter in Utah did you?  How many of them, for example, voted against gay marriage because in their state marriage is the only way you can adopt kids.  Maybe some of them saw something similar in the picture of this OP and decided they didn't want gays to access orphans in their state via marriage [among many other possibilities for limiting marriage to a man and a woman by the millions of voters in that state]: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html


----------



## KNB

"Religious state".  Your words.

Unconstitutional.


----------



## Silhouette

KNB said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If it is a lie ... What Hell are you talking about burning in?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facetious - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Trust me, there is nothing waiting for us when we die.  No thought, no vision, no senses, nothing.  Religion is an outdated lie which tries to explain the universe to simpletons.  Much in the same way that the story of Santa Claus is used to condition children to behave a certain way, religion is a story used to condition societies to behave a certain way.
> 
> But since humanity is capable of great acts of kindness and simultaneously great acts of evil, the contradictions inherent in human nature carry into humanity's religions, causing an irreconcilable dichotomy within the teachings of the religion.  Contradictions such as "God loves you unconditionally, unless you don't believe in Him in which case He will punish you forever in lava."  Religion is a very bad, very sick joke which has been used to justify some of the worst atrocities that humans can think of.
> 
> The sooner that people realize that we don't need religion to explain the world to us anymore, the sooner we can begin to look at the reality of our situation and stop looking for salvation and redemption in the clouds and start to work together towards salvation and redemption here on Earth, because this is the only home that We the Human Race will ever know.
> 
> The major religions even try to tell us that this world is unimportant, and we shouldn't care about what happens here because "Heaven" is forever.  Heaven doesn't exist.  It is a lie.  We need to work to stop the lies which are destroying our home and killing our people.  One of the lies that is causing strife and misery for humans is the idea that gay marriage will somehow destroy civilization.  It won't.  That is a religious lie that should be identified and rejected.
Click to expand...



Trust you!?  

I've had a near death experience and I can tell you for a fact that what I experienced and saw means that not only is this existence the ephemeral one, but that on the other side of the veil we are most definitely held accountable for our actions, that there is a Big Plan for our incarnation here and what we do here is work in order to really test our mettle in the perinneal plane.  

This place is just a gym where we work out.  The real McCoy is a higher plane than here.

Another thing that was revealed to me is that the constructs in religions, some of them anyway, are framework around which these lessons here are built.  There is a fair degree of permissiveness in freedoms here because the lessons are meant to test the free and their own impetus to remain decent.  Without the freedoms, there would be no lessons.  However, destroying the framework of the base constructs of this world is a big No No.

And that's why Jude 1 is such an important warning.  Though, there are others in other religions that come nearly as close to the bullseye as Jude 1.  Gender-blending Ist Verboten.  And that is because the two distinct genders and their functions as mother/father to children are one of the favorite constructs of the Big Plan....one of the most functional and useful "classrooms" for teaching and learning in.


----------



## BlackSand

KNB said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If it is a lie ... What Hell are you talking about burning in?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facetious - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Trust me, there is nothing waiting for us when we die.  No thought, no vision, no senses, nothing.  Religion is an outdated lie which tries to explain the universe to simpletons.  Much in the same way that the story of Santa Claus is used to condition children to behave a certain way, religion is a story used to condition societies to behave a certain way.
> 
> But since humanity is capable of great acts of kindness and simultaneously great acts of evil, the contradictions inherent in human nature carry into humanity's religions, causing an irreconcilable dichotomy within the teachings of the religion.  Contradictions such as "God loves you unconditionally, unless you don't believe in Him in which case He will punish you forever in lava."  Religion is a very bad, very sick joke which has been used to justify some of the worst atrocities that humans can think of.
> 
> The sooner that people realize that we don't need religion to explain the world to us anymore, the sooner we can begin to look at the reality of our situation and stop looking for salvation and redemption in the clouds and start to work together towards salvation and redemption here on Earth, because this is the only home that We the Human Race will ever know.
> 
> The major religions even try to tell us that this world is unimportant, and we shouldn't care about what happens here because "Heaven" is forever.  Heaven doesn't exist.  It is a lie.  We need to work to stop the lies which are destroying our home and killing our people.  One of the lies that is causing strife and misery for humans is the idea that gay marriage will somehow destroy civilization.  It won't.  That is a religious lie that should be identified and rejected.
Click to expand...


*I didn't ask you for a fucking essay explaining what you do or don't believe in ... I asked you "What Hell you are talking about burning in" ... If religion is a lie.*

.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85% loony vote equal loony vote.  When dealing with folks like you who are delusional, the guidance is always to keep repeating, "Sil, no, that is not rational, this is what is rational."
> 
> Windsor, Sil, is not what you think it is; we have been over and over it, and you are still wrong.
> 
> HL is about abortifacents not marriage equality.  Focus, Sil, focus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the overwhelming majority who believes these people shouldn't be able to use a loophole via marriage to legally adopt are "looney"?  http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html
Click to expand...


HL, again, is about abortifacents not marriage equality.

There is no loophole in the law.

Marriage equality is a civil right protected by the 14th Amendment.

Those are the rocks against which all of your arguments founder.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

I have changed my view, due to the insightful arguments made by brilliant individuals such as jake starkey, I think Churches that receive tax exemptions and engage in charitable acts(like food drives, community fairs), fall under the commerce clause and the equal protection clause and must be "compelled" to offer gay marriage services.

If they want to be homophobic bigots and generally prejudiced shitlords, they can do so, but they need to lose their tax exemption and stop engaging in commerce and providing public accommodations to their community.

This will be interesting, will bigoted conservatives be willing to forgo their greed and lose the tax exemption, or do they value excluding homosexuals from getting married more so than engaging their community.?


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

If you bigots, don't like it, why don't you call for abolishing the commerce clause and the 14th amendment. You are allowed a process for doing that, oh wait you know you can't lol.

Us gay loving patriotic americans will continue to carry out the egalitarian, secular, liberal, and sexually libertine agenda of the founding fathers and preserve the original intent of the Constitution.


----------



## JakeStarkey

RWHeathenGamer said:


> If you bigots, don't like it, why don't you call for abolishing the commerce clause and the 14th amendment. You are allowed a process for doing that, oh wait you know you can't lol.
> 
> Us gay loving patriotic americans will continue to carry out the egalitarian, secular, liberal, and sexually libertine agenda of the founding fathers and preserve the original intent of the Constitution.



bravo, great satire!

Do look up charitable activities in relationship to the tax laws, though.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

JakeStarkey said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you bigots, don't like it, why don't you call for abolishing the commerce clause and the 14th amendment. You are allowed a process for doing that, oh wait you know you can't lol.
> 
> Us gay loving patriotic americans will continue to carry out the egalitarian, secular, liberal, and sexually libertine agenda of the founding fathers and preserve the original intent of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bravo, great satire!
> 
> Do look up charitable activities in relationship to the tax laws, though.
Click to expand...


The "letter of the law", you could say it is something I am gay for...


----------



## Andylusion

KNB said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If it is a lie ... What Hell are you talking about burning in?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facetious - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Trust me, there is nothing waiting for us when we die.  No thought, no vision, no senses, nothing.  Religion is an outdated lie which tries to explain the universe to simpletons.  Much in the same way that the story of Santa Claus is used to condition children to behave a certain way, religion is a story used to condition societies to behave a certain way.
> 
> But since humanity is capable of great acts of kindness and simultaneously great acts of evil, the contradictions inherent in human nature carry into humanity's religions, causing an irreconcilable dichotomy within the teachings of the religion.  Contradictions such as "God loves you unconditionally, unless you don't believe in Him in which case He will punish you forever in lava."  Religion is a very bad, very sick joke which has been used to justify some of the worst atrocities that humans can think of.
> 
> The sooner that people realize that we don't need religion to explain the world to us anymore, the sooner we can begin to look at the reality of our situation and stop looking for salvation and redemption in the clouds and start to work together towards salvation and redemption here on Earth, because this is the only home that We the Human Race will ever know.
> 
> The major religions even try to tell us that this world is unimportant, and we shouldn't care about what happens here because "Heaven" is forever.  Heaven doesn't exist.  It is a lie.  We need to work to stop the lies which are destroying our home and killing our people.  One of the lies that is causing strife and misery for humans is the idea that gay marriage will somehow destroy civilization.  It won't.  That is a religious lie that should be identified and rejected.
Click to expand...


And you can prove there is nothing after death?   You've been there?  Or know someone who has?   Because I do... and He said there was.


----------



## JoeB131

Redfish said:


> As I have told you many times, I am in favor of equality for everyone.   I want you and your lesbian lover to have equal rights to inheritence, insurance, joint ownership, taxes, and everything else.   I want your relationship and committment to be legally recognized in every state.
> 
> But two women in a committed legal union is NOT a marriage.   If the govt calls it a marriage, then the door is thrown open for all forms of joining, copulating, and co-habitating in "marriages".
> 
> Our statutes should establish homosexual two person civil unions as equal in every way to a man/woman marriage.
> 
> But I forgot--------its not equality that you really want.    What you really want is government mandated societal acceptance of an abnormal life style.    THATS why you are so hung up on the word 'marriage'.
> 
> Until you admit that, its a waste of time to discuss this.



The reason why gays are "hung up" on the word marriage can be explained in one picture. 







Now you can argue that "Civil Unions" dispense the same nice water that "Marriage" does, but the fact is that it is a stigmatizing separation, therefore, unconstitutional. 

Separate but Equal is not Equal.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have told you many times, I am in favor of equality for everyone.   I want you and your lesbian lover to have equal rights to inheritence, insurance, joint ownership, taxes, and everything else.   I want your relationship and committment to be legally recognized in every state.
> 
> But two women in a committed legal union is NOT a marriage.   If the govt calls it a marriage, then the door is thrown open for all forms of joining, copulating, and co-habitating in "marriages".
> 
> Our statutes should establish homosexual two person civil unions as equal in every way to a man/woman marriage.
> 
> But I forgot--------its not equality that you really want.    What you really want is government mandated societal acceptance of an abnormal life style.    THATS why you are so hung up on the word 'marriage'.
> 
> Until you admit that, its a waste of time to discuss this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why gays are "hung up" on the word marriage can be explained in one picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you can argue that "Civil Unions" dispense the same nice water that "Marriage" does, but the fact is that it is a stigmatizing separation, therefore, unconstitutional.
> 
> Separate but Equal is not Equal.
Click to expand...


Still not applicable.  Marriage and race are not connected in any way.


----------



## JoeB131

Androw said:


> [
> 
> Still not applicable.  Marriage and race are not connected in any way.



They most certainly are.  

Maybe you need to look up a case called "Loving v. Virginia", where an interracial couple was charged with a crime for being an interracial couple.  SCOTUS declared marriage a constitutional right in 1967. 

However, the last law against interracial marriage did not come off the books until 2000 in Alabama.  And the vote was 60-40 for.  

Get this.  40% of people in Alabama voted FOR banning interracial marriage in 2000!


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Still not applicable.  Marriage and race are not connected in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They most certainly are.
> 
> Maybe you need to look up a case called "Loving v. Virginia", where an interracial couple was charged with a crime for being an interracial couple.  SCOTUS declared marriage a constitutional right in 1967.
> 
> However, the last law against interracial marriage did not come off the books until 2000 in Alabama.  And the vote was 60-40 for.
> 
> Get this.  40% of people in Alabama voted FOR banning interracial marriage in 2000!
Click to expand...


Irrelevant.   Marriage and Race are not connected.

Name one race, anywhere on this planet, which does not have marriage?

Name one race, throughout ancient human history, even those in which homosexuality was normal, in which Marriage was not defined as a man and woman.

You can repeat your crap all you want, you are still wrong.   Just because some places attached external arbitrary limitations on marriage, does not change what the fundamental aspect of Marriage is.... a man and a woman.   Which nature shows is the only physical way of procreation.

It's not that difficult.  There actually is no such thing as race.   Genetically, minor physical difference are almost irrelevant, compared to other genetic differences.

There is no different race of Humans.  We are all human.

So when some specific state makes up an arbitrary law, about a non-existent concept, it's fundamentally irrelevant.

Homosexuality is a mental illness.  It causes death, and the spread of disease.  It causes suicide and domestic violence.   It is impossible to have a family through natural procreation.

You can do it all you want.  But no, it's not marriage, it's not the same.  It has nothing to do with race, and quite frankly, only a mentally sick person would compare the two.     But that goes hand in hand with what it is.


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just made the case against gay marriage
> 
> because the next natural legal step is multiple marriages of all forms and numbers.   If a gay union of two people is called a marriage then there is no possible legal defense that can be brought against polygamy and bigamy or all forms.   Maybe you and your "partner" can bring your dog into the "marriage".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Fishy...you have no idea how much folks like you help marriage equality along...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have told you many times, I am in favor of equality for everyone.   I want you and your lesbian lover to have equal rights to inheritence, insurance, joint ownership, taxes, and everything else.   I want your relationship and committment to be legally recognized in every state.
> 
> But two women in a committed legal union is NOT a marriage.   If the govt calls it a marriage, then the door is thrown open for all forms of joining, copulating, and co-habitating in "marriages".
> 
> Our statutes should establish homosexual two person civil unions as equal in every way to a man/woman marriage.
> 
> But I forgot--------its not equality that you really want.    What you really want is government mandated societal acceptance of an abnormal life style.    THATS why you are so hung up on the word 'marriage'.
> 
> Until you admit that, its a waste of time to discuss this.
Click to expand...


How many times do you have to be spanked on this issue? You do this every time...you lie, you get caught, you run away. It's quite the pattern. 

Gays don't care what it's called, you do...therefore the onus is on YOU to change it (for everyone). Separate but equal is unconstitutional.


----------



## JoeB131

Androw said:


> Irrelevant.   Marriage and Race are not connected.
> 
> Name one race, anywhere on this planet, which does not have marriage?
> 
> Name one race, throughout ancient human history, even those in which homosexuality was normal, in which Marriage was not defined as a man and woman.
> 
> You can repeat your crap all you want, you are still wrong.   Just because some places attached external arbitrary limitations on marriage, does not change what the fundamental aspect of Marriage is.... a man and a woman.   Which nature shows is the only physical way of procreation.
> 
> It's not that difficult.  There actually is no such thing as race.   Genetically, minor physical difference are almost irrelevant, compared to other genetic differences.
> 
> There is no different race of Humans.  We are all human.
> 
> So when some specific state makes up an arbitrary law, about a non-existent concept, it's fundamentally irrelevant.
> 
> Homosexuality is a mental illness.  It causes death, and the spread of disease.  It causes suicide and domestic violence.   It is impossible to have a family through natural procreation.
> 
> You can do it all you want.  But no, it's not marriage, it's not the same.  It has nothing to do with race, and quite frankly, only a mentally sick person would compare the two.     But that goes hand in hand with what it is.



Guy, the problem with the "historical" marriage argument is that through most of history, marriage was not a union of equals but a transfer of property.  A father was expected to transfer the property of his daughter to another man, often with the payment of a dowry.  The man had the unquestioned right to beat his wife for disobedience or even kill her for adultery.  

Clearly, this is not the kind of marriage we have in the US today. 

And frankly, the only mental illness I see here is your homophobia.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JoeB131 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Still not applicable.  Marriage and race are not connected in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They most certainly are. *
> 
> Maybe you need to look up a case called "Loving v. Virginia", where an interracial couple was charged with a crime for being an interracial couple.  SCOTUS declared marriage a constitutional right in 1967.
> 
> However, the last law against interracial marriage did not come off the books until 2000 in Alabama.  And the vote was 60-40 for.
> 
> Get this.  40% of people in Alabama voted FOR banning interracial marriage in 2000!
Click to expand...


No, they are not! No one gets to choose to be born black or white. No one gets to choose to be born male or female. No one gets to choose to be born American or Chinese. Homosexuality is a choice that people make, it's not a pre-determined fact.


----------



## JoeB131

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Still not applicable.  Marriage and race are not connected in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They most certainly are. *
> 
> Maybe you need to look up a case called "Loving v. Virginia", where an interracial couple was charged with a crime for being an interracial couple.  SCOTUS declared marriage a constitutional right in 1967.
> 
> However, the last law against interracial marriage did not come off the books until 2000 in Alabama.  And the vote was 60-40 for.
> 
> Get this.  40% of people in Alabama voted FOR banning interracial marriage in 2000!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not! No one gets to choose to be born black or white. No one gets to choose to be born male or female. No one gets to choose to be born American or Chinese. Homosexuality is a choice that people make, it's not a pre-determined fact.
Click to expand...


Really, when did you "Decide" to be straight?


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JoeB131 said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They most certainly are. *
> 
> Maybe you need to look up a case called "Loving v. Virginia", where an interracial couple was charged with a crime for being an interracial couple.  SCOTUS declared marriage a constitutional right in 1967.
> 
> However, the last law against interracial marriage did not come off the books until 2000 in Alabama.  And the vote was 60-40 for.
> 
> Get this.  40% of people in Alabama voted FOR banning interracial marriage in 2000!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not! No one gets to choose to be born black or white. No one gets to choose to be born male or female. No one gets to choose to be born American or Chinese. Homosexuality is a choice that people make, it's not a pre-determined fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, when did you "Decide" to be straight?
Click to expand...


I made a choice. Just as I choose not to give into lusts for other women, and remain faithful to my wife. 

Spin it anyway you like, it's still a choice, people are not born homosexual or heterosexual, or even born a dog person or a cat person. They make the choice for themselves.


----------



## JoeB131

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not! No one gets to choose to be born black or white. No one gets to choose to be born male or female. No one gets to choose to be born American or Chinese. Homosexuality is a choice that people make, it's not a pre-determined fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, when did you "Decide" to be straight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made a choice. Just as I choose not to give into lusts for other women, and remain faithful to my wife.
> 
> Spin it anyway you like, it's still a choice, people are not born homosexual or heterosexual, or even born a dog person or a cat person. They make the choice for themselves.
Click to expand...


I notice you avoided the "When" part of my question. And then tried to change the subject.  

It was asked for a very specific reason.   There was a point, probably some time after puberty, when you discovered you liked girls. You didn't "choose" to like girls, you just realized you were attracted to them sexually.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JoeB131 said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, when did you "Decide" to be straight?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made a choice. Just as I choose not to give into lusts for other women, and remain faithful to my wife.
> 
> Spin it anyway you like, it's still a choice, people are not born homosexual or heterosexual, or even born a dog person or a cat person. They make the choice for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice you avoided the "When" part of my question. And then tried to change the subject.
> 
> It was asked for a very specific reason.   There was a point, probably some time after puberty, when you discovered you liked girls. You didn't "choose" to like girls, you just realized you were attracted to them sexually.
Click to expand...


I am attracted to a lot of women, sexually. I choose not to act on those attractions. 

Your "when" question is moot. It has nothing to do with the relationship of race and homosexuality, as you say race and homosexuality are the same. "When" I made my choice is of no importance to the argument that you made.


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Still not applicable.  Marriage and race are not connected in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They most certainly are.
> 
> Maybe you need to look up a case called "Loving v. Virginia", where an interracial couple was charged with a crime for being an interracial couple.  SCOTUS declared marriage a constitutional right in 1967.
> 
> However, the last law against interracial marriage did not come off the books until 2000 in Alabama.  And the vote was 60-40 for.
> 
> Get this.  40% of people in Alabama voted FOR banning interracial marriage in 2000!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.   Marriage and Race are not connected.
> 
> Name one race, anywhere on this planet, which does not have marriage?
> 
> Name one race, throughout ancient human history, even those in which homosexuality was normal, in which Marriage was not defined as a man and woman.
> 
> You can repeat your crap all you want, you are still wrong.   Just because some places attached external arbitrary limitations on marriage, does not change what the fundamental aspect of Marriage is.... a man and a woman.   Which nature shows is the only physical way of procreation.
> 
> It's not that difficult.  There actually is no such thing as race.   Genetically, minor physical difference are almost irrelevant, compared to other genetic differences.
> 
> There is no different race of Humans.  We are all human.
> 
> So when some specific state makes up an arbitrary law, about a non-existent concept, it's fundamentally irrelevant.
> 
> Homosexuality is a mental illness.  It causes death, and the spread of disease.  It causes suicide and domestic violence.   It is impossible to have a family through natural procreation.
> 
> You can do it all you want.  But no, it's not marriage, it's not the same.  It has nothing to do with race, and quite frankly, only a mentally sick person would compare the two.     But that goes hand in hand with what it is.
Click to expand...


Nobody is comparing race to sexual orientation (although both are innate traits). What is compared, and comparable, is the discrimination. 

My legal marriage license, issued by the State of California, disagrees with your "it's not a marriage" sentiment...which is all that matters.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made a choice. Just as I choose not to give into lusts for other women, and remain faithful to my wife.
> 
> Spin it anyway you like, it's still a choice, people are not born homosexual or heterosexual, or even born a dog person or a cat person. They make the choice for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you avoided the "When" part of my question. And then tried to change the subject.
> 
> It was asked for a very specific reason.   There was a point, probably some time after puberty, when you discovered you liked girls. You didn't "choose" to like girls, you just realized you were attracted to them sexually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am attracted to a lot of women, sexually. I choose not to act on those attractions.
> 
> Your "when" question is moot. It has nothing to do with the relationship of race and homosexuality, as you say race and homosexuality are the same. "When" I made my choice is of no importance to the argument that you made.
Click to expand...


Well, you're kinda right...we don't choose our attractions, we only choose whether or not to act upon them. You can't choose to be gay anymore than you can choose to be straight, you only choose whether or not to act upon your natural (or god given) attractions. 

Why shouldn't consenting adult gays and lesbians choose to act upon their attractions?


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you avoided the "When" part of my question. And then tried to change the subject.
> 
> It was asked for a very specific reason.   There was a point, probably some time after puberty, when you discovered you liked girls. You didn't "choose" to like girls, you just realized you were attracted to them sexually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am attracted to a lot of women, sexually. I choose not to act on those attractions.
> 
> Your "when" question is moot. It has nothing to do with the relationship of race and homosexuality, as you say race and homosexuality are the same. "When" I made my choice is of no importance to the argument that you made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you're kinda right...we don't choose our attractions, we only choose whether or not to act upon them. You can't choose to be gay anymore than you can choose to be straight, you only choose whether or not to act upon your natural (or god given) attractions.
> 
> Why shouldn't consenting adult gays and lesbians choose to act upon their attractions?
Click to expand...


If you would read my posts, you would find out, I have no problem with homosexual civil unions. 

My problem is with people who compare race with homosexuality. They are no where near the same. That is as bad as comparing homosexuals with pedifiles. A homosexual is someone who chooses to be with another consenting adult, a pedifile chooses to force(yes they force) children to have sex. Two totally different things, just as the argument that race is in any way related to homosexuality.

I believe homosexuality to be a bad choice, but who am I to judge anyone else? This thread is about should churches be forced to marry homosexuals, and the answer is no.


----------



## JoeB131

UllysesS.Archer said:


> [
> 
> I am attracted to a lot of women, sexually. I choose not to act on those attractions.



More power to you. I'm sure that fear of your magic sky fairy keeps a lot of you misogynists under control. 



UllysesS.Archer said:


> [
> Your "when" question is moot. It has nothing to do with the relationship of race and homosexuality, as you say race and homosexuality are the same. "When" I made my choice is of no importance to the argument that you made.



So in short, you can't answer "When" because you can't determine when you "made" that choice that you decided Little Sally wasn't icky anymore when she started to grow boobs.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JoeB131 said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I am attracted to a lot of women, sexually. I choose not to act on those attractions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More power to you. I'm sure that fear of your magic sky fairy keeps a lot of you misogynists under control.
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Your "when" question is moot. It has nothing to do with the relationship of race and homosexuality, as you say race and homosexuality are the same. "When" I made my choice is of no importance to the argument that you made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in short, you can't answer "When" because you can't determine when you "made" that choice that you decided Little Sally wasn't icky anymore when she started to grow boobs.
Click to expand...


Is insults and name calling all you have? Can you provide no intelligent argument? 

I know exactly when I made my choice. If I choose not to provide that information to you, that is my choice after all...

Now go back to your name calling and senseless arguments, you make things much harder for homosexuals to get any real credibility, and I wish to see you continue to make false arguments...


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am attracted to a lot of women, sexually. I choose not to act on those attractions.
> 
> Your "when" question is moot. It has nothing to do with the relationship of race and homosexuality, as you say race and homosexuality are the same. "When" I made my choice is of no importance to the argument that you made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're kinda right...we don't choose our attractions, we only choose whether or not to act upon them. You can't choose to be gay anymore than you can choose to be straight, you only choose whether or not to act upon your natural (or god given) attractions.
> 
> Why shouldn't consenting adult gays and lesbians choose to act upon their attractions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would read my posts, you would find out, I have no problem with homosexual civil unions.
Click to expand...


That's great...I have no problem with heterosexual civil unions in that case. If you get civil marriage, I get civil marriage. If you don't want me to have civil marriage, the onus is on you to change civil marriage to civil unions for everyone. 

I'd also like to point out that there is not state in the US where gays turned down civil unions, but there are 19 that wrote prohibitions against civil unions into their anti gay marriage laws. 



> My problem is with people who compare race with homosexuality. They are no where near the same. That is as bad as comparing homosexuals with pedifiles. A homosexual is someone who chooses to be with another consenting adult, a pedifile chooses to force(yes they force) children to have sex. Two totally different things, just as the argument that race is in any way related to homosexuality.



Then your "problem" is entirely contrived because race and sexual orientation aren't being compared, discrimination is...so it is no where near analogous to comparing consenting adult gays to pedophiles. 

Bet You Can&#8217;t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes



> I believe homosexuality to be a bad choice, but who am I to judge anyone else? This thread is about should churches be forced to marry homosexuals, and the answer is no.



Being gay isn't a choice, acting on it is. The "bad choice" is when gay people lie to themselves and others when they try to live life as heterosexuals.

We agree, the government should not force churches to perform ceremonies against the tenants of their faith. (Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples) They never have been and they never will. 

Public opinion will do it for them.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Sorry, but being gay is a choice. It is not natural, and there is nothing natural about it.  When the first gay couple produce their own natural child, get back to me on the subject.


----------



## JoeB131

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in short, you can't answer "When" because you can't determine when you "made" that choice that you decided Little Sally wasn't icky anymore when she started to grow boobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is insults and name calling all you have? Can you provide no intelligent argument?
> 
> I know exactly when I made my choice. If I choose not to provide that information to you, that is my choice after all...
> 
> Now go back to your name calling and senseless arguments, you make things much harder for homosexuals to get any real credibility, and I wish to see you continue to make false arguments...
Click to expand...


So bottom line, you can't answer the question, because you can't admit to even yourself that sexual orientation is hardwired into the brain and not "a choice". 

Not that I thought you'd be honest enough to admit it.


----------



## JoeB131

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Sorry, but being gay is a choice. It is not natural, and there is nothing natural about it.  When the first gay couple produce their own natural child, get back to me on the subject.



A lot of straight couples are either infertile or require some kind of assistance to have a child.   

Some people get married with the intention of NEVER having kids.


----------



## RKMBrown

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am attracted to a lot of women, sexually. I choose not to act on those attractions.
> 
> Your "when" question is moot. It has nothing to do with the relationship of race and homosexuality, as you say race and homosexuality are the same. "When" I made my choice is of no importance to the argument that you made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're kinda right...we don't choose our attractions, we only choose whether or not to act upon them. You can't choose to be gay anymore than you can choose to be straight, you only choose whether or not to act upon your natural (or god given) attractions.
> 
> Why shouldn't consenting adult gays and lesbians choose to act upon their attractions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would read my posts, you would find out, I have no problem with homosexual civil unions.
> 
> My problem is with people who compare race with homosexuality. They are no where near the same. That is as bad as comparing homosexuals with pedifiles. A homosexual is someone who chooses to be with another consenting adult, a pedifile chooses to force(yes they force) children to have sex. Two totally different things, just as the argument that race is in any way related to homosexuality.
> 
> I believe homosexuality to be a bad choice, but who am I to judge anyone else? This thread is about should churches be forced to marry homosexuals, and the answer is no.
Click to expand...


The issue is of harm committed against people of a minority group, or traditionally weaker groups having less power such as women.  Minority groups in this country include, blacks, Hispanics, asian, gays, mormons, etc.  The comparison is valid because the same types of harms are being applied against gays as were applied to others based on the color of their skin, only now it is based on sexual orientation. If you are gay, the christian right has decided you are sub human, sinful, a criminal not deserving the same amount of liberty afforded the higher form of human aka. heterosexual human.

It's the same damn thing.  Heteros who deny gays liberty to marry and be recognized as married and receive the same rights and privileges as heteros are being bigoted against gays, plain and simple.  They are de-humanizing gays no different than the de-humanizing that took place against blacks. It's the same damn thing.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JoeB131 said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in short, you can't answer "When" because you can't determine when you "made" that choice that you decided Little Sally wasn't icky anymore when she started to grow boobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is insults and name calling all you have? Can you provide no intelligent argument?
> 
> I know exactly when I made my choice. If I choose not to provide that information to you, that is my choice after all...
> 
> Now go back to your name calling and senseless arguments, you make things much harder for homosexuals to get any real credibility, and I wish to see you continue to make false arguments...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So bottom line, you can't answer the question, because you can't admit to even yourself that sexual orientation is hardwired into the brain and not "a choice".
> 
> Not that I thought you'd be honest enough to admit it.
Click to expand...


Like I said, I know when I made my choice. I just choose not to share it with you.  

Tell the truth. That bugs the hell out  of you doesn't it. I have something I can keep a secret and you can never find out if I don't want you to. You can't always get what you want.


----------



## JoeB131

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is insults and name calling all you have? Can you provide no intelligent argument?
> 
> I know exactly when I made my choice. If I choose not to provide that information to you, that is my choice after all...
> 
> Now go back to your name calling and senseless arguments, you make things much harder for homosexuals to get any real credibility, and I wish to see you continue to make false arguments...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So bottom line, you can't answer the question, because you can't admit to even yourself that sexual orientation is hardwired into the brain and not "a choice".
> 
> Not that I thought you'd be honest enough to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, I know when I made my choice. I just choose not to share it with you.
> 
> Tell the truth. That bugs the hell out  of you doesn't it. I have something I can keep a secret and you can never find out if I don't want you to. You can't always get what you want.
Click to expand...


No, only thing that bugs me is the lengths you go to rationalize your homophobia. 

Like somehow, being a homophobe is okay if a person decided they wanted to do the gay at 20 or something.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

RKMBrown said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're kinda right...we don't choose our attractions, we only choose whether or not to act upon them. You can't choose to be gay anymore than you can choose to be straight, you only choose whether or not to act upon your natural (or god given) attractions.
> 
> Why shouldn't consenting adult gays and lesbians choose to act upon their attractions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you would read my posts, you would find out, I have no problem with homosexual civil unions.
> 
> My problem is with people who compare race with homosexuality. They are no where near the same. That is as bad as comparing homosexuals with pedifiles. A homosexual is someone who chooses to be with another consenting adult, a pedifile chooses to force(yes they force) children to have sex. Two totally different things, just as the argument that race is in any way related to homosexuality.
> 
> I believe homosexuality to be a bad choice, but who am I to judge anyone else? This thread is about should churches be forced to marry homosexuals, and the answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue is of harm committed against people of a minority group, or traditionally weaker groups having less power such as women.  Minority groups in this country include, blacks, Hispanics, asian, gays, mormons, etc.  The comparison is valid because the same types of harms are being applied against gays as were applied to others based on the color of their skin, only now it is based on sexual orientation. If you are gay, the christian right has decided you are sub human, sinful, a criminal not deserving the same amount of liberty afforded the higher form of human aka. heterosexual human.
> 
> It's the same damn thing.  Heteros who deny gays liberty to marry and be recognized as married and receive the same rights and privileges as heteros are being bigoted against gays, plain and simple.  They are de-humanizing gays no different than the de-humanizing that took place against blacks. It's the same damn thing.
Click to expand...


Nope, that argument holds no water. Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.


----------



## JoeB131

UllysesS.Archer said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you would read my posts, you would find out, I have no problem with homosexual civil unions.
> 
> My problem is with people who compare race with homosexuality. They are no where near the same. That is as bad as comparing homosexuals with pedifiles. A homosexual is someone who chooses to be with another consenting adult, a pedifile chooses to force(yes they force) children to have sex. Two totally different things, just as the argument that race is in any way related to homosexuality.
> 
> I believe homosexuality to be a bad choice, but who am I to judge anyone else? This thread is about should churches be forced to marry homosexuals, and the answer is no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is of harm committed against people of a minority group, or traditionally weaker groups having less power such as women.  Minority groups in this country include, blacks, Hispanics, asian, gays, mormons, etc.  The comparison is valid because the same types of harms are being applied against gays as were applied to others based on the color of their skin, only now it is based on sexual orientation. If you are gay, the christian right has decided you are sub human, sinful, a criminal not deserving the same amount of liberty afforded the higher form of human aka. heterosexual human.
> 
> It's the same damn thing.  Heteros who deny gays liberty to marry and be recognized as married and receive the same rights and privileges as heteros are being bigoted against gays, plain and simple.  They are de-humanizing gays no different than the de-humanizing that took place against blacks. It's the same damn thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, that argument holds no water. Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.
Click to expand...


again, tell us all about the day you chose to be heterosexual.... 

OH, wait. YOu can't.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JoeB131 said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So bottom line, you can't answer the question, because you can't admit to even yourself that sexual orientation is hardwired into the brain and not "a choice".
> 
> Not that I thought you'd be honest enough to admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I know when I made my choice. I just choose not to share it with you.
> 
> Tell the truth. That bugs the hell out  of you doesn't it. I have something I can keep a secret and you can never find out if I don't want you to. You can't always get what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, only thing that bugs me is the lengths you go to rationalize your homophobia.
> 
> Like somehow, being a homophobe is okay if a person decided they wanted to do the gay at 20 or something.
Click to expand...


I've said before I'm homophobic. Homosexuality is perverted people carrying on disgusting acts. 

You got it right though, people decide to do the gay thing. Good job.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.   Marriage and Race are not connected.
> 
> Name one race, anywhere on this planet, which does not have marriage?
> 
> Name one race, throughout ancient human history, even those in which homosexuality was normal, in which Marriage was not defined as a man and woman.
> 
> You can repeat your crap all you want, you are still wrong.   Just because some places attached external arbitrary limitations on marriage, does not change what the fundamental aspect of Marriage is.... a man and a woman.   Which nature shows is the only physical way of procreation.
> 
> It's not that difficult.  There actually is no such thing as race.   Genetically, minor physical difference are almost irrelevant, compared to other genetic differences.
> 
> There is no different race of Humans.  We are all human.
> 
> So when some specific state makes up an arbitrary law, about a non-existent concept, it's fundamentally irrelevant.
> 
> Homosexuality is a mental illness.  It causes death, and the spread of disease.  It causes suicide and domestic violence.   It is impossible to have a family through natural procreation.
> 
> You can do it all you want.  But no, it's not marriage, it's not the same.  It has nothing to do with race, and quite frankly, only a mentally sick person would compare the two.     But that goes hand in hand with what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, the problem with the "historical" marriage argument is that through most of history, marriage was not a union of equals but a transfer of property.  A father was expected to transfer the property of his daughter to another man, often with the payment of a dowry.  The man had the unquestioned right to beat his wife for disobedience or even kill her for adultery.
> 
> Clearly, this is not the kind of marriage we have in the US today.
> 
> And frankly, the only mental illness I see here is your homophobia.
Click to expand...


That's nice... ok back to Marriage always being between a man and a woman.   Does anything you said change that?  No it does not.

As far as homophobia....  did I indicate I care what you think about me?  No I did not.  Feel free to assume from here on, that I do not.   If that floats your tiny little boat, by all means.  What you think about me, means nothing to me.  Have a nice day.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JoeB131 said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is of harm committed against people of a minority group, or traditionally weaker groups having less power such as women.  Minority groups in this country include, blacks, Hispanics, asian, gays, mormons, etc.  The comparison is valid because the same types of harms are being applied against gays as were applied to others based on the color of their skin, only now it is based on sexual orientation. If you are gay, the christian right has decided you are sub human, sinful, a criminal not deserving the same amount of liberty afforded the higher form of human aka. heterosexual human.
> 
> It's the same damn thing.  Heteros who deny gays liberty to marry and be recognized as married and receive the same rights and privileges as heteros are being bigoted against gays, plain and simple.  They are de-humanizing gays no different than the de-humanizing that took place against blacks. It's the same damn thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, that argument holds no water. Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, tell us all about the day you chose to be heterosexual....
> 
> OH, wait. YOu can't.
Click to expand...


Ah. I remember it like it was yesterday. But, again, I choose not to share with you...


----------



## RKMBrown

UllysesS.Archer said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you would read my posts, you would find out, I have no problem with homosexual civil unions.
> 
> My problem is with people who compare race with homosexuality. They are no where near the same. That is as bad as comparing homosexuals with pedifiles. A homosexual is someone who chooses to be with another consenting adult, a pedifile chooses to force(yes they force) children to have sex. Two totally different things, just as the argument that race is in any way related to homosexuality.
> 
> I believe homosexuality to be a bad choice, but who am I to judge anyone else? This thread is about should churches be forced to marry homosexuals, and the answer is no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is of harm committed against people of a minority group, or traditionally weaker groups having less power such as women.  Minority groups in this country include, blacks, Hispanics, asian, gays, mormons, etc.  The comparison is valid because the same types of harms are being applied against gays as were applied to others based on the color of their skin, only now it is based on sexual orientation. If you are gay, the christian right has decided you are sub human, sinful, a criminal not deserving the same amount of liberty afforded the higher form of human aka. heterosexual human.
> 
> It's the same damn thing.  Heteros who deny gays liberty to marry and be recognized as married and receive the same rights and privileges as heteros are being bigoted against gays, plain and simple.  They are de-humanizing gays no different than the de-humanizing that took place against blacks. It's the same damn thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, that argument holds no water. Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.
Click to expand...

It matters not how they came to be homosexual. You are arguing that the sin of being black is not of their choice. And you are also arguing that the sin of being homosexual is by choice. 

What you fail to realize, is that being black and being gay are not crimes.  They are not sins except in your bigoted eyes.

Just because you have more power than they do, because you are in a bigger group, does not give you the right to use you power to piss on them.

Might makes right?  yeah and if authoritarian gays were in the majority heteros would be declared sinners who made the wrong choice.. Face it, your argument is that of an authoritarian jerk.

You are trying to justify your bigotry by stating that they have a choice to be sinful or not.  You are the one judging them.  Who gave you the authority to judge them?


----------



## JoeB131

UllysesS.Archer said:


> I've said before I'm homophobic. Homosexuality is perverted people carrying on disgusting acts.
> 
> You got it right though, people decide to do the gay thing. Good job.



What "disgusting acts" are you talking about?  Anal Sex? 

38% of straights engage in anal sex.  

Oral sex?  99% of straights do that. 

Throwing really good Oscar Parties?  You're right. Those are disgusting, and straight people never do those.


----------



## WorldWatcher

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.




A Black person is born black... True.

However, Blacks could marry.  They were no laws against that.




However Blacks choosing to marry a white person (and vice versa) was a choice.  Under "it's a choice, and therefore can be barred" then the Commonwealth of Virginia (and other States) were perfectly constitutional in restricting Civil Marriage based on race right?



>>>>


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is of harm committed against people of a minority group, or traditionally weaker groups having less power such as women.  Minority groups in this country include, blacks, Hispanics, asian, gays, mormons, etc.  The comparison is valid because the same types of harms are being applied against gays as were applied to others based on the color of their skin, only now it is based on sexual orientation. If you are gay, the christian right has decided you are sub human, sinful, a criminal not deserving the same amount of liberty afforded the higher form of human aka. heterosexual human.
> 
> It's the same damn thing.  Heteros who deny gays liberty to marry and be recognized as married and receive the same rights and privileges as heteros are being bigoted against gays, plain and simple.  They are de-humanizing gays no different than the de-humanizing that took place against blacks. It's the same damn thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, that argument holds no water. Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, tell us all about the day you chose to be heterosexual....
> 
> OH, wait. YOu can't.
Click to expand...


Actually... I think I can.   I can remember the first time someone explained to me what homosexuality was, and I remember thinking, that is the most revolting, disgusting, sick twisted, perverted thing I had ever heard.   You are going to stick your penis, up someone else's butt, where poo comes out... and you think this is 'normal'.

I pretty much decided that's not the way to go.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

RKMBrown said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is of harm committed against people of a minority group, or traditionally weaker groups having less power such as women.  Minority groups in this country include, blacks, Hispanics, asian, gays, mormons, etc.  The comparison is valid because the same types of harms are being applied against gays as were applied to others based on the color of their skin, only now it is based on sexual orientation. If you are gay, the christian right has decided you are sub human, sinful, a criminal not deserving the same amount of liberty afforded the higher form of human aka. heterosexual human.
> 
> It's the same damn thing.  Heteros who deny gays liberty to marry and be recognized as married and receive the same rights and privileges as heteros are being bigoted against gays, plain and simple.  They are de-humanizing gays no different than the de-humanizing that took place against blacks. It's the same damn thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, that argument holds no water. Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not how they came to be homosexual. You are arguing that the sin of being black is not of their choice. And you are also arguing that the sin of being homosexual is by choice.
> 
> What you fail to realize, is that being black and being gay are not crimes.  They are not sins except in your vile bigoted eyes.
> 
> Just because you have more power than they do, because you are in a bigger group, does not give you the right to use you power to piss on them.
Click to expand...


I never said being black was a sin.  Ya'll just want to compare blacks to homosexuals, and there is no comparison.


----------



## Andylusion

WorldWatcher said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Black person is born black... True.
> 
> However, Blacks could marry.  They were no laws against that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However Blacks choosing to marry a white person (and vice versa) was a choice.  Under "it's a choice, and therefore can be barred" then the Commonwealth of Virginia (and other States) were perfectly constitutional in restricting Civil Marriage based on race right?
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Race doesn't exist.  Genetically there is only one race.

Homosexuality is a choice.


----------



## Andylusion

UllysesS.Archer said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, that argument holds no water. Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not how they came to be homosexual. You are arguing that the sin of being black is not of their choice. And you are also arguing that the sin of being homosexual is by choice.
> 
> What you fail to realize, is that being black and being gay are not crimes.  They are not sins except in your vile bigoted eyes.
> 
> Just because you have more power than they do, because you are in a bigger group, does not give you the right to use you power to piss on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said being black was a sin.  Ya'll just want to compare blacks to homosexuals, and there is no comparison.
Click to expand...


Yeah, these people are nutz comparing having dark skin, with homosexuality.  It's insanity, but then... that's what being homosexual is all about.   Absolute insanity.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Androw said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Black person is born black... True.
> 
> However, Blacks could marry.  They were no laws against that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However Blacks choosing to marry a white person (and vice versa) was a choice.  Under "it's a choice, and therefore can be barred" then the Commonwealth of Virginia (and other States) were perfectly constitutional in restricting Civil Marriage based on race right?
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Race doesn't exist.  Genetically there is only one race.
> 
> Homosexuality is a choice.
Click to expand...



Are you saying their weren't law preventing people from Civilly Married based on the color of their skin (typically referred to as "race", i.e. Negro, Asian, Caucasian, etc...)?



>>>>


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Sorry, but being gay is a choice. It is not natural, and there is nothing natural about it.  When the first gay couple produce their own natural child, get back to me on the subject.



You admitted earlier that it was not. You said that you are attracted to many women, but choose to act out your attractions with only one woman (me too). You did not choose to be attracted to many women. Being gay is just like that. You don't choose your attractions, you only choose to act upon them. 

What does having children have to do with marriage, civil or religious? What state, country or religion, requires procreation? Which of those requires divorce if you don't "pump 'em out"? This is what a Federal judge had to say about procreation and civil marriage:

In striking down Kentucky's ban on gay marriage, a federal judge Tuesday rejected Gov. Steve Beshear's argument that the ban is needed because only opposite sex couples can procreate and maintain the state's birth rate and economy.

*"These arguments are not those of serious people," *wrote Senior U.S. District Court Judge John G. Heyburn II.

"Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation," Heyburn wrote in a 19-page opinion, its *lawyers never explained how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has "any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses.''*​
That's what we call a slam dunk.


----------



## RKMBrown

WorldWatcher said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Black person is born black... True.
> 
> However, Blacks could marry.  They were no laws against that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However Blacks choosing to marry a white person (and vice versa) was a choice.  Under "it's a choice, and therefore can be barred" then the Commonwealth of Virginia (and other States) were perfectly constitutional in restricting Civil Marriage based on race right?
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Race doesn't exist.  Genetically there is only one race.
> 
> Homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying their weren't law preventing people from Civilly Married based on the color of their skin (typically referred to as "race", i.e. Negro, Asian, Caucasian, etc...)?
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Saying race doesn't exist... saying sexual orientation is a choice, these guy's are just being POS authoritarian trolls.  You want to live in their world you have to pay their toll or act and be just like them.  No different than Obuma with his POS socialism.  The only difference between these folks and the KKK / Nazis is the depth of their perversion.  Rather than actively seeking to kill gays these homophobic authoritarians just want to punish gays.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> I've said before I'm homophobic. Homosexuality is perverted people carrying on disgusting acts.
> 
> You got it right though, people decide to do the gay thing. Good job.



But you support civil marriage equality for "them" despite how you personally feel about the "choices" they make with other consenting adults, right?


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said before I'm homophobic. Homosexuality is perverted people carrying on disgusting acts.
> 
> You got it right though, people decide to do the gay thing. Good job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you support civil marriage equality for "them" despite how you personally feel about the "choices" they make with other consenting adults, right?
Click to expand...


Sounds like he is a very compassionate person.   He wants you to have equality in spite of your genetic flaws.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, that argument holds no water. Blacks did not choose to be born black. Homosexuals choose to be a homosexual. Big difference there.
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not how they came to be homosexual. You are arguing that the sin of being black is not of their choice. And you are also arguing that the sin of being homosexual is by choice.
> 
> What you fail to realize, is that being black and being gay are not crimes.  They are not sins except in your vile bigoted eyes.
> 
> Just because you have more power than they do, because you are in a bigger group, does not give you the right to use you power to piss on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said being black was a sin.  Ya'll just want to compare blacks to homosexuals, and there is no comparison.
Click to expand...


Anti-miscegenationists thought interracial marriage was a sin. Some people still do. Are you more "right" then them?


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not how they came to be homosexual. You are arguing that the sin of being black is not of their choice. And you are also arguing that the sin of being homosexual is by choice.
> 
> What you fail to realize, is that being black and being gay are not crimes.  They are not sins except in your vile bigoted eyes.
> 
> Just because you have more power than they do, because you are in a bigger group, does not give you the right to use you power to piss on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said being black was a sin.  Ya'll just want to compare blacks to homosexuals, and there is no comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anti-miscegenationists thought interracial marriage was a sin. Some people still do. Are you more "right" then them?
Click to expand...



Do you want the government to demand that all people believe what the government dictates that they should believe?    

Have you read Orwell or Rand?


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> Race doesn't exist.  Genetically there is only one race.
> 
> Homosexuality is a choice.



Closing your eyes and pretending there were not laws preventing people from marrying based on race, does not make them go away. ("Judicial activism" does ) You wish to use the law to deny me the right to civilly marry based on the gender of my consenting adult partner.  How is that different from people wishing to deny civil marriage to people based on their race?


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Race doesn't exist.  Genetically there is only one race.
> 
> Homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Closing your eyes and pretending there were not laws preventing people from marrying based on race, does not make them go away. ("Judicial activism" does ) You wish to use the law to deny me the right to civilly marry based on the gender of my consenting adult partner.  How is that different from people wishing to deny civil marriage to people based on their race?
Click to expand...


no one has said that those laws did not exist.   only that trying to compare race to sexual orientation is a false analogy


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said being black was a sin.  Ya'll just want to compare blacks to homosexuals, and there is no comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-miscegenationists thought interracial marriage was a sin. Some people still do. Are you more "right" then them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want the government to demand that all people believe what the government dictates that they should believe?
> 
> Have you read Orwell or Rand?
Click to expand...


No...and if you read that into what I said, you need to expand your library.


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Race doesn't exist.  Genetically there is only one race.
> 
> Homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Closing your eyes and pretending there were not laws preventing people from marrying based on race, does not make them go away. ("Judicial activism" does ) You wish to use the law to deny me the right to civilly marry based on the gender of my consenting adult partner.  How is that different from people wishing to deny civil marriage to people based on their race?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has said that those laws did not exist.   only that trying to compare race to sexual orientation is a false analogy
Click to expand...


{Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.


----------



## RKMBrown

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Closing your eyes and pretending there were not laws preventing people from marrying based on race, does not make them go away. ("Judicial activism" does ) You wish to use the law to deny me the right to civilly marry based on the gender of my consenting adult partner.  How is that different from people wishing to deny civil marriage to people based on their race?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no one has said that those laws did not exist.   only that trying to compare race to sexual orientation is a false analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.
Click to expand...


But discriminating against interracial marriage is different than discriminating against same sex marriage, it's different because blacks aren't gay.  Please ignore the fact that both are discrimination against a minority group with regard to their right to marry.  Please also ignore the fact that the same people discriminating against same sex marriage were the ones discriminating against interracial marriage.  It's completely different ... yeah right.  Both btw were justified from excerpts carefully selected from the same book, while simultaneously ignoring other sections of the same book.  IOW their intolerance is a religious intolerance, which makes it even worse.  Not like they are being intolerant of criminals... oh no... they are making out that gays are criminals based on the bible's teachings.  IOW they are judging gays based on gay in-adherence to their intolerant view of their religion.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one has said that those laws did not exist.   only that trying to compare race to sexual orientation is a false analogy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.
Click to expand...


Don't forget all the other laws regarding behavior that discriminate too.  Don't forget the polygamists!  You always leave them out Seawytch.  Why do you leave out the polygamists?  Why don't they get a "P" on the church of LGBT's logo?  Y'all think they're too perverted or weird to saddle up to?  Really?  After you snuggle up to Harvey Milk, polygamy is "too weird"?

You know its coming legally if gay marriage manipulates the 14th.  So why not advertise it now?  Would that prove the slippery slope argument to all those middle democrat voters that have a slight lean towards the conservative?  You know it's a fact. 

We [and you too apparently] discriminate against BEHAVIORS we find repugnant every day.  You may have heard of the penal and civil law systems.  What are they about if not about human behaviors?....not race.  Are all those laws discriminatory?  Of course they are.  And in fact, LGBTs discriminating against adding "P" to their logo is also discrimination.  Apparently it's OK when you want it to be but not when you don't.  I'll bet you're glad society discriminates against compulsive thieves and compulsive serial killers or people who have a "money-orientation" toward drilling offshore there in CA...


----------



## Malamute

Why not start with the mosques rather than the churches?  

The same people who bend over backward to accomodate Islam, want to go after Christian churches -- why?


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one has said that those laws did not exist.   only that trying to compare race to sexual orientation is a false analogy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't forget all the other laws regarding behavior that discriminate too.  Don't forget the polygamists!  You always leave them out Seawytch.  Why do you leave out the polygamists?  Why don't they get a "P" on the church of LGBT's logo?  Y'all think they're too perverted or weird to saddle up to?  Really?  After you snuggle up to Harvey Milk, polygamy is "too weird"?
> 
> You know its coming legally if gay marriage manipulates the 14th.  So why not advertise it now?  Would that prove the slippery slope argument to all those middle democrat voters that have a slight lean towards the conservative?  You know it's a fact.
> 
> We [and you too apparently] discriminate against BEHAVIORS we find repugnant every day.  You may have heard of the penal and civil law systems.  What are they about if not about human behaviors?....not race.  Are all those laws discriminatory?  Of course they are.  And in fact, LGBTs discriminating against adding "P" to their logo is also discrimination.  Apparently it's OK when you want it to be but not when you don't.  I'll bet you're glad society discriminates against compulsive thieves and compulsive serial killers or people who have a "money-orientation" toward drilling offshore there in CA...
Click to expand...


What is wrong with polygamy?  Other than it being legalized by tyranny of majority opinion, why can't 3 consenting adults get married as a group?  Why do marriage groups have to be pairs of consenting adults of opposite sex?


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> {Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget all the other laws regarding behavior that discriminate too.  Don't forget the polygamists!  You always leave them out Seawytch.  Why do you leave out the polygamists?  Why don't they get a "P" on the church of LGBT's logo?  Y'all think they're too perverted or weird to saddle up to?  Really?  After you snuggle up to Harvey Milk, polygamy is "too weird"?
> 
> You know its coming legally if gay marriage manipulates the 14th.  So why not advertise it now?  Would that prove the slippery slope argument to all those middle democrat voters that have a slight lean towards the conservative?  You know it's a fact.
> 
> We [and you too apparently] discriminate against BEHAVIORS we find repugnant every day.  You may have heard of the penal and civil law systems.  What are they about if not about human behaviors?....not race.  Are all those laws discriminatory?  Of course they are.  And in fact, LGBTs discriminating against adding "P" to their logo is also discrimination.  Apparently it's OK when you want it to be but not when you don't.  I'll bet you're glad society discriminates against compulsive thieves and compulsive serial killers or people who have a "money-orientation" toward drilling offshore there in CA...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is wrong with polygamy?  Why is wrong with it?  Why can't 3 consenting adults get married as a group?  Why do marriage groups have to be pairs of consenting adults of opposite sex?
Click to expand...


I think you're making my point, right?


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget all the other laws regarding behavior that discriminate too.  Don't forget the polygamists!  You always leave them out Seawytch.  Why do you leave out the polygamists?  Why don't they get a "P" on the church of LGBT's logo?  Y'all think they're too perverted or weird to saddle up to?  Really?  After you snuggle up to Harvey Milk, polygamy is "too weird"?
> 
> You know its coming legally if gay marriage manipulates the 14th.  So why not advertise it now?  Would that prove the slippery slope argument to all those middle democrat voters that have a slight lean towards the conservative?  You know it's a fact.
> 
> We [and you too apparently] discriminate against BEHAVIORS we find repugnant every day.  You may have heard of the penal and civil law systems.  What are they about if not about human behaviors?....not race.  Are all those laws discriminatory?  Of course they are.  And in fact, LGBTs discriminating against adding "P" to their logo is also discrimination.  Apparently it's OK when you want it to be but not when you don't.  I'll bet you're glad society discriminates against compulsive thieves and compulsive serial killers or people who have a "money-orientation" toward drilling offshore there in CA...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with polygamy?  Why is wrong with it?  Why can't 3 consenting adults get married as a group?  Why do marriage groups have to be pairs of consenting adults of opposite sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're making my point, right?
Click to expand...


Or you are making my point.  You have yet to state your opinion on polygamy. 

I find it hilarious that we see single men going out and engaging in sex with multiple women as normal, or even married men cheating on their wives with other women as normal, but marrying two women at the same time, yeah that's seen as vile behavior.  Nutz.

Just to add.. just because someone is the victim of a authoritarian majority, does not mean they won't be willing to jump on the bandwagon to be the cause of others being the victim of authoritarian majority.  Hypocrites are in all groups.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Or you are making my point.  You have yet to state your opinion on polygamy.
> 
> I find it hilarious that we see single men going out and engaging in sex with multiple women as normal, or even married men cheating on their wives with other women as normal, but marrying two women at the same time, yeah that's seen as vile behavior.  Nutz.
> 
> Just to add.. just because someone is the victim of a authoritarian majority, does not mean they won't be willing to jump on the bandwagon to be the cause of others being the victim of authoritarian majority.  Hypocrites are in all groups.


So why won't the LGBT label bear the letter "P" also?  That's not just one or two random people being bigoted towards polygamy-behavioralists.  It's _the entire culture_ of the church of LGBT _refusing to include polygamists officially to their brand_.

You know, the same group that whines all day and night about "haters" and "bigots" and "discrimination" against their behaviors...which IMHO are far more repugnant by leaps and bounds than heteros engaging in polygamy.  At least those people understand what reproductive organs are meant for, and the digestive tract, and they use both appropriately.  That's far more sane than what LGBTs try to do...pretending their members each of the opposite gender [one butch, one femme] but mentally not being capable of making that final step out of the closet... "lesbians" using strapon penises and gays men using the anus as an artificial vagina.. uh..._hello?! _ 

These are the folks saying "we don't want the weird brand of polygamy"???...


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Closing your eyes and pretending there were not laws preventing people from marrying based on race, does not make them go away. ("Judicial activism" does ) You wish to use the law to deny me the right to civilly marry based on the gender of my consenting adult partner.  How is that different from people wishing to deny civil marriage to people based on their race?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no one has said that those laws did not exist.   only that trying to compare race to sexual orientation is a false analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.
Click to expand...


Is Joe being discriminated against when he is not allowed to marry his dog, or his mother, or his three cousins, or the twins who live next door?

face reality,  your attempt at using race as an analogy for gay marriage fails every time.   You have been called on it by me and many others, but yet you persist.   Is that all you have?


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Closing your eyes and pretending there were not laws preventing people from marrying based on race, does not make them go away. ("Judicial activism" does ) You wish to use the law to deny me the right to civilly marry based on the gender of my consenting adult partner.  How is that different from people wishing to deny civil marriage to people based on their race?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no one has said that those laws did not exist.   only that trying to compare race to sexual orientation is a false analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.
Click to expand...


So where is the line? Where does the discrimination begin and end?


----------



## Synthaholic

*Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?


*No.  Of course not.

But you should be forced to take spelling lessons.


----------



## Redfish

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> {Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget all the other laws regarding behavior that discriminate too.  Don't forget the polygamists!  You always leave them out Seawytch.  Why do you leave out the polygamists?  Why don't they get a "P" on the church of LGBT's logo?  Y'all think they're too perverted or weird to saddle up to?  Really?  After you snuggle up to Harvey Milk, polygamy is "too weird"?
> 
> You know its coming legally if gay marriage manipulates the 14th.  So why not advertise it now?  Would that prove the slippery slope argument to all those middle democrat voters that have a slight lean towards the conservative?  You know it's a fact.
> 
> We [and you too apparently] discriminate against BEHAVIORS we find repugnant every day.  You may have heard of the penal and civil law systems.  What are they about if not about human behaviors?....not race.  Are all those laws discriminatory?  Of course they are.  And in fact, LGBTs discriminating against adding "P" to their logo is also discrimination.  Apparently it's OK when you want it to be but not when you don't.  I'll bet you're glad society discriminates against compulsive thieves and compulsive serial killers or people who have a "money-orientation" toward drilling offshore there in CA...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is wrong with polygamy?  Other than it being legalized by tyranny of majority opinion, why can't 3 consenting adults get married as a group?  Why do marriage groups have to be pairs of consenting adults of opposite sex?
Click to expand...


If you have to ask that, then you are too stupid to participate in this discussion.


----------



## Redfish

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one has said that those laws did not exist.   only that trying to compare race to sexual orientation is a false analogy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is the line? Where does the discrimination begin and end?
Click to expand...


she can't answer that and will leave the thead,  its a typical pattern


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

RKMBrown said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one has said that those laws did not exist.   only that trying to compare race to sexual orientation is a false analogy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But discriminating against interracial marriage is different than discriminating against same sex marriage, it's different because blacks aren't gay.  Please ignore the fact that both are discrimination against a minority group with regard to their right to marry.  Please also ignore the fact that the same people discriminating against same sex marriage were the ones discriminating against interracial marriage.  It's completely different ... yeah right.  Both btw were justified from excerpts carefully selected from the same book, while simultaneously ignoring other sections of the same book.  IOW their intolerance is a religious intolerance, which makes it even worse.  Not like they are being intolerant of criminals... oh no... they are making out that gays are criminals based on the bible's teachings.  IOW they are judging gays based on gay in-adherence to their intolerant view of their religion.
Click to expand...


Minority group? Hmmm?  How many people make up a minority group? 3,30,3000? What's the number?

Sorry, but just like adultery, homosexuality, or I should say, acting on homosexual impulses is a sin. It's just another choice people make.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> {Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget all the other laws regarding behavior that discriminate too.  Don't forget the polygamists!  You always leave them out Seawytch.  Why do you leave out the polygamists?  Why don't they get a "P" on the church of LGBT's logo?  Y'all think they're too perverted or weird to saddle up to?  Really?  After you snuggle up to Harvey Milk, polygamy is "too weird"?
> 
> You know its coming legally if gay marriage manipulates the 14th.  So why not advertise it now?  Would that prove the slippery slope argument to all those middle democrat voters that have a slight lean towards the conservative?  You know it's a fact.
> 
> We [and you too apparently] discriminate against BEHAVIORS we find repugnant every day.  You may have heard of the penal and civil law systems.  What are they about if not about human behaviors?....not race.  Are all those laws discriminatory?  Of course they are.  And in fact, LGBTs discriminating against adding "P" to their logo is also discrimination.  Apparently it's OK when you want it to be but not when you don't.  I'll bet you're glad society discriminates against compulsive thieves and compulsive serial killers or people who have a "money-orientation" toward drilling offshore there in CA...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is wrong with polygamy?  Other than it being legalized by tyranny of majority opinion, why can't 3 consenting adults get married as a group?  Why do marriage groups have to be pairs of consenting adults of opposite sex?
Click to expand...


What about brothers and sisters? Why not? Surely you support their right to be married if they want to be? Or are you going to discriminate against them?

They have a legitimate claim to discrimination, moreso than homosexuals, when it comes to marriage. They did not choose to be born brother and sister, they did choose to be together, so tell me, is there a difference? And can you do it without name calling, that is so uncivilized.


----------



## Cecilie1200

WorldWatcher said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Black person is born black... True.
> 
> However, Blacks could marry.  They were no laws against that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However Blacks choosing to marry a white person (and vice versa) was a choice.  Under "it's a choice, and therefore can be barred" then the Commonwealth of Virginia (and other States) were perfectly constitutional in restricting Civil Marriage based on race right?
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Race doesn't exist.  Genetically there is only one race.
> 
> Homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying their weren't law preventing people from Civilly Married based on the color of their skin (typically referred to as "race", i.e. Negro, Asian, Caucasian, etc...)?
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.

_(Thanks to Dr. Thomas Sowell for the previous quote.)_

The fact that there were laws banning interracial marriage in some places at some point in time is irrelevant.  The point is that those laws were wrong and invalid because they discriminated against people for something that had nothing to do with the definition of marriage.  That has nothing to do with law regarding or excluding homosexual "marriage", because that IS about their actions and DOES involve the definition of marriage.

Before you trot out all the old tripe about "homosexuals are born that way, just like blacks", let me just say that, in a logical, dispassionate legal system - rather than the overblown mass of drama leftists try to turn our courts into at every opportunity - this is also not the point.  The law is still not discriminating against them as people, only against their chosen actions.  Homosexuals are still allowed to marry anyone they wish _within the definition of marriage_.  Bans on interracial marriage limited that privilege _within that definition_, which is why they were wrong and struck down.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Malamute said:


> Why not start with the mosques rather than the churches?
> 
> The same people who bend over backward to accomodate Islam, want to go after Christian churches -- why?



Because Christians are unlikely to shoot you, bomb you, or fly airplanes into your buildings if you piss them off.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

UllysesS.Archer said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget all the other laws regarding behavior that discriminate too.  Don't forget the polygamists!  You always leave them out Seawytch.  Why do you leave out the polygamists?  Why don't they get a "P" on the church of LGBT's logo?  Y'all think they're too perverted or weird to saddle up to?  Really?  After you snuggle up to Harvey Milk, polygamy is "too weird"?
> 
> You know its coming legally if gay marriage manipulates the 14th.  So why not advertise it now?  Would that prove the slippery slope argument to all those middle democrat voters that have a slight lean towards the conservative?  You know it's a fact.
> 
> We [and you too apparently] discriminate against BEHAVIORS we find repugnant every day.  You may have heard of the penal and civil law systems.  What are they about if not about human behaviors?....not race.  Are all those laws discriminatory?  Of course they are.  And in fact, LGBTs discriminating against adding "P" to their logo is also discrimination.  Apparently it's OK when you want it to be but not when you don't.  I'll bet you're glad society discriminates against compulsive thieves and compulsive serial killers or people who have a "money-orientation" toward drilling offshore there in CA...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with polygamy?  Other than it being legalized by tyranny of majority opinion, why can't 3 consenting adults get married as a group?  Why do marriage groups have to be pairs of consenting adults of opposite sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about brothers and sisters? Why not? Surely you support their right to be married if they want to be? Or are you going to discriminate against them?
> 
> They have a legitimate claim to discrimination, moreso than homosexuals, when it comes to marriage. They did not choose to be born brother and sister, they did choose to be together, so tell me, is there a difference? And can you do it without name calling, that is so uncivilized.
Click to expand...


WOW! No answer?


----------



## Cecilie1200

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with polygamy?  Why is wrong with it?  Why can't 3 consenting adults get married as a group?  Why do marriage groups have to be pairs of consenting adults of opposite sex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're making my point, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or you are making my point.  You have yet to state your opinion on polygamy.
> 
> I find it hilarious that we see single men going out and engaging in sex with multiple women as normal, or even married men cheating on their wives with other women as normal, but marrying two women at the same time, yeah that's seen as vile behavior.  Nutz.
> 
> Just to add.. just because someone is the victim of a authoritarian majority, does not mean they won't be willing to jump on the bandwagon to be the cause of others being the victim of authoritarian majority.  Hypocrites are in all groups.
Click to expand...


Who's "we", paleface?  I think the way people conduct their "relationships" these days is utterly, cockeyed insane and virtually guaranteed to bring them nothing but misery and drama.  On the other hand, drama seems to be the only thing most people seem to want these days, so maybe that's why they do it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one has said that those laws did not exist.   only that trying to compare race to sexual orientation is a false analogy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is the line? Where does the discrimination begin and end?
Click to expand...


Ideally, legal discrimination should be limited to actions, not people.


----------



## BlackSand

*Religious institutions have long held the right to deny marriage services to heterosexual couples that fail to meet their criteria ... Homosexuals don't get special treatment.*

.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BlackSand said:


> *Religious institutions have long held the right to deny marriage services to heterosexual couples that fail to meet their criteria ... Homosexuals don't get special treatment.*
> 
> .



Quite true.  My sister's first husband was divorced, and our church, of which all our family were members, declined to allow them to be married in the chapel by the pastor.  She made do with being married by a judge who was also a congregation member in another location, and didn't whine about it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

UllysesS.Archer said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with polygamy?  Other than it being legalized by tyranny of majority opinion, why can't 3 consenting adults get married as a group?  Why do marriage groups have to be pairs of consenting adults of opposite sex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about brothers and sisters? Why not? Surely you support their right to be married if they want to be? Or are you going to discriminate against them?
> 
> They have a legitimate claim to discrimination, moreso than homosexuals, when it comes to marriage. They did not choose to be born brother and sister, they did choose to be together, so tell me, is there a difference? And can you do it without name calling, that is so uncivilized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW! No answer?
Click to expand...


Here is your answer: 

Laws prohibiting siblings from marrying are Constitutional, valid, and do not manifest as 'discrimination' because they're applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion, such laws are rationally based, and pursue a proper legislative end, unlike laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. 

Moreover, marriage laws are not written to accommodate siblings, where the contract law that is marriage is designed only for consenting adults who are not related. 

Same-sex couples are therefore eligible to enter into the marriage contract, siblings are not.


----------



## Silhouette

Cecilie1200 said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> {Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where is the line? Where does the discrimination begin and end?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ideally, legal discrimination should be limited to actions, not people.
Click to expand...


What are actions apart from the peopel that do them?  Would you convict a murder and sent it to prison while letting the murderer himself go free?  Of course not!  Behaviors and the people that do them are inseparable in law.

And we regulate behaviors as a majority.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Silhouette said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is the line? Where does the discrimination begin and end?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ideally, legal discrimination should be limited to actions, not people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are actions apart from the peopel that do them?  Would you convict a murder and sent it to prison while letting the murderer himself go free?  Of course not!  Behaviors and the people that do them are inseparable in law.
> 
> And we regulate behaviors as a majority.
Click to expand...


Uh, yeah, that's what I just said, your deliberate attempt to twist and misunderstand notwithstanding.

Try to keep up.  Legal discrimination should be toward the things that people do, not the people themselves.  The law should not exclude homosexuals simply because they ARE homosexuals - as in preventing them from living in certain places - but can and should differentiate between behaviors.  That's what the law exists to do.


----------



## Silhouette

Cecilie1200 said:


> Uh, yeah, that's what I just said, your deliberate attempt to twist and misunderstand notwithstanding.
> 
> Try to keep up.  Legal discrimination should be toward the things that people do, not the people themselves.  The law should not exclude homosexuals simply because they ARE homosexuals - as in preventing them from living in certain places - but can and should differentiate between behaviors.  That's what the law exists to do.



People who do gay sex living at a certain place or working at a certain place is no cause for concern except for the high propensity of gay men to carry the HIV virus because of the mechanical nature of their sex practices trying to use the lower digestive tract [colon/anus] as an artificial vagina.  Then there are real sanitation concerns as with shared bathrooms and such.  Bloody diarrhea to razor rash issues on the toilet seat for example.

But in marriage there is a concern because of the children involved.  Then gay sex permitted in Lawrence V Texas no longer is a private matter.  It is a matter that affects others: children.  Children where society must encourage a mother/father guardianship for them above and preferred to any other arrangement.  All other arrangments must be promoted as legally inferior to make the brass ring just that one arrangement.  

The fact that other arrangements exist does not erase the need for a goal to shoot for that encourages the one and only best arrangement for raising kids.  Other arrangements such as single parents or widowed parents are unfortunate necessary evils.  Gay parents don't exist at all in nature so promoting this least natural of all arrangements is beyond the pale.

I'd be in support of calling a single woman or widow "married" before I would call gay ones that.  For they never can be that which is what is natural to beget children.  The children of these pretend-hetero marriages are not stupid and will grow up to learn about reproduction, mothers and fathers.  And they will question why society allowed them to be formed in such a bastardized arrangement of the nuclear family.


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Race doesn't exist.  Genetically there is only one race.
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying their weren't law preventing people from Civilly Married based on the color of their skin (typically referred to as "race", i.e. Negro, Asian, Caucasian, etc...)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.
> 
> 
> 
> When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.
> 
> 
> 
> _(Thanks to Dr. Thomas Sowell for the previous quote.)_
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that there were laws banning interracial marriage in some places at some point in time is irrelevant.  The point is that those laws were wrong and invalid because they discriminated against people for something that had nothing to do with the definition of marriage.  That has nothing to do with law regarding or excluding homosexual "marriage", because that IS about their actions and DOES involve the definition of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Before you trot out all the old tripe about "homosexuals are born that way, just like blacks", let me just say that, in a logical, dispassionate legal system - rather than the overblown mass of drama leftists try to turn our courts into at every opportunity - this is also not the point.  The law is still not discriminating against them as people, only against their chosen actions.  Homosexuals are still allowed to marry anyone they wish _within the definition of marriage_.  Bans on interracial marriage limited that privilege _within that definition_, which is why they were wrong and struck down.
Click to expand...



Wanting to deny marriage equality based on gender is no different than denying it based on race.


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Religious institutions have long held the right to deny marriage services to heterosexual couples that fail to meet their criteria ... Homosexuals don't get special treatment.*
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true.  My sister's first husband was divorced, and our church, of which all our family were members, declined to allow them to be married in the chapel by the pastor.  She made do with being married by a judge who was also a congregation member in another location, and didn't whine about it.
Click to expand...



Quite true. My cousin wanted to marry a black man and her church was against blacks marrying whites. They went to a church more tolerant.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Religious institutions have long held the right to deny marriage services to heterosexual couples that fail to meet their criteria ... Homosexuals don't get special treatment.*
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true.  My sister's first husband was divorced, and our church, of which all our family were members, declined to allow them to be married in the chapel by the pastor.  She made do with being married by a judge who was also a congregation member in another location, and didn't whine about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true. My cousin wanted to marry a black man and her church was against blacks marrying whites. They went to a church more tolerant.
Click to expand...


Which has fuck-all to do with the topic OR with Christianity . . . so it's par for the course where your posts are concerned.


----------



## BlackSand

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Religious institutions have long held the right to deny marriage services to heterosexual couples that fail to meet their criteria ... Homosexuals don't get special treatment.*
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true.  My sister's first husband was divorced, and our church, of which all our family were members, declined to allow them to be married in the chapel by the pastor.  She made do with being married by a judge who was also a congregation member in another location, and didn't whine about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true. My cousin wanted to marry a black man and her church was against blacks marrying whites. They went to a church more tolerant.
Click to expand...


Uh Yeah ... And Religious institutions still can deny interacial heterosexual couples if they so choose.
Even though that is not quite what I was talking about ... Glad to see you got the point.

.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?*

Depends on states' public accommodation laws and eventually a SCOTUS ruling parsing the issue.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about brothers and sisters? Why not? Surely you support their right to be married if they want to be? Or are you going to discriminate against them?
> 
> They have a legitimate claim to discrimination, moreso than homosexuals, when it comes to marriage. They did not choose to be born brother and sister, they did choose to be together, so tell me, is there a difference? And can you do it without name calling, that is so uncivilized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW! No answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is your answer:
> 
> Laws prohibiting siblings from marrying are Constitutional, valid, and do not manifest as 'discrimination' because they're applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion, such laws are rationally based, and pursue a proper legislative end, unlike laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.
> 
> Moreover, marriage laws are not written to accommodate siblings, where the contract law that is marriage is designed only for consenting adults who are not related.
> 
> Same-sex couples are therefore eligible to enter into the marriage contract, siblings are not.
Click to expand...


So you would discriminate against a brother and sister getting hitched? It seems to me that the things you listed make no sense in your argument.

What makes siblings not marrying valid, and applies law equally to everyone(except siblings), no class of people are singled out(except for the siblings), rationally based laws(like not allowing homosexual marriage?), 

Oh so as long as you are not related then you have the right to get married huh? So you would have no problem with a mother marrying her adopted son, after all they are not really related, right? Or will you single them out for discrimination also?


----------



## RKMBrown

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget all the other laws regarding behavior that discriminate too.  Don't forget the polygamists!  You always leave them out Seawytch.  Why do you leave out the polygamists?  Why don't they get a "P" on the church of LGBT's logo?  Y'all think they're too perverted or weird to saddle up to?  Really?  After you snuggle up to Harvey Milk, polygamy is "too weird"?
> 
> You know its coming legally if gay marriage manipulates the 14th.  So why not advertise it now?  Would that prove the slippery slope argument to all those middle democrat voters that have a slight lean towards the conservative?  You know it's a fact.
> 
> We [and you too apparently] discriminate against BEHAVIORS we find repugnant every day.  You may have heard of the penal and civil law systems.  What are they about if not about human behaviors?....not race.  Are all those laws discriminatory?  Of course they are.  And in fact, LGBTs discriminating against adding "P" to their logo is also discrimination.  Apparently it's OK when you want it to be but not when you don't.  I'll bet you're glad society discriminates against compulsive thieves and compulsive serial killers or people who have a "money-orientation" toward drilling offshore there in CA...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with polygamy?  Other than it being legalized by tyranny of majority opinion, why can't 3 consenting adults get married as a group?  Why do marriage groups have to be pairs of consenting adults of opposite sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have to ask that, then you are too stupid to participate in this discussion.
Click to expand...


Based on your response, I'm gonna assume you think all polygamists of the bible were to stupid. Oh btw use the word to when saying to stupid.


----------



## RKMBrown

UllysesS.Archer said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget all the other laws regarding behavior that discriminate too.  Don't forget the polygamists!  You always leave them out Seawytch.  Why do you leave out the polygamists?  Why don't they get a "P" on the church of LGBT's logo?  Y'all think they're too perverted or weird to saddle up to?  Really?  After you snuggle up to Harvey Milk, polygamy is "too weird"?
> 
> You know its coming legally if gay marriage manipulates the 14th.  So why not advertise it now?  Would that prove the slippery slope argument to all those middle democrat voters that have a slight lean towards the conservative?  You know it's a fact.
> 
> We [and you too apparently] discriminate against BEHAVIORS we find repugnant every day.  You may have heard of the penal and civil law systems.  What are they about if not about human behaviors?....not race.  Are all those laws discriminatory?  Of course they are.  And in fact, LGBTs discriminating against adding "P" to their logo is also discrimination.  Apparently it's OK when you want it to be but not when you don't.  I'll bet you're glad society discriminates against compulsive thieves and compulsive serial killers or people who have a "money-orientation" toward drilling offshore there in CA...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with polygamy?  Other than it being legalized by tyranny of majority opinion, why can't 3 consenting adults get married as a group?  Why do marriage groups have to be pairs of consenting adults of opposite sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about brothers and sisters? Why not? Surely you support their right to be married if they want to be? Or are you going to discriminate against them?
> 
> They have a legitimate claim to discrimination, moreso than homosexuals, when it comes to marriage. They did not choose to be born brother and sister, they did choose to be together, so tell me, is there a difference? And can you do it without name calling, that is so uncivilized.
Click to expand...


Because babies from brothers and sisters are likely deformed.  How can anyone be so stupid so as to not know that?


----------



## JoeB131

UllysesS.Archer said:


> [
> 
> So you would discriminate against a brother and sister getting hitched? It seems to me that the things you listed make no sense in your argument.
> 
> What makes siblings not marrying valid, and applies law equally to everyone(except siblings), no class of people are singled out(except for the siblings), rationally based laws(like not allowing homosexual marriage?),
> 
> Oh so as long as you are not related then you have the right to get married huh? So you would have no problem with a mother marrying her adopted son, after all they are not really related, right? Or will you single them out for discrimination also?



WHy is it the homophobes always have to throw in incest, pedophilia or bestiality when they can't make a rational argument against homosexuality? 

Obviously, a woman marrying her adoptive son would cause harm in that there would be some serious psychological abuse going on. 

Now here's the thing. the very act of having sex with a close blood relative is a crime. This is what you guys don't get, is when the court struck down all the sodomy laws, they opened the door to gay marriage. 

Not that anyone is actually out there fighting for incestuous marriage, but they'd have to strike down the laws in all the states.


----------



## Gadawg73

For those that have a religious test to oppose gay marriage:

"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true.  My sister's first husband was divorced, and our church, of which all our family were members, declined to allow them to be married in the chapel by the pastor.  She made do with being married by a judge who was also a congregation member in another location, and didn't whine about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true. My cousin wanted to marry a black man and her church was against blacks marrying whites. They went to a church more tolerant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which has fuck-all to do with the topic OR with Christianity . . . so it's par for the course where your posts are concerned.
Click to expand...


It has everything to do with the topic. Churches cannot be forced to perform ceremonies against the tenants of their faith. They aren't forced by the government to perform ceremonies for divorced or interracial couples.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

RKMBrown said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with polygamy?  Other than it being legalized by tyranny of majority opinion, why can't 3 consenting adults get married as a group?  Why do marriage groups have to be pairs of consenting adults of opposite sex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about brothers and sisters? Why not? Surely you support their right to be married if they want to be? Or are you going to discriminate against them?
> 
> They have a legitimate claim to discrimination, moreso than homosexuals, when it comes to marriage. They did not choose to be born brother and sister, they did choose to be together, so tell me, is there a difference? And can you do it without name calling, that is so uncivilized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because babies from brothers and sisters are likely deformed.  How can anyone be so stupid so as to not know that?
Click to expand...


Who said they were going to have babies? They just wanna get hitched to have the tax advantages, and be legally recognized as married, they plan to adopt by the way.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JoeB131 said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So you would discriminate against a brother and sister getting hitched? It seems to me that the things you listed make no sense in your argument.
> 
> What makes siblings not marrying valid, and applies law equally to everyone(except siblings), no class of people are singled out(except for the siblings), rationally based laws(like not allowing homosexual marriage?),
> 
> Oh so as long as you are not related then you have the right to get married huh? So you would have no problem with a mother marrying her adopted son, after all they are not really related, right? Or will you single them out for discrimination also?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHy is it the homophobes always have to throw in incest, pedophilia or bestiality when they can't make a rational argument against homosexuality?
> 
> Obviously, a woman marrying her adoptive son would cause harm in that there would be some serious psychological abuse going on.
> 
> Now here's the thing. the very act of having sex with a close blood relative is a crime. This is what you guys don't get, is when the court struck down all the sodomy laws, they opened the door to gay marriage.
> 
> Not that anyone is actually out there fighting for incestuous marriage, but they'd have to strike down the laws in all the states.
Click to expand...


Why do you have to resort to name calling, incest pedophilia, and bestiality will be next on the board after homosexuals, if they get their way.  There is nothing irrational about it. You just can't stand the comparison that it is just "immoral people committing disgusting acts" and that includes homosexuals.  

Now 2 adopted children, both not blood relatives decide they want to get married. Are you going to tell them they can't? I got a million of these, by the way. 

Everyone of the cases listed by me, have more legitimate rights to be married than homosexuals do. For they did not make a choice to be born related. Homosexuals make a choice, everyone knows that, homosexuals just try to pretend to themselves that "God made me this way" but they make the  choice.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"a brother and sister getting hitched" is silly statement and a matter of legislative action, which will never occur.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about brothers and sisters? Why not? Surely you support their right to be married if they want to be? Or are you going to discriminate against them?
> 
> They have a legitimate claim to discrimination, moreso than homosexuals, when it comes to marriage. They did not choose to be born brother and sister, they did choose to be together, so tell me, is there a difference? And can you do it without name calling, that is so uncivilized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because babies from brothers and sisters are likely deformed.  How can anyone be so stupid so as to not know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said they were going to have babies? They just wanna get hitched to have the tax advantages, and be legally recognized as married, they plan to adopt by the way.
Click to expand...


If you truly believe that there is no societal harm in allowing siblings to civilly marry, I wish you luck in court. Your fight for sibling marriage is unrelated to gays seeking marriage equality.


----------



## RKMBrown

Cecilie1200 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're making my point, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you are making my point.  You have yet to state your opinion on polygamy.
> 
> I find it hilarious that we see single men going out and engaging in sex with multiple women as normal, or even married men cheating on their wives with other women as normal, but marrying two women at the same time, yeah that's seen as vile behavior.  Nutz.
> 
> Just to add.. just because someone is the victim of a authoritarian majority, does not mean they won't be willing to jump on the bandwagon to be the cause of others being the victim of authoritarian majority.  Hypocrites are in all groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's "we", paleface?  I think the way people conduct their "relationships" these days is utterly, cockeyed insane and virtually guaranteed to bring them nothing but misery and drama.  On the other hand, drama seems to be the only thing most people seem to want these days, so maybe that's why they do it.
Click to expand...


Ok.  Are you gonna brand a scarlet letter on non-monogamous hetero foreheads and ban them from having the same liberties as monogamous heteros as you have done to gays?  Or are you a hypocrite with regard to how you judge others sins?

Oh and the "we" well that would be others who think like me that people should live as free men and women and not be subject to tyrannical views of those who give themselves authority over liberty.


----------



## RKMBrown

UllysesS.Archer said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> {Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But discriminating against interracial marriage is different than discriminating against same sex marriage, it's different because blacks aren't gay.  Please ignore the fact that both are discrimination against a minority group with regard to their right to marry.  Please also ignore the fact that the same people discriminating against same sex marriage were the ones discriminating against interracial marriage.  It's completely different ... yeah right.  Both btw were justified from excerpts carefully selected from the same book, while simultaneously ignoring other sections of the same book.  IOW their intolerance is a religious intolerance, which makes it even worse.  Not like they are being intolerant of criminals... oh no... they are making out that gays are criminals based on the bible's teachings.  IOW they are judging gays based on gay in-adherence to their intolerant view of their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Minority group? Hmmm?  How many people make up a minority group? 3,30,3000? What's the number?
> 
> Sorry, but just like adultery, homosexuality, or I should say, acting on homosexual impulses is a sin. It's just another choice people make.
Click to expand...


If you don't know what the term minority means look it up in the dictionary.

Lying is a sin.  Should we take away your liberties because you lied?


----------



## RKMBrown

UllysesS.Archer said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about brothers and sisters? Why not? Surely you support their right to be married if they want to be? Or are you going to discriminate against them?
> 
> They have a legitimate claim to discrimination, moreso than homosexuals, when it comes to marriage. They did not choose to be born brother and sister, they did choose to be together, so tell me, is there a difference? And can you do it without name calling, that is so uncivilized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because babies from brothers and sisters are likely deformed.  How can anyone be so stupid so as to not know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said they were going to have babies? They just wanna get hitched to have the tax advantages, and be legally recognized as married, they plan to adopt by the way.
Click to expand...


Then I, personally, would have no problem with it.  Not my cup of tea.  But if there's no harm being done, I don't see how or why we should restrict their liberty.  If they do have a baby together, they should be put behind bars for the harm they did to the child.  Maybe some system where we let them petition, hear their petition, give them education on the dangers and what will befall them, then have a judge decide on the petition as to whether the couple appears to be ready to adhere to your proposed limitations.


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because babies from brothers and sisters are likely deformed.  How can anyone be so stupid so as to not know that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they were going to have babies? They just wanna get hitched to have the tax advantages, and be legally recognized as married, they plan to adopt by the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I, personally, would have no problem with it.  Not my cup of tea.  But if there's no harm being done, I don't see how or why we should restrict their liberty.  If they do have a baby together, they should be put behind bars for the harm they did to the child.
Click to expand...


What harm to the child?


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they were going to have babies? They just wanna get hitched to have the tax advantages, and be legally recognized as married, they plan to adopt by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I, personally, would have no problem with it.  Not my cup of tea.  But if there's no harm being done, I don't see how or why we should restrict their liberty.  If they do have a baby together, they should be put behind bars for the harm they did to the child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What harm to the child?
Click to expand...


Your kidding right?  The chances of genetic problems with a child increase by an order of magnitude when the child is born of two siblings. At least that's what I had read as the basis for the law. What is your understanding for the basis?






Percent of children with severe birth defects.


----------



## Silhouette

This thread's poll has one of the biggest turnouts in all the polls I've seen here at USMB.

Taken with the way it panned out, it says 2 things:

1. 85% of voters feel gay marriage should not be forced on people who do not want it and 

2. They feel very passionate about that.

Adjust your political platforms accordingly.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> 1. 85% of voters feel gay marriage should not be forced on people who do not want it and




The poll asked "Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"

That's not what you said.



You appear to be trying to play word-games and imply that 85% of people feel that States should not be Constitutionally required to treat same-sex couples equally under the law.

That is a much different question.



>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> This thread's poll has one of the biggest turnouts in all the polls I've seen here at USMB.
> 
> Taken with the way it panned out, it says 2 things:
> 
> 1. 85% of voters feel gay marriage should not be forced on people who do not want it and
> 
> 2. They feel very passionate about that.
> 
> Adjust your political platforms accordingly.



One, no one is making you marry a person of your own sex, so your #1 falls immediately

Two, KKK felt passionate about their beliefs, so a fail of appeal to emotion

So what you are saying is that a majority should overrule one's civil and personal liberties.

SCOTUS disagrees.


----------



## Gadawg73

If you "do not want" gay marriage
THEN:
Do not marry a gay person.


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I, personally, would have no problem with it.  Not my cup of tea.  But if there's no harm being done, I don't see how or why we should restrict their liberty.  If they do have a baby together, they should be put behind bars for the harm they did to the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What harm to the child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your kidding right?  The chances of genetic problems with a child increase by an order of magnitude when the child is born of two siblings. At least that's what I had read as the basis for the law. What is your understanding for the basis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Percent of children with severe birth defects.
Click to expand...


Read it wrong, thought you were speaking of gays adopting kids as I responded to the wrong post. 
Totally agree with what you are saying. My bad.


----------



## Gadawg73

Christian Victim mentality:
I am allowed to oppose whatever I want to and NO ONE can question my beliefs because I AM A CHRISTIAN.
All the while they bash anyone and everyone when they disagree with THEM.

I oppose all of the political correctness where everyone is always offended by the slightest of things. Time for people to grow some stones.
All the while if THEY are offended by something then they want a law to ban it because they do not want to hear about it.

Hypocrits of the highest order practicing their double standard.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Gadawg73 said:


> Christian Victim mentality:
> I am allowed to oppose whatever I want to and NO ONE can question my beliefs because I AM A CHRISTIAN.
> All the while they bash anyone and everyone when they disagree with THEM.
> 
> I oppose all of the political correctness where everyone is always offended by the slightest of things. Time for people to grow some stones.
> All they while if THEY are offended by something then they want a law to ban it because they do not want to hear about it.
> 
> Hypocrits of the highest order practicing their double standard.



Yup.  Similar attitude to the image below: just click on it.


----------



## Silhouette

Gadawg73 said:


> If you "do not want" gay marriage
> THEN:
> Do not marry a gay person.



What if I "do not want" gay marriage because of child-welfare?  Does my not marrying a gay person solve that hidden issue?  Those in that ignored demographic in this debate: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html


----------



## Silhouette

Gadawg73 said:


> Christian Victim mentality:
> I am allowed to oppose whatever I want to and NO ONE can question my beliefs because I AM A CHRISTIAN.
> All the while they bash anyone and everyone when they disagree with THEM.
> 
> *I oppose all of the political correctness where everyone is always offended by the slightest of things. Time for people to grow some stones.
> All the while if THEY are offended by something then they want a law to ban it because they do not want to hear about it.*
> 
> Hypocrits of the highest order practicing their double standard.



...says a gay activist who belongs to a group that petitions business after business to destroy careers and sues person after person for daring to oppose the LGBT cult's Agenda...

Have you ever studied "projection" in psychology 101 Gadawig?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "do not want" gay marriage
> THEN:
> Do not marry a gay person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if I "do not want" gay marriage because of child-welfare?  Does my not marrying a gay person solve that hidden issue?  Those in that ignored demographic in this debate: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html
Click to expand...


That is handled case by case.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christian Victim mentality:
> I am allowed to oppose whatever I want to and NO ONE can question my beliefs because I AM A CHRISTIAN.
> All the while they bash anyone and everyone when they disagree with THEM.
> 
> *I oppose all of the political correctness where everyone is always offended by the slightest of things. Time for people to grow some stones.
> All the while if THEY are offended by something then they want a law to ban it because they do not want to hear about it.*
> 
> Hypocrits of the highest order practicing their double standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...says a gay activist who belongs to a group that petitions business after business to destroy careers and sues person after person for daring to oppose the LGBT cult's Agenda...
> 
> Have you ever studied "projection" in psychology 101 Gadawig?
Click to expand...


Sil has just described how projection affects Sil.

Sil is the hypocrite of the highest order here.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "do not want" gay marriage
> THEN:
> Do not marry a gay person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if I "do not want" gay marriage because of child-welfare?  Does my not marrying a gay person solve that hidden issue?  Those in that ignored demographic in this debate: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is handled case by case.
Click to expand...


Not when LGBT is a culture that espouses sex acts in front of kids it isn't.  Then it becomes germane to the discussion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if I "do not want" gay marriage because of child-welfare?  Does my not marrying a gay person solve that hidden issue?  Those in that ignored demographic in this debate: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is handled case by case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when LGBT is a culture that espouses sex acts in front of kids it isn't.  Then it becomes germane to the discussion.
Click to expand...


Don't be facile, please.  There is no mainline culture -- homosexual, heterosexual, LGBT -- that "espouses" such a thing except in your head.

Marriage equality is going to happen, soon, and you are going to have to live with it.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

RKMBrown said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> But discriminating against interracial marriage is different than discriminating against same sex marriage, it's different because blacks aren't gay.  Please ignore the fact that both are discrimination against a minority group with regard to their right to marry.  Please also ignore the fact that the same people discriminating against same sex marriage were the ones discriminating against interracial marriage.  It's completely different ... yeah right.  Both btw were justified from excerpts carefully selected from the same book, while simultaneously ignoring other sections of the same book.  IOW their intolerance is a religious intolerance, which makes it even worse.  Not like they are being intolerant of criminals... oh no... they are making out that gays are criminals based on the bible's teachings.  IOW they are judging gays based on gay in-adherence to their intolerant view of their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minority group? Hmmm?  How many people make up a minority group? 3,30,3000? What's the number?
> 
> Sorry, but just like adultery, homosexuality, or I should say, acting on homosexual impulses is a sin. It's just another choice people make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't know what the term minority means look it up in the dictionary.
> 
> Lying is a sin.  Should we take away your liberties because you lied?
Click to expand...


We only reward liars with political offices and appointments... We do not put them on a pedestal and say to the world "look at the liars, let's let them have their way from now on" Now do we?


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread's poll has one of the biggest turnouts in all the polls I've seen here at USMB.
> 
> Taken with the way it panned out, it says 2 things:
> 
> 1. 85% of voters feel gay marriage should not be forced on people who do not want it and
> 
> 2. They feel very passionate about that.
> 
> Adjust your political platforms accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One, no one is making you marry a person of your own sex, so your #1 falls immediately
> 
> Two, KKK felt passionate about their beliefs, so a fail of appeal to emotion
> 
> So what you are saying is that a majority should overrule one's civil and personal liberties.
> 
> SCOTUS disagrees.
Click to expand...


Wrong! the majority always overrules one's civil and personal liberties. That is society. If a person breaks the law, their liberties are forfeit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread's poll has one of the biggest turnouts in all the polls I've seen here at USMB.
> 
> Taken with the way it panned out, it says 2 things:
> 
> 1. 85% of voters feel gay marriage should not be forced on people who do not want it and
> 
> 2. They feel very passionate about that.
> 
> Adjust your political platforms accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One, no one is making you marry a person of your own sex, so your #1 falls immediately
> 
> Two, KKK felt passionate about their beliefs, so a fail of appeal to emotion
> 
> So what you are saying is that a majority should overrule one's civil and personal liberties.
> 
> SCOTUS disagrees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong! the majority always overrules one's civil and personal liberties. That is society. If a person breaks the law, their liberties are forfeit.
Click to expand...


 Hamas would certainly agree with you.  You must live in an universe parallel to the US.  Read the Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment and then read commentary about it.  Your comment merely reveals your ignorance.


----------



## bendog

How the hell can a disingenuous OP like this one engender (-: 140 pages or so?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Because, bendog, the far right social con haters have realized their religious entitlement to dictate law is over.


----------



## bendog

JakeStarkey said:


> Because, bendog, the far right social con haters have realized their religious entitlement to dictate law is over.



Well yes, but what's the point in enabling bs like "OMG the gays are gonna make my priest marry them?"  It's like "OMG  now all these n(ggers will be raping our wives and daughters."


----------



## JakeStarkey

bendog said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, bendog, the far right social con haters have realized their religious entitlement to dictate law is over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, but what's the point in enabling bs like "OMG the gays are gonna make my priest marry them?"  It's like "OMG  now all these n(ggers will be raping our wives and daughters."
Click to expand...


Because that is what the far right social con hypocrites believe: they can say anything about anybody, but if you chastise them, they wail like little girls.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread's poll has one of the biggest turnouts in all the polls I've seen here at USMB.
> 
> 
> 
> Taken with the way it panned out, it says 2 things:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 85% of voters feel gay marriage should not be forced on people who do not want it and
> 
> 
> 
> 2. They feel very passionate about that.
> 
> 
> 
> Adjust your political platforms accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One, no one is making you marry a person of your own sex, so your #1 falls immediately
> 
> 
> 
> Two, KKK felt passionate about their beliefs, so a fail of appeal to emotion
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that a majority should overrule one's civil and personal liberties.
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS disagrees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! the majority always overrules one's civil and personal liberties. That is society. If a person breaks the law, their liberties are forfeit.
Click to expand...



Really? Do you know what "the majority" wanted when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving?


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JakeStarkey said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> One, no one is making you marry a person of your own sex, so your #1 falls immediately
> 
> Two, KKK felt passionate about their beliefs, so a fail of appeal to emotion
> 
> So what you are saying is that a majority should overrule one's civil and personal liberties.
> 
> SCOTUS disagrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! the majority always overrules one's civil and personal liberties. That is society. If a person breaks the law, their liberties are forfeit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hamas would certainly agree with you.  You must live in an universe parallel to the US.  Read the Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment and then read commentary about it.  Your comment merely reveals your ignorance.
Click to expand...


Call me what you will, it appeases me to see you have to resort to name calling.

If a man beats a woman, then shoots her and her child, should that man still have civil and personal liberties? Of coarse not. 

Better example. Some child molestors think they are not doing wrong when molesting a child, they think they are doing that child a favor. Does majority overrule those deranged individuals? Yes they do. 

Read your own posts when replying to my posts. You will see they answer yours very well, thank you. 

Have a nice day now.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> One, no one is making you marry a person of your own sex, so your #1 falls immediately
> 
> 
> 
> Two, KKK felt passionate about their beliefs, so a fail of appeal to emotion
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that a majority should overrule one's civil and personal liberties.
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS disagrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! the majority always overrules one's civil and personal liberties. That is society. If a person breaks the law, their liberties are forfeit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Do you know what "the majority" wanted when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving?
Click to expand...


Me and several others are still waiting on your reply to polygamists in the gay and lesbian argument? Until you get around to that, don't ask me questions, I will have time for yours when you take time for ours.

Have a nice day...


----------



## JakeStarkey

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! the majority always overrules one's civil and personal liberties. That is society. If a person breaks the law, their liberties are forfeit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas would certainly agree with you.  You must live in an universe parallel to the US.  Read the Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment and then read commentary about it.  Your comment merely reveals your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me what you will, it appeases me to see you have to resort to name calling.  If a man beats a woman, then shoots her and her child, should that man still have civil and personal liberties? Of coarse not.   Better example. Some child molestors think they are not doing wrong when molesting a child, they think they are doing that child a favor. Does majority overrule those deranged individuals? Yes they do.   Read your own posts when replying to my posts. You will see they answer yours very well, thank you.  Have a nice day now.
Click to expand...


One, labeling your lack of understanding as "ignorance" is not name calling.

Two, If you are renting out property publicly and you violate public accommodation  laws, you are at fault for violating a person's civil and personal rights not them for reporting you.

In America, we are a constitutional republic with civil and personal liberties, over which the democratic majority have no say.


----------



## RKMBrown

UllysesS.Archer said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Minority group? Hmmm?  How many people make up a minority group? 3,30,3000? What's the number?
> 
> Sorry, but just like adultery, homosexuality, or I should say, acting on homosexual impulses is a sin. It's just another choice people make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't know what the term minority means look it up in the dictionary.
> 
> Lying is a sin.  Should we take away your liberties because you lied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We only reward liars with political offices and appointments... We do not put them on a pedestal and say to the world "look at the liars, let's let them have their way from now on" Now do we?
Click to expand...


Sure we do.  Obama's lied so many times his nose is wrapped around the planet like a hangman's noose.   In response the democrats have sung his praises and re-elected him to another term.  Apparently being a POS liar is a sin we have decided to admire in the democrat party.  Disagree with the POS in Chief and you get called a racist by the party of liars.

But I'll vote for an honest gay man looking to marry his life partner over a POS like Obama any day.  I'm thinking we are taking liberty away from the wrong people.

Obumua's the one causing this country harm, not the gays looking to have their monogamous relationships / marriages be on an equal legal footing with hetero monogamous relationships.


----------



## Gadawg73

Silhouette said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "do not want" gay marriage
> THEN:
> Do not marry a gay person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if I "do not want" gay marriage because of child-welfare?  Does my not marrying a gay person solve that hidden issue?  Those in that ignored demographic in this debate: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html
Click to expand...


Child welfare?
Heterosexuals have not figured out to raise their own children and you worry about gay folks.
Wow.


----------



## RKMBrown

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! the majority always overrules one's civil and personal liberties. That is society. If a person breaks the law, their liberties are forfeit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Do you know what "the majority" wanted when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me and several others are still waiting on your reply to polygamists in the gay and lesbian argument? Until you get around to that, don't ask me questions, I will have time for yours when you take time for ours.
> 
> Have a nice day...
Click to expand...


I've asked this question of gays before.  Gays seem to be just like hetero's in this regard.  Most are just fine with holding the hypocritical position that it is just fine and dandy to restrict polygamy, but it is not fine to restrict their marriage.

IOW they only care about themselves and others like them... it's not about liberty for all it is about liberty for me, myself, and I.  

Sigh..


----------



## JakeStarkey

RKMBrown, the American people defeated Romney


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! the majority always overrules one's civil and personal liberties. That is society. If a person breaks the law, their liberties are forfeit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Do you know what "the majority" wanted when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me and several others are still waiting on your reply to polygamists in the gay and lesbian argument? Until you get around to that, don't ask me questions, I will have time for yours when you take time for ours.
> 
> 
> 
> Have a nice day...
Click to expand...



I answered your Strawman. If you believe that sibling or polygamist marriages can successfully challenge prohibitions, I wish you luck. They are unrelated to marriage equality for gays. 

Do you know what the majority thought of interracial marriage when it was ruled on by the SCOTUS?


----------



## Gadawg73

All the gay folks I know raising kids have adopted them.
From heterosexual parents that ABANDONED THE KIDS.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JakeStarkey said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas would certainly agree with you.  You must live in an universe parallel to the US.  Read the Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment and then read commentary about it.  Your comment merely reveals your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call me what you will, it appeases me to see you have to resort to name calling.  If a man beats a woman, then shoots her and her child, should that man still have civil and personal liberties? Of coarse not.   Better example. Some child molestors think they are not doing wrong when molesting a child, they think they are doing that child a favor. Does majority overrule those deranged individuals? Yes they do.   Read your own posts when replying to my posts. You will see they answer yours very well, thank you.  Have a nice day now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One, labeling your lack of understanding as "ignorance" is not name calling.
> 
> Two, If you are renting out property publicly and you violate public accommodation  laws, you are at fault for violating a person's civil and personal rights not them for reporting you.
> 
> In America, we are a constitutional republic with civil and personal liberties, over which the democratic majority have no say.
Click to expand...


You originally said, and I quote "So what you are saying is that a majority should overrule one's civil and personal liberties." end quote.

I pointed out that you were wrong on that only. You can not like being wrong on that as much as you like, but you are still wrong on that statement. For anyone can lose those civil and personal liberties at any time if they decide to break the laws of the land.


----------



## JakeStarkey

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Call me what you will, it appeases me to see you have to resort to name calling.  If a man beats a woman, then shoots her and her child, should that man still have civil and personal liberties? Of coarse not.   Better example. Some child molestors think they are not doing wrong when molesting a child, they think they are doing that child a favor. Does majority overrule those deranged individuals? Yes they do.   Read your own posts when replying to my posts. You will see they answer yours very well, thank you.  Have a nice day now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One, labeling your lack of understanding as "ignorance" is not name calling.
> 
> Two, If you are renting out property publicly and you violate public accommodation  laws, you are at fault for violating a person's civil and personal rights not them for reporting you.
> 
> In America, we are a constitutional republic with civil and personal liberties, over which the democratic majority have no say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You originally said, and I quote "So what you are saying is that a majority should overrule one's civil and personal liberties." end quote.
> 
> I pointed out that you were wrong on that only. You can not like being wrong on that as much as you like, but you are still wrong on that statement. For anyone can lose those civil and personal liberties at any time if they decide to break the laws of the land.
Click to expand...


And you agreed.  Now you are changing your story.  I said that a democratic majority cannot overrule a person's civil liberties.  They can't.  Then you change it to if they commit crimes.  Your deflection is noted.  Yes, criminals can be punished; no, the democratic majority cannot overrule civil and personal liberties.

Once again, read the Constitution.

Once again, think about what you post.


----------



## RKMBrown

JakeStarkey said:


> RKMBrown, the American people defeated Romney



So did I.  I voted for the libertarian.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Call me what you will, it appeases me to see you have to resort to name calling.  If a man beats a woman, then shoots her and her child, should that man still have civil and personal liberties? Of coarse not.   Better example. Some child molestors think they are not doing wrong when molesting a child, they think they are doing that child a favor. Does majority overrule those deranged individuals? Yes they do.   Read your own posts when replying to my posts. You will see they answer yours very well, thank you.  Have a nice day now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One, labeling your lack of understanding as "ignorance" is not name calling.
> 
> 
> 
> Two, If you are renting out property publicly and you violate public accommodation  laws, you are at fault for violating a person's civil and personal rights not them for reporting you.
> 
> 
> 
> In America, we are a constitutional republic with civil and personal liberties, over which the democratic majority have no say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You originally said, and I quote "So what you are saying is that a majority should overrule one's civil and personal liberties." end quote.
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed out that you were wrong on that only. You can not like being wrong on that as much as you like, but you are still wrong on that statement. For anyone can lose those civil and personal liberties at any time if they decide to break the laws of the land.
Click to expand...



You can lose some of your civil liberties if you break the law. You have to let those lawbreakers marry though, even if on death row. 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/78/case.html


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you "do not want" gay marriage
> THEN:
> Do not marry a gay person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if I "do not want" gay marriage because of child-welfare?  Does my not marrying a gay person solve that hidden issue?  Those in that ignored demographic in this debate: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child welfare?
> Heterosexuals have not figured out to raise their own children and you worry about gay folks.
> Wow.
Click to expand...


You got that statement totally correct! 

It amazes me still that we have to get a license for everything we do in this country, except for the most important thing, and that's have children. Any idiot can have a child, all of them that they want.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if I "do not want" gay marriage because of child-welfare?  Does my not marrying a gay person solve that hidden issue?  Those in that ignored demographic in this debate: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Child welfare?
> 
> Heterosexuals have not figured out to raise their own children and you worry about gay folks.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got that statement totally correct!
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me still that we have to get a license for everything we do in this country, except for the most important thing, and that's have children. Any idiot can have a child, all of them that they want.
Click to expand...



So you'd liked to license procreation? Heard of China?


----------



## RKMBrown

JakeStarkey said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> One, labeling your lack of understanding as "ignorance" is not name calling.
> 
> Two, If you are renting out property publicly and you violate public accommodation  laws, you are at fault for violating a person's civil and personal rights not them for reporting you.
> 
> In America, we are a constitutional republic with civil and personal liberties, over which the democratic majority have no say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You originally said, and I quote "So what you are saying is that a majority should overrule one's civil and personal liberties." end quote.
> 
> I pointed out that you were wrong on that only. You can not like being wrong on that as much as you like, but you are still wrong on that statement. For anyone can lose those civil and personal liberties at any time if they decide to break the laws of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you agreed.  Now you are changing your story.  I said that a democratic majority cannot overrule a person's civil liberties.  They can't.  Then you change it to if they commit crimes.  Your deflection is noted.  Yes, criminals can be punished; no, the democratic majority cannot overrule civil and personal liberties.
> 
> Once again, read the Constitution.
> 
> Once again, think about what you post.
Click to expand...


Uhmm... but the majority can overrule a person's civil liberties.  Two specific amendments enshrine that fact, there was a third called prohibition, but it supposedly got redacted.

The 14th amendment clearly states: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

In clear translation that means with due process of law, the states can most certainly deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.  Due process in the 14th is not the same as due-process for criminal proceedings.  You see, you are not necessarily a criminal in the 14th.  All they have to do is claim they provided some level of process.  The 14th is also used by the federal government through proxy by the states.  For example, forcing you to have a certain curriculum, certain other restrictions on personal liberty if the states agree to take federal money.

Further, the 16th amendment allows the federal government to take every last cent of your income as taxes. EVERY PENNY YOU EARN IS THEIRS.  There is no liberty or property and you certainly can't live your life as you choose.  Nope.  Not unless you plan on doing it without working/labor and getting paid.  You can try to get away with bartering and trading.  But that's just till folks are doing it and they lock it out like they are locking out internet sales that were free of sales taxes.


----------



## nodoginnafight

> Uhmm... but the majority can overrule a person's civil liberties.


No - a majority cannot. It takes a super majority to amend the constitution and then THAT becomes the new standard of civil liberty ... so in reality no one's civil liberties are overruled.


----------



## RKMBrown

nodoginnafight said:


> Uhmm... but the majority can overrule a person's civil liberties.
> 
> 
> 
> No - a majority cannot. It takes a super majority to amend the constitution and then THAT becomes the new standard of civil liberty ... so in reality no one's civil liberties are overruled.
Click to expand...


I don't think you are listening.


The constitution has already been amended.  You have no liberty not really, not in the eye's of the law.  It's gone.  Your liberty has been pissed on and shit on.  Any government employee in this country, state or federal, can at will take any frigging thing they want of yours. Any thing.  You think Obama can't have you killed in a heart beat just by saying kill that man?  You think a federal officer can't open your papers, dig through your private documents, record all your email at will?  You think the state can't take your house through eminent domain for any damn reason they want?

You think they can't quadruple your health care bills and laugh at you telling you this is for your own good?  You think they won't come to your house and take your guns like they did in New Orleans?


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> ...Now you are changing your story.  *I said that a democratic majority cannot overrule a person's civil liberties.  They can't.*  Then you change it to if they commit crimes.  Your deflection is noted.  Yes, criminals can be punished; no, the democratic majority cannot overrule civil and personal liberties.
> 
> Once again, read the Constitution.
> 
> Once again, think about what you post.



Behaviors are not covered under civil liberties.  Once again, read the Constitution.  Once again, think about what you post.


----------



## bendog

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Now you are changing your story.  *I said that a democratic majority cannot overrule a person's civil liberties.  They can't.*  Then you change it to if they commit crimes.  Your deflection is noted.  Yes, criminals can be punished; no, the democratic majority cannot overrule civil and personal liberties.
> 
> Once again, read the Constitution.
> 
> Once again, think about what you post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behaviors are not covered under civil liberties.  Once again, read the Constitution.  Once again, think about what you post.
Click to expand...


The BoR and civil war amendments don't cover "behaviors?"


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette has no clue what the Constitution says, and RMK is trying to distort its meaning.  .

No democratic majority can override a person's civil and personal liberties. That is not the same as an amendment to the Constitution. Sil wants a simple majority in California to dictate marriage equality: not going to happen.

The social con elitists and their weak minded pitiful allies have realized their sun has almost set, and they are wailing.


----------



## RKMBrown

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette has no clue what the Constitution says, and RMK is trying to distort its meaning.  .
> 
> No democratic majority can override a person's civil and personal liberties. That is not the same as an amendment to the Constitution. Sil wants a simple majority in California to dictate marriage equality: not going to happen.
> 
> The social con elitists and their weak minded pitiful allies have realized their sun has almost set, and they are wailing.



What part of how the 14th and 16th amendments did I distort? My statements are backed by SCOTUS rulings as to the actual meanings of these amendments.  You can say taking your income isn't the same as slavery all you like, but it is.  You can say taking your life by order from the president without even a court order isn't murder, but it is.  You can say you have rights under the constitution all you like, but you don't not any more.  Your rights are subject to the whims of our government.  They can pass any bill they damn well please that takes any amount of money of yours, takes any of your so called liberties.  All they have to do is have a simple majority of congress men to pass laws.  They don't need any more amendments to take all of your money.  All they have to do is tax you.  They don't need any more amendments to take anything they want from you, all they have to do is claim due process.  For example, a state can take your guns by declaring an emergency.  Already been done.  As another example, the feds can take away your health care providers and insurance just by calling the old ones illegal and forcing you to buy new ones, already been done. 

Look at the unpatriot bill ... they can do any damn thing they want to you, permanent detention, blow you up, no court involvement, none.  15 year old child eating lunch at a cafe, boom, blown up sir.  

The NSA has declared every american, nay every human on the planet, a potential enemy combatant.  Oh well of course not some congressmen and the president they will be left alone cause they are the god emperors.


----------



## JakeStarkey

RMK, quit it while you are only five miles behind.

*Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?*  I am sure that everyone on this board probably agrees that only the "force" of violated public accommodation laws should be considered about the OP.


----------



## RKMBrown

JakeStarkey said:


> RMK, quit it while you are only five miles behind.
> 
> *Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?*  I am sure that everyone on this board probably agrees that only the "force" of violated public accommodation laws should be considered about the OP.



Yes, well when it comes to restrictions on what liberties we can have, the civil rights act has enshrined that public accommodations cannot be prohibited by the people.  This of course does not apply to the government.  The government can take your civil rights at will for any reason they want be it race, religion, creed, sexual preference etc..  It used to be the Constitution restricted government action.  Now it has been twisted by the 14th, 16th, and commerce clause to restrict our liberties instead.  Turned completely upside down the constitution is.


----------



## Silhouette

I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building.  You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.

Adjust your political platform accordingly..


----------



## JakeStarkey

RKMBrown said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> RMK, quit it while you are only five miles behind.
> 
> *Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?*  I am sure that everyone on this board probably agrees that only the "force" of violated public accommodation laws should be considered about the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, well when it comes to restrictions on what liberties we can have, the civil rights act has enshrined that public accommodations cannot be prohibited by the people.  This of course does not apply to the government.  The government can take your civil rights at will for any reason they want be it race, religion, creed, sexual preference etc..  It used to be the Constitution restricted government action.  Now it has been twisted by the 14th, 16th, and commerce clause to restrict our liberties instead.  Turned completely upside down the constitution is.
Click to expand...


The Constitution prevents you and your podjos from victimizing folks of their civil and personal liberties is what you don't like.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, you are right.  Almost no one wants to force any type of anyone's marriage into a church or synagogue or mosque or whatever where it is not wanted.

Which has nothing to do with the marriage equality issue, which is about folks being allowed to marry the person of his or her choice.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, you are right.  Almost no one wants to force any type of anyone's marriage into a church or synagogue or mosque or whatever where it is not wanted.
> 
> Which has nothing to do with the marriage equality issue, which is about folks being allowed to marry the person of his or her choice.



If person "A" doesn't believe gays should be married in a church that doesn't want to perform a gay marriage, what does that say about any alleged vehemence that person "A" might have in their "support for gay marriage"?

85% is a large number muchacho.  Spin away.


----------



## RKMBrown

JakeStarkey said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> RMK, quit it while you are only five miles behind.
> 
> *Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?*  I am sure that everyone on this board probably agrees that only the "force" of violated public accommodation laws should be considered about the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, well when it comes to restrictions on what liberties we can have, the civil rights act has enshrined that public accommodations cannot be prohibited by the people.  This of course does not apply to the government.  The government can take your civil rights at will for any reason they want be it race, religion, creed, sexual preference etc..  It used to be the Constitution restricted government action.  Now it has been twisted by the 14th, 16th, and commerce clause to restrict our liberties instead.  Turned completely upside down the constitution is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution prevents you and your podjos from victimizing folks of their civil and personal liberties is what you don't like.
Click to expand...


You are a lying piece of shit.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building.  You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.
> 
> Adjust your political platform accordingly..



You know what they say about assuming right?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building.  You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.




That of course is a wrong assumption.

There is a difference between a private entity that qualifies as a private organization (See Boy Scouts of America v. Dale) which restricts access to internal use based on private club membership (which legally is what a Church congregation is) and government entities discriminating against it's own Citizens (potentially) in violation of the 14th Amendment.



So my opinions, unlike your "assumptions", is that...

1.  Government entities should not discriminate against it's citizens without a compelling government interests and in the case of SSCM there is none.

2.  Public Accommodation laws which restrict the property and free association rights of private entities, such as for profit businesses and non-profit entities (which would include Churches) should be free to refuse service on whatever criteria they choose.  Be it race, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, or veteran's status.



>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey

RKMBrown said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, well when it comes to restrictions on what liberties we can have, the civil rights act has enshrined that public accommodations cannot be prohibited by the people.  This of course does not apply to the government.  The government can take your civil rights at will for any reason they want be it race, religion, creed, sexual preference etc..  It used to be the Constitution restricted government action.  Now it has been twisted by the 14th, 16th, and commerce clause to restrict our liberties instead.  Turned completely upside down the constitution is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution prevents you and your podjos from victimizing folks of their civil and personal liberties is what you don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a lying piece of shit.
Click to expand...


Your display here why we have and requires the use of the 14th Amendment to protect personal and civil liberty.


----------



## Gadawg73

Silhouette said:


> I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building.  You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.
> 
> Adjust your political platform accordingly..



We do not live in a majority rule country.
Something about the Constitution which tells GOVERNMENT what GOVERNMENT can not do.
The Constitution NEVER tells what a minority can not do because of what the majority may want.
The Constitution is an interesting document. I strongly suggest you read it. 
I highly recommend it.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building.  You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.
> 
> Adjust your political platform accordingly..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not live in a majority rule country.
> Something about the Constitution which tells GOVERNMENT what GOVERNMENT can not do.
> The Constitution NEVER tells what a minority can not do because of what the majority may want.
> The Constitution is an interesting document. I strongly suggest you read it.
> I highly recommend it.
Click to expand...


Funny how quickly the left flip flops on this arugment.

When Obama wins the election, everyone is supposed to shut up and do whatever the left wants, because we're a Democracy, and the majority rules with an iron fist.

Then when the majority is against the left on any particular topic, suddenly 'oh wait... there's a constitution, and the majority doesn't rule'.

My answer is the same as before...   Democracy, the Constitution, and my faith in G-d, are on differently levels.  I will obey the first two, until they violate the third.    G-d is at the top of my authority list, not the bottom.

If push comes to shove, and I have to choose between the Constitution and a bunch of Homo lobbiests, or G-d, I'll choose G-d.

In other words, you and the Majority, and the Constitution, can go jump off a cliff, if you tell me I have to violate G-d's law.   I don't care what either says, if you contradict G-d.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Androw, good for you, but nobody really cares.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Androw, no one is going to make you marry a guy, ever.


----------



## Gadawg73

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building.  You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.
> 
> Adjust your political platform accordingly..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not live in a majority rule country.
> Something about the Constitution which tells GOVERNMENT what GOVERNMENT can not do.
> The Constitution NEVER tells what a minority can not do because of what the majority may want.
> The Constitution is an interesting document. I strongly suggest you read it.
> I highly recommend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how quickly the left flip flops on this arugment.
> 
> When Obama wins the election, everyone is supposed to shut up and do whatever the left wants, because we're a Democracy, and the majority rules with an iron fist.
> 
> Then when the majority is against the left on any particular topic, suddenly 'oh wait... there's a constitution, and the majority doesn't rule'.
> 
> My answer is the same as before...   Democracy, the Constitution, and my faith in G-d, are on differently levels.  I will obey the first two, until they violate the third.    G-d is at the top of my authority list, not the bottom.
> 
> If push comes to shove, and I have to choose between the Constitution and a bunch of Homo lobbiests, or G-d, I'll choose G-d.
> 
> In other words, you and the Majority, and the Constitution, can go jump off a cliff, if you tell me I have to violate G-d's law.   I don't care what either says, if you contradict G-d.
Click to expand...


I am not the left or the majority and it does not matter what the left or the right or the majority "wants".

Something about The Constitution.

Speaking of "God's law":
God's law is do not judge, to love thy neighbor and do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you.
Speaking of contradicting God.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not live in a majority rule country.
> Something about the Constitution which tells GOVERNMENT what GOVERNMENT can not do.
> The Constitution NEVER tells what a minority can not do because of what the majority may want.
> The Constitution is an interesting document. I strongly suggest you read it.
> I highly recommend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how quickly the left flip flops on this arugment.
> 
> When Obama wins the election, everyone is supposed to shut up and do whatever the left wants, because we're a Democracy, and the majority rules with an iron fist.
> 
> Then when the majority is against the left on any particular topic, suddenly 'oh wait... there's a constitution, and the majority doesn't rule'.
> 
> My answer is the same as before...   Democracy, the Constitution, and my faith in G-d, are on differently levels.  I will obey the first two, until they violate the third.    G-d is at the top of my authority list, not the bottom.
> 
> If push comes to shove, and I have to choose between the Constitution and a bunch of Homo lobbiests, or G-d, I'll choose G-d.
> 
> In other words, you and the Majority, and the Constitution, can go jump off a cliff, if you tell me I have to violate G-d's law.   I don't care what either says, if you contradict G-d.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not the left or the majority and it does not matter what the left or the right or the majority "wants".
> 
> Something about The Constitution.
> 
> Speaking of "God's law":
> God's law is do not judge, to love thy neighbor and do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you.
> Speaking of contradicting God.
Click to expand...


You are right, and it would not matter if you were or not, or anything about the Constitution.

Nothing I said contradicts G-d.   Again, I know you have your own personal adaptive version of the Bible.   So I'm sure I contradict 'your version'.  But I don't care about your version.  Thanks.


----------



## Gadawg73

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how quickly the left flip flops on this arugment.
> 
> When Obama wins the election, everyone is supposed to shut up and do whatever the left wants, because we're a Democracy, and the majority rules with an iron fist.
> 
> Then when the majority is against the left on any particular topic, suddenly 'oh wait... there's a constitution, and the majority doesn't rule'.
> 
> My answer is the same as before...   Democracy, the Constitution, and my faith in G-d, are on differently levels.  I will obey the first two, until they violate the third.    G-d is at the top of my authority list, not the bottom.
> 
> If push comes to shove, and I have to choose between the Constitution and a bunch of Homo lobbiests, or G-d, I'll choose G-d.
> 
> In other words, you and the Majority, and the Constitution, can go jump off a cliff, if you tell me I have to violate G-d's law.   I don't care what either says, if you contradict G-d.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not the left or the majority and it does not matter what the left or the right or the majority "wants".
> 
> Something about The Constitution.
> 
> Speaking of "God's law":
> God's law is do not judge, to love thy neighbor and do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you.
> Speaking of contradicting God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right, and it would not matter if you were or not, or anything about the Constitution.
> 
> Nothing I said contradicts G-d.   Again, I know you have your own personal adaptive version of the Bible.   So I'm sure I contradict 'your version'.  But I don't care about your version.  Thanks.
Click to expand...


The Constitution DOES MATTER as that is ALL that matters under the law.
And God ain't in it.

WE are a nation OF LAWS, NOT men and their various and changing like the wind religious views, beliefs and opinions.


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building.  You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.
> 
> Adjust your political platform accordingly..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not live in a majority rule country.
> Something about the Constitution which tells GOVERNMENT what GOVERNMENT can not do.
> The Constitution NEVER tells what a minority can not do because of what the majority may want.
> The Constitution is an interesting document. I strongly suggest you read it.
> I highly recommend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how quickly the left flip flops on this arugment.
> 
> When Obama wins the election, everyone is supposed to shut up and do whatever the left wants, because we're a Democracy, and the majority rules with an iron fist.
> 
> Then when the majority is against the left on any particular topic, suddenly 'oh wait... there's a constitution, and the majority doesn't rule'.
Click to expand...


You're misrepresenting the facts. Is that intentional? 

When a law that is passed someone believes is unconstitutional, it gets challenged. You understand basic government, right? 



> My answer is the same as before...   Democracy, the Constitution, and my faith in G-d, are on differently levels.  I will obey the first two, until they violate the third.    G-d is at the top of my authority list, not the bottom.
> 
> If push comes to shove, and I have to choose between the Constitution and a bunch of Homo lobbiests, or G-d, I'll choose G-d.
> 
> In other words, you and the Majority, and the Constitution, can go jump off a cliff, if you tell me I have to violate G-d's law.   I don't care what either says, if you contradict G-d.




If god is at the top of your "authority" list, perhaps a Democracy is not where you want to reside...or do you wish to turn this country into a theocracy?


----------



## Seawytch

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building.  You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That of course is a wrong assumption.
> 
> There is a difference between a private entity that qualifies as a private organization (See Boy Scouts of America v. Dale) which restricts access to internal use based on private club membership (which legally is what a Church congregation is) and government entities discriminating against it's own Citizens (potentially) in violation of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> So my opinions, unlike your "assumptions", is that...
> 
> 1.  Government entities should not discriminate against it's citizens without a compelling government interests and in the case of SSCM there is none.
> 
> 2.  Public Accommodation laws which restrict the property and free association rights of private entities, such as for profit businesses and non-profit entities (which would include Churches) should be free to refuse service on whatever criteria they choose.  Be it race, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, or veteran's status.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Agreed...with one caveat...as long as I cannot discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, marital status, parental status, or veteran's status...they shouldn't be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Just sayin...


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building.  You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.
> 
> Adjust your political platform accordingly..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not live in a majority rule country.
> Something about the Constitution which tells GOVERNMENT what GOVERNMENT can not do.
> The Constitution NEVER tells what a minority can not do because of what the majority may want.
> The Constitution is an interesting document. I strongly suggest you read it.
> I highly recommend it.
Click to expand...


That was true at the forming of the country.  Then the Constitution bastardized and amended to change it into a majority rule country.  Minority groups, for example the upper middle class income earners, white males, interstate commerce traders, are explicitly targeted by the majority.  White males are targeted to be punished by AA.  The fourteenth amendment clearly states that the minority is subject to the whims of the majority via due process.  The commerce clause clearly states that the minority is subject to the whims of the majority.  The sixteenth amendment clearly states that the minority is subject to the whims of the majority.

Face it, we are fighting wars without congress approval.  We are fighting wars against our selves (drug war).  Our president can declare you a criminal and punish you to his desire without trial.

Gone are the days when prohibition required an Amendment to the constitution.  Gone!  Now we have drug prohibition without an amendment.  

What do these facts that tell you about the state of this Constitution?

The civil rights bill though a good bill, points out clearly that our liberties can be taken from us without an Amendment.  You can be forced to provide public accommodation against your will if you so choose to sell product.  No amendment was required.


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not the left or the majority and it does not matter what the left or the right or the majority "wants".
> 
> Something about The Constitution.
> 
> Speaking of "God's law":
> God's law is do not judge, to love thy neighbor and do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you.
> Speaking of contradicting God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right, and it would not matter if you were or not, or anything about the Constitution.
> 
> Nothing I said contradicts G-d.   Again, I know you have your own personal adaptive version of the Bible.   So I'm sure I contradict 'your version'.  But I don't care about your version.  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution DOES MATTER as that is ALL that matters under the law.
> And God ain't in it.
> 
> WE are a nation OF LAWS, NOT men and their various and changing like the wind religious views, beliefs and opinions.
Click to expand...

Not any more.  We are now a nation of lawlessness, where our AG and POTUS operate a crime syndicate, aka. the democrat party.


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building.  You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.
> 
> Adjust your political platform accordingly..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not live in a majority rule country.
> Something about the Constitution which tells GOVERNMENT what GOVERNMENT can not do.
> The Constitution NEVER tells what a minority can not do because of what the majority may want.
> The Constitution is an interesting document. I strongly suggest you read it.
> I highly recommend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was true at the forming of the country.  Then the Constitution bastardized and amended to change it into a majority rule country.  Minority groups, for example the upper middle class income earners, white males, interstate commerce traders, are explicitly targeted by the majority.  White males are targeted to be punished by AA.  The fourteenth amendment clearly states that the minority is subject to the whims of the majority via due process.  The commerce clause clearly states that the minority is subject to the whims of the majority.  The sixteenth amendment clearly states that the minority is subject to the whims of the majority.
> 
> Face it, we are fighting wars without congress approval.  We are fighting wars against our selves (drug war).  Our president can declare you a criminal and punish you to his desire without trial.
> 
> Gone are the days when prohibition required an Amendment to the constitution.  Gone!  Now we have drug prohibition without an amendment.
> 
> What do these facts that tell you about the state of this Constitution?
> 
> The civil rights bill though a good bill, points out clearly that our liberties can be taken from us without an Amendment.  You can be forced to provide public accommodation against your will if you so choose to sell product.  No amendment was required.
Click to expand...


AA has not affected me and I am a white male. It possibly could have affected me but it has not. Many people are subjected to the law but are not affected. Probably a majority of white males are not affected by the law. Many laws affect certain segments of the population. Commerce Clause is in the Constitution and that was what was ruled as applicable with the Civil Rights Act dealing with public accommodation. 
_Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States_ Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

That hotel was on Courtland ST. almost across the street from my first agency in Atlanta, had another name when I was there and is now a parking lot at Baker and Courtland.


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right, and it would not matter if you were or not, or anything about the Constitution.
> 
> Nothing I said contradicts G-d.   Again, I know you have your own personal adaptive version of the Bible.   So I'm sure I contradict 'your version'.  But I don't care about your version.  Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution DOES MATTER as that is ALL that matters under the law.
> And God ain't in it.
> 
> WE are a nation OF LAWS, NOT men and their various and changing like the wind religious views, beliefs and opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not any more.  We are now a nation of lawlessness, where our AG and POTUS operate a crime syndicate, aka. the democrat party.
Click to expand...


No, not what I like either but not what you claim.


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution DOES MATTER as that is ALL that matters under the law.
> And God ain't in it.
> 
> WE are a nation OF LAWS, NOT men and their various and changing like the wind religious views, beliefs and opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> Not any more.  We are now a nation of lawlessness, where our AG and POTUS operate a crime syndicate, aka. the democrat party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not what I like either but not what you claim.
Click to expand...


If we are a nation of laws why are our leaders not subject to them?


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not the left or the majority and it does not matter what the left or the right or the majority "wants".
> 
> Something about The Constitution.
> 
> Speaking of "God's law":
> God's law is do not judge, to love thy neighbor and do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you.
> Speaking of contradicting God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right, and it would not matter if you were or not, or anything about the Constitution.
> 
> Nothing I said contradicts G-d.   Again, I know you have your own personal adaptive version of the Bible.   So I'm sure I contradict 'your version'.  But I don't care about your version.  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution DOES MATTER as that is ALL that matters under the law.
> And God ain't in it.
> 
> WE are a nation OF LAWS, NOT men and their various and changing like the wind religious views, beliefs and opinions.
Click to expand...


That's your view.  I get that.

Here's my view... I don't care about your laws, or your Constitution, if you contradict my G-d's laws.

The highest authority in my life, is not you, not your laws, not your Constitution.   It's G-d.

Again, I will follow all of your laws, every single one of them, until such a time as they contradict the laws of G-d, and the moment they do that, I don't give a crap about any of them.  I'm going to obey G-d first.

I am willing to be fined over this, jail over this, prison over this, even the death penalty over this issue.   I will follow G-d first.  Not your laws, or your constitution first.


----------



## JakeStarkey

RMK, do as you, please.

You break the law, you are punished, regardless what you God says.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> RMK, do as you, please.
> 
> You break the law, you are punished, regardless what you God says.



Judeo/Christian beliefs and teachings of what is right and what is wrong form the basis for common law in most of the world.   Our constitution repeats most of those principles and the language "endowed by their creator" confirms it.  

On the topic of majority rule.   we choose our leaders by majority vote, our leaders create our laws based on majority vote,  the constitution and bill of rights was put in place by majority vote.  

You misuse the term "majority rule" when you attempt to equate it with discrimination.  

but we understand how you libs operate-------------lies, disinformation, and innuendo.   we get it,  fortunately, so do most americans.


----------



## Andylusion

JakeStarkey said:


> You break the law, you are punished, regardless what you God says.



That's fine... but I'm still going to do what G-d says, even if punished.  You will NEVER get me to conform to something that is against my G-d's laws.      So punish all you want, I'll go right back to doing what I know is right.    That will never change.   Never.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Seawytch said:


> Agreed...with one caveat...as long as I cannot discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, marital status, parental status, or veteran's status...they shouldn't be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Just sayin...




I don't disagree with your caveat.


I opinion is that, in this day and age, Public Accommodation laws are not needed today to the degree that they were needed 3-generations ago.  That it's time to repeal them in general.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> RMK, do as you, please.
> 
> You break the law, you are punished, regardless what you God says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judeo/Christian beliefs and teachings of what is right and what is wrong form the basis for common law in most of the world.   Our constitution repeats most of those principles and the language "endowed by their creator" confirms it.
> 
> On the topic of majority rule.   we choose our leaders by majority vote, our leaders create our laws based on majority vote,  the constitution and bill of rights was put in place by majority vote.
> 
> You misuse the term "majority rule" when you attempt to equate it with discrimination.
> 
> but we understand how you libs operate-------------lies, disinformation, and innuendo.   we get it,  fortunately, so do most americans.
Click to expand...



Just a couple of technical notes:

#1  "endowed by their creator" isn't in the Constitution.


#2  Majority means ": a number that is greater than half of a total" (Merriam-Webster).  The Constitutional requirement for ratification was 9 of 13, not half.

#3  The ratification of all amendment since initial passage have required 75% concurrence from the States, not 50% (a majority).



>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey

WorldWatcher said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> RMK, do as you, please.
> 
> You break the law, you are punished, regardless what you God says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judeo/Christian beliefs and teachings of what is right and what is wrong form the basis for common law in most of the world.   Our constitution repeats most of those principles and the language "endowed by their creator" confirms it.
> 
> On the topic of majority rule.   we choose our leaders by majority vote, our leaders create our laws based on majority vote,  the constitution and bill of rights was put in place by majority vote.
> 
> You misuse the term "majority rule" when you attempt to equate it with discrimination.
> 
> but we understand how you libs operate-------------lies, disinformation, and innuendo.   we get it,  fortunately, so do most americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just a couple of technical notes:
> 
> #1  "endowed by their creator" isn't in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> #2  Majority means ": a number that is greater than half of a total" (Merriam-Webster).  The Constitutional requirement for ratification was 9 of 13, not half.
> 
> #3  The ratification of all amendment since initial passage have required 75% concurrence from the States, not 50% (a majority).  >>>>
Click to expand...


Redfish bloviates, nothing more, as does RMK.

One, the Constitution prevents majority discrimination against minority civil liberties.

Two, the OP is  *Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?*, which I think almost all of us agree with unless churches violate public accommodation laws.


----------



## Andylusion

JakeStarkey said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judeo/Christian beliefs and teachings of what is right and what is wrong form the basis for common law in most of the world.   Our constitution repeats most of those principles and the language "endowed by their creator" confirms it.
> 
> On the topic of majority rule.   we choose our leaders by majority vote, our leaders create our laws based on majority vote,  the constitution and bill of rights was put in place by majority vote.
> 
> You misuse the term "majority rule" when you attempt to equate it with discrimination.
> 
> but we understand how you libs operate-------------lies, disinformation, and innuendo.   we get it,  fortunately, so do most americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a couple of technical notes:
> 
> #1  "endowed by their creator" isn't in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> #2  Majority means ": a number that is greater than half of a total" (Merriam-Webster).  The Constitutional requirement for ratification was 9 of 13, not half.
> 
> #3  The ratification of all amendment since initial passage have required 75% concurrence from the States, not 50% (a majority).  >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Redfish bloviates, nothing more, as does RMK.
> 
> One, the Constitution prevents majority discrimination against minority civil liberties.
> 
> Two, the OP is  *Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?*, which I think almost all of us agree with unless churches violate public accommodation laws.
Click to expand...


Well, it's the same thing as a wedding cake shop.  I'm not making a cake for a homosexual 'wedding'.   I don't care about your laws.   My Bible says that's not for me to be a part of.  So... I'm not going to do it.

"Then you'll be fined".

Fine, still not doing it.

"Then you'll be closed!"

Fine, I'll reopen, and continue living as I know is right.

"But it's the law!  You'll go to jail!"

Fine.  I'll go to jail, get back out, re-open and continue as I know is right.

"But but but but"

Don't care.   This is not a negotiable issue to me.   I'm going to live acording to how G-d said, and you are not going to stop me.  You can do anything you want, I'm still going to live as know is right, up to the point of death.

So unless you plan to enact the death penalty for not baking a cake for a homo, you better get used to us following our religious freedom.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Androw said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a couple of technical notes:
> 
> #1  "endowed by their creator" isn't in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> #2  Majority means ": a number that is greater than half of a total" (Merriam-Webster).  The Constitutional requirement for ratification was 9 of 13, not half.
> 
> #3  The ratification of all amendment since initial passage have required 75% concurrence from the States, not 50% (a majority).  >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish bloviates, nothing more, as does RMK.
> 
> One, the Constitution prevents majority discrimination against minority civil liberties.
> 
> Two, the OP is  *Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?*, which I think almost all of us agree with unless churches violate public accommodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's the same thing as a wedding cake shop.  I'm not making a cake for a homosexual 'wedding'.   I don't care about your laws.   My Bible says that's not for me to be a part of.  So... I'm not going to do it.
> 
> "Then you'll be fined".
> 
> Fine, still not doing it.
> 
> "Then you'll be closed!"
> 
> Fine, I'll reopen, and continue living as I know is right.
> 
> "But it's the law!  You'll go to jail!"
> 
> Fine.  I'll go to jail, get back out, re-open and continue as I know is right.
> 
> "But but but but"
> 
> Don't care.   This is not a negotiable issue to me.   I'm going to live acording to how G-d said, and you are not going to stop me.  You can do anything you want, I'm still going to live as know is right, up to the point of death.
> 
> So unless you plan to enact the death penalty for not baking a cake for a homo, you better get used to us following our religious freedom.
Click to expand...


Hope my faith can be that strong if I am ever put to the test.


----------



## Andylusion

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish bloviates, nothing more, as does RMK.
> 
> One, the Constitution prevents majority discrimination against minority civil liberties.
> 
> Two, the OP is  *Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?*, which I think almost all of us agree with unless churches violate public accommodation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's the same thing as a wedding cake shop.  I'm not making a cake for a homosexual 'wedding'.   I don't care about your laws.   My Bible says that's not for me to be a part of.  So... I'm not going to do it.
> 
> "Then you'll be fined".
> 
> Fine, still not doing it.
> 
> "Then you'll be closed!"
> 
> Fine, I'll reopen, and continue living as I know is right.
> 
> "But it's the law!  You'll go to jail!"
> 
> Fine.  I'll go to jail, get back out, re-open and continue as I know is right.
> 
> "But but but but"
> 
> Don't care.   This is not a negotiable issue to me.   I'm going to live according to how G-d said, and you are not going to stop me.  You can do anything you want, I'm still going to live as know is right, up to the point of death.
> 
> So unless you plan to enact the death penalty for not baking a cake for a homo, you better get used to us following our religious freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hope my faith can be that strong if I am ever put to the test.
Click to expand...


I had a co-worker, loudly accuse me of starting the Crusades at work, in the middle of the floor in front of everyone.   Yeah, I caused the Crusades, because I'm a Christian.

I laughed at him.   It was funny to me, but he complained to the boss.

I was laid off from that job some weeks later.  It's possible his complaint was ignored, and they just didn't have any work.   It's possible that they didn't ignore him.

Either way, I determined right then and there, you can debate with me about any topic you wish, you may persuade me on some, and not on others, but on this issue of my faith... it's not up for discussion, nor debate.   I will not change away from my Christian faith, and there is nothing anyone can do about it, no law, no regulation, not even the Constitution will change me on this issue.


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not any more.  We are now a nation of lawlessness, where our AG and POTUS operate a crime syndicate, aka. the democrat party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not what I like either but not what you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we are a nation of laws why are our leaders not subject to them?
Click to expand...


They are.
After 35 years of working over 6000 litigation cases the general public gets away with far more lawlessness than the politicians do.
Called reasonable doubt in a criminal case and preponderance of the evidence in a civil case yet bad thing is the politicians have it figured out better than the general public.
At taxpayer expense. 
Our leaders are not exempt from all laws. That claim is absurd.


----------



## Gadawg73

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right, and it would not matter if you were or not, or anything about the Constitution.
> 
> Nothing I said contradicts G-d.   Again, I know you have your own personal adaptive version of the Bible.   So I'm sure I contradict 'your version'.  But I don't care about your version.  Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution DOES MATTER as that is ALL that matters under the law.
> And God ain't in it.
> 
> WE are a nation OF LAWS, NOT men and their various and changing like the wind religious views, beliefs and opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your view.  I get that.
> 
> Here's my view... I don't care about your laws, or your Constitution, if you contradict my G-d's laws.
> 
> The highest authority in my life, is not you, not your laws, not your Constitution.   It's G-d.
> 
> Again, I will follow all of your laws, every single one of them, until such a time as they contradict the laws of G-d, and the moment they do that, I don't give a crap about any of them.  I'm going to obey G-d first.
> 
> I am willing to be fined over this, jail over this, prison over this, even the death penalty over this issue.   I will follow G-d first.  Not your laws, or your constitution first.
Click to expand...


When was the last time God told you not to obey a law?
What does God think about increasing fines on speeding tickets?


----------



## Gadawg73

Reading some of the posts here sure am glad The Founders LEFT GOD OUT of the laws in this great nation. 
The Founders sure were smart. They saw you guys coming.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not what I like either but not what you claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we are a nation of laws why are our leaders not subject to them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are.
> After 35 years of working over 6000 litigation cases the general public gets away with far more lawlessness than the politicians do.
> Called reasonable doubt in a criminal case and preponderance of the evidence in a civil case yet bad thing is the politicians have it figured out better than the general public.
> At taxpayer expense.
> Our leaders are not exempt from all laws. That claim is absurd.
Click to expand...


Clinton was caught witness tampering, bribing, obstructing justice, lying under oath, selling weapons technology to China for a donation, and Al Gore was recorded on the phone, calling businesses and private citizens, soliciting donations from inside the office of the vice president.

Absolutely nothing..... NOTHING.... was done to either of them.  And by the way, that's just the short short short list of the laws Clinton broke, not including the laws Hilliary broke then, and since.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Reading some of the posts here sure am glad The Founders LEFT GOD OUT of the laws in this great nation.
> The Founders sure were smart. They saw you guys coming.



Don't care.   You still don't get it.   G-d is above the founders of this country.   Whether they included, or excluded G-d, doesn't matter to me at all.   

Me, and those like me, are going to follow G-d first.  Doesn't matter if G-d is mentioned or not by anyone.

Welcome to real Christianity.


----------



## Gadawg73

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we are a nation of laws why are our leaders not subject to them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are.
> After 35 years of working over 6000 litigation cases the general public gets away with far more lawlessness than the politicians do.
> Called reasonable doubt in a criminal case and preponderance of the evidence in a civil case yet bad thing is the politicians have it figured out better than the general public.
> At taxpayer expense.
> Our leaders are not exempt from all laws. That claim is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton was caught witness tampering, bribing, obstructing justice, lying under oath, selling weapons technology to China for a donation, and Al Gore was recorded on the phone, calling businesses and private citizens, soliciting donations from inside the office of the vice president.
> 
> Absolutely nothing..... NOTHING.... was done to either of them.  And by the way, that's just the short short short list of the laws Clinton broke, not including the laws Hilliary broke then, and since.
Click to expand...


You need a district attorney or US attorney to get a grand jury to indict folks my man.
Called the judicial process. 
First you need solid evidence. 
Please specifically show me who caught them and where the evidence is.
I am no fan of Clinton as personally I can not stand the bastard but something about the rules of evidence always applies.


----------



## Gadawg73

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading some of the posts here sure am glad The Founders LEFT GOD OUT of the laws in this great nation.
> The Founders sure were smart. They saw you guys coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't care.   You still don't get it.   G-d is above the founders of this country.   Whether they included, or excluded G-d, doesn't matter to me at all.
> 
> Me, and those like me, are going to follow G-d first.  Doesn't matter if G-d is mentioned or not by anyone.
> 
> Welcome to real Christianity.
Click to expand...


No you do not get it. You live in the greatest country on earth. THE LAW is what PROTECTS YOU and you take it for granted. You are no better than the damn liberals with your cavalier attitude about the law and the protections that very law PROTECTS YOU and your right to practice your religion freely in this great nation.
WITHOUT the laws in the country you and your religious beliefs wouldn't be jack shit. Take a look around the world. See what religion in government has done to FUCK UP everything same as it was doing all through Europe for centuries when Christianity dominated all government and the Christian religion MADE ALL THE LAWS to oppress the common man in favor of divine right given to the monarchs.
Quit taking advantage of and for granted what you have here.
THE LAW is what has given you the ability to practice your religion and be free from government mandates on religion. 
That is real Christianity, a religion that in this country because OF THE LAW, has given you and all Christians the very best environment of any country on earth to practice your faith here BECAUSE OF THE LAWS.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Androw said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's the same thing as a wedding cake shop.  I'm not making a cake for a homosexual 'wedding'.   I don't care about your laws.   My Bible says that's not for me to be a part of.  So... I'm not going to do it.
> 
> "Then you'll be fined".
> 
> Fine, still not doing it.
> 
> "Then you'll be closed!"
> 
> Fine, I'll reopen, and continue living as I know is right.
> 
> "But it's the law!  You'll go to jail!"
> 
> Fine.  I'll go to jail, get back out, re-open and continue as I know is right.
> 
> "But but but but"
> 
> Don't care.   This is not a negotiable issue to me.   I'm going to live according to how G-d said, and you are not going to stop me.  You can do anything you want, I'm still going to live as know is right, up to the point of death.
> 
> So unless you plan to enact the death penalty for not baking a cake for a homo, you better get used to us following our religious freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope my faith can be that strong if I am ever put to the test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had a co-worker, loudly accuse me of starting the Crusades at work, in the middle of the floor in front of everyone.   Yeah, I caused the Crusades, because I'm a Christian.
> 
> I laughed at him.   It was funny to me, but he complained to the boss.
> 
> I was laid off from that job some weeks later.  It's possible his complaint was ignored, and they just didn't have any work.   It's possible that they didn't ignore him.
> 
> Either way, I determined right then and there, you can debate with me about any topic you wish, you may persuade me on some, and not on others, but on this issue of my faith... it's not up for discussion, nor debate.   I will not change away from my Christian faith, and there is nothing anyone can do about it, no law, no regulation, not even the Constitution will change me on this issue.
Click to expand...


No one, my dear, expects you to change your beliefs, no one.

But you will follow the law and its effects.  Nothing will change that.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution DOES MATTER as that is ALL that matters under the law.
> And God ain't in it.
> 
> WE are a nation OF LAWS, NOT men and their various and changing like the wind religious views, beliefs and opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your view.  I get that.
> 
> Here's my view... I don't care about your laws, or your Constitution, if you contradict my G-d's laws.
> 
> The highest authority in my life, is not you, not your laws, not your Constitution.   It's G-d.
> 
> Again, I will follow all of your laws, every single one of them, until such a time as they contradict the laws of G-d, and the moment they do that, I don't give a crap about any of them.  I'm going to obey G-d first.
> 
> I am willing to be fined over this, jail over this, prison over this, even the death penalty over this issue.   I will follow G-d first.  Not your laws, or your constitution first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When was the last time God told you not to obey a law?
> What does God think about increasing fines on speeding tickets?
Click to expand...


Can you read?   What did I just post?

"Again, I will follow all of your laws, every single one of them, until such a time as they contradict the laws of G-d, and the moment they do that, I don't give a crap about any of them."

Does the fine, on a speeding ticket, violate G-d's laws?   Is there a "You should not fine over $100 for speeding" in the Bible?

Is there a First Gadawg 1:1 "Speeding tickets over $100 are an abomination to the Lord"?

Let me help you out.  There is not.   So obviously, if I got such a ticket, I would pay such a ticket.   I am to obey the laws of the land as completely as possible...  UNTIL... they violate G-d's law.

The moment you say "You must accommodate homos in your church" then the answer is... uh, no.  No, actually I do not, and moreover, I will not.  Period.   No exceptions.


----------



## JakeStarkey

To claim our political leaders are exempt from law is a revelation by the claimant of being absolutely ignorant.

Androw, like all of us, is not special before the law because of his beliefs.  No one cares about his beliefs before the law.  The Law of the United States is what give us the incredible amount of liberty and freedom that we enjoy.

The Lord Jesus would undoubtedly say to Androw, "My boy, give to Caesar's what is his, and give to me what is mine, and don't be stupid about it, like you are doing now."


----------



## Andylusion

JakeStarkey said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hope my faith can be that strong if I am ever put to the test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a co-worker, loudly accuse me of starting the Crusades at work, in the middle of the floor in front of everyone.   Yeah, I caused the Crusades, because I'm a Christian.
> 
> I laughed at him.   It was funny to me, but he complained to the boss.
> 
> I was laid off from that job some weeks later.  It's possible his complaint was ignored, and they just didn't have any work.   It's possible that they didn't ignore him.
> 
> Either way, I determined right then and there, you can debate with me about any topic you wish, you may persuade me on some, and not on others, but on this issue of my faith... it's not up for discussion, nor debate.   I will not change away from my Christian faith, and there is nothing anyone can do about it, no law, no regulation, not even the Constitution will change me on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one, my dear, expects you to change your beliefs, no one.
> 
> But you will follow the law and its effects.  Nothing will change that.
Click to expand...


No... Actually, I won't.  Nothing will change that.


----------



## Gadawg73

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your view.  I get that.
> 
> Here's my view... I don't care about your laws, or your Constitution, if you contradict my G-d's laws.
> 
> The highest authority in my life, is not you, not your laws, not your Constitution.   It's G-d.
> 
> Again, I will follow all of your laws, every single one of them, until such a time as they contradict the laws of G-d, and the moment they do that, I don't give a crap about any of them.  I'm going to obey G-d first.
> 
> I am willing to be fined over this, jail over this, prison over this, even the death penalty over this issue.   I will follow G-d first.  Not your laws, or your constitution first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When was the last time God told you not to obey a law?
> What does God think about increasing fines on speeding tickets?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you read?   What did I just post?
> 
> "Again, I will follow all of your laws, every single one of them, until such a time as they contradict the laws of G-d, and the moment they do that, I don't give a crap about any of them."
> 
> Does the fine, on a speeding ticket, violate G-d's laws?   Is there a "You should not fine over $100 for speeding" in the Bible?
> 
> Is there a First Gadawg 1:1 "Speeding tickets over $100 are an abomination to the Lord"?
> 
> Let me help you out.  There is not.   So obviously, if I got such a ticket, I would pay such a ticket.   I am to obey the laws of the land as completely as possible...  UNTIL... they violate G-d's law.
> 
> The moment you say "You must accommodate homos in your church" then the answer is... uh, no.  No, actually I do not, and moreover, I will not.  Period.   No exceptions.
Click to expand...


There will never be a law like that because no one supports that, gays included as indicated here and everywhere.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading some of the posts here sure am glad The Founders LEFT GOD OUT of the laws in this great nation.
> The Founders sure were smart. They saw you guys coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't care.   You still don't get it.   G-d is above the founders of this country.   Whether they included, or excluded G-d, doesn't matter to me at all.
> 
> Me, and those like me, are going to follow G-d first.  Doesn't matter if G-d is mentioned or not by anyone.
> 
> Welcome to real Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you do not get it. You live in the greatest country on earth. THE LAW is what PROTECTS YOU and you take it for granted. You are no better than the damn liberals with your cavalier attitude about the law and the protections that very law PROTECTS YOU and your right to practice your religion freely in this great nation.
> WITHOUT the laws in the country you and your religious beliefs wouldn't be jack shit. Take a look around the world. See what religion in government has done to FUCK UP everything same as it was doing all through Europe for centuries when Christianity dominated all government and the Christian religion MADE ALL THE LAWS to oppress the common man in favor of divine right given to the monarchs.
> Quit taking advantage of and for granted what you have here.
> THE LAW is what has given you the ability to practice your religion and be free from government mandates on religion.
> That is real Christianity, a religion that in this country because OF THE LAW, has given you and all Christians the very best environment of any country on earth to practice your faith here BECAUSE OF THE LAWS.
Click to expand...


I don't care what you think about me.   I don't care about the rest of the world either.  I'm here to serve G-d, and nothing else.

I don't need your history lesson either.   You can grant me a million things, more protection, more freedom, more wealth, more property, more women, more of everything you can think of, and if you give me all of it, but require me to violate my G-d's word, I'll give it all away.

Matthew 16:26
"What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?"

The whole world.... or my soul?

All of your freedoms, all your protections, all of our wealth, everything we have in this country of the USA.   It's all great.   It's a wonderful thing.

But ultimately G-d comes first, or it all means nothing.

All the religious freedom we have means nothing, if you require that I must violate a law of G-d.    You can keep it, and I'll keep my G-d.    He's first.   Everything else is a way distant second.

"What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?"


----------



## JakeStarkey

Androw said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a co-worker, loudly accuse me of starting the Crusades at work, in the middle of the floor in front of everyone.   Yeah, I caused the Crusades, because I'm a Christian.
> 
> I laughed at him.   It was funny to me, but he complained to the boss.
> 
> I was laid off from that job some weeks later.  It's possible his complaint was ignored, and they just didn't have any work.   It's possible that they didn't ignore him.
> 
> Either way, I determined right then and there, you can debate with me about any topic you wish, you may persuade me on some, and not on others, but on this issue of my faith... it's not up for discussion, nor debate.   I will not change away from my Christian faith, and there is nothing anyone can do about it, no law, no regulation, not even the Constitution will change me on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one, my dear, expects you to change your beliefs, no one.
> 
> But you will follow the law and its effects.  Nothing will change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... Actually, I won't.  Nothing will change that.
Click to expand...


If the law says do or don't, and you do the opposite, and the law finds out, yeah, you will pay the price of the law's effects.  Tough to be you.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JakeStarkey said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hope my faith can be that strong if I am ever put to the test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a co-worker, loudly accuse me of starting the Crusades at work, in the middle of the floor in front of everyone.   Yeah, I caused the Crusades, because I'm a Christian.
> 
> I laughed at him.   It was funny to me, but he complained to the boss.
> 
> I was laid off from that job some weeks later.  It's possible his complaint was ignored, and they just didn't have any work.   It's possible that they didn't ignore him.
> 
> Either way, I determined right then and there, you can debate with me about any topic you wish, you may persuade me on some, and not on others, but on this issue of my faith... it's not up for discussion, nor debate.   I will not change away from my Christian faith, and there is nothing anyone can do about it, no law, no regulation, not even the Constitution will change me on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one, my dear, expects you to change your beliefs, no one.
> 
> But you will follow the law and its effects.  Nothing will change that.
Click to expand...


I believe he said he wouldn't if it goes against God's law, what part  of that did you not understand? He might accept the consequences of the law, but he will not follow it if it conflicts with God's law, and I will say, if it goes against God's law, I to will not follow that man made law.

They had laws in Germany too. The German people followed those laws. Many of them thought the law was wrong, but they still turned the Jews over to the SS. Would you have?


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was the last time God told you not to obey a law?
> What does God think about increasing fines on speeding tickets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you read?   What did I just post?
> 
> "Again, I will follow all of your laws, every single one of them, until such a time as they contradict the laws of G-d, and the moment they do that, I don't give a crap about any of them."
> 
> Does the fine, on a speeding ticket, violate G-d's laws?   Is there a "You should not fine over $100 for speeding" in the Bible?
> 
> Is there a First Gadawg 1:1 "Speeding tickets over $100 are an abomination to the Lord"?
> 
> Let me help you out.  There is not.   So obviously, if I got such a ticket, I would pay such a ticket.   I am to obey the laws of the land as completely as possible...  UNTIL... they violate G-d's law.
> 
> The moment you say "You must accommodate homos in your church" then the answer is... uh, no.  No, actually I do not, and moreover, I will not.  Period.   No exceptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will never be a law like that because no one supports that, gays included as indicated here and everywhere.
Click to expand...


Then we won't have a problem.   But understand that if you are wrong, I'm going to stand by my convictions, and there will be nothing you or anyone else can do to stop me, and those like me.    

The fact some people on this thread indicated they would support such laws, shows that you claim is not entirely sound.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Androw sounds like my 55 year old sister in law, who says "no I won't", struggles when the police come for her, gets clunked on the head and restrained, and pays thousands of dollars for being stupid.

Androw, you can believe whatever you want, but you can't do whatever you want.  The law will prevent you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

UllysesS.Archer said:


> I believe he said he wouldn't if it goes against God's law, what part  of that did you not understand? He might accept the consequences of the law, but he will not follow it if it conflicts with God's law, and I will say, if it goes against God's law, I to will not follow that man made law.
> 
> They had laws in Germany too. The German people followed those laws. Many of them thought the law was wrong, but they still turned the Jews over to the SS. Would you have?



Stop the four year old type of defiance, like Androw.

You can believe what you want, but if you refuse to follow the law, you will pay the price.

That is the fact.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JakeStarkey said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one, my dear, expects you to change your beliefs, no one.
> 
> But you will follow the law and its effects.  Nothing will change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... Actually, I won't.  Nothing will change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the law says do or don't, and you do the opposite, and the law finds out, yeah, you will pay the price of the law's effects.  Tough to be you.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'm pretty sure if the SS came knocking on your door, you would turn over everyone you knew to save your rear, wouldn't you?


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JakeStarkey said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe he said he wouldn't if it goes against God's law, what part  of that did you not understand? He might accept the consequences of the law, but he will not follow it if it conflicts with God's law, and I will say, if it goes against God's law, I to will not follow that man made law.
> 
> They had laws in Germany too. The German people followed those laws. Many of them thought the law was wrong, but they still turned the Jews over to the SS. Would you have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop the four year old type of defiance, like Androw.
> 
> You can believe what you want, but if you refuse to follow the law, you will pay the price.
> 
> That is the fact.
Click to expand...


You ignored the question, but I think everyone knows the answer already.  You would save your rear and let everyone else burn.


----------



## Andylusion

JakeStarkey said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one, my dear, expects you to change your beliefs, no one.
> 
> But you will follow the law and its effects.  Nothing will change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... Actually, I won't.  Nothing will change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the law says do or don't, and you do the opposite, and the law finds out, yeah, you will pay the price of the law's effects.  Tough to be you.
Click to expand...


I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't be punished by the law.  I said I wouldn't be changed by the law.

If you fine me, I'll pay the fine, and continue living as my convictions say.

You fine me again, and I'll pay it and continue living as my convictions say.

You close me down, I'll open up somewhere else, again following my convictions.

You throw me in jail, I'll get back out, and continue as before.

You throw me in prison, I will practice as my convictions say, while in the prison, until you let me out, and I'll continue as before.

The only way you can stop me, is to kill me.  If you are ready to sentence someone to the death penalty over refusing to marry homos, or bake a wedding cake for homos, then I am ready to go.   Come pick me up, but you will NEVER force me to violate my Christian convictions.

Do you understand now?


----------



## bendog

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a co-worker, loudly accuse me of starting the Crusades at work, in the middle of the floor in front of everyone.   Yeah, I caused the Crusades, because I'm a Christian.
> 
> I laughed at him.   It was funny to me, but he complained to the boss.
> 
> I was laid off from that job some weeks later.  It's possible his complaint was ignored, and they just didn't have any work.   It's possible that they didn't ignore him.
> 
> Either way, I determined right then and there, you can debate with me about any topic you wish, you may persuade me on some, and not on others, but on this issue of my faith... it's not up for discussion, nor debate.   I will not change away from my Christian faith, and there is nothing anyone can do about it, no law, no regulation, not even the Constitution will change me on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one, my dear, expects you to change your beliefs, no one.
> 
> But you will follow the law and its effects.  Nothing will change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe he said he wouldn't if it goes against God's law, what part  of that did you not understand? He might accept the consequences of the law, but he will not follow it if it conflicts with God's law, and I will say, if it goes against God's law, I to will not follow that man made law.
> 
> They had laws in Germany too. The German people followed those laws. Many of them thought the law was wrong, but they still turned the Jews over to the SS. Would you have?
Click to expand...


For Christ's sake.  Victim much with false equalivancies?  LOL


----------



## Andylusion

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No... Actually, I won't.  Nothing will change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the law says do or don't, and you do the opposite, and the law finds out, yeah, you will pay the price of the law's effects.  Tough to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm pretty sure if the SS came knocking on your door, you would turn over everyone you knew to save your rear, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...


Not a chance.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

bendog said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one, my dear, expects you to change your beliefs, no one.
> 
> But you will follow the law and its effects.  Nothing will change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe he said he wouldn't if it goes against God's law, what part  of that did you not understand? He might accept the consequences of the law, but he will not follow it if it conflicts with God's law, and I will say, if it goes against God's law, I to will not follow that man made law.
> 
> They had laws in Germany too. The German people followed those laws. Many of them thought the law was wrong, but they still turned the Jews over to the SS. Would you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For Christ's sake.  Victim much with false equalivancies?  LOL
Click to expand...


It was the simplest most effective way of making the point. He was saying he would follow God's law to the extreme effect, which is death, before following a law that would make him break God's law. 

Jake wanted to be facetious, so I was facetious back. Point made.


----------



## bendog

Androw said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the law says do or don't, and you do the opposite, and the law finds out, yeah, you will pay the price of the law's effects.  Tough to be you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm pretty sure if the SS came knocking on your door, you would turn over everyone you knew to save your rear, wouldn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a chance.
Click to expand...


So, what, pray tell (-: is the specific cross these homosexuals are hanging you upon?


----------



## Andylusion

bendog said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one, my dear, expects you to change your beliefs, no one.
> 
> But you will follow the law and its effects.  Nothing will change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe he said he wouldn't if it goes against God's law, what part  of that did you not understand? He might accept the consequences of the law, but he will not follow it if it conflicts with God's law, and I will say, if it goes against God's law, I to will not follow that man made law.
> 
> They had laws in Germany too. The German people followed those laws. Many of them thought the law was wrong, but they still turned the Jews over to the SS. Would you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For Christ's sake.  Victim much with false equalivancies?  LOL
Click to expand...



That was a dead on point post.     The prior poster was suggesting that everyone must follow the laws, because they are the laws.

The implication is that laws are automatically morally right, and above the laws of G-d.

Yet we have perfectly good examples of laws that were not morally right, and it was good to violate them.

The difference is that those laws are universally considered bad, while the laws in question on this thread, or considered by some to be good.

Not according to our Christian beliefs.   Thus we are not wrong in violating them, should they be imposed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No... Actually, I won't.  Nothing will change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the law says do or don't, and you do the opposite, and the law finds out, yeah, you will pay the price of the law's effects.  Tough to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm pretty sure if the SS came knocking on your door, you would turn over everyone you knew to save your rear, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...


If you believe American LEO are similar to the Gestapo, then, you are a fool.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Androw said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the law says do or don't, and you do the opposite, and the law finds out, yeah, you will pay the price of the law's effects.  Tough to be you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm pretty sure if the SS came knocking on your door, you would turn over everyone you knew to save your rear, wouldn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a chance.
Click to expand...


I was asking Jake, I am sure what you would do Androw.


----------



## JakeStarkey

This is what I wanted to hear: "I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't be punished by the law.  I said I wouldn't be changed by the law."

No one cares what you think about it.

Do you understand now.


----------



## JakeStarkey

This is not the poster who supposedly said, "The prior poster was suggesting that everyone must follow the laws, because they are the laws."  That is a false conclusion to what was said.

I said we are subject to the laws and their consequences.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JakeStarkey said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the law says do or don't, and you do the opposite, and the law finds out, yeah, you will pay the price of the law's effects.  Tough to be you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm pretty sure if the SS came knocking on your door, you would turn over everyone you knew to save your rear, wouldn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe American LEO are similar to the Gestapo, then, you are a fool.
Click to expand...


Answer the question.

We all know you can't answer truthfully without showing what kind of person you are, but go ahead, we will wait.


----------



## JakeStarkey

UllysesS.Archer said:


> I was asking Jake, I am sure what you would do Androw.


  Answered in 2038.  American LEO is not the Gestapo, which you well know.  Your question is meaningless, but your inference shames American values.


----------



## bendog

Androw said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe he said he wouldn't if it goes against God's law, what part  of that did you not understand? He might accept the consequences of the law, but he will not follow it if it conflicts with God's law, and I will say, if it goes against God's law, I to will not follow that man made law.
> 
> They had laws in Germany too. The German people followed those laws. Many of them thought the law was wrong, but they still turned the Jews over to the SS. Would you have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Christ's sake.  Victim much with false equalivancies?  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was a dead on point post.     The prior poster was suggesting that everyone must follow the laws, because they are the laws.
> 
> The implication is that laws are automatically morally right, and above the laws of G-d.
> 
> Yet we have perfectly good examples of laws that were not morally right, and it was good to violate them.
> 
> The difference is that those laws are universally considered bad, while the laws in question on this thread, or considered by some to be good.
> 
> Not according to our Christian beliefs.   Thus we are not wrong in violating them, should they be imposed.
Click to expand...


Well we didn't put Jews in ovens here, so pardon me if I call you on your hysteria.

We have had Jim Crowe, and civil disobedience, but I'm pretty much at a loss for any recent comparison ..... unless maybe no equal protection for GLBT folks.

So, what exactly, are the good Christians of America being forced to protect by breaking laws, or are you merely speaking rhetorically?  Like the various posters who "cling" to their rifles for the day in which they must rise up to oppose federal tyranny.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JakeStarkey said:


> This is what I wanted to hear: "I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't be punished by the law.  I said I wouldn't be changed by the law."
> 
> No one cares what you think about it.
> 
> Do you understand now.



Wow, you backtrack quick. Glad you finally understand Jake. You don't get to tell churches what goes on in those churches. You don't get to tell anyone how they can act, we all know there will be consequences for every action we take, we don't need you to point that out. 

You state the obvious very well!


----------



## JakeStarkey

The issue is that marriage equality will become the law for all.

Tough.

No one is going to force anyone to marry or be married except to the person they want.

No one is going to force churches to marry folks of whom they don't approve, except for the fact of public accommodation laws, which are very easily avoided.

This is a non-issue.


----------



## JakeStarkey

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I wanted to hear: "I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't be punished by the law.  I said I wouldn't be changed by the law."
> 
> No one cares what you think about it.
> 
> Do you understand now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you backtrack quick. Glad you finally understand Jake. You don't get to tell churches what goes on in those churches. You don't get to tell anyone how they can act, we all know there will be consequences for every action we take, we don't need you to point that out.
> 
> You state the obvious very well!
Click to expand...


You are the one backtracking on what I said and Androw said.  I said he was subject to the law and its effects.

Hint: so are you.

Lying and falsifying helps you not at all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ulysses and Androw are scampering off with their tails between their legs.

Faux Christians like them are just silly.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JakeStarkey said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was asking Jake, I am sure what you would do Androw.
> 
> 
> 
> Answered in 2038.  American LEO is not the Gestapo, which you well know.  Your question is meaningless, but your inference shames American values.
Click to expand...


You don't know anything about values, American, Christian or anything else. 

Still haven't answered the question.  Are you skeered.


----------



## bendog

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I wanted to hear: "I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't be punished by the law.  I said I wouldn't be changed by the law."
> 
> No one cares what you think about it.
> 
> Do you understand now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you backtrack quick. Glad you finally understand Jake. You don't get to tell churches what goes on in those churches. You don't get to tell anyone how they can act, we all know there will be consequences for every action we take, we don't need you to point that out.
> 
> You state the obvious very well!
Click to expand...


No one has ever suggested telling churches what to do inside churches.  I think it's pretty clear the Roberts' court would not be amused, nor do I think many GLBT would have any desire to mix with churches that find them less than equal in the eyes of God.  However, if a church enters into private commerce by selling or renting to the general public, it's going to be increasingly difficult for them to discriminate.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JakeStarkey said:


> Ulysses and Androw are scampering off with their tails between their legs.
> 
> Faux Christians like them are just silly.



I aint skeered. Answer the question or HUSH!(that's a polite way of saying SHUT UP)

Would you turn over your friends to an institution like the SS to save your rear? Your children? Your parents?

Can you not answer the question truthfully without shaming yourself in public?


----------



## bendog

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ulysses and Androw are scampering off with their tails between their legs.
> 
> Faux Christians like them are just silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I aint skeered. Answer the question or HUSH!(that's a polite way of saying SHUT UP)
> 
> Would you turn over your friends to an institution like the SS to save your rear? Your children? Your parents?
> 
> Can you not answer the question truthfully without shaming yourself in public?
Click to expand...


For  the love of mercy, it's like Jr. High.


----------



## JakeStarkey

U and A sound as silly as a son of mine did when he was a fourteen year old and decided not to go to church anymore.

I told him that was his choice but he had to certain chores to do that had to be finished by noon each Sunday.

He said 'no'.

I forfeited his allowance.

He said 'no.'

I took 10% of his saving as a fine and divided it in the savings of his siblings.

He finally said 'yes'.

A and U can do what they want, but there always consequences for such nonsense.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bendog said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ulysses and Androw are scampering off with their tails between their legs.
> 
> Faux Christians like them are just silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I aint skeered. Answer the question or HUSH!(that's a polite way of saying SHUT UP)
> 
> Would you turn over your friends to an institution like the SS to save your rear? Your children? Your parents?
> 
> Can you not answer the question truthfully without shaming yourself in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For  the love of mercy, it's like Jr. High.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it is, all the bravado.  They sound like 14 year olds.  And the question they ask is simple: they would turn in anybody to not be hurt by the SS.  You know, "Pastor, sorry about this," says Ulysses, "get your ass in the van."


----------



## JakeStarkey

Maybe they are teenagers on the Board.  There are a few, I gather.


----------



## bendog

Churches pay no prop tax.  All donations are not only not taxed as income, but actually are tax deductible by the donor.  Churches are free to not hire people of other faiths, and actually may refuse to hire because of sexual orientation.  (though some gLBt would like that to change, though I doubt it will).  Churches are free to marry those who they deem worthy, and to deny those they deem unworthy.  Churches are even pretty free to use the pulpit to call a politician a sinner, and even to shun them. 

I'm just not seeing the cross that Andrew and Ullyses claim to be nailed upon.


----------



## Andylusion

JakeStarkey said:


> This is what I wanted to hear: "I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't be punished by the law.  I said I wouldn't be changed by the law."
> 
> No one cares what you think about it.
> 
> Do you understand now.



That's fine with me.   I'm still going to live as my convictions say, and so will thousands of Christians.   You think prison overcrowding is a problem now....  You push this, and in the future you'll think todays US incarceration rate is a dream to be achieved.

You will care what we think eventually.   Because we're not going to follow laws like this thread pushes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Androw said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I wanted to hear: "I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't be punished by the law.  I said I wouldn't be changed by the law."
> 
> No one cares what you think about it.
> 
> Do you understand now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine with me.   I'm still going to live as my convictions say, and so will thousands of Christians.   You think prison overcrowding is a problem now....  You push this, and in the future you'll think todays US incarceration rate is a dream to be achieved.
> 
> You will care what we think eventually.   Because we're not going to follow laws like this thread pushes.
Click to expand...


Son, no one is persecuting you for what you believe.

What law?  No one thinks churches should or would be forced to marry folks they don't want to marry.

And you certainly not going to make churches and pastors who they can and cannot marry.  That would be like U's SS that he loves so much.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Click on the image for a look at how Ulysses and Androw consider the right of Christians to make others do as they want.


----------



## Andylusion

bendog said:


> Churches pay no prop tax.  All donations are not only not taxed as income, but actually are tax deductible by the donor.  Churches are free to not hire people of other faiths, and actually may refuse to hire because of sexual orientation.  (though some gLBt would like that to change, though I doubt it will).  Churches are free to marry those who they deem worthy, and to deny those they deem unworthy.  Churches are even pretty free to use the pulpit to call a politician a sinner, and even to shun them.
> 
> I'm just not seeing the cross that Andrew and Ullyses claim to be nailed upon.



Good heavens....  How many times do I have to say this over and over.

The title of the thread is.....

"Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"

Does it say "Should we repeal laws infringing Religious freedom?"

No, it does not.

That said, there is the case of the Christian owned and operated wedding cake business, and that's the same deal.   If I open a shop selling wedding cakes, and a homo couple shows up, they are not getting a cake.

There is nothing you can do to stop me from selling cakes, or refusing customers that are asking me to violate my faith.


----------



## bendog

Androw said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches pay no prop tax.  All donations are not only not taxed as income, but actually are tax deductible by the donor.  Churches are free to not hire people of other faiths, and actually may refuse to hire because of sexual orientation.  (though some gLBt would like that to change, though I doubt it will).  Churches are free to marry those who they deem worthy, and to deny those they deem unworthy.  Churches are even pretty free to use the pulpit to call a politician a sinner, and even to shun them.
> 
> I'm just not seeing the cross that Andrew and Ullyses claim to be nailed upon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good heavens....  How many times do I have to say this over and over.
> 
> The title of the thread is.....
> 
> "Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"
> 
> Does it say "Should we repeal laws infringing Religious freedom?"
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> That said, there is the case of the Christian owned and operated wedding cake business, and that's the same deal.   If I open a shop selling wedding cakes, and a homo couple shows up, they are not getting a cake.
> 
> There is nothing you can do to stop me from selling cakes, or refusing customers that are asking me to violate my faith.
Click to expand...


And AGAIN.  The OP is a STRAWMAN.  No one EVER suggested churches would be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.  It's a strawman argument to get you wannabe victim/martyrs to become OUTRAGED .... over nothing at all.


----------



## Andylusion

JakeStarkey said:


> Click on the image for a look at how Ulysses and Androw consider the right of Christians to make others do as they want.



Only in leftard land, does it make logical sense, that demanding other people pay for abortions, is somehow a 'right'.

That's not even a 'Christian' issue in my book.   That's economic oppression.   What about my travel rights.  You need to pay for my car.

Why not?  You can just make up 'rights', why not the freedom to travel.  I want a car now.  Send your check to me right away.


----------



## Andylusion

bendog said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches pay no prop tax.  All donations are not only not taxed as income, but actually are tax deductible by the donor.  Churches are free to not hire people of other faiths, and actually may refuse to hire because of sexual orientation.  (though some gLBt would like that to change, though I doubt it will).  Churches are free to marry those who they deem worthy, and to deny those they deem unworthy.  Churches are even pretty free to use the pulpit to call a politician a sinner, and even to shun them.
> 
> I'm just not seeing the cross that Andrew and Ullyses claim to be nailed upon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good heavens....  How many times do I have to say this over and over.
> 
> The title of the thread is.....
> 
> "Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"
> 
> Does it say "Should we repeal laws infringing Religious freedom?"
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> That said, there is the case of the Christian owned and operated wedding cake business, and that's the same deal.   If I open a shop selling wedding cakes, and a homo couple shows up, they are not getting a cake.
> 
> There is nothing you can do to stop me from selling cakes, or refusing customers that are asking me to violate my faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And AGAIN.  The OP is a STRAWMAN.  No one EVER suggested churches would be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.  It's a strawman argument to get you wannabe victim/martyrs to become OUTRAGED .... over nothing at all.
Click to expand...


And yet some people voted in favor of it in the poll.   So apparently it's not exactly a strawman.     And I'm not "OUTRAGED" at all.

I am simply telling you straight up my position, and what I'm going to do.   That's what people do on forums.

Don't like that?  I don't care.  Have a nice day.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Androw said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Click on the image for a look at how Ulysses and Androw consider the right of Christians to make others do as they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in leftard land, does it make logical sense, that demanding other people pay for abortions, is somehow a 'right'.
> 
> That's not even a 'Christian' issue in my book.   That's economic oppression.   What about my travel rights.  You need to pay for my car.
> 
> Why not?  You can just make up 'rights', why not the freedom to travel.  I want a car now.  Send your check to me right away.
Click to expand...


Sigh.  False equivalency.  You don't have a constitutional right to drive a car.  Women have a constitutional right to regulated abortions.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Androw said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good heavens....  How many times do I have to say this over and over.
> 
> The title of the thread is.....
> 
> "Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"
> 
> Does it say "Should we repeal laws infringing Religious freedom?"
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> That said, there is the case of the Christian owned and operated wedding cake business, and that's the same deal.   If I open a shop selling wedding cakes, and a homo couple shows up, they are not getting a cake.
> 
> There is nothing you can do to stop me from selling cakes, or refusing customers that are asking me to violate my faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And AGAIN.  The OP is a STRAWMAN.  No one EVER suggested churches would be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.  It's a strawman argument to get you wannabe victim/martyrs to become OUTRAGED .... over nothing at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet some people voted in favor of it in the poll.   So apparently it's not exactly a strawman.     And I'm not "OUTRAGED" at all.  I am simply telling you straight up my position, and what I'm going to do.   That's what people do on forums.  Don't like that?  I don't care.  Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


Yes, it's a straw man, a fabricated problem that does not exist so people can whine about what is really bothering them: they cannot make others live they want.

Tough to be you.


----------



## bendog

Androw said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good heavens....  How many times do I have to say this over and over.
> 
> The title of the thread is.....
> 
> "Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"
> 
> Does it say "Should we repeal laws infringing Religious freedom?"
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> That said, there is the case of the Christian owned and operated wedding cake business, and that's the same deal.   If I open a shop selling wedding cakes, and a homo couple shows up, they are not getting a cake.
> 
> There is nothing you can do to stop me from selling cakes, or refusing customers that are asking me to violate my faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And AGAIN.  The OP is a STRAWMAN.  No one EVER suggested churches would be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.  It's a strawman argument to get you wannabe victim/martyrs to become OUTRAGED .... over nothing at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet some people voted in favor of it in the poll.   So apparently it's not exactly a strawman.     And I'm not "OUTRAGED" at all.
> 
> I am simply telling you straight up my position, and what I'm going to do.   That's what people do on forums.
> 
> Don't like that?  I don't care.  Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


Well you know, some idiots would support .... kicking out Muslims.  But in the adult world you sort of have to use a SHIT DETECTOR  (coined by Earnest Hemmingway I believe) to separate things that might really affect you and made up lunacy aimed at your EMOTIONS.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Fact: there is no war against Christianity in this country; if there were, we would flatten the opposition in a heart beat.  Listen up, atheists, and don't be stupid.

Fact: there is a struggle in the American community of Christians, which the social conservatives are losing, and screaming like a bunch of pigs as they foresee the end of their nonsense.  Tough to be them.


----------



## Seawytch

WorldWatcher said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed...with one caveat...as long as I cannot discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, marital status, parental status, or veteran's status...they shouldn't be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Just sayin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with your caveat.
> 
> 
> I opinion is that, in this day and age, Public Accommodation laws are not needed today to the degree that they were needed 3-generations ago.  That it's time to repeal them in general.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...



I believe you'd find we aren't as far along as you think. Imagine what Muslim Americans would have to deal with without PA laws.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Seawytch said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed...with one caveat...as long as I cannot discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, marital status, parental status, or veteran's status...they shouldn't be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Just sayin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with your caveat.
> 
> 
> I opinion is that, in this day and age, Public Accommodation laws are not needed today to the degree that they were needed 3-generations ago.  That it's time to repeal them in general.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you'd find we aren't as far along as you think. Imagine what Muslim Americans would have to deal with without PA laws.
Click to expand...




I'd pretty much believe no where near what Black American's dealt with 3-generations ago when it when it wasn't just private businesses that discriminated it was government entities also.

As I've said before, in addition the corporatization of American business is much greater than during that time and big business isn't going to stand for that kind of PR and will keep non-discrimination policies in place.



>>>>


----------



## bendog

JakeStarkey said:


> Fact: there is no war against Christianity in this country; if there were, we would flatten the opposition in a heart beat.  Listen up, atheists, and don't be stupid.
> 
> Fact: there is a struggle in the American community of Christians, which the social conservatives are losing, and screaming like a bunch of pigs as they foresee the end of their nonsense.  Tough to be them.



ummmm, I think its more like all traditional denominations are losing (except the catholics who seem to operate on a sort of total lack of any credence given by the laity to the Pope and Bishops on anything other than symbolism)

Even an extremely liberal group like Episcopalians continues to shrink, despite embracing (-: gay marriage and giving up any pretense that Muslims can't get into heaven.  Yes the social conservatives are losing numbers.  But, I think it's more that mainline churches don't see much future.

So, there's this need to hang onto to "core beliefs."  But, when increasingly "core beliefs" pretty much are just the great commandment, and things even like the divinity of Christ or salvation through blood atonement seem like old world superstition ... people go nuts.


----------



## Seawytch

WorldWatcher said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with your caveat.
> 
> 
> I opinion is that, in this day and age, Public Accommodation laws are not needed today to the degree that they were needed 3-generations ago.  That it's time to repeal them in general.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you'd find we aren't as far along as you think. Imagine what Muslim Americans would have to deal with without PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd pretty much believe no where near what Black American's dealt with 3-generations ago when it when it wasn't just private businesses that discriminated it was government entities also.
> 
> As I've said before, in addition the corporatization of American business is much greater than during that time and big business isn't going to stand for that kind of PR and will keep non-discrimination policies in place.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...



I like your optimism...but then I see mosques being burned in the south.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you'd find we aren't as far along as you think. Imagine what Muslim Americans would have to deal with without PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd pretty much believe no where near what Black American's dealt with 3-generations ago when it when it wasn't just private businesses that discriminated it was government entities also.
> 
> As I've said before, in addition the corporatization of American business is much greater than during that time and big business isn't going to stand for that kind of PR and will keep non-discrimination policies in place.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I like your optimism...but then I see mosques being burned in the south.
Click to expand...


Mosques are being burned in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the southern USA.   

BTW, Christian churches are also being burned in those countries.  But I guess thats just hunky dorry with you-------------moron.


----------



## Redfish

The poll at the beginning of this thread answers the question asked in the OP.   

continued debate is meaningless.


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd pretty much believe no where near what Black American's dealt with 3-generations ago when it when it wasn't just private businesses that discriminated it was government entities also.
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said before, in addition the corporatization of American business is much greater than during that time and big business isn't going to stand for that kind of PR and will keep non-discrimination policies in place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like your optimism...but then I see mosques being burned in the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mosques are being burned in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the southern USA.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, Christian churches are also being burned in those countries.  But I guess thats just hunky dorry with you-------------moron.
Click to expand...



Unrelated to the topic.

Mosque burned in TN.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fire-at-tenn-mosque-building-site-ruled-arson/


----------



## JakeStarkey

Christian churches are burned in the USA by disturbed young men, nominally Christian.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JakeStarkey said:


> U and A sound as silly as a son of mine did when he was a fourteen year old and decided not to go to church anymore.
> 
> I told him that was his choice but he had to certain chores to do that had to be finished by noon each Sunday.
> 
> He said 'no'.
> 
> I forfeited his allowance.
> 
> He said 'no.'
> 
> I took 10% of his saving as a fine and divided it in the savings of his siblings.
> 
> He finally said 'yes'.
> 
> A and U can do what they want, but there always consequences for such nonsense.



Yes or no, Jake.

Would you turn in someone to an SS like group to protect your own rear?

You have never answered the question, you have sidestepped it brilliantly, you would make a great politician, but you have yet to answer the question.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Seawytch said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that people who read the Bible and manipulated it to mean that it speaks against interracial marriage, have taken the bible "out of context".  The  bible however is very explicit and detailed when describing homosexual acts, such as in Romans 1:26-27
> 
> For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful
> 
> There is no way to misinterpret a scripture that is so detailed in nature as one which describes to the point of leaving a vivid picture. There is no scripture as detailed, however, in explicitly pointing the finger to marriage with a different color. Tribe could mean Jews mingling with Amish, clearly both are of the same race as it doesn't specifically isolate and identify those of a different skin color. Sorry but generalities aren't the same as specifics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just reiterating my point. YOU think they are wrong, but they KNEW they were right.
> 
> And there are people who think you take the bible out of context when you use that passage, unrelated to consenting adults who love each other, and apply it to today's gays and lesbians.
Click to expand...


I would be taking the Bible out of context only when you can provide a passage of scripture that specifically *condones* the act as acceptible to today's gays and lesbians - book, chapter, and verse specifically.


----------



## bendog

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that people who read the Bible and manipulated it to mean that it speaks against interracial marriage, have taken the bible "out of context".  The  bible however is very explicit and detailed when describing homosexual acts, such as in Romans 1:26-27
> 
> For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful
> 
> There is no way to misinterpret a scripture that is so detailed in nature as one which describes to the point of leaving a vivid picture. There is no scripture as detailed, however, in explicitly pointing the finger to marriage with a different color. Tribe could mean Jews mingling with Amish, clearly both are of the same race as it doesn't specifically isolate and identify those of a different skin color. Sorry but generalities aren't the same as specifics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just reiterating my point. YOU think they are wrong, but they KNEW they were right.
> 
> And there are people who think you take the bible out of context when you use that passage, unrelated to consenting adults who love each other, and apply it to today's gays and lesbians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be taking the Bible out of context only when you can provide a passage of scripture that specifically *condones* the act as acceptible to today's gays and lesbians - book, chapter, and verse specifically.
Click to expand...


That's a bit of a red herring.  Some believe Paul was speaking to the Hellenic branch of the church where homosexuality (bisexuality) was prevalent among many men.  And, it wasn't the sexual act so much as the emphasis on earthly pursuits rather than the great commandment.  Paul found no place in his life for sexual expression, but also found that some people needed that as well as a loving relationship.  There view is that Paul wasn't commenting upon two consenting and loving committed same sex people, because such unions didn't exist ... at least openly.  Rather, he argued for chastity, or if not that then fidelity.  They may be wrong or right, but people who thing that are entitled to their view, so long as they don't force their view on your religious observance.

Whether you agree is also irrelevant, because you too are entitled to your view, just the same as they, unless you try to force your view on their religious observance.  Or their right to contract to marry, for that matter.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

bendog said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just reiterating my point. YOU think they are wrong, but they KNEW they were right.
> 
> And there are people who think you take the bible out of context when you use that passage, unrelated to consenting adults who love each other, and apply it to today's gays and lesbians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be taking the Bible out of context only when you can provide a passage of scripture that specifically *condones* the act as acceptible to today's gays and lesbians - book, chapter, and verse specifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a bit of a red herring.  Some believe Paul was speaking to the Hellenic branch of the church where homosexuality (bisexuality) was prevalent among many men.  And, it wasn't the sexual act so much as the emphasis on earthly pursuits rather than the great commandment.  Paul found no place in his life for sexual expression, but also found that some people needed that as well as a loving relationship.  There view is that Paul wasn't commenting upon two consenting and loving committed same sex people, because such unions didn't exist ... at least openly.  Rather, he argued for chastity, or if not that then fidelity.  They may be wrong or right, but people who thing that are entitled to their view, so long as they don't force their view on your religious observance.
> 
> Whether you agree is also irrelevant, because you too are entitled to your view, just the same as they, unless you try to force your view on their religious observance.  Or their right to contract to marry, for that matter.
Click to expand...


That particular passage Paul wrote to the believers in Rome, hence the name *&#8220;Romans&#8221;*. He wrote it to give them a concrete theological foundation on which to construct their faith and to live for and serve God effectively.


----------



## Seawytch

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that people who read the Bible and manipulated it to mean that it speaks against interracial marriage, have taken the bible "out of context".  The  bible however is very explicit and detailed when describing homosexual acts, such as in Romans 1:26-27
> 
> For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful
> 
> There is no way to misinterpret a scripture that is so detailed in nature as one which describes to the point of leaving a vivid picture. There is no scripture as detailed, however, in explicitly pointing the finger to marriage with a different color. Tribe could mean Jews mingling with Amish, clearly both are of the same race as it doesn't specifically isolate and identify those of a different skin color. Sorry but generalities aren't the same as specifics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just reiterating my point. YOU think they are wrong, but they KNEW they were right.
> 
> And there are people who think you take the bible out of context when you use that passage, unrelated to consenting adults who love each other, and apply it to today's gays and lesbians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be taking the Bible out of context only when you can provide a passage of scripture that specifically *condones* the act as acceptible to today's gays and lesbians - book, chapter, and verse specifically.
Click to expand...



So only you are entitled to interpret the bible? Some people read the bible and say interracial marriage is wrong. Some people read the bible and think gay marriage is wrong. I believe both interpretations are wrong, you only one.


----------



## RWHeathenGamer

Seawytch said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just reiterating my point. YOU think they are wrong, but they KNEW they were right.
> 
> And there are people who think you take the bible out of context when you use that passage, unrelated to consenting adults who love each other, and apply it to today's gays and lesbians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be taking the Bible out of context only when you can provide a passage of scripture that specifically *condones* the act as acceptible to today's gays and lesbians - book, chapter, and verse specifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So only you are entitled to interpret the bible? Some people read the bible and say interracial marriage is wrong. Some people read the bible and think gay marriage is wrong. I believe both interpretations are wrong, you only one.
Click to expand...


Thats because you are a fool. 

Corinthians 6: 9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

If you support Gay Marriage, you aren't a Christian.


----------



## Seawytch

RWHeathenGamer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be taking the Bible out of context only when you can provide a passage of scripture that specifically *condones* the act as acceptible to today's gays and lesbians - book, chapter, and verse specifically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So only you are entitled to interpret the bible? Some people read the bible and say interracial marriage is wrong. Some people read the bible and think gay marriage is wrong. I believe both interpretations are wrong, you only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats because you are a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> Corinthians 6: 9-10
> 
> 
> 
> 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
> 
> 
> 
> If you support Gay Marriage, you aren't a Christian.
Click to expand...



People said the same thing about interracial marriage.


----------



## GISMYS

Seawytch said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So only you are entitled to interpret the bible? Some people read the bible and say interracial marriage is wrong. Some people read the bible and think gay marriage is wrong. I believe both interpretations are wrong, you only one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats because you are a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> Corinthians 6: 9-10
> 
> 
> 
> 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
> 
> 
> 
> If you support Gay Marriage, you aren't a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People said the same thing about interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

 OH!!! WHAT SCRIPTURE VERSE DO YOU HAVE FOR THAT BIG lie????


----------



## JakeStarkey

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> U and A sound as silly as a son of mine did when he was a fourteen year old and decided not to go to church anymore.
> 
> I told him that was his choice but he had to certain chores to do that had to be finished by noon each Sunday.
> 
> He said 'no'.
> 
> I forfeited his allowance.
> 
> He said 'no.'
> 
> I took 10% of his saving as a fine and divided it in the savings of his siblings.
> 
> He finally said 'yes'.
> 
> A and U can do what they want, but there always consequences for such nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes or no, Jake.  Would you turn in someone to an SS like group to protect your own rear?  You have never answered the question, you have sidestepped it brilliantly, you would make a great politician, but you have yet to answer the question.
Click to expand...


Your question is immaterial, but, yes, you would turn in anybody to the SS to save your rear.

  Did you ensure your kids went to church?  Despite their desire to do otherwise?  Moron.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sigh.  Paul is only a man, whose advice is to be considered carefully but is not binding.  Period.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Sigh.  Paul is only a man, whose advice is to be considered carefully but is not binding.  Period.



Right, no one is forced to live by the 10 commandments or the Bible.   But it is a fact that our body of law is based on judeo/christian concepts of right and wrong.  

race and sexual orientation are not analogous as wytch keeps claiming.   A collie can mate with a spaniel and produce offspring, but two male collies cannot produce offspring---biology 101


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Paul is only a man, whose advice is to be considered carefully but is not binding.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, no one is forced to live by the 10 commandments or the Bible.   But it is a fact that our body of law is based on judeo/christian concepts of right and wrong.  race and sexual orientation are not analogous as wytch keeps claiming.   A collie can mate with a spaniel and produce offspring, but two male collies cannot produce offspring---biology 101
Click to expand...


SCOTUS says you are wrong, Redfish, and procreation is not the defining reason for marriage.  And parents can adopt.  End of your argument.

Please, step along until you have something worthwhile.


----------



## Gadawg73

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Paul is only a man, whose advice is to be considered carefully but is not binding.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, no one is forced to live by the 10 commandments or the Bible.   But it is a fact that our body of law is based on judeo/christian concepts of right and wrong.
> 
> race and sexual orientation are not analogous as wytch keeps claiming.   A collie can mate with a spaniel and produce offspring, but two male collies cannot produce offspring---biology 101
Click to expand...


Concepts of right and wrong are not specific to just the Jewish and Christian religion. Most all religions, cultures and societies have known and practiced and taught what is right and wrong for a very long time.


----------



## Seawytch

GISMYS said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats because you are a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> Corinthians 6: 9-10
> 
> 
> 
> 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
> 
> 
> 
> If you support Gay Marriage, you aren't a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People said the same thing about interracial marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OH!!! WHAT SCRIPTURE VERSE DO YOU HAVE FOR THAT BIG lie????
Click to expand...


You'd like the scripture used by the anti miscegenationists? Sure...

Genesis 28:1: "And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan."

Leviticus 19 "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind ..."

Deuteronomy 7:2-3: "And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

Deuteronomy 22: 9: "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled."

Deuteronomy 23 :2: "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."

Jeremiah 13:23: "Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil."

Now, let me remind you that it doesn't matter what YOU interpret those passages to mean, anti-miscegenationists believed them to support their position.


----------



## Seawytch

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Paul is only a man, whose advice is to be considered carefully but is not binding.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, no one is forced to live by the 10 commandments or the Bible.   But it is a fact that our body of law is based on judeo/christian concepts of right and wrong.  race and sexual orientation are not analogous as wytch keeps claiming.   A collie can mate with a spaniel and produce offspring, but two male collies cannot produce offspring---biology 101
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SCOTUS says you are wrong, Redfish, and *procreation is not the defining reason for marriage.  And parents can adopt.  End of your argument.*
> 
> Please, step along until you have something worthwhile.
Click to expand...


Indeed. Here's what a Federal judge had to say about it recently:

*"These arguments are not those of serious people,*" wrote Senior U.S. District Court Judge John G. Heyburn II.

"Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation," Heyburn wrote in a 19-page opinion, its lawyers never explained how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has "any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses.''​


----------



## Andylusion

JakeStarkey said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> And AGAIN.  The OP is a STRAWMAN.  No one EVER suggested churches would be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.  It's a strawman argument to get you wannabe victim/martyrs to become OUTRAGED .... over nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet some people voted in favor of it in the poll.   So apparently it's not exactly a strawman.     And I'm not "OUTRAGED" at all.  I am simply telling you straight up my position, and what I'm going to do.   That's what people do on forums.  Don't like that?  I don't care.  Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's a straw man, a fabricated problem that does not exist so people can whine about what is really bothering them: they cannot make others live they want.
> 
> Tough to be you.
Click to expand...


Well, that's your opinion.  I don't believe it's fabricated.    Between the two of us, which one is acting according to his beliefs?

If you really believe this is a fabricated problem.... um.... why are you here?   When I see threads on topics I don't believe are real problems... I ignore them.

The fact a judge ordered a practicing Christian in Colorado to violate his Christian faith, suggests to me this is a real issue.    If you believe otherwise, fine... are you just wasting forum space debating a non-existent issue for no reason?


----------



## Andylusion

bendog said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> And AGAIN.  The OP is a STRAWMAN.  No one EVER suggested churches would be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.  It's a strawman argument to get you wannabe victim/martyrs to become OUTRAGED .... over nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet some people voted in favor of it in the poll.   So apparently it's not exactly a strawman.     And I'm not "OUTRAGED" at all.
> 
> I am simply telling you straight up my position, and what I'm going to do.   That's what people do on forums.
> 
> Don't like that?  I don't care.  Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you know, some idiots would support .... kicking out Muslims.  But in the adult world you sort of have to use a SHIT DETECTOR  (coined by Earnest Hemmingway I believe) to separate things that might really affect you and made up lunacy aimed at your EMOTIONS.
Click to expand...


That's nifty, but I'll respond to whatever topic on this forum I feel like.

I do find it ironic that you are responding to the same thread that you are suggesting I not respond to.

So everyone else should not respond to things that you clearly are responding to.

I'm not having an emotional response.   I'm not mad at anyone here.  My disagreeing with you, does not mean I'm angry.

Again, if you truly believe this is just a 'sh!t detector' thread... why are you here?


----------



## Andylusion

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Paul is only a man, whose advice is to be considered carefully but is not binding.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, no one is forced to live by the 10 commandments or the Bible.   But it is a fact that our body of law is based on judeo/christian concepts of right and wrong.  race and sexual orientation are not analogous as wytch keeps claiming.   A collie can mate with a spaniel and produce offspring, but two male collies cannot produce offspring---biology 101
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SCOTUS says you are wrong, Redfish, and procreation is not the defining reason for marriage.  And parents can adopt.  End of your argument.
> 
> Please, step along until you have something worthwhile.
Click to expand...


I don't care what the SCOTUS says.    SCOTUS is irrelevant to my Christian Faith.  Non-argument.

Biological mating, is in fact the primary purpose of marriage.  The result of that is procreation.   Adoption is not.


----------



## JoeB131

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Paul is only a man, whose advice is to be considered carefully but is not binding.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, no one is forced to live by the 10 commandments or the Bible.   But it is a fact that our body of law is based on judeo/christian concepts of right and wrong.
Click to expand...


Oh, bullshit.  the stuff we think should be illegal today are the same things the Romans thought should be illegal.  The Bible is full of horrible, barbaric laws and you guys point to "Thou Shall Not Murder" and say, "See, see, our whole legal system is based on what the Bible Says!" 




Redfish said:


> race and sexual orientation are not analogous as wytch keeps claiming.   A collie can mate with a spaniel and produce offspring, but two male collies cannot produce offspring---biology 101



Again, works on the assumption marriage is only about procreation.  You can have procreation without marriage (35% of us do) and you can have marriage without procreation. (Infertile, elderly couples, and people who just plain don't want to have kids.)


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Androw said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet some people voted in favor of it in the poll.   So apparently it's not exactly a strawman.     And I'm not "OUTRAGED" at all.  I am simply telling you straight up my position, and what I'm going to do.   That's what people do on forums.  Don't like that?  I don't care.  Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's a straw man, a fabricated problem that does not exist so people can whine about what is really bothering them: they cannot make others live they want.
> 
> Tough to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's your opinion.  I don't believe it's fabricated.    Between the two of us, which one is acting according to his beliefs?
> 
> If you really believe this is a fabricated problem.... um.... why are you here?   When I see threads on topics I don't believe are real problems... I ignore them.
> 
> *The fact a judge ordered a practicing Christian in Colorado to violate his Christian faith*, suggests to me this is a real issue.    If you believe otherwise, fine... are you just wasting forum space debating a non-existent issue for no reason?
Click to expand...


This is not a 'fact,' the administrative law judge did no such thing. 

The ruling in no way restricted religious liberty, as to provide services to a gay patron violates no tenet of Christian doctrine or dogma. That you and others hostile to gay Americans perceive it as such is as a fact of Constitutional law wrong. 

The store owner must accommodate all patrons in accordance with Commerce Clause jurisprudence, as his business serves the general public. 

You're entitled to express your subjective, errant opinion, but don't attempt to pass it off as 'fact.'


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are.
> After 35 years of working over 6000 litigation cases the general public gets away with far more lawlessness than the politicians do.
> Called reasonable doubt in a criminal case and preponderance of the evidence in a civil case yet bad thing is the politicians have it figured out better than the general public.
> At taxpayer expense.
> Our leaders are not exempt from all laws. That claim is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton was caught witness tampering, bribing, obstructing justice, lying under oath, selling weapons technology to China for a donation, and Al Gore was recorded on the phone, calling businesses and private citizens, soliciting donations from inside the office of the vice president.
> 
> Absolutely nothing..... NOTHING.... was done to either of them.  And by the way, that's just the short short short list of the laws Clinton broke, not including the laws Hilliary broke then, and since.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need a district attorney or US attorney to get a grand jury to indict folks my man.
> Called the judicial process.
> First you need solid evidence.
> Please specifically show me who caught them and where the evidence is.
> I am no fan of Clinton as personally I can not stand the bastard but something about the rules of evidence always applies.
Click to expand...


You kidding right? Our current AG used US taxpayer funds to arm mexican drug and human traffickers with machine guns.  Well documented fact.  Did it on purpose.  You do that and you go to jail.  He gets away with it because he's above the law.

Our president killed American citizens with drone attacks, on purpose.  Well documented.  You do that and you go to jail. He gets away with it because he's above the law. No trial.  No judge.  No jury.  

Our IRS is deleting subpoena'd emails.  A private company does that and people go to jail.  The IRS does it, well documented, and people are laughing.  The IRS gets away with it because it is above the law. 

Illegal immigrants are walking into the US, and our president is claiming our borders are secure.  You walk into Mexico and you will go to jail in Mexico.  Illegal immigrants are getting away with it because we are a lawless country where certain people, that are friends of the democrat party, have been designated as above the law. Our government is handing out EBT cards to illegals to go shopping at walmart. 

Clinton pardoned convicted drug traffickers that were his friends.   Again, they got away with it because we are country where the law is now lawless.

Hundreds of Billions of American tax payer dollars routed to "friends" of the Obama's.   You do that and you go to jail.  He does that and we get, whoops to bad that didn't work.  Look at the evil rich moving stuff to china.  Again, this administration is above the law.  It's a farce.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Androw said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet some people voted in favor of it in the poll.   So apparently it's not exactly a strawman.     And I'm not "OUTRAGED" at all.  I am simply telling you straight up my position, and what I'm going to do.   That's what people do on forums.  Don't like that?  I don't care.  Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's a straw man, a fabricated problem that does not exist so people can whine about what is really bothering them: they cannot make others live they want.
> 
> Tough to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's your opinion.  I don't believe it's fabricated.    Between the two of us, which one is acting according to his beliefs?
> 
> If you really believe this is a fabricated problem.... um.... why are you here?   When I see threads on topics I don't believe are real problems... I ignore them.
> 
> The fact a judge ordered a practicing Christian in Colorado to violate his Christian faith, suggests to me this is a real issue.    If you believe otherwise, fine... are you just wasting forum space debating a non-existent issue for no reason?
Click to expand...


You have trouble talking straightly.  Yes, churches being forced to marry folks they don't want to marry is a fabricated problem.  There is no issue.  I am debating a non-existent issue because you are falsely trying to make it one, and right thinking people here will not let you get away with it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Androw said:


> I don't care what the SCOTUS says.    SCOTUS is irrelevant to my Christian Faith.  Non-argument.  Biological mating, is in fact the primary purpose of marriage.  The result of that is procreation.   Adoption is not.



Courts discuss agree you, so move along.  Your answer is wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey

It's good to see the pharisees of the far right here on the run.


----------



## Silhouette

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's a straw man, a fabricated problem that does not exist so people can whine about what is really bothering them: they cannot make others live they want.
> 
> Tough to be you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's your opinion.  I don't believe it's fabricated.    Between the two of us, which one is acting according to his beliefs?
> 
> If you really believe this is a fabricated problem.... um.... why are you here?   When I see threads on topics I don't believe are real problems... I ignore them.
> 
> *The fact a judge ordered a practicing Christian in Colorado to violate his Christian faith*, suggests to me this is a real issue.    If you believe otherwise, fine... are you just wasting forum space debating a non-existent issue for no reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a 'fact,' the administrative law judge did no such thing.
> 
> The ruling in no way restricted religious liberty, as to provide services to a gay patron violates no tenet of Christian doctrine or dogma. That you and others hostile to gay Americans perceive it as such is as a fact of Constitutional law wrong.
> 
> The store owner must accommodate all patrons in accordance with Commerce Clause jurisprudence, as his business serves the general public.
> 
> You're entitled to express your subjective, errant opinion, but don't attempt to pass it off as 'fact.'
Click to expand...


Well see....the thing is the Hobby Lobby case just set that on its edge.  And now SCOTUS is ordering lower court rulings to be revisited where appeals were vacated.  You may have heard that closely held businesses can refuse to participate in activities or lifestyles that violate their core religious faith.

It is not going to be limited to birth control.  Jude 1 of the New Testament says that any christian who participates in the promotion or enabling of the homosexual cult/lifestyle will go to hell for eternity with them.  It is not a muddy or vague commandment.  It is specific and implicity clear.  It even gives Sodom as an example and says that any other community, city or nation that does the same is going to meet the same fate as Sodom.


----------



## JakeStarkey

NYcarbineer has the right take on this.

Good.

Unsubscribe.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Seawytch said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just reiterating my point. YOU think they are wrong, but they KNEW they were right.
> 
> And there are people who think you take the bible out of context when you use that passage, unrelated to consenting adults who love each other, and apply it to today's gays and lesbians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be taking the Bible out of context only when you can provide a passage of scripture that specifically *condones* the act as acceptible to today's gays and lesbians - book, chapter, and verse specifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So only you are entitled to interpret the bible? Some people read the bible and say interracial marriage is wrong. Some people read the bible and think gay marriage is wrong. I believe both interpretations are wrong, you only one.
Click to expand...


I didn't say who was entitled to interpret, I asked shoe specifically what is written in scripture that agrees with your point that homosexuality is acceptible between consenting adults (as you say). It seems to me such view wouldn't be difficult to find to support your argument. I only asked you to show me where in the Bible it is actually condoned and contradicts the scripture in Romans, proving your point that it was actually misinterpreted. If it had been misinterpreted, a specific scripture would easily have been given to support your argument. That is my point, you need to be able to back up what you say if you are going to make these accusations over scripture.


----------



## Seawytch

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be taking the Bible out of context only when you can provide a passage of scripture that specifically *condones* the act as acceptible to today's gays and lesbians - book, chapter, and verse specifically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So only you are entitled to interpret the bible? Some people read the bible and say interracial marriage is wrong. Some people read the bible and think gay marriage is wrong. I believe both interpretations are wrong, you only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say who was entitled to interpret, I asked shoe specifically what is written in scripture that agrees with your point that homosexuality is acceptible between consenting adults (as you say). It seems to me such view wouldn't be difficult to find to support your argument. I only asked you to show me where in the Bible it is actually condoned and contradicts the scripture in Romans, proving your point that it was actually misinterpreted. If it had been misinterpreted, a specific scripture would easily have been given to support your argument. That is my point, you need to be able to back up what you say if you are going to make these accusations over scripture.
Click to expand...



You'd like the passages used by anti miscegenationists? Sure (already posted)

 Genesis 28:1: "And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan."

Leviticus 19 "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind ..."

Deuteronomy 7:2-3: "And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

Deuteronomy 22: 9: "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled."

Deuteronomy 23 :2: "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."

Jeremiah 13:23: "Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil."


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, you are right.  Almost no one wants to force any type of anyone's marriage into a church or synagogue or mosque or whatever where it is not wanted.
> 
> Which has nothing to do with the marriage equality issue, which is about folks being allowed to marry the person of his or her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If person "A" doesn't believe gays should be married in a church that doesn't want to perform a gay marriage, what does that say about any alleged vehemence that person "A" might have in their "support for gay marriage"?
> 
> 85% is a large number muchacho.  Spin away.
Click to expand...


Were you actually trying to make a POINT with that rambling babble, Silly?


----------



## Silhouette

Jarlaxle said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, you are right.  Almost no one wants to force any type of anyone's marriage into a church or synagogue or mosque or whatever where it is not wanted.
> 
> Which has nothing to do with the marriage equality issue, which is about folks being allowed to marry the person of his or her choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If person "A" doesn't believe gays should be married in a church that doesn't want to perform a gay marriage, what does that say about any alleged vehemence that person "A" might have in their "support for gay marriage"?
> 
> 85% is a large number muchacho.  Spin away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you actually trying to make a POINT with that rambling babble, Silly?
Click to expand...


Uh, yeah.  Too bad you're the only one who missed it..


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Paul is only a man, whose advice is to be considered carefully but is not binding.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, no one is forced to live by the 10 commandments or the Bible.   But it is a fact that our body of law is based on judeo/christian concepts of right and wrong.
> 
> race and sexual orientation are not analogous as wytch keeps claiming.   A collie can mate with a spaniel and produce offspring, but two male collies cannot produce offspring---biology 101
Click to expand...


Incorrect. 

They are analogous in that the Constitution prohibits the state from violating or interfering with the liberty of citizens motivated either by race or sexual orientation: 


> Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.
> []
> When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.
> 
> LAWRENCE V. TEXAS



Race is not the sole criterion by which one might sustain discrimination from the state, as to seek to deny gay Americans their civil liberties as a consequence of their sexual orientation  whether that orientation manifests as a result of choice or birth  is just as repugnant to the Constitution as to seek to deny an American his civil liberties as a consequence of this race. 

And the fact that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government and public policy-making entities, not to the private sector, is further confirmation of the idiocy and ignorance of the premise of this thread, where no one seeks to 'compel' religious organizations to accommodate same-sex couples in their marriage rituals, as no government is indeed authorized to do so. 

Last, and as proven to you and others on the right scores of times, the ability to procreate or not is not a 'prerequisite' for entering into the marriage contract, where 'biology 101' is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton was caught witness tampering, bribing, obstructing justice, lying under oath, selling weapons technology to China for a donation, and Al Gore was recorded on the phone, calling businesses and private citizens, soliciting donations from inside the office of the vice president.
> 
> Absolutely nothing..... NOTHING.... was done to either of them.  And by the way, that's just the short short short list of the laws Clinton broke, not including the laws Hilliary broke then, and since.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need a district attorney or US attorney to get a grand jury to indict folks my man.
> Called the judicial process.
> First you need solid evidence.
> Please specifically show me who caught them and where the evidence is.
> I am no fan of Clinton as personally I can not stand the bastard but something about the rules of evidence always applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You kidding right? Our current AG used US taxpayer funds to arm mexican drug and human traffickers with machine guns.  Well documented fact.  Did it on purpose.  You do that and you go to jail.  He gets away with it because he's above the law.
> 
> Our president killed American citizens with drone attacks, on purpose.  Well documented.  You do that and you go to jail. He gets away with it because he's above the law. No trial.  No judge.  No jury.
> 
> Our IRS is deleting subpoena'd emails.  A private company does that and people go to jail.  The IRS does it, well documented, and people are laughing.  The IRS gets away with it because it is above the law.
> 
> Illegal immigrants are walking into the US, and our president is claiming our borders are secure.  You walk into Mexico and you will go to jail in Mexico.  Illegal immigrants are getting away with it because we are a lawless country where certain people, that are friends of the democrat party, have been designated as above the law. Our government is handing out EBT cards to illegals to go shopping at walmart.
> 
> Clinton pardoned convicted drug traffickers that were his friends.   Again, they got away with it because we are country where the law is now lawless.
> 
> Hundreds of Billions of American tax payer dollars routed to "friends" of the Obama's.   You do that and you go to jail.  He does that and we get, whoops to bad that didn't work.  Look at the evil rich moving stuff to china.  Again, this administration is above the law.  It's a farce.
Click to expand...


OK, where are the checks and balances under the LAW to indict and prosecute Holder for sending those weapons to Mexico, the statute under the law to prosecute him and the US Attorney that would present that case to a grand jury?
Specifics please.
Congressional Legislation passed during the Bush Administration allowed that money to be passed to many bad entities be they partisan political cronies or not.
TARP by Bush administration and Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 also signed by Bush.
Next.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Paul is only a man, whose advice is to be considered carefully but is not binding.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, no one is forced to live by the 10 commandments or the Bible.   But it is a fact that our body of law is based on judeo/christian concepts of right and wrong.  race and sexual orientation are not analogous as wytch keeps claiming.   A collie can mate with a spaniel and produce offspring, but two male collies cannot produce offspring---biology 101
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SCOTUS says you are wrong, Redfish, and procreation is not the defining reason for marriage.  And parents can adopt.  End of your argument.
> 
> Please, step along until you have something worthwhile.
Click to expand...


Poor Jake, can't answer a question.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JakeStarkey said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's a straw man, a fabricated problem that does not exist so people can whine about what is really bothering them: they cannot make others live they want.
> 
> Tough to be you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's your opinion.  I don't believe it's fabricated.    Between the two of us, which one is acting according to his beliefs?
> 
> If you really believe this is a fabricated problem.... um.... why are you here?   When I see threads on topics I don't believe are real problems... I ignore them.
> 
> The fact a judge ordered a practicing Christian in Colorado to violate his Christian faith, suggests to me this is a real issue.    If you believe otherwise, fine... are you just wasting forum space debating a non-existent issue for no reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You have trouble talking straightly. * Yes, churches being forced to marry folks they don't want to marry is a fabricated problem.  There is no issue.  I am debating a non-existent issue because you are falsely trying to make it one, and right thinking people here will not let you get away with it.
Click to expand...


And you can't answer a question Jake.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JakeStarkey said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what the SCOTUS says.    SCOTUS is irrelevant to my Christian Faith.  Non-argument.  Biological mating, is in fact the primary purpose of marriage.  The result of that is procreation.   Adoption is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Courts discuss agree you, so move along.  Your answer is wrong.
Click to expand...


You are rude Jake, and you won't answer a simple yes or no question. So please leave the site.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JakeStarkey said:


> It's good to see the pharisees of the far right here on the run.



Says the man who paid his son to drop out of church. Answer the question Jake.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, no one is forced to live by the 10 commandments or the Bible.   But it is a fact that our body of law is based on judeo/christian concepts of right and wrong.  race and sexual orientation are not analogous as wytch keeps claiming.   A collie can mate with a spaniel and produce offspring, but two male collies cannot produce offspring---biology 101
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS says you are wrong, Redfish, and procreation is not the defining reason for marriage.  And parents can adopt.  End of your argument.
> 
> Please, step along until you have something worthwhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor Jake, can't answer a question.
Click to expand...


There was no question, but an _opinion_. The concepts of right and wrong are not the exclusive property of the judeo/christian religion. 

As for procreation and civil marriage, that argument has already been destroyed...by a Republican appointed Federal Judge in Kentucky. 

"*These arguments are not those of serious people," wrote Senior U.S. District Court Judge John G. Heyburn II.*

"Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation," Heyburn wrote in a 19-page opinion, its lawyers never explained how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has "any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses.''​


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be taking the Bible out of context only when you can provide a passage of scripture that specifically *condones* the act as acceptible to today's gays and lesbians - book, chapter, and verse specifically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So only you are entitled to interpret the bible? Some people read the bible and say interracial marriage is wrong. Some people read the bible and think gay marriage is wrong. I believe both interpretations are wrong, you only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say who was entitled to interpret, I asked shoe *specifically what is written in scripture that agrees with your point that homosexuality is acceptible between consenting adults *(as you say). It seems to me such view wouldn't be difficult to find to support your argument. I only asked you to show me where in the Bible it is actually condoned and contradicts the scripture in Romans, proving your point that it was actually misinterpreted. If it had been misinterpreted, a specific scripture would easily have been given to support your argument. That is my point, you need to be able to back up what you say if you are going to make these accusations over scripture.
Click to expand...


There is no such Scripture, in any interpretation or version of the Bible. 

However, I am sure some of our friends like Jake will make up something, he might even pay you to drop the subject, like he paid his son to drop out of church.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So only you are entitled to interpret the bible? Some people read the bible and say interracial marriage is wrong. Some people read the bible and think gay marriage is wrong. I believe both interpretations are wrong, you only one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say who was entitled to interpret, I asked shoe *specifically what is written in scripture that agrees with your point that homosexuality is acceptible between consenting adults *(as you say). It seems to me such view wouldn't be difficult to find to support your argument. I only asked you to show me where in the Bible it is actually condoned and contradicts the scripture in Romans, proving your point that it was actually misinterpreted. If it had been misinterpreted, a specific scripture would easily have been given to support your argument. That is my point, you need to be able to back up what you say if you are going to make these accusations over scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such Scripture, in any interpretation or version of the Bible.
> 
> However, I am sure some of our friends like Jake will make up something, he might even pay you to drop the subject, like he paid his son to drop out of church.
Click to expand...


YOU say there is no scripture, but anti miscegenationists did. They used the bible just like you do, but with a different target. YOU think you're right and they thought they were right.


----------



## Gadawg73

Yeah, just as soon as gay marriage is ruled legal by the courts heterosexual males will be unable to get a hard on to fuck their wives.
Got it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Androw said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, no one is forced to live by the 10 commandments or the Bible.   But it is a fact that our body of law is based on judeo/christian concepts of right and wrong.  race and sexual orientation are not analogous as wytch keeps claiming.   A collie can mate with a spaniel and produce offspring, but two male collies cannot produce offspring---biology 101
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS says you are wrong, Redfish, and procreation is not the defining reason for marriage.  And parents can adopt.  End of your argument.
> 
> Please, step along until you have something worthwhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care what the SCOTUS says.    SCOTUS is irrelevant to my Christian Faith.  Non-argument.
> 
> Biological mating, is in fact the primary purpose of marriage.  The result of that is procreation.   Adoption is not.
Click to expand...


And your errant, subjective opinion is irrelevant to Constitutional case law. 

Same-sex couples have in fact a right to enter into marriage contracts, which in no way 'interferes' with your religious beliefs.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say who was entitled to interpret, I asked shoe *specifically what is written in scripture that agrees with your point that homosexuality is acceptible between consenting adults *(as you say). It seems to me such view wouldn't be difficult to find to support your argument. I only asked you to show me where in the Bible it is actually condoned and contradicts the scripture in Romans, proving your point that it was actually misinterpreted. If it had been misinterpreted, a specific scripture would easily have been given to support your argument. That is my point, you need to be able to back up what you say if you are going to make these accusations over scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such Scripture, in any interpretation or version of the Bible.
> 
> However, I am sure some of our friends like Jake will make up something, he might even pay you to drop the subject, like he paid his son to drop out of church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU say there is no scripture, but anti miscegenationists did. They used the bible just like you do, but with a different target. YOU think you're right and they thought they were right.
Click to expand...


Find it then! You can't! it's not there. There is NO Scripture that says homosexuality is OK.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such Scripture, in any interpretation or version of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> However, I am sure some of our friends like Jake will make up something, he might even pay you to drop the subject, like he paid his son to drop out of church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU say there is no scripture, but anti miscegenationists did. They used the bible just like you do, but with a different target. YOU think you're right and they thought they were right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find it then! You can't! it's not there. There is NO Scripture that says homosexuality is OK.
Click to expand...



The scripture against interracial marriage has been posted.


----------



## Andylusion

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS says you are wrong, Redfish, and procreation is not the defining reason for marriage.  And parents can adopt.  End of your argument.
> 
> Please, step along until you have something worthwhile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what the SCOTUS says.    SCOTUS is irrelevant to my Christian Faith.  Non-argument.
> 
> Biological mating, is in fact the primary purpose of marriage.  The result of that is procreation.   Adoption is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your errant, subjective opinion is irrelevant to Constitutional case law.
> 
> Same-sex couples have in fact a right to enter into marriage contracts, which in no way 'interferes' with your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


That's fine.  I'll ignore it.   They are not married, no matter what the Constitution, the judges, the paper says.    I won't treat them as married, because they are not.   If they don't like that, they can go to a different business, church, or whatever.

If they wish to go to some other crazy church that thinks homos can be married, that's fine with me.  Now if they need their roof fixed, and I run a roofing company, that's fine.

But if I bake wedding cakes, and they want a cake for their homo wedding, nope.  Sorry, that violates my religion, and I won't do it.  Period.

Nor will I rent a single room to a homo couple, or an unmarried hetro couple.   My business, is my property, and I will run it according to my convictions.


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU say there is no scripture, but anti miscegenationists did. They used the bible just like you do, but with a different target. YOU think you're right and they thought they were right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find it then! You can't! it's not there. There is NO Scripture that says homosexuality is OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The scripture against interracial marriage has been posted.
Click to expand...


Proving only that you don't understand the Bible as much as you claim.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU say there is no scripture, but anti miscegenationists did. They used the bible just like you do, but with a different target. YOU think you're right and they thought they were right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find it then! You can't! it's not there. There is NO Scripture that says homosexuality is OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The scripture against interracial marriage has been posted.
Click to expand...


Huge difference between interracial and homosexual. Or didn't you know that?


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Androw said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what the SCOTUS says.    SCOTUS is irrelevant to my Christian Faith.  Non-argument.
> 
> Biological mating, is in fact the primary purpose of marriage.  The result of that is procreation.   Adoption is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your errant, subjective opinion is irrelevant to Constitutional case law.
> 
> Same-sex couples have in fact a right to enter into marriage contracts, which in no way 'interferes' with your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fine.  I'll ignore it.   They are not married, no matter what the Constitution, the judges, the paper says.    I won't treat them as married, because they are not.   If they don't like that, they can go to a different business, church, or whatever.
> 
> If they wish to go to some other crazy church that thinks homos can be married, that's fine with me.  Now if they need their roof fixed, and I run a roofing company, that's fine.
> 
> But if I bake wedding cakes, and they want a cake for their homo wedding, nope.  Sorry, that violates my religion, and I won't do it.  Period.
> 
> *Nor will I rent a single room to a homo couple, or an unmarried hetro couple.   My business, is my property, and I will run it according to my convictions.*
Click to expand...


As it should be.


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find it then! You can't! it's not there. There is NO Scripture that says homosexuality is OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scripture against interracial marriage has been posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proving only that you don't understand the Bible as much as you claim.
Click to expand...



Why is their interpretation of the bible my fault exactly? I'm not the one that believed the scripture I mentioned had anything to do with interracial relations, anti miscegenationists did. They were just as sure they were right as you believe you are.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find it then! You can't! it's not there. There is NO Scripture that says homosexuality is OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scripture against interracial marriage has been posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huge difference between interracial and homosexual. Or didn't you know that?
Click to expand...



There's no difference in the discrimination experienced. There's a difference in public opinion though. Gays marrying is MUCH more popular now than races intermarrying was then.


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what the SCOTUS says.    SCOTUS is irrelevant to my Christian Faith.  Non-argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Biological mating, is in fact the primary purpose of marriage.  The result of that is procreation.   Adoption is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your errant, subjective opinion is irrelevant to Constitutional case law.
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex couples have in fact a right to enter into marriage contracts, which in no way 'interferes' with your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine.  I'll ignore it.   They are not married, no matter what the Constitution, the judges, the paper says.    I won't treat them as married, because they are not.   If they don't like that, they can go to a different business, church, or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> If they wish to go to some other crazy church that thinks homos can be married, that's fine with me.  Now if they need their roof fixed, and I run a roofing company, that's fine.
> 
> 
> 
> But if I bake wedding cakes, and they want a cake for their homo wedding, nope.  Sorry, that violates my religion, and I won't do it.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> Nor will I rent a single room to a homo couple, or an unmarried hetro couple.   My business, is my property, and I will run it according to my convictions.
Click to expand...



You should be sure not to open your business in a locality that doesn't include "the gheys" in their public accommodation laws then.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scripture against interracial marriage has been posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huge difference between interracial and homosexual. Or didn't you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's no difference in the discrimination experienced. There's a difference in public opinion though. Gays marrying is MUCH more popular now than races intermarrying was then.
Click to expand...


irrelevant data! There is no Scripture stating that homosexuality is OK. I can quote plenty that says it isn't, so why can't you find just one verse that says it's ok for a man to have sex with another man. Go ahead, we'll wait, until hell freezes over, cause you won't find one.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your errant, subjective opinion is irrelevant to Constitutional case law.
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex couples have in fact a right to enter into marriage contracts, which in no way 'interferes' with your religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine.  I'll ignore it.   They are not married, no matter what the Constitution, the judges, the paper says.    I won't treat them as married, because they are not.   If they don't like that, they can go to a different business, church, or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> If they wish to go to some other crazy church that thinks homos can be married, that's fine with me.  Now if they need their roof fixed, and I run a roofing company, that's fine.
> 
> 
> 
> But if I bake wedding cakes, and they want a cake for their homo wedding, nope.  Sorry, that violates my religion, and I won't do it.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> Nor will I rent a single room to a homo couple, or an unmarried hetro couple.   My business, is my property, and I will run it according to my convictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should be sure not to open your business in a locality that doesn't include "the gheys" in their public accommodation laws then.
Click to expand...


It's safe to say "there will be no room at the inn for you wytch"  

Oh, what a bad pun  bury that one.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huge difference between interracial and homosexual. Or didn't you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no difference in the discrimination experienced. There's a difference in public opinion though. Gays marrying is MUCH more popular now than races intermarrying was then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irrelevant data! There is no Scripture stating that homosexuality is OK. I can quote plenty that says it isn't, so why can't you find just one verse that says it's ok for a man to have sex with another man. Go ahead, we'll wait, until hell freezes over, cause you won't find one.
Click to expand...



There is no scripture that says interracial relationships are "okay". It can be argued that there are no passages in the bible that refer to loving, consensual same sex relationships AT ALL. 

It can also be argued that there are "pro gay" passages. Here's number one.

_ "For God so loved the World that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"_

But there's more:

Matthew 5:22, Matthew 8:5-13/Luke 7:1-10 
Ruth, I and II Samuel, The Song of Songs, 
Daniel 1, Isaiah 56, Acts 8


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine.  I'll ignore it.   They are not married, no matter what the Constitution, the judges, the paper says.    I won't treat them as married, because they are not.   If they don't like that, they can go to a different business, church, or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they wish to go to some other crazy church that thinks homos can be married, that's fine with me.  Now if they need their roof fixed, and I run a roofing company, that's fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if I bake wedding cakes, and they want a cake for their homo wedding, nope.  Sorry, that violates my religion, and I won't do it.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor will I rent a single room to a homo couple, or an unmarried hetro couple.   My business, is my property, and I will run it according to my convictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should be sure not to open your business in a locality that doesn't include "the gheys" in their public accommodation laws then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's safe to say "there will be no room at the inn for you wytch"
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, what a bad pun  bury that one.
Click to expand...



Again, you might want to check your local laws before making such a blanket statement.

Unlike the "virgin" Mary, I don't have to make up stories about my pregnancy...


----------



## Howey

Androw said:


> Nor will I rent a single room to a homo couple, or an unmarried hetro couple.   My business, is my property, and I will run it according to my convictions.



I'll bet you peek in the windows at night to make sure they're not homo's, right? Do you start rubbing yourself?


----------



## Silhouette

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


What do the two have to do with one another?  One is a deviant sexual behavior practitioner.  The other was born of a race of people.


----------



## Gadawg73

Silhouette said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do the two have to do with one another?  One is a deviant sexual behavior practitioner.  The other was born of a race of people.
Click to expand...


"deviant sexual behavior practitioner"

You are the sole reason I fight for the rights of all people, gay people included.
You are a damn hypocrit.
Tens of millions of heterosexuals practice deviant sexual behavior every day and you are no where to be found opposing their right to marry.

Because you hate and despise gay people and do not have the guts to admit it.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no difference in the discrimination experienced. There's a difference in public opinion though. Gays marrying is MUCH more popular now than races intermarrying was then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irrelevant data! There is no Scripture stating that homosexuality is OK. I can quote plenty that says it isn't, so why can't you find just one verse that says it's ok for a man to have sex with another man. Go ahead, we'll wait, until hell freezes over, cause you won't find one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no scripture that says interracial relationships are "okay". It can be argued that there are no passages in the bible that refer to loving, consensual same sex relationships AT ALL.
> 
> It can also be argued that there are "pro gay" passages. Here's number one.
> 
> * "For God so loved the World that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"*
> 
> But there's more:
> 
> Matthew 5:22, Matthew 8:5-13/Luke 7:1-10
> Ruth, I and II Samuel, The Song of Songs,
> Daniel 1, Isaiah 56, Acts 8
Click to expand...


John 3:16 is relevant to everyone, all sinners, murderers, thieves, rapists, adulterers, liars and homosexuals along with everyone else who sins, which is everyone.

It does NOT condone homosexuality, just as it does not condone adultery, murder or anything else you can think of.


----------



## Gadawg73

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> irrelevant data! There is no Scripture stating that homosexuality is OK. I can quote plenty that says it isn't, so why can't you find just one verse that says it's ok for a man to have sex with another man. Go ahead, we'll wait, until hell freezes over, cause you won't find one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no scripture that says interracial relationships are "okay". It can be argued that there are no passages in the bible that refer to loving, consensual same sex relationships AT ALL.
> 
> It can also be argued that there are "pro gay" passages. Here's number one.
> 
> * "For God so loved the World that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"*
> 
> But there's more:
> 
> Matthew 5:22, Matthew 8:5-13/Luke 7:1-10
> Ruth, I and II Samuel, The Song of Songs,
> Daniel 1, Isaiah 56, Acts 8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John 3:16 is relevant to everyone, all sinners, murderers, thieves, rapists, adulterers, liars and homosexuals along with everyone else who sins, which is everyone.
> 
> It does NOT condone homosexuality, just as it does not condone adultery, murder or anything else you can think of.
Click to expand...


If a woman is attracted out of LOVE to another woman no damn way Jesus would fight or oppose that.
Same with 2 guys.
No way.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do the two have to do with one another?  One is a deviant sexual behavior practitioner.  The other was born of a race of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "deviant sexual behavior practitioner"
> 
> You are the sole reason I fight for the rights of all people, gay people included.
> You are a damn hypocrit.
> Tens of millions of heterosexuals practice deviant sexual behavior every day and you are no where to be found opposing their right to marry.
> 
> Because you hate and despise gay people and do not have the guts to admit it.
Click to expand...


I think 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' sums it up pretty well. I have no problem telling a heterosexual that goes out looking for a different partner every night that they are a 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' as well. As is anyone who commits adultery, has anal sex, and even oral sex, hetero or homosexual matters little to me, they are all 'deviant sexual behavior practitioners.' 

As far as their right to marry goes, my belief is that they are the ones driving the divorce numbers. Problem is you can't ask someone if they are a 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' before issuing a marriage license. However, most preachers, ministers, and pastors will not marry anyone of any sex before having a nice sit down with those people. Now a days, that includes many that have to have a class before getting married, instructed by the religious leader. That class can make a difference of around 60 dollars in the marriage license.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Gadawg73 said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no scripture that says interracial relationships are "okay". It can be argued that there are no passages in the bible that refer to loving, consensual same sex relationships AT ALL.
> 
> It can also be argued that there are "pro gay" passages. Here's number one.
> 
> * "For God so loved the World that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"*
> 
> But there's more:
> 
> Matthew 5:22, Matthew 8:5-13/Luke 7:1-10
> Ruth, I and II Samuel, The Song of Songs,
> Daniel 1, Isaiah 56, Acts 8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John 3:16 is relevant to everyone, all sinners, murderers, thieves, rapists, adulterers, liars and homosexuals along with everyone else who sins, which is everyone.
> 
> It does NOT condone homosexuality, just as it does not condone adultery, murder or anything else you can think of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a woman is attracted out of LOVE to another woman no damn way Jesus would fight or oppose that.
> Same with 2 guys.
> No way.
Click to expand...


If those 2 women you talk about lived together and had no physical relationship, I would agree with you. Same with the 2 men. If you add a physical relationship, it becomes a sin, and Jesus has always opposed that.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> If person "A" doesn't believe gays should be married in a church that doesn't want to perform a gay marriage, what does that say about any alleged vehemence that person "A" might have in their "support for gay marriage"?
> 
> 85% is a large number muchacho.  Spin away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you actually trying to make a POINT with that rambling babble, Silly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah.  Too bad you're the only one who missed it..
Click to expand...


No, I didn't...but you certainly did!  Once more for the slow kid: *someone in favor of gay marriage does not equate to someone in favor of forcing churches to marry gays!*  Keep rereading that until it sinks in!


----------



## Jarlaxle

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do the two have to do with one another?  One is a deviant sexual behavior practitioner.  The other was born of a race of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "deviant sexual behavior practitioner"
> 
> You are the sole reason I fight for the rights of all people, gay people included.
> You are a damn hypocrit.
> Tens of millions of heterosexuals practice deviant sexual behavior every day and you are no where to be found opposing their right to marry.
> 
> Because you hate and despise gay people and do not have the guts to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' sums it up pretty well. I have no problem telling a heterosexual that goes out looking for a different partner every night that they are a 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' as well. As is anyone who commits adultery, has anal sex, and even oral sex, hetero or homosexual matters little to me, they are all 'deviant sexual behavior practitioners.'
Click to expand...


Dude...you need to get out more!  I get it: you are horrified by the thought that someone, somewhere, somehow, might be *having fun!*



> As far as their right to marry goes, my belief is that they are the ones driving the divorce numbers. Problem is you can't ask someone if they are a 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' before issuing a marriage license. However, most preachers, ministers, and pastors will not marry anyone of any sex before having a nice sit down with those people. Now a days, that includes many that have to have a class before getting married, instructed by the religious leader. That class can make a difference of around 60 dollars in the marriage license.



None of that is required...my wife and I didn't have to sit through any classes or lectures, just filled out some paperwork. (We were married by a judge.)


----------



## Silhouette

Jarlaxle said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you actually trying to make a POINT with that rambling babble, Silly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah.  Too bad you're the only one who missed it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't...but you certainly did!  Once more for the slow kid: *someone in favor of gay marriage does not equate to someone in favor of forcing churches to marry gays!*  Keep rereading that until it sinks in!
Click to expand...


If you are for legal gay marriage...why would you oppose having any church performing it?


Look at the turnout Jake..._impressive_...


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> irrelevant data! There is no Scripture stating that homosexuality is OK. I can quote plenty that says it isn't, so why can't you find just one verse that says it's ok for a man to have sex with another man. Go ahead, we'll wait, until hell freezes over, cause you won't find one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no scripture that says interracial relationships are "okay". It can be argued that there are no passages in the bible that refer to loving, consensual same sex relationships AT ALL.
> 
> It can also be argued that there are "pro gay" passages. Here's number one.
> 
> * "For God so loved the World that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"*
> 
> But there's more:
> 
> Matthew 5:22, Matthew 8:5-13/Luke 7:1-10
> Ruth, I and II Samuel, The Song of Songs,
> Daniel 1, Isaiah 56, Acts 8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John 3:16 is relevant to everyone, all sinners, murderers, thieves, rapists, adulterers, liars and homosexuals along with everyone else who sins, which is everyone.
> 
> It does NOT condone homosexuality, just as it does not condone adultery, murder or anything else you can think of.
Click to expand...


Guess what, I checked my bible and it doesn't say that you are the final authority on interpretation. 

How interesting that you completely ignore all the points I have made in regards to your religious text and interracial marriage and focus, again, on YOUR interpretation. The anti miscegenationists used the same bible you are using to justify their bigotry. I think you're BOTH wrong in your interpretations.

Being gay is nothing like committing adultery, murder or "anything else you can think of", except heterosexuality.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah.  Too bad you're the only one who missed it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't...but you certainly did!  Once more for the slow kid: *someone in favor of gay marriage does not equate to someone in favor of forcing churches to marry gays!*  Keep rereading that until it sinks in!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are for legal gay marriage...why would you oppose having any church performing it?
> 
> Look at the turnout Jake..._impressive_...
Click to expand...


I will give you one hundred trillion dollars if you can point to ONE POST where I opposed having a church perform a gay marriage!  Ready...go to it!


----------



## GISMYS

Gay"marrage" is not marrage,it is an ABOMINATION OF SICK MINDED SEXUAL PERVERSION!!! count the cost=HELL!!


----------



## Silhouette

Jarlaxle said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't...but you certainly did!  Once more for the slow kid: *someone in favor of gay marriage does not equate to someone in favor of forcing churches to marry gays!*  Keep rereading that until it sinks in!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are for legal gay marriage...why would you oppose having any church performing it?
> 
> Look at the turnout Jake..._impressive_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will give you one hundred trillion dollars if you can point to ONE POST where I opposed having a church perform a gay marriage!  Ready...go to it!
Click to expand...


OK, playing dumb I see.  Let me rephrase that in more generic terms:

"If a person is for gay marriage...why would they oppose having any church performing it?"

Better?  Now answer.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are for legal gay marriage...why would you oppose having any church performing it?
> 
> Look at the turnout Jake..._impressive_...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will give you one hundred trillion dollars if you can point to ONE POST where I opposed having a church perform a gay marriage!  Ready...go to it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, playing dumb I see.  Let me rephrase that in more generic terms:
> 
> "If a person is for gay marriage...why would they oppose having any church performing it?"
> 
> Better?  Now answer.
Click to expand...


Why do you insist on being such a retarded troll?


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no scripture that says interracial relationships are "okay". It can be argued that there are no passages in the bible that refer to loving, consensual same sex relationships AT ALL.
> 
> It can also be argued that there are "pro gay" passages. Here's number one.
> 
> * "For God so loved the World that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"*
> 
> But there's more:
> 
> Matthew 5:22, Matthew 8:5-13/Luke 7:1-10
> Ruth, I and II Samuel, The Song of Songs,
> Daniel 1, Isaiah 56, Acts 8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John 3:16 is relevant to everyone, all sinners, murderers, thieves, rapists, adulterers, liars and homosexuals along with everyone else who sins, which is everyone.
> 
> It does NOT condone homosexuality, just as it does not condone adultery, murder or anything else you can think of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess what, I checked my bible and it doesn't say that you are the final authority on interpretation.
> 
> How interesting that you completely ignore all the points I have made in regards to your religious text and interracial marriage and focus, again, on YOUR interpretation. The anti miscegenationists used the same bible you are using to justify their bigotry. I think you're BOTH wrong in your interpretations.
> 
> Being gay is nothing like committing adultery, murder or "anything else you can think of", except heterosexuality.
Click to expand...


If you believed in the Bible, you would capitalize the word 'Bible'. I am not the final authority on anything, I am just a Christian. Here is what the Bible says:

James 2:10 
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

Adultery and Murder, same to God, homosexual acts, are also the same as those listed. Being a homosexual is NO sin, acting on homosexual impulses, is a sin, same as watching pornography, committing adultery, lying, stealing, and hundreds of other things that humans do which are not morally right, and not right in the eyes of God.

Matthew 5:19
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Jarlaxle said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "deviant sexual behavior practitioner"
> 
> You are the sole reason I fight for the rights of all people, gay people included.
> You are a damn hypocrit.
> Tens of millions of heterosexuals practice deviant sexual behavior every day and you are no where to be found opposing their right to marry.
> 
> Because you hate and despise gay people and do not have the guts to admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' sums it up pretty well. I have no problem telling a heterosexual that goes out looking for a different partner every night that they are a 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' as well. As is anyone who commits adultery, has anal sex, and even oral sex, hetero or homosexual matters little to me, they are all 'deviant sexual behavior practitioners.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dude...you need to get out more!  I get it: you are horrified by the thought that someone, somewhere, somehow, might be having fun!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as their right to marry goes, my belief is that they are the ones driving the divorce numbers. Problem is you can't ask someone if they are a 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' before issuing a marriage license. However, most preachers, ministers, and pastors will not marry anyone of any sex before having a nice sit down with those people. Now a days, that includes many that have to have a class before getting married, instructed by the religious leader. That class can make a difference of around 60 dollars in the marriage license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that is required...my wife and I didn't have to sit through any classes or lectures, just filled out some paperwork. (We were married by a judge.)
Click to expand...


I get out plenty. I can go out and have fun, without ever taking a drink of alcohol, without having to use swear words and put down other people, and without having to have sex. 

I have a real life, apart from the computer. How many on here can say the same thing? Can you?


----------



## Seawytch

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will give you one hundred trillion dollars if you can point to ONE POST where I opposed having a church perform a gay marriage!  Ready...go to it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, playing dumb I see.  Let me rephrase that in more generic terms:
> 
> "If a person is for gay marriage...why would they oppose having any church performing it?"
> 
> Better?  Now answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on being such a retarded troll?
Click to expand...


Hey, it's a niche!

Seriously though, I'm thankful for the Silhouettes, GreenBeans, Warwulfs, etc. Their extremism actually helps the struggle for gay and lesbian equality. Most people think "geez, I don't wan to be THAT guy".


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> John 3:16 is relevant to everyone, all sinners, murderers, thieves, rapists, adulterers, liars and homosexuals along with everyone else who sins, which is everyone.
> 
> It does NOT condone homosexuality, just as it does not condone adultery, murder or anything else you can think of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what, I checked my bible and it doesn't say that you are the final authority on interpretation.
> 
> How interesting that you completely ignore all the points I have made in regards to your religious text and interracial marriage and focus, again, on YOUR interpretation. The anti miscegenationists used the same bible you are using to justify their bigotry. I think you're BOTH wrong in your interpretations.
> 
> Being gay is nothing like committing adultery, murder or "anything else you can think of", except heterosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believed in the Bible, you would capitalize the word 'Bible'. I am not the final authority on anything, I am just a Christian. Here is what the Bible says:
> 
> James 2:10
> For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
> 
> Adultery and Murder, same to God, homosexual acts, are also the same as those listed. Being a homosexual is NO sin, acting on homosexual impulses, is a sin, same as watching pornography, committing adultery, lying, stealing, and hundreds of other things that humans do which are not morally right, and not right in the eyes of God.
> 
> Matthew 5:19
> Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Click to expand...


See, there you go again, thinking you're the authority on the bible. Being gay as a "sin" is OT stuff like wearing clothing of mixed cloth, eating shellfish and cutting your beard is a "sin". 

That feller Jesus? He was mum on the subject. 

Again, you're *sure *you're right about those gays...just like anti-miscegenationists were *sure *they were right about interracial marriage.  

_Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion. _

_By marrying outside of your race, no matter what that race is, and then having children of mixed race, you destroy God's original design for your race. The offspring of interracial unions are no longer God's intended creation. _

_Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. _

They had bible passages too.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what, I checked my bible and it doesn't say that you are the final authority on interpretation.
> 
> How interesting that you completely ignore all the points I have made in regards to your religious text and interracial marriage and focus, again, on YOUR interpretation. The anti miscegenationists used the same bible you are using to justify their bigotry. I think you're BOTH wrong in your interpretations.
> 
> Being gay is nothing like committing adultery, murder or "anything else you can think of", except heterosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believed in the Bible, you would capitalize the word 'Bible'. I am not the final authority on anything, I am just a Christian. Here is what the Bible says:
> 
> James 2:10
> For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
> 
> Adultery and Murder, same to God, homosexual acts, are also the same as those listed. Being a homosexual is NO sin, acting on homosexual impulses, is a sin, same as watching pornography, committing adultery, lying, stealing, and hundreds of other things that humans do which are not morally right, and not right in the eyes of God.
> 
> Matthew 5:19
> Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, there you go again, thinking you're the authority on the bible. Being gay as a "sin" is OT stuff like wearing clothing of mixed cloth, eating shellfish and cutting your beard is a "sin".
> 
> That feller Jesus? He was mum on the subject.
> 
> Again, you're *sure *you're right about those gays...just like anti-miscegenationists were *sure *they were right about interracial marriage.
> 
> _Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion. _
> 
> _By marrying outside of your race, no matter what that race is, and then having children of mixed race, you destroy God's original design for your race. The offspring of interracial unions are no longer God's intended creation. _
> 
> _Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. _
> 
> They had bible passages too.
Click to expand...


I know you only read bits and pieces, so I'll make this short as possible.

James is NT, not OT. Race is not a choice, homosexuality is a choice. Being gay(not a sin) practicing homosexuality(is a sin).

I tried not to use words with to many sil-a-bulls for you. (Google syllables)


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believed in the Bible, you would capitalize the word 'Bible'. I am not the final authority on anything, I am just a Christian. Here is what the Bible says:
> 
> James 2:10
> For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.&#8230;
> 
> Adultery and Murder, same to God, homosexual acts, are also the same as those listed. Being a homosexual is NO sin, acting on homosexual impulses, is a sin, same as watching pornography, committing adultery, lying, stealing, and hundreds of other things that humans do which are not morally right, and not right in the eyes of God.
> 
> Matthew 5:19
> Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, there you go again, thinking you're the authority on the bible. Being gay as a "sin" is OT stuff like wearing clothing of mixed cloth, eating shellfish and cutting your beard is a "sin".
> 
> That feller Jesus? He was mum on the subject.
> 
> Again, you're *sure *you're right about those gays...just like anti-miscegenationists were *sure *they were right about interracial marriage.
> 
> _Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion. _
> 
> _By marrying outside of your race, no matter what that race is, and then having children of mixed race, you destroy God's original design for your race. The offspring of interracial unions are no longer God's intended creation. _
> 
> _Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. _
> 
> They had bible passages too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you only read bits and pieces, so I'll make this short as possible.
> 
> James is NT, not OT. Race is not a choice, homosexuality is a choice. Being gay(not a sin) practicing homosexuality(is a sin).
> 
> I tried not to use words with to many sil-a-bulls for you. (Google syllables)
Click to expand...


It's interesting that you keep dancing around the points to focus on the irrelevant. You interpret the bible to be gay=bad. People used to interpret the bible to be interracial=bad (some still do). Both have bible passages to justify their bigotry. 


Jesus would not be happy to know that ya'll are using the bible to _justify _anything. (Paul wasn't talking about loving consenting adult gays)


----------



## GISMYS

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, there you go again, thinking you're the authority on the bible. Being gay as a "sin" is OT stuff like wearing clothing of mixed cloth, eating shellfish and cutting your beard is a "sin".
> 
> That feller Jesus? He was mum on the subject.
> 
> Again, you're *sure *you're right about those gays...just like anti-miscegenationists were *sure *they were right about interracial marriage.
> 
> _Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion. _
> 
> _By marrying outside of your race, no matter what that race is, and then having children of mixed race, you destroy God's original design for your race. The offspring of interracial unions are no longer God's intended creation. _
> 
> _Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. _
> 
> They had bible passages too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you only read bits and pieces, so I'll make this short as possible.
> 
> James is NT, not OT. Race is not a choice, homosexuality is a choice. Being gay(not a sin) practicing homosexuality(is a sin).
> 
> I tried not to use words with to many sil-a-bulls for you. (Google syllables)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you keep dancing around the points to focus on the irrelevant. You interpret the bible to be gay=bad. People used to interpret the bible to be interracial=bad (some still do). Both have bible passages to justify their bigotry.
> 
> 
> Jesus would not be happy to know that ya'll are using the bible to _justify _anything. (Paul wasn't talking about loving consenting adult gays)
Click to expand...


BELIEVE GOD'S WORD==God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.Romans 1:26-27


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, there you go again, thinking you're the authority on the bible. Being gay as a "sin" is OT stuff like wearing clothing of mixed cloth, eating shellfish and cutting your beard is a "sin".
> 
> That feller Jesus? He was mum on the subject.
> 
> Again, you're *sure *you're right about those gays...just like anti-miscegenationists were *sure *they were right about interracial marriage.
> 
> _Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion. _
> 
> _By marrying outside of your race, no matter what that race is, and then having children of mixed race, you destroy God's original design for your race. The offspring of interracial unions are no longer God's intended creation. _
> 
> _Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. _
> 
> They had bible passages too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you only read bits and pieces, so I'll make this short as possible.
> 
> James is NT, not OT. Race is not a choice, homosexuality is a choice. Being gay(not a sin) practicing homosexuality(is a sin).
> 
> I tried not to use words with to many sil-a-bulls for you. (Google syllables)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you keep dancing around the points to focus on the irrelevant. You interpret the bible to be gay=bad. People used to interpret the bible to be interracial=bad (some still do). Both have bible passages to justify their bigotry.
> 
> 
> Jesus would not be happy to know that ya'll are using the bible to _justify _anything. (Paul wasn't talking about loving consenting adult gays)
Click to expand...


Paul was talking about sin, period. Homosexual acts are a sin, period. Nowhere in the Bible is a city destroyed for condoning interracial relations, but, two were destroyed for condoning homosexual acts. Spin that any way you like, sin is still sin.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you only read bits and pieces, so I'll make this short as possible.
> 
> James is NT, not OT. Race is not a choice, homosexuality is a choice. Being gay(not a sin) practicing homosexuality(is a sin).
> 
> I tried not to use words with to many sil-a-bulls for you. (Google syllables)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you keep dancing around the points to focus on the irrelevant. You interpret the bible to be gay=bad. People used to interpret the bible to be interracial=bad (some still do). Both have bible passages to justify their bigotry.
> 
> 
> Jesus would not be happy to know that ya'll are using the bible to _justify _anything. (Paul wasn't talking about loving consenting adult gays)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paul was talking about sin, period. Homosexual acts are a sin, period. Nowhere in the Bible is a city destroyed for condoning interracial relations, but, two were destroyed for condoning homosexual acts. Spin that any way you like, sin is still sin.
Click to expand...


There you go again, focusing on the irrelevant and ignoring the points. Yes, we get it, you believe the bible is gay=bad. A lot of people don't.  Some people think the bible says interracial=bad. Both are wrong.

No city was destroyed because of loving consensual same sex relations. In-hospitality was their undoing. 

_As I live, saith the LORD GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, [Inhospitality] neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. _-Ezekiel 16:48-50


----------



## GISMYS

GOD'S WORD ON THE ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION=== THOSE THAT REJECT GOD AND LOVE SIN God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God&#8217;s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other.  27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.Romans 1:26-27


----------



## Gadawg73

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do the two have to do with one another?  One is a deviant sexual behavior practitioner.  The other was born of a race of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "deviant sexual behavior practitioner"
> 
> You are the sole reason I fight for the rights of all people, gay people included.
> You are a damn hypocrit.
> Tens of millions of heterosexuals practice deviant sexual behavior every day and you are no where to be found opposing their right to marry.
> 
> Because you hate and despise gay people and do not have the guts to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' sums it up pretty well. I have no problem telling a heterosexual that goes out looking for a different partner every night that they are a 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' as well. As is anyone who commits adultery, has anal sex, and even oral sex, hetero or homosexual matters little to me, they are all 'deviant sexual behavior practitioners.'
> 
> As far as their right to marry goes, my belief is that they are the ones driving the divorce numbers. Problem is you can't ask someone if they are a 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' before issuing a marriage license. However, most preachers, ministers, and pastors will not marry anyone of any sex before having a nice sit down with those people. Now a days, that includes many that have to have a class before getting married, instructed by the religious leader. That class can make a difference of around 60 dollars in the marriage license.
Click to expand...


I am talking about married heterosexuals that practice "deviant sexual behavior" like men fucking their wives in the ass, bondage, whatever.
Goes on all the time, never been my thing, but it goes on between MARRIED AND NON MARRIED heterosexuals.
And you folks single out ONLY gay folk.


----------



## GISMYS

Each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor,  5 not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God. there is no love or honor in   "deviant sexual behavior" that is perverse lust=living lower than a animal!!!


----------



## Gadawg73

GISMYS said:


> Each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor,  5 not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God. there is no love or honor in   "deviant sexual behavior" that is perverse lust=living lower than a animal!!!



You need to go do some charity work to help blind people in your local Lions's Club, help build homes for the needy in Habitat for Humanity and work the food drive at the MUST ministry to feed the hungry dude.
You are one fucked up human sticking your nose in the private sexual lives of others. 
Govern yourself accordingly.


----------



## GISMYS

Gadawg73 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor,  5 not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God. there is no love or honor in   "deviant sexual behavior" that is perverse lust=living lower than a animal!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to go do some charity work to help blind people in your local Lions's Club, help build homes for the needy in Habitat for Humanity and work the food drive at the MUST ministry to feed the hungry dude.
> You are one fucked up human sticking your nose in the private sexual lives of others.
> Govern yourself accordingly.
Click to expand...


so you love your sick minded sexual perversion and HATE TRUTH!!! nothing new there!! JUST COUNT THE COST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God. there is no love or honor in "deviant sexual behavior" that is perverse lust=living lower than a animal!!!


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you keep dancing around the points to focus on the irrelevant. You interpret the bible to be gay=bad. People used to interpret the bible to be interracial=bad (some still do). Both have bible passages to justify their bigotry.
> 
> 
> Jesus would not be happy to know that ya'll are using the bible to _justify _anything. (Paul wasn't talking about loving consenting adult gays)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul was talking about sin, period. Homosexual acts are a sin, period. Nowhere in the Bible is a city destroyed for condoning interracial relations, but, two were destroyed for condoning homosexual acts. Spin that any way you like, sin is still sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, focusing on the irrelevant and ignoring the points. Yes, we get it, you believe the bible is gay=bad. A lot of people don't.  Some people think the bible says interracial=bad. Both are wrong.
> 
> No city was destroyed because of loving consensual same sex relations. In-hospitality was their undoing.
> 
> _As I live, saith the LORD GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, [Inhospitality] neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination*(homosexual acts)* before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. _-Ezekiel 16:48-50
Click to expand...


Fixed that for you! Thank you for making my point.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Gadawg73 said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "deviant sexual behavior practitioner"
> 
> You are the sole reason I fight for the rights of all people, gay people included.
> You are a damn hypocrit.
> Tens of millions of heterosexuals practice deviant sexual behavior every day and you are no where to be found opposing their right to marry.
> 
> Because you hate and despise gay people and do not have the guts to admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' sums it up pretty well. I have no problem telling a heterosexual that goes out looking for a different partner every night that they are a 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' as well. As is anyone who commits adultery, has anal sex, and even oral sex, hetero or homosexual matters little to me, they are all 'deviant sexual behavior practitioners.'
> 
> As far as their right to marry goes, my belief is that they are the ones driving the divorce numbers. Problem is you can't ask someone if they are a 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' before issuing a marriage license. However, most preachers, ministers, and pastors will not marry anyone of any sex before having a nice sit down with those people. Now a days, that includes many that have to have a class before getting married, instructed by the religious leader. That class can make a difference of around 60 dollars in the marriage license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am talking about married heterosexuals that practice "deviant sexual behavior" like men fucking their wives in the ass, bondage, whatever.
> Goes on all the time, never been my thing, but it goes on between MARRIED AND NON MARRIED heterosexuals.
> And you folks single out ONLY gay folk.
Click to expand...


"you folks" can mean a lot of people, but it doesn't include me, in your comment. I single out people for all kinds of sins, just as I single myself out for my own sins. 

Gay folk, as you call them, want to push their sins on the people, and pretend that homosexual acts are not a sin, they just don't like it when we push back. Same with drinkers, drug users and others.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will give you one hundred trillion dollars if you can point to ONE POST where I opposed having a church perform a gay marriage!  Ready...go to it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, playing dumb I see.  Let me rephrase that in more generic terms:
> 
> "If a person is for gay marriage...why would they oppose having any church performing it?"
> 
> Better?  Now answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on being such a retarded troll?
Click to expand...


My point is well taken.  Of the hundreds who voted on this poll...[one of the largest turnouts at USMB & therefore a topic _strongly_ important to many] ..85% do not believe gay marriage is important to them enough that people who dont like it should have to participate in it.  So at the best outlook it could be deduced that of gay marriage supporters..85% of them only have very tepid [and I would even say transitory] support for it.

So for dem strategists, what that means in real votes is that for every state where gay marriage is forced on the voters [yea!  victory!...?] by a single person or small panel of people....add to that a Harvey Milk style October surprise.... & you have a real democrat crisis on your hands...

Gays..with the help from "some republicans"... have shoved the democratic party [& all our good/productive/sane platforms..like heathcare & green energy] straight into political checkmate.


----------



## Silhouette

Well RKM...Jar-Jar?...

...that's what I thought


----------



## Silhouette

Gotta hand it to RW heathengamer.. this thread is very illuminating...


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul was talking about sin, period. Homosexual acts are a sin, period. Nowhere in the Bible is a city destroyed for condoning interracial relations, but, two were destroyed for condoning homosexual acts. Spin that any way you like, sin is still sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, focusing on the irrelevant and ignoring the points. Yes, we get it, you believe the bible is gay=bad. A lot of people don't.  Some people think the bible says interracial=bad. Both are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> No city was destroyed because of loving consensual same sex relations. In-hospitality was their undoing.
> 
> 
> 
> _As I live, saith the LORD GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, [Inhospitality] neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination*(homosexual acts)* before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. _-Ezekiel 16:48-50
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed that for you! Thank you for making my point.
Click to expand...



Are you editing someone else's posts? The "abominable act" was the attempt at angel rape, not loving consensual same sex relations.

Still ignoring the point and focusing on the irrelevant, I noticed.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' sums it up pretty well. I have no problem telling a heterosexual that goes out looking for a different partner every night that they are a 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' as well. As is anyone who commits adultery, has anal sex, and even oral sex, hetero or homosexual matters little to me, they are all 'deviant sexual behavior practitioners.'
> 
> 
> 
> As far as their right to marry goes, my belief is that they are the ones driving the divorce numbers. Problem is you can't ask someone if they are a 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' before issuing a marriage license. However, most preachers, ministers, and pastors will not marry anyone of any sex before having a nice sit down with those people. Now a days, that includes many that have to have a class before getting married, instructed by the religious leader. That class can make a difference of around 60 dollars in the marriage license.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about married heterosexuals that practice "deviant sexual behavior" like men fucking their wives in the ass, bondage, whatever.
> 
> Goes on all the time, never been my thing, but it goes on between MARRIED AND NON MARRIED heterosexuals.
> 
> And you folks single out ONLY gay folk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "you folks" can mean a lot of people, but it doesn't include me, in your comment. I single out people for all kinds of sins, just as I single myself out for my own sins.
> 
> 
> 
> Gay folk, as you call them, want to push their sins on the people, and pretend that homosexual acts are not a sin, they just don't like it when we push back. Same with drinkers, drug users and others.
Click to expand...



How is the "sin" of being gay "pushed" on you, exactly?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are for legal gay marriage...why would you oppose having any church performing it?
> 
> Look at the turnout Jake..._impressive_...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will give you one hundred trillion dollars if you can point to ONE POST where I opposed having a church perform a gay marriage!  Ready...go to it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, playing dumb I see.  Let me rephrase that in more generic terms:
> 
> "If a person is for gay marriage...why would they oppose having any church performing it?"
> 
> Better?  Now answer.
Click to expand...


One more time for the slow kid: *supporting gay marriage does NOT mean someone supports FORCING a church to perform one!*


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, playing dumb I see.  Let me rephrase that in more generic terms:
> 
> "If a person is for gay marriage...why would they oppose having any church performing it?"
> 
> Better?  Now answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on being such a retarded troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is well taken.  Of the hundreds who voted on this poll...[one of the largest turnouts at USMB & therefore a topic _strongly_ important to many] ..85% do not believe gay marriage is important to them enough that people who dont like it should have to participate in it.  So at the best outlook it could be deduced that of gay marriage supporters..85% of them only have very tepid [and I would even say transitory] support for it.
Click to expand...


No, Silly, *you're lying again!*


----------



## bendog

Thinking bible bangers don't lose their 2nd amendment rights when GLBT get equal protection is evidence of "tepid" support of gay marriage!!!  No one disputes this!  LOL


----------



## Gadawg73

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' sums it up pretty well. I have no problem telling a heterosexual that goes out looking for a different partner every night that they are a 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' as well. As is anyone who commits adultery, has anal sex, and even oral sex, hetero or homosexual matters little to me, they are all 'deviant sexual behavior practitioners.'
> 
> As far as their right to marry goes, my belief is that they are the ones driving the divorce numbers. Problem is you can't ask someone if they are a 'deviant sexual behavior practitioner' before issuing a marriage license. However, most preachers, ministers, and pastors will not marry anyone of any sex before having a nice sit down with those people. Now a days, that includes many that have to have a class before getting married, instructed by the religious leader. That class can make a difference of around 60 dollars in the marriage license.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about married heterosexuals that practice "deviant sexual behavior" like men fucking their wives in the ass, bondage, whatever.
> Goes on all the time, never been my thing, but it goes on between MARRIED AND NON MARRIED heterosexuals.
> And you folks single out ONLY gay folk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "you folks" can mean a lot of people, but it doesn't include me, in your comment. I single out people for all kinds of sins, just as I single myself out for my own sins.
> 
> Gay folk, as you call them, want to push their sins on the people, and pretend that homosexual acts are not a sin, they just don't like it when we push back. Same with drinkers, drug users and others.
Click to expand...


So you want to deny all sinners the right to marry.
Sure, right. 
Ain't your job or business to determine who is a sinner and who isn't you moron.
That is up to God.
Something about do not judge.


----------



## GISMYS

Gadawg73 said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about married heterosexuals that practice "deviant sexual behavior" like men fucking their wives in the ass, bondage, whatever.
> Goes on all the time, never been my thing, but it goes on between MARRIED AND NON MARRIED heterosexuals.
> And you folks single out ONLY gay folk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "you folks" can mean a lot of people, but it doesn't include me, in your comment. I single out people for all kinds of sins, just as I single myself out for my own sins.
> 
> Gay folk, as you call them, want to push their sins on the people, and pretend that homosexual acts are not a sin, they just don't like it when we push back. Same with drinkers, drug users and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to deny all sinners the right to marry.
> Sure, right.
> Ain't your job or business to determine who is a sinner and who isn't you moron.
> That is up to God.
> Something about do not judge.
Click to expand...


Marrage is between a man and a woman not  same sex. DUH!!!! SAME SEX IS AN SICK MINDED ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION = A LOWLIFE  subhuman act of sin.


----------



## kaz

Gadawg73 said:


> So you want to deny all sinners the right to marry.
> Sure, right.
> Ain't your job or business to determine who is a sinner and who isn't you moron.
> That is up to God.
> Something about do not judge.



There is no "right" to government marriage, it is a privilege.  If it were a "right" then it would be open to everyone.  Something you are not offering either.  Man/woman, two people, either way it's discrimination.  You aren't changing the nature of the beast, just tweaking the qualification rules.


----------



## kaz

GISMYS said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you folks" can mean a lot of people, but it doesn't include me, in your comment. I single out people for all kinds of sins, just as I single myself out for my own sins.
> 
> Gay folk, as you call them, want to push their sins on the people, and pretend that homosexual acts are not a sin, they just don't like it when we push back. Same with drinkers, drug users and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to deny all sinners the right to marry.
> Sure, right.
> Ain't your job or business to determine who is a sinner and who isn't you moron.
> That is up to God.
> Something about do not judge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marrage is between a man and a woman not  same sex. DUH!!!! SAME SEX IS AN SICK MINDED ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION = A LOWLIFE  subhuman act of sin.
Click to expand...


So you think it's government's job to punish sinners?  Wouldn't teaching sinners to stop sinning when there are no victims be a job for the church?  I see your argument as being reasonable that you don't want your church marrying gays.  But we are talking about government marriage here, not church marriage.  So why is it a job for government to make choices on who gets it based on what the church thinks is and isn't a "sin?"


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to deny all sinners the right to marry.
> Sure, right.
> Ain't your job or business to determine who is a sinner and who isn't you moron.
> That is up to God.
> Something about do not judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to government marriage, it is a privilege.  If it were a "right" then it would be open to everyone.  Something you are not offering either.  Man/woman, two people, either way it's discrimination.  You aren't changing the nature of the beast, just tweaking the qualification rules.
Click to expand...



It is a fundamental right...one you can't even deny a convicted murderer on death row.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to deny all sinners the right to marry.
> Sure, right.
> Ain't your job or business to determine who is a sinner and who isn't you moron.
> That is up to God.
> Something about do not judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to government marriage, it is a privilege.  If it were a "right" then it would be open to everyone.  Something you are not offering either.  Man/woman, two people, either way it's discrimination.  You aren't changing the nature of the beast, just tweaking the qualification rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fundamental right...one you can't even deny a convicted murderer on death row.
Click to expand...


When you can explain why government marriage is a right that not everyone can get, only people who pair up, then get back to me.  In the mean time, what you said is just stupid.


----------



## GISMYS

"""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to government marriage, it is a privilege.  If it were a "right" then it would be open to everyone.  Something you are not offering either.  Man/woman, two people, either way it's discrimination.  You aren't changing the nature of the beast, just tweaking the qualification rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fundamental right...one you can't even deny a convicted murderer on death row.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can explain why government marriage is a right that not everyone can get, only people who pair up, then get back to me.  In the mean time, what you said is just stupid.
Click to expand...



Why is it only two people? Because that is the way the laws are written. Don't like 'em, sue to change them. Good luck.

What I said is 100% true. Turner v. Safley.


----------



## Seawytch

GISMYS said:


> """NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!




Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about married heterosexuals that practice "deviant sexual behavior" like men fucking their wives in the ass, bondage, whatever.
> Goes on all the time, never been my thing, but it goes on between MARRIED AND NON MARRIED heterosexuals.
> And you folks single out ONLY gay folk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "you folks" can mean a lot of people, but it doesn't include me, in your comment. I single out people for all kinds of sins, just as I single myself out for my own sins.
> 
> Gay folk, as you call them, want to push their sins on the people, and pretend that homosexual acts are not a sin, they just don't like it when we push back. Same with drinkers, drug users and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to deny all sinners the right to marry.
> Sure, right.
> Ain't your job or business to determine who is a sinner and who isn't you moron.
> That is up to God.
> Something about do not judge.
Click to expand...


G-d did judge.  He created marriage.  Man and woman.  Not man and man, or woman and woman.

G-d doesn't care what you think.  Neither do I.  We're not going to support this, no matter what you say.

And by the way, when we look at what the Bible says is sin, and then determine that someone is committing that sin.... we're not determining who is, and who is not a sinner.   The Bible determines that.

You just don't like us pointing out that the Bible says what someone is doing is sin.   That's not our fault.  We're just messengers.  We didn't write this book.     It's not our rules, and that's a really good think for you, because if it was up to us to make the rules, you'd be in a far worse place than you are now.

Again, us saying that X action is sin, because the Bible calls it sin, is not us determining what is or is not sin.  It's us telling you what G-d calls sin.

Don't like it?  Tough.  We're not changing the Bible to fit your personal opinion.  Thanks.


----------



## GISMYS

Seawytch said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> """NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...
Click to expand...


what BIBLE VERSE ??? EVEN MOSES HAD A BLACK WIFE!!!! WISE UP!!! STOP THE LIES FROM THE PIT OF HELL!!!  PLACE YOUR FAITH AND TRUST IN GOD AND GOD'S WORD ALONE NOT IN ANY MAN OR EVEN ANY man created  "church"!!!


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fundamental right...one you can't even deny a convicted murderer on death row.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can explain why government marriage is a right that not everyone can get, only people who pair up, then get back to me.  In the mean time, what you said is just stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it only two people? Because that is the way the laws are written. Don't like 'em, sue to change them. Good luck.
> 
> What I said is 100% true. Turner v. Safley.
Click to expand...


Simple logic isn't your thing, is it?  I didn't addressing the laws, I addressed your bull crap statement that marriage is a "right."  You cannot have a 'right' that is only available to some people.  You certainly cannot have a right that is dependent on another person.  No one can get marriage themselves, someone else has to enable them to get it.  It is not a right since clearly everyone cannot get it.

You do like the courts to legislate though, don't you?


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can explain why government marriage is a right that not everyone can get, only people who pair up, then get back to me.  In the mean time, what you said is just stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it only two people? Because that is the way the laws are written. Don't like 'em, sue to change them. Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> What I said is 100% true. Turner v. Safley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple logic isn't your thing, is it?  I didn't addressing the laws, I addressed your bull crap statement that marriage is a "right."  You cannot have a 'right' that is only available to some people.  You certainly cannot have a right that is dependent on another person.  No one can get marriage themselves, someone else has to enable them to get it.  It is not a right since clearly everyone cannot get it.
> 
> 
> 
> You do like the courts to legislate though, don't you?
Click to expand...



Look up fundamental rights. Marriage IS one despite your insistence that it is not.


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> """NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...
Click to expand...


In other words you have no argument left.  We have shot this argument down a hundred times, and like a mindless parrot, you have repeated the same thing over and over.   

Just a robot.... "Dur Race equals homosexuality.... dur race equals homosexuality..... dur race equals homosexuality..... dur race equals homosexuality."

If that's all you've got....... then you have nothing.  Repeating nothing over and over, makes you a waste of time to talk to.   Being a waste, is really sad.  You should either find a topic you actually have something of value to say, or find a better argument for this topic.  I don't care either way, because this is the very last response from me to you, if you have nothing else to offer.


----------



## Seawytch

GISMYS said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> """NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what BIBLE VERSE ??? EVEN MOSES HAD A BLACK WIFE!!!! WISE UP!!! STOP THE LIES FROM THE PIT OF HELL!!!  PLACE YOUR FAITH AND TRUST IN GOD AND GOD'S WORD ALONE NOT IN ANY MAN OR EVEN ANY man created  "church"!!!
Click to expand...



I've already posted the scripture *used by anti miscegenationists*. Go look or use your google.


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> """NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no argument left.  We have shot this argument down a hundred times, and like a mindless parrot, you have repeated the same thing over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> Just a robot.... "Dur Race equals homosexuality.... dur race equals homosexuality..... dur race equals homosexuality..... dur race equals homosexuality."
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you've got....... then you have nothing.  Repeating nothing over and over, makes you a waste of time to talk to.   Being a waste, is really sad.  You should either find a topic you actually have something of value to say, or find a better argument for this topic.  I don't care either way, because this is the very last response from me to you, if you have nothing else to offer.
Click to expand...



Truth make you uncomfortable? Don't like being akin to racists of yore? Oh well...


----------



## GISMYS

Seawytch said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what BIBLE VERSE ??? EVEN MOSES HAD A BLACK WIFE!!!! WISE UP!!! STOP THE LIES FROM THE PIT OF HELL!!!  PLACE YOUR FAITH AND TRUST IN GOD AND GOD'S WORD ALONE NOT IN ANY MAN OR EVEN ANY man created  "church"!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted the scripture *used by anti miscegenationists*. Go look or use your google.
Click to expand...

SO,YOU HAVE NO SCRIPTURE BACKING!!! JUST SATAN'S LIES!!!and you??


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it only two people? Because that is the way the laws are written. Don't like 'em, sue to change them. Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> What I said is 100% true. Turner v. Safley.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple logic isn't your thing, is it?  I didn't addressing the laws, I addressed your bull crap statement that marriage is a "right."  You cannot have a 'right' that is only available to some people.  You certainly cannot have a right that is dependent on another person.  No one can get marriage themselves, someone else has to enable them to get it.  It is not a right since clearly everyone cannot get it.
> 
> 
> 
> You do like the courts to legislate though, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look up fundamental rights. Marriage IS one despite your insistence that it is not.
Click to expand...


We aren't talking about marriage, we are talking about government marriage, maybe that's the source of your confusion.

That you have a fundamental right to other people's property, recognition by government and party favors and that a fundamental right of government is something you cannot get on your own but only through another person is beyond ridiculous.

However, the idea that you can marry someone in a church or privately and have a fundamental right to be left alone by government would certainly be true.


----------



## Seawytch

GISMYS said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> what BIBLE VERSE ??? EVEN MOSES HAD A BLACK WIFE!!!! WISE UP!!! STOP THE LIES FROM THE PIT OF HELL!!!  PLACE YOUR FAITH AND TRUST IN GOD AND GOD'S WORD ALONE NOT IN ANY MAN OR EVEN ANY man created  "church"!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted the scripture *used by anti miscegenationists*. Go look or use your google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO,YOU HAVE NO SCRIPTURE BACKING!!! JUST SATAN'S LIES!!!and you??
Click to expand...



I don't because I don't believe in using a religious text to justify bigotry. The anti miscegenationists had lots of them. (Kinda like you do)


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple logic isn't your thing, is it?  I didn't addressing the laws, I addressed your bull crap statement that marriage is a "right."  You cannot have a 'right' that is only available to some people.  You certainly cannot have a right that is dependent on another person.  No one can get marriage themselves, someone else has to enable them to get it.  It is not a right since clearly everyone cannot get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do like the courts to legislate though, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look up fundamental rights. Marriage IS one despite your insistence that it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't talking about marriage, we are talking about government marriage, maybe that's the source of your confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> That you have a fundamental right to other people's property, recognition by government and party favors and that a fundamental right of government is something you cannot get on your own but only through another person is beyond ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> However, the idea that you can marry someone in a church or privately and have a fundamental right to be left alone by government would certainly be true.
Click to expand...



Yeah, I don't think the SCOTUS made that distinction in the MANY times they declared marriage a *fundamental right. *


----------



## bendog

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can explain why government marriage is a right that not everyone can get, only people who pair up, then get back to me.  In the mean time, what you said is just stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it only two people? Because that is the way the laws are written. Don't like 'em, sue to change them. Good luck.
> 
> What I said is 100% true. Turner v. Safley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple logic isn't your thing, is it?  I didn't addressing the laws, I addressed your bull crap statement that marriage is a "right."  You cannot have a 'right' that is only available to some people.  You certainly cannot have a right that is dependent on another person.  No one can get marriage themselves, someone else has to enable them to get it.  It is not a right since clearly everyone cannot get it.
> 
> You do like the courts to legislate though, don't you?
Click to expand...


We have a right to contract, and that takes at least two.


----------



## Andylusion

Seawytch said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no argument left.  We have shot this argument down a hundred times, and like a mindless parrot, you have repeated the same thing over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> Just a robot.... "Dur Race equals homosexuality.... dur race equals homosexuality..... dur race equals homosexuality..... dur race equals homosexuality."
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you've got....... then you have nothing.  Repeating nothing over and over, makes you a waste of time to talk to.   Being a waste, is really sad.  You should either find a topic you actually have something of value to say, or find a better argument for this topic.  I don't care either way, because this is the very last response from me to you, if you have nothing else to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Truth make you uncomfortable? Don't like being akin to racists of yore? Oh well...
Click to expand...


I don't care either way.  At this point, what I do care about is you wasting my time with your pathetically empty and useless posts.  You are hereby muted forever.  You can waste other people's time from here on.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> """NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...
Click to expand...


You are a one trick pony. All you know is that interracial is the same as homosexual. And that  is a false equivalency. Race is not a choice, Homosexuality is a choice. Again, Huge difference there. 

No one chooses to be born white, black, Hispanic, or albino. A person chooses to be a homosexual, and what Gis says is true. No true church which belongs to God would ever perform a homosexual wedding. Any church which does, is not a true Christian church.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look up fundamental rights. Marriage IS one despite your insistence that it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't talking about marriage, we are talking about government marriage, maybe that's the source of your confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> That you have a fundamental right to other people's property, recognition by government and party favors and that a fundamental right of government is something you cannot get on your own but only through another person is beyond ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> However, the idea that you can marry someone in a church or privately and have a fundamental right to be left alone by government would certainly be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't think the SCOTUS made that distinction in the MANY times they declared marriage a *fundamental right. *
Click to expand...


OMG, the supreme court said government marriage is a fundamental right?  Why didn't you say so?  Well, then it certainly must be one.


----------



## kaz

bendog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it only two people? Because that is the way the laws are written. Don't like 'em, sue to change them. Good luck.
> 
> What I said is 100% true. Turner v. Safley.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple logic isn't your thing, is it?  I didn't addressing the laws, I addressed your bull crap statement that marriage is a "right."  You cannot have a 'right' that is only available to some people.  You certainly cannot have a right that is dependent on another person.  No one can get marriage themselves, someone else has to enable them to get it.  It is not a right since clearly everyone cannot get it.
> 
> You do like the courts to legislate though, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a right to contract, and that takes at least two.
Click to expand...


Begging the question


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

kaz said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to deny all sinners the right to marry.
> Sure, right.
> Ain't your job or business to determine who is a sinner and who isn't you moron.
> That is up to God.
> Something about do not judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to government marriage, it is a privilege.  If it were a "right" then it would be open to everyone.  Something you are not offering either.  Man/woman, two people, either way it's discrimination.  You aren't changing the nature of the beast, just tweaking the qualification rules.
Click to expand...


Incorrect: 



> State bans on the licensing of same-sex marriage significantly burden the *fundamental right to marry*[.]
> https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-5003.pdf



Marriage is not only a right but a _*fundamental*_ right, recognized and codified by the Constitution. 

Moreover, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires the states to afford all persons access to state laws, including marriage law. Marriage is contract law written by the states, these laws are designed to accommodate two equal partners in the marriage contract  same- or opposite sex. We know this to be a fact because in 20 states and the District of Columbia same-sex couples have entered into marriage contracts  marriage unaltered, unchanged, and not 'redefined.'


----------



## kaz

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Moreover, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires the states to afford all persons access to state laws, including marriage law.



Yes, gays have always had that.  Being gay never changed who someone can marry, so the 14th doesn't apply.  Sorry, Charlie, but only good tasting tuna get to be Starkist.

The "fundamental right" in government marriage is the fundamental right of government to ubiquitous power.  Government divides people and then pits them against each other.  Government marriage is yet another way to do that, so of course government wants a monopoly on defining marriage.


----------



## bendog

kaz said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple logic isn't your thing, is it?  I didn't addressing the laws, I addressed your bull crap statement that marriage is a "right."  You cannot have a 'right' that is only available to some people.  You certainly cannot have a right that is dependent on another person.  No one can get marriage themselves, someone else has to enable them to get it.  It is not a right since clearly everyone cannot get it.
> 
> You do like the courts to legislate though, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a right to contract, and that takes at least two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Begging the question
Click to expand...


What question?  You said marriage couldn't be a right because it required two people, and I assume you mean that a right must attach to individuals.  Or did I misunderstand?


----------



## bendog

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> """NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a one trick pony. All you know is that interracial is the same as homosexual. And that  is a false equivalency. Race is not a choice, Homosexuality is a choice. Again, Huge difference there.
> 
> No one chooses to be born white, black, Hispanic, or albino. A person chooses to be a homosexual, and what Gis says is true. No true church which belongs to God would ever perform a homosexual wedding. Any church which does, is not a true Christian church.
Click to expand...


At least you're no longer hiding your true motivations by hanging yourself from a cross.


----------



## kaz

bendog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a right to contract, and that takes at least two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Begging the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What question.  You said marriage couldn't be a right because it required two people, and I assume you mean that a right must attach to individuals.  Or did I misunderstand.
Click to expand...


You don't have a right to a contract.  You can get a contract if 2 or more people agree to one and it meets government contractual regulations and you follow government processes.

It's no different than marriage, which is why it was begging the question.  You assumed the truth of your own position and repeated the assertion.


----------



## bendog

kaz said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Begging the question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What question.  You said marriage couldn't be a right because it required two people, and I assume you mean that a right must attach to individuals.  Or did I misunderstand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a right to a contract.  You can get a contract if 2 or more people agree to one and it meets government contractual regulations and you follow government processes.
> 
> It's no different than marriage, which is why it was begging the question.  You assumed the truth of your own position and repeated the assertion.
Click to expand...


Not at all.  I have a right to enter into a contract with any agreeable person, and the state may not interfere by treating me unequally to anyone else.  We're merely back to the your premise that the state may treat GLBT's differently.  You are wrong.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't talking about marriage, we are talking about government marriage, maybe that's the source of your confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> That you have a fundamental right to other people's property, recognition by government and party favors and that a fundamental right of government is something you cannot get on your own but only through another person is beyond ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> However, the idea that you can marry someone in a church or privately and have a fundamental right to be left alone by government would certainly be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't think the SCOTUS made that distinction in the MANY times they declared marriage a *fundamental right. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, the supreme court said government marriage is a fundamental right?  Why didn't you say so?  Well, then it certainly must be one.
Click to expand...


Your contempt for the Constitution and its case law is noted, as is your contempt for the Supreme Court and its interpretive authority granted it by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI of the United States Constitution, and the original intent of the Framers. 

Which raises the question as to why you bother to participate at all, except to exhibit your ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution and its case law, and to be a tedious dullard and troll.


----------



## bendog

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't think the SCOTUS made that distinction in the MANY times they declared marriage a *fundamental right. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, the supreme court said government marriage is a fundamental right?  Why didn't you say so?  Well, then it certainly must be one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your contempt for the Constitution and its case law is noted, as is your contempt for the Supreme Court and its interpretive authority granted it by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI of the United States Constitution, and the original intent of the Framers.
> 
> Which raises the question as to why you bother to participate at all, except to exhibit your ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution and its case law, and to be a tedious dullard and troll.
Click to expand...


I don't think that's true.  Honestly, even 8 years ago, I think a majority thought that while civil unions might be ok, equal protection didn't require not allowing states to deny GLBT marriages on the same grounds as straights.  It took me awhile to get there too.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> """NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a one trick pony. All you know is that interracial is the same as homosexual. And that  is a false equivalency. Race is not a choice, Homosexuality is a choice. Again, Huge difference there.
> 
> No one chooses to be born white, black, Hispanic, or albino. A person chooses to be a homosexual, and what Gis says is true. No true church which belongs to God would ever perform a homosexual wedding. Any church which does, is not a true Christian church.
Click to expand...


Incorrect. 

The right of interracial couples to marry and same-sex couples to marry is consistent with 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where both are eligible to enter into marriage contracts exactly as marriage laws are currently written, and states are prohibited from denying either to access marriage law accordingly. 

Indeed, _Loving_ is cited by Federal courts when invalidating state measures intended to violate the equal protection rights of same-sex couples concerning marriage. 

In addition, whether one is homosexual as a consequence of birth or choice is Constitutionally irrelevant, as gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections: 



> When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.
> LAWRENCE V. TEXAS


----------



## bendog

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a one trick pony. All you know is that interracial is the same as homosexual. And that  is a false equivalency. Race is not a choice, Homosexuality is a choice. Again, Huge difference there.
> 
> No one chooses to be born white, black, Hispanic, or albino. A person chooses to be a homosexual, and what Gis says is true. No true church which belongs to God would ever perform a homosexual wedding. Any church which does, is not a true Christian church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The right of interracial couples to marry and same-sex couples to marry is consistent with 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where both are eligible to enter into marriage contracts exactly as marriage laws are currently written, and states are prohibited from denying either to access marriage law accordingly.
> 
> Indeed, _Loving_ is cited by Federal courts when invalidating state measures intended to violate the equal protection rights of same-sex couples concerning marriage.
> 
> In addition, whether one is homosexual as a consequence of birth or choice is Constitutionally irrelevant, as gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.
> LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


One ofJUSTICE SCALIA: I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted? Sometimes after Baker, where we said it didn't even raise a substantial Federal question? When did the law become this?

 MR. OLSON: When  may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?

 JUSTICE SCALIA: It's an easy question, I think, for that one. At the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That's absolutely true. But don't give me a question to my question. When do you think it became unconstitutional? Has it always been unconstitutional? ...

 MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that 

JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?

 MR. OLSON: There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.

A 5th Amendment 'right' to same-sex marriage?

Have a nice weekend


----------



## GISMYS

THERE IS NO DEBATE!!! FACE THE TRUTH!!==="""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, playing dumb I see.  Let me rephrase that in more generic terms:
> 
> "If a person is for gay marriage...why would they oppose having any church performing it?"
> 
> Better?  Now answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on being such a retarded troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is well taken.  Of the hundreds who voted on this poll...[one of the largest turnouts at USMB & therefore a topic _strongly_ important to many] ..85% do not believe gay marriage is important to them enough that people who dont like it should have to participate in it.  So at the best outlook it could be deduced that of gay marriage supporters..85% of them only have very tepid [and I would even say transitory] support for it.
> 
> So for dem strategists, what that means in real votes is that for every state where gay marriage is forced on the voters [yea!  victory!...?] by a single person or small panel of people....add to that a Harvey Milk style October surprise.... & you have a real democrat crisis on your hands...
> 
> Gays..with the help from "some republicans"... have shoved the democratic party [& all our good/productive/sane platforms..like heathcare & green energy] straight into political checkmate.
Click to expand...


You are a dumb ass retard lying POS troll.


----------



## RKMBrown

GISMYS said:


> THERE IS NO DEBATE!!! FACE THE TRUTH!!==="""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!



You are the worst kind of TROLL. One that promotes his his vile hate as religion.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a one trick pony. All you know is that interracial is the same as homosexual. And that  is a false equivalency. Race is not a choice, Homosexuality is a choice. Again, Huge difference there.
> 
> No one chooses to be born white, black, Hispanic, or albino. A person chooses to be a homosexual, and what Gis says is true. No true church which belongs to God would ever perform a homosexual wedding. Any church which does, is not a true Christian church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The right of interracial couples to marry and same-sex couples to marry is consistent with 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where both are eligible to enter into marriage contracts exactly as marriage laws are currently written, and states are prohibited from denying either to access marriage law accordingly.
> 
> Indeed, _Loving_ is cited by Federal courts when invalidating state measures intended to violate the equal protection rights of same-sex couples concerning marriage.
> 
> In addition, whether one is homosexual as *a consequence of birth or choice is Constitutionally irrelevant* as gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this *choice. *
> LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Looks like you agree, that homosexuality is a choice, as does SCOTUS.


----------



## GISMYS

RKMBrown said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> THERE IS NO DEBATE!!! FACE THE TRUTH!!==="""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the worst kind of TROLL. One that promotes his his vile hate as religion.
Click to expand...


Truth is Hate to those that Hate Truth!! 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Truth is Hate to those that Hate Truth!! Sooooooo True!!!HUH??


----------



## RKMBrown

GISMYS said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> THERE IS NO DEBATE!!! FACE THE TRUTH!!==="""NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the worst kind of TROLL. One that promotes his his vile hate as religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth is Hate to those that Hate Truth!!
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Truth is Hate to those that Hate Truth!! Sooooooo True!!!HUH??
Click to expand...


Put your stones down ya heathen.


----------



## Andylusion

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't think the SCOTUS made that distinction in the MANY times they declared marriage a *fundamental right. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, the supreme court said government marriage is a fundamental right?  Why didn't you say so?  Well, then it certainly must be one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your contempt for the Constitution and its case law is noted, as is your contempt for the Supreme Court and its interpretive authority granted it by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI of the United States Constitution, and the original intent of the Framers.
> 
> Which raises the question as to why you bother to participate at all, except to exhibit your ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution and its case law, and to be a tedious dullard and troll.
Click to expand...


When the Constitution, or the Supreme Court, violate my faith.... they're wrong.  Period.   Don't care what you think.  Why are we here?  To make it clear that all that crap you just spewed isn't going to change us.

"Well you're a troll!"

Still don't care.   I'm going to live by my Biblical views whether you think I'm a troll, a 'tedious dullard' or anything else.  And you are not going to stop me.

Your opinion of me, will never change what I believe or practice.  Thanks for stopping by.


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no argument left.  We have shot this argument down a hundred times, and like a mindless parrot, you have repeated the same thing over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a robot.... "Dur Race equals homosexuality.... dur race equals homosexuality..... dur race equals homosexuality..... dur race equals homosexuality."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all you've got....... then you have nothing.  Repeating nothing over and over, makes you a waste of time to talk to.   Being a waste, is really sad.  You should either find a topic you actually have something of value to say, or find a better argument for this topic.  I don't care either way, because this is the very last response from me to you, if you have nothing else to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth make you uncomfortable? Don't like being akin to racists of yore? Oh well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care either way.  At this point, what I do care about is you wasting my time with your pathetically empty and useless posts.  You are hereby muted forever.  You can waste other people's time from here on.
Click to expand...



I don't care if you're a bigot either. Glad we can agree on that!


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires the states to afford all persons access to state laws, including marriage law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, gays have always had that.  Being gay never changed who someone can marry, so the 14th doesn't apply.  Sorry, Charlie, but only good tasting tuna get to be Starkist.
> 
> 
> 
> The "fundamental right" in government marriage is the fundamental right of government to ubiquitous power.  Government divides people and then pits them against each other.  Government marriage is yet another way to do that, so of course government wants a monopoly on defining marriage.
Click to expand...



Yes, actually it does. I don't want to marry any man just like Mildred didn't want to marry a black man. The same argument you are using was used to try to keep blacks and whites from marrying each other, that they could marry, just not who they wanted to.

The fundamental right to marriage applies to the gubmit kind. The religious kind is already covered in the 1st Amendment and gays have ALWAYS had equal access to that.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't talking about marriage, we are talking about government marriage, maybe that's the source of your confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you have a fundamental right to other people's property, recognition by government and party favors and that a fundamental right of government is something you cannot get on your own but only through another person is beyond ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, the idea that you can marry someone in a church or privately and have a fundamental right to be left alone by government would certainly be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't think the SCOTUS made that distinction in the MANY times they declared marriage a *fundamental right. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, the supreme court said government marriage is a fundamental right?  Why didn't you say so?  Well, then it certainly must be one.
Click to expand...



In this country it is.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> """NO""" REAL CHURCH OF GOD would accomodate for homosexual weddings!!! but there are many false churches that are happy to be used as tools,fools,puppets of satan!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks said that about churches that married blacks to whites. Meh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a one trick pony. All you know is that interracial is the same as homosexual. And that  is a false equivalency. Race is not a choice, Homosexuality is a choice. Again, Huge difference there.
> 
> 
> 
> No one chooses to be born white, black, Hispanic, or albino. A person chooses to be a homosexual, and what Gis says is true. No true church which belongs to God would ever perform a homosexual wedding. Any church which does, is not a true Christian church.
Click to expand...



No actually I never said being gay is like being black. What I have said is that the discrimination is the same. It is. 

You could choose to suck a cock, like it AND kiss the dude after? I couldn't.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires the states to afford all persons access to state laws, including marriage law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, gays have always had that.  Being gay never changed who someone can marry, so the 14th doesn't apply.  Sorry, Charlie, but only good tasting tuna get to be Starkist.
> 
> 
> 
> The "fundamental right" in government marriage is the fundamental right of government to ubiquitous power.  Government divides people and then pits them against each other.  Government marriage is yet another way to do that, so of course government wants a monopoly on defining marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, actually it does. I don't want to marry any man just like Mildred didn't want to marry a black man. The same argument you are using was used to try to keep blacks and whites from marrying each other, that they could marry, just not who they wanted to.
> 
> The fundamental right to marriage applies to the gubmit kind. The religious kind is already covered in the 1st Amendment and gays have ALWAYS had equal access to that.
Click to expand...


The word "marriage" has always been about men & women & their children.  With emphasis not in that order.  What you are trying to do is redefine the word completely.  And that is unacceptable to society.  Blacks marrying whites did not defile the meaning of the word marriage being about a man, a woman and their child[ren].  Races have intermarried since the dawn of time.  Your definition though does defile that thousands of years old term.  Your sexual arrangment is functionally disqualified.

Blind people cannot drive.  Gay people cannot be man and wife together.  They can be something else, just not married.  And that is mostly for the sake of children.


----------



## Wry Catcher

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



Only if they engage in political discourse from the pulpit.  Then they should lose their tax exempt status and comply with the law as any other business must.


----------



## Andylusion

Wry Catcher said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they engage in political discourse from the pulpit.  Then they should lose their tax exempt status and comply with the law as any other business must.
Click to expand...


I've always found this claim to be dubious.   Religion at it's very core, is a system of beliefs about your entire world view.

How do you discuss your entire world view, which as a preacher of any kind must do, do you avoid anything to do with politics, which also is directly connected to how you view the world?


----------



## kaz

bendog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What question.  You said marriage couldn't be a right because it required two people, and I assume you mean that a right must attach to individuals.  Or did I misunderstand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a right to a contract.  You can get a contract if 2 or more people agree to one and it meets government contractual regulations and you follow government processes.
> 
> It's no different than marriage, which is why it was begging the question.  You assumed the truth of your own position and repeated the assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I have a right to enter into a contract with any agreeable person, and the state may not interfere by treating me unequally to anyone else.  We're merely back to the your premise that the state may treat GLBT's differently.  You are wrong.
Click to expand...


1)  Actually, there are all sorts of regulations for contracts and what can be put in them and what is enforcable and how they are enforcd.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  As career management and management consulting and now a business owner, I've been involved in and have negotiated many contracts.  You are just pulling it out of your ass.

2)  Government marriage isn't a contract, it's a government program.   The one thing you accurately pointed out is they are agreed to between two people.  Government is defined by government, involves government power and can be changed by government at any time in any way at it's whim.

3)  Gays aren't treated any differently than straights are with government marriage.  They can "marry" exactly the same people straights can and straights cannot marry anyone they can't.  Being gay has zero impact on who one can get a government marriage with.  And none of you saying yes it does have been able to produce a single example otherwise.


----------



## kaz

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, the supreme court said government marriage is a fundamental right?  Why didn't you say so?  Well, then it certainly must be one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for the Constitution and its case law is noted, as is your contempt for the Supreme Court and its interpretive authority granted it by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI of the United States Constitution, and the original intent of the Framers.
> 
> Which raises the question as to why you bother to participate at all, except to exhibit your ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution and its case law, and to be a tedious dullard and troll.
Click to expand...


What a fucking moron you are.  Learn to read shit for brains.  What is wrong with you? Seriously, you are just butt stupid.


----------



## kaz

bendog said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, the supreme court said government marriage is a fundamental right?  Why didn't you say so?  Well, then it certainly must be one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for the Constitution and its case law is noted, as is your contempt for the Supreme Court and its interpretive authority granted it by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI of the United States Constitution, and the original intent of the Framers.
> 
> Which raises the question as to why you bother to participate at all, except to exhibit your ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution and its case law, and to be a tedious dullard and troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that's true.  Honestly, even 8 years ago, I think a majority thought that while civil unions might be ok, equal protection didn't require not allowing states to deny GLBT marriages on the same grounds as straights.  It took me awhile to get there too.
Click to expand...


I appreciate you're trying to be civil here, but you are fundamentally wrong regarding my views and argument.

1)  I have no issue with someone being gay.  I do not think it's wrong in any way.  I have no problem with gays committing to each other in an actual marriage.  I am only discussing government marriage here.

2)  I oppose all government marriage, not just gay government marriage.

3)  If we have it, it's a job for the legislature, not the courts.  The Constitution doesn't address it.  If the law said that gays cannot enter into a man/woman government marriage or straights can enter into a single sex government marriage then the 14th would apply.  Since gays can marry the exact same people as straights, the 14th doesn't apply.  So you want it, do it the right way.  Take it to the legislature, not self appointed dictators in robes.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires the states to afford all persons access to state laws, including marriage law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, gays have always had that.  Being gay never changed who someone can marry, so the 14th doesn't apply.  Sorry, Charlie, but only good tasting tuna get to be Starkist.
> 
> 
> 
> The "fundamental right" in government marriage is the fundamental right of government to ubiquitous power.  Government divides people and then pits them against each other.  Government marriage is yet another way to do that, so of course government wants a monopoly on defining marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, actually it does. I don't want to marry any man just like Mildred didn't want to marry a black man. The same argument you are using was used to try to keep blacks and whites from marrying each other, that they could marry, just not who they wanted to.
> 
> The fundamental right to marriage applies to the gubmit kind. The religious kind is already covered in the 1st Amendment and gays have ALWAYS had equal access to that.
Click to expand...


Check and mate, that's the issue.  The law doesn't cover what you want, and the 14th doesn't cover what you want.  The courts are there to follow the letter of the law.  What you want is a matter for the legislature.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't think the SCOTUS made that distinction in the MANY times they declared marriage a *fundamental right. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, the supreme court said government marriage is a fundamental right?  Why didn't you say so?  Well, then it certainly must be one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In this country it is.
Click to expand...


Begging the question


----------



## GISMYS

BOTTOMLINE=GOD MAKES THE LAW!!!! God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God&#8217;s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.They were fully aware of God&#8217;s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.Romans 1:26


----------



## kaz

GISMYS said:


> BOTTOMLINE=GOD MAKES THE LAW!!!! God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against Gods natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.They were fully aware of Gods death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.Romans 1:26



So seriously, you think that government marriage = marriage?

I don't, not in any way at all.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, the supreme court said government marriage is a fundamental right?  Why didn't you say so?  Well, then it certainly must be one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this country it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Begging the question
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, what question is the civilly man begging exactly?


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, gays have always had that.  Being gay never changed who someone can marry, so the 14th doesn't apply.  Sorry, Charlie, but only good tasting tuna get to be Starkist.
> 
> 
> 
> The "fundamental right" in government marriage is the fundamental right of government to ubiquitous power.  Government divides people and then pits them against each other.  Government marriage is yet another way to do that, so of course government wants a monopoly on defining marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, actually it does. I don't want to marry any man just like Mildred didn't want to marry a black man. The same argument you are using was used to try to keep blacks and whites from marrying each other, that they could marry, just not who they wanted to.
> 
> The fundamental right to marriage applies to the gubmit kind. The religious kind is already covered in the 1st Amendment and gays have ALWAYS had equal access to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check and mate, that's the issue.  The law doesn't cover what you want, and the 14th doesn't cover what you want.  The courts are there to follow the letter of the law.  What you want is a matter for the legislature.
Click to expand...


Actually the law does...in about 20 states now...and the courts are following the letter of the law in striking down discriminatory anti gay marriage laws as they should.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, actually it does. I don't want to marry any man just like Mildred didn't want to marry a black man. The same argument you are using was used to try to keep blacks and whites from marrying each other, that they could marry, just not who they wanted to.
> 
> The fundamental right to marriage applies to the gubmit kind. The religious kind is already covered in the 1st Amendment and gays have ALWAYS had equal access to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check and mate, that's the issue.  The law doesn't cover what you want, and the 14th doesn't cover what you want.  The courts are there to follow the letter of the law.  What you want is a matter for the legislature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the law does...in about 20 states now...and the courts are following the letter of the law in striking down discriminatory anti gay marriage laws as they should.
Click to expand...


Changing a law based on what you want it the "letter of the law."  LOL, that's ridiculous.

Give me another example of a law which changes based on what you "want."


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this country it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Begging the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what question is the civilly man begging exactly?
Click to expand...


You should google the logical fallacy called, "begging the question."  Seriously, you're on a browser connected to the internet, did that not occur to you?


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> discriminatory anti gay marriage laws



Show a single law that even mentioned "gay marriage."


----------



## GISMYS

Paul points out what happens when people reject the truths of the existence of the Creator, His creation and the roles that He has given men and women. 

In Romans 1:26-27, Paul wrote: &#8220;For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.&#8221; 
- See more at: Creation Worldview Ministries: Homosexuality


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, actually it does. I don't want to marry any man just like Mildred didn't want to marry a black man. The same argument you are using was used to try to keep blacks and whites from marrying each other, that they could marry, just not who they wanted to.
> 
> The fundamental right to marriage applies to the gubmit kind. The religious kind is already covered in the 1st Amendment and gays have ALWAYS had equal access to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check and mate, that's the issue.  The law doesn't cover what you want, and the 14th doesn't cover what you want.  The courts are there to follow the letter of the law.  What you want is a matter for the legislature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the law does...in about 20 states now...and *the courts are following the letter of the law in striking down discriminatory anti gay marriage laws as they should*.
Click to expand...


Interesting.  Because the letter of the law in the most recent, Highest Ruling on gay marriage says that a state's broadest consensus is the ultimate "unquestioned authority" on who may or may not marry within its boundaries behavior vs behavior.

So, actually, those lower courts are in full contempt of the highest and most recent case law concerning gay marriage.  No constitutional finding has been made at the highest level to determine if Windsor may or may not be overruled by lower courts.


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Begging the question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what question is the civilly man begging exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should google the logical fallacy called, "begging the question."  Seriously, you're on a browser connected to the internet, did that not occur to you?
Click to expand...


The Internet is for porn.  Everyone knows that.


----------



## kaz

GISMYS said:


> Paul points out what happens when people reject the truths of the existence of the Creator, His creation and the roles that He has given men and women.
> 
> In Romans 1:26-27, Paul wrote: For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
> - See more at: Creation Worldview Ministries: Homosexuality



I asked you this before.  What does government have to do with morality?  Do you really want government making the choice of what's moral and only allowing people to decide to do what government decides is moral?

I feel a lot safer with government out of morality.  I don't have a problem with your having those views, though I don't agree with them.  Gays aren't harming anyone.  I don't grasp why God would make them gay then tell them to be miserable for the rest of their lives.  But it's your view.  It's your view that it's a job for government that I'm questioning.


----------



## kaz

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check and mate, that's the issue.  The law doesn't cover what you want, and the 14th doesn't cover what you want.  The courts are there to follow the letter of the law.  What you want is a matter for the legislature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the law does...in about 20 states now...and *the courts are following the letter of the law in striking down discriminatory anti gay marriage laws as they should*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Because the letter of the law in the most recent, Highest Ruling on gay marriage says that a state's broadest consensus is the ultimate "unquestioned authority" on who may or may not marry within its boundaries behavior vs behavior.
> 
> So, actually, those lower courts are in full contempt of the highest and most recent case law concerning gay marriage.  No constitutional finding has been made at the highest level to determine if Windsor may or may not be overruled by lower courts.
Click to expand...


When liberals agree with the Constitution, it's a sledge hammer.  When they don't, it's toilet paper.  When they agree with the majority, it's majority rule, when they don't, they run to the courts to overturn it.  When they agree with the Supreme Court, it's game set and match, when they don't, it's a rogue, Conservative manipulated force.

Liberalism,  it is a deceit, wrapped in a double standard, inside a hypocrisy.


----------



## Silhouette

kaz said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Because the letter of the law in the most recent, Highest Ruling on gay marriage says that a state's broadest consensus is the ultimate "unquestioned authority" on who may or may not marry within its boundaries behavior vs behavior.
> 
> So, actually, those lower courts are in full contempt of the highest and most recent case law concerning gay marriage.  No constitutional finding has been made at the highest level to determine if Windsor may or may not be overruled by lower courts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When liberals agree with the Constitution, it's a sledge hammer.  When they don't, it's toilet paper.  When they agree with the majority, it's majority rule, when they don't, they run to the courts to overturn it.  When they agree with the Supreme Court, it's game set and match, when they don't, it's a rogue, Conservative manipulated force.
> 
> Liberalism,  it is a deceit, wrapped in a double standard, inside a hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


Actually, there WAS a constitutional finding in Windsor about gay marriage.  Windsor said that a state's broad consensus was the appropriate way to determine if gay marriage was legal or not and that that determination was the "unquestioned authority" of that respective state.  And they didn't stop there.  They said in Windsor that that essential root power of the voters of each state stretched back to the founding of the country ...ready for this?.... "..in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended".

That is a constitutional finding about gay marriage: states lowest and most common electors determine it by default, retroactive to the founding of the country.  All lower court rulings are in defiance of that constitutional finding.  And they soon will find out how pleased the US Supreme Court is with willfull misinterpretation of its Ruling.  Those activist judges know precisely what Windsor said about states' voters' rights on the question of gay marriage.  It's their job to sit bolt upright in their chair when they read the phrase "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended" linked to any given subject they are currently reviewing.

They are practicing contempt.  And if we allow them to do this, we have handed democracy over to a fascist rule and nothing short of it.


----------



## Silhouette

The SCOTUS needs to act decisively here too: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-to-scotus-for-stay-that-includes-clerks.html

...because of snowballing sedition like this:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...future-attempt-another-coup-on-democracy.html


----------



## WorldWatcher

>

For some that are unfamiliar with SIL's not taking the Windsor decision in totality and his/her attempt to take snippets of _stare decisis_ out of context and try to convince him/her-self that it is dicta, let's review what the Windsor decision actually said...



Silhouette said:


> Actually, there WAS a constitutional finding in Windsor about gay marriage.



Windsor was ONLY a decision regarding whether the Federal government could discriminate against legal Same-sex Civil Marriages (SSCM) entered into under state law.  Windsor recognized as legal all State sanctioned SSCM's entered into whether the State recognized them do to judicial action, legislative action, or electoral action.

From the Majority Opinion:

"By seeking to displace this protection and treating those
persons as living in marriages less respected than others,
the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful
marriages.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit is affirmed.

It is so ordered."​

And as the Chief Justice wrote:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority&#8217;s 
analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point 
out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have 
before it, andvthe logic of its opinion does not decide, the 
distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their 
&#8220;historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,&#8221; 
ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition 
of marriage"​



Silhouette said:


> Windsor said that a state's broad consensus was the appropriate way to determine if gay marriage was legal or not and that that determination was the "unquestioned authority" of that respective state.



Now lets provide the context of the quote "unquestioned authority".  Since that quote only appears in one place here it is:

"DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to
protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and
equal protection principles applicable to the Federal 
Government. See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bolling v. Sharpe
, 347 U. S. 497 (1954). The Constitution&#8217;s guarantee of
equality &#8220;must at the very least mean that a bare con-
gressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group
cannot&#8221; justify disparate treatment of that group.
Depart*ment of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 
534&#8211;535 (1973). In determining whether a law is 
motived by an improper animus or purpose, &#8220; &#8216;[d]iscriminations 
of an unusual character&#8217;&#8221; especially require careful 
consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, 
at 633). DOMA cannot survive under these principles. 
The responsibility of the States for the regulation of 
domestic relations is an important indicator of the 
substantial societal impact the State&#8217;s classifications 
have in the daily lives and customs of its people. DOMA&#8217;s 
unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing 
and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates 
to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and 
responsibilities that come with the federal recognition 
of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a  law having 
the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. 
The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here 
in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate 
status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex 
marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority 
of the States.​

Now anyone with common sense can read that out of context quote of "unquestioned authority" and understand that the SCOTUS is saying that States have the unquestioned authority to recognize SSCM and that if they do, that the Federal government does not have the authority to not equally recognize those SSCMs.




Silhouette said:


> And they didn't stop there.  They said in Windsor that that essential root power of the voters of each state stretched back to the founding of the country ...ready for this?.... "..in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended".




Ready for this?  Here is the quote in context:


In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex
marriages, New York was responding &#8220;to the initiative of
those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their
own times.&#8221; Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) 
(slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper 
exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, 
all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. 
The dynamics of state government in the federal system are 
to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the 
members of a discrete community treat each other in their 
daily contact and constant interaction with each other.

The States&#8217; interest in defining and regulating the
marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees,
stems from the understanding that marriage is more than
a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory
benefits. Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two
adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the
State, and it can form &#8220;but one element in a personal bond
that is more enduring.&#8221; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558,
567 (2003). By its recognition of the validity of same-sex 
marriages performed in other jurisdictions and then by
authorizing same-sex unions and same-sex marriages,
New York sought to give further protection and dignity to
that bond. For same-sex couples who wished to be married, 
the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful
status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment 
of the intimate relationship between two people, a
relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the
community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both
the community&#8217;s considered perspective on the historical
roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving 
understanding of the meaning of equality.​

Read in context the court says that State don't have "unquestioned authority", that State actions are limited by "constitutional guarantees".  And contrary to what some may claim that homosexuals don't have constitutional guarantees because of their actions, the above two quotes show that to be incorrect as they cite two SCOTUS decisions where the decision was based on the 14th Amendment in favor of protecting homosexuals.




Silhouette said:


> That is a constitutional finding about gay marriage...




No it wasn't, it was a decision about if the States say "Yes" to SSCM can the Federal government say "No".  Windsor said they couldn't.  It didn't address whether States could discriminate against same-sex in the area of SSCM, that will take another case.

One that will arrive at the SCOTUS door step next term.



>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> ...Windsor was ONLY a decision regarding whether the Federal government could discriminate against legal Same-sex Civil Marriages (SSCM) entered into under state law.  Windsor recognized as legal all State sanctioned SSCM's entered into whether the State recognized them do to judicial action, legislative action, or electoral action.



There are a couple of problems with your conclusions.

1. Why did SCOTUS in Windsor go to great lengths to discuss gay marriage as a new and weird concept and one that a broad swath should be able to deliberate and weigh in on "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended"?

A: If they were just interested in narrowing the discussion to just whether or not a state had approved of it "by whichever means", they would have left those rather lengthy and reiterated points out of the discussion.

2. The question of whether or not judicial activism is "legal" or dominant to a broad-swath public weigh-in [vote in many states]  is still up for grabs.  You may have heard that that is being appealed by several states as we sit here debating this?

A: Again, in Windsor SCOTUS went into great detail how it felt about having all the citizens of a given "discreet community" [a state's voters in other words] weigh in on whether or not gay marriage should be legal in each state's "unquestioned authority" on the matter.

So then the dissolution of law will come down to how laws are made in the different states that are appealing the seditious judicial activists' proclamations in violation of Windsor's intent.  If they are made, as in CA's case, by initiative referendum, then those initiatives are legal.   And, Windsor added oddly also [in defiance of your "narrow decision" conclusions above] that those voter choices/laws are binding retroactive to the founding of the country.

Might want to go back and read more than just the cherry picked text you posted... Try pages 14-22 of the Opinion...  United States v. Windsor


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> Might want to go back and read more than just the cherry picked text you posted... Try pages 14-22 of the Opinion...  United States v. Windsor




I have read the FULL decision in context and as anyone that has read it can see - the decision doesn't do what you claim.

It's pretty funny, you take a couple of snippet's out of context and when I provide the full text of what the court actually said - and it isn't what you claimed - you say that I've "cherry picked it".


Face it SIL, Windsor was not a ruling on whether States can discriminate against same-sex couples - it's only impact was to show that the government (in this case the federal government) had no reason to discriminate against homosexuals.  Whether States can discriminate against them will be determined by a later case.  One likely to arrive in the next term that begins in October.

Windsor didn't settle the SS Civil Marriage issue, that will be a future case.



>>>>


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check and mate, that's the issue.  The law doesn't cover what you want, and the 14th doesn't cover what you want.  The courts are there to follow the letter of the law.  What you want is a matter for the legislature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the law does...in about 20 states now...and the courts are following the letter of the law in striking down discriminatory anti gay marriage laws as they should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Changing a law based on what you want it the "letter of the law."  LOL, that's ridiculous.
> 
> Give me another example of a law which changes based on what you "want."
Click to expand...


The law isn't changing, it is being recognized to include more Americans. 

It already "changed" (adapted to include more people) based on what the Lovings wanted.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the law does...in about 20 states now...and *the courts are following the letter of the law in striking down discriminatory anti gay marriage laws as they should*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Because the letter of the law in the most recent, Highest Ruling on gay marriage says that a state's broadest consensus is the ultimate "unquestioned authority" on who may or may not marry within its boundaries behavior vs behavior.
> 
> So, actually, those lower courts are in full contempt of the highest and most recent case law concerning gay marriage.  No constitutional finding has been made at the highest level to determine if Windsor may or may not be overruled by lower courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When liberals agree with the Constitution, it's a sledge hammer.  When they don't, it's toilet paper.  When they agree with the majority, it's majority rule, when they don't, they run to the courts to overturn it.  When they agree with the Supreme Court, it's game set and match, when they don't, it's a rogue, Conservative manipulated force.
> 
> Liberalism,  it is a deceit, wrapped in a double standard, inside a hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


Why do you seem to have such a loathing for the system the founders set up for us? It's those guys that set up the judicial system for the masses to redress their grievances, right? Do you agree or disagree with *all *the SCOTUS rulings?


----------



## GISMYS

DUH!!! MARRAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMSAN,SAME SEX "marrage" would be an ABOMINATION =sick sexual perversion,condemned by GOD!!


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the law does...in about 20 states now...and the courts are following the letter of the law in striking down discriminatory anti gay marriage laws as they should.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Changing a law based on what you want it the "letter of the law."  LOL, that's ridiculous.
> 
> Give me another example of a law which changes based on what you "want."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law isn't changing, it is being recognized to include more Americans.
> 
> It already "changed" (adapted to include more people) based on what the Lovings wanted.
Click to expand...


Loving has nothing to do with gays, fail


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the law does...in about 20 states now...and the courts are following the letter of the law in striking down discriminatory anti gay marriage laws as they should.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Changing a law based on what you want it the "letter of the law."  LOL, that's ridiculous.
> 
> Give me another example of a law which changes based on what you "want."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law isn't changing, it is being recognized to include more Americans.
> 
> It already "changed" (adapted to include more people) based on what the Lovings wanted.
Click to expand...


Loving has nothing to do with gays, fail.

Liberals justify the tyranny of the majority with that it's what the majority wanted so suck it.  Then when the majority don't want what you want, all of a sudden majority is meaningless and it's off to self appointed dictators in robes.

Just be honest, its all about the triumph of leftist authoritarianism however you get it.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Because the letter of the law in the most recent, Highest Ruling on gay marriage says that a state's broadest consensus is the ultimate "unquestioned authority" on who may or may not marry within its boundaries behavior vs behavior.
> 
> So, actually, those lower courts are in full contempt of the highest and most recent case law concerning gay marriage.  No constitutional finding has been made at the highest level to determine if Windsor may or may not be overruled by lower courts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When liberals agree with the Constitution, it's a sledge hammer.  When they don't, it's toilet paper.  When they agree with the majority, it's majority rule, when they don't, they run to the courts to overturn it.  When they agree with the Supreme Court, it's game set and match, when they don't, it's a rogue, Conservative manipulated force.
> 
> Liberalism,  it is a deceit, wrapped in a double standard, inside a hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you seem to have such a loathing for the system the founders set up for us? It's those guys that set up the judicial system for the masses to redress their grievances, right? Do you agree or disagree with *all *the SCOTUS rulings?
Click to expand...


Strawman.  You loathe the system they set up for us.  There is no basis in the Constitution for the judiciary to legislate from the bench when authoritarian leftism isn't prevailing.  In fact, they viewed the judiciary as the weakest of the three branches.  They had no idea what tyrants the bench would become.  To say they wanted that is just extreme ignorance.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> When liberals agree with the Constitution, it's a sledge hammer.  When they don't, it's toilet paper.  When they agree with the majority, it's majority rule, when they don't, they run to the courts to overturn it.  When they agree with the Supreme Court, it's game set and match, when they don't, it's a rogue, Conservative manipulated force.
> 
> Liberalism,  it is a deceit, wrapped in a double standard, inside a hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you seem to have such a loathing for the system the founders set up for us? It's those guys that set up the judicial system for the masses to redress their grievances, right? Do you agree or disagree with *all *the SCOTUS rulings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  You loathe the system they set up for us.  There is no basis in the Constitution for the judiciary to legislate from the bench when authoritarian leftism isn't prevailing.  In fact, they viewed the judiciary as the weakest of the three branches.  They had no idea what tyrants the bench would become.  To say they wanted that is just extreme ignorance.
Click to expand...


Actually I love the system they set up for us...and they set it up with a way for people to redress their grievances through the judicial. Brilliant. 

So many are thankful for it...the Lovings, Edith Windsors and folks just like me. 

Do you agree or disagree with all the SCOTUS rulings? I agree with some, disagree with others, you?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

In fact, Federal courts have used _Windsor_, along with other relevant case law, as justification to invalidate state measures denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights. 

The issue will likely be on the docket for the October 2014 term.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Changing a law based on what you want it the "letter of the law."  LOL, that's ridiculous.
> 
> Give me another example of a law which changes based on what you "want."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law isn't changing, it is being recognized to include more Americans.
> 
> It already "changed" (adapted to include more people) based on what the Lovings wanted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loving has nothing to do with gays, fail.
> 
> Liberals justify the tyranny of the majority with that it's what the majority wanted so suck it.  Then when the majority don't want what you want, all of a sudden majority is meaningless and it's off to self appointed dictators in robes.
> 
> Just be honest, its all about the triumph of leftist authoritarianism however you get it.
Click to expand...


I didn't say they had anything to do with gays, I said they had to do with civil marriage expanding to include more Americans.

Okay, we get you don't think there should be civil marriage (including your own  ) but civil marriage IS. Fine, you think it's a privilege...okay, what reasonable person standard to you use to deny this privilege to gay and lesbian couples? Where is the societal harm in allowing gay and lesbian couples equal access to this civil law already in place? Would you do the same for people with a driver's licence, bar them from accessing it because of the car they choose to drive? Why deny a civil marriage license based on the gender of my chosen life partner?


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you seem to have such a loathing for the system the founders set up for us? It's those guys that set up the judicial system for the masses to redress their grievances, right? Do you agree or disagree with *all *the SCOTUS rulings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman.  You loathe the system they set up for us.  There is no basis in the Constitution for the judiciary to legislate from the bench when authoritarian leftism isn't prevailing.  In fact, they viewed the judiciary as the weakest of the three branches.  They had no idea what tyrants the bench would become.  To say they wanted that is just extreme ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I love the system they set up for us...and they set it up with a way for people to redress their grievances through the judicial. Brilliant.
> 
> So many are thankful for it...the Lovings, Edith Windsors and folks just like me.
> 
> Do you agree or disagree with all the SCOTUS rulings? I agree with some, disagree with others, you?
Click to expand...


What you love is that they set up a system with no meaningful check and balance over the judiciary so they could seize power and implement authoritarian leftism by decree when you can't get it past the voters.  Or as in this case you have no patience even for democracy.  Clearly in a decade or two with the attitudes of the youth towards gays and the dying of the people who oppose gays you would have gotten it by democracy.  You passed on that.

Which answers your question.  You love it because you get authoritarian leftism either way.  The voters give it to you or if they don't you run to the courts and they give it to you.

I love liberty, something the court almost never rules in favor of.   Even when they rule for a "right," it's actually a back door government power.  Take Roe v. Wade, they did not rule abortion is not a job for government.  They handed the Federal government the power to force the States to accept it.  The court never just rules the government overstepped it's Constitutional authority, so sit down and shut up.  They grant powers even when they "limit" them.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law isn't changing, it is being recognized to include more Americans.
> 
> It already "changed" (adapted to include more people) based on what the Lovings wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loving has nothing to do with gays, fail.
> 
> Liberals justify the tyranny of the majority with that it's what the majority wanted so suck it.  Then when the majority don't want what you want, all of a sudden majority is meaningless and it's off to self appointed dictators in robes.
> 
> Just be honest, its all about the triumph of leftist authoritarianism however you get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say they had anything to do with gays, I said they had to do with civil marriage expanding to include more Americans.
Click to expand...


You are as bigoted and arbitrary as the Christians are.  You are not for equality, you are for expanded discrimination.  You don't want to grant access to singles or polygamists to tax breaks or eliminating the death tax.  Two people man/woman is just an arbitrary standard chosen by you that is just as arbitrary as man/woman.  They say man/woman, you say two people, tom-a-to, tom-ah-to, six of one, half a dozen of the other.  You have no moral highground in this.  You're as discriminatory and bigoted as they are.



Seawytch said:


> Okay, we get you don't think there should be civil marriage (including your own  )



The government part of my marriage is meaningless to me.  And yes, you mentioned your standard is I should ignore my partners feelings and leave her with tread marks down her back.  Again, not a testament that you're ready for any sort of marriage, that isn't how it works.  I think that's a you think though, not a gay thing.



Seawytch said:


> but civil marriage IS. Fine, you think it's a privilege...okay, what reasonable person standard to you use to deny this privilege to gay and lesbian couples? Where is the societal harm in allowing gay and lesbian couples equal access to this civil law already in place? Would you do the same for people with a driver's licence, bar them from accessing it because of the car they choose to drive? Why deny a civil marriage license based on the gender of my chosen life partner?



Everyone should have access to lower tax rates, the death tax is evil, parental rights and responsibilities should be based on paternity not paperwork, living wills should be simpler and cheaper.

The question is for you, why should gays get those and not everyone else?  I am against discrimination, you just want to change the height of the bar.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman.  You loathe the system they set up for us.  There is no basis in the Constitution for the judiciary to legislate from the bench when authoritarian leftism isn't prevailing.  In fact, they viewed the judiciary as the weakest of the three branches.  They had no idea what tyrants the bench would become.  To say they wanted that is just extreme ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I love the system they set up for us...and they set it up with a way for people to redress their grievances through the judicial. Brilliant.
> 
> So many are thankful for it...the Lovings, Edith Windsors and folks just like me.
> 
> Do you agree or disagree with all the SCOTUS rulings? I agree with some, disagree with others, you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you love is that they set up a system with no meaningful check and balance over the judiciary so they could seize power and implement authoritarian leftism by decree when you can't get it past the voters.  Or as in this case you have no patience even for democracy.  Clearly in a decade or two with the attitudes of the youth towards gays and the dying of the people who oppose gays you would have gotten it by democracy.  You passed on that.
> 
> Which answers your question.  You love it because you get authoritarian leftism either way.  The voters give it to you or if they don't you run to the courts and they give it to you.
> 
> I love liberty, something the court almost never rules in favor of.   Even when they rule for a "right," it's actually a back door government power.  Take Roe v. Wade, they did not rule abortion is not a job for government.  They handed the Federal government the power to force the States to accept it.  The court never just rules the government overstepped it's Constitutional authority, so sit down and shut up.  They grant powers even when they "limit" them.
Click to expand...


You keep insisting you know what I "love". Well golly, since we get to play that game, YOU "love" the idea that you can hide behind "I hate gubmit marriage" (despite being in one) as a cover for just simple bigotry. 

How's that for playing the "I know what you love" game? 

Voters don't get to vote on minority civil rights...thank goodness. 







Loving v Virginia was in 1965 or 67 wasn't it?


----------



## Seawytch

I believe I've said, numerous times, that if you support siblings and multiple marriages, I support your support. Good luck.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

It's also been said, numerous times, that to bring 'siblings' and 'multiple partners' into the debate is desperate, irrelevant, and inane.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> I believe I've said, numerous times, that if you support siblings and multiple marriages, I support your support. *Good luck*.



Instead you should say "Good precedent".  Because that's really what the operative hinge is with regard to incest & polygamy marriage if the LGBTcult succeeds in forcing behaviors objectionable to the majority under the 14th Amendment.  Skilled attorneys & not mere luck will be the game at that point.


----------



## Silhouette

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It's also been said, numerous times, that to bring 'siblings' and 'multiple partners' into the debate is desperate, irrelevant, and inane.



Exactly why?

You understand that using the anus as an artificial vagina is seen by the majority as "desperate, irrelevant and inane" with respect to marriage, right?  What makes incest and polygamy so gosh darn "icky" by comparison?

No, I mean in legal terms?  What _specifically_?


----------



## JoeB131

Silhouette said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's also been said, numerous times, that to bring 'siblings' and 'multiple partners' into the debate is desperate, irrelevant, and inane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly why?
> 
> You understand that *using the anus as an artificial vagina i*s seen by the majority as "desperate, irrelevant and inane" with respect to marriage, right?  What makes incest and polygamy so gosh darn "icky" by comparison?
> 
> No, I mean in legal terms?  What _specifically_?
Click to expand...


38% of straight couples have tried Anal Sex.   99% engage in fellatio or cunnilingus. 

So it's really not the mechanics that have you so upset, is it? 

Of course, there's a reason why incest is icky.  Besides the  level of "familiarity", incestuous unions produce deformed kids.  

As for polygamy.  Meh.  If a guy is enough of a masochist to want to double up on the nagging, have at it, buddy.


----------



## Silhouette

JoeB131 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's also been said, numerous times, that to bring 'siblings' and 'multiple partners' into the debate is desperate, irrelevant, and inane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly why?
> 
> You understand that *using the anus as an artificial vagina i*s seen by the majority as "desperate, irrelevant and inane" with respect to marriage, right?  What makes incest and polygamy so gosh darn "icky" by comparison?
> 
> No, I mean in legal terms?  What _specifically_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 38% of straight couples have tried Anal Sex.   99% engage in fellatio or cunnilingus.
> 
> So it's really not the mechanics that have you so upset, is it?
> 
> Of course, there's a reason why incest is icky.  Besides the  level of "familiarity", incestuous unions produce deformed kids.
> 
> As for polygamy.  Meh.  If a guy is enough of a masochist to want to double up on the nagging, have at it, buddy.
Click to expand...


Avoiding the legal question are we?


----------



## GISMYS

Silhouette said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly why?
> 
> You understand that *using the anus as an artificial vagina i*s seen by the majority as "desperate, irrelevant and inane" with respect to marriage, right?  What makes incest and polygamy so gosh darn "icky" by comparison?
> 
> No, I mean in legal terms?  What _specifically_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 38% of straight couples have tried Anal Sex.   99% engage in fellatio or cunnilingus.
> 
> So it's really not the mechanics that have you so upset, is it?
> 
> Of course, there's a reason why incest is icky.  Besides the  level of "familiarity", incestuous unions produce deformed kids.
> 
> As for polygamy.  Meh.  If a guy is enough of a masochist to want to double up on the nagging, have at it, buddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoiding the legal question are we?
Click to expand...


KEEP YOUR HIV AIDS TESTS UP TODATE!!!==For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not fitting,
And knowing the judgment of God, that those who commit such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but have pleasure in those who do them. ROMANS 1:26      AND YOU???


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Besides the  level of "familiarity".



Sorry for the detour from the boring debate on the legality of what is Biblically Morally wrong....

Why is "Familiarity" a problem?

I've heard this before, and it has never made sense to me.   Familiarity is a problem?   How come?

If you want a life long spouse, wouldn't you want someone you knew was a good person?  Someone you were familiar with enough to know what kind of person they were at their core?

It always shocks me that, specifically women, tend to reject really good, decent guys they know, and run off with some absolute nut case they don't know anything about, and are shocked they are crazy.    Seriously, why would you want someone you know nothing about?   They could be a fruit cake, and then you end up miserable for life, or divorced.


----------



## JoeB131

Silhouette said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly why?
> 
> You understand that *using the anus as an artificial vagina i*s seen by the majority as "desperate, irrelevant and inane" with respect to marriage, right?  What makes incest and polygamy so gosh darn "icky" by comparison?
> 
> No, I mean in legal terms?  What _specifically_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 38% of straight couples have tried Anal Sex.   99% engage in fellatio or cunnilingus.
> 
> So it's really not the mechanics that have you so upset, is it?
> 
> Of course, there's a reason why incest is icky.  Besides the  level of "familiarity", incestuous unions produce deformed kids.
> 
> As for polygamy.  Meh.  If a guy is enough of a masochist to want to double up on the nagging, have at it, buddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoiding the legal question are we?
Click to expand...


There was a "legal" question in your homophobic rantings?

The legal question has already been answered here.  Sodomy is no longer against the law.  (Lawrence v. Texas).  All the Sodomy laws have been struck down.  You can totally get that muff dive or blow job. 

Polygamy and Incest, however, are still against the law.


----------



## JoeB131

Androw said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides the  level of "familiarity".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the detour from the boring debate on the legality of what is Biblically Morally wrong....
> 
> Why is "Familiarity" a problem?
> 
> I've heard this before, and it has never made sense to me.   Familiarity is a problem?   How come?
> 
> If you want a life long spouse, wouldn't you want someone you knew was a good person?  Someone you were familiar with enough to know what kind of person they were at their core?
> 
> It always shocks me that, specifically women, tend to reject really good, decent guys they know, and run off with some absolute nut case they don't know anything about, and are shocked they are crazy.    Seriously, why would you want someone you know nothing about?   They could be a fruit cake, and then you end up miserable for life, or divorced.
Click to expand...


Um, yeah, I guess you could marry a close family member who is 'familiar".  In fact, in most of the world, people marry their cousins, and that works out as well as you would expect.  

As much as you clowns talk about "traditional" marriage, the reality is, through most of history, and in some parts of the world, marriages are still arranged by families.  Yet a Modern American would consider this to be ridiculous.  

Now, for what is "Morally Wrong" in the BIble. 

Slavery was perfectly acceptable in the Bible.
So was Genocide as an act of war. 

So was inflicting the death penalty for minor offenses like working on the Sabbath, not being a virgin on your wedding night, saying a bad word, and so on.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides the  level of "familiarity".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the detour from the boring debate on the legality of what is Biblically Morally wrong....
> 
> Why is "Familiarity" a problem?
> 
> I've heard this before, and it has never made sense to me.   Familiarity is a problem?   How come?
> 
> If you want a life long spouse, wouldn't you want someone you knew was a good person?  Someone you were familiar with enough to know what kind of person they were at their core?
> 
> It always shocks me that, specifically women, tend to reject really good, decent guys they know, and run off with some absolute nut case they don't know anything about, and are shocked they are crazy.    Seriously, why would you want someone you know nothing about?   They could be a fruit cake, and then you end up miserable for life, or divorced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, I guess you could marry a close family member who is 'familiar".  In fact, in most of the world, people marry their cousins, and that works out as well as you would expect.
> 
> As much as you clowns talk about "traditional" marriage, the reality is, through most of history, and in some parts of the world, marriages are still arranged by families.  Yet a Modern American would consider this to be ridiculous.
> 
> Now, for what is "Morally Wrong" in the BIble.
> 
> Slavery was perfectly acceptable in the Bible.
> So was Genocide as an act of war.
> 
> So was inflicting the death penalty for minor offenses like working on the Sabbath, not being a virgin on your wedding night, saying a bad word, and so on.
Click to expand...


I didn't actually mean necessarily familiarity with family, but just in general.  

Actually I know a guy who had an arranged marriage, but it was not like the news media always portray it as in the headlines.     

He decided he wanted to be married, and his family was back in Africa (can't remember which specific country there).   He asked them to find him a girl, and they sent him some photos.  He picked one, and started talking to her on skype.   Soon he flew back, and returned with a girl.

My understanding is that few marriages are the ones you see on TV, with the 6 year old girl, and boy, being setup for marriage, and when they turn 15 or whatever, here you go and if you hate each other you are screwed.

The News portrays that, because they want ratings, and reality is far less interesting.    Most of the time, the parents of the guy, meet the parents of the girl, and talk it out to see if they are a match.   Then, if both parents agree, the boy courts the girl, and they meet just a few times, and decide if they want to get on with it.    If they decide not to, then the parents go looking for someone else.

The headline news, where the parents walk in and say "here is your wife." and attach the chains, is not nearly as common as we in the west believe.

As one might expect, the success rate in these marriages is vastly higher than those in America.    The whole kick the kids to college, and let them  bounce around and 'good luck finding someone' has not worked too well for us.  Yet we keep thinking 'we just didn't find the Right One' as if.

And yes, I am well aware of what the Bible says and doesn't say.  When I care what you think about the Bible, I'll let you know.  Until then, you can expect I'll stand by my Biblical convictions.


----------



## JoeB131

Androw said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the detour from the boring debate on the legality of what is Biblically Morally wrong....
> 
> Why is "Familiarity" a problem?
> 
> I've heard this before, and it has never made sense to me.   Familiarity is a problem?   How come?
> 
> If you want a life long spouse, wouldn't you want someone you knew was a good person?  Someone you were familiar with enough to know what kind of person they were at their core?
> 
> It always shocks me that, specifically women, tend to reject really good, decent guys they know, and run off with some absolute nut case they don't know anything about, and are shocked they are crazy.    Seriously, why would you want someone you know nothing about?   They could be a fruit cake, and then you end up miserable for life, or divorced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, I guess you could marry a close family member who is 'familiar".  In fact, in most of the world, people marry their cousins, and that works out as well as you would expect.
> 
> As much as you clowns talk about "traditional" marriage, the reality is, through most of history, and in some parts of the world, marriages are still arranged by families.  Yet a Modern American would consider this to be ridiculous.
> 
> Now, for what is "Morally Wrong" in the BIble.
> 
> Slavery was perfectly acceptable in the Bible.
> So was Genocide as an act of war.
> 
> So was inflicting the death penalty for minor offenses like working on the Sabbath, not being a virgin on your wedding night, saying a bad word, and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't actually mean necessarily familiarity with family, but just in general.
> 
> Actually I know a guy who had an arranged marriage, but it was not like the news media always portray it as in the headlines.
> 
> He decided he wanted to be married, and his family was back in Africa (can't remember which specific country there).   He asked them to find him a girl, and they sent him some photos.  He picked one, and started talking to her on skype.   Soon he flew back, and returned with a girl.
> 
> My understanding is that few marriages are the ones you see on TV, with the 6 year old girl, and boy, being setup for marriage, and when they turn 15 or whatever, here you go and if you hate each other you are screwed.
> 
> The News portrays that, because they want ratings, and reality is far less interesting.    Most of the time, the parents of the guy, meet the parents of the girl, and talk it out to see if they are a match.   Then, if both parents agree, the boy courts the girl, and they meet just a few times, and decide if they want to get on with it.    If they decide not to, then the parents go looking for someone else.
> 
> The headline news, where the parents walk in and say "here is your wife." and attach the chains, is not nearly as common as we in the west believe.
> 
> As one might expect, the success rate in these marriages is vastly higher than those in America.    The whole kick the kids to college, and let them  bounce around and 'good luck finding someone' has not worked too well for us.  Yet we keep thinking 'we just didn't find the Right One' as if.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I guess it's easy to have a marriage that works if the woman realizes she's property and not a person.  




Androw said:


> And yes, I am well aware of what the Bible says and doesn't say.  When I care what you think about the Bible, I'll let you know.  Until then, you can expect I'll stand by my Biblical convictions.



So how many of your neighbors did you stone going to work yesterday?


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, I guess you could marry a close family member who is 'familiar".  In fact, in most of the world, people marry their cousins, and that works out as well as you would expect.
> 
> As much as you clowns talk about "traditional" marriage, the reality is, through most of history, and in some parts of the world, marriages are still arranged by families.  Yet a Modern American would consider this to be ridiculous.
> 
> Now, for what is "Morally Wrong" in the BIble.
> 
> Slavery was perfectly acceptable in the Bible.
> So was Genocide as an act of war.
> 
> So was inflicting the death penalty for minor offenses like working on the Sabbath, not being a virgin on your wedding night, saying a bad word, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't actually mean necessarily familiarity with family, but just in general.
> 
> Actually I know a guy who had an arranged marriage, but it was not like the news media always portray it as in the headlines.
> 
> He decided he wanted to be married, and his family was back in Africa (can't remember which specific country there).   He asked them to find him a girl, and they sent him some photos.  He picked one, and started talking to her on skype.   Soon he flew back, and returned with a girl.
> 
> My understanding is that few marriages are the ones you see on TV, with the 6 year old girl, and boy, being setup for marriage, and when they turn 15 or whatever, here you go and if you hate each other you are screwed.
> 
> The News portrays that, because they want ratings, and reality is far less interesting.    Most of the time, the parents of the guy, meet the parents of the girl, and talk it out to see if they are a match.   Then, if both parents agree, the boy courts the girl, and they meet just a few times, and decide if they want to get on with it.    If they decide not to, then the parents go looking for someone else.
> 
> The headline news, where the parents walk in and say "here is your wife." and attach the chains, is not nearly as common as we in the west believe.
> 
> As one might expect, the success rate in these marriages is vastly higher than those in America.    The whole kick the kids to college, and let them  bounce around and 'good luck finding someone' has not worked too well for us.  Yet we keep thinking 'we just didn't find the Right One' as if.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I guess it's easy to have a marriage that works if the woman realizes she's property and not a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, I am well aware of what the Bible says and doesn't say.  When I care what you think about the Bible, I'll let you know.  Until then, you can expect I'll stand by my Biblical convictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how many of your neighbors did you stone going to work yesterday?
Click to expand...


The girl could refuse to marry the boy.    Do you just make up stuff not said when you discuss topics?

None.   Next dumb question?


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> ...Voters don't get to vote on minority civil rights...thank goodness.
> 
> 
> ..Loving v Virginia was in 1965 or 67 wasn't it?



The US Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on current appeals asking It to determine if an incomplete group of deviant sexual behaviors-become-cult has equal protection as race under the 14th.  Until such time as these appeals are in, do not speak with finality because there is no final proclamation...other than in Windsor which upheld constitutionally that each state's broad-swath "discreet community" has a right to weigh in whether or not to legalize the weird and new "gay marriage".

Right now, the weight of law at the very top in the most recent Opinion is that states' voters get to decide.  That may change.  But for now that is the highest and best interpretation pending appeal.


----------



## JoeB131

Androw said:


> [
> 
> The girl could refuse to marry the boy.    Do you just make up stuff not said when you discuss topics?
> 
> None.   Next dumb question?



THat doesn't happen that often.  not when there are Dowries and shit involved. 

But you avoid the question.  YOu keep arguing that your homophobia is acceptable because the BIble says so. 

The Bible also says to stone your neighbors if they work on the Sabbath. 

And stone your neighbor's daughter is she isn't a virgin on her wedding night. 

So why do you only selectively follow the rules? 

1) Because society would brand you a psychopath if you did.
2) Because you are grasping for any excuse to justify your homophobia?


----------



## Silhouette

JoeB131 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The girl could refuse to marry the boy.    Do you just make up stuff not said when you discuss topics?
> 
> None.   Next dumb question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat doesn't happen that often.  not when there are Dowries and shit involved.
> 
> But you avoid the question.  YOu keep arguing that your homophobia is acceptable because the BIble says so.
> 
> The Bible also says to stone your neighbors if they work on the Sabbath.
> 
> And stone your neighbor's daughter is she isn't a virgin on her wedding night.
> 
> So why do you only selectively follow the rules?
> 
> 1) Because society would brand you a psychopath if you did.
> 2) Because you are grasping for any excuse to justify your homophobia?
Click to expand...


You are talking about the Old Testament.  Not the new one.  Jesus came along to set wrongs like those to right, remember?

Yet in the new testament, Jesus's home-dog Jude reported in Jude 1 that the sin of homosexuality was a different matter.  That enabling it to spread as a culture within a city or society was a mortal sin.  And that Sodom and other cities that might become like Sodom were destroyed for defying the Sacred Construct of man/woman relations.

Read the Bible before you diss it bro.


----------



## JoeB131

Silhouette said:


> [
> 
> You are talking about the Old Testament.  Not the new one.  Jesus came along to set wrongs like those to right, remember?



No, he didn't. Never at any point did he say, "Hey, you know all those crazy laws about slavery and stoning people and you have to be a virgin on your wedding night?  Just kidding!" 



Silhouette said:


> [
> Yet in the new testament, Jesus's home-dog Jude reported in Jude 1 that the sin of homosexuality was a different matter.  That enabling it to spread as a culture within a city or society was a mortal sin.  And that Sodom and other cities that might become like Sodom were destroyed for defying the Sacred Construct of man/woman relations.



But God was totally cool with Lot having drunken incest with the daughters he offered up for Gang Rape in the same story.  




Silhouette said:


> [
> Read the Bible before you diss it bro.



Hey, I did read the bible.  And I remember the part where God drowned every baby in the world and then killed David and Bathsheba's baby to teach David a lesson and then sent Bears to maul 42 children to death because they mocked a bald prophet. 

Seriously, God is like a total psycho in the bible.


----------



## Pete7469

Silhouette said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The girl could refuse to marry the boy.    Do you just make up stuff not said when you discuss topics?
> 
> None.   Next dumb question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat doesn't happen that often.  not when there are Dowries and shit involved.
> 
> But you avoid the question.  YOu keep arguing that your homophobia is acceptable because the BIble says so.
> 
> The Bible also says to stone your neighbors if they work on the Sabbath.
> 
> And stone your neighbor's daughter is she isn't a virgin on her wedding night.
> 
> So why do you only selectively follow the rules?
> 
> 1) Because society would brand you a psychopath if you did.
> 2) Because you are grasping for any excuse to justify your homophobia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are talking about the Old Testament.  Not the new one.  Jesus came along to set wrongs like those to right, remember?
> 
> Yet in the new testament, Jesus's home-dog Jude reported in Jude 1 that the sin of homosexuality was a different matter.  That enabling it to spread as a culture within a city or society was a mortal sin.  And that Sodom and other cities that might become like Sodom were destroyed for defying the Sacred Construct of man/woman relations.
> 
> Read the Bible before you diss it bro.
Click to expand...


LOL...

Joe...

Reading....

Thanks for the laugh!


----------



## Gadawg73

Silhouette said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The girl could refuse to marry the boy.    Do you just make up stuff not said when you discuss topics?
> 
> None.   Next dumb question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat doesn't happen that often.  not when there are Dowries and shit involved.
> 
> But you avoid the question.  YOu keep arguing that your homophobia is acceptable because the BIble says so.
> 
> The Bible also says to stone your neighbors if they work on the Sabbath.
> 
> And stone your neighbor's daughter is she isn't a virgin on her wedding night.
> 
> So why do you only selectively follow the rules?
> 
> 1) Because society would brand you a psychopath if you did.
> 2) Because you are grasping for any excuse to justify your homophobia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are talking about the Old Testament.  Not the new one.  Jesus came along to set wrongs like those to right, remember?
> 
> Yet in the new testament, Jesus's home-dog Jude reported in Jude 1 that the sin of homosexuality was a different matter.  That enabling it to spread as a culture within a city or society was a mortal sin.  And that Sodom and other cities that might become like Sodom were destroyed for defying the Sacred Construct of man/woman relations.
> 
> Read the Bible before you diss it bro.
Click to expand...


The followers of Jesus, ALL Jews, still practiced old Jewish law which is all the Old Testament, after Jesus' death.
Eating a ham sandwich is a sin and you must repent because Jude says so.
See how silly your arguments are?
You pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to go by and which ones you do not like to go by.
Because you are a hypocrit. 
BTW, read your Bible because what I get out of Jude is that Jude is condemning the lust that humans may have for angels and that is a sin as well as having or attempting to have sex with the angels. 
What is most interesting in the King James translations, which only a fool believes were "inspired by God" because I do not believe God is a dumb ass, is the fact that Greek language there was never a word for homosexuality.
The King James scribes got it wrong. 
The word _heteras_ in Greek means different from which the English word heterosexual comes from. _Homois_ means the same in Greek and the English language added it to sexual forthe word homosexual. Same sex and different sex in English and same and different WITH NO sexual meaning at all in Greek when the words were written in the scriptures in Greek.
In Greek times the Greeks did not use the word _homoios_ in any variation to describe a homosexual or homosexuals. The Greek word meant the same only and had no sexuality meaning. Same as _homiois_
No where in the Greek language do those words mean homosexual or heterosexual. That is a derivative taken in the English language.


----------



## GISMYS

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THat doesn't happen that often.  not when there are Dowries and shit involved.
> 
> But you avoid the question.  YOu keep arguing that your homophobia is acceptable because the BIble says so.
> 
> The Bible also says to stone your neighbors if they work on the Sabbath.
> 
> And stone your neighbor's daughter is she isn't a virgin on her wedding night.
> 
> So why do you only selectively follow the rules?
> 
> 1) Because society would brand you a psychopath if you did.
> 2) Because you are grasping for any excuse to justify your homophobia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking about the Old Testament.  Not the new one.  Jesus came along to set wrongs like those to right, remember?
> 
> Yet in the new testament, Jesus's home-dog Jude reported in Jude 1 that the sin of homosexuality was a different matter.  That enabling it to spread as a culture within a city or society was a mortal sin.  And that Sodom and other cities that might become like Sodom were destroyed for defying the Sacred Construct of man/woman relations.
> 
> Read the Bible before you diss it bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The followers of Jesus, ALL Jews, still practiced old Jewish law which is all the Old Testament, after Jesus' death.
> Eating a ham sandwich is a sin and you must repent because Jude says so.
> See how silly your arguments are?
> You pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to go by and which ones you do not like to go by.
> Because you are a hypocrit.
> BTW, read your Bible because what I get out of Jude is that Jude is condemning the lust that humans may have for angels and that is a sin as well as having or attempting to have sex with the angels.
> What is most interesting in the King James translations, which only a fool believes were "inspired by God" because I do not believe God is a dumb ass, is the fact that Greek language there was never a word for homosexuality.
> The King James scribes got it wrong.
> The word _heteras_ in Greek means different from which the English word heterosexual comes from. _Homois_ means same as homosexual.
> In Greek times the Greeks did not use the word _heteras_ in any variation to describe a homosexual or homosexuals. The Greek word meant different only and had no sexuality meaning. Same as _homiois_
> No where in the Greek language do those words mean homosexual or heterosexual. That is a derivative taken in the English language.
Click to expand...


GOD'S WORD ON THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION== God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves.

25 They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not fitting,
 ROMANS 1:24-28


----------



## Gadawg73

Silhouette said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The girl could refuse to marry the boy.    Do you just make up stuff not said when you discuss topics?
> 
> None.   Next dumb question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat doesn't happen that often.  not when there are Dowries and shit involved.
> 
> But you avoid the question.  YOu keep arguing that your homophobia is acceptable because the BIble says so.
> 
> The Bible also says to stone your neighbors if they work on the Sabbath.
> 
> And stone your neighbor's daughter is she isn't a virgin on her wedding night.
> 
> So why do you only selectively follow the rules?
> 
> 1) Because society would brand you a psychopath if you did.
> 2) Because you are grasping for any excuse to justify your homophobia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are talking about the Old Testament.  Not the new one.  Jesus came along to set wrongs like those to right, remember?
> 
> Yet in the new testament, Jesus's home-dog Jude reported in Jude 1 that the sin of homosexuality was a different matter.  That enabling it to spread as a culture within a city or society was a mortal sin.  And that Sodom and other cities that might become like Sodom were destroyed for defying the Sacred Construct of man/woman relations.
> 
> Read the Bible before you diss it bro.
Click to expand...


The followers of Jesus, ALL Jews, still practiced old Jewish law which is all the Old Testament, after Jesus' death.
Eating a ham sandwich is a sin and you must repent because Jude says so.
See how silly your arguments are?
You pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to go by and which ones you do not like to go by.
Because you are a hypocrit. 
BTW, read your Bible because what I get out of Jude is that Jude is condemning the lust that humans may have for angels and that is a sin as well as having or attempting to have sex with the angels. 
What is most interesting in the King James translations, which only a fool believes were "inspired by God" because I do not believe God is a dumb ass.
The word _heteras_ in Greek means different from which the English word heterosexual comes from. _Homois_ means same as homosexual.
In Greek times the Greeks did not use the word _homoios_ in any variation to describe a homosexual or homosexuals. The Greek word meant different only and had no sexuality meaning. Same as _heteras_
No where in the Greek language do those words mean homosexual or heterosexual. That is a derivative taken in the English language.


----------



## bendog

These people won't stop until church services are mandated to look like the orgy in Eyes Wide Shut.  And finally people will start returning to church  (-:


----------



## JoeB131

bendog said:


> These people won't stop until church services are mandated to look like the orgy in Eyes Wide Shut.  And finally people will start returning to church  (-:



Why, they didn't go to the movie, did they?


----------



## Silhouette

bendog said:


> These people won't stop until church services are mandated to look like the orgy in Eyes Wide Shut.  And finally people will start returning to church  (-:



That's the thing about mental illness masquerading as a "civil rights movement". They are blind to their own snowballing momentum & end game.


----------



## Smilebong

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



Absolutely not.  Churches are where religion is practiced.  Part of religion is a moral code.  Most religions' moral codes define homosexuality as a sin.


----------



## Smilebong

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THat doesn't happen that often.  not when there are Dowries and shit involved.
> 
> But you avoid the question.  YOu keep arguing that your homophobia is acceptable because the BIble says so.
> 
> The Bible also says to stone your neighbors if they work on the Sabbath.
> 
> And stone your neighbor's daughter is she isn't a virgin on her wedding night.
> 
> So why do you only selectively follow the rules?
> 
> 1) Because society would brand you a psychopath if you did.
> 2) Because you are grasping for any excuse to justify your homophobia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking about the Old Testament.  Not the new one.  Jesus came along to set wrongs like those to right, remember?
> 
> Yet in the new testament, Jesus's home-dog Jude reported in Jude 1 that the sin of homosexuality was a different matter.  That enabling it to spread as a culture within a city or society was a mortal sin.  And that Sodom and other cities that might become like Sodom were destroyed for defying the Sacred Construct of man/woman relations.
> 
> Read the Bible before you diss it bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The followers of Jesus, ALL Jews, still practiced old Jewish law which is all the Old Testament, after Jesus' death.*Eating a ham sandwich is a sin and you must repent because Jude says so.
> See how silly your arguments are?
> You pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to go by and which ones you do not like to go by.
> Because you are a hypocrit.
> BTW, read your Bible because what I get out of Jude is that Jude is condemning the lust that humans may have for angels and that is a sin as well as having or attempting to have sex with the angels.
> What is most interesting in the King James translations, which only a fool believes were "inspired by God" because I do not believe God is a dumb ass.
> The word _heteras_ in Greek means different from which the English word heterosexual comes from. _Homois_ means same as homosexual.
> In Greek times the Greeks did not use the word _homoios_ in any variation to describe a homosexual or homosexuals. The Greek word meant different only and had no sexuality meaning. Same as _heteras_
> No where in the Greek language do those words mean homosexual or heterosexual. That is a derivative taken in the English language.
Click to expand...


Not true.  The New Testament is a time of transition.  If you read the book of Acts, it describes in great detail what happened as they went from a people who obeyed the OT law to a people for whom it was abolished.  There is still moral truth, and every part of the OT code that still applies is restated in the NT


----------



## RKMBrown

bendog said:


> These people won't stop until church services are mandated to look like the orgy in Eyes Wide Shut.  And finally people will start returning to church  (-:


Yeah cause gay people having a monogamous relationship is just like eyes wide shut.  And plural marriages are just like eyes wide shut.  And interracial marriages are just like eyes wide shut.  Cause if anyone isn't just like you they must be just like that movie eyes wide shut.


----------



## Gadawg73

Smilebong said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking about the Old Testament.  Not the new one.  Jesus came along to set wrongs like those to right, remember?
> 
> Yet in the new testament, Jesus's home-dog Jude reported in Jude 1 that the sin of homosexuality was a different matter.  That enabling it to spread as a culture within a city or society was a mortal sin.  And that Sodom and other cities that might become like Sodom were destroyed for defying the Sacred Construct of man/woman relations.
> 
> Read the Bible before you diss it bro.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The followers of Jesus, ALL Jews, still practiced old Jewish law which is all the Old Testament, after Jesus' death.*Eating a ham sandwich is a sin and you must repent because Jude says so.
> See how silly your arguments are?
> You pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to go by and which ones you do not like to go by.
> Because you are a hypocrit.
> BTW, read your Bible because what I get out of Jude is that Jude is condemning the lust that humans may have for angels and that is a sin as well as having or attempting to have sex with the angels.
> What is most interesting in the King James translations, which only a fool believes were "inspired by God" because I do not believe God is a dumb ass.
> The word _heteras_ in Greek means different from which the English word heterosexual comes from. _Homois_ means same as homosexual.
> In Greek times the Greeks did not use the word _homoios_ in any variation to describe a homosexual or homosexuals. The Greek word meant different only and had no sexuality meaning. Same as _heteras_
> No where in the Greek language do those words mean homosexual or heterosexual. That is a derivative taken in the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.  The New Testament is a time of transition.  If you read the book of Acts, it describes in great detail what happened as they went from a people who obeyed the OT law to a people for whom it was abolished.  There is still moral truth, and every part of the OT code that still applies is restated in the NT
Click to expand...


That is the Apostles and the spread of Christianity described in Luke and Acts is incomplete. It speaks of a newly formed harmonious church which is quite at odds with Paul's letters as it omits many important events such as the deaths of Peter and Paul.
Fact is they WERE Jews and the norm of the day was Old Jewish Law for over 100 years as even Acts and Luke which constitute over 1/4 of the New Testament was not written until around 90 AD.


----------



## Silhouette

Gadawg73 said:


> That is the Apostles and the spread of Christianity described in Luke and Acts is incomplete. It speaks of a newly formed harmonious church which is quite at odds with Paul's letters as it omits many important events such as the deaths of Peter and Paul.
> Fact is they WERE Jews and the norm of the day was Old Jewish Law for over 100 years as even Acts and Luke which constitute over 1/4 of the New Testament was not written until around 90 AD.



So you are arguing for gutting the New Testament/Christanity?  Islam too I suppose?

Good luck with your Agenda...youre gonna need it!


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The girl could refuse to marry the boy.    Do you just make up stuff not said when you discuss topics?
> 
> None.   Next dumb question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat doesn't happen that often.  not when there are Dowries and shit involved.
> 
> But you avoid the question.  YOu keep arguing that your homophobia is acceptable because the BIble says so.
> 
> The Bible also says to stone your neighbors if they work on the Sabbath.
> 
> And stone your neighbor's daughter is she isn't a virgin on her wedding night.
> 
> So why do you only selectively follow the rules?
> 
> 1) Because society would brand you a psychopath if you did.
> 2) Because you are grasping for any excuse to justify your homophobia?
Click to expand...


No, I'm not just avoiding your question.  I'm ignoring your question completely.  Let me spell this out for you again.

Unless you are my pastor, or authority figure in my church, I don't give a crap what you think about the Bible on anything.  Your opinion of the Bible, and me, and my faith, all of them have zero value to me.

I don't care what you think the Bible says.   I can read it myself thanks.

See, here's the deal.  I don't have to, and have intention to, try and justify anything to you.   There is only one person I have to justify myself to, and that is G-d Himself.   He's given me a book to know what is justified, and what is not, and what you think on the matter, what society thinks on the matter, what anyone anywhere believes on the matter, is completely irrelevant to me, and G-d.

The reason I am on this particular thread, is because this thread is about other people imposing their views, on my convictions.

I am telling you in no uncertain terms, that I am going to follow my convictions and Biblical beliefs, whether you agree with it, support it, or call it 'homophobia' or not.

Joe: "well then you are a psychopath!"

Fine with me.  Still don't care.   I'm going to follow my convictions, with or without your approval.

Joe: "well you are just looking for an excuse to...."

Fine, still don't care.    I'm going to follow my convictions with or without your approval.

Joe:  "well the Bible says..."

I'm sorry, I don't need your help in reading the Bible.  I have several, and they all say the same thing.  If that were not enough, there is a more than a few translations available online, and they all say the same thing.

When I need your opinion of what my Bible says, I'll let you know.  Until then you can assume your opinion of the Bible says is not needed, nor really wanted, and most certainly will be ignored.

I'm not here to debate what my Bible says.    It's not up for debate, and I'm not here to discuss it with you.  I'm simply TELLING you what I'm going to do and that you are not going to stop me.

That's all there is to it.    Any other questions?


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> The girl could refuse to marry the boy.    Do you just make up stuff not said when you discuss topics?
> 
> 
> 
> None.   Next dumb question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat doesn't happen that often.  not when there are Dowries and shit involved.
> 
> 
> 
> But you avoid the question.  YOu keep arguing that your homophobia is acceptable because the BIble says so.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible also says to stone your neighbors if they work on the Sabbath.
> 
> 
> 
> And stone your neighbor's daughter is she isn't a virgin on her wedding night.
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you only selectively follow the rules?
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Because society would brand you a psychopath if you did.
> 
> 2) Because you are grasping for any excuse to justify your homophobia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not just avoiding your question.  I'm ignoring your question completely.  Let me spell this out for you again.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are my pastor, or authority figure in my church, I don't give a crap what you think about the Bible on anything.  Your opinion of the Bible, and me, and my faith, all of them have zero value to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what you think the Bible says.   I can read it myself thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> See, here's the deal.  I don't have to, and have intention to, try and justify anything to you.   There is only one person I have to justify myself to, and that is G-d Himself.   He's given me a book to know what is justified, and what is not, and what you think on the matter, what society thinks on the matter, what anyone anywhere believes on the matter, is completely irrelevant to me, and G-d.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I am on this particular thread, is because this thread is about other people imposing their views, on my convictions.
Click to expand...



Then your reason for "being here" is false. Nobody is doing that. Your church can't be forced to do anything (by the government) that violates the tenants of their faith.


----------



## Gadawg73

OK so now we are hearing The Bible and what is says is out.
So what we are left with is the law says nothing on gay marriage so it shall be legal.


----------



## Gadawg73

Silhouette said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the Apostles and the spread of Christianity described in Luke and Acts is incomplete. It speaks of a newly formed harmonious church which is quite at odds with Paul's letters as it omits many important events such as the deaths of Peter and Paul.
> Fact is they WERE Jews and the norm of the day was Old Jewish Law for over 100 years as even Acts and Luke which constitute over 1/4 of the New Testament was not written until around 90 AD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are arguing for gutting the New Testament/Christanity?  Islam too I suppose?
> 
> Good luck with your Agenda...youre gonna need it!
Click to expand...


How could I continue to school you on The Bible and what it says if I was for "arguing for gutting the New Testament"?


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the Apostles and the spread of Christianity described in Luke and Acts is incomplete. It speaks of a newly formed harmonious church which is quite at odds with Paul's letters as it omits many important events such as the deaths of Peter and Paul.
> Fact is they WERE Jews and the norm of the day was Old Jewish Law for over 100 years as even Acts and Luke which constitute over 1/4 of the New Testament was not written until around 90 AD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are arguing for gutting the New Testament/Christanity?  Islam too I suppose?
> 
> Good luck with your Agenda...youre gonna need it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could I continue to school you on The Bible and what it says if I was for "arguing for gutting the New Testament"?
Click to expand...


You remind me of Matthew 15:14.  Which is why I don't care what you think about the Bible.


----------



## Smilebong

Gadawg73 said:


> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The followers of Jesus, ALL Jews, still practiced old Jewish law which is all the Old Testament, after Jesus' death.*Eating a ham sandwich is a sin and you must repent because Jude says so.
> See how silly your arguments are?
> You pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to go by and which ones you do not like to go by.
> Because you are a hypocrit.
> BTW, read your Bible because what I get out of Jude is that Jude is condemning the lust that humans may have for angels and that is a sin as well as having or attempting to have sex with the angels.
> What is most interesting in the King James translations, which only a fool believes were "inspired by God" because I do not believe God is a dumb ass.
> The word _heteras_ in Greek means different from which the English word heterosexual comes from. _Homois_ means same as homosexual.
> In Greek times the Greeks did not use the word _homoios_ in any variation to describe a homosexual or homosexuals. The Greek word meant different only and had no sexuality meaning. Same as _heteras_
> No where in the Greek language do those words mean homosexual or heterosexual. That is a derivative taken in the English language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.  The New Testament is a time of transition.  If you read the book of Acts, it describes in great detail what happened as they went from a people who obeyed the OT law to a people for whom it was abolished.  There is still moral truth, and every part of the OT code that still applies is restated in the NT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the Apostles and the spread of Christianity described in Luke and Acts is incomplete. It speaks of a newly formed harmonious church which is quite at odds with Paul's letters as it omits many important events such as the deaths of Peter and Paul.
> Fact is they WERE Jews and the norm of the day was Old Jewish Law for over 100 years as even Acts and Luke which constitute over 1/4 of the New Testament was not written until around 90 AD.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about?  The fact is that it was a TRANSITION TIME.  THEY MOVED FROM OT LAW KEEPING JEWS TO NON LAW KEEPING CHRISTIANS. Period.  Doesn't matter when it was written.  It is not fiction.  Has never been accepted by Historical authorities, even secular, as fiction.


----------



## Gadawg73

Smilebong said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.  The New Testament is a time of transition.  If you read the book of Acts, it describes in great detail what happened as they went from a people who obeyed the OT law to a people for whom it was abolished.  There is still moral truth, and every part of the OT code that still applies is restated in the NT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the Apostles and the spread of Christianity described in Luke and Acts is incomplete. It speaks of a newly formed harmonious church which is quite at odds with Paul's letters as it omits many important events such as the deaths of Peter and Paul.
> Fact is they WERE Jews and the norm of the day was Old Jewish Law for over 100 years as even Acts and Luke which constitute over 1/4 of the New Testament was not written until around 90 AD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  The fact is that it was a TRANSITION TIME.  THEY MOVED FROM OT LAW KEEPING JEWS TO NON LAW KEEPING CHRISTIANS. Period.  Doesn't matter when it was written.  It is not fiction.  Has never been accepted by Historical authorities, even secular, as fiction.
Click to expand...


Wrong, not according to the letters of Peter and Paul.
Go read them and see for yourself.
The only "transition" there was was not to any form of Christianity. It was to conform with ROMAN LAW. And as a result of that most Roman leaders were flexible in their standards and allowed that flexibility to allow Jewish leaders to follow their religious standards. JEWISH standards.
Yes, it is all historical fact but you ain't posting the facts.


----------



## Smilebong

Gadawg73 said:


> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the Apostles and the spread of Christianity described in Luke and Acts is incomplete. It speaks of a newly formed harmonious church which is quite at odds with Paul's letters as it omits many important events such as the deaths of Peter and Paul.
> Fact is they WERE Jews and the norm of the day was Old Jewish Law for over 100 years as even Acts and Luke which constitute over 1/4 of the New Testament was not written until around 90 AD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  The fact is that it was a TRANSITION TIME.  THEY MOVED FROM OT LAW KEEPING JEWS TO NON LAW KEEPING CHRISTIANS. Period.  Doesn't matter when it was written.  It is not fiction.  Has never been accepted by Historical authorities, even secular, as fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, not according to the letters of Peter and Paul.
> Go read them and see for yourself.
> The only "transition" there was was not to any form of Christianity. It was to conform with ROMAN LAW. And as a result of that most Roman leaders were flexible in their standards and allowed that flexibility to allow Jewish leaders to follow their religious standards. JEWISH standards.
> Yes, it is all historical fact but you ain't posting the facts.
Click to expand...


I have read it and studied it over and over for 30 years. It was a transition.  the letter to the Hebrews even lays it out when it says that the Old was laid aside.


----------



## Gadawg73

Smilebong said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  The fact is that it was a TRANSITION TIME.  THEY MOVED FROM OT LAW KEEPING JEWS TO NON LAW KEEPING CHRISTIANS. Period.  Doesn't matter when it was written.  It is not fiction.  Has never been accepted by Historical authorities, even secular, as fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, not according to the letters of Peter and Paul.
> Go read them and see for yourself.
> The only "transition" there was was not to any form of Christianity. It was to conform with ROMAN LAW. And as a result of that most Roman leaders were flexible in their standards and allowed that flexibility to allow Jewish leaders to follow their religious standards. JEWISH standards.
> Yes, it is all historical fact but you ain't posting the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read it and studied it over and over for 30 years. It was a transition.  the letter to the Hebrews even lays it out when it says that the Old was laid aside.
Click to expand...


Dude, the Letter to the Hebrews was written to JEWISH CHRISTIANS who lived in Jerusalem ONLY. It's purpose was to tell the CHRISTIANS to persevere under the persecution they were getting. Old Jewish law remained and strong and for many centuries there were those that believed The Letter did not belong in Christian canon because of historical fact of the strong Jewish authority over the citizens in those times under Roman rule. Only in around the 4th century did it become part of and included in as the 14th letter of Paul. Most Hebrew scholars do not believe it is the work of Paul.


----------



## GISMYS

Gadawg73 said:


> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, not according to the letters of Peter and Paul.
> Go read them and see for yourself.
> The only "transition" there was was not to any form of Christianity. It was to conform with ROMAN LAW. And as a result of that most Roman leaders were flexible in their standards and allowed that flexibility to allow Jewish leaders to follow their religious standards. JEWISH standards.
> Yes, it is all historical fact but you ain't posting the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read it and studied it over and over for 30 years. It was a transition.  the letter to the Hebrews even lays it out when it says that the Old was laid aside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, the Letter to the Hebrews was written to JEWISH CHRISTIANS who lived in Jerusalem ONLY. It's purpose was to tell the CHRISTIANS to persevere under the persecution they were getting. Old Jewish law remained and strong and for many centuries there were those that believed The Letter did not belong in Christian canon because of historical fact of the strong Jewish authority over the citizens in those times under Roman rule. Only in around the 4th century did it become part of and included in as the 14th letter of Paul. Most Hebrew scholars do not believe it is the work of Paul.
Click to expand...


SO you would try to deny the TRUTH OF GOD'S  INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) WORD??? NOT VERY SMART!


----------



## JoeB131

Androw said:


> [
> 
> No, I'm not just avoiding your question.  I'm ignoring your question completely.  Let me spell this out for you again.
> 
> Unless you are my pastor, or authority figure in my church, I don't give a crap what you think about the Bible on anything.  Your opinion of the Bible, and me, and my faith, all of them have zero value to me.
> 
> I don't care what you think the Bible says.   I can read it myself thanks.



But the question becomes are you.  You see, i have read the bible, that's why I'm an atheist.  Because the contradictions and lapses in logic were fairly apparent to me at a pretty early age.  

A God that drowns babies isn't worthy of anyone's worship. 





Androw said:


> [
> The reason I am on this particular thread, is because this thread is about other people imposing their views, on my convictions.
> 
> I am telling you in no uncertain terms, that I am going to follow my convictions and Biblical beliefs, whether you agree with it, support it, or call it 'homophobia' or not.



And if you are willing to pay the fines and suffer the economic consequences, I'm fine with that.  

I think the real problem with folks like you is that you look at the racist groups like the Klan who used to march in the millions and now they hide because their behavior isn't tolerated in polite society.  





Androw said:


> [
> I'm not here to debate what my Bible says.    It's not up for debate, and I'm not here to discuss it with you.  I'm simply TELLING you what I'm going to do and that you are not going to stop me.
> 
> That's all there is to it.    Any other questions?



Yeah a couple. 

What happens when your Pastor decides to ignore the rules on gays like he ignores the rules on stonings?  are you going to say, "Gee, Pastor Bob, I was wrong all along.  Thanks for setting me straight."  

My guess is you'll find another church.


----------



## JoeB131

Here's the thing.  Churches follow public opinion.  

When I was growing up in the 1970's, my cousin moved in with her boyfriend without getting married after she got knocked up.  Mostly, I think she wanted to get the hell away from my Aunt. (This would be the Aunt we all suspect today was a Lesbian who pretended to be straight because the Church Said so.)

Well, back in the 1970's, the Church was really, really upset about this kind of thing. 

Now, flash foward to the 1990's.  One of my Army buddies was about to get married, and during the planning stages someone said to the Priest, "But they're already living together!"  The Priest just shrugged his shoulders and said, "I'd be more surprised if they weren't."  

I don't think I've been at a wedding since where the couples weren't already cohabiting. And you know what, I think this is ACTUALLY a good thing.  People find out if they are compatible before they put their parents thousands of dollars into hock.  

Societal norms change, and the churches change with them.


----------



## Taz

Churches shouldn't be allowed to get away with pedophilia if they don't accept gay marriage.


----------



## GISMYS

JoeB131 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No, I'm not just avoiding your question.  I'm ignoring your question completely.  Let me spell this out for you again.
> 
> Unless you are my pastor, or authority figure in my church, I don't give a crap what you think about the Bible on anything.  Your opinion of the Bible, and me, and my faith, all of them have zero value to me.
> 
> I don't care what you think the Bible says.   I can read it myself thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the question becomes are you.  You see, i have read the bible, that's why I'm an atheist.  Because the contradictions and lapses in logic were fairly apparent to me at a pretty early age.
> 
> A God that drowns babies isn't worthy of anyone's worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> The reason I am on this particular thread, is because this thread is about other people imposing their views, on my convictions.
> 
> I am telling you in no uncertain terms, that I am going to follow my convictions and Biblical beliefs, whether you agree with it, support it, or call it 'homophobia' or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if you are willing to pay the fines and suffer the economic consequences, I'm fine with that.
> 
> I think the real problem with folks like you is that you look at the racist groups like the Klan who used to march in the millions and now they hide because their behavior isn't tolerated in polite society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> I'm not here to debate what my Bible says.    It's not up for debate, and I'm not here to discuss it with you.  I'm simply TELLING you what I'm going to do and that you are not going to stop me.
> 
> That's all there is to it.    Any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah a couple.
> 
> What happens when your Pastor decides to ignore the rules on gays like he ignores the rules on stonings?  are you going to say, "Gee, Pastor Bob, I was wrong all along.  Thanks for setting me straight."
> 
> My guess is you'll find another church.
Click to expand...


A God that drowns babies isn't worthy of anyone's worship?????? THINK!!! HAD THOSE BABIES LIVED THEY WOULD BE IN HELL TODAY. BUT BECAUSE OF GOD'S MERCY THOSE BABIES ARE IN HEAVEN TODAY!!! GOD IS OUTSIDE TIME AND sees all our lives from beginning to end today!!


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Gadawg73 said:


> That is the Apostles and the spread of Christianity described in Luke and Acts is incomplete. It speaks of a newly formed harmonious church which is quite at odds with Paul's letters as it omits many important events such as the deaths of Peter and Paul.
> Fact is they WERE Jews and the norm of the day was Old Jewish Law for over 100 years as even Acts and Luke which constitute over 1/4 of the New Testament was not written until around 90 AD.




2/3 of the New Testament was written by Paul to the various churches he established (who weren't Jewish or familiar with the life of Jesus until they heard the message and testimony of Paul). Those letters guided them through the problems each early "church" was facing, and focusing on teachings learned through the life of Jesus. Paul died in a Roman prison. What purpose would it serve to put all of his writings and focus solely on his death and suffering? If you spending your time focusing on your own problems, then maybe you need to find something else to focus your attention on.


----------



## JoeB131

GISMYS said:


> [
> 
> A God that drowns babies isn't worthy of anyone's worship?????? THINK!!! HAD THOSE BABIES LIVED THEY WOULD BE IN HELL TODAY. BUT BECAUSE OF GOD'S MERCY THOSE BABIES ARE IN HEAVEN TODAY!!! GOD IS OUTSIDE TIME AND sees all our lives from beginning to end today!!



That's nice and all, but it raises questions. 

If GOd is outside time, you know, kind of like Doctor Who, then he already knows what I'm going to do before I do.   If he lets me do something horrible, anyway, doesn't that make him more at fault than me, eh?


----------



## GISMYS

JoeB131 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> A God that drowns babies isn't worthy of anyone's worship?????? THINK!!! HAD THOSE BABIES LIVED THEY WOULD BE IN HELL TODAY. BUT BECAUSE OF GOD'S MERCY THOSE BABIES ARE IN HEAVEN TODAY!!! GOD IS OUTSIDE TIME AND sees all our lives from beginning to end today!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice and all, but it raises questions.
> 
> If GOd is outside time, you know, kind of like Doctor Who, then he already knows what I'm going to do before I do.   If he lets me do something horrible, anyway, doesn't that make him more at fault than me, eh?
Click to expand...


GOD DID NOT CREATE ROBOTS!!! YOU ARE FREE TO DO GOOD OR EVIL,RIGHT OR WRONG BUT YOU cannot then try to blame GOD!!


----------



## JoeB131

GISMYS said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> A God that drowns babies isn't worthy of anyone's worship?????? THINK!!! HAD THOSE BABIES LIVED THEY WOULD BE IN HELL TODAY. BUT BECAUSE OF GOD'S MERCY THOSE BABIES ARE IN HEAVEN TODAY!!! GOD IS OUTSIDE TIME AND sees all our lives from beginning to end today!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice and all, but it raises questions.
> 
> If GOd is outside time, you know, kind of like Doctor Who, then he already knows what I'm going to do before I do.   If he lets me do something horrible, anyway, doesn't that make him more at fault than me, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOD DID NOT CREATE ROBOTS!!! YOU ARE FREE TO DO GOOD OR EVIL,RIGHT OR WRONG BUT YOU cannot then try to blame GOD!!
Click to expand...


I don't think God exists.  But if he did, he would not be the kind of evil prick who drowns babies and condemns Ann Frank to hell (for not believing in Jesus) as he sends Hitler to (for Burning Ann and 5,999,999 other Jews.)  Because honestly, I refuse to believe the universe is that badly designed.


----------



## GISMYS

SO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE BAD IF HITLER WAS KILLED AS A BABY????????????? you cannot match your peanut brain against ALMIGHTY GOD!!


----------



## JoeB131

GISMYS said:


> SO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE BAD IF HITLER WAS KILLED AS A BABY????????????? you cannot match your peanut brain against ALMIGHTY GOD!!



Hard to say.  Here's the problem with that. 

Hitler had 80 million co-conspirators- namely the German nation.  Millions in other countries, too.  I think if you kill Hitler as a baby, someone else does the same thing. Maybe someone more competent. 

The problem with Hitler was that he could pick up the Bible and Martin Luther and screech his anti-Semitic shit and have a lot of support scriptural.


----------



## GISMYS

The differance had hitler been killed as a baby he would be in heaven today not hell!!!


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing.  Churches follow public opinion.
> 
> When I was growing up in the 1970's, my cousin moved in with her boyfriend without getting married after she got knocked up.  Mostly, I think she wanted to get the hell away from my Aunt. (This would be the Aunt we all suspect today was a Lesbian who pretended to be straight because the Church Said so.)
> 
> Well, back in the 1970's, the Church was really, really upset about this kind of thing.
> 
> Now, flash foward to the 1990's.  One of my Army buddies was about to get married, and during the planning stages someone said to the Priest, "But they're already living together!"  The Priest just shrugged his shoulders and said, "I'd be more surprised if they weren't."
> 
> I don't think I've been at a wedding since where the couples weren't already cohabiting. And you know what, I think this is ACTUALLY a good thing.  People find out if they are compatible before they put their parents thousands of dollars into hock.
> 
> Societal norms change, and the churches change with them.



I don't believe the pastor shrugged his shoulders because the church moved more in "favor" of the public acceptance of cohabitation, I believe he was acknowledging a society that has moved further an further away from the values of the bible. If, however, the couple getting married were virgins choosing to wait, as well as living apart from each other, I'm sure that would shock him because many just listen to the teachings of the Bible .... very few actually live their lives according to what it says. The priest would then conclude (of those who were living apart) that maybe he wasn't actually wasting a Sunday simply reading words off a page.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

JoeB131 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> A God that drowns babies isn't worthy of anyone's worship?????? THINK!!! HAD THOSE BABIES LIVED THEY WOULD BE IN HELL TODAY. BUT BECAUSE OF GOD'S MERCY THOSE BABIES ARE IN HEAVEN TODAY!!! GOD IS OUTSIDE TIME AND sees all our lives from beginning to end today!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice and all, but it raises questions.
> 
> If GOd is outside time, you know, kind of like Doctor Who, then he already knows what I'm going to do before I do.   If he lets me do something horrible, anyway, doesn't that make him more at fault than me, eh?
Click to expand...


If a nation already rescinded His invitation to be a part of their lives and included in public venues, why would God go out of His way to intervene and force change to those who don't want it? That is the consequence of man's "free will" to choose to accept or reject. If you refuse a doctor to play a role in looking after your health and offer assistance, don't turn to him after your child has been found with an open artery from an accident and has bled to death.


----------



## Taz

GISMYS said:


> The differance had hitler been killed as a baby he would be in heaven today not hell!!!



Jesus died for his sins, he's in heaven.


----------



## JoeB131

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> [
> 
> I don't believe the pastor shrugged his shoulders because the church moved more in "favor" of the public acceptance of cohabitation, I believe he was acknowledging a society that has moved further an further away from the values of the bible. If, however, the couple getting married were virgins choosing to wait, as well as living apart from each other, I'm sure that would shock him because many just listen to the teachings of the Bible .... very few actually live their lives according to what it says. The priest would then conclude (of those who were living apart) that maybe he wasn't actually wasting a Sunday simply reading words off a page.



No, you see, here's the problem. 

There are no "values" in the bible. there's a bunch of superstition, misogyny, ignorance, barbarism and stupidity.  and the way that Churches survive into the present day is that they don't talk about that shit because someone would throw a net over them like they are crazy people.  

People are wisely figuring out that some folks are gay and there's nothing really wrong with that. I know, it's just horrible.


----------



## Gadawg73

On 2nd thought since I am forced to hear that gay folk are second class citizens and the new ******* it might be keen to force religious kooks to sit through a gay wedding.


----------



## Gadawg73

Values in the Bible:
Love thy neighbor
Do not Judge
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

Crazy shit in the Bible:
Stone homosexuals to death
Too many other things to list


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Gadawg73 said:


> Values in the Bible:
> Love thy neighbor
> Do not Judge
> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
> 
> Crazy shit in the Bible:
> Stone homosexuals to death
> Too many other things to list




There is no mention of stoning homosexuals, I believe that was the woman caught in the act of adultery brought before Jesus you are thinking of.

Some more values:

Don't steal 
Don't murder 
Don't commit adultery 
Honor your mother and father
Don't covet what belongs to your neighbor 
Love your enemies 
Pray for those who despitefully use you 
... to name but a few


----------



## Gadawg73

2300 posts and no evidence whatsoever that gay folks want to force government to mandate a law to force churches to marry gay folk.

Because the premise is pure folly to begin with.


----------



## Gadawg73

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Values in the Bible:
> Love thy neighbor
> Do not Judge
> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
> 
> Crazy shit in the Bible:
> Stone homosexuals to death
> Too many other things to list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no mention of stoning homosexuals, I believe that was the woman caught in the act of adultery brought before Jesus you are thinking of.
> 
> Some more values:
> 
> Don't steal
> Don't murder
> Don't commit adultery
> Honor your mother and father
> Don't covet what belongs to your neighbor
> Love your enemies
> Pray for those who despitefully use you
> ... to name but a few
Click to expand...




Leviticus 20:13 says they should be put to death.
Sorry if I said stoning but dead is dead be it however they do it. 
The Bible says male gay sex is a capital offense.


----------



## Silhouette

Gadawg73 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Values in the Bible:
> Love thy neighbor
> Do not Judge
> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
> 
> Crazy shit in the Bible:
> Stone homosexuals to death
> Too many other things to list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no mention of stoning homosexuals, I believe that was the woman caught in the act of adultery brought before Jesus you are thinking of.
> 
> Some more values:
> 
> Don't steal
> Don't murder
> Don't commit adultery
> Honor your mother and father
> Don't covet what belongs to your neighbor
> Love your enemies
> Pray for those who despitefully use you
> ... to name but a few
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus 20:13 says they should be put to death.
> Sorry if I said stoning but dead is dead be it however they do it.
> The Bible says male gay sex is a capital offense.
Click to expand...


But the New Testament/Christianity doesn't.  Instead, in Jude 1, it says you will burn in hell for eternity for aiding the spread of a homosexual culture; not individual homosexual compulsives.  The NT demands the faithful not allow the spread of homosexuality as an approved social value system.


----------



## Gadawg73

Silhouette said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no mention of stoning homosexuals, I believe that was the woman caught in the act of adultery brought before Jesus you are thinking of.
> 
> Some more values:
> 
> Don't steal
> Don't murder
> Don't commit adultery
> Honor your mother and father
> Don't covet what belongs to your neighbor
> Love your enemies
> Pray for those who despitefully use you
> ... to name but a few
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus 20:13 says they should be put to death.
> Sorry if I said stoning but dead is dead be it however they do it.
> The Bible says male gay sex is a capital offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the New Testament/Christianity doesn't.  Instead, in Jude 1, it says you will burn in hell for eternity for aiding the spread of a homosexual culture; not individual homosexual compulsives.  The NT demands the faithful not allow the spread of homosexuality as an approved social value system.
Click to expand...


I a straight male with grandkids, married for 39 years.
How am I "aiding the homosexual culture" when I believe gay folks deserve equal rights?
Tell me how homosexuality "spreads". 
Homosexuality is same sex attraction and love. People are born with who they are attracted to.
It does not spread like a disease and those that believe that are ignorant.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus 20:13 says they should be put to death.
> Sorry if I said stoning but dead is dead be it however they do it.
> The Bible says male gay sex is a capital offense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the New Testament/Christianity doesn't.  Instead, in Jude 1, it says you will burn in hell for eternity for aiding the spread of a homosexual culture; not individual homosexual compulsives.  The NT demands the faithful not allow the spread of homosexuality as an approved social value system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I a straight male with grandkids, married for 39 years.
> How am I "aiding the homosexual culture" when I believe gay folks deserve equal rights?
> Tell me how homosexuality "spreads".
> Homosexuality is same sex attraction and love. *People are born with who they are attracted to.*
> It does not spread like a disease and those that believe that are ignorant.
Click to expand...



No, people are not born attracted to anyone. That is a choice they make later in life.

'Immoral people committing disgusting acts,' that sums up a lot of people, not just those who commit homosexual acts, but also heterosexuals who have sex with different people, and a lot of others.


----------



## Taz

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the New Testament/Christianity doesn't.  Instead, in Jude 1, it says you will burn in hell for eternity for aiding the spread of a homosexual culture; not individual homosexual compulsives.  The NT demands the faithful not allow the spread of homosexuality as an approved social value system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I a straight male with grandkids, married for 39 years.
> How am I "aiding the homosexual culture" when I believe gay folks deserve equal rights?
> Tell me how homosexuality "spreads".
> Homosexuality is same sex attraction and love. *People are born with who they are attracted to.*
> It does not spread like a disease and those that believe that are ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, people are not born attracted to anyone. That is a choice they make later in life.
> 
> 'Immoral people committing disgusting acts,' that sums up a lot of people, not just those who commit homosexual acts, but also heterosexuals who have sex with different people, and a lot of others.
Click to expand...

So only the missionary position for you?


----------



## JakeStarkey

*Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? *

We all agree such won't happen.

We agree almost completely that sexuality is not a choice.

Please close the thread.  Nothing to see here, folks, move along.


----------



## Rikurzhen

Gadawg73 said:


> 2300 posts and no evidence whatsoever that gay folks want to force government to mandate a law to force churches to marry gay folk.
> 
> Because the premise is pure folly to begin with.



Ideas aren't bounded within national borders. What happens elsewhere lends legitimacy to reforms in other places. We saw that with the crazy notion that marriage could be redefined to include two people of the same sex. It started somewhere, scored a success and so was launched elsewhere.

The first legal challenge to the Church of England's ban on same-sex marriage was launched today - months before the first gay wedding can take place.

Gay father Barrie Drewitt-Barlow declared: 'I want to go into my church and marry my husband.' He added: 'The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the Church.'​
FFS, who would have thought that homosexuals would be crazy enough to sue photographers to force them to photograph homosexual "weddings" or crazy enough to sue bakers to force them to bake cakes for homosexual "weddings."

Give it time. There's some crazy homosexual out there and this suing of a church will also come to pass here in the US.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Rikurzhen, the USA is not the UK.


----------



## Rikurzhen

JakeStarkey said:


> Rikurzhen, the USA is not the UK.



And yet the insane notion of homosexuals marrying others homosexuals took root first in Scandinavia, but somehow found its way over to North America.

Funny huh, how ideas aren't bounded by national borders.

Look at what American liberals are trying to do with their attacks on religion in the employment health insurance debate.

Look at how liberals continually attack human rights by gutting freedom of association rights in employment law.

Homosexuals are suing bakers and photographers who don't want to do business with them and trying to use the force of law to compel these people into associations that they want no part of.

Look, liberals might be evil but they're not completely stupid. They understand that their totalitarian vision has to be implemented in a scaffolded fashion, they have to gnaw away at liberties, piece by piece. In other words, they have to prepare the groundwork so that when they sue to force churches to perform weddings the action becomes the next logical step rather than being seen as a leap too far.

The action kicked off in the UK and it'll be launched here in the US in due course.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Funny, none of that matter, Rik.

Liberals and cons are not evil, per se,a though both groups have so real turds.

No one is going to make your church, since it does not receive state money, marry gays.

It's OK, son: really.


----------



## Rikurzhen

JakeStarkey said:


> Liberals and cons are not evil, per se,a though both groups have so real turds.



No, liberals are evil. This can be derived from base principles. Imagine two societies.

In a conservative, meaning non-collectivist, society individuals can do as they please. The liberals within this society can join with other liberals and collectivize. There is nothing stopping them from associating as they please.

In the liberal, meaning collectivist, society, the conservatives who don't want to collectivize are not able to escape from the coercion of forced collectivization. This is an assault on human rights on many levels.

This entire ObamaCare debate is illustrative. There has never been anything which has prevented liberals in America from all banding together and collectivizing their health insurance into one big pool and inviting all poor people to join them but they don't want to exercise voluntary association they want instead to compel everyone, even against their will, to join into a mandatory collective.

That's the face of evil.



> No one is going to make your church, since it does not receive state money, marry gays.



And no one is going to sue a baker nor a photographer to service a homosexual "wedding" because bakers and photographers don't receive state money. Oh wait, homosexuals did just that.

You're blowing sunshine up people's skirts with the fairytale that everyone should avoid noticing precedent and simply rely on your assurances. I've seen how homosexuals and liberals advance their totalitarianism and I see no reason which prevents them from continuing their assault on liberty.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Rikurzhen said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2300 posts and no evidence whatsoever that gay folks want to force government to mandate a law to force churches to marry gay folk.
> 
> Because the premise is pure folly to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ideas aren't bounded within national borders. What happens elsewhere lends legitimacy to reforms in other places. We saw that with the crazy notion that marriage could be redefined to include two people of the same sex. It started somewhere, scored a success and so was launched elsewhere.
> 
> The first legal challenge to the Church of England's ban on same-sex marriage was launched today - months before the first gay wedding can take place.
> 
> Gay father Barrie Drewitt-Barlow declared: 'I want to go into my church and marry my husband.' He added: 'The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the Church.'​
> FFS, who would have thought that homosexuals would be crazy enough to sue photographers to force them to photograph homosexual "weddings" or crazy enough to sue bakers to force them to bake cakes for homosexual "weddings."
> 
> Give it time. There's some crazy homosexual out there and this suing of a church will also come to pass here in the US.
Click to expand...


What happens elsewhere lends legitimacy ONLY if the "elsewhere" is somewhere we want to emulate.  They kill homosexuals in the Middle East, but I don't think that lends any legitimacy to the idea here.

If I wanted to live in the UK, I would do so.  I have no desire to live there, which means I have no desire to have my country turn into the UK.


----------



## Rikurzhen

Cecilie1200 said:


> What happens elsewhere lends legitimacy ONLY if the "elsewhere" is somewhere we want to emulate.  They kill homosexuals in the Middle East, but I don't think that lends any legitimacy to the idea here.
> 
> If I wanted to live in the UK, I would do so.  I have no desire to live there, which means I have no desire to have my country turn into the UK.



And I have no desire to have my country turn into Scandinavia and yet their homosexual marriage idea has burrowed in here like a tick.

Look, plenty of homosexuals hate religions because those religions have as fundamental doctrine that homosexuality is a sin. Of that group there is some proportion which is intent on sticking a shiv into Religion whenever they can and forcing Churches to submit to the homosexual agenda would bring immense feelings of satisfaction.

Look at what the homosexuals who sued the photographers and bakers were doing - they set out to compel people who wanted to avoid involvement with homosexual "weddings" to bend to the wishes of the homosexuals. Why on Earth do you believe that this mindset of forcing people to do what they object to won't be extended to Churches? Homosexuals have already shown that they're willing to force small business people to bend over and take it up the ass.

Rape of liberty is Mission #1. Churches won't be immune. Homosexuals have already demonstrated that they're willing to rape people's Freedom of Association so why would they put Freedom of Religion out of bounds?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sigh.

It's over, Rik.  The end game is underway.  You will live in a country with marriage equality if you stay in the United States.


----------



## Rikurzhen

JakeStarkey said:


> Sigh.
> 
> It's over, Rik.  The end game is underway.  You will live in a country with marriage equality if you stay in the United States.



Homosexuals have always had marriage equality in the US. They were always free to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals, and throughout history many homosexuals did exercise their right to marry.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Rikurzhen said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen, the USA is not the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the insane notion of homosexuals marrying others homosexuals took root first in Scandinavia, but somehow found its way over to North America.
Click to expand...



Baker v. Nelson was in the 1970 in the USA.

Hawaii Court action 1990's

Massachusetts recognized Same Sex Civil Marriages 2004.


"Scandinavia" (i.e. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark) were 2009, 2009, and 2012 respectively.



>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

Rikurzhen said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> It's over, Rik.  The end game is underway.  You will live in a country with marriage equality if you stay in the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have always had marriage equality in the US. They were always free to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals, and throughout history many homosexuals did exercise their right to marry.
Click to expand...


I wonder why SCOTUS just issued a vote of confidence July 18, 2014 on the law in Utah limiting marriage to one man and one woman?

They upheld the stay Utah's AG pled for.


----------



## JakeStarkey

SCOTUS did nothing of the sort, merely allowing a stay so that Utah can appeal its lost case.

No more "just once more" because all the antis now will do is lie.

Any further discussion with them only emboldens their nonsense and is worthless.


----------



## BillyP

Rikurzhen said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> It's over, Rik.  The end game is underway.  You will live in a country with marriage equality if you stay in the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have always had marriage equality in the US. They were always free to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals, and throughout history many homosexuals did exercise their right to marry.
Click to expand...


If you're against gay marriage, just don't marry a gay person. Pretty simple really.


----------



## Silhouette

RWHeathenGamer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
Click to expand...


No because whereas race is protected under the 14th Amendment specifically, just some odd sexual behaviors and who one chooses to practice them with are not.  Marriage is defined by the states and my only be tampered with as to that definition by specific protections under the 14th.


----------



## Rikurzhen

BillyP said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> It's over, Rik.  The end game is underway.  You will live in a country with marriage equality if you stay in the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have always had marriage equality in the US. They were always free to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals, and throughout history many homosexuals did exercise their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're against gay marriage, just don't marry a gay person. Pretty simple really.
Click to expand...


If you're against bestiality, don't wine and dine a goat.


----------



## Gadawg73

Friend of mine is an ordained preacher. He wants the the right to be able to marry gay couples.
Who is standing up for his religious rights?
This is nothing to do with protecting the "sanctity of marriage" or any rights.
This is ALL to do with some folks do not like gay folks and have to have someone to put down and treat as second class citizens.


----------



## Silhouette

Gadawg73 said:


> Friend of mine is an ordained preacher. He wants the the right to be able to marry gay couples.
> Who is standing up for his religious rights?
> This is nothing to do with protecting the "sanctity of marriage" or any rights.
> This is ALL to do with some folks do not like gay folks and have to have someone to put down and treat as second class citizens.



This may just come down to Windsor 2013 anyway.  And according to its constitutional findings, only 3 states have legal gay marriage.  So?  This question will apply there.  And only thereafter in the states that the cult of LGBT manages to convince that role-playing "mom and dad" by two [or more once polygamy comes along on the precedent] people of the same gender is "a great idea for society".

This may be a moot argument by the end of next year.


----------



## Silhouette

BillyP said:


> If you're against gay marriage, just don't marry a gay person. Pretty simple really.



Well except that marriage often comes with a bonus of the couple or more [polygamy] being able to adopt orphans.  The orphans' civil rights come first [childrens' rights always do in the US]:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html


----------



## BillyP

Silhouette said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're against gay marriage, just don't marry a gay person. Pretty simple really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well except that marriage often comes with a bonus of the couple or more [polygamy] being able to adopt orphans.  The orphans' civil rights come first [childrens' rights always do in the US]:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html
Click to expand...


Because nothing bad ever happens to kids adopted by heteros?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Silhouette said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> It's over, Rik.  The end game is underway.  You will live in a country with marriage equality if you stay in the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have always had marriage equality in the US. They were always free to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals, and throughout history many homosexuals did exercise their right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder why SCOTUS just issued a vote of confidence July 18, 2014 on the law in Utah limiting marriage to one man and one woman?
> 
> They upheld the stay Utah's AG pled for.
Click to expand...


So now you're just going to lie.


----------



## Andylusion

Gadawg73 said:


> Friend of mine is an ordained preacher. He wants the the right to be able to marry gay couples.
> Who is standing up for his religious rights?
> This is nothing to do with protecting the "sanctity of marriage" or any rights.
> This is ALL to do with some folks do not like gay folks and have to have someone to put down and treat as second class citizens.



Anyone can marry anything.  I can become and ordained minister and marry a monkey and a rat.      I just can't enforce my 'marriage' on the rest of society, by forcing everyone to recognize my idiot stupidity.

But any religious idiot, can marry anything according to their own views.

Authentic Marriage is between a man and a women, as it has been for thousands of years of human history.

Your idiotic fool of a 'preacher' can 'marry' anyone he wants.  But the moment he tries to force everyone to accept his stupidity, no.  No where in the constitution does it say "you have the right to follow your religious beliefs  *AND* force everyone else to accept them.".

You can make up Scientology and marry any rodent you want.   When Scientology starts trying to force it's stupidity on the rest of us, I will oppose that just as much I as oppose your "preacher" buddy of yours.

No, you can go off and do whatever you want on your own.   But no, you don't have to right to force everyone else to accept it.

Hint:  I'm not going to.   No matter what law you pass, I'm not recognizing this idiotic stupidity.    A man and a man, are not married, no matter what you people do.


----------



## Inevitable

Of course not.


----------



## Inevitable

Silhouette said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're against gay marriage, just don't marry a gay person. Pretty simple really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well except that marriage often comes with a bonus of the couple or more [polygamy] being able to adopt orphans.  The orphans' civil rights come first [childrens' rights always do in the US]:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html
Click to expand...


I don't think any orphan would choose foster care or statute careover homosexual parents. Plus what civil rights are you talking about.


----------



## bendog

We're not stopping till Androw's church must either marry pedophiles to children in satanic rites or not only lose tax exempt status but also have members endure incarceration with the most barbaric criminals we can find.  We'll stop at nothing.  (evil laughter.)


----------



## Seawytch

bendog said:


> We're not stopping till Androw's church must either marry pedophiles to children in satanic rites or not only lose tax exempt status but also have members endure incarceration with the most barbaric criminals we can find.  We'll stop at nothing.  (evil laughter.)




Androw's church may some day see the writing on the wall and stop being anti gay. Will he leave it when the time comes?


----------



## Andylusion

bendog said:


> We're not stopping till Androw's church must either marry pedophiles to children in satanic rites or not only lose tax exempt status but also have members endure incarceration with the most barbaric criminals we can find.  We'll stop at nothing.  (evil laughter.)



That's exactly what you people intend.  You joke, and try and act sarcastic, and yet we've already seen preachers being arrested for merely stating their faith views.

Preacher arrested for saying gay love is a sin gets £13,000 - Telegraph

You pretend like it's not coming, but it is.  Evil people always hate those that are good.   You don't have to power to do anything yet, but the moment you do, you'll try to do everything you just said.


----------



## Seawytch

Androw said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not stopping till Androw's church must either marry pedophiles to children in satanic rites or not only lose tax exempt status but also have members endure incarceration with the most barbaric criminals we can find.  We'll stop at nothing.  (evil laughter.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what you people intend.  You joke, and try and act sarcastic, and yet we've already seen preachers being arrested for merely stating their faith views.
> 
> Preacher arrested for saying gay love is a sin gets £13,000 - Telegraph
> 
> You pretend like it's not coming, but it is.  Evil people always hate those that are good.   You don't have to power to do anything yet, but the moment you do, you'll try to do everything you just said.
Click to expand...



No "we" aren't. Last time I checked, the UK is not America.


----------



## bendog

Coming soon.  Resistance is Futile Androw.  SUBMIT


----------



## Andylusion

bendog said:


> Coming soon.  Resistance is Futile Androw.  SUBMIT
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCpTIn66Nd0



Still don't care.  I will not submit.  You will have to kill me.


----------



## bendog

Prepare the Coliseum


----------



## BillyP

Moscowc said:


> What does bible say ??



Bible say Russians fuck dogs.


----------



## Andylusion

bendog said:


> Prepare the Coliseum
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oja9gvoPAJA



Still don't care.  I'll gladly go, and die, before violating my beliefs.


----------



## Andylusion

Moscowc said:


> What does bible say ??



Homosexuality is a sin.  That's what it says.


----------



## GISMYS

THIS IS GOD'S WORD ON THE SICK,FOUL,ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVESION====For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness,

19 because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shown it unto them.

20 For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

21 For when they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God, nor were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and to birds and fourfooted beasts and creeping things.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves.

25 They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not fitting,

29 being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity. They are whisperers,

30 backbiters, haters of God, spiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affections, implacable, unmerciful.

32 And knowing the judgment of God, that those who commit such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but have pleasure in those who do them.
ROMANS 1:18-32


----------



## Againsheila

KNB said:


> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.



Hmm, talk about irony.


----------



## Seawytch

Moscowc said:


> What does bible say ??




It doesn't "say" anything, you have to read it. 

Of course, interpretation is all up to the reader. Some interpret it to support their racist, segregationist, misogynist and anti gay ideals...others don't.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> It doesn't "say" anything, you have to read it.
> 
> Of course, interpretation is all up to the reader. Some interpret it to support their racist, segregationist, misogynist and anti gay ideals...others don't.


 
Jude 1 is very specific in that it warns followers to resist promoting any gay culture and the price for failing to do so is eternal damnation in the pit of fire along with the damned.  In fact, when you read Jude 1 you get the impression that the punishment is worse for those standing by doing nothing or assiting the spread of a homosexual culture than for those ill people actually practicing homosexuality.  For they know not what they do, but the bystanders are intimately aware of what wrong they're doing and choose to stand by and watch it happen anyway.


----------



## sealybobo

Androw said:


> That's exactly what you people intend.  You joke, and try and act sarcastic, and yet we've already seen preachers being arrested for merely stating their faith views.
> 
> Preacher arrested for saying gay love is a sin gets £13,000 - Telegraph
> 
> You pretend like it's not coming, but it is.  Evil people always hate those that are good.   You don't have to power to do anything yet, but the moment you do, you'll try to do everything you just said.



I don't think churches should have to accomodate gay weddings and I'm about as liberal as they come.  So please let this topic go.  If it ever happens you can tell us you told us so but I just don't see it happening.  

But we do remember people like you crying that the government might make you one day marry black men and white women.  I know that took you awhile to get use to and accept and so will gay marriage.  

In fact it won't be that churches are forced.  They'll change their position on this issue just like they do every other issue they are/were wrong about.


----------



## Silhouette

sealybobo said:


> I don't think churches should have to accomodate gay weddings and I'm about as liberal as they come.  So please let this topic go.  If it ever happens you can tell us you told us so but I just don't see it happening.
> 
> But we do remember people like you crying that the government might make you one day marry black men and white women.  I know that took you awhile to get use to and accept and so will gay marriage.
> 
> In fact it won't be that churches are forced.  They'll change their position on this issue just like they do every other issue they are/were wrong about.


Translating the post above:

_"Please let this topic go.  The church of LGBT wants to silently take over and squelch christianity using legal channels [for now].  And it will be very difficult to do that if the Supreme Court or other interested media parties see the poll results in this thread.  I'm still trying to compare race to deviant sexual behaviors.  Just lay back, shut up and let the gay steamroller lie its way about stastistics right into orphans' pants...er...I mean gay marriage!  If the church still wants parishoners after a generation or two of these imprinted perverts, they'll be forced to redact the passage in Jude 1 in order to keep the collection plates full and their doors open."  ~Love, The Devil_


----------



## sealybobo

Silhouette said:


> Translating the post above:
> 
> _"Please let this topic go.  The church of LGBT wants to silently take over and squelch christianity using legal channels [for now].  And it will be very difficult to do that if the Supreme Court or other interested media parties see the poll results in this thread.  I'm still trying to compare race to deviant sexual behaviors.  Just lay back, shut up and let the gay steamroller lie its way about stastistics right into orphans' pants...er...I mean gay marriage!  If the church still wants parishoners after a generation or two of these imprinted perverts, they'll be forced to redact the passage in Jude 1 in order to keep the collection plates full and their doors open."  ~Love, The Devil_



My hope is the gays wake up and join the atheist movement anyways so fuck your churches.  They don't deserve my money or any gay persons money.


----------



## Silhouette

sealybobo said:


> My hope is the gays wake up and join the atheist movement anyways so fuck your churches.  They don't deserve my money or any gay persons money.


 
And don't forget to say also _ "fuck you 83% who voted in this poll that churches [or other people, presumably] should not be forced to recognize or participate in gay marriage"_


----------



## sealybobo

Silhouette said:


> And don't forget to say also _ "fuck you 83% who voted in this poll that churches [or other people, presumably] should not be forced to recognize or participate in gay marriage"_



I don't think churches should be forced to perform gay marriages actually and I'm as liberal as they come.

But I do say fuck you to the 83% still, assholes.  And fuck the churches who won't marry the gays.  They don't need your churches anyways.  Why would a gay who's not a member of your church want to get married at your church?  If he or she is a member and they won't marry you, you should not be a member anymore.  No one sues the church.  We just leave the church.  

Isn't that the way Libertarians would want it?  Let the market decide.  And if I saw my church discriminating against gays or blacks and I stay, I'm the one who's got the problem.  

Do you sin?  Then why is your church marrying you?  If they think being gay is a sin and they won't marry sinners, then why do they forgive you of all your sins?  And how come your sins won't send you to hell but gays who believe in jesus are going to hell?  They believe jesus is their lord and savior too.  They just don't believe the stuff the bible says about gays.  

Do you know how many christians pick and choose what they like and don't like about the bible?  By your own standards NONE OF YOU are going to heaven.


----------



## sealybobo

Silhouette said:


> And don't forget to say also _ "fuck you 83% who voted in this poll that churches [or other people, presumably] should not be forced to recognize or participate in gay marriage"_



How many of you christians will sin till the day you die?  So if your church can overlook your flaws, why can't they overlook someone being gay?  As long as they believe in jesus, right?

In years to come your churches are going to lose so many members you'll take whoever is willing to show up on Sundays.  

Sometimes I pray to no one I say, "no one, when are the bible belt and muslims going to wake up?" because all over Europe and Northern America people are waking up.  We are going through an Enlightenment period and I don't see modern, evolved, educated man believing in god in the future.  Wait a minute.  The entire country of Israel believes in god.  I think us atheists have a long time to wait before people wake up.


----------



## Silhouette

sealybobo said:


> How many of you christians will sin till the day you die?  So if your church can overlook your flaws, why can't they overlook someone being gay?  As long as they believe in jesus, right?
> 
> In years to come your churches are going to lose so many members you'll take whoever is willing to show up on Sundays.
> 
> Sometimes I pray to no one I say, "no one, when are the bible belt and muslims going to wake up?" because all over Europe and Northern America people are waking up.  We are going through an Enlightenment period and I don't see modern, evolved, educated man believing in god in the future.  Wait a minute.  The entire country of Israel believes in god.  I think us atheists have a long time to wait before people wake up.


 The act of marrying two people of the same gender is that person also committing a sin.  You cannot require pastors and priests to commit mortal sins as a matter of law in order to accomodate gays play-acting "man and wife" or "mother and father".


----------



## Silhouette

Of all the threads on this topic, I've found this one to be one of the most significant.  It's huge, has tons of hits and has one of the biggest responses to any poll I've seen here so far.  The subject definitely interests people.  And they have weighed in quite heavily on one very troubling option for the gay gestapo..


----------



## Katzndogz

RWHeathenGamer said:


> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?


Of course!   Just like a Church that has snake handling as part of their belief may deny marriage ceremonies that do not include the bride and groom handling snakes.  Can a church refuse to marry couples of a mixed religion?  Sure.  They do it all the time.  Same race, different race, makes no difference.   A mosque will not marry a believer and an infidel.

I can't think of a religious organization that has a religious belief in not marrying mixed race couples.  Can you name one?  If there was one, then yes they should be able to deny marriage ceremonies to mixed race couples.


----------



## Silhouette

Katzndogz said:


> Of course!   Just like a Church that has snake handling as part of their belief may deny marriage ceremonies that do not include the bride and groom handling snakes.  Can a church refuse to marry couples of a mixed religion?  Sure.  They do it all the time.  Same race, different race, makes no difference.   A mosque will not marry a believer and an infidel.
> 
> I can't think of a religious organization that has a religious belief in not marrying mixed race couples.  Can you name one?  If there was one, then yes they should be able to deny marriage ceremonies to mixed race couples.


 My own parents were turned away from the catholic church to be married because my mother wouldn't convert to catholicism.  It didn't come as a shock to them either.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> Of all the threads on this topic, I've found this one to be one of the most significant.  It's huge, has tons of hits and has one of the biggest responses to any poll I've seen here so far.  The subject definitely interests people.  And they have weighed in quite heavily on one very troubling option for the gay gestapo..


Why don't you just come out of the closet?


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Why don't you just come out of the closet?


 I have.  I've said over and over I'm against gay marriage..


----------



## sealybobo

Silhouette said:


> The act of marrying two people of the same gender is that person also committing a sin.  You cannot require pastors and priests to commit mortal sins as a matter of law in order to accomodate gays play-acting "man and wife" or "mother and father".



Oh relax no one's going to make it a law.  But trust me when society changes religion will find a loophole just like they will for women being priests and did for blacks marrying whites.  Remember the bible said whites should not marry blacks?  The good old days to you, huh?  

How does your pastor know they are sleeping together?  
*Marriage* (also called *matrimony* or *wedlock*) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

Where in the bible does it say two guys can't do this?  Tell your pastor to get his mind out of the gutter wondering what those two dudes do in the privacy of their homes.  Maybe one of them is a sheeman?  What right does he have to ask or judge?  That mother fucker!  Fucking creep!


----------



## Silhouette

sealybobo said:


> Oh relax no one's going to make it a law.  But trust me when society changes religion will find a loophole just like they will for women being priests and did for blacks marrying whites.  Remember the bible said whites should not marry blacks?  The good old days to you, huh?
> 
> How does your pastor know they are sleeping together?
> *Marriage* (also called *matrimony* or *wedlock*) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.
> 
> Where in the bible does it say two guys can't do this?  Tell your pastor to get his mind out of the gutter wondering what those two dudes do in the privacy of their homes.  Maybe one of them is a sheeman?  What right does he have to ask or judge?  That mother fucker!  Fucking creep!


 It says in Jude 1 that guys can't do that.  And other places.  And the punishment the Bible prescribes for people who participate in such acts as "eternal damnation".  In other words it's a mortal sin, not just a garden variety "say three hail marys and call me in the morning" type of sin.

Glad you brought up children when talking about marriage.  At the end of the day it is their consideration that will weigh more heavily than any other.


----------



## sealybobo

Silhouette said:


> It says in Jude 1 that guys can't do that.  And other places.  And the punishment the Bible prescribes for people who participate in such acts as "eternal damnation".  In other words it's a mortal sin, not just a garden variety "say three hail marys and call me in the morning" type of sin.
> 
> Glad you brought up children when talking about marriage.  At the end of the day it is their consideration that will weigh more heavily than any other.



Show me where it says men can't wed.  It probably talks about them sleeping together not getting married.  What they do in their bedroom is their business.  Oh, and you must be a catholic.  I've heard about mortal sins before.  This is one of them?  Really?  And the catholic church said that them molesting all those kids was a sin and not a crime or was it the other way around?  

Anyways, if your church will never come around on the gays, other churches already have.  They are more than willing to suck up their $.  Perhaps your church doesn't need the gays YET.  That's cool.  It's like when my cell phone company treats me like shit and I go to a new carrier.  They don't mind because they trade business all the time.  And who knows, one day Verizon might offer a better offer and you'll go back.  Never say never right?

Here is how I see it.  You have to be gay to be a catholic priest.  Eventually they will all realize it and soften the churches position on gays.  It's like the Republican Larry Craig the toe tapper or Michelle Bachman who's married to a gay but hates gays.  

Your church just hasn't evolved yet.


----------



## Silhouette

sealybobo said:


> Show me where it says men can't wed.  It probably talks about them sleeping together not getting married.  What they do in their bedroom is their business.  Oh, and you must be a catholic.  I've heard about mortal sins before.  This is one of them?  Really?  And the catholic church said that them molesting all those kids was a sin and not a crime or was it the other way around?
> 
> Anyways, if your church will never come around on the gays, other churches already have.  They are more than willing to suck up their $.  Perhaps your church doesn't need the gays YET.  That's cool.  It's like when my cell phone company treats me like shit and I go to a new carrier.  They don't mind because they trade business all the time.  And who knows, one day Verizon might offer a better offer and you'll go back.  Never say never right?
> 
> Here is how I see it.  You have to be gay to be a catholic priest.  Eventually they will all realize it and soften the churches position on gays.  It's like the Republican Larry Craig the toe tapper or Michelle Bachman who's married to a gay but hates gays.
> 
> Your church just hasn't evolved yet.


 Not catholic.  Nobody in the catholic church said molesting boys there was OK.  Any other misinformation you want to impart or are you done for now?  The day churches OK men sodomizing boys is a day you wish to celebrate.  Meanwhile the other 99% of humanity will fight against that.


----------



## Jarlaxle

RKMBrown said:


> Why don't you just come out of the closet?



That's not a closet, dude...that is a padded room!


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> Glad you brought up children when talking about marriage.  At the end of the day it is their consideration that will weigh more heavily than any other.




The "for the children" argument was already presented and rejected by the SCOTUS.  From Windsor "The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> The "for the children" argument was already presented and rejected by the SCOTUS.  From Windsor "The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. *And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples*. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."
> 
> 
> >>>>


"humiliates" is a relative term.  After deeper examination and the findings of the European court, the SCOTUS may decide that it is more humilating to live in a home where two people of the same gender are play-acting "mom and dad" when they are not and cannot ever be.  Perhaps they will recognize the mental schism those children are destined to experience as they learn where children actually come from: actual mothers and fathers...

Disincentivizing men and women to be together with the children they produce is not a good idea for society on about a thousand other fronts too.  So this is bigger than just marriage.

Your argument seems to be _"since we are already mind-fucking kids, to alert them to that fact by not allowing us to marry is a mind-fuck to kids"._  Two wrongs don't make a right.  Your circular/insular insane argument doesn't hold water when it comes to actually protecting children in the big picture..


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> "humiliates" is a relative term.  After deeper examination and the findings of the European court, the SCOTUS may decide that it is more humilating to live in a home where two people of the same gender are play-acting "mom and dad" when they are not and cannot ever be.  Perhaps they will recognize the mental schism those children are destined to experience as they learn where children actually come from: actual mothers and fathers...
> 
> Disincentivizing men and women to be together with the children they produce is not a good idea for society on about a thousand other fronts too.  So this is bigger than just marriage.
> 
> Your argument seems to be _"since we are already mind-fucking kids, to alert them to that fact by not allowing us to marry is a mind-fuck to kids"._  Two wrongs don't make a right.  Your circular/insular insane argument doesn't hold water when it comes to actually protecting children in the big picture..




Nope.

My comment was to show you that your "at the end of the day" comments was silly.  The "for the children" arguments was presented in the briefs and oral arguments in the Windsor case, the SCOTUS didn't buy it.  So when it comes to how the court will rule next year, the "for the children" argument isn't likely to be a deciding factor "at the end of the day" as they SCOTUS has already pointed out that depriving same-sex couples with children equal treatment under the law is a bad thing.


>>>>


----------



## sealybobo

Silhouette said:


> Not catholic.  Nobody in the catholic church said molesting boys there was OK.  Any other misinformation you want to impart or are you done for now?  The day churches OK men sodomizing boys is a day you wish to celebrate.  Meanwhile the other 99% of humanity will fight against that.



Really?  Look how many fought back when the church not only covered up molestation they sent those molesters to other parishes to molest more unsuspecting children and their families.  

Bishop &#8216;Not Sure&#8217; Child Molestation A Crime | The American Conservative

He's not sure?  This is one of the reasons religion can kiss my ass.  

Many people left the church after these scandals but imo not nearly enough.  And what does the church do to win people back?  They elect a liberal pope.  LOL


----------



## Theowl32




----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> My comment was to show you that your "at the end of the day" comments was silly.  The "for the children" arguments was presented in the briefs and oral arguments in the Windsor case, the SCOTUS didn't buy it.  So when it comes to how the court will rule next year, the "for the children" argument isn't likely to be a deciding factor "at the end of the day" as they SCOTUS has already pointed out that depriving same-sex couples with children equal treatment under the law is a bad thing.
> 
> 
> >>>>


 Yes but these arguments are going to be revisited.  Or didn't you know that?  Yes, it would such a "bad thing" to deprive these people who do _this_ in sober "pride" in broad daylight where they hope children will be attending from accessing legally children to adopt and bring behind closed doors...


----------



## OnePercenter

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



Yes, because it's the human thing to do.


----------



## OnePercenter

Silhouette said:


> Yes but these arguments are going to be revisited.  Or didn't you know that?  Yes, it would such a "bad thing" to deprive these people who do _this_ in sober "pride" in broad daylight where they hope children will be attending from accessing legally children to adopt and bring behind closed doors...








Redneck vs Gay.....Whats the difference?


----------



## Silhouette

OnePercenter said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but these arguments are going to be revisited.  Or didn't you know that?  Yes, it would such a "bad thing" to deprive these people who do _this_ in sober "pride" in broad daylight where they hope children will be attending from accessing legally children to adopt and bring behind closed doors...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redneck vs Gay.....Whats the difference?
Click to expand...

 
Oh that's easy.  The first three photos are people who are sober, putting on an organized parade of "pride" where they hope children of all ages will be in attendance.  The second picture is of Spring break type event held for young adults exclusively in areas well known for parents with young kids to avoid.  I'm certain nobody there wants or expects young kids to be in attendance to an event they wake up from hung over and obviously not proud of.

Context is everything as it turns out.


----------



## Silhouette

Which event is "sober pride" and which is "shameful hangover" the next day?  Which hopes little kids will be around and which doesn't?


----------



## haissem123

Jesus said nothing about homosexuals and he did his best to politely rebuke much of the old testament. I guess those in power editing our good or God's books left out the part where he said do unto others as you'd  have them do unto you or judge not less ye be judged.  I don't believe in forcing any church to do services for something they don't agree with, like wise I don't believe any church should try to stop others from doing what they believe is right in the sight of their God and maker.


----------



## Silhouette

haissem123 said:


> Jesus said nothing about homosexuals and he did his best to politely rebuke much of the old testament. I guess those in power editing our good or God's books left out the part where he said do unto others as you'd  have them do unto you or judge not less ye be judged.  I don't believe in forcing any church to do services for something they don't agree with, like wise I don't believe any church should try to stop others from doing what they believe is right in the sight of their God and maker.


 Jude was a personal servant and friend of Jesus.  He was one of Jesus' homies.  He travelled everywhere with him and heard his teachings day after day after day.  Jude 1 recalls the Old Testament's warnings about homosexuality and incorporates them into the New Testament.  Jude reiterates the warnings as viable and endurable christian law.  He says essentially that if you do not resist the spread of a homosexual culture, even Jesus cannot save you.  He ends the warning passage saying in order to present yourself before God and Jesus, you must actively resist such a cultural trend and if you fail, you are damned for eternity.

For some reason the New Testament really bears down on the Sodom story and homosexual cultures like Sodom.  God has His reasons I suppose.  But they are clear in both the Old and New Testament alike.


----------



## haissem123

Silhouette said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said nothing about homosexuals and he did his best to politely rebuke much of the old testament. I guess those in power editing our good or God's books left out the part where he said do unto others as you'd  have them do unto you or judge not less ye be judged.  I don't believe in forcing any church to do services for something they don't agree with, like wise I don't believe any church should try to stop others from doing what they believe is right in the sight of their God and maker.
> 
> 
> 
> Jude was a personal servant and friend of Jesus.  He was one of Jesus' homies.  He travelled everywhere with him and heard his teachings day after day after day.  Jude 1 recalls the Old Testament's warnings about homosexuality and incorporates them into the New Testament.  Jude reiterates the warnings as viable and endurable christian law.  He says essentially that if you do not resist the spread of a homosexual culture, even Jesus cannot save you.  He ends the warning passage saying in order to present yourself before God and Jesus, you must actively resist such a cultural trend and if you fail, you are damned for eternity.
> 
> For some reason the New Testament really bears down on the Sodom story and homosexual cultures like Sodom.  God has His reasons I suppose.  But they are clear in both the Old and New Testament alike.
Click to expand...

i don't follow jude or judes. be my guest and follow whom you like. as for me, I follow the lord not his hanger ons. put in a book by whom? king james?


----------



## sealybobo

Silhouette said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but these arguments are going to be revisited.  Or didn't you know that?  Yes, it would such a "bad thing" to deprive these people who do _this_ in sober "pride" in broad daylight where they hope children will be attending from accessing legally children to adopt and bring behind closed doors...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redneck vs Gay.....Whats the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh that's easy.  The first three photos are people who are sober, putting on an organized parade of "pride" where they hope children of all ages will be in attendance.  The second picture is of Spring break type event held for young adults exclusively in areas well known for parents with young kids to avoid.  I'm certain nobody there wants or expects young kids to be in attendance to an event they wake up from hung over and obviously not proud of.
> 
> Context is everything as it turns out.
Click to expand...


Remember the stripper bus that came to the Lion football games for years and then one day some prude mom got invited to tailgate and she saw it and she broke up the fun.  Guys don't care if its hot girls dressed like that, right?  So it should be ok for them to dress like that.

Ever go to college?  Except for the fruity costumes those could be any college kid on any college campus.

Does it make you feel icky?  Get over it.


----------



## sealybobo

Silhouette said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said nothing about homosexuals and he did his best to politely rebuke much of the old testament. I guess those in power editing our good or God's books left out the part where he said do unto others as you'd  have them do unto you or judge not less ye be judged.  I don't believe in forcing any church to do services for something they don't agree with, like wise I don't believe any church should try to stop others from doing what they believe is right in the sight of their God and maker.
> 
> 
> 
> Jude was a personal servant and friend of Jesus.  He was one of Jesus' homies.  He travelled everywhere with him and heard his teachings day after day after day.  Jude 1 recalls the Old Testament's warnings about homosexuality and incorporates them into the New Testament.  Jude reiterates the warnings as viable and endurable christian law.  He says essentially that if you do not resist the spread of a homosexual culture, even Jesus cannot save you.  He ends the warning passage saying in order to present yourself before God and Jesus, you must actively resist such a cultural trend and if you fail, you are damned for eternity.
> 
> For some reason the New Testament really bears down on the Sodom story and homosexual cultures like Sodom.  God has His reasons I suppose.  But they are clear in both the Old and New Testament alike.
Click to expand...


Considering how much more bigoted and racist our parents and grandparents and great grand parents were, can you imagine how unenlightened the men who wrote the bible were thousands of years ago?

Even still they wrote a book/story good enough to fool millions into believing god told them anything.  Liars.  But here you are talking about the bibles as if god wrote them or even talked to the men who wrote them.  FAIL!  

Notice the old testament didn't have a problem with slavery?  God approves of slavery?  Really?  Probably not.  But the men who wrote the bibles had slaves so god didn't talk about that.  They were also straight and homophobes.  Proof to me they made it all up.  

So gays, go ahead and butt fuck all you want.  Be safe.  Only butt fuck one guy and wear a condom for GODS sake.


----------



## haissem123

lol. cute. I like my God who says I'm one of the chosen few destined and preordained to make all others my footstool and to slaughter women and children if they get in my way of home land or money power etc.. Who are my chosen people? muslims? nazi? jews? American? all of the above? no difference and totally ungodly


----------



## OnePercenter

Silhouette said:


> Oh that's easy.  The first three photos are* people who are sober,* putting on an organized parade of "pride" where they hope children of all ages will be in attendance.  The second picture is of Spring break type event held for young adults exclusively in areas well known for parents with young kids to avoid.  I'm certain nobody there wants or expects young kids to be in attendance to an event they wake up from hung over and obviously not proud of.
> 
> Context is everything as it turns out.



How do you know they are sober?


----------



## Silhouette

OnePercenter said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that's easy.  The first three photos are* people who are sober,* putting on an organized parade of "pride" where they hope children of all ages will be in attendance.  The second picture is of Spring break type event held for young adults exclusively in areas well known for parents with young kids to avoid.  I'm certain nobody there wants or expects young kids to be in attendance to an event they wake up from hung over and obviously not proud of.
> 
> Context is everything as it turns out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they are sober?
Click to expand...

 Because the parade is organized and it's...a parade of "pride".  Few people if any in it are seen slurring, staggering or falling down drunk.

Next stupid question/obvious diversion.  Admit it.  There's a difference between soberly displaying lewd sex acts in public in a parade down a thoroughfare where you expect and hope little kids will be vs a drunken bacchanal at a well known yearly beach destination exclusively for young adults at Spring Break.


----------



## Silhouette

haissem123 said:


> lol. cute. I like my God who says I'm one of the chosen few destined and preordained to make all others my footstool and to slaughter women and children if they get in my way of home land or money power etc.. Who are my chosen people? muslims? nazi? jews? American? all of the above? no difference and totally ungodly


 No, in Jude 1 where christians are forbidden to enable the spread of a homosexual culture under threat of eternal damnation, they are cautioned to do so with compassion for the mentally ill.  The whole point of Jude 1 is that mental illness must not be mainstreamed in human societies.  And it makes sense if you think about it.


----------



## Staidhup

KNB said:


> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.



You have got to be kidding, right? because if religions are a lie, as you state, then how can there be a hell? Let me take it a step further, if there isn't a heaven how can there be a hell? Now some would say with out God is there a basis for morality and laws of society? Oh well good luck with your idles and numerous Gods. One word of caution, stay out of Muslim countries they take the belief in God very seriously. 
As per the question as to if the government should have jurisdiction over the practices and teachings of a Church, the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion and separation of church and state, thus the state has no power or jurisdiction over whether or not they recognize the gay community. According to the bible, as one example, it is a sin, in the Muslin religion punishable by death.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



no

/thread


----------



## Silhouette

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no
> 
> /thread
Click to expand...

 Yes, the impressive 83% of people voting against making churches perform gay marraiges in the poll above makes activists want to /thread this thread...lol..  It's one of the biggest and most telling polls on USMB to date.


----------



## Silhouette

One of the strongest proponents in England for the recent verdic by the European Court denying gay marriage as a "human right" was the church of England.  Their argument was that if it became a "human right", then churches would have to perform gay marriages against their will:



> ..Church of England lawyers have already warned that if same-sex marriage goes ahead, then equality law is likely to force churches to fall into line and perform the wedding ceremonies.
> The Strasbourg ruling won praise from campaigners against same-sex marriage.
> Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said: *‘For too long campaigners have been using the language of rights in an attempt to add moral force to what are nothing more than personal desires.*
> ‘*In many cases they have bypassed the democratic process and succeeded in imposing their views on the rest of the population by force of law*.
> ‘We are seeing the same principle at work in the Government’s sham of a consultation on same-sex marriage.’
> He added: ‘*The ruling from the ECHR will embolden those whose concerns about same-sex marriage and adoption are not inspired by personal hatred and animosity, but by a genuine concern for the well-being of children and the welfare of society*.
> *‘Instead of rushing to legislate without seriously considering the views of the electorate, the Government should be encouraging a measured public debate on the nature and meaning of marriage.’ Gay marriage is not a human right European ruling torpedoes Coalition stance Mail Online*


----------



## Silhouette

Staidhup said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have got to be kidding, right? because if religions are a lie, as you state, then how can there be a hell? Let me take it a step further, if there isn't a heaven how can there be a hell? Now some would say with out God is there a basis for morality and laws of society? Oh well good luck with your idles and numerous Gods. One word of caution, stay out of Muslim countries they take the belief in God very seriously.
> As per the question as to if the government should have jurisdiction over the practices and teachings of a Church, the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion and separation of church and state, thus the state has no power or jurisdiction over whether or not they recognize the gay community. According to the bible, as one example, it is a sin, in the Muslin religion punishable by death.
Click to expand...

 This is what happens when a child does not have any exposure to "a power greater than self"; even parents cow to every whim of a child these days.  The child grows up without a governing concept of belonging to an organized association for its own spiritual growth and betterment.  It's more fun to eat cookies than it is to help the old lady next door take out her trash.  So that child has zero perspective on religion.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no
> 
> /thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the impressive 83% of people voting against making churches perform gay marraiges in the poll above makes activists want to /thread this thread...lol..  It's one of the biggest and most telling polls on USMB to date.
Click to expand...


I pretty much knew this from the start.  There was a brief blip where folks felt like they were being pushed into making the decision.  Knee jerk reactions are not always the right decisions.  In fact when they are emotional and lean on ancient held beliefs, many times those are the ones that need more reasoned thought.  This is why we eat pork now.  After more reasoned thought, it turns out there were actual biologic reasons that could be corrected that caused ancients to warn against eating pork.  They assumed these reasons were messages from god. And maybe they were, but many times when god tells us something, we may not be listening correctly.  Are sodomy and non-monogamous relationships riskier than male female monogamous relationships... probably but that does not necessarily mean god is saying the former are against his word.. I think the ancient religious folk meant well, but as Jesus said, and I paraphrase, all these things of old had their time and need to be re-evaluated with love and understanding of all things holy.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no
> 
> /thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the impressive 83% of people voting against making churches perform gay marraiges in the poll above makes activists want to /thread this thread...lol..  It's one of the biggest and most telling polls on USMB to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pretty much knew this from the start.  There was a brief blip where folks felt like they were being pushed into making the decision.  Knee jerk reactions are not always the right decisions.  In fact when they are emotional and lean on ancient held beliefs, many times those are the ones that need more reasoned thought.  This is why we eat pork now.  After more reasoned thought, it turns out there were actual biologic reasons that could be corrected that caused ancients to warn against eating pork.  They assumed these reasons were messages from god. And maybe they were, but many times when god tells us something, we may not be listening correctly.  Are sodomy and non-monogamous relationships riskier than male female monogamous relationships... probably but that does not necessarily mean god is saying the former are against his word.. I think the ancient religious folk meant well, but as Jesus said, and I paraphrase, all these things of old had their time and need to be re-evaluated with love and understanding of all things holy.
Click to expand...

 
Maybe it has nothing to do with physical risk and everything to do with spiritual risk.  Since the warnings against sodomy continue into the New Testament, they are timeless with christianity.  The spiritual risk, if you believe the Hindus are onto something, is that we incarnate in a certain physical body for certain contractual reasons.  A female body to learn how to interact with the male.  A male body to learn how to interact with the female.  Both types lend a certain fire of temper to the spirit.  A unique fire.

You go gender-blending with homosexuality and it's the same as fire-bombing a school.  The lessons that God intended to be learned no longer have a framework.

And THAT is the spiritual damage done by homosexuality.  But there is plenty of physical damage as well in using the lower intestinal tract as an artificial vagina.


----------



## Silhouette

Staidhup said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have got to be kidding, right? because if religions are a lie, as you state, then how can there be a hell? Let me take it a step further, if there isn't a heaven how can there be a hell? Now some would say with out God is there a basis for morality and laws of society? Oh well good luck with your idles and numerous Gods. One word of caution, stay out of Muslim countries they take the belief in God very seriously.
> As per the question as to if the government should have jurisdiction over the practices and teachings of a Church, the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion and separation of church and state, thus the state has no power or jurisdiction over whether or not they recognize the gay community. According to the bible, as one example, it is a sin, in the Muslin religion punishable by death.
Click to expand...

 
You would have people praying to the gods of homosexuality.  You're already up to forcing those dogmatic values on schoolkids in CA.  Do we think that marriage of religion and state will be limited to just California as the cult of LGBT steamrollers forward across the country using the courts as its engine?


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no
> 
> /thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the impressive 83% of people voting against making churches perform gay marraiges in the poll above makes activists want to /thread this thread...lol..  It's one of the biggest and most telling polls on USMB to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pretty much knew this from the start.  There was a brief blip where folks felt like they were being pushed into making the decision.  Knee jerk reactions are not always the right decisions.  In fact when they are emotional and lean on ancient held beliefs, many times those are the ones that need more reasoned thought.  This is why we eat pork now.  After more reasoned thought, it turns out there were actual biologic reasons that could be corrected that caused ancients to warn against eating pork.  They assumed these reasons were messages from god. And maybe they were, but many times when god tells us something, we may not be listening correctly.  Are sodomy and non-monogamous relationships riskier than male female monogamous relationships... probably but that does not necessarily mean god is saying the former are against his word.. I think the ancient religious folk meant well, but as Jesus said, and I paraphrase, all these things of old had their time and need to be re-evaluated with love and understanding of all things holy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe it has nothing to do with physical risk and everything to do with spiritual risk.  Since the warnings against sodomy continue into the New Testament, they are timeless with christianity.  The spiritual risk, if you believe the Hindus are onto something, is that we incarnate in a certain physical body for certain contractual reasons.  A female body to learn how to interact with the male.  A male body to learn how to interact with the female.  Both types lend a certain fire of temper to the spirit.  A unique fire.
> 
> You go gender-blending with homosexuality and it's the same as fire-bombing a school.  The lessons that God intended to be learned no longer have a framework.
> 
> And THAT is the spiritual damage done by homosexuality.  But there is plenty of physical damage as well in using the lower intestinal tract as an artificial vagina.
Click to expand...

That's right being homosexual is the same as fire bombing children.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

koshergrl said:


> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.



What else would they force the church to do?  There is a lot of fragile territory within. Faith is a delicate thing.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Next would be Satanists, and churches would be forced to marry them wearing who knows what.


----------



## Silhouette

I see someone has posted the covert logo for the LGBT movement....


----------



## Silhouette

Rikurzhen said:


> ...I have no desire to have my country turn into Scandinavia and yet their homosexual marriage idea has burrowed in here like a tick.
> 
> Look, plenty of homosexuals hate religions because those religions have as fundamental doctrine that homosexuality is a sin. Of that group there is some proportion which is intent on sticking a shiv into Religion whenever they can and forcing Churches to submit to the homosexual agenda would bring immense feelings of satisfaction.
> 
> *Look at what the homosexuals who sued the photographers and bakers were doing - they set out to compel people who wanted to avoid involvement with homosexual "weddings" to bend to the wishes of the homosexuals. Why on Earth do you believe that this mindset of forcing people to do what they object to won't be extended to Churches? Homosexuals have already shown that they're willing to force small business people to bend over and take it up the ass*.
> 
> Rape of liberty is Mission #1. Churches won't be immune. Homosexuals have already demonstrated that they're willing to rape people's Freedom of Association so why would they put Freedom of Religion out of bounds?


 
Very good point.  Of course they'll force churches to perform their "weddings".  Just like they'll sue to force adoption agencies to surrender kids to them from their then legitimate "no separate but equal!" new battlecry..

When they're performing lewd sex acts in public as a matter of sober pride in a parade down public thoroughfares where they expect and hope children will be in attendance, this presents a problem.  And that problem is:

"The civil rights of children to be protected from a situation a reasonable person would predict might cause them harm [what will they do behind closed doors if this is what they do in public as a matter of sober pride?] vs any civil rights gay sex behaviors might feel they have".


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Silhouette said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I have no desire to have my country turn into Scandinavia and yet their homosexual marriage idea has burrowed in here like a tick.
> 
> Look, plenty of homosexuals hate religions because those religions have as fundamental doctrine that homosexuality is a sin. Of that group there is some proportion which is intent on sticking a shiv into Religion whenever they can and forcing Churches to submit to the homosexual agenda would bring immense feelings of satisfaction.
> 
> *Look at what the homosexuals who sued the photographers and bakers were doing - they set out to compel people who wanted to avoid involvement with homosexual "weddings" to bend to the wishes of the homosexuals. Why on Earth do you believe that this mindset of forcing people to do what they object to won't be extended to Churches? Homosexuals have already shown that they're willing to force small business people to bend over and take it up the ass*.
> 
> Rape of liberty is Mission #1. Churches won't be immune. Homosexuals have already demonstrated that they're willing to rape people's Freedom of Association so why would they put Freedom of Religion out of bounds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good point.  Of course they'll force churches to perform their "weddings".  Just like they'll sue to force adoption agencies to surrender kids to them from their then legitimate "no separate but equal!" new battlecry..
> 
> When they're performing lewd sex acts in public as a matter of sober pride in a parade down public thoroughfares where they expect and hope children will be in attendance, this presents a problem.  And that problem is:
> 
> "The civil rights of children to be protected from a situation a reasonable person would predict might cause them harm [what will they do behind closed doors if this is what they do in public as a matter of sober pride?] vs any civil rights gay sex behaviors might feel they have".
Click to expand...


I also agree. There is a very good chance they will try very hard to force all churches to perform the weddings. How far they will get is hard to know though.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I have no desire to have my country turn into Scandinavia and yet their homosexual marriage idea has burrowed in here like a tick.
> 
> Look, plenty of homosexuals hate religions because those religions have as fundamental doctrine that homosexuality is a sin. Of that group there is some proportion which is intent on sticking a shiv into Religion whenever they can and forcing Churches to submit to the homosexual agenda would bring immense feelings of satisfaction.
> 
> *Look at what the homosexuals who sued the photographers and bakers were doing - they set out to compel people who wanted to avoid involvement with homosexual "weddings" to bend to the wishes of the homosexuals. Why on Earth do you believe that this mindset of forcing people to do what they object to won't be extended to Churches? Homosexuals have already shown that they're willing to force small business people to bend over and take it up the ass*.
> 
> Rape of liberty is Mission #1. Churches won't be immune. Homosexuals have already demonstrated that they're willing to rape people's Freedom of Association so why would they put Freedom of Religion out of bounds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good point.  Of course they'll force churches to perform their "weddings".  Just like they'll sue to force adoption agencies to surrender kids to them from their then legitimate "no separate but equal!" new battlecry..
> 
> When they're performing lewd sex acts in public as a matter of sober pride in a parade down public thoroughfares where they expect and hope children will be in attendance, this presents a problem.  And that problem is:
> 
> "The civil rights of children to be protected from a situation a reasonable person would predict might cause them harm [what will they do behind closed doors if this is what they do in public as a matter of sober pride?] vs any civil rights gay sex behaviors might feel they have".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also agree. There is a very good chance they will try very hard to force all churches to perform the weddings. How far they will get is hard to know though.
Click to expand...



Of course they are going to try, and those who claim differently are bald face liars.If my private business is a "public accommodation" than so to is a church. Those dishonest enough to deny that they will try know this fact to.


----------



## Seawytch

QuickHitCurepon said:


> I also agree. There is a very good chance they will try very hard to force all churches to perform the weddings. How far they will get is hard to know though.



And this is indicated by all the churches that have forced to perform interracial and interfaith marriages, right?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also agree. There is a very good chance they will try very hard to force all churches to perform the weddings. How far they will get is hard to know though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is indicated by all the churches that have forced to perform interracial and interfaith marriages, right?
Click to expand...


Care to show me any inter racial couples or interfaith couples who sued a bakery who didn't want to bake their cakes.

Another strawman from you.


----------



## Silhouette

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I have no desire to have my country turn into Scandinavia and yet their homosexual marriage idea has burrowed in here like a tick.
> 
> Look, plenty of homosexuals hate religions because those religions have as fundamental doctrine that homosexuality is a sin. Of that group there is some proportion which is intent on sticking a shiv into Religion whenever they can and forcing Churches to submit to the homosexual agenda would bring immense feelings of satisfaction.
> 
> *Look at what the homosexuals who sued the photographers and bakers were doing - they set out to compel people who wanted to avoid involvement with homosexual "weddings" to bend to the wishes of the homosexuals. Why on Earth do you believe that this mindset of forcing people to do what they object to won't be extended to Churches? Homosexuals have already shown that they're willing to force small business people to bend over and take it up the ass*.
> 
> Rape of liberty is Mission #1. Churches won't be immune. Homosexuals have already demonstrated that they're willing to rape people's Freedom of Association so why would they put Freedom of Religion out of bounds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good point.  Of course they'll force churches to perform their "weddings".  Just like they'll sue to force adoption agencies to surrender kids to them from their then legitimate "no separate but equal!" new battlecry..
> 
> When they're performing lewd sex acts in public as a matter of sober pride in a parade down public thoroughfares where they expect and hope children will be in attendance, this presents a problem.  And that problem is:
> 
> "The civil rights of children to be protected from a situation a reasonable person would predict might cause them harm [what will they do behind closed doors if this is what they do in public as a matter of sober pride?] vs any civil rights gay sex behaviors might feel they have".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also agree. There is a very good chance they will try very hard to force all churches to perform the weddings. How far they will get is hard to know though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are going to try, and those who claim differently are bald face liars.If my private business is a "public accommodation" than so to is a church. Those dishonest enough to deny that they will try know this fact to.
Click to expand...

 
And don't forget the even more important issue of "No separate but equal!" loophole to force adoption to gays through the loophole of legal marriage.  Children cannot vote.  As such their civil rights are paramount to all not just from a moral standpoint but also from a legal one.  They are our most unprotected citizens and all prudence must be excercised to anticipate any harm to them, physical, psychological, emotional or sexual...

Should we anticipate that a social movement that "prides" itself soberly in parades down thoroughfares doing lewd sexual exhibition where they anticipate and hope kids will be attending might pose harm to children behind closed doors of an adopted home?

Yes, yes we should.  It is the most unexplored argument of the gay marriage debate and the gays hope to keep it that way on purpose.  Give a legal loophole to these folks doing this where they hope kids will be looking on in public?  Nah...


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I have no desire to have my country turn into Scandinavia and yet their homosexual marriage idea has burrowed in here like a tick.
> 
> Look, plenty of homosexuals hate religions because those religions have as fundamental doctrine that homosexuality is a sin. Of that group there is some proportion which is intent on sticking a shiv into Religion whenever they can and forcing Churches to submit to the homosexual agenda would bring immense feelings of satisfaction.
> 
> *Look at what the homosexuals who sued the photographers and bakers were doing - they set out to compel people who wanted to avoid involvement with homosexual "weddings" to bend to the wishes of the homosexuals. Why on Earth do you believe that this mindset of forcing people to do what they object to won't be extended to Churches? Homosexuals have already shown that they're willing to force small business people to bend over and take it up the ass*.
> 
> Rape of liberty is Mission #1. Churches won't be immune. Homosexuals have already demonstrated that they're willing to rape people's Freedom of Association so why would they put Freedom of Religion out of bounds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good point.  Of course they'll force churches to perform their "weddings".  Just like they'll sue to force adoption agencies to surrender kids to them from their then legitimate "no separate but equal!" new battlecry..
> 
> When they're performing lewd sex acts in public as a matter of sober pride in a parade down public thoroughfares where they expect and hope children will be in attendance, this presents a problem.  And that problem is:
> 
> "The civil rights of children to be protected from a situation a reasonable person would predict might cause them harm [what will they do behind closed doors if this is what they do in public as a matter of sober pride?] vs any civil rights gay sex behaviors might feel they have".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also agree. There is a very good chance they will try very hard to force all churches to perform the weddings. How far they will get is hard to know though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are going to try, and those who claim differently are bald face liars.If my private business is a "public accommodation" than so to is a church. Those dishonest enough to deny that they will try know this fact to.
Click to expand...


If a church is forced to allow gay weddings, some members of it may be unhappy, but if the pastors of the church are forced to marry gays, that would be far worse and seen as openly supporting homosexuality. Just having gay weddings and not having the church become religiously involved is not necessarily support.


----------



## Silhouette

QuickHitCurepon said:


> If a church is forced to allow gay weddings, some members of it may be unhappy, but if the pastors of the church are forced to marry gays, that would be far worse and seen as openly supporting homosexuality. Just having gay weddings and not having the church become religiously involved is not necessarily support.


 
And the question of forcing adoption agencies to allow gays to adopt given the pictures on the post before yours?


----------



## WorldWatcher

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Of course they are going to try, and those who claim differently are bald face liars.If my private business is a "public accommodation" than so to is a church. Those dishonest enough to deny that they will try know this fact to.





SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also agree. There is a very good chance they will try very hard to force all churches to perform the weddings. How far they will get is hard to know though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is indicated by all the churches that have forced to perform interracial and interfaith marriages, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to show me any inter racial couples or interfaith couples who sued a bakery who didn't want to bake their cakes.
> 
> Another strawman from you.
Click to expand...



SIL's statement was about Churches (which as private membership based organizations are not required to perform religious ceremonies for non-members), not Public Accommodation businesses.

And yet you agreed with SIL's strawman.


Care to provide any evidence that:

1.  There have been any successful lawsuits from interracial couples if the Church in question claims rejecting interracial couples is a tenet of their faith?

2.  There have been any successful lawsuits from interfaith couples if the Church in question claims rejecting interfaith couples is a tenet of their faith?

3.  There have been any successful lawsuits from couples where one (or both) were divorced if the Church in question claims rejecting divorced couples (except for reasons of adultery) is a tenet of their faith?

4.  Or since SSCM has been legal for at least a decade in at least one state, where there have been any successful lawsuits from same-sex couples if the Church in question claims rejecting same-sex couples is a tenet of their faith?​

Why do you agree with one strawman but challenge another.  Shouldn't you have challenged both?

>>>>>


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

WorldWatcher said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are going to try, and those who claim differently are bald face liars.If my private business is a "public accommodation" than so to is a church. Those dishonest enough to deny that they will try know this fact to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also agree. There is a very good chance they will try very hard to force all churches to perform the weddings. How far they will get is hard to know though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is indicated by all the churches that have forced to perform interracial and interfaith marriages, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to show me any inter racial couples or interfaith couples who sued a bakery who didn't want to bake their cakes.
> 
> Another strawman from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> SIL's statement was about Churches (which as private membership based organizations are not required to perform religious ceremonies for non-members), not Public Accommodation businesses.
> 
> And yet you agreed with SIL's strawman.
> 
> 
> Care to provide any evidence that:
> 
> 1.  There have been any successful lawsuits from interracial couples if the Church in question claims rejecting interracial couples is a tenet of their faith?
> 
> 2.  There have been any successful lawsuits from interfaith couples if the Church in question claims rejecting interfaith couples is a tenet of their faith?
> 
> 3.  There have been any successful lawsuits from couples where one (or both) were divorced if the Church in question claims rejecting divorced couples (except for reasons of adultery) is a tenet of their faith?
> 
> 4.  Or since SSCM has been legal for at least a decade in at least one state, where there have been any successful lawsuits from same-sex couples if the Church in question claims rejecting same-sex couples is a tenet of their faith?​
> 
> Why do you agree with one strawman but challenge another.  Shouldn't you have challenged both?
> 
> >>>>>
Click to expand...


Yes I should have challenged both, I wished to make a point on the first.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Care to show me any inter racial couples or interfaith couples who sued a bakery who didn't want to bake their cakes.
> 
> Another strawman from you.



The Strawman is yours since marriage equality and PA laws are in no way related.

PA laws protect interracial relationships and Christians in all 50 states, gays in about half. Waaaa.


----------



## Redfish

The poll at the beginning of the thread shows how americans feel about this topic.  

Can we move on?


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> The poll at the beginning of the thread shows how americans feel about this topic.
> 
> Can we move on?



Yes, Americans understand that the 1st Amendment keeps churches from being forced to perform any ceremony against the tenants of their faith. Only fools fear otherwise.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll at the beginning of the thread shows how americans feel about this topic.
> 
> Can we move on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Americans understand that the 1st Amendment keeps churches from being forced to perform any ceremony against the tenants of their faith. Only fools fear otherwise.
Click to expand...

 

Then you will tell the gay coalition to stop demanding that they do?


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Then you will tell the gay coalition to stop demanding that they do?



No. The government will not force it, public opinion will.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you will tell the gay coalition to stop demanding that they do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The government will not force it, public opinion will.
Click to expand...

 

Ya know, wytchey.   We are never going to agree on this.   I suspect that you are a pretty good person and that you are sincere in your beliefs,   but so am I.   I am willing to tolerate your lifestyle,  but I will not tolerate the government or anyone else demanding that I accept it as normal.

Its your side that is intolerant and in-your-face (might be a poor choice of words) on this.   Once your side learns tolerance we might be able to make progress.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you will tell the gay coalition to stop demanding that they do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The government will not force it, public opinion will.
Click to expand...

 
then why has the public voted against it almost every time it is on a ballot?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you will tell the gay coalition to stop demanding that they do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The government will not force it, public opinion will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then why has the public voted against it almost every time it is on a ballot?
Click to expand...



Because the "almost every time" time frame you are relying on is from a decade ago.  In the early 2000's (IIRC) ballot measures to discriminate against same-sex couples passed with 23-76% margins of victory.  California's Prop 22 passed with 22%.  By 2008/2009 (California Prop 8/Maine Question 1) the margins had shrunk to the point were a 2.5% change in the vote would have changed the outcome.  Then in 2012 ALL FOUR ballot questions on the General Election side were won by the pro-equality side.

Times change and so has public opinion.


>>>>


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Silhouette said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a church is forced to allow gay weddings, some members of it may be unhappy, but if the pastors of the church are forced to marry gays, that would be far worse and seen as openly supporting homosexuality. Just having gay weddings and not having the church become religiously involved is not necessarily support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the question of forcing adoption agencies to allow gays to adopt given the pictures on the post before yours?
Click to expand...


No, no. no. Adoptions should not be forced that way either.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll at the beginning of the thread shows how americans feel about this topic.
> 
> Can we move on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Americans understand that the 1st Amendment keeps churches from being forced to perform any ceremony against the tenants of their faith. Only fools fear otherwise.
Click to expand...


Not a question of fear but one of genuine concern.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

g5000 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. Nothing is made up, you fucking retard.
> 
> It's a POLL asking if you think churches should be forced to marry queers.
> 
> Multiple choice. You can't fear monger with multiple choice questions, nitwit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See: Push poll.
> 
> Fearmongering.
Click to expand...


Push polls are for campaigns. This is a forum.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll at the beginning of the thread shows how americans feel about this topic.
> 
> Can we move on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Americans understand that the 1st Amendment keeps churches from being forced to perform any ceremony against the tenants of their faith. Only fools fear otherwise.
Click to expand...

 Yes and the angry outrage at the Hobby Lobby decision from the LGBT cult/camp is an indication that they intend to respect and not challenge that 1st Amendment right?

Sure.  And I've got some oceanfront property to sell you in Arizona..


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Ya know, wytchey.   We are never going to agree on this.   I suspect that you are a pretty good person and that you are sincere in your beliefs,   but so am I.   I am willing to tolerate your lifestyle,  but I will not tolerate the government or anyone else demanding that I accept it as normal.
> 
> Its your side that is intolerant and in-your-face (might be a poor choice of words) on this.   Once your side learns tolerance we might be able to make progress.



The government won't, public opinion will. If you're under 60 and in good health, you'll live to see it. Our kids and grand kids already "accept it as normal". 

Intolerance of bigotry is always a good thing, sorry (no I'm not)


----------



## Seawytch

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Not a question of fear but one of genuine concern.



It's a disingenuous concern.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Seawytch said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a question of fear but one of genuine concern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a disingenuous concern.
Click to expand...


We lose nothing by protecting and defending the right of the church not to marry gays. Like we lose nothing defending any freedom in America where people might say, "Oh, that will never be lost."

There are plenty of people against our freedoms, and there are plenty of gays who do not respect freedom of religion.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Why does this thread keep getting bumped?  No ones mind is going to be changed.  Let this old shit die


----------



## Seawytch

QuickHitCurepon said:


> We lose nothing by protecting and defending the right of the church not to marry gays. Like we lose nothing defending any freedom in America where people might say, "Oh, that will never be lost."
> 
> There are plenty of people against our freedoms, and there are plenty of gays who do not respect freedom of religion.



Name the church that was forced to marry an interracial couple or interfaith couple. What, you can't? Like I said, disingenuous concern for nincompoops.


----------



## Seawytch

Grampa Murked U said:


> Why does this thread keep getting bumped?  No ones mind is going to be changed.  Let this old shit die




He asks as he bumps the thread.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Redfish said:


> The poll at the beginning of the thread shows how americans feel about this topic.
> 
> Can we move on?



No, because Silly the Two-Note Human Spambot is absolutely OBSESSED with the damn subject!


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> We lose nothing by protecting and defending the right of the church not to marry gays. Like we lose nothing defending any freedom in America where people might say, "Oh, that will never be lost."
> 
> There are plenty of people against our freedoms, and there are plenty of gays who do not respect freedom of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name the church that was forced to marry an interracial couple or interfaith couple. What, you can't? Like I said, disingenuous concern for nincompoops.
Click to expand...

 
Seawytch was just making it clear that if gay marriage becomes forced upon the states, that the churches are next.  If you ask her to give you an honest reply, she will admit that yes, if churches try to deny performing gay marriages the LGBT legal steamroller will haul their asses into court and sue them into submission....like they do with everything, everywhere...


----------



## Redfish

Grampa Murked U said:


> Why does this thread keep getting bumped?  No ones mind is going to be changed.  Let this old shit die


 

because seawytch is obsessed with ramming her aberant lifestyle up the asses of the rest of us.

Seabiscuit  "YOU WILL ACCEPT GAY MARRIAGE OR THE GOVERNMENT WILL LOCK YOU UP"   "IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOU ARE A RACIST INTOLERANT IDIOT"   "NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO DISAGREE WITH ME BECAUSE I AM A LESBIAN"   "MY RIGHTS TRUMP YOURS"

SCREW HER AND THE HORSE SHE RODE IN ON.


----------



## Silhouette

Redfish said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does this thread keep getting bumped?  No ones mind is going to be changed.  Let this old shit die
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because seawytch is obsessed with ramming her aberant lifestyle up the asses of the rest of us.
> 
> Seabiscuit  "YOU WILL ACCEPT GAY MARRIAGE OR THE GOVERNMENT WILL LOCK YOU UP"   "IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOU ARE A RACIST INTOLERANT IDIOT"   "NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO DISAGREE WITH ME BECAUSE I AM A LESBIAN"   "MY RIGHTS TRUMP YOURS"
> 
> SCREW HER AND THE HORSE SHE RODE IN ON.
Click to expand...

 The group really need to get rainbow armbands.  They are that close in ideology and fascist political practices to the Third Reicht.


----------



## Redfish

Silhouette said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does this thread keep getting bumped?  No ones mind is going to be changed.  Let this old shit die
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because seawytch is obsessed with ramming her aberant lifestyle up the asses of the rest of us.
> 
> Seabiscuit  "YOU WILL ACCEPT GAY MARRIAGE OR THE GOVERNMENT WILL LOCK YOU UP"   "IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOU ARE A RACIST INTOLERANT IDIOT"   "NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO DISAGREE WITH ME BECAUSE I AM A LESBIAN"   "MY RIGHTS TRUMP YOURS"
> 
> SCREW HER AND THE HORSE SHE RODE IN ON.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The group really need to get rainbow armbands.  They are that close in ideology and fascist political practices to the Third Reicht.
Click to expand...

 

Orwell and Rand saw it coming and wrote about it-------------and they were right.


----------



## Seawytch

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch was just making it clear that if gay marriage becomes forced upon the states, that the churches are next.  If you ask her to give you an honest reply, she will admit that yes, if churches try to deny performing gay marriages the LGBT legal steamroller will haul their asses into court and sue them into submission....like they do with everything, everywhere...



No, actually I wasn't saying that at all and anyone who tries to sue a church into performing a ceremony against the tenants of their faith is as silly as the people who believe there will be a spate of such lawsuits are stupid.


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> because seawytch is obsessed with ramming her aberant lifestyle up the asses of the rest of us.
> 
> Seabiscuit  "YOU WILL ACCEPT GAY MARRIAGE OR THE GOVERNMENT WILL LOCK YOU UP"   "IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOU ARE A RACIST INTOLERANT IDIOT"   "NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO DISAGREE WITH ME BECAUSE I AM A LESBIAN"   "MY RIGHTS TRUMP YOURS"
> 
> SCREW HER AND THE HORSE SHE RODE IN ON.




Isn't it time for you to flounce off in a huff because you're "done with this"? 

I don't care if you accept the fact that I am legally married. People didn't accept the fact the earth is round.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> because seawytch is obsessed with ramming her aberant lifestyle up the asses of the rest of us.
> 
> Seabiscuit  "YOU WILL ACCEPT GAY MARRIAGE OR THE GOVERNMENT WILL LOCK YOU UP"   "IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOU ARE A RACIST INTOLERANT IDIOT"   "NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO DISAGREE WITH ME BECAUSE I AM A LESBIAN"   "MY RIGHTS TRUMP YOURS"
> 
> SCREW HER AND THE HORSE SHE RODE IN ON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it time for you to flounce off in a huff because you're "done with this"?
> 
> I don't care if you accept the fact that I am legally married. People didn't accept the fact the earth is round.
Click to expand...

 

the earth is round, but a gay union is not a marriage, never has been, never will be.   It is what it is,  ranting and crying about it cannot change it.


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> the earth is round, but a gay union is not a marriage, never has been, never will be.   It is what it is,  ranting and crying about it cannot change it.



And again, fortunately, your opinion on gays and lesbians being married doesn't matter a hill of beans as we file our joint taxes and celebrate our wedding anniversary.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the earth is round, but a gay union is not a marriage, never has been, never will be.   It is what it is,  ranting and crying about it cannot change it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, fortunately, your opinion on gays and lesbians being married doesn't matter a hill of beans as we file our joint taxes and celebrate our wedding anniversary.
Click to expand...

 
So fascist rule is OK with you eh?  Even if your "marriage" was done in violation of duly-enacted law.  You're OK with lawbreaking?


----------



## koshergrl

All progressive homos are fascists.


----------



## RKMBrown

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> because seawytch is obsessed with ramming her aberant lifestyle up the asses of the rest of us.
> 
> Seabiscuit  "YOU WILL ACCEPT GAY MARRIAGE OR THE GOVERNMENT WILL LOCK YOU UP"   "IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOU ARE A RACIST INTOLERANT IDIOT"   "NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO DISAGREE WITH ME BECAUSE I AM A LESBIAN"   "MY RIGHTS TRUMP YOURS"
> 
> SCREW HER AND THE HORSE SHE RODE IN ON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it time for you to flounce off in a huff because you're "done with this"?
> 
> I don't care if you accept the fact that I am legally married. People didn't accept the fact the earth is round.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the earth is round, but a gay union is not a marriage, never has been, never will be.   It is what it is,  ranting and crying about it cannot change it.
Click to expand...

^ yeah cause you own the definition of terms, am I to give you tithes too?


----------



## Redfish

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> because seawytch is obsessed with ramming her aberant lifestyle up the asses of the rest of us.
> 
> Seabiscuit  "YOU WILL ACCEPT GAY MARRIAGE OR THE GOVERNMENT WILL LOCK YOU UP"   "IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOU ARE A RACIST INTOLERANT IDIOT"   "NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO DISAGREE WITH ME BECAUSE I AM A LESBIAN"   "MY RIGHTS TRUMP YOURS"
> 
> SCREW HER AND THE HORSE SHE RODE IN ON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it time for you to flounce off in a huff because you're "done with this"?
> 
> I don't care if you accept the fact that I am legally married. People didn't accept the fact the earth is round.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the earth is round, but a gay union is not a marriage, never has been, never will be.   It is what it is,  ranting and crying about it cannot change it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ yeah cause you own the definition of terms, am I to give you tithes too?
Click to expand...

 

That would be fine.   Just send cash.


----------



## Silhouette

The definition of marriage is what the majority consents to.  A minority doesn't dictate a massive change in definition of a social construct so vital as marriage just because they want to role-play 'husband and wife' 'father and mother'.

The definition of and indeed the genesis of marriage revolves around childrearing.  Marriage was always about offspring and their welfare: be it financial, physical or psychological.  You cannot "make up" that two adults of the same gender are able to be parents together.  There may be forced, odd or unfortunate situations where exceptions to man/woman is all that can be or will do.  But you don't set it as the gold standard.  The gold standard of marriage is defined by the majority and that majority has decided [wisely] in all but three states that there is no substitute for man/woman husband/wife father/mother.

Behavioral fads of a deviant and frankly obviously mentally ill minority do not get to change the majority's definition because they want to access kids to bring into that seething cauldron of dysfunction and denial.  When it parades itself down main street doing lewd sex acts in front of kids "proudly" hoping they'll be there looking on, they don't get to use the word "marriage" to access children to bring home behind closed doors.  Where what?  You would expect _more_ restraint?


----------



## RKMBrown

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> because seawytch is obsessed with ramming her aberant lifestyle up the asses of the rest of us.
> 
> Seabiscuit  "YOU WILL ACCEPT GAY MARRIAGE OR THE GOVERNMENT WILL LOCK YOU UP"   "IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOU ARE A RACIST INTOLERANT IDIOT"   "NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO DISAGREE WITH ME BECAUSE I AM A LESBIAN"   "MY RIGHTS TRUMP YOURS"
> 
> SCREW HER AND THE HORSE SHE RODE IN ON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it time for you to flounce off in a huff because you're "done with this"?
> 
> I don't care if you accept the fact that I am legally married. People didn't accept the fact the earth is round.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the earth is round, but a gay union is not a marriage, never has been, never will be.   It is what it is,  ranting and crying about it cannot change it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ yeah cause you own the definition of terms, am I to give you tithes too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be fine.   Just send cash.
Click to expand...

Sure no problem, just send your bank account number, ss number, home address, phone number, and direct deposit information and I'll withdraw the cash.


----------



## Redfish

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> because seawytch is obsessed with ramming her aberant lifestyle up the asses of the rest of us.
> 
> Seabiscuit  "YOU WILL ACCEPT GAY MARRIAGE OR THE GOVERNMENT WILL LOCK YOU UP"   "IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOU ARE A RACIST INTOLERANT IDIOT"   "NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO DISAGREE WITH ME BECAUSE I AM A LESBIAN"   "MY RIGHTS TRUMP YOURS"
> 
> SCREW HER AND THE HORSE SHE RODE IN ON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it time for you to flounce off in a huff because you're "done with this"?
> 
> I don't care if you accept the fact that I am legally married. People didn't accept the fact the earth is round.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the earth is round, but a gay union is not a marriage, never has been, never will be.   It is what it is,  ranting and crying about it cannot change it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ yeah cause you own the definition of terms, am I to give you tithes too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be fine.   Just send cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure no problem, just send your bank account number, ss number, home address, phone number, and direct deposit information and I'll withdraw the cash.
Click to expand...

 

are you posting from Nigeria?


----------



## RKMBrown

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> because seawytch is obsessed with ramming her aberant lifestyle up the asses of the rest of us.
> 
> Seabiscuit  "YOU WILL ACCEPT GAY MARRIAGE OR THE GOVERNMENT WILL LOCK YOU UP"   "IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOU ARE A RACIST INTOLERANT IDIOT"   "NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO DISAGREE WITH ME BECAUSE I AM A LESBIAN"   "MY RIGHTS TRUMP YOURS"
> 
> SCREW HER AND THE HORSE SHE RODE IN ON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it time for you to flounce off in a huff because you're "done with this"?
> 
> I don't care if you accept the fact that I am legally married. People didn't accept the fact the earth is round.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the earth is round, but a gay union is not a marriage, never has been, never will be.   It is what it is,  ranting and crying about it cannot change it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ yeah cause you own the definition of terms, am I to give you tithes too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be fine.   Just send cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure no problem, just send your bank account number, ss number, home address, phone number, and direct deposit information and I'll withdraw the cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> are you posting from Nigeria?
Click to expand...


If I am will you give me the data needed for me to withdraw the cash you want?  Think of it as a re-distribution.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know, wytchey.   We are never going to agree on this.   I suspect that you are a pretty good person and that you are sincere in your beliefs,   but so am I.   I am willing to tolerate your lifestyle,  but I will not tolerate the government or anyone else demanding that I accept it as normal.
> 
> Its your side that is intolerant and in-your-face (might be a poor choice of words) on this.   Once your side learns tolerance we might be able to make progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government won't, public opinion will. If you're under 60 and in good health, you'll live to see it.* Our kids and grand kids already "accept it as normal".*
> 
> Intolerance of bigotry is always a good thing, sorry (no I'm not)
Click to expand...


Are you with them all the time? How do you know what they tell their friends?


----------



## Champ_6014

Those who plead for tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals by accepting their behavior as biblically justified are uncaring about these people who so desperately need our help. True love and compassion would offer the biblical cure for sin. We, including homosexuals, are born with inherent sin but, through God’s love we are redeemed and changed through our Lord Jesus Christ. Sex is a wonderful gift of God and not sinful when used according to the plan that God has so clearly laid out in His Word. 

The Church consists of redeemed heterosexuals and homosexuals, neither is worse than the other; both have to forsake their sinful and immoral ways. 

Let us hold out the Gospel hope to all: “ ...fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals ... such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of God.” (I Corinthians 6:9, 11) 
- See more at: Creation Worldview Ministries Homosexuality


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

How did this evolve into an argument about whether gay is natural or not? 

And fag that doesn't answer "no" to the question in the OP has exposed their agenda.


----------



## Silhouette

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know, wytchey.   We are never going to agree on this.   I suspect that you are a pretty good person and that you are sincere in your beliefs,   but so am I.   I am willing to tolerate your lifestyle,  but I will not tolerate the government or anyone else demanding that I accept it as normal.
> 
> Its your side that is intolerant and in-your-face (might be a poor choice of words) on this.   Once your side learns tolerance we might be able to make progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government won't, public opinion will. If you're under 60 and in good health, you'll live to see it.* Our kids and grand kids already "accept it as normal".*
> 
> Intolerance of bigotry is always a good thing, sorry (no I'm not)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you with them all the time? How do you know what they tell their friends?
Click to expand...

 Now now now!  We're supposed to take everything the self-diagnosed tell us about themselves and their lifestyles and how those lifestyles affect their kids at face value!  You're not supposed to question what they tell you "are the facts"..


----------



## JakeStarkey

We are certainly not going to take what Sil tells us without a ton of salt.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Are you with them all the time? How do you know what they tell their friends?



Well probably because that was a societal "our kids and grandkids", not specific to me.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you with them all the time? How do you know what they tell their friends?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well probably because that was a societal "our kids and grandkids", not specific to me.
Click to expand...

That's not even an answer.


----------



## Silhouette

Champ_6014 said:


> Those who plead for tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals by accepting their behavior as biblically justified are uncaring about these people who so desperately need our help. True love and compassion would offer the biblical cure for sin. We, including homosexuals, are born with inherent sin but, through God’s love we are redeemed and changed through our Lord Jesus Christ. Sex is a wonderful gift of God and not sinful when used according to the plan that God has so clearly laid out in His Word.
> 
> The Church consists of redeemed heterosexuals and homosexuals, neither is worse than the other; both have to forsake their sinful and immoral ways.
> 
> Let us hold out the Gospel hope to all: “ ...fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals ... such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of God.” (I Corinthians 6:9, 11)
> - See more at: Creation Worldview Ministries Homosexuality


 Well in Jude 1 when it warns of the eternal damantion for anyone helping promote the homosexual cultural spread [which is different that individual homosexuals], it provides that christians should extend compassion to those mentally ill people suffering with homosexuality and to extend "compassion" "making a difference". 

The mistake that people make is thinking that this extension of compassion includes "welcoming the homosexual lifestyle into christianity".  That is the grave error warned about in Jude 1.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> Champ_6014 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who plead for tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals by accepting their behavior as biblically justified are uncaring about these people who so desperately need our help. True love and compassion would offer the biblical cure for sin. We, including homosexuals, are born with inherent sin but, through God’s love we are redeemed and changed through our Lord Jesus Christ. Sex is a wonderful gift of God and not sinful when used according to the plan that God has so clearly laid out in His Word.
> 
> The Church consists of redeemed heterosexuals and homosexuals, neither is worse than the other; both have to forsake their sinful and immoral ways.
> 
> Let us hold out the Gospel hope to all: “ ...fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals ... such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of God.” (I Corinthians 6:9, 11)
> - See more at: Creation Worldview Ministries Homosexuality
> 
> 
> 
> Well in Jude 1 when it warns of the eternal damantion for anyone helping promote the homosexual cultural spread [which is different that individual homosexuals], it provides that christians should extend compassion to those mentally ill people suffering with homosexuality and to extend "compassion" "making a difference".
> 
> The mistake that people make is thinking that this extension of compassion includes "welcoming the homosexual lifestyle into christianity".  That is the grave error warned about in Jude 1.
Click to expand...

Yeah cause if you don't spit on gays as they walk by your church you are going to go to hell.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Champ_6014 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who plead for tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals by accepting their behavior as biblically justified are uncaring about these people who so desperately need our help. True love and compassion would offer the biblical cure for sin. We, including homosexuals, are born with inherent sin but, through God’s love we are redeemed and changed through our Lord Jesus Christ. Sex is a wonderful gift of God and not sinful when used according to the plan that God has so clearly laid out in His Word.
> 
> The Church consists of redeemed heterosexuals and homosexuals, neither is worse than the other; both have to forsake their sinful and immoral ways.
> 
> Let us hold out the Gospel hope to all: “ ...fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals ... such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of God.” (I Corinthians 6:9, 11)
> - See more at: Creation Worldview Ministries Homosexuality
> 
> 
> 
> Well in Jude 1 when it warns of the eternal damantion for anyone helping promote the homosexual cultural spread [which is different that individual homosexuals], it provides that christians should extend compassion to those mentally ill people suffering with homosexuality and to extend "compassion" "making a difference".
> 
> The mistake that people make is thinking that this extension of compassion includes "welcoming the homosexual lifestyle into christianity".  That is the grave error warned about in Jude 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah cause if you don't spit on gays as they walk by your church you are going to go to hell.
Click to expand...

 
You didn't read what I wrote at all did you?  Once again, INDIVIDUAL gays are supposed to get compassion to help them with their compulsions.  GAY CULTURES are supposed to be stopped cold in their tracks and not supported or enabled in any way.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Champ_6014 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who plead for tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals by accepting their behavior as biblically justified are uncaring about these people who so desperately need our help. True love and compassion would offer the biblical cure for sin. We, including homosexuals, are born with inherent sin but, through God’s love we are redeemed and changed through our Lord Jesus Christ. Sex is a wonderful gift of God and not sinful when used according to the plan that God has so clearly laid out in His Word.
> 
> The Church consists of redeemed heterosexuals and homosexuals, neither is worse than the other; both have to forsake their sinful and immoral ways.
> 
> Let us hold out the Gospel hope to all: “ ...fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals ... such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of God.” (I Corinthians 6:9, 11)
> - See more at: Creation Worldview Ministries Homosexuality
> 
> 
> 
> Well in Jude 1 when it warns of the eternal damantion for anyone helping promote the homosexual cultural spread [which is different that individual homosexuals], it provides that christians should extend compassion to those mentally ill people suffering with homosexuality and to extend "compassion" "making a difference".
> 
> The mistake that people make is thinking that this extension of compassion includes "welcoming the homosexual lifestyle into christianity".  That is the grave error warned about in Jude 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah cause if you don't spit on gays as they walk by your church you are going to go to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read what I wrote at all did you?  Once again, INDIVIDUAL gays are supposed to get compassion to help them with their compulsions.  <<< this is spitting on gay folk ... GAY CULTURES are supposed to be stopped cold in their tracks <<< this is kicking them in the nuts... and not supported or enabled in any way.  <<< yeah that's so christian of you...
Click to expand...


My comments in blue.  I pray god forgives you.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> You didn't read what I wrote at all did you?  Once again, INDIVIDUAL gays are supposed to get compassion to help them with their compulsions.  <<< this is spitting on gay folk ... GAY CULTURES are supposed to be stopped cold in their tracks <<< this is kicking them in the nuts... and not supported or enabled in any way.  <<< yeah that's so christian of you...
> 
> My comments in blue.  I pray god forgives you.


 
You don't have to get personal.  It's just what it says in the New Testament of the Bible and in different places in the Koran.

If I had to venture a guess on why the Big Guy extends compassion to individuals who have compulsive homosexual behaviors vs the homosexual culture itself I'd say it's an issue of construct.  If you created a world where souls are born either into female or male roles for your own very specific reasons to test that spirit, the overall blending and watering-down of those roles by spreading a homosexual culture would be like spitting on God's plan and kicking it in the nuts.  But extending compassion to individual gays for their issues is not affecting that overall plan at all.  In fact, being compassionate towards gays while fighting back the spread of the gay culture is the same act of compassion and perfectly consistent within and as part of the christian mandates.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> You don't have to get personal.  It's just what it says in the New Testament of the Bible and in different places in the Koran.
> 
> If I had to venture a guess on why the Big Guy extends compassion to individuals who have compulsive homosexual behaviors vs the homosexual culture itself I'd say it's an issue of construct.  If you created a world where souls are born either into female or male roles for your own very specific reasons to test that spirit, the overall blending and watering-down of those roles by spreading a homosexual culture would be like spitting on God's plan and kicking it in the nuts.  But extending compassion to individual gays for their issues is not affecting that overall plan at all.  In fact, being compassionate towards gays while fighting back the spread of the gay culture is the same act of compassion and perfectly consistent within and as part of the christian mandates.



I didn't get personal I'm just pointing out how bigoted your statements were.  If you want to change your statements to quotes from the bible I suggest you learn to make quotations.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to get personal.  It's just what it says in the New Testament of the Bible and in different places in the Koran.
> 
> If I had to venture a guess on why the Big Guy extends compassion to individuals who have compulsive homosexual behaviors vs the homosexual culture itself I'd say it's an issue of construct.  If you created a world where souls are born either into female or male roles for your own very specific reasons to test that spirit, the overall blending and watering-down of those roles by spreading a homosexual culture would be like spitting on God's plan and kicking it in the nuts.  But extending compassion to individual gays for their issues is not affecting that overall plan at all.  In fact, being compassionate towards gays while fighting back the spread of the gay culture is the same act of compassion and perfectly consistent within and as part of the christian mandates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't get personal I'm just pointing out how bigoted your statements were.  If you want to change your statements to quotes from the bible I suggest you learn to make quotations.
Click to expand...

Already have.  I've quoted Jude 1 numerous times.   Might want to scroll back a few pages.

You can say my statements are as "bigoted" as you like.  I don't care.  I'm interested in reality, not fiction and political-correctness.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to get personal.  It's just what it says in the New Testament of the Bible and in different places in the Koran.
> 
> If I had to venture a guess on why the Big Guy extends compassion to individuals who have compulsive homosexual behaviors vs the homosexual culture itself I'd say it's an issue of construct.  If you created a world where souls are born either into female or male roles for your own very specific reasons to test that spirit, the overall blending and watering-down of those roles by spreading a homosexual culture would be like spitting on God's plan and kicking it in the nuts.  But extending compassion to individual gays for their issues is not affecting that overall plan at all.  In fact, being compassionate towards gays while fighting back the spread of the gay culture is the same act of compassion and perfectly consistent within and as part of the christian mandates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't get personal I'm just pointing out how bigoted your statements were.  If you want to change your statements to quotes from the bible I suggest you learn to make quotations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already have.  I've quoted Jude 1 numerous times.   Might want to scroll back a few pages.
> 
> You can say my statements are as "bigoted" as you like.  I don't care.  I'm interested in reality, not fiction and political-correctness.
Click to expand...

You quoted Jude 1?  Where?  It does not say what you say it says, you put your homophobic bigoted vile views on it to justify your homophobic bigoted vile views.


----------



## jillian

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



No. Churches and other religious institutions are autonomous and protected by the first amendment. that doesn't mean they have the right to interfere with the constitutional rights of the LGBT community to be married.


----------



## jillian

Ibentoken said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?
Click to expand...

 
that one makes you happy, huh?

And since when do rightwingnuts care about the separation of church and state?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Stop bumping this old thread you stupid trolls


----------



## Avorysuds

Church's should not be tax exempt, period. Then who cares what they do as long as they don't break the law. Currently our Government has created laws that favor religion, in direct conflict with the constitution.


----------



## RKMBrown

Avorysuds said:


> Church's should not be tax exempt, period. Then who cares what they do as long as they don't break the law. Currently our Government has created laws that favor religion, in direct conflict with the constitution.


Where does it say the feds can't favor religion?


----------



## jillian

Avorysuds said:


> Church's should not be tax exempt, period. Then who cares what they do as long as they don't break the law. Currently our Government has created laws that favor religion, in direct conflict with the constitution.



the power to tax has always been considered the power to destroy. that is why religious institutions are exempt. it is not FAVORING religion, it is staying AWAY from religion... which is exactly what government should do.

that said, there is no justification for profit-making centers like real estate to be exempt from taxation simply because the owner is a religious institution.


----------



## koshergrl

jillian said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that one makes you happy, huh?
> 
> And since when do rightwingnuts care about the separation of church and state?
Click to expand...


Baptists are the ones who proposed it, leftwingnut.


----------



## Silhouette

jillian said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Churches and other religious institutions are autonomous and protected by the first amendment. that doesn't mean they have the right to interfere with the constitutional rights of the LGBT community to be married.
Click to expand...

 Except the fact that a CHURCH is the outward growth of the BIBLE, which is the outward growth of the NEW TESTAMENT which is the seed of CHRISTIANITY.

And in that Bible, in the New Testament, it is told to the faithful of that CHURCH that if they aide or abet the spread of a homosexual culture [see: Jude 1], they will be damned to hell for eternity.

However, in that same passage they are told to extend compassion to INDIVIDUAL homosexuals and their mental sufferings/compulsions.  It's just that the spread of a homosexual culture into the mainstream is what will get you eternity in the Big Slammer down below.

And what better way to insure your fate than by participating in granting homosexuals the right to marry?  Marriage is the seat, the hub, the kernel the nexus of human culture.  So if you promote gay marriage, you are promoting your own doom in the christian world, their CHURCH.

So....*drum roll* [I love the smooth progression of logical thinking]....if you force a church to participate in gay marriages, you have simply, totally, completely and effectively removed christians' rights to practice the religion of their choice.  To PRACTICE the religion of their choice, not just give it lip service and bend every which way with the latest winds of strange and heretical subcultural fads....


----------



## hadit

The freedom of religion, as well as the freedom from religion, mandates that individuals be free to politely excuse themselves from activities in which they do not wish to participate.  An individual should no more be coerced to celebrate two gay people getting "married" (by being forced, for example, to bake a cake) than an atheist should be coerced to attend a church service.


----------



## Silhouette

hadit said:


> The freedom of religion, as well as the freedom from religion, mandates that individuals be free to politely excuse themselves from activities in which they do not wish to participate.  An individual should no more be coerced to celebrate two gay people getting "married" (by being forced, for example, to bake a cake) than an atheist should be coerced to attend a church service.


 Very well put.

But in the case of christians, being forced to participate in gay marriages in any way, shape or form is identical to removing their 1st Amendment rights at their core.  For all the reasons I pointed out in my last post.  For an atheist to be forced into church at least he has no psychological torture of anticipating an eternity of the most unimaginable torturous existence in the pits of hell.


----------



## RKMBrown

hadit said:


> The freedom of religion, as well as the freedom from religion, mandates that individuals be free to politely excuse themselves from activities in which they do not wish to participate.  An individual should no more be coerced to celebrate two gay people getting "married" (by being forced, for example, to bake a cake) than an atheist should be coerced to attend a church service.


No it does not.  Learn to read, get a clue.  The bill of rights is actually a list of restrictions on what government can do.  There is no Mandate that individuals be free to politely excuse themselves from activities in which they do not wish to participate.  You are making shit up.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The freedom of religion, as well as the freedom from religion, mandates that individuals be free to politely excuse themselves from activities in which they do not wish to participate.  An individual should no more be coerced to celebrate two gay people getting "married" (by being forced, for example, to bake a cake) than an atheist should be coerced to attend a church service.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well put.
> 
> But in the case of christians, being forced to participate in gay marriages in any way, shape or form is identical to removing their 1st Amendment rights at their core.  For all the reasons I pointed out in my last post.  For an atheist to be forced into church at least he has no psychological torture of anticipating an eternity of the most unimaginable torturous existence in the pits of hell.
Click to expand...

Hey it's the homophobic bigot come back to spit on gays some more!


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The freedom of religion, as well as the freedom from religion, mandates that individuals be free to politely excuse themselves from activities in which they do not wish to participate.  An individual should no more be coerced to celebrate two gay people getting "married" (by being forced, for example, to bake a cake) than an atheist should be coerced to attend a church service.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well put.
> 
> But in the case of christians, being forced to participate in gay marriages in any way, shape or form is identical to removing their 1st Amendment rights at their core.  For all the reasons I pointed out in my last post.  For an atheist to be forced into church at least he has no psychological torture of anticipating an eternity of the most unimaginable torturous existence in the pits of hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey it's the homophobic bigot come back to spit on gays some more!
Click to expand...

 I'd rather be a "homophobic bigot spitting on gays" than a fascist gutting the 1st Amendment freedom to practice the essence [Jude 1] of one's religion any day of the week.  You are kicking God's commandments in the crotch by trying to use the courts to force christians to damn themselves for eternity.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The freedom of religion, as well as the freedom from religion, mandates that individuals be free to politely excuse themselves from activities in which they do not wish to participate.  An individual should no more be coerced to celebrate two gay people getting "married" (by being forced, for example, to bake a cake) than an atheist should be coerced to attend a church service.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well put.
> 
> But in the case of christians, being forced to participate in gay marriages in any way, shape or form is identical to removing their 1st Amendment rights at their core.  For all the reasons I pointed out in my last post.  For an atheist to be forced into church at least he has no psychological torture of anticipating an eternity of the most unimaginable torturous existence in the pits of hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey it's the homophobic bigot come back to spit on gays some more!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd rather be a "homophobic bigot spitting on gays" than a fascist gutting the 1st Amendment freedom to practice the essence [Jude 1] of one's religion any day of the week.  You are kicking God's commandments in the crotch by trying to use the courts to force christians to damn themselves for eternity.
Click to expand...

WTH are you talking about? Are you delusional? Where am I using courts to force myself, a christian, to damn myself for eternity?  Who are these facists you are talking about who are gutting the first amendment?  Which of god's 10 commandments are in Jude 1?  Do you mean exodus, are you talking about this commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour... Oh wait that's what you are doing.

Are you on something right now?


----------



## Gary Anderson

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?


Only if they are open for business. If they don't charge for their space, then no. If they charge for the space, then yes. They are a business. Businesses should serve the public without discrimination. If they charge money Christ would call them money changers anyway.


----------



## Seawytch

Gary Anderson said:


> Only if they are open for business. If they don't charge for their space, then no. If they charge for the space, then yes. They are a business. Businesses should serve the public without discrimination. If they charge money Christ would call them money changers anyway.




Which is how courts have ruled to date as well. When bigots bring up the church that was sued, it was because of a space they rented to the public.


----------



## Carla_Danger

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...



Don't they discriminate against both already?

.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> Gary Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they are open for business. If they don't charge for their space, then no. If they charge for the space, then yes. They are a business. Businesses should serve the public without discrimination. If they charge money Christ would call them money changers anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is how courts have ruled to date as well. When bigots bring up the church that was sued, it was because of a space they rented to the public.
Click to expand...



why on Earth would you want to rent from a church that wants NOTHING to do with you?

Seriously I think people who think that way should be euthanized for being stupid. 
"Im going to spend money with people who hate my guts"

How stupid.


----------



## Seawytch

Carla_Danger said:


> Don't they discriminate against both already?
> 
> .


They can if they choose to, they don't have to.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> why on Earth would you want to rent from a church that wants NOTHING to do with you?
> 
> Seriously I think people who think that way should be euthanized for being stupid.
> "Im going to spend money with people who hate my guts"
> 
> How stupid.



Right, we get it...you think PA laws are stupid...that's not getting rid of them.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Seawytch said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't they discriminate against both already?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> They can if they choose to, they don't have to.
Click to expand...



My Church doesn't, but the one I was raised in did.


----------



## Redfish

Attention mods,   112 to 9.   time to close this poll and thread.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

i think churches should be allowed to baptize homosexuals if homosexuals are allowed to force churches or church members to accommodate them.

" will you bake our fairy cake"

"sure after you dunk your head into our magical water"

seems reasonable to me.


----------



## Gary Anderson

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they are open for business. If they don't charge for their space, then no. If they charge for the space, then yes. They are a business. Businesses should serve the public without discrimination. If they charge money Christ would call them money changers anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is how courts have ruled to date as well. When bigots bring up the church that was sued, it was because of a space they rented to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why on Earth would you want to rent from a church that wants NOTHING to do with you?
> 
> Seriously I think people who think that way should be euthanized for being stupid.
> "Im going to spend money with people who hate my guts"
> 
> How stupid.
Click to expand...

The church can control the schedule. They don't have to be around. But the law is clear, if it is a business, it can't discriminate. Libertarians have a screw loose about this concept.


----------



## Carla_Danger

I'm late to this thread, and I'm not reading all 125 pages. I'm just curious, are there any gay couples demanding particular churches be required to host their weddings?


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> i think churches should be allowed to baptize homosexuals if homosexuals are allowed to force churches or church members to accommodate them.
> 
> " will you bake our fairy cake"
> 
> "sure after you dunk your head into our magical water"
> 
> seems reasonable to me.



I'm sure racist feel the same way about being forced to bake cakes for blacks. Oh well. Get rid if ALL Public Accommodation laws or quit bitching about ONE group protected by them. 


They have nothing to do with churches and never will. (Unless the church rents property to the public)


----------



## Seawytch

Carla_Danger said:


> I'm late to this thread, and I'm not reading all 125 pages. I'm just curious, are there any gay couples demanding particular churches be required to host their weddings?



Not through the courts, just through public opinion.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Seawytch said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm late to this thread, and I'm not reading all 125 pages. I'm just curious, are there any gay couples demanding particular churches be required to host their weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not through the courts, just through public opinion.
Click to expand...



People are not going to stop using their religion to hate. My recommendation is that gay people marry in the Unitarian Church, where they don't have to deal with the haters.


----------



## Ibentoken

The left doesn't have the courage to criticize islam, which is oppressive and abusive.


----------



## Ibentoken

Carla_Danger said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm late to this thread, and I'm not reading all 125 pages. I'm just curious, are there any gay couples demanding particular churches be required to host their weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not through the courts, just through public opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People are not going to stop using their religion to hate. My recommendation is that gay people marry in the Unitarian Church, where they don't have to deal with the haters.
Click to expand...

Was Jesus a hater?


----------



## Carla_Danger

Ibentoken said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm late to this thread, and I'm not reading all 125 pages. I'm just curious, are there any gay couples demanding particular churches be required to host their weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not through the courts, just through public opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People are not going to stop using their religion to hate. My recommendation is that gay people marry in the Unitarian Church, where they don't have to deal with the haters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was Jesus a hater?
Click to expand...




He sure hated that fig tree. (LOL!)  But, he never said anything against gay people.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Ibentoken said:


> The left doesn't have the courage to criticize islam, which is oppressive and abusive.




What does Islam have to do with this thread?


----------



## hadit

RKMBrown said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The freedom of religion, as well as the freedom from religion, mandates that individuals be free to politely excuse themselves from activities in which they do not wish to participate.  An individual should no more be coerced to celebrate two gay people getting "married" (by being forced, for example, to bake a cake) than an atheist should be coerced to attend a church service.
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not.  Learn to read, get a clue.  The bill of rights is actually a list of restrictions on what government can do.  There is no Mandate that individuals be free to politely excuse themselves from activities in which they do not wish to participate.  You are making shit up.
Click to expand...


Nor is there a mandate the individuals have to be forced to participate in activities they are religiously opposed to.  Good luck forcing a Jewish deli to serve you a ham sandwich.


----------



## Ibentoken

Carla_Danger said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left doesn't have the courage to criticize islam, which is oppressive and abusive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does Islam have to do with this thread?
Click to expand...


The left pushes Christians around and ignores Muslim crap.  Why doesn't a gay couple go to a Muslim bakery and order a gay themed wedding cake?


----------



## hadit

Carla_Danger said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm late to this thread, and I'm not reading all 125 pages. I'm just curious, are there any gay couples demanding particular churches be required to host their weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not through the courts, just through public opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People are not going to stop using their religion to hate. My recommendation is that gay people marry in the Unitarian Church, where they don't have to deal with the haters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was Jesus a hater?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He sure hated that fig tree. (LOL!)  But, he never said anything against gay people.
Click to expand...


He didn't have to.  He supported everything that was in the Law.


----------



## Ibentoken

Carla_Danger said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm late to this thread, and I'm not reading all 125 pages. I'm just curious, are there any gay couples demanding particular churches be required to host their weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not through the courts, just through public opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People are not going to stop using their religion to hate. My recommendation is that gay people marry in the Unitarian Church, where they don't have to deal with the haters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was Jesus a hater?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He sure hated that fig tree. (LOL!)  But, he never said anything against gay people.
Click to expand...


Jesus said marriage is a man and a woman.  Jesus was a hater?


----------



## Carla_Danger

Ibentoken said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left doesn't have the courage to criticize islam, which is oppressive and abusive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does Islam have to do with this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The left pushes Christians around and ignores Muslim crap.  Why doesn't a gay couple go to a Muslim bakery and order a gay themed wedding cake?
Click to expand...



How many Muslim bakeries do we have in this country? There are none where I'm located.  Christians being pushed around is a figment of your imagination.
.
I haven't heard anything about Muslims trying to push anti gay laws in this country, have you?


----------



## Carla_Danger

hadit said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm late to this thread, and I'm not reading all 125 pages. I'm just curious, are there any gay couples demanding particular churches be required to host their weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not through the courts, just through public opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People are not going to stop using their religion to hate. My recommendation is that gay people marry in the Unitarian Church, where they don't have to deal with the haters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was Jesus a hater?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He sure hated that fig tree. (LOL!)  But, he never said anything against gay people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't have to.  He supported everything that was in the Law.
Click to expand...



Does that mean we should bring back slavery?


----------



## Seawytch

hadit said:


> Nor is there a mandate the individuals have to be forced to participate in activities they are religiously opposed to.  Good luck forcing a Jewish deli to serve you a ham sandwich.



Having a business make something they don't is not the same as refusing to serve someone because they are (insert minority here).


----------



## Seawytch

Ibentoken said:


> Jesus said marriage is a man and a woman.  Jesus was a hater?




When he said that, he was speaking *against *divorce.


----------



## Seawytch

Carla_Danger said:


> People are not going to stop using their religion to hate. My recommendation is that gay people marry in the Unitarian Church, where they don't have to deal with the haters.




Sure they will eventually. There has been like a 30% increase in gay friendly churches in the last 10 years. 

More gay people are coming out which means more families becoming straight allies and wanting their churches to embrace them.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Seawytch said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said marriage is a man and a woman.  Jesus was a hater?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When he said that, he was speaking *against *divorce.
Click to expand...



You certainly don't hear Christian's trying to ban divorce!!!


----------



## Carla_Danger

Seawytch said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are not going to stop using their religion to hate. My recommendation is that gay people marry in the Unitarian Church, where they don't have to deal with the haters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they will eventually. There has been like a 30% increase in gay friendly churches in the last 10 years.
> 
> More gay people are coming out which means more families becoming straight allies and wanting their churches to embrace them.
Click to expand...



I think that's wonderful.


----------



## Carla_Danger

watchman_otw said:


> YES!!!  JESUS says there will be little faith and belief in truth=GOD AND GOD'S Word as the last days near!!!and so we see that today!




We've been hearing about the last days forever. You are a scary person.


----------



## Carla_Danger

watchman_otw said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly don't hear Christian's trying to ban divorce!!!
> 
> 
> 
> GOD'S Word says God hates divorse!
Click to expand...



He also hates greed and gluttony.  Try getting rid of that.


----------



## Ibentoken

Seawytch said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said marriage is a man and a woman.  Jesus was a hater?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When he said that, he was speaking *against *divorce.
Click to expand...


Yes.  He also said marriage is a man and a woman.  You can't understand what divorce is unless you understand what marriage is.


----------



## RKMBrown

hadit said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The freedom of religion, as well as the freedom from religion, mandates that individuals be free to politely excuse themselves from activities in which they do not wish to participate.  An individual should no more be coerced to celebrate two gay people getting "married" (by being forced, for example, to bake a cake) than an atheist should be coerced to attend a church service.
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not.  Learn to read, get a clue.  The bill of rights is actually a list of restrictions on what government can do.  There is no Mandate that individuals be free to politely excuse themselves from activities in which they do not wish to participate.  You are making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor is there a mandate the individuals have to be forced to participate in activities they are religiously opposed to.  Good luck forcing a Jewish deli to serve you a ham sandwich.
Click to expand...


It's a bit trickier than that... depends on your religious tenants and how they apply to other people's civil liberties.  For example, the civil rights acts mandates that people serving the public cannot discriminate.  To discriminate who you serve to you have to create private arrangements with your customers, for example form a private club.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The freedom of religion, as well as the freedom from religion, mandates that individuals be free to politely excuse themselves from activities in which they do not wish to participate.  An individual should no more be coerced to celebrate two gay people getting "married" (by being forced, for example, to bake a cake) than an atheist should be coerced to attend a church service.
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not.  Learn to read, get a clue.  The bill of rights is actually a list of restrictions on what government can do.  There is no Mandate that individuals be free to politely excuse themselves from activities in which they do not wish to participate.  You are making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor is there a mandate the individuals have to be forced to participate in activities they are religiously opposed to.  Good luck forcing a Jewish deli to serve you a ham sandwich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a bit trickier than that... depends on your religious tenants and how they apply to other people's civil liberties.  For example, the civil rights acts mandates that people serving the public cannot discriminate.  To discriminate who you serve to you have to create private arrangements with your customers, for example form a private club.
Click to expand...


I think that is what is going to happen. I know the restaurant I own with our family, we are changing the name to club and charging membership fees starting Oct 1.

More out of principle than anything.


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The freedom of religion, as well as the freedom from religion, mandates that individuals be free to politely excuse themselves from activities in which they do not wish to participate.  An individual should no more be coerced to celebrate two gay people getting "married" (by being forced, for example, to bake a cake) than an atheist should be coerced to attend a church service.
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not.  Learn to read, get a clue.  The bill of rights is actually a list of restrictions on what government can do.  There is no Mandate that individuals be free to politely excuse themselves from activities in which they do not wish to participate.  You are making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor is there a mandate the individuals have to be forced to participate in activities they are religiously opposed to.  Good luck forcing a Jewish deli to serve you a ham sandwich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a bit trickier than that... depends on your religious tenants and how they apply to other people's civil liberties.  For example, the civil rights acts mandates that people serving the public cannot discriminate.  To discriminate who you serve to you have to create private arrangements with your customers, for example form a private club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that is what is going to happen. I know the restaurant I own with our family, we are changing the name to club and charging membership fees starting Oct 1.
> 
> More out of principle than anything.
Click to expand...

You can do the same thing for the health care issue... create a private health care club for you and your privately selected members and you can avoid ACA mandates.  I can see the strangling actions being taken by the federal government gradually resulting in many private club arrangements.


----------



## Seawytch

Ibentoken said:


> Yes.  He also said marriage is a man and a woman.  You can't understand what divorce is unless you understand what marriage is.



Because at the time it was...it was also supposed to be kept among people of the same race according to the bible. Times change.

It's no longer only between a man and a woman. Welcome to the 21st century.


----------



## Ibentoken

Seawytch said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  He also said marriage is a man and a woman.  You can't understand what divorce is unless you understand what marriage is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because at the time it was...it was also supposed to be kept among people of the same race according to the bible. Times change.
> 
> It's no longer only between a man and a woman. Welcome to the 21st century.
Click to expand...


Show us where the bible says marriage is to only be of the same race.  You can't because it's not there.  Now stop making shit up.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Ibentoken said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  He also said marriage is a man and a woman.  You can't understand what divorce is unless you understand what marriage is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because at the time it was...it was also supposed to be kept among people of the same race according to the bible. Times change.
> 
> It's no longer only between a man and a woman. Welcome to the 21st century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us where the bible says marriage is to only be of the same race.  You can't because it's not there.  Now stop making shit up.
Click to expand...


What do you care if fags marry. Statistics say 75% of them will end in "divorce" anyway. At least this way some of them aren't being promiscuous however temporarily


----------



## LiberalMedia

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



Absolutely! Anything less is an infringement upon the ryghts of Homosexual-Americans to exercise their religious liberties guaranteed to us by the Constitution.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

LiberalMedia said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely! Anything less is an infringement upon the ryghts of Homosexual-Americans to exercise their religious liberties guaranteed to us by the Constitution.
Click to expand...



Let me know when the first fag couple is stupid enough to try to get married at a mosque

Of course wouldn't that put you dumb ass liberals in a pickle, which minority to take sides with.....................


----------



## LiberalMedia

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> LiberalMedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely! Anything less is an infringement upon the ryghts of Homosexual-Americans to exercise their religious liberties guaranteed to us by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when the first fag couple is stupid enough to try to get married at a mosque
> 
> Of course wouldn't that put you dumb ass liberals in a pickle, which minority to take sides with.....................
Click to expand...


For the millionth time, I hate Moonslims. They are the embodiment of the global patriarchy and need to be eradicated, every last one, without hesitation. Every truly enlightened lybyryl has come to this same realization--that Islam (pronounced "I slam," as in "I slam planes into buildings") and all other religions are threats to the continued existence of humynity and need to be expunged from the historical record and present reality.

BUT BECAUSE YOU ASKED:
Imam in France marries two gay Muslims


> An imam in France has approved the marriage of two men who had previously married in South Africa, where same-sex marriage is legal, but the French government refuses to recognize it.
> 
> The Muslim spiritual leader offered his blessing to French- Algerian Ludovic Mohamed Zahed and his partner, Qiyam al-Din, a South African, during a ceremony outside Paris February 12.
> 
> Pink News, Europe’s largest gay news service, reported on Monday about the marriage.
> 
> According to an April 2 report on al-Bawaba, the men first married according to Shari’a law before a Mauritian imam named Jamal who blessed their matrimony.
> 
> Zahed told France 24 that he met Din last year at a convention on AIDS in South Africa.
> 
> “I was in the lecture hall when an imam – who incidentally, is gay himself – introduced me to Din. We discovered we had a lot in common and a mutual admiration was cemented. I stayed on after the convention for two months, deciding to get married, since South African laws were more friendly [to same-sex unions].”


----------



## Carla_Danger

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  He also said marriage is a man and a woman.  You can't understand what divorce is unless you understand what marriage is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because at the time it was...it was also supposed to be kept among people of the same race according to the bible. Times change.
> 
> It's no longer only between a man and a woman. Welcome to the 21st century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us where the bible says marriage is to only be of the same race.  You can't because it's not there.  Now stop making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you care if fags marry. Statistics say 75% of them will end in "divorce" anyway. At least this way some of them aren't being promiscuous however temporarily
Click to expand...



I'd like to see that study.


----------



## Ibentoken

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  He also said marriage is a man and a woman.  You can't understand what divorce is unless you understand what marriage is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because at the time it was...it was also supposed to be kept among people of the same race according to the bible. Times change.
> 
> It's no longer only between a man and a woman. Welcome to the 21st century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us where the bible says marriage is to only be of the same race.  You can't because it's not there.  Now stop making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you care if fags marry. Statistics say 75% of them will end in "divorce" anyway. At least this way some of them aren't being promiscuous however temporarily
Click to expand...

I care because I love the truth.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Carla_Danger said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  He also said marriage is a man and a woman.  You can't understand what divorce is unless you understand what marriage is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because at the time it was...it was also supposed to be kept among people of the same race according to the bible. Times change.
> 
> It's no longer only between a man and a woman. Welcome to the 21st century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us where the bible says marriage is to only be of the same race.  You can't because it's not there.  Now stop making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you care if fags marry. Statistics say 75% of them will end in "divorce" anyway. At least this way some of them aren't being promiscuous however temporarily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to see that study.
Click to expand...


The US is still thought to not have consistent enough laws and paperwork for a legitimate study, but studies have been conducted in Norway, and Sweden

_Researchers reported in 2006 that same-sex couples have a higher rate of divorce than heterosexual couples, even after accounting for factors such as age and country of birth—with two women more likely to split than two men._

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323309604578431152673092608


----------



## hadit

Carla_Danger said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm late to this thread, and I'm not reading all 125 pages. I'm just curious, are there any gay couples demanding particular churches be required to host their weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not through the courts, just through public opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People are not going to stop using their religion to hate. My recommendation is that gay people marry in the Unitarian Church, where they don't have to deal with the haters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was Jesus a hater?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He sure hated that fig tree. (LOL!)  But, he never said anything against gay people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't have to.  He supported everything that was in the Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean we should bring back slavery?
Click to expand...


No, because we are not under the law, and even if we were, it doesn't command that we enslave anyone.


----------



## Carla_Danger

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  He also said marriage is a man and a woman.  You can't understand what divorce is unless you understand what marriage is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because at the time it was...it was also supposed to be kept among people of the same race according to the bible. Times change.
> 
> It's no longer only between a man and a woman. Welcome to the 21st century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us where the bible says marriage is to only be of the same race.  You can't because it's not there.  Now stop making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you care if fags marry. Statistics say 75% of them will end in "divorce" anyway. At least this way some of them aren't being promiscuous however temporarily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to see that study.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US is still thought to not have consistent enough laws and paperwork for a legitimate study, but studies have been conducted in Norway, and Sweden
> 
> _Researchers reported in 2006 that same-sex couples have a higher rate of divorce than heterosexual couples, even after accounting for factors such as age and country of birth—with two women more likely to split than two men._
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323309604578431152673092608
Click to expand...



There is absolutely no evidence of a 75% divorce rate.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Carla_Danger said:


> There is absolutely no evidence of a 75% divorce rate.



Oh, I made that part up. Isn't that it's done around here? Did I do it wrong?


----------



## Carla_Danger

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence of a 75% divorce rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I made that part up. Isn't that it's done around here? Did I do it wrong?
Click to expand...



Well, that's how most people do it, who aren't smarter than the average bear, or Fox News viewers, take your pick.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Carla_Danger said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence of a 75% divorce rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I made that part up. Isn't that it's done around here? Did I do it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's how most people do it, who aren't smarter than the average bear, or Fox News viewers, take your pick.
Click to expand...


I watch Fox, but I'm pretty selective about what I watch on it. I'm not much into the "opinion guys"


----------



## Clementine

RWHeathenGamer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
Click to expand...


Have you ever heard of such a church?   And if there was one, no mixed race couples would be members and would never want to get married there.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Clementine said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of such a church?   And if there was one, no mixed race couples would be members and would never want to get married there.
Click to expand...



*Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples*

*Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples - ABC News*


----------



## Carla_Danger

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence of a 75% divorce rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I made that part up. Isn't that it's done around here? Did I do it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's how most people do it, who aren't smarter than the average bear, or Fox News viewers, take your pick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watch Fox, but I'm pretty selective about what I watch on it. I'm not much into the "opinion guys"
Click to expand...



You just made that up too.  There is no such program on Fox News.


----------



## Seawytch

Ibentoken said:


> Show us where the bible says marriage is to only be of the same race.  You can't because it's not there.  Now stop making shit up.



The segregationist and anti miscongenationist had passages to support their position just like the homophobes!

After the Fall, what sort of marriages were introduced by men, which were productive of great evil?

“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” Gen. 6:1,2.

Not only was there plurality of wives, which in itself is an evil, but the “sons of God,” descending from Seth, married the “daughters of men,” the descendants from the idolatrous line of Cain, and thus corrupted the seed, or church, of God itself. All the barriers against evil thus being broken down, the whole race was soon corrupted, violence filled the earth, and the flood followed.

What restriction did God make respecting marriages in Israel?

“Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry.” Num. 36:6.

What prohibition did God give His chosen people against intermarrying with the heathen nations about them, and why?

“Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.” Deut. 7:3,4.

Intermarriage with the ungodly was the mistake made by the professed people of God before the flood, and God did not wish Israel to repeat that folly.

What instruction is given in the New Testament regarding marriage with unbelievers?

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God.” 2 Cor. 6:14-16.

This instruction forbids all compromising partnerships. Marriage of believers with unbelievers has ever been a snare by which Satan has captured many earnest souls who thought they could win the unbelieving, but in most cases have themselves drifted away from the moorings of faith into doubt, backsliding, and loss of religion. It was one of Israel’s constant dangers, against which God warned them repeatedly. “Give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace [by such compromise] or their wealth forever.” Ezra 9:12. See also Ex. 34:14-16; Judges 14:1-3. Ezra 9 and 10; and Neh. 13:23-27.​


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Let me know when the first fag couple is stupid enough to try to get married at a mosque
> 
> Of course wouldn't that put you dumb ass liberals in a pickle, which minority to take sides with.....................



Bears are fucking stupid, obviously...

*D.C. imam provides counseling, weddings and prayer space for gay Muslims*


----------



## RKMBrown

Carla_Danger said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence of a 75% divorce rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I made that part up. Isn't that it's done around here? Did I do it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's how most people do it, who aren't smarter than the average bear, or Fox News viewers, take your pick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watch Fox, but I'm pretty selective about what I watch on it. I'm not much into the "opinion guys"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just made that up too.  There is no such program on Fox News.
Click to expand...

Carla knows cause she watches Fox 24/7


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> The US is still thought to not have consistent enough laws and paperwork for a legitimate study, but studies have been conducted in Norway, and Sweden
> 
> _Researchers reported in 2006 that same-sex couples have a higher rate of divorce than heterosexual couples, even after accounting for factors such as age and country of birth—with two women more likely to split than two men._
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323309604578431152673092608




And that's what you get for using statistics from almost a decade ago. 

Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States

What this more recent study found was: (and mind you, it was still from 2011...a few more states have joined the marriage equality states since then)


Nearly 150,000 same-sex couples have either married or registered civil unions or domestic partnerships, which constitutes about one-fifth of same-sex couples in the U.S. (or rather, a fifth of those who acknowledged themselves as such in recent United States Census reports).

About 1% of the total number of currently-married or registered same-sex couples get divorced each year, in comparison to about 2% of the total number of married straight couples. Note that the percentage of couples that get divorced eventually is close to 50%, but only 1% or 2% of them get divorced in any particular year.

Couples are more likely to legally formalize their relationship when marriage is an option, as opposed to a marriage-equivalent domestic partnership or civil union registration in states where only those options are allowed.

Nearly two-thirds of registered or married same-sex couples are lesbians, and only about a third are gay men.

A smaller percentage of same-sex couples register or marry in comparison to straight couples, but if current trends continue *the marriage/registration rates will be similar in about ten years.*


----------



## Ibentoken

Seawytch said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where the bible says marriage is to only be of the same race.  You can't because it's not there.  Now stop making shit up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The segregationist and anti miscongenationist had passages to support their position just like the homophobes!
> 
> After the Fall, what sort of marriages were introduced by men, which were productive of great evil?
> 
> “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” Gen. 6:1,2.
> 
> Not only was there plurality of wives, which in itself is an evil, but the “sons of God,” descending from Seth, married the “daughters of men,” the descendants from the idolatrous line of Cain, and thus corrupted the seed, or church, of God itself. All the barriers against evil thus being broken down, the whole race was soon corrupted, violence filled the earth, and the flood followed.
> 
> What restriction did God make respecting marriages in Israel?
> 
> “Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry.” Num. 36:6.
> 
> What prohibition did God give His chosen people against intermarrying with the heathen nations about them, and why?
> 
> “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.” Deut. 7:3,4.
> 
> Intermarriage with the ungodly was the mistake made by the professed people of God before the flood, and God did not wish Israel to repeat that folly.
> 
> What instruction is given in the New Testament regarding marriage with unbelievers?
> 
> “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God.” 2 Cor. 6:14-16.
> 
> This instruction forbids all compromising partnerships. Marriage of believers with unbelievers has ever been a snare by which Satan has captured many earnest souls who thought they could win the unbelieving, but in most cases have themselves drifted away from the moorings of faith into doubt, backsliding, and loss of religion. It was one of Israel’s constant dangers, against which God warned them repeatedly. “Give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace [by such compromise] or their wealth forever.” Ezra 9:12. See also Ex. 34:14-16; Judges 14:1-3. Ezra 9 and 10; and Neh. 13:23-27.​
Click to expand...

Nothing in there about race.  Try again.


----------



## koshergrl

Carla_Danger said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of such a church?   And if there was one, no mixed race couples would be members and would never want to get married there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples*
> 
> *Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples - ABC News*
Click to expand...


Tiny church, and they had that pastor step down. And then they changed the rule:

*Gulnare Free Will Baptist church overturns ban on interracial marriage*


Gulnare Free Will Baptist church overturns ban on interracial marriage World news theguardian.com


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> This instruction forbids all compromising partnerships. *Marriage of believers with unbelievers has ever been a snare by which Satan has captured many earnest souls who thought they could win the unbelieving, but in most cases have themselves drifted away from the moorings of faith into doubt, backsliding, and loss of religion*. It was one of Israel’s constant dangers, against which God warned them repeatedly. “Give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace [by such compromise] or their wealth forever.” Ezra 9:12. See also Ex. 34:14-16; Judges 14:1-3. Ezra 9 and 10; and Neh. 13:23-27.​


 
My own father was excommunicated from the catholic church when his fiance' refused to convert to catholicism and he married her anyway.  And actually, my father was lead down a dark path and to his ultimate doom as a result.  Oddly enough.  He started out a good, decent and selfless man.   I will always remember him as he was when he would give the shirt off his back to help a stranger.

He never could've sued the catholic church because his feelings were hurt for them disowning him.  The catholic church doesn't bend to whims of the day or weird social subcultures.  It remains very reticent to change its core values.  That's because change + time, easily = a complete bastardization of the original purity of Jesus's teachings. 

And that church ought to know.  They threw Mary Magdalene under the bus and called her a whore and changed part of her gospels to be "John", the beloved but the only disciple unnamed [no sirname] and curiously the only non-pedigreed one of the bunch.  Early roman society could simply not abide by women having any significant role in the church's power.  At that in itself is a blasphemy that they'll have to answer for.  It may in fact be the seed of all this "gay priest/pedophile stuff" ultimately.  If they'd only welcomed women into the fold as leaders too early on, the frustrations of celebacy might not afflict their clergy by warping them sexually.  Better to admit past mistakes and make corrections instead of allowing the devil's influence to constantly infect your ranks. 

I'm just assuming they're holdilng back on further blasphemy.  And they should.  Someone has to do the hard work of holding fast to as many of the old true teachings as they can.  Homo sapiens degrades with shocking haste into a wild motly crew of miserable villians without a firm moral structure to keep them in check.  Time to dig out the gnostic gospels and give "John" a coming-out party.  The catholic church is one of the last vestiges of one of the great prophets.  We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Boats need anchors.


----------



## Carla_Danger

koshergrl said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of such a church?   And if there was one, no mixed race couples would be members and would never want to get married there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples*
> 
> *Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples - ABC News*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tiny church, and they had that pastor step down.
Click to expand...




The question was, "have you ever heard of such a church?"  And the answer was yes, why yes I have.


----------



## Carla_Danger

RKMBrown said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence of a 75% divorce rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I made that part up. Isn't that it's done around here? Did I do it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's how most people do it, who aren't smarter than the average bear, or Fox News viewers, take your pick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watch Fox, but I'm pretty selective about what I watch on it. I'm not much into the "opinion guys"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just made that up too.  There is no such program on Fox News.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Carla knows cause she watches Fox 24/7
Click to expand...




Carla knows that if such a program existed, you would have listed it by name.


----------



## Silhouette

Carla_Danger said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of such a church?   And if there was one, no mixed race couples would be members and would never want to get married there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples*
> 
> *Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples - ABC News*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tiny church, and they had that pastor step down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question was, "have you ever heard of such a church?"  And the answer was yes, why yes I have.
Click to expand...

But race isn't sexual behaviors. They are legally not the same thing in the US.


----------



## koshergrl

"Stepp said about 30 people who attended church services Sunday voted on a new resolution that welcomes "believers into our fellowship regardless of race, creed or color."

Gulnare Free Will Baptist church overturns ban on interracial marriage World news theguardian.com

They had an asshole pastor who is a member of the church. They removed him, and they undid the damage he did.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Carla_Danger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence of a 75% divorce rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I made that part up. Isn't that it's done around here? Did I do it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's how most people do it, who aren't smarter than the average bear, or Fox News viewers, take your pick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watch Fox, but I'm pretty selective about what I watch on it. I'm not much into the "opinion guys"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just made that up too.  There is no such program on Fox News.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Carla knows cause she watches Fox 24/7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla knows that if such a program existed, you would have listed it by name.
Click to expand...



Are you serious? There is plenty of just NEWS on FoxNews, there is also plenty of just NEWS on CNN (not MSNBC though , that's just garbage)

You idiots are so stupid, trying to make it seem like a news channel doesn't have just news b/c you don't like some of their commentators.


----------



## koshergrl

It's the way they divert attention from the subject.


----------



## Seawytch

Ibentoken said:


> Nothing in there about race.  Try again.



YOU don't think they supported a segregationist view. The segregationist KNEW they did. They have a "deeply held religious belief" that races should be kept apart.


----------



## Ibentoken

Seawytch said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in there about race.  Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU don't think they supported a segregationist view. The segregationist KNEW they did. They have a "deeply held religious belief" that races should be kept apart.
Click to expand...


Yes, but they didn't get that idea from Christianity.  That's a lie.


----------



## koshergrl

Carla_Danger said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of such a church?   And if there was one, no mixed race couples would be members and would never want to get married there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples*
> 
> *Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples - ABC News*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tiny church, and they had that pastor step down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question was, "have you ever heard of such a church?"  And the answer was yes, why yes I have.
Click to expand...


They had a wacko pastor for about five minutes before they remedied the situation.

And remedy it they did. When you posted that old article, it had already been fixed.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in there about race.  Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU don't think they supported a segregationist view. The segregationist KNEW they did. They have a "deeply held religious belief" that races should be kept apart.
Click to expand...



OH, I could make quite the compelling case that blacks , especially black men, SHOULD be segregated from society .

Now , before you lose what little mind you DO have notice I said I COULD make a case, not that I WOULD . THose are too significantly different statements.


----------



## koshergrl

They've segregated themselves pretty effectively.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

koshergrl said:


> They've segregated themselves pretty effectively.




If black women were smart they would breed black men out of existence.

They should be scared to death of black men.


----------



## koshergrl

Democrats taught them to be animals. It's the price they paid for handouts.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

If we banned black men, crime rates would drop so low that perhaps a legitimate conversation about curtailing gun ownership could be had.


----------



## Seawytch

Ibentoken said:


> Yes, but they didn't get that idea from Christianity.  That's a lie.



They used Christianity to justify it. That is the truth.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> They had a wacko pastor for about five minutes before they remedied the situation.
> 
> And remedy it they did. When you posted that old article, it had already been fixed.


Let's not pretend it's a stretch or an anomaly.

Poll 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage - The Wire

Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License By Louisiana Justice Of The Peace

 Heard of Bob Jones University?

Bob Jones University - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> OH, I could make quite the compelling case that blacks , especially black men, SHOULD be segregated from society .
> 
> Now , before you lose what little mind you DO have notice I said I COULD make a case, not that I WOULD . THose are too significantly different statements.



Segregationists DID (and they used the bible to justify their racism).


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH, I could make quite the compelling case that blacks , especially black men, SHOULD be segregated from society .
> 
> Now , before you lose what little mind you DO have notice I said I COULD make a case, not that I WOULD . THose are too significantly different statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Segregationists DID (and they used the bible to justify their racism).
Click to expand...


IF I make the argument,I'd leave the Bible at home, and instead rely on crime statistics and other metrics to justify it.


----------



## Silhouette

What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?


----------



## Ibentoken

Seawytch said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but they didn't get that idea from Christianity.  That's a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They used Christianity to justify it. That is the truth.
Click to expand...


You believe what you want.


----------



## Seawytch

Ibentoken said:


> You believe what you want.




It isn't a matter of my beliefs, but theirs. That they believed the bible justified their racism is a fact. 

_"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."_ ~ Judge Brazile 1963


----------



## Ibentoken

Seawytch said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe what you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't a matter of my beliefs, but theirs. That they believed the bible justified their racism is a fact.
> 
> _"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."_ ~ Judge Brazile 1963
Click to expand...


That's his personal belief.  Nothing he said is in the Bible.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe what you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't a matter of my beliefs, but theirs. That they believed the bible justified their racism is a fact.
> 
> _"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."_ ~ Judge Brazile 1963
Click to expand...


Odd, he didn't reference the Bible one time.

Words have meanings you know.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Ibentoken said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe what you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't a matter of my beliefs, but theirs. That they believed the bible justified their racism is a fact.
> 
> _"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."_ ~ Judge Brazile 1963
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's his personal belief.  Nothing he said is in the Bible.
Click to expand...



You should have been in the other thread where she claimed she had quotes from people before the civil war using the bible to justify slavery and I asked her for links and she linked me to TWO pieces of fiction LOL 

Shim dumb shim real dumb


----------



## Londoner

Should churches be forced to accommodate black weddings?

What about the tax status of the Church? [

Do they receive any tax breaks FROM the public who must make up the difference? If they do receive help from the public, their ability to discriminate against a portion of the public may change, provided that portion has the legal right to get married.

At the end of the day this is same old problem where a powerless group must beg for full citizenship. Whether it be the right to vote for women or the right to use a public bathroom for blacks or the right for gays to exercise their legal right to get married, there will always be a heavily manipulated group of under-educated citizens who try to destroy them.


----------



## Ibentoken

Londoner said:


> Should churches be forced to accommodate black weddings?
> 
> What about the tax status of the Church? [
> 
> Do they receive any tax breaks FROM the public who must make up the difference? If they do receive help from the public, their ability to discriminate against a portion of the public may change, provided that portion has the legal right to get married.
> 
> At the end of the day this is same old problem where a powerless group must beg for full citizenship. Whether it be the right to vote for women or the right to use a public bathroom for blacks or the right for gays to exercise their legal right to get married, there will always be a heavily manipulated group of under-educated citizens who try to destroy them.


Jesus was a hater and a bigot, huh.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Londoner said:


> Should churches be forced to accommodate black weddings?
> 
> What about the tax status of the Church? [
> 
> Do they receive any tax breaks FROM the public who must make up the difference? If they do receive help from the public, their ability to discriminate against a portion of the public may change, provided that portion has the legal right to get married.
> 
> At the end of the day this is same old problem where a powerless group must beg for full citizenship. Whether it be the right to vote for women or the right to use a public bathroom for blacks or the right for gays to exercise their legal right to get married, there will always be a heavily manipulated group of under-educated citizens who try to destroy them.




Damn, talk about illiterate

The question isn't should gays be allowed to marry, the question is should they be allowed to force churches to marry them?


----------



## koshergrl

"
I a


SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should churches be forced to accommodate black weddings?
> 
> What about the tax status of the Church? [
> 
> Do they receive any tax breaks FROM the public who must make up the difference? If they do receive help from the public, their ability to discriminate against a portion of the public may change, provided that portion has the legal right to get married.
> 
> At the end of the day this is same old problem where a powerless group must beg for full citizenship. Whether it be the right to vote for women or the right to use a public bathroom for blacks or the right for gays to exercise their legal right to get married, there will always be a heavily manipulated group of under-educated citizens who try to destroy them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, talk about illiterate
> 
> The question isn't should gays be allowed to marry, the question is should they be allowed to force churches to marry them?
Click to expand...


The public makes up what difference, I would like to know. 

What floors me is that these ignorami are completely clueless about how much churches do, WORLD WIDE, for the poor, the sick, the orphaned, the homeless and the desperate.


----------



## Seawytch

Ibentoken said:


> That's his personal belief.  Nothing he said is in the Bible.


You don't think it's there, he knew it was. I don't think the bible is anti gay, you do...see how that works?


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Odd, he didn't reference the Bible one time.
> 
> Words have meanings you know.



He didn't have to. I gave you the passages they used already. He believed in those passages just as "deeply" as you believe in anti gay ones.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Damn, talk about illiterate
> 
> The question isn't should gays be allowed to marry, the question is should they be allowed to force churches to marry them?



The question was silly. Churches cannot be forced by the government to perform ceremonies against the tenants of their faith.

They have and will by public opinion.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

koshergrl said:


> "
> I a
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should churches be forced to accommodate black weddings?
> 
> What about the tax status of the Church? [
> 
> Do they receive any tax breaks FROM the public who must make up the difference? If they do receive help from the public, their ability to discriminate against a portion of the public may change, provided that portion has the legal right to get married.
> 
> At the end of the day this is same old problem where a powerless group must beg for full citizenship. Whether it be the right to vote for women or the right to use a public bathroom for blacks or the right for gays to exercise their legal right to get married, there will always be a heavily manipulated group of under-educated citizens who try to destroy them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, talk about illiterate
> 
> The question isn't should gays be allowed to marry, the question is should they be allowed to force churches to marry them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The public makes up what difference, I would like to know.
> 
> What floors me is that these ignorami are completely clueless about how much churches do, WORLD WIDE, for the poor, the sick, the orphaned, the homeless and the desperate.
Click to expand...



they know , they just dont care. 

See, every little whiny minority out there is OFF limits to make fun of, ridicule, or cajole. But... people are just naturally assholes and so need someone to make fun of , ridicule,cajole and so these liberal morons have absolutely no compunction in showing their absolute hypocrisy in attacking the one group who doesn't have some national figure whining for them.

This is how their stupidity works.

Black morons burn an entire fucking town down because they are upset that one of their fellow thugs got kiled for attacking a LEO... They were well within their rights.

White Christians complain because some faggot uses the court system to force them to bake them a cake.. What a bunch of sexist racist haters.

Fuck you morons, Every one of you who thinks like the above are idiots. Plain and simple.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> they know , they just dont care.
> 
> See, every little whiny minority out there is OFF limits to make fun of, ridicule, or cajole. But... people are just naturally assholes and so need someone to make fun of , ridicule,cajole and so these liberal morons have absolutely no compunction in showing their absolute hypocrisy in attacking the one group who doesn't have some national figure whining for them.
> 
> This is how their stupidity works.
> 
> Black morons burn an entire fucking town down because they are upset that one of their fellow thugs got kiled for attacking a LEO... They were well within their rights.
> 
> White Christians complain because some faggot uses the court system to force them to bake them a cake.. What a bunch of sexist racist haters.
> 
> Fuck you morons, Every one of you who thinks like the above are idiots. Plain and simple.




Wow...way to conflate two unrelated news stories. Non-sequitur much?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd, he didn't reference the Bible one time.
> 
> Words have meanings you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have to. I gave you the passages they used already. He believed in those passages just as "deeply" as you believe in anti gay ones.
Click to expand...



What the fuck would it matter anyway?; 

Do whatever you want, in just don't force me to participate.

Your "marriage " is a sham to me. I don't give a shit if you call yourself married, I in fact support your right to say you're married just the same as I would support your right to call yourself eternally hitched or any other nonsense you want to pretend you are, ju st stop trying to force others to accept you


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> What the fuck would it matter anyway?;
> 
> Do whatever you want, in just don't force me to participate.
> 
> Your "marriage " is a sham to me. I don't give a shit if you call yourself married, I in fact support your right to say you're married just the same as I would support your right to call yourself eternally hitched or any other nonsense you want to pretend you are, ju st stop trying to force others to accept you



Fortunately your opinion doesn't mean jack shit to my legal and federally recognized  civil marriage. (No matter how pissy you get about it)


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck would it matter anyway?;
> 
> Do whatever you want, in just don't force me to participate.
> 
> Your "marriage " is a sham to me. I don't give a shit if you call yourself married, I in fact support your right to say you're married just the same as I would support your right to call yourself eternally hitched or any other nonsense you want to pretend you are, ju st stop trying to force others to accept you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately your opinion doesn't mean jack shit to my legal and federally recognized  civil marriage. (No matter how pissy you get about it)
Click to expand...



What part of " I support your right to "marry" don't you get?

Your little laughter as if you pulled one over on me is as stupid as you're marriage.

Face it hon, your "marriage is nothing but a decent plot line for a porn.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> What part of " I support your right to "marry" don't you get?
> 
> Your little laughter as if you pulled one over on me is as stupid as you're marriage.
> 
> Face it hon, your "marriage is nothing but a decent plot line for a porn.




You support my right to "sham" marry? How progressive of you. 

My marriage is exactly like millions of marriages across the country. Two people who love each other that wish to protect their families with the rights, benefits and responsibilities that come with legal, civil marriage. 

How you "feel" about it is irrelevant.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of " I support your right to "marry" don't you get?
> 
> Your little laughter as if you pulled one over on me is as stupid as you're marriage.
> 
> Face it hon, your "marriage is nothing but a decent plot line for a porn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You support my right to "sham" marry? How progressive of you.
> 
> My marriage is exactly like millions of marriages across the country. Two people who love each other that wish to protect their families with the rights, benefits and responsibilities that come with legal, civil marriage.
> 
> How you "feel" about it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


NO NO, you have that absolutely backwards, your "marriage" is a sham, regardless of whether you know it or not. What YOU think is irrelevant

Fortunately for you, we live in a country that allows you to believe whatever you want. Enjoy your "marriage"


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> My marriage is exactly like millions of marriages across the country. Two people who love each other that wish to protect their families with the rights, benefits and responsibilities that come with legal, civil marriage.
> 
> How you "feel" about it is irrelevant.


 
Well for one if you were married in California where you say you live, you aren't married legally.  That's just for starters.  And your marriage is not "like millions of marriages across the country".  Those marriages are where there is a legitmate husband and wife, father and mother.  Not two people of the same gender role-playing those roles around the poor children than find themselves in that hotbed of mental issues.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> NO NO, you have that absolutely backwards, your "marriage" is a sham, regardless of whether you know it or not. What YOU think is irrelevant
> 
> Fortunately for you, we live in a country that allows you to believe whatever you want. Enjoy your "marriage"



My "sham" of a civil marriage is supported by a legal document, affording my spouse and I a number of benefits and privileges. Your opinion and $4 will get you a delicious mocha at Starbucks. 

I have facts, you have beliefs and "feelings".


----------



## Ibentoken

Seawytch said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's his personal belief.  Nothing he said is in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think it's there, he knew it was. I don't think the bible is anti gay, you do...see how that works?
Click to expand...


Give us the chapter and verse number.


----------



## Seawytch

Ibentoken said:


> Give us the chapter and verse number.



I have, multiple times. 

Deut. 32:8 "The Highest allotted the races when He divided the sons of man, fixing the bounds of the nations."

Genesis 6:1-7
Genesis 9:18-10:32
Genesis 9:24-27
Genesis chapters 12-25
Leviticus 19:19
Deuteronomy 22:9-11

And there's plenty more USED BY segregationist.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO NO, you have that absolutely backwards, your "marriage" is a sham, regardless of whether you know it or not. What YOU think is irrelevant
> 
> Fortunately for you, we live in a country that allows you to believe whatever you want. Enjoy your "marriage"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My "sham" of a civil marriage is supported by a legal document, affording my spouse and I a number of benefits and privileges. Your opinion and $4 will get you a delicious mocha at Starbucks.
> 
> I have facts, you have beliefs and "feelings".
Click to expand...






You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband" 

"gay marriage"


----------



## RKMBrown

Less confusing:





More confusing:





But still not as confusing as this guy:


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> Less confusing:



As I said, a good premise for porn


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"
> 
> "gay marriage"




On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.

There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"
> 
> "gay marriage"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.
> 
> There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.
Click to expand...

'


See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up


gay marriage


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"
> 
> "gay marriage"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.
> 
> There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> 
> See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up
> 
> 
> gay marriage
Click to expand...

From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses.  So it is contract based.

IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults.  IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"
> 
> "gay marriage"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> 
> See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up
> 
> 
> gay marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses.  So it is contract based.
> 
> IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults.  IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.
Click to expand...



why any man would want more than one wife is beyond me, but I sure don't give a crap if others do.


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"
> 
> "gay marriage"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> 
> See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up
> 
> 
> gay marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses.  So it is contract based.
> 
> IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults.  IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why any man would want more than one wife is beyond me, but I sure don't give a crap if others do.
Click to expand...


Yeah I'm happy with my wife.. but I don't pretend to be the moral compass for others... so... in the ideal of liberty for all... let there be differences.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> '
> 
> 
> See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up
> 
> 
> gay marriage



Religion is free to "define" marriage as it likes...in keeping with the first amendment. The government, whether you agree or not, issues marriage licenses. The government is not free to define marriage as YOU believe. In order to keep the fundamental right of civil marriage from a group of people, a detriment to society must be ascribed to allowing it. One cannot be, which is why marriage equality is winning in court.

Good luck getting the government "out of marriage". I imagine you're going to get even more laughter from your representative than you get for abolishing Public Accommodation laws.


----------



## MaryL

Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.


----------



## RKMBrown

MaryL said:


> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.


Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
Click to expand...


no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
Click to expand...

It used to be... then the authoritarians got their way and turned us from a constitutional republic that cherished liberty and free market capitalism into a socialist democracy ruled by this two headed democrat/republican snake that's fed by the tyranny of the majority.  These folks think government is here to force everyone to follow their 51% majority moral view.

That's what happens when you change the senate from legislature bound (run by the States) to majority vote (17th amendment).  That's what happens when you turn the Constitution upside down with the 14th amendment specifying that the government can take your life, liberty, and property at will, and the 16th stating that it can take your paycheck.

The authoritarians and marxists have won.. this ship is heading to the bottom.  It's done put a fork in it.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> Religion is free to "define" marriage as it likes...in keeping with the first amendment. The government, whether you agree or not, issues marriage licenses. The government is not free to define marriage as YOU believe. In order to keep the fundamental right of civil marriage from a group of people, a detriment to society must be ascribed to allowing it. One cannot be, which is why marriage equality is winning in court.
> 
> Good luck getting the government "out of marriage". I imagine you're going to get even more laughter from your representative than you get for abolishing Public Accommodation laws.


 

As it turns out, regular secular citizens are also free to define marriage as they like.  Take a look at Windsor 2013 and get back to me.  A state's discreet citizenry currently has the right to define marriage under the question of the new and weird "gay marriage" question.  That may change in the future.  But for right now it is Law and apparently always has been since the start of our country.


----------



## Silhouette

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> why any man would want more than one wife is beyond me, but I sure don't give a crap if others do.


 
Yes, but you're in the minority opinion.  You're familiar with how a democracy works, right?


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> why any man would want more than one wife is beyond me, but I sure don't give a crap if others do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but you're in the minority opinion.  You're familiar with how a democracy works, right?
Click to expand...

What part of him not giving a crap makes you think he gives a crap about your homophobic bigoted crusade?


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> why any man would want more than one wife is beyond me, but I sure don't give a crap if others do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but you're in the minority opinion.  You're familiar with how a democracy works, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of him not giving a crap makes you think he gives a crap about your homophobic bigoted crusade?
Click to expand...

 He is involved in a debate and so am I.  This isn't about him giving a crap.  It's about him being legally wrong.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> why any man would want more than one wife is beyond me, but I sure don't give a crap if others do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but you're in the minority opinion.  You're familiar with how a democracy works, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of him not giving a crap makes you think he gives a crap about your homophobic bigoted crusade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is involved in a debate and so am I.  This isn't about him giving a crap.  It's about him being legally wrong.
Click to expand...

What makes you think the law makes him give a crap about your homophobic bigoted crusade?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> why any man would want more than one wife is beyond me, but I sure don't give a crap if others do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but you're in the minority opinion.  You're familiar with how a democracy works, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of him not giving a crap makes you think he gives a crap about your homophobic bigoted crusade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is involved in a debate and so am I.  This isn't about him giving a crap.  It's about him being legally wrong.
Click to expand...



How the hell am I legally wrong, and you're legally right, when we agree?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> why any man would want more than one wife is beyond me, but I sure don't give a crap if others do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but you're in the minority opinion.  You're familiar with how a democracy works, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of him not giving a crap makes you think he gives a crap about your homophobic bigoted crusade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is involved in a debate and so am I.  This isn't about him giving a crap.  It's about him being legally wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you think the law makes him give a crap about your homophobic bigoted crusade?
Click to expand...



LOL he's CLEARLY misread my posts.

 I think we've confused them because we are "conservatives" who think they should be able to "marry" no matter how personally disgusting and repulsive we find it.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"
> 
> "gay marriage"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.
> 
> There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> 
> See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up
> 
> 
> gay marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses.  So it is contract based.
> 
> IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults.  IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.
Click to expand...

 
Why should plural marraiges be illegal if all parties are consenting adults?  What's the moral prinicipal involved here?  How about incestuous marriages?  Should they be illegal?


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"
> 
> "gay marriage"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.
> 
> There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> 
> See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up
> 
> 
> gay marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses.  So it is contract based.
> 
> IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults.  IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should plural marraiges be illegal if all parties are consenting adults?  What's the moral prinicipal involved here?  How about incestuous marriages?  Should they be illegal?
Click to expand...

Agreed on the plural issue.  What I said is they should be made legal.  They were made illegal by the majority in most if not all states.  The moral principle that was used was a moral code of particular churches that do not allow plural marriages.  Nothing more than opinion of a particular group.

Incestuous marriages lead to increased numbers of genetic defects in children and abuse. So IMO yes, said couplings should be illegal.  Thus, society has decided the harm done to these children and society on the whole should be avoided.  It's sort of like safety violations.  Even if no harm is done, the act of performing unsafe acts have been made illegal, one at a time.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"
> 
> "gay marriage"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.
> 
> There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> 
> See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up
> 
> 
> gay marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses.  So it is contract based.
> 
> IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults.  IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should plural marraiges be illegal if all parties are consenting adults?  What's the moral prinicipal involved here?  How about incestuous marriages?  Should they be illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed on the plural issue.  What I said is they should be made legal.  They were made illegal by the majority in most if not all states.  The moral principle that was used was a moral code of particular churches that do not allow plural marriages.  Nothing more than opinion of a particular group.
> 
> Incestuous marriages lead to increased numbers of genetic defects in children, and abuse, so IMO yes said couplings should be illegal.  Thus, society has decided the harm done to these children and society on the whole should be avoided.  It's sort of like safety violations.  Even if no harm is done, the act of performing unsafe acts have been made illegal, one at a time.
Click to expand...

 
That would only be an issue if facilitating reproduction was the purpose of marriage.  However, homosexuals insist that reproduction has nothing to do with marraigee.   Once you admit that it does have something to do with marriage, your arguments for "gay marriage" all go out the window.


----------



## Silhouette

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"
> 
> "gay marriage"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.
> 
> There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> 
> See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up
> 
> 
> gay marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses.  So it is contract based.
> 
> IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults.  IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should plural marraiges be illegal if all parties are consenting adults?  What's the moral prinicipal involved here?  How about incestuous marriages?  Should they be illegal?
Click to expand...

 
They're "icky" or "might harm the children involved"  [see my lastest post that has pictures].  So, naturally, the majority may object to them....or so the [selective] "logic" goes with the LGBT cult.


----------



## Silhouette

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
Click to expand...

 Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Silhouette said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.
Click to expand...



By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.


"logic" denied.


----------



## Seawytch

bripat9643 said:


> That would only be an issue if facilitating reproduction was the purpose of marriage.  However, homosexuals insist that reproduction has nothing to do with marraigee.   Once you admit that it does have something to do with marriage, your arguments for "gay marriage" all go out the window.



No, actually they don't since no one has ever had their license revoked for not procreating. 


The procreation "argument" has been tried and has failed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are entitled to your opinions and we are entitled to laugh at you.

Adults, heteroes and homos and pedo, hurt children, yes.

The cult of cultural McCarthyism cannot prevent the recognition of how right marriage equality is legally and morally.

You are a cultural bully and no friend to children.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.
Click to expand...

Why said gays want to be husband and wife?  Are you retarded?


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"
> 
> "gay marriage"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.
> 
> There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> 
> See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up
> 
> 
> gay marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses.  So it is contract based.
> 
> IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults.  IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should plural marraiges be illegal if all parties are consenting adults?  What's the moral prinicipal involved here?  How about incestuous marriages?  Should they be illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed on the plural issue.  What I said is they should be made legal.  They were made illegal by the majority in most if not all states.  The moral principle that was used was a moral code of particular churches that do not allow plural marriages.  Nothing more than opinion of a particular group.
> 
> Incestuous marriages lead to increased numbers of genetic defects in children, and abuse, so IMO yes said couplings should be illegal.  Thus, society has decided the harm done to these children and society on the whole should be avoided.  It's sort of like safety violations.  Even if no harm is done, the act of performing unsafe acts have been made illegal, one at a time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would only be an issue if facilitating reproduction was the purpose of marriage.  However, homosexuals insist that reproduction has nothing to do with marraigee.   Once you admit that it does have something to do with marriage, your arguments for "gay marriage" all go out the window.
Click to expand...

Where do homos insist that reproduction has nothing to do with heterosexual marriage?  Are you hearing voices?

What part of incest and abuse is confusing you?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why said gays want to be husband and wife?  Are you retarded?
Click to expand...



and more to the point, who even cares what they call each other?


----------



## Silhouette

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why said gays want to be husband and wife?  Are you retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and more to the point, *who even cares what they call each* *other*?
Click to expand...

 
Children do.  "Husband/Wife" "Father/Mother" matters to _children_...  Gays consider these American citizens at most collateral damage inferior to their "rights" to access them to take home alone via the loophole of marriage.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Silhouette said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why said gays want to be husband and wife?  Are you retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and more to the point, *who even cares what they call each* *other*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children do.  "Husband/Wife" "Father/Mother" matters to _children_...  Gays consider these American citizens at most collateral damage inferior to their "rights" to access them to take home alone via the loophole of marriage.
Click to expand...


Do you have any proof of this wild theory of yours?

No?

Come back when you do
. 


No wait, I'm going to go one further. A study posted somewhere earlier in the thread that showed that a vast majority of homosexuals seeking marriage were women not men, and since we know that MOST pedophiles are men, it pretty much stands to reason that homosexual women probably are not looking to get married to adopt and sexually abuse children.


----------



## Silhouette

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why said gays want to be husband and wife?  Are you retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and more to the point, *who even cares what they call each* *other*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children do.  "Husband/Wife" "Father/Mother" matters to _children_...  Gays consider these American citizens at most collateral damage inferior to their "rights" to access them to take home alone via the loophole of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof of this wild theory of yours?
> 
> No?
> 
> Come back when you do
> .
> 
> 
> No wait, I'm going to go one further. A study posted somewhere earlier in the thread that showed that a vast majority of homosexuals seeking marriage were women not men, and since we know that MOST pedophiles are men, it pretty much stands to reason that homosexual women probably are not looking to get married to adopt and sexually abuse children.
Click to expand...

 
As you know if any homosexual is granted the right, male homosexuals will get those rights.  Besides, the people in the second picture below carrying the perverted signs where children are lined up looking on are women....oops...

Here's your proof that gays must not be allowed the legal loophole of marriage to access orphans:


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"
> 
> "gay marriage"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.
> 
> There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> 
> See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up
> 
> 
> gay marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses.  So it is contract based.
> 
> IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults.  IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should plural marraiges be illegal if all parties are consenting adults?  What's the moral prinicipal involved here?  How about incestuous marriages?  Should they be illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed on the plural issue.  What I said is they should be made legal.  They were made illegal by the majority in most if not all states.  The moral principle that was used was a moral code of particular churches that do not allow plural marriages.  Nothing more than opinion of a particular group.
> 
> Incestuous marriages lead to increased numbers of genetic defects in children, and abuse, so IMO yes said couplings should be illegal.  Thus, society has decided the harm done to these children and society on the whole should be avoided.  It's sort of like safety violations.  Even if no harm is done, the act of performing unsafe acts have been made illegal, one at a time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would only be an issue if facilitating reproduction was the purpose of marriage.  However, homosexuals insist that reproduction has nothing to do with marraigee.   Once you admit that it does have something to do with marriage, your arguments for "gay marriage" all go out the window.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do homos insist that reproduction has nothing to do with heterosexual marriage?  Are you hearing voices?
Click to expand...


They have told me that numerous times right here in this forum when debating them on the issue of gay marriage.  Whenever you point out the fact that marriage exists to facilitate the raising of children, and therefore there is no point in giving gays the right to marry, they always come back with the claim that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction.



RKMBrown said:


> What part of incest and abuse is confusing you?



Hmmm, the part where, as gays claim,  it has nothing to do with marriage.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Silhouette said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why said gays want to be husband and wife?  Are you retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and more to the point, *who even cares what they call each* *other*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children do.  "Husband/Wife" "Father/Mother" matters to _children_...  Gays consider these American citizens at most collateral damage inferior to their "rights" to access them to take home alone via the loophole of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof of this wild theory of yours?
> 
> No?
> 
> Come back when you do
> .
> 
> 
> No wait, I'm going to go one further. A study posted somewhere earlier in the thread that showed that a vast majority of homosexuals seeking marriage were women not men, and since we know that MOST pedophiles are men, it pretty much stands to reason that homosexual women probably are not looking to get married to adopt and sexually abuse children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you know if any homosexual is granted the right, male homosexuals will get those rights.  Besides, the people in the second picture below carrying the perverted signs where children are lined up looking on are women....oops...
> 
> Here's your proof that gays must not be allowed the legal loophole of marriage to access orphans:
Click to expand...


Look , if you're suggesting prospective parents should have to prove they are capable of raising kids, I'm with you. And none of those dingbats in the pictures you posted probably even want kids. I mean kids are work, wouldn't have time to attend butt flossing contests and such....

I just don't believe "gay" should automatically mean "pedophile"


----------



## bripat9643

Seawytch said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would only be an issue if facilitating reproduction was the purpose of marriage.  However, homosexuals insist that reproduction has nothing to do with marraigee.   Once you admit that it does have something to do with marriage, your arguments for "gay marriage" all go out the window.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually they don't since no one has ever had their license revoked for not procreating.
> 
> 
> The procreation "argument" has been tried and has failed.
Click to expand...


See.  One of your defenders said gays don't claim marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

Thanks for pointing out his error.

BTW, the procreation argument has never failed.  You apparently have deluded yourself to believe that your retort is a credible counter argument.


----------



## bripat9643

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.
> 
> 
> "logic" denied.
Click to expand...



That's the logic of an imbecile.

Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation.   No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.  

They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.


----------



## jasonnfree

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why said gays want to be husband and wife?  Are you retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and more to the point, *who even cares what they call each* *other*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children do.  "Husband/Wife" "Father/Mother" matters to _children_...  Gays consider these American citizens at most collateral damage inferior to their "rights" to access them to take home alone via the loophole of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof of this wild theory of yours?
> 
> No?
> 
> Come back when you do
> .
> 
> 
> No wait, I'm going to go one further. A study posted somewhere earlier in the thread that showed that a vast majority of homosexuals seeking marriage were women not men, and since we know that MOST pedophiles are men, it pretty much stands to reason that homosexual women probably are not looking to get married to adopt and sexually abuse children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you know if any homosexual is granted the right, male homosexuals will get those rights.  Besides, the people in the second picture below carrying the perverted signs where children are lined up looking on are women....oops...
> 
> Here's your proof that gays must not be allowed the legal loophole of marriage to access orphans:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look , if you're suggesting prospective parents should have to prove they are capable of raising kids, I'm with you. And none of those dingbats in the pictures you posted probably even want kids. I mean kids are work, wouldn't have time to attend butt flossing contests and such....
> 
> I just don't believe "gay" should automatically mean "pedophile"
Click to expand...




bripat9643 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.
> 
> 
> "logic" denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's the logic of an imbecile.
> 
> Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation.   No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.
> 
> They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.
Click to expand...



If you build it, they will come.  If you have a thread about queers, especially with pictures of them in parades, the conservatives will come in droves. Works like  a charm.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

bripat9643 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.
> 
> 
> "logic" denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the logic of an imbecile.
> 
> Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation.   No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.
> 
> They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.
Click to expand...


Oh, I couldn't have gotten women pregnant before marriage? Damn and to think I wasted all that money on condoms.


----------



## Silhouette

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why said gays want to be husband and wife?  Are you retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and more to the point, *who even cares what they call each* *other*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children do.  "Husband/Wife" "Father/Mother" matters to _children_...  Gays consider these American citizens at most collateral damage inferior to their "rights" to access them to take home alone via the loophole of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof of this wild theory of yours?
> 
> No?
> 
> Come back when you do
> .
> 
> 
> No wait, I'm going to go one further. A study posted somewhere earlier in the thread that showed that a vast majority of homosexuals seeking marriage were women not men, and since we know that MOST pedophiles are men, it pretty much stands to reason that homosexual women probably are not looking to get married to adopt and sexually abuse children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you know if any homosexual is granted the right, male homosexuals will get those rights.  Besides, the people in the second picture below carrying the perverted signs where children are lined up looking on are women....oops...
> 
> Here's your proof that gays must not be allowed the legal loophole of marriage to access orphans:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look , if you're suggesting prospective parents should have to prove they are capable of raising kids, I'm with you. And none of those dingbats in the pictures you posted probably even want kids. I mean kids are work, wouldn't have time to attend butt flossing contests and such....
> 
> I just don't believe "gay" should automatically mean "pedophile"
Click to expand...

 

No, they don't have to prove it. That isn't what I'm talking about at all.

What I'm talking about are federal and state laws that mandate if a person has reason to suspect a person by the associations they keep, of posing harm to children, then that person is required to ACT to prevent said person from accessing children. If you fail to act this way in many states, you can be charged with a crime. There need not be any conviction of the suspected party or situation. It need only present a reasonable anticipation of harm. 

I'd say we have that in spades given the lewd acts of "pride" on parade where these folks know and anticipate children will be present. We are mandated to keep children away from anyone who promotes these types of acts where children are anticipated to be.


----------



## bripat9643

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.
> 
> 
> "logic" denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the logic of an imbecile.
> 
> Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation.   No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.
> 
> They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I couldn't have gotten women pregnant before marriage? Damn and to think I wasted all that money on condoms.
Click to expand...


Another liberal turd who failed to get the point.  

Yeah, you can get women pregnant without getting married, and their offspring will probably end up populating one of the state penitentiaries of the country.  That may fit with the liberal conception of "successful child rearing," but rational people have a different opinion on the subject.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

bripat9643 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.
> 
> 
> "logic" denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the logic of an imbecile.
> 
> Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation.   No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.
> 
> They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I couldn't have gotten women pregnant before marriage? Damn and to think I wasted all that money on condoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another liberal turd who failed to get the point.
> 
> Yeah, you can get women pregnant without getting married, and their offspring will probably end up populating one of the state penitentiaries of the country.  That may fit with the liberal conception of "successful child rearing," but rational people have a different opinion on the subject.
Click to expand...


 I just called a conservatard in another thread about 1 minute ago.

You stupid partisans REALLY don't like people who think for themselves do you?


----------



## bripat9643

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.
> 
> 
> "logic" denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the logic of an imbecile.
> 
> Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation.   No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.
> 
> They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I couldn't have gotten women pregnant before marriage? Damn and to think I wasted all that money on condoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another liberal turd who failed to get the point.
> 
> Yeah, you can get women pregnant without getting married, and their offspring will probably end up populating one of the state penitentiaries of the country.  That may fit with the liberal conception of "successful child rearing," but rational people have a different opinion on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just called a conservatard in another thread about 1 minute ago.
> 
> You stupid partisans REALLY don't like people who think for themselves do you?
Click to expand...


If you're thinking for yourself, why are you posting arguments I've heard 10,000 times before?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

bripat9643 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.
> 
> 
> "logic" denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the logic of an imbecile.
> 
> Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation.   No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.
> 
> They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I couldn't have gotten women pregnant before marriage? Damn and to think I wasted all that money on condoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another liberal turd who failed to get the point.
> 
> Yeah, you can get women pregnant without getting married, and their offspring will probably end up populating one of the state penitentiaries of the country.  That may fit with the liberal conception of "successful child rearing," but rational people have a different opinion on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just called a conservatard in another thread about 1 minute ago.
> 
> You stupid partisans REALLY don't like people who think for themselves do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're thinking for yourself, why are you posting arguments I've heard 10,000 times before?
Click to expand...



what arguments are those?

My argument here is basically


mind your own fucking business


----------



## bripat9643

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.
> 
> 
> "logic" denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the logic of an imbecile.
> 
> Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation.   No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.
> 
> They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I couldn't have gotten women pregnant before marriage? Damn and to think I wasted all that money on condoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another liberal turd who failed to get the point.
> 
> Yeah, you can get women pregnant without getting married, and their offspring will probably end up populating one of the state penitentiaries of the country.  That may fit with the liberal conception of "successful child rearing," but rational people have a different opinion on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just called a conservatard in another thread about 1 minute ago.
> 
> You stupid partisans REALLY don't like people who think for themselves do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're thinking for yourself, why are you posting arguments I've heard 10,000 times before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what arguments are those?
> 
> My argument here is basically
> 
> 
> mind your own fucking business
Click to expand...


Marriage is everyone's business, asshole.


----------



## elektra

Homosexual are all about force and power, tyrants. Homosexuals even force straight children to accept their behaviors.  One can even say homosexual force their way in a one way door which is the bodies exit for garbage and poop


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

bripat9643 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.
> 
> 
> "logic" denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the logic of an imbecile.
> 
> Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation.   No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.
> 
> They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I couldn't have gotten women pregnant before marriage? Damn and to think I wasted all that money on condoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another liberal turd who failed to get the point.
> 
> Yeah, you can get women pregnant without getting married, and their offspring will probably end up populating one of the state penitentiaries of the country.  That may fit with the liberal conception of "successful child rearing," but rational people have a different opinion on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just called a conservatard in another thread about 1 minute ago.
> 
> You stupid partisans REALLY don't like people who think for themselves do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're thinking for yourself, why are you posting arguments I've heard 10,000 times before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what arguments are those?
> 
> My argument here is basically
> 
> 
> mind your own fucking business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is everyone's business, asshole.
Click to expand...



Then you won't mind if I pop on over and make sure you're not having inappropriate sex with your wife eh?


----------



## bripat9643

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.
> 
> 
> "logic" denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the logic of an imbecile.
> 
> Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation.   No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.
> 
> They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I couldn't have gotten women pregnant before marriage? Damn and to think I wasted all that money on condoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another liberal turd who failed to get the point.
> 
> Yeah, you can get women pregnant without getting married, and their offspring will probably end up populating one of the state penitentiaries of the country.  That may fit with the liberal conception of "successful child rearing," but rational people have a different opinion on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just called a conservatard in another thread about 1 minute ago.
> 
> You stupid partisans REALLY don't like people who think for themselves do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're thinking for yourself, why are you posting arguments I've heard 10,000 times before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what arguments are those?
> 
> My argument here is basically
> 
> 
> mind your own fucking business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is everyone's business, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind if I pop on over and make sure you're not having inappropriate sex with your wife eh?
Click to expand...



Yeah, right.  Be my guest.  I'll enjoy watching her cut your balls off.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

bripat9643 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.
> 
> 
> "logic" denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the logic of an imbecile.
> 
> Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation.   No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.
> 
> They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I couldn't have gotten women pregnant before marriage? Damn and to think I wasted all that money on condoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another liberal turd who failed to get the point.
> 
> Yeah, you can get women pregnant without getting married, and their offspring will probably end up populating one of the state penitentiaries of the country.  That may fit with the liberal conception of "successful child rearing," but rational people have a different opinion on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just called a conservatard in another thread about 1 minute ago.
> 
> You stupid partisans REALLY don't like people who think for themselves do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're thinking for yourself, why are you posting arguments I've heard 10,000 times before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what arguments are those?
> 
> My argument here is basically
> 
> 
> mind your own fucking business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is everyone's business, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind if I pop on over and make sure you're not having inappropriate sex with your wife eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right.  Be my guest.  I'll enjoy watching her cut your balls off.
Click to expand...



why would she cut my balls off when marriage is EVERYONE'S business? Those are YOUR words


----------



## elektra

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.
> 
> 
> "logic" denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the logic of an imbecile.
> 
> Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation.   No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.
> 
> They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I couldn't have gotten women pregnant before marriage? Damn and to think I wasted all that money on condoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another liberal turd who failed to get the point.
> 
> Yeah, you can get women pregnant without getting married, and their offspring will probably end up populating one of the state penitentiaries of the country.  That may fit with the liberal conception of "successful child rearing," but rational people have a different opinion on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just called a conservatard in another thread about 1 minute ago.
> 
> You stupid partisans REALLY don't like people who think for themselves do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're thinking for yourself, why are you posting arguments I've heard 10,000 times before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what arguments are those?
> 
> My argument here is basically
> 
> 
> mind your own fucking business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is everyone's business, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind if I pop on over and make sure you're not having inappropriate sex with your wife eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right.  Be my guest.  I'll enjoy watching her cut your balls off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would she cut my balls off when marriage is EVERYONE'S business? Those are YOUR words
Click to expand...

Marriage and sex are two different things. That you confuse the two 
, shows you are under-educated


----------



## bripat9643

elektra said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.
> 
> 
> "logic" denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the logic of an imbecile.
> 
> Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation.   No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.
> 
> They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I couldn't have gotten women pregnant before marriage? Damn and to think I wasted all that money on condoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another liberal turd who failed to get the point.
> 
> Yeah, you can get women pregnant without getting married, and their offspring will probably end up populating one of the state penitentiaries of the country.  That may fit with the liberal conception of "successful child rearing," but rational people have a different opinion on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just called a conservatard in another thread about 1 minute ago.
> 
> You stupid partisans REALLY don't like people who think for themselves do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're thinking for yourself, why are you posting arguments I've heard 10,000 times before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what arguments are those?
> 
> My argument here is basically
> 
> 
> mind your own fucking business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is everyone's business, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind if I pop on over and make sure you're not having inappropriate sex with your wife eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right.  Be my guest.  I'll enjoy watching her cut your balls off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would she cut my balls off when marriage is EVERYONE'S business? Those are YOUR words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage and sex are two different things. That you confuse the two
> , shows you are under-educated
Click to expand...


Why are all these homo apologists such flaming morons?


----------



## bripat9643

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.
> 
> 
> "logic" denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the logic of an imbecile.
> 
> Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation.   No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.
> 
> They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I couldn't have gotten women pregnant before marriage? Damn and to think I wasted all that money on condoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another liberal turd who failed to get the point.
> 
> Yeah, you can get women pregnant without getting married, and their offspring will probably end up populating one of the state penitentiaries of the country.  That may fit with the liberal conception of "successful child rearing," but rational people have a different opinion on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just called a conservatard in another thread about 1 minute ago.
> 
> You stupid partisans REALLY don't like people who think for themselves do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're thinking for yourself, why are you posting arguments I've heard 10,000 times before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what arguments are those?
> 
> My argument here is basically
> 
> 
> mind your own fucking business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is everyone's business, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind if I pop on over and make sure you're not having inappropriate sex with your wife eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right.  Be my guest.  I'll enjoy watching her cut your balls off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would she cut my balls off when marriage is EVERYONE'S business? Those are YOUR words
Click to expand...


Marriage is everyone's business.  My marriage is none of your fucking business.

Got it, asshole?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

elektra said:


> Marriage and sex are two different things. That you confuse the two
> , shows you are under-educated



I didn't confuse anything dear, HE wrote that sex was part of marriage, not me.


----------



## Silhouette

jasonnfree said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why said gays want to be husband and wife?  Are you retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and more to the point, *who even cares what they call each* *other*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children do.  "Husband/Wife" "Father/Mother" matters to _children_...  Gays consider these American citizens at most collateral damage inferior to their "rights" to access them to take home alone via the loophole of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof of this wild theory of yours?
> 
> No?
> 
> Come back when you do
> .
> 
> 
> No wait, I'm going to go one further. A study posted somewhere earlier in the thread that showed that a vast majority of homosexuals seeking marriage were women not men, and since we know that MOST pedophiles are men, it pretty much stands to reason that homosexual women probably are not looking to get married to adopt and sexually abuse children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you know if any homosexual is granted the right, male homosexuals will get those rights.  Besides, the people in the second picture below carrying the perverted signs where children are lined up looking on are women....oops...
> 
> Here's your proof that gays must not be allowed the legal loophole of marriage to access orphans:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look , if you're suggesting prospective parents should have to prove they are capable of raising kids, I'm with you. And none of those dingbats in the pictures you posted probably even want kids. I mean kids are work, wouldn't have time to attend butt flossing contests and such....
> 
> I just don't believe "gay" should automatically mean "pedophile"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.
> 
> 
> "logic" denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's the logic of an imbecile.
> 
> Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation.   No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.
> 
> They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you build it, they will come.  If you have a thread about queers, especially with pictures of them in parades, the conservatives will come in droves. Works like  a charm.
Click to expand...

 Either that or people are legitmately conscerned about the new legal loophole these people may get as a federal mandate to adopt each state's most vulnerable citizens [orphans].  The pictures and raising children don't mix.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why said gays want to be husband and wife?  Are you retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and more to the point, *who even cares what they call each* *other*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children do.  "Husband/Wife" "Father/Mother" matters to _children_...  Gays consider these American citizens at most collateral damage inferior to their "rights" to access them to take home alone via the loophole of marriage.
Click to expand...

So children with two mothers, one natural and the other adopted you want to spit on them because neither is the father?  WOW


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"
> 
> "gay marriage"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.
> 
> There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> 
> See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up
> 
> 
> gay marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses.  So it is contract based.
> 
> IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults.  IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should plural marraiges be illegal if all parties are consenting adults?  What's the moral prinicipal involved here?  How about incestuous marriages?  Should they be illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed on the plural issue.  What I said is they should be made legal.  They were made illegal by the majority in most if not all states.  The moral principle that was used was a moral code of particular churches that do not allow plural marriages.  Nothing more than opinion of a particular group.
> 
> Incestuous marriages lead to increased numbers of genetic defects in children, and abuse, so IMO yes said couplings should be illegal.  Thus, society has decided the harm done to these children and society on the whole should be avoided.  It's sort of like safety violations.  Even if no harm is done, the act of performing unsafe acts have been made illegal, one at a time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would only be an issue if facilitating reproduction was the purpose of marriage.  However, homosexuals insist that reproduction has nothing to do with marraigee.   Once you admit that it does have something to do with marriage, your arguments for "gay marriage" all go out the window.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do homos insist that reproduction has nothing to do with heterosexual marriage?  Are you hearing voices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have told me that numerous times right here in this forum when debating them on the issue of gay marriage.  Whenever you point out the fact that marriage exists to facilitate the raising of children, and therefore there is no point in giving gays the right to marry, they always come back with the claim that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of incest and abuse is confusing you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm, the part where, as gays claim,  it has nothing to do with marriage.
Click to expand...

Birds bees... it happens.  Either way incest and abuse is not the same as... gay marriage.  Perhaps you are confused by statements such as lesbian and single woman have children with or without being in a heterosexual marriage?


----------



## elektra

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage and sex are two different things. That you confuse the two
> , shows you are under-educated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't confuse anything dear, HE wrote that sex was part of marriage, not me.
Click to expand...

nor did I confuse a thing, that this post leaves out what I responded to seems to me shows you wish to confuse things.



> Then you won't mind if I pop on over and make sure you're not having inappropriate sex with your wife eh?



You stated this making a response to this:



> Marriage is everyone's business, asshole



If marriage is everyone's business how do you automatically state you are going to make sure that the "sex" is appropriate?

Someone said Marriage, SmarterThanTheAverageBear jumps to sex, 

Marriage and Sex are two different things.


----------



## elektra

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why said gays want to be husband and wife?  Are you retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and more to the point, *who even cares what they call each* *other*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children do.  "Husband/Wife" "Father/Mother" matters to _children_...  Gays consider these American citizens at most collateral damage inferior to their "rights" to access them to take home alone via the loophole of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So children with two mothers, one natural and the other adopted you want to spit on them because neither is the father?  WOW
Click to expand...

Nobody is spitting on anybody, can you not make a legit point with logic?

Actually someone is getting spit on, the child. All Children need a father and mother.

There can be only one Mother, that you wish to force your broken-thinking on children is what children need to be protected from.


----------



## Seawytch

elektra said:


> Nobody is spitting on anybody, can you not make a legit point with logic?
> 
> Actually someone is getting spit on, the child. All Children need a father and mother.
> 
> There can be only one Mother, that you wish to force your broken-thinking on children is what children need to be protected from.




No children don't need a mother and a father. Children do best in two parent households, the gender of the parent is immaterial.


----------



## RKMBrown

elektra said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why said gays want to be husband and wife?  Are you retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and more to the point, *who even cares what they call each* *other*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children do.  "Husband/Wife" "Father/Mother" matters to _children_...  Gays consider these American citizens at most collateral damage inferior to their "rights" to access them to take home alone via the loophole of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So children with two mothers, one natural and the other adopted you want to spit on them because neither is the father?  WOW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is spitting on anybody, can you not make a legit point with logic?
> 
> Actually someone is getting spit on, the child. All Children need a father and mother.
> 
> There can be only one Mother, that you wish to force your broken-thinking on children is what children need to be protected from.
Click to expand...


So if the child's father or mother is absent the child should be what?  adopted to a better family?

Children with an adopted mother are living a false life? WTH are you talking about?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is spitting on anybody, can you not make a legit point with logic?
> 
> Actually someone is getting spit on, the child. All Children need a father and mother.
> 
> There can be only one Mother, that you wish to force your broken-thinking on children is what children need to be protected from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No children don't need a mother and a father. Children do best in two parent households, *the gender of the parent is immaterial.*
Click to expand...


That isn't quite true

male + female = better for children than male + male or female + female but same sex +same sex doen't = abuse or neglect either


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> That isn't quite true
> 
> male + female = better for children than male + male or female + female but same sex +same sex doen't = abuse or neglect either



Studies of the subject show you to be wrong. 

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.
​Do Children Need Both a Mother and a Father?


----------



## RKMBrown

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't quite true
> 
> male + female = better for children than male + male or female + female but same sex +same sex doen't = abuse or neglect either
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Studies of the subject show you to be wrong.
> 
> In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.
> ​Do Children Need Both a Mother and a Father?
Click to expand...

I think we would all agree that balance is not a bad thing.  For example, having male and female role models is not a bad thing for boys or girls.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't quite true
> 
> male + female = better for children than male + male or female + female but same sex +same sex doen't = abuse or neglect either
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Studies of the subject show you to be wrong.
> 
> In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.
> ​Do Children Need Both a Mother and a Father?
Click to expand...



you realize , I assume , that that article did not describe the methodology used to come to those conclusions at all don't you?

You further realize, again I hope, that the article made NO mention of gay males parenting together... Just an oversight I imagine.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> you realize , I assume , that that article did not describe the methodology used to come to those conclusions at all don't you?
> 
> You further realize, again I hope, that the article made NO mention of gay males parenting together... Just an oversight I imagine.



You can go find the study and look at it yourself.

Let's see...there have been dozens of studies on gay parents and they all show the same thing, our children are at no disadvantage to the children of heterosexual parents so you conclude that children do better with a mother and a father...and yet no study shows that. What studies do show is that children do best in _*two parent *_households where the parents are committed to the health and well being of the children, period.

Children don't need a mother and a father, they need parents who love and cherish them.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> you realize , I assume , that that article did not describe the methodology used to come to those conclusions at all don't you?
> 
> You further realize, again I hope, that the article made NO mention of gay males parenting together... Just an oversight I imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can go find the study and look at it yourself.
> 
> Let's see...there have been dozens of studies on gay parents and they all show the same thing, our children are at no disadvantage to the children of heterosexual parents so you conclude that children do better with a mother and a father...and yet no study shows that. What studies do show is that children do best in _*two parent *_households where the parents are committed to the health and well being of the children, period.
> 
> Children don't need a mother and a father, they need parents who love and cherish them.
Click to expand...



Odd that NEITHER link you provided actually included the study. What is it with you and posting fiction as proof of facts?

I"m not buying a book to confirm some person's OPINION of what the study says. Find the ACTUAL study , then we'll talk.


----------



## bripat9643

Seawytch said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is spitting on anybody, can you not make a legit point with logic?
> 
> Actually someone is getting spit on, the child. All Children need a father and mother.
> 
> There can be only one Mother, that you wish to force your broken-thinking on children is what children need to be protected from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No children don't need a mother and a father. Children do best in two parent households, the gender of the parent is immaterial.
Click to expand...



That's a claim lacking any visible means of support.


----------



## bripat9643

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't quite true
> 
> male + female = better for children than male + male or female + female but same sex +same sex doen't = abuse or neglect either
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Studies of the subject show you to be wrong.
> 
> In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.
> ​Do Children Need Both a Mother and a Father?
Click to expand...

These studies have all been shown to be fatally flawed.  For one thing, the participants are self-selected.  So right form the get-go, the children of dysfunctional same-sex households aren't included in the study.  That's only one of the problems found with these "studies."


----------



## elektra

Seawytch said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is spitting on anybody, can you not make a legit point with logic?
> 
> Actually someone is getting spit on, the child. All Children need a father and mother.
> 
> There can be only one Mother, that you wish to force your broken-thinking on children is what children need to be protected from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No children don't need a mother and a father. Children do best in two parent households, the gender of the parent is immaterial.
Click to expand...


First and foremost, Children need a Mother and a Father, its called the Bird and the Bees or the Sperm and the Egg.

Second, one egg for one child is one mother.

No matter how convoluted your thinking gets, no matter what you blind your eyes to, this is the truth.

I find it sick that you have such bizarre thoughts, I find it sick because the children are the victim of your broken-thinking.


----------



## elektra

RKMBrown said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why said gays want to be husband and wife?  Are you retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and more to the point, *who even cares what they call each* *other*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children do.  "Husband/Wife" "Father/Mother" matters to _children_...  Gays consider these American citizens at most collateral damage inferior to their "rights" to access them to take home alone via the loophole of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So children with two mothers, one natural and the other adopted you want to spit on them because neither is the father?  WOW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is spitting on anybody, can you not make a legit point with logic?
> 
> Actually someone is getting spit on, the child. All Children need a father and mother.
> 
> There can be only one Mother, that you wish to force your broken-thinking on children is what children need to be protected from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the child's father or mother is absent the child should be what?  adopted to a better family?
> 
> Children with an adopted mother are living a false life? WTH are you talking about?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

Your statement is irrelevant to the post I responded to, which spoke of two homosexual's acting as mothers. I get you need to attack anything that challenges the Homosexual's desires to be everything they are not naturally, its the new Civil Rights Movement, pure Political Propaganda.

High and Mighty are the Dictators, Where do I state that, "children with an adopted mother" are living a false life?

Hell, I never heard of an, "adopted mother", how does a baby, "adopt a mother"?

Children are adopted, not mothers.

So, What are you talking about?


----------



## RKMBrown

elektra said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays have no right to marry.  Blind people have no right to drive.  You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking.  Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother".  And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why said gays want to be husband and wife?  Are you retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and more to the point, *who even cares what they call each* *other*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children do.  "Husband/Wife" "Father/Mother" matters to _children_...  Gays consider these American citizens at most collateral damage inferior to their "rights" to access them to take home alone via the loophole of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So children with two mothers, one natural and the other adopted you want to spit on them because neither is the father?  WOW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is spitting on anybody, can you not make a legit point with logic?
> 
> Actually someone is getting spit on, the child. All Children need a father and mother.
> 
> There can be only one Mother, that you wish to force your broken-thinking on children is what children need to be protected from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the child's father or mother is absent the child should be what?  adopted to a better family?
> 
> Children with an adopted mother are living a false life? WTH are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> Your statement is irrelevant to the post I responded to, which spoke of two homosexual's acting as mothers. I get you need to attack anything that challenges the Homosexual's desires to be everything they are not naturally, its the new Civil Rights Movement, pure Political Propaganda.
> 
> High and Mighty are the Dictators, Where do I state that, "children with an adopted mother" are living a false life?
> 
> Hell, I never heard of an, "adopted mother", how does a baby, "adopt a mother"?
> 
> Children are adopted, not mothers.
> 
> So, What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Semantics, I was talking about the adoptive mothers.

You stated clearly and I'll quote again to remind you


elektra said:


> Nobody is spitting on anybody, can you not make a legit point with logic?


Then in the next sentence you recanted apparently in a moment of rage stating:


elektra said:


> Actually someone is getting spit on, the child. All Children need a father and mother.  There can be only one Mother, that you wish to force your broken-thinking on children is what children need to be protected from.



Thus my question, which I will repeat:

If adoptive parents is "broken-thinking" as you say.  Then if the child's father or mother is absent, such as by being dead or ran off, the child should do what?  Since you have declared adoption as "broken-thinking" what do you propose for these children?  You appear to be stating that the adoption process is and I quote "spitting on, the child."

Children with an adopted mother are living a false life because adoptive parents are not real parents? If that's not what you mean, what do you mean? WTH are you talking about when you say and I quote, "there can be only one Mother."


----------



## Seawytch

bripat9643 said:


> These studies have all been shown to be fatally flawed.  For one thing, the participants are self-selected.  So right form the get-go, the children of dysfunctional same-sex households aren't included in the study.  That's only one of the problems found with these "studies."



Actually it's studies that anti gay folks put out that turn out to be seriously flawed...to the point of being laughed out of court. 

Michigan same-sex marriage ban struck down along with fake Regnerus research strategy.


----------



## Seawytch

elektra said:


> First and foremost, Children need a Mother and a Father, its called the Bird and the Bees or the Sperm and the Egg.
> 
> Second, one egg for one child is one mother.
> 
> No matter how convoluted your thinking gets, no matter what you blind your eyes to, this is the truth.
> 
> I find it sick that you have such bizarre thoughts, I find it sick because the children are the victim of your broken-thinking.



Procreation requires a sperm and egg, PARENTING does not require either. 

Our children are fine, worry about the kids of divorce.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yo, the deal is done and the OP is generally agreed to that churches should not host gay marriages that don't want to.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Odd that NEITHER link you provided actually included the study. What is it with you and posting fiction as proof of facts?
> 
> I"m not buying a book to confirm some person's OPINION of what the study says. Find the ACTUAL study , then we'll talk.



So you can't counter the studies...imagine that. I'm so shocked. You can't because kids don't "need" a mother and father, they need parents...and the children of gays are evidence of that fact. They're doing fine. 

Now kids of divorce? They're fucked up.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd that NEITHER link you provided actually included the study. What is it with you and posting fiction as proof of facts?
> 
> I"m not buying a book to confirm some person's OPINION of what the study says. Find the ACTUAL study , then we'll talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't counter the studies...imagine that. I'm so shocked. You can't because kids don't "need" a mother and father, they need parents...and the children of gays are evidence of that fact. They're doing fine.
> 
> Now kids of divorce? They're fucked up.
Click to expand...



How can I counter a study that I haven't even seen you dope.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Yo, the deal is done and the OP is generally agreed to that churches should not host gay marriages that don't want to.


Yes, 82% of the respondants agree.

Kind of washes out the "Most Americans support gay marriage" thing though doesn't it?  I mean the equivalent would be "Most Americans support equal rights for blacks" in the 1960s and then having a poll that shows 82% of Americans saying "but they just can't use the same water fountains as whites".

Only...resist the insulting and erroneous urge to compare the struggles of blacks to butt sex....  The example was to illustrate a serious flaw in the "polling data" the LGBT media keeps releasing that doesn't quite line up with other non-LGBT controlled or influenced outlets..


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> How can I counter a study that I haven't even seen you dope.



You've seen the results, published in a reputable journal. Where's your study that shows heterosexual parents "do it better"?


----------



## bendog

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, the deal is done and the OP is generally agreed to that churches should not host gay marriages that don't want to.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 82% of the respondants agree.
> 
> Kind of washes out the "Most Americans support gay marriage" thing though doesn't it?  I mean the equivalent would be "Most Americans support equal rights for blacks" in the 1960s and then having a poll that shows 82% of Americans saying "but they just can't use the same water fountains as whites".
> 
> Only...resist the insulting and erroneous urge to compare the struggles of blacks to butt sex....  The example was to illustrate a serious flaw in the "polling data" the LGBT media keeps releasing that doesn't quite line up with other non-LGBT controlled or influenced outlets..
Click to expand...


I don't see that.  First of all, there was never serious contention that the state had the power to go into individual churches, or denominations, and enforce some govt set liturgy.  Second, the GLBT folks weren't demanding that the Baptists and Catholics marry them.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I counter a study that I haven't even seen you dope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've seen the results, published in a reputable journal. Where's your study that shows heterosexual parents "do it better"?
Click to expand...

 It's called biology.  The simple presence of male/female father/mother are the constructs of nature a child will learn "are natural parents of a child".  Each state has a right to encourage that arrangement with incentives and discourage other arrangements.  In the end this debate will be all about what's best for child-welfare.

Just bear in mind the gay pride parades you've seen on TV or in person and plug it in.  That's how the Court will decide ultimately.  They cannot via convenience, ignore the one demographic most affected by the institution of marriage.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

bendog said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, the deal is done and the OP is generally agreed to that churches should not host gay marriages that don't want to.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 82% of the respondants agree.
> 
> Kind of washes out the "Most Americans support gay marriage" thing though doesn't it?  I mean the equivalent would be "Most Americans support equal rights for blacks" in the 1960s and then having a poll that shows 82% of Americans saying "but they just can't use the same water fountains as whites".
> 
> Only...resist the insulting and erroneous urge to compare the struggles of blacks to butt sex....  The example was to illustrate a serious flaw in the "polling data" the LGBT media keeps releasing that doesn't quite line up with other non-LGBT controlled or influenced outlets..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see that.  First of all, there was never serious contention that the state had the power to go into individual churches, or denominations, and enforce some govt set liturgy.  *Second, the GLBT folks weren't demanding that the Baptists and Catholics marry them*.
Click to expand...


They will though. Not all of them obviously, but its inevitable, some will insist that they have a right to be married in a Baptists church and that any church that disagrees is violating their rights. Never mind the fact that the COTUS doesn't prevent ME from violating your rights.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil falsely and knowingly and deceptively equates that most of us agree that churches should retain the right to deny marriage somehow means that all are opposed to gay marriage.  The majority support marriage equality.

Your type of integrity failure is one of the factors driving marriage equality to victory.


----------



## JakeStarkey

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, the deal is done and the OP is generally agreed to that churches should not host gay marriages that don't want to.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 82% of the respondants agree.
> 
> Kind of washes out the "Most Americans support gay marriage" thing though doesn't it?  I mean the equivalent would be "Most Americans support equal rights for blacks" in the 1960s and then having a poll that shows 82% of Americans saying "but they just can't use the same water fountains as whites".
> 
> Only...resist the insulting and erroneous urge to compare the struggles of blacks to butt sex....  The example was to illustrate a serious flaw in the "polling data" the LGBT media keeps releasing that doesn't quite line up with other non-LGBT controlled or influenced outlets..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see that.  First of all, there was never serious contention that the state had the power to go into individual churches, or denominations, and enforce some govt set liturgy.  *Second, the GLBT folks weren't demanding that the Baptists and Catholics marry them*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will though. Not all of them obviously, but its inevitable, some will insist that they have a right to be married in a Baptists church and that any church that disagrees is violating their rights. Never mind the fact that the COTUS doesn't prevent ME from violating your rights.
Click to expand...


Of course some will insist, and they, like you, will fail in violating others rights.


----------



## bripat9643

Seawytch said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These studies have all been shown to be fatally flawed.  For one thing, the participants are self-selected.  So right form the get-go, the children of dysfunctional same-sex households aren't included in the study.  That's only one of the problems found with these "studies."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's studies that anti gay folks put out that turn out to be seriously flawed...to the point of being laughed out of court.
> 
> Michigan same-sex marriage ban struck down along with fake Regnerus research strategy.
Click to expand...



Your gay marriage research is also bogus.  It's mostly pure propaganda concocted by gay activists.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

JakeStarkey said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will though. Not all of them obviously, but its inevitable, some will insist that they have a right to be married in a Baptists church and that any church that disagrees is violating their rights. Never mind the fact that the COTUS doesn't prevent ME from violating your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course some will insist, and they, like you, will fail in violating others rights.
Click to expand...


Who's rights am I trying to violate?


----------



## bendog

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, the deal is done and the OP is generally agreed to that churches should not host gay marriages that don't want to.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 82% of the respondants agree.
> 
> Kind of washes out the "Most Americans support gay marriage" thing though doesn't it?  I mean the equivalent would be "Most Americans support equal rights for blacks" in the 1960s and then having a poll that shows 82% of Americans saying "but they just can't use the same water fountains as whites".
> 
> Only...resist the insulting and erroneous urge to compare the struggles of blacks to butt sex....  The example was to illustrate a serious flaw in the "polling data" the LGBT media keeps releasing that doesn't quite line up with other non-LGBT controlled or influenced outlets..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see that.  First of all, there was never serious contention that the state had the power to go into individual churches, or denominations, and enforce some govt set liturgy.  *Second, the GLBT folks weren't demanding that the Baptists and Catholics marry them*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will though. Not all of them obviously, but its inevitable, some will insist that they have a right to be married in a Baptists church and that any church that disagrees is violating their rights. Never mind the fact that the COTUS doesn't prevent ME from violating your rights.
Click to expand...


well, a majority has no interest in doing so, and frankly why would they want to belong to a church that wants to discriminate against them.  But, regardless, const law is very settled that courts will not interfere with liturgy or theology of any Christian sect.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And that is why the OP is a false link to somehow marriage equality is going to make churches perform marriages they wish not to perform.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but they didn't get that idea from Christianity.  That's a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They used Christianity to justify it. That is the truth.
Click to expand...


What you try to use Christianity to justify and what it actually supports are not necessarily the same thing.  The Bible warns about this very thing several times, which you would know if you bothered to know something about Christianity other than how much you hate it and its adherents.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Real Christians do not pay attention to the far right social cons trapped in the heresy of evangelicalism or fundamentalism for solid interpretation of Christian doctrine.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will though. Not all of them obviously, but its inevitable, some will insist that they have a right to be married in a Baptists church and that any church that disagrees is violating their rights. Never mind the fact that the COTUS doesn't prevent ME from violating your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course some will insist, and they, like you, will fail in violating others rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's rights am I trying to violate?
Click to expand...


@JakeStarkey  I ask again, who's rights do you imagine I am trying to infringe here sir?


----------



## JakeStarkey

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will though. Not all of them obviously, but its inevitable, some will insist that they have a right to be married in a Baptists church and that any church that disagrees is violating their rights. *Never mind the fact that the COTUS doesn't prevent ME from violating your rights.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course some will insist, and they, like you, will fail in violating others rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's rights am I trying to violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> @JakeStarkey  I ask again, who's rights do you imagine I am trying to infringe here sir?
Click to expand...


Your own words, trainee.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

JakeStarkey said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will though. Not all of them obviously, but its inevitable, some will insist that they have a right to be married in a Baptists church and that any church that disagrees is violating their rights. *Never mind the fact that the COTUS doesn't prevent ME from violating your rights.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course some will insist, and they, like you, will fail in violating others rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's rights am I trying to violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> @JakeStarkey  I ask again, who's rights do you imagine I am trying to infringe here sir?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own words, trainee.
Click to expand...



in other words, you have nothing you floundering buffoon because I have CLEARLY stated my support of allowing gays to "marry"


----------



## Ropey

> Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?



I thought that was why Jefferson called for a separation between Church and State?



> *Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists*
> *The Final Letter, as Sent*
> 
> To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
> 
> Gentlemen
> 
> The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
> 
> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
> 
> I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
> 
> Th Jefferson



Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (Jan. 1. 1802) - Library of Congress - Separation of Church & State


----------



## elektra

Homosexual advocates dictating what a family is, against what occurs in nature.

The homosexual dictators will not stop, they must destroy the churches teachings.

If homosexuality is so natural, why all the force?


----------



## Silhouette

elektra said:


> Homosexual advocates dictating what a family is, against what occurs in nature.
> 
> The homosexual dictators will not stop, they must destroy the churches teachings.
> 
> If homosexuality is so natural, why all the force?


 
Well, to be fair, in order to access the kids they want to get at, you know, "to adopt as a normal family", they have to eradicate christianity because it has some very strict rules about promoting homosexual cultures.  Ist Verboten and there is no compromise on that.

So, naturally, most organized religions have to go.  It's why they pulled the coup on the Vatican last year.  Because it is the most unwavering entity with the christian label we have.  They were trying to get at the "weed" by the root.

I wonder if they were "sending a message" to the next Pope or if they actually thought thousands of years of stalwart catholicism with billions of practitioners would suddenly lay down and give up their mores for a johnny-come-lately gay fascism?  All they did was replace Pope Benedict with Pope Francais.  Neither one is going to give the stamp of legitimacy to homosexuality as a cultural "OK".

The Bible is very clear and specific:  NO.


----------



## JakeStarkey

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will though. Not all of them obviously, but its inevitable, some will insist that they have a right to be married in a Baptists church and that any church that disagrees is violating their rights. *Never mind the fact that the COTUS doesn't prevent ME from violating your rights.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course some will insist, and they, like you, will fail in violating others rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's rights am I trying to violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> @JakeStarkey  I ask again, who's rights do you imagine I am trying to infringe here sir?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own words, trainee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> in other words, you have nothing you floundering buffoon because I have CLEARLY stated my support of allowing gays to "marry"
Click to expand...


When your own words, rookie, rebut you, I only have to point them out.

I am glad you support marriage equality.

Check what you write before you post.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

JakeStarkey said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will though. Not all of them obviously, but its inevitable, some will insist that they have a right to be married in a Baptists church and that any church that disagrees is violating their rights. *Never mind the fact that the COTUS doesn't prevent ME from violating your rights.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course some will insist, and they, like you, will fail in violating others rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's rights am I trying to violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> @JakeStarkey  I ask again, who's rights do you imagine I am trying to infringe here sir?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own words, trainee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> in other words, you have nothing you floundering buffoon because I have CLEARLY stated my support of allowing gays to "marry"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When your own words, rookie, rebut you, I only have to point them out.
> 
> I am glad you support marriage equality.
> 
> Check what you write before you post.
Click to expand...


If you read ANYTHING in this thread that you thought meant I don't support "gay marriage" that is your problem not mine.

I say let em "marry" and I'll make fun of their sham.

It's a win win.


----------



## JakeStarkey

If heterosexuality is normal, in "order to access the kids they want to get at, you know, 'to adopt as a normal family,' they have to" eradicate competition.

Your argument is a transparent failure, Sil, from the get go.


----------



## Seawytch

bripat9643 said:


> Your gay marriage research is also bogus.  It's mostly pure propaganda concocted by gay activists.



Which is why you've posted so many articles debunking them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will though. Not all of them obviously, but its inevitable, some will insist that they have a right to be married in a Baptists church and that any church that disagrees is violating their rights. *Never mind the fact that the COTUS doesn't prevent ME from violating your rights.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course some will insist, and they, like you, will fail in violating others rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's rights am I trying to violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> @JakeStarkey  I ask again, who's rights do you imagine I am trying to infringe here sir?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own words, trainee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> in other words, you have nothing you floundering buffoon because I have CLEARLY stated my support of allowing gays to "marry"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When your own words, rookie, rebut you, I only have to point them out.
> 
> I am glad you support marriage equality.
> 
> Check what you write before you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read ANYTHING in this thread that you thought meant I don't support "gay marriage" that is your problem not mine.
> 
> I say let em "marry" and I'll make fun of their sham.
> 
> It's a win win.
Click to expand...


I never said a word about what you though about gay marriage, troop, only about what you were saying about rights.  Read what you post, yo.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> If heterosexuality is normal, in "order to access the kids they want to get at, you know, 'to adopt as a normal family,' they have to" eradicate competition.
> 
> Your argument is a transparent failure, Sil, from the get go.


 Yet as usual you fail to define why you've come to that conclusion.  I'll take that as the surrender it is.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?


Violation of the first amendment


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> What you try to use Christianity to justify and what it actually supports are not necessarily the same thing.  The Bible warns about this very thing several times, which you would know if you bothered to know something about Christianity other than how much you hate it and its adherents.



That doesn't stop the bigots from using it to justify their racist or anti gay bigotry. You don't think the passages justified bigotry...they were certain it did. How come their "deeply held" religious beliefs don't matter?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bendog said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, the deal is done and the OP is generally agreed to that churches should not host gay marriages that don't want to.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 82% of the respondants agree.
> 
> Kind of washes out the "Most Americans support gay marriage" thing though doesn't it?  I mean the equivalent would be "Most Americans support equal rights for blacks" in the 1960s and then having a poll that shows 82% of Americans saying "but they just can't use the same water fountains as whites".
> 
> Only...resist the insulting and erroneous urge to compare the struggles of blacks to butt sex....  The example was to illustrate a serious flaw in the "polling data" the LGBT media keeps releasing that doesn't quite line up with other non-LGBT controlled or influenced outlets..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see that.  First of all, there was never serious contention that the state had the power to go into individual churches, or denominations, and enforce some govt set liturgy.  *Second, the GLBT folks weren't demanding that the Baptists and Catholics marry them*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will though. Not all of them obviously, but its inevitable, some will insist that they have a right to be married in a Baptists church and that any church that disagrees is violating their rights. Never mind the fact that the COTUS doesn't prevent ME from violating your rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, a majority has no interest in doing so, and frankly why would they want to belong to a church that wants to discriminate against them.  But, regardless, const law is very settled that courts will not interfere with liturgy or theology of any Christian sect.
Click to expand...

Churches have their guidelines that God has specified was a sin it has nothing to do with decriminalization. Don';t be gay if you want to get to heaven. After all isn't that what going to church is all about being with like minded poeople?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, the deal is done and the OP is generally agreed to that churches should not host gay marriages that don't want to.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 82% of the respondants agree.
> 
> Kind of washes out the "Most Americans support gay marriage" thing though doesn't it?  I mean the equivalent would be "Most Americans support equal rights for blacks" in the 1960s and then having a poll that shows 82% of Americans saying "but they just can't use the same water fountains as whites".
> 
> Only...resist the insulting and erroneous urge to compare the struggles of blacks to butt sex....  The example was to illustrate a serious flaw in the "polling data" the LGBT media keeps releasing that doesn't quite line up with other non-LGBT controlled or influenced outlets..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see that.  First of all, there was never serious contention that the state had the power to go into individual churches, or denominations, and enforce some govt set liturgy.  *Second, the GLBT folks weren't demanding that the Baptists and Catholics marry them*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will though. Not all of them obviously, but its inevitable, some will insist that they have a right to be married in a Baptists church and that any church that disagrees is violating their rights. Never mind the fact that the COTUS doesn't prevent ME from violating your rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, a majority has no interest in doing so, and frankly why would they want to belong to a church that wants to discriminate against them.  But, regardless, const law is very settled that courts will not interfere with liturgy or theology of any Christian sect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches have their guidelines that God has specified was a sin it has nothing to do with decriminalization. Don';t be gay if you want to get to heaven. After all isn't that what going to church is all about being with like minded poeople?
Click to expand...



You can't tell them they aren't going to heaven you racist!!


----------



## Silhouette

You'll have to use another ad hominem.  Race has nothing to do with butt sex.





bigrebnc1775 said:


> Churches have their guidelines that God has specified was a sin it has nothing to do with decriminalization. Don';t be gay if you want to get to heaven. After all isn't that what going to church is all about being with like minded poeople?


 
Actually the way Jude 1 is written, homosexuals [who know not what they do from mental illness] have more of a chance of getting into heaven than sane christians who bow to PC pressure and help promote a homosexual culture "because its what is all the rage".  Cowardice will get you eternity in the Big Pit.


----------



## elektra

Silhouette said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexual advocates dictating what a family is, against what occurs in nature.
> 
> The homosexual dictators will not stop, they must destroy the churches teachings.
> 
> If homosexuality is so natural, why all the force?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, to be fair, in order to access the kids they want to get at, you know, "to adopt as a normal family", they have to eradicate christianity because it has some very strict rules about promoting homosexual cultures.  Ist Verboten and there is no compromise on that.
> 
> So, naturally, most organized religions have to go.  It's why they pulled the coup on the Vatican last year.  Because it is the most unwavering entity with the christian label we have.  They were trying to get at the "weed" by the root.
> 
> I wonder if they were "sending a message" to the next Pope or if they actually thought thousands of years of stalwart catholicism with billions of practitioners would suddenly lay down and give up their mores for a johnny-come-lately gay fascism?  All they did was replace Pope Benedict with Pope Francais.  Neither one is going to give the stamp of legitimacy to homosexuality as a cultural "OK".
> 
> The Bible is very clear and specific:  NO.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If heterosexuality is normal, in "order to access the kids they want to get at, you know, 'to adopt as a normal family,' they have to" eradicate competition.
> 
> Your argument is a transparent failure, Sil, from the get go.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet as usual you fail to define why you've come to that conclusion.  I'll take that as the surrender it is.
Click to expand...


It's a parody of your yammering, which has no connection to reality.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> You'll have to use another ad hominem.  Race has nothing to do with butt sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches have their guidelines that God has specified was a sin it has nothing to do with decriminalization. Don';t be gay if you want to get to heaven. After all isn't that what going to church is all about being with like minded poeople?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the way Jude 1 is written, homosexuals [who know not what they do from mental illness] have more of a chance of getting into heaven than sane christians who bow to PC pressure and help promote a homosexual culture "because its what is all the rage".  Cowardice will get you eternity in the Big Pit.
Click to expand...


Sil, who has told us she is not religious is now a religious expert?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The hetero-fascists are losing every day in every way this battle for marriage equality.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, the deal is done and the OP is generally agreed to that churches should not host gay marriages that don't want to.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 82% of the respondants agree.
> 
> Kind of washes out the "Most Americans support gay marriage" thing though doesn't it?  I mean the equivalent would be "Most Americans support equal rights for blacks" in the 1960s and then having a poll that shows 82% of Americans saying "but they just can't use the same water fountains as whites".
> 
> Only...resist the insulting and erroneous urge to compare the struggles of blacks to butt sex....  The example was to illustrate a serious flaw in the "polling data" the LGBT media keeps releasing that doesn't quite line up with other non-LGBT controlled or influenced outlets..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see that.  First of all, there was never serious contention that the state had the power to go into individual churches, or denominations, and enforce some govt set liturgy.  *Second, the GLBT folks weren't demanding that the Baptists and Catholics marry them*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will though. Not all of them obviously, but its inevitable, some will insist that they have a right to be married in a Baptists church and that any church that disagrees is violating their rights. Never mind the fact that the COTUS doesn't prevent ME from violating your rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, a majority has no interest in doing so, and frankly why would they want to belong to a church that wants to discriminate against them.  But, regardless, const law is very settled that courts will not interfere with liturgy or theology of any Christian sect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches have their guidelines that God has specified was a sin it has nothing to do with decriminalization. Don';t be gay if you want to get to heaven. After all isn't that what going to church is all about being with like minded poeople?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't tell them they aren't going to heaven you racist!!
Click to expand...

When did I mention race?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Silhouette said:


> You'll have to use another ad hominem.  Race has nothing to do with butt sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches have their guidelines that God has specified was a sin it has nothing to do with decriminalization. Don';t be gay if you want to get to heaven. After all isn't that what going to church is all about being with like minded poeople?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the way Jude 1 is written, homosexuals [who know not what they do from mental illness] have more of a chance of getting into heaven than sane christians who bow to PC pressure and help promote a homosexual culture "because its what is all the rage".  Cowardice will get you eternity in the Big Pit.
Click to expand...

Where did I say anything about race?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

bigrebnc1775 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, the deal is done and the OP is generally agreed to that churches should not host gay marriages that don't want to.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 82% of the respondants agree.
> 
> Kind of washes out the "Most Americans support gay marriage" thing though doesn't it?  I mean the equivalent would be "Most Americans support equal rights for blacks" in the 1960s and then having a poll that shows 82% of Americans saying "but they just can't use the same water fountains as whites".
> 
> Only...resist the insulting and erroneous urge to compare the struggles of blacks to butt sex....  The example was to illustrate a serious flaw in the "polling data" the LGBT media keeps releasing that doesn't quite line up with other non-LGBT controlled or influenced outlets..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see that.  First of all, there was never serious contention that the state had the power to go into individual churches, or denominations, and enforce some govt set liturgy.  *Second, the GLBT folks weren't demanding that the Baptists and Catholics marry them*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will though. Not all of them obviously, but its inevitable, some will insist that they have a right to be married in a Baptists church and that any church that disagrees is violating their rights. Never mind the fact that the COTUS doesn't prevent ME from violating your rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, a majority has no interest in doing so, and frankly why would they want to belong to a church that wants to discriminate against them.  But, regardless, const law is very settled that courts will not interfere with liturgy or theology of any Christian sect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches have their guidelines that God has specified was a sin it has nothing to do with decriminalization. Don';t be gay if you want to get to heaven. After all isn't that what going to church is all about being with like minded poeople?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't tell them they aren't going to heaven you racist!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did I mention race?
Click to expand...



I was kidding with you sheesh


----------



## bigrebnc1775

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, the deal is done and the OP is generally agreed to that churches should not host gay marriages that don't want to.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, 82% of the respondants agree.
> 
> Kind of washes out the "Most Americans support gay marriage" thing though doesn't it?  I mean the equivalent would be "Most Americans support equal rights for blacks" in the 1960s and then having a poll that shows 82% of Americans saying "but they just can't use the same water fountains as whites".
> 
> Only...resist the insulting and erroneous urge to compare the struggles of blacks to butt sex....  The example was to illustrate a serious flaw in the "polling data" the LGBT media keeps releasing that doesn't quite line up with other non-LGBT controlled or influenced outlets..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see that.  First of all, there was never serious contention that the state had the power to go into individual churches, or denominations, and enforce some govt set liturgy.  *Second, the GLBT folks weren't demanding that the Baptists and Catholics marry them*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will though. Not all of them obviously, but its inevitable, some will insist that they have a right to be married in a Baptists church and that any church that disagrees is violating their rights. Never mind the fact that the COTUS doesn't prevent ME from violating your rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, a majority has no interest in doing so, and frankly why would they want to belong to a church that wants to discriminate against them.  But, regardless, const law is very settled that courts will not interfere with liturgy or theology of any Christian sect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches have their guidelines that God has specified was a sin it has nothing to do with decriminalization. Don';t be gay if you want to get to heaven. After all isn't that what going to church is all about being with like minded poeople?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't tell them they aren't going to heaven you racist!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did I mention race?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was kidding with you sheesh
Click to expand...

I thought you were but the next post after yours was this
"SILHOUETTE SAID: ↑
You'll have to use another ad hominem. Race has nothing to do with butt sex."
So I had to ask.


----------



## Silhouette

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to use another ad hominem.  Race has nothing to do with butt sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches have their guidelines that God has specified was a sin it has nothing to do with decriminalization. Don';t be gay if you want to get to heaven. After all isn't that what going to church is all about being with like minded poeople?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the way Jude 1 is written, homosexuals [who know not what they do from mental illness] have more of a chance of getting into heaven than sane christians who bow to PC pressure and help promote a homosexual culture "because its what is all the rage".  Cowardice will get you eternity in the Big Pit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I say anything about race?
Click to expand...

 Might have been a misquote.  Sometimes the function gets screwed up when I delete a bunch of irrelevant text to the topic I want to address.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Silhouette said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to use another ad hominem.  Race has nothing to do with butt sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches have their guidelines that God has specified was a sin it has nothing to do with decriminalization. Don';t be gay if you want to get to heaven. After all isn't that what going to church is all about being with like minded poeople?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the way Jude 1 is written, homosexuals [who know not what they do from mental illness] have more of a chance of getting into heaven than sane christians who bow to PC pressure and help promote a homosexual culture "because its what is all the rage".  Cowardice will get you eternity in the Big Pit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I say anything about race?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Might have been a misquote.  Sometimes the function gets screwed up when I delete a bunch of irrelevant text to the topic I want to address.
Click to expand...


I've had that happen a few times. I wish other people would learn to cut that way I wouldn't have to cut so much.


----------



## Silhouette

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> If you read ANYTHING in this thread that you thought meant I don't support "gay marriage" that is your problem not mine.
> 
> I say let em "marry" and I'll make fun of their sham.
> 
> It's a win win.


 
It's not a "win win" for the children caught up in that dysfunction.  Nor for the orphans gays will have a legitimate undeniable right to access once they get the loophole of marriage.  Imagine growing up in a home like that?  With two men or women playing at "father/mother" roles?  Mind-fuck central...


----------



## Ropey

Ropey said:


> Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was why Jefferson called for a separation between Church and State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists*
> *The Final Letter, as Sent*
> 
> To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
> 
> Gentlemen
> 
> The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
> 
> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
> 
> I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
> 
> Th Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (Jan. 1. 1802) - Library of Congress - Separation of Church & State
Click to expand...


Has no one a response to this?


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read ANYTHING in this thread that you thought meant I don't support "gay marriage" that is your problem not mine.
> 
> I say let em "marry" and I'll make fun of their sham.
> 
> It's a win win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a "win win" for the children caught up in that dysfunction.  Nor for the orphans gays will have a legitimate undeniable right to access once they get the loophole of marriage.  Imagine growing up in a home like that?  With two men or women playing at "father/mother" roles?  Mind-fuck central...
Click to expand...

Mind-fuck central... yeah that's anywhere you hang your hat where people have to listen to your homophobic bigoted sanctimonious sacrilegious clap trap bull shit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read ANYTHING in this thread that you thought meant I don't support "gay marriage" that is your problem not mine.
> 
> I say let em "marry" and I'll make fun of their sham.
> 
> It's a win win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a "win win" for the children caught up in that dysfunction.  Nor for the orphans gays will have a legitimate undeniable right to access once they get the loophole of marriage.  Imagine growing up in a home like that?  With two men or women playing at "father/mother" roles?  Mind-fuck central...
Click to expand...

You are attempting and failing at mind fuck central.  I am sorry for what happened to you.  Hetero predators are awful and there are far more of them as well.  But if we use your reasoning, then we have to give up all marriage, and that will still not keep bad adults away from children.  Don't you get that?


----------



## Seawytch

JakeStarkey said:


> You are attempting and failing at mind fuck central.  I am sorry for what happened to you.  Hetero predators are awful and there are far more of them as well.  But if we use your reasoning, then we have to give up all marriage, and that will still not keep bad adults away from children.  Don't you get that?



Nah...since the overwhelming majority of predators are MEN..,only women should be allowed to marry each other and bear children. Nothing but stud services for you Jake!!!!


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are attempting and failing at mind fuck central.  I am sorry for what happened to you.  Hetero predators are awful and there are far more of them as well.  But if we use your reasoning, then we have to give up all marriage, and that will still not keep bad adults away from children.  Don't you get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah...since the overwhelming majority of predators are MEN..,only women should be allowed to marry each other and bear children. Nothing but stud services for you Jake!!!!
Click to expand...


Sick fucks who prey on children are not men.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Seawytch, I was abused by a female counselor when I was 11, so there is more going than you know.

We boys probably report at a far less rate than girls, who report at a poor rate as well.

The lesbian only marriage idea is interesting, but I am a one woman guy, so I would not be interested in stud fees.

But you ladies could put all the guys through a rigorous physical and emotional training, and you lezzies let the more bi girl of you have the ecstasy while you get to parent a baby.  It would work for worthy men and all the worthy women.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read ANYTHING in this thread that you thought meant I don't support "gay marriage" that is your problem not mine.
> 
> I say let em "marry" and I'll make fun of their sham.
> 
> It's a win win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a "win win" for the children caught up in that dysfunction.  Nor for the orphans gays will have a legitimate undeniable right to access once they get the loophole of marriage.  Imagine growing up in a home like that?  With two men or women playing at "father/mother" roles?  Mind-fuck central...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mind-fuck central... yeah that's anywhere you hang your hat where people have to listen to your homophobic bigoted sanctimonious sacrilegious clap trap bull shit.
Click to expand...




RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read ANYTHING in this thread that you thought meant I don't support "gay marriage" that is your problem not mine.
> 
> I say let em "marry" and I'll make fun of their sham.
> 
> It's a win win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a "win win" for the children caught up in that dysfunction.  Nor for the orphans gays will have a legitimate undeniable right to access once they get the loophole of marriage.  Imagine growing up in a home like that?  With two men or women playing at "father/mother" roles?  Mind-fuck central...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mind-fuck central... yeah that's anywhere you hang your hat where people have to listen to your homophobic bigoted sanctimonious sacrilegious clap trap bull shit.
Click to expand...

 
See, that's the thing. Nobody HAS to listen to me or read my posts. In fact if you'll notice, I did not start this thread. Yet the subject interests people enough for it to sport one of the biggest polling turnouts in USMB history [as far as I know] with an 82% weigh-in that in essence "people may support gay marriage but that support is very very iffy indeed".
Either it is a constitutional right that no one may deny. Or as in this topic, 82% believe that some people should be able to deny it. Translation, "support for gay marriage, if any, is VERY lukewarm at best


----------



## Silhouette

Soooo....

The above post I made I was in the process of making when I received a "error 520" message for this whole website.  But before the refresh could bump me I'd copied the post and pasted it to wordpad.  Then I see that it was a data redactor with a shunt to a fake http address. 

Interesting.  I wonder if it was a general attack on the website or just this topic?  82% is pretty compelling.  I'll give you that at least.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Silhouette said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to use another ad hominem.  Race has nothing to do with butt sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches have their guidelines that God has specified was a sin it has nothing to do with decriminalization. Don';t be gay if you want to get to heaven. After all isn't that what going to church is all about being with like minded poeople?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the way Jude 1 is written, homosexuals [who know not what they do from mental illness] have more of a chance of getting into heaven than sane christians who bow to PC pressure and help promote a homosexual culture "because its what is all the rage".  Cowardice will get you eternity in the Big Pit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I say anything about race?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Might have been a misquote.  Sometimes the function gets screwed up when I delete a bunch of irrelevant text to the topic I want to address.
Click to expand...

The post you quoted was word for word what I wrote nothing in it mention race.
But it's ok


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ropey said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was why Jefferson called for a separation between Church and State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists*
> *The Final Letter, as Sent*
> 
> To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
> 
> Gentlemen
> 
> The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
> 
> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
> 
> I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
> 
> Th Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (Jan. 1. 1802) - Library of Congress - Separation of Church & State
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has no one a response to this?
Click to expand...

No the government cannot force a church to do anything that goes against it's belief


----------



## Ropey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was why Jefferson called for a separation between Church and State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists*
> *The Final Letter, as Sent*
> 
> To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
> 
> Gentlemen
> 
> The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
> 
> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, *that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions*, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
> 
> I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
> 
> Th Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (Jan. 1. 1802) - Library of Congress - Separation of Church & State
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has no one a response to this?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the government cannot force a church to do anything that goes against it's belief
Click to expand...


So mandating birth control provision as a control on the Church is against the separation of Church & State. Then this also applies to mandating them to accept homosexual marriage.

If there's new legislature to allow this and if the legislation is actioned then if that lawful action is taken to court as to it's legality, then likely sooner or later the highest court in the land will decide on it by opinion.

As they did with Roe v Wade.

Which was the first knife in Th. Jefferson's (mhrip) grave rolling back.

(imho)


----------



## JakeStarkey

"people may support gay marriage but that support is very very iffy indeed" is a lie, Sil.

Folks support gay marriage as well as the right of churches to guard their rights.

Can't you tell the truth?


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> See, that's the thing. Nobody HAS to listen to me or read my posts. In fact if you'll notice, I did not start this thread. Yet the subject interests people enough for it to sport one of the biggest polling turnouts in USMB history [as far as I know] with an 82% weigh-in that in essence "people may support gay marriage but that support is very very iffy indeed".
> Either it is a constitutional right that no one may deny. Or as in this topic, 82% believe that some people should be able to deny it. Translation, "support for gay marriage, if any, is VERY lukewarm at best



No that's not what the poll says.  You didn't write it and you certainly don't get to change what it says.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the thing. Nobody HAS to listen to me or read my posts. In fact if you'll notice, I did not start this thread. Yet the subject interests people enough for it to sport one of the biggest polling turnouts in USMB history [as far as I know] with an 82% weigh-in that in essence "people may support gay marriage but that support is very very iffy indeed".
> Either it is a constitutional right that no one may deny. Or as in this topic, 82% believe that some people should be able to deny it. Translation, "support for gay marriage, if any, is VERY lukewarm at best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that's not what the poll says.  You didn't write it and you certainly don't get to change what it says.
Click to expand...

 It speaks for itself.  You have 82% of the responders in one of the most popular polls at USMB saying "we don't believe in gay marriage enough to require churches to have to perform it" or "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage".  Either way it spells very piss poor support for gay marriage, if any at all, within 82% of the population.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the thing. Nobody HAS to listen to me or read my posts. In fact if you'll notice, I did not start this thread. Yet the subject interests people enough for it to sport one of the biggest polling turnouts in USMB history [as far as I know] with an 82% weigh-in that in essence "people may support gay marriage but that support is very very iffy indeed".
> Either it is a constitutional right that no one may deny. Or as in this topic, 82% believe that some people should be able to deny it. Translation, "support for gay marriage, if any, is VERY lukewarm at best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that's not what the poll says.  You didn't write it and you certainly don't get to change what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It speaks for itself.  You have 82% of the responders in one of the most popular polls at USMB saying "we don't believe in gay marriage enough to require churches to have to perform it" or "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage".  Either way it spells very piss poor support for gay marriage, if any at all, within 82% of the population.
Click to expand...

You're just a lying POS it does not say that.  You claim to be "religious." Then here you are LYING again and again. Making false witness.

The poll states "*Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings*." The answer chosen by 82.1% is "*No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA*."


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the thing. Nobody HAS to listen to me or read my posts. In fact if you'll notice, I did not start this thread. Yet the subject interests people enough for it to sport one of the biggest polling turnouts in USMB history [as far as I know] with an 82% weigh-in that in essence "people may support gay marriage but that support is very very iffy indeed".
> Either it is a constitutional right that no one may deny. Or as in this topic, 82% believe that some people should be able to deny it. Translation, "support for gay marriage, if any, is VERY lukewarm at best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that's not what the poll says.  You didn't write it and you certainly don't get to change what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It speaks for itself.  You have 82% of the responders in one of the most popular polls at USMB saying "we don't believe in gay marriage enough to require churches to have to perform it" or "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage".  Either way it spells very piss poor support for gay marriage, if any at all, within 82% of the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just a lying POS it does not say that.  You claim to be "religious." Then here you are LYING again and again. Making false witness.
Click to expand...

 
No, I don't claim to be religious at all.  Search my posts.  What you will find is me saying I don't have religion in my life.  I just understand some things about christianity because I was raised in that church but no longer officially affiliate with it for reasons of my own. 

And in fact that is what the poll does say.  At the very least 82% of responders say "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage".  There is no other way to boil it down.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the thing. Nobody HAS to listen to me or read my posts. In fact if you'll notice, I did not start this thread. Yet the subject interests people enough for it to sport one of the biggest polling turnouts in USMB history [as far as I know] with an 82% weigh-in that in essence "people may support gay marriage but that support is very very iffy indeed".
> Either it is a constitutional right that no one may deny. Or as in this topic, 82% believe that some people should be able to deny it. Translation, "support for gay marriage, if any, is VERY lukewarm at best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that's not what the poll says.  You didn't write it and you certainly don't get to change what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It speaks for itself.  You have 82% of the responders in one of the most popular polls at USMB saying "we don't believe in gay marriage enough to require churches to have to perform it" or "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage".  Either way it spells very piss poor support for gay marriage, if any at all, within 82% of the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just a lying POS it does not say that.  You claim to be "religious." Then here you are LYING again and again. Making false witness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't claim to be religious at all.  Search my posts.  What you will find is me saying I don't have religion in my life.  I just understand some things about christianity because I was raised in that church but no longer officially affiliate with it for reasons of my own.
> 
> And in fact that is what the poll does say.  At the very least 82% of responders say "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage".  There is no other way to boil it down.
Click to expand...

Wrong again you LYING POS.  It does not say what you say it says.  Your just a POS homophobic bigot.

The poll states "*Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings*." The answer chosen by 82.1% is "*No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA*."

FYI I believe it's against the rules to misquote members, but don't quote me on that.


----------



## Seawytch

RKMBrown said:


> Wrong again you LYING POS.  It does not say what you say it says.  Your just a POS homophobic bigot.
> 
> The poll states "*Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings*." The answer chosen by 82.1% is "*No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA*."
> 
> FYI I believe it's against the rules to misquote members, but don't quote me on that.



Well, Silly's summation is correct in that a church should never be required to perform any religious ceremony against the tenants of their faith. They never have nor will they ever...after all, this IS America.


----------



## NLT

Seawytch said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are attempting and failing at mind fuck central.  I am sorry for what happened to you.  Hetero predators are awful and there are far more of them as well.  But if we use your reasoning, then we have to give up all marriage, and that will still not keep bad adults away from children.  Don't you get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah...since the overwhelming majority of predators are MEN..,only women should be allowed to marry each other and bear children. Nothing but stud services for you Jake!!!!
Click to expand...

you sound just like bodey, do you wear a kilt too?


----------



## RKMBrown

Seawytch said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again you LYING POS.  It does not say what you say it says.  Your just a POS homophobic bigot.
> 
> The poll states "*Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings*." The answer chosen by 82.1% is "*No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA*."
> 
> FYI I believe it's against the rules to misquote members, but don't quote me on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Silly's summation is correct in that a church should never be required to perform any religious ceremony against the tenants of their faith. They never have nor will they ever...after all, this IS America.
Click to expand...

Yeah well, while you're statement is an accurate summation of the OP poll.  Silly did'nt say that.  Silly changed it to mean something completely different.


----------



## Seawytch

NLT said:


> you sound just like bodey, do you wear a kilt too?



No, although I do have enough Scot in me to warrant one. 

It's still true that, overwhelmingly, the perpetrators of sexual crimes against children are men.


----------



## Seawytch

RKMBrown said:


> Yeah well, while you're statement is an accurate summation of the OP poll.  Silly did'nt say that.  Silly changed it to mean something completely different.



She said: "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage".

That is true...speaking ONLY of religious marriage.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Someone shoot this stupid thread and give it an indignant burial.


----------



## mdk

Absolutely not. The church has every right to marry or not marry anyone they wish. Besides, there are a number of churches where gays can have a marriage service preformed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ropey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was why Jefferson called for a separation between Church and State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists*
> *The Final Letter, as Sent*
> 
> To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
> 
> Gentlemen
> 
> The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
> 
> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, *that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions*, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
> 
> I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
> 
> Th Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (Jan. 1. 1802) - Library of Congress - Separation of Church & State
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has no one a response to this?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the government cannot force a church to do anything that goes against it's belief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So mandating birth control provision as a control on the Church is against the separation of Church & State. Then this also applies to mandating them to accept homosexual marriage.
> 
> If there's new legislature to allow this and if the legislation is actioned then if that lawful action is taken to court as to it's legality, then likely sooner or later the highest court in the land will decide on it by opinion.
> 
> As they did with Roe v Wade.
> 
> Which was the first knife in Th. Jefferson's (mhrip) grave rolling back.
> 
> (imho)
Click to expand...

I don't make the rules it is what it is you either accept the government over reach or tell the government to go fuck itself. I choice the go fuck itself.


----------



## Ropey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was why Jefferson called for a separation between Church and State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists*
> *The Final Letter, as Sent*
> 
> To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
> 
> Gentlemen
> 
> The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
> 
> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, *that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions*, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
> 
> I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
> 
> Th Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (Jan. 1. 1802) - Library of Congress - Separation of Church & State
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has no one a response to this?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the government cannot force a church to do anything that goes against it's belief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So mandating birth control provision as a control on the Church is against the separation of Church & State. Then this also applies to mandating them to accept homosexual marriage.
> 
> If there's new legislature to allow this and if the legislation is actioned then if that lawful action is taken to court as to it's legality, then likely sooner or later the highest court in the land will decide on it by opinion.
> 
> As they did with Roe v Wade.
> 
> Which was the first knife in Th. Jefferson's (mhrip) grave rolling back.
> 
> (imho)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't make the rules it is what it is you either accept the government over reach or tell the government to go fuck itself. I choice the go fuck itself.
Click to expand...


It's that the Supreme Court now legislates (act) their opinion in direct contravention of the separation of Church and State.

That's the problem I see.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ropey said:


> It's that the Supreme Court now legislates (act) their opinion in direct contravention of the separation of Church and State.
> 
> That's the problem I see.


Wouldn't that also be government over reach?


----------



## Ropey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's that the Supreme Court now legislates (act) their opinion in direct contravention of the separation of Church and State.
> 
> That's the problem I see.
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that also be government over reach?
Click to expand...


Government would not be able to overreach. That's the reason for the Supreme court.

But now the Supreme Court creates law and not just opinion.

This is the break and it began (to my mind) at R v W.


----------



## RKMBrown

Seawytch said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well, while you're statement is an accurate summation of the OP poll.  Silly did'nt say that.  Silly changed it to mean something completely different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She said: "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage".
> 
> That is true...speaking ONLY of religious marriage.
Click to expand...


The poll states "*Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings*." The answer chosen by 82.1% is "*No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA*."

That is not the same as "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage."  Two completely different things.


----------



## JakeStarkey

^^^ And certainly not a correlation that Americans disapprove of marriage equality.  The polls and the overwhelming majority of court decisions are in harmony in support of protecting all citizens' rights to marry the person they wish.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well, while you're statement is an accurate summation of the OP poll.  Silly did'nt say that.  Silly changed it to mean something completely different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She said: "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage".
> 
> That is true...speaking ONLY of religious marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poll states "*Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings*." The answer chosen by 82.1% is "*No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA*."
> 
> That is not the same as "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage."  Two completely different things.
Click to expand...

 
That is exactly the same thing.  What planet are you from?  82% said they think that in America, no church should have to perform a gay wedding.  Period.

So if you asked those 82% of hundreds who responded to that poll [amazing for USMB...big interest] these two questions, the answer might overwhelmingly be predicted to be #2:

1. Do you vigorously support gay marriage?

2. Do you somewhat support or don't support gay marriage?

You don't vigorously support something and then turn around and say, "but only if..."....


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, the majority will support 1 or 2.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well, while you're statement is an accurate summation of the OP poll.  Silly did'nt say that.  Silly changed it to mean something completely different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She said: "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage".
> 
> That is true...speaking ONLY of religious marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poll states "*Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings*." The answer chosen by 82.1% is "*No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA*."
> 
> That is not the same as "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage."  Two completely different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly the same thing.  What planet are you from?  82% said they think that in America, no church should have to perform a gay wedding.  Period.
> 
> So if you asked those 82% of hundreds who responded to that poll [amazing for USMB...big interest] these two questions, the answer might overwhelmingly be predicted to be #2:
> 
> 1. Do you vigorously support gay marriage?
> 
> 2. Do you somewhat support or don't support gay marriage?
> 
> You don't vigorously support something and then turn around and say, "but only if..."....
Click to expand...


No retard it is not exactly the same thing, not even close.   82% said places of worship should not be required to hold gay weddings. Period.  Your changing the term places of worship to churches is one change.  Your changing their expression of being in America to thinking that in America no church should have to perform a gay wedding is also a change.  Thinking this is America is a colloquialism, referring to the commonly used phrase here in America, the land of the free,...

WTH does supporting gay marriage mean?  Prop it up, pay for it, pat it on the back? What is gay marriage?  Define it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil has lost this.  Sil will state the poll means something that it doesn't, when in fact it correctly suggests that people support gay marriage along with the rights of churches do as they please


----------



## mdk

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil has lost this.  Sil will state the poll means something that it doesn't, when in fact it correctly suggests that people support gay marriage along with the rights of churches do as they please



This is my exact position. I support gay marriage, so much so, I got married to my husband a couples years ago in Boston. We've been together almost 14 years now. That being said, I fully support the church when it comes to not being forced to preform marriages against their wishes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

^^^^^^^^^^^ that is where marriage equality is heading with the growing majority of Americans.


----------



## RKMBrown

Ayup.. and some sort of federal ban on restricting marriages from including consenting adult same sex couples.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil has lost this.  Sil will state the poll means something that it doesn't, when in fact it correctly suggests that people support gay marriage along with the rights of churches do as they please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my exact position. I support gay marriage, so much so, I got married to my husband a couples years ago in Boston. We've been together almost 14 years now. That being said, I fully support the church when it comes to not being forced to preform marriages against their wishes.
Click to expand...

 Liar.  Would you support the church not marrying black people then?  Quite interested in your reply on that question...  Without realizing it, you just admitted that gay behaviors are:

1. Repugnant to many people [there are many many faithful christians]

2. Not equal to race.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil has lost this.  Sil will state the poll means something that it doesn't, when in fact it correctly suggests that people support gay marriage along with the rights of churches do as they please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my exact position. I support gay marriage, so much so, I got married to my husband a couples years ago in Boston. We've been together almost 14 years now. That being said, I fully support the church when it comes to not being forced to preform marriages against their wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.  Would you support the church not marrying black people then?  Quite interested in your reply on that question...  Without realizing it, you just admitted that gay behaviors are:
> 
> 1. Repugnant to many people [there are many many faithful christians]
> 
> 2. Not equal to race.
Click to expand...


Mind your tone. I don't care whom churches choose to marry or not. It is no concern of mine. 

I am well aware that quite a few people of faith find homosexuality repugnant. I am not a dunce.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil has lost this.  Sil will state the poll means something that it doesn't, when in fact it correctly suggests that people support gay marriage along with the rights of churches do as they please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my exact position. I support gay marriage, so much so, I got married to my husband a couples years ago in Boston. We've been together almost 14 years now. That being said, I fully support the church when it comes to not being forced to preform marriages against their wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.  Would you support the church not marrying black people then?  Quite interested in your reply on that question...  Without realizing it, you just admitted that gay behaviors are:
> 
> 1. Repugnant to many people [there are many many faithful christians]
> 
> 2. Not equal to race.
Click to expand...


Your comments indicate that you are beginning to struggle emotionally.

The comments above were clear and to the point and reasonable.

Yes, Sil, mind your tone when people are being decent to you.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil has lost this.  Sil will state the poll means something that it doesn't, when in fact it correctly suggests that people support gay marriage along with the rights of churches do as they please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my exact position. I support gay marriage, so much so, I got married to my husband a couples years ago in Boston. We've been together almost 14 years now. That being said, I fully support the church when it comes to not being forced to preform marriages against their wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.  Would you support the church not marrying black people then?  Quite interested in your reply on that question...  Without realizing it, you just admitted that gay behaviors are:
> 
> 1. Repugnant to many people [there are many many faithful christians]
> 
> 2. Not equal to race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comments indicate that you are beginning to struggle emotionally.
> 
> The comments above were clear and to the point and reasonable.
> 
> Yes, Sil, mind your tone when people are being decent to you.
Click to expand...

 No, I used the word "Liar" literally, without emotion.  Either s/he is lying or s/he believes race isn't = to gay sex.  So you are saying you are in agreement with him, in an odd way.  Do you realize that?


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are merely wrong, Sil, as usual.

That you have problem seeing it is merely your problem, no one else.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil has lost this.  Sil will state the poll means something that it doesn't, when in fact it correctly suggests that people support gay marriage along with the rights of churches do as they please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my exact position. I support gay marriage, so much so, I got married to my husband a couples years ago in Boston. We've been together almost 14 years now. That being said, I fully support the church when it comes to not being forced to preform marriages against their wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.  Would you support the church not marrying black people then?  Quite interested in your reply on that question...  Without realizing it, you just admitted that gay behaviors are:
> 
> 1. Repugnant to many people [there are many many faithful christians]
> 
> 2. Not equal to race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comments indicate that you are beginning to struggle emotionally.
> 
> The comments above were clear and to the point and reasonable.
> 
> Yes, Sil, mind your tone when people are being decent to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I used the word "Liar" literally, without emotion.  Either s/he is lying or s/he believes race isn't = to gay sex.  So you are saying you are in agreement with him, in an odd way.  Do you realize that?
Click to expand...


You called me liar, whether or not you assigned any emotion behind it. I haven't been rude or brazen with you at all and I would expect you to extend me the same courtesy.

And yes, I agree, sexuality and race have little in common; however, one can't deny that the arguments used to deny marriage equality amongst races are now being used against gays seeking marriage equality. They are hauntingly familiar in fact.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil has lost this.  Sil will state the poll means something that it doesn't, when in fact it correctly suggests that people support gay marriage along with the rights of churches do as they please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my exact position. I support gay marriage, so much so, I got married to my husband a couples years ago in Boston. We've been together almost 14 years now. That being said, I fully support the church when it comes to not being forced to preform marriages against their wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.  Would you support the church not marrying black people then?  Quite interested in your reply on that question...  Without realizing it, you just admitted that gay behaviors are:
> 
> 1. Repugnant to many people [there are many many faithful christians]
> 
> 2. Not equal to race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comments indicate that you are beginning to struggle emotionally.
> 
> The comments above were clear and to the point and reasonable.
> 
> Yes, Sil, mind your tone when people are being decent to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I used the word "Liar" literally, without emotion.  Either s/he is lying or s/he believes race isn't = to gay sex.  So you are saying you are in agreement with him, in an odd way.  Do you realize that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You called me liar, whether or not you assigned any emotion behind it. I haven't been rude or brazen with you at all and I would expect you to extend me the same courtesy*.
> 
> And yes, I agree, sexuality and race have little in common; however, one can't deny that the arguments used to deny marriage equality amongst races are now being used against gays seeking marriage equality. They are hauntingly familiar in fact.
Click to expand...

 
Oh no, I won't.  If you know anything about me by now, I'm a strait shooter.  I'm calling you out.  Sorry if that offends you on this typically-contentous website. 

You said that you are gay married and in support of gay marriage but that you simultaneously support churches to refuse to perform gay marriages.  Which is of course abject bullshit.  So I called you on it.  And I provided the example of you being say, a black man, and having civil rights just pass...but then feigning being in support of churches not marrying black people.

I made the point for two reasons...to show how race and gay behaviors are not the same.  And how you yourself even realize this and pointed it out inadvertently.  Or you are lying and are mad as hell that a church wants to lock its doors to gay marriage.  Which is it?


----------



## Sunni Man

The would be a massive revolt of citizens if the U.S. government tried forcing churches to marry fudge packers.    ....


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil writes the biggest lie of the day: "I'm a strait shooter."

I know many gays and lesbians who support the rights of churches to celebrate as they wish.

They difference is you want to box them all in the same box: pathologically stupid.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sunni Man said:


> The would be a massive revolt of citizens if the U.S. government tried forcing churches to marry fudge packers.    ....



Or if Muslims tried to impose shari'a law on non-Muslim Americans.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The would be a massive revolt of citizens if the U.S. government tried forcing churches to marry fudge packers.    ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or if Muslims tried to impose shari'a law on non-Muslim Americans.
Click to expand...




JakeStarkey said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The would be a massive revolt of citizens if the U.S. government tried forcing churches to marry fudge packers.    ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or if Muslims tried to impose shari'a law on non-Muslim Americans.
Click to expand...

Try to stay on topic fag lover.   ......


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

JakeStarkey said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The would be a massive revolt of citizens if the U.S. government tried forcing churches to marry fudge packers.    ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or if Muslims tried to impose shari'a law on non-Muslim Americans.
Click to expand...


are you suggesting that Sharia should be imposed on Muslim Americans?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Check the contracts on record in certain towns in Michigan.

Muslims, as Jews and Christians, can create contracts for business and certain personal activities that are governed by their religious laws.  Did you know that?

What do you think the FLDS, certain of the separatist Jewish groups, the JWs, and others do with their covenants and their economic communal contracts?


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well, while you're statement is an accurate summation of the OP poll.  Silly did'nt say that.  Silly changed it to mean something completely different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She said: "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage".
> 
> That is true...speaking ONLY of religious marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poll states "*Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings*." The answer chosen by 82.1% is "*No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA*."
> 
> That is not the same as "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage."  Two completely different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly the same thing.  What planet are you from?  82% said they think that in America, no church should have to perform a gay wedding.  Period.
> 
> So if you asked those 82% of hundreds who responded to that poll [amazing for USMB...big interest] these two questions, the answer might overwhelmingly be predicted to be #2:
> 
> 1. Do you vigorously support gay marriage?
> 
> 2. Do you somewhat support or don't support gay marriage?
> 
> You don't vigorously support something and then turn around and say, "but only if..."....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No retard it is not exactly the same thing, not even close.   82% said places of worship should not be required to hold gay weddings. Period.  Your changing the term places of worship to churches is one change.  Your changing their expression of being in America to thinking that in America no church should have to perform a gay wedding is also a change.  Thinking this is America is a colloquialism, referring to the commonly used phrase here in America, the land of the free,...
> 
> WTH does supporting gay marriage mean?  Prop it up, pay for it, pat it on the back? What is gay marriage?  Define it.
Click to expand...

 Would you support churches not marrying blacks?


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well, while you're statement is an accurate summation of the OP poll.  Silly did'nt say that.  Silly changed it to mean something completely different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She said: "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage".
> 
> That is true...speaking ONLY of religious marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poll states "*Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings*." The answer chosen by 82.1% is "*No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA*."
> 
> That is not the same as "we believe a church should be able to deny gays marriage."  Two completely different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly the same thing.  What planet are you from?  82% said they think that in America, no church should have to perform a gay wedding.  Period.
> 
> So if you asked those 82% of hundreds who responded to that poll [amazing for USMB...big interest] these two questions, the answer might overwhelmingly be predicted to be #2:
> 
> 1. Do you vigorously support gay marriage?
> 
> 2. Do you somewhat support or don't support gay marriage?
> 
> You don't vigorously support something and then turn around and say, "but only if..."....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No retard it is not exactly the same thing, not even close.   82% said places of worship should not be required to hold gay weddings. Period.  Your changing the term places of worship to churches is one change.  Your changing their expression of being in America to thinking that in America no church should have to perform a gay wedding is also a change.  Thinking this is America is a colloquialism, referring to the commonly used phrase here in America, the land of the free,...
> 
> WTH does supporting gay marriage mean?  Prop it up, pay for it, pat it on the back? What is gay marriage?  Define it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you support churches not marrying blacks?
Click to expand...

Define support?  

I support my church via donations and service.  I have no idea what you mean by support.  support churches not marrying blacks?  huh?  What the hell are you talking about? Why would they need money to not do something and why would they choose not to marry blacks?  huh?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, you are goofy enough as we watch you disintegrating in the face of what is coming on marriage equality.

Don't look any more silly than what already you have on this Board.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

_Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?_

Well over two thousand posts and yet the ignorance and stupidity of this remains.


----------



## AntiParty

2747 posts and all it takes is "Freedom of Religion" to answer this.

The Bible does not condone gay partnership, *but it is just a typical sin and we all sin. *Some are just more scared about this sin because the bible says there will be a lot of it in the end of days and there is a lot of it today. Ironically, there is a lot of judgment going on today when the bible says do not judge or be judged.

Sometimes man can create his own destiny by taking a path he hoped to avoid it.


----------



## Seawytch

Sunni Man said:


> The would be a massive revolt of citizens if the U.S. government tried forcing churches to marry fudge packers.    ....



Or if the government forced churches to marry interracial or interfaith couples.


----------



## Sunni Man

Seawytch said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The would be a massive revolt of citizens if the U.S. government tried forcing churches to marry fudge packers.    ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or if the government forced churches to marry interracial or interfaith couples.
Click to expand...

I always find it humorous that gay supporters like to compare the doctrine in some churches prohibition against interracial and interfaith marriage.

Is somehow in juxtaposition with the perversion of homo marriage.   .....


----------



## Seawytch

Sunni Man said:


> I always find it humorous that gay supporters like to compare the doctrine in some churches prohibition against interracial and interfaith marriage.
> 
> Is somehow in juxtaposition with the perversion of homo marriage.   .....



Yeah, bigotry justified by the bible is hysterical. Bigotry is bigotry, discrimination is discrimination. You feel justified in your biblical targeting of gays. Racist feel justified in their biblical targeting of blacks.


----------



## Sunni Man

Seawytch said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always find it humorous that gay supporters like to compare the doctrine in some churches prohibition against interracial and interfaith marriage.
> 
> Is somehow in juxtaposition with the perversion of homo marriage.   .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, bigotry justified by the bible is hysterical. Bigotry is bigotry, discrimination is discrimination. You feel justified in your biblical targeting of gays. Racist feel justified in their biblical targeting of blacks.
Click to expand...

There isn't any Biblical justification for racism. And christians who engage in it are misguided.

But there are numerous scriptures in the Bible to justify the Christian opposition to sodomites and other perverts.


----------



## Seawytch

Sunni Man said:


> There isn't any Biblical justification for racism. And christians who engage in it are misguided.
> 
> But there are numerous scriptures in the Bible to justify the Christian opposition to sodomites and other perverts.



There is just as must biblical justification for racism as there is for homophobia, in fact more. The segregationists and anti miscegenationists have tons more bible passages than the anti gay bigots do. Pages and pages of them...not just one offhand comment made by the uptight and repressed Paul.


----------



## Seawytch

Bible passages used by segregationists:

“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” Gen. 6:1,2.

“Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry.” Num. 36:6.

“Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.” Deut. 7:3,4.

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God.” 2 Cor. 6:14-16.

“Give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace [by such compromise] or their wealth forever.” Ezra 9:12. See also Ex. 34:14-16; Judges 14:1-3. Ezra 9 and 10; and Neh. 13:23-27.

You've heard of Bob Jones University, yes? Very Christian...


----------



## Sunni Man

Seawytch said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't any Biblical justification for racism. And christians who engage in it are misguided.
> 
> But there are numerous scriptures in the Bible to justify the Christian opposition to sodomites and other perverts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is just as must biblical justification for racism as there is for homophobia, in fact more. The segregationists and anti miscegenationists have tons more bible passages than the anti gay bigots do. Pages and pages of them...not just one offhand comment made by the uptight and repressed Paul.
Click to expand...

Using the Bible to justify racism requires a lot of scripture twisting and misquotes..

Whereas, the biblical prohibition against homosexuality is presented very clearly in several chapters and verses.    .......


----------



## Seawytch

Sunni Man said:


> Using the Bible to justify racism requires a lot of scripture twisting and misquotes..
> 
> Whereas, the biblical prohibition against homosexuality is presented very clearly in several chapters and verses.    .......



You still just don't get it do you? Of course not...because you feel just as "righteous" as the racist bigots do. You are certain that the bible condemns gays and lesbians, just as the racists bigots were certain the bible condemned interracial relationships. You are absolutely no different than them, the target is just different.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Uhh...check his handle.  He's not a Christian, he's a member of Mohammed's murder cult.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil has lost this.  Sil will state the poll means something that it doesn't, when in fact it correctly suggests that people support gay marriage along with the rights of churches do as they please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my exact position. I support gay marriage, so much so, I got married to my husband a couples years ago in Boston. We've been together almost 14 years now. That being said, I fully support the church when it comes to not being forced to preform marriages against their wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.  Would you support the church not marrying black people then?  Quite interested in your reply on that question...  Without realizing it, you just admitted that gay behaviors are:
> 
> 1. Repugnant to many people [there are many many faithful christians]
> 
> 2. Not equal to race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comments indicate that you are beginning to struggle emotionally.
> 
> The comments above were clear and to the point and reasonable.
> 
> Yes, Sil, mind your tone when people are being decent to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I used the word "Liar" literally, without emotion.  Either s/he is lying or s/he believes race isn't = to gay sex.  So you are saying you are in agreement with him, in an odd way.  Do you realize that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You called me liar, whether or not you assigned any emotion behind it. I haven't been rude or brazen with you at all and I would expect you to extend me the same courtesy*.
> 
> And yes, I agree, sexuality and race have little in common; however, one can't deny that the arguments used to deny marriage equality amongst races are now being used against gays seeking marriage equality. They are hauntingly familiar in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no, I won't.  If you know anything about me by now, I'm a strait shooter.  I'm calling you out.  Sorry if that offends you on this typically-contentous website.
> 
> You said that you are gay married and in support of gay marriage but that you simultaneously support churches to refuse to perform gay marriages.  Which is of course abject bullshit.  So I called you on it.  And I provided the example of you being say, a black man, and having civil rights just pass...but then feigning being in support of churches not marrying black people.
> 
> I made the point for two reasons...to show how race and gay behaviors are not the same.  And how you yourself even realize this and pointed it out inadvertently.  Or you are lying and are mad as hell that a church wants to lock its doors to gay marriage.  Which is it?
Click to expand...


I can assure you that I am not offended. I am however; disappointed, because I thought we could discuss this topic together in a mannerly fashion. That doesn't appear to be the case with you. 

I am sorry that I don't fit the cartoonish narrative you have of gay people. I am also sorry that you are not clever as you believe yourself to be. It was terribly obvious from the start what you were trying to do when you starting equating sexuality and race. 

I'll state this again and maybe this time it will sink in but I have have my doubts: I don't care whom churches do or don't marry. Whether they be gay, straight, black, white, interracial, or whatever. It is entirely their decision. It is none of my concern what marriages they wish to perform. It's their business. 

I hope I've cleared this up for you but I have a feeling you will continue to misrepresent my position because I don't fit this rather odd narrative you have gay people.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil will continue to misrepresent because there is nothing else to do now before marriage equality becomes the law of the land.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil has lost this.  Sil will state the poll means something that it doesn't, when in fact it correctly suggests that people support gay marriage along with the rights of churches do as they please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my exact position. I support gay marriage, so much so, I got married to my husband a couples years ago in Boston. We've been together almost 14 years now. That being said, I fully support the church when it comes to not being forced to preform marriages against their wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.  Would you support the church not marrying black people then?  Quite interested in your reply on that question...  Without realizing it, you just admitted that gay behaviors are:
> 
> 1. Repugnant to many people [there are many many faithful christians]
> 
> 2. Not equal to race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comments indicate that you are beginning to struggle emotionally.
> 
> The comments above were clear and to the point and reasonable.
> 
> Yes, Sil, mind your tone when people are being decent to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I used the word "Liar" literally, without emotion.  Either s/he is lying or s/he believes race isn't = to gay sex.  So you are saying you are in agreement with him, in an odd way.  Do you realize that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You called me liar, whether or not you assigned any emotion behind it. I haven't been rude or brazen with you at all and I would expect you to extend me the same courtesy*.
> 
> And yes, I agree, sexuality and race have little in common; however, one can't deny that the arguments used to deny marriage equality amongst races are now being used against gays seeking marriage equality. They are hauntingly familiar in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no, I won't.  If you know anything about me by now, I'm a strait shooter.  I'm calling you out.  Sorry if that offends you on this typically-contentous website.
> 
> You said that you are gay married and in support of gay marriage but that you simultaneously support churches to refuse to perform gay marriages.  Which is of course abject bullshit.  So I called you on it.  And I provided the example of you being say, a black man, and having civil rights just pass...but then feigning being in support of churches not marrying black people.
> 
> I made the point for two reasons...to show how race and gay behaviors are not the same.  And how you yourself even realize this and pointed it out inadvertently.  Or you are lying and are mad as hell that a church wants to lock its doors to gay marriage.  Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can assure you that I am not offended. I am however; disappointed, because I thought we could discuss this topic together in a mannerly fashion. That doesn't appear to be the case with you.
> 
> I am sorry that I don't fit the cartoonish narrative you have of gay people. I am also sorry that you are not clever as you believe yourself to be. It was terribly obvious from the start what you were trying to do when you starting equating sexuality and race.
> 
> I'll state this again and maybe this time it will sink in but I have have my doubts: I don't care whom churches do or don't marry. Whether they be gay, straight, black, white, interracial, or whatever. It is entirely their decision. It is none of my concern what marriages they wish to perform. It's their business.
> 
> I hope I've cleared this up for you but I have a feeling you will continue to misrepresent my position because I don't fit this rather odd narrative you have gay people.
Click to expand...

 
OK, so if you don't fit the "cartoonish narrative of gay people", how have you stepped up to denounce gay pride parade sex-exhibitions where they welcome kids of all ages?  Or how have you stepped up to denounce Harvey Milk as the LGBT icon [his postage stamp as such etc.]?

And please explain in more detail how it is you, as a person who does the gay sex, wholeheartedly support gay marriage but also at the same time support churches' right to refuse to perform them?

You know what the next question will be.  But for now just answer those...


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil has lost this.  Sil will state the poll means something that it doesn't, when in fact it correctly suggests that people support gay marriage along with the rights of churches do as they please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my exact position. I support gay marriage, so much so, I got married to my husband a couples years ago in Boston. We've been together almost 14 years now. That being said, I fully support the church when it comes to not being forced to preform marriages against their wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.  Would you support the church not marrying black people then?  Quite interested in your reply on that question...  Without realizing it, you just admitted that gay behaviors are:
> 
> 1. Repugnant to many people [there are many many faithful christians]
> 
> 2. Not equal to race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comments indicate that you are beginning to struggle emotionally.
> 
> The comments above were clear and to the point and reasonable.
> 
> Yes, Sil, mind your tone when people are being decent to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I used the word "Liar" literally, without emotion.  Either s/he is lying or s/he believes race isn't = to gay sex.  So you are saying you are in agreement with him, in an odd way.  Do you realize that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You called me liar, whether or not you assigned any emotion behind it. I haven't been rude or brazen with you at all and I would expect you to extend me the same courtesy*.
> 
> And yes, I agree, sexuality and race have little in common; however, one can't deny that the arguments used to deny marriage equality amongst races are now being used against gays seeking marriage equality. They are hauntingly familiar in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no, I won't.  If you know anything about me by now, I'm a strait shooter.  I'm calling you out.  Sorry if that offends you on this typically-contentous website.
> 
> You said that you are gay married and in support of gay marriage but that you simultaneously support churches to refuse to perform gay marriages.  Which is of course abject bullshit.  So I called you on it.  And I provided the example of you being say, a black man, and having civil rights just pass...but then feigning being in support of churches not marrying black people.
> 
> I made the point for two reasons...to show how race and gay behaviors are not the same.  And how you yourself even realize this and pointed it out inadvertently.  Or you are lying and are mad as hell that a church wants to lock its doors to gay marriage.  Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can assure you that I am not offended. I am however; disappointed, because I thought we could discuss this topic together in a mannerly fashion. That doesn't appear to be the case with you.
> 
> I am sorry that I don't fit the cartoonish narrative you have of gay people. I am also sorry that you are not clever as you believe yourself to be. It was terribly obvious from the start what you were trying to do when you starting equating sexuality and race.
> 
> I'll state this again and maybe this time it will sink in but I have have my doubts: I don't care whom churches do or don't marry. Whether they be gay, straight, black, white, interracial, or whatever. It is entirely their decision. It is none of my concern what marriages they wish to perform. It's their business.
> 
> I hope I've cleared this up for you but I have a feeling you will continue to misrepresent my position because I don't fit this rather odd narrative you have gay people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so if you don't fit the "cartoonish narrative of gay people", how have you stepped up to denounce gay pride parade sex-exhibitions where they welcome kids of all ages?  Or how have you stepped up to denounce Harvey Milk as the LGBT icon [his postage stamp as such etc.]?
> 
> And please explain in more detail how it is you, as a person who does the gay sex, wholeheartedly support gay marriage but also at the same time support churches' right to refuse to perform them?
> 
> You know what the next question will be.  But for now just answer those...
Click to expand...

Why are you such a homophobic bigot?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, your standards are yours, and no one else needs to adopt them.

Anybody who does same sex, just as those who do hetero sex, of course believes in 1st amendment protection for churches.

The few weirdos who don't include hetero atheists, for that matter.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so if you don't fit the "cartoonish narrative of gay people", how have you stepped up to denounce gay pride parade sex-exhibitions where they welcome kids of all ages?  Or how have you stepped up to denounce Harvey Milk as the LGBT icon [his postage stamp as such etc.]?
> 
> And please explain in more detail how it is you, as a person who does the gay sex, wholeheartedly support gay marriage but also at the same time support churches' right to refuse to perform them?
> 
> You know what the next question will be.  But for now just answer those...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you such a homophobic bigot?
Click to expand...

 
You didn't answer my questions.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, your standards are yours, and no one else needs to adopt them.
> 
> Anybody who does same sex, just as those who do hetero sex, of course believes in 1st amendment protection for churches.
> 
> The few weirdos who don't include hetero atheists, for that matter.


 So you are clear at least that gay behaviors are behaviors and are in no way equivalent to race.  Because as you know, if we were talking about black people, say, your attitude about whether or not they should be married in any church would be vastly different.  Thanks for standing out and being honest about the differences between race and behavior.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so if you don't fit the "cartoonish narrative of gay people", how have you stepped up to denounce gay pride parade sex-exhibitions where they welcome kids of all ages?  Or how have you stepped up to denounce Harvey Milk as the LGBT icon [his postage stamp as such etc.]?
> 
> And please explain in more detail how it is you, as a person who does the gay sex, wholeheartedly support gay marriage but also at the same time support churches' right to refuse to perform them?
> 
> You know what the next question will be.  But for now just answer those...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you such a homophobic bigot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my questions.
Click to expand...

The questions were not to me.  Is that why you're such a homophobic bigot, ignorance?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your standards are yours, and no one else needs to adopt them.
> 
> Anybody who does same sex, just as those who do hetero sex, of course believes in 1st amendment protection for churches.
> 
> The few weirdos who don't include hetero atheists, for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are clear at least that gay behaviors are behaviors and are in no way equivalent to race.  Because as you know, if we were talking about black people, say, your attitude about whether or not they should be married in any church would be vastly different.  Thanks for standing out and being honest about the differences between race and behavior.
Click to expand...


We agree that your weird behavioral pattern is going to change nothing.  In Windsor, the court clearly stated that “regulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States *subject to certain constitutional guarantees.*"   Sil's behavior is exactly why SCOTUS will rule in favor of marriage equality.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> The questions were not to me.  Is that why you're such a homophobic bigot, ignorance?


 
Ahhh... "homophobic bigot"  I think I'm going to enter this phrase into the urban dictionary as meaning "a phrase used when a gay person is backed into a corner in a debate and whose denial systems and fear have taken over"

Very telling that some of them here profess to be gay...for gay "marriage"... but then say "they're OK with churches not performing gay marriages"...

The reason they say this is twofold:

1. To shroud the public from knowing their true intentions once the ink is dry on any federal protection their cult might gain on delivering the word "marriage" its final blow...and...

2. To water down the very otherwise harrowing results of the poll on this thread. To make it appear "as if" "some of the 82% who said they are adamantly or otherwise against gay marriage having to be performed in churches are somehow also avid supporters of gay marriage".

Meanwhile they still want the angle of saying that doing gay stuff is = race. But you'd never catch them saying "we think churches shouldn't marry black people".

And this is why I cornered the one gay poster who said they are gay, gay "married" but also for churches not having to perform gay weddings....oh...but also "gay is the same legally as race". Then I said "no, you're saying it isn't legally the same as race when you say that churches don't have to perform them".

Then as usual came the ad hominems, strawmen and a complete dropping of the topic blaming me. And none of my questions as to the above answered. They're bummin' that I nailed them so swiftly and they're hoping those questions will "go away".


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The questions were not to me.  Is that why you're such a homophobic bigot, ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh... "homophobic bigot"  I think I'm going to enter this phrase into the urban dictionary as meaning "a phrase used when a gay person is backed into a corner in a debate and whose denial systems and fear have taken over"
> 
> Very telling that some of them here profess to be gay...for gay "marriage"... but then say "they're OK with churches not performing gay marriages"...
> 
> The reason they say this is twofold:
> 
> 1. To shroud the public from knowing their true intentions once the ink is dry on any federal protection their cult might gain on delivering the word "marriage" its final blow...and...
> 
> 2. To water down the very otherwise harrowing results of the poll on this thread. To make it appear "as if" "some of the 82% who said they are adamantly or otherwise against gay marriage having to be performed in churches are somehow also avid supporters of gay marriage".
> 
> Meanwhile they still want the angle of saying that doing gay stuff is = race. But you'd never catch them saying "we think churches shouldn't marry black people".
> 
> And this is why I cornered the one gay poster who said they are gay, gay "married" but also for churches not having to perform gay weddings....oh...but also "gay is the same legally as race". Then I said "no, you're saying it isn't legally the same as race when you say that churches don't have to perform them".
> 
> Then as usual came the ad hominems, strawmen and a complete dropping of the topic blaming me. And none of my questions as to the above answered. They're bummin' that I nailed them so swiftly and they're hoping those questions will "go away".
Click to expand...


I'm not gay ya dumb ass homophobic bigot.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, please do not complain when your meanness cast on the water returns unto you.  You have _ad hommed_ others then cried when it returned to you.  Treat others as you wish to be treated.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, please do not complain when your meanness cast on the water returns unto you.  You have _ad hommed_ others then cried when it returned to you.  Treat others as you wish to be treated.


 Jake, please answer the questions in my last post...  That goes for any of you pro-gay advocates out there.  Think about those points and answer to them.  Leave strawmen like this one out in the field.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, please do not complain when your meanness cast on the water returns unto you.  You have _ad hommed_ others then cried when it returned to you.  Treat others as you wish to be treated.
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, please answer the questions in my last post...  That goes for any of you pro-gay advocates out there.  Think about those points and answer to them.  Leave strawmen like this one out in the field.
Click to expand...

 

Remember these questions and glaring issues?



> Very telling that some of them here profess to be gay...for gay "marriage"... but then say "they're OK with churches not performing gay marriages"...
> The reason they say this is twofold:
> 1. To shroud the public from knowing their true intentions once the ink is dry on any federal protection their cult might gain on delivering the word "marriage" its final blow...and...
> 2. To water down the very otherwise harrowing results of the poll on this thread. To make it appear "as if" "some of the 82% who said they are adamantly or otherwise against gay marriage having to be performed in churches are somehow also avid supporters of gay marriage".
> Meanwhile they still want the angle of saying that doing gay stuff is = race. But you'd never catch them saying "we think churches shouldn't marry black people".
> And this is why I cornered the one gay poster who said they are gay, gay "married" but also for churches not having to perform gay weddings....oh...but also "gay is the same legally as race". Then I said "no, you're saying it isn't legally the same as race when you say that churches don't have to perform them".
> Then as usual came the ad hominems, strawmen and a complete dropping of the topic blaming me. And none of my questions as to the above answered. They're bummin' that I nailed them so swiftly and they're hoping those questions will "go away".


 
And as to number 1 above, their ultimate goal is to deal the final blow to religion itself.  For how can the religious simultaneously abide by the mandates in Jude 1 AND enable the spread of a homosexual culture?


----------



## JakeStarkey

All of your obstacles have been easily removed and rebutted, Sil.

Now tell the folks here your real reason for opposition.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, we are waiting for you to be honest with yourself as well as with us.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, please do not complain when your meanness cast on the water returns unto you.  You have _ad hommed_ others then cried when it returned to you.  Treat others as you wish to be treated.
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, please answer the questions in my last post...  That goes for any of you pro-gay advocates out there.  Think about those points and answer to them.  Leave strawmen like this one out in the field.
Click to expand...


One more time for Silly: I have no problem with gay marriage.  Churches (and any other private businesses) should be free to exclude anyone they wish to.


----------



## Silhouette

Jarlaxle said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, please do not complain when your meanness cast on the water returns unto you.  You have _ad hommed_ others then cried when it returned to you.  Treat others as you wish to be treated.
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, please answer the questions in my last post...  That goes for any of you pro-gay advocates out there.  Think about those points and answer to them.  Leave strawmen like this one out in the field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time for Silly: I have no problem with gay marriage.  Churches (and any other private businesses) should be free to exclude anyone they wish to.
Click to expand...

 So then are you in favor of churches denying to marry black people as well?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Up to them.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, please do not complain when your meanness cast on the water returns unto you.  You have _ad hommed_ others then cried when it returned to you.  Treat others as you wish to be treated.
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, please answer the questions in my last post...  That goes for any of you pro-gay advocates out there.  Think about those points and answer to them.  Leave strawmen like this one out in the field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time for Silly: I have no problem with gay marriage.  Churches (and any other private businesses) should be free to exclude anyone they wish to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then are you in favor of churches denying to marry black people as well?
Click to expand...


ANY business should be able to deny service to ANY person. PERIOD.


----------



## Silhouette

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, please do not complain when your meanness cast on the water returns unto you.  You have _ad hommed_ others then cried when it returned to you.  Treat others as you wish to be treated.
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, please answer the questions in my last post...  That goes for any of you pro-gay advocates out there.  Think about those points and answer to them.  Leave strawmen like this one out in the field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time for Silly: I have no problem with gay marriage.  Churches (and any other private businesses) should be free to exclude anyone they wish to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then are you in favor of churches denying to marry black people as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ANY business should be able to deny service to ANY person. PERIOD.
Click to expand...

 You see, I disagree.  I think that blacks because of racial protection should not be descriminated against based on their skin color.  I do believe however that homosexuals can be descriminated against because of their behaviors..  It's a fundamental legal difference and THE hurdle to gay marriage at the federal protection level.  And the reason it is, is because those behaviors pose a definite risk to children.  Just go to a gay pride parade down main street [hoping kids will be there of all ages] and you will know exactly what I'm talking about.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Silhouette said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, please do not complain when your meanness cast on the water returns unto you.  You have _ad hommed_ others then cried when it returned to you.  Treat others as you wish to be treated.
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, please answer the questions in my last post...  That goes for any of you pro-gay advocates out there.  Think about those points and answer to them.  Leave strawmen like this one out in the field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time for Silly: I have no problem with gay marriage.  Churches (and any other private businesses) should be free to exclude anyone they wish to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then are you in favor of churches denying to marry black people as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ANY business should be able to deny service to ANY person. PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, I disagree.  I think that blacks because of racial protection should not be descriminated against based on their skin color.  I do believe however that homosexuals can be descriminated against because of their behaviors..  It's a fundamental legal difference and THE hurdle to gay marriage at the federal protection level.  And the reason it is, is because those behaviors pose a definite risk to children.  Just go to a gay pride parade down main street [hoping kids will be there of all ages] and you will know exactly what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...



Well, you're wrong. The COTUS does not say the government can tell me who I may or not associate with SOMETIMES. It says they may not tell me who I may or not associate with. PERIOD.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I wonder if your behavior, Sil, is becoming challengable under tort law for defamation and libel.

You need to come clean with the Board members for your personal motivation on this issue.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The questions were not to me.  Is that why you're such a homophobic bigot, ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh... "homophobic bigot"  I think I'm going to enter this phrase into the urban dictionary as meaning "a phrase used when a gay person is backed into a corner in a debate and whose denial systems and fear have taken over"
> 
> Very telling that some of them here profess to be gay...for gay "marriage"... but then say "they're OK with churches not performing gay marriages"...
> 
> The reason they say this is twofold:
> 
> 1. To shroud the public from knowing their true intentions once the ink is dry on any federal protection their cult might gain on delivering the word "marriage" its final blow...and...
> 
> 2. To water down the very otherwise harrowing results of the poll on this thread. To make it appear "as if" "some of the 82% who said they are adamantly or otherwise against gay marriage having to be performed in churches are somehow also avid supporters of gay marriage".
> 
> Meanwhile they still want the angle of saying that doing gay stuff is = race. But you'd never catch them saying "we think churches shouldn't marry black people".
> 
> And this is why I cornered the one gay poster who said they are gay, gay "married" but also for churches not having to perform gay weddings....oh...but also "gay is the same legally as race". Then I said "no, you're saying it isn't legally the same as race when you say that churches don't have to perform them".
> 
> Then as usual came the ad hominems, strawmen and a complete dropping of the topic blaming me. And none of my questions as to the above answered. They're bummin' that I nailed them so swiftly and they're hoping those questions will "go away".
Click to expand...


I have not answered your questions because I have been busy and for no other reason. 

You continue to misrepresent my position  because you do not like the answers I have given you. I am going to make this very plain for you, churches have every right to marry or not marry any couple. For any reason they see fit. It is none of my concern. 

Several states have been marrying gays for a couple years now. Some even in churches. Now can you name a single church that has been forced against it's wishes to marry a couple? Or even a straight couple?


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> ANY business should be able to deny service to ANY person. PERIOD.



But they can't...so until you get rid of them all, quit bitching over one small protected group...that isn't even protected in all 50 states.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, you have to come clean for your motives here.  They are obvious to us all now, but you must own up.

Your position has been represented clearly by your opponents.  You have lied and been corrected, and you have misdirected and you have been corrected.  I do think we all agree that adults that prey on children need to be stopped, homo and hetero.  You have made a spurious argument that marriage equality threatens children, when the actual logic you have used indicts all marriage.

You can't carry the argument.  Ever.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The questions were not to me.  Is that why you're such a homophobic bigot, ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh... "homophobic bigot"  I think I'm going to enter this phrase into the urban dictionary as meaning "a phrase used when a gay person is backed into a corner in a debate and whose denial systems and fear have taken over"
> 
> Very telling that some of them here profess to be gay...for gay "marriage"... but then say "they're OK with churches not performing gay marriages"...
> 
> The reason they say this is twofold:
> 
> 1. To shroud the public from knowing their true intentions once the ink is dry on any federal protection their cult might gain on delivering the word "marriage" its final blow...and...
> 
> 2. To water down the very otherwise harrowing results of the poll on this thread. To make it appear "as if" "some of the 82% who said they are adamantly or otherwise against gay marriage having to be performed in churches are somehow also avid supporters of gay marriage".
> 
> Meanwhile they still want the angle of saying that doing gay stuff is = race. But you'd never catch them saying "we think churches shouldn't marry black people".
> 
> And this is why I cornered the one gay poster who said they are gay, gay "married" but also for churches not having to perform gay weddings....oh...but also "gay is the same legally as race". Then I said "no, you're saying it isn't legally the same as race when you say that churches don't have to perform them".
> 
> Then as usual came the ad hominems, strawmen and a complete dropping of the topic blaming me. And none of my questions as to the above answered. They're bummin' that I nailed them so swiftly and they're hoping those questions will "go away".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not answered your questions because I have been busy and for no other reason.
> 
> You continue to misrepresent my position  because you do not like the answers I have given you.* I am going to make this very plain for you, churches have every right to marry or not marry any couple*. For any reason they see fit. It is none of my concern.
> 
> Several states have been marrying gays for a couple years now. Some even in churches. Now can you name a single church that has been forced against it's wishes to marry a couple? Or even a straight couple?
Click to expand...

 
Even black couples for the reason that they are black?


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The questions were not to me.  Is that why you're such a homophobic bigot, ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh... "homophobic bigot"  I think I'm going to enter this phrase into the urban dictionary as meaning "a phrase used when a gay person is backed into a corner in a debate and whose denial systems and fear have taken over"
> 
> Very telling that some of them here profess to be gay...for gay "marriage"... but then say "they're OK with churches not performing gay marriages"...
> 
> The reason they say this is twofold:
> 
> 1. To shroud the public from knowing their true intentions once the ink is dry on any federal protection their cult might gain on delivering the word "marriage" its final blow...and...
> 
> 2. To water down the very otherwise harrowing results of the poll on this thread. To make it appear "as if" "some of the 82% who said they are adamantly or otherwise against gay marriage having to be performed in churches are somehow also avid supporters of gay marriage".
> 
> Meanwhile they still want the angle of saying that doing gay stuff is = race. But you'd never catch them saying "we think churches shouldn't marry black people".
> 
> And this is why I cornered the one gay poster who said they are gay, gay "married" but also for churches not having to perform gay weddings....oh...but also "gay is the same legally as race". Then I said "no, you're saying it isn't legally the same as race when you say that churches don't have to perform them".
> 
> Then as usual came the ad hominems, strawmen and a complete dropping of the topic blaming me. And none of my questions as to the above answered. They're bummin' that I nailed them so swiftly and they're hoping those questions will "go away".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not answered your questions because I have been busy and for no other reason.
> 
> You continue to misrepresent my position  because you do not like the answers I have given you.* I am going to make this very plain for you, churches have every right to marry or not marry any couple*. For any reason they see fit. It is none of my concern.
> 
> Several states have been marrying gays for a couple years now. Some even in churches. Now can you name a single church that has been forced against it's wishes to marry a couple? Or even a straight couple?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even black couples for the reason that they are black?
Click to expand...


Any couple and for any reason. I have stated this several times now. Can you name a single instance where a church was forced to marry a couple against their wishes?


----------



## Conan

No.

To forces churches to accept social behavior is Authoritarian by nature. Would the gay community want us to force our laws and behavior onto them?

BTW hi to my friend MDK.


----------



## mdk

Conan said:


> No.
> 
> To forces churches to accept social behavior is Authoritarian by nature. Would the gay community want us to force our laws and behavior onto them?
> 
> BTW hi to my friend MDK.



Spot on! 

What's up Conan! Nice to see you!


----------



## JakeStarkey

No church has been forced to and a slipperly slope exists for those who suggest it will happen in the future.


----------



## Seawytch

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The questions were not to me.  Is that why you're such a homophobic bigot, ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh... "homophobic bigot"  I think I'm going to enter this phrase into the urban dictionary as meaning "a phrase used when a gay person is backed into a corner in a debate and whose denial systems and fear have taken over"
> 
> Very telling that some of them here profess to be gay...for gay "marriage"... but then say "they're OK with churches not performing gay marriages"...
> 
> The reason they say this is twofold:
> 
> 1. To shroud the public from knowing their true intentions once the ink is dry on any federal protection their cult might gain on delivering the word "marriage" its final blow...and...
> 
> 2. To water down the very otherwise harrowing results of the poll on this thread. To make it appear "as if" "some of the 82% who said they are adamantly or otherwise against gay marriage having to be performed in churches are somehow also avid supporters of gay marriage".
> 
> Meanwhile they still want the angle of saying that doing gay stuff is = race. But you'd never catch them saying "we think churches shouldn't marry black people".
> 
> And this is why I cornered the one gay poster who said they are gay, gay "married" but also for churches not having to perform gay weddings....oh...but also "gay is the same legally as race". Then I said "no, you're saying it isn't legally the same as race when you say that churches don't have to perform them".
> 
> Then as usual came the ad hominems, strawmen and a complete dropping of the topic blaming me. And none of my questions as to the above answered. They're bummin' that I nailed them so swiftly and they're hoping those questions will "go away".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not answered your questions because I have been busy and for no other reason.
> 
> You continue to misrepresent my position  because you do not like the answers I have given you.* I am going to make this very plain for you, churches have every right to marry or not marry any couple*. For any reason they see fit. It is none of my concern.
> 
> Several states have been marrying gays for a couple years now. Some even in churches. Now can you name a single church that has been forced against it's wishes to marry a couple? Or even a straight couple?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even black couples for the reason that they are black?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any couple and for any reason. I have stated this several times now. Can you name a single instance where a church was forced to marry a couple against their wishes?
Click to expand...



Not in the United States they can't.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nope, and never will.  OP fail for the 140th page


----------



## mdk

Seawytch said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The questions were not to me.  Is that why you're such a homophobic bigot, ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh... "homophobic bigot"  I think I'm going to enter this phrase into the urban dictionary as meaning "a phrase used when a gay person is backed into a corner in a debate and whose denial systems and fear have taken over"
> 
> Very telling that some of them here profess to be gay...for gay "marriage"... but then say "they're OK with churches not performing gay marriages"...
> 
> The reason they say this is twofold:
> 
> 1. To shroud the public from knowing their true intentions once the ink is dry on any federal protection their cult might gain on delivering the word "marriage" its final blow...and...
> 
> 2. To water down the very otherwise harrowing results of the poll on this thread. To make it appear "as if" "some of the 82% who said they are adamantly or otherwise against gay marriage having to be performed in churches are somehow also avid supporters of gay marriage".
> 
> Meanwhile they still want the angle of saying that doing gay stuff is = race. But you'd never catch them saying "we think churches shouldn't marry black people".
> 
> And this is why I cornered the one gay poster who said they are gay, gay "married" but also for churches not having to perform gay weddings....oh...but also "gay is the same legally as race". Then I said "no, you're saying it isn't legally the same as race when you say that churches don't have to perform them".
> 
> Then as usual came the ad hominems, strawmen and a complete dropping of the topic blaming me. And none of my questions as to the above answered. They're bummin' that I nailed them so swiftly and they're hoping those questions will "go away".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not answered your questions because I have been busy and for no other reason.
> 
> You continue to misrepresent my position  because you do not like the answers I have given you.* I am going to make this very plain for you, churches have every right to marry or not marry any couple*. For any reason they see fit. It is none of my concern.
> 
> Several states have been marrying gays for a couple years now. Some even in churches. Now can you name a single church that has been forced against it's wishes to marry a couple? Or even a straight couple?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even black couples for the reason that they are black?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any couple and for any reason. I have stated this several times now. Can you name a single instance where a church was forced to marry a couple against their wishes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the United States they can't.
Click to expand...


Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?


----------



## Seawytch

mdk said:


> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?



Not in the United States. Don't care about anywhere else. I hear a couple is suing in the UK, but they don't have a 1st Amendment.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the United States. Don't care about anywhere else. I hear a couple is suing in the UK, but they don't have a 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

 The UK case will fail.  And the reason it will is because of this decision:  European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right ... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum  The European Court, binding on England as well as 48 other countries or country-states in Europe, said that gays do not have a human right to marry.  What that means is any lawsuit they bring to try to assert their "right to marry" to force others to participate with them will fail.

Additionally, you ask why Americans should care.  There is nothing more viscerally-important to people than the concept of family, child raising and marriage.  Europeans are in clear majority of their general populations, quite opposed to the idea of people proud of displaying sexual perversions to children in "pride parades" having legal access to raising them through the legal-loophole of marriage.  To grant so-called "gay marriage" [another poster called that term an oxymoron accurately] and that access to orphans would likely enrage what's left of our world allies against what little regard they have left for the USA's "moral integrity".  We are at quite a tenuous state in world affairs today.  We'd do well to remember that while we tool our controversial moral internal policies.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the United States. Don't care about anywhere else. I hear a couple is suing in the UK, but they don't have a 1st Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UK case will fail.  And the reason it will is because of this decision:  European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right ... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum  The European Court, binding on England as well as 48 other countries or country-states in Europe, said that gays do not have a human right to marry.  What that means is any lawsuit they bring to try to assert their "right to marry" to force others to participate with them will fail.
> 
> Additionally, you ask why Americans should care.  There is nothing more viscerally-important to people than the concept of family, child raising and marriage.  Europeans are in clear majority of their general populations, quite opposed to the idea of people proud of displaying sexual perversions to children in "pride parades" having legal access to raising them through the legal-loophole of marriage.  To grant so-called "gay marriage" [another poster called that term an oxymoron accurately] and that access to orphans would likely enrage what's left of our world allies against what little regard they have left for the USA's "moral integrity".  We are at quite a tenuous state in world affairs today.  We'd do well to remember that while we tool our controversial moral internal policies.
Click to expand...


None of that has anything to do with churches being forced to marry couples against their wishes. You're deflection duly is noted. 

It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, we are not going to import European law here.

SCOTUS is headed with Sotomayor and Kennedy firmly in charge of what is going on to marriage equality.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And no church is going to be forced to marry folks they don't want to and my more than you are going to be forced to marry someone of your own sex, Sil.

It's time to out yourself for your real reason for this thread.  It is obvious to everybody but you will feel better coming clean.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.


 
I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans].  All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them.  Gay pride parades are another reason.  Harvey Milk is yet another.  The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason.  Shall I go on?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Since you have said all that before, yes, tell us what you are personally committed.  That reason you have never shared, Sil.


----------



## Seawytch

JakeStarkey said:


> Since you have said all that before, yes, tell us what you are personally committed.  That reason you have never shared, Sil.



None of Silly's "arguments" pass a rational basis test.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you have said all that before, yes, tell us what you are personally committed.  That reason you have never shared, Sil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of Silly's "arguments" pass a rational basis test.
Click to expand...

 Coming from your unique perspective, I'm sure that feels true.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you have said all that before, yes, tell us what you are personally committed.  That reason you have never shared, Sil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of Silly's "arguments" pass a rational basis test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coming from your unique perspective, I'm sure that feels true.
Click to expand...


Sil, your philosophical arguments have no basis, and you have misread Windsor, and you have created imaginary friends and imaginary cults that don't exist in your head.  There is a reason, a personal reason, why you are doing this.  Share.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans].  All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them.  Gay pride parades are another reason.  Harvey Milk is yet another.  The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason.  Shall I go on?
Click to expand...


I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic. 

Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.


----------



## JakeStarkey

^^^ That.  Answer the question, please, Sil.


----------



## mdk

JakeStarkey said:


> ^^^ That.  Answer the question, please, Sil.


Don't hold your breath. Only a day or so ago he got all haughty about how none of his questions have been answered, which wasn't correct because I've done so rather plainly. Since my answers don't fit his cartoonish narrative they have been ignored. It seems to be a common trait with this poster.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans].  All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them.  Gay pride parades are another reason.  Harvey Milk is yet another.  The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.
> 
> Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

 
The blind don't have a right to drive.  People of all walks don't have a right to marry the same gender.  The words "driver's license" means a privilege extended ONLY to those who qualify legally to drive.  That omits the blind.  The word "marriage" means a privilege extended ONLY to those in each sovereign state who fit that state's qualifiers.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Only so much as Windsor points out as does prohibit the civil liberties of folks to marry, which the courts are defining as marriage equality.

Several of us, I think, are aware of your issue.  Please share.  You will feel better.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans].  All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them.  Gay pride parades are another reason.  Harvey Milk is yet another.  The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.
> 
> Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The blind don't have a right to drive.  People of all walks don't have a right to marry the same gender.  The words "driver's license" means a privilege extended ONLY to those who qualify legally to drive.  That omits the blind.  The word "marriage" means a privilege extended ONLY to those in each sovereign state who fit that state's qualifiers.
Click to expand...


A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?


----------



## SixFoot

mdk said:


> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?




I cannot, and I hope I never can. That would be wrong in so many ways, be it a gay couple or not.


----------



## mdk

SixFoot said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot, and I hope I never can. That would be wrong in so many ways, be it a gay couple or not.
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, marriage is a constitutional right, driving is not.

If you are going to continue arguing, you have to do better.


----------



## RKMBrown

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, marriage is a constitutional right, driving is not.
> 
> If you are going to continue arguing, you have to do better.


To be fair I think you mean religious marriage is a right, and driving on public roads is not.

Marriage licenses and drivers licences are subject to regulation.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?


 
A right for who specifically?  I want you to respond with a comprehensive list.  And if you omit any living person, I want a very detailed explanation as to why.  Because these questions are waiting in the wings on precedent.  Your list must be thorough and your explanations as exhaustive as the best attorney's argument will be...


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A right for who specifically?  I want you to respond with a comprehensive list.  And if you omit any living person, I want a very detailed explanation as to why.  Because these questions are waiting in the wings on precedent.  Your list must be thorough and your explanations as exhaustive as the best attorney's argument will be...
Click to expand...


Goodness gracious, are you never going to address any question I propose to you? It's almost silly at this point.


----------



## rdean

The only thing churches should be forced to do is pay taxes.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A right for who specifically?  I want you to respond with a comprehensive list.  And if you omit any living person, I want a very detailed explanation as to why.  Because these questions are waiting in the wings on precedent.  Your list must be thorough and your explanations as exhaustive as the best attorney's argument will be...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goodness gracious, are you never going to address any question I propose to you? It's almost silly at this point.
Click to expand...

 I notice that you haven't given a comprehensive list of all people who have a "right" to the privelege of marriage.  Please give us a comprehensive list of all people who deserve the right to marry.  It simply cannot be limited to just 'LGBT's [whatever that incomplete listing means?].  It has to include every person.  Unless you're for inequality?


----------



## TemplarKormac

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I used the word "Liar" literally, without emotion.  Either s/he is lying or s/he believes race isn't = to gay sex.  So you are saying you are in agreement with him, in an odd way.  Do you realize that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You called me liar, whether or not you assigned any emotion behind it. I haven't been rude or brazen with you at all and I would expect you to extend me the same courtesy*.
> 
> And yes, I agree, sexuality and race have little in common; however, one can't deny that the arguments used to deny marriage equality amongst races are now being used against gays seeking marriage equality. They are hauntingly familiar in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no, I won't.  If you know anything about me by now, I'm a strait shooter.  I'm calling you out.  Sorry if that offends you on this typically-contentous website.
> 
> You said that you are gay married and in support of gay marriage but that you simultaneously support churches to refuse to perform gay marriages.  Which is of course abject bullshit.  So I called you on it.  And I provided the example of you being say, a black man, and having civil rights just pass...but then feigning being in support of churches not marrying black people.
> 
> I made the point for two reasons...to show how race and gay behaviors are not the same.  And how you yourself even realize this and pointed it out inadvertently.  Or you are lying and are mad as hell that a church wants to lock its doors to gay marriage.  Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can assure you that I am not offended. I am however; disappointed, because I thought we could discuss this topic together in a mannerly fashion. That doesn't appear to be the case with you.
> 
> I am sorry that I don't fit the cartoonish narrative you have of gay people. I am also sorry that you are not clever as you believe yourself to be. It was terribly obvious from the start what you were trying to do when you starting equating sexuality and race.
> 
> I'll state this again and maybe this time it will sink in but I have have my doubts: I don't care whom churches do or don't marry. Whether they be gay, straight, black, white, interracial, or whatever. It is entirely their decision. It is none of my concern what marriages they wish to perform. It's their business.
> 
> I hope I've cleared this up for you but I have a feeling you will continue to misrepresent my position because I don't fit this rather odd narrative you have gay people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so if you don't fit the "cartoonish narrative of gay people", how have you stepped up to denounce gay pride parade sex-exhibitions where they welcome kids of all ages?  Or how have you stepped up to denounce Harvey Milk as the LGBT icon [his postage stamp as such etc.]?
> 
> And please explain in more detail how it is you, as a person who does the gay sex, wholeheartedly support gay marriage but also at the same time support churches' right to refuse to perform them?
> 
> You know what the next question will be.  But for now just answer those...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you such a homophobic bigot?
Click to expand...


He has a right to his opinion, RK, just like you do yours. Perhaps you reinforce his 'bigotry' by calling him a homophobe. It's like trying to put out a fire with a bedsheet.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A right for who specifically?  I want you to respond with a comprehensive list.  And if you omit any living person, I want a very detailed explanation as to why.  Because these questions are waiting in the wings on precedent.  Your list must be thorough and your explanations as exhaustive as the best attorney's argument will be...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goodness gracious, are you never going to address any question I propose to you? It's almost silly at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice that you haven't given a comprehensive list of all people who have a "right" to the privelege of marriage.  Please give us a comprehensive list of all people who deserve the right to marry.  It simply cannot be limited to just 'LGBT's [whatever that incomplete listing means?].  It has to include every person.  Unless you're for inequality?
Click to expand...


Any person that can legally consent should have access to marriage. That includes gays, straights, polygamous, and those that practice incest. That being said, can answer any of my questions now? I have feeling you'll just deflect...again. 

Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against its wishes? 

Since you've foolishly compared marriage to driving: Can you name a single SC case that declared driving a right? The SC has affirmed 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. 

I dare you to answer these questions. You won't, of course because the you already know the answer but don't have the stones to admit you're incorrect.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil keeps stumbling on the difference between right and privilege to marry


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil keeps stumbling on the difference between right and privilege to marry


 Define who has the right to marry Jake.  And who doesn't.  Be very specific.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You called me liar, whether or not you assigned any emotion behind it. I haven't been rude or brazen with you at all and I would expect you to extend me the same courtesy*.
> 
> And yes, I agree, sexuality and race have little in common; however, one can't deny that the arguments used to deny marriage equality amongst races are now being used against gays seeking marriage equality. They are hauntingly familiar in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, I won't.  If you know anything about me by now, I'm a strait shooter.  I'm calling you out.  Sorry if that offends you on this typically-contentous website.
> 
> You said that you are gay married and in support of gay marriage but that you simultaneously support churches to refuse to perform gay marriages.  Which is of course abject bullshit.  So I called you on it.  And I provided the example of you being say, a black man, and having civil rights just pass...but then feigning being in support of churches not marrying black people.
> 
> I made the point for two reasons...to show how race and gay behaviors are not the same.  And how you yourself even realize this and pointed it out inadvertently.  Or you are lying and are mad as hell that a church wants to lock its doors to gay marriage.  Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can assure you that I am not offended. I am however; disappointed, because I thought we could discuss this topic together in a mannerly fashion. That doesn't appear to be the case with you.
> 
> I am sorry that I don't fit the cartoonish narrative you have of gay people. I am also sorry that you are not clever as you believe yourself to be. It was terribly obvious from the start what you were trying to do when you starting equating sexuality and race.
> 
> I'll state this again and maybe this time it will sink in but I have have my doubts: I don't care whom churches do or don't marry. Whether they be gay, straight, black, white, interracial, or whatever. It is entirely their decision. It is none of my concern what marriages they wish to perform. It's their business.
> 
> I hope I've cleared this up for you but I have a feeling you will continue to misrepresent my position because I don't fit this rather odd narrative you have gay people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so if you don't fit the "cartoonish narrative of gay people", how have you stepped up to denounce gay pride parade sex-exhibitions where they welcome kids of all ages?  Or how have you stepped up to denounce Harvey Milk as the LGBT icon [his postage stamp as such etc.]?
> 
> And please explain in more detail how it is you, as a person who does the gay sex, wholeheartedly support gay marriage but also at the same time support churches' right to refuse to perform them?
> 
> You know what the next question will be.  But for now just answer those...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you such a homophobic bigot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He has a right to his opinion, RK, just like you do yours. Perhaps you reinforce his 'bigotry' by calling him a homophobe. It's like trying to put out a fire with a bedsheet.
Click to expand...


Would you call someone who referred to black people as the "n" word a racist or would you offer tolerant understanding of their racism instead? Is believing blacks to be less human than whites just a "difference if opinion"?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil keeps stumbling on the difference between right and privilege to marry
> 
> 
> 
> Define who has the right to marry Jake.  And who doesn't.  Be very specific.
Click to expand...


Refer it to SCOTUS, because you refuse to recognize the facts.  According to Windsor, states decide within the boundary of recognizing civil rights.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil keeps stumbling on the difference between right and privilege to marry
> 
> 
> 
> Define who has the right to marry Jake.  And who doesn't.  Be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Refer it to SCOTUS, because you refuse to recognize the facts.  According to Windsor, states decide within the boundary of recognizing civil rights.
Click to expand...


So Windsor may have the opposite effect, if states can 'decide within the boundary of recognizing civil rights', then they can just as easily decide to not recognize the civil rights of certain individuals. If this is a state issue, then states can set their own standards. 

Not exactly what you had in mind, is it?


----------



## bendog

TemplarKormac said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil keeps stumbling on the difference between right and privilege to marry
> 
> 
> 
> Define who has the right to marry Jake.  And who doesn't.  Be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Refer it to SCOTUS, because you refuse to recognize the facts.  According to Windsor, states decide within the boundary of recognizing civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Windsor may have the opposite effect, if states can 'decide within the boundary of recognizing civil rights', then they can just as easily decide to not recognize the civil rights of certain individuals. If this is a state issue, then states can set their own standards.
> 
> Not exactly what you had in mind, is it?
Click to expand...

To do that the Supremes would have to distinguish Loving.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bendog said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil keeps stumbling on the difference between right and privilege to marry
> 
> 
> 
> Define who has the right to marry Jake.  And who doesn't.  Be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Refer it to SCOTUS, because you refuse to recognize the facts.  According to Windsor, states decide within the boundary of recognizing civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Windsor may have the opposite effect, if states can 'decide within the boundary of recognizing civil rights', then they can just as easily decide to not recognize the civil rights of certain individuals. If this is a state issue, then states can set their own standards.
> 
> Not exactly what you had in mind, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To do that the Supremes would have to distinguish Loving.
Click to expand...


Sil somehow thinks the states can rule out marriage equality without the federal government courts stepping in.

Oh, that's right: almost two dozen decisions now.

So, Sil, yes, SCOTUS will decide in the end, as it always does when folks like you try to prevent other people from exercising their rights.


----------



## bendog

Well in Windsor the supremes passed on the question of whether states could deny same sex folks marriage.  But, there was the distinct questioning of when Scalia asked Olson, "and when did this right of racial intermarriage arise?"  And the answer was "when the court said it did."

If states can deny same sex marriage, they'll have to distinguish that from anti-miscegenation laws, because at some point the supremes will not be able to duck the issue.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That is what Ginsburg said.  Ginsburg Watch 6th Circuit On Gay Marriage US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## bendog

Oh yeah.  They're waiting till its down to Kentucky Ala Miss and SC, and then they'll drop the hammer.


----------



## Seawytch

bendog said:


> Oh yeah.  They're waiting till its down to Kentucky Ala Miss and SC, and then they'll drop the hammer.



They aren't going to have the luxury. They'll have to take it up in the next year or two.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Now that Sotomayo has Kennedy on board and Roberts wavering, the guillotine is being raised in its groove as the anti-marriage equality prisoner, arms and hands bounds by the horizontal leather straps cinched at the back, is being hurried to the engine's bed.


----------



## WorldWatcher

bendog said:


> Well in Windsor the supremes passed on the question of whether states could deny same sex folks marriage.  But, there was the distinct questioning of when Scalia asked Olson, "and when did this right of racial intermarriage arise?"  And the answer was "when the court said it did."
> 
> If states can deny same sex marriage, they'll have to distinguish that from anti-miscegenation laws, because at some point the supremes will not be able to duck the issue.



Windsor was a Federal law case based on the 5th Amendment.  Whether States could discriminate against homosexuals is a 14th Amendment issue that wasn't before the court.

Ms. Windsor was legally married, the Federal government said we're just going to ignore that.  The court said no you can't.  It had no bearing on whether New York could say "No", the case was based on New York having said "Yes".


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> Windsor was a Federal law case based on the 5th Amendment.  Whether States could discriminate against homosexuals is a 14th Amendment issue that wasn't before the court.
> 
> Ms. Windsor was legally married, the Federal government said we're just going to ignore that.  The court said no you can't.  It had no bearing on whether New York could say "No", the case was based on New York having said "Yes".
> 
> 
> >>>>


The Court found that the REASON Ms. Windsor was legally married was because after a long deliberative process which involved the entire citizenry of the State of New York, the weird and new concept that defied thousands of years of traditional definition of marriage was embraced by that discreet community.  Then and only then was her marriage legal.  Read Windsor Opinion pages 14-22.  See if you come up with a different view from the Court.  Think: preponderance of statements and repetition.  For they are key in interpreting what the Court's stance will be in the future as to the 14th covering gay behaviors.  United States v. Windsor

The case determined the State made a choice on gay marriage and as a result of their choice, the fed had to abide.

Choices are not "the option to say "Yes" or "Yes".  They are the option to say "Yes" or "No"...

The Windsor Decision can be called "The States' Choice" Decision.


----------



## JakeStarkey

142 pages in and guess what: WW is still right, and Sil is still wrong.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> 142 pages in and guess what: WW is still right, and Sil is still wrong.


 142 pages and guess what?  over 82% of "supporters of gay marriage" think there are exceptions to allowing it...


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 142 pages in and guess what: WW is still right, and Sil is still wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 142 pages and guess what?  over 82% of "supporters of gay marriage" think there are exceptions to allowing it...
Click to expand...

142 pages and half of them are filled with your blatant lies.


----------



## JakeStarkey

What, that churches will not be forced to marry gays?

What, that Sil and others cannot attack the parenting quality of LGBT without examining those of hetero adults, because the latter commit 100s of times more attacks on youngsters?

What: that SCOTUS, under Windsor, has the right to intervene and order marriage equality throughout land?

What: that cultural McCarthyism of the far right is failing as a political and cultural movement?


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 142 pages in and guess what: WW is still right, and Sil is still wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 142 pages and guess what?  over 82% of "supporters of gay marriage" think there are exceptions to allowing it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 142 pages and half of them are filled with your blatant lies.
Click to expand...

 Have you read the poll results at the top of this thread?  Over 82% of hundreds of responders [one of the most popular polls I've seen at USMB] say they don't believe everyone should support gay marriage in practice.  If the question was "should churches be forced to accomodate for black weddings", the poll results would be very different.

And that's because most people know the difference between sexual BEHAVIORS and an actual race of people..


----------



## Jarlaxle

One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The poll means nothing about support for marriage equality.

The poll findings mean only that 8 of 10 on THIS BOARD think churches should not have to marry folks they don't want to.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 142 pages in and guess what: WW is still right, and Sil is still wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 142 pages and guess what?  over 82% of "supporters of gay marriage" think there are exceptions to allowing it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 142 pages and half of them are filled with your blatant lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you read the poll results at the top of this thread?  Over 82% of hundreds of responders [one of the most popular polls I've seen at USMB] say they don't believe everyone should support gay marriage in practice.  If the question was "should churches be forced to accomodate for black weddings", the poll results would be very different.
> 
> And that's because most people know the difference between sexual BEHAVIORS and an actual race of people..
Click to expand...


Only in the strange places in your head, Sil.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 142 pages in and guess what: WW is still right, and Sil is still wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 142 pages and guess what?  over 82% of "supporters of gay marriage" think there are exceptions to allowing it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 142 pages and half of them are filled with your blatant lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you read the poll results at the top of this thread?  Over 82% of hundreds of responders [one of the most popular polls I've seen at USMB] say they don't believe everyone should support gay marriage in practice.  If the question was "should churches be forced to accomodate for black weddings", the poll results would be very different.
> 
> And that's because most people know the difference between sexual BEHAVIORS and an actual race of people..
Click to expand...

You're a POS liar.


----------



## mdk

Hells bells I am still waiting for Sil to answer question and name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple in the US. Or name a SC case that states driving is a privilege. I suppose he'll never answer the questions. Doesn't fit his narrative so they'll be ignored.  Oh well...


----------



## Seawytch

Jarlaxle said:


> One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.



Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".


----------



## RKMBrown

Seawytch said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".
Click to expand...

Expressing opinion in public is not FORCING.  Please refrain from conflating the term persuasion with force.  It confuses the issue.  If we don't have a common definition of terms we can't have a conversation.  Your sentences conflict.  I believe what you meant to say is that you support persuading churches to marry gays. While force may also be a power exerted, and peer pressure being a power of persuasion, and thus a certain measure of force.  I get your subtle reference.  However, the act of forcing also includes using violence.  Thus if you must use the term force you need to qualify which type.  Persuasive force, legal force, or violent force.


----------



## Seawytch

RKMBrown said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Expressing opinion in public is not FORCING.  Please refrain from conflating the term persuasion with force.  It confuses the issue.  If we don't have a common definition of terms we can't have a conversation.  Your sentences conflict.  I believe what you meant to say is that you support persuading churches to marry gays.
Click to expand...


Exerting public pressure on churches to change their ways can absolutely be construed as "forcing". Churches have been "forced" to change many of their policies over the years...through pressure from  their congregations and others. They get over it.


----------



## RKMBrown

Seawytch said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Expressing opinion in public is not FORCING.  Please refrain from conflating the term persuasion with force.  It confuses the issue.  If we don't have a common definition of terms we can't have a conversation.  Your sentences conflict.  I believe what you meant to say is that you support persuading churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exerting public pressure on churches to change their ways can absolutely be construed as "forcing". Churches have been "forced" to change many of their policies over the years...through pressure from  their congregations and others. They get over it.
Click to expand...

True, but again it's not through violence or law changes.  It's merely through logic and persuasion shinning a spotlight, if you will, on ignorance.  I'd say persuasively forcing not simply forcing. Saying forcing implies burning down churches till they get the point.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Expressing opinion in public is not FORCING.  Please refrain from conflating the term persuasion with force.  It confuses the issue.  If we don't have a common definition of terms we can't have a conversation.  Your sentences conflict.  I believe what you meant to say is that you support persuading churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exerting public pressure on churches to change their ways can absolutely be construed as "forcing". Churches have been "forced" to change many of their policies over the years...through pressure from  their congregations and others. They get over it.
Click to expand...


So the, you wouldn't mind someone forcing you to stop being gay?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".
Click to expand...


why in hell do you care what churches do? Mind your own business, just as they should mind their own business about who you marry.

Is that really such a hard concept?


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why in hell do you care what churches do? Mind your own business, just as they should mind their own business about who you marry.
> 
> Is that really such a hard concept?
Click to expand...

Why does anyone care what anyone else does?  Easy.. humans are social animals.  Busy bodies crave on such interactions.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Why does anyone care what anyone else does?  Easy.. humans are social animals.  Busy bodies crave on such interactions.


 Because children and most particularly, adoptable orphaned children are the most important part of the equation of marriage.  We don't want those "busy bodies" doing stuff to kids behind closed doors that they do in front of them in gay pride parades. 

When discussing marriage you're forgetting about an entire demographic.  Our most vulnerable demographic; who come equipped with civil rights of their own...


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does anyone care what anyone else does?  Easy.. humans are social animals.  Busy bodies crave on such interactions.
> 
> 
> 
> Because children and most particularly, adoptable orphaned children are the most important part of the equation of marriage.  We don't want those "busy bodies" doing stuff to kids behind closed doors that they do in front of them in gay pride parades.
> 
> When discussing marriage you're forgetting about an entire demographic.  Our most vulnerable demographic; who come equipped with civil rights of their own...
Click to expand...


Huh? If you don't want orphans going to homosexual marriages, just add that as a qualification to the hundreds of other qualifications placed on adoptions.  What makes you think being married means you qualify for adopting children?

Why do you keep insisting that homosexuals are abusive to children behind closed doors? WTF is wrong you?


----------



## mdk

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does anyone care what anyone else does?  Easy.. humans are social animals.  Busy bodies crave on such interactions.
> 
> 
> 
> Because children and most particularly, adoptable orphaned children are the most important part of the equation of marriage.  We don't want those "busy bodies" doing stuff to kids behind closed doors that they do in front of them in gay pride parades.
> 
> When discussing marriage you're forgetting about an entire demographic.  Our most vulnerable demographic; who come equipped with civil rights of their own...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? If you don't want orphans going to homosexual marriages, just add that as a qualification to the hundreds of other qualifications placed on adoptions.  What makes you think being married means you qualify for adopting children?
> 
> Why do you keep insisting that homosexuals are abusive to children behind closed doors? WTF is wrong you?
Click to expand...


He believes all gays are just sexual predators and therefore should not be allowed to have kids. It is just a lame excuse to deny gays marriage equality.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Huh? If you don't want orphans going to homosexual marriages, just add that as a qualification to the hundreds of other qualifications placed on adoptions.  What makes you think being married means you qualify for adopting children?
> 
> Why do you keep insisting that homosexuals are abusive to children behind closed doors? WTF is wrong you?


Because the millisecond if gays get legal marriage, disqualfying them for adopting because they are gay will be fodder for a lawsuit.  So their clinching federal-protection for marriage is one and the same as their clinching access to adoptable orphans.

And that presents a problem for reasons here, on post #842 Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation Page 43 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? If you don't want orphans going to homosexual marriages, just add that as a qualification to the hundreds of other qualifications placed on adoptions.  What makes you think being married means you qualify for adopting children?
> 
> Why do you keep insisting that homosexuals are abusive to children behind closed doors? WTF is wrong you?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the millisecond if gays get legal marriage, disqualfying them for adopting because they are gay will be fodder for a lawsuit.  So their clinching federal-protection for marriage is one and the same as their clinching access to adoptable orphans.
> 
> And that presents a problem for reasons here, on post #842 Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation Page 43 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...

Bull shit.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> Because the millisecond if gays get legal marriage, disqualfying them for adopting because they are gay will be fodder for a lawsuit.




Pst - A homosexual can already adopt in all 50 states.  A homosexual can even adopt in Utah.



>>>>


----------



## RKMBrown

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the millisecond if gays get legal marriage, disqualfying them for adopting because they are gay will be fodder for a lawsuit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pst - A homosexual can already adopt in all 50 states.  A homosexual can even adopt in Utah.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

Yeah but not if they are married cause they can't be married.  ROFL  it would be much worse for the child to live in a family with married gays than single gays ... ROFL


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why in hell do you care what churches do? Mind your own business, just as they should mind their own business about who you marry.
> 
> Is that really such a hard concept?
Click to expand...


Perhaps I'm a Christian who wants my church to be inclusive of my family. Maybe I just happen to care for Christians who are being hurt by the churches exclusion of them. 

I also cared when churches changed their stance on blacks marrying whites...and?


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the millisecond if gays get legal marriage, disqualfying them for adopting because they are gay will be fodder for a lawsuit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pst - A homosexual can already adopt in all 50 states.  A homosexual can even adopt in Utah.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

But not ones cohabitating.  That requires marriage.  If a lone homosexual wants to adopt, he'd damn well better declare his orientation too.  Since the LGBT culture is all about doing lewd sex parades in front of kids as a matter of unanimous-"pride".  I'd consider that as an adoption agent "a disqualifier"...


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Hells bells I am still waiting for Sil to answer question and name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple in the US. Or name a SC case that states driving is a privilege. I suppose he'll never answer the questions. Doesn't fit his narrative so they'll be ignored.  Oh well...


 No church has been forced to perform a gay marriage yet, because the LGBT subCULTure has not so far gained federal protection for "their rights to marry" [which don't exist outside the state they live in and its discreet community's permission].  If they ever do hornswaggle the US Supreme Court into getting that protection, the lawsuits against churches refusing to enable the spread of their culture via marriage will begin pretty much the same day before the ink is even dry on that potential and unfortunate blunder by SCOTUS...


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hells bells I am still waiting for Sil to answer question and name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple in the US. Or name a SC case that states driving is a privilege. I suppose he'll never answer the questions. Doesn't fit his narrative so they'll be ignored.  Oh well...
> 
> 
> 
> No church has been forced to perform a gay marriage yet, because the LGBT subCULTure has not so far gained federal protection for "their rights to marry" [which don't exist outside the state they live in and its discreet community's permission].  If they ever do hornswaggle the US Supreme Court into getting that protection, the lawsuits against churches refusing to enable the spread of their culture via marriage will begin pretty much the same day before the ink is even dry on that potential and unfortunate blunder by SCOTUS...
Click to expand...


I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches.  Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> *I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes*. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches.  Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?


 
Then they'd also have to re-tailor the 14th Amendment to say that any church may deny any race they like marriage within their halls.  Pretty sure that wouldn't be such a done-deal.  Unless you're saying sexual behaviors aren't equivalent to race?  In that case, I agree with you...


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes*. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches.  Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they'd also have to re-tailor the 14th Amendment to say that any church may deny any race they like marriage within their halls.  Pretty sure that wouldn't be such a done-deal.  Unless you're saying sexual behaviors aren't equivalent to race?  In that case, I agree with you...
Click to expand...


There wouldn't be any need to make alterations to the 14th Amendment concerning interracial marriages. Churches already reserve the right to not marry any couple against their wishes. I can't a name single church that has been forced marry an interracial couple. And I bet you can't either. 

When we had this same exact conversation a little over a week ago I agreed with you. Sexual behaviors, of any kind, are not equivalent to race.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hells bells I am still waiting for Sil to answer question and name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple in the US. Or name a SC case that states driving is a privilege. I suppose he'll never answer the questions. Doesn't fit his narrative so they'll be ignored.  Oh well...
> 
> 
> 
> No church has been forced to perform a gay marriage yet, because the LGBT subCULTure has not so far gained federal protection for "their rights to marry" [which don't exist outside the state they live in and its discreet community's permission].  If they ever do hornswaggle the US Supreme Court into getting that protection, the lawsuits against churches refusing to enable the spread of their culture via marriage will begin pretty much the same day before the ink is even dry on that potential and unfortunate blunder by SCOTUS...
Click to expand...

You're full of shit you homophobic bigot.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hells bells I am still waiting for Sil to answer question and name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple in the US. Or name a SC case that states driving is a privilege. I suppose he'll never answer the questions. Doesn't fit his narrative so they'll be ignored.  Oh well...
> 
> 
> 
> No church has been forced to perform a gay marriage yet, because the LGBT subCULTure has not so far gained federal protection for "their rights to marry" [which don't exist outside the state they live in and its discreet community's permission].  If they ever do hornswaggle the US Supreme Court into getting that protection, the lawsuits against churches refusing to enable the spread of their culture via marriage will begin pretty much the same day before the ink is even dry on that potential and unfortunate blunder by SCOTUS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches.  Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
Click to expand...



You'd be wrong

Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite

Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words

_some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals._


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hells bells I am still waiting for Sil to answer question and name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple in the US. Or name a SC case that states driving is a privilege. I suppose he'll never answer the questions. Doesn't fit his narrative so they'll be ignored.  Oh well...
> 
> 
> 
> No church has been forced to perform a gay marriage yet, because the LGBT subCULTure has not so far gained federal protection for "their rights to marry" [which don't exist outside the state they live in and its discreet community's permission].  If they ever do hornswaggle the US Supreme Court into getting that protection, the lawsuits against churches refusing to enable the spread of their culture via marriage will begin pretty much the same day before the ink is even dry on that potential and unfortunate blunder by SCOTUS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches.  Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be wrong
> 
> Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
> 
> Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
> 
> _some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals._
Click to expand...


You need to read it again.  They are not being forced to marry anyone.

The church owned a public pavilion.  The Church rents the public pavilion to the public.  The gay couple wanted to rent the pavilion for their ceremony.  No church members were required to be present at said ceremony or preside over said ceremony or bless the damn ceremony.  We have laws in the USA that prohibit businesses from this sort of discrimination.    If a person walks in to your public establishment you can't refuse him service because of the color of his skin, gender, sexual preference etc.  That's what happened here and the Church was wrong to refuse access to the public pavilion that the church rented public-ally to the public.

FYI I read the actual court case decision, not the biased reporting.

All that church has to do is make the facility private, instead of public and then they can discriminate against gays all they like.


----------



## WorldWatcher

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches.  Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be wrong
> 
> Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
> 
> Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
> 
> _some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals._
Click to expand...


MDK said a Church, you link isn't about a Church.

1.  It wasn't a Church, here is a list of Methodist Churches in the United States, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not on it -->> Methodist Church Directory.

2.  The OGCMA was not required to perform any ceremony, the mayor is the one that voluntarily performed teh same-sex commitment ceremony (SSCM not being legal at the time in New Jersey).

3.  If it were a Church, then Church property would have already been exempt from property taxes as are the grounds of other Churches.  However they were not, the OGCMA facilities were not receiving the religious exemptions for property taxes, which is why the applied for a special exemption under the New Jersey Green Acres Program.

4.  As part of that program they agreed to make the pavilion open to the public, they reneged on their word and so the Special Tax Exemption for public places was withdrawn.

***********************************

From the ruling in the case:

"The relevant facts for purposes of the cross-motions are substantially undisputed."  In other words the OGCMA agreed and did not dispute the facts as presented regarding the denial of services to members of the public nor what they agreed to under the Green Acres Program.

"At the time of denial in March 2007, the Pavilion was used primarily as a venue for religious programming, *but respondent also hosted community and charitable events* and rented the space for weddings."  The respondents acknowledged that the pavilion was used for events other than religious services.

"This was the first time in anyone’s memory that a denial was based on a reason other than availability."  In the 18-years that the OGCMA had received the special exemption under the Green Acres Program, no one remembered an application for use ever being denied unless the pavilion was already booked.

"In July 1989 respondent applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for Lot 1, Block 1.01, which includes the Pavilion and the adjacent boardwalk and beach area. The application describes the area as public in nature. The Green Acres program is designed to preserve open space and the statutory scheme authorizes a tax exemption for non-profit corporations utilizing property for conservation or recreational purposes. One condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis,” N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.66; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4(a)(2)."  Green Acres Program = Open for Public Use.  Deny the public use of the facility when it would be otherwise available is a violation of the participation requirements of the program.

"Neptune Township, the municipality within which respondent is located, opposed the application on grounds that respondent is governed by religious restrictions that make equal-access doubtful. At a public hearing conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection in September 1989, respondent represented that the Pavilion was available for public use without reservation."  The township pointed out that future use by the public might conflict with religious poilicies, the OGCMA said (to paraphrase), nope - the public will have access without reservation.  They then reapplied for the same special exemption every 3-years for the next 15-years.  New Jersey implemented legal recognition for Same-sex Civil Unions in 2003.  Let's see, renewal of the program applications would have occured in 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 - so *AFTER* Civil Unions were made legal in 2003, they still applied for the exemption in 2004 instead of letting it lapse so they could be more selective on public utilization.

"Respondent argues that it didn’t need a Green Acres tax exemption for the Pavilion; it could at any time have obtained the same benefit by applying for a tax exemption as a religious organization. Indeed, after these events that is exactly what it did. We are, however, bound by the facts that were, not those that might have been, or that came to pass in the aftermath of petitioners’ application."  

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1


As the Judge points out.  What matters in the case are the conditions applicable to 2007.  It's not the Judges fault the OGCMA applied for the wrong exemption.  The fact remains that as long as they applied for the Green Acres Program exemption, they were bound by it's rules.  Don't want to play by those rules, apply for a different exemption (which is what they did after the fact).


>>>>


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hells bells I am still waiting for Sil to answer question and name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple in the US. Or name a SC case that states driving is a privilege. I suppose he'll never answer the questions. Doesn't fit his narrative so they'll be ignored.  Oh well...
> 
> 
> 
> No church has been forced to perform a gay marriage yet, because the LGBT subCULTure has not so far gained federal protection for "their rights to marry" [which don't exist outside the state they live in and its discreet community's permission].  If they ever do hornswaggle the US Supreme Court into getting that protection, the lawsuits against churches refusing to enable the spread of their culture via marriage will begin pretty much the same day before the ink is even dry on that potential and unfortunate blunder by SCOTUS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches.  Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be wrong
> 
> Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
> 
> Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
> 
> _some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read it again.  They are not being forced to marry anyone.
> 
> The church owned a public pavilion.  The Church rents the public pavilion to the public.  The gay couple wanted to rent the pavilion for their ceremony.  No church members were required to be present at said ceremony or preside over said ceremony or bless the damn ceremony.  We have laws in the USA that prohibit businesses from this sort of discrimination.    If a person walks in to your public establishment you can't refuse him service because of the color of his skin, gender, sexual preference etc.  That's what happened here and the Church was wrong to refuse access to the public pavilion that the church rented public-ally to the public.
Click to expand...



That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hells bells I am still waiting for Sil to answer question and name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple in the US. Or name a SC case that states driving is a privilege. I suppose he'll never answer the questions. Doesn't fit his narrative so they'll be ignored.  Oh well...
> 
> 
> 
> No church has been forced to perform a gay marriage yet, because the LGBT subCULTure has not so far gained federal protection for "their rights to marry" [which don't exist outside the state they live in and its discreet community's permission].  If they ever do hornswaggle the US Supreme Court into getting that protection, the lawsuits against churches refusing to enable the spread of their culture via marriage will begin pretty much the same day before the ink is even dry on that potential and unfortunate blunder by SCOTUS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches.  Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be wrong
> 
> Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
> 
> Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
> 
> _some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read it again.  They are not being forced to marry anyone.
> 
> The church owned a public pavilion.  The Church rents the public pavilion to the public.  The gay couple wanted to rent the pavilion for their ceremony.  No church members were required to be present at said ceremony or preside over said ceremony or bless the damn ceremony.  We have laws in the USA that prohibit businesses from this sort of discrimination.    If a person walks in to your public establishment you can't refuse him service because of the color of his skin, gender, sexual preference etc.  That's what happened here and the Church was wrong to refuse access to the public pavilion that the church rented public-ally to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.
Click to expand...


You're not listening.

That was property that the church was making money on by selling access to the public.  Again, it does not matter if you are a church or a biker gang, if you are selling to the public you can't discriminate who you sell to.  Do you understand the civil rights act, and other civil rights acts the states put in that augment the federal one?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> No church has been forced to perform a gay marriage yet, because the LGBT subCULTure has not so far gained federal protection for "their rights to marry" [which don't exist outside the state they live in and its discreet community's permission].  If they ever do hornswaggle the US Supreme Court into getting that protection, the lawsuits against churches refusing to enable the spread of their culture via marriage will begin pretty much the same day before the ink is even dry on that potential and unfortunate blunder by SCOTUS...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches.  Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be wrong
> 
> Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
> 
> Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
> 
> _some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read it again.  They are not being forced to marry anyone.
> 
> The church owned a public pavilion.  The Church rents the public pavilion to the public.  The gay couple wanted to rent the pavilion for their ceremony.  No church members were required to be present at said ceremony or preside over said ceremony or bless the damn ceremony.  We have laws in the USA that prohibit businesses from this sort of discrimination.    If a person walks in to your public establishment you can't refuse him service because of the color of his skin, gender, sexual preference etc.  That's what happened here and the Church was wrong to refuse access to the public pavilion that the church rented public-ally to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not listening.
> 
> That was property that the church was making money on by selling access to the public.  Again, it does not matter if you are a church or a biker gang, if you are selling to the public you can't discriminate who you sell to.  Do you understand the civil rights act, and other civil rights acts the states put in that augment the federal one?
Click to expand...



Of course I understand them, they are unconstitutional.


----------



## mdk

WorldWatcher said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches.  Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be wrong
> 
> Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
> 
> Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
> 
> _some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MDK said a Church, you link isn't about a Church.
> 
> 1.  It wasn't a Church, here is a list of Methodist Churches in the United States, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not on it -->> Methodist Church Directory.
> 
> 2.  The OGCMA was not required to perform any ceremony, the mayor is the one that voluntarily performed teh same-sex commitment ceremony (SSCM not being legal at the time in New Jersey).
> 
> 3.  If it were a Church, then Church property would have already been exempt from property taxes as are the grounds of other Churches.  However they were not, the OGCMA facilities were not receiving the religious exemptions for property taxes, which is why the applied for a special exemption under the New Jersey Green Acres Program.
> 
> 4.  As part of that program they agreed to make the pavilion open to the public, they reneged on their word and so the Special Tax Exemption for public places was withdrawn.
> 
> ***********************************
> 
> From the ruling in the case:
> 
> "The relevant facts for purposes of the cross-motions are substantially undisputed."  In other words the OGCMA agreed and did not dispute the facts as presented regarding the denial of services to members of the public nor what they agreed to under the Green Acres Program.
> 
> "At the time of denial in March 2007, the Pavilion was used primarily as a venue for religious programming, *but respondent also hosted community and charitable events* and rented the space for weddings."  The respondents acknowledged that the pavilion was used for events other than religious services.
> 
> "This was the first time in anyone’s memory that a denial was based on a reason other than availability."  In the 18-years that the OGCMA had received the special exemption under the Green Acres Program, no one remembered an application for use ever being denied unless the pavilion was already booked.
> 
> "In July 1989 respondent applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for Lot 1, Block 1.01, which includes the Pavilion and the adjacent boardwalk and beach area. The application describes the area as public in nature. The Green Acres program is designed to preserve open space and the statutory scheme authorizes a tax exemption for non-profit corporations utilizing property for conservation or recreational purposes. One condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis,” N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.66; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4(a)(2)."  Green Acres Program = Open for Public Use.  Deny the public use of the facility when it would be otherwise available is a violation of the participation requirements of the program.
> 
> "Neptune Township, the municipality within which respondent is located, opposed the application on grounds that respondent is governed by religious restrictions that make equal-access doubtful. At a public hearing conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection in September 1989, respondent represented that the Pavilion was available for public use without reservation."  The township pointed out that future use by the public might conflict with religious poilicies, the OGCMA said (to paraphrase), nope - the public will have access without reservation.  They then reapplied for the same special exemption every 3-years for the next 15-years.  New Jersey implemented legal recognition for Same-sex Civil Unions in 2003.  Let's see, renewal of the program applications would have occured in 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 - so *AFTER* Civil Unions were made legal in 2003, they still applied for the exemption in 2004 instead of letting it lapse so they could be more selective on public utilization.
> 
> "Respondent argues that it didn’t need a Green Acres tax exemption for the Pavilion; it could at any time have obtained the same benefit by applying for a tax exemption as a religious organization. Indeed, after these events that is exactly what it did. We are, however, bound by the facts that were, not those that might have been, or that came to pass in the aftermath of petitioners’ application."
> 
> http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
> 
> 
> As the Judge points out.  What matters in the case are the conditions applicable to 2007.  It's not the Judges fault the OGCMA applied for the wrong exemption.  The fact remains that as long as they applied for the Green Acres Program exemption, they were bound by it's rules.  Don't want to play by those rules, apply for a different exemption (which is what they did after the fact).
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


I knew it was only a matter of time before someone brought up this single case. I was going to post pretty much the same thing. They'll spilt hairs and claim it was a church despite all the evidence that says otherwise. Not single church has ever been forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes. A right I fully support.


----------



## Silhouette

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> You'd be wrong
> 
> Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
> 
> Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
> 
> _some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals._


 
"some intrusion" eh?  How about violation of Jude 1 of the New Testament where the mortal sin of enabling the spread of a homosexual culture [what better way than "gay marriage"?] is punishable by an enternity in the Pit of Fire?

Yep, that's "some intrusion" all right.  It is the nullifcation of devotion of the faithful, de facto.  Essentially it is the removal of religion completely.  If you're damned to hell for eternity for enabling the spread of the homosexual subCULTure, why bother doing any of the rest of it.  You're irreparably-screwed with God at that point.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes*. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches.  Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they'd also have to re-tailor the 14th Amendment to say that any church may deny any race they like marriage within their halls.  Pretty sure that wouldn't be such a done-deal.  Unless you're saying sexual behaviors aren't equivalent to race?  In that case, I agree with you...
Click to expand...


No church in the United States has EVER been forced to marry ANYONE.  Just stop, Silly, you're being dumber than usual.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

mdk said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches.  Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be wrong
> 
> Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
> 
> Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
> 
> _some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MDK said a Church, you link isn't about a Church.
> 
> 1.  It wasn't a Church, here is a list of Methodist Churches in the United States, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not on it -->> Methodist Church Directory.
> 
> 2.  The OGCMA was not required to perform any ceremony, the mayor is the one that voluntarily performed teh same-sex commitment ceremony (SSCM not being legal at the time in New Jersey).
> 
> 3.  If it were a Church, then Church property would have already been exempt from property taxes as are the grounds of other Churches.  However they were not, the OGCMA facilities were not receiving the religious exemptions for property taxes, which is why the applied for a special exemption under the New Jersey Green Acres Program.
> 
> 4.  As part of that program they agreed to make the pavilion open to the public, they reneged on their word and so the Special Tax Exemption for public places was withdrawn.
> 
> ***********************************
> 
> From the ruling in the case:
> 
> "The relevant facts for purposes of the cross-motions are substantially undisputed."  In other words the OGCMA agreed and did not dispute the facts as presented regarding the denial of services to members of the public nor what they agreed to under the Green Acres Program.
> 
> "At the time of denial in March 2007, the Pavilion was used primarily as a venue for religious programming, *but respondent also hosted community and charitable events* and rented the space for weddings."  The respondents acknowledged that the pavilion was used for events other than religious services.
> 
> "This was the first time in anyone’s memory that a denial was based on a reason other than availability."  In the 18-years that the OGCMA had received the special exemption under the Green Acres Program, no one remembered an application for use ever being denied unless the pavilion was already booked.
> 
> "In July 1989 respondent applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for Lot 1, Block 1.01, which includes the Pavilion and the adjacent boardwalk and beach area. The application describes the area as public in nature. The Green Acres program is designed to preserve open space and the statutory scheme authorizes a tax exemption for non-profit corporations utilizing property for conservation or recreational purposes. One condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis,” N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.66; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4(a)(2)."  Green Acres Program = Open for Public Use.  Deny the public use of the facility when it would be otherwise available is a violation of the participation requirements of the program.
> 
> "Neptune Township, the municipality within which respondent is located, opposed the application on grounds that respondent is governed by religious restrictions that make equal-access doubtful. At a public hearing conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection in September 1989, respondent represented that the Pavilion was available for public use without reservation."  The township pointed out that future use by the public might conflict with religious poilicies, the OGCMA said (to paraphrase), nope - the public will have access without reservation.  They then reapplied for the same special exemption every 3-years for the next 15-years.  New Jersey implemented legal recognition for Same-sex Civil Unions in 2003.  Let's see, renewal of the program applications would have occured in 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 - so *AFTER* Civil Unions were made legal in 2003, they still applied for the exemption in 2004 instead of letting it lapse so they could be more selective on public utilization.
> 
> "Respondent argues that it didn’t need a Green Acres tax exemption for the Pavilion; it could at any time have obtained the same benefit by applying for a tax exemption as a religious organization. Indeed, after these events that is exactly what it did. We are, however, bound by the facts that were, not those that might have been, or that came to pass in the aftermath of petitioners’ application."
> 
> http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
> 
> 
> As the Judge points out.  What matters in the case are the conditions applicable to 2007.  It's not the Judges fault the OGCMA applied for the wrong exemption.  The fact remains that as long as they applied for the Green Acres Program exemption, they were bound by it's rules.  Don't want to play by those rules, apply for a different exemption (which is what they did after the fact).
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew it was only a matter of time before someone brought up this single case. I was going to post pretty much the same thing. They'll spilt hairs and claim it was a church despite all the evidence that says otherwise. Not single church has ever been forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes. A right I fully support.
Click to expand...



How is that splitting hairs given that SCOTUS has recently ruled that a business can deny specific birth control coverage based on religious beliefs.


----------



## WorldWatcher

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.




Read the ruling, the OGCMA is not a Church.


----------



## mdk

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches.  Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be wrong
> 
> Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
> 
> Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
> 
> _some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MDK said a Church, you link isn't about a Church.
> 
> 1.  It wasn't a Church, here is a list of Methodist Churches in the United States, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not on it -->> Methodist Church Directory.
> 
> 2.  The OGCMA was not required to perform any ceremony, the mayor is the one that voluntarily performed teh same-sex commitment ceremony (SSCM not being legal at the time in New Jersey).
> 
> 3.  If it were a Church, then Church property would have already been exempt from property taxes as are the grounds of other Churches.  However they were not, the OGCMA facilities were not receiving the religious exemptions for property taxes, which is why the applied for a special exemption under the New Jersey Green Acres Program.
> 
> 4.  As part of that program they agreed to make the pavilion open to the public, they reneged on their word and so the Special Tax Exemption for public places was withdrawn.
> 
> ***********************************
> 
> From the ruling in the case:
> 
> "The relevant facts for purposes of the cross-motions are substantially undisputed."  In other words the OGCMA agreed and did not dispute the facts as presented regarding the denial of services to members of the public nor what they agreed to under the Green Acres Program.
> 
> "At the time of denial in March 2007, the Pavilion was used primarily as a venue for religious programming, *but respondent also hosted community and charitable events* and rented the space for weddings."  The respondents acknowledged that the pavilion was used for events other than religious services.
> 
> "This was the first time in anyone’s memory that a denial was based on a reason other than availability."  In the 18-years that the OGCMA had received the special exemption under the Green Acres Program, no one remembered an application for use ever being denied unless the pavilion was already booked.
> 
> "In July 1989 respondent applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for Lot 1, Block 1.01, which includes the Pavilion and the adjacent boardwalk and beach area. The application describes the area as public in nature. The Green Acres program is designed to preserve open space and the statutory scheme authorizes a tax exemption for non-profit corporations utilizing property for conservation or recreational purposes. One condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis,” N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.66; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4(a)(2)."  Green Acres Program = Open for Public Use.  Deny the public use of the facility when it would be otherwise available is a violation of the participation requirements of the program.
> 
> "Neptune Township, the municipality within which respondent is located, opposed the application on grounds that respondent is governed by religious restrictions that make equal-access doubtful. At a public hearing conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection in September 1989, respondent represented that the Pavilion was available for public use without reservation."  The township pointed out that future use by the public might conflict with religious poilicies, the OGCMA said (to paraphrase), nope - the public will have access without reservation.  They then reapplied for the same special exemption every 3-years for the next 15-years.  New Jersey implemented legal recognition for Same-sex Civil Unions in 2003.  Let's see, renewal of the program applications would have occured in 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 - so *AFTER* Civil Unions were made legal in 2003, they still applied for the exemption in 2004 instead of letting it lapse so they could be more selective on public utilization.
> 
> "Respondent argues that it didn’t need a Green Acres tax exemption for the Pavilion; it could at any time have obtained the same benefit by applying for a tax exemption as a religious organization. Indeed, after these events that is exactly what it did. We are, however, bound by the facts that were, not those that might have been, or that came to pass in the aftermath of petitioners’ application."
> 
> http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
> 
> 
> As the Judge points out.  What matters in the case are the conditions applicable to 2007.  It's not the Judges fault the OGCMA applied for the wrong exemption.  The fact remains that as long as they applied for the Green Acres Program exemption, they were bound by it's rules.  Don't want to play by those rules, apply for a different exemption (which is what they did after the fact).
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew it was only a matter of time before someone brought up this single case. I was going to post pretty much the same thing. They'll spilt hairs and claim it was a church despite all the evidence that says otherwise. Not single church has ever been forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes. A right I fully support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How is that splitting hairs given that SCOTUS has recently ruled that a business can deny specific birth control coverage based on religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


None of that changes the fact that this wasn't a church and they were not in fact forced to marry a gay couple. Besides, gay marriage didn't even legally exist in NJ at the time this incident occurred. 

This isn't the first someone has brought up this singular case in hopes of claiming a church was forced to marry gays. I've been debating this topic for many years and you're going to have to do a lot better then this single as an example. Now, can you name a single church that has been forced to marry a gay couple?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

WorldWatcher said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the ruling, the OGCMA is not a Church.
Click to expand...


Neither is Hobby Lobby


----------



## Silhouette

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the ruling, the OGCMA is not a Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is Hobby Lobby
Click to expand...

 
True true...


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am willing to bet all the tea in China that the SC will tailor the decision to state that churches will not be forced to marry any gay couple against their wishes. States that have passed marriage equality have already put those protections in place for churches.  Massachusetts has been allowing gays to marry for over decade and I am not aware of single church that has been sued to force them to marry a gay couple. Can you name one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be wrong
> 
> Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
> 
> Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
> 
> _some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read it again.  They are not being forced to marry anyone.
> 
> The church owned a public pavilion.  The Church rents the public pavilion to the public.  The gay couple wanted to rent the pavilion for their ceremony.  No church members were required to be present at said ceremony or preside over said ceremony or bless the damn ceremony.  We have laws in the USA that prohibit businesses from this sort of discrimination.    If a person walks in to your public establishment you can't refuse him service because of the color of his skin, gender, sexual preference etc.  That's what happened here and the Church was wrong to refuse access to the public pavilion that the church rented public-ally to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not listening.
> 
> That was property that the church was making money on by selling access to the public.  Again, it does not matter if you are a church or a biker gang, if you are selling to the public you can't discriminate who you sell to.  Do you understand the civil rights act, and other civil rights acts the states put in that augment the federal one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I understand them, they are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


Not according to the SCOTUS.  You can go private and discriminate all you want.  Thus a church need only to limit sales to members and then they can discriminate to their ugly hearts content.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be wrong
> 
> Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises News LifeSite
> 
> Here was that Judge (who should be recalled IMMEDIATELY) exact words
> 
> _some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read it again.  They are not being forced to marry anyone.
> 
> The church owned a public pavilion.  The Church rents the public pavilion to the public.  The gay couple wanted to rent the pavilion for their ceremony.  No church members were required to be present at said ceremony or preside over said ceremony or bless the damn ceremony.  We have laws in the USA that prohibit businesses from this sort of discrimination.    If a person walks in to your public establishment you can't refuse him service because of the color of his skin, gender, sexual preference etc.  That's what happened here and the Church was wrong to refuse access to the public pavilion that the church rented public-ally to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not listening.
> 
> That was property that the church was making money on by selling access to the public.  Again, it does not matter if you are a church or a biker gang, if you are selling to the public you can't discriminate who you sell to.  Do you understand the civil rights act, and other civil rights acts the states put in that augment the federal one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I understand them, they are unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the SCOTUS.  You can go private and discriminate all you want.  Thus a church need only to limit sales to members and then they can discriminate to their ugly hearts content.
Click to expand...


sad that you believe it's ugly when people believe something you don't.

You know I'm for allowing gays to marry, but they shouldn't be able to force anyone to participate in anyway.

And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"


----------



## WorldWatcher

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the ruling, the OGCMA is not a Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is Hobby Lobby
Click to expand...



Never said they were.  

In regards to Churches being forced to Civilly Marry (or Religiously Marry) any interracial couple, interfaith couple, a couple where one was divorced against the dictates of that Church. or a same-sex couple - Since Hobby Lobby isn't a Church they are not an example of the government forcing a Church to perform a religious ceremony.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"



Would you mind sharing a couple of things...

1.  What state is the restaurant in?

2.  What is the membership criteria?

3.  I don't suppose you would be willing to share the name and city/town where this restaurant would be?  (For privacy reasons I can fully understand not wanting to share that, but it would be nice to check out this "private club" restaurant's web site.)


******************

Just be aware, most states exempt bona fide "private clubs" however just hanging sign in the window saying "this is a private club" typically won't cut it.  Various factors will  be looked at in the case a discrimination case is filed, things such as:  Membership criteria, advertising, to the members run the club, profit v. non-profit status, etc.

Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not - FindLaw


Take for example COSTCO, it's a private club right?  You have to be a "member" to shop their, however public accommodation laws would apply to COSTCO as there is no real "membership" criteria beyond stroking a checked for the annual membership fee.


>>>>


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

WorldWatcher said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you mind sharing a couple of things...
> 
> 1.  What state is the restaurant in?
> 
> 2.  What is the membership criteria?
> 
> 3.  I don't suppose you would be willing to share the name and city/town where this restaurant would be?  (For privacy reasons I can fully understand not wanting to share that, but it would be nice to check out this "private club" restaurant's web site.)
> 
> 
> ******************
> 
> Just be aware, most states exempt bona fide "private clubs" however just hanging sign in the window saying "this is a private club" typically won't cut it.  Various factors will  be looked at in the case a discrimination case is filed, things such as:  Membership criteria, advertising, to the members run the club, profit v. non-profit status, etc.
> 
> Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not - FindLaw
> 
> 
> Take for example COSTCO, it's a private club right?  You have to be a "member" to shop their, however public accommodation laws would apply to COSTCO as there is no real "membership" criteria beyond stroking a checked for the annual membership fee.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


It's a little tricky here really. We already had a private membership available because our county was stupid about serving alcohol, you can if you're a private club but not as a restaurant open to the public, so previously we had just a portion of the restaruant separate from the main and that was our "club" where we had a bar and served, no one under 21 was allowed in there (not by law but just because it made it easier) and by state law , membership was as easy as paying a $5 fee and signing up. 

But, in the last election the rules were changed and now it's okay to serve alcohol to whomever, so the private club isn't necessary for that, but we have so many regulars that we don't even really need  walk in business and our regulars like the idea of a private restaurant and like I said, just out of protest we've decided to make the entire restaurant a private club.

Section 213-065 Discrimination in public accommodations


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thought you were behind the Zion Curtain, for a moment.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

JakeStarkey said:


> Thought you were behind the Zion Curtain, for a moment.




You thought I was Jewish? LOL we have a steak house, not a deli LOL


----------



## WorldWatcher

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you mind sharing a couple of things...
> 
> 1.  What state is the restaurant in?
> 
> 2.  What is the membership criteria?
> 
> 3.  I don't suppose you would be willing to share the name and city/town where this restaurant would be?  (For privacy reasons I can fully understand not wanting to share that, but it would be nice to check out this "private club" restaurant's web site.)
> 
> 
> ******************
> 
> Just be aware, most states exempt bona fide "private clubs" however just hanging sign in the window saying "this is a private club" typically won't cut it.  Various factors will  be looked at in the case a discrimination case is filed, things such as:  Membership criteria, advertising, to the members run the club, profit v. non-profit status, etc.
> 
> Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not - FindLaw
> 
> 
> Take for example COSTCO, it's a private club right?  You have to be a "member" to shop their, however public accommodation laws would apply to COSTCO as there is no real "membership" criteria beyond stroking a checked for the annual membership fee.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a little tricky here really. We already had a private membership available because our county was stupid about serving alcohol, you can if you're a private club but not as a restaurant open to the public, so previously we had just a portion of the restaruant separate from the main and that was our "club" where we had a bar and served, no one under 21 was allowed in there (not by law but just because it made it easier) and by state law , membership was as easy as paying a $5 fee and signing up.
> 
> But, in the last election the rules were changed and now it's okay to serve alcohol to whomever, so the private club isn't necessary for that, but we have so many regulars that we don't even really need  walk in business and our regulars like the idea of a private restaurant and like I said, just out of protest we've decided to make the entire restaurant a private club.
> 
> Section 213-065 Discrimination in public accommodations
Click to expand...



So there is no membership criteria, the restaurant simply charges anyone that walks in the door a one time cover charge (or even an annual charge) and calls it a "membership" just like COSTCO.

Sorry but that isn't going to exempt you from public accommodation laws, especially since it's probably a for profit business.

Put up a sign that says we don't service Asians (race), Blacks (color), Jews (religion), Irishman (national origin), women (sex), or blind people (disability).  I don't think the results would be that the restaurant with no real selection criteria and that accepts walk-in business would qualify as a bona fide "private club".

No advertising in newspaper?  No online advertising?  No signage soliciting patronage?


>>>>


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

WorldWatcher said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you mind sharing a couple of things...
> 
> 1.  What state is the restaurant in?
> 
> 2.  What is the membership criteria?
> 
> 3.  I don't suppose you would be willing to share the name and city/town where this restaurant would be?  (For privacy reasons I can fully understand not wanting to share that, but it would be nice to check out this "private club" restaurant's web site.)
> 
> 
> ******************
> 
> Just be aware, most states exempt bona fide "private clubs" however just hanging sign in the window saying "this is a private club" typically won't cut it.  Various factors will  be looked at in the case a discrimination case is filed, things such as:  Membership criteria, advertising, to the members run the club, profit v. non-profit status, etc.
> 
> Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not - FindLaw
> 
> 
> Take for example COSTCO, it's a private club right?  You have to be a "member" to shop their, however public accommodation laws would apply to COSTCO as there is no real "membership" criteria beyond stroking a checked for the annual membership fee.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a little tricky here really. We already had a private membership available because our county was stupid about serving alcohol, you can if you're a private club but not as a restaurant open to the public, so previously we had just a portion of the restaruant separate from the main and that was our "club" where we had a bar and served, no one under 21 was allowed in there (not by law but just because it made it easier) and by state law , membership was as easy as paying a $5 fee and signing up.
> 
> But, in the last election the rules were changed and now it's okay to serve alcohol to whomever, so the private club isn't necessary for that, but we have so many regulars that we don't even really need  walk in business and our regulars like the idea of a private restaurant and like I said, just out of protest we've decided to make the entire restaurant a private club.
> 
> Section 213-065 Discrimination in public accommodations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So there is no membership criteria, the restaurant simply charges anyone that walks in the door a one time cover charge (or even an annual charge) and calls it a "membership" just like COSTCO.
> 
> Sorry but that isn't going to exempt you from public accommodation laws, especially since it's probably a for profit business.
> 
> Put up a sign that says we don't service Asians (race), Blacks (color), Jews (religion), Irishman (national origin), women (sex), or blind people (disability).  I don't think the results would be that the restaurant with no real selection criteria and that accepts walk-in business would qualify as a bona fide "private club".
> 
> No advertising in newspaper?  No online advertising?  No signage soliciting patronage?
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


But we DO serve blacks, Asians, Hispanics, gays, women. Whomever. As long as they are members. And we have an attorney who has said we are well within the state law so I suppose we'll take his word over that of some world watcher on the internet.

And yes , we advertise, as a private club.


----------



## WorldWatcher

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you mind sharing a couple of things...
> 
> 1.  What state is the restaurant in?
> 
> 2.  What is the membership criteria?
> 
> 3.  I don't suppose you would be willing to share the name and city/town where this restaurant would be?  (For privacy reasons I can fully understand not wanting to share that, but it would be nice to check out this "private club" restaurant's web site.)
> 
> 
> ******************
> 
> Just be aware, most states exempt bona fide "private clubs" however just hanging sign in the window saying "this is a private club" typically won't cut it.  Various factors will  be looked at in the case a discrimination case is filed, things such as:  Membership criteria, advertising, to the members run the club, profit v. non-profit status, etc.
> 
> Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not - FindLaw
> 
> 
> Take for example COSTCO, it's a private club right?  You have to be a "member" to shop their, however public accommodation laws would apply to COSTCO as there is no real "membership" criteria beyond stroking a checked for the annual membership fee.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a little tricky here really. We already had a private membership available because our county was stupid about serving alcohol, you can if you're a private club but not as a restaurant open to the public, so previously we had just a portion of the restaruant separate from the main and that was our "club" where we had a bar and served, no one under 21 was allowed in there (not by law but just because it made it easier) and by state law , membership was as easy as paying a $5 fee and signing up.
> 
> But, in the last election the rules were changed and now it's okay to serve alcohol to whomever, so the private club isn't necessary for that, but we have so many regulars that we don't even really need  walk in business and our regulars like the idea of a private restaurant and like I said, just out of protest we've decided to make the entire restaurant a private club.
> 
> Section 213-065 Discrimination in public accommodations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So there is no membership criteria, the restaurant simply charges anyone that walks in the door a one time cover charge (or even an annual charge) and calls it a "membership" just like COSTCO.
> 
> Sorry but that isn't going to exempt you from public accommodation laws, especially since it's probably a for profit business.
> 
> Put up a sign that says we don't service Asians (race), Blacks (color), Jews (religion), Irishman (national origin), women (sex), or blind people (disability).  I don't think the results would be that the restaurant with no real selection criteria and that accepts walk-in business would qualify as a bona fide "private club".
> 
> No advertising in newspaper?  No online advertising?  No signage soliciting patronage?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we DO serve blacks, Asians, Hispanics, gays, women. Whomever. As long as they are members. And we have an attorney who has said we are well within the state law so I suppose we'll take his word over that of some world watcher on the internet.
> 
> And yes , we advertise, as a private club.
Click to expand...



Didn't say you didn't serve blacks, Asians, Hispanics, gays, women.

I said put up a sign and notify the public that you refused to serve Asians or Blacks or Jews or Irishman, or women or blind people and then when the type of people you select (not all of course, just pick one group) comes to the door - turn them away.

See how well an attempt at evading the law would work.  "Private Clubs" under the intent of the law are not typically "for profit".  "Private Clubs" are are created by the members.  "Private Clubs" have bylaws and the leadership is elected by the members.  Is this a for profit place?  Is it owned by you (or other owners) or is it owned by the members?  Are the leaders elected based on votes of the members or are the leaders those that take to profits from the business (i.e the owners) and then hire staff managers? 

Gays aren't an issue in your state, they are not listed as one of the classes of people covered under the law.


BTW - as you probably already know, I support the repeal of public accommodation laws as applied to private businesses.  They should be free, with few exceptions, to refuse service to prospective customers for whatever reason the business owner chooses.

>>>>


----------



## Jarlaxle

JakeStarkey said:


> Thought you were behind the Zion Curtain, for a moment.



Are you posting stoned AGAIN, boy?


----------



## Seawytch

WorldWatcher said:


> BTW - as you probably already know, I support the repeal of public accommodation laws as applied to private businesses.  They should be free, with few exceptions, to refuse service to prospective customers for whatever reason the business owner chooses.
> >>>>


But you are not the "average bear" (pun intended). You don't believe that as long as they exist, gays should not be included in them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jarlaxle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thought you were behind the Zion Curtain, for a moment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you posting stoned AGAIN, boy?
Click to expand...


Jarl, thank for the laugh.


----------



## Jarlaxle

I'm glad you are able to laugh at yourself, boy...everyone else has been laughing at you for so long, you might as well join them.


----------



## Silhouette

*Jude 1 New Testament [The Warning to the Sober and Sane Christians]*

"1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

3 Beloved, when *I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith* which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5 *I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not*.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 *Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire*.

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 *Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever*.

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16 *These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage*.

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21 *Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life*.

22 *And of some have compassion, making a difference*:

23 *And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire*; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24 *Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory* with exceeding joy,

25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen."

**********************

What I see from reading this is that it appears that the individual homosexual is looking at a lighter sentence on the other side of the veil than the sane christian who knows better but who looks the other way or enables the spread of a homosexual culture ["Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh.."]

The message is clear: If your civilization includes indulging the mentally ill to the point of that illness taking over your civilization, you are doomed if you sit there and do nothing while you know it's happening.

It's Sunday, so, I thought we'd return to the topic of the thread...


----------



## Jarlaxle

Wrong forum, Silly.  "Religion" is that way!


----------



## Silhouette

Jarlaxle said:


> Wrong forum, Silly.  "Religion" is that way!


 Hey uber-troll, the name of this thread is "Should *Churches* be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read it again.  They are not being forced to marry anyone.
> 
> The church owned a public pavilion.  The Church rents the public pavilion to the public.  The gay couple wanted to rent the pavilion for their ceremony.  No church members were required to be present at said ceremony or preside over said ceremony or bless the damn ceremony.  We have laws in the USA that prohibit businesses from this sort of discrimination.    If a person walks in to your public establishment you can't refuse him service because of the color of his skin, gender, sexual preference etc.  That's what happened here and the Church was wrong to refuse access to the public pavilion that the church rented public-ally to the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not listening.
> 
> That was property that the church was making money on by selling access to the public.  Again, it does not matter if you are a church or a biker gang, if you are selling to the public you can't discriminate who you sell to.  Do you understand the civil rights act, and other civil rights acts the states put in that augment the federal one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I understand them, they are unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the SCOTUS.  You can go private and discriminate all you want.  Thus a church need only to limit sales to members and then they can discriminate to their ugly hearts content.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sad that you believe it's ugly when people believe something you don't.
> 
> You know I'm for allowing gays to marry, but they shouldn't be able to force anyone to participate in anyway.
> 
> And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"
Click to expand...

So you think it's "pretty" to discriminate against people based on race, age, religion, skin color, sexual preference, or gender?  I think it's sad that you think it's sad to to believe it's ugly when people discriminate against others for these reasons.

You're still not listening.  No one is forcing anyone participate in any way.  Your straw-man is does not exist anywhere but in your imagination.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a distinction without difference. The pavilion belongs to a church. That makes it CHURCH property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not listening.
> 
> That was property that the church was making money on by selling access to the public.  Again, it does not matter if you are a church or a biker gang, if you are selling to the public you can't discriminate who you sell to.  Do you understand the civil rights act, and other civil rights acts the states put in that augment the federal one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I understand them, they are unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the SCOTUS.  You can go private and discriminate all you want.  Thus a church need only to limit sales to members and then they can discriminate to their ugly hearts content.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sad that you believe it's ugly when people believe something you don't.
> 
> You know I'm for allowing gays to marry, but they shouldn't be able to force anyone to participate in anyway.
> 
> And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think it's "pretty" to discriminate against people based on race, age, religion, skin color, sexual preference, or gender?  I think it's sad that you think it's sad to to believe it's ugly when people discriminate against others for these reasons.
> 
> You're still not listening.  No one is forcing anyone participate in any way.  Your straw-man is does not exist anywhere but in your imagination.
Click to expand...



Come on, I know you are intelligent enough to differentiate defending the RIGHT to discriminate from actually discriminating.

It's exactly no different than I defend gays right to "marry" even though I'm not gay.

First and foremost, I'm about freedom. And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free.


----------



## Silhouette

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Come on, I know you are intelligent enough to differentiate defending the RIGHT to discriminate from actually discriminating.
> 
> It's exactly no different than I defend gays right to "marry" even though I'm not gay.
> 
> First and foremost, I'm about freedom. And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free.


 
The worst part about it for christians isn't an invasion upon their personal freedom.  It is the requirement by law for them to commit a mortal sin that will condemn them to hell for eternity.  Enabling the expansion of the homosexual subCULTure isn't just a "say 10 Hail Mary's" type of sin.  It's one that gets you eternity in the slammer. 

Essentially, mandating that a christian church peform gay marriage is the same as showing up to that church with a wrecking ball and bulldozers..


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not listening.
> 
> That was property that the church was making money on by selling access to the public.  Again, it does not matter if you are a church or a biker gang, if you are selling to the public you can't discriminate who you sell to.  Do you understand the civil rights act, and other civil rights acts the states put in that augment the federal one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I understand them, they are unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the SCOTUS.  You can go private and discriminate all you want.  Thus a church need only to limit sales to members and then they can discriminate to their ugly hearts content.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sad that you believe it's ugly when people believe something you don't.
> 
> You know I'm for allowing gays to marry, but they shouldn't be able to force anyone to participate in anyway.
> 
> And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think it's "pretty" to discriminate against people based on race, age, religion, skin color, sexual preference, or gender?  I think it's sad that you think it's sad to to believe it's ugly when people discriminate against others for these reasons.
> 
> You're still not listening.  No one is forcing anyone participate in any way.  Your straw-man is does not exist anywhere but in your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, I know you are intelligent enough to differentiate defending the RIGHT to discriminate from actually discriminating.
> 
> It's exactly no different than I defend gays right to "marry" even though I'm not gay.
> 
> First and foremost, I'm about freedom. And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free.
Click to expand...


Yes, I understand the not so subtle difference between defending liberty of people to perform ugly acts.  My point was just because we defend ugly acts does not mean we have to claim said ugly acts are pretty acts.  You called out my use of the term ugly... yet you imply you are merely defending liberty... thus also implying that you are defending ugly acts for the sake of liberty...  Thus using the language in the same way I was using it....  IOW you called me out for doing the same thing you are doing.  nudge.

As for your statement "And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free."   I'll repeat a third time.. no one has been told they MUST do business with another person, everyone is free to keep their sales private vs. selling to the public at large where there are laws against discrimination.  It is a STRAW-MAN to say different.  All churches have members and congregations.  This church in question has one minor operation going on where they were selling to the public at large, not solely to their private membership.  Thus for the PUBLIC rentals of the PUBLIC FACILITY they had to go by PUBLIC accommodation laws.

In the case of consumer rights... the issue of liberty is two fold...public sellers and public consumers... should sellers be able to discriminate, thus harm, certain consumers based on skin color, etc.; or should sellers be harmed by the government through public accommodation laws like wheel chair access and forcing sellers to sell to black people.  When the issue involves picking and choosing which of two citizens will be forced/harmed an arbiter is brought in.. in this case the US citizens have spoken and their representatives have put forth public accommodation laws siding with the consumers, however leaving a loop-hole to sellers that they can go private.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Yes, I understand the not so subtle difference between defending liberty of people *to perform ugly acts*.  My point was just because we defend *ugly acts* does not mean we have to claim said *ugly acts* are pretty acts.  You called out my use of the term ugly... yet you imply you are merely defending liberty... thus also implying that* you are defending ugly acts* *for the sake of liberty*...  Thus using the language in the same way I was using it....  IOW you called me out for doing the same thing you are doing.  nudge.


 
You're talking about "ugly acts" like these right?  And the people who defend them, right?  The same people who want access to adoptable orphans through the legal loophole of marriage, right?  The same LGBT crew that wants to force churches to commit the mortal sin of spreading THIS culture as a matter of law, right?







vv   "No church has been mandated to perform a gay marriage".......YET....


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, I know you are intelligent enough to differentiate defending the RIGHT to discriminate from actually discriminating.
> 
> It's exactly no different than I defend gays right to "marry" even though I'm not gay.
> 
> First and foremost, I'm about freedom. And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The worst part about it for christians isn't an invasion upon their personal freedom.  It is the requirement by law for them to commit a mortal sin that will condemn them to hell for eternity.  Enabling the expansion of the homosexual subCULTure isn't just a "say 10 Hail Mary's" type of sin.  It's one that gets you eternity in the slammer.
> 
> Essentially, mandating that a christian church peform gay marriage is the same as showing up to that church with a wrecking ball and bulldozers..
Click to expand...

EPIC FAIL.  Again, no church has been mandated to perform a gay marriage.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand the not so subtle difference between defending liberty of people *to perform ugly acts*.  My point was just because we defend *ugly acts* does not mean we have to claim said *ugly acts* are pretty acts.  You called out my use of the term ugly... yet you imply you are merely defending liberty... thus also implying that* you are defending ugly acts* *for the sake of liberty*...  Thus using the language in the same way I was using it....  IOW you called me out for doing the same thing you are doing.  nudge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking about "ugly acts" like these right?  And the people who defend them, right?  The same people who want access to adoptable orphans through the legal loophole of marriage, right?  The same LGBT crew that wants to force churches to commit the mortal sin of spreading THIS culture as a matter of law, right?
Click to expand...

You're gonna go to hell for posting these gay pride photos.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're gonna go to hell for posting these gay pride photos.
Click to expand...

 
If that's the case, imagine where people will go who allow people who promote these types of parades access to orphans via marriage/adoption priveleges?  Is there a basement below hell?


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're gonna go to hell for posting these gay pride photos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's the case, imagine where people will go who allow people who promote these types of parades access to orphans via marriage/adoption priveleges?  Is there a basement below hell?
Click to expand...

YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE PROMOTING THEM YA DUMB ASS


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, I know you are intelligent enough to differentiate defending the RIGHT to discriminate from actually discriminating.
> 
> It's exactly no different than I defend gays right to "marry" even though I'm not gay.
> 
> First and foremost, I'm about freedom. And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The worst part about it for christians isn't an invasion upon their personal freedom.  It is the requirement by law for them to commit a mortal sin that will condemn them to hell for eternity.  Enabling the expansion of the homosexual subCULTure isn't just a "say 10 Hail Mary's" type of sin.  It's one that gets you eternity in the slammer.
> 
> Essentially, mandating that a christian church peform gay marriage is the same as showing up to that church with a wrecking ball and bulldozers..
Click to expand...


If only churches were mandated to marry anyone against their wishes. If only...

You can't name a single church in this country that was forced to marry a gay couple. Not one. All you have is "what ifs" and Pandora's Box type scenarios that have not come to pass. 

You've lost on this point but you don't have the stones to admit it.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I understand them, they are unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the SCOTUS.  You can go private and discriminate all you want.  Thus a church need only to limit sales to members and then they can discriminate to their ugly hearts content.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sad that you believe it's ugly when people believe something you don't.
> 
> You know I'm for allowing gays to marry, but they shouldn't be able to force anyone to participate in anyway.
> 
> And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think it's "pretty" to discriminate against people based on race, age, religion, skin color, sexual preference, or gender?  I think it's sad that you think it's sad to to believe it's ugly when people discriminate against others for these reasons.
> 
> You're still not listening.  No one is forcing anyone participate in any way.  Your straw-man is does not exist anywhere but in your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, I know you are intelligent enough to differentiate defending the RIGHT to discriminate from actually discriminating.
> 
> It's exactly no different than I defend gays right to "marry" even though I'm not gay.
> 
> First and foremost, I'm about freedom. And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand the not so subtle difference between defending liberty of people to perform ugly acts.  My point was just because we defend ugly acts does not mean we have to claim said ugly acts are pretty acts.  You called out my use of the term ugly... yet you imply you are merely defending liberty... thus also implying that you are defending ugly acts for the sake of liberty...  Thus using the language in the same way I was using it....  IOW you called me out for doing the same thing you are doing.  nudge.
> 
> As for your statement "And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free."   I'll repeat a third time.. no one has been told they MUST do business with another person, everyone is free to keep their sales private vs. selling to the public at large where there are laws against discrimination.  It is a STRAW-MAN to say different.  All churches have members and congregations.  This church in question has one minor operation going on where they were selling to the public at large, not solely to their private membership.  Thus for the PUBLIC rentals of the PUBLIC FACILITY they had to go by PUBLIC accommodation laws.
> 
> In the case of consumer rights... the issue of liberty is two fold...public sellers and public consumers... should sellers be able to discriminate, thus harm, certain consumers based on skin color, etc.; or should sellers be harmed by the government through public accommodation laws like wheel chair access and forcing sellers to sell to black people.  When the issue involves picking and choosing which of two citizens will be forced/harmed an arbiter is brought in.. in this case the US citizens have spoken and their representatives have put forth public accommodation laws siding with the consumers, however leaving a loop-hole to sellers that they can go private.
Click to expand...



I think you misuderstood what I was calling ugly, but we'll set that aside.

RE your claims that companies can go private membership. Do you really think a company could sell groceries as a private club and exclude blacks? There is noway that would stand under current law.


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the SCOTUS.  You can go private and discriminate all you want.  Thus a church need only to limit sales to members and then they can discriminate to their ugly hearts content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sad that you believe it's ugly when people believe something you don't.
> 
> You know I'm for allowing gays to marry, but they shouldn't be able to force anyone to participate in anyway.
> 
> And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think it's "pretty" to discriminate against people based on race, age, religion, skin color, sexual preference, or gender?  I think it's sad that you think it's sad to to believe it's ugly when people discriminate against others for these reasons.
> 
> You're still not listening.  No one is forcing anyone participate in any way.  Your straw-man is does not exist anywhere but in your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, I know you are intelligent enough to differentiate defending the RIGHT to discriminate from actually discriminating.
> 
> It's exactly no different than I defend gays right to "marry" even though I'm not gay.
> 
> First and foremost, I'm about freedom. And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand the not so subtle difference between defending liberty of people to perform ugly acts.  My point was just because we defend ugly acts does not mean we have to claim said ugly acts are pretty acts.  You called out my use of the term ugly... yet you imply you are merely defending liberty... thus also implying that you are defending ugly acts for the sake of liberty...  Thus using the language in the same way I was using it....  IOW you called me out for doing the same thing you are doing.  nudge.
> 
> As for your statement "And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free."   I'll repeat a third time.. no one has been told they MUST do business with another person, everyone is free to keep their sales private vs. selling to the public at large where there are laws against discrimination.  It is a STRAW-MAN to say different.  All churches have members and congregations.  This church in question has one minor operation going on where they were selling to the public at large, not solely to their private membership.  Thus for the PUBLIC rentals of the PUBLIC FACILITY they had to go by PUBLIC accommodation laws.
> 
> In the case of consumer rights... the issue of liberty is two fold...public sellers and public consumers... should sellers be able to discriminate, thus harm, certain consumers based on skin color, etc.; or should sellers be harmed by the government through public accommodation laws like wheel chair access and forcing sellers to sell to black people.  When the issue involves picking and choosing which of two citizens will be forced/harmed an arbiter is brought in.. in this case the US citizens have spoken and their representatives have put forth public accommodation laws siding with the consumers, however leaving a loop-hole to sellers that they can go private.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you misuderstood what I was calling ugly, but we'll set that aside.
> 
> RE your claims that companies can go private membership. Do you really think a company could sell groceries as a private club and exclude blacks? There is noway that would stand under current law.
Click to expand...

Financially, it would be a disaster, because most white people would not shop there.  Other than that I don't see a legal requirement that white only clubs have black membership.  That said all black clubs are quite prevalent.

Note, the practice of elder communities discriminating against youth moving into their communities is still widely practiced, and they have groceries in their gated communities.  Thus the practice of discriminating is still widely practiced by private organizations.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> sad that you believe it's ugly when people believe something you don't.
> 
> You know I'm for allowing gays to marry, but they shouldn't be able to force anyone to participate in anyway.
> 
> And in fact, we've changed our entire restaurant to a private club. Not because we discriminate, but just to protest the idea of "public accommodating"
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it's "pretty" to discriminate against people based on race, age, religion, skin color, sexual preference, or gender?  I think it's sad that you think it's sad to to believe it's ugly when people discriminate against others for these reasons.
> 
> You're still not listening.  No one is forcing anyone participate in any way.  Your straw-man is does not exist anywhere but in your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, I know you are intelligent enough to differentiate defending the RIGHT to discriminate from actually discriminating.
> 
> It's exactly no different than I defend gays right to "marry" even though I'm not gay.
> 
> First and foremost, I'm about freedom. And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand the not so subtle difference between defending liberty of people to perform ugly acts.  My point was just because we defend ugly acts does not mean we have to claim said ugly acts are pretty acts.  You called out my use of the term ugly... yet you imply you are merely defending liberty... thus also implying that you are defending ugly acts for the sake of liberty...  Thus using the language in the same way I was using it....  IOW you called me out for doing the same thing you are doing.  nudge.
> 
> As for your statement "And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free."   I'll repeat a third time.. no one has been told they MUST do business with another person, everyone is free to keep their sales private vs. selling to the public at large where there are laws against discrimination.  It is a STRAW-MAN to say different.  All churches have members and congregations.  This church in question has one minor operation going on where they were selling to the public at large, not solely to their private membership.  Thus for the PUBLIC rentals of the PUBLIC FACILITY they had to go by PUBLIC accommodation laws.
> 
> In the case of consumer rights... the issue of liberty is two fold...public sellers and public consumers... should sellers be able to discriminate, thus harm, certain consumers based on skin color, etc.; or should sellers be harmed by the government through public accommodation laws like wheel chair access and forcing sellers to sell to black people.  When the issue involves picking and choosing which of two citizens will be forced/harmed an arbiter is brought in.. in this case the US citizens have spoken and their representatives have put forth public accommodation laws siding with the consumers, however leaving a loop-hole to sellers that they can go private.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you misuderstood what I was calling ugly, but we'll set that aside.
> 
> RE your claims that companies can go private membership. Do you really think a company could sell groceries as a private club and exclude blacks? There is noway that would stand under current law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Financially, it would be a disaster, because most white people would not shop there.  Other than that I don't see a legal requirement that white only clubs have black membership.  That said all black clubs are quite prevalent.
> 
> Note, the practice of elder communities discriminating against youth moving into their communities is still widely practiced, and they have groceries in their gated communities.  Thus the practice of discriminating is still widely practiced by private organizations.
Click to expand...



So you really believe that if Sam's Club hung a sign outside their door, that read NO BLACK MEMBERS that would be legal and blacks and other assorted babies wouldn't come out of the wood works?

As for your stores inside gated communities, that is a different scenario altogether. The gated communities cater to older people, but if a younger person were there to visit or whatever the grocery store couldn't discriminate.


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it's "pretty" to discriminate against people based on race, age, religion, skin color, sexual preference, or gender?  I think it's sad that you think it's sad to to believe it's ugly when people discriminate against others for these reasons.
> 
> You're still not listening.  No one is forcing anyone participate in any way.  Your straw-man is does not exist anywhere but in your imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, I know you are intelligent enough to differentiate defending the RIGHT to discriminate from actually discriminating.
> 
> It's exactly no different than I defend gays right to "marry" even though I'm not gay.
> 
> First and foremost, I'm about freedom. And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand the not so subtle difference between defending liberty of people to perform ugly acts.  My point was just because we defend ugly acts does not mean we have to claim said ugly acts are pretty acts.  You called out my use of the term ugly... yet you imply you are merely defending liberty... thus also implying that you are defending ugly acts for the sake of liberty...  Thus using the language in the same way I was using it....  IOW you called me out for doing the same thing you are doing.  nudge.
> 
> As for your statement "And a person being told they MUST do business with another person isn't very damned free."   I'll repeat a third time.. no one has been told they MUST do business with another person, everyone is free to keep their sales private vs. selling to the public at large where there are laws against discrimination.  It is a STRAW-MAN to say different.  All churches have members and congregations.  This church in question has one minor operation going on where they were selling to the public at large, not solely to their private membership.  Thus for the PUBLIC rentals of the PUBLIC FACILITY they had to go by PUBLIC accommodation laws.
> 
> In the case of consumer rights... the issue of liberty is two fold...public sellers and public consumers... should sellers be able to discriminate, thus harm, certain consumers based on skin color, etc.; or should sellers be harmed by the government through public accommodation laws like wheel chair access and forcing sellers to sell to black people.  When the issue involves picking and choosing which of two citizens will be forced/harmed an arbiter is brought in.. in this case the US citizens have spoken and their representatives have put forth public accommodation laws siding with the consumers, however leaving a loop-hole to sellers that they can go private.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you misuderstood what I was calling ugly, but we'll set that aside.
> 
> RE your claims that companies can go private membership. Do you really think a company could sell groceries as a private club and exclude blacks? There is noway that would stand under current law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Financially, it would be a disaster, because most white people would not shop there.  Other than that I don't see a legal requirement that white only clubs have black membership.  That said all black clubs are quite prevalent.
> 
> Note, the practice of elder communities discriminating against youth moving into their communities is still widely practiced, and they have groceries in their gated communities.  Thus the practice of discriminating is still widely practiced by private organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you really believe that if Sam's Club hung a sign outside their door, that read NO BLACK MEMBERS that would be legal and blacks and other assorted babies wouldn't come out of the wood works?
> 
> As for your stores inside gated communities, that is a different scenario altogether. The gated communities cater to older people, but if a younger person were there to visit or whatever the grocery store couldn't discriminate.
Click to expand...


Sam's club is not a private club.  They are a public club with membership dues.  There are no restrictions on who can join the club.  Thus, they have to follow public accommodation laws. 

You said:  "As for your stores inside gated communities, that is a different scenario altogether. The gated communities cater to older people, but if a younger person were there to visit or whatever the grocery store couldn't discriminate."

You are wrong, it is not a different scenario, they can discriminate by simply stating that only owners / members can enter the store.  It's that simple, and they do restrict sales to members in some communities, members that are selected using discriminatory practice.  So it is the same damn thing, just based on age discrimination instead of race.


----------



## Silhouette

Forgetting of course that this is a culture war and LGBTs have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that if the fed grants their behaviors special protections, they will not wait until the ink is dry to launch lawsuits against churches.  If they didn't it would be the singular exception to their modus operandi thusfar.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> Forgetting of course that this is a culture war and LGBTs have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that if the fed grants their behaviors special protections, they will not wait until the ink is dry to launch lawsuits against churches.  If they didn't it would be the singular exception to their modus operandi thusfar.


You do realize they already file lawsuits against churches right?


----------



## mikegriffith1

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


Oh, here we go with the bogus "discrimination" argument to deny basic constitutional rights, topped off with the absurd comparison to racial minorities.

In other words, we just chuck the Constitution out the door to cater to a small, deviant minority that's intent on forcing others to accept their lifestyle.


----------



## Seawytch

mikegriffith1 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, here we go with the bogus "discrimination" argument to deny basic constitutional rights, topped off with the absurd comparison to racial minorities.
> 
> In other words, we just chuck the Constitution out the door to cater to a small, deviant minority that's intent on forcing others to accept their lifestyle.
Click to expand...


Boy did you miss the whole thread. Has a church ever been required to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage in the United States?

The Constitution is just fine.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> Boy did you miss the whole thread. Has a church ever been required to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage in the United States?
> 
> The Constitution is just fine.


Your buddy RKM Brown just said gays are already suing churches.  Like I said, if "LGBTs" gain federal protection for their behaviors-as-lifestyle, before the ink is dry they'll be suing the hell out of churches.  And if they didn't, it would be a complete 180 from their current modus operandi.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy did you miss the whole thread. Has a church ever been required to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage in the United States?
> 
> The Constitution is just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Your buddy RKM Brown just said gays are already suing churches.  Like I said, if "LGBTs" gain federal protection for their behaviors-as-lifestyle, before the ink is dry they'll be suing the hell out of churches.  And if they didn't, it would be a complete 180 from their current modus operandi.
Click to expand...


Homosexuals, as people included in "All Citizens" under the 14th Amendment have had federal protections since Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

Those cases were decided about 20 years ago and 10 years ago respectively, is the ink dry yet?  Where is the slew of lawsuits against Churches trying to get them to perform religious ceremonies?



>>>>


----------



## RKMBrown

People sue in this country. It normal.

Here's a church filing suit on behalf of gay marriage.

United Church Of Christ Files Lawsuit Against Gay Marriage Ban In North Carolina Citing Threat To Religious Freedom

Here's someone filing suit against a church for sexual harassment 

Sex abuse victim files lawsuit against children s pastor Baptist church AL.com

Here's a church filing suit against wallstreet 

Church files suit against JPMorgan Chase accuses firm of mismanaging trusts Fox 59

Fired gay worker suing church 

Fired for same-sex marriage pantry worker files suit against Missouri diocese National Catholic Reporter


----------



## Seawytch

RKMBrown said:


> People sue in this country. It normal.
> 
> Here's a church filing suit on behalf of gay marriage.
> 
> United Church Of Christ Files Lawsuit Against Gay Marriage Ban In North Carolina Citing Threat To Religious Freedom
> 
> Here's someone filing suit against a church for sexual harassment
> 
> Sex abuse victim files lawsuit against children s pastor Baptist church AL.com
> 
> Here's a church filing suit against wallstreet
> 
> Church files suit against JPMorgan Chase accuses firm of mismanaging trusts Fox 59
> 
> Fired gay worker suing church
> 
> Fired for same-sex marriage pantry worker files suit against Missouri diocese National Catholic Reporter



None of those are lawsuits suing to church to perform a ceremony though.


----------



## RKMBrown

Seawytch said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> People sue in this country. It normal.
> 
> Here's a church filing suit on behalf of gay marriage.
> 
> United Church Of Christ Files Lawsuit Against Gay Marriage Ban In North Carolina Citing Threat To Religious Freedom
> 
> Here's someone filing suit against a church for sexual harassment
> 
> Sex abuse victim files lawsuit against children s pastor Baptist church AL.com
> 
> Here's a church filing suit against wallstreet
> 
> Church files suit against JPMorgan Chase accuses firm of mismanaging trusts Fox 59
> 
> Fired gay worker suing church
> 
> Fired for same-sex marriage pantry worker files suit against Missouri diocese National Catholic Reporter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of those are lawsuits suing to church to perform a ceremony though.
Click to expand...


I saw one that was... but could not verify it.  Most civil lawsuits don't get a lot of press.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> None of those are lawsuits suing to church to perform a ceremony though.


 
If a church refused to marry black people because of their race, would you be behind supporting them suing that church?  Yes or no?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of those are lawsuits suing to church to perform a ceremony though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a church refused to marry black people because of their race, would you be behind supporting them suing that church?  Yes or no?
Click to expand...



Anyone can file a suit, that's not the question.  The question is would it be tried and would the plaintiffs win.  A lawsuit requiring a Church to perform a religious ceremony wouldn't win.


I support the right of Churches to refuse to marry black people, that doesn't mean I'm against black people Civilly Marrying.  I'm in favor of the government not dictating that a Church be required to perform a religious ceremony.

I support the right of Churches to refuse to marry same-sex people, that doesn't mean I'm against same-sex people Civilly Marrying.  I'm in favor of the government not dictating that a Church be required to perform a religious ceremony.



See that's were you have repeatedly lied about what the poll means.  One can be against the government requiring a Church to perform a religious ceremony and yet be for access for those same people to the equal treatment by the government.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

I'll ask again [TO SEAWYTCH AND SEAWYTCH ALONE]



> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of those are lawsuits suing to church to perform a ceremony though.
> 
> 
> 
> If a church refused to marry black people because of their race, would you be behind supporting them suing that church? Yes or no?
Click to expand...


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> I'll ask again [TO SEAWYTCH AND SEAWYTCH ALONE]



Then send a PM, this is a PUBLIC message board.


>>>>


----------



## Cecilie1200

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans].  All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them.  Gay pride parades are another reason.  Harvey Milk is yet another.  The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.
> 
> Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...


Actually, people have every right to be offended by any damned thing they like, and one of the big problems I see with our society these days is dimwits who think they can revoke other people's right to find them offensive.

It is true that I don't have the right to STOP you from being an exhibitionistic mental train wreck, if you feel utterly compelled to do so, but please learn to separate your right to be freakish and repulsive from an imagined right to force others to pretend you aren't.


----------



## mdk

Cecilie1200 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans].  All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them.  Gay pride parades are another reason.  Harvey Milk is yet another.  The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.
> 
> Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, people have every right to be offended by any damned thing they like, and one of the big problems I see with our society these days is dimwits who think they can revoke other people's right to find them offensive.
> 
> It is true that I don't have the right to STOP you from being an exhibitionistic mental train wreck, if you feel utterly compelled to do so, but please learn to separate your right to be freakish and repulsive from an imagined right to force others to pretend you aren't.
Click to expand...


I've never once been to or participated in a gay pride event. Its not my style. And yes, people have every right to be offended over anything they wish. 

I find it ironic that many people that try to deny gays the right to marry do so because they find gays freakish and repulsive. Again they have that right to be offended, just doesn't use that right to try and limit the freedoms of others as result.


----------



## Cecilie1200

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans].  All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them.  Gay pride parades are another reason.  Harvey Milk is yet another.  The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.
> 
> Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The blind don't have a right to drive.  People of all walks don't have a right to marry the same gender.  The words "driver's license" means a privilege extended ONLY to those who qualify legally to drive.  That omits the blind.  The word "marriage" means a privilege extended ONLY to those in each sovereign state who fit that state's qualifiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?
Click to expand...


It really scares me that there are so many people in this country who are blissfully happy with the idea of delegating all thought, reason, and morality to someone else, particularly when they do so on the mind-boggling belief that that other person (or group of people) is better-qualified than they themselves are.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".
Click to expand...


Get a dictionary.  Look up the word "forced".  It does not mean what you think it means.


----------



## mdk

Cecilie1200 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans].  All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them.  Gay pride parades are another reason.  Harvey Milk is yet another.  The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.
> 
> Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The blind don't have a right to drive.  People of all walks don't have a right to marry the same gender.  The words "driver's license" means a privilege extended ONLY to those who qualify legally to drive.  That omits the blind.  The word "marriage" means a privilege extended ONLY to those in each sovereign state who fit that state's qualifiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really scares me that there are so many people in this country who are blissfully happy with the idea of delegating all thought, reason, and morality to someone else, particularly when they do so on the mind-boggling belief that that other person (or group of people) is better-qualified than they themselves are.
Click to expand...


If only I was doing any that. If only...

What is also scary is that some people feel that their idea of morality trumps the rights and liberties of law abiding citizens.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why in hell do you care what churches do? Mind your own business, just as they should mind their own business about who you marry.
> 
> Is that really such a hard concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I'm a Christian who wants my church to be inclusive of my family. Maybe I just happen to care for Christians who are being hurt by the churches exclusion of them.
> 
> I also cared when churches changed their stance on blacks marrying whites...and?
Click to expand...


Here's a thought.  Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word?  At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?

Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable.  Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why in hell do you care what churches do? Mind your own business, just as they should mind their own business about who you marry.
> 
> Is that really such a hard concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I'm a Christian who wants my church to be inclusive of my family. Maybe I just happen to care for Christians who are being hurt by the churches exclusion of them.
> 
> I also cared when churches changed their stance on blacks marrying whites...and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a thought.  Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word?  At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?
> 
> Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable.  Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?
Click to expand...


exactly right, I don't care if gays "marry" but why should I have to fear that one of them will come in and ruin my business because I don't want to serve them? Go somewhere else, how difficult is that?


----------



## kaz

mdk said:


> [What is also scary is that some people feel that their idea of morality trumps the rights and liberties of law abiding citizens.



Others think their idea of charity allows them to confiscate other people's money with force and give it for them


----------



## mdk

kaz said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> [What is also scary is that some people feel that their idea of morality trumps the rights and liberties of law abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Others think their idea of charity allows them to confiscate other people's money with force and give it for them
Click to expand...


On this issue you'll find that I completely agree with you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

mdk said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans].  All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them.  Gay pride parades are another reason.  Harvey Milk is yet another.  The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.
> 
> Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, people have every right to be offended by any damned thing they like, and one of the big problems I see with our society these days is dimwits who think they can revoke other people's right to find them offensive.
> 
> It is true that I don't have the right to STOP you from being an exhibitionistic mental train wreck, if you feel utterly compelled to do so, but please learn to separate your right to be freakish and repulsive from an imagined right to force others to pretend you aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never once been to or participated in a gay pride event. Its not my style. And yes, people have every right to be offended over anything they wish.
> 
> I find it ironic that many people that try to deny gays the right to marry do so because they find gays freakish and repulsive. Again they have that right to be offended, just doesn't use that right to try and limit the freedoms of others as result.
Click to expand...


You might want to look up the word "ironic", because your usage clearly indicates you have no clue what it means.

Could you also please explain to me what IS


mdk said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans].  All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them.  Gay pride parades are another reason.  Harvey Milk is yet another.  The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason.  Shall I go on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.
> 
> Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The blind don't have a right to drive.  People of all walks don't have a right to marry the same gender.  The words "driver's license" means a privilege extended ONLY to those who qualify legally to drive.  That omits the blind.  The word "marriage" means a privilege extended ONLY to those in each sovereign state who fit that state's qualifiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really scares me that there are so many people in this country who are blissfully happy with the idea of delegating all thought, reason, and morality to someone else, particularly when they do so on the mind-boggling belief that that other person (or group of people) is better-qualified than they themselves are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only I was doing any that. If only...
> 
> What is also scary is that some people feel that their idea of morality trumps the rights and liberties of law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...


This is only scary to people who are incapable of forming and holding their own personal moral standard.  Those with the brains and backbone to say, "This is right and this is wrong in my eyes, and this is why", rather than vacillating wildly according to whatever they are being told by others at the moment, are not the least bit frightened or threatened by the exercise of personal conviction in others.  They can also accept the reality that, as social beings, humans are always going to be subject, to one extent or the other, to the moral standards of those around them.

And before you get your panties in a ruffle and start pontificating about how we should each be free of others' beliefs so we can do whatever we want, don't even bother.  I already know that people who say that really just mean that THEY want to be the ones to dictate the moral standard for society at large; if you're honest with yourself, you know it, too.  That's what this argument is REALLY all about:  not freedom for everyone to do as they please, but power to make others conform to one's worldview.  The only question is whether the majority gets to make that decision, or a self-deluding and spoiled minority gets to.


----------



## mdk

Cecilie1200 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans].  All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them.  Gay pride parades are another reason.  Harvey Milk is yet another.  The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.
> 
> Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, people have every right to be offended by any damned thing they like, and one of the big problems I see with our society these days is dimwits who think they can revoke other people's right to find them offensive.
> 
> It is true that I don't have the right to STOP you from being an exhibitionistic mental train wreck, if you feel utterly compelled to do so, but please learn to separate your right to be freakish and repulsive from an imagined right to force others to pretend you aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never once been to or participated in a gay pride event. Its not my style. And yes, people have every right to be offended over anything they wish.
> 
> I find it ironic that many people that try to deny gays the right to marry do so because they find gays freakish and repulsive. Again they have that right to be offended, just doesn't use that right to try and limit the freedoms of others as result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might want to look up the word "ironic", because your usage clearly indicates you have no clue what it means.
> 
> Could you also please explain to me what IS
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.
> 
> Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The blind don't have a right to drive.  People of all walks don't have a right to marry the same gender.  The words "driver's license" means a privilege extended ONLY to those who qualify legally to drive.  That omits the blind.  The word "marriage" means a privilege extended ONLY to those in each sovereign state who fit that state's qualifiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really scares me that there are so many people in this country who are blissfully happy with the idea of delegating all thought, reason, and morality to someone else, particularly when they do so on the mind-boggling belief that that other person (or group of people) is better-qualified than they themselves are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only I was doing any that. If only...
> 
> What is also scary is that some people feel that their idea of morality trumps the rights and liberties of law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is only scary to people who are incapable of forming and holding their own personal moral standard.  Those with the brains and backbone to say, "This is right and this is wrong in my eyes, and this is why", rather than vacillating wildly according to whatever they are being told by others at the moment, are not the least bit frightened or threatened by the exercise of personal conviction in others.  They can also accept the reality that, as social beings, humans are always going to be subject, to one extent or the other, to the moral standards of those around them.
> 
> And before you get your panties in a ruffle and start pontificating about how we should each be free of others' beliefs so we can do whatever we want, don't even bother.  I already know that people who say that really just mean that THEY want to be the ones to dictate the moral standard for society at large; if you're honest with yourself, you know it, too.  That's what this argument is REALLY all about:  not freedom for everyone to do as they please, but power to make others conform to one's worldview.  The only question is whether the majority gets to make that decision, or a self-deluding and spoiled minority gets to.
Click to expand...


Your post is inaccurate because you assume that I don't have my own set of moral standards. I already stated that you have every right to be offended by the actions of others. But guess what? You being offended isn't a compelling enough reason to curtail the freedoms of your fellow citizens that are breaking no laws. Besides, It doesn't seem like anyone is forcing you to conform to any world view against your wishes. Whine, cry, and flail all you wish but gay citizens have every right to the public square as you do. You have every right to whine about it and I have every right to ignore it. Isn't freedom grand?


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> If a church refused to marry black people because of their race, would you be behind supporting them suing that church? Yes or no?


 
Ahem, Seawytch, when you get around to it, I'd like you to answer the question above..

And OK, anyone else too.  It's a simple yes or no question.


----------



## RKMBrown

mdk said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans].  All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them.  Gay pride parades are another reason.  Harvey Milk is yet another.  The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason.  Shall I go on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.
> 
> Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, people have every right to be offended by any damned thing they like, and one of the big problems I see with our society these days is dimwits who think they can revoke other people's right to find them offensive.
> 
> It is true that I don't have the right to STOP you from being an exhibitionistic mental train wreck, if you feel utterly compelled to do so, but please learn to separate your right to be freakish and repulsive from an imagined right to force others to pretend you aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never once been to or participated in a gay pride event. Its not my style. And yes, people have every right to be offended over anything they wish.
> 
> I find it ironic that many people that try to deny gays the right to marry do so because they find gays freakish and repulsive. Again they have that right to be offended, just doesn't use that right to try and limit the freedoms of others as result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might want to look up the word "ironic", because your usage clearly indicates you have no clue what it means.
> 
> Could you also please explain to me what IS
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The blind don't have a right to drive.  People of all walks don't have a right to marry the same gender.  The words "driver's license" means a privilege extended ONLY to those who qualify legally to drive.  That omits the blind.  The word "marriage" means a privilege extended ONLY to those in each sovereign state who fit that state's qualifiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really scares me that there are so many people in this country who are blissfully happy with the idea of delegating all thought, reason, and morality to someone else, particularly when they do so on the mind-boggling belief that that other person (or group of people) is better-qualified than they themselves are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only I was doing any that. If only...
> 
> What is also scary is that some people feel that their idea of morality trumps the rights and liberties of law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is only scary to people who are incapable of forming and holding their own personal moral standard.  Those with the brains and backbone to say, "This is right and this is wrong in my eyes, and this is why", rather than vacillating wildly according to whatever they are being told by others at the moment, are not the least bit frightened or threatened by the exercise of personal conviction in others.  They can also accept the reality that, as social beings, humans are always going to be subject, to one extent or the other, to the moral standards of those around them.
> 
> And before you get your panties in a ruffle and start pontificating about how we should each be free of others' beliefs so we can do whatever we want, don't even bother.  I already know that people who say that really just mean that THEY want to be the ones to dictate the moral standard for society at large; if you're honest with yourself, you know it, too.  That's what this argument is REALLY all about:  not freedom for everyone to do as they please, but power to make others conform to one's worldview.  The only question is whether the majority gets to make that decision, or a self-deluding and spoiled minority gets to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is inaccurate because you assume that I don't have my own set of moral standards. I already stated that you have every right to be offended by the actions of others. But guess what? You being offended isn't a compelling enough reason to curtail the freedoms of your fellow citizens that are breaking no laws. Besides, It doesn't seem like anyone is forcing you to conform to any world view against your wishes. Whine, cry, and flail all you wish but gay citizens have every right to the public square as you do. You have every right to whine about it and I have every right to ignore it. Isn't freedom grand?
Click to expand...


Most authoritarians, like cec.. just don't believe that everyone isn't just like them.   These are the people who don't really believe in the concept of liberty because they claim liberty means authority.  Authoritarians are for the most part, afraid of the unknown, the uncontrolled.  They can't stand liberty.


----------



## RKMBrown

Cecilie1200 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans].  All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them.  Gay pride parades are another reason.  Harvey Milk is yet another.  The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.
> 
> Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, people have every right to be offended by any damned thing they like, and one of the big problems I see with our society these days is dimwits who think they can revoke other people's right to find them offensive.
> 
> It is true that I don't have the right to STOP you from being an exhibitionistic mental train wreck, if you feel utterly compelled to do so, but please learn to separate your right to be freakish and repulsive from an imagined right to force others to pretend you aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never once been to or participated in a gay pride event. Its not my style. And yes, people have every right to be offended over anything they wish.
> 
> I find it ironic that many people that try to deny gays the right to marry do so because they find gays freakish and repulsive. Again they have that right to be offended, just doesn't use that right to try and limit the freedoms of others as result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might want to look up the word "ironic", because your usage clearly indicates you have no clue what it means.
> 
> Could you also please explain to me what IS
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.
> 
> Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The blind don't have a right to drive.  People of all walks don't have a right to marry the same gender.  The words "driver's license" means a privilege extended ONLY to those who qualify legally to drive.  That omits the blind.  The word "marriage" means a privilege extended ONLY to those in each sovereign state who fit that state's qualifiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really scares me that there are so many people in this country who are blissfully happy with the idea of delegating all thought, reason, and morality to someone else, particularly when they do so on the mind-boggling belief that that other person (or group of people) is better-qualified than they themselves are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only I was doing any that. If only...
> 
> What is also scary is that some people feel that their idea of morality trumps the rights and liberties of law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is only scary to people who are incapable of forming and holding their own personal moral standard.  Those with the brains and backbone to say, "This is right and this is wrong in my eyes, and this is why", rather than vacillating wildly according to whatever they are being told by others at the moment, are not the least bit frightened or threatened by the exercise of personal conviction in others.  They can also accept the reality that, as social beings, humans are always going to be subject, to one extent or the other, to the moral standards of those around them.
> 
> And before you get your panties in a ruffle and start pontificating about how we should each be free of others' beliefs so we can do whatever we want, don't even bother.  I already know that people who say that really just mean that THEY want to be the ones to dictate the moral standard for society at large; if you're honest with yourself, you know it, too.  That's what this argument is REALLY all about:  not freedom for everyone to do as they please, but power to make others conform to one's worldview.  The only question is whether the majority gets to make that decision, or a self-deluding and spoiled minority gets to.
Click to expand...

Typical... AUTHORITARIAN declares all people who want liberty to be authoritarians.  ROFL yeah cause liberty can't exist without authoritarian tyranny. ROFL


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a church refused to marry black people because of their race, would you be behind supporting them suing that church? Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem, Seawytch, when you get around to it, I'd like you to answer the question above..
> 
> And OK, anyone else too.  It's a simple yes or no question.
Click to expand...


No, I wouldn't support them suing the church. The church has every to deny a marriage to any couple. They shouldn't be forced to marry anyone against their wishes. They can try and sue but the case would get quickly dismissed by the courts.


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why in hell do you care what churches do? Mind your own business, just as they should mind their own business about who you marry.
> 
> Is that really such a hard concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I'm a Christian who wants my church to be inclusive of my family. Maybe I just happen to care for Christians who are being hurt by the churches exclusion of them.
> 
> I also cared when churches changed their stance on blacks marrying whites...and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a thought.  Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word?  At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?
> 
> Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable.  Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?
Click to expand...


So that's how you combat racism and other bigotries...don't try to change hearts and minds...just go find people that don't hate you instead. Brilliant!


----------



## Seawytch

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a church refused to marry black people because of their race, would you be behind supporting them suing that church? Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem, Seawytch, when you get around to it, I'd like you to answer the question above..
> 
> And OK, anyone else too.  It's a simple yes or no question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I wouldn't support them suing the church. The church has every to deny a marriage to any couple. They shouldn't be forced to marry anyone against their wishes. They can try and sue but the case would get quickly dismissed by the courts.
Click to expand...


Nor would I. It's a silly question.  I live in the United States where there is a 1st Amendment protecting the freedom of religion. Religion has always and will always be free to discriminate.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Seawytch said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, here we go with the bogus "discrimination" argument to deny basic constitutional rights, topped off with the absurd comparison to racial minorities.
> 
> In other words, we just chuck the Constitution out the door to cater to a small, deviant minority that's intent on forcing others to accept their lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy did you miss the whole thread. Has a church ever been required to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage in the United States?
> 
> The Constitution is just fine.
Click to expand...


The idea of freedom of religion is that no one can force you to violate your religious beliefs as long as those beliefs do not harm others.  A Christian photographer politely declining to photograph a lesbian ceremony does not constitute "harm" to the lesbian couple since the couple could have quickly and easily simply found another photographer.  The lesbian couple did not "have" to have their ceremony; they wanted it.  Their desire for a ceremony should never trump another person's right to practice their religion and it certainly should not mean that a Christian business person can be fined for not attending and servicing an event that they find morally offensive.

Now, if we're talking about grocery stores, department stores, doctors, dentists, i.e., services that provide life essentials of food, clothing, and medical care, etc., then, yes, all such businesses should be required to service anyone, be they lesbians, gays, trannies, cross-dressers, whatever.  

Forcing a church to host a gay wedding is a drastically different thing and clearly violates basic constitutional rights and principles.  No one has a "right" to force a church to marry them against its will.


----------



## Seawytch

mikegriffith1 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, here we go with the bogus "discrimination" argument to deny basic constitutional rights, topped off with the absurd comparison to racial minorities.
> 
> In other words, we just chuck the Constitution out the door to cater to a small, deviant minority that's intent on forcing others to accept their lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy did you miss the whole thread. Has a church ever been required to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage in the United States?
> 
> The Constitution is just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea of freedom of religion is that no one can force you to violate your religious beliefs as long as those beliefs do not harm others.  A Christian photographer politely declining to photograph a lesbian ceremony does not constitute "harm" to the lesbian couple since the couple could have quickly and easily simply found another photographer.  The lesbian couple did not "have" to have their ceremony; they wanted it.  Their desire for a ceremony should never trump another person's right to practice their religion and it certainly should not mean that a Christian business person can be fined for not attending and servicing an event that they find morally offensive.
> 
> Now, if we're talking about grocery stores, department stores, doctors, dentists, i.e., services that provide life essentials of food, clothing, and medical care, etc., then, yes, all such businesses should be required to service anyone, be they lesbians, gays, trannies, cross-dressers, whatever.
> 
> Forcing a church to host a gay wedding is a drastically different thing and clearly violates basic constitutional rights and principles.  No one has a "right" to force a church to marry them against its will.
Click to expand...


Now you're conflating topics. A business operating in the public sphere is not a church.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No one is forcing anyone to be "inclusive" in their private lives, but when the laws are created, they will be enforced.

One might not like whites or Christians, but one cannot discriminate against them publicly.  But one can hate them privately and not associate with them in private matters.

And those principals apply to all Americans.


----------



## JakeStarkey

If you were a dictator, when you write, "A Christian photographer politely declining to photograph a lesbian ceremony does not constitute "harm" to the lesbian couple since the couple could have quickly and easily simply found another photographer ", you could make such a pronouncement with force.

You are not, and you can't.  In fact, in our society, your definition is worthless.


----------



## RKMBrown

mikegriffith1 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, here we go with the bogus "discrimination" argument to deny basic constitutional rights, topped off with the absurd comparison to racial minorities.
> 
> In other words, we just chuck the Constitution out the door to cater to a small, deviant minority that's intent on forcing others to accept their lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy did you miss the whole thread. Has a church ever been required to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage in the United States?
> 
> The Constitution is just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea of freedom of religion is that no one can force you to violate your religious beliefs as long as those beliefs do not harm others.  A Christian photographer politely declining to photograph a lesbian ceremony does not constitute "harm" to the lesbian couple since the couple could have quickly and easily simply found another photographer.  The lesbian couple did not "have" to have their ceremony; they wanted it.  Their desire for a ceremony should never trump another person's right to practice their religion and it certainly should not mean that a Christian business person can be fined for not attending and servicing an event that they find morally offensive.
> 
> Now, if we're talking about grocery stores, department stores, doctors, dentists, i.e., services that provide life essentials of food, clothing, and medical care, etc., then, yes, all such businesses should be required to service anyone, be they lesbians, gays, trannies, cross-dressers, whatever.
> 
> Forcing a church to host a gay wedding is a drastically different thing and clearly violates basic constitutional rights and principles.  No one has a "right" to force a church to marry them against its will.
Click to expand...

You still don't understand. No one forced a church to marry anyone. No one forced a church to host a gay wedding.  You are clueless.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a church refused to marry black people because of their race, would you be behind supporting them suing that church? Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I wouldn't support them suing the church. The church has every to deny a marriage to any couple. They shouldn't be forced to marry anyone against their wishes. They can try and sue but the case would get quickly dismissed by the courts.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that if churches denied marrying blacks because of their race, you would support them in doing so and would not stand by a black lawsuit against said church?  ...that such a lawsuit would be "quickly dismissed"?  Really?

Tell me then, what other people who objected to marrying blacks would you admonish and why?  Or for that matter, what other people would you object to for merely refusing to serve blacks in any other capacity?  And how quickly do you think those lawsuits might be dismissed?


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a church refused to marry black people because of their race, would you be behind supporting them suing that church? Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I wouldn't support them suing the church. The church has every to deny a marriage to any couple. They shouldn't be forced to marry anyone against their wishes. They can try and sue but the case would get quickly dismissed by the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are saying that if churches denied marrying blacks because of their race, you would support them in doing so and would not stand by a black lawsuit against said church?  ...that such a lawsuit would be "quickly dismissed"?  Really?
> 
> Tell me then, what other people who objected to marrying blacks would you admonish and why?  Or for that matter, what other people would you object to for merely refusing to serve blacks in any other capacity?  And how quickly do you think those lawsuits might be dismissed?
Click to expand...


Yes, really. My position hasn't changed since the first time we had this exact same conversation two weeks ago, in this very thread I might add. And yes, I support the church in not having to marry anyone they do not wish to marry. No church or member of the clergy can be forced to marry anyone. I've made this abundantly clear about two dozens times now.

The rest of your post is an attempt to equate public accommodation laws to churches or members of the clergy. This does not apply because churches are not subject to such laws. Churches are private organizations not public businesses. A business that provides a public service must provide that service and if they refuse it cannot be on the basis of age, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, and in some states gays. I wouldn't automatically support any lawsuit that alleges to violate PA laws. I would need to see the facts of the case first before I could make any decision.

Though, I am not exactly wild about these laws, after reading some of the
posts here and on other forums it seems these laws are still needed.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Yes, really. My position hasn't changed since the first time we had this exact same conversation two weeks ago, in this very thread I might add. And yes, I support the church in not having to marry anyone they do not wish to marry. No church or member of the clergy can be forced to marry anyone. I've made this abundantly clear about two dozens times now.
> 
> The rest of your post is an attempt to equate public accommodation laws to churches or members of the clergy. This does not apply because churches are not subject to such laws. Churches are private organizations not public businesses. A business that provides a public service must provide that service and if they refuse it cannot be on the basis of age, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, and in some states gays. I wouldn't automatically support any lawsuit that alleges to violate PA laws. I would need to see the facts of the case first before I could make any decision.
> 
> Though, I am not exactly wild about these laws, after reading some of the
> posts here and on other forums it seems these laws are still needed.


 
And Hobby Lobby?  A devout person's business that accomodates the public.  Would you support Hobby Lobby not selling their wares to black people or providing insurance to black workers because of their race?


----------



## n0spam4me

In the strictest interpretation of the FIRST amendment, Congress shall make NO law.....
and that is the LAW shall NOT interfere with the exercise of religion ( possibly with the exception of outlawing human sacrifice ) However, the whole bit is problematic in that in order to be defined as a CHURCH, the law must define religion, because its like this
If you do religion the way that the state likes
you get a big fat juicy tax exemption
and if you do not do religion the way that the state likes
you get NOTHING.

Planet Earth ..... we have a problem here ......


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, really. My position hasn't changed since the first time we had this exact same conversation two weeks ago, in this very thread I might add. And yes, I support the church in not having to marry anyone they do not wish to marry. No church or member of the clergy can be forced to marry anyone. I've made this abundantly clear about two dozens times now.
> 
> The rest of your post is an attempt to equate public accommodation laws to churches or members of the clergy. This does not apply because churches are not subject to such laws. Churches are private organizations not public businesses. A business that provides a public service must provide that service and if they refuse it cannot be on the basis of age, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, and in some states gays. I wouldn't automatically support any lawsuit that alleges to violate PA laws. I would need to see the facts of the case first before I could make any decision.
> 
> Though, I am not exactly wild about these laws, after reading some of the
> posts here and on other forums it seems these laws are still needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Hobby Lobby?  A devout person's business that accomodates the public.  Would you support Hobby Lobby not selling their wares to black people or providing insurance to black workers because of their race?
Click to expand...


I see what your playing at mate. It's obvious. You don't even address my posts, you just ask a slew of questions hoping for a misstep so you can harp on it and claim some sort of victory. 

Nevertheless, I've got a twenty minute break from destroying marriage and the moral fabric of society so I'll play along. Hobby Lobby is not a church and therefore must follow public  accommodation laws. They can't refuse to sell their wares on the basis of race, any race. If they offer health insurance to their employees then they cannot decide to only cover certain races.

 I am sure your next line of questioning will have to do with Hobby Lobby and birth control now.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> I see what your playing at mate. It's obvious. You don't even address my posts, you just ask a slew of questions hoping for a misstep so you can harp on it and claim some sort of victory.
> 
> Nevertheless, I've got a twenty minute break from destroying marriage and the moral fabric of society so I'll play along. Hobby Lobby is not a church and therefore must follow public  accommodation laws. They can't refuse to sell their wares on the basis of race, any race. If they offer health insurance to their employees then they cannot decide to only cover certain races.
> 
> I am sure your next line of questioning will have to do with Hobby Lobby and birth control now.


 
You are partially correct.  My next line of questioning is first a given: that Hobby Lobby won, supported by the SCOTUS decision.  Second from that given, I'll ask you what the difference is between Hobby Lobby being able to deny coverage for birth control and Hobby Lobby denying coverage for black people is.  [Not that they are denying coverage to blacks, just what that difference would be if they were...in your own words...]


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a church refused to marry black people because of their race, would you be behind supporting them suing that church? Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem, Seawytch, when you get around to it, I'd like you to answer the question above..
> 
> And OK, anyone else too.  It's a simple yes or no question.
Click to expand...


I've answered it (here and in other threads) at least ten times: no.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see what your playing at mate. It's obvious. You don't even address my posts, you just ask a slew of questions hoping for a misstep so you can harp on it and claim some sort of victory.
> 
> Nevertheless, I've got a twenty minute break from destroying marriage and the moral fabric of society so I'll play along. Hobby Lobby is not a church and therefore must follow public  accommodation laws. They can't refuse to sell their wares on the basis of race, any race. If they offer health insurance to their employees then they cannot decide to only cover certain races.
> 
> I am sure your next line of questioning will have to do with Hobby Lobby and birth control now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are partially correct.  My next line of questioning is first a given: that Hobby Lobby won, supported by the SCOTUS decision.  Second from that given, I'll ask you what the difference is between Hobby Lobby being able to deny coverage for birth control and Hobby Lobby denying coverage for black people is.  [Not that they are denying coverage to blacks, just what that difference would be if they were...in your own words...]
Click to expand...

Hobby Lobby did not deny coverage for birth control.   Which is it, your a POS Liar, a paid effing TROLL, or an Idiot?


----------



## Jarlaxle

A human spambot.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Hobby Lobby did not deny coverage for birth control.   Which is it, your a POS Liar, a paid effing TROLL, or an Idiot?


 
My bad.  What was it Hobby Lobby won then?  It was religious based, yes?


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hobby Lobby did not deny coverage for birth control.   Which is it, your a POS Liar, a paid effing TROLL, or an Idiot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.  What was it Hobby Lobby won then?  It was religious based, yes?
Click to expand...

They won the right to NOT have to PAY for abortions for their employees, such as by not having to fund the morning after abortion pill. The employees are free to fund abortions, such as by buying the morning after pill, on their own. Hobby lobby does pay for birth control, just not for abortions.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why in hell do you care what churches do? Mind your own business, just as they should mind their own business about who you marry.
> 
> Is that really such a hard concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I'm a Christian who wants my church to be inclusive of my family. Maybe I just happen to care for Christians who are being hurt by the churches exclusion of them.
> 
> I also cared when churches changed their stance on blacks marrying whites...and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a thought.  Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word?  At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?
> 
> Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable.  Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's how you combat racism and other bigotries...don't try to change hearts and minds...just go find people that don't hate you instead. Brilliant!
Click to expand...


You're obviously under the misapprehension that you "change hearts and minds" by - figuratively speaking - holding a gun to people's heads.  Let me give you a clue, since you don't seem bright enough to go get one:  if you stomp your little feet at me and say, "I'm right and you're wrong and I'm normal and you're a bigot if you don't think I'm normal and I'm going to sue you into agreeing that I'm NORMAL!!!!!" you are not going to "change my heart and mind".  I am not going to suddenly say, "Oh, I've been wrong about you all this time.  Thank you so much for dragging me into court and costing me money and destroying my life.  I now love and admire you and your life choices."  What's going to happen is I'm going to say, "Not only are you as much of a repulsive pervert I want to avoid at all costs, you're ALSO a whining, spoiled nuisance of a repulsive pervert, and I hate you even more now than I did before you started talking, and now instead of just ignoring you, I actively wish you would die horribly."

You change hearts and minds by going on about your fucking life, letting other people go on about THEIR own fucking lives, and exemplifying someone they actually WANT to like despite their disagreements.  It's also necessary to accept that you're not going to be able to change some hearts and minds, for the simple reason that THEY AREN'T YOURS TO DECIDE ABOUT.  Some people are just going to dislike you no matter how many times you order them not to, and providing them with a longer list of solid reasons to dislike you won't help.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> They won the right to NOT have to PAY for abortions for their employees, such as by not having to fund the morning after abortion pill. The employees are free to fund abortions, such as by buying the morning after pill, on their own. Hobby lobby does pay for birth control, just not for abortions.


 But why did they win that?  On what grounds did they claim they didn't have to pay for those?


----------



## Silhouette

Cecilie to Seawytch:


Cecilie1200 said:


> You're obviously under the misapprehension that you "change hearts and minds" by - figuratively speaking - holding a gun to people's heads.  Let me give you a clue, since you don't seem bright enough to go get one:  if you stomp your little feet at me and say, "I'm right and you're wrong and I'm normal and you're a bigot if you don't think I'm normal and I'm going to sue you into agreeing that I'm NORMAL!!!!!" you are not going to "change my heart and mind".  I am not going to suddenly say, "Oh, I've been wrong about you all this time.  Thank you so much for dragging me into court and costing me money and destroying my life.  I now love and admire you and your life choices."  What's going to happen is I'm going to say, "Not only are you as much of a repulsive pervert I want to avoid at all costs, you're ALSO a whining, spoiled nuisance of a repulsive pervert, and I hate you even more now than I did before you started talking, and now instead of just ignoring you, I actively wish you would die horribly."
> 
> You change hearts and minds by going on about your fucking life, letting other people go on about THEIR own fucking lives, and exemplifying someone they actually WANT to like despite their disagreements.  It's also necessary to accept that you're not going to be able to change some hearts and minds, for the simple reason that THEY AREN'T YOURS TO DECIDE ABOUT.  Some people are just going to dislike you no matter how many times you order them not to, and providing them with a longer list of solid reasons to dislike you won't help.


 
An absolutely stunning and deeply accurate post.


----------



## Cecilie1200

mikegriffith1 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, here we go with the bogus "discrimination" argument to deny basic constitutional rights, topped off with the absurd comparison to racial minorities.
> 
> In other words, we just chuck the Constitution out the door to cater to a small, deviant minority that's intent on forcing others to accept their lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy did you miss the whole thread. Has a church ever been required to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage in the United States?
> 
> The Constitution is just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea of freedom of religion is that no one can force you to violate your religious beliefs as long as those beliefs do not harm others.  A Christian photographer politely declining to photograph a lesbian ceremony does not constitute "harm" to the lesbian couple since the couple could have quickly and easily simply found another photographer.  The lesbian couple did not "have" to have their ceremony; they wanted it.  Their desire for a ceremony should never trump another person's right to practice their religion and it certainly should not mean that a Christian business person can be fined for not attending and servicing an event that they find morally offensive.
> 
> Now, if we're talking about grocery stores, department stores, doctors, dentists, i.e., services that provide life essentials of food, clothing, and medical care, etc., then, yes, all such businesses should be required to service anyone, be they lesbians, gays, trannies, cross-dressers, whatever.
> 
> Forcing a church to host a gay wedding is a drastically different thing and clearly violates basic constitutional rights and principles.  No one has a "right" to force a church to marry them against its will.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but you lost me at "THOSE people should be forced to . . ."  I can't get behind the idea that my rights are optional, and that there's ever a point at which YOU have the right to demand any more from me than to leave you alone to do as you wish.

Just as there are other photographers, there are also other grocery stores, other clothing stores, other doctors.  There are always other options for you to get what you need aside from enslaving others, no matter how compelling you consider your reason for slavery to be.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> They won the right to NOT have to PAY for abortions for their employees, such as by not having to fund the morning after abortion pill. The employees are free to fund abortions, such as by buying the morning after pill, on their own. Hobby lobby does pay for birth control, just not for abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> But why did they win that?  On what grounds did they claim they didn't have to pay for those?
Click to expand...

What does it matter?  The point was they were not seeking protection from what you say they were seeking protection from.  

Just because the 1st amendment protects the rights of US citizens does not mean you get to change the details of the hobby lobby case.


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why in hell do you care what churches do? Mind your own business, just as they should mind their own business about who you marry.
> 
> Is that really such a hard concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I'm a Christian who wants my church to be inclusive of my family. Maybe I just happen to care for Christians who are being hurt by the churches exclusion of them.
> 
> I also cared when churches changed their stance on blacks marrying whites...and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a thought.  Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word?  At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?
> 
> Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable.  Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's how you combat racism and other bigotries...don't try to change hearts and minds...just go find people that don't hate you instead. Brilliant!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're obviously under the misapprehension that you "change hearts and minds" by - figuratively speaking - holding a gun to people's heads.  Let me give you a clue, since you don't seem bright enough to go get one:  if you stomp your little feet at me and say, "I'm right and you're wrong and I'm normal and you're a bigot if you don't think I'm normal and I'm going to sue you into agreeing that I'm NORMAL!!!!!" you are not going to "change my heart and mind".  I am not going to suddenly say, "Oh, I've been wrong about you all this time.  Thank you so much for dragging me into court and costing me money and destroying my life.  I now love and admire you and your life choices."  What's going to happen is I'm going to say, "Not only are you as much of a repulsive pervert I want to avoid at all costs, you're ALSO a whining, spoiled nuisance of a repulsive pervert, and I hate you even more now than I did before you started talking, and now instead of just ignoring you, I actively wish you would die horribly."
> 
> You change hearts and minds by going on about your fucking life, letting other people go on about THEIR own fucking lives, and exemplifying someone they actually WANT to like despite their disagreements.  It's also necessary to accept that you're not going to be able to change some hearts and minds, for the simple reason that THEY AREN'T YOURS TO DECIDE ABOUT.  Some people are just going to dislike you no matter how many times you order them not to, and providing them with a longer list of solid reasons to dislike you won't help.
Click to expand...


We're doing fine changing hearts and minds the way we're doing it now. You've seen the polls, right?

Churches are changing too.


The Lead


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> why in hell do you care what churches do? Mind your own business, just as they should mind their own business about who you marry.
> 
> Is that really such a hard concept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I'm a Christian who wants my church to be inclusive of my family. Maybe I just happen to care for Christians who are being hurt by the churches exclusion of them.
> 
> I also cared when churches changed their stance on blacks marrying whites...and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a thought.  Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word?  At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?
> 
> Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable.  Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's how you combat racism and other bigotries...don't try to change hearts and minds...just go find people that don't hate you instead. Brilliant!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're obviously under the misapprehension that you "change hearts and minds" by - figuratively speaking - holding a gun to people's heads.  Let me give you a clue, since you don't seem bright enough to go get one:  if you stomp your little feet at me and say, "I'm right and you're wrong and I'm normal and you're a bigot if you don't think I'm normal and I'm going to sue you into agreeing that I'm NORMAL!!!!!" you are not going to "change my heart and mind".  I am not going to suddenly say, "Oh, I've been wrong about you all this time.  Thank you so much for dragging me into court and costing me money and destroying my life.  I now love and admire you and your life choices."  What's going to happen is I'm going to say, "Not only are you as much of a repulsive pervert I want to avoid at all costs, you're ALSO a whining, spoiled nuisance of a repulsive pervert, and I hate you even more now than I did before you started talking, and now instead of just ignoring you, I actively wish you would die horribly."
> 
> You change hearts and minds by going on about your fucking life, letting other people go on about THEIR own fucking lives, and exemplifying someone they actually WANT to like despite their disagreements.  It's also necessary to accept that you're not going to be able to change some hearts and minds, for the simple reason that THEY AREN'T YOURS TO DECIDE ABOUT.  Some people are just going to dislike you no matter how many times you order them not to, and providing them with a longer list of solid reasons to dislike you won't help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're doing fine changing hearts and minds the way we're doing it now. You've seen the polls, right?
> 
> Churches are changing too.
> 
> The Lead
Click to expand...

 




yes, the poll at the beginning of this thread is very telling


----------



## WorldWatcher

Redfish said:


> yes, the poll at the beginning of this thread is very telling




The only thing the poll at the beginning of the thread is telling about is the idea that government should not mandate that Churches be required under the law to perform a religious ceremony that goes against it's dogma.

It ways absolutely nothing about whether same-sex couples should be discriminated against by the government or not.


>>>>


----------



## Redfish

WorldWatcher said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the poll at the beginning of this thread is very telling
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing the poll at the beginning of the thread is telling about is the idea that government should not mandate that Churches be required under the law to perform a religious ceremony that goes against it's dogma.
> 
> It ways absolutely nothing about whether same-sex couples should be discriminated against by the government or not.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

 

no one wants them to be discriminated against.   Does the use of the word "marriage" eliminate all chances of discrimination?    Why is that word so critical to the gay agenda?


----------



## RKMBrown

Redfish said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the poll at the beginning of this thread is very telling
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing the poll at the beginning of the thread is telling about is the idea that government should not mandate that Churches be required under the law to perform a religious ceremony that goes against it's dogma.
> 
> It ways absolutely nothing about whether same-sex couples should be discriminated against by the government or not.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no one wants them to be discriminated against.   Does the use of the word "marriage" eliminate all chances of discrimination?    Why is that word so critical to the gay agenda?
Click to expand...

The agenda is the heterosexual agenda that is restricting the rights of the homosexuals.  Why is the word "marriage" so critical to the heterosexual agenda?


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> The agenda is the heterosexual agenda that is restricting the rights of the homosexuals.  Why is the word "marriage" so critical to the heterosexual agenda?


 
Behaviors don't have rights.  BTW, how do you feel about polygamy marriage while we're on the subject?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> why in hell do you care what churches do? Mind your own business, just as they should mind their own business about who you marry.
> 
> Is that really such a hard concept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I'm a Christian who wants my church to be inclusive of my family. Maybe I just happen to care for Christians who are being hurt by the churches exclusion of them.
> 
> I also cared when churches changed their stance on blacks marrying whites...and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a thought.  Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word?  At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?
> 
> Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable.  Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's how you combat racism and other bigotries...don't try to change hearts and minds...just go find people that don't hate you instead. Brilliant!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're obviously under the misapprehension that you "change hearts and minds" by - figuratively speaking - holding a gun to people's heads.  Let me give you a clue, since you don't seem bright enough to go get one:  if you stomp your little feet at me and say, "I'm right and you're wrong and I'm normal and you're a bigot if you don't think I'm normal and I'm going to sue you into agreeing that I'm NORMAL!!!!!" you are not going to "change my heart and mind".  I am not going to suddenly say, "Oh, I've been wrong about you all this time.  Thank you so much for dragging me into court and costing me money and destroying my life.  I now love and admire you and your life choices."  What's going to happen is I'm going to say, "Not only are you as much of a repulsive pervert I want to avoid at all costs, you're ALSO a whining, spoiled nuisance of a repulsive pervert, and I hate you even more now than I did before you started talking, and now instead of just ignoring you, I actively wish you would die horribly."
> 
> You change hearts and minds by going on about your fucking life, letting other people go on about THEIR own fucking lives, and exemplifying someone they actually WANT to like despite their disagreements.  It's also necessary to accept that you're not going to be able to change some hearts and minds, for the simple reason that THEY AREN'T YOURS TO DECIDE ABOUT.  Some people are just going to dislike you no matter how many times you order them not to, and providing them with a longer list of solid reasons to dislike you won't help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're doing fine changing hearts and minds the way we're doing it now. You've seen the polls, right?
> 
> Churches are changing too.
> 
> 
> The Lead
Click to expand...


Yeah, I see the polls.  Problem is, I don't interpret them the way you do, so I'm not seeing, "Yayyy!!  It's okay for us to be tyrants!  We have suppressed our enemies and made it frightening to publicly disagree with us, which OBVIOUSLY means that everyone now agrees!"  God forbid you should consider the possibility that people actually hate you twice as much, but just aren't telling your pollsters about it.

Which would I prefer?  For some dumbass to tell everyone he meets how much homosexuals suck, or for him to keep quiet, never let anyone know how much he hates and resents homosexuals, and then explode and beat some poor gay guy to death in a bar parking lot?  Hmmmm.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The agenda is the heterosexual agenda that is restricting the rights of the homosexuals.  Why is the word "marriage" so critical to the heterosexual agenda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behaviors don't have rights.  BTW, how do you feel about polygamy marriage while we're on the subject?
Click to expand...

Who said behaviors have rights?  WTF did that come from?

IMO the radical christian right is also harming people who want to enter into plural marriages.  I see nothing wrong with anyone getting married so long as they are consenting adults.  I've stated such dozens of times in this and the other threads on this topic that you were a part of.  Do you have Alzheimers?


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The agenda is the heterosexual agenda that is restricting the rights of the homosexuals.  Why is the word "marriage" so critical to the heterosexual agenda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behaviors don't have rights.  BTW, how do you feel about polygamy marriage while we're on the subject?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said behaviors have rights?  WTF did that come from?
> 
> IMO the radical christian right is also harming people who want to enter into plural marriages.  I see nothing wrong with anyone getting married so long as they are consenting adults.  I've stated such dozens of times in this and the other threads on this topic that you were a part of.  Do you have Alzheimers?
Click to expand...

 The problem is legally of course.  Because what we all know is that the fold of the LGBT cult are pushing SCOTUS to find protection for them under the 14th.  And I'm saying behaviors don't have those protections.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The agenda is the heterosexual agenda that is restricting the rights of the homosexuals.  Why is the word "marriage" so critical to the heterosexual agenda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behaviors don't have rights.  BTW, how do you feel about polygamy marriage while we're on the subject?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said behaviors have rights?  WTF did that come from?
> 
> IMO the radical christian right is also harming people who want to enter into plural marriages.  I see nothing wrong with anyone getting married so long as they are consenting adults.  I've stated such dozens of times in this and the other threads on this topic that you were a part of.  Do you have Alzheimers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is legally of course.  Because what we all know is that the fold of the LGBT cult are pushing SCOTUS to find protection for them under the 14th.  And I'm saying behaviors don't have those protections.
Click to expand...

HUH?

Are you trying to say the due process and equal protection clauses in the 14th don't apply to homosexual citizens?

I think someone has confused you.  Marriage is a part of life and liberty.  Thus, restricting marriage is the same as restricting life and liberty.

Yes the states can restrict life, liberty, and property, but only after showing due process and equal protection.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> HUH?
> 
> Are you trying to say the due process and equal protection clauses in the 14th don't apply to homosexual citizens?
> 
> I think someone has confused you.  Marriage is a part of life and liberty.  Thus, restricting marriage is the same as restricting life and liberty.
> 
> Yes the states can restrict life, liberty, and property, but only after showing due process and equal protection.


There is no such thing as a "homosexual citizen".  There are only citizens who do this or that thing.  Sex is a behavior.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> Are you trying to say the due process and equal protection clauses in the 14th don't apply to homosexual citizens?
> 
> I think someone has confused you.  Marriage is a part of life and liberty.  Thus, restricting marriage is the same as restricting life and liberty.
> 
> Yes the states can restrict life, liberty, and property, but only after showing due process and equal protection.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "homosexual citizen".  There are only citizens who do this or that thing.  Sex is a behavior.
Click to expand...

Oh I see .. so there is no such thing as heterosexual or homosexual or black or white or male or female or old or young just a bunch of potato heads walking around.


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I'm a Christian who wants my church to be inclusive of my family. Maybe I just happen to care for Christians who are being hurt by the churches exclusion of them.
> 
> I also cared when churches changed their stance on blacks marrying whites...and?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a thought.  Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word?  At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?
> 
> Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable.  Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's how you combat racism and other bigotries...don't try to change hearts and minds...just go find people that don't hate you instead. Brilliant!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're obviously under the misapprehension that you "change hearts and minds" by - figuratively speaking - holding a gun to people's heads.  Let me give you a clue, since you don't seem bright enough to go get one:  if you stomp your little feet at me and say, "I'm right and you're wrong and I'm normal and you're a bigot if you don't think I'm normal and I'm going to sue you into agreeing that I'm NORMAL!!!!!" you are not going to "change my heart and mind".  I am not going to suddenly say, "Oh, I've been wrong about you all this time.  Thank you so much for dragging me into court and costing me money and destroying my life.  I now love and admire you and your life choices."  What's going to happen is I'm going to say, "Not only are you as much of a repulsive pervert I want to avoid at all costs, you're ALSO a whining, spoiled nuisance of a repulsive pervert, and I hate you even more now than I did before you started talking, and now instead of just ignoring you, I actively wish you would die horribly."
> 
> You change hearts and minds by going on about your fucking life, letting other people go on about THEIR own fucking lives, and exemplifying someone they actually WANT to like despite their disagreements.  It's also necessary to accept that you're not going to be able to change some hearts and minds, for the simple reason that THEY AREN'T YOURS TO DECIDE ABOUT.  Some people are just going to dislike you no matter how many times you order them not to, and providing them with a longer list of solid reasons to dislike you won't help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're doing fine changing hearts and minds the way we're doing it now. You've seen the polls, right?
> 
> Churches are changing too.
> 
> 
> The Lead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I see the polls.  Problem is, I don't interpret them the way you do, so I'm not seeing, "Yayyy!!  It's okay for us to be tyrants!  We have suppressed our enemies and made it frightening to publicly disagree with us, which OBVIOUSLY means that everyone now agrees!"  God forbid you should consider the possibility that people actually hate you twice as much, but just aren't telling your pollsters about it.
> 
> Which would I prefer?  For some dumbass to tell everyone he meets how much homosexuals suck, or for him to keep quiet, never let anyone know how much he hates and resents homosexuals, and then explode and beat some poor gay guy to death in a bar parking lot?  Hmmmm.
Click to expand...


So the dramatic uptick in support for gay marriage is interpreted by you as freaks hating gays more? Yeah, you go with that one. 

Gays aren't going back in the closet. We aren't going to STFU and just wait until you feel magnanimous enough to let us have some rights. We're going to fight for them and push for them. We're going to come out to our families and they are going to fight and push for us too. (And they're the ones that are forcing churches...pesky loved ones)


----------



## rightwinger

Any church that does not allow homosexual weddings should lose its tax exempt status


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> Any church that does not allow homosexual weddings should lose its tax exempt status


Any jerk that would use tax exempt status to cajole a church into changing it's mind should be run out of town on a rail.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Seawytch said:


> In the end, Churches will be "forced" to perform gay marriages...but it won't be the government doing the "forcing", it will be the family, the friends, the loved ones of gays and lesbians that will do the "forcing" through public opinion.
> 
> Who will be last, the Mormons again? I'm putting my money on white evangelicals...



I can't think of any opinion in religion.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any church that does not allow homosexual weddings should lose its tax exempt status
> 
> 
> 
> Any jerk that would use tax exempt status to cajole a church into changing it's mind should be run out of town on a rail.
Click to expand...

Your fake concerns about the proven-tyranny of the uber left are noted as such.  Meanwhile I'll bet you opposed the Hobby Lobby decision, right?


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any church that does not allow homosexual weddings should lose its tax exempt status
> 
> 
> 
> Any jerk that would use tax exempt status to cajole a church into changing it's mind should be run out of town on a rail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fake concerns about the proven-tyranny of the uber left are noted as such.  Meanwhile I'll bet you opposed the Hobby Lobby decision, right?
Click to expand...

No, I thought the Hobby Lobby decision by the SCOTUS was dead on.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The "uber left" has the the majority and the courts on this issue?

Tough.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> The "uber left" has the the majority and the courts on this issue?
> 
> Tough.


 
That's not how I read "state's choice" last year  [Windsor 2013]...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "uber left" has the the majority and the courts on this issue?
> 
> Tough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not how I read "state's choice" last year  [Windsor 2013]...
Click to expand...


Your read to  your confirmation bias, happily ignoring SCOTUS retains the power to correct the states when they unconstitutionally restrict equal access to liberties.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not how I read "state's choice" last year  [Windsor 2013]...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your read to  your confirmation bias, happily ignoring SCOTUS retains the power to correct the states when they unconstitutionally restrict equal access to liberties.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, they retain that power and even discussed it in Windsor 2013 when they cited "if Loving applies" [paraphrased].  But then at the end of all that they went ahead and said that gay marriage was only legal in some states.  And I think they did an excellent job clearly illustrating how New York arrived at making it legal there.  A situation the Court clearly indicated it preferred:



> United States v. Windsor
> 
> Page 14:
> "The limitation of lawful marriage to heterosexual couples, which for centuries had been deemed both necessary and fundamental, came to be seen in New York and certain other States as an unjust exclusion.Slowly at first and then in rapid course, the laws of New York came to acknowledge the urgency of this issue for same-sex couples who wanted to affirm their commitment to one another...
> 
> ...After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage to correct what its citizens and elected representatives perceived to be an injustice that they had not earlier known or understood...
> 
> ...Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution. By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States.


 
Windsor is the "state's choice" decision.  Lower courts have been attempting since to overrule it from underneath.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> The agenda is the heterosexual agenda that is restricting the rights of the homosexuals.  Why is the word "marriage" so critical to the heterosexual agenda?


In Utah for example to set up encouragement for two people of the natural breeding arrangement to create a household in which children will likely come to them.  To set that as the "brass ring" for their discreet community, using the perks of marriage as "incentive to strive" for that ideal they want for themselves.  As is their "unquestioned authority" and right [Windsor 2013] to craft their own discreet social norms in behaviors and icons of those sought behaviors.

It isn't the "heterosexual agenda".  It's the agenda of the majority and their civil rights to self-rule on questions of what human behaviors to encourage; and which to discourage with local penal, civil and family laws..


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The agenda is the heterosexual agenda that is restricting the rights of the homosexuals.  Why is the word "marriage" so critical to the heterosexual agenda?
> 
> 
> 
> In Utah for example to set up encouragement for two people of the natural breeding arrangement to create a household in which children will likely come to them.  To set that as the "brass ring" for their discreet community, using the perks of marriage as "incentive to strive" for that ideal they want for themselves.  As is their "unquestioned authority" and right [Windsor 2013] to craft their own discreet social norms in behaviors and icons of those sought behaviors.
> 
> It isn't the "heterosexual agenda".  It's the agenda of the majority and their civil rights to self-rule on questions of what human behaviors to encourage; and which to discourage with local penal, civil and family laws..
Click to expand...

Can anyone translate this gibberish to English?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

BillyP said:


> We accomodate pedophile priests performing sex acts on children, so why wouldn't the church perform gay marriages? Suddenly, they have morals?



What's wrong with having morals?


----------



## Silhouette

QuickHitCurepon said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> We accomodate pedophile priests performing sex acts on children, so why wouldn't the church perform gay marriages? Suddenly, they have morals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with having morals?
Click to expand...

 There is no policy that accomodates priests molesting kids.  It is a blight on the church and it in no way condones this shameful practice.  In stark contrast, LGBT people all line up behind gay pride parades where lewd sex acts are performed routinely in hopes little kids will be watching.  The LGBT subculture instead of rebuking that or considering it a blight, instead lines up and cheers or marches right along with them holding up signs saying "gay pride"...

It's what's emphasized and de-emphasized in each culture.  Not that either one is devoid of sex crimes against kids.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Silhouette said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> We accomodate pedophile priests performing sex acts on children, so why wouldn't the church perform gay marriages? Suddenly, they have morals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with having morals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no policy that accomodates priests molesting kids.  It is a blight on the church and it in no way condones this shameful practice.  In stark contrast, LGBT people all line up behind gay pride parades where lewd sex acts are performed routinely in hopes little kids will be watching.  The LGBT subculture instead of rebuking that or considering it a blight, instead lines up and cheers or marches right along with them holding up signs saying "gay pride"...
> 
> It's what's emphasized and de-emphasized in each culture.  Not that either one is devoid of sex crimes against kids.
Click to expand...


There is no way to improve gay lifestyles, but there is still hope for the church yet, and forcing gay marriages would be a big step backwards.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> We accomodate pedophile priests performing sex acts on children, so why wouldn't the church perform gay marriages? Suddenly, they have morals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with having morals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no policy that accomodates priests molesting kids.  It is a blight on the church and it in no way condones this shameful practice.  In stark contrast, LGBT people all line up behind gay pride parades where lewd sex acts are performed routinely in hopes little kids will be watching.  The LGBT subculture instead of rebuking that or considering it a blight, instead lines up and cheers or marches right along with them holding up signs saying "gay pride"...
> 
> It's what's emphasized and de-emphasized in each culture.  Not that either one is devoid of sex crimes against kids.
Click to expand...

You're a lying POS.


----------



## Wry Catcher

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



NO, but any church which has a tax excempt status and engages in political activities should forever lose that benefit.


----------



## mdk

rightwinger said:


> Any church that does not allow homosexual weddings should lose its tax exempt status



Absolutely not. The church shouldn't not forced to marry any one against their wishes. Period.


----------



## Wry Catcher

mdk said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any church that does not allow homosexual weddings should lose its tax exempt status
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. The church shouldn't not forced to marry any one against their wishes. Period.
Click to expand...


No one is asking or telling them what to do, if it is their moral obligation to deny some couples to marry, they are making both a moral and a political decision.  Why should they then keep their tax exempt status?  

Henry David Thoreau chose jail over supporting the Mexican War via not paying a tax.  Surely a religious order ought to act with the same moral certitude as did Thoreau; if they choose to act as does the Westboro Babtist Church they should do so openly and preach bigotry from the pulput and pay their taxes. Or, as in Thoreau's case, the congregation can pay the taxes (real estate, special district taxes, etc.).


----------



## mdk

Wry Catcher said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any church that does not allow homosexual weddings should lose its tax exempt status
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. The church shouldn't not forced to marry any one against their wishes. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is asking or telling them what to do, if it is their moral obligation to deny some couples to marry, they are making both a moral and a political decision.  Why should they then keep their tax exempt status?
> 
> Henry David Thoreau chose jail over supporting the Mexican War via not paying a tax.  Surely a religious order ought to act with the same moral certitude as did Thoreau; if they choose to act as does the Westboro Babtist Church they should do so openly and preach bigotry from the pulput and pay their taxes. Or, as in Thoreau's case, the congregation can pay the taxes (real estate, special district taxes, etc.).
Click to expand...


I couldn't disagree more with your post. They should keep their tax exempt status because they are making the decision based off their faith and scripture. Whether you agree with that decision or not doesn't matter. I am not saying I agree with their position but they shouldn't be forced to marry people against their wishes. Removing their tax status sends a clear message from the government, follow our will or we will punish you for it. The power to tax is the power to destroy. That is wrong and a gross overreach by the government. If you support having the church not interfere in matters of the state then you must also support the government not interfering in matters of the church. When it comes to whom they marry or not that is most certainly a matter of the church.

Is WBC even a church? I am not sure? Do they pay taxes? They are not considered Baptists by the Baptist World Alliance and the Southern Baptist Convention.


----------



## deltex1

Could someone summarize the 3000 posts about a subject no one gives a shit about?


----------



## WorldWatcher

deltex1 said:


> Could someone summarize the 3000 posts about a subject no one gives a shit about?




The poll asks whether Churches should be required to perform religious ceremonies (apparently) by force of government.

The vast majority of respondents said "No", basically the performance of religious ceremonies by Churches should be up to them.





At least one poster has dishonestly tried to claim that because respondents to the poll don't think the government should force Churches to perform a religious ceremony - that that means there is vast support for not having government recognize Civil Marriages for same-sex couples.

Something the poll does not do.





Does that help?


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

Wry Catcher said:


> No one is asking or telling them what to do, *if it is their moral obligation to deny some couples to marry, they are making both a moral and a political decision.  Why should they then keep their tax exempt status*?
> 
> *Henry David Thoreau chose jail over supporting the Mexican War via not paying a tax.  Surely a religious order ought to act with the same moral certitude as did Thoreau*; if they choose to act as does the Westboro Babtist Church they should do so openly and preach bigotry from the pulput and pay their taxes. Or, as in Thoreau's case, the congregation can pay the taxes (real estate, special district taxes, etc.).


 
...And so it begins, presumptively....before any ink is even dry on a theoretical "win" for federal protection for some deviant sex behaviors to call themselves "married"....you'll see lawsuits at orphanages, churches.  The subcultural takeover is almost complete.  All they have to do is just convince the Court how just certain behaviors [but not others for sure] can get federal protection to "marry" in voliation of what behaviors and standards the majority finds repugnant.  Wecome to: LAWSUIT CITY..

Batten down the hatches orphanages, churches...a rainbow tornado is coming.....do not resist...IST VERBOTEN!


----------



## Silhouette

deltex1 said:


> Could someone summarize the 3000 posts about a subject no one gives a shit about?


82% of people in one of the most popular polls at USMB "give a shit" about this topic.   Check out the view numbers on the politic's front page.  Oh wait, let me guess.  You already have and hence the reason you just lied saying "nobody gives a shit about this topic".

What, is it interfering with your smoke and mirrors campaign?  Over 31,000 times someone has "given a shit" about this topic.  Sorry that bothers you.  Though I'd think with all the USMB popup ads now the staff is thrilled about this topic...


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could someone summarize the 3000 posts about a subject no one gives a shit about?
> 
> 
> 
> 82% of people in one of the most popular polls at USMB "give a shit" about this topic.   Check out the view numbers on the politic's front page.  Oh wait, let me guess.  You already have and hence the reason you just lied saying "nobody gives a shit about this topic".
> 
> What, is it interfering with your smoke and mirrors campaign?  Over 31,000 times someone has "given a shit" about this topic.  Sorry that bothers you.  Though I'd think with all the USMB popup ads now the staff is thrilled about this topic...
Click to expand...

Yes, not only is sil incapable of telling the truth, sil's also incapable of detecting sarcasm.


----------



## deltex1

I could put up a post on why LIBTARDS should demand that all shit be brown and it would get 3000 responses.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 82% of people in one of the most popular polls at USMB "give a shit" about this topic.   Check out the view numbers on the politic's front page.  Oh wait, let me guess.  You already have and hence the reason you just lied saying "nobody gives a shit about this topic".
> 
> What, is it interfering with your smoke and mirrors campaign?  Over 31,000 times someone has "given a shit" about this topic.  Sorry that bothers you.  Though I'd think with all the USMB popup ads now the staff is thrilled about this topic...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, not only is sil incapable of telling the truth, sil's also incapable of detecting sarcasm.
Click to expand...

 
Weak recovery bro.  Want to try again?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Wry Catcher said:


> No one is asking or telling them what to do, if it is their moral obligation to deny some couples to marry, they are making both a moral and a political decision.  Why should they then keep their tax exempt status?



It is a moral decision to the degree that personal beliefs and adherence to faith factors in. But in no way is a political decision. It is a religious decision, and religion is not politics, two different things entirely. Should we merge the Politics and Religious sections of USMB?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

deltex1 said:


> Could someone summarize the 3000 posts about a subject no one gives a shit about?


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 82% of people in one of the most popular polls at USMB "give a shit" about this topic.   Check out the view numbers on the politic's front page.  Oh wait, let me guess.  You already have and hence the reason you just lied saying "nobody gives a shit about this topic".
> 
> What, is it interfering with your smoke and mirrors campaign?  Over 31,000 times someone has "given a shit" about this topic.  Sorry that bothers you.  Though I'd think with all the USMB popup ads now the staff is thrilled about this topic...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, not only is sil incapable of telling the truth, sil's also incapable of detecting sarcasm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weak recovery bro.  Want to try again?
Click to expand...

huh?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Silhouette said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is asking or telling them what to do, *if it is their moral obligation to deny some couples to marry, they are making both a moral and a political decision.  Why should they then keep their tax exempt status*?
> 
> *Henry David Thoreau chose jail over supporting the Mexican War via not paying a tax.  Surely a religious order ought to act with the same moral certitude as did Thoreau*; if they choose to act as does the Westboro Babtist Church they should do so openly and preach bigotry from the pulput and pay their taxes. Or, as in Thoreau's case, the congregation can pay the taxes (real estate, special district taxes, etc.).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...And so it begins, presumptively....before any ink is even dry on a theoretical "win" for federal protection for some deviant sex behaviors to call themselves "married"....you'll see lawsuits at orphanages, churches.  The subcultural takeover is almost complete.  All they have to do is just convince the Court how just certain behaviors [but not others for sure] can get federal protection to "marry" in voliation of what behaviors and standards the majority finds repugnant.  Wecome to: LAWSUIT CITY..
> 
> Batten down the hatches orphanages, churches...a rainbow tornado is coming.....do not resist...IST VERBOTEN!
Click to expand...


The dreaded slippery slope faux argument.


----------



## Wry Catcher

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is asking or telling them what to do, if it is their moral obligation to deny some couples to marry, they are making both a moral and a political decision.  Why should they then keep their tax exempt status?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a moral decision to the degree that personal beliefs and adherence to faith factors in. But in no way is a political decision. It is a religious decision, and religion is not politics, two different things entirely. Should we merge the Politics and Religious sections of USMB?
Click to expand...


How is it not a political decision?  Was the Crusades a Religious or Political Decision?  The various Inquisitions?  Can you honestly deny The Mormon Church providing support for Prop. 8 in California or the activities of Monica Goodling in vetting candidates for US Attorney were only religious activities?


----------



## Silhouette

Wry Catcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And so it begins, presumptively....before any ink is even dry on a theoretical "win" for federal protection for some deviant sex behaviors to call themselves "married"....you'll see lawsuits at orphanages, churches.  The subcultural takeover is almost complete.  All they have to do is just convince the Court how just certain behaviors [but not others for sure] can get federal protection to "marry" in voliation of what behaviors and standards the majority finds repugnant.  Wecome to: LAWSUIT CITY..
> 
> Batten down the hatches orphanages, churches...a rainbow tornado is coming.....do not resist...IST VERBOTEN!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dreaded slippery slope faux argument.
Click to expand...

 
You are ACTUALLY going to claim that if gays get federal protection for their "marriage" that they will suddenly do a complete about-face from engineered-lawsuits in order to spare just the church's dogma itself eh?  And I suppose they won't start suing adoption agencies either?

I nominate you second only behind Joe for "most full of shit" award at USMB.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And so it begins, presumptively....before any ink is even dry on a theoretical "win" for federal protection for some deviant sex behaviors to call themselves "married"....you'll see lawsuits at orphanages, churches.  The subcultural takeover is almost complete.  All they have to do is just convince the Court how just certain behaviors [but not others for sure] can get federal protection to "marry" in voliation of what behaviors and standards the majority finds repugnant.  Wecome to: LAWSUIT CITY..
> 
> Batten down the hatches orphanages, churches...a rainbow tornado is coming.....do not resist...IST VERBOTEN!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dreaded slippery slope faux argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ACTUALLY going to claim that if gays get federal protection for their "marriage" that they will suddenly do a complete about-face from engineered-lawsuits in order to spare just the church's dogma itself eh?  And I suppose they won't start suing adoption agencies either?
> 
> I nominate you second only behind Joe for "most full of shit" award at USMB.
Click to expand...

Hey look it's the homophobic bigoted POS come back for more.


----------



## Silhouette

Wry Catcher said:


> How is it not a political decision?  Was the Crusades a Religious or Political Decision?  The various Inquisitions?  Can you honestly deny The Mormon Church providing support for Prop. 8 in California or the activities of Monica Goodling in vetting candidates for US Attorney were only religious activities?


 
Uh, have you been to California?  If you're travelling through anywhere east of 50 miles from the coastline, you'd better brush up on your fluent conversational spanish.  The hispanic population in California is running about 99.999999999% staunch, unwavering catholic.  I've even considered investing in the holy santos candle manufacturing trades there.  It's only going to go up up up.  They listen to the Pope.  And the Pope/Vatican's stance on gay marriage is not going to change even by the end of this Century.  And the reason for that is promoting homosexual cultures is one of the mortal sins that gets anyone, including the Vatican or the Pope [or perhaps especially the Vatican and the Pope] eternity in the Big Pit.

So if you're looking for the source of the 7 million people who lawfully restricted marriage in their state to not include gays or polygamists or minors [standing, valid law to this day, Windsor 2013], look no further than the I-5 corridor and all the little pockets of 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation anchor babies nestled all throughout that state.  For every rich white liberal there, there are about 12-20 legal voting hispanics serving their every whim...

And they vote.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it not a political decision?  Was the Crusades a Religious or Political Decision?  The various Inquisitions?  Can you honestly deny The Mormon Church providing support for Prop. 8 in California or the activities of Monica Goodling in vetting candidates for US Attorney were only religious activities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, have you been to California?  If you're travelling through anywhere east of 50 miles from the coastline, you'd better brush up on your fluent conversational spanish.  The hispanic population in California is running about 99.999999999% staunch, unwavering catholic.  I've even considered investing in the holy santos candle manufacturing trades there.  It's only going to go up up up.  They listen to the Pope.  And the Pope/Vatican's stance on gay marriage is not going to change even by the end of this Century.  And the reason for that is promoting homosexual cultures is one of the mortal sins that gets anyone, including the Vatican or the Pope [or perhaps especially the Vatican and the Pope] eternity in the Big Pit.
> 
> So if you're looking for the source of the 7 million people who lawfully restricted marriage in their state to not include gays or polygamists or minors [standing, valid law to this day, Windsor 2013], look no further than the I-5 corridor and all the little pockets of 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation anchor babies nestled all throughout that state.  For every rich white liberal there, there are about 12-20 legal voting hispanics serving their every whim...
> 
> And they vote.
Click to expand...

You're a LYING POS.


----------



## Silhouette

So I'm "lying" about the hispanics in California voting?  Or that they're catholic?  Or that they are not wanting gay marriage?  At least be specific in your ad hominen/thread diversions.


----------



## Silhouette

Wry Catcher said:


> How is it not a political decision?  Was the Crusades a Religious or Political Decision?  The various Inquisitions?  Can you honestly deny The Mormon Church providing support for Prop. 8 in California or the activities of Monica Goodling in vetting candidates for US Attorney were only religious activities?


 
You never did say what the problem was if indeed the Mormon church did get behind the Prop 8 campaign.  Are you saying gays don't pump money into causes and candidates [Obama chief among them] they want to forward for their cult values?   What did Obama do right after taking office?  He appoined a gay guy as education secretary who embarked on a campaign to teach "anal fisting" to kids in schools.  I mean, LGBTs aren't even shy or sly at all about jumping right into the playground straight from political funds they've donated.

On an even playing field IMHO, the Mormon cult is just as sane justified as the LGBT one.  Except that mormons actually believe in traditional families...except the ones like the Brown family who have suddenly rejected their faith in favor of homosexuality so they can gain access to polygamy by the precedent created for "marriage equality" for any ground the LGBT might gain with the fed [SCOTUS]...


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And so it begins, presumptively....before any ink is even dry on a theoretical "win" for federal protection for some deviant sex behaviors to call themselves "married"....you'll see lawsuits at orphanages, churches.  The subcultural takeover is almost complete.  All they have to do is just convince the Court how just certain behaviors [but not others for sure] can get federal protection to "marry" in voliation of what behaviors and standards the majority finds repugnant.  Wecome to: LAWSUIT CITY..
> 
> Batten down the hatches orphanages, churches...a rainbow tornado is coming.....do not resist...IST VERBOTEN!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dreaded slippery slope faux argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ACTUALLY going to claim that if gays get federal protection for their "marriage" that they will suddenly do a complete about-face from engineered-lawsuits in order to spare just the church's dogma itself eh?  And I suppose they won't start suing adoption agencies either?
> 
> I nominate you second only behind Joe for "most full of shit" award at USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey look it's the homophobic bigoted POS come back for more.
Click to expand...

Fuck the queers that push this stupid agenda in everyone elses face. Let the fags get married. Marriage is a hell hole anyways. But stop bumping this stupid fucking thread. The poll results on the first page speak for themselves


----------



## Silhouette

Grampa Murked U said:


> Fuck the queers that push this stupid agenda in everyone elses face. Let the fags get married. Marriage is a hell hole anyways. But stop bumping this stupid fucking thread. The poll results on the first page speak for themselves


 So very clever "Grandpa"...

1. Pose as a "bigoted hater" to ramp up sympathy for the LGBT machine..

2.  Declare that one of the most popular polls in USMB history is "a stupid fucking poll"

3. Try to foster ambivalence in anyone alarmed by the results of said poll by saying "marriage is a hellhole anyway".

4. Hope the poll results "go away" from the public's view so the smoke and mirrors "gay marriage has majority support" lie can churn along without anymore truth-hiccups getting in its way.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Silhouette said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck the queers that push this stupid agenda in everyone elses face. Let the fags get married. Marriage is a hell hole anyways. But stop bumping this stupid fucking thread. The poll results on the first page speak for themselves
> 
> 
> 
> So very clever "Grandpa"...
> 
> 1. Pose as a "bigoted hater" to ramp up sympathy for the LGBT machine..
> 
> 2.  Declare that one of the most popular polls in USMB history is "a stupid fucking poll"
> 
> 3. Try to foster ambivalence in anyone alarmed by the results of said poll by saying "marriage is a hellhole anyway".
> 
> 4. Hope the poll results "go away" from the public's view so the smoke and mirrors "gay marriage has majority support" lie can churn along without anymore truth-hiccups getting in its way.
Click to expand...

There is not enough tinfoil in my city to cover that assumption.


----------



## RKMBrown

Grampa Murked U said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And so it begins, presumptively....before any ink is even dry on a theoretical "win" for federal protection for some deviant sex behaviors to call themselves "married"....you'll see lawsuits at orphanages, churches.  The subcultural takeover is almost complete.  All they have to do is just convince the Court how just certain behaviors [but not others for sure] can get federal protection to "marry" in voliation of what behaviors and standards the majority finds repugnant.  Wecome to: LAWSUIT CITY..
> 
> Batten down the hatches orphanages, churches...a rainbow tornado is coming.....do not resist...IST VERBOTEN!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dreaded slippery slope faux argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ACTUALLY going to claim that if gays get federal protection for their "marriage" that they will suddenly do a complete about-face from engineered-lawsuits in order to spare just the church's dogma itself eh?  And I suppose they won't start suing adoption agencies either?
> 
> I nominate you second only behind Joe for "most full of shit" award at USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey look it's the homophobic bigoted POS come back for more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck the queers that push this stupid agenda in everyone elses face. Let the fags get married. Marriage is a hell hole anyways. But stop bumping this stupid fucking thread. The poll results on the first page speak for themselves
Click to expand...

bump


----------



## bendog

I wanna see gay Liberace impersonators doing black masses followed by mass marriage of gays dressed only in cockrings with tame goats as flower girls .... wearing bells.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Forcing religious institutions to do things against their religious beliefs is just as unfair as denying people who may not belong to religions which forbid homosexual marriage from getting homosexual marriages.


----------



## Silhouette

bendog said:


> I wanna see gay Liberace impersonators doing black masses followed by mass marriage of gays dressed only in cockrings with tame goats as flower girls .... wearing bells.


 Give it 15-20 years of litigation and that's exactly what everyone in the country will be forced to enable and participate in.  Following the ceremony will be a gay pride parade the likes of which you've never seen as they march towards the adoption agency.

Sounds like hyperbole right?  Might I remind you where we've come with this in the same passage of time from the past to present?...with a steam roller than has no brakes, you use what's called "extrapolation" to plot the course as it descends downward...

It starts with hypocritical themes of "assurance there's not slippery slope".  For instance, 15 years ago you'd never see this emoticon on a public political website:   Yet today, here it is as one of the options.  But meanwhile I keep getting cautioned about one gay pride parade picture I've posted for illustration of a narrative because nude older men with black socks are walking down the street in broad daylight carrying rainbow signs.

You just give it 15 years and mark this post #.  I'll refer you back to it if we are still debating this then.


----------



## bendog

An Opus Dei priest defends self-punishment of the body


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And so it begins, presumptively....before any ink is even dry on a theoretical "win" for federal protection for some deviant sex behaviors to call themselves "married"....you'll see lawsuits at orphanages, churches.  The subcultural takeover is almost complete.  All they have to do is just convince the Court how just certain behaviors [but not others for sure] can get federal protection to "marry" in voliation of what behaviors and standards the majority finds repugnant.  Wecome to: LAWSUIT CITY..
> 
> Batten down the hatches orphanages, churches...a rainbow tornado is coming.....do not resist...IST VERBOTEN!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dreaded slippery slope faux argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ACTUALLY going to claim that if gays get federal protection for their "marriage" that they will suddenly do a complete about-face from engineered-lawsuits in order to spare just the church's dogma itself eh?  And I suppose they won't start suing adoption agencies either?
> 
> I nominate you second only behind Joe for "most full of shit" award at USMB.
Click to expand...


Quit being a butt head, yeah?  Makes you look silly and have no cred.

One, yes, marriage equality folks will go after adoption agencies.  That is why LDS Social Services is getting out of the adoption business.

Two, not a thing that marriage equality folks can do about church dogma, ever.

Try staying balanced.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> So I'm "lying" about the hispanics in California voting?  Or that they're catholic?  Or that they are not wanting gay marriage?  At least be specific in your ad hominen/thread diversions.



You are making opinions about voting and influence the which you cannot support.  Yes, you are.


----------



## bendog

Oh come on jake, let sil climb up on that old cross or kneel on rice kernels while she beats her black bloody with a knotted rope.


----------



## JakeStarkey

RKMBrown said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And so it begins, presumptively....before any ink is even dry on a theoretical "win" for federal protection for some deviant sex behaviors to call themselves "married"....you'll see lawsuits at orphanages, churches.  The subcultural takeover is almost complete.  All they have to do is just convince the Court how just certain behaviors [but not others for sure] can get federal protection to "marry" in voliation of what behaviors and standards the majority finds repugnant.  Wecome to: LAWSUIT CITY..
> 
> Batten down the hatches orphanages, churches...a rainbow tornado is coming.....do not resist...IST VERBOTEN!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dreaded slippery slope faux argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ACTUALLY going to claim that if gays get federal protection for their "marriage" that they will suddenly do a complete about-face from engineered-lawsuits in order to spare just the church's dogma itself eh?  And I suppose they won't start suing adoption agencies either?
> 
> I nominate you second only behind Joe for "most full of shit" award at USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey look it's the homophobic bigoted POS come back for more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck the queers that push this stupid agenda in everyone elses face. Let the fags get married. Marriage is a hell hole anyways. But stop bumping this stupid fucking thread. The poll results on the first page speak for themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bump
Click to expand...

bump


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil has finally slipped into the deep end and is in over her head.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Silhouette said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it not a political decision?  Was the Crusades a Religious or Political Decision?  The various Inquisitions?  Can you honestly deny The Mormon Church providing support for Prop. 8 in California or the activities of Monica Goodling in vetting candidates for US Attorney were only religious activities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, have you been to California?  If you're travelling through anywhere east of 50 miles from the coastline, you'd better brush up on your fluent conversational spanish.  The hispanic population in California is running about 99.999999999% staunch, unwavering catholic.  I've even considered investing in the holy santos candle manufacturing trades there.  It's only going to go up up up.  They listen to the Pope.  And the Pope/Vatican's stance on gay marriage is not going to change even by the end of this Century.  And the reason for that is promoting homosexual cultures is one of the mortal sins that gets anyone, including the Vatican or the Pope [or perhaps especially the Vatican and the Pope] eternity in the Big Pit.
> 
> So if you're looking for the source of the 7 million people who lawfully restricted marriage in their state to not include gays or polygamists or minors [standing, valid law to this day, Windsor 2013], look no further than the I-5 corridor and all the little pockets of 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation anchor babies nestled all throughout that state.  For every rich white liberal there, there are about 12-20 legal voting hispanics serving their every whim...
> 
> And they vote.
Click to expand...


I live in California, that said your post above is not responsive to the issue I raised in response to another.  

It's true, the central valley and the LA Basin South have a huge population of Spanish speaking residents, some resident ailiens, some here illegally, some natural born citizens and some Naturalized Citizens.  Yes, most of them are Catholic and many conservative.

However, much like the population of African-Americans, Latinos cannot and should not be put in a box and stereotyped.  Some are bigots, some are not; many speak Spanish, some do not; some engage in extra-marital sex, some have lesbain and gay relationships; some have college degrees, some do not.


----------



## Silhouette

Wry Catcher said:


> I live in California, that said your post above is not responsive to the issue I raised in response to another.
> 
> It's true, the central valley and the LA Basin South have a huge population of Spanish speaking residents, some resident ailiens, some here illegally, some natural born citizens and some Naturalized Citizens.  Yes, most of them are Catholic and many conservative.
> 
> However, much like the population of African-Americans, Latinos cannot and should not be put in a box and stereotyped.  Some are bigots, some are not; many speak Spanish, some do not; some engage in extra-marital sex, some have lesbain and gay relationships; some have college degrees, some do not.


 
Um...hmmm...

Have you ever studied brainwashing?  I think you're being a bit naive when it comes to the hispanic crowd.  They are catholic first and "whatever" second.  If the Pope or the Vatican or their parish priest assures them of their demise should they support the spread of a homosexual culture, they're going to kneejerk sit up and listen.  Maybe you have the occasional rebellious gay or lesbian hispanic.  But their CULTURE as a whole is one of the most conservative there is.  If you're going for general rules and election statistics, try not to overlook that.  It might tip the results a little...


----------



## Silhouette

Cecilie1200 said:


> Here's a thought.  Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word?  At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?
> 
> Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable.  Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?


 
Excellent point.  But I think Cecilie, that gays are after adopting kids.  That's what this whole thing is about.  Many states require "couples" to be married in order to adopt.  So the churches and religion itself has to be "remade" in orter to legitimize this move into the orphanages to access the kids.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a thought.  Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word?  At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?
> 
> Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable.  Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point.  But I think Cecilie, that gays are after adopting kids.  That's what this whole thing is about.  Many states require "couples" to be married in order to adopt.  So the churches and religion itself has to be "remade" in orter to legitimize this move into the orphanages to access the kids.
Click to expand...

Why don't you just come out of the closet already.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Why don't you just come out of the closet already.


 
I have.  I came out against gay marriage ages ago.  Why don't you?  You're the one that keeps making sure this thread gets bumped....*Bump*...


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just come out of the closet already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have.  I came out against gay marriage ages ago.  Why don't you?  You're the one that keeps making sure this thread gets bumped....*Bump*...
Click to expand...

POS homophobic bigot.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just come out of the closet already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have.  I came out against gay marriage ages ago.  Why don't you?  You're the one that keeps making sure this thread gets bumped....*Bump*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> POS homophobic bigot.
Click to expand...

 Being against gay marriage doesn't make one a "homophobic bigot".  Are you against polygamy?  Bet you are.  And if so, you're a polygaphobic bigot....and/or a hypocrite to boot.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just come out of the closet already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have.  I came out against gay marriage ages ago.  Why don't you?  You're the one that keeps making sure this thread gets bumped....*Bump*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> POS homophobic bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being against gay marriage doesn't make one a "homophobic bigot".  Are you against polygamy?  Bet you are.  And if so, you're a polygaphobic bigot....and/or a hypocrite to boot.
Click to expand...

You've asked me that question 3 effing times in this thread.  NO I AM NOT AGAINST POLYGAMY.  Retard.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> You've asked me that question 3 effing times in this thread.  NO I AM NOT AGAINST POLYGAMY.  Retard.


 
Well while we're on the topic, do you think polygamists have a fair shot in California now for a lawsuit to be able to legally marry...and possible thereafter to make churches, bakers and florists service their weddings in the interest of "equal rights"?


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've asked me that question 3 effing times in this thread.  NO I AM NOT AGAINST POLYGAMY.  Retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well while we're on the topic, do you think polygamists have a fair shot in California now for a lawsuit to be able to legally marry...and possible thereafter to make churches, bakers and florists service their weddings in the interest of "equal rights"?
Click to expand...

No I don't think polygamists have a fair shot winning the right to legally marry in California or any other state.

Public accommodation laws appear to confuse you.  Read up on them, then ask an educated question.  If a church, baker, or florist offers a service to the public they can't discriminate based on skin color, etc.  The list of things you can't discriminate differ from state to state.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> No I don't think polygamists have a fair shot winning the right to legally marry in California or any other state.
> 
> Public accommodation laws appear to confuse you.  Read up on them, then ask an educated question.  If a church, baker, or florist offers a service to the public they can't discriminate based on skin color, etc.  The list of things you can't discriminate differ from state to state.


"Skin color etc...." eh?  Would "etc." mean behaviors?  Just wondering because normally behaviors are regulated under local civil and penal codes/laws at the state level.  Are you suggesting that we should now grant some behaviors that have organized themselves incompletely under a banner "LGBT" special civil rights?  Yes?

And if so, after that which other behaviors would we [arbitrarily] exclude?  Polygamy?  I mean, we're talking about equality.  Just one partial set of behaviors repugnant to the majority cannot be legally more favored than another repugnant to the majority.

ie: you're suggesting anarchy become legalized and federally protected.  ie: you're advocating for the dissolving of democracy at its core...


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't think polygamists have a fair shot winning the right to legally marry in California or any other state.
> 
> Public accommodation laws appear to confuse you.  Read up on them, then ask an educated question.  If a church, baker, or florist offers a service to the public they can't discriminate based on skin color, etc.  The list of things you can't discriminate differ from state to state.
> 
> 
> 
> "Skin color etc...." eh?  Would "etc." mean behaviors?  Just wondering because normally behaviors are regulated under local civil and penal codes/laws at the state level.  Are you suggesting that we should now grant some behaviors that have organized themselves incompletely under a banner "LGBT" special civil rights?  Yes?
> 
> And if so, after that which other behaviors would we [arbitrarily] exclude?  Polygamy?  I mean, we're talking about equality.  Just one partial set of behaviors repugnant to the majority cannot be legally more favored than another repugnant to the majority.
> 
> ie: you're suggesting anarchy become legalized and federally protected.  ie: you're advocating for the dissolving of democracy at its core...
Click to expand...

You're talking about tyranny of the majority to define morals, piss on people they don't like, and force others to adhere to your religious dogma.  We were founded as a republic that defends minority groups not as a democracy that strings them up.

Getting married is a behavior.  Do you want to live in a country that could, if the majority decided to, ban all marriages and only allow pregnancies that the government approved?  Yes or no?

Where does your LUST for control over others end and your defense of your liberties begin?


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> You're talking about tyranny of the majority to define morals, piss on people they don't like, and force others to adhere to your religious dogma.  We were founded as a republic that defends minority groups not as a democracy that strings them up.


 Yes, what you call "a tyranny of the majority" when it comes to repugnant behaviors objectionable to the majority, other people call "local civil and penal codes".  You folks got Lawrence v Texas through.  Fine.  However that doesn't mean you have the right to access minor kids from that starting point via marriage.

Here are some other behaviors the majority objects to that have a legal right to do in their own lives, but not to force the public to accomodate.  Bulimics.  Bulimics vomit routinely after they eat.  It's harmful, like anal sex.  But unlike anal sex, it doesn't spread the nation's worst epidemic since the 1800s.  It hurts only them.  And though it is a compulsive addiction, like any compulsive fetish that can harm, we aren't obligated, for example, to place vomit urns at every table at restaurants in order to accomodate these people's "eating orientations".  They might organize, fuss and parade about how they are being discriminated against.  After all, regular-eater are provided with napkins to wipe up after the way they eat.  What's all this prejudice and bigotry of eatery owners refusing to accomodate ALL eating orientations?

Etc. 

You see you cannot just claim that a certain, limited group of sex fetish behaviors [LGBT...but there are others not listed] get  protections while other behaviors of different types of orientations don't.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that people who thought themselves to be Christians slayed thousands of people trying to make those people turn to Christianity. Were those people true Christians? Hell no.
> 
> A person has no choice to be born American, or white, or black, or Hispanic, or anything else. No one would choose to have a child born with a disability.
> 
> Homosexuality IS a choice. Just as adultery, and promiscuity, and even a consenting man and woman living together sleeping in the same bed. Those are all choices that people make.
> 
> Interracial marriage is not a sin, a Christian marrying an unbeliever, that is considered a sin, according to what I know of the Bible. Others believe differently than I do, but we still search the Scriptures for the answers to all kinds of questions, the key is to keep on searching, for Christianity is a learning religion, and as we grow, we learn and we adapt. The basis for our faith is the one true constant. John 3:16, if you have that, and you truly believe that, you will want to learn more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU don't think interracial marriage is a sin, but people did in large numbers and some still do. You feel justified in your bigotry just like they did. Same/Same.
> 
> Oh, and religion is a choice, being gay is not.
Click to expand...


Just because people have been wrong about one thing doesn't mean they are wrong about EVERYTHING.


----------



## Silhouette

Some bulimics have such little control over their compulsive behaviors, they might completely insist and react defensively that they were 'born that way'.  OCDs might feel the same way.  Same with some drug addicts or "addictive personalities".  It doesn't mean society changes its norms to accomodate the slant that has trouble changing itself.  Particularly when one of those slants [anal sex] carries such a high mortality rate and spreads to other demographics in the general population.

Should gay people force churches to marry them?  Should bulimics force eateries to place vomit urns near each table?  I'd say "no" to both.  And it seems 82% of people in the poll at the top of this page agree with me..


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe,
> I could have posted your reply for you...first of all, it is homosexuals who are obsessed with anal sex. I can go the rest of my life without thinking about it, you guys are perpetually after it.
> 
> I am not a "phobe"...fecal play is not sanitary. You should have learned this in potty training. My completely normal reaction to your nasty habits are not "my mental problem"  (with pseudoscience psychology rearing it's head once again).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, first, I'm straight.  I am although an atheist who fucking hates religion in all forms, so supporting the gays is just sticking a thumb in the eye of religious assholes.  That's what's in it for me, in case you are interested.
Click to expand...


So all your arguments are directed at simply ruining it for the religious.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking about tyranny of the majority to define morals, piss on people they don't like, and force others to adhere to your religious dogma.  We were founded as a republic that defends minority groups not as a democracy that strings them up.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, what you call "a tyranny of the majority" when it comes to repugnant behaviors objectionable to the majority, other people call "local civil and penal codes".  You folks got Lawrence v Texas through.  Fine.  However that doesn't mean you have the right to access minor kids from that starting point via marriage.
> 
> Here are some other behaviors the majority objects to that have a legal right to do in their own lives, but not to force the public to accomodate.  Bulimics.  Bulimics vomit routinely after they eat.  It's harmful, like anal sex.  But unlike anal sex, it doesn't spread the nation's worst epidemic since the 1800s.  It hurts only them.  And though it is a compulsive addiction, like any compulsive fetish that can harm, we aren't obligated, for example, to place vomit urns at every table at restaurants in order to accomodate these people's "eating orientations".  They might organize, fuss and parade about how they are being discriminated against.  After all, regular-eater are provided with napkins to wipe up after the way they eat.  What's all this prejudice and bigotry of eatery owners refusing to accomodate ALL eating orientations?
> 
> Etc.
> 
> You see you cannot just claim that a certain, limited group of sex fetish behaviors [LGBT...but there are others not listed] get  protections while other behaviors of different types of orientations don't.
Click to expand...

No, ya dumb ass pos homophobic racist ass hole.  YOU ARE THE REPUGNANT ONE.

As for having access to minor kids... WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Getting married does not give one "ACCESS TO MINORS."  You must be the dumbest homophobe on the planet.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> No, ya dumb ass pos homophobic racist ass hole.  YOU ARE THE REPUGNANT ONE.
> 
> As for having access to minor kids... WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Getting married does not give one "ACCESS TO MINORS."  You must be the dumbest homophobe on the planet.


 
82% of the voters in the poll at the top of this page think that you are the asshole actually   We live in a democracy where behaviors are regulated by the majority in penal and civil codes.  As for homophobia, people have a right and a responsibility to fear a demographic/organization/cult that uses lawsuits, blackmail, threats, vitrole, tantrums and other means of force to claim "rights" that don't exist for them to access adoptable orphans....and which advocates having sex with the lower digestive tract, even when to do so means impressionable youth lured into their cult will predictably die of AIDS from it.  Some fears are justified:


> *Fast Facts*
> 
> Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
> Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Gadawg73 said:


> 116 pages here and still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any church anywhere has been, will be or ever will be forced to marry anyone.



Can you predict the future? It is not set in stone.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, ya dumb ass pos homophobic racist ass hole.  YOU ARE THE REPUGNANT ONE.
> 
> As for having access to minor kids... WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Getting married does not give one "ACCESS TO MINORS."  You must be the dumbest homophobe on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 82% of the voters in the poll at the top of this page think that you are the asshole actually   We live in a democracy where behaviors are regulated by the majority in penal and civil codes.  As for homophobia, people have a right and a responsibility to fear a demographic/organization/cult that uses lawsuits, blackmail, threats, vitrole, tantrums and other means of force to claim "rights" that don't exist for them to access adoptable orphans....and which advocates having sex with the lower digestive tract, even when to do so means impressionable youth lured into their cult will predictably die of AIDS from it.  Some fears are justified:
> 
> 
> 
> *Fast Facts*
> 
> Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
> Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Lying POS


----------



## Silhouette

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 116 pages here and still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any church anywhere has been, will be or ever will be forced to marry anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you predict the future? It is not set in stone.
Click to expand...

 Particularly with all the lawsuits happening week after week with some gay person suing someone for [fill in the blank].  It's an absurd extrapolation to not predict that the instant if they get federal protection for [just] their behaiors to "marry", they won't start suing at 10 times the rate they are now?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Since gays cannot blend into society, how does anyone expect they can blend in with just any church?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Silhouette said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 116 pages here and still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any church anywhere has been, will be or ever will be forced to marry anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you predict the future? It is not set in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Particularly with all the lawsuits happening week after week with some gay person suing someone for [fill in the blank].  It's an absurd extrapolation to not predict that the instant if they get federal protection for [just] their behaiors to "marry", they won't start suing at 10 times the rate they are now?
Click to expand...


Even after they are allowed to marry, they still will be horribly isolated within society and may just vent their frustration on the church, like you say.


----------



## Seawytch

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that people who thought themselves to be Christians slayed thousands of people trying to make those people turn to Christianity. Were those people true Christians? Hell no.
> 
> A person has no choice to be born American, or white, or black, or Hispanic, or anything else. No one would choose to have a child born with a disability.
> 
> Homosexuality IS a choice. Just as adultery, and promiscuity, and even a consenting man and woman living together sleeping in the same bed. Those are all choices that people make.
> 
> Interracial marriage is not a sin, a Christian marrying an unbeliever, that is considered a sin, according to what I know of the Bible. Others believe differently than I do, but we still search the Scriptures for the answers to all kinds of questions, the key is to keep on searching, for Christianity is a learning religion, and as we grow, we learn and we adapt. The basis for our faith is the one true constant. John 3:16, if you have that, and you truly believe that, you will want to learn more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU don't think interracial marriage is a sin, but people did in large numbers and some still do. You feel justified in your bigotry just like they did. Same/Same.
> 
> Oh, and religion is a choice, being gay is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because people have been wrong about one thing doesn't mean they are wrong about EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...


When it comes to justifying bigotry with a religious text, when has that ever been "right"?


----------



## Seawytch

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 116 pages here and still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any church anywhere has been, will be or ever will be forced to marry anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you predict the future? It is not set in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Particularly with all the lawsuits happening week after week with some gay person suing someone for [fill in the blank].  It's an absurd extrapolation to not predict that the instant if they get federal protection for [just] their behaiors to "marry", they won't start suing at 10 times the rate they are now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even after they are allowed to marry, they still will be horribly isolated within society and may just vent their frustration on the church, like you say.
Click to expand...


What fucking century do you think we live in...seriously?


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> When it comes to justifying bigotry with a religious text, when has that ever been "right"?


 
That isn't for you, nor the cult of LGBT behaviors to decide.  You do not out number devout christians or even christian-supporting seculars...obviously...judging by the poll results on this thread at the top.  Your "Johnny-come-lately" neo sex-fetish cult does not outweigh thousands of years of devotion to the principles and teachings in the Torah, the Bible or the Koran.  They have time-tested lessons and recipes in them for human civilizations to get along and for people to strive towards.  One of those lessons/warnings is to avoid the promotion or enabling the spread of a homosexual culture into any city, town or nation.  Eternity in the pit of fire is the "reward" for failing to pay attention to that mortal warning.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Seawytch said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that people who thought themselves to be Christians slayed thousands of people trying to make those people turn to Christianity. Were those people true Christians? Hell no.
> 
> A person has no choice to be born American, or white, or black, or Hispanic, or anything else. No one would choose to have a child born with a disability.
> 
> Homosexuality IS a choice. Just as adultery, and promiscuity, and even a consenting man and woman living together sleeping in the same bed. Those are all choices that people make.
> 
> Interracial marriage is not a sin, a Christian marrying an unbeliever, that is considered a sin, according to what I know of the Bible. Others believe differently than I do, but we still search the Scriptures for the answers to all kinds of questions, the key is to keep on searching, for Christianity is a learning religion, and as we grow, we learn and we adapt. The basis for our faith is the one true constant. John 3:16, if you have that, and you truly believe that, you will want to learn more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU don't think interracial marriage is a sin, but people did in large numbers and some still do. You feel justified in your bigotry just like they did. Same/Same.
> 
> Oh, and religion is a choice, being gay is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because people have been wrong about one thing doesn't mean they are wrong about EVERYTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it comes to justifying bigotry with a religious text, when has that ever been "right"?
Click to expand...


I really don't think bigotry is something that religion ever justified.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Seawytch said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 116 pages here and still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any church anywhere has been, will be or ever will be forced to marry anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you predict the future? It is not set in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Particularly with all the lawsuits happening week after week with some gay person suing someone for [fill in the blank].  It's an absurd extrapolation to not predict that the instant if they get federal protection for [just] their behaiors to "marry", they won't start suing at 10 times the rate they are now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even after they are allowed to marry, they still will be horribly isolated within society and may just vent their frustration on the church, like you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fucking century do you think we live in...seriously?
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you are talking about. Try to include some subject matter.


----------



## Silhouette

QuickHitCurepon said:


> I really don't think bigotry is something that religion ever justified.


 
First you have to accept that the premise "behaviors = race" is wrong.

Then you have to move from there to understand that the Bible advises on a myriad of human behaviors as "OK" and "NOT OK".  One of those behaviors is gay sexuals and the culture they almost always spring up around their behaviors.  Ancient Greece & today come to mind.  For anyone enabling the spread of that culture is reserved the worst type of Biblical punishment: eternal death/torture in the pit of fire.

Now we can speculate all day long why that is.  I've spoken about it before but it's merely my opinion.  Suffice to say it's there, in Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament.  And in Poets in the Koran.  You cannot require people as a matter of secular law to defy their religion upon such a core commandment.  It is one and the same as forcing them to abadon their religion altogether.  I'd think the founding fathers would have a problem with that.

Why do we hear reference to the founding fathers so often in discussions like these?  Because these men reflected, studied, debated, chiseled and tooled our democracy in such a way as to see it succeed.  A  society that no longer has ties to moral moorings is one that will soon be doomed.  Don't believe me?  Just check your history books.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Silhouette said:


> First you have to accept that the premise "behaviors = race" is wrong.
> 
> Then you have to move from there to understand that the Bible advises on a myriad of human behaviors as "OK" and "NOT OK".  One of those behaviors is gay sexuals and the culture they almost always spring up around their behaviors.  Ancient Greece & today come to mind.  For anyone enabling the spread of that culture is reserved the worst type of Biblical punishment: eternal death/torture in the pit of fire.
> 
> Now we can speculate all day long why that is.  I've spoken about it before but it's merely my opinion.  Suffice to say it's there, in Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament.  And in Poets in the Koran.  You cannot require people as a matter of secular law to defy their religion upon such a core commandment.  It is one and the same as forcing them to abadon their religion altogether.  I'd think the founding fathers would have a problem with that.
> 
> Why do we hear reference to the founding fathers so often in discussions like these?  Because these men reflected, studied, debated, chiseled and tooled our democracy in such a way as to see it succeed.  A  society that no longer has ties to moral moorings is one that will soon be doomed.  Don't believe me?  Just check your history books.



Kind of like Sodom and Gomorrah.


----------



## Silhouette

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Kind of like Sodom and Gomorrah.


 That's what's referred to in Jude 1, yes.  It says that any city/state/nation that enables the spread of a homosexual culture, like Sodom did, all inhabitants/enablers [both gay and straight] face eternal damnation in the pit of fire.  It doesn't mince words.  It's direct and clear with no compromise.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JakeStarkey said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> And AGAIN.  The OP is a STRAWMAN.  No one EVER suggested churches would be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.  It's a strawman argument to get you wannabe victim/martyrs to become OUTRAGED .... over nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet some people voted in favor of it in the poll.   So apparently it's not exactly a strawman.     And I'm not "OUTRAGED" at all.  I am simply telling you straight up my position, and what I'm going to do.   That's what people do on forums.  Don't like that?  I don't care.  Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's a straw man, a fabricated problem that does not exist so people can whine about what is really bothering them: they cannot make others live they want.
> 
> Tough to be you.
Click to expand...


How truly amazing that a STRAWMAN can elicit more than 3000 posts!


----------



## Silhouette

And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen.  The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches.  What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general?  I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen.  The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches.  What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general?  I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.


I would say it means the majority of Americans are for liberty.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen.  The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches.  What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general?  I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.
> 
> 
> 
> I would say it means the majority of Americans are for liberty.
Click to expand...

 It's interesting though that the question they responded to was phrased with conservative hyperbole.  It wasn't a benign question.  It said:

_No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA._   The only thing missing was an exclamation point!

So the 82% who voted in that column didn't think it was too strongly worded.  They agreed with that emphasis.  And hence the reason I described any support for gay marriage within the 82% as tepid at best.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen.  The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches.  What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general?  I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.
> 
> 
> 
> I would say it means the majority of Americans are for liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's interesting though that the question they responded to was phrased with conservative hyperbole.  It wasn't a benign question.  It said:
> 
> _No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA._   The only thing missing was an exclamation point!
> 
> So the 82% who voted in that column didn't think it was too strongly worded.  They agreed with that emphasis.  And hence the reason I described any support for gay marriage within the 82% as tepid at best.
Click to expand...

When using all caps... the explanation point is understood.

You'll note, I'm not disagreeing with these particular statements that you are making. Nor am I cursing or screaming at ya   My guess is your are correct a large portion of the 83% is probably tepid at best.  Not all, but yes probably a large portion.  One would need a different poll to find out how strong the support is.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> When using all caps... the explanation point is understood.
> 
> You'll note, I'm not disagreeing with these particular statements that you are making. Nor am I cursing or screaming at ya   My guess is your are correct a large portion of the 83% is probably tepid at best.  Not all, but yes probably a large portion.  One would need a different poll to find out how strong the support is.


 
Well now that we're both on the same page with that one... the next question is, if any new information about the LGBT camp suddenly sprung up, how many of those 82% would chill from tepid to sub zero?  I'd imagine most of them.  And man are there some skeletons in that overstuffed closet.  Those skeletons are dying to "come out"..


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> When using all caps... the explanation point is understood.
> 
> You'll note, I'm not disagreeing with these particular statements that you are making. Nor am I cursing or screaming at ya   My guess is your are correct a large portion of the 83% is probably tepid at best.  Not all, but yes probably a large portion.  One would need a different poll to find out how strong the support is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well now that we're both on the same page with that one... the next question is, if any new information about the LGBT camp suddenly sprung up, how many of those 82% would chill from tepid to sub zero?  I'd imagine most of them.  And man are there some skeletons in that overstuffed closet.  Those skeletons are dying to "come out"..
Click to expand...

nonsense...


----------



## Silhouette

Then how many of those 82% would you say are avide gay-marriage supporters RKMBrown?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen.  The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches.  What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general?  I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.



I don't see the corollary. Just because you believe that someone should have the right to be married doesn't mean they should be able to force someone else to perform the ceremony against their will. The two don't connect.

And your poll only measures the latter. Not the former. Your once again projecting your own beliefs and feelings onto other people with little regard for what believe themselves.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> I don't see the corollary. *Just because you believe that someone should have the right to be married doesn't mean they should be able to force someone else to perform the ceremony against their will*. The two don't connect.
> 
> And your poll only measures the latter. Not the former. Your once again projecting your own beliefs and feelings onto other people with little regard for what believe themselves.


Why not?  Gays are forcing florists and cake makers who are religious to violate their faith and enable/serve their gay marriage.  They'll sue churches the moment any ink is dry on federal protection for gay marriage.  Churches and adoption agencies.  Mark my words.  You can set your watch by it.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the corollary. *Just because you believe that someone should have the right to be married doesn't mean they should be able to force someone else to perform the ceremony against their will*. The two don't connect.
> 
> And your poll only measures the latter. Not the former. Your once again projecting your own beliefs and feelings onto other people with little regard for what believe themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  Gays are forcing florists and cake makers who are religious to violate their faith and enable/serve their gay marriage.  They'll sue churches the moment any ink is dry on federal protection for gay marriage.  Churches and adoption agencies.  Mark my words.  You can set your watch by it.
Click to expand...


Churches are explicitly protected under the 1st amendments religious protections.  And someone may sue. Its very unlikely they will win. 

And can I take it from your complete and utter abandonment regarding what your informal poll 'really means' that you recognize that the corollary you're insinuating....just doesn't exist?


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the corollary. *Just because you believe that someone should have the right to be married doesn't mean they should be able to force someone else to perform the ceremony against their will*. The two don't connect.
> 
> And your poll only measures the latter. Not the former. Your once again projecting your own beliefs and feelings onto other people with little regard for what believe themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  Gays are forcing florists and cake makers who are religious to violate their faith and enable/serve their gay marriage.  They'll sue churches the moment any ink is dry on federal protection for gay marriage.  Churches and adoption agencies.  Mark my words.  You can set your watch by it.
Click to expand...



And by gays you mean the state in which those cases originate. Those states have Public Accommodation Laws that cover gays and if you have a business open to the public and that business resides in one of those states, then you cannot specifically refuse them a service you offer to the public on the grounds that they are gays. They were violation of state law. As I have explained to you in this very same thread, on numerous occasions, churches have not and never have been subject to public accommodation laws.  There is not a single that has been sued and the government required the church to marry someone against their wishes. I'll mark your words and gladly eat crow if a church is ever forced to marry a couple against their wishes. It would be a monstrous injustice if they did. This scenario you predict is highly improbable.


----------



## Skylar

> I'll mark your words and gladly eat crow if a church is ever forced to marry a couple against their wishes. It would be a monstrous injustice if they did. This scenario you predict is highly improbable.



I agree. And once again, the disconnect between supporting gay marriage...and supporting churches being forced to perform them.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> *Churches are explicitly protected under the 1st amendments religious protections*.  And someone may sue. Its very unlikely they will win.
> 
> And can I take it from your complete and utter abandonment regarding what your informal poll 'really means' that you recognize that the corollary you're insinuating....just doesn't exist?


 
That isn't accurate.  Tsk tsk.. 

The first Amendment protects the right to practice the religion of one's choice.  It doesn't specify any church as an institution that gets protection.  It's the individual parishoners who get that protection..

Try again.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen.  The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches.  What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general?  I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.



That isn't what this polling asking though. The poll doesn't ask if you support gay marriage. It asks if you would support a church being forced to marry a gay couple. I think it is interesting question though. Maybe another poll that asks if you support gay marriage and the right of churches to not marry them is in order. Perhaps a layered question would shed more light on the topic. It could prove for some interesting discussion.


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen.  The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches.  What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general?  I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what this polling asking though. The poll doesn't ask if you support gay marriage. It asks if you would support a church being forced to marry a gay couple. I think it is interesting question though. Maybe another poll that asks if you support gay marriage and the right of churches to not marry them is in order. Perhaps a layered question would shed more light on the topic. It could prove for some interesting discussion.
Click to expand...


Yup. But from the poll on whether or not churches should be forced to perform gay marriages.....Siloette drew this steaming rhetorical pile:



> And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen. The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches. What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general? I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.
> 
> Silhoette



Which, of course, is utter nonsense. As there is no corollary between supporting gay marriage and supporting churches being forced to perform them. Silo is once again projecting his own beliefs onto people that don't necessarily share them.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen.  The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches.  What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general?  I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what this polling asking though. The poll doesn't ask if you support gay marriage. It asks if you would support a church being forced to marry a gay couple. I think it is interesting question though. Maybe another poll that asks if you support gay marriage and the right of churches to not marry them is in order. Perhaps a layered question would shed more light on the topic. It could prove for some interesting discussion.
Click to expand...

Well hmm... Imagine if this was a question of "do you think churches should have to perform interracial marriages" [race and behaviors are not in the same legal class BTW] and 82% of the responders said "hell no!".  [That's kind of how that question is posed].  Then would you feel comfortable extrapolating that of that group, most of them also weren't in support of interracial marriage in general?

Yes, you would.  It's kind of like your idea for a thread was already done in the way the question was posed.  People could've just not voted.  But they did.  In the hundreds.  And 82% of that number said "hell no" to gays marrying in churches..


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen.  The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches.  What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general?  I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what this polling asking though. The poll doesn't ask if you support gay marriage. It asks if you would support a church being forced to marry a gay couple. I think it is interesting question though. Maybe another poll that asks if you support gay marriage and the right of churches to not marry them is in order. Perhaps a layered question would shed more light on the topic. It could prove for some interesting discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well hmm... Imagine if this was a question of "do you think churches should have to perform interracial marriages" [race and behaviors are not in the same legal class BTW] and 82% of the responders said "hell no!".  [That's kind of how that question is posed].  Then would you feel comfortable extrapolating that of that group, most of them also weren't in support of interracial marriage in general?
> 
> Yes, you would.  It's kind of like your idea for a thread was already done in the way the question was posed.  People could've just not voted.  But they did.  In the hundreds.  And 82% of that number said "hell no" to gays marrying in churches..
Click to expand...


No, I would assume that most of the people feel that government has no right ordering a church to marry anyone against their wishes. The correlation you are claiming cannot be surmised from this poll alone. I was one of the voters that said, 'hell no" to churches being forced to marry gays despite the fact that I am gay and presently married. I think a more layered question could shed more light on the topic.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> Then how many of those 82% would you say are avide gay-marriage supporters RKMBrown?


Define avide.  I'm not familiar with that term.  And even if I assume you meant avid. I don't know how you are applying the term.  The number of people who will likely want to get a gay-marriage or who will be invited to one is probably very very small.  So if by avid you mean will become or participate, not many.  If by avid you mean are willing to defend the rights of ... well I would think that percentage is growing by the day. A large percentage of Americans like to defend liberty it's what we do.  It may take a while for some to figure out that they have been duped into attacking liberty based on bigotry, but they will, just like they did regarding racism.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> No, I would assume that most of the people feel that government has no right ordering a church to marry anyone against their wishes. The correlation you are claiming cannot be surmised from this poll alone. I was one of the voters that said, 'hell no" to churches being forced to marry gays despite the fact that I am gay and presently married. I think a more layered question could shed more light on the topic.


 
Churches don't have protection.  Individual religious parishoners do.  It could easily be argued that churches hold their doors open to everyone.  And a lawyer will argue that means gays to marry there.  The LGBT lawsuit machine will win that one.  And it would be brought.  Again, you can set your watch by it as a fact.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would assume that most of the people feel that government has no right ordering a church to marry anyone against their wishes. The correlation you are claiming cannot be surmised from this poll alone. I was one of the voters that said, 'hell no" to churches being forced to marry gays despite the fact that I am gay and presently married. I think a more layered question could shed more light on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches don't have protection.  Individual religious parishoners do.  It could easily be argued that churches hold their doors open to everyone.  And a lawyer will argue that means gays to marry there.  The LGBT lawsuit machine will win that one.  And it would be brought.  Again, you can set your watch by it as a fact.
Click to expand...


Churches are in fact exempt from public accommodation laws and are not forced to marry anyone against their wishes. I haven't come across a single suit where a church was sued and ordered to marry...anyone. If I set my watch every time you made a doom and gloom prediction I would spend most of my days setting my watch.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would assume that most of the people feel that government has no right ordering a church to marry anyone against their wishes. The correlation you are claiming cannot be surmised from this poll alone. I was one of the voters that said, 'hell no" to churches being forced to marry gays despite the fact that I am gay and presently married. I think a more layered question could shed more light on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches don't have protection.  Individual religious parishoners do.  It could easily be argued that churches hold their doors open to everyone.  And a lawyer will argue that means gays to marry there.  The LGBT lawsuit machine will win that one.  And it would be brought.  Again, you can set your watch by it as a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches are in fact exempt from public accommodation laws and are not forced to marry anyone against their wishes. I haven't come across a single suit where a church was sued and ordered to marry...anyone. If I set my watch every time you made a doom and gloom prediction I would spend most of my days setting my watch.
Click to expand...

What about the faithful?  They won Hobby Lobby.  But in the SCOTUS'/fed system's ever more alarming trend of completely arbitrary and conflicting decisions, some florists and cake makers are forced against their faith to enable the spread of homosexuality by catering to "gay marriage".


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Churches are explicitly protected under the 1st amendments religious protections*.  And someone may sue. Its very unlikely they will win.
> 
> And can I take it from your complete and utter abandonment regarding what your informal poll 'really means' that you recognize that the corollary you're insinuating....just doesn't exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't accurate.  Tsk tsk..
> 
> The first Amendment protects the right to practice the religion of one's choice.  It doesn't specify any church as an institution that gets protection.  It's the individual parishoners who get that protection..
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


The idiom of the OP is 'churches'. Feel free to replace the parlance of the OP with your preferred terminology.....and comment away. You're using semantics to avoid the very answer you asked for. And of course, to avoid the silliness of your conclusion that opposing churches being forced to perform gay marriage means you oppose gay marriage. The two aren't connected. 

Alas, semantics doesn't prevent gays from legally marrying. Or for support for those marriages from continuing to swell.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would assume that most of the people feel that government has no right ordering a church to marry anyone against their wishes. The correlation you are claiming cannot be surmised from this poll alone. I was one of the voters that said, 'hell no" to churches being forced to marry gays despite the fact that I am gay and presently married. I think a more layered question could shed more light on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches don't have protection.  Individual religious parishoners do.  It could easily be argued that churches hold their doors open to everyone.  And a lawyer will argue that means gays to marry there.  The LGBT lawsuit machine will win that one.  And it would be brought.  Again, you can set your watch by it as a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches are in fact exempt from public accommodation laws and are not forced to marry anyone against their wishes. I haven't come across a single suit where a church was sued and ordered to marry...anyone. If I set my watch every time you made a doom and gloom prediction I would spend most of my days setting my watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about the faithful?  They won Hobby Lobby.  But in the SCOTUS'/fed system's ever more alarming trend of completely arbitrary and conflicting decisions, some florists and cake makers are forced against their faith to enable the spread of homosexuality by catering to "gay marriage".
Click to expand...


You don't understand the issues that were being adjuciated in the Hobby Lobby decision. The issue in the Hobby Lobby case was could the religious conviction of an individual business owner exempt some from commonly applied laws. And the answer was yes, in the case of Hobby Lobby. The part you fail to recognize is......*Churches were already exempt. *The scenario you describe where churches are forced to perform marriages is ridiculously unlikey for the very reasons that mdk describes. 

As for the 'disturbing trend of conflicting decisions' you describe......what contradiction? You *assumed* that the USSC had declared that gay marriage bans were legal when they granted a stay while the issues were adjudicated. But the USSC never said this. You made it up. And the stay certainly didn't make gay marriage bans constitutional. It was a delay of implementation. 

You imagined elaborate motivations for the courts, made up a fantastically specific set of beliefs for the court.....none of which the Court ever stated.   You made it up. Nor did they give any reason for their stay. They simply granted it. And then allowed the lower court rulings to stand as the issue made its way through the courts. With gay marriage now legal in about a dozen more states. In explicit contradiction of the elaborate beliefs and motivations you invented for the court, pulled sideways from your own ass.

*You were simply wrong.*


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would assume that most of the people feel that government has no right ordering a church to marry anyone against their wishes. The correlation you are claiming cannot be surmised from this poll alone. I was one of the voters that said, 'hell no" to churches being forced to marry gays despite the fact that I am gay and presently married. I think a more layered question could shed more light on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches don't have protection.  Individual religious parishoners do.  It could easily be argued that churches hold their doors open to everyone.  And a lawyer will argue that means gays to marry there.  The LGBT lawsuit machine will win that one.  And it would be brought.  Again, you can set your watch by it as a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches are in fact exempt from public accommodation laws and are not forced to marry anyone against their wishes. I haven't come across a single suit where a church was sued and ordered to marry...anyone. If I set my watch every time you made a doom and gloom prediction I would spend most of my days setting my watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about the faithful?  They won Hobby Lobby.  But in the SCOTUS'/fed system's ever more alarming trend of completely arbitrary and conflicting decisions, some florists and cake makers are forced against their faith to enable the spread of homosexuality by catering to "gay marriage".
Click to expand...


What about them? You can't use your faith as a valid excuse to violate the law. Muslims cabbies can't refuse fares to people with seeing eye dogs, drunks, or those carrying alcohol. They can't use their faith as a reason why they do not have to follow public accommodation laws. Just like Christian bakers can't refuse to offer a public service on the grounds that they are gay, this of course only applies to businesses in states where gays are covered by PA laws. Quite a few are not, including mine. My husband and I didn't experience single issue when we were planning our wedding. Not one.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> You don't understand the issues that were being adjuciated in the Hobby Lobby decision. The issue in the Hobby Lobby case was could the religious conviction of an individual business owner exempt some from commonly applied laws. And the answer was yes, in the case of Hobby Lobby. The part you fail to recognize is......*Churches were already exempt. *The scenario you describe where churches are forced to perform marriages is ridiculously unlikey for the very reasons that mdk describes.
> 
> As for the 'disturbing trend of conflicting decisions' you describe......what contradiction? You *assumed* that the USSC had declared that gay marriage bans were legal when they granted a stay while the issues were adjudicated. But the USSC never said this. You made it up. And the stay certainly didn't make gay marriage bans constitutional. It was a delay of implementation.
> 
> You imagined elaborate motivations for the courts, made up a fantastically specific set of beliefs for the court.....none of which the Court ever stated.   You made it up. Nor did they give any reason for their stay. They simply granted it. And then allowed the lower court rulings to stand as the issue made its way through the courts. With gay marriage now legal in about a dozen more states. In explicit contradiction of the elaborate beliefs and motivations you invented for the court, pulled sideways from your own ass.
> 
> *You were simply wrong.*


 
OK, let's assume you're right, that churches cannot be forced to marry gays.  The more important part of this thread is how many people voted and HOW they voted in the poll.  Seems to conflict with what we've been told.  Again, the answer chosen wasn't merely just "no" it was "oh, HELL no!"..


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the issues that were being adjuciated in the Hobby Lobby decision. The issue in the Hobby Lobby case was could the religious conviction of an individual business owner exempt some from commonly applied laws. And the answer was yes, in the case of Hobby Lobby. The part you fail to recognize is......*Churches were already exempt. *The scenario you describe where churches are forced to perform marriages is ridiculously unlikey for the very reasons that mdk describes.
> 
> As for the 'disturbing trend of conflicting decisions' you describe......what contradiction? You *assumed* that the USSC had declared that gay marriage bans were legal when they granted a stay while the issues were adjudicated. But the USSC never said this. You made it up. And the stay certainly didn't make gay marriage bans constitutional. It was a delay of implementation.
> 
> You imagined elaborate motivations for the courts, made up a fantastically specific set of beliefs for the court.....none of which the Court ever stated.   You made it up. Nor did they give any reason for their stay. They simply granted it. And then allowed the lower court rulings to stand as the issue made its way through the courts. With gay marriage now legal in about a dozen more states. In explicit contradiction of the elaborate beliefs and motivations you invented for the court, pulled sideways from your own ass.
> 
> *You were simply wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's assume you're right, that churches cannot be forced to marry gays.  The more important part of this thread is how many people voted and HOW they voted in the poll.  Seems to conflict with what we've been told.  Again, the answer chosen wasn't merely just "no" it was "oh, HELL no!"..
Click to expand...

Which means that the people are emphatic about their support for liberty.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the issues that were being adjuciated in the Hobby Lobby decision. The issue in the Hobby Lobby case was could the religious conviction of an individual business owner exempt some from commonly applied laws. And the answer was yes, in the case of Hobby Lobby. The part you fail to recognize is......*Churches were already exempt. *The scenario you describe where churches are forced to perform marriages is ridiculously unlikey for the very reasons that mdk describes.
> 
> As for the 'disturbing trend of conflicting decisions' you describe......what contradiction? You *assumed* that the USSC had declared that gay marriage bans were legal when they granted a stay while the issues were adjudicated. But the USSC never said this. You made it up. And the stay certainly didn't make gay marriage bans constitutional. It was a delay of implementation.
> 
> You imagined elaborate motivations for the courts, made up a fantastically specific set of beliefs for the court.....none of which the Court ever stated.   You made it up. Nor did they give any reason for their stay. They simply granted it. And then allowed the lower court rulings to stand as the issue made its way through the courts. With gay marriage now legal in about a dozen more states. In explicit contradiction of the elaborate beliefs and motivations you invented for the court, pulled sideways from your own ass.
> 
> *You were simply wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's assume you're right, that churches cannot be forced to marry gays.  The more important part of this thread is how many people voted and HOW they voted in the poll.  Seems to conflict with what we've been told.  Again, the answer chosen wasn't merely just "no" it was "oh, HELL no!"..
Click to expand...


I am not seeing a boat load of people on this forum advocating that churches be forced to marry gay couples. So no, it doesn't seem to conflict with what you've been told. All this poll states is that churches should be free to marry whom they wish without government intervention. This poll simply does not corroborate what you are trying to claim.


----------



## Skylar

> OK, let's assume you're right, that churches cannot be forced to marry gays.  The more important part of this thread is how many people voted and HOW they voted in the poll.  Seems to conflict with what we've been told.  Again, the answer chosen wasn't merely just "no" it was "oh, HELL no!"..



And in this, you are again hopelessly confused. As support for gay marriage and support for forcing churches to perform them are unconnected ideas. One does not mean the other. I and MDK both oppose forcing churches to perform gay weddings. And yet we both support gay marriage (hope I got your vibe right, MDK. If no, ooops). 

Your projecting your own beliefs again, assuming that what other people 'really mean' is what you do. And that's a process that has failed you again and again. As it did when you blundered with your elaborate and imaginative interpretation of the beliefs and motivations of the USSC when they granted the stays to Utah and other states.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Skylar said:


> OK, let's assume you're right, that churches cannot be forced to marry gays.  The more important part of this thread is how many people voted and HOW they voted in the poll.  Seems to conflict with what we've been told.  Again, the answer chosen wasn't merely just "no" it was "oh, HELL no!"..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in this, you are again hopelessly confused. As support for gay marriage and support for forcing churches to perform them are unconnected ideas. One does not mean the other. I and MDK both oppose forcing churches to perform gay weddings. And yet we both support gay marriage (hope I got your vibe right, MDK. If no, ooops).
> 
> Your projecting your own beliefs again, assuming that what other people 'really mean' is what you do. And that's a process that has failed you again and again. As it did when you blundered with your elaborate and imaginative interpretation of the beliefs and motivations of the USSC when they granted the stays to Utah and other states.
Click to expand...


Add me to that list.


>>>>


----------



## Seawytch

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who supported interracial marriage laws thought they were right...they were certain their churches wouldn't ever marry "those people".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that people who thought themselves to be Christians slayed thousands of people trying to make those people turn to Christianity. Were those people true Christians? Hell no.
> 
> A person has no choice to be born American, or white, or black, or Hispanic, or anything else. No one would choose to have a child born with a disability.
> 
> Homosexuality IS a choice. Just as adultery, and promiscuity, and even a consenting man and woman living together sleeping in the same bed. Those are all choices that people make.
> 
> Interracial marriage is not a sin, a Christian marrying an unbeliever, that is considered a sin, according to what I know of the Bible. Others believe differently than I do, but we still search the Scriptures for the answers to all kinds of questions, the key is to keep on searching, for Christianity is a learning religion, and as we grow, we learn and we adapt. The basis for our faith is the one true constant. John 3:16, if you have that, and you truly believe that, you will want to learn more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU don't think interracial marriage is a sin, but people did in large numbers and some still do. You feel justified in your bigotry just like they did. Same/Same.
> 
> Oh, and religion is a choice, being gay is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because people have been wrong about one thing doesn't mean they are wrong about EVERYTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it comes to justifying bigotry with a religious text, when has that ever been "right"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't think bigotry is something that religion ever justified.
Click to expand...


Then you are woefully ill informed.


----------



## deltex1

Can people be forced to shut up about gay marriages?  Why talk about something that only exists in the minds of LIBTARDS?


----------



## Seawytch

deltex1 said:


> Can people be forced to shut up about gay marriages?  Why talk about something that only exists in the minds of LIBTARDS?



And some conservative justices. Oh, and in...what is it now, 30 states.


----------



## Silhouette

Sweeping sedition of majority rule indeed...well, minus Idaho and Nevada...



> Hear that screeching coming from Idaho and Nevada? Supreme Court *Justice Anthony **Kennedy* granted an emergency halt on Wednesday to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling Tuesday overturning marriage bans from going into effect.
> While the application for a stay came from Idaho officials, Kennedy’s order covers both Idaho and Nevada because the cases before the 9th Circuit were consolidated.
> - See more at: FrontiersLA.com Justice Kennedy Grants Emergency Stay to Gay Marriages in Idaho and Nevada


 








> Lawyers are now scrambling to figure out and explain why this stay was granted and what it will mean, if anything to the momenteum of the marriage equality movement. In the meantime, exhilarated couples preparing to marry got a cold spalsh of disappointment.


----------



## Skylar

And the court limited that stay to Idaho. Freeing up all the other States which just had their appeals refused to start gaying up their marriage laws ASAP. 

They could be having gay marriages in Nevada as soon as...right now!



> *Justice Kennedy allows gay marriage in Nevada*
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on Wednesday allowed same-sex marriage to begin in Nevada, clarifying that an earlier order temporarily blocking gay unions applies only to Idaho.
> 
> Justice Kennedy allows gay marriage in Nevada - Yahoo News




And good riddance to that silly law.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen.  The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches.  What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general?  I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what this polling asking though. The poll doesn't ask if you support gay marriage. It asks if you would support a church being forced to marry a gay couple. I think it is interesting question though. Maybe another poll that asks if you support gay marriage and the right of churches to not marry them is in order. Perhaps a layered question would shed more light on the topic. It could prove for some interesting discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well hmm... Imagine if this was a question of "do you think churches should have to perform interracial marriages" [race and behaviors are not in the same legal class BTW] and 82% of the responders said "hell no!".  [That's kind of how that question is posed].  Then would you feel comfortable extrapolating that of that group, most of them also weren't in support of interracial marriage in general?
> 
> Yes, you would.  It's kind of like your idea for a thread was already done in the way the question was posed.  People could've just not voted.  But they did.  In the hundreds.  And 82% of that number said "hell no" to gays marrying in churches..
Click to expand...


Wow, Silly, you POUNDED that straw man!  Just give up and walk away, you're humiliating yourself now.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the issues that were being adjuciated in the Hobby Lobby decision. The issue in the Hobby Lobby case was could the religious conviction of an individual business owner exempt some from commonly applied laws. And the answer was yes, in the case of Hobby Lobby. The part you fail to recognize is......*Churches were already exempt. *The scenario you describe where churches are forced to perform marriages is ridiculously unlikey for the very reasons that mdk describes.
> 
> As for the 'disturbing trend of conflicting decisions' you describe......what contradiction? You *assumed* that the USSC had declared that gay marriage bans were legal when they granted a stay while the issues were adjudicated. But the USSC never said this. You made it up. And the stay certainly didn't make gay marriage bans constitutional. It was a delay of implementation.
> 
> You imagined elaborate motivations for the courts, made up a fantastically specific set of beliefs for the court.....none of which the Court ever stated.   You made it up. Nor did they give any reason for their stay. They simply granted it. And then allowed the lower court rulings to stand as the issue made its way through the courts. With gay marriage now legal in about a dozen more states. In explicit contradiction of the elaborate beliefs and motivations you invented for the court, pulled sideways from your own ass.
> 
> *You were simply wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's assume you're right, that churches cannot be forced to marry gays.  The more important part of this thread is how many people voted and HOW they voted in the poll.  Seems to conflict with what we've been told.  Again, the answer chosen wasn't merely just "no" it was "oh, HELL no!"..
Click to expand...

That is because the poll is what is generally called a push poll, Silly...and we both know it!


----------



## Skylar

> That is because the poll is what is generally called a push poll, Silly...and we both know it!



Gallup is doing push polls? Say yes, and you can never quote Gallup again.


----------



## Silhouette

Jarlaxle said:


> That is because the poll is what is generally called a push poll, Silly...and we both know it!


 
Oh, I see.  It's not like the LGBT cult members engage in stacked polling right?  Nah.  Odd though how their scrupulously honest polling sure seems to differ from the result above?

How many Americans [from a blue district in San Francisco or the Villiage NY] support gay marriage?  An overwhelming majority!


----------



## Jarlaxle

Skylar said:


> That is because the poll is what is generally called a push poll, Silly...and we both know it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup is doing push polls? Say yes, and you can never quote Gallup again.
Click to expand...


No, the poll *on this thread*!  Are you fuckin' STUPID, boy?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is because the poll is what is generally called a push poll, Silly...and we both know it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see.  It's not like the LGBT cult members engage in stacked polling right?  Nah.  Odd though how their scrupulously honest polling sure seems to differ from the result above?
> 
> How many Americans [from a blue district in San Francisco or the Villiage NY] support gay marriage?  An overwhelming majority!
Click to expand...


Just stop, Silly.  "_They did it first_" stopped working when most people were about four years old.


----------



## Silhouette

Jarlaxle said:


> Just stop, Silly.  "_They did it first_" stopped working when most people were about four years old.


When the shoe fits...


----------



## Skylar

> Oh, I see. It's not like the LGBT cult members engage in stacked polling right? Nah. Odd though how their scrupulously honest polling sure seems to differ from the result above?
> 
> How many Americans [from a blue district in San Francisco or the Villiage NY] support gay marriage? An overwhelming majority!



Gallup isn't particularly stacked, Silo. And they show 55% support for gay marriage. You're making the same mistake you always make. You are projecting your beliefs onto people that don't necessarily share them. And the electorate doesn't share your views.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Gallup isn't particularly stacked, Silo. And they show 55% support for gay marriage. You're making the same mistake you always make. You are projecting your beliefs onto people that don't necessarily share them. And the electorate doesn't share your views.


 Funny how gay marriage keeps getting voted down in state after state...


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup isn't particularly stacked, Silo. And they show 55% support for gay marriage. You're making the same mistake you always make. You are projecting your beliefs onto people that don't necessarily share them. And the electorate doesn't share your views.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how gay marriage keeps getting voted down in state after state...
Click to expand...


In 2009, the year after California passed prop 8......support for gay marriage was 33%. Today, its 55%. And rising. With support for gay marriage among the millenials at almost 80%. I suspect that a measurable portion of the increase in support for gay marriage is just your ilk dying off.

Do you have any doubt, any doubt at all that Prop 8 would be voted down in California today?


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> In 2009, the year after California passed prop 8*......support for gay marriage was 33%. Today, its 55%. And rising*. 1 With support for gay marriage among the millenials at almost 80%. I suspect that a measurable portion of the increase in support for gay marriage is just your ilk dying off.
> 
> *Do you have any doubt, any doubt at all that Prop 8 would be voted down in California today? 2*


 
1. The poll at the top suggests otherwise... 82+%...impressive!  It's one of the biggest poll responses at USMB ever.  That displays interest/concern about the topic as well.

2. That depends on how many commercials of gay pride parades and clips from the biography of Harvey Milk are run on ads at prime time the week before the vote...paid for by traditional marriage sources....That kind of thing could make or break a vote.

Like I've always said, for people utterly confident of how you'd do at the polls "today", you're sure doing triple back flips to make damn sure the People don't have a say in who can get married in their state.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The poll reflects the board members who voted willingness to protect religious rights in their private business.

LGBT overwhelmingly would support that poll.

Yet more than 55 percent support marriage equality, and the election this fall will do nothing to change that or indicate a willingness to return to the bad old way.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> The poll reflects the board members who voted willingness to protect religious rights in their private business.
> 
> LGBT overwhelmingly would support that poll.
> 
> Yet more than 55 percent support marriage equality, and the election this fall will do nothing to change that or indicate a willingness to return to the bad old way.


 I don't read it that way.  The question's answer with an 82% response says, "No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA".  Most LGBTs at this website will refuse to vote on a loaded answer like that, and they've told me as much repeatedly.  You've seen the posts.  Also, the LGBT schills here at USMB, the spammers and their buddies line up unanimously to make anything they could look pro-gay.  Voting essentially "Oh HELL no" on gay weddings at churches doesn't line up with that consistent pattern...

...no....it's a complete divergence from that pattern.  The "orders" would be to just not vote.  The fold would be told this and the numbers in the poll would reflect that.  But they don't.  They show a huge number of people saying "hell no!" to gays marrying in churches.  Not just "no".  The reply is "HELL no!"  That little subtle detail makes all the difference in the world on who is voting and how they're voting...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, you have demonstrated long ago that  you cannot objectively interpret material that goes counter to your confirmation bias.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, you have demonstrated long ago that  you cannot objectively interpret material that goes counter to your confirmation bias.


 This material?  Why won't you address it directly instead of hurling ad hominems when you have no lucid rebuttal..[obviously]



JakeStarkey said:


> The poll reflects the board members who voted willingness to protect religious rights in their private business.
> LGBT overwhelmingly would support that poll.
> Yet more than 55 percent support marriage equality, and the election this fall will do nothing to change that or indicate a willingness to return to the bad old way.


I don't read it that way. The question's answer with an 82% response says, "No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA". Most LGBTs at this website will refuse to vote on a loaded answer like that, and they've told me as much repeatedly. You've seen the posts. Also, the LGBT schills here at USMB, the spammers and their buddies line up unanimously to make anything they could look pro-gay. Voting essentially "Oh HELL no" on gay weddings at churches doesn't line up with that consistent pattern...


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, you have demonstrated long ago that  you cannot objectively interpret material that goes counter to your confirmation bias.
> 
> 
> 
> This material?  Why won't you address it directly instead of hurling ad hominems when you have no lucid rebuttal..[obviously]
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll reflects the board members who voted willingness to protect religious rights in their private business.
> LGBT overwhelmingly would support that poll.
> Yet more than 55 percent support marriage equality, and the election this fall will do nothing to change that or indicate a willingness to return to the bad old way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't read it that way. The question's answer with an 82% response says, "No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA". Most LGBTs at this website will refuse to vote on a loaded answer like that, and they've told me as much repeatedly. You've seen the posts. Also, the LGBT schills here at USMB, the spammers and their buddies line up unanimously to make anything they could look pro-gay. Voting essentially "Oh HELL no" on gay weddings at churches doesn't line up with that consistent pattern...
Click to expand...


I am pretty sure the handful of gay posters in this thread stated that they do not support the government forcing to a church to marry anyone against their wishes. I have stated as much as about a dozen or so times. You continue to dismiss that because it doesn't fit your narrative. You believe that gays want to force churches to marry them against their wishes and that simply isn't the case. There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry any couple. Not one; nevertheless, you continue to use the results of this poll to confirm your bias.


----------



## Silhouette

A handful?  To a question about "should people have to allow gay marriage at venue [x]" [paraphrased] to which the answer wasn't just "no" but instead "oh HELL NO!"???

You expect that suddenly a whole bunch of gays gay-sychophants got really excited enough to pack the most popular poll here at USMB to answer essentially "yes" to a question "should gay marriage not occur at...."  Like suddenly the gay mafia is all somber about church and wants to paint a picture that they are fully OK with their cult's dogma being excluded there?

Yeah, right.  Got any oceanfront property in Arizona to sell me too?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your poll means nothing in terms of support for marriage equality.

Fact that.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> A handful?  To a question about "should people have to allow gay marriage at venue [x]" [paraphrased] to which the answer wasn't just "no" but instead "oh HELL NO!"???
> 
> You expect that suddenly a whole bunch of gays gay-sychophants got really excited enough to pack the most popular poll here at USMB to answer essentially "yes" to a question "should gay marriage not occur at...."  Like suddenly the gay mafia is all somber about church and wants to paint a picture that they are fully OK with their cult's dogma being excluded there?
> 
> Yeah, right.  Got any oceanfront property in Arizona to sell me too?



The poll in no way addresses gay marriage, it asks should churches be forced to marry gays. That is a big difference that you willingly ignore so you claim that majority of respondents also do not support gays getting married. The poll isn't detailed to enough for you to make that claim, naturally that doesn't matter to you. All that matters is your anti-gay narrative. All of your twisting and flailing doesn't change the fact that there hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes, gay or otherwise. I admire your passion and persistence but that alone is enough to convince others that your logic is sound.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> *The poll in no way addresses gay marriage, it asks should churches be forced to marry gays. That is a big difference* that you willingly ignore so you claim that majority of respondents also do not support gays getting married. The poll isn't detailed to enough for you to make that claim, naturally that doesn't matter to you. All that matters is your anti-gay narrative. All of your twisting and flailing doesn't change the fact that there hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes, gay or otherwise. I admire your passion and persistence but that alone is enough to convince others that your logic is sound.


 
The poll could've just as easily asked if bakeries or photographers [or adoption agencies...many of which are run by churches...the next legal nightmare...] should be forced to serve gay weddings.  What makes churches so special to gays?

Rhetorical question because they're not.  So, once again, your "smoke and mirrors" is really just


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The poll in no way addresses gay marriage, it asks should churches be forced to marry gays. That is a big difference* that you willingly ignore so you claim that majority of respondents also do not support gays getting married. The poll isn't detailed to enough for you to make that claim, naturally that doesn't matter to you. All that matters is your anti-gay narrative. All of your twisting and flailing doesn't change the fact that there hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes, gay or otherwise. I admire your passion and persistence but that alone is enough to convince others that your logic is sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poll could've just as easily asked if bakeries or photographers [or adoption agencies...many of which are run by churches...the next legal nightmare...] should be forced to serve gay weddings.  What makes churches so special to gays?
> 
> Rhetorical question because they're not.  So, once again, your "smoke and mirrors" is really just
Click to expand...


As it has been explained to numerous time already churches are not subject to public accommodation laws. And nor should they be. If you open a business, in a state where gays are covered under such laws, then you can't refuse them a service you offer on the grounds that they are gay.

I am going to answer your question anyway, not that it matters because your mind is already made up on the issue but I have a dash of free time before the Steelers game. Believe it or not, many gays grew up with religious upbringings. I was one of them. I think matters of the church should be left to the church without fear of government intervention. The government should stay out of matters of the church and the church should stay out of matters of the government.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil is merely being fractious because it cannot carry the day with its flawed argument.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> *As it has been explained to numerous time already churches are not subject to public accommodation laws*. And nor should they be. If you open a business, in a state where gays are covered under such laws, then you can't refuse them a service you offer on the grounds that they are gay.
> 
> I am going to answer your question anyway, not that it matters because your mind is already made up on the issue but I have a dash of free time before the Steelers game. Believe it or not, many gays grew up with religious upbringings. I was one of them. I think matters of the church should be left to the church without fear of government intervention. The government should stay out of matters of the church and the church should stay out of matters of the government.


 
But the orphanges they run may very well be.  And as soon as you shoe-horn your way into forcing gay marriage on the 50 states who expressed numerous times at the ballot box that they don't want it, you'll be suing adoption agencies or individual agents themselves for daring to "discriminate against gays [homosexuals who perform lewd acts at/or support gay pride parades in front of kids].

Bank on it.  You'll use the ramrodded "gay judge" win on that case to launch a platform against the church itself.  All it takes is a toe in the door, right?  Look how far that wedge has gotten you so far.  I'm glad the European Court saw it for what it was and put a stop to it..  European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right ... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## JakeStarkey

*"But the orphanages they run may very well be."

(1) Not if they are run as private associations, and (2) the issue is heterosexual predation on children*


----------



## Kosh

So according to the far left left on this thread the answer to the question is they would force churches.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Show us where the far left said any such thing.

If they did, I will oppose it, and I will oppose you from invalidating marriage equality.


----------



## mdk

Kosh said:


> So according to the far left left on this thread the answer to the question is they would force churches.



I think one person in this thread may said churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. Maybe two if I've miscounted. The vast and overwhelming majority of the people in this thread have stated churches should not be forced to do so.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

mdk said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> So according to the far left left on this thread the answer to the question is they would force churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think one person in this thread may said churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. Maybe two if I've miscounted. The vast and overwhelming majority of the people in this thread have stated churches should not be forced to do so.
Click to expand...

Which further confirms the idiocy of the OP premise to begin with.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *As it has been explained to numerous time already churches are not subject to public accommodation laws*. And nor should they be. If you open a business, in a state where gays are covered under such laws, then you can't refuse them a service you offer on the grounds that they are gay.
> 
> I am going to answer your question anyway, not that it matters because your mind is already made up on the issue but I have a dash of free time before the Steelers game. Believe it or not, many gays grew up with religious upbringings. I was one of them. I think matters of the church should be left to the church without fear of government intervention. The government should stay out of matters of the church and the church should stay out of matters of the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the orphanges they run may very well be.  And as soon as you shoe-horn your way into forcing gay marriage on the 50 states who expressed numerous times at the ballot box that they don't want it, you'll be suing adoption agencies or individual agents themselves for daring to "discriminate against gays [homosexuals who perform lewd acts at/or support gay pride parades in front of kids].
> 
> Bank on it.  You'll use the ramrodded "gay judge" win on that case to launch a platform against the church itself.  All it takes is a toe in the door, right?  Look how far that wedge has gotten you so far.  I'm glad the European Court saw it for what it was and put a stop to it..  European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right ... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


Does it matter that the judge was gay? His ruling was sound and upheld upon review. Besides, the vast majority of judges that have struck down these bans are...wait for it...straight.

What cases should judges be barred from hearing? Should a female jurist recuse herself from hearing a case that deals with male to female sexual harassment? Of course not. Should a black jurist recuse from a case that deals with civil rights violations of other African-Americans? Of course not.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We have seen the far righties righteously rebuked and unmasked as the hater they are so often.


----------



## Kosh

JakeStarkey said:


> Show us where the far left said any such thing.
> 
> If they did, I will oppose it, and I will oppose you from invalidating marriage equality.



The far left does not understand the word equality, it is just a term used to rally the far left base, as you keep proving being a far left religious zealot.


----------



## Kosh

mdk said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> So according to the far left left on this thread the answer to the question is they would force churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think one person in this thread may said churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. Maybe two if I've miscounted. The vast and overwhelming majority of the people in this thread have stated churches should not be forced to do so.
Click to expand...


Many have said they disagree, but as you keep reading their posts, they actually agree with forcing churches.

I am all for the government getting out of the business of marriage..


----------



## mdk

Kosh said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> So according to the far left left on this thread the answer to the question is they would force churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think one person in this thread may said churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. Maybe two if I've miscounted. The vast and overwhelming majority of the people in this thread have stated churches should not be forced to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many have said they disagree, but as you keep reading their posts, they actually agree with forcing churches.
> 
> I am all for the government getting out of the business of marriage..
Click to expand...


I am still not seeing a bunch of posters stating they feel churches should be forced to marry anyone, gay or otherwise. That view has very very little support in this thread.


----------



## Kosh

mdk said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> So according to the far left left on this thread the answer to the question is they would force churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think one person in this thread may said churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. Maybe two if I've miscounted. The vast and overwhelming majority of the people in this thread have stated churches should not be forced to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many have said they disagree, but as you keep reading their posts, they actually agree with forcing churches.
> 
> I am all for the government getting out of the business of marriage..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still not seeing a bunch of posters stating they feel churches should be forced to marry anyone, gay or otherwise. That view has very very little support in this thread.
Click to expand...


You are correct some that say they disagree with forcing churches changed their tune when pressed.

But that would require one to actually re-read the entire thread.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kosh is nothing but a far right bot droning and trolling on and on.

He can't support his point, so he trolls and ad ad homs.


----------



## Kosh

JakeStarkey said:


> Kosh is nothing but a far right bot droning and trolling on and on.
> 
> He can't support his point, so he trolls and ad ad homs.



The irony of those comments coming from this far left religious follower.


----------



## mdk

Kosh said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> So according to the far left left on this thread the answer to the question is they would force churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think one person in this thread may said churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. Maybe two if I've miscounted. The vast and overwhelming majority of the people in this thread have stated churches should not be forced to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many have said they disagree, but as you keep reading their posts, they actually agree with forcing churches.
> 
> I am all for the government getting out of the business of marriage..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still not seeing a bunch of posters stating they feel churches should be forced to marry anyone, gay or otherwise. That view has very very little support in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct some that say they disagree with forcing churches changed their tune when pressed.
> 
> But that would require one to actually re-read the entire thread.
Click to expand...


That isn't what I said in the least. What I actually said, is that very few people have stated that churches should be forced to marry gays. I've read this entire and that is position is held by very few people.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kosh, like Yurt, makes false statements then insists they are true.

No one was pressed and changed their tune about churches being forced to marry homosexuals.

Kosh, give evidence.  If you can't then the doctrine of silent affirmation takes effect, which means you lied and got caught.


----------



## Silhouette

Kosh said:


> The irony of those comments coming from this far left religious follower.


 
Notice how when you agree with the traditional marriage/religious standpoint on homosexual cultural spread, you are beat up, called names and group-attacked.  If you and your buddies did that to their sect [the Church of LGBT], you would be threatened, banned from this website, labelled a bully and probably sued too for good measure.

But they can do it with impunity, you know, because they're for equal rights.  Get it?


----------



## JakeStarkey

You whine that you get what you dish?

Grow up, Sil, and act like an adult.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> You whine that you get what you dish?
> 
> Grow up, Sil, and act like an adult.


 Stop bullying people you bigot.


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> You whine that you get what you dish?
> 
> Grow up, Sil, and act like an adult.



Classic, I regularly beat your ass and ALL you DO  is whine like a bitch.

Does your Church perform Gay Weddings Jake?


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> You whine that you get what you dish?
> 
> Grow up, Sil, and act like an adult.



Why are trolling like this Jake?
There is nothing about the topic in this?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, does this mean you will take graciously that which you hand out?  Let's try that, please.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, does this mean you will take graciously that which you hand out?  Let's try that, please.



And Antares troll cries when he gets dealt with as he dishes out, yet pretends yet again he and his ilk are treated unfairly.

Anyone who has been on this Board for several years is laughing at Antares.


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, does this mean you will take graciously that which you hand out?  Let's try that, please.



And you Jake, can you?


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, does this mean you will take graciously that which you hand out?  Let's try that, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Antares troll cries when he gets dealt with as he dishes out, yet pretends yet again he and his ilk are treated unfairly.
> 
> Anyone who has been on this Board for several years are laughing at Antares.
Click to expand...


I bitch slap you at every turn Jake, they all know it.

You run to Mommy every time you get slapped.


----------



## Antares

Does your Church perform Homosexual Weddings Jake?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Antares Roo is whining and crying.  

I support any church the right to marry or not marry they who they wish to marry.

My church affiliation right now won't do it, but it is weakening.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares Roo is whining and crying.
> 
> I support any church the right to marry or not marry they who they wish to marry.
> 
> My church affiliation right now won't do it, but it is weakening.



And when you violate the rules, yup, I report the likes of you who cannot argue according to the rules.


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares Roo is whining and crying.
> 
> I support any church the right to marry or not marry they who they wish to marry.
> 
> My church affiliation right now won't do it, but it is weakening.



You are the one whining Jake.

So you attend a homophobic Church.....but like Obama you are not there on the days they spout their homophobic beliefs?


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antares Roo is whining and crying.
> 
> I support any church the right to marry or not marry they who they wish to marry.
> 
> My church affiliation right now won't do it, but it is weakening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when you violate the rules, yup, I report the likes of you who cannot argue according to the rules.
Click to expand...


Nope, you do it because you aren't capable of taking what you give out.

Plain and simple


----------



## JakeStarkey

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antares Roo is whining and crying.
> 
> I support any church the right to marry or not marry they who they wish to marry.
> 
> My church affiliation right now won't do it, but it is weakening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one whining Jake.
> 
> So you attend a homophobic Church.....but like Obama you are not there on the days they spout their homophobic beliefs?
Click to expand...


Says one of the big time whiners on the far right.

I am in church regularly, even if the msg is one I don't like.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Stay on topic or pay the price.  Your choice, Antares.


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antares Roo is whining and crying.
> 
> I support any church the right to marry or not marry they who they wish to marry.
> 
> My church affiliation right now won't do it, but it is weakening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one whining Jake.
> 
> So you attend a homophobic Church.....but like Obama you are not there on the days they spout their homophobic beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says one of the big time whiners on the far right.
> 
> I am in church regularly, even if the msg is one I don't like.
Click to expand...


Poor Jake,you can dish it out but not take it.

Everyone on this Board knows it 

Tell me, what about you is Christ Like?
What about you would make ANYONE want to be a Christian?


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> Stay on topic or pay the price.  Your choice, Antares.



You mean like the post right above this post in the timeline?
You introduced the "topic" of taking it like one dishes it out Jake, I m on topic.
You brought up being a "Christian",so me asking you about  it IS on topic.

Go ahead and cry to mommy,you don't have a leg to stand on.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I play by the rules, have always tried to.  You will not be allowed to pre-change actions by the Board to the thuggery of the far right and far left.

Are you able to voice your dissent without being stupid?  The two posts above shows you are trying to do so.  Congrats.  Stop crying that you can't act within the rules.

I believe that churches should maintain private accommodation.  Do you?


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am waiting, Antares.

I believe that churches should maintain private accommodation.  Do you?


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> I play by the rules, have always tried to.  You will not be allowed to pre-change actions by the Board to the thuggery of the far right and far left.
> 
> Are you able to voice your dissent without being stupid?
> 
> I believe that churches should maintain private accommodation.  Do you?



That's why you keep getting banned too.
You simply have ZERO self awareness.

By "stupid" you mean in a manner that doesn't show you how bigoted and judgmental you are?

Too funny.
Now, of course I do......now what does your Bible Bible teach about Homosexuality?

Men laying with men etc?

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
_- King James Version (1611)_ - View 1611 Bible Scan


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> ...I believe that churches should maintain private accommodation.  Do you?


 
Do you believe that with respect to church orphanages?


----------



## Antares

You see the Bible teaches against homosexuality, I'm not sure how you reconcile that with your personal beliefs.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Of course, Sil, as long as they operate as a private accommodation religious activity.

Antares, do you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?  Remember your postings in the past, my friend.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JakeStarkey said:


> Of course, Sil, as long as they operate as a private accommodation religious activity.
> 
> Antares, do you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?  Remember your postings in the past, my friend.



And I am certainly not concerned what you think as religious interpreter.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Of course, Sil, as long as they operate as a private accommodation religious activity.


 But churches will sometimes adopt out to non-congregation.  Do you still believe in their ability to deny people adoptions based on their sexual orientation?


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, Sil, as long as they operate as a private accommodation religious activity.
> 
> Antares, do you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?  Remember your postings in the past, my friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I am certainly not concerned what you think as religious interpreter.
Click to expand...


For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
_- King James Version (1611)_ - View 1611 Bible Scan

Jake? Why dodge?


----------



## Antares

*Romans*

*hat is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.*

*Jake?*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Biblical literalism is heresy and a step to apostasy, Antares.

Sil, I think in your case the services cannot deny adoption to anyone who qualifies if the agency is subject to public accommodation laws.

I suspect the courts would be involved by both sides.


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> Biblical literalism is heresy and a step to apostasy, Antares.
> 
> Sil, I think in your case the services cannot deny adoption to anyone who qualifies if the agency is subject to public accommodation laws.
> 
> I suspect the courts would be involved by both sides.



So...the Bible doesn't say what it says.
I made no interpretation Jake, I simply posted your Scripture.

Tell me how to interpret that Roman's passage?

"Biblical literalism is heresy and a step to apostasy, Antares."

In what denomination Jake?


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> ..Sil, I think in your case the services cannot deny adoption to anyone who qualifies if the agency is subject to public accommodation laws.
> 
> I suspect the courts would be involved by both sides.


But the church cannot qualify gays to either "be married" or "to be fake mom/dad".  So how would you counsel that church to abide both by God's and civilian law with respect to the orphans in their care?  Which would be dominant for them?

And for that matter, will attorneys for the orphans also be involved?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biblical literalism is heresy and a step to apostasy, Antares.
> 
> Sil, I think in your case the services cannot deny adoption to anyone who qualifies if the agency is subject to public accommodation laws.
> 
> I suspect the courts would be involved by both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...the Bible doesn't say what it says.
> I made no interpretation Jake, I simply posted your Scripture.
> 
> Tell me how to interpret that Roman's passage?
> 
> "Biblical literalism is heresy and a step to apostasy, Antares."
> 
> In what denomination Jake?
Click to expand...


Then we have nothing to discuss if you don't have a position and you don't tell me where you worship.  Oh, that's right, you are a near agnostic, like Sil.  Don't quote scripture if you won't interpret it and are not a church attender.  You have no standing.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are not a church goer or believer, Sil, so you have no reason to ask.  Neither does Antares.

Churches should not have to marry folks they don't want to marry.

Adoption law is a different matter altogether.


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biblical literalism is heresy and a step to apostasy, Antares.
> 
> Sil, I think in your case the services cannot deny adoption to anyone who qualifies if the agency is subject to public accommodation laws.
> 
> I suspect the courts would be involved by both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...the Bible doesn't say what it says.
> I made no interpretation Jake, I simply posted your Scripture.
> 
> Tell me how to interpret that Roman's passage?
> 
> "Biblical literalism is heresy and a step to apostasy, Antares."
> 
> In what denomination Jake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we have nothing to discuss if you don't have a position and you don't tell me where you worship.  Oh, that's right, you are a near agnostic, like Sil.  Don't quote scripture if you won't interpret it and are not a church attender.  You have no standing.
Click to expand...


Of course we do, how do you interpret that passage from Romans Jake?


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> You are not a church goer or believer, Sil, so you have no reason to ask.  Neither does Antares.
> 
> Churches should not have to marry folks they don't want to marry.
> 
> Adoption law is a different matter altogether.



Really?

I have EVERY reason to ask, YOU are supposed to be Christ's representative to the world.


----------



## JakeStarkey

What church do you attend, Antares and Sil?

What standing do you have in that church, guys?

Your belief or interpretation of scripture is yours alone.

What does this have to with the OP?  It doesn't.


----------



## JakeStarkey

What would I counsel you, Antares?

Get on your knees and ask your Savior to accept you.

That goes for you, too, Sil.

Really, you both should do that.


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> What church do you attend, Antares and Sil?
> 
> What standing do you have in that church, guys?
> 
> Your belief or interpretation of scripture is yours alone.
> 
> What does this have to with the OP?  It doesn't.



The OP is about Churches and Homosexual Weddings.

WE are on topic and you are running.

This is Romans Chapter 1 Jake,
Explain it to me , please?

"That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved."


----------



## JakeStarkey

Antares?

Sil?

Prayer is your answer.


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> What would I counsel you, Antares?
> 
> Get on your knees and ask your Savior to accept you.
> 
> That goes for you, too, Sil.
> 
> Really, you both should do that.



You can't even tell me why gods word doesn't say what it says Jake.

"That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved."


----------



## JakeStarkey

Antares and Sil are far from the OP.

I see that the two near agnostics are trying to force their religious opinion as the law of the land.

You know where that goes, right?

Pray to your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, guys, for guidance.

You both certainly need it.

And, by the way, Antares, thank you for calming down and trying to talk rationally.  I appreciate it.


----------



## Antares

How can you represent Christ when you can't even tell me why Romans 1 ISN'T actually condemning Homosexuality, you can't even tell me why you believe what you believe.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your personal (or mine) religious opinion does not run the law, guys, and offers nothing about the OP.  Stay on track, please.


----------



## Antares

I am going to let it go Jake.

But we both know you have no answer to the question, and as much as I dislike you I am not going to embarrass you anymore with it.

I would have put this in a message but you turned them off.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Antares, you are trying to mix religion and law where they don't mix.  You are incapable of ever embarrassing me: not possible.

Please pray about this and about Jesus.

I wish you both a good night.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And, yes, I agree that churches can never be told who to marry or not marry.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

JakeStarkey said:


> And, yes, I agree that churches can never be told who to marry or not marry.



Why not? I mean when you get down to it, a church is a public accommodation.

In actuality though I have to ask the next logical question. Why does a business OWNED by a church have to serve gays? I mean the ADA for example, exempts businesses ran by churches, why doesn't the CRA as well?


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, yes, I agree that churches can never be told who to marry or not marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? I mean when you get down to it, a church is a public accommodation.
> 
> In actuality though I have to ask the next logical question. Why does a business OWNED by a church have to serve gays? I mean the ADA for example, exempts businesses ran by churches, why doesn't the CRA as well?
Click to expand...

No, it's not. And NO THE CHURCH DOES NOT HAVE TO SERVE GAYS.  Why do you keep making shit up?  You provided the link and I disproved it FIVE TIMES.  CHURCHES ARE NOT FORCED TO SERVE ANYONE.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> What church do you attend, Antares and Sil?
> 
> What standing do you have in that church, guys?
> 
> Your belief or interpretation of scripture is yours alone.
> 
> What does this have to with the OP?  It doesn't.


Ahhh...an evasion..

It doesn't matter.  Anyone who follows the christian bible has the threat of eternal damnation hanging over their head if they enable the spread of a homosexual culture.  Facilitating them "marrying" playing at "mom and dad" to children would be the paramount example of that.

Meanwhile I notice you dropped the thread of my questioning with your evasion.

Let's try again:



> JakeStarkey said: ↑
> ..Sil, I think in your case the services cannot deny adoption to anyone who qualifies if the agency is subject to public accommodation laws.
> 
> I suspect the courts would be involved by both sides.


But the church cannot qualify gays to either "be married" or "to be fake mom/dad". So how would you counsel that church to abide both by God's and civilian law with respect to the orphans in their care? Which would be dominant for them?

And for that matter, will attorneys for the orphans also be involved?


----------



## Jarlaxle

JakeStarkey said:


> Stay on topic or pay the price.  Your choice, Antares.



JakeTheFake to English translation: 
*I'M TELLING!*


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Ahhh...an evasion.." is a statement by a person who has evaded from the get go.

Those who have no religious standing are (1) in no position to lecture others who do and (2) have forgotten that church and state are separated in the public sphere..

Meanwhile I notice you dropped the thread of my questioning with your evasion.

But whether the "church [can] qualify gays to either 'be married" or "to be fake mom/dad'" is a skewered statement because that is not the church's role in public society.

.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jarlaxle, anyone who can't argue the OP and resorts to ad hom and trolling has no place in a thread.  Period.


----------



## Antares

You're wrong Jake, to be a good witness you must be able to answer those questions
God condemns Homosexuality in His word it requires no "interpretation" which is why I simply posted the Scripture.

What Church do you go to Jake,what denomination?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Antares, this OP is about churches, not my faith belief.  And you, a member of the private health insurance community, are on a level culturally with the Matthew the tax man of the scriptures.  I have nothing to answer to you.

But . . . if you will answer what is your faith belief and where do you attend church, I will discuss this with you until we get told to stop.


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares, this OP is about churches, not my faith belief.  And you, a member of the private health insurance community, are on a level culturally with the Matthew the tax man of the scriptures.  I have nothing to answer to you.
> 
> But . . . if you will answer what is your faith belief and where do you attend church, I will discuss this with you until we get told to stop.



1 Peter 3:15

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

The thread is about the Church and Homosexuality Jake,I warned you some time ago that I knew more about your "faith" than you did.

Whether or not I go to Church is immaterial, my questions are fair questions based on the thread and scripture itself.

You seem unable to reconcile your faith with your bible, not surprising.

Matthew was a Apostle, thank you but I am not on that level.
The more you type Jake the more I see that you do not know


----------



## JakeStarkey

Antares wants to troll this thread with an inquiry into my faith belief rather than dealing with the OP.  So reported.


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares wants to troll this thread with an inquiry into my faith belief rather than dealing with the OP.  So reported.



Jake I warned you that I knew more about your  "faith" than you did.....and I've shown you that I do.

The thread is about homosexuality and the Church.

You are the oldest 12 year old I've ever met.


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares wants to troll this thread with an inquiry into my faith belief rather than dealing with the OP.  So reported.



I just closed on my own Agency Jake,I am proud to called among Matthew the Apostle


----------



## JakeStarkey

Antares has shown me nothing about my faith, only his understanding (or lack of it) of scripture.  That you wish to be compared with Matthew the Tax Man before he repented says much about your lack of character.

Now the OP is about whether churches should have to marry homosexuals.

I think churches don't have to, ever, and I am sure that you agree with me.


----------



## Coyote

*Kids...lets get back ON TOPIC.*









*Thank you *


----------



## Silhouette

That reminds me coyote.  The LGBT "how to kill a topic" technique.

1. Have two of the faithful engage in supposedly opposite stances.

2. Have them begin to flame and go off topic in serial fashion...even after being warned...

3. Have a moderator come on and warn them openly "heads up everyone, this important topic of free speech is about to be shut down".

4. Shut the thread down and lock it.

5. Watch as the important information disappears in the dungeon just in the nick of time before elections.

Meanwhile I will stay on topic.

I was going to say about the poll that hasn't been brought up about the SHEER NUMBERS of people that voted on it.  No one will dispute it is one of the biggest polls in USMB history.  And the over 150 people who voted on it didn't show up to post about how they voted...They just voted and quietly disappeared back into the membership rolls here at USMB, to talk about other topics that wouldn't get them as hotly-flamed as anyone daring to speak their actual mind on gay marriage....

...thinking caps on yet election strategists?....

It shows why election upsets are happening...because the opinions about gay marriage haven't gone away.  And they show up at the polls.  It's why state after state kept voting for traditional marriage.  And they still would [look at the poll again].  Just because you've successfully frightened people into silence, doesn't mean you have won their heart. 

These people also quietly showed up to buy some Chic-Fil-a..."all by coincidence" one Fall day awhile back....and then they disappeared into the shadows.  Oh, they're still out there, incensed now also with their conservative leaders.  I imagine the telling-silence from the GOP and their powerholds on the topic is going to favor some disgusted folks staying home or voting independent...in droves...

They speak all right.  Just in a different language....so they won't get beat up.  And that dialect so far seems to be so tricky for strategists to figure out.  Keep listening to Carl Rove ...see where it gets you...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Stay on topic all you want, Sil  You are a fool if you think Antares and I were tag teaming your OP to end it here.

The point is, keep talking as much as you want on OP and you can't create an argument socially or legally that is going to end marriage equality.

Your poll represents a few Board members' attitudes toward churches and marriage of homosexuals.

In no way can you possibly find any grounds that it represents our larger society's general opinion about marriage equality.


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares has shown me nothing about my faith, only his understanding (or lack of it) of scripture.  That you wish to be compared with Matthew the Tax Man before he repented says much about your lack of character.
> 
> Now the OP is about whether churches should have to marry homosexuals.
> 
> I think churches don't have to, ever, and I am sure that you agree with me.



LMAO, Jake didn't even know they were one and the same.....

Here is the importance of this part of the conversation........who you think Jesus is and what you think of the rest of the scripture determines how you view homosexuality.

If you believe that Jesus is who He says He was you must then believe what the rest of scripture says about the topic.

You are thus far afraid to divulge your core beliefs,that in and of itself is very revealing,couple that with the reality that you do not have a firm grasp of scripture (you weren't aware of Timothy or any of the others) and that tells me you are either a new Christian, or in a mainline denomination that doesn't push biblical intimacy.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JakeStarkey said:


> "Ahhh...an evasion.." is a statement by a person who has evaded from the get go.
> 
> Those who have no religious standing are (1) in no position to lecture others who do and (2) have forgotten that church and state are separated in the public sphere..
> 
> Meanwhile I notice you dropped the thread of my questioning with your evasion.
> 
> But whether the "church [can] qualify gays to either 'be married" or "to be fake mom/dad'" is a skewered statement because that is not the church's role in public society.



Dude...you're a match for Fred Astaire.  How long have you been practicing your tap-dancing?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Antares did not know Matthew was a bad guy before becoming a bad guy is the story.

Now start your own thread on this, or get reported again.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jarlaxle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Ahhh...an evasion.." is a statement by a person who has evaded from the get go.
> 
> Those who have no religious standing are (1) in no position to lecture others who do and (2) have forgotten that church and state are separated in the public sphere..
> 
> Meanwhile I notice you dropped the thread of my questioning with your evasion.
> 
> But whether the "church [can] qualify gays to either 'be married" or "to be fake mom/dad'" is a skewered statement because that is not the church's role in public society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you're a match for Fred Astaire.  How long have you been practicing your tap-dancing?
Click to expand...


Says the master tap dancer.


----------



## Jarlaxle

And right on cue, Fakey goes back to his usual projection-flailing.

Dude, you are as predictable-and about as useful-as a broken clock.


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares did not Matthew was a bad guy before becoming a bad guy is the story.
> 
> Now start your own thread on this, or get reported again.



Is Scripture the inspired word of God Jake?


----------



## Antares

Jarlaxle said:


> And right on cue, Fakey goes back to his usual projection-flailing.
> 
> Dude, you are as predictable-and about as useful-as a broken clock.



...and as whiny as a 12 year old kid.

He apparently won't even say whether or not the Bible is the inspired word of God.

If it isn't Jake there is NO Christianity....or any reason to even discuss "Church".


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jarlaxle said:


> And right on cue, Fakey goes back to his usual projection-flailing.
> 
> Dude, you are as predictable-and about as useful-as a broken clock.



Son, all you do is babble to the rabble.  Move along.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Antares, you are not a scholar, not a believer, not an attender, any more than is Sil.

Move long, son, nothing here for you.


----------



## Silhouette

Antares said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And right on cue, Fakey goes back to his usual projection-flailing.
> 
> Dude, you are as predictable-and about as useful-as a broken clock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as whiny as a 12 year old kid.
> 
> He apparently won't even say whether or not the Bible is the inspired word of God.
> 
> If it isn't Jake there is NO Christianity....or any reason to even discuss "Church".
Click to expand...

The devil's spokesman wants you and me and anyone speaking against his sex fetish cult replacing, utterly.. core christian mandates...not values...not suggestions...to "move along".  Of course he does!    Forget the wolf in sheep's clothing.  He is the viper in a V-neck.

Jude 1 is clear however.  It isn't a "suggestion for a better you".  It's a dire warning of eternal damnation for anyone who facilitates the spread of a homosexual culture...anywhere....anytime...not just biblical times.  In fact it says that here to make sure the reader doesn't give the command a "historical pass"



> Jude 1: 7
> 
> _"7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." _


 
So this isn't a manipulatable passage subject to human spins and interpretations.  It is direct, clear and concise.  "Thou shalt not or thou art not a christian".  PERIOD.

So these "christians" who are staying quiet and turning their backs on this spread that makes no apologies or doesn't even try to hide the fact that it is after destroying core christian values...it arrogantly challenges them...  these christians are essentially taking communion at the altar of the horned goat fellow by their silence apathy and willful misunderstanding of their core faith.  They know it's wrong.  They feel it in their hearts.  It squirms against their every attempt to squelch it in the pit of their stomach.  _"This culture cannot be allowed around our impressionable children, our society"._

Yet in Jude 1 even with this harrowing commandment that pains with the punishment of eternal torture of the soul for failing to abide, it still follows the cores of Jesus' teachings of compassion.  It dares to assert that you can reject behaviors-become-culture [like the nazi movement] but you can extend the hand of compassion to the INDIVIDUALS caught up in that culture... Here's what Jude 1: 22 goes on to say:

_"And of some have compassion, making a difference."_

The idea is to stop the wildfire and pull the unwitting victims caught up in it back to their salvation.  Get it?

To violate the core commandments of one's belief...those that come with eternal torture to the soul promised for failure to abide...is to voilate the entirety of religion itself.  And thereby you have completely killed it in the heart of that person and that person thereafter is no longer christian and is wide open to "whatever fate" awaits them.

Requiring christians to enable passively, actively or otherwise promote the spread of the gay culture, paramount of which would be their "marriages" and ensuing lawsuits to adopt orphans is INSEPERABLE FROM SUSPENDING A PERSON OR CHURCH'S 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PRACTICE RELIGION.  There isn't even a whiff of a discernable difference.

And the Pope's silence on all of this?  Well let's just say this...no matter how much dirt the Vatican found out that the gay mafia had on its high-ranking officials "caught up in the wildfire" of the gay culture...those sentenced to the pit of torture needn't worry about running into them in the afterlife.  Because they, via their unique position to make an instant change in the favor of God's unwavering commandment as to this issue, even if it means losing some of their careers...will be rewarded so much more darkly so than the average sinner that their final abode will be several levels below the basement of the most vile and despicable heretics that they'll never even run into each other...


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares, you are not a scholar, not a believer, not an attender, any more than is Sil.
> 
> Move long, son, nothing here for you.



You are a novice Jake, no more....no less.

You've no idea what my degree is in 

But you DO know that I know more about what you may or may not believe than you do.

IS Jesus the Son of God,did he die for you sins, was he raised from the dead 3 days later....was it for the remission of sin?

IS the Bible the inspired word inerrant  and infallible?

All of this goes to whether or not you are even qualified to talk of the Church and whether or not they should perform homosexual weddings.


----------



## Skylar

> I was going to say about the poll that hasn't been brought up about the SHEER NUMBERS of people that voted on it. No one will dispute it is one of the biggest polls in USMB history. And the over 150 people who voted on it didn't show up to post about how they voted...They just voted and quietly disappeared back into the membership rolls here at USMB, to talk about other topics that wouldn't get them as hotly-flamed as anyone daring to speak their actual mind on gay marriage....
> 
> ...thinking caps on yet election strategists?....
> 
> It shows why election upsets are happening...because the opinions about gay marriage haven't gone away. And they show up at the polls. It's why state after state kept voting for traditional marriage. And they still would [look at the poll again]. Just because you've successfully frightened people into silence, doesn't mean you have won their heart.



The mistake that you're making, that you almost always make....is you assume that the 'opinions about gay marriage' are exactly like your own. But that's simply not the case. Support for gay marriage outpaces opposition by about 10 points. You assume that opposition to churches being forced to perform gay marriage is opposition to gay marriage. That's also blithering nonsense. As one doesn't imply the other. 

For example, I don't think churches should be forced to perform gay marriages. But I strongly support gay marriage. One is a product of religion. The other legal recognition by the State. They're distinctly separate issues.

You combine them in your head. And feel free. You blunder when you insist that everyone else must do what you do.


----------



## Skylar

> The devil's spokesman wants you and me and anyone speaking against his sex fetish cult replacing, utterly.. core christian mandates...not values...not suggestions...to "move along". Of course he does!   Forget the wolf in sheep's clothing. He is the viper in a V-neck.



And now you're getting down to why the gay marriage opponents have so consistently lost in court. They can't bring up their real reasons for opposing gay marriage in a court of law; religious opposition. As one journalist so deftly put it, there's no legal precedent created by the case Yahweh v. Sodom. 

Leaving gay marriage opponents with middling second tier arguments that are easily refuted with an even casual review of the facts.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> And now you're getting down to why the *gay marriage opponents have so consistently lost in court. They can't bring up their real reasons for opposing gay marriage in a court of law*; religious opposition. As one journalist so deftly put it, there's no legal precedent created by the case Yahweh v. Sodom.
> 
> Leaving gay marriage opponents with middling second tier arguments that are easily refuted with an even casual review of the facts.


 Real reason:

CHILDREN.  The LGBT subculture gets behind these folks 100% and they do these things in front of kids.  They even invite kids to march alongside the S&M, leather and bondage crowd..

Maybe it's time for pro-traditional folks to make judges watch "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" and put up posters with these characters [or far far worse in many cases but USMB won't allow me to post those pride pictures here] in open court while their arguments are being made.  It would be very hard for an "impartial" judge to sit staring at a life-sized poster with these displays while he hears compelling testimony from adoption agencies explaining how legalizing this cult's "cultural pride" into marriage would mean they would have no defense to disquality them as potential "parents" for their orphan wards in their charge.

I'd think THAT might make a difference in court.


----------



## Skylar

> CHILDREN. The LGBT subculture gets behind these folks 100% and they do these things in front of kids. They even invite kids to march alongside the S&M, leather and bondage crowd..



Children aren't a requirement of marriage. No one, straight or gay, is required to have children or be able to in order to get married. So you'd be inventing a legal standard that exists no where for anyone.....then bizarrely applying it only to gays. 

That's an obvious equal protection violation. Which might explain the near perfect record of failure by gay marriage opponents in court.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> CHILDREN. The LGBT subculture gets behind these folks 100% and they do these things in front of kids. They even invite kids to march alongside the S&M, leather and bondage crowd..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Children aren't a requirement of marriage.* No one, straight or gay, is required to have children or be able to in order to get married. So you'd be inventing a legal standard that exists no where for anyone.....then bizarrely applying it only to gays.
> 
> That's an obvious equal protection violation. Which might explain the near perfect record of failure by gay marriage opponents in court.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the judge Skylar.  Boldy stand up and declare in front of those posters that "children don't matter in the marriage discussion".

Go ahead.  Declare that in open court when a gay marriage case is being heard.  I dare you.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CHILDREN. The LGBT subculture gets behind these folks 100% and they do these things in front of kids. They even invite kids to march alongside the S&M, leather and bondage crowd..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Children aren't a requirement of marriage.* No one, straight or gay, is required to have children or be able to in order to get married. So you'd be inventing a legal standard that exists no where for anyone.....then bizarrely applying it only to gays.
> 
> That's an obvious equal protection violation. Which might explain the near perfect record of failure by gay marriage opponents in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the judge Skylar.  Boldy stand up and declare in front of those posters that "children don't matter in the marriage discussion".
> 
> Go ahead.  Declare that in open court when a gay marriage case is being heard.  I dare you.
Click to expand...



You changed her words SIL, she didn't say "children don't matter" she said "children aren't a requirement".  Two very different things.

Not one State in the union requires any couple to have children to become married, individuals that are known to be infertile and can't have children, and certain couples are required to provide proof in a court of law showing they CANNOT have children prior to being allowed to Civilly Marry.

Children are not a requirement of Civil Marriage in any State, therefore to attempt to hold one group to a standard that is irrelevant to disqualify another group, who in all other respects qualify, with no compelling government interest - is a violation of the principal of equal treatment under the law.


*************************

And if you had bothered to actually read and understand the Appeals Court decisions that very logic was *BOLDLY* presented in the briefings and (in the case I listened to) in oral arguments when questioned.

>>>>


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CHILDREN. The LGBT subculture gets behind these folks 100% and they do these things in front of kids. They even invite kids to march alongside the S&M, leather and bondage crowd..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Children aren't a requirement of marriage.* No one, straight or gay, is required to have children or be able to in order to get married. So you'd be inventing a legal standard that exists no where for anyone.....then bizarrely applying it only to gays.
> 
> That's an obvious equal protection violation. Which might explain the near perfect record of failure by gay marriage opponents in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the judge Skylar.  Boldy stand up and declare in front of those posters that "children don't matter in the marriage discussion".
> 
> Go ahead.  Declare that in open court when a gay marriage case is being heard.  I dare you.
Click to expand...


If the judges are so compelled by your argument that gays marriage is so harmful to children, why then do they keep ruling against gay marriage bans? Surely you've stood in open court, again and again, and offered your 'its about the children' argument. 

Clearly it didn't convince them. What do they know that you don't?


----------



## Skylar

> Children are not a requirement of Civil Marriage in any State, therefore to attempt to hold one group to a standard that is irrelevant to disqualify another group, who in all other respects qualify, with no compelling government interest - is a violation of the principal of equal treatment under the law.



Exactly. Either the 'children are a requirement' standard applies to everyone, or no one. And under the law of every state in the Union, it applies to no one.


----------



## JakeStarkey

One, Sil should not, "You changed her words SIL, she didn't say "children don't matter" she said "children aren't a requirement".

Don't cheat, Sil.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> *Children aren't a requirement of marriage.* No one, straight or gay, is required to have children or be able to in order to get married. So you'd be inventing a legal standard that exists no where for anyone.....then bizarrely applying it only to gays.
> 
> That's an obvious equal protection violation. Which might explain the near perfect record of failure by gay marriage opponents in court.


 
That's what Skylar said.  I quoted his actual words.  Then I said:



> Tell that to the judge Skylar.  Boldy stand up and declare in front of those posters that "children don't matter in the marriage discussion".
> 
> Go ahead.  Declare that in open court when a gay marriage case is being heard.  I dare you.


 
Skylar's point was "we don't talk about children when we talk about marriage because that conversation isn't required" .  Is there another way to interpret that? 

And more to the point of this thread is the point of orphaned children.  Orphans have custodians called "adoption agents".  Many of these orphanges and their agents are part of religious institutions.  Catholics would be #1 of these.  Gay marriage will force these institutions and agencies to either close adoption to non-followers or allow children into homes where two "parents" are two gay people role-playing "mom and dad" to their ward's predictable detriment.  Which is a core violation of their faith.  This is how gay marriage is harmful.  It's a pebble dropped in a pond whose waves will hit many legal shores people refuse to extrapolate at the present moment for the sake of avoiding being beat up, political-correctness [which is to say "avoiding being beaten up"] or for reasons of political expediency.

And none of those reasons are good enough to justify putting kids into situations we know and predict will be harmful to them.  Not to mention a legal situation where churches cannot practice the essence of their faith as a matter of secular law forbidding them from doing so.


----------



## Skylar

> Skylar's point was "we don't talk about children when we talk about marriage because that conversation isn't required" . Is there another way to interpret that?



My point was....children aren't a requirement of marriage. Why then would we exclude gays and lesbians from marriage based on a requirement that applies to no one?


----------



## Seawytch

Skylar said:


> Skylar's point was "we don't talk about children when we talk about marriage because that conversation isn't required" . Is there another way to interpret that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was....children aren't a requirement of marriage. Why then would we exclude gays and lesbians from marriage based on a requirement that applies to no one?
Click to expand...


Well duh...they're gay (see icky)


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar's point was "we don't talk about children when we talk about marriage because that conversation isn't required" . Is there another way to interpret that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was....children aren't a requirement of marriage. Why then would we exclude gays and lesbians from marriage based on a requirement that applies to no one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well duh...they're gay (see icky)
Click to expand...


Ah, the Icky Standard. Set in 'U.S. V Snakes and Snails and Puppy Dog Tails (1983)'. I'm pretty sure that was overturned in 'E. Bunny Vs. L.N. Monster' about 7 or 8 years ago.


----------



## Seawytch

Skylar said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar's point was "we don't talk about children when we talk about marriage because that conversation isn't required" . Is there another way to interpret that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was....children aren't a requirement of marriage. Why then would we exclude gays and lesbians from marriage based on a requirement that applies to no one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well duh...they're gay (see icky)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the Icky Standard. Set in 'U.S. V Snakes and Snails and Puppy Dog Tails (1983)'. I'm pretty sure that was overturned in 'E. Bunny Vs. L.N. Monster' about 7 or 8 years ago.
Click to expand...


Bastard. Coca cola out the shnoz!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Darn those case precedents!


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now you're getting down to why the *gay marriage opponents have so consistently lost in court. They can't bring up their real reasons for opposing gay marriage in a court of law*; religious opposition. As one journalist so deftly put it, there's no legal precedent created by the case Yahweh v. Sodom.
> 
> Leaving gay marriage opponents with middling second tier arguments that are easily refuted with an even casual review of the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Real reason:
> 
> CHILDREN.  The LGBT subculture gets behind these folks 100% and they do these things in front of kids.  They even invite kids to march alongside the S&M, leather and bondage crowd..
> 
> Maybe it's time for pro-traditional folks to make judges watch "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" and put up posters with these characters [or far far worse in many cases but USMB won't allow me to post those pride pictures here] in open court while their arguments are being made.  It would be very hard for an "impartial" judge to sit staring at a life-sized poster with these displays while he hears compelling testimony from adoption agencies explaining how legalizing this cult's "cultural pride" into marriage would mean they would have no defense to disquality them as potential "parents" for their orphan wards in their charge.
> 
> I'd think THAT might make a difference in court.
Click to expand...


How many times are you gonna post your gay pride family photos?


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Skylar's point was "we don't talk about children when we talk about marriage because that conversation isn't required" . Is there another way to interpret that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was....children aren't a requirement of marriage. Why then would we exclude gays and lesbians from marriage based on a requirement that applies to no one?
Click to expand...

 
Children are integral to marriage.  One cannot discuss marriage without considering that this is the main venue in which children spend their formative psychological years.  When you place children in homes where the adults are participants in a culture that gets 100% behind lewd deviant sex acts in public, soberly, as a matter of "pride" where they expect, hope and invite children to watch and participate, the issue of how relevent children are to this legal discussion bumps up to first place.

You cannot intellectually or legally divorce children from ANY conversation about the definition of marriage.  You're saying you can.  And what I'm saying is that shows a marked addition to the criminally-negligent refusal of LGBT culture adherants to the wellbeing and considerations of children and their formative lives..


----------



## Skylar

> Children are integral to marriage.



Not one state requires children for a marriage to be valid. Not one state requires the ability to have children for a marriage to be valid. You're insisting we invent a legal standard that applies *to no one.* And then apply it only to gays for the purpose of excluding them from legally recognized marriage.

Um, no. That's a clear equal protection violation and violates the 14th amendment.


----------



## Kosh

Skylar said:


> Children are integral to marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one state requires children for a marriage to be valid. Not one state requires the ability to have children for a marriage to be valid. You're insisting we invent a legal standard that applies *to no one.* And then apply it only to gays for the purpose of excluding them from legally recognized marriage.
> 
> Um, no. That's a clear equal protection violation and violates the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...


Yet this is one of the debunked talking points for gay "Marriage"..


----------



## Skylar

> Yet this is one of the debunked talking points for gay "Marriage"..



Then it will be remarkably easy for you to explain *how* it is debunked. Don't tell us. _Show us._ Make your argument.


----------



## Kosh

Skylar said:


> Yet this is one of the debunked talking points for gay "Marriage"..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it will be remarkably easy for you to explain *how* it is debunked. Don't tell us. _Show us._ Make your argument.
Click to expand...


You have made it for me. That is the part you do not get!


----------



## Skylar

Kosh said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet this is one of the debunked talking points for gay "Marriage"..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it will be remarkably easy for you to explain *how* it is debunked. Don't tell us. _Show us._ Make your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have made it for me. That is the part you do not get!
Click to expand...


Translation: even you can't make your argument work. My claims stand unrefuted. Hell, you have yet to even disagree with me.

_Not one state requires children for a marriage to be valid. Not one state requires the ability to have children for a marriage to be valid. You're insisting we invent a legal standard that applies *to no one.* And then apply it only to gays for the purpose of excluding them from legally recognized marriage.

Um, no. That's a clear equal protection violation and violates the 14th amendment._


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kosh said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Children are integral to marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one state requires children for a marriage to be valid. Not one state requires the ability to have children for a marriage to be valid. You're insisting we invent a legal standard that applies *to no one.* And then apply it only to gays for the purpose of excluding them from legally recognized marriage.
> 
> Um, no. That's a clear equal protection violation and violates the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet this is one of the debunked talking points for gay "Marriage"..
Click to expand...

No state at all requires a marriage to have even the option to be pro-creative, Kosh, much less mandate it.

Not one.


----------



## Kosh

JakeStarkey said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Children are integral to marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one state requires children for a marriage to be valid. Not one state requires the ability to have children for a marriage to be valid. You're insisting we invent a legal standard that applies *to no one.* And then apply it only to gays for the purpose of excluding them from legally recognized marriage.
> 
> Um, no. That's a clear equal protection violation and violates the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet this is one of the debunked talking points for gay "Marriage"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No state at all requires a marriage to have even the option to be pro-creative, Kosh, much less mandate it.
> 
> Not one.
Click to expand...


Once again the far left shows they are clueless on the Constitution as well as this subject.

Yet this is one of the debunked talking points for gay "Marriage".

To bad the far left programmed drones do not understand context..


----------



## JakeStarkey

Koshbot goes blah, blah, blah.

The far right was debunked, and the voters are showing it in the primaries.

Remember that the far right can only lose elections not win them.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Koshbot goes blah, blah, blah.
> 
> The far right was debunked, and the voters are showing it in the primaries.
> 
> Remember that the far right can only lose elections not win them.


Here's the LGBT strategy: beat up anyone who has an opposing opinion to gay marriage.  Then sit back and destroy the democratic party when numbers like the ones in the poll above come out of their silent, battered caves to express their anger in the one venue they still feel safe they can anonymously do so.

And now the conservatives are risking the same fate.  See you at the polls.  Or maybe not.  Will know in a couple weeks.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Here's the anti marriage equality strategy.  Beat "up anyone who has an opposing opinion" to marriage equality.  Pretend to be for the children when in fact willingly let the great majority of children be exposed to abuse by heterosexuals.

Sil, you are a goof ball, pure and simple.

The issue is over at the polls.  Watch and see.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Here's the anti marriage equality strategy.  Beat "up anyone who has an opposing opinion" to marriage equality.  Pretend to be for the children when in fact willingly let the great majority of children be exposed to abuse by heterosexuals.
> 
> Sil, you are a goof ball, pure and simple.
> 
> The issue is over at the polls.  Watch and see.


 The 82% say they want to regulate which behaviors may force a church to marry them...and then of course later to adopt orphans to them.  "Private vs public" accomodation, right Jakey?  Catholic orphanages currently adopt out kids to catholics and non-catholics.  If they want to stay faithful to their core values as outlined in Jude 1, if gays get to marry...any lawsuit will force catholic orphanges to close their doors to the general public in order to protect the children from a culture/cult that is 100% behind lewd sex acts in front of kids in public in unapologetic/unrepentant "pride".  That will greatly reduce the number of homes where orphans can go.  So children will directly suffer as a result of gay marriage becoming "federally protected".


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Koshbot goes blah, blah, blah.
> 
> The far right was debunked, and the voters are showing it in the primaries.
> 
> Remember that the far right can only lose elections not win them.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the LGBT strategy: beat up anyone who has an opposing opinion to gay marriage.  Then sit back and destroy the democratic party when numbers like the ones in the poll above come out of their silent, battered caves to express their anger in the one venue they still feel safe they can anonymously do so.
> 
> And now the conservatives are risking the same fate.  See you at the polls.  Or maybe not.  Will know in a couple weeks.
Click to expand...


Indeed, your opinions and arguements have consistently been bested not only here but in the courts as well. The reason the GOP isn't harping on gay marriage as they have in the past is because they see the writing on the wall concerning this issue. It's a losing issue for them and they have decided to focus on more pressing matters. Threaten all you wish but they know you folks will go clomping off to the polls and vote for them anyway.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The 82% who answered your poll only said they want churches to not be forced to marry homosexuals.  You had many homosexuals tell you that in posts.

It means absolutely nothing else.  You don't have the votes, Sil: watch this fall and learn.


----------



## mdk

JakeStarkey said:


> The 82% who answered your poll only said they want churches to not be forced to marry homosexuals.  You had many homosexuals tell you that in posts.
> 
> It means absolutely nothing else.  You don't have the votes, Sil: watch this fall and learn.



All they have left is misrepresentations at this point. It is why Sil keeps clinging to this poll as if it speaks to gay marriage when it clearly does not. We both know it only speaks to churches being forced to marry to gays and nothing else. Both of which we have stated should never happen. Besides, using a poll on this forum is hardly indicative of the nation as a whole. Watching their death throes does bring me some joy though.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> The 82% who answered your poll only said they want churches to not be forced to marry homosexuals.  You had many homosexuals tell you that in posts.
> 
> It means absolutely nothing else.  You don't have the votes, Sil: watch this fall and learn.


 It's not "my poll".  I'm not the OP.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the anti marriage equality strategy.  Beat "up anyone who has an opposing opinion" to marriage equality.  Pretend to be for the children when in fact willingly let the great majority of children be exposed to abuse by heterosexuals.
> 
> Sil, you are a goof ball, pure and simple.
> 
> The issue is over at the polls.  Watch and see.
> 
> 
> 
> The 82% say they want to regulate which behaviors may force a church to marry them...and then of course later to adopt orphans to them.  "Private vs public" accomodation, right Jakey?  Catholic orphanages currently adopt out kids to catholics and non-catholics.  If they want to stay faithful to their core values as outlined in Jude 1, if gays get to marry...any lawsuit will force catholic orphanges to close their doors to the general public in order to protect the children from a culture/cult that is 100% behind lewd sex acts in front of kids in public in unapologetic/unrepentant "pride".  That will greatly reduce the number of homes where orphans can go.  So children will directly suffer as a result of gay marriage becoming "federally protected".
Click to expand...

You're a LYING POS.


----------



## JakeStarkey

“The 82% say they” don’t think churches should be required to marry those they wish not to marry, not, in the Silly lie “to regulate which behaviors may force a church to marry them,” right, Silly.

If public accommodation laws say private orphanages have to grant clearance to whom ever, they can opt out of the adoption business if they wish “to stay faithful to their core values”, right, Silly?

We are going to introduce legislation in our state legislature to prevent grooming behavior by heterosexuals who wish to adopt children.


----------



## Conservative65

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...

 
Interesting how you equate free exercise of religious beliefs within the confines of a building as discrimination.


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 82% who answered your poll only said they want churches to not be forced to marry homosexuals.  You had many homosexuals tell you that in posts.
> 
> It means absolutely nothing else.  You don't have the votes, Sil: watch this fall and learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All they have left is misrepresentations at this point. It is why Sil keeps clinging to this poll as if it speaks to gay marriage when it clearly does not.
Click to expand...


Most of Silo's argument is based on projection. Just straight up imagining that whatever Silo feels, others must as well. Despite the fact that this process has failed him again and again and again, he keeps using it. Second, Silo's a bit desperate. And now its just getting ridiculous. Silo's bizarrely insisting that an informal message board poll* that doesn't ask about gay marriage legality* is more indicative of the national opinion on gay marriage legality than Gallup's poll on gay marriage legality.

Which is fucking nuts.

It would be like holding a poll on this board about if you like In n' Out Burger or McDonalds.....and then insisting that the poll indicates national support for PETA. Its just a big bucket of WTF.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting how you equate free exercise of religious beliefs within the confines of a building as discrimination.
Click to expand...


It is discrimination...it's just legal is all.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 82% who answered your poll only said they want churches to not be forced to marry homosexuals.  You had many homosexuals tell you that in posts.
> 
> It means absolutely nothing else.  You don't have the votes, Sil: watch this fall and learn.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "my poll".  I'm not the OP.
Click to expand...


But the poll doesn't ask about the legality of gay marriage. So why in god's name would you insist that it does.....and more batshit, it does more accurately than a Gallup poll that does ask about gay marriage legality.


----------



## Skylar

> You're a LYING POS.



Silo's just desperate. At this point he's willing to throw any random shit on the barn wall and pray that something sticks.

Alas, all that's happening is Silo's getting shit all over himself.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> But the poll doesn't ask about the legality of gay marriage. So why in god's name would you insist that it does.....and more batshit, it does more accurately than a Gallup poll that does ask about gay marriage legality.


 
As you know, the assumption of the question is "if gay marriage is legal....should churches be forced...[etc.]"  Really, destroying your credibility by intellectual dishonesty at this crucial point in the conversation...either way it tips...might be the "tipping point" against you. 

Should be more careful next time?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silly has been the leader board on intellectual dishonesty.

Not even EC is in her league.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silly's trying to duck this.

_“The 82% say they” don’t think churches should be required to marry those they wish not to marry, not, in the Silly lie “to regulate which behaviors may force a church to marry them,” right, Silly.

If public accommodation laws say private orphanages have to grant clearance to whom ever, they can opt out of the adoption business if they wish “to stay faithful to their core values”, right, Silly?

We are going to introduce legislation in our state legislature to prevent grooming behavior by heterosexuals who wish to adopt children._


----------



## Skylar

> As you know, the assumption of the question is "if gay marriage is legal....should churches be forced...[etc.]"



One problem. *You hallucinated your 'implication' version of the question*. The question was: *Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings*

Which carries no implications about nor asks any questions about the legality of gay marriage. So I ask again;



> The informal message board poll doesn't ask about the legality of gay marriage. So why in god's name would you insist that it does? And more batshit, it does more accurately than a Gallup poll that does ask about gay marriage legality?



And this time, do try and answer the question.



> Really, destroying your credibility by intellectual dishonesty at this crucial point in the conversation...either way it tips...might be the "tipping point" against you.


Uh-huh. And of the two of us, who had to reimagine the question the poll asked to make it more closely match their argument? The poll is at the top of the screen of every page in this thread. Its not like we couldn't see it. So what was the point in your lying about it?

You're making unforced errors here.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Uh-huh. And of the two of us, who had to reimagine the question the poll asked to make it more closely match their argument? The poll is at the top of the screen of every page in this thread. Its not like we couldn't see it. So what was the point in your lying about it?
> 
> You're making unforced errors here.


 
Nope, in this case the context of the question is the question.  Obviously no one would "be forced" to have anything at all to do with gay marriage if it wasn't legal.

Next diversion?

BTW, I notice the "no" category is inching back up towards 83%...it's going up.


----------



## Skylar

> Nope, in this case the context of the question is the question. Obviously no one would "be forced" to have anything at all to do with gay marriage if it wasn't legal.



We can all read the question of the poll. Its at the top of the screen. It doesn't say what you claim it does. We can't see the alternate reality version of the polling question that you're hallucinating. _All we see is the one the one that actually exists: _

*"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings"*

And there's no mention of the legality of gay marriage. None.



> BTW, I notice the "no" category is inching back up towards 83%...it's going up.



BTW, I notice that there's *still *no question about the legality of gay marriage in the poll.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*



Not a thing. I support gay marriage. And I don't think that places of worship should be required to hold gay weddings. Marriage equality is about equal protection *under the law. *Religious ceremonies are about expressions of personal faith.

Apples and Oranges.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Nope, in this case the context of the question is the question. Obviously no one would "be forced" to have anything at all to do with gay marriage if it wasn't legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can all read the question of the poll. Its at the top of the screen. It doesn't say what you claim it does. We can't see the alternate reality version of the polling question that you're hallucinating. _All we see is the one the one that actually exists: _
> 
> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings"*
> 
> And there's no mention of the legality of gay marriage. None.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I notice the "no" category is inching back up towards 83%...it's going up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, I notice that there's *still *no question about the legality of gay marriage in the poll.
Click to expand...

 Within the title of the thread...should churches be FORCED to accomodate for homosexual weddings.  How would you force a church if not by law?


----------



## Skylar

> Within the title of the thread...should churches be FORCED to accomodate for homosexual weddings. How would you force a church if not by law?



The poll says this:

*Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings*

No mention of the legality of gay marriage. No implications about the legality of gay marriage. You can't get around that.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> The poll says this:
> 
> *Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings*
> 
> No mention of the legality of gay marriage. No implications about the legality of gay marriage. You can't get around that.


Yes, "no mention of the legality of gay marriage... *EXCEPT IN THE TITLE WITH THE CHOICE OF THE WORD* "*FORCED*".


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a thing. I support gay marriage. And I don't think that places of worship should be required to hold gay weddings. Marriage equality is about equal protection *under the law. *Religious ceremonies are about expressions of personal faith.
> 
> Apples and Oranges.
Click to expand...



Exactly.

Churches should not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that they don't believe should be married in their church.

I cannot be married in a Catholic Church or a Synagogue. 

And no one has a problem with that.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

JakeStarkey said:


> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*



Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.

You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.

I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.
Click to expand...


We've had PA laws since the 60s. Please list all the churches that have been forced to marry interracial or interfaith couples. We'll  wait.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've had PA laws since the 60s. Please list all the churches that have been forced to marry interracial or interfaith couples. We'll  wait.
Click to expand...


By and large inter racial and interfaith couple aren't as big of assholes out to force the rest of the world to do what they want the way fags are, ALSO respect for others is deteriorating rapidly and what was not acceptable to try to force other people to do 10 years ago is now acceptable.

For instance, can you show a SINGLE example of where an interfaith or interracial couple sued a bakery who refused to bake their wedding cake? No? Neither can I.


----------



## JakeStarkey

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.
Click to expand...



What have I denied?  Of course someone will sue, and I will oppose it as any red blooded believer in the 1st Amendment and the Constitution will oppose it.  Such a suit will not be successful.


----------



## JakeStarkey

What's with "fags", averagebear.  We both served with lesbians and gays who were good soldiers.  Don't deny it.  If they were willing to do the job and go in harm's way, what is it off your ass anyway.


----------



## Antares

JakeStarkey said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What have I denied?  Of course someone will sue, and I will oppose it as any red blooded believer in the 1st Amendment and the Constitution will oppose it.  Such a suit will not be successful.
Click to expand...


Did someone in your family just come out Jake?


----------



## Skylar

> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.



Oh a gay suing a Christian church is an absolute certainty. Almost as much as that gay getting laughed out of court.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have said several times on the Board my youngest brother is gay, and has been out for at least 15 years.

A couple of the far right have had children come out recently, so let's be easy on them.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've had PA laws since the 60s. Please list all the churches that have been forced to marry interracial or interfaith couples. We'll  wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By and large inter racial and interfaith couple aren't as big of assholes out to force the rest of the world to do what they want the way fags are, ALSO respect for others is deteriorating rapidly and what was not acceptable to try to force other people to do 10 years ago is now acceptable.
> 
> For instance, can you show a SINGLE example of where an interfaith or interracial couple sued a bakery who refused to bake their wedding cake? No? Neither can I.
Click to expand...



Ta da!!!! The answer you're looking for is none. No church has ever been forced to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. Now let's see if you know WHY that is...

Public Accommodation laws have existed since the 60s...do you think those were for "the gheys"?


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.
Click to expand...

How many times are you gonna get this wrong?   Public accommodation laws have nothing to do with religious marriage ceremonies held at a church.  How many times?  Seriously?  What part is confusing you about the fact that marriage ceremonies at churches are not a service that is for sale to the public?


----------



## Seawytch

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times are you gonna get this wrong?   Public accommodation laws have nothing to do with religious marriage ceremonies held at a church.  How many times?  Seriously?  What part is confusing you about the fact that marriage ceremonies at churches are not a service that is for sale to the public?
Click to expand...


Not just that, but they have been challenged and were found constitutional. Why do they ignore that fact?


----------



## RKMBrown

Seawytch said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times are you gonna get this wrong?   Public accommodation laws have nothing to do with religious marriage ceremonies held at a church.  How many times?  Seriously?  What part is confusing you about the fact that marriage ceremonies at churches are not a service that is for sale to the public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just that, but they have been challenged and were found constitutional. Why do they ignore that fact?
Click to expand...

FUD.  Someone said it happened and the FUD just keeps getting thrown around.  The bear latched onto that for sale public pavilion thing and just won't let go.  He's like a bulldawg with jaws clamped down on public accommodation and he's not gonna let go.

I understand his point... guys like him and I really just don't like being TOLD what to do.  Our businesses are ours no one else's. 

But it's not just about our businesses... PA is about consumer protection.  The liberty to spend the money you earned in the public market place.  The liberty to not be subject to oligopolies run by bigots in the public market place.


----------



## Seawytch

RKMBrown said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times are you gonna get this wrong?   Public accommodation laws have nothing to do with religious marriage ceremonies held at a church.  How many times?  Seriously?  What part is confusing you about the fact that marriage ceremonies at churches are not a service that is for sale to the public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just that, but they have been challenged and were found constitutional. Why do they ignore that fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FUD.  Someone said it happened and the FUD just keeps getting thrown around.  The bear latched onto that for sale public pavilion thing and just won't let go.  He's like a bulldawg with jaws clamped down on public accommodation and he's not gonna let go.
> 
> I understand his point... guys like him and I really just don't like being TOLD what to do.  Our businesses are ours no one else's.
> 
> But it's not just about our businesses... PA is about consumer protection.  The liberty to spend the money you earned in the public market place.  The liberty to not be subject to oligopolies run by bigots in the public market place.
Click to expand...


I understand the point too. If I owned a business, I'd want to kick all jesus loving bible thumpers out...but PA laws prevent me from doing so and have for decades. Did they bitch about those? Fuck no...they only care about them because they protect ME in some places just like they protect them...and we just can't have THAT!


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Skylar said:


> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a gay suing a Christian church is an absolute certainty. Almost as much as that gay getting laughed out of court.
Click to expand...



That's all I'm saying. It WILL happen. I never said the gay would win.

Some here just can't read apparently.


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a gay suing a Christian church is an absolute certainty. Almost as much as that gay getting laughed out of court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's all I'm saying. It WILL happen. I never said the gay would win.
> 
> Some here just can't read apparently.
Click to expand...

Anyone can sue anyone for anything.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a gay suing a Christian church is an absolute certainty. Almost as much as that gay getting laughed out of court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's all I'm saying. It WILL happen. I never said the gay would win.
> 
> Some here just can't read apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
Click to expand...


This is of course true. But the point remains, people sue over silly shit today that no court would have entertained 20 years ago, and as silly lawsuits become the norm , pressure will be put on the courts to rule in favor of the "injured" party. Especially given the overall anger towards Christians in this country lately.

Don't tell me you can't see the very real possibility of some stupid ass circuit court ruling in favor of a gay. Sure , as of right NOW SCOTUS would overturn, but will they in 10 years? I'm doubtful as we slide further and further into the abyss of stupidity where people don't understand that their rights end where another person's begin.

As I said, 10 years ago, if you had suggested a Christian baker would be ordered by a court to bake a cake for a wedding you would have A) Scoffed at the idea of a gay suing over such a thing rather than just going to a different baker and B) said that there was no way a court would even entertain the case let alone found in the fags favor.

I've honestly never seen 3% of the population cause so much angst and turmoil. They should be embarrassed, I'm embarrassed for them. as they prove time and time again that they are not just wanting EQUALITY. They want to force their lifestyle on everyone.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a gay suing a Christian church is an absolute certainty. Almost as much as that gay getting laughed out of court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's all I'm saying. It WILL happen. I never said the gay would win.
> 
> Some here just can't read apparently.
Click to expand...


You're being ridiculous for nothing. Good to know...

No case would even get off the ground.


----------



## JakeStarkey

averagebear, like many average field grade officers, misjudge their understanding of issues beyond their training and experience.  He does so with this issue.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

JakeStarkey said:


> averagebear, like many average field grade officers, misjudge their understanding of issues beyond their training and experience.  He does so with this issue.[/QUOTE



I am pro gay marriage Jake. I merely point out that they have an agenda, and forcing churches to marry them is on that agenda.

On that note, why the hell are churches exempt from SOME laws? I mean that is ridiculous. If the separation of church and state that allegedly was meant to exist in this country allows churches to be exempt from SOME laws, then they should be exempt from ALL laws because let's say for instance a Church that believes in killing non believers should be exempt from laws against murder . Oh , people have a right to not be murdered you say? Well, allegedly people have a right to force businesses to do business with them to, how are Churches exempt from those laws?

And I believe that is EXACTLY the route faggots are going to take , and they will be legally correct. The government IS picking and choosing religions when they say "okay if you don't believe in gay marriage you don't have to perform gay marriages" to one religion while telling another religion " oh you believe murder is acceptable? Too fucking bad" to another religion.


and churches ARE businesses

Mega churches mean big business - CNN.com


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a gay suing a Christian church is an absolute certainty. Almost as much as that gay getting laughed out of court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's all I'm saying. It WILL happen. I never said the gay would win.
> 
> Some here just can't read apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is of course true. But the point remains, people sue over silly shit today that no court would have entertained 20 years ago, and as silly lawsuits become the norm , pressure will be put on the courts to rule in favor of the "injured" party. Especially given the overall anger towards Christians in this country lately.
> 
> Don't tell me you can't see the very real possibility of some stupid ass circuit court ruling in favor of a gay. Sure , as of right NOW SCOTUS would overturn, but will they in 10 years? I'm doubtful as we slide further and further into the abyss of stupidity where people don't understand that their rights end where another person's begin.
> 
> As I said, 10 years ago, if you had suggested a Christian baker would be ordered by a court to bake a cake for a wedding you would have A) Scoffed at the idea of a gay suing over such a thing rather than just going to a different baker and B) said that there was no way a court would even entertain the case let alone found in the fags favor.
> 
> I've honestly never seen 3% of the population cause so much angst and turmoil. They should be embarrassed, I'm embarrassed for them. as they prove time and time again that they are not just wanting EQUALITY. They want to force their lifestyle on everyone.
Click to expand...

No I can't see courts forcing a church to join two gays in holy matrimony against the church's will. I think you are sort of missing the point behind the religious ceremony.  Maybe mixing it up with the govco marriage license thing.  They could sue a ships captn. to marry them on a ship... but that's not necessarily a religious marriage ceremony.  Marriage does not equal religious ceremony.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a gay suing a Christian church is an absolute certainty. Almost as much as that gay getting laughed out of court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's all I'm saying. It WILL happen. I never said the gay would win.
> 
> Some here just can't read apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is of course true. But the point remains, people sue over silly shit today that no court would have entertained 20 years ago, and as silly lawsuits become the norm , pressure will be put on the courts to rule in favor of the "injured" party. Especially given the overall anger towards Christians in this country lately.
> 
> Don't tell me you can't see the very real possibility of some stupid ass circuit court ruling in favor of a gay. Sure , as of right NOW SCOTUS would overturn, but will they in 10 years? I'm doubtful as we slide further and further into the abyss of stupidity where people don't understand that their rights end where another person's begin.
> 
> As I said, 10 years ago, if you had suggested a Christian baker would be ordered by a court to bake a cake for a wedding you would have A) Scoffed at the idea of a gay suing over such a thing rather than just going to a different baker and B) said that there was no way a court would even entertain the case let alone found in the fags favor.
> 
> I've honestly never seen 3% of the population cause so much angst and turmoil. They should be embarrassed, I'm embarrassed for them. as they prove time and time again that they are not just wanting EQUALITY. They want to force their lifestyle on everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I can't see courts forcing a church to join two gays in holy matrimony against the church's will.
Click to expand...



see
Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 164 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

RKMBrown  don't ignore the above post


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> No I can't see courts forcing a church to join two gays in holy matrimony against the church's will. I think you are sort of missing the point behind the religious ceremony.  Maybe mixing it up with the govco marriage license thing.  They could sue a ships captn. to marry them on a ship... but that's not necessarily a religious marriage ceremony.  Marriage does not equal religious ceremony.


 
But I'm sure you can see the courts forcing churches to adopt orphans to go to gay pride homes in violation of their core faith...or risk losing public funding to keep their orphans in care...


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a gay suing a Christian church is an absolute certainty. Almost as much as that gay getting laughed out of court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's all I'm saying. It WILL happen. I never said the gay would win.
> 
> Some here just can't read apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is of course true. But the point remains, people sue over silly shit today that no court would have entertained 20 years ago, and as silly lawsuits become the norm , pressure will be put on the courts to rule in favor of the "injured" party. Especially given the overall anger towards Christians in this country lately.
> 
> Don't tell me you can't see the very real possibility of some stupid ass circuit court ruling in favor of a gay. Sure , as of right NOW SCOTUS would overturn, but will they in 10 years? I'm doubtful as we slide further and further into the abyss of stupidity where people don't understand that their rights end where another person's begin.
> 
> As I said, 10 years ago, if you had suggested a Christian baker would be ordered by a court to bake a cake for a wedding you would have A) Scoffed at the idea of a gay suing over such a thing rather than just going to a different baker and B) said that there was no way a court would even entertain the case let alone found in the fags favor.
> 
> I've honestly never seen 3% of the population cause so much angst and turmoil. They should be embarrassed, I'm embarrassed for them. as they prove time and time again that they are not just wanting EQUALITY. They want to force their lifestyle on everyone.
Click to expand...

Some gays want to force their lifestyle... some straights want to use them to make themselves look cool  Some hetero's want to force their religious views on gays.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I can't see courts forcing a church to join two gays in holy matrimony against the church's will. I think you are sort of missing the point behind the religious ceremony.  Maybe mixing it up with the govco marriage license thing.  They could sue a ships captn. to marry them on a ship... but that's not necessarily a religious marriage ceremony.  Marriage does not equal religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm sure you can see the courts forcing churches to adopt orphans to go to gay pride homes in violation of their core faith...or risk losing public funding to keep their orphans in care...
Click to expand...

Yes, that could happen.  You go public.. public rules come with the money.


----------



## Seawytch

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a gay suing a Christian church is an absolute certainty. Almost as much as that gay getting laughed out of court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's all I'm saying. It WILL happen. I never said the gay would win.
> 
> Some here just can't read apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is of course true. But the point remains, people sue over silly shit today that no court would have entertained 20 years ago, and as silly lawsuits become the norm , pressure will be put on the courts to rule in favor of the "injured" party. Especially given the overall anger towards Christians in this country lately.
> 
> Don't tell me you can't see the very real possibility of some stupid ass circuit court ruling in favor of a gay. Sure , as of right NOW SCOTUS would overturn, but will they in 10 years? I'm doubtful as we slide further and further into the abyss of stupidity where people don't understand that their rights end where another person's begin.
> 
> As I said, 10 years ago, if you had suggested a Christian baker would be ordered by a court to bake a cake for a wedding you would have A) Scoffed at the idea of a gay suing over such a thing rather than just going to a different baker and B) said that there was no way a court would even entertain the case let alone found in the fags favor.
> 
> I've honestly never seen 3% of the population cause so much angst and turmoil. They should be embarrassed, I'm embarrassed for them. as they prove time and time again that they are not just wanting EQUALITY. They want to force their lifestyle on everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I can't see courts forcing a church to join two gays in holy matrimony against the church's will. I think you are sort of missing the point behind the religious ceremony.  Maybe mixing it up with the govco marriage license thing.  They could sue a ships captn. to marry them on a ship... but that's not necessarily a religious marriage ceremony.  Marriage does not equal religious ceremony.
Click to expand...


I don't think they could even sue a ship's captain. They could sue a city clerk or someone who performs civil ceremonies as an integral part of their job like a JOP, but even a ship's captain would be a stretch of a lawsuit will little to no chance of winning.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a gay suing a Christian church is an absolute certainty. Almost as much as that gay getting laughed out of court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all I'm saying. It WILL happen. I never said the gay would win.
> 
> Some here just can't read apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is of course true. But the point remains, people sue over silly shit today that no court would have entertained 20 years ago, and as silly lawsuits become the norm , pressure will be put on the courts to rule in favor of the "injured" party. Especially given the overall anger towards Christians in this country lately.
> 
> Don't tell me you can't see the very real possibility of some stupid ass circuit court ruling in favor of a gay. Sure , as of right NOW SCOTUS would overturn, but will they in 10 years? I'm doubtful as we slide further and further into the abyss of stupidity where people don't understand that their rights end where another person's begin.
> 
> As I said, 10 years ago, if you had suggested a Christian baker would be ordered by a court to bake a cake for a wedding you would have A) Scoffed at the idea of a gay suing over such a thing rather than just going to a different baker and B) said that there was no way a court would even entertain the case let alone found in the fags favor.
> 
> I've honestly never seen 3% of the population cause so much angst and turmoil. They should be embarrassed, I'm embarrassed for them. as they prove time and time again that they are not just wanting EQUALITY. They want to force their lifestyle on everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I can't see courts forcing a church to join two gays in holy matrimony against the church's will. I think you are sort of missing the point behind the religious ceremony.  Maybe mixing it up with the govco marriage license thing.  They could sue a ships captn. to marry them on a ship... but that's not necessarily a religious marriage ceremony.  Marriage does not equal religious ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they could even sue a ship's captain. They could sue a city clerk or someone who performs civil ceremonies as an integral part of their job like a JOP, but even a ship's captain would be a stretch of a lawsuit will little to no chance of winning.
Click to expand...


Pray tell why you believe a ship's captain would be exempt.


----------



## RKMBrown

Seawytch said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a gay suing a Christian church is an absolute certainty. Almost as much as that gay getting laughed out of court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all I'm saying. It WILL happen. I never said the gay would win.
> 
> Some here just can't read apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is of course true. But the point remains, people sue over silly shit today that no court would have entertained 20 years ago, and as silly lawsuits become the norm , pressure will be put on the courts to rule in favor of the "injured" party. Especially given the overall anger towards Christians in this country lately.
> 
> Don't tell me you can't see the very real possibility of some stupid ass circuit court ruling in favor of a gay. Sure , as of right NOW SCOTUS would overturn, but will they in 10 years? I'm doubtful as we slide further and further into the abyss of stupidity where people don't understand that their rights end where another person's begin.
> 
> As I said, 10 years ago, if you had suggested a Christian baker would be ordered by a court to bake a cake for a wedding you would have A) Scoffed at the idea of a gay suing over such a thing rather than just going to a different baker and B) said that there was no way a court would even entertain the case let alone found in the fags favor.
> 
> I've honestly never seen 3% of the population cause so much angst and turmoil. They should be embarrassed, I'm embarrassed for them. as they prove time and time again that they are not just wanting EQUALITY. They want to force their lifestyle on everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I can't see courts forcing a church to join two gays in holy matrimony against the church's will. I think you are sort of missing the point behind the religious ceremony.  Maybe mixing it up with the govco marriage license thing.  They could sue a ships captn. to marry them on a ship... but that's not necessarily a religious marriage ceremony.  Marriage does not equal religious ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they could even sue a ship's captain. They could sue a city clerk or someone who performs civil ceremonies as an integral part of their job like a JOP, but even a ship's captain would be a stretch of a lawsuit will little to no chance of winning.
Click to expand...

I'd take that bet, especially for a cruise ship where the ship advertises weddings may be performed by the captain for the price of a ticket.


----------



## WorldWatcher

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Pray tell why you believe a ship's captain would be exempt.





RKMBrown said:


> I'd take that bet, especially for a cruise ship where the ship advertises weddings may be performed by the captain for the price of a ticket.






What You Need to Know to Get Married at Sea
The Straight Dope Are ships captains allowed to marry people at sea 
Can Boat Captains Really Marry People Mental Floss



>>>>


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> averagebear, like many average field grade officers, misjudge their understanding of issues beyond their training and experience.  He does so with this issue.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am pro gay marriage Jake. I merely point out that they have an agenda, and forcing churches to marry them is on that agenda.
> 
> On that note, why the hell are churches exempt from SOME laws? I mean that is ridiculous. If the separation of church and state that allegedly was meant to exist in this country allows churches to be exempt from SOME laws, then they should be exempt from ALL laws because let's say for instance a Church that believes in killing non believers should be exempt from laws against murder . Oh , people have a right to not be murdered you say? Well, allegedly people have a right to force businesses to do business with them to, how are Churches exempt from those laws?
> 
> And I believe that is EXACTLY the route faggots are going to take , and they will be legally correct. The government IS picking and choosing religions when they say "okay if you don't believe in gay marriage you don't have to perform gay marriages" to one religion while telling another religion " oh you believe murder is acceptable? Too fucking bad" to another religion.
> 
> 
> and churches ARE businesses
> 
> Mega churches mean big business - CNN.com
Click to expand...

Churches are exempt from some laws, because they are "private" organizations, and because they are protected by the 1st Amendment.   The constitution is VERY CLEAR regarding the protections afforded to religion in this country.

Liberty does not mean the liberty to KILL people.  

Churches are not exempt from public accommodation laws.  If a church puts up a table selling pumpkins at the local farmers market, they can't discriminate who they sell to.

The religious ceremonies held in a church are not for sale to the public.


----------



## RKMBrown

WorldWatcher said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pray tell why you believe a ship's captain would be exempt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd take that bet, especially for a cruise ship where the ship advertises weddings may be performed by the captain for the price of a ticket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What You Need to Know to Get Married at Sea
> The Straight Dope Are ships captains allowed to marry people at sea
> Can Boat Captains Really Marry People Mental Floss
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

My wife's a Notary Public, it's not hard to become one.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I can't see courts forcing a church to join two gays in holy matrimony against the church's will. I think you are sort of missing the point behind the religious ceremony.  Maybe mixing it up with the govco marriage license thing.  They could sue a ships captn. to marry them on a ship... but that's not necessarily a religious marriage ceremony.  Marriage does not equal religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm sure you can see the courts forcing churches to adopt orphans to go to gay pride homes in violation of their core faith...or risk losing public funding to keep their orphans in care...
Click to expand...


Churches are not orphanages.

Orphanages are not churches.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all I'm saying. It WILL happen. I never said the gay would win.
> 
> Some here just can't read apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is of course true. But the point remains, people sue over silly shit today that no court would have entertained 20 years ago, and as silly lawsuits become the norm , pressure will be put on the courts to rule in favor of the "injured" party. Especially given the overall anger towards Christians in this country lately.
> 
> Don't tell me you can't see the very real possibility of some stupid ass circuit court ruling in favor of a gay. Sure , as of right NOW SCOTUS would overturn, but will they in 10 years? I'm doubtful as we slide further and further into the abyss of stupidity where people don't understand that their rights end where another person's begin.
> 
> As I said, 10 years ago, if you had suggested a Christian baker would be ordered by a court to bake a cake for a wedding you would have A) Scoffed at the idea of a gay suing over such a thing rather than just going to a different baker and B) said that there was no way a court would even entertain the case let alone found in the fags favor.
> 
> I've honestly never seen 3% of the population cause so much angst and turmoil. They should be embarrassed, I'm embarrassed for them. as they prove time and time again that they are not just wanting EQUALITY. They want to force their lifestyle on everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I can't see courts forcing a church to join two gays in holy matrimony against the church's will. I think you are sort of missing the point behind the religious ceremony.  Maybe mixing it up with the govco marriage license thing.  They could sue a ships captn. to marry them on a ship... but that's not necessarily a religious marriage ceremony.  Marriage does not equal religious ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they could even sue a ship's captain. They could sue a city clerk or someone who performs civil ceremonies as an integral part of their job like a JOP, but even a ship's captain would be a stretch of a lawsuit will little to no chance of winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pray tell why you believe a ship's captain would be exempt.
Click to expand...


Because it is not a requirement of their job. He is not paid in any way for his questionable ability to perform wedding ceremonies.


----------



## RKMBrown

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is of course true. But the point remains, people sue over silly shit today that no court would have entertained 20 years ago, and as silly lawsuits become the norm , pressure will be put on the courts to rule in favor of the "injured" party. Especially given the overall anger towards Christians in this country lately.
> 
> Don't tell me you can't see the very real possibility of some stupid ass circuit court ruling in favor of a gay. Sure , as of right NOW SCOTUS would overturn, but will they in 10 years? I'm doubtful as we slide further and further into the abyss of stupidity where people don't understand that their rights end where another person's begin.
> 
> As I said, 10 years ago, if you had suggested a Christian baker would be ordered by a court to bake a cake for a wedding you would have A) Scoffed at the idea of a gay suing over such a thing rather than just going to a different baker and B) said that there was no way a court would even entertain the case let alone found in the fags favor.
> 
> I've honestly never seen 3% of the population cause so much angst and turmoil. They should be embarrassed, I'm embarrassed for them. as they prove time and time again that they are not just wanting EQUALITY. They want to force their lifestyle on everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I can't see courts forcing a church to join two gays in holy matrimony against the church's will. I think you are sort of missing the point behind the religious ceremony.  Maybe mixing it up with the govco marriage license thing.  They could sue a ships captn. to marry them on a ship... but that's not necessarily a religious marriage ceremony.  Marriage does not equal religious ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they could even sue a ship's captain. They could sue a city clerk or someone who performs civil ceremonies as an integral part of their job like a JOP, but even a ship's captain would be a stretch of a lawsuit will little to no chance of winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pray tell why you believe a ship's captain would be exempt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it is not a requirement of their job. He is not paid in any way for his questionable ability to perform wedding ceremonies.
Click to expand...

Wedding Cruises Wedding Cruise Packages Destination Weddings Carnival Cruise Lines


----------



## Seawytch

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> averagebear, like many average field grade officers, misjudge their understanding of issues beyond their training and experience.  He does so with this issue.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am pro gay marriage Jake. I merely point out that they have an agenda, and forcing churches to marry them is on that agenda.
> 
> On that note, why the hell are churches exempt from SOME laws? I mean that is ridiculous. If the separation of church and state that allegedly was meant to exist in this country allows churches to be exempt from SOME laws, then they should be exempt from ALL laws because let's say for instance a Church that believes in killing non believers should be exempt from laws against murder . Oh , people have a right to not be murdered you say? Well, allegedly people have a right to force businesses to do business with them to, how are Churches exempt from those laws?
> 
> And I believe that is EXACTLY the route faggots are going to take , and they will be legally correct. The government IS picking and choosing religions when they say "okay if you don't believe in gay marriage you don't have to perform gay marriages" to one religion while telling another religion " oh you believe murder is acceptable? Too fucking bad" to another religion.
> 
> 
> and churches ARE businesses
> 
> Mega churches mean big business - CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are exempt from some laws, because they are "private" organizations, and because they are protected by the 1st Amendment.   The constitution is VERY CLEAR regarding the protections afforded to religion in this country.
> 
> Liberty does not mean the liberty to KILL people.
> 
> Churches are not exempt from public accommodation laws.  If a church puts up a table selling pumpkins at the local farmers market, they can't discriminate who they sell to.
> 
> The religious ceremonies held in a church are not for sale to the public.
Click to expand...


Which is exactly what led to the case the bigots like to bring up as "proof" that churches will be sued. A church had an agreement to rent out part of their property *to the public*. They were, therefore, subject to business laws including (but not limited to) Public Accommodation.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> averagebear, like many average field grade officers, misjudge their understanding of issues beyond their training and experience.  He does so with this issue.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am pro gay marriage Jake. I merely point out that they have an agenda, and forcing churches to marry them is on that agenda.
> 
> On that note, why the hell are churches exempt from SOME laws? I mean that is ridiculous. If the separation of church and state that allegedly was meant to exist in this country allows churches to be exempt from SOME laws, then they should be exempt from ALL laws because let's say for instance a Church that believes in killing non believers should be exempt from laws against murder . Oh , people have a right to not be murdered you say? Well, allegedly people have a right to force businesses to do business with them to, how are Churches exempt from those laws?
> 
> And I believe that is EXACTLY the route faggots are going to take , and they will be legally correct. The government IS picking and choosing religions when they say "okay if you don't believe in gay marriage you don't have to perform gay marriages" to one religion while telling another religion " oh you believe murder is acceptable? Too fucking bad" to another religion.
> 
> 
> and churches ARE businesses
> 
> Mega churches mean big business - CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are exempt from some laws, because they are "private" organizations, and because they are protected by the 1st Amendment.   The constitution is VERY CLEAR regarding the protections afforded to religion in this country.
> 
> Liberty does not mean the liberty to KILL people.
> 
> Churches are not exempt from public accommodation laws.  If a church puts up a table selling pumpkins at the local farmers market, they can't discriminate who they sell to.
> 
> The religious ceremonies held in a church are not for sale to the public.
Click to expand...



You're not looking at it clearly.

We agree, not being murdered is a right. Legally at least public accommodations are a right.

How can a church be exempt from not violating one right, but not the other? If Church A sues and says "hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we?" How would they be wrong?

And dude, this took me two minutes to find

Wedding Ceremonies - All Souls Church

That church is CLEARLY offering church weddings to the public. I mean that isn't even at question is it?

Once again, MANY churches are BUSINESSES and thus how are they exempt from public accommodation laws? Answer, they won't be when some fag sues.

Your belief that it won't happen is naive at best.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> averagebear, like many average field grade officers, misjudge their understanding of issues beyond their training and experience.  He does so with this issue.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am pro gay marriage Jake. I merely point out that they have an agenda, and forcing churches to marry them is on that agenda.
> 
> On that note, why the hell are churches exempt from SOME laws? I mean that is ridiculous. If the separation of church and state that allegedly was meant to exist in this country allows churches to be exempt from SOME laws, then they should be exempt from ALL laws because let's say for instance a Church that believes in killing non believers should be exempt from laws against murder . Oh , people have a right to not be murdered you say? Well, allegedly people have a right to force businesses to do business with them to, how are Churches exempt from those laws?
> 
> And I believe that is EXACTLY the route faggots are going to take , and they will be legally correct. The government IS picking and choosing religions when they say "okay if you don't believe in gay marriage you don't have to perform gay marriages" to one religion while telling another religion " oh you believe murder is acceptable? Too fucking bad" to another religion.
> 
> 
> and churches ARE businesses
> 
> Mega churches mean big business - CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are exempt from some laws, because they are "private" organizations, and because they are protected by the 1st Amendment.   The constitution is VERY CLEAR regarding the protections afforded to religion in this country.
> 
> Liberty does not mean the liberty to KILL people.
> 
> Churches are not exempt from public accommodation laws.  If a church puts up a table selling pumpkins at the local farmers market, they can't discriminate who they sell to.
> 
> The religious ceremonies held in a church are not for sale to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what led to the case the bigots like to bring up as "proof" that churches will be sued. A church had an agreement to rent out part of their property *to the public*. They were, therefore, subject to business laws including (but not limited to) Public Accommodation.
Click to expand...


which leads to what you REALLY want. forcing churches to allow gays to get married in their churches.


----------



## WorldWatcher

RKMBrown said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pray tell why you believe a ship's captain would be exempt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd take that bet, especially for a cruise ship where the ship advertises weddings may be performed by the captain for the price of a ticket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What You Need to Know to Get Married at Sea
> The Straight Dope Are ships captains allowed to marry people at sea
> Can Boat Captains Really Marry People Mental Floss
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My wife's a Notary Public, it's not hard to become one.
Click to expand...



Didn't say it was hard to become a Notary.  That wasn't the question.  

A Captain can't perform a Civil Marriage just by virtue of being a ship's Captain.  If a Captain is a Notary, then your wife could perform a Civil Marriage because she's a notary, not because she's a ship's Captain.  A Captain that is a retired Judge can perform a Civil Marriage also, but not because (s)he's a Captain.



>>>>


----------



## Seawytch

RKMBrown said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is of course true. But the point remains, people sue over silly shit today that no court would have entertained 20 years ago, and as silly lawsuits become the norm , pressure will be put on the courts to rule in favor of the "injured" party. Especially given the overall anger towards Christians in this country lately.
> 
> Don't tell me you can't see the very real possibility of some stupid ass circuit court ruling in favor of a gay. Sure , as of right NOW SCOTUS would overturn, but will they in 10 years? I'm doubtful as we slide further and further into the abyss of stupidity where people don't understand that their rights end where another person's begin.
> 
> As I said, 10 years ago, if you had suggested a Christian baker would be ordered by a court to bake a cake for a wedding you would have A) Scoffed at the idea of a gay suing over such a thing rather than just going to a different baker and B) said that there was no way a court would even entertain the case let alone found in the fags favor.
> 
> I've honestly never seen 3% of the population cause so much angst and turmoil. They should be embarrassed, I'm embarrassed for them. as they prove time and time again that they are not just wanting EQUALITY. They want to force their lifestyle on everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> No I can't see courts forcing a church to join two gays in holy matrimony against the church's will. I think you are sort of missing the point behind the religious ceremony.  Maybe mixing it up with the govco marriage license thing.  They could sue a ships captn. to marry them on a ship... but that's not necessarily a religious marriage ceremony.  Marriage does not equal religious ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they could even sue a ship's captain. They could sue a city clerk or someone who performs civil ceremonies as an integral part of their job like a JOP, but even a ship's captain would be a stretch of a lawsuit will little to no chance of winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pray tell why you believe a ship's captain would be exempt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it is not a requirement of their job. He is not paid in any way for his questionable ability to perform wedding ceremonies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wedding Cruises Wedding Cruise Packages Destination Weddings Carnival Cruise Lines
Click to expand...


From your link:

Ceremony performed by a wedding officiant (non-denominational official/minister or notary public)


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> averagebear, like many average field grade officers, misjudge their understanding of issues beyond their training and experience.  He does so with this issue.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am pro gay marriage Jake. I merely point out that they have an agenda, and forcing churches to marry them is on that agenda.
> 
> On that note, why the hell are churches exempt from SOME laws? I mean that is ridiculous. If the separation of church and state that allegedly was meant to exist in this country allows churches to be exempt from SOME laws, then they should be exempt from ALL laws because let's say for instance a Church that believes in killing non believers should be exempt from laws against murder . Oh , people have a right to not be murdered you say? Well, allegedly people have a right to force businesses to do business with them to, how are Churches exempt from those laws?
> 
> And I believe that is EXACTLY the route faggots are going to take , and they will be legally correct. The government IS picking and choosing religions when they say "okay if you don't believe in gay marriage you don't have to perform gay marriages" to one religion while telling another religion " oh you believe murder is acceptable? Too fucking bad" to another religion.
> 
> 
> and churches ARE businesses
> 
> Mega churches mean big business - CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are exempt from some laws, because they are "private" organizations, and because they are protected by the 1st Amendment.   The constitution is VERY CLEAR regarding the protections afforded to religion in this country.
> 
> Liberty does not mean the liberty to KILL people.
> 
> Churches are not exempt from public accommodation laws.  If a church puts up a table selling pumpkins at the local farmers market, they can't discriminate who they sell to.
> 
> The religious ceremonies held in a church are not for sale to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not looking at it clearly.
> 
> We agree, not being murdered is a right. Legally at least public accommodations are a right.
> 
> How can a church be exempt from not violating one right, but not the other? If Church A sues and says "hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we?" How would they be wrong?
> 
> And dude, this took me two minutes to find
> 
> Wedding Ceremonies - All Souls Church
> 
> That church is CLEARLY offering church weddings to the public. I mean that isn't even at question is it?
> 
> Once again, MANY churches are BUSINESSES and thus how are they exempt from public accommodation laws? Answer, they won't be when some fag sues.
> 
> Your belief that it won't happen is naive at best.
Click to expand...


_All Souls is a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender affirming Welcoming Congregation whose ministers have proudly performed same-gender weddings for decades._
_
 _


----------



## WorldWatcher

RKMBrown said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is of course true. But the point remains, people sue over silly shit today that no court would have entertained 20 years ago, and as silly lawsuits become the norm , pressure will be put on the courts to rule in favor of the "injured" party. Especially given the overall anger towards Christians in this country lately.
> 
> Don't tell me you can't see the very real possibility of some stupid ass circuit court ruling in favor of a gay. Sure , as of right NOW SCOTUS would overturn, but will they in 10 years? I'm doubtful as we slide further and further into the abyss of stupidity where people don't understand that their rights end where another person's begin.
> 
> As I said, 10 years ago, if you had suggested a Christian baker would be ordered by a court to bake a cake for a wedding you would have A) Scoffed at the idea of a gay suing over such a thing rather than just going to a different baker and B) said that there was no way a court would even entertain the case let alone found in the fags favor.
> 
> I've honestly never seen 3% of the population cause so much angst and turmoil. They should be embarrassed, I'm embarrassed for them. as they prove time and time again that they are not just wanting EQUALITY. They want to force their lifestyle on everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> No I can't see courts forcing a church to join two gays in holy matrimony against the church's will. I think you are sort of missing the point behind the religious ceremony.  Maybe mixing it up with the govco marriage license thing.  They could sue a ships captn. to marry them on a ship... but that's not necessarily a religious marriage ceremony.  Marriage does not equal religious ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they could even sue a ship's captain. They could sue a city clerk or someone who performs civil ceremonies as an integral part of their job like a JOP, but even a ship's captain would be a stretch of a lawsuit will little to no chance of winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pray tell why you believe a ship's captain would be exempt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it is not a requirement of their job. He is not paid in any way for his questionable ability to perform wedding ceremonies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wedding Cruises Wedding Cruise Packages Destination Weddings Carnival Cruise Lines
Click to expand...


From your link.  (Click on the learn more link, it's in the PDF).  The are performed in port and not by the Captain.

"All ceremonies are performed in port before the ship sails."

"Will my ceremony be performed by the Captain?
All wedding ceremonies are performed by a local Officiant provided by the wedding vendor."​

http://www.carnival.com/~/media/CCLUS/Images/pdf/Weddingspricelistpdf.ashx


>>>>>


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> averagebear, like many average field grade officers, misjudge their understanding of issues beyond their training and experience.  He does so with this issue.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am pro gay marriage Jake. I merely point out that they have an agenda, and forcing churches to marry them is on that agenda.
> 
> On that note, why the hell are churches exempt from SOME laws? I mean that is ridiculous. If the separation of church and state that allegedly was meant to exist in this country allows churches to be exempt from SOME laws, then they should be exempt from ALL laws because let's say for instance a Church that believes in killing non believers should be exempt from laws against murder . Oh , people have a right to not be murdered you say? Well, allegedly people have a right to force businesses to do business with them to, how are Churches exempt from those laws?
> 
> And I believe that is EXACTLY the route faggots are going to take , and they will be legally correct. The government IS picking and choosing religions when they say "okay if you don't believe in gay marriage you don't have to perform gay marriages" to one religion while telling another religion " oh you believe murder is acceptable? Too fucking bad" to another religion.
> 
> 
> and churches ARE businesses
> 
> Mega churches mean big business - CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are exempt from some laws, because they are "private" organizations, and because they are protected by the 1st Amendment.   The constitution is VERY CLEAR regarding the protections afforded to religion in this country.
> 
> Liberty does not mean the liberty to KILL people.
> 
> Churches are not exempt from public accommodation laws.  If a church puts up a table selling pumpkins at the local farmers market, they can't discriminate who they sell to.
> 
> The religious ceremonies held in a church are not for sale to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what led to the case the bigots like to bring up as "proof" that churches will be sued. A church had an agreement to rent out part of their property *to the public*. They were, therefore, subject to business laws including (but not limited to) Public Accommodation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which leads to what you REALLY want. forcing churches to allow gays to get married in their churches.
Click to expand...


So you can point out where the Public Accommodation laws that have been in place since the 60s have led to churches being forced to perform interracial or interfaith weddings. 

You're right though, I do want churches to be "forced" into being more inclusive...through public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

WorldWatcher said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pray tell why you believe a ship's captain would be exempt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd take that bet, especially for a cruise ship where the ship advertises weddings may be performed by the captain for the price of a ticket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What You Need to Know to Get Married at Sea
> The Straight Dope Are ships captains allowed to marry people at sea
> Can Boat Captains Really Marry People Mental Floss
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My wife's a Notary Public, it's not hard to become one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say it was hard to become a Notary.  That wasn't the question.
> 
> A Captain can't perform a Civil Marriage just by virtue of being a ship's Captain.  If a Captain is a Notary, then your wife could perform a Civil Marriage because she's a notary, not because she's a ship's Captain.  A Captain that is a retired Judge can perform a Civil Marriage also, but not because (s)he's a Captain.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Ship's captains don't perform weddings at all. That's a myth. The actual ceremony is conducted by a licensed person, and by federal law, any weddings performed aboard, MUST be performed while the ship is docked and the prevailing laws of whichever jurisdiction the ship is docked in apply. Which means you must have all legal paperwork etc etc from that jurisdiction and be approved.....


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> averagebear, like many average field grade officers, misjudge their understanding of issues beyond their training and experience.  He does so with this issue.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am pro gay marriage Jake. I merely point out that they have an agenda, and forcing churches to marry them is on that agenda.
> 
> On that note, why the hell are churches exempt from SOME laws? I mean that is ridiculous. If the separation of church and state that allegedly was meant to exist in this country allows churches to be exempt from SOME laws, then they should be exempt from ALL laws because let's say for instance a Church that believes in killing non believers should be exempt from laws against murder . Oh , people have a right to not be murdered you say? Well, allegedly people have a right to force businesses to do business with them to, how are Churches exempt from those laws?
> 
> And I believe that is EXACTLY the route faggots are going to take , and they will be legally correct. The government IS picking and choosing religions when they say "okay if you don't believe in gay marriage you don't have to perform gay marriages" to one religion while telling another religion " oh you believe murder is acceptable? Too fucking bad" to another religion.
> 
> 
> and churches ARE businesses
> 
> Mega churches mean big business - CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are exempt from some laws, because they are "private" organizations, and because they are protected by the 1st Amendment.   The constitution is VERY CLEAR regarding the protections afforded to religion in this country.
> 
> Liberty does not mean the liberty to KILL people.
> 
> Churches are not exempt from public accommodation laws.  If a church puts up a table selling pumpkins at the local farmers market, they can't discriminate who they sell to.
> 
> The religious ceremonies held in a church are not for sale to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what led to the case the bigots like to bring up as "proof" that churches will be sued. A church had an agreement to rent out part of their property *to the public*. They were, therefore, subject to business laws including (but not limited to) Public Accommodation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which leads to what you REALLY want. forcing churches to allow gays to get married in their churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can point out where the Public Accommodation laws that have been in place since the 60s have led to churches being forced to perform interracial or interfaith weddings.
> 
> You're right though, I do want churches to be "forced" into being more inclusive...through public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.
Click to expand...



Why do you want to force anyone to include you? Do you have any idea how childish that is? Are you so immature that you can't just leave people who disagree with your lifestyle alone? I'm quite sure you don't want Christians trying to force you to be a Christian.


----------



## Skylar

> How can a church be exempt from not violating one right, but not the other? If Church A sues and says "hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we?" How would they be wrong?



Do you have any examples of this? Race has a much stronger pedigree of protection, so the bar should be low. Can you cite examples of churches being forced to perform interracial marriages they didn't want to perform?


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am pro gay marriage Jake. I merely point out that they have an agenda, and forcing churches to marry them is on that agenda.
> 
> On that note, why the hell are churches exempt from SOME laws? I mean that is ridiculous. If the separation of church and state that allegedly was meant to exist in this country allows churches to be exempt from SOME laws, then they should be exempt from ALL laws because let's say for instance a Church that believes in killing non believers should be exempt from laws against murder . Oh , people have a right to not be murdered you say? Well, allegedly people have a right to force businesses to do business with them to, how are Churches exempt from those laws?
> 
> And I believe that is EXACTLY the route faggots are going to take , and they will be legally correct. The government IS picking and choosing religions when they say "okay if you don't believe in gay marriage you don't have to perform gay marriages" to one religion while telling another religion " oh you believe murder is acceptable? Too fucking bad" to another religion.
> 
> 
> and churches ARE businesses
> 
> Mega churches mean big business - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are exempt from some laws, because they are "private" organizations, and because they are protected by the 1st Amendment.   The constitution is VERY CLEAR regarding the protections afforded to religion in this country.
> 
> Liberty does not mean the liberty to KILL people.
> 
> Churches are not exempt from public accommodation laws.  If a church puts up a table selling pumpkins at the local farmers market, they can't discriminate who they sell to.
> 
> The religious ceremonies held in a church are not for sale to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what led to the case the bigots like to bring up as "proof" that churches will be sued. A church had an agreement to rent out part of their property *to the public*. They were, therefore, subject to business laws including (but not limited to) Public Accommodation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which leads to what you REALLY want. forcing churches to allow gays to get married in their churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can point out where the Public Accommodation laws that have been in place since the 60s have led to churches being forced to perform interracial or interfaith weddings.
> 
> You're right though, I do want churches to be "forced" into being more inclusive...through public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to force anyone to include you? Do you have any idea how childish that is? Are you so immature that you can't just leave people who disagree with your lifestyle alone? I'm quite sure you don't want Christians trying to force you to be a Christian.
Click to expand...



Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it. 

Guess what young folks think about churches these days?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are exempt from some laws, because they are "private" organizations, and because they are protected by the 1st Amendment.   The constitution is VERY CLEAR regarding the protections afforded to religion in this country.
> 
> Liberty does not mean the liberty to KILL people.
> 
> Churches are not exempt from public accommodation laws.  If a church puts up a table selling pumpkins at the local farmers market, they can't discriminate who they sell to.
> 
> The religious ceremonies held in a church are not for sale to the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what led to the case the bigots like to bring up as "proof" that churches will be sued. A church had an agreement to rent out part of their property *to the public*. They were, therefore, subject to business laws including (but not limited to) Public Accommodation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which leads to what you REALLY want. forcing churches to allow gays to get married in their churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can point out where the Public Accommodation laws that have been in place since the 60s have led to churches being forced to perform interracial or interfaith weddings.
> 
> You're right though, I do want churches to be "forced" into being more inclusive...through public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to force anyone to include you? Do you have any idea how childish that is? Are you so immature that you can't just leave people who disagree with your lifestyle alone? I'm quite sure you don't want Christians trying to force you to be a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.
> 
> Guess what young folks think about churches these days?
Click to expand...


Who cares what young folks think?

About anything

Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.

Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.

The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...

Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Skylar said:


> How can a church be exempt from not violating one right, but not the other? If Church A sues and says "hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we?" How would they be wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any examples of this? Race has a much stronger pedigree of protection, so the bar should be low. Can you cite examples of churches being forced to perform interracial marriages they didn't want to perform?
Click to expand...


We're not talking about just marriage sir. We're talking about laws in general which disagree with religion.

Here's another example. Sharia law. could a Muslim church impose Sharia law upon it's members? Of course not because the first time a woman got beat for showing some wrist skin whomever did it would be in jail, and rightfully so; but legally speaking how is assaulting another person any worse a violation of their rights than denying doing business with them in accordance with Public Accommodation laws? Answer, it's not.

You have a lesbian right in this thread who is admitting that she would like to force churches to marry gays. Now she's attempting to couch it in terms of "force through public pressure" but anyone who is honest sees right through that bullshit. She would love NOTHING more than to legally force Christian churches to marry gays. That's as obvious as Barbara Streisand's nose.


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> averagebear, like many average field grade officers, misjudge their understanding of issues beyond their training and experience.  He does so with this issue.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am pro gay marriage Jake. I merely point out that they have an agenda, and forcing churches to marry them is on that agenda.
> 
> On that note, why the hell are churches exempt from SOME laws? I mean that is ridiculous. If the separation of church and state that allegedly was meant to exist in this country allows churches to be exempt from SOME laws, then they should be exempt from ALL laws because let's say for instance a Church that believes in killing non believers should be exempt from laws against murder . Oh , people have a right to not be murdered you say? Well, allegedly people have a right to force businesses to do business with them to, how are Churches exempt from those laws?
> 
> And I believe that is EXACTLY the route faggots are going to take , and they will be legally correct. The government IS picking and choosing religions when they say "okay if you don't believe in gay marriage you don't have to perform gay marriages" to one religion while telling another religion " oh you believe murder is acceptable? Too fucking bad" to another religion.
> 
> 
> and churches ARE businesses
> 
> Mega churches mean big business - CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are exempt from some laws, because they are "private" organizations, and because they are protected by the 1st Amendment.   The constitution is VERY CLEAR regarding the protections afforded to religion in this country.
> 
> Liberty does not mean the liberty to KILL people.
> 
> Churches are not exempt from public accommodation laws.  If a church puts up a table selling pumpkins at the local farmers market, they can't discriminate who they sell to.
> 
> The religious ceremonies held in a church are not for sale to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not looking at it clearly.
> 
> We agree, not being murdered is a right. Legally at least public accommodations are a right.
> 
> How can a church be exempt from not violating one right, but not the other? If Church A sues and says "hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we?" How would they be wrong?
> 
> And dude, this took me two minutes to find
> 
> Wedding Ceremonies - All Souls Church
> 
> That church is CLEARLY offering church weddings to the public. I mean that isn't even at question is it?
> 
> Once again, MANY churches are BUSINESSES and thus how are they exempt from public accommodation laws? Answer, they won't be when some fag sues.
> 
> Your belief that it won't happen is naive at best.
Click to expand...


You asked, "If Church A sues and says hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we? How would they be wrong?"

The simple answer is you are correct.  Church B would not be wrong. There are a number of situations ATM where some members of some religions have won certain exemptions from the law that other members of other religions are subject to.  Mormons come to mind.

I'd have to look into the "public" thing for that particular church more carefully.  Are they a real church or a wedding outlet like the ones at vegas.  If they have to be a member of or join the church to get married.. then it's private.  That church you linked me to... yeah it's a church explicitly for gays and lesbians.

I never said dumb asses won't sue.  My point is they won't stand a chance at this one.  Forcing the catholic church to marry gays against their will.. yeah not gonna happen.  If they want to do it, then it will happen, otherwise... nah not even a small chance.  I'll give you 100 to 1 odds that the catholic and protestant churches will not be forced to marry gays in our lifetime.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> averagebear, like many average field grade officers, misjudge their understanding of issues beyond their training and experience.  He does so with this issue.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am pro gay marriage Jake. I merely point out that they have an agenda, and forcing churches to marry them is on that agenda.
> 
> On that note, why the hell are churches exempt from SOME laws? I mean that is ridiculous. If the separation of church and state that allegedly was meant to exist in this country allows churches to be exempt from SOME laws, then they should be exempt from ALL laws because let's say for instance a Church that believes in killing non believers should be exempt from laws against murder . Oh , people have a right to not be murdered you say? Well, allegedly people have a right to force businesses to do business with them to, how are Churches exempt from those laws?
> 
> And I believe that is EXACTLY the route faggots are going to take , and they will be legally correct. The government IS picking and choosing religions when they say "okay if you don't believe in gay marriage you don't have to perform gay marriages" to one religion while telling another religion " oh you believe murder is acceptable? Too fucking bad" to another religion.
> 
> 
> and churches ARE businesses
> 
> Mega churches mean big business - CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are exempt from some laws, because they are "private" organizations, and because they are protected by the 1st Amendment.   The constitution is VERY CLEAR regarding the protections afforded to religion in this country.
> 
> Liberty does not mean the liberty to KILL people.
> 
> Churches are not exempt from public accommodation laws.  If a church puts up a table selling pumpkins at the local farmers market, they can't discriminate who they sell to.
> 
> The religious ceremonies held in a church are not for sale to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not looking at it clearly.
> 
> We agree, not being murdered is a right. Legally at least public accommodations are a right.
> 
> How can a church be exempt from not violating one right, but not the other? If Church A sues and says "hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we?" How would they be wrong?
> 
> And dude, this took me two minutes to find
> 
> Wedding Ceremonies - All Souls Church
> 
> That church is CLEARLY offering church weddings to the public. I mean that isn't even at question is it?
> 
> Once again, MANY churches are BUSINESSES and thus how are they exempt from public accommodation laws? Answer, they won't be when some fag sues.
> 
> Your belief that it won't happen is naive at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked, "If Church A sues and says hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we? How would they be wrong?"
> 
> The simple answer is you are correct.  Church B would not be wrong. There are a number of situations ATM where some members of some religions have won certain exemptions from the law that other members of other religions are subject to.  Mormons come to mind.
> 
> I'd have to look into the "public" thing for that particular church more carefully.  Are they a real church or a wedding outlet like the ones at vegas.  If they have to be a member of or join the church to get married.. then it's private.  My internet is going down every 30sec.  I can't do shit on the net right now.  Will look into that church in the morning.
> 
> I never said dumb asses won't sue.  My point is they won't stand a chance at this one.  Forcing the catholic church to marry gays against their will.. yeah not gonna happen.  If they want to do it, then it will happen, otherwise... nah not even a small chance.  I'll give you 100 to 1 odds that the catholic and protestant churches will not be forced to marry gays in our lifetime.
Click to expand...



I wouldn't take your bet, But to pretend like gays wouldn't LOVE to force them to by law is foolish. SeaBitch has admitted she'd love to force churches to comply.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what led to the case the bigots like to bring up as "proof" that churches will be sued. A church had an agreement to rent out part of their property *to the public*. They were, therefore, subject to business laws including (but not limited to) Public Accommodation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which leads to what you REALLY want. forcing churches to allow gays to get married in their churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can point out where the Public Accommodation laws that have been in place since the 60s have led to churches being forced to perform interracial or interfaith weddings.
> 
> You're right though, I do want churches to be "forced" into being more inclusive...through public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to force anyone to include you? Do you have any idea how childish that is? Are you so immature that you can't just leave people who disagree with your lifestyle alone? I'm quite sure you don't want Christians trying to force you to be a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.
> 
> Guess what young folks think about churches these days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares what young folks think?
> 
> About anything
> 
> Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.
> 
> Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.
> 
> The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...
> 
> Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...
Click to expand...


Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey. 

Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery. 

Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure? 

It's not us that will be "forcing" churches to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> averagebear, like many average field grade officers, misjudge their understanding of issues beyond their training and experience.  He does so with this issue.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am pro gay marriage Jake. I merely point out that they have an agenda, and forcing churches to marry them is on that agenda.
> 
> On that note, why the hell are churches exempt from SOME laws? I mean that is ridiculous. If the separation of church and state that allegedly was meant to exist in this country allows churches to be exempt from SOME laws, then they should be exempt from ALL laws because let's say for instance a Church that believes in killing non believers should be exempt from laws against murder . Oh , people have a right to not be murdered you say? Well, allegedly people have a right to force businesses to do business with them to, how are Churches exempt from those laws?
> 
> And I believe that is EXACTLY the route faggots are going to take , and they will be legally correct. The government IS picking and choosing religions when they say "okay if you don't believe in gay marriage you don't have to perform gay marriages" to one religion while telling another religion " oh you believe murder is acceptable? Too fucking bad" to another religion.
> 
> 
> and churches ARE businesses
> 
> Mega churches mean big business - CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are exempt from some laws, because they are "private" organizations, and because they are protected by the 1st Amendment.   The constitution is VERY CLEAR regarding the protections afforded to religion in this country.
> 
> Liberty does not mean the liberty to KILL people.
> 
> Churches are not exempt from public accommodation laws.  If a church puts up a table selling pumpkins at the local farmers market, they can't discriminate who they sell to.
> 
> The religious ceremonies held in a church are not for sale to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not looking at it clearly.
> 
> We agree, not being murdered is a right. Legally at least public accommodations are a right.
> 
> How can a church be exempt from not violating one right, but not the other? If Church A sues and says "hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we?" How would they be wrong?
> 
> And dude, this took me two minutes to find
> 
> Wedding Ceremonies - All Souls Church
> 
> That church is CLEARLY offering church weddings to the public. I mean that isn't even at question is it?
> 
> Once again, MANY churches are BUSINESSES and thus how are they exempt from public accommodation laws? Answer, they won't be when some fag sues.
> 
> Your belief that it won't happen is naive at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked, "If Church A sues and says hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we? How would they be wrong?"
> 
> The simple answer is you are correct.  Church B would not be wrong. There are a number of situations ATM where some members of some religions have won certain exemptions from the law that other members of other religions are subject to.  Mormons come to mind.
> 
> I'd have to look into the "public" thing for that particular church more carefully.  Are they a real church or a wedding outlet like the ones at vegas.  If they have to be a member of or join the church to get married.. then it's private.  My internet is going down every 30sec.  I can't do shit on the net right now.  Will look into that church in the morning.
> 
> I never said dumb asses won't sue.  My point is they won't stand a chance at this one.  Forcing the catholic church to marry gays against their will.. yeah not gonna happen.  If they want to do it, then it will happen, otherwise... nah not even a small chance.  I'll give you 100 to 1 odds that the catholic and protestant churches will not be forced to marry gays in our lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't take your bet, But to pretend like gays wouldn't LOVE to force them to by law is foolish. SeaBitch has admitted she'd love to force churches to comply.
Click to expand...


Not by law douchnozzle, by public opinion just like they ALWAYS have. 

But you're cute when you lie.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> which leads to what you REALLY want. forcing churches to allow gays to get married in their churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can point out where the Public Accommodation laws that have been in place since the 60s have led to churches being forced to perform interracial or interfaith weddings.
> 
> You're right though, I do want churches to be "forced" into being more inclusive...through public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to force anyone to include you? Do you have any idea how childish that is? Are you so immature that you can't just leave people who disagree with your lifestyle alone? I'm quite sure you don't want Christians trying to force you to be a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.
> 
> Guess what young folks think about churches these days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares what young folks think?
> 
> About anything
> 
> Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.
> 
> Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.
> 
> The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...
> 
> Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.
> 
> Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.
> 
> Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?
> 
> It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)
Click to expand...


People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am pro gay marriage Jake. I merely point out that they have an agenda, and forcing churches to marry them is on that agenda.
> 
> On that note, why the hell are churches exempt from SOME laws? I mean that is ridiculous. If the separation of church and state that allegedly was meant to exist in this country allows churches to be exempt from SOME laws, then they should be exempt from ALL laws because let's say for instance a Church that believes in killing non believers should be exempt from laws against murder . Oh , people have a right to not be murdered you say? Well, allegedly people have a right to force businesses to do business with them to, how are Churches exempt from those laws?
> 
> And I believe that is EXACTLY the route faggots are going to take , and they will be legally correct. The government IS picking and choosing religions when they say "okay if you don't believe in gay marriage you don't have to perform gay marriages" to one religion while telling another religion " oh you believe murder is acceptable? Too fucking bad" to another religion.
> 
> 
> and churches ARE businesses
> 
> Mega churches mean big business - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are exempt from some laws, because they are "private" organizations, and because they are protected by the 1st Amendment.   The constitution is VERY CLEAR regarding the protections afforded to religion in this country.
> 
> Liberty does not mean the liberty to KILL people.
> 
> Churches are not exempt from public accommodation laws.  If a church puts up a table selling pumpkins at the local farmers market, they can't discriminate who they sell to.
> 
> The religious ceremonies held in a church are not for sale to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not looking at it clearly.
> 
> We agree, not being murdered is a right. Legally at least public accommodations are a right.
> 
> How can a church be exempt from not violating one right, but not the other? If Church A sues and says "hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we?" How would they be wrong?
> 
> And dude, this took me two minutes to find
> 
> Wedding Ceremonies - All Souls Church
> 
> That church is CLEARLY offering church weddings to the public. I mean that isn't even at question is it?
> 
> Once again, MANY churches are BUSINESSES and thus how are they exempt from public accommodation laws? Answer, they won't be when some fag sues.
> 
> Your belief that it won't happen is naive at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked, "If Church A sues and says hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we? How would they be wrong?"
> 
> The simple answer is you are correct.  Church B would not be wrong. There are a number of situations ATM where some members of some religions have won certain exemptions from the law that other members of other religions are subject to.  Mormons come to mind.
> 
> I'd have to look into the "public" thing for that particular church more carefully.  Are they a real church or a wedding outlet like the ones at vegas.  If they have to be a member of or join the church to get married.. then it's private.  My internet is going down every 30sec.  I can't do shit on the net right now.  Will look into that church in the morning.
> 
> I never said dumb asses won't sue.  My point is they won't stand a chance at this one.  Forcing the catholic church to marry gays against their will.. yeah not gonna happen.  If they want to do it, then it will happen, otherwise... nah not even a small chance.  I'll give you 100 to 1 odds that the catholic and protestant churches will not be forced to marry gays in our lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't take your bet, But to pretend like gays wouldn't LOVE to force them to by law is foolish. SeaBitch has admitted she'd love to force churches to comply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not by law douchnozzle, by public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.
> 
> But you're cute when you lie.
Click to expand...


Not one person who has read this thread believes you wouldn't LOVE to force Christians by law to marry gays . NO ONE. We ALL know you'd love to exactly that.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can point out where the Public Accommodation laws that have been in place since the 60s have led to churches being forced to perform interracial or interfaith weddings.
> 
> You're right though, I do want churches to be "forced" into being more inclusive...through public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to force anyone to include you? Do you have any idea how childish that is? Are you so immature that you can't just leave people who disagree with your lifestyle alone? I'm quite sure you don't want Christians trying to force you to be a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.
> 
> Guess what young folks think about churches these days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares what young folks think?
> 
> About anything
> 
> Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.
> 
> Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.
> 
> The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...
> 
> Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.
> 
> Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.
> 
> Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?
> 
> It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot
Click to expand...

Oh? So you don't think that the people that supported slavery and opposed interracial marriage laws on religious grounds weren't bigots?


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can point out where the Public Accommodation laws that have been in place since the 60s have led to churches being forced to perform interracial or interfaith weddings.
> 
> You're right though, I do want churches to be "forced" into being more inclusive...through public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to force anyone to include you? Do you have any idea how childish that is? Are you so immature that you can't just leave people who disagree with your lifestyle alone? I'm quite sure you don't want Christians trying to force you to be a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.
> 
> Guess what young folks think about churches these days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares what young folks think?
> 
> About anything
> 
> Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.
> 
> Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.
> 
> The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...
> 
> Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.
> 
> Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.
> 
> Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?
> 
> It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot
Click to expand...

Define disagree with homosexuality.  If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term.  If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to force anyone to include you? Do you have any idea how childish that is? Are you so immature that you can't just leave people who disagree with your lifestyle alone? I'm quite sure you don't want Christians trying to force you to be a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.
> 
> Guess what young folks think about churches these days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares what young folks think?
> 
> About anything
> 
> Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.
> 
> Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.
> 
> The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...
> 
> Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.
> 
> Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.
> 
> Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?
> 
> It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? So you don't think that the people that supported slavery and opposed interracial marriage laws on religious grounds weren't bigots?
Click to expand...


I know they weren't , because words have meanings. Apparently those meanings allude you

*bigot*

[big-uh t]
noun
1.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Christians, as a whole, are very tolerant people even if they disagree with someone or something.

For example, I think "gay marriage" is hilarious, you are no more married than if I "married" my car, but hey live and let live if you want to call yourself married, I don't care. 

You on the other hand, are COMPLETELY intolerant to my views and would love to FORCE me to conform to yours. YOU are the bigot, not me.

So, to answer your original question. Certainly those who championed slavery and opposed interracial marriage were racists, but they weren't bigots.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to force anyone to include you? Do you have any idea how childish that is? Are you so immature that you can't just leave people who disagree with your lifestyle alone? I'm quite sure you don't want Christians trying to force you to be a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.
> 
> Guess what young folks think about churches these days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares what young folks think?
> 
> About anything
> 
> Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.
> 
> Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.
> 
> The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...
> 
> Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.
> 
> Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.
> 
> Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?
> 
> It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define disagree with homosexuality.  If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term.  If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.
Click to expand...


Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"

I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.


It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.


----------



## Skylar

> The simple answer is you are correct. Church B would not be wrong. There are a number of situations ATM where some members of some religions have won certain exemptions from the law that other members of other religions are subject to. Mormons come to mind.



A superb example. Mormons have temple weddings. In order to have a temple wedding you have to have a temple recommend, essentially a license from the church verifying you are a member in good standing. If you don't have such a recommend, you can't have a temple wedding.

Homosexuality is against the tenet of the mormon faith. So if you engaged in homosexuality or were in a homosexual relationship, you would be in violation of church teachings and thus not a member in good standing. Consequently, if you wanted to have a gay wedding you wouldn't have a temple recommend and wouldn't be able to have a temple wedding. 

There is 0.0% chance that the government will or can force the mormons to perform a temple wedding for a gay couple for this very reason. Exclusion from ceremonies of those that don't abide the faith is intrinsic to most religious practices. Hell, the mormons could exclude blacks from such temple weddings until the late 70s. Probably still could if they wanted to.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are exempt from some laws, because they are "private" organizations, and because they are protected by the 1st Amendment.   The constitution is VERY CLEAR regarding the protections afforded to religion in this country.
> 
> Liberty does not mean the liberty to KILL people.
> 
> Churches are not exempt from public accommodation laws.  If a church puts up a table selling pumpkins at the local farmers market, they can't discriminate who they sell to.
> 
> The religious ceremonies held in a church are not for sale to the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not looking at it clearly.
> 
> We agree, not being murdered is a right. Legally at least public accommodations are a right.
> 
> How can a church be exempt from not violating one right, but not the other? If Church A sues and says "hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we?" How would they be wrong?
> 
> And dude, this took me two minutes to find
> 
> Wedding Ceremonies - All Souls Church
> 
> That church is CLEARLY offering church weddings to the public. I mean that isn't even at question is it?
> 
> Once again, MANY churches are BUSINESSES and thus how are they exempt from public accommodation laws? Answer, they won't be when some fag sues.
> 
> Your belief that it won't happen is naive at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked, "If Church A sues and says hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we? How would they be wrong?"
> 
> The simple answer is you are correct.  Church B would not be wrong. There are a number of situations ATM where some members of some religions have won certain exemptions from the law that other members of other religions are subject to.  Mormons come to mind.
> 
> I'd have to look into the "public" thing for that particular church more carefully.  Are they a real church or a wedding outlet like the ones at vegas.  If they have to be a member of or join the church to get married.. then it's private.  My internet is going down every 30sec.  I can't do shit on the net right now.  Will look into that church in the morning.
> 
> I never said dumb asses won't sue.  My point is they won't stand a chance at this one.  Forcing the catholic church to marry gays against their will.. yeah not gonna happen.  If they want to do it, then it will happen, otherwise... nah not even a small chance.  I'll give you 100 to 1 odds that the catholic and protestant churches will not be forced to marry gays in our lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't take your bet, But to pretend like gays wouldn't LOVE to force them to by law is foolish. SeaBitch has admitted she'd love to force churches to comply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not by law douchnozzle, by public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.
> 
> But you're cute when you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one person who has read this thread believes you wouldn't LOVE to force Christians by law to marry gays . NO ONE. We ALL know you'd love to exactly that.
Click to expand...


Look at you, stretching the truth again just 'cause I said you were cute when you do it. That is toats adorbs!

No, I don't want to do it by law. I'm glad we have a 1st Amendment. I would never want to force a church, by law, to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. That would be contrary to being a liberal American. I do want them to bend to public opinion though. Go ahead, sue me.


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.
> 
> Guess what young folks think about churches these days?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what young folks think?
> 
> About anything
> 
> Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.
> 
> Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.
> 
> The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...
> 
> Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.
> 
> Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.
> 
> Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?
> 
> It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define disagree with homosexuality.  If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term.  If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"
> 
> I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.
> 
> 
> It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.
Click to expand...

What type of marriage are you talking about.  The religious ceremony of certain churches, or the marriage license you get from your local government? 

News flash:  NO ONE IS REDEFINING RELIGION... NO ONE IS ASKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO CHANGE CATHOLIC WEDDINGS TO START MEANING TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. NO ONE.


----------



## mdk

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.
> 
> Guess what young folks think about churches these days?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what young folks think?
> 
> About anything
> 
> Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.
> 
> Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.
> 
> The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...
> 
> Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.
> 
> Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.
> 
> Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?
> 
> It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define disagree with homosexuality.  If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term.  If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"
> 
> I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.
> 
> 
> It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.
Click to expand...


This is a perfectly reasonable position to hold in my opinion. One can oppose gay marriage for spiritual reasons all the while respecting their right to marry without government interference.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not looking at it clearly.
> 
> We agree, not being murdered is a right. Legally at least public accommodations are a right.
> 
> How can a church be exempt from not violating one right, but not the other? If Church A sues and says "hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we?" How would they be wrong?
> 
> And dude, this took me two minutes to find
> 
> Wedding Ceremonies - All Souls Church
> 
> That church is CLEARLY offering church weddings to the public. I mean that isn't even at question is it?
> 
> Once again, MANY churches are BUSINESSES and thus how are they exempt from public accommodation laws? Answer, they won't be when some fag sues.
> 
> Your belief that it won't happen is naive at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked, "If Church A sues and says hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we? How would they be wrong?"
> 
> The simple answer is you are correct.  Church B would not be wrong. There are a number of situations ATM where some members of some religions have won certain exemptions from the law that other members of other religions are subject to.  Mormons come to mind.
> 
> I'd have to look into the "public" thing for that particular church more carefully.  Are they a real church or a wedding outlet like the ones at vegas.  If they have to be a member of or join the church to get married.. then it's private.  My internet is going down every 30sec.  I can't do shit on the net right now.  Will look into that church in the morning.
> 
> I never said dumb asses won't sue.  My point is they won't stand a chance at this one.  Forcing the catholic church to marry gays against their will.. yeah not gonna happen.  If they want to do it, then it will happen, otherwise... nah not even a small chance.  I'll give you 100 to 1 odds that the catholic and protestant churches will not be forced to marry gays in our lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't take your bet, But to pretend like gays wouldn't LOVE to force them to by law is foolish. SeaBitch has admitted she'd love to force churches to comply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not by law douchnozzle, by public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.
> 
> But you're cute when you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one person who has read this thread believes you wouldn't LOVE to force Christians by law to marry gays . NO ONE. We ALL know you'd love to exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at you, stretching the truth again just 'cause I said you were cute when you do it. That is toats adorbs!
> 
> No, I don't want to do it by law. I'm glad we have a 1st Amendment. I would never want to force a church, by law, to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. That would be contrary to being a liberal American. I do want them to bend to public opinion though. Go ahead, sue me.
Click to expand...


again, NO ONE believes you. You are an intolerant bigot who is just too cowardly to admit the truth, you hate Christians for whatever reason and yoo would love to force them to accept your gay lifestyle by force of law.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.
> 
> Guess what young folks think about churches these days?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what young folks think?
> 
> About anything
> 
> Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.
> 
> Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.
> 
> The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...
> 
> Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.
> 
> Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.
> 
> Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?
> 
> It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? So you don't think that the people that supported slavery and opposed interracial marriage laws on religious grounds weren't bigots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know they weren't , because words have meanings. Apparently those meanings allude you
> 
> *bigot*
> 
> [big-uh t]
> noun
> 1.
> a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
> 
> Christians, as a whole, are very tolerant people even if they disagree with someone or something.
> 
> For example, I think "gay marriage" is hilarious, you are no more married than if I "married" my car, but hey live and let live if you want to call yourself married, I don't care.
> 
> You on the other hand, are COMPLETELY intolerant to my views and would love to FORCE me to conform to yours. YOU are the bigot, not me.
> 
> So, to answer your original question. Certainly those who championed slavery and opposed interracial marriage were racists, but they weren't bigots.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry...homophobe better? Gayist? Nah...ya'll freak out over homophobe and I just don't think "gayist" will take off. What would you call discrimination based on animus? 

Please explain how you believe that I would try to force you to conform? Do you really believe public opinion is force?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what young folks think?
> 
> About anything
> 
> Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.
> 
> Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.
> 
> The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...
> 
> Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.
> 
> Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.
> 
> Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?
> 
> It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define disagree with homosexuality.  If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term.  If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"
> 
> I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.
> 
> 
> It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What type of marriage are you talking about.  The religious ceremony of certain churches, or the marriage license you get from your local government?
> 
> News flash:  NO ONE IS REDEFINING RELIGION... NO ONE IS ASKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO CHANGE CATHOLIC WEDDINGS TO START MEANING TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. NO ONE.
Click to expand...


WHy aren't you understanding me? I don't think there should even BE government marriage licenses. The word marriage should not exist on any government document. 

You want to get "married" find a group that will marry you and have at .

Then the government could do whatever as far as benefits and such


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can point out where the Public Accommodation laws that have been in place since the 60s have led to churches being forced to perform interracial or interfaith weddings.
> 
> You're right though, I do want churches to be "forced" into being more inclusive...through public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to force anyone to include you? Do you have any idea how childish that is? Are you so immature that you can't just leave people who disagree with your lifestyle alone? I'm quite sure you don't want Christians trying to force you to be a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.
> 
> Guess what young folks think about churches these days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares what young folks think?
> 
> About anything
> 
> Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.
> 
> Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.
> 
> The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...
> 
> Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.
> 
> Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.
> 
> Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?
> 
> It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot
Click to expand...


Hey big guy.. again it depends how you disagree.  If you call a spade a ****** with bile on your tongue it's bigotry... If you call a gay guy a faggot with bile on your tongue it's bigtory.   Having a religious excuse is... just an excuse for the bigotry.  What did the gay guy do to harm you? Casting stones makes you a bigot...


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked, "If Church A sues and says hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we? How would they be wrong?"
> 
> The simple answer is you are correct.  Church B would not be wrong. There are a number of situations ATM where some members of some religions have won certain exemptions from the law that other members of other religions are subject to.  Mormons come to mind.
> 
> I'd have to look into the "public" thing for that particular church more carefully.  Are they a real church or a wedding outlet like the ones at vegas.  If they have to be a member of or join the church to get married.. then it's private.  My internet is going down every 30sec.  I can't do shit on the net right now.  Will look into that church in the morning.
> 
> I never said dumb asses won't sue.  My point is they won't stand a chance at this one.  Forcing the catholic church to marry gays against their will.. yeah not gonna happen.  If they want to do it, then it will happen, otherwise... nah not even a small chance.  I'll give you 100 to 1 odds that the catholic and protestant churches will not be forced to marry gays in our lifetime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't take your bet, But to pretend like gays wouldn't LOVE to force them to by law is foolish. SeaBitch has admitted she'd love to force churches to comply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not by law douchnozzle, by public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.
> 
> But you're cute when you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one person who has read this thread believes you wouldn't LOVE to force Christians by law to marry gays . NO ONE. We ALL know you'd love to exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at you, stretching the truth again just 'cause I said you were cute when you do it. That is toats adorbs!
> 
> No, I don't want to do it by law. I'm glad we have a 1st Amendment. I would never want to force a church, by law, to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. That would be contrary to being a liberal American. I do want them to bend to public opinion though. Go ahead, sue me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, NO ONE believes you. You are an intolerant bigot who is just too cowardly to admit the truth, you hate Christians for whatever reason and yoo would love to force them to accept your gay lifestyle by force of law.
Click to expand...


Using an absolute like "nobody" is kinda like lying. (getting less cute and just silly now)

No, I would not like to force them by law, just public opinion...which you are apparently opposed to. Why? Was the public being "mean" when they forced the Mormons to change?


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.
> 
> Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.
> 
> Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?
> 
> It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define disagree with homosexuality.  If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term.  If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"
> 
> I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.
> 
> 
> It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What type of marriage are you talking about.  The religious ceremony of certain churches, or the marriage license you get from your local government?
> 
> News flash:  NO ONE IS REDEFINING RELIGION... NO ONE IS ASKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO CHANGE CATHOLIC WEDDINGS TO START MEANING TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. NO ONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHy aren't you understanding me? I don't think there should even BE government marriage licenses. The word marriage should not exist on any government document.
> 
> You want to get "married" find a group that will marry you and have at .
> 
> Then the government could do whatever as far as benefits and such
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of understanding your view.. It's being able to agree with your words.  As for this post you just made... I disagree with your view that government should not be involved in regulating marriages.   For example, I disagree with a religion that allows a 60year old man marry and have sex with a child.  I'm good with government regulating that.  I'm also good with government regulating disbursement of assets on the death of a spouse.  I'm good with government being involved in matters of property.  While I'm good with plural marriages.. the property thing, to me, means that the plural marriage must be agreed upon by all parties.... you shouldn't be able to have two marriages, with both wives expecting the property ... only to find out later on that there's another wife.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot
> 
> 
> 
> Define disagree with homosexuality.  If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term.  If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"
> 
> I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.
> 
> 
> It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What type of marriage are you talking about.  The religious ceremony of certain churches, or the marriage license you get from your local government?
> 
> News flash:  NO ONE IS REDEFINING RELIGION... NO ONE IS ASKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO CHANGE CATHOLIC WEDDINGS TO START MEANING TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. NO ONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHy aren't you understanding me? I don't think there should even BE government marriage licenses. The word marriage should not exist on any government document.
> 
> You want to get "married" find a group that will marry you and have at .
> 
> Then the government could do whatever as far as benefits and such
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a matter of understanding your view.. It's being able to agree with your words.  As for this post you just made... I disagree with your view that government should not be involved in regulating marriages.   For example,* I disagree with a religion that allows a 60year old man marry and have sex with a child.  I'm good with government regulating that.*  I'm also good with government regulating disbursement of assets on the death of a spouse.  I'm good with government being involved in matters of property.
Click to expand...


A child  can't consent and thus no one could marry an adult and a child without the government regulating marriage, they already regulate contracts, and have laws against statutory rape.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to force anyone to include you? Do you have any idea how childish that is? Are you so immature that you can't just leave people who disagree with your lifestyle alone? I'm quite sure you don't want Christians trying to force you to be a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.
> 
> Guess what young folks think about churches these days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares what young folks think?
> 
> About anything
> 
> Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.
> 
> Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.
> 
> The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...
> 
> Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.
> 
> Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.
> 
> Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?
> 
> It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey big guy.. again it depends how you disagree.  If you call a spade a ****** with bile on your tongue it's bigotry... If you call a gay guy a faggot with bile on your tongue it's bigtory.   Having a religious excuse is... just an excuse for the bigotry.  What did the gay guy do to harm you? Casting stones makes you a bigot...
Click to expand...


Good, tell that to SeaBytch, she's full of bile.

I have none, I'm a live and let live kinda guy.


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.
> 
> Guess what young folks think about churches these days?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what young folks think?
> 
> About anything
> 
> Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.
> 
> Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.
> 
> The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...
> 
> Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.
> 
> Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.
> 
> Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?
> 
> It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey big guy.. again it depends how you disagree.  If you call a spade a ****** with bile on your tongue it's bigotry... If you call a gay guy a faggot with bile on your tongue it's bigtory.   Having a religious excuse is... just an excuse for the bigotry.  What did the gay guy do to harm you? Casting stones makes you a bigot...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good, tell that to SeaBytch, she's full of bile.
> 
> I have none, I'm a live and let live kinda guy.
Click to expand...


I'm a live and let live guy too, for the most part... but if I see a woman getting beat by a man in the street I'm gonna butt in.  My guess is she's full of bile for good reason.  I've got more than a little bile for democrats.... I have zero patience for them on economic issues, but only because their idea of a good economy is to rape my income.


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define disagree with homosexuality.  If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term.  If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"
> 
> I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.
> 
> 
> It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What type of marriage are you talking about.  The religious ceremony of certain churches, or the marriage license you get from your local government?
> 
> News flash:  NO ONE IS REDEFINING RELIGION... NO ONE IS ASKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO CHANGE CATHOLIC WEDDINGS TO START MEANING TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. NO ONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHy aren't you understanding me? I don't think there should even BE government marriage licenses. The word marriage should not exist on any government document.
> 
> You want to get "married" find a group that will marry you and have at .
> 
> Then the government could do whatever as far as benefits and such
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a matter of understanding your view.. It's being able to agree with your words.  As for this post you just made... I disagree with your view that government should not be involved in regulating marriages.   For example,* I disagree with a religion that allows a 60year old man marry and have sex with a child.  I'm good with government regulating that.*  I'm also good with government regulating disbursement of assets on the death of a spouse.  I'm good with government being involved in matters of property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A child  can't consent and thus no one could marry an adult and a child without the government regulating marriage, they already regulate contracts, and have laws against statutory rape.
Click to expand...

Parents can consent for the child... that's how they used to get away with child brides.  Thus you are back to the same issue... do you want government regulating marriage or no.  Yes, a marriage recognized by the government is a contract.  A special type of contract, but a contract nonetheless.  Thus is in the scope of what the government regulates.  Again... you are confusing the "religious ceremony" for which government has no regulatory control... to the "marriage license" distributed by the justice of the peace.  The only thing common between the two concepts is the term marriage.  But really you can get married in a church and not have a legal marriage in the eyes of the law... and vice versa... just because the government says you are married does not mean your church is forced to bless it.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"
> 
> I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.
> 
> 
> It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.
> 
> 
> 
> What type of marriage are you talking about.  The religious ceremony of certain churches, or the marriage license you get from your local government?
> 
> News flash:  NO ONE IS REDEFINING RELIGION... NO ONE IS ASKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO CHANGE CATHOLIC WEDDINGS TO START MEANING TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. NO ONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHy aren't you understanding me? I don't think there should even BE government marriage licenses. The word marriage should not exist on any government document.
> 
> You want to get "married" find a group that will marry you and have at .
> 
> Then the government could do whatever as far as benefits and such
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a matter of understanding your view.. It's being able to agree with your words.  As for this post you just made... I disagree with your view that government should not be involved in regulating marriages.   For example,* I disagree with a religion that allows a 60year old man marry and have sex with a child.  I'm good with government regulating that.*  I'm also good with government regulating disbursement of assets on the death of a spouse.  I'm good with government being involved in matters of property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A child  can't consent and thus no one could marry an adult and a child without the government regulating marriage, they already regulate contracts, and have laws against statutory rape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Parents can consent for the child..*. that's how they used to get away with child brides.  Thus you are back to the same issue... do you want government regulating marriage or no.  Yes, a marriage recognized by the government is a contract.  A special type of contract, but a contract nonetheless.  Thus is in the scope of what the government regulates.  Again... you are confusing the "religious ceremony" for which government has no regulatory control... to the "marriage license" distributed by the justice of the peace.  The only thing common between the two concepts is the term marriage.  But really you can get married in a church and not have a legal marriage in the eyes of the law... and vice versa... just because the government says you are married does not mean your church is forced to bless it.
Click to expand...


No they can't. You can't consent to having your child sexually molested by an adult homes. Come on.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what young folks think?
> 
> About anything
> 
> Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.
> 
> Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.
> 
> The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...
> 
> Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.
> 
> Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.
> 
> Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?
> 
> It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey big guy.. again it depends how you disagree.  If you call a spade a ****** with bile on your tongue it's bigotry... If you call a gay guy a faggot with bile on your tongue it's bigtory.   Having a religious excuse is... just an excuse for the bigotry.  What did the gay guy do to harm you? Casting stones makes you a bigot...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good, tell that to SeaBytch, she's full of bile.
> 
> I have none, I'm a live and let live kinda guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a live and let live guy too, for the most part... but if I see a woman getting beat by a man in the street I'm gonna butt in.  My guess is she's full of bile for good reason.  I've got more than a little bile for democrats.... I have zero patience for them on economic issues, but only* because their idea of a good economy is to rape my income.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Tell me about it $106K in federal income tax last year. I guess Obama knows best.......................


----------



## JakeStarkey

"But I'm sure you can see the courts forcing churches to adopt orphans to go to gay pride homes in violation of their core faith...or risk losing public funding to keep their orphans in care..."  Then forego the government money.


----------



## WorldWatcher

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pray tell why you believe a ship's captain would be exempt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd take that bet, especially for a cruise ship where the ship advertises weddings may be performed by the captain for the price of a ticket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What You Need to Know to Get Married at Sea
> The Straight Dope Are ships captains allowed to marry people at sea
> Can Boat Captains Really Marry People Mental Floss
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My wife's a Notary Public, it's not hard to become one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say it was hard to become a Notary.  That wasn't the question.
> 
> A Captain can't perform a Civil Marriage just by virtue of being a ship's Captain.  If a Captain is a Notary, then your wife could perform a Civil Marriage because she's a notary, not because she's a ship's Captain.  A Captain that is a retired Judge can perform a Civil Marriage also, but not because (s)he's a Captain.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ship's captains don't perform weddings at all. That's a myth. The actual ceremony is conducted by a licensed person, and by federal law, any weddings performed aboard, MUST be performed while the ship is docked and the prevailing laws of whichever jurisdiction the ship is docked in apply. Which means you must have all legal paperwork etc etc from that jurisdiction and be approved.....
Click to expand...




SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.
> 
> Guess what young folks think about churches these days?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what young folks think?
> 
> About anything
> 
> Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.
> 
> Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.
> 
> The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...
> 
> Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.
> 
> Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.
> 
> Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?
> 
> It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define disagree with homosexuality.  If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term.  If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"
> 
> I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.
> 
> 
> It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.
Click to expand...



To be no different you would have to complete your post to something like this:

"Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"

I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.


It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.  So because the speech is absolutely disgusting to me, then the 1st Amendment right to free speech doesn't apply and the government can discriminate against them.
​Now that makes the two statements the same as they both advocate for the removal of government protections based on the fact that you find something disgusting.



>>>>


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What type of marriage are you talking about.  The religious ceremony of certain churches, or the marriage license you get from your local government?
> 
> News flash:  NO ONE IS REDEFINING RELIGION... NO ONE IS ASKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO CHANGE CATHOLIC WEDDINGS TO START MEANING TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. NO ONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHy aren't you understanding me? I don't think there should even BE government marriage licenses. The word marriage should not exist on any government document.
> 
> You want to get "married" find a group that will marry you and have at .
> 
> Then the government could do whatever as far as benefits and such
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a matter of understanding your view.. It's being able to agree with your words.  As for this post you just made... I disagree with your view that government should not be involved in regulating marriages.   For example,* I disagree with a religion that allows a 60year old man marry and have sex with a child.  I'm good with government regulating that.*  I'm also good with government regulating disbursement of assets on the death of a spouse.  I'm good with government being involved in matters of property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A child  can't consent and thus no one could marry an adult and a child without the government regulating marriage, they already regulate contracts, and have laws against statutory rape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Parents can consent for the child..*. that's how they used to get away with child brides.  Thus you are back to the same issue... do you want government regulating marriage or no.  Yes, a marriage recognized by the government is a contract.  A special type of contract, but a contract nonetheless.  Thus is in the scope of what the government regulates.  Again... you are confusing the "religious ceremony" for which government has no regulatory control... to the "marriage license" distributed by the justice of the peace.  The only thing common between the two concepts is the term marriage.  But really you can get married in a church and not have a legal marriage in the eyes of the law... and vice versa... just because the government says you are married does not mean your church is forced to bless it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they can't. You can't consent to having your child sexually molested by an adult homes. Come on.
Click to expand...


You are wrong.  I'll start with the first state in the list of states:

*To get married in the state of Alabama:*


If either of you are under eighteen (18), you will need a certified copy of your birth certificate. Both parents must be present with identification, or if you have a legal guardian they must be present with a court order and identification. The state requires a $200 bond to be executed, payable to the State of Alabama. If one or both parents are deceased, proper evidence of such must be provided. Individuals under the age of 14 may not marry.


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Tell me about it $106K in federal income tax last year. I guess Obama knows best.......................


That's their money you didn't build that.  You didn't earn that.


----------



## RKMBrown

WorldWatcher said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pray tell why you believe a ship's captain would be exempt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd take that bet, especially for a cruise ship where the ship advertises weddings may be performed by the captain for the price of a ticket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What You Need to Know to Get Married at Sea
> The Straight Dope Are ships captains allowed to marry people at sea
> Can Boat Captains Really Marry People Mental Floss
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My wife's a Notary Public, it's not hard to become one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say it was hard to become a Notary.  That wasn't the question.
> 
> A Captain can't perform a Civil Marriage just by virtue of being a ship's Captain.  If a Captain is a Notary, then your wife could perform a Civil Marriage because she's a notary, not because she's a ship's Captain.  A Captain that is a retired Judge can perform a Civil Marriage also, but not because (s)he's a Captain.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ship's captains don't perform weddings at all. That's a myth. The actual ceremony is conducted by a licensed person, and by federal law, any weddings performed aboard, MUST be performed while the ship is docked and the prevailing laws of whichever jurisdiction the ship is docked in apply. Which means you must have all legal paperwork etc etc from that jurisdiction and be approved.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what young folks think?
> 
> About anything
> 
> Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.
> 
> Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.
> 
> The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...
> 
> Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.
> 
> Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.
> 
> Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?
> 
> It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define disagree with homosexuality.  If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term.  If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"
> 
> I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.
> 
> 
> It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To be no different you would have to complete your post to something like this:
> 
> "Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"
> 
> I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.
> 
> 
> It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.  So because the speech is absolutely disgusting to me, then the 1st Amendment right to free speech doesn't apply and the government can discriminate against them.
> ​Now that makes the two statements the same as they both advocate for the removal of government protections based on the fact that you find something disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

No you missed a negative.  Stopping government from regulating marriage is the same as stopping government from regulating speech.   He's saying defending disgusting gay relationships by stopping government from regulating relationships, is the same as defending disgusting speech by stopping government from regulating speech.  Recognize that speech is a social interaction, possibly including a social relationship.  So his comparison is dead on.

I don't disagree with the idea that we should have an amendment that recites:
Congress shall make no law respecting a marriage between consenting adults, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  IOW let the feds define what a consenting adult is if they must, but other than that... it's none of the feds business.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHy aren't you understanding me? I don't think there should even BE government marriage licenses. The word marriage should not exist on any government document.
> 
> You want to get "married" find a group that will marry you and have at .
> 
> Then the government could do whatever as far as benefits and such
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a matter of understanding your view.. It's being able to agree with your words.  As for this post you just made... I disagree with your view that government should not be involved in regulating marriages.   For example,* I disagree with a religion that allows a 60year old man marry and have sex with a child.  I'm good with government regulating that.*  I'm also good with government regulating disbursement of assets on the death of a spouse.  I'm good with government being involved in matters of property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A child  can't consent and thus no one could marry an adult and a child without the government regulating marriage, they already regulate contracts, and have laws against statutory rape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Parents can consent for the child..*. that's how they used to get away with child brides.  Thus you are back to the same issue... do you want government regulating marriage or no.  Yes, a marriage recognized by the government is a contract.  A special type of contract, but a contract nonetheless.  Thus is in the scope of what the government regulates.  Again... you are confusing the "religious ceremony" for which government has no regulatory control... to the "marriage license" distributed by the justice of the peace.  The only thing common between the two concepts is the term marriage.  But really you can get married in a church and not have a legal marriage in the eyes of the law... and vice versa... just because the government says you are married does not mean your church is forced to bless it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they can't. You can't consent to having your child sexually molested by an adult homes. Come on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong.  I'll start with the first state in the list of states:
> 
> *To get married in the state of Alabama:*
> 
> 
> If either of you are under eighteen (18), you will need a certified copy of your birth certificate. Both parents must be present with identification, or if you have a legal guardian they must be present with a court order and identification. The state requires a $200 bond to be executed, payable to the State of Alabama. If one or both parents are deceased, proper evidence of such must be provided. Individuals under the age of 14 may not marry.
Click to expand...


Okay, I am wrong, to a point. I don't believe a 14 year old couldn't marry a 60 year old, even in alabama


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a matter of understanding your view.. It's being able to agree with your words.  As for this post you just made... I disagree with your view that government should not be involved in regulating marriages.   For example,* I disagree with a religion that allows a 60year old man marry and have sex with a child.  I'm good with government regulating that.*  I'm also good with government regulating disbursement of assets on the death of a spouse.  I'm good with government being involved in matters of property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A child  can't consent and thus no one could marry an adult and a child without the government regulating marriage, they already regulate contracts, and have laws against statutory rape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Parents can consent for the child..*. that's how they used to get away with child brides.  Thus you are back to the same issue... do you want government regulating marriage or no.  Yes, a marriage recognized by the government is a contract.  A special type of contract, but a contract nonetheless.  Thus is in the scope of what the government regulates.  Again... you are confusing the "religious ceremony" for which government has no regulatory control... to the "marriage license" distributed by the justice of the peace.  The only thing common between the two concepts is the term marriage.  But really you can get married in a church and not have a legal marriage in the eyes of the law... and vice versa... just because the government says you are married does not mean your church is forced to bless it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they can't. You can't consent to having your child sexually molested by an adult homes. Come on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong.  I'll start with the first state in the list of states:
> 
> *To get married in the state of Alabama:*
> 
> 
> If either of you are under eighteen (18), you will need a certified copy of your birth certificate. Both parents must be present with identification, or if you have a legal guardian they must be present with a court order and identification. The state requires a $200 bond to be executed, payable to the State of Alabama. If one or both parents are deceased, proper evidence of such must be provided. Individuals under the age of 14 may not marry.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, I am wrong, to a point. I don't believe a 14 year old couldn't marry a 60 year old, even in alabama
Click to expand...

Yeah... that's why IMO the only valid type of federal regulation here is regulating what a consenting adult is.  You shouldn't be able to sell your 14year old daughter to a 40year old man across state lines.


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Yeah... that's why IMO the only valid type of federal regulation here is regulating what a consenting adult is.  You shouldn't be able to sell your 14year old daughter to a 40year old man across state lines.


 
Don't tell that to Harvey Milk fans.  He took a 16 year old minor across state lines in violation of the Mann Act; as he was sodomizing the boy and acting as his father figure/guardian while he was doing it.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Don't tell that to Harvey Milk fans.  He took a 16 year old minor across state lines in violation of the Mann Act; as he was sodomizing the boy and acting as his father figure/guardian while he was doing it.



Of course  there is absolutely no evidence that any such thing ever happened. 

Just a fiction created by anti-homosexual bigots.


----------



## Conservative65

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.
Click to expand...

 
I agree with your reasoning.  If a private bakery can be told what they did by denying to do a cake for a same sex couple is wrong and illegal, don't think an activist, same sex marriage supporting judge won't tell a church that says no to such a wedding the same thing.


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> What's with "fags", averagebear.  We both served with lesbians and gays who were good soldiers.  Don't deny it.  If they were willing to do the job and go in harm's way, what is it off your ass anyway.


 
Their willingness to go in harm's way doesn't change that they are fags.  Even if they wer bad soldiers they'd still be fags.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Which is no better and no worse than being straight.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

JakeStarkey said:


> Which is no better and no worse than being straight.



In your opinion Jake

Which you're welcome to.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's with "fags", averagebear.  We both served with lesbians and gays who were good soldiers.  Don't deny it.  If they were willing to do the job and go in harm's way, what is it off your ass anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their willingness to go in harm's way doesn't change that they are fags.  Even if they wer bad soldiers they'd still be fags.
Click to expand...


Yep- just like kikes will still be kikes, ******* will still be ******* and polacks will still be polacks.

To some people.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's with "fags", averagebear.  We both served with lesbians and gays who were good soldiers.  Don't deny it.  If they were willing to do the job and go in harm's way, what is it off your ass anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their willingness to go in harm's way doesn't change that they are fags.  Even if they wer bad soldiers they'd still be fags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Yep- just like kikes will still be kikes*, ******* will still be ******* and polacks will still be polacks.
> 
> To some people.
Click to expand...


Lakhota


----------



## mdk

Conservative65 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with your reasoning.  If a private bakery can be told what they did by denying to do a cake for a same sex couple is wrong and illegal, don't think an activist, same sex marriage supporting judge won't tell a church that says no to such a wedding the same thing.
Click to expand...


There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry a couple against their wishes, gay, straight, black, white, interracial, etc. Not one. Gays have been getting married in MA for over decade and not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. All you have are slippery slopes and Pandora's Box types scenarios that have not come to pass.


----------



## Conservative65

mdk said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with your reasoning.  If a private bakery can be told what they did by denying to do a cake for a same sex couple is wrong and illegal, don't think an activist, same sex marriage supporting judge won't tell a church that says no to such a wedding the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry a couple against their wishes, gay, straight, black, white, interracial, etc. Not one. Gays have been getting married in MA for over decade and not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. All you have are slippery slopes and Pandora's Box types scenarios that have not come to pass.
Click to expand...

 
When, and it will happen because all it will take is some activists judge, will that be your response?  There are lots of things that the government now mandates that people said exactly what you said  when those who think like me expressed concern over them.

The question is SHOULD churches be forced to do so not have they.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with your reasoning.  If a private bakery can be told what they did by denying to do a cake for a same sex couple is wrong and illegal, don't think an activist, same sex marriage supporting judge won't tell a church that says no to such a wedding the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry a couple against their wishes, gay, straight, black, white, interracial, etc. Not one. Gays have been getting married in MA for over decade and not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. All you have are slippery slopes and Pandora's Box types scenarios that have not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When, and it will happen because all it will take is some activists judge, will that be your response?  There are lots of things that the government now mandates that people said exactly what you said  when those who think like me expressed concern over them.
> 
> The question is SHOULD churches be forced to do so not have they.
Click to expand...


For the same reason no Catholic Church has been forced to marry a Jewish couple and no Mormon Temple has been forced to marry a Evangelical Christian couple, the answer is- NO- churches should not be- and will not be- forced to marry any couple that doesn't meet the requirements of that church.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's with "fags", averagebear.  We both served with lesbians and gays who were good soldiers.  Don't deny it.  If they were willing to do the job and go in harm's way, what is it off your ass anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their willingness to go in harm's way doesn't change that they are fags.  Even if they wer bad soldiers they'd still be fags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Yep- just like kikes will still be kikes*, ******* will still be ******* and polacks will still be polacks.
> 
> To some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lakhota
Click to expand...


As I said

*Yep- just like kikes will still be kikes*, ******* will still be ******* and polacks will still be polacks.

To some people.

To those same people- fags will still be fags.


----------



## mdk

Conservative65 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with your reasoning.  If a private bakery can be told what they did by denying to do a cake for a same sex couple is wrong and illegal, don't think an activist, same sex marriage supporting judge won't tell a church that says no to such a wedding the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry a couple against their wishes, gay, straight, black, white, interracial, etc. Not one. Gays have been getting married in MA for over decade and not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. All you have are slippery slopes and Pandora's Box types scenarios that have not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When, and it will happen because all it will take is some activists judge, will that be your response?  There are lots of things that the government now mandates that people said exactly what you said  when those who think like me expressed concern over them.
> 
> The question is SHOULD churches be forced to do so not have they.
Click to expand...


As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes. 

If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Only slippery slope fallacies in this thread.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> *As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes*.
> 
> If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.


 
Should they be forced to adopt to any married couple against their wishes also?  Just checking.  Because you know, that's next...


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes*.
> 
> If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should they be forced to adopt to any married couple against their wishes also?  Just checking.  Because you know, that's next...
Click to expand...


Churches are not orphanages.

Orphanages are not churches.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with your reasoning.  If a private bakery can be told what they did by denying to do a cake for a same sex couple is wrong and illegal, don't think an activist, same sex marriage supporting judge won't tell a church that says no to such a wedding the same thing.
Click to expand...


Then you have ZERO understanding of the Constitution.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes*.
> 
> If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should they be forced to adopt to any married couple against their wishes also?  Just checking.  Because you know, that's next...
Click to expand...


How many times do I have to answer the same questions for you? I'll answer again though since you seem to want to know every day despite the fact the answers are always the same. 

If they are a private adoption agency then absolutely not. A private adoption agency can place a child in any family unit they see fit. If they are faith based agency *and *accept money from the government then you must abide by the rules that come attached to the money. If you don't want to follow these rules then go private and place children with whomever you wish.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes*.
> 
> If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should they be forced to adopt to any married couple against their wishes also?  Just checking.  Because you know, that's next...
Click to expand...


Slippery slope fallacy by Sil.  In fact, children protest at times, for various reasons, bieng placed with certain adults, and judges may take that into consideration if s/he so wishes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil merely wants to be reassured that Sil is wrong.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

JakeStarkey said:


> Only slippery slope fallacies in this thread.



Slipper slope and fallacy two claims made by people who can't debate and seek the easy way out.

Is that who you are Jake?

The fact is that if a church that advertises weddings to the public gets sued by a gay , the church WILL lose and there will be a church who is forced to allow a gay wedding in their church.

It most certainly CAN happen.


----------



## Skylar

> The fact is that if a church that advertises weddings to the public gets sued by a gay , the church WILL lose and there will be a church who is forced to allow a gay wedding in their church.



Says who? Can you show us a single example of this happening to say, a church that refused to perform an interracial wedding after the landmark 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision? 

Race has far more federal protections than sexual orientation.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> The fact is that if a church that advertises weddings to the public gets sued by a gay , the church WILL lose and there will be a church who is forced to allow a gay wedding in their church



You are confusing facts with your fears. 

And churches with business's.

No more than a Catholic Church that 'adverstises weddings' will be successfully sued by a  Jew for not being allowed to be married in the Cathedral.


----------



## Broncho4

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


I don't know of any church that is espousing a desire to exclude based on race but yes.  Churches should be allowed to believe whatever they want to believe.  If that belief turns into a practice that robs someone else of their individual rights then the law can step in.  We have no constitutional protection to attend any church regardless of the differences in beliefs.

I suspect that society would handle the issue of a church denying a minority to worship.  Again, I don't know of any church that has any interest in this.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Should they be forced to adopt to any married couple against their wishes also*?  Just checking.  Because you know, that's next...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Churches are not orphanages.
> 
> Orphanages are not churches*.
Click to expand...

 
OK, I'll take that code as a "yes, we LGBT militant activists will be soon suing church run orphanages for access to those kids".

Thanks for your honesty.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that if a church that advertises weddings to the public gets sued by a gay , the church WILL lose and there will be a church who is forced to allow a gay wedding in their church
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing facts with your fears.
> 
> And churches with business's.
> 
> No more than a Catholic Church that 'adverstises weddings' will be successfully sued by a  Jew for not being allowed to be married in the Cathedral.
Click to expand...


Under the same law, a Jew COULD sue a Catholic church who refused to allow him or her to marry. Why do you ignore the fact that there are churches who advertise weddings for profit which makes them a BUSINESS.

Can a Church say "we don't believe in the minimum wage" and ignore that law when doing business? Why do you pick and choose which laws you think a Church should have to follow?


----------



## Skylar

> Under the same law, a Jew COULD sue a Catholic church who refused to allow him or her to marry. Why do you ignore the fact that there are churches who advertise weddings for profit which makes them a BUSINESS.



Says who? Certainly not the court.

Again, that a gay person might sue a church to force them to perform a religious ceremony isn't in dispute. But they're is zero indication that the courts will take the suit seriously.


----------



## Conservative65

mdk said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings" means nothing about the legality of marriage equality.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with your reasoning.  If a private bakery can be told what they did by denying to do a cake for a same sex couple is wrong and illegal, don't think an activist, same sex marriage supporting judge won't tell a church that says no to such a wedding the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry a couple against their wishes, gay, straight, black, white, interracial, etc. Not one. Gays have been getting married in MA for over decade and not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. All you have are slippery slopes and Pandora's Box types scenarios that have not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When, and it will happen because all it will take is some activists judge, will that be your response?  There are lots of things that the government now mandates that people said exactly what you said  when those who think like me expressed concern over them.
> 
> The question is SHOULD churches be forced to do so not have they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes.
> 
> If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.
Click to expand...

 
Unless your a federal judge, what you would do is irrelevant.

A church has never been ordered to marry some against their wishes, YET.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Skylar said:


> Under the same law, a Jew COULD sue a Catholic church who refused to allow him or her to marry. Why do you ignore the fact that there are churches who advertise weddings for profit which makes them a BUSINESS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? Certainly not the court.
> 
> Again, that a gay person might sue a church to force them to perform a religious ceremony isn't in dispute. But they're is zero indication that the courts will take the suit seriously.
Click to expand...



And I will remind you that 5 years ago we ALL would have laughed if someone had sued so their male child who thought he was a female could use the female restroom . You would have then said "No court would take such a case seriously"


----------



## Skylar

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under the same law, a Jew COULD sue a Catholic church who refused to allow him or her to marry. Why do you ignore the fact that there are churches who advertise weddings for profit which makes them a BUSINESS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? Certainly not the court.
> 
> Again, that a gay person might sue a church to force them to perform a religious ceremony isn't in dispute. But they're is zero indication that the courts will take the suit seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I will remind you that 5 years ago we ALL would have laughed if someone had sued so their male child who thought he was a female could use the female restroom . You would have then said "No court would take such a case seriously"
Click to expand...


Its been almost 50 years since the Loving decision. In that time have churches been forced to perform interracial marriages that they didn't want to?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Skylar said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under the same law, a Jew COULD sue a Catholic church who refused to allow him or her to marry. Why do you ignore the fact that there are churches who advertise weddings for profit which makes them a BUSINESS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? Certainly not the court.
> 
> Again, that a gay person might sue a church to force them to perform a religious ceremony isn't in dispute. But they're is zero indication that the courts will take the suit seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I will remind you that 5 years ago we ALL would have laughed if someone had sued so their male child who thought he was a female could use the female restroom . You would have then said "No court would take such a case seriously"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its been almost 50 years since the Loving decision. In that time have churches been forced to perform interracial marriages that they didn't want to?
Click to expand...


Irrelevant. Before the first parents of a little pervert sued to allow their pervert to use whichever restroom he wanted, had any parents sued on behalf of their little pervert in this way?

See, perverts believe in FORCING people to do deal with their perversions in this way. Inter racial couples aren't automatically perverts, gays are.

For example, have you ever seen a interracial pride parade? No, neither have I. Why do fags have such things? Well to rub their perversion in your face of course.

Also, have you ever heard an inter racial couple say that they would like to force (through public pressure heehehehe) churches to marry them? No, you have not, but there is a perverted fag woman in this thread who has said EXACTLY that about churches and gay marriage. Why? Because unlike interracial couples, the goal of gay couples is not simply to be allowed to live their lives...


----------



## mdk

Conservative65 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.
> 
> You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
> 
> I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with your reasoning.  If a private bakery can be told what they did by denying to do a cake for a same sex couple is wrong and illegal, don't think an activist, same sex marriage supporting judge won't tell a church that says no to such a wedding the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry a couple against their wishes, gay, straight, black, white, interracial, etc. Not one. Gays have been getting married in MA for over decade and not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. All you have are slippery slopes and Pandora's Box types scenarios that have not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When, and it will happen because all it will take is some activists judge, will that be your response?  There are lots of things that the government now mandates that people said exactly what you said  when those who think like me expressed concern over them.
> 
> The question is SHOULD churches be forced to do so not have they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes.
> 
> If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless your a federal judge, what you would do is irrelevant.
> 
> A church has never been ordered to marry some against their wishes, YET.
Click to expand...


You asked my opinion and I answered, so you can the snark. 

The very same argument you're employing now was also used after _Loving.  _Since then not a single church has been forced to marry an interracial couple by the courts against their wishes. Not one. That same hyperbole didn't work then and it doesn't work now.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

mdk said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with your reasoning.  If a private bakery can be told what they did by denying to do a cake for a same sex couple is wrong and illegal, don't think an activist, same sex marriage supporting judge won't tell a church that says no to such a wedding the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry a couple against their wishes, gay, straight, black, white, interracial, etc. Not one. Gays have been getting married in MA for over decade and not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. All you have are slippery slopes and Pandora's Box types scenarios that have not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When, and it will happen because all it will take is some activists judge, will that be your response?  There are lots of things that the government now mandates that people said exactly what you said  when those who think like me expressed concern over them.
> 
> The question is SHOULD churches be forced to do so not have they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes.
> 
> If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless your a federal judge, what you would do is irrelevant.
> 
> A church has never been ordered to marry some against their wishes, YET.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked my opinion and I answered, so you can the snark.
> 
> The very same argument you're employing now was also used after _Loving.  _Since then not a single church has been forced to marry an interracial couple by the courts against their wishes. Not one. That same hyperbole didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
Click to expand...


you dont actually KNOW that no church has been forced to, you merely know that no case has been of note


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that if a church that advertises weddings to the public gets sued by a gay , the church WILL lose and there will be a church who is forced to allow a gay wedding in their church
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing facts with your fears.
> 
> And churches with business's.
> 
> No more than a Catholic Church that 'adverstises weddings' will be successfully sued by a  Jew for not being allowed to be married in the Cathedral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under the same law, a Jew COULD sue a Catholic church who refused to allow him or her to marry. Why do you ignore the fact that there are churches who advertise weddings for profit which makes them a BUSINESS.?
Click to expand...


Which law would that be? 

Anyone can sue anyone. That doesn't mean that they have a case. 

As I said- you confuse facts with your fears.

No more than a Catholic Church that 'adverstises weddings' will be successfully sued by a  Jew for not being allowed to be married in the Cathedral.

Churches are not business's so long as they meet the criteria for church's.

Business's are not church's if they don't meet the criteria for church's. 

You can try to sue the Catholic Church for not allowing you to marry in the Cathedral because you are not a Catholic, but all you will do is waste everyone's time.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Also, have you ever heard an inter racial couple say that they would like to force (through public pressure heehehehe) churches to marry them? No, you have not, but there is a perverted fag woman in this thread who has said..



fags....n****s, kikes.....polacks....chinks.....nips.....wetbacks.....

Terms used by the same people, for the same purpose.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Should they be forced to adopt to any married couple against their wishes also*?  Just checking.  Because you know, that's next...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Churches are not orphanages.
> 
> Orphanages are not churches*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, I'll take that code as a "yes, we LGBT militant activists will be soon suing church run orphanages for access to those kids".
> 
> Thanks for your honesty.
Click to expand...


Well someone has to be honest in the thread. Certainly it isn't you. 

What I honestly believe- as a married father, who actually cares about children is that:

Churches are not orphanages

Orphanages are not churches. 

Churches perform marriages.

Orphanages don't.

Orphanages arrange for adoptions.

Church's don't.

And anti-gay activists abuse the issue of children in order to attack homosexuals.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Very relevant, guys.  No church has been forced to marry anyone they did not want to marry.  If there is not a 9 or 14 public interest that compels the 1st protection of religious association be avoided, then churches are safe.

Of course corporations are people now.

Texas Presbyterian should be sued for willful negligence in the death of the patient and the illness of the two nurses.  The chief administrators should go to prison for ten years and ten years of dividends should be diverted to Dallas public health systems.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that if a church that advertises weddings to the public gets sued by a gay , the church WILL lose and there will be a church who is forced to allow a gay wedding in their church
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing facts with your fears.
> 
> And churches with business's.
> 
> No more than a Catholic Church that 'adverstises weddings' will be successfully sued by a  Jew for not being allowed to be married in the Cathedral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under the same law, a Jew COULD sue a Catholic church who refused to allow him or her to marry. Why do you ignore the fact that there are churches who advertise weddings for profit which makes them a BUSINESS.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which law would that be?
> 
> Anyone can sue anyone. That doesn't mean that they have a case.
> 
> As I said- you confuse facts with your fears.
> 
> No more than a Catholic Church that 'adverstises weddings' will be successfully sued by a  Jew for not being allowed to be married in the Cathedral.
> 
> Churches are not business's so long as they meet the criteria for church's.
> 
> Business's are not church's if they don't meet the criteria for church's.
> 
> You can try to sue the Catholic Church for not allowing you to marry in the Cathedral because you are not a Catholic, but all you will do is waste everyone's time.
Click to expand...


you are attempting to disguise the fact that fags will sue by continually claiming that they won't win.

Why you can't just admit that the giant vaginas probably will sue like a bunch of whiny vadges is beyond me.


----------



## Skylar

> you are attempting to disguise the fact that fags will sue by continually claiming that they won't win.
> 
> Why you can't just admit that the giant vaginas probably will sue like a bunch of whiny vadges is beyond me.



Who's denying that some gay guy will eventually sue? I've seen a woman scratch her ankle on a wall fixture and then sue because the injury she incurred ruined her singing career. 

A suit is merely an accusation. If the court doesn't recognize the grounds the suit is based on, the suit gets tossed out. And there's no indication by the courts that the would force any church to marry anyone they don't want to marry.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that if a church that advertises weddings to the public gets sued by a gay , the church WILL lose and there will be a church who is forced to allow a gay wedding in their church
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing facts with your fears.
> 
> And churches with business's.
> 
> No more than a Catholic Church that 'adverstises weddings' will be successfully sued by a  Jew for not being allowed to be married in the Cathedral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under the same law, a Jew COULD sue a Catholic church who refused to allow him or her to marry. Why do you ignore the fact that there are churches who advertise weddings for profit which makes them a BUSINESS.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which law would that be?
> 
> Anyone can sue anyone. That doesn't mean that they have a case.
> 
> As I said- you confuse facts with your fears.
> 
> No more than a Catholic Church that 'adverstises weddings' will be successfully sued by a  Jew for not being allowed to be married in the Cathedral.
> 
> Churches are not business's so long as they meet the criteria for church's.
> 
> Business's are not church's if they don't meet the criteria for church's.
> 
> You can try to sue the Catholic Church for not allowing you to marry in the Cathedral because you are not a Catholic, but all you will do is waste everyone's time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> you are attempting to disguise the fact that fags will sue by continually claiming that they won't win..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are attempting to attack homosexuals by claiming that they will sue churches when there is absolutely no evidence, other than your imagination that any such suits will be made, and with absolutely no basis for believing that they would be successful.
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> t the giant vaginas probably will sue like a bunch of whiny vadges is beyond me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that like a giant panda?
Click to expand...


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> you are attempting to disguise the fact that fags will sue by continually claiming that they won't win..



You are attempting to attack homosexuals by claiming that they will sue churches when there is absolutely no evidence, other than your imagination that any such suits will be made, and with absolutely no basis for believing that they would be successful.



SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> t the giant vaginas probably will sue like a bunch of whiny vadges is beyond me.



Is that like a giant panda?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

↑
[
you are attempting to disguise the fact that fags will sue by continually claiming that they won't win..
You are attempting to attack homosexuals by claiming that they will sue churches when there is absolutely no evidence, other than your imagination that any such suits will be made, and with absolutely no basis for believing that they would be successful. 

↑
[
t the giant vaginas probably will sue like a bunch of whiny vadges is beyond me.
Is that like a giant panda?​


----------



## mdk

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry a couple against their wishes, gay, straight, black, white, interracial, etc. Not one. Gays have been getting married in MA for over decade and not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. All you have are slippery slopes and Pandora's Box types scenarios that have not come to pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When, and it will happen because all it will take is some activists judge, will that be your response?  There are lots of things that the government now mandates that people said exactly what you said  when those who think like me expressed concern over them.
> 
> The question is SHOULD churches be forced to do so not have they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes.
> 
> If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless your a federal judge, what you would do is irrelevant.
> 
> A church has never been ordered to marry some against their wishes, YET.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked my opinion and I answered, so you can the snark.
> 
> The very same argument you're employing now was also used after _Loving.  _Since then not a single church has been forced to marry an interracial couple by the courts against their wishes. Not one. That same hyperbole didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you dont actually KNOW that no church has been forced to, you merely know that no case has been of note
Click to expand...


I have searched on numerous occasions for such a case and I have been unable to find one. I've been debating this topic for many years now and each time I am unable to locate one. Something tells me a church being forced to marry an interracial couple (or any couple) would have garnered quite a bit of attention. Enough attention to make it worthy of note in the annals of legal history. I can't find one. As it stands not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, interracial or otherwise, against their wishes. If you can find one I would love to know because legal history is sort of a hobby as mine.


----------



## Skylar

> You are attempting to attack homosexuals by claiming that they will sue churches when there is absolutely no evidence, other than your imagination that any such suits will be made, and with absolutely no basis for believing that they would be successful.



Suits are merely accusations. I think its a near certainty that at some point, some gay guy is going to sue to try and force a church to perform a wedding.

That's only slightly less certain than the suit being laughed out of court.


----------



## Seawytch

Skylar said:


> You are attempting to attack homosexuals by claiming that they will sue churches when there is absolutely no evidence, other than your imagination that any such suits will be made, and with absolutely no basis for believing that they would be successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suits are merely accusations. I think its a near certainty that at some point, some gay guy is going to sue to try and force a church to perform a wedding.
> 
> That's only slightly less certain than the suit being laughed out of court.
Click to expand...


^^ that ^^


----------



## Syriusly

mdk said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When, and it will happen because all it will take is some activists judge, will that be your response?  There are lots of things that the government now mandates that people said exactly what you said  when those who think like me expressed concern over them.
> 
> The question is SHOULD churches be forced to do so not have they.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes.
> 
> If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless your a federal judge, what you would do is irrelevant.
> 
> A church has never been ordered to marry some against their wishes, YET.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked my opinion and I answered, so you can the snark.
> 
> The very same argument you're employing now was also used after _Loving.  _Since then not a single church has been forced to marry an interracial couple by the courts against their wishes. Not one. That same hyperbole didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you dont actually KNOW that no church has been forced to, you merely know that no case has been of note
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have searched on numerous occasions for such a case and I have been unable to find one. I've been debating this topic for many years now and each time I am unable to locate one. Something tells me a church being forced to marry an interracial couple (or any couple) would have garnered quite a bit of attention. Enough attention to make it worthy of note in the annals of legal history. I can't find one. As it stands not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, interracial or otherwise, against their wishes. If you can find one I would love to know because legal history is sort of a hobby as mine.
Click to expand...


Many churches will only perform marriages for those who are either members of their church or belong to their faith.

I am fairly confident that is the case for Catholics for example- my wife and I could never get married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest because we are not Catholics- does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?

No- it means I would probably be paying court costs if I tried. Most people would look at such a lawsuit as frivolous.


----------



## RKMBrown

JakeStarkey said:


> Very relevant, guys.  No church has been forced to marry anyone they did not want to marry.  If there is not a 9 or 14 public interest that compels the 1st protection of religious association be avoided, then churches are safe.
> 
> Of course corporations are people now.
> 
> Texas Presbyterian should be sued for willful negligence in the death of the patient and the illness of the two nurses.  The chief administrators should go to prison for ten years and ten years of dividends should be diverted to Dallas public health systems.


Corporations are not people ... what a dumb ass thing to say.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes.
> 
> If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless your a federal judge, what you would do is irrelevant.
> 
> A church has never been ordered to marry some against their wishes, YET.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked my opinion and I answered, so you can the snark.
> 
> The very same argument you're employing now was also used after _Loving.  _Since then not a single church has been forced to marry an interracial couple by the courts against their wishes. Not one. That same hyperbole didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you dont actually KNOW that no church has been forced to, you merely know that no case has been of note
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have searched on numerous occasions for such a case and I have been unable to find one. I've been debating this topic for many years now and each time I am unable to locate one. Something tells me a church being forced to marry an interracial couple (or any couple) would have garnered quite a bit of attention. Enough attention to make it worthy of note in the annals of legal history. I can't find one. As it stands not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, interracial or otherwise, against their wishes. If you can find one I would love to know because legal history is sort of a hobby as mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many churches will only perform marriages for those who are either members of their church or belong to their faith.
> 
> I am fairly confident that is the case for Catholics for example- my wife and I could never get married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest because we are not Catholics- does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?
> 
> No- it means I would probably be paying court costs if I tried. Most people would look at such a lawsuit as frivolous.
Click to expand...


Again, I will say that five years ago MOST people would have thought that suing a school so that your son could use the girls' restroom was frivolous.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless your a federal judge, what you would do is irrelevant.
> 
> A church has never been ordered to marry some against their wishes, YET.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked my opinion and I answered, so you can the snark.
> 
> The very same argument you're employing now was also used after _Loving.  _Since then not a single church has been forced to marry an interracial couple by the courts against their wishes. Not one. That same hyperbole didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you dont actually KNOW that no church has been forced to, you merely know that no case has been of note
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have searched on numerous occasions for such a case and I have been unable to find one. I've been debating this topic for many years now and each time I am unable to locate one. Something tells me a church being forced to marry an interracial couple (or any couple) would have garnered quite a bit of attention. Enough attention to make it worthy of note in the annals of legal history. I can't find one. As it stands not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, interracial or otherwise, against their wishes. If you can find one I would love to know because legal history is sort of a hobby as mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many churches will only perform marriages for those who are either members of their church or belong to their faith.
> 
> I am fairly confident that is the case for Catholics for example- my wife and I could never get married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest because we are not Catholics- does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?
> 
> No- it means I would probably be paying court costs if I tried. Most people would look at such a lawsuit as frivolous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I will say that five years ago MOST people would have thought that suing a school so that your son could use the girls' restroom was frivolous.
Click to expand...


Again I will say

Many churches will only perform marriages for those who are either members of their church or belong to their faith.

I am fairly confident that is the case for Catholics for example- my wife and I could never get married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest because we are not Catholics- does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?

No- it means I would probably be paying court costs if I tried. Most people would look at such a lawsuit as frivolous.

The same reason no one forces the Catholic Church to marry Jews is the same reason why no one will be forcing the Catholic Church to marry homosexuals.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked my opinion and I answered, so you can the snark.
> 
> The very same argument you're employing now was also used after _Loving.  _Since then not a single church has been forced to marry an interracial couple by the courts against their wishes. Not one. That same hyperbole didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you dont actually KNOW that no church has been forced to, you merely know that no case has been of note
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have searched on numerous occasions for such a case and I have been unable to find one. I've been debating this topic for many years now and each time I am unable to locate one. Something tells me a church being forced to marry an interracial couple (or any couple) would have garnered quite a bit of attention. Enough attention to make it worthy of note in the annals of legal history. I can't find one. As it stands not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, interracial or otherwise, against their wishes. If you can find one I would love to know because legal history is sort of a hobby as mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many churches will only perform marriages for those who are either members of their church or belong to their faith.
> 
> I am fairly confident that is the case for Catholics for example- my wife and I could never get married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest because we are not Catholics- does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?
> 
> No- it means I would probably be paying court costs if I tried. Most people would look at such a lawsuit as frivolous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I will say that five years ago MOST people would have thought that suing a school so that your son could use the girls' restroom was frivolous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I will say
> 
> Many churches will only perform marriages for those who are either members of their church or belong to their faith.
> 
> I am fairly confident that is the case for Catholics for example- my wife and I could never get married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest because we are not Catholics- does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?
> 
> No- it means I would probably be paying court costs if I tried. Most people would look at such a lawsuit as frivolous.
> 
> The same reason no one forces the Catholic Church to marry Jews is the same reason why no one will be forcing the Catholic Church to marry homosexuals.
Click to expand...



Can you show me a SINGLE example of a Jew suing the Catholic Church? No? I didn't think so, but you have admitted that gays will sue Christian churches.  We in fact have NO reference point to look and see that a Catholic Church has been forced via lawsuit to allow a Jew to marry in the church.

For a similarity , let's look at Italian bakeries (ran by Catholics of course) can you cite a SINGLE example of a Jew suing an Italian bakery for refusing to bake their Jew wedding cake? Do you suppose that it has never happened that an Italian bakery has declined to bake a Jew wedding cake, or do you find it more likely that it has happened and the Jew went somewhere else to get their cake baked?

but fags have already PROVEN that they are too childish to simply go somewhere else, they'd rather FORCE a Christian to bake their wedding cake, then be mature and go somewhere else.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> you dont actually KNOW that no church has been forced to, you merely know that no case has been of note
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have searched on numerous occasions for such a case and I have been unable to find one. I've been debating this topic for many years now and each time I am unable to locate one. Something tells me a church being forced to marry an interracial couple (or any couple) would have garnered quite a bit of attention. Enough attention to make it worthy of note in the annals of legal history. I can't find one. As it stands not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, interracial or otherwise, against their wishes. If you can find one I would love to know because legal history is sort of a hobby as mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many churches will only perform marriages for those who are either members of their church or belong to their faith.
> 
> I am fairly confident that is the case for Catholics for example- my wife and I could never get married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest because we are not Catholics- does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?
> 
> No- it means I would probably be paying court costs if I tried. Most people would look at such a lawsuit as frivolous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I will say that five years ago MOST people would have thought that suing a school so that your son could use the girls' restroom was frivolous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I will say
> 
> Many churches will only perform marriages for those who are either members of their church or belong to their faith.
> 
> I am fairly confident that is the case for Catholics for example- my wife and I could never get married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest because we are not Catholics- does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?
> 
> No- it means I would probably be paying court costs if I tried. Most people would look at such a lawsuit as frivolous.
> 
> The same reason no one forces the Catholic Church to marry Jews is the same reason why no one will be forcing the Catholic Church to marry homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show me a SINGLE example of a Jew suing the Catholic Church? No? I didn't think so, but you have admitted that gays will sue Christian churches. .
Click to expand...


Well yes I can show you examples of Jews suing the Catholic Church....but they frankly aren't relevant.

Can you show me a SINGLE example of a homosexual suing the Catholic Church for not allowing them to be married in the Church?

I have admitted that any idiot can sue anyone for anything. While there may be an idiot homosexual who will sue the Catholic Church in order to get married in it, I find that no more likely than an idiot Jew or an idiot Evangelical Christian doing so.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> [
> but fags have .



fags......n*****s....chinks...spics....pollacks....kikes.....

All words used by the same people for the same purpose.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have searched on numerous occasions for such a case and I have been unable to find one. I've been debating this topic for many years now and each time I am unable to locate one. Something tells me a church being forced to marry an interracial couple (or any couple) would have garnered quite a bit of attention. Enough attention to make it worthy of note in the annals of legal history. I can't find one. As it stands not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, interracial or otherwise, against their wishes. If you can find one I would love to know because legal history is sort of a hobby as mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many churches will only perform marriages for those who are either members of their church or belong to their faith.
> 
> I am fairly confident that is the case for Catholics for example- my wife and I could never get married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest because we are not Catholics- does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?
> 
> No- it means I would probably be paying court costs if I tried. Most people would look at such a lawsuit as frivolous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I will say that five years ago MOST people would have thought that suing a school so that your son could use the girls' restroom was frivolous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I will say
> 
> Many churches will only perform marriages for those who are either members of their church or belong to their faith.
> 
> I am fairly confident that is the case for Catholics for example- my wife and I could never get married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest because we are not Catholics- does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?
> 
> No- it means I would probably be paying court costs if I tried. Most people would look at such a lawsuit as frivolous.
> 
> The same reason no one forces the Catholic Church to marry Jews is the same reason why no one will be forcing the Catholic Church to marry homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show me a SINGLE example of a Jew suing the Catholic Church? No? I didn't think so, but you have admitted that gays will sue Christian churches. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Well yes I can show you examples of Jews suing the Catholic Church....but they frankly aren't relevant.*
> 
> *Can you show me a SINGLE example of a homosexual suing the Catholic Church for not allowing them to be married in the Church?*
> 
> I have admitted that any idiot can sue anyone for anything. While there may be an idiot homosexual who will sue the Catholic Church in order to get married in it, I find that no more likely than an idiot Jew or an idiot Evangelical Christian doing so.
Click to expand...


Then show me.

And of course they are relevant , because you keep screaming that other groups haven't won a case when in fact other groups haven't filed a case.


----------



## Syriusly

You challenged me for a "Can you show me a SINGLE example of a Jew suing the Catholic Church? No? I didn't think so,"

I said yes- but it wasn't relevant- and still isnt'.

Here you go-an example of jews suing the Catholic Church

Browse > Home / Catalyst Online, Features / JEWISH GROUP SUES VATICAN - Catholic League
*JEWISH GROUP SUES VATICAN*
Catalyst March Issue 2005


The Coalition for Jewish Concerns has announced that it is going to sue the Vatican in an attempt to force the Holy See to open its archives relating to Jewish children sheltered by the Catholic Church during World War II.

Now that I have answered your question- answer mine.

*Can you show me a SINGLE example of a homosexual suing the Catholic Church for not allowing them to be married in the Church?*


----------



## Skylar

> Then show me.
> 
> And of course they are relevant , because you keep screaming that other groups haven't won a case when in fact other groups haven't filed a case.



Why don't you show us. You've presented exactly nothing to back any portion of your claims. Or provide us with a single example of what you're describing. Or even anything remotely close to it. Or even a plausible scenario in which you could be right. 

If US law mandates that churches can't discriminate, then there should be hundreds of suits forcing churches to perform interracial marriages they don't want to perform.

Um, where are they?


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Then show me.
> 
> And of course they are relevant , because you keep screaming that other groups haven't won a case when in fact other groups haven't filed a case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you show us. You've presented exactly nothing to back any portion of your claims. Or provide us with a single example of what you're describing. Or even anything remotely close to it. Or even a plausible scenario in which you could be right.
> 
> If US law mandates that churches can't discriminate, then there should be hundreds of suits forcing churches to perform interracial marriages they don't want to perform.
> 
> Um, where are they?
Click to expand...


True story.

I once worked with someone who told me that her minister preached that god forbade whites and blacks to marry.

I never heard of any lawsuit to force that minister to marry inter-racial couples.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> You challenged me for a "Can you show me a SINGLE example of a Jew suing the Catholic Church? No? I didn't think so,"
> 
> I said yes- but it wasn't relevant- and still isnt'.
> 
> Here you go-an example of jews suing the Catholic Church
> 
> Browse > Home / Catalyst Online, Features / JEWISH GROUP SUES VATICAN - Catholic League
> *JEWISH GROUP SUES VATICAN*
> Catalyst March Issue 2005
> 
> 
> The Coalition for Jewish Concerns has announced that it is going to sue the Vatican in an attempt to force the Holy See to open its archives relating to Jewish children sheltered by the Catholic Church during World War II.
> 
> Now that I have answered your question- answer mine.
> 
> *Can you show me a SINGLE example of a homosexual suing the Catholic Church for not allowing them to be married in the Church?*



oh for the love of God, you KNEW I meant in reference to marriage


----------



## dblack

Churches should be taken over my government outright. How else will we learn to serve the state appropriately?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

dblack said:


> Churches should be taken over my government outright. How else will we learn to serve the state appropriately?



I'm sure SeaBytch would love to force churches out of existence, not by law though


----------



## JakeStarkey

RKMBrown said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very relevant, guys.  No church has been forced to marry anyone they did not want to marry.  If there is not a 9 or 14 public interest that compels the 1st protection of religious association be avoided, then churches are safe.
> 
> Of course corporations are people now.
> 
> Texas Presbyterian should be sued for willful negligence in the death of the patient and the illness of the two nurses.  The chief administrators should go to prison for ten years and ten years of dividends should be diverted to Dallas public health systems.
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not people ... what a dumb ass thing to say.
Click to expand...


Citizens United have opened the door to such statute development for curbing corporation excesses and punishing shareholders.


----------



## dblack

JakeStarkey said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very relevant, guys.  No church has been forced to marry anyone they did not want to marry.  If there is not a 9 or 14 public interest that compels the 1st protection of religious association be avoided, then churches are safe.
> 
> Of course corporations are people now.
> 
> Texas Presbyterian should be sued for willful negligence in the death of the patient and the illness of the two nurses.  The chief administrators should go to prison for ten years and ten years of dividends should be diverted to Dallas public health systems.
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not people ... what a dumb ass thing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citizens United have opened the door to such statute development for curbing corporation excesses and punishing shareholders.
Click to expand...


Dooooooouche!!!!!


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

JakeStarkey said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very relevant, guys.  No church has been forced to marry anyone they did not want to marry.  If there is not a 9 or 14 public interest that compels the 1st protection of religious association be avoided, then churches are safe.
> 
> Of course corporations are people now.
> 
> Texas Presbyterian should be sued for willful negligence in the death of the patient and the illness of the two nurses.  The chief administrators should go to prison for ten years and ten years of dividends should be diverted to Dallas public health systems.
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not people ... what a dumb ass thing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citizens United have opened the door to such statute development for curbing corporation excesses and punishing shareholders.
Click to expand...


Hobby Lobby opened the door for getting rid of Public Accommodation laws.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Tough, guys.  You can't have it both ways.


----------



## JakeStarkey

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very relevant, guys.  No church has been forced to marry anyone they did not want to marry.  If there is not a 9 or 14 public interest that compels the 1st protection of religious association be avoided, then churches are safe.
> 
> Of course corporations are people now.
> 
> Texas Presbyterian should be sued for willful negligence in the death of the patient and the illness of the two nurses.  The chief administrators should go to prison for ten years and ten years of dividends should be diverted to Dallas public health systems.
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not people ... what a dumb ass thing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citizens United have opened the door to such statute development for curbing corporation excesses and punishing shareholders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hobby Lobby opened the door for getting rid of Public Accommodation laws.
Click to expand...


That is a real possibility.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We in the mainstream of the GOP need to think real hard: do we reach out to women, minorities, Hispanics, cultural movements or do we keep the Far Right on board.

If we do the latter, HRC will run and win if she his healthy.  She will win easily, and then nominate any where from two to six justices over an eight year period.

The justices will go after Citizens and Hobby Lobby.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

JakeStarkey said:


> We in the mainstream of the GOP need to think real hard: do we reach out to women, minorities, Hispanics, cultural movements or do we keep the Far Right on board.
> 
> If we do the latter, HRC will run and win if she his healthy.  She will win easily, and then nominate any where from two to six justices over an eight year period.
> 
> The justices will go after Citizens and Hobby Lobby.



I don't know why the GOP is so hard headed about that. Where is the far right going to go? Nowhere of course. The Republicans need to get with the program. That's how the Dems keep the black vote. They don't have any record of actually doing anything positive for blacks, but where are blacks going to go? And both the Dems and the blacks know that, so status quo it is.


----------



## dblack

JakeStarkey said:


> *We* in the mainstream of the GOP need to think real hard: do we reach out to women, minorities, Hispanics, cultural movements or do we keep the Far Right on board.
> 
> If we do the latter, HRC will run and win if she his healthy.  She will win easily, and then nominate any where from two to six justices over an eight year period.
> 
> The justices will go after Citizens and Hobby Lobby.



Don't you mean Wee?


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?


 
Were you born non-Catholic?


Syriusly said:


> Churches are not business's so long as they meet the criteria for church's.


 
Outside of the spiritual role of the church, it's primary role,
if you were to see the things a church does and how it does them, it’s much like a business.  It pays bills, it employees people, it does building maintenance. The Baptist church calls its “Board of Directors” Deacons.  Their role is much like that of one for a non religious business.  We have finance committees, personnel committees, and all sorts of others in mine. 
My job involves doing code inspections on businesses in the jurisdiction where I work.  When I inspect a church, they get the same look through on the same level as a non religious business.  While the ultimate goal and purpose is to do God’s work, the day to day functioning is done just like a business.  The power, phone, and water companies would turn off those utilities to a church for not paying its bills. 
Don’t think some foolish Liberal, activist judge won’t look at it that way.  While I can’t point to a specific case where homos have asked to be married in a church and turned down, remember two things:  1)  allowing same sex marriages in States hasn’t been as widespread as it is now and 2) lots of things I never thought I would see in my lifetime, including homos thinking their marriage is on the same level as mine, are happening.


----------



## Conservative65

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We in the mainstream of the GOP need to think real hard: do we reach out to women, minorities, Hispanics, cultural movements or do we keep the Far Right on board.
> 
> If we do the latter, HRC will run and win if she his healthy.  She will win easily, and then nominate any where from two to six justices over an eight year period.
> 
> The justices will go after Citizens and Hobby Lobby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why the GOP is so hard headed about that. Where is the far right going to go? Nowhere of course. The Republicans need to get with the program. That's how the Dems keep the black vote. They don't have any record of actually doing anything positive for blacks, but where are blacks going to go? And both the Dems and the blacks know that, so status quo it is.
Click to expand...

 
"get with the program"

Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes.  No thanks. 
The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.


----------



## RKMBrown

JakeStarkey said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very relevant, guys.  No church has been forced to marry anyone they did not want to marry.  If there is not a 9 or 14 public interest that compels the 1st protection of religious association be avoided, then churches are safe.
> 
> Of course corporations are people now.
> 
> Texas Presbyterian should be sued for willful negligence in the death of the patient and the illness of the two nurses.  The chief administrators should go to prison for ten years and ten years of dividends should be diverted to Dallas public health systems.
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not people ... what a dumb ass thing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citizens United have opened the door to such statute development for curbing corporation excesses and punishing shareholders.
Click to expand...

Huh?


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very relevant, guys.  No church has been forced to marry anyone they did not want to marry.  If there is not a 9 or 14 public interest that compels the 1st protection of religious association be avoided, then churches are safe.
> 
> Of course corporations are people now.
> 
> Texas Presbyterian should be sued for willful negligence in the death of the patient and the illness of the two nurses.  The chief administrators should go to prison for ten years and ten years of dividends should be diverted to Dallas public health systems.
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not people ... what a dumb ass thing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citizens United have opened the door to such statute development for curbing corporation excesses and punishing shareholders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hobby Lobby opened the door for getting rid of Public Accommodation laws.
Click to expand...

Huh?


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should be taken over my government outright. How else will we learn to serve the state appropriately?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure SeaBytch would love to force churches out of existence, not by law though
Click to expand...


You're sure about a lot of things that are ignorant and wrong...this is no different.


----------



## Seawytch

JakeStarkey said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very relevant, guys.  No church has been forced to marry anyone they did not want to marry.  If there is not a 9 or 14 public interest that compels the 1st protection of religious association be avoided, then churches are safe.
> 
> Of course corporations are people now.
> 
> Texas Presbyterian should be sued for willful negligence in the death of the patient and the illness of the two nurses.  The chief administrators should go to prison for ten years and ten years of dividends should be diverted to Dallas public health systems.
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not people ... what a dumb ass thing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citizens United have opened the door to such statute development for curbing corporation excesses and punishing shareholders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hobby Lobby opened the door for getting rid of Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a real possibility.
Click to expand...


Not with the current SCOTUS...

*The Hobby Lobby Ruling Is Surprisingly Good for Gays *


----------



## RKMBrown

Seawytch said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very relevant, guys.  No church has been forced to marry anyone they did not want to marry.  If there is not a 9 or 14 public interest that compels the 1st protection of religious association be avoided, then churches are safe.
> 
> Of course corporations are people now.
> 
> Texas Presbyterian should be sued for willful negligence in the death of the patient and the illness of the two nurses.  The chief administrators should go to prison for ten years and ten years of dividends should be diverted to Dallas public health systems.
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not people ... what a dumb ass thing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citizens United have opened the door to such statute development for curbing corporation excesses and punishing shareholders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hobby Lobby opened the door for getting rid of Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a real possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not with the current SCOTUS...
> 
> *The Hobby Lobby Ruling Is Surprisingly Good for Gays *
Click to expand...

That guy you are linking to... yeah he's an idiot.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Conservative65 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We in the mainstream of the GOP need to think real hard: do we reach out to women, minorities, Hispanics, cultural movements or do we keep the Far Right on board.
> 
> If we do the latter, HRC will run and win if she his healthy.  She will win easily, and then nominate any where from two to six justices over an eight year period.
> 
> The justices will go after Citizens and Hobby Lobby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why the GOP is so hard headed about that. Where is the far right going to go? Nowhere of course. The Republicans need to get with the program. That's how the Dems keep the black vote. They don't have any record of actually doing anything positive for blacks, but where are blacks going to go? And both the Dems and the blacks know that, so status quo it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "get with the program"
> 
> Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes.  No thanks.
> The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.
Click to expand...


Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I would rather tax churches and unions and businesses at the rate we tax citizens.


----------



## Seawytch

RKMBrown said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not people ... what a dumb ass thing to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Citizens United have opened the door to such statute development for curbing corporation excesses and punishing shareholders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hobby Lobby opened the door for getting rid of Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a real possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not with the current SCOTUS...
> 
> *The Hobby Lobby Ruling Is Surprisingly Good for Gays *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That guy you are linking to... yeah he's an idiot.
Click to expand...


Because it is a stretch to think it was "good" for anyone? I agree, but Kennedy made sure to be very clear about the implications of HL and discrimination against gays.


----------



## RKMBrown

JakeStarkey said:


> I would rather tax churches and unions and businesses at the rate we tax citizens.


Why do you insist on double taxing people that have ownership in a corporation? WTF is wrong with you?


----------



## RKMBrown

Seawytch said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Citizens United have opened the door to such statute development for curbing corporation excesses and punishing shareholders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hobby Lobby opened the door for getting rid of Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a real possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not with the current SCOTUS...
> 
> *The Hobby Lobby Ruling Is Surprisingly Good for Gays *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That guy you are linking to... yeah he's an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it is a stretch to think it was "good" for anyone? I agree, but Kennedy made sure to be very clear about the implications of HL and discrimination against gays.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS making mention of possible implications is not law, it's opinion.


----------



## mdk

JakeStarkey said:


> I would rather tax churches and unions and businesses at the rate we tax citizens.


I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. The government doesn't need anymore more money, it needs to learn how spend within in it's means.


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> I would rather tax churches and unions and businesses at the rate we tax citizens.


 
Employees of churches that get paid for their job do pay taxes at the same rate we tax citizens. 

Since half of the citizens don't pay income taxes, you are already getting what you want.


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We in the mainstream of the GOP need to think real hard: do we reach out to women, minorities, Hispanics, cultural movements or do we keep the Far Right on board.
> 
> If we do the latter, HRC will run and win if she his healthy.  She will win easily, and then nominate any where from two to six justices over an eight year period.
> 
> The justices will go after Citizens and Hobby Lobby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why the GOP is so hard headed about that. Where is the far right going to go? Nowhere of course. The Republicans need to get with the program. That's how the Dems keep the black vote. They don't have any record of actually doing anything positive for blacks, but where are blacks going to go? And both the Dems and the blacks know that, so status quo it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "get with the program"
> 
> Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes.  No thanks.
> The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.
Click to expand...

 
Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason.  Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.


----------



## Jarlaxle

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very relevant, guys.  No church has been forced to marry anyone they did not want to marry.  If there is not a 9 or 14 public interest that compels the 1st protection of religious association be avoided, then churches are safe.
> 
> Of course corporations are people now.
> 
> Texas Presbyterian should be sued for willful negligence in the death of the patient and the illness of the two nurses.  The chief administrators should go to prison for ten years and ten years of dividends should be diverted to Dallas public health systems.
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not people ... what a dumb ass thing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citizens United have opened the door to such statute development for curbing corporation excesses and punishing shareholders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hobby Lobby opened the door for getting rid of Public Accommodation laws.
Click to expand...


God and goddess, I damn well hope so...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.

With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.


Conservative65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We in the mainstream of the GOP need to think real hard: do we reach out to women, minorities, Hispanics, cultural movements or do we keep the Far Right on board.
> 
> If we do the latter, HRC will run and win if she his healthy.  She will win easily, and then nominate any where from two to six justices over an eight year period.
> 
> The justices will go after Citizens and Hobby Lobby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why the GOP is so hard headed about that. Where is the far right going to go? Nowhere of course. The Republicans need to get with the program. That's how the Dems keep the black vote. They don't have any record of actually doing anything positive for blacks, but where are blacks going to go? And both the Dems and the blacks know that, so status quo it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "get with the program"
> 
> Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes.  No thanks.
> The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason.  Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.
Click to expand...

 My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.


----------



## RKMBrown

JakeStarkey said:


> With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.


Wrong again.  How many times are you gonna post these lies?


----------



## JakeStarkey

_Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.

With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.
_
Share holders are not and should be in  a protected group.


----------



## RKMBrown

JakeStarkey said:


> _Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.
> 
> With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.
> _
> Share holders are not and should be in  a protected group.


Are you on drugs?


----------



## Jarlaxle

RKMBrown said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  How many times are you gonna post these lies?
Click to expand...


79,000 and counting for Fakey the Human Spambot.


----------



## Silhouette

Jarlaxle said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  How many times are you gonna post these lies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 79,000 and counting for Fakey the Human Spambot.
Click to expand...

 Are we veering away from the topic in hopes the moderator will make the poll results at the top go away before the election ...again...?  79,000 is impressive though Jar Jar.  I'll agree with you there.

Is anyone seriously entertaining that of that 82%, some of the voters were supportive of gay marriage in general...just not in churches?  Remember that "other, explain" was one of the options.  Whenever I've seen a poll with loaded questions, the gay advocates scream and kick and insist they won't vote because the questions aren't worded to their liking.  Inasmuch as the "no" option was more like "oh HELL NO!", you can hang your hat on the fact that thoes 82% of one of the largest polls ever here at USMB, tiptoed in silently, opposed gay marriage and then tiptoed out without posting here because of fears of being attacked or labelled "bigot, homophobe or closet homo" for having any opposing opinion to "gay marriage".


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.
> 
> With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We in the mainstream of the GOP need to think real hard: do we reach out to women, minorities, Hispanics, cultural movements or do we keep the Far Right on board.
> 
> If we do the latter, HRC will run and win if she his healthy.  She will win easily, and then nominate any where from two to six justices over an eight year period.
> 
> The justices will go after Citizens and Hobby Lobby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why the GOP is so hard headed about that. Where is the far right going to go? Nowhere of course. The Republicans need to get with the program. That's how the Dems keep the black vote. They don't have any record of actually doing anything positive for blacks, but where are blacks going to go? And both the Dems and the blacks know that, so status quo it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "get with the program"
> 
> Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes.  No thanks.
> The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason.  Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.
Click to expand...

 
Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.


----------



## bodecea

Conservative65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We in the mainstream of the GOP need to think real hard: do we reach out to women, minorities, Hispanics, cultural movements or do we keep the Far Right on board.
> 
> If we do the latter, HRC will run and win if she his healthy.  She will win easily, and then nominate any where from two to six justices over an eight year period.
> 
> The justices will go after Citizens and Hobby Lobby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why the GOP is so hard headed about that. Where is the far right going to go? Nowhere of course. The Republicans need to get with the program. That's how the Dems keep the black vote. They don't have any record of actually doing anything positive for blacks, but where are blacks going to go? And both the Dems and the blacks know that, so status quo it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "get with the program"
> 
> Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes.  No thanks.
> The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason.  Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.
Click to expand...

Laws don't need to be rewritten....restrictions against gays marrying based on gender need to be dropped.   That's it.


----------



## bodecea

Conservative65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.
> 
> With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why the GOP is so hard headed about that. Where is the far right going to go? Nowhere of course. The Republicans need to get with the program. That's how the Dems keep the black vote. They don't have any record of actually doing anything positive for blacks, but where are blacks going to go? And both the Dems and the blacks know that, so status quo it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "get with the program"
> 
> Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes.  No thanks.
> The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason.  Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

It's right next to the word "procreation".


----------



## Conservative65

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We in the mainstream of the GOP need to think real hard: do we reach out to women, minorities, Hispanics, cultural movements or do we keep the Far Right on board.
> 
> If we do the latter, HRC will run and win if she his healthy.  She will win easily, and then nominate any where from two to six justices over an eight year period.
> 
> The justices will go after Citizens and Hobby Lobby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why the GOP is so hard headed about that. Where is the far right going to go? Nowhere of course. The Republicans need to get with the program. That's how the Dems keep the black vote. They don't have any record of actually doing anything positive for blacks, but where are blacks going to go? And both the Dems and the blacks know that, so status quo it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "get with the program"
> 
> Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes.  No thanks.
> The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason.  Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws don't need to be rewritten....restrictions against gays marrying based on gender need to be dropped.   That's it.
Click to expand...

 
Based on what?  Seems YOU think they should because that's what YOU believe.


----------



## Conservative65

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.
> 
> With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "get with the program"
> 
> Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes.  No thanks.
> The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason.  Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's right next to the word "procreation".
Click to expand...

 
So you admit the word marriage isn't there.  As for your poor response about procreation, people do that regularly and marriage isn't a requirement.


----------



## RKMBrown

Conservative65 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.
> 
> With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason.  Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's right next to the word "procreation".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit the word marriage isn't there.  As for your poor response about procreation, people do that regularly and marriage isn't a requirement.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a contract between citizens that is regulated by our federal, state, and local governments.  In part the contract is a property matter. Do you really need someone to show you where legal and justice matters regarding property of US citizens are supported by the Constitution?


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> Marriage is a contract between citizens that is regulated by our federal, state, and local governments.  In part the contract is a property matter. Do you really need someone to show you where legal and justice matters regarding property of US citizens are supported by the Constitution?


 You do when "equality" means polygamists and incest pairings can now also get legally married in any of the "dead law" states rendered that way by SCOTUS' conservatives refusing to vote "four in favor" to take up the appeals.

Legal limbo isn't just for gays... in an equal country that doesn't discriminate.  One sexual behavior is as legal as another to marry now.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you born non-Catholic?
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are not business's so long as they meet the criteria for church's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Outside of the spiritual role of the church, it's primary role,
> if you were to see the things a church does and how it does them, it’s much like a business.  It pays bills, it employees people, it does building maintenance. The Baptist church calls its “Board of Directors” Deacons.  Their role is much like that of one for a non religious business.  We have finance committees, personnel committees, and all sorts of others in mine.
> My job involves doing code inspections on businesses in the jurisdiction where I work.  When I inspect a church, they get the same look through on the same level as a non religious business.  While the ultimate goal and purpose is to do God’s work, the day to day functioning is done just like a business.  The power, phone, and water companies would turn off those utilities to a church for not paying its bills.
> Don’t think some foolish Liberal, activist judge won’t look at it that way.  While I can’t point to a specific case where homos have asked to be married in a church and turned down, remember two things:  1)  allowing same sex marriages in States hasn’t been as widespread as it is now and 2) lots of things I never thought I would see in my lifetime, including homos thinking their marriage is on the same level as mine, are happening.
Click to expand...


As I have repeatedly pointed out- churches have always discriminated about who is allowed to be married their church for doctrinaire reasons.  There is no reason to assume that some 'activist' judge- Conservative or Liberal- will suddenly decide that the Catholic Church must marry Jews, Muslims, Homosexuals or divorced people- or that such a stupid decision wouldn't be immediately overturned upon appeal. 

What we are seeing in the case of gay marriage cases across the country are federal judges- Conservative and Liberal- all reaching the same Constitutional conclusion when it comes to marriage- this is a consensus legal opinion which is forming. 

There is no chance of that happening with requiring churches to marry anyone. I, as a liberal atheist, absolutely believe that under the U.S. Constitution, the State has absolutely no authority to tell churches how to conduct its internal doctrine or rites.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes.  No thanks.
> The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.



And that statement is why Republicans will not be gaining any African American votes.

As long as Republicans declare blacks are too stupid to know how to vote, blacks will reject them.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you born non-Catholic?
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are not business's so long as they meet the criteria for church's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Outside of the spiritual role of the church, it's primary role,
> if you were to see the things a church does and how it does them, it’s much like a business.  It pays bills, it employees people, it does building maintenance. The Baptist church calls its “Board of Directors” Deacons.  Their role is much like that of one for a non religious business.  We have finance committees, personnel committees, and all sorts of others in mine.
> My job involves doing code inspections on businesses in the jurisdiction where I work.  When I inspect a church, they get the same look through on the same level as a non religious business.  While the ultimate goal and purpose is to do God’s work, the day to day functioning is done just like a business.  The power, phone, and water companies would turn off those utilities to a church for not paying its bills.
> Don’t think some foolish Liberal, activist judge won’t look at it that way.  While I can’t point to a specific case where homos have asked to be married in a church and turned down, remember two things:  1)  allowing same sex marriages in States hasn’t been as widespread as it is now and 2) lots of things I never thought I would see in my lifetime, including homos thinking their marriage is on the same level as mine, are happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out- churches have always discriminated about who is allowed to be married their church for doctrinaire reasons.  There is no reason to assume that some 'activist' judge- Conservative or Liberal- will suddenly decide that the Catholic Church must marry Jews, Muslims, Homosexuals or divorced people- or that such a stupid decision wouldn't be immediately overturned upon appeal.
> 
> What we are seeing in the case of gay marriage cases across the country are federal judges- Conservative and Liberal- all reaching the same Constitutional conclusion when it comes to marriage- this is a consensus legal opinion which is forming.
> 
> There is no chance of that happening with requiring churches to marry anyone. I, as a liberal atheist, absolutely believe that under the U.S. Constitution, the State has absolutely no authority to tell churches how to conduct its internal doctrine or rites.
Click to expand...

 
Like I said, you're not one of the judges that could do that.  As I've also pointed out, 30 years ago there were things happening now I thought I would never see happen involving judges overstepping their bounds.   Seems you think it can't happen.  So did I but apparently I was wrong.   You will be wrong, too.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a contract between citizens that is regulated by our federal, state, and local governments.  In part the contract is a property matter. Do you really need someone to show you where legal and justice matters regarding property of US citizens are supported by the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> You do when "equality" means polygamists and incest pairings can now also get legally married.
Click to expand...


And of course that is just a ridiculously false claim.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes.  No thanks.
> The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that statement is why Republicans will not be gaining any African American votes.
> 
> As long as Republicans declare blacks are too stupid to know how to vote, blacks will reject them.
Click to expand...

 
Not realizing what the Democrats are doing to them doens't involve me making any such statements.  Their actions prove it.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.
> 
> With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why the GOP is so hard headed about that. Where is the far right going to go? Nowhere of course. The Republicans need to get with the program. That's how the Dems keep the black vote. They don't have any record of actually doing anything positive for blacks, but where are blacks going to go? And both the Dems and the blacks know that, so status quo it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "get with the program"
> 
> Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes.  No thanks.
> The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason.  Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings. 

From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

_"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_

Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  How many times are you gonna post these lies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 79,000 and counting for Fakey the Human Spambot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is anyone seriously entertaining that of that 82%, some of the voters were supportive of gay marriage in general...just not in churches?
Click to expand...


Actually no one but yourself entertains any illusions that your interpretation about churches being forced to marry homosexuals is a poll about gay marriage. 

Your interpretation has no basis in reality.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.
> 
> With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "get with the program"
> 
> Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes.  No thanks.
> The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason.  Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.
Click to expand...

 
Supreme Court rulings don't enumerate anything.  To make it easy on a moron like you, synonyms like listed, itemized, and detailed equate to enumerated.  No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> about two fags marrying.



"fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'

All words used by the same people for the same purpose.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.
> 
> With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason.  Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.
Click to expand...


From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

_"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_

"fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'

All words used by the same people for the same purpose.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.
> 
> With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason.  Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.
> 
> 
> 
> My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> "fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'
> 
> All words used by the same people for the same purpose.
Click to expand...

 
Seems you think a so called right to marriage is unlimited.  You would be wrong.  No one is denied the right to marry.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> You do when "equality" means polygamists and incest pairings can now also get legally married in any of the "dead law" states rendered that way by SCOTUS' conservatives refusing to vote "four in favor" to take up the appeals.
> 
> Legal limbo isn't just for gays... in an equal country that doesn't discriminate.  One sexual behavior is as legal as another to marry now.


Your comment is as uneducated as it comes, Sil.  Equality means no such thing except in your silly head.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.
> 
> With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason.  Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supreme Court rulings don't enumerate anything.  To make it easy on a moron like you, synonyms like listed, itemized, and detailed equate to enumerated.  No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Must suck to be you when the courts say what is the law and you get unhappy without relief.


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.
> 
> With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason.  Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.
> 
> 
> 
> My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supreme Court rulings don't enumerate anything.  To make it easy on a moron like you, synonyms like listed, itemized, and detailed equate to enumerated.  No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must suck to be you when the courts say what is the law and you get unhappy without relief.
Click to expand...

 
So you do realize that your statement about enumeration was retarded.  Must suck to be a faggot loving peter puffer.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.
> 
> With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.
> My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> "fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'
> 
> All words used by the same people for the same purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems you think a so called right to marriage is unlimited.  You would be wrong.  No one is denied the right to marry.
Click to expand...


From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

_"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_

The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other. 

Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other. 

The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.
> 
> With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.
> My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supreme Court rulings don't enumerate anything.  To make it easy on a moron like you, synonyms like listed, itemized, and detailed equate to enumerated.  No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must suck to be you when the courts say what is the law and you get unhappy without relief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .  Must suck to be a faggot loving peter puffer.
Click to expand...


Must be suck to be a bitter, hate ridden bigot. 

Me- I am a happily married father with a wonderful wife and child, with a great life- who loves people- and loves slapping down bigots.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yup, father of four, husband for decades, grandfather of fifteen, happily married to a wonderful woman, and just enjoy making the bigots of the far right and the sillies of the far left toe the line.


----------



## mmorado

Before i put in my 2 cents, i will be upfront thatcI have not read all the comments yet.

I do not believe churches should be mandated to marry same sex couples even though i believe in marriage equality

Forcing anyone to go against thier religion, no matter what, is wrong.


----------



## Silhouette

mmorado said:


> Before i put in my 2 cents, i will be upfront thatcI have not read all the comments yet.
> 
> I do not believe churches should be mandated to marry same sex couples even though i believe in marriage equality
> 
> Forcing anyone to go against thier religion, no matter what, is wrong.


Paraphrased quote above:
_"Hi, I am a manufactured poster made to look like a newby to this topic.  I'm am saying that somehow I'm for gay marriage because I believe in marriage equality but I somehow wouldn't pick "other than" option on the poll and instead would vote that I'm strongly against gay marraige forced on churches."_


----------



## mmorado

Yes, i support marriage equality, but at the same time im against the government forcing the church to marry same sex couples, whats hard to understand about that?

And is every new person a "manufactured newby"?


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> "fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'
> 
> All words used by the same people for the same purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems you think a so called right to marriage is unlimited.  You would be wrong.  No one is denied the right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.
> 
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> 
> The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"
Click to expand...

 
No one is being denied a right to marry.  It is being restricted.  Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> mmorado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before i put in my 2 cents, i will be upfront thatcI have not read all the comments yet.
> 
> I do not believe churches should be mandated to marry same sex couples even though i believe in marriage equality
> 
> Forcing anyone to go against thier religion, no matter what, is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Paraphrased quote above:
> _"Hi, I am a manufactured poster made to look like a newby to this topic.  I'm am saying that somehow I'm for gay marriage because I believe in marriage equality but I somehow wouldn't pick "other than" option on the poll and instead would vote that I'm strongly against gay marraige forced on churches."_
Click to expand...


Paraphrased quote above:

"If I posted here regularly, I would know that Silhouette is going to misrepresent what I say, like everything else.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> "fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'
> 
> All words used by the same people for the same purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems you think a so called right to marriage is unlimited.  You would be wrong.  No one is denied the right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.
> 
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> 
> The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is being denied a right to marry.  It is being restricted.  Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.
Click to expand...


From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

_"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_

The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.

Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.

The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"

"fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'

All words used by the same people for the same purpose.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mmorado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before i put in my 2 cents, i will be upfront thatcI have not read all the comments yet.
> 
> I do not believe churches should be mandated to marry same sex couples even though i believe in marriage equality
> 
> Forcing anyone to go against thier religion, no matter what, is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Paraphrased quote above:
> _"Hi, I am a manufactured poster made to look like a newby to this topic.  I'm am saying that somehow I'm for gay marriage because I believe in marriage equality but I somehow wouldn't pick "other than" option on the poll and instead would vote that I'm strongly against gay marraige forced on churches."_
Click to expand...


Silo....*.the straw poll doesn't ask about marriage equality.* It doesn't ask about the legality of gay marriage.  Why then would I answer 'other' on a poll that doesn't ask about gay marriage legality?

Why would anyone? You're again projecting your beliefs onto other people. That process has failed you again and again and again. If you want to know the national sentiment about gay marriage, check any of the polls taken in the last 18 months on the topic. They all show solid support for gay marriage by a margin of 12 to 19 points.

All of them. And there are dozens. Every single one of them asks about the legality of gay marriage. Your straw poll never does.


----------



## Silhouette

mmorado said:


> Yes, i support marriage equality, but at the same time im against the government forcing the church to marry same sex couples, whats hard to understand about that?
> 
> *And is every new person a "manufactured newby*"?


 
No.  But you are.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> All of them. And there are dozens. Every single one of them asks about the legality of gay marriage. Your straw poll never does.


 
A. It's not my poll.  I'm not the OP of this thread.  How many times do you have to be reminded of that?

B. The legality is implied in the question which uses the word "force".  In America, you cannot "force" someone to do something unless the law is behind you.


----------



## mdk

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> "fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'
> 
> All words used by the same people for the same purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems you think a so called right to marriage is unlimited.  You would be wrong.  No one is denied the right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.
> 
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> 
> The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is being denied a right to marry.  It is being restricted.  Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.
Click to expand...


You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.


----------



## Skylar

> The legality is implied in the question which uses the word "force". In America, you cannot "force" someone to do something unless the law is behind you.



Obviously it isn't. As poster after poster after poster demonstrates when they express their overwhelming support for gay marriage and their opposition of requring places of worship to accomidate gay weddings. The first is marriage under the law. The second is religion.

They aren't the same thing. You imagine they are. And your imagination has no relevance to anyone else's opinion.

No credible pollster would *ever* insist that a straw poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage legality was an accurate measurement of gay marriage legality. Especially when dozens of conventional polls explicitly asking about marriage equality contradict the straw poll. 

As all the conventional polls on the topic do.


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.
> 
> With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "get with the program"
> 
> Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes.  No thanks.
> The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason.  Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's right next to the word "procreation".
Click to expand...


Which is right under interstate and intrastate travel.


----------



## Seawytch

mdk said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> "fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'
> 
> All words used by the same people for the same purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems you think a so called right to marriage is unlimited.  You would be wrong.  No one is denied the right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.
> 
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> 
> The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is being denied a right to marry.  It is being restricted.  Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.
Click to expand...


Yeah, the repeated use of "fag" is especially adorable...but don't call him a bigot!!!!


----------



## mmorado

So every new person who disagrees with you is a manufactured person?


----------



## Conservative65

mdk said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> "fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'
> 
> All words used by the same people for the same purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems you think a so called right to marriage is unlimited.  You would be wrong.  No one is denied the right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.
> 
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> 
> The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is being denied a right to marry.  It is being restricted.  Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.
Click to expand...

 
Please keep thinking that the marriage of two of your kind will ever be equivalent to my marriage.  You are and always will be nothing more than a dick sucking faggot.


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> "fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'
> 
> All words used by the same people for the same purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you think a so called right to marriage is unlimited.  You would be wrong.  No one is denied the right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.
> 
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> 
> The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is being denied a right to marry.  It is being restricted.  Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the repeated use of "fag" is especially adorable...but don't call him a bigot!!!!
Click to expand...

 
His continued being one is why he is called one.  Since you think it's OK, you're on the same level.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> mmorado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, i support marriage equality, but at the same time im against the government forcing the church to marry same sex couples, whats hard to understand about that?
> 
> *And is every new person a "manufactured newby*"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  But you are.
Click to expand...

  Hoisted, Sil.  That's good.  The poll says nothing about marriage equality.

Welcome, mmorado, Sil is simply unhappy almost no one takes her seriously on the Board.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Conservative65 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> "fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'
> 
> All words used by the same people for the same purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you think a so called right to marriage is unlimited.  You would be wrong.  No one is denied the right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.
> 
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> 
> The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is being denied a right to marry.  It is being restricted.  Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please keep thinking that the marriage of two of your kind will ever be equivalent to my marriage.  You are and always will be nothing more than a dick sucking faggot.
Click to expand...


Your attitude reflected here tells us that your marriage is lower an almost any folks' marriages.  You have no compassion, no sense of concern for others, absolutely no "faith, hope, charity" in your life.


----------



## mmorado

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mmorado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, i support marriage equality, but at the same time im against the government forcing the church to marry same sex couples, whats hard to understand about that?
> 
> *And is every new person a "manufactured newby*"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  But you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hoisted, Sil.  That's good.  The poll says nothing about marriage equality.
> 
> Welcome, mmorado, Sil is simply unhappy almost no one takes her seriously on the Board.
Click to expand...




Thanks... i figured there are people like that on every site lol


----------



## mdk

Seawytch said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> "fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'
> 
> All words used by the same people for the same purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you think a so called right to marriage is unlimited.  You would be wrong.  No one is denied the right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.
> 
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> 
> The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is being denied a right to marry.  It is being restricted.  Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the repeated use of "fag" is especially adorable...but don't call him a bigot!!!!
Click to expand...


I'll leave the name calling to him. It's not my style. I am more than capable of destroying his positions with resorting to such language.


----------



## mdk

Conservative65 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> "fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'
> 
> All words used by the same people for the same purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you think a so called right to marriage is unlimited.  You would be wrong.  No one is denied the right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.
> 
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> 
> The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is being denied a right to marry.  It is being restricted.  Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please keep thinking that the marriage of two of your kind will ever be equivalent to my marriage.  You are and always will be nothing more than a dick sucking faggot.
Click to expand...


I am sorry, what charm school did you say you attended again?


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mmorado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, i support marriage equality, but at the same time im against the government forcing the church to marry same sex couples, whats hard to understand about that?
> 
> *And is every new person a "manufactured newby*"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  But you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hoisted, Sil.  That's good.  The poll says nothing about marriage equality.
> 
> Welcome, mmorado, Sil is simply unhappy almost no one takes her seriously on the Board.
Click to expand...


Sil does raise an interesting point though. If anyone can just create a 'manufactured newby'...and any 'manufactured newby' can vote in the above poll, then Sil just confirmed the method where the same person could vote multiple times.

Yet another reason no one takes Straw Polls seriously.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a contract between citizens that is regulated by our federal, state, and local governments.  In part the contract is a property matter. Do you really need someone to show you where legal and justice matters regarding property of US citizens are supported by the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> You do when "equality" means polygamists and incest pairings can now also get legally married in any of the "dead law" states rendered that way by SCOTUS' conservatives refusing to vote "four in favor" to take up the appeals.
> 
> Legal limbo isn't just for gays... in an equal country that doesn't discriminate.  One sexual behavior is as legal as another to marry now.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> [
> 
> Sil does raise an interesting point though. If anyone can just create a 'manufactured newby'...and any 'manufactured newby' can vote in the above poll, then Sil just confirmed the method where the same person could vote multiple times.
> 
> Yet another reason no one takes Straw Polls seriously.


 
Odd that they would choose JUST this poll to do so.  There have been other polls that would have been equal or even more damning to the LGBT cultural takeover attempt and they lack such a phenomenon.  And if fake names were invented...all that trouble...surely you'd have a few of them show up to post about "why forcing churches to do gay marriages is so terrible!".  But that is lacking.  So we assume those were just regular people who voted and who were then afraid to say why.  Like we see reflected in the chic fil a silent crowds and the A&E "likes" silent crowd...of over a million in less than 24 hours in support of Phil Robertson..

Maybe those million "likes" were also fake identities too?  Whew!  That's a Lot of work in a very short period of time!


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Sil does raise an interesting point though. If anyone can just create a 'manufactured newby'...and any 'manufactured newby' can vote in the above poll, then Sil just confirmed the method where the same person could vote multiple times.
> 
> Yet another reason no one takes Straw Polls seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odd that they would choose JUST this poll to do so. !
Click to expand...


The only thing odd is why you keep saying the poll means something differently than the poll says.


----------



## mdk

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Sil does raise an interesting point though. If anyone can just create a 'manufactured newby'...and any 'manufactured newby' can vote in the above poll, then Sil just confirmed the method where the same person could vote multiple times.
> 
> Yet another reason no one takes Straw Polls seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odd that they would choose JUST this poll to do so. !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing odd is why you keep saying the poll means something differently than the poll says.
Click to expand...


It fits the anti-gay narrative and that is all that matters to Sil.


----------



## Skylar

> Odd that they would choose JUST this poll to do so.




Odd, I've made the same criticism of straw polls in general. Its one of the reasons that they're notriously unreliable: because they involve interested parties and because folks can vote more than once. And note you don't actually disagree with me either. Or deny anything I've said.

If anyone can create a 'manufactured newbie' and use that newbie to vote twice...or three times...or four times, then what possible value does your straw poll have at measuring anything? T*o say nothing of support for gay marriage, which your strawpoll doesn't even mention.  *There's a reason straw polls are a running joke among actual pollsters. Because they don't actually measure public support....of anything. As any Ron Paul strawpoll will indicate. He won every strawpoll of 2008. And didn't win a single state.

While conventional polls are random and anonymous. Any person contacted can vote only once. Nor are the respondents necessarily interested parties. They are contacted at random, so you get a broad sampling of folks. Which is why pollsters use conventional polling and laugh derisively at straw polls.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> While conventional polls are random and anonymous. Any person contacted can vote only once. Nor are the respondents necessarily interested parties. They are contacted at random, so you get a broad sampling of folks. Which is why pollsters use conventional polling and laugh derisively at straw polls.


So a million likes on "Boycott A&E" Facebook page in less than 24 hours in support of Phil Robertson's stance against gay marriage was some "organized stuffed poll" eh?  Do you realize how rare a million likes in less than 24 hours is on Facebook?  It may not be important to you, but it is to them.  Your random polls approach people on the street or on the phone who would rather be left alone and not encounter a hassel.  They will answer quickly and hastily in a manner that involves the least amount of stress to themselves.  If there is a broad public perception, via the VERY public witch hunts, consistently, against anyone who dares *peep* one iota of protest against the spread of the virulent LGBT cult, then those polled will naturally say whatever they think won't get them glitterbombed, or worse.

That's a factor in your gallup polls pal.

I could turn it around and say that gays canvassing "random people" in a proper poll" could be done with a heavy bias in the questions, the approach and the particular city and subdivision pre-chosen to be "very gay friendly".  I wonder what polls taken in conservative towns and cities would show?  [As long as pollsters were scrupulously careful to avoid blue-light districts on their outskirts]?

Your gallup polls would be akin in today's hostilities towards conservatives who disagree, much like a nazi approaching a german market in the late 1930s and polling the people there "how they honestly feel about the nazi party"... And then publishing those results as "most germans approve of the nazi party".  [or they know their careers will be ruined...or worse...]


----------



## mdk

Poll after poll conducted by credible institutions are meaningless. Facebook "likes" have their finger of the pulse of America and is the only real gauge of the public's opinion on the matter. You know your argument isn't going too swell when you have to rely on "Likes" from a Facebook page as your evidence. Somebody needs to turn this evidence over to the lawyers defending gay marriage bans so they can present this compelling information to courts. Hopefully they bring earplugs, the deafening laughter from the jurists could shatter their eardrums.  

I think Shakira should run for President. Her 87 million likes on Facebook means that she would be a shoe-in. lol


----------



## Silhouette

Stawmen aside, the "Boycott A&E" Facebook page that got the million "likes" in less than one day was specific and about the support of Phil Robertson's stance against gay marriage.

BTW, the poll here at USMB, one of the largest ever, with over 33,000 views has just now passed 82% and is up to 83%.  They're all so silent.  But there they are like the Facebook folks...showing how important this topic is to them and hinting at the real numbers out there...


----------



## RKMBrown

RKMBrown said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations are not people ... what a dumb ass thing to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Citizens United have opened the door to such statute development for curbing corporation excesses and punishing shareholders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hobby Lobby opened the door for getting rid of Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a real possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not with the current SCOTUS...
> 
> *The Hobby Lobby Ruling Is Surprisingly Good for Gays *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That guy you are linking to... yeah he's an idiot.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear I'm calling, Mark Joseph Stern the writer for *Slat *an idiot.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

To anyone who favors the government making gay marriage illegal, I ask this. What if the government decided to make straight marriage illegal? I mean you do understand that is a possibility once you start letting the government define marriage, yes?


----------



## JakeStarkey

_ the poll here at USMB, one of the largest ever, with over 33,000 views has just now passed 82% and is up to 83%
refers to 1st amendment church rights_, not what folks think about marriage equality.


----------



## Silhouette

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> To anyone who favors the government making gay marriage illegal, I ask this. What if the government decided to make straight marriage illegal? I mean you do understand that is a possibility once you start letting the government define marriage, yes?


 The majority would not and has not made "man/woman" marriage illegal.  "The government" in this case is the People who voted to rule their state how they see fit .  SCOTUS said in Windsor that majorities get to have the authority, the "unquestioned authority" on the definition of marriage in their discreet community.  What they decide, the fed has to abide by.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jacksonian Democracy can only void constitutional liberties by amending the Constitution.  Go for it, Sil.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Jacksonian Democracy can only void constitutional liberties by amending the Constitution.  Go for it, Sil.


What liberties?  The liberty to steal when you are needy?  Or drive while visually impared?  Or drunk?  The liberty to walk down the street naked?  The liberty to marry more than one person?

When it comes to behaviors...you have to gain permission of the majority who may find your behaviors repugnant.  LGBT is not a race of people.  It's an organized deviant sex cult who is using the legal system to force opposing theologies to "come into line with the new cult" or else....

And those folks don't have constitutional protection to do so.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, no, you don't get just once more.

All has been explained to  you, and like Protectionist on the issue of guns, you simply reject whatever interferes with your confirmation bias.

Jacksonian Democracy does not rule America.

Step along, nothing for you here.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, no, you don't get just once more.
> 
> All has been explained to  you, and like Protectionist on the issue of guns, you simply reject whatever interferes with your confirmation bias.
> 
> Jacksonian Democracy does not rule America.
> 
> Step along, nothing for you here.


 About which behaviors Jake?  Specifically?  And why JUST them?


----------



## Silhouette

Jake?  Which behaviors, and why?


----------



## Skylar

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> To anyone who favors the government making gay marriage illegal, I ask this. What if the government decided to make straight marriage illegal? I mean you do understand that is a possibility once you start letting the government define marriage, yes?



I know you want government out of marraige. But its not happening. Your idea is ridiculously complicated, pointlessly elaborate, and has no particular benefit. 

If you want a government free marriage, you can have one. If you want legal recognition for your marriage, you can have that too. There's simply no need to exclude either option.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Skylar said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> To anyone who favors the government making gay marriage illegal, I ask this. What if the government decided to make straight marriage illegal? I mean you do understand that is a possibility once you start letting the government define marriage, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you want government out of marraige. But its not happening. Your idea is ridiculously complicated, pointlessly elaborate, and has no particular benefit.
> 
> If you want a government free marriage, you can have one. If you want legal recognition for your marriage, you can have that too. There's simply no need to exclude either option.
Click to expand...



Sure there is, it's called the COTUS. Unless of course you can point to the marriage clause of such document

See, you fag loving faggots wouldn't be satisfied with that, because equal rights isn't your goal. Shoving your fag lifestyle down other people's throats is the goal. That's why a perfectly reasonable compromise isn't acceptable to you.


----------



## Skylar

> When it comes to behaviors...you have to gain permission of the majority who may find your behaviors repugnant



Nope. Your 'behavior' standard has no basis in law. You've invented it. Speech is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. And no, you don't need permission from the majority to do any of them. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

We get that you find homosexuality 'repugnant'. No one cares. Your personal opinion isn't the basis of any law. And your agreement isn't a legal requisite for someone else's relationship or sexual activity. Quite simply, you're irrelevant to any legal standard. 



> . LGBT is not a race of people.



It doesn't need to be a race of people to be protected from discrimination. As _Romer V. Evans _makes ludicrously clear. Ending yet another of your made up legal standards.



> It's an organized deviant sex cult who is using the legal system to force opposing theologies to "come into line with the new cult" or else....



Says you, citing you. And who cares? Your made up definitions have no relevance to the law. Nor compel anyone to do anything.

Gay marriage is legal in 31 of 50 states. Get used to it.


----------



## Skylar

> If you want a government free marriage, you can have one. If you want legal recognition for your marriage, you can have that too. There's simply no need to exclude either option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there is, it's called the COTUS. Unless of course you can point to the marriage clause of such document
Click to expand...


Several problems with your analysis. First, the Constitution is a document that defines federal powers. Not one that defines the powers of the State. Marriage is recognized and protected at the State level. So there need be no 'clause' in the constitution for State action. 

Second, the 9th amendment makes it clear that there are reserve rights that are unemumerated. And Marriage has been recognized by the SCOTUS as a fundamental right. Meaning that there need be no 'clause' mentioning marriage for it to be recognized and protected under the Constitution. And the 14th amendment authorizes congress to create laws to guarantee the privileges and immunities of US citizens.

Third, your 'solution' of nullifying every marriage certificate and purging all 50 states of their unique marriage laws remains uselessly complicated and offers no particular benefit. You just don't like the government in marriage. So what?

Fourth, COTUS isn't a common acronym. You might want to just refer to it as the 'Constitution'. As it will communicate your thoughts more clearly.



> See, you fag loving faggots wouldn't be satisfied with that, because equal rights isn't your goal. Shoving your fag lifestyle down other people's throats is the goal. That's why a perfectly reasonable compromise isn't acceptable to you.



Advocates of marriage equality wouldn't be satisfied with nullifying all legal recognition of marriage because the idea is stupid. First, because it offers no benefit. Second, it couldn't be done without the explicit agreement of every State legislature in the union without a single exception.....or a constitutional amendment. And neither is happening. Making your 'solution' pointless rhetorical masturbation.

Its far simpler and more just to extend legal recognition to the marriages of gays and lesbians rather than unravel a century's worth of legal precedent and the laws of 50 of 50 States


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Skylar said:


> If you want a government free marriage, you can have one. If you want legal recognition for your marriage, you can have that too. There's simply no need to exclude either option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there is, it's called the COTUS. Unless of course you can point to the marriage clause of such document
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several problems with your analysis. First, the Constitution is a document that defines federal powers. Not one that defines the powers of the State. Marriage is recognized and protected at the State level. So there need be no 'clause' in the constitution for State action.
Click to expand...

If it were true that defining marriage were a state level decision, the Amendment in Calfiornia, for example, would not have been nullified by a federal court, because the federal court would have held no jurisdiction.




> Second, the 9th amendment makes it clear that there are reserve rights that are unemumerated. And Marriage has been recognized by the SCOTUS as a fundamental right. Meaning that there need be no 'clause' mentioning marriage for it to be recognized and protected under the Constitution. And the 14th amendment authorizes congress to create laws to guarantee the privileges and immunities of US citizens


Just because it's a recognized right doesn't mean that the government had to define it. 


> Third, your 'solution' of nullifying every marriage certificate and purging all 50 states of their unique marriage laws remains uselessly complicated and offers no particular benefit. You just don't like the government in marriage. So what?


I don't advocate nullifying anything. I only advocate removing marriage from government documents. ANd you and yours are CERTAINLY trying to purge unique marriage laws from all 50 states, you want all 50 states to accept "fag marriage". Do you deny that?



> Fourth, COTUS isn't a common acronym. You might want to just refer to it as the 'Constitution'. As it will communicate your thoughts more clearly.


COTUS is every bit as common as SCOTUS, which I also use, and note that you yourself use.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> To anyone who favors the government making gay marriage illegal, I ask this. What if the government decided to make straight marriage illegal? I mean you do understand that is a possibility once you start letting the government define marriage, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you want government out of marraige. But its not happening. Your idea is ridiculously complicated, pointlessly elaborate, and has no particular benefit.
> 
> If you want a government free marriage, you can have one. If you want legal recognition for your marriage, you can have that too. There's simply no need to exclude either option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there is, it's called the COTUS. Unless of course you can point to the marriage clause of such document
> 
> See, you fag loving faggots wouldn't be satisfied with that, because equal rights isn't your goal. Shoving your fag lifestyle down other people's throats is the goal. That's why a perfectly reasonable compromise isn't acceptable to you.
Click to expand...


"fag"....'N****r.....c**t....****....****....all the same kinds of words used for the same purpose by the same people.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> To anyone who favors the government making gay marriage illegal, I ask this. What if the government decided to make straight marriage illegal? I mean you do understand that is a possibility once you start letting the government define marriage, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> The majority would not and has not made "man/woman" marriage illegal.  "The government" in this case is the People who voted to rule their state how they see fit .  SCOTUS said in Windsor that majorities get to have the authority, the "unquestioned authority" on the definition of marriage in their discreet community.  What they decide, the fed has to abide by.
Click to expand...


Actual facts say that you are wrong.

What Windsor said was:
_Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,_

And the Supreme Court has said that marriage is a constitutionally protected right- i.e. guarantee.

And Federal Courts- and Federal Courts have been over-ruling State's laws prohibiting same gender marriage unanimously so far. 

So once again- based upon the facts- you are just factually wrong. 
_
_


----------



## Skylar

> If it were true that defining marriage were a state level decision, the Amendment in Calfiornia, for example, would not have been nullified by a federal court, because the federal court would have held no jurisdiction.


Save of course for the second of the 3 reasons your argument didn't work: 

_Second, the 9th amendment makes it clear that there are reserve rights that are unemumerated. And Marriage has been recognized by the SCOTUS as a fundamental right. Meaning that there need be no 'clause' mentioning marriage for it to be recognized and protected under the Constitution. And the 14th amendment authorizes congress to create laws to guarantee the privileges and immunities of US citizens._

Ignore as you will. Its not like you closing your eyes matters a hill of beans to the law. 



> Just because it's a recognized right doesn't mean that the government had to define it.



The government had to guarantee that the states didn't deny federal citizens equal protection under the law. And if the States are going to deny gays and lesbians a right, they're going to need a very good reason. 

The Several States didn't have one.



> I don't advocate nullifying anything. I only advocate removing marriage from government documents. ANd you and yours are CERTAINLY trying to purge unique marriage laws from all 50 states, you want all 50 states to accept "fag marriage". Do you deny that?



Sure you do. You insist that the States no longer recognize their marriage certificates as valid or offer any legal recognition to marriage at all. And remember, you'd have to change the laws of 50 of 50 States, one at a time to do it. If even ONE state recognized marriage, then all the others would have to as well due to the Interstate Reciprocity requirements in the constitution. 

And its ridiculously unlikely that even one state will purge its state laws of legally recognized marriage. With the odds of all 50 states doing it essentially zero. Your solution, isn't. As it lacks any plausible method of implementation. Nor any good reason for implementation. Its just your arbitrary personal opinion that you demand we make law.

Um, no. We're not doing that. What you suggest is stupid, pointlessly complicated, and doesn't offer any benefits.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Actual facts say that you are wrong.
> 
> What Windsor said was:
> _Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States, _


 
I see you left out some other quotes from SCOTUS from Windsor as to how they feel about states' rights with respect to regulating marriage.  You found one sentence that wasn't even supported in the Court's conclusion or Ruling "if Loving applies"..[they went on to conclude that gay marriage was "only allowed in some states"].  Yet you skipped dozens of iterations and reiterations that regulation of marriage belongs forever, potently and historically with the states. 

Why did you leave out all those quotes?  Were you not aware that this heavy weight and discussion about states' rights to regulate marriage was the hinge they used to award Edie Windsor her win?  They concluded that the fed has no right to dictate who is married and who isn't in a state.  That if that state's discreet community decides, that's it.  The fed has to abide.  Can't have it both ways.  A choice is not "the right to say "yes" or "yes" to gay marriage"..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actual facts say that you are wrong.
> 
> What Windsor said was:
> _Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States, _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you left out some other quotes from SCOTUS from Windsor ..
Click to expand...


LOL....considering you left out every other quote from Windsor.....I find it hilarious that you complain that I left out quotes.

The problem you have is that this quote clearly establishes that State laws still must pass Constitutional muster

_*Subject to certain constitutional guarantees*, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States, _

The court said that Marriage is a State issue- subject to 'certain constitutional guarantees'.

Otherwise States could forbid marriage between Jews and Christians. Or between Mormons and non-Mormons. 

States can't- because even though Marriage is a state issue- State laws concerning marriage must pass Constitutional muster.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Otherwise States could forbid marriage between Jews and Christians. Or between Mormons and non-Mormons.
> 
> States can't- because even though Marriage is a state issue- State laws concerning marriage must pass Constitutional muster.


 
So again I'll ask you, is LGBT a religion?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise States could forbid marriage between Jews and Christians. Or between Mormons and non-Mormons.
> 
> States can't- because even though Marriage is a state issue- State laws concerning marriage must pass Constitutional muster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So again I'll ask you, is LGBT a religion?
Click to expand...


The problem you have is that this quote clearly establishes that State laws still must pass Constitutional muster

_*Subject to certain constitutional guarantees*, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States, _

The court said that Marriage is a State issue- subject to 'certain constitutional guarantees'.

Otherwise States could forbid marriage between Jews and Christians. Or between Mormons and non-Mormons. 

States can't- because even though Marriage is a state issue- State laws concerning marriage must pass Constitutional muster.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> The court said that Marriage is a State issue- subject to 'certain constitutional guarantees'.
> 
> Otherwise States could forbid marriage between Jews and Christians. Or between Mormons and non-Mormons.
> 
> States can't- because even though Marriage is a state issue- State laws concerning marriage must pass Constitutional muster.


 
I'll ask you again..... Is LGBT a religion?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The court said that Marriage is a State issue- subject to 'certain constitutional guarantees'.
> 
> Otherwise States could forbid marriage between Jews and Christians. Or between Mormons and non-Mormons.
> 
> States can't- because even though Marriage is a state issue- State laws concerning marriage must pass Constitutional muster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask you again..... Is LGBT a religion?
Click to expand...


Ask away.

Meanwhile....as I said before

The problem you have is that this quote clearly establishes that State laws still must pass Constitutional muster

_*Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States, *_

The court said that Marriage is a State issue- subject to 'certain constitutional guarantees'.

Otherwise States could forbid marriage between Jews and Christians. Or between Mormons and non-Mormons. 

States can't- because even though Marriage is a state issue- State laws concerning marriage must pass Constitutional muster.

And the courts have been finding that laws preventing two people of the same gender from marrying do not pass Constitutional muster- hence as Windsor recognized_ *Subject to certain constitutional guarantees - *_State laws that are unconstitutional can be addressed by the Federal government.


----------



## Skylar

> COTUS is every bit as common as SCOTUS, which I also use, and note that you yourself use.



It really isn't. SCOTUS brings back 5.7 million results in a google search. COTUS, less than 130,000. 

On our board, COTUS is used by primarily three posters: Zeke, Edict and you. SCOTUS is used by about 40 unique posters. 

You may be mistaking your use for common use. They aren't the same thing. They aren't within orders of magnitude of each other.


----------



## Skylar

> So again I'll ask you, is LGBT a religion?



Nope. LGBT are people. And what relevance does your question have with marriage equality?


----------



## Skylar

> I see you left out some other quotes from SCOTUS from Windsor as to how they feel about states' rights with respect to regulating marriage. You found one sentence that wasn't even supported in the Court's conclusion or Ruling "if Loving applies"..[they went on to conclude that gay marriage was "only allowed in some states"]. Yet you skipped dozens of iterations and reiterations that regulation of marriage belongs forever, potently and historically with the states.



The question is whether or not gays are protected. The answer is yes. And that was established in Romer.


----------



## Skylar

> States can't- because even though Marriage is a state issue- State laws concerning marriage must pass Constitutional muster.



Winna Winna Chicken Dinner!


----------



## dblack

I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.



And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask you again..... Is LGBT a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask away....
Click to expand...

 
I don't expect an answer.  Rather I seek to expose how you are dodging answering a fundamentally-important question to this entire debate.  It is key to understanding your position.  You have argued that LGBTs are equal to race and religions.  Well your ilk quietly assents that you aren't a race of people.  Obviously, because the people who do gay sex come in all colors, shapes and sizes.  Just like a religion and its followers.  Yet you aren't like a religion either.  Or at least you're not admitting you are.  You keep dodging the question because if you completed your comparison to LGBT "as equal to protection for religions" you'd have to admit it's behavioral and has a dogma, with evangelizing and all the rest.

And what do you know?  That's EXACTLY how LGBT edicts behave.  No one is allowed to denounce "The Rules".  No one is allowed to defect [laws invading personally-chosen therapy by minors in CA and NJ].  Heretics are labelled with derogatory associative names "Anne Heche".  And aggressive evangelizing, particularly to youth, is practiced daily ["bi-curious" events for youth, Kevin Jennings' education platform for sex ed in schools]

You are avoiding answer the question because you know that once your movement is exposed as a cult/religion, it will come under that scrutiny.  And that's something you want to avoid at least until it becomes legally-entrenched via the nice little attrition-fodder that SCOTUS has accomodated you with...and at least until you've used that legal wedge to advance lawsuits on adoption agencies.  Get them young, convert their minds.  Pretty soon there will be no conservatives left to blockade your access to those young...er...minds...

And hence the reason conservative Justices helped give a leg up to the suicide of their own political party with just a generation or two.  How may kids raised in this cult will support conservative values in two or three decades?  Scant few I'd imagine.  And if they dare...well....you've seen what happens to people who brave against the neo-dogma *shudder*... Conservative SCOTUS Justices FAIL Backdoor Legislating by Marriage Attrition US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.
Click to expand...


How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?


----------



## Skylar

> I don't expect an answer.



You've already gotten one. 



> Rather I seek to expose how you are dodging answer a fundamentally-important question to this entire debate. It is key to understanding your position. You have argued that LGBTs are equal to race and religions.



I've argued that LGBT folks are protected, as Romer V. Evans makes clear. You may disagree. The USSC doesn't. The decision was 6 to 3. And it was written by Mr. Swing Voter himself, Justice Kennedy. 



> In any event, even if, as we doubt, homosexuals could find some safe harbor in laws of general application, we cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone.* Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.* .....





> ......The Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must co exist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons. _Personnel Administrator of Mass._ v. _Feeney,_ 442 U.S. 256, 271" 272 (1979); _F. S. Royster Guano Co._ v. _Virginia,_ 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920). We have attempted to reconcile the principle with the reality by stating that, *if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.* See, _e.g.,_ _Heller_ v. _Doe,_ 509 U. S. ___, ___ (1993) (slip op., at 6).





> *Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry.* First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects;* it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests. *
> 
> Romer V. Evans
> Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .



And gay marriage bans are so much worse. As it does burden a fundamental right: the right to marry. It also targets a specific group: gays and lesbians. And no rational relationship to legitimate state interests. 

Which might explain the near perfect record of failure of gay marriage opponents in the federal courts.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?
Click to expand...


The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.


----------



## Silhouette

dblack said:


> How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?


Yes, the catholic religion opens its doors to every sinner who walks the earth.  And folks, that's all of us.  So yes, they are a public accomodation.  Their orphanages are too.  And this is where the rubber is going to meet the road in legal debate..

Children's rights to protection vs the parade carnival with 0% dissent trying to access them legally to adopt them.  Who has dominant rights?  That will be the quesiton before the People and the Courts.

Europe has already resolved that question in favor of children when a normal married couple sported a newly-amputated man calling himself lately a "lesbian" an his/her "lesbian wife" sued for rights to adopt because the man now missing his testicles, couldn't impregnant his/her lesbian wife. 

Gee, I wonder why the courts would find they didn't have the right to marry/adopt?:

European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right ... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Silhouette

These countries, BTW are our last bastion of allies on the planet.  Demonstrating that we are patently insane to them in opposing their findings as to my previous post, with them newly beholden to Russia's oil, might be the proverbial "last straw".  Would what we 'gain' by doing so be worth losing all of what's left of the respect and allegiance of our last friends on earth?

There is no more crucially important issue to ANY culture, I don't care where you are, than the fate and welfare of its children.  This is particularly true in Europe.

Paris France, Winter 2014:


----------



## Skylar

> These countries, BTW are our last bastion of allies on the planet. Demonstrating that we are patently insane to them in opposing their findings as to my previous post, with them newly beholden to Russia's oil, might be the proverbial "last straw". Would what we 'gain' by doing so be worth losing all of what's left of the respect and allegiance of our last friends on earth?



Or...and this seems far more likely.....you're again talking out of your ass regarding a topic you know nothing about, projecting your beliefs onto people you've never met.

And predictably, you're ramping up the hysteria of your argument as your claims collapse. Now pretending that unless we agree with you, the very survival of our nation is at stake, our allies will abandon us and our society will collapse.

Take a seat on your fainting couch, chicken little. The sky isn't falling. Its gonna be okay.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.
Click to expand...


How is that relevant? Churches that offer marriages as a public service fit the definition of public accommodations. It seems they should be required to serve them just as the baker who makes wedding cakes is required to serve them.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask you again..... Is LGBT a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask away....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't expect an answer.  Rather I seek to expose how you are dodging answering a fundamentally-important question to this entire debate. m
Click to expand...


No- I am ignoring your idiotic questions. 

And sticking to the topic- something you change whenever you can't respond- so back to my original response

Meanwhile....as I said before

The problem you have is that this quote clearly establishes that State laws still must pass Constitutional muster

_*Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States, *_

The court said that Marriage is a State issue- subject to 'certain constitutional guarantees'.

Otherwise States could forbid marriage between Jews and Christians. Or between Mormons and non-Mormons. 

States can't- because even though Marriage is a state issue- State laws concerning marriage must pass Constitutional muster.

And the courts have been finding that laws preventing two people of the same gender from marrying do not pass Constitutional muster- hence as Windsor recognized_ *Subject to certain constitutional guarantees - *_State laws that are unconstitutional can be addressed by the Federal government.

If you want to discuss my actual post- rather than trying to switch topics, I will be glad to respond with an appropriate response.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.
Click to expand...


And that is okay. 

As I have said before- the only ones suggesting that churches should or will be required to marry ANY couple against Church doctrine are Conservatives.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that relevant? Churches that offer marriages as a public service fit the definition of public accommodations. It seems they should be required to serve them just as the baker who makes wedding cakes is required to serve them.
Click to expand...


Church services are by definition a practice of religion- and therefore protected by the First Amendment.

Baking cakes are not a practice of religion- unless they are baked by- and for the Church.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is okay.
Click to expand...


Why? Why are churches allowed to violate the law, but all other public accommodations must submit? And don't say freedom of religion. The first amendments protects that from laws targeting religious practice, it doesn't give them a free pass to ignore the law.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that relevant? Churches that offer marriages as a public service fit the definition of public accommodations. It seems they should be required to serve them just as the baker who makes wedding cakes is required to serve them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Church services are by definition a practice of religion- and therefore protected by the First Amendment.
> 
> Baking cakes are not a practice of religion- unless they are baked by- and for the Church.
Click to expand...


That's a nonsensical (though common) misconception of the first amendment. If a church wanted to practice human sacrifice, would that fly as well?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> These countries, BTW are our last bastion of allies on the planet.  Demonstrating that we are patently insane to them in opposing their findings as to my previous post, with them newly beholden to Russia's oil, might be the proverbial "last straw".  Would what we 'gain' by doing so be worth losing all of what's left of the respect and allegiance of our last friends on earth?
> 
> There is no more crucially important issue to ANY culture, I don't care where you are, than the fate and welfare of its children.  This is particularly true in Europe.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> 'last bastion of allies'?
> 
> Gay Marriage- Europe:
> 
> _Currently 24 of the 50 countries and 4 of the 6 dependent territories in Europe recognize some type of same-sex unions, among them a majority of members of the European Union. Eleven European countries legally recognize same-sex marriage, namely Belgium, Denmark,[nb 1] France, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,[nb 2] Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.[nb 3] An additional thirteen countries have a form of civil union or unregistered cohabitation, as do four dependent territories. San Marino only allows immigration and cohabitation of a citizen's partner. Several countries are currently considering same-sex union recognition.
> 
> The constitutions of Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia and Ukraine define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, banning same-sex marriage._
> 
> Congradulations! You are allied with Belarus- the most corrupt country in Europe!


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Why are churches allowed to violate the law, but all other public accommodations must submit? And don't say freedom of religion. The first amendments protects that from laws targeting religious practice, it doesn't give them a free pass to ignore the law.
Click to expand...


It is essentially the same reason why States can't legally ban gay marriages.

In order to deny anyone a protected right, the State(meaning either States or the Federal government) must demonstrate that there is some compelling state interest in denying those rights.

There is no compelling state interest in forcing churches to violate their internal doctrines by requiring for example the Catholic Church to marry Jews.

However, the State would have a compelling interest in preventing churches from practicing human sacrifice.


----------



## Skylar

> How is that relevant? Churches that offer marriages as a public service fit the definition of public accommodations. It seems they should be required to serve them just as the baker who makes wedding cakes is required to serve them.



Because free practice of religion is a guaranteed right. And the discriminatory nature of religion is intrinsic to its free practice. It would be like saying you have the right to free speech....but you can't use language. Language is intrinsic to the exercise of the right. Just as discrimination is intrinsic to the exercise of religion.


----------



## Skylar

> That's a nonsensical (though common) misconception of the first amendment. If a church wanted to practice human sacrifice, would that fly as well?



Nope. As the right to free practice of religion is balanced with rights possessed by other people. The right to life, for example.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Why are churches allowed to violate the law, but all other public accommodations must submit? And don't say freedom of religion. The first amendments protects that from laws targeting religious practice, it doesn't give them a free pass to ignore the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is essentially the same reason why States can't legally ban gay marriages.
> 
> In order to deny anyone a protected right, the State(meaning either States or the Federal government) must demonstrate that there is some compelling state interest in denying those rights.
> 
> There is no compelling state interest in forcing churches to violate their internal doctrines by requiring for example the Catholic Church to marry Jews.
> 
> However, the State would have a compelling interest in preventing churches from practicing human sacrifice.
Click to expand...


Ok, so why is there a "compelling interest" to force a baker to bake them cakes, but not a priest to marry them?


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> That's a nonsensical (though common) misconception of the first amendment. If a church wanted to practice human sacrifice, would that fly as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. As the right to free practice of religion is balanced with rights possessed by other people. The right to life, for example.
Click to expand...


Yeah - I thought you were saying marriage was a right? What gives?


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Why are churches allowed to violate the law, but all other public accommodations must submit? And don't say freedom of religion. The first amendments protects that from laws targeting religious practice, it doesn't give them a free pass to ignore the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is essentially the same reason why States can't legally ban gay marriages.
> 
> In order to deny anyone a protected right, the State(meaning either States or the Federal government) must demonstrate that there is some compelling state interest in denying those rights.
> 
> There is no compelling state interest in forcing churches to violate their internal doctrines by requiring for example the Catholic Church to marry Jews.
> 
> However, the State would have a compelling interest in preventing churches from practicing human sacrifice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so why is there a "compelling interest" to force a baker to bake them cakes, but not a priest to marry them?
Click to expand...


Sigh you still have this backwards.

The state can only deny rights when the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in denying rights. 

The priest is protected by the First Amendment from being forced to practice his religion in ways that violate church doctrine.

The baker baking cakes can make the claim of religious exemption, but State does have a compelling interest in requiring public business's to business's even with 'despised minorities'- that was established in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The nature of almost all religion is inherently discriminatory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Why are churches allowed to violate the law, but all other public accommodations must submit? And don't say freedom of religion. The first amendments protects that from laws targeting religious practice, it doesn't give them a free pass to ignore the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is essentially the same reason why States can't legally ban gay marriages.
> 
> In order to deny anyone a protected right, the State(meaning either States or the Federal government) must demonstrate that there is some compelling state interest in denying those rights.
> 
> There is no compelling state interest in forcing churches to violate their internal doctrines by requiring for example the Catholic Church to marry Jews.
> 
> However, the State would have a compelling interest in preventing churches from practicing human sacrifice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so why is there a "compelling interest" to force a baker to bake them cakes, but not a priest to marry them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh you still have this backwards.
> 
> The state can only deny rights when the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in denying rights.
> 
> The priest is protected by the First Amendment from being forced to practice his religion in ways that violate church doctrine.
> 
> The baker baking cakes can make the claim of religious exemption, but State does have a compelling interest in requiring public business's to business's even with 'despised minorities'- that was established in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...


Why is it not a compelling interest in both cases? Isn't the actual marriage more fundamental than the cake?


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Why are churches allowed to violate the law, but all other public accommodations must submit? And don't say freedom of religion. The first amendments protects that from laws targeting religious practice, it doesn't give them a free pass to ignore the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is essentially the same reason why States can't legally ban gay marriages.
> 
> In order to deny anyone a protected right, the State(meaning either States or the Federal government) must demonstrate that there is some compelling state interest in denying those rights.
> 
> There is no compelling state interest in forcing churches to violate their internal doctrines by requiring for example the Catholic Church to marry Jews.
> 
> However, the State would have a compelling interest in preventing churches from practicing human sacrifice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so why is there a "compelling interest" to force a baker to bake them cakes, but not a priest to marry them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh you still have this backwards.
> 
> The state can only deny rights when the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in denying rights.
> 
> The priest is protected by the First Amendment from being forced to practice his religion in ways that violate church doctrine.
> 
> The baker baking cakes can make the claim of religious exemption, but State does have a compelling interest in requiring public business's to business's even with 'despised minorities'- that was established in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it not a compelling interest in both cases? Isn't the actual marriage more fundamental than the cake?
Click to expand...


Nope.

Legal marriage is essentially a civic function. Any couple can get married regardless of whether a Priest wants to marry them or not- there are public officials which will marry them.

Religious marriage is purely a religious function- no public official can perform a religious marriage- that essentially activates the state issued marriage licence. 

The state does not provide an alternative to private business.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Why are churches allowed to violate the law, but all other public accommodations must submit? And don't say freedom of religion. The first amendments protects that from laws targeting religious practice, it doesn't give them a free pass to ignore the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is essentially the same reason why States can't legally ban gay marriages.
> 
> In order to deny anyone a protected right, the State(meaning either States or the Federal government) must demonstrate that there is some compelling state interest in denying those rights.
> 
> There is no compelling state interest in forcing churches to violate their internal doctrines by requiring for example the Catholic Church to marry Jews.
> 
> However, the State would have a compelling interest in preventing churches from practicing human sacrifice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so why is there a "compelling interest" to force a baker to bake them cakes, but not a priest to marry them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh you still have this backwards.
> 
> The state can only deny rights when the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in denying rights.
> 
> The priest is protected by the First Amendment from being forced to practice his religion in ways that violate church doctrine.
> 
> The baker baking cakes can make the claim of religious exemption, but State does have a compelling interest in requiring public business's to business's even with 'despised minorities'- that was established in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it not a compelling interest in both cases? Isn't the actual marriage more fundamental than the cake?
Click to expand...


Rather keep asking the same questions over and over- go ahead and state your position.

Do you think Church's should be forced to marry any couple- regardless of Church doctrine?


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Yeah - I thought you were saying marriage was a right? What gives?



The difference is that one need not go to a given church to exercise that right. You can do it at another church. Or a justice of the peace. Or hire your own minister and have it done in your backyard. The refusal of a particular church to perform a particular wedding puts no significant burden on the exercise of the right to marry. 

Whereas sacrificing someone as part of a religious rite puts a significant burden on their right to life. 

Forcing a church to violate its own tenets would put a significant burden on the right of free exercise of their religion. Think of it in terms of say, Free Speech. You have every right to say what you wish. But you don't necessarily have the right to force your way into my house to say it.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Why are churches allowed to violate the law, but all other public accommodations must submit? And don't say freedom of religion. The first amendments protects that from laws targeting religious practice, it doesn't give them a free pass to ignore the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is essentially the same reason why States can't legally ban gay marriages.
> 
> In order to deny anyone a protected right, the State(meaning either States or the Federal government) must demonstrate that there is some compelling state interest in denying those rights.
> 
> There is no compelling state interest in forcing churches to violate their internal doctrines by requiring for example the Catholic Church to marry Jews.
> 
> However, the State would have a compelling interest in preventing churches from practicing human sacrifice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so why is there a "compelling interest" to force a baker to bake them cakes, but not a priest to marry them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh you still have this backwards.
> 
> The state can only deny rights when the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in denying rights.
> 
> The priest is protected by the First Amendment from being forced to practice his religion in ways that violate church doctrine.
> 
> The baker baking cakes can make the claim of religious exemption, but State does have a compelling interest in requiring public business's to business's even with 'despised minorities'- that was established in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it not a compelling interest in both cases? Isn't the actual marriage more fundamental than the cake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Legal marriage is essentially a civic function. Any couple can get married regardless of whether a Priest wants to marry them or not- there are public officials which will marry them.
> 
> Religious marriage is purely a religious function- no public official can perform a religious marriage- that essentially activates the state issued marriage licence.
> 
> The state does not provide an alternative to private business.
Click to expand...


How does that make any difference. If gays rights are being violated when a baker won't bake them a cake because they're gay, then their rights are also being violated when a church won't marry them because they're gay. We've already agreed a chruch can't used it's freedom of religion to violate our rights.

Now, just to be forthright, I don't think rights are involved in either case. There's no such thing as a "right" to demand that someone bake you a cake, or marry you, but that's the kind of dimwittedness underlying PA laws.


----------



## Skylar

> How does that make any difference. If gays rights are being violated when a baker won't bake them a cake because they're gay, then their rights are also being violated when a church won't marry them because they're gay. We've already agreed a chruch can't used it's freedom of religion to violate our rights.



There's nothing intrinsically religious about baking a cake. There is something intrinsically religious about a religious wedding.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - I thought you were saying marriage was a right? What gives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that one need not go to a given church to exercise that right. You can do it at another church. Or a justice of the peace. Or hire your own minister and have it done in your backyard. The refusal of a particular church to perform a particular wedding puts no significant burden on the exercise of the right to marry.
Click to expand...


And no one need go to a given baker to get a wedding cake. They can go to another baker, or bake it themselves. The refusal of a particular baker to bake them a cake puts no significant burden on the exercise of their right to cake.

Whereas sacrificing someone as part of the process of baking a cake puts a significant burden on their right to life.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> How does that make any difference. If gays rights are being violated when a baker won't bake them a cake because they're gay, then their rights are also being violated when a church won't marry them because they're gay. We've already agreed a chruch can't used it's freedom of religion to violate our rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing intrinsically religious about baking a cake. There is something intrinsically religious about a religious wedding.
Click to expand...


I thought we agreed that didn't matter. If a religious practice violates someone's other rights, it doesn't enjoy special protection right? If churches can practice discrimination against gays, can they also discriminate based on race, or any of the other protected classes?


----------



## mikegriffith1

Just as a matter of basic decency and tolerance, why would you want to force a church to host your wedding against their will?  Why would you want to force any facility--church, restaurant, club, etc.--to host your wedding against their will?  Why would you want to get married under such circumstances, regardless of whether your marriage would be traditional, gay, whatever?


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come? Aren't churches public accommodations?
Click to expand...


No and they never have been. Wanna guess how I know?


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - I thought you were saying marriage was a right? What gives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that one need not go to a given church to exercise that right. You can do it at another church. Or a justice of the peace. Or hire your own minister and have it done in your backyard. The refusal of a particular church to perform a particular wedding puts no significant burden on the exercise of the right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And no one need go to a given baker to get a wedding cake. They can go to another baker, or bake it themselves. The refusal of a particular baker to bake them a cake puts no significant burden on the exercise of their right to cake.
> 
> Whereas sacrificing someone as part of the process of baking a cake puts a significant burden on their right to life.
Click to expand...


The obvious problem with that reasoning is that no one is suggesting we sacrifice anyone as part of baking a cake.  Giving your reply an amusingly Mad Libs vibe. But not much relevance to what is being discussed.


----------



## Seawytch

mikegriffith1 said:


> Just as a matter of basic decency and tolerance, why would you want to force a church to host your wedding against their will?  Why would you want to force any facility--church, restaurant, club, etc.--to host your wedding against their will?  Why would you want to get married under such circumstances, regardless of whether your marriage would be traditional, gay, whatever?



It's irrelevant. It can't be done. Churches will change through public opinion not government coercion...like they ALWAYS a have.


----------



## Skylar

mikegriffith1 said:


> Just as a matter of basic decency and tolerance, why would you want to force a church to host your wedding against their will?  Why would you want to force any facility--church, restaurant, club, etc.--to host your wedding against their will?  Why would you want to get married under such circumstances, regardless of whether your marriage would be traditional, gay, whatever?



I don't know of anyone who is suggesting it should be done. Mostly its another 'bear in the woods' argument of conservatives. But there doesn't seem to be much to the claims.


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that make any difference. If gays rights are being violated when a baker won't bake them a cake because they're gay, then their rights are also being violated when a church won't marry them because they're gay. We've already agreed a chruch can't used it's freedom of religion to violate our rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing intrinsically religious about baking a cake. There is something intrinsically religious about a religious wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought we agreed that didn't matter. If a religious practice violates someone's other rights, it doesn't enjoy special protection right? If churches can practice discrimination against gays, can they also discriminate based on race, or any of the other protected classes?
Click to expand...


Yes, they can...and have.


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - I thought you were saying marriage was a right? What gives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that one need not go to a given church to exercise that right. You can do it at another church. Or a justice of the peace. Or hire your own minister and have it done in your backyard. The refusal of a particular church to perform a particular wedding puts no significant burden on the exercise of the right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And no one need go to a given baker to get a wedding cake. They can go to another baker, or bake it themselves. The refusal of a particular baker to bake them a cake puts no significant burden on the exercise of their right to cake.
> 
> Whereas sacrificing someone as part of the process of baking a cake puts a significant burden on their right to life.
Click to expand...


Churches are not, nor have they ever been a place of business that must adhere to laws that govern owning a business. A baker is not a tax exempt church.


----------



## Skylar

> I thought we agreed that didn't matter.



In terms of the free excercise of religion, it definitely matters. So no, there would be no such agreement.



> If a religious practice violates someone's other rights, it doesn't enjoy special protection right?



Because the denial of a wedding by a particular church creates no substantial burden on the exercise of the right to marry. They can get married somewhere else. While forcing a church to conduct a wedding against its tenets creates an enormous burden on the exercise of religion.

Baking doesn't have any particular religious protection. As baking isn't inherently religious. Religious ceremonies do, as religious ceremonies are.



> If churches can practice discrimination against gays, can they also discriminate based on race, or any of the other protected classes?



Religions can largely practice discrimination against anyone, as discrimination is inherent to the free exercise of religion. Discrimination isn't inherent to baking.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> I thought we agreed that didn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of the free excercise of religion, it definitely matters. So no, there would be no such agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a religious practice violates someone's other rights, it doesn't enjoy special protection right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the denial of a wedding by a particular church creates no substantial burden on the exercise of the right to marry. They can get married somewhere else. While forcing a church to conduct a wedding against its tenets creates an enormous burden on the exercise of religion.
> 
> Baking doesn't have any particular religious protection. As baking isn't inherently religious. Religious ceremonies do, as religious ceremonies are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If churches can practice discrimination against gays, can they also discriminate based on race, or any of the other protected classes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religions can largely practice discrimination against anyone, as discrimination is inherent to the free exercise of religion. Discrimination isn't inherent to baking.
Click to expand...


Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race. 

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we agreed that didn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of the free excercise of religion, it definitely matters. So no, there would be no such agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a religious practice violates someone's other rights, it doesn't enjoy special protection right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the denial of a wedding by a particular church creates no substantial burden on the exercise of the right to marry. They can get married somewhere else. While forcing a church to conduct a wedding against its tenets creates an enormous burden on the exercise of religion.
> 
> Baking doesn't have any particular religious protection. As baking isn't inherently religious. Religious ceremonies do, as religious ceremonies are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If churches can practice discrimination against gays, can they also discriminate based on race, or any of the other protected classes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religions can largely practice discrimination against anyone, as discrimination is inherent to the free exercise of religion. Discrimination isn't inherent to baking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.
> 
> Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.
Click to expand...


You would be wrong. Churches have NEVER nor will they ever be forced to perform a ceremony contrary to the tenants of their faith. 

Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples US news theguardian.com


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we agreed that didn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of the free excercise of religion, it definitely matters. So no, there would be no such agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a religious practice violates someone's other rights, it doesn't enjoy special protection right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the denial of a wedding by a particular church creates no substantial burden on the exercise of the right to marry. They can get married somewhere else. While forcing a church to conduct a wedding against its tenets creates an enormous burden on the exercise of religion.
> 
> Baking doesn't have any particular religious protection. As baking isn't inherently religious. Religious ceremonies do, as religious ceremonies are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If churches can practice discrimination against gays, can they also discriminate based on race, or any of the other protected classes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religions can largely practice discrimination against anyone, as discrimination is inherent to the free exercise of religion. Discrimination isn't inherent to baking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.
> .
Click to expand...


You will find out you are wrong.

UP until the Mormon church changed its doctrine in 1978, the Church of Latter Day Saints discriminated against African Americans, and denied them many of the benefits of the Church- even if they were members. 

Yet that was never a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we agreed that didn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of the free excercise of religion, it definitely matters. So no, there would be no such agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a religious practice violates someone's other rights, it doesn't enjoy special protection right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the denial of a wedding by a particular church creates no substantial burden on the exercise of the right to marry. They can get married somewhere else. While forcing a church to conduct a wedding against its tenets creates an enormous burden on the exercise of religion.
> 
> Baking doesn't have any particular religious protection. As baking isn't inherently religious. Religious ceremonies do, as religious ceremonies are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If churches can practice discrimination against gays, can they also discriminate based on race, or any of the other protected classes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religions can largely practice discrimination against anyone, as discrimination is inherent to the free exercise of religion. Discrimination isn't inherent to baking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.
> 
> Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would be wrong. Churches have NEVER nor will they ever be forced to perform a ceremony contrary to the tenants of their faith.
> 
> Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples US news theguardian.com
Click to expand...


Well, I'm finding some other interesting stuff too. In any case, why is it ok for churches to violate civil rights, but not other rights? The seems like a concession that civil rights aren't really 'rights' after all, but perks afforded to targeted minorities.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.



I am sure that the African American's of the 1960's would disagree with you. 

The accounts they have of travelling from the North to the South in the 60's- and how they would map out routes to make sure that they didn't run out of gas far from a gas station which would serve blacks. 

Mostly they gave up on finding public restrooms- since most restaurants and gas stations didn't have restrooms for 'coloreds'.

But I am sure there were literally millions of business owners in the South that objected to being required the 'social engineering' that required them to serve blacks as you are.


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we agreed that didn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of the free excercise of religion, it definitely matters. So no, there would be no such agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a religious practice violates someone's other rights, it doesn't enjoy special protection right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the denial of a wedding by a particular church creates no substantial burden on the exercise of the right to marry. They can get married somewhere else. While forcing a church to conduct a wedding against its tenets creates an enormous burden on the exercise of religion.
> 
> Baking doesn't have any particular religious protection. As baking isn't inherently religious. Religious ceremonies do, as religious ceremonies are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If churches can practice discrimination against gays, can they also discriminate based on race, or any of the other protected classes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religions can largely practice discrimination against anyone, as discrimination is inherent to the free exercise of religion. Discrimination isn't inherent to baking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.
> 
> Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would be wrong. Churches have NEVER nor will they ever be forced to perform a ceremony contrary to the tenants of their faith.
> 
> Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples US news theguardian.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm finding some other interesting stuff too. In any case, why is it ok for churches to violate civil rights, but not other rights? The seems like a concession that civil rights aren't really 'rights' after all, but perks afforded to targeted minorities.
Click to expand...


What other rights do you think churches are prevented from violating?


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we agreed that didn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of the free excercise of religion, it definitely matters. So no, there would be no such agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a religious practice violates someone's other rights, it doesn't enjoy special protection right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the denial of a wedding by a particular church creates no substantial burden on the exercise of the right to marry. They can get married somewhere else. While forcing a church to conduct a wedding against its tenets creates an enormous burden on the exercise of religion.
> 
> Baking doesn't have any particular religious protection. As baking isn't inherently religious. Religious ceremonies do, as religious ceremonies are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If churches can practice discrimination against gays, can they also discriminate based on race, or any of the other protected classes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religions can largely practice discrimination against anyone, as discrimination is inherent to the free exercise of religion. Discrimination isn't inherent to baking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.
> 
> Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would be wrong. Churches have NEVER nor will they ever be forced to perform a ceremony contrary to the tenants of their faith.
> 
> Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples US news theguardian.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm finding some other interesting stuff too. In any case, why is it ok for churches to violate civil rights, but not other rights? The seems like a concession that civil rights aren't really 'rights' after all, but perks afforded to targeted minorities.
Click to expand...


You asked that question in the beginning and it has been answered.

Answering that question again will serve no purpose.


----------



## Skylar

> Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.



Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.



> Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.



And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom. 

Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law. There is no right to be married in a particular church.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that the African American's of the 1960's would disagree with you.
> 
> The accounts they have of travelling from the North to the South in the 60's- and how they would map out routes to make sure that they didn't run out of gas far from a gas station which would serve blacks.
> 
> Mostly they gave up on finding public restrooms- since most restaurants and gas stations didn't have restrooms for 'coloreds'.
> 
> But I am sure there were literally millions of business owners in the South that objected to being required the 'social engineering' that required them to serve blacks as you are.
Click to expand...


Be that as it may, you can't deny that the COTUS does not empower the federal government to make people be nice to each other.

You CAN argue that the government should do it whether they have the Constitutional right or not, but at least have the decency to admit that no it is not an enumerated power of the federal government.

And you can argue that they are state laws all you want, you know damn well there are state laws because the federal government insisted.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Skylar said:


> Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.
> 
> Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law.* There is no right to be married in a particular church*.
Click to expand...


That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.


----------



## dblack

Re: churches and racial discrimination





> Title VII allows a religious organization to discriminate on the basis of religion when it hires employees. For example, in a 1987 Supreme Court case dealing with Title VII, the Court ruled that a gym operated by the Mormon Church could require its janitor to be a Mormon in good standing. Title VII does not, however, permit religious organization to discriminate on the basis of an individual's race, sex, or national origin. By contrast, ENDA permits religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.



The Religious Exemption to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that the African American's of the 1960's would disagree with you.
> 
> The accounts they have of travelling from the North to the South in the 60's- and how they would map out routes to make sure that they didn't run out of gas far from a gas station which would serve blacks.
> 
> Mostly they gave up on finding public restrooms- since most restaurants and gas stations didn't have restrooms for 'coloreds'.
> 
> But I am sure there were literally millions of business owners in the South that objected to being required the 'social engineering' that required them to serve blacks as you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be that as it may, you can't deny that the COTUS does not empower the federal government to make people be nice to each other.
> 
> You CAN argue that the government should do it whether they have the Constitutional right or not, but at least have the decency to admit that no it is not an enumerated power of the federal government.
> 
> And you can argue that they are state laws all you want, you know damn well there are state laws because the federal government insisted.
Click to expand...


I don't recall anyone ever asking for business's to be nice to them. They were asking to be provided service- to be served gasoline like white customers were, to be sold food like white customers were, to be allowed to use restrooms like white customers were. 

Those rights are part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


----------



## dblack

dblack said:


> Re: churches and racial discrimination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Title VII allows a religious organization to discriminate on the basis of religion when it hires employees. For example, in a 1987 Supreme Court case dealing with Title VII, the Court ruled that a gym operated by the Mormon Church could require its janitor to be a Mormon in good standing. Title VII does not, however, permit religious organization to discriminate on the basis of an individual's race, sex, or national origin. By contrast, ENDA permits religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Religious Exemption to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Click to expand...


What an ad-hoc mess. What about all the minorities that don't get their free pass?


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.
> 
> Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law.* There is no right to be married in a particular church*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.
Click to expand...


1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> What other rights do you think churches are prevented from violating?



Well, we already talked about right to life. And all the other rights people have. As well the civil rights laws regarding employment.




> Title VII allows a religious organization to discriminate on the basis of religion when it hires employees. For example, in a 1987 Supreme Court case dealing with Title VII, the Court ruled that a gym operated by the Mormon Church could require its janitor to be a Mormon in good standing. *Title VII does not, however, permit religious organization to discriminate on the basis of an individual's race, sex, or national origin. By contrast, ENDA permits religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.*



The Religious Exemption to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.
> 
> Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law.* There is no right to be married in a particular church*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.
Click to expand...


Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?

I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"

Perfectly legal. 

I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"

Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.


----------



## Skylar

> Be that as it may, you can't deny that the COTUS does not empower the federal government to make people be nice to each other.



That's where we're getting into some muddier waters, constitutionally speaking. The Bill of Rights has from the beginning protected citizens from violatoin of their rights by the federal government. With the 14th amendment, citizens are protected from the violation of their rights by the State government. These are constitutionally rock solid principles.

The federal government preventing citizens from violating citizens civil rights? Per the conception of rights as understood by the founders, this would have been impossible. As rights were expressed as a prohibition against government interference with the actions of the individual. And have nothing to do with citizen v. citizen interactions. 

The way the federal government extended its authority over citizen v citizen interactions was some pretty shady shit: the interstate commerce clause. Arguing in effect, that the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce gave it full jurisdictional authority over intrastate commerce. Which boggles the mind on a linguistic and constitutional level. 

In my opinion, the Constitution doesn't authorize any such jurisdiction. And has no authority over intrastate commerce. And consequently, no authority over citizen v. citizen interactions unless those interactions are explicitly involved in interstate commerce.\

The States can do as they wish.


----------



## Skylar

> itle VII allows a religious organization to discriminate on the basis of religion when it hires employees. For example, in a 1987 Supreme Court case dealing with Title VII, the Court ruled that a gym operated by the Mormon Church could require its janitor to be a Mormon in good standing. Title VII does not, however, permit religious organization to discriminate on the basis of an individual's race, sex, or national origin. By contrast, ENDA permits religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.



A church isn't employing the couple it marries. Rendering your entire argument regarding employment practices irrelevant.

A church can discriminate against anyone it wishes to in the performance of its religious rites. Churches can choose to only marry white people. Or only marry black people. Or only recognize men as priests. Or exclude black people from its priesthood. 

And does.


----------



## Skylar

> You seem to be missing the point. Deliberately, I suppose.



Or your point doesn't work, as a church doesn't employ a couple by marrying them. Making your citation of employment law both bizarre and irrelevant. And churches retain the authority to discriminate against anyone they wish in the performance of their religious rites. Something you said they couldn't do. And churches doing it demonstrate they can.



> Anyway, as long as the state tells us how to live, I guess that's the main thing, eh?



If you want a marriage that has nothing to do with the State, enjoy. If you want a marriage that has the protection and recognition of the State, that's available too. Sounds like a win-win to me.


----------



## dblack

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.
> 
> Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law.* There is no right to be married in a particular church*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?
> 
> I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"
> 
> Perfectly legal.
> 
> I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"
> 
> Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.
Click to expand...


Yeah... that's what I don't get.


Skylar said:


> You seem to be missing the point. Deliberately, I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or your point doesn't work, as a church doesn't employ a couple by marrying them. Making your citation of employment law both bizarre and irrelevant. And churches retain the authority to discriminate against anyone they wish in the performance of their religious rights. Something you said they couldn't do. And churches doing it demonstrate they can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, as long as the state tells us how to live, I guess that's the main thing, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want a marriage that has nothing to do with the State, enjoy. If you want a marriage that has the protection and recognition of the State, that's available too. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Click to expand...


It's sounds like an arbitrary jumble of special privilege to me. If public accommodations laws were truly about protecting our equal rights, they'd apply to everyone, not just those with a slot on the 'protected classes' leaderboard. But they're not about protecting our rights, they're about targeting unpopular biases.


----------



## Skylar

> It's sounds like an arbitrary jumble of special privilege to me.



And again, that's because you don't recognize that religion is a constitutional right and is powerfully protected. Factor that into your equation, and it becomes much less 'jumbled'. 



> If public accommodations laws were truly about protecting our equal rights, they'd apply to everyone, not just those with a slot on the 'protected classes' leaderboard. But they're not about protecting our rights, they're about targeting unpopular biases.



The legislature doesn't have the authority to legislatively mandate the performance of religious rites in express contradiction of religious tenets. How then could it create a law that applied to them?


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Re: churches and racial discrimination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Title VII allows a religious organization to discriminate on the basis of religion when it hires employees. For example, in a 1987 Supreme Court case dealing with Title VII, the Court ruled that a gym operated by the Mormon Church could require its janitor to be a Mormon in good standing. Title VII does not, however, permit religious organization to discriminate on the basis of an individual's race, sex, or national origin. By contrast, ENDA permits religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Religious Exemption to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What an ad-hoc mess. What about all the minorities that don't get their free pass?
Click to expand...


In general


SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.
> 
> Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law.* There is no right to be married in a particular church*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

*1971:* In _Griggs v. Duke Power Co._, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits not only intentional job discrimination, but also employer practices that have a discriminatory effect on minorities and women. The Court held that tests and other employment practices that disproportionately screened out African American applicants for jobs at the Duke Power Company were prohibited when the tests were not shown to be job-related.

Note- the Supreme Court did not rule that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional.

You are of course welcome to your interpretation- there are indeed Supreme Court decisions I don't agree with- but I don't pretend that just because I disagree that the Supreme Court decisions are only opinions that matter when it comes to deciding what is Constitutional.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.
> 
> Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law.* There is no right to be married in a particular church*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?
> 
> I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"
> 
> Perfectly legal.
> 
> I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"
> 
> Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.
Click to expand...


No- really this is not brain science.

_TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION 
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin._

Not one word about 'blacks'- or 'whites'- only 
Race
Color
Religion
National Origin

If you can show me how blacks are favored over whites in the act, well please do.

Now- if you want to discriminate against fat people- unless state or local laws prohibit it- you can discriminate to your hearts content. 


_
_


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.
> 
> Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law.* There is no right to be married in a particular church*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?
> 
> I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"
> 
> Perfectly legal.
> 
> I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"
> 
> Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah... that's what I don't get.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing the point. Deliberately, I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or your point doesn't work, as a church doesn't employ a couple by marrying them. Making your citation of employment law both bizarre and irrelevant. And churches retain the authority to discriminate against anyone they wish in the performance of their religious rights. Something you said they couldn't do. And churches doing it demonstrate they can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, as long as the state tells us how to live, I guess that's the main thing, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want a marriage that has nothing to do with the State, enjoy. If you want a marriage that has the protection and recognition of the State, that's available too. Sounds like a win-win to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's sounds like an arbitrary jumble of special privilege to me. If public accommodations laws were truly about protecting our equal rights, they'd apply to everyone, not just those with a slot on the 'protected classes' leaderboard. But they're not about protecting our rights, they're about targeting unpopular biases.
Click to expand...


Actually they target minorities that have suffered historic discrimination. 

We have a long and 'glorious' history in the United States of discriminating against people based upon color(Black/Brown/Yellow), race(Chinese/Negro/Indian), religion(Jew/Mormon/Catholic), national origin(Irish/Italian/African).


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.
> 
> And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.
> 
> Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law.* There is no right to be married in a particular church*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?
> 
> I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"
> 
> Perfectly legal.
> 
> I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"
> 
> Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah... that's what I don't get.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing the point. Deliberately, I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or your point doesn't work, as a church doesn't employ a couple by marrying them. Making your citation of employment law both bizarre and irrelevant. And churches retain the authority to discriminate against anyone they wish in the performance of their religious rights. Something you said they couldn't do. And churches doing it demonstrate they can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, as long as the state tells us how to live, I guess that's the main thing, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want a marriage that has nothing to do with the State, enjoy. If you want a marriage that has the protection and recognition of the State, that's available too. Sounds like a win-win to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's sounds like an arbitrary jumble of special privilege to me. If public accommodations laws were truly about protecting our equal rights, they'd apply to everyone, not just those with a slot on the 'protected classes' leaderboard. But they're not about protecting our rights, they're about targeting unpopular biases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they target minorities that have suffered historic discrimination.
> 
> We have a long and 'glorious' history in the United States of discriminating against people based upon color(Black/Brown/Yellow), race(Chinese/Negro/Indian), religion(Jew/Mormon/Catholic), national origin(Irish/Italian/African).
Click to expand...


Well, no, they're targeting minorities that have fallen out of favor (racists, homophobes, sexists, etc..) for "behavior modification". But it sounds like we agree that it's not about equal rights. It's about special perks for specific classes of people. You realize this is the essence of corporatism, right?


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.
> 
> Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law.* There is no right to be married in a particular church*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?
> 
> I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"
> 
> Perfectly legal.
> 
> I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"
> 
> Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- really this is not brain science.
> 
> _TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
> SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin._
> 
> Not one word about 'blacks'- or 'whites'- only
> Race
> Color
> Religion
> National Origin
> 
> If you can show me how blacks are favored over whites in the act, well please do.
> 
> Now- if you want to discriminate against fat people- unless state or local laws prohibit it- you can discriminate to your hearts content.
Click to expand...


Does that seem right to you?


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Be that as it may, you can't deny that the COTUS does not empower the federal government to make people be nice to each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's where we're getting into some muddier waters, constitutionally speaking. The Bill of Rights has from the beginning protected citizens from violatoin of their rights by the federal government. With the 14th amendment, citizens are protected from the violation of their rights by the State government. These are constitutionally rock solid principles.
> 
> The federal government preventing citizens from violating citizens civil rights? Per the conception of rights as understood by the founders, this would have been impossible. As rights were expressed as a prohibition against government interference with the actions of the individual. And have nothing to do with citizen v. citizen interactions.
> 
> The way the federal government extended its authority over citizen v citizen interactions was some pretty shady shit: the interstate commerce clause. Arguing in effect, that the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce gave it full jurisdictional authority over intrastate commerce. Which boggles the mind on a linguistic and constitutional level.
> 
> In my opinion, the Constitution doesn't authorize any such jurisdiction. And has no authority over intrastate commerce. And consequently, no authority over citizen v. citizen interactions unless those interactions are explicitly involved in interstate commerce.\
> 
> The States can do as they wish.
Click to expand...


I get what you are saying- but unless and until the Supreme Court agrees with you, that is purely an academic argument.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?
> 
> I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"
> 
> Perfectly legal.
> 
> I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"
> 
> Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah... that's what I don't get.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing the point. Deliberately, I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or your point doesn't work, as a church doesn't employ a couple by marrying them. Making your citation of employment law both bizarre and irrelevant. And churches retain the authority to discriminate against anyone they wish in the performance of their religious rights. Something you said they couldn't do. And churches doing it demonstrate they can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, as long as the state tells us how to live, I guess that's the main thing, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want a marriage that has nothing to do with the State, enjoy. If you want a marriage that has the protection and recognition of the State, that's available too. Sounds like a win-win to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's sounds like an arbitrary jumble of special privilege to me. If public accommodations laws were truly about protecting our equal rights, they'd apply to everyone, not just those with a slot on the 'protected classes' leaderboard. But they're not about protecting our rights, they're about targeting unpopular biases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they target minorities that have suffered historic discrimination.
> 
> We have a long and 'glorious' history in the United States of discriminating against people based upon color(Black/Brown/Yellow), race(Chinese/Negro/Indian), religion(Jew/Mormon/Catholic), national origin(Irish/Italian/African).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, they're targeting minorities that have fallen out of favor (racists, homophobes, sexists, etc..) for "behavior modification". But it sounds like we agree that it's not about equal rights. It's about special perks for specific classes of people. You realize this is the essence of corporatism, right?
Click to expand...


No- like pretty much every interpretation you have expressed- no.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.
> 
> And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.
> 
> Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law.* There is no right to be married in a particular church*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?
> 
> I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"
> 
> Perfectly legal.
> 
> I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"
> 
> Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- really this is not brain science.
> 
> _TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
> SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin._
> 
> Not one word about 'blacks'- or 'whites'- only
> Race
> Color
> Religion
> National Origin
> 
> If you can show me how blacks are favored over whites in the act, well please do.
> 
> Now- if you want to discriminate against fat people- unless state or local laws prohibit it- you can discriminate to your hearts content.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that seem right to you?
Click to expand...


I don't have any problem with that at all. Since I have a firm grasp of history.

_ITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION 
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin._

Not one word about 'blacks'- or 'whites'- only
Race
Color
Religion
National Origin


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... Are you sure about that? I'm gonna hafta go a googling, cause I bet churches can't discriminate based on race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't see how anyone can pretend there are any consistent principles at work in civil rights law. It's straight-up, authoritarian, social engineering, and has nothing at all to do with protecting our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.
> 
> Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law.* There is no right to be married in a particular church*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?
> 
> I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"
> 
> Perfectly legal.
> 
> I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"
> 
> Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- really this is not brain science.
> 
> _TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
> SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin._
> 
> Not one word about 'blacks'- or 'whites'- only
> Race
> Color
> Religion
> National Origin
> 
> If you can show me how blacks are favored over whites in the act, well please do.
> 
> Now- if you want to discriminate against fat people- unless state or local laws prohibit it*- you can discriminate to your hearts content. *
Click to expand...


I know, that's my point. It's okay to discriminate. 

Against some people.

Which means those some people are not getting their 14th Amendment  guaranteed equal protection of law.

I KNOW you understand this and are just pretending like it doesn't make sense.


----------



## Skylar

> I get what you are saying- but unless and until the Supreme Court agrees with you, that is purely an academic argument.



Which is why I prefaced my statement with 'In my opinion'. 

You'd be hard pressed to make a credible argument that the authority to regulate interstate commerce means that the government has the authority to regulate intrastate commerce. Inter and intra are opposites. But they're used interchangeably by the federal government.

I take issue with that. Both constitutionally. And linguistically. If 'interstate commerce' has no meaning, why then did the founders use the term?


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can. Its perfectly legit for a religion to only marry white people. Or only marry blacks. Mormons banned black preists. Catholics still ban women priests. Most religiously run theology schools are a sausage fest. And its all completely legal.
> 
> And that would be because you're ignoring the fact that religion is a constitutional right and powerfully protected. Refusing to marry someone who doesn't meet your tenets religious requirements is well within the free practice of religion. Forcing a church to marry folks that don't meet your religious requirements is an egregious violation of religious freedom.
> 
> Whereas a given church refusing to wed a given couple doesn't create a substantive burden on that couple's right to marry. As that right to marry is the right to have that marriage recognized by law.* There is no right to be married in a particular church*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?
> 
> I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"
> 
> Perfectly legal.
> 
> I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"
> 
> Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- really this is not brain science.
> 
> _TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
> SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin._
> 
> Not one word about 'blacks'- or 'whites'- only
> Race
> Color
> Religion
> National Origin
> 
> If you can show me how blacks are favored over whites in the act, well please do.
> 
> Now- if you want to discriminate against fat people- unless state or local laws prohibit it*- you can discriminate to your hearts content. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, that's my point. It's okay to discriminate.
> 
> Against some people.
> 
> Which means those some people are not getting their 14th Amendment  guaranteed equal protection of law.
> 
> I KNOW you understand this and are just pretending like it doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...


Well I look forward to seeing the lawsuit that argues exactly that. 

But until then you are stuck with discriminating against people without reference to race, color or religion.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> I get what you are saying- but unless and until the Supreme Court agrees with you, that is purely an academic argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I prefaced my statement with 'In my opinion'.
> 
> You'd be hard pressed to make a credible argument that the authority to regulate interstate commerce means that the government has the authority to regulate intrastate commerce. Inter and intra are opposites. But they're used interchangeably by the federal government.
> 
> I take issue with that. Both constitutionally. And linguistically. If 'interstate commerce' has no meaning, why then did the founders use the term?
Click to expand...


I have no disagreement that the excuse of 'interstate commerce' has been long overplayed.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> That of courses extends to any business. There is no right to buy gas from a particular gas station, nor a meal from a particular restaurant, etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1964 Civil Rights Act says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you mean the unconstitutional law that violates the 14th Amendment by giving some groups unequal protections that aren't available to other groups, just depends if that group has enough public support to pressure law makers into adding them to the cause?
> 
> I can hang a sign right outside my restaurant that says "we do NOT serve fat people here"
> 
> Perfectly legal.
> 
> I can not hang a sign up that says "we do NOT serve black people here"
> 
> Therefor, logically blacks are favored by the law, while fatties are not. Meaning the law is picking and choosing favorites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- really this is not brain science.
> 
> _TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
> SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin._
> 
> Not one word about 'blacks'- or 'whites'- only
> Race
> Color
> Religion
> National Origin
> 
> If you can show me how blacks are favored over whites in the act, well please do.
> 
> Now- if you want to discriminate against fat people- unless state or local laws prohibit it*- you can discriminate to your hearts content. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, that's my point. It's okay to discriminate.
> 
> Against some people.
> 
> Which means those some people are not getting their 14th Amendment  guaranteed equal protection of law.
> 
> I KNOW you understand this and are just pretending like it doesn't make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I look forward to seeing the lawsuit that argues exactly that.
> 
> But until then you are stuck with discriminating against people without reference to race, color or religion.
Click to expand...


Oh, I am firmly of the belief that people who get caught by these laws are stupid. 

"Oh, yes I'd love to bake your gay wedding cake for you, but I am booked for next 9 months, so sorry"

done and done.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> I have no disagreement that the excuse of 'interstate commerce' has been long overplayed.



And that's why I contrasted it with the constitutional basis of the Bill of Rights applying to the Federal Government and the Federal government's authority to protect rights from abuse by the States under the 14th amendment. That's rock solid, constitutionally.

The constitutionality of the Federal Government protecting the rights of citizens from other citizens is muddy at best. And defies the meaning of 'interstate' and 'rights' at worst. 

I try to be reasonable in my assessment of arguments. And the conservatives have a point on this one. I'd be disingenuous not to acknowledge that with my recognition of this fact.


----------



## Seawytch

For dblack: The state of Michigan has outlawed employment discrimination based on weight, as have some cities and local areas, including San Francisco and the District of Columbia. If you work in a place that has such a law, your employer may not make job decisions based on your weight.


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> For dblack: The state of Michigan has outlawed employment discrimination based on weight, as have some cities and local areas, including San Francisco and the District of Columbia. If you work in a place that has such a law, your employer may not make job decisions based on your weight.


Rawk on! What about height? Short people got no reason to live?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Seawytch said:


> For dblack: The state of Michigan has outlawed employment discrimination based on weight, as have some cities and local areas, including San Francisco and the District of Columbia. If you work in a place that has such a law, your employer may not make job decisions based on your weight.



Now THAT is stupid!


----------



## Skylar

Seems there are some gray zones:



> Donald and Evelyn Knapp, who run the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d'Alene, are asking a federal judge to temporarily bar the city from enforcing a local ordinance that bans discrimination tied to sexual orientation in businesses that are used by the public, their attorney said on Monday.
> 
> The couple, both ordained Christian ministers, say that under the ordinance, they could face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine each time they decline to wed same-sex couples in line with their religious beliefs.
> 
> "The government has no business compelling ministers to violate their beliefs and break their ordination vows or risk escalating jail time and fines," said the Knapps' attorney, Jeremy Tedesco
> 
> 
> Idaho pastors opposed to gay marriage sue city over law - Yahoo News



There is one relevant caveat:



> The lawsuit said the city contends that because the chapel is not a church, it is not exempt from the ordinance and must afford gays the same rights as other couples seeking to wed....
> 
> ...The Knapps said in the lawsuit filed on Friday in U.S. District Court that their business was formed as an avenue to exercise their religious beliefs, which include helping people "create, celebrate and build lifetime, monogamous one-man one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible."
> 
> *Their chapel, technically a for-profit corporation, has hosted roughly 35,000 weddings since opening in 1989.
> *
> Idaho pastors opposed to gay marriage sue city over law - Yahoo News



Even though its a business and not a church, I'd still give it to the ministers. I find the idea of a person of genuine religious conviction being forced to perform a religious ceremony against their will to be repugnant.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Even though its a business and not a church, I'd still give it to the ministers. *I find the idea of a person of genuine religious conviction being forced to perform a religious ceremony against their will to be repugnant*.


 
When will you be contacting the media as a representative of the LGBT movement to say those exact words on primetime newcasts?


----------



## dblack

Jarlaxle said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> For dblack: The state of Michigan has outlawed employment discrimination based on weight, as have some cities and local areas, including San Francisco and the District of Columbia. If you work in a place that has such a law, your employer may not make job decisions based on your weight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now THAT is stupid!
Click to expand...


But that's the vector of this kind of legal reasoning. Ultimately, all of our preferences and personal decisions are the purview of government oversight.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no disagreement that the excuse of 'interstate commerce' has been long overplayed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's why I contrasted it with the constitutional basis of the Bill of Rights applying to the Federal Government and the Federal government's authority to protect rights from abuse by the States under the 14th amendment. That's rock solid, constitutionally.
> 
> The constitutionality of the Federal Government protecting the rights of citizens from other citizens is muddy at best. And defies the meaning of 'interstate' and 'rights' at worst.
> 
> I try to be reasonable in my assessment of arguments. And the conservatives have a point on this one. I'd be disingenuous not to acknowledge that with my recognition of this fact.
Click to expand...


Well to be fair- Conservatives- most Conservatives- don't have a problem with the interstate commerce provis


Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though its a business and not a church, I'd still give it to the ministers. *I find the idea of a person of genuine religious conviction being forced to perform a religious ceremony against their will to be repugnant*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When will you be contacting the media as a representative of the LGBT movement to say those exact words on primetime newcasts?
Click to expand...


What makes you think that Skylar is a representative of the LGBT movement?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though its a business and not a church, I'd still give it to the ministers. *I find the idea of a person of genuine religious conviction being forced to perform a religious ceremony against their will to be repugnant*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When will you be contacting the media as a representative of the LGBT movement to say those exact words on primetime newcasts?
Click to expand...


Feel free to pass them along. You have my full permission to quote me or appropriate the quote as your own.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though its a business and not a church, I'd still give it to the ministers. *I find the idea of a person of genuine religious conviction being forced to perform a religious ceremony against their will to be repugnant*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When will you be contacting the media as a representative of the LGBT movement to say those exact words on primetime newcasts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to pass them along. You have my full permission to quote me or appropriate the quote as your own.
Click to expand...


Quoting you might make for the most lucid posts Sil ever makes.


----------



## Seawytch

Skylar said:


> Seems there are some gray zones:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald and Evelyn Knapp, who run the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d'Alene, are asking a federal judge to temporarily bar the city from enforcing a local ordinance that bans discrimination tied to sexual orientation in businesses that are used by the public, their attorney said on Monday.
> 
> The couple, both ordained Christian ministers, say that under the ordinance, they could face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine each time they decline to wed same-sex couples in line with their religious beliefs.
> 
> "The government has no business compelling ministers to violate their beliefs and break their ordination vows or risk escalating jail time and fines," said the Knapps' attorney, Jeremy Tedesco
> 
> 
> Idaho pastors opposed to gay marriage sue city over law - Yahoo News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is one relevant caveat:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuit said the city contends that because the chapel is not a church, it is not exempt from the ordinance and must afford gays the same rights as other couples seeking to wed....
> 
> ...The Knapps said in the lawsuit filed on Friday in U.S. District Court that their business was formed as an avenue to exercise their religious beliefs, which include helping people "create, celebrate and build lifetime, monogamous one-man one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible."
> 
> *Their chapel, technically a for-profit corporation, has hosted roughly 35,000 weddings since opening in 1989.
> *
> Idaho pastors opposed to gay marriage sue city over law - Yahoo News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even though its a business and not a church, I'd still give it to the ministers. I find the idea of a person of genuine religious conviction being forced to perform a religious ceremony against their will to be repugnant.
Click to expand...


But since they operate as a *for profit* business, they can hire someone to perform ceremonies they find "repugnant". They are not a church, but if they feel that strongly, they CAN become one. The $$$ seems more important.


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> For dblack: The state of Michigan has outlawed employment discrimination based on weight, as have some cities and local areas, including San Francisco and the District of Columbia. If you work in a place that has such a law, your employer may not make job decisions based on your weight.
> 
> 
> 
> Rawk on! What about height? Short people got no reason to live?
Click to expand...


 Height and weight requirements tend to disproportionately limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and unless the employer can demonstrate how the need is related to the job, it may be viewed as illegal under federal law. A number of states and localities have laws specifically prohibiting discrimination on the basis of height and weight unless based on actual job requirements. Therefore, unless job-related, inquiries about height and weight should be avoided.

Pre-Employment Inquiries and Height Weight


----------



## Skylar

> But since they operate as a *for profit* business, they can hire someone to perform ceremonies they find "repugnant". They are not a church, but if they feel that strongly, they CAN become one. The $$$ seems more important.




They aren't a church. They are a for profit corporation. And yet the ministers are still a man and woman of faith. And deep religious conviction being the basis of their position on gay marriage seems genuine. The idea of forcing ministers to perform a religious ceremony in explicit contradiction of their faith........its disturbing.

I'd give this one to the ministers. As gays can be married anywhere. The imposition to their right to marry with the refusal of this chapel is inconsequential. While the burden on the ministers right to free expression of religion is severe. There's room enough in this world for people to disagree. I'd tell the gays and lesbians to take the W....and not try to push their


----------



## Seawytch

Skylar said:


> But since they operate as a *for profit* business, they can hire someone to perform ceremonies they find "repugnant". They are not a church, but if they feel that strongly, they CAN become one. The $$$ seems more important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't a church. They are a for profit corporation. And yet the ministers are still a man and woman of faith. And deep religious conviction being the basis of their position on gay marriage seems genuine. The idea of forcing ministers to perform a religious ceremony in explicit contradiction of their faith........its disturbing.
> 
> I'd give this one to the ministers. As gays can be married anywhere. The imposition to their right to marry with the refusal of this chapel is inconsequential. While the burden on the ministers right to free expression of religion is severe. There's room enough in this world for people to disagree. I'd tell the gays and lesbians to take the W....and not try to push their
Click to expand...



And as a for profit corporation, they can *hire *someone to do the work they don't want to. You'd "give this one to the ministers" because gays can go elsewhere? Blacks could eat elsewhere. Racist bigots had deeply held religious beliefs about blacks, that doesn't give businesses a right to discriminate. 

If they want to be treated like a church, they can give up their worship of the dollar and become a church.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> *They aren't a church. They are a for profit corporation. And yet the ministers are still a man and woman of faith. And deep religious conviction being the basis of their position on gay marriage seems genuine. The idea of forcing ministers to perform a religious ceremony in explicit contradiction of their faith........its disturbing.*
> 
> I'd give this one to the ministers. As gays can be married anywhere. The imposition to their right to marry with the refusal of this chapel is inconsequential. While the burden on the ministers right to free expression of religion is severe. There's room enough in this world for people to disagree. I'd tell the gays and lesbians to take the W....and not try to push their


 
When will you be, as a member of the LGBT advocacy crew, expressing those EXACT views on primetime news interviews?


----------



## Skylar

> When will you be, as a member of the LGBT advocacy crew, expressing those EXACT views on primetime news interviews?



Perhaps when I'm interviewed on prime time about my views on gay marriage and chapels. And those offers come up less often than you'd think.


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> For dblack: The state of Michigan has outlawed employment discrimination based on weight, as have some cities and local areas, including San Francisco and the District of Columbia. If you work in a place that has such a law, your employer may not make job decisions based on your weight.
> 
> 
> 
> Rawk on! What about height? Short people got no reason to live?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Height and weight requirements tend to disproportionately limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and unless the employer can demonstrate how the need is related to the job, it may be viewed as illegal under federal law. A number of states and localities have laws specifically prohibiting discrimination on the basis of height and weight unless based on actual job requirements. Therefore, unless job-related, inquiries about height and weight should be avoided.
> 
> Pre-Employment Inquiries and Height Weight
Click to expand...


It's one whacky world we live in!


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> For dblack: The state of Michigan has outlawed employment discrimination based on weight, as have some cities and local areas, including San Francisco and the District of Columbia. If you work in a place that has such a law, your employer may not make job decisions based on your weight.
> 
> 
> 
> Rawk on! What about height? Short people got no reason to live?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Height and weight requirements tend to disproportionately limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and unless the employer can demonstrate how the need is related to the job, it may be viewed as illegal under federal law. A number of states and localities have laws specifically prohibiting discrimination on the basis of height and weight unless based on actual job requirements. Therefore, unless job-related, inquiries about height and weight should be avoided.
> 
> Pre-Employment Inquiries and Height Weight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's one whacky world we live in!
Click to expand...


While that might be the case, the fact is that some localities have expanded their "lists" of people protected by PA laws. Either get rid of ALL of them or quit bitching because in some places they protect gays on equal footing with race and religion.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But since they operate as a *for profit* business, they can hire someone to perform ceremonies they find "repugnant". They are not a church, but if they feel that strongly, they CAN become one. The $$$ seems more important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't a church. They are a for profit corporation. And yet the ministers are still a man and woman of faith. And deep religious conviction being the basis of their position on gay marriage seems genuine. The idea of forcing ministers to perform a religious ceremony in explicit contradiction of their faith........its disturbing.
> 
> I'd give this one to the ministers. As gays can be married anywhere. The imposition to their right to marry with the refusal of this chapel is inconsequential. While the burden on the ministers right to free expression of religion is severe. There's room enough in this world for people to disagree. I'd tell the gays and lesbians to take the W....and not try to push their
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And as a for profit corporation, they can *hire *someone to do the work they don't want to. You'd "give this one to the ministers" because gays can go elsewhere? Blacks could eat elsewhere. Racist bigots had deeply held religious beliefs about blacks, that doesn't give businesses a right to discriminate.
> 
> If they want to be treated like a church, they can give up their worship of the dollar and become a church.
Click to expand...



Hey SeaBytch. I'd like to thank you for confirming in this thread that some faggots are self righteous ,  pushy, unfeeling, selfish pieces of shit.

See, here's the difference between YOU and ME.

 I think you and your fellow gays are disgusting and mentally disturbed. But, I believe you should be left alone to do what you want.

You on the other hand are militant about FORCING me to do something I may not want to do.

It's enough to make me change my mind and hope you get NOTHING.


----------



## Skylar

> You on the other hand are militant about FORCING me to do something I may not want to do.



And what 'something' is that?


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> You on the other hand are militant about FORCING me to do something I may not want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what 'something' is that?
Click to expand...

 Well one thing that might be is allowing the cult of LGBT unfettered new legal access [via marriage] to adopt orphaned kids...when none of them have spoken out against gay pride parades or the veneration of child-predator Harvey Milk as their "sexuality icon".


----------



## Skylar

> Well one thing that might be is allowing the cult of LGBT unfettered new legal access [via marriage] to adopt orphaned kids...when none of them have spoken out against gay pride parades or the veneration of child-predator Harvey Milk as their "sexuality icon".



Smarter works with orphans? Really?

You might want to ask him if that's actually true.


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> For dblack: The state of Michigan has outlawed employment discrimination based on weight, as have some cities and local areas, including San Francisco and the District of Columbia. If you work in a place that has such a law, your employer may not make job decisions based on your weight.
> 
> 
> 
> Rawk on! What about height? Short people got no reason to live?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Height and weight requirements tend to disproportionately limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and unless the employer can demonstrate how the need is related to the job, it may be viewed as illegal under federal law. A number of states and localities have laws specifically prohibiting discrimination on the basis of height and weight unless based on actual job requirements. Therefore, unless job-related, inquiries about height and weight should be avoided.
> 
> Pre-Employment Inquiries and Height Weight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's one whacky world we live in!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While that might be the case, the fact is that some localities have expanded their "lists" of people protected by PA laws. Either get rid of ALL of them or quit bitching because in some places they protect gays on equal footing with race and religion.
Click to expand...

Oh, getting rid of all of them should definitely be the goal.


----------



## Skylar

> Oh, getting rid of all of them should definitely be the goal.



Talk to your State then. As most of the anti-discrimination laws are State laws. Ask them to remove all civil rights protections from every group.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:

"Oh, getting rid of all of them should definitely be the goal."


Nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.

The notion of 'getting rid' of public accommodations laws is naïve, reactionary, and unwarranted; that a potential patron be refused service by a business open to the general public for no other reason than race, religion, or sexual orientation is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution.


----------



## Skylar

> Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.



Most public accommodation laws are from the State. These are constitutionally sound, as the State has vast reserve powers.

The federal basis of public accommodation laws are shady at best. As it uses the interstate commerce clause as justification for regulating intrastate commerce and citizen v. citizen interactions. Inter doesn't mean intra. And you'd be hard pressed to provide any credible argument that when the founders wrote 'interstate commerce' what they really meant was 'intrastate'. I take issue with that interpretation both linguistically and constitutionally.

Rights, as conceived by the founders, were the freedom from government interference. First, from Federal interference with the Bill of Rights. And then from State interference with the 14th.  They had nothing to do with citizen v. citizen interactions. Rights were quite literally reinvented with the commerce clause jiggery pokery and reinvented whole in the 1960s. Granting the federal government a vast array of powers to regulate citizen v. citizen interactions under the auspice of radically re-imagined  'rights' that the constitution never articulates, the founders never once mention, and the government had never had before the Kennedy administration.

These new powers are sweeping, unarticulated, and defy both reason and the basic meaning of language. When *inter*state commerce can be re-imagined to 'really mean' *intra*state commerce, then the words of the constitution have no particular meaning in practice.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> "Oh, getting rid of all of them should definitely be the goal."
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.
> 
> The notion of 'getting rid' of public accommodations laws is naïve, reactionary, and unwarranted; that a potential patron be refused service by a business open to the general public for no other reason than race, religion, or sexual orientation is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution.



And and affront to the holy authority of the state!

I suspect you won't be happy until government is in charge of our employment in general, deciding who will work for whom and for how much.


----------



## Seawytch

So...have ANY of you called your representatives to tell them you want to repeal part of the Civil Rights Act? What was their response? Anyone? Anyone? Beuhler?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Seawytch said:


> So...have ANY of you called your representatives to tell them you want to repeal part of the Civil Rights Act? What was their response? Anyone? Anyone? Beuhler?



Repealing Public Accommodation laws pertaining to private businesses does not mean the Civil Rights act needs to be repealed.  Only one small portion would be impacted.

And yes, I have informed my Representative both in Congress and in the Virginia assembly that I think it would be a good idea to repeal the applicability of Public Accommodation laws to most situations.  I received back a politely worded letter that basically said (and I paraphrase): "Thank you for your concern, don't call us, we'll call you."



>>>>


----------



## Seawytch

WorldWatcher said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...have ANY of you called your representatives to tell them you want to repeal part of the Civil Rights Act? What was their response? Anyone? Anyone? Beuhler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repealing Public Accommodation laws pertaining to private businesses does not mean the Civil Rights act needs to be repealed.  Only one small portion would be impacted.
> 
> And yes, I have informed my Representative both in Congress and in the Virginia assembly that I think it would be a good idea to repeal the applicability of Public Accommodation laws to most situations.  I received back a politely worded letter that basically said (and I paraphrase): "Thank you for your concern, don't call us, we'll call you."
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


I said part of.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Seawytch said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...have ANY of you called your representatives to tell them you want to repeal part of the Civil Rights Act? What was their response? Anyone? Anyone? Beuhler?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repealing Public Accommodation laws pertaining to private businesses does not mean the Civil Rights act needs to be repealed.  Only one small portion would be impacted.
> 
> And yes, I have informed my Representative both in Congress and in the Virginia assembly that I think it would be a good idea to repeal the applicability of Public Accommodation laws to most situations.  I received back a politely worded letter that basically said (and I paraphrase): "Thank you for your concern, don't call us, we'll call you."
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said part of.
Click to expand...



Yes you did and I missed that.  My bad.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ..Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.
> 
> The notion of 'getting rid' of public accommodations laws is naïve, reactionary, and unwarranted; that a potential patron be refused service by a business open to the general public for no other reason than race, religion, or sexual orientation is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution.


 
Translation: "LGBTs will be suing churches to perform our "weddings" and adoptions the minute any ink is dry on potential federal protection for just our deviant sex cult"


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.
> 
> The notion of 'getting rid' of public accommodations laws is naïve, reactionary, and unwarranted; that a potential patron be refused service by a business open to the general public for no other reason than race, religion, or sexual orientation is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: "LGBTs will be suing churches to perform our "weddings" and adoptions the minute any ink is dry on potential federal protection for just our deviant sex cult"
Click to expand...


Many segments of society have protected status recognized by the federal government. You cannot name a single case where a church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Not one.

You should skip trying to be a translator  for other posters by the way. It clearly isn't your bailiwick.


----------



## dblack

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.
> 
> The notion of 'getting rid' of public accommodations laws is naïve, reactionary, and unwarranted; that a potential patron be refused service by a business open to the general public for no other reason than race, religion, or sexual orientation is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: "LGBTs will be suing churches to perform our "weddings" and adoptions the minute any ink is dry on potential federal protection for just our deviant sex cult"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many segments of society have protected status recognized by the federal government. You cannot name a single case where a church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Not one.
> 
> You should skip trying to be a translator  for other posters by the way. It clearly isn't your bailiwick.
Click to expand...

But bakers have been forced to serve people against their will. And others are sure to follow. Why should churches get a special exemption?


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.
> 
> The notion of 'getting rid' of public accommodations laws is naïve, reactionary, and unwarranted; that a potential patron be refused service by a business open to the general public for no other reason than race, religion, or sexual orientation is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: "LGBTs will be suing churches to perform our "weddings" and adoptions the minute any ink is dry on potential federal protection for just our deviant sex cult"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many segments of society have protected status recognized by the federal government. You cannot name a single case where a church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Not one.
> 
> You should skip trying to be a translator  for other posters by the way. It clearly isn't your bailiwick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But bakers have been forced to serve people against their will. And others are sure to follow. Why should churches get a special exemption?
Click to expand...


So have lunch counters. Tyranny!!!!! 

They get a special "exemption" because they are a church. Duh.


----------



## Steinlight

Many Protestant Churches require couples to pay for wedding services, making them public accommodations, so these Protestant Churches will either have to go the Catholic route of subsidizing the ceremonies themselves or not offering wedding services all together. 

One of the blessings of being a Catholic, our Church prohibits money being exchanged for holy sacraments, so our ceremonies won't be corrupted by degenerate secular "anti-discrimination" laws.


----------



## mdk

dblack said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.
> 
> The notion of 'getting rid' of public accommodations laws is naïve, reactionary, and unwarranted; that a potential patron be refused service by a business open to the general public for no other reason than race, religion, or sexual orientation is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: "LGBTs will be suing churches to perform our "weddings" and adoptions the minute any ink is dry on potential federal protection for just our deviant sex cult"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many segments of society have protected status recognized by the federal government. You cannot name a single case where a church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Not one.
> 
> You should skip trying to be a translator  for other posters by the way. It clearly isn't your bailiwick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But bakers have been forced to serve people against their will. And others are sure to follow. Why should churches get a special exemption?
Click to expand...


Churches are not subject to public accommodation laws. They have always been exempt and they should remain exempt. PA laws have been around for a long time and not a single church has been forces to marry anyone against their wishes.

I am down with scrapping PA laws with the exception of vital services such as, transportation, hospitals, and lodgings. Let these businesses proudly state what customers they will or will not serve. Let the free market decide if they are worthy of our business. It will be terribly funny hearing them moan about bullying when their businesses fails due to boycotts and the disgust of the public for their moronic business practices.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Adoption agencies will be mostly secular in the futures.

Church run business for hire wedding chapels will not be exempt.


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.
> 
> The notion of 'getting rid' of public accommodations laws is naïve, reactionary, and unwarranted; that a potential patron be refused service by a business open to the general public for no other reason than race, religion, or sexual orientation is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: "LGBTs will be suing churches to perform our "weddings" and adoptions the minute any ink is dry on potential federal protection for just our deviant sex cult"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many segments of society have protected status recognized by the federal government. You cannot name a single case where a church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Not one.
> 
> You should skip trying to be a translator  for other posters by the way. It clearly isn't your bailiwick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But bakers have been forced to serve people against their will. And others are sure to follow. Why should churches get a special exemption?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So have lunch counters. Tyranny!!!!!
> 
> They get a special "exemption" because they are a church. Duh.
Click to expand...


Yeah. I get that. I'm asking, why? Do you think that's a valid application of freedom of religion? Because I don't. The first amendment isn't there to give churches special exemptions. It's there to prevent religious persecution. Applying it in that way (as an excuse to grant churches special privileges) is inside-out, and in my view an egregious violation of equal protection.


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're vital for ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets.
> 
> The notion of 'getting rid' of public accommodations laws is naïve, reactionary, and unwarranted; that a potential patron be refused service by a business open to the general public for no other reason than race, religion, or sexual orientation is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: "LGBTs will be suing churches to perform our "weddings" and adoptions the minute any ink is dry on potential federal protection for just our deviant sex cult"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many segments of society have protected status recognized by the federal government. You cannot name a single case where a church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Not one.
> 
> You should skip trying to be a translator  for other posters by the way. It clearly isn't your bailiwick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But bakers have been forced to serve people against their will. And others are sure to follow. Why should churches get a special exemption?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So have lunch counters. Tyranny!!!!!
> 
> They get a special "exemption" because they are a church. Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I get that. I'm asking, why? Do you think that's a valid application of freedom of religion? Because I don't. The first amendment isn't there to give churches special exemptions. It's there to prevent religious persecution. Applying it in that way (as an excuse to grant churches special privileges) is inside-out, and in my view an egregious violation of equal protection.
Click to expand...


Yeah, well good luck getting that through Congress or the SCOTUS. Churches have always been free to discriminate as they see fit. I see no reason to change that. Churches have always been subject to public pressure too and that is how they have always been "forced" to change their policies.


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: "LGBTs will be suing churches to perform our "weddings" and adoptions the minute any ink is dry on potential federal protection for just our deviant sex cult"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many segments of society have protected status recognized by the federal government. You cannot name a single case where a church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Not one.
> 
> You should skip trying to be a translator  for other posters by the way. It clearly isn't your bailiwick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But bakers have been forced to serve people against their will. And others are sure to follow. Why should churches get a special exemption?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So have lunch counters. Tyranny!!!!!
> 
> They get a special "exemption" because they are a church. Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I get that. I'm asking, why? Do you think that's a valid application of freedom of religion? Because I don't. The first amendment isn't there to give churches special exemptions. It's there to prevent religious persecution. Applying it in that way (as an excuse to grant churches special privileges) is inside-out, and in my view an egregious violation of equal protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, well good luck getting that through Congress or the SCOTUS. Churches have always been free to discriminate as they see fit. I see no reason to change that. Churches have always been subject to public pressure too and that is how they have always been "forced" to change their policies.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not trying to get anything through Congress. And to be clear, I don't think government should be in the business of forcing anyone to change their minds. But I think the law should apply to everyone equally.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Churches persecute and are persecuted.

the 1st is a permeable playing field


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> But bakers have been forced to serve people against their will. And others are sure to follow. Why should churches get a special exemption?



Baking isn't a constitutionally protected right. Free practice of religion is.

And both your question and my answer seem vaguely familiar.........


----------



## Skylar

> Yeah. I get that. I'm asking, why? Do you think that's a valid application of freedom of religion? Because I don't. The first amendment isn't there to give churches special exemptions. It's there to prevent religious persecution. Applying it in that way (as an excuse to grant churches special privileges) is inside-out, and in my view an egregious violation of equal protection.



Yeah, you've asked that too. And were answered like half a dozen times. Its almost like you don't want an answer to your questions and will ignore it when offered.

As a recap, just in case your memory is just a little spotty today, the free practice of religion is inherently discriminatory.

Baking isn't.


----------



## Skylar

> Churches are not subject to public accommodation laws. They have always been exempt and they should remain exempt. PA laws have been around for a long time and not a single church has been forces to marry anyone against their wishes.



They aren't in terms of the practice of their religion. They are in terms of employment. But since this is a free practice debate, you're correct for all practical purposes. Just don't be surprised if someone quotes irrelevant employment caselaw to try and refute your point.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Yeah. I get that. I'm asking, why? Do you think that's a valid application of freedom of religion? Because I don't. The first amendment isn't there to give churches special exemptions. It's there to prevent religious persecution. Applying it in that way (as an excuse to grant churches special privileges) is inside-out, and in my view an egregious violation of equal protection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you've asked that too. And were answered like half a dozen times. Its almost like you don't want an answer to your questions and will ignore it when offered.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. You've answered. Most people quoting current policy, not saying whether they thing it's right or not



> As a recap, just in case your memory is just a little spotty today, the free practice of religion is inherently discriminatory.
> 
> Baking isn't.



The act of thinking for one's self is inherently discriminatory


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> But bakers have been forced to serve people against their will. And others are sure to follow. Why should churches get a special exemption?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Baking isn't a constitutionally protected right.* Free practice of religion is.
Click to expand...


It most certainly is. That's what the Ninth Amendment is all about.


----------



## Skylar

And shit just got interesting!



> Less than two weeks after a federal appeals court struck down Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage, two ministers in the northwestern Idaho city of Coeur d’Alene have filed a lawsuit claiming they could face up to 180 years in jail for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding.
> 
> The lawsuit, filed Oct. 17 in federal trial court by the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, stoked long-held fears among opponents of marriage equality.
> 
> Two Ministers Claim They Could Face 180 Years In Jail For Refusing To Do Gay Weddings



But as Paul Harvey used to say, "Now....for the rest of the story". 



> However, according to city officials and the lawsuit itself, the Hitching Post filed papers with the Idaho Secretary of State identifying itself as a religious corporation on Oct. 6, the day before the 9th Circuit struck down Idaho’s ban. The city’s ordinance explicitly states that religious corporations are exempt from the law.
> 
> The lawsuit came as a surprise to city officials, who described conversations with the Knapps up until last week as “cordial.”
> 
> “We have never threatened them. We have never sent them a letter warning them. There was no ‘we’re going to throw you in jail’ kind of stuff. So we were mildly surprised, well, totally surprised by the lawsuit,” City Attorney Mike Gridley told The Huffington Post.
> 
> Two Ministers Claim They Could Face 180 Years In Jail For Refusing To Do Gay Weddings



I'm a little worried about the Ministers. They may throw their backs out bending over backwards to play the victim.


----------



## Skylar

> The act of thinking for one's self is inherently discriminatory



And yet when thinking transforms into doing....not all acts are equally protected by our constitution. Religious liberties are thoroughly protected. And they are inherently discriminatory. 

The closest thing we've seen to 'Ministers being forced to perform weddings against their will'.....turned out to be more theater for right wing fear mongers. Religion is and remains protected. Flagrant, obvious discrimination in the practice of religion is perfectly constitutional. And all evidence points to it remaining so.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> And shit just got interesting!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Less than two weeks after a federal appeals court struck down Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage, two ministers in the northwestern Idaho city of Coeur d’Alene have filed a lawsuit claiming they could face up to 180 years in jail for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding.
> 
> The lawsuit, filed Oct. 17 in federal trial court by the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, stoked long-held fears among opponents of marriage equality.
> 
> Two Ministers Claim They Could Face 180 Years In Jail For Refusing To Do Gay Weddings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But as Paul Harvey used to say, "Now....for the rest of the story".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, according to city officials and the lawsuit itself, the Hitching Post filed papers with the Idaho Secretary of State identifying itself as a religious corporation on Oct. 6, the day before the 9th Circuit struck down Idaho’s ban. The city’s ordinance explicitly states that religious corporations are exempt from the law.
> 
> The lawsuit came as a surprise to city officials, who described conversations with the Knapps up until last week as “cordial.”
> 
> “We have never threatened them. We have never sent them a letter warning them. There was no ‘we’re going to throw you in jail’ kind of stuff. So we were mildly surprised, well, totally surprised by the lawsuit,” City Attorney Mike Gridley told The Huffington Post.
> 
> Two Ministers Claim They Could Face 180 Years In Jail For Refusing To Do Gay Weddings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a little worried about the Ministers. They may throw their backs out bending over backwards to play the victim.
Click to expand...


Indeed. But this calls out the very real conflict between equal rights and public accommodations laws.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

HELL NO!

Here's why: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> The act of thinking for one's self is inherently discriminatory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet when thinking transforms into doing....not all acts are equally protected by our constitution. Religious liberties are thoroughly protected. And they are inherently discriminatory
Click to expand...


As long as those acts of doing don't harm others, yes, they are.


----------



## Skylar

> Indeed. But this calls out the very real conflict between equal rights and public accommodations laws.



Free practice of religion is exempt. Eliminating your 'real conflict'.


----------



## Skylar

[uqote]
As long as those acts of doing don't harm others, yes, they are.

[/quote]

Depends on how you define harm. Rights are typically balanced against other rights. If you're going to overcome the right to free expression of religion, you're going to need prevent an equally powerful violation of rights. 

And there is no equal harm. If a given minister refuses to marry a gay couple, their right to marry isn't significantly impacted. As they can get married in thousands of other places. If a minister is forced to perform a religious ceremony against his will, that's an egregious violation of his right to free religious practice.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The act of thinking for one's self is inherently discriminatory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet when thinking transforms into doing....not all acts are equally protected by our constitution. Religious liberties are thoroughly protected. And they are inherently discriminatory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as those acts of doing don't harm others, yes, they are.
Click to expand...


Normalizing abnormality, is fraudulent government policy which harms everyone in the culture.


----------



## dblack

There's a very real conflict going on in our country between equal protection and corporatism. We are rapidly turning away from government tasked with protecting the civil liberties of everyone, equally, to one that grants privileges to special interest groups. And it all started with the misguided application of the first amendment. Which was, itself, based on a misguided understanding of the Bill of Rights in the first place.


----------



## Skylar

> Normalizing abnormality, is fraudulent government policy which harms everyone in the culture.



Why?


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> As long as those acts of doing don't harm others, yes, they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on how you define harm.
Click to expand...


It certainly does. And the idea that refusing to bake someone a cake is harming them is utterly ridiculous.


----------



## Skylar

> And it all started with the misguided application of the first amendment. Which was, itself, based on a misguided understanding of the Bill of Rights in the first place.



Can you elaborate on the misguided application of the 1st amendment and Bill of Rights. Then explain what possible relevance this has to gay marriage?


----------



## Skylar

> It certainly does. And the idea that refusing to bake someone a cake is harming them is utterly ridiculous.



Baking isn't a constitutionally protected right.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Normalizing abnormality, is fraudulent government policy which harms everyone in the culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Normalizing abnormality, is fraudulent government policy which harms everyone in the culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

 
Because it is DECEIT... fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.  

Where OFFICIAL FEDERAL POLICY is based upon ONE DECEIT, that act guides others to rationalize that THE DECEIT THAT SERVES THEIR SUBJECTIVE NEED IS JUST AS WORTHY.

Sexual abnormality is a function of psychosis... psychosis induces poor judgment, poor judgment induces chaos, calamity and catastrophe, which harms EVERYONE IN THE CULTURE.

Anything gettin' through?


----------



## Skylar

> Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.



How is protecting rights of the individual 'forcing conformity'?


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> It certainly does. And the idea that refusing to bake someone a cake is harming them is utterly ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baking isn't a constitutionally protected right.
Click to expand...


As I said earlier, it most certainly is. The Bill of Rights wasn't meant to strip us of all rights not listed. That was the point of the Ninth Amendment.


----------



## Skylar

> Because it is DECEIT... fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.



How is protecting the rights of individuals 'deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant'?



> Where OFFICIAL FEDERAL POLICY is based upon ONE DECEIT, that act guides others to rationalize that THE DECEIT THAT SERVES THEIR SUBJECTIVE NEED IS JUST AS WORTHY.



Can you get specific on what 'deceit' you're talking about? 



> Sexual abnormality is a function of psychosis... psychosis induces poor judgment, poor judgment induces chaos, calamity and catastrophe, which harms EVERYONE IN THE CULTURE.



Says who?



> Anything gettin' through?



I totally get that you have an opinion. And you really like to type in caps. I'm still working on what relevance  either has with gay marriage or the free practice of religion.


----------



## Skylar

> As I said earlier, it most certainly is. The Bill of Rights wasn't meant to strip us of all rights not listed. That was the point of the Ninth Amendment.



You may be confusing the wording of the 9th amendment with the 10th. The 10th says that any power not ceded to the Feds is retained by the States. The 9th amendment merely says that there are reserve rights. It doesn't say what they are, or indicate that anything not specifically forbidden by the constitution is a reserve right.

So baking is a constitutional right....according to who?


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is protecting rights of the individual 'forcing conformity'?
Click to expand...


It's not. Targeting unpopular opinions for modification is. No one's rights are being violated by someone refusing to serve them.

And that's really the crux of this, so let's get into it. Do you REALLY think someone has a "right" to demand that someone else serves them against their will?? You don't see how deeply invasive that is? I really can't get past the basic insanity of that point of view.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> It certainly does. And the idea that refusing to bake someone a cake is harming them is utterly ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baking isn't a constitutionally protected right.
Click to expand...


Baking is the product of one's labor... forcing one to bake represents servitude.  Forcing one into servitude, where the action fall against the principles by which they live, is slavery.   

While being forced into slavery ALWAYS sucks... it never sucks more than where such serves the most feckless fools ever to walk the earth, OKA: the socialist cult.  And with that said, this nonsense will end, one way or another... and if you take a minute to look through American History, you'll find that we, The Americans, while we are inclined to suffer long trains of abuse, there is a limit and where that limit has been struck, those who've set such trains upon us, have NEVER come out ahead.  

Better to enjoy the warm cloister of the closet, than to lose the choice.  Don't you think?


----------



## Skylar

> Baking is the product of one's labor... forcing one to bake represents servitude. Forcing one into servitude, where the action fall against the principles by which they live, is slavery.



The act being required is to treat all customers the same, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. If she doesn't want to do business, she can bake under whatever pretext she prefers. But when she does so as a business, she's under the local government's authority to regulate.



> While being forced into slavery ALWAYS sucks... it never sucks more than where such serves the most feckless fools ever to walk the earth, OKA: the socialist cult.



So.....its about 'socialists'? Your rant may be getting a little unfocused. Its certainly getting a little hard to follow.



> Better to enjoy the warm cloister of the closet, than to lose the choice. Don't you think?



Depends on what you're referring to. What 'closet' are you making reference to? And to hide what?

Oh, and what was that 'deceit' you were talking about earlier. It seemed pretty central to your previous claims.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> As I said earlier, it most certainly is. The Bill of Rights wasn't meant to strip us of all rights not listed. That was the point of the Ninth Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may be confusing the wording of the 9th amendment with the 10th. The 10th says that any power not ceded to the Feds is retained by the States. The 9th amendment merely says that there are reserve rights. It doesn't say what they are, or indicate that anything not specifically forbidden by the constitution is a reserve right.
> 
> So baking is a constitutional right....according to who?
Click to expand...


Again, according to the Ninth Amendment. The whole point of the Ninth was to address the concerns of those who worried that listing specific protections of some _rights_ would lead to the misguided assumption that those were the _only_ rights government should protect. Just as you're doing.


----------



## Skylar

> Targeting unpopular opinion for modification. No one's rights are being violated by someone refusing to serve them.



All you're doing is moving the topic of the question. Eventually you're going to have to answer it. 

How is protecting the rights of individuals 'targeting unpopular opinions for modification'? 



> Do you REALLY think someone has a "right" to demand that someone else serves them against their will??



I think the State has the power to require that a business person treat their customers fairly and equally.

The whole 'we don't serve your kind at this lunch counter' schtick doesn't exactly have the best historical pedigree.


----------



## Skylar

> Again, according to the Ninth Amendment.



The Ninth amendment doesn't say that baking is a constitutional right. It doesn't mention baking. It mentions reserve rights. It doesn't say what they are.

So how can you use an amendment that defines nothing as the sole basis of your definition? That's an argument without corners.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Again, according to the Ninth Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ninth amendment doesn't say that baking is a constitutional right. It doesn't mention baking. It mentions reserve rights. It doesn't say what they are.
> 
> So how can you use an amendment that defines nothing as the sole basis of your definition? That's an argument without corners.
Click to expand...


Our founders sought to create a government that maximally protected our freedom, not one that maximally infringed on it, with ten exceptions.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Targeting unpopular opinion for modification. No one's rights are being violated by someone refusing to serve them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you're doing is moving the topic of the question. Eventually you're going to have to answer it.
> 
> How is protecting the rights of individuals 'targeting unpopular opinions for modification'?
Click to expand...


Public accommodations laws are not protecting the rights of individuals. That are granting _some _people, in _some _circumstances, the power to force others to bend to their will. That has nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with special interest privilege. It's a radical inversion of the principle of equal protection and ushers in corporatism as its replacement.



> Do you REALLY think someone has a "right" to demand that someone else serves them against their will??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the State has the power to require that a business person treat their customers fairly and equally.
> 
> The whole 'we don't serve your kind at this lunch counter' schtick doesn't exactly have the best historical pedigree.
Click to expand...


It sure doesn't. All kinds of ignorance and undesirable preferences exist in society. But do you really want government to be in charge of making our personal decisions for us? How far are you willing to take this notion?


----------



## Skylar

> Public accommodations laws are not protecting the rights of individuals. That are granting _some _people, in _some _circumstances, the power to force others to bend to their will. That has nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with special interest privilege. It's a radical inversion of the principle of equal protection and ushers in corporatism as its replacement.



Public accommodating laws are balancing rights. One against another. In the case of religion, that's a pretty powerful right. The hertofore unrecognized by any legal authority 'constitutional right to bake' isn't. You're insisting they are equal. The law doesn't recognize them as such. Nor do the constitutionally delegated authorities on interpreting the constitution. 

And given that the 10th amendment grants the States pretty vast power, including the regulation of intrastate commerce, business regulation that require business owners to treat their customers fairly and equally is pretty reasonable, constitutionally speaking.



> It sure doesn't. All kinds of ignorance and undesirable preferences exist in society. But do you really want government to be in charge of making our personal decisions for us? How far are you willing to take this notion?



Yet 'get to the back of the bus, ******' is exactly what you're arguing for. And when you do business, your 'personal decisions' are subject to State regulation. Personal decisions within the privacy of your own home are far less effected by government regulation.


----------



## Geaux4it

of course not. If guys want to go to funky town with chickens OK. Just don't ask for benefits associated with marriage. 

-Geaux


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Because it is DECEIT... fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is protecting the rights of individuals 'deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant'?
Click to expand...


What rights are being protected?

Understand that protecting rights is the duty of every free sovereign, there is no right to claim that sexual abnormality is normal and force others to accept such, as such.

Just as declaring that there is a right to pretend that one is entitled to force themselves into an institution, which exists only upon the standard which specifically excludes you.



Skylar said:


> Where OFFICIAL FEDERAL POLICY is based upon ONE DECEIT, that act guides others to rationalize that THE DECEIT THAT SERVES THEIR SUBJECTIVE NEED IS JUST AS WORTHY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you get specific on what 'deceit' you're talking about?
Click to expand...


It is not possible to be more SPECIFIC:

Homosexuality is a perversion of human sexuality.  The ACCEPTANCE of perversion is PERVERSION.  Normalizing perversion, set PERVERSION AS THE PUBLIC STANDARD.  There is no potential for viability, through perversion.  To suggest otherwise is deceitful... to set public policy upon such is profound deceit.



Skylar said:


> Sexual abnormality is a function of psychosis... psychosis induces poor judgment, poor judgment induces chaos, calamity and catastrophe, which harms EVERYONE IN THE CULTURE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?
Click to expand...


Says Nature... readily discerned by sound reason.


----------



## Skylar

Geaux4it said:


> of course not. If guys want to go to funky town with chickens OK. Just don't ask for benefits associated with marriage.
> 
> -Geaux



Why shouldn't gays have the same rights and protections under marriage as anyone else?


----------



## Skylar

> \
> What rights are being protected?



The right to marry and the right to equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th amendment.



> Understand that protecting rights is the duty of every free sovereign, there is no right to claim that sexual abnormality is normal and force others to accept such, as such.



Both you and the States are subject to the Constitution, which stands as the supreme law of the land. You may imagine yourself a 'free sovereign'. But that doesn't exempt you from any law. Nor does it exempt the States.

As for your acceptance of homosexuality as 'normal', no one cares, as your personal opinion is legally irrelevant. What is relevant is the law's recognition of the marriages of gays and lesbians as being valid. That's marriage equality.

Your personal beliefs, I leave to you.



> Just as declaring that there is a right to pretend that one is entitled to force themselves into an institution, which exists only upon the standard which specifically excludes you.



I'm not quoting myself. I'm quoting the SCOTUS and the Constitution. The former which recognizes the right to marry. And the latter that recognizes equal protection in the law. Both sources are legally authoritative.



> Homosexuality is a perversion of human sexuality.



Says who?



> Says Nature... readily discerned by sound reason.



Can you quote nature saying this?


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Public accommodations laws are not protecting the rights of individuals. That are granting _some _people, in _some _circumstances, the power to force others to bend to their will. That has nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with special interest privilege. It's a radical inversion of the principle of equal protection and ushers in corporatism as its replacement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public accommodating laws are balancing rights. One against another.
Click to expand...


No, they're not. The power to force someone to bake you a cake is not a "right". It's the opposite. 



> Yet 'get to the back of the bus, ******' is exactly what you're arguing for.



No, it's not. Arguing for the freedom to be bigoted isn't the same thing as advocating for bigotry. This is the same kind of boneheaded demagoguery aimed at anyone who defends the rights of unpopular minorities.  


> And when you do business, your 'personal decisions' are subject to State regulation. Personal decisions within the privacy of your own home are far less effected by government regulation.



Yes, that's how we've allowed the Commerce Clause to be interpreted - to treat anyone who dares to trade with others as a ward of the state. As if to do so implicitly sacrifices one's individual rights. That's exactly what I'm criticizing. The Commerce Clause was meant to protect us from protectionist tax policy - to give the federal government oversight and authority to prevent the states from 'warring' with each other via tariffs and the like. It wasn't mean to give government the power to dictate our economic decisions.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Public accommodations laws are not protecting the rights of individuals. That are granting _some _people, in _some _circumstances, the power to force others to bend to their will. That has nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with special interest privilege. It's a radical inversion of the principle of equal protection and ushers in corporatism as its replacement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public accommodating laws are balancing rights. One against another. In the case of religion, that's a pretty powerful right. The hertofore unrecognized by any legal authority 'constitutional right to bake' isn't. You're insisting they are equal. The law doesn't recognize them as such. Nor do the constitutionally delegated authorities on interpreting the constitution.
Click to expand...


PA Laws are LAW.   LAW is only legitimate, where it SERVES JUSTICE.    There is no justification to refuse to serve another who is offering compensation as required by the service provider, except where the service or sale of one's product serves to undermine the means of another to exercise their own rights.  You can't force someone to sell them something or provide them a service that they reasonably know you'll use to harm them... .  This of course has no potential bearing on issues of race.  And it is the application of laws designed to preclude racial discrimination which are foolishly being used to preclude people from discriminating against those who advocate to normalize sexual abnormality.  Such is an UNJUST application of the law.  

Unjust application of the law harms EVERYONE.


----------



## Skylar

> No, they're not. The power to force someone to bake you a cake is not a "right". It's the opposite.



Its not the gay couple that requires the business person to treat them fairly and equally. Its the State which regulates the business person and all intrastate commerce. Or by extension, local governments which use State authority.



> No, it's not. Arguing for the freedom to be bigoted isn't the same thing as advocating for bigotry. This is the same kind of boneheaded demagoguery aimed at anyone who defends the rights of unpopular minorities.



You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that you're advocating discrimination. I'm saying that your applying the argument of every bigot, segregationist, and white bus driver telling blacks to get to the back of the bus. 

Constitutionally, the argument is crap. The States definitely have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce and require that anyone conducting business in that State treat their customers fairly and equally. And you're going to have a hard time arguing the moral efficacy of treating black people like shit or any other 'we don't serve your kind here' argument. Legally, constitutionally or morally, your argument fails.

If you were arguing the *federal* governments intervention in intrastate issues, I'd be inclined to agree with you on constitutional grounds. But the baker we're discussing is under local law empowered by State government. Which the State has every authority to impose on commerce within its jurisdiction.



> Yes, that's how we've allowed the Commerce Clause to be interpreted - to treat anyone who dares to trade with others as a ward of the state.



The baker you're citing is being fined under State laws. Meaning that the commerce clause of the US constitution is irrelevant. The only relevant portion of the Constitution would be the 10th amendment, and depending on State law, the 14th.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is protecting rights of the individual 'forcing conformity'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not. Targeting unpopular opinions for modification is. No one's rights are being violated by someone refusing to serve them.
> 
> And that's really the crux of this, so let's get into it. Do you REALLY think someone has a "right" to demand that someone else serves them against their will?? You don't see how deeply invasive that is? I really can't get past the basic insanity of that point of view.
Click to expand...


That ship sailed a long time ago-

*1968:* In _Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co._, the Court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 bans racial discrimination in housing by private, as well as governmental, housing providers.


----------



## Skylar

> PA Laws are LAW. LAW is only legitimate, where it SERVES JUSTICE. There is no justification to refuse to serve another who is offering compensation as required by the service provider, except where the service or sale of one's product serves to undermine the means of another to exercise their own rights.



Our conception of justice is balance. And our conception of rights heavily weights religious practice. A gay couple who is denied the performance of a marriage by a given minister isn't having their right to marriage significantly impacted, as they have thousands of other options, including secular options that cannot deny them. 

A minister who is forced to perform a religious ceremony against the tenets of his religion is having his right to religious rights egregiously violated. 

When weighing the latter against the former, the weight of justice comes down on the side of religious freedom.



> You can't force someone to sell them something or provide them a service that they reasonably know you'll use to harm them.



The State can most definitely establish rules of conduct for commerce practiced within its jurisdiction. As it has power of intrastate commerce within its border. If you want to conduct business within that state, you must abide the regulation the State establishes for fairness and equity in that conduct. 



> This of course has no potential bearing on issues of race.



Obviously, it does. As many a lunch counter in the South during the era of segregation demonstrated. You're using the exact same argument; the freedom to treat others like shit in business. The State has the authority to regulate business conduct. And in the case of the baker fined for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, they have.


----------



## dblack

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PA Laws are LAW.   LAW is only legitimate, where it SERVES JUSTICE.    There is no justification to refuse to serve another who is offering compensation as required by the service provider, except where the service or sale of one's product serves to undermine the means of another to exercise their own rights.  You can't force someone to sell them something or provide them a service that they reasonably know you'll use to harm them... .  This of course has no potential bearing on issues of race.  And it is the application of laws designed to preclude racial discrimination which are foolishly being used to preclude people from discriminating against those who advocate to normalize sexual abnormality.  Such is an UNJUST application of the law.
> 
> Unjust application of the law harms EVERYONE.



This is an excellent point, and highlights a fundamental difference in what we want government to accomplish. And this is why I consider your point of view every bit as wrong as those you oppose. Both of you want to use government to force people to behave the way you want. You just have different idea of how people should behave. 

I don't want a government that "creates" justice by dictating how people treat each other. This is why libertarians emphasize the notion that government should seek to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want, not dictate to us what kind of society that should be.


----------



## Skylar

> This is an excellent point, and highlights a fundamental difference in what we want government to accomplish. And this is why I consider your point of view every bit as wrong as those you oppose. Both of you want to use government to force people to behave the way you want. You just have different idea of how people should behave.



In terms of intrastate commerce, the State has the authority to regulate business conduct and require that business owners treat their customers fairly and equally within its jurisdiction. You have yet to even disagree with this point. 

Ministers are protected by our constitutionally recognized freedom of free expression of religion. A right which would be egregoiusly violated by being forced to perform a religious ceremony in contradiction of his faith's tenets. You have yet to disagree with this point.

Gays being denied a ceremony by a particular minister aren't having their right to marry significantly impacted as they have thousands of other options, including secular ones that can't deny them. You have yet to disagree with this point.

Our conception of justice is about balance. And the encumbrance of rights by forcing a minister to violate his faith's tenets greatly outweighs that of a gay couple who can use a different minister or a secular justice of the peace. There are not equal. You have yet to disagree with any of these points either.




> I don't want a government that "creates" justice by dictating how people treat each other. This is why libertarians emphasize the notion that government should seek to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want, not dictate to us what kind of society that should be.



You just went meta when the specifics of your argument didn't work out. I'll stay in the trenches of the gay marriage and places of worship debate, thank you. If you'd like to promote libertarianism and its gift basket of system crippling flaws, there are threads galore for you to chose from.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> This is an excellent point, and highlights a fundamental difference in what we want government to accomplish. And this is why I consider your point of view every bit as wrong as those you oppose. Both of you want to use government to force people to behave the way you want. You just have different idea of how people should behave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of intrastate commerce, the State has the authority to regulate business conduct and require that business owners treat their customers fairly and equally within its jurisdiction. You have yet to even disagree with this point.
Click to expand...


I thought I did, but if not let me address that omission. While our Court has erroneously granted them this authority, it's a grave error. Economic freedom is even more important than religious freedom, and the next great advance in liberalism will be encoding that as a fundamental right.



> Gays being denied a ceremony by a particular minister aren't having their right to marry significantly impacted as they have thousands of other options, including secular ones that can't deny them. You have yet to disagree with this point.



Because I don't disagree with this point. But neither is a bakers refusal to bake a cake impacting a gay couple's right to eat cake.



> Our conception of justice is about balance. And the encumbrance of rights by forcing a minister to violate his faith's tenets greatly outweighs that of a gay couple who can use a different minister or a secular justice of the peace. There are not equal. You have yet to disagree with any of these points either.



My conception of justice isn't about "balance". Equally violating people's rights is not justice.




> I don't want a government that "creates" justice by dictating how people treat each other. This is why libertarians emphasize the notion that government should seek to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want, not dictate to us what kind of society that should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just went meta when the specifics of your argument didn't work out. I'll stay in the trenches of the gay marriage and places of worship debate, thank you. If you'd like to promote libertarianism and its gift basket of system crippling flaws, there are threads galore for you to chose from.
Click to expand...


WTF??


----------



## Skylar

> I thought I did, but if not let me address that omission. While our Court has erroneously granted them this authority, it's a grave error. Economic freedom is even more important than religious freedom, and the next great advance in liberalism will be encoding that as a fundamental right.



How were the courts in error in recognizing the State's authority to regulate business within its own jurisdiction?



> Because I don't disagree with this point. But neither is a bakers refusal to bake a cake impacting a gay couple's right to eat cake.



Three is no right to 'eat cake' any more than there is a right to bake one.You keep fallaciously attributing a business persons' requirement to treat their customers fairly and equally to the customer. When, as has been stated at least 3 times, that requirement is one they are held to by the State. Which has pretty well uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce within its own boundaries. 

At least you're no longer citing the 'Commerce Clause' in your replies. That's progress I think, as we've focused our conversation on the relevant seat of power: the State and its authority over intrastate commerce. 



> My conception of justice isn't about "balance". Equally violating people's rights is not justice.



Which might be relevant if 'equally violating people's rights' was what was being described. Alas, the right to 'eat cake' isn't a constitutionally recognized one. The right to free expression of religion is.



> WTF??



What part didn't you understand?


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> I thought I did, but if not let me address that omission. While our Court has erroneously granted them this authority, it's a grave error. Economic freedom is even more important than religious freedom, and the next great advance in liberalism will be encoding that as a fundamental right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How were the courts in error in recognizing the State's authority to regulate business within its own jurisdiction?
Click to expand...


By and large, this is about the Civil Rights Act, and the use of the Commerce Clause to justify government control of our economic decisions.



> Because I don't disagree with this point. But neither is a bakers refusal to bake a cake impacting a gay couple's right to eat cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three is no right to 'eat cake' any more than there is a right to bake one.You keep fallaciously attributing *a business persons' requirement to treat their customers fairly and equally* to the customer. When, as has been stated at least 3 times, that requirement is one they are held to by the State. Which has pretty well uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce within its own boundaries.
Click to expand...


Well, I hope I've been clear that I reject that interpretation of the Commerce Clause. 

But my point is that PA laws don't protect anyone's rights. While I would contest that there is such a thing as a "right to eat cake", there is no right to make demand that someone supply you with cake. And there's no right to be treated fairly and equally by others. The Constitution requires that we are treated equally by government. It doesn't require that we treat each other equally. In fact, attempting to use government to achieve that goal, _requires_ that government violate its mandate to treat people equally.



> At least you're no longer citing the 'Commerce Clause' in your replies. That's progress I think, as we've focused our conversation on the relevant seat of power: the State and its authority over intrastate commerce.



Ironically, the intent of the Commerce Clause was to limit exactly what you're advocating. The point was to assert Federal power to limit the State's authority to dictate trade policies. People should read history.



> What part didn't you understand?



"libertarianism and it's gift basket of system crippling flaws". 

The only thing libertarianism "cripples" is the power to coerce others for your convenience.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> What rights are being protected?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to marry and the right to equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...


The Right to marry is not being usurped BY anyone, FROM ANYONE.

Nature designed the species... Marriage is a response to that natural design, wherein Marriage represents the analogous joining of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, through the sustained bond intrinsic to coitus; two complimenting bodies joined as one, for the purpose of procreation, assuring the propagation of the species.  This, is natural law...

The union provides security, promoting the survival of the female during gestation.  It serves to provide a stable means to nurture and train the progeny, through the benefit of the complimenting traits of the respective genders.  This to provide, to the degree possible, for the best chance for well balanced, productive individuals, which provides for a balanced, sustainable culture.



Skylar said:


> Understand that protecting rights is the duty of every free sovereign, there is no right to claim that sexual abnormality is normal and force others to accept such, as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both you and the States are subject to the Constitution, which stands as the supreme law of the land. You may imagine yourself a 'free sovereign'. But that doesn't exempt you from any law. Nor does it exempt the States.
Click to expand...


I am exempt from all law which was illicitly passed and which at ANY TIME fails to serve justice.  As an American, I am an individual, free unto myself and obligated to none beyond the Creator itself and, those to whom I have pledged my loyalty... OKA: SOVEREIGN.  My consent to be governed, rest entirely upon the law being objective, fairly adjudicated and in all instance, serves justice; which axiomatically recognizes that each individual is equal before God, thus equal before lessor judges; equal in our rights and responsibilities.

Contrary to the whimsy of the intellectually less fortunate, the US Constitution provides NO RIGHTS... to ANYONE.   American principle provides that we are endowed by our Creator, with rights which are inseparable from our beings.



Skylar said:


> As for your acceptance of homosexuality as 'normal', no one cares, as your personal opinion is legally irrelevant. What is relevant is the law's recognition of the marriages of gays and lesbians as being valid. That's marriage equality.



Homosexuality deviates from the normality established by no less an authority than Nature itself.  This is not even a debatable point.

Your need to pretend that what is unquestionably abnormal is otherwise normal is either a delusion or a deceit.

There is no potential for a third possibility.  You either believe that which is demonstrably false, to be true... in which case you suffer from a profoundly flawed mental condition, as a result of a medical ailment, or your subjective need prohibits you from knowing the truth, in which case, you suffer from a profoundly flawed mental condition, animated by evil.

See how that works?  You're either crazy, or evil.

In either case, your point of view is irrelevant to viability... which means that where you succeed, you lose and where you lose, everyone else wins, through their continued means to exercise their God-given rights, as a result of a community where free men bear their responsibilities, upon the understanding that there is no potential for a right, wherein the exercise of such usurps the means of another to exercise their own.

This means that there is no potential for a right which forces another into servitude toward the end of celebrating that which they recognize as abhorrent.



Skylar said:


> Your personal beliefs, I leave to you.



Mighty white of ya.

However, here's how I see it.  Where you seek to offer such fraudulent reasoning as truth.  Only what you believe and keep to yourself, is your business.  What you believe and profess publicly, will be considered, and where logically sound it will find assent and adherence, and where such is unsound it find dissent and rejection.



Skylar said:


> Just as declaring that there is a right to pretend that one is entitled to force themselves into an institution, which exists only upon the standard which specifically excludes you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quoting myself. I'm quoting the SCOTUS and the Constitution. The former which recognizes the right to marry. And the latter that recognizes equal protection in the law. Both sources are legally authoritative.
Click to expand...


There is no right to marry outside the standards which define marriage.  The right to marry is equally defended in law which SUSTAINS THE STANDARD THAT NATURE ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE DESIGN OF THE SPECIES.



Skylar said:


> Homosexuality is a perversion of human sexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?
Click to expand...


Says Nature...



Skylar said:


> Says Nature... readily discerned by sound reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you quote nature saying this?
Click to expand...


You're ignorant of the physiological traits of the respective genders?

LOL!  SO you're a liar and an imbecile... answering the poser regarding to your state of mind.

Your position is therefore recognized as manifestly EVIL!

Go figure...  Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> I think the State has the power to require that a business person treat their customers fairly and equally.
> 
> The whole 'we don't serve your kind at this lunch counter' schtick doesn't exactly have the best historical pedigree.



The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality does not seek EQUAL TREATMENT, they are seeking SPECIAL TREATMENT.  NO ONE ELSE IS ENTITLED TO FORCE OTHERS TO SERVE THEM DESPITE THEIR ABHORRENT BEHAVIOR and THAT is the injustice that you fraudulently drape in deceit to make it appear just.

What you've just defined is POWER MAKES RIGHT!   This is a FOREIGN IDEA THAT IS HOSTILE TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT DEFINE AMERICA... which were recognized and declared in DIRECT DEFIANCE OF THAT EVIL!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

dblack said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> PA Laws are LAW.   LAW is only legitimate, where it SERVES JUSTICE.    There is no justification to refuse to serve another who is offering compensation as required by the service provider, except where the service or sale of one's product serves to undermine the means of another to exercise their own rights.  You can't force someone to sell them something or provide them a service that they reasonably know you'll use to harm them... .  This of course has no potential bearing on issues of race.  And it is the application of laws designed to preclude racial discrimination which are foolishly being used to preclude people from discriminating against those who advocate to normalize sexual abnormality.  Such is an UNJUST application of the law.
> 
> Unjust application of the law harms EVERYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an excellent point, and highlights a fundamental difference in what we want government to accomplish. And this is why I consider your point of view every bit as wrong as those you oppose. Both of you want to use government to force people to behave the way you want. You just have different idea of how people should behave.
> 
> I don't want a government that "creates" justice by dictating how people treat each other. This is why libertarians emphasize the notion that government should seek to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want, not dictate to us what kind of society that should be.
Click to expand...


Government does not 'create' justice, it SERVES to promote the establishment of the justice intrinsic in nature's chronic quest for balance.   And the principles that define America declared that the individual is endowed by their creator with inseparable rights.  With those rights being sustained through the bearing of correlating responsibilities.  IT is THOSE RIGHT SUSTAINING RESPONSIBILITIES which serve to guide each of us in how we 'should' treat one another. 

I am not asking the government to force anyone to do anything.  I am here and have consistently advocated that government should stay out of the forcing of people TO DO THINGS business... but then I am an American and, that's how we roll.

Let me be clear: The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality seeks to use the power of government to FORCE PEOPLE TO ACCEPT THEIR ABHORRENT BEHAVIOR: I demand that government stop and I demand that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, keep that to which they claim IS THEIR RIGHT, BASED UPON THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY: PRIVATE.  

And where they FAIL to BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY SUSTAINING THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY... I DEMAND THEY CONCEDE THAT SUCH IS NOT THEIR RIGHT!  

You can't have it both ways and that is precisely what they're asking for... . 

The Sodomy Laws were lifted because their private sexual lives were deemed their business... as a culture we agreed.  SINCE THEN: THEY'VE MADE MORE AND MORE OF THOSE THINGS TO WHICH THEY'RE ENTITLED, BECAUSE IT IS PRIVATE BEHAVIOR: PUBLIC... 

You can't claim the right to MARRY and then demand that the standards that define marriage be altered to accommodate your personal, subjective needs.  and one can't claim a right to be treated equally before the law: WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY DEMANDING SPECIAL PROTECTIONS BY THE LAW!

Understand?


----------



## Skylar

> Nature designed the species... Marriage is a response to that natural design, wherein Marriage represents the analogous joining of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, through the sustained bonding in sustainable coitus, two bodies, complimentarily joined as one body, for the purpose of procreation, which assures the propagation of the species. This, is natural law...



No one is required to have a child or be able to have a child in order to get married. And roughly 1 in 4 marriages never result in any children. Why then would deny gays and lesbians their right to marry because they fail to meet a standard* that doesn't exist nor is applied to anyone?*

There is no reason. Which might explain why 50 of 52 federal courts to hear such arguments have rejected them as meaningless rhetorical flotsam.



> As an American, I am an individual, free unto myself and obligated to none beyond the Creator themselves and those to whom I have pledged my loyalty... OKA: SOVEREIGN. My consent to be governed, rest entirely upon the law be objective, fairly adjudicated and in all instance, serves justice.



As an American you have rights, privileges and immunities protected under the constitution that are protected by the constitution and the government. As an American you subject to the laws of the United States while within its jurisdiction and concurrent the laws of the State when within theirs. You don't decide when the law applies to you and when it doesn't. The laws apply to you regardless of your agreement to them. Authority lies ultimately with the People. 

And you are not the People. You're a person. And we have more authority collectively than you do alone. We exercise that authority through the majority and imbue our representatives with our power. Thus our laws are authoritative. And your claims to immunity from from any law that you disagree with at your whim are not.  Nor have no relevance to our system of law or the application of it.

If you have any doubt into the irrelevance of declaring your self a singular legal authority that is above the law and judicial review, might I direct you to the hapless James Timothy Turner. You can discuss the folly of your shared beliefs when he's released from prison for tax fraud in 2031. 



> Homosexuality deviates from the normality established by no less an authority than Nature itself. This is not even a debatable point.



Says you, citing yourself as 'nature'. See above regarding the legal irrelevance of your personal opinion regarding equal protection in the law for gays and lesbians. And of course, the irrelevance of your argument, as no one is held to the standard that you bizarrely insist we apply to gays and lesbians.



> Your need to pretend that what is unquestionably abnormal is otherwise normal is either a delusion or a deceit.



I need acknowledge nothing more or less than the simple irrelevance of your personal opinion in defining the rights and freedoms of other people under the law. 

Believe as you wish. No one cares.



> However, here's how I see it. Where you seek to offer such fraudulent reasoning as truth. Only what you believe and keep to yourself, is your business. What you believe and profess publicly, will be considered, and where logically sound


I don't consider you an authoritative arbiter of logic either. Public support for gay marriage leads by 12 to 19 points. The record of gay marriage in the federal courts is 50 to 2. The USSC has upheld ever appellant court ruling overturning gay marriage, without exception. And overturned DOMA's provisions discriminating against gays and lesbians. 

But they're all wrong and only you're right....._because you say so?_

So much for your 'logic'. Your claims simply aren't logical, particularly rational, compelling or persuasive. Which is likely why a clear majority of the nation is on one side of this issue. And you're on the other. Get used to it.



> There is no right to marry outside the standards which define marriage. The right to marry is equally defended in law which SUSTAINS THE STANDARD THAT NATURE ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE DESIGN OF THE SPECIES.



Says you. But your conception of what is 'natural' is yours. Your conception of what defines marriage is yours. Your conception of what other people have a right to is yours. And you're welcome to your opinions. 

*They have nothing to do with the law.* No one is required to have children or be able to have them to have a valid marriage under the law. Rendering the 'design of the species' argument meaningless even logically. If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry you're going to need a very good reason. And failure to meet non-existent standards that apply to no one isn't a good reason. Nor has any circuit appellant court ever accepted it as such.

Nor is any state interest served in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. No one has less rights or is in anyway endangered or even inconvenienced if gays are allowed to marry. Its not as if marriage is a finite resources, and some bright eyed young straight couple is going to be turned away at the local courthouse because the 'gays got the last of the marriage'. There's enough for gays and straights alike.

Without a very compelling state interest and a very valid reason, you can't deny gays and lesbians their rights to marry. And the State has no such interest, nor such a reason. Which is why gay marriage bans have failed again and again and again....and gay marriage is now legal in 30 of 50 states.

This trend is likely to continue.



> You're ignorant of the physiological traits of the respective genders?



More accurately, I don't see how their relevant to a discussion of marriage under the law. As no one is required to have children or be able to have chidlren to have a valid marriage. With a full 1 in 4 marriages never producing any children. Simply obliterating the idea that 'physiological traits of  respective genders' have any relevance to the validity of any marriage.

What else have you got?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

“Homosexuality deviates from the normality established by no less an authority than Nature itself. This is not even a debatable point.”

It's an irrelevant point, subjective and unsubstantiated, having no bearing whatsoever on the merit of laws seeking to deny gay Americans their civil liberties, laws which are in fact Constitutionally without merit.


----------



## Skylar

> Let me be clear: The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality seeks to use the power of government to FORCE PEOPLE TO ACCEPT THEIR ABHORRENT BEHAVIOR: I demand that government stop and I demand that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, keep that to which they claim IS THEIR RIGHT, BASED UPON THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY: PRIVATE.



That's simply not the debate. Gay marriage can be perfectly legal in your state.....and you can maintain whatever personal animus toward homosexuals or homosexuality you wish. You can believe as you wish. You can feel anyway you wish. And you're welcome to every personal conception, opinion, or mood that may strike you.

*No one cares.....because your feelings aren't the basis of our laws. *

Marriage equality is about equal protection *in the law *for gays and lesbian marriages. A recognition under the law that their marriages are as legally valid and carry the same rights, privileges and immunities as anyone else's. And this costs you nothing. How do rights being extended to gays and lesbians effect you? Do you lose rights because theirs are recognized? Is your marriage any less legally valid because theirs is too? Are you harmed in any way?
*
Of course not. You lose nothing if they gain equal recognition.* There is no requirement of marriage they don't meet. No state interest in denying them their rights. And no rational reason to deny them their rights. There's simply no rational, legal, or constitutional basis to that denial, as there's no right or freedom lost by anyone else to balance against the denial of fundamental rights like the right to marry for gays and lesbians.



> You can't have it both ways and that is precisely what they're asking for... .



There's no such dichotomy. They can have the right to privacy AND the right to marry. Just like you do. The need not choose one or the other, as you need not do so.

They are Americans. They have the same rights, privileges, freedoms and immunities that you do. And if you're going to deny them those rights, you need a damn good reason. And you have none.



> You can't claim the right to MARRY and then demand that the standards that define marriage be altered to accommodate your personal, subjective needs. and one can't claim a right to be treated equally before the law: WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY DEMANDING SPECIAL PROTECTIONS BY THE LAW!



You've got it backwards. They don't need a justification to be married, as marriage is already a fundamental right for all Americans. *You and your ilk need a valid justification to deny them their constitutional rights.* A compelling state interest that is served by denying them and can't be served in any other plausible way. A rational reason to treat gays and lesbians as less under the law.

*And you don't have one.* Which is why you fail.


----------



## Skylar

> he Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality does not seek EQUAL TREATMENT, they are seeking SPECIAL TREATMENT. NO ONE ELSE IS ENTITLED TO FORCE OTHERS TO SERVE THEM DESPITE THEIR ABHORRENT BEHAVIOR and THAT is the injustice that you fraudulently drape in deceit to make it appear just.



Gays and lesbians seek no special right. They want the same right to marry that you possess. And in court after court, State after State, they have it. Marriages recognized as being just as valid, as conveying the exact same rights, privileges and immunities as your marriage. Under the law, their marriage and your marriage are the same. As the rights they seek are the same.



> What you've just defined is POWER MAKES RIGHT! This is a FOREIGN IDEA THAT IS HOSTILE TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT DEFINE AMERICA... which were recognized and declared in DIRECT DEFIANCE OF THAT EVIL!



Quite the opposite. What I'm defending is the triumph of individual rights over abrogation of rights by the States. The authority of you and people like you to strip others of their constitutional rights is not a principle that defines America. 

Individual rights and equality under the law are those defining principles. And they are powerfully served in marriage equality.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Nature designed the species... Marriage is a response to that natural design, wherein Marriage represents the analogous joining of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, through the sustained bonding in sustainable coitus, two bodies, complimentarily joined as one body, for the purpose of procreation, which assures the propagation of the species. This, is natural law...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is required to have a child or be able to have a child in order to get married.
Click to expand...

  So what?



Skylar said:


> There is no reason.


  False... there is reason... and your ignorance of its existence has no bearing on it.



Skylar said:


> Which might explain why 50 of 52 federal courts to hear such arguments have rejected them as meaningless rhetorical flotsam.



Appealing to popularity?  ROFL!  You should spend more time appealing to the understanding of reason.



Skylar said:


> As an American, I am an individual, free unto myself and obligated to none beyond the Creator themselves and those to whom I have pledged my loyalty... OKA: SOVEREIGN. My consent to be governed, rest entirely upon the law be objective, fairly adjudicated and in all instance, serves justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As an American you have rights, privileges and immunities protected under the constitution that are protected by the constitution and the government. As an American you subject to the laws of the United States while within its jurisdiction and concurrent the laws of the State when within theirs. You don't decide when the law applies to you and when it doesn't. The laws apply to you regardless of your agreement to them. Authority lies ultimately with the People.
Click to expand...


Actually I DO decide when the law applies to me.  Because I am an American and that is precisely the point which represents the cornerstone of the foundational principles that DEFINE America.

No law perverted to serve the subjective interests of those who define themselves by their rejection of reason, obligates me to do a dam' thing.

Where THAT premise defines the law: I don't give a dam' about the law.  I care only about the service of justice.  And rest assured that where there exist people who intend to use the law as a means to force others to serve in celebration of their perverse, subjective needs...  I will stand against such and should it come to it, I will join in the eradication of that threat to the service of justice and my means to exercise my god-given rights.

In short... keep pushing this crap and we will put you people down.  We'd prefer that ya just shut the ^*ck up and kept your private matters private.  But if you can't do that for yourself, we, THE AMERICANS will help you find a way to do it.

Understand that THAT is my responsibility to bear, in sustaining my means to exercise my rights.   And if doing so cost me my life, then I will leave this life, bearing my responsibilities to sustain my rights, thus with my means to exercise my rights, fully operational, just as they were endowed to me.





Skylar said:


> And you are not the People. You're a person.



Yes... I am a person.  Who has precisely the same rights as you, and ten of you and ten million of you... .

Your desire to dress yourself up as a popular majority is irrelevant.  For starters... you're little more than a mouthy minority... you're celebrating wins secured through a judicial insurgency; which overturned the will of the STARK MAJORITY.  So, in terms of which of us represent the majority view, that would be ME!

I don't argue on behalf of that stark majority, I argue on behalf of sound reason and natural law.  But you represent 1-2% of the population which enjoys assent by a temporal popularity of the 30% of which any group of large numbers will suffer in malcontents... . 

The nation is on the precipice of economic Armageddon, and once that happens, few people will enjoy the time to tweet and facebook and otherwise seek popular assent by the least productive.  And YOU, the Mouthy Minority will be found to be a nuisance by EVERYONE.

The Homosexuals who keep their private life private will do fine, as they always have and the rest of you will be beaten into submission by the powerful interests who need to constantly secure their power, and that inevitably comes down to keeping the steady Eddies of the Hard working, tax paying class HAPPY.  And they're not going to be happy when they're constantly being told that Uncle Sally and Aunt Fred need 'em to force the baker to bake 'em a cake.  Or the Pastor of a church of 5000 voters, to marry them.

Read your history Scamp... you're not the first homosexuals to 'fly free'... it's been done to death and it NEVER TURNS OUT WELL FOR YOU PEOPLE.



Skylar said:


> And we have more authority collectively than you do alone.



ROFLMNAO!  That's ADORABLE!  This is America scamp... we've beat the living hell out of more collectives than Carter has Pills.  It's among the long list of things we are EXTREMELY good at.  We'll put up with a fair amount of crap... but at some point... someone among the collective crosses a line and BAM!  The collective is no more and all that they felt was permanent and sure, is rubble in the midst of unbridled uncertainty.




Skylar said:


> Homosexuality deviates from the normality established by no less an authority than Nature itself. This is not even a debatable point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, ...
Click to expand...


No... Says Nature.




Skylar said:


> Your need to pretend that what is unquestionably abnormal is otherwise normal is either a delusion or a deceit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need acknowledge nothing more or less than the simple irrelevance of your personal opinion in defining the rights and freedoms of other people under the law.
Click to expand...


What you've acknowledged is that you simultaneously believe that opinion of others is irrelevant and your opinion is fact.

This is the spurious species of reasoning common to the lowly relativist.

Here's what you are;

Relativism axiomatically rejects objectivity.

Objectivity is THE essential element of TRUTH!

TRUTH is the essential element of TRUST!

Objectivity, truth and trust are the essential elements needed for a soundly reasoned morality.

Objectivity, truth, trust and a soundly reasoned morality are the essential elements of JUSTICE.

Now, that's why you've no means to recognize what is otherwise OBVIOUS TRUTH with regard to sexual normality... and why you have no means to trust reasoning which ESTABLISHES SUCH AS TRUTH... and why you can't accept the soundly reasoned morality which provides for the fundamental standards of marriage and why your concern is PURELY for the APPEARANCE OF THE LAW (Color of Law) with NO CONCERN FOR THE JUSTICE, which is otherwise the ONLY LEGITIMATE PURPOSE FOR THE LAW.

And with that:

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> he Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality does not seek EQUAL TREATMENT, they are seeking SPECIAL TREATMENT. NO ONE ELSE IS ENTITLED TO FORCE OTHERS TO SERVE THEM DESPITE THEIR ABHORRENT BEHAVIOR and THAT is the injustice that you fraudulently drape in deceit to make it appear just.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays and lesbians seek no special right. They want the same right to marry that you possess. And in court after court, State after State, they have it. Marriages recognized as being just as valid, as conveying the exact same rights, privileges and immunities as your marriage. Under the law, their marriage and your marriage are the same. As the rights they seek are the same.
Click to expand...


There is no law anywhere in the United States which prohibits the sexually abnormal from marrying ANYONE, as long as they meet the fundamental standards of marriage, which merely meet the standard of human biology which mates men with wo-men.

The standard has always and will always apply EQUALLY TO EVERYONE... there is NO INEQUITY IN THE LAW OR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW.

Now does the marriage standard discriminate?  Yes... that's the purpose of standards; discrimination is what they do.   Now if it helps... cultural viability is NOT POSSIBLE absent discrimination.  We discriminate against people ALL THE TIME!  And usually for good reason.   The marriage standard is no exception.

As a culture, it is FOOLISH TO NORMALIZE THAT WHICH NATURE SOUGHT TO RENDER ABNORMAL.

If you seek the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, I suggest you comport yourself within the standards that PROVIDE FOR THAT LEGITIMACY.



Skylar said:


> What you've just defined is POWER MAKES RIGHT! This is a FOREIGN IDEA THAT IS HOSTILE TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT DEFINE AMERICA... which were recognized and declared in DIRECT DEFIANCE OF THAT EVIL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.
Click to expand...


False.



Skylar said:


> Individual rights and equality under the law are those defining principles. And they are powerfully served in marriage equality.



There is no inequity in the law or the enforcement OF the LAW, regarding the sexually abnormal and MARRIAGE.  Marriage is the joining of ONE MAN AND ONE WO-MAN!

If you're a sexually abnormal male who seeks application for marriage, you are axiomatically approved FOR the license, by merely applying with a person of the distinct gender.

As is EVERYONE ELSE!

And save me the drivel which intentionally and obtusely seeks to conflate race with homosexuality.

A black person is genetically BLACK... they have NO CHOICE in the matter.  They can BEHAVE as they feel a  white person would act all day and they're still black.

There is absolutely NO GENETIC component to sexuality... there IS a genetic component to GENDER.

See how that works?  It wasn't FAIR to prevent whites from marrying blacks... because neither race CAN BE ANYTHING ELSE.  Where a homosexual can BE homosexual on Monday and straight as an arrow on Tuesday, back to packin' fudge on Wednesday and so on.  And while you CAN claim that you have no choice in the desire, you dam' sure have a choice in the BEHAVIOR.

And THAT BEHAVIOR was deemed LEGAL: BECAUSE IT IS A MATTER OF PRIVACY... NOT because it is so much as biologically sustainable, let alone something akin to normal.

What two men do in the privacy of their home with a couple of midgets, a goat, 12 gerbils, a unicycle, a plunger, a socket set, shower curtain and a case of quaker state... is THEIR OWN BUSINESS!  But it BECOMES EVERYONE'S BUSINESS THE SECOND THEY START DEMANDING THAT THEIR TWISTED CRAP BE ACCEPTED BY EVERYONE ELSE!

Marriage is the joining of one man and one wo-man.  Get that through your head and you'll be fine.  Because that isn't going to change... as long as nature is setting the design of the species and that's never going to change, with the hubris of the intellectually less fortunate collective, _which claims otherwise_, notwithstanding.


----------



## Skylar

> So what?



Why  would we deny gays and lesbians the right to marry for failing to meet a standard* that doesn't exist and is applied to no one? *It makes no sense. *As the capacity to have children is irrelevant to the validity of a marriage. *For anyone. Rendering your entire 'nature' argument moot. As the criteria you insist we should exclude gays by using....isn't used by any State.



> Appealing to popularity? ROFL! You should spend more time appealing to the understanding of reason.



More a demonstration of the history of failure of your standards to have any relevance to the outcome of any court case. As your standards are irrelevant to the law of any State, illogical, and unequally applied. You've never called for a straight couple who can't have children to be excluded from marriage. But oddly, insist that we should reject a gay couple for that exact reason.

Its a crap argument with a near perfect record of failure. And will likely remain so.



> Actually I DO decide when the law applies to me. Because I am an American and that is precisely the point which represents the cornerstone of the foundational principles that DEFINE America.



Actually you don't. If you don't agree with say, speeding laws....and you're pulled over and ticketed, you're still subject to the law. The ticket. The fines. The points on your license. As an American, you're subject to the laws of America. You're agreement with that law isn't required for you to be within the jurisdiction of its application. Or for the law to be applied to you.



> No law perverted to serve the subjective interests of those who define themselves by their rejection of reason, obligates me to do a dam' thing.



Save, of course, that you don't make that call. We do. We make the decision of what the laws will be, when they apply, and who they apply to. You alone do not. You can imagine that you're immune to all laws and none apply to you. Yet as 'Sovereign Citizen' James Timothy Turner so elegantly demonstrates with his 18 year prison, your subjective beliefs on how the law 'should' apply has no particular relevance to how the law *does* apply.

Your personal consent is not required for the application of our laws. As your disagreement changes nothing. Just ask Jimmy.



> Where THAT premise defines the law: I don't give a dam' about the law. I care only about the service of justice. And rest assured that where there exist people who intend to use the law as a means to force others to serve in celebration of their perverse, subjective needs... I will stand against such and should it come to it, I will join in the eradication of that threat to the service of justice and my means to exercise my god-given rights.



It doesn't matter if you 'give a damn about the law'. It gives a damn about you. Violate it and get caught, and how much you care about the law will have no effect on the way the law is applied to you. As your personal beliefs are not a factor in the law's jurisdiction. No matter if you believe otherwise. The only relevant standard in the application of the law are the legal ones.

Not what you imagine.



> The Homosexuals who keep their private life private will do fine, as they always have and the rest of you will be beaten into submission by the powerful interests who need to constantly secure their power, and that inevitably comes down to keeping the steady Eddies of the Hard working, tax paying class HAPPY. And they're not going to be happy when they're constantly being told that Uncle Sally and Aunt Fred need 'em to force the baker to bake 'em a cake. Or the Pastor of a church of 5000 voters, to marry them.



In reality, its fine if they're public or private. As your personal animus to homosexuals has no relevance to their legal rights. If they stay in the closets their entire life or walk down Market Street in a Feather Boa lip syncing 'Its Raining Men'.....their rights are the same.

*You are irrelevant to their rights. *Your feelings are irrelevant to their rights. Your beliefs are irrelevant to their rights. You define nothing, no law, no jurisdiction, no dichotomy, no 'either -or'. In terms of their rights, privileges and immunities under the law, you're exactly nobody.

Get used to the idea.



> Yes... I am a person. Who has precisely the same rights as you, and ten of you and ten million of you... .



But not the same authority. We decide what the law is, who our representatives are, where and to whom our laws apply.

*You, by yourself, define nothing in the law. *Our application of authority is the majority. You by yourself have no threshold of authority, define no legal term, adjudicate nothing, create no laws, decide the application of no law. You are subject to our authority, as the power resides with the People.

Not with you alone.



> This is America scamp... we've beat the living hell out of more collectives than Carter has Pills. It's among the long list of things we are EXTREMELY good at. We'll put up with a fair amount of crap... but at some point... someone among the collective crosses a line and BAM! The collective is no more and all that they felt was permanent and sure, is rubble in the midst of unbridled uncertainty.



Then tell me ....how many USSC cases have you adjudicated all by yourself? How many laws have passed with just your own vote alone? How many presidents have you elected with your vote alone?

*You've done none of these things. *As you don't have that authority. *But we do. *We excercise our authority through the majority. And through our representatives. And you are subject to our will, subject to certain constitutional guarantees. And no where in the constitution does it say you're above all law. Because you aren't.



> I don't argue on behalf of that stark majority, I argue on behalf of sound reason and natural law. But you represent 1-2% of the population which enjoys assent by a temporal popularity of the 30% of which any group of large numbers will suffer in malcontents... .



Save your reasoning is deeply flawed and you don't define 'natural law'. You offer us nothing more or less than your personal opinions, based on your subjective perceptoin. And you're more than welcome to all of it.

*No one cares. *As we don't use you, your broken logic or flawed reason, your subjective conception of 'natural law'.......to define any portion of the ACTUAL law. And this is the part that you don't seem to get.

Which is why gays and lesbians are perfectly free to marry in 30 of 50 states.....despite your disagreement and jabber about your 'natural law'.


----------



## Billy000

I can't believe this thread has gotten to 184 pages. The obvious answer to this question is NO. I do support gay marriage though. I don't see how this debate has come to forcing any church to do anything however.


----------



## Skylar

> No... Says Nature.



You aren't 'nature' either. You aren't 'natural law'. You aren't 'reason'. You aren't 'logic'. You aren't 'objective truth'. You aren't 'morality'. Its just you and your personal opinion. And while you're welcome to it, your personal opinion doesn't define our laws or the rights of anyone else.

What about this simple fact do you find so egregious?


> What you've acknowledged is that you simultaneously believe that opinion of others is irrelevant and your opinion is fact.



What I've done is simply acknowledge that  our law is not beholden to whatever you chose to believe.  Nor are the rights of any other person bound to what you choose to believe.
You may be enamoured with your belief in your own infallibility, but your belief  means nothing to me. And has absolutely no impact on the rights of anyone else.

Deal with it.


> Objectivity, truth and trust are the essential elements needed for a soundly reasoned morality.


And your subjective opinion isn't objective truth.  Subjective is not objective. Enjoy whatever opinion you want. But you don't define universal morality or any truth. There is no 'universal' definition of marriage. We define marriage, based on whatever criteria we choose.

*We've chosen equality, fairness and reason as our standards. *Not children. Not the ability to procreate. Not your personal conceptions of 'natural law'. Which is why when our laws are applied, your claims have no relevance to the outcome. While equality, fairness and reason dominate the outcome of virtually every federal court to hear the issue.

*And marriage equality has prevailed with essentially a perfect record. As it should.*



> Now, that's why you've no means to recognize what is otherwise OBVIOUS TRUTH with regard to sexual abnormality... and why you have no means to trust reasoning which ESTABLISHES SUCH AS TRUTH... and why you can't accept the soundly reasoned morality which provides for the fundamental standards of marriage and why your concern is PURELY for the APPEARANCE OF THE LAW (Color of Law) with NO CONCERN FOR THE JUSTICE, which is otherwise the ONLY LEGITIMATE PURPOSE FOR THE LAW.



You're confused. Its you I don't recognize as defining anything you've said. I don't accept you as an authoritative arbiter on objective truth, universal morality, natural law, reason, logic, or any of the other appeals to authority you've offered us.  As  your entire argument is predicated on everyone else accepting you as the sole authoritative infallible arbiter of all things related to truth, morality, nature, law and logic.....*and you aren't,* your entire argument collapses. As you've offered us nothing else.

There's nothing logical or rational or moral about making up a standard that applies to no one, applying it to gays and lesbians, then applying it to them exclusively for the sole purpose of of denying them their fundamental rights. Why would we ever do this?

There is no reason. Which is what court after court has found when addressing the topic. And why marriage equality continues to triumph in the face of arbitrary attempts at denying fundamental rights by your ilk.


----------



## Skylar

Billy000 said:


> I can't believe this thread has gotten to 184 pages. The obvious answer to this question is NO. I do support gay marriage though. I don't see how this debate has come to forcing any church to do anything however.



It hasn't. A pair of ministers got a little melodramatic, declaring in their best Scarlett O'Hare impression that they were going to be subject to 180 years in prison for not marrying gays against their religious conviction....

*.....until the city attorney pointed out that religious corporations were already exempt and not so much as a warning had been insued to the two ministers. Let alone charges of anything.*

Apparently a fainting couch has become a prerequisite for being a gay marriage opponent these days. So many of them seem to have the 'vapors'.


----------



## Skylar

> There is no law anywhere in the United States which prohibits the sexually abnormal from marrying ANYONE, as long as they meet the fundamental standards of marriage, which merely meet the standard of human biology which mates men with wo-men.



And what 'standard of human biology' would be exclusively relevant to marriage? No one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married. Why then would gays and lesbians be excluded from marriage for failing to meet a standard that applies...

*.....to no one?*



> [
> The standard has always and will always apply EQUALLY TO EVERYONE... there is NO INEQUITY IN THE LAW OR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW.



Smiling.....obviously not. As 30 of 50 states with legal gay marriage demonstrate. I don't think 'always' means what you think it means.

There's no particular reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, as there is no requirement of marriage that your 'standards of human biology' can satisfy that a gay couple cannot. Nor is any straight couple denied access to marriage for failing to meet your 'standards of human biology'. Nor is there any state interest that is satisfied in denying gays. Nor is there any special right granted to gays and lesbians.

*Its the same right: the fundamental right to marry.* Which gays now enjoy with the same freedom and protection as straights do in the majority of our country.



> There is no inequity in the law or the enforcement OF the LAW, regarding the sexually abnormal and MARRIAGE. Marriage is the joining of ONE MAN AND ONE WO-MAN!



Says you. Every appellant circuit court to hear the issue has said otherwise. And their findings are far more relevant to the application of law than your personal conceptions of 'natural law', as marriage is a legal institution. And it is whatever we decide it is. We've decided, under our constitution,  that marriage encompasses same sex unions. If gay marriage is so recognized in any state, its so recognized in every state. As any marriage performed in a state that recognizes gay marriage must be honored and protected in every state in the union due to interstate reciprocity requirements of contracts in the constitution.

The moment gay marriage was legal in even one state, the issue was already decided nation wide. All that's left now are issues of cost and convenience. Can you get married in your own state....or do you need a little marriage tourism before your state is required to recognize your marriage as legally valid.



> There is absolutely NO GENETIC component to sexuality... there IS a genetic component to GENDER.



Says you yet again. And as we've long since established, your assumptions of your own infallibility in any topic you chose to discuss means nothing.  Worse for you, the entire issue you've chosen to discuss is irrelevant. As Romer V. Evans so elegantly demonstrated. They never once even addressed the question of whether or not homosexuality was innate or behavioral......because gays were protected either way. Per Romer, a law cannot violate rights, must serve a compelling state interest and can't target a specific group.

Gay marriage bans fail all three standards.

Take a look at who wrote the Romer decision. That would be old Mr. Swing voter himself....*Justice Kennedy. *Take a look at who wrote the recent Windsor decision in which DOMA provisions forbidding the recognition of gay marriages was overturned as unconstitutional. *Justice Kennnedy again. *You many not consider homosexuals to be a protected class. Kennedy certainly does.

Now what do you think the chances are that Justice Kennedy is going to ignore his own counsel and the binding precedents *he* wrote and instead abdicate his capacity to reason to your baseless assumptions of moral, legal and scientific infallibility?

I'd say its that number that comes just before zero.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> LOL!  SO you're a liar and an imbecile... answering the poser regarding to your state of mind.
> 
> Your position is therefore recognized as manifestly EVIL!
> .



Just more bat guano crazy.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normalizing abnormality, is fraudulent government policy which harms everyone in the culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.
Click to expand...

Why do people assume that allowing gays liberty is forcing non gays into conformity.  Liberty is not the liberty to nail gays to the cross.  The group being harmed is gays... not heterosexuals.  Thus the bad guy in this situation is gay bashers... who are forcing the gays into conformity with their anti-christian bigoted hateful vile despicable discriminatory laws.


----------



## Geaux4it

Skylar said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course not. If guys want to go to funky town with chickens OK. Just don't ask for benefits associated with marriage.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't gays have the same rights and protections under marriage as anyone else?
Click to expand...


Because I don't want them too. That's why

-Geaux


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normalizing abnormality, is fraudulent government policy which harms everyone in the culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do people assume that allowing gays liberty is forcing non gays into conformity.  Liberty is not the liberty to nail gays to the cross.  The group being harmed is gays... not heterosexuals.  Thus the bad guy in this situation is gay bashers... who are forcing the gays into conformity with their anti-christian bigoted hateful vile despicable discriminatory laws.
Click to expand...


I totally agree with this. Equality under the law is vital. But we're talking about PA laws, whick aren't about allowing gays (or any other interest group) liberty. They're about targeting people with unpopular biases and limiting their liberty to associate, or not, with who they choose. They are the sheer opposite of equal protection, and fundamental violation of individual freedom.


----------



## dblack

Billy000 said:


> I can't believe this thread has gotten to 184 pages. The obvious answer to this question is NO. I do support gay marriage though. I don't see how this debate has come to forcing any church to do anything however.



Only if you miss the obvious point of the question - which is to recognize the absurdity of PA laws. The point isn't to force churches to marry people against their will. It's to recognize why it would be wrong. And it's _not_ because of the First Amendment.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normalizing abnormality, is fraudulent government policy which harms everyone in the culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do people assume that allowing gays liberty is forcing non gays into conformity.  Liberty is not the liberty to nail gays to the cross.  The group being harmed is gays... not heterosexuals.  Thus the bad guy in this situation is gay bashers... who are forcing the gays into conformity with their anti-christian bigoted hateful vile despicable discriminatory laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I totally agree with this. Equality under the law is vital. But we're talking about PA laws, whick aren't about allowing gays (or any other interest group) liberty. They're about targeting people with unpopular biases and limiting their liberty to associate, or not, with who they choose. They are the sheer opposite of equal protection, and fundamental violation of individual freedom.
Click to expand...

So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation?  Interesting.  I disagree.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Why shouldn't gays have the same rights and protections under marriage as anyone else?


 
Because marriage isn't a free for all.  It's an establishment primarily for the benefit of children.  As such, we can predict from the lesbians in California drugging their 11 year old son to become a girl, and just the general underlying message to children of the gender opposite their gay "parents" that "your gender/you/ are disposable", gay pride parades and the LGBT veneration of Harvey Milk's sexuality, that gay marriage will harm children.

So far 0% of LGBTs have spoken out publicly against any of those atrocities towards children.  Plus, "LGBT" doesnt' cover the gamut of all the others who may use the legal precedent that are also objectionable to the majority with respect to how those "arrangements" would harm kids in marriage.

Now we see already LGBTs trying to force their lifestyle [once their toe is in the door with "legal marriage"] onto pastors and other people of faith who are under a dire mandate [see Jude 1 in the New Testament] to not promote this lifestyle in any way shape or form.  Christianity doesn't advocate harsh treatment towards individual gays doing their thing in privacy.  But it is very clear that once that lifestyle spills out of the bedroom and into the streets...and most certainly marriage...christians are to "earnestly contend for the faith" ...else risk an eternity in the Pit of Fire.

Blind people cannot enjoy federal protection to drive, because that might harm people.  Gay [and??????}  people cannot enjoy federal protection for marriage because that might harm people [children/society after a few generations].


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “Homosexuality deviates from the normality established by no less an authority than Nature itself. This is not even a debatable point.”
> 
> It's an irrelevant point, subjective and unsubstantiated, having no bearing whatsoever on the merit of laws seeking to deny gay Americans their civil liberties, laws which are in fact Constitutionally without merit.




Irrelevant?  Hardly... 

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality claims that Homosexuality is perfectly normal behavior, which it does based upon the wholly subjective 'edicts' of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

Not only does the behavior deviate from the human biological standard, it is impossible to deviate farther from the standard.

Therefore, the advocacy itself is FRAUDULENT, the individuals bringing the advocacy are either INTENTIONALLY ATTEMPTING the public, or they are suffering sociopathic DELUSION, which prevents them from recognizing the truth and in EITHER CASE, such represents a THREAT TO THE CULTURE ON THE WHOLE and needs to be shut down.

Subjective?

That is so profoundly absurd as to be recognized as HYSTERICAL!   The conclusion that the innate design of human biology sets the standard for human sexuality, could not BE >MORE< Objective.  

Are you sure that you understand the meaning of the term? 

Allow me to help: 

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions:his views are highly subjective |there is always the danger of making a subjective judgment.

This is contrasted with: 

Objective:  dependent upon reason, not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Unsubstantiated?

It's about the most obvious set of facts possible... there is no potential issue which could BE MORE SUBSTANTIATED...  The Human Biology is designed around complimenting genders is obvious to all but those who means to reason objectively is so absurdly limited as to render them unfit for freedom.  

It's not even a debatable point.

BUT!  This refusal to accept reason is in perfect keeping with everything else on the ideological left.

The demand that Men should marry Men and Women, women... is on the same level of psychosis as "_We need to pass the bill to know what's in the bill_' and "_What DIFFERENCE DOES [THE TRUTH] MAKE_?"

Irrational positions advanced by two prominent members of the same political apparatus that would have us believe, despite the otherwise irrefutable evidence available to EVERY HUMAN BEING ON EARTH, that such is not the case, that men are perfectly suited for sexual behavior with other men and women with other women... there surely MUST BE a common thread.

And what that thread IS, ... is nothing less than EVIL.  A pall of deceit, fraud and ignorance which historically serves as a means to drive cultures toward a cleansing catastrophe.  

You seem to enjoy the idea that you've some sense of scientific understandings.  You should read: The Population Bomb.  IT explains the process of societal regression, toward the natural realignment with viability.   Once celebrated by the Left, it inexplicably became to be shunned.  And it was shunned because it became obvious that prior to the consistently observed outcome, two things occurred: a spike in a collective sense of entitlement and in homosexuality.  If Rats were capable of demanding a right to murder their pre-born offspring, they would be stunningly accurate examples of the triumvirate tenets of the Democat Party.

Now once again I plead to my opposition: 

IF you people have any means to comprehend reason, if you've any potential sense for survival... you need to understand that you and your 'most special friends', have NEVER SURVIVED THESE things... and no society driven to this looming precipice has ever exited such 'accepting and tolerating' the sexually abnormal.  

I tell you this because you're being manipulated... and at this point, only you have any control over if you continue down this irrational path or not.  Continue and destroy yourselves... turn from it and find an alternative, sustainable path and survive, free to be who you will... .


----------



## Silhouette

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ...IF you people have any means to comprehend reason, if you've any potential sense for survival... you need to understand that you and your 'most special friends', have NEVER SURVIVED THESE things... and no society driven to this looming precipice has ever exited such 'accepting and tolerating' the sexually abnormal.
> 
> I tell you this because you're being manipulated... and at this point, only you have any control over if you continue down this irrational path or not.  Continue and destroy yourselves... turn from it and find an alternative, sustainable path and survive, free to be who you will... .


 
Yes, they are being manipulated by a very cunning and dark master.  He has a very smooth tongue and this time around the block [also agreed, there have been many performances by him through the ages], he is wearing a rainbow armband, performing lewd acts around the kiddies.."all in good fun!"  His chants this time around are "don't be a hater"...and "you're a bigot"....and "be careful...if you don't give me free reign, I'll SUE you in COURT!"...

That old coot....   He's flexible, I'll give him that..  I am always amazed at one of his best tricks: incremental hog-tying then AMBUSH!  He is quite the stealthy hunter.  How else could you explain where we are today..what people have become blind to in order to placate the god of political-correctness.  Truth be damned.  What an accomplishment!  On a certain level you have to admire that magnitude of achievement on such a wide scale, no?  When you can trick not just some people, but an entire society into not seeing what is directly in front of their eyes, you are a MASTER hypnotist.

Like I said to Skylar [back to the concrete plain where the work gets done]

_"Because marriage isn't a free for all. It's an establishment primarily for the benefit of children. As such, we can predict from the lesbians in California drugging their 11 year old son to become a girl, and just the general underlying message to children of the gender opposite their gay "parents" that "your gender/you/ are disposable", gay pride parades and the LGBT veneration of Harvey Milk's sexuality, that gay marriage will harm children.
So far 0% of LGBTs have spoken out publicly against any of those atrocities towards children. _

_Plus, "LGBT" doesnt' cover the gamut of all the others who may use the legal precedent that are also objectionable to the majority with respect to how those "arrangements" would harm kids in marriage._

_Now we see already LGBTs trying to force their lifestyle [once their toe is in the door with "legal marriage"] onto pastors and other people of faith who are under a dire mandate [see Jude 1 in the New Testament] to not promote this lifestyle in any way shape or form. Christianity doesn't advocate harsh treatment towards individual gays doing their thing in privacy. But it is very clear that once that lifestyle spills out of the bedroom and into the streets...and most certainly marriage...christians are to "earnestly contend for the faith" ...else risk an eternity in the Pit of Fire._

_Blind people cannot enjoy federal protection to drive, because that might harm people. Gay [and??????} people cannot enjoy federal protection for marriage because that might harm people [children/society after a few generations]."_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

dblack said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe this thread has gotten to 184 pages. The obvious answer to this question is NO. I do support gay marriage though. I don't see how this debate has come to forcing any church to do anything however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you miss the obvious point of the question - which is to recognize the absurdity of PA laws. The point isn't to force churches to marry people against their will. It's to recognize why it would be wrong. And it's _not_ because of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...


You're correct, it is NOT wrong "BECAUSE" of the 1st Amendment, it is wrong because the principles on which the 1st amendment rest, determine it to be WRONG. 

There is NO POTENTIAL for a right which through the exercise of such, usurps the means of another to exercise their own rights.

THIS circumstance demonstrates entirely, the importance of the individual to understand what rights are, from where they come and the means by which they are sustained.  And why the notions of the Ideological Left on the issue are thoroughly irrational: Where it is felt that 'dah peoples determine what rights they have', they subject themselves to idiocy so dark, that even where the evidence is so profoundly obvious that EVERY HUMAN BEING SEES IT EVERYDAY, INSTINCTIVELY UNDERSTANDS THE FACTS THROUGH THEIR DAILY WITNESS OF THE FACTS WHICH OTHERWISE REFUTE THE CLAIM, that even then... simply profession of a false right must be accepted as true. 


That's called EVIL and that is a road from which there is no return, as it leads to abject darkness... and DEATH!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Let me be clear: The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality seeks to use the power of government to FORCE PEOPLE TO ACCEPT THEIR ABHORRENT BEHAVIOR: I demand that government stop and I demand that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, keep that to which they claim IS THEIR RIGHT, BASED UPON THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY: PRIVATE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply not the debate. Gay marriage can be perfectly legal in your state...
Click to expand...


Again the issue boils down to legality... with the Advocates to Normalize Sexual Abnormality having NO DISCERNIBLE INTERESTS in the MORALITY...

Using the reasoning which has been offered, it should be noted that 'Pedophilia CAN BE perfectly LEGAL in your state... and you will still be free to hold animus against those who pursue children for 'caring, loving SEXUAL relationships and ... *No one will care.....because your feelings aren't the basis of our laws.'*

Of course, I am one and I care, so immediately 'no one cares' is readily exposed as being demonstrably FALSE.  As is the case in the notion founded upon 'your feelings aren't the basis of our laws.'.  We know this because we elect representatives so that they may carry our feelings to government and MAKE LAW WHICH REFLECTS THOSE FEELINGS.  Further we know that the VAST MAJORITY of 'ones' in the VAST MAJORITY OF STATES expressed their feelings which adhered to the natural standards intrinsic to marriage which provide that MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

"Feelings" which were turned asunder by the SUBJECTIVE EDICT of an Advocate of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality who found their way onto the Federal Judiciary.  Over-ruling the will or the 'feelings' of the vast majority of the people, living in the vast majority of the respective states.

What's more, our 'feelings' are based in the scientific certainty that no less an authority than nature itself provided for the design of the human being and it did so on the basis that the designed traits serve to promote nothing LESS THAN: THE VIABILITY OF THE SPECIES.  In this, we can know that it is the will of nature, thus the will of God himself that human beings comport ourselves within the scope of the design set upon the vessel which carries our BEING.  Thus our 'feelings' represent our reasoning, which rests within a sound logical construct, which recognizes the objective facts from science, in medical and philosophical terms and, which rejects the deceptive edicts of "SCIENCE!", which is to say the fraudulent politicization of science by the subjective whimsy of the would-be popular culture.




Skylar said:


> You can't have it both ways and that is precisely what they're asking for... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such dichotomy.
Click to expand...

  Yes, there is... allow me to demonstrate:



Skylar said:


> They can have the right to privacy AND the right to marry. Just like you do.



Really?  Well, what I do is that where I claim a right to privacy, I sustain that right by keeping that which I rightfully claim as private: PRIVATE!

Because I recognize that where I claim something as private, but make such public, I forfeit my right to claim it as rightfully private.

Because my sexual behavior comports with the natural design of the human species, I've not had my sexual desires outlawed.  BUT where such were to happen and where such laws prohibiting my sexual behavior were lifted on the basis that my sexual life is private, I would not go about defining myself BY MY DEVIANT SEXUALITY.  Because, again... I understand that in so doing, I undermine the very legal basis for my means to LEGALLY achieve sexual gratification.

As I said, you want it both ways... you want to claim that your behavior is legal, then reject the basis by which the prohibitions against such were lifted.



Skylar said:


> The need not choose one or the other, as you need not do so.



Such has been proven to be demonstrably false.



Skylar said:


> They are Americans.



LOL!  NO... "They" are US Citizens.  Americans are those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles that define America... that we are all endowed with rights SO CERTAIN that they are inseparable from our beings.  And that these rights are sustained through the correlation of those rights to specific responsibilities, by which we stake our rightful claim to exercise those rights... because in every right we claim for ourselves, we recognize such in EVERYONE ELSE... and we jealously guard our behavior to preclude such from a circumstance wherein the exercising of our rights do not infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own rights.

See... we do not demand that others accept our behavior, because our behavior rests upon the recognition, respect, defense and adherence TO the laws of nature.  Meaning that our behavior is just... if we screw it up, we do not demand that EVERYONE ELSE MUST SCREW IT UP TO, as a means to rationalize that our behavior is not wrong, because "Everyone DOES IT, or EVERYONE ACCEPTS IT".



Skylar said:


> They [Sexual Deviants] have the same rights, privileges, freedoms and immunities that you do.



You are absolutely correct.  And just as I am required to comport myself within the standards of nature, they are required to do the same.  Nature defines marriage by the standard of human biology, wherein one man and one woman join, analogous to sustainable coitus.  As a means of procreation, wherein the union, which joins the respective and distinct beings join to form one sustainable body, before all... . As a means to sustain the female through gestation and to provide a stable environment to nurture and train their progeny, through the complimenting natures of the respective genders.  This so as to produce viable productive individuals, who possess the blueprint, by which to repeat the process.

What the sexual deviant is NOT rightfully entitled to do is to claim that which deviates from the standard, thus sustainable norm, IS NORMAL... as a means to influence those who may be ignorant of such, to accept their perverse, ABNORMAL sexuality, as NORMAL, who will then use that fraudulence, to mislead others, all as a means to 'feel better' about themselves to BE LEGITIMATE, without having to bear the burden of BEHAVING LEGITIMATELY.



Skylar said:


> And if you're going to deny them those rights, you need a damn good reason. And you have none.



No rights are being denied to anyone.



> You can't claim the right to MARRY and then demand that the standards that define marriage be altered to accommodate your personal, subjective needs. and one can't claim a right to be treated equally before the law: WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY DEMANDING SPECIAL PROTECTIONS BY THE LAW!



You've got it backwards. They don't need a justification to be married, as marriage is already a fundamental right for all Americans. [/quote]

Yep...  but only where someone finds a person of distinct gender, who agrees to marry them. Because MARRIAGE IS DEFINED BY NO LESS AN AUTHORITY THAN NATURE: AS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

(This established through the demonstrated standard intrinsic to human biology.  And the various inherent imperatives, thereof.)

*


Skylar said:



			You and your ilk need a valid justification to deny them their constitutional rights.
		
Click to expand...

*
No one is denying anyone, any rights...



Skylar said:


> A compelling state interest that is served by denying them and can't be served in any other plausible way. A rational reason to treat gays and lesbians as less under the law.



The compelling interest for not accepting the lowering of the marriage standard to include that which nature excluded, rests in the viability of the culture, which is threatened by so doing, in that it accepts fraudulence as fact, which establishes the legal precedent that fraudulence must be accepted as fact. That is known as DELUSION and a culture cannot be sustained upon delusion.

*


Skylar said:



			And you don't have one.
		
Click to expand...

*


Skylar said:


> Which is why you fail.



ROFLMNAO!  Yes... Delusion... that's what I said.  A marvelous demonstration of my point.  For that, I thank you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

keys and Sil have trouble understand that nature does not rule US law, the Constitution does.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> keys and Sil have trouble understand that nature does not rule US law, the Constitution does.


Where in the Constitution does it say "just some deviant sexual behaviors are equal to race" or "marriage is a loose arrangement granted to anyone and everyone who wishes to be married to anyone else?

BTW Jake, you haven't answered my question:  What would be your reasoning for denying a polygamy group like the Browns from Utah/Nevada a marriage license today?


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the State has the power to require that a business person treat their customers fairly and equally.
> 
> The whole 'we don't serve your kind at this lunch counter' schtick doesn't exactly have the best historical pedigree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality does not seek EQUAL TREATMENT, they are seeking SPECIAL TREATMENT.  !
Click to expand...


Like being served at the same lunch counter as white people.....er I mean straight people......

That is some 'special treatment'.........to homophobes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil does not get what she thinks about SCOTUS does not mean a thing except to Sil.

SCOTUS  has ruled, and Sil has drooled.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> keys and Sil have trouble understand that nature does not rule US law, the Constitution does.
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it say "just some deviant sexual behaviors are equal to race" or "marriage is a loose arrangement granted to anyone and everyone who wishes to be married to anyone else?
> 
> BTW Jake, you haven't answered my question:  What would be your reasoning for denying a polygamy group like the Browns from Utah/Nevada a marriage license today?
Click to expand...


Because there is a Utah law that forbids polygamy- and that law is still in effect.

Not exactly rocket science.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me be clear: The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality seeks to use the power of government to FORCE PEOPLE TO ACCEPT THEIR ABHORRENT BEHAVIOR: I demand that government stop and I demand that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, keep that to which they claim IS THEIR RIGHT, BASED UPON THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY: PRIVATE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply not the debate. Gay marriage can be perfectly legal in your state...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the issue boils down to legality... with the Advocates to Normalize Sexual Abnormality having NO DISCERNIBLE INTERESTS in the MORALITY...
> u.
Click to expand...


More bat guano crazy posting.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> keys and Sil have trouble understand that nature does not rule US law, the Constitution does.
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it say "just some deviant sexual behaviors are equal to race" or "marriage is a loose arrangement granted to anyone and everyone who wishes to be married to anyone else?
> 
> BTW Jake, you haven't answered my question:  What would be your reasoning for denying a polygamy group like the Browns from Utah/Nevada a marriage license today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there is a Utah law that forbids polygamy- and that law is still in effect.
> 
> Not exactly rocket science.
Click to expand...


The law can be challenged in court, has been, and polygamy has been basically decriminalized.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> Where in the Constitution does it say "just some deviant sexual behaviors are equal to race" or "marriage is a loose arrangement granted to anyone and everyone who wishes to be married to anyone else?



The Constitution of the United States is not a list of 'things you can and can't'.  

But I gotta say, I never tire of people who reject the very principles on which the Constitution rests, up to including the very IDEA of sanctity, never failing to run to the Constitution, so that they can wrap themselves in its sanctity.

LOL!  Funny stuff.


----------



## Skylar

> Yes, they are being manipulated by a very cunning and dark master. He has a very smooth tongue and this time around the block [also agreed, there have been many performances by him through the ages], he is wearing a rainbow armband, performing lewd acts around the kiddies.."all in good fun!" His chants this time around are "don't be a hater"...and "you're a bigot"....and "be careful...if you don't give me free reign, I'll SUE you in COURT!"...



What 'cunning, dark master' with a 'very smooth tongue' who has performed 'through the ages'.

 C'mon, Silo....say it. You know you want to say it. 



> _"Because marriage isn't a free for all. It's an establishment primarily for the benefit of children. As such, we can predict from the lesbians in California drugging their 11 year old son to become a girl, and just the general underlying message to children of the gender opposite their gay "parents" that "your gender/you/ are disposable", gay pride parades and the LGBT veneration of Harvey Milk's sexuality, that gay marriage will harm children.
> So far 0% of LGBTs have spoken out publicly against any of those atrocities towards children.
> _




And as I told you, there are clearly more routes to a valid marriage than children. As 1 in 4 marriages never produce them. Nor is any couple required to have children or be able to have them. Why then would gays be excluded from marriage for failing to meet a standard that no straight is ever held to?

As for your california couple who drugged their child, if a lone instance of child abuse invalidates the marriages of an entire sexual orientation, then straights are completely fucked. 



> _Now we see already LGBTs trying to force their lifestyle [once their toe is in the door with "legal marriage"] onto pastors and other people of faith who are under a dire mandate [see Jude 1 in the New Testament] to not promote this lifestyle in any way shape or form. _



Yeah, a problem with that narrative. 



> Less than two weeks after a federal appeals court struck down Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage, two ministers in the northwestern Idaho city of Coeur d’Alene have filed a lawsuit claiming they could face up to 180 years in jail for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding.
> 
> The lawsuit, filed Oct. 17 in federal trial court by the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, stoked long-held fears among opponents of marriage equality.
> 
> Two Ministers Claim They Could Face 180 Years In Jail For Refusing To Do Gay Weddings



But as Paul Harvey used to say, "Now....for the rest of the story". 



> However, according to city officials and the lawsuit itself, the Hitching Post filed papers with the Idaho Secretary of State identifying itself as a religious corporation on Oct. 6, the day before the 9th Circuit struck down Idaho’s ban. The city’s ordinance explicitly states that religious corporations are exempt from the law.
> 
> The lawsuit came as a surprise to city officials, who described conversations with the Knapps up until last week as “cordial.”
> 
> “We have never threatened them. We have never sent them a letter warning them. There was no ‘we’re going to throw you in jail’ kind of stuff. So we were mildly surprised, well, totally surprised by the lawsuit,” City Attorney Mike Gridley told The Huffington Post.
> 
> Two Ministers Claim They Could Face 180 Years In Jail For Refusing To Do Gay Weddings



So who are you talking about Silo? Its clearly not these two ministers. There are no complaints filed, no warnings issued, no threats made. The religious corporation is explicitly exempt from the law.



> _Christianity doesn't advocate harsh treatment towards individual gays doing their thing in privacy. But it is very clear that once that lifestyle spills out of the bedroom and into the streets...and most certainly marriage...christians are to "earnestly contend for the faith" ...else risk an eternity in the Pit of Fire._



And after all the babble about the law, all the empty rhetoric regarding procreation.......*we get down to what actually motivates you: religion.*

Nothing wrong with that. But it has nothing to do with the law. And its one of the major reasons that your ilk have had such a hard time in court. As what ACTUALLY motivates you isn't admissible as evidence. So you're left with half assed second tier arguments that are easily refuted.


----------



## dblack

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> PA Laws are LAW.   LAW is only legitimate, where it SERVES JUSTICE.    There is no justification to refuse to serve another who is offering compensation as required by the service provider, except where the service or sale of one's product serves to undermine the means of another to exercise their own rights.  You can't force someone to sell them something or provide them a service that they reasonably know you'll use to harm them... .  This of course has no potential bearing on issues of race.  And it is the application of laws designed to preclude racial discrimination which are foolishly being used to preclude people from discriminating against those who advocate to normalize sexual abnormality.  Such is an UNJUST application of the law.
> 
> Unjust application of the law harms EVERYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an excellent point, and highlights a fundamental difference in what we want government to accomplish. And this is why I consider your point of view every bit as wrong as those you oppose. Both of you want to use government to force people to behave the way you want. You just have different idea of how people should behave.
> 
> I don't want a government that "creates" justice by dictating how people treat each other. This is why libertarians emphasize the notion that government should seek to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want, not dictate to us what kind of society that should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government does not 'create' justice, it SERVES to promote the establishment of the justice intrinsic in nature's chronic quest for balance.   And the principles that define America declared that the individual is endowed by their creator with inseparable rights.  With those rights being sustained through the bearing of correlating responsibilities.  IT is THOSE RIGHT SUSTAINING RESPONSIBILITIES which serve to guide each of us in how we 'should' treat one another.
> 
> I am not asking the government to force anyone to do anything.  I am here and have consistently advocated that government should stay out of the forcing of people TO DO THINGS business... but then I am an American and, that's how we roll.
> 
> Let me be clear: The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality seeks to use the power of government to FORCE PEOPLE TO ACCEPT THEIR ABHORRENT BEHAVIOR: I demand that government stop and I demand that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, keep that to which they claim IS THEIR RIGHT, BASED UPON THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY: PRIVATE.
> 
> And where they FAIL to BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY SUSTAINING THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY... I DEMAND THEY CONCEDE THAT SUCH IS NOT THEIR RIGHT!
> 
> You can't have it both ways and that is precisely what they're asking for... .
> 
> The Sodomy Laws were lifted because their private sexual lives were deemed their business... as a culture we agreed.  SINCE THEN: THEY'VE MADE MORE AND MORE OF THOSE THINGS TO WHICH THEY'RE ENTITLED, BECAUSE IT IS PRIVATE BEHAVIOR: PUBLIC...
> 
> You can't claim the right to MARRY and then demand that the standards that define marriage be altered to accommodate your personal, subjective needs.  and one can't claim a right to be treated equally before the law: WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY DEMANDING SPECIAL PROTECTIONS BY THE LAW!
> 
> Understand?
Click to expand...


No. I think you're loonie. Government shouldn't be in the business of writing marriage contracts, or setting "standards" for them.


----------



## Skylar

> The demand that Men should marry Men and Women, women... is on the same level of psychosis as "_We need to pass the bill to know what's in the bill_' and "_What DIFFERENCE DOES [THE TRUTH] MAKE_?"



There's no such 'demand'. Its a choice made by the parties who are being married. A choice and a freedom you demand we strip from gay and lesbian couples because you insist that you define what the purpose of marriage is, what 'valid' sex is.

You don't and you don't. Once again you've presented a rambling, confused screed predicated on us accepting you as an infallible source on whatever topic you choose to comment on.

And once again, you aren't.  You don't define anything you claim must be. You don't decide any purpose for any activity. And  you certainly don't define any portion of the law. Rendering your argument predictably irrelevant to the validity of marriages of gays and lesbians under the law.




> Irrational positions advanced by two prominent members of the same political apparatus that would have us believe, despite the otherwise irrefutable evidence available to EVERY HUMAN BEING ON EARTH, that such is not the case, that men are perfectly suited for sexual behavior with other men and women with other women... there surely MUST BE a common thread.



That assumes that the only possible reason that anyone would ever engage in sexual activity is procreation. As such lovely inventions as the handjob, the blow job, the condom and the belly method demonstrate.....there are many other reasons to have sex. Making your awkward claims that sex must meet your conception of 'human biological standards' or else be 'fraudulent' as bizarre as it is fallacious.

There's no such mandate. You've imagined it. People can have sex for whatever reason they chose, to serve whatever purpose they wish. And their sex isn't 'valid' or 'fraudulent'. It simply is. That value judgements that you've applied are merely your opinion. They have no relevance to the rights and freedoms of any other person.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normalizing abnormality, is fraudulent government policy which harms everyone in the culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do people assume that allowing gays liberty is forcing non gays into conformity.  Liberty is not the liberty to nail gays to the cross.  The group being harmed is gays... not heterosexuals.  Thus the bad guy in this situation is gay bashers... who are forcing the gays into conformity with their anti-christian bigoted hateful vile despicable discriminatory laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I totally agree with this. Equality under the law is vital. But we're talking about PA laws, whick aren't about allowing gays (or any other interest group) liberty. They're about targeting people with unpopular biases and limiting their liberty to associate, or not, with who they choose. They are the sheer opposite of equal protection, and fundamental violation of individual freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation?  Interesting.  I disagree.
Click to expand...


That's part of liberty, yeah.

What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.


----------



## Skylar

> Again the issue boils down to legality... with the Advocates to Normalize Sexual Abnormality having NO DISCERNIBLE INTERESTS in the MORALITY...



Marriage equality is all about the law. 

And you don't define morality. Leaving you with only personal opinions that have no relevance to the law.



> Of course, I am one and I care, so immediately 'no one cares' is readily exposed as being demonstrably FALSE. As is the case in the notion founded upon 'your feelings aren't the basis of our laws.'. We know this because we elect representatives so that they may carry our feelings to government and MAKE LAW WHICH REFLECTS THOSE FEELINGS. Further we know that the VAST MAJORITY of 'ones' in the VAST MAJORITY OF STATES expressed their feelings which adhered to the natural standards intrinsic to marriage which provide that MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!



And yet the rights of individuals can't be stripped away by the a majority vote. Our Constitution guarantees a variety of rights. For a State law to be valid it has to meet some very strict standards under the constitution: 1) It can't violate rights. 2) It can't target specific groups 3) It has to serve some compelling state interest.

*Gay marriage bans fail on all three fronts.* Which is why they have been overturned by ever circuit appellant court to adjudicate such bans. 

You feel differently. So what? Your feelings aren't the basis of our laws. Your feelings don't define anyone else's rights. This concept seems to outrage you. 
*
You're gonna have to learn to live with it.* In terms of someone else's rights.....you're nobody. You define nothing, adjudicate nothing, set no requirements, establish no caveats. You're simply irrelevant. 



> "Feelings" which were turned asunder by the SUBJECTIVE EDICT of an Advocate of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality who found their way onto the Federal Judiciary. Over-ruling the will or the 'feelings' of the vast majority of the people, living in the vast majority of the respective states.



Nope. That would be an application of the law in a fair and equitable manner. There's simply no valid reason to deny gays. The standards you insist we MUST apply, we don't. The moral judgments you insist we MUST adhere to, we don't. The judges are bound to the rule of law. Not your personal opinion. Not your personal moral judgments. Not your insistence that you define the purpose of marriage.

You don't. We do....through our reprsentatives and through our constitution. And in 30 of 50 States, its been decided that gays and lesbians have the right to marry. 

And gay marriage support currently outpaces opposition by a margin of 12 to 19 points in virtually every poll to measure the topic. So even on your standard of 'emotion as evidence', your argument fails again.


----------



## Skylar

> Indeed. But this calls out the very real conflict between equal rights and public accommodations laws.



Please see my response from the last time you posted this exact phrase for a suitable reply.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do people assume that allowing gays liberty is forcing non gays into conformity.  Liberty is not the liberty to nail gays to the cross.  The group being harmed is gays... not heterosexuals.  Thus the bad guy in this situation is gay bashers... who are forcing the gays into conformity with their anti-christian bigoted hateful vile despicable discriminatory laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I totally agree with this. Equality under the law is vital. But we're talking about PA laws, whick aren't about allowing gays (or any other interest group) liberty. They're about targeting people with unpopular biases and limiting their liberty to associate, or not, with who they choose. They are the sheer opposite of equal protection, and fundamental violation of individual freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation?  Interesting.  I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's part of liberty, yeah.
> 
> What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.
Click to expand...

Wrong.  Raping people is not liberty.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Yes, they are being manipulated by a very cunning and dark master. He has a very smooth tongue and this time around the block [also agreed, there have been many performances by him through the ages], he is wearing a rainbow armband, performing lewd acts around the kiddies.."all in good fun!" His chants this time around are "don't be a hater"...and "you're a bigot"....and "be careful...if you don't give me free reign, I'll SUE you in COURT!"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What 'cunning, dark master' with a 'very smooth tongue' who has performed 'through the ages'.
> 
> C'mon, Silo....say it. You know you want to say it.
Click to expand...


I'll say it: EVIL... Which is manifested through the irrational species of reasoning known as relativism.  Evil is the force in nature which repels good.  

If ya want to see what evil looks like, find a mirror.



Skylar said:


> _"Because marriage isn't a free for all. It's an establishment primarily for the benefit of children. As such, we can predict from the lesbians in California drugging their 11 year old son to become a girl, and just the general underlying message to children of the gender opposite their gay "parents" that "your gender/you/ are disposable", gay pride parades and the LGBT veneration of Harvey Milk's sexuality, that gay marriage will harm children.
> So far 0% of LGBTs have spoken out publicly against any of those atrocities towards children. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as I told you, there are clearly more routes to a valid marriage than children.
Click to expand...


Sure are... 

Step one: talk a person of the opposite gender into marrying you.

Step two: Marry them.

Step three: Don't have children

End of path to valid marriage, without having children.



Skylar said:


> _Now we see already LGBTs trying to force their lifestyle [once their toe is in the door with "legal marriage"] onto pastors and other people of faith who are under a dire mandate [see Jude 1 in the New Testament] to not promote this lifestyle in any way shape or form. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, a problem with that narrative.
Click to expand...


_Color me _*shocked!  *

But hey... given the nature of evil, such would reasonably expect that such would 'have a problem' with truth.  I mean, given that where truth exist, evil cannot.




Skylar said:


> _Christianity doesn't advocate harsh treatment towards individual gays doing their thing in privacy. But it is very clear that once that lifestyle spills out of the bedroom and into the streets...and most certainly marriage...christians are to "earnestly contend for the faith" ...else risk an eternity in the Pit of Fire._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And after all the babble about the law, all the empty rhetoric regarding procreation.......*we get down to what actually motivates you: religion.*
Click to expand...

*
*
Irony... and what motivates you is the rejection of religion, which rejects your chosen 'lifestyle'... because religion is merely the recognition, respect, defense and adherence to natural law.  

You claim to respect science, but science is the study of nature... and the pursuit of a better understanding of the laws in nature which govern our lives.

One such law is represented by the standards which nature establishes through the creation of the viable environment that sustains our very lives.

One such standard is that which it designed into the physiological design of the human body.  The design which establishes that two genders serve to sustain the species... through their respective complimenting natures.  

Individuals who crave sexual gratification from those of their own gender, deviate from that standard; their sexuality being a perversion of the human sexual nature, deviant, abnormal and as such they exhibit tendencies wherein they will rationalize other natural standards, such as the standards intrinsic to reason, which speaks to the potential that they will suffer lapses in veracity... such people tend to disregard all manner of standards, such as that which governs the suitability and appropriateness of sexual expression.   Which is why such people are prone toward succumbing to sexual desire for children... more than one partner, drug and alcohol abuse and why they're disproportionally likely to contract venereal diseases and other maladies common to people of low, to no, moral character.

The encouragement of such behavior is foolish... as cultures which encourage such behavior, get A LOT OF IT... and culture's which realize a lot of low behavior: FAIL!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people assume that allowing gays liberty is forcing non gays into conformity.  Liberty is not the liberty to nail gays to the cross.  The group being harmed is gays... not heterosexuals.  Thus the bad guy in this situation is gay bashers... who are forcing the gays into conformity with their anti-christian bigoted hateful vile despicable discriminatory laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I totally agree with this. Equality under the law is vital. But we're talking about PA laws, whick aren't about allowing gays (or any other interest group) liberty. They're about targeting people with unpopular biases and limiting their liberty to associate, or not, with who they choose. They are the sheer opposite of equal protection, and fundamental violation of individual freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation?  Interesting.  I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's part of liberty, yeah.
> 
> What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Raping people is not liberty.
Click to expand...


Shunning people, in what you use for a mind, equates to FORCIBLE RAPE?  Wherein one person forces themselves into the body of another?

So when the Democrat float, in say the 4th of July Parade, comes by and I turn my back to them... you're saying that my turning my back to them is actually me raping them?

ROFLMNAO! 

That is ADORABLE!  I just adore watching socialist try to reasoning.  Sorta like watching a cat chase its tail.

OH!  And 'The Duke' ... as an avatar... Love it.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Indeed. But this calls out the very real conflict between equal rights and public accommodations laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please see my response from the last time you posted this exact phrase for a suitable reply.
Click to expand...


I didn't find it 'suitable', for the reasons I stated. You're the one refusing to address the debate. That's fine, it's your right, but please don't accuse me of evading the points you've raised. I oppose them and I've explained why.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people assume that allowing gays liberty is forcing non gays into conformity.  Liberty is not the liberty to nail gays to the cross.  The group being harmed is gays... not heterosexuals.  Thus the bad guy in this situation is gay bashers... who are forcing the gays into conformity with their anti-christian bigoted hateful vile despicable discriminatory laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I totally agree with this. Equality under the law is vital. But we're talking about PA laws, whick aren't about allowing gays (or any other interest group) liberty. They're about targeting people with unpopular biases and limiting their liberty to associate, or not, with who they choose. They are the sheer opposite of equal protection, and fundamental violation of individual freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation?  Interesting.  I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's part of liberty, yeah.
> 
> What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Raping people is not liberty.
Click to expand...


??? What are you talking about?


----------



## RKMBrown

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people assume that allowing gays liberty is forcing non gays into conformity.  Liberty is not the liberty to nail gays to the cross.  The group being harmed is gays... not heterosexuals.  Thus the bad guy in this situation is gay bashers... who are forcing the gays into conformity with their anti-christian bigoted hateful vile despicable discriminatory laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree with this. Equality under the law is vital. But we're talking about PA laws, whick aren't about allowing gays (or any other interest group) liberty. They're about targeting people with unpopular biases and limiting their liberty to associate, or not, with who they choose. They are the sheer opposite of equal protection, and fundamental violation of individual freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation?  Interesting.  I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's part of liberty, yeah.
> 
> What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Raping people is not liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shunning people, in what you use for a mind, equates to FORCIBLE RAPE?  Wherein one person forces themselves into the body of another?
> 
> So when the Democrat float, in say the 4th of July Parade, comes by and I turn my back to them... you're saying that my turning my back to them is actually me raping them?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> That is ADORABLE!  I just adore watching socialist try to reasoning.  Sorta like watching a cat chase its tail.
> 
> OH!  And 'The Duke' ... as an avatar... Love it.
Click to expand...

Hey dumb ass... a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape.  Yeah I like the Duke.  Oh yeah and fighting for the liberty of folks to have public accommodation... yeah that's a good fight. You don't want to sell to the public fine don't sell to the public.  Duh.


----------



## JakeStarkey

keys wants to create a moral fascist state, period.

He and Sil are indeed modern-day fascists that want to tell everyone else they have to live by their standards.

The ages old dark, evil master of sly cunning is named *Where_r_my_Keys *and aided by the minion *Silohuette.*


----------



## Skylar

> Really? Well, what I do is that where I claim a right to privacy, I sustain that right by keeping that which I rightfully claim as private: PRIVATE!
> 
> Because I recognize that where I claim something as private, but make such public, I forfeit my right to claim it as rightfully private.




That's another laughably false dichotomy. You sacrifice no right to privacy by making public your sexual orientation. If you declared you were straight, that doesn't mean that the police now have the authority to break into your home in the night to watch you and your wife have sex. Likewise, gays publicly acknowledging their sexual orientation and demanding equal recognition for their unions under marriage laws doesn't mean they sacrifice any right to freedom. Or the absurd 'sodomy laws' of Texas apply again.

The choice that you demand gays make.....they don't have to. They get both the right to privacy AND the right to marriage. Just as you do. As the rights they are demanding are the same as yours. 



> Because my sexual behavior comports with the natural design of the human species, I've not had my sexual desires outlawed.



Sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Ergo, nothing about a gay union has been outlawed, as the laws in question do not apply to anyone. Ending yet another pointless spasm of bigotry in its tracks and demonstrating yet again the irrelevance of your claims with the rights and freedoms of anyone under the law.



> See... we do not demand that others accept our behavior, because our behavior rests upon the recognition, respect, defense and adherence TO the laws of nature.



Save of course that your conception of the 'laws of nature' aren't a legal standard, nor are you their arbiters, nor do they have any exclusive relevance to marriage. As no product of your conception of the 'laws of nature' are required by anyone who gets married. *No one is required to have children or be able to have children in order to marry. *

You're insisting we invent a standard that doesn't exist, apply it only to gays, exempting every straight couple, and then use that standard as an excuse to strip gays and lesbians of fundamental rights.

Um, no. Why would we ever do that? It simply makes no sense. 



> You are absolutely correct. And just as I am required to comport myself within the standards of nature, they are required to do the same. Nature defines marriage by the standard of human biology, wherein one man and one woman join, analogous to sustainable coitus.



Your 'comporting yourself with the laws of nature' standard has nothing to do with the law. Nor any right or freedom. Rendering it irrelevant to any discussion of the rights or freedoms of anyone.



> What the sexual deviant is NOT rightfully entitled to do is to claim that which deviates from the standard, thus sustainable norm, IS NORMAL... as a means to influence those who may be ignorant of such, to accept their perverse, ABNORMAL sexuality, as NORMAL, who will then use that fraudulence, to mislead others, all as a means to 'feel better' about themselves to BE LEGITIMATE, without having to bear the burden of BEHAVING LEGITIMATELY.



You don't define what 'legitimate' sexual behavior is for anyone but yourself. Your argument is predicated on the fallacious assumption that the only valid reason a person could have sex is for procreation. That's simply not the case. There are a myriad of reasons.....as blow jobs, handjobs, sex toys, masturbation, vacetomies, birth control and old people having sex demonstrate elegantly. 

You're telling us what the purpose of sex *is to you. *And then laughably insisting that we and all law are all bound to whatever you decide. 

Smiling...we're really not. Nor is the law. And before you start babbling about 'the laws of nature', you aren't nature. Nor is your conception of 'the laws of nature' any part of our laws. Ending your argument twice before it even began.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree with this. Equality under the law is vital. But we're talking about PA laws, whick aren't about allowing gays (or any other interest group) liberty. They're about targeting people with unpopular biases and limiting their liberty to associate, or not, with who they choose. They are the sheer opposite of equal protection, and fundamental violation of individual freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation?  Interesting.  I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's part of liberty, yeah.
> 
> What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Raping people is not liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shunning people, in what you use for a mind, equates to FORCIBLE RAPE?  Wherein one person forces themselves into the body of another?
> 
> So when the Democrat float, in say the 4th of July Parade, comes by and I turn my back to them... you're saying that my turning my back to them is actually me raping them?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> That is ADORABLE!  I just adore watching socialist try to reasoning.  Sorta like watching a cat chase its tail.
> 
> OH!  And 'The Duke' ... as an avatar... Love it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dumb ass... a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape.  Yeah I like the Duke.  Oh yeah and fighting for the liberty of folks to have public accommodation... yeah that's a good fight. You don't want to sell to the public fine don't sell to the public.  Duh.
Click to expand...


Of course the irony of this is that it could never happen in a society where there was appreciable support for civil rights laws. Think about that. In a democracy, real minorities will _never_ be protected by legislation. They will only ever be protected by constitutional _limits_ on democratic legislation. You'll never see genuinely unpopular minorities protected by PA laws. And the irony deepens when you consider that, despite it's intent to limit the power of bigots, the precedent set by PA laws gives them the vehicle to inflict their biases on society via law.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

RKMBrown said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree with this. Equality under the law is vital. But we're talking about PA laws, whick aren't about allowing gays (or any other interest group) liberty. They're about targeting people with unpopular biases and limiting their liberty to associate, or not, with who they choose. They are the sheer opposite of equal protection, and fundamental violation of individual freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation?  Interesting.  I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's part of liberty, yeah.
> 
> What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Raping people is not liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shunning people, in what you use for a mind, equates to FORCIBLE RAPE?  Wherein one person forces themselves into the body of another?
> 
> So when the Democrat float, in say the 4th of July Parade, comes by and I turn my back to them... you're saying that my turning my back to them is actually me raping them?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> That is ADORABLE!  I just adore watching socialist try to reasoning.  Sorta like watching a cat chase its tail.
> 
> OH!  And 'The Duke' ... as an avatar... Love it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dumb ass... a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape.  Yeah I like the Duke.  Oh yeah and fighting for the liberty of folks to have public accommodation... yeah that's a good fight. You don't want to sell to the public fine don't sell to the public.  Duh.
Click to expand...


What in the *uck are you talking about?  

NO ONE is talking about starving homosexuals.  We're talking about sustaining the standards that define marriage... by enforcing the standard which INTENTIONALLY PRECLUDES THEM, because where it does NOT, the viability of the human race is injured, because to normalize that which nature has by the very design of the species: REJECTED is to subject the species to consequences that nature understood would reduce the likelihood that the species would prosper and survive.


"... running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter ..."

ROFLMNAO! 

Hysterical... (in every sense of the word)


----------



## Seawytch

The haters get more shrill with each marriage equality state. What will they do when it's all 50?


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation?  Interesting.  I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's part of liberty, yeah.
> 
> What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Raping people is not liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shunning people, in what you use for a mind, equates to FORCIBLE RAPE?  Wherein one person forces themselves into the body of another?
> 
> So when the Democrat float, in say the 4th of July Parade, comes by and I turn my back to them... you're saying that my turning my back to them is actually me raping them?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> That is ADORABLE!  I just adore watching socialist try to reasoning.  Sorta like watching a cat chase its tail.
> 
> OH!  And 'The Duke' ... as an avatar... Love it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dumb ass... a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape.  Yeah I like the Duke.  Oh yeah and fighting for the liberty of folks to have public accommodation... yeah that's a good fight. You don't want to sell to the public fine don't sell to the public.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the irony of this is that it could never happen in a society where there was appreciable support for civil rights laws. Think about that. In a democracy, real minorities will _never_ be protected by legislation. They will only ever be protected by constitutional _limits_ on democratic legislation. You'll never see genuinely unpopular minorities protected by PA laws. And the irony deepens when you consider that, despite it's intent to limit the power of bigots, the precedent set by PA laws gives them the vehicle to inflict their biases on society via law.
Click to expand...

These civil rights laws are for the most part unanimous and in each of the states and most of the ones we are talking about are state based PA laws.   But don't let that stop you from pointing out the irony of the federal PA issue.


----------



## RKMBrown

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation?  Interesting.  I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's part of liberty, yeah.
> 
> What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Raping people is not liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shunning people, in what you use for a mind, equates to FORCIBLE RAPE?  Wherein one person forces themselves into the body of another?
> 
> So when the Democrat float, in say the 4th of July Parade, comes by and I turn my back to them... you're saying that my turning my back to them is actually me raping them?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> That is ADORABLE!  I just adore watching socialist try to reasoning.  Sorta like watching a cat chase its tail.
> 
> OH!  And 'The Duke' ... as an avatar... Love it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dumb ass... a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape.  Yeah I like the Duke.  Oh yeah and fighting for the liberty of folks to have public accommodation... yeah that's a good fight. You don't want to sell to the public fine don't sell to the public.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the *uck are you talking about?
> 
> NO ONE is talking about starving homosexuals.  We're talking about sustaining the standards that define marriage... by enforcing the standard which INTENTIONALLY PRECLUDES THEM, because where it does NOT, the viability of the human race is injured, because to normalize that which nature has by the very design of the species: REJECTED is to subject the species to consequences that nature understood would reduce the likelihood that the species would prosper and survive.
> 
> 
> "... running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter ..."
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Hysterical... (in every sense of the word)
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't remember way back in the 70s when it was illegal to be gay in this country.


----------



## Skylar

> Yep... but only where someone finds a person of distinct gender, who agrees to marry them. Because MARRIAGE IS DEFINED BY NO LESS AN AUTHORITY THAN NATURE: AS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!



Marriage is defined by us, our laws and our constitution. As gay marriage in 30 of 50 states demonstrates rather undeniably. 

You 'authority of nature' argument has no relevance to the law. The freedoms, rights and privileges guaranteed by the constitution do. And if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you're going to need a very good reason and a compelling state interest.

Your personal opinion about 'nature' is neither. 



> The compelling interest for not accepting the lowering of the marriage standard to include that which nature excluded, rests in the viability of the culture, which is threatened by so doing, in that it accepts fraudulence as fact, which establishes the legal precedent that fraudulence must be accepted as fact. That is known as DELUSION and a culture cannot be sustained upon delusion.



Nature hasn't included or excluded anyone in any marriage....as we invented marriage. Not 'Nature'. The standards that you insist marriage are bound to, aren't. They have zero legal relevance. Nor even logically could be the exclusive basis of every marriage.....as no straight couple is required to have children or be able to have them. And none of the 25% of marriages that produce no children is invalidated. Plus, grandma and grandpa are still married even when they can no longer produce children.

None of which would be true if your assumptions were valid. There's clearly other criteria than procreation by which a valid marriage can be formed and maintained. 

Ending your argument yet again.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Where in the Constitution does it say "just some deviant sexual behaviors are equal to race" or "marriage is a loose arrangement granted to anyone and everyone who wishes to be married to anyone else?



Check the 9th amendment. A right need not be enumerated in the constitution to be reserved by the people.

And if you're curious if gays and lesbians are protected from discriminatory state laws, check out Romer V. Evans. Where our old friend Justice Kennedy performs a steady demolition on your entire basis of argument.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Really? Well, what I do is that where I claim a right to privacy, I sustain that right by keeping that which I rightfully claim as private: PRIVATE!
> 
> Because I recognize that where I claim something as private, but make such public, I forfeit my right to claim it as rightfully private.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's another laughably false dichotomy.
Click to expand...


There's nothing false about it.



Skylar said:


> You sacrifice no right to privacy by making public your sexual orientation.



Yes, when you make your sexual orientation public, you forfeit your right to privacy regarding your sexual orientation... 



Skylar said:


> Because my sexual behavior comports with the natural design of the human species, I've not had my sexual desires outlawed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sodomy laws are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


On the basis that one's sexual life is private... where one makes that sexual life public, demanding that others accept the underlying deviant behavior, demanding that behavior which incontestably deviates from sexual normality, be considered normal... THERE IS NO POTENTIAL FOR SUCH A RIGHT, THUS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR SUCH.



Skylar said:


> See... we do not demand that others accept our behavior, because our behavior rests upon the recognition, respect, defense and adherence TO the laws of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Save of course that your conception of the 'laws of nature' aren't a legal standard,
Click to expand...


No one has suggested that they are.  They're the basis on which legal standards rest, as natural law is objective... the essential basis for law to serve justice.



Skylar said:


> What the sexual deviant is NOT rightfully entitled to do is to claim that which deviates from the standard, thus sustainable norm, IS NORMAL... as a means to influence those who may be ignorant of such, to accept their perverse, ABNORMAL sexuality, as NORMAL, who will then use that fraudulence, to mislead others, all as a means to 'feel better' about themselves to BE LEGITIMATE, without having to bear the burden of BEHAVING LEGITIMATELY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't define what 'legitimate' sexual behavior is...
Click to expand...


True.   Nature defines what legitimate sexual behavior is.  And it does so SPECIFICALLY through the standards intrinsic to the physiological design of the human species.


----------



## Skylar

> The haters get more shrill with each marriage equality state. What will they do when it's all 50?



Its just a matter of time and the application of steady pressure. As you debunk all the excuses and half assed second tier arguments they have for why they believe what they do...

.....you're left with the real reasons. Silo and his book of Jude and 'fires of eternal damnation'.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Yep... but only where someone finds a person of distinct gender, who agrees to marry them. Because MARRIAGE IS DEFINED BY NO LESS AN AUTHORITY THAN NATURE: AS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is defined by us, our laws and our constitution. As gay marriage in 30 of 50 states demonstrates rather undeniably.
Click to expand...


False... Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... . As defined by the natural design of the human species.

And 30 of 50 states rejected lowering the marriage standard to provide for that which nature rejected from marriage, through the physiological design of humanity.

Socialist Insurgents in the US Federal Judiciary have attempted to overturn the LAW in those states.  Those states are appealing to the SCOTUS... which has opted to not hear the appeals until the US Justice Department has been returned to American control.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> The haters get more shrill with each marriage equality state. What will they do when it's all 50?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its just a matter of time and the application of steady pressure. As you debunk all the excuses and half assed second tier arguments they have for why they believe what they do...
> 
> .....you're left with the real reasons. Silo and his book of Jude and 'fires of eternal damnation'.
Click to expand...


What SPECIFIC 'excuses', do you 'feel' have been 'debunked'?

I ask because you're -0- for 301 in this thread.  If you'd like to give me links to other threads where you're engaged in the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, I'll happily roll over to those discussions and increase those losses in exponential terms.

Edit: 20 minutes, she's STILL ON-Line and she has NO MEANS to specify... which of course is the answer to the eternal question: "How can you know the person you're debating is a Leftist?"


----------



## JakeStarkey

Scalia discovering he is serving with 'socialist insurgents.'


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys considering the great problems of the day while in a drug induced haze.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

RKMBrown said:


> Clearly you don't remember way back in the 70s when it was illegal to be gay in this country.



I don't remember the 70s?

ROFLMNAO!  You truly are helpless.  

I should point out that I am trying to help the degenerates find a means to sustain the freedom they currently enjoy.

But YOU and they seem determined to push themselves upon the culture, until they're force the culture to eradicate them.  

If you think it can't or won't happen... you need to think about how those 'laws' you lament came to pass.  And here's a hint, it wasn't because all of the cultures before ours that accepted  sexual abnormality realized wonderment and profound success, cultural enlightenment and universal prosperity.  It was likely because they encountered some 'negative' consequences of the catastrophic variety.  See how that works?  

Fuck with people enough and they'll eventually fuck ya back.  Grab a clue Pilgrim... your promotin' evil of the Old Testament variety.  (You should get the book and see how it worked out for those folks.)


----------



## JakeStarkey

Proof that Sil and Where_r_my_Keys scream to the end of days without effect at all.


----------



## RKMBrown

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you don't remember way back in the 70s when it was illegal to be gay in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't remember the 70s?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  You truly are helpless.
Click to expand...

You are clearly a liar or an idiot. Which is it?

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where is a clearly a lying idiot.


----------



## RKMBrown

JakeStarkey said:


> Where is a clearly a lying idiot.


My bad... was giving him the benefit of doubt.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's part of liberty, yeah.
> 
> What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Raping people is not liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shunning people, in what you use for a mind, equates to FORCIBLE RAPE?  Wherein one person forces themselves into the body of another?
> 
> So when the Democrat float, in say the 4th of July Parade, comes by and I turn my back to them... you're saying that my turning my back to them is actually me raping them?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> That is ADORABLE!  I just adore watching socialist try to reasoning.  Sorta like watching a cat chase its tail.
> 
> OH!  And 'The Duke' ... as an avatar... Love it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dumb ass... a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape.  Yeah I like the Duke.  Oh yeah and fighting for the liberty of folks to have public accommodation... yeah that's a good fight. You don't want to sell to the public fine don't sell to the public.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the irony of this is that it could never happen in a society where there was appreciable support for civil rights laws. Think about that. In a democracy, real minorities will _never_ be protected by legislation. They will only ever be protected by constitutional _limits_ on democratic legislation. You'll never see genuinely unpopular minorities protected by PA laws. And the irony deepens when you consider that, despite it's intent to limit the power of bigots, the precedent set by PA laws gives them the vehicle to inflict their biases on society via law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These civil rights laws are for the most part unanimous and in each of the states and most of the ones we are talking about are state based PA laws.   But don't let that stop you from pointing out the irony of the federal PA issue.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## Skylar

> There's nothing false about it.



Oh, its obviously, ineptly, gloriously false.....as no gay person need choose one or the other. S*odomy laws are unconstitutional, making them illegal. Instantly rendering your false dichotomy meaningless flotsam. *As in no state is a gay person subject to criminal prosecution for coming out publicly about their sexuality. While marriage equality is expanding across the nation.

The only dichotomy that gays actually face is do they get married in their state. Or do they go to another State to have it done? As when gay marriage is legal in any state, its legal in every state due to the interstate reciprocity of contracts required by the constitution.

So get ready for married gay couples in your State! If they're not already there, they will be soon.



> Yes, when you make your sexual orientation public, you forfeit your right to privacy regarding your sexual orientation...



If you come out as gay, sodomy laws criminalizing your sexual practices don't suddenly become legal again. They're still unconstitutional and unenforcible relics of an ignorant age, having no applicability or jurisdiction anywhere in the United States.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about, expressing your desires rather than any understanding of the actual law. Read up on Lawrence V. Texas if your desire for reason ever outweighs your personal bigotry.

Lawrence and Garner v. Texas The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law



> On the basis that one's sexual life is private... where one makes that sexual life public, demanding that others accept the underlying deviant behavior, demanding that behavior which incontestably deviates from sexual normality, be considered normal... THERE IS NO POTENTIAL FOR SUCH A RIGHT, THUS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR SUCH.



Wrong. It was three different basis. First, on the basis that the acts occurred in a *private dwelling*. Which, of course it still does. If a gay man wants to walk with a feather boa in the middle of a gay pride parade singing 'Its Raining Men' in his best Ru Paul impression, he's untouchable by sodomy laws for any sex he and his partner have in their own home.

Second, it was based on their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.

Third, it was found that even the *existence* of such sodomy laws violated the rights of homosexuals as they were unequally applied, were discriminatory toward gays and  lesbians and demeaned their dignity.

Getting married or announcing one's sexuality doesn't change the protection granted *anyone* from unwarranted government intrusion into their dwellings or other private places. Nor does it magically grant the government the the authority to intervene in conduct that gays and lesbians have a full right to engage in.

Rendering your false dichotomy just another piece of poorly thought through flotsam of no particular relevance to the law or the rights of anyone.


----------



## Skylar

> True. Nature defines what legitimate sexual behavior is. And it does so SPECIFICALLY through the standards intrinsic to the physiological design of the human species.



You don't speak for nature. And nature doesn't have a thing to day about the 'legitimacy' of any sexual act. These are your value judgments based on your personal opinion. Which has no legal relevance.

There are many, many reasons to have sex. You acknowledge only one: conception. Your refusal to acknowledge any other reason a person might have sex has no effect on the existence of those reasons. As your personal opinion has no relevance to anyone but you. The other reasons still exist. Blow jobs, hand jobs, condoms, birth control, the belly method, old people having sex....none result in conception. And none are either 'legitimate' or 'fraudulent'. They simply are.

Your entire argument is predicated on us accepting your value judgments as 1) objectively authoritative 2) legally relevant. 

They're neither. Leaving you with nothing but a bucket load of your own opinions mixed with a heaping mound of legal irrelevance.


----------



## Skylar

> I'll say it: EVIL... Which is manifested through the irrational species of reasoning known as relativism. Evil is the force in nature which repels good.
> 
> If ya want to see what evil looks like, find a mirror.



Save of course that breaking into the homes of gay people to arrest them for consensual sex isn't 'good'. Nor is denying gays and lesbians the right to marry 'good' based on standards that apply to no one. 

You may consider anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do to be 'evil'. But your opinion doesn't define morality anymore than it defines the law.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Raping people is not liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shunning people, in what you use for a mind, equates to FORCIBLE RAPE?  Wherein one person forces themselves into the body of another?
> 
> So when the Democrat float, in say the 4th of July Parade, comes by and I turn my back to them... you're saying that my turning my back to them is actually me raping them?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> That is ADORABLE!  I just adore watching socialist try to reasoning.  Sorta like watching a cat chase its tail.
> 
> OH!  And 'The Duke' ... as an avatar... Love it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dumb ass... a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape.  Yeah I like the Duke.  Oh yeah and fighting for the liberty of folks to have public accommodation... yeah that's a good fight. You don't want to sell to the public fine don't sell to the public.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the irony of this is that it could never happen in a society where there was appreciable support for civil rights laws. Think about that. In a democracy, real minorities will _never_ be protected by legislation. They will only ever be protected by constitutional _limits_ on democratic legislation. You'll never see genuinely unpopular minorities protected by PA laws. And the irony deepens when you consider that, despite it's intent to limit the power of bigots, the precedent set by PA laws gives them the vehicle to inflict their biases on society via law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These civil rights laws are for the most part unanimous and in each of the states and most of the ones we are talking about are state based PA laws.   But don't let that stop you from pointing out the irony of the federal PA issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.
Click to expand...

I  got that part.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

RKMBrown said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you don't remember way back in the 70s when it was illegal to be gay in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't remember the 70s?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  You truly are helpless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are clearly a liar or an idiot. Which is it?
> 
> Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


So a link to the oracle of all Leftist knowledge, proves that I am a liar and an idiot, or that the United States tried to starve homosexuals in the 1970s?  

(OH!  Just to be fair to you, given your the disadvantage; your link doesn't prove a dam' thing... but it shouldn't given its irrelevance to anything actually being debate, here.  I hope that helps.)

But Pilgrim, I want you to know that it' clear to me that you're doin' the best you can!  And no one can take THAT from ya.


----------



## RKMBrown

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you don't remember way back in the 70s when it was illegal to be gay in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't remember the 70s?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  You truly are helpless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are clearly a liar or an idiot. Which is it?
> 
> Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a link to the oracle of all Leftist knowledge, proves that I am a liar and an idiot, or that the United States tried to starve homosexuals in the 1970s?
> 
> (OH!  Just to be fair to you, given your the disadvantage; your link doesn't prove a dam' thing... but it shouldn't given its irrelevance to anything actually being debate, here.  I hope that helps.)
> 
> But Pilgrim, I want you to know that it' clear to me that you're doin' the best you can!  And no one can take THAT from ya.
Click to expand...

Try to keep up... I know it's hard for the mentally challenged.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> I'll say it: EVIL... Which is manifested through the irrational species of reasoning known as relativism. Evil is the force in nature which repels good.
> 
> If ya want to see what evil looks like, find a mirror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Save of course that breaking into the homes of gay people to arrest them for consensual sex isn't 'good'.
Click to expand...


Who is breaking into the homes and arresting people for having sex?  



Skylar said:


> Nor is denying gays and lesbians the right to marry 'good' based on standards that apply to no one.



Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  But, because we in the United States do not discriminate against sexual deviants, until, inevitably, they molest a child, at which time we kill them... 



Skylar said:


> You may consider anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do to be 'evil'.



DO I?  In reality, you're conflating what I 'do' with what you NEED to project that I do...   Which is what one would reasonably expect of evil.



Skylar said:


> But your opinion doesn't define morality anymore than it defines the law.



True, Natural Law and the means to reason objectively and soundly so as so to be able to observe those laws, is what defines morality.  Which sits as the basis for legitimate law.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Try to keep up... I know it's hard for the mentally challenged.



_You_ would know all about that.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shunning people, in what you use for a mind, equates to FORCIBLE RAPE?  Wherein one person forces themselves into the body of another?
> 
> So when the Democrat float, in say the 4th of July Parade, comes by and I turn my back to them... you're saying that my turning my back to them is actually me raping them?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> That is ADORABLE!  I just adore watching socialist try to reasoning.  Sorta like watching a cat chase its tail.
> 
> OH!  And 'The Duke' ... as an avatar... Love it.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumb ass... a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape.  Yeah I like the Duke.  Oh yeah and fighting for the liberty of folks to have public accommodation... yeah that's a good fight. You don't want to sell to the public fine don't sell to the public.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the irony of this is that it could never happen in a society where there was appreciable support for civil rights laws. Think about that. In a democracy, real minorities will _never_ be protected by legislation. They will only ever be protected by constitutional _limits_ on democratic legislation. You'll never see genuinely unpopular minorities protected by PA laws. And the irony deepens when you consider that, despite it's intent to limit the power of bigots, the precedent set by PA laws gives them the vehicle to inflict their biases on society via law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These civil rights laws are for the most part unanimous and in each of the states and most of the ones we are talking about are state based PA laws.   But don't let that stop you from pointing out the irony of the federal PA issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I  got that part.
Click to expand...


You don't want to clarify? My point is that the suggestion that without PA laws, minorities would be run out of the country is preposterous. If a minority was really that unpopular, they would never be extended protection via PA laws. That's the irony of using democratic legislation to protect minorities. The only minorities that get such protection won't need it. And the real persecuted minorities never will.


----------



## Skylar

> Who is breaking into the homes and arresting people for having sex?



No one, now that its been ruled unconstitutional. You know, the half of your false dichotomy that doesn't apply anywhere in the US, to anyone?

But before those heinous laws were overturned, police were breaking into people's homes to arrest folks for engaging in consensual sexual activity. In the 2000s, it was Texas and their Sodomy laws. In the 60s, it was Virginia and their bans on interracial sex. Both on the grounds that such relations were 'unnatural'. 

It didn't work out well for the State in either case. With the USSC overturning the unjust and discriminatory laws, rendering them illegal to enforce. As they should be.



> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. But, because we in the United States do not discriminate against sexual deviants, until, inevitably, they molest a child, at which time we kill them...



Says you. The law in 30 of 50 states says otherwise. Every circuit court to hear the issue has said otherwise. Clearly you citing yourself doesn't amount to much. 

Get ready for married gay people in your State. Their marriages either are or will be just as legally valid as yours, convey the same rights and privileges as yours and be protected the same as yours. As the rights gay seek are the exact same rights you already have.



> True, Natural Law and the means to reason objectively and soundly so as so to be able to observe those laws, is what defines morality. Which sits as the basis for legitimate law.



'Natural law' doesn't say anything about 'good or evil' related to sex. Those are your subjective value judgments based on your personal opinions. They have no relevance to the law, morality, objective truth, or any of the other criteria you fallaciously claim infallible interpretation of.

Its just you, citing you. And your feelings don't define anyone else's rights. 

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

RKMBrown said:


> ...  it's hard for the mentally challenged.



Well, that does appear to be the case.  I wish there was more that could be done for you folks.  It breaks my heart to see you struggle so.


----------



## Skylar

> What SPECIFIC 'excuses', do you 'feel' have been 'debunked'?


That marriage requires the ability to procreate. Or that children are in any way exclusively relevant to marriage.

That Windsor ruled that gay marriage bans are constitutional.

That the States have the authority to strip people of their individual rights with a simple majority vote.

The false dichotomies that gays must either remain secret about their sexual orientation or that sodomy laws criminalizing their behavior come back into force.

The nonsense idea that gay marriage in anyway effects straight marriage, robs straights of  right, or effects straights in any meaningful way.

And the adorable but uselessly misinformed idea that you are immune to any law you disagree with. 

All of these claims are debunked nonsense. And as they are stripped away, we get more and more anti-gay vitriol, naked bigotry and more babble about religion. Which may motivate some in their opposition to gay marriage, but is laughably irrelevant to the rights of gays and lesbians to be married under the law.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumb ass... a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape.  Yeah I like the Duke.  Oh yeah and fighting for the liberty of folks to have public accommodation... yeah that's a good fight. You don't want to sell to the public fine don't sell to the public.  Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the irony of this is that it could never happen in a society where there was appreciable support for civil rights laws. Think about that. In a democracy, real minorities will _never_ be protected by legislation. They will only ever be protected by constitutional _limits_ on democratic legislation. You'll never see genuinely unpopular minorities protected by PA laws. And the irony deepens when you consider that, despite it's intent to limit the power of bigots, the precedent set by PA laws gives them the vehicle to inflict their biases on society via law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These civil rights laws are for the most part unanimous and in each of the states and most of the ones we are talking about are state based PA laws.   But don't let that stop you from pointing out the irony of the federal PA issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I  got that part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't want to clarify? My point is that the suggestion that without PA laws, minorities would be run out of the country is preposterous. If a minority was really that unpopular, they would never be extended protection via PA laws. That's the irony of using democratic legislation to protect minorities. The only minorities that get such protection won't need it. And the real persecuted minorities never will.
Click to expand...

People that deny bigotry really are not kidding anyone.  The bigotry is real.  If you want to live in a "civilized" society there have to be some rules.  You can't run people over with your car, you can't run them off the road, you can't speed, and yes you can't discriminate regarding what races are allowed to drive on a public road or eat in a public dinner.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Who is breaking into the homes and arresting people for having sex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one ...
Click to expand...


Yet, you asserted, as fact, that such was the case, a fraudulence, advanced in a deceitful attempt to influence the ignorant.  My goodness... isn't it remarkable how consistently your behavior maps that precisely, with that which one would reasonably expect of evil. 



Skylar said:


> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. But, because we in the United States do not discriminate against sexual deviants, until, inevitably, they molest a child, at which time we kill them...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you.
Click to expand...


Well I do, that's true, but I only say it because that is what nature demonstrates through the intrinsic design of human phsyiology.  Which otherwise stands as irrefutable fact, but all except the suffering the most profound sociopathy.



Skylar said:


> The law in 30 of 50 states says otherwise.



False, no less than 31 states in the United States have constitutions which define marriage as Nature Defines it. 



Skylar said:


> Every circuit court to hear the issue has said otherwise.



Well one of the downsides to Relativism is that as a result if its axiomatic rejections of objectivity, where it finds power, it fails to service justice.  And when justice is not served, the adjudicators responsible for such become quite irrelevant, as you're presently discovering.




Skylar said:


> Get ready for married gay people



Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  I am a citizen of Florida and we have many sexually abnormal people who are married here.   And have had since the inception of the state.  We're quite comfortable with them.  It's the price one pays for living in a free society.  We keep as a close an eye on them as possible, doing what we can to preclude them from spending any time with children.  But inevitably, we find from time to time that they've taken positions of trust and molested children.  

At which time, more often than not we find them after they've taken their own lives...  and where they haven't we help them along, where we can.



Skylar said:


> True, Natural Law and the means to reason objectively and soundly so as so to be able to observe those laws, is what defines morality. Which sits as the basis for legitimate law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Natural law' doesn't say anything about 'good or evil' related to sex.
Click to expand...


It actually does... your ignorance of such, sadly for your argument, doesn't change that fact.





Skylar said:


> Those are your subjective value judgments based on your personal opinions.


  Those are the soundly reasoned conclusions of men who observed those laws centuries before I came along.   And there is nothing even potentially subjective about them.  If you had the slightest understanding of the meaning of such, you'd know that.

There is no potential advantage to anyone to recognize nature's law.  In truth, recognizing, respecting, defending and adhering to these laws is hard... it requires discipline and constant vigil. 

Which is why you and the cult of perversion reject them.  And such is the nature of evil, thus what one should reasonably expect, from it.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the irony of this is that it could never happen in a society where there was appreciable support for civil rights laws. Think about that. In a democracy, real minorities will _never_ be protected by legislation. They will only ever be protected by constitutional _limits_ on democratic legislation. You'll never see genuinely unpopular minorities protected by PA laws. And the irony deepens when you consider that, despite it's intent to limit the power of bigots, the precedent set by PA laws gives them the vehicle to inflict their biases on society via law.
> 
> 
> 
> These civil rights laws are for the most part unanimous and in each of the states and most of the ones we are talking about are state based PA laws.   But don't let that stop you from pointing out the irony of the federal PA issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I  got that part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't want to clarify? My point is that the suggestion that without PA laws, minorities would be run out of the country is preposterous. If a minority was really that unpopular, they would never be extended protection via PA laws. That's the irony of using democratic legislation to protect minorities. The only minorities that get such protection won't need it. And the real persecuted minorities never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People that deny bigotry really are not kidding anyone.  The bigotry is real.  If you want to live in a "civilized" society there have to be some rules.  You can't run people over with your car, you can't run them off the road, you can't speed, and yes you can't discriminate regarding what races are allowed to drive on a public road or eat in a public dinner.
Click to expand...


C'mon. Stow the strawmen and address my arguments. I'm not denying bigotry exists. Morons on this thread are proving its true. I'm disputing that fact as a justification for PA laws. In particular, I'm calling bullshit on the alarmist nonsense that protected minorities will be "run out of the country" if such laws are repealed. The only bigotry PA laws ever impact is bigotry that's on the way out anyway. All they've done is paved the way for corporatist government where our rights are no longer equal for all individuals, but instead assigned by class, based on how much political clout a given interest group wields. That's really bad government, and we'll regret it in the long run.


----------



## guno




----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> These civil rights laws are for the most part unanimous and in each of the states and most of the ones we are talking about are state based PA laws.   But don't let that stop you from pointing out the irony of the federal PA issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I  got that part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't want to clarify? My point is that the suggestion that without PA laws, minorities would be run out of the country is preposterous. If a minority was really that unpopular, they would never be extended protection via PA laws. That's the irony of using democratic legislation to protect minorities. The only minorities that get such protection won't need it. And the real persecuted minorities never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People that deny bigotry really are not kidding anyone.  The bigotry is real.  If you want to live in a "civilized" society there have to be some rules.  You can't run people over with your car, you can't run them off the road, you can't speed, and yes you can't discriminate regarding what races are allowed to drive on a public road or eat in a public dinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon. Stow the strawmen and address my arguments. I'm not denying bigotry exists. Morons on this thread are proving its true. I'm disputing that fact as a justification for PA laws. In particular, I'm calling bullshit on the alarmist nonsense that protected minorities will be "run out of the country" if such laws are repealed. The only bigotry PA laws ever impact is bigotry that's on the way out anyway. All they've done is paved the way for corporatist government where our rights are no longer equal for all individuals, but instead assigned by class, based on how much political clout a given interest group wields. That's really bad government, and we'll regret it in the long run.
Click to expand...

... aight I was using writer's license when I said they'd be run oft...

and yes, it is ironic that only in a country that has seen the "error" of it's bigoted ways will the bigots be punished.  Yes we've come a long way.  But no it's not over yet, whites are being discriminated against in government related jobs, black and women leaders in republican positions are constantly discriminated against by democrats and the media, gays are still being discriminated against, ... and what's the law that makes discrimination illegal?  PA  So you saying we don't need em any more... nah... we still need these laws, the battle against discrimination is not even close to being over.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> What SPECIFIC 'excuses', do you 'feel' have been 'debunked'?
> 
> 
> 
> That marriage requires the ability to procreate.
Click to expand...

 No such claim has been made.



Skylar said:


> Or that children are in any way exclusively relevant to marriage.


  No such claim has been made.



Skylar said:


> That Windsor ruled that gay marriage bans are constitutional.


  There's no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.  Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.   As a result, it is impossible for such a 'ban' to exist. Therefore, any discussions relevant to such, would be, quite axiomatically... irrelevant.



Skylar said:


> That the States have the authority to strip people of their individual rights with a simple majority vote.



No such claim has been made. 



Skylar said:


> The false dichotomies that gays must either remain secret about their sexual orientation or that sodomy laws criminalizing their behavior come back into force.



There is no dichotomy.  The laws forbidding sodomy were lifted SPECIFICALLY on the grounds that the sexual lives of individuals are private.   That is a FACT.

Where homosexuals can not keep their perversion private and where homosexuals demand that their deviant sexuality is anywhere remotely akin to that common to normal human physiology, they most certainly can EXPECT that it is INEVITABLE that sodomy laws will return.  Of course by that time, there will be no one who has any desire to define themselves as a homosexual, as the war which comes in the wake of the obama regime, due to the economic collapse of the United States will likely see most homosexuals in the United States falling victim to an angry culture who sees their illicit abuse of the judiciary in the attempt to force perversion upon their children.

So... don't sweat it, nature has always worked these things out.  



Skylar said:


> The nonsense idea that gay marriage in anyway effects straight marriage, robs straights of  right, or effects straights in any meaningful way.



Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  Therefore, there is no such thing as 'gay-marriage' thus there is no potential threat to anyone, except the demented who pretend otherwise, and abuse the judiciary to force their perversion upon the children of the innocent.  Sadly, most if not all of them will not recognize the threat until they are consumed by it.  But hey.. _that's evil for ya!  
_
Thus, no such claim was made.



Skylar said:


> And the adorable but uselessly misinformed idea that you are immune to any law you disagree with.



No such claim was made.



Skylar said:


> All of these claims are debunked...



ROFL!  So you make up claims so that you can claim that you 'debunked' them?

LOL!  How positively sad?


----------



## TemplarKormac

RKMBrown said:


> a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape.



Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on, hooold on. We are? And it is? Do you know what its like to be raped? Do you see any gays living in squalor on the streets? I'm afraid not.

None of them are being robbed of making money or buying food, water, or procuring shelter. They have every last one of basic human rights. I oppose homosexual marriage, but I would be the last person on earth to deny them such basic needs.

If that was a hypothetical statement, then by all means ignore my response; if not however, then it is the most patently outrageous statement I've seen in a while, and would be a surprise coming from someone such as yourself. You have no evidence to prove that the US is doing such things you described to gays.


----------



## Skylar

> Yet, you asserted, as fact, that such was the case, a fraudulence, advanced in a deceitful attempt to influence the ignorant. My goodness... isn't it remarkable how consistently your behavior maps that precisely, with that which one would reasonably expect of evil.



I asserted that breaking into peoples homes to arrest them for consensual sex between adults isn't an example of 'good'.



> Well I do, that's true, but I only say it because that is what nature demonstrates through the intrinsic design of human phsysiology.


And what exclusive relevance does nature or the 'intrisinc design of human physiology' have with marriage? As there's no product of either that are required for a marriage to be valid. This is where your argument keeps breaking. No one contends that gays and lesbians can have children within their union or that many straight couples can't.

The question is....so what? Having children or being able to have children isn't a requirement of any marriage. So why would we invent a standard that doesn't exist, and then apply it only to gay people for the purpose of keeping them out of marriage?

It makes no sense. Its pointlessly discriminatory, flagrantly violates rights, and serves no state interest. Strike 1, 2 and 3 for the validity of a law under Romer V. Evans.



> Well one of the downsides to Relativism is that as a result if its axiomatic rejections of objectivity, where it finds power, it fails to service justice. And when justice is not served, the adjudicators responsible for such become quite irrelevant, as you're presently discovering.



Your argument isn't based on objectivity. It based on you pretending to be an infallible arbiter to whatever authority you claim to speak for. Nature, Morality, Objective Truth, whatever. And you're not. So every appeal to authority you offer breaks the moment you make it.....as you neither speak for any such authorities, nor authoritatively interpret them.

You're just a dude with a personal opinion. The epitome of subjectivity. Who insists that his subjective opinions are Objective Universal Natural Laws.

Smiling.....Um, nope. What else have you got?

Me? I've got legal relevance. Arguments that are more likely to result in legal rulings that I believe are just and right. I've got case law, I've got the results of one court case after another demonstrating the strength of my arguments which are being argued by proponents of gay marriage. I also have evidence that my arguments are persuasive and compelling, as gay marriage support leads by a margin of 12 to 19 points. 

And I also have real world results: 30 of 50 states in which gay marriage is legal. These are demonstrable results that your conceptoin of 'natural law' doesn't define marriage. But we do. As your conception of marriage isn't the law. Mine is.

Do you have any argument that isn't based on us accepting you as an infallible arbiter? 



> Those are the soundly reasoned conclusions of men who observed those laws centuries before I came along. And there is nothing even potentially subjective about them. If you had the slightest understanding of the meaning of such, you'd know that.



Slavery was the law for centuries before you came along. So was bans on interracial sex. So was monarchy. So was racism. So was religious persecution. Your argument 'if it exists, its justified' reasoning breaks over and over and over in the annuals of history. You need a valid reason WHY your position is valid. And the fact that it has existed isn't one of them.

Take your claims of natural law regarding the purpose of sex. Procreation is definitely a purpose of sex. But your argument breaks when you assume its the ONLY purpose of sex. There are many, many others. Pleasure, to create intimacy, stress relief, traditions. Your argument would be like saying that the only purpose of eating is to fuel your body. But I can think of many more: I love the flavor of certain foods. I like to cook. I enjoy having meals with friends. I like to try new things. I find eating relaxing. I sometimes eat to help me sleep. And I'm hardly alone in any of these (and many more) additional purposes.
*
But your conception of 'natural law' can't incorporate any of this. *You stop at your own singular purpose. And then insist that no one else can ever have a valid alternative. That they must adhere to why *you* do something. Or they are illegitimate, fraudulent, morally wrong, unnatural and evil.

*Laughing.......you're not actually the objective arbiter of any of that. *You're just offering us your opinions based on your conception and your belief of natural law. And no one cares. Every one has their own opinions. Everyone has their own conceptions. You've presented absolutely nothing that demonstrates that ONLY your purpose is valid and all others are fraudulent. 

And that's just one of the ways your argument keeps breaking.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.
> 
> 
> 
> I  got that part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't want to clarify? My point is that the suggestion that without PA laws, minorities would be run out of the country is preposterous. If a minority was really that unpopular, they would never be extended protection via PA laws. That's the irony of using democratic legislation to protect minorities. The only minorities that get such protection won't need it. And the real persecuted minorities never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People that deny bigotry really are not kidding anyone.  The bigotry is real.  If you want to live in a "civilized" society there have to be some rules.  You can't run people over with your car, you can't run them off the road, you can't speed, and yes you can't discriminate regarding what races are allowed to drive on a public road or eat in a public dinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon. Stow the strawmen and address my arguments. I'm not denying bigotry exists. Morons on this thread are proving its true. I'm disputing that fact as a justification for PA laws. In particular, I'm calling bullshit on the alarmist nonsense that protected minorities will be "run out of the country" if such laws are repealed. The only bigotry PA laws ever impact is bigotry that's on the way out anyway. All they've done is paved the way for corporatist government where our rights are no longer equal for all individuals, but instead assigned by class, based on how much political clout a given interest group wields. That's really bad government, and we'll regret it in the long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... aight I was using writer's license when I said they'd be run oft...
> 
> and yes, it is ironic that only in a country that has seen the "error" of it's bigoted ways will the bigots be punished.  Yes we've come a long way.  But no it's not over yet, whites are being discriminated against in government related jobs, black and women leaders in republican positions are constantly discriminated against by democrats and the media, gays are still being discriminated against, ... and what's the law that makes discrimination illegal?  PA  So you saying we don't need em any more... nah... we still need these laws, the battle against discrimination is not even close to being over.
Click to expand...


Let's cut to the chase. What we're really debating is the question of whether discrimination is something government should be 'battling' in the first place. And by 'discrimination' we mean: bigotry we don't like. Because most bigotry we _do_ like. People discriminate against others for irrational reasons all the time. But do we really want government in charge of second-guessing our personal preferences? 

And how far do we want to extend this kind of oversight? Right now, it's limited to employment and "public accommodations", but what principle supports that limit? If government can mandate our hiring decisions, if they can prohibit public accommodations from discriminating, why not consumers? Should consumers be allowed to boycott businesses for "bigoted" reasons? Should government step in to override our other public associations? Should they tell us who to date? Who to hang out with? If it's wrong for a bigot to refuse to bake a cake for people he doesn't like, isn't it also wrong for him to refuse to befriend them for spurious reasons?


----------



## Skylar

> No such claim has been made.



So then the issue is resolved. If you don't need kids or the ability to have kids, then your 'standard human biological' standard ceases to have any particular relevance to a valid marriage. As any marriage would be just as valid without it.



> There's no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.



The law says otherwise. And marriage equality is a legal question. 



> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.



....and same sex unions in 30 of 50 states. Not much you can do about that one. The actual law defines marriage. Not your conception of 'natural law'. And since marriage equality is all about recognition of gay and lesbians marriages under the law, its the only standard that's relevant.



> As a result, it is impossible for such a 'ban' to exist. Therefore, any discussions relevant to such, would be, quite axiomatically... irrelevant.



Then it looks like we have a win-win for everyone. You continue to insist that any discussion of gay marriage or gay marriage bans is irrelevant. And I'll continue to advocate gay marriage equality, with the courts continuing to side with my reasoning and logic. And the rights of gays to enter into same sex marriages continuing to spread across the nation!

*Works for me. *I don't need your agreement for marriage equality in the law. I just need the law's. The courts are more than willing to discuss the topic. And more than willing to recognize gay marriage exists. 



> There is no dichotomy.



Oh, obviously it is. As gays can have their privacy and get married. As they are in 30 of 50 states. You say they can't do it. They demonstrate the irrelevance of your claims by doing it anyway. As you have no idea what you're talking about.



> The laws forbidding sodomy were lifted SPECIFICALLY on the grounds that the sexual lives of individuals are private. That is a FACT.



Nope. Not even close. The Lawerence case wasn't decided on one basis. It was decided on three. First, on the basis that the acts occurred in a *private dwelling*. Which, of course it still does. If a gay man wants to walk with a feather boa in the middle of a gay pride parade singing 'Its Raining Men' in his best Ru Paul impression, he's untouchable by sodomy laws for any sex he and his partner have in their own home. 

Second, it was based on their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.

Third, it was found that even the *existence* of such sodomy laws violated the rights of homosexuals as they were unequally applied, were discriminatory toward gays and lesbians and demeaned their dignity.

Getting married or announcing one's sexuality doesn't change the protection granted *anyone* from unwarranted government intrusion into their dwellings or other private places. Nor does it magically grant the government the the authority to intervene in conduct that gays and lesbians have a full right to engage in.

Rendering your false dichotomy just another piece of poorly thought through flotsam of no particular relevance to the law or the rights of anyone.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I  got that part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to clarify? My point is that the suggestion that without PA laws, minorities would be run out of the country is preposterous. If a minority was really that unpopular, they would never be extended protection via PA laws. That's the irony of using democratic legislation to protect minorities. The only minorities that get such protection won't need it. And the real persecuted minorities never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People that deny bigotry really are not kidding anyone.  The bigotry is real.  If you want to live in a "civilized" society there have to be some rules.  You can't run people over with your car, you can't run them off the road, you can't speed, and yes you can't discriminate regarding what races are allowed to drive on a public road or eat in a public dinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon. Stow the strawmen and address my arguments. I'm not denying bigotry exists. Morons on this thread are proving its true. I'm disputing that fact as a justification for PA laws. In particular, I'm calling bullshit on the alarmist nonsense that protected minorities will be "run out of the country" if such laws are repealed. The only bigotry PA laws ever impact is bigotry that's on the way out anyway. All they've done is paved the way for corporatist government where our rights are no longer equal for all individuals, but instead assigned by class, based on how much political clout a given interest group wields. That's really bad government, and we'll regret it in the long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... aight I was using writer's license when I said they'd be run oft...
> 
> and yes, it is ironic that only in a country that has seen the "error" of it's bigoted ways will the bigots be punished.  Yes we've come a long way.  But no it's not over yet, whites are being discriminated against in government related jobs, black and women leaders in republican positions are constantly discriminated against by democrats and the media, gays are still being discriminated against, ... and what's the law that makes discrimination illegal?  PA  So you saying we don't need em any more... nah... we still need these laws, the battle against discrimination is not even close to being over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase. What we're really debating is the question of whether discrimination is something government should be 'battling' in the first place. And by 'discrimination' we mean: bigotry we don't like. Because most bigotry we _do_ like. People discriminate against others for irrational reasons all the time. But do we really want government in charge of second-guessing our personal preferences?
> 
> And how far do we want to extend this kind of oversight? Right now, it's limited to employment and "public accommodations", but what principle supports that limit? If government can mandate our hiring decisions, if they can prohibit public accommodations from discriminating, why not consumers? Should consumers be allowed to boycott businesses for "bigoted" reasons? Should government step in to override our other public associations? Should they tell us who to date? Who to hang out with? If it's wrong for a bigot to refuse to bake a cake for people he doesn't like, isn't it also wrong for him to refuse to befriend them for spurious reasons?
Click to expand...

Liberty is the principle.  Liberty to purchase products using public tender in the public marketplace. Your argument that restricting your right to RESTRICT THE LIBERTY OF OTHERS  TO PURCHASE PRODUCTS IN THE PUBLIC MARKETPLACE is a slippery slope, is a slippery slope fallacy.  Having the liberty to purchase products using public tender in the public marketplace has nothing to do with who you date.  If you don't want to sell to the public at large.... don't sell to the public at large, it's not that hard a concept.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Yet, you asserted, as fact, that such was the case, a fraudulence, advanced in a deceitful attempt to influence the ignorant. My goodness... isn't it remarkable how consistently your behavior maps that precisely, with that which one would reasonably expect of evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asserted that breaking into peoples homes to arrest them for consensual sex between adults isn't an example of 'good'.
Click to expand...


I know what ya did.  I was there... and what you did was you asserted that such was happening.  You're now claiming that you asserted that something that does not exist, is not good. 

Which is about right for you, given that you claim that what does not exist IS good.



Skylar said:


> Well I do, that's true, but I only say it because that is what nature demonstrates through the intrinsic design of human phsysiology.
> 
> 
> 
> And what exclusive relevance does nature or the 'intrisinc design of human physiology' have with marriage?
Click to expand...


You're asking me what the creation of nature has to do with nature?  And what the joining of one man and one woman, analogous to coitus, wherein the sustained union, provides for the security of the female during gestation and a stable environment to nurture and train their progeny... has to do with human physiology, which is central to the foundation of the institution?

ROFL.... one of these days we truly have GOT to establish a standard intellectual minimums required to participate in this board.  It would save SO MUCH TIME, not to mention space on the server.




Skylar said:


> As there's no product of either that are required for a marriage to be valid.



False...  that people who do not desire children or who cannot bear children marry, does not change the fact that nature designed the institution for such and absent that standard, there is no point to marriage, thus such serves no legitimate purpose, therefore absent such, marriage is illegitimate, just like homosexuality.  

Which is the purpose for the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality NEED FOR MARRIAGE... they hope that marriage will bring them that which they can never have, as long as they relent to their deviant cravings.  

Sadly, the secret to the legitimacy of Marriage rests in the standards that precludes participation by the illegitimate.



Skylar said:


> This is where your argument keeps breaking. No one contends that gays and lesbians can have children within their union or that many straight couples can't.



I've never argued such... ever, anywhere. 




Skylar said:


> The question is....so what?



The answer to which is that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... 



Skylar said:


> It makes no sense. Its pointlessly discriminatory, flagrantly violates rights, and serves no state interest.



Standards serve one purpose and one purpose only: TO MAINTAIN THE LEGITIMACY OF THE INSTITUTION BY PRECLUDING THOSE WHO CANNOT MEET THE STANDARD FROM PARTICIPATING: OKA: THE POINT OF THE INTRINSIC DISCRIMINATION.

The purpose it serves to maintain decency, truth, justice and soundly reasoned morality.  The interests it serves for the individuals who comprise the citizenry, is that it maintains the integrity of the citizenry, precluding the deceit, fraud and ignorance inherent in The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality; that which is otherwise false, from being accepted as truth. 



Skylar said:


> Well one of the downsides to Relativism is that as a result if its axiomatic rejections of objectivity, where it finds power, it fails to service justice. And when justice is not served, the adjudicators responsible for such become quite irrelevant, as you're presently discovering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument isn't based on objectivity.
Click to expand...


Nonsense...



Skylar said:


> So every appeal to authority you offer breaks the moment you make it.



Appeals to authority are only fallacious when the appeal is to a misleading authority... and where the argument depends wholly upon the appeal. 

Such is not present in any position I've ever offered.  My argument rests entirely upon demonstrable evidence.  Human physiology is readily apparent, that such is the result of eons of trial and error... providing for the observable, inarguable purposes to which I refer and that such is the result of nature's design ... is SELF EVIDENT and otherwise incontestable.

Your desperate need to reject natural law and the authority on which human rights rest, undermines your entire position. Absent the inherent authority of nature, human rights are merely temporal privilege resting upon the whimsy of whatever power happens to be at any given moment.  A circumstance in which there is no potential value.



Skylar said:


> ...as you neither speak for any such authorities, nor authoritatively interpret them.



ROFLMNAO!  Now THAT is a textbook demonstration of an argument from misleading authority!  Congrats.  While sound reasoning never requires outside validation, it is always nice. 



Skylar said:


> You're just a dude with a personal opinion. The epitome of subjectivity. Who insists that his subjective opinions are Objective Universal Natural Laws.



LOL!  T W O IN A R O W !

That is hysterical... (In every sense of the word).



Skylar said:


> I've got legal relevance.



Do ya now?  Then why would you keep it such a tightly guarded secret?  All you've spewed so far is irrational irrelevance.



Skylar said:


> Arguments that are more likely to result in legal rulings that I believe are just and right. I've got case law, I've got the results of one court case after another demonstrating the strength of my arguments which are being argued by proponents of gay marriage. I also have evidence that my arguments are persuasive and compelling, as gay marriage support leads by a margin of 12 to 19 points.



Really?  Then I wonder why it is that you folks need socialist insurgents on the judiciary to overturn the actual legislative votes which consistently show that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality enjoys support from an insignificant minority.  Of course, that's an objective poll... that counts.  

And after you people screwed the pooch here of late... when such comes to vote again... and it most definitely will, I doubt you're going to enjoy those polls.  



Skylar said:


> And I also have real world results: 30 of 50 states in which gay marriage is legal.



Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  And you do not enjoy a legislative majority in any state except the handful of lost causes.  The rest of the states have either set the natural definition of marriage in their constitutions or overtly banned civil unions between people of that same gender.

Your gloat implies a popular majority... which does not exist.  The "legality" rest entirely upon Leftists in the judiciary which 'over-ruled' LAW which was long debated in public meetings and legislative sessions, the result of which is the REJECTION of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality and the deceit, fraud and ignorance which it represents.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> No such claim has been made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then the issue is resolved. If you don't need kids or the ability to have kids, then your 'standard human biological' standard ceases to have any particular relevance to a valid marriage. As any marriage would be just as valid without it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law says otherwise. And marriage equality is a legal question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ....and same sex unions in 30 of 50 states. Not much you can do about that one. The actual law defines marriage. Not your conception of 'natural law'. And since marriage equality is all about recognition of gay and lesbians marriages under the law, its the only standard that's relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a result, it is impossible for such a 'ban' to exist. Therefore, any discussions relevant to such, would be, quite axiomatically... irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it looks like we have a win-win for everyone. You continue to insist that any discussion of gay marriage or gay marriage bans is irrelevant. And I'll continue to advocate gay marriage equality, with the courts continuing to side with my reasoning and logic. And the rights of gays to enter into same sex marriages continuing to spread across the nation!
> 
> *Works for me. *I don't need your agreement for marriage equality in the law. I just need the law's. The courts are more than willing to discuss the topic. And more than willing to recognize gay marriage exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no dichotomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, obviously it is. As gays can have their privacy and get married. As they are in 30 of 50 states. You say they can't do it. They demonstrate the irrelevance of your claims by doing it anyway. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws forbidding sodomy were lifted SPECIFICALLY on the grounds that the sexual lives of individuals are private. That is a FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Not even close. The Lawerence case wasn't decided on one basis. It was decided on three. First, on the basis that the acts occurred in a *private dwelling*. Which, of course it still does. If a gay man wants to walk with a feather boa in the middle of a gay pride parade singing 'Its Raining Men' in his best Ru Paul impression, he's untouchable by sodomy laws for any sex he and his partner have in their own home.
> 
> Second, it was based on their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.
> 
> Third, it was found that even the *existence* of such sodomy laws violated the rights of homosexuals as they were unequally applied, were discriminatory toward gays and lesbians and demeaned their dignity.
> 
> Getting married or announcing one's sexuality doesn't change the protection granted *anyone* from unwarranted government intrusion into their dwellings or other private places. Nor does it magically grant the government the the authority to intervene in conduct that gays and lesbians have a full right to engage in.
> 
> Rendering your false dichotomy just another piece of poorly thought through flotsam of no particular relevance to the law or the rights of anyone.
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

RKMBrown said:


> Your argument that restricting your right to RESTRICT THE LIBERTY OF OTHERS  TO PURCHASE PRODUCTS IN THE PUBLIC MARKETPLACE is a slippery slope, is a slippery slope fallacy.



Slippery slope arguments are ONLY fallacious where there is not a demonstrable slope in play... 

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality rest entirely upon and is comprised EXCLUSIVELY of: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance.  

The issue is perversion, sexual deviancy which has less to do with bedroom behavior and more to do with sound moral character.

Normalizing deceit is a fools errand and that such requires individuals who recognize such as abhorrent be placed into servitude is only the FIRST INCONTESTABLE SIGN THAT SUCH IS EVIL and as such: THOROUGHLY INTOLERABLE.

It is the duty of every American to reject ANY service to ANYONE celebrating the normalization of sexual abnormality.  To tell the government to shove their edict up their collective, to ignore all sanctions, refuse attendance to all mandated hearings and otherwise reject the authority of any enforcement agency, while jealously defending their means to exercise their rights.


----------



## RKMBrown

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument that restricting your right to RESTRICT THE LIBERTY OF OTHERS  TO PURCHASE PRODUCTS IN THE PUBLIC MARKETPLACE is a slippery slope, is a slippery slope fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slippery slope arguments are ONLY fallacious where there is not a demonstrable slope in play...
> 
> The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality rest entirely upon and is comprised EXCLUSIVELY of: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance.
> 
> The issue is perversion, sexual deviancy which has less to do with bedroom behavior and more to do with sound moral character.
> 
> Normalizing deceit is a fools errand and that such requires individuals who recognize such as abhorrent be placed into servitude is only the FIRST INCONTESTABLE SIGN THAT SUCH IS EVIL and as such: THOROUGHLY INTOLERABLE.
> 
> It is the duty of every American to reject ANY service to ANYONE celebrating the normalization of sexual abnormality.  To tell the government to shove their edict up their collective, to ignore all sanctions, refuse attendance to all mandated hearings and otherwise reject the authority of any enforcement agency, while jealously defending their means to exercise their rights.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's the same argument that was used to defend jim crow.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to clarify? My point is that the suggestion that without PA laws, minorities would be run out of the country is preposterous. If a minority was really that unpopular, they would never be extended protection via PA laws. That's the irony of using democratic legislation to protect minorities. The only minorities that get such protection won't need it. And the real persecuted minorities never will.
> 
> 
> 
> People that deny bigotry really are not kidding anyone.  The bigotry is real.  If you want to live in a "civilized" society there have to be some rules.  You can't run people over with your car, you can't run them off the road, you can't speed, and yes you can't discriminate regarding what races are allowed to drive on a public road or eat in a public dinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon. Stow the strawmen and address my arguments. I'm not denying bigotry exists. Morons on this thread are proving its true. I'm disputing that fact as a justification for PA laws. In particular, I'm calling bullshit on the alarmist nonsense that protected minorities will be "run out of the country" if such laws are repealed. The only bigotry PA laws ever impact is bigotry that's on the way out anyway. All they've done is paved the way for corporatist government where our rights are no longer equal for all individuals, but instead assigned by class, based on how much political clout a given interest group wields. That's really bad government, and we'll regret it in the long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... aight I was using writer's license when I said they'd be run oft...
> 
> and yes, it is ironic that only in a country that has seen the "error" of it's bigoted ways will the bigots be punished.  Yes we've come a long way.  But no it's not over yet, whites are being discriminated against in government related jobs, black and women leaders in republican positions are constantly discriminated against by democrats and the media, gays are still being discriminated against, ... and what's the law that makes discrimination illegal?  PA  So you saying we don't need em any more... nah... we still need these laws, the battle against discrimination is not even close to being over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase. What we're really debating is the question of whether discrimination is something government should be 'battling' in the first place. And by 'discrimination' we mean: bigotry we don't like. Because most bigotry we _do_ like. People discriminate against others for irrational reasons all the time. But do we really want government in charge of second-guessing our personal preferences?
> 
> And how far do we want to extend this kind of oversight? Right now, it's limited to employment and "public accommodations", but what principle supports that limit? If government can mandate our hiring decisions, if they can prohibit public accommodations from discriminating, why not consumers? Should consumers be allowed to boycott businesses for "bigoted" reasons? Should government step in to override our other public associations? Should they tell us who to date? Who to hang out with? If it's wrong for a bigot to refuse to bake a cake for people he doesn't like, isn't it also wrong for him to refuse to befriend them for spurious reasons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberty is the principle.  Liberty to purchase products using public tender in the public marketplace. Your argument that restricting your right to RESTRICT THE LIBERTY OF OTHERS  TO PURCHASE PRODUCTS IN THE PUBLIC MARKETPLACE is a slippery slope, is a slippery slope fallacy.  Having the liberty to purchase products using public tender in the public marketplace has nothing to do with who you date.  If you don't want to sell to the public at large.... don't sell to the public at large, it's not that hard a concept.
Click to expand...


It's not a fallacy if it's a proven progression. And it's proven every time "protected class" is added to the civil rights roster. This corporatism, not liberal democracy.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> People that deny bigotry really are not kidding anyone.  The bigotry is real.  If you want to live in a "civilized" society there have to be some rules.  You can't run people over with your car, you can't run them off the road, you can't speed, and yes you can't discriminate regarding what races are allowed to drive on a public road or eat in a public dinner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon. Stow the strawmen and address my arguments. I'm not denying bigotry exists. Morons on this thread are proving its true. I'm disputing that fact as a justification for PA laws. In particular, I'm calling bullshit on the alarmist nonsense that protected minorities will be "run out of the country" if such laws are repealed. The only bigotry PA laws ever impact is bigotry that's on the way out anyway. All they've done is paved the way for corporatist government where our rights are no longer equal for all individuals, but instead assigned by class, based on how much political clout a given interest group wields. That's really bad government, and we'll regret it in the long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... aight I was using writer's license when I said they'd be run oft...
> 
> and yes, it is ironic that only in a country that has seen the "error" of it's bigoted ways will the bigots be punished.  Yes we've come a long way.  But no it's not over yet, whites are being discriminated against in government related jobs, black and women leaders in republican positions are constantly discriminated against by democrats and the media, gays are still being discriminated against, ... and what's the law that makes discrimination illegal?  PA  So you saying we don't need em any more... nah... we still need these laws, the battle against discrimination is not even close to being over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase. What we're really debating is the question of whether discrimination is something government should be 'battling' in the first place. And by 'discrimination' we mean: bigotry we don't like. Because most bigotry we _do_ like. People discriminate against others for irrational reasons all the time. But do we really want government in charge of second-guessing our personal preferences?
> 
> And how far do we want to extend this kind of oversight? Right now, it's limited to employment and "public accommodations", but what principle supports that limit? If government can mandate our hiring decisions, if they can prohibit public accommodations from discriminating, why not consumers? Should consumers be allowed to boycott businesses for "bigoted" reasons? Should government step in to override our other public associations? Should they tell us who to date? Who to hang out with? If it's wrong for a bigot to refuse to bake a cake for people he doesn't like, isn't it also wrong for him to refuse to befriend them for spurious reasons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberty is the principle.  Liberty to purchase products using public tender in the public marketplace. Your argument that restricting your right to RESTRICT THE LIBERTY OF OTHERS  TO PURCHASE PRODUCTS IN THE PUBLIC MARKETPLACE is a slippery slope, is a slippery slope fallacy.  Having the liberty to purchase products using public tender in the public marketplace has nothing to do with who you date.  If you don't want to sell to the public at large.... don't sell to the public at large, it's not that hard a concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a fallacy if it's a proven progression. And it's proven every time "protected class" is added to the civil rights roster. This corporatism, not liberal democracy.
Click to expand...

progression of liberty? WTF are you talking about?


----------



## Skylar

> I know what ya did. I was there... and what you did was you asserted that such was happening. You're now claiming that you asserted that something that does not exist, is not good.



I didn't give a time frame of occurrence. I said simply that police breaking into people's home and arresting them for consensual sex it wasn't an a good thing. The rest is your imagination.



> You're asking me what the creation of nature has to do with nature?



More accurately, I asked you what exclusive relevance does nature or the 'intrinsic design of human physiology' have with marriage.



> And what the joining of one man and one woman, analogous to coitus, wherein the sustained union, provides for the security of the female during gestation and a stable environment to nurture and train their progeny... has to do with human physiology, which is central to the foundation of the institution?


Given that no marriage requires progeny or the ability to have them, what exclusive relevance does your conception of 'intrinsic design of human physiology' have with the legal institution of marriage? So far you've described nothing that is required to have a valid marriage.

Children can the purpose of a marriage. But they don't have to be. Given that straight couples can get married and never have children....there are clearly other purposes that can be served in union and form the basis of a valid marriage. For your definitions to be 'universal', they have to be ONLY possible purpose that marriage can service, the only possible reason people would be married.

And as 1 in 4 marriages never produce children, that's clearly not the case. This is where your argument keeps breaking. You identify A purpose....and then insist that its the only possible one. And that assertion simply isn't so. There are many other purposes: companionship, adoption, legal and economic benefit, health insurance, property rights, and a myriad of other personal reasons.
*
Your 'sole purpose' isn't a requirement of any marriage.* Why then would it be a factor to exclude gays and lesbians? How can they fail to meet a standard that applies to no one? Explain it to us.



> False... that people who do not desire children or who cannot bear children marry, does not change the fact that nature designed the institution for such and absent that standard, there is no point to marriage, thus such serves no legitimate purpose, therefore absent such, marriage is illegitimate, just like homosexuality.



Married couples that have no children or can have no children establish, incontrovertibly, that there are other bases for a valid marraige than children. As their marriages are perfectly valid and children play no part in them. Given that children aren't necessary for any valid marriage, by what criteria would you exclude gays and lesbians?

There is no reason. Your have yet to establish that the validity of marriage is served ONLY by children or the ability to have them. And without that exclusivity, your argument lacks any compelling basis for exclusion of those who don't meet such a standard. As 1 in 4 marriages fail to do now.



> The answer to which is that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...



So you fervently believe. But what relevance does your belief have with the law, or the right of gays and lesbians to be married under the law? Logically, you've established no exclusive purpose of marriage with your 'biology standard'. With childless couples demonstrating elegantly that no such exclusive purpose exists. So.....what else have you got?

Your belief that marriage is only a man and a woman.........and your belief. Which is exquisitely subjective. And has no relevance to anyone else's rights.



> Standards serve one purpose and one purpose only: TO MAINTAIN THE LEGITIMACY OF THE INSTITUTION BY PRECLUDING THOSE WHO CANNOT MEET THE STANDARD FROM PARTICIPATING: OKA: THE POINT OF THE INTRINSIC DISCRIMINATION.



*Its the same problem you have above: your assumption that the only legitimate marriages are those that produce children or can produce children. And no such exclusive purpose exists.* Not logically, not rationally, and not legally. As no one is required to have children or be able to have the for their marriages to be legitimate.

For your claims to be valid, you need to establish 1) procreation is the purpose of marriage 2) procreation is the exclusive purpose of marraige. And you've been able to factually establish neither. Where the validity of marriages of childless couples and those who can have no children establish factually that there are other purposes that can establish a valid marriage. Else none of their marriages would be valid.

So coming or going, your argument fails. As the foundational assumptions its based upon are unproven. And the validity of marriages of childless couples disproves your assumptions.

And kicking a dead horse, marriage is a man-made institution, it can mean whatever we decide it means. We recognize marriage as a right. And we also recognize the rights of gays and lesbians as being protected under our constitution. Thus, if you're going to deny them a right, you need a very compelling state interest. And you don't have one. As none of you 'biological purpose' claims have any legal validity or are recognized as such by the federal courts.

So you fail your own standards.....and laughably fail the law's.



> Nonsense...



Of course your argument lacks objectivity. 'Nature' doesn't say if anything is 'moral' or 'immoral'. You do. Nature doesn't 'despise' anything. You do. These are your value judgements, subjectively applied based on your personal moral codes. Which you're more than welcome to. They just have nothing to do with anyone else.

Your feelings are irrelevant to the application of anyone else's rights. Get used to the idea.



> Appeals to authority are only fallacious when the appeal is to a misleading authority... and where the argument depends wholly upon the appeal.



Your entire argument is predicated on us accepting that you're the infallible arbiter of nature, the 'laws of nature', the purpose of marriage, morality and a variety of other topics. You're not an infallible arbiter of any of these things. And without that status, your arguments are mere opinion.

You've got nothing but appeals to authority. Authorities that you neither represent nor are an authortive interpreter of. Rendering your entire argument pristinely subjective. And your subjective beliefs have no relevance to someone else's rights.



> Do ya now? Then why would you keep it such a tightly guarded secret? All you've spewed so far is irrational irrelevance.



Of course. The arguments I've made are the same made in court case after court case in defense of gay marriage. And in 50 of 52 instances, the federal courts have found those arguments relevant, persuasive, and compelling. My arguments have the advantage of legal relevance. As the same sentiments I've expressed here in terms of the value of rights, the lack of a state interest in denying marriage to gays and lesbians, the lack of any requirement for procreation or the ability to procreate......can be found in the authoritative federal court rulings that have over turned gay marriage bans in State after State.

Which is why gay marriage is now legal in 30 of 50 States. And why that record is likely to increase as time goes on. My arguments work in court. Yours don't.

And as marriage equality is all about equal recognition of marriage for gays and lesbians under the law, the legal standards are the only relevant ones.[/quote][/quote]


----------



## Skylar

> Local leadership in Seattle put in place this year a theme based on Ezekiel 34:16, and set out to "seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and bind up that which was broken" within its boundaries. The outreach began with a direct mail letter, signed by the leadership of the Washington Park Ward, and mailed directly to over 900 inactive Mormons -- and included Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood, home to many of the city's LGBT locals. The letter's message: Please come back.
> 
> The letter itself and portions of it made the rounds in the press and on social media -- creating quite a buzz both in the Mormon and the LGBT communities.
> 
> Contrary to some reports, the initiative driven by Seattle leadership does not sidestep official Church doctrine, which has not changed. Local leaders are given a great deal of flexibility to decide how best to serve their members. Church discipline for anyone (gay, straight or anywhere in between) who does not align with the Church's Law of Chastity is a decision left to local authority. And in Seattle, the focus is not on discipline -- but Christlike love and inclusion, and emphasizes God's second greatest commandment: Love thy neighbor as thyself.
> 
> Seattle Mormon Leadership to LGBT Members You Are Welcome Here Mitch Mayne



With all the hateful babble on this board about 'despising' homosexuality and how they are 'repugnant' and 'abhorrent'.....its nice to see some Christians with a message of love, inclusion and welcome for the LGBT community.

Kudos to you Seattle Mormons. Your first approach to gay marriage was clearly a gutterball.... but you're doing a decent job of picking up the spare.


----------



## Skylar

> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...



So you believe. Your beliefs are yours. They have no relevance to the rights and freedoms of anyone else.

The law in 30 of 50 states says otherwise. And since marriage equality is about recognition of the validity of gay and lesbian marriages under the law.....the legal standard is the only one that's relevant.


----------



## Skylar

> As a result, it is impossible for such a 'ban' to exist. Therefore, any discussions relevant to such, would be, quite axiomatically... irrelevant.



Then it looks like we have a win-win for everyone. You continue to insist that any discussion of gay marriage or gay marriage bans is irrelevant. And I'll continue to advocate gay marriage equality, with the courts continuing to side with my reasoning and logic. And the rights of gays to enter into same sex marriages continuing to spread across the nation!

*Works for me. *I don't need your agreement for marriage equality in the law. I just need the law's. The courts are more than willing to discuss the topic. And more than willing to recognize gay marriage exists.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such claim has been made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then the issue is resolved. If you don't need kids or the ability to have kids, then your 'standard human biological' standard ceases to have any particular relevance to a valid marriage. As any marriage would be just as valid without it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law says otherwise. And marriage equality is a legal question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ....and same sex unions in 30 of 50 states. Not much you can do about that one. The actual law defines marriage. Not your conception of 'natural law'. And since marriage equality is all about recognition of gay and lesbians marriages under the law, its the only standard that's relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a result, it is impossible for such a 'ban' to exist. Therefore, any discussions relevant to such, would be, quite axiomatically... irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it looks like we have a win-win for everyone. You continue to insist that any discussion of gay marriage or gay marriage bans is irrelevant. And I'll continue to advocate gay marriage equality, with the courts continuing to side with my reasoning and logic. And the rights of gays to enter into same sex marriages continuing to spread across the nation!
> 
> *Works for me. *I don't need your agreement for marriage equality in the law. I just need the law's. The courts are more than willing to discuss the topic. And more than willing to recognize gay marriage exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no dichotomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, obviously it is. As gays can have their privacy and get married. As they are in 30 of 50 states. You say they can't do it. They demonstrate the irrelevance of your claims by doing it anyway. As you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws forbidding sodomy were lifted SPECIFICALLY on the grounds that the sexual lives of individuals are private. That is a FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Not even close. The Lawerence case wasn't decided on one basis. It was decided on three. First, on the basis that the acts occurred in a *private dwelling*. Which, of course it still does. If a gay man wants to walk with a feather boa in the middle of a gay pride parade singing 'Its Raining Men' in his best Ru Paul impression, he's untouchable by sodomy laws for any sex he and his partner have in their own home.
> 
> Second, it was based on their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.
> 
> Third, it was found that even the *existence* of such sodomy laws violated the rights of homosexuals as they were unequally applied, were discriminatory toward gays and lesbians and demeaned their dignity.
> 
> Getting married or announcing one's sexuality doesn't change the protection granted *anyone* from unwarranted government intrusion into their dwellings or other private places. Nor does it magically grant the government the the authority to intervene in conduct that gays and lesbians have a full right to engage in.
> 
> Rendering your false dichotomy just another piece of poorly thought through flotsam of no particular relevance to the law or the rights of anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...
Click to expand...


The law says that that definition is only partially correct, in 31 states and the District of Columbia.


----------



## Syriusly

Essentially no one 'publicizes' how they have sex.

The homophobic bigots like to say that 'homosexuals' somehow give up their rights because they tell the world that they are attracted to the same gender.

That is no the same thing as telling everyone how they have sex. When I go to a wedding of a man and woman, I do not spend my time thinking that they are announcing to the world that they are going to be putting a penis in a vagina that night- or wonder if the new husband will be getting a BJ. 

Somehow though for homophobes- when it comes to gay relations and gay marriage- pretty much all they think about is a guy sticking his penis in some other guys anus....which is really odd since half of homosexuals are lesbians.......

We all have the right to private consensual sex between adults free from government interference.  In my experience the ones who object most to homosexuals- really aren't very happy that heterosexuals are having sex either but they seem to be very upset that homosexuals seem to be having way too much fun.

It is a combination of Puritanism(its a sin to have fun) and fear of anal rape. 

And really bizarre.


----------



## Skylar

> Normalizing deceit is a fools errand and that such requires individuals who recognize such as abhorrent be placed into servitude is only the FIRST INCONTESTABLE SIGN THAT SUCH IS EVIL and as such: THOROUGHLY INTOLERABLE.



Um, what 'deceit'. I'm not sure that words means what you think it means. 

And who is being placed into 'servitude'? You do realize that if a gay couple gets married....nothing actually happens to you, right? You don't lose any rights, your marriage doesn't become any more or less valid, there's no effect on you. You have every right the day before they got married that you do after.



> The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality rest entirely upon and is comprised EXCLUSIVELY of: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance.



What 'fraud'? "Ignorance' of what? For someone so adamant, you certainly seem eager to talk around your argument. 



> It is the duty of every American to reject ANY service to ANYONE celebrating the normalization of sexual abnormality.


 
Odd, you don't define any duties for any American. So that goes right out the window. And gay marriage is an economic bonanza! Gays have a larger amount of disposable income on average and tend to spend at least as much on their weddings as straight couples. Businesses are competing for the chance to work for them. 

And there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.



> To tell the government to shove their edict up their collective, to ignore all sanctions, refuse attendance to all mandated hearings and otherwise reject the authority of any enforcement agency, while jealously defending their means to exercise their rights.



Ah, more Sovereign Citizen nonsense. Where you pretend that only the laws you consent to apply to you. Yeah, that hasn't worked out so well for your ilk in the past, has it. Remember Ed and Elaine Brown? They said the same thing. Now how did that turn out again?

Think on it while you 'jealously defend your means of exercising your rights'.


----------



## JakeStarkey

What a bunch of tom foolery from the natural morality gang.

They can believe it, but the can't deceive with it.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> What a bunch of tom foolery from the natural morality gang.
> 
> They can believe it, but the can't deceive with it.


The importance isn't your skewed and subjective thoughts on what is moral.  The importance in a democracy is that over 80% of the voters in USMB's largest poll [most popular/most important] say they think gay marriage shouldn't be mainstreamed/forced upon churches.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your poll was not worth spit, dear.

Almost no one believes churches should perform gay marriages, which means nothing in itself about marriage equality, because the growing majority (and among Xers and Millennials huge majorities) oppose your anti marriage equality stance.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> What a bunch of tom foolery from the natural morality gang.
> 
> They can believe it, but the can't deceive with it.



Its not a very compelling argument. As it requires that we accept them as infallible arbiters of anything they choose to discuss. Including such grand topics as 'objective truth', 'natural law' and 'morality'.

And generally speaking, when your argument has collapsed so utterly that you're left with nothing but to try and desperately convince those around you that YOU define objective moral truth........you're rhetorically fucked. As your entire argument collapses if your audience refuses to accept your claims of infallibility. And barring a great big Pope hat or set of Golden Plates, they almost always do.


----------



## Skylar

> he importance isn't your skewed and subjective thoughts on what is moral. The importance in a democracy is that over 80% of the voters in USMB's largest poll [most popular/most important] say they think gay marriage shouldn't be mainstreamed/forced upon churches.



And who here has said that gay marriage should be forced on churches? I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. I think Seawitch could see that argument from where she was standing in advocating fines for for-profit corporations that perform weddings professionally if they refuse to serve gays and lesbians. But those aren't churches. And there are no such fines.

You blunder is in projecting your informal straw poll as having any particular relevance to support for gay marriage. As you've done numerous times. Such projection fails utterly on multiple points.

First, the poll doesn't ask about the legality of gay marriage. Making any conclusions on the poll in relation to gay marriage support hopelessly speculative.

Second, its a straw poll. And straw polls are notoriously unreliable. Just ask Ron Paul supporters.....who pushed Paul to the top of virtually every straw poll. But couldn't carry a single state for their candidate. Straw polls draw only interested parties. And these parties can vote more than once. Neither of which results in reliable measurements of the populous at large.

Third, your polling sample is too small. There are 140 folks that voted. That's too small for any credible national poll. Worse, we don't know how many unique votes that was, as folks can vote multiple times. So your polling sample could be far, far smaller.

Fourth, your straw poll is singular. Meaning that even if it asked about gay marriage legality (which it doesn't), it would be an outlier. There are literally dozens of polls showing local and national support for gay marriage leading by double digits. Each of which actually asks about the support of gay marriage. Each with larger polling sizes. Each with random samples that can only vote once. And each supporting the other, with dozens of polls showing roughly the same result.


----------



## JakeStarkey

They will now come back with the natural morality and the consequences of the cosmos arguments.  Again.


----------



## Skylar

> They will now come back with the natural morality and the consequences of the cosmos arguments. Again.



Let them. Grand cosmos arguments have no relevance to legal outcomes.Marriage equality is about equality under the law. Which is why only the legal standards are relevant.

All the claims of 'objective moral natural law' and 'eternal fires of damnation' jiggery pokery I leave to them.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a bunch of tom foolery from the natural morality gang.
> 
> They can believe it, but the can't deceive with it.
> 
> 
> 
> The importance isn't your skewed and subjective thoughts on what is moral.  The importance in a democracy is that over 80% of the voters in USMB's largest poll [most popular/most important] say they think gay marriage shouldn't be mainstreamed/forced upon churches.
Click to expand...


LOL...

Silhouette posts

Silhouettes lies.

Goal!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

RKMBrown said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument that restricting your right to RESTRICT THE LIBERTY OF OTHERS  TO PURCHASE PRODUCTS IN THE PUBLIC MARKETPLACE is a slippery slope, is a slippery slope fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slippery slope arguments are ONLY fallacious where there is not a demonstrable slope in play...
> 
> The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality rest entirely upon and is comprised EXCLUSIVELY of: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance.
> 
> The issue is perversion, sexual deviancy which has less to do with bedroom behavior and more to do with sound moral character.
> 
> Normalizing deceit is a fools errand and that such requires individuals who recognize such as abhorrent be placed into servitude is only the FIRST INCONTESTABLE SIGN THAT SUCH IS EVIL and as such: THOROUGHLY INTOLERABLE.
> 
> It is the duty of every American to reject ANY service to ANYONE celebrating the normalization of sexual abnormality.  To tell the government to shove their edict up their collective, to ignore all sanctions, refuse attendance to all mandated hearings and otherwise reject the authority of any enforcement agency, while jealously defending their means to exercise their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's the same argument that was used to defend jim crow.
Click to expand...




ROFLMNAO!   THAT is a profound demonstration of clinical delusion you've got there.

Sadly, I have fairly high standards for those with whom I am willing to debate... and while it is true that this discussion had required me to curve qualifications for contributors who've come to oppose reason, you simply do not possess anywhere near the minimal cognitive acuity necessary to make the cut.

As a result, you are hereby sentenced to "Life in Ignore".  Say hi to the idiots for me.  Don't lead them astray, as I do not miss them, and I trust you understand that I hold you in no greater disdain... . 

Buh Bye...


----------



## RKMBrown

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument that restricting your right to RESTRICT THE LIBERTY OF OTHERS  TO PURCHASE PRODUCTS IN THE PUBLIC MARKETPLACE is a slippery slope, is a slippery slope fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slippery slope arguments are ONLY fallacious where there is not a demonstrable slope in play...
> 
> The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality rest entirely upon and is comprised EXCLUSIVELY of: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance.
> 
> The issue is perversion, sexual deviancy which has less to do with bedroom behavior and more to do with sound moral character.
> 
> Normalizing deceit is a fools errand and that such requires individuals who recognize such as abhorrent be placed into servitude is only the FIRST INCONTESTABLE SIGN THAT SUCH IS EVIL and as such: THOROUGHLY INTOLERABLE.
> 
> It is the duty of every American to reject ANY service to ANYONE celebrating the normalization of sexual abnormality.  To tell the government to shove their edict up their collective, to ignore all sanctions, refuse attendance to all mandated hearings and otherwise reject the authority of any enforcement agency, while jealously defending their means to exercise their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's the same argument that was used to defend jim crow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!   THAT is a profound demonstration of clinical delusion you've got there.
> 
> Sadly, I have fairly high standards for those with whom I am willing to debate... and while it is true that this discussion had required me to curve qualifications for contributors who've come to oppose reason, you simply do not possess anywhere near the minimal cognitive acuity necessary to make the cut.
> 
> As a result, you are hereby sentenced to "Life in Ignore".  Say hi to the idiots for me.  Don't lead them astray, as I do not miss them, and I trust you understand that I hold you in no greater disdain... .
> 
> Buh Bye...
Click to expand...

bye bye girlie boy don't let the door hit you on your way out ya bigoted POS..


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> No such claim has been made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then the issue is resolved. If you don't need kids or the ability to have kids, then your 'standard human biological' standard ceases to have any particular relevance to a valid marriage. As any marriage would be just as valid without it.
Click to expand...


Your conflating the purpose of marriage and the subsequent defining standards, with some precedent in exceptions which otherwise qualifies for infinite exceptions. 

I've said for years that any reasonable compromise will be used by the Left as a justification to force unreasonable compromises; which is the first best reason to NEVER compromise with the UNREASONABLE and that LEFT-think axiomatically REJECTS REASON; thus are incapable of being "reasonable".

And while sound reasoning never requires outside validation, it is always nice when it happens.



> There's no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.



By God THAT's BRILLIANT!



> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.



ANOTHER BRILLIANT POINT!



> As a result, it is impossible for such a 'ban' to exist. Therefore, any discussions relevant to such, would be, quite axiomatically... irrelevant.



Genius



> There is no dichotomy.



That needs context... but it feels right.



> The laws forbidding sodomy were lifted SPECIFICALLY on the grounds that the sexual lives of individuals are private. That is a FACT.



That's true.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> As a result, it is impossible for such a 'ban' to exist. Therefore, any discussions relevant to such, would be, quite axiomatically... irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it looks like we have a win-win for everyone. You continue to insist that any discussion of gay marriage ...
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe. Your beliefs are yours. They have no relevance to the rights and freedoms of anyone else.
> 
> The law in 30 of 50 states says otherwise. And since marriage equality is about recognition of the validity of gay and lesbian marriages under the law.....the legal standard is the only one that's relevant.
Click to expand...


Actually: THE LAW in 31 of the 50 States defines Marriage as nature defines it.  

You're deceitfully refer to the judicial insurgency which attempts to over-rule the stark Legislative, thus popular majorities which long debated and voted to preclude the lowering of marriage to the point which renders it meaningless.

But without regard to the pretense to the contrary: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a result, it is impossible for such a 'ban' to exist. Therefore, any discussions relevant to such, would be, quite axiomatically... irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it looks like we have a win-win for everyone. You continue to insist that any discussion of gay marriage ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, or the joining of one man and one man, or the joining of one woman with one woman.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe. Your beliefs are yours. They have no relevance to the rights and freedoms of anyone else.
> 
> The law in 30 of 50 states says otherwise. And since marriage equality is about recognition of the validity of gay and lesbian marriages under the law.....the legal standard is the only one that's relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually: THE LAW in 31 of the 50 States defines Marriage as nature defines it.
> 
> You're deceitfully refer to the judicial insurgency which attempts to over-rule the stark Legislative, thus popular majorities which long debated and voted to preclude the lowering of marriage to the point which renders it meaningless.
> 
> But without regard to the pretense to the contrary: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


Nature doesn't define marriage. Marriage does not exist in nature.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Your conflating the purpose of marriage and the subsequent defining standards, with some precedent in exceptions which otherwise qualifies for infinite exceptions.



The purpose of marriage according to who? Again, you keep insisting that marriage can have only one purpose. And you've presented nothing to back that claim up. Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage. We did. Its our legal institution. And it can be whatever we want it to be. Nor did 'nature' limit marriage to only one purpose. That's you quoting yourself again. And you're nobody.

Worse, childless couples and those who can't have kids can still be married*. Demonstrating undeniably that there are purposes other than children in marriage. *Else infertile couples couldn't marry and the marriages of childless couples would be invalid. Yet the infertile can clearly marry, and the marriages of those who don't have kids is clearly valid. Demonstrating that your insistence that our legal institutions can have one and only one purpose is made up and demonstrably invalid.
*
It would be as absurd as insisting that since food's only 'physiological purpose' is to fuel the body, that anyone eating because they like the way a burger tastes or they want to celebrate their kids birthday party with a piece of cake is 'fraudulent', 'deceptive' 'abhorrent' and 'evil'.*

Laughing....nope. There's more than one purpose to eating. Just like there's more than one purpose to sex. And as childless couples demonstrate, more than one purpose in marriage. And since 'biological human standards' are clearly not the only way to create a valid marriage, there's no logical reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. And certainly no legal reason. Which is why your ilk keep losing in court. And in public opinion.

Your claims make no sense. And of course have no legal relevance.


----------



## Skylar

> Actually: THE LAW in 31 of the 50 States defines Marriage as nature defines it.



Again, for your claims to be valid, you have to prove that 1) The purpose of marriage is procreation 2) That it is the only possible purpose in marriage. And you can't do either. You keep quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage, we did. And as childless couples clearly demonstrate, children aren't necessary for a valid marriage. Neither having them nor being able to have them.

So your claims fail twice. Once in your definition. And again in your insistence that your definition is exclusive. 

And of course your claims are utterly irrelevant legally. Since marriage equality is about equality under the law, legal standards are all that's relevant. Your feelings don't have any relevance to someone else's rights.


----------



## Seawytch

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a result, it is impossible for such a 'ban' to exist. Therefore, any discussions relevant to such, would be, quite axiomatically... irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it looks like we have a win-win for everyone. You continue to insist that any discussion of gay marriage ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


While that may be how your religion defines it, 30 states and DC disagree.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conflating the purpose of marriage and the subsequent defining standards, with some precedent in exceptions which otherwise qualifies for infinite exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of marriage according to who?
Click to expand...


Nature...


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Nature...


Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage. We did. Its our legal institution. And it can be whatever we want it to be. Nor did 'nature' limit marriage to only one purpose. That's you quoting yourself again. And you're nobody.

Worse, childless couples and those who can't have kids can still be married*. Demonstrating undeniably that there are purposes other than children in marriage. *Else infertile couples couldn't marry and the marriages of childless couples would be invalid. Yet the infertile can clearly marry, and the marriages of those who don't have kids is clearly valid. Demonstrating that your insistence that our legal institutions can have one and only one purpose is made up and demonstrably invalid.
*
It would be as absurd as insisting that since food's only 'physiological purpose' is to fuel the body, that anyone eating because they like the way a burger tastes or they want to celebrate their kids birthday party with a piece of cake is 'fraudulent', 'deceptive' 'abhorrent' and 'evil'.*

Laughing....nope. There's more than one purpose to eating. Just like there's more than one purpose to sex. And as childless couples demonstrate, more than one purpose in marriage. And since 'biological human standards' are clearly not the only way to create a valid marriage, there's no logical reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. And certainly no legal reason. Which is why your ilk keep losing in court. And in public opinion.

Your claims make no sense. And of course have no legal relevance.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a result, it is impossible for such a 'ban' to exist. Therefore, any discussions relevant to such, would be, quite axiomatically... irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it looks like we have a win-win for everyone. You continue to insist that any discussion of gay marriage ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While that may be how your religion defines it, 30 states and DC disagree.
Click to expand...



That's how Nature defines it... and how 31 states define it.   Without regard to the judicial fiat which hopes to over-rule the stark majorities in those 31 states.  

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  And that's really all there is to this.


----------



## Seawytch

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a result, it is impossible for such a 'ban' to exist. Therefore, any discussions relevant to such, would be, quite axiomatically... irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it looks like we have a win-win for everyone. You continue to insist that any discussion of gay marriage ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While that may be how your religion defines it, 30 states and DC disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's how Nature defines it... and how 31 states define it.   Without regard to the judicial fiat which hopes to over-rule the stark majorities in those 31 states.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  And that's really all there is to this.
Click to expand...



Nature doesn't define marriage, it is a legal institution. Your religion is free to define it as they see fit. 

Gays ARE legally married regardless of your opinion.


----------



## Skylar

> That's how Nature defines it... and how 31 states define it. Without regard to the judicial fiat which hopes to over-rule the stark majorities in those 31 states.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. And that's really all there is to this.



Its just plain old appeals to authority again. Where you claim to speak for some overarching leviathan...._because you say you do._ Not because your arguments work when reason is applied, not because you can demonstrate that marriage has only one purpose, not because you can explain how your 'single purpose' meshes with infertile couples whose marriages are still valid,  but because you claim to be the infallible intepreter of your appeal to authority again.

And again. And again.

If your claims had merit, they would hold up when tested under the weight of reason and rational thinking. But they don't. Anymore than claiming that the only purpose in eating is fueling the body. And eating because you like the taste of something is 'fraud', 'deceptive' and 'evil'. Yet that's exactly what you're doing for both sex and marriage.....and you can't make the argument work rationally.

So you keep appealing to your authority. And seem dumbfounded why no gives cares about your fallacy of logic. And why your beliefs have no legal relevance nor impact on anyone else's rights. 

Get used to it.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conflating the purpose of marriage and the subsequent defining standards, with some precedent in exceptions which otherwise qualifies for infinite exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of marriage according to who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature...
Click to expand...


But Nature spoke to me just a few minutes ago and said that marriage is about a life long commitment between two partners......


----------



## Skylar

> Gays ARE legally married regardless of your opinion.



Exactly. We have a win-win scenario for everyone. WhereRmy doesn't believe there is such thing as gay marriage and has insisted there's no point in discussing it.  Our goal is marriage equality under the law. Seems like we've got a perfect solution:

*He can keep refusing to discuss gay marriage on the basis of his own belief that it doesn't exist.

And we can keep advocating it, persuading the public and the courts, and expanding the rights for gays and lesbians across the country. *

Everyone wins! I can get behind that. Sea witch?


----------



## Seawytch

Skylar said:


> Gays ARE legally married regardless of your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. We have a win-win scenario for everyone. WhereRmy doesn't believe there is such thing as gay marriage and has insisted there's no point in discussing it.  Our goal is marriage equality under the law. Seems like we've got a perfect solution:
> 
> *He can keep refusing to discuss gay marriage on the basis of his own belief that it doesn't exist.
> 
> And we can keep advocating it, persuading the public and the courts, and expanding the rights for gays and lesbians across the country. *
> 
> Everyone wins! I can get behind that. Sea witch?
Click to expand...


Yes. My marriage license is real whether he believes it exists or not.


----------



## Skylar

> Yes. My marriage license is real whether he believes it exists or not.



Then it sounds like an ideal solution. You get legal protection and legal recognition of your union as being as valid as that of any straight couple. And he can believe whatever he wants about the validity of your marriage. 

You can't ask for much better terms than that.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Actually, the concept of 'marriage' arose from our primal nature to mate with the opposite sex. It is not a legal institution, it is a human birthright which transcends the limitations of law. It was specifically designed _without_ homosexuals in mind. Homosexuality is a genetic aberration, an abnormality in the human genetic code. The majority of the human race is attracted to the opposite sex, which is the dominant trait among the human species, and all other forms of mammalian species. 

I do advocate their equal treatment under the law, but that doesn't stop me from having a negative opinion of their... lifestyle. They attempt to change a practice that has existed for eons, to suit their own ways of life, fine. But they mustn't force that way of life onto anyone else. It seems here, and in the case of that mayor in Houston, that such things are becoming a reality. 

Do you really want equality? Or do you want submission?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage.
Click to expand...


Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.  

Ya see, Nature provides for every aspect of marriage... First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology.  The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus.  The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.

Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations.  You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.

Of course, such in no way offers any sense of legitimacy, and in no way would produce a popular inference that people of illegitimate nature are anything but what their provides establishes them as.  Which means that those of illegitimate nature will natural eschew such otherwise appropriate institutions.  They will prefer instead to attempt to establish the elusive legitimacy they crave, through deceit, fraud and ignorance, glomming onto and forcing themselves into institutions which through their established standards enjoy intrinsic legitimacy.  Which sadly, given their intellectual limitations, and their sociopathic tendencies, they'll possess no means to recognize that the instant the institution drops the standard that precludes them, the legitimacy otherwise inherent in such evaporates into the ether.   Leaving the institution without meaning of purpose and the purpose it served, unserved and the culture that depended upon that service: TOTALLY BONED!

Of course, a spike in socialism and homosexuality is a harbinger of catastrophic societal collapse, which inevitably results in the near extinction of all homosexuals and their most species socialist comrades.  

So... I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.
> 
> Ya see, Nature provides for every aspect of marriage... First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology.  The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus.  The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.
> 
> Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations.  You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.
> 
> Of course, such in no way offers any sense of legitimacy, and in no way would produce a popular inference that people of illegitimate nature are anything but what their provides establishes them as.  Which means that those of illegitimate nature will natural eschew such otherwise appropriate institutions.  They will prefer instead to attempt to establish the elusive legitimacy they crave, through deceit, fraud and ignorance, glomming onto and forcing themselves into institutions which through their established standards enjoy intrinsic legitimacy.  Which sadly, given their intellectual limitations, and their sociopathic tendencies, they'll possess no means to recognize that the instant the institution drops the standard that precludes them, the legitimacy otherwise inherent in such evaporates into the ether.   Leaving the institution without meaning of purpose and the purpose it served, unserved and the culture that depended upon that service: TOTALLY BONED!
> 
> Of course, a spike in socialism and homosexuality is a harbinger of catastrophic societal collapse, which inevitably results in the near extinction of all homosexuals and their most species socialist comrades.
> 
> So... I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.
Click to expand...

Nature created homosexuality...which makes your entire diatribe moot.


----------



## Skylar

> Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.



Says you, appealing to authority. And you're neither nature nor speak for it. Rendering your claim yet another awkward attempt at a fallacy of logic.



> First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology. The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus. The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.



Uh-huh. And what of infertile couples? Or childless couples? Why are their marriages still valid if the purpose of marriage is to have kids? This is where your argument breaks over and over. *If the marriages of infertile couples and childless couples are valid, then there is a demonstrable purpose other than children in marriage. *

And their marriages are still valid. 

So you've failed to logically establish that the purpose of marriage is singular and exclusive. Or that you define it. Or that your appeal to authority does. And I've demonstrably proven that the purpose of marriage is neither singular nor exclusive. And proven that there are pefectly valid purposes in marriage that neither involve children nor the ability to create them. Using reason and rational thinking. 

Which trump your fallacy of appealing to authority every time.



> Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations. You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.



That's not a feeling.* That's the law. *You know, the standard you keep failing and why your subjective opinions have no relevance to anyone else's rights? Yeah, that law.

As marriage equality is about equal protection under the law, the legal standards are the only relevant ones. Believe otherwise to your heart's content. I'll keep advocating marriage equality, persuading people and watching the legally protected rights of gays and lesbians spread across the nation.

Seems like a win-win to me!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TemplarKormac said:


> Actually, the concept of 'marriage' arose from our primal nature to mate with the opposite sex. It is not a legal institution, it is a human birthright which transcends the limitations of law. It was specifically designed _without_ homosexuals in mind. Homosexuality is a genetic aberration, an abnormality in the human genetic code. The majority of the human race is attracted to the opposite sex, which is the dominant trait among the human species, and all other forms of mammalian species.
> 
> I do advocate their equal treatment under the law, but that doesn't stop me from having a negative opinion of their... lifestyle. They attempt to change a practice that has existed for eons, to suit their own ways of life, fine. But they mustn't force that way of life onto anyone else. It seems here, and in the case of that mayor in Houston, that such things are becoming a reality.
> 
> Do you really want equality? Or do you want submission?




Agreed... 

Contrary to popular whimsy, that homosexuality is perfectly normal... it is quite literally, the inverse of normal human sexuality.  Meaning that ya can't get MORE SEXUALLY ABNORMAL than homosexuality.  

It's a presentation of abnormal reasoning... which is demonstrated through the movement which advocates for homosexuals resting in abject deceit; declaring that which is thoroughly deviant behavior to be normal behavior.   They further declare that anyone who disagrees is deceitful... hateful and a threat to their rights to deceive, through fraudulent means, so as to influence the ignorant.

But hey... _such is the nature of evil_.


----------



## Skylar

> Actually, the concept of 'marriage' arose from our primal nature to mate with the opposite sex. It is not a legal institution, it is a human birthright which transcends the limitations of law.


Marriage recognized under our law is very much our creation. The legally recognized institution of marriage that is protected by our laws and constitution? That's all I'm concerned with.

The 'primal' and 'transcendent' marriage that has nothing to do with the law I leave to you. Spin it, paint it, hug it, bake it into a pie....I could care less. And neither does the law.


----------



## Skylar

> Contrary to popular whimsy, that homosexuality is perfectly normal... it is quite literally, the inverse of normal human sexuality. Meaning that ya can't get MORE SEXUALLY ABNORMAL than homosexuality.



That assumes that human sexuality serves only one purpose: procreation. And it serves many. You keep making the same mistake over and over. Assuming that A purpose is the ONLY purpose. And that assumptoin of exclusivity is unproven and irrational. *It would be as silly as insisting that since the only biological purpose of eating is fueling the body, that having a piece of birthday cake at your son's 4th birthday party is 'fraudulent' 'deceptive' and 'evil'.*

Its obviously not. As there's more than one purpose in eating. Just as there is more than one purpose in sex. And as childless couples and the infertile being able to validly marry demonstrate, there's more than one purpose in marriage....which has nothing to do with children nor the ability to have them.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the concept of 'marriage' arose from our primal nature to mate with the opposite sex. It is not a legal institution, it is a human birthright which transcends the limitations of law. It was specifically designed _without_ homosexuals in mind. Homosexuality is a genetic aberration, an abnormality in the human genetic code. The majority of the human race is attracted to the opposite sex, which is the dominant trait among the human species, and all other forms of mammalian species.
> 
> I do advocate their equal treatment under the law, but that doesn't stop me from having a negative opinion of their... lifestyle. They attempt to change a practice that has existed for eons, to suit their own ways of life, fine. But they mustn't force that way of life onto anyone else. It seems here, and in the case of that mayor in Houston, that such things are becoming a reality.
> 
> Do you really want equality? Or do you want submission?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed...
> 
> Contrary to popular whimsy, that homosexuality is perfectly normal... it is quite literally, the inverse of normal human sexuality.  Meaning that ya can't get MORE SEXUALLY ABNORMAL than homosexuality.
> 
> It's a presentation of abnormal reasoning... which is demonstrated through the movement which advocates for homosexuals resting in abject deceit; declaring that which is thoroughly deviant behavior to be normal behavior.   They further declare that anyone who disagrees is deceitful... hateful and a threat to their rights to deceive, through fraudulent means, so as to influence the ignorant.
> 
> But hey... _such is the nature of evil_.
Click to expand...

That's the same flawed reasoning that made nuns believe that the abnormality of left-handedness meant left-handed people were evil.

Stop conflating normality with morality. Red hair is abnormal. Left-handedness is abnormal. A lot of things are abnormal or normal. That has nothing to do with right and wrong.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, appealing to authority.
Click to expand...


You're trying to imply that the appeal to authority is fallacious.  Such is only the case where the appeal is toward a misleading authority, and where the authority is alone is said to stand over all else, in terms of reason and facts.  Such is not the case in any argument that I've presented.

Nature is however that which designed human physiology, which irrefutably establishes the defining standards intrinsic to human physiology.

Such is an objective standard resting in unadulterated science  which naturally draws the ire of the lowly relativists, who it also deals out in terms of legitimacy... but nature doesn't give a red rats ass, what a communist feels about anything.  

Such is the nature of Americans.


----------



## Skylar

> You're trying to imply that the appeal to authority is fallacious.



I'm not implying it. I'm straight up saying it. *Appeals to authority are a classic fallacy of logic. *And you taking the role of infallible arbiter of 'the laws of nature' are a classic appeal to authority. And thus a fallacy.

You told us that it was the reason and rational argument that validates a claim. And yet reason and rational argument don't work to support your claim.* You can't factually establish that sex or marriage serve only one purpose.* You simply say that is the case....appealing to authority. And then condemn anything that doesn't fall into that ONE purpose as 'fraudulent', 'deceptive' and 'evil'. 

Its a silly argument. As silly as insisting that eating for pleasure is 'evil' because the only 'valid' purpose of eating is to fuel the body. Its just makes no sense.* There are multiple purposes for eating. Just as there are multiple purposes for sex. *

*The valid marriages of childless couples and infertile couples demonstrate, incontrovertibly, that there are multiple purposes of marriage.* Else any infertile couple couldn't get married, with the marriages of the childless being invalidated. Yet the infertile can marry.And the marriages of the childless are valid. And all without having a single child. Proving, through the use of reason and logic, that there is more than one purpose in marriage. And it has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

Why then would we forbid gays and lesbians from being able to marry for failing to meet a standard that *no one* is held to? It makes no sense.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Contrary to popular whimsy, that homosexuality is perfectly normal... it is quite literally, the inverse of normal human sexuality. Meaning that ya can't get MORE SEXUALLY ABNORMAL than homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That assumes that human sexuality serves only one purpose: procreation.
Click to expand...


It doesn't assume that sexuality serves the singular purpose of procreation, it recognizes that fact that procreate is the singular PURPOSE of sexuality.

This without regard to the purveyors of perverse sexualities, who subjectively define such as their relative circumstances require.  And whose sociopathy precludes them from any concern for any of the harm they're behavior projects upon anyone else.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Yes. My marriage license is real whether he believes it exists or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it sounds like an ideal solution. You get legal protection and legal recognition of your union as being as valid as that of any straight couple. And he can believe whatever he wants about the validity of your marriage.
> 
> You can't ask for much better terms than that.
Click to expand...




TemplarKormac said:


> Actually, the concept of 'marriage' arose from our primal nature to mate with the opposite sex. It is not a legal institution, it is a human birthright which transcends the limitations of law. It was specifically designed _without_ homosexuals in mind. Homosexuality is a genetic aberration, an abnormality in the human genetic code. The majority of the human race is attracted to the opposite sex, which is the dominant trait among the human species, and all other forms of mammalian species.
> 
> I do advocate their equal treatment under the law, but that doesn't stop me from having a negative opinion of their... lifestyle. They attempt to change a practice that has existed for eons, to suit their own ways of life, fine. But they mustn't force that way of life onto anyone else. It seems here, and in the case of that mayor in Houston, that such things are becoming a reality.
> 
> Do you really want equality? Or do you want submission?



Yet mating occurred before there was marriage- and marriage occurs without mating. What marriage was originally intended for- well that we will never really know- what marriage was intended for has changed over time- for example women no longer become the property of men when they marry. Current marriage is very different from what was 'intended'. 

You are of course entitled to your own opinion about the lifestyle of homosexuals, or Jews or blacks or hockey players. 

But no one will ever force you to marry someone of the same gender. Or force you into a life of being attracted to the same gender.

Just not going to happen.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.
> 
> Ya see, Nature provides for every aspect of marriage....
Click to expand...


Chimpanzees, Organgutans and Gorilla's are genetically very close to humans. LIke humans they have sex- they don't realize it is for procreation- but they have sex.

Gorilla's naturally form family groups of multiple females with one dominant male.

Chimpanzee's naturally form loose knit groups in which the males and females mix and mate fairly promiscuously.

And then we have Orangutans....whose males and females only come together to mate.

Nature is all over the place here. What nature seems to be saying is that there is only one way to procreate- but there are lots of ways to be sexual and lots of bondings between sexual partners.

Nature doesn't say anything about marriage being between a man and a woman.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> It doesn't assume that sexuality serves the singular purpose of procreation, it recognizes that fact that procreate is the singular PURPOSE of sexuality.



Obviously there is more. Else the infertile would never, ever do it. And yet old people, well past their procreating years continue to have sex. Just as couples who will never have children because they use birth control.

All of which explicitly and demonstratably proves you wrong. There's clearly more than one purpose to sex. Just like there's more than one purpose to eating. And more one purpose to marriage. Procreation is A purpose. Fueling the body is A purpose. Having children is A purpose.

You have to prove that there is no other. And you can't. While I can demonstrably prove you're wrong on sex, food and marriage. By showing you alternative and perfectly valid reasons to do all three that have nothing to do with procreation, fuel or children.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> You're trying to imply that the appeal to authority is fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not implying it. I'm straight up saying it.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!  I know... and to be perfectly honest, That's why I set you up to clarify it.

In point of fact: noting an authority is not an appeal which holds the authority above all other considerations, in terms of fact and reason.

What you're claiming is that there are no authorities, and that the mere mentioning of the authoritative, in and of itself discredits the argument, without regard to fact and/or reasoning intrinsic to the argument.

This demonstrates the invalid nature of your argument.  Again... .


----------



## Skylar

> In point of fact: noting an authority is not an appeal which holds the authority above all other considerations, in terms of fact and reason.



*Which is why your argument fails; it can't stand on reason or logic. *You insist that sex has only one purpose: procreation. Then why would the infertile EVER have sex? You can't say. Your logic breaks....so utterly that you refuse to address the topic.

You insist that marriage has only one purpose: children. How then could the infertile be married or the marriages of the childless be valid? Yet the are. Your logic breaks again....and you refuse to discuss this topic as well.

Your claims are akin to saying that since the only biological purpose of eating is fuel, that having a piece of birthday cake to celebrate your son's 4th birthday is 'fraudulent', 'deceptive' and 'evil'.

Its not. Your entire basis of reason is just silly.

Your argument requires that there can be* no other purpose* in sex, food or marriage. And* I can demonstrably prove that there are. *You can't prove you case. And I just disproved it. Your logic failed. Your reason failed. All you're left with are appeals to authority.

Which are nothing but fallacies of logic. And thus logically invalid.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Actually, the concept of 'marriage' arose from our primal nature to mate with the opposite sex. It is not a legal institution, it is a human birthright which transcends the limitations of law. It was specifically designed _without_ homosexuals in mind. Homosexuality is a genetic aberration, an abnormality in the human genetic code. The majority of the human race is attracted to the opposite sex, which is the dominant trait among the human species, and all other forms of mammalian species.
> 
> I do advocate their equal treatment under the law, but that doesn't stop me from having a negative opinion of their... lifestyle. They attempt to change a practice that has existed for eons, to suit their own ways of life, fine. But they mustn't force that way of life onto anyone else. It seems here, and in the case of that mayor in Houston, that such things are becoming a reality.
> 
> Do you really want equality? Or do you want submission?



Not in the context of what is being discussed, civil marriage. Religions can "define" whatever they want however they want.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't assume that sexuality serves the singular purpose of procreation, it recognizes that fact that procreate is the singular PURPOSE of sexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously there is more.
Click to expand...


You're conflating the purpose with the perversion which adapts it for other things, such as entertainment. with the purpose.  This without regard to the chaos, calamity and catastrophe which such adaptions produce. 

For instance, illegitimate conception, the murder of the most innocent of human beings in order to escape accountability for the illegitimate behavior, the manifestation and spreading of disease, unstable, broken homes, unstable individuals created by unstable homes... low cultural production, cultural subsidy of the unstable, low productive... crimes of passion wrought from behavior common to low character, economic crime, etc, etc...

In general, rationalizations which serve to promote deviant sexuality, serve to promote deviancy in most if not every aspect of the individual's life, which promotes the likelihood that such will influence another toward deviancy and so it goes bending the neighborhood, the town, the county, state and nation toward deviancy until the inherent regressive nature of such rots it all... and it all goes to hell.


----------



## Seawytch

Drama queen^^^^


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> In point of fact: noting an authority is not an appeal which holds the authority above all other considerations, in terms of fact and reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Which is why your argument fails; it can't stand on reason or logic.*
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!  I guess I will just never tire of watching the logically illiterate appeal to the authority of logic, even as they are in the throes of fallaciously lamenting the appeal to authority! 

LOL!  You really gotta love the sweet ironies... _they're positively *DELISH! *_( You can NOT make this crap UP!)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> Drama queen^^^^



Ohh... A deflective concession.  How sweet. 

Let's make it official... "Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted!"


----------



## Seawytch

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drama queen^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh... A deflective concession.  How sweet.
> 
> Let's make it official... "Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted!"
Click to expand...


Sure...I'm still legally married. [emoji13]


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Race doesn't exist.  Genetically there is only one race.
> 
> Homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Closing your eyes and pretending there were not laws preventing people from marrying based on race, does not make them go away. ("Judicial activism" does ) You wish to use the law to deny me the right to civilly marry based on the gender of my consenting adult partner.  How is that different from people wishing to deny civil marriage to people based on their race?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has said that those laws did not exist.   only that trying to compare race to sexual orientation is a false analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.
Click to expand...



Nobody is comparing discriminations?  

ROFL!  That is the entire argument of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... "You DID IT FOR THEM, you gotta do it for US!"  

Of course, blacks can't reflect any color except that which they were born with.  It's a genetic component of their life, which of course is the same for white folks.

This is not true for the lowly ranks of the sexually abnormal.  There is no genetic component to homosexuality... it is a learned behavior, which takes a CHOICE before one engages in it and most of all, it takes PRACTICE to BE homosexual.

This of course demonstrates that there is no potential equity in the decision to provide for different races to marry, as long as the bi-racial applicants represent the distinct genders, and only one of each and the stripping of the natural standards inherent in marriage, in order to help the illegitimate feel better about their sad selves.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> Sure...I'm still legally married. [emoji13]



LOL!  "Legally"?  ROFL!  Then that means that you're working under ILLEGITIMATE LAW.  This of course, because Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and this without regard to the perverse pretenses to the contrary. 

(It should be noted that the fundamental trait of relativism is the rejection of objectivity. 

Objectivity is the essential element of 'truth'.  Truth is the essential element of Trust.

Objectivity, truth and trust are the essential elements of a soundly reasoned morality.

And all of those are the essential elements of Justice.

Now folks, take a moment and note the total disregard of ANYTHING remotely akin to a moral component, by a person who flatly rejects any sense of the intrinsic truth that homosexuality is the INVERSE of the human sexuality standard, that the choice to respond to the cravings born of that deviant sexuality, demonstrates a deviant character..., this as a result of the inability to trust in the cultural standards which recognize the principles in nature which prohibit viability in those who make the choice to engage in such behavior, along with the total disregard for any sense of justice, wherein the overwhelming majority of people in the overwhelming majority of states refuse to accept the lowering of Marriage standard to include circumstances which nature itself rejects. 

Setting their own personal needs, wants and desires over the good of everyone else.  So bereft of objectivity, these people need only to point toward the COLOR of LAW, wherein a handful of illicit judicial decisions temporarily set aside THE LAW, established by the due processes common to The LAW.

And most importantly, unable to merely accept the temporary judicial win, they come to publicly profess that they're enjoying 'POPULAR SUPPORT in 30 of 50 States'.  Which is false, and they know its false.  Such represents a deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence YOU, the public, who they believe are ignorant of the truth...  They consider you to be fools. 

Now with regard to fools and the vacuous leaning on of 'LEGALITIES'...  imagine how comforting that species of reasoning was to those who were LEGALLY stripping innocent people of their property and lives.

I expect that the comfort dried up pretty quick when it was determined that such was IMMORAL and because of that, millions of people who felt that way decided to stop it.

And guess what happened THEN!  All those people who were engaged in IMMORAL behavior, were forced to stop.  And not one fuck was given about how THE LAW that provided them with the means to FEEL REAL IMPORTANT... and not a single one of those immoral cranks was 'GRANDFATHERED IN'.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where, nobody cares about what you think.

Your opinion is not evidence, so you are simply "feeling".

No one cares.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> You're conflating the purpose with the perversion which adapts it for other things, such as entertainment. with the purpose.  This without regard to the chaos, calamity and catastrophe which such adaptions produce.



So if say, your grandparents, who are entirely too old to have children.... have sex, that brings calamity, chaos and catastrophe? Your claims are getting more shrill and silly as they get less logical, rational, or connected to reality.

And you completely fled from my question: if the only possible purpose for sex is procreation, they why would infertile couples ever do it? You have no answer. Your logic is broken. Your argument void of reason......as its shattered by a simple question you can't possibly answer. 



> For instance, illegitimate conception, the murder of the most innocent of human beings in order to escape accountability for the illegitimate behavior, the manifestation and spreading of disease, unstable, broken homes, unstable individuals created by unstable homes... low cultural production, cultural subsidy of the unstable, low productive... crimes of passion wrought from behavior common to low character, economic crime, etc, etc...



How do gay men produce 'illegitimate conception'? How would a pair of infertile couples? You said that the only purpose in sex was procreation. And if they can't procreate, how then can they bring any of the calamity, chaos and catastrophe you're speaking of? 

Your argument is a disjoined, confused, self contradictory mess. *You're literally citing illegitimate conception as a reason that gay men can't be married to each other. *Um, slick, that's not how it works.



> In general, rationalizations which serve to promote deviant sexuality, serve to promote deviancy in most if not every aspect of the individual's life, which promotes the likelihood that such will influence another toward deviancy and so it goes bending the neighborhood, the town, the county, state and nation toward deviancy until the inherent regressive nature of such rots it all... and it all goes to hell.



With sexual deviancy being any sex that doesn't service the one and only purpose of sex....procreation? So any woman who ever has sex after menopause is a sexual deviant, fraudulent, deceptive and evil? After all, if she ever has sex again, she's not serving your 'one purpose'. And you've said that there's no other purpose in sex. God forbid she ever get married after menopause. As you've insisted marriage can only have one purpose as well. 

So following your confused, incoherent logic.....infertile couples having sex are deviants? After all, they can't service the 'only purpose of sex' either. How about your grandparents? If Nanna and Pop-pop decide to knock some boots, they're 'fraudulent, deceptive, evil deviants'? 

Laughing.....say it ain't so, Nanna!

Your argument is hopelessly broken. You can't resolve the theory killing holes in your claims. You can't shore up any of the irreconcilable holes in your reasoning and your logic. You can't explain why infertile couples would ever have sex, or ever get married. You can't explain why their marriages are valid if they can't ever have children. You can't explain why the marriages of childless couples remain valid. As all of it gloriously contradicts your every assertion.

Are you starting to see why the silly nonsense you've been spewing has zero relevance to the outcome of any court case?


----------



## Syriusly

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drama queen^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh... A deflective concession.  How sweet.
> 
> Let's make it official... "Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...I'm still legally married. [emoji13]
Click to expand...


Set game match.

Nicely played...nicely played.


----------



## Skylar

> Objectivity is the essential element of 'truth'. Truth is the essential element of Trust.
> 
> Objectivity, truth and trust are the essential elements of a soundly reasoned morality.
> 
> And all of those are the essential elements of Justice.



The obvious problem with your narrative being....*your argument is entirely subjective. *You insist that there is only one purpose to sex.....what you say it is.  Yet I've demonstrably proven that there are many purposes. Else your neither your grand parents nor an infertile couple would ever have sex. Yet they do. Killing your subjective argument. 

You've insisted that there is only one purpose in marriage: to have children. Yet the marriages of the infertile are still valid. As are the marriages are those who choose not to have children. Demonstrating yet again that there are other valid, legitimate purposes in marriage beyond children. Killing your subjective argument yet again.

You're stuck, slick. Your argument requires that there can be NO other purpose for sex or marriage save the one you acknowledge. And I've already proven that's simply not so. Your claims are akin to insisting that since the only biological purpose of eating is to fuel the body, that have a piece of birthday cake to celebrate your son's birthday is 'fraudulent' 'deceptive' ' deviant' and 'evil'. 

Smiling.....um, no. Your subjective, silly nonsense just doesn't make the slightest sense. And you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In point of fact: noting an authority is not an appeal which holds the authority above all other considerations, in terms of fact and reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Which is why your argument fails; it can't stand on reason or logic.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  I guess I will just never tire of watching the logically illiterate appeal to the authority of logic, even as they are in the throes of fallaciously lamenting the appeal to authority!
> 
> LOL!  You really gotta love the sweet ironies... _they're positively *DELISH! *_( You can NOT make this crap UP!)
Click to expand...


Laughing...keep running, buddy. Those questions you can't possibly answer are right behind you. 

_If the only purpose in sex is procreation, why would infertile couples ever have sex? 

Of the only purpose in marriage is to have children, they why are infertile the marriages of infertile couples still valid?_


----------



## TemplarKormac

Skylar said:


> Marriage recognized under our law is very much our creation. The legally recognized institution of marriage that is protected by our laws and constitution? That's all I'm concerned with.



Uh sure, so what was marriage before it was governed by law, Skylar? You do understand that the only reason the government recognizes marriage in the first place is because they can tax two people at once? They don't care about marriage equality in the slightest, simply exploiting the fact that they can tax two individuals, whether they be gay or straight. 

And why do we need a government or laws to make a marriage legitimate?


----------



## Skylar

> Uh sure, so what was marriage before it was governed by law, Skylar?



Irrelevant to the marriage under the law. As marriage under the law is defined by us, subject to our laws, our constitutional guarantees, and equal protection under the law. 

Again, Templar.....you enjoy 'primal' and 'transcendental' marriage._ You define it anyway you like. _You can shuck it, hug it, wrap in a bow. I could care less. Its all yours. I'll stick with marriage under the law. And all the rights and privileges it brings under the law.

Sounds like a win-win to me!


----------



## TemplarKormac

Syriusly said:


> Yet mating occurred before there was marriage- and marriage occurs without mating. What marriage was originally intended for- well that we will never really know- what marriage was intended for has changed over time- for example women no longer become the property of men when they marry. Current marriage is very different from what was 'intended'.



Yes, in the earliest times of our race, mating between the opposite sexes was how our species maintained continuity. Marriage was not even a thought in their minds. Humanity didn't proliferate itself by having the same two sexes mating. That seems to be the one critical fact you ignore. For a species like ours to reproduce, heterosexual mating must occur. Men cannot impregnate men, women cannot impregnate women via sexual intercourse. This further proves homosexuality is a flaw in the human genome, it is a literal antithesis to procreation. 

Of course, I know what marriage is now in the present. But instead of the spouse not being the property of the other, the couple is the property of their government. The institution of marriage is a cash cow, not necessarily a legally protected right.  So focused on being recognized by an already intrusive government you are, that you forget the ultimate goal of marriage altogether.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Skylar said:


> Again, Templar.....you enjoy 'primal' and 'transcendental' marriage._ You define it anyway you like._



Isn't that what you're doing?


----------



## TemplarKormac

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.
> 
> Ya see, Nature provides for every aspect of marriage... First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology.  The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus.  The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.
> 
> Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations.  You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.
> 
> Of course, such in no way offers any sense of legitimacy, and in no way would produce a popular inference that people of illegitimate nature are anything but what their provides establishes them as.  Which means that those of illegitimate nature will natural eschew such otherwise appropriate institutions.  They will prefer instead to attempt to establish the elusive legitimacy they crave, through deceit, fraud and ignorance, glomming onto and forcing themselves into institutions which through their established standards enjoy intrinsic legitimacy.  Which sadly, given their intellectual limitations, and their sociopathic tendencies, they'll possess no means to recognize that the instant the institution drops the standard that precludes them, the legitimacy otherwise inherent in such evaporates into the ether.   Leaving the institution without meaning of purpose and the purpose it served, unserved and the culture that depended upon that service: TOTALLY BONED!
> 
> Of course, a spike in socialism and homosexuality is a harbinger of catastrophic societal collapse, which inevitably results in the near extinction of all homosexuals and their most species socialist comrades.
> 
> So... I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nature created homosexuality...which makes your entire diatribe moot.
Click to expand...


Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.


----------



## Skylar

TemplarKormac said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Templar.....you enjoy 'primal' and 'transcendental' marriage._ You define it anyway you like._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what you're doing?
Click to expand...


Your 'primal' 'transcendental' 'before there was law' marriage is utterly irrelevant to me. I care about marriage *under the law. *

And marriage *under the law* is subject to certain constitutional guarantees. If a State's marriage _laws _violate those guarantees, they're invalid and unenforceable.And gay marriage bans violate rights, target specific groups and serve no compelling state interest. The violating all three tenets of a valid state law under Romer V. Evans. 

As for your 'primordial' marriage.....Feel free to call a druid, walk circles around a tree, hop on the back of a unicorn, or do whatever you wish with it. Its all yours.


----------



## Skylar

> Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.



Unless it didn't. If 'nature' doesn't want a trait in a population, it has very effective means of weeding it out. Especially traits that result in genetic suicide. And in the case of homosexuality, the numbers are outrageously high for random chance. *1.5 to 4% of virtually *every* population group? *If it were genuinely the genetic abnormality you describe that resulted in genetic suicide for those afflicted by it..... nature would have weeded it out in a few generations. Yet its persisted for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years through a thousand generations.

Homosexuality may serve the same purpose as menopause: labor providers and resource collectors that don't add mouths to feed to the mix. We've seen similar patterns in animals like Killer whales....where post-menopauseal mothers help take care of their adult male offspring. When the mother finally dies, the rate of death for her male offspring skyrocket. The existence of support workers who can't breed is an entirely plausible survival mechanism. Especially since we already see it in menopausal women and elsewhere in the animal kingdom. Bees base their entire survival strategy on the concept. 

And given the outrageously high numbers for homosexuality, the fact that it is a genetic dead end, and its consistent presence in our species, the idea that its just a random oops is pretty unlikely.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Skylar said:


> Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it didn't. If 'nature' doesn't want a trait in a population, it has very effective means of weeding it out. Especially traits that result in genetic suicide. And in the case of homosexuality, the numbers are outrageously high for random chance. *1.5 to 4% of virtually *every* population group? *If it were genuinely the genetic abnormality you describe that resulted in genetic suicide for those afflicted by it..... nature would have weeded it out in a few generations. Yet its persisted for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years through a thousand generations.
> 
> Homosexuality may serve the same purpose as menopause: labor providers and resource collectors that don't add mouths to feed to the mix. We've seen similar patterns in animals like Killer whales....where post-menopausal mothers help take care of their adult male offspring. When the mother finally dies, the rate of death for her male offspring skyrocket. The existence of support workers who can't breed is an entirely plausible survival mechanism. Especially since we already see it in menopausal women and elsewhere in the animal kingdom
> 
> And given the outrageously high numbers for homosexuality, the fact that it is a genetic dead end, and its consistent presence in our species, the idea that its just a random oops is pretty unlikely.
Click to expand...


Yes, but 1.5 to 4% indicates a genetic outlier, not an intended result. An evolutionary trait doesn't simply manifest and disappear in a few millennia, it takes tens of thousands, if not hundreds of millions of years to manifest itself and wear off. Just look at the evolutionary patterns of the dinosaurs. Just because homosexuality is here now, doesn't mean it will exist oh, say, in a million years.

I don't see homosexuality as a survival mechanism. It would in fact be counterproductive to survival. How would it help the person who has it with survival? I cannot possibly see any benefits. Humans and whales are completely different animals. If we can't breed, we die out. Our species continuity is dependent on reproduction. Hence my position that homosexuality is a flaw in the human genome, as it was never intended to help the breeding processes along.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Skylar said:


> Your 'primal' 'transcendental' 'before there was law' marriage is utterly irrelevant to me.



Of course it is, Skylar. Marriage was defined before the law took hold. You views need a compass; a degree of certainty to justify them, the law provides such certainty. It offers a feeling of control you wouldn't have otherwise. If there is no control, you dismiss it as irrelevant.

Marriage should never be defined by law. At all. Do you agree?


----------



## Skylar

> Yes, but 1.5 to 4% indicates a genetic outlier, not an intended result. An evolutionary trait doesn't simply manifest and disappear in a few millennia, it takes tens of thousands, if not hundreds of millions of years to manifest itself and wear off. Just look at the evolutionary patterns of the dinosaurs. Just because homosexuality is here now, doesn't mean it will exist oh, say, in a million years.



A genetic outlier for a trait that is genetic suicide? No it isn't. Those numbers are WAY too high. By orders of magnitude. Smiilarly genetically dead end traits have a rate of occurrence closer to 1 in 1000. Like, Klinefelter syndrome. The only time you see higher numbers is when they provide protection or benefit to the population at large. Like say, Tay Sachs disease. Its a genetic dead end for homozygous carries.....which occur in effected population groups about 3 to 5% of the time. For those who are actual heterozygous carriers, the odds are 25% of homozygous, genetically dead end offspring. But the disease is though to provide powerful resistance to tuberculosis in heterozygous carriers...which are typically double the number of the homozygous carriers (the homozygous being the dead ones). And sprinkled in a population group these heterozygous carries dramatically increases that groups odds of survival.

Since homosexuality occurs so often, way, way more often than it should if it were a trait with no benefits, and nature is so effective as weeding out traits that are genetic suicide if they don't help the population at large, it bolsters the case for homosexuality being beneficial to their population group. Its entirely plausible that gays serve the same role as menopausal women. Labor providers without adding to the population. It would provide more resources for fewer children, which increases their chances for survival.

If you're willing to get speculative with me for the purpose of intellectual curiosity rather than debate, causes and purposes of homosexuality is actually a pretty interesting conversation. It seems to be a genetically linked trait most commonly manifesting in those with older brothers. As a woman carries a male child, her body reacts to it like it were an infection. The reactoin starts slow and builds over the course of the pregnancy. Usually the placenta is more than adequate to deal with such reactions and the child is born before there is any significant effect.

However.....when she gets pregnant with another male child, the auto-immune response picks up where it left off for the last male child. And continues to build. And the same for the next male child. And the next. Until after 3 or 4, the auto-immune response starts to subtly overwhelm some of the placenta's defenses. And begins to effect the child. One of the more prevalent theories is that the genetic component of homosexuality (in men specifically) is more a susceptibility to these autoimmune reactions. And that the reaction alters the brain chemistry or the brain physiology in some fashion that alters sexual orientation.

Its a pretty interesting theory for me. But it doesn't explain a thing about lesbians. They are the great shrug among geneticists. And statistically they are more prevalent than gay men. And we don't know why. 

If I were to guess....I'd say its because a lack of attraction to men doesn't mean that there's necessarily a lack of desire to be a mother. And there are many, many lesbians that have given birth to some absolutely beautiful babies. Gay men on the other hand seem less inclined to father children. And more commonly adopt. So if there is a genetic component, It might be able to passed more directly in lesbians. While with gay men it would  more often pass through their siblings or cousins.


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

Lefties are so given to that noun "force" aren't they? I think we should force castration on gays. How's that for a "force" idea?


----------



## Skylar

TemplarKormac said:


> Of course it is, Skylar. Marriage was defined before the law took hold. You views need a compass; a degree of certainty to justify them, the law provides such certainty. It offers a feeling of control you wouldn't have otherwise. If there is no control, you dismiss it as irrelevant.



The moment it became part of the law, it became ours to do with as we please. Marriage was originally a religious ceremony. Civil marriage did away with it. The origin of marriage before law is irrelevant to its definition under law. As the legal meaning is whatever we say it is.

And in our system of laws and constitutional protections, gay marriage is as guaranteed and protected as straight marriage. If you want to step outside the law, ignore the legal definitions and get priimally transcendental, feel free. Marriage equality is a legal argument. And any paradigm beyond the legal is irrelevant to it.

As for the 'feelings of control', I'm straight. I already have all the rights in question. But my personal sense of justice and fairness motivates me to fight for gays and lesbians to have the same rights under the law. As I consider love and companionship just as valid a basis of marriage as children. And love is pretty universal.



> Marriage should never be defined by law. At all. Do you agree?


Nope. I don't agree. I'm not a libertarian. And the meta discussion of if the government should be involved in marriage is moot. Government is involved. Unless you don't want it to be.

If you want a marriage that is void of any government oversight or control....you have it. Just have your religious ceremony and don't get a marriage license. You can do whatever you want, define it any way you want. The government doesn't recognize or protect the union. So is entirely yours to define.

For those who want a marriage recognized and protected under the law, that's an option as well. The law is subject to certain constitutional guarantees and must be applied fairly and equally. Where your personal 'primal' marriage can be whatever you want it to be, excluding anyone you wish.

Sounds like a win-win to me. You get what you want with no government oversight, and folks that want the recognition and protection of marriage law can have what they want.


----------



## Skylar

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Lefties are so given to that adjective "force" aren't they? I think we should force castration on gays. How's that for a "force" idea?



Pretty awful.


----------



## Seawytch

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure...I'm still legally married. [emoji13]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  "Legally"?  ROFL!  Then that means that you're working under ILLEGITIMATE LAW.  This of course, because Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and this without regard to the perverse pretenses to the contrary.
> 
> (It should be noted that the fundamental trait of relativism is the rejection of objectivity.
> 
> Objectivity is the essential element of 'truth'.  Truth is the essential element of Trust.
> 
> Objectivity, truth and trust are the essential elements of a soundly reasoned morality.
> 
> And all of those are the essential elements of Justice.
> 
> Now folks, take a moment and note the total disregard of ANYTHING remotely akin to a moral component, by a person who flatly rejects any sense of the intrinsic truth that homosexuality is the INVERSE of the human sexuality standard, that the choice to respond to the cravings born of that deviant sexuality, demonstrates a deviant character..., this as a result of the inability to trust in the cultural standards which recognize the principles in nature which prohibit viability in those who make the choice to engage in such behavior, along with the total disregard for any sense of justice, wherein the overwhelming majority of people in the overwhelming majority of states refuse to accept the lowering of Marriage standard to include circumstances which nature itself rejects.
> 
> Setting their own personal needs, wants and desires over the good of everyone else.  So bereft of objectivity, these people need only to point toward the COLOR of LAW, wherein a handful of illicit judicial decisions temporarily set aside THE LAW, established by the due processes common to The LAW.
> 
> And most importantly, unable to merely accept the temporary judicial win, they come to publicly profess that they're enjoying 'POPULAR SUPPORT in 30 of 50 States'.  Which is false, and they know its false.  Such represents a deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence YOU, the public, who they believe are ignorant of the truth...  They consider you to be fools.
> 
> Now with regard to fools and the vacuous leaning on of 'LEGALITIES'...  imagine how comforting that species of reasoning was to those who were LEGALLY stripping innocent people of their property and lives.
> 
> I expect that the comfort dried up pretty quick when it was determined that such was IMMORAL and because of that, millions of people who felt that way decided to stop it.
> 
> And guess what happened THEN!  All those people who were engaged in IMMORAL behavior, were forced to stop.  And not one fuck was given about how THE LAW that provided them with the means to FEEL REAL IMPORTANT... and not a single one of those immoral cranks was 'GRANDFATHERED IN'.
Click to expand...



Funny, despite your opinion on the matter, I'm still legally married (with all the perks that go along with it). That just eats you up doesn't it? Good.


----------



## Seawytch

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Lefties are so given to that noun "force" aren't they? I think we should force castration on gays. How's that for a "force" idea?



How you gonna castrate the lesbians, freak?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure...I'm still legally married. [emoji13]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  "Legally"?  ROFL!  Then that means that you're working under ILLEGITIMATE LAW.  This of course, because Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and this without regard to the perverse pretenses to the contrary.
> 
> (It should be noted that the fundamental trait of relativism is the rejection of objectivity.
> 
> Objectivity is the essential element of 'truth'.  Truth is the essential element of Trust.
> 
> Objectivity, truth and trust are the essential elements of a soundly reasoned morality.
> 
> And all of those are the essential elements of Justice.
> 
> Now folks, take a moment and note the total disregard of ANYTHING remotely akin to a moral component, by a person who flatly rejects any sense of the intrinsic truth that homosexuality is the INVERSE of the human sexuality standard, that the choice to respond to the cravings born of that deviant sexuality, demonstrates a deviant character..., this as a result of the inability to trust in the cultural standards which recognize the principles in nature which prohibit viability in those who make the choice to engage in such behavior, along with the total disregard for any sense of justice, wherein the overwhelming majority of people in the overwhelming majority of states refuse to accept the lowering of Marriage standard to include circumstances which nature itself rejects.
> 
> Setting their own personal needs, wants and desires over the good of everyone else.  So bereft of objectivity, these people need only to point toward the COLOR of LAW, wherein a handful of illicit judicial decisions temporarily set aside THE LAW, established by the due processes common to The LAW.
> 
> And most importantly, unable to merely accept the temporary judicial win, they come to publicly profess that they're enjoying 'POPULAR SUPPORT in 30 of 50 States'.  Which is false, and they know its false.  Such represents a deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence YOU, the public, who they believe are ignorant of the truth...  They consider you to be fools.
> 
> Now with regard to fools and the vacuous leaning on of 'LEGALITIES'...  imagine how comforting that species of reasoning was to those who were LEGALLY stripping innocent people of their property and lives.
> 
> I expect that the comfort dried up pretty quick when it was determined that such was IMMORAL and because of that, millions of people who felt that way decided to stop it.
> 
> And guess what happened THEN!  All those people who were engaged in IMMORAL behavior, were forced to stop.  And not one fuck was given about how THE LAW that provided them with the means to FEEL REAL IMPORTANT... and not a single one of those immoral cranks was 'GRANDFATHERED IN'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, despite your opinion on the matter, I'm still legally married (with all the perks that go along with it). That just eats you up doesn't it? Good.
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TemplarKormac said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it didn't. If 'nature' doesn't want a trait in a population, it has very effective means of weeding it out. Especially traits that result in genetic suicide. And in the case of homosexuality, the numbers are outrageously high for random chance. *1.5 to 4% of virtually *every* population group? *If it were genuinely the genetic abnormality you describe that resulted in genetic suicide for those afflicted by it..... nature would have weeded it out in a few generations. Yet its persisted for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years through a thousand generations.
> 
> Homosexuality may serve the same purpose as menopause: labor providers and resource collectors that don't add mouths to feed to the mix. We've seen similar patterns in animals like Killer whales....where post-menopausal mothers help take care of their adult male offspring. When the mother finally dies, the rate of death for her male offspring skyrocket. The existence of support workers who can't breed is an entirely plausible survival mechanism. Especially since we already see it in menopausal women and elsewhere in the animal kingdom
> 
> And given the outrageously high numbers for homosexuality, the fact that it is a genetic dead end, and its consistent presence in our species, the idea that its just a random oops is pretty unlikely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but 1.5 to 4% indicates a genetic outlier, not an intended result. An evolutionary trait doesn't simply manifest and disappear in a few millennia, it takes tens of thousands, if not hundreds of millions of years to manifest itself and wear off. Just look at the evolutionary patterns of the dinosaurs. Just because homosexuality is here now, doesn't mean it will exist oh, say, in a million years.
> 
> I don't see homosexuality as a survival mechanism. It would in fact be counterproductive to survival. How would it help the person who has it with survival? I cannot possibly see any benefits. Humans and whales are completely different animals. If we can't breed, we die out. Our species continuity is dependent on reproduction. Hence my position that homosexuality is a flaw in the human genome, as it was never intended to help the breeding processes along.
Click to expand...


Homosexuality is likely a manifestation of the harbinger variety.  It is not designed to provide safety or to promote the survival of the individual homo-, it is designed to provide a warning to others.  

"It" (the presence of the abundance of homosexuals) is a sign of 'The Dead Canary' variety, which says: "GET OUT OF HERE!"

Naturally... to the Ideological Left... it says: "OH! LOOK! It's a parade, EVERYONE should be gay!"  which, granted, is pretty much the same sign, but I thought it should be noted.


----------



## RKMBrown

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure...I'm still legally married. [emoji13]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  "Legally"?  ROFL!  Then that means that you're working under ILLEGITIMATE LAW.  This of course, because Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and this without regard to the perverse pretenses to the contrary.
> 
> (It should be noted that the fundamental trait of relativism is the rejection of objectivity.
> 
> Objectivity is the essential element of 'truth'.  Truth is the essential element of Trust.
> 
> Objectivity, truth and trust are the essential elements of a soundly reasoned morality.
> 
> And all of those are the essential elements of Justice.
> 
> Now folks, take a moment and note the total disregard of ANYTHING remotely akin to a moral component, by a person who flatly rejects any sense of the intrinsic truth that homosexuality is the INVERSE of the human sexuality standard, that the choice to respond to the cravings born of that deviant sexuality, demonstrates a deviant character..., this as a result of the inability to trust in the cultural standards which recognize the principles in nature which prohibit viability in those who make the choice to engage in such behavior, along with the total disregard for any sense of justice, wherein the overwhelming majority of people in the overwhelming majority of states refuse to accept the lowering of Marriage standard to include circumstances which nature itself rejects.
> 
> Setting their own personal needs, wants and desires over the good of everyone else.  So bereft of objectivity, these people need only to point toward the COLOR of LAW, wherein a handful of illicit judicial decisions temporarily set aside THE LAW, established by the due processes common to The LAW.
> 
> And most importantly, unable to merely accept the temporary judicial win, they come to publicly profess that they're enjoying 'POPULAR SUPPORT in 30 of 50 States'.  Which is false, and they know its false.  Such represents a deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence YOU, the public, who they believe are ignorant of the truth...  They consider you to be fools.
> 
> Now with regard to fools and the vacuous leaning on of 'LEGALITIES'...  imagine how comforting that species of reasoning was to those who were LEGALLY stripping innocent people of their property and lives.
> 
> I expect that the comfort dried up pretty quick when it was determined that such was IMMORAL and because of that, millions of people who felt that way decided to stop it.
> 
> And guess what happened THEN!  All those people who were engaged in IMMORAL behavior, were forced to stop.  And not one fuck was given about how THE LAW that provided them with the means to FEEL REAL IMPORTANT... and not a single one of those immoral cranks was 'GRANDFATHERED IN'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, despite your opinion on the matter, I'm still legally married (with all the perks that go along with it). That just eats you up doesn't it? Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

No that's heterosexual sex.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TemplarKormac said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.
> 
> Ya see, Nature provides for every aspect of marriage... First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology.  The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus.  The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.
> 
> Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations.  You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.
> 
> Of course, such in no way offers any sense of legitimacy, and in no way would produce a popular inference that people of illegitimate nature are anything but what their provides establishes them as.  Which means that those of illegitimate nature will natural eschew such otherwise appropriate institutions.  They will prefer instead to attempt to establish the elusive legitimacy they crave, through deceit, fraud and ignorance, glomming onto and forcing themselves into institutions which through their established standards enjoy intrinsic legitimacy.  Which sadly, given their intellectual limitations, and their sociopathic tendencies, they'll possess no means to recognize that the instant the institution drops the standard that precludes them, the legitimacy otherwise inherent in such evaporates into the ether.   Leaving the institution without meaning of purpose and the purpose it served, unserved and the culture that depended upon that service: TOTALLY BONED!
> 
> Of course, a spike in socialism and homosexuality is a harbinger of catastrophic societal collapse, which inevitably results in the near extinction of all homosexuals and their most species socialist comrades.
> 
> So... I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nature created homosexuality...which makes your entire diatribe moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.
Click to expand...


Homosexuality is not a 'mistake'... it is a response to one's environment.  And a manifestation produced by the weakest of characters.   The first and most likely is the environmental trigger common to another homosexual having sexually abused an infant or more likely a toddler.  

The act is not violent, but playful... the child sees such as a game, with someone they trust and the game is enjoyable and endears them to the adult.    This prematurely triggers the child's own physiological network, imprinting the sex response to the gender which first aroused it.

My guess is that this is the primary generator responsible for producing homosexuals.  Seconded by social pressures such as levels of competition for mates of the distinct gender, etc... 

The homosexuals chronically deny this... but such would likely and purposefully occur in the very early stages of development, before the child is able to communicate verbally.  Thus prior to the point when one's brain begins 'writing' long term, conscious memory. 

This then sets in the subconscious and manifest sooner in some than others... all of which likely stems from any number of other considerations, such as the influence of the Father or the lack of same, perhaps inadequate male guidance during the formative years... and of course the level of competition for mates of the distinct gender and social pressure.  A pressure which is less today than it has ever been in the US and we have seen a stark increase in children who 'claim' to be homosexual... of course they claim it on tuesday, deny it on wednesday and repeat it as their need for 'speciality' ebbs and flows, but the component is identified there nonetheless.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Only the law rules in this case, not where r my key's feelings.


----------



## Syriusly

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Lefties are so given to that noun "force" aren't they? I think we should force castration on gays. How's that for a "force" idea?



Not a surprise from the guy who likes the idea of homosexuals being killed. 

Sick, sick, sick.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.
> 
> Ya see, Nature provides for every aspect of marriage... First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology.  The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus.  The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.
> 
> Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations.  You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.
> 
> Of course, such in no way offers any sense of legitimacy, and in no way would produce a popular inference that people of illegitimate nature are anything but what their provides establishes them as.  Which means that those of illegitimate nature will natural eschew such otherwise appropriate institutions.  They will prefer instead to attempt to establish the elusive legitimacy they crave, through deceit, fraud and ignorance, glomming onto and forcing themselves into institutions which through their established standards enjoy intrinsic legitimacy.  Which sadly, given their intellectual limitations, and their sociopathic tendencies, they'll possess no means to recognize that the instant the institution drops the standard that precludes them, the legitimacy otherwise inherent in such evaporates into the ether.   Leaving the institution without meaning of purpose and the purpose it served, unserved and the culture that depended upon that service: TOTALLY BONED!
> 
> Of course, a spike in socialism and homosexuality is a harbinger of catastrophic societal collapse, which inevitably results in the near extinction of all homosexuals and their most species socialist comrades.
> 
> So... I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nature created homosexuality...which makes your entire diatribe moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not a 'mistake'... it is a response to one's environment.s.
Click to expand...


Christianity is not a mistake....it is a response to one's environment.


----------



## Syriusly

Seawytch said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties are so given to that noun "force" aren't they? I think we should force castration on gays. How's that for a "force" idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How you gonna castrate the lesbians, freak?
Click to expand...


I think he is willing to try.


----------



## Syriusly

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Lefties are so given to that noun "force" aren't they? I think we should force castration on gays. How's that for a "force" idea?



Tom- if it wasn't illegal- would you be out shooting guys you think are gay right now? I mean if you were able to afford a gun?


----------



## ShackledNation

TemplarKormac said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.
> 
> Ya see, Nature provides for every aspect of marriage... First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology.  The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus.  The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.
> 
> Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations.  You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.
> 
> Of course, such in no way offers any sense of legitimacy, and in no way would produce a popular inference that people of illegitimate nature are anything but what their provides establishes them as.  Which means that those of illegitimate nature will natural eschew such otherwise appropriate institutions.  They will prefer instead to attempt to establish the elusive legitimacy they crave, through deceit, fraud and ignorance, glomming onto and forcing themselves into institutions which through their established standards enjoy intrinsic legitimacy.  Which sadly, given their intellectual limitations, and their sociopathic tendencies, they'll possess no means to recognize that the instant the institution drops the standard that precludes them, the legitimacy otherwise inherent in such evaporates into the ether.   Leaving the institution without meaning of purpose and the purpose it served, unserved and the culture that depended upon that service: TOTALLY BONED!
> 
> Of course, a spike in socialism and homosexuality is a harbinger of catastrophic societal collapse, which inevitably results in the near extinction of all homosexuals and their most species socialist comrades.
> 
> So... I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nature created homosexuality...which makes your entire diatribe moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.
Click to expand...

Really? So recessive traits are mistakes? White skin is a mistake? Red hair is a mistake? Blue eyes are a mistake? No. You pretend to root your argument in "nature" and "biology" but if you applied your reasoning to all other variations in the human genome you would be faced with absurd and unacceptable conclusions.

That something is a recessive or less common trait does not automatically make it a "mistake." That is a total non sequitur.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.
> 
> Ya see, Nature provides for every aspect of marriage... First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology.  The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus.  The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.
> 
> Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations.  You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.
> 
> Of course, such in no way offers any sense of legitimacy, and in no way would produce a popular inference that people of illegitimate nature are anything but what their provides establishes them as.  Which means that those of illegitimate nature will natural eschew such otherwise appropriate institutions.  They will prefer instead to attempt to establish the elusive legitimacy they crave, through deceit, fraud and ignorance, glomming onto and forcing themselves into institutions which through their established standards enjoy intrinsic legitimacy.  Which sadly, given their intellectual limitations, and their sociopathic tendencies, they'll possess no means to recognize that the instant the institution drops the standard that precludes them, the legitimacy otherwise inherent in such evaporates into the ether.   Leaving the institution without meaning of purpose and the purpose it served, unserved and the culture that depended upon that service: TOTALLY BONED!
> 
> Of course, a spike in socialism and homosexuality is a harbinger of catastrophic societal collapse, which inevitably results in the near extinction of all homosexuals and their most species socialist comrades.
> 
> So... I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nature created homosexuality...which makes your entire diatribe moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not a 'mistake'... it is a response to one's environment.  And a manifestation produced by the weakest of characters.   The first and most likely is the environmental trigger common to another homosexual having sexually abused an infant or more likely a toddler.
> 
> The act is not violent, but playful... the child sees such as a game, with someone they trust and the game is enjoyable and endears them to the adult.    This prematurely triggers the child's own physiological network, imprinting the sex response to the gender which first aroused it.
> 
> My guess is that this is the primary generator responsible for producing homosexuals.  Seconded by social pressures such as levels of competition for mates of the distinct gender, etc...
> 
> The homosexuals chronically deny this... but such would likely and purposefully occur in the very early stages of development, before the child is able to communicate verbally.  Thus prior to the point when one's brain begins 'writing' long term, conscious memory.
> 
> This then sets in the subconscious and manifest sooner in some than others... all of which likely stems from any number of other considerations, such as the influence of the Father or the lack of same, perhaps inadequate male guidance during the formative years... and of course the level of competition for mates of the distinct gender and social pressure.  A pressure which is less today than it has ever been in the US and we have seen a stark increase in children who 'claim' to be homosexual... of course they claim it on tuesday, deny it on wednesday and repeat it as their need for 'speciality' ebbs and flows, but the component is identified there nonetheless.
Click to expand...

I'm gay, and I was never molested. Nor was any other gay person I know. Your argument is BS and has been debunked numerous times. Sexual abuse is not any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.


----------



## bendog

NY Court ok's incest.  We knew it was just a matter of time.  Onward to beastiality and Satan's burning pit of perpetual pain! 

Woman s marriage to half-uncle legal N.Y. top court rules - Yahoo News

It is too late for repentence.  Surely, God will reign down his righteous wrath on this nation that has turned its back on His Plan


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> I'm gay, and I was never molested. Nor was any other gay person I know. Your argument is BS and has been debunked numerous times. Sexual abuse is not any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.



No kiddin'?

So you're suffering from sexual deviancy... and to the best of your knowledge you were never molested?

Do tell... well... I'm suffering from economic deviancy and to the best of my knowledge, I've never be rich.

So, now that we've shared our mutual irrelevancies, we should discuss that the prevalence of sexual abuse among the sexually normal and the abnormal, is irrelevant, because, the sexually normal will not molest a child... while sexual abnormality is the VERY first requirement for someone TO molest a child.  Can't have the second, without the first.

See how that works?  And just as an FYI: (that's why its supremely foolish to allow those who identify themselves through their sexual deviancy, to get anywhere NEAR a position of trust over a child and to EVER allow such to be alone with a child... particularly children in the earlier stages of development.  This due to the certainty that those children who cannot communicate verbally, thus cannot tell Mommy where Uncle Freddy touched little Eddy.  What's more, at such a stage, there's also no chance of their having a conscious memory of such.)

This is how we can be certain that the 'debunking' claim is nonsense.  It's like voter fraud... With thousands of voters having filed through the poll, no one can say that Fred voted for Ed, John and Wilbur?  All we know for sure is that Fred was at all three polling stations and that Ed, John and Wilbur are DEAD!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

bendog said:


> NY Court ok's incest.  We knew it was just a matter of time.  Onward to beastiality and Satan's burning pit of perpetual pain!
> 
> Woman s marriage to half-uncle legal N.Y. top court rules - Yahoo News
> 
> It is too late for repentence.  Surely, God will reign down his righteous wrath on this nation that has turned its back on His Plan



Surely...  And don't think for a moment that the economic catastrophe common to the failure of socialist policy forcing financial markets to set aside sound lending principle in favor for a perverse notion of 'fairness', could ever be an example of THAT!  NO NO!  That's just the natural consequences of tolerating unsound economic policy... NOTHING  "SUPER-NATURAL" about THAT! 

Of course... God is nature, so there's nothing super-natural about God, but let's not get into THAT whole thing... .


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where r my keys is suffering from spiritual deviancy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.
> 
> Ya see, Nature provides for every aspect of marriage... First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology.  The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus.  The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.
> 
> Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations.  You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.
> 
> Of course, such in no way offers any sense of legitimacy, and in no way would produce a popular inference that people of illegitimate nature are anything but what their provides establishes them as.  Which means that those of illegitimate nature will natural eschew such otherwise appropriate institutions.  They will prefer instead to attempt to establish the elusive legitimacy they crave, through deceit, fraud and ignorance, glomming onto and forcing themselves into institutions which through their established standards enjoy intrinsic legitimacy.  Which sadly, given their intellectual limitations, and their sociopathic tendencies, they'll possess no means to recognize that the instant the institution drops the standard that precludes them, the legitimacy otherwise inherent in such evaporates into the ether.   Leaving the institution without meaning of purpose and the purpose it served, unserved and the culture that depended upon that service: TOTALLY BONED!
> 
> Of course, a spike in socialism and homosexuality is a harbinger of catastrophic societal collapse, which inevitably results in the near extinction of all homosexuals and their most species socialist comrades.
> 
> So... I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nature created homosexuality...which makes your entire diatribe moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? So recessive traits are mistakes? White skin is a mistake? Red hair is a mistake? Blue eyes are a mistake? No. You pretend to root your argument in "nature" and "biology" but if you applied your reasoning to all other variations in the human genome you would be faced with absurd and unacceptable conclusions.
> 
> That something is a recessive or less common trait does not automatically make it a "mistake." That is a total non sequitur.
Click to expand...


"Mistake" is a poorly reasoned conclusion.  Such alterations provide some useful purpose, and surges in instances of homosexuality typically portends cultural collapse... .   Therefore, normalizing such is a profoundly BAD IDEA! 

Recognizing such would likely provide a culture with the means to alter its behavior, such as how it is treating procreation... where such would perhaps be taken lightly, causing unsustainable increases in population.  Particular in unsustainable circumstances through inviable individuals, causing unsustainable demands on resources... the solution to such being that coitus be discouraged except where the individuals are capable of bearing the responsibilities common to procreation.

The problem is that "Religion" is the typical purveyor of the calls for such discipline and the major cause of 'the problem' are found in those areas which eschew religion, which is also the same areas suffering the greatest population stress, which also suffer the highest instances of homosexuality, which are the same areas where one finds the highest popular calls for the normalization of sexual abnormality... .

So, well... you see "The Problem".


----------



## Skylar

> "Mistake" is a poorly reasoned conclusion. Such alterations provide some useful purpose, and surges in instances of homosexuality typically portends cultural collapse... . Therefore, normalizing such is a profoundly BAD IDEA!



Unless it doesn't, Chicken little.



> ecognizing such would likely provide a culture with the means to alter its behavior, such as how it is treating procreation... where such would perhaps be taken lightly, causing unsustainable increases in population. Particular in unsustainable circumstances through inviable individuals, causing unsustainable demands on resources... the solution to such being that coitus be discouraged except where the individuals are capable of bearing the responsibilities common to procreation.



If population increases are your concern, why would you oppose a marriage between two gay men? I don't think procreation works the way you think it works.



> The problem is that "Religion" is the typical purveyor of the calls for such discipline and the major cause of 'the problem' are found in those areas which eschew religion, which is also the same areas suffering the greatest population stress, which also suffer the highest instances of homosexuality, which are the same areas where one finds the highest popular calls for the normalization of sexual abnormality... .



The problem is that your argument assumes cause and effect that logically you can't support. You simply say it must be so based on empty appeals to authority. And appealing to the authority of 'nature' makes no more logical sense than appealing to the authority of 'god'. As in either case we would have to accept you as an infallible arbiter.

And you aren't.

If your argument had merit, it could stand on its logic and its reason and wouldn't be utterly dependent on fallacies of logic. But it can't. When faced with the huge crippling holes in your reasoning, you ignore them.

*No rational person ever would. *And that's why your reasoning doesn't appeal to the rational mind. Nor does it have the slightest relevance to the law or the rights of anyone else.


----------



## Skylar

> So, now that we've shared our mutual irrelevancies, we should discuss that the prevalence of sexual abuse among the sexually normal and the abnormal, is irrelevant, because, the sexually normal will not molest a child... while sexual abnormality is the VERY first requirement for someone TO molest a child.  Can't have the second, without the first.


That's a 'no true scotsman' fallacy.  As the moment a heterosexual man molests a child, per you he's no longer heterosexual. BUT....if a homosexual molests a child, they're still homosexual.

Your reasoning is a self contradictory mess, based, as always, on classic fallacies of logic.



> See how that works?



Laughing...clearly you don't.



> And just as an FYI: (that's why its supremely foolish to allow those who identify themselves through their sexual deviancy, to get anywhere NEAR a position of trust over a child and to EVER allow such to be alone with a child... particularly children in the earlier stages of development.  This due to the certainty that those children who cannot communicate verbally, thus cannot tell Mommy where Uncle Freddy touched little Eddy.  What's more, at such a stage, there's also no chance of their having a conscious memory of such.)


Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality. But its not. And 'poof' another of your logical fallacies goes back to midden heap of failed rhetorical contrivances.

Are you starting to see why nothing you're posting has the slightest relevance on anyone else's rights? And why when your arguments are made in court, they're laughed out of it? You might want to look into that.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> "Mistake" is a poorly reasoned conclusion. Such alterations provide some useful purpose, and surges in instances of homosexuality typically portends cultural collapse... . Therefore, normalizing such is a profoundly BAD IDEA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it doesn't, Chicken little.
Click to expand...


It doesn't?  So you're saying that you have data which holds that instances of homosexuality are consistent in both small relatively unstressed rurality and high-stress urban environments?  

LOL!  Are you sure?  

I ask because we don't get many cries for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality from Buhggtussel or Dry Wells.  And there is no end to the hue and cry for such in every population center in the western world.  So... it would appear that you've once again demonstrated that your argument has hit its maximum fecal capacity.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> [r]ecognizing such would likely provide a culture with the means to alter its behavior, such as how it is treating procreation... where such would perhaps be taken lightly, causing unsustainable increases in population. Particular in unsustainable circumstances through inviable individuals, causing unsustainable demands on resources... the solution to such being that coitus be discouraged except where the individuals are capable of bearing the responsibilities common to procreation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If population increases are your concern, why would you oppose a marriage between two gay men? I don't think procreation works the way you think it works.
Click to expand...


Who said I was worried about population problems.  I'm worried about normalizing harbingers. It's the cultural equivalent of ignoring "BRIDGE OUT"... it simply never ends well.

FTR: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> The problem is that "Religion" is the typical purveyor of the calls for such discipline and the major cause of 'the problem' are found in those areas which eschew religion, which is also the same areas suffering the greatest population stress, which also suffer the highest instances of homosexuality, which are the same areas where one finds the highest popular calls for the normalization of sexual abnormality... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that your argument assumes cause and effect that logically you can't support.
Click to expand...


Your subjective NEED to REJECT that which is otherwise obvious, has no actual bearing on the validity of that which is otherwise obvious.

See how that works?


----------



## Skylar

> It doesn't? So you're saying that you have data which holds that instances of homosexuality are consistent in both small relatively unstressed rurality and high-stress urban environments?



I'm saying there's no evidence of homosexuality causing any collapse in society. Or that our society is collapsing as homosexuality becomes more accepted. There's no cause and effect.



> Who said I was worried about population problems. I'm worried about normalizing harbingers. It's the cultural equivalent of ignoring "BRIDGE OUT"... it simply never ends well.


Harbingers who can't have children because they lead to this ?



> r]ecognizing such would likely provide a culture with the means to alter its behavior, such as how it is treating procreation... where such would perhaps be taken lightly, causing unsustainable increases in population. Particular in unsustainable circumstances through inviable individuals, causing unsustainable demands on resources... the solution to such being that coitus be discouraged except where the individuals are capable of bearing the responsibilities common to procreation.



I don't think procreation works the way you think it does.  As there's zero connection between recognizing gay marriage and 'unsustainable increases in population'.


----------



## Skylar

> Your subjective NEED to REJECT that which is otherwise obvious, has no actual bearing on the validity of that which is otherwise obvious.
> 
> See how that works?



My need is for logical, rational, well reasoned arguments. And your claims fail so consistently on that front that even YOU refuse to discuss them. For example, if the only purpose of sex is procreation....then why would infertile people ever have sex? If the sole purpose of marrige is children, then why are the infertile allowed to marry and the marriages of the childless still valid?

You have no answers as your logic doesn't work. So you flee from the logical inconsistencies in your claims and make empty appeals to authority. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have to run from the holes in your reasoning. And you wouldn't need the appeals to authority that your claims are utterly dependent upon.

Shrugs....which is why your arguments are so consistently irrelevant to the rights of anyone else.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> So, now that we've shared our mutual irrelevancies, we should discuss that the prevalence of sexual abuse among the sexually normal and the abnormal, is irrelevant, because, the sexually normal will not molest a child... while sexual abnormality is the VERY first requirement for someone TO molest a child.  Can't have the second, without the first.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a 'no true scotsman' fallacy.
Click to expand...


No, 'that' is an incontrovertible fact.  You're assuming that sex with a female child by an adult male is 'hetero-sexual' therefore 'normal' sexuality.

Pursuing children for sexual gratification deviates from the sexual standard, wherein sexual behavior serves procreation.  You 'feel' that sexual behavior serves your entertainment and you feel that this subjective need on your part rises above the purpose intrinsic to such, further seeing that recognition and defense of, along with the adherence to _the purpose of sexual behavior_ is a threat to you use sex for your personal entertainment.  There's nothing I can do to help you with that.  As THAT presents as a symptom of some form of sociopathy.



Skylar said:


> Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality.



The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.  The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality.  The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN.

This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.

(LOL!  Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Your subjective NEED to REJECT that which is otherwise obvious, has no actual bearing on the validity of that which is otherwise obvious.See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> ... if the only purpose of sex is procreation....then why would infertile people ever have sex? If the sole purpose of marrige is children, then why are the infertile allowed to marry and the marriages of the childless still valid?
Click to expand...


Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works, because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

LOL!  

OOops... It appears we have encountered a STUMPER.  

(Color me _*SHOCKED!*_)


----------



## bendog

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your subjective NEED to REJECT that which is otherwise obvious, has no actual bearing on the validity of that which is otherwise obvious.See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> ... if the only purpose of sex is procreation....then why would infertile people ever have sex? If the sole purpose of marrige is children, then why are the infertile allowed to marry and the marriages of the childless still valid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.
Click to expand...

You're proof.  There is no reputable support for homosexuality being some deviancy or illness.


----------



## Skylar

> No, 'that' is an incontrovertible fact. You're assuming that sex with a female child by an adult male is 'hetero-sexual' therefore 'normal' sexuality.



That's obviously  a No True Scotsman fallacy. Where any heterosexual who abuses a child is 'no true heterosexual'. Even the subject matter of sex crimes is the same.



> The term was coined by Antony Flew, who gave an example of a Scotsman who sees a newspaper article about a series of sex crimes taking place in Brighton, and responds that "no Scotsman would do such a thing." When later confronted with evidence of another Scotsman doing even _worse_ acts, his response is that "no _true_ Scotsman would do such a thing," thus disavowing membership in the group "Scotsman" to the criminal on the basis that the commission of the crime is evidence for not being a Scotsman.
> 
> However, this is a fallacy as there is nothing in the definition of "Scotsman" which makes such acts impossible. The term "No True Scotsman" has since expanded to refer to anyone who attempts to disown or distance themselves from wayward members of a group by excluding them from it.
> 
> No True Scotsman - RationalWiki



Without logical fallacies, your posts would be little more than punctuation.



> The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality. The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.



For your claim that no child should be left with a homosexual, you would have to establish that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. You can't. The logic of your claims is broken. Your reasoning doesn't work. And you conclusion is thus invalid.

You're not particularly good at this, are you?



> Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.



Circular reasoning doesn't work. You're still fleeing from the failiures in your own logic. You won't discuss your own assumptions, you can't possibly justify them, and you flee whenever they're mentioned.

The fact that logic breaks when applied to these questions...
_
... if the only purpose of sex is procreation....then why would infertile people ever have sex? If the sole purpose of marrige is children, then why are the infertile allowed to marry and the marriages of the childless still valid?_

...is blatantly obvious to anyone who watches you run. Keep running. You're demonstrating why your claims have no particular merit: because they can't stand up to logical or rational scrutiny.


----------



## Skylar

> You're proof. There is no reputable support for homosexuality being some deviancy or illness.



Shhh. Don't ruin this. You have no idea the library of hapless silly shit this guy has already given me. Why ruin the batshit gravy train now.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

bendog said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your subjective NEED to REJECT that which is otherwise obvious, has no actual bearing on the validity of that which is otherwise obvious.See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> ... if the only purpose of sex is procreation....then why would infertile people ever have sex? If the sole purpose of marrige is children, then why are the infertile allowed to marry and the marriages of the childless still valid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're proof.  There is no reputable support for homosexuality being some deviancy or illness.
Click to expand...


The proof that homosexuality deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology is established in the deviation of homosexuality FROM THE STANDARD INTRINSIC TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY: Wherein the male genitalia is designed to penetrate the female genitalia... this design being central to the means by which the species propagates.  

This is not even a remotely debatable point.  That you are incapable of admitting what is otherwise obvious, is again: A presentation of a profound delusion, thus likely presents your suffering a severe form of sociopathy.



Skylar said:


> Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality.



The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.  The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality.  The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN.

This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.

(LOL!  Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)


----------



## bendog

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your subjective NEED to REJECT that which is otherwise obvious, has no actual bearing on the validity of that which is otherwise obvious.See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> ... if the only purpose of sex is procreation....then why would infertile people ever have sex? If the sole purpose of marrige is children, then why are the infertile allowed to marry and the marriages of the childless still valid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're proof.  There is no reputable support for homosexuality being some deviancy or illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proof that homosexuality deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology is established in the deviation of homosexuality FROM THE STANDARD INTRINSIC TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY: Wherein the male genitalia is designed to penetrate the female genitalia... this design being central to the means by which the species propagates.
> 
> This is not even a remotely debatable point.  That you are incapable of admitting what is otherwise obvious, is again: A presentation of a profound delusion, thus likely presents your suffering a severe form of sociopathy.
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.  The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality.  The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.
> 
> Allow me to demonstrate:
> 
> Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN.
> 
> This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.
> 
> (LOL!  Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)
Click to expand...


Well, every reputable professional medical or psychological group disagrees, but continue on in your trip down rant lane.


----------



## Syriusly

bendog said:


> NY Court ok's incest.  We knew it was just a matter of time.  Onward to beastiality and Satan's burning pit of perpetual pain!
> 
> Woman s marriage to half-uncle legal N.Y. top court rules - Yahoo News
> 
> It is too late for repentence.  Surely, God will reign down his righteous wrath on this nation that has turned its back on His Plan



And in related news- from the actual article:

_In a 6-0 decision siding with Nguyen, Judge Robert Smith wrote, "First cousins are allowed to marry in New York, and I conclude that it was not the Legislature's purpose to avert the similar, relatively small, genetic risk inherent in relationships like this one."_
_
According to court documents, Maine is the only state that expressly allows marriages between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews. Courts in four states, including Kansas and Missouri, have upheld such marriages, while about 30 states have banned them.
_
Far from a 'matter of time"- Maine had already allowed this. 

Have fun about fantasizing about everyone going to hell though.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> No, 'that' is an incontrovertible fact. You're assuming that sex with a female child by an adult male is 'hetero-sexual' therefore 'normal' sexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's obviously  a No True Scotsman fallacy. Where any heterosexual who abuses a child is 'no true heterosexual'. Even the subject matter of sex crimes is the same.
Click to expand...


Thank you, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The issue is not hetero-sexuality.  The issue is sexual normality as defined by the standard intrinsic to human physiology.  Pursuit of children for sexual gratification, inarguably deviates from that standard.





Skylar said:


> Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality.


The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.  The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality.  The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN.

This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.

(LOL!  Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN.
> )



Why do you want adults to have sex with children?

Children cannot legally provide consent to have sex.

If sex with children is what you want- you will have to change the law.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

bendog said:


> The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.  The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality.  The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.
> 
> Allow me to demonstrate:
> 
> Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN.
> 
> This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.
> 
> (LOL!  Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)



Well, every reputable professional medical or psychological group disagrees, but continue on in your trip down rant lane.[/QUOTE]

Wow~ 

IF that had any relevance to anything said here, and was not set upon a wholly invalid logical construct, MAN! Would that have been a great point. 

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## Skylar

> The proof that homosexuality deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology is established in the deviation of homosexuality FROM THE STANDARD INTRINSIC TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY: Wherein the male genitalia is designed to penetrate the female genitalia... this design being central to the means by which the species propagates.



For your claim that no child should be left with a homosexual, you would have to establish that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. You can't. The logic of your claims is broken. Your reasoning doesn't work. And you conclusion is thus invalid.



> The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality. The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.



Says you, citing yourself as 'Advocates of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality'. Which means nothing.

You still haven't presented the slightest evidence, reason or logic that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. Just like you couldn't establish that the only purpose of sex is procreation. Or the only purpose of marriage is children.

*You simply 'say' it must be so. Based on you claiming to speak for the authority you're appealing to.* Your claims don't hold up when tested against logic, reason, or rational thinking. Anymore than insisting that since the only 'standard intrinsic to human physiology' for eating is fueling the body.....then having a piece of birthday cake to celebrate your son's 4th birthday party is 'deceptive', 'abhorrent', 'fraudulent' 'deviant' and 'evil'.

Smiling.....no, it isn't. There's more than one purpose to sex. There's more than one purpose to marriage. And there's more than one purpose to eating. None are defined exclusively by 'standard intrinsic human physiology'.

Your logic doesn't work. Your reason doesn't work. Try again.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> The proof that homosexuality deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology is established in the deviation of homosexuality FROM THE STANDARD INTRINSIC TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY: Wherein the male genitalia is designed to penetrate the female genitalia... this design being central to the means by which the species propagates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For your claim that no child should be left with a homosexual, you would have to establish that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. ...
Click to expand...


No... I need only establish that those who crave sexual gratification through sexual behavior with children, suffer from the psychosis inherent in sexual abnormality and that homosexuality presents with sexual abnormality. 




Skylar said:


> Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality.


The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.  The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality.  The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN.

This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.

(LOL!  Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proof that homosexuality deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology is established in the deviation of homosexuality FROM THE STANDARD INTRINSIC TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY: Wherein the male genitalia is designed to penetrate the female genitalia... this design being central to the means by which the species propagates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For your claim that no child should be left with a homosexual, you would have to establish that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... I need only establish that those who crave sexual gratification through sexual behavior with children, suffer from the psychosis inherent in sexual abnormality and that homosexuality presents with sexual abnormality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.  The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality.  The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.
> 
> Allow me to demonstrate:
> 
> Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN.
> 
> This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.
> 
> (LOL!  Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)
Click to expand...


The bat guano crazy is almost over?

Oh we know that is not true.


----------



## Seawytch

No the bat guano crazy isn't over. They'll get crazier with each new marriage equality state.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Isn't it cool how they can't answer the simple question?

And this even as they would have you believe that the pursuit of children for sexual gratification is "WRONG!" and that it has ABSOLUTELY >NO COMMONALITY< with their own abnormal sexual proclivities.

They never fail to _IMPLY_ that they reject the pursuit of children for sexual gratification, *YET they never seem quite able to specify their contest of such.*

Here's a clue: Where you corner them into professing a contest: IT ALWAYS RESTS IN LEGALITY!  "It's against the LAW"... (which of course was the case with sodomy, until the law was recently changed, based upon the subjective edicts of "SCIENCE!", which 'determined' that sexual abnormality is _PERFECTLY NORMAL_.)

See the problem?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> No the bat guano crazy isn't over. They'll get crazier with each new marriage equality state.



There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality", as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality.


The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.  The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality.  The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING 'CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN'.

This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.

(LOL!  Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)


----------



## JakeStarkey

The great numbers of Heteros and Homos are not involved with _The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. _


----------



## Skylar

> The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality. The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.



Says you, citing you. But you haven't factually established that. You simply declare it must be so....

*....and then just keep repeating yourself. *If your claim had merit, you could use reason, logic, and evidence to factually establish. You can't. Ending your babble before it even began.



> Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING 'CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN'.



And when did I do this? You're using the 'when did you stop beating your wife' fallacy. Its like the logical fallacy sampling platter with you.

Once again, your argument breaks at the exact same place: *you can't logically or rationally establish your claim. *You simply say it must be so. Because you say so.

Yawning...nope. You're nobody. You define nothing and you speak for no one but yourself.

You're still stuck trying to logically and rationally support your debunked claim that marriage has only one purpose, and that sex has only one purpose. Neither of which you can prove. And I've logically and rationally disproven dozens of times. You're just stacking your rhetorical failures like cord wood.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

OVER TWO HOURS and 6 posts advancing the simple inquiry posted above... 

"Things that make ya go HMmmm."


----------



## Skylar

And can I take it to your rout to pedophilia and your stark refusal to discuss the topic of the thread......that even you acknowledge that your arguments opposing the legality of same sex marraige make no sense?

I mean, if sex has only one purpose: procreation.....why then would infertile couples ever have sex. I mean, are Nanna and Pop-pop sexual deviants for engaging in relations outside your 'only one purpose'? They have no more chance of having a child than a gay couple. Yet they still knock boots.

And if marriage serves only one purpose; children.....why are the marriages of the infertile and childless still valid? If children were truly the only purpose in marriage, than the marriage of anyone unable to fulfill that purpose would be invalid.

*But it isn't. *

How do you explain these truck sized holes in your reason and logic? How do you reconcile these obvious contradictions to your assertions? How do you explain these incontrovertible demonstrates that there is indeed more than one purpose in sex. And more than one purpose in  marriage?

You don't. You can't. As your logic doesn't work. And never has.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality. The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you. But you haven't factually established that ...
Click to expand...


*The Board should recognize that the above member concludes in her own mind, that there is no evidence that the pursuit of children for sexual gratification presents ANY deviation from human sexual normality... *

This is the current state of the regression of this cult.  They're now sufficiently comfortable to no longer even feign a contest against pedophilia.  

Again... it should be noted that this began with my assertion that those determined to legalize pedophilia are central to the movement to legalize homosexuality.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the bat guano crazy isn't over. They'll get crazier with each new marriage equality state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality", as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


Then what possible purpose would be served in opposing gay marriage...if gay marriage doesn't exist? If its a universal truth and objective morality and the laws of nature and all the other appeals to authority you've offered........then no law or legal recognition would change that. 

Thus, why bother opposing gay marriage under the law. Its not like it has any impact on your conceptions of yourself as the infallible arbiter of all objective truth. Or in anyway changes the nature of marriage as you understand it.

So.....you keep believing whatever you'd like. And we'll keep expanding marriage rights under the law for gays and lesbians across the country.

Sounds like a win-win to me.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality. The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you. But you haven't factually established that ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Board should recognize that the above member concludes in her own mind, that there is no evidence that the pursuit of children for sexual gratification presents ANY deviation from human sexual normality... *
> 
> This is the current state of the regression of this cult.  They're now sufficiently comfortable to no longer even feign a contest against pedophilia.
> 
> Again... it should be noted that this began with my assertion that those determined to legalize pedophilia are central to the movement to legalize homosexuality.
Click to expand...



What possible relevance does your obsession with pedophilia have with gay marriage, its legality, churches being forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies against their will?

You've completely abandoned your every argument regarding gay marriage, run from your every claim, and now refuse to address the topic. 

So much for your 'logic' and 'reason'. If even you are going to treat your claims like the flotsam they are, why would we give a shit?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING 'CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when did I do this?
Click to expand...



You haven't... and I only asked to get you to admit that you have not and through your failure to do so here, YOU have established that YOU: DO NOT REJECT ADULTS PURSUING CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.

You see... any 'normal' person: *WOULD*.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the bat guano crazy isn't over. They'll get crazier with each new marriage equality state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality", as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what possible purpose would be served in opposing gay marriage...
Click to expand...


The purpose is noted below: Wherein it is established that YOU an unapologetic Advocate of Sexual Abnormality, find no abnormality in adults pursuing children for sexual gratification, and as a result, where the culture accepts the Normalization of the Sexual Abnormality: Homosexuality, it IN YOU MIND, accepts ALL FORMS OF SEXUAL ABNORMALITY, including that which requires the ADULT to pursue CHILDREN for sexual gratification.

Again, the reader should know that THIS was established by the Advocate seeking to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, in her own words:



Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING 'CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when did I do this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't... and I only asked to get you to admit that you have not and through your failure to do so here, YOU have established that YOU: DO NOT REJECT ADULTS PURSUING CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.
> 
> You see... any 'normal' person: *WOULD*.
Click to expand...





Skylar said:


> The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality. The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you. But you haven't factually established that ...
Click to expand...


*The Board should recognize that the above member concludes in her own mind, that there is no evidence that the pursuit of children for sexual gratification presents ANY deviation from human sexual normality... *

This is the current state of the regression of this cult.  They're now sufficiently comfortable to no longer even feign a contest against pedophilia.  

Again... it should be noted that this began with my assertion that those determined to legalize pedophilia are central to the movement to legalize homosexuality.


----------



## Skylar

> You haven't...



Then your 'when did you stop beating your wife' fallacy fails again. If you're going to abandon the entire topic of the thread for your personal obsession with pedophilia, if you're going to toss your every silly claim on the midden heap, if you're going to leave the holes in your logic and reason open,bare, and bleeding.....

.....at least flee to something that isn't yet another fallacy of logic.


----------



## Skylar

> he purpose is noted below: Wherein it is established that YOU an unapologetic Advocate of Sexual Abnormality, find no abnormality in adults pursuing children for sexual gratification, and as a result, where the culture accepts the Normalization of the Sexual Abnormality: Homosexuality, it IN YOU MIND, accepts ALL FORMS OF SEXUAL ABNORMALITY, including that which requires the ADULT to pursue CHILDREN for sexual gratification.



The purpose of marriage is noted in your obsession* with pedophilia?*

Um, I don't think marriage means what you think it means. 

You've completely abandoned all of your arguments regarding gay marriage. If even you are going to treat your words as meaningless garbage to be tossed on the midden heap of rhetoric.....can you blame us if we treat your claims exactly the same?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> You haven't...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then your 'when did you stop beating your wife' fallacy fails again. If you're going to abandon the entire topic of the thread for your personal obsession with pedophilia, if you're going to toss your every silly claim on the midden heap, if you're going to leave the holes in your logic and reason open,bare, and bleeding.....
> 
> .....at least flee to something that isn't yet another fallacy of logic.
Click to expand...


The "Loaded Question" is only fallacious where the LOAD sets the subject up to accept that for which and of which they are not guilty.   Ya see: 'Stop beating your wife' is actually a perfectly valid position where one can reasonably show evidence that the individual is, in fact, beating their wife.  If you possessed the slightest understanding of reason and, the natural laws that govern such, you'd have known that.

What I see in your latest '_irrationalization_', is yet ANOTHER IMPLICATION: of the UNFOUNDED VARIETY, which seeks to establish that you DO reject the adult pursuit of children, without actually having stated that ya do and without having provided THE BASIS ON WHICH YOUR REJECTION RESTS!

You were asked 6 times to state the basis for your rejection of such, BECAUSE _REASON REQUIRES THAT A REASONABLE PERSON VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.  _

So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _ I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO STATE THE BASIS OF YOUR REJECTION OF ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> ... Um, I don't think ...



Mm hmm.. and Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... .

You were asked 6 times to state the basis for your rejection of Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.  _

So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO STATE THE BASIS OF YOUR REJECTION OF ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.*


----------



## Skylar

> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... .



Says you, citing you. But there's nothing to say that marriage can't other purposes and other valid bases. As infertile couples with valid marriages demonstrate, its entirely possibly to have a valid basis of marriage that has NOTHING to do with children or the ability to have them. 

*Why then would we exclude gays from marriage for failing to meet a requirement that applies to no one? *

Logically or rationally, we wouldn't. And there's certainly no legal reason. Why is why gay marriage bans have failed over and over and over again. They have no compelling state interest. Nor do they have a rational basis.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you.
Click to expand...


Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage.  

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... .  Homosexuals come in both flavors.

You were asked 6 times to state the basis for your rejection of Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.  _

So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO STATE THE BASIS OF YOUR REJECTION OF ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Folks, the coolest part of this, is that she's blissfully ignorant that the answer is being established, with her every refusal to simply state her reasoning.

Reason provides that where someone refuses to state their reasoning, it is because they feel that stating such will not be favorable to the perception that they are desperately trying to establish, which demonstrates the fraudulent nature of that perception.

Again, what have they already established as the three fundamental tenets of their 'beliefs': Deceit, FRAUD and ignorance.

How cool is it when we can actually see those would-be pillars of irrationality being fully applied?


----------



## dblack

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Folks, the coolest part of this, is that she's blissfully ignorant that the answer is being established, with her every refusal to simply state her reasoning.
> 
> Reason provides that where someone refuses to state their reasoning, it is because they feel that stating such will not be favorable to the perception that they are desperately trying to establish, which demonstrates the fraudulent nature of that perception.
> 
> Again, what have they already established as the three fundamental tenets of their 'beliefs': Deceit, FRAUD and ignorance.
> 
> How cool is it when we can actually see those pillars of their reasoning being fully applied?



Why don't you just come out of the closet and get it over with?


----------



## Seawytch

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the bat guano crazy isn't over. They'll get crazier with each new marriage equality state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality", as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


Your opinion does not alter my civil marriage in any way, shape or form. I still get a dependent ID card for my spouse and she still gets my SS benefits. [emoji13]


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks, the coolest part of this, is that she's blissfully ignorant that the answer is being established, with her every refusal to simply state her reasoning.
> 
> Reason provides that where someone refuses to state their reasoning, it is because they feel that stating such will not be favorable to the perception that they are desperately trying to establish, which demonstrates the fraudulent nature of that perception.
> 
> Again, what have they already established as the three fundamental tenets of their 'beliefs': Deceit, FRAUD and ignorance.
> 
> How cool is it when we can actually see those pillars of their reasoning being fully applied?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just come out of the closet and get it over with?
Click to expand...


No thanks, ya'll can keep him.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

dblack said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks, the coolest part of this, is that she's blissfully ignorant that the answer is being established, with her every refusal to simply state her reasoning.
> 
> Reason provides that where someone refuses to state their reasoning, it is because they feel that stating such will not be favorable to the perception that they are desperately trying to establish, which demonstrates the fraudulent nature of that perception.
> 
> Again, what have they already established as the three fundamental tenets of their 'beliefs': Deceit, FRAUD and ignorance.
> 
> How cool is it when we can actually see those pillars of their reasoning being fully applied?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just come out of the closet and get it over with?
Click to expand...


Oh a deflective concession....  

DULY NOTED AND SUMMARILY ACCEPTED!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the bat guano crazy isn't over. They'll get crazier with each new marriage equality state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality", as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion does not alter my civil marriage in any way, shape or form. I still get a dependent ID card for my spouse and she still gets my SS benefits. [emoji13]
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  But I am thrilled to hear that you have setup a legally binding roommate agreement, that's probably a really good idea.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you.
Click to expand...


Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage.  

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... .  Homosexuals come in both flavors.

You were asked 6 times to state the basis for your rejection of Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.  _

So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO STATE THE BASIS OF YOUR REJECTION OF ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.*


----------



## dblack

Wow. Big. Red. Words. This guy must be serious.

Seriously in denial.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

dblack said:


> Wow. Big. Red. Words. This guy must be serious.
> 
> Seriously in denial.



More deflection... Why its as if obscurant retorts were, on some level, valid reasoning.  

LOL!  You concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## dblack

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Big. Red. Words. This guy must be serious.
> 
> Seriously in denial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection... Why its as if obscurant retorts were, on some level, valid reasoning.
> 
> LOL!  You concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted.
Click to expand...


Oh good. 

You really don't need to feel guilty about that dick your ass. God loves you anyway.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

dblack said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Big. Red. Words. This guy must be serious.
> 
> Seriously in denial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection... Why its as if obscurant retorts were, on some level, valid reasoning.
> 
> LOL!  You concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh good.
> 
> You really don't need to feel guilty about that dick your ass. God loves you anyway.
Click to expand...


OH!  A violent response to the rejection of your closely held feelings.  COOL!

Sadly, your discourse fails to meet the minimal standards for qualification to participate in discussions with reasonable people.... so you're hereby sentenced to LIFE IN IGNORE!  (Say hit to the other idiots for me... )

Buh Bye!


----------



## Skylar

> Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage.


They're excluded from marrying each other. Or at least, used to be. In 30 of 50 States, its completely legal.  As for what marraige is, you just keep making a declaration. And then repeating yourself. That's not an argument based on logic, reason or evidence. That's just repetition. 

And logically, marriage can have more than one valid purpose. As infertile couples who are married demonstrate. As couples who choose to have no children demonstrate. There is clearly a purpose in marriage that has nothing to do with children, else none of these marriages would be valid.

Yet they are. Disproving the foundational basis of your assumptions. And when faced with the refutation of your assumptoins and the collapse of your logic.......you simply declare that your definition again. Void of reason, logic, or rational thinking.

And without such a reasonable, logical basis......why would we deny gays and lesbians the right to marry for failing to meet the standard that applies to NO one?

Logically, we wouldn't. Which is why gay marriage bans are falling.


----------



## dblack

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Big. Red. Words. This guy must be serious.
> 
> Seriously in denial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection... Why its as if obscurant retorts were, on some level, valid reasoning.
> 
> LOL!  You concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh good.
> 
> You really don't need to feel guilty about that dick your ass. God loves you anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  A violent response to the rejection of your closely held feelings.  COOL!
> 
> Sadly, your discourse fails to meet the minimal standards for qualification to participate in discussions with reasonable people.... so you're hereby sentenced to LIFE IN IGNORE!  (Say hit to the other idiots for me... )
> 
> Buh Bye!
Click to expand...


Shucks, I was looking forward to enlightening discussion with you. I felt like you were on the brink of a real breakthrough, finally coming to terms with your latent feelings.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Three and one half hour since she was asked to simply state the basis for her rejection of the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification... and accept for the non-denial denial wherein she claimed to have never stated that she rejects Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, and despite my having formally granted another opportunity for her to state that she DOES reject The Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, and the basis on which her rejection rests... she can't find a way to profess a rejection of the most vile of all human pursuits.

Why... I wonder?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're excluded from marrying each other.
Click to expand...


No... that is simply not true.  Any homosexual person can marry another homosexual person who they manage to talk into it, as along as the respective parties represent the distinct genders.

You see, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

.
.
.



Skylar said:


> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you.
Click to expand...


Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... .  Homosexuals come in both flavors.

You have been asked now 9 times to state the basis for your rejection of Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION. And never less so, than where one implies that they do so... . _

So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO STATE THE BASIS OF YOUR REJECTION OF ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.*


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're excluded from marrying each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... that is simply not true.  Any homosexual person can marry another homosexual person who they manage to talk into it, as along as the respective parties represent the distinct genders.
> 
> You see, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... .  Homosexuals come in both flavors.
> 
> You have been asked now 9 times to state the basis for your rejection of Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION. And never less so, than where one implies that they do so... . _
> 
> So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO STATE THE BASIS OF YOUR REJECTION OF ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.*
Click to expand...


More bat guano crazy.

Now in big red letters.


----------



## Skylar

> No... that is simply not true. Any homosexual person can marry another homosexual person who they manage to talk into it, as along as the respective parties represent the distinct genders.



Alright. I seems I'm going to have to walk you through this slowly and explicitly. Because you're not just not able to follow. Gays and lesbians are not allowed to enter into same sex marriages until recently. Which, of course, you knew I was referring to all along. But if semantic games are the best you can manage, I'll play.



> You see, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.



And you once again simply 'declare' your belief. And repeat it again and again. That's not an argument based on logic, reason or evidence. That's just repetition. 

And logically, marriage can have more than one valid purpose. As infertile couples who are married demonstrate. As couples who choose to have no children demonstrate. There is clearly a purpose in marriage that has nothing to do with children, else none of these marriages would be valid.

Yet they are. Disproving the foundational basis of your assumptions. And when faced with the refutation of your assumptoins and the collapse of your logic.......you simply declare that your definition again. Void of reason, logic, or rational thinking.

And without such a reasonable, logical basis......why would we deny gays and lesbians the right to marry for failing to meet the standard that applies to NO one?

Logically, we wouldn't. Which is why gay marriage bans are falling.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> More bat guano crazy.
> 
> Now in big red letters.



Cut him some slack. He's stuck. Logically, his arguments failed. Rationally, they failed. And no one is accepting him as infallible arbiter of Nature, Objective Truth and Morality. 

So what does he have left but to abandon the conversation and insist we discuss pedophilia? Clearly the gay marriage debate wasn't working out so well for him.


----------



## Skylar

> Shucks, I was looking forward to enlightening discussion with you. I felt like you were on the brink of a real breakthrough, finally coming to terms with your latent feelings.



You won't get much. He's kinda stuck in a little feedback loop where he won't discuss gay marriage or any of his assumptions about it. He'll just repeat the same declaration and then try to turn the conversation to pedophilia.

He blinked.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... that is simply not true. Any homosexual person can marry another homosexual person who they manage to talk into it, as along as the respective parties represent the distinct genders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alright. I seems I'm going to have to walk you through this slowly and explicitly. Because you're not just not able to follow. Gays and lesbians are not allowed to enter into same sex marriages ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you once again simply 'declare' your belief.
Click to expand...


Yes... You should know that I also 'believe' that it's hot on the sun, that socialism rests within an invalid species of reasoning and you refuse to publicly profess your rejection of adults pursuing children for sexual gratification, along with the basis that you have for rejecting such.

To wit:



Skylar said:


> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you.
Click to expand...


Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage. 

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... .  Homosexuals come in both flavors.

You were asked, now 10 times, over 4 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such. _

So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS OF WHERE EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION OR THE BASIS FOR YOUR AGREEMENT OF SUCH.*


----------



## RKMBrown

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're excluded from marrying each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... that is simply not true.  Any homosexual person can marry another homosexual person who they manage to talk into it, as along as the respective parties represent the distinct genders.
> 
> You see, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... .  Homosexuals come in both flavors.
> 
> You have been asked now 9 times to state the basis for your rejection of Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION. And never less so, than where one implies that they do so... . _
> 
> So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO STATE THE BASIS OF YOUR REJECTION OF ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More bat guano crazy.
> 
> Now in big red letters.
Click to expand...

Are you skylar's sock or just like to run around defending her?


----------



## Skylar

> Yes... You should know that I also 'believe' that it's hot on the sun, that socialism rests within an invalid species of reasoning and you refuse to publicly profess your rejection of adults pursuing children for sexual gratification, along with the basis that you have for rejecting such.



That's not a rational or logical basis. You're not factually establishing that the purposes of marriage, that the purpose of marraige is singular, or that the purposes of marriage can only be served by heterosexual unions.  You're just saying that's the case. Repeating the claim without giving a logical or rational basis for it is just a personal opinion.

While you can believe whatever you'd like, you're beliefs are quite irrelevant to the rights of any other person. 

Worse for you, I can logically prove that there is more than one purpose in marriage. And that this purpose has nothing to do with children. Infertile couples can still marry. And their marriages are still valid. Couples who choose not to have children can still be married. And are valid even if they never have children. Demonstrating that there is a valid purpose in marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

Why then would we deny gays and lesbians the right to same sex marriage....based on a standard that applies to no one? 

You can't say. Your logic breaks yet again. You can't logically or rationally establish that marriage has only one purpose. And I can logically prove that it doesn't.


----------



## Seawytch

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the bat guano crazy isn't over. They'll get crazier with each new marriage equality state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality", as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion does not alter my civil marriage in any way, shape or form. I still get a dependent ID card for my spouse and she still gets my SS benefits. [emoji13]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  But I am thrilled to hear that you have setup a legally binding roommate agreement, that's probably a really good idea.
Click to expand...


Denial...ain't just a river. It's also a slightly insane poster who apparently also lost his keys along with his mind.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

So.. at the end of this day, we learn that The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality have no means to find any 'wrong' in the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification.  Thus we can readily conclude that the deviancy suffered by the lowly homosexual bears no discernible distinction with the deviancy suffered by adults who pursue children for sexual gratification... they are, therefore: ONE IN THE SAME.

How do we know this?  We know them by their fruits.  And these fruits are OUT THERE kids... and THAT is why they should NEVER be allowed to hold ANY POSITION of trust, period... as they have no means to honor that trust... and as such is NEVER more critical than where their authority would involve children.


----------



## Skylar

> Denial...ain't just a river. It's also a slightly insane poster who apparently also lost his keys along with his mind.



He's stuck. Its what painting yourself into the corner looks like. You just start going in smaller and smaller circles.


----------



## dblack

There's a real debate over PA laws underlying this. Despite Where_r_my_Keys' sexual insecurity.


----------



## Skylar

> So.. at the end of this day, we learn that The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality have no means to find any 'wrong' in the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification



We learned that you made the accusation. You've never been able to factually establish it.

Just as you've never been able to factually establish that marriage has only one purpose. Just as you've never been able to factually establish that sex has only one purpose. And both ideas have been disproven by infertile couples. If marriage was only about children, infertile couples couldn't marry. If sex was only about procreation, then infertile couples would never have sex

You're certainly welcome to whatever subjective, personal opinions you'd like. But they have no particular relevance to the rights or freedoms of any other person.


----------



## Syriusly

RKMBrown said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're excluded from marrying each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... that is simply not true.  Any homosexual person can marry another homosexual person who they manage to talk into it, as along as the respective parties represent the distinct genders.
> 
> You see, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... .  Homosexuals come in both flavors.
> 
> You have been asked now 9 times to state the basis for your rejection of Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION. And never less so, than where one implies that they do so... . _
> 
> So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO STATE THE BASIS OF YOUR REJECTION OF ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More bat guano crazy.
> 
> Now in big red letters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you skylar's sock or just like to run around defending her?
Click to expand...


More bat guano crazy.

But without big red letters.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> So.. at the end of this day, we learn that The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality have no means to find any 'wrong' in the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification.  Thus we can readily conclude that the deviancy suffered by the lowly homosexual bears no discernible distinction with the deviancy suffered by adults who pursue children for sexual gratification... they are, therefore: ONE IN THE SAME.
> 
> How do we know this?  We know them by their fruits.  And these fruits are OUT THERE kids... and THAT is why they should NEVER be allowed to hold ANY POSITION of trust, period... as they have no means to honor that trust... and as such is NEVER more critical than where their authority would involve children.




No Bat Guano crazy includes Keys talking to himself in the third person.


----------



## Skylar

> No Bat Guano crazy includes Keys talking to himself in the third person.



His position is self enclosed. We don't really need to be here for this. We never have. 

Which is why I'm more than content to let Mr. Garrison and Mr. Hat work out the 'Laws of Nature' between themselves. Marriage equality is about the law anyway.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Yes... You should know that I also 'believe' that it's hot on the sun, that socialism rests within an invalid species of reasoning and you refuse to publicly profess your rejection of adults pursuing children for sexual gratification, along with the basis that you have for rejecting such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a rational or logical basis. You're not factually establishing that the purposes of marriage, that the purpose of marraige is singular, or that the purposes of marriage can only be served by heterosexual unions.
Click to expand...

[sic]

It is precisely logical, _therefore it is rational_... You're deceitfully claiming that you're ignorant of the dozens of times prior to that post wherein I set forth the defining elements of marriage and the singular purpose for such.

You're further claiming that because individuals who otherwise meet the standards of marriage: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... have been accepted in marriage, that this precedent requires that those who do NOT meet the standards, should also be accepted. 

Such is unreasonable, and it is unreasonable because your cult is founded upon a profound delusion... your advocacy is likewise set upon a profound deceit, which rests upon that delusion.  Your demand that others accept your behavior and are perfectly happy to use the power of the state to render those who reject your behavior into servitude, PROVES the FOLLY OF TOLERATING YOU AND THE FRAUDULENCE YOU REPRESENT. 

Your refusal to declare your position on something as simple as Adults Pursuing Children for Sexual Gratification FURTHER establishes that your reasoning offers the collective assent for THAT UNHINGED ABNORMALITY.

To wit:

Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage. 

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... . Homosexuals come in both flavors.

You were asked, now 11 times, over 4 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such. _

So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS OF WHERE EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION OR THE BASIS FOR YOUR AGREEMENT OF SUCH.*


----------



## Skylar

> It is precisely logical, _therefore it is rational_... You're deceitfully claiming that you're ignorant of the dozens of times prior to that post wherein I set forth the defining elements of marriage and the singular purpose for such.



Obviously it isn't. Which is why you spend all your time *telling* us how logical it is rather than demonstrating it with a logical, rational argument. Or through shoring up any of the holes in your claims. Like.....infertile couples. Or childless couples. Or grandparents. If the only purpose in sex is procreation then why would infertile couples ever have sex?

Clearly there is more than one purpose to sex.

If the only purpose in marriage is children, then why are the marriages of infertile couples, childless couples or your grandparents still valid?

Clearly there's more than one purpose in marriage.

Your argument can't take any of this into account and breaks the moment its mentioned.



> You're further claiming that because individuals who otherwise meet the standards of marriage: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... have been accepted in marriage, that this precedent requires that those who do NOT meet the standards, should also be accepted.



If the 'joining of one man and one woman' aren't necessary to satisfy all purposes of marriage, then they're arbitrary standards.  As infertile couples demonstrate, neither procreation nor the ability to procreate are a requirement for a valid marriage. There are clearly other purposes to the union that have nothing to do with children or the ability to have children.

There are simply no requirement of marriage that must be met that gays and lesbians in same sex unions can't meet.  So on what basis would we exclude them?

No rational basis. No logical basis. But I'm sure you have quite a few emotional bases that you'd like to use. The problem is that your feelings don't define anyone else's rights.



> Such is unreasonable, and it is unreasonable because your cult is founded upon a profound delusion... your advocacy is likewise set upon a profound deceit, which rests upon that delusion. Your demand that others accept your behavior and are perfectly happy to use the power of the state to render those who reject your behavior into servitude, PROVES the FOLLY OF TOLERATING YOU AND THE FRAUDULENCE YOU REPRESENT.



You're offering us nested assumptions, each resting on the last, none of them logically or rationally established. You're simply offering us your personal opinion....which you're welcome to. But your opinion and beliefs don't define or in any way effect someone else's rights. Which is why your argument remains pristinely irrelevant to same sex marriage in this country. And why the marriages of gays and lesbians are being recognized by State after State as just as valid and just as worthy of protection as any marriage of straight folks.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> We learned that you made the accusation. You've never been able to factually establish it.



There is nothing in the record of this written discussion, wherein I have accused anyone of anything.

I stated that sexual abnormality was the first essential trait of those who pursue children for sexual gratification and that Homosexuality not only deviates from the standard of human sexuality, but that it is the very INVERSE of such... thus deviates as far from the human sexuality standard as is possible, at least where the participants are all human... and that in those terms that there is incontrovertibly, no discernible distinction in homosexuals and those who pursue children for sexual gratification.  Clearly BOTH deviate from the standard intrinsic to human sexuality.

Toward fleshing that out, and helping you toward establishing that as a fact, on a scale wherein even the most deluded individuals could not ignore, I asked you the basis for your rejection of the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification.

And how did you answer that?   You asked for evidence where you had ever rejected the idea of adults pursuing children for sexual gratification.

I then provided you with 7 more opportunities over the last 5 hours to state in specific terms on the issue of adults pursuing children for sexual gratification... as well as the basis for either your approval or disapproval of such.  You have consistently refused to clarify your position... .

This is you demonstrating that the reasoning which YOU use to justify your forcing of your deviancy onto others, provides that you can find no means to publicly condemn other forms of sexual abnormalities, which establishes YOU as being unable to demonstrate a distinction between your deviancy and that of those adults who pursue children for sexual gratification.

So where there is an 'accusation' on the table... responsibility for such is yours. Which is offset however, by your having provided the basis that established such in no uncertain terms, as fact.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r has always failed philosophically in making the link between pedophilia and homosexuality.

He yaps a lot, but game he's not.


----------



## Skylar

> There is nothing in the record of his written discussion, wherein I have accused anyone of anything.



Nor has anyone said that you did. Your accusation was made against 'The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality'. Whatever that is. And  you've never logically or rationally establish the veracity of your claims......or the traits of the strawman you've been pummeling. Your conversation has been exclusively with yourself.

And thus has no relevance to anyone but you.


----------



## Skylar

> Where_r has always failed philosophically in making the link between pedophilia and homosexuality.



That's just the latest failure. He's desperate to abandon the gay marriage debate or discuss the topic of the thread. His claims regarding marriage failed utterly. He was never able to logically or factually establish his argument that sex has only one purpose and that marriage has only one purpose. 

And it made no more sense than insisting that since the only 'biological purpose' of eating is to fuel the body, that having a piece of birthday cake to celebrate your son's 4th birthday was 'deviant','fraudulent', 'deceptive' and 'evil'.

Given that turd of a position, what could he do but try and change the topic? The gay marriage debate clearly wasn't working out for him.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> There is nothing in the record of his written discussion, wherein I have accused anyone of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor has anyone said that you did. Your accusation was made against 'The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality'. Whatever that is. And  you've never logically or rationally establish the veracity of your claims......or the traits of the strawman you've been pummeling. Your conversation has been exclusively with yourself.
> 
> And thus has no relevance to anyone but you.
Click to expand...


Really?

So this isn't you?


Skylar said:


> We learned that *you made the accusation.* You've never been able to factually establish it.



FYI: THAT would be 'the relevance'.

You'll recall that you said that just before I said this:



Skylar said:


> We learned that you made the accusation. You've never been able to factually establish it.



There is nothing in the record of this written discussion, wherein I have accused anyone of anything.

I stated that sexual abnormality was the first essential trait of those who pursue children for sexual gratification and that Homosexuality not only deviates from the standard of human sexuality, but that it is the very INVERSE of such... thus deviates as far from the human sexuality standard as is possible, at least where the participants are all human... and that in those terms that there is incontrovertibly, no discernible distinction in homosexuals and those who pursue children for sexual gratification.  Clearly BOTH deviate from the standard intrinsic to human sexuality.

Toward fleshing that out, and helping you toward establishing that as a fact, on a scale wherein even the most deluded individuals could not ignore, I asked you the basis for your rejection of the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification.

And how did you answer that?   You asked for evidence where you had ever rejected the idea of adults pursuing children for sexual gratification.

I then provided you with 7 more opportunities over the last 5 hours to state in specific terms on the issue of adults pursuing children for sexual gratification... as well as the basis for either your approval or disapproval of such.  You have consistently refused to clarify your position... .

This is you demonstrating that the reasoning which YOU use to justify your forcing of your deviancy onto others, provides that you can find no means to publicly condemn other forms of sexual abnormalities, which establishes YOU as being unable to demonstrate a distinction between your deviancy and that of those adults who pursue children for sexual gratification.

So where there is an 'accusation' on the table... responsibility for such is yours. Which is offset however, by your having provided the basis that established such in no uncertain terms, as fact.


----------



## Skylar

> You'll recall that you said that just before I said this:



I did. And to the best of my knowledge 'The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality' isn't anyone. Making both your accusation and the strawman you've invented to pummel irrelevant to anyone but you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> It is precisely logical, _therefore it is rational_... You're deceitfully claiming that you're ignorant of the dozens of times prior to that post wherein I set forth the defining elements of marriage and the singular purpose for such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it isn't.
Click to expand...


Based upon what?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the record of his written discussion, wherein I have accused anyone of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor has anyone said that you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> So this isn't you?
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We learned that *you made the accusation.* ... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did.
Click to expand...


LOL!  Anyone need anything else?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is precisely logical, _therefore it is rational_... You're deceitfully claiming that you're ignorant of the dozens of times prior to that post wherein I set forth the defining elements of marriage and the singular purpose for such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based upon what?
Click to expand...


Based on all the portions of my reply that you carefully omitted:



> Obviously it isn't. *Which is why you spend all your time telling us how logical it is rather than demonstrating it with a logical, rational argument. Or through shoring up any of the holes in your claims. Like.....infertile couples. Or childless couples. Or grandparents. If the only purpose in sex is procreation then why would infertile couples ever have sex?
> 
> Clearly there is more than one purpose to sex.
> 
> If the only purpose in marriage is children, then why are the marriages of infertile couples, childless couples or your grandparents still valid?
> 
> Clearly there's more than one purpose in marriage.
> 
> Your argument can't take any of this into account and breaks the moment its mentioned.*



Ignore as you will. Its not like the holes in your logic and your failure to rationally establish the veracity of your claims just vanishes because you ignore them.

We can all still see them.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> LOL!  Anyone need anything else?



And here's my reply again, this time without your editing:


> I did. And to the best of my knowledge 'The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality' isn't anyone. Making both your accusation and the strawman you've invented to pummel irrelevant to anyone but you.



Again,  you keep working under the assumption that if you omit any mention of the holes in your claims,_ that we can't see them. _Alas, that's not how it works. Your ''The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality' still isn't anyone. Your accusations remain pristinely unfounded logically or rationally. And your strawman remains yours to pummel as you will....with no relevance to anyone but you.

And its the failure of logic, reason and rational thinking that render your claims irrelevant, your conclusions invalid. Neither of which changes when you close your eyes and pretend that no such holes in your logic exist because you deleted any mention of them.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is precisely logical, _therefore it is rational_... You're deceitfully claiming that you're ignorant of the dozens of times prior to that post wherein I set forth the defining elements of marriage and the singular purpose for such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based upon what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on all the portions of my reply that you carefully omitted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it isn't. *Which is why you spend all your time telling us how logical it is rather than demonstrating it with a logical, rational argument. Or through shoring up any of the holes in your claims. Like.....infertile couples. Or childless couples. Or grandparents. If the only purpose in sex is procreation then why would infertile couples ever have sex?
> 
> Clearly there is more than one purpose to sex.
> 
> If the only purpose in marriage is children, then why are the marriages of infertile couples, childless couples or your grandparents still valid?
> 
> Clearly there's more than one purpose in marriage.
> 
> Your argument can't take any of this into account and breaks the moment its mentioned.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignore as you will. Its not like the holes in your logic and your failure to rationally establish the veracity of your claims just vanishes because you ignore them.
> 
> We can all still see them.
Click to expand...


Young lady... you've lost this debate one point at a time and if I may say so you've done so SPECTACULARLY!

The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:

You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such. _

So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.*


----------



## dblack

Those sure are some big red letters.


----------



## RKMBrown

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is precisely logical, _therefore it is rational_... You're deceitfully claiming that you're ignorant of the dozens of times prior to that post wherein I set forth the defining elements of marriage and the singular purpose for such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based upon what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on all the portions of my reply that you carefully omitted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it isn't. *Which is why you spend all your time telling us how logical it is rather than demonstrating it with a logical, rational argument. Or through shoring up any of the holes in your claims. Like.....infertile couples. Or childless couples. Or grandparents. If the only purpose in sex is procreation then why would infertile couples ever have sex?
> 
> Clearly there is more than one purpose to sex.
> 
> If the only purpose in marriage is children, then why are the marriages of infertile couples, childless couples or your grandparents still valid?
> 
> Clearly there's more than one purpose in marriage.
> 
> Your argument can't take any of this into account and breaks the moment its mentioned.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignore as you will. Its not like the holes in your logic and your failure to rationally establish the veracity of your claims just vanishes because you ignore them.
> 
> We can all still see them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Young lady... you've lost this debate one point at a time and if I may say so you've done so SPECTACULARLY!
> 
> The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:
> 
> You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such. _
> 
> So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS OF WHERE EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION OR THE BASIS FOR YOUR AGREEMENT OF SUCH.*
Click to expand...

Skylar is incapable of making explicit statements regarding her opinions.  I think she's one of those answer bots.


----------



## Skylar

> We learned that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality seeks to normalize not only homosexuality, but to clear the way for Adults to pursue children for sexual gratification, as well. And we learned FROM: The the very people on this forum, who Advocate to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... and if we can't believe THEM regarding their intentions, then how can we believe them about ANYTHING?



We learned that you made that accusation. But you were never been able to back it up factually or logically. We learned your 'Advocacy to Noramlize Sexual Abnormality' isn't anyone....by your own admission. And we learned that the fact didn't stop you from beating the stuffing out of your strawman anyway.

Meanwhile, we learned that marriage equality has with equal protection under the law for gays and lesbians, with the law recognizing their same sex unions as valid and as protectable as those of straight couples. Which in 30 of 50 states, it does. And likely more in the very near future. 

We learned that the reason for the triumphs of same sex marriage are simple: there's no compelling state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. There's no rational reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. And the standards being use to exclude them: the requirement to procreate......isn't a requirement for anyone.


----------



## Skylar

> Skylar is incapable of making explicit statements.



Sure I am. Watch: gays and lesbians should have their marriages recognized as being as legally valid as those of straights. And there's no compelling state interest in denying them.

There's an explicit statement for you. Feel free to quote me.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> We learned that you made that accusation. But you were never been able to back it up factually or logically.



Your innumerable concessions have all been duly noted and all have been summarily accepted. 

The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:

You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such. _

So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.*


----------



## Skylar

> You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such.



The debate isn't about the adults and their sexual gratification for children. Its about gay marriage and whether or not churches shoudl be forced to perform weddings for them. Check the thread title.

You brought a knife to a gun fight. 

And have abandoned your every claim regarding gay marriage. And well you should have.....they weren't very well thought out.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Skylar is incapable of making explicit statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I am. Watch: gays and lesbians should have their marriages recognized as being as legally valid as those of straights.
Click to expand...


The sexually abnormal have every right as everyone else... none of which provide them the justification to demand that those who disagree with them be forced into servitude as a means to celebrate their debauchery.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and your need to find legitimacy while refusing to comport yourself within the confines of legitimate behavior, in no way alters that reality.

The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:

You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such. _

So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The debate isn't about the adults and their sexual gratification for children. Its about gay marriage and whether or not churches shoudl be forced to perform weddings for them
Click to expand...

[sic]

The sexually abnormal have every right as everyone else... none of which provide them the justification to demand that those who disagree with them be forced into servitude as a means to celebrate their debauchery.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and your need to find legitimacy while refusing to comport yourself within the confines of legitimate behavior, in no way alters that reality.

The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:

You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such. _

So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Now folks, inevtiably a newb comes along and asks "Does anyone ever win any of these arguments?"

Be sure to bookmark this argument so that you can lead that sprout to a classic example of someone doing JUST THAT!

And what did we learn?

We learned that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality seeks to normalize not only homosexuality, but to clear the way for Adults to pursue children for sexual gratification and that they intend to use the intrinsic force of the government to force others to accept their 'beliefs', as well.  

And we learned that FROM NO LESS AN AUTHORITY ON THE SUBJECT than the very people on this forum, who Advocate to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... and if we can't believe THEM regarding their own intentions, then how can we believe them about ANYTHING?


----------



## dblack

Some [sic] shit, alright.


----------



## Skylar

> The sexually abnormal have every right as everyone else... none of which provide them the justification to demand that those who disagree with them be forced into servitude as a means to celebrate their debauchery.



And what servitude are you being forced into? A gay couple getting married doesn't take away any of your rights. It doesn't effect you in any way. Your marriage the day before a gay couple got married has all the rights and freedoms that exist the day after. 

I don't think servitude means what you think it means.


----------



## Skylar

> We learned that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality seeks to normalize not only homosexuality,



We learned that you made that accusation. But you were never been able to back it up factually or logically. We learned your 'Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality' isn't anyone....by your own admission. And we learned that the fact didn't stop you from beating the stuffing out of your strawman anyway.

Meanwhile, we learned that marriage equality has with equal protection under the law for gays and lesbians, with the law recognizing their same sex unions as valid and as protectable as those of straight couples. Which in 30 of 50 states, it does. And likely more in the very near future.

We learned that the reason for the triumphs of same sex marriage are simple: there's no compelling state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. There's no rational reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. And the standards being use to exclude them: the requirement to procreate......isn't a requirement for anyone.

We learned that the reason for the triumphs of same sex marriage are simple: there's no compelling state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. There's no rational reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. And the standards being use to exclude them: the requirement to procreate......isn't a requirement for anyone.



> but to clear the way for Adults to pursue children for sexual gratification and that they intend to use the intrinsic force of the government to force others to accept their 'beliefs', as well.



You can believe whatever you want. No one cares. 

Marriage equality is about equal protection *under the law. *And the standards *of the law* are all that are relevant.


----------



## Skylar

> Well so far the list of forced servitude includes: bakers, photographers, event planners, event hosts, preachers... but how cool is it that 395 pages into the discussion you need to feign the pretense that such hasn't happened.



What preacher has been forced to perform a wedding he didn't want to?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> A gay couple getting married ...



Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  As long as the sexually abnormal apply with someone of the distinct gender, no one is suggesting the they can't get married and your need to find legitimacy while refusing to comport yourself within the confines of legitimate behavior, in no way alters that reality.

The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:

You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such. _

So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> The sexually abnormal have every right as everyone else... none of which provide them the justification to demand that those who disagree with them be forced into servitude as a means to celebrate their debauchery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what servitude are you being forced into?
Click to expand...


Well so far the list of forced servitude includes: bakers, photographers, event planners, event hosts, preachers... but how cool is it that 395 pages into the discussion you need to feign the pretense that such hasn't happened.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Well so far the list of forced servitude includes: bakers, photographers, event planners, event hosts, preachers... but how cool is it that 395 pages into the discussion you need to feign the pretense that such hasn't happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What preacher has been forced to perform a wedding he didn't want to?
Click to expand...


WAIT... YOU JUST EMPHATICALLY DENIED THAT ANYONE HAD BEEN FORCED INTO SERVITUDE... AND 3-1/2 MINUTES YOU'RE DOWN TO  DENYING THAT PREACHERS HAVEN'T BEEN SO FORCED?

ROFLMNAO!  HYSTERICAL... YOU CAN'T FIND YOUR INTELLECTUAL ASS WITH BOTH HANDS CAN YA TO SAVE YOUR LIFE?


----------



## Skylar

> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. As long as the sexually abnormal apply with someone of the distinct gender, no one is suggesting the they can't get married.



You're just making the same declarative statement over and over. You haven't logically established that definition as exclusive. Or given any reason it should be. Repeating a logically and rationally baseless argument is mere subjective opinion.

And I've already demonstrated that there is more than one purpose to marriage. And it has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Stripped of that basis, why would you even want to deny gays and lesbians the right to same sex marriage. Let alone think the law should enforce your beliefs?



> \WAIT... YOU JUST EMPHATICALLY DENIED THAT ANYONE HAD BEEN FORCED INTO SERVITUDE... AND 3-1/2 MINUTES YOU'RE DOWN TO DENYING THAT PREACHERS HAVEN'T BEEN SO FORCED?



So no preachers are being forced to perform gay marriages?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> We learned that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality seeks to normalize not only homosexuality,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We learned that you made that accusation.
Click to expand...



Your innumerable concessions have all been duly noted and all have been summarily accepted. 

The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:

You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such. _

So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.*


----------



## Skylar

> The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:



So you've completely abandoned your every logical fallacy about gay marriage and are refusing to discuss the topic any longer? 

I guess the gay marriage debate didn't work out so well for you. 

Remember that.


----------



## Skylar

And....what preachers have been forced to perform gay marriages? I'm still waiting for a single example. 

Did you abandon that claim too?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> And....what preachers have been forced to perform gay marriages? I'm still waiting for a single example.
> 
> Did you abandon that claim too?



Your innumerable concessions have all been duly noted and all have been summarily accepted. 

The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:

You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such. _

So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.*


----------



## RKMBrown

Skylar said:


> Skylar is incapable of making explicit statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I am. Watch: gays and lesbians should have their marriages recognized as being as legally valid as those of straights. And there's no compelling state interest in denying them.
> 
> There's an explicit statement for you. Feel free to quote me.
Click to expand...



QFT


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> The sexually abnormal have every right as everyone else... none of which provide them the justification to demand that those who disagree with them be forced into servitude as a means to celebrate their debauchery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what servitude are you being forced into? A gay couple getting married doesn't take away any of your rights. It doesn't effect you in any way. Your marriage the day before a gay couple got married has all the rights and freedoms that exist the day after.
> 
> I don't think servitude means what you think it means.
Click to expand...


i think he's referring to the PA laws, and he's totally right.


----------



## Skylar

> The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:



So you've completely abandoned your every logical fallacy about gay marriage and are refusing to discuss the topic any longer?

I guess the gay marriage debate didn't work out so well for you.

Remember that.


----------



## Skylar

> i think he's referring to the PA laws, and he's totally right.



I think that the federal laws are an overreach. I think that the state laws are reasonable. As the regulation of intrastate commerce is utterly a power of the State. And requiring that all businesses treat their customers fairly and equally isn't unreasonable.

My exception would be religious corporations performing religious ceremonies. Like professional preachers.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> i think he's referring to the PA laws, and he's totally right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the federal laws are an overreach. I think that the state laws are reasonable. As the regulation of intrastate commerce is utterly a power of the State. And requiring that all businesses treat their customers fairly and equally isn't unreasonable.
> 
> My exception would be religious corporations performing religious ceremonies. Like professional preachers.
Click to expand...


Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.


----------



## Skylar

> Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.



The federal government uses the 'commerce clause' as its justification for regulating citizen v. citizen interactions. And that justification is a heaping load of horse shit.  Interstate commerce doesn't mean intra state commerce. Intrastate commerce is the exclusive domain of the State to regulate.

If a State wants to place PA laws, they have every authority to. If they choose not to, they don't have to.

Though I agree with you on one point. If they do set up PA laws and then explicitly exempt gays and lesbians, the Feds can get them on equal protection violations. That's the very basis of Romer V. Evans.


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sexually abnormal have every right as everyone else... none of which provide them the justification to demand that those who disagree with them be forced into servitude as a means to celebrate their debauchery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what servitude are you being forced into? A gay couple getting married doesn't take away any of your rights. It doesn't effect you in any way. Your marriage the day before a gay couple got married has all the rights and freedoms that exist the day after.
> 
> I don't think servitude means what you think it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i think he's referring to the PA laws, and he's totally right.
Click to expand...


PA laws have nothing to do with marriage equality.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government uses the 'commerce clause' as its justification for regulating citizen v. citizen interactions. And that justification is a heaping load of horse shit.  Interstate commerce doesn't mean intra state commerce.
Click to expand...


Agreed. The federal mandate is to prevent states from interfering with national trade via bullshit tariffs and other barriers.



> Intrastate commerce is the exclusive domain of the State to regulate.


 Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.



> If a State wants to place PA laws, they have every authority to. If they choose not to, they don't have to.



And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the fuck out of equal rights.



> Though I agree with you on one point. If they do set up PA laws and then explicitly exempt gays and lesbians, the Feds can get them on equal protection violations. That's the very basis of Romer V. Evans.



And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Skylar said:


> i think he's referring to the PA laws, and he's totally right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the federal laws are an overreach. I think that the state laws are reasonable. As the regulation of intrastate commerce is utterly a power of the State. *And requiring that all businesses treat their customers fairly and equally isn't unreasonable.*
> 
> My exception would be religious corporations performing religious ceremonies. Like professional preachers.
Click to expand...


No it isn't , but that isn't entirely thehom same thing as saying a business should be able to refuse to have someone as a customer.

In other words, the state has no right to tell a baker they can't refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual couple.

The state obviously has a right to tell the baker that if they DO bake the cake for the gay couple , they can't fuck with it or, or deliberately make it bad, or any nonsense like that. That's reasonable. That's protecting people from not getting what they paid for.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sexually abnormal have every right as everyone else... none of which provide them the justification to demand that those who disagree with them be forced into servitude as a means to celebrate their debauchery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what servitude are you being forced into? A gay couple getting married doesn't take away any of your rights. It doesn't effect you in any way. Your marriage the day before a gay couple got married has all the rights and freedoms that exist the day after.
> 
> I don't think servitude means what you think it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i think he's referring to the PA laws, and he's totally right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws have nothing to do with marriage equality.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality" as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government uses the 'commerce clause' as its justification for regulating citizen v. citizen interactions. And that justification is a heaping load of horse shit.  Interstate commerce doesn't mean intra state commerce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. The federal mandate is to prevent states from interfering with national trade via bullshit tariffs and other barriers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intrastate commerce is the exclusive domain of the State to regulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a State wants to place PA laws, they have every authority to. If they choose not to, they don't have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the fuck out of equal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though I agree with you on one point. If they do set up PA laws and then explicitly exempt gays and lesbians, the Feds can get them on equal protection violations. That's the very basis of Romer V. Evans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?
Click to expand...


I've tried explaining that to them. They don't seem to understand that businesses CAN discriminate, except for against "protected classes"


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sexually abnormal have every right as everyone else... none of which provide them the justification to demand that those who disagree with them be forced into servitude as a means to celebrate their debauchery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what servitude are you being forced into? A gay couple getting married doesn't take away any of your rights. It doesn't effect you in any way. Your marriage the day before a gay couple got married has all the rights and freedoms that exist the day after.
> 
> I don't think servitude means what you think it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i think he's referring to the PA laws, and he's totally right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws have nothing to do with marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality" as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


Let it go

Do you understand that if you let the government define marriage by YOUR definition today, they very well could nullify YOUR marriage tomorrow? I mean seriously..


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government uses the 'commerce clause' as its justification for regulating citizen v. citizen interactions. And that justification is a heaping load of horse shit.  Interstate commerce doesn't mean intra state commerce. Intrastate commerce is the exclusive domain of the State to regulate.
> 
> If a State wants to place PA laws, they have every authority to. If they choose not to, they don't have to.
> 
> Though I agree with you on one point. If they do set up PA laws and then explicitly exempt gays and lesbians, the Feds can get them on equal protection violations. That's the very basis of Romer V. Evans.
Click to expand...


GREAT!  So where a State requires, as a function of Public Accommodating that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, as nature designed it, then your in agreement that they are perfectly entitled to do so.

Your innumerable concessions have all been duly noted and all have been summarily accepted. 

The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:

You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such. _

So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.*


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government uses the 'commerce clause' as its justification for regulating citizen v. citizen interactions. And that justification is a heaping load of horse shit.  Interstate commerce doesn't mean intra state commerce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. The federal mandate is to prevent states from interfering with national trade via bullshit tariffs and other barriers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intrastate commerce is the exclusive domain of the State to regulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a State wants to place PA laws, they have every authority to. If they choose not to, they don't have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the fuck out of equal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though I agree with you on one point. If they do set up PA laws and then explicitly exempt gays and lesbians, the Feds can get them on equal protection violations. That's the very basis of Romer V. Evans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've tried explaining that to them. They don't seem to understand that businesses CAN discriminate, except for against "protected classes"
Click to expand...


So what did your elected representative say when you told them you wanted a part of the Civil Rights Act repealed?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government uses the 'commerce clause' as its justification for regulating citizen v. citizen interactions. And that justification is a heaping load of horse shit.  Interstate commerce doesn't mean intra state commerce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. The federal mandate is to prevent states from interfering with national trade via bullshit tariffs and other barriers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intrastate commerce is the exclusive domain of the State to regulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a State wants to place PA laws, they have every authority to. If they choose not to, they don't have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the fuck out of equal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though I agree with you on one point. If they do set up PA laws and then explicitly exempt gays and lesbians, the Feds can get them on equal protection violations. That's the very basis of Romer V. Evans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've tried explaining that to them. They don't seem to understand that businesses CAN discriminate, except for against "protected classes"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what did your elected representative say when you told them you wanted a part of the Civil Rights Act repealed?
Click to expand...

He said to hang on for another few years as faggots kept demanding that Christians do business with them and enough people would get fed up and toss the PA laws to the curb.

Why are you so stupid that you don't understand that bad laws are being repealed every day? I mean my God, you're so stupid that you don't realize that your very right to faggot "marriage" relied on a bad law being repealed.

Moron.


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government uses the 'commerce clause' as its justification for regulating citizen v. citizen interactions. And that justification is a heaping load of horse shit.  Interstate commerce doesn't mean intra state commerce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. The federal mandate is to prevent states from interfering with national trade via bullshit tariffs and other barriers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intrastate commerce is the exclusive domain of the State to regulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a State wants to place PA laws, they have every authority to. If they choose not to, they don't have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the fuck out of equal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though I agree with you on one point. If they do set up PA laws and then explicitly exempt gays and lesbians, the Feds can get them on equal protection violations. That's the very basis of Romer V. Evans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> I've tried explaining that to them. They don't seem to understand that businesses CAN discriminate, except for against "protected classes"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what did your elected representative say when you told them you wanted a part of the Civil Rights Act repealed?
Click to expand...


They said they were afraid to try, because voters don't get it. They said we need to get out there and wake people up!


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government uses the 'commerce clause' as its justification for regulating citizen v. citizen interactions. And that justification is a heaping load of horse shit.  Interstate commerce doesn't mean intra state commerce. Intrastate commerce is the exclusive domain of the State to regulate.
> 
> If a State wants to place PA laws, they have every authority to. If they choose not to, they don't have to.
> 
> Though I agree with you on one point. If they do set up PA laws and then explicitly exempt gays and lesbians, the Feds can get them on equal protection violations. That's the very basis of Romer V. Evans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GREAT!  So where a State requires, as a function of Public Accommodating that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, as nature designed it, then your in agreement that they are perfectly entitled to do so.
> 
> Your innumerable concessions have all been duly noted and all have been summarily accepted.
> 
> The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:
> 
> You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such. _
> 
> So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.*
Click to expand...


I have not seen Skylar post one single thing that suggests he would be okay with gays abusing children.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sexually abnormal have every right as everyone else... none of which provide them the justification to demand that those who disagree with them be forced into servitude as a means to celebrate their debauchery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what servitude are you being forced into? A gay couple getting married doesn't take away any of your rights. It doesn't effect you in any way. Your marriage the day before a gay couple got married has all the rights and freedoms that exist the day after.
> 
> I don't think servitude means what you think it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i think he's referring to the PA laws, and he's totally right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws have nothing to do with marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality" as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let it go
> 
> Do you understand that if you let the government define marriage by YOUR definition today, they very well could nullify YOUR marriage tomorrow? I mean seriously..
Click to expand...


Government didn't and doesn't define marriage.  Nature designed the species and that design, defines marriage.

I didn't ask the government for permission to marry my wife...  my wife needed that crap.

If the government ordered TONIGHT that they were canceling our license... I'd tell the government to kiss my ass and wake up tomorrow morning going on about my business.

Our marriage is about us... one man and one woman, who have joined as one being, raising our children and enjoying our grand-babies.

And I don't give a dam' who shacks up with whom... but without regard to what the government says about it, MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN because that is how nature designed us, and THAT defines how nature designed it.

You may disagree... and that's fine.  I could not care less.  But this is a point on which I will never compromise and I will never allow anyone that represents me, to compromise on that essential, immutable principle, and there is nothing I will not do to defend it... .

Place it in government, require government to enforce it and I will do everything, join any and every effort to destroy the government and drive past that government to destroy those who set such into place.

Now, with that said, in just the last dozen pages of this thread, assuming you read it, should provide for you and all people of reason, that the Advocacy at issue here, has absolutely no bottom... no sense of reasoned morality, no sense of right and wrong... these people are abject, unadulterated evil.

And there is no means to compromise with that and reasonably expect the culture to be viable.   Accept them, with all the evidence of the evidence of their fascist sociopathy, and within one generation you will see the age of consent evaporate and that is an axiomatic certainty.  The only response I have to that, is: FUCK THAT!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government uses the 'commerce clause' as its justification for regulating citizen v. citizen interactions. And that justification is a heaping load of horse shit.  Interstate commerce doesn't mean intra state commerce. Intrastate commerce is the exclusive domain of the State to regulate.
> 
> If a State wants to place PA laws, they have every authority to. If they choose not to, they don't have to.
> 
> Though I agree with you on one point. If they do set up PA laws and then explicitly exempt gays and lesbians, the Feds can get them on equal protection violations. That's the very basis of Romer V. Evans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GREAT!  So where a State requires, as a function of Public Accommodating that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, as nature designed it, then your in agreement that they are perfectly entitled to do so.
> 
> Your innumerable concessions have all been duly noted and all have been summarily accepted.
> 
> The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:
> 
> You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: _REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such. _
> 
> So... towards helping you, _help me expose you and your cult for what you are... _I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not seen Skylar post one single thing that suggests he would be okay with gays abusing children.
Click to expand...


First... Skylar is a HE?

ROFLMNAO!  Sweet Mother ... THAT is hysterical.  If it is, it ain't much of a 'he', that is for DAM' SURE!

Second: You should read the last dozen pages.

Here's a clue you need to consider:

Skylar, I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.*

It's not a complex equation.  Couldn't be easier, where one's intentions are honorable... and that is without regard to WHICH WAY IT FALLS.  If they believe in what they're doing, put it on the line.  It won't do it, because it has no honor.  IF it ever answers the question, it will stake its only rejection on LEGALITY.  And that is established throughout this discussion, where morality has no bearing on ANY position that it's set forth.  Without exception: "ITS LEGAL" is the only justification it has for any aspect of its position.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> [
> .. and that in those terms that there is incontrovertibly, no discernible distinction in homosexuals and those who pursue children for sexual gratification.  .



First of all- 'incontrovertably' doesn't mean what you think it means- incontrovertibly doesn't mean your unsubstantiated opinion.

Secondly- you are equating homosexuals to pedophiles.

Because that is what homophobes do.

They can't make an actual argument against gay marriage- so they invoke pedophilia.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what servitude are you being forced into? A gay couple getting married doesn't take away any of your rights. It doesn't effect you in any way. Your marriage the day before a gay couple got married has all the rights and freedoms that exist the day after.
> 
> I don't think servitude means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think he's referring to the PA laws, and he's totally right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws have nothing to do with marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality" as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let it go
> 
> Do you understand that if you let the government define marriage by YOUR definition today, they very well could nullify YOUR marriage tomorrow? I mean seriously..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government didn't and doesn't define marriage.  Nature designed marriage.
> 
> I didn't ask the government for permission to marry my wife...  my wife needed that crap.
> 
> If the government ordered TONIGHT that they were canceling our license... I'd tell the government to kiss my ass and wake up tomorrow morning going on about my business. T!
Click to expand...


Nature hasn't any thing to do with marriage. Marriage doesn't exist outside of human created society.

If you didn't ask the government for permission to marry your wife- well then you aren't married- without a marriage licence you are just shacking up.

Oh- you do have a license- so you did ask the government for permission. 

If they cancelled you license tomorrow, you and your wife could shack up to your hearts content- you would be treated just like the gays in the states where marriage discrimination still continues. 

But you wouldn't be married.

Not legally.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> [
> Skylar, I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: *TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.*.




You can't pursue children for sexual gratification because a) its illegal and b) the reason its illegal is because children cannot consent to have sex.


----------



## Skylar

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> No it isn't , but that isn't entirely thehom same thing as saying a business should be able to refuse to have someone as a customer.


It depends on why they refuse them as a customer. If its because they 'don't serve black people at this lunch counter', I'd say that's not reasonable. If its because they're not wearing shoes, that's another.



> In other words, the state has no right to tell a baker they can't refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual couple.



Of course they do. As intrastate commerce is totally within the State to regulate. And mandating that business people treat all their customers fairly is well within intrastate commerce.


----------



## Skylar

> I've tried explaining that to them. They don't seem to understand that businesses CAN discriminate, except for against "protected classes"



Each state decides who their 'protected classes' are in terms of intrastate commerce. Though if they explicitly exclude gays, they run into equal protection problems, as Romer. V Evans .


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> I've tried explaining that to them. They don't seem to understand that businesses CAN discriminate, except for against "protected classes"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each state decides who their 'protected classes' are in terms of intrastate commerce. Though if they explicitly exclude gays, they run into equal protection problems, as Romer. V Evans .
Click to expand...

Does that seem like "equal protection"to you? It's sounds to me like decidedly UNequal protection.


----------



## Skylar

> Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.



The 14th amendment prevents the States from violating the rights of citizens. It doesn't say a thing about citizen v. citizen interactions. If it did, the Federal Government would never have had to come up with the steaming rhetorical pile that is the commerce clause bullshit. 


> And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the fuck out of equal rights.



You really need to read the 14th amendments. It doesn't say a thing about 'equal rights'. It says 'equal protection in the law'. And if there's no law, it applies to everyone equally.




> And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?



In the case of Romer V. Evans, it explicitly exempted gays. They actually went out of thier way to say that gays weren't protected. That's, btw, is an equal protection violation.


----------



## Skylar

> Does that seem like "equal protection"to you? It's sounds to me like decidedly UNequal protection.



Fail to include and 'explicitly exclude' are two different things. Romer prevents explict exclusion.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment prevents the States from violating the rights of citizens. It doesn't say a thing about citizen v. citizen interactions. If it did, the Federal Government would never have had to come up with the steaming rhetorical pile that is the commerce clause bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the fuck out of equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to read the 14th amendments. It doesn't say a thing about 'equal rights'. It says 'equal protection in the law'. And if there's no law, it applies to everyone equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the case of Romer V. Evans, it explicitly exempted gays. They actually went out of thier way to say that gays weren't protected. That's, btw, is an equal protection violation.
Click to expand...


I had never really read much about Romer- interesting- especially Kennedy's opinion

_The case was argued on October 10, 1995.[16] On May 20, 1996, the court ruled 6-3 that Colorado's Amendment 2 was unconstitutional, though on different reasoning from the Colorado courts. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. The Court majority held that the Colorado constitutional amendment targeting homosexuals based upon animosity lacked a rational relation to any legitimate governmental purpose.[17]

Regarding the state's argument that Amendment 2 merely blocked gay people from receiving "special rights", Kennedy wrote:[2]

Amendment 2's reach may not be limited to specific laws passed for the benefit of gays and lesbians. It is a fair, if not necessary, inference from the broad language of the amendment that it deprives gays and lesbians even of the protection of general laws and policies that prohibit arbitrary discrimination in governmental and private settings....The state court did not decide whether the amendment has this effect, however, and neither need we.

While leaving that question unresolved by his opinion, Kennedy concluded that the amendment imposed a special disability upon homosexuals by forbidding them to seek safeguards "without constraint".[2] Instead of applying "strict scrutiny" to Amendment 2 (as the Colorado Supreme Court had done), Kennedy wrote that it did not even meet the much lower requirement of having a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose:[2]

Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.[18]

And:[2]
_
_[Amendment 2] is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.

Kennedy did not go into depth in rejecting the claims put forward in support of the law (e.g. protecting the rights of landlords to evict gay tenants if they found homosexuality morally offensive), instead holding that the law was so unique as to "confound this normal process of judicial review" and "defies...conventional inquiry."[2] He elaborated: "It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort."[2]_​


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Does that seem like "equal protection"to you? It's sounds to me like decidedly UNequal protection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fail to include and 'explicitly exclude' are two different things. Romer prevents explict exclusion.
Click to expand...


Only if we're in hair-splitting mood. In either case some are "more equal" than others, and it IS a violation of equal protection, no matter how much you ostrich up.


----------



## Skylar

> Only if we're in hair-splitting mood. In either case some are "more equal" than others, and it IS a violation of equal protection, no matter how much you ostrich up.



Its not hair splitting. 

If I said that you couldn't discriminate on the basis of race and gender, you're usually okay. Even if you don't include, say....religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation. 

If I said that you couldn't discriminate on the basis of race or gender, but that religion was excluded from protection, that's an issue. As you've targeted one group for discrimination.


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> They said they were afraid to try, because voters don't get it. They said we need to get out there and wake people up!





SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> He said to hang on for another few years as faggots kept demanding that Christians do business with them and enough people would get fed up and toss the PA laws to the curb.
> 
> Why are you so stupid that you don't understand that bad laws are being repealed every day? I mean my God, you're so stupid that you don't realize that your very right to faggot "marriage" relied on a bad law being repealed.
> 
> Moron.



So y'all didn't actually call your representative. It's good to know how serious you all are about getting rid of PA laws.

Hey Bear, do you like using the n word too? Make you feel like a man?


----------



## Seawytch

Skylar said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't , but that isn't entirely thehom same thing as saying a business should be able to refuse to have someone as a customer.
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on why they refuse them as a customer. If its because they 'don't serve black people at this lunch counter', I'd say that's not reasonable. If its because they're not wearing shoes, that's another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, the state has no right to tell a baker they can't refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do. As intrastate commerce is totally within the State to regulate. And mandating that business people treat all their customers fairly is well within intrastate commerce.
Click to expand...


Too right you are!

*The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor or Attitude?*

Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act? The answer is...it depends.


The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." 


The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.


In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.[...]

Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.
​


----------



## JakeStarkey

Excellent post, Seawytch.


----------



## Freewill

Can we all agree that the argument isn't over the right to marry it is over the definition of marriage?

Certainly, up until very recently, marriage was never even considered to be anything other then between a man and a woman.  Marriage was a contract between a man and woman for the legal protection of both.  Certainly limitations were put on marriage, a man still can't legally marry his sister.  A man can't have more then one wife.  So a limitation on a man can't marry a man certainly seems to be within the jurisdiction of the law.

Making the comparision, falsely, between interacial marriage is first an insult.  Secondly in order for such a limitation it would mean that the black man or woman would have to be defined as something different then a white man or woman.  Not so with gay marriage, a woman is still a woman a man a man.

So we fight over definition.  When the people have had the opportunity to decide they have universally decided NOT to change the definition of marriage.  The majority of the victories that that gay "rights" side sees is won in the courts not legislature.

There really is nothing I see in the COTUS that even speaks to marriage one way or the other.  Thus we are in a new world, let the people decide.  But that won't hold for the left wing which MUST get their own way by hook or by crook.


----------



## JakeStarkey

But that won't hold for the far right reactionary wing which MUST get their own way by hook or by crook.


----------



## Freewill

I repeat what I posted probably 2000 posts ago.

Should atheists be forced to conduct religious ceremonies?


----------



## Freewill

JakeStarkey said:


> But that won't hold for the far right reactionary wing which MUST get their own way by hook or by crook.



the right, verses your left wing cohorts, are not trying to change law and the definition of marriage.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That question is as irrelevant to this OP now as it was 2000 posts ago.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am not left wing and you are not mainstream right, merely a distorted imitation of it of the far right reactionary wing.

You are trying to restrain the law.


----------



## Freewill




----------



## Freewill

JakeStarkey said:


> I am not left wing and you are not mainstream right, merely a distorted imitation of it of the far right reactionary wing.
> 
> You are trying to restrain the law.



Are you as confused about your sexuality as you are you political leanings?  Every one of your posts put down Republicans and yet you are a Republican?  Really?  Is that a display of self loathing?

What law is being restrained?  The Judiciary does not, or should not, make law Jake.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> They said they were afraid to try, because voters don't get it. They said we need to get out there and wake people up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said to hang on for another few years as faggots kept demanding that Christians do business with them and enough people would get fed up and toss the PA laws to the curb.
> 
> Why are you so stupid that you don't understand that bad laws are being repealed every day? I mean my God, you're so stupid that you don't realize that your very right to faggot "marriage" relied on a bad law being repealed.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So y'all didn't actually call your representative. It's good to know how serious you all are about getting rid of PA laws.
> 
> Hey Bear, do you like using the n word too? Make you feel like a man?
Click to expand...


I love the way you faggots are constantly trying to connect yourselves to the black civil rights movement from the 60s

You're a faggot, if you dont like being called one, well stop being one.

I've heard plenty of gays use the term fag themselves,sorta like many blacks use the term n!gger, it must offend either group that much


----------



## JakeStarkey

Personal attacks merely reveal your spiritual and emotional unbalance.

My posts are clearly mainstream Republicanism, which your extreme version distorts and makes fearful to others.

Read Article III of the COTUS, which clearly states SCOTUS has original jurisdiction of all matters constitutional.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Freewill said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not left wing and you are not mainstream right, merely a distorted imitation of it of the far right reactionary wing.
> 
> You are trying to restrain the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you as confused about your sexuality as you are you political leanings?  Every one of your posts put down Republicans and yet you are a Republican?  Really?  Is that a display of self loathing?
> 
> What law is being restrained?  The Judiciary does not, or should not, make law Jake.
Click to expand...


Actually, the Judiciary DOES make law, through court precedents The fact that you don't like some of the rulings notwithstanding.


----------



## Freewill

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not left wing and you are not mainstream right, merely a distorted imitation of it of the far right reactionary wing.
> 
> You are trying to restrain the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you as confused about your sexuality as you are you political leanings?  Every one of your posts put down Republicans and yet you are a Republican?  Really?  Is that a display of self loathing?
> 
> What law is being restrained?  The Judiciary does not, or should not, make law Jake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the Judiciary DOES make law, through court precedents The fact that you don't like some of the rulings notwithstanding.
Click to expand...


The judiciary defines laws not makes laws.  So they rule on laws passed by the legislature which is what they have been doing when they shoot down defense of marriage laws.  Thus by default that is making law, which is not their job.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Freewill said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not left wing and you are not mainstream right, merely a distorted imitation of it of the far right reactionary wing.
> 
> You are trying to restrain the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you as confused about your sexuality as you are you political leanings?  Every one of your posts put down Republicans and yet you are a Republican?  Really?  Is that a display of self loathing?
> 
> What law is being restrained?  The Judiciary does not, or should not, make law Jake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the Judiciary DOES make law, through court precedents The fact that you don't like some of the rulings notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The judiciary defines laws not makes laws.  So they rule on laws passed by the legislature which is what they have been doing when they shoot down defense of marriage laws.  Thus by default that is making law, which is not their job.
Click to expand...


That is their role in the system. Do you suggest that we have NO system to keep the Legislative from passing unconstitutional laws?


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> They said they were afraid to try, because voters don't get it. They said we need to get out there and wake people up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said to hang on for another few years as faggots kept demanding that Christians do business with them and enough people would get fed up and toss the PA laws to the curb.
> 
> Why are you so stupid that you don't understand that bad laws are being repealed every day? I mean my God, you're so stupid that you don't realize that your very right to faggot "marriage" relied on a bad law being repealed.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So y'all didn't actually call your representative. It's good to know how serious you all are about getting rid of PA laws.
> 
> Hey Bear, do you like using the n word too? Make you feel like a man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love the way you faggots are constantly trying to connect yourselves to the black civil rights movement from the 60s
> 
> You're a faggot, if you dont like being called one, well stop being one.
> 
> I've heard plenty of gays use the term fag themselves,sorta like many blacks use the term n!gger, it must offend either group that much
Click to expand...


You're a bigot. If you don't like being called one, stop being one.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Freewill said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not left wing and you are not mainstream right, merely a distorted imitation of it of the far right reactionary wing.
> 
> You are trying to restrain the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you as confused about your sexuality as you are you political leanings?  Every one of your posts put down Republicans and yet you are a Republican?  Really?  Is that a display of self loathing?
> 
> What law is being restrained?  The Judiciary does not, or should not, make law Jake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the Judiciary DOES make law, through court precedents The fact that you don't like some of the rulings notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The judiciary defines laws not makes laws.  So they rule on laws passed by the legislature which is what they have been doing when they shoot down defense of marriage laws.  Thus by default that is making law, which is not their job.
Click to expand...


Your opinion is not fact.


----------



## Skylar

Freewill said:


> Can we all agree that the argument isn't over the right to marry it is over the definition of marriage?



The issue is over if the definition of marriage in some states violates the right to marry of gays and lesbians. 



> Certainly, up until very recently, marriage was never even considered to be anything other then between a man and a woman.  Marriage was a contract between a man and woman for the legal protection of both.  Certainly limitations were put on marriage, a man still can't legally marry his sister.  A man can't have more then one wife.  So a limitation on a man can't marry a man certainly seems to be within the jurisdiction of the law.



Until comparatively recently, marriage was defined by race as well. A white woman and a white man. Or black woman and a black man. The changes we've implemented reflect our changing views of the institution. The veneration of past discrimination as justification for current discrimination isn't a terribly compelling argument.



> Making the comparison, falsely, between interacial marriage is first an insult.  Secondly in order for such a limitation it would mean that the black man or woman would have to be defined as something different then a white man or woman.  Not so with gay marriage, a woman is still a woman a man a man.



No it isn't. Even the arguments made by those who opposed interracial marriage are nearly identical to those who oppose gay marriage. That its 'unnatural'. That its 'against the will of God'. That it 'interference of His arrangement'. That it defiles the 'sanctity of marriage'. That its a 'violation of State's Rights'. The ruling of Lean M. Bazile in the case of Richard and Mildred Loving really lays it all out.



> Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
> 
> Leon M. Bazile



Loving V. Virginia was a demonstration that venerable and institutional assumptions about the definition of marriage are as malleable and changeable as we decide they are. And if we determine that a past definition violates rights, we have not only the ability to overturn such definitions, but the duty to do so.



> So we fight over definition.  When the people have had the opportunity to decide they have universally decided NOT to change the definition of marriage.  The majority of the victories that that gay "rights" side sees is won in the courts not legislature.



We fight over rights. And whether or not those definitions violate them by arbitrary excluding groups for no particular reason. 



> There really is nothing I see in the COTUS that even speaks to marriage one way or the other.  Thus we are in a new world, let the people decide.  But that won't hold for the left wing which MUST get their own way by hook or by crook.



The Federal Judiciary clearly disagrees.


----------



## Skylar

> Your opinion is not fact.



True. But there's no harm in sharing opinions. And Freewill was very clear that his view was his (er...hers?). Not some 'universal truth' or 'objective morality'. And that's completely reasonable.


----------



## BlackSand

Legislation that dictates activities concerning the services offered by the church ... Would actually violate the First Amendment as well as the additional desires towards any separation between church and state.

Since the church reserves and practices their right to deny marriage services to any couple that fails to meet their approval ... Regardless of race or gender ... Then there is no cause for Federal involvement.

Churches have denied marriage services to standard heterosexual couples who fail meet their criteria since the church was established ... No special treatment towards same-sex couples is warranted.

The question of whether or not the state will recognize a same-sex marriage is a matter of state ... Whether or not a church will offer marriage services to any couple is a church matter.

.


----------



## Skylar

Freewill said:


> I repeat what I posted probably 2000 posts ago.
> 
> Should atheists be forced to conduct religious ceremonies?



For gays getting married? Nope.


----------



## Skylar

BlackSand said:


> Legislation that dictates activities concerning the services offered by the church ... Would actually violate the First Amendment as well as the additional desires towards any separation between church and state.



I agree. 



> Since the church reserves and practices their right to deny marriages services to any couple that fails to meet their approval ... Regardless of race or gender ... Then there is no cause for Federal involvement.



I agree again.



> Churches have denied marriage services to standard heterosexual couples who fail meet their criteria since the church was established ... No special treatment towards same-sex couples is warranted.



Damn straight. 



> The question of whether or not the state will recognize a same-sex marriage is a matter of state ... Whether not a church will offer marriage services to any couple is a church matter.



10 for 10. Your argument is flawless.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we all agree that the argument isn't over the right to marry it is over the definition of marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is over if the definition of marriage in some states violates the right to marry of gays and lesbians.
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Freewill said:


> Certainly, up until very recently, marriage was never even considered to be anything other then between a man and a woman.  Marriage was a contract between a man and woman for the legal protection of both.  Certainly limitations were put on marriage, a man still can't legally marry his sister.  A man can't have more then one wife.  So a limitation on a man can't marry a man certainly seems to be within the jurisdiction of the law.



The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a coordinated attack upon the US.  It is designed to promote civil unrest, just prior to the detonation of the US Economy.  It's evil doing what would reasonably be expected of evil.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Freewill said:


> Making the comparison, falsely, between interracial marriage is first an insult.  Secondly in order for such a limitation it would mean that the black man or woman would have to be defined as something different then a white man or woman.  Not so with gay marriage, a woman is still a woman a man a man.



Yep...


----------



## Skylar

Freewill said:


> The judiciary defines laws not makes laws.  So they rule on laws passed by the legislature which is what they have been doing when they shoot down defense of marriage laws.  Thus by default that is making law, which is not their job.



Depends on the judge. If they're state justices they tend to use laws to ajudicate cases involving infractoins of those laws.

At the federal level, it tends to be adjudicate of the laws themselves. If they're constitutional, they remain. If they're unconstitutional, they're overruled and invalidated. 

Exactly as the founders intended:



> [T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents
> 
> Alexander Hamilton
> Federalist Paper 78
> 
> The Federalist Papers - THOMAS Library of Congress



If the state's laws are in conflict with the constitution, deference goes to the constitution.


----------



## Skylar

> The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a coordinated attack upon the US. It is designed to promote civil unrest, just prior to the detonation of the US Economy. It's evil doing what would reasonably be expected of evil.



You've already said that the 'Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality' isn't anyone. So how can nobody 'coordinate attacks upon the US'?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
> 
> Leon M. Bazile
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loving V. Virginia was a demonstration that venerable and institutional assumptions about the definition of marriage are as malleable and changeable as we decide they are. And if we determine that a past definition violates rights, we have not only the ability to overturn such definitions, but the duty to do so.
Click to expand...


LOL!  See how that works?   They're claiming, that because they have a highly subjective need, the culture must adjust any standard which prevents them from acquiring that which they subjectively need... to accommodate such.  This without regard to any other consideration... .

BECAUSE they need it, therefore *they have a right to it*.  

Such is the personification of evil.


----------



## Skylar

> LOL! See how that works? They're claiming, that because they have a highly subjective need, the culture must adjust any standard which prevents them from acquiring that which they subjectively need... to accommodate such. This without regard to any other consideration... .



What 'other consideration' would you be referring to? Vague much?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a coordinated attack upon the US. It is designed to promote civil unrest, just prior to the detonation of the US Economy. It's evil doing what would reasonably be expected of evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already said that the 'Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality' isn't anyone. So how can nobody 'coordinate attacks upon the US'?
Click to expand...


There is no record of my having ever said anything of the kind.  Such a position is absurd on its face, as "The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality "IS" comprised of every individual who advocates for the normalization of sexual abnormality.  YOU are such an individual, thus where you are at issue YOU ARE THE ADVOCACY THE NORMALIZE SEXUAL ABNORMALITY.


----------



## Skylar

> There is no record of my having ever said anything of the kind.



After making all sorts of accusations against your strawman the 'Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality',you insisted you hadn't made an accusation against anyone.

Okay. Then the 'Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality' isn't anyone.


----------



## Skylar

> Government didn't and doesn't define marriage. Nature designed the species and that design, defines marriage.



Who says nature defines marriage? That would be you and......certainly not the law. Who then?

And if the only purpose of marriage is children, how do you explain infertile couples getting married? Or the validity of marriages of childless couples....with 1 in 4 married couples never having kids? Or your grandparents still being married? Wouldn't their marriages be invalidated if they couldn't meet the only purpose of the union?

Clearly there is more than one purpose in marriage. And clearly there's a valid purpose in marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Since the requirement to have children isn't a standard that applies to anyone, why would we exclude gays and lesbians from marriage based on that non-existent requirement?

Logically and rationally...we wouldn't. Which is why gay marriage bans fail so consistently in court, with the record of failure for such bans in the federal judiciary essentially perfect.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality said:
			
		

> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we fight over definition.  When the people have had the opportunity to decide they have universally decided NOT to change the definition of marriage.  The majority of the victories that that gay "rights" side sees is won in the courts not legislature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We fight over rights. And whether or not those definitions violate them by arbitrary excluding groups for no particular reason.[sic]
Click to expand...


A 'need' does not a 'right' make.  This without regard to the whimsy of the intellectually less fortunate who claim otherwise.

You see, according to the principles that define America... declared in the Charter of American Principle... A "RIGHT" is endowed to us through the Creator of the Universe; Nature's God.

Nature defined the biological construct of the human being, which includes the respective and distinct genders.  Those genders define human sexuality.   As such, there is no RIGHT to pretend that sexual cravings which deviate from the standard, established by nature... and to adapt such in the COLOR OF LAW, as a means to force others to accept that pretense as anything other than what it is, a deceitful perversion of human sexuality.

There is no POTENTIAL for a right to force others to accept a deceit... and this without regard to HOW MANY individuals you manage to seat upon the US Federal Judiciary who subjectively STATE OTHERWISE.

All THAT will result in, is forcing The People to bear the responsibilities which constitute their duty, to 'throw off  such government, and to provide new guards for the nations future security'.

There's literally no alternative, beyond conceding to the death that is axiomatic in tolerating evil.  And make no mistake that you and your cult are manifestly evil.

We know this because of your own testimony, here, part and parcel of which is your standing refusal to simply take a stand against further predictable encroachments upon decency, not the least of which is the on-going efforts by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality to "LEGALIZE" the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification.


----------



## Syriusly

Freewill said:


> I repeat what I posted probably 2000 posts ago.
> 
> Should atheists be forced to conduct religious ceremonies?



No more than churches should be- or will be- forced to conduct religious ceremonies.

No one but the Right Wing is claiming- or suggesting forcing Churches to marry anyone other than who the Church allows to marry.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Nature defined the biological construct of the human being, which includes the respective and distinct genders.  Those genders define human sexuality.   .



No


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> I
> *THE VIRUS*​



Bat Guano Crazy.

Now in big red letters.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat what I posted probably 2000 posts ago.
> 
> Should atheists be forced to conduct religious ceremonies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more than churches should be- or will be- forced to conduct religious ceremonies.
> 
> No one but the Right Wing is claiming- or suggesting forcing Churches to marry anyone other than who the Church allows to marry.
Click to expand...

 Well they already tried to force pastors to have their sermons redacted in favor of LGBT propaganda in Texas.  But yeah, I'm sure that machine will check itself short of forcing churches to marry LGBTs

Wow, that poll above is impressive.  Over 80% in one of the largest/most popular polls ever at USMB..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat what I posted probably 2000 posts ago.
> 
> Should atheists be forced to conduct religious ceremonies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more than churches should be- or will be- forced to conduct religious ceremonies.
> 
> No one but the Right Wing is claiming- or suggesting forcing Churches to marry anyone other than who the Church allows to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well they already tried to force pastors to have their sermons redacted in favor of LGBT propaganda in Texas.  But yeah, I'm sure that machine will check itself short of forcing churches to marry LGBTs
> 
> Wow, that poll above is impressive.  Over 80% in one of the largest/most popular polls ever at USMB..
Click to expand...


Should atheists be forced to conduct religious ceremonies?[/QUOTE]

No more than churches should be- or will be- forced to conduct religious ceremonies.

No one but the Right Wing is claiming- or suggesting forcing Churches to marry anyone other than who the Church allows to marry


----------



## Skylar

> Well they already tried to force pastors to have their sermons redacted in favor of LGBT propaganda in Texas. But yeah, I'm sure that machine will check itself short of forcing churches to marry LGBTs




Redacted, huh? Can you back that claim up? I've heard of sermons being subpenas being issued for the sermons. But I've never heard that they were redacted. Or that there was an attempt to do so.


----------



## Skylar

> Without regard to the potential validity within the adjudicated 'edict', that the ends can be claimed as 'judicial', this justifies their deceitful MEANS.



That's your personal opinion. I've found the judiciary's reasoning to be both consistent and logical. 



> IT IS "THE LAW" therefore it is valid... And this without regard to the truth, without regard to the damage that such does to the means of The People to: TRUST THE LAW, or that THE LAW fails in the service of Justice.



The obvious problem with that reasoning being that you don't define truth. You define only your opinions and feelings. And your feelings have no particular relevance to any one else's rights.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality said:
			
		

> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we fight over definition.  When the people have had the opportunity to decide they have universally decided NOT to change the definition of marriage.  The majority of the victories that that gay "rights" side sees is won in the courts not legislature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We fight over rights. And whether or not those definitions violate them by arbitrary excluding groups for no particular reason.[sic]
Click to expand...


A 'need' does not a 'right' make.  This without regard to the whimsy of the intellectually less fortunate who claim otherwise.

You see, according to the principles that define America... declared in the Charter of American Principle... A "RIGHT" is endowed to us through the Creator of the Universe; Nature's God.

Nature defined the biological construct of the human being, which includes the respective and distinct genders.  Those genders define human sexuality.   As such, there is no RIGHT to pretend that sexual cravings which deviate from the standard, established by nature... and to adapt such in the COLOR OF LAW, as a means to force others to accept that pretense as anything other than what it is, a deceitful perversion of human sexuality.

There is no POTENTIAL for a right to force others to accept a deceit... and this without regard to HOW MANY individuals you manage to set upon the US Federal Judiciary who subjectively STATE OTHERWISE, claiming that because those who demonstrably fall well within the fundamental standard of an institution, but which do not specifically endeavor toward the precise scope of its natural purposes, axiomatically cripples the standard requiring that those who reject the standard itself should be accepted, because of the original exception.  The reasoning is simply not valid and establishes in law that ALL EXCLUSIONS ARE ILLEGAL.  Which is as absurd as it is destructive.

All such reasoning, set into law will do, is force 'The People' to bear the responsibilities which constitute their duty, to '_throw off  such government, and to provide new guards for the nations future security_'.

There is literally no alternative, beyond conceding to "*THE* *DEATH"* that comes axiomatic with tolerating evil.  And make no mistake: The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is manifestly evil.

We know this because of your own testimony, here, part and parcel of which is your standing refusal to simply take a stand against further predictable encroachments upon decency, not the least of which is the on-going efforts by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality to "LEGALIZE" the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

It simply is not reasonable to expect that a person guided by reason, whose intentions are honorable, would not simply answer a query which seeks to determine one's position on something so otherwise simple, as whether or not *THEY CLAIM THAT THE NEED OF SOME ADULTS TO USE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION CONSTITUTES A RIGHT OF THOSE ADULTS TO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.  *

Where one refuses to answer such, the reasonable presumption is that the respondent's belief is in the affirmative, which because of the deceitful nature of their advocacy, to admit such at this point is to undermine the goal of establishing such AS LEGAL, at which time they can then CROW in delight that "EVERYONE" accepts their twisted perversions, except the representation of a tiny minority, which they will project upon the relevant opposition.

The goal and the method is illustrated beautifully in the exchange provided below:



			
				Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality said:
			
		

> There really is nothing I see in the COTUS that even speaks to marriage one way or the other.  Thus we are in a new world, let the people decide.  But that won't hold for the left wing which MUST get their own way by hook or by crook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Judiciary clearly disagrees.
Click to expand...


Without regard to the potential validity within the adjudicated 'edict', that the ends can be claimed as 'judicial', this justifies their deceitful MEANS.

IT IS "THE LAW" therefore it is valid... And this without regard to the truth, without regard to the damage that such does to the means of The People to: TRUST THE LAW, or that THE LAW fails in the service of Justice.

And this all stemming upon nothing else, beyond THEIR OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS... having axiomatically REJECTED ALL SENSE of OBJECTIVITY... thus any concern for how it effects YOU, or more accurately put, ANYONE WHO IS NOT THEM!

It should be noted at this point, that THIS IS THE SAME PERSPECTIVE OF THAT WHICH WE KNOW AS:

*THE VIRUS*​


----------



## Skylar

> You see, according to the principles that define America... declared in the Charter of American Principle... A "RIGHT" is endowed to us through the Creator of the Universe; Nature's God.



The Creator, huh? God, huh?

Seems you've been holding out on us regarding your actual motivations.



> Nature defined the biological construct of the human being, which includes the respective and distinct genders. Those genders define human sexuality. As such, there is no RIGHT to pretend that sexual cravings which deviate from the standard, established by nature... and to adapt such in the COLOR OF LAW, as a means to force others to accept that pretense as anything other than what it is, a deceitful perversion of human sexuality.



Who says that marriage is defined exclusively by biological construction? That it has no purpose beyond procreation? Infertile couples can clearly get married. Grandparents can clearly say married. The marriages of childless couples remain valid even if they never have kids. Which 1 in 4 never do.

There's clearly more purposes to marriage than procreation. And have nothing to do with with children or the ability to have them. 

Your reasoning doesn't work.  Your logic is flawed. And thus, your conclusions are invalid.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality said:
			
		

> America said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, according to the principles that define America... declared in the Charter of American Principle... A "RIGHT" is endowed to us through the Creator of the Universe; Nature's God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Creator, huh? God, huh?
> 
> Seems you've been holding out on us regarding your actual motivations.
Click to expand...


How so?  And please, be SPECIFIC!


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> That's your personal opinion. I've found the judiciary's reasoning to be both consistent and logical.
> 
> .


 
Justices shouldn't pander to ass-kissers.  But you've got a point.  They probably do. 

But your point on the Judiciary being consistent and logical neglects to point out that most of the lower courts quite obviously have not read Windsor 2103.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality said:
			
		

> America said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nature defined the biological construct of the human being, which includes the respective and distinct genders. Those genders define human sexuality. As such, there is no RIGHT to pretend that sexual cravings which deviate from the standard, established by nature... and to adapt such in the COLOR OF LAW, as a means to force others to accept that pretense as anything other than what it is, a deceitful perversion of human sexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who says that marriage is defined exclusively by biological construction?
Click to expand...


If not the force that designed the species at issue and the specific traits and composition of the respective genders within and specific to that issue, then what could reasonably be used as a more just arbiter?


----------



## Skylar

> ut your point on the Judiciary being consistent and logical neglects to point out that most of the lower courts quite obviously have not read Windsor 2103.



On the contrary, they have. The 'conflict' you assert regarding the lower court decisions and Winsdor is the came 'conflict' you assert exists between the SCOTUS and Windsor in their refusal to grant stays regarding gay marriage: that Windsor affirms the constitutionality of gay marriage bans and puts State marriage laws above judicial review.

But Windsor doesn't do either. Or even mention either. You imagined both claims. Putting the 'conflict' you perceive firmly in the territory of your own imagination.

And the lower courts can't read that.


----------



## Skylar

> If not the force that designed the species at issue and the specific traits and composition of the respective genders within and specific to that issue, then what could reasonably be used as a more just arbiter?



Smiling...and what force would that be? C'mon, say it. You know you wanna say it. You've already started with your blather about 'The Creator' and 'God'. You might as well just drop the pretense and tell who you really claim to speak for.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, according to the principles that define America... declared in the Charter of American Principle... A "RIGHT" is endowed to us through the Creator of the Universe; Nature's God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Creator, huh? God, huh?
> 
> Seems you've been holding out on us regarding your actual motivations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  And please, be SPECIFIC!
Click to expand...


You're now citing 'The Creator' and 'God' and 'The Force That Designed Our Species' as your appeal to authority. That's new. Before your appeals to authority were only 'the laws of nature'. And 'objective truth'. 

Its becoming increasingly obvious that yours is a religious argument. So why not stop denying your faith and make your claims. I mean, the rooster has crown twice already.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality said:
			
		

> That it has no purpose beyond procreation?



The issue here is not  the purpose, but the standard which the biological design of the species demonstrated as the purpose.  You're claiming, in effect, that because others participate; others who readily meet the aforementioned natural standards, that this axiomatically provides that those who reject those standards should also be accepted. IS that your claim and if so, on what basis are you setting that claim? 




			
				The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality said:
			
		

> There's clearly more purposes to marriage than procreation. And have nothing to do with with children or the ability to have them.



So you're claiming that multiple perspective in application, provide through the net effect, that such has multiple purpose?  

To infertile seniors who otherwise meet the fundamental standards of marriage, marry... for the purpose of establishing a stable home marked by the complimenting traits of the respective genders, joining as one, in sustainable union and you claim that this provides for a distinct purpose?  Isn't it an adaption of the purpose? 

If not, where do you specifically see the distinction?


----------



## Skylar

> The issue here is not the purpose, but the standard which the biological design of the species demonstrated as the purpose. You're claiming, in effect, that because others participate; others who readily meet the aforementioned natural standards, that this axiomatically provides that those who reject those standards should also be accepted. IS that your claim and if so, on what basis are you setting that claim?



Again, says who? We have demonstrable examples that marriage has a purpose that has nothing to do with 'biological design'. Infertile couples, older couples, couples who never have kids, even your grandparents. Their marriages are all valid, despite their total failure to satisfy any of the purposes of 'biological design'. 

Since the product of 'biological design' is clearly not a requirement for a valid marriage, the standard is arbitrary. No one is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to have a valid marriage.

Then on what basis would we deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.....as your requirements apply to no one? There is none. Which is why your argument fails logically, rationally....and of course, legally.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> If not the force that designed the species at issue and the specific traits and composition of the respective genders within and specific to that issue, then what could reasonably be used as a more just arbiter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smiling...and what force would that be?
Click to expand...


The Force common to nature; the force that created the universe... with such being readily observed even today as a result of the energy it exerted... and the laws it established for that energy, laws which are timeless, unchanging, inalterable and enforced without regard to the whimsy of the subjective need.    

Are you not aware of the Creator of the Universe and the energy common to such?   Such seems unlikely, given the 15 billion years that such has been otherwise obvious to all but the least among us.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> The issue here is not the purpose, but the standard which the biological design of the species demonstrated as the purpose. You're claiming, in effect, that because others participate; others who readily meet the aforementioned natural standards, that this axiomatically provides that those who reject those standards should also be accepted. IS that your claim and if so, on what basis are you setting that claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, says who?
Click to expand...


Again... Says Nature.


----------



## Skylar

> To infertile seniors who otherwise meet the fundamental standards of marriage, marry... for the purpose of establishing a stable home marked by the complimenting traits of the respective genders, joining as one, in sustainable union and you claim that this provides for a distinct purpose? Isn't it an adaption of the purpose?



The standards themselves are arbitrary, as there's no function the standard satisfies that is required for a valid marriage. It would be like saying that one must have blonde hair to be married. There's nothing about blonde hair that is required to form a valid marriage. The requirement serves no mandatory function. It simply is. And thus uselessly arbitrary.

Likewise, there's nothing about your 'fundamental standard' that is required to form a valid marriage. No one is required to have kids or be able to have kids in order to have a  valid marriage. Meaning that 'biological design' doesn't produce any function that is necessary for a valid marriage. And is thus as arbitrary as blonde hair.

Your definitions require that there is only ONE possible purpose in marriage: procreation. There is more than one. Just like there's more than one purpose in sex. Just like there is more than one purpose in eating.


----------



## Skylar

> To infertile seniors who otherwise meet the fundamental standards of marriage, marry... for the purpose of establishing a stable home marked by the complimenting traits of the respective genders, joining as one, in sustainable union and you claim that this provides for a distinct purpose? Isn't it an adaption of the purpose?



Again, nature doesn't say anything about the 'exclusive purpose of marriage',* you do. *And we have demonstrable examples that you're wrong. Since there are other purposes than 'biological design' that satisfy the requirements of a valid marriage, excluding someone on a failure to meet a non-mandatory standard that doesn't prevent ANYONE from entering into marriage is invalid. And grossly unfair.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> You're now citing 'The Creator' and 'God' and 'The Force That Designed Our Species' as your appeal to authority.



No... I am only noting the authority and appealing to the relevant facts intrinsic to that authority, and the specifics wherein sound reason recognizes that those facts govern every specific aspect of reality, wherein the immutable laws established by such, govern every aspect of the creation, including human behavior.

Its your ignorance of the laws of nature that govern human reasoning, which leaves you subject to fatally flawed logical constructs, wherein you google narrow definitions, grasp key words and erroneously apply them  where they are otherwise inappropriate... which confused you in regards to 'appeals', 'authority' and such.


----------



## Skylar

> No... I am only noting the authority and appealing to the relevant facts intrinsic to that authority, and the specifics wherein sound reason recognizes that those facts govern every specific aspects of reality, wherein the immutable laws established by such, govern every aspect of the creation, including human behavior.



You've already said that an appeal to authority only works if the logic and reason of an argument stand. And the logic and reason of your argument don't stand. As there are valid and demonstrable contradictions to your standard that your reasoning can't resolve. And these contradictions undermine your fundamental assumptions regarding both your argument, and the authority you're appealing to. 

Rendering both invalid as a basis of conclusion.


----------



## Skylar

> Its your ignorance of the laws of nature that govern human reasoning, which leaves you subject to fatally flawed logical constructs, wherein you google narrow definitions, grasp key words and erroneously apply them where they are otherwise inappropriate... which confused you in regards to 'appeals', 'authority' and such.



Oh, I'm fully familiar with how babies are made. I just don't accept your assertion that marriage serves only the purpose of procreation. But recognize instead that there is more than one valid purpose in marriage, and that the purpose has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

And I can demonstrably prove it with the valid marriages of infertile couples.

Which simply destroys your entire argument.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality said:
			
		

> America said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To infertile seniors who otherwise meet the fundamental standards of marriage, marry... for the purpose of establishing a stable home marked by the complimenting traits of the respective genders, joining as one, in sustainable union and you claim that this provides for a distinct purpose? Isn't it an adaption of the purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, nature doesn't say anything about the 'exclusive purpose of marriage',* you do. *
Click to expand...


Nature actually does 'say' it... This being so because to 'say' is to 'express' and nature expresses such through the inherent design of human physiology.

It's not even a debatable point, with your obtuse refusal to recognize that, notwithstanding.

I'm happy to entertain your drivel as long as you like.  We can take this thread to a million pages.  And I will happily meet your petitio principii adnauseum, as many times as you care to circle it back around.

But you long ago lost this debate.  And that is not going to change... It would not change it if the entire world peeked in here and declared throughout humanity that you are right and I wrong.

Ya see scamp... Sound reason does not require validation, as its validity is inherent... .

The fact is that your goal here, is to advance deceit, through fraudulent reasoning, as a means to influence the ignorant.  These, we know to be the fundamental tenets of EVIL.  Thus, I've little choice but to bounce you around this room until you can't remember which way you were heading when ya got here.  This because I am advocating on behalf of the Creator of the Universe, thus bear his blessing and as such I cannot be defeated... and you advocate for evil... which cannot reap victory.

So... we're just biding time until we find in this exercise, the same result that has passed through time in memorial.  Which is fine with me, as I have plenty of time.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> No... I am only noting the authority and appealing to the relevant facts intrinsic to that authority, and the specifics wherein sound reason recognizes that those facts govern every specific aspects of reality, wherein the immutable laws established by such, govern every aspect of the creation, including human behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already said that an appeal to authority only works if the logic and reason of an argument stand. And the logic and reason of your argument don't stand. As there are valid and demonstrable contradictions to your standard that your reasoning can't resolve. And these contradictions undermine your fundamental assumptions regarding both your argument, and the authority you're appealing to.
> 
> Rendering both invalid as a basis of conclusion.
Click to expand...



Sadly, for your position... you claiming that my reasoning doesn't stand, has no actual bearing on the standing of every single one of the points on which I have stood.

The coolest part of text forums, is that the debate is in writing.  So these little denials don't actually do anything.

The record is as clear as it is indisputable.

Here... allow me to provide you, "The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality",  the opportunity to prove it.

Now you have asserted that my reasoning does not stand.  This discussion is hundreds of pages long, thus the evidence is extensive, in terms of what has actually taken place.

From that cache of evidence, find a *specific example* of even ONE of the points upon which I have stood... which must be sourced with a valid link, wherein you can reasonably show that my point failed due to its  inherent, and fatal flaw(s).

Best of luck to you... and yes... when you fail to do so... which is a 100% certainty, with the highest likelihood being that you'll fail in terms of 'specifics' or you'll offer a point and claim it failed, based entirely upon your own subjective NEED for that point to have failed, but with no actual fact or reasoning which will otherwise constitute a flaw of any kind.

Now ... *GO!*


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Well they already tried to force pastors to have their sermons redacted in favor of LGBT propaganda in Texas. But yeah, I'm sure that machine will check itself short of forcing churches to marry LGBTs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redacted, huh? Can you back that claim up? I've heard of sermons being subpenas being issued for the sermons. But I've never heard that they were redacted. Or that there was an attempt to do so.
Click to expand...


Which by the way- seems incredibly bizarre and I think that mayor is going to get slapped down big time for attempting to subpoena sermons.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To infertile seniors who otherwise meet the fundamental standards of marriage, marry... for the purpose of establishing a stable home marked by the complimenting traits of the respective genders, joining as one, in sustainable union and you claim that this provides for a distinct purpose? Isn't it an adaption of the purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The standards themselves are arbitrary, as there's no function the standard satisfies that is required for a valid marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
> 
> Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
> 
> The design of the human species is that common to the natural order, wherein such is not influenced by either ANY individual present in this discussion, or the subjective need common to such.  The design presents specific UNDENIABLE traits and attributes... not the least of which is the distinctions common to gender.
> 
> Marriage sets those distinct, but complimenting genders into ONE BEING... from which is born a distinct being, which is then nurtured and trained within and through the traits common to the traits of the respective genders.
> 
> Nothing could BE >LESS< arbitrary and MORE > OBJECTIVE< ... .
> 
> Your misuse and consistent abuse of the language is FTR: Yet another indication of the intrinsic evil, inherent in your cause.  It serves as further proof that such rests in nothing less or more beyond the attempt to DECEIVE, through among others, that specific fraudulence, as a means to influence the ignorant.
> 
> Now the coolest part is that evil NEEDS to influence the ignorant, so as to establish a popular position in the culture... and wherein that culture is governed through democratic principles, such provides for the axiomatic path of least resistance toward accomplishing the destruction of same.
> 
> And we can rest assured that THIS is why Socialism NEEDS Democracy and why Democracies always die a fiery death... and generally in two centuries of less, as that provides for the 10 generations required to rinse from the people, the means to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles in nature that provide for the viability that sustains their freedom.
> 
> Now HOW COOL IS THAT?
Click to expand...


Bat guano crazy


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To infertile seniors who otherwise meet the fundamental standards of marriage, marry... for the purpose of establishing a stable home marked by the complimenting traits of the respective genders, joining as one, in sustainable union and you claim that this provides for a distinct purpose? Isn't it an adaption of the purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, nature doesn't say anything about the 'exclusive purpose of marriage',* you do. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature actually does 'say' it... This being so because to 'say' is to 'express' and nature expresses such through the inherent design of human physiology.
> 
> It's not even a debatable point, with your obtuse refusal to.
Click to expand...


More bat guano craziness....Nature doesn't say anything about marriage.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality said:
			
		

> America said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its your ignorance of the laws of nature that govern human reasoning, which leaves you subject to fatally flawed logical constructs, wherein you google narrow definitions, grasp key words and erroneously apply them where they are otherwise inappropriate... which confused you in regards to 'appeals', 'authority' and such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm fully familiar with how babies are made... .
Click to expand...


Let the record reflect, that in the post which the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality quoted as the specific subject of its response, there is no reference, whatsoever, to procreation (how babies are made).

The response is yet another example of the deceitful nature of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your personal opinion. I've found the judiciary's reasoning to be both consistent and logical.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices shouldn't pander to ass-kissers.  But you've got a point.  They probably do.
> 
> But your point on the Judiciary being consistent and logical neglects to point out that most of the lower courts quite obviously have not read Windsor 2103.
Click to expand...


On the contrary- the lower courts have repeatedly referred to Windsor- and repeatedly cite Windsor- and 

From the Wisconsin decision:

To the extent Romer and Lawrence left any room for doubt whether the claims in this
case raise a substantial federal question, that doubt was resolved in *United States v.
Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013)*, in which the Court invalidated the Defense of Marriage
Act, a law prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriages authorized under state law.
Before the case reached the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had
discussed at length the continuing vitality of Baker and the majority had concluded over a
vigorous dissent that Baker was no longer controlling. *Compare Windsor v. United States,
699 F.3d 169, 178-79 (2d Cir. 2012) (*“Even if Baker might have had resonance for
Windsor's case in 1971, it does not today.”), with id. at 210 (Straub, J., dissenting)
(“Subjecting the federal definition of marriage to heightened scrutiny would defy or, at least,
call into question the continued validity of Baker, which we are not empowered to do.”). On
appeal before the Supreme Court, those defending the law continued to press the issue,
arguing that the lower court’s rejection of Baker as precedent made “the case for this Court's
review . . . overwhelming.” *Windsor v. United States of Americ*a, Nos. 12-63 and 12-307,
Supplemental Brief for Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of
Representatives, available at 2012 WL 5388782, at *5-6.

In addition the Court addressed your argument- referring to Windsor

Windsor is closer to the mark, but not by much. It is true that the Supreme Court
noted multiple times in its decision that the regulation of marriage is a traditional concern
of the states. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2689-90 (“By history and tradition the definition and
regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within
the authority and realm of the separate States.”); id. at 2691 (“[R]egulation of domestic
relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the
States.”) (internal quotations omitted). In addition, the Court noted that the Defense of
Marriage Act departed from that tradition by refusing to defer to the states’ determination
of what qualified as a valid marriage. Id. at 2692 (“DOMA, because of its reach and extent,
departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage.”).
However, defendants’ and amici’s reliance on Windsor is misplaced for three reasons.

First, the Supreme Court’s observations were not new; the Court has recognized for many
years that the regulation of marriage is primarily a concern for the states. In his dissent,
Justice Scalia noted this point and questioned the purpose of the Court’s federalism
discussion. Id. at 2705 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“But no one questions the power of the States
to define marriage (with the concomitant conferral of dignity and status), so what is the
point of devoting seven pages to describing how long and well established that power is?”).
Thus, it would be inappropriate to infer that the Court was articulating a new, heightened
level of deference to marriage regulation by the states

Second, the Court declined expressly to rely on federalism as a basis for its conclusion
that DOMA is unconstitutional. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2692 (“_t is unnecessary to decide
whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it
disrupts the federal balance.”). See also id. at 2705 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“[T]he opinion
has formally disclaimed reliance upon principles of federalism.”). But see id. at 2697
(Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (“t is undeniable that its judgment is based on federalism.”).

*Third, and most important, the Court discussed DOMA’s encroachment on state
authority as evidence that the law was unconstitutional, not as a reason to preserve a law that
otherwise would be invalid. In fact, the Court was careful to point out multiple times the
well-established principle that an interest in federalism cannot trump constitutional rights.*_


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its your ignorance of the laws of nature that govern human reasoning, which leaves you subject to fatally flawed logical constructs, wherein you google narrow definitions, grasp key words and erroneously apply them where they are otherwise inappropriate... which confused you in regards to 'appeals', 'authority' and such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm fully familiar with how babies are made... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let the record reflect, that in the post which the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality quoted as the specific subject of its response, there is no reference, whatsoever, to procreation (how babies are made).
> 
> The response is yet another example of the deceitful nature of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
Click to expand...


Keys appears to be going even more bat guano crazy than usual.

He is talking to himself- and calling himself deceitful. 

Bizarre.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality said:
			
		

> To infertile seniors who otherwise meet the fundamental standards of marriage, marry... for the purpose of establishing a stable home marked by the complimenting traits of the respective genders, joining as one, in sustainable union and you claim that this provides for a distinct purpose? Isn't it an adaption of the purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The standards themselves are arbitrary, as there's no function the standard satisfies that is required for a valid marriage.
Click to expand...


Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

The design of the human species is that common to the natural order, wherein such is not influenced by either ANY individual present in this discussion, or the subjective need common to such.  The design presents specific UNDENIABLE traits and attributes... not the least of which is the distinctions common to gender.

Marriage sets those distinct, but complimenting genders into ONE BEING; with their complimenting attributes being THE INCONTESTABLE PROOF, in terms of the design requiring them to be joined...  from which is born a distinct being, which is then nurtured and trained within and through the traits common to the traits of the respective genders.

Such could NOT BE > LESS < arbitrary, nor MORE > OBJECTIVE < ... .

Your misuse and consistent abuse of the language is FTR: Yet another indication of the intrinsic evil, inherent in your cause.  It serves as further proof that such rests in nothing less or more beyond the attempt to DECEIVE, through among others, that specific fraudulence, as a means to influence the ignorant.

Now the coolest part is that evil NEEDS to influence the ignorant, so as to establish a popular position in the culture... and wherein that culture is governed through democratic principles, such provides for the axiomatic path of least resistance toward accomplishing the destruction of same.

And we can rest assured that THIS is why Socialism NEEDS Democracy and why Democracies always die a fiery death... and generally in two centuries or less, as that provides for the 10 generations required to rinse from the people, the means to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles in nature that provide for the viability that sustains their freedom.

Now HOW COOL IS THAT?


----------



## Silhouette

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
> 
> Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
> 
> The design of the human species is that common to the natural order, wherein such is not influenced by either ANY individual present in this discussion, or the subjective need common to such.  The design presents specific UNDENIABLE traits and attributes... not the least of which is the distinctions common to gender.
> 
> Marriage sets those distinct, but complimenting genders into ONE BEING; with their complimenting attributes being THE INCONTESTABLE PROOF, in terms of the design requiring them to be joined...  from which is born a distinct being, which is then nurtured and trained within and through the traits common to the traits of the respective genders.
> 
> Such could NOT BE > LESS < arbitrary, nor MORE > OBJECTIVE < ... .
> 
> Your misuse and consistent abuse of the language is FTR: Yet another indication of the intrinsic evil, inherent in your cause.  It serves as further proof that such rests in nothing less or more beyond the attempt to DECEIVE, through among others, that specific fraudulence, as a means to influence the ignorant.
> 
> Now the coolest part is that evil NEEDS to influence the ignorant, so as to establish a popular position in the culture... and wherein that culture is governed through democratic principles, such provides for the axiomatic path of least resistance toward accomplishing the destruction of same.
> 
> And we can rest assured that THIS is why Socialism NEEDS Democracy and why Democracies always die a fiery death... and generally in two centuries or less, as that provides for the 10 generations required to rinse from the people, the means to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles in nature that provide for the viability that sustains their freedom.
> 
> Now HOW COOL IS THAT?


 
Why is it freedom and liberties always devolve into doing sex acts in front of or with kids?  Gay pride parades, Harvey Milk.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
> 
> Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
> 
> The design of the human species is that common to the natural order, wherein such is not influenced by either ANY individual present in this discussion, or the subjective need common to such.  The design presents specific UNDENIABLE traits and attributes... not the least of which is the distinctions common to gender.
> 
> Marriage sets those distinct, but complimenting genders into ONE BEING; with their complimenting attributes being THE INCONTESTABLE PROOF, in terms of the design requiring them to be joined...  from which is born a distinct being, which is then nurtured and trained within and through the traits common to the traits of the respective genders.
> 
> Such could NOT BE > LESS < arbitrary, nor MORE > OBJECTIVE < ... .
> 
> Your misuse and consistent abuse of the language is FTR: Yet another indication of the intrinsic evil, inherent in your cause.  It serves as further proof that such rests in nothing less or more beyond the attempt to DECEIVE, through among others, that specific fraudulence, as a means to influence the ignorant.
> 
> Now the coolest part is that evil NEEDS to influence the ignorant, so as to establish a popular position in the culture... and wherein that culture is governed through democratic principles, such provides for the axiomatic path of least resistance toward accomplishing the destruction of same.
> 
> And we can rest assured that THIS is why Socialism NEEDS Democracy and why Democracies always die a fiery death... and generally in two centuries or less, as that provides for the 10 generations required to rinse from the people, the means to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles in nature that provide for the viability that sustains their freedom.
> 
> Now HOW COOL IS THAT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it freedom and liberties always devolve into doing sex acts in front of or with kids?  Gay pride parades, Harvey Milk.
Click to expand...



Well, such is the nature of evil, of course... .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

So again... When the day comes that a 'newbee' comes along and asks the inevitable question: "Does anyone ever win any of these arguments, please bookmark this thread, so that you can link that individual to a first class example of what winning an argument looks like, as you answer that query through a profound "OH Hell yes! .... ."

Thank you all for your time and attention in considering this matter.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment prevents the States from violating the rights of citizens. It doesn't say a thing about citizen v. citizen interactions. If it did, the Federal Government would never have had to come up with the steaming rhetorical pile that is the commerce clause bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the fuck out of equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to read the 14th amendments. It doesn't say a thing about 'equal rights'. It says 'equal protection in the law'. And if there's no law, it applies to everyone equally.
Click to expand...


Equal protection of the law implies equal rights. Granting special protections to privileged classes runs counter to both. There should be exactly ONE "protected class".



> And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of Romer V. Evans, it explicitly exempted gays. They actually went out of thier way to say that gays weren't protected. That's, btw, is an equal protection violation.
Click to expand...


Regardless of what they _said, _the fact of the matter is that everyone not covered by the current hit list of "protected classes" is exempted.



Skylar said:


> Does that seem like "equal protection"to you? It's sounds to me like decidedly UNequal protection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fail to include and 'explicitly exclude' are two different things. Romer prevents explict exclusion.
Click to expand...




Skylar said:


> Only if we're in hair-splitting mood. In either case some are "more equal" than others, and it IS a violation of equal protection, no matter how much you ostrich up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not hair splitting.
> 
> If I said that you couldn't discriminate on the basis of race and gender, you're usually okay. Even if you don't include, say....religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by "you're usually okay"? For the record, I think PA laws are wrong regardless of which classes are selected for special privileges.



> If I said that you couldn't discriminate on the basis of race or gender, but that religion was excluded from protection, that's an issue. As you've targeted one group for discrimination.


 Agreed. But ALL classes not on the list are excluded. Unless you include all, some are excluded, and they are all equally "targeted". Whether it's explicit or implicit is immaterial.



Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> They said they were afraid to try, because voters don't get it. They said we need to get out there and wake people up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So y'all didn't actually call your representative. It's good to know how serious you all are about getting rid of PA laws.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If your point is that getting rid of PA laws isn't currently politically viable, I totally agree. Before that can happen there needs to be some consensus among voters that PA laws are poisonous. That's (hopefully) why this thread was started. In any case, it's why I post my opinions here. I HAVE in fact, discussed this issue with reps - but your point isn't lost. There's no democratic consensus (yet) for changing these laws. Does that mean we should just roll over and accept the status quo regardless of how wrong we think it is?


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment prevents the States from violating the rights of citizens. It doesn't say a thing about citizen v. citizen interactions. If it did, the Federal Government would never have had to come up with the steaming rhetorical pile that is the commerce clause bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the fuck out of equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to read the 14th amendments. It doesn't say a thing about 'equal rights'. It says 'equal protection in the law'. And if there's no law, it applies to everyone equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law implies equal rights. Granting special protections to privileged classes runs counter to both. There should be exactly ONE "protected class".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the case of Romer V. Evans, it explicitly exempted gays. They actually went out of thier way to say that gays weren't protected. That's, btw, is an equal protection violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of what they _said, _the fact of the matter is that everyone not covered by the current hit list of "protected classes" is exempted.
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that seem like "equal protection"to you? It's sounds to me like decidedly UNequal protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fail to include and 'explicitly exclude' are two different things. Romer prevents explict exclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if we're in hair-splitting mood. In either case some are "more equal" than others, and it IS a violation of equal protection, no matter how much you ostrich up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not hair splitting.
> 
> If I said that you couldn't discriminate on the basis of race and gender, you're usually okay. Even if you don't include, say....religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "you're usually okay"? For the record, I think PA laws are wrong regardless of which classes are selected for special privileges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I said that you couldn't discriminate on the basis of race or gender, but that religion was excluded from protection, that's an issue. As you've targeted one group for discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. But ALL classes not on the list are excluded. Unless you include all, some are excluded, and they are all equally "targeted". Whether it's explicit or implicit is immaterial.
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> They said they were afraid to try, because voters don't get it. They said we need to get out there and wake people up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So y'all didn't actually call your representative. It's good to know how serious you all are about getting rid of PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If your point is that getting rid of PA laws isn't currently politically viable, I totally agree. Before that can happen there needs to be some consensus among voters that PA laws are poisonous. That's (hopefully) why this thread was started. In any case, it's why I post my opinions here. I HAVE in fact, discussed this issue with reps - but your point isn't lost. There's no democratic consensus (yet) for changing these laws. Does that mean we should just roll over and accept the status quo regardless of how wrong we think it is?
Click to expand...


Fight ALL of them to your hearts content...just don't bitch because SOME protect gays TOO.


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment prevents the States from violating the rights of citizens. It doesn't say a thing about citizen v. citizen interactions. If it did, the Federal Government would never have had to come up with the steaming rhetorical pile that is the commerce clause bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the fuck out of equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to read the 14th amendments. It doesn't say a thing about 'equal rights'. It says 'equal protection in the law'. And if there's no law, it applies to everyone equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law implies equal rights. Granting special protections to privileged classes runs counter to both. There should be exactly ONE "protected class".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the case of Romer V. Evans, it explicitly exempted gays. They actually went out of thier way to say that gays weren't protected. That's, btw, is an equal protection violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of what they _said, _the fact of the matter is that everyone not covered by the current hit list of "protected classes" is exempted.
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that seem like "equal protection"to you? It's sounds to me like decidedly UNequal protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fail to include and 'explicitly exclude' are two different things. Romer prevents explict exclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if we're in hair-splitting mood. In either case some are "more equal" than others, and it IS a violation of equal protection, no matter how much you ostrich up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not hair splitting.
> 
> If I said that you couldn't discriminate on the basis of race and gender, you're usually okay. Even if you don't include, say....religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "you're usually okay"? For the record, I think PA laws are wrong regardless of which classes are selected for special privileges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I said that you couldn't discriminate on the basis of race or gender, but that religion was excluded from protection, that's an issue. As you've targeted one group for discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. But ALL classes not on the list are excluded. Unless you include all, some are excluded, and they are all equally "targeted". Whether it's explicit or implicit is immaterial.
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> They said they were afraid to try, because voters don't get it. They said we need to get out there and wake people up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So y'all didn't actually call your representative. It's good to know how serious you all are about getting rid of PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If your point is that getting rid of PA laws isn't currently politically viable, I totally agree. Before that can happen there needs to be some consensus among voters that PA laws are poisonous. That's (hopefully) why this thread was started. In any case, it's why I post my opinions here. I HAVE in fact, discussed this issue with reps - but your point isn't lost. There's no democratic consensus (yet) for changing these laws. Does that mean we should just roll over and accept the status quo regardless of how wrong we think it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fight ALL of them to your hearts content...just don't bitch because SOME protect gays TOO.
Click to expand...


I'm not. I'm using the policy to highlight our continued drift toward corporatism and away from true equal rights.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment prevents the States from violating the rights of citizens. It doesn't say a thing about citizen v. citizen interactions. If it did, the Federal Government would never have had to come up with the steaming rhetorical pile that is the commerce clause bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the fuck out of equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to read the 14th amendments. It doesn't say a thing about 'equal rights'. It says 'equal protection in the law'. And if there's no law, it applies to everyone equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law implies equal rights. Granting special protections to privileged classes runs counter to both. There should be exactly ONE "protected class".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the case of Romer V. Evans, it explicitly exempted gays. They actually went out of thier way to say that gays weren't protected. That's, btw, is an equal protection violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of what they _said, _the fact of the matter is that everyone not covered by the current hit list of "protected classes" is exempted.
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that seem like "equal protection"to you? It's sounds to me like decidedly UNequal protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fail to include and 'explicitly exclude' are two different things. Romer prevents explict exclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if we're in hair-splitting mood. In either case some are "more equal" than others, and it IS a violation of equal protection, no matter how much you ostrich up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not hair splitting.
> 
> If I said that you couldn't discriminate on the basis of race and gender, you're usually okay. Even if you don't include, say....religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "you're usually okay"? For the record, I think PA laws are wrong regardless of which classes are selected for special privileges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I said that you couldn't discriminate on the basis of race or gender, but that religion was excluded from protection, that's an issue. As you've targeted one group for discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. But ALL classes not on the list are excluded. Unless you include all, some are excluded, and they are all equally "targeted". Whether it's explicit or implicit is immaterial.
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> They said they were afraid to try, because voters don't get it. They said we need to get out there and wake people up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So y'all didn't actually call your representative. It's good to know how serious you all are about getting rid of PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If your point is that getting rid of PA laws isn't currently politically viable, I totally agree. Before that can happen there needs to be some consensus among voters that PA laws are poisonous. That's (hopefully) why this thread was started. In any case, it's why I post my opinions here. I HAVE in fact, discussed this issue with reps - but your point isn't lost. There's no democratic consensus (yet) for changing these laws. Does that mean we should just roll over and accept the status quo regardless of how wrong we think it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fight ALL of them to your hearts content...just don't bitch because SOME protect gays TOO.
Click to expand...


Bitch?  

Not sure I follow your reasoning. 

I contest the deceit expressed which hold subjective NEED as the basis of one's RIGHTS.    This is fraudulent reasoning, which seeks to hide from the ignorant, the true basis of their rights. 


This is a thing which is to be protected FROM... not to BE PROTECTED.  As "IT" is a lethal strain of reasoning which threatens the very fabric of Freedom itself.


So... where any homosexual understands that and turns from the spurious reasoning which will as surely destroy their means to exercise their rights, as it will everyone else's... I have contest with them.   As what one does in the privacy of their home, is their business, and it is business in which I have absolutely no interest.


----------



## Silhouette

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> I contest the deceit expressed which hold subjective NEED as the basis of one's RIGHTS.    This is fraudulent reasoning, which seeks to hide from the ignorant, the true basis of their rights.
> This is a thing which is to be protected FROM... not to BE PROTECTED.  As "IT" is a lethal strain of reasoning which threatens the very fabric of Freedom itself.
> 
> 
> So... where any homosexual understands that and turns from the spurious reasoning which will as surely destroy their means to exercise their rights, as it will everyone else's... I have contest with them.   As what one does in the privacy of their home, is their business, and it is business in which I have absolutely no interest.


 
Well put.  This is an incomplete sexual fetish cult seeking to overthrow the Will of the majority: to remove the power of their vote.  Behaviors are always regulated, outside religion.  Since LGBT has not applied for tax-exempt status, they are merely a cult, a collective of people who identify themselves by sexual fetish behaviors.  If behaviors repugnant to the majority are allowed to dictate to it and overthrow their vote, then democracy has ceased to exist.  There would be no other means to deny other behaviors repugnant to the majority their right to overthrow regulation of what they do.

SCOTUS's blindness to this teeters on a magnitude of legal malpractice and gross negligence of duties that is almost shocking to consider.


----------



## Silhouette

I see that the LGBT crew tries to nudge the poll numbers down from 83% and when they do, they just keep creeping back up again as more and more people vote on the biggest poll ever at USMB. 

What does that REALLY say about the public's alleged "in favor of" gay marriage?  This is a huge turnout with a huge result.  Yes, it's not a topic that polling lends accurate results to.  There are just some things people will never discuss in a public setting.  They wait for the voting booth instead.

*crickets*....


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> I see that the LGBT crew tries to nudge the poll numbers down from 83% and when they do, they just keep creeping back up again as more and more people vote on the biggest poll ever at USMB.
> 
> What does that REALLY say about the public's alleged "in favor of" gay marriage?  This is a huge turnout with a huge result.  Yes, it's not a topic that polling lends accurate results to.  There are just some things people will never discuss in a public setting.  They wait for the voting booth instead.
> 
> *crickets*....



It's actually much higher than that, given that "Other" is where we of the "HELL NO!" contingent voted...


----------



## Silhouette

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> So again... *When the day comes that a 'newbee' comes along and asks the inevitable question: "Does anyone ever win any of these arguments, please bookmark this thread*, so that you can link that individual to a first class example of what winning an argument looks like, as you answer that query through a profound "OH Hell yes! .... ."
> 
> Thank you all for your time and attention in considering this matter.


 Well I hope you're right.  Unless the day doesn't come because the social mores have softened with attrition and time to such a degree that there literally is a conservative ideology that breeds itself out of existence.  How many homes will teach the Bible or any conservative values when two women or two men are playing at "mom and dad"?  Once you reach that mental tipping point, there will be no more conservative ideas.  We will have fully succombed to a new cult that will wholly replace christian values.  They even admit this is their goal on almost a daily basis.

Time is our biggest enemy at this point.  And conservatives in places to do something about this advancement and eventual extinction even of themselves..sit on their hands and do nothing.  That's why I've postuled that Dick Cheney's daughter is behind this one.  The lesbian.  We know that what that man wants from his choir in the GOP, he is never denied. 

Mary Mary quite contrary how do the campaigns go?
With wedding bells and broadside shells..
And cunning maids all in a row..


----------



## MaryL

Gays need marriage like a fish needs a bicycle. If the  first church of Jim Jones wants to allow gay "marriage", I don't even know were to start on such a thing...No. Gays are using this issue to  make themselves  seem legit. Just  don't even let them  get this far...Sorry gay- lawyer- media- money  dudes, not buying this drek. Not in a million years. The Tobacco industry tried this same crap, and folks understood eventually that special interest groups coopt reality. Gays are a mentally ill sexual dysfunctional group with just the same rights as anyone.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
> 
> Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
> 
> The design of the human species is that common to the natural order, wherein such is not influenced by either ANY individual present in this discussion, or the subjective need common to such.  The design presents specific UNDENIABLE traits and attributes... not the least of which is the distinctions common to gender.
> 
> Marriage sets those distinct, but complimenting genders into ONE BEING; with their complimenting attributes being THE INCONTESTABLE PROOF, in terms of the design requiring them to be joined...  from which is born a distinct being, which is then nurtured and trained within and through the traits common to the traits of the respective genders.
> 
> Such could NOT BE > LESS < arbitrary, nor MORE > OBJECTIVE < ... .
> 
> Your misuse and consistent abuse of the language is FTR: Yet another indication of the intrinsic evil, inherent in your cause.  It serves as further proof that such rests in nothing less or more beyond the attempt to DECEIVE, through among others, that specific fraudulence, as a means to influence the ignorant.
> 
> Now the coolest part is that evil NEEDS to influence the ignorant, so as to establish a popular position in the culture... and wherein that culture is governed through democratic principles, such provides for the axiomatic path of least resistance toward accomplishing the destruction of same.
> 
> And we can rest assured that THIS is why Socialism NEEDS Democracy and why Democracies always die a fiery death... and generally in two centuries or less, as that provides for the 10 generations required to rinse from the people, the means to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles in nature that provide for the viability that sustains their freedom.
> 
> Now HOW COOL IS THAT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it freedom and liberties always devolve into doing sex acts in front of or with kids?  Gay pride parades, Harvey Milk.
Click to expand...


Why is it you always lie about homosexuals?


----------



## Syriusly

MaryL said:


> Gays need marriage like a fish needs a bicycle. If the  first church of Jim Jones wants to allow gay "marriage", I don't even know were to start on such a thing...No. Gays are using this issue to  make themselves  seem legit. Just  don't even let them  get this far...Sorry gay- lawyer- media- money  dudes, not buying this drek. Not in a million years. The Tobacco industry tried this same crap, and folks understood eventually that special interest groups coopt reality. Gays are a mentally ill sexual dysfunctional group with just the same rights as anyone.



Yeah- folks like you are the reason why homosexuals need to fight for equal rights.

Not too long ago, homosexuals could be arrested for private consensual sex together- thanks to your people.
Not too long ago, homosexuals could be fired after serving honorably in combat- thanks to your people.
Not too long ago, homosexuals were 'cleansed' from the State department- anyone suspected of being a homosexual or accused of being one was fired.
Not too long ago, your people tried to make it illegal for homosexuals to teach in California schools.
Homosexual teens are still bullied and assaulted by your people.

The bigots are the mentally ill sexually dysfunctional group- after all- the only thing you focus on about homosexuals is sex.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> That's why I've postuled that Dick Cheney's daughter is behind this one.  The lesbian. ..



Bat Guano, bigoted, crazy.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> What does that REALLY say about the public's alleged "in favor of" gay marriage?



Nothing at all, other than in your fevered imagination.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
> 
> Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
> 
> The design of the human species is that common to the natural order, wherein such is not influenced by either ANY individual present in this discussion, or the subjective need common to such.  The design presents specific UNDENIABLE traits and attributes... not the least of which is the distinctions common to gender.
> 
> Marriage sets those distinct, but complimenting genders into ONE BEING; with their complimenting attributes being THE INCONTESTABLE PROOF, in terms of the design requiring them to be joined...  from which is born a distinct being, which is then nurtured and trained within and through the traits common to the traits of the respective genders.
> 
> Such could NOT BE > LESS < arbitrary, nor MORE > OBJECTIVE < ... .
> 
> Your misuse and consistent abuse of the language is FTR: Yet another indication of the intrinsic evil, inherent in your cause.  It serves as further proof that such rests in nothing less or more beyond the attempt to DECEIVE, through among others, that specific fraudulence, as a means to influence the ignorant.
> 
> Now the coolest part is that evil NEEDS to influence the ignorant, so as to establish a popular position in the culture... and wherein that culture is governed through democratic principles, such provides for the axiomatic path of least resistance toward accomplishing the destruction of same.
> 
> And we can rest assured that THIS is why Socialism NEEDS Democracy and why Democracies always die a fiery death... and generally in two centuries or less, as that provides for the 10 generations required to rinse from the people, the means to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles in nature that provide for the viability that sustains their freedom.
> 
> Now HOW COOL IS THAT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it freedom and liberties always devolve into doing sex acts in front of or with kids?  Gay pride parades, Harvey Milk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, such is the nature of evil, of course... .
Click to expand...


Such is the nature of liars.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

City Says Ministers Don t Have to Perform Gay Marriages but...

it took a lawsuit to get them to say so.


----------



## Silhouette

MaryL said:


> Gays need marriage like a fish needs a bicycle. If the  first church of Jim Jones wants to allow gay "marriage", I don't even know were to start on such a thing...No. Gays are using this issue to  make themselves  seem legit. Just  don't even let them  get this far...Sorry gay- lawyer- media- money  dudes, not buying this drek. Not in a million years. The Tobacco industry tried this same crap, and folks understood eventually that special interest groups coopt reality. Gays are a mentally ill sexual dysfunctional group with just the same rights as anyone.


 
Aha!...someone has done some partial research on the genesis of the far left.   There's another cult though responsible at least in part for starting GLAAD.  It's a lesser known but far more potent one.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> City Says Ministers Don t Have to Perform Gay Marriages but...
> 
> it took a lawsuit to get them to say so.



Actually they said so before the lawsuit. 

Which is why they were surprised by the lawsuit.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays need marriage like a fish needs a bicycle. If the  first church of Jim Jones wants to allow gay "marriage", I don't even know were to start on such a thing...No. Gays are using this issue to  make themselves  seem legit. Just  don't even let them  get this far...Sorry gay- lawyer- media- money  dudes, not buying this drek. Not in a million years. The Tobacco industry tried this same crap, and folks understood eventually that special interest groups coopt reality. Gays are a mentally ill sexual dysfunctional group with just the same rights as anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aha!...someone has done some partial research on the genesis of the far left.   There's another cult though responsible at least in part for starting GLAAD.  It's a lesser known but far more potent one.
Click to expand...


More bat guano crazy......


----------



## Silhouette

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> City Says Ministers Don t Have to Perform Gay Marriages but...
> 
> it took a lawsuit to get them to say so.


 How many people will be able to countersue the government when it becomes the iron fist of the Rainbow Reicht?

This is an important issue for people, viscerally so.  This is leaps and bounds the most numerous poll...I think ever...at USMB.  But apparently though according to other polls, this topic isn't important.

Hard to square those different numbers...


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> Hard to square those different numbers...




Not really.

You are trying to make a poll on a message board say something the poll doesn't even say.

Pretty easy.


>>>>


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> City Says Ministers Don t Have to Perform Gay Marriages but...
> 
> it took a lawsuit to get them to say so.
> 
> 
> 
> How many people will be able to countersue the government when it becomes the iron fist of the Rainbow Reicht?
> ...
Click to expand...


"Rainbow Reich"......"Gay Mafia"......homophobes have such a vivid fantasy world......


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to square those different numbers...
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> You are trying to make a poll on a message board say something the poll doesn't even say.
> Pretty easy.
Click to expand...

This thread has gotten near or over 34,000 views.  The poll is one of the largest [most popular topic] polls EVER at USMB.  And well over 80% of the voters say they think there's a point where gay marraige goes too far imposing itself on society.

How does that render into anything but

1. Extremely lukewarm support or just fear of not supporting gay marriage or

2. Outright opposition to gay marriage?

This is a vote goldmine that "conservatives" are ignoring as their numbers slip in the polls as we speak.

Mary Mary quite contrary
How do your campaigns go?
With wedding bells and broadside shells
and cunning maids all in a row..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to square those different numbers...
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> You are trying to make a poll on a message board say something the poll doesn't even say.
> Pretty easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. Outright opposition to gay marriage?
> ..
Click to expand...


The poll is neither a true poll, nor does it ask about whether posters oppose gay marriage.

You just lie about it.


----------



## dblack

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to square those different numbers...
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> You are trying to make a poll on a message board say something the poll doesn't even say.
> Pretty easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This thread has gotten near or over 34,000 views.  The poll is one of the largest [most popular topic] polls EVER at USMB.  And well over 80% of the voters say they think there's a point where gay marraige goes too far imposing itself on society.
Click to expand...


The issue isn't 'gay marriage', it's overbearing government. Don't try to pretend that all, or even most, of those "80%" are fellow bigots.


----------



## Silhouette

dblack said:


> *This question of the poll has nothing to do with 'gay marriage'*, and everything to do with overbearing government. Don't try to pretend that all, or even most, of those "80%" are fellow bigots.


 
Right, the topic, poll and issue of this thread "has nothing to do with 'gay marriage'"....  Well if you weren't convinced before about the LGBT spin machine, you now no longer can deny that it is complete:


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This question of the poll has nothing to do with 'gay marriage'*, and everything to do with overbearing government. Don't try to pretend that all, or even most, of those "80%" are fellow bigots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, the topic, poll and issue of this thread "has nothing to do with 'gay marriage'"....  Well if you weren't convinced before about the LGBT spin machine, you now no longer can deny that it is complete:
Click to expand...



It is comical that you would accuse someone else of spinning. How rich. You've been spinning the results of this poll for several weeks now. You keep claiming that this poll also means that 80% also oppose gays getting married. Hint: it doesn't. That fact has been pointed out to you dozens of times in this thread, literally, dozens of time. You have chosen to ignore countless polls that show a majority of Americans support gay marriage because it doesn't fit your rabid anti-gay agenda. The "proof" you provide is a USMB poll, long lines at a food restaurant, and "likes" on a Facebook page. It reeks of desperation. It must be hard for you lately, not only losing in the court of public opinion but losing in the courts of law as well.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

This thread demonstrates in incontestable terms, the deceit, fraud and ignorance common to and throughout the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... in terms of its popularity and the vacuous nature of the reasoning on which it rests.  

It's a lie and it's a lie that is rejected by a stark majority of the population... and nature of course.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This question of the poll has nothing to do with 'gay marriage'*, and everything to do with overbearing government. Don't try to pretend that all, or even most, of those "80%" are fellow bigots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, the topic, poll and issue of this thread "has nothing to do with 'gay marriage'"....  Well if you weren't convinced before about the LGBT spin machine, you now no longer can deny that it is complete:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is comical that you would accuse someone else of spinning. How rich. You've been spinning the results of this poll for several weeks now. You keep claiming that this poll also means that 80% also oppose gays getting married. Hint: it doesn't. That fact has been pointed out to you dozens of times in this thread, literally, dozens of time. You have chosen to ignore countless polls that show a majority of Americans support gay marriage because it doesn't fit your rabid anti-gay agenda. The "proof" you provide is a USMB poll, long lines at a food restaurant, and "likes" on a Facebook page. It reeks of desperation. It must be hard for you lately, not only losing in the court of public opinion but losing in the courts of law as well.
Click to expand...


You're conflating polls with public relation creations, which hold out such fraudulence as "Gay Marriage is Legal in 30 States" as the basis for the conclusion 'Most People agree that Homosexuals should be allowed to Pretend to be Married'. 

When in reality, those states held their own polls and the law which came as a result of those polls specifically stated that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, just as nature designed it.


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This question of the poll has nothing to do with 'gay marriage'*, and everything to do with overbearing government. Don't try to pretend that all, or even most, of those "80%" are fellow bigots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, the topic, poll and issue of this thread "has nothing to do with 'gay marriage'"....  Well if you weren't convinced before about the LGBT spin machine, you now no longer can deny that it is complete:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is comical that you would accuse someone else of spinning. How rich. You've been spinning the results of this poll for several weeks now. You keep claiming that this poll also means that 80% also oppose gays getting married. Hint: it doesn't. That fact has been pointed out to you dozens of times in this thread, literally, dozens of time. You have chosen to ignore countless polls that show a majority of Americans support gay marriage because it doesn't fit your rabid anti-gay agenda. The "proof" you provide is a USMB poll, long lines at a food restaurant, and "likes" on a Facebook page. It reeks of desperation. It must be hard for you lately, not only losing in the court of public opinion but losing in the courts of law as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're conflating polls with public relation creations, which hold out such fraudulence as "Gay Marriage is Legal in 30 States" as the basis for the conclusion 'Most People agree that Homosexuals should be allowed to Pretend to be Married'.
> 
> When in reality, those states held their own polls and the law which came as a result of those polls specifically stated that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, just as nature designed it.
Click to expand...


Nature didn't design marriage, it is a man made construct. The will of the people in those states is meaningless if their will violates the Constitution. You personally can claim gays are fraudulently married until the cows come home but that doesn't change the legality of their marriages. You'll get over it one day. Or not. I could really care less.


----------



## MrDVS1

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



No, I think all these so called religions should accept their brothers and sisters like they are supposed to and if they do not it merely highlights their hypocrisy.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> You're conflating polls with public relation creations, which hold out such fraudulence as "Gay Marriage is Legal in 30 States" as the basis for the conclusion 'Most People agree that Homosexuals should be allowed to Pretend to be Married'.
> 
> *When in reality, those states held their own polls and the law which came as a result of those polls specifically stated that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, just as nature designed it.*




You realize that Marriage Equality won at the voting booth in the last General Election in the 4 states where it was on the ballot - right?



>>>>


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating polls with public relation creations, which hold out such fraudulence as "Gay Marriage is Legal in 30 States" as the basis for the conclusion 'Most People agree that Homosexuals should be allowed to Pretend to be Married'.
> 
> *When in reality, those states held their own polls and the law which came as a result of those polls specifically stated that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, just as nature designed it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that Marriage Equality won at the voting booth in the last General Election in the 4 states where it was on the ballot - right?
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating polls with public relation creations, which hold out such fraudulence as "Gay Marriage is Legal in 30 States" as the basis for the conclusion 'Most People agree that Homosexuals should be allowed to Pretend to be Married'.
> 
> *When in reality, those states held their own polls and the law which came as a result of those polls specifically stated that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, just as nature designed it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that Marriage Equality won at the voting booth in the last General Election in the 4 states where it was on the ballot - right?
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


Deflection from what you said.  Not all States voted to discriminate against same-sex couples.



>>>>


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating polls with public relation creations, which hold out such fraudulence as "Gay Marriage is Legal in 30 States" as the basis for the conclusion 'Most People agree that Homosexuals should be allowed to Pretend to be Married'.
> 
> *When in reality, those states held their own polls and the law which came as a result of those polls specifically stated that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, just as nature designed it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that Marriage Equality won at the voting booth in the last General Election in the 4 states where it was on the ballot - right?
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


To you and many others that may be the case but in many states it is also the joining of two men or two women in matrimony. Soon to be all 50. All of your teeth gnashing isn't going to change that fact.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

MrDVS1 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think all these so called religions should accept their brothers and sisters like they are supposed to and if they do not it merely highlights their hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


What religions are failing to accept their bros and sissies?  And please... be specific; at least as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

.

.

.

Now... just to help ya through this... I am asking for examples where Churches are refusing acceptance of people who despite the sin common to the abomination that is the sexual perversion of homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, which are all irrelevant variations on the same perverse theme..., but who recognize the error of their ways, have admitted that their sexual abnormality is wrong, to both themselves and to God, and have taken action to turn from that sinful behavior and, have openly sought to live a life free from Left-think and the debauchery common to such which threatens to destroy them and by extension, their community.  And DESPITE THEIR CONTRITION: THE CHURCH REJECTS THEM.

I ask it that way because THAT is the responsibility of the Christian... to accept the sinner (as are we all) but reject the Left-think (Irrational Ideas which separate us from good, OKA: God.)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating polls with public relation creations, which hold out such fraudulence as "Gay Marriage is Legal in 30 States" as the basis for the conclusion 'Most People agree that Homosexuals should be allowed to Pretend to be Married'.
> 
> *When in reality, those states held their own polls and the law which came as a result of those polls specifically stated that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, just as nature designed it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that Marriage Equality won at the voting booth in the last General Election in the 4 states where it was on the ballot - right?
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflection from what you said.  Not all States voted to discriminate against same-sex couples.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


There's nothing about what I said that was deflective.  A Teeny Tiny minority of states 'voted' to accept what is otherwise incontestably abnormal, as normal.  Which is their right, except where the viability of those states establishes a threat to the viability of the others states to which they are intrinsically tethered.

So... where not all states are viable represents a threat to other states to REMAIN VIABLE, that tells us that no such right exists, which means that where they refuse to turn from their idiocy, that EVENTUALLY... we the viable states, are going to have to kick the hell out of those states and remove from those states, the people who threaten our means to remain viable... up to and including everyone in those states, IF that turns out to be what it takes.

Think of us as human beings and YOU as EBOLA.

Ya see scamp, standards serve only one purpose and that purpose is TO DISCRIMINATE... . 

And thats because discrimination serves as a means to turn from those things which represent the reasonable potential for harm.

You, as an imbecile, feel that discrimination harms... when in reality, it is an essential element of viability, thus without such, it makes survival, unlikely.

Now, as much as I know that it probably will not, I hope that helps you to understand this otherwise VERY SIMPLE equation.

Ya might try re-reading it a few times... then go for a nice walk and consider it... sleep on it and see if that helps it soak in.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating polls with public relation creations, which hold out such fraudulence as "Gay Marriage is Legal in 30 States" as the basis for the conclusion 'Most People agree that Homosexuals should be allowed to Pretend to be Married'.
> 
> *When in reality, those states held their own polls and the law which came as a result of those polls specifically stated that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, just as nature designed it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that Marriage Equality won at the voting booth in the last General Election in the 4 states where it was on the ballot - right?
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To you and many others that may be the case but in many states it is also the joining of two men or two women in matrimony. Soon to be all 50. All of your teeth gnashing isn't going to change that fact.
Click to expand...


If every human being on this planet, was struck with the absolute certainty that Marriage was the joining of multiple layers of cross grain veneers, Marriage would be the joining of one man and one woman.  


Ya see scamp, marriage was designed by nature, thus is defined by nature and nature doesn't give a red rat's ass what popular would-be majorities have to say about anything.

This would be just as true if you people decided... LOL! And I know this sounds crazy... BUT JUST IMAGINE, that you idiots decided that there is NO SUCH THING as GENDER... that would, in reality, have no bearing upon reality, which otherwise requires: GENDER, but only because such serves numerous essential purposes... .

I mean what if a school decided to set aside gender designations and referred to the two respective genders as 'pinecones'... Neither Gender would be effected... nor would the innocent pinecone.

All that would be identified is a school board that needs to have each member who voted for such insanity to be removed from office and, banned from ever holding any public office or, any position of trust which may on some level provide them access to children.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Isn't it cool how they can't answer the simple question?
> 
> And this even as they would have you believe that the pursuit of children for sexual gratification is "WRONG!" and that it has ABSOLUTELY >NO COMMONALITY< with their own abnormal sexual proclivities.
> 
> They never fail to _IMPLY_ that they reject the pursuit of children for sexual gratification, *YET they never seem quite able to specify their contest of such.*
> 
> Here's a clue: Where you corner them into professing a contest: IT ALWAYS RESTS IN LEGALITY!  "It's against the LAW"... (which of course was the case with sodomy, until the law was recently changed, based upon the subjective edicts of "SCIENCE!", which 'determined' that sexual abnormality is _PERFECTLY NORMAL_.)
> 
> See the problem?



Yes: you are batshit insane and should probably be institutionalized for your own safety.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating polls with public relation creations, which hold out such fraudulence as "Gay Marriage is Legal in 30 States" as the basis for the conclusion 'Most People agree that Homosexuals should be allowed to Pretend to be Married'.
> 
> *When in reality, those states held their own polls and the law which came as a result of those polls specifically stated that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, just as nature designed it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that Marriage Equality won at the voting booth in the last General Election in the 4 states where it was on the ballot - right?
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


No matter how many times you repeat that, it will *still be wrong!*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Jarlaxle said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating polls with public relation creations, which hold out such fraudulence as "Gay Marriage is Legal in 30 States" as the basis for the conclusion 'Most People agree that Homosexuals should be allowed to Pretend to be Married'.
> 
> *When in reality, those states held their own polls and the law which came as a result of those polls specifically stated that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, just as nature designed it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that Marriage Equality won at the voting booth in the last General Election in the 4 states where it was on the ballot - right?
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat that, it will *still be wrong!*
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!  

Now isn't that precious?  It's a baseless assertion, projecting abject deceit, through the fraudulent premise that such is absolutely true!

LOL!  ... DELUSION: PERSONIFIED!


----------



## Jarlaxle

Serious question: are you drunk?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Jarlaxle said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it cool how they can't answer the simple question?
> 
> And this even as they would have you believe that the pursuit of children for sexual gratification is "WRONG!" and that it has ABSOLUTELY >NO COMMONALITY< with their own abnormal sexual proclivities.
> 
> They never fail to _IMPLY_ that they reject the pursuit of children for sexual gratification, *YET they never seem quite able to specify their contest of such.*
> 
> Here's a clue: Where you corner them into professing a contest: IT ALWAYS RESTS IN LEGALITY!  "It's against the LAW"... (which of course was the case with sodomy, until the law was recently changed, based upon the subjective edicts of "SCIENCE!", which 'determined' that sexual abnormality is _PERFECTLY NORMAL_.)
> 
> See the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes: you are batshit insane and should probably be institutionalized for your own safety.
Click to expand...


Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.  (And scamp... I want you to know that it's clear to me that you're doing the very BEST YOU CAN!  Bless your little black heart... .)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Jarlaxle said:


> Serious question: are you drunk?



No... Why would you 'feel' that I'm drunk?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Because your posts have, at best, a tenuous connection with reality.

Though the comedy value is pretty high,I must admit.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Jarlaxle said:


> Because your posts have, at best, a tenuous connection with reality.
> 
> Though the comedy value is pretty high,I must admit.



So... you're saying that because you lack the means to reason objectively; for instance the inability to recognize that the preference for sexual gratification with individuals of one's own gender deviates from the physiological standard of humanity, an irrefutable fact... because such serves some subjective need on your part and, that where I point that out in defiance of your subjective need... that this requires that I must be inebriated?

Oh... now THAT is fascinatin'.

But if that were true, then how would I have recognized that you are presenting with symptoms of delusion?

FYI, Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

Now... this is where you respond with something akin to "Nuh HUH!" and demand that deviant behavior is PERFECTLY NORMAL!

LOL!  Now... *GO!*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

And THAT... is how THAT is done kids... .   Anyone with a firm understanding of nature's laws can do the same.

There is truly nothing easier on this earth than shutting down the irrational drivel common to the unenviable ranks of the intellectually less fortunate.


----------



## Syriusly

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proof that homosexuality deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology is established in the deviation of homosexuality FROM THE STANDARD INTRINSIC TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY: Wherein the male genitalia is designed to penetrate the female genitalia... this design being central to the means by which the species propagates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For your claim that no child should be left with a homosexual, you would have to establish that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... I need only establish that those who crave sexual gratification through sexual behavior with children, suffer from the psychosis inherent in sexual abnormality and that homosexuality presents with sexual abnormality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.  The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality.  The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.
> 
> Allow me to demonstrate:
> 
> Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN.
> 
> This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.
> 
> (LOL!  Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bat guano crazy is almost over?
> 
> Oh we know that is not true.
Click to expand...



And just to clarify- no one but Conservatives is suggesting that Churches should- or will- be 'forced to accomodate' homosexual weddings.

Just as a Rabbi is not required to marry a Catholic in the Synogogue....not Priest will be forced to marry a gay couple in the Cathedral.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> And THAT... is how THAT is done kids... .   Anyone with a firm understanding of nature's laws can do the same.
> 
> There is truly nothing easier on this earth than shutting down the irrational drivel common to the unenviable ranks of the intellectually less fortunate.



Bat guano crazy.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Syriusly said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proof that homosexuality deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology is established in the deviation of homosexuality FROM THE STANDARD INTRINSIC TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY: Wherein the male genitalia is designed to penetrate the female genitalia... this design being central to the means by which the species propagates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For your claim that no child should be left with a homosexual, you would have to establish that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... I need only establish that those who crave sexual gratification through sexual behavior with children, suffer from the psychosis inherent in sexual abnormality and that homosexuality presents with sexual abnormality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.  The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality.  The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.
> 
> Allow me to demonstrate:
> 
> Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN.
> 
> This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.
> 
> (LOL!  Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bat guano crazy is almost over?
> 
> Oh we know that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And just to clarify- no one but Conservatives is suggesting that Churches should- or will- be 'forced to accomodate' homosexual weddings.
> 
> Just as a Rabbi is not required to marry a Catholic in the Synogogue....not Priest will be forced to marry a gay couple in the Cathedral.
Click to expand...

True, reflecting their ignorance, likely willful.

And many on the right indeed know that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches; but nonetheless seek to contrive and propagate the lie that churches will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples for some perceived partisan gain.


----------



## RKMBrown

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proof that homosexuality deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology is established in the deviation of homosexuality FROM THE STANDARD INTRINSIC TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY: Wherein the male genitalia is designed to penetrate the female genitalia... this design being central to the means by which the species propagates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For your claim that no child should be left with a homosexual, you would have to establish that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... I need only establish that those who crave sexual gratification through sexual behavior with children, suffer from the psychosis inherent in sexual abnormality and that homosexuality presents with sexual abnormality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.  The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality.  The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.
> 
> Allow me to demonstrate:
> 
> Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN.
> 
> This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.
> 
> (LOL!  Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bat guano crazy is almost over?
> 
> Oh we know that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And just to clarify- no one but Conservatives is suggesting that Churches should- or will- be 'forced to accomodate' homosexual weddings.
> 
> Just as a Rabbi is not required to marry a Catholic in the Synogogue....not Priest will be forced to marry a gay couple in the Cathedral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, reflecting their ignorance, likely willful.
> 
> And many on the right indeed know that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches; but nonetheless seek to contrive and propagate the lie that churches will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples for some perceived partisan gain.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair the 14th explicitly states that your life, liberty, and property can be taken by the state with due process.


----------



## dblack

Is the real argument over the fact that we grant special privileges to married partners via government? And gays want in on the action?


----------



## Silhouette

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ...many on the right indeed know that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches; but nonetheless seek to contrive and propagate the lie that churches will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples for some perceived partisan gain.



Do churches have a right to deny adoption to gay couples?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

dblack said:


> Is the real argument over the fact that we grant special privileges to married partners via government? And gays want in on the action?



Best I can tell, it has always been explained that they want the same TAX benefits as traditional married couples.
The right to visit a "partner" in the hospital when their condition dictates "family members only" ........................

They want to be accepted by society mostly,they just don't understand it's like being a person with leprosy and expecting the rest of us to accept them with open arms  ..........................
They have never seen a mirror and have no idea how the rest of society perceives them, but the will get ACCEPTANCE no matter the cost to us ..................


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proof that homosexuality deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology is established in the deviation of homosexuality FROM THE STANDARD INTRINSIC TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY: Wherein the male genitalia is designed to penetrate the female genitalia... this design being central to the means by which the species propagates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For your claim that no child should be left with a homosexual, you would have to establish that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... I need only establish that those who crave sexual gratification through sexual behavior with children, suffer from the psychosis inherent in sexual abnormality and that homosexuality presents with sexual abnormality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.  The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality.  The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.
> 
> Allow me to demonstrate:
> 
> Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN.
> 
> This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.
> 
> (LOL!  Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bat guano crazy is almost over?
> 
> Oh we know that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And just to clarify- no one but Conservatives is suggesting that Churches should- or will- be 'forced to accomodate' homosexual weddings.
> 
> Just as a Rabbi is not required to marry a Catholic in the Synogogue....not Priest will be forced to marry a gay couple in the Cathedral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, reflecting their ignorance, likely willful.
> 
> And many on the right indeed know that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches; but nonetheless seek to contrive and propagate the lie that churches will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples for some perceived partisan gain.
Click to expand...


LOL!  Look KIDS!  It's the public pretense, wherein those with an established mental abnormality, feign innocence from their just as established intent to force others to accept and otherwise 'celebrate' their anti-theist perversion of human physiology!

LOL!  

Be honest... who truly believed that we'd see a rising of 'Old Testament Evil' in our own times?  

Of course, the bad news is that God will annihilate them and for those who read the book, you know what that means for the rest of us down here in the impact area!  Suffice it to say... it ain't good.

But hey... _that's EVIL for ya._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...many on the right indeed know that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches; but nonetheless seek to contrive and propagate the lie that churches will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples for some perceived partisan gain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do churches have a right to deny adoption to gay couples?
Click to expand...


Yes... but that's only because of the responsibility they bear, as a function of their rights, to defend the innocent from those who threaten to infringe upon their means to exercise their rights.  Rights which come as a result of God's endowment of their lives, thus the right to pursue the fulfillment of same... and the correlating responsibilities which sustain those rights.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Silhouette said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...many on the right indeed know that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches; but nonetheless seek to contrive and propagate the lie that churches will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples for some perceived partisan gain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do churches have a right to deny adoption to gay couples?
Click to expand...


Church's have nothing to do with adoptions, thus a strawman ............................


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...many on the right indeed know that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches; but nonetheless seek to contrive and propagate the lie that churches will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples for some perceived partisan gain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do churches have a right to deny adoption to gay couples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Church's have nothing to do with adoptions, thus a strawman ............................
Click to expand...


Yes.. "IT" is a straw argument.  Where the issue fails to recognize the moral responsibilities intrinsic to adoption and the foolishness of setting responsibility for adoption within the scope of those whose relativist reasoning axiomatically rejects morality... such action demonstrates a lack of concern for the children, thus demonstrating the straw nature of the argument which feigns otherwise.

Pretty cool how that worked out, huh?

Now... let me ask ya.  How many children is it that you've adopted?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Yes.. "IT" is a straw argument.  Where the issue fails to recognize the moral responsibilities intrinsic to adoption and the foolishness of setting responsibility for adoption within the scope of those whose relativist reasoning axiomatically rejects morality... such action demonstrates a lack of concern for the children, thus demonstrating the straw nature of the argument which feigns otherwise.
> 
> Pretty cool how that worked out, huh?
> 
> Now... let me ask ya.  How many children is it that you've adopted?



If you are trying to come off as intelligent, it ain't happening ........................
Issue are incapable of "recognizing anything" .......................................

You were so busy stringing together that bull shit you failed to show either comprehension of the subject matter or an understanding of the bases for my stance.
Church's are not consulted during an adoption and have no say, legally or morally in adoption process's, at best a priest / minister might be used as a character reference for an adopting party.


----------



## JakeStarkey

wherermykeys is merely a moral fascist, which means we should simply do as he tells us because he is talking to God.  Privately.  For the rest of us.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.. "IT" is a straw argument.  Where the issue fails to recognize the moral responsibilities intrinsic to adoption and the foolishness of setting responsibility for adoption within the scope of those whose relativist reasoning axiomatically rejects morality... such action demonstrates a lack of concern for the children, thus demonstrating the straw nature of the argument which feigns otherwise.
> 
> Pretty cool how that worked out, huh?
> 
> Now... let me ask ya.  How many children is it that you've adopted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are trying to come off as intelligent, it ain't happening ........................
Click to expand...


LOL!

Oh NOooooo!  Say it ain't so scamp!



DrDoomNGloom said:


> Issue are incapable of "recognizing anything" .......................................



Oh!  Now that's so true.  Issues are only possible when conceived through sentient beings, who... sadly for your would-be reasoning ARE capable of such and who often conceive issues without recognizing elements which lend them cogency... . Thus FYI: such beings would be the axiomatic subjects of such references. 

See how that works?  And don't be afraid re-read it, if the good part got by ya again.



DrDoomNGloom said:


> You were so busy stringing together that bull shit you failed to show either comprehension of the subject matter or an understanding of the bases for my stance.



So... even as you lament straw reasoning, you offer up straw reasoning as a response?

LOL!  Oh that is BRILLIANT!



DrDoomNGloom said:


> Church's are not consulted during an adoption and have no say, legally or morally in adoption process's, at best a priest / minister might be used as a character reference for an adopting party.



Hmm...  Many "Churches" actually do run orphanages, but I feel ya here.  And its true that as a general rule, the State is the predominate organism that deals with overseeing children whom the state is largely responsible for taking from their 'rents. 

Now isn't that interesting, tho'? 

Because historically, the church was the organization around which adoptions were centered.  THEN... some decades back, that began to change.    I wonder what function was served when those set upon bearing the responsibilities common to soundly reasoned morality were dealt out of the caring of and adopting out of children? 

I mean, IF 'the state', were NOT largely responsible for adopting children, what do ya suppose would be the chances that those with established abnormalities in their means to reason; those who say define themselves by their own perverse 'interpretation' of human sexuality, would be considered qualified candidates to raise children?

Take a run at that one and let's see if I missed anything in my assessment.  (You may be right, maybe I did... and if I did, I'll readily cop to it... lessee how ya does.)


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Hey dumb ass, condensed down, you admit it your self,  beings are capable of recognizing, issues are not ............. point in my column.
No my point is crystal clear when the OP are read in context, there were / are no straw man arguments  ..................point in my column.
Churches are now governed by the state, they are not consulted about potential adopters, there is a clear and distinct separation of church and power, the church having no power ..................point in my column.

Made you out to be a dumb ass again ..................point in my column.

But hey, who's keeping score??


----------



## Silhouette

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Yes.. "IT" is a straw argument.  Where the issue fails to recognize the moral responsibilities intrinsic to adoption and the foolishness of *setting responsibility for adoption within the scope of those whose relativist reasoning axiomatically rejects morality... such action demonstrates a lack of concern for the children, thus demonstrating the straw nature of the argument which feigns otherwise.*
> 
> Pretty cool how that worked out, huh?
> 
> Now... let me ask ya.  How many children is it that you've adopted?



Very elegant and cuttingly astute rendering of the base issue.  And yes in the back of my mind I was always thinking that if a bunch of perverts who worship the child-sodomizer Harvey Milk and who  marched alongside Harry Hay, card carrying NAMBLA member for "their civil rights"...how PERFECT for their agenda it would be, especially the NAMBLA arm of LGBT to actually RUN AN ORPHANAGE....by forcing church-orphanages out of the business with lawsuits just like these that will come if LGBT marriage gets federal protection.

It may not have been part of their calculated plan...but they have some very smart and creative people in NAMBLA.  And an addict will go to unbelievable machinations to access their drug of choice.  Hence the phenomenon "grooming" that pedophiles will sometimes spend years getting at their target who by then is unguarded and open to their every exploitation.

One of the 1980s gay pride parades featuring Harry Hay.  "Hey kids, meet your new orphanage master"...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Hey dumb ass, condensed down, you admit it your self,  beings are capable of recognizing, issues are not ............. point in my column.
> 
> No my point is crystal clear when the OP are read in context, there were / are no straw man arguments  ..................point in my column.
> Churches are now governed by the state, they are not consulted about potential adopters, there is a clear and distinct separation of church and power, the church having no power ..................point in my column.
> 
> Made you out to be a dumb ass again ..................point in my column.
> 
> But hey, who's keeping score??



Oh... I am BIG on the holding to account, thus of 'keeping score'.  To wit:

What you're trying to avoid in 'the point of your position', is that 'the state' is then, in direct violation of the articles amending the powers of that state, which specifically preclude 'the state' from enjoying the power sufficient to preclude those who comprise 'the church' from freely exercising their most deeply held, principled convictions as they tend toward governing themselves... the fundamental basis resting as the cornerstone of this 'experiment in self government', OKA: The United States.

And that the Americans, whose consent to be governed BY that 'STATE', rests entirely upon 'the state' comporting itself within the enumerated restrictions inherent in those amendments, thus as the principles declaring the basis upon which the experiment was founded and through which the founders of the nation were empowered to declare them, STATE: 'it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.' ...?


LOL!   Well, not to worry, THAT'S WHY I AM HERE: TO HELP YA BETTER UNDERSTAND!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


Is anyone else enjoying the little attacks that the Intellectually Less Fortunate are sending out, loading up the cache of your computers in an attempt to crash them?

For those who are unaware, they send 'data bombs' to drown your system, and inevitably crash it.  Such is typical of the sociopathy intrinsic in the criminally insane... OKA: The Ideological Left.  It should be further noted that this trait is common to ABNORMAL Reasoning... and stems from the same unenviable distinctions which present in the abnormal sexuality for which  they so chronically advocate.

And in so doing, demonstrate the 'how' inextricably tethered to the query: "How does normalizing sexual abnormality harm the sexually normal?"


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your claim that no child should be left with a homosexual, you would have to establish that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... I need only establish that those who crave sexual gratification through sexual behavior with children, suffer from the psychosis inherent in sexual abnormality and that homosexuality presents with sexual abnormality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.  The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality.  The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.
> 
> Allow me to demonstrate:
> 
> Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN.
> 
> This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.
> 
> (LOL!  Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bat guano crazy is almost over?
> 
> Oh we know that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And just to clarify- no one but Conservatives is suggesting that Churches should- or will- be 'forced to accomodate' homosexual weddings.
> 
> Just as a Rabbi is not required to marry a Catholic in the Synogogue....not Priest will be forced to marry a gay couple in the Cathedral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, reflecting their ignorance, likely willful.
> 
> And many on the right indeed know that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches; but nonetheless seek to contrive and propagate the lie that churches will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples for some perceived partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Look KIDS!  It's the public pretense, wherein those with an established mental abnormality, feign innocence from their just as established intent to force others to accept and otherwise 'celebrate' their anti-theist perversion of human physiology!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Be honest... who truly believed that we'd see a rising of 'Old Testament Evil' in our own times?
> 
> Of course, the bad news is that God will annihilate them and for those who read the book, you know what that means for the rest of us down here in the impact area!  Suffice it to say... it ain't good.
> 
> But hey... _that's EVIL for ya._
Click to expand...


And now we get "End of Times" bat guano crazy......


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.. "IT" is a straw argument.  Where the issue fails to recognize the moral responsibilities intrinsic to adoption and the foolishness of *setting responsibility for adoption within the scope of those whose relativist reasoning axiomatically rejects morality... such action demonstrates a lack of concern for the children, thus demonstrating the straw nature of the argument which feigns otherwise.*
> 
> Pretty cool how that worked out, huh?
> 
> Now... let me ask ya.  How many children is it that you've adopted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very elegant and cuttingly astute rendering of the base issue.  And yes in the back of my mind I was always thinking that if a bunch of perverts who worship the child-sodomizer Harvey Milk and who  marched alongside Harry Hay, card carrying NAMBLA member for "their civil rights"...how PERFECT for their agenda it would be, especially the NAMBLA arm of LGBT to actually RUN AN ORPHANAGE....by forcing church-orphanages out of the business with lawsuits just like these that will come if LGBT marriage gets federal protection.
Click to expand...


Why do you hate orphans Silhouette?

Approximately 101,000(a correction) children a year in the United States who are adoptable, are not adopted.
32% of these children will spend 3 years or more waiting to be adopted.

*In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Your only answer is to tell these kids- "look you are better off living on the streets than being adopted by gay parents"

And that is twisted sick.


----------



## Syriusly

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.. "IT" is a straw argument.  Where the issue fails to recognize the moral responsibilities intrinsic to adoption and the foolishness of *setting responsibility for adoption within the scope of those whose relativist reasoning axiomatically rejects morality... such action demonstrates a lack of concern for the children, thus demonstrating the straw nature of the argument which feigns otherwise.*
> 
> Pretty cool how that worked out, huh?
> 
> Now... let me ask ya.  How many children is it that you've adopted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very elegant and cuttingly astute rendering of the base issue.  And yes in the back of my mind I was always thinking that if a bunch of perverts who worship the child-sodomizer Harvey Milk and who  marched alongside Harry Hay, card carrying NAMBLA member for "their civil rights"...how PERFECT for their agenda it would be, especially the NAMBLA arm of LGBT to actually RUN AN ORPHANAGE....by forcing church-orphanages out of the business with lawsuits just like these that will come if LGBT marriage gets federal protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you hate orphans Silhouette?
> 
> Approximately 101,000(a correction) children a year in the United States who are adoptable, are not adopted.
> 32% of these children will spend 3 years or more waiting to be adopted.
> 
> *In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
> 
> Your only answer is to tell these kids- "look you are better off living on the streets than being adopted by gay parents"
> 
> And that is twisted sick.
Click to expand...



Why do you want children homeless?

Why do you want to reduce the pool of adults willing and able to be parents to children abandoned by their biological parents?


----------



## Syriusly

And now for some positive stories- here is the story of a child that Silhouette would have denied a parent- because the parent is gay






_I met my son 9 years ago while I was working at a skilled care facility and we had a unit for special needs adults. Minors were not usually placed there but the state allowed this for one week until a foster placement could be arranged.

Foster care could not be found and he was given a two week extension. Then I agreed to him home and provide respite until his mother could resume care. He could not walk or feed himself, and was not toilet trained. He was 7 years old at the time, primarily strapped in a wheelchair and had all care provided to him. He has cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder. I am a nurse by background so I had a tendency to see his potential.

It was tough the first year, but he accomplished self feeding, walking. Using the bathroom has also improved greatly. Our relationship changed from respite to guardianship to foster care to adoption.

He arrived at my house on July 3, 1998 and we have been a family since. He is absolutely my best gift ever in the whole world! He doesn't say many words although one he does say is "Dad".

I have always wanted a family which included a husband and children. I have been a foster parent and have decided that even though I have not found the right guy I want my own family. I have been approved to adopt again. This time I will have a sibling group of 2-3 children. I never really thought I could be so fortunate to have sons and daughters, but I will soon. And maybe then the right guy will find us.

Tim Dietzen
Appleton, Wisc._


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

> *Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse*
> 
> IS02E3 07/02/2002
> Scandals involving the sexual abuse of under-age boys by homosexual priests have rocked the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, defenders of homosexuality argue that youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to include homosexuals among their adult leaders. Similarly, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist organization that targets schools, has spearheaded the formation of "Gay-Straight Alliances" among students. GLSEN encourages homosexual teachers--even in the youngest grades--to be open about their sexuality, as a way of providing role models to "gay" students. In addition, laws or policies banning employment discrimination based on "sexual orientation" usually make no exception for those who work with children or youth.
> 
> Many parents have become concerned that children may be molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even "recruited" into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle. Gay activists dismiss such concerns--in part, by strenuously insisting that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children.
> 
> However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:
> 
> *Pedophiles are invariably males: *Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.
> 
> *Significant numbers of victims are males: *Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).
> 
> *The 10 percent fallacy: *Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.
> 
> *Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: *Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.
> 
> *Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: *Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.
> 
> *Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: *



Family Research Council

Faggots don't need kids, and the assertion that any of those children your referenced would be adopted by reasonable and prudent people, usually because of behavior problems / mental issues ................................


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> And now for some positive stories- here is the story of a child that Silhouette would have denied a parent- because the parent is gay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I met my son 9 years ago while I was working at a skilled care facility and we had a unit for special needs adults. Minors were not usually placed there but the state allowed this for one week until a foster placement could be arranged.
> 
> Foster care could not be found and he was given a two week extension. Then I agreed to him home and provide respite until his mother could resume care. He could not walk or feed himself, and was not toilet trained. He was 7 years old at the time, primarily strapped in a wheelchair and had all care provided to him. He has cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder. I am a nurse by background so I had a tendency to see his potential.
> 
> It was tough the first year, but he accomplished self feeding, walking. Using the bathroom has also improved greatly. Our relationship changed from respite to guardianship to foster care to adoption.
> 
> He arrived at my house on July 3, 1998 and we have been a family since. He is absolutely my best gift ever in the whole world! He doesn't say many words although one he does say is "Dad".
> 
> I have always wanted a family which included a husband and children. I have been a foster parent and have decided that even though I have not found the right guy I want my own family. I have been approved to adopt again. This time I will have a sibling group of 2-3 children. I never really thought I could be so fortunate to have sons and daughters, but I will soon. And maybe then the right guy will find us.
> 
> Tim Dietzen
> Appleton, Wisc._




So... let me see if I follow ya here. 

You're sayin' that if you, an advocate of sexual abnormality had not come along, that the poor unfortunate youngster to which you introduced to a discussion, relevant to the sexually abnormal... would have had an awful existence. 

So you, part and parcel of the advocacy of the normalization of sexual abnormality... are a loving "PARENT" who just happens to be participating in the cultural movement which seeks to LEGALIZE the ADULT pursuit of children for sexual gratification and you need us to believe that YOU, an adult male... who took authority over a child who is incapable of caring for himself, with severe limitations of expressing themselves, with a long history of 'difficulties' relevant to authority of adults and whose history would provide for, in the BEST of circumstances, any means to credibly 'complain' about 'abnormalities' common to the environment you provide... are otherwise PERFECTLY normal, except for your quirky desire for sexual gratification through other males. 

What a CRAZY coincidence that you happened along such a male child!

That is some twisted shit right there.

You'll of course pardon me for setting aside the 'story book' aspect of adoption, as a person who has adopted from foster care, thus has extensive experience in the product common to foster care... and the 'difficulties' therein. 

Not the least of which is the 'tendency' of such trainees of Political Correctness to NEED to feel special through the constructs common to such... thus their never ending professions of their 'homosexuality', etc, etc... .

What I see in the above 'letter', is a profound deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence THE IGNORANT!


----------



## Syriusly

Syriusly said:


> And now for some positive stories- here is the story of a child that Silhouette would have denied a parent- because the parent is gay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I met my son 9 years ago while I was working at a skilled care facility and we had a unit for special needs adults. Minors were not usually placed there but the state allowed this for one week until a foster placement could be arranged.
> 
> Foster care could not be found and he was given a two week extension. Then I agreed to him home and provide respite until his mother could resume care. He could not walk or feed himself, and was not toilet trained. He was 7 years old at the time, primarily strapped in a wheelchair and had all care provided to him. He has cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder. I am a nurse by background so I had a tendency to see his potential.
> 
> It was tough the first year, but he accomplished self feeding, walking. Using the bathroom has also improved greatly. Our relationship changed from respite to guardianship to foster care to adoption.
> 
> He arrived at my house on July 3, 1998 and we have been a family since. He is absolutely my best gift ever in the whole world! He doesn't say many words although one he does say is "Dad".
> 
> I have always wanted a family which included a husband and children. I have been a foster parent and have decided that even though I have not found the right guy I want my own family. I have been approved to adopt again. This time I will have a sibling group of 2-3 children. I never really thought I could be so fortunate to have sons and daughters, but I will soon. And maybe then the right guy will find us.
> 
> Tim Dietzen
> Appleton, Wisc._





DrDoomNGloom said:


> *Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse*
> 
> IS02E3 07/02/2002
> Scandals involving the sexual abuse of under-age boys by homosexual priests have rocked the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, defenders of homosexuality argue that youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to include homosexuals among their adult leaders. Similarly, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist organization that targets schools, has spearheaded the formation of "Gay-Straight Alliances" among students. GLSEN encourages homosexual teachers--even in the youngest grades--to be open about their sexuality, as a way of providing role models to "gay" students. In addition, laws or policies banning employment discrimination based on "sexual orientation" usually make no exception for those who work with children or youth.
> 
> Many parents have become concerned that children may be molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even "recruited" into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle. Gay activists dismiss such concerns--in part, by strenuously insisting that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children.
> 
> However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:
> 
> *Pedophiles are invariably males: *Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.
> 
> *Significant numbers of victims are males: *Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).
> 
> *The 10 percent fallacy: *Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.
> 
> *Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: *Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.
> 
> *Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: *Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.
> 
> *Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Family Research Council
> 
> Faggots don't need kids, and the assertion that any of those children your referenced would be adopted by reasonable and prudent people, usually because of behavior problems / mental issues ................................
Click to expand...


Referencing the 'Family Research Council" is the equivalent of referencing Stormfront to cite studies why blacks are inferior.

I don't know whether any parent 'needs kids' but kids need parents

And now for some positive stories- here is the story of a child that Silhouette would have denied a parent- because the parent is gay





_I met my son 9 years ago while I was working at a skilled care facility and we had a unit for special needs adults. Minors were not usually placed there but the state allowed this for one week until a foster placement could be arranged.

Foster care could not be found and he was given a two week extension. Then I agreed to him home and provide respite until his mother could resume care. He could not walk or feed himself, and was not toilet trained. He was 7 years old at the time, primarily strapped in a wheelchair and had all care provided to him. He has cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder. I am a nurse by background so I had a tendency to see his potential.

It was tough the first year, but he accomplished self feeding, walking. Using the bathroom has also improved greatly. Our relationship changed from respite to guardianship to foster care to adoption.

He arrived at my house on July 3, 1998 and we have been a family since. He is absolutely my best gift ever in the whole world! He doesn't say many words although one he does say is "Dad".

I have always wanted a family which included a husband and children. I have been a foster parent and have decided that even though I have not found the right guy I want my own family. I have been approved to adopt again. This time I will have a sibling group of 2-3 children. I never really thought I could be so fortunate to have sons and daughters, but I will soon. And maybe then the right guy will find us._


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now for some positive stories- here is the story of a child that Silhouette would have denied a parent- because the parent is gay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I met my son 9 years ago while I was working at a skilled care facility and we had a unit for special needs adults. Minors were not usually placed there but the state allowed this for one week until a foster placement could be arranged.
> 
> Foster care could not be found and he was given a two week extension. Then I agreed to him home and provide respite until his mother could resume care. He could not walk or feed himself, and was not toilet trained. He was 7 years old at the time, primarily strapped in a wheelchair and had all care provided to him. He has cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder. I am a nurse by background so I had a tendency to see his potential.
> 
> It was tough the first year, but he accomplished self feeding, walking. Using the bathroom has also improved greatly. Our relationship changed from respite to guardianship to foster care to adoption.
> 
> He arrived at my house on July 3, 1998 and we have been a family since. He is absolutely my best gift ever in the whole world! He doesn't say many words although one he does say is "Dad".
> 
> I have always wanted a family which included a husband and children. I have been a foster parent and have decided that even though I have not found the right guy I want my own family. I have been approved to adopt again. This time I will have a sibling group of 2-3 children. I never really thought I could be so fortunate to have sons and daughters, but I will soon. And maybe then the right guy will find us.
> 
> Tim Dietzen
> Appleton, Wisc._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... let me see if I follow ya here.
> !
Click to expand...


No you don't.

Here is an example of a child, abandoned by his heterosexual parents, adopted by a homosexual man.

Tell me why you think this is wrong

And now for some positive stories- here is the story of a child that Silhouette would have denied a parent- because the parent is gay





_I met my son 9 years ago while I was working at a skilled care facility and we had a unit for special needs adults. Minors were not usually placed there but the state allowed this for one week until a foster placement could be arranged.

Foster care could not be found and he was given a two week extension. Then I agreed to him home and provide respite until his mother could resume care. He could not walk or feed himself, and was not toilet trained. He was 7 years old at the time, primarily strapped in a wheelchair and had all care provided to him. He has cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder. I am a nurse by background so I had a tendency to see his potential.

It was tough the first year, but he accomplished self feeding, walking. Using the bathroom has also improved greatly. Our relationship changed from respite to guardianship to foster care to adoption.

He arrived at my house on July 3, 1998 and we have been a family since. He is absolutely my best gift ever in the whole world! He doesn't say many words although one he does say is "Dad".

I have always wanted a family which included a husband and children. I have been a foster parent and have decided that even though I have not found the right guy I want my own family. I have been approved to adopt again. This time I will have a sibling group of 2-3 children. I never really thought I could be so fortunate to have sons and daughters, but I will soon. And maybe then the right guy will find us._


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

“Referencing the 'Family Research Council" is the equivalent of referencing Stormfront to cite studies why blacks are inferior.”

Correct.

It is completely devoid of credibility, it is partisan, and it is well-established to be hostile to gay Americans.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

*Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse*

IS02E3 07/02/2002
Scandals involving the sexual abuse of under-age boys by homosexual priests have rocked the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, defenders of homosexuality argue that youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to include homosexuals among their adult leaders. Similarly, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist organization that targets schools, has spearheaded the formation of "Gay-Straight Alliances" among students. GLSEN encourages homosexual teachers--even in the youngest grades--to be open about their sexuality, as a way of providing role models to "gay" students. In addition, laws or policies banning employment discrimination based on "sexual orientation" usually make no exception for those who work with children or youth.

Many parents have become concerned that children may be molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even "recruited" into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle. Gay activists dismiss such concerns--in part, by strenuously insisting that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children.

However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:

*Pedophiles are invariably males: *Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.

*Significant numbers of victims are males: *Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).

*The 10 percent fallacy: *Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.

*Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: *Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

*Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: *Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.

*Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture:

Family Research CouncilFamily Research Council

Faggots do not need children ...............*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ... It is completely devoid of credibility, it is partisan, and ... hostile ... .



ROFLMNAO!  I so adore the sweeter ironies.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

DrDoomNGloom said:


> *Faggots ...............*



The use of epithets, in describing the sexually abnormal is counter productive to the education of the intellectually less fortunate of the foolishness inherent in normalizing ABNORMALITY!

If they were bright enough to rise above base emotion, we wouldn't be here... so try to understand that IF you see this as worthy of your time, your principles would be better served by not inducing emotion which run counter to your means to influence the opinions of that addle herd.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Exposed: Homosexual Child Molesters
Homosexuals claim that “heterosexuals” molest most children but statistics show that homosexuals molest at far higher rates than do heterosexuals.


Rev. Paul Shanley, a retired Catholic priest was arrested on May 4, 2002 in San Diego on three counts of child rape. Shanley had a history of molesting boys that went back to 1967. He was at the founding meeting of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and while in San Diego operated a bed & breakfast for homosexuals in Palm Springs. Shanley has openly called for “man-boy” love.
David Carlton Nurmi, was arrested in Florida on April 26, 2002, for possession of child pornography and for molesting a 15-year-old boy.
Geoffrey Cornish, a well-respected Solana Beach, California therapist was sentenced to 23 years in prison in September, 2001 for sexually molesting boys who came to him for therapy. Cornish, who is HIV-positive, was also a coach for the Torrey Pines High School surf team. Cornish told police he had been molested himself by a Boy Scout leader for three years when he was living in England.
James Edward Sanders, a homosexual child molester, was arrested in New Mexico in December, 2001 for sexually abusing a 7-year-old boy. Police also discovered child pornography in Sanders’ home.
Christopher Reardon, a homosexual, former youth minister, and Boy Scout leader was sentenced to 40-50 years in prison in the Summer of 2001 for raping, molesting, and disseminating pornography to 29 boys under his care.
These are only a few of the homosexual child molestation cases to hit the news during 2001-02. Virtually every week, newspapers detail more cases involving homosexuals who have sexually assaulted children under their care.

*New York Post Exposes High Rate Of Teacher/Student Molestations*
In a story not widely publicized in the mainstream press, the New York Post published a story in its July 30, 2001 edition about the secret epidemic of homosexual child abuse cases that go unreported in New York City’s public schools.

The report, “Secret Shame Of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse Of Students Runs Rampant,” by Douglas Montero, is the result of an analysis of 117 cases of sexual abuse between January 1999 and June 2001. Sixty percent of those accused of sexual abuse were transferred to desk jobs inside the school district. Forty percent of those transferred suspects were repeat sex offenders.


The report noted that out of the 117 cases, 212 children were victims. In 45% of the cases, the sex offender attacked more than one student. In nearly 16% of the cases, school officials delayed or tried to cover up the sexual molestations. The average victim is a 15-year-old girl and 75% of the victims were girls. According to the report, “Nearly 20 percent of the offenders are homosexuals and in most of these cases, the attack led to a sexual relationship with the stu- dent.” The report also discovered that the Board of Education investigated another 347 substantiated sex abuse cases between January 2000 and July 20, 2001. Adding the 117 cases with the 327, it appears that at least one child is sexually abused each day by a school employee—and 20% of these molestations against children are done by homosexuals!

*Homosexuals Molest Children At A Far Higher Rate Than Heterosexuals*
Homosexuals account for only 1-2% of our population based on current surveys. The National Opinion Research Center in 1992 found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as “homosexual” or “bisexual. A 1995 survey of 18-49-year-old men published by the Journal of Sex Research indicated that 2.6% of them had engaged in homosexual sex within the prior 12 months; 4% had had homosexual sex within the past five years. In other words, at least 98-99% of our population is heterosexual in orientation.

Homosexual activists routinely claim that most child molesters are “heterosexual” males, thus shifting the focus away from their own very high rates of molestation. Since 98-99% of the population is heterosexual, it is technically correct to say that most molestations are done by heterosexuals. However, statistics indicate that homosexuals pose a far more serious threat to children than do heterosexuals.


For example: In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, *32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.*

Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls.”

This high rate of molestations by homosexuals is consistent with other studies conducted during the past several decades. Here are just a few studies that show homosexuals molesting children at epidemic rates:

The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985)

In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., “Adolescent Sex Offenders—Vermont, 1984” Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)

In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, “Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,” Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)

Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200)

From these studies and many more, it is evident that homosexuals molest children at a far greater rate than do their heterosexual counterparts.*While they comprise only 1-2% of the population, they are responsible for upwards of a third or more of all sexual molestations of children.*

*Exposing The Homosexual/Pedophile Link*
Homosexuals seldom openly admit that they want to sexually assault children, but their literature and their actions tell another story. In the January 1-8, 2001 issue of The Weekly Standard, author Mary Eberstadt exposed the clear link between homosexual activism and the growing North-American Man- Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) movement. Writing in “’Pedophilia Chic’ Reconsidered: The taboo against sex with children continues to erode,” Eberstadt notes:

The reason why the public is being urged to reconsider boy pedophilia is that this ‘question,’ settled though it may be in the opinions and laws of the rest of the country, is demonstrably not yet settled within certain parts of the gay rights movement. The more that movement has entered the mainstream, the more this ‘question’ has bubbled forth from that previously distant realm in the public square.

Eberstadt notes that the book, Male Inter-Generational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives edited by pedophile Edward Brongersma is currently available in the “gay/lesbian” sections of bookstores like Borders. This book, which openly promotes pedophilia, was first published in the Journal of Homosexuality in 1990. The Journal is edited by John DeCecco, a psychologist at San Francisco State University. DeCecco is a board member of the Dutch pedophile journal, Paidika.

The homosexual magazine Guide published a pro-pedophile editorial in its July, 1995 issue. In referring to pedophiles as “prophets” of sexual freedom, the Guide editorialist wrote: “We must listen to our prophets. Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality. . . . Surrounded by pious moralists with deadening anti-sexual rules, we must be shameless rulebreakers, demonstrating our allegiance to a higher concept of love. *We must do it for the children’s sake.*”

Parents are correct to be concerned about homosexuals sexually assaulting their children. The Boy Scouts of America, for example, is right to prohibit homosexuals from membership or leadership positions. It is evident from the statistical evidence and news reports of child molestation cases, that homosexuals pose a clear and present danger to children. *Our laws and social policies should protect children, not cater to the whims and sexual desires of sexual predators. We must oppose homosexual activism “for the children’s sake.”*

*Exposed Homosexual Child Molesters - Article - Traditional Values Coalition*

*Ok , different source, same song and dance ................*​


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

*Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'*
*Research purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture*
Published: 04/29/2002 at 1:00 AM



Jon Dougherty About | Email  | Archive
Jon E. Dougherty is a Missouri-based political science major, author, writer and columnist. Follow him on Twitter.



 Subscribe to feed




Text smaller
Text bigger

Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.

“Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture,” wrote Steve Baldwin in, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,” soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.

Baldwin is the executive director of the Council for National Policy in Washington, D.C.

“It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh,” wrote Baldwin. “However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization – the nuclear family.”

Though the homosexual community and much of the media scoff at such accusations, Baldwin – who chaired the California Assembly’s Education committee, where he fought against support for the homosexual agenda in the state’s public schools – says in his report that homosexual activists’ “efforts to target children both for their own sexual pleasure and to enlarge the homosexual movement” constitute an “unmistakable” attack on “the family unit.”

Baldwin’s research is substantiated in a recently completed body of work written by Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education and author of numerous authoritative books debunking sexual myths, including “Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences.”

In her thesis – also written for the Regent University Law Review – Reisman cited psychologist Eugene Abel, whose research found that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls. …”

Abel also found that non-incarcerated “child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender … whose targets were males.”

“The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering,” said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. “Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls.”

Jay Heavener, spokesman for PFLAG – Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, counters that federal crime data refute claims that homosexuals molest children at higher rates than heterosexuals.

“According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), this claim is false,” he told WND by e-mail. “The gay and lesbian community calls into question any dubious research which flies in the face of our own experience.”

And Gary Schoener, a clinical psychologist who has been diagnosing and treating clergy abuse for 28 years, told Salon.com, “There are far more heterosexual cases than homosexual.”

In terms of sheer numbers, that may be true. But in terms of numbers of children abused per offender, homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target.

Baldwin says evidence he examined disproves the assertion that child molestation is more prevalent among heterosexuals. Both he and Reisman found that media coverage of adult homosexual abuse of minors is also slanted.

“The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) recently boasted that although homosexuals are less than two percent of the population, three-fourths of the people who decide the content of the front page of the New York Times are homosexual,” Reisman wrote.

That one fact is especially noteworthy, experts point out, given the recent child sex scandals taking place within the American Catholic church.

A survey by WorldNetDaily of recent news reports found that rarely did the media describe priestly sexual abuse as “homosexual” or “gay” activity – even though the worst incidents involved male-to-male contact, and a spate of investigative reports has revealed that the Vatican is concerned about an upsurge of homosexuals in seminary schools throughout the world.

*Gay press promotes sex with children*

Baldwin says his research not only “confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals,” but it found that “the mainstream homosexual culture” even “commonly promotes sex with children.”

“The editorial board of the leading pedophile academic journal, Paidika, is dominated by prominent homosexual scholars such as San Francisco State University professor John DeCecco, who happens to edit the Journal of Homosexuality,” Baldwin wrote.

During his research, he also found:




The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, “Male Intergenerational Intimacy,” containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son “not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home.”



In 1995 the homosexual magazine “Guide” said, “We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual” and “deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …” The article went on to say: “Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality … we must do it for the children’s sake.”



Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, “Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist”: “In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it.”



In a study of advertisements in the influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, Reisman found ads for a “Penetrable Boy Doll … available in three provocative positions. She also found that the number of erotic boy images in each issue of The Advocate averaged 14.



Homosexual newspapers and travel publications advertise prominently for countries where boy prostitution is heavy, such as Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.
*Homosexuality ‘youth-oriented’?*

“Research on the homosexual lifestyle confirms it is almost exclusively a _youth-oriented_ culture,” Baldwin wrote. “Very few gays exhibit preference for older men.”

“Some admit to focus on teenage boys,” he said, “some on prepubescent boys, and many cross over between categories.”

A 1988 study detailed in Baldwin’s report found that most pedophiles even consider themselves to be “gay.” According to the study, “Archives of Sexual Behavior,” some 86 percent of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Also, the study found, the number of teenage male prostitutes who identify as homosexuals has risen from 10 percent to 60 percent in the past 15 years.

When asked what he thought about critics who attempt to debunk his research, Baldwin said the results speak for themselves.

“For them to say this theory is false is to call many of the homosexual movement’s leaders liars,” he said. “Most of my evidence comes right from the gay community.”

“I managed to find enough evidence that my thesis – child molestation is an integral part of the homosexual movement – is a valid thesis,” Baldwin told WorldNetDaily.

Other experts have also found a distinct pattern between child sex abusers and the incidence of homosexuality.

“How long can psychologists be in denial about the significance of the dark side, and ignore what it implies about the homosexual condition? And there’s a matter of even greater concern. How long will psychologists eagerly throw open the door to gay life for every sexually confused teenager?” writes Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D, on behalf of NARTH – the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality – a group that says it exists to “provide psychological understanding of the cause, treatment and behavior patterns associated with homosexuality, within the boundaries of a civil public dialogue.”

The North American Man-Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA, is “a group that openly promotes sex with minor boys and claims that boy-lovers respond to the needs of the boys they love,” Baldwin said in his report.

The group is often endorsed by “many of the homosexual movement’s most prominent leaders,” he said.

*Advocacy moving to schools*

Promotion of the “gay and lesbian lifestyle” is increasing in the nation’s public schools.

A WND survey of homosexual-oriented websites found that almost every group has some sort of program to “educate” teachers, school administrators and other school employees about the homosexual lifestyle:




GLSEN – the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network – bills itself as “the largest national network of parents, students, educators and others” specifically formed to end “discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in K-12 schools. Two recent press released boasted of the Broward County (Fla.) school board approving GLSEN-sponsored “training for teachers.”



A student activist working with GLSEN officials has managed to “give voice” recently to “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students” at California schools;



PFLAG has created a national campaign called, “From Our House to the Schoolhouse,” distributing to school officials – among other materials – a booklet entitled, “Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer For Principals, Educators, & School Personnel. [Editor's note: Readers need the Adobe PDF reader to open and read this file.]
Though most school-related programs are sold to administrators and parents as programs designed simply to end persecution of homosexuals and lesbians, none disclose what Baldwin says is compelling evidence that homosexuality is harmful to children.

“What … does the academic literature say about the relationship between homosexuality and child molestation? Quite a bit, actually,” he wrote, quoting data compiled by the Family Research Institute: “Scientific studies confirm a strong pedophilic predisposition among homosexuals.”

The institute, after reviewing more than 19 studies and peer-reviewed reports in a 1985 “Psychological Reports” article, found that homosexuals account for between 25 and 40 percent of all child molestation.

“But this number is low,” Baldwin says, “due to the fact that many reporters will not report if a child molester is a homosexual, even if he knows that to be the case.”

Report Pedophilia more common among 8216 gays 8217 

Shall I continue??

Why thank you, I certainly will ...............................


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Exposed: Homosexual Child Molesters
> Homosexuals claim that “heterosexuals” molest most children but statistics show that homosexuals molest at far higher rates than do heterosexuals....



All solid points... but, that's the thing about being sexually abnormal, they tend to experience abnormal sexual behavior.  Thus the whole: "Abnormal" thing... which is why the Advocacy used faux-science, which I like to call "SCIENCE!", to simply declare through the sanctification of 'SCIETIFIC CONSENSUS' their subjective edit: 'Sexual Abnormality is perfectly NORMAL!'.

Sure... it a lie and yes... it serves evil... but without it, how could they POSSIBLY ever obliterate that pesky "Age of Consent" thing?  So... well, you see how it is.


----------



## Syriusly

DrDoomNGloom said:


> *Pedophiles are invariably males: *Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.
> 
> *Significant numbers of victims are males: *Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).
> 
> *The 10 percent fallacy: *Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.
> 
> *Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: *Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.
> *.*



Some of numbers you have posted are correct- all of your conclusions are wrong.

And I will cite an actual paper by an actual authority- rather than the bigoted FRC.

Pedophiles are almost exclusively men.
Girls however, are by a large margin the main victims of child sexual molestation- ranging from 69%-91%

IF homophobes were really concerned about children- why don't they mention the over-representation of men in child sex crimes?
Men are 50% of the population and commit up to 99% of all child sex crimes- but homophobes never care about sex crimes when they happen to girls by men. 

In addition, the numbers cited of 1-3% as being the percentage of homosexuals in the population is self reported- in other words this is the percentage of the population that considers themselves 'gay'.

Pedophiles who molest boys almost never consider themselves gay- they would not be part of that 1-3% of the population. For example

_Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% of cases in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994)._

This is part of why homophobes like you- and the FRC- put children in danger.

Your people point at homosexuals and say "Faggots are pedophiles"- leaving the real pedophiles to molest girls and boys without suspicion.

You put children in danger.

And you don't care.


----------



## Syriusly

DrDoomNGloom said:


> *Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'*
> 
> 
> Shall I continue??
> 
> Why thank you, I certainly will ...............................



I am sure you will- clearly you want to put more children at risk of child sexual molestation.

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.
In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children. Back in 1977, when Anita Bryant campaigned successfully to repeal a Dade County (FL) ordinance prohibiting anti-gay discrimination, she named her organization "Save Our Children," and warned that "a particularly deviant-minded [gay] teacher could sexually molest children" (Bryant, 1977, p. 114). [_Bibliographic references are on a different web page_]

In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay people are child molesters. This argument was often made in debates about the Boy Scouts of America's policy to exclude gay scouts and scoutmasters. More recently, in the wake of Rep. Mark Foley's resignation from the US House of Representatives in 2006, antigay activists and their supporters seized on the scandal to revive this canard.

It has also been raised in connection with scandals about the Catholic church's attempts to cover up the abuse of young males by priests. Indeed, the Vatican's early response to the 2002 revelations of widespread Church cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests was to declare that gay men should not be ordained.

*Conclusion

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.*


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Keys, you are as annoying as the rest of the ankle biters ................

Syriusly, notice she tells us a lot about her by her screen name , ebonics pretty much sums it up ....................

Anyways, her tactic was to flood the thread with gay shit, I can come up with a lot more anit gay shit and children than she can come up with pro gay shit and children.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

*How Much Child Molestation is Homosexual?*
Do homosexuals disproportionately molest children? Gay activists vehemently deny it, yet the empirical evidence says otherwise. The key concept is _proportionality_. Probably a numerical majority of child molestations involve a male adult and a female child, but given the small fraction of homosexual practitioners, the number of homosexual molestations is _disproportionate_ to the percentage of homosexuals. This briefing summarizes some of the key evidence.

*Three Critical Facts*
​


Homosexuals comprise < 2% of adults
90+% of child molesters are male
_The Gay Report_ — 23% of gays reported sex with boys aged <16; 7% with boys aged <13
*From Facts to Disproportionate Reality*

_Human Rights Watch 2008 World Report_ — ~150 million girls, ~73 million boys “have experienced rape or other sexual violence”
U.S., Canadian reports — girl/boy ratio also about 2:1
25-40% of molestations are thus same-sex, far in excess of the percentage of homosexuals
*Homosexual Molestation in Positions of Authority*
​


~43% of sex between teachers & pupils
~50% of sex between foster parents & foster children
21 group home sex scandals — 71% were same-sex
Family Research Institute Blog Archive How Much Child Molestation is Homosexual


----------



## Syriusly

Syriusly said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'*
> 
> 
> Shall I continue??
> 
> Why thank you, I certainly will ...............................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you will- clearly you want to put more children at risk of child sexual molestation.
> 
> Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
> 
> Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.
> In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children. Back in 1977, when Anita Bryant campaigned successfully to repeal a Dade County (FL) ordinance prohibiting anti-gay discrimination, she named her organization "Save Our Children," and warned that "a particularly deviant-minded [gay] teacher could sexually molest children" (Bryant, 1977, p. 114). [_Bibliographic references are on a different web page_]
> 
> In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay people are child molesters. This argument was often made in debates about the Boy Scouts of America's policy to exclude gay scouts and scoutmasters. More recently, in the wake of Rep. Mark Foley's resignation from the US House of Representatives in 2006, antigay activists and their supporters seized on the scandal to revive this canard.
> 
> It has also been raised in connection with scandals about the Catholic church's attempts to cover up the abuse of young males by priests. Indeed, the Vatican's early response to the 2002 revelations of widespread Church cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests was to declare that gay men should not be ordained.
> 
> *Conclusion
> 
> The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.*
Click to expand...


I think I shall continue.

As a father of a girl, I get pissed off at the homophobes who put my child at more risk by claiming that homosexuals are the problem when it comes to child sexual molestation- my girl is far more at risk than a boy is- but homophobes don't care.

So more facts:
Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals 

_Objective._ To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of children.

_Design._ Chart review of medical records of children evaluated for sexual abuse.

_Setting._ Child sexual abuse clinic at a regional children's hospital.

_Patients._ Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys) referred to a subspecialty clinic for the evaluation of suspected child sexual abuse. Mean age was 6.1 years (range, 7 months to 17 years).

_Data collected._ Charts were reviewed to determine the relationships of the children to the alleged offender, the sex of the offender, and whether or not the alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

*Results. Abuse was ruled out in 35 cases. Seventy-four children were allegedly abused by other children and teenagers less than 18 years old. In 9 cases, an offender could not be identified. In the remaining 269 cases, two offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian. In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community.*

_Conclusions._ The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people.


Received September 29, 1993.
Accepted December 3, 1993.

Copyright © 1994 by the American Academy of Pediatrics


----------



## Syriusly

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Keys, you are as annoying as the rest of the ankle biters ................
> 
> Syriusly, notice she tells us a lot about her by her screen name , ebonics pretty much sums it up ....................
> 
> Anyways, her tactic was to flood the thread with gay shit, I can come up with a lot more anit gay shit and children than she can come up with pro gay shit and children.



I have no doubt you will continue to attempt to put children at more risk of child sexual abuse by pointing at homosexuals.

You will continue to post shit from the FRC or Stormfront or the KKK.....I will continue to post actual research to show what BS your posts are.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Keys, you are as annoying as the rest of the ankle biters ................
> 
> Syriusly, notice she tells us a lot about her by her screen name , ebonics pretty much sums it up ....................
> 
> Anyways, her tactic was to flood the thread with gay shit, I can come up with a lot more anit gay shit and children than she can come up with pro gay shit and children.



I get it... after all I'm not dead.  

They are what they are and there's no getting around it, but when we lead into their strengths, we dilute our leadership.  Leadership 101 scamp.  

Lead, Follow, or get the hell out of the way.  

I've no dispute with any of your reference resources... just some constructive criticism, common to 'style'.   

No soak up those tears and continue.   You're doin' fine.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> I get it... after all I'm not dead.
> 
> They are what they are and there's no getting around it, but when we lead into their strengths, we dilute our leadership.  Leadership 101 scamp.
> 
> Lead, Follow, or get the hell out of the way.
> 
> I've no dispute with any of your reference resources... just some constructive criticism, common to 'style'.
> 
> No soak up those tears and continue.   You're doin' fine.



What part of fuck off asshole did you not understand??
I got your tears hanging, Buba ......................


----------



## Syriusly

DrDoomNGloom said:


> *How Much Child Molestation is Homosexual?*
> Do homosexuals disproportionately molest children? Gay activists vehemently deny it, yet the empirical evidence says otherwise. The key concept is _proportionality_. Probably a numerical majority of child molestations involve a male adult and a female child, but given the small fraction of homosexual practitioners, the number of homosexual molestations is _disproportionate_ to the percentage of homosexuals. This briefing summarizes some of the key evidence.
> l



Is that even supposed to mean something?

Look at this BS _Probably a numerical majority of child molestations involve a male adult and a female child

Probably? 
_
69%-91% of all child molestation involves a male adult and a female child
http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

Your facts and figures start off with innuendo that perhaps most child abuse is not on girls- why would that be- other than because homophobes don't care if girls are molested.


_
_


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

I don't believe that gays are more likely to molest children and it shouldn't be lost on anyone that the majority of child sexual abuse cases are committed by heterosexuals, not homosexuals.  It should also be pointed out that white people are disproportionately more likely to molest children than any other race, but we're not going to talk about that, are we?

I'm opposed to homosexuality because I think it's wrong. But I won't go so far as to exaggerate, make things up, or play inane statistics games to demonize them.  It's the difference between conscientious objection and outright hatred.  The latter Christians are not called to.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it... after all I'm not dead.
> 
> They are what they are and there's no getting around it, but when we lead into their strengths, we dilute our leadership.  Leadership 101 scamp.
> 
> Lead, Follow, or get the hell out of the way.
> 
> I've no dispute with any of your reference resources... just some constructive criticism, common to 'style'.
> 
> No soak up those tears and continue.   You're doin' fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of fuck off asshole did you not understand??
> I got your tears hanging, Buba ......................
Click to expand...


ROFL!  Well... there's no accountin' for the idiots.  
But at least you demonstrate that even the blind nuts can find a squirrel now and then.

Rest assured scamp, that in no universe will you ever become equal to me in any endeavor and I will reign over you, in every endeavor... but as sad as you are, even YOU can see that homosexuality deviates from the standard established by human physiology and aren't afraid to speak out on it, in unapologetic terms, pointing out that such abnormal reasoning is indicative of a threat to the public at large.

Good for you scamp.  Good for you.


----------



## Syriusly

Syriusly said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How Much Child Molestation is Homosexual?*
> Do homosexuals disproportionately molest children? Gay activists vehemently deny it, yet the empirical evidence says otherwise. The key concept is _proportionality_. Probably a numerical majority of child molestations involve a male adult and a female child, but given the small fraction of homosexual practitioners, the number of homosexual molestations is _disproportionate_ to the percentage of homosexuals. This briefing summarizes some of the key evidence.
> l
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that even supposed to mean something?
> 
> Look at this BS _Probably a numerical majority of child molestations involve a male adult and a female child
> 
> Probably?
> _
> 69%-91% of all child molestation involves a male adult and a female child
> http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
> 
> Your facts and figures start off with innuendo that perhaps most child abuse is not on girls- why would that be- other than because homophobes don't care if girls are molested.
Click to expand...


Depending on age- girls are the victims of child sexual abuse by men between 69%-91% of the time.

Men make up 50% of the population, but commit up to 99% of the child sex abuse.

But homophobes only care about child sex abuse when they can claim that it is a homosexual doing the abuse.

Why not the rest of the abuse?

Because they don't care about kids. 

They don't care about whether girls are molested.

They don't care whether a boy is molested by his stepfather or grandfather.

All they care about is saying "Homosexuals are the problem"

Homophobes who do this put all children at more risk.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> I don't believe that gays are more likely to molest children and it shouldn't be lost on anyone that the majority of child sexual abuse cases are committed by heterosexuals, not homosexuals.  It should also be pointed out that white people are disproportionately more likely to molest children than any other race, but we're not going to talk about that, are we?
> 
> I'm opposed to homosexuality because I think it's wrong. But I won't go so far as to exaggerate, make things up, or play inane statistics games to demonize them.  It's the difference between conscientious objection and outright hatred.  The latter Christians are not called to.



thank you.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Syriusly said:


> 69%-91% of all child molestation involves a male adult and a female child
> http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf



That link does not contain that fact you lying faggot ..................................
Reverse Google it, if that article contained that phrase, you could Google it and your link would appear at the top of the list, hint(it ain't in the results) ....................


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> I don't believe that gays are more likely to molest children ...



Well lets' see if we can work through your beliefs... and sort out the rational elements of such, from the irrational.

Now lemme ask ya...

Do you believe that a nail, which is constructed within the standard suitable to and otherwise applied in the fabrications of nails, is more likely or less likely to cause injury to those using a nail, than a nail of the abnormal variety?

Which is to say a nail that deviates from the standard established in the creation of nails?  Such standards might include, 'straightness' for instance... .

So which is it?  Do you 'believe' that a normal nail is MORE or less likely to cause injury to the user of nails?


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that gays are more likely to molest children ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets' see if we can work through your beliefs... and sort out the rational elements of such, from the irrational.
> 
> Now where lemme ask ya...
> 
> Do you believe that a nail, which is constructed within the standard suitable to and otherwise applied in the fabrications of nails, is more likely or less likely to cause injury to those using a nail, than a nail of the abnormal variety?
> 
> Which is to say a nail that deviates from the standard established in the creation of nails?  Such standards might include, 'straightness' for instance... .
> 
> So which is it?  Do you 'believe' that a normal nail is MORE or less likely to cause injury to the user of nails?
Click to expand...


This is the end of a very good article on the issue

Are Gays a Threat to Our Children

*A Firmly Established Tactic*
_
Yet anti-gay activists insist on spreading this misinformation. Dr. Timothy Dailey (PhD, religion) of the Family Research Council quoted Dr. Freund’s statement of “199 offenders against female children and 96 offenders against male children. This would indicate a proportional prevalence of 32 percent of homosexual offenders against children.” 29 30313233343536 37

And while this lie is horribly libelous to gay men and women, that’s only a small part of the damage. The real harm is to our children. As long as we remain suspicious of the wrong people, predators will continue to have free reign to abuse innocent children. If they remain free from scrutiny because everyone else is focusing on gays and lesbians, more young lives will continue to be shattered and more parents will suffer the agonizing heartache of learning that they trusted someone who destroyed their child’s future. We must not allow the far right to cynically jeopardize our children’s safety to further their agenda. The consequences are far too severe for the next generation._


----------



## JakeStarkey

69%-91% of all child molestation involves a male adult and a female child
http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

step off, wherermykeys, now!

You are the type of natural moralist who would have supported Hitler's Ger.many


----------



## Syriusly

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 69%-91% of all child molestation involves a male adult and a female child
> http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That link does not contain that fact you lying faggot ..................................
> Reverse Google it, if that article contained that phrase, you could Google it and your link would appear at the top of the list, hint(it ain't in the results) ....................
Click to expand...


Well reading comprehension is clearly not a strong point of cretinous bigots  like yourself

Right there in Table 2.

You can find it with the same magnifying glass you use to find your dick with.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Nothing comin' to mind?

Well... LOL!  That doesn't bode well for the authority inherent in those 'beliefs', now does it?


----------



## Syriusly

Syriusly said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 69%-91% of all child molestation involves a male adult and a female child
> http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That link does not contain that fact you lying faggot ..................................
> Reverse Google it, if that article contained that phrase, you could Google it and your link would appear at the top of the list, hint(it ain't in the results) ....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well reading comprehension is clearly not a strong point of cretinous bigots  like yourself
> 
> Right there in Table 2.
> 
> You can find it with the same magnifying glass you use to find your dick with.
Click to expand...



I guess another way to put the argument of the homophobes is:

"We can't allow homosexuals to marry because most child molesters are heterosexual"


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Nothing comin' to mind?
> 
> Well... LOL!  That doesn't bode well for the authority inherent in those 'beliefs', now does it?



You have been so spanked in this thread, wherermykeys, it makes my American heart watch your fascism rebuked.

Trot along.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that gays are more likely to molest children ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets' see if we can work through your beliefs... and sort out the rational elements of such, from the irrational.
> 
> Now lemme ask ya...
> 
> Do you believe that a nail, which is constructed within the standard suitable to and otherwise applied in the fabrications of nails, is more likely or less likely to cause injury to those using a nail, than a nail of the abnormal variety?
> 
> Which is to say a nail that deviates from the standard established in the creation of nails?  Such standards might include, 'straightness' for instance... .
> 
> So which is it?  Do you 'believe' that a normal nail is MORE or less likely to cause injury to the user of nails?
Click to expand...


And yet, more children are molested by heterosexuals.  It kinda puts the damper on your nail analogy.  Do you actually have gay friends or do you just talk about them amongst others who don't have gay friends and are just as ignorant as you?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Syriusly said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 69%-91% of all child molestation involves a male adult and a female child
> http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That link does not contain that fact you lying faggot ..................................
> Reverse Google it, if that article contained that phrase, you could Google it and your link would appear at the top of the list, hint(it ain't in the results) ....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well reading comprehension is clearly not a strong point of cretinous bigots  like yourself
> 
> Right there in Table 2.
> 
> You can find it with the same magnifying glass you use to find your dick with.
Click to expand...


NO comprehension seems to be your biggest issue, as demonstrated by either ignorance or just lack of reading ability, but the 69% is for FEMALES < 6 abused, the 91% is for FEMALES 12-17 abused, no reference is made to abusers sex.

Look at the bottom of the chart, broken down by abuser status, family member, acquaintance, stranger ............... no statistics are given for abuser sexual status ............

Not only are you a foggot, but you are an awful dumb faggot ...............................


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Hey Jake, see above post, and don't follow that one over the cliff ...................


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Just to make sure we are on the same page, we are talking "Frog Protection", right??


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that gays are more likely to molest children ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets' see if we can work through your beliefs... and sort out the rational elements of such, from the irrational.
> 
> Now lemme ask ya...
> 
> Do you believe that a nail, which is constructed within the standard suitable to and otherwise applied in the fabrications of nails, is more likely or less likely to cause injury to those using a nail, than a nail of the abnormal variety?
> 
> Which is to say a nail that deviates from the standard established in the creation of nails?  Such standards might include, 'straightness' for instance... .
> 
> So which is it?  Do you 'believe' that a normal nail is MORE or less likely to cause injury to the user of nails?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, more children are molested by heterosexuals.  It kinda puts the damper on your nail analogy.  Do you actually have gay friends or do you just talk about them amongst others who don't have gay friends and are just as ignorant as you?
Click to expand...



So you can't speak to your 'beliefs'?  So bereft of reason are those beliefs, that you cannot even profess a judgment on which of a normal nail and abnormal nail would be more likely to injure the users of nails?

A NAIL~ 

Yet... you have no problem, 'believing' that abnormal human beings, are the same as NORMAL human beings in their propensity for injuring others?  Despite the certainty that human beings and their 'use' is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE COMPLEX, thus where abnormal they're EXPONENTIALLY MORE likely to cause injury.

GOLLY... THAT is a glaring demonstration of that which is: IRRATIONAL! 

What's more... due to the nature of the manufacturing of nails there are very few irregular examples of such and where such are found, they are usually tossed aside and discard.  BUT, where an abnormal nail is used, it is quite likely that it will cause injury to those who foolishly attempted to use it.


Same with the lowly homosexual... tolerating their addled desire to be seen as normal is a threat to every free individual...  they represent abnormal reasoning, which provides for the likelihood that where given the opportunity, they will 'choose' to set aside cultural mores and standards and satisfy their base desires... THIS IS THE NATURE OF SEXUAL ABNORMALITY.

And with that said, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## Syriusly

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 69%-91% of all child molestation involves a male adult and a female child
> http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That link does not contain that fact you lying faggot ..................................
> Reverse Google it, if that article contained that phrase, you could Google it and your link would appear at the top of the list, hint(it ain't in the results) ....................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well reading comprehension is clearly not a strong point of cretinous bigots  like yourself
> 
> Right there in Table 2.
> 
> You can find it with the same magnifying glass you use to find your dick with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO comprehension seems to be your biggest issue, as demonstrated by either ignorance or just lack of reading ability, but the 69% is for FEMALES < 6 abused, the 91% is for FEMALES 12-17 abused, no reference is made to abusers sex.
> 
> Look at the bottom of the chart, broken down by abuser status, family member, acquaintance, stranger ............... no statistics are given for abuser status ............
> 
> Not only are you a foggot, but you are an awful dumb faggot ...............................
Click to expand...


Like I said before- use the magnifying glass you use to find your dick and read the report.

Table 2 shows the percentage of females who have been molested by age.

Page 458- female molesters are reported at 1% or 6% of total molesters.

Do the math- that means adjusting for potential female abusers that the number of females molested by men makes the huge transition from 69% to either 68% or 65% but doesn't change at all the concept- that the vast majority of child sexual abuse is by men to girls.

The kind of molestation you don't care about.

Because its only girls.

Being molested by men.

And even within the doublespeak of the cretinous homophobes, you can't make that the fault of homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that gays are more likely to molest children ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets' see if we can work through your beliefs... and sort out the rational elements of such, from the irrational.
> 
> Now lemme ask ya...
> 
> Do you believe that a nail, which is constructed within the standard suitable to and otherwise applied in the fabrications of nails, is more likely or less likely to cause injury to those using a nail, than a nail of the abnormal variety?
> 
> Which is to say a nail that deviates from the standard established in the creation of nails?  Such standards might include, 'straightness' for instance... .
> 
> So which is it?  Do you 'believe' that a normal nail is MORE or less likely to cause injury to the user of nails?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, more children are molested by heterosexuals.  It kinda puts the damper on your nail analogy.  Do you actually have gay friends or do you just talk about them amongst others who don't have gay friends and are just as ignorant as you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't speak to your 'beliefs'?  So bereft of reason are those beliefs, that you cannot even profess a judgment on which of a normal nail and abnormal nail would be more likely to injure the users of nails?
> 
> A NAIL~
> 
> Yet... you have no problem, 'believing' that abnormal human beings, are the same as NORMAL human beings in their propensity for injuring others?  Despite the certainty that human beings and their 'use' is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE COMPLEX, thus where abnormal they're EXPONENTIALLY MORE likely to cause injury.
> 
> GOLLY... THAT is a glaring demonstration of that which is: IRRATIONAL!
> 
> What's more... due to the nature of the manufacturing of nails there are very few irregular examples of such and where such are found, they are usually tossed aside and discard.  BUT, where an abnormal nail is used, it is quite likely that it will cause injury to those who foolishly attempted to use it.
> 
> 
> Same with the lowly homosexual... tolerating their addled desire to be seen as normal is a threat to every free individual...  they represent abnormal reasoning, which provides for the likelihood that where given the opportunity, they will 'choose' to set aside cultural mores and standards and satisfy their base desires... THIS IS THE NATURE OF SEXUAL ABNORMALITY.
Click to expand...


Bat guano crazy.


----------



## Syriusly

DrDoomNGloom said:


> *Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse*
> 
> IS02E3 07/02/2002
> Scandals involving the sexual abuse of under-age boys by homosexual priests have rocked the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, defenders of homosexuality argue that youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to include homosexuals among their adult leaders. Similarly, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist organization that targets schools, has spearheaded the formation of "Gay-Straight Alliances" among students. GLSEN encourages homosexual teachers--even in the youngest grades--to be open about their sexuality, as a way of providing role models to "gay" students. In addition, laws or policies banning employment discrimination based on "sexual orientation" usually make no exception for those who work with children or youth.
> 
> Many parents have become concerned that children may be molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even "recruited" into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle. Gay activists dismiss such concerns--in part, by strenuously insisting that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children.
> 
> However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:
> 
> *Pedophiles are invariably males: *Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.
> 
> *Significant numbers of victims are males: *Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).
> 
> *The 10 percent fallacy: *Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.
> 
> *Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: *Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.
> 
> *Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: *Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.
> 
> *Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Family Research Council
> 
> Faggots don't need kids, and the assertion that any of those children your referenced would be adopted by reasonable and prudent people, usually because of behavior problems / mental issues ................................
Click to expand...


Hey little dick

Still waiting for you to tell us why this child shouldn't have been adopted

And now for some positive stories- here is the story of a child that Silhouette would have denied a parent- because the parent is gay






_I met my son 9 years ago while I was working at a skilled care facility and we had a unit for special needs adults. Minors were not usually placed there but the state allowed this for one week until a foster placement could be arranged.

Foster care could not be found and he was given a two week extension. Then I agreed to him home and provide respite until his mother could resume care. He could not walk or feed himself, and was not toilet trained. He was 7 years old at the time, primarily strapped in a wheelchair and had all care provided to him. He has cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder. I am a nurse by background so I had a tendency to see his potential.

It was tough the first year, but he accomplished self feeding, walking. Using the bathroom has also improved greatly. Our relationship changed from respite to guardianship to foster care to adoption.

He arrived at my house on July 3, 1998 and we have been a family since. He is absolutely my best gift ever in the whole world! He doesn't say many words although one he does say is "Dad".

I have always wanted a family which included a husband and children. I have been a foster parent and have decided that even though I have not found the right guy I want my own family. I have been approved to adopt again. This time I will have a sibling group of 2-3 children. I never really thought I could be so fortunate to have sons and daughters, but I will soon. And maybe then the right guy will find us.

Tim Dietzen
Appleton, Wisc._


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

*Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse*

IS02E3 07/02/2002
Scandals involving the sexual abuse of under-age boys by homosexual priests have rocked the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, defenders of homosexuality argue that youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to include homosexuals among their adult leaders. Similarly, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist organization that targets schools, has spearheaded the formation of "Gay-Straight Alliances" among students. GLSEN encourages homosexual teachers--even in the youngest grades--to be open about their sexuality, as a way of providing role models to "gay" students. In addition, laws or policies banning employment discrimination based on "sexual orientation" usually make no exception for those who work with children or youth.


----------



## Jarlaxle

TL, DR.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse*
> 
> IS02E3 07/02/2002
> Scandals involving the sexual abuse of under-age boys by homosexual priests have rocked the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, defenders of homosexuality argue that youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to include homosexuals among their adult leaders. Similarly, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist organization that targets schools, has spearheaded the formation of "Gay-Straight Alliances" among students. GLSEN encourages homosexual teachers--even in the youngest grades--to be open about their sexuality, as a way of providing role models to "gay" students. In addition, laws or policies banning employment discrimination based on "sexual orientation" usually make no exception for those who work with children or youth.
> 
> Many parents have become concerned that children may be molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even "recruited" into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle. Gay activists dismiss such concerns--in part, by strenuously insisting that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children.
> 
> However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:
> 
> *Pedophiles are invariably males: *Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.
> 
> *Significant numbers of victims are males: *Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).
> 
> *The 10 percent fallacy: *Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.
> 
> *Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: *Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.
> 
> *Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: *Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.
> 
> *Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Family Research Council
> 
> Faggots don't need kids, and the assertion that any of those children your referenced would be adopted by reasonable and prudent people, usually because of behavior problems / mental issues ................................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey little dick
> 
> Still waiting for you to tell us why this child shouldn't have been adopted
> 
> And now for some positive stories- here is the story of a child that Silhouette would have denied a parent- because the parent is gay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I met my son 9 years ago while I was working at a skilled care facility and we had a unit for special needs adults. Minors were not usually placed there but the state allowed this for one week until a foster placement could be arranged.
> 
> Foster care could not be found and he was given a two week extension. Then I agreed to him home and provide respite until his mother could resume care. He could not walk or feed himself, and was not toilet trained. He was 7 years old at the time, primarily strapped in a wheelchair and had all care provided to him. He has cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder. I am a nurse by background so I had a tendency to see his potential.
> 
> It was tough the first year, but he accomplished self feeding, walking. Using the bathroom has also improved greatly. Our relationship changed from respite to guardianship to foster care to adoption.
> 
> He arrived at my house on July 3, 1998 and we have been a family since. He is absolutely my best gift ever in the whole world! He doesn't say many words although one he does say is "Dad".
> 
> I have always wanted a family which included a husband and children. I have been a foster parent and have decided that even though I have not found the right guy I want my own family. I have been approved to adopt again. This time I will have a sibling group of 2-3 children. I never really thought I could be so fortunate to have sons and daughters, but I will soon. And maybe then the right guy will find us.
> 
> Tim Dietzen
> Appleton, Wisc._
Click to expand...




DrDoomNGloom said:


> *Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse*
> 
> IS02E3 07/02/2002
> Scandals involving the sexual abuse of under-age boys by homosexual priests have rocked the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, defenders of homosexuality argue that youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to include homosexuals among their adult leaders. Similarly, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist organization that targets schools, has spearheaded the formation of "Gay-Straight Alliances" among students. GLSEN encourages homosexual teachers--even in the youngest grades--to be open about their sexuality, as a way of providing role models to "gay" students. In addition, laws or policies banning employment discrimination based on "sexual orientation" usually make no exception for those who work with children or youth.
> 
> Many parents have become concerned that children may be molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even "recruited" into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle. Gay activists dismiss such concerns--in part, by strenuously insisting that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children.
> 
> However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:
> 
> *Pedophiles are invariably males: *Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.
> 
> *Significant numbers of victims are males: *Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).
> 
> *The 10 percent fallacy: *Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.
> 
> *Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: *Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.
> 
> *Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: *Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.
> 
> *Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: *Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote "intergenerational intimacy."
> 
> MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
> Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.
> 
> The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.
> 
> Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases
> An essay on adult sex offenders in the book _Sexual Offending Against Children _reported:"It is widely believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males and that female sex offenders only account for a tiny proportion of offences. Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!"[1]
> 
> Kee MacFarlane, et al., writing in _Sexual Abuse of Young Children: Evaluation and Treatment_ report:"The large majority of sexual perpetrators appear to be males (Herman and Hirschman, 1981; Lindholm and Willey, 1983)."[2]
> 
> A report by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children states: "In both clinical and non-clinical samples, the vast majority of offenders are male."[3]
> 
> A study in the _Journal of Sex Research _states that "pedophilia does not exist, or is extremely rare, in women."[4]
> 
> A Significant Percentage of Child Sexual Abuse Victims are Boys
> According to the _Journal of Child Psychiatry_: "It was commonly believed fifteen years ago that girls were abused in excess of boys in a ratio of about 9 to 1, but contemporary studies now indicate that the ratio of girls to boys abused has narrowed remarkably. . . . The majority of community studies suggest a . . . ratio . . . in the order of 2 to 4 girls to 1 boy."[5] Another study found that "some authors now believe that boys may be sexually abused as commonly as girls (Groth, 1978; O'Brien, 1980)."[6]
> 
> A study of 457 male sex offenders against children in _Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy _found that "approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males."[7]
> 
> Sexual Abuse of Boys is Underreported
> The actual percentage of child sexual abuse victims who are boys very likely exceeds the above estimates. Many researchers echo the view of the _Journal of Child Psychiatry _study, which refers to the "under-reporting of the incidence and prevalence of sexual abuse in boys."[8]
> 
> Dr. Robert Johnson, in _Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, _reports: "The vast majority of cases of male sexual molestation is not reported. As a result, these young men keep both the incidents and their feelings to themselves."[9]
> 
> The Department of Justice report on child sexual exploitation explains why the percentage of boy victims is underestimated: "Adolescent boy victims are highly likely to deny certain types of sexual activity. . . . They are embarrassed and ashamed of their behavior and rightfully believe that society will not understand their victimization. . . . No matter what the investigator does, most adolescent boys will deny they were victims."[10]
> 
> The _Journal of Child Psychiatry _adds: "Boys are usually encultured into an ethos where self-reliance, independence and sexual prowess are valued, while showing hurt or homosexuality are denigrated. . . . This may lead to powerful repression or deletion of the experience, with failure to report."[11]
> 
> Homosexuals Comprise Less than 3 Percent of the Population
> Relying upon three large data sets: the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. census, a recent study in _Demography _estimates the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population at 2.5 percent, and the number of exclusive lesbians at 1.4 percent.[12]
> 
> A study of the sexual behavior of men in the United States based on the National Survey of Men (a nationally representative sample comprised of 3,321 men aged twenty to thirty-nine, published in _Family Planning Perspectives), _found that "2 percent of sexually active men aged twenty to thirty-nine . . . had had any same-gender sexual activity during the last ten years. Approximately 1 percent of the men (1.3 percent among whites and 0.2 percent among blacks) reported having had exclusively homosexual activity.[13]
> 
> J. Gordon Muir, writing in _The Wall Street Journal, _discusses a number of studies that have found that homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.[14]
> 
> In a survey of studies on homosexuals in different populations, the _Archives of Sexual Behavior _reported a random sample of Hawaii State residents interviewed by telephone. The study found "just about 3 percent of males and 1.2 percent of females as having engaged in same-sex or bisexual activity."[15] However, this relatively higher number is attributed to the fact that the study was not limited to exclusive homosexuals, but included all those who at some time in their lives engaged in same-sex activities.[16]
> 
> Homosexual Pedophiles are Vastly Overrepresented in Child Sex Abuse Cases
> Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. A study in the _Journal of Sex Research _found, as we have noted above, that "approximately one-third of [child sex offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls." The authors then make a prescient observation: "_Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1_."[17]
> 
> In other words, although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.
> 
> Similarly, the _Archives of Sexual Behavior _also noted that homosexual pedophiles are significantly overrepresented in child sex offence cases:
> 
> The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 to 4 percent of men attracted to adults prefer men (ACSF Investigators, 1992; Billy et al.,1993; Fay et al.,1989; Johnson et al.,1992); in contrast, around 25 to 40 percent of men attracted to children prefer boys (Blanchard et al.,1999; Gebhard et al.,1965; Mohr et al.,1964). _Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles."*[18]*_
> The stark imbalance between homosexual and heterosexual child molestationswas confirmed in the _Archives of Sexual Behavior _study itself, which divided 260 pedophile participants into three groups: "152 heterosexual pedophiles (men with offenses or self-reported attractions involving girls only), 43 bisexual pedophiles (boys and girls), and 65 homosexual pedophiles (boys only)."[19] In other words, 25 percent of the offenders were homosexual pedophiles--or 41 percent if those who molest girls as well as boys are included.
> 
> Other studies report an unusually high percentage of child molestations by homosexual pedophiles:
> 
> A study on pedophilia in the _Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa_ reported: "According to the literature, findings of a two-to-one ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles have been documented."[20]
> 
> The _Journal of Sex Research _reports a study that included "199 offenders against female children and 96 offenders against male children. . . . This would indicate a proportional prevalence of 32 percent of homosexual offenders against children."[21]
> 
> A study of male child sex offenders in _Child Abuse and Neglect _found that fourteen percent targeted only males, and a further 28 percent chose males as well as females as victims, thus indicating that 42 percent of male pedophiles engaged in homosexual molestation.[22]
> 
> ARE MEN WHO MOLEST BOYS REALLY 'HOMOSEXUALS'? Gay Apologists Insist on a Simplistic Stereotype of Pedophilia
> Central to the attempts to separate homosexuality from pedophilia is the claim that pedophiles cannot, by definition, be considered homosexuals. Relying upon a questionable methodology[23], the gay advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign published a "Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation and Child Abuse," that states: "A sexual abuser who molests a child of the same sex is usually not considered homosexual."[24]
> 
> The basis for this claim is the view that pedophiles who molest boys cannot be considered homosexual if that individual has at any time been married or sexually involved with women.
> 
> 'Homosexual Pedophiles': A Clinical Term
> The fact is, however, that the terms "homosexual" and "pedophile" are not mutually exclusive: they describe two intersecting types of sexual attraction. _Webster's Dictionary _defines "homosexual" as someone who is sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. "Pedophile" is defined as "an adult who is sexually attracted to young children." The former definition refers to the _gender_ of the desired sexual object, while the latter refers to the _age _of the desired sexual object.
> 
> A male "homosexual pedophile," then, is defined as someone who is generally (but not exclusively, see below) sexually attracted to boys, while a female "homosexual pedophile" is sexually attracted to girls.[25]
> 
> The term "homosexual pedophile" was first used in the early 20th century by the Viennese psychiatrist Dr. Richard von Krafft -Ebing, who pioneered the systematic study of sexual deviance. Krafft-Ebing described pedophiles as heterosexually, homosexually or bisexually oriented.[26] This division has been accepted by pedophiles themselves,[27] and is well attested in the literature:
> 
> A study of child molesters in _Behavior Research and Therapy _found that "a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders."[28]
> 
> The _Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy _published a study on the same topic, which discussed "the proportional prevalences of heterosexual and homosexual pedophilia."[29] The study commented on a study that found that "the percentage of the homosexual pedophiles would be 45.8." Even adjusted downward for exhibitionists, "this would still indicate a much higher percentage (34 percent) of homosexuals among pedophiles than among men who prefer physically mature partners."[30]
> 
> In a review of studies on pedophilia, the _Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa _concluded: "The findings of previous studies report that pedophiles can be divided into heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles according to their erotic preference. . . . This was confirmed in this recent study."[31] The article classified homosexual pedophilia into three types: the socially inadequate homosexual pedophile, the intrusive homosexual pedophile, and the undifferentiated homosexual pedophile.[32]
> 
> A study of pedophiles in _Behavior Research and Therapy _concluded: "The second, and perhaps the most important observation we made, is that a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders. . . . Categorizing them in this way revealed important differences in the pattern of their sexual preferences."[33]
> 
> The _International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology _refers to homosexual pedophiles as a "distinct group." The victims of homosexual pedophiles "were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and that they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences. . . . Other studies [showed a] greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls" and that the "recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders."[34]
> 
> Homosexuals and Homosexual Pedophiles Engage in a Wide Variety of Sexual Behavior that Belies Simplistic Categories
> Despite this evidence, in their efforts to divorce homosexuality from pedophilia, homosexual apologists insist on a rigid, narrow definition of the terms "homosexual" and "pedophile" that permits no overlap of the terms. They deny that homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys. They also claim that pedophiles cannot be classified as "homosexual" if at any time they have had sexual relations with women.
> 
> However, such a narrow definition does not do justice to the complex nature of pedophilia. Researchers have long been aware that pedophiles exhibit a wide variety of sexual attractions and behavior--often to draw attention away from their primary lust for boys. A study on sex offenders in the _International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology _notes that "the reason child sexual abusers are successful at remaining undetected is because they do not fit a stereotype."[35]
> 
> The data indicates that both homosexuality and pedophilia are intersecting categories that admit to a wide variety of sexual behavior:
> 
> Homosexual Males are Sexually Attracted to Underage Boys
> A study in _Archives of Sexual Behavior _found that homosexual men are attracted to young males. The study compared the sexual age preferences of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that, in marked contrast to the other three categories, "all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories," which included males as young as age fifteen.[36]
> 
> In _The Gay Report, _by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger."[37]
> 
> Conversely, Homosexual Pedophiles are Often Attracted to Adult Males
> A study of sex offenders against male children in _Behavior Research and Therapy _found that male homosexual pedophiles are sexually attracted to "males of all ages." Compared to non-offenders, the offenders showed "greater arousal" to slides of nude males as old as twenty-four: "As a group, the child molesters responsed [sp] with moderate sexual arousal . . . to the nude males of all ages."[38]
> 
> A study of Canadians imprisoned for pedophilia in the _Journal of Interpersonal Violence _noted that some of the adult male offenders engaged in homosexual acts with adult males.[39]
> 
> Many pedophiles, in fact, consider themselves to be homosexual. A study of 229 convicted child molesters in _Archives of Sexual Behavior _found that "eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual."[40]
> 
> Fr. John Harvey, founder and director of Courage, a support ministry for Catholics who struggle with same-sex attraction, explains that "the pedophile differs from the ordinary homosexual in that the former admires _boyishness _in the object of his affections, while the latter admires manliness."[41] However, the categories are not completely separate:
> 
> While granting that the majority of homosexuals are not aroused by young boys, the distinction between homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia is not quite absolute. In some cases the interest oscillates between young adolescents and adults, in others between boys and adolescents; in exceptional cases a man may be interested in boys at one time and adults at another.[42] Many Pedophiles are Attracted to Women, Marry, and Have Children
> Gay activists insist that pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality because pedophiles are only sexually interested in children, whereas homosexuals only have sexual relations with adults. We have already seen that this stereotypical view is not correct with regard to homosexuals. There is also abundant evidence demonstrating that, while primarily interested in children, pedophiles nevertheless exhibit a wide variety of sexual behaviors, including relationships with women:
> 
> A study in _Child Abuse and Neglect _found that 48 percent of the offenders either were married or had been married at some time.[43]
> 
> The _Journal of Interpersonal Violence_ studied the sexual preferences of male pedophiles who sexually abused children. When they compared the sexual response of the pedophiles with the control group, they found, unexpectedly: "Surprisingly, the two groups did not differ in their response to the nude female stimuli."[44]
> 
> A study in the _Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa _reported that "most of the middle-aged pedophiles have had significant adult sexual activity."[45] Fifty-eight percent of the pedophiles in one study had at least one child, while other research indicated that "more than two-thirds of the married pedophiles in their sample had children, with an average of two to three children per subject."[46]
> 
> A report by the Department of Justice addressed the devious stratagems of pedophiles, who will go to great lengths to conceal their true desires: "Preferential sex offenders may be 'pillars of the community' and are often described as 'nice guys.' They almost always have a means of access to children (for example, through marriage, neighborhood, or occupation.)"[47]
> 
> Thus, the evidence shows that homosexual pedophiles cannot be narrowly defined as individuals who are solely attracted to underage boys. In fact there is considerable overlap between homosexuality and pedophilia.
> 
> PEDOPHILIA IN GAY CULTURE The Historical Connection between Pedophilia and the Gay Rights Movement
> David Thorstad is a homosexual activist and historian of the gay rights movement.[48] He is a former president of New York's Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), a prototype activist group founded in December 1969. The GAA at its inception opposed age of consent laws, which prohibited adults from having sex with children.[49] Thorstad is also a pedophile and founding member of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).
> 
> Thorstad argues that there is a natural and undeniable connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. He expresses bitterness that the gay rights movement has, in his view, abandoned pedophilia. Thorstad writes: "Boy-lovers were involved in the gay movement from the beginning, and their presence was tolerated. Gay youth groups encouraged adults to attend their dances. . . . There was a mood of tolerance, even joy at discovering the myriad of lifestyles within the gay and lesbian subculture."[50]
> 
> The inaugural issue of the _Gay Community News _in 1979 published a "Statement to the Gay Liberation Movement on the Issue of Man/Boy Love," which challenged the movement to return to a vision of sexual liberation. It argued that "the ultimate goal of gay liberation is the achievement of sexual freedom for all--not just equal rights for 'lesbian and gay men,' but also freedom of sexual expression for young people and children."
> 
> In the early years there was some reluctance to accept pedophilia, primarily among feminist and lesbian activist groups. In March 1979 the Lesbian Feminist Liberation (LFL) accusing "so-called Man/Boy Lovers" of "attempting to legitimize sex between children and adults. . . . Feminists easily recognize this as the latest attempt to make palatable the sexual exploitation of children." The coalition went on record as opposing "the sexual abuse of children by heterosexual or homosexual persons."[51]
> 
> Despite this opposition, Thorstad claims that by 1985 homosexual pedophiles had won acceptance within the gay movement. He cites Jim Kepner, then curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles: "A point I've been trying to make is that if we reject the boylovers in our midst today we'd better stop waving the banner of the Ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Horatio Alger, and Shakespeare. We'd better stop claiming them as part of our heritage unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay today."[52]
> 
> In 1985 NAMBLA was admitted as a member in New York's council of Lesbian and Gay Organizations as well as the International Gay Association--now the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA). In the mid-1990's ILGA's association with NAMBLA and other pedophile groups cost the organization it's status as a Non-Governmental Organization in the United Nations.
> 
> ILGA's renewed attempt to gain admittance to the UN was rejected again in April 2002 because the organization "did not document that it had purged pedophile groups such as [NAMBLA]." The _Washington Times _reports that Ishtiag H. Anrabi, Pakistani delegate to the UN Economic and Social Council, expressed concern that ILGA was continuing to be secretive about ties with pedophile groups: "For more than a year, the ILGA has refused to provide documentation or allow review of its membership list to demonstrate that pedophilia groups have been expelled."[53]
> 
> Pedophile Themes Abound in Gay Literature
> The late "beat" poet Allen Ginsberg illustrates the seamless connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Many know Ginsberg as an illustrious "out" homosexual poet: fewer are aware that he was also a pedophile.
> 
> Biographer Raymond-Jean Frontain refers to Ginsberg's publications in both NAMBLABulletin and NAMBLAJournal. He discusses how Ginsberg's biographers failed to discuss his poems that contained pederastic themes:
> 
> Although both Shumacher and Barry Miles (Ginsberg's initial biographer) frankly discuss Ginsberg's sexual politics, neither refers to his involvement with the controversial North American Man/Boy Love Association. . . . I reread Collected Poems and Ginsberg's two subsequent collections, surprised by the pattern of references to anal intercourse and to pederasty that emerged.[54]
> Ginsberg was one of the first of a growing number of homosexual writers who cater to the fascination with pedophilia in the gay community. Mary Eberstadt, writing in the _Weekly Standard, _documents how the taboo against sex with children continues to erode--with the impetus coming from homosexual writers.[55]
> 
> Revealingly, the examples she provides of pedophilia in current literature come from gay fiction. Eberstadt cites the _Village Voice, _which states that "Gay fiction is rich with idyllic accounts of 'intergenerational relationships,' as such affairs are respectfully called these days."[56] Other examples of pedophilia-themed gay fiction include:
> 
> In the introduction of the "mainstream" homosexual anthology _Penguin Book on International Gay Writing,_ David Leavitt notes matter-of-factly that "Another 'forbidden' topic from which European writers seem less likely to shrink is the love of older men for young boys." Leavitt praises one book with a pedophilic theme included in the anthology as a "coolly assured narrative [which] compels the reader to imagine the world from a perspective he might ordinarily condemn."[57]
> 
> Several texts included in another anthology, _The Gay Canon: Great Books Every Gay Man Should Read, _feature scenes of man-boy sex. One such book is praised as "an operatic adventure into the realms of love, personality, ambition and art . . . a pure joy to read." The protagonist is "a pedophile's dream: the mind of a man in the body of a boy."[58] Another novel which includes graphic descriptions of sexual violence against boys is said to "[tear] straight to the heart of one of the greatest sources, community-wide, of 1990's gay angst: What to do with men who love boys?"[59]
> 
> Yet another anthology of homosexual fiction, _A History of Gay Literature: The Male Tradition, _published by Yale University Press, includes "a longish chapter on 'Boys and Boyhood' which is a seemingly definitive account of pro-pedophile literary works."[60] The author appears more concerned with the feelings and emotions of the man than with his boy victim. He explores the question of "whether or not you regard [having sex with boys] as a way of retreating from life or, on the contrary, _as a way of engaging with it at its most honest and least corrupted level."_[61]
> 
> A significant percentage of books that have appeared on the Gay Men's Press fiction bestseller list contain pedophilia themes, including:
> 
> _Some Boys: _described as a "memoir of a lover of boys" that "evokes the author's young friends across four decades."[62] _For a Lost Soldier:_ the story of a sexual relationship between a soldier and an eleven-year-old boy, set during World War II.[63]
> _A Good Start, Considering: _yet another story about an eleven-year-old boy (!) who suffers sexual abuse but is rescued by a teenager who "offers him love and affection"[64]
> _Terre Haute: _billed as "A poetic novel of sexual awakening in the American Midwest, tracing an adolescent's journey from introspection to perilous desire."
> _Shiva and Arun: _the story of two Indian adolescents who "discover early on the joys of sex."
> _Teardrops on My Drum:_ barefoot kids in 1920's Liverpool search for "adventure, love and sex." Pro-pedophilia Publications
> Recent years have seen the appearance of publications that lend a scholarly veneer to the fascination with pedophilia in the gay community. Such publications attempt to make the case for "intergenerational intimacy." The nation's largest gay publisher, Alyson Publications, which distributes _Daddy's Roommate_ and other homosexual books that promote homosexuality to children, publishes books advocating man-boy sex, including:
> 
> _Paedophilia: The Radical Case, _which contains detailed information on how to engage in sexual relations with young boys.[65]
> 
> _The Age Taboo,_ another defense of pedophiliawhich claims: "Boy-lovers . . . are not child molesters. The child abusers are . . . parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody."[66]
> 
> The Journal of Homosexuality and Pedophilia
> The _Journal of Homosexuality _is viewed as the premier "mainstream" English-language publication of the gay movement. One prominent editor is John DeCecco, a psychologist at San Francisco State University who also serves on the editorial board of the Dutch pedophile journal _Paidika._ It is therefore not surprising to see pedophilia promoted on its pages.
> 
> In 1990 the _Journal of Homosexuality _published a series of essays on pedophilia that were eventually published as _Male Inter-Generational Intimacy:Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives_, edited by pedophile Edward Brongersma. None of the essays offered any substantive criticism of pedophilia: most blatantly promoted man-boy love as the natural right of homosexuals.
> 
> In 1999 Helmut Graupner, wrote an article on pedophilia in the _Journal of Homosexuality, _in which he claims: "Man/boy and woman/girl relations without doubt are same-sex relations and they do constitute an aspect of gay and lesbian life." Graupner argues that, as such, consensual sexual relations between adult homosexuals and youths as young as fourteen qualifies as a "gay rights issue."[67]
> 
> The fascination with pedophilia continues to be a cause of concern even within the gay community. Lesbian columnist Paula Martinac, writing in the homosexual newspaper _Washington Blade, _states:
> 
> ome gay men still maintain that an adult who has same-sex relations with someone under the legal age of consent is on some level doing the kid a favor by helping to bring him or her 'out.' It's not pedophilia, this thinking goes--pedophilia refers only to _little _kids. Instead, adult-youth sex is viewed as an important aspect of gay culture, with a history dating back to 'Greek love' of ancient times. This romanticized version of adult-youth sexual relations has been a staple of gay literature and has made appearances, too, in gay-themed films.[68]
> Martinac adds that "When some gay men venerate adult-youth sex as affirming while simultaneously declaring 'We're not pedophiles,' they send an inconsistent message to society. . . . The lesbian and gay community will never be successful in fighting the pedophile stereotype until we all stop condoning sex with young people."[69]
> 
> VICTIM'S TURNED VICTIMIZERS: THE CONSEQUENCES OF HOMOSEXUAL CHILD ABUSE
> The steadfast denial of the disturbing ties with pedophilia within the homosexual movement is no purely academic matter. Perhaps the most tragic aspect of the homosexual-pedophile connection is the fact that men who sexually molest boys all too often lead their victims into homosexuality and pedophilia. The evidence indicates that a high percentage of homosexuals and pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children:
> 
> The _Archives of Sexual Behavior _reports: "One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender."[70]
> 
> A study of 279 homosexual/bisexual men with AIDS and control patients discussed in the _Journal of the American Medical Association _reported: "More than half of both case and control patients reported a sexual act with a male by age 16 years, approximately 20 percent by age 10 years."[71]
> 
> Noted child sex abuse expert David Finkelhor found that "boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience. . . . Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences."[72]
> 
> A study in the _International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology _found:"In the case of childhood sexual experiences prior to the age of fourteen, 40 percent (of the pedophile sample) reported that they had engaged 'very often' in sexual activity with an adult, with 28 percent stating that this type of activity had occurred 'sometimes'"[73]
> 
> A _National Institute of Justice _report states that "the odds that a childhood sexual abuse victim will be arrested as an adult for any sex crime is 4.7 times higher than for people . . . who experienced no victimization as children."[74]
> 
> A _Child Abuse and Neglect _study found that 59 percent of male child sex offenders had been "victim of contact sexual abuse as a child."[75]
> 
> The _Journal of Child Psychiatry _noted that "there is a tendency among boy victims to recapitulate their own victimization, only this time with themselves in the role of perpetrator and someone else the victim."[76]
> 
> The circle of abuse is the tragic legacy of the attempts by homosexuals to legitimize having sex with boys. For too many boys it is already too late to protect them from those who took advantage of their need for love and attention. All too many later perpetrate the abuse by themselves engaging in the sexual abuse of boys. Only by exposing the lies, insincere denials, and deceptions--including those wrapped in scholastic garb--of those who prey sexually on children, can we hope to build a wall of protection around the helpless children among us.
> 
> Family Research Council​



Yup... Imprinting sexual deviancy is the leading cause OF sexual deviancy.   "Learned Behavior'... not a genetic predisposition toward the behavior... thus NORMALIZING the Abnormal Behavior can and will lead only to MORE of the behavior, which is likely where the long standing social taboos relevant to such, came from.


----------



## Syriusly

DrDoomNGloom said:


> *Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse*



Why do homophobes hate children?
Are Gays a Threat to Our Children

*Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?* A discussion of gay sexuality and homosexual molestation

When men molest little girls, they’re called “pedophiles” or “sexual predators”; heterosexuality is never blamed for the abuse. But when men molest little boys, they’re simply called “homosexuals”, as though sexual orientation were responsible for driving these men to their crimes. 4 56 7 8910 11,1213, 141516 1718 to review 269 medical records of Denver-area children who were sexually abused by adults. Of the 50 male children, 37 (74%) were molested by a man who had been in a heterosexual relationship with the child’s relative. Three were molested by women, five were molested by both parents, and three others were molested by non-relatives. Only one perpetrator could be identified as being possibly homosexual in his adult behavior.

Let’s consider what this means. If these men who abused boys in this study were in our stadium, all but one would have answered “no” to the question “Are you gay?” More importantly, if authorities were on the lookout for gay child molesters, they would have missed 49 of these 50 sexual predators because they would have been hidden among the 9,700 in our stadium who said they were not gay. And not only did they say they were not gay, they were married, had girlfriends, or were otherwise known to have sexual relationships with women. If law enforcement had been looking for the perpetrators among gay men, they never would have found them.

Dr. Jenny and her associates concluded that even if you use the worst case possibilities in their sample, no more than 3.1% of child sexual abuse cases reported to the Denver clinic were abused by someone who could be identified as possibly being gay, a proportion that is not far from the number of gays in the general population.

*Two Types of Predators*

As surprising as this may be, it only confirmed what Dr. Nicholas Groth, one of the leading experts in the study of child sexual abuse, demonstrated some sixteen years earlier. In 1978, Dr, Groth and Dr. Jean Birnbaum published a study of 175 convicted male child molesters in which they determined:

“The child offender is a relatively young adult either who has been sexually attracted to underage persons almost exclusively in his life or who turns to a child as a result of stresses in his adult sexual or marital relationships. Those offenders who are sexually attracted exclusively to children show a slight preference for boys over girls, yet these same individuals are uninterested in adult homosexual relationships. In fact, they frequently express a strong sexual aversion to adult males.” 1920 21 (Emphasis in the original)

Because his primary sexual interest is in children and not adults, he offers us the classic definition of a “pedophile.” Because he is fixated on children, he could not properly be considered to be either heterosexual or homosexual — the idea of having sex with an adult of either gender is often repulsive to him.

The regressed molester is very different. His attraction to children is usually more temporary. It is sometimes a matter of convenience, at other times, a matter of violent control or punishment. Unlike the fixated molester, the regressed molester’s primary sexual attraction is toward other adults. But stressful conditions that go along with adult responsibly or difficulties in his adult relationships may overwhelm him, causing his sexual attraction to “regress” towards children. This regression sometimes serves as a substitute for adult relationship, and his attraction to children may vary according to the varying stresses he encounters in his adult life demands.

In some cases, he may temporarily relate to the child as a peer, much as a fixated offender relates to children. But more often, he is simply lashing out or relieving the stresses in his life, and the child becomes a vulnerable and convenient target. He may find a sense of power in his sexual relationship with a child that he is unable to obtain with adult, and in these cases it is not unusual for this relationship to become coercive or violent. But regardless of the nature of the relationship, the gender of the child is often irrelevant — it is easy access and vulnerability that makes the child a target.

Research has shown time and time again that regressed offenders are very typically heterosexual in their adult relationships. Unlike our three percent sample, they date women and marry them. They often are parents, stepparents or extended family members of their victims. By all appearances — and by their own self identification — they are straight. Drs. Groth and Birnbaum emphasized this point, saying:

“In over 12 years of clinical experience working with child molesters, we have yet to see any example of a regression from an adult homosexual orientation. The child offender who is also attracted to and engaged in adult relationships is heterosexual.” 21 (Emphasis in the original)


----------



## Syriusly

DrDoomNGloom said:


> *Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse*


Hey little dick

Still waiting for you to tell us why this child shouldn't have been adopted

And now for some positive stories- here is the story of a child that Silhouette would have denied a parent- because the parent is gay





_I met my son 9 years ago while I was working at a skilled care facility and we had a unit for special needs adults. Minors were not usually placed there but the state allowed this for one week until a foster placement could be arranged.

Foster care could not be found and he was given a two week extension. Then I agreed to him home and provide respite until his mother could resume care. He could not walk or feed himself, and was not toilet trained. He was 7 years old at the time, primarily strapped in a wheelchair and had all care provided to him. He has cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder. I am a nurse by background so I had a tendency to see his potential.

It was tough the first year, but he accomplished self feeding, walking. Using the bathroom has also improved greatly. Our relationship changed from respite to guardianship to foster care to adoption.

He arrived at my house on July 3, 1998 and we have been a family since. He is absolutely my best gift ever in the whole world! He doesn't say many words although one he does say is "Dad".

I have always wanted a family which included a husband and children. I have been a foster parent and have decided that even though I have not found the right guy I want my own family. I have been approved to adopt again. This time I will have a sibling group of 2-3 children. I never really thought I could be so fortunate to have sons and daughters, but I will soon. And maybe then the right guy will find us.

Tim Dietzen
Appleton, Wisc._


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse*
> 
> IS02E3 07/02/2002
> Scandals involving the sexual abuse of under-age boys by homosexual priests have rocked the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, defenders of homosexuality argue that youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to include homosexuals among their adult leaders. Similarly, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist organization that targets schools, has spearheaded the formation of "Gay-Straight Alliances" among students. GLSEN encourages homosexual teachers--even in the youngest grades--to be open about their sexuality, as a way of providing role models to "gay" students. In addition, laws or policies banning employment discrimination based on "sexual orientation" usually make no exception for those who work with children or youth.
> 
> Many parents have become concerned that children may be molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even "recruited" into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle. Gay activists dismiss such concerns--in part, by strenuously insisting that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children.
> 
> However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:
> 
> *Pedophiles are invariably males: *Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.
> 
> *Significant numbers of victims are males: *Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).
> 
> *The 10 percent fallacy: *Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.
> 
> *Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: *Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.
> 
> *Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: *Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.
> 
> *Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Family Research Council
> 
> Faggots don't need kids, and the assertion that any of those children your referenced would be adopted by reasonable and prudent people, usually because of behavior problems / mental issues ................................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey little dick
> 
> Still waiting for you to tell us why this child shouldn't have been adopted
> 
> And now for some positive stories- here is the story of a child that Silhouette would have denied a parent- because the parent is gay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I met my son 9 years ago while I was working at a skilled care facility and we had a unit for special needs adults. Minors were not usually placed there but the state allowed this for one week until a foster placement could be arranged.
> 
> Foster care could not be found and he was given a two week extension. Then I agreed to him home and provide respite until his mother could resume care. He could not walk or feed himself, and was not toilet trained. He was 7 years old at the time, primarily strapped in a wheelchair and had all care provided to him. He has cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder. I am a nurse by background so I had a tendency to see his potential.
> 
> It was tough the first year, but he accomplished self feeding, walking. Using the bathroom has also improved greatly. Our relationship changed from respite to guardianship to foster care to adoption.
> 
> He arrived at my house on July 3, 1998 and we have been a family since. He is absolutely my best gift ever in the whole world! He doesn't say many words although one he does say is "Dad".
> 
> I have always wanted a family which included a husband and children. I have been a foster parent and have decided that even though I have not found the right guy I want my own family. I have been approved to adopt again. This time I will have a sibling group of 2-3 children. I never really thought I could be so fortunate to have sons and daughters, but I will soon. And maybe then the right guy will find us.
> 
> Tim Dietzen
> Appleton, Wisc._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse*
> 
> IS02E3 07/02/2002
> Scandals involving the sexual abuse of under-age boys by homosexual priests have rocked the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, defenders of homosexuality argue that youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to include homosexuals among their adult leaders. Similarly, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist organization that targets schools, has spearheaded the formation of "Gay-Straight Alliances" among students. GLSEN encourages homosexual teachers--even in the youngest grades--to be open about their sexuality, as a way of providing role models to "gay" students. In addition, laws or policies banning employment discrimination based on "sexual orientation" usually make no exception for those who work with children or youth.
> 
> Many parents have become concerned that children may be molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even "recruited" into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle. Gay activists dismiss such concerns--in part, by strenuously insisting that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children.
> 
> However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:
> 
> *Pedophiles are invariably males: *Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.
> 
> *Significant numbers of victims are males: *Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).
> 
> *The 10 percent fallacy: *Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.
> 
> *Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: *Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.
> 
> *Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: *Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.
> 
> *Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: *Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote "intergenerational intimacy."
> 
> MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
> Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.
> 
> The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.
> 
> Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases
> An essay on adult sex offenders in the book _Sexual Offending Against Children _reported:"It is widely believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males and that female sex offenders only account for a tiny proportion of offences. Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!"[1]
> 
> Kee MacFarlane, et al., writing in _Sexual Abuse of Young Children: Evaluation and Treatment_ report:"The large majority of sexual perpetrators appear to be males (Herman and Hirschman, 1981; Lindholm and Willey, 1983)."[2]
> 
> A report by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children states: "In both clinical and non-clinical samples, the vast majority of offenders are male."[3]
> 
> A study in the _Journal of Sex Research _states that "pedophilia does not exist, or is extremely rare, in women."[4]
> 
> A Significant Percentage of Child Sexual Abuse Victims are Boys
> According to the _Journal of Child Psychiatry_: "It was commonly believed fifteen years ago that girls were abused in excess of boys in a ratio of about 9 to 1, but contemporary studies now indicate that the ratio of girls to boys abused has narrowed remarkably. . . . The majority of community studies suggest a . . . ratio . . . in the order of 2 to 4 girls to 1 boy."[5] Another study found that "some authors now believe that boys may be sexually abused as commonly as girls (Groth, 1978; O'Brien, 1980)."[6]
> 
> A study of 457 male sex offenders against children in _Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy _found that "approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males."[7]
> 
> Sexual Abuse of Boys is Underreported
> The actual percentage of child sexual abuse victims who are boys very likely exceeds the above estimates. Many researchers echo the view of the _Journal of Child Psychiatry _study, which refers to the "under-reporting of the incidence and prevalence of sexual abuse in boys."[8]
> 
> Dr. Robert Johnson, in _Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, _reports: "The vast majority of cases of male sexual molestation is not reported. As a result, these young men keep both the incidents and their feelings to themselves."[9]
> 
> The Department of Justice report on child sexual exploitation explains why the percentage of boy victims is underestimated: "Adolescent boy victims are highly likely to deny certain types of sexual activity. . . . They are embarrassed and ashamed of their behavior and rightfully believe that society will not understand their victimization. . . . No matter what the investigator does, most adolescent boys will deny they were victims."[10]
> 
> The _Journal of Child Psychiatry _adds: "Boys are usually encultured into an ethos where self-reliance, independence and sexual prowess are valued, while showing hurt or homosexuality are denigrated. . . . This may lead to powerful repression or deletion of the experience, with failure to report."[11]
> 
> Homosexuals Comprise Less than 3 Percent of the Population
> Relying upon three large data sets: the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. census, a recent study in _Demography _estimates the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population at 2.5 percent, and the number of exclusive lesbians at 1.4 percent.[12]
> 
> A study of the sexual behavior of men in the United States based on the National Survey of Men (a nationally representative sample comprised of 3,321 men aged twenty to thirty-nine, published in _Family Planning Perspectives), _found that "2 percent of sexually active men aged twenty to thirty-nine . . . had had any same-gender sexual activity during the last ten years. Approximately 1 percent of the men (1.3 percent among whites and 0.2 percent among blacks) reported having had exclusively homosexual activity.[13]
> 
> J. Gordon Muir, writing in _The Wall Street Journal, _discusses a number of studies that have found that homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.[14]
> 
> In a survey of studies on homosexuals in different populations, the _Archives of Sexual Behavior _reported a random sample of Hawaii State residents interviewed by telephone. The study found "just about 3 percent of males and 1.2 percent of females as having engaged in same-sex or bisexual activity."[15] However, this relatively higher number is attributed to the fact that the study was not limited to exclusive homosexuals, but included all those who at some time in their lives engaged in same-sex activities.[16]
> 
> Homosexual Pedophiles are Vastly Overrepresented in Child Sex Abuse Cases
> Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. A study in the _Journal of Sex Research _found, as we have noted above, that "approximately one-third of [child sex offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls." The authors then make a prescient observation: "_Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1_."[17]
> 
> In other words, although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.
> 
> Similarly, the _Archives of Sexual Behavior _also noted that homosexual pedophiles are significantly overrepresented in child sex offence cases:
> 
> The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 to 4 percent of men attracted to adults prefer men (ACSF Investigators, 1992; Billy et al.,1993; Fay et al.,1989; Johnson et al.,1992); in contrast, around 25 to 40 percent of men attracted to children prefer boys (Blanchard et al.,1999; Gebhard et al.,1965; Mohr et al.,1964). _Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles."*[18]*_
> The stark imbalance between homosexual and heterosexual child molestationswas confirmed in the _Archives of Sexual Behavior _study itself, which divided 260 pedophile participants into three groups: "152 heterosexual pedophiles (men with offenses or self-reported attractions involving girls only), 43 bisexual pedophiles (boys and girls), and 65 homosexual pedophiles (boys only)."[19] In other words, 25 percent of the offenders were homosexual pedophiles--or 41 percent if those who molest girls as well as boys are included.
> 
> Other studies report an unusually high percentage of child molestations by homosexual pedophiles:
> 
> A study on pedophilia in the _Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa_ reported: "According to the literature, findings of a two-to-one ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles have been documented."[20]
> 
> The _Journal of Sex Research _reports a study that included "199 offenders against female children and 96 offenders against male children. . . . This would indicate a proportional prevalence of 32 percent of homosexual offenders against children."[21]
> 
> A study of male child sex offenders in _Child Abuse and Neglect _found that fourteen percent targeted only males, and a further 28 percent chose males as well as females as victims, thus indicating that 42 percent of male pedophiles engaged in homosexual molestation.[22]
> 
> ARE MEN WHO MOLEST BOYS REALLY 'HOMOSEXUALS'? Gay Apologists Insist on a Simplistic Stereotype of Pedophilia
> Central to the attempts to separate homosexuality from pedophilia is the claim that pedophiles cannot, by definition, be considered homosexuals. Relying upon a questionable methodology[23], the gay advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign published a "Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation and Child Abuse," that states: "A sexual abuser who molests a child of the same sex is usually not considered homosexual."[24]
> 
> The basis for this claim is the view that pedophiles who molest boys cannot be considered homosexual if that individual has at any time been married or sexually involved with women.
> 
> 'Homosexual Pedophiles': A Clinical Term
> The fact is, however, that the terms "homosexual" and "pedophile" are not mutually exclusive: they describe two intersecting types of sexual attraction. _Webster's Dictionary _defines "homosexual" as someone who is sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. "Pedophile" is defined as "an adult who is sexually attracted to young children." The former definition refers to the _gender_ of the desired sexual object, while the latter refers to the _age _of the desired sexual object.
> 
> A male "homosexual pedophile," then, is defined as someone who is generally (but not exclusively, see below) sexually attracted to boys, while a female "homosexual pedophile" is sexually attracted to girls.[25]
> 
> The term "homosexual pedophile" was first used in the early 20th century by the Viennese psychiatrist Dr. Richard von Krafft -Ebing, who pioneered the systematic study of sexual deviance. Krafft-Ebing described pedophiles as heterosexually, homosexually or bisexually oriented.[26] This division has been accepted by pedophiles themselves,[27] and is well attested in the literature:
> 
> A study of child molesters in _Behavior Research and Therapy _found that "a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders."[28]
> 
> The _Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy _published a study on the same topic, which discussed "the proportional prevalences of heterosexual and homosexual pedophilia."[29] The study commented on a study that found that "the percentage of the homosexual pedophiles would be 45.8." Even adjusted downward for exhibitionists, "this would still indicate a much higher percentage (34 percent) of homosexuals among pedophiles than among men who prefer physically mature partners."[30]
> 
> In a review of studies on pedophilia, the _Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa _concluded: "The findings of previous studies report that pedophiles can be divided into heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles according to their erotic preference. . . . This was confirmed in this recent study."[31] The article classified homosexual pedophilia into three types: the socially inadequate homosexual pedophile, the intrusive homosexual pedophile, and the undifferentiated homosexual pedophile.[32]
> 
> A study of pedophiles in _Behavior Research and Therapy _concluded: "The second, and perhaps the most important observation we made, is that a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders. . . . Categorizing them in this way revealed important differences in the pattern of their sexual preferences."[33]
> 
> The _International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology _refers to homosexual pedophiles as a "distinct group." The victims of homosexual pedophiles "were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and that they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences. . . . Other studies [showed a] greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls" and that the "recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders."[34]
> 
> Homosexuals and Homosexual Pedophiles Engage in a Wide Variety of Sexual Behavior that Belies Simplistic Categories
> Despite this evidence, in their efforts to divorce homosexuality from pedophilia, homosexual apologists insist on a rigid, narrow definition of the terms "homosexual" and "pedophile" that permits no overlap of the terms. They deny that homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys. They also claim that pedophiles cannot be classified as "homosexual" if at any time they have had sexual relations with women.
> 
> However, such a narrow definition does not do justice to the complex nature of pedophilia. Researchers have long been aware that pedophiles exhibit a wide variety of sexual attractions and behavior--often to draw attention away from their primary lust for boys. A study on sex offenders in the _International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology _notes that "the reason child sexual abusers are successful at remaining undetected is because they do not fit a stereotype."[35]
> 
> The data indicates that both homosexuality and pedophilia are intersecting categories that admit to a wide variety of sexual behavior:
> 
> Homosexual Males are Sexually Attracted to Underage Boys
> A study in _Archives of Sexual Behavior _found that homosexual men are attracted to young males. The study compared the sexual age preferences of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that, in marked contrast to the other three categories, "all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories," which included males as young as age fifteen.[36]
> 
> In _The Gay Report, _by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger."[37]
> 
> Conversely, Homosexual Pedophiles are Often Attracted to Adult Males
> A study of sex offenders against male children in _Behavior Research and Therapy _found that male homosexual pedophiles are sexually attracted to "males of all ages." Compared to non-offenders, the offenders showed "greater arousal" to slides of nude males as old as twenty-four: "As a group, the child molesters responsed [sp] with moderate sexual arousal . . . to the nude males of all ages."[38]
> 
> A study of Canadians imprisoned for pedophilia in the _Journal of Interpersonal Violence _noted that some of the adult male offenders engaged in homosexual acts with adult males.[39]
> 
> Many pedophiles, in fact, consider themselves to be homosexual. A study of 229 convicted child molesters in _Archives of Sexual Behavior _found that "eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual."[40]
> 
> Fr. John Harvey, founder and director of Courage, a support ministry for Catholics who struggle with same-sex attraction, explains that "the pedophile differs from the ordinary homosexual in that the former admires _boyishness _in the object of his affections, while the latter admires manliness."[41] However, the categories are not completely separate:
> 
> While granting that the majority of homosexuals are not aroused by young boys, the distinction between homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia is not quite absolute. In some cases the interest oscillates between young adolescents and adults, in others between boys and adolescents; in exceptional cases a man may be interested in boys at one time and adults at another.[42] Many Pedophiles are Attracted to Women, Marry, and Have Children
> Gay activists insist that pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality because pedophiles are only sexually interested in children, whereas homosexuals only have sexual relations with adults. We have already seen that this stereotypical view is not correct with regard to homosexuals. There is also abundant evidence demonstrating that, while primarily interested in children, pedophiles nevertheless exhibit a wide variety of sexual behaviors, including relationships with women:
> 
> A study in _Child Abuse and Neglect _found that 48 percent of the offenders either were married or had been married at some time.[43]
> 
> The _Journal of Interpersonal Violence_ studied the sexual preferences of male pedophiles who sexually abused children. When they compared the sexual response of the pedophiles with the control group, they found, unexpectedly: "Surprisingly, the two groups did not differ in their response to the nude female stimuli."[44]
> 
> A study in the _Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa _reported that "most of the middle-aged pedophiles have had significant adult sexual activity."[45] Fifty-eight percent of the pedophiles in one study had at least one child, while other research indicated that "more than two-thirds of the married pedophiles in their sample had children, with an average of two to three children per subject."[46]
> 
> A report by the Department of Justice addressed the devious stratagems of pedophiles, who will go to great lengths to conceal their true desires: "Preferential sex offenders may be 'pillars of the community' and are often described as 'nice guys.' They almost always have a means of access to children (for example, through marriage, neighborhood, or occupation.)"[47]
> 
> Thus, the evidence shows that homosexual pedophiles cannot be narrowly defined as individuals who are solely attracted to underage boys. In fact there is considerable overlap between homosexuality and pedophilia.
> 
> PEDOPHILIA IN GAY CULTURE The Historical Connection between Pedophilia and the Gay Rights Movement
> David Thorstad is a homosexual activist and historian of the gay rights movement.[48] He is a former president of New York's Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), a prototype activist group founded in December 1969. The GAA at its inception opposed age of consent laws, which prohibited adults from having sex with children.[49] Thorstad is also a pedophile and founding member of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).
> 
> Thorstad argues that there is a natural and undeniable connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. He expresses bitterness that the gay rights movement has, in his view, abandoned pedophilia. Thorstad writes: "Boy-lovers were involved in the gay movement from the beginning, and their presence was tolerated. Gay youth groups encouraged adults to attend their dances. . . . There was a mood of tolerance, even joy at discovering the myriad of lifestyles within the gay and lesbian subculture."[50]
> 
> The inaugural issue of the _Gay Community News _in 1979 published a "Statement to the Gay Liberation Movement on the Issue of Man/Boy Love," which challenged the movement to return to a vision of sexual liberation. It argued that "the ultimate goal of gay liberation is the achievement of sexual freedom for all--not just equal rights for 'lesbian and gay men,' but also freedom of sexual expression for young people and children."
> 
> In the early years there was some reluctance to accept pedophilia, primarily among feminist and lesbian activist groups. In March 1979 the Lesbian Feminist Liberation (LFL) accusing "so-called Man/Boy Lovers" of "attempting to legitimize sex between children and adults. . . . Feminists easily recognize this as the latest attempt to make palatable the sexual exploitation of children." The coalition went on record as opposing "the sexual abuse of children by heterosexual or homosexual persons."[51]
> 
> Despite this opposition, Thorstad claims that by 1985 homosexual pedophiles had won acceptance within the gay movement. He cites Jim Kepner, then curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles: "A point I've been trying to make is that if we reject the boylovers in our midst today we'd better stop waving the banner of the Ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Horatio Alger, and Shakespeare. We'd better stop claiming them as part of our heritage unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay today."[52]
> 
> In 1985 NAMBLA was admitted as a member in New York's council of Lesbian and Gay Organizations as well as the International Gay Association--now the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA). In the mid-1990's ILGA's association with NAMBLA and other pedophile groups cost the organization it's status as a Non-Governmental Organization in the United Nations.
> 
> ILGA's renewed attempt to gain admittance to the UN was rejected again in April 2002 because the organization "did not document that it had purged pedophile groups such as [NAMBLA]." The _Washington Times _reports that Ishtiag H. Anrabi, Pakistani delegate to the UN Economic and Social Council, expressed concern that ILGA was continuing to be secretive about ties with pedophile groups: "For more than a year, the ILGA has refused to provide documentation or allow review of its membership list to demonstrate that pedophilia groups have been expelled."[53]
> 
> Pedophile Themes Abound in Gay Literature
> The late "beat" poet Allen Ginsberg illustrates the seamless connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Many know Ginsberg as an illustrious "out" homosexual poet: fewer are aware that he was also a pedophile.
> 
> Biographer Raymond-Jean Frontain refers to Ginsberg's publications in both NAMBLABulletin and NAMBLAJournal. He discusses how Ginsberg's biographers failed to discuss his poems that contained pederastic themes:
> 
> Although both Shumacher and Barry Miles (Ginsberg's initial biographer) frankly discuss Ginsberg's sexual politics, neither refers to his involvement with the controversial North American Man/Boy Love Association. . . . I reread Collected Poems and Ginsberg's two subsequent collections, surprised by the pattern of references to anal intercourse and to pederasty that emerged.[54]
> Ginsberg was one of the first of a growing number of homosexual writers who cater to the fascination with pedophilia in the gay community. Mary Eberstadt, writing in the _Weekly Standard, _documents how the taboo against sex with children continues to erode--with the impetus coming from homosexual writers.[55]
> 
> Revealingly, the examples she provides of pedophilia in current literature come from gay fiction. Eberstadt cites the _Village Voice, _which states that "Gay fiction is rich with idyllic accounts of 'intergenerational relationships,' as such affairs are respectfully called these days."[56] Other examples of pedophilia-themed gay fiction include:
> 
> In the introduction of the "mainstream" homosexual anthology _Penguin Book on International Gay Writing,_ David Leavitt notes matter-of-factly that "Another 'forbidden' topic from which European writers seem less likely to shrink is the love of older men for young boys." Leavitt praises one book with a pedophilic theme included in the anthology as a "coolly assured narrative [which] compels the reader to imagine the world from a perspective he might ordinarily condemn."[57]
> 
> Several texts included in another anthology, _The Gay Canon: Great Books Every Gay Man Should Read, _feature scenes of man-boy sex. One such book is praised as "an operatic adventure into the realms of love, personality, ambition and art . . . a pure joy to read." The protagonist is "a pedophile's dream: the mind of a man in the body of a boy."[58] Another novel which includes graphic descriptions of sexual violence against boys is said to "[tear] straight to the heart of one of the greatest sources, community-wide, of 1990's gay angst: What to do with men who love boys?"[59]
> 
> Yet another anthology of homosexual fiction, _A History of Gay Literature: The Male Tradition, _published by Yale University Press, includes "a longish chapter on 'Boys and Boyhood' which is a seemingly definitive account of pro-pedophile literary works."[60] The author appears more concerned with the feelings and emotions of the man than with his boy victim. He explores the question of "whether or not you regard [having sex with boys] as a way of retreating from life or, on the contrary, _as a way of engaging with it at its most honest and least corrupted level."_[61]
> 
> A significant percentage of books that have appeared on the Gay Men's Press fiction bestseller list contain pedophilia themes, including:
> 
> _Some Boys: _described as a "memoir of a lover of boys" that "evokes the author's young friends across four decades."[62] _For a Lost Soldier:_ the story of a sexual relationship between a soldier and an eleven-year-old boy, set during World War II.[63]
> _A Good Start, Considering: _yet another story about an eleven-year-old boy (!) who suffers sexual abuse but is rescued by a teenager who "offers him love and affection"[64]
> _Terre Haute: _billed as "A poetic novel of sexual awakening in the American Midwest, tracing an adolescent's journey from introspection to perilous desire."
> _Shiva and Arun: _the story of two Indian adolescents who "discover early on the joys of sex."
> _Teardrops on My Drum:_ barefoot kids in 1920's Liverpool search for "adventure, love and sex." Pro-pedophilia Publications
> Recent years have seen the appearance of publications that lend a scholarly veneer to the fascination with pedophilia in the gay community. Such publications attempt to make the case for "intergenerational intimacy." The nation's largest gay publisher, Alyson Publications, which distributes _Daddy's Roommate_ and other homosexual books that promote homosexuality to children, publishes books advocating man-boy sex, including:
> 
> _Paedophilia: The Radical Case, _which contains detailed information on how to engage in sexual relations with young boys.[65]
> 
> _The Age Taboo,_ another defense of pedophiliawhich claims: "Boy-lovers . . . are not child molesters. The child abusers are . . . parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody."[66]
> 
> The Journal of Homosexuality and Pedophilia
> The _Journal of Homosexuality _is viewed as the premier "mainstream" English-language publication of the gay movement. One prominent editor is John DeCecco, a psychologist at San Francisco State University who also serves on the editorial board of the Dutch pedophile journal _Paidika._ It is therefore not surprising to see pedophilia promoted on its pages.
> 
> In 1990 the _Journal of Homosexuality _published a series of essays on pedophilia that were eventually published as _Male Inter-Generational Intimacy:Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives_, edited by pedophile Edward Brongersma. None of the essays offered any substantive criticism of pedophilia: most blatantly promoted man-boy love as the natural right of homosexuals.
> 
> In 1999 Helmut Graupner, wrote an article on pedophilia in the _Journal of Homosexuality, _in which he claims: "Man/boy and woman/girl relations without doubt are same-sex relations and they do constitute an aspect of gay and lesbian life." Graupner argues that, as such, consensual sexual relations between adult homosexuals and youths as young as fourteen qualifies as a "gay rights issue."[67]
> 
> The fascination with pedophilia continues to be a cause of concern even within the gay community. Lesbian columnist Paula Martinac, writing in the homosexual newspaper _Washington Blade, _states:
> 
> ome gay men still maintain that an adult who has same-sex relations with someone under the legal age of consent is on some level doing the kid a favor by helping to bring him or her 'out.' It's not pedophilia, this thinking goes--pedophilia refers only to _little _kids. Instead, adult-youth sex is viewed as an important aspect of gay culture, with a history dating back to 'Greek love' of ancient times. This romanticized version of adult-youth sexual relations has been a staple of gay literature and has made appearances, too, in gay-themed films.[68]
> Martinac adds that "When some gay men venerate adult-youth sex as affirming while simultaneously declaring 'We're not pedophiles,' they send an inconsistent message to society. . . . The lesbian and gay community will never be successful in fighting the pedophile stereotype until we all stop condoning sex with young people."[69]
> 
> VICTIM'S TURNED VICTIMIZERS: THE CONSEQUENCES OF HOMOSEXUAL CHILD ABUSE
> The steadfast denial of the disturbing ties with pedophilia within the homosexual movement is no purely academic matter. Perhaps the most tragic aspect of the homosexual-pedophile connection is the fact that men who sexually molest boys all too often lead their victims into homosexuality and pedophilia. The evidence indicates that a high percentage of homosexuals and pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children:
> 
> The _Archives of Sexual Behavior _reports: "One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender."[70]
> 
> A study of 279 homosexual/bisexual men with AIDS and control patients discussed in the _Journal of the American Medical Association _reported: "More than half of both case and control patients reported a sexual act with a male by age 16 years, approximately 20 percent by age 10 years."[71]
> 
> Noted child sex abuse expert David Finkelhor found that "boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience. . . . Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences."[72]
> 
> A study in the _International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology _found:"In the case of childhood sexual experiences prior to the age of fourteen, 40 percent (of the pedophile sample) reported that they had engaged 'very often' in sexual activity with an adult, with 28 percent stating that this type of activity had occurred 'sometimes'"[73]
> 
> A _National Institute of Justice _report states that "the odds that a childhood sexual abuse victim will be arrested as an adult for any sex crime is 4.7 times higher than for people . . . who experienced no victimization as children."[74]
> 
> A _Child Abuse and Neglect _study found that 59 percent of male child sex offenders had been "victim of contact sexual abuse as a child."[75]
> 
> The _Journal of Child Psychiatry _noted that "there is a tendency among boy victims to recapitulate their own victimization, only this time with themselves in the role of perpetrator and someone else the victim."[76]
> 
> The circle of abuse is the tragic legacy of the attempts by homosexuals to legitimize having sex with boys. For too many boys it is already too late to protect them from those who took advantage of their need for love and attention. All too many later perpetrate the abuse by themselves engaging in the sexual abuse of boys. Only by exposing the lies, insincere denials, and deceptions--including those wrapped in scholastic garb--of those who prey sexually on children, can we hope to build a wall of protection around the helpless children among us.
> 
> Family Research Council​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup... Imprinting sexual deviancy is the leading cause OF sexual deviancy.  .
Click to expand...


Yup- your an idiot.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.

Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.



That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.

Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.

I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
Click to expand...



Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.


Long term exposure to pornography normalizes sexual stimulation through redundant exposure to stimuli... such exposure drives the individual to craving farther and farther down the stimulus rabbit hole, wherein 'normal' sexual visuals no longer provides stimulation and the subject craves material of a more forbidden nature... left unchecked, by an individual who is incapable of objective reason, finds their behavior 'NORMAL', the subject will crave action of a forbidden nature to satisfy more and more obsessive, compulsive cravings.

All of which could readily be resolved by a modicum of humility and the means to reason objectively.

Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... and the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
Click to expand...


You have no idea if any of "those 'men' were sexually abnormal" or how many were the users pornography.  While it is a fact that the clergy of the fundamentalist far right vicious addicts to porn and vice.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
Click to expand...



Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I was going to point out the overwhelming addiction that male hetero fascists have to porn.


----------



## beagle9

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
Click to expand...

If one categorizes it all like we see people doing, then does it lesson the carnage that is found or rather will be found in each category that is being reviewed ? Does some categories escape just because one category may be more active than another at any given time ? I guess it all comes down to the stats when categories are being reviewed, and how the stats are then analyzed upon the findings that are then factual verses the non-factual.  Using this verses that does no good, except that each category under review is held up to it's own weight found in the problems that are being found within the category that is being scrutinized.


----------



## Kondor3

Jesus, is this _Queer-Bait_ thread still on its feet? Sheeesh!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
Click to expand...


Most people are most people...  and MOST people are normal people, who recognize that they're not the center of the universe and that THEIR responsibilities which they bear in sustaining their individual rights, sustain the rights of everyone... .  

That SOME people are disproportionally responsible for the crime of every nature, points to the ABNORMAL traits intrinsic to those people, not the least of those traits is they reject the responsibilities that sustain their rights and as a result, they tend toward behavior that provides for their needs to be satisfied, such will inevitably come at some expense, to someone else.

Homosexuals are disproportionally responsible for sexual abuse of minors... as are Leftists and the product of Left-think... who are disproportionally responsible for every MANNER of crime, on every level of society.

Now why is that?  

That is... because Left-think rests entirely upon Relativism, which axiomatically rejects objectivity, the essential element of truth, trust, morality and justice. 

See the problem?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

beagle9 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If one categorizes it all like we see people doing, then does it lesson the carnage that is found or rather will be found in each category that is being reviewed ? Does some categories escape just because one category may be more active than another at any given time ? I guess it all comes down to the stats when categories are being reviewed, and how the stats are then analyzed upon the findings that are then factual verses the non-factual.  Using this verses that does no good, except that each category under review is held up to it's own weight found in the problems that are being found within the category that is being scrutinized.
Click to expand...



And my reference to statistics is purely for parody, because I don't believe that using statistics to gin up hate for people is right. More often statistics are used to distort the truth rather than reveal it. People who use statistics to demonize gays don't like to have statistics used against them by throwing into relief some very uncomfortable truths, that children aren't being molested by homosexuals, they're being molested by heterosexuals with much greater frequency.  If they don't like having that exposed, then maybe they shouldn't be weaponizing statistics themselves when those statistics are far less flattering for their side.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people are most people...  and MOST people are normal people, who recognize that they're not the center of the universe and that THEIR responsibilities which they bear in sustaining their individual rights, sustain the rights of everyone... .
> 
> That SOME people are disproportionally responsible for the crime of every nature, points to the ABNORMAL traits intrinsic to those people, not the least of those traits is they reject the responsibilities that sustain their rights and as a result, they tend toward behavior that provides for their needs to be satisfied, such will inevitably come at some expense, to someone else.
> 
> Homosexuals are disproportionally responsible for sexual abuse of minors... as are Leftists and the product of Left-think... who are disproportionally responsible for every MANNER of crime, on every level of society.
> 
> Now why is that?
> 
> That is... because Left-think rests entirely upon Relativism, which axiomatically rejects objectivity, the essential element of truth, trust, morality and justice.
> 
> See the problem?
Click to expand...


No I don't.  I have two lady friends who are lesbians and now will soon get married because SSM is legal.  They've always been trusted with our children and have proven far more moral, modest, and trustworthy than anyone else I know.  Maybe I should let them know they're more likely to molest my children than I am.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
Click to expand...


Child molesters are neither heterosexual nor homosexual. Pedepohiles are attracted to children who are PRE sexual.

Amazes me how many people don't understand that.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If one categorizes it all like we see people doing, then does it lesson the carnage that is found or rather will be found in each category that is being reviewed ? Does some categories escape just because one category may be more active than another at any given time ? I guess it all comes down to the stats when categories are being reviewed, and how the stats are then analyzed upon the findings that are then factual verses the non-factual.  Using this verses that does no good, except that each category under review is held up to it's own weight found in the problems that are being found within the category that is being scrutinized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And my reference to statistics is purely for parody, because I don't believe that using statistics to gin up hate for people is right. More often statistics are used to distort the truth rather than reveal it. People who use statistics to demonize gays don't like to have statistics used against them by throwing into relief some very uncomfortable truths, that children aren't being molested by homosexuals, they're being molested by heterosexuals with much greater frequency.  If they don't like having that exposed, then maybe they shouldn't be weaponizing statistics themselves when those statistics are far less flattering for their side.
Click to expand...


You're conflating 'hate: irrational feelings of dislike something' with the simple rejection of poor, immoral, subjective choices, as a means to avoid experiencing the inevitable and wholly unenviable consequences that come from those choices.

The only thing we don't know is if this is something you're doing out of ignorance or if ya can't help yourself... 

The former is fixable, the latter is a symptom of severe sociopathy and is incurable and almost always fatal... In Texas, Florida and any other state which still serves the up the death penalty.

OK.... I've got my fingers crossed... (I'm pullin' for ya!) ... Which is it?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child molesters are neither heterosexual nor homosexual. Pedepohiles are attracted to children who are PRE sexual.
> 
> Amazes me how many people don't understand that.
Click to expand...


Child molesters are always sexually abnormal, which is also the case for homosexuals and pedophiles.  And ALL are LEARNED BEHAVIORS... each requiring LOTS of practice.

See how that works?  And why its probably a REALLY BAD IDEA TO NORMALIZE IT?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child molesters are neither heterosexual nor homosexual. Pedepohiles are attracted to children who are PRE sexual.
> 
> Amazes me how many people don't understand that.
Click to expand...


Most child molesters are members of the family who, when not molesting children, are making them, or at least shagging adults of the opposite sex. Regardless how their predilections are augmented to include children, it's hard to argue that they're not heterosexual.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child molesters are neither heterosexual nor homosexual. Pedepohiles are attracted to children who are PRE sexual.
> 
> Amazes me how many people don't understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child molesters are always sexually abnormal, which is also the case for homosexuals and pedophiles.  And ALL are LEARNED BEHAVIORS... each requiring LOTS of practice.
> 
> See how that works?  And why its probably a REALLY BAD IDEA TO NORMALIZE IT?
Click to expand...


as long as homosexuals stick with consenting adults, what the hell do you care?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child molesters are neither heterosexual nor homosexual. Pedepohiles are attracted to children who are PRE sexual.
> 
> Amazes me how many people don't understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child molesters are always sexually abnormal, which is also the case for homosexuals and pedophiles.  And ALL are LEARNED BEHAVIORS... each requiring LOTS of practice.
> 
> See how that works?  And why its probably a REALLY BAD IDEA TO NORMALIZE IT?
Click to expand...

Who's proposing we normalize sexual child abuse?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child molesters are neither heterosexual nor homosexual. Pedepohiles are attracted to children who are PRE sexual.
> 
> Amazes me how many people don't understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most child molesters are members of the family who, when not molesting children, are making them, or at least shagging adults of the opposite sex. Regardless how their predilections are augmented to include children, it's hard to argue that they're not heterosexual.
Click to expand...

That is as irrelevant as when homosexuals assault children.

ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS any adult relationship a pedophile has is merely one of illusion to temporarily satisfy what the pedophile knows they would get in trouble for if they attempted to get with a child EVERY time they had an urge.

It's nothing more than an attempt to appear normal. Sometimes they may choose a homosexual relationship, but they are neither heterosexual nor homosexual, they are pedophiles.

Liken it to guys who go to prison and have gay sex even though they aren't gay. Why? Because they succumb to "gay sex is better than no sex" same as pedophiles, they have to be careful about their crimes, so adult sex is better than no sex.

That's all it is.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people are most people...  and MOST people are normal people, who recognize that they're not the center of the universe and that THEIR responsibilities which they bear in sustaining their individual rights, sustain the rights of everyone... .
> 
> That SOME people are disproportionally responsible for the crime of every nature, points to the ABNORMAL traits intrinsic to those people, not the least of those traits is they reject the responsibilities that sustain their rights and as a result, they tend toward behavior that provides for their needs to be satisfied, such will inevitably come at some expense, to someone else.
> 
> Homosexuals are disproportionally responsible for sexual abuse of minors... as are Leftists and the product of Left-think... who are disproportionally responsible for every MANNER of crime, on every level of society.
> 
> Now why is that?
> 
> That is... because Left-think rests entirely upon Relativism, which axiomatically rejects objectivity, the essential element of truth, trust, morality and justice.
> 
> See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't.  I have two lady friends who are lesbians and now will soon get married because SSM is legal.  They've always been trusted with our children and have proven far more moral, modest, and trustworthy than anyone else I know.  Maybe I should let them know they're more likely to molest my children than I am.
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... So you're most special friends may get married... but not to each other.  This without regard to whatever formal roommate agreement they may enter into in the pretense that their behavior should be legitimized through institutions for which they, as a couple, are otherwise disqualified.


And they both know that they are more likely to molest a child... so while I wouldn't discourage ya from doing so... it's not necessary.  (Just be sure to never leave either of them alone with any children... I'd hate to see ya spend the rest of your life regretting foolishness that ya can't take back.  That will stick to ya FOREVER!)


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people are most people...  and MOST people are normal people, who recognize that they're not the center of the universe and that THEIR responsibilities which they bear in sustaining their individual rights, sustain the rights of everyone... .
> 
> That SOME people are disproportionally responsible for the crime of every nature, points to the ABNORMAL traits intrinsic to those people, not the least of those traits is they reject the responsibilities that sustain their rights and as a result, they tend toward behavior that provides for their needs to be satisfied, such will inevitably come at some expense, to someone else.
> 
> Homosexuals are disproportionally responsible for sexual abuse of minors... as are Leftists and the product of Left-think... who are disproportionally responsible for every MANNER of crime, on every level of society.
> 
> Now why is that?
> 
> That is... because Left-think rests entirely upon Relativism, which axiomatically rejects objectivity, the essential element of truth, trust, morality and justice.
> 
> See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't.  I have two lady friends who are lesbians and now will soon get married because SSM is legal.  They've always been trusted with our children and have proven far more moral, modest, and trustworthy than anyone else I know.  Maybe I should let them know they're more likely to molest my children than I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... So you're most special friends may get married... but not to each other.  This without regard to whatever formal roommate agreement they may enter into in the pretense that their behavior should be legitimized through institutions for which they, as a couple, are otherwise disqualified.
> 
> 
> And they both know that they are more likely to molest a child... so while I wouldn't discourage ya from doing so... it's not necessary.  (Just be sure to never leave either of them alone with any children... I'd hate to see ya spend the rest of your life regretting foolishness that ya can't take back.  That will stick to ya FOREVER!)
Click to expand...


I'll bet you a thousand dollars right now that more men who are in straight adults relationships have sexually assaulted children than women who are in adult homosexual relationships have. 

In fact, I'l guarantee that.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people are most people...  and MOST people are normal people, who recognize that they're not the center of the universe and that THEIR responsibilities which they bear in sustaining their individual rights, sustain the rights of everyone... .
> 
> That SOME people are disproportionally responsible for the crime of every nature, points to the ABNORMAL traits intrinsic to those people, not the least of those traits is they reject the responsibilities that sustain their rights and as a result, they tend toward behavior that provides for their needs to be satisfied, such will inevitably come at some expense, to someone else.
> 
> Homosexuals are disproportionally responsible for sexual abuse of minors... as are Leftists and the product of Left-think... who are disproportionally responsible for every MANNER of crime, on every level of society.
> 
> Now why is that?
> 
> That is... because Left-think rests entirely upon Relativism, which axiomatically rejects objectivity, the essential element of truth, trust, morality and justice.
> 
> See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't.  I have two lady friends who are lesbians and now will soon get married because SSM is legal.  They've always been trusted with our children and have proven far more moral, modest, and trustworthy than anyone else I know.  Maybe I should let them know they're more likely to molest my children than I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... So you're most special friends may get married... but not to each other.  This without regard to whatever formal roommate agreement they may enter into in the pretense that their behavior should be legitimized through institutions for which they, as a couple, are otherwise disqualified.
> 
> 
> And they both know that they are more likely to molest a child... so while I wouldn't discourage ya from doing so... it's not necessary.  (Just be sure to never leave either of them alone with any children... I'd hate to see ya spend the rest of your life regretting foolishness that ya can't take back.  That will stick to ya FOREVER!)
Click to expand...


Actually they can get married to each other and they will very soon. I can't wait to get the wedding invitation.  What are you going to do to stop them?  And they have babysat my children for the last decade. And I sure as hell trust them more than I would ever trust somebody like you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child molesters are neither heterosexual nor homosexual. Pedepohiles are attracted to children who are PRE sexual.
> 
> Amazes me how many people don't understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child molesters are always sexually abnormal, which is also the case for homosexuals and pedophiles.  And ALL are LEARNED BEHAVIORS... each requiring LOTS of practice.
> 
> See how that works?  And why its probably a REALLY BAD IDEA TO NORMALIZE IT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's proposing we normalize sexual child abuse?
Click to expand...


Who?  Oh such is the basis of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... ONE of the charter organizations of which is NAMBLA... .  Also such was the life long ambition of Alfred Kinsey, the founder of the Kinsey Institute... a leading institution in the absurd scientific edict: Homosexuality is normal sexuality.  Then there the APA (American Psychiatric Association) who released a white paper which concluded "...some children may actually benefit from a caring sexual relationship with a loving adult.

Of course that's just off the top of my head...  And THAT is just here in the US.  The list grows exponentially, where one considers the immoral abyss that is Europe.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child molesters are neither heterosexual nor homosexual. Pedepohiles are attracted to children who are PRE sexual.
> 
> Amazes me how many people don't understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child molesters are always sexually abnormal, which is also the case for homosexuals and pedophiles.  And ALL are LEARNED BEHAVIORS... each requiring LOTS of practice.
> 
> See how that works?  And why its probably a REALLY BAD IDEA TO NORMALIZE IT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's proposing we normalize sexual child abuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who?  Oh such is the basis of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... ONE of the charter organizations of which is NAMBLA... .  Also such was the life long ambition of Alfred Kinsey, the founder of the Kinsey Institute... a leading institution in the absurd scientific edict: Homosexuality is normal sexuality.  Then there the APA (American Psychiatric Association) who released a white paper which concluded "...some children may actually benefit from a caring sexual relationship with a loving adult.
> 
> Of course that's just off the top of my head...  And THAT is just here in the US.  The list grows exponentially, where one considers the immoral abyss that is Europe.
Click to expand...


So you're terrified of NAMBLA convincing everyone it's ok to bugger little children?  Get help.  Seriously.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people are most people...  and MOST people are normal people, who recognize that they're not the center of the universe and that THEIR responsibilities which they bear in sustaining their individual rights, sustain the rights of everyone... .
> 
> That SOME people are disproportionally responsible for the crime of every nature, points to the ABNORMAL traits intrinsic to those people, not the least of those traits is they reject the responsibilities that sustain their rights and as a result, they tend toward behavior that provides for their needs to be satisfied, such will inevitably come at some expense, to someone else.
> 
> Homosexuals are disproportionally responsible for sexual abuse of minors... as are Leftists and the product of Left-think... who are disproportionally responsible for every MANNER of crime, on every level of society.
> 
> Now why is that?
> 
> That is... because Left-think rests entirely upon Relativism, which axiomatically rejects objectivity, the essential element of truth, trust, morality and justice.
> 
> See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't.  I have two lady friends who are lesbians and now will soon get married because SSM is legal.  They've always been trusted with our children and have proven far more moral, modest, and trustworthy than anyone else I know.  Maybe I should let them know they're more likely to molest my children than I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... So you're most special friends may get married... but not to each other.  This without regard to whatever formal roommate agreement they may enter into in the pretense that their behavior should be legitimized through institutions for which they, as a couple, are otherwise disqualified.
> 
> 
> And they both know that they are more likely to molest a child... so while I wouldn't discourage ya from doing so... it's not necessary.  (Just be sure to never leave either of them alone with any children... I'd hate to see ya spend the rest of your life regretting foolishness that ya can't take back.  That will stick to ya FOREVER!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll bet you a thousand dollars right now that more men who are in straight adults relationships have sexually assaulted children than women who are in adult homosexual relationships have.
> 
> In fact, I'l guarantee that.
Click to expand...


There are no sexually normal men or women... who molest children.  

So, while your attempts to rationalize such and hoped to prove your point through the whimsy of irrational semantics... I can't help ya.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people are most people...  and MOST people are normal people, who recognize that they're not the center of the universe and that THEIR responsibilities which they bear in sustaining their individual rights, sustain the rights of everyone... .
> 
> That SOME people are disproportionally responsible for the crime of every nature, points to the ABNORMAL traits intrinsic to those people, not the least of those traits is they reject the responsibilities that sustain their rights and as a result, they tend toward behavior that provides for their needs to be satisfied, such will inevitably come at some expense, to someone else.
> 
> Homosexuals are disproportionally responsible for sexual abuse of minors... as are Leftists and the product of Left-think... who are disproportionally responsible for every MANNER of crime, on every level of society.
> 
> Now why is that?
> 
> That is... because Left-think rests entirely upon Relativism, which axiomatically rejects objectivity, the essential element of truth, trust, morality and justice.
> 
> See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't.  I have two lady friends who are lesbians and now will soon get married because SSM is legal.  They've always been trusted with our children and have proven far more moral, modest, and trustworthy than anyone else I know.  Maybe I should let them know they're more likely to molest my children than I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... So you're most special friends may get married... but not to each other.  This without regard to whatever formal roommate agreement they may enter into in the pretense that their behavior should be legitimized through institutions for which they, as a couple, are otherwise disqualified.
> 
> 
> And they both know that they are more likely to molest a child... so while I wouldn't discourage ya from doing so... it's not necessary.  (Just be sure to never leave either of them alone with any children... I'd hate to see ya spend the rest of your life regretting foolishness that ya can't take back.  That will stick to ya FOREVER!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll bet you a thousand dollars right now that more men who are in straight adults relationships have sexually assaulted children than women who are in adult homosexual relationships have.
> 
> In fact, I'l guarantee that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There are no sexually normal men or women... who molest children*.
> 
> So, while your attempts to rationalize such and hoped to prove your point through the whimsy of irrational semantics... I can't help ya.
Click to expand...



I agree, so I have no idea what the rest of your post is going on about.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Child molesters are neither heterosexual nor homosexual. Pedepohiles are attracted to children who are PRE sexual.
> 
> Amazes me how many people don't understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child molesters are always sexually abnormal, which is also the case for homosexuals and pedophiles.  And ALL are LEARNED BEHAVIORS... each requiring LOTS of practice.
> 
> See how that works?  And why its probably a REALLY BAD IDEA TO NORMALIZE IT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's proposing we normalize sexual child abuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who?  Oh such is the basis of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... ONE of the charter organizations of which is NAMBLA... .  Also such was the life long ambition of Alfred Kinsey, the founder of the Kinsey Institute... a leading institution in the absurd scientific edict: Homosexuality is normal sexuality.  Then there the APA (American Psychiatric Association) who released a white paper which concluded "...some children may actually benefit from a caring sexual relationship with a loving adult.
> 
> Of course that's just off the top of my head...  And THAT is just here in the US.  The list grows exponentially, where one considers the immoral abyss that is Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're terrified of NAMBLA convincing everyone it's ok to bugger little children?  Get help.  Seriously.
Click to expand...


No... I'm terrified that you and people LIKE YOU will convince everyone that sexual abnormality is normal... and NAMBLA will accomplish their goal of eliminating the 'Age of consent' thus legalizing the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people are most people...  and MOST people are normal people, who recognize that they're not the center of the universe and that THEIR responsibilities which they bear in sustaining their individual rights, sustain the rights of everyone... .
> 
> That SOME people are disproportionally responsible for the crime of every nature, points to the ABNORMAL traits intrinsic to those people, not the least of those traits is they reject the responsibilities that sustain their rights and as a result, they tend toward behavior that provides for their needs to be satisfied, such will inevitably come at some expense, to someone else.
> 
> Homosexuals are disproportionally responsible for sexual abuse of minors... as are Leftists and the product of Left-think... who are disproportionally responsible for every MANNER of crime, on every level of society.
> 
> Now why is that?
> 
> That is... because Left-think rests entirely upon Relativism, which axiomatically rejects objectivity, the essential element of truth, trust, morality and justice.
> 
> See the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't.  I have two lady friends who are lesbians and now will soon get married because SSM is legal.  They've always been trusted with our children and have proven far more moral, modest, and trustworthy than anyone else I know.  Maybe I should let them know they're more likely to molest my children than I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... So you're most special friends may get married... but not to each other.  This without regard to whatever formal roommate agreement they may enter into in the pretense that their behavior should be legitimized through institutions for which they, as a couple, are otherwise disqualified.
> 
> 
> And they both know that they are more likely to molest a child... so while I wouldn't discourage ya from doing so... it's not necessary.  (Just be sure to never leave either of them alone with any children... I'd hate to see ya spend the rest of your life regretting foolishness that ya can't take back.  That will stick to ya FOREVER!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll bet you a thousand dollars right now that more men who are in straight adults relationships have sexually assaulted children than women who are in adult homosexual relationships have.
> 
> In fact, I'l guarantee that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There are no sexually normal men or women... who molest children*.
> 
> So, while your attempts to rationalize such and hoped to prove your point through the whimsy of irrational semantics... I can't help ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, so I have no idea what the rest of your post is going on about.
Click to expand...



Thank you for sharing.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people are most people...  and MOST people are normal people, who recognize that they're not the center of the universe and that THEIR responsibilities which they bear in sustaining their individual rights, sustain the rights of everyone... .
> 
> That SOME people are disproportionally responsible for the crime of every nature, points to the ABNORMAL traits intrinsic to those people, not the least of those traits is they reject the responsibilities that sustain their rights and as a result, they tend toward behavior that provides for their needs to be satisfied, such will inevitably come at some expense, to someone else.
> 
> Homosexuals are disproportionally responsible for sexual abuse of minors... as are Leftists and the product of Left-think... who are disproportionally responsible for every MANNER of crime, on every level of society.
> 
> Now why is that?
> 
> That is... because Left-think rests entirely upon Relativism, which axiomatically rejects objectivity, the essential element of truth, trust, morality and justice.
> 
> See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't.  I have two lady friends who are lesbians and now will soon get married because SSM is legal.  They've always been trusted with our children and have proven far more moral, modest, and trustworthy than anyone else I know.  Maybe I should let them know they're more likely to molest my children than I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... So you're most special friends may get married... but not to each other.  This without regard to whatever formal roommate agreement they may enter into in the pretense that their behavior should be legitimized through institutions for which they, as a couple, are otherwise disqualified.
> 
> 
> And they both know that they are more likely to molest a child... so while I wouldn't discourage ya from doing so... it's not necessary.  (Just be sure to never leave either of them alone with any children... I'd hate to see ya spend the rest of your life regretting foolishness that ya can't take back.  That will stick to ya FOREVER!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they can get married to each other and they will very soon. I can't wait to get the wedding invitation.  What are you going to do to stop them?  And they have babysat my children for the last decade. And I sure as hell trust them more than I would ever trust somebody like you.
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  So, well... you know.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most porn consumers are heterosexual, that may explain why most child molesters are heterosexual too.  Your argument is falling apart faster than Ikea furniture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people are most people...  and MOST people are normal people, who recognize that they're not the center of the universe and that THEIR responsibilities which they bear in sustaining their individual rights, sustain the rights of everyone... .
> 
> That SOME people are disproportionally responsible for the crime of every nature, points to the ABNORMAL traits intrinsic to those people, not the least of those traits is they reject the responsibilities that sustain their rights and as a result, they tend toward behavior that provides for their needs to be satisfied, such will inevitably come at some expense, to someone else.
> 
> Homosexuals are disproportionally responsible for sexual abuse of minors... as are Leftists and the product of Left-think... who are disproportionally responsible for every MANNER of crime, on every level of society.
> 
> Now why is that?
> 
> That is... because Left-think rests entirely upon Relativism, which axiomatically rejects objectivity, the essential element of truth, trust, morality and justice.
> 
> See the problem?
Click to expand...


Heterosexuals are objectively dis proportionally in overwhelming numbers for almost all crimes in the world, particularly the males.

Now why is that?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> No... I'm terrified that you and people LIKE YOU will convince everyone that sexual abnormality is normal... and NAMBLA will accomplish their goal of eliminating the 'Age of consent' thus legalizing the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification.



So.....you just confirmed again that you think NAMBLA is going to convince everyone it's ok to bugger children, simultaneously confirming that you're besotted with irrational paranoia and need help...and possibly some strong medication.

The voices in your head are not real.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nether does wherermykeys, Bear.

Excellent job of exposing the wanker.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Now a hundred or so pages back, a mouthier contingent of the Advocacy to Normalize sexual Abnormality was challenged to profess her adherence to or rejection of the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification and WHY.  Two dozen pages saw this challenge consistently advanced and consistently ignored.

If you'll go back and read the record of this thread... you'll find that NO OTHER member of the Homo-lobby found ANY means to set themselves distinct from the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... and such has remained consistent to THIS VERY POINT, despite THOUSANDS of opportunity to DO SO.

Now... has it ever occurred to any of you why that might be?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No... I'm terrified that you and people LIKE YOU will convince everyone that sexual abnormality is normal... and NAMBLA will accomplish their goal of eliminating the 'Age of consent' thus legalizing the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.....you just confirmed again that you think NAMBLA is going to convince everyone it's ok to bugger children, simultaneously confirming that you're besotted with irrational paranoia and need help...and possibly some strong medication.
> 
> The voices in your head are not real.
Click to expand...


NAMBLA?  No... YOU and the cult advocating to normalize sexual abnormality?  Very possible... .


Now a hundred or so pages back, a mouthier contingent of the Advocacy to Normalize sexual Abnormality was challenged to profess her adherence to or rejection of the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification and WHY. Two dozen pages saw this challenge consistently advanced and consistently ignored.

If you'll go back and read the record of this thread... you'll find that NO OTHER member of the Homo-lobby found ANY means to set themselves distinct from the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... and such has remained consistent to THIS VERY POINT, despite THOUSANDS of opportunity to DO SO.

Now... has it ever occurred to any of you _*why that might be*_?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Now a hundred or so pages back, a mouthier contingent of the Advocacy to Normalize sexual Abnormality was challenged to profess her adherence to or rejection of the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification.  Two down pages saw this challenge consistently advanced and consistently ignored.
> 
> If you'll go back and read the record of this thread... you'll find that NO OTHER member of the Homo-lobby found ANY means to set themselves distinct from the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... and such has remained consistent to THIS VERY POINT, despite THOUSANDS of opportunity to DO SO.
> 
> Now... has it ever occurred to any of you why that might be?



Actually, I hear them draw that distinction all the time.  Maybe you just hear what you want to hear.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now a hundred or so pages back, a mouthier contingent of the Advocacy to Normalize sexual Abnormality was challenged to profess her adherence to or rejection of the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification and WHY.  Two down pages saw this challenge consistently advanced and consistently ignored.
> 
> If you'll go back and read the record of this thread... you'll find that NO OTHER member of the Homo-lobby found ANY means to set themselves distinct from the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... and such has remained consistent to THIS VERY POINT, despite THOUSANDS of opportunity to DO SO.
> 
> Now... has it ever occurred to any of you why that might be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I hear them draw that distinction all the time.  Maybe you just hear what you want to hear.
Click to expand...


So you haven't been even the slightest bit curious, even as YOU DEFLECT FROM THE SUBJECT OF THE QUERY YOURSELF?

The issue was NOT 'the distinction' the issue was IF THEY REJECT IT OR NOT AND ON WHAT BASIS THEY REST THEIR ADVOCACY?

But... since you've offered up the obscurant response, we should clear up your position on the Adult pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification... Are you FOR IT OR AGAINST IT?  

AND *WHY*?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

LOL!... Ya seem a little hesitant. 

Most folks (The Normal ones...) they usually have an immediate response... and they've no trouble tellin' ya why.

Yet you... seem to be suffering an inexplicable bout of reticence. 

"Whazzup wihdat?"


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Nothin' comin' to mind ... ?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> 
> Long term exposure to pornography normalizes sexual stimulation through redundant exposure to stimuli... such exposure drives the individual to craving farther and farther down the stimulus rabbit hole, wherein 'normal' sexual visuals no longer provides stimulation and the subject craves material of a more forbidden nature... left unchecked, by an individual who is incapable of objective reason, finds their behavior 'NORMAL', the subject will crave action of a forbidden nature to satisfy more and more obsessive, compulsive cravings.
> 
> All of which could readily be resolved by a modicum of humility and the means to reason objectively.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
Click to expand...


You now need to have a neutral third party examine your computer for evidence of lesbian pornography.


----------



## JakeStarkey

wherermykeys computer is loaded with the crap


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Golly... it was all up in the discussion... responding in real time for two hours.  Then just as it was establishin' that NO ONE was lookin' for a pass into the Kiddie pool... BAM!  A question comes along that shuts the entire discussion down.


ROFLMNAO!  Yes... It is a burden and being right all the time IS as enjoyable as it looks like it is.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Jarlaxle said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> 
> Long term exposure to pornography normalizes sexual stimulation through redundant exposure to stimuli... such exposure drives the individual to craving farther and farther down the stimulus rabbit hole, wherein 'normal' sexual visuals no longer provides stimulation and the subject craves material of a more forbidden nature... left unchecked, by an individual who is incapable of objective reason, finds their behavior 'NORMAL', the subject will crave action of a forbidden nature to satisfy more and more obsessive, compulsive cravings.
> 
> All of which could readily be resolved by a modicum of humility and the means to reason objectively.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You now need to have a neutral third party examine your computer for evidence of lesbian pornography.
Click to expand...


Why?  Because you need to project that 'everybody does it'?  

Lemme ask ya... does 'everyone doin' it', somehow make it right?  

If so, why?

If not, why not?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> 
> Long term exposure to pornography normalizes sexual stimulation through redundant exposure to stimuli... such exposure drives the individual to craving farther and farther down the stimulus rabbit hole, wherein 'normal' sexual visuals no longer provides stimulation and the subject craves material of a more forbidden nature... left unchecked, by an individual who is incapable of objective reason, finds their behavior 'NORMAL', the subject will crave action of a forbidden nature to satisfy more and more obsessive, compulsive cravings.
> 
> All of which could readily be resolved by a modicum of humility and the means to reason objectively.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You now need to have a neutral third party examine your computer for evidence of lesbian pornography.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?  Because you need to project that 'everybody does it'?
> 
> Lemme ask ya... does 'everyone doin' it', somehow make it right?
> 
> If so, why?
> 
> If not, why not?
Click to expand...


Explain, as simply as possible, why the overwhelming number of perps are heterosexual men preying on young girls?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Why?  Because you need to project that 'everybody does it'?
> 
> Lemme ask ya... does 'everyone doin' it', somehow make it right?
> 
> If so, why?
> 
> If not, why not?



Just because I wonder if you are as much of a hypocrite as I expect.  You seem to be fulled with moral indignation, which is often accompanied by a heaping helping of hypocrisy!

"Most moral indignation is 2% moral, 48% indignation, and 50% envy."
-Ambrose Bierce


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jarlaxle said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Because you need to project that 'everybody does it'?
> 
> Lemme ask ya... does 'everyone doin' it', somehow make it right?
> 
> If so, why?
> 
> If not, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because I wonder if you are as much of a hypocrite as I expect.  You seem to be fulled with moral indignation, which is often accompanied by a heaping helping of hypocrisy!
> 
> "Most moral indignation is 2% moral, 48% indignation, and 50% envy."
> -Ambrose Bierce
Click to expand...


It is mostly gas for wherermykeys.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Golly... it was all up in the discussion... responding in real time for two hours.  Then just as it was establishin' that NO ONE was lookin' for a pass into the Kiddie pool... BAM!  A question comes along that shuts the entire discussion down.
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Yes... It is a burden and being right all the time IS as enjoyable as it looks like it is.



The next time you're right

will be the first


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

LOL!  

While we wait in the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality to figure out what the right answer is in response to the question: "Do you approve of Adults pursuing Children for sexual gratification?"

We should discuss that 90% of the board's respondents to the OP's Poll... do NOT feel that Preachers should be forced to promote the pretense that Marriage is something besides the joining of one man and one woman.

ROFL... And even on a board populated with a Leftist Majority... ya can't find popular support.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Golly... it was all up in the discussion... responding in real time for two hours.  Then just as it was establishin' that NO ONE was lookin' for a pass into the Kiddie pool... BAM!  A question comes along that shuts the entire discussion down.
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Yes... It is a burden and being right all the time IS as enjoyable as it looks like it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The next time you're right
> 
> will be the first
Click to expand...


Well sound reasoning NEVER requires validation, but it is always nice when it comes along. 

Mighty sweet of ya young lady.  Thank you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Jarlaxle said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Because you need to project that 'everybody does it'?
> 
> Lemme ask ya... does 'everyone doin' it', somehow make it right?
> 
> If so, why?
> 
> If not, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because I wonder if you are as much of a hypocrite as I expect.  You seem to be fulled with moral indignation, which is often accompanied by a heaping helping of hypocrisy!
> 
> "Most moral indignation is 2% moral, 48% indignation, and 50% envy."
> -Ambrose Bierce
Click to expand...



So... you feel that where I am a hypocrite, that my stated position would be less true?  

Now I see that you're not big on fleshing out the basis for your public professions, but I would be remiss not to ask: On what is it that you're setting that drivel? 

And please... be specific.  At least as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Golly... it was all up in the discussion... responding in real time for two hours.  Then just as it was establishin' that NO ONE was lookin' for a pass into the Kiddie pool... BAM!  A question comes along that shuts the entire discussion down.
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Yes... It is a burden and being right all the time IS as enjoyable as it looks like it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The next time you're right
> 
> will be the first
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well sound reasoning NEVER requires validation, it is always nice when it comes along.
> 
> Mighty sweet of ya young lady.  Thank you.
Click to expand...



I think you meant to type "While sound reasoning..........."

Nevertheless, you have shown NO signs of sound reasoning within this thread.

I mean for the love of God, you don't even understand that pedophiles are not sexually attracted to adults of either sex , therefor they don't fit the definition of either homosexual or heterosexual.

Using your "logic" if JakeStarkey anally raped you, you would now be gay because you had homosexual sex.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> I think you meant to type "While sound reasoning..........."



Oh... I hate that for ya.



SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Nevertheless, you have shown NO signs of sound reasoning within this thread.



Really?  One presumes then that somewhere in the below comments we'll find your evidence, wherein you've provided an example of something I've said and specific identification of fatal flaws in the respective reasoning.

Let's see how ya do.



SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> I mean for the love of God, you don't even understand that pedophiles are not sexually attracted to adults of either sex , therefor they don't fit the definition of either homosexual or heterosexual.



Hmm... that's weird.  'Cause, there's nothin' there...  except your own invalid reasoning (Straw, appeal to popularity.)



SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Using your "logic" if JakeStarkey anally raped you, you would now be gay because you had homosexual sex.



LOL!  Whatta shame... Seemed like you were a reasonable person there for a moment.

OH WELL!  Ya did the best ya could and no one can take that from ya.


----------



## JakeStarkey

wheremykeys and Sil do not understand that are not entitled to their own facts and definitions and terms.  Those are set already with objectivity.

They believe opinions are evidence.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Just to remind the board...

We're still waiting on a response to this:



saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now a hundred or so pages back, a mouthier contingent of the Advocacy to Normalize sexual Abnormality was challenged to profess her adherence to or rejection of the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification and WHY.  Two down pages saw this challenge consistently advanced and consistently ignored.
> 
> If you'll go back and read the record of this thread... you'll find that NO OTHER member of the Homo-lobby found ANY means to set themselves distinct from the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... and such has remained consistent to THIS VERY POINT, despite THOUSANDS of opportunity to DO SO.
> 
> Now... has it ever occurred to any of you why that might be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I hear them draw that distinction all the time.  Maybe you just hear what you want to hear.
Click to expand...


So you haven't been even the slightest bit curious, even as YOU DEFLECT FROM THE SUBJECT OF THE QUERY YOURSELF?

The issue was NOT 'the distinction' the issue was IF THEY REJECT IT OR NOT AND ON WHAT BASIS THEY REST THEIR ADVOCACY?

But... since you've offered up the obscurant response, we should clear up your position on the Adult pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification... Are you FOR IT OR AGAINST IT?  

AND *WHY*?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Just to remind the Board, we are waiting on wherermykeys to realize his opinions are not evidence.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Ain't it crazy how that simple question dries up the conversation with every Advocate of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality?  

Now why do ya think that is?

Here's a clue: It's not because they believe that Adult's pursuing children for sexual gratification is morally wrong.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Just to remind the board...
> 
> We're still waiting on a response to this:
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now a hundred or so pages back, a mouthier contingent of the Advocacy to Normalize sexual Abnormality was challenged to profess her adherence to or rejection of the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification and WHY.  Two down pages saw this challenge consistently advanced and consistently ignored.
> 
> If you'll go back and read the record of this thread... you'll find that NO OTHER member of the Homo-lobby found ANY means to set themselves distinct from the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... and such has remained consistent to THIS VERY POINT, despite THOUSANDS of opportunity to DO SO.
> 
> Now... has it ever occurred to any of you why that might be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I hear them draw that distinction all the time.  Maybe you just hear what you want to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you haven't been even the slightest bit curious, even as YOU DEFLECT FROM THE SUBJECT OF THE QUERY YOURSELF?
> 
> The issue was NOT 'the distinction' the issue was IF THEY REJECT IT OR NOT AND ON WHAT BASIS THEY REST THEIR ADVOCACY?
> 
> But... since you've offered up the obscurant response, we should clear up your position on the Adult pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification... Are you FOR IT OR AGAINST IT?
> 
> AND *WHY*?
Click to expand...


Then do this

Compare the number of men who are in a heterosexual adult relationship , yet commit a sexual crime against a child , and compare it to the number of men who are in a homosexual adult relationship who commit a sexual crime against a child and tell me which group has committed more sexual crimes against children. Not just total numbers, because you'd lose that simply because there are way more heterosexual child predators, but percentage wise.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Why would wherermkyes do such a thing that would show how worthless is his talk?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to remind the board...
> 
> We're still waiting on a response to this:
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now a hundred or so pages back, a mouthier contingent of the Advocacy to Normalize sexual Abnormality was challenged to profess her adherence to or rejection of the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification and WHY.  Two down pages saw this challenge consistently advanced and consistently ignored.
> 
> If you'll go back and read the record of this thread... you'll find that NO OTHER member of the Homo-lobby found ANY means to set themselves distinct from the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... and such has remained consistent to THIS VERY POINT, despite THOUSANDS of opportunity to DO SO.
> 
> Now... has it ever occurred to any of you why that might be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I hear them draw that distinction all the time.  Maybe you just hear what you want to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you haven't been even the slightest bit curious, even as YOU DEFLECT FROM THE SUBJECT OF THE QUERY YOURSELF?
> 
> The issue was NOT 'the distinction' the issue was IF THEY REJECT IT OR NOT AND ON WHAT BASIS THEY REST THEIR ADVOCACY?
> 
> But... since you've offered up the obscurant response, we should clear up your position on the Adult pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification... Are you FOR IT OR AGAINST IT?
> 
> AND *WHY*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then do this
> 
> Compare the number of men who are in a heterosexual adult relationship , yet commit a sexual crime against a child , and compare it to the number of men who are in a homosexual adult relationship who commit a sexual crime against a child and tell me which group has committed more sexual crimes against children. Not just total numbers, because you'd lose that simply because there are way more heterosexual child predators, but percentage wise.
Click to expand...


So you want to compare the number of people who appear to be sexually normal, but exhibit sexual abnormality, with the number of people who declare themselves to be sexually abnormal and further exhibit sexually abnormal behavior?  

Ok... a tiny percentage of those who appear sexually normal, end up exhibiting sexually abnormal behavior and 100% of people who engage in sexually abnormal behavior are sexually abnormal.

Feel better?

*HEY!  While you're here... and because you're such an unapologetic proponent of the the normalization of sexual abnormality, where do you stand on the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?  Are ya for it or against it?*

*And WHY?*


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to remind the board...
> 
> We're still waiting on a response to this:
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now a hundred or so pages back, a mouthier contingent of the Advocacy to Normalize sexual Abnormality was challenged to profess her adherence to or rejection of the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification and WHY.  Two down pages saw this challenge consistently advanced and consistently ignored.
> 
> If you'll go back and read the record of this thread... you'll find that NO OTHER member of the Homo-lobby found ANY means to set themselves distinct from the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... and such has remained consistent to THIS VERY POINT, despite THOUSANDS of opportunity to DO SO.
> 
> Now... has it ever occurred to any of you why that might be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I hear them draw that distinction all the time.  Maybe you just hear what you want to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you haven't been even the slightest bit curious, even as YOU DEFLECT FROM THE SUBJECT OF THE QUERY YOURSELF?
> 
> The issue was NOT 'the distinction' the issue was IF THEY REJECT IT OR NOT AND ON WHAT BASIS THEY REST THEIR ADVOCACY?
> 
> But... since you've offered up the obscurant response, we should clear up your position on the Adult pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification... Are you FOR IT OR AGAINST IT?
> 
> AND *WHY*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then do this
> 
> Compare the number of men who are in a heterosexual adult relationship , yet commit a sexual crime against a child , and compare it to the number of men who are in a homosexual adult relationship who commit a sexual crime against a child and tell me which group has committed more sexual crimes against children. Not just total numbers, because you'd lose that simply because there are way more heterosexual child predators, but percentage wise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to compare the number of people who appear to be sexually normal, but exhibit sexual abnormality, with the number of people who declare themselves to be sexually abnormal and further exhibit sexually abnormal behavior?
> 
> Ok... a tiny percentage of those who appear sexually normal, end up exhibiting sexually abnormal behavior and 100% of people who engage in sexually abnormal behavior are sexually abnormal.
> 
> Feel better?
Click to expand...

You are an idiot. Being sexually abnormal =/= being a pedophile


> *HEY!  While you're here... and because you're such an unapologetic proponent of the the normalization of sexual abnormality, where do you stand on the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?  Are ya for it or against it?*
> 
> *And WHY?*



I would execute those convicted of sexual crimes against children. within hours of their conviction, and on national TV.

Clear enough for you?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to remind the board...
> 
> We're still waiting on a response to this:
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now a hundred or so pages back, a mouthier contingent of the Advocacy to Normalize sexual Abnormality was challenged to profess her adherence to or rejection of the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification and WHY.  Two down pages saw this challenge consistently advanced and consistently ignored.
> 
> If you'll go back and read the record of this thread... you'll find that NO OTHER member of the Homo-lobby found ANY means to set themselves distinct from the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... and such has remained consistent to THIS VERY POINT, despite THOUSANDS of opportunity to DO SO.
> 
> Now... has it ever occurred to any of you why that might be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I hear them draw that distinction all the time.  Maybe you just hear what you want to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you haven't been even the slightest bit curious, even as YOU DEFLECT FROM THE SUBJECT OF THE QUERY YOURSELF?
> 
> The issue was NOT 'the distinction' the issue was IF THEY REJECT IT OR NOT AND ON WHAT BASIS THEY REST THEIR ADVOCACY?
> 
> But... since you've offered up the obscurant response, we should clear up your position on the Adult pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification... Are you FOR IT OR AGAINST IT?
> 
> AND *WHY*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then do this
> 
> Compare the number of men who are in a heterosexual adult relationship , yet commit a sexual crime against a child , and compare it to the number of men who are in a homosexual adult relationship who commit a sexual crime against a child and tell me which group has committed more sexual crimes against children. Not just total numbers, because you'd lose that simply because there are way more heterosexual child predators, but percentage wise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to compare the number of people who appear to be sexually normal, but exhibit sexual abnormality, with the number of people who declare themselves to be sexually abnormal and further exhibit sexually abnormal behavior?
> 
> Ok... a tiny percentage of those who appear sexually normal, end up exhibiting sexually abnormal behavior and 100% of people who engage in sexually abnormal behavior are sexually abnormal.
> 
> Feel better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are an idiot. Being sexually abnormal =/= being a pedophile
Click to expand...

*HEY!  While you're here... and because you're such an unapologetic proponent of the the normalization of sexual abnormality, where do you stand on the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?  Are ya for it or against it?*

*And WHY?*[/QUOTE]

I would execute those convicted of sexual crimes against children. within hours of their conviction, and on national TV.

Clear enough for you?[/QUOTE]

Good for you... but ya didn't answer the most important question: "*WHY?*"?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

I didn't answer your question of why, because it doesn't deserve an answer.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

LOL! 

("WHY" Is 'why' none of them can answer


SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> I didn't answer your question of why, because it doesn't deserve an answer.



So you'd execute someone the instant that they were convicted of a crime FOR NO REASON?

A crime which, FTR: equates to that which you spend HOURS AND HOURS of your Saturday night, declaring that such is PERFECTLY NORMAL?

Anyone else feel the same way on this?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> LOL!
> 
> ("WHY" Is 'why' none of them can answer
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't answer your question of why, because it doesn't deserve an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd execute someone the instant that they were convicted of a crime FOR NO REASON?
> 
> A crime which, FTR: equates to that which you spend HOURS AND HOURS of your Saturday night, declaring that such is PERFECTLY NORMAL?
> 
> Anyone else feel the same way on this?
Click to expand...


I of course in NO WAY declared that sex crimes against children was normal.

You are a dumb shit.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> ("WHY" Is 'why' none of them can answer the question...  )
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't answer your question of why, because it doesn't deserve an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd execute someone the instant that they were convicted of a crime FOR NO REASON?
> 
> A crime which, FTR: equates to that which you spend HOURS AND HOURS of your Saturday night, declaring that such is PERFECTLY NORMAL?
> 
> Anyone else feel the same way on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I of course in NO WAY declared that sex crimes against children was normal.
> 
> You are a dumb shit.
Click to expand...


No, ya didn't... but ya did refuse to say why ya 'feel' that way...

And ya DID defend sexual abnormality as normal... and ya've done so for a couple of hours, in this most recent session.


All I'm doin' is helpin' ya close the gapin' holes in your reasonin'.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> ("WHY" Is 'why' none of them can answer the question...  )
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't answer your question of why, because it doesn't deserve an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd execute someone the instant that they were convicted of a crime FOR NO REASON?
> 
> A crime which, FTR: equates to that which you spend HOURS AND HOURS of your Saturday night, declaring that such is PERFECTLY NORMAL?
> 
> Anyone else feel the same way on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I of course in NO WAY declared that sex crimes against children was normal.
> 
> You are a dumb shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, ya didn't... but ya did refuse to say why ya 'feel' that way...
> 
> And ya DID defend sexual abnormality as normal... and ya've done so for a couple of hours, in this most recent session.
> 
> 
> All I'm doin' is helpin' ya close the gapin' holes in your reasonin'.
Click to expand...



Are you illiterate, or dishonest? Let's start there


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> ("WHY" Is 'why' none of them can answer the question...  )
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't answer your question of why, because it doesn't deserve an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd execute someone the instant that they were convicted of a crime FOR NO REASON?
> 
> A crime which, FTR: equates to that which you spend HOURS AND HOURS of your Saturday night, declaring that such is PERFECTLY NORMAL?
> 
> Anyone else feel the same way on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I of course in NO WAY declared that sex crimes against children was normal.
> 
> You are a dumb shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, ya didn't... but ya did refuse to say why ya 'feel' that way...
> 
> And ya DID defend sexual abnormality as normal... and ya've done so for a couple of hours, in this most recent session.
> 
> 
> All I'm doin' is helpin' ya close the gapin' holes in your reasonin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you illiterate, or dishonest? Let's start there
Click to expand...


Am I illiterate?

You, a person who like to think of herself as a reasonable person... is asking if a person commnicating with them in writing, is illiterate?

And if that falls through, then ya want to know if I'm dishonest, because I want you to explain WHY you reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?
A question which you refuse to answer... despite taking that position through most EMPHATIC TERMS... declaring that those proven to have had sex with a child, should be summarily executed.


Now the irony is PALPABLE!  YOU have taken the position that someone should be stripped of their life... FOR NO REASON!

And you're asking if someone else is dishonest.


See the problem?  Or do I need to grab the crayons and draw ya a picture?

Now... *WHY DO YOU "FEEL" THAT THOSE WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION DESERVE TO BE STRIPPED OF THEIR LIFE?*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Just to remind the board...

We're still waiting on a response to this:



saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now a hundred or so pages back, a mouthier contingent of the Advocacy to Normalize sexual Abnormality was challenged to profess her adherence to or rejection of the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification and WHY.  Two down pages saw this challenge consistently advanced and consistently ignored.
> 
> If you'll go back and read the record of this thread... you'll find that NO OTHER member of the Homo-lobby found ANY means to set themselves distinct from the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... and such has remained consistent to THIS VERY POINT, despite THOUSANDS of opportunity to DO SO.
> 
> Now... has it ever occurred to any of you why that might be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I hear them draw that distinction all the time.  Maybe you just hear what you want to hear.
Click to expand...


So you haven't been even the slightest bit curious, even as YOU DEFLECT FROM THE SUBJECT OF THE QUERY YOURSELF?

The issue was NOT 'the distinction' the issue was IF THEY REJECT IT OR NOT AND ON WHAT BASIS THEY REST THEIR ADVOCACY?

But... since you've offered up the obscurant response, we should clear up your position on the Adult pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification... Are you FOR IT OR AGAINST IT? 

AND *WHY*?

And this one for Smarterthantheaveragebear: "Now... *WHY DO YOU "FEEL" THAT THOSE WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION DESERVE TO BE STRIPPED OF THEIR LIFE?*"


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Just to remind the board...
> 
> We're still waiting on a response to this:
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now a hundred or so pages back, a mouthier contingent of the Advocacy to Normalize sexual Abnormality was challenged to profess her adherence to or rejection of the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification and WHY.  Two down pages saw this challenge consistently advanced and consistently ignored.
> 
> If you'll go back and read the record of this thread... you'll find that NO OTHER member of the Homo-lobby found ANY means to set themselves distinct from the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... and such has remained consistent to THIS VERY POINT, despite THOUSANDS of opportunity to DO SO.
> 
> Now... has it ever occurred to any of you why that might be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I hear them draw that distinction all the time.  Maybe you just hear what you want to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you haven't been even the slightest bit curious, even as YOU DEFLECT FROM THE SUBJECT OF THE QUERY YOURSELF?
> 
> The issue was NOT 'the distinction' the issue was IF THEY REJECT IT OR NOT AND ON WHAT BASIS THEY REST THEIR ADVOCACY?
> 
> But... since you've offered up the obscurant response, we should clear up your position on the Adult pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification... Are you FOR IT OR AGAINST IT?
> 
> AND *WHY*?
Click to expand...


have you ever had anal sex with a woman?

oral?

tied one up?

had a 3some?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to remind the board...
> 
> We're still waiting on a response to this:
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now a hundred or so pages back, a mouthier contingent of the Advocacy to Normalize sexual Abnormality was challenged to profess her adherence to or rejection of the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification and WHY.  Two down pages saw this challenge consistently advanced and consistently ignored.
> 
> If you'll go back and read the record of this thread... you'll find that NO OTHER member of the Homo-lobby found ANY means to set themselves distinct from the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... and such has remained consistent to THIS VERY POINT, despite THOUSANDS of opportunity to DO SO.
> 
> Now... has it ever occurred to any of you why that might be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I hear them draw that distinction all the time.  Maybe you just hear what you want to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you haven't been even the slightest bit curious, even as YOU DEFLECT FROM THE SUBJECT OF THE QUERY YOURSELF?
> 
> The issue was NOT 'the distinction' the issue was IF THEY REJECT IT OR NOT AND ON WHAT BASIS THEY REST THEIR ADVOCACY?
> 
> But... since you've offered up the obscurant response, we should clear up your position on the Adult pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification... Are you FOR IT OR AGAINST IT?
> 
> AND *WHY*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> have you ever had anal sex with a woman?
> 
> oral?
> 
> tied one up?
> 
> had a 3some?
Click to expand...


Yep... I got the hat-trick.  

Now... *WHY DO YOU "FEEL" THAT THOSE WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION DESERVE TO BE STRIPPED OF THEIR LIFE?*


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to remind the board...
> 
> We're still waiting on a response to this:
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now a hundred or so pages back, a mouthier contingent of the Advocacy to Normalize sexual Abnormality was challenged to profess her adherence to or rejection of the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification and WHY.  Two down pages saw this challenge consistently advanced and consistently ignored.
> 
> If you'll go back and read the record of this thread... you'll find that NO OTHER member of the Homo-lobby found ANY means to set themselves distinct from the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... and such has remained consistent to THIS VERY POINT, despite THOUSANDS of opportunity to DO SO.
> 
> Now... has it ever occurred to any of you why that might be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I hear them draw that distinction all the time.  Maybe you just hear what you want to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you haven't been even the slightest bit curious, even as YOU DEFLECT FROM THE SUBJECT OF THE QUERY YOURSELF?
> 
> The issue was NOT 'the distinction' the issue was IF THEY REJECT IT OR NOT AND ON WHAT BASIS THEY REST THEIR ADVOCACY?
> 
> But... since you've offered up the obscurant response, we should clear up your position on the Adult pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification... Are you FOR IT OR AGAINST IT?
> 
> AND *WHY*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> have you ever had anal sex with a woman?
> 
> oral?
> 
> tied one up?
> 
> had a 3some?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep... I got the hat-trick.
Click to expand...


Those are abnormal sexual behaviors Keys, are you the same as a pedophile?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to remind the board...
> 
> We're still waiting on a response to this:
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now a hundred or so pages back, a mouthier contingent of the Advocacy to Normalize sexual Abnormality was challenged to profess her adherence to or rejection of the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification and WHY.  Two down pages saw this challenge consistently advanced and consistently ignored.
> 
> If you'll go back and read the record of this thread... you'll find that NO OTHER member of the Homo-lobby found ANY means to set themselves distinct from the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... and such has remained consistent to THIS VERY POINT, despite THOUSANDS of opportunity to DO SO.
> 
> Now... has it ever occurred to any of you why that might be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I hear them draw that distinction all the time.  Maybe you just hear what you want to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you haven't been even the slightest bit curious, even as YOU DEFLECT FROM THE SUBJECT OF THE QUERY YOURSELF?
> 
> The issue was NOT 'the distinction' the issue was IF THEY REJECT IT OR NOT AND ON WHAT BASIS THEY REST THEIR ADVOCACY?
> 
> But... since you've offered up the obscurant response, we should clear up your position on the Adult pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification... Are you FOR IT OR AGAINST IT?
> 
> AND *WHY*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> have you ever had anal sex with a woman?
> 
> oral?
> 
> tied one up?
> 
> had a 3some?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep... I got the hat-trick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are abnormal sexual behaviors Keys, are you the same as a pedophile?
Click to expand...


Are they?  How so?  

And.. *WHY DO YOU "FEEL" THAT THOSE WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION DESERVE TO BE STRIPPED OF THEIR LIFE?*


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to remind the board...
> 
> We're still waiting on a response to this:
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I hear them draw that distinction all the time.  Maybe you just hear what you want to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you haven't been even the slightest bit curious, even as YOU DEFLECT FROM THE SUBJECT OF THE QUERY YOURSELF?
> 
> The issue was NOT 'the distinction' the issue was IF THEY REJECT IT OR NOT AND ON WHAT BASIS THEY REST THEIR ADVOCACY?
> 
> But... since you've offered up the obscurant response, we should clear up your position on the Adult pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification... Are you FOR IT OR AGAINST IT?
> 
> AND *WHY*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> have you ever had anal sex with a woman?
> 
> oral?
> 
> tied one up?
> 
> had a 3some?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep... I got the hat-trick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are abnormal sexual behaviors Keys, are you the same as a pedophile?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they?  How so?
Click to expand...


well, since you defined homosexual as abnormal to begin with, why don't you explain why it is, then we'll discuss mine.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Anyone noticein' a trend here?  

Do ya see the fatal flaw in her reasonin'?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Anyone noticein' a trend here?
> 
> Do ya see the fatal flaw in her reasonin'?




I'm a man bro.

And you have NO reasoning here.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to remind the board...
> 
> We're still waiting on a response to this:
> 
> So you haven't been even the slightest bit curious, even as YOU DEFLECT FROM THE SUBJECT OF THE QUERY YOURSELF?
> 
> The issue was NOT 'the distinction' the issue was IF THEY REJECT IT OR NOT AND ON WHAT BASIS THEY REST THEIR ADVOCACY?
> 
> But... since you've offered up the obscurant response, we should clear up your position on the Adult pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification... Are you FOR IT OR AGAINST IT?
> 
> AND *WHY*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you ever had anal sex with a woman?
> 
> oral?
> 
> tied one up?
> 
> had a 3some?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep... I got the hat-trick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are abnormal sexual behaviors Keys, are you the same as a pedophile?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they?  How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, since you defined homosexual as abnormal to begin with, why don't you explain why it is, then we'll discuss mine.
Click to expand...


I didn't define homosexuality as abnormal... Nature designed the species, establishing the standard from which homosexuality deviates, thus establishing itself as abnormal.

Now... *WHY DO YOU "FEEL" THAT THOSE WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION DESERVE TO BE STRIPPED OF THEIR LIFE?*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone noticein' a trend here?
> 
> Do ya see the fatal flaw in her reasonin'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a man bro.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!  At BEST you am a MALE... .   No "man" reasons subjectively.  But if you're doin' the best ya can, I guess that's all one can ask of ya.

Now... *WHY DO YOU "FEEL" THAT THOSE WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION DESERVE TO BE STRIPPED OF THEIR LIFE?*


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> have you ever had anal sex with a woman?
> 
> oral?
> 
> tied one up?
> 
> had a 3some?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... I got the hat-trick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are abnormal sexual behaviors Keys, are you the same as a pedophile?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they?  How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, since you defined homosexual as abnormal to begin with, why don't you explain why it is, then we'll discuss mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't define homosexuality as abnormal... Nature designed the species, establishing the standard from which homosexuality deviates, thus establishing itself as abnormal.
Click to expand...


What a load of shit.

Here , let me help you

*1ab·nor·mal*
_adjective_ \(ˌ)ab-ˈnȯr-məl, əb-\
: different from what is normal or average : unusual especially in a way that causes problems


The average person does not have anal sex with women, nor have oral sex, nor have threesomes. 

So, doing ANY of them is abnormal. Doing ALL of them is truly abnorma

abnormal =/= criminal.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... I got the hat-trick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are abnormal sexual behaviors Keys, are you the same as a pedophile?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they?  How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, since you defined homosexual as abnormal to begin with, why don't you explain why it is, then we'll discuss mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't define homosexuality as abnormal... Nature designed the species, establishing the standard from which homosexuality deviates, thus establishing itself as abnormal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a load of shit.
> 
> Here , let me help you
> 
> *1ab·nor·mal*
> _adjective_ \(ˌ)ab-ˈnȯr-məl, əb-\
> : different from what is normal or average : unusual especially in a way that causes problems
> 
> 
> The average person does not have anal sex with women, nor have oral sex, nor have threesomes.
> 
> So, doing ANY of them is abnormal. Doing ALL of them is truly abnorma
> 
> abnormal =/= criminal.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!

Abnormal is defined as: deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.

LOL!  But let's take your own subjective understanding and have some fun with that...

So the average person, according to you, doesn't have anal or oral sex with a person of the distinct gender...(Which is ludicrous, I know folks... but its her definition... so let it go for the moment) all of which would still be in keeping with standard of human physiology...  but because it is not 'common', according to you... THAT makes such "ABNORMAL" ... OK?  We good so far?

BUT!  Where a man has sex with another man... an act which is 180 degrees out of phase with, thus deviates AS FAR FROM the standard of human physiology, as can be deviated, where the participants remain consistently HUMAN and THAT... LOL! ... that is perfectly normal?

ROFLMNAO!  

Does anyone need anything else?

OH!  ... *WHY DO YOU "FEEL" THAT THOSE WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION DESERVE TO BE STRIPPED OF THEIR LIFE?*


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

nah, i'm done, you just want to be an idiot. Enjoy


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> nah, i'm done, you just want to be an idiot. Enjoy



Very well... your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(The Record should reflect that the contributor was ABSOLUTE in her public rejection of the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification, but refused to provide the board any understanding with regard to the basis for her rejecting Sexual Abnormality... while simultaneously promoting the normalization of sexual abnormality.

There is a reason that NONE of the Advocates of Normalizing Sexual Abnormality will provide an answer to that question... and the answer is that the answer itself will prove TO THEM, that they're wrong in promoting sexual abnormality. 

The species of reasoning which they apply is purely subjective... and they cannot allow themselves to allow the nose of the objective camel under their subjective tent. 

You're literally witnessing in these people the presentation of stark, clinical delusion... a profound demonstration of sociopathy. 

Meaning that they're crazier than an outhouse rat... and yet they're perfectly qualified to VOTE!

Now... knowing that, does that help you understand how in only just over 7 years since they came to federal power, beginning in 2007... that the United States has devolved into something just north of a 3rd world banana republic?  Where the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT has NO INTERESTS in DEFENDING FEDERAL LAW, the President of the US SPENDS IN DEFICIT, MORE MONEY THAN THE US FEDERAL GOV'T BUDGETED just a generation ago and 10 times what the Federal government averaged in deficit in the just the previous administration?

Pretty cool, huh?)


----------



## MrDVS1

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> MrDVS1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think all these so called religions should accept their brothers and sisters like they are supposed to and if they do not it merely highlights their hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religions are failing to accept their bros and sissies?  And please... be specific; at least as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Now... just to help ya through this... I am asking for examples where Churches are refusing acceptance of people who despite the sin common to the abomination that is the sexual perversion of homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, which are all irrelevant variations on the same perverse theme..., but who recognize the error of their ways, have admitted that their sexual abnormality is wrong, to both themselves and to God, and have taken action to turn from that sinful behavior and, have openly sought to live a life free from Left-think and the debauchery common to such which threatens to destroy them and by extension, their community.  And DESPITE THEIR CONTRITION: THE CHURCH REJECTS THEM.
> 
> I ask it that way because THAT is the responsibility of the Christian... to accept the sinner (as are we all) but reject the Left-think (Irrational Ideas which separate us from good, OKA: God.)
Click to expand...


Personally I can't imagine that a same sex couple would even want a church wedding given the bigoted history. However I have not heard of any churches that flung their arms open to welcome same sex couples and there is this one Christian church that I drive by in the Muskego, WI area that had the message out front that said "just because the government says something is legal it doesn't make it right".....gee, I wonder what they were talking about just two days after the supreme court ruling.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

MrDVS1 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrDVS1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think all these so called religions should accept their brothers and sisters like they are supposed to and if they do not it merely highlights their hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religions are failing to accept their bros and sissies?  And please... be specific; at least as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Now... just to help ya through this... I am asking for examples where Churches are refusing acceptance of people who despite the sin common to the abomination that is the sexual perversion of homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, which are all irrelevant variations on the same perverse theme..., but who recognize the error of their ways, have admitted that their sexual abnormality is wrong, to both themselves and to God, and have taken action to turn from that sinful behavior and, have openly sought to live a life free from Left-think and the debauchery common to such which threatens to destroy them and by extension, their community.  And DESPITE THEIR CONTRITION: THE CHURCH REJECTS THEM.
> 
> I ask it that way because THAT is the responsibility of the Christian... to accept the sinner (as are we all) but reject the Left-think (Irrational Ideas which separate us from good, OKA: God.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally I can't imagine that a same sex couple would even want a church wedding given the bigoted history. However I have not heard of any churches that flung their arms open to welcome same sex couples and there is this one Christian church that I drive by in the Muskego, WI area that had the message out front that said "just because the government says something is legal it doesn't make it right".....gee, I wonder what they were talking about just two days after the supreme court ruling.
Click to expand...



Oh that's easy... they're talking about the natural result of allowing relativist to govern... wherein all legitimate sense of justice is rinsed from execution of 'the Law'. 

You know... where the law rejects the essential moral underpinnings of law, OKA: that which provide for the legitimacy of law.

Well, it seems likely that ya don't know... but the readers know and I guess that's all that counts.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

So ... once again... where the obligatory Newbie comes along and asks the inevitable question: "Does anyone ever win one of these arguments, you should book mark this thread so that you can show them a classic example (if not routine) where such decisive victories are common place.   

Anyone with a solid understanding of natural law can do it, really... .  And it is every BIT as easy as it looks.


----------



## Silhouette

MrDVS1 said:


> Personally I can't imagine that a same sex couple would even want a church wedding given the bigoted history. However I have not heard of any churches that flung their arms open to welcome same sex couples and there is this one Christian church that I drive by in the Muskego, WI area that had the message out front that said "just because the government says something is legal it doesn't make it right".....gee, I wonder what they were talking about just two days after the supreme court ruling.


 
Well, the judge in New York just found that incest closer than half uncle/half niece cannot be legally married because it is a horror to the majority of people.  That was his legal argument.  No kidding.  So he said "any marriage the majority considers horrible, is not legal therefore"...or also "any marriage the majority finds repugnant may not be legal".

So that's it, another judge has found against gay marriage in states where the majority voted it down.  Read his justification here: NY State blesses incest marriage between uncle niece Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> So.....you just confirmed again that you think NAMBLA is going to convince everyone it's ok to bugger children, simultaneously confirming that you're besotted with irrational paranoia and need help...and possibly some strong medication.
> 
> The voices in your head are not real.



No the wiki does that .................



> *North American Man/Boy Love Association*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> North American Man/Boy Love Association
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A NAMBLA logo. The capital _M_ and lowercase _b_ symbolize a man and a boy.Founded1978FounderDavid ThorstadTypeUnincorporated associationFocusPedophile, pederasty activism and educationLocation
> New York City and San Francisco
> Area servedUSMembersN/AMissionRemoving age of consent laws
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]The *North American Man/Boy Love Association* (*NAMBLA*) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States. It works to abolish age of consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors,[1][2] and campaigns for the release of all men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.[1][3] Some reports state that the group no longer has regular national meetings, and that as of the late 1990s, to avoid local police infiltration, the organization discouraged the formation of local chapters.[3][4] Around 1995, an undercover detective discovered that there were 1,100 people on the rolls.[3] As of 2005, a newspaper report stated that NAMBLA was based in New York and San Francisco.[3]



Well that is what the wiki says, looks like advocacy to "bugger  childrern"

Once again, do you fucking morons actually think any of this through or are even capable of connecting the dots??

Not only does it look like it, it is plainly stated it is an advocacy group fort just that ...............


----------



## Gadawg73

"Gays in the military will disrupt unit cohesion" = "Gay marriage will force churches to perform gay marriage" 
Only a dumb ass believes either one. And the anti gay marriage team do not believe either themselves. They lie and make shit up to mask their prejudices. Not all of them but most.


----------



## Gadawg73

Amazing how you good folks lie about a Judge's ruling. Incest is illegal in the criminal code. Gays falling in love together of legal age is not. Dumbasses.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Gadawg73 said:


> Amazing how you good folks lie about a Judge's ruling. Incest is illegal in the criminal code. Gays falling in love together of legal age is not. Dumbasses.



Hilarious, cool down dawg .............
Please quote where anyone has made any references to gays falling in love is against the criminal code ..................

It is so humorous to watch as this parade of fags comes out, each with their own outlandish, twisted, distorted perception of this conversation.

Well, we all understand, both us reasonable and prudent people and you faggots, that since you can not defend the issue as defined by the OP, you will deflect and contort this thread to something totally different.

You faggots seem to be Outspoken, Overbearing and Obnoxious  ................ unfortunately, most of you are driven by twisted logic fueled by impulsive behaviors.

Most of society views your group as an abomination against God and society in general, the Democrats have pandered to your kind for votes and by turn you have fueled the ranks of the Democrats / Progressives / Liberals to advance your own agenda.

Society as a whole through the ages has never openly accepted gays and if thousands of years of history is a strong indication, we know what the future will hold.
We are taught to study history to avoid mistakes already made in the past.

Hitler thought he had a master plan to kill the jews and become the master race, his stance was condoned by part of society that he had the ability to control, the rest of the world slapped him back to reality.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

DrDoomNGloom said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So.....you just confirmed again that you think NAMBLA is going to convince everyone it's ok to bugger children, simultaneously confirming that you're besotted with irrational paranoia and need help...and possibly some strong medication.
> 
> The voices in your head are not real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the wiki does that .................
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is what the wiki says, looks like advocacy to "bugger  childrern"
> 
> Once again, do you fucking morons actually think any of this through or are even capable of connecting the dots??
> 
> Not only does it look like it, it is plainly stated it is an advocacy group fort just that ...............
Click to expand...


Are you dense?  I said that NAMBLA CONVINCING EVERYONE IT'S OK TO BUGGER CHILDREN is irrational and symptomatic of unbalanced thinking.  I didn't say they don't push for it, I said it's stupid to think they'll succeed.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Gadawg73 said:


> "Gays in the military will disrupt unit cohesion" = "Gay marriage will force churches to perform gay marriage"
> Only a dumb ass believes either one. And the anti gay marriage team do not believe either themselves. They lie and make shit up to mask their prejudices. Not all of them but most.



LOL!  So Homosexuals haven't effected unit cohesion?

ROFLMNAO!

Ignorance IS Gay.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Gadawg73 said:


> Amazing how you good folks lie about a Judge's ruling. Incest is illegal in the criminal code. Gays falling in love together of legal age is not. Dumbasses.



So... the problem with Incest is that it is ILLEGAL?  

Tell me GaDawg, where do you come down on the Adult pursuit of Children for sexual gratification and: most importantly: WHY?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Uh oh... looks like we've run up on another of those inexplicable bouts of reticence... which inevitably seem to follow the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, right after they're asked about their 'feelings' regarding the screwing of children by ADULTS!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

The Government Should Stop Waging War on Those Against Same-Sex Marriage

Of course, we've learned through the experience that is this thread, that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is destined to LOSE... given that all one has to do to SHUT THEM UP, is to ask them where they stand on the ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION ... and MOST IMPORTANTLY: "WHY"?

That will be my FIRST question at any trial which may come along as a result of my rejecting sexual abnormality as normal.  Promises to be a VERY SHORT TRIAL... indeed.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> 
> Long term exposure to pornography normalizes sexual stimulation through redundant exposure to stimuli... such exposure drives the individual to craving farther and farther down the stimulus rabbit hole, wherein 'normal' sexual visuals no longer provides stimulation and the subject craves material of a more forbidden nature... left unchecked, by an individual who is incapable of objective reason, finds their behavior 'NORMAL', the subject will crave action of a forbidden nature to satisfy more and more obsessive, compulsive cravings.
> 
> All of which could readily be resolved by a modicum of humility and the means to reason objectively.
> 
> Now which of those 'men' would you like to recommend for adopting a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You now need to have a neutral third party examine your computer for evidence of lesbian pornography.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?  Because you need to project that 'everybody does it'?
> 
> Lemme ask ya... does 'everyone doin' it', somehow make it right?
> 
> If so, why?
> 
> If not, why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain, as simply as possible, why the overwhelming number of perps are heterosexual men preying on young girls?
Click to expand...

Matters not about the numbers of instances or acts that are being found in the numbers, but what does matter is the right and wrong that is being found in any of these things, and then admitting to that fact alone regardless of the numbers involved. Some problems are more than others as the numbers would suggest, but it only means that there is more work to do in one case verses the other, and that work is to make people realize the wrong that is in each case that is being presented. You do know that there are plenty of spaces here in order to start up a thread on any case that is being crossed or mentioned don't you ? This crossing over of cases or incidents with another is all in hopes to drown a specific case in which is being brought to the surface for discussion of such things in which are wrong in the eyes of most individuals, and for whom are individuals that participate in the reviews of a specific case that is then being brought to light within the context or within the facts that are known about in a specific case. All can be cases that which are considered to be under review at any given time, but they should have their own thread in order to discuss them separately, and this is in order to hold them to be reviewed upon the circumstances that make up the case specifically or in it's uniqueness there of. The wrong may be acquired in which is gauged by a moral code or standard that is lived by, in which could be the same code or standard that could be applied to the other cases as well all depending.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> The Government Should Stop Waging War on Those Against Same-Sex Marriage
> 
> Of course, we've learned through the experience that is this thread, that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is destined to LOSE... given that all one has to do to SHUT THEM UP, is to ask them where they stand on the ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION ... and MOST IMPORTANTLY: "WHY"?
> 
> That will be my FIRST question at any trial which may come along as a result of my rejecting sexual abnormality as normal.  Promises to be a VERY SHORT TRIAL... indeed.



Are you a human being or a spambot?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Jarlaxle said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Government Should Stop Waging War on Those Against Same-Sex Marriage
> 
> Of course, we've learned through the experience that is this thread, that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is destined to LOSE... given that all one has to do to SHUT THEM UP, is to ask them where they stand on the ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION ... and MOST IMPORTANTLY: "WHY"?
> 
> That will be my FIRST question at any trial which may come along as a result of my rejecting sexual abnormality as normal.  Promises to be a VERY SHORT TRIAL... indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a human being or a spambot?
Click to expand...


So you're saying that you desperately need to change the subject, because the standing points at issue exposes your cult as the loathsome, injurious evil that it is?

Yeah... I get that.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Gadawg73 said:


> Amazing how you good folks lie about a Judge's ruling. Incest is illegal in the criminal code. Gays falling in love together of legal age is not. Dumbasses.



So... the problem with Incest is that it is ILLEGAL?

Tell me GaDawg, where do you come down on 'The Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification' and: most importantly: WHY?

^^^ FYI: THAT is why they're wetting their collective pant.  And for the obvious reason. ^^^


----------



## 1776

Gay marriage is going to move many people from the Democraps to the GOP....that was the final straw for them.

Many Democraps that somehow go to church on Sundays used to think the gay thing in the Democraps was just a fringe thing, but now that Obama and his goons are forcing the gay lifestyle down everyone's throat.....that shows Democraps put gays far above the church views of some Democraps especially blacks.

Blacks are well known to be homophobic, especially black males 18-40, so Obama sticking nose all up in gays' asses has finally turned them against him and his ilk.


----------



## RKMBrown

1776 said:


> Gay marriage is going to move many people from the Democraps to the GOP....that was the final straw for them.
> 
> Many Democraps that somehow go to church on Sundays used to think the gay thing in the Democraps was just a fringe thing, but now that Obama and his goons are forcing the gay lifestyle down everyone's throat.....that shows Democraps put gays far above the church views of some Democraps especially blacks.
> 
> Blacks are well known to be homophobic, especially black males 18-40, so Obama sticking nose all up in gays' asses has finally turned them against him and his ilk.


More people are leaving the republican party because of the predominance of homophobic bigots in the republican party leadership than are leaving the democrats because of their kind inclusion of gays.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molested children are overwhelmingly attacked by HETERO fascists.
> 
> Young girls are overwhelmingly attacked by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an "inconvenient truth" for those who want to blame gays for child molestations.  Remember Chris Hansen's "To Catch A Predator" series on MSNBC Dateline? Heterosexual men drove from sometimes hundreds of miles away to have sex with what they thought was a 13 year old girl (or sometimes a boy) that they chatted up online.  They ran the gamut from teachers to cops to Bible youth group leaders.  Some had daughters the same age as the girl they attempted to molest.
> 
> Now juxtapose this against the claim that hordes of homosexuals are out there molesting children.  It's why when I said I don't believe that homosexuals are more likely to molest children it's because that claim doesn't fit with reality as I understand it.
> 
> I don't agree with gays, but I don't hate them either.  Maybe that's why I see them as human whereas a lot of others see them as malevolent monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those 'men' were sexually abnormal... this the result of long term  exposure to... resultant in the inevitable subsequent the obsession with... pornography, the result of crippled cultural standards, brought on in large measure by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
Click to expand...


Blah blah blah....more claims pulled from Keys posterior.

Meanwhile the real problem is child sexual predators- not homosexuals- or heterosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly

1776 said:


> Gay marriage is going to move many people from the Democraps to the GOP....that was the final straw for them.
> 
> Many Democraps that somehow go to church on Sundays used to think the gay thing in the Democraps was just a fringe thing, but now that Obama and his goons are forcing the gay lifestyle down everyone's throat.....that shows Democraps put gays far above the church views of some Democraps especially blacks.
> 
> Blacks are well known to be homophobic, especially black males 18-40, so Obama sticking nose all up in gays' asses has finally turned them against him and his ilk.



I always enjoy it when old white guys tell us how African Americans think and what they are going to do. 

It is so amusing.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

RKMBrown said:


> More people are leaving the republican party because of the predominance of homophobic bigots in the republican party leadership than are leaving the democrats because of their kind inclusion of gays.



I'm sure you got some stats to back that faggot lie up ........................


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Syriusly said:


> Blah blah blah....more claims pulled from Keys posterior.
> 
> Meanwhile the real problem is child sexual predators- not homosexuals- or heterosexuals.



Once again,you are confused on the issue, just like your sexual preference .....................
We have shut your faggot mouth up every time you have tried to go this route .................


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Syriusly said:


> Blah blah blah....more claims pulled from Keys posterior.
> 
> Meanwhile the real problem is child sexual predators- not homosexuals- or heterosexuals.



Faggot this is a different thread, if you actually think that is a / the problem go start your own fucking thread and keep your faggot obtuseness out of this conversation ...............


----------



## dblack

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah....more claims pulled from Keys posterior.
> 
> Meanwhile the real problem is child sexual predators- not homosexuals- or heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faggot this is a different thread, if you actually think that is a / the problem go start your own fucking thread and keep your faggot obtuseness out of this conversation ...............
Click to expand...


Wow! You really wear your ugly on your sleeve. Do you have the balls to talk like this in r/l?


----------



## Syriusly

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah....more claims pulled from Keys posterior.
> 
> Meanwhile the real problem is child sexual predators- not homosexuals- or heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again,you are confused on the issue, just like your sexual preference .....................
> We have shut your faggot mouth up every time you have tried to go this route .................
Click to expand...


LOL....its little dick responding to me again? Have you found a microscope powerful enough to find your dick yet?

As you keep proving- there is a real correlation between homophobia and low IQ.


----------



## Syriusly

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah....more claims pulled from Keys posterior.
> 
> Meanwhile the real problem is child sexual predators- not homosexuals- or heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faggot this is a different thread, if you actually think that is a / the problem go start your own fucking thread and keep your faggot obtuseness out of this conversation ...............
Click to expand...


Little Dick- you don't mind if I call you by your proper name do you?

Just go back to fantasizing about your next KKK rally- and leave the forum to the grown ups.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Syriusly said:


> LOL....its little dick responding to me again? Have you found a microscope powerful enough to find your dick yet?
> 
> As you keep proving- there is a real correlation between homophobia and low IQ.



I know you are a faggot with a dick obsession ...............

I am happily married and despise faggots, especially one's who have a "deficient dick syndrome" and try to compensate by projecting on others.

Now I have intervened in your faggot agenda, with great success ..................

And will continue to remind you of the OP's  intentions, faggot .................


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

dblack said:


> Wow! You really wear your ugly on your sleeve. Do you have the balls to talk like this in r/l?



Damn skippy, we talk like this in real life.

Let me go out on a limb here and surmise you would sure like to "violently shut my mouth" .................

You fucking moron, most faggots are not violent ................ oh wait, you the big bad butch bitch??

No my nuts are much bigger than yours and my Bushmaster will deal with your nasty attitude whenever ................

Get a clue in life, not only do I talk a bad game, but for pieces of shit like you I delight in pissing on your faggot parade !!


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Talk about wearing ugly on your sleeve, society as a whole, in general views homosexuality as vile and disgusting ...............
You fuckers have pride in it .......................

By the way, I brought intelligence to a battle of the wits ..................
I see ya'll have come unarmed .......................
ROFLMMFAO ......................


----------



## Syriusly

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....its little dick responding to me again? Have you found a microscope powerful enough to find your dick yet?
> 
> As you keep proving- there is a real correlation between homophobia and low IQ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you are a faggot with a dick obsession ...............
> 
> I am happily married and despise faggots, especially one's who have a "deficient dick syndrome" and try to compensate by projecting on others.
> .
Click to expand...


Well I imagine you are happily married- I mean you clearly were lucky to find a blind woman who would have you- but wasn't she surprised that your name "Little Dick" was an actual reference to the size of your dick?

Meanwhile, your posts are a constant reminder that there is a real correlation between homophobia and low IQ


----------



## Syriusly

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Talk about wearing ugly on your sleeve, society as a whole, in general views homosexuality as vile and disgusting ...............
> You fuckers have pride in it .......................
> ..



now, now, now LIttle Dick...don't go projecting your own self loathing on the rest of society.


----------



## Silhouette

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Get a clue in life, not only do I talk a bad game, but for pieces of shit like you I delight in pissing on your faggot parade !!


Your attitude is unwelcome in this debate.

And in general, we are on the same side of the debate with refusing to allow gay agenda any further ground.  Your hyperbole and violence only adds to their side of the debate, milking sympathy.  And your appearance *suddenly* so close to a pivotal election makes me wonder if you yourself aren't some LGBT plant put in to ramp up sympathy and votes at the last minute.

ie: tone it down or be exposed for what you're up to.

Or it's you and "Syriusly" having a manufactured flame-war to shut the thread down [and its very uncomfortable polling results.]

I suggest that a moderator ban you two instead of the thread.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a clue in life, not only do I talk a bad game, but for pieces of shit like you I delight in pissing on your faggot parade !!
> 
> 
> 
> Your attitude is unwelcome in this debate.
> 
> And in general, we are on the same side of the debate with refusing to allow gay agenda any further ground.  Your hyperbole and violence only adds to their side of the debate, milking sympathy.  And your appearance *suddenly* so close to a pivotal election makes me wonder if you yourself aren't some LGBT plant put in to ramp up sympathy and votes at the last minute.
> 
> ie: tone it down or be exposed for what you're up to.
Click to expand...


LOL- he is just another aspect of you.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Silhouette said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a clue in life, not only do I talk a bad game, but for pieces of shit like you I delight in pissing on your faggot parade !!
> 
> 
> 
> Your attitude is unwelcome in this debate.
> 
> And in general, we are on the same side of the debate with refusing to allow gay agenda any further ground.  Your hyperbole and violence only adds to their side of the debate, milking sympathy.  And your appearance *suddenly* so close to a pivotal election makes me wonder if you yourself aren't some LGBT plant put in to ramp up sympathy and votes at the last minute.
> 
> ie: tone it down or be exposed for what you're up to.
> 
> Or it's you and "Syriusly" having a manufactured flame-war to shut the thread down [and its very uncomfortable polling results.]
> 
> I suggest that a moderator ban you two instead of the thread.
Click to expand...


Get a clue in life you shrill .........
My stance and attitude do nothing to further "their side of the debate" except in your wee little mind ...............

Now you wan to silence me, you have 26 letters and numerous other keys to do the job with ...............

We in the bad lands, no one is going to shut this thread down, but nice attempt ...................

Expose what ever you think you need to expose, till a moderator silences me it's all hollow threats ...................


----------



## Silhouette

Yep, manufactured flame war to ramp up sympathy for the LGBT cult & disappear the poll results  at the top of this thread.  You really are disturbed by them that much, aren't you?  There's no denying what they mean...

And your guys' ruse is



Seen it in many variations over the the years of debating this topic.  And it's always one of their last-ditch attempts when reverse-bashing [bigot, hater, homophobe, closet homo] doesn't seem to be getting the traction they need.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Silhouette said:


> Yep, manufactured flame war to ramp up sympathy for the LGBT cult & disappear the poll results  at the top of this thread.  You really are disturbed by them that much, aren't you?  There's no denying what they mean...



Your not going to get sympathy for them by trying to crucify me ...................

Aren't you supposed to be reporting me??

Grow the fuck up and participate in the discussion, or not .................

Other wise, fuck OFF.....................

By the way, I did not vote,but have an ass load of post to support my stance ..............

In other words, I don't think the poll means shit compared to the discussion .......

Sampling data is too small to mean much of anything ..............


----------



## Silhouette

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, manufactured flame war to ramp up sympathy for the LGBT cult & disappear the poll results  at the top of this thread.  You really are disturbed by them that much, aren't you?  There's no denying what they mean...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your not going to get sympathy for them by trying to crucify me ...................
> 
> Aren't you supposed to be reporting me??
> 
> Grow the fuck up and participate in the discussion, or not .................
> 
> Other wise, fuck OFF.....................
Click to expand...

Yes, I will report you for posing as a gay-hater to ramp up sympathy for LGBT.  This website relies on a lack of flame to draw in the majority of its viewers and such.  They get lots of advertising revenues.  I know how to kill a thread if I want to.  I'd do exactly what you're doing.  And you know the rules here too.  You want me to report you for flaming though and I won't.  That's because I want the moderators to know that your aim is to lock the thread and disappear it.

That's because you are furious about  the numbers of views the thread is getting, how popular the poll is (one of the biggest ever), and ergo how important the subject material in it is to what now...over 82% of the voters here?  82%.  That's a big number.

Go away LGBT troll.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Silhouette said:


> Yes, I will report you for posing as a gay-hater to ramp up sympathy for LGBT.  This website relies on a lack of flame to draw in the majority of its viewers and such.  They get lots of advertising revenues.  I know how to kill a thread if I want to.  I'd do exactly what you're doing.  And you know the rules here too.  You want me to report you for flaming though and I won't.  That's because I want the moderators to know that your aim is to lock the thread and disappear it.
> 
> That's because you are furious about  the numbers of views the thread is getting, how popular the poll is (one of the biggest ever), and ergo how important the subject material in it is to what now...over 82% of the voters here?  82%.  That's a big number.
> 
> Go away LGBT troll.



Get over your self you don't know shit .........

They reported me all day yesterday for running interference with the gays stance ..................

You'll just have to get a number and stand in line ..................

I don't want to see her shit and told Key's that yesterday, when the mods look, my story will check.

I have run interference against the faggots(flames optional) while providing a platform for my stance.

But listen maggot shit, I have a right to express my sentiment complete with flame and shit holes like you have no right to interfere ..................

Now once fucking again back to the OP topic .........................


----------



## Silhouette

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Now once fucking again back to the OP topic .........................



OK potty mouth.  You've been reported for trying to lock the thread with a flame war.  At your request.

Back to the topic yes... Here's a hispanic man discussing the lesbian official in Texas trying to redact christian sermons to promote homosexuality in their flock:  Pastors to mayor Don t mess with Texas pulpits Fox News



> *Christians across the nation are mobilizing to defend a group of Houston pastors who were ordered by the city to turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity issues *or Houston mayor. Their message is simple – Don’t Mess with Texas Preachers.
> 
> ....Houston’s city attorney issued the subpoenas *in a response to a lawsuit filed related to the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (H.E.R.O.), the city's new non-discrimination ordinance, also known as the “Bathroom Bill.*”..



Continued... It seems the pastors were being punished because normal people were trying to rescind the law that allows 40 year old men to use girls' bathrooms in public.  It was a "example by torture" move.  Torture some prominent victims, those most famous for speaking out against the LGBT agenda (pastors) to set an example to anyone else (like petition drivers) "here's what will happen to you if you persist in resisting us"...

Pretty chilling...



> The new law, which has yet to take effect, would (among other things) allow men who identify as women to use the restrooms of their choice – and vice versa. *Opponents launched a petition drive to put the issue on the ballot.
> 
> However, the city threw out the petitions claiming there were not enough legitimate signatures*. Opponents then filed a lawsuit – which led the city to issue the subpoenas.
> 
> *Ironically, none of the five subpoenaed pastors are plaintiffs in the lawsuit*.


----------



## RKMBrown

DrDoomNGloom said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> More people are leaving the republican party because of the predominance of homophobic bigots in the republican party leadership than are leaving the democrats because of their kind inclusion of gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you got some stats to back that faggot lie up ........................
Click to expand...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Gadawg73 said:


> Amazing how you good folks lie about a Judge's ruling. Incest is illegal in the criminal code. Gays falling in love together of legal age is not. Dumbasses.



So... the problem with Incest is that it is "ILLEGAL"?

My goodness... DO TELL ... of this deep philosophical point, regarding "legalities".  I ask because it sounds as if, where such were suddenly declared 'legal', perhaps through some pseudo-scientific rationalization which concludes that 'some folks just feel more close than others to family', that Uncles should have unfettered sexual access to willing Nieces, Fathers to Daughters, Moms to sons, Fathers to son, Mothers to Daughters... Goats, Chickens, Melons and _children of all ages_... .

Oh well, I'm sure that such could not be the case, because that would not be reasonable... and you SO seems like a person who SO DESIRES TO APPEAR REASONABLE!

.
.
.

Tell me GaDawg, where do you come down on 'The Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification' and: most importantly: WHY?

^^^ FTR: THAT is why they're wetting their collective pant. And for the obvious reason. ^^^


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> Yep, manufactured flame war to ramp up sympathy for the LGBT cult & disappear the poll results  at the top of this thread.  You really are disturbed by them that much, aren't you?  There's no denying what they mean...
> 
> And your guys' ruse is
> 
> 
> 
> Seen it in many variations over the the years of debating this topic.  And it's always one of their last-ditch attempts when reverse-bashing [bigot, hater, homophobe, closet homo] doesn't seem to be getting the traction they need.



Well... such is the nature of evil.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, manufactured flame war to ramp up sympathy for the LGBT cult & disappear the poll results  at the top of this thread.  You really are disturbed by them that much, aren't you?  There's no denying what they mean...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your not going to get sympathy for them by trying to crucify me ...................
> 
> Aren't you supposed to be reporting me??
> 
> Grow the fuck up and participate in the discussion, or not .................
> 
> Other wise, fuck OFF.....................
> 
> By the way, I did not vote,but have an ass load of post to support my stance ..............
> 
> In other words, I don't think the poll means shit compared to the discussion .......
> 
> Sampling data is too small to mean much of anything ..............
Click to expand...


Dah... I've tolerated your nonsense, thinking you one of the lesser intellects among an otherwise good people.

I think Sil is correct about you.  

As a result there's little room for consideration beyond your counter productive nature... thus find you wholly intolerable.  As a result you're hereby sentenced to LIFE IN IGNORE!

(Say howdy to the idiots for me...)

Buh Bye!


----------



## Jarlaxle

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Government Should Stop Waging War on Those Against Same-Sex Marriage
> 
> Of course, we've learned through the experience that is this thread, that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is destined to LOSE... given that all one has to do to SHUT THEM UP, is to ask them where they stand on the ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION ... and MOST IMPORTANTLY: "WHY"?
> 
> That will be my FIRST question at any trial which may come along as a result of my rejecting sexual abnormality as normal.  Promises to be a VERY SHORT TRIAL... indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a human being or a spambot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that you desperately need to change the subject, because the standing points at issue exposes your cult as the loathsome, injurious evil that it is?
Click to expand...


No...I am saying that you are posting the SAME FUCKING POST over and over and over and over...spambot.



> Yeah... I get that.



No. No, you don't.



> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.



You should probably seek professional help for those voices in your head.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

LOL!  MAN ALIVE that is becoming an extensive list!  

But this forum is SO much more pleasant where the foolish, treacherous and those of simple intellects are neither seen, nor heard.


----------



## 1776

There is a difference between us in the GOP holding our nose as you bang your boyfriend in the ass, and you parading yourselves out as "married" is the final straw for many in the GOP and ex-Democraps now moving to the GOP this election.

Of course a stupid fuck hick queer like you doesn't understand why Obama is so unpopular in the polls....gay marriage is one big reason.



RKMBrown said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage is going to move many people from the Democraps to the GOP....that was the final straw for them.
> 
> Many Democraps that somehow go to church on Sundays used to think the gay thing in the Democraps was just a fringe thing, but now that Obama and his goons are forcing the gay lifestyle down everyone's throat.....that shows Democraps put gays far above the church views of some Democraps especially blacks.
> 
> Blacks are well known to be homophobic, especially black males 18-40, so Obama sticking nose all up in gays' asses has finally turned them against him and his ilk.
> 
> 
> 
> More people are leaving the republican party because of the predominance of homophobic bigots in the republican party leadership than are leaving the democrats because of their kind inclusion of gays.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jarlaxle

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> LOL!  MAN ALIVE that is becoming an extensive list!
> 
> But this forum is SO much more pleasant where the foolish, treacherous and those of simple intellects are neither seen, nor heard.



Dude...you can't put yourself on your ignore list.


----------



## 1776

I'm not old, you stupid cum-guzzler.

I'm upper middle class in the middle of my adult years and I grew up around more blacks than you.

Take a look at Obama's shitty poll numbers....they took a major hit this past year when he jumped on the dick parade.



Syriusly said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage is going to move many people from the Democraps to the GOP....that was the final straw for them.
> 
> Many Democraps that somehow go to church on Sundays used to think the gay thing in the Democraps was just a fringe thing, but now that Obama and his goons are forcing the gay lifestyle down everyone's throat.....that shows Democraps put gays far above the church views of some Democraps especially blacks.
> 
> Blacks are well known to be homophobic, especially black males 18-40, so Obama sticking nose all up in gays' asses has finally turned them against him and his ilk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always enjoy it when old white guys tell us how African Americans think and what they are going to do.
> 
> It is so amusing.
Click to expand...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Jarlaxle said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Government Should Stop Waging War on Those Against Same-Sex Marriage
> 
> Of course, we've learned through the experience that is this thread, that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is destined to LOSE... given that all one has to do to SHUT THEM UP, is to ask them where they stand on the ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION ... and MOST IMPORTANTLY: "WHY"?
> 
> That will be my FIRST question at any trial which may come along as a result of my rejecting sexual abnormality as normal.  Promises to be a VERY SHORT TRIAL... indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a human being or a spambot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that you desperately need to change the subject, because the standing points at issue exposes your cult as the loathsome, injurious evil that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...I am saying that you are posting the SAME FUCKING POST over and over and over and over...spambot.
Click to expand...


That's because the answers to it, have not been provided. 

Ya see the question is central to the issue at hand, which is the fascist nature of the Ideological Left, and the true purpose behind their Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality. 

Just as Sodomy was 'illegal' just a few short years ago... with those laws lifted upon the subjective and otherwise baseless 'conclusions' of spurious 'SCIENCE!', so goes the battle to lift the "AGE of CONSENT", which will be challenged upon the very same 'conclusions' of pseudo-science... all toward LEGALIZING the Adult pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification. 

Which brings me to ask:

*Tell me Jarlaxle, where do you come down on 'The Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification'.  Are you FOR or AGAINST IT and: most importantly: WHY?*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Amazing isn't it?  

Ask that ONE simple question and the little demons HEAD for shadows... 

LOL!  Crazy consistent!


----------



## Jarlaxle

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Government Should Stop Waging War on Those Against Same-Sex Marriage
> 
> Of course, we've learned through the experience that is this thread, that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is destined to LOSE... given that all one has to do to SHUT THEM UP, is to ask them where they stand on the ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION ... and MOST IMPORTANTLY: "WHY"?
> 
> That will be my FIRST question at any trial which may come along as a result of my rejecting sexual abnormality as normal.  Promises to be a VERY SHORT TRIAL... indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a human being or a spambot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that you desperately need to change the subject, because the standing points at issue exposes your cult as the loathsome, injurious evil that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...I am saying that you are posting the SAME FUCKING POST over and over and over and over...spambot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because the answers to it, have not been provided.
> 
> Ya see the question is central to the issue at hand, which is the fascist nature of the Ideological Left, and the true purpose behind their Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Just as Sodomy was 'illegal' just a few short years ago... with those laws lifted upon the subjective and otherwise baseless 'conclusions' of spurious 'SCIENCE!', so goes the battle to lift the "AGE of CONSENT", which will be challenged upon the very same 'conclusions' of pseudo-science... all toward LEGALIZING the Adult pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification.
> 
> Which brings me to ask:
> 
> *Tell me Jarlaxle, where do you come down on 'The Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification' and: most importantly: WHY?*
Click to expand...


Child molesters should be locked up forever.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Jarlaxle said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Government Should Stop Waging War on Those Against Same-Sex Marriage
> 
> Of course, we've learned through the experience that is this thread, that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is destined to LOSE... given that all one has to do to SHUT THEM UP, is to ask them where they stand on the ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION ... and MOST IMPORTANTLY: "WHY"?
> 
> That will be my FIRST question at any trial which may come along as a result of my rejecting sexual abnormality as normal.  Promises to be a VERY SHORT TRIAL... indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a human being or a spambot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that you desperately need to change the subject, because the standing points at issue exposes your cult as the loathsome, injurious evil that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...I am saying that you are posting the SAME FUCKING POST over and over and over and over...spambot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because the answers to it, have not been provided.
> 
> Ya see the question is central to the issue at hand, which is the fascist nature of the Ideological Left, and the true purpose behind their Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
> 
> Just as Sodomy was 'illegal' just a few short years ago... with those laws lifted upon the subjective and otherwise baseless 'conclusions' of spurious 'SCIENCE!', so goes the battle to lift the "AGE of CONSENT", which will be challenged upon the very same 'conclusions' of pseudo-science... all toward LEGALIZING the Adult pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification.
> 
> Which brings me to ask:
> 
> *Tell me Jarlaxle, where do you come down on 'The Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification' and: most importantly: WHY?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child molesters should be locked up forever.
Click to expand...


LOL!  Another Advocate for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, comes out AGAINST the Adult pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, but for the life of 'em... they can NEVER find the strength of reason to SAY: WHY THEY REJECT IT!


It's as consistent as the sun risin'... .

I tell ya, it DO 'appear' that they be hidin' SOMETHIN'...


*Jarlaxle... WHY DO YOU REJECT THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION? *

*I mean your professed rejection was SO EMPHATIC, yet not a word on the reason you reject it.  *

*Pray tell... SHARE YOUR REASONED BASIS FOR REJECTING THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.*


----------



## Jarlaxle

Not complicated: children cannot consent.


----------



## mdk

I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Jarlaxle said:


> Not complicated: children cannot consent.



OH!  So why can't children consent?

I ask because there is a segment of "SCIENCE!" which long ago came out and declared that "... _some children may actually benefit from a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult_."

This being the same group within the Kinsey Institute who are responsible for their other conclusion: THERE IS NOTHING ABNORMAL ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL SEX (which literally is precisely as baseless as it appears to be... particularly given that such is patently absurd, given the standard established by human physiology and the 180 degrees of deviation that homosexuality takes FROM that standard).

And despite all that, you'll recall that it was that 'Professional Medical/Psychiatric Opinion', thus the "SCIENCE!" upon which was stood the basis for the lifting of Sodomy Laws.  '_Homosexuality was normal, thus not indicative of deviant reasoning, therefore the individuals participating in or otherwise identified through such were not a threat to society._'

So, tell me, IF "SCIENCE!" came out and declared that '_Children CAN CONSENT TO SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADULTS_'... would that in any way alter your current position, which in effect rests on the Legality which rests DIRECTLY UPON the common sense recognition that children are no where NEAR capable of understanding the circumstances regarding sexual behavior?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.



What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Nothin' comin' to mind?


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)
Click to expand...


This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Edited: to soothe the tender feelings of those advocating to abuse the public trust of government, through the illicit use of police power, to force others to do that to which they vehemently reject on soundly reasoned grounds, OKA: THE MILITANTLY UNREASONABLE: AKA: The Ideological Left; Advocating to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.



mdk said:


> This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.



Which actually means:
*
Editing a quote and attributing something to a poster that they did not say is not allowed.*


----------



## mdk

I am pretty sure altering the quotes of members in that fashion is prohibited.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> I am pretty sure altering the quotes of members in that fashion is prohibited.



Why would that be?  I mean given that the quote was set as you erroneously framed, the notice that it was being 'translated', the brackets which clearly indicate the modification and the explanation which indicates that the quote was 'FIXED'.

But how cool is it that you can't engage THE TOPIC, that your advocacy has failed and you'd like to do anything ya can to either have the thread closed or otherwise discredit those who've discredited your 'feelings'?


----------



## Syriusly

1776 said:


> I'm not old, you stupid cum-guzzler.
> 
> I]



All the old white guys who tell us how blacks are thinking, don't think that they are old.

Its very amusing.


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am pretty sure altering the quotes of members in that fashion is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would that be?  I mean given the brackets which clearly indicate the modification and the explanation which indicates that the quote was 'FIXED'.
> 
> But how cool is it that you can't engage THE TOPIC, that your advocacy has failed and you'd like to do anything ya can to either have the thread closed or otherwise discredit those who've discredited your 'feelings'?
Click to expand...


What a crock. I've done nothing to get try and get this thread shut down. I've been positing in a civil and respectful fashion the entire time. Besides, I don't have to try very hard to discredit your posts and the posts of your anti-gay allies. You folks are doing a bang up job all on your own. I suggest you restore my post to its orginal content.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not complicated: children cannot consent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  So why can't children consent?
Click to expand...


And that is an example of the mind-think of the far right.

They don't know why children cannot provide consent. They are not even sure children should have to provide consent.

They don't even understand the difference between consensual sex between adults, and a man raping a child. 

These are the people who believe that consensual sex between adults should be just as illegal as the rape of a child- if the two adults happen to be men (women they include as an after thought because they don't really feel threatened by two women having sex).


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am pretty sure altering the quotes of members in that fashion is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would that be?  I mean given the brackets which clearly indicate the modification and the explanation which indicates that the quote was 'FIXED'.
> 
> But how cool is it that you can't engage THE TOPIC, that your advocacy has failed and you'd like to do anything ya can to either have the thread closed or otherwise discredit those who've discredited your 'feelings'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a crock. I've done nothing to get try and get this thread shut down. I've been positing in a civil and respectful fashion the entire time. Besides, I don't have to try very hard to discredit your posts and the posts of your anti-gay allies. You folks are doing a bang up job all on your own. I suggest you restore my post to its orginal content.
Click to expand...


Yet you're posting off-topic comments, claiming that the discussion is off-topic, crying that your post was 'modified', despite the concerted effort which HIGHLIGHTED THE MODIFICATIONS, through a post which ya modified, foolishly projecting that your advocacy has carried the discussion, in a thread which has been all BUT ABANDONED BY THE ADVOCACY TO NORMALIZE SEXUAL ABNORMALITY!

Crazy ironic, huh?


----------



## mdk

I posted nothing of the sort. Please stop changing my quotes to fit your narrative. It's dishonest, cheap, and possibly aganist the rules. Again, I suggest you restore my quote to its orginal form.


----------



## beagle9

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.
Click to expand...

Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not complicated: children cannot consent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  So why can't children consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is an example of the mind-think of the far right.
> 
> They don't know why children cannot provide consent. They are not even sure children should have to provide consent.
> 
> They don't even understand the difference between consensual sex between adults, and a man raping a child.
> 
> These are the people who believe that consensual sex between adults should be just as illegal as the rape of a child- if the two adults happen to be men (women they include as an after thought because they don't really feel threatened by two women having sex).
Click to expand...


Nobody feels threatened by two men having sex , stop lying.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

mdk said:


> I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.


It was never on topic, given the idiocy of its premise.


----------



## mdk

beagle9 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.
Click to expand...


I agree. Churches should not be forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not complicated: children cannot consent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  So why can't children consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is an example of the mind-think of the far right.
> 
> They don't know why children cannot provide consent. They are not even sure children should have to provide consent.
> 
> They don't even understand the difference between consensual sex between adults, and a man raping a child.
> 
> These are the people who believe that consensual sex between adults should be just as illegal as the rape of a child- if the two adults happen to be men (women they include as an after thought because they don't really feel threatened by two women having sex).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody feels threatened by two men having sex , stop lying.
Click to expand...


Prove it. 

Otherwise you are lying.


----------



## Syriusly

mdk said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.
Click to expand...


Absolutely. 

The only ones suggesting that churches should- or will be forced to marry anyone and everyone are the far right.

Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.
Click to expand...


Good for you.  

Now for the tough part: 

WHY?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> It was never on topic, given the idiocy of its premise.
Click to expand...


Yeah... it was pretty idiotic for the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality to do what they did, prompting the news reports, wherein an Iowa City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings Todd Starnes

But ya know what is more idiotic?   Denying that which has been public knowledge for nearly three weeks.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.
> 
> Ya see, Nature provides for every aspect of marriage... First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology.  The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus.  The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.
> 
> Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations.  You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.
> 
> Of course, such in no way offers any sense of legitimacy, and in no way would produce a popular inference that people of illegitimate nature are anything but what their provides establishes them as.  Which means that those of illegitimate nature will natural eschew such otherwise appropriate institutions.  They will prefer instead to attempt to establish the elusive legitimacy they crave, through deceit, fraud and ignorance, glomming onto and forcing themselves into institutions which through their established standards enjoy intrinsic legitimacy.  Which sadly, given their intellectual limitations, and their sociopathic tendencies, they'll possess no means to recognize that the instant the institution drops the standard that precludes them, the legitimacy otherwise inherent in such evaporates into the ether.   Leaving the institution without meaning of purpose and the purpose it served, unserved and the culture that depended upon that service: TOTALLY BONED!
> 
> Of course, a spike in socialism and homosexuality is a harbinger of catastrophic societal collapse, which inevitably results in the near extinction of all homosexuals and their most species socialist comrades.
> 
> So... I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nature created homosexuality...which makes your entire diatribe moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? So recessive traits are mistakes? White skin is a mistake? Red hair is a mistake? Blue eyes are a mistake? No. You pretend to root your argument in "nature" and "biology" but if you applied your reasoning to all other variations in the human genome you would be faced with absurd and unacceptable conclusions.
> 
> That something is a recessive or less common trait does not automatically make it a "mistake." That is a total non sequitur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Mistake" is a poorly reasoned conclusion.  Such alterations provide some useful purpose, and surges in instances of homosexuality typically portends cultural collapse... .   Therefore, normalizing such is a profoundly BAD IDEA!
Click to expand...

Right, calling recessive traits a mistake, like homosexuality, is poor reasoning. You argued that because homosexuality was a recessive trait it was a mistake, but now you say other recessive traits are not mistakes. Throw in the gays will destroy society and your true bigotry is revealed.



> Recognizing such would likely provide a culture with the means to alter its behavior, such as how it is treating procreation... where such would perhaps be taken lightly, causing unsustainable increases in population.  Particular in unsustainable circumstances through inviable individuals, causing unsustainable demands on resources... the solution to such being that coitus be discouraged except where the individuals are capable of bearing the responsibilities common to procreation.


Not the least bit relevant to my comment, nor does it make any sense. We all have the means to alter our behavior. The above is word vomit with no coherent point. I say this honestly.



> The problem is that "Religion" is the typical purveyor of the calls for such discipline and the major cause of 'the problem' are found in those areas which eschew religion, which is also the same areas suffering the greatest population stress, which also suffer the highest instances of homosexuality, which are the same areas where one finds the highest popular calls for the normalization of sexual abnormality... .


Considering religions has resulted in some of the worst wars in human history and other brutal atrocities, I think it is hard to take that point seriously. The Middle East is arguably one of the most religious regions on the planet--yet also one of the most war burdened regions.



> So, well... you see "The Problem".


Yes. Your attempt at argument.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> The only ones suggesting that churches should- or will be forced to marry anyone and everyone are the far right.
> 
> Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I.
Click to expand...


The Catholic Church is already being forced to cover contraceptives which goes against our beliefs?  Now that Obamacare has treaded on the 1st Amendment, why do you think it will stop there?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.
> 
> Ya see, Nature provides for every aspect of marriage... First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology.  The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus.  The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.
> 
> Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations.  You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.
> 
> Of course, such in no way offers any sense of legitimacy, and in no way would produce a popular inference that people of illegitimate nature are anything but what their provides establishes them as.  Which means that those of illegitimate nature will natural eschew such otherwise appropriate institutions.  They will prefer instead to attempt to establish the elusive legitimacy they crave, through deceit, fraud and ignorance, glomming onto and forcing themselves into institutions which through their established standards enjoy intrinsic legitimacy.  Which sadly, given their intellectual limitations, and their sociopathic tendencies, they'll possess no means to recognize that the instant the institution drops the standard that precludes them, the legitimacy otherwise inherent in such evaporates into the ether.   Leaving the institution without meaning of purpose and the purpose it served, unserved and the culture that depended upon that service: TOTALLY BONED!
> 
> Of course, a spike in socialism and homosexuality is a harbinger of catastrophic societal collapse, which inevitably results in the near extinction of all homosexuals and their most species socialist comrades.
> 
> So... I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nature created homosexuality...which makes your entire diatribe moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? So recessive traits are mistakes? White skin is a mistake? Red hair is a mistake? Blue eyes are a mistake? No. You pretend to root your argument in "nature" and "biology" but if you applied your reasoning to all other variations in the human genome you would be faced with absurd and unacceptable conclusions.
> 
> That something is a recessive or less common trait does not automatically make it a "mistake." That is a total non sequitur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Mistake" is a poorly reasoned conclusion.  Such alterations provide some useful purpose, and surges in instances of homosexuality typically portends cultural collapse... .   Therefore, normalizing such is a profoundly BAD IDEA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, calling recessive traits a mistake, like homosexuality, is poor reasoning. You argued that because homosexuality was a recessive trait it was a mistake, but now you say other recessive traits are not mistakes. Throw in the gays will destroy society and your true bigotry is revealed.
Click to expand...


I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality.  A Deviation from the human physiological norm, which presents as abnormal reasoning.  As is indicated by the demanding the use of illicit government power to force others to accept their perverse sexuality and reasoning.



ShackledNation said:


> Recognizing such would likely provide a culture with the means to alter its behavior, such as how it is treating procreation... where such would perhaps be taken lightly, causing unsustainable increases in population.  Particular in unsustainable circumstances through inviable individuals, causing unsustainable demands on resources... the solution to such being that coitus be discouraged except where the individuals are capable of bearing the responsibilities common to procreation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not the least bit relevant to my comment, nor does it make any sense. We all have the means to alter our behavior. The above is word vomit with no coherent point. I say this honestly.
Click to expand...


If we all have the means to alter our behavior, then homosexual BEHAVIOR is readily alterable, thus there is no potential correlation with judicial rulings regarding precedent inter-racial rulings, relevant to marriage and _out the door_ goes the entire rationalization that_ formal roommate agreements_ are anything remotely akin to marriage.

I say that honestly... and sure, it helps that it's otherwise incontestable.



ShackledNation said:


> The problem is that "Religion" is the typical purveyor of the calls for such discipline and the major cause of 'the problem' are found in those areas which eschew religion, which is also the same areas suffering the greatest population stress, which also suffer the highest instances of homosexuality, which are the same areas where one finds the highest popular calls for the normalization of sexual abnormality... .
> 
> 
> 
> Considering religions has resulted in some of the worst wars in human history and other brutal atrocities, I think it is hard to take that point seriously. The Middle East is arguably one of the most religious regions on the planet--yet also one of the most war burdened regions.
Click to expand...


Religions?  Or religion?  Because you're basically pointing out Islam... which is a political cult wrapped around an irrational, thus false religious facade, wherein the fundamental political beliefs are collectivist, which IS the WORLD RECORD holder in 'human lethality', second only to disease.

Hope that clears it all up for ya.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> The only ones suggesting that churches should- or will be forced to marry anyone and everyone are the far right.
> 
> Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church is already being forced to cover contraceptives which goes against our beliefs?  Now that Obamacare has treaded on the 1st Amendment, why do you think it will stop there?
Click to expand...


And don't for a second think that the assault was not planned precisely as it went down, across all fronts.

What we're seeing is little more than the reanimation of OLD TESTAMENT EVIL!  

This particular issue is merely the scene highlighting _The Sodomites_.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> .



Do you realize that nearly all of your posts on this thread have NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that nearly all of your posts on this thread have NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread?
Click to expand...


No... but if it helps, I do recognize that there is a popular movement to project that nonsense.  Fomented by those of no discernible intellectual means. 

But in fairness, I'm only basing that upon their (your) posting off-topic comments even as they (you) lament off-topic comments.

Crazy ironic, huh?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church is already being forced to cover contraceptives which goes against our beliefs?  Now that Obamacare has treaded on the 1st Amendment, why do you think it will stop there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And don't for a second think that the assault was not planned precisely as it went down, across all fronts.
> 
> What we're seeing is little more than the reanimation of OLD TESTAMENT EVIL!
> 
> This particular issue is merely the scene highlighting _The Sodomites_.
Click to expand...


Most homosexuals are very libertarian in their viewpoint and don't go along with forcing any business to violate their conscience.   But there exists in the gay community a select group of flaming assholes who hate Christians and are the most intolerant people you'll ever come across.  It's the LGBT faggots, and yes I said faggots, that push for forcing everyone to accept and accommodate homosexuals regardless of their beliefs.  They once asked Exxon Mobile to reform their hiring and promotion practices to give preference to gay and transgender employees and to force re-education on those employees who disagreed with the perversion around them.  This could be so simple as a Christian not calling a transgender by their "re-assigned" gender pronouns.  Who would never call a man who mutilated his genitals "her" or "she".

This isn't an issue of gay people, but rather very specific evil, intolerant gays.  Most gays are very decent people who are easy to get along with in my experience.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church is already being forced to cover contraceptives which goes against our beliefs?  Now that Obamacare has treaded on the 1st Amendment, why do you think it will stop there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And don't for a second think that the assault was not planned precisely as it went down, across all fronts.
> 
> What we're seeing is little more than the reanimation of OLD TESTAMENT EVIL!
> 
> This particular issue is merely the scene highlighting _The Sodomites_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most homosexuals are very libertarian in their viewpoint and don't go along with forcing any business to violate their conscience.   But there exists in the gay community a select group of flaming assholes who hate Christians and are the most intolerant people you'll ever come across.  It's the LGBT faggots, and yes I said faggots, that push for forcing everyone to accept and accommodate homosexuals regardless of their beliefs.  They once asked Exxon Mobile to reform their hiring and promotion practices to give preference to gay and transgender employees and to force re-education on those employees who disagreed with the perversion around them.  This could be so simple as a Christian not calling a transgender by their "re-assigned" gender pronouns.  Who would never call a man who mutilated his genitals "her" or "she".
> 
> This isn't an issue of gay people, but rather very specific evil, intolerant gays.  Most gays are very decent people who are easy to get along with in my experience.
Click to expand...


The issue is about the mouthy minority, who want to force their beliefs upon others... who reject that behavior.

I've a few homosexual friends and they are friends, because in all the time I've known 'em, they've never once mentioned their sexuality, thus do not identify themselves THROUGH their sexuality.

There is nothing about this discussion that is distinct from any thread which involves the Ideological Left and the consistent trait of Left-think that requires that to exercise their rights, someone else has to give something up.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> The issue is about the mouthy minority, who want to force their beliefs upon others... who reject that behavior.
> 
> I've a few homosexual friends and they are friends, because in all the time I've known 'em, they've never once mentioned their sexuality, thus do not identify themselves THROUGH their sexuality.
> 
> There is nothing about this discussion that is distinct from any thread which involves the Ideological Left and the consistent trait of Left-think that requires that to exercise their rights, someone else has to give something up.



Then we agree.  So why all the other tripe?  Homosexuality isn't the topic here, it's freedom. And we should be promoting love of freedom as the unifier of many divergent camps.  It's something we all can agree on, straight or gay.  If this is a mouthy minority, then the majority who believe in liberty need to unify to put an end to these despotic bullies.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> The only ones suggesting that churches should- or will be forced to marry anyone and everyone are the far right.
> 
> Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I.
Click to expand...


Another lie, SeaBytch has made it quite clear that she would like forces to be forced to marry gays


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is about the mouthy minority, who want to force their beliefs upon others... who reject that behavior.
> 
> I've a few homosexual friends and they are friends, because in all the time I've known 'em, they've never once mentioned their sexuality, thus do not identify themselves THROUGH their sexuality.
> 
> There is nothing about this discussion that is distinct from any thread which involves the Ideological Left and the consistent trait of Left-think that requires that to exercise their rights, someone else has to give something up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we agree.  So why all the other tripe?  Homosexuality isn't the topic here, it's freedom. And we should be promoting love of freedom as the unifier of many divergent camps.  It's something we all can agree on, straight or gay.  If this is a mouthy minority, then the majority who believe in liberty need to unify to put an end to these despotic bullies.
Click to expand...


Yes, the issue is freedom.  Which is being threatened by a deviant species of reason... which presents in many ways, not the least of which is the tendency toward any number of perversions... such as their irrational notion of 'fairness', the idea that people of the same gender should have sex together, if they feel like it... even get 'married', etc, etc.  All of which inevitably ends up in a movement to force everyone else to accept those irrational notions.

Ya can't recognize just the symptom friend.  At some point, one has to consider the underlying problem.

Man... these people are now actively importing EBOLA into the US claiming that "there's no need for concern".

Surely we can agree that their psychosis has crossed the line into "Clear and Present threat to the Species itself...", let alone the nation.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> The only ones suggesting that churches should- or will be forced to marry anyone and everyone are the far right.
> 
> Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie, SeaBytch has made it quite clear that she would like forces to be forced to marry gays
Click to expand...


Feel free to quote her saying that she believes that churches should be forced by law to marry gays.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church is already being forced to cover contraceptives which goes against our beliefs?  Now that Obamacare has treaded on the 1st Amendment, why do you think it will stop there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And don't for a second think that the assault was not planned precisely as it went down, across all fronts.
> 
> What we're seeing is little more than the reanimation of OLD TESTAMENT EVIL!
> 
> This particular issue is merely the scene highlighting _The Sodomites_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most homosexuals are very libertarian in their viewpoint and don't go along with forcing any business to violate their conscience.   But there exists in the gay community a select group of flaming assholes who hate Christians and are the most intolerant people you'll ever come across.  It's the LGBT faggots, and yes I said faggots, that push for forcing everyone to accept and accommodate homosexuals regardless of their beliefs.  They once asked Exxon Mobile to reform their hiring and promotion practices to give preference to gay and transgender employees and to force re-education on those employees who disagreed with the perversion around them.  This could be so simple as a Christian not calling a transgender by their "re-assigned" gender pronouns.  Who would never call a man who mutilated his genitals "her" or "she".
> 
> This isn't an issue of gay people, but rather very specific evil, intolerant gays.  Most gays are very decent people who are easy to get along with in my experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue is about the mouthy minority, who want to force their beliefs upon others... who reject that behavior.
> .
Click to expand...


Why are you attacking Mormons?


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church is already being forced to cover contraceptives which goes against our beliefs?  Now that Obamacare has treaded on the 1st Amendment, why do you think it will stop there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And don't for a second think that the assault was not planned precisely as it went down, across all fronts.
> 
> What we're seeing is little more than the reanimation of OLD TESTAMENT EVIL!
> 
> This particular issue is merely the scene highlighting _The Sodomites_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most homosexuals are very libertarian in their viewpoint and don't go along with forcing any business to violate their conscience.   But there exists in the gay community a select group of flaming assholes who hate Christians and are the most intolerant people you'll ever come across.  It's the LGBT faggots, and yes I said faggots, that push for forcing everyone to accept and accommodate homosexuals regardless of their beliefs.  They once asked Exxon Mobile to reform their hiring and promotion practices to give preference to gay and transgender employees and to force re-education on those employees who disagreed with the perversion around them.  This could be so simple as a Christian not calling a transgender by their "re-assigned" gender pronouns.  Who would never call a man who mutilated his genitals "her" or "she".
> 
> This isn't an issue of gay people, but rather very specific evil, intolerant gays.  Most gays are very decent people who are easy to get along with in my experience.
Click to expand...


I actually agree with you- and would say the same thing about Conservatives, but on somewhat different issues.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that nearly all of your posts on this thread have NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread?
Click to expand...


I can't actually figure out what his posts have to do with anything.....he does mention EVIL a lot.....


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> I can't actually figure out what his posts have to do with anything.....he does mention EVIL a lot.....


 
Perhaps because this is a topic about homosexuals forcing their lifestyles onto religious people; and those religious people knowing that to acquiesce to that force means an eternity in the pit of fire? 

That might be the reason he keeps bringing up "evil".  Because that scenario fits perfectly with the passage in Jude 1 that talks about the "smooth speeches" of the offenders trying to force their lifestyles onto christian ones.


----------



## beagle9

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not complicated: children cannot consent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  So why can't children consent?
> 
> I ask because there is a segment of "SCIENCE!" which long ago came out and declared that "... _some children may actually benefit from a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult_."
> 
> This being the same group within the Kinsey Institute who are responsible for their other conclusion: THERE IS NOTHING ABNORMAL ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL SEX (which literally is precisely as baseless as it appears to be... particularly given that such is patently absurd, given the standard established by human physiology and the 180 degrees of deviation that homosexuality takes FROM that standard).
> 
> And despite all that, you'll recall that it was that 'Professional Medical/Psychiatric Opinion', thus the "SCIENCE!" upon which was stood the basis for the lifting of Sodomy Laws.  '_Homosexuality was normal, thus not indicative of deviant reasoning, therefore the individuals participating in or otherwise identified through such were not a threat to society._'
> 
> So, tell me, IF "SCIENCE!" came out and declared that '_Children CAN CONSENT TO SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADULTS_'... would that in any way alter your current position, which in effect rests on the Legality which rests DIRECTLY UPON the common sense recognition that children are no where NEAR capable of understanding the circumstances regarding sexual behavior?
Click to expand...

Better than that, heck I believe that if a *federal judge* declared anything from his or her activist bench, that they (the beneficiaries of the rulings) would run hollering it to the roof top's loud and very clear in a heart beat (i.e. in your face), and they are doing this just like selfish arrogant intellects would do these day's, and especially when they want something that no one else wants, and then they get it. Now somehow they are always getting these things through or by way of *a federal judge who is* pandering to certain groups these days, and for whom then defies the masses on so many levels that it just isn't funny anymore. Then they look for some kind of *JUNK* science to somehow back it all up if necessary when challenged, and next they would somehow use it in order to make it all appear legit even if it's a huge stretch in doing so or even if the odds are always against them. The Idolization of *Junk Science* these days, is something that has gotten way out of control I think, and the federal judges these days who are buying into all of this mess ( I think) have lost their judicial minds it seems anymore.


Syriusly said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> *The only ones suggesting that churches should- or will be forced to marry anyone and everyone are the far right.*
> 
> Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I.
Click to expand...


Shouldn't the same be said for the Christian cake baker/maker who got shut down for not baking a cake for the gay couple as based upon his or her Christian beliefs in life?  The double standard and hypocrisy echoes loudly in this here place called America anymore. Everywhere it seems that the attack {once a strategy is formed by groups in order to knock something else over for political gains, and for the empowerment of their cause} is fair game to the various groups out there these days, and then it's all open for the assault to take place next once the setting something up is complete for which a group has targeted or placed into their sights. The Christian cake baker or maker, shouldn't have had to bake a cake for a gay couple either, but so much for fair play in respecting each others beliefs or standards lived by in this new arena of PC/Government thuggery that is taking place now across America.  Right now the (reps of this type of thuggery) are attacking for example Christians in their workplaces (Duck Dynasty), (Miss USA contestant), in which both were asked about their beliefs in example of, and then when given by them with all due respect, well they were attempted to be shut down or scorned badly for what they had said after they were asked about their beliefs.  Next will it be in the Christian places of worship and/or etc.that will fall or will they be spied upon constantly (Texas Mayors office orders sermons or speeches from the pulpit)?. 

There is no escaping this thuggery against ones beliefs or belief systems in which has been intact, lived and operated by peaceful Americans for years and years.  They (various groups) will see to it that they are not being denied any where when all is said and done, because if they are denied, well then there must be something wrong with them right ? They won't have anyone suggesting or saying that something is wrong with them, and this no matter where it is that they decide to venture into next or just stroll right on into next in order to start more trouble it seems.  I think they are pushing the envelope to far, and they need to respect other peoples spaces and belief systems in life is my opinion, but that ain't happening is it ? How the government of this nation got tied up with all these so called weird causes, and without actually thinking it through is beyond me, but here the nations citizens are getting bullied by federal judges who are being vote garnishing whores for the government pimp who will be paid in full by votes from various voter blocks, and but of course. Talk about selling out this nations freedoms, and it's moral standards for a vote ((WOW)). 

I think this nation is one of the most tolerant nations on earth, but it can be pushed to far and then what ? How about people respecting each others space again, and respecting all the belief systems that are proven peaceful in which we have had and do have for the most part today, and how about the government getting out of the vote pimping and voter whore business already, and maybe getting back into the managing business instead.. To side with one group over another, and then the group that has been sided with abuses the other group quickly afterwards? Well that is a business the government shouldn't be a part of anymore. It should reset and then treat all American citizens as Americans as based upon a moral and decency code or standard in which the majority of Americans will agree upon to live by, and then of course protect the weak while not empowering them to abuse the majority by way of the wrongful use of government power as a means to do so, because the weak just might be weak due to their own folly sometimes in life, and the government doesn't want to get pulled into something like that I wouldn't think. Now it should help them not be abused in their weakness of course, but then not allowing them to abuse others just as well. It's a two way street, and everyone should be able to pass on it peacefully and it should be paved with respect when traveling in either direction always.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't actually figure out what his posts have to do with anything.....he does mention EVIL a lot.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps because this is a topic about homosexuals forcing their lifestyles onto religious people; and those religious people knowing that to acquiesce to that force means an eternity in the pit of fire?
> 
> That might be the reason he keeps bringing up "evil".  Because that scenario fits perfectly with the passage in Jude 1 that talks about the "smooth speeches" of the offenders trying to force their lifestyles onto christian ones.
Click to expand...


Well said... there is that, but at the end of the day, I use the term evil... because 'evil': profoundly immoral and malevolent, is what 'it' is.

Such is what MUST be produced, thus such is the natural product of relativism... and relativism is what collectivism, in all of its innumerable facets, rests upon.

Relativism is the the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical or personal context, and as such can never be subject to, or otherwise the result of, soundly reasoned absolutes.  Relativism is, therefore, purely subjective; axiomatically rejecting objectivity, which is of course, the essential element of truth.

Objective truth is the essential element of trust... and objective truth and trust are the essential elements of a soundly reasoned morality.

And truth, trust and a soundly reasoned morality are the foundation upon which JUSTICE rests.

Now... those who've followed this thread have witnessed that each of the Advocates of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality rest their ENTIRE advocacy upon what?  Upon the irrational premise that Sexual Abnormality is NORMAL.  What's that based upon?  'WE ARE NOT "ABNORMAL PEOPLE"... therefore our sexuality is not Abnormal!'  Their truth is Subjective... .

They claim that their position rests in "SCIENCE!" that they TRUST science... and, that opposition of their need is based upon RELIGION!, which they do NOT TRUST.

Yet the purely scientific position, which incontestably demonstrates that Homosexuality; not only deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology, but it deviates as far FROM that standard as can be deviated, where all participants are HUMAN.  And they could not care less, they do not trust science... because their trust of science is Subjective... .

Do we need to discuss their rejection of any sense of a soundly reasoned morality?  They demand that we accept their subjective reasoning, because: "We're consenting adults and NO ONE has a right to tell us who we can love!"... which seems so reasonable, right up until ya ask them about their feelings for the rest of the culture; particularly the kids... and what they're going to do to defend the children from the sexually abnormal who 'feel' that the only way that they can sooth their obsession for sexual gratification is through sex with a CHILD!

They WANT you to believe that they're flat out against it... and they've told us that "_UPON CONVICTION_" that such people should be executed or tossed in prison for the rest of their lives.  But they can't say what they're basing that upon; they can't WHY they say it and, that is because the basis has NO MORAL COMPONENT... their reasoning rests in LEGALITIES... which minus the moral component, have absolutely NO CONNECTION with the service of JUSTICE.

Think about it... they claim that their rejection of adult/child sex rests in THE LAW!  The law says NO, therefore the answer is NO!  But is that true?

Were they against Homosexuality when such was against the law?  Did they spend any time here, or anywhere else, condemning homosexuality back when the behavior that defines such, against the law? 

Nope... of course not.  The laws against such were lifted upon specious grounds of false science.  Does that concern them? 

Nuh huh...

They rests their unwavering demand that 'EVERYONE MUST ACCEPT US', upon "IT'S LEGAL!"  Subjective Justice.

All of which does not bode well as the culture continues to spiral into decay... when "SCIENCE!" concludes that children ARE perfectly prepared to consent to 'loving' sexual relationships with 'caring' adults... and some Harvey Milk pens up a bill to lift the Age of Consent... or some Harvey Milk, jurist... hears the evidence that is the "SCIENCE!" and DECIDES that the laws regarding "AGE OF CONSENT" undermine the rights of CONSENTING _*PERSONS*_ to engage in _private behavior_.

What then of those of this cult who stepped forward to state that they REJECT ADULT/CHILD SEX... but could not, or would, not tell us why?  Will that matter to anyone, not the least of which are THEM?  Not a bit... 'Because it's Legal.'  

It's all a long but juicy rationalization set toward a destructive end... it's all a lie.

Evil... .

See how that works?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

beagle9 said:


> Better than that, heck I believe that if a *federal judge* declared anything from his or her activist bench, that they (the beneficiaries of the rulings) would run hollering it to the roof top's loud and very clear in a heart beat (i.e. in your face), and they are doing this just like selfish arrogant intellects would do these day's, and especially when they want something that no one else wants, and then they get it. Now somehow they are always getting these things through or by way of *a federal judge who is* pandering to certain groups these days, and for whom then defies the masses on so many levels that it just isn't funny anymore. Then they look for some kind of *JUNK* science to somehow back it all up if necessary when challenged, and next they would somehow use it in order to make it all appear legit even if it's a huge stretch in doing so or even if the odds are always against them. The Idolization of *Junk Science* these days, is something that has gotten way out of control I think, and the federal judges these days who are buying into all of this mess ( I think) have lost their judicial minds it seems anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the same be said for the Christian cake baker/maker who got shut down for not baking a cake for the gay couple as based upon his or her Christian beliefs in life?  The double standard and hypocrisy echoes loudly in this here place called America anymore. Everywhere it seems that the attack {once a strategy is formed by groups in order to knock something else over for political gains, and for the empowerment of their cause} is fair game to the various groups out there these days, and then it's all open for the assault to take place next once the setting something up is complete for which a group has targeted or placed into their sights. The Christian cake baker or maker, shouldn't have had to bake a cake for a gay couple either, but so much for fair play in respecting each others beliefs or standards lived by in this new arena of PC/Government thuggery that is taking place now across America.  Right now the (reps of this type of thuggery) are attacking for example Christians in their workplaces (Duck Dynasty), (Miss USA contestant), in which both were asked about their beliefs in example of, and then when given by them with all due respect, well they were attempted to be shut down or scorned badly for what they had said after they were asked about their beliefs.  Next will it be in the Christian places of worship and/or etc.that will fall or will they be spied upon constantly (Texas Mayors office orders sermons or speeches from the pulpit)?.
> 
> There is no escaping this thuggery against ones beliefs or belief systems in which has been intact, lived and operated by peaceful Americans for years and years.  They (various groups) will see to it that they are not being denied any where when all is said and done, because if they are denied, well then there must be something wrong with them right ? They won't have anyone suggesting or saying that something is wrong with them, and this no matter where it is that they decide to venture into next or just stroll right on into next in order to start more trouble it seems.  I think they are pushing the envelope to far, and they need to respect other peoples spaces and belief systems in life is my opinion, but that ain't happening is it ? How the government of this nation got tied up with all these so called weird causes, and without actually thinking it through is beyond me, but here the nations citizens are getting bullied by federal judges who are being vote garnishing whores for the government pimp who will be paid in full by votes from various voter blocks, and but of course. Talk about selling out this nations freedoms, and it's moral standards for a vote ((WOW)).
> 
> I think this nation is one of the most tolerant nations on earth, but it can be pushed to far and then what ? How about people respecting each others space again, and respecting all the belief systems that are proven peaceful in which we have had and do have for the most part today, and how about the government getting out of the vote pimping and voter whore business already, and maybe getting back into the managing business instead.. To side with one group over another, and then the group that has been sided with abuses the other group quickly afterwards? Well that is a business the government shouldn't be a part of anymore. It should reset and then treat all American citizens as Americans as based upon a moral and decency code or standard in which the majority of Americans will agree upon to live by, and then of course protect the weak while not empowering them to abuse the majority by way of the wrongful use of government power as a means to do so, because the weak just might be weak due to their own folly sometimes in life, and the government doesn't want to get pulled into something like that I wouldn't think. Now it should help them not be abused in their weakness of course, but then not allowing them to abuse others just as well. It's a two way street, and everyone should be able to pass on it peacefully and it should be paved with respect when traveling in either direction always.



^^^^ This.


----------



## Silhouette

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Upon the irrational premise that Sexual Abnormality is NORMAL.  What's that based upon?  'WE ARE NOT "ABNORMAL PEOPLE"... therefore our sexuality is not Abnormal!'  Their truth is Subjective... .
> 
> They claim that their position rests in "SCIENCE!" that they TRUST science... and, that opposition of their need is based upon RELIGION!, which they do NOT TRUST.
> 
> Yet the purely scientific position, which incontestably demonstrates that Homosexuality; not only deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology, but it deviates as far FROM that standard as can be deviated, where all participants are HUMAN.  And they could not care less, they do not trust science... because their trust of science is Subjective... .


 
It helps that they stormed the American Psychological Association back in the 1970s and took over its ranks.  The impact of that was GIGANTIC.  And that is because virtually ALL "scientific" entities that have to do with the human mind or physiology take their walking orders from the APA.  Gays began filling the ranks of the board of directors of the APA.  The association used to abide by a ruling scientific principle called "the Leona Tyler Principle".  It said that any position the APA took on a topic publicly HAD to be backed by hard science.

After gays took over the board of directors in the APA, that ruling scientific principle that had been the mooring of that institution for many many years was *disappeared*.  There wasn't even an up or down vote on it by the Board.  It just vanished.  And in fact, a recent search for it on the APA search engines comes up with nothing.  This new relativism came to a head not too long after this coup by the gay cabal of the APA.  It happened when Congress formally censured the APA at a hearing that had to do with protecting children from sexual predators.  The neo-APA was arguing/urging its position which had become "sometimes it may be OK for adults to have sex with kids"...yeah...no kidding..  I think it was the first time ever that Congress voted to censure a "scientific" group's testimony.

Instead of the ruling principle based in science, that was subsequently *disappeared* by gay militants in the APA, we have this which is PRECISELY the relativism you are talking about.  I just searched this today and my jaw fell in disbelief on how you NAILED IT...  Read, if you dare...straight from the APA approved books links.  The "experts" call (CQR) research.  It is "qualitative" (subjective group agreement) and not relying on numbers...silly numbers get in the way of "socially agreed conclusions" of the group-think.  It is the ANTITHESIS of a ruling scientific principle.

You just can't make this stuff up: 

Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
Edited by Clara E. Hill, PhD Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena

_"
This lively and practical text presents a fresh and comprehensive approach to conducting *consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an inductive method that is characterized by open-ended interview questions, small samples, a reliance on words over numbers*, the *importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team*. It is especially well-suited to research that requires rich descriptions of inner experiences, attitudes, and convictions.
Written to help researchers navigate their way through qualitative techniques and methodology, leading expert Clara E. Hill and her associates provide readers with step-by-step practical guidance during each stage of the research process. *Readers learn about adaptive ways of designing studies; collecting, coding, and analyzing data*; and reporting findings.
*Key aspects of the researcher's craft* are addressed, such as establishing the research team, recruiting and interviewing participants, adhering to ethical standards, *raising cultural awareness, auditing within case analyses and cross analyses, and writing up the study*.
Intended as a user-friendly manual for graduate-level research courses and beyond, the text will be a *valuable resource for both budding and experienced qualitative researchers for many years to come*._

_Examine or adopt this book for teaching a course__ "_

Let me just repeat the underlined parts above.  The APA is advocating that their researchers rely on "words over numbers" in an "adaptive" style or "craft" and that they practice "auditing" each other to insure conformity to the non-scientific (words not numbers) principle of "doing research".

THIS is the data the activist-judges in the federal circuit are relying on "as fact".  It is a cult dogma within a cloistered cabal and they have renamed it "science". 

I urge that every person should read this book.  It defines the root of the collective insanity we see justified today.  You could literally rename this book "Where it all went wrong"...

You know who else "audits" (pressures its membership in real ways) for conformity to the dogmatic rule?  Scientology.


We are dealing with a cult.  They are as scientific and open-minded in their research as the Jim Jones Colony.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't actually figure out what his posts have to do with anything.....he does mention EVIL a lot.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps because this is a topic about homosexuals forcing their lifestyles onto religious people; and those religious people knowing that to acquiesce to that force means an eternity in the pit of fire?
> 
> That might be the reason he keeps bringing up "evil".  Because that scenario fits perfectly with the passage in Jude 1 that talks about the "smooth speeches" of the offenders trying to force their lifestyles onto christian ones.
Click to expand...


I think it has to do with you and him trying to promote discrimination against homosexuals by calling them evil.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Better than that, heck I believe that if a *federal judge* declared anything from his or her activist bench, that they (the beneficiaries of the rulings) would run hollering it to the roof top's loud and very clear in a heart beat (i.e. in your face), and they are doing this just like selfish arrogant intellects would do these day's, and especially when they want something that no one else wants, and then they get it. Now somehow they are always getting these things through or by way of *a federal judge who is* pandering to certain groups these days, and for whom then defies the masses on so many levels that it just isn't funny anymore. Then they look for some kind of *JUNK* science to somehow back it all up if necessary when challenged, and next they would somehow use it in order to make it all appear legit even if it's a huge stretch in doing so or even if the odds are always against them. The Idolization of *Junk Science* these days, is something that has gotten way out of control I think, and the federal judges these days who are buying into all of this mess ( I think) have lost their judicial minds it seems anymore..


.[/QUOTE]

I have noticed that Conservatives only believe that  judges are activists when they rule contrary to what the Conservatives believe.

For instance, in another thread, we have the case of Conservative activists attorney's filing suit on behalf of ministers challenging a city law that prohibits business's from discrimination against homosexuals- they claim this law is unconstitutional. IF the judge agrees with this suit, Conservatives will rejoice in the wisdom of this judge- he won't be an 'activist' judge who overturns an unconstitutional law, he will be a prudent judge who overturned an unconstitutional law.

But....when its homosexuals filing suit claiming that a law violates their civil rights- if a judge rules that law is unconstitutional- Conservatives call that judge an activist judge.

Now for me- I believe that both the ministers- and homosexuals- have the right to challenge the constitutionality of a law in court- and I believe that just because a judge agrees or disagrees- it doesn't make him 'an activist' judge.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not complicated: children cannot consent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  So why can't children consent?
> 
> I ask because there is a segment of "SCIENCE!" which long ago came out and declared that "... _some children may actually benefit from a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult_."
> 
> This being the same group within the Kinsey Institute who are responsible for their other conclusion: THERE IS NOTHING ABNORMAL ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL SEX (which literally is precisely as baseless as it appears to be... particularly given that such is patently absurd, given the standard established by human physiology and the 180 degrees of deviation that homosexuality takes FROM that standard).
> 
> And despite all that, you'll recall that it was that 'Professional Medical/Psychiatric Opinion', thus the "SCIENCE!" upon which was stood the basis for the lifting of Sodomy Laws.  '_Homosexuality was normal, thus not indicative of deviant reasoning, therefore the individuals participating in or otherwise identified through such were not a threat to society._'
> 
> So, tell me, IF "SCIENCE!" came out and declared that '_Children CAN CONSENT TO SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADULTS_'... would that in any way alter your current position, which in effect rests on the Legality which rests DIRECTLY UPON the common sense recognition that children are no where NEAR capable of understanding the circumstances regarding sexual behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better than that, heck I believe that if a *federal judge* declared anything from his or her activist bench, that they (the beneficiaries of the rulings) would run hollering it to the roof top's loud and very clear in a heart beat (i.e. in your face), and they are doing this just like selfish arrogant intellects would do these day's, and especially when they want something that no one else wants, and then they get it. Now somehow they are always getting these things through or by way of *a federal judge who is* pandering to certain groups these days, and for whom then defies the masses on so many levels that it just isn't funny anymore. Then they look for some kind of *JUNK* science to somehow back it all up if necessary when challenged, and next they would somehow use it in order to make it all appear legit even if it's a huge stretch in doing so or even if the odds are always against them. The Idolization of *Junk Science* these days, is something that has gotten way out of control I think, and the federal judges these days who are buying into all of this mess ( I think) have lost their judicial minds it seems anymore.
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> *The only ones suggesting that churches should- or will be forced to marry anyone and everyone are the far right.*
> 
> Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the same be said for the Christian cake baker/maker who got shut down for not baking a cake for the gay couple as based upon his or her Christian beliefs in life?  .
Click to expand...


Do you believe that a bakery is the same thing as a church? Really?

What I said- and you responded to:
_Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I_

And that is true. Churches however are different from business's.

A business cannot refuse to business with someone contrary to the law just because they claim a religious issue. 

A Muslim cannot refuse to rent a room to a Christian by claiming it violates his religious principles. A Jew cannot refuse to hire a Christian because he suspects the Christian eats pork. 

If a city- or state has a law which forbids business's from discriminating against persons based upon their sexual orientation, then a business which discriminates against homosexuals is no different than a business which discriminates against Jews or Chinese.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> You just can't make this stuff up:
> y.



Actually you do......all the time.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> Do you believe that a bakery is the same thing as a church? Really?



The point is that the baker's freedom of association is just as important as the priest's. 



> What I said- and you responded to:
> _Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I_
> 
> And that is true. Churches however are different from business's.
> 
> A business cannot refuse to business with someone contrary to the law just because they claim a religious issue.



That's the real premise that's being called into question. Outside of voluntary contractual obligation, no one should be forced to do business with anyone else. Period.


----------



## Silhouette

dblack said:


> That's the real premise that's being called into question. Outside of voluntary contractual obligation, no one should be forced to do business with anyone else. Period.


 
There would be a racial grounds for denying that.  But LGBTs are NOT a race of people.  They are a cult.  And as such, no religion must be forced to abdicate its core values to be usurped in favor of another religion's core values.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the real premise that's being called into question. Outside of voluntary contractual obligation, no one should be forced to do business with anyone else. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There would be a racial grounds for denying that.  But LGBTs are NOT a race of people.  They are a cult.  And as such, no religion must be forced to abdicate its core values to be usurped in favor of another religion's core values.
Click to expand...


If they were a 'cult' then they would be protected under religious grounds. But of course, the only one calling  a group of people bound together only by the discrimination that they face based upon who they are attracted to a 'cult' is you.


----------



## dblack

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the real premise that's being called into question. Outside of voluntary contractual obligation, no one should be forced to do business with anyone else. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There would be a racial grounds for denying that.  But LGBTs are NOT a race of people.  They are a cult.  And as such, no religion must be forced to abdicate its core values to be usurped in favor of another religion's core values.
Click to expand...


The reason is irrelevant.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature created homosexuality...which makes your entire diatribe moot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? So recessive traits are mistakes? White skin is a mistake? Red hair is a mistake? Blue eyes are a mistake? No. You pretend to root your argument in "nature" and "biology" but if you applied your reasoning to all other variations in the human genome you would be faced with absurd and unacceptable conclusions.
> 
> That something is a recessive or less common trait does not automatically make it a "mistake." That is a total non sequitur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Mistake" is a poorly reasoned conclusion.  Such alterations provide some useful purpose, and surges in instances of homosexuality typically portends cultural collapse... .   Therefore, normalizing such is a profoundly BAD IDEA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, calling recessive traits a mistake, like homosexuality, is poor reasoning. You argued that because homosexuality was a recessive trait it was a mistake, but now you say other recessive traits are not mistakes. Throw in the gays will destroy society and your true bigotry is revealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality.  A Deviation from the human physiological norm, which presents as abnormal reasoning.  As is indicated by the demanding the use of illicit government power to force others to accept their perverse sexuality and reasoning.
Click to expand...

You are conflating statistical abnormality with morality. That is a fallacy. Just because something is abnormal does not make it wrong or immoral. If that were the case, red heads would be immoral.



> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recognizing such would likely provide a culture with the means to alter its behavior, such as how it is treating procreation... where such would perhaps be taken lightly, causing unsustainable increases in population.  Particular in unsustainable circumstances through inviable individuals, causing unsustainable demands on resources... the solution to such being that coitus be discouraged except where the individuals are capable of bearing the responsibilities common to procreation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not the least bit relevant to my comment, nor does it make any sense. We all have the means to alter our behavior. The above is word vomit with no coherent point. I say this honestly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we all have the means to alter our behavior, then homosexual BEHAVIOR is readily alterable, thus there is no potential correlation with judicial rulings regarding precedent inter-racial rulings, relevant to marriage and _out the door_ goes the entire rationalization that_ formal roommate agreements_ are anything remotely akin to marriage.
> 
> I say that honestly... and sure, it helps that it's otherwise incontestable.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality is not a behavior any more than left-handedness is a behavior.



> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that "Religion" is the typical purveyor of the calls for such discipline and the major cause of 'the problem' are found in those areas which eschew religion, which is also the same areas suffering the greatest population stress, which also suffer the highest instances of homosexuality, which are the same areas where one finds the highest popular calls for the normalization of sexual abnormality... .
> 
> 
> 
> Considering religions has resulted in some of the worst wars in human history and other brutal atrocities, I think it is hard to take that point seriously. The Middle East is arguably one of the most religious regions on the planet--yet also one of the most war burdened regions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religions?  Or religion?  Because you're basically pointing out Islam... which is a political cult wrapped around an irrational, thus false religious facade, wherein the fundamental political beliefs are collectivist, which IS the WORLD RECORD holder in 'human lethality', second only to disease.
> 
> Hope that clears it all up for ya.
Click to expand...

[/quote]
Religions. Muslims are not the only ones fighting in the Middle East. Perhaps that is news to you?

Your post is full of nonsense with no basis in reality. Come back down to earth.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Syriusly said:


> If they were a 'cult' then they would be protected under religious grounds. But of course, the only one calling  a group of people bound together only by the discrimination that they face based upon who they are attracted to a 'cult' is you.




That discrimination is because of your groups perverse sexual tendencies, persecution as a group has nothing to do with it, simply a talking point to gin up sympathy for the poor persecuted faggots ....................


----------



## ShackledNation

DrDoomNGloom said:


> No one else is quoting you, why are you ..................
> No one gives a fuck about what you said the first time, why keep reposting it??


If you don't have an argument in response to mine, then don't bother quoting me. We all know you've got nothing.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upon the irrational premise that Sexual Abnormality is NORMAL.  What's that based upon?  'WE ARE NOT "ABNORMAL PEOPLE"... therefore our sexuality is not Abnormal!'  Their truth is Subjective... .
> 
> They claim that their position rests in "SCIENCE!" that they TRUST science... and, that opposition of their need is based upon RELIGION!, which they do NOT TRUST.
> 
> Yet the purely scientific position, which incontestably demonstrates that Homosexuality; not only deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology, but it deviates as far FROM that standard as can be deviated, where all participants are HUMAN.  And they could not care less, they do not trust science... because their trust of science is Subjective... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It helps that they stormed the American Psychological Association back in the 1970s and took over its ranks.  The impact of that was GIGANTIC.  And that is because virtually ALL "scientific" entities that have to do with the human mind or physiology take their walking orders from the APA.  Gays began filling the ranks of the board of directors of the APA.  The association used to abide by a ruling scientific principle called "the Leona Tyler Principle".  It said that any position the APA took on a topic publicly HAD to be backed by hard science.
> 
> After gays took over the board of directors in the APA, that ruling scientific principle that had been the mooring of that institution for many many years was *disappeared*.  There wasn't even an up or down vote on it by the Board.  It just vanished.  And in fact, a recent search for it on the APA search engines comes up with nothing.  This new relativism came to a head not too long after this coup by the gay cabal of the APA.  It happened when Congress formally censured the APA at a hearing that had to do with protecting children from sexual predators.  The neo-APA was arguing/urging its position which had become "sometimes it may be OK for adults to have sex with kids"...yeah...no kidding..  I think it was the first time ever that Congress voted to censure a "scientific" group's testimony.
> 
> Instead of the ruling principle based in science, that was subsequently *disappeared* by gay militants in the APA, we have this which is PRECISELY the relativism you are talking about.  I just searched this today and my jaw fell in disbelief on how you NAILED IT...  Read, if you dare...straight from the APA approved books links.  The "experts" call (CQR) research.  It is "qualitative" (subjective group agreement) and not relying on numbers...silly numbers get in the way of "socially agreed conclusions" of the group-think.  It is the ANTITHESIS of a ruling scientific principle.
> 
> You just can't make this stuff up:
> 
> Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
> Edited by Clara E. Hill, PhD Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
> 
> _"
> This lively and practical text presents a fresh and comprehensive approach to conducting *consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an inductive method that is characterized by open-ended interview questions, small samples, a reliance on words over numbers*, the *importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team*. It is especially well-suited to research that requires rich descriptions of inner experiences, attitudes, and convictions.
> Written to help researchers navigate their way through qualitative techniques and methodology, leading expert Clara E. Hill and her associates provide readers with step-by-step practical guidance during each stage of the research process. *Readers learn about adaptive ways of designing studies; collecting, coding, and analyzing data*; and reporting findings.
> *Key aspects of the researcher's craft* are addressed, such as establishing the research team, recruiting and interviewing participants, adhering to ethical standards, *raising cultural awareness, auditing within case analyses and cross analyses, and writing up the study*.
> Intended as a user-friendly manual for graduate-level research courses and beyond, the text will be a *valuable resource for both budding and experienced qualitative researchers for many years to come*._
> 
> _Examine or adopt this book for teaching a course__ "_
> 
> Let me just repeat the underlined parts above.  The APA is advocating that their researchers rely on "words over numbers" in an "adaptive" style or "craft" and that they practice "auditing" each other to insure conformity to the non-scientific (words not numbers) principle of "doing research".
> 
> THIS is the data the activist-judges in the federal circuit are relying on "as fact".  It is a cult dogma within a cloistered cabal and they have renamed it "science".
> 
> I urge that every person should read this book.  It defines the root of the collective insanity we see justified today.  You could literally rename this book "Where it all went wrong"...
> 
> You know who else "audits" (pressures its membership in real ways) for conformity to the dogmatic rule?  Scientology.
> 
> 
> We are dealing with a cult.  They are as scientific and open-minded in their research as the Jim Jones Colony.
Click to expand...


Thank you!

I Agree!

And that position was VERY INFORMATIVE!  

Ya _NAILED IT!_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So recessive traits are mistakes? White skin is a mistake? Red hair is a mistake? Blue eyes are a mistake? No. You pretend to root your argument in "nature" and "biology" but if you applied your reasoning to all other variations in the human genome you would be faced with absurd and unacceptable conclusions.
> 
> That something is a recessive or less common trait does not automatically make it a "mistake." That is a total non sequitur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Mistake" is a poorly reasoned conclusion.  Such alterations provide some useful purpose, and surges in instances of homosexuality typically portends cultural collapse... .   Therefore, normalizing such is a profoundly BAD IDEA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, calling recessive traits a mistake, like homosexuality, is poor reasoning. You argued that because homosexuality was a recessive trait it was a mistake, but now you say other recessive traits are not mistakes. Throw in the gays will destroy society and your true bigotry is revealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality.  A Deviation from the human physiological norm, which presents as abnormal reasoning.  As is indicated by the demanding the use of illicit government power to force others to accept their perverse sexuality and reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are conflating statistical abnormality with morality. That is a fallacy. Just because something is abnormal does not make it wrong or immoral. If that were the case, red heads would be immoral.
Click to expand...


Am I?  Let's re-examine what I said:



			
				What I said said:
			
		

> I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality.  A Deviation from the human physiological norm



Golly... that is me talking about the standard established by the traits intrinsic to human physiology.  Perhaps you're not familiar with human physiology, wherein two complimenting genders, each with distinct, but complimenting physical and psychological traits.  From which homosexuality not only deviates... but deviates as far FROM that standard, as is possible where the participants are all human.

I continued:



			
				me continuing said:
			
		

> which presents as abnormal reasoning.



That is me talking about the incontestable fact, that reasoning which drives an individual to seek sexual gratification through behavior antithetical to the standard established by human physiology is deviant reasoning; which is a perversion of standard human sexual reasoning.

These are incontestable facts... the morality comes into play only where one claims that that which irrefutably deviates from the natural standard... the standard which establishes the NORM... is normal. 

This is because to do so demonstrates either the inability to perceive that which is real or the refusal to accept that which is real.  FYI: There is no right to exercise either delusion or deceit.  And only in THAT does the issue of morality enter into any of this.

I eagerly await your advocacy to publicly profess deceit and/or delusion and the benefits to the individual and by extension the collective they comprise.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religions? Or Religion? 'Cause it seems like you're referring to Islam...
> 
> 
> 
> Religions. Muslims are not the only ones fighting in the Middle East. ... .
Click to expand...


True.  Except of course, that those who are not Muslim and are fighting in the Middle East are defending themselves from Muslims.

Now you're saying that THAT has never occurred to you?  Seriously?


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So recessive traits are mistakes? White skin is a mistake? Red hair is a mistake? Blue eyes are a mistake? No. You pretend to root your argument in "nature" and "biology" but if you applied your reasoning to all other variations in the human genome you would be faced with absurd and unacceptable conclusions.
> 
> That something is a recessive or less common trait does not automatically make it a "mistake." That is a total non sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Mistake" is a poorly reasoned conclusion.  Such alterations provide some useful purpose, and surges in instances of homosexuality typically portends cultural collapse... .   Therefore, normalizing such is a profoundly BAD IDEA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, calling recessive traits a mistake, like homosexuality, is poor reasoning. You argued that because homosexuality was a recessive trait it was a mistake, but now you say other recessive traits are not mistakes. Throw in the gays will destroy society and your true bigotry is revealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality.  A Deviation from the human physiological norm, which presents as abnormal reasoning.  As is indicated by the demanding the use of illicit government power to force others to accept their perverse sexuality and reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are conflating statistical abnormality with morality. That is a fallacy. Just because something is abnormal does not make it wrong or immoral. If that were the case, red heads would be immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I said said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's re-examine what I said: "I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality.  A Deviation from the human physiological norm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Blond hair is a deviation from the human phsyiological norm.
Left handedness is a deviation from the human physiological norm.

Doesn't make them wrong. 

Doesn't mean the government should discriminate against them.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So recessive traits are mistakes? White skin is a mistake? Red hair is a mistake? Blue eyes are a mistake? No. You pretend to root your argument in "nature" and "biology" but if you applied your reasoning to all other variations in the human genome you would be faced with absurd and unacceptable conclusions.
> 
> That something is a recessive or less common trait does not automatically make it a "mistake." That is a total non sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Mistake" is a poorly reasoned conclusion.  Such alterations provide some useful purpose, and surges in instances of homosexuality typically portends cultural collapse... .   Therefore, normalizing such is a profoundly BAD IDEA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, calling recessive traits a mistake, like homosexuality, is poor reasoning. You argued that because homosexuality was a recessive trait it was a mistake, but now you say other recessive traits are not mistakes. Throw in the gays will destroy society and your true bigotry is revealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality.  A Deviation from the human physiological norm, which presents as abnormal reasoning.  As is indicated by the demanding the use of illicit government power to force others to accept their perverse sexuality and reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are conflating statistical abnormality with morality. That is a fallacy. Just because something is abnormal does not make it wrong or immoral. If that were the case, red heads would be immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I?  Let's re-examine what I said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I said said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality.  A Deviation from the human physiological norm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Golly... that is me talking about the standard established by the traits intrinsic to human physiology.  Perhaps you're not familiar with human physiology, wherein two complimenting genders, each with distinct, but complimenting physical and psychological traits.  From which homosexuality not only deviates... but deviates as far FROM that standard, as is possible where the participants are all human.
> 
> I continued:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> me continuing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which presents as abnormal reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is me talking about the incontestable fact, that reasoning which drives an individual to seek sexual gratification through behavior antithetical to the standard established by human physiology is deviant reasoning; which is a perversion of standard human sexual reasoning.
> 
> These are incontestable facts... the morality comes into play only where one claims that that which irrefutably deviates from the natural standard... the standard which establishes the NORM... is normal.
> 
> This is because to do so demonstrates either the inability to perceive that which is real or the refusal to accept that which is real.  FYI: There is no right to exercise either delusion or deceit.  And only in THAT does the issue of morality enter into any of this.
> 
> I eagerly await your advocacy to publicly profess deceit and/or delusion and the benefits to the individual and by extension the collective they comprise.
Click to expand...

You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal. So is red hair. However, you are also using a definition of normal that means socially or morally acceptable. The fact that homosexuality is statistically abnormal has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is or should be socially and morally acceptable. Your argument is an equivocation, nothing more.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religions? Or Religion? 'Cause it seems like you're referring to Islam...
> 
> 
> 
> Religions. Muslims are not the only ones fighting in the Middle East. ... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Except of course, that those who are not Muslim and are fighting in the Middle East are defending themselves from Muslims.
> 
> Now you're saying that THAT has never occurred to you?  Seriously?
Click to expand...

So all of the conflict in the Middle East is the result of Islam? No other religious influences have contributed to the problem? Really?


----------



## Syriusly

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Mistake" is a poorly reasoned conclusion.  Such alterations provide some useful purpose, and surges in instances of homosexuality typically portends cultural collapse... .   Therefore, normalizing such is a profoundly BAD IDEA!
> 
> 
> 
> Right, calling recessive traits a mistake, like homosexuality, is poor reasoning. You argued that because homosexuality was a recessive trait it was a mistake, but now you say other recessive traits are not mistakes. Throw in the gays will destroy society and your true bigotry is revealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality.  A Deviation from the human physiological norm, which presents as abnormal reasoning.  As is indicated by the demanding the use of illicit government power to force others to accept their perverse sexuality and reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are conflating statistical abnormality with morality. That is a fallacy. Just because something is abnormal does not make it wrong or immoral. If that were the case, red heads would be immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I?  Let's re-examine what I said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I said said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calling it what it is: Sexual Abnormality.  A Deviation from the human physiological norm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Golly... that is me talking about the standard established by the traits intrinsic to human physiology.  Perhaps you're not familiar with human physiology, wherein two complimenting genders, each with distinct, but complimenting physical and psychological traits.  From which homosexuality not only deviates... but deviates as far FROM that standard, as is possible where the participants are all human.
> 
> I continued:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> me continuing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which presents as abnormal reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is me talking about the incontestable fact, that reasoning which drives an individual to seek sexual gratification through behavior antithetical to the standard established by human physiology is deviant reasoning; which is a perversion of standard human sexual reasoning.
> 
> These are incontestable facts... the morality comes into play only where one claims that that which irrefutably deviates from the natural standard... the standard which establishes the NORM... is normal.
> 
> This is because to do so demonstrates either the inability to perceive that which is real or the refusal to accept that which is real.  FYI: There is no right to exercise either delusion or deceit.  And only in THAT does the issue of morality enter into any of this.
> 
> I eagerly await your advocacy to publicly profess deceit and/or delusion and the benefits to the individual and by extension the collective they comprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal. So is red hair. However, you are also using a definition of normal that means socially or morally acceptable. The fact that homosexuality is statistically abnormal has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is or should be socially and morally acceptable. Your argument is an equivocation, nothing more.
Click to expand...


You stated that better than I did.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Homosexuality is a fact of life among the planet's species.

It has no moral context in and of itself.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> So all of the conflict in the Middle East is the result of Islam? No other religious influences have contributed to the problem?



Yes.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

JakeStarkey said:


> Homosexuality is a fact of life among the planet's species.
> 
> It has no moral context in and of itself.



Other species do a lot of things Jake, for instance dogs eat their own poop, are you suggesting that would be acceptable for humans to do and that we should call it normal behavior?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.



No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.

This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> So all of the conflict in the Middle East is the result of Islam? No other religious influences have contributed to the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...

Then your ignorance speaks for itself.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> So all of the conflict in the Middle East is the result of Islam? No other religious influences have contributed to the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


The entire Middle East was in perfect peace from the moment that Adam left paradise until Mohammed was born.

The Arabs/Turkamen/Kurds/Persians etc had never even heard of a scimitar until Mohammed revealed one, calling it "Allah's little helper".

At least that is history as some people think of it.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.
> 
> This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.
Click to expand...

The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.

You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.
Click to expand...


Actually you are creating a definition of normal based upon your religious convictions.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.
> 
> This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.
> 
> You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.
Click to expand...


Whatever, you would have a better, and more honest, argument if you would just admit that being a faggot is immoral, but hey guess what? In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the fuck up


----------



## Syriusly

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.
> 
> This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.
> 
> You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.
Click to expand...


And it could be applied in many contexts- consider- in 1900 most women didn't own property- which by his terms could mean men owning property was normal.....and women owning property not so much- or as he puts it- EVIL.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.
> 
> This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.
> 
> You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever, you would have a better, and more honest, argument if you would just admit that being a faggot is immoral, but hey guess what? In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the fuck up
Click to expand...


Well I will admit that being a biggot is immoral, but hey guess what- you have a right to be a bigot if you want- if that is your choice.


----------



## JakeStarkey

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is a fact of life among the planet's species.
> 
> It has no moral context in and of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other species do a lot of things Jake, for instance dogs eat their own poop, are you suggesting that would be acceptable for humans to do and that we should call it normal behavior?
Click to expand...


Fallacy of false comparison.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The far right's argument on the morality of homosexuality is an absurdity.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

JakeStarkey said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is a fact of life among the planet's species.
> 
> It has no moral context in and of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other species do a lot of things Jake, for instance dogs eat their own poop, are you suggesting that would be acceptable for humans to do and that we should call it normal behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy of false comparison.
Click to expand...



Oh, I see, it's a fallacy because Jake says so.....

Explain your thoughts here Jake.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.
> 
> This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.
> 
> You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever, you would have a better, and more honest, argument if you would just admit that being a faggot is immoral, but hey guess what? In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the fuck up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I will admit that being a biggot is immoral, but hey guess what- you have a right to be a bigot if you want- if that is your choice.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't disagree that being a bigot is amoral. See, I have the integrity to state such a thing, you have NO integrity, none, not even a portion of one.

Do they suck your integrity out of you when you declare yourself a liberal or what?


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.
> 
> This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.
> 
> You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever, you would have a better, and more honest, argument if you would just admit that being a faggot is immoral, but hey guess what? In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the fuck up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I will admit that being a biggot is immoral, but hey guess what- you have a right to be a bigot if you want- if that is your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't disagree that being a bigot is amoral. See, I have the integrity to state such a thing, you have NO integrity, none, not even a portion of one.
> 
> Do they suck your integrity out of you when you declare yourself a liberal or what?
Click to expand...


Well I am glad you recognize that your bigotry is immoral. 

However, I don't think that being a heterosexual or being a homosexual is immoral- certainly not by my moral code. 

You of course display your lack of integrity, by proclaiming I have no integrity- because you disagree with me. 

Which i find amusing.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> The word "normal" means different things in different contexts.



No... no it doesn't.  It means the same thing, in every context. 



ShackledNation said:


> You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that.



It's pretty simple alright.  But as simple as it is, you have 'created' a 'new' meaning of normal; the 'new-normal', which only renders the word MEANINGLESS.   



ShackledNation said:


> You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.



False... that is NOT only NOT >WHAT< I am arguing, it is not even CLOSE to what I am arguing and there's NOTHING in ANYTHING that I HAVE ARGUED, that could reasonably lead a reasonable person to such an inference.  Which is how we can rest assured that your reasoning is invalid and wholly subjective.

Also, I've got no where to be, so I am free to point out that its false, every time you feel the need to repeat it.  

Let's try it this way: 

normal: conforming to a standard.

abnormal: deviating from what is normal

deviate: depart from usual or accepted standards

perversion: the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended by the standard.

rationalization: attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with what is erroneously felt to be logical, plausible reasons, even where such are logically invalid, intellectually unsound and otherwise not true or appropriate.

irrational: not logical or reasonable.• not endowed with the power of reason.

delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder

Which of those 'feels' the most familiar to ya?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> I wouldn't disagree that being a bigot is amoral. See, I have the integrity to state such a thing, you have NO integrity, none, not even a portion of one.
> 
> Do they suck your integrity out of you when you declare yourself a liberal or what?



The coolest thing about the word bigot, is that it almost always defines those who use it first.  This because such people are almost always in ignore, because of they're cognitive deficients, demonstrated through their use of the word which indicates their own intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from their own; even as they project such upon another.

LOL!  I suppose I will never tire of that.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.
> 
> This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.
> 
> 
> 
> The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.
> 
> You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever, you would have a better, and more honest, argument if you would just admit that being a faggot is immoral, but hey guess what? In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the fuck up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I will admit that being a biggot is immoral, but hey guess what- you have a right to be a bigot if you want- if that is your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't disagree that being a bigot is amoral. See, I have the integrity to state such a thing, you have NO integrity, none, not even a portion of one.
> 
> Do they suck your integrity out of you when you declare yourself a liberal or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am glad you recognize that your bigotry is immoral.
> 
> However, I don't think that being a heterosexual or being a homosexual is immoral- certainly not by my moral code.
> 
> You of course display your lack of integrity, by proclaiming I have no integrity- because you disagree with me.
> 
> Which i find amusing.
Click to expand...


Sir, you have no morality. I'm not judging you. I'm merely stating a fact. It actually makes no difference to me if you have any morality or not.

But you don't.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

The personification of Relativism:


> However, I don't think that being a heterosexual or being a homosexual is immoral- certainly not by my moral code.



This is also how they feel about adults pursuing children for sexual gratification.  

See how that works and why they're "THE PROBLEM?"


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> The personification of Relativism:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I don't think that being a heterosexual or being a homosexual is immoral- certainly not by my moral code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is also how they feel about adults pursuing children for sexual gratification.
> 
> See how that works and why they're "THE PROBLEM?"
Click to expand...


The personification of Obscurantism and False Logic: Where_r_my_Keys.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> The personification of Relativism:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I don't think that being a heterosexual or being a homosexual is immoral- certainly not by my moral code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is also how they feel about adults pursuing children for sexual gratification.
> 
> See how that works and why they're "THE PROBLEM?"
Click to expand...


Here is Where_r_my_Keys' relativism is in play: he ignores the overwhelming numbers of hetero fascists grooming children for victimization and goes after the 1 - 2 % committed by pedophiles, which me mislabels as homosexuals.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

JakeStarkey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The personification of Relativism:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I don't think that being a heterosexual or being a homosexual is immoral- certainly not by my moral code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is also how they feel about adults pursuing children for sexual gratification.
> 
> See how that works and why they're "THE PROBLEM?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The personification of Obscurantism and False Logic: Where_r_my_Keys.
Click to expand...


This is why I say you would be far better off saying "hey Keys, being gay is immoral, but its being immoral with a consenting adult you fucking half whit, there is NO logical comparison between that and child rape"


----------



## MrDVS1

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how you good folks lie about a Judge's ruling. Incest is illegal in the criminal code. Gays falling in love together of legal age is not. Dumbasses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... the problem with Incest is that it is ILLEGAL?
> 
> Tell me GaDawg, where do you come down on the Adult pursuit of Children for sexual gratification and: most importantly: WHY?
Click to expand...


It's been my observation that righties often carp the most about things they are actually doing themselves.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The personification of Relativism:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I don't think that being a heterosexual or being a homosexual is immoral- certainly not by my moral code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is also how they feel about adults pursuing children for sexual gratification.
> 
> See how that works and why they're "THE PROBLEM?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The personification of Obscurantism and False Logic: Where_r_my_Keys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why I say you would be far better off saying "hey Keys, being gay is immoral, but its being immoral with a consenting adult you fucking half whit, there is NO logical comparison between that and child rape"
Click to expand...


To which I would say, 'So the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood, thus the 'means' to consent?  

Therefore the only thing separating a child from being perfectly suited, _using your own reasoning_, is the *changing of the law* which defines the legal means to consent to sexual activity.    Which is a rationalization bereft of reason, thoroughly deceitful, utterly fraudulent... and wholly immoral... designed for no other purpose than to influence the ignorant into believing that people like you, are reasonable people, which in truth,  you're not.

And it's not reasonable because it provides for the application of the same fraudulent science to 'declare' children capable of consenting and the laws relevant to 'consent' will be lifted JUST as the laws regarding sodomy were lifted; deviant reasoning advancing deceitful 'science', through fraudulent means... all designed to FOOL PEOPLE.  Without regard to the catastrophic effect that such decisions create for EVERYONE.

Now before the question comes: "_What catastrophes have lifting the sodomy laws created?_"  I will refer you to the topic of this very discussion, wherein we are considering IF IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY TO BE FORCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SANCTIFYING OF SUCH!

The topic being created BY PEOPLE IN POWER LITERALLY TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE POLICE POWERS TO FORCE THEM TO DO JUST THAT!

Ya jumped the shark, AGAIN kids and _don't think we don't appreciate it.  _Because in trying to fuck us... ya fucked yourselves.

And how COOL is THAT? 


.
.
.

LOL!

Pretty dam' cool!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

MrDVS1 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how you good folks lie about a Judge's ruling. Incest is illegal in the criminal code. Gays falling in love together of legal age is not. Dumbasses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... the problem with Incest is that it is ILLEGAL?
> 
> Tell me GaDawg, where do you come down on the Adult pursuit of Children for sexual gratification and: most importantly: WHY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been my observation that righties often carp the most about things they are actually doing themselves.
Click to expand...


So... you're saying that because such 'is' the case, that this somehow justifies the behavior?  

LOL! 

You're seriously using the 'Everybody does it!' rationalization?  

HERE?  

ROFLMNAO!  Adorable... and people wonder why Left-think fails in every single thing in which it is applied.

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance: The Fundamental Elements of Left-think.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The personification of Relativism:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I don't think that being a heterosexual or being a homosexual is immoral- certainly not by my moral code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is also how they feel about adults pursuing children for sexual gratification.
> 
> See how that works and why they're "THE PROBLEM?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The personification of Obscurantism and False Logic: Where_r_my_Keys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why I say you would be far better off saying "hey Keys, being gay is immoral, but its being immoral with a consenting adult you fucking half whit, there is NO logical comparison between that and child rape"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To which I would say, so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood?  Thus the only thing separating a child from being perfectly suited, using your own reasoning, is the changing of the law which defines the legal means to consent to sexual activity.    Which is a rationalization bereft of reason, thoroughly deceitful, utterly fraudulent... and designed for no other purpose than to influence the ignorant into believing that people like you, are reasonable people, which in truth,  you're not.
> 
> And it's not reasonable because it provides for the application of the same fraudulent science to 'declare' children capable of consenting and the laws relevant to 'consent' will be lifted JUST as the laws regarding sodomy were lifted; deviant reasoning advancing deceitful 'science', through fraudulent means... all designed to FOOL PEOPLE.  Without regard to the catastrophic effect that such decisions create for EVERYONE.
> 
> Now before the question comes: "_What catastrophes have lifting the sodomy laws created?_"  I will refer you to the topic of this very discussion, wherein we are considering IF IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY TO BE FORCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SANCTIFYING OF SUCH!
> 
> The topic being created BY PEOPLE IN POWER LITERALLY TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE POLICE POWERS TO FORCE THEM TO DO JUST THAT!
> 
> Ya jumped the shark, AGAIN kids and _don't think we don't appreciate it.  _Because in trying to fuck us... ya fucked yourselves.
> 
> And how COOL is THAT?
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Pretty dam' cool!
Click to expand...


The age of consent laws aren't about to be changed in this country, and never will . At no point will there be any substantial number of people who will be clamoring to do so. 3% of Americans are fags, probably .003% of Americans would support the law being changed to allow pedophilia.

Talk about a slippery slope argument.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The personification of Relativism:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I don't think that being a heterosexual or being a homosexual is immoral- certainly not by my moral code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is also how they feel about adults pursuing children for sexual gratification.
> 
> See how that works and why they're "THE PROBLEM?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The personification of Obscurantism and False Logic: Where_r_my_Keys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why I say you would be far better off saying "hey Keys, being gay is immoral, but its being immoral with a consenting adult you fucking half whit, there is NO logical comparison between that and child rape"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To which I would say, 'So the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood, thus the 'means' to consent?
> 
> Therefore the only thing separating a child from being perfectly suited, _using your own reasoning_, is the *changing of the law* which defines the legal means to consent to sexual activity.    Which is a rationalization bereft of reason, thoroughly deceitful, utterly fraudulent... and wholly immoral... designed for no other purpose than to influence the ignorant into believing that people like you, are reasonable people, which in truth,  you're not.
> 
> And it's not reasonable because it provides for the application of the same fraudulent science to 'declare' children capable of consenting and the laws relevant to 'consent' will be lifted JUST as the laws regarding sodomy were lifted; deviant reasoning advancing deceitful 'science', through fraudulent means... all designed to FOOL PEOPLE.  Without regard to the catastrophic effect that such decisions create for EVERYONE.
> 
> Now before the question comes: "_What catastrophes have lifting the sodomy laws created?_"  I will refer you to the topic of this very discussion, wherein we are considering IF IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY TO BE FORCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SANCTIFYING OF SUCH!
> 
> The topic being created BY PEOPLE IN POWER LITERALLY TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE POLICE POWERS TO FORCE THEM TO DO JUST THAT!
> 
> Ya jumped the shark, AGAIN kids and _don't think we don't appreciate it.  _Because in trying to fuck us... ya fucked yourselves.
> 
> And how COOL is THAT?LOL!  Pretty dam' cool!
Click to expand...


_so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood?_ Dodge, pure and simple.

keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2) ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.

This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JakeStarkey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The personification of Relativism:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I don't think that being a heterosexual or being a homosexual is immoral- certainly not by my moral code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is also how they feel about adults pursuing children for sexual gratification.
> 
> See how that works and why they're "THE PROBLEM?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The personification of Obscurantism and False Logic: Where_r_my_Keys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why I say you would be far better off saying "hey Keys, being gay is immoral, but its being immoral with a consenting adult you fucking half whit, there is NO logical comparison between that and child rape"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To which I would say, 'So the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood, thus the 'means' to consent?
> 
> Therefore the only thing separating a child from being perfectly suited, _using your own reasoning_, is the *changing of the law* which defines the legal means to consent to sexual activity.    Which is a rationalization bereft of reason, thoroughly deceitful, utterly fraudulent... and wholly immoral... designed for no other purpose than to influence the ignorant into believing that people like you, are reasonable people, which in truth,  you're not.
> 
> And it's not reasonable because it provides for the application of the same fraudulent science to 'declare' children capable of consenting and the laws relevant to 'consent' will be lifted JUST as the laws regarding sodomy were lifted; deviant reasoning advancing deceitful 'science', through fraudulent means... all designed to FOOL PEOPLE.  Without regard to the catastrophic effect that such decisions create for EVERYONE.
> 
> Now before the question comes: "_What catastrophes have lifting the sodomy laws created?_"  I will refer you to the topic of this very discussion, wherein we are considering IF IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY TO BE FORCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SANCTIFYING OF SUCH!
> 
> The topic being created BY PEOPLE IN POWER LITERALLY TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE POLICE POWERS TO FORCE THEM TO DO JUST THAT!
> 
> Ya jumped the shark, AGAIN kids and _don't think we don't appreciate it.  _Because in trying to fuck us... ya fucked yourselves.
> 
> And how COOL is THAT?LOL!  Pretty dam' cool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood?_ Dodge, pure and simple.
> 
> keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2) ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.
> 
> This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.
Click to expand...


And he is completely standing on his own slippery slope.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

JakeStarkey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The personification of Relativism:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I don't think that being a heterosexual or being a homosexual is immoral- certainly not by my moral code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is also how they feel about adults pursuing children for sexual gratification.
> 
> See how that works and why they're "THE PROBLEM?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The personification of Obscurantism and False Logic: Where_r_my_Keys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why I say you would be far better off saying "hey Keys, being gay is immoral, but its being immoral with a consenting adult you fucking half whit, there is NO logical comparison between that and child rape"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To which I would say, 'So the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood, thus the 'means' to consent?
> 
> Therefore the only thing separating a child from being perfectly suited, _using your own reasoning_, is the *changing of the law* which defines the legal means to consent to sexual activity.    Which is a rationalization bereft of reason, thoroughly deceitful, utterly fraudulent... and wholly immoral... designed for no other purpose than to influence the ignorant into believing that people like you, are reasonable people, which in truth,  you're not.
> 
> And it's not reasonable because it provides for the application of the same fraudulent science to 'declare' children capable of consenting and the laws relevant to 'consent' will be lifted JUST as the laws regarding sodomy were lifted; deviant reasoning advancing deceitful 'science', through fraudulent means... all designed to FOOL PEOPLE.  Without regard to the catastrophic effect that such decisions create for EVERYONE.
> 
> Now before the question comes: "_What catastrophes have lifting the sodomy laws created?_"  I will refer you to the topic of this very discussion, wherein we are considering IF IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY TO BE FORCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SANCTIFYING OF SUCH!
> 
> The topic being created BY PEOPLE IN POWER LITERALLY TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE POLICE POWERS TO FORCE THEM TO DO JUST THAT!
> 
> Ya jumped the shark, AGAIN kids and _don't think we don't appreciate it.  _Because in trying to fuck us... ya fucked yourselves.
> 
> And how COOL is THAT?LOL!  Pretty dam' cool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood?_ Dodge, pure and simple.
> 
> keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2)* ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.*
> 
> This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.
Click to expand...


I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.

Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.

Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The personification of Relativism:
> This is also how they feel about adults pursuing children for sexual gratification.
> 
> See how that works and why they're "THE PROBLEM?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The personification of Obscurantism and False Logic: Where_r_my_Keys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why I say you would be far better off saying "hey Keys, being gay is immoral, but its being immoral with a consenting adult you fucking half whit, there is NO logical comparison between that and child rape"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To which I would say, 'So the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood, thus the 'means' to consent?
> 
> Therefore the only thing separating a child from being perfectly suited, _using your own reasoning_, is the *changing of the law* which defines the legal means to consent to sexual activity.    Which is a rationalization bereft of reason, thoroughly deceitful, utterly fraudulent... and wholly immoral... designed for no other purpose than to influence the ignorant into believing that people like you, are reasonable people, which in truth,  you're not.
> 
> And it's not reasonable because it provides for the application of the same fraudulent science to 'declare' children capable of consenting and the laws relevant to 'consent' will be lifted JUST as the laws regarding sodomy were lifted; deviant reasoning advancing deceitful 'science', through fraudulent means... all designed to FOOL PEOPLE.  Without regard to the catastrophic effect that such decisions create for EVERYONE.
> 
> Now before the question comes: "_What catastrophes have lifting the sodomy laws created?_"  I will refer you to the topic of this very discussion, wherein we are considering IF IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY TO BE FORCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SANCTIFYING OF SUCH!
> 
> The topic being created BY PEOPLE IN POWER LITERALLY TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE POLICE POWERS TO FORCE THEM TO DO JUST THAT!
> 
> Ya jumped the shark, AGAIN kids and _don't think we don't appreciate it.  _Because in trying to fuck us... ya fucked yourselves.
> 
> And how COOL is THAT?LOL!  Pretty dam' cool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood?_ Dodge, pure and simple.
> 
> keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2)* ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.*
> 
> This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.
> 
> Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.
> 
> Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.
Click to expand...


Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL.  Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... .  See the problem?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> This is why I say you would be far better off saying "hey Keys, being gay is immoral, but its being immoral with a consenting adult you fucking half whit, there is NO logical comparison between that and child rape"



To which I would say, so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood?  Thus the only thing separating a child from being perfectly suited, using your own reasoning, is the changing of the law which defines the legal means to consent to sexual activity.    Which is a rationalization bereft of reason, thoroughly deceitful, utterly fraudulent... and designed for no other purpose than to influence the ignorant into believing that people like you, are reasonable people, which in truth,  you're not.

And it's not reasonable because it provides for the application of the same fraudulent science to 'declare' children capable of consenting and the laws relevant to 'consent' will be lifted JUST as the laws regarding sodomy were lifted; deviant reasoning advancing deceitful 'science', through fraudulent means... all designed to FOOL PEOPLE.  Without regard to the catastrophic effect that such decisions create for EVERYONE.

Now before the question comes: "_What catastrophes have lifting the sodomy laws created?_"  I will refer you to the topic of this very discussion, wherein we are considering IF IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY TO BE FORCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SANCTIFYING OF SUCH!

The topic being created BY PEOPLE IN POWER LITERALLY TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE POLICE POWERS TO FORCE THEM TO DO JUST THAT!

Ya jumped the shark, AGAIN kids and _don't think we don't appreciate it.  _Because in trying to fuck us... ya fucked yourselves.

And how COOL is THAT?


.
.
.

LOL!

Pretty dam' cool![/QUOTE]

The age of consent laws aren't about to be changed in this country, and never will . At no point will there be any substantial number of people who will be clamoring to do so. 3% of Americans are fags, probably .003% of Americans would support the law being changed to allow pedophilia.

Talk about a slippery slope argument.[/QUOTE]

Well was the conventional wisdom in the US for centuries, right up to a few years ago, when the sodomy laws were lifted. 

And whether or not you believe it, reject it or simply prefer not to 'think about it'.   The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is about NOTHING BUT LIFTING THE LAWS REGARDING "THE AGE OF CONSENT".

It is a push that has been steadily applied since long before your granddaddy first looked upon the new fields that were your grammy.  It is an evil which with which you cannot compete scamp... possessing means beyond your means to comprehend, BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE IT.

Let me ask ya this... 8 years ago, had it ever occurred to you that it was POSSIBLE that the US "JUSTICE" System would 'DECIDE' that marriage was suitable for Homosexuals and that 'they' would take action to FORCE PEOPLE WHO REJECTED THEIR BEHAVIOR TO MARRY THEM?  Did you feel only 8 years ago that people would lose their BUSINESSES because they refused to bake a fuckin' CAKE for a homosexual?  Or rent out a hall to a homosexual?

Now the truth is, without regard to how you may answer that, is that it didn't occur to you then... BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE HOMOSEXUAL LOBBY WOULD EVER FIND ITSELF WITH SUFFICIENT POWER TO DO _ANY OF THAT?_

And finally... it IS a slippery slope.

You seem to feel that slippery slopes don't exist and that 'because slippery slopes don't exist', that it's invalid reasoning where one pretends that they do.

There's bad news... _we've been slipping down that very slope for the last 50 years, and in the last 8 years, *we've plummeted off the CLIFF?*_


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The personification of Relativism:
> This is also how they feel about adults pursuing children for sexual gratification.
> 
> See how that works and why they're "THE PROBLEM?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The personification of Obscurantism and False Logic: Where_r_my_Keys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why I say you would be far better off saying "hey Keys, being gay is immoral, but its being immoral with a consenting adult you fucking half whit, there is NO logical comparison between that and child rape"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To which I would say, so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood?  Thus the only thing separating a child from being perfectly suited, using your own reasoning, is the changing of the law which defines the legal means to consent to sexual activity.    Which is a rationalization bereft of reason, thoroughly deceitful, utterly fraudulent... and designed for no other purpose than to influence the ignorant into believing that people like you, are reasonable people, which in truth,  you're not.
> 
> And it's not reasonable because it provides for the application of the same fraudulent science to 'declare' children capable of consenting and the laws relevant to 'consent' will be lifted JUST as the laws regarding sodomy were lifted; deviant reasoning advancing deceitful 'science', through fraudulent means... all designed to FOOL PEOPLE.  Without regard to the catastrophic effect that such decisions create for EVERYONE.
> 
> Now before the question comes: "_What catastrophes have lifting the sodomy laws created?_"  I will refer you to the topic of this very discussion, wherein we are considering IF IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY TO BE FORCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SANCTIFYING OF SUCH!
> 
> The topic being created BY PEOPLE IN POWER LITERALLY TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE POLICE POWERS TO FORCE THEM TO DO JUST THAT!
> 
> Ya jumped the shark, AGAIN kids and _don't think we don't appreciate it.  _Because in trying to fuck us... ya fucked yourselves.
> 
> And how COOL is THAT?
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Pretty dam' cool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The age of consent laws aren't about to be changed in this country, and never will . At no point will there be any substantial number of people who will be clamoring to do so. 3% of Americans are fags, probably .003% of Americans would support the law being changed to allow pedophilia.
> 
> Talk about a slippery slope argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well was the conventional wisdom in the US for centuries, right up to a few years ago, when the sodomy laws were lifted.
> 
> And whether or not you believe it, reject it or simply prefer not to 'think about it'.   The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is about NOTHING BUT LIFTING THE LAWS REGARDING "THE AGE OF CONSENT".
> 
> It is a push that has been steadily applied since long before your granddaddy first looked upon the new fields that were your grammy.  It is an evil which with which you cannot compete scamp... possessing means beyond your means to comprehend, BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE IT.
> 
> Let me ask ya this... 8 years ago, had it ever occurred to you that it was POSSIBLE that the US "JUSTICE" System would 'DECIDE' that marriage was suitable for Homosexuals and that 'they' would take action to FORCE PEOPLE WHO REJECTED THEIR BEHAVIOR TO MARRY THEM?  Did you feel only 8 years ago that people would lose their BUSINESSES because they refused to bake a fuckin' CAKE for a homosexual?  Or rent out a hall to a homosexual?
> 
> Now the truth is, without regard to how you may answer that, is that it didn't occur to you then... BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE HOMOSEXUAL LOBBY WOULD EVER FIND ITSELF WITH SUFFICIENT POWER TO DO _ANY OF THAT?_
> 
> And finally... it IS a slippery slope.
> 
> You seem to feel that slippery slopes don't exist and that 'because slippery slopes don't exist', that it's invalid reasoning where one pretends that they do.
> 
> There's bad news... _we've been slipping down that very slope for the last 50 years, and in the last 8 years, *we've plummeted off the CLIFF?*_
Click to expand...


8 years ago there was no question that homosexual sex between two adults was consensual.

The rest of your gobblygook is irrelevant.

No one is even interested in changing the consent age for drinking a fucking beer, let alone for fucking.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> At no point will there be any substantial number of people who will be clamoring to do so. 3% of Americans are fags, probably .003% of Americans would support the law being changed to allow pedophilia.
> 
> Talk about a slippery slope argument.



Homosexuality is LEARNED BEHAVIOR... imprinted upon the individual during their earliest stages of development.  

Now, where we culturally NORMALIZE homosexuality and where more homosexuals are placed in positions of trust over young children... more homosexuals will be CREATED, through: Caring sexual relationships with loving adults.  They're not gang raping children... they 'play' with them.

From an interview with Michael Jackson: 

Bashir: "When you are talking about children we met Gavin - and it was a 
great privilege to meet Gavin because he's had a lot of suffering in his life 
- when Gavin was there he talked about the fact that he shares your bedroom?"

Jackson: "Yes."

Bashir: "Can you understand why people would worry about that?"

Jackson: "Because they are ignorant."

Bashir: "But is it really appropriate for a 44-year-old man to share a 
bedroom with a child that is not related to him at all?"

Jackson: "That's a beautiful thing."

Bashir: "That's not a worrying thing?"

Jackson: "Why should that be worrying, what's the criminal...who's Jack the 
Ripper in the room? There's some guy trying to heal a healing child ... I'm 
in a sleeping bag on the floor.
"I gave him the bed because he has a brother named Star, so him and Star took 
the bed and I went along on the sleeping bag ?"

Bashir: "Did you ever sleep in the bed with them?"

Jackson: "No. But I have slept in a bed with many children.
"I slept in a bed with all of them when Macauley Culkin was little: Kieran 
Culkin would sleep on this side, Macauley Culkin was on this side, his 
sisters in there...we all would just jam in the bed, you know.
"We would wake up like dawn and go in the hot air balloon, you know, we had 
the footage. I have all that footage."

Bashir: "But is that right Michael?"

Jackson: *"It's very right. It's very loving, that's what the world needs now, 
more love more heart ?*"

This is a PERSONIFICATION of "THE PROBLEM!".

Now... I ask you... of the pop-culture idiots out there, how many of those who "BELIEVE IN THEIR HEARTS that 'homosexuality' is perfectly normal... would have a problem with a cultural icon sleeping with their child, at his property dedicated to the 'amusement of children'?   Even today... dam' few of 'em. 

And the reason is that they are WEAK MINDED PEOPLE... with NO MORAL CORE and less means to reason soundly.  

Add another generation of decadence... and NONE OF THEM WILL.   And you add a generation to THAT... and the age of consent is GONE.  

Now do you want to have kids?  Or do ya have kids?  Grand Kids?  

YOUR foolish attitude is a direct threat to their well being.   Believe it, reject it... doesn't change a dam' thing.  

Until you wake the hell up... you're a menace to your OWN!  And ya best come to grips with that while there is still a CHANCE to check it, then once it is CHECKED... push it back until these freaks are once again SECURELY BACK IN THAT CLOSET, where they are as safe as they'll ever be, for everyone including themselves.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> No one is even interested in changing the consent age for drinking a fucking beer, let alone for fucking.



LOL! 

And this folks is why most people should never vote.  They're simply not smart enough to understand the risks.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> At no point will there be any substantial number of people who will be clamoring to do so. 3% of Americans are fags, probably .003% of Americans would support the law being changed to allow pedophilia.
> 
> Talk about a slippery slope argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is LEARNED BEHAVIOR... imprinted upon the individual during their earliest stages of development.
> 
> Now, where we culturally NORMALIZE homosexuality and where more homosexuals are placed in positions of trust over young children... more homosexuals will be CREATED, through: Caring sexual relationships with loving adults.  They're not gang raping children... they 'play' with them.
> 
> From an interview with Michael Jackson:
> 
> Bashir: "When you are talking about children we met Gavin - and it was a
> great privilege to meet Gavin because he's had a lot of suffering in his life
> - when Gavin was there he talked about the fact that he shares your bedroom?"
> 
> Jackson: "Yes."
> 
> Bashir: "Can you understand why people would worry about that?"
> 
> Jackson: "Because they are ignorant."
> 
> Bashir: "But is it really appropriate for a 44-year-old man to share a
> bedroom with a child that is not related to him at all?"
> 
> Jackson: "That's a beautiful thing."
> 
> Bashir: "That's not a worrying thing?"
> 
> Jackson: "Why should that be worrying, what's the criminal...who's Jack the
> Ripper in the room? There's some guy trying to heal a healing child ... I'm
> in a sleeping bag on the floor.
> "I gave him the bed because he has a brother named Star, so him and Star took
> the bed and I went along on the sleeping bag ?"
> 
> Bashir: "Did you ever sleep in the bed with them?"
> 
> Jackson: "No. But I have slept in a bed with many children.
> "I slept in a bed with all of them when Macauley Culkin was little: Kieran
> Culkin would sleep on this side, Macauley Culkin was on this side, his
> sisters in there...we all would just jam in the bed, you know.
> "We would wake up like dawn and go in the hot air balloon, you know, we had
> the footage. I have all that footage."
> 
> Bashir: "But is that right Michael?"
> 
> Jackson: *"It's very right. It's very loving, that's what the world needs now,
> more love more heart ?*"
> 
> This is a PERSONIFICATION of "THE PROBLEM!".
> 
> Now... I ask you... of the pop-culture idiots out there, how many of those who "BELIEVE IN THEIR HEARTS that 'homosexuality' is perfectly normal... would have a problem with a cultural icon sleeping with their child, at his property dedicated to the 'amusement of children'?   Even today... dam' few of 'em.
> 
> And the reason is that they are WEAK MINDED PEOPLE... with NO MORAL CORE and less means to reason soundly.
> 
> Add another generation of decadence... and NONE OF THEM WILL.   And you add a generation to THAT... and the age of consent is GONE.
> 
> Now do you want to have kids?  Or do ya have kids?  Grand Kids?
> 
> YOUR foolish attitude is a direct threat to their well being.   Believe it, reject it... doesn't change a dam' thing.
> 
> Until you wake the hell up... you're a menace to your OWN!  And ya best come to grips with that while there is still a CHANCE to check it, then once it is CHECKED... push it back until these freaks are once again SECURELY BACK IN THAT CLOSET, where they are as safe as they'll ever be, for everyone including themselves.
Click to expand...


nice rant.

Now let me ask you this.

Assuming you are right and all homosexuals are pedophiles, do you suppose that they are going to say "oh shit we can't get married to other faggots? Well, then I'm not going to rape little kids anymore either?"


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is even interested in changing the consent age for drinking a fucking beer, let alone for fucking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> And this folks is why most people should never vote.  They're simply not smart enough to understand the risks.
Click to expand...


LOL Sonny, I graduated from WEST POINT, I have a graduate degree from PRINCETON. Both paid for by the US Army, my intelligence is unquestioned. 

Your slippery slope diminishes my intelligence none in the least.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The personification of Obscurantism and False Logic: Where_r_my_Keys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I say you would be far better off saying "hey Keys, being gay is immoral, but its being immoral with a consenting adult you fucking half whit, there is NO logical comparison between that and child rape"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To which I would say, 'So the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood, thus the 'means' to consent?
> 
> Therefore the only thing separating a child from being perfectly suited, _using your own reasoning_, is the *changing of the law* which defines the legal means to consent to sexual activity.    Which is a rationalization bereft of reason, thoroughly deceitful, utterly fraudulent... and wholly immoral... designed for no other purpose than to influence the ignorant into believing that people like you, are reasonable people, which in truth,  you're not.
> 
> And it's not reasonable because it provides for the application of the same fraudulent science to 'declare' children capable of consenting and the laws relevant to 'consent' will be lifted JUST as the laws regarding sodomy were lifted; deviant reasoning advancing deceitful 'science', through fraudulent means... all designed to FOOL PEOPLE.  Without regard to the catastrophic effect that such decisions create for EVERYONE.
> 
> Now before the question comes: "_What catastrophes have lifting the sodomy laws created?_"  I will refer you to the topic of this very discussion, wherein we are considering IF IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY TO BE FORCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SANCTIFYING OF SUCH!
> 
> The topic being created BY PEOPLE IN POWER LITERALLY TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE POLICE POWERS TO FORCE THEM TO DO JUST THAT!
> 
> Ya jumped the shark, AGAIN kids and _don't think we don't appreciate it.  _Because in trying to fuck us... ya fucked yourselves.
> 
> And how COOL is THAT?LOL!  Pretty dam' cool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood?_ Dodge, pure and simple.
> 
> keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2)* ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.*
> 
> This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.
> 
> Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.
> 
> Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL.  Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... .  See the problem?
Click to expand...

 
wherermykey's ABNORMAL because he does not condemn the far greater evil that homosexuals wage on children.

For shame.

For shame!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Homosexuality is not learned behavior.

Hatred, as evidenced by wherermykeys, is learned behavior.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is even interested in changing the consent age for drinking a fucking beer, let alone for fucking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> And this folks is why most people should never vote.  They're simply not smart enough to understand the risks.
Click to expand...


And that evil thought is why you and your ilk are kept under observation, just as all are who would pervert American democracy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is even interested in changing the consent age for drinking a fucking beer, let alone for fucking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> And this folks is why most people should never vote.  They're simply not smart enough to understand the risks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL Sonny, I graduated from WEST POINT, I have a graduate degree from PRINCETON. Both paid for by the US Army, my intelligence is unquestioned.
> 
> Your slippery slope diminishes my intelligence none in the least.
Click to expand...


Well scamp... you did not graduate West Point.  I'm fairly familiar with that breed and you've no kinship with 'em.

Cadets are taught to reason soundly and no one who _graduated_ from West Point would cite the incontestable demonstration of a slippery cultural slope as _fallacious. _Because in no universe is it fallacious.  YA see, they're taught what fallacious reasoning is and  what it is not.  So they do not succumb to the unenviable consequences common to such, when doing so will inevitably cost good men their lives and cripple their means to complete their mission. 

Neither would they declare their bonafides in a desperate appeal, after having pushed such a feeble minded position.  West Pointers rarely find themselves in such a position, but ... only because they know better.


----------



## dblack

JakeStarkey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is even interested in changing the consent age for drinking a fucking beer, let alone for fucking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> And this folks is why most people should never vote.  They're simply not smart enough to understand the risks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that evil thought is why you and your ilk are kept under observation, just as all are who would pervert American democracy.
Click to expand...


In your pathetic fantasies.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is even interested in changing the consent age for drinking a fucking beer, let alone for fucking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> And this folks is why most people should never vote.  They're simply not smart enough to understand the risks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL Sonny, I graduated from WEST POINT, I have a graduate degree from PRINCETON. Both paid for by the US Army, my intelligence is unquestioned.
> 
> Your slippery slope diminishes my intelligence none in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well scamp... you did not graduate West Point.  I'm fairly familiar with that breed and you've no kinship with 'em.
> 
> Cadets are taught to reason soundly and no one who _graduated_ from West Point would cite the incontestable demonstration of a slippery cultural slope as _fallacious. _Because in no universe is it fallacious.  YA see, they're taught what fallacious reasoning is and  what it is not.  So they do not succumb to the unenviable consequences common to such, when doing so will inevitably cost good men their lives and cripple their means to complete their mission.
> 
> Neither would they declare their bonafides in a desperate appeal, after having pushed such a feeble minded position.  West Pointers rarely find themselves in such a position, but ... only because they know better.
Click to expand...


Knights Out


moron


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't actually figure out what his posts have to do with anything.....he does mention EVIL a lot.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps because this is a topic about homosexuals forcing their lifestyles onto religious people; and those religious people knowing that to acquiesce to that force means an eternity in the pit of fire?
> 
> That might be the reason he keeps bringing up "evil".  Because that scenario fits perfectly with the passage in Jude 1 that talks about the "smooth speeches" of the offenders trying to force their lifestyles onto christian ones.
Click to expand...


Well said... there is that, but at the end of the day, I use the term evil... because 'evil': profoundly immoral and malevolent, is what 'it' is.

Such is what MUST be produced, thus such is the natural product of relativism... and relativism is what collectivism, in all of its innumerable facets, rests upon.

Relativism is the the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical or personal context, and as such can never be subject to, or otherwise the result of, soundly reasoned absolutes. Relativism is, therefore, purely subjective; axiomatically rejecting objectivity, which is of course, the essential element of truth.

Objective truth is the essential element of trust... and objective truth and trust are the essential elements of a soundly reasoned morality.

And truth, trust and a soundly reasoned morality are the foundation upon which JUSTICE rests.

Now... those who've followed this thread have witnessed that each of the Advocates of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality rest their ENTIRE advocacy upon what? Upon the irrational premise that Sexual Abnormality is NORMAL. What's that based upon? 'WE ARE NOT "ABNORMAL PEOPLE"... therefore our sexuality is not Abnormal!' Their "truth" is _Subjective_... .

They claim that their position rests in "SCIENCE!", that they TRUST science... and, that opposition of their need is based upon RELIGION!, which they do NOT TRUST.

Yet the purely scientific position, which incontestably demonstrates that Homosexuality; not only deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology, but it deviates as far FROM that standard as can be deviated, at least where all participants are HUMAN. And they could not care less, proving finally that in FACT: they do not trust science... because their trust of science is _Subjective and relative only to their needs_... .

Do we need to discuss their rejection of any sense of a soundly reasoned morality? They demand that we accept their subjective reasoning, because: "We're consenting adults and NO ONE has a right to tell us who we can love!"... which seems so reasonable, right up until ya ask them about their feelings for the rest of the culture; particularly the kids... and what they're going to do to defend the children from the sexually abnormal who 'feel' that the only way that they can sooth their obsession for sexual gratification is through sex with a CHILD!

They WANT you to believe that they're flat out against it... and they've told us that "_UPON CONVICTION_" that such people should be executed or tossed into prison for the rest of their lives. But they can't say what they're basing that _seemingly_ reasonable conclusion upon; they can't say _WHY_ _they say it_ and, *that is because the basis has NO MORAL COMPONENT*... their reasoning rests purely in LEGALITIES... which, minus the moral component, have absolutely NO CONNECTION with the service of JUSTICE.  Meaning their reasoning is fraudulent.

Think about it... they claim that their rejection of adult/child sex rests in THE LAW! The law says NO, therefore the answer is NO!  
_
But is that true?_

Were they against Homosexuality when such was ILLEGAL?  Did they spend any time here, or anywhere else, condemning homosexuality back when the behavior that defines such was against the law?

Nope... of course not. 

And they don't give a tinker's dam' that the laws against such were lifted upon specious grounds of false science. 

Not a bit.

They rests their unwavering demand that 'EVERYONE MUST ACCEPT US', upon "IT'S LEGAL!"   

They're "Justice" is subjective.

All of which does not bode well as the culture continues to spiral into decay... when "SCIENCE!" concludes that children ARE perfectly prepared to consent to 'loving' sexual relationships with 'caring' adults... and some Harvey Milk pens up a bill to lift the Age of Consent... or some Harvey Milk, jurist... hears the evidence that is the "SCIENCE!" and DECIDES that the laws regarding "AGE OF CONSENT" undermine the rights of CONSENTING _*PERSONS*_ to engage in _private behavior_.

What then of those of this cult who stepped forward to state that they REJECT ADULT/CHILD SEX... but could not, or would, not tell us why? Will that matter to anyone, not the least of which are THEM? Not a bit... 'Because it's Legal.'

It's all a long but juicy rationalization set toward a destructive end... it's all a lie.

Evil... .

See how that works?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is even interested in changing the consent age for drinking a fucking beer, let alone for fucking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> And this folks is why most people should never vote.  They're simply not smart enough to understand the risks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL Sonny, I graduated from WEST POINT, I have a graduate degree from PRINCETON. Both paid for by the US Army, my intelligence is unquestioned.
> 
> Your slippery slope diminishes my intelligence none in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well scamp... you did not graduate West Point.  I'm fairly familiar with that breed and you've no kinship with 'em.
> 
> Cadets are taught to reason soundly and no one who _graduated_ from West Point would cite the incontestable demonstration of a slippery cultural slope as _fallacious. _Because in no universe is it fallacious.  YA see, they're taught what fallacious reasoning is and  what it is not.  So they do not succumb to the unenviable consequences common to such, when doing so will inevitably cost good men their lives and cripple their means to complete their mission.
> 
> Neither would they declare their bonafides in a desperate appeal, after having pushed such a feeble minded position.  West Pointers rarely find themselves in such a position, but ... only because they know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knights Out
> 
> 
> moron
Click to expand...


Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is even interested in changing the consent age for drinking a fucking beer, let alone for fucking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> And this folks is why most people should never vote.  They're simply not smart enough to understand the risks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL Sonny, I graduated from WEST POINT, I have a graduate degree from PRINCETON. Both paid for by the US Army, my intelligence is unquestioned.
> 
> Your slippery slope diminishes my intelligence none in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well scamp... you did not graduate West Point.  I'm fairly familiar with that breed and you've no kinship with 'em.
> 
> Cadets are taught to reason soundly and no one who _graduated_ from West Point would cite the incontestable demonstration of a slippery cultural slope as _fallacious. _Because in no universe is it fallacious.  YA see, they're taught what fallacious reasoning is and  what it is not.  So they do not succumb to the unenviable consequences common to such, when doing so will inevitably cost good men their lives and cripple their means to complete their mission.
> 
> Neither would they declare their bonafides in a desperate appeal, after having pushed such a feeble minded position.  West Pointers rarely find themselves in such a position, but ... only because they know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knights Out
> 
> 
> moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
Click to expand...


Yes, I believe that is YOUR version "I admit I've been defeated"

Have a good night junior. I suggest that the next time you "debate" you choose someone you may have a shot at winning against. Maybe a Pokemon message board?


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> [
> Evil... .
> 
> See how that works?



Pure Bat guano crazy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> And this folks is why most people should never vote.  They're simply not smart enough to understand the risks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Sonny, I graduated from WEST POINT, I have a graduate degree from PRINCETON. Both paid for by the US Army, my intelligence is unquestioned.
> 
> Your slippery slope diminishes my intelligence none in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well scamp... you did not graduate West Point.  I'm fairly familiar with that breed and you've no kinship with 'em.
> 
> Cadets are taught to reason soundly and no one who _graduated_ from West Point would cite the incontestable demonstration of a slippery cultural slope as _fallacious. _Because in no universe is it fallacious.  YA see, they're taught what fallacious reasoning is and  what it is not.  So they do not succumb to the unenviable consequences common to such, when doing so will inevitably cost good men their lives and cripple their means to complete their mission.
> 
> Neither would they declare their bonafides in a desperate appeal, after having pushed such a feeble minded position.  West Pointers rarely find themselves in such a position, but ... only because they know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knights Out
> 
> 
> moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe that is YOUR version "I admit I've been defeated"
> 
> Have a good night junior. I suggest that the next time you "debate" you choose someone you may have a shot at winning against. Maybe a Pokemon message board?
Click to expand...


LOL!  Adorable.

Now IF you WERE a USMA grad, you'd know that a concession is born when the opposition deflects from the point, thus conceding that point.  You're acknowledgment is not only _not required_, your feelings are wholly irrelevant.  But only because your ACTIONS demonstrated the FACTS, relevant to your concession. 

See how that works scamp?   Sound reasoning wins every single time it's applied.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Sonny, I graduated from WEST POINT, I have a graduate degree from PRINCETON. Both paid for by the US Army, my intelligence is unquestioned.
> 
> Your slippery slope diminishes my intelligence none in the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well scamp... you did not graduate West Point.  I'm fairly familiar with that breed and you've no kinship with 'em.
> 
> Cadets are taught to reason soundly and no one who _graduated_ from West Point would cite the incontestable demonstration of a slippery cultural slope as _fallacious. _Because in no universe is it fallacious.  YA see, they're taught what fallacious reasoning is and  what it is not.  So they do not succumb to the unenviable consequences common to such, when doing so will inevitably cost good men their lives and cripple their means to complete their mission.
> 
> Neither would they declare their bonafides in a desperate appeal, after having pushed such a feeble minded position.  West Pointers rarely find themselves in such a position, but ... only because they know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knights Out
> 
> 
> moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe that is YOUR version "I admit I've been defeated"
> 
> Have a good night junior. I suggest that the next time you "debate" you choose someone you may have a shot at winning against. Maybe a Pokemon message board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Adorable.
> 
> Now IF you WERE a USMA grad, you'd know that a concession is born when the opposition deflects from the point, thus conceding that point.  You're acknowledgment is not only _not required_, your feelings are wholly irrelevant.  But only because your ACTIONS demonstrated the FACTS, relevant to your concession.
> 
> See how that works scamp?   Sound reasoning wins every single time it's applied.
Click to expand...



I haven't' seen you use sound reasoning yet junior.

In fact you claimed that a west point graduate wouldn't support a homosexuals right to be a homosexual, and I proved to you that isn't true and your response was to pretend you had defeated me in debate.

Go to bed sonny.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> I haven't' seen you use sound reasoning yet junior.



Your inability to recognize sound reasoning has no bearing on the presence of such.

Now see, a graduate of the USMA, would have known that.

Your concession is again, duly noted and summarily accepted.

LOL!  Just to rub it in... you're invited to define sound reasoning, as you understand it, and set that understanding against examples of my statements, which you feel represents those exhibiting the most fatal flaws. 

Now, this is me telling you that you will not do that, because you're incapable of doing that. 

Which... LOL!  When ya fail to do so, which as noted above is an axiomatic certainty, you will concede to me, that you're full of crap... through your failure to do so.

ROFL!  Now how cool is THAT?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> In fact you claimed that a west point graduate wouldn't support a homosexuals right to be a homosexual



"In fact", that is not a fact, as there is nothing in the record of this board wherein I made any statement which would provide for any reasonable person to draw such an absurd inference. (That means that I never claimed that a West Point Grad would never support a homosexual... . )  Didn't happen.





SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> and I proved to you that isn't true and your response was to pretend you had defeated me in debate.



You defeated yourself Scamp.  All I did was to note and accept it.   

I hate that for ya, but ya did to yourself and by all outward appearances, such seems to be your singular gift.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Sonny, I graduated from WEST POINT, I have a graduate degree from PRINCETON. Both paid for by the US Army, my intelligence is unquestioned.
> 
> Your slippery slope diminishes my intelligence none in the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well scamp... you did not graduate West Point.  I'm fairly familiar with that breed and you've no kinship with 'em.
> 
> Cadets are taught to reason soundly and no one who _graduated_ from West Point would cite the incontestable demonstration of a slippery cultural slope as _fallacious. _Because in no universe is it fallacious.  YA see, they're taught what fallacious reasoning is and  what it is not.  So they do not succumb to the unenviable consequences common to such, when doing so will inevitably cost good men their lives and cripple their means to complete their mission.
> 
> Neither would they declare their bonafides in a desperate appeal, after having pushed such a feeble minded position.  West Pointers rarely find themselves in such a position, but ... only because they know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knights Out
> 
> 
> moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe that is YOUR version "I admit I've been defeated"
> 
> Have a good night junior. I suggest that the next time you "debate" you choose someone you may have a shot at winning against. Maybe a Pokemon message board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Adorable.
> 
> Now IF you WERE a USMA grad, you'd know that a concession is born when the opposition deflects from the point, thus conceding that point.  You're acknowledgment is not only _not required_, your feelings are wholly irrelevant.  But only because your ACTIONS demonstrated the FACTS, relevant to your concession.
> 
> See how that works scamp?   Sound reasoning wins every single time it's applied.
Click to expand...


Then keys should practice sound reasoning, give up fallacies, and admit that his perversion that ignores 99% of the attacks against children is immoral.


----------



## JakeStarkey

keys is running in circles.


----------



## Warner Athey

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



Churches?  No.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Warner Athey said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches?  No.
Click to expand...


Meaning what?  Churches No, but individuals who comprise 'the church', YES?  

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  Why should any reasonable human being be forced to accept something that they recognize as wrong?


----------



## Silhouette

Warner Athey said:


> Churches?  No.


 Religions?  No.
Religious people?  No.

One religion [LGBT] can't force followers of another to abdicate their principles in favor of behaviors/dogma forbidden to their religious values.

This is especially true of individual chrisitans who are under a mandate to not promote the homosexual culture (while reserving compassion to make  a difference with individual homosexuals).  If they do enable, promote or passively allow (they are ordered to "earnestly contend" against the homosexual cultural spread) that spread or promotion, they are facing eterneity in the pit of fire.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> Warner Athey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches?  No.
> 
> 
> 
> Religions?  No.
> Religious people?  No.
> 
> One religion [LGBT] can't force followers of another to abdicate their principles in favor of behaviors/dogma forbidden to their religious values.
> 
> This is especially true of individual chrisitans who are under a mandate to not promote the homosexual culture (while reserving compassion to make  a difference with individual homosexuals).  If they do enable, promote or passively allow (they are ordered to "earnestly contend" against the homosexual cultural spread) that spread or promotion, they are facing eterneity in the pit of fire.
Click to expand...


While the pit of fire is a real problem, its something that has an intrinsic "Future' component to it.  But what about the a very real and present problem, wherein such behavior causes chaos, calamity and catastrophe right here, right now.  SO... it's worth the effort to DISCOURAGE IT: HERE and NOW!  

Now some will argue: "What chaos, calamity and catastrophe has homosexuality caused?"  I would submit the experiences which led to the title of this very discussion... .


----------



## RKMBrown

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The personification of Obscurantism and False Logic: Where_r_my_Keys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I say you would be far better off saying "hey Keys, being gay is immoral, but its being immoral with a consenting adult you fucking half whit, there is NO logical comparison between that and child rape"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To which I would say, 'So the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood, thus the 'means' to consent?
> 
> Therefore the only thing separating a child from being perfectly suited, _using your own reasoning_, is the *changing of the law* which defines the legal means to consent to sexual activity.    Which is a rationalization bereft of reason, thoroughly deceitful, utterly fraudulent... and wholly immoral... designed for no other purpose than to influence the ignorant into believing that people like you, are reasonable people, which in truth,  you're not.
> 
> And it's not reasonable because it provides for the application of the same fraudulent science to 'declare' children capable of consenting and the laws relevant to 'consent' will be lifted JUST as the laws regarding sodomy were lifted; deviant reasoning advancing deceitful 'science', through fraudulent means... all designed to FOOL PEOPLE.  Without regard to the catastrophic effect that such decisions create for EVERYONE.
> 
> Now before the question comes: "_What catastrophes have lifting the sodomy laws created?_"  I will refer you to the topic of this very discussion, wherein we are considering IF IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY TO BE FORCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SANCTIFYING OF SUCH!
> 
> The topic being created BY PEOPLE IN POWER LITERALLY TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE POLICE POWERS TO FORCE THEM TO DO JUST THAT!
> 
> Ya jumped the shark, AGAIN kids and _don't think we don't appreciate it.  _Because in trying to fuck us... ya fucked yourselves.
> 
> And how COOL is THAT?LOL!  Pretty dam' cool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood?_ Dodge, pure and simple.
> 
> keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2)* ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.*
> 
> This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.
> 
> Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.
> 
> Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL.  Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... .  See the problem?
Click to expand...

I see the problem.  Pretty much it's you, and people like you.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I say you would be far better off saying "hey Keys, being gay is immoral, but its being immoral with a consenting adult you fucking half whit, there is NO logical comparison between that and child rape"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To which I would say, 'So the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood, thus the 'means' to consent?
> 
> Therefore the only thing separating a child from being perfectly suited, _using your own reasoning_, is the *changing of the law* which defines the legal means to consent to sexual activity.    Which is a rationalization bereft of reason, thoroughly deceitful, utterly fraudulent... and wholly immoral... designed for no other purpose than to influence the ignorant into believing that people like you, are reasonable people, which in truth,  you're not.
> 
> And it's not reasonable because it provides for the application of the same fraudulent science to 'declare' children capable of consenting and the laws relevant to 'consent' will be lifted JUST as the laws regarding sodomy were lifted; deviant reasoning advancing deceitful 'science', through fraudulent means... all designed to FOOL PEOPLE.  Without regard to the catastrophic effect that such decisions create for EVERYONE.
> 
> Now before the question comes: "_What catastrophes have lifting the sodomy laws created?_"  I will refer you to the topic of this very discussion, wherein we are considering IF IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY TO BE FORCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SANCTIFYING OF SUCH!
> 
> The topic being created BY PEOPLE IN POWER LITERALLY TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE POLICE POWERS TO FORCE THEM TO DO JUST THAT!
> 
> Ya jumped the shark, AGAIN kids and _don't think we don't appreciate it.  _Because in trying to fuck us... ya fucked yourselves.
> 
> And how COOL is THAT?LOL!  Pretty dam' cool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood?_ Dodge, pure and simple.
> 
> keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2)* ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.*
> 
> This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.
> 
> Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.
> 
> Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL.  Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... .  See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see the problem.  Pretty much it's you, and people like you.
Click to expand...


hes not the only problem. Gays that won't respect others is a problem as well


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> To which I would say, 'So the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood, thus the 'means' to consent?
> 
> Therefore the only thing separating a child from being perfectly suited, _using your own reasoning_, is the *changing of the law* which defines the legal means to consent to sexual activity.    Which is a rationalization bereft of reason, thoroughly deceitful, utterly fraudulent... and wholly immoral... designed for no other purpose than to influence the ignorant into believing that people like you, are reasonable people, which in truth,  you're not.
> 
> And it's not reasonable because it provides for the application of the same fraudulent science to 'declare' children capable of consenting and the laws relevant to 'consent' will be lifted JUST as the laws regarding sodomy were lifted; deviant reasoning advancing deceitful 'science', through fraudulent means... all designed to FOOL PEOPLE.  Without regard to the catastrophic effect that such decisions create for EVERYONE.
> 
> Now before the question comes: "_What catastrophes have lifting the sodomy laws created?_"  I will refer you to the topic of this very discussion, wherein we are considering IF IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY TO BE FORCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SANCTIFYING OF SUCH!
> 
> The topic being created BY PEOPLE IN POWER LITERALLY TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE POLICE POWERS TO FORCE THEM TO DO JUST THAT!
> 
> Ya jumped the shark, AGAIN kids and _don't think we don't appreciate it.  _Because in trying to fuck us... ya fucked yourselves.
> 
> And how COOL is THAT?LOL!  Pretty dam' cool!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood?_ Dodge, pure and simple.
> 
> keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2)* ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.*
> 
> This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.
> 
> Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.
> 
> Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL.  Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... .  See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see the problem.  Pretty much it's you, and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hes not the only problem. Gays that won't respect others is a problem as well
Click to expand...

Isn't that what I said


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> _so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood?_ Dodge, pure and simple.
> 
> keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2)* ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.*
> 
> This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.
> 
> Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.
> 
> Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL.  Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... .  See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see the problem.  Pretty much it's you, and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hes not the only problem. Gays that won't respect others is a problem as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't that what I said
Click to expand...



To be honest, I don't know, so many people saying so many things that I'm sorta skim reading except for obvious idiots like Keys and SeaWytch


----------



## RKMBrown

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.
> 
> Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.
> 
> Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL.  Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... .  See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see the problem.  Pretty much it's you, and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hes not the only problem. Gays that won't respect others is a problem as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't that what I said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, I don't know, so many people saying so many things that I'm sorta skim reading except for obvious idiots like Keys and SeaWytch
Click to expand...

It's like playing whack a mole.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL.  Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... .  See the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> I see the problem.  Pretty much it's you, and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hes not the only problem. Gays that won't respect others is a problem as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't that what I said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, I don't know, so many people saying so many things that I'm sorta skim reading except for obvious idiots like Keys and SeaWytch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's like playing whack a mole.
Click to expand...


More like whack a turd


----------



## Toro

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.



^^^^^
Ravi

lol


----------



## Ravi

Toro said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^
> Ravi
> 
> lol
Click to expand...

I think he's got me on ignore, how awesome is that! Talk about a concession!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Toro

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is even interested in changing the consent age for drinking a fucking beer, let alone for fucking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> And this folks is why most people should never vote.  They're simply not smart enough to understand the risks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL Sonny, I graduated from WEST POINT, I have a graduate degree from PRINCETON. Both paid for by the US Army, my intelligence is unquestioned.
> 
> Your slippery slope diminishes my intelligence none in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well scamp... you did not graduate West Point.  I'm fairly familiar with that breed and you've no kinship with 'em.
> 
> Cadets are taught to reason soundly and no one who _graduated_ from West Point would cite the incontestable demonstration of a slippery cultural slope as _fallacious. _Because in no universe is it fallacious.  YA see, they're taught what fallacious reasoning is and  what it is not.  So they do not succumb to the unenviable consequences common to such, when doing so will inevitably cost good men their lives and cripple their means to complete their mission.
> 
> Neither would they declare their bonafides in a desperate appeal, after having pushed such a feeble minded position.  West Pointers rarely find themselves in such a position, but ... only because they know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knights Out
> 
> 
> moron
Click to expand...


There's only one knight where Where_r_my_PubliusInfinitum is concerned.


----------



## Toro

Ravi, the 320 point advocate of homosexuality ...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> To which I would say, 'So the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood, thus the 'means' to consent?
> 
> Therefore the only thing separating a child from being perfectly suited, _using your own reasoning_, is the *changing of the law* which defines the legal means to consent to sexual activity.    Which is a rationalization bereft of reason, thoroughly deceitful, utterly fraudulent... and wholly immoral... designed for no other purpose than to influence the ignorant into believing that people like you, are reasonable people, which in truth,  you're not.
> 
> And it's not reasonable because it provides for the application of the same fraudulent science to 'declare' children capable of consenting and the laws relevant to 'consent' will be lifted JUST as the laws regarding sodomy were lifted; deviant reasoning advancing deceitful 'science', through fraudulent means... all designed to FOOL PEOPLE.  Without regard to the catastrophic effect that such decisions create for EVERYONE.
> 
> Now before the question comes: "_What catastrophes have lifting the sodomy laws created?_"  I will refer you to the topic of this very discussion, wherein we are considering IF IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY TO BE FORCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SANCTIFYING OF SUCH!
> 
> The topic being created BY PEOPLE IN POWER LITERALLY TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE POLICE POWERS TO FORCE THEM TO DO JUST THAT!
> 
> Ya jumped the shark, AGAIN kids and _don't think we don't appreciate it.  _Because in trying to fuck us... ya fucked yourselves.
> 
> And how COOL is THAT?LOL!  Pretty dam' cool!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood?_ Dodge, pure and simple.
> 
> keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2)* ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.*
> 
> This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.
> 
> Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.
> 
> Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL.  Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... .  See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see the problem.  Pretty much it's you, and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hes not the only problem. Gays that won't respect others is a problem as well
Click to expand...


I'm not a problem of any kind... as I am not forcing anyone to do anything.

I am publicly advocating for the recognition and defense of, respect for and adherence to the sound, sustainable principles of nature... .  That some sense that as a threat, merely demonstrates, in incontrovertible terms, that those people are animated by Evil, which by its nature, axiomatically rejects those principles.  

Which of course, not only a problem, its a PERFECT demonstration of THE PROBLEM which the title of this thread speaks to.

(Now for the professed graduates of the USMA among us, that means that what YOU just did, was to prove the validity inherent in the contest of The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality and the assertion that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is overtly intent upon using the police powers of the State to force others to accept their perversion of human reasoning.)

LOL!  Now how cool is THAT?


----------



## JakeStarkey

You sure remind me of PI, for sure.


----------



## RKMBrown

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> _so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood?_ Dodge, pure and simple.
> 
> keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2)* ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.*
> 
> This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.
> 
> Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.
> 
> Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL.  Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... .  See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see the problem.  Pretty much it's you, and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hes not the only problem. Gays that won't respect others is a problem as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a problem of any kind... as I am not forcing anyone to do anything.
> 
> I am publicly advocating for the recognition and defense of, respect for and adherence to the sound, sustainable principles of nature... .  That some sense that as a threat, merely demonstrates, in incontrovertible terms, that those people are animated by Evil, which by its nature, axiomatically rejects those principles.
> 
> Which of course, not only a problem, its a PERFECT demonstration of THE PROBLEM which the title of this thread speaks to.
> 
> (Now for the professed graduates of the USMA among us, that means that what YOU just did, was to prove the validity inherent in the contest of The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality and the assertion that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is overtly intent upon using the police powers of the State to force others to accept their perversion of human reasoning.)
> 
> LOL!  Now how cool is THAT?
Click to expand...

^ dumb ass retard thinks restricting consenting adults from marriage is allowing him to live in liberty.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.
> 
> This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.
> 
> You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever, you would have a better, and more honest, argument if you would just admit that being a faggot is immoral, but hey guess what? In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the fuck up
Click to expand...


Your *opinion* is not supported by a majority of Americans. 

In U.S. Record-High Say Gay Lesbian Relations Morally OK


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Warner Athey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches?  No.
> 
> 
> 
> Religions?  No.
> Religious people?  No.
> 
> One religion [LGBT] .
Click to expand...


More of Silhouette's bat guano craziness.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> Your *opinion* is not supported by a majority of Americans.
> 
> In U.S. Record-High Say Gay Lesbian Relations Morally OK



LOL! 

So what you're saying is that the perception of a popular majority, establishes what is 'morally right'?

Oh!  Now THAT IS FASCINATIN'!

I wonder if there is ANY evidence in human history that would disprove, discredit and otherwise REFUTE THAT SPURIOUS PIDDLE?

LOL! 


I'll leave the question open so that other contributors might offer up some cogent examples.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> _so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood?_ Dodge, pure and simple.
> 
> keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2)* ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.*
> 
> This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.
> 
> Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.
> 
> Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL.  Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... .  See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see the problem.  Pretty much it's you, and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hes not the only problem. Gays that won't respect others is a problem as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a problem of any kind... as I am not forcing anyone to do anything.
> 
> I am publicly advocating for the recognition and defense of, respect for and adherence to the sound, sustainable principles of nature... .  That some sense that as a threat, merely demonstrates, in incontrovertible terms, that those people are animated by Evil, which by its nature, axiomatically rejects those principles.
> 
> Which of course, not only a problem, its a PERFECT demonstration of THE PROBLEM which the title of this thread speaks to.
> 
> (Now for the professed graduates of the USMA among us, that means that what YOU just did, was to prove the validity inherent in the contest of The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality and the assertion that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is overtly intent upon using the police powers of the State to force others to accept their perversion of human reasoning.)
> 
> LOL!  Now how cool is THAT?
Click to expand...


I have found it simpler to respond to Keys posts by pointing out that they are irrational and incoherent rants- i.e. bat guano crazy.

Just faster to get to the conclusion and doesn't waste as much of my time.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> ...In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the fuck up



There is literally not only no 'right to be immoral', there is no POTENTIAL FOR A RIGHT to 'be immoral'.

Ya see, that is another CLASSIC example of what an actual graduate of the USMA, would know.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Keys knows very, very little.


----------



## ShackledNation

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.
> 
> This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.
> 
> You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever, you would have a better, and more honest, argument if you would just admit that being a faggot is immoral, but hey guess what? In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the fuck up
Click to expand...

And the bigot shows his true colors and resorts to name calling when his fallacy is revealed. Typical. And I'm sure you would have a better argument if everyone just agreed with you, but guess what? That isn't going to happen as long as you continue to be wrong.


----------



## Ravi

Toro said:


> Ravi, the 320 point advocate of homosexuality ...


This makes me miss neg rep all over again.


----------



## ShackledNation

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.
> 
> This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.
> 
> You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever, you would have a better, and more honest, argument if you would just admit that being a faggot is immoral, but hey guess what? In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the fuck up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I will admit that being a biggot is immoral, but hey guess what- you have a right to be a bigot if you want- if that is your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't disagree that being a bigot is amoral. See, I have the integrity to state such a thing, you have NO integrity, none, not even a portion of one.
> 
> Do they suck your integrity out of you when you declare yourself a liberal or what?
Click to expand...

Homosexuality is not immoral, and the majority of Americans agree that is is not immoral. Stating gays are immoral has nothing to do with integrity.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word "normal" means different things in different contexts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... no it doesn't.  It means the same thing, in every context.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Learn English. There are eight different definitions of normal. They do not all apply in every context. You are conflating definitions 2 and 3 in the below dictionary.
Normal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



> It's pretty simple alright.  But as simple as it is, you have 'created' a 'new' meaning of normal; the 'new-normal', which only renders the word MEANINGLESS.


No I haven't. Again, read a dictionary. You are conflating two definitions of the word normal. And apparently you don't even realize it, which just shows the failure of the United States education system.



> False... that is NOT only NOT >WHAT< I am arguing, it is not even CLOSE to what I am arguing and there's NOTHING in ANYTHING that I HAVE ARGUED, that could reasonably lead a reasonable person to such an inference.  Which is how we can rest assured that your reasoning is invalid and wholly subjective.
> 
> Also, I've got no where to be, so I am free to point out that its false, every time you feel the need to repeat it.
> 
> Let's try it this way:
> 
> normal: conforming to a standard.
> 
> abnormal: deviating from what is normal
> 
> deviate: depart from usual or accepted standards
> 
> perversion: the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended by the standard.
> 
> rationalization: attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with what is erroneously felt to be logical, plausible reasons, even where such are logically invalid, intellectually unsound and otherwise not true or appropriate.
> 
> irrational: not logical or reasonable.• not endowed with the power of reason.
> 
> delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder
> 
> Which of those 'feels' the most familiar to ya?


That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your *opinion* is not supported by a majority of Americans.
> 
> In U.S. Record-High Say Gay Lesbian Relations Morally OK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> So what you're saying is that the perception of a popular majority, establishes what is 'morally right'?
Click to expand...

No, that is not what he was saying. Nobody with a functioning brain would have assumed that was what he was saying.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word "normal" means different things in different contexts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... no "it" doesn't.  It means the same thing, in every context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
Click to expand...


True.  "It" does not. 



ShackledNation said:


> Learn English. There are eight different definitions of normal. They do not all apply in every context. You are conflating definitions 2 and 3 in the below dictionary.
> Normal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



2a  *:*  according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle 

b  *:*  conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern 

3  *:*  occurring naturally

Conflate: to combine.  

Yes... I am combining the various perspectives of the singular meaning of normal, wherein that which occurs naturally... as in the physiological design of the human being, establishes the norm, the rules regarding sexuality and the principles regarding the viable purpose of human sexuality; OKA: The Human Physiological Standard.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.
> 
> You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever, you would have a better, and more honest, argument if you would just admit that being a faggot is immoral, but hey guess what? In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the fuck up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I will admit that being a biggot is immoral, but hey guess what- you have a right to be a bigot if you want- if that is your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't disagree that being a bigot is amoral. See, I have the integrity to state such a thing, you have NO integrity, none, not even a portion of one.
> 
> Do they suck your integrity out of you when you declare yourself a liberal or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am glad you recognize that your bigotry is immoral.
> 
> However, I don't think that being a heterosexual or being a homosexual is immoral- certainly not by my moral code.
> 
> You of course display your lack of integrity, by proclaiming I have no integrity- because you disagree with me.
> 
> Which i find amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sir, you have no morality. I'm not judging you. I'm merely stating a fact. It actually makes no difference to me if you have any morality or not.
> 
> But you don't.
Click to expand...


Feel free to prove that- since your claim is definitive. 

Otherwise- once again- you will be shown to be lying.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> It's pretty simple alright.  But as simple as it is, you have 'created' a 'new' meaning of normal; the 'new-normal', which only renders the word MEANINGLESS.
> 
> 
> 
> No I haven't. Again, read a dictionary. You are conflating two definitions of the word normal. And apparently you don't even realize it, which just shows the failure of the United States education system.
Click to expand...


Read it... and no where in the definition of the normal, does it equate abnormality with normality.  And this without regard to your desperate rationalization which needs it to do so.

The great part about this whole thing is that even IF every dictionary on earth defined normal as abnormal, that in no way would render the traits otherwise associated with normal to have any kinship with abnormality.

But that is because nature doesn't give a rip about the subjective needs of the abnormal to BE normal, except of course where they put in the work to comport themselves within the defining traits which truly, in reality... define the natural standards that demonstrate that which is normal.

I realize that you disagree.  And that's fine.  But the basis of that disagreement is irrational.  So, well... you know.


----------



## Ravi

Homosexuality occurs naturally. Therefore it is normal, according to the dictionary.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> False... that is NOT only NOT >WHAT< I am arguing, it is not even CLOSE to what I am arguing and there's NOTHING in ANYTHING that I HAVE ARGUED, that could reasonably lead a reasonable person to such an inference.  Which is how we can rest assured that your reasoning is invalid and wholly subjective.
> 
> Also, I've got no where to be, so I am free to point out that its false, every time you feel the need to repeat it.
> 
> Let's try it this way:
> 
> normal: conforming to a standard.
> 
> abnormal: deviating from what is normal
> 
> deviate: depart from usual or accepted standards
> 
> perversion: the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended by the standard.
> 
> rationalization: attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with what is erroneously felt to be logical, plausible reasons, even where such are logically invalid, intellectually unsound and otherwise not true or appropriate.
> 
> irrational: not logical or reasonable.• not endowed with the power of reason.
> 
> delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder
> 
> Which of those 'feels' the most familiar to ya?
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.
Click to expand...




> That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.



So you've chosen DELUSION! 

Good for you!  (If it helps, that is the one I was sure you'd choose.)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your *opinion* is not supported by a majority of Americans.
> 
> In U.S. Record-High Say Gay Lesbian Relations Morally OK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> So what you're saying is that the perception of a popular majority, establishes what is 'morally right'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is not what he was saying. Nobody with a functioning brain would have assumed that was what he was saying.
Click to expand...


LOL!  You say that... but despite that giving you a PERFECT opportunity to explain what 'he' DID mean... ya CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.

Now... I wonder why you passed on such a great opportunity? 

Some would argue that ya passed on it, because ya had needed to deny the position, due to your subjective need for such to not be true, without any understanding of what IS TRUE, where 'truth' equals something akin to your subjective needs. 

Pretty cool, huh... how those folks see right through the irrational house of cards you, the intellectually abnormal seem so intent upon building.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

*There Are 6 Scriptures About Homosexuality In The Bible. Here's What They Really Say.*


 Curated by  Erica Williams Simon 
I'm the daughter of two ministers and still spend every Sunday in church, so I grew up studying the Bible pretty closely. But in all my years, I've never heard the scriptures about homosexuality explained this way. I've had the pleasure of meeting this guy, and I can tell you that, like me, he loves his faith very much. So who better to explain and challenge it? What he found just might be a game-changer.


First one is free... so are the rest. Daily.
By submitting above you agree to the Upworthy privacy policy.



Transcript:
Hide Transcript 
[Music]

*Matthew Vines:* Marriage equality is on the rise, but despite this trend, religious beliefs remain a major obstacle to acceptance. Many conservative Christians believe that the Bible condemns all same-sex relationships. That question drove my own intensive study of this issue when I came to terms with being gay, as with my parents and my church in Kansas believed that gay marriage was wrong. But what I learned whenever I studied the relevant scripture passages changed my parent's minds along with the views of many other Christians in my life.

They are six passages in the bible that refer to same sex behavior, three in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament. The most famous passage is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. God sends two angels disguised as men into the City of Sodom where the men of Sodom threatened to rape them. The angels blind the men, and God destroys the city. For centuries, this story was interpreted as God's judgment on same-sex relations, but the only form of same-sex behavior described is a threatened gang rape. Ezekiel 16:49 sums up the stories focused on violence and hostility towards strangers. "Now, this was the sin of your sister, Sodom. She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned, they did not help the poor and needy."

In Leviticus 18:22, male same-sex intercourse is prohibited, and violators are to receive the death penalty. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Other things called abominations in the Old Testament include having sex during a woman's menstrual period, eating pork, rabbit, or shell fish, and charging interest on loans, but they're part of the Old Testament law code, which was fulfilled by Jesus.

Hebrews 8:13 says that the old law is obsolete and aging. Romans 10:4 says that Christ is the end of the law, so the Old Testament doesn't settle the issue for Christians, but lets look to the New Testament which contains the longest reference to same-sex behavior in the bible.

In Romans 1:26-27, people who turn away from God to worship idols are then turned over to their own lusts and vices. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, in the same way, men committed shameful acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Paul's words here are clearly negative, but the behavior he condemns is lustful. He makes no mention of love, commitment, or faithfulness.

His description of same-sex behavior is based solely on a burst of excess and lust. In the ancient world, same-sex behavior mainly occurred between adult men and adolescent boys, between masters and their slaves, or in prostitution. Most of the men engaged in those practices were married to women, so same-sex behavior was widely seen as stemming from out of control lust and vice of excess, like gluttony and drunkenness. And while Paul labeled same sex behavior unnatural, he says in 1 Corinthians 11:14 that for men to wear their hair long also goes against nature, and most Christians interpret that as a reference to cultural conventions.

In the last two likely references to same-sex behavior in the Bible, two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, are included in lists of people who will not inherit God's kingdom. Many modern translators have rendered these terms as sweeping statements about gay people, but the concept of sexual orientation didn't even exist in the ancient world. Yes, Paul did not take a positive view of same-sex relations, but the context he was writing in is worlds apart from gay people in committed, monogamous relationships. The Bible never addresses the issues of sexual orientation or same-sex marriage, so there's no reason why faithful Christians can't support their gay brothers and sisters. It's time.

If you'd like to learn more, check out my new book, "God and the Gay Christian," then, sign with the Reformation Project to make a difference in your church.
There Are 6 Scriptures About Homosexuality In The Bible. Here s What They Really Say.


----------



## JakeStarkey

keys is on his knees.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

JakeStarkey said:


> keys is on his knees.



You can thank me for that post if you want, the premise that those 6 scriptures are anti gay is what I was driving for ....................

Just like StMichaels, you and this woman would have us accept the more sensitive and softer gay without an axe to grind, those who are portrayed as loving, caring, decent human beings simply seeking acceptance in this cold cruel world .........................

You folks are an abomination in Societies eyes and in Gods eyes, no matter how you sugar coat it or try to make it palatable, it ain't ...........................


----------



## JakeStarkey

We simply have no use for the Christian fascistic tactics of old.

Go conquer South Carolina if you want your own Christian state.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

JakeStarkey said:


> We simply have no use for the Christian fascistic tactics of old.
> 
> Go conquer South Carolina if you want your own Christian state.



We simply have no use for faggots ......................

Want to be a cocksucker go to ISIS ......................


----------



## JakeStarkey

DrDoomNGloom said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We simply have no use for the Christian fascistic tactics of old.
> 
> Go conquer South Carolina if you want your own Christian state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We simply have no use for faggots ......................
> 
> Want to be a cocksucker go to ISIS ......................
Click to expand...


Who is "we", tonto?  Certainly not the USA, and the millennials will float you out to sea if you try that with them.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Yes... I am combining the various perspectives of the singular meaning of normal, wherein that which occurs naturally... as in the physiological design of the human being, establishes the norm, the rules regarding sexuality and the principles regarding the viable purpose of human sexuality; OKA: The Human Physiological Standard.


That's called an equivocation. It would be like saying a "red" rose is therefore communist, or a "high" building is under the influence of marijuana.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty simple alright.  But as simple as it is, you have 'created' a 'new' meaning of normal; the 'new-normal', which only renders the word MEANINGLESS.
> 
> 
> 
> No I haven't. Again, read a dictionary. You are conflating two definitions of the word normal. And apparently you don't even realize it, which just shows the failure of the United States education system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read it... and no where in the definition of the normal, does it equate abnormality with normality.  And this without regard to your desperate rationalization which needs it to do so.
> 
> The great part about this whole thing is that even IF every dictionary on earth defined normal as abnormal, that in no way would render the traits otherwise associated with normal to have any kinship with abnormality.
> 
> But that is because nature doesn't give a rip about the subjective needs of the abnormal to BE normal, except of course where they put in the work to comport themselves within the defining traits which truly, in reality... define the natural standards that demonstrate that which is normal.
> 
> I realize that you disagree.  And that's fine.  But the basis of that disagreement is irrational.  So, well... you know.
Click to expand...

The fact remains you are conflating two definitions of normal. Something can be statistically abnormal but remain normal in the moral or socially acceptable sense (such as red hair). You seem to have a real difficultly in comprehending the reality that in the English language the same word can reference more than one thing.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False... that is NOT only NOT >WHAT< I am arguing, it is not even CLOSE to what I am arguing and there's NOTHING in ANYTHING that I HAVE ARGUED, that could reasonably lead a reasonable person to such an inference.  Which is how we can rest assured that your reasoning is invalid and wholly subjective.
> 
> Also, I've got no where to be, so I am free to point out that its false, every time you feel the need to repeat it.
> 
> Let's try it this way:
> 
> normal: conforming to a standard.
> 
> abnormal: deviating from what is normal
> 
> deviate: depart from usual or accepted standards
> 
> perversion: the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended by the standard.
> 
> rationalization: attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with what is erroneously felt to be logical, plausible reasons, even where such are logically invalid, intellectually unsound and otherwise not true or appropriate.
> 
> irrational: not logical or reasonable.• not endowed with the power of reason.
> 
> delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder
> 
> Which of those 'feels' the most familiar to ya?
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you've chosen DELUSION!
> 
> Good for you!  (If it helps, that is the one I was sure you'd choose.)
Click to expand...

Nope. I've chosen logic and truth and you've chosen fallacy and bigotry.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

JakeStarkey said:


> Who is "we", tonto?  Certainly not the USA, and the millennials will float you out to sea if you try that with them.



Keep running your little dick suckers, we will see at the end of the day what millennial's will say ..............


----------



## Syriusly

DrDoomNGloom said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> keys is on his knees.
> 
> 
> 
> .................
> 
> You folks are an abomination in Societies eyes and in Gods eyes, no matter how you sugar coat it or try to make it palatable, it ain't ...........................
Click to expand...


Faux Christians are the real abomination to God.


----------



## Syriusly

DrDoomNGloom said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "we", tonto?  Certainly not the USA, and the millennials will float you out to sea if you try that with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep running your little dick suckers, we will see at the end of the day what millennial's will say ..............
Click to expand...


LOL....how funny coming from Mr. Little Dick himself.....guess he has some admirers......


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your *opinion* is not supported by a majority of Americans.
> 
> In U.S. Record-High Say Gay Lesbian Relations Morally OK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> So what you're saying is that the perception of a popular majority, establishes what is 'morally right'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is not what he was saying. Nobody with a functioning brain would have assumed that was what he was saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  You say that... but despite that giving you a PERFECT opportunity to explain what 'he' DID mean... ya CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.
> 
> Now... I wonder why you passed on such a great opportunity?
> 
> Some would argue that ya passed on it, because ya had needed to deny the position, due to your subjective need for such to not be true, without any understanding of what IS TRUE, where 'truth' equals something akin to your subjective needs.
> 
> Pretty cool, huh... how those folks see right through the irrational house of cards you, the intellectually abnormal seem so intent upon building.
Click to expand...

His words speak for themselves. But since you need someone to hold your hand in order to understand basic English, let me help you. You have the attitude that your _opinion_ is a fact. You state that by disagreeing with your opinion people are showing  a lack of integrity, as if disagreeing with you makes them dishonest. He was pointing out that actually your _opinion _is an just an _opinion, _and an opinion most people don't even agree with at that. In other words, your appeals to "integrity" are fallacious and pathetic attempts to pass your baseless opinion off as fact.


----------



## Syriusly

DrDoomNGloom said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We simply have no use for the Christian fascistic tactics of old.
> 
> Go conquer South Carolina if you want your own Christian state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We simply have no use for faggots ......................
> ..
Click to expand...


Well we don't really care what you and your dick deprived wife have a use for.....though I suspect it is zucchini......


----------



## ShackledNation

DrDoomNGloom said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "we", tonto?  Certainly not the USA, and the millennials will float you out to sea if you try that with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep running your little dick suckers, we will see at the end of the day what millennial's will say ..............
Click to expand...

We are already seeing it.






As a millennial myself, I don't even know a single person my age who is against same-sex marriage. Those against are probably concentrated in the South.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dr D&G is simply a bot, nothing more.

Used to know a few of them in Center, Tx, what a bunch a loonies


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your *opinion* is not supported by a majority of Americans.
> 
> In U.S. Record-High Say Gay Lesbian Relations Morally OK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> So what you're saying is that the perception of a popular majority, establishes what is 'morally right'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is not what he was saying. Nobody with a functioning brain would have assumed that was what he was saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  You say that... but despite that giving you a PERFECT opportunity to explain what 'he' DID mean... ya CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.
> 
> Now... I wonder why you passed on such a great opportunity?
> 
> Some would argue that ya passed on it, because ya had needed to deny the position, due to your subjective need for such to not be true, without any understanding of what IS TRUE, where 'truth' equals something akin to your subjective needs.
> 
> Pretty cool, huh... how those folks see right through the irrational house of cards you, the intellectually abnormal seem so intent upon building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His words speak for themselves. But since you need someone to hold your hand in order to understand basic English, let me help you. You have the attitude that your _opinion_ is a fact. You state that by disagreeing with your opinion people are showing  a lack of integrity, as if disagreeing with you makes them dishonest. He was pointing out that actually your _opinion _is an just an _opinion, _and an opinion most people don't even agree with at that. In other words, your appeals to "integrity" are fallacious and pathetic attempts to pass your baseless opinion off as fact.
Click to expand...


So... setting the sweetest of all ironies aside, what you're saying there, is that _I was correct_ when I said that neither you, nor 'he', has any means to sustain the now thoroughly discredited implication... ?

Fair enough!  On THAT, we agree.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "we", tonto?  Certainly not the USA, and the millennials will float you out to sea if you try that with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep running your little dick suckers, we will see at the end of the day what millennial's will say ..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are already seeing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a millennial myself, I don't even know a single person my age who is against same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. 

Let me ask ya.  If you kids developed the strongly felt obsession that Gravity had it all wrong and that just because a person got on an unstable aircraft, they shouldn't be forced to hurtle back to earth at terminal velocity, do ya feel that this would in, in any way, change nature's position on that natural law?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?



ShackledNation said:


> Those against are probably concentrated in the South.



Well, they're only likely to not be living in a population center.  What's more, the farther from urban centers (thus the farther from socialist governance) one lives, the less likely a person is to accept sexual abnormality as normal... .  

But that serves reason, because the farther from urban environments one lives, the more likely a person is to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the soundly reasoned principles of nature.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Most christian fascists (where r my keys, koshergrl, etc) do believe their opinion is a fact.  That's why they almost always fail when attempting to assert it.  Such as keys.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False... that is NOT only NOT >WHAT< I am arguing, it is not even CLOSE to what I am arguing and there's NOTHING in ANYTHING that I HAVE ARGUED, that could reasonably lead a reasonable person to such an inference.  Which is how we can rest assured that your reasoning is invalid and wholly subjective.
> 
> Also, I've got no where to be, so I am free to point out that its false, every time you feel the need to repeat it.
> 
> Let's try it this way:
> 
> normal: conforming to a standard.
> 
> abnormal: deviating from what is normal
> 
> deviate: depart from usual or accepted standards
> 
> perversion: the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended by the standard.
> 
> rationalization: attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with what is erroneously felt to be logical, plausible reasons, even where such are logically invalid, intellectually unsound and otherwise not true or appropriate.
> 
> irrational: not logical or reasonable.• not endowed with the power of reason.
> 
> delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder
> 
> Which of those 'feels' the most familiar to ya?
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you've chosen DELUSION!
> 
> Good for you!  (If it helps, that is the one I was sure you'd choose.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. I've chosen logic and truth and you've chosen fallacy and bigotry.
Click to expand...


Yep... you just prefer to ignore the laws of reason comprising the rules of logic and demand that 'truth' is that which you say truth is... despite your 'feelings' having been contradicted by reality and the facts presented through numerous rational arguments; which, as I pointed out earlier, presents typically as a symptom of the mental disorder OKA: DELUSION!

(What's more, the subjective nature of the respondents conclusions also present as the classic traits of relativism; the 'doctrine' which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality can exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical and otherwise personal context, and as a result can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.  A thoroughly irrational species of reasoning, which rests as the foundation of socialism, in all of its innumerable facets.)

See how that works?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty simple alright.  But as simple as it is, you have 'created' a 'new' meaning of normal; the 'new-normal', which only renders the word MEANINGLESS.
> 
> 
> 
> No I haven't. Again, read a dictionary. You are conflating two definitions of the word normal. And apparently you don't even realize it, which just shows the failure of the United States education system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read it... and no where in the definition of the normal, does it equate abnormality with normality.  And this without regard to your desperate rationalization which needs it to do so.
> 
> The great part about this whole thing is that even IF every dictionary on earth defined normal as abnormal, that in no way would render the traits otherwise associated with normal to have any kinship with abnormality.
> 
> But that is because nature doesn't give a rip about the subjective needs of the abnormal to BE normal, except of course where they put in the work to comport themselves within the defining traits which truly, in reality... define the natural standards that demonstrate that which is normal.
> 
> I realize that you disagree.  And that's fine.  But the basis of that disagreement is irrational.  So, well... you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact remains you are conflating two definitions of normal. Something can be statistically abnormal but remain normal in the moral or socially acceptable sense (such as red hair). You seem to have a real difficultly in comprehending the reality that in the English language the same word can reference more than one thing.
Click to expand...


That's because the two definitions are intrinsic to one another, thus they inherently conflate.

Red hair does not deviate from the physiological standard of hair...  Snakes-for-hair or Fire-for-hair... THAT would deviate from the physiological standard.  That would also be a major genetic modification and NOT a learned behavior, born from environmental stress.

What you're trying to do is to form a: NEW-DEFINITION OF NORMAL.  Meaning that your advocacy is to establish a NEW-Normality, based upon social acceptance.  Sadly, social acceptance does not equate to 'moral'.

And abnormal is NEVER NORMAL.. accept in certain contravening contexts such as: "Abnormal reasoning is normal among the deviant.  This is because deviancy is abnormal."  So the normal state of mind among the deviant is abnormality.

As is nearly always the case in every instance, what you're trying desperately NOT TO SAY, is that you are trying to claim that sexual abnormality is normal, because it is said to be 'socially acceptable'.

Sadly, for your argument, a society does not design the human species, thus does not determine sexual normality.  Nature determined that when it designed the species... .

See how that works?


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your *opinion* is not supported by a majority of Americans.
> 
> In U.S. Record-High Say Gay Lesbian Relations Morally OK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> So what you're saying is that the perception of a popular majority, establishes what is 'morally right'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is not what he was saying. Nobody with a functioning brain would have assumed that was what he was saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  You say that... but despite that giving you a PERFECT opportunity to explain what 'he' DID mean... ya CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.
> 
> Now... I wonder why you passed on such a great opportunity?
> 
> Some would argue that ya passed on it, because ya had needed to deny the position, due to your subjective need for such to not be true, without any understanding of what IS TRUE, where 'truth' equals something akin to your subjective needs.
> 
> Pretty cool, huh... how those folks see right through the irrational house of cards you, the intellectually abnormal seem so intent upon building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His words speak for themselves. But since you need someone to hold your hand in order to understand basic English, let me help you. You have the attitude that your _opinion_ is a fact. You state that by disagreeing with your opinion people are showing  a lack of integrity, as if disagreeing with you makes them dishonest. He was pointing out that actually your _opinion _is an just an _opinion, _and an opinion most people don't even agree with at that. In other words, your appeals to "integrity" are fallacious and pathetic attempts to pass your baseless opinion off as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... setting the sweetest of all ironies aside, what you're saying there, is that _I was correct_ when I said that neither you, nor 'he', has any means to sustain the now thoroughly discredited implication... ?
> 
> Fair enough!  On THAT, we agree.
Click to expand...

No. With all due respect, you have serious reading comprehension problems. Honestly.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Homosexuality is LEARNED BEHAVIOR... imprinted upon the individual during their earliest stages of development.

Now, where we culturally NORMALIZE homosexuality and where more homosexuals are placed in positions of trust over young children... more homosexuals will be CREATED, through: Caring sexual relationships with loving adults. They're not gang raping children... they 'play' with them.

From an interview with Michael Jackson:

Bashir: "When you are talking about children we met Gavin - and it was a
great privilege to meet Gavin because he's had a lot of suffering in his life
- when Gavin was there he talked about the fact that he shares your bedroom?"

Jackson: "Yes."

Bashir: "Can you understand why people would worry about that?"

Jackson: "Because they are ignorant."

Bashir: "But is it really appropriate for a 44-year-old man to share a
bedroom with a child that is not related to him at all?"

Jackson: "That's a beautiful thing."

Bashir: "That's not a worrying thing?"

Jackson: "Why should that be worrying, what's the criminal...who's Jack the
Ripper in the room? There's some guy trying to heal a healing child ... I'm
in a sleeping bag on the floor.
"I gave him the bed because he has a brother named Star, so him and Star took
the bed and I went along on the sleeping bag ?"

Bashir: "Did you ever sleep in the bed with them?"

Jackson: "No. But I have slept in a bed with many children.
"I slept in a bed with all of them when Macauley Culkin was little: Kieran
Culkin would sleep on this side, Macauley Culkin was on this side, his
sisters in there...we all would just jam in the bed, you know.
"We would wake up like dawn and go in the hot air balloon, you know, we had
the footage. I have all that footage."

Bashir: "But is that right Michael?"

Jackson: *"It's very right. It's very loving, that's what the world needs now, 
more love more heart ?*"

This is a PERSONIFICATION of "THE PROBLEM!".

Now... I ask you... of the pop-culture idiots out there, how many of those who "BELIEVE IN THEIR HEARTS that 'homosexuality' is perfectly normal... would have a problem with a cultural icon sleeping with their child, at his property dedicated to the 'amusement of children'? Even today... dam' few of 'em.

And the reason is that they are WEAK MINDED PEOPLE... with NO MORAL CORE and less means to reason soundly.

Add another generation of decadence... and NONE OF THEM WILL. And you add a generation to THAT... and the age of consent is GONE.

Now do you want to have kids? Or do ya have kids? Grand Kids?

YOUR foolish attitude is a direct threat to their well being. Believe it, reject it... doesn't change a dam' thing.

Until you wake the hell up... you're a menace to your OWN! And ya best come to grips with that while there is still a CHANCE to check it, then once it is CHECKED... push it back until these freaks are once again SECURELY BACK IN THAT CLOSET, where they are as safe as they'll ever be, for everyone including themselves.

Now... would ya care to offer a guess as to the sexual 'orientation' of Mr. Macauley Culkin?

And please feel free to interject your feelings on the total coincidence wherein Mr. Culkin had the opportunity to sleep over at the home of a caring loving adult, who was SO INTENT upon his well being that the adult literally 'slept' in the same bad with the lucky lil' fella.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> So what you're saying is that the perception of a popular majority, establishes what is 'morally right'?
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not what he was saying. Nobody with a functioning brain would have assumed that was what he was saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  You say that... but despite that giving you a PERFECT opportunity to explain what 'he' DID mean... ya CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.
> 
> Now... I wonder why you passed on such a great opportunity?
> 
> Some would argue that ya passed on it, because ya had needed to deny the position, due to your subjective need for such to not be true, without any understanding of what IS TRUE, where 'truth' equals something akin to your subjective needs.
> 
> Pretty cool, huh... how those folks see right through the irrational house of cards you, the intellectually abnormal seem so intent upon building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His words speak for themselves. But since you need someone to hold your hand in order to understand basic English, let me help you. You have the attitude that your _opinion_ is a fact. You state that by disagreeing with your opinion people are showing  a lack of integrity, as if disagreeing with you makes them dishonest. He was pointing out that actually your _opinion _is an just an _opinion, _and an opinion most people don't even agree with at that. In other words, your appeals to "integrity" are fallacious and pathetic attempts to pass your baseless opinion off as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... setting the sweetest of all ironies aside, what you're saying there, is that _I was correct_ when I said that neither you, nor 'he', has any means to sustain the now thoroughly discredited implication... ?
> 
> Fair enough!  On THAT, we agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. With all due respect, you have serious reading comprehension problems. Honestly.
Click to expand...


Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> That's because the two definitions are intrinsic to one another, thus they inherently conflate.


Lol...no. That is patently false. Your argument is entirely based on a fallacious equivocation.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False... that is NOT only NOT >WHAT< I am arguing, it is not even CLOSE to what I am arguing and there's NOTHING in ANYTHING that I HAVE ARGUED, that could reasonably lead a reasonable person to such an inference.  Which is how we can rest assured that your reasoning is invalid and wholly subjective.
> 
> Also, I've got no where to be, so I am free to point out that its false, every time you feel the need to repeat it.
> 
> Let's try it this way:
> 
> normal: conforming to a standard.
> 
> abnormal: deviating from what is normal
> 
> deviate: depart from usual or accepted standards
> 
> perversion: the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended by the standard.
> 
> rationalization: attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with what is erroneously felt to be logical, plausible reasons, even where such are logically invalid, intellectually unsound and otherwise not true or appropriate.
> 
> irrational: not logical or reasonable.• not endowed with the power of reason.
> 
> delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder
> 
> Which of those 'feels' the most familiar to ya?
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you've chosen DELUSION!
> 
> Good for you!  (If it helps, that is the one I was sure you'd choose.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. I've chosen logic and truth and you've chosen fallacy and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep... you just prefer to ignore the laws of reason comprising the rules of logic and demand that 'truth' is that which you say truth is... despite your 'feelings' having been contradicted by reality and the facts presented through numerous rational arguments; which, as I pointed out earlier, presents typically as a symptom of the mental disorder OKA: DELUSION!
> 
> (What's more, the subjective nature of the respondents conclusions also present as the classic traits of relativism; the 'doctrine' which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality can exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical and otherwise personal context, and as a result can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.  A thoroughly irrational species of reasoning, which rests as the foundation of socialism, in all of its innumerable facets.)
> 
> See how that works?
Click to expand...

Equivocations are not rational arguments. They are fallacies. And so far, all you have is one big equivocation. And no, I do not believe in relativism. So nice try at yet another logical fallacy, this time a strawman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the two definitions are intrinsic to one another, thus they inherently conflate.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol...no. That is patently false. Your argument is entirely based on a fallacious equivocation.
Click to expand...


Well what ya have there is a subjective conclusion, wherein despite the otherwise incontrovertible evidence to the contrary... you NEED that _to be FALSE_... evidenced in your inability to show the reasoning which would otherwise DEMONSTRATE IT TO BE FALSE.

See how that works?


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "we", tonto?  Certainly not the USA, and the millennials will float you out to sea if you try that with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep running your little dick suckers, we will see at the end of the day what millennial's will say ..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are already seeing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a millennial myself, I don't even know a single person my age who is against same-sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Let me ask ya.  If you kids developed the strongly felt obsession that Gravity had it all wrong and that just because a person got on an unstable aircraft, they shouldn't be forced to hurtle back to earth at terminal velocity, do ya feel that this would in, in any way, change nature's position on that natural law?
> 
> If so, why so?
> 
> If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Marriage is a social creation. Gravity is a reality of physics. To equate the definition of marriage with the reality of gravity is absurd. If marriage was unchangeable, women would still be considered property to husbands.



> Well, they're only likely to not be living in a population center.  What's more, the farther from urban centers (thus the farther from socialist governance) one lives, the less likely a person is to accept sexual abnormality as normal... .
> 
> But that serves reason, because the farther from urban environments one lives, the more likely a person is to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the soundly reasoned principles of nature.


Homosexuality is a completely natural phenomenon, so this whole nature argument of yours is quite meaningless.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the two definitions are intrinsic to one another, thus they inherently conflate.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol...no. That is patently false. Your argument is entirely based on a fallacious equivocation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well what ya have there is a subjective conclusion, wherein despite the otherwise incontrovertible evidence to the contrary... you NEED that do be FALSE... evidenced in your inability to show the reasoning which would otherwise DEMONSTRATE IT TO BE FALSE.
> 
> See how that works?
Click to expand...

Nothing subjective about it. I can objectively classify your argument as an equivocation, as would anyone else who knows what an equivocation is.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False... that is NOT only NOT >WHAT< I am arguing, it is not even CLOSE to what I am arguing and there's NOTHING in ANYTHING that I HAVE ARGUED, that could reasonably lead a reasonable person to such an inference.  Which is how we can rest assured that your reasoning is invalid and wholly subjective.
> 
> Also, I've got no where to be, so I am free to point out that its false, every time you feel the need to repeat it.
> 
> Let's try it this way:
> 
> normal: conforming to a standard.
> 
> abnormal: deviating from what is normal
> 
> deviate: depart from usual or accepted standards
> 
> perversion: the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended by the standard.
> 
> rationalization: attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with what is erroneously felt to be logical, plausible reasons, even where such are logically invalid, intellectually unsound and otherwise not true or appropriate.
> 
> irrational: not logical or reasonable.• not endowed with the power of reason.
> 
> delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder
> 
> Which of those 'feels' the most familiar to ya?
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you've chosen DELUSION!
> 
> Good for you!  (If it helps, that is the one I was sure you'd choose.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. I've chosen logic and truth and you've chosen fallacy and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep... you just prefer to ignore the laws of reason comprising the rules of logic and demand that 'truth' is that which you say truth is... despite your 'feelings' having been contradicted by reality and the facts presented through numerous rational arguments; which, as I pointed out earlier, presents typically as a symptom of the mental disorder OKA: DELUSION!
> 
> (What's more, the subjective nature of the respondents conclusions also present as the classic traits of relativism; the 'doctrine' which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality can exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical and otherwise personal context, and as a result can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.  A thoroughly irrational species of reasoning, which rests as the foundation of socialism, in all of its innumerable facets.)
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equivocations are not rational arguments. They are fallacies. And so far, all you have is one big equivocation. And no, I do not believe in relativism. So nice try at yet another logical fallacy, this time a strawman.
Click to expand...


What about my position 'feels' ambiguous to you?

I ask because equivocation requires ambiguity... and my position may be a LOT OF THINGS... ambiguous however, is NOT one of 'em.

You may not believe in the Sun... but that doesn't change the facts which otherwise define the sun, establishing such in real, incontestable terms.  Such as those which define the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... and the ambiguous nature of its specious, thus deceitful, fraudulent and eternally ignorant conclusions... .


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you've chosen DELUSION!
> 
> Good for you!  (If it helps, that is the one I was sure you'd choose.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. I've chosen logic and truth and you've chosen fallacy and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep... you just prefer to ignore the laws of reason comprising the rules of logic and demand that 'truth' is that which you say truth is... despite your 'feelings' having been contradicted by reality and the facts presented through numerous rational arguments; which, as I pointed out earlier, presents typically as a symptom of the mental disorder OKA: DELUSION!
> 
> (What's more, the subjective nature of the respondents conclusions also present as the classic traits of relativism; the 'doctrine' which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality can exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical and otherwise personal context, and as a result can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.  A thoroughly irrational species of reasoning, which rests as the foundation of socialism, in all of its innumerable facets.)
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equivocations are not rational arguments. They are fallacies. And so far, all you have is one big equivocation. And no, I do not believe in relativism. So nice try at yet another logical fallacy, this time a strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about my position 'feels' ambiguous to you?
> 
> I ask because equivocation requires ambiguity... and my position may be a LOT OF THINGS... ambiguous however, is NOT one of 'em.
Click to expand...

Your use of the word normal and abnormal. You point out that homosexuality is abnormal in a statistical sense, and therefore claim it to be abnormal in a moral sense because of that. That is a clear example of an equivocation. Actually, I can't even think of a clearer example.



> You may not believe in the Sun... but that doesn't change the facts which otherwise define the sun, establishing such in real, incontestable terms.  Such as those which define the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... and the ambiguous nature of its specious, thus deceitful, fraudulent and eternally ignorant conclusions... .


You may not believe in equivocations, but that doesn't change the facts which otherwise define equivocations. And your argument is full of equivocations.

You've got a whole lot of baseless assertions and nothing more.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "we", tonto?  Certainly not the USA, and the millennials will float you out to sea if you try that with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep running your little dick suckers, we will see at the end of the day what millennial's will say ..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are already seeing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a millennial myself, I don't even know a single person my age who is against same-sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Let me ask ya.  If you kids developed the strongly felt obsession that Gravity had it all wrong and that just because a person got on an unstable aircraft, they shouldn't be forced to hurtle back to earth at terminal velocity, do ya feel that this would in, in any way, change nature's position on that natural law?
> 
> If so, why so?
> 
> If not, why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a social creation.
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of the complimenting genders, designed by nature, for the purpose which nature designed it for.



ShackledNation said:


> Gravity is a reality of physics.


  "Physics"?  You're speaking of the study of the physical aspects of our universe?

Yes... Gravity is a physical law of nature.



ShackledNation said:


> To equate the definition of marriage with the reality of gravity is absurd.



Where the two issues equate is in their both being the result of nature's law.  One relevant to the physical laws of nature... the other relevant to the laws of nature as they govern human behavior.



ShackledNation said:


> If marriage was unchangeable, women would still be considered property to husbands.


  How so?  Seems like ya just high-sided your argument on a non-sequitur there... .

LOL!  You work it out and get back to me.



ShackledNation said:


> Well, they're only likely to not be living in a population center.  What's more, the farther from urban centers (thus the farther from socialist governance) one lives, the less likely a person is to accept sexual abnormality as normal... .
> 
> But that serves reason, because the farther from urban environments one lives, the more likely a person is to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the soundly reasoned principles of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is a completely natural phenomenon, so this whole nature argument of yours is quite meaningless.
Click to expand...


So because something is natural, we should embrace it?  Even where the natural phenomenon deviates from the natural standards to the extent that it literally rejects the standard itself, threatening the viability of the species?  

LOL!  ...  _Are you sure?_ 

Take Ebola, for instance.   It's a perfectly natural phenom... .   Should we embrace it too? 

LOL!  BAD EXAMPLE... clearly the Left is already working towards the embracing of Ebola...

Ya know... the more we discuss this, the more clear it becomes that entertaining you people is a literal threat to the very survival of the human species itself.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you've chosen DELUSION!
> 
> Good for you!  (If it helps, that is the one I was sure you'd choose.)
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I've chosen logic and truth and you've chosen fallacy and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep... you just prefer to ignore the laws of reason comprising the rules of logic and demand that 'truth' is that which you say truth is... despite your 'feelings' having been contradicted by reality and the facts presented through numerous rational arguments; which, as I pointed out earlier, presents typically as a symptom of the mental disorder OKA: DELUSION!
> 
> (What's more, the subjective nature of the respondents conclusions also present as the classic traits of relativism; the 'doctrine' which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality can exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical and otherwise personal context, and as a result can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.  A thoroughly irrational species of reasoning, which rests as the foundation of socialism, in all of its innumerable facets.)
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equivocations are not rational arguments. They are fallacies. And so far, all you have is one big equivocation. And no, I do not believe in relativism. So nice try at yet another logical fallacy, this time a strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about my position 'feels' ambiguous to you?
> 
> I ask because equivocation requires ambiguity... and my position may be a LOT OF THINGS... ambiguous however, is NOT one of 'em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your use of the word normal and abnormal. You point out that homosexuality is abnormal in a statistical sense.
Click to expand...


Uh ... Nope.  I use normal in the 'sense' that nature designed the species with distinct but complimenting genders; which are DESIGNED for the PURPOSE of procreation... this as a means to perpetuate the species; thus such is in accordance with, constituting, thus establishing the norm, the rule and the principles that define that which conform to the type, standard and regular patten common to the natural occurrences relevant to human physiology.

I then contrast that with the use of the word abnormal where I speak to that which deviates from all that; in this case: Homosexuality, which you and the cult are busy trying to re-define as: THE NEW-NORMAL.

Which it isn't because "New-Normal" is just abnormal with a new shingle.  It's sorta like the broad distinctions between socialism... which you re-defined into The New-Normal "Progressivism", which came after you'd worn out all potential legitimacy in the old normal "Liberalism", from which there is zero distinction between any of what those words mean, as you define 'em.



ShackledNation said:


> and therefore claim it to be abnormal in a moral sense because of that.



It's immoral in the sense that it perpetuates deceit... . It's abnormal because it deviates from the sexual norm.

This is all VERY simple stuff... and there is no potential reason for you to be struggling so hard to understand it. 

So the problem isn't the complexity of the facts... the complexity is in the irrational construct which you've built as a means to defend your subjective needs.  Which of course demonstrates the real nature of thar relativism that ya don't believe in.  Which is funny, given how its presently kickin' your ass! 

A normal person would have figured it out by now.



ShackledNation said:


> That is a clear example of an equivocation.



Yes it is... sadly for your argument it is YOUR equivocation. 



ShackledNation said:


> Actually, I can't even think of a clearer example.


  Yep... it's a doozy.





ShackledNation said:


> You may not believe in the Sun... but that doesn't change the facts which otherwise define the sun, establishing such in real, incontestable terms.  Such as those which define the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... and the ambiguous nature of its specious, thus deceitful, fraudulent and eternally ignorant conclusions... .
> 
> 
> 
> You may not believe in equivocations, but that doesn't change the facts which otherwise define equivocations. And your argument is full of equivocations.
> 
> You've got a whole lot of baseless assertions and nothing more.
Click to expand...


Well... now that was just sad.

I'll grant ya a mulligan.  Take it back to the drawing board and see if ya can't shape it up into something worthy of consideration... .


----------



## Conservative65

mdk said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you think a so called right to marriage is unlimited.  You would be wrong.  No one is denied the right to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.
> 
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> 
> The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is being denied a right to marry.  It is being restricted.  Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please keep thinking that the marriage of two of your kind will ever be equivalent to my marriage.  You are and always will be nothing more than a dick sucking faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry, what charm school did you say you attended again?
Click to expand...


I am sorry, am I supposed to say things in a manner you like?  Like I said, two faggots marrying will never  equal to mine.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False... that is NOT only NOT >WHAT< I am arguing, it is not even CLOSE to what I am arguing and there's NOTHING in ANYTHING that I HAVE ARGUED, that could reasonably lead a reasonable person to such an inference.  Which is how we can rest assured that your reasoning is invalid and wholly subjective.
> 
> Also, I've got no where to be, so I am free to point out that its false, every time you feel the need to repeat it.
> 
> Let's try it this way:
> 
> normal: conforming to a standard.
> 
> abnormal: deviating from what is normal
> 
> deviate: depart from usual or accepted standards
> 
> perversion: the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended by the standard.
> 
> rationalization: attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with what is erroneously felt to be logical, plausible reasons, even where such are logically invalid, intellectually unsound and otherwise not true or appropriate.
> 
> irrational: not logical or reasonable.• not endowed with the power of reason.
> 
> delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder
> 
> Which of those 'feels' the most familiar to ya?
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you've chosen DELUSION!
> 
> Good for you!  (If it helps, that is the one I was sure you'd choose.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. I've chosen logic and truth and you've chosen fallacy and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep... you just prefer to ignore the laws of reason
Click to expand...


i.e. Keys with more bat guano craziness.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.
> 
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> 
> The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is being denied a right to marry.  It is being restricted.  Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please keep thinking that the marriage of two of your kind will ever be equivalent to my marriage.  You are and always will be nothing more than a dick sucking faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry, what charm school did you say you attended again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry, am I supposed to say things in a manner you like?  Like I said, two faggots marrying will never  equal to mine.
Click to expand...


No marriage will equal the marriage of my wife and I's......certainly not that of a interbred bigot and his half sister. Now two homosexuals who are actually in love, rather than marrying because your mom's brother forced you to.....that marriage would probably be superior to yours.


----------



## mdk

Conservative65 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.
> 
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> 
> The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is being denied a right to marry.  It is being restricted.  Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please keep thinking that the marriage of two of your kind will ever be equivalent to my marriage.  You are and always will be nothing more than a dick sucking faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry, what charm school did you say you attended again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry, am I supposed to say things in a manner you like?  Like I said, two faggots marrying will never  equal to mine.
Click to expand...


No, in fact I quite enjoy it. Every time you post your bile more people flee to my side of the argument. The gay community thanks you for your service.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the two definitions are intrinsic to one another, thus they inherently conflate.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol...no. That is patently false. Your argument is entirely based on a fallacious equivocation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well what ya have there is a subjective conclusion, wherein despite the otherwise incontrovertible evidence to the contrary... you NEED that do be FALSE... evidenced in your inability to show the reasoning which would otherwise DEMONSTRATE IT TO BE FALSE.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing subjective about it. I can objectively classify your argument as an equivocation, as would anyone else who knows what an equivocation is.
Click to expand...




Conservative65 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia
> 
> _"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."_
> 
> The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.
> 
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
> 
> The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is being denied a right to marry.  It is being restricted.  Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please keep thinking that the marriage of two of your kind will ever be equivalent to my marriage.  You are and always will be nothing more than a dick sucking faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry, what charm school did you say you attended again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry, am I supposed to say things in a manner you like?  Like I said, two faggots marrying will never  equal to mine.
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  That is all it can be... as that is how nature designed it.  As such, there's nothing to compare it with... or to which to equate it.


mdk said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is being denied a right to marry.  It is being restricted.  Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please keep thinking that the marriage of two of your kind will ever be equivalent to my marriage.  You are and always will be nothing more than a dick sucking faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry, what charm school did you say you attended again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry, am I supposed to say things in a manner you like?  Like I said, two faggots marrying will never  equal to mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in fact I quite enjoy it. Every time you post your bile more people flee to my side of the argument. The gay community thanks you for your service.
Click to expand...


Well such is rather vile, that much is true.

But there's nothing 'gay' about your community... except in the sense that it's sexually abnormal.  In truth, it's a fairly sad little cult, steeped in delusion, regret, remorse, guilt and sadly, a waning shame.

The hijacking of the word "gay" was a deceitful attempt to re-define sexual abnormality.  Such was a fraudulent means to influence the ignorant.

BUT!  It did serve to demonstrate that Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance are the fundamental elements of your cult.


And that makes it easier to educate the ignorant, so they will be less likely to be influenced by your deceit.

So THANK YOU!


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the two definitions are intrinsic to one another, thus they inherently conflate.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol...no. That is patently false. Your argument is entirely based on a fallacious equivocation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well what ya have there is a subjective conclusion, wherein despite the otherwise incontrovertible evidence to the contrary... you NEED that do be FALSE... evidenced in your inability to show the reasoning which would otherwise DEMONSTRATE IT TO BE FALSE.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing subjective about it. I can objectively classify your argument as an equivocation, as would anyone else who knows what an equivocation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is being denied a right to marry.  It is being restricted.  Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please keep thinking that the marriage of two of your kind will ever be equivalent to my marriage.  You are and always will be nothing more than a dick sucking faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry, what charm school did you say you attended again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry, am I supposed to say things in a manner you like?  Like I said, two faggots marrying will never  equal to mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  That is all it can be... as that is how nature designed it.  As such, there's nothing to compare it with... or to which to equate it.
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please keep thinking that the marriage of two of your kind will ever be equivalent to my marriage.  You are and always will be nothing more than a dick sucking faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry, what charm school did you say you attended again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry, am I supposed to say things in a manner you like?  Like I said, two faggots marrying will never  equal to mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in fact I quite enjoy it. Every time you post your bile more people flee to my side of the argument. The gay community thanks you for your service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well such is rather vile, that much is true.
> 
> But there's nothing 'gay' about your community... except in the sense that it's sexually abnormal.  In truth, it's a fairly sad little cult, steeped in delusion, regret, remorse, guilt and sadly, a waning shame.
> 
> The hijacking of the word "gay" was a deceitful attempt to re-define sexual abnormality.  Such was a fraudulent means to influence the ignorant.
> 
> BUT!  It did serve to demonstrate that Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance are the fundamental elements of your cult.
> 
> 
> And that makes it easier to educate the ignorant, so they will be less likely to be influenced by your deceit.
> 
> So THANK YOU!
Click to expand...


More bat guano crazy stuff.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "we", tonto?  Certainly not the USA, and the millennials will float you out to sea if you try that with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep running your little dick suckers, we will see at the end of the day what millennial's will say ..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are already seeing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a millennial myself, I don't even know a single person my age who is against same-sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Let me ask ya.  If you kids developed the strongly felt obsession that Gravity had it all wrong and that just because a person got on an unstable aircraft, they shouldn't be forced to hurtle back to earth at terminal velocity, do ya feel that this would in, in any way, change nature's position on that natural law?
> 
> If so, why so?
> 
> If not, why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a social creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of the complimenting genders, designed by nature, for the purpose which nature designed it for.
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity is a reality of physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Physics"?  You're speaking of the study of the physical aspects of our universe?
> 
> Yes... Gravity is a physical law of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> To equate the definition of marriage with the reality of gravity is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where the two issues equate is in their both being the result of nature's law.  One relevant to the physical laws of nature... the other relevant to the laws of nature as they govern human behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> If marriage was unchangeable, women would still be considered property to husbands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  Seems like ya just high-sided your argument on a non-sequitur there... .
> 
> LOL!  You work it out and get back to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, they're only likely to not be living in a population center.  What's more, the farther from urban centers (thus the farther from socialist governance) one lives, the less likely a person is to accept sexual abnormality as normal... .
> 
> But that serves reason, because the farther from urban environments one lives, the more likely a person is to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the soundly reasoned principles of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexuality is a completely natural phenomenon, so this whole nature argument of yours is quite meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So because something is natural, we should embrace it?  Even where the natural phenomenon deviates from the natural standards to the extent that it literally rejects the standard itself, threatening the viability of the species?
> 
> LOL!  ...  _Are you sure?_
> 
> Take Ebola, for instance.   It's a perfectly natural phenom... .   Should we embrace it too?
> 
> LOL!  BAD EXAMPLE... clearly the Left is already working towards the embracing of Ebola...
> 
> Ya know... the more we discuss this, the more clear it becomes that entertaining you people is a literal threat to the very survival of the human species itself.
Click to expand...

Marriage was not designed by nature. That is pure BS. You do realize that women were considered property in  marriage in the past, do you not? The rest of your post is a strawman. I never said what is natural is therefore moral. It is you who is claiming that was is unnatural is therefore immoral.

As to your other posts, nature designed some human beings to be homosexual. So your argument, again, is meaningless. How does homosexuality perpetuate deceit? You throw out these baseless assertions, yet the crux of your argument is an equivocation. The fact that you have to type pages to rationalize your fallacy just proves how irrational your position is. I can debunk your entire diatribe in a few lines.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> ... Ya know,  the more we discuss this, the more clear it becomes that entertaining you people is a literal threat to the very survival of the human species itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was not designed by nature.
Click to expand...


Well, if that were true, then Nature didn't design the subjects of marriage.  

And since we know that Nature IS the source of the design of human physiology, we can now rest assured that nature also designed the union in which one man and one woman, analogous to coitus, where the complimenting but distinct genders join as one sustainable body... was also designed by nature.




ShackledNation said:


> That is pure BS.



ROFLMNAO!  And you claim ya don't believe in relativism.  Yet you're a CLASSIC example of such!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> As to your other posts, nature designed some human beings to be homosexual.



No... Nature designed the species... homosexuality is a deviation from that physiological standard. 

You're claiming that because 'it happens' it's natural.  And I can see how you'd think that, as such is a common misnomer, usually because such drivel is chronically promoted by those who are unable to rise above their own subjective needs.  It's a function of evil 

The problem is that viability is promoted through 'the standard'... inviability is promoted through abnormality. 

The Clap occurs in nature as well and no one in the 'viable' column is advocating to NORMALIZE the CLAP!

See how that works?


----------



## Silhouette

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to your other posts, nature designed some human beings to be homosexual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... Nature designed the species... homosexuality is a deviation from that physiological standard.
> 
> You're claiming that because 'it happens' it's natural.  And I can see how you'd think that, as such is a common misnomer, usually because such drivel is chronically promoted by those who are unable to rise above their own subjective needs.  It's a function of evil
> 
> The problem is that viability is promoted through 'the standard'... inviability is promoted through abnormality.
> 
> The Clap occurs in nature as well and no one in the 'viable' column is advocating to NORMALIZE the CLAP!
> 
> See how that works?
Click to expand...

 Your logic requires that LGBTs abandon one of the core edicts of their cult: hypocrisy.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Ya know,  the more we discuss this, the more clear it becomes that entertaining you people is a literal threat to the very survival of the human species itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was not designed by nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if that were true, then Nature didn't design the subjects of marriage.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur. Human beings were created by nature, but the institution of marriage was not. Human beings created the instiution of marriage, not nature. Unless you want to argue that everything human beings created was by extension created by nature?



> And since we know that Nature IS the source of the design of human physiology, we can now rest assured that nature also designed the union in which one man and one woman, analogous to coitus, where the complimenting but distinct genders join as one sustainable body... was also designed by nature.


No, we don't. That line of reasoning is completely illogical.



> ROFLMNAO!  And you claim ya don't believe in relativism.  Yet you're a CLASSIC example of such!


Pointing out your pathetic fallacies and falsehoods does not make me a moral relativist.



> No... Nature designed the species... homosexuality is a deviation from that physiological standard.


Nature designed the species, and homosexuals are part of the species. What, are you claiming gay people are nonhumans now?



> You're claiming that because 'it happens' it's natural. And I can see how you'd think that, as such is a common misnomer, usually because such drivel is chronically promoted by those who are unable to rise above their own subjective needs. It's a function of evil


Something that occurs in nature and is created by nature is natural, yes. Perhaps you need a dictionary again?



> The problem is that viability is promoted through 'the standard'... inviability is promoted through abnormality.
> 
> The Clap occurs in nature as well and no one in the 'viable' column is advocating to NORMALIZE the CLAP!
> 
> See how that works?


See how what works? The above is drivel. Perhaps it is coherent to you, but to everyone else you sound like a crazy person yelling unintelligibly in the streets.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to your other posts, nature designed some human beings to be homosexual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... Nature designed the species... homosexuality is a deviation from that physiological standard.
> 
> You're claiming that because 'it happens' it's natural.  And I can see how you'd think that, as such is a common misnomer, usually because such drivel is chronically promoted by those who are unable to rise above their own subjective needs.  It's a function of evil
> 
> The problem is that viability is promoted through 'the standard'... inviability is promoted through abnormality.
> 
> The Clap occurs in nature as well and no one in the 'viable' column is advocating to NORMALIZE the CLAP!
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your logic requires that LGBTs abandon one of the core edicts of their cult: hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


Your use of the term logic is word abuse.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Ya know,  the more we discuss this, the more clear it becomes that entertaining you people is a literal threat to the very survival of the human species itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was not designed by nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if that were true, then Nature didn't design the subjects of marriage.
> 
> And since we know that Nature IS the source of the design of human physiology, we can now rest assured that nature also designed the union in which one man and one woman, analogous to coitus, where the complimenting but distinct genders join as one sustainable body... was also designed by nature.
> !
Click to expand...


Nature, so to speak, or more correctly evolution designed mammals to have sex to reproduce.

Evolution also evolved to make sex enjoyable, and humans naturally have sex for reasons beyond procreation.

And none of that has anything to do with marriage.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Your use of the term logic is word abuse.


 
LGBT's use of the word "marriage" is word abuse.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Ya know,  the more we discuss this, the more clear it becomes that entertaining you people is a literal threat to the very survival of the human species itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was not designed by nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if that were true, then Nature didn't design the subjects of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur.
Click to expand...


So LOL!, you're saying that it '_doesn't follow_' that '_Marriage_': the joining of one man and one woman who join as one being, providing security for the female during gestation... and serves as a stable environment for the training and nurturing of children through the benefit of the complimenting traits of each respective gender, ... which incontestably follows the human physiological design, wherein the distinct, but complimenting genders join as one being, analogous to wherein the two complimenting bodies  join in sustainable coitus... _is a direct result of the natural design created by nature?_

ROFLMNAO!

And you claim that you're no Relativist... .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> And since we know that Nature IS the source of the design of human physiology, we can now rest assured that nature also designed the union in which one man and one woman, analogous to coitus, wherein the complimenting but distinct genders join as one sustainable body... was also designed by nature.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't. That line of reasoning is completely illogical.
Click to expand...


Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Validity: the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency
Soundness: based on reason, sense, or judgment
Cogent: clear, logical, and convincing



			
				me said:
			
		

> Marriage: The Joining of ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, is the intrinsic consequence of the human physiological design.



Now, using the definitions of all those things you claim my position is NOT... take each one and show where my position fails that particular trait.

Now here's the cool part.  Whether you do that or not... I will then take what you say in response to that, or what you're said in the past and show where that mates up with the concepts cited below:

Relativism: the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality can only exist in relation to culture, society, historical or one's personal context, and not the result of soundly absolutes.

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> ROFLMNAO!  And you claim ya don't believe in relativism.  Yet you're a CLASSIC example of such!
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out your pathetic fallacies and falsehoods does not make me a moral relativist.
Click to expand...


Oh!  Well, that's true... your rejection of objective reasoning, substituting such with conclusions which serve your subjective need,_ determine *THAT*_*.  *


----------



## Silhouette

One of the critical arguments emerging against gay marriage is that the children in that home, newly incentivized by the states forced to do so by the limbo SCOTUS has created refusing to hear states' appeals,  is that in a gay marriage home, the children there will 100% of the time be missing one of their natural blood parents.  They will be missing the influence of the missing gender also 100% of the time, to their developmental and social disadvantage.

If they are in the unhappy position of being the opposite gender of the gay parents, they might likely internalize that "your gender isn't necessary/YOU aren't necessary" message implied and modeled for them every day.  Then you might get this as the extreme result of that child's butchered self esteem:  a total rejection of his own gender so that he can fit in/be loved...



> * A LESBIAN couple in California who say their 11-year-old son Tommy wants to be a girl named Tammy are giving their child hormone blockers that delay the onset of puberty, so that he can have more time to decide if he wants to change his gender.*
> The couple's supporters say the Hormone Blocking Therapy has only minor side effects and is appropriate for a child who is unsure of his gender.
> "This is definitely a changing landscape for transgender youth," said Joel Baum, director of education and training for Gender Spectrum, a California-based non-profit group. "This is about giving kids and their families the opportunity to make the right decision."We ll stop puberty so Tommy can become Tammy Lesbian couple want to help boy to become girl


 
How many members of the LGBT community have openly opposed this?  0%.


----------



## Silhouette

Here's more on how a same-sexed environment is seen by even the very young boy in that lesbian home from my last post:



> Tommy began saying he was a girl when he was three years old, his parents said. He was learning sign language due to a speech impediment, and one of the first things he told his mothers was, "I am a girl."
> The child's parents also said Tommy threatened to mutilate his genitals when he was seven, and psychiatrists diagnosed a gender identity disorder. One year later, he began transitioning to Tammy.


 
In his world from the earliest of ages, "girl" is all he would have seen or known.  To be "other than girl" would be seen by the forming mind as "not part of this family".  That's how the early developing mind of a child operates, in very rudimentary logical fashion in what it sees modeled before him in his immediate caretakers.  It's how they form their view of the world and why it is so very important to do well by them at that age.

So the two lesbians decided for Tommy so he "could decide later"...you know...after his body has been stunted to be female and retarded in that regard of male development compared to his peers..  Some "choice" the drugged boy will have by then.



> The medication, which must be changed once a year, was implanted in the boy's upper left arm.
> Tommy will continue the treatment until he turns 14 or 15, at which point he will be taken off the blockers and pursue the gender he feels is the right one.


 
The experts are right, this is child abuse.  And again, 0% of LGBTs have come out publicly to denounce this child abuse.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> One of the critical arguments emerging against gay marriage is that the children in that home, newly incentivized by the states forced to do so by the limbo SCOTUS has created refusing to hear states' appeals,  is that in a gay marriage home, the children there will 100% of the time be missing one of their natural blood parents.  They will be missing the influence of the missing gender also 100% of the time, to their developmental and social disadvantage.
> 
> If they are in the unhappy position of being the opposite gender of the gay parents, they might likely internalize that "your gender isn't necessary/YOU aren't necessary" message implied and modeled for them every day.  Then you might get this as the extreme result of that child's butchered self esteem:  a total rejection of his own gender so that he can fit in/be loved...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * A LESBIAN couple in California who say their 11-year-old son Tommy wants to be a girl named Tammy are giving their child hormone blockers that delay the onset of puberty, so that he can have more time to decide if he wants to change his gender.*
> The couple's supporters say the Hormone Blocking Therapy has only minor side effects and is appropriate for a child who is unsure of his gender.
> "This is definitely a changing landscape for transgender youth," said Joel Baum, director of education and training for Gender Spectrum, a California-based non-profit group. "This is about giving kids and their families the opportunity to make the right decision."We ll stop puberty so Tommy can become Tammy Lesbian couple want to help boy to become girl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many members of the LGBT community have openly opposed this?  0%.
Click to expand...


I have to say, that of ALL of the hysterical arguments that the Left brings in their Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, the "Adoption" argument is the most absurd... .

As a parent of three biological children who, along with my wife, adopted a 12 year old from Foster Care, I can tell you that nothing... and I am talking ZERO of what the Left is claiming... has ANY kinship with the reality that is THAT abyss into the education of a lifetime on the fool's errand that is "CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES", Foster Care and the Adoption of the product of same.

CPS and its extension: Foster Care is a GENERATOR of LGBT...  Its purpose today, without regard to the shiny pamphlets and the happy, smiling faces that adorn such, is perhaps the most profound evil to which my wife and I have ever been subjected.

It is operated by barely functional illiterates, militant homosexuals and reigns over everyone who comes within its purview through a political correctness which takes the breath from the straights who come to it through the publicly advertised justifications... .

If I were to tell you of our experiences, you simply would have no means to believe them.  And you could not, because you just do not have anything in your life which would allow you to understand the depravity and guile that rests behind those darkened plate glass windows and locked doors under the shingle "Child Protective Services".

In 54 years on this earth... having worked through the US, across the globe and some of that for the largest corporations on the globe... thus having met some of the most subjective interests within humanity.  I've never seen an evil the likes of which exists in the Foster Care System, which is a direct extension of CPS.

We truly BARELY escaped with our lives... suffering only one fatality in the family and being thankful that we got everyone else out alive and that it only cost us a few tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and, other intrinsic expenses.  

The mind-numbing hours, hundreds of hours... of PC 'classes', wherein we were 'taught' that 'WE' were the problem, is just the part and parcel of the cost of admission into the rabbit hole of delusion, dah... like I said, you wouldn't believe it, because it is simply '_unbelievable_'.  

Suffice it to say that there's very little about the issue that I am not either familiar with or expert in.  And it is a NIGHTMARE of Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance that NO individual of reason should EVER chance exposure to... as it could cost you your entire family.

With that said... it is the core through which the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality strikes at children; it is their primary recruiting device and it is working at a very high efficacy rate and there is virtually nothing that I can find, which provides any hope that anything can be done to so much as SLOW it down, let alone stop it.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> One of the critical arguments emerging against gay marriage is that the children in that home, newly incentivized by the states forced to do so by the limbo SCOTUS has created refusing to hear states' appeals,  is that in a gay marriage home, the children there will 100% of the time be missing one of their natural blood parents..



No- that is just a stupid argument that homophobes make. 

Fact: homosexuals were adopting children before they were able to legally adopt children.

As Justice Kennedy said:

_"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?_

Most gay marriage homes won't have any children. Of those with children, they will be no different than any other family which has adopted, or has used sperm donation or egg donation. 

Just another stupid, bigoted, homophobic attack against homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the critical arguments emerging against gay marriage is that the children in that home, newly incentivized by the states forced to do so by the limbo SCOTUS has created refusing to hear states' appeals,  is that in a gay marriage home, the children there will 100% of the time be missing one of their natural blood parents.  They will be missing the influence of the missing gender also 100% of the time, to their developmental and social disadvantage.
> 
> If they are in the unhappy position of being the opposite gender of the gay parents, they might likely internalize that "your gender isn't necessary/YOU aren't necessary" message implied and modeled for them every day.  Then you might get this as the extreme result of that child's butchered self esteem:  a total rejection of his own gender so that he can fit in/be loved...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * A LESBIAN couple in California who say their 11-year-old son Tommy wants to be a girl named Tammy are giving their child hormone blockers that delay the onset of puberty, so that he can have more time to decide if he wants to change his gender.*
> The couple's supporters say the Hormone Blocking Therapy has only minor side effects and is appropriate for a child who is unsure of his gender.
> "This is definitely a changing landscape for transgender youth," said Joel Baum, director of education and training for Gender Spectrum, a California-based non-profit group. "This is about giving kids and their families the opportunity to make the right decision."We ll stop puberty so Tommy can become Tammy Lesbian couple want to help boy to become girl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many members of the LGBT community have openly opposed this?  0%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to say, that of ALL of the hysterical arguments that the Left brings in their Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, the "Adoption" argument is the most absurd... .
> 
> As a parent of three biological children who, along with my wife, adopted a 12 year old from Foster Care, I can tell you that nothing... and I am talking ZERO of what the Left is claiming... has ANY kinship with the reality that is THAT abyss into the education of a lifetime on the fool's errand that is "CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES", Foster Care and the Adoption of the product of same.
> 
> CPS and its extension: Foster Care is a GENERATOR of LGBT...  Its purpose today, without regard to the shiny pamphlets and the happy, smiling faces that adorn such, is perhaps the most profound evil to which my wife and I have ever been subjected.
> 
> It is operated by barely functional illiterates, militant homosexuals and reigns over everyone who comes within its purview through a political correctness which takes the breath from the straights who come to it through the publicly advertised justifications... .
> 
> If I were to tell you of our experiences, you simply would have no means to believe them.
Click to expand...


Absolutely I would not believe anything that you told us when it comes to attacking homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Here's more on how a same-sexed environment is seen by even the very young .





Silhouette said:


> Here's more on how a same-sexed environment is seen by even the very young boy in that lesbian home from my last post:
> .



But of course this doesn't happen just in lesbian homes.

Two Families Grapple with Sons Gender Identity NPR

_Three-thousand miles away, on the West Coast of the United States, another family noticed their small son's unconventional tastes.

Jonah was 2 when his father, Joel, first realized that no amount of enthusiasm could persuade his child to play with balls. Trucks languished untouched. Fire engines gathered dust. Joel says Jonah much preferred girl toys, even his stuffed animals were female.

"Like, I would always say, 'What's that guy's name?' and the response would always be, 'Oh, she's bunny, she's, you know, this or that,'" Joel says.

Like Bradley, as Jonah grew older, these preferences became more pronounced. Jonah is physically beautiful. He has dark hair and eyes, a face with China-doll symmetry, and a small and graceful frame. Occasionally, while running errands, casual acquaintances, fellow shoppers, passers-by, would mistake Jonah for a girl. This appeared to thrill him. And, Joel says, Jonah would complain bitterly if his father tried to correct them.

"What began to happen was Jonah started to get upset about that," Joel says. "Like, 'Why do you have to say anything!' … I remember one distinct time when we were walking the dogs and this person came up and said ... 'Oh, is this your daughter?' and I said, 'Oh, no, this is Jonah.'... And Jonah just came running up and said, 'Why do you have to tell! Why do you have to say anything!'"

Then around the age of 3, Jonah started taking his mother Pam's clothing. He would borrow a long T-shirt and belt, and fashion it into a dress. This went on for months — with Jonah constantly adjusting his costume to make it better — until one day, Pam discovered her son crying inconsolably. He explained to his mother that he simply could not get the T-shirt to look right, she says.

Pam remembers watching her child mournfully finger his outfit. She says she knew what he wanted. "At that point I just said, you know, 'You really want a dress to wear, don't you?' And [Jonah's] face lit up, and she was like, 'Yes!'"

(Joel and Pam now refer to their son as "she.")

That afternoon, Pam, her sister and Jonah piled into the family car.

"I thought she was gonna hyperventilate and faint because she was so incredibly happy. ... Before then, or since then, I don't think I have seen her so out of her mind happy as that drive to Target that day to pick out her dress," Pam says of Jonah.

Pam allowed Jonah to get two dresses, but felt incredibly conflicted about it. Even though Jonah asked, she wouldn't allow him to buy any more dresses for a year afterward, so Jonah wore those two dresses every day, nothing else, until Pam got sick of looking at them. After a year, she and Joel finally began to permit other small purchases. But every item, Joel says, provoked a crisis.

"We'd spend a few nights talking: 'Do you think the shoes are like a line that we should cross? Or, you know, the girly hat, or the girly jacket with the frills?' ... Like, what are we doing? Are we encouraging this? Are we doing something that we shouldn't be?" Joel says they would ask.

Joel and Pam also ended up in front of a gender specialist — Diane Ehrensaft, a psychologist in Oakland. Joel remembers an early session when Pam talked about her concerns.

"I remember her talking to the therapist and saying something to the effect of, like, you know, 'I'd be OK if Jonah just was gay, I just don't want ... him to be transgender.' And the therapist just laughed, she said, 'You know, 15 years ago, I had people on this couch saying, 'I don't mind him being a little effeminate, as long as he's not gay,'" Joel says.

In fact, Diane Ehrensaft's approach could not have been more different than the approach of Bradley's therapist. Like Zucker, Ehrensaft is a gender specialist. She says she has seen more than 50 families with children who have what Zucker would describe as gender identity disorder.

Ehrensaft, however, does not use that label. She describes children like Bradley and Jonah as transgender. And, unlike Zucker, she does not think parents should try to modify their child's behavior. In fact, when Pam and Joel came to see her, she discouraged them from putting Jonah into any kind of therapy at all. Pam says because Ehrensaft does not see transgenderism itself as a dysfunction, the therapist didn't think Pam and Joel should try to cure Jonah.

"She made it really clear that, you know, if Jonah's not depressed, or anxious, or having anything go on that she would need to really be in therapy for, then don't put a kid in therapy until they need it," Pam says.

Ehrensaft did eventually encourage Joel and Pam to allow Jonah to live as a little girl. By the time he was 5, Jonah had made it very clear to his parents that he wanted to wear girl clothes full time — that he wanted to be known as a girl. He wanted them to call him their daughter. And though Ehrensaft does not always encourage children who express gender flexibility to "transition" to living as a member of the opposite sex, in the case of Jonah, she thought it was appropriate.

Last year, when he started kindergarten, Jonah went as a girl. He wore dresses, was addressed as "she" by his classmates and teacher. He even changed his name, from Jonah to Jona, without the "h." It was a complete transformation.

Joel and Pam were initially anxious, but Joel says their worry soon faded.

"They have these little conferences, and, you know, we were asking, like, 'How's Jonah doing? Does she have problems with other kids?' and the teacher was like, 'God, I gotta tell you, you know, Jonah is one of the most popular kids. Kids love her, they want to play with her, she's fun, and it's because she's so comfortable with herslef that she makes other people comfortable," Joel recalls.

It was shortly after that that Joel and Pam started referring to their son Jonah as "she."
_


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Ya know,  the more we discuss this, the more clear it becomes that entertaining you people is a literal threat to the very survival of the human species itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was not designed by nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if that were true, then Nature didn't design the subjects of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So LOL!, you're saying that it '_doesn't follow_' that '_Marriage_': the joining of one man and one woman who join as one being, providing security for the female during gestation... and serves as a stable environment for the training and nurturing of children through the benefit of the complimenting traits of each respective gender, ... which incontestably follows the human physiological design, wherein the distinct, but complimenting genders join as one being, analogous to wherein the two complimenting bodies  join in sustainable coitus... _is a direct result of the natural design created by nature?_
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> And you claim that you're no Relativist... .
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that marriage is _not _designed by nature. It is a social creation of human beings, not a natural phenomenon. Are you defining everything human beings create as designed by nature? Answer the question.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Ya know,  the more we discuss this, the more clear it becomes that entertaining you people is a literal threat to the very survival of the human species itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was not designed by nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if that were true, then Nature didn't design the subjects of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So LOL!, you're saying that it '_doesn't follow_' that '_Marriage_': the joining of one man and one woman who join as one being, providing security for the female during gestation... and serves as a stable environment for the training and nurturing of children through the benefit of the complimenting traits of each respective gender, ... which incontestably follows the human physiological design, wherein the distinct, but complimenting genders join as one being, analogous to wherein the two complimenting bodies  join in sustainable coitus... _is a direct result of the natural design created by nature?_
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> And you claim that you're no Relativist... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm saying that marriage is _not _designed by nature.
Click to expand...


I know...  That's how we rest so assured that you're a relativist.  Meaning that you're incapable of recognizing objective truth, which so incontrovertibly demonstrates that Marriage IS a function of Nature's design of human physiology.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
> Validity: the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency
> Soundness: based on reason, sense, or judgment
> Cogent: clear, logical, and convincing


Is there a reason you are listing all of the things your argument lacks?



> Now, using the definitions of all those things you claim my position is NOT... take each one and show where my position fails that particular trait.
> 
> Now here's the cool part.  Whether you do that or not... I will then take what you say in response to that, or what you're said in the past and show where that mates up with the concepts cited below:
> 
> Relativism: the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality can only exist in relation to culture, society, historical or one's personal context, and not the result of soundly absolutes.
> 
> Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder


I already showed where you position failed on those traits. An equivocation is an illogical fallacy, making it unsound, invalid, and uncogent. As a result, your argument lacks logic.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

The coolest part of this is that while popular whimsy has no bearing on the facts of nature, 90% of those responding to the poll in the OP of this thread, clearly recognize the facts of nature and THAT is very good news indeed.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And you claim ya don't believe in relativism.  Yet you're a CLASSIC example of such!
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out your pathetic fallacies and falsehoods does not make me a moral relativist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh!  Well, that's true... your rejection of objective reasoning, substituting such with conclusions which serve your subjective need,_ determine *THAT*_*.  *
Click to expand...

No, your position is _*objectively *_a logical fallacy called an equivocation.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> The only ones suggesting that churches should- or will be forced to marry anyone and everyone are the far right.
> 
> Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church is already being forced to cover contraceptives which goes against our beliefs?  Now that Obamacare has treaded on the 1st Amendment, why do you think it will stop there?
Click to expand...

 Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
> Validity: the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency
> Soundness: based on reason, sense, or judgment
> Cogent: clear, logical, and convincing
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a reason you are listing all of the things your argument lacks?
Click to expand...


I list those things, as a means to get you to again claim that my argument lacks them, without the reasonable basis of taking those definitions and setting them against my argument and showing where that argument lacks the traits intrinsic to those definitions.  Proving, through the exercise that your claim is BASELESS.  All toward establishing evidence that leads to the PROOF that your relativist conclusion is: DELUSIONAL.

Feel better?



> Now, using the definitions of all those things you claim my position is NOT... take each one and show where my position fails that particular trait.
> 
> Now here's the cool part.  Whether you do that or not... I will then take what you say in response to that, or what you're said in the past and show where that mates up with the concepts cited below:
> 
> Relativism: the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality can only exist in relation to culture, society, historical or one's personal context, and not the result of soundly absolutes.
> 
> Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder


I already showed where you position failed on those traits. An equivocation is an illogical fallacy, making it unsound, invalid, and uncogent. As a result, your argument lacks logic.[/QUOTE]

LOL!  The coolest thing about a text forum, is that it's produced IN WRITING... thus exists AS A RECORD OF ITSELF.  

A record in which there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that provides you having taken ANY of those definitions and setting them against my WRITTEN ARGUMENTS and showing through those OBJECTIVE STANDARDS that my argument was fatally flawed. 

However a record wherein a Relativist refuses to so specify, choosing instead to remain as vague as possible using subjective 'feelings' over the objective standards...  so as to rest their reasoning upon an addled implication... toward the hope of sustaining what they perceive as a popularly held position, IS proof of the delusion common to and typical of, relativism, which is what my argument seeks to establish.  

Which is pretty cool, given that THAT is what the record of this thread: DEMONSTRATES.  

FTR:  'Illogical fallacy' is a redundancy.  Fallacy is illogical.  Demonstrating yet again what a graduate of the USMA, would know.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> The only ones suggesting that churches should- or will be forced to marry anyone and everyone are the far right.
> 
> Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie, SeaBytch has made it quite clear that she would like forces to be forced to marry gays
Click to expand...

 Nonsense.

It's not a lie. 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private organizations.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And you claim ya don't believe in relativism.  Yet you're a CLASSIC example of such!
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out your pathetic fallacies and falsehoods does not make me a moral relativist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh!  Well, that's true... your rejection of objective reasoning, substituting such with conclusions which serve your subjective need,_ determine *THAT*_*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your position is _*objectively *_a logical fallacy called an equivocation.
Click to expand...


LOL!  Sadly, for you... your argument rests ENTIRELY upon equivocation. 

Specifically, wherein you need to cull from the definition of NORMAL, distinction from contexts which rest upon SIMILARITY. 

You claim that because homosexuality occurs in nature, it is NORMAL... despite the SAME DEFINITION: ESTABLISHING THAT WHERE SUCH DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY NORMALITY, such is ABNORMAL.

Which if you're keeping score, is DOWN THE MIDDLE: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself to that which they otherwise know to be a falsity.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> The only ones suggesting that churches should- or will be forced to marry anyone and everyone are the far right.
> 
> Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie, SeaBytch has made it quite clear that she would like forces to be forced to marry gays
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> It's not a lie. 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private organizations.
Click to expand...



Correct, so you agree the PA laws are unconstitutional. Thanks


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not complicated: children cannot consent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  So why can't children consent?
> 
> I ask because there is a segment of "SCIENCE!" which long ago came out and declared that "... _some children may actually benefit from a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult_."
> 
> This being the same group within the Kinsey Institute who are responsible for their other conclusion: THERE IS NOTHING ABNORMAL ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL SEX (which literally is precisely as baseless as it appears to be... particularly given that such is patently absurd, given the standard established by human physiology and the 180 degrees of deviation that homosexuality takes FROM that standard).
> 
> And despite all that, you'll recall that it was that 'Professional Medical/Psychiatric Opinion', thus the "SCIENCE!" upon which was stood the basis for the lifting of Sodomy Laws.  '_Homosexuality was normal, thus not indicative of deviant reasoning, therefore the individuals participating in or otherwise identified through such were not a threat to society._'
> 
> So, tell me, IF "SCIENCE!" came out and declared that '_Children CAN CONSENT TO SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADULTS_'... would that in any way alter your current position, which in effect rests on the Legality which rests DIRECTLY UPON the common sense recognition that children are no where NEAR capable of understanding the circumstances regarding sexual behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better than that, heck I believe that if a *federal judge* declared anything from his or her activist bench, that they (the beneficiaries of the rulings) would run hollering it to the roof top's loud and very clear in a heart beat (i.e. in your face), and they are doing this just like selfish arrogant intellects would do these day's, and especially when they want something that no one else wants, and then they get it. Now somehow they are always getting these things through or by way of *a federal judge who is* pandering to certain groups these days, and for whom then defies the masses on so many levels that it just isn't funny anymore. Then they look for some kind of *JUNK* science to somehow back it all up if necessary when challenged, and next they would somehow use it in order to make it all appear legit even if it's a huge stretch in doing so or even if the odds are always against them. The Idolization of *Junk Science* these days, is something that has gotten way out of control I think, and the federal judges these days who are buying into all of this mess ( I think) have lost their judicial minds it seems anymore.
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> *The only ones suggesting that churches should- or will be forced to marry anyone and everyone are the far right.*
> 
> Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the same be said for the Christian cake baker/maker who got shut down for not baking a cake for the gay couple as based upon his or her Christian beliefs in life?  The double standard and hypocrisy echoes loudly in this here place called America anymore. Everywhere it seems that the attack {once a strategy is formed by groups in order to knock something else over for political gains, and for the empowerment of their cause} is fair game to the various groups out there these days, and then it's all open for the assault to take place next once the setting something up is complete for which a group has targeted or placed into their sights. The Christian cake baker or maker, shouldn't have had to bake a cake for a gay couple either, but so much for fair play in respecting each others beliefs or standards lived by in this new arena of PC/Government thuggery that is taking place now across America.  Right now the (reps of this type of thuggery) are attacking for example Christians in their workplaces (Duck Dynasty), (Miss USA contestant), in which both were asked about their beliefs in example of, and then when given by them with all due respect, well they were attempted to be shut down or scorned badly for what they had said after they were asked about their beliefs.  Next will it be in the Christian places of worship and/or etc.that will fall or will they be spied upon constantly (Texas Mayors office orders sermons or speeches from the pulpit)?.
> 
> There is no escaping this thuggery against ones beliefs or belief systems in which has been intact, lived and operated by peaceful Americans for years and years.  They (various groups) will see to it that they are not being denied any where when all is said and done, because if they are denied, well then there must be something wrong with them right ? They won't have anyone suggesting or saying that something is wrong with them, and this no matter where it is that they decide to venture into next or just stroll right on into next in order to start more trouble it seems.  I think they are pushing the envelope to far, and they need to respect other peoples spaces and belief systems in life is my opinion, but that ain't happening is it ? How the government of this nation got tied up with all these so called weird causes, and without actually thinking it through is beyond me, but here the nations citizens are getting bullied by federal judges who are being vote garnishing whores for the government pimp who will be paid in full by votes from various voter blocks, and but of course. Talk about selling out this nations freedoms, and it's moral standards for a vote ((WOW)).
> 
> I think this nation is one of the most tolerant nations on earth, but it can be pushed to far and then what ? How about people respecting each others space again, and respecting all the belief systems that are proven peaceful in which we have had and do have for the most part today, and how about the government getting out of the vote pimping and voter whore business already, and maybe getting back into the managing business instead.. To side with one group over another, and then the group that has been sided with abuses the other group quickly afterwards? Well that is a business the government shouldn't be a part of anymore. It should reset and then treat all American citizens as Americans as based upon a moral and decency code or standard in which the majority of Americans will agree upon to live by, and then of course protect the weak while not empowering them to abuse the majority by way of the wrongful use of government power as a means to do so, because the weak just might be weak due to their own folly sometimes in life, and the government doesn't want to get pulled into something like that I wouldn't think. Now it should help them not be abused in their weakness of course, but then not allowing them to abuse others just as well. It's a two way street, and everyone should be able to pass on it peacefully and it should be paved with respect when traveling in either direction always.
Click to expand...

 Incorrect.

Public accommodations laws are authorized by the Commerce Clause, having nothing to do with same-sex couples and marriage.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not complicated: children cannot consent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  So why can't children consent?
> 
> I ask because there is a segment of "SCIENCE!" which long ago came out and declared that "... _some children may actually benefit from a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult_."
> 
> This being the same group within the Kinsey Institute who are responsible for their other conclusion: THERE IS NOTHING ABNORMAL ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL SEX (which literally is precisely as baseless as it appears to be... particularly given that such is patently absurd, given the standard established by human physiology and the 180 degrees of deviation that homosexuality takes FROM that standard).
> 
> And despite all that, you'll recall that it was that 'Professional Medical/Psychiatric Opinion', thus the "SCIENCE!" upon which was stood the basis for the lifting of Sodomy Laws.  '_Homosexuality was normal, thus not indicative of deviant reasoning, therefore the individuals participating in or otherwise identified through such were not a threat to society._'
> 
> So, tell me, IF "SCIENCE!" came out and declared that '_Children CAN CONSENT TO SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADULTS_'... would that in any way alter your current position, which in effect rests on the Legality which rests DIRECTLY UPON the common sense recognition that children are no where NEAR capable of understanding the circumstances regarding sexual behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better than that, heck I believe that if a *federal judge* declared anything from his or her activist bench, that they (the beneficiaries of the rulings) would run hollering it to the roof top's loud and very clear in a heart beat (i.e. in your face), and they are doing this just like selfish arrogant intellects would do these day's, and especially when they want something that no one else wants, and then they get it. Now somehow they are always getting these things through or by way of *a federal judge who is* pandering to certain groups these days, and for whom then defies the masses on so many levels that it just isn't funny anymore. Then they look for some kind of *JUNK* science to somehow back it all up if necessary when challenged, and next they would somehow use it in order to make it all appear legit even if it's a huge stretch in doing so or even if the odds are always against them. The Idolization of *Junk Science* these days, is something that has gotten way out of control I think, and the federal judges these days who are buying into all of this mess ( I think) have lost their judicial minds it seems anymore.
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> *The only ones suggesting that churches should- or will be forced to marry anyone and everyone are the far right.*
> 
> Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the same be said for the Christian cake baker/maker who got shut down for not baking a cake for the gay couple as based upon his or her Christian beliefs in life?  The double standard and hypocrisy echoes loudly in this here place called America anymore. Everywhere it seems that the attack {once a strategy is formed by groups in order to knock something else over for political gains, and for the empowerment of their cause} is fair game to the various groups out there these days, and then it's all open for the assault to take place next once the setting something up is complete for which a group has targeted or placed into their sights. The Christian cake baker or maker, shouldn't have had to bake a cake for a gay couple either, but so much for fair play in respecting each others beliefs or standards lived by in this new arena of PC/Government thuggery that is taking place now across America.  Right now the (reps of this type of thuggery) are attacking for example Christians in their workplaces (Duck Dynasty), (Miss USA contestant), in which both were asked about their beliefs in example of, and then when given by them with all due respect, well they were attempted to be shut down or scorned badly for what they had said after they were asked about their beliefs.  Next will it be in the Christian places of worship and/or etc.that will fall or will they be spied upon constantly (Texas Mayors office orders sermons or speeches from the pulpit)?.
> 
> There is no escaping this thuggery against ones beliefs or belief systems in which has been intact, lived and operated by peaceful Americans for years and years.  They (various groups) will see to it that they are not being denied any where when all is said and done, because if they are denied, well then there must be something wrong with them right ? They won't have anyone suggesting or saying that something is wrong with them, and this no matter where it is that they decide to venture into next or just stroll right on into next in order to start more trouble it seems.  I think they are pushing the envelope to far, and they need to respect other peoples spaces and belief systems in life is my opinion, but that ain't happening is it ? How the government of this nation got tied up with all these so called weird causes, and without actually thinking it through is beyond me, but here the nations citizens are getting bullied by federal judges who are being vote garnishing whores for the government pimp who will be paid in full by votes from various voter blocks, and but of course. Talk about selling out this nations freedoms, and it's moral standards for a vote ((WOW)).
> 
> I think this nation is one of the most tolerant nations on earth, but it can be pushed to far and then what ? How about people respecting each others space again, and respecting all the belief systems that are proven peaceful in which we have had and do have for the most part today, and how about the government getting out of the vote pimping and voter whore business already, and maybe getting back into the managing business instead.. To side with one group over another, and then the group that has been sided with abuses the other group quickly afterwards? Well that is a business the government shouldn't be a part of anymore. It should reset and then treat all American citizens as Americans as based upon a moral and decency code or standard in which the majority of Americans will agree upon to live by, and then of course protect the weak while not empowering them to abuse the majority by way of the wrongful use of government power as a means to do so, because the weak just might be weak due to their own folly sometimes in life, and the government doesn't want to get pulled into something like that I wouldn't think. Now it should help them not be abused in their weakness of course, but then not allowing them to abuse others just as well. It's a two way street, and everyone should be able to pass on it peacefully and it should be paved with respect when traveling in either direction always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> Public accommodations laws are authorized by the Commerce Clause, having nothing to do with same-sex couples and marriage.
Click to expand...


LOL!  Except where PA laws are used to ruin principled people who reject homosexual behavior, reasoning and refuse to be involved in the celebration of such.  THEN Public Accommodation Laws are intrinsic to the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> The only ones suggesting that churches should- or will be forced to marry anyone and everyone are the far right.
> 
> Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie, SeaBytch has made it quite clear that she would like forces to be forced to marry gays
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> It's not a lie. 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, so you agree the PA laws are unconstitutional. Thanks
Click to expand...


Unless they are overturned by the courts of course they aren't.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not complicated: children cannot consent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  So why can't children consent?
> 
> I ask because there is a segment of "SCIENCE!" which long ago came out and declared that "... _some children may actually benefit from a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult_."
> 
> This being the same group within the Kinsey Institute who are responsible for their other conclusion: THERE IS NOTHING ABNORMAL ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL SEX (which literally is precisely as baseless as it appears to be... particularly given that such is patently absurd, given the standard established by human physiology and the 180 degrees of deviation that homosexuality takes FROM that standard).
> 
> And despite all that, you'll recall that it was that 'Professional Medical/Psychiatric Opinion', thus the "SCIENCE!" upon which was stood the basis for the lifting of Sodomy Laws.  '_Homosexuality was normal, thus not indicative of deviant reasoning, therefore the individuals participating in or otherwise identified through such were not a threat to society._'
> 
> So, tell me, IF "SCIENCE!" came out and declared that '_Children CAN CONSENT TO SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADULTS_'... would that in any way alter your current position, which in effect rests on the Legality which rests DIRECTLY UPON the common sense recognition that children are no where NEAR capable of understanding the circumstances regarding sexual behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better than that, heck I believe that if a *federal judge* declared anything from his or her activist bench, that they (the beneficiaries of the rulings) would run hollering it to the roof top's loud and very clear in a heart beat (i.e. in your face), and they are doing this just like selfish arrogant intellects would do these day's, and especially when they want something that no one else wants, and then they get it. Now somehow they are always getting these things through or by way of *a federal judge who is* pandering to certain groups these days, and for whom then defies the masses on so many levels that it just isn't funny anymore. Then they look for some kind of *JUNK* science to somehow back it all up if necessary when challenged, and next they would somehow use it in order to make it all appear legit even if it's a huge stretch in doing so or even if the odds are always against them. The Idolization of *Junk Science* these days, is something that has gotten way out of control I think, and the federal judges these days who are buying into all of this mess ( I think) have lost their judicial minds it seems anymore.
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> *The only ones suggesting that churches should- or will be forced to marry anyone and everyone are the far right.*
> 
> Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the same be said for the Christian cake baker/maker who got shut down for not baking a cake for the gay couple as based upon his or her Christian beliefs in life?  The double standard and hypocrisy echoes loudly in this here place called America anymore. Everywhere it seems that the attack {once a strategy is formed by groups in order to knock something else over for political gains, and for the empowerment of their cause} is fair game to the various groups out there these days, and then it's all open for the assault to take place next once the setting something up is complete for which a group has targeted or placed into their sights. The Christian cake baker or maker, shouldn't have had to bake a cake for a gay couple either, but so much for fair play in respecting each others beliefs or standards lived by in this new arena of PC/Government thuggery that is taking place now across America.  Right now the (reps of this type of thuggery) are attacking for example Christians in their workplaces (Duck Dynasty), (Miss USA contestant), in which both were asked about their beliefs in example of, and then when given by them with all due respect, well they were attempted to be shut down or scorned badly for what they had said after they were asked about their beliefs.  Next will it be in the Christian places of worship and/or etc.that will fall or will they be spied upon constantly (Texas Mayors office orders sermons or speeches from the pulpit)?.
> 
> There is no escaping this thuggery against ones beliefs or belief systems in which has been intact, lived and operated by peaceful Americans for years and years.  They (various groups) will see to it that they are not being denied any where when all is said and done, because if they are denied, well then there must be something wrong with them right ? They won't have anyone suggesting or saying that something is wrong with them, and this no matter where it is that they decide to venture into next or just stroll right on into next in order to start more trouble it seems.  I think they are pushing the envelope to far, and they need to respect other peoples spaces and belief systems in life is my opinion, but that ain't happening is it ? How the government of this nation got tied up with all these so called weird causes, and without actually thinking it through is beyond me, but here the nations citizens are getting bullied by federal judges who are being vote garnishing whores for the government pimp who will be paid in full by votes from various voter blocks, and but of course. Talk about selling out this nations freedoms, and it's moral standards for a vote ((WOW)).
> 
> I think this nation is one of the most tolerant nations on earth, but it can be pushed to far and then what ? How about people respecting each others space again, and respecting all the belief systems that are proven peaceful in which we have had and do have for the most part today, and how about the government getting out of the vote pimping and voter whore business already, and maybe getting back into the managing business instead.. To side with one group over another, and then the group that has been sided with abuses the other group quickly afterwards? Well that is a business the government shouldn't be a part of anymore. It should reset and then treat all American citizens as Americans as based upon a moral and decency code or standard in which the majority of Americans will agree upon to live by, and then of course protect the weak while not empowering them to abuse the majority by way of the wrongful use of government power as a means to do so, because the weak just might be weak due to their own folly sometimes in life, and the government doesn't want to get pulled into something like that I wouldn't think. Now it should help them not be abused in their weakness of course, but then not allowing them to abuse others just as well. It's a two way street, and everyone should be able to pass on it peacefully and it should be paved with respect when traveling in either direction always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> Public accommodations laws are authorized by the Commerce Clause, having nothing to do with same-sex couples and marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Except where PA laws are used to ruin principled people who reject homosexual behavior, reasoning and refuse to be involved in the celebration of such.  THEN Public Accommodation Laws are intrinsic to the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.
Click to expand...


I have never seen any principled people who have rejected homosexual behavior


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not complicated: children cannot consent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  So why can't children consent?
> 
> I ask because there is a segment of "SCIENCE!" which long ago came out and declared that "... _some children may actually benefit from a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult_."
> 
> This being the same group within the Kinsey Institute who are responsible for their other conclusion: THERE IS NOTHING ABNORMAL ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL SEX (which literally is precisely as baseless as it appears to be... particularly given that such is patently absurd, given the standard established by human physiology and the 180 degrees of deviation that homosexuality takes FROM that standard).
> 
> And despite all that, you'll recall that it was that 'Professional Medical/Psychiatric Opinion', thus the "SCIENCE!" upon which was stood the basis for the lifting of Sodomy Laws.  '_Homosexuality was normal, thus not indicative of deviant reasoning, therefore the individuals participating in or otherwise identified through such were not a threat to society._'
> 
> So, tell me, IF "SCIENCE!" came out and declared that '_Children CAN CONSENT TO SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADULTS_'... would that in any way alter your current position, which in effect rests on the Legality which rests DIRECTLY UPON the common sense recognition that children are no where NEAR capable of understanding the circumstances regarding sexual behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better than that, heck I believe that if a *federal judge* declared anything from his or her activist bench, that they (the beneficiaries of the rulings) would run hollering it to the roof top's loud and very clear in a heart beat (i.e. in your face), and they are doing this just like selfish arrogant intellects would do these day's, and especially when they want something that no one else wants, and then they get it. Now somehow they are always getting these things through or by way of *a federal judge who is* pandering to certain groups these days, and for whom then defies the masses on so many levels that it just isn't funny anymore. Then they look for some kind of *JUNK* science to somehow back it all up if necessary when challenged, and next they would somehow use it in order to make it all appear legit even if it's a huge stretch in doing so or even if the odds are always against them. The Idolization of *Junk Science* these days, is something that has gotten way out of control I think, and the federal judges these days who are buying into all of this mess ( I think) have lost their judicial minds it seems anymore.
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> *The only ones suggesting that churches should- or will be forced to marry anyone and everyone are the far right.*
> 
> Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the same be said for the Christian cake baker/maker who got shut down for not baking a cake for the gay couple as based upon his or her Christian beliefs in life?  The double standard and hypocrisy echoes loudly in this here place called America anymore. Everywhere it seems that the attack {once a strategy is formed by groups in order to knock something else over for political gains, and for the empowerment of their cause} is fair game to the various groups out there these days, and then it's all open for the assault to take place next once the setting something up is complete for which a group has targeted or placed into their sights. The Christian cake baker or maker, shouldn't have had to bake a cake for a gay couple either, but so much for fair play in respecting each others beliefs or standards lived by in this new arena of PC/Government thuggery that is taking place now across America.  Right now the (reps of this type of thuggery) are attacking for example Christians in their workplaces (Duck Dynasty), (Miss USA contestant), in which both were asked about their beliefs in example of, and then when given by them with all due respect, well they were attempted to be shut down or scorned badly for what they had said after they were asked about their beliefs.  Next will it be in the Christian places of worship and/or etc.that will fall or will they be spied upon constantly (Texas Mayors office orders sermons or speeches from the pulpit)?.
> 
> There is no escaping this thuggery against ones beliefs or belief systems in which has been intact, lived and operated by peaceful Americans for years and years.  They (various groups) will see to it that they are not being denied any where when all is said and done, because if they are denied, well then there must be something wrong with them right ? They won't have anyone suggesting or saying that something is wrong with them, and this no matter where it is that they decide to venture into next or just stroll right on into next in order to start more trouble it seems.  I think they are pushing the envelope to far, and they need to respect other peoples spaces and belief systems in life is my opinion, but that ain't happening is it ? How the government of this nation got tied up with all these so called weird causes, and without actually thinking it through is beyond me, but here the nations citizens are getting bullied by federal judges who are being vote garnishing whores for the government pimp who will be paid in full by votes from various voter blocks, and but of course. Talk about selling out this nations freedoms, and it's moral standards for a vote ((WOW)).
> 
> I think this nation is one of the most tolerant nations on earth, but it can be pushed to far and then what ? How about people respecting each others space again, and respecting all the belief systems that are proven peaceful in which we have had and do have for the most part today, and how about the government getting out of the vote pimping and voter whore business already, and maybe getting back into the managing business instead.. To side with one group over another, and then the group that has been sided with abuses the other group quickly afterwards? Well that is a business the government shouldn't be a part of anymore. It should reset and then treat all American citizens as Americans as based upon a moral and decency code or standard in which the majority of Americans will agree upon to live by, and then of course protect the weak while not empowering them to abuse the majority by way of the wrongful use of government power as a means to do so, because the weak just might be weak due to their own folly sometimes in life, and the government doesn't want to get pulled into something like that I wouldn't think. Now it should help them not be abused in their weakness of course, but then not allowing them to abuse others just as well. It's a two way street, and everyone should be able to pass on it peacefully and it should be paved with respect when traveling in either direction always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> Public accommodations laws are authorized by the Commerce Clause, having nothing to do with same-sex couples and marriage.
Click to expand...


PA laws violate the equal protection provision of the 14th.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

So... to hear the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality tell it... 

Normality: the condition of being normal; the state of being usual, typical, or expected and 'normal': conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected, is perfectly fine, except where it is used to define something that deviates from that standard, where the deviation occurs _naturally_... because THEN... it's perfectly normal.

Take a wheel bearing which naturally, over time was worn by millions upon millions of revolutions, with the natural effects of friction grinding away sufficient material from the bearing that it no longer adequately serves its purpose... leaving the wheel to deviate from the standard essential to its purpose.  

Using the reasoning of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... that worn out bearing is PERFECTLY NORMAL!  Thus should never be considered a threat the purpose of the wheel that it serves or to the purpose of those who use the wheel... . 

Again... Sexual Abnormality presents as a symptom of abnormal reasoning.   And it is THERE wherein the risk is realized.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not complicated: children cannot consent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  So why can't children consent?
> 
> I ask because there is a segment of "SCIENCE!" which long ago came out and declared that "... _some children may actually benefit from a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult_."
> 
> This being the same group within the Kinsey Institute who are responsible for their other conclusion: THERE IS NOTHING ABNORMAL ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL SEX (which literally is precisely as baseless as it appears to be... particularly given that such is patently absurd, given the standard established by human physiology and the 180 degrees of deviation that homosexuality takes FROM that standard).
> 
> And despite all that, you'll recall that it was that 'Professional Medical/Psychiatric Opinion', thus the "SCIENCE!" upon which was stood the basis for the lifting of Sodomy Laws.  '_Homosexuality was normal, thus not indicative of deviant reasoning, therefore the individuals participating in or otherwise identified through such were not a threat to society._'
> 
> So, tell me, IF "SCIENCE!" came out and declared that '_Children CAN CONSENT TO SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADULTS_'... would that in any way alter your current position, which in effect rests on the Legality which rests DIRECTLY UPON the common sense recognition that children are no where NEAR capable of understanding the circumstances regarding sexual behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better than that, heck I believe that if a *federal judge* declared anything from his or her activist bench, that they (the beneficiaries of the rulings) would run hollering it to the roof top's loud and very clear in a heart beat (i.e. in your face), and they are doing this just like selfish arrogant intellects would do these day's, and especially when they want something that no one else wants, and then they get it. Now somehow they are always getting these things through or by way of *a federal judge who is* pandering to certain groups these days, and for whom then defies the masses on so many levels that it just isn't funny anymore. Then they look for some kind of *JUNK* science to somehow back it all up if necessary when challenged, and next they would somehow use it in order to make it all appear legit even if it's a huge stretch in doing so or even if the odds are always against them. The Idolization of *Junk Science* these days, is something that has gotten way out of control I think, and the federal judges these days who are buying into all of this mess ( I think) have lost their judicial minds it seems anymore.
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to.  They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> *The only ones suggesting that churches should- or will be forced to marry anyone and everyone are the far right.*
> 
> Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the same be said for the Christian cake baker/maker who got shut down for not baking a cake for the gay couple as based upon his or her Christian beliefs in life?  The double standard and hypocrisy echoes loudly in this here place called America anymore. Everywhere it seems that the attack {once a strategy is formed by groups in order to knock something else over for political gains, and for the empowerment of their cause} is fair game to the various groups out there these days, and then it's all open for the assault to take place next once the setting something up is complete for which a group has targeted or placed into their sights. The Christian cake baker or maker, shouldn't have had to bake a cake for a gay couple either, but so much for fair play in respecting each others beliefs or standards lived by in this new arena of PC/Government thuggery that is taking place now across America.  Right now the (reps of this type of thuggery) are attacking for example Christians in their workplaces (Duck Dynasty), (Miss USA contestant), in which both were asked about their beliefs in example of, and then when given by them with all due respect, well they were attempted to be shut down or scorned badly for what they had said after they were asked about their beliefs.  Next will it be in the Christian places of worship and/or etc.that will fall or will they be spied upon constantly (Texas Mayors office orders sermons or speeches from the pulpit)?.
> 
> There is no escaping this thuggery against ones beliefs or belief systems in which has been intact, lived and operated by peaceful Americans for years and years.  They (various groups) will see to it that they are not being denied any where when all is said and done, because if they are denied, well then there must be something wrong with them right ? They won't have anyone suggesting or saying that something is wrong with them, and this no matter where it is that they decide to venture into next or just stroll right on into next in order to start more trouble it seems.  I think they are pushing the envelope to far, and they need to respect other peoples spaces and belief systems in life is my opinion, but that ain't happening is it ? How the government of this nation got tied up with all these so called weird causes, and without actually thinking it through is beyond me, but here the nations citizens are getting bullied by federal judges who are being vote garnishing whores for the government pimp who will be paid in full by votes from various voter blocks, and but of course. Talk about selling out this nations freedoms, and it's moral standards for a vote ((WOW)).
> 
> I think this nation is one of the most tolerant nations on earth, but it can be pushed to far and then what ? How about people respecting each others space again, and respecting all the belief systems that are proven peaceful in which we have had and do have for the most part today, and how about the government getting out of the vote pimping and voter whore business already, and maybe getting back into the managing business instead.. To side with one group over another, and then the group that has been sided with abuses the other group quickly afterwards? Well that is a business the government shouldn't be a part of anymore. It should reset and then treat all American citizens as Americans as based upon a moral and decency code or standard in which the majority of Americans will agree upon to live by, and then of course protect the weak while not empowering them to abuse the majority by way of the wrongful use of government power as a means to do so, because the weak just might be weak due to their own folly sometimes in life, and the government doesn't want to get pulled into something like that I wouldn't think. Now it should help them not be abused in their weakness of course, but then not allowing them to abuse others just as well. It's a two way street, and everyone should be able to pass on it peacefully and it should be paved with respect when traveling in either direction always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> Public accommodations laws are authorized by the Commerce Clause, having nothing to do with same-sex couples and marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws violate the equal protection provision of the 14th.
Click to expand...


Then get a court to agree with you. 

Until then, your opinion and a couple bucks will get you a cup of coffee.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> So... to hear the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality tell it...
> 
> Normality: the condition of being normal; the state of being usual, typical, or expected and 'normal': conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected, is perfectly fine, except where it is used to define something that deviates from that standard, where the deviation occurs _naturally_... because THEN... it's perfectly normal.
> 
> Take a wheel bearing which naturally, over time was worn by millions upon millions of revolutions, with the natural effects of friction grinding away sufficient material from the bearing that it no longer adequately serves its purpose... leaving the wheel to deviate from the standard essential to its purpose.
> 
> Using the reasoning of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... that worn out bearing is PERFECTLY NORMAL!  Thus should never be considered a threat the purpose of the wheel that it serves or to the purpose of those who use the wheel... .
> 
> Again... Sexual Abnormality presents as a symptom of abnormal reasoning.   And it is THERE wherein the risk is realized.



Bat guano crazy.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
> Validity: the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency
> Soundness: based on reason, sense, or judgment
> Cogent: clear, logical, and convincing
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a reason you are listing all of the things your argument lacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I list those things, as a means to get you to again claim that my argument lacks them, without the reasonable basis of taking those definitions and setting them against my argument and showing where that argument lacks the traits intrinsic to those definitions.  Proving, through the exercise that your claim is BASELESS.  All toward establishing evidence that leads to the PROOF that your relativist conclusion is: DELUSIONAL.
> 
> Feel better?
Click to expand...

I already pointed out very clearly that your argument is an equivocation. You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change reality.



> LOL!  The coolest thing about a text forum, is that it's produced IN WRITING... thus exists AS A RECORD OF ITSELF.
> 
> A record in which there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that provides you having taken ANY of those definitions and setting them against my WRITTEN ARGUMENTS and showing through those OBJECTIVE STANDARDS that my argument was fatally flawed.
> 
> However a record wherein a Relativist refuses to so specify, choosing instead to remain as vague as possible using subjective 'feelings' over the objective standards...  so as to rest their reasoning upon an addled implication... toward the hope of sustaining what they perceive as a popularly held position, IS proof of the delusion common to and typical of, relativism, which is what my argument seeks to establish.
> 
> Which is pretty cool, given that THAT is what the record of this thread: DEMONSTRATES.
> 
> FTR:  'Illogical fallacy' is a redundancy.  Fallacy is illogical.  Demonstrating yet again what a graduate of the USMA, would know.


There is a detailed record of you posting an equivocation and it being torn down. You are just ignoring the record. You also continually post strawman arguments, since you have failed to counter the arguments I am actually making. What you can your "objective standard" is a petty fallacy of equivocation. Get back to me when you have something valid.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> LOL!  Sadly, for you... your argument rests ENTIRELY upon equivocation.
> 
> Specifically, wherein you need to cull from the definition of NORMAL, distinction from contexts which rest upon SIMILARITY.
> 
> *You claim that because homosexuality occurs in nature, it is NORMAL*... despite the SAME DEFINITION: ESTABLISHING THAT WHERE SUCH DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY NORMALITY, such is ABNORMAL.
> 
> Which if you're keeping score, is DOWN THE MIDDLE: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself to that which they otherwise know to be a falsity.


False. I even stated homosexuality is statistically abnormal. Your problem is equivocating statistical normality with morality.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Sadly, for you... your argument rests ENTIRELY upon equivocation.
> 
> Specifically, wherein you need to cull from the definition of NORMAL, distinction from contexts which rest upon SIMILARITY.
> 
> *You claim that because homosexuality occurs in nature, it is NORMAL*... despite the SAME DEFINITION: ESTABLISHING THAT WHERE SUCH DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY NORMALITY, such is ABNORMAL.
> 
> Which if you're keeping score, is DOWN THE MIDDLE: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself to that which they otherwise know to be a falsity.
> 
> 
> 
> False. I even stated homosexuality is statistically abnormal. Your problem is equivocating statistical normality with morality.
Click to expand...


The statistical abnormality; meaning the instances of homosexuality which occur as a tiny percentage of the population: is IRRELEVANT...  What IS RELEVANT: is that Homosexuality DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DESIGN; the design which establishes the standard common to human physiology, the standard which assures VIABILITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES:  _A DESIGN WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PERPETUATION OF THE SPECIES... and THAT IS RELEVANT: BECAUSE IT ALONE: ESTABLISHES THAT HOMOSEXUALITY DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD:* THUS ESTABLISHING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL SEXUALITY.*_


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Sadly, for you... your argument rests ENTIRELY upon equivocation.
> 
> Specifically, wherein you need to cull from the definition of NORMAL, distinction from contexts which rest upon SIMILARITY.
> 
> *You claim that because homosexuality occurs in nature, it is NORMAL*... despite the SAME DEFINITION: ESTABLISHING THAT WHERE SUCH DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY NORMALITY, such is ABNORMAL.
> 
> Which if you're keeping score, is DOWN THE MIDDLE: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself to that which they otherwise know to be a falsity.
> 
> 
> 
> False. I even stated homosexuality is statistically abnormal. Your problem is equivocating statistical normality with morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The statistical abnormality; meaning the instances of homosexuality which occur as a tiny percentage of the population: is IRRELEVANT...  What IS RELEVANT: is that Homosexuality DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DESIGN; the design which establishes the standard common to human physiology, the standard which assures VIABILITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES:  _A DESIGN WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PERPETUATION OF THE SPECIES... and THAT IS RELEVANT: BECAUSE IT ALONE: ESTABLISHES THAT HOMOSEXUALITY DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD:* THUS ESTABLISHING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL SEXUALITY.*_
Click to expand...


Bat Guano crazy- now with big red letters and underlining.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Sadly, for you... your argument rests ENTIRELY upon equivocation.
> 
> Specifically, wherein you need to cull from the definition of NORMAL, distinction from contexts which rest upon SIMILARITY.
> 
> *You claim that because homosexuality occurs in nature, it is NORMAL*... despite the SAME DEFINITION: ESTABLISHING THAT WHERE SUCH DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY NORMALITY, such is ABNORMAL.
> 
> Which if you're keeping score, is DOWN THE MIDDLE: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself to that which they otherwise know to be a falsity.
> 
> 
> 
> False. I even stated homosexuality is statistically abnormal. Your problem is equivocating statistical normality with morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The statistical abnormality; meaning the instances of homosexuality which occur as a tiny percentage of the population: is IRRELEVANT...  What IS RELEVANT: is that Homosexuality DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DESIGN; the design which establishes the standard common to human physiology, the standard which assures VIABILITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES:  _A DESIGN WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PERPETUATION OF THE SPECIES... and THAT IS RELEVANT: BECAUSE IT ALONE: ESTABLISHES THAT HOMOSEXUALITY DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD:* THUS ESTABLISHING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL SEXUALITY.*_
Click to expand...

Less than 1% of people are blood type AB negative. AB negativity deviates from the physiological design of human beings, most of which are O positive or A positive. Therefore, AB negative blood types are immoral, because they deviate from the human physiological norm.

See how stupid your argument is if you apply it consistently?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
> Validity: the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency
> Soundness: based on reason, sense, or judgment
> Cogent: clear, logical, and convincing
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a reason you are listing all of the things your argument lacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I list those things, as a means to get you to again claim that my argument lacks them, without the reasonable basis of taking those definitions and setting them against my argument and showing where that argument lacks the traits intrinsic to those definitions.  Proving, through the exercise that your claim is BASELESS.  All toward establishing evidence that leads to the PROOF that your relativist conclusion is: DELUSIONAL.
> 
> Feel better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already pointed out very clearly that your argument is an equivocation. You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  The coolest thing about a text forum, is that it's produced IN WRITING... thus exists AS A RECORD OF ITSELF.
> 
> A record in which there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that provides you having taken ANY of those definitions and setting them against my WRITTEN ARGUMENTS and showing through those OBJECTIVE STANDARDS that my argument was fatally flawed.
> 
> However a record wherein a Relativist refuses to so specify, choosing instead to remain as vague as possible using subjective 'feelings' over the objective standards...  so as to rest their reasoning upon an addled implication... toward the hope of sustaining what they perceive as a popularly held position, IS proof of the delusion common to and typical of, relativism, which is what my argument seeks to establish.
> 
> Which is pretty cool, given that THAT is what the record of this thread: DEMONSTRATES.
> 
> FTR:  'Illogical fallacy' is a redundancy.  Fallacy is illogical.  Demonstrating yet again what a graduate of the USMA, would know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a detailed record of you posting an equivocation and it being torn down. You are just ignoring the record. You also continually post strawman arguments, since you have failed to counter the arguments I am actually making. What you can your "objective standard" is a petty fallacy of equivocation. Get back to me when you have something valid.
Click to expand...


LOL!  It gets pretty sad... but rarely more sad than THAT!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Sadly, for you... your argument rests ENTIRELY upon equivocation.
> 
> Specifically, wherein you need to cull from the definition of NORMAL, distinction from contexts which rest upon SIMILARITY.
> 
> *You claim that because homosexuality occurs in nature, it is NORMAL*... despite the SAME DEFINITION: ESTABLISHING THAT WHERE SUCH DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY NORMALITY, such is ABNORMAL.
> 
> Which if you're keeping score, is DOWN THE MIDDLE: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself to that which they otherwise know to be a falsity.
> 
> 
> 
> False. I even stated homosexuality is statistically abnormal. Your problem is equivocating statistical normality with morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The statistical abnormality; meaning the instances of homosexuality which occur as a tiny percentage of the population: is IRRELEVANT...  What IS RELEVANT: is that Homosexuality DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DESIGN; the design which establishes the standard common to human physiology, the standard which assures VIABILITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES:  _A DESIGN WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PERPETUATION OF THE SPECIES... and THAT IS RELEVANT: BECAUSE IT ALONE: ESTABLISHES THAT HOMOSEXUALITY DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD:* THUS ESTABLISHING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL SEXUALITY.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Less than 1% of people are blood type AB negative. AB negativity deviates from the physiological design of human beings, most of which are O positive or A positive. Therefore, AB negative blood types are immoral, because they deviate from the human physiological norm.
> 
> See how stupid your argument is if you apply it consistently?
Click to expand...


LOL!  I stand corrected... this is without a doubt, _the saddest response_ I've read in well over two decades of internet debate.

.
.
.

Well, what _I see_ is how stupid *you get* when trying to contest my argument.   Not sure if that helps ya much here, but that's as close as I can get.

For instance, I tell you that my argument is NOT contesting statistical anomalies... then I explain to ya WHY and specify the HOW... in why and how my argument is NOT arguing stats, as well as to provide you with a painful level of specifics of the how and why that IS my argument... and YOUR response is to pretend that none of that happened, and that your own feelings of what my argument IS, is all that is relative to your need for what my argument MUST BE!

With regard to "Blood type"... such are _all_ perfectly in sync with human physiology, except where the composition of the blood is such a 'type' that the deviancy common TO THAT TYPE threatens the viability of the body.  Same with shoe size, whether one is an inee or an outee... a lefty or righty... or one's skin color, hair color or favorite color... .


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Sadly, for you... your argument rests ENTIRELY upon equivocation.
> 
> Specifically, wherein you need to cull from the definition of NORMAL, distinction from contexts which rest upon SIMILARITY.
> 
> *You claim that because homosexuality occurs in nature, it is NORMAL*... despite the SAME DEFINITION: ESTABLISHING THAT WHERE SUCH DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY NORMALITY, such is ABNORMAL.
> 
> Which if you're keeping score, is DOWN THE MIDDLE: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself to that which they otherwise know to be a falsity.
> 
> 
> 
> False. I even stated homosexuality is statistically abnormal. Your problem is equivocating statistical normality with morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The statistical abnormality; meaning the instances of homosexuality which occur as a tiny percentage of the population: is IRRELEVANT...  What IS RELEVANT: is that Homosexuality DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DESIGN; the design which establishes the standard common to human physiology, the standard which assures VIABILITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES:  _A DESIGN WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PERPETUATION OF THE SPECIES... and THAT IS RELEVANT: BECAUSE IT ALONE: ESTABLISHES THAT HOMOSEXUALITY DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD:* THUS ESTABLISHING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL SEXUALITY.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Less than 1% of people are blood type AB negative. AB negativity deviates from the physiological design of human beings, most of which are O positive or A positive. Therefore, AB negative blood types are immoral, because they deviate from the human physiological norm.
> 
> See how stupid your argument is if you apply it consistently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  I stand corrected... this is without a doubt, _the saddest response_ I've read in well over two decades of internet debate.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Well, what _I see_ is how stupid *you get* when trying to contest my argument.   Not sure if that helps ya much here, but that's as close as I can get.
> 
> For instance, I tell you that my argument is NOT contesting statistical anomalies... then I explain to ya WHY and specify the HOW... in why and how my argument is NOT arguing stats, as well as to provide you with a painful level of specifics of the how and why that IS my argument... and YOUR response is to pretend that none of that happened, and that your own feelings of what my argument IS, is all that is relative to your need for what my argument MUST BE!
> 
> With regard to "Blood type"... such are _all_ perfectly in sync with human physiology, except where the composition of the blood is such a 'type' that the deviancy common TO THAT TYPE threatens the viability of the body.  Same with shoe size, whether one is an inee or an outee... a lefty or righty... or one's skin color, hair color or favorite color... .
Click to expand...

Homosexuality does not threaten the viability of the body and is just as much a party of human physiology as AB negative blood types. You use scientific terms to disguise what is nothing more than a baseless, bigoted judgment against homosexuals. Your continuous petty insults only further show how lacking in substance your assertions truly are.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Sadly, for you... your argument rests ENTIRELY upon equivocation.
> 
> Specifically, wherein you need to cull from the definition of NORMAL, distinction from contexts which rest upon SIMILARITY.
> 
> *You claim that because homosexuality occurs in nature, it is NORMAL*... despite the SAME DEFINITION: ESTABLISHING THAT WHERE SUCH DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY NORMALITY, such is ABNORMAL.
> 
> Which if you're keeping score, is DOWN THE MIDDLE: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself to that which they otherwise know to be a falsity.
> 
> 
> 
> False. I even stated homosexuality is statistically abnormal. Your problem is equivocating statistical normality with morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The statistical abnormality; meaning the instances of homosexuality which occur as a tiny percentage of the population: is IRRELEVANT...  What IS RELEVANT: is that Homosexuality DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DESIGN; the design which establishes the standard common to human physiology, the standard which assures VIABILITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES:  _A DESIGN WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PERPETUATION OF THE SPECIES... and THAT IS RELEVANT: BECAUSE IT ALONE: ESTABLISHES THAT HOMOSEXUALITY DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD:* THUS ESTABLISHING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL SEXUALITY.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Less than 1% of people are blood type AB negative. AB negativity deviates from the physiological design of human beings, most of which are O positive or A positive. Therefore, AB negative blood types are immoral, because they deviate from the human physiological norm.
> 
> See how stupid your argument is if you apply it consistently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  I stand corrected... this is without a doubt, _the saddest response_ I've read in well over two decades of internet debate.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Well, what _I see_ is how stupid *you get* when trying to contest my argument.   Not sure if that helps ya much here, but that's as close as I can get.
> 
> For instance, I tell you that my argument is NOT contesting statistical anomalies... then I explain to ya WHY and specify the HOW... in why and how my argument is NOT arguing stats, as well as to provide you with a painful level of specifics of the how and why that IS my argument... and YOUR response is to pretend that none of that happened, and that your own feelings of what my argument IS, is all that is relative to your need for what my argument MUST BE!
> 
> With regard to "Blood type"... such are _all_ perfectly in sync with human physiology, except where the composition of the blood is such a 'type' that the deviancy common TO THAT TYPE threatens the viability of the body.  Same with shoe size, whether one is an inee or an outee... a lefty or righty... or one's skin color, hair color or favorite color... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexuality does not threaten the viability of the body
Click to expand...


No? 

Huh...

Now, that will no doubt come as quite a comfort to those homosexuals who contracted the HIV as a direct result of the behavior in which they engaged as a direct result of the abnormal reasoning they employed, which defined them as homosexual. 


So are ya saying that HIV doesn't exist?  Or are ya saying anyone CAN get it, and just because the chances of anyone getting it is roughly ZERO, unless their blood comes into contact with the blood of a homosexual, that this fact doesn't serve your own subjective needs, so you're choosing to ignore it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> ... and is just as much a party of human physiology as AB negative blood types.



AB Negative is not an abnormality of the blood.  Anemia is an abnormality of the blood. Leukemia is an abnormality of the blood.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> You use scientific terms to disguise what is nothing more than a baseless, bigoted judgment against homosexuals.



So, scientific terms which establish homosexuality as deviating from the standard of human physiology, are bigoted scientific words?

LOL!  Lemma ask ya... would ya take a minute to specify which words those are?

And has it ever occurred to you to look up the word "Bigotry"?

Let me help ya through this tough patch.  Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Now... check me if I'm wrong here scamp... but are you or are you not showing intolerance for my opinions, which are most definitely, different from yourself?

Let the record reflect that "The word Bigotry is almost always used by a bigot, toward the hope of discrediting the opinions of those who oppose the opinions of that bigot."

(Can I see a show of hands of those who believe that the above contributor is a graduate of the US Military Academy at West Point?  And... LOL!  _PRINCETON_?)


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> You use scientific terms to disguise what is nothing more than a baseless, bigoted judgment against homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, scientific terms which establish homosexuality as deviating from the standard of human physiology, are bigoted scientific words?
> 
> LOL!  Lemma ask ya... would ya take a minute to specify which words those are?
> 
> And has it ever occurred to you to look up the word "Bigotry"?
> 
> Let me help ya through this tough patch.  Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
> 
> Now... check me if I'm wrong here scamp... but are you or are you not showing intolerance for my opinions, which are most definitely, different from yourself?
> 
> Let the record reflect that "The word Bigotry is almost always used by a bigot, toward the hope of discrediting the opinions of those who oppose the opinions of that bigot."
> 
> (Can I see a show of hands of those who believe that the above contributor is a graduate of the US Military Academy at West Point?  And... LOL!  _PRINCETON_?)
Click to expand...

Strawman. To repeat the actual argument, which you have yet to respond to:

Homosexuality does not threaten the viability of the body and is just as much a party of human physiology as AB negative blood types. You use scientific terms to disguise what is nothing more than a baseless, bigoted judgment against homosexuals. Your continuous petty insults only further show how lacking in substance your assertions truly are.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Strawman. To repeat the actual argument, which you have yet to respond ...




Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


.
.
.


Obviously the contributor has lost all sense of reason.  We know this because it emphatically stated its position was not responded to, despite the FACT that it WAS and in no small degree of specificity; to wit:

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 453 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Sadly, for you... your argument rests ENTIRELY upon equivocation.
> 
> Specifically, wherein you need to cull from the definition of NORMAL, distinction from contexts which rest upon SIMILARITY.
> 
> *You claim that because homosexuality occurs in nature, it is NORMAL*... despite the SAME DEFINITION: ESTABLISHING THAT WHERE SUCH DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY NORMALITY, such is ABNORMAL.
> 
> Which if you're keeping score, is DOWN THE MIDDLE: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself to that which they otherwise know to be a falsity.
> 
> 
> 
> False. I even stated homosexuality is statistically abnormal. Your problem is equivocating statistical normality with morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The statistical abnormality; meaning the instances of homosexuality which occur as a tiny percentage of the population: is IRRELEVANT...  What IS RELEVANT: is that Homosexuality DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DESIGN; the design which establishes the standard common to human physiology, the standard which assures VIABILITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES:  _A DESIGN WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PERPETUATION OF THE SPECIES... and THAT IS RELEVANT: BECAUSE IT ALONE: ESTABLISHES THAT HOMOSEXUALITY DEVIATES FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD:* THUS ESTABLISHING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL SEXUALITY.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Less than 1% of people are blood type AB negative. AB negativity deviates from the physiological design of human beings, most of which are O positive or A positive. Therefore, AB negative blood types are immoral, because they deviate from the human physiological norm.
> 
> See how stupid your argument is if you apply it consistently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  I stand corrected... this is without a doubt, _the saddest response_ I've read in well over two decades of internet debate.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Well, what _I see_ is how stupid *you get* when trying to contest my argument.   Not sure if that helps ya much here, but that's as close as I can get.
> 
> For instance, I tell you that my argument is NOT contesting statistical anomalies... then I explain to ya WHY and specify the HOW... in why and how my argument is NOT arguing stats, as well as to provide you with a painful level of specifics of the how and why that IS my argument... and YOUR response is to pretend that none of that happened, and that your own feelings of what my argument IS, is all that is relative to your need for what my argument MUST BE!
> 
> With regard to "Blood type"... such are _all_ perfectly in sync with human physiology, except where the composition of the blood is such a 'type' that the deviancy common TO THAT TYPE threatens the viability of the body.  Same with shoe size, whether one is an inee or an outee... a lefty or righty... or one's skin color, hair color or favorite color... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexuality does not threaten the viability of the body
Click to expand...




ShackledNation said:


> Homosexuality does not threaten the viability of the body



No?

Huh...

Now, that will no doubt come as quite a comfort to those homosexuals who contracted the HIV as a direct result of the behavior in which they engaged as a direct result of the abnormal reasoning they employed, which defined them as homosexual.

So are ya saying that HIV doesn't exist?  Or are ya saying anyone CAN get it, and just because the chances of anyone getting it is roughly ZERO, unless their blood comes into contact with the blood of a homosexual, that this fact doesn't serve your own subjective needs, so you're choosing to ignore it.


Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 453 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



ShackledNation said:


> ... and is just as much a party of human physiology as AB negative blood types.



AB Negative is not an abnormality of the blood.  Anemia is an abnormality of the blood. Leukemia is an abnormality of the blood.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. To repeat the actual argument, which you have yet to respond ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 
> Obviously the contributor has lost all sense of reason.  We know this because it emphatically stated its position was not responded to, despite the FACT that it WAS and in no small degree of specificity; to wit:
> 
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 453 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...

You gave a strawman argument. A strawman argument is not a response.



> No?
> 
> Huh...
> 
> Now, that will no doubt come as quite a comfort to those homosexuals who contracted the HIV as a direct result of the behavior in which they engaged as a direct result of the abnormal reasoning they employed, which defined them as homosexual.
> 
> So are ya saying that HIV doesn't exist?  Or are ya saying anyone CAN get it, and just because the chances of anyone getting it is roughly ZERO, unless their blood comes into contact with the blood of a homosexual, that this fact doesn't serve your own subjective needs, so you're choosing to ignore it.


HIV threatens the viability of the body. Homosexuality does not. Now you are equivocating homosexuality with HIV.



> AB Negative is not an abnormality of the blood.  Anemia is an abnormality of the blood. Leukemia is an abnormality of the blood.


Define abnormality.


----------



## RKMBrown

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. To repeat the actual argument, which you have yet to respond ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 
> Obviously the contributor has lost all sense of reason.  We know this because it emphatically stated its position was not responded to, despite the FACT that it WAS and in no small degree of specificity; to wit:
> 
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 453 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gave a strawman argument. A strawman argument is not a response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Huh...
> 
> Now, that will no doubt come as quite a comfort to those homosexuals who contracted the HIV as a direct result of the behavior in which they engaged as a direct result of the abnormal reasoning they employed, which defined them as homosexual.
> 
> So are ya saying that HIV doesn't exist?  Or are ya saying anyone CAN get it, and just because the chances of anyone getting it is roughly ZERO, unless their blood comes into contact with the blood of a homosexual, that this fact doesn't serve your own subjective needs, so you're choosing to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HIV threatens the viability of the body. Homosexuality does not. Now you are equivocating homosexuality with HIV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AB Negative is not an abnormality of the blood.  Anemia is an abnormality of the blood. Leukemia is an abnormality of the blood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define abnormality.
Click to expand...


abnormality - : something that is not usual, expected, or normal : something that is abnormal.  For example, having AB negative blood type is abnormal.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> AB Negative is not an abnormality of the blood.  Anemia is an abnormality of the blood. Leukemia is an abnormality of the blood.
> 
> 
> 
> Define abnormality.
Click to expand...

ROFLMNAO!

Seriously?  I've only done so dozens of times throughout this discussion, but it's no big deal to do it again:

"an abnormal feature, characteristic, or occurrence, typically in a medical context:a chromosome abnormality.• the quality or state of being abnormal."

Abnormal: deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.  Usage: _ Blood disease presents through the abnormal traits common to cellular behavior in the blood stream._

* Your most recent string of concessions are duly noted and summarily accepted.*


----------



## PaintMyHouse

RKMBrown said:


> [
> abnormality - : something that is not usual, expected, or normal : something that is abnormal.  For example, having AB negative blood type is abnormal.


Homosexuality is abnormal, like left-handiness, something we no longer try to cure because it comes from the Devil which people once (falsely) believed.  See how that works?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. To repeat the actual argument, which you have yet to respond ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 
> Obviously the contributor has lost all sense of reason.  We know this because it emphatically stated its position was not responded to, despite the FACT that it WAS and in no small degree of specificity; to wit:
> 
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 453 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gave a strawman argument. A strawman argument is not a response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Huh...
> 
> Now, that will no doubt come as quite a comfort to those homosexuals who contracted the HIV as a direct result of the behavior in which they engaged as a direct result of the abnormal reasoning they employed, which defined them as homosexual.
> 
> So are ya saying that HIV doesn't exist?  Or are ya saying anyone CAN get it, and just because the chances of anyone getting it is roughly ZERO, unless their blood comes into contact with the blood of a homosexual, that this fact doesn't serve your own subjective needs, so you're choosing to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HIV threatens the viability of the body. Homosexuality does not. Now you are equivocating homosexuality with HIV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AB Negative is not an abnormality of the blood.  Anemia is an abnormality of the blood. Leukemia is an abnormality of the blood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define abnormality.
Click to expand...




PaintMyHouse said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> abnormality - : something that is not usual, expected, or normal : something that is abnormal.  For example, having AB negative blood type is abnormal.
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is abnormal, like left-handiness ...
Click to expand...



No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child   Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act.  Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child   Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act.  Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.


1. Homosexuality is not an act.
2. Learn the difference between the words abnormal and immoral. Homosexuality is as abnormal as left-handiness and red hair. Neither the physiological trait of homosexuality, left-handidness, or red hair is immoral, nor are they even questions of morality.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child   Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act.  Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.


That would make Heterosexuality sticking your tongue into where babies come from, if not where poop comes from, and sucking on what feeds them?  If I were you I wouldn't go there.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child   Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act.  Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.
> 
> 
> 
> That would make Heterosexuality sticking your tongue into where babies come from, if not where poop comes from, and sucking on what feeds them?  If I were you I wouldn't go there.
Click to expand...


Does it?  Pray tell, how so?  And please, be specific... at least as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.  Do the best ya can.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child   Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act.  Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.
> 
> 
> 
> That would make Heterosexuality sticking your tongue into where babies come from, if not where poop comes from, and sucking on what feeds them?  If I were you I wouldn't go there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  And please, be specific... at least as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.  Do the best ya can.
Click to expand...

You made sexual orientation into an act, and it is no such thing.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Or are ya saying anyone CAN get it, and just because the chances of anyone getting it is roughly ZERO, unless their blood comes into contact with the blood of a homosexual, that this fact doesn't serve your own subjective needs, so you're choosing to ignore it.



The dangerous ignorance of that statement just frames every post you have ever made. 

Most of the persons carrying HIV in their blood in the world are not homosexuals.
Most homosexuals in the U.S. do not have HIV.

CDC - Statistics Overview - Statistics Center - HIV AIDS


Male-to-male sexual contact- 555,032Injection drug use - 277,378Heterosexual contact- 214,196

Your ignorant statements are dangerous- dangerous because people like yourself tell straights they don't have to worry about getting AID's, that its just a 'gay disease'- and then more straight people end up dieing of AIDS.
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child   Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act.  Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Homosexuality is not an act.
Click to expand...


No?  Then what would have been the purpose of all those sodomy laws?  

Now... friend, we've been a long time gettin' here and I don't want ya to put too much 'feelin' into this... just come on out and say it.  Because one of you clowns is going to say it eventually and we might as well get it over with.

SO... (You READY scamp?) 

If homosexuality is NOT an action?  Then what is it?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Me said:
			
		

> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would make Heterosexuality sticking your tongue into where babies come from, if not where poop comes from, and sucking on what feeds them?  If I were you I wouldn't go there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?  And please, be specific... at least as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.  Do the best ya can.
Click to expand...

You made sexual orientation into an act, and it is no such thing.[/QUOTE]

Wow~  that is one serious limitation ya have there.  You should probably get someone to look at that for ya.

Wait... I said that being left handed is the same as using one's Left hand to molest a child.  Are you saying that that action of molesting a child is some sort of orientation?

WHoa... WHAT?

Explain... .


----------



## dblack

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child   Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act.  Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Homosexuality is not an act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No?  Then what would have been the purpose of all those sodomy laws?
> 
> Now... friend, we've been a long time gettin' here and I don't want ya to put too much 'feelin' into this... just come on out and say it.  Because one of you clowns is going to say it eventually and we might as well get it over with.
> 
> SO... (You READY scamp?)
> 
> If homosexuality is NOT an action?  Then what is it?
Click to expand...


An orientation? And attraction? Are you saying someone is only gay when they're caught "in the act"?


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Homosexuality is not an act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No?  Then what would have been the purpose of all those sodomy laws?
Click to expand...

To prohibit sodomy. Duh.



> If homosexuality is NOT an action?  Then what is it?


Homosexuality is romantic and sexual attraction towards members of the same sex, as opposed to heterosexuality which is romantic and sexual attraction towards members of the opposite sex. Is this news to you?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:

“Well, if that were true, then Nature didn't design the subjects of marriage.

And since we know that Nature IS the source of the design of human physiology, we can now rest assured that nature also designed the union in which one man and one woman, analogous to coitus, where the complimenting but distinct genders join as one sustainable body... was also designed by nature.”

As already correctly noted: marriage wasn't 'designed' by nature.

Marriage is contract law written by the states, and administered in state courts. Marriage contract law can accommodate two equal, consenting adult partners who enter into a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference. To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in based solely on who they are violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Consequently the 'nature argument' is completely devoid of merit, legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child   Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act.  Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Homosexuality is not an act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No?  Then what would have been the purpose of all those sodomy laws?
> 
> Now... friend, we've been a long time gettin' here and I don't want ya to put too much 'feelin' into this... just come on out and say it.  Because one of you clowns is going to say it eventually and we might as well get it over with.
> 
> SO... (You READY scamp?)
> 
> If homosexuality is NOT an action?  Then what is it?
Click to expand...

An Orientation, of course.  And it's a sliding scale BTW.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys is quickly proving to be one of the most ignorant people on this board, at least with regards to homosexuality.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child   Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act.  Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Homosexuality is not an act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No?  Then what would have been the purpose of all those sodomy laws?
> 
> Now... friend, we've been a long time gettin' here and I don't want ya to put too much 'feelin' into this... just come on out and say it.  Because one of you clowns is going to say it eventually and we might as well get it over with.
> 
> SO... (You READY scamp?)
> 
> If homosexuality is NOT an action?  Then what is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An Orientation, of course.  And it's a sliding scale BTW.
Click to expand...


Oh my... I'm sensin' some reticence.

So you feel that Homosexuality is an "Orientation"... how's that work?  IS it a genetic thing, like warm blood, 5 fingers on two hands and 5 toes on two feet and stuff like that?  

Or... is it something different?


----------



## dblack

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child   Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act.  Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Homosexuality is not an act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No?  Then what would have been the purpose of all those sodomy laws?
> 
> Now... friend, we've been a long time gettin' here and I don't want ya to put too much 'feelin' into this... just come on out and say it.  Because one of you clowns is going to say it eventually and we might as well get it over with.
> 
> SO... (You READY scamp?)
> 
> If homosexuality is NOT an action?  Then what is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An Orientation, of course.  And it's a sliding scale BTW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my... I'm sensin' some reticence.
> 
> So you feel that Homosexuality is an "Orientation"... how's that work?  IS it a genetic thing, like warm blood, 5 fingers on two hands and 5 toes on two feet and stuff like that?
> 
> Or... is it something different?
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child   Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act.  Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Homosexuality is not an act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No?  Then what would have been the purpose of all those sodomy laws?
Click to expand...


The purpose of the sodomy laws? Government control over what kinds of sex adults are permitted to have.


----------



## ShackledNation

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child   Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act.  Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Homosexuality is not an act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No?  Then what would have been the purpose of all those sodomy laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The purpose of the sodomy laws? Government control over what kinds of sex adults are permitted to have.
Click to expand...

Duh, right? Why did he even ask such a dumb question?


----------



## Seawytch

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child   Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act.  Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.
> 
> 
> 
> That would make Heterosexuality sticking your tongue into where babies come from, if not where poop comes from, and sucking on what feeds them?  If I were you I wouldn't go there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it?  Pray tell, how so?  And please, be specific... at least as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.  Do the best ya can.
Click to expand...


Do you believe  straights don't have anal and oral sex? 

I'm sure you're aware that lesbians are in the lowest risk category for STDs, right?


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child   Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act.  Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Homosexuality is not an act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No?  Then what would have been the purpose of all those sodomy laws?
> 
> Now... friend, we've been a long time gettin' here and I don't want ya to put too much 'feelin' into this... just come on out and say it.  Because one of you clowns is going to say it eventually and we might as well get it over with.
> 
> SO... (You READY scamp?)
> 
> If homosexuality is NOT an action?  Then what is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An Orientation, of course.  And it's a sliding scale BTW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my... I'm sensin' some reticence.
> 
> So you feel that Homosexuality is an "Orientation"... how's that work?  IS it a genetic thing, like warm blood, 5 fingers on two hands and 5 toes on two feet and stuff like that?
> 
> Or... is it something different?
Click to expand...


Is it like being left handed? Or is it like believing in a fairy tale being who rules over everyone?

Orientation for most people is pretty easy to understand. 

I have always been attracted to women- even before I knew what sex was.

And my gay friends tell me that is how they were attracted to men.

Orientation refers to the gender you are attracted to. If any.


----------



## Seawytch

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child   Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act.  Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Homosexuality is not an act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No?  Then what would have been the purpose of all those sodomy laws?
> 
> Now... friend, we've been a long time gettin' here and I don't want ya to put too much 'feelin' into this... just come on out and say it.  Because one of you clowns is going to say it eventually and we might as well get it over with.
> 
> SO... (You READY scamp?)
> 
> If homosexuality is NOT an action?  Then what is it?
Click to expand...


You can be gay and a virgin. I hope this isn't breaking news in your narrow world view.


----------



## Seawytch

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child   Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act.  Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Homosexuality is not an act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No?  Then what would have been the purpose of all those sodomy laws?
> 
> Now... friend, we've been a long time gettin' here and I don't want ya to put too much 'feelin' into this... just come on out and say it.  Because one of you clowns is going to say it eventually and we might as well get it over with.
> 
> SO... (You READY scamp?)
> 
> If homosexuality is NOT an action?  Then what is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An Orientation, of course.  And it's a sliding scale BTW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my... I'm sensin' some reticence.
> 
> So you feel that Homosexuality is an "Orientation"... how's that work?  IS it a genetic thing, like warm blood, 5 fingers on two hands and 5 toes on two feet and stuff like that?
> 
> Or... is it something different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it like being left handed? Or is it like believing in a fairy tale being who rules over everyone?
> 
> Orientation for most people is pretty easy to understand.
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- even before I knew what sex was.
> 
> And my gay friends tell me that is how they were attracted to men.
> 
> Orientation refers to the gender you are attracted to. If any.
Click to expand...


I've always been attracted to women too...from my earliest memories. 

I wanted to marry Julie Andrews. She's widowed now you know...


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child   Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act.  Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Homosexuality is not an act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No?  Then what would have been the purpose of all those sodomy laws?
> 
> Now... friend, we've been a long time gettin' here and I don't want ya to put too much 'feelin' into this... just come on out and say it.  Because one of you clowns is going to say it eventually and we might as well get it over with.
> 
> SO... (You READY scamp?)
> 
> If homosexuality is NOT an action?  Then what is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An Orientation, of course.  And it's a sliding scale BTW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my... I'm sensin' some reticence.
> 
> So you feel that Homosexuality is an "Orientation"... how's that work?  IS it a genetic thing, like warm blood, 5 fingers on two hands and 5 toes on two feet and stuff like that?
> 
> Or... is it something different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it like being left handed? Or is it like believing in a fairy tale being who rules over everyone?
> 
> Orientation for most people is pretty easy to understand.
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- even before I knew what sex was.
> 
> And my gay friends tell me that is how they were attracted to men.
> 
> Orientation refers to the gender you are attracted to. If any.
Click to expand...



Bullshit, gay is a choice.


But who cares what others choose as long as they aren't causing harm to others.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Homosexuality is not an act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No?  Then what would have been the purpose of all those sodomy laws?
> 
> Now... friend, we've been a long time gettin' here and I don't want ya to put too much 'feelin' into this... just come on out and say it.  Because one of you clowns is going to say it eventually and we might as well get it over with.
> 
> SO... (You READY scamp?)
> 
> If homosexuality is NOT an action?  Then what is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An Orientation, of course.  And it's a sliding scale BTW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my... I'm sensin' some reticence.
> 
> So you feel that Homosexuality is an "Orientation"... how's that work?  IS it a genetic thing, like warm blood, 5 fingers on two hands and 5 toes on two feet and stuff like that?
> 
> Or... is it something different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it like being left handed? Or is it like believing in a fairy tale being who rules over everyone?
> 
> Orientation for most people is pretty easy to understand.
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- even before I knew what sex was.
> 
> And my gay friends tell me that is how they were attracted to men.
> 
> Orientation refers to the gender you are attracted to. If any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, gay is a choice.
> 
> 
> But who cares what others choose as long as they aren't causing harm to others.
Click to expand...


The only choice is in acting upon your natural attractions. I choose to...often. [emoji13]


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No?  Then what would have been the purpose of all those sodomy laws?
> 
> Now... friend, we've been a long time gettin' here and I don't want ya to put too much 'feelin' into this... just come on out and say it.  Because one of you clowns is going to say it eventually and we might as well get it over with.
> 
> SO... (You READY scamp?)
> 
> If homosexuality is NOT an action?  Then what is it?
> 
> 
> 
> An Orientation, of course.  And it's a sliding scale BTW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my... I'm sensin' some reticence.
> 
> So you feel that Homosexuality is an "Orientation"... how's that work?  IS it a genetic thing, like warm blood, 5 fingers on two hands and 5 toes on two feet and stuff like that?
> 
> Or... is it something different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it like being left handed? Or is it like believing in a fairy tale being who rules over everyone?
> 
> Orientation for most people is pretty easy to understand.
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- even before I knew what sex was.
> 
> And my gay friends tell me that is how they were attracted to men.
> 
> Orientation refers to the gender you are attracted to. If any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, gay is a choice.
> 
> 
> But who cares what others choose as long as they aren't causing harm to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only choice is in acting upon your natural attractions. I choose to...often. [emoji13]
Click to expand...

My ass

We both know that, especially with women, it isn't that uncommon to see people switching back and forth to who they are attracted to

"Oh, I'm a lesbian now" until next week when some guys in your bed LOL

You CHOOSE to be gay, I choose to not care. Keys chooses to drool over the thought of some dick.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Homosexuality is not an act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No?  Then what would have been the purpose of all those sodomy laws?
> 
> Now... friend, we've been a long time gettin' here and I don't want ya to put too much 'feelin' into this... just come on out and say it.  Because one of you clowns is going to say it eventually and we might as well get it over with.
> 
> SO... (You READY scamp?)
> 
> If homosexuality is NOT an action?  Then what is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An Orientation, of course.  And it's a sliding scale BTW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my... I'm sensin' some reticence.
> 
> So you feel that Homosexuality is an "Orientation"... how's that work?  IS it a genetic thing, like warm blood, 5 fingers on two hands and 5 toes on two feet and stuff like that?
> 
> Or... is it something different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it like being left handed? Or is it like believing in a fairy tale being who rules over everyone?
> 
> Orientation for most people is pretty easy to understand.
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- even before I knew what sex was.
> 
> And my gay friends tell me that is how they were attracted to men.
> 
> Orientation refers to the gender you are attracted to. If any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, gay is a choice..
Click to expand...


So you are able to be attracted to men if you choose to?

See, I don't understand this- I have always been attracted to women- not a choice for me.

You just have more flexibility than I do I guess.


----------



## ShackledNation

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> An Orientation, of course.  And it's a sliding scale BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my... I'm sensin' some reticence.
> 
> So you feel that Homosexuality is an "Orientation"... how's that work?  IS it a genetic thing, like warm blood, 5 fingers on two hands and 5 toes on two feet and stuff like that?
> 
> Or... is it something different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it like being left handed? Or is it like believing in a fairy tale being who rules over everyone?
> 
> Orientation for most people is pretty easy to understand.
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- even before I knew what sex was.
> 
> And my gay friends tell me that is how they were attracted to men.
> 
> Orientation refers to the gender you are attracted to. If any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, gay is a choice.
> 
> 
> But who cares what others choose as long as they aren't causing harm to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only choice is in acting upon your natural attractions. I choose to...often. [emoji13]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My ass
> 
> We both know that, especially with women, it isn't that uncommon to see people switching back and forth to who they are attracted to
> 
> "Oh, I'm a lesbian now" until next week when some guys in your bed LOL
> 
> You CHOOSE to be gay, I choose to not care. Keys chooses to drool over the thought of some dick.
Click to expand...

You are conflating sexual acts with attraction/orientation. Nobody chooses to be attracted to the same or opposite sex. That is a ludicrous and absurd notion.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No?  Then what would have been the purpose of all those sodomy laws?
> 
> Now... friend, we've been a long time gettin' here and I don't want ya to put too much 'feelin' into this... just come on out and say it.  Because one of you clowns is going to say it eventually and we might as well get it over with.
> 
> SO... (You READY scamp?)
> 
> If homosexuality is NOT an action?  Then what is it?
> 
> 
> 
> An Orientation, of course.  And it's a sliding scale BTW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my... I'm sensin' some reticence.
> 
> So you feel that Homosexuality is an "Orientation"... how's that work?  IS it a genetic thing, like warm blood, 5 fingers on two hands and 5 toes on two feet and stuff like that?
> 
> Or... is it something different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it like being left handed? Or is it like believing in a fairy tale being who rules over everyone?
> 
> Orientation for most people is pretty easy to understand.
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- even before I knew what sex was.
> 
> And my gay friends tell me that is how they were attracted to men.
> 
> Orientation refers to the gender you are attracted to. If any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, gay is a choice..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are able to be attracted to men if you choose to?
> 
> See, I don't understand this- I have always been attracted to women- not a choice for me.
> 
> You just have more flexibility than I do I guess.
Click to expand...


Could I be attracted to men? No, I personally couldn't be, not any more than I could be attracted to say Meth. are you suggesting that some people are just born preferring meth?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

ShackledNation said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my... I'm sensin' some reticence.
> 
> So you feel that Homosexuality is an "Orientation"... how's that work?  IS it a genetic thing, like warm blood, 5 fingers on two hands and 5 toes on two feet and stuff like that?
> 
> Or... is it something different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it like being left handed? Or is it like believing in a fairy tale being who rules over everyone?
> 
> Orientation for most people is pretty easy to understand.
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- even before I knew what sex was.
> 
> And my gay friends tell me that is how they were attracted to men.
> 
> Orientation refers to the gender you are attracted to. If any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, gay is a choice.
> 
> 
> But who cares what others choose as long as they aren't causing harm to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only choice is in acting upon your natural attractions. I choose to...often. [emoji13]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My ass
> 
> We both know that, especially with women, it isn't that uncommon to see people switching back and forth to who they are attracted to
> 
> "Oh, I'm a lesbian now" until next week when some guys in your bed LOL
> 
> You CHOOSE to be gay, I choose to not care. Keys chooses to drool over the thought of some dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are conflating sexual acts with attraction/orientation. Nobody chooses to be attracted to the same or opposite sex. That is a ludicrous and absurd notion.
Click to expand...

Oh , I think you're quite right. No one chooses to be attracted to the same sex, instead those who choose to have gay sex just PRETEND to be attracted to the same sex.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my... I'm sensin' some reticence.
> 
> So you feel that Homosexuality is an "Orientation"... how's that work?  IS it a genetic thing, like warm blood, 5 fingers on two hands and 5 toes on two feet and stuff like that?
> 
> Or... is it something different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it like being left handed? Or is it like believing in a fairy tale being who rules over everyone?
> 
> Orientation for most people is pretty easy to understand.
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- even before I knew what sex was.
> 
> And my gay friends tell me that is how they were attracted to men.
> 
> Orientation refers to the gender you are attracted to. If any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, gay is a choice.
> 
> 
> But who cares what others choose as long as they aren't causing harm to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only choice is in acting upon your natural attractions. I choose to...often. [emoji13]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My ass
> 
> We both know that, especially with women, it isn't that uncommon to see people switching back and forth to who they are attracted to
> 
> "Oh, I'm a lesbian now" until next week when some guys in your bed LOL
> 
> You CHOOSE to be gay, I choose to not care. Keys chooses to drool over the thought of some dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are conflating sexual acts with attraction/orientation. Nobody chooses to be attracted to the same or opposite sex. That is a ludicrous and absurd notion.
Click to expand...


Actually, choosing to respond to deviant sexual desires, provides that one will likely engage in deviant behavior.   This is the equation that sums to a deviant... a pervert, a person of low moral character.   A person who chooses to respond to one deviant impulse is very likely to respond to any deviant impulse.  Be that an impulse that requires a consenting adult or a consenting minor. (That's right... such deviancy does not force itself on the innocent... it lulls the innocent into 'loving' relationships, through any deceit, any fraud it can produce... on the hope that such will influence the ignorance inherent in the innocent.)

As a result, these are behaviors which do not come as a function of 'right', because these actions only bring chaos, calamity and catastrophe... .as such the societal collective is justified in discouraging these behaviors... thus where such behavior is predictable through the individual declaration of such 'tendencies', from which such behavior, becomes likely. 


It is from THIS, that we can know to an absolute certainty that "SCIENCE!" which claims that cognitive abnormality, such as that described above, is otherwise NORMAL... thus not a disorder, is FALSE. 

Such a conclusion is Deceit, advanced through FRAUDULENT MEANS, toward the goal of influencing the Ignorant.

There we can know that such efforts are manifestly EVIL.


See how that works?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> An Orientation, of course.  And it's a sliding scale BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my... I'm sensin' some reticence.
> 
> So you feel that Homosexuality is an "Orientation"... how's that work?  IS it a genetic thing, like warm blood, 5 fingers on two hands and 5 toes on two feet and stuff like that?
> 
> Or... is it something different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it like being left handed? Or is it like believing in a fairy tale being who rules over everyone?
> 
> Orientation for most people is pretty easy to understand.
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- even before I knew what sex was.
> 
> And my gay friends tell me that is how they were attracted to men.
> 
> Orientation refers to the gender you are attracted to. If any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, gay is a choice..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are able to be attracted to men if you choose to?
> 
> See, I don't understand this- I have always been attracted to women- not a choice for me.
> 
> You just have more flexibility than I do I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could I be attracted to men? No, I personally couldn't be, not any more than I could be attracted to say Meth. are you suggesting that some people are just born preferring meth?
Click to expand...


That one human male is attracted to another male, proves in incontestable terms that all human beings are capable of being so attracted.  Same for Meth (which BTW, that is the most profoundly solid thing I've ever read from you,_ congrats!_) alcohol, coke, pot, nicotine and every other mind altering substance.  All human beings are subject to addiction and the obsessions associated with such.

Homosexuality is a learned response... therefore it is environmental.

Sexuality is a base human instinct, primal... how it manifest itself is predicated upon how it is TAUGHT, and THAT is why the Left has for so long drove SO HARD at FINDING SUFFICIENT POWER to BECOME THE TEACHER!

Folks... why do you think this thread exists?

Is it because the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality were prone to demonstrate their 'go along to get along attitude?  Or was it because the INSTANT that they had a CHANCE to force their perversion on other people, THEY USED IT TO FORCE THEIR PERVERSION ON OTHER PEOPLE?

It's evil and those who tolerate evil... get more evil.

Which again, is why society is duly bound to discourage deviant cognition... and why society has gotten more homosexuality and more aggressive homosexuality.


----------



## RKMBrown

PaintMyHouse said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> abnormality - : something that is not usual, expected, or normal : something that is abnormal.  For example, having AB negative blood type is abnormal.
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is abnormal, like left-handiness, something we no longer try to cure because it comes from the Devil which people once (falsely) believed.  See how that works?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do.


----------



## RKMBrown

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. To repeat the actual argument, which you have yet to respond ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 
> Obviously the contributor has lost all sense of reason.  We know this because it emphatically stated its position was not responded to, despite the FACT that it WAS and in no small degree of specificity; to wit:
> 
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 453 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gave a strawman argument. A strawman argument is not a response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> Huh...
> 
> Now, that will no doubt come as quite a comfort to those homosexuals who contracted the HIV as a direct result of the behavior in which they engaged as a direct result of the abnormal reasoning they employed, which defined them as homosexual.
> 
> So are ya saying that HIV doesn't exist?  Or are ya saying anyone CAN get it, and just because the chances of anyone getting it is roughly ZERO, unless their blood comes into contact with the blood of a homosexual, that this fact doesn't serve your own subjective needs, so you're choosing to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HIV threatens the viability of the body. Homosexuality does not. Now you are equivocating homosexuality with HIV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AB Negative is not an abnormality of the blood.  Anemia is an abnormality of the blood. Leukemia is an abnormality of the blood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define abnormality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> abnormality - : something that is not usual, expected, or normal : something that is abnormal.  For example, having AB negative blood type is abnormal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexuality is abnormal, like left-handiness ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, homosexuality is 'abnormal' like using one's left hand to touch the bathing suit area of a small child   Meaning it is the result of a conscious decision to execute an immoral act.  Which we do not seek to cure, because it's not a disease as much as it is a presentation of low character.
Click to expand...

No you fucking POS, homosexuality is not like the preference for little children that you keep promoting again and again and again and again and again on this board.  Why don't you take your discussions about pedophilia and leave.


----------



## ShackledNation

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it like being left handed? Or is it like believing in a fairy tale being who rules over everyone?
> 
> Orientation for most people is pretty easy to understand.
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- even before I knew what sex was.
> 
> And my gay friends tell me that is how they were attracted to men.
> 
> Orientation refers to the gender you are attracted to. If any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, gay is a choice.
> 
> 
> But who cares what others choose as long as they aren't causing harm to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only choice is in acting upon your natural attractions. I choose to...often. [emoji13]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My ass
> 
> We both know that, especially with women, it isn't that uncommon to see people switching back and forth to who they are attracted to
> 
> "Oh, I'm a lesbian now" until next week when some guys in your bed LOL
> 
> You CHOOSE to be gay, I choose to not care. Keys chooses to drool over the thought of some dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are conflating sexual acts with attraction/orientation. Nobody chooses to be attracted to the same or opposite sex. That is a ludicrous and absurd notion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh , I think you're quite right. No one chooses to be attracted to the same sex, instead those who choose to have gay sex just PRETEND to be attracted to the same sex.
Click to expand...

That's quite the conspiracy you have there. And also completely out of touch with reality. Gay youth commit high rates of suicide, many due to the fact that they hate being gay. They hate the attraction that they cannot control. Why would they commit suicide if it was all pretend? Many of these gay individuals never even have gay sex.

You also have gay Christians going to straight camps to change their attractions. You have people praying to God that he will take their gay attractions away. Begging to be straight. Wanting nothing more than that. Why would they do all this if it was a choice?

Do you even know a single gay person? Has anyone ever come out to you? Have you ever experience how emotionally difficult the coming out experience and the acceptance of one's sexual attractions can be?

Clearly not. Calling homosexuality pretend is not only incredibly offensive but patently ignorant. Ignorance is the root of all evil, and you sir are displaying how deep your own ignorance runs.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

ShackledNation said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, gay is a choice.
> 
> 
> But who cares what others choose as long as they aren't causing harm to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only choice is in acting upon your natural attractions. I choose to...often. [emoji13]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My ass
> 
> We both know that, especially with women, it isn't that uncommon to see people switching back and forth to who they are attracted to
> 
> "Oh, I'm a lesbian now" until next week when some guys in your bed LOL
> 
> You CHOOSE to be gay, I choose to not care. Keys chooses to drool over the thought of some dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are conflating sexual acts with attraction/orientation. Nobody chooses to be attracted to the same or opposite sex. That is a ludicrous and absurd notion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh , I think you're quite right. No one chooses to be attracted to the same sex, instead those who choose to have gay sex just PRETEND to be attracted to the same sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's quite the conspiracy you have there. And also completely out of touch with reality. Gay youth commit high rates of suicide, many due to the fact that they hate being gay. They hate the attraction that they cannot control. Why would they commit suicide if it was all pretend? Many of these gay individuals never even have gay sex.
> 
> You also have gay Christians going to straight camps to change their attractions. You have people praying to God that he will take their gay attractions away. Begging to be straight. Wanting nothing more than that. Why would they do all this if it was a choice?
> 
> Do you even know a single gay person? Has anyone ever come out to you? Have you ever experience how emotionally difficult the coming out experience and the acceptance of one's sexual attractions can be?
> 
> Clearly not. Calling homosexuality pretend is not only incredibly offensive but patently ignorant. Ignorance is the root of all evil, and you sir are displaying how deep your own ignorance runs.
Click to expand...



Simple. People who have a desire for gay sex and to pretend that they were born homosexual are mentally disturbed. So all bets are off in expecting rationale behavior from them..


----------



## Silhouette

RKMBrown said:


> No you fucking POS, homosexuality is not like the preference for little children that you keep promoting again and again and again and again and again on this board.  Why don't you take your discussions about pedophilia and leave.


 
So let me get this straight, you are judging other sexual orientations as repugnant?

That's rich. And it's hypocrisy.  Equal rights are blind, remember?  That's what your group has been telling us since day one.  Who are you to judge another man's physical pleasure?  Unless you feel that if a majority objects to a certain sexual orientation, it has every right to?

Well?


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it like being left handed? Or is it like believing in a fairy tale being who rules over everyone?
> 
> Orientation for most people is pretty easy to understand.
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- even before I knew what sex was.
> 
> And my gay friends tell me that is how they were attracted to men.
> 
> Orientation refers to the gender you are attracted to. If any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, gay is a choice.
> 
> 
> But who cares what others choose as long as they aren't causing harm to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only choice is in acting upon your natural attractions. I choose to...often. [emoji13]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My ass
> 
> We both know that, especially with women, it isn't that uncommon to see people switching back and forth to who they are attracted to
> 
> "Oh, I'm a lesbian now" until next week when some guys in your bed LOL
> 
> You CHOOSE to be gay, I choose to not care. Keys chooses to drool over the thought of some dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are conflating sexual acts with attraction/orientation. Nobody chooses to be attracted to the same or opposite sex. That is a ludicrous and absurd notion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, choosing to respond to deviant sexual desires, provides that one will likely engage in deviant behavior.   This is the equation that sums to a deviant... a pervert, a person of low moral character.   A person who chooses to respond to one deviant impulse is very likely to respond to any deviant impulse.  Be that an impulse that requires a consenting adult or a consenting minor. (That's right... such deviancy does not force itself on the innocent... it lulls the innocent into 'loving' relationships, through any deceit, any fraud it can produce... on the hope that such will influence the ignorance inherent in the innocent.)
> 
> As a result, these are behaviors which do not come as a function of 'right', because these actions only bring chaos, calamity and catastrophe... .as such the societal collective is justified in discouraging these behaviors... thus where such behavior is predictable through the individual declaration of such 'tendencies', from which such behavior, becomes likely.
> 
> 
> It is from THIS, that we can know to an absolute certainty that "SCIENCE!" which claims that cognitive abnormality, such as that described above, is otherwise NORMAL... thus not a disorder, is FALSE.
> 
> Such a conclusion is Deceit, advanced through FRAUDULENT MEANS, toward the goal of influencing the Ignorant.
> 
> There we can know that such efforts are manifestly EVIL.
> 
> 
> See how that works?
Click to expand...

Again you have nothing more than your own bigoted baseless assertions. Nothing you say is rooted in science or reason. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality. There is nothing immoral about sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex. And gay couples do not cause chaos and catastrophe. Period.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, gay is a choice.
> 
> 
> But who cares what others choose as long as they aren't causing harm to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only choice is in acting upon your natural attractions. I choose to...often. [emoji13]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My ass
> 
> We both know that, especially with women, it isn't that uncommon to see people switching back and forth to who they are attracted to
> 
> "Oh, I'm a lesbian now" until next week when some guys in your bed LOL
> 
> You CHOOSE to be gay, I choose to not care. Keys chooses to drool over the thought of some dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are conflating sexual acts with attraction/orientation. Nobody chooses to be attracted to the same or opposite sex. That is a ludicrous and absurd notion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, choosing to respond to deviant sexual desires, provides that one will likely engage in deviant behavior.   This is the equation that sums to a deviant... a pervert, a person of low moral character.   A person who chooses to respond to one deviant impulse is very likely to respond to any deviant impulse.  Be that an impulse that requires a consenting adult or a consenting minor. (That's right... such deviancy does not force itself on the innocent... it lulls the innocent into 'loving' relationships, through any deceit, any fraud it can produce... on the hope that such will influence the ignorance inherent in the innocent.)
> 
> As a result, these are behaviors which do not come as a function of 'right', because these actions only bring chaos, calamity and catastrophe... .as such the societal collective is justified in discouraging these behaviors... thus where such behavior is predictable through the individual declaration of such 'tendencies', from which such behavior, becomes likely.
> 
> 
> It is from THIS, that we can know to an absolute certainty that "SCIENCE!" which claims that cognitive abnormality, such as that described above, is otherwise NORMAL... thus not a disorder, is FALSE.
> 
> Such a conclusion is Deceit, advanced through FRAUDULENT MEANS, toward the goal of influencing the Ignorant.
> 
> There we can know that such efforts are manifestly EVIL.
> 
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you have nothing more than your own bigoted baseless assertions. Nothing you say is rooted in science or reason. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality. There is nothing immoral about sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex. And gay couples do not cause chaos and catastrophe. Period.
Click to expand...



Maybe you should I don't know read the thread?


I don't propose to outlaw gay, I don't believe gays are more likely to be pedophiles, and I don't care if they "marry" but yeah gays are mental defects.


----------



## ShackledNation

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only choice is in acting upon your natural attractions. I choose to...often. [emoji13]
> 
> 
> 
> My ass
> 
> We both know that, especially with women, it isn't that uncommon to see people switching back and forth to who they are attracted to
> 
> "Oh, I'm a lesbian now" until next week when some guys in your bed LOL
> 
> You CHOOSE to be gay, I choose to not care. Keys chooses to drool over the thought of some dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are conflating sexual acts with attraction/orientation. Nobody chooses to be attracted to the same or opposite sex. That is a ludicrous and absurd notion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh , I think you're quite right. No one chooses to be attracted to the same sex, instead those who choose to have gay sex just PRETEND to be attracted to the same sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's quite the conspiracy you have there. And also completely out of touch with reality. Gay youth commit high rates of suicide, many due to the fact that they hate being gay. They hate the attraction that they cannot control. Why would they commit suicide if it was all pretend? Many of these gay individuals never even have gay sex.
> 
> You also have gay Christians going to straight camps to change their attractions. You have people praying to God that he will take their gay attractions away. Begging to be straight. Wanting nothing more than that. Why would they do all this if it was a choice?
> 
> Do you even know a single gay person? Has anyone ever come out to you? Have you ever experience how emotionally difficult the coming out experience and the acceptance of one's sexual attractions can be?
> 
> Clearly not. Calling homosexuality pretend is not only incredibly offensive but patently ignorant. Ignorance is the root of all evil, and you sir are displaying how deep your own ignorance runs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Simple. People who have a desire for gay sex and to pretend that they were born homosexual are mentally disturbed. So all bets are off in expecting rationale behavior from them..
Click to expand...

People who are homosexual truly believe they were born gay, thus there can be no pretense. Science has not stated with definiteness why people are homosexual, but it has ruled out that it is a choice. There is nothing irrational about homosexual relationships.


----------



## ShackledNation

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only choice is in acting upon your natural attractions. I choose to...often. [emoji13]
> 
> 
> 
> My ass
> 
> We both know that, especially with women, it isn't that uncommon to see people switching back and forth to who they are attracted to
> 
> "Oh, I'm a lesbian now" until next week when some guys in your bed LOL
> 
> You CHOOSE to be gay, I choose to not care. Keys chooses to drool over the thought of some dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are conflating sexual acts with attraction/orientation. Nobody chooses to be attracted to the same or opposite sex. That is a ludicrous and absurd notion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, choosing to respond to deviant sexual desires, provides that one will likely engage in deviant behavior.   This is the equation that sums to a deviant... a pervert, a person of low moral character.   A person who chooses to respond to one deviant impulse is very likely to respond to any deviant impulse.  Be that an impulse that requires a consenting adult or a consenting minor. (That's right... such deviancy does not force itself on the innocent... it lulls the innocent into 'loving' relationships, through any deceit, any fraud it can produce... on the hope that such will influence the ignorance inherent in the innocent.)
> 
> As a result, these are behaviors which do not come as a function of 'right', because these actions only bring chaos, calamity and catastrophe... .as such the societal collective is justified in discouraging these behaviors... thus where such behavior is predictable through the individual declaration of such 'tendencies', from which such behavior, becomes likely.
> 
> 
> It is from THIS, that we can know to an absolute certainty that "SCIENCE!" which claims that cognitive abnormality, such as that described above, is otherwise NORMAL... thus not a disorder, is FALSE.
> 
> Such a conclusion is Deceit, advanced through FRAUDULENT MEANS, toward the goal of influencing the Ignorant.
> 
> There we can know that such efforts are manifestly EVIL.
> 
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you have nothing more than your own bigoted baseless assertions. Nothing you say is rooted in science or reason. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality. There is nothing immoral about sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex. And gay couples do not cause chaos and catastrophe. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should I don't know read the thread?
> 
> 
> I don't propose to outlaw gay, I don't believe gays are more likely to be pedophiles, and I don't care if they "marry" but yeah gays are mental defects.
Click to expand...

I have read the thread. I'm glad you don't believe gays are all pedophiles. I'm glad you don't care that they marry. But you are still hugely ignorant about homosexuality if you believe it is a mental defect. Your tolerance of same-sex marriage does not excuse your bigotry and ignorance.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

ShackledNation said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> My ass
> 
> We both know that, especially with women, it isn't that uncommon to see people switching back and forth to who they are attracted to
> 
> "Oh, I'm a lesbian now" until next week when some guys in your bed LOL
> 
> You CHOOSE to be gay, I choose to not care. Keys chooses to drool over the thought of some dick.
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating sexual acts with attraction/orientation. Nobody chooses to be attracted to the same or opposite sex. That is a ludicrous and absurd notion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, choosing to respond to deviant sexual desires, provides that one will likely engage in deviant behavior.   This is the equation that sums to a deviant... a pervert, a person of low moral character.   A person who chooses to respond to one deviant impulse is very likely to respond to any deviant impulse.  Be that an impulse that requires a consenting adult or a consenting minor. (That's right... such deviancy does not force itself on the innocent... it lulls the innocent into 'loving' relationships, through any deceit, any fraud it can produce... on the hope that such will influence the ignorance inherent in the innocent.)
> 
> As a result, these are behaviors which do not come as a function of 'right', because these actions only bring chaos, calamity and catastrophe... .as such the societal collective is justified in discouraging these behaviors... thus where such behavior is predictable through the individual declaration of such 'tendencies', from which such behavior, becomes likely.
> 
> 
> It is from THIS, that we can know to an absolute certainty that "SCIENCE!" which claims that cognitive abnormality, such as that described above, is otherwise NORMAL... thus not a disorder, is FALSE.
> 
> Such a conclusion is Deceit, advanced through FRAUDULENT MEANS, toward the goal of influencing the Ignorant.
> 
> There we can know that such efforts are manifestly EVIL.
> 
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you have nothing more than your own bigoted baseless assertions. Nothing you say is rooted in science or reason. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality. There is nothing immoral about sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex. And gay couples do not cause chaos and catastrophe. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should I don't know read the thread?
> 
> 
> I don't propose to outlaw gay, I don't believe gays are more likely to be pedophiles, and I don't care if they "marry" but yeah gays are mental defects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the thread. I'm glad you don't believe gays are all pedophiles. I'm glad you don't care that they marry. But you are still hugely ignorant about homosexuality if you believe it is a mental defect. Your tolerance of same-sex marriage does not excuse your bigotry and ignorance.
Click to expand...



You admit that science can't tell us why some people are gay yet your call people who have a theory that you disagree with bigoted. That is ignorant sir, prove homosexuality isn't a menta disorder, then we'll talk.


----------



## ShackledNation

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating sexual acts with attraction/orientation. Nobody chooses to be attracted to the same or opposite sex. That is a ludicrous and absurd notion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, choosing to respond to deviant sexual desires, provides that one will likely engage in deviant behavior.   This is the equation that sums to a deviant... a pervert, a person of low moral character.   A person who chooses to respond to one deviant impulse is very likely to respond to any deviant impulse.  Be that an impulse that requires a consenting adult or a consenting minor. (That's right... such deviancy does not force itself on the innocent... it lulls the innocent into 'loving' relationships, through any deceit, any fraud it can produce... on the hope that such will influence the ignorance inherent in the innocent.)
> 
> As a result, these are behaviors which do not come as a function of 'right', because these actions only bring chaos, calamity and catastrophe... .as such the societal collective is justified in discouraging these behaviors... thus where such behavior is predictable through the individual declaration of such 'tendencies', from which such behavior, becomes likely.
> 
> 
> It is from THIS, that we can know to an absolute certainty that "SCIENCE!" which claims that cognitive abnormality, such as that described above, is otherwise NORMAL... thus not a disorder, is FALSE.
> 
> Such a conclusion is Deceit, advanced through FRAUDULENT MEANS, toward the goal of influencing the Ignorant.
> 
> There we can know that such efforts are manifestly EVIL.
> 
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you have nothing more than your own bigoted baseless assertions. Nothing you say is rooted in science or reason. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality. There is nothing immoral about sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex. And gay couples do not cause chaos and catastrophe. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should I don't know read the thread?
> 
> 
> I don't propose to outlaw gay, I don't believe gays are more likely to be pedophiles, and I don't care if they "marry" but yeah gays are mental defects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the thread. I'm glad you don't believe gays are all pedophiles. I'm glad you don't care that they marry. But you are still hugely ignorant about homosexuality if you believe it is a mental defect. Your tolerance of same-sex marriage does not excuse your bigotry and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admit that science can't tell us why some people are gay yet your call people who have a theory that you disagree with bigoted. That is ignorant sir, prove homosexuality isn't a menta disorder, then we'll talk.
Click to expand...

No, that is not ignorant. Science has not definitively proven where homosexuality has come from, but that does not automatically make every theory potentially valid. For example, just because the jury is still out on homosexuality does that mean if I say gay people come from aliens I should be taken seriously? No. Your mental disorder argument is equally absurd.

The burden is on you to prove your idiotic claim, not on me to debunk. Good luck with that. In the meantime, chew on this.

"The APA has declared LBG as not a mental illness or disorder with no identifiable dissimilar psychopathology, as both heterosexual and homosexual behaviors are normal aspects of human sexuality" and that homosexuality is not a choice.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, choosing to respond to deviant sexual desires, provides that one will likely engage in deviant behavior.   This is the equation that sums to a deviant... a pervert, a person of low moral character.   A person who chooses to respond to one deviant impulse is very likely to respond to any deviant impulse.  Be that an impulse that requires a consenting adult or a consenting minor. (That's right... such deviancy does not force itself on the innocent... it lulls the innocent into 'loving' relationships, through any deceit, any fraud it can produce... on the hope that such will influence the ignorance inherent in the innocent.)
> 
> As a result, these are behaviors which do not come as a function of 'right', because these actions only bring chaos, calamity and catastrophe... .as such the societal collective is justified in discouraging these behaviors... thus where such behavior is predictable through the individual declaration of such 'tendencies', from which such behavior, becomes likely.
> 
> 
> It is from THIS, that we can know to an absolute certainty that "SCIENCE!" which claims that cognitive abnormality, such as that described above, is otherwise NORMAL... thus not a disorder, is FALSE.
> 
> Such a conclusion is Deceit, advanced through FRAUDULENT MEANS, toward the goal of influencing the Ignorant.
> 
> There we can know that such efforts are manifestly EVIL.
> 
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> Again you have nothing more than your own bigoted baseless assertions. Nothing you say is rooted in science or reason. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality. There is nothing immoral about sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex. And gay couples do not cause chaos and catastrophe. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should I don't know read the thread?
> 
> 
> I don't propose to outlaw gay, I don't believe gays are more likely to be pedophiles, and I don't care if they "marry" but yeah gays are mental defects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the thread. I'm glad you don't believe gays are all pedophiles. I'm glad you don't care that they marry. But you are still hugely ignorant about homosexuality if you believe it is a mental defect. Your tolerance of same-sex marriage does not excuse your bigotry and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admit that science can't tell us why some people are gay yet your call people who have a theory that you disagree with bigoted. That is ignorant sir, prove homosexuality isn't a menta disorder, then we'll talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is not ignorant. Science has not definitively proven where homosexuality has come from, but that does not automatically make every theory potentially valid. For example, just because the jury is still out on homosexuality does that mean if I say gay people come from aliens I should be taken seriously? No. Your mental disorder argument is equally absurd.
> 
> The burden is on you to prove your idiotic claim, not on me to debunk. Good luck with that. In the meantime, chew on this.
> 
> "The APA has declared LBG as not a mental illness or disorder with no identifiable dissimilar psychopathology, as both heterosexual and homosexual behaviors are normal aspects of human sexuality" and that homosexuality is not a choice.
Click to expand...


The APA could just as easily declare the Sun a perfect Vacation Destination.  That  doesn't make it so... .

Like you the APA is offering their subjective opinion. 

The coolest part of all this is that it all boils down to reasoning... and reason dictates that given the absence of a genetics being responsible, that means that it's not genetics.  It's not like the homo-lobby hasn't poured money on science to find a genetic indicator to no avail... so we know that if were possible to even fabricate such evidence that it would be so fabricated and you gals would be straight up authorized as legitimate Shims...

Therefore, we know that homosexuality is not even close enough to a genetic issue that it is not even possible to fabricate evidence that it is. 

So... that leaves us with what we always knew... that homosexuality is a learned behavior.  Wherein some 'caring adult' pursued a very young minor child, so young that the child is unable to communicate verbally, thus sufficiently young to have no memory of the crime.

But there, in the recess of their subconscious is the imprinted instructions that sexual arousal is directed toward whatever gender so lovingly cared for them way back when.

OH!  And we should probably go back over the whole "proof" thing AGAIN: 

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Now notice where it doesn't say that the 'evidence' or 'argument' doesn't need to convince you of anything... which is really good news for the argument, given that its impossible to convince a relativist of anything that does not serve their subjective needs... .


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you have nothing more than your own bigoted baseless assertions. Nothing you say is rooted in science or reason. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality. There is nothing immoral about sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex. And gay couples do not cause chaos and catastrophe. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should I don't know read the thread?
> 
> 
> I don't propose to outlaw gay, I don't believe gays are more likely to be pedophiles, and I don't care if they "marry" but yeah gays are mental defects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the thread. I'm glad you don't believe gays are all pedophiles. I'm glad you don't care that they marry. But you are still hugely ignorant about homosexuality if you believe it is a mental defect. Your tolerance of same-sex marriage does not excuse your bigotry and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admit that science can't tell us why some people are gay yet your call people who have a theory that you disagree with bigoted. That is ignorant sir, prove homosexuality isn't a menta disorder, then we'll talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is not ignorant. Science has not definitively proven where homosexuality has come from, but that does not automatically make every theory potentially valid. For example, just because the jury is still out on homosexuality does that mean if I say gay people come from aliens I should be taken seriously? No. Your mental disorder argument is equally absurd.
> 
> The burden is on you to prove your idiotic claim, not on me to debunk. Good luck with that. In the meantime, chew on this.
> 
> "The APA has declared LBG as not a mental illness or disorder with no identifiable dissimilar psychopathology, as both heterosexual and homosexual behaviors are normal aspects of human sexuality" and that homosexuality is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The APA could just as easily declare the Sun a perfect Vacation Destination.  That  doesn't make it so... .
> 
> Like you the APA is offering their subjective opinion.
> 
> The coolest part of all this is that it all boils down to reasoning... and reason dictates that given the absence of a genetics being responsible, that means that it's not genetics.  It's not like the homo-lobby hasn't poured money on science to find a genetic indicator to no avail... so we know that if were possible to even fabricate such evidence that it would be so fabricated and you gals would be straight up authorized as legitimate Shims...
> 
> Therefore, we know that homosexuality is not even close enough to a genetic issue that it is not even possible to fabricate evidence that it is.
> 
> So... that leaves us with what we always knew... that homosexuality is a learned behavior.  Wherein some 'caring adult' pursued a very young minor child, so young that the child is unable to communicate verbally, thus sufficiently young to have no memory of the crime.
> 
> But there, in the recess of their subconscious is the imprinted instructions that sexual arousal is directed toward whatever gender so lovingly cared for them way back when.
> 
> OH!  And we should probably go back over the whole "proof" thing AGAIN:
> 
> Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
> 
> Now notice where it doesn't say that the 'evidence' or 'argument' doesn't need to convince you of anything... which is really good news for the argument, given that its impossible to convince a relativist of anything that does not serve their subjective needs... .
Click to expand...

I'd listen to the opinion and research of some of the brightest scientists in America than your baseless assertions any day. There is numerous evidence that homosexuality is genetic or epigenetic. And there is _zero _evidence that it is a choice. Again, you just post a bunch of BS and ignore anything that contradicts your preexisting bias.

The better question is did you _choose _to have selective attention, or can you just not help it?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should I don't know read the thread?
> 
> 
> I don't propose to outlaw gay, I don't believe gays are more likely to be pedophiles, and I don't care if they "marry" but yeah gays are mental defects.
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the thread. I'm glad you don't believe gays are all pedophiles. I'm glad you don't care that they marry. But you are still hugely ignorant about homosexuality if you believe it is a mental defect. Your tolerance of same-sex marriage does not excuse your bigotry and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admit that science can't tell us why some people are gay yet your call people who have a theory that you disagree with bigoted. That is ignorant sir, prove homosexuality isn't a menta disorder, then we'll talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is not ignorant. Science has not definitively proven where homosexuality has come from, but that does not automatically make every theory potentially valid. For example, just because the jury is still out on homosexuality does that mean if I say gay people come from aliens I should be taken seriously? No. Your mental disorder argument is equally absurd.
> 
> The burden is on you to prove your idiotic claim, not on me to debunk. Good luck with that. In the meantime, chew on this.
> 
> "The APA has declared LBG as not a mental illness or disorder with no identifiable dissimilar psychopathology, as both heterosexual and homosexual behaviors are normal aspects of human sexuality" and that homosexuality is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The APA could just as easily declare the Sun a perfect Vacation Destination.  That  doesn't make it so... .
> 
> Like you the APA is offering their subjective opinion.
> 
> The coolest part of all this is that it all boils down to reasoning... and reason dictates that given the absence of a genetics being responsible, that means that it's not genetics.  It's not like the homo-lobby hasn't poured money on science to find a genetic indicator to no avail... so we know that if were possible to even fabricate such evidence that it would be so fabricated and you gals would be straight up authorized as legitimate Shims...
> 
> Therefore, we know that homosexuality is not even close enough to a genetic issue that it is not even possible to fabricate evidence that it is.
> 
> So... that leaves us with what we always knew... that homosexuality is a learned behavior.  Wherein some 'caring adult' pursued a very young minor child, so young that the child is unable to communicate verbally, thus sufficiently young to have no memory of the crime.
> 
> But there, in the recess of their subconscious is the imprinted instructions that sexual arousal is directed toward whatever gender so lovingly cared for them way back when.
> 
> OH!  And we should probably go back over the whole "proof" thing AGAIN:
> 
> Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
> 
> Now notice where it doesn't say that the 'evidence' or 'argument' doesn't need to convince you of anything... which is really good news for the argument, given that its impossible to convince a relativist of anything that does not serve their subjective needs... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd listen to the opinion and research of some of the brightest scientists in America than your baseless assertions any day. There is numerous evidence that homosexuality is genetic or epigenetic. And there is _zero _evidence that it is a choice. Again, you just post a bunch of BS and ignore anything that contradicts your preexisting bias.
> 
> The better question is did you _choose _to have selective attention, or can you just not help it?
Click to expand...



The bright minds you listen to are the one's that reaffirm your subjective needs.  Such is the nature of the relativist.

What you don't seem to understand here is that I have no dog on this hunt.  I could not care less who screws who, be they man or beast or man and beast.

As far as Im concerned if homosexuality had come up as a genetic thing, it would have made you folks a distinct gender; which Ive always coined as 'shim'.  And as a gender, guess where that would place you?  Square and centered in normal... .  

But, as we both know, there is no genetic component in the sexually abnormal thang.  

Now... pay close attention here, because we've been 450 pages getting to this little key rub: 

That makes the problem "MENTAL".  Meaning that despite what the APA homosexuals voted on, sexual abnormality is now what it has always been and THAT IS: A MENTAL DISORDER... One which is not at ALL distinct from Relativism... and Relativism enjoys perhaps one degree of separation from DELUSION.

Which you idiots are determined to NORMALIZE!  

Now... as we look around our 'reality' we see debauchery and hedonism run amok... we see insanity... a mouthy minority screamin' to the top of their lungs: "DON'T JUDGE"  "RULES DISCRIMINATE!"  "DO FOR ME OR ELSE!" and "We have a right to screw whoever we want... even it means we have to murder our children!".

And isn't it the craziest of coincidence that those same individuals are consistently the one's who find no problem with men marrying men and woman marrying woman and both of those groups forcing others to celebrate that through the illicit use police powers, on the basis that ITS THE LAW.

This demonstrates a thorough disregard for what?  

It's a complete disregard for REASON.  But only the reason which defines the very foundation of this nation.

And THAT is what happens when one tries to NORMALIZE MENTAL ABNORMALITY... ya end up iving inside THE FAR SIDE CALENDAR!


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> An Orientation, of course.  And it's a sliding scale BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my... I'm sensin' some reticence.
> 
> So you feel that Homosexuality is an "Orientation"... how's that work?  IS it a genetic thing, like warm blood, 5 fingers on two hands and 5 toes on two feet and stuff like that?
> 
> Or... is it something different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it like being left handed? Or is it like believing in a fairy tale being who rules over everyone?
> 
> Orientation for most people is pretty easy to understand.
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- even before I knew what sex was.
> 
> And my gay friends tell me that is how they were attracted to men.
> 
> Orientation refers to the gender you are attracted to. If any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, gay is a choice..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are able to be attracted to men if you choose to?
> 
> See, I don't understand this- I have always been attracted to women- not a choice for me.
> 
> You just have more flexibility than I do I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could I be attracted to men? No, I personally couldn't be, not any more than I could be attracted to say Meth. are you suggesting that some people are just born preferring meth?
Click to expand...


So you are saying that you have no choice in the gender of the person you are sexually attracted to- but you think for homosexuals- they do make the choice of who they are attracted to?

That is quite some rationalization going on there.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the thread. I'm glad you don't believe gays are all pedophiles. I'm glad you don't care that they marry. But you are still hugely ignorant about homosexuality if you believe it is a mental defect. Your tolerance of same-sex marriage does not excuse your bigotry and ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You admit that science can't tell us why some people are gay yet your call people who have a theory that you disagree with bigoted. That is ignorant sir, prove homosexuality isn't a menta disorder, then we'll talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is not ignorant. Science has not definitively proven where homosexuality has come from, but that does not automatically make every theory potentially valid. For example, just because the jury is still out on homosexuality does that mean if I say gay people come from aliens I should be taken seriously? No. Your mental disorder argument is equally absurd.
> 
> The burden is on you to prove your idiotic claim, not on me to debunk. Good luck with that. In the meantime, chew on this.
> 
> "The APA has declared LBG as not a mental illness or disorder with no identifiable dissimilar psychopathology, as both heterosexual and homosexual behaviors are normal aspects of human sexuality" and that homosexuality is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The APA could just as easily declare the Sun a perfect Vacation Destination.  That  doesn't make it so... .
> 
> Like you the APA is offering their subjective opinion.
> 
> The coolest part of all this is that it all boils down to reasoning... and reason dictates that given the absence of a genetics being responsible, that means that it's not genetics.  It's not like the homo-lobby hasn't poured money on science to find a genetic indicator to no avail... so we know that if were possible to even fabricate such evidence that it would be so fabricated and you gals would be straight up authorized as legitimate Shims...
> 
> Therefore, we know that homosexuality is not even close enough to a genetic issue that it is not even possible to fabricate evidence that it is.
> 
> So... that leaves us with what we always knew... that homosexuality is a learned behavior.  Wherein some 'caring adult' pursued a very young minor child, so young that the child is unable to communicate verbally, thus sufficiently young to have no memory of the crime.
> 
> But there, in the recess of their subconscious is the imprinted instructions that sexual arousal is directed toward whatever gender so lovingly cared for them way back when.
> 
> OH!  And we should probably go back over the whole "proof" thing AGAIN:
> 
> Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
> 
> Now notice where it doesn't say that the 'evidence' or 'argument' doesn't need to convince you of anything... which is really good news for the argument, given that its impossible to convince a relativist of anything that does not serve their subjective needs... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd listen to the opinion and research of some of the brightest scientists in America than your baseless assertions any day. There is numerous evidence that homosexuality is genetic or epigenetic. And there is _zero _evidence that it is a choice. Again, you just post a bunch of BS and ignore anything that contradicts your preexisting bias.
> 
> The better question is did you _choose _to have selective attention, or can you just not help it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The bright minds you listen to are the one's that reaffirm your subjective needs.  Such is the nature of the relativist.
> 
> What you don't seem to understand here is that I have no dog on this hunt.  I could not care less who screws who, be they man or beast or man and beast.
> 
> As far as Im concerned if homosexuality had come up as a genetic thing, it would have made you folks a distinct gender; which Ive always coined as 'shim'.  And as a gender, guess where that would place you?  Square and centered in normal... .
> 
> But, as we both know, there is no genetic component in the sexually abnormal thang.
> 
> Now... pay close attention here, because we've been 450 pages getting to this little key rub:
> 
> That makes the problem "MENTAL".  Meaning that despite what the APA homosexuals voted on, sexual abnormality is now what it has always been and THAT IS: A MENTAL DISORDER... One which is not at ALL distinct from Relativism... and Relativism enjoys perhaps one degree of separation from DELUSION.
> 
> Which you idiots are determined to NORMALIZE!
> 
> Now... as we look around our 'reality' we see debauchery and hedonism run amok... we see insanity... a mouthy minority screamin' to the top of their lungs: "DON'T JUDGE"  "RULES DISCRIMINATE!"  "DO FOR ME OR ELSE!" and "We have a right to screw whoever we want... even it means we have to murder our children!".
> 
> And isn't it the craziest of coincidence that those same individuals are consistently the one's who find no problem with men marrying men and woman marrying woman and both of those groups forcing others to celebrate that through the illicit use police powers, on the basis that ITS THE LAW.
> 
> This demonstrates a thorough disregard for what?
> 
> It's a complete disregard for REASON.  But only the reason which defines the very foundation of this nation.
> 
> And THAT is what happens when one tries to NORMALIZE MENTAL ABNORMALITY... ya end up iving inside THE FAR SIDE CALENDAR!
Click to expand...


Bat guano crazy.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating sexual acts with attraction/orientation. Nobody chooses to be attracted to the same or opposite sex. That is a ludicrous and absurd notion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, choosing to respond to deviant sexual desires, provides that one will likely engage in deviant behavior.   This is the equation that sums to a deviant... a pervert, a person of low moral character.   A person who chooses to respond to one deviant impulse is very likely to respond to any deviant impulse.  Be that an impulse that requires a consenting adult or a consenting minor. (That's right... such deviancy does not force itself on the innocent... it lulls the innocent into 'loving' relationships, through any deceit, any fraud it can produce... on the hope that such will influence the ignorance inherent in the innocent.)
> 
> As a result, these are behaviors which do not come as a function of 'right', because these actions only bring chaos, calamity and catastrophe... .as such the societal collective is justified in discouraging these behaviors... thus where such behavior is predictable through the individual declaration of such 'tendencies', from which such behavior, becomes likely.
> 
> 
> It is from THIS, that we can know to an absolute certainty that "SCIENCE!" which claims that cognitive abnormality, such as that described above, is otherwise NORMAL... thus not a disorder, is FALSE.
> 
> Such a conclusion is Deceit, advanced through FRAUDULENT MEANS, toward the goal of influencing the Ignorant.
> 
> There we can know that such efforts are manifestly EVIL.
> 
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you have nothing more than your own bigoted baseless assertions. Nothing you say is rooted in science or reason. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality. There is nothing immoral about sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex. And gay couples do not cause chaos and catastrophe. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should I don't know read the thread?
> 
> 
> I don't propose to outlaw gay, I don't believe gays are more likely to be pedophiles, and I don't care if they "marry" but yeah gays are mental defects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the thread. I'm glad you don't believe gays are all pedophiles. I'm glad you don't care that they marry. But you are still hugely ignorant about homosexuality if you believe it is a mental defect. Your tolerance of same-sex marriage does not excuse your bigotry and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admit that science can't tell us why some people are gay yet your call people who have a theory that you disagree with bigoted. That is ignorant sir, prove homosexuality isn't a menta disorder, then we'll talk.
Click to expand...


We don't have to prove homosexuality isn't a mental disorder- anymore than you have to prove that homosexuality is a mental disorder.

According to every professional medical association in the United States and Britain- homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

The burden is upon you to prove them wrong.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you fucking POS, homosexuality is not like the preference for little children that you keep promoting again and again and again and again and again on this board.  Why don't you take your discussions about pedophilia and leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, you are judging other sexual orientations as repugnant?
> 
> That's rich. And it's hypocrisy.  Equal rights are blind, remember?  That's what your group has been telling us since day one.  Who are you to judge another man's physical pleasure?  Unless you feel that if a majority objects to a certain sexual orientation, it has every right to?
> 
> Well?
Click to expand...


Unlike you Silhouette- we understand the differences between consensual sex between adults- and the rape of a child.

Yes- I judge child rape as repugnant. 

You see no difference between child rape, and adults having consensual sex.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you fucking POS, homosexuality is not like the preference for little children that you keep promoting again and again and again and again and again on this board.  Why don't you take your discussions about pedophilia and leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, you are judging other sexual orientations as repugnant?
> 
> That's rich. And it's hypocrisy.  Equal rights are blind, remember?  That's what your group has been telling us since day one.  Who are you to judge another man's physical pleasure?  Unless you feel that if a majority objects to a certain sexual orientation, it has every right to?
> 
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you Silhouette- we understand the differences between consensual sex between adults- and the rape of a child.
> 
> Yes- I judge child rape as repugnant.
> 
> You see no difference between child rape, and adults having consensual sex.
Click to expand...

Both homosexuality and pedophilia are mental illnesses(it was legally classified as such until the 70s when it was removed as a mental illness through a political vote, not one based on medical/scientific evidence). 

Homosexuals have greater proclivity towards mental ill and anti-social acts like pedophilia, you can't separate the two, they are hand in hand and always have been, this dark side of homosexuality is just hidden by the liberal media and hollywood because it would undermine their campaign of making homosexuality look like a clean cookie cutter monogomous lifestyle when it is full of AIDS, child molestation, drug use, mental illness, and suicide. NAMBLA was part of the "Gay Rights" Movement in the early days, and the initial platform sought to remove age of consent laws. Obviously they wouldn't be able to get rid of consent laws today, but they will lobby to reduce age of consent laws and be successful most likely. The media has been successful in hyper-sexualizing teens so the public will more likely than not be numbed to reducing the age of consent in a couple years.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you fucking POS, homosexuality is not like the preference for little children that you keep promoting again and again and again and again and again on this board.  Why don't you take your discussions about pedophilia and leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, you are judging other sexual orientations as repugnant?
> 
> That's rich. And it's hypocrisy.  Equal rights are blind, remember?  That's what your group has been telling us since day one.  Who are you to judge another man's physical pleasure?  Unless you feel that if a majority objects to a certain sexual orientation, it has every right to?
> 
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you Silhouette- we understand the differences between consensual sex between adults- and the rape of a child.
> 
> Yes- I judge child rape as repugnant.
> 
> You see no difference between child rape, and adults having consensual sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both homosexuality and pedophilia are mental illnesses.
Click to expand...


Correction- pedophilia is a mental illness.

No medical organization considers homosexuality a mental illness. 

Homosexuality was considered a mental illness for exactly 30 years- from 1952 through 1972 - and has not been considered a mental illness in the 40 years since. 

The rest of your post is just the usual homophobic crap trying to call homosexuals pedophiles.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you fucking POS, homosexuality is not like the preference for little children that you keep promoting again and again and again and again and again on this board.  Why don't you take your discussions about pedophilia and leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, you are judging other sexual orientations as repugnant?
> 
> That's rich. And it's hypocrisy.  Equal rights are blind, remember?  That's what your group has been telling us since day one.  Who are you to judge another man's physical pleasure?  Unless you feel that if a majority objects to a certain sexual orientation, it has every right to?
> 
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you Silhouette- we understand the differences between consensual sex between adults- and the rape of a child.
> 
> Yes- I judge child rape as repugnant.
> 
> You see no difference between child rape, and adults having consensual sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both homosexuality and pedophilia are mental illnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correction- pedophilia is a mental illness.
> 
> No medical organization considers homosexuality a mental illness.
> 
> Homosexuality was considered a mental illness for exactly 30 years- from 1952 through 1972 - and has not been considered a mental illness in the 40 years since.
> 
> The rest of your post is just the usual homophobic crap trying to call homosexuals pedophiles.
Click to expand...

Just because tha APA doesn't consider it a mental illness, doesn't make it so. As the video I linked showed, the one you ignored when you decided to make your ill informed post, shows that the decision to no longer classify homosexuality as a mental illness was a political decision, not a medical one made on a body of research or evidence. The APA caved to pressure from the political left and gay lobbyists. This isn't me saying it, this was the President of the APA, who was sympathetic to gay rights during the time period. He states that no evidence was provided when declassifying homosexuality as a mental illness.

You can call it homophobic crap, but it is the truth. Look at the 1972 gay rights platform, easily obtain on google, I'll link it here, or look at harvey milk or bryan singer's escapades with 14-15 year old boys. There is a strong proclivity towards pedophilia among homosexuals, this is just a fact, and it is borne out in study after study, along with proclivities towards other mental illnesses and anti-social behaviors like  suicide, drug use, unsafe sex etc.

The 1972 Gay Rights Platform Platform created at the National Coalitionof Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972

The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex... - PubMed - NCBI

Suicide and suicide risk in lesbian gay bisexual and transgender... - PubMed - NCBI

CDC Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men Gender Risk HIV AIDS

Sexual Behavior in Borderline Personality

Rates and predictors of mental illness in gay men lesbians and bis... - PubMed - NCBI

High prevalence of mental disorders and comorbidity in the Geneva G... - PubMed - NCBI


Sorry, these aren't normal people, they are mentally unbalanced and need psychological help, encouraging their anti-social behavior and discouraging them form treating their underlying mental illness not only hurts them but poisons the greater society.


----------



## dblack

Steinlight said:


> Just because tha APA doesn't consider it a mental illness, doesn't make it so. As the video I linked showed, the one you ignored when you decided to make your ill informed post, shows that the decision to no longer classify homosexuality as a mental illness was a political decision, not a medical one made on a body of research or evidence. The APA caved to pressure from the political left and gay lobbyists. This isn't me saying it, this was the President of the APA, who was sympathetic to gay rights during the time period. He states that no evidence was provided when declassifying homosexuality as a mental illness.
> 
> You can call it homophobic crap, but it is the truth. Look at the 1972 gay rights platform, easily obtain on google, I'll link it here, or look at harvey milk or bryan singer's escapades with 14-15 year old boys. There is a strong proclivity towards pedophilia among homosexuals, this is just a fact, and it is borne out in study after study, along with proclivities towards other mental illnesses and anti-social behaviors like  suicide, drug use, unsafe sex etc.
> 
> The 1972 Gay Rights Platform Platform created at the National Coalitionof Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972
> 
> The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Suicide and suicide risk in lesbian gay bisexual and transgender... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> CDC Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men Gender Risk HIV AIDS
> 
> Sexual Behavior in Borderline Personality
> 
> Rates and predictors of mental illness in gay men lesbians and bis... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> High prevalence of mental disorders and comorbidity in the Geneva G... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> Sorry, these aren't normal people, they are mentally unbalanced and need psychological help, encouraging their anti-social behavior and discouraging them form treating their underlying mental illness not only hurts them but poisons the greater society.



Have you given much thought to what this kind of 'evidence' proves? You're providing statistical evidence correlating one 'anti-social' behavior with others. It's a little like associating alcohol consumption with other criminal activity during prohibition. I assume statistics for the period would show those who drank were more likely to be involved in other kinds of crime. But the reason for that is fairly obvious, and when alcohol was legalized, those statistics normalized.

Keeping homosexuals "in the closet", and branding them as "anti-social" by definition, pushes them into a community and a mindset that indulges criminal behavior in general. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that pushes decent people into dark corners. And when that takes its toll, you want to use it as evidence that they should be pushed even harder. To me, that attitude is far sicker than what you're denouncing.


----------



## Steinlight

dblack said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because tha APA doesn't consider it a mental illness, doesn't make it so. As the video I linked showed, the one you ignored when you decided to make your ill informed post, shows that the decision to no longer classify homosexuality as a mental illness was a political decision, not a medical one made on a body of research or evidence. The APA caved to pressure from the political left and gay lobbyists. This isn't me saying it, this was the President of the APA, who was sympathetic to gay rights during the time period. He states that no evidence was provided when declassifying homosexuality as a mental illness.
> 
> You can call it homophobic crap, but it is the truth. Look at the 1972 gay rights platform, easily obtain on google, I'll link it here, or look at harvey milk or bryan singer's escapades with 14-15 year old boys. There is a strong proclivity towards pedophilia among homosexuals, this is just a fact, and it is borne out in study after study, along with proclivities towards other mental illnesses and anti-social behaviors like  suicide, drug use, unsafe sex etc.
> 
> The 1972 Gay Rights Platform Platform created at the National Coalitionof Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972
> 
> The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Suicide and suicide risk in lesbian gay bisexual and transgender... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> CDC Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men Gender Risk HIV AIDS
> 
> Sexual Behavior in Borderline Personality
> 
> Rates and predictors of mental illness in gay men lesbians and bis... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> High prevalence of mental disorders and comorbidity in the Geneva G... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> Sorry, these aren't normal people, they are mentally unbalanced and need psychological help, encouraging their anti-social behavior and discouraging them form treating their underlying mental illness not only hurts them but poisons the greater society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you given much thought to what this kind of 'evidence' proves? You're providing statistical evidence correlating one 'anti-social' behavior with others. It's a little like associating alcohol consumption with other criminal activity during prohibition. I assume statistics for the period would show those who drank were more likely to be involved in other kinds of crime. But the reason for that is fairly obvious, and when alcohol was legalized, those statistics normalized.
> 
> Keeping homosexuals "in the closet", and branding them as "anti-social" by definition, pushes them into a community and a mindset that indulges criminal behavior in general. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that pushes decent people into dark corners. And when that takes its toll, you want to use it as evidence that they should be pushed even harder. To me, that attitude is far sicker than what you're denouncing.
Click to expand...

You are getting it wrong, it is  underlying mental illness that drives their homosexual and other anti-social behaviors for the most part, not the other way around.

Also, this idea that mental illness or anti-social behavior is caused by environmental factors like discrimination or persecution really has no basis in reality. The studies I offered were conducted around the western world, in places like Australia, Switzerland, the US, and I will link another in the Netherlands, all society that are either becoming increasingly liberal on the matter or were already liberal to begin with on the issue. To suggest for example that a gay man in the US is driven to sexual risk behavior which gives him an increased risk of AIDS because he might have to cross state lines to get married now is a rather lame argument, not one based in fact, but in wild and hopeful speculation on your part. You want to sweep this issue of homosexual mental illness under the rug because it undermines your secular egalitarian agenda. 

Sexual Orientation and Mental and Physical Health Status Findings From a Dutch Population Survey


----------



## dblack

Steinlight said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because tha APA doesn't consider it a mental illness, doesn't make it so. As the video I linked showed, the one you ignored when you decided to make your ill informed post, shows that the decision to no longer classify homosexuality as a mental illness was a political decision, not a medical one made on a body of research or evidence. The APA caved to pressure from the political left and gay lobbyists. This isn't me saying it, this was the President of the APA, who was sympathetic to gay rights during the time period. He states that no evidence was provided when declassifying homosexuality as a mental illness.
> 
> You can call it homophobic crap, but it is the truth. Look at the 1972 gay rights platform, easily obtain on google, I'll link it here, or look at harvey milk or bryan singer's escapades with 14-15 year old boys. There is a strong proclivity towards pedophilia among homosexuals, this is just a fact, and it is borne out in study after study, along with proclivities towards other mental illnesses and anti-social behaviors like  suicide, drug use, unsafe sex etc.
> 
> The 1972 Gay Rights Platform Platform created at the National Coalitionof Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972
> 
> The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Suicide and suicide risk in lesbian gay bisexual and transgender... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> CDC Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men Gender Risk HIV AIDS
> 
> Sexual Behavior in Borderline Personality
> 
> Rates and predictors of mental illness in gay men lesbians and bis... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> High prevalence of mental disorders and comorbidity in the Geneva G... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> Sorry, these aren't normal people, they are mentally unbalanced and need psychological help, encouraging their anti-social behavior and discouraging them form treating their underlying mental illness not only hurts them but poisons the greater society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you given much thought to what this kind of 'evidence' proves? You're providing statistical evidence correlating one 'anti-social' behavior with others. It's a little like associating alcohol consumption with other criminal activity during prohibition. I assume statistics for the period would show those who drank were more likely to be involved in other kinds of crime. But the reason for that is fairly obvious, and when alcohol was legalized, those statistics normalized.
> 
> Keeping homosexuals "in the closet", and branding them as "anti-social" by definition, pushes them into a community and a mindset that indulges criminal behavior in general. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that pushes decent people into dark corners. And when that takes its toll, you want to use it as evidence that they should be pushed even harder. To me, that attitude is far sicker than what you're denouncing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are getting it wrong, it is  underlying mental illness that drives their homosexual and other anti-social behaviors for the most part, not the other way around.
Click to expand...


Well, that's a matter of opinion. You'll have to come up with something more than a correlation to make the case.



> To suggest for example that a gay man in the US is driven to sexual risk behavior which gives him an increased risk of AIDS because he might have to cross state lines to get married now is a rather lame argument, not one based in fact, but in wild and hopeful speculation on your part. You want to sweep this issue of homosexual mental illness under the rug because it undermines your secular egalitarian agenda.



I'm talking about the culture built up over the years where homosexuality was a serious social stigma. Where people were killed for 'coming out'. But even today, the experience of young gay people can be traumatizing. I don't see how you can ignore the difficulties of facing a society that decides for you that you are 'anti-social'. Are gays more susceptible to anti-social behavior because mainstream culture has traditionally marginalized them? Or are they marginalized because of innate anti-social behavior? That's a chicken-and-egg question that requires more than statistical correlation.


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the thread. I'm glad you don't believe gays are all pedophiles. I'm glad you don't care that they marry. But you are still hugely ignorant about homosexuality if you believe it is a mental defect. Your tolerance of same-sex marriage does not excuse your bigotry and ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You admit that science can't tell us why some people are gay yet your call people who have a theory that you disagree with bigoted. That is ignorant sir, prove homosexuality isn't a menta disorder, then we'll talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is not ignorant. Science has not definitively proven where homosexuality has come from, but that does not automatically make every theory potentially valid. For example, just because the jury is still out on homosexuality does that mean if I say gay people come from aliens I should be taken seriously? No. Your mental disorder argument is equally absurd.
> 
> The burden is on you to prove your idiotic claim, not on me to debunk. Good luck with that. In the meantime, chew on this.
> 
> "The APA has declared LBG as not a mental illness or disorder with no identifiable dissimilar psychopathology, as both heterosexual and homosexual behaviors are normal aspects of human sexuality" and that homosexuality is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The APA could just as easily declare the Sun a perfect Vacation Destination.  That  doesn't make it so... .
> 
> Like you the APA is offering their subjective opinion.
> 
> The coolest part of all this is that it all boils down to reasoning... and reason dictates that given the absence of a genetics being responsible, that means that it's not genetics.  It's not like the homo-lobby hasn't poured money on science to find a genetic indicator to no avail... so we know that if were possible to even fabricate such evidence that it would be so fabricated and you gals would be straight up authorized as legitimate Shims...
> 
> Therefore, we know that homosexuality is not even close enough to a genetic issue that it is not even possible to fabricate evidence that it is.
> 
> So... that leaves us with what we always knew... that homosexuality is a learned behavior.  Wherein some 'caring adult' pursued a very young minor child, so young that the child is unable to communicate verbally, thus sufficiently young to have no memory of the crime.
> 
> But there, in the recess of their subconscious is the imprinted instructions that sexual arousal is directed toward whatever gender so lovingly cared for them way back when.
> 
> OH!  And we should probably go back over the whole "proof" thing AGAIN:
> 
> Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
> 
> Now notice where it doesn't say that the 'evidence' or 'argument' doesn't need to convince you of anything... which is really good news for the argument, given that its impossible to convince a relativist of anything that does not serve their subjective needs... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd listen to the opinion and research of some of the brightest scientists in America than your baseless assertions any day. There is numerous evidence that homosexuality is genetic or epigenetic. And there is _zero _evidence that it is a choice. Again, you just post a bunch of BS and ignore anything that contradicts your preexisting bias.
> 
> The better question is did you _choose _to have selective attention, or can you just not help it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The bright minds you listen to are the one's that reaffirm your subjective needs.  Such is the nature of the relativist.
> 
> What you don't seem to understand here is that I have no dog on this hunt.  I could not care less who screws who, be they man or beast or man and beast.
> 
> As far as Im concerned if homosexuality had come up as a genetic thing, it would have made you folks a distinct gender; which Ive always coined as 'shim'.  And as a gender, guess where that would place you?  Square and centered in normal... .
> 
> But, as we both know, there is no genetic component in the sexually abnormal thang.
> 
> Now... pay close attention here, because we've been 450 pages getting to this little key rub:
> 
> That makes the problem "MENTAL".  Meaning that despite what the APA homosexuals voted on, sexual abnormality is now what it has always been and THAT IS: A MENTAL DISORDER... One which is not at ALL distinct from Relativism... and Relativism enjoys perhaps one degree of separation from DELUSION.
> 
> Which you idiots are determined to NORMALIZE!
> 
> Now... as we look around our 'reality' we see debauchery and hedonism run amok... we see insanity... a mouthy minority screamin' to the top of their lungs: "DON'T JUDGE"  "RULES DISCRIMINATE!"  "DO FOR ME OR ELSE!" and "We have a right to screw whoever we want... even it means we have to murder our children!".
> 
> And isn't it the craziest of coincidence that those same individuals are consistently the one's who find no problem with men marrying men and woman marrying woman and both of those groups forcing others to celebrate that through the illicit use police powers, on the basis that ITS THE LAW.
> 
> This demonstrates a thorough disregard for what?
> 
> It's a complete disregard for REASON.  But only the reason which defines the very foundation of this nation.
> 
> And THAT is what happens when one tries to NORMALIZE MENTAL ABNORMALITY... ya end up iving inside THE FAR SIDE CALENDAR!
Click to expand...

Sexual orientation and gender are not the same thing...gay men are men. Gay women are women. Your refusal to acknowledge sexual orientation is your own problem. When I point to people who actual do this for a living, you just dismiss their work. You equivocate and insult, and have selective attention when it comes to scientific research. If a study supports your current beliefs, you support the study. If a study proves you wrong, well, it must be biased or invalid.

Meanwhile, you have nothing more than a string of irrational, baseless assertions.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you fucking POS, homosexuality is not like the preference for little children that you keep promoting again and again and again and again and again on this board.  Why don't you take your discussions about pedophilia and leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, you are judging other sexual orientations as repugnant?
> 
> That's rich. And it's hypocrisy.  Equal rights are blind, remember?  That's what your group has been telling us since day one.  Who are you to judge another man's physical pleasure?  Unless you feel that if a majority objects to a certain sexual orientation, it has every right to?
> 
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you Silhouette- we understand the differences between consensual sex between adults- and the rape of a child.
> 
> Yes- I judge child rape as repugnant.
> 
> You see no difference between child rape, and adults having consensual sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both homosexuality and pedophilia are mental illnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correction- pedophilia is a mental illness.
> 
> No medical organization considers homosexuality a mental illness.
> 
> Homosexuality was considered a mental illness for exactly 30 years- from 1952 through 1972 - and has not been considered a mental illness in the 40 years since.
> 
> The rest of your post is just the usual homophobic crap trying to call homosexuals pedophiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because tha APA doesn't consider it a mental illness, doesn't make it so..
Click to expand...


So if the American Psychiatric Association doesn't consider it a mental illness- and the American Psychological Association doesn't consider it a disorder
_The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals. 

Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments._

Who does consider it a mental disorder?

Not the American Counseling Association 

_The *American Counseling Association* has adopted a resolution that states that it: opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation_

Not the CDC
_
Homosexuality

 is not a mental disorder, but homophobia, stigma, and discrimination have negative effects on the health of MSM, lesbians, and other sexual minorities.
_
Not the World Health Association

Not the British Royal College of Psychiatrists
_
The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is
determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental
factors.1–3 There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of
choice into the origins of sexual orientation.
The College wishes to clarify that homosexuality is not a psychiatric
disorder. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) concluded
there was no scientifi c evidence that homosexuality was a disorder and
removed it from its diagnostic glossary of mental disorders. The International
Classifi cation of Diseases of the World Health Organization followed suit in
1992.
_
Not the Canadian Psychiatric Association

So none of the actual mental health professionals agree that being homosexual is a mental disorder- who should be listen to- you?

And your expertise is?


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> As the video I linked showed, the one you ignored when you decided to make your ill informed post, shows that the decision to no longer classify homosexuality as a mental illness was a political decision, not a medical one made on a body of research or evidence. .



There was never any body of research or evidence that supported putting homosexuality as a mental disorder in the DSM in the first place.

This is the very amusing hypocrisy that I have heard from Silhouette before "They didn't use science!"- because there was no science involved in calling homosexuality a mental disorder- so why does it bother you so much that there was no science to change their minds?

Not a mental disorder until 1952.
Mental disorder from 1952-1974 (32 years)
Not a mental disorder from 1974 (40 years)

Homosexuality went the same way as 'female hysteria' as a mental disorder.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> or look at harvey milks..... escapades with 14-15 year old boys. .



I have looked into claims of such escapades....but I have found no evidence of such escapades except in the feverish imaginations of homophobes.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> [
> There is a strong proclivity towards pedophilia among homosexuals, this is just a fact, and it is borne out in study after studyy.



That is a claim often made- and never proven- by homophobes. 

Fact: 90-98% of all child sexual molestation is by men.
Fact: 65% to 90% of all child molestation the victims are girls.
Fact: The majority of child sexual molestation is by a family member, or trusted family friend. 

Your claims put children at risk. 

Claiming that homosexuals are the pedophiles we need to worry about leaves actual pedophiles free to molest their victims- mostly girls- without scrutiny.

Homophobes endanger children.


----------



## Silhouette

dblack said:


> I'm talking about the culture built up over the years where homosexuality was a serious social stigma. Where people were killed for 'coming out'. But *even today, the experience of young gay people can be traumatizing. I don't see how you can ignore the difficulties of facing a society that decides for you that you are 'anti-social'*. Are gays more susceptible to anti-social behavior because mainstream culture has traditionally marginalized them? Or are they marginalized because of innate anti-social behavior? That's a chicken-and-egg question that requires more than statistical correlation.


 
I knew a "young gay person" once who committed suicide the long way.  So let me tell you a little bit about his trauma..

He was QUITE social with his gayness.  And in that way he also murdered hundreds, possibly even thousands by the time he finished killing himself.

He was born normal and then molested by a man as a boy.  This imprinted him to seek out compulsively [and very promiscuously, typical of child victims of molestation] males for sex.  Meanwhile he kept falling in love with women.  It was pure psychological torture.  Predictably he contracted HIV from raw anonymous sex that is very typical of his type of "gay youth".  To get even with those he perceived that created his angst, he continued to go out and have endless anonymous sex with as many partners as his strength would maintain until his body began wasting away with AIDS.

Back then he still could've gotten reparative therapy he so longed for his condition, and to heal the wounds of child abuse he suffered.  Today however, if he was alive and at that young age again, he would be prohibited by law from doing so in the state where he lived [California].  But in that state no effort is spared to coax "closeted gays" or "bi-curious" youth from the hetero ranks.

Instead, he killed hundreds, maybe thousands before the gun ultimately turned on him.  You all don't want to talk about how common this scenario [at least the compulsive imprinting part of it] is among "young gay men".  And you sure don't want to discuss how at the root of any suicidal thoughts they might have, may be lingering suppressed toxic memories of events where they were assaulted/learned to "love" what was done to them as innocent boys.

Yet the CDC didn't fear this discussion.  They did a survey.  And here's the results they came up with:



> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is *pervasive among gay men* and is so intricately intertwined with *epidemics of* depression, partner abuse, and *childhood sexual abuse* that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about the culture built up over the years where homosexuality was a serious social stigma. Where people were killed for 'coming out'. But *even today, the experience of young gay people can be traumatizing. I don't see how you can ignore the difficulties of facing a society that decides for you that you are 'anti-social'*. Are gays more susceptible to anti-social behavior because mainstream culture has traditionally marginalized them? Or are they marginalized because of innate anti-social behavior? That's a chicken-and-egg question that requires more than statistical correlation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew a "young gay person" once who committed suicide the long way.  So let me tell you a little bit about his trauma..
> 
> He was QUITE social with his gayness.  And in that way he also murdered hundreds, possibly even thousands by the time he finished killing himself.
> 
> He was born normal and then molested by a man as a boy.]
Click to expand...


Ah yes- your 'friend'- your 'friend' the serial killer. 

And you know he was 'born normal' how? 

I know quite a few gay men. 

Not one of them molested as a child.

Not one of them a serial murderer.

Based upon the our differing experiences- how do we know that it was not your homophobia that pushed him over the edge to become a murderer?

Certainly none of my friends did.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> [
> Back then he still could've gotten reparative therapy he so longed for his condition, and to heal the wounds of child abuse he suffered.



If he so longed for 'reparative therapy'- why didn't he get it?

Why didn't he get the therapy for being molested?

As you said- there was nothing preventing him from seeking out and getting any quack 'reparative therapy' he wanted then- except either his inaction- or his families disapproval......


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> [  You all don't want to talk about how common this scenario [at least the compulsive imprinting part of it] is among "young gay men".  And you sure don't want to discuss how at the root of any suicidal thoughts they might have, may be lingering suppressed toxic memories of events where they were assaulted/learned to "love" what was done to them as innocent boys.]



I don't give any credibility to your fairy tales- pun intended. 

I fully support therapy for any child that has been molested- the difference between yourself and me is that I am in favor of therapy to deal with the molestation- you are only in favor of 'therapy' that will cure the gay.


----------



## RKMBrown

Silhouette said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you fucking POS, homosexuality is not like the preference for little children that you keep promoting again and again and again and again and again on this board.  Why don't you take your discussions about pedophilia and leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, you are judging other sexual orientations as repugnant?
> 
> That's rich. And it's hypocrisy.  Equal rights are blind, remember?  That's what your group has been telling us since day one.  Who are you to judge another man's physical pleasure?  Unless you feel that if a majority objects to a certain sexual orientation, it has every right to?
> 
> Well?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am judging sex with pre-pubescent children as repugnant.  If that makes me a hypocrite, I'm a hypocrite.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because tha APA doesn't consider it a mental illness, doesn't make it so. As the video I linked showed, the one you ignored when you decided to make your ill informed post, shows that the decision to no longer classify homosexuality as a mental illness was a political decision, not a medical one made on a body of research or evidence. The APA caved to pressure from the political left and gay lobbyists. This isn't me saying it, this was the President of the APA, who was sympathetic to gay rights during the time period. He states that no evidence was provided when declassifying homosexuality as a mental illness.
> 
> You can call it homophobic crap, but it is the truth. Look at the 1972 gay rights platform, easily obtain on google, I'll link it here, or look at harvey milk or bryan singer's escapades with 14-15 year old boys. There is a strong proclivity towards pedophilia among homosexuals, this is just a fact, and it is borne out in study after study, along with proclivities towards other mental illnesses and anti-social behaviors like  suicide, drug use, unsafe sex etc.
> 
> The 1972 Gay Rights Platform Platform created at the National Coalitionof Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972
> 
> The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Suicide and suicide risk in lesbian gay bisexual and transgender... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> CDC Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men Gender Risk HIV AIDS
> 
> Sexual Behavior in Borderline Personality
> 
> Rates and predictors of mental illness in gay men lesbians and bis... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> High prevalence of mental disorders and comorbidity in the Geneva G... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> Sorry, these aren't normal people, they are mentally unbalanced and need psychological help, encouraging their anti-social behavior and discouraging them form treating their underlying mental illness not only hurts them but poisons the greater society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you given much thought to what this kind of 'evidence' proves? You're providing statistical evidence correlating one 'anti-social' behavior with others. It's a little like associating alcohol consumption with other criminal activity during prohibition. I assume statistics for the period would show those who drank were more likely to be involved in other kinds of crime. But the reason for that is fairly obvious, and when alcohol was legalized, those statistics normalized.
> 
> Keeping homosexuals "in the closet", and branding them as "anti-social" by definition, pushes them into a community and a mindset that indulges criminal behavior in general. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that pushes decent people into dark corners. And when that takes its toll, you want to use it as evidence that they should be pushed even harder. To me, that attitude is far sicker than what you're denouncing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are getting it wrong, it is  underlying mental illness that drives their homosexual and other anti-social behaviors for the most part, not the other way around.
> 
> Also, this idea that mental illness or anti-social behavior is caused by environmental factors like discrimination or persecution really has no basis in reality. y
Click to expand...


Even though essentially the entire medical community disagrees with you. 

For example the CDC


*Experiences with Violence*
Negative attitudes toward gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people put LGBT youth at increased risk for experiences with violence, compared with other students [1]. Violence can include behaviors such as bullying, teasing, harassment, physical assault, and suicide-related behaviors.

A 2009 survey* of more than 7,000 LGBT middle and high school students aged 13–21 years found that in the past year, because of their sexual orientation—

Eight of ten students had been verbally harassed at school;
Four of ten had been physically harassed at school;
Six of ten felt unsafe at school; and
One of five had been the victim of a physical assault at school [2]. 
*Survey participants were recruited online and through community-based groups and service organizations serving LGBT youth.

*Bullying and LGBT Youth*

LGBT youth are also at increased risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors, suicide attempts, and suicide. A nationally representative study of adolescents in grades 7–12 found that lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth were more than twice as likely to have attempted suicide as their heterosexual peers [3]. More studies are needed to better understand the risks for suicide among transgender youth.

Another survey of more than 7,000 seventh- and eighth-grade students from a large Midwestern county examined the effects of school climate and homophobic bullying on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning (LGBQ) youth and found that


LGBQ youth were more likely than heterosexual youth to report high levels of bullying and substance use;
Students who were questioning their sexual orientation reported more bullying, homophobic victimization, unexcused absences from school, drug use, feelings of depression, and suicidal behaviors than either heterosexual or LGB students;
LGB students who did not experience homophobic teasing reported the lowest levels of depression and suicidal feelings of all student groups (heterosexual, LGB, and questioning students); and
All students, regardless of sexual orientation, reported the lowest levels of depression, suicidal feelings, alcohol and marijuana use, and unexcused absences from school when they were
In a positive school climate and
Not experiencing homophobic teasing 


But hey- you clearly have far more training and expertise than doctors and psychologists and other health care professionals....


----------



## Syriusly

RKMBrown said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you fucking POS, homosexuality is not like the preference for little children that you keep promoting again and again and again and again and again on this board.  Why don't you take your discussions about pedophilia and leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, you are judging other sexual orientations as repugnant?
> 
> That's rich. And it's hypocrisy.  Equal rights are blind, remember?  That's what your group has been telling us since day one.  Who are you to judge another man's physical pleasure?  Unless you feel that if a majority objects to a certain sexual orientation, it has every right to?
> 
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I am judging sex with pre-pubescent children as repugnant.  If that makes me a hypocrite, I'm a hypocrite.
Click to expand...


Why is it that homophobes seem unable to distinguish the moral difference between consensual sex between adults- and the rape of a child?

I really don't understand.


----------



## RKMBrown

Syriusly said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you fucking POS, homosexuality is not like the preference for little children that you keep promoting again and again and again and again and again on this board.  Why don't you take your discussions about pedophilia and leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, you are judging other sexual orientations as repugnant?
> 
> That's rich. And it's hypocrisy.  Equal rights are blind, remember?  That's what your group has been telling us since day one.  Who are you to judge another man's physical pleasure?  Unless you feel that if a majority objects to a certain sexual orientation, it has every right to?
> 
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I am judging sex with pre-pubescent children as repugnant.  If that makes me a hypocrite, I'm a hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that homophobes seem unable to distinguish the moral difference between consensual sex between adults- and the rape of a child?
> 
> I really don't understand.
Click to expand...

It's because some Jewish rabbi's decided both were against rabbinical law a few thousand years ago.  It's only been a couple decades since it was illegal to be gay in this country.  It will take a couple more decades before the people who were taught good Christians don't mingle with mixed black/white couples and/or gay people.  I know, I was one of them.  I'm still a Christian, but now I look at these sort of laws as I believe Jesus would, not as the rabbis did.


----------



## ShackledNation

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about the culture built up over the years where homosexuality was a serious social stigma. Where people were killed for 'coming out'. But *even today, the experience of young gay people can be traumatizing. I don't see how you can ignore the difficulties of facing a society that decides for you that you are 'anti-social'*. Are gays more susceptible to anti-social behavior because mainstream culture has traditionally marginalized them? Or are they marginalized because of innate anti-social behavior? That's a chicken-and-egg question that requires more than statistical correlation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew a "young gay person" once who committed suicide the long way.  So let me tell you a little bit about his trauma..
> 
> He was QUITE social with his gayness.  And in that way he also murdered hundreds, possibly even thousands by the time he finished killing himself.
> 
> He was born normal and then molested by a man as a boy.  This imprinted him to seek out compulsively [and very promiscuously, typical of child victims of molestation] males for sex.  Meanwhile he kept falling in love with women.  It was pure psychological torture.  Predictably he contracted HIV from raw anonymous sex that is very typical of his type of "gay youth".  To get even with those he perceived that created his angst, he continued to go out and have endless anonymous sex with as many partners as his strength would maintain until his body began wasting away with AIDS.
> 
> Back then he still could've gotten reparative therapy he so longed for his condition, and to heal the wounds of child abuse he suffered.  Today however, if he was alive and at that young age again, he would be prohibited by law from doing so in the state where he lived [California].  But in that state no effort is spared to coax "closeted gays" or "bi-curious" youth from the hetero ranks.
> 
> Instead, he killed hundreds, maybe thousands before the gun ultimately turned on him.  You all don't want to talk about how common this scenario [at least the compulsive imprinting part of it] is among "young gay men".  And you sure don't want to discuss how at the root of any suicidal thoughts they might have, may be lingering suppressed toxic memories of events where they were assaulted/learned to "love" what was done to them as innocent boys.
> 
> Yet the CDC didn't fear this discussion.  They did a survey.  And here's the results they came up with:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is *pervasive among gay men* and is so intricately intertwined with *epidemics of* depression, partner abuse, and *childhood sexual abuse* that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


No scientifically sound study has linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse. Your story is in no way verifiable as true, and anyone could make up a story like that and post it online. But guess what? Even if it were true your story is purely anecdotal and serves as evidence for nothing.


----------



## Seawytch

Syriusly said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you fucking POS, homosexuality is not like the preference for little children that you keep promoting again and again and again and again and again on this board.  Why don't you take your discussions about pedophilia and leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, you are judging other sexual orientations as repugnant?
> 
> That's rich. And it's hypocrisy.  Equal rights are blind, remember?  That's what your group has been telling us since day one.  Who are you to judge another man's physical pleasure?  Unless you feel that if a majority objects to a certain sexual orientation, it has every right to?
> 
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I am judging sex with pre-pubescent children as repugnant.  If that makes me a hypocrite, I'm a hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that homophobes seem unable to distinguish the moral difference between consensual sex between adults- and the rape of a child?
> 
> I really don't understand.
Click to expand...


Consent, period..,'cause the same dimwits will sashay onto animals and inanimate objects.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> The personification of Relativism:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I don't think that being a heterosexual or being a homosexual is immoral- certainly not by my moral code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is also how they feel about adults pursuing children for sexual gratification.
> 
> See how that works and why they're "THE PROBLEM?"
Click to expand...


No matter how many times you post that, it is STILL A FUCKING LIE.


----------



## WorldWatcher

ShackledNation said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about the culture built up over the years where homosexuality was a serious social stigma. Where people were killed for 'coming out'. But *even today, the experience of young gay people can be traumatizing. I don't see how you can ignore the difficulties of facing a society that decides for you that you are 'anti-social'*. Are gays more susceptible to anti-social behavior because mainstream culture has traditionally marginalized them? Or are they marginalized because of innate anti-social behavior? That's a chicken-and-egg question that requires more than statistical correlation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew a "young gay person" once who committed suicide the long way.  So let me tell you a little bit about his trauma..
> 
> He was QUITE social with his gayness.  And in that way he also murdered hundreds, possibly even thousands by the time he finished killing himself.
> 
> He was born normal and then molested by a man as a boy.  This imprinted him to seek out compulsively [and very promiscuously, typical of child victims of molestation] males for sex.  Meanwhile he kept falling in love with women.  It was pure psychological torture.  Predictably he contracted HIV from raw anonymous sex that is very typical of his type of "gay youth".  To get even with those he perceived that created his angst, he continued to go out and have endless anonymous sex with as many partners as his strength would maintain until his body began wasting away with AIDS.
> 
> Back then he still could've gotten reparative therapy he so longed for his condition, and to heal the wounds of child abuse he suffered.  Today however, if he was alive and at that young age again, he would be prohibited by law from doing so in the state where he lived [California].  But in that state no effort is spared to coax "closeted gays" or "bi-curious" youth from the hetero ranks.
> 
> Instead, he killed hundreds, maybe thousands before the gun ultimately turned on him.  You all don't want to talk about how common this scenario [at least the compulsive imprinting part of it] is among "young gay men".  And you sure don't want to discuss how at the root of any suicidal thoughts they might have, may be lingering suppressed toxic memories of events where they were assaulted/learned to "love" what was done to them as innocent boys.
> 
> Yet the CDC didn't fear this discussion.  They did a survey.  And here's the results they came up with:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is *pervasive among gay men* and is so intricately intertwined with *epidemics of* depression, partner abuse, and *childhood sexual abuse* that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No scientifically sound study has linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse. Your story is in no way verifiable as true, and anyone could make up a story like that and post it online. But guess what? Even if it were true your story is purely anecdotal and serves as evidence for nothing.
Click to expand...


Think of Sil's story of a serial killer that killed hundreds even thousands of people and she blames it on California banning "reparative therapy".  

Now check into California's law.  It was signed in September 2012,  a stay was issued in December barring enforcement.  In August 2013 the 9th Circuit Court upheld the law.  In June *2014* the Supreme Court decided to reject an appeal.

So this serial killer who killed hundreds, possibly thousands - but couldn't get the help that Sil says we denied must of done all that between June 2014 and November 2014 since it wasn't illegal prior to that.

Sniff Test?

>>>>


----------



## ShackledNation

WorldWatcher said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about the culture built up over the years where homosexuality was a serious social stigma. Where people were killed for 'coming out'. But *even today, the experience of young gay people can be traumatizing. I don't see how you can ignore the difficulties of facing a society that decides for you that you are 'anti-social'*. Are gays more susceptible to anti-social behavior because mainstream culture has traditionally marginalized them? Or are they marginalized because of innate anti-social behavior? That's a chicken-and-egg question that requires more than statistical correlation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew a "young gay person" once who committed suicide the long way.  So let me tell you a little bit about his trauma..
> 
> He was QUITE social with his gayness.  And in that way he also murdered hundreds, possibly even thousands by the time he finished killing himself.
> 
> He was born normal and then molested by a man as a boy.  This imprinted him to seek out compulsively [and very promiscuously, typical of child victims of molestation] males for sex.  Meanwhile he kept falling in love with women.  It was pure psychological torture.  Predictably he contracted HIV from raw anonymous sex that is very typical of his type of "gay youth".  To get even with those he perceived that created his angst, he continued to go out and have endless anonymous sex with as many partners as his strength would maintain until his body began wasting away with AIDS.
> 
> Back then he still could've gotten reparative therapy he so longed for his condition, and to heal the wounds of child abuse he suffered.  Today however, if he was alive and at that young age again, he would be prohibited by law from doing so in the state where he lived [California].  But in that state no effort is spared to coax "closeted gays" or "bi-curious" youth from the hetero ranks.
> 
> Instead, he killed hundreds, maybe thousands before the gun ultimately turned on him.  You all don't want to talk about how common this scenario [at least the compulsive imprinting part of it] is among "young gay men".  And you sure don't want to discuss how at the root of any suicidal thoughts they might have, may be lingering suppressed toxic memories of events where they were assaulted/learned to "love" what was done to them as innocent boys.
> 
> Yet the CDC didn't fear this discussion.  They did a survey.  And here's the results they came up with:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is *pervasive among gay men* and is so intricately intertwined with *epidemics of* depression, partner abuse, and *childhood sexual abuse* that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No scientifically sound study has linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse. Your story is in no way verifiable as true, and anyone could make up a story like that and post it online. But guess what? Even if it were true your story is purely anecdotal and serves as evidence for nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think of Sil's story of a serial killer that killed hundreds even thousands of people and she blames it on California banning "reparative therapy".  No realize that California's law wasn't passed until
> 
> Now check into Califoria's law.  It was signed in September 2012,  a stay was issued in December barring enforcement.  In August 2013 the 9th Circuit Court upheld the law.  In June *2014* the Supreme Court decided to reject an appeal.
> 
> So this serial killer who killed hundreds, possibily thousands - but couldn't get the help that Sil says we denied must of done all that between June 2014 and November 2014 since it wasn't illegal prior to that.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

And the news hasn't even covered this serial killer. Conspiracy?!?!? Lol.


----------



## Steinlight

dblack said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because tha APA doesn't consider it a mental illness, doesn't make it so. As the video I linked showed, the one you ignored when you decided to make your ill informed post, shows that the decision to no longer classify homosexuality as a mental illness was a political decision, not a medical one made on a body of research or evidence. The APA caved to pressure from the political left and gay lobbyists. This isn't me saying it, this was the President of the APA, who was sympathetic to gay rights during the time period. He states that no evidence was provided when declassifying homosexuality as a mental illness.
> 
> You can call it homophobic crap, but it is the truth. Look at the 1972 gay rights platform, easily obtain on google, I'll link it here, or look at harvey milk or bryan singer's escapades with 14-15 year old boys. There is a strong proclivity towards pedophilia among homosexuals, this is just a fact, and it is borne out in study after study, along with proclivities towards other mental illnesses and anti-social behaviors like  suicide, drug use, unsafe sex etc.
> 
> The 1972 Gay Rights Platform Platform created at the National Coalitionof Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972
> 
> The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Suicide and suicide risk in lesbian gay bisexual and transgender... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> CDC Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men Gender Risk HIV AIDS
> 
> Sexual Behavior in Borderline Personality
> 
> Rates and predictors of mental illness in gay men lesbians and bis... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> High prevalence of mental disorders and comorbidity in the Geneva G... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> Sorry, these aren't normal people, they are mentally unbalanced and need psychological help, encouraging their anti-social behavior and discouraging them form treating their underlying mental illness not only hurts them but poisons the greater society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you given much thought to what this kind of 'evidence' proves? You're providing statistical evidence correlating one 'anti-social' behavior with others. It's a little like associating alcohol consumption with other criminal activity during prohibition. I assume statistics for the period would show those who drank were more likely to be involved in other kinds of crime. But the reason for that is fairly obvious, and when alcohol was legalized, those statistics normalized.
> 
> Keeping homosexuals "in the closet", and branding them as "anti-social" by definition, pushes them into a community and a mindset that indulges criminal behavior in general. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that pushes decent people into dark corners. And when that takes its toll, you want to use it as evidence that they should be pushed even harder. To me, that attitude is far sicker than what you're denouncing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are getting it wrong, it is  underlying mental illness that drives their homosexual and other anti-social behaviors for the most part, not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's a matter of opinion. You'll have to come up with something more than a correlation to make the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To suggest for example that a gay man in the US is driven to sexual risk behavior which gives him an increased risk of AIDS because he might have to cross state lines to get married now is a rather lame argument, not one based in fact, but in wild and hopeful speculation on your part. You want to sweep this issue of homosexual mental illness under the rug because it undermines your secular egalitarian agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about the culture built up over the years where homosexuality was a serious social stigma. Where people were killed for 'coming out'. But even today, the experience of young gay people can be traumatizing. I don't see how you can ignore the difficulties of facing a society that decides for you that you are 'anti-social'. Are gays more susceptible to anti-social behavior because mainstream culture has traditionally marginalized them? Or are they marginalized because of innate anti-social behavior? That's a chicken-and-egg question that requires more than statistical correlation.
Click to expand...

See, this in an incredibly lazy cop out that shows you didn't even read the studies I cited, not even the conclusions. The studies I cited, more specifically, "Sexual Behavior in Borderline Personality"  and the "Geneva Gay Men's Health Study" concluded a strong prevalence of comorbidity between mental illness and homosexuality, if you have an issue with their conclusions, take those concerns up with those who conducted the study. But you don't have an issue with the studies because you didn't read them. You just breezed over my post and just said, "correlation doesn't equal causation".

The point I am making, and what you ignored, is your claim that societal persecution(though you weren't specific about the manner of persecution  the time or the place) triggers anti-social behavior, as opposed to their underlying mental illnesses which drive their impulsive behavior, really has no validity because as the studies I cite show, there is a uniformity of the data across multiple countries, and some of those countries far more liberal than others cited(like Netherlands vs USA until recently) on the matter of homosexuality and mental illness.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, you are judging other sexual orientations as repugnant?
> 
> That's rich. And it's hypocrisy.  Equal rights are blind, remember?  That's what your group has been telling us since day one.  Who are you to judge another man's physical pleasure?  Unless you feel that if a majority objects to a certain sexual orientation, it has every right to?
> 
> Well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you Silhouette- we understand the differences between consensual sex between adults- and the rape of a child.
> 
> Yes- I judge child rape as repugnant.
> 
> You see no difference between child rape, and adults having consensual sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both homosexuality and pedophilia are mental illnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correction- pedophilia is a mental illness.
> 
> No medical organization considers homosexuality a mental illness.
> 
> Homosexuality was considered a mental illness for exactly 30 years- from 1952 through 1972 - and has not been considered a mental illness in the 40 years since.
> 
> The rest of your post is just the usual homophobic crap trying to call homosexuals pedophiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because tha APA doesn't consider it a mental illness, doesn't make it so..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the American Psychiatric Association doesn't consider it a mental illness- and the American Psychological Association doesn't consider it a disorder
> _The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.
> 
> Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments._
> 
> Who does consider it a mental disorder?
> 
> Not the American Counseling Association
> 
> _The *American Counseling Association* has adopted a resolution that states that it: opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation_
> 
> Not the CDC
> _
> Homosexuality
> 
> is not a mental disorder, but homophobia, stigma, and discrimination have negative effects on the health of MSM, lesbians, and other sexual minorities.
> _
> Not the World Health Association
> 
> Not the British Royal College of Psychiatrists
> _
> The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is
> determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental
> factors.1–3 There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of
> choice into the origins of sexual orientation.
> The College wishes to clarify that homosexuality is not a psychiatric
> disorder. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) concluded
> there was no scientifi c evidence that homosexuality was a disorder and
> removed it from its diagnostic glossary of mental disorders. The International
> Classifi cation of Diseases of the World Health Organization followed suit in
> 1992.
> _
> Not the Canadian Psychiatric Association
> 
> So none of the actual mental health professionals agree that being homosexual is a mental disorder- who should be listen to- you?
> 
> And your expertise is?
Click to expand...

These associations and professional bodies suggest no relation between homosexuality and mental illness, that homosexuality isn't a form of paraphilia. They are stating an opinion which was the point the former president of the APA made, they made a political statement in the spirit of the gay rights and civil rights movement of the period, it wasn't based on a body of research. They claim there is a body of evidence for this contention, but where is it? Can you cite the work, because it contradicts the studies from the PubMed and NCBI databases I cited?


----------



## dblack

Steinlight said:


> See, this in an incredibly lazy cop out that shows you didn't even read the studies I cited, not even the conclusions. The studies I cited, more specifically, "Sexual Behavior in Borderline Personality"  and the "Geneva Gay Men's Health Study" concluded a strong prevalence of comorbidity between mental illness and homosexuality, if you have an issue with their conclusions, take those concerns up with those who conducted the study. But you don't have an issue with the studies because you didn't read them. You just breezed over my post and just said, "correlation doesn't equal causation".



I don't have an issue with their conclusions because they didn't draw any. They cited statistics indicating increased frequency of comorbidity - a correlation.  You're drawing the conclusion that homosexuality causes or leads to those other conditions. And it's just an assumption on your part because you've decided it's "abnormal" and should be discouraged.



> The point I am making, and what you ignored, is your claim that societal persecution(though you weren't specific about the manner of persecution  the time or the place) triggers anti-social behavior, as opposed to their underlying mental illnesses which drive their impulsive, really has no validity because as the studies I cite show, there is a uniformity of the data across multiple countries, and some of those countries far more liberal than others cited(like Netherlands vs USA until recently) on the matter of homosexuality and mental illness.



I'm not ignoring your point. You might be right. But the evidence you offered doesn't prove your case.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the video I linked showed, the one you ignored when you decided to make your ill informed post, shows that the decision to no longer classify homosexuality as a mental illness was a political decision, not a medical one made on a body of research or evidence. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never any body of research or evidence that supported putting homosexuality as a mental disorder in the DSM in the first place.
> 
> This is the very amusing hypocrisy that I have heard from Silhouette before "They didn't use science!"- because there was no science involved in calling homosexuality a mental disorder- so why does it bother you so much that there was no science to change their minds?
> 
> Not a mental disorder until 1952.
> Mental disorder from 1952-1974 (32 years)
> Not a mental disorder from 1974 (40 years)
> 
> Homosexuality went the same way as 'female hysteria' as a mental disorder.
Click to expand...

That isn't a serious argument. The DSM didn't exist until 1952, so of course it homosexuality wasn't listed as a mental disorder in the DSM  until 1952. And to suggest there wasn't a body of research confirming this mainstream view prior to 1952 is false. For example even as early as 1886 with Psychopathia Sexualis by Krafft-Ebbing , there were major studies done on the issue.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> or look at harvey milks..... escapades with 14-15 year old boys. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have looked into claims of such escapades....but I have found no evidence of such escapades except in the feverish imaginations of homophobes.
Click to expand...

No you haven't, or if you are you are ignoring the evidence in front of you. Even verifiable wiki sources admit he had a underage relationship with Jack Mckinley, who was 16 and underage when they started seeing one another. 
Harvey Milk - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There is a strong proclivity towards pedophilia among homosexuals, this is just a fact, and it is borne out in study after studyy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a claim often made- and never proven- by homophobes.
> 
> Fact: 90-98% of all child sexual molestation is by men.
> Fact: 65% to 90% of all child molestation the victims are girls.
> Fact: The majority of child sexual molestation is by a family member, or trusted family friend.
> 
> Your claims put children at risk.
> 
> Claiming that homosexuals are the pedophiles we need to worry about leaves actual pedophiles free to molest their victims- mostly girls- without scrutiny.
> 
> Homophobes endanger children.
Click to expand...

Wow, what conclusive numbers, what an absolute fact, 65  to 90%, how definitive. Also none of the "facts" you list disprove that there is a disproportionate ratio of homosexual pedophiles to heterosexual pedophiles, greater than the homosexual portion of the population. 

Then you go on to make the stupid claim that addressing the disproportionate level of pedophlia among homosexuals will distract individuals from adressing heterosexual pedophiles, as though it is an either or solution. You are a cartoonish liberal caricature that isn't serious when you make statements like that. You aren't a serious person.


----------



## Steinlight

dblack said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, this in an incredibly lazy cop out that shows you didn't even read the studies I cited, not even the conclusions. The studies I cited, more specifically, "Sexual Behavior in Borderline Personality"  and the "Geneva Gay Men's Health Study" concluded a strong prevalence of comorbidity between mental illness and homosexuality, if you have an issue with their conclusions, take those concerns up with those who conducted the study. But you don't have an issue with the studies because you didn't read them. You just breezed over my post and just said, "correlation doesn't equal causation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have an issue with their conclusions because they didn't draw any. They cited statistics indicating increased frequency of comorbidity - a correlation.  You're drawing the conclusion that homosexuality causes or leads to those other conditions. And it's just an assumption on your part because you've decided it's "abnormal" and should be discouraged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point I am making, and what you ignored, is your claim that societal persecution(though you weren't specific about the manner of persecution  the time or the place) triggers anti-social behavior, as opposed to their underlying mental illnesses which drive their impulsive, really has no validity because as the studies I cite show, there is a uniformity of the data across multiple countries, and some of those countries far more liberal than others cited(like Netherlands vs USA until recently) on the matter of homosexuality and mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not ignoring your point. You might be right. But the evidence you offered doesn't prove your case.
Click to expand...




dblack said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, this in an incredibly lazy cop out that shows you didn't even read the studies I cited, not even the conclusions. The studies I cited, more specifically, "Sexual Behavior in Borderline Personality"  and the "Geneva Gay Men's Health Study" concluded a strong prevalence of comorbidity between mental illness and homosexuality, if you have an issue with their conclusions, take those concerns up with those who conducted the study. But you don't have an issue with the studies because you didn't read them. You just breezed over my post and just said, "correlation doesn't equal causation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have an issue with their conclusions because they didn't draw any. They cited statistics indicating increased frequency of comorbidity - a correlation.  You're drawing the conclusion that homosexuality causes or leads to those other conditions. And it's just an assumption on your part because you've decided it's "abnormal" and should be discouraged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point I am making, and what you ignored, is your claim that societal persecution(though you weren't specific about the manner of persecution  the time or the place) triggers anti-social behavior, as opposed to their underlying mental illnesses which drive their impulsive, really has no validity because as the studies I cite show, there is a uniformity of the data across multiple countries, and some of those countries far more liberal than others cited(like Netherlands vs USA until recently) on the matter of homosexuality and mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not ignoring your point. You might be right. But the evidence you offered doesn't prove your case.
Click to expand...

First you say they make no conclusions than you say in the very next sentence they concluded a high prevalence of comorbidity.  You need to get your story straight. Secondly, you have shown you don't have an understanding of comorbidity in psychological terms, the term implies association between disorders, not that disorders merely co-exist as a result of chance.
Contemporary Directions in Psychopathology Scientific Foundations of the ... - Google Books

The evidence I provided discounts your contention  that "persecution" drives the anti social behaviors of homosexuals, as the data is uniform across societies with differing views on homosexuality.


----------



## dblack

Steinlight said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, this in an incredibly lazy cop out that shows you didn't even read the studies I cited, not even the conclusions. The studies I cited, more specifically, "Sexual Behavior in Borderline Personality"  and the "Geneva Gay Men's Health Study" concluded a strong prevalence of comorbidity between mental illness and homosexuality, if you have an issue with their conclusions, take those concerns up with those who conducted the study. But you don't have an issue with the studies because you didn't read them. You just breezed over my post and just said, "correlation doesn't equal causation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have an issue with their conclusions because they didn't draw any. They cited statistics indicating increased frequency of comorbidity - a correlation.  You're drawing the conclusion that homosexuality causes or leads to those other conditions. And it's just an assumption on your part because you've decided it's "abnormal" and should be discouraged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point I am making, and what you ignored, is your claim that societal persecution(though you weren't specific about the manner of persecution  the time or the place) triggers anti-social behavior, as opposed to their underlying mental illnesses which drive their impulsive, really has no validity because as the studies I cite show, there is a uniformity of the data across multiple countries, and some of those countries far more liberal than others cited(like Netherlands vs USA until recently) on the matter of homosexuality and mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not ignoring your point. You might be right. But the evidence you offered doesn't prove your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, this in an incredibly lazy cop out that shows you didn't even read the studies I cited, not even the conclusions. The studies I cited, more specifically, "Sexual Behavior in Borderline Personality"  and the "Geneva Gay Men's Health Study" concluded a strong prevalence of comorbidity between mental illness and homosexuality, if you have an issue with their conclusions, take those concerns up with those who conducted the study. But you don't have an issue with the studies because you didn't read them. You just breezed over my post and just said, "correlation doesn't equal causation".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have an issue with their conclusions because they didn't draw any. They cited statistics indicating increased frequency of comorbidity - a correlation.  You're drawing the conclusion that homosexuality causes or leads to those other conditions. And it's just an assumption on your part because you've decided it's "abnormal" and should be discouraged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point I am making, and what you ignored, is your claim that societal persecution(though you weren't specific about the manner of persecution  the time or the place) triggers anti-social behavior, as opposed to their underlying mental illnesses which drive their impulsive, really has no validity because as the studies I cite show, there is a uniformity of the data across multiple countries, and some of those countries far more liberal than others cited(like Netherlands vs USA until recently) on the matter of homosexuality and mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not ignoring your point. You might be right. But the evidence you offered doesn't prove your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First you say they make no conclusions than you say in the very next sentence they concluded a high prevalence of comorbidity.  You need to get your story straight. Secondly, you have shown you don't have an understanding of comorbidity in psychological terms, the term implies association between disorders, not that disorders merely co-exist as a result of chance.
> Contemporary Directions in Psychopathology Scientific Foundations of the ... - Google Books
> 
> The evidence I provided discounts your contention  that "persecution" drives the anti social behaviors of homosexuals, as the data is uniform across societies with differing views on homosexuality.
Click to expand...


Heh.. okay, you seem to be working with different definitions, which always makes discussion difficult. I don't consider a study to have drawn a useful "conclusion" unless it offers some explanation for the evidence it presents - some claim beyond the observation of a correlation.

Anyway, I don't have much patience for junk science in the name of pursuing a political vendetta. So, I'm gonna let you get on with it. Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the video I linked showed, the one you ignored when you decided to make your ill informed post, shows that the decision to no longer classify homosexuality as a mental illness was a political decision, not a medical one made on a body of research or evidence. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never any body of research or evidence that supported putting homosexuality as a mental disorder in the DSM in the first place.
> 
> This is the very amusing hypocrisy that I have heard from Silhouette before "They didn't use science!"- because there was no science involved in calling homosexuality a mental disorder- so why does it bother you so much that there was no science to change their minds?
> 
> Not a mental disorder until 1952.
> Mental disorder from 1952-1974 (32 years)
> Not a mental disorder from 1974 (40 years)
> 
> Homosexuality went the same way as 'female hysteria' as a mental disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't a serious argument. The DSM didn't exist until 1952, so of course it homosexuality wasn't listed as a mental disorder in the DSM  until 1952. And to suggest there wasn't a body of research confirming this mainstream view prior to 1952 is false. For example even as early as 1886 with Psychopathia Sexualis by Krafft-Ebbing , there were major studies done on the issue.
Click to expand...


Actually, not only a serious argument, but thems the facts. 

Homosexuality went the same way as a 'mental disorder' as 'female hysteria'. 

There was- and is no 'hard scientific' evidence to support calling homosexuality a mental disorder.

And that is why it has not been considered one for 40 years.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> or look at harvey milks..... escapades with 14-15 year old boys. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have looked into claims of such escapades....but I have found no evidence of such escapades except in the feverish imaginations of homophobes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you haven't, or if you are you are ignoring the evidence in front of you. Even verifiable wiki sources admit he had a underage relationship with Jack Mckinley, who was 16 and underage when they started seeing one another.
> Harvey Milk - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Feel free to prove your statement
_look at harvey milks..... escapades with 14-15 year old boys.
_
So where is the evidence of Milk having escapades with 14 and 15 year old boys?


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There is a strong proclivity towards pedophilia among homosexuals, this is just a fact, and it is borne out in study after studyy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a claim often made- and never proven- by homophobes.
> 
> Fact: 90-98% of all child sexual molestation is by men.
> Fact: 65% to 90% of all child molestation the victims are girls.
> Fact: The majority of child sexual molestation is by a family member, or trusted family friend.
> 
> Your claims put children at risk.
> 
> Claiming that homosexuals are the pedophiles we need to worry about leaves actual pedophiles free to molest their victims- mostly girls- without scrutiny.
> 
> Homophobes endanger children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, what conclusive numbers, what an absolute fact, 65  to 90%, how definitive. Also none of the "facts" you list disprove that there is a disproportionate ratio of homosexual pedophiles to heterosexual pedophiles, greater than the homosexual portion of the population.
> 
> Then you go on to make the stupid claim that addressing the disproportionate level of pedophlia among homosexuals will distract individuals from adressing heterosexual pedophiles, as though it is an either or solution. You are a cartoonish liberal caricature that isn't serious when you make statements like that. You aren't a serious person.
Click to expand...


First of all, let me point out that you haven't supported any of your claims.

Then lets go to the facts
http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

Fact: 90-98% of all child sexual molestation is by men.
Fact: 65% to 90% of all child molestation the victims are girls.

So the facts are that the majority of child molestation is by men to girls.

You trying to paint homosexuals as pedophiles, puts children, like my daughter in danger. 

You would have people fearing all homosexuals, while in reality the most likely child molester is that married stepfather, or married minister or married teacher. 

Your type of homophobia puts children at risk. 

And you don't care.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, this in an incredibly lazy cop out that shows you didn't even read the studies I cited, not even the conclusions. The studies I cited, more specifically, "Sexual Behavior in Borderline Personality"  and the "Geneva Gay Men's Health Study" concluded a strong prevalence of comorbidity between mental illness and homosexuality, if you have an issue with their conclusions, take those concerns up with those who conducted the study. But you don't have an issue with the studies because you didn't read them. You just breezed over my post and just said, "correlation doesn't equal causation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have an issue with their conclusions because they didn't draw any. They cited statistics indicating increased frequency of comorbidity - a correlation.  You're drawing the conclusion that homosexuality causes or leads to those other conditions. And it's just an assumption on your part because you've decided it's "abnormal" and should be discouraged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point I am making, and what you ignored, is your claim that societal persecution(though you weren't specific about the manner of persecution  the time or the place) triggers anti-social behavior, as opposed to their underlying mental illnesses which drive their impulsive, really has no validity because as the studies I cite show, there is a uniformity of the data across multiple countries, and some of those countries far more liberal than others cited(like Netherlands vs USA until recently) on the matter of homosexuality and mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not ignoring your point. You might be right. But the evidence you offered doesn't prove your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, this in an incredibly lazy cop out that shows you didn't even read the studies I cited, not even the conclusions. The studies I cited, more specifically, "Sexual Behavior in Borderline Personality"  and the "Geneva Gay Men's Health Study" concluded a strong prevalence of comorbidity between mental illness and homosexuality, if you have an issue with their conclusions, take those concerns up with those who conducted the study. But you don't have an issue with the studies because you didn't read them. You just breezed over my post and just said, "correlation doesn't equal causation".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have an issue with their conclusions because they didn't draw any. They cited statistics indicating increased frequency of comorbidity - a correlation.  You're drawing the conclusion that homosexuality causes or leads to those other conditions. And it's just an assumption on your part because you've decided it's "abnormal" and should be discouraged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point I am making, and what you ignored, is your claim that societal persecution(though you weren't specific about the manner of persecution  the time or the place) triggers anti-social behavior, as opposed to their underlying mental illnesses which drive their impulsive, really has no validity because as the studies I cite show, there is a uniformity of the data across multiple countries, and some of those countries far more liberal than others cited(like Netherlands vs USA until recently) on the matter of homosexuality and mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not ignoring your point. You might be right. But the evidence you offered doesn't prove your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First you say they make no conclusions than you say in the very next sentence they concluded a high prevalence of comorbidity.  You need to get your story straight. Secondly, you have shown you don't have an understanding of comorbidity in psychological terms, the term implies association between disorders, not that disorders merely co-exist as a result of chance.
> Contemporary Directions in Psychopathology Scientific Foundations of the ... - Google Books
> 
> The evidence I provided discounts your contention  that "persecution" drives the anti social behaviors of homosexuals, as the data is uniform across societies with differing views on homosexuality.
Click to expand...


No- what is amusing is that you declare that since homosexuals experience more mental disorders that means homosexuality is therefore a mental disorder- with no proof of causality.

Here let me help you with this:

Causality(in research) a relationship between one phenomenon or event (A) and another (B) in which A precedes and causes B. The direction of influence and the nature of the effect are predictable and reproducible and may be empirically observed. Causality is difficult to prove. Some social scientists contend that it is impossible to prove a causal relationship.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> ...Here let me help you with this:
> 
> *Causality(in research) a relationship between one phenomenon or event (A) and another (B) in which A precedes and causes B. The direction of influence and the nature of the effect are predictable and reproducible and may be empirically observed.* Causality is difficult to prove. Some social scientists contend that it is impossible to prove a causal relationship.


 
Here's some causal relationships that scientists have observed and come to a consensus on:



> Mayo Clinic 2007
> One of the most obvious examples of an environmentalfactor that increases the chances of an individual becomingan offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
> why the “abusedabusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,in which the abused child is trying to gain a newidentity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexualarousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuseleading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf


 


> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...


 
And with over 300 references to peer-reviewed studies supporting the conclusions..


> http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
> *Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review*
> James G. Pfaus,
> Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
> _Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
> University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada_
> Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You admit that science can't tell us why some people are gay yet your call people who have a theory that you disagree with bigoted. That is ignorant sir, prove homosexuality isn't a menta disorder, then we'll talk.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not ignorant. Science has not definitively proven where homosexuality has come from, but that does not automatically make every theory potentially valid. For example, just because the jury is still out on homosexuality does that mean if I say gay people come from aliens I should be taken seriously? No. Your mental disorder argument is equally absurd.
> 
> The burden is on you to prove your idiotic claim, not on me to debunk. Good luck with that. In the meantime, chew on this.
> 
> "The APA has declared LBG as not a mental illness or disorder with no identifiable dissimilar psychopathology, as both heterosexual and homosexual behaviors are normal aspects of human sexuality" and that homosexuality is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The APA could just as easily declare the Sun a perfect Vacation Destination.  That  doesn't make it so... .
> 
> Like you the APA is offering their subjective opinion.
> 
> The coolest part of all this is that it all boils down to reasoning... and reason dictates that given the absence of a genetics being responsible, that means that it's not genetics.  It's not like the homo-lobby hasn't poured money on science to find a genetic indicator to no avail... so we know that if were possible to even fabricate such evidence that it would be so fabricated and you gals would be straight up authorized as legitimate Shims...
> 
> Therefore, we know that homosexuality is not even close enough to a genetic issue that it is not even possible to fabricate evidence that it is.
> 
> So... that leaves us with what we always knew... that homosexuality is a learned behavior.  Wherein some 'caring adult' pursued a very young minor child, so young that the child is unable to communicate verbally, thus sufficiently young to have no memory of the crime.
> 
> But there, in the recess of their subconscious is the imprinted instructions that sexual arousal is directed toward whatever gender so lovingly cared for them way back when.
> 
> OH!  And we should probably go back over the whole "proof" thing AGAIN:
> 
> Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
> 
> Now notice where it doesn't say that the 'evidence' or 'argument' doesn't need to convince you of anything... which is really good news for the argument, given that its impossible to convince a relativist of anything that does not serve their subjective needs... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd listen to the opinion and research of some of the brightest scientists in America than your baseless assertions any day. There is numerous evidence that homosexuality is genetic or epigenetic. And there is _zero _evidence that it is a choice. Again, you just post a bunch of BS and ignore anything that contradicts your preexisting bias.
> 
> The better question is did you _choose _to have selective attention, or can you just not help it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The bright minds you listen to are the one's that reaffirm your subjective needs.  Such is the nature of the relativist.
> 
> What you don't seem to understand here is that I have no dog on this hunt.  I could not care less who screws who, be they man or beast or man and beast.
> 
> As far as Im concerned if homosexuality had come up as a genetic thing, it would have made you folks a distinct gender; which Ive always coined as 'shim'.  And as a gender, guess where that would place you?  Square and centered in normal... .
> 
> But, as we both know, there is no genetic component in the sexually abnormal thang.
> 
> Now... pay close attention here, because we've been 450 pages getting to this little key rub:
> 
> That makes the problem "MENTAL".  Meaning that despite what the APA homosexuals voted on, sexual abnormality is now what it has always been and THAT IS: A MENTAL DISORDER... One which is not at ALL distinct from Relativism... and Relativism enjoys perhaps one degree of separation from DELUSION.
> 
> Which you idiots are determined to NORMALIZE!
> 
> Now... as we look around our 'reality' we see debauchery and hedonism run amok... we see insanity... a mouthy minority screamin' to the top of their lungs: "DON'T JUDGE"  "RULES DISCRIMINATE!"  "DO FOR ME OR ELSE!" and "We have a right to screw whoever we want... even it means we have to murder our children!".
> 
> And isn't it the craziest of coincidence that those same individuals are consistently the one's who find no problem with men marrying men and woman marrying woman and both of those groups forcing others to celebrate that through the illicit use police powers, on the basis that ITS THE LAW.
> 
> This demonstrates a thorough disregard for what?
> 
> It's a complete disregard for REASON.  But only the reason which defines the very foundation of this nation.
> 
> And THAT is what happens when one tries to NORMALIZE MENTAL ABNORMALITY... ya end up iving inside THE FAR SIDE CALENDAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sexual orientation and gender are not the same thing...gay men are men. Gay women are women. Your refusal to acknowledge sexual orientation is your own problem. When I point to people who actual do this for a living, you just dismiss their work. You equivocate and insult, and have selective attention when it comes to scientific research. If a study supports your current beliefs, you support the study. If a study proves you wrong, well, it must be biased or invalid.
> 
> Meanwhile, you have nothing more than a string of irrational, baseless assertions.
Click to expand...


Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about the culture built up over the years where homosexuality was a serious social stigma. Where people were killed for 'coming out'. But *even today, the experience of young gay people can be traumatizing. I don't see how you can ignore the difficulties of facing a society that decides for you that you are 'anti-social'*. Are gays more susceptible to anti-social behavior because mainstream culture has traditionally marginalized them? Or are they marginalized because of innate anti-social behavior? That's a chicken-and-egg question that requires more than statistical correlation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew a "young gay person" once who committed suicide the long way.  So let me tell you a little bit about his trauma..
> 
> He was QUITE social with his gayness.  And in that way he also murdered hundreds, possibly even thousands by the time he finished killing himself.
> 
> He was born normal and then molested by a man as a boy.  This imprinted him to seek out compulsively [and very promiscuously, typical of child victims of molestation] males for sex.  Meanwhile he kept falling in love with women.  It was pure psychological torture.  Predictably he contracted HIV from raw anonymous sex that is very typical of his type of "gay youth".  To get even with those he perceived that created his angst, he continued to go out and have endless anonymous sex with as many partners as his strength would maintain until his body began wasting away with AIDS.
> 
> Back then he still could've gotten reparative therapy he so longed for his condition, and to heal the wounds of child abuse he suffered.  Today however, if he was alive and at that young age again, he would be prohibited by law from doing so in the state where he lived [California].  But in that state no effort is spared to coax "closeted gays" or "bi-curious" youth from the hetero ranks.
> 
> Instead, he killed hundreds, maybe thousands before the gun ultimately turned on him.  You all don't want to talk about how common this scenario [at least the compulsive imprinting part of it] is among "young gay men".  And you sure don't want to discuss how at the root of any suicidal thoughts they might have, may be lingering suppressed toxic memories of events where they were assaulted/learned to "love" what was done to them as innocent boys.
> 
> Yet the CDC didn't fear this discussion.  They did a survey.  And here's the results they came up with:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is *pervasive among gay men* and is so intricately intertwined with *epidemics of* depression, partner abuse, and *childhood sexual abuse* that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No scientifically sound study has linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse. Your story is in no way verifiable as true, and anyone could make up a story like that and post it online. But guess what? Even if it were true your story is purely anecdotal and serves as evidence for nothing.
Click to expand...


Your denial of evidence neither stands as a viable contest of such or relevant to such.

In truth, there is no evidence that homosexuality is anything BUT an imprint of early molestation, by a loving and caring adult.

The fact is that homosexuality behavior, which is the only relevant issue here, is a CHOICE... one which homosexuals on this thread have already freely admitted.  SOooo... well, you know.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Here let me help you with this:
> 
> *Causality(in research) a relationship between one phenomenon or event (A) and another (B) in which A precedes and causes B. The direction of influence and the nature of the effect are predictable and reproducible and may be empirically observed.* Causality is difficult to prove. Some social scientists contend that it is impossible to prove a causal relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some causal relationships that scientists have observed and come to a consensus on:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mayo Clinic 2007
> One of the most obvious examples of an environmentalfactor that increases the chances of an individual becomingan offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
> why the “abusedabusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,in which the abused child is trying to gain a newidentity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexualarousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuseleading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And with over 300 references to peer-reviewed studies supporting the conclusions..
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
> *Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review*
> James G. Pfaus,
> Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
> _Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
> University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada_
> Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Yes, it turns out that the sexually abnormal think abnormally... thus where they are known to express one deviant expression, they will be quite likely to a express another... thus the extremely high rate of those known to accept  sexually abnormal behavior as a homosexual, having accepted sexually abnormal behavior of pursuing children for sexual gratification.   

The odds increase exponentially where such individuals accept sexual abnormality through pursing gratification through pornography.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Here let me help you with this:
> 
> *Causality(in research) a relationship between one phenomenon or event (A) and another (B) in which A precedes and causes B. The direction of influence and the nature of the effect are predictable and reproducible and may be empirically observed.* Causality is difficult to prove. Some social scientists contend that it is impossible to prove a causal relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some causal relationships that scientists have observed and come to a consensus on:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mayo Clinic 2007
> One of the most obvious examples of an environmentalfactor that increases the chances of an individual becomingan offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
> why the “abusedabusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,in which the abused child is trying to gain a newidentity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexualarousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuseleading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And with over 300 references to peer-reviewed studies supporting the conclusions..
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
> *Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review*
> James G. Pfaus,
> Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
> _Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
> University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada_
> Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it turns out that the sexually abnormal think abnormally... thus where they are known to express one deviant expression, they will be quite likely to a express another... thus the extremely high rate of those known to accept  sexually abnormal behavior as a homosexual, having accepted sexually abnormal behavior of pursuing children for sexual gratification.
> 
> The odds increase exponentially where such individuals accept sexual abnormality through pursing gratification through pornography.
Click to expand...

j
More bat guano crazy posts by Keys.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Here let me help you with this:
> 
> *Causality(in research) a relationship between one phenomenon or event (A) and another (B) in which A precedes and causes B. The direction of influence and the nature of the effect are predictable and reproducible and may be empirically observed.* Causality is difficult to prove. Some social scientists contend that it is impossible to prove a causal relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some causal relationships that scientists have observed and come to a consensus on:
> e]
Click to expand...


Once again Silhouette displaying her lack of understanding of even simple English.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Once again Silhouette displaying her lack of understanding of even simple English.


 
Speaking of that.  Do your english skills allow you to render meaning out of the poll results above to the way the questions were worded?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The poll results are meaningless in nuance and context in relationship to American culture.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> The poll results are meaningless in nuance and context in relationship to American culture.


Then all polls are meaningless in the nuance and context in relationship to American culture.

Funny though how the numbers here on this thread are lining up pretty much the same on this thread. Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum  Pollsters call that a "trend" if my rusty statistics memory cells serve me:


----------



## deltex1

Jake gets around on these threads...but always with a quare outlook on everything.


----------



## Silhouette

Here's how England is handling the poll results at the top...and Jude 1 of the New Testament.....the mandate to earnestly contend for the faith with regards to keeping homosexual culture from spreading like in Sodom....or else you get the pit of fire for eternity for failing to put a clear and compassionate stop to that spread..



> Bishops in the Church of England have issued new guidance warning clergy they should not bless couples in same-sex marriages, after the idea was recommended in an internal report last year....
> 
> ..."Services of blessing should not be provided. Clergy should respond pastorally and sensitively in other ways," said the guidance, drawn up at a meeting on Thursday, according to the AFP news agency.
> The same-sex marriage law bans the established Churches of England and Wales - which believe marriage can only officially take place between a man and a woman - from conducting ceremonies...  Church of England rejects same-sex blessings - Europe - Al Jazeera English


 
Continued...



> In their guidance, the bishops also said that people in a same-sex marriage should not be ordained as bishops, priests and deacons, nor should those in the ministry enter gay marriage.
> Gay men and lesbians are welcomed into the Church, but the bishops said: "The House is not willing for those who are in a same-sex marriage to be ordained to any of the three orders of ministry.


 
OK, that checks out with Jude 1: extend compassion and make a difference..but check that at the point the homosexual insists you embrace or even promote his behaviors..  but then there's this:



> But a report last year on the Church's policy on sexuality, commissioned by the House of Bishops, said that in some circumstances a priest "should be free to mark the formation of a permanent same-sex relationship in a public service", without any obligation to do so.


 
Hmmm....does this sound like "earnestly contending" to keep that spread in check?  Or diet-PC-contending?  Jude 1 was quite specific and the clergy is erring on the side of secularism instead of God IMHO.

Fear of public rebuke cannot trump duty to God.  It is this PC-pandering that has always gotten the various churches into trouble of faith.


..


----------



## ShackledNation

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about the culture built up over the years where homosexuality was a serious social stigma. Where people were killed for 'coming out'. But *even today, the experience of young gay people can be traumatizing. I don't see how you can ignore the difficulties of facing a society that decides for you that you are 'anti-social'*. Are gays more susceptible to anti-social behavior because mainstream culture has traditionally marginalized them? Or are they marginalized because of innate anti-social behavior? That's a chicken-and-egg question that requires more than statistical correlation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew a "young gay person" once who committed suicide the long way.  So let me tell you a little bit about his trauma..
> 
> He was QUITE social with his gayness.  And in that way he also murdered hundreds, possibly even thousands by the time he finished killing himself.
> 
> He was born normal and then molested by a man as a boy.  This imprinted him to seek out compulsively [and very promiscuously, typical of child victims of molestation] males for sex.  Meanwhile he kept falling in love with women.  It was pure psychological torture.  Predictably he contracted HIV from raw anonymous sex that is very typical of his type of "gay youth".  To get even with those he perceived that created his angst, he continued to go out and have endless anonymous sex with as many partners as his strength would maintain until his body began wasting away with AIDS.
> 
> Back then he still could've gotten reparative therapy he so longed for his condition, and to heal the wounds of child abuse he suffered.  Today however, if he was alive and at that young age again, he would be prohibited by law from doing so in the state where he lived [California].  But in that state no effort is spared to coax "closeted gays" or "bi-curious" youth from the hetero ranks.
> 
> Instead, he killed hundreds, maybe thousands before the gun ultimately turned on him.  You all don't want to talk about how common this scenario [at least the compulsive imprinting part of it] is among "young gay men".  And you sure don't want to discuss how at the root of any suicidal thoughts they might have, may be lingering suppressed toxic memories of events where they were assaulted/learned to "love" what was done to them as innocent boys.
> 
> Yet the CDC didn't fear this discussion.  They did a survey.  And here's the results they came up with:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is *pervasive among gay men* and is so intricately intertwined with *epidemics of* depression, partner abuse, and *childhood sexual abuse* that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No scientifically sound study has linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse. Your story is in no way verifiable as true, and anyone could make up a story like that and post it online. But guess what? Even if it were true your story is purely anecdotal and serves as evidence for nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your denial of evidence neither stands as a viable contest of such or relevant to such.
> 
> In truth, there is no evidence that homosexuality is anything BUT an imprint of early molestation, by a loving and caring adult.
> 
> The fact is that homosexuality behavior, which is the only relevant issue here, is a CHOICE... one which homosexuals on this thread have already freely admitted.  SOooo... well, you know.
Click to expand...

You have given no evidence for me to deny. Perhaps you have mistaken your baseless assertions for evidence? In truth, there is no evidence that homosexuality has anything to do with molestation, as the source I gave you demonstrates. Meanwhile, you just have your ignorant opinion, nothing more. No surprise there.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again Silhouette displaying her lack of understanding of even simple English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of that.  Do your english skills allow you to render meaning out of the poll results above to the way the questions were worded?
Click to expand...


My english skills enable me to say that churches should not be forced to accomodate any weddings- for whatever reasons.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Here's how England is handling the poll results at the top..
> 
> ..



You seem to think that England is reading your 'poll'......


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll results are meaningless in nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
> 
> 
> 
> Then all polls are meaningless in the nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
> :
Click to expand...


No- your poll is meaningless other than to find out how the people responding here on the boards think about forcing churches to marry homosexuals. 

It is statistically irrelevant, even within the population of the posters here on USMB.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll results are meaningless in nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
> 
> 
> 
> Then all polls are meaningless in the nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
> :
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No- *your poll* is meaningless other than to find out how the people responding here on the boards think about forcing churches to marry homosexuals.
> 
> It is statistically irrelevant, even within the population of the posters here on USMB.
Click to expand...

 
Again, and for the HUNDREDTH time, it is NOT MY POLL.  I am NOT the OP of this thread! 

It is however, one of the most, if not THE most popular polls/topics in USMB history and lookie how people weighed in...  and to how the questions were phrased.  It wasn't a mediocre "no".  It was a "oh HELL NO!" with fortitude.   That might be a clue as to why dems got their butt whipped in the middle bloc voting against them last week (not for the GOP).  That group was voting against something palpable clinging to the democratic label like a repugnant dingleberry.  The poll is your "Here's your sign"...  82% is IMPRESSIVE...


----------



## Skylar

> Speaking of that. Do your english skills allow you to render meaning out of the poll results above to the way the questions were worded?



By 'above the way the questions were worded', you mean whatever you choose to imagine?

Again, the polls showing support for gay marriage are overwhelming. There are literally dozens of them. You ignore them all in favor of your imagination. But do you understand why your imagination doesn't actually effect the outside world?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll results are meaningless in nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
> 
> 
> 
> Then all polls are meaningless in the nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
> :
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No- *your poll* is meaningless other than to find out how the people responding here on the boards think about forcing churches to marry homosexuals.
> 
> It is statistically irrelevant, even within the population of the posters here on USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, and for the HUNDREDTH time, it is NOT MY POLL.  I am NOT the OP of this thread!
> 
> It is however, one of the most, if not THE most popular polls/topics in USMB history and lookie how people weighed in...  and to how the questions were phrased.  It wasn't a mediocre "no".  It was a "oh HELL NO!" with fortitude.   That might be a clue as to why dems got their butt whipped in the middle bloc voting against them last week (not for the GOP).  That group was voting against something palpable clinging to the democratic label like a repugnant dingleberry.  The poll is your "Here's your sign"...  82% is IMPRESSIVE...
Click to expand...


It is your poll in that I was referring to the imaginary poll you keep referring to- not the actual poll from this thread.


----------



## Silhouette

It's hardly "imaginary".  Look at the poll!


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Speaking of that. Do your english skills allow you to render meaning out of the poll results above to the way the questions were worded?
> 
> 
> 
> By 'above the way the questions were worded', you mean whatever you choose to imagine?
> Again, *the polls showing support for gay marriage are overwhelming. There are literally dozens of them*. You ignore them all in favor of your imagination. But do you understand why your imagination doesn't actually effect the outside world?
Click to expand...

There are polls and there are polls..

Unlike those polls you cite, the one on this thread is unique in that this thread allows you to see exactly how the questions were phrased. Sentences can be and often are manipulated in normal polling outlets. And that is because they are misleading on purpose. The pollsters know that virtually nobody will check up on how those questions were phrased. However here they can.

Unique also to here is a voluntary nature of the poll. People flocked to it. It didn't flock to them, like most polls that can and often do hand-pick a target "group of Americans" to favor a certain outcome (like polling a gay bar in a blue district to find "how most Americans feel"..). This is a poll where the topic was so important to people that a stunning record was set for USMB polls in the turnout, voluntary, and how they voted.

Oh what a difference context makes in polling...and how that affected the 2014 midterms as a result...


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> It's hardly "imaginary".  Look at the poll!



*This poll?*
*Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?*

*Note it does not ask "Do you support homosexual weddings".*

*Hence your imaginary poll is the one where you imagine there is a poll that is asking "do you support homosexual weddings"*

As an example- I am opposed to Churches being forced to accomodate homosexual, jewish or Muslim weddings.

But I support homosexual, jewish and muslim marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of that. Do your english skills allow you to render meaning out of the poll results above to the way the questions were worded?
> 
> 
> 
> By 'above the way the questions were worded', you mean whatever you choose to imagine?
> Again, *the polls showing support for gay marriage are overwhelming. There are literally dozens of them*. You ignore them all in favor of your imagination. But do you understand why your imagination doesn't actually effect the outside world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are polls and there are polls..t...
Click to expand...


And the polls he cites are reputable polls based upon scientific sampling.

The one you keep mentioning doesn't ask about support for gay marriage at all, and is not reputable, and is not based upon scientific sampling.


----------



## Skylar

> t is however, one of the most, if not THE most popular polls/topics in USMB history and lookie how people weighed in... and to how the questions were phrased. It wasn't a mediocre "no". It was a "oh HELL NO!" with fortitude. That might be a clue as to why dems got their butt whipped in the middle bloc voting against them last week (not for the GOP). That group was voting against something palpable clinging to the democratic label like a repugnant dingleberry. The poll is your "Here's your sign"... 82% is IMPRESSIVE...



We've been through this, Silo:

1) The straw poll doesn't ask about support for gay marriage. You insist it does. You're obvious wrong. 

2) The poll  is a straw poll. One of the most unreliable polling methods that exist because it involves only interested parties. Ron Paul, for example, won every straw poll in his 2008 presidential bid. Most by unheard of margins. But didn't carry a single state or come close to it. Which is why no credible pollster uses straw polls...as they're fantastically unreliable.

3) Your straw poll allows for multiple voting. As you've admitted yourself, anyone can create a new sock puppet (fake account). And every sock gets to vote. So we have no idea how many votes are from different people. And how many are the same person voting over and over again. Where in randomized polls ( like Gallup), each person only gets to vote once.

4) Your polling sample is too small. You have about 130 voters. That's a polling sample far beyond the threshold of any credible national poll. Most polls start at around 800 and work their way up to 3000.

5) Your straw poll is singular. So...even if your straw poll asked about support for gay marriage (which it doesn't), even if it wasn't a straw poll, but a randomized polling sample (which it isn't) even if you had a larger polling sample (which you don't), your straw poll would still be an outlier. As there are literally DOZENS of polls asking directly about support for gay marriage that show strong support. With margins of support being between 12 and 19 points. And growing. If a few dozen polls point in one direction, and one points in the other.....the 'other' is an outlier. And of no particular statistical significance. 

6) Poll after poll after poll after poll (about 3 and half dozen at last count) show strong support for gay marriage. Gallup, Reuters, AP, NBC, CBS, Rasmussen, every major polling agency. And these polls avoid the blunders of your strawpoll. 

First, they are randomized, meaning that you get a generic cross section of the population rather than exclusively interested parties. 
Second, each respondent only gets to vote once.
Third, the polls ask about support for gay marriage. Your strawpoll never does.
Fourth, they have statistically significant polling samples.
Fifth, they all point in the same direction. The consistency of outcome, with almost all of the results in the same stastistical range strongly indicate that you're getting accurate results. 

And you know all of this. But you cling to your delusion that all the scientific polls MUST be wrong. And only a random strawpoll on a message board can be right. 

Um, no.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hardly "imaginary".  Look at the poll!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This poll?*
> *Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?*
> 
> *Note it does not ask "Do you support homosexual weddings".*
> 
> *Hence your imaginary poll is the one where you imagine there is a poll that is asking "do you support homosexual weddings"*
> 
> As an example- I am opposed to Churches being forced to accomodate homosexual, jewish or Muslim weddings.
> 
> But I support homosexual, jewish and muslim marriage.
Click to expand...


Exactly. The poll doesn't ask about support for gay marriage. Silho's conclusion that it does is refuted by merely looking to the top of the page and reading the question.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll results are meaningless in nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
> 
> 
> 
> Then all polls are meaningless in the nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
> :
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No- *your poll* is meaningless other than to find out how the people responding here on the boards think about forcing churches to marry homosexuals.
> 
> It is statistically irrelevant, even within the population of the posters here on USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, and for the HUNDREDTH time, it is NOT MY POLL.  I am NOT the OP of this thread!
> 
> It is however, one of the most, if not THE most popular polls/topics in USMB history and lookie how people weighed in...  and to how the questions were phrased.  It wasn't a mediocre "no".  It was a "oh HELL NO!" with fortitude.   That might be a clue as to why dems got their butt whipped in the middle bloc voting against them last week (not for the GOP).  That group was voting against something palpable clinging to the democratic label like a repugnant dingleberry.  The poll is your "Here's your sign"...  82% is IMPRESSIVE...
Click to expand...


Your poll is irrelevant to marriage equality.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil's poll has nothing to with marriage equality acceptance, only with venues of marriage.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ShackledNation said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about the culture built up over the years where homosexuality was a serious social stigma. Where people were killed for 'coming out'. But *even today, the experience of young gay people can be traumatizing. I don't see how you can ignore the difficulties of facing a society that decides for you that you are 'anti-social'*. Are gays more susceptible to anti-social behavior because mainstream culture has traditionally marginalized them? Or are they marginalized because of innate anti-social behavior? That's a chicken-and-egg question that requires more than statistical correlation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew a "young gay person" once who committed suicide the long way.  So let me tell you a little bit about his trauma..
> 
> He was QUITE social with his gayness.  And in that way he also murdered hundreds, possibly even thousands by the time he finished killing himself.
> 
> He was born normal and then molested by a man as a boy.  This imprinted him to seek out compulsively [and very promiscuously, typical of child victims of molestation] males for sex.  Meanwhile he kept falling in love with women.  It was pure psychological torture.  Predictably he contracted HIV from raw anonymous sex that is very typical of his type of "gay youth".  To get even with those he perceived that created his angst, he continued to go out and have endless anonymous sex with as many partners as his strength would maintain until his body began wasting away with AIDS.
> 
> Back then he still could've gotten reparative therapy he so longed for his condition, and to heal the wounds of child abuse he suffered.  Today however, if he was alive and at that young age again, he would be prohibited by law from doing so in the state where he lived [California].  But in that state no effort is spared to coax "closeted gays" or "bi-curious" youth from the hetero ranks.
> 
> Instead, he killed hundreds, maybe thousands before the gun ultimately turned on him.  You all don't want to talk about how common this scenario [at least the compulsive imprinting part of it] is among "young gay men".  And you sure don't want to discuss how at the root of any suicidal thoughts they might have, may be lingering suppressed toxic memories of events where they were assaulted/learned to "love" what was done to them as innocent boys.
> 
> Yet the CDC didn't fear this discussion.  They did a survey.  And here's the results they came up with:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is *pervasive among gay men* and is so intricately intertwined with *epidemics of* depression, partner abuse, and *childhood sexual abuse* that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No scientifically sound study has linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse. Your story is in no way verifiable as true, and anyone could make up a story like that and post it online. But guess what? Even if it were true your story is purely anecdotal and serves as evidence for nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your denial of evidence neither stands as a viable contest of such or relevant to such.
> 
> In truth, there is no evidence that homosexuality is anything BUT an imprint of early molestation, by a loving and caring adult.
> 
> The fact is that homosexuality behavior, which is the only relevant issue here, is a CHOICE... one which homosexuals on this thread have already freely admitted.  SOooo... well, you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have given no evidence for me to deny. Perhaps you have mistaken your baseless assertions for evidence? In truth, there is no evidence that homosexuality has anything to do with molestation, as the source I gave you demonstrates. Meanwhile, you just have your ignorant opinion, nothing more. No surprise there.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!

And your concession is again, duly noted and, again... summarily accepted.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*Where_r_my_Keys has just admitted per ad hom his submission to ShackledNation *


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your nonsense little keys has rebutted conclusively many times on the Board.

Step along.


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll results are meaningless in nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
> 
> 
> 
> Then all polls are meaningless in the nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
> :
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No- *your poll* is meaningless other than to find out how the people responding here on the boards think about forcing churches to marry homosexuals.
> 
> It is statistically irrelevant, even within the population of the posters here on USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, and for the HUNDREDTH time, it is NOT MY POLL.  I am NOT the OP of this thread!
> 
> It is however, one of the most, if not THE most popular polls/topics in USMB history and lookie how people weighed in...  and to how the questions were phrased.  It wasn't a mediocre "no".  It was a "oh HELL NO!" with fortitude.   That might be a clue as to why dems got their butt whipped in the middle bloc voting against them last week (not for the GOP).  That group was voting against something palpable clinging to the democratic label like a repugnant dingleberry.  The poll is your "Here's your sign"...  82% is IMPRESSIVE...
Click to expand...

I heard something today on Rush Limbaugh, where as a person called in and asked Rush what he thought about him (the caller) as a person having to attend a meeting in Minnesota I think it was, and there the topic was concerning transgender people, and them being able to use the restroom that best suits their gender in which they feel that they are as human beings, but yet wasn't born as in their own unscientific opinions. Rush didn't respond to him with an answer, because he felt he was being set up on the question, but I will respond... I think that it is pushing the envelope way to far in these things, because If I send my grandchildren into a rest room that matches their gender in which they were born as, and a man who thinks of himself as a woman or vice-verse a woman whom thinks herself as a man tries to go in afterwards, then there's gonna be trouble is all I can say. This is a no-brainier folks, where as the answer is of course, NOPE, NOTTA, NOT or maybe better put as *ABSOLUTELY NOT*, that anyone would go into the girls restroom as a man, and would do this because somehow they would think of themselves as a woman when entering in ? Not happening is what I think most people would agree to when asked, but why the push now toward all these things ? Is it because of Obama that some are feeling empowered in such a radical or militant way now ?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

beagle9 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll results are meaningless in nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
> 
> 
> 
> Then all polls are meaningless in the nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
> :
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No- *your poll* is meaningless other than to find out how the people responding here on the boards think about forcing churches to marry homosexuals.
> 
> It is statistically irrelevant, even within the population of the posters here on USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, and for the HUNDREDTH time, it is NOT MY POLL.  I am NOT the OP of this thread!
> 
> It is however, one of the most, if not THE most popular polls/topics in USMB history and lookie how people weighed in...  and to how the questions were phrased.  It wasn't a mediocre "no".  It was a "oh HELL NO!" with fortitude.   That might be a clue as to why dems got their butt whipped in the middle bloc voting against them last week (not for the GOP).  That group was voting against something palpable clinging to the democratic label like a repugnant dingleberry.  The poll is your "Here's your sign"...  82% is IMPRESSIVE...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I heard something today on Rush Limbaugh, where as a person called in and asked Rush what he thought about him (the caller) as a person having to attend a meeting in Minnesota I think it was, and there the topic was concerning transgender people, and them being able to use the restroom that best suits their gender in which they feel that they are as human beings, but yet wasn't born as in their own unscientific opinions. Rush didn't respond to him with an answer, because he felt he was being set up on the question, but I will respond... I think that it is pushing the envelope way to far in these things, because If I send my grandchildren into a rest room that matches their gender in which they were born as, and a man who thinks of himself as a woman or vice-verse a woman whom thinks herself as a man tries to go in afterwards, then there's gonna be trouble is all I can say. This is a no-brainier folks, where as the answer is of course, NOPE, NOTTA, NOT or maybe better put as *ABSOLUTELY NOT*, that anyone would go into the girls restroom as a man, and would do this because somehow they would think of themselves as a woman when entering in ? Not happening is what I think most people would agree to when asked, but why the push now toward all these things ? Is it because of Obama that some are feeling empowered in such a radical or militant way now ?
Click to expand...


That sizes it up pretty well... .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Speaking of that. Do your english skills allow you to render meaning out of the poll results above to the way the questions were worded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By 'above the way the questions were worded', you mean whatever you choose to imagine?
> 
> Again, the polls showing support for gay marriage are overwhelming. There are literally dozens of them. You ignore them all in favor of your imagination. But do you understand why your imagination doesn't actually effect the outside world?
Click to expand...


Are you referring to the 'polls' wherein the VAST MAJORITY of the People elected by the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, reject the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, setting the natural defining attributes of Marriage into their State Constitution, which sustains Nature's rejection of people of the same gender being qualified for marriage?

'Cause, those are the only polls that matter, because those polls are the result of people taking ACTION to_ express their feelings_... .   This contrasted with the subjective polls of those intent on using fraudulent methods to impart deceitful 'findings' as a means to influence the ignorant; such as yourself.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll results are meaningless in nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
> 
> 
> 
> Then all polls are meaningless in the nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
> :
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No- *your poll* is meaningless other than to find out how the people responding here on the boards think about forcing churches to marry homosexuals.
> 
> It is statistically irrelevant, even within the population of the posters here on USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, and for the HUNDREDTH time, it is NOT MY POLL.  I am NOT the OP of this thread!
> 
> It is however, one of the most, if not THE most popular polls/topics in USMB history and lookie how people weighed in...  and to how the questions were phrased.  It wasn't a mediocre "no".  It was a "oh HELL NO!" with fortitude.   That might be a clue as to why dems got their butt whipped in the middle bloc voting against them last week (not for the GOP).  That group was voting against something palpable clinging to the democratic label like a repugnant dingleberry.  The poll is your "Here's your sign"...  82% is IMPRESSIVE...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I heard something today on Rush Limbaugh, where as a person called in and asked Rush what he thought about him (the caller) as a person having to attend a meeting in Minnesota I think it was, and there the topic was concerning transgender people, and them being able to use the restroom that best suits their gender in which they feel that they are as human beings, but yet wasn't born as in their own unscientific opinions. Rush didn't respond to him with an answer, because he felt he was being set up on the question, but I will respond... I think that it is pushing the envelope way to far in these things, because If I send my grandchildren into a rest room that matches their gender in which they were born as, and a man who thinks of himself as a woman or vice-verse a woman whom thinks herself as a man tries to go in afterwards, then there's gonna be trouble is all I can say. This is a no-brainier folks, where as the answer is of course, NOPE, NOTTA, NOT or maybe better put as *ABSOLUTELY NOT*, that anyone would go into the girls restroom as a man, and would do this because somehow they would think of themselves as a woman when entering in ? Not happening is what I think most people would agree to when asked, but why the push now toward all these things ? Is it because of Obama that some are feeling empowered in such a radical or militant way now ?
Click to expand...


beagle9, thank you for a well thought out and sensible idea.


----------



## JakeStarkey

keys, the polls over the last decade have grown to support marriage equality.

Even so, Jacksonian democracy does not determine constitutional procedures except through the Amendment process.

little buddy ro, you no longer have half of what you would need for an amendment.

Walk away.


----------



## dblack

Interesting how this thread has been diverted from its OP, to the tired debate over "marriage equality"


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Are you referring to the 'polls' wherein the VAST MAJORITY of the People elected by the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, reject the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, setting the natural defining attributes of Marriage into their State Constitution, which sustains Nature's rejection of people of the same gender being qualified for marriage?



I'm speaking of the opinion polls taken by polling agencies across the country that have found strong support for gay marriage. With the margin of support being 12 to 19 points. And among moderates, support skyrockets to about 65%. Among liberals, above 70%. With moderates and liberals being the very voting block that republicans need to convince.

You were saying about 'vast majorities'? 



> 'Cause, those are the only polls that matter, because those polls are the result of people taking ACTION to_ express their feelings_... .   This contrasted with the subjective polls of those intent on using fraudulent methods to impart deceitful 'findings' as a means to influence the ignorant; such as yourself.



Obviously not. As the fate of Prop 8 demonstrates. 

And if you have any evidence that the results of the 3 dozen or so polls affirming the publics support for gay marriage, by all means present it.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll results are meaningless in nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
> 
> 
> 
> Then all polls are meaningless in the nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
> :
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No- *your poll* is meaningless other than to find out how the people responding here on the boards think about forcing churches to marry homosexuals.
> 
> It is statistically irrelevant, even within the population of the posters here on USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, and for the HUNDREDTH time, it is NOT MY POLL.  I am NOT the OP of this thread!
> 
> It is however, one of the most, if not THE most popular polls/topics in USMB history and lookie how people weighed in...  and to how the questions were phrased.  It wasn't a mediocre "no".  It was a "oh HELL NO!" with fortitude.   That might be a clue as to why dems got their butt whipped in the middle bloc voting against them last week (not for the GOP).  That group was voting against something palpable clinging to the democratic label like a repugnant dingleberry.  The poll is your "Here's your sign"...  82% is IMPRESSIVE...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I heard something today on Rush Limbaugh,
Click to expand...


I got that far and realized I didn't need to read more.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of that. Do your english skills allow you to render meaning out of the poll results above to the way the questions were worded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By 'above the way the questions were worded', you mean whatever you choose to imagine?
> 
> Again, the polls showing support for gay marriage are overwhelming. There are literally dozens of them. You ignore them all in favor of your imagination. But do you understand why your imagination doesn't actually effect the outside world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you referring to the 'polls' wherein the VAST MAJORITY of the People elected by the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, reject the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, setting the natural defining attributes of Marriage into their State Constitution, which sustains Nature's rejection of people of the same gender being qualified for marriage?
> 
> 'Cause, those are the only polls that matter, because those polls are the result of people taking ACTION to_ express their feelings_... .   This contrasted with the subjective polls of those intent on using fraudulent methods to impart deceitful 'findings' as a means to influence the ignorant; such as yourself.
Click to expand...


More bat guano keys crazy.


----------



## protectionist

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...

Stupid question.  The Constitution mentions religion, and protects churches from religious imposition in the 1st amendment.  It doesn't say anything about race, so why do you ask ?


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> I heard something today on Rush Limbaugh, where as a person called in and asked Rush what he thought about him (the caller) as a person having to attend a meeting in Minnesota I think it was, and there the topic was concerning transgender people, and them being able to use the restroom that best suits their gender in which they feel that they are as human beings, but yet wasn't born as in their own unscientific opinions. Rush didn't respond to him with an answer, because he felt he was being set up on the question, but I will respond... I think that it is pushing the envelope way to far in these things, because If I send my grandchildren into a rest room that matches their gender in which they were born as, and a man who thinks of himself as a woman or vice-verse a woman whom thinks herself as a man tries to go in afterwards, then there's gonna be trouble is all I can say. This is a no-brainier folks, where as the answer is of course, NOPE, NOTTA, NOT or maybe better put as *ABSOLUTELY NOT*, that anyone would go into the girls restroom as a man, and would do this because somehow they would think of themselves as a woman when entering in ? Not happening is what I think most people would agree to when asked, but why the push now toward all these things ? Is it because of Obama that some are feeling empowered in such a radical or militant way now ?



Then you should probably invest in a porta potty to carry around because transgendered people are winning their lawsuits. 

When someone is transitioning from male to female or female to male, they must live as the gender they wish to be re-assigned to before they can have the surgery. Do you really expect a man transitioning to a woman to use the men's bathroom?


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> Then you should probably invest in a porta potty to carry around because transgendered people are winning their lawsuits.
> 
> When someone is transitioning from male to female or female to male, they must live as the gender they wish to be re-assigned to before they can have the surgery. Do you really expect a man transitioning to a woman to use the men's bathroom?


 
If attorneys opposed would offer the following example, and cite that the conclusions the APA and AMA (who takes their walking orders from the APA) are arrived at not through science, but instead through "audited group think" (CQR, which discards facts in favor of group-consensus...after the homosexual lobby took over the ranks on the Board of Directors years ago), they would not be winning their lawsuits:



> *The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl last night defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young*....Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy...*At age seven, after threatening genital mutilation on himself, psychiatrists diagnosed Thomas with gender identity disorder*. By the age of eight, he began transitioning. ...*The hormone-suppressant, implanted in his upper left arm*, will postpone the 11-year-old developing broad shoulders, deep voice and facial hair. The California boy 11 who is undergoing hormone blocking treatment Daily Mail Online


Just after his first 6 formative years, this boy raised by two lesbians suddenly wants to femalize himself by genital mutilation. "Gender identity disorder" could also be called "my gender doesn't matter disorder".

But the APA would refuse to do a survey of children who are supposedly having "gender identity disorder" as to the causal genesis. That's because the facts might interfere with the conclusions already made.  CQR.  It's today's APA.  Look into it.  It's a hoot...  Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren t to Blame They Rely on Science .. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should probably invest in a porta potty to carry around because transgendered people are winning their lawsuits.
> 
> When someone is transitioning from male to female or female to male, they must live as the gender they wish to be re-assigned to before they can have the surgery. Do you really expect a man transitioning to a woman to use the men's bathroom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If attorneys opposed would offer the following example, and cite that the conclusions the APA and AMA (who takes their walking orders from the APA) are arrived at not through science,
Click to expand...


More bat guano Silhouette crazy.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll results are meaningless in nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
> 
> 
> 
> Then all polls are meaningless in the nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
> :
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No- *your poll* is meaningless other than to find out how the people responding here on the boards think about forcing churches to marry homosexuals.
> 
> It is statistically irrelevant, even within the population of the posters here on USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, and for the HUNDREDTH time, it is NOT MY POLL.  I am NOT the OP of this thread!
> 
> It is however, one of the most, if not THE most popular polls/topics in USMB history and lookie how people weighed in...  and to how the questions were phrased.  It wasn't a mediocre "no".  It was a "oh HELL NO!" with fortitude.   That might be a clue as to why dems got their butt whipped in the middle bloc voting against them last week (not for the GOP).  That group was voting against something palpable clinging to the democratic label like a repugnant dingleberry.  The poll is your "Here's your sign"...  82% is IMPRESSIVE...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I heard something today on Rush Limbaugh, where as a person called in and asked Rush what he thought about him (the caller) as a person having to attend a meeting in Minnesota I think it was, and there the topic was concerning transgender people, and them being able to use the restroom that best suits their gender in which they feel that they are as human beings, but yet wasn't born as in their own unscientific opinions. Rush didn't respond to him with an answer, because he felt he was being set up on the question, but I will respond... I think that it is pushing the envelope way to far in these things, because If I send my grandchildren into a rest room that matches their gender in which they were born as, and a man who thinks of himself as a woman or vice-verse a woman whom thinks herself as a man tries to go in afterwards, then there's gonna be trouble is all I can say. This is a no-brainier folks, where as the answer is of course, NOPE, NOTTA, NOT or maybe better put as *ABSOLUTELY NOT*, that anyone would go into the girls restroom as a man, and would do this because somehow they would think of themselves as a woman when entering in ? Not happening is what I think most people would agree to when asked, but why the push now toward all these things ? Is it because of Obama that some are feeling empowered in such a radical or militant way now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> beagle9, thank you for a well thought out and sensible idea.
Click to expand...

Ummm, and what was it I wrote that was a good idea in your mind ? I am against transgenders or others using a restroom of their choice opposite of their sex or gender born with, where as they are to use the one in which their born with sex or gender ascribes for them to use I would think (and to behave themselves while in any public restroom to respect another persons privacy while in there), but If we could even create *a new restroom* that they could go into, that would even be much much better I think. Yes in fact that would be the best (IMHO), is to go ahead and start construction on new facilities to accommodate those who have issues that deal with their identity in life. All who are under age must be accompanied by a parent when entering into any public restroom of today.

Lets see now, it could read -*Males-enter here* - *Females-enter here*, and then (*All others whom are confused as to who they are in life, enter here*). How about that for an Idea? It's so sad what society is morphing into, but for some reason these things are becoming more and more prevalent today, and why that is, ummm is just about anybodies guess.  Now guessing it all is, because their are no sound scientific reasonings behind it all, but just the scratching of ones heads when see all of these things that are happening today in society or are being wished for these days in society now. True story - We stopped into a restaurant back in the day, and this was after a race we had went to that evening. Well the wives went into the ladies restrooms, and when they came out they came back to the table claiming that there were two dudes in the ladies restroom. I went to check out what was going on, and I had the manager go with me. Sure enough there were two dudes in the ladies restroom, so the manager through them out of the restaurant quickly. They had ladies make up on and other such non-sense, so you all know what they were trying to be or better yet what were they trying to be is the question? They walked by the restaurant windows flipping us and the manager the bird.... I know it all creep-ed the wives out for sure, and they didn't like that situation at all, and I can't blame them to complain quickly about it. It's just ridiculous is what it all is, and it's going to just cause big time trouble if it keeps up. Are people this stupid today really ?


----------



## protectionist

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard something today on Rush Limbaugh, where as a person called in and asked Rush what he thought about him (the caller) as a person having to attend a meeting in Minnesota I think it was, and there the topic was concerning transgender people, and them being able to use the restroom that best suits their gender in which they feel that they are as human beings, but yet wasn't born as in their own unscientific opinions. Rush didn't respond to him with an answer, because he felt he was being set up on the question, but I will respond... I think that it is pushing the envelope way to far in these things, because If I send my grandchildren into a rest room that matches their gender in which they were born as, and a man who thinks of himself as a woman or vice-verse a woman whom thinks herself as a man tries to go in afterwards, then there's gonna be trouble is all I can say. This is a no-brainier folks, where as the answer is of course, NOPE, NOTTA, NOT or maybe better put as *ABSOLUTELY NOT*, that anyone would go into the girls restroom as a man, and would do this because somehow they would think of themselves as a woman when entering in ? Not happening is what I think most people would agree to when asked, but why the push now toward all these things ? Is it because of Obama that some are feeling empowered in such a radical or militant way now ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should probably invest in a porta potty to carry around because transgendered people are winning their lawsuits.
> 
> When someone is transitioning from male to female or female to male, they must live as the gender they wish to be re-assigned to before they can have the surgery. Do you really expect a man transitioning to a woman to use the men's bathroom?
Click to expand...

Sounds like the trangenders should be the ones to carry around thier own porta-potty.  Or jus stay home. who on earth wants them around anyway ?  Ugh!


----------



## beagle9

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard something today on Rush Limbaugh, where as a person called in and asked Rush what he thought about him (the caller) as a person having to attend a meeting in Minnesota I think it was, and there the topic was concerning transgender people, and them being able to use the restroom that best suits their gender in which they feel that they are as human beings, but yet wasn't born as in their own unscientific opinions. Rush didn't respond to him with an answer, because he felt he was being set up on the question, but I will respond... I think that it is pushing the envelope way to far in these things, because If I send my grandchildren into a rest room that matches their gender in which they were born as, and a man who thinks of himself as a woman or vice-verse a woman whom thinks herself as a man tries to go in afterwards, then there's gonna be trouble is all I can say. This is a no-brainier folks, where as the answer is of course, NOPE, NOTTA, NOT or maybe better put as *ABSOLUTELY NOT*, that anyone would go into the girls restroom as a man, and would do this because somehow they would think of themselves as a woman when entering in ? Not happening is what I think most people would agree to when asked, but why the push now toward all these things ? Is it because of Obama that some are feeling empowered in such a radical or militant way now ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should probably invest in a porta potty to carry around because transgendered people are winning their lawsuits.
> 
> When someone is transitioning from male to female or female to male, they must live as the gender they wish to be re-assigned to before they can have the surgery. Do you really expect a man transitioning to a woman to use the men's bathroom?
Click to expand...

A *new restroom* will be needed and should be added, so get ready for your taxes to sky rocket some more, because that is going to be the result of this for sure, so if everyone wants to have their taxes reach critical mass (already has), then keep it up because society will soon collapse under the weight of it all.


----------



## beagle9

protectionist said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard something today on Rush Limbaugh, where as a person called in and asked Rush what he thought about him (the caller) as a person having to attend a meeting in Minnesota I think it was, and there the topic was concerning transgender people, and them being able to use the restroom that best suits their gender in which they feel that they are as human beings, but yet wasn't born as in their own unscientific opinions. Rush didn't respond to him with an answer, because he felt he was being set up on the question, but I will respond... I think that it is pushing the envelope way to far in these things, because If I send my grandchildren into a rest room that matches their gender in which they were born as, and a man who thinks of himself as a woman or vice-verse a woman whom thinks herself as a man tries to go in afterwards, then there's gonna be trouble is all I can say. This is a no-brainier folks, where as the answer is of course, NOPE, NOTTA, NOT or maybe better put as *ABSOLUTELY NOT*, that anyone would go into the girls restroom as a man, and would do this because somehow they would think of themselves as a woman when entering in ? Not happening is what I think most people would agree to when asked, but why the push now toward all these things ? Is it because of Obama that some are feeling empowered in such a radical or militant way now ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should probably invest in a porta potty to carry around because transgendered people are winning their lawsuits.
> 
> When someone is transitioning from male to female or female to male, they must live as the gender they wish to be re-assigned to before they can have the surgery. Do you really expect a man transitioning to a woman to use the men's bathroom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like the trangenders should be the ones to carry around thier own porta-potty.  Or jus stay home. who on earth wants them around anyway ?  Ugh!
Click to expand...

That's just it, they would want us to abandon the facility, and then leave it for them to use only, because that will be the result of it all in the end under current conditions.


----------



## protectionist

Things like this will continue to spiral out of control and into La-La Land, as long as we permit lunatics to use the courts, and lunatic judges to redesign America, to their lunacy.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Things like this will continue to spiral out of control and into La-La Land, as long as we permit lunatics to use the courts, and lunatic judges to redesign America, to their lunacy.



Clearly transgender and bathrooms are the single most important issue in America right now.

But on topic- no churches should not- and will not be forced to accomodate anyone- gays, jews, African Americans, muslims- churches can include or exclude anyone that they want.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to the 'polls' wherein the VAST MAJORITY of the People elected by the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, reject the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, setting the natural defining attributes of Marriage into their State Constitution, which sustains Nature's rejection of people of the same gender being qualified for marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm speaking of the opinion polls taken by polling agencies across the country that have found strong support for gay marriage. With the margin of support being 12 to 19 points. And among moderates, support skyrockets to about 65%. Among liberals, above 70%. With moderates and liberals being the very voting block that republicans need to convince.
> 
> You were saying about 'vast majorities'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Cause, those are the only polls that matter, because those polls are the result of people taking ACTION to_ express their feelings_... .   This contrasted with the subjective polls of those intent on using fraudulent methods to impart deceitful 'findings' as a means to influence the ignorant; such as yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously not. As the fate of Prop 8 demonstrates.
> 
> And if you have any evidence that the results of the 3 dozen or so polls affirming the publics support for gay marriage, by all means present it.
Click to expand...


Strong support?  You're speaking of the 'strong support' which would be expected within The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... of course. 

However in REALITY: The TRUE 'polls' indicate that the VAST MAJORITY of the People who are elected by the VAST MAJORITY OF _*THE PEOPLE*_, reject the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, having set IN LAW  the natural, defining attributes of Marriage, with MOST having set such into their State Constitutions.

See how that works?

MOST PEOPLE REJECT YOUR IDEAS... because your ideas rest in the perversion of human reasoning; deviant reasoning, which, by its very nature represents a threat to the very viability of the culture, itself.

Ya see, it turns out that tolerating deviant reasoning, cripples the moral fiber of the nation and that inevitably cripples the economy and well, we just can't allow that.  

So, we're pretty much over your bull-shite.  

Party's over ladies... Mom and Dad are back and your collective asses ARE GROUNDED!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard something today on Rush Limbaugh, where as a person called in and asked Rush what he thought about him (the caller) as a person having to attend a meeting in Minnesota I think it was, and there the topic was concerning transgender people, and them being able to use the restroom that best suits their gender in which they feel that they are as human beings, but yet wasn't born as in their own unscientific opinions. Rush didn't respond to him with an answer, because he felt he was being set up on the question, but I will respond... I think that it is pushing the envelope way to far in these things, because If I send my grandchildren into a rest room that matches their gender in which they were born as, and a man who thinks of himself as a woman or vice-verse a woman whom thinks herself as a man tries to go in afterwards, then there's gonna be trouble is all I can say. This is a no-brainier folks, where as the answer is of course, NOPE, NOTTA, NOT or maybe better put as *ABSOLUTELY NOT*, that anyone would go into the girls restroom as a man, and would do this because somehow they would think of themselves as a woman when entering in ? Not happening is what I think most people would agree to when asked, but why the push now toward all these things ? Is it because of Obama that some are feeling empowered in such a radical or militant way now ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should probably invest in a porta potty to carry around because transgendered people are winning their lawsuits.
> 
> When someone is transitioning from male to female or female to male, they must live as the gender they wish to be re-assigned to before they can have the surgery. Do you really expect a man transitioning to a woman to use the men's bathroom?
Click to expand...


Winning law suits?

So... you're saying that because you win a lawsuit, that this makes it right?

Interesting.

So when we remove your Leftist Judges and our judges DECREE that sodomy laws were there for a reason and reinstitute those laws, shoving your bleeding ass back into the closet, when we start winning the law suits...  You're going to be perfectly fine with that?

My guess is that ya won't...


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to the 'polls' wherein the VAST MAJORITY of the People elected by the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, reject the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, setting the natural defining attributes of Marriage into their State Constitution, which sustains Nature's rejection of people of the same gender being qualified for marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm speaking of the opinion polls taken by polling agencies across the country that have found strong support for gay marriage. With the margin of support being 12 to 19 points. And among moderates, support skyrockets to about 65%. Among liberals, above 70%. With moderates and liberals being the very voting block that republicans need to convince.
> 
> You were saying about 'vast majorities'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Cause, those are the only polls that matter, because those polls are the result of people taking ACTION to_ express their feelings_... .   This contrasted with the subjective polls of those intent on using fraudulent methods to impart deceitful 'findings' as a means to influence the ignorant; such as yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously not. As the fate of Prop 8 demonstrates.
> 
> And if you have any evidence that the results of the 3 dozen or so polls affirming the publics support for gay marriage, by all means present it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strong support?  You're speaking of the 'strong support' which would be expected within The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... of course.
> 
> However in REALITY: The TRUE 'polls' indicate that the VAST MAJORITY of the People who are elected by the VAST MAJORITY OF _*THE PEOPLE*_, reject the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, having set IN LAW  the natural, defining attributes of Marriage, with MOST having set such into their State Constitutions.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> MOST PEOPLE REJECT YOUR IDEAS... because your ideas rest in the perversion of human reasoning; deviant reasoning, which, by its very nature represents a threat to the very viability of the culture, itself.
> 
> Ya see, it turns out that tolerating deviant reasoning, cripples the moral fiber of the nation and that inevitably cripples the economy and well, we just can't allow that.
> 
> So, we're pretty much over your bull-shite.
> 
> Party's over ladies... Mom and Dad are back and your collective asses ARE GROUNDED!
Click to expand...


Pure bat guano keys crazy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

I've repeatedly pointed out that "The Advocacy to NormalizeSexual Abnormality" is designed toward no end beyond the NORMALIZING OF ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION...

I present you, the most recent example of: THE SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT IS TOLERATING THESE DEVIANCY.

los-angeles-unified-school-district-argues-middle-schooler-consented-sex-teacher

That is a link to the report of the Los Angeles Unified School District DEFENDING A SEXUAL PREDATOR, by claiming that the 14 year old Girl "Consented" to a loving, caring sexual relationship with an adult in position of authority and influence over her.


----------



## beagle9

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard something today on Rush Limbaugh, where as a person called in and asked Rush what he thought about him (the caller) as a person having to attend a meeting in Minnesota I think it was, and there the topic was concerning transgender people, and them being able to use the restroom that best suits their gender in which they feel that they are as human beings, but yet wasn't born as in their own unscientific opinions. Rush didn't respond to him with an answer, because he felt he was being set up on the question, but I will respond... I think that it is pushing the envelope way to far in these things, because If I send my grandchildren into a rest room that matches their gender in which they were born as, and a man who thinks of himself as a woman or vice-verse a woman whom thinks herself as a man tries to go in afterwards, then there's gonna be trouble is all I can say. This is a no-brainier folks, where as the answer is of course, NOPE, NOTTA, NOT or maybe better put as *ABSOLUTELY NOT*, that anyone would go into the girls restroom as a man, and would do this because somehow they would think of themselves as a woman when entering in ? Not happening is what I think most people would agree to when asked, but why the push now toward all these things ? Is it because of Obama that some are feeling empowered in such a radical or militant way now ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should probably invest in a porta potty to carry around because transgendered people are winning their lawsuits.
> 
> When someone is transitioning from male to female or female to male, they must live as the gender they wish to be re-assigned to before they can have the surgery. Do you really expect a man transitioning to a woman to use the men's bathroom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Winning law suits?
> 
> So... you're saying that because you win a lawsuit, that this makes it right?
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> So when we remove your Leftist Judges and our judges DECREE that sodomy laws were there for a reason and reinstitute those laws, shoving your bleeding ass back into the closet, when we start winning the law suits...  You're going to be perfectly fine with that?
> 
> My guess is that ya won't...
Click to expand...

Your right that the pendulum can shift at any given time in the world, and in America too, and if all these things are being done out of disrespect of one another or one another's cultures in life, and being done in a militant way, then when the swing comes it can be a real tough time for those who were pushing the envelopes way to far in life.  Doing anything in a disrespectful way as to be found within the created or natural order of things, is also a big issue for many in life. Going against the grain is a metaphor that is correctly used when we see people doing such things as attempting to go against a grain, because we all know what going against the grain means in real terms, and it applies so well in so many other ways in life as well. The only thing that people are hoping for, is when they use such things as *the computer once took up 2 floors*, *and now it only takes up a 5x5 space upon your desk top*, but is this the same things really in which they are after in life when using such as their analogy to get something excepted or to create a new  ? Are people fooled by such cross issuing in which the nation is seeing going on in so many ways these days ? Their are groups whom also use the civil rights struggles and where that has all come to over the years as their reasoning behind something else or something new, but can that be applied the same as well to what they are asking in life ? You see the grain of the wood never changes, and when trying to go against something that never changes (the natural order of things), and to do it in that respect, then the results will never change either in that respect, because the saw will bind and run hot always as it is cutting against the grain of the wood. Many issues are not issues of going against the grain in life, but are simply issues of progress or the correcting of miss-understandings in life or the correcting of made mistakes and/or the making of mistakes in life. The civil rights issue was that of a *correction* and not that of trying to work against the grain in order to create something new by the usage of cross issuing it like so many are trying to use the issue for.  The going against a grain wasn't a factor in that black and white issue, but rather it was a human mistake or many made mistakes that was the culprit in that issue.

Now proving that something is not an issue of going against the grain when trying to create or to push something onto others as a new, well is every ones responsibility to do so, and then it's just whether people except it or not as an issue that may have just been mistaken in life or just miss-understood in life or is an issue of going against the grain in life.

Now don't be mistaken anyone, because people are going to make the determinations in which they think each issue falls into in their minds, and then they will category them into a category in which they think it will fall up under as such or will fall into afterwards.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

beagle9 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard something today on Rush Limbaugh, where as a person called in and asked Rush what he thought about him (the caller) as a person having to attend a meeting in Minnesota I think it was, and there the topic was concerning transgender people, and them being able to use the restroom that best suits their gender in which they feel that they are as human beings, but yet wasn't born as in their own unscientific opinions. Rush didn't respond to him with an answer, because he felt he was being set up on the question, but I will respond... I think that it is pushing the envelope way to far in these things, because If I send my grandchildren into a rest room that matches their gender in which they were born as, and a man who thinks of himself as a woman or vice-verse a woman whom thinks herself as a man tries to go in afterwards, then there's gonna be trouble is all I can say. This is a no-brainier folks, where as the answer is of course, NOPE, NOTTA, NOT or maybe better put as *ABSOLUTELY NOT*, that anyone would go into the girls restroom as a man, and would do this because somehow they would think of themselves as a woman when entering in ? Not happening is what I think most people would agree to when asked, but why the push now toward all these things ? Is it because of Obama that some are feeling empowered in such a radical or militant way now ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should probably invest in a porta potty to carry around because transgendered people are winning their lawsuits.
> 
> When someone is transitioning from male to female or female to male, they must live as the gender they wish to be re-assigned to before they can have the surgery. Do you really expect a man transitioning to a woman to use the men's bathroom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Winning law suits?
> 
> So... you're saying that because you win a lawsuit, that this makes it right?
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> So when we remove your Leftist Judges and our judges DECREE that sodomy laws were there for a reason and reinstitute those laws, shoving your bleeding ass back into the closet, when we start winning the law suits...  You're going to be perfectly fine with that?
> 
> My guess is that ya won't...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your right that the pendulum can shift at any given time in the world, and in America too, and if all these things are being done out of disrespect of one another or one another's cultures in life, and being done in a militant way, then when the swing comes it can be a real tough time for those who were pushing the envelopes way to far in life.  Doing anything in a disrespectful way as to be found within the created or natural order of things, is also a big issue for many in life. Going against the grain is a metaphor that is correctly used when we see people doing such things as attempting to go against a grain, because we all know what going against the grain means in real terms, and it applies so well in so many other ways in life as well. The only thing that people are hoping for, is when they use such things as *the computer once took up 2 floors*, *and now it only takes up a 5x5 space upon your desk top*, but is this the same things really in which they are after in life when using such as their analogy to get something excepted or to create a new  ? Their are groups whom also use the civil rights struggles and where that has all come to over the years as their reasoning behind something else or something new, but can that be applied the same as well to what they are asking in life ? You see the grain of the wood never changes, and when trying to go against something that never changes (the natural order of things), and to do it in that respect, then the results will never change either in that respect, because the saw will bind and run hot always as it is cutting against the grain of the wood. Many issues are not issues of going against the grain in life, but are simply issues of progress or the correcting of miss-understandings in life or the correcting of made mistakes and/or the making of mistakes in life. The civil rights issue was that of a *correction* and not that of trying to work against the grain in order to create something new by the usage of cross issuing it like so many are trying to use the issue for.  The going against a grain wasn't a factor in that black and white issue, but rather it was a human mistake or many made mistakes that was the culprit in that issue.
> 
> Now proving that something is not an issue of going against the grain when trying to create or to push something onto others as a new, well is every ones responsibility to do so, and then it's just whether people except it or not as an issue that may have just been mistaken in life or just miss-understood in life or is an issue of going against the grain in life.
> 
> Now don't be mistaken anyone, because people are going to make the determinations in which they think each issue falls into in their minds, and then they will category them into a category in which they think it will fall up under as such or will fall into afterwards.
Click to expand...


Well, the problem is that to be sexually deviant is to be mentally deviant.  And it is THAT which the Left removed from the diagnosis, when it first began it's advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality.  

When they did so, they began to normalize cognitive deviancy.  And THAT is now producing what reason requires that it must.


Therefore, because these people lack the means to reason, they will consistently demonstrate themselves to be UNREASONABLE... and you see that in every facet of their existence, wherein they are ALL advocating for the removal of ALL CULTURAL STANDARDS, EVEN AS THEY ADVOCATE FOR GREATER POLICE POWERS... 

Now, the end game here is that they will inevitably advocate for Police Powers to be used to enforce DEVIANCY... against those who oppose it and THIS is born out by the very existence of THIS VERY THREAD!

It's Evil... plain and simple, EVIL... of the OLD Testament variety.


----------



## beagle9

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard something today on Rush Limbaugh, where as a person called in and asked Rush what he thought about him (the caller) as a person having to attend a meeting in Minnesota I think it was, and there the topic was concerning transgender people, and them being able to use the restroom that best suits their gender in which they feel that they are as human beings, but yet wasn't born as in their own unscientific opinions. Rush didn't respond to him with an answer, because he felt he was being set up on the question, but I will respond... I think that it is pushing the envelope way to far in these things, because If I send my grandchildren into a rest room that matches their gender in which they were born as, and a man who thinks of himself as a woman or vice-verse a woman whom thinks herself as a man tries to go in afterwards, then there's gonna be trouble is all I can say. This is a no-brainier folks, where as the answer is of course, NOPE, NOTTA, NOT or maybe better put as *ABSOLUTELY NOT*, that anyone would go into the girls restroom as a man, and would do this because somehow they would think of themselves as a woman when entering in ? Not happening is what I think most people would agree to when asked, but why the push now toward all these things ? Is it because of Obama that some are feeling empowered in such a radical or militant way now ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should probably invest in a porta potty to carry around because transgendered people are winning their lawsuits.
> 
> When someone is transitioning from male to female or female to male, they must live as the gender they wish to be re-assigned to before they can have the surgery. Do you really expect a man transitioning to a woman to use the men's bathroom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Winning law suits?
> 
> So... you're saying that because you win a lawsuit, that this makes it right?
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> So when we remove your Leftist Judges and our judges DECREE that sodomy laws were there for a reason and reinstitute those laws, shoving your bleeding ass back into the closet, when we start winning the law suits...  You're going to be perfectly fine with that?
> 
> My guess is that ya won't...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your right that the pendulum can shift at any given time in the world, and in America too, and if all these things are being done out of disrespect of one another or one another's cultures in life, and being done in a militant way, then when the swing comes it can be a real tough time for those who were pushing the envelopes way to far in life.  Doing anything in a disrespectful way as to be found within the created or natural order of things, is also a big issue for many in life. Going against the grain is a metaphor that is correctly used when we see people doing such things as attempting to go against a grain, because we all know what going against the grain means in real terms, and it applies so well in so many other ways in life as well. The only thing that people are hoping for, is when they use such things as *the computer once took up 2 floors*, *and now it only takes up a 5x5 space upon your desk top*, but is this the same things really in which they are after in life when using such as their analogy to get something excepted or to create a new  ? Their are groups whom also use the civil rights struggles and where that has all come to over the years as their reasoning behind something else or something new, but can that be applied the same as well to what they are asking in life ? You see the grain of the wood never changes, and when trying to go against something that never changes (the natural order of things), and to do it in that respect, then the results will never change either in that respect, because the saw will bind and run hot always as it is cutting against the grain of the wood. Many issues are not issues of going against the grain in life, but are simply issues of progress or the correcting of miss-understandings in life or the correcting of made mistakes and/or the making of mistakes in life. The civil rights issue was that of a *correction* and not that of trying to work against the grain in order to create something new by the usage of cross issuing it like so many are trying to use the issue for.  The going against a grain wasn't a factor in that black and white issue, but rather it was a human mistake or many made mistakes that was the culprit in that issue.
> 
> Now proving that something is not an issue of going against the grain when trying to create or to push something onto others as a new, well is every ones responsibility to do so, and then it's just whether people except it or not as an issue that may have just been mistaken in life or just miss-understood in life or is an issue of going against the grain in life.
> 
> Now don't be mistaken anyone, because people are going to make the determinations in which they think each issue falls into in their minds, and then they will category them into a category in which they think it will fall up under as such or will fall into afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the problem is that to be sexually deviant is to be mentally deviant.  And it is THAT which the Left removed from the diagnosis, when it first began it's advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality.
> 
> When they did so, they began to normalize cognitive deviancy.  And THAT is now producing what reason requires that it must.
> 
> 
> Therefore, because these people lack the means to reason, they will consistently demonstrate themselves to be UNREASONABLE... and you see that in every facet of their existence, wherein they are ALL advocating for the removal of ALL CULTURAL STANDARDS, EVEN AS THEY ADVOCATE FOR GREATER POLICE POWERS...
> 
> *Now, the end game here is that they will inevitably advocate for Police Powers to be used to enforce DEVIANCY... against those who oppose it *and THIS is born out by the very existence of THIS VERY THREAD!
> 
> It's Evil... plain and simple, EVIL... of the OLD Testament variety.
Click to expand...

The enlistment of the feds could be the same as what you are speaking of above, and  has that been the game all along in so many ways ? Without the feds, where would all this be right now I wonder ? Oh that's right *the people* would be the deciding factor again, and then where would all that be I wonder ? Is the nation suffering under a form of tyranny found in our government now, where as the will of the people is being subverted or denied on a grand scale over so many issues, and in this we find that the peoples will is no longer allowed in America or is even being supported any longer in America (Gruber of Obamacare did say we are all Dumb ya know) ? Who are the Americans of 2014 now, and what exactly do they want really ?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

beagle9 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard something today on Rush Limbaugh, where as a person called in and asked Rush what he thought about him (the caller) as a person having to attend a meeting in Minnesota I think it was, and there the topic was concerning transgender people, and them being able to use the restroom that best suits their gender in which they feel that they are as human beings, but yet wasn't born as in their own unscientific opinions. Rush didn't respond to him with an answer, because he felt he was being set up on the question, but I will respond... I think that it is pushing the envelope way to far in these things, because If I send my grandchildren into a rest room that matches their gender in which they were born as, and a man who thinks of himself as a woman or vice-verse a woman whom thinks herself as a man tries to go in afterwards, then there's gonna be trouble is all I can say. This is a no-brainier folks, where as the answer is of course, NOPE, NOTTA, NOT or maybe better put as *ABSOLUTELY NOT*, that anyone would go into the girls restroom as a man, and would do this because somehow they would think of themselves as a woman when entering in ? Not happening is what I think most people would agree to when asked, but why the push now toward all these things ? Is it because of Obama that some are feeling empowered in such a radical or militant way now ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should probably invest in a porta potty to carry around because transgendered people are winning their lawsuits.
> 
> When someone is transitioning from male to female or female to male, they must live as the gender they wish to be re-assigned to before they can have the surgery. Do you really expect a man transitioning to a woman to use the men's bathroom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Winning law suits?
> 
> So... you're saying that because you win a lawsuit, that this makes it right?
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> So when we remove your Leftist Judges and our judges DECREE that sodomy laws were there for a reason and reinstitute those laws, shoving your bleeding ass back into the closet, when we start winning the law suits...  You're going to be perfectly fine with that?
> 
> My guess is that ya won't...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your right that the pendulum can shift at any given time in the world, and in America too, and if all these things are being done out of disrespect of one another or one another's cultures in life, and being done in a militant way, then when the swing comes it can be a real tough time for those who were pushing the envelopes way to far in life.  Doing anything in a disrespectful way as to be found within the created or natural order of things, is also a big issue for many in life. Going against the grain is a metaphor that is correctly used when we see people doing such things as attempting to go against a grain, because we all know what going against the grain means in real terms, and it applies so well in so many other ways in life as well. The only thing that people are hoping for, is when they use such things as *the computer once took up 2 floors*, *and now it only takes up a 5x5 space upon your desk top*, but is this the same things really in which they are after in life when using such as their analogy to get something excepted or to create a new  ? Their are groups whom also use the civil rights struggles and where that has all come to over the years as their reasoning behind something else or something new, but can that be applied the same as well to what they are asking in life ? You see the grain of the wood never changes, and when trying to go against something that never changes (the natural order of things), and to do it in that respect, then the results will never change either in that respect, because the saw will bind and run hot always as it is cutting against the grain of the wood. Many issues are not issues of going against the grain in life, but are simply issues of progress or the correcting of miss-understandings in life or the correcting of made mistakes and/or the making of mistakes in life. The civil rights issue was that of a *correction* and not that of trying to work against the grain in order to create something new by the usage of cross issuing it like so many are trying to use the issue for.  The going against a grain wasn't a factor in that black and white issue, but rather it was a human mistake or many made mistakes that was the culprit in that issue.
> 
> Now proving that something is not an issue of going against the grain when trying to create or to push something onto others as a new, well is every ones responsibility to do so, and then it's just whether people except it or not as an issue that may have just been mistaken in life or just miss-understood in life or is an issue of going against the grain in life.
> 
> Now don't be mistaken anyone, because people are going to make the determinations in which they think each issue falls into in their minds, and then they will category them into a category in which they think it will fall up under as such or will fall into afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the problem is that to be sexually deviant is to be mentally deviant.  And it is THAT which the Left removed from the diagnosis, when it first began it's advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality.
> 
> When they did so, they began to normalize cognitive deviancy.  And THAT is now producing what reason requires that it must.
> 
> 
> Therefore, because these people lack the means to reason, they will consistently demonstrate themselves to be UNREASONABLE... and you see that in every facet of their existence, wherein they are ALL advocating for the removal of ALL CULTURAL STANDARDS, EVEN AS THEY ADVOCATE FOR GREATER POLICE POWERS...
> 
> *Now, the end game here is that they will inevitably advocate for Police Powers to be used to enforce DEVIANCY... against those who oppose it *and THIS is born out by the very existence of THIS VERY THREAD!
> 
> It's Evil... plain and simple, EVIL... of the OLD Testament variety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The enlistment of the feds could be the same as what you are speaking of above, and  has that been the game all along in so many ways ? Without the feds, where would all this be right now I wonder ? Oh that's right *the people* would be the deciding factor again, and then where would all that be I wonder ? Is the nation suffering under a form of tyranny found in our government now, where as the will of the people is being subverted or denied on a grand scale over so many issues, and in this we find that the peoples will is no longer allowed in America or is even being supported any longer in America (Gruber of Obamacare did say we are all Dumb ya know) ? Who are the Americans of 2014 now, and what exactly do they want really ?
Click to expand...


Yep... .  The Left's PeasantPimp and his Executive Branch is the enemy of we, The Americans.  And we, The Americans will allow the process designed by the Constitution to work him out of power, as it has provided that the Left be removed from legislative power.

We should be prepared to watch the Left pick our candidate for '16.  As we now know that Romney is intrinsically tied to Gruber, who is intrinsically tied to The Left and Romney was their CHOICE last time and he'll be THEIR CHOICE THIS TIME... we'll hear them tell us that ONLY Romney can defeat "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES [THE TRUTH] MAKE!?"

In truth, ANY American can defeat evil... ANY American.  The problem is getting one to RUN.


----------



## Skylar

> Strong support? You're speaking of the 'strong support' which would be expected within The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... of course.



I'm speaking of exactly what I said: strong support for the legality of same sex marriage....by a margin of between 12 and 19 points. If you have any evidence that the dozens of polls affirming this degree of public support for the legality of same sex marriage, by all means present it. 

You don't. You're done.



> However in REALITY: The TRUE 'polls' indicate that the VAST MAJORITY of the People who are elected by the VAST MAJORITY OF _*THE PEOPLE*_, reject the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, having set IN LAW the natural, defining attributes of Marriage, with MOST having set such into their State Constitutions.



You're not  'the People'. Poll after poll shows strong support for the legality of gay marriage. You can ignore the public sentiment. But you can't make us ignore it. Nor will your willful ignorance change the increasingly supportive sentiment regarding the legality of gay marriage held by the public at large.

As for the 'natural, defining attributes of marriage' we've already long since established that there's more than one valid basis of a marriage. You claim its only procreation. But the valid marriages of the infertile demonstrate that your claims are false. There are clearly criteria other than procreation that can define a valid marriage. Criteria that have nothing to do with the ability to bear children. 



> MOST PEOPLE REJECT YOUR IDEAS... because your ideas rest in the perversion of human reasoning; deviant reasoning, which, by its very nature represents a threat to the very viability of the culture, itself.



Says you, citing yourself. And you speak for no one but yourself. Gallup, AP, Reuters, Rassmussen, PPP, and many other polling agencies show public support for the legality of gay marriage leading opposition by 12 to 19 points. In dozens of polls.



> Ya see, it turns out that tolerating deviant reasoning, cripples the moral fiber of the nation and that inevitably cripples the economy and well, we just can't allow that.



Says you. And your opinion regarding 'moral fiber' is uselessly subjective and meaninglessly personal. Your feelings don't define anyone else's right. Marriage is a right. And if you're going to deny it to gays and lesbians you need a very good reason. Your subjective feelings aren't good enough.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Strong support? You're speaking of the 'strong support' which would be expected within The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm speaking of exactly what I said: strong support for the legality of same sex marriage...
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> However in REALITY: The TRUE 'polls' indicate that the VAST MAJORITY of the People who are elected by the VAST MAJORITY OF _*THE PEOPLE*_, reject the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, having set IN LAW the natural, defining attributes of Marriage, with MOST having set such into their State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not  'the People'.
Click to expand...


I actually am, one OF the people.  Who voted for those who represent me, who passed laws recognizing the natural standards that define marriage, which preclude lowering those standards in law to accommodate the perverse reasoning which would reject natural law, and bring the subsequent catastrophe that inevitably follows such.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> The enlistment of the feds could be the same as what you are speaking of above, and  has that been the game all along in so many ways ? Without the feds, where would all this be right now I wonder ? Oh that's right *the people* would be the deciding factor again, and then where would all that be I wonder ?



As the USSC demonstrated when they overturned interracial marriage bans in Loving V. Virgnia, the people don't have the authority to vote away the rights of minorities. Any law of the States are subject to constitutional guarantees. With the 14th amendment forbiding the States from violating the priveledges and immunities of Federal Citizens.

Which every American is.



> Is the nation suffering under a form of tyranny found in our government now, where as the will of the people is being subverted or denied on a grand scale over so many issues, and in this we find that the peoples will is no longer allowed in America or is even being supported any longer in America (Gruber of Obamacare did say we are all Dumb ya know) ? Who are the Americans of 2014 now, and what exactly do they want really ?



You're literally arguing for the tyranny of the majority, where the majority can vote away the rights of anyone. Do you hold the sanctity of State statutory law as reverently in say.....McDonald V. Chicago? After all, the law that forbid handguns within the city limits was passed by representatives of the people, using the people's authority. Yet the 'enlistment' of the fed overturned the people's will.

Many conservatives are quite happy to have the federal government interfere with State laws....as long as it deals with rights they think the people should have.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> MOST PEOPLE REJECT YOUR IDEAS... because your ideas rest in the perversion of human reasoning; deviant reasoning, which, by its very nature represents a threat to the very viability of the culture, itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself.
Click to expand...


I'm citing the vast majority of the people, who elected the vast majority of representatives who passed the laws in the vast majority of the states which recognized the natural standards defining marriage.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The enlistment of the feds could be the same as what you are speaking of above, and  has that been the game all along in so many ways ? Without the feds, where would all this be right now I wonder ? Oh that's right *the people* would be the deciding factor again, and then where would all that be I wonder ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the USSC demonstrated when they overturned interracial marriage bans in Loving V. Virgnia,
Click to expand...


Loving is irrelevant, as Loving speaks to genetic issues which result in traits that an individual has absolutely no control over.

Sexual Abnormality is NOT GENETIC, it is a perversion of human reasoning which represents a threat to the culture, where such is tolerated.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However in REALITY: The TRUE 'polls' indicate that the VAST MAJORITY of the People who are elected by the VAST MAJORITY OF _*THE PEOPLE*_, reject the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, having set IN LAW the natural, defining attributes of Marriage, with MOST having set such into their State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not  'the People'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually am, one OF the people.  Who voted for those who represent me, who passed laws recognizing the natural standards that define marriage, which preclude lowering those standards in law to accommodate the perverse reasoning which would reject natural law, and bring the subsequent catastrophe that inevitably follows such.
Click to expand...


You're a person. You don't define public sentiment all by yourself. Nor do you exercise the People's power.

Is..is this where you go off on your little 'i'm immune from all laws' schtick? If so, save it. Your delusion of immunity from all laws has nothing to do with public opinion polls or the rights of gays and lesbians to same sex marriage. Rendering it yet another red herring.

If you have any evidence that the dozens of polls indicating that strong support for gay marriage legality are somehow fraudulent, by all means present it. You have no such evidence. Leaving you with your own personal opinion vs. the results of dozens of scientific polls involving tens of thousands of people. Your feelings no more define public sentiment than they do other people's rights.

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Is the nation suffering under a form of tyranny found in our government now, where as the will of the people is being subverted or denied on a grand scale over so many issues, and in this we find that the peoples will is no longer allowed in America or is even being supported any longer in America (Gruber of Obamacare did say we are all Dumb ya know) ? Who are the Americans of 2014 now, and what exactly do they want really ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're literally arguing for the tyranny of the majority...
Click to expand...


False... they are speaking to the RIGHT of the individual to recognize the laws of nature and preclude behavior which falls outside of the standard represented BY SUCH, and to set such into law, as a means to defend the viability of the culture.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOST PEOPLE REJECT YOUR IDEAS... because your ideas rest in the perversion of human reasoning; deviant reasoning, which, by its very nature represents a threat to the very viability of the culture, itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm citing the vast majority of the people, who elected the vast majority of representatives who passed the laws in the vast majority of the states which recognized the natural standards defining marriage.
Click to expand...


You're citing election results from 2008 or earlier. I'm citing polling results from several months ago. The more recent polling samples demonstrate a much more accurate picture of support for the legality of gay marriage today....then do results from 6 years ago. 

Obviously.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> You're a person. You don't define public sentiment... .



True, the Public does that... and the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC, IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES, ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE REPRESENTATIVES WHO PASSED LAWS WHICH SUSTAINED THE NATURAL LAWS THAT DEFINE MARRIAGE.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> You're citing election results



Yep...   The only 'polls' that COUNT!


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the nation suffering under a form of tyranny found in our government now, where as the will of the people is being subverted or denied on a grand scale over so many issues, and in this we find that the peoples will is no longer allowed in America or is even being supported any longer in America (Gruber of Obamacare did say we are all Dumb ya know) ? Who are the Americans of 2014 now, and what exactly do they want really ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're literally arguing for the tyranny of the majority...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False... they are speaking to the RIGHT of the individual to recognize the laws of nature and preclude behavior which falls outside of the standard represented BY SUCH, and to set such into law, as a means to defend the viability of the culture.
Click to expand...


No individual has the right to vote away the fundamental rights of another. Marriage is a fundamental right. And since marriage has more than one valid purpose, your 'laws of nature' schtick is irrelevant. As there are valid bases of marriage that have nothing to do with having children. As demonstrated by the valid marriages of infertile couples. 

Debunking the foundation tenet of your inadequate belief system. And rendering your claims logically baseless and legally irrelevant.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're citing election results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...   The only 'polls' that COUNT!
Click to expand...


Obviously not, as the outcome of Prop 8 and every other gay marriage ban overturned by the Federal Judiciary demonstrates.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a person. You don't define public sentiment... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, the Public does that... and the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC, IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES, ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE REPRESENTATIVES WHO PASSED LAWS WHICH SUSTAINED THE NATURAL LAWS THAT DEFINE MARRIAGE.
Click to expand...


And did so 6 or more years ago. We're discussing public sentiment today...not more than half a decade ago. And support for gay marriage has skyrocketed since about 2011. And only continues to rise. Now leading opposition by 12 to 19 points, depending on the poll.

With virtually every of about 3 dozen polls showing strong support for the legality of gay marriage. You can ignore these polling results. But you can't make us ignore them. Or make the public ignore their own growing support for the legality of gay marriage. 

Alas, the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. Or start screaming in CAPS.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Look Scamp... you need to understand, that throughout modern history, where a culture has 'embraced' homosexuality... once those who used them to gain power, acquire that power.


Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're citing election results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...   The only 'polls' that COUNT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously not, as the outcome of Prop 8 and every other gay marriage ban overturned by the Federal Judiciary demonstrates.
Click to expand...


OH!  So NOW you're pointing out that the WILL OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WAS "OVERTURNED" BY A INFINITESIMAL MINORITY? 

So...  in effect, you want to claim the popular majority, while standing upon the overturning of the will of the popular majority?

ROFLMNAO!  Folks... you can NOT MAKE THIS CRAP UP!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

And with THAT... your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## MaryL

Actually, I have lived through all this. Homosexuality is just a garden variety sexual  perversion/dysfunction. The pity is, homosexuals have capital and this is a capitalist society, they are buying  popular sentiment with  Hollywood shows from Will and  Grace to Philadelphia. I won't take this any were else, because  I know just how jaded I will sound.


----------



## Skylar

> Look Scamp... you need to understand, that throughout modern history, where a culture has 'embraced' homosexuality... once those who used them to gain power, acquire that power.



Says you, citing you. And you no more define history than you do the rights of any person. If your entire argument is you citing yourself, then your source is clearly insufficient to carry your argument.



> OH! So NOW you're pointing out that the WILL OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WAS "OVERTURNED" BY A INFINITESIMAL MINORITY?



I'm citing the fact that the people can't vote away the rights of minorities in our republic. And given that gay marriage is now legal in 32 of 50 States, clearly the vote that 'counts' on issues of the protection of rights is the federal judiciary tasked with insuring the constitution is followed. 

Contradicting your claims factually, legally, and practically.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

MaryL said:


> Actually, I have lived through all this. Homosexuality is just a garden variety sexual  perversion/dysfunction. The pity is, homosexuals have capital and this is a capitalist society, they are buying  popular sentiment with  Hollywood shows from Will and  Grace to Philadelphia. I won't take this any were else, because just how jaded I will sound.



Very well said Mary.  Very well said indeed.


----------



## Skylar

MaryL said:


> Actually, I have lived through all this. Homosexuality is just a garden variety sexual  perversion/dysfunction. The pity is, homosexuals have capital and this is a capitalist society, they are buying  popular sentiment with  Hollywood shows from Will and  Grace to Philadelphia. I won't take this any were else, because just how jaded I will sound.



You're certainly welcome to your opinion. But the rights of gays and lesbians to same sex marriage has nothing to do with your opinion that homosexuality is 'sexual perversion'. Marriage is a fundamental right. And if you're going to deny it to gays and lesbians, you'll need a very good reason. Your personal opinion isn't it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Look Scamp... you need to understand, that throughout modern history, where a culture has 'embraced' homosexuality... once those who used them to gain power, acquire that power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you.
Click to expand...


Actually thats me citing world history...



> OH! So NOW you're pointing out that the WILL OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WAS "OVERTURNED" BY A INFINITESIMAL MINORITY?



I'm citing the fact that the people can't vote away the rights of minorities in our republic. [/quote]

There is no right to force deviancy upon another.  PERIOD.  Be that in a republic or any other form of governance.

You claimed that The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality was 'the right thing to do', because it was POPULAR.  That was refuted, by the evidence of the VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, ELECTING THE VAST MAJORITY OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES, WHO PASSED LAW SUSTAINING THE NATURAL, DEFINING STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE.  
You then cited the "OVERTURNING" of that VAST MAJORITY which stands AGAINST you and claimed that you're right, because 5 jurist said you were right... five people does not a MAJORITY MAKE in a nation of 350 million people.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> And with THAT... your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


Summary declarations of victory are themselves a concession. As if your argument worked logically or factually, you wouldn't need them.

They're also quite irrelevant. As the overturn of gay marriage ban after gay marriage ban demonstrates. Reality doesn't change just because you pretend it doesn't exist.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have lived through all this. Homosexuality is just a garden variety sexual  perversion/dysfunction. The pity is, homosexuals have capital and this is a capitalist society, they are buying  popular sentiment with  Hollywood shows from Will and  Grace to Philadelphia. I won't take this any were else, because just how jaded I will sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're certainly welcome to your opinion. But the rights of gays and lesbians to same sex marriage ... .
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Skylar

> Actually thats me citing world history...



That's you citing yourself *as *world history, just as you've cited yourself *as* nature, *as* the creator, *as* God and *as* the law.

*You're none of these things.* Your empty appeals to authority demonstrate the weakness of your claims. As when the logic and reason of your accusations are tested, they fail. For example, you insist that there is only one valid basis of marriage: procreation. As the perfectly valid marriages of childless and infertile couples demonstrate, there is clearly more a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children.

Verifably disproving the 'logic' of your argument. And proving the existence of a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with your 'only valid basis'. Killing your argument twice.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> And with THAT... your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> Summary declarations of victory are themselves a concession. As if your argument worked logically or factually, you wouldn't need them.
> 
> They're also quite irrelevant. As the overturn of gay marriage ban after gay marriage ban demonstrates. Reality doesn't change just because you pretend it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


One can't prevail where on deflects from their own argument... thus given that is what ya did... YOU CONCEDED.

That you're insufficiently bright to recognize that, is irrelevant.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have lived through all this. Homosexuality is just a garden variety sexual  perversion/dysfunction. The pity is, homosexuals have capital and this is a capitalist society, they are buying  popular sentiment with  Hollywood shows from Will and  Grace to Philadelphia. I won't take this any were else, because just how jaded I will sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're certainly welcome to your opinion. But the rights of gays and lesbians to same sex marriage ... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Actually thats me citing world history...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's you citing yourself *as *world history...
Click to expand...


False... .

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have lived through all this. Homosexuality is just a garden variety sexual  perversion/dysfunction. The pity is, homosexuals have capital and this is a capitalist society, they are buying  popular sentiment with  Hollywood shows from Will and  Grace to Philadelphia. I won't take this any were else, because just how jaded I will sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're certainly welcome to your opinion. But the rights of gays and lesbians to same sex marriage ... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.
Click to expand...


LOL!

Let me ask you this... on what basis are you resting this absurdity, which apparently holds that for reasoning to be valid, it must be claimed by someone who is NOT HERE?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Well?

Anytime scamp... .


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> And with THAT... your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> Summary declarations of victory are themselves a concession. As if your argument worked logically or factually, you wouldn't need them.
> 
> They're also quite irrelevant. As the overturn of gay marriage ban after gay marriage ban demonstrates. Reality doesn't change just because you pretend it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One can't prevail where on deflects from their own argument... thus given that is what ya did... YOU CONCEDED.
> 
> That you're insufficiently bright to recognize that, is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


And once again, you throw up your white flag by summarily declaring 'victory'....and abandoning any attempt at defending the failed logic or reason of your argument. If your logic had merit, you wouldn't have been forced to abandon it. As it stands, you refuse to even discuss your 'one purpose of marriage' standard, treating it like the rhetorical garbage it is.

If even_ you _are going to treat your claims like rhetorical flotsam to be tossed on the midden heap, surely you can understand when we treat your claims similarly.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Nothing comin' to mind?

LOL!  Color me SHOCKED!


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have lived through all this. Homosexuality is just a garden variety sexual  perversion/dysfunction. The pity is, homosexuals have capital and this is a capitalist society, they are buying  popular sentiment with  Hollywood shows from Will and  Grace to Philadelphia. I won't take this any were else, because just how jaded I will sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're certainly welcome to your opinion. But the rights of gays and lesbians to same sex marriage ... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Let me ask you this... on what basis are you resting this absurdity, which apparently holds that for reasoning to be valid, it must be claimed by someone who is NOT HERE?
Click to expand...


On the basis that same sex marriage exists in 31 of 50 states. You insist this can't be. Reality demonstrates it most certainly can.

Again, your denial of reality doesn't change it. The world doesn't disappear if you close your eyes. And the overwhelming evidence that contradicts you doesn't cease to exist just because you pretend it never existed.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> And with THAT... your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> Summary declarations of victory are themselves a concession. As if your argument worked logically or factually, you wouldn't need them.
> 
> They're also quite irrelevant. As the overturn of gay marriage ban after gay marriage ban demonstrates. Reality doesn't change just because you pretend it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One can't prevail where on deflects from their own argument... thus given that is what ya did... YOU CONCEDED.
> 
> That you're insufficiently bright to recognize that, is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again, you throw up your white flag by summarily declaring 'victory'....and abandoning any attempt at defending the failed logic or reason of your argument. If your logic had merit, you wouldn't have been forced to abandon it. As it stands, you refuse to even discuss your 'one purpose of marriage' standard, treating it like the rhetorical garbage it is.
> 
> If even_ you _are going to treat your claims like rhetorical flotsam to be tossed on the midden heap, surely you can understand when we treat your claims similarly.
Click to expand...


So by noting that you first claimed that The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality was Popular, therefore legitimate, then where that was refuted you then turned to claim that it was legit because an infinitesimal minority in the Judiciary OVERTURNED THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY... thus joining the opposition's argument, wherein, you literally conceded *to your own argument.*

THIS you claim demonstrates ME running from my own reasoning?

ROFLMNAO!

Obscurant... thus yields from the standing point, thus is YOU conceding to ME. 

And with that, your most recent concession is again: DULY noted and summarily accepted.

Also... accepted in that is your failure to sustain your now discredited premise that argument is only valid through the citation of another not present in the discussion.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> On the basis that same sex marriage exists in 31 of 50 states.



Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Skylar

> So by noting that you first claimed that The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality was Popular, therefore legitimate, then where that was refuted you then turned to claim that it was legit because an infinitesimal minority in the Judiciary OVERTURNED THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY... wherein you conceded to your own argument...



More accurately, I indicated that support for the legalization of gay marriage is strong. And you have yet to refute me. Or even disagree. You're facing a rather uphill battle. As unlike you, I'm not quoting myself. I'm quoting Gallup, one of the most respected polling organizations in the country.



> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> Americans' support for the law recognizing same-sex marriages as legally valid has increased yet again, now at 55%. Marriage equality advocates have had a string of legal successes over the past year, most recently this week in Pennsylvania and Oregon where federal judges struck down bans on gay marriage....
> 
> Same Sex Marriage Should Be Valid: 55%
> Same Sex Marriage Should not be Valid: 42%
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55



That's a margin of support of 13%. Falling nicely into the 12% to 19% margin of support I cited. Ignore as you will. Your willful ignorance has no impact on the outcome of this issue. Just as your feelings have no impact on the outcome.

And of course, gay marriage is now legal in 32 of 50 States. With the overwhelming majority of federal district court rulings upholding same sex marriage. And the USSC preserving every ruling that overturns gay marriage bans, without exception. While joining in and overturning key portions of DOMA defining marriage at the federal level.

See how little your willful ignorance actually matters?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the basis that same sex marriage exists in 31 of 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


Says you, citing yourself. And you're nobody. Gay marriage is legal and recognized in 32 of 50 States. You insist this can't be. Reality says otherwise.

Get used to it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the basis that same sex marriage exists in 31 of 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself.
Click to expand...


No... that is me citing NATURE.  

Marriage is the joining of ONE man and ONE woman.  Notice how it also precludes the acceptance of other facets of sexual abnormality.  Specifically: Bestiality, Pedophilia, Polygamy, etc, etc... . 

Ya see scamp, STANDARDS are SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO DISCRIMINATE.  There is no other purpose for them.


----------



## MaryL

All Americans have rights, left handed, blacks, women or whatever. A special interest group teases this out, finesses  the point ridiculously, and suddenly  a sexual dysfunctional  group with deep pockets becomes a new group  of humanity nobody  ever noticed before? As opposed to a  bunch  of rich perverts that spout propaganda? I am not buying the poor gay shit. It's  just so much spam.


----------



## Wyatt earp

How do you know


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOST PEOPLE REJECT YOUR IDEAS... because your ideas rest in the perversion of human reasoning; deviant reasoning, which, by its very nature represents a threat to the very viability of the culture, itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm citing the vast majority of the people, who elected the vast majority of representatives who passed the laws in the vast majority of the states which recognized the natural standards defining marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're citing election results from 2008 or earlier. I'm citing polling results from several months ago. The more recent polling samples demonstrate a much more accurate picture of support for the legality of gay marriage today....then do results from 6 years ago.
> 
> Obviously.
Click to expand...

So it took six years to finally complete the brainwashing of the people ?  There has been many tricks and tools used to carry this all out, and to make it all appear as the people are ready for it all now, but are they ? Time will tell I guess. 

OK, so you say that the tyranny of the majority can't abuse the minority, but can't this work in the same way in reverse ? How about the tyranny of the minority, who coupled together with the feds help over time (making it all one sided), haven't they together since been reeking havoc on the majority in this nation now ? Now Is that fair or right in your mind also ? Can't the feds be fooled also ? I mean they do like to pay $600.00 dollars for a toilet seat, and award contracts to build bridges to no where until the watchdog's catch them in the act. They do like protecting their cronies and taking in bad monies without having any conscience on, and then luring victims to vote for them just so they can stay in office drawing their government paychecks yet for what ? What was the term being used again "Drain the Swamp" during the 2008 lying campaign ? Has the swamp been drained yet ?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the basis that same sex marriage exists in 31 of 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... that is me citing NATURE.
Click to expand...


No, that's you quoting yourself AS nature. Its the same appeal to authority that you've been relying on your entire debate. Which is an obtuse fallacy of logic. You yourself admitted that appeals to authority only work if the logic and reasoning behind them are valid. And yours isn't.

You've insisted that the only valid basis of marriage is procreation. But that's obviously not true, as the valid marriages of the infertile and childless demonstrate. There are valid bases of marriage that have nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.....as folks are married who have no children or lack the ability to have children. 

Disproving your claim that there is only valid basis of marriage is procreation. Your logic and reasoning don't work. And with their failure, all you're left with is an empty appeal to authority, a classic fallacy of logic. If the logic and reasoning of your argument were valid, you wouldn't need your fallacy.


----------



## Skylar

MaryL said:


> OK, so you say that the tyranny of the majority can't abuse the minority, but can't this work in the same way in reverse ?



How are gays 'abusing' the majority by being allowed to marry? How is your marriage effected in anyway by a gay person being allowed to marry? Your marriage is just as valid the day before gays are allowed to marry as the day after.

Recognizing the rights of gays and lesbians to marry 'abuses' no one. Unless you're planning on entering a same sex marriage, you're pretty much irrelevant to the process.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the basis that same sex marriage exists in 31 of 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... that is me citing NATURE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's you quoting yourself AS nature.
Click to expand...


False... that is me observing nature and recognizing how nature designed the species, and the purposes intrinsic to such.  It's not particularly complex, just apparently beyond the means of the deviant mind to comprehend.  
Which is yet ANOTHER clue on the downside to tolerating deviant reasoning.  

So... while sound reasoning NEVER requires validation, it is always nice when such comes along.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so you say that the tyranny of the majority can't abuse the minority, but can't this work in the same way in reverse ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are gays 'abusing' the majority by being allowed to marry?
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> You've insisted that the only valid basis of marriage is procreation.



False... I've NEVER so much as made that claim, let alone insisted on it.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have lived through all this. Homosexuality is just a garden variety sexual  perversion/dysfunction. The pity is, homosexuals have capital and this is a capitalist society, they are buying  popular sentiment with  Hollywood shows from Will and  Grace to Philadelphia. I won't take this any were else, because just how jaded I will sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're certainly welcome to your opinion. But the rights of gays and lesbians to same sex marriage ... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Let me ask you this... on what basis are you resting this absurdity, which apparently holds that for reasoning to be valid, it must be claimed by someone who is NOT HERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the basis that same sex marriage exists in 31 of 50 states. You insist this can't be. Reality demonstrates it most certainly can.
> 
> Again, your denial of reality doesn't change it. The world doesn't disappear if you close your eyes. And the overwhelming evidence that contradicts you doesn't cease to exist just because you pretend it never existed.
Click to expand...

How did this get passed in these states ? Was it the majority of the people that did the passing and agreeing with in these states, and so next they let their reps know that this is what they wanted and it was echoed (*or*) was it a federal activist judge over turning the will of the people within the states that are in question ?


----------



## Spare_change

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?




Not in my church ... and not without a fight.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're certainly welcome to your opinion. But the rights of gays and lesbians to same sex marriage ... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Let me ask you this... on what basis are you resting this absurdity, which apparently holds that for reasoning to be valid, it must be claimed by someone who is NOT HERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the basis that same sex marriage exists in 31 of 50 states. You insist this can't be. Reality demonstrates it most certainly can.
> 
> Again, your denial of reality doesn't change it. The world doesn't disappear if you close your eyes. And the overwhelming evidence that contradicts you doesn't cease to exist just because you pretend it never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did this get passed in these states ? Was it the majority of the people that did the passing and agreeing with in these states, and so next they let their reps know that this is what they wanted and it was echoed (*or*) was it a federal activist judge over turning the will of the people within the states that are in question ?
Click to expand...


'Duh will of duh PEOPLES!'


----------



## Skylar

> False... that is me observing nature and recognizing how nature designed the species, and the purposes intrinsic to such. It's not particularly complex, just apparently beyond the means of the deviant mind to comprehend.



A claim that breaks with the fact that 'the purposes intrinsic to such' isn't the sole basis of a valid marriage. As infertile couples demonstrate. They can no more have a child than a gay couple. But their marriages are still valid. Demonstrating, undeniably, that there is a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Rendering your 'observations' moot. As the purpose you recognize isn't the only purpose that can form the valid basis of a marriage.

You can't factually establish that procreation is the EXCLUSIVE basis of a valid marriage. And I can factually establish that it isn't. Thus shattering your hapless claims yet again.

So much for your empty Appeal to Authority. If the logic and reason of your claims held up, you wouldn't need your fallacy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Spare_change said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in my church ... and not without a fight.
Click to expand...


Well the premise is that "The Sexually Abnormal are people too!"... therefore we must accept their perverse reasoning and if we do not, then we're bigots.  

Which means that the NFL is bigoted because it will not allow me to start as a linebacker for the Fins... and just because I'm a 54 year old guy with no speed, no hands, poor football skills, whose greatest potential on the gridiron is to be crushed like a bug in close proximity to the first play.  

Short sighted ASSHOLES!  Just tryin' to keep a brother down and out of the BIG CHIPS!


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so you say that the tyranny of the majority can't abuse the minority, but can't this work in the same way in reverse ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are gays 'abusing' the majority by being allowed to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


Says you, citing you. And you're nobody. As the legality and recognition of same sex marriage in 32 of 50 States demonstrates. You insist this can't happen. Reality disabuses you of your misconception.

Just because you ignore reality doesn't mean we're similarly obligated to do so.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're certainly welcome to your opinion. But the rights of gays and lesbians to same sex marriage ... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Let me ask you this... on what basis are you resting this absurdity, which apparently holds that for reasoning to be valid, it must be claimed by someone who is NOT HERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the basis that same sex marriage exists in 31 of 50 states. You insist this can't be. Reality demonstrates it most certainly can.
> 
> Again, your denial of reality doesn't change it. The world doesn't disappear if you close your eyes. And the overwhelming evidence that contradicts you doesn't cease to exist just because you pretend it never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did this get passed in these states ? Was it the majority of the people that did the passing and agreeing with in these states, and so next they let their reps know that this is what they wanted and it was echoed (*or*) was it a federal activist judge over turning the will of the people within the states that are in question ?
Click to expand...


Same way interracial marriage bans were passed: through the power of the people. But the people don't have the power to strip minorities of fundamental rights. Not without a compelling state interest and a very rational reason. And gay marriage opponents have neither. They arbitrarily deny gays and lesbians the right to same sex marriage because they can.

Well, until the federal judiciary steps in and protects the rights of the Federal Citizens that the States are clearly abusing.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> False... that is me observing nature and recognizing how nature designed the species, and the purposes intrinsic to such. It's not particularly complex, just apparently beyond the means of the deviant mind to comprehend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A claim that breaks with the fact that 'the purposes intrinsic to such' isn't the sole basis of a valid marriage.
Click to expand...


That marriage is multifaceted, in NO WAY provides that it is anything EXCEPT THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!  And that the woman can be an open homosexual and the man can be an open homosexual... PROVES that there is NO DISCRIMINATION against homosexuals, as a 'protected class'. 

Your argument is as specious as your means to advance it is feckless.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so you say that the tyranny of the majority can't abuse the minority, but can't this work in the same way in reverse ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are gays 'abusing' the majority by being allowed to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you. And you're nobody. As the legality and recognition of same sex marriage in 32 of 50 States demonstrates. You insist this can't happen. Reality disabuses you of your misconception.
> 
> Just because you ignore reality doesn't mean we're similarly obligated to do so.
Click to expand...


Yet ... marriage remains the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Same way interracial marriage bans were passed... .



Inter-racial marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... because MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.


----------



## Skylar

> That marriage is multifaceted, in NO WAY provides that it is anything ACCEPT THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!



Sure it does. For the very reasons you cited: ''the purposes intrinsic to such'...which you've told us repeatedly is procreation. *But that isn't a requirement of a valid marriage. *As infertile couples demonstrate, there is a valid basis to marriage that has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to have children. As childless couples demonstrate, there's a valid basis of to marriage that has absolutely nothing to do with having children. 

Snuffing your 'the purpose intrinsic to such' standard as the sole basis of marriage. Thus, you need to have a valid reason for your definition of 'one man and one woman'. And there is none. There's no requirement of marriage that gays and lesbians can't meet. Procreation is off the table with the valid marriage of infertile couples. Making your denial of fundamental rights arbitrary, without a rational basis  and without a compelling State interest.

Failing each of the 3 requirement set down by the _Romer_ court for the denial of rights. A ruling that *explicitly* protected gays and lesbians from State law.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so you say that the tyranny of the majority can't abuse the minority, but can't this work in the same way in reverse ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are gays 'abusing' the majority by being allowed to marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you. And you're nobody. As the legality and recognition of same sex marriage in 32 of 50 States demonstrates. You insist this can't happen. Reality disabuses you of your misconception.
> 
> Just because you ignore reality doesn't mean we're similarly obligated to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet ... marriage remains the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


Says you, citing you. And you're nobody. As same sex marriage is both legal and recognized as valid in 32 of 50 States, your denial of reality doesn't amount to much.


----------



## Political Junky

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same way interracial marriage bans were passed... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inter-racial marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... because MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.
Click to expand...

Yes, God changed his mind about interracial marriage some years ago.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Political Junky said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same way interracial marriage bans were passed... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inter-racial marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... because MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, God changed his mind about interracial marriage some years ago.
Click to expand...


God has never taken a position on inter-racial marriage... this in distinct contrast to God's position on only the distinct genders being relevant to such, which he demonstrated through his design of the species, providing for the aforementioned distinction.

See how that works?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Sure it does. For the very reasons you cited: ''the purposes intrinsic to such'...which you've told us repeatedly is procreation.



The FUNDAMENTAL purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment to conceive, raise and train children through the complimenting traits of the distinct genders... .

That there exist those who marry with no intention of conceiving, raising and training children marry, in NO WAY provides that people of the same gender are qualified to participate in an institution which by its very NATURE PRECLUDES THEIR PARTICIPATION by virtue of its defined standard.

Ya see: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Skylar

Political Junky said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same way interracial marriage bans were passed... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inter-racial marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... because MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, God changed his mind about interracial marriage some years ago.
Click to expand...


It was argued in the south by actual judges that God made the races separate and that the law reflected what God has created.



> "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his [arrangement] there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
> 
> Judge Leon Bazile In judgement against Mildred and Richard Loving
> *January 22, 1965*



Bazile cited his observation of 'God's creations' just like Keys does.  Bazile drew his lines at race, Keys at gender. But neither involve any requirement of marriage. They're both an arbitrary Appeal to Authority, and a classic fallacy of logic that don't involve any requirement of marriage.

But when you demand they justify their claims logically and rationally, rather than just appealing to authority....it all falls apart. As procreation isn't a requirement of ANY married couple. Why then would we make up a non-existent standard, inexplicably exempt all straights and then apply it exclusively to gays?

There is no reason.


----------



## Skylar

> The FUNDAMENTAL purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment to conceive, raise and train children through the complimenting traits of the distinct genders... .



As the valid marriages of infertile couples demonstrates, *there is clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with conceiving children.* As the valid marriages of childless couples demonstrate,* there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with 'raising and training children' to do anything.*

Burying your argument under the weight of its own failures of logic and reason yet again.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Let me ask you this... on what basis are you resting this absurdity, which apparently holds that for reasoning to be valid, it must be claimed by someone who is NOT HERE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the basis that same sex marriage exists in 31 of 50 states. You insist this can't be. Reality demonstrates it most certainly can.
> 
> Again, your denial of reality doesn't change it. The world doesn't disappear if you close your eyes. And the overwhelming evidence that contradicts you doesn't cease to exist just because you pretend it never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did this get passed in these states ? Was it the majority of the people that did the passing and agreeing with in these states, and so next they let their reps know that this is what they wanted and it was echoed (*or*) was it a federal activist judge over turning the will of the people within the states that are in question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same way interracial marriage bans were passed: through the power of the people. But the people don't have the power to strip minorities of fundamental rights. Not without a compelling state interest and a very rational reason. And gay marriage opponents have neither. They arbitrarily deny gays and lesbians the right to same sex marriage because they can.
> 
> Well, until the federal judiciary steps in and protects the rights of the Federal Citizens that the States are clearly abusing.
Click to expand...


What is a federal citizen anyway ? Is that the same as an American citizen or something different ? Are you creating this federal citizen who would then agree no matter what with the federal government, and therefore lives under the federal governments jurisdiction and guidelines no matter where he or she resides within the nation ? Are these watchdog's who are now placed as watchdogs over the states citizens and local governments ?
Is there a difference between your so called federal citizen and a state loving citizen who don't always agree with the federal government, and rightfully so ? How about a state citizen who lives within a desired state because of the state's people who think in the same ways that he or she does, and therefore holds the same values as he or she does, so could it be that he or she is living there because there may have been a ban in place, among other things in which such a citizen may have been looking for when moving to a state of his or her choice ? There are many reasons that people move around in the nation, and values and principles are just some of the strong reasons why people move to different areas and/or states when they do so.


----------



## Skylar

> What is a federal citizen anyway ?



A citizen of the United States.



> Are you creating this federal citizen who would then agree no matterwhat with the federal government, and therefore lives under the federal governments jurisdiction and guidelines no matter where he or she resides within the nation ? Are these watchdog's who are now placed as watchdogs over the states citizens and local governments ?



I didn't 'create' anything. Check the 14th amendment on citizens of the United States. 



> s there a difference between your so called federal citizen and a state loving citizen who don't always agree with the federal government, and rightfully so ?



Yup. Each citizen is a citizen of the United States and the State in which they reside. Every citizen is a federal citizen. Though not all citizens are state citizens. The residents of DC, for example, are only federal citizens. Take a look at the doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction. It gives an excellent overview. 

The distinction between federal and state citizens became less pronounced after the Bill of Rights was applied to the States. As before that, State's could violate the Bill of Rights to their heart's content as the Bill of Rights only limited Federal Action. After the doctrine of selective incorporation was adopted by the courts based on the 14th amendment, the States were subject to most constitutional restrictions. 

As it stands now, the primary differences of State and Federal citizenship relate to issues of jurisdiction for certain types of crimes. You don't have the Feds issuing many traffic tickets, for example. And the protection of rights. No State can recognize fewer rights than the Federal Government. But many States recognize more rights than the federal government.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> The FUNDAMENTAL purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment to conceive, raise and train children through the complimenting traits of the distinct genders... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the valid marriages of infertile couples demonstrates, *there is clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with conceiving children.* As the valid marriages of childless couples demonstrate,* there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with 'raising and training children' to do anything.*
> 
> Burying your argument under the weight of its own failures of logic and reason yet again.
Click to expand...

Why marriage ? How come they didn't create something new to be more modern about it all, instead of trying to annex marriage like they have done ? It seems that they want to attack every traditional thing they can in this nation, and to then bring these things to an end for some as they were understood to be, and then to make them something else that they were never intended to be. Now it's up to the people to decide whether they are going to let this happen or maybe not in their parts of the little worlds that exist within the bigger worlds in which they do decide to live in or have lived in for many a year now.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Why marriage ? How come they didn't create something new to be more modern about it all, instead of trying to annex marriage like they have done ?



Why reinvent the wheel? Its already established, the law has already codified it, its already integrated into the private sector, and is a constitutionally recognized right. Plus conservatives did a really good job pitching the idea of monogamy and marriage and its value in one's life. They apparently convinced a significant portion of the gays that its something they should get in on. 

If I were a conservative, I'd count it as a win. 



> It seems that they want to attack every traditional thing they can in this nation, and to then bring these things to an end for some as they were understood to be, and then to make them something else that they were never intended to be.


Far from attacking it, they want to _join it_. And quite a few gays and lesbians have spent considerable amounts of their own time and money to be allowed to.

That's a high compliment.


----------



## Kosh

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why marriage ? How come they didn't create something new to be more modern about it all, instead of trying to annex marriage like they have done ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why reinvent the wheel? Its already established, the law has already codified it, its already integrated into the private sector, and is a constitutionally recognized right. Plus conservatives did a really good job pitching the idea of monogamy and marriage and its value in one's life. They apparently convinced a significant portion of the gays that its something they should get in on.
> 
> If I were a conservative, I'd count it as a win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that they want to attack every traditional thing they can in this nation, and to then bring these things to an end for some as they were understood to be, and then to make them something else that they were never intended to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Far from attacking it, they want to _join it_. And quite a few gays and lesbians have spent considerable amounts of their own time and money to be allowed to.
> 
> That's a high compliment.
Click to expand...


Actually entering in a civil union is far more legally binding that a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it..

Since you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union, why not be in one?

But then again as this thread has shown time and time again it is not about "Marriage" it is about punishing the church..


----------



## WorldWatcher

Kosh said:


> Actually entering in a civil union is far more legally binding that a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it..



Well that's false.  Just cross state lines and a civil union disappears.  Civil Marriage though doesn't (as it normally functions).



Kosh said:


> Since you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union, why not be in one?



That again is false.  The only "partner" that receives the SS benefits (assuming you mean Social Security) is a legal spouse in a Civil Marriage.  Partners in a Civil Union get nothing.


>>>>


----------



## Skylar

Kosh said:


> Actually entering in a civil union is far more legally binding that a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it..


[

Says who?



> Since you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union, why not be in one?



If they are exactly the same, why bother with a civil union? Why not just go for marriage? See, that's the rub. If they're genuinely identical, then there's no need for civil unions. 



> But then again as this thread has shown time and time again it is not about "Marriage" it is about punishing the church..


[/quote]

Gays and lesbians are seeking the right to marry under the law. The church I leave to you. Recognize gay marriage, don't recognize gay marriage, no one cares. As churches don't define marriage under the law.


----------



## Kosh

Skylar said:


> Since you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union, why not be in one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you say. Other sources have a very different take:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before the Supreme Court overturned Part 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), same-sex spouses were not entitled to federal spousal benefits, even if the couple’s marriage was valid in the state where they lived. This was because the federal government defined marriage as between one man and one woman. However, the federal government must now extend federal benefits, including Social Security spousal benefits, to same-sex married couples, as long as the marital relationship is valid in the state where the couple lives.
> 
> This is not true for same-sex (or heterosexual) couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships, even if the relationship is valid in the state where the couple lives and the state gives the same benefits to those unions and partnerships as it does to marriage. *At this point in time, Social Security benefits are only extended to couples who have entered into a valid marriage and who live in a state where that marriage is recognized.*
> 
> Social Security Benefits for Members of Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions Nolo.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So other than you, who is your source that you can leave SS money via a civil union?
Click to expand...


Once again the far left shows that they can not comprehend anything beyond their talking points..

"Marriage" and "Civil Union", yea I can see how those get confused..


----------



## Kosh

WorldWatcher said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually entering in a civil union is far more legally binding that a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's false.  Just cross state lines and a civil union disappears.  Civil Marriage though doesn't (as it normally functions).
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union, why not be in one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That again is false.  The only "partner" that receives the SS benefits (assuming you mean Social Security) is a legal spouse in a Civil Marriage.  Partners in a Civil Union get nothing.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Once again the far left propaganda fear mongering machine is in over drive..


----------



## Skylar

So who says that you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union?

That would be you and...who? Some pretty credible online resources have said that civil unions don't count and only marriages do in leaving your Social Security money. So who is your source?


----------



## Kosh

Skylar said:


> So who says that you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union?
> 
> That would be you and...who? Some pretty credible online resources have said that civil unions don't count and only marriages do in leaving your Social Security money. So who is your source?



Lawyers, legal scholars, etc..

Might want to research things before just posting far left fear mongering propaganda..

just like your spouse/partner can make sure legally, that you get none of their SS.

You are not entitled to someone else's money..


----------



## Skylar

Lawyers and Legal Scholars like......who?


----------



## Kosh

Skylar said:


> Lawyers and Legal Scholars like......who?



Do your own research like you want others to do..

Come on show us that you can research things outside the far left programming!


----------



## Skylar

Uh-huh. So 'lawyers and legal scholars'....as long as we don't ask who they are. 

Sigh....goodnight Kosh. I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree trying to get any useful information out of you


----------



## Kosh

Skylar said:


> Uh-huh. So 'lawyers and legal scholars'....as long as we don't ask who they are.
> 
> Sigh....goodnight Kosh. I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree trying to get any useful information out of you



And there it is the far left makes claims about others not doing research and what others to research things, yet they will not do it themselves.

Another perfect example of a far left drone..

Far left mentality is to post known debunk information and expect others to prove them wrong!


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strong support? You're speaking of the 'strong support' which would be expected within The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm speaking of exactly what I said: strong support for the legality of same sex marriage...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


And in 32 states- the joining of two men or two women.


----------



## Syriusly

Kosh said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. So 'lawyers and legal scholars'....as long as we don't ask who they are.
> 
> Sigh....goodnight Kosh. I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree trying to get any useful information out of you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is the far left makes claims about others not doing research and what others to research things, yet they will not do it themselves.
> 
> Another perfect example of a far left drone..
> 
> Far left mentality is to post known debunk information and expect others to prove them wrong!
Click to expand...


Kosh is trolling in this thread too?


----------



## Kosh

Syriusly said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. So 'lawyers and legal scholars'....as long as we don't ask who they are.
> 
> Sigh....goodnight Kosh. I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree trying to get any useful information out of you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is the far left makes claims about others not doing research and what others to research things, yet they will not do it themselves.
> 
> Another perfect example of a far left drone..
> 
> Far left mentality is to post known debunk information and expect others to prove them wrong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kosh is trolling in this thread too?
Click to expand...


Yes calling out the far left to the far left is trolling!

Than again the far left trolls all the time..


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. So 'lawyers and legal scholars'....as long as we don't ask who they are.
> 
> Sigh....goodnight Kosh. I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree trying to get any useful information out of you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is the far left makes claims about others not doing research and what others to research things, yet they will not do it themselves.
> 
> Another perfect example of a far left drone..
> 
> Far left mentality is to post known debunk information and expect others to prove them wrong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kosh is trolling in this thread too?
Click to expand...


Yup. I just have him on ignore. He keeps posting the same reply, regardless of the topic or what he's replying to. You could offer him a detailed, thoughtful response with sources and links.......or give him GPS coordinates to Toy'R'Us, and you'll get the same bizarre reply about 'far left' and 'never admitting when they're wrong'. 

He's just spamming. There's really no conversation to be had.


----------



## Kosh

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. So 'lawyers and legal scholars'....as long as we don't ask who they are.
> 
> Sigh....goodnight Kosh. I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree trying to get any useful information out of you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is the far left makes claims about others not doing research and what others to research things, yet they will not do it themselves.
> 
> Another perfect example of a far left drone..
> 
> Far left mentality is to post known debunk information and expect others to prove them wrong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kosh is trolling in this thread too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. I just have him on ignore. He keeps posting the same reply, regardless of the topic or what he's replying to. You could offer him a detailed, thoughtful response with sources and links.......or give him GPS coordinates to Toy'R'Us, and you'll get the same bizarre reply about 'far left' and 'never admitting when they're wrong'.
> 
> He's just spamming. There's really no conversation to be had.
Click to expand...


Yes showing that the far left can not admit when they are wrong is spamming!

All the far left has to do is own up to when they are wrong!


----------



## Syriusly

Kosh said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. So 'lawyers and legal scholars'....as long as we don't ask who they are.
> 
> Sigh....goodnight Kosh. I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree trying to get any useful information out of you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is the far left makes claims about others not doing research and what others to research things, yet they will not do it themselves.
> 
> Another perfect example of a far left drone..
> 
> Far left mentality is to post known debunk information and expect others to prove them wrong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kosh is trolling in this thread too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. I just have him on ignore. He keeps posting the same reply, regardless of the topic or what he's replying to. You could offer him a detailed, thoughtful response with sources and links.......or give him GPS coordinates to Toy'R'Us, and you'll get the same bizarre reply about 'far left' and 'never admitting when they're wrong'.
> 
> He's just spamming. There's really no conversation to be had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes showing that the far left can not admit when they are wrong is spamming!
> 
> All the far left has to do is own up to when they are wrong!
Click to expand...


Yep he is just trolling.


----------



## Kosh

Syriusly said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. So 'lawyers and legal scholars'....as long as we don't ask who they are.
> 
> Sigh....goodnight Kosh. I'm clearly barking up the wrong tree trying to get any useful information out of you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is the far left makes claims about others not doing research and what others to research things, yet they will not do it themselves.
> 
> Another perfect example of a far left drone..
> 
> Far left mentality is to post known debunk information and expect others to prove them wrong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kosh is trolling in this thread too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. I just have him on ignore. He keeps posting the same reply, regardless of the topic or what he's replying to. You could offer him a detailed, thoughtful response with sources and links.......or give him GPS coordinates to Toy'R'Us, and you'll get the same bizarre reply about 'far left' and 'never admitting when they're wrong'.
> 
> He's just spamming. There's really no conversation to be had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes showing that the far left can not admit when they are wrong is spamming!
> 
> All the far left has to do is own up to when they are wrong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep he is just trolling.
Click to expand...


And as always the far left is wrong!


----------



## Syriusly

Kosh said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is the far left makes claims about others not doing research and what others to research things, yet they will not do it themselves.
> 
> Another perfect example of a far left drone..
> 
> Far left mentality is to post known debunk information and expect others to prove them wrong!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh is trolling in this thread too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. I just have him on ignore. He keeps posting the same reply, regardless of the topic or what he's replying to. You could offer him a detailed, thoughtful response with sources and links.......or give him GPS coordinates to Toy'R'Us, and you'll get the same bizarre reply about 'far left' and 'never admitting when they're wrong'.
> 
> He's just spamming. There's really no conversation to be had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes showing that the far left can not admit when they are wrong is spamming!
> 
> All the far left has to do is own up to when they are wrong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep he is just trolling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as always the far left is wrong!
Click to expand...


And yer just a troll


----------



## Kosh

Syriusly said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh is trolling in this thread too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. I just have him on ignore. He keeps posting the same reply, regardless of the topic or what he's replying to. You could offer him a detailed, thoughtful response with sources and links.......or give him GPS coordinates to Toy'R'Us, and you'll get the same bizarre reply about 'far left' and 'never admitting when they're wrong'.
> 
> He's just spamming. There's really no conversation to be had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes showing that the far left can not admit when they are wrong is spamming!
> 
> All the far left has to do is own up to when they are wrong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep he is just trolling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as always the far left is wrong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yer just a troll
Click to expand...


Says the far left drone troll!


----------



## Seawytch

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard something today on Rush Limbaugh, where as a person called in and asked Rush what he thought about him (the caller) as a person having to attend a meeting in Minnesota I think it was, and there the topic was concerning transgender people, and them being able to use the restroom that best suits their gender in which they feel that they are as human beings, but yet wasn't born as in their own unscientific opinions. Rush didn't respond to him with an answer, because he felt he was being set up on the question, but I will respond... I think that it is pushing the envelope way to far in these things, because If I send my grandchildren into a rest room that matches their gender in which they were born as, and a man who thinks of himself as a woman or vice-verse a woman whom thinks herself as a man tries to go in afterwards, then there's gonna be trouble is all I can say. This is a no-brainier folks, where as the answer is of course, NOPE, NOTTA, NOT or maybe better put as *ABSOLUTELY NOT*, that anyone would go into the girls restroom as a man, and would do this because somehow they would think of themselves as a woman when entering in ? Not happening is what I think most people would agree to when asked, but why the push now toward all these things ? Is it because of Obama that some are feeling empowered in such a radical or militant way now ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should probably invest in a porta potty to carry around because transgendered people are winning their lawsuits.
> 
> When someone is transitioning from male to female or female to male, they must live as the gender they wish to be re-assigned to before they can have the surgery. Do you really expect a man transitioning to a woman to use the men's bathroom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Winning law suits?
> 
> So... you're saying that because you win a lawsuit, that this makes it right?
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> So when we remove your Leftist Judges and our judges DECREE that sodomy laws were there for a reason and reinstitute those laws, shoving your bleeding ass back into the closet, when we start winning the law suits...  You're going to be perfectly fine with that?
> 
> My guess is that ya won't...
Click to expand...


Sorry, but your brand of anti gay isn't going to be winning any lawsuits.


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard something today on Rush Limbaugh, where as a person called in and asked Rush what he thought about him (the caller) as a person having to attend a meeting in Minnesota I think it was, and there the topic was concerning transgender people, and them being able to use the restroom that best suits their gender in which they feel that they are as human beings, but yet wasn't born as in their own unscientific opinions. Rush didn't respond to him with an answer, because he felt he was being set up on the question, but I will respond... I think that it is pushing the envelope way to far in these things, because If I send my grandchildren into a rest room that matches their gender in which they were born as, and a man who thinks of himself as a woman or vice-verse a woman whom thinks herself as a man tries to go in afterwards, then there's gonna be trouble is all I can say. This is a no-brainier folks, where as the answer is of course, NOPE, NOTTA, NOT or maybe better put as *ABSOLUTELY NOT*, that anyone would go into the girls restroom as a man, and would do this because somehow they would think of themselves as a woman when entering in ? Not happening is what I think most people would agree to when asked, but why the push now toward all these things ? Is it because of Obama that some are feeling empowered in such a radical or militant way now ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should probably invest in a porta potty to carry around because transgendered people are winning their lawsuits.
> 
> When someone is transitioning from male to female or female to male, they must live as the gender they wish to be re-assigned to before they can have the surgery. Do you really expect a man transitioning to a woman to use the men's bathroom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A *new restroom* will be needed and should be added, so get ready for your taxes to sky rocket some more, because that is going to be the result of this for sure, so if everyone wants to have their taxes reach critical mass (already has), then keep it up because society will soon collapse under the weight of it all.
Click to expand...


No, there won't be any "new restrooms" created. They use the restroom of the gender they are transitioning to. You get over it.


----------



## Wildman

*



			Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?
		
Click to expand...

*

as worded.., NO !!                                                          

*Should Churches accomodate homosexual weddings?*

*FUCK........,  NO !!*

*Pagan, blood letting, ritualistic, heathen churches ?*

*Haillll   YESSsss !!, *

*that would be very appropriate...,              *

*for homos. *


----------



## Seawytch

MaryL said:


> Actually, I have lived through all this. Homosexuality is just a garden variety sexual  perversion/dysfunction. The pity is, homosexuals have capital and this is a capitalist society, they are buying  popular sentiment with  Hollywood shows from Will and  Grace to Philadelphia. I won't take this any were else, because  I know just how jaded I will sound.



Replace "jaded" with "batshit crazy" and you'd have an amazing bit of self awareness going on.


----------



## Wildman

Seawytch said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have lived through all this. Homosexuality is just a garden variety sexual  perversion/dysfunction. The pity is, homosexuals have capital and this is a capitalist society, they are buying  popular sentiment with  Hollywood shows from Will and  Grace to Philadelphia. I won't take this any were else, because  I know just how jaded I will sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Replace "jaded" with "batshit crazy" and you'd have an amazing bit of self awareness going on.
Click to expand...

xxxxxxxxxxxx
your "hubpages" is nothing but pure 100%  leftwing  and speaking of "batshit crazy", you lefttards take the "Blue Ribbon" every time.


----------



## beagle9

WorldWatcher said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually entering in a civil union is far more legally binding that a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's false.  Just cross state lines and a civil union disappears.  Civil Marriage though doesn't (as it normally functions).
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union, why not be in one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That again is false.  The only "partner" that receives the SS benefits (assuming you mean Social Security) is a legal spouse in a Civil Marriage.  Partners in a Civil Union get nothing.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

Not* false*, because the civil union idea was a work in progress (a compromise), so why couldn't it be worked out over time to the benefits of what the poster had spoken of ?  I thought you all were about being progressive, but you want to annex an ancient thing that was created long ago in order to lift up, and to bind the man, woman, child family unit as one, and to nourish the traditions set forth in that structural family apparatus called *marriage* in which was set up to do these things under religious tenets. No they want to annex or join this thing in order to defeat it, because they will change the name, and then the complete meaning of it eventually, and therefore they will gut it. After that is done, they will be done with it, and then they will want to change it into something else as so not to be associated to what it was once, and for what it once stood for. History bares this out, and so this is just the beginning, but it will be sure to have an ending just as well.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Kosh said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually entering in a civil union is far more legally binding that a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's false.  Just cross state lines and a civil union disappears.  Civil Marriage though doesn't (as it normally functions).
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union, why not be in one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That again is false.  The only "partner" that receives the SS benefits (assuming you mean Social Security) is a legal spouse in a Civil Marriage.  Partners in a Civil Union get nothing.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again the far left propaganda fear mongering machine is in over drive..
Click to expand...


Sorry when people make false claims about the law I call them out on it.

Your attempt at _ad hominem _is noted, but for your information I'm not a member of the "far left", I've been a registered Republican since 1978.


>>>>


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually entering into a civil union is far more legally binding than a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union, why not be in one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are exactly the same, why bother with a civil union? Why not just go for marriage? See, that's the rub. If they're genuinely identical, then there's no need for civil unions. But then again as this thread has shown time and time again it is not about "Marriage" it is about punishing the church..Gays and lesbians are seeking the right to marry under the law. The church I leave to you. Recognize gay marriage, don't recognize gay marriage, no one cares. As churches don't define marriage under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It won't let me respond in quotes, so I will do something different to get my point across...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## beagle9

The incentives the government gives in marriage as it has done in the past, is only dealing with the benefit side of marriage in which it offers only as an incentive package for a *man and a woman* who want to join together in *holy matrimony*, and to pro-create in order to form a family unit under the long held traditional tenets that are found under the *religious ceremony called marriage, *and that was to the only extent that government wanted to be involved in it. So no farther did it go as is being requested of them today, because the breech between Church and State could apply very easily here if doing so. The state does not enter into nor does it breech the meaning of the word itself, nor does it attempt to re-define or should it try and give a definition of marriage itself because of what could be found in what is written above I think. They don't do this because the *separation of church and state* prohibits the government from attempting to re-define or to enter into the marriage definition, and this by attempting to control the aspect of marriage or to redefine it according to the state, and this because of it being of course a *religious ceremony* that is protected as such.  Therefore it is separated from government intrusion in this manor am I correct ? Summary- It is not that of a state thing in which it is defined by or is to be re-defined by or intruded upon by the state correct ?

Yes the state gives perks in order to support the pro-creation and stability of the family unit that is defined under the *religious ceremonial definition of marriage*, but it enters not into the re-defining of the word nor does it enter into the changing of the definition of marriage itself,, and why is this ? It is because that would be *a violation of Church and State to do so *(IMHO).

There are those who want to redefine marriage onto their terms, and they want the government to do this for them, and so I wonder do the benefits really matter in the bigger picture to them or is it all about what marriage will mean to this nation in the future in which matters the most to them ?


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> No, there won't be any "new restrooms" created. They use the restroom of the gender they are transitioning to. You get over it.


 
So a middle aged guy who claims to be "transitioning" (after all, the APA/CQR won't do any hard science on what that ACTUALLY means, other than patient self-reporting) can waltz into the women's bathroom at a venue where girls are, and there's nothing parents can do about that eh?

Welcome to the LGBT utopia folks!


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there won't be any "new restrooms" created. They use the restroom of the gender they are transitioning to. You get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a middle aged guy who claims to be "transitioning" (after all, the APA/CQR won't do any hard science on what that ACTUALLY means, other than patient self-reporting) can waltz into the women's bathroom at a venue where girls are, and there's nothing parents can do about that eh?
> 
> Welcome to the LGBT utopia folks!
Click to expand...

It's amazing isn't it ?


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> The incentives the government gives in marriage as it has done in the past, is only dealing with the benefits of marriage in which it offers only as an incentive package for a *man and a woman* who want to join together in *holy matrimony*, and to pro-create in order to form a family unit under the long held traditional tenets that are found under the *religious ceremony called marriage*. The state does not enter into nor does it breech the meaning of the word itself, nor does it attempt to re-define or should it try and give a definition of marriage itself. They don't do this because the *separation of church and state* prohibits the government from attempting to re-define or to enter into the marriage definition...


 Seawytch is right.  I don't often say that.  Your angle of argument would not win.

The state is in the business of regulating marriage for the sole reason, which is SECULAR of managing the environment in which children find themselves in their formative years.

The winning argument, and pretty much the only one beside opening precedent for polygamy and any other consenting adult in love, is that the fed has no business forcing states to incentivize a formative environment for children where it is guaranteed they will be missing one blood parent (at least) 100% of the time (gay marriage).  Or where those children would be missing one of the formative-model genders 100% of the time.  We live in a society where men and women interact on a daily basis.  Any children in a gay-parent home would be missing their own gender as a role model, or the opposite one, 100% of the time.   Therefore we can guarantee they will be psycho-socially maladjusted as compared to their peers from hetero marriages, 100% of the time.

THAT is the legal argument.  The brass ring states hold out is male/female in order that this does not happen when and if children come along.  Childless hetero couples do not mar the shine, shape and size of that brass ring.  Gay ones do.


----------



## 1776

Liberals don't like morals/standards, anything should go in their book.

Someone wants to marry their kid, someone wants to marry their pet, someone wants to marry multiple people, etc....is where they are leading us.


----------



## mdk

1776 said:


> Liberals don't like morals/standards, anything should go in their book.
> 
> Someone wants to marry their kid, someone wants to marry their pet, someone wants to marry multiple people, etc....is where they are leading us.



What hogwash! Children and pets cannot consent to a marriage contract. I do however support the rights of those that wish to marry several people, if all the parties willingly consent of course. Your fear mongering does not have the same impact it once did mate.


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The incentives the government gives in marriage as it has done in the past, is only dealing with the benefits of marriage in which it offers only as an incentive package for a *man and a woman* who want to join together in *holy matrimony*, and to pro-create in order to form a family unit under the long held traditional tenets that are found under the *religious ceremony called marriage*. The state does not enter into nor does it breech the meaning of the word itself, nor does it attempt to re-define or should it try and give a definition of marriage itself. They don't do this because the *separation of church and state* prohibits the government from attempting to re-define or to enter into the marriage definition...
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch is right.  I don't often say that.  Your angle of argument would not win.
> 
> The state is in the business of regulating marriage for the sole reason, which is SECULAR of managing the environment in which children find themselves in their formative years.
> 
> The winning argument, and pretty much the only one beside opening precedent for polygamy and any other consenting adult in love, is that the fed has no business forcing states to incentivize a formative environment for children where it is guaranteed they will be missing one blood parent (at least) 100% of the time (gay marriage).  Or where those children would be missing one of the formative-model genders 100% of the time.  We live in a society where men and women interact on a daily basis.  Any children in a gay-parent home would be missing their own gender as a role model, or the opposite one, 100% of the time.   Therefore we can guarantee they will be psycho-socially maladjusted as compared to their peers from hetero marriages, 100% of the time.
> 
> THAT is the legal argument.  The brass ring states hold out is male/female in order that this does not happen when and if children come along.  Childless hetero couples do not mar the shine, shape and size of that brass ring.  Gay ones do.
Click to expand...

The fact that the state has breached the separation between church and state on this issue, has created the very thing in which you are battling over now. Just wait, it will be a catalyst for the further destruction of the church in America, and that is what people don't understand. You see it is all about the bigger picture involved here also. Haven't you wondered why your not winning on your arguments yet Sil ?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

beagle9 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The incentives the government gives in marriage as it has done in the past, is only dealing with the benefits of marriage in which it offers only as an incentive package for a *man and a woman* who want to join together in *holy matrimony*, and to pro-create in order to form a family unit under the long held traditional tenets that are found under the *religious ceremony called marriage*. The state does not enter into nor does it breech the meaning of the word itself, nor does it attempt to re-define or should it try and give a definition of marriage itself. They don't do this because the *separation of church and state* prohibits the government from attempting to re-define or to enter into the marriage definition...
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch is right.  I don't often say that.  Your angle of argument would not win.
> 
> The state is in the business of regulating marriage for the sole reason, which is SECULAR of managing the environment in which children find themselves in their formative years.
> 
> The winning argument, and pretty much the only one beside opening precedent for polygamy and any other consenting adult in love, is that the fed has no business forcing states to incentivize a formative environment for children where it is guaranteed they will be missing one blood parent (at least) 100% of the time (gay marriage).  Or where those children would be missing one of the formative-model genders 100% of the time.  We live in a society where men and women interact on a daily basis.  Any children in a gay-parent home would be missing their own gender as a role model, or the opposite one, 100% of the time.   Therefore we can guarantee they will be psycho-socially maladjusted as compared to their peers from hetero marriages, 100% of the time.
> 
> THAT is the legal argument.  The brass ring states hold out is male/female in order that this does not happen when and if children come along.  Childless hetero couples do not mar the shine, shape and size of that brass ring.  Gay ones do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that the state has breached the separation between church and state on this issue, has created the very thing in which you are battling over now. Just wait, it will be a catalyst for the further destruction of the church in America, and that is what people don't understand. You see it is all about the bigger picture involved here also. Haven't you wondered why your not winning on your arguments yet Sil ?
Click to expand...


There is no "separation of church and state" and the 1st Amendment prohibits the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from establishing a state religion. It certainly doesn't apply to state marital laws which fall under the 10th Amendment.


----------



## Silhouette

Church and state have nothing to do with marriage.  The state's interest is the welfare of children in their formative years..


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> What hogwash! Children and pets cannot consent to a marriage contract.* I do however support the rights of those that wish to marry several people, if all the parties willingly consent of course*. Your fear mongering does not have the same impact it once did mate.


Agreed, the "pets" and "children" angle is often introduced by gays posing as straights in order to take the likely and guaranteed (polygamy, adult incest) into the absurd (pets, children) in order to kill the discussion-via-association of the possible with the impossible. It's one of thousands of tricks the LGBT PSYOPS group online has in their bag.

I suspect the state-incentivized environment where children would be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time (legitimized/forced gay marriage) is getting spammed off pretty much every discussion here on these boards..in very creative ways...using sock puppets..In other words, it's a winning angle.  Attorneys for the opposition, get out your note pads..

Getting back to reality. Polygamy is a foregone conclusion. If gay marriage is forced upon any state as a civil rights "marriage equality" matter, polygamy automatically is too. If a state is forbidden from banning any consenting adult from marrying, it cannot pass judgment on polygamy or adult incest either. They are already legal folks, sorry to tell you. If a county clerk tried to deny these people also a marriage license, they could be sued. And Sotomayor would have to put out actual legal language on the table as her "rationale why we can still deny just these sexual deviant subgroups, but not others"...

They're already legal. This isn't a slippery slope argument anymore. It's a de facto argument. Anything less would be discrimination.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> What hogwash! Children and pets cannot consent to a marriage contract.* I do however support the rights of those that wish to marry several people, if all the parties willingly consent of course*. Your fear mongering does not have the same impact it once did mate.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, the "pets" and "children" angle is often introduced by gays posing as straights in order to take the likely and guaranteed (polygamy, adult incest) into the absurd (pets, children) in order to kill the discussion-via-association of the possible with the impossible. It's one of thousands of tricks the LGBT PSYOPS group online has in their bag.
> 
> I suspect the state-incentivized environment where children would be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time (legitimized/forced gay marriage) is getting spammed off pretty much every discussion here on these boards..in very creative ways...using sock puppets..In other words, it's a winning angle.  Attorneys for the opposition, get out your note pads..
> 
> Getting back to reality. Polygamy is a foregone conclusion. If gay marriage is forced upon any state as a civil rights "marriage equality" matter, polygamy automatically is too. If a state is forbidden from banning any consenting adult from marrying, it cannot pass judgment on polygamy or adult incest either. They are already legal folks, sorry to tell you. If a county clerk tried to deny these people also a marriage license, they could be sued. And Sotomayor would have to put out actual legal language on the table as her "rationale why we can still deny just these sexual deviant subgroups, but not others"...
> 
> They're already legal. This isn't a slippery slope argument anymore. It's a de facto argument. Anything less would be discrimination.
Click to expand...


Of course you think gay people are posing as straights and bringing up animals and children into the debate. It fits your narrative. All roads of blame leads back to gays in your world. Sorry that your side has to employ such sad comparisons to support your discriminatory positions.


Let's get down to the brass tacks here. Children are nothing more then pawns in your anti-gay game of chess. If you truly cared about children not having at least one of their parents be blood related you would be calling for the adoptions to be outlawed entirely. Besides, gays have been raising children long before they had access to marriage.

Your inconsistency only lessens what little credibility you do have left concerning this issue.


----------



## beagle9

Isn't it that the state cannot intrude upon or redefine the church in any way, just as long as it (the church) goes in peace or goes about it's business in peace there of ?  It must not be a threat to the state or vice-verse right, but what the state can do is it can make incentives for, and create some policy for the state that may be conducive or uplifting to the church if it so chooses am I correct ? The church can influence the state upon the states own findings of such when in review of the church, but the church cannot coerce control nor make policy for the state in which it would demand control over the state and that policy correct ? All actions must be voluntary, and not coerced or manipulated or controlled in anyway when the two interact. The way that these things can be worked out is through the will of the people in guidance there of, and then having the acknowledgement of that will by all parties involved expressed righteously and wisely, but at the same time keeping the intrusions out of the equation as set forth by the people and of the constitution that governs them/us. Keep the specific separations intact as so that the two can exist together without harm to each other is the best way (IMHO). We shouldn't allow anyone to come between the two as we have seen so much of today.. Right now the state is being coerced by certain groups or people to go against the church, and they are doing this to destroy a certain thing in which they don't like that another group has or does enjoy in America. The state shall not or should not be manipulated in this way, and the church should make a stand against this form of tyranny that is attacking it now.


----------



## beagle9

I think there is definitely *a breach of church and state going on here*, because most if not all in America viewed or have known marriage to be as a holy and religious ceremony that was recognized by the state as a good thing, and they have done this through out this nations founding. It has supported the church practice by joining in on the action with incentives to help it all along because it saw it as good. Now the gay's are wanting the state to change the definition of marriage, and that is an intrusion or breach of the Church and State clause in which we have lived by for so long, and has been a protection of our religious institutions from the state controlling them or destroying them, and this we have had in order to of course protect the freedom of religion in this nation for as long as it has been a part of this America. We now see the power of the state, and how it can destroy without this protection being used, so where are we going wrong here ?


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> *Of course you think gay people are posing as straights and bringing up animals and children into the debate. It fits your narrative. All roads of blame leads back to gays in your world. Sorry that your side has to employ such sad comparisons* to support your discriminatory positions.


 
I've actually seen them get caught at another political website doing that exact thing.  The moderators can see IP addresses. 

All roads of blame lead back to gay-denial.  Insert "gay-denial" in your sentence and it will be more accurate.  Then it becomes my issue with the gay-idiology instead of individual personal people who call themselves "gay".  One is a legitimate concern.  The other is "hate" or bigotry".  This is another diversionary trick.  Y'all have a thousand of them..


----------



## Silhouette

Beagle, you weaving the church into a legal argument like this one is a box canyon.  I hope you know that.  If you are concerned about the children of marriage and what faith they will grow up to be, attack the root at its base (secular insitutionalizing of gay households at the mental/developmental expense of children caught up in them), instead of the tops.


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> Beagle, you weaving the church into a legal argument like this one is a box canyon.  I hope you know that.  If you are concerned about the children of marriage and what faith they will grow up to be, attack the root at its base (secular institutionalizing of gay households at the mental/developmental expense of children caught up in them), instead of the tops.


That too can be an issue as you have been battling over, and you are covering that side of the issue within your understanding of that side of it already.  I am covering the breach issue, because that is also what is at stake here for many states trying to hold on to the traditional religious value definition of marriage, in which was honored and ackowledged by the states forever and a day until now. To change the definition as according to the state, is to breach the Church and State (IMHO) and this pertains to the states and the nation going forward.


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beagle, you weaving the church into a legal argument like this one is a box canyon.  I hope you know that.  If you are concerned about the children of marriage and what faith they will grow up to be, attack the root at its base (secular institutionalizing of gay households at the mental/developmental expense of children caught up in them), instead of the tops.
> 
> 
> 
> That too can be an issue as you have been battling over, and you are covering that side of the issue within your understanding of that side of it already.  I am covering the breach issue, because that is also what is at stake here for many states trying to hold on to the traditional religious value definition of marriage, in which was honored and ackowledged by the states forever and a day until now. To change the definition as according to the state, is to breach the Church and State (IMHO) and this pertains to the states and the nation going forward.
Click to expand...

 Nope.  Secular marriages have been performed for decades.  That tradition has already been shattered.  Children's formative mileu is the winning debate point. Sorry.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course you think gay people are posing as straights and bringing up animals and children into the debate. It fits your narrative. All roads of blame leads back to gays in your world. Sorry that your side has to employ such sad comparisons* to support your discriminatory positions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've actually seen them get caught at another political website doing that exact thing.  The moderators can see IP addresses.
> 
> All roads of blame lead back to gay-denial.  Insert "gay-denial" in your sentence and it will be more accurate.  Then it becomes my issue with the gay-idiology instead of individual personal people who call themselves "gay".  One is a legitimate concern.  The other is "hate" or bigotry".  This is another diversionary trick.  Y'all have a thousand of them..
Click to expand...


So you think the folks that brought up such nonsense in this thread are actually gay? Priceless. 

I don't need any tricks to make my point about the obvious axe you have to grind concerning gays. There is a reason why almost every argument your side has presented the to courts have failed so miserably. Folks just are not buying what your selling anymore. Maybe it's time you get a new shtick. This one doesn't seen to be working so well.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beagle, you weaving the church into a legal argument like this one is a box canyon.  I hope you know that.  If you are concerned about the children of marriage and what faith they will grow up to be, attack the root at its base (secular institutionalizing of gay households at the mental/developmental expense of children caught up in them), instead of the tops.
> 
> 
> 
> That too can be an issue as you have been battling over, and you are covering that side of the issue within your understanding of that side of it already.  I am covering the breach issue, because that is also what is at stake here for many states trying to hold on to the traditional religious value definition of marriage, in which was honored and ackowledged by the states forever and a day until now. To change the definition as according to the state, is to breach the Church and State (IMHO) and this pertains to the states and the nation going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Secular marriages have been performed for decades.  That tradition has already been shattered.  Children's formative mileu is the winning debate point. Sorry.
Click to expand...


It isn't a winning debate point. Your alleged concern for children is nothing more than a ruse so you continue your anti-gay crusade.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Secular marriages have been performed for decades.  That tradition has already been shattered.  Children's formative mileu is the winning debate point. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't a winning debate point. *Your alleged concern for children is nothing more than a ruse so you continue your anti-gay crusade*.
Click to expand...

 
Anti gay-marriage crusade.  Please be accurate.  I actually have friends who are gay or bi.  And great grief for a gay friend years ago who died of AIDS from misunderstood etiology of homosexuality and its genesis as behavior.

Individual gays are flawed, but still human with many potentials.  Gay marriage?  Flawed institutionalization.  There is a huge difference.  It's like making OCD part of a school-learned curriculum.  We have no business as a society normalizing anything we do not, or refuse to, fully understand.  CQR ain't gonna cut it.. Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren t to Blame They Rely on Science .. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Secular marriages have been performed for decades.  That tradition has already been shattered.  Children's formative mileu is the winning debate point. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't a winning debate point. *Your alleged concern for children is nothing more than a ruse so you continue your anti-gay crusade*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anti gay-marriage crusade.  Please be accurate.  I actually have friends who are gay or bi.  And great grief for a gay friend years ago who died of AIDS from misunderstood etiology of homosexuality and its genesis as behavior.
> 
> Individual gays are flawed, but still human with many potentials.  Gay marriage?  Flawed institutionalization.  There is a huge difference.  It's like making OCD part of a school-learned curriculum.  We have no business as a society normalizing anything we do not, or refuse to, fully understand.  CQR ain't gonna cut it.. Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren t to Blame They Rely on Science .. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


I am sure your numerous gays friends really appreciate you calling them flawed, mentally ill, perverts, and child molesters. I bet you never speak in such a fashion when their in your presence.

And it isn't just an anti-gay marriage crusade. You don't even believe gays should raise children. At least be honest about discriminatory crusade.

Either way I enjoy the fact that your side is getting laughed out of almost every court. You are losing in the court of public and the courts of law. This is the part where you claim a USMB poll, lines at fast food joints, and Facebook "likes" are proof that a majority of people actually support your views. Hint: They don't.


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beagle, you weaving the church into a legal argument like this one is a box canyon.  I hope you know that.  If you are concerned about the children of marriage and what faith they will grow up to be, attack the root at its base (secular institutionalizing of gay households at the mental/developmental expense of children caught up in them), instead of the tops.
> 
> 
> 
> That too can be an issue as you have been battling over, and you are covering that side of the issue within your understanding of that side of it already.  I am covering the breach issue, because that is also what is at stake here for many states trying to hold on to the traditional religious value definition of marriage, in which was honored and ackowledged by the states forever and a day until now. To change the definition as according to the state, is to breach the Church and State (IMHO) and this pertains to the states and the nation going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Secular marriages have been performed for decades.  That tradition has already been shattered.  Children's formative mileu is the winning debate point. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Yes secular marriages have been performed of course, but isn't this the complete attack on the word marriage finally, otherwise dealing with what the OP is stating or asking us here ? I mean how about the issue with the Christian cake baker, and the attacks on his establishment or the set up of Phil on Duck dynasty who is also a Christian ? Trust me all Christians are under attack here, and it is so because the text speaks against being gay, and that being gay is pure sin just like any other sin that it speaks of. They have to take it all down, and they will try even if they have to use the idiot government who will breach the lines between Church and State in order to do so. Religious freedoms in this nation today (pffft), say good bye to it...


----------



## RKMBrown

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strong support? You're speaking of the 'strong support' which would be expected within The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm speaking of exactly what I said: strong support for the legality of same sex marriage...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

No that's copulation.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> *I am sure your numerous gays friends really appreciate you calling them flawed, mentally ill, perverts, and child molesters.* I bet you never speak in such a fashion when their in your presence.
> 
> And it isn't just an anti-gay marriage crusade. You don't even believe gays should raise children. At least be honest about discriminatory crusade.
> 
> Either way I enjoy the fact that your side is getting laughed out of almost every court. You are losing in the court of public and the courts of law. This is the part where you claim a USMB poll, lines at fast food joints, and Facebook "likes" are proof that a majority of people actually support your views. Hint: They don't.


 
I would never confront the mentally ill directly with such statements.  I debate them anonymously here for a reason.  Imagine confronting an obese friend daily with the fact that they have an eating disorder, "how did you get that way?  What made you use food to medicate?  Aren't you aware this is killing you?".  Nope.  The sane friends of the disturbed insert the needle gently in direct confrontation.  I have obese friends too, would you that I advocate "on their behalf" that overeating is cool, OK and should be encouraged in schools?

No, you wouldn't.

I don't believe gays should raise children.  It is precisely because they have GLARING and harmful unresolved childhood issues so intense that they cause them to utterly reject the opposite gender...even going so far as to have sex with the same gender who sports all the trappings of the opposite gender, but NEVER, EVER to take that final step towards actually realizing their closeted heterosexuality.  Children don't belong in an environment where the opposite gender is rebuked or distanced at such a pathological degree.  What happens if the child himself is that opposite gender?  Well the boy "Tammy" in California can tell you all about that...

Sorry, but when discussing children, it's appropriate to get really real.  Their formative environment is that vital to our survival as a civilized society that relies on mental stability of its membership in order to keep going forward in the right direction..

I have friends in the past who have stolen, have lied, cheated and had addictions of all varieties.  I would rebuke those behaviors daily.  Yet I don't rebuke the people affected with them.  YOU are the one who seems riveted to the idea that a person's behaviors define them, not me...  Y'all even call yourselves "gay", which is calling yourself a behavior.  You are more than just behaviors.  Stop limiting yourselves that way..


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I am sure your numerous gays friends really appreciate you calling them flawed, mentally ill, perverts, and child molesters.* I bet you never speak in such a fashion when their in your presence.
> 
> And it isn't just an anti-gay marriage crusade. You don't even believe gays should raise children. At least be honest about discriminatory crusade.
> 
> Either way I enjoy the fact that your side is getting laughed out of almost every court. You are losing in the court of public and the courts of law. This is the part where you claim a USMB poll, lines at fast food joints, and Facebook "likes" are proof that a majority of people actually support your views. Hint: They don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would never confront the mentally ill directly with such statements.  I debate them anonymously here for a reason.  Imagine confronting an obese friend daily with the fact that they have an eating disorder, "how did you get that way?  What made you use food to medicate?  Aren't you aware this is killing you?".  Nope.  The sane friends of the disturbed insert the needle gently in direct confrontation.  I have obese friends too, would you that I advocate "on thei behalf" that overeating is cool, OK and should be encouraged in schools?
> 
> No, you wouldn't.
> 
> I don't believe gays should raise children.  It is precisely because they have GLARING and harmful unresolved childhood issues so intense that they cause them to utterly reject the opposite gender...even going so far as to have sex with the same gender who sports all the trappings of the opposite gender, but NEVER, EVER to take that final step towards actually realizing their closeted heterosexuality.  Children don't belong in an environment where the opposite gender is rebuked or distanced at such a pathological degree.
> 
> Sorry, but when discussing children, it's appropriate to get really real.  Their formative environment is that vital to our survival as a civilized society that relies on mental stability of its membership in order to keep going forward in the right direction..
Click to expand...


That's what I thought. You come here to spew your bile against gays and then act cordial around your alleged gay friends. Cowardly and two-faced. If they knew half the jazz you spouted here they wouldn't be your friends for very long.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> That's what I thought. You come here to spew your bile against gays and then act cordial around your alleged gay friends. Cowardly and two-faced. If they knew half the jazz you spouted here they wouldn't be your friends for very long.


 
You didn't do well in reading comprehension in school did you?  If you accept as I do, the premise that gays are mentally dysfunctional, you don't confront anyone directly with their deeply repressed issues.  You are a hypocrite unless you're going to tell me next that you go around telling all your fat friends that they need to lose weight every time you see them.  You don't, do you?  Uh huh....hypocrite


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> I am sure your numerous gays friends really appreciate you calling them flawed, mentally ill, perverts, and child molesters. I bet you never speak in such a fashion when their in your presence.



So you feel that because someone is defined by their perverse reasoning as perverse, that to spare their feelings of illegitimacy, the words which are used to describe their perversion should be changed ?

You DO understand that if we used the word "Refrigerator" to convey "Perversion", that in short order, the "Refrigerators" would then only demand that we use the word: Bicycle, which in short order, the bicycles would demand that we call them "Peach-tea", which in no time at all the Peach-Teas would demand we refer to them as  "Candle-wax" ... .

Anything gettin' through here?

This is how we ended up with SO MANY words to describe "Leftists...":  Communists, Socialists, Progressives, "No-Name" Liberals.  You can change the word that describes them as many times as ya like.  In NO WAY does it ever change the CONCEPT which such IDENTIFIES.

FTR: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought. You come here to spew your bile against gays and then act cordial around your alleged gay friends. Cowardly and two-faced. If they knew half the jazz you spouted here they wouldn't be your friends for very long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't do well in reading comprehension in school did you?  If you accept as I do, the premise that gays are mentally dysfunctional, you don't confront anyone directly with their deeply repressed issues.  You are a hypocrite unless you're going to tell me next that you go around telling all your fat friends that they need to lose weight every time you see them.  You don't, do you?  Uh huh....hypocrite
Click to expand...



You can claim being gay is mental disorder until the cows come home, it doesn't make so. Every creditable medical organization disagrees with your absurd view. Then again you believe those organizations are apart this massive gay cabal. lol

Poor dear. Sorry if I exposed you as a two-faced coward.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> You can claim being gay is mental disorder until the cows come home, it doesn't make so.



That's true... .

What MAKES IT SO... is the deviancy from the reasoning standard. 

Deviant reasoning results in deviant behavior and THEREIN, is where the DISORDER rests.


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure your numerous gays friends really appreciate you calling them flawed, mentally ill, perverts, and child molesters. I bet you never speak in such a fashion when their in your presence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you feel that because someone is defined by their perverse reasoning as perverse, that to spare their feelings of illegitimacy, the words which are used to describe their perversion should be changed ?
> 
> You DO understand that if we used the word "Refrigerator" to convey "Perversion", that in short order, the "Refrigerators" would then only demand that we use the word: Bicycle, which in short order, the bicycles would demand that we call them "Peach-tea", which in no time at all the Peach-Teas would demand we refer to them as  "Candle-wax" ... .
> 
> Anything gettin' through here?
> 
> This is how we ended up with SO MANY words to describe "Leftists...":  Communists, Socialists, Progressives, "No-Name" Liberals.  You can change the word that describes them as many times as ya like.  In NO WAY does it ever change the CONCEPT which such IDENTIFIES.
> 
> FTR: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


And in many states; mine included, marriage is between two consenting adults regardless of their gender. Soon to be all states. Stomp your feet and wring hands all you wish. Gays are getting married despite your whiny and convoluted protests. Get over it. Or don't. 

I am sure in your next response you'll claim sort of victory and note it. lol


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> You DO understand that if we used the word "Refrigerator" to convey "Perversion", that in short order, the "Refrigerators" would then only demand that we use the word: Bicycle, which in short order, the bicycles would demand that we call them "Peach-tea", which in no time at all the Peach-Teas would demand we refer to them as  "Candle-wax" ... .
> 
> Anything gettin' through here?
> 
> This is how we ended up with SO MANY words to describe "Leftists...":  Communists, Socialists, Progressives, "No-Name" Liberals.  You can change the word that describes them as many times as ya like.  In NO WAY does it ever change the CONCEPT which such IDENTIFIES.
> 
> FTR: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in many states; mine included, marriage is between two consenting adults regardless of their gender. Soon to be all states. Stomp your feet and wring hands all you wish. Gays are getting married despite your whiny and convoluted protests. Get over it. Or don't.
> 
> I am sure in your next response you'll claim sort of victory and note it. lol
Click to expand...


You're speaking of temporal, illicitly gained legalities... I'm speaking of truth.

*In truth:* _Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. 
_
Please feel free to return to this board, when the Legalities return to a sound moral foundation, wherein the adults finally come to realize that contracts in one state MUST be accepted in EVERY STATE for the contract to be VALID.  And that where the issue central to the contract is REJECTED by MOST STATES, such a contract can NEVER BE VALID.

This is where this is heading and where you people prevail in populating the government with sufficient numbers of those who reject sound reasoning, thus threaten the fabric of national viability, then we, the Americans, will inevitably have no choice but to destroy your government.

Take a read of the Charter of American Principles and see if you can find a soundly reasoned moral justification in there which speaks to precisely this circumstance and see if you find some means to shut the fuck up, sit down and be thankful that you have landed in a nation of a tolerant, peace-loving and free people.

If so then you're a reasonable person, with a sound sense of survival.

If not, then you're a sociopathic suicide, bent upon your own destruction and that of those around you.

The former sets you within the group: Reasonable.

The latter sets you within the group: Perverse.

Now, please... inform the board of where you find yourself.


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> You DO understand that if we used the word "Refrigerator" to convey "Perversion", that in short order, the "Refrigerators" would then only demand that we use the word: Bicycle, which in short order, the bicycles would demand that we call them "Peach-tea", which in no time at all the Peach-Teas would demand we refer to them as  "Candle-wax" ... .
> 
> Anything gettin' through here?
> 
> This is how we ended up with SO MANY words to describe "Leftists...":  Communists, Socialists, Progressives, "No-Name" Liberals.  You can change the word that describes them as many times as ya like.  In NO WAY does it ever change the CONCEPT which such IDENTIFIES.
> 
> FTR: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in many states; mine included, marriage is between two consenting adults regardless of their gender. Soon to be all states. Stomp your feet and wring hands all you wish. Gays are getting married despite your whiny and convoluted protests. Get over it. Or don't.
> 
> I am sure in your next response you'll claim sort of victory and note it. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're speaking of temporal, illicitly gained legalities... I'm speaking of truth.
> 
> *In truth:* _Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> _
> Please feel free to return to this board, when the Legalities return to a sound moral foundation, wherein the adults finally come to realize that contracts in one state MUST be accepted in EVERY STATE for the contract to be VALID.  And that where the issue central to the contract is REJECTED by MOST STATES, such a contract can NEVER BE VALID.
> 
> This is where this is heading and where you people prevail in populating the government with sufficient numbers of those who reject sound reasoning, thus threaten the fabric of national viability, then we, the Americans, will inevitably have no choice but to destroy your government.
> 
> Take a read of the Charter of American Principles and see if you can find a soundly reasoned moral justification in there which speaks to precisely this circumstance and see if you find some means to shut the fuck up, sit down and be thankful that you have landed in a nation of a tolerant, peace-loving and free people.
> 
> If so then you're a reasonable person, with a sound sense of survival.
> 
> If not, then you're a sociopathic suicide, bent upon your own destruction and that of those around you.
> 
> The former sets you within the group: Reasonable.
> 
> The latter sets you within the group: Perverse.
> 
> Now, please... inform the board of where you find yourself.
Click to expand...


The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.



False...

In truth, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.... ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, WHO IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES PASSED LAWS WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, AND SET PROTECTIONS OF THEIR STATES WHICH PRECLUDED ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES BY THOSE SUBJECT TO PERVERSE REASONING FROM ALTERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS SET BY THE NATURAL STANDARDS.

A teeny tiny judicial minority disagreed with that VAST MAJORITY and OVERTURNED TO WILL OF THAT VAST, IRREPRESSIBLE MAJORITY.

And with that, your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False...
> 
> In truth, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.... ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, WHO IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES PASSED LAWS WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, AND SET PROTECTIONS OF THEIR STATES WHICH PRECLUDED ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES BY THOSE SUBJECT TO PERVERSE REASONING FROM ALTERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS SET BY THE NATURAL STANDARDS.
> 
> A teeny tiny judicial minority disagreed with that VAST MAJORITY and OVERTURNED TO WILL OF THAT VAST, IRREPRESSIBLE MAJORITY.
> 
> And with that, your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
Click to expand...


Predictable as the rising sun. Accepting a concession that was never offered and noting it seems to be a hallmark of yours. Your delusions are duly noted and summarily accepted. lol

The will of the majority is irrelevant when it violates the US Constitution. Period. 

By the way, posting nonsense in all CAPS doesn't make your nonsense more believable.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False...
> 
> In truth, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.... ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, WHO IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES PASSED LAWS WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, AND SET PROTECTIONS OF THEIR STATES WHICH PRECLUDED ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES BY THOSE SUBJECT TO PERVERSE REASONING FROM ALTERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS SET BY THE NATURAL STANDARDS.
> 
> A teeny tiny judicial minority disagreed with that VAST MAJORITY and OVERTURNED TO WILL OF THAT VAST, IRREPRESSIBLE MAJORITY.
> 
> And with that, your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Predictable as the rising sun. Accepting a concession that was never offered and noting it seems to be a hallmark of yours. Your delusions are duly noted and summarily accepted. lol
> 
> The will of the majority is irrelevant when it violates the US Constitution. Period.
> 
> By the way, posting nonsense in all CAPS doesn't make your nonsense more believable.
Click to expand...


Your concession was by default... 

Once again kids, note that they NEED IT BOTH WAYS!  

"Our Deviancy is accepted by THE MAJORITY therefore we're accepted and we don't care IF the Majority accepts us, The Courts say you MUST ACCEPT US, OR ELSE!"


Such is the nature of evil and such represents a concession by DEFAULT!

Suffice it to say that there is NOTHING in the US Constitution which allows for a people to advance PERVERSE REASONING INTO LAW... 

Zero... 

None... 

Nada... 

ZILCH!

And the suggestion that such does exist, is just ANOTHER example of the Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance which rests as the fundamental tenets of socialism.


----------



## beagle9

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False...
> 
> In truth, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.... ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, WHO IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES PASSED LAWS WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, AND SET PROTECTIONS OF THEIR STATES WHICH PRECLUDED ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES BY THOSE SUBJECT TO PERVERSE REASONING FROM ALTERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS SET BY THE NATURAL STANDARDS.
> 
> A teeny tiny judicial minority disagreed with that VAST MAJORITY and OVERTURNED TO WILL OF THAT VAST, IRREPRESSIBLE MAJORITY.
> 
> And with that, your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Predictable as the rising sun. Accepting a concession that was never offered and noting it seems to be a hallmark of yours. Your delusions are duly noted and summarily accepted. lol
> 
> *The will of the majority is irrelevant when it violates the US Constitution. Period. *
> 
> By the way, posting nonsense in all CAPS doesn't make your nonsense more believable.
Click to expand...

Isn't the constitution held up by *we the people*, and in so isn't that who it was designed to govern and to protect from a tyrannical out of control federal government if should be the case at any given interval in history ? Without the people, and the people agreeing in a majority, then who holds up the constitution or is it even viable at that point when only a minority group seeks to control it and/or thinks it can control it, therefore attempting to control the majority of the people in the power vacuum that is somehow created in all of this ?  I mean people have got to get back to the simplicity of our constitutional interpretation of, and to shake off the psycho-babble that has moved this nation into waters that doesn't even suit the majority of the people that it is suppose to serve any longer.


----------



## WorldWatcher

beagle9 said:


> I think there is definitely *a breach of church and state going on here*, because most if not all in America viewed or have known marriage to be as a holy and religious ceremony that was recognized by the state as a good thing, and they have done this through out this nations founding. It has supported the church practice by joining in on the action with incentives to help it all along because it saw it as good. Now the gay's are wanting the state to change the definition of marriage, and that is an intrusion or breach of the Church and State clause in which we have lived by for so long, and has been a protection of our religious institutions from the state controlling them or destroying them, and this we have had in order to of course protect the freedom of religion in this nation for as long as it has been a part of this America. We now see the power of the state, and how it can destroy without this protection being used, so where are we going wrong here ?




So since you are all about the government recognizing a Churches position on same-sex marriage.  Then can we assume that you advocate that the government should recognize same-sex holy matrimony performed by a religious organization?  (Which includes Christian Churches, Jewish Synagogues, Hindu and Buddhist Temples, Wiccans, Native Amercian religious groups, etc.)



>>>>


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False...
> 
> In truth, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.... ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, WHO IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES PASSED LAWS WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, AND SET PROTECTIONS OF THEIR STATES WHICH PRECLUDED ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES BY THOSE SUBJECT TO PERVERSE REASONING FROM ALTERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS SET BY THE NATURAL STANDARDS.
> 
> A teeny tiny judicial minority disagreed with that VAST MAJORITY and OVERTURNED TO WILL OF THAT VAST, IRREPRESSIBLE MAJORITY.
> 
> And with that, your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Predictable as the rising sun. Accepting a concession that was never offered and noting it seems to be a hallmark of yours. Your delusions are duly noted and summarily accepted. lol
> 
> *The will of the majority is irrelevant when it violates the US Constitution. Period. *
> 
> By the way, posting nonsense in all CAPS doesn't make your nonsense more believable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't the constitution held up by *we the people*, and in so isn't that who it was designed to govern and to protect from a tyrannical out of control federal government if should be the case at any given interval in history ? Without the people, and the people agreeing in a majority, then who holds up the constitution or is it even viable at that point when only a minority group seeks to control it and/or thinks it can control it, therefore attempting to control the majority of the people in the power vacuum that is somehow created in all of this ?  I mean people have got to get back to the simplicity of our constitutional interpretation of, and to shake off the psycho-babble that has moved this nation into waters that doesn't even suit the majority of the people that it is suppose to serve any longer.
Click to expand...

No, it as never the intent of the Framing Generation to create a democracy, where a citizen's inalienable rights are subject to majority rule; instead a Constitutional Republic was established, where citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly. Laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law are proof of that.

The Constitution safeguards against all manner of government overreach – Federal, state, and local; nowhere in the history of the creation of the Constitution or its case law will one find jurisprudence prohibiting the Federal government alone from violating citizens' civil rights while at the same time authorizing the states to violate those same rights. The Framers would never have conceived of such an inconsistent legal manifestation.


----------



## beagle9

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is definitely *a breach of church and state going on here*, because most if not all in America viewed or have known marriage to be as a holy and religious ceremony that was recognized by the state as a good thing, and they have done this through out this nations founding. It has supported the church practice by joining in on the action with incentives to help it all along because it saw it as good. Now the gay's are wanting the state to change the definition of marriage, and that is an intrusion or breach of the Church and State clause in which we have lived by for so long, and has been a protection of our religious institutions from the state controlling them or destroying them, and this we have had in order to of course protect the freedom of religion in this nation for as long as it has been a part of this America. We now see the power of the state, and how it can destroy without this protection being used, so where are we going wrong here ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since you are all about the government recognizing a Churches position on same-sex marriage.  Then can we assume that you advocate that the government should recognize same-sex holy matrimony performed by a religious organization?  (Which includes Christian Churches, Jewish Synagogues, Hindu and Buddhist Temples, Wiccans, Native Amercian religious groups, etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as same sex holy matrimony, so what's your point ? I mean people can do what ever they want, and they can call it what ever they want, but that doesn't make it right in the eyes of God or in the eyes of hundreds of thousands of American citizens now does it ? For the ones who want to live apart from such weird and strange things, then how do you suppose they do that without a voice or representation to do so ? This is why people elect people they want to represent them, and they expect results not a sell out to the highest bidder afterwards. To many lies are told, and to much fraud is going on in the electorate now, where as they will smile and tell you one thing, but then do another because of the pressure and corruption that is overwhelming when they reach the center of the rotten core finally.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False...
> 
> In truth, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.... ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, WHO IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES PASSED LAWS WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, AND SET PROTECTIONS OF THEIR STATES WHICH PRECLUDED ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES BY THOSE SUBJECT TO PERVERSE REASONING FROM ALTERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS SET BY THE NATURAL STANDARDS.
> 
> A teeny tiny judicial minority disagreed with that VAST MAJORITY and OVERTURNED TO WILL OF THAT VAST, IRREPRESSIBLE MAJORITY.
> 
> And with that, your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Predictable as the rising sun. Accepting a concession that was never offered and noting it seems to be a hallmark of yours. Your delusions are duly noted and summarily accepted. lol
> 
> *The will of the majority is irrelevant when it violates the US Constitution. Period. *
> 
> By the way, posting nonsense in all CAPS doesn't make your nonsense more believable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't the constitution held up by *we the people*, and in so isn't that who it was designed to govern and to protect from a tyrannical out of control federal government if should be the case at any given interval in history ? Without the people, and the people agreeing in a majority, then who holds up the constitution or is it even viable at that point when only a minority group seeks to control it and/or thinks it can control it, therefore attempting to control the majority of the people in the power vacuum that is somehow created in all of this ?  I mean people have got to get back to the simplicity of our constitutional interpretation of, and to shake off the psycho-babble that has moved this nation into waters that doesn't even suit the majority of the people that it is suppose to serve any longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it as never the intent of the Framing Generation to create a democracy, where a citizen's inalienable rights are subject to majority rule; instead a Constitutional Republic was established, – where citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men, are incapable of ruling justly. Laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law are proof of that.
> 
> The Constitution safeguards against all manner of government overreach – Federal, state, and local; nowhere in the history of the creation of the Constitution or its case law will one find jurisprudence prohibiting the Federal government alone from violating citizens' civil rights while at the same time authorizing the states to violate those same rights. The Framers would never have conceived of such an inconsistent legal manifestation.
Click to expand...




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False...
> 
> In truth, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.... ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, WHO IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES PASSED LAWS WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, AND SET PROTECTIONS OF THEIR STATES WHICH PRECLUDED ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES BY THOSE SUBJECT TO PERVERSE REASONING FROM ALTERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS SET BY THE NATURAL STANDARDS.
> 
> A teeny tiny judicial minority disagreed with that VAST MAJORITY and OVERTURNED TO WILL OF THAT VAST, IRREPRESSIBLE MAJORITY.
> 
> And with that, your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Predictable as the rising sun. Accepting a concession that was never offered and noting it seems to be a hallmark of yours. Your delusions are duly noted and summarily accepted. lol
> 
> *The will of the majority is irrelevant when it violates the US Constitution. Period. *
> 
> By the way, posting nonsense in all CAPS doesn't make your nonsense more believable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't the constitution held up by *we the people*, and in so isn't that who it was designed to govern and to protect from a tyrannical out of control federal government if should be the case at any given interval in history ? Without the people, and the people agreeing in a majority, then who holds up the constitution or is it even viable at that point when only a minority group seeks to control it and/or thinks it can control it, therefore attempting to control the majority of the people in the power vacuum that is somehow created in all of this ?  I mean people have got to get back to the simplicity of our constitutional interpretation of, and to shake off the psycho-babble that has moved this nation into waters that doesn't even suit the majority of the people that it is suppose to serve any longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it as never the intent of the Framing Generation to create a democracy, where a citizen's inalienable rights are subject to majority rule; instead a Constitutional Republic was established, where *citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men* – *as men are incapable of ruling justly.* Laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law are proof of that.
> 
> The Constitution safeguards against all manner of government overreach – Federal, state, and local; nowhere in the history of the creation of the Constitution or its case law will one find jurisprudence prohibiting the Federal government alone from violating citizens' civil rights while at the same time authorizing the states to violate those same rights. The Framers would never have conceived of such an inconsistent legal manifestation.
Click to expand...


Who is that you think made up the rule of law in this nation ??????????? It was *MEN*!
Now here you are saying that men are not capable of ruling justly ????????? Well then who is sitting in the judges seats in America, umm is it ALIENS from another planet maybe ? No they are just men, and they are men who are fallible of course, and this is why we need a majority consensus (upon a jury the majority does agree to pass judgement on the criminal, and that is just one example), so it usually ends up being men making the decisions as best that they can, and so they attempt to come to a proper or righteous judgement and conclusion on many things and/or issues in this way. It is because of a majority consensus that the choices made or decisions made will be as good as they can be, and this is when making a ruling as based upon the laws in which were established by men, yes *MEN* or upon any other issues that this nation deals with or even the citizens deal with just as well. Yes their are those *men* who came to a consensus on what they understood to be correct, and also they came to a consensus as to being also correct in the eyes of God for which this nation has believed in from the beginning, and was built upon from out of Men's Hearts in that way.

Now of course Men are moving or trying to move the goal post on so many issues, and then they are applying so many remedies that it is just ridiculous anymore.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False...
> 
> In truth, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.... ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, WHO IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES PASSED LAWS WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, AND SET PROTECTIONS OF THEIR STATES WHICH PRECLUDED ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES BY THOSE SUBJECT TO PERVERSE REASONING FROM ALTERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS SET BY THE NATURAL STANDARDS.
> 
> A teeny tiny judicial minority disagreed with that VAST MAJORITY and OVERTURNED TO WILL OF THAT VAST, IRREPRESSIBLE MAJORITY.
> 
> And with that, your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Predictable as the rising sun. Accepting a concession that was never offered and noting it seems to be a hallmark of yours. Your delusions are duly noted and summarily accepted. lol
> 
> *The will of the majority is irrelevant when it violates the US Constitution. Period. *
> 
> By the way, posting nonsense in all CAPS doesn't make your nonsense more believable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't the constitution held up by *we the people*, and in so isn't that who it was designed to govern and to protect from a tyrannical out of control federal government if should be the case at any given interval in history ? Without the people, and the people agreeing in a majority, then who holds up the constitution or is it even viable at that point when only a minority group seeks to control it and/or thinks it can control it, therefore attempting to control the majority of the people in the power vacuum that is somehow created in all of this ?  I mean people have got to get back to the simplicity of our constitutional interpretation of, and to shake off the psycho-babble that has moved this nation into waters that doesn't even suit the majority of the people that it is suppose to serve any longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it as never the intent of the Framing Generation to create a democracy, where a citizen's inalienable rights are subject to majority rule; instead a Constitutional Republic was established, – where citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men, are incapable of ruling justly. Laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law are proof of that.
> 
> The Constitution safeguards against all manner of government overreach – Federal, state, and local; nowhere in the history of the creation of the Constitution or its case law will one find jurisprudence prohibiting the Federal government alone from violating citizens' civil rights while at the same time authorizing the states to violate those same rights. The Framers would never have conceived of such an inconsistent legal manifestation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the public and a vast majority of the courts disagree with you. Your long winded opinion has absolutely no bearing legally speaking and has been rejected many times over. Then again, you foolishly believe gays have infiltrated the courts, medical/scientific communities, the media, and whatever else that doesn't for your narrow minded narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False...
> 
> In truth, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.... ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, WHO IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES PASSED LAWS WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE, AND SET PROTECTIONS OF THEIR STATES WHICH PRECLUDED ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES BY THOSE SUBJECT TO PERVERSE REASONING FROM ALTERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS SET BY THE NATURAL STANDARDS.
> 
> A teeny tiny judicial minority disagreed with that VAST MAJORITY and OVERTURNED TO WILL OF THAT VAST, IRREPRESSIBLE MAJORITY.
> 
> And with that, your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Predictable as the rising sun. Accepting a concession that was never offered and noting it seems to be a hallmark of yours. Your delusions are duly noted and summarily accepted. lol
> 
> *The will of the majority is irrelevant when it violates the US Constitution. Period. *
> 
> By the way, posting nonsense in all CAPS doesn't make your nonsense more believable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't the constitution held up by *we the people*, and in so isn't that who it was designed to govern and to protect from a tyrannical out of control federal government if should be the case at any given interval in history ? Without the people, and the people agreeing in a majority, then who holds up the constitution or is it even viable at that point when only a minority group seeks to control it and/or thinks it can control it, therefore attempting to control the majority of the people in the power vacuum that is somehow created in all of this ?  I mean people have got to get back to the simplicity of our constitutional interpretation of, and to shake off the psycho-babble that has moved this nation into waters that doesn't even suit the majority of the people that it is suppose to serve any longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it as never the intent of the Framing Generation to create a democracy, where a citizen's inalienable rights are subject to majority rule; instead a Constitutional Republic was established, where *citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men* – *as men are incapable of ruling justly.* Laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law are proof of that.
> 
> The Constitution safeguards against all manner of government overreach – Federal, state, and local; nowhere in the history of the creation of the Constitution or its case law will one find jurisprudence prohibiting the Federal government alone from violating citizens' civil rights while at the same time authorizing the states to violate those same rights. The Framers would never have conceived of such an inconsistent legal manifestation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is that you think made up the rule of law in this nation ??????????? It was *MEN*!
> Now here you are saying that men are not capable of ruling justly ????????? Well then who is sitting in the judges seats in America, umm is it ALIENS from another planet maybe ? No they are just men, and they are men who are fallible of course, and this is why we need a majority consensus (upon a jury the majority does agree to pass judgement on the criminal, and that is just one example), so it usually ends up men as best that they can, attempts to come to a proper or righteous conclusion on many things and/or issues in this way. It is because of a majority consensus that the choices made or decisions made will be as good as they can be, and this is when making a ruling as based upon the laws in which were established by men, yes *MEN* or upon any other issues that this nation deals with or even the citizens deal with just as well. Yes their are those *men* who came to a consensus on what they understood to be correct, and also they came to a consensus as to being also correct in the eyes of God for which this nation has believed in from the beginning, and was built upon from out of Men's Hearts in that way.
> 
> Now of course Men are moving or trying to move the goal post on so many issues, and then they are applying so many remedies that it is just ridiculous anymore.
Click to expand...


True... and all of goal post moving is a direct result of Relativism... the core around which Left-think exists.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Framers would never have conceived of such an inconsistent legal manifestation.



The framers would have never conceived that we would be dealing with what we are all dealing with today either, so it's hang on for the ride I guess, because it might get a little bit bumpy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Framers would never have conceived of such an inconsistent legal manifestation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The framers would have never conceived that we would be dealing with what we are all dealing with today either, so it's hang on for the ride I guess, because it might get a little bit bumpy.
Click to expand...


The Constitution is a device which serves the principles that were declared as the foundational basis of the United States.  That is why the efficacy of the US Constitution is not subject to antiquation, push back by mouthy minorities who feel that it's 'negative' in its effect and that such is an obstacle to their otherwise 'honorable and ever so good... intentions.  

And that is why the Founders did not need to 'consider' or provide an answer to every single possible scenario that might ever result from timeless strings of possibilities... . 

Principles are immutable laws of nature... they're no more 'alterable' than the physical laws with which the conservatives are familiar and it is from those principles which the Constitution governs.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No, it as never the intent of the Framing Generation to create a democracy...




The Framers did not seek to create a democracy... PERIOD.  They considered the idea, debated the idea and PASSED, stating specific and uncertain reasoning for their rejection of such.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strong support? You're speaking of the 'strong support' which would be expected within The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm speaking of exactly what I said: strong support for the legality of same sex marriage...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


No matter how many times you say that, *it's still wrong!*


----------



## WorldWatcher

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is definitely *a breach of church and state going on here*, because most if not all in America viewed or have known marriage to be as a holy and religious ceremony that was recognized by the state as a good thing, and they have done this through out this nations founding. It has supported the church practice by joining in on the action with incentives to help it all along because it saw it as good. Now the gay's are wanting the state to change the definition of marriage, and that is an intrusion or breach of the Church and State clause in which we have lived by for so long, and has been a protection of our religious institutions from the state controlling them or destroying them, and this we have had in order to of course protect the freedom of religion in this nation for as long as it has been a part of this America. We now see the power of the state, and how it can destroy without this protection being used, so where are we going wrong here ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since you are all about the government recognizing a Churches position on same-sex marriage.  Then can we assume that you advocate that the government should recognize same-sex holy matrimony performed by a religious organization?  (Which includes Christian Churches, Jewish Synagogues, Hindu and Buddhist Temples, Wiccans, Native Amercian religious groups, etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is no such thing as same sex holy matrimony, so what's your point ?* I mean people can do what ever they want, and they can call it what ever they want, but that doesn't make it right in the eyes of God or in the eyes of hundreds of thousands of American citizens now does it ? For the ones who want to live apart from such weird and strange things, then how do you suppose they do that without a voice or representation to do so ? This is why people elect people they want to represent them, and they expect results not a sell out to the highest bidder afterwards. To many lies are told, and to much fraud is going on in the electorate now, where as they will smile and tell you one thing, but then do another because of the pressure and corruption that is overwhelming when they reach the center of the rotten core finally.
Click to expand...



As to the emphasized part above, are you saying there are not religious organizations (Churches, Synagogues, Temples, etc.) that are now providing religious marriage to same-sex couples?

The rest just seems to be a wall of text trying very hard not to answer the question that was asked.


>>>>


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Jarlaxle said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strong support? You're speaking of the 'strong support' which would be expected within The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm speaking of exactly what I said: strong support for the legality of same sex marriage...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you say that, *it's still wrong!*
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of _one man_ and _one woman_.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Secular marriages have been performed for decades.  That tradition has already been shattered.  Children's formative mileu is the winning debate point. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't a winning debate point. *Your alleged concern for children is nothing more than a ruse so you continue your anti-gay crusade*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anti gay-marriage crusade.  Please be accurate.  I actually have friends who are gay or bi.  And great grief for a gay friend years ago who died of AIDS from misunderstood etiology of homosexuality and its genesis as behavior.
> 
> Individual gays are flawed, but still human with many potentials.  Gay marriage?  Flawed institutionalization.  There is a huge difference.  It's like making OCD part of a school-learned curriculum.  We have no business as a society normalizing anything we do not, or refuse to, fully understand.  CQR ain't gonna cut it.. Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren t to Blame They Rely on Science .. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


No, it anti-gay. Whom you call a 'cult', 'despised' and have strongly insinuated are child abusers and child molesters. 

Which is odd, as you could give a fiddler's fuck about children. The moment they don't let you bash gays, they're immediately ignored. Even when they suffer by the millions by your own standards.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually entering in a civil union is far more legally binding that a piece of paper that has the word "Marriage" on it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's false.  Just cross state lines and a civil union disappears.  Civil Marriage though doesn't (as it normally functions).
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you can legally leave your partner your SS money via a civil union, why not be in one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That again is false.  The only "partner" that receives the SS benefits (assuming you mean Social Security) is a legal spouse in a Civil Marriage.  Partners in a Civil Union get nothing.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not* false*, because the civil union idea was a work in progress (a compromise), so why couldn't it be worked out over time to the benefits of what the poster had spoken of ?  I thought you all were about being progressive, but you want to annex an ancient thing that was created long ago in order to lift up, and to bind the man, woman, child family unit as one, and to nourish the traditions set forth in that structural family apparatus called *marriage* in which was set up to do these things under religious tenets.
Click to expand...


Because it works. Its fully formed, it conveys fully a range of benefits that civil unions don't, is already codified into the law, is recognized in every state, is already intergrated into the private sector. Plus, there are more greeting cards celebrating it, making it easier to shop for.

If civil unions are the same as marriage, then civil unions are unnecessary.

And if civil unions are inferior to marriage....well that's why gays want marriage.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> The incentives the government gives in marriage as it has done in the past, is only dealing with the benefit side of marriage in which it offers only as an incentive package for a *man and a woman* who want to join together in *holy matrimony*, and to pro-create in order to form a family unit under the long held traditional tenets that are found under the *religious ceremony called marriage, *and that was to the only extent that government wanted to be involved in it.



Holy matrimony I leave to you. If you want a religious ceremony, have one. If you want to exclude gays from your religious ceremony, enjoy. No one cares.

Marriage equality is about equal protection under the law.



> So no farther did it go as is being requested of them today, because the breech between Church and State could apply very easily here if doing so.



Its utterly non-denominational and doesn't necessarily involve any religious observance. Nixing the 'church and state' argument. Invalidating every marriage certificate in the country seems a little......extreme....just to keep gays out.



> Yes the state gives perks in order to support the pro-creation and stability of the family unit that is defined under the *religious ceremonial definition of marriage*, but it enters not into the re-defining of the word nor does it enter into the changing of the definition of marriage itself,, and why is this ? It is because that would be *a violation of Church and State to do so *(IMHO).



Having children isn't a requirement of marriage. Nor is the ability to have them. Not in any of the 50 states. Ending the 'family unit' argument. As if children were a requirement for a valid marriage, then infertile couples and childless married couples would have long since been excluded.

They aren't. Why then would we invent a standard that doesn't exist, exempt all straights, and then apply it exclusively to gays? There is no reason.


----------



## idb

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?


No.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beagle, you weaving the church into a legal argument like this one is a box canyon.  I hope you know that.  If you are concerned about the children of marriage and what faith they will grow up to be, attack the root at its base (secular institutionalizing of gay households at the mental/developmental expense of children caught up in them), instead of the tops.
> 
> 
> 
> That too can be an issue as you have been battling over, and you are covering that side of the issue within your understanding of that side of it already.  I am covering the breach issue, because that is also what is at stake here for many states trying to hold on to the traditional religious value definition of marriage, in which was honored and ackowledged by the states forever and a day until now. To change the definition as according to the state, is to breach the Church and State (IMHO) and this pertains to the states and the nation going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Secular marriages have been performed for decades.  That tradition has already been shattered.  Children's formative mileu is the winning debate point. Sorry.
Click to expand...


Nope. First, because children aren't required for a valid marriage. Making children irrelevant to the legality of the union. 

Second because you've established nothing inherent to gay marriage that is harmful to children. You simply say it does. And you citing yourself is meaningless.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Secular marriages have been performed for decades.  That tradition has already been shattered.  Children's formative mileu is the winning debate point. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't a winning debate point. *Your alleged concern for children is nothing more than a ruse so you continue your anti-gay crusade*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anti gay-marriage crusade.  Please be accurate.  I actually have friends who are gay or bi.  And great grief for a gay friend years ago who died of AIDS from misunderstood etiology of homosexuality and its genesis as behavior.
> 
> Individual gays are flawed, but still human with many potentials.  Gay marriage?  Flawed institutionalization.  There is a huge difference.  It's like making OCD part of a school-learned curriculum.  We have no business as a society normalizing anything we do not, or refuse to, fully understand.  CQR ain't gonna cut it.. Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren t to Blame They Rely on Science .. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it anti-gay. Whom you call a 'cult', 'despised' and have strongly insinuated are child abusers and child molesters.
> 
> Which is odd, as you could give a fiddler's fuck about children. The moment they don't let you bash gays, they're immediately ignored. Even when they suffer by the millions by your own standards.
Click to expand...


Homosexuals are sexual deviants... sexual deviancy is indicative of intellectual deviancy... intellectual deviancy provides that the individual's reasoning is subject to perversion, wherein such individuals show a disdain for cultural mores and standards and a disdain for soundly reasoned boundaries... such as those which otherwise preclude the pursuit of children for sexual gratification.  The simple truth is that the North American Man/Boy Love Association, a group dedicated to no other purpose than the pursuit of children for sexual gratification is comprised ENTIRELY of HOMOSEXUALS.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beagle, you weaving the church into a legal argument like this one is a box canyon.  I hope you know that.  If you are concerned about the children of marriage and what faith they will grow up to be, attack the root at its base (secular institutionalizing of gay households at the mental/developmental expense of children caught up in them), instead of the tops.
> 
> 
> 
> That too can be an issue as you have been battling over, and you are covering that side of the issue within your understanding of that side of it already.  I am covering the breach issue, because that is also what is at stake here for many states trying to hold on to the traditional religious value definition of marriage, in which was honored and ackowledged by the states forever and a day until now. To change the definition as according to the state, is to breach the Church and State (IMHO) and this pertains to the states and the nation going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Secular marriages have been performed for decades.  That tradition has already been shattered.  Children's formative mileu is the winning debate point. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. First, because children aren't required for a valid marriage. Making children irrelevant to the legality of the union.
> 
> Second because you've established nothing inherent to gay marriage that is harmful to children. You simply say it does. And you citing yourself is meaningless.
Click to expand...


That children are not required for Marriage, in no ways alters the minimal marriage standard which provides that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Secular marriages have been performed for decades.  That tradition has already been shattered.  Children's formative mileu is the winning debate point. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't a winning debate point. *Your alleged concern for children is nothing more than a ruse so you continue your anti-gay crusade*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anti gay-marriage crusade.  Please be accurate.  I actually have friends who are gay or bi.  And great grief for a gay friend years ago who died of AIDS from misunderstood etiology of homosexuality and its genesis as behavior.
> 
> Individual gays are flawed, but still human with many potentials.  Gay marriage?  Flawed institutionalization.  There is a huge difference.  It's like making OCD part of a school-learned curriculum.  We have no business as a society normalizing anything we do not, or refuse to, fully understand.  CQR ain't gonna cut it.. Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren t to Blame They Rely on Science .. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it anti-gay. Whom you call a 'cult', 'despised' and have strongly insinuated are child abusers and child molesters.
> 
> Which is odd, as you could give a fiddler's fuck about children. The moment they don't let you bash gays, they're immediately ignored. Even when they suffer by the millions by your own standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are sexual deviants... sexual deviancy is indicative of intellectual deviancy... intellectual deviancy provides that the individual's reasoning is subject to perversion, wherein such individuals show a disdain for cultural mores and standards and a disdain for soundly reasoned boundaries... such as those which otherwise preclude the pursuit of children for sexual gratification.  The simple truth is that the North American Man/Boy Love Association, a group dedicated to no other purpose than the pursuit of children for sexual gratification is comprised ENTIRELY of HOMOSEXUALS.
Click to expand...


And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with gay marriage?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> ... Marriage equality is about equal protection under the law. ...



Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beagle, you weaving the church into a legal argument like this one is a box canyon.  I hope you know that.  If you are concerned about the children of marriage and what faith they will grow up to be, attack the root at its base (secular institutionalizing of gay households at the mental/developmental expense of children caught up in them), instead of the tops.
> 
> 
> 
> That too can be an issue as you have been battling over, and you are covering that side of the issue within your understanding of that side of it already.  I am covering the breach issue, because that is also what is at stake here for many states trying to hold on to the traditional religious value definition of marriage, in which was honored and ackowledged by the states forever and a day until now. To change the definition as according to the state, is to breach the Church and State (IMHO) and this pertains to the states and the nation going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Secular marriages have been performed for decades.  That tradition has already been shattered.  Children's formative mileu is the winning debate point. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. First, because children aren't required for a valid marriage. Making children irrelevant to the legality of the union.
> 
> Second because you've established nothing inherent to gay marriage that is harmful to children. You simply say it does. And you citing yourself is meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That children are not required for Marriage, in no ways alters the minimal marriage standard which provides that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


Says you, citing you. And yet in 32 of 50 States, gay marriage is legal and recognized as being as valid as straight marriage. Ignoring reality doesn't change reality.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with [homosexuals] ... ?



That would be: The _Homosexuals_...


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Marriage equality is about equal protection under the law. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


And one woman and one woman or one man and one man...in 32 of 50 States. 

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with [homosexuals] ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be: The _Homosexuals_...
Click to expand...


So the legal institution of gay marriage is.... homosexuals? I don't follow that reasoning linguistically or logically.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> That children are not required for Marriage, in no ways alters the minimal marriage standard which provides that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.



Says you, citing you. [/QUOTE]

Says Nature...



Skylar said:


> And yet in 32 of 50 States, gay marriage is legal and recognized as being as valid as straight marriage. Ignoring reality doesn't change reality



False... The VAST MAJORITY of the PEOPLE, ELECTED the VAST MAJORITY OF THE REPRESENTATIVES, in the VAST MAJORITY of the STATES, ESTABLISHED LAWS RECOGNIZING THE IMMUTABLE NATURAL PRINCIPLES THAT DEFINE *MARRIAGE* AS: _The Joining of One Man and One Woman!_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with [homosexuals] ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> That would be: The _Homosexuals_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the legal institution of gay marriage is....
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman!


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Marriage [in 32 States includes] the joining of One Man [and one man] or  [One Woman] and One Woman!



That is correct.


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with [homosexuals] ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> That would be: The _Homosexuals_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the legal institution of gay marriage is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman!
Click to expand...


Maybe of you say it a dozen more times it will become reality.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Says Nature...



Nature doesn't say anything. That would be you pretending to be nature. And yet another empty Appeal to Authority.

You, pretending to be 'nature' claimed that procreation is the only valid basis of marriage. Yet as the valid marriages of infertile and childless couples demonstrates, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation or the ability to procreate. Debunking your claim.

Your logic and reason don't hold up. Try again.




> False... The VAST MAJORITY of the PEOPLE, ELECTED the VAST MAJORITY OF THE REPRESENTATIVES, in the VAST MAJORITY of the STATES, ESTABLISHED LAWS RECOGNIZING THE IMMUTABLE NATURAL PRINCIPLES THAT DEFINE *MARRIAGE* AS: _The Joining of One Man and One Woman!_



Oh, its quite true that in 32 of 50 States gay marriage is thoroughly legal. You close your eyes and deny this is the case. And yet gays are married every day in all 32 states. Demonstrating exactly how little relevance your willful ignorance has with reality.


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with [homosexuals] ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> That would be: The _Homosexuals_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the legal institution of gay marriage is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe of you say it a dozen more times it will become reality.
Click to expand...


Laughing...if he wants to close his eyes, plug up his ears and rock back and forth muttering the same debunked mantra over and over......who are we to interfere?


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with [homosexuals] ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> That would be: The _Homosexuals_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the legal institution of gay marriage is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe of you say it a dozen more times it will become reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing...if he wants to close his eyes, plug up his ears and rock back and forth muttering the same debunked mantra over and over......who are we to interfere?
Click to expand...


At least it provides some well needed comic relief. Soon he'll come clomping back in here claiming our concessions are duly noted and summarily accepted. Bet the farm on it.


----------



## idb

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with [homosexuals] ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> That would be: The _Homosexuals_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the legal institution of gay marriage is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman!
Click to expand...

But what is marriage?
Is it a legal construct or is it a natural one...like birth or death?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you say that, *it's still wrong!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of _one man_ and _one woman_.
Click to expand...


No matter how many times you say that, *it's still wrong!
*


----------



## Katzndogz

Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect.  It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply.  A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.


----------



## Skylar

Tipsycatlover said:


> Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect.  It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply.  A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.



The basics of right and wrong....according to who?

(Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)


----------



## Katzndogz

Skylar said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect.  It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply.  A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
Click to expand...

According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.


----------



## Skylar

Tipsycatlover said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect.  It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply.  A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
Click to expand...


'Normal people' according to who? See, defining a subjective term with another subjective term is just a delaying tactic. You'll eventually have to cite a source that isn't purely speculative. 

And given that a strong majority of the nation supports gay marriage by margins of between 12 and 19 points, you may want to be careful how you subjectively define 'normal people'.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> The incentives the government gives in marriage as it has done in the past, is only dealing with the benefit side of marriage in which it offers only as an incentive package for a *man and a woman* who want to join together in *holy matrimony*, and to pro-create in order to form a family unit under the long held traditional tenets that are found under the *religious ceremony called marriage, *and that was to the only extent that government wanted to be involved in it.





Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> You DO understand that if we used the word "Refrigerator" to convey "Perversion", that in short order, the "Refrigerators" would then only demand that we use the word: Bicycle, which in short order, the bicycles would demand that we call them "Peach-tea", which in no time at all the Peach-Teas would demand we refer to them as  "Candle-wax" ... .
> 
> Anything gettin' through here?
> 
> This is how we ended up with SO MANY words to describe "Leftists...":  Communists, Socialists, Progressives, "No-Name" Liberals.  You can change the word that describes them as many times as ya like.  In NO WAY does it ever change the CONCEPT which such IDENTIFIES.
> 
> FTR: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in many states; mine included, marriage is between two consenting adults regardless of their gender. Soon to be all states. Stomp your feet and wring hands all you wish. Gays are getting married despite your whiny and convoluted protests. Get over it. Or don't.
> 
> I am sure in your next response you'll claim sort of victory and note it. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're speaking of temporal, illicitly gained legalities... I'm speaking of truth.
> 
> *In truth:* _Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman._f.
Click to expand...


In truth- in 32 states marriage is the joining of two people of either gender.


----------



## Syriusly

Tipsycatlover said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect.  It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply.  A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
Click to expand...


And of course that is your opinion.

In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.

Treating people equally- that is right.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect.  It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply.  A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course that is your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.
> 
> Treating people equally- that is right.
Click to expand...


Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect.  It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply.  A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course that is your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.
> 
> Treating people equally- that is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.
Click to expand...


Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce. 

There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.


----------



## Seawytch

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with [homosexuals] ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> That would be: The _Homosexuals_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the legal institution of gay marriage is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe of you say it a dozen more times it will become reality.
Click to expand...


Only if he clicks his heels three times...


----------



## Kosh

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect.  It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply.  A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course that is your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.
> 
> Treating people equally- that is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.
> 
> There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.
Click to expand...


And the far left talking points come out !

Nope! And always incorrect, wrong, not even close..

Yet they still push this debunked talking point as a "fact"..


----------



## Kosh

Syriusly said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect.  It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply.  A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course that is your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.
> 
> Treating people equally- that is right.
Click to expand...


Another far left talking point based on propaganda and not in reality.


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect.  It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply.  A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course that is your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.
> 
> Treating people equally- that is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.
> 
> There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.
Click to expand...


???  Just not the same as married people. How does that fit in your head?


----------



## Seawytch

Kosh said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
> 
> 
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course that is your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.
> 
> Treating people equally- that is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.
> 
> There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the far left talking points come out !
> 
> Nope! And always incorrect, wrong, not even close..
> 
> Yet they still push this debunked talking point as a "fact"..
Click to expand...


Despite realizing that is way beyond your abilities to do so, care to explain what I'm wrong about? 

What is it you find to be a "debunked talking point"?


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course that is your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.
> 
> Treating people equally- that is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.
> 
> There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the far left talking points come out !
> 
> Nope! And always incorrect, wrong, not even close..
> 
> Yet they still push this debunked talking point as a "fact"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite realizing that is way beyond your abilities to do so, care to explain what I'm wrong about?
> 
> What is it you find to be a "debunked talking point"?
Click to expand...


Wondering that myself. I'm not sure how it can be a talking point, as this issue rarely comes up. 

Marriage should be handled as any other contract, and infer no special rights to participants.


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
> 
> 
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course that is your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.
> 
> Treating people equally- that is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.
> 
> There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???  Just not the same as married people. How does that fit in your head?
Click to expand...


It fits quite easily. Single people are not denied marriage are they? If they want the tax breaks that come with being married, they can get married. There is no discrimination. 

I get a tax break for owning a home. Is that discriminating against people that don't own a home?


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course that is your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.
> 
> Treating people equally- that is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.
> 
> There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???  Just not the same as married people. How does that fit in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It fits quite easily. Single people are not denied marriage are they? If they want the tax breaks that come with being married, they can get married. There is no discrimination.
> 
> I get a tax break for owning a home. Is that discriminating against people that don't own a home?
Click to expand...


Yes. It's exactly the same sort of thing, and it's a gross abuse of the taxation power. We grant government the power to collect taxes to fund its legitimate functions, not to serve as tool for social engineering.


----------



## mdk

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course that is your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.
> 
> Treating people equally- that is right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.
> 
> There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the far left talking points come out !
> 
> Nope! And always incorrect, wrong, not even close..
> 
> Yet they still push this debunked talking point as a "fact"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite realizing that is way beyond your abilities to do so, care to explain what I'm wrong about?
> 
> What is it you find to be a "debunked talking point"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wondering that myself. I'm not sure how it can be a talking point, as this issue rarely comes up.
> 
> Marriage should be handled as any other contract, and infer no special rights to participants.
Click to expand...


Though I do admire and support the spirit of getting the government out of the marriage business altogether it really isn't going to happen any time soon. In fact, the most socially conservatives are not even pushing seriously for that to come to pass. Until the government is removed from marriage; which I don't see ever happening, then marriage access and the rights entailed with it should be granted to same sex couples.


----------



## dblack

mdk said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.
> 
> There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the far left talking points come out !
> 
> Nope! And always incorrect, wrong, not even close..
> 
> Yet they still push this debunked talking point as a "fact"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite realizing that is way beyond your abilities to do so, care to explain what I'm wrong about?
> 
> What is it you find to be a "debunked talking point"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wondering that myself. I'm not sure how it can be a talking point, as this issue rarely comes up.
> 
> Marriage should be handled as any other contract, and infer no special rights to participants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though I do admire and support the spirit of getting the government out of the marriage business altogether it really isn't going to happen any time soon. In fact, the most socially conservatives are not even pushing seriously for that to come to pass. Until the government is removed from marriage; which I don't see ever happening, then marriage access and the rights entailed with it should be granted to same sex couples.
Click to expand...


Agreed. But I think it's important to recognize that it's a "hack" to cover up otherwise bad government. We do that far too often - legislating ever more bad law to cover up the ill effects of earlier missteps.


----------



## mdk

dblack said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarian pipe dream that is never going to happen. The reason the "gubmit" will always be involved in marriage is because of divorce.
> 
> There is no violation of equal treatment. All single people are treated the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the far left talking points come out !
> 
> Nope! And always incorrect, wrong, not even close..
> 
> Yet they still push this debunked talking point as a "fact"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite realizing that is way beyond your abilities to do so, care to explain what I'm wrong about?
> 
> What is it you find to be a "debunked talking point"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wondering that myself. I'm not sure how it can be a talking point, as this issue rarely comes up.
> 
> Marriage should be handled as any other contract, and infer no special rights to participants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though I do admire and support the spirit of getting the government out of the marriage business altogether it really isn't going to happen any time soon. In fact, the most socially conservatives are not even pushing seriously for that to come to pass. Until the government is removed from marriage; which I don't see ever happening, then marriage access and the rights entailed with it should be granted to same sex couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. But I think it's important to recognize that it's a "hack" to cover up otherwise bad government. We do that far too often - legislating ever more bad law to cover up the ill effects of earlier missteps.
Click to expand...


I am willing to bet the vast and overwhelming majority of people still support all the perks, rights, and goodies the government bestows on married couples. The rub is that they still want these perks for themselves while denying them to other married couples they deem unworthy.

I am not sure how one can reconcile the postion of wanting the government out of marriage all the while accepting the same perks, rights, and benefits that the government bestows on THEIR marriage. If these people truly wanted the government out of marriage they wouldn't accept these perks and tax breaks in the first place.


----------



## dblack

mdk said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the far left talking points come out !
> 
> Nope! And always incorrect, wrong, not even close..
> 
> Yet they still push this debunked talking point as a "fact"..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite realizing that is way beyond your abilities to do so, care to explain what I'm wrong about?
> 
> What is it you find to be a "debunked talking point"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wondering that myself. I'm not sure how it can be a talking point, as this issue rarely comes up.
> 
> Marriage should be handled as any other contract, and infer no special rights to participants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though I do admire and support the spirit of getting the government out of the marriage business altogether it really isn't going to happen any time soon. In fact, the most socially conservatives are not even pushing seriously for that to come to pass. Until the government is removed from marriage; which I don't see ever happening, then marriage access and the rights entailed with it should be granted to same sex couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. But I think it's important to recognize that it's a "hack" to cover up otherwise bad government. We do that far too often - legislating ever more bad law to cover up the ill effects of earlier missteps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am willing to bet the vast and overwhelming majority of people still support all the perks, rights, and goodies the government bestows on married couples. The rub is that they still want these perks for themselves while denying them to other married couples they deem unworthy.
> 
> I am not sure how one can reconcile the postion of wanting the government out of marriage all the while accepting the same perks, rights, and benefits that the government bestows on THEIR marriage. If these people truly wanted the government out of marriage they wouldn't accept these perks and tax breaks in the first place.
Click to expand...


Most of them don't. I don't often here this point made by conservatives. Conservatives like their government interference as much as liberals. They just want it to 'interfere different'.


----------



## mdk

dblack said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite realizing that is way beyond your abilities to do so, care to explain what I'm wrong about?
> 
> What is it you find to be a "debunked talking point"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wondering that myself. I'm not sure how it can be a talking point, as this issue rarely comes up.
> 
> Marriage should be handled as any other contract, and infer no special rights to participants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though I do admire and support the spirit of getting the government out of the marriage business altogether it really isn't going to happen any time soon. In fact, the most socially conservatives are not even pushing seriously for that to come to pass. Until the government is removed from marriage; which I don't see ever happening, then marriage access and the rights entailed with it should be granted to same sex couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. But I think it's important to recognize that it's a "hack" to cover up otherwise bad government. We do that far too often - legislating ever more bad law to cover up the ill effects of earlier missteps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am willing to bet the vast and overwhelming majority of people still support all the perks, rights, and goodies the government bestows on married couples. The rub is that they still want these perks for themselves while denying them to other married couples they deem unworthy.
> 
> I am not sure how one can reconcile the postion of wanting the government out of marriage all the while accepting the same perks, rights, and benefits that the government bestows on THEIR marriage. If these people truly wanted the government out of marriage they wouldn't accept these perks and tax breaks in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of them don't. I don't often here this point made by conservatives. Conservatives like their government interference as much as liberals. They just want it to 'interfere different'.
Click to expand...


And that is the crux of the problem when it comes to an intrusive and bloated government. Each side supports a bloated government when it fits their agenda and than rails aganist it when it doesn't. It is maddening. I really do not see the government ever getting out marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect.  It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply.  A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course that is your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.
> 
> Treating people equally- that is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection is a requirement of the Constitution. But the violation of equality here happens before 'gay' marriage comes into the picture. The reason gays want government to recognize their marriages is because of the special privileges we grant to married people - and that's the problem. If married people were treated the same as unmarried people, it wouldn't matter whether their marriages was "ordained" by the state or not. Indeed, we could simply keep government out of the marriage business altogether. Let people decide for themselves what "marriage" means.
Click to expand...


The reason homosexuals want government to recognize their marriage is for the same reason as my wife and I wanted the government to recognize our marriage- because that is how we become legally married. 

My wife and I didn't marry for some nebulous 'government perks'- we married to legally commit to be each others partners for the rest of our lives- and in our society- that is how couples make that legal commitment. 

I kind of laugh about this whole concept of 'legal perks'- since there have been at least 2 years we have paid more income taxes since we are married. Yes- if I get hit by a bus, marriage means my wife automatically has the authority to make medical decisions on my behalf and visit me in the hospital. And if I die, she gets social security survivor benefits, and inherits our mutual estate without any inheritance tax- but to tell you the truth- we didn't get married just so we have less inheritance tax when one of us dies.


----------



## Syriusly

Kosh said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect.  It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply.  A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course that is your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.
> 
> Treating people equally- that is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another far left talking point based on propaganda and not in reality.
Click to expand...


Troll.


----------



## Kosh

Syriusly said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect.  It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply.  A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course that is your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.
> 
> Treating people equally- that is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another far left talking point based on propaganda and not in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
Click to expand...


Yes you are! A far left one at that!


----------



## Syriusly

Kosh said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
> 
> 
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course that is your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.
> 
> Treating people equally- that is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another far left talking point based on propaganda and not in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you are! A far left one at that!
Click to expand...


Troll.


----------



## Kosh

Syriusly said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course that is your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.
> 
> Treating people equally- that is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another far left talking point based on propaganda and not in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you are! A far left one at that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
Click to expand...


Yes commonly used by the far left when they get called out on posting their far left propaganda!


----------



## Syriusly

Kosh said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course that is your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion- the opinion of a man married to his wife for over 20 years- it is right for same gender couples to be treated just like my wife and I.
> 
> Treating people equally- that is right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another far left talking point based on propaganda and not in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you are! A far left one at that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes commonly used by the far left when they get called out on posting their far left propaganda!
Click to expand...


Troll.


----------



## Kosh

Syriusly said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another far left talking point based on propaganda and not in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you are! A far left one at that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes commonly used by the far left when they get called out on posting their far left propaganda!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
Click to expand...


Yes I know when you called out for pushing an agenda..

Yes punish those churches it will make you feel so much better, go for that revenge..


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> The reason homosexuals want government to recognize their marriage is for the same reason as my wife and I wanted the government to recognize our marriage- because that is how we become legally married.
> 
> My wife and I didn't marry for some nebulous 'government perks'- we married to legally commit to be each others partners for the rest of our lives- and in our society- that is how couples make that legal commitment....And if I die, she gets social security survivor benefits, and inherits our mutual estate without any inheritance tax- but to tell you the truth- we didn't get married just so we have less inheritance tax when one of us dies.


 
So sign a contract with your female friend (not wife, never can be) where she is on a trust with you and has power of attorney and visitation rights.  But don't call what you do marriage.  I know why y'all want to be "married"...so adoption agencies can't turn you down.  You already have all the legal tools you need in order to achieve all your goals without trying to force the state to incentivize homes where one blood parent is missing 100% of the time, or where the complimentary gender is missing 100% of the time so children in those homes grow up stunted socially and otherwise.  You just want child-raising rights from adoption agencies.  And that isn't in the best interest of children.  So you cannot be married.  Children trump gays.


----------



## bendog

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason homosexuals want government to recognize their marriage is for the same reason as my wife and I wanted the government to recognize our marriage- because that is how we become legally married.
> 
> My wife and I didn't marry for some nebulous 'government perks'- we married to legally commit to be each others partners for the rest of our lives- and in our society- that is how couples make that legal commitment....And if I die, she gets social security survivor benefits, and inherits our mutual estate without any inheritance tax- but to tell you the truth- we didn't get married just so we have less inheritance tax when one of us dies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So sign a contract with your female friend (not wife, never can be) where she is on a trust with you and has power of attorney and visitation rights.  But don't call what you do marriage.  I know why y'all want to be "married"...so adoption agencies can't turn you down.  You already have all the legal tools you need in order to achieve all your goals without trying to force the state to incentivize homes where one blood parent is missing 100% of the time, or where the complimentary gender is missing 100% of the time so children in those homes grow up stunted socially and otherwise.  You just want child-raising rights from adoption agencies.  And that isn't in the best interest of children.  So you cannot be married.  Children trump gays.
Click to expand...

bullshite


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason homosexuals want government to recognize their marriage is for the same reason as my wife and I wanted the government to recognize our marriage- because that is how we become legally married.
> 
> My wife and I didn't marry for some nebulous 'government perks'- we married to legally commit to be each others partners for the rest of our lives- and in our society- that is how couples make that legal commitment....And if I die, she gets social security survivor benefits, and inherits our mutual estate without any inheritance tax- but to tell you the truth- we didn't get married just so we have less inheritance tax when one of us dies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So sign a contract with your female friend (not wife, never can be) where she is on a trust with you and has power of attorney and visitation rights.  But don't call what you do marriage.  I know why y'all want to be "married"...so adoption agencies can't turn you down.  You already have all the legal tools you need in order to achieve all your goals without trying to force the state to incentivize homes where one blood parent is missing 100% of the time, or where the complimentary gender is missing 100% of the time so children in those homes grow up stunted socially and otherwise.  You just want child-raising rights from adoption agencies.  And that isn't in the best interest of children.  So you cannot be married.  Children trump gays.
Click to expand...


What are you babbling about now?

My wife and I have been married- legally- for over 20 years. I don't need to enter any trust with her(though I could for some purposes) because as a married couple we have automatic legal guardianship for each other. 

Why wouldn't we call our marriage marriage? The minister who married us, and our families and friends who witnessed it, and the license we filed with city hall all would say you are just full of BS.

And I am not brave enough for adoption- we are lucky enough to have had a wonderful child the biological way together- but I have tremendous admiration for any person- or couple who have the courage and love necessary to adopt children into their families- regardless of their sexual orientation.

Oh and in my state- homosexuals same gender couples have been adopting children for over 20 years. Preventing same gender marriage just ensures that those adopted children won't have married parents. 

Which of course is what you want.


----------



## Syriusly

Kosh said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are! A far left one at that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes commonly used by the far left when they get called out on posting their far left propaganda!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I know when you called out for pushing an agenda..
> 
> Yes punish those churches it will make you feel so much better, go for that revenge..
Click to expand...


Troll.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> So sign a contract with your female friend (not wife, never can be) where she is on a trust with you and has power of attorney and visitation rights.  But don't call what you do marriage.  I know why y'all want to be "married"...so adoption agencies can't turn you down.  You already have all the legal tools you need in order to achieve all your goals without trying to force the state to incentivize homes where one blood parent is missing 100% of the time, or where the complimentary gender is missing 100% of the time so children in those homes grow up stunted socially and otherwise.  You just want child-raising rights from adoption agencies.  And that isn't in the best interest of children.  So you cannot be married.  Children trump gays.


 


Syriusly said:


> What are you babbling about now?
> 
> My wife and I have been married- legally- for over 20 years. I don't need to enter any trust with her(though I could for some purposes) because as a married couple we have automatic legal guardianship for each other.


 
Just because something wrong and illegal was forced upon the governed, does not mean they should accept it one day further or promote it into the future...

And speaking of futures with respect to two genders playing at "mom and dad" to untold future generations...here's a glimpse into that future as insitutionalized (not a random occurance denounced by the general culture, but instead a sanctioned occurance embraced by the LGBT culture)



> *The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl last night defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young*....Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy...*At age seven, after threatening genital mutilation on himself, psychiatrists diagnosed Thomas with gender identity disorder*. By the age of eight, he began transitioning. ...*The hormone-suppressant, implanted in his upper left arm*, will postpone the 11-year-old developing broad shoulders, deep voice and facial hair. The California boy 11 who is undergoing hormone blocking treatment Daily Mail Online


Just after his first 6 formative years, this boy raised by two lesbians suddenly wants to femalize himself by genital mutilation. "Gender identity disorder" could also be called "my gender doesn't matter disorder"...


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So sign a contract with your female friend (not wife, never can be) where she is on a trust with you and has power of attorney and visitation rights.  But don't call what you do marriage.  I know why y'all want to be "married"...so adoption agencies can't turn you down.  You already have all the legal tools you need in order to achieve all your goals without trying to force the state to incentivize homes where one blood parent is missing 100% of the time, or where the complimentary gender is missing 100% of the time so children in those homes grow up stunted socially and otherwise.  You just want child-raising rights from adoption agencies.  And that isn't in the best interest of children.  So you cannot be married.  Children trump gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you babbling about now?
> 
> My wife and I have been married- legally- for over 20 years. I don't need to enter any trust with her(though I could for some purposes) because as a married couple we have automatic legal guardianship for each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because something wrong and illegal was forced upon the governed, does not mean they should accept it one day further or promote it into the future.....
Click to expand...


You are babbling more and more. What you posted has nothing to do with my post. 

Just pure babble.


----------



## Kosh

Syriusly said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are! A far left one at that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes commonly used by the far left when they get called out on posting their far left propaganda!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I know when you called out for pushing an agenda..
> 
> Yes punish those churches it will make you feel so much better, go for that revenge..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
Click to expand...


Yes punish those churches!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with [homosexuals] ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> That would be: The _Homosexuals_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the legal institution of gay marriage is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe of you say it a dozen more times it will become reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if he clicks his heels three times...
Click to expand...


Oh now THAT is a lovely way to concede!

Noted and accepted.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect.  It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply.  A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Normal people' according to who? See, defining a subjective term with another subjective term is just a delaying tactic. You'll eventually have to cite a source that isn't purely speculative.
> 
> And given that a strong majority of the nation supports gay marriage by margins of between 12 and 19 points, you may want to be careful how you subjectively define 'normal people'.
Click to expand...


There is nothing subjective about normality... as that is established by no less an authority than Nature itself; who designed the human species, providing very specific and clearly defined genders, for very specifc and clearly defined purposes... those who comport themselves within that STANDARD, are: NORMAL.  

Those who do NOT comport themselves within that STANDARD, thus who DEVIATE from that STANDARD, are: DEVIANTS, OKA: ABNORMAL.  

There could be nothing neither LESS SUBJECTIVE, nor MORE OBJECTIVE than that.

But how cool is it that the Relativist claims that up and down, right is wrong and light is darkness?  

It's as if they have absolutely NO CONTROL over their own minds.  This is what science has come to understand as: DELUSION.  It is a perversion of the human intellect... which the ancients referred to as EVIL.  

For the sake of the Intellectually Less Fortune, I should simply note that THAT: IS *BAD!*


----------



## Syriusly

Kosh said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes commonly used by the far left when they get called out on posting their far left propaganda!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I know when you called out for pushing an agenda..
> 
> Yes punish those churches it will make you feel so much better, go for that revenge..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes punish those churches!
Click to expand...


Troll.


----------



## Kosh

Syriusly said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes commonly used by the far left when they get called out on posting their far left propaganda!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I know when you called out for pushing an agenda..
> 
> Yes punish those churches it will make you feel so much better, go for that revenge..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes punish those churches!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
Click to expand...


Yes we know you far left posters are trolls.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect.  It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply.  A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Normal people' according to who? See, defining a subjective term with another subjective term is just a delaying tactic. You'll eventually have to cite a source that isn't purely speculative.
> 
> And given that a strong majority of the nation supports gay marriage by margins of between 12 and 19 points, you may want to be careful how you subjectively define 'normal people'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing subjective about normality... as that is established by no less an authority than Nature itself; *!*
Click to expand...


There is something subjective about how humans treat 'normality'- and how they treat those who they view as 'not normal'.

You would prefer that those you consider 'not normal' be treated as second class citizens.

I would prefer we treat humans equally.


----------



## Syriusly

Kosh said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I know when you called out for pushing an agenda..
> 
> Yes punish those churches it will make you feel so much better, go for that revenge..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes punish those churches!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we know you far left posters are trolls.
Click to expand...


Troll


----------



## Kosh

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is legally incorrect.  It's not wrong since the basics of right and wrong still apply.  A legal edict cannot change wrong to right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Normal people' according to who? See, defining a subjective term with another subjective term is just a delaying tactic. You'll eventually have to cite a source that isn't purely speculative.
> 
> And given that a strong majority of the nation supports gay marriage by margins of between 12 and 19 points, you may want to be careful how you subjectively define 'normal people'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing subjective about normality... as that is established by no less an authority than Nature itself; *!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is something subjective about how humans treat 'normality'- and how they treat those who they view as 'not normal'.
> 
> You would prefer that those you consider 'not normal' be treated as second class citizens.
> 
> I would prefer we treat humans equally.
Click to expand...


Yes the far left does not understand such words, but they love to post them..

So a woman is being raped kills the rapist in self defense, a rapist kills his victim and according to the far left the these two should be treated equally.

Yep! Proof that equality does not truly exist..


----------



## Kosh

Syriusly said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I know when you called out for pushing an agenda..
> 
> Yes punish those churches it will make you feel so much better, go for that revenge..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes punish those churches!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we know you far left posters are trolls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll
Click to expand...


Yes we know you are! Although keeping that far left propaganda not based in reality..


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Kosh said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
> 
> 
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Normal people' according to who? See, defining a subjective term with another subjective term is just a delaying tactic. You'll eventually have to cite a source that isn't purely speculative.
> 
> And given that a strong majority of the nation supports gay marriage by margins of between 12 and 19 points, you may want to be careful how you subjectively define 'normal people'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing subjective about normality... as that is established by no less an authority than Nature itself; *!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is something subjective about how humans treat 'normality'- and how they treat those who they view as 'not normal'.
> 
> You would prefer that those you consider 'not normal' be treated as second class citizens.
> 
> I would prefer we treat humans equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes the far left does not understand such words, but they love to post them..
> 
> So a woman is being raped kills the rapist in self defense, a rapist kills his victim and according to the far left the these two should be treated equally.
> 
> Yep! Proof that equality does not truly exist..
Click to expand...



Equality does in fact exist... it simply exists ONLY within the scope of reality which the Relativists of the Ideological Left: REJECTS.

Human equality exists ONLY before God.  No God, no potential for human equality.


----------



## Syriusly

Kosh said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basics of right and wrong....according to who?
> 
> (Appeal to Authority in 3....2.....1.....)
> 
> 
> 
> According to normal people.   What happens when people can decide for themselves what right and wrong are. Then decide that burning gays alive is the right thing to do?    Would that make it right?  In Iran the law is that gays should be hanged.  Is that right because it's lawful?  Of course not.  Legalizing same sex marriage is lawful.  Not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Normal people' according to who? See, defining a subjective term with another subjective term is just a delaying tactic. You'll eventually have to cite a source that isn't purely speculative.
> 
> And given that a strong majority of the nation supports gay marriage by margins of between 12 and 19 points, you may want to be careful how you subjectively define 'normal people'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing subjective about normality... as that is established by no less an authority than Nature itself; *!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is something subjective about how humans treat 'normality'- and how they treat those who they view as 'not normal'.
> 
> You would prefer that those you consider 'not normal' be treated as second class citizens.
> 
> I would prefer we treat humans equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes the far left does not understand such words, but they love to post them..
> 
> So a woman is being raped kills the rapist in self defense, a rapist kills his victim and according to the far left the these two should be treated equally.
> 
> Yep! Proof that equality does not truly exist..
Click to expand...


Troll.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Equality does in fact exist... it simply exists ONLY within the scope of reality which the Relativists of the Ideological Left: REJECTS.
> 
> Human equality exists ONLY before God.  No God, no potential for human equality.



More accurately, I reject the idea that your personal opinion and subjective beliefs define 'reality'.


----------



## Skylar

> There is nothing subjective about normality... as that is established by no less an authority than Nature itself; who designed the human species, providing very specific and clearly defined genders, for very specifc and clearly defined purposes... those who comport themselves within that STANDARD, are: NORMAL.



Who defines what normal is? If the majority of the population supports gay marriage then wouldn't support for gay marriage be normal? If gay marriage is legal in a majority of states, wouldn't legal recognition of same sex marriage be 'normal'?

These are your standards, after all.


> Those who do NOT comport themselves within that STANDARD, thus who DEVIATE from that STANDARD, are: DEVIANTS, OKA: ABNORMAL.



Since the majority of the nation supports gay marriage, does that mean your opposition makes you a deviant by your own standards?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> There is nothing subjective about normality... as that is established by no less an authority than Nature itself; who designed the human species, providing very specific and clearly defined genders, for very specifc and clearly defined purposes... those who comport themselves within that STANDARD, are: NORMAL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who defines what normal is? If the majority of the population supports gay marriage then wouldn't support for gay marriage be normal? If gay marriage is legal in a majority of states, wouldn't legal recognition of same sex marriage be 'normal'?
> 
> These are your standards, after all.
> 
> 
> 
> Those who do NOT comport themselves within that STANDARD, thus who DEVIATE from that STANDARD, are: DEVIANTS, OKA: ABNORMAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the majority of the nation supports gay marriage, does that mean your opposition makes you a deviant by your own standards?
Click to expand...


If every human being on earth, BELIEVED to the core of their respective SOULS that sexual deviancy was PERFECTLY NORMAL... that popularly held sentiment would in no way alter the reality wherein sexual behavior which deviates from the biological standard, is deviant, thus abnormal behavior.  

This would remain so, if every human being on earth was suddenly struck with the desire for sexual gratification through sexual behavior with people of their same gender.

Ya see, none of that changes the fact relevant to human physiology and the sexual standards intrinsic to such, therein.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equality does in fact exist... it simply exists ONLY within the scope of reality which the Relativists of the Ideological Left: REJECTS.
> 
> Human equality exists ONLY before God.  No God, no potential for human equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More accurately, I reject the idea that your personal opinion and subjective beliefs define 'reality'.
Click to expand...


I personally just think it is more concise to call Keys posts bat guano craziness.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> More accurately, I reject the idea that your personal opinion and subjective beliefs define 'reality'.



So what?


----------



## beagle9

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is definitely *a breach of church and state going on here*, because most if not all in America viewed or have known marriage to be as a holy and religious ceremony that was recognized by the state as a good thing, and they have done this through out this nations founding. It has supported the church practice by joining in on the action with incentives to help it all along because it saw it as good. Now the gay's are wanting the state to change the definition of marriage, and that is an intrusion or breach of the Church and State clause in which we have lived by for so long, and has been a protection of our religious institutions from the state controlling them or destroying them, and this we have had in order to of course protect the freedom of religion in this nation for as long as it has been a part of this America. We now see the power of the state, and how it can destroy without this protection being used, so where are we going wrong here ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since you are all about the government recognizing a Churches position on same-sex marriage.  Then can we assume that you advocate that the government should recognize same-sex holy matrimony performed by a religious organization?  (Which includes Christian Churches, Jewish Synagogues, Hindu and Buddhist Temples, Wiccans, Native Amercian religious groups, etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is no such thing as same sex holy matrimony, so what's your point ?* I mean people can do what ever they want, and they can call it what ever they want, but that doesn't make it right in the eyes of God or in the eyes of hundreds of thousands of American citizens now does it ? For the ones who want to live apart from such weird and strange things, then how do you suppose they do that without a voice or representation to do so ? This is why people elect people they want to represent them, and they expect results not a sell out to the highest bidder afterwards. To many lies are told, and to much fraud is going on in the electorate now, where as they will smile and tell you one thing, but then do another because of the pressure and corruption that is overwhelming when they reach the center of the rotten core finally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As to the emphasized part above, are you saying there are not religious organizations (Churches, Synagogues, Temples, etc.) that are now providing religious marriage to same-sex couples?
> 
> The rest just seems to be a wall of text trying very hard not to answer the question that was asked.>>>>
Click to expand...


They may be providing it, but it isn't HOLY I can garantee you that, and if they think that it is HOLY, then they are completely corrupted or brainwashed badly into thinking such.  It isn't HOLY nor is it acknowledged in the eyes of GOD, except that he tells us that these things are sin..... Like I said they can call it what ever they want too, and they can carry on where ever it is that someone would except them as such, but HOLY is definitely something they are not, and this no matter how hard they try and hide behind such words because it isn't selling for most people who are members of the churches . Obama claimed he was a Christian at one point, but his actions spake otherwise.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equality does in fact exist... it simply exists ONLY within the scope of reality which the Relativists of the Ideological Left: REJECTS.
> 
> Human equality exists ONLY before God.  No God, no potential for human equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More accurately, I reject the idea that your personal opinion and subjective beliefs define 'reality'.
Click to expand...


OH!  And FWIW: Belief in God and the recognition of God's supreme authority is not only OBJECTIVE, it's the epitome of objectivity.  (FYI: That means that it doesn't GET any more objective than THAT!)


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:

“OH! And FWIW: Belief in God and the recognition of God's supreme authority is not only OBJECTIVE, it's the epitome of objectivity. (FYI: That means that it doesn't GET any more objective than THAT!)”

This is subjective, personal, and legally irrelevant, as is your belief in a 'god.'


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:
> 
> “OH! And FWIW: Belief in God and the recognition of God's supreme authority is not only OBJECTIVE, it's the epitome of objectivity. (FYI: That means that it doesn't GET any more objective than THAT!)”
> 
> This is subjective, personal, and legally irrelevant, as is your belief in a 'god.'



Is it?

Belief in God is the epitome (look it up) of Objectivity.  

And western Jurisprudence is founded directly upon the recognition of, respect for and adherence TO God and the laws he provided, by which humanity is governed.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equality does in fact exist... it simply exists ONLY within the scope of reality which the Relativists of the Ideological Left: REJECTS.
> 
> Human equality exists ONLY before God.  No God, no potential for human equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More accurately, I reject the idea that your personal opinion and subjective beliefs define 'reality'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  And FWIW: Belief in God and the recognition of God's supreme authority is not only OBJECTIVE, it's the epitome of objectivity.  (FYI: That means that it doesn't GET any more objective than THAT!)
Click to expand...


And 'objectively' what does God say on the matter of gays?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

_WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID: _

“Human equality exists ONLY before God. No God, no potential for human equality.”

Nonsense.

Equality exists in spite of religion, as religion has long been a source of discrimination – that theists seek to deny gay Americans their civil rights 'justified' by their religious beliefs is evidence of that.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

“I really do not see the government ever getting out marriage.”

Likely because the notion of government 'getting out of marriage' is nonsense.

Government and marriage contract law are one in the same; indeed, marriage contract law is written by the states and administered by state courts. Moreover, marriage contract law does not manifest as 'bloated government' or 'government overreach,' as marriage contract law is the sole purview of government.

Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that compels the states to allow same-sex couples access to the marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations, such as churches.

Clearly ignorance of the law needlessly clouds this issue as does the unwarranted hatred of theists.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “I really do not see the government ever getting out marriage.”
> 
> Likely because the notion of government 'getting out of marriage' is nonsense.
> 
> Government and marriage contract law are one in the same; indeed, marriage contract law is written by the states and administered by state courts. Moreover, marriage contract law does not manifest as 'bloated government' or 'government overreach,' as marriage contract law is the sole purview of government.
> 
> Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that compels the states to allow same-sex couples access to the marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations, such as churches.
> 
> Clearly ignorance of the law needlessly clouds this issue as does the unwarranted hatred of theists.


Listen to yourself, I mean here you are saying to us that this is allowed or that It was allowed or that it should be allowed, but I'll ask you this then, how come it wasn't allowed forever and a day under so many administrations in this nation ? How was it legal as you say, but it was not legal for hundreds of years here ? Are you saying that it took all these years for a generation to come along and tell everyone how wrong they were for hundreds of years now ? If so that is saying a lot, but what I think is that the government always worked for the majority of the American people in the past, but today not so much.


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “I really do not see the government ever getting out marriage.”
> 
> Likely because the notion of government 'getting out of marriage' is nonsense.
> 
> Government and marriage contract law are one in the same; indeed, marriage contract law is written by the states and administered by state courts. Moreover, marriage contract law does not manifest as 'bloated government' or 'government overreach,' as marriage contract law is the sole purview of government.
> 
> Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that compels the states to allow same-sex couples access to the marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations, such as churches.
> 
> Clearly ignorance of the law needlessly clouds this issue as does the unwarranted hatred of theists.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself, I mean here you are saying to us that this is allowed or that It was allowed or that it should be allowed, but I'll ask you this then, how come it wasn't allowed forever and a day under so many administrations in this nation ? How was it legal as you say, but it was not legal for hundreds of years here ? Are you saying that it took all these years for a generation to come along and tell everyone how wrong they were for hundreds of years now ? If so that is saying a lot, but what I think is that the government always worked for the majority of the American people in the past, but today not so much.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah? You "think" that do you? Well, you need to "think" a little deeper. Do you know what Loving v Virginia was? It was the SCOTUS case that ruled bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional. They made the ruling in 1967. Here's what "the American people" thought about it.


----------



## Geaux4it

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “I really do not see the government ever getting out marriage.”
> 
> Likely because the notion of government 'getting out of marriage' is nonsense.
> 
> Government and marriage contract law are one in the same; indeed, marriage contract law is written by the states and administered by state courts. Moreover, marriage contract law does not manifest as 'bloated government' or 'government overreach,' as marriage contract law is the sole purview of government.
> 
> Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that compels the states to allow same-sex couples access to the marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations, such as churches.
> 
> Clearly ignorance of the law needlessly clouds this issue as does the unwarranted hatred of theists.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself, I mean here you are saying to us that this is allowed or that It was allowed or that it should be allowed, but I'll ask you this then, how come it wasn't allowed forever and a day under so many administrations in this nation ? How was it legal as you say, but it was not legal for hundreds of years here ? Are you saying that it took all these years for a generation to come along and tell everyone how wrong they were for hundreds of years now ? If so that is saying a lot, but what I think is that the government always worked for the majority of the American people in the past, but today not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah? You "think" that do you? Well, you need to "think" a little deeper. Do you know what Loving v Virginia was? It was the SCOTUS case that ruled bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional. They made the ruling in 1967. Here's what "the American people" thought about it.
Click to expand...


So, this gallup poll shows what you support. How about this Galup poll. Should not the will of the people rule the day here as well? Only 37% support it.

-Geaux


----------



## Syriusly

Geaux4it said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “I really do not see the government ever getting out marriage.”
> 
> Likely because the notion of government 'getting out of marriage' is nonsense.
> 
> Government and marriage contract law are one in the same; indeed, marriage contract law is written by the states and administered by state courts. Moreover, marriage contract law does not manifest as 'bloated government' or 'government overreach,' as marriage contract law is the sole purview of government.
> 
> Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that compels the states to allow same-sex couples access to the marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations, such as churches.
> 
> Clearly ignorance of the law needlessly clouds this issue as does the unwarranted hatred of theists.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself, I mean here you are saying to us that this is allowed or that It was allowed or that it should be allowed, but I'll ask you this then, how come it wasn't allowed forever and a day under so many administrations in this nation ? How was it legal as you say, but it was not legal for hundreds of years here ? Are you saying that it took all these years for a generation to come along and tell everyone how wrong they were for hundreds of years now ? If so that is saying a lot, but what I think is that the government always worked for the majority of the American people in the past, but today not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah? You "think" that do you? Well, you need to "think" a little deeper. Do you know what Loving v Virginia was? It was the SCOTUS case that ruled bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional. They made the ruling in 1967. Here's what "the American people" thought about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, this gallup poll shows what you support. How about this Galup poll. Should not the will of the people rule the day here as well? Only 37% support it.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

Nice graph.

But since you didn't label it- is that approval of football or Christmas?






Now here is a relevant Gallup poll


----------



## Seawytch

Geaux4it said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “I really do not see the government ever getting out marriage.”
> 
> Likely because the notion of government 'getting out of marriage' is nonsense.
> 
> Government and marriage contract law are one in the same; indeed, marriage contract law is written by the states and administered by state courts. Moreover, marriage contract law does not manifest as 'bloated government' or 'government overreach,' as marriage contract law is the sole purview of government.
> 
> Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that compels the states to allow same-sex couples access to the marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations, such as churches.
> 
> Clearly ignorance of the law needlessly clouds this issue as does the unwarranted hatred of theists.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself, I mean here you are saying to us that this is allowed or that It was allowed or that it should be allowed, but I'll ask you this then, how come it wasn't allowed forever and a day under so many administrations in this nation ? How was it legal as you say, but it was not legal for hundreds of years here ? Are you saying that it took all these years for a generation to come along and tell everyone how wrong they were for hundreds of years now ? If so that is saying a lot, but what I think is that the government always worked for the majority of the American people in the past, but today not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah? You "think" that do you? Well, you need to "think" a little deeper. Do you know what Loving v Virginia was? It was the SCOTUS case that ruled bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional. They made the ruling in 1967. Here's what "the American people" thought about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, this gallup poll shows what you support. How about this Galup poll. Should not the will of the people rule the day here as well? Only 37% support it.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Your chart has nothing to do with the topic. Mine had to do with America's view of interracial marriage in 1967 when the SCOTUS Ruled on Loving. Should  interracial marriage have waited until 1990?


----------



## bendog

Seawytch, I found this study to be interesting.  The links take you there.  I'm not sure what the causes of poverty exactly are.  I won't take issue with the conclusions, though. Not trying to hijack the thread ... though that might be a blessing of sorts.

 Poor Gays - Talk Poverty


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Now here is a relevant Gallup poll


 
Was that poll taken at a blue light district?  Were the responses strong, medium or weak?  Look at the poll above.  People came here voluntarily to show up at one of the most popular polls at USMB ever.  Their response was not weak.  It was "Hell No".


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now here is a relevant Gallup poll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that poll taken at a blue light district?  Were the responses strong, medium or weak?  Look at the poll above.  People came here voluntarily to show up at one of the most popular polls at USMB ever.  Their response was not weak.  It was "Hell No".
Click to expand...


Well since it is a Gallup Poll- one of the top 5 polling firms in the country- you can look up their polling techniques- it is a real poll- not your pretend poll


----------



## Syriusly

Seawytch said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “I really do not see the government ever getting out marriage.”
> 
> Likely because the notion of government 'getting out of marriage' is nonsense.
> 
> Government and marriage contract law are one in the same; indeed, marriage contract law is written by the states and administered by state courts. Moreover, marriage contract law does not manifest as 'bloated government' or 'government overreach,' as marriage contract law is the sole purview of government.
> 
> Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that compels the states to allow same-sex couples access to the marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations, such as churches.
> 
> Clearly ignorance of the law needlessly clouds this issue as does the unwarranted hatred of theists.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself, I mean here you are saying to us that this is allowed or that It was allowed or that it should be allowed, but I'll ask you this then, how come it wasn't allowed forever and a day under so many administrations in this nation ? How was it legal as you say, but it was not legal for hundreds of years here ? Are you saying that it took all these years for a generation to come along and tell everyone how wrong they were for hundreds of years now ? If so that is saying a lot, but what I think is that the government always worked for the majority of the American people in the past, but today not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah? You "think" that do you? Well, you need to "think" a little deeper. Do you know what Loving v Virginia was? It was the SCOTUS case that ruled bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional. They made the ruling in 1967. Here's what "the American people" thought about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, this gallup poll shows what you support. How about this Galup poll. Should not the will of the people rule the day here as well? Only 37% support it.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your chart has nothing to do with the topic. Mine had to do with America's view of interracial marriage in 1967 when the SCOTUS Ruled on Loving. Should  interracial marriage have waited until 1990?
Click to expand...


Interesting isn't it? 

Support for mixed race marriage didn't equal the current support for same gender marriage until about 1996- 30 years after the courts legalized it- and only 18 years ago.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Was that poll taken at a blue light district?  Were the responses strong, medium or weak?  Look at the poll above.  People came here voluntarily to show up at one of the most popular polls at USMB ever.  Their response was not weak.  It was "Hell No".



A USMB poll* that never asks* if same sex marraiges should be recognized by the law as valid. 

Where the Gallup poll asks exactly that. 

Laughing....do you honestly think we're not going to check the USMB poll? Did you really think you could get that by us?


----------



## beagle9

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “I really do not see the government ever getting out marriage.”
> 
> Likely because the notion of government 'getting out of marriage' is nonsense.
> 
> Government and marriage contract law are one in the same; indeed, marriage contract law is written by the states and administered by state courts. Moreover, marriage contract law does not manifest as 'bloated government' or 'government overreach,' as marriage contract law is the sole purview of government.
> 
> Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that compels the states to allow same-sex couples access to the marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations, such as churches.
> 
> Clearly ignorance of the law needlessly clouds this issue as does the unwarranted hatred of theists.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself, I mean here you are saying to us that this is allowed or that It was allowed or that it should be allowed, but I'll ask you this then, how come it wasn't allowed forever and a day under so many administrations in this nation ? How was it legal as you say, but it was not legal for hundreds of years here ? Are you saying that it took all these years for a generation to come along and tell everyone how wrong they were for hundreds of years now ? If so that is saying a lot, but what I think is that the government always worked for the majority of the American people in the past, but today not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah? You "think" that do you? Well, you need to "think" a little deeper. Do you know what Loving v Virginia was? It was the SCOTUS case that ruled bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional. They made the ruling in 1967. Here's what "the American people" thought about it.
Click to expand...

Interracial marriage, and this alleged gay marriage stuff is not the same thing at all. One is recognized as Holy in the eyes of God, and the other is not.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now here is a relevant Gallup poll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that poll taken at a blue light district?  Were the responses strong, medium or weak?  Look at the poll above.  People came here voluntarily to show up at one of the most popular polls at USMB ever.  Their response was not weak.  It was "Hell No".
Click to expand...


Good grief, you're still peddling that this poll means 80% don't support gay marriage!? You willingly ignore the slew of polls that specifically ask the question because it disproves your notion. All that matters is your rabid anti-gay crusade, facts be damned. Thus far, you have offered a USMB poll, lines at a fast food joint, "likes"
on a Facebook page, and, a speech by a former NOM director as your proof. Poll after poll shows a majority of Americans support marriage equality.

I can't stop you from being willfully obtuse though.


----------



## MaryL

,ays like to satiate their sexual desires, and that  doesn't produce babies. Biology 101 here. Gays only have kids because of faulty reasons. Adoptions or through misbegotten hetro unions. Not because they can magically produce kids of their own loins and they  know it.  Marriage is about producing children and protecting them. Nothing else, not mindless politics. And it shouldn't be,shame on  gays and their lawyers, they know this. They  ALL had straight parents.


----------



## Skylar

MaryL said:


> ,ays like to satiate their sexual desires, and that  doesn't produce babies. Biology 101 here. Gays only have kids because of faulty reasons. Adoptions or through misbegotten hetro unions. Not because they can magically produce kids of their own loins and they  know it.  Marriage is about producing children and protecting them. Nothing else, not mindless politics. And it shouldn't be,shame on  gays and their lawyers, they know this. They  ALL had straight parents.



If marriage is all about producing kids....then why does not 1 state require children or the ability to have them for a marriage to be valid.

Rather huge loophole, dontcha think?


----------



## Kosh

Skylar said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ,ays like to satiate their sexual desires, and that  doesn't produce babies. Biology 101 here. Gays only have kids because of faulty reasons. Adoptions or through misbegotten hetro unions. Not because they can magically produce kids of their own loins and they  know it.  Marriage is about producing children and protecting them. Nothing else, not mindless politics. And it shouldn't be,shame on  gays and their lawyers, they know this. They  ALL had straight parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If marriage is all about producing kids....then why does not 1 state require children or the ability to have them for a marriage to be valid.
> 
> Rather huge loophole, dontcha think?
Click to expand...


Why get a piece of paper on it with word "Marriage"?

All those "rights" you say you don't have from not being "Married" can be done through legal means.

So once again this is about punishing the church and no other reason.

Still waiting for all these links (just one) from all the gays that have been put In jail for being "illegally married".


----------



## mdk

I am still waiting for all these links of churches being forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes.


----------



## Syriusly

MaryL said:


> ,ays like to satiate their sexual desires, and that  doesn't produce babies. Biology 101 here. Gays only have kids because of faulty reasons. Adoptions or through misbegotten hetro unions. Not because they can magically produce kids of their own loins and they  know it.  Marriage is about producing children and protecting them. Nothing else, not mindless politics. And it shouldn't be,shame on  gays and their lawyers, they know this. They  ALL had straight parents.



Wow.....so much bizarre and wierd logic there.

As a heterosexual, I can say I too like to satiate my sexual desires. 

And for years I did so without producing any babies.

Unlike heterosexuals, homosexuals only have kids because they actively desire to have children- gays don't have kids by mistake- yet that seems to offend you.

As a man who has been married to my wife for over 20 years, I can say that your claim that marriage is only about producing children and protecting them is just mindless ignorance.

We have a child- but we didn't get married to have a child- and whether we had a child nor not- like George and Martha Washington- our marriage would still be just as valuable.

Shame on the mindless homophobes who would prefer that the children of homosexuals not have parents than to allow homosexuals the same right and joy of marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

Shame on you.


----------



## Syriusly

Kosh said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ,ays like to satiate their sexual desires, and that  doesn't produce babies. Biology 101 here. Gays only have kids because of faulty reasons. Adoptions or through misbegotten hetro unions. Not because they can magically produce kids of their own loins and they  know it.  Marriage is about producing children and protecting them. Nothing else, not mindless politics. And it shouldn't be,shame on  gays and their lawyers, they know this. They  ALL had straight parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If marriage is all about producing kids....then why does not 1 state require children or the ability to have them for a marriage to be valid.
> 
> Rather huge loophole, dontcha think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why get a piece of paper on it with word "Marriage"?
> .
Click to expand...


Because unless you get that piece of paper you are not legally married.

My wife and I have one. Why do you object to two people of the same gender having one?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “I really do not see the government ever getting out marriage.”
> 
> Likely because the notion of government 'getting out of marriage' is nonsense.
> 
> Government and marriage contract law are one in the same; indeed, marriage contract law is written by the states and administered by state courts. Moreover, marriage contract law does not manifest as 'bloated government' or 'government overreach,' as marriage contract law is the sole purview of government.
> 
> Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that compels the states to allow same-sex couples access to the marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations, such as churches.
> 
> Clearly ignorance of the law needlessly clouds this issue as does the unwarranted hatred of theists.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself, I mean here you are saying to us that this is allowed or that It was allowed or that it should be allowed, but I'll ask you this then, how come it wasn't allowed forever and a day under so many administrations in this nation ? How was it legal as you say, but it was not legal for hundreds of years here ? Are you saying that it took all these years for a generation to come along and tell everyone how wrong they were for hundreds of years now ? If so that is saying a lot, but what I think is that the government always worked for the majority of the American people in the past, but today not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah? You "think" that do you? Well, you need to "think" a little deeper. Do you know what Loving v Virginia was? It was the SCOTUS case that ruled bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional. They made the ruling in 1967. Here's what "the American people" thought about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interracial marriage, and this alleged gay marriage stuff is not the same thing at all. One is recognized as Holy in the eyes of God, and the other is not.
Click to expand...


You don't quite get this do you?

There are people- perhaps you- who say that the issue of marriage is something 'the people' should decide- not courts.

Well when it came to inter-racial marriage, the courts decided about 30 years before the 'people' decided that inter-racial couples had the legal right to marry.

I really don't care what you think God recognizes as holy, but I will point out- there were preachers in the 1960's who preached that inter-racial marriage was against Gods will.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Kosh said:


> All those "rights" you say you don't have from not being "Married" can be done through legal means.



The wording of this leads to two possible interpretation.  So first interpretation is in regard to SSCM in general.

In every State SSCM has been achieved through legal means: legislatures passing the laws, the laws passing at the ballot box, or the law being ruled unconstitutional in the court.  No State has SSCM through "illegal" means.



Kosh said:


> All those "rights" you say you don't have from not being "Married" can be done through legal means.



The second interpretation is that all things that can be done through Civil Marriage can be done through other equally recognized means and for the same cost of a $50 Civil Marriage license, that is a false statement.

1.  A power of attorney  does not provide for the tax free transfer of real property to a spouse when the other spouse is deceased and relief from the resulting tax liabilities.  Only Civil Marriage does that.  Other avenues would cost significantly more.

2.  There is no other means to allow for exemption from the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that.  (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple.  When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold.  This cannot be duplicated with a power of attorney.)

3.  There is no other means to provide for a spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution.

4.  There is no other means to provide for a spouse to be buried in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States.

5.  Neither a contract or a power of attorney convayes parenthood upon the birth of a child.  A $50 marriage license does, for non-Civilly Married couples it would require a formal adoption costing hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

6.  A power of attorney does not establish a family relationship recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency.

7.  A contract or a power of attorney does not waive the tax penalty for employer liability for employer provided health insurance for a non-Civil Marriage spouse of the same gender.  (Same-sex Civilly Married couples were charged this extra tax on employer benefits where Different-sex Civilly Married couples are not and such tax still applies to Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships.)

8.  A contract or power of attorney does not establish a family relationship under Social Security whereby the surviving spouse can receive benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own.

9.  A contract or power of attorney does not establish a family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes.

and just to make it an even 10...

10.  No "spouse" means that military members will not be able to draw pay and benefits for dependent spouses: no housing allowance, no medical benefits for the spouse, no accompanied tours where the government provides for travel expenses of the spouse, no command sponsorship for overseas assignments, etc...  If there is no Civil Marriage, there is no recognition, and so those things all disappear.  There is no other way to replicate this benefit.​


>>>>


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “I really do not see the government ever getting out marriage.”
> 
> Likely because the notion of government 'getting out of marriage' is nonsense.
> 
> Government and marriage contract law are one in the same; indeed, marriage contract law is written by the states and administered by state courts. Moreover, marriage contract law does not manifest as 'bloated government' or 'government overreach,' as marriage contract law is the sole purview of government.
> 
> Last, the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that compels the states to allow same-sex couples access to the marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations, such as churches.
> 
> Clearly ignorance of the law needlessly clouds this issue as does the unwarranted hatred of theists.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to yourself, I mean here you are saying to us that this is allowed or that It was allowed or that it should be allowed, but I'll ask you this then, how come it wasn't allowed forever and a day under so many administrations in this nation ? How was it legal as you say, but it was not legal for hundreds of years here ? Are you saying that it took all these years for a generation to come along and tell everyone how wrong they were for hundreds of years now ? If so that is saying a lot, but what I think is that the government always worked for the majority of the American people in the past, but today not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah? You "think" that do you? Well, you need to "think" a little deeper. Do you know what Loving v Virginia was? It was the SCOTUS case that ruled bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional. They made the ruling in 1967. Here's what "the American people" thought about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interracial marriage, and this alleged gay marriage stuff is not the same thing at all. One is recognized as Holy in the eyes of God, and the other is not.
Click to expand...


Ah, but the racist bigots thought they were being godly too, just like the anti gay bigots. 

_"The purity of public morals, the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion."_ Virginia Supreme Court

_Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix.”_- Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:


> Ah, but the racist bigots thought they were being godly too, just like the anti gay bigots.
> 
> _"The purity of public morals, the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion."_ Virginia Supreme Court
> 
> _Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix.”_- Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965



People scoff when I suggest that a 7-2 ruling is even possible. While improbable.....no body wants to be this generations Leon Bazile. You know Scalia is going full Bazile. And I don't think many justices are going to want their name attached to that dissent.


----------



## beagle9

Wasn't it a fact that Mohammad Ali sited his religion when he was slated to go to Vietnam, and that the feds backed off on him because of this religion issue in which he had claimed ? Now if the feds will step back and give him a break over his religious beliefs, and not force him to go to war like any other during that time period, then how is it that they expect that a Christian cake baker should be punished for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and this as based upon his religion also ?  It was all because of his religion that wouldn't allow him too do it, but the government threatened and shut down the cake baker didn't they ???? Yep it is just like Mohammad's religion, and how it wouldn't allow him to do something either when being forced to, but the cake maker somehow is held to a different standard now, but go figure. 

Now why has this changed over the years now ? How is it that religious people are losing their religious freedom in this nation, and also their freedom of expression in all of this mess that we are seeing being shoved or forced down peoples throats today, and worse by the federal government in support of such things today ???????

How come the feds have become these special groups hit men in this nation, and this instead of staying out of such things all together ? It is simply a breach or violation of the separation of church and state in this nation big time now I think, where as Obama's feds are trashing the government for special interest groups and their constant whining, and that is a sin and a shame (IMHO), but hey it's par for the course these days don't cha think ?.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Wasn't it a fact that Mohammad Ali sited his religion when he was slated to go to Vietnam, and that the feds backed off on him because of this religion issue in which he had claimed ? Now if the feds will step back and give him a break over his religious beliefs, and not force him to go to war like any other during that time period, then how is it that they expect that a Christian cake baker should be punished for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and this as based upon his religion also ?  It was all because of his religion that wouldn't allow him too do it, but the government threatened and shut down the cake baker didn't they ???? Yep it is just like Mohammad's religion, and how it wouldn't allow him to do something either when being forced to, but the cake maker somehow is held to a different standard now, but go figure.
> 
> Now why has this changed over the years now ? How is it that religious people are losing their religious freedom in this nation, and also their freedom of expression in all of this mess that we are seeing being shoved or forced down peoples throats today, and worse by the federal government in support of such things today ???????
> 
> How come the feds have become these special groups hit men in this nation, and this instead of staying out of such things all together ? It is simply a breach or violation of the separation of church and state in this nation big time now I think, where as Obama's feds are trashing the government for special interest groups and their constant whining, and that is a sin and a shame (IMHO), but hey it's par for the course these days don't cha think ?.



Well its possible that the Baker could prevail if his case went to the Supreme Court- I will point out that Mohammed Ali was arrested and convicted of draft evasion, and that was only overturned by the Supreme Court. 

That would not be precedent in this case, but the bakers have the same opportunity to argue their case as Mohammed Ali did.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> People scoff when I suggest that a 7-2 ruling is even possible. While improbable.....no body wants to be this generations Leon Bazile. You know Scalia is going full Bazile. And I don't think many justices are going to want their name attached to that dissent.


 
That's presuming none of the Justices have read Baker 1971, Windsor 2013 or Sutton's Opinion from the 6th circuit this month..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People scoff when I suggest that a 7-2 ruling is even possible. While improbable.....no body wants to be this generations Leon Bazile. You know Scalia is going full Bazile. And I don't think many justices are going to want their name attached to that dissent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's presuming none of the Justices have read Baker 1971, Windsor 2013 or Sutton's Opinion from the 6th circuit this month..
Click to expand...


LOL......yes- that is presuming that the Justices have read Windsor and all of the Appellate Court decisions.........we already know how Kennedy feels about denying the children of gay parents legal protections.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People scoff when I suggest that a 7-2 ruling is even possible. While improbable.....no body wants to be this generations Leon Bazile. You know Scalia is going full Bazile. And I don't think many justices are going to want their name attached to that dissent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's presuming none of the Justices have read Baker 1971, Windsor 2013 or Sutton's Opinion from the 6th circuit this month..
Click to expand...



*RE: Baker & Windsor*
Well we can pretty much assume all the current Justices have read Baker (1971) since it was only one sentenced and have read Windsor since all the current Justices were involved in deciding the case.  So far every appeal from the Circuit Courts that has been processed by the SCOTUS and address Baker in their ruling (i.e. the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th).  The Justices REJECTED those appeals and let the Circuit Court's interpretation that Baker had been superseded by doctrinal changes from the Supreme Court.  If they had not (and it would have only taken 4), they would have issued a stay and accepted the Writ of Certiorari and then issued a summary judgement affirming Baker.  They didn't.

*RE: The 6th Circuit (i.e. "Suttons Ruling")*
That ruling was not a factor in the rejection of the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Court appeals that were rejected because the 6th Circuit ruling came AFTER those cases had already been closed.  The importance of the 6th Circuit Court ruling is that it now generates a "split" in the Circuits which the SCOTUS will have to address and they are just now receiving the appeals.  Appellants bypassed the an _en banc_ review by the full Circuit, which itself would have taken a couple of months, going instead straight to the SCOTUS.  Which - theorectically - provides enough time for appeals to be filed, responses to be filed, and amicus briefs by third parties and the court to then accept the case for review or issues a summary dismissal on the merits (basically an instant ruling like Baker that establishes binding precedence.



>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> *RE: The 6th Circuit (i.e. "Suttons Ruling")*
> That ruling was not a factor in the rejection of the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Court appeals that were rejected because the 6th Circuit ruling came AFTER those cases had already been closed.  The importance of the 6th Circuit Court ruling is that it now generates a "split" in the Circuits which the SCOTUS will have to address and they are just now receiving the appeals.  Appellants bypassed the an _en banc_ review by the full Circuit, which itself would have taken a couple of months, going instead straight to the SCOTUS.  Which - theorectically - provides enough time for appeals to be filed, responses to be filed, and amicus briefs by third parties and the court to then accept the case for review or issues a summary dismissal on the merits (basically an instant ruling like Baker that establishes binding precedence.


 
Well that's a nice tutorial on how the federal appellate courts work.  But the question remains: is Sutton's Opinion going to be dismissed in favor of "the majority of lower court decisions".  ie: will the Justices largely or wholly ignore his reasoning because his opinion and interpretations of the law is "outnumbered"?  Or will the Supremes take what he said fully into account?   Only give what he said 1/5th weight since he was just one of 5 total opinions?

You know the answer.  I'd just like to see how you write them out here...


----------



## Silhouette

Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages should look at the 2014 midterm results just after it was announced in Texas that pastors were going to have their sermons be audited by the LGBT cult..


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> *RE: The 6th Circuit (i.e. "Suttons Ruling")*
> That ruling was not a factor in the rejection of the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Court appeals that were rejected because the 6th Circuit ruling came AFTER those cases had already been closed.  The importance of the 6th Circuit Court ruling is that it now generates a "split" in the Circuits which the SCOTUS will have to address and they are just now receiving the appeals.  Appellants bypassed the an _en banc_ review by the full Circuit, which itself would have taken a couple of months, going instead straight to the SCOTUS.  Which - theorectically - provides enough time for appeals to be filed, responses to be filed, and amicus briefs by third parties and the court to then accept the case for review or issues a summary dismissal on the merits (basically an instant ruling like Baker that establishes binding precedence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's a nice tutorial on how the federal appellate courts work.  But the question remains: is Sutton's Opinion going to be dismissed in favor of "the majority of lower court decisions".  ie: will the Justices largely or wholly ignore his reasoning because his opinion and interpretations of the law is "outnumbered"?  Or will the Supremes take what he said fully into account?   Only give what he said 1/5th weight since he was just one of 5 total opinions?
> 
> You know the answer.  I'd just like to see how you write them out here...
Click to expand...



I disagree with your premise.  If they overturned his ruling, it will not be because he's outnumbered, it will be because the majority of the court disagree with his reasoning.



>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> I disagree with your premise.  If they overturned his ruling, it will not be because he's outnumbered, it will be because the majority of the court disagree with his reasoning.


 
You think Kennedy will be able to disagree with his reasoning here.  In other words, do you think Kennedy (the deciding vote) will go down in history as "the Justice who inadvertently forced polygamy on the states"?

*Judge Sutton's Opinion, Page 23:*

*"If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about the States’ male-female definition of marriage.." 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases*


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with your premise.  If they overturned his ruling, it will not be because he's outnumbered, it will be because the majority of the court disagree with his reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think Kennedy will be able to disagree with his reasoning here.  In other words, do you think Kennedy (the deciding vote) will go down in history as "the Justice who inadvertently forced polygamy on the states"?
> 
> *Judge Sutton's Opinion, Page 23:*
> 
> *"If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about the States’ male-female definition of marriage.." 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases*
Click to expand...


Yes, I think it would be very easy for Kennedy to disagree with Sutton's reasoning.

And it might not be Kennedy that is the deciding vote seeing as how Chief Justice Roberts has also agreed in the last two cases sent to the court for stay and voted to allow SSCM's to commence under Circuit Court rulings.

Just today South Carolina's request, which went to Chief Justice Roberts, was disapprovied.  The only descent was from Scalia and Thomas.  Roberts is not listed as one of the once opposed to letting SSCM's start.

Same-sex marriages can go ahead in South Carolina SCOTUSblog


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> Yes, I think it would be very easy for Kennedy to disagree with Sutton's reasoning.
> 
> And it might not be Kennedy that is the deciding vote seeing as how Chief Justice Roberts has also agreed in the last two cases sent to the court for stay and voted to allow SSCM's to commence under Circuit Court rulings.
> 
> Just today South Carolina's request, which went to Chief Justice Roberts, was disapprovied.  The only descent was from Scalia and Thomas.  Roberts is not listed as one of the once opposed to letting SSCM's start.


 
Yes, they still need to spur that runoff election in LA to victory so conservatives would think it useful to use that outrage so nearby...

*Judge Sutton's Opinion, Page 23:
"If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about the States’ male-female definition of marriage.." 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases*

You mentioned that Roberts would disagree with what Sutton said here in bold.  Specifically how would you disagree with that reasoning if you were Justice Roberts or any of the others?  I'm open for you to change my mind if you can convince me that gay marriage isn't the same as a precedent for polygamy as well, or rather, "marriage equality" is going to exclude polygamy..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> *RE: The 6th Circuit (i.e. "Suttons Ruling")*
> That ruling was not a factor in the rejection of the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Court appeals that were rejected because the 6th Circuit ruling came AFTER those cases had already been closed.  The importance of the 6th Circuit Court ruling is that it now generates a "split" in the Circuits which the SCOTUS will have to address and they are just now receiving the appeals.  Appellants bypassed the an _en banc_ review by the full Circuit, which itself would have taken a couple of months, going instead straight to the SCOTUS.  Which - theorectically - provides enough time for appeals to be filed, responses to be filed, and amicus briefs by third parties and the court to then accept the case for review or issues a summary dismissal on the merits (basically an instant ruling like Baker that establishes binding precedence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's a nice tutorial on how the federal appellate courts work.  But the question remains: is Sutton's Opinion going to be dismissed in favor of "the majority of lower court decisions"..
Click to expand...


The Court would consider 'Sutton's' opinion, as they would consider the opinion of the other Appellate Courts that are contrary to Sutton's opinion.

You seem to keep forgetting that there are 4 other Appellate Court decisions that conflict with the 1 Appellate Court decision you agree with.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> [ I'm open for you to change my mind..



LOL.....liar.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.



Sigh- more lies.

No churches will be forced to perform any marriages- not Jewish marriages, not Buddhist marriages, not African American marriages and not same gender marriages.

Just lies by anti-gay activists.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I think it would be very easy for Kennedy to disagree with Sutton's reasoning.
> 
> And it might not be Kennedy that is the deciding vote seeing as how Chief Justice Roberts has also agreed in the last two cases sent to the court for stay and voted to allow SSCM's to commence under Circuit Court rulings.
> 
> Just today South Carolina's request, which went to Chief Justice Roberts, was disapprovied.  The only descent was from Scalia and Thomas.  Roberts is not listed as one of the once opposed to letting SSCM's start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they still need to spur that runoff election in LA to victory so conservatives would think it useful to use that outrage so nearby...
> 
> *Judge Sutton's Opinion, Page 23:
> "If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about the States’ male-female definition of marriage.." 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases*
> 
> You mentioned that Roberts would disagree with what Sutton said here in bold.  Specifically how would you disagree with that reasoning if you were Justice Roberts or any of the others?  I'm open for you to change my mind if you can convince me that gay marriage isn't the same as a precedent for polygamy as well, or rather, "marriage equality" is going to exclude polygamy..
Click to expand...



I have no desire to "change your mind" as I know you are not open to meaningful debate on the issue.  I've been around enough of these threads to know (a) your understanding of how the law works is minimal, (b) your predictions about what legal proceedings mean and what their relevance has been toward future outcomes has been habitually wrong, and (c) even when presented with overwhelming evidence that your statements are incorrect you ignore those corrections and turn around and repeat the same false claims.

I'm not here to put words in the Chief Justices mouth, if you want an explanation on what he thinks might I suggest you write him and ask.  I pointed out the FACT that the Chief Justice didn't issue a stay in the case and that he was not listed as one of the dissenting Justices and therefore voted to allow SSCM's to start in South Carolina.  If **HE** thought Sutton's opinion was that valid he could have issued the stay on his own or voted against the stay (which he didn't).  If you want his reasoning, ask him.  With Kennedy it's a little easier, he authored all three of the major Civil Rights decisions for gay people (Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and United States v. Windsor).


>>>>


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People scoff when I suggest that a 7-2 ruling is even possible. While improbable.....no body wants to be this generations Leon Bazile. You know Scalia is going full Bazile. And I don't think many justices are going to want their name attached to that dissent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's presuming none of the Justices have read Baker 1971, Windsor 2013 or Sutton's Opinion from the 6th circuit this month..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL......yes- that is presuming that the Justices have read Windsor and all of the Appellate Court decisions.........we already know how Kennedy feels about denying the children of gay parents legal protections.
Click to expand...




Silhouette said:


> Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages should look at the 2014 midterm results just after it was announced in Texas that pastors were going to have their sermons be audited by the LGBT cult..


Excellent point, and yet another violation of Church and State was fixing to be exposed and/or would have been evident in that fiasco as well, because wasn't it the mayors office that requested such a thing as that ?  People will try anything these days, it's just whether people are fooled by them or not is what's going on these days.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages should look at the 2014 midterm results just after it was announced in Texas that pastors were going to have their sermons be audited by the LGBT cult..



That's an enormous if. I think the closest you'd ever see would be a for-profit chapel. But its highly unlikely it would ever happen to a church. If it did, the opposition would be quite stark. As discrimination is inherent to religion. Without discrimination,  you really can't have a functioning religion.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ I'm open for you to change my mind..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.....liar.
Click to expand...


Laughing.....Silo, even you don't believe your legal reasoning, as you've already insisted its bullshit. So how could we possibly convince you when you won't accept your own reasoning?

Its not the law that motivates you. Its your personal animus toward gay people. When your position is so deeply hypocritical, your position on your proxy issue (gay marriage) becomes as irrelevant as it is immutable.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People scoff when I suggest that a 7-2 ruling is even possible. While improbable.....no body wants to be this generations Leon Bazile. You know Scalia is going full Bazile. And I don't think many justices are going to want their name attached to that dissent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's presuming none of the Justices have read Baker 1971, Windsor 2013 or Sutton's Opinion from the 6th circuit this month..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL......yes- that is presuming that the Justices have read Windsor and all of the Appellate Court decisions.........we already know how Kennedy feels about denying the children of gay parents legal protections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages should look at the 2014 midterm results just after it was announced in Texas that pastors were going to have their sermons be audited by the LGBT cult..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent point, and yet another violation of Church and State was fixing to be exposed and/or would have been evident in that fiasco as well, because wasn't it the mayors office that requested such a thing as that ?  People will try anything these days, it's just whether people are fooled by them or not is what's going on these days.
Click to expand...


I am not suggesting that there are not those who will not attempt to violate church and state-  but any such attempts will shut down as quickly and as easily as what happened in Texas. 

No church will be forced to marry anyone against the church's doctrine- not Jews, not blacks, not homosexuals.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> I am not suggesting that there are not those who will not attempt to violate church and state-  but any such attempts will shut down as quickly and as easily as what happened in Texas.
> 
> No church will be forced to marry anyone against the church's doctrine- not Jews, not blacks, not homosexuals.



Exactly. Undoubtedly, some gay guy somewhere will levy a suit trying to force a church to marry him and his partner against the doctrine of that church's religion. And just as undoubtedly, that suit will be laughed out of the court room. As it should be.

The legal basis of such a suit is zero. The public support for such a move is nearly as low....among conservatives, moderates or liberals. The very basis of religion is discrimination. It cannot function without it. And there is essentially no chance that the courts are going to unmake organized religion.If they were going to, there have been an a myriad of other, much more well established bases of discrimination the courts could have used: the prohibition against female catholic priests, the Mormon prohibition against blacks being priests, etc.

It never happened.

Making the accusation of it occurring over gay marriage just empty fear mongering.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh- more lies.
> 
> No churches will be forced to perform any marriages- not Jewish marriages, not Buddhist marriages, not African American marriages and not same gender marriages.
> 
> Just lies by anti-gay activists.
Click to expand...

Not sure how true this is, but someone told me today that *churches could lose their tax exempt status* if they choose to discriminate by virtue of their religion or religious beliefs as found in the ways that they live by and believe as a religious people do upon the issues that are being debated in America today. 

Oh I'm sure they are a target, just like so many other things have since become a target in this nation now by the feds. Will the feds gain total control over this nation soon, and if so who does that control ultimately affect in a negative way, and what effect will it ultimately have on the nation or it's people when all is said and done ? It appears that no stone will be missed, as all of them will be turned over in this new transformation or want to be utopic world in which is being envisioned now in America by a few, but not quite yet by the majority.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh- more lies.
> 
> No churches will be forced to perform any marriages- not Jewish marriages, not Buddhist marriages, not African American marriages and not same gender marriages.
> 
> Just lies by anti-gay activists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure how true this is, but someone told me today that *churches could lose their tax exempt status* if they choose to discriminate by virtue of their religion or religious beliefs as found in the ways that they live by and believe as a religious people do upon the issues that are being debated in America today.
> 
> Oh I'm sure they are a target, just like so many other things have since become a target in this nation now by the feds. Will the feds gain total control over this nation soon, and if so who does that control ultimately affect in a negative way, and what effect will it ultimately have on the nation or it's people when all is said and done ? It appears that no stone will be missed, as all of them will be turned over in this new transformation or want to be utopic world in which is being envisioned now in America by a few, but not quite yet by the majority.
Click to expand...


Wake us up when any of that happens.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh- more lies.
> 
> No churches will be forced to perform any marriages- not Jewish marriages, not Buddhist marriages, not African American marriages and not same gender marriages.
> 
> Just lies by anti-gay activists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure how true this is, but someone told me today that *churches could lose their tax exempt status* if they choose to discriminate by virtue of their religion or religious beliefs as found in the ways that they live by and believe as a religious people do upon the issues that are being debated in America today.
> 
> Oh I'm sure they are a target, just like so many other things have since become a target in this nation now by the feds. Will the feds gain total control over this nation soon, and if so who does that control ultimately affect in a negative way, and what effect will it ultimately have on the nation or it's people when all is said and done ? It appears that no stone will be missed, as all of them will be turned over in this new transformation or want to be utopic world in which is being envisioned now in America by a few, but not quite yet by the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wake us up when any of that happens.
Click to expand...


Well in reality it already has, where as the cake baker (lets say that he is a church in the singular, and he is this because in him lay the foundation of the church in which he believes in, and therefore he takes this belief with him every where that he goes in life), yet he lost badly over the issue not long ago, and why was this you suppose ? It was because the government figured it could attack ones beliefs and religion outside of the walls of a church building is why, but that's just it where as a church building is nothing but an empty building until the church is filled with believers, so why would the government think that it can attack a christian any where outside of a church building, when that christian is still a representative of the church anywhere he or she goes out in the public square ? 

Of course the christian person can't go into the public square and declare a church out in the street or where ever he or she may be at any given time out in the public square, but in a place that belongs to them, and the public is then being invited into (like the bakery) or a church etc. then I say that the public is still on private property at that moment when they step into or onto such a property, and therefore the public who chooses to go freely into the place of a privately owned business or onto the privately owned property, well they have to abide by the rules and terms that are set forth by the property owner or business owner of that property or just leave if they won't. It's just that simple really. 

The government is guilty of breaching the separation of church and state in many of these cases we see today, and there is no if and or but's about it if you ask me.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh- more lies.
> 
> No churches will be forced to perform any marriages- not Jewish marriages, not Buddhist marriages, not African American marriages and not same gender marriages.
> 
> Just lies by anti-gay activists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure how true this is, but someone told me today that *churches could lose their tax exempt status* if they choose to discriminate by virtue of their religion or religious beliefs as found in the ways that they live by and believe as a religious people do upon the issues that are being debated in America today.
> 
> Oh I'm sure they are a target, just like so many other things have since become a target in this nation now by the feds. Will the feds gain total control over this nation soon, and if so who does that control ultimately affect in a negative way, and what effect will it ultimately have on the nation or it's people when all is said and done ? It appears that no stone will be missed, as all of them will be turned over in this new transformation or want to be utopic world in which is being envisioned now in America by a few, but not quite yet by the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wake us up when any of that happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well in reality it already has, where as the cake baker .
Click to expand...


No- it hasn't.

Bakers are not churches.

Business's are not churches.

Churches are not business's and do not follow the same rules as business's


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh- more lies.
> 
> No churches will be forced to perform any marriages- not Jewish marriages, not Buddhist marriages, not African American marriages and not same gender marriages.
> 
> Just lies by anti-gay activists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure how true this is, but someone told me today that *churches could lose their tax exempt status* if they choose to discriminate by virtue of their religion or religious beliefs as found in the ways that they live by and believe as a religious people do upon the issues that are being debated in America today.
> 
> Oh I'm sure they are a target, just like so many other things have since become a target in this nation now by the feds. Will the feds gain total control over this nation soon, and if so who does that control ultimately affect in a negative way, and what effect will it ultimately have on the nation or it's people when all is said and done ? It appears that no stone will be missed, as all of them will be turned over in this new transformation or want to be utopic world in which is being envisioned now in America by a few, but not quite yet by the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wake us up when any of that happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well in reality it already has, where as the cake baker .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- it hasn't.
> 
> Bakers are not churches.
> 
> Business's are not churches.
> 
> Churches are not business's and do not follow the same rules as business's
Click to expand...

I am a church, where as my skin surrounds my temple instead of wood and brick, but when I go about in the public square I have to abide by the public rules as set upon in the public square, and the same should apply to everyone else who goes about in the public square as well. The rules are neutral, and therefore respect of each other has kept us all in place while going through and fro within the public square freely. 

Now if I own a business or a piece of property, and I set it up to invite the public who would want to come freely into my place of business or unto my property, then they will come there because of these things or because of the set up.  Now once they enter into the business or property, I'd say that they are to abide by my rules or by my terms as legally set forth in my rules in which engulfs the entire establishment as to the ways in which I had set it all up, and for doing business in with those that are invited in by a sign in which would let them know what I do there and what type of business it is before entering in.

I guess what needs to happen now, is that people are going to have to post on the sign as to what type of business it is, and then list upon it their religious beliefs as well... Example - *Joe's Christian Bakery,* where our cakes are Heavenly delightful, and are being made from scratch.    

It all should mean that they (the public having no illusions) are to respect the property in which they would then be standing upon, and to not destroy the property in which they would be standing upon, and to honor the owners standards as set forth in the business make up and the business model in spirit of, and to abide by the guidelines as set forth by the owner be it either written or verbally spoken unto them (or) they can just leave by their own free will, just like they had entered into the place by their own free will.

The only reason people stopped showing what kind of belief system they had in their business models over the years, is because they wanted to be open to all who shared their beliefs in their business model or would respect their beliefs even if they believed differently about them, and as well they didn't threaten the owners values or beliefs when doing business with them.  Now people are threatening these places of business because of them being to open like they had become over the years. (sic).  They just wanted to offer their products to all who would remain neutral and respectful when came into their business to purchase products that were available or were to be made by request of, but only if the owner didn't see it as a threat against his or his family values in life upon doing so.

I know about these things a little bit, because I have first hand knowledge of how wrong things can go sometimes when one has an open door policy in business. We opened a Christian recording studio once, and we were recording Christians and their music of course, but then we needed to also do other music in so that we could break more than just even as we were doing at the time. 

OK, so we sort of began to look at the added music genres as being testimonial music when we would allow people to begin singing songs about their lives and such, and so it didn't necessarily have a Christian wording that would make it unmistakably a Christian song, but it had more of a testimonial song title instead. Then the next thing you know we had to allow all of the public to sing and record with us because of this move. Well here is how that all went down after it all got moving on down the line, because the next thing you know we had what was supposed to be Christian rappers coming in, but as time went by those rappers began singing the bad stuff, so my business partner was recording them, but we were instantly having to figure out how to end the scourge of rap music that had now engulfed the studio, and worse it had since ran other artist off. 

Well we couldn't let it down easily it seemed, so we shut it down completely. Trust me it is best to advertise as to exactly what you are and who you are when doing anything in life or business or you will face what I guess we had as well as the cake baker did face as a result of not branding the business with a name that reflects one values and business model to be found all in one sign.  

Be not afraid people to be who you want to be in life, because if your product is good, then they will come, even if others don't want to come, and therefore they would rather go somewhere else instead. That's the greatness of our freedoms and system, is that there is something for everyone, and no one needs to abuse another ever in these things.


----------



## MaryL

Nope. Nada, Nine, nyet. Forcing anyone to go against their will is  way wrong, in America. Gays are a made minority group made up of sexual dysfunctionals that are well endowed (monetarily that is) and are manipulating popular opinion one way or the other...gays should know by now that  forcing  your will on others is wrong. It's called hypocrisy. In a Machiavellian cynical kind of way. And it will come back and bite them in the ass, in a non sexual way.


----------



## beagle9

MaryL said:


> Nope. Nada, Nine, nyet. Forcing anyone to go against their will is  way wrong, in America. Gays are a made minority group made up of sexual dysfunctionals that are well endowed (monetarily that is) and are manipulating popular opinion one way or the other...gays should know by now that  forcing  your will on others is wrong. It's called hypocrisy. In a Machiavellian cynical kind of way. And it will come back and bite them in the ass, in a non sexual way.


The feds will find this out also..


----------



## Borillar

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



Hmmm, could you imagine the Westboro Baptist Church being forced to conduct a gay wedding? Might give Phelps an aneurysm...


----------



## Silhouette

MaryL said:


> Nope. Nada, Nine, nyet. Forcing anyone to go against their will is  way wrong, in America. *Gays are a made minority group made up of sexual dysfunctionals that are well endowed (monetarily that is) and are manipulating popular opinion one way or the other...*gays should know by now that  forcing  your will on others is wrong. It's called hypocrisy. In a Machiavellian cynical kind of way. And it will come back and bite them in the ass, in a non sexual way.


 
Yeah...more about that .... >> LGBT Election Victory Fund Fund Founding Member Arrested For Sex With Juvenile US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Cecilie1200

Borillar said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, could you imagine the Westboro Baptist Church being forced to conduct a gay wedding? Might give Phelps an aneurysm...
Click to expand...


Amusement value aside, it would nevertheless still be wrong.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh- more lies.
> 
> No churches will be forced to perform any marriages- not Jewish marriages, not Buddhist marriages, not African American marriages and not same gender marriages.
> 
> Just lies by anti-gay activists.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how true this is, but someone told me today that *churches could lose their tax exempt status* if they choose to discriminate by virtue of their religion or religious beliefs as found in the ways that they live by and believe as a religious people do upon the issues that are being debated in America today.
> 
> Oh I'm sure they are a target, just like so many other things have since become a target in this nation now by the feds. Will the feds gain total control over this nation soon, and if so who does that control ultimately affect in a negative way, and what effect will it ultimately have on the nation or it's people when all is said and done ? It appears that no stone will be missed, as all of them will be turned over in this new transformation or want to be utopic world in which is being envisioned now in America by a few, but not quite yet by the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wake us up when any of that happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well in reality it already has, where as the cake baker .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- it hasn't.
> 
> Bakers are not churches.
> 
> Business's are not churches.
> 
> Churches are not business's and do not follow the same rules as business's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a church, where as my skin surrounds my temple .
Click to expand...


Good for you. No one is going to force you to perform a marriage inside your skin.

Meanwhile- a business is not a church- a church is not a business. 

As you pointed out- business's have to pay taxes- churches do not. 

Business's have to follow laws regarding discrimination- churches do not.


----------



## Syriusly

MaryL said:


> Nope. Nada, Nine, nyet. Forcing anyone to go against their will is  way wrong, in America. Gays are a made minority group made up of sexual dysfunctionals that are well endowed (monetarily that is) and are manipulating popular opinion one way or the other...gays should know by now that  forcing  your will on others is wrong. It's called hypocrisy. In a Machiavellian cynical kind of way. And it will come back and bite them in the ass, in a non sexual way.



Well the Lovings forced the people of Virginia to accept mixed race marriage against their will, and that worked out just fine.

I see gay marriage working out the same way. Already most Americans accept gay marriage- it took 30 years for most Americans to accept mixed race marriages.


----------



## Borillar

Cecilie1200 said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, could you imagine the Westboro Baptist Church being forced to conduct a gay wedding? Might give Phelps an aneurysm...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amusement value aside, it would nevertheless still be wrong.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree that it would be wrong. Just thinking about the "God hates fags" idiots having to conduct a gay wedding seemed like poetic justice though.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how true this is, but someone told me today that *churches could lose their tax exempt status* if they choose to discriminate by virtue of their religion or religious beliefs as found in the ways that they live by and believe as a religious people do upon the issues that are being debated in America today.
> 
> Oh I'm sure they are a target, just like so many other things have since become a target in this nation now by the feds. Will the feds gain total control over this nation soon, and if so who does that control ultimately affect in a negative way, and what effect will it ultimately have on the nation or it's people when all is said and done ? It appears that no stone will be missed, as all of them will be turned over in this new transformation or want to be utopic world in which is being envisioned now in America by a few, but not quite yet by the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake us up when any of that happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well in reality it already has, where as the cake baker .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- it hasn't.
> 
> Bakers are not churches.
> 
> Business's are not churches.
> 
> Churches are not business's and do not follow the same rules as business's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a church, where as my skin surrounds my temple .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for you. No one is going to force you to perform a marriage inside your skin.
> 
> Meanwhile- a business is not a church- a church is not a business.
> 
> As you pointed out- business's have to pay taxes- churches do not.
> 
> Business's have to follow laws regarding discrimination- churches do not.
Click to expand...

The government should not be making people who are Christian business owners bake cakes for gay's against their will, and especially when there are many more cake bakers that would do such a thing willingly. You see if you are a Christian, Muslim, or whatever as a business owner, the federal government still has no business forcing you to go against your beliefs when the scales are already tipped or balanced in the arena of businesses offering their services to all walks of life now. I think the business and/or business owner was targeted just like Duck Dynasty was targeted, and now the Duggers are a target along with the newest target Sistina Restaurant in New York and etc.  How about McDonald's who is hiring blacks in their restaurants in a discriminating manor towards whites and others, yet no one calls them out on it ? How come the government watch dogs are leaving them be on their practice of discrimination in this way ?  I am witnessing this in my home town big time, and it has nothing to do with areas of town or such as being the excuse, because it is not viable in the situation. The government is cherry picking these issues, and it is leaning towards the highest bidder whether it is to attack or either leave it alone.

The government is the ultimate hypocrite on these issues, and it has become no more than a hired hit man for what ever group that has the most influence on them at any given time. The only thing I would say, is that business owners should place their religious label on their signage, even if it is in fine print in order to let the customer know that your beliefs are to be honored or respected when doing business with the business owner in that respect.  Example, if you are a Christian artist operating in a kiosk in a mall, and your business is listed in that way, and you are painting or performing your work right in front of your customers or the public lets say, then should a person be able to walk up and ask you to paint an abortion being performed or two guy's kissing and etc.?????????? No they shouldn't, and the government should not be attempting to force a Christian artist to paint anything that goes against his religion or beliefs period or to bake a cake even, and as far as I know in the case of a painter there hasn't been an instance or case of this as of yet, but the same illegal attacks are being waged on other business owners by the government, and it is just plain wrong in our diverse environment in which we all live now.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Well the Lovings forced the people of Virginia to accept mixed race marriage against their will, and that worked out just fine.
> 
> I see gay marriage working out the same way. Already most Americans accept gay marriage- it took 30 years for most Americans to accept mixed race marriages.


 
Yes, but race and behavior/mental issues are two different things dear.  Interracial couples don't deprive children of their natural blood parents.  Gay marriage does to one of them 100% of the time.  Children are the main focus of any state in incentivizing marriage.  If they don't pay attention to the importance children hold in marriage, terrible things can happen..

Case in point:



Silhouette said:


> *The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl last night defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young*....Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy...*At age seven, after threatening genital mutilation on himself, psychiatrists diagnosed Thomas with gender identity disorder*. By the age of eight, he began transitioning. ...*The hormone-suppressant, implanted in his upper left arm*, will postpone the 11-year-old developing broad shoulders, deep voice and facial hair. The California boy 11 who is undergoing hormone blocking treatment Daily Mail Online
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just after his first 6 formative years, this boy raised by two lesbians suddenly wants to femalize himself by genital mutilation. "Gender identity disorder" could also be called "my gender doesn't matter disorder"  Remember "T" is a phenomenon LGBT cultees promote through their propaganda arm "The American Psychological Association".  Straight society is not behind this bizarre and horrible abuse.  The APA and AMA who do these operations are not part of the straight community.  Any straight parents sucked into this practice are doing so because they percieve "medical doctors and the psychologists they consult are doing so from a scientific standpoint".
> 
> They're not.  The APA replaced science with "CQR" which is a practice that discards data and facts in preference to "audited group think".
Click to expand...


----------



## Jarlaxle

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was that poll taken at a blue light district?  Were the responses strong, medium or weak?  Look at the poll above.  People came here voluntarily to show up at one of the most popular polls at USMB ever.  Their response was not weak.  It was "Hell No".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A USMB poll* that never asks* if same sex marraiges should be recognized by the law as valid.
> 
> Where the Gallup poll asks exactly that.
> 
> Laughing....do you honestly think we're not going to check the USMB poll? Did you really think you could get that by us?
Click to expand...


Yes.  Yes, she does.  Silly really is THAT delusional.


----------



## Silhouette

Jarlaxle said:


> Yes.  Yes, she does.  Silly really is THAT delusional.


 Another substanceless ad hominem from Jar Jar meant to divert the topic.  Color me shocked.

How is it you haven't been banned here yet Jar Jar?  Got an opinion on the facts or are you just merely an intractable troll?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Poor, poor Sil, still fighting as her homophobic mentality goes down in flames.

National Maps - MEUSA

34 states and counting, and I think it's actually one or two more now.  What will Sil rant about next...


----------



## Jarlaxle

I have posted my opinion many times...you have ignored it (like you do with all opinions you disagree with).  I now view your posts solely as a source of humor--watching the "thought" process of the mentally ill can be entertaining.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Syriusly said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Nada, Nine, nyet. Forcing anyone to go against their will is  way wrong, in America. Gays are a made minority group made up of sexual dysfunctionals that are well endowed (monetarily that is) and are manipulating popular opinion one way or the other...gays should know by now that  forcing  your will on others is wrong. It's called hypocrisy. In a Machiavellian cynical kind of way. And it will come back and bite them in the ass, in a non sexual way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Lovings forced the people of Virginia to accept mixed race marriage against their will, and that worked out just fine.
> 
> I see gay marriage working out the same way. Already most Americans accept gay marriage- it took 30 years for most Americans to accept mixed race marriages.
Click to expand...

In five years all rational people will wonder what the big deal was.  The kids already think that, and so goes the future.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Lovings forced the people of Virginia to accept mixed race marriage against their will, and that worked out just fine.
> 
> I see gay marriage working out the same way. Already most Americans accept gay marriage- it took 30 years for most Americans to accept mixed race marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but race and behavior/mental issues are two different things dear. ]
Click to expand...


Dear? LOL.....

Marriage is a behavior. 

The argument was made that the courts should not be used to force change because the voters disagree.

I was pointing out that was exactly what was done in Loving v. Virginia.

And for 30 years most people still believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

Just like for years most people believed that same gender marriage is wrong. 

Just like the courts are being used to effect change now. 

The difference is the attitude of people has already changed- and more support same gender marriage now than supported mixed race marriages in 1985. 

Progress against bigotry is a beautiful thing.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wake us up when any of that happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well in reality it already has, where as the cake baker .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- it hasn't.
> 
> Bakers are not churches.
> 
> Business's are not churches.
> 
> Churches are not business's and do not follow the same rules as business's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a church, where as my skin surrounds my temple .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for you. No one is going to force you to perform a marriage inside your skin.
> 
> Meanwhile- a business is not a church- a church is not a business.
> 
> As you pointed out- business's have to pay taxes- churches do not.
> 
> Business's have to follow laws regarding discrimination- churches do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government should not be making people who are Christian business owners bake cakes for gay's against their will.
Click to expand...


Then you- and the bakers- have two solutions:
a) change the law- remember the government just isn't arbitrarily telling them to bake cakes for gays- there is a law in place.
b) Or challenge the law in court.

But are legitimate ways to deal with laws you disagree with. 

Just as gay couples have used both methods to change laws against same gender marriage.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Just like for years most people believed that same gender marriage is wrong.
> 
> Just like *the courts are being used* to effect change now.
> 
> *The difference is the attitude of people has already changed- and more support same gender marriage now* than supported mixed race marriages in 1985.
> 
> Progress against bigotry is a beautiful thing.


 
Yes, I believe the Court is aware by now it's being used.  That may not play in your favor when the question of what is best for ALL children, not just those caught up in LGBT lifestyles is weighed.

Your second point I highlighted is deceptive.  It paints the illusion that "a majority now support gay marriage".  Support is support.  It isn't conditional.  Apparently though, the most popular poll at USMB (see the top of the page) says that at the very least, 82% of Americans consider any support for gay marriage conditional.  That is to say if this or any fraction of this 82% is for gay marriage, it is extremely lukewarm support.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like for years most people believed that same gender marriage is wrong.
> 
> Just like *the courts are being used* to effect change now.
> 
> *The difference is the attitude of people has already changed- and more support same gender marriage now* than supported mixed race marriages in 1985.
> 
> Progress against bigotry is a beautiful thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe the Court is aware by now it's being used.  ..
Click to expand...


I believe the Court is also aware that it is being used to bring about justice and equality.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like for years most people believed that same gender marriage is wrong.
> 
> Just like *the courts are being used* to effect change now.
> 
> *The difference is the attitude of people has already changed- and more support same gender marriage now* than supported mixed race marriages in 1985.
> 
> Progress against bigotry is a beautiful thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe the Court is aware by now it's being used.  That may not play in your favor when the question of what is best for ALL children, not just those caught up in LGBT lifestyles is weighed.
> 
> Your second point I highlighted is deceptive.  It paints the illusion that "a majority now support gay marriage".  Support is support.  It isn't conditional.  Apparently though, the most popular poll at USMB (see the top of the page) says that at the very least, 82% of Americans consider any support for gay marriage conditional.  That is to say if this or any fraction of this 82% is for gay marriage, it is extremely lukewarm support.
Click to expand...

Since more than 50% of the US population now supports marriage equality, you lose.

And your "poll" should have read 100% but Americans are as dumb as dog shit.


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> Since more than 50% of the US population now supports marriage equality, you lose.
> 
> And your "poll" should have read 100% but Americans are as dumb as dog shit.


 
Not my poll Paint.  Look at the OP's name.  Now who is dumb as dog shit?  You can't read the results above and how many people that voted at this thread that has around 40,000 views & 497 pages?

Gays want to force individual christian bakers to participate in their fake/illegal weddings against their faith but suddenly they'd draw the line at the doors of a church?

Yeah...


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> Since more than 50% of the US population now supports marriage equality, you lose.
> 
> And your "poll" should have read 100% but Americans are as dumb as dog shit.


 
You know, the poll at the top of this page says differently..

And Judge Sutton had a curious thing to say about that.  He noted how odd it was that LGBTs had gay marriage itself up for a vote on an Ohio ballot and then suddenly removed it.  He pondered how odd it was that LGBTs keep claiming all this majority support for gay marriage but how they seem rabid almost in removing that from the popular vote.  With such confidence, there should be a similar initiative on every ballot in every state.  Why waste all this time litigating when a majority of the public already approve?  Just put it on the ballots and be done with it...

..unless the numbers you're quoting you know damn well are fudged...

Fake it till you make it!  Right Paint?


----------



## beagle9

PaintMyHouse said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like for years most people believed that same gender marriage is wrong.
> 
> Just like *the courts are being used* to effect change now.
> 
> *The difference is the attitude of people has already changed- and more support same gender marriage now* than supported mixed race marriages in 1985.
> 
> Progress against bigotry is a beautiful thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe the Court is aware by now it's being used.  That may not play in your favor when the question of what is best for ALL children, not just those caught up in LGBT lifestyles is weighed.
> 
> Your second point I highlighted is deceptive.  It paints the illusion that "a majority now support gay marriage".  Support is support.  It isn't conditional.  Apparently though, the most popular poll at USMB (see the top of the page) says that at the very least, 82% of Americans consider any support for gay marriage conditional.  That is to say if this or any fraction of this 82% is for gay marriage, it is extremely lukewarm support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since more than 50% of the US population now supports marriage equality, you lose.
> 
> And your "poll" should have read 100% but *Americans are as dumb as dog shit.*
Click to expand...

Sounds like you and Gruber might come from the same cookie cutter, so as we see Gruber falling and flailing around now, could it be that the tide is turning in America, and this as we see that Americans are finally realizing that they have been duped in all of these things that have been pushed upon them now ?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since more than 50% of the US population now supports marriage equality, you lose.
> 
> And your "poll" should have read 100% but Americans are as dumb as dog shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, the poll at the top of this page says differently..
> /QUOTE]
> 
> No- no it doesn't.
Click to expand...


----------



## Silhouette

Well Syriusly, how in support of gay marriage can you really be if you draw the line at having them in churches that don't want them?  I mean, LGBTs are suing the crap out of christian bakers, photographers, etc. for not wanting to participate in/promote the deviant sex lifestyles their faith forbids them to promote.  What's so sacred about the doors of a building (a church)?  Isn't it the mind of the faithful that is the true temple?  Or is EVERYTHING important to your cult just a shallow, empty phasod that you cannot imagine that the kernel of faith is lodged deeply within the gray matter of the faithful?  There's the real church..

...and what you do isn't allowed in there...


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Well Syriusly, how in support of gay marriage can you really be if you draw the line at having them in churches that don't want them?.



I am in support of equal marriage for same gender couples- BUT no Church should or will be forced to marry any couple that doesn't meet the Church's requirements.

For instance- the Catholic Church would not allow my wife and I to get married in a Catholic Church.

Jews can't insist that the Baptist Church marry them, Evangelicals can't insist that a rabbi marry them and gay's cannot force any church to marry them if that is against church doctrine. 

Simply a scare tactic by the anti-gay activists.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> I am in support of equal marriage for same gender couples- BUT no Church should or will be forced to marry any couple that doesn't meet the Church's requirements....For instance- the Catholic Church would not allow my wife and I to get married in a Catholic Church....Jews can't insist that the Baptist Church marry them, Evangelicals can't insist that a rabbi marry them and gay's cannot force any church to marry them if that is against church doctrine.


 
So then you're against christian bakers or photographers having to provide services for gay weddings as well?

Because as I said, the real kernel of religion, the real "church" is in the mind of the faithful.  Each individual one.  Remember, we are talking about an LGBT lifestyle here, not a race of people.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in support of equal marriage for same gender couples- BUT no Church should or will be forced to marry any couple that doesn't meet the Church's requirements....For instance- the Catholic Church would not allow my wife and I to get married in a Catholic Church....Jews can't insist that the Baptist Church marry them, Evangelicals can't insist that a rabbi marry them and gay's cannot force any church to marry them if that is against church doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then you're against christian bakers or photographers having to provide services for gay weddings as well?
> .
Click to expand...


LOL....oh Silhouette- what would you do if you could not lie in a post?

IF the law says that business's have to provide services to the public regardless of their race, religion, national origin or gender- then those business's cannot refuse service to someone because owner is a Muslim who thinks his religious beliefs say he cannot sell to a Christian.

IF the law says that business's have to provide services to the public regardless of their sexual identity, then that business cannot refuse to service someone because the owner is a Christian who thinks his religious beliefs say he cannot sell to a Lesbian.

What is the recourse? Well just like gay couples who believed that anti-gay marriage laws were unconstiutional, that baker or photographer can attempt to change the law by:
a) going to court- like some gay couples have or
b) changing the law through the ballot or legislation- as other gay couples have.

Both are legitimate ways to change the law.

But a business is not a church. 
A church is not a business.

No church should- or will- be forced to marry anyone- black, Jew, Christian, gay- against their will.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since more than 50% of the US population now supports marriage equality, you lose.
> 
> And your "poll" should have read 100% but Americans are as dumb as dog shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not my poll Paint.  Look at the OP's name.  Now who is dumb as dog shit?  You can't read the results above and how many people that voted at this thread that has around 40,000 views & 497 pages?
> 
> Gays want to force individual christian bakers to participate in their fake/illegal weddings against their faith but suddenly they'd draw the line at the doors of a church?
> 
> Yeah...
Click to expand...

No one cares where they draw the line, the line is drawn, and it isn't moving.  Anyone who says it is is fear-mongering, nothing more.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

beagle9 said:


> [...could it be that the tide is turning in America...


No...


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> LOL....oh Silhouette- what would you do if you could not lie in a post?
> 
> IF the law says that business's have to provide services to the public regardless of their race, religion, national origin or gender- then those business's cannot refuse service to someone because owner is a Muslim who thinks his religious beliefs say he cannot sell to a Christian.
> 
> IF the law says that business's have to provide services to the public regardless of their *sexual identity*, then that business cannot refuse to service someone because the owner is a Christian who thinks his religious beliefs say he cannot sell to a Lesbian.


 
What is "sexual identity"?  Is that like "I am a bulimic-American"?

And what about the Hobby Lobby Decision?  I think the Court might be inclined to disagree.

The arguments in future challenges, (for they will come now that conservatives rule the roost) will be "is the temple of God withing a building or a man's mind?".

You of all people should be aware that laws can change with persistence and time.  You expected there would be no back pressure to your advances.  You miscalculated.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....oh Silhouette- what would you do if you could not lie in a post?
> 
> IF the law says that business's have to provide services to the public regardless of their race, religion, national origin or gender- then those business's cannot refuse service to someone because owner is a Muslim who thinks his religious beliefs say he cannot sell to a Christian.
> 
> IF the law says that business's have to provide services to the public regardless of their *sexual identity*, then that business cannot refuse to service someone because the owner is a Christian who thinks his religious beliefs say he cannot sell to a Lesbian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is "sexual identity"?  Is that like "I am a bulimic-American"?.
Click to expand...


Frequently Asked Questions

What does the expanded Colorado
Anti-Discrimination Act now prohibit?

Places of public accommodation may not
deny any person participation, entry, or
services based upon the person’s sexual
orientation, including transgender status.

What is a “place of public accommodation”?

A public accommodation is any place of
business engaged in o!ering sales or
services of any kind to the public, as well
as any place o!ering facilities, privileges,
advantages or other accommodations to
the public. Typical examples of public
accommodations include, but are not
limited to, hotels, restaurants, stores,
hospitals, clinics, and health clubs.

Is any place of public accommodation
exempt from the law?

Yes. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and
other places used primarily for religious
purposes are exempt from the definition of
public accommodation.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> The arguments in future challenges, (for they will come now that conservatives rule the roost) will be "is the temple of God withing a building or a man's mind?".


That depends upon the building.  Private, private open to the public, and public.  Don't confuse the three because the rules vary, as they should.


----------



## Silhouette

Laws can change.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> Laws can change.


Yes they can, but only in a fantasyland would someone believe that they would change your way, back to less equality.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Laws can change.



Exactly- that is what I was pointing out.

If you don't like laws against discrimination you can fight them.

You could even fight to change the Constitution so that you could force Gays to wear pink armbands.

BUT under our current Consituttion- no church can or will or should- be forced to marry anyone- black, Jew, Armenian or homosexual that the Church does not want to marry.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws can change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly- that is what I was pointing out.
> 
> If you don't like laws against discrimination you can fight them.
> 
> You could even fight to change the Constitution so that you could force Gays to wear pink armbands.
> 
> BUT under our current Consituttion- no church can or will or should- be forced to marry anyone- black, Jew, Armenian or homosexual that the Church does not want to marry.
Click to expand...

They have a new game coming up, you have to be married by a civil authority, because the pastor won't sign your state license, and then you get "married" before God in a church.  Go for it boys.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in support of equal marriage for same gender couples- BUT no Church should or will be forced to marry any couple that doesn't meet the Church's requirements....For instance- the Catholic Church would not allow my wife and I to get married in a Catholic Church....Jews can't insist that the Baptist Church marry them, Evangelicals can't insist that a rabbi marry them and gay's cannot force any church to marry them if that is against church doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then you're against christian bakers or photographers having to provide services for gay weddings as well?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....oh Silhouette- what would you do if you could not lie in a post?
> 
> IF the law says that business's have to provide services to the public regardless of their race, religion, national origin or gender- then those business's cannot refuse service to someone because owner is a Muslim who thinks his religious beliefs say he cannot sell to a Christian.
> 
> IF the law says that business's have to provide services to the public regardless of their sexual identity, then that business cannot refuse to service someone because the owner is a Christian who thinks his religious beliefs say he cannot sell to a Lesbian.
> 
> What is the recourse? Well just like gay couples who believed that anti-gay marriage laws were unconstiutional, that baker or photographer can attempt to change the law by:
> a) going to court- like some gay couples have or
> b) changing the law through the ballot or legislation- as other gay couples have.
> 
> Both are legitimate ways to change the law.
> 
> But a business is not a church.
> A church is not a business.
> 
> No church should- or will- be forced to marry anyone- black, Jew, Christian, gay- against their will.
Click to expand...



Well, then it appears that in these things that have been created and that are now being forced on us today,  are simply in violation of the very constitution and things in which were believed in and/or has been honored and lived by for many years now.  The majority of the people and our government has seen our religions and our many lifestyles that were found amongst the majority as being good (not evil) and they were instrumental at unifying the nation for the most part, and so we all have kept them sacred for the nation, and for those whom are amongst us that had agreed with these things in this way.  Then they (the reps and the people together), had made laws that would protect these things in which they believed in, and so it was so, and so shall it be to this very day in America. 

Of course corrections were made through out our history, and those corrections were agreed upon by a majority as well in the nation, and this had happened once we were all convinced properly of the wrong in which had been created by yes a *minority of evil men* who were amongst us at various times, and that had been amongst us through out the course of our history, and were causing bad things among the nation at various times in our history because we were duped by them. 

They aren't done yet, so stay vigilant people always.  They were very strong in their influence, just as at many given times they had shown through out our history to be so, but they were wrong headed and steered the nation into chaos many times by their wrong headed thinking, so "Thank God" we (the majority) knew how to over come them eventually. So it took a majority to do it, and not a minority to do it or it wouldn't have worked or it would have only worked for a short time if that had been the case. Now in the case of blacks in the nation, our government coupled with a silent majority had to help them overcome their oppressors, and that is what we did because we believed in the cause and agreed with their cause and struggle in life, so the government then did our works as it should have for us in that case. Of course the minority men who didn't see it that way, well they hated the situation, but was over come by the silent majority and the feds who were on the right side of history at that time.   

Now you can't have freedom of religion in this country without it being accepted also outside of the church buildings as well, and the religion of a people is to be recognized by our government, and it is to be respected as such outside of those church buildings just as long as it remains peaceful, loving, caring and all within the context of, and it remains respectful of those who are around it all also. The Christians should not be forced into caving to others because the government says so, and especially without a majority consent in which it doesn't have or no where near does it have, and therefore it is best that the Christain person or Christian run business make known his or her beliefs and/or his or her purpose in life when asked, and this I think they should do if a non-Christian or other type walks into their business in life or should visit them in life (no surprises needed).  They should live by their beliefs in that respect when doing anything from their charter or upon their religious views in which one would have in his or her life while out in the public square, and while doing business out in the public square. 

Example: Gay guy walks into a cake bakery, but he see's a sign that say's it is a Christian bakery, then that should end it all right there, because the gay guy knows that his lifestyle is in contradiction of that establishment ownerships beliefs system as it is listed, so he then turns and leaves to find another bakery that may be neutral to his needs and wants as an American citizen who respects the freedom of religion in the nation as it reads in the constitution, and in which he or she is guided by, and therefore lives by also in the nation. No government intervention is needed and it shouldn't be asked for period. 

Now we have to ask ourselves, did the government make moves in the past that are now endangering the very freedoms in which were laid out in the constitution for us all to live by, and isn't our Presidents to have sworn an oath to protect these very things in this country ?  So it seems that we have conflicts of interest running wild in our government now and/or all over the place, where as it (the feds) has become a hit man for those who somehow convince it that the people are in favor of these things they bring forth today, when in fact the majority is not in favor of them at all.  Has the government over stepped it's boundaries (become tyrannical in it's ways upon us over many issues), and has it created a one sided situation in which robs another of his or her's liberty and freedoms in this nation because of ? I'd say yes it has!  They have done this in favor of a minority view that is based upon the lives of others as they would see it from a minority view, and this they have done instead of upholding the majority view on life as the majority thinks it ought to be while being in the majority, and also without being dictated to by the minority by way of the very government in which is supposed to remain neutral and fair on these issues that are found between the two. 

How can the tyranny of a minority therefore rule the masses in a nation that see's things otherwise for what it wants for their families and their children to grow up around in life now ? It's amazing really what is going on today. This flooding of the nation with those for whom they think would oppose all that I write here, is a tactic now going on in our government who is helping the minority to *overcome* (not find equality with) the majority, where as it thinks it can change the majority mindset in this way or destroy it in this way, so be aware America of these things, because they are real.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in support of equal marriage for same gender couples- BUT no Church should or will be forced to marry any couple that doesn't meet the Church's requirements....For instance- the Catholic Church would not allow my wife and I to get married in a Catholic Church....Jews can't insist that the Baptist Church marry them, Evangelicals can't insist that a rabbi marry them and gay's cannot force any church to marry them if that is against church doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then you're against christian bakers or photographers having to provide services for gay weddings as well?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....oh Silhouette- what would you do if you could not lie in a post?
> 
> IF the law says that business's have to provide services to the public regardless of their race, religion, national origin or gender- then those business's cannot refuse service to someone because owner is a Muslim who thinks his religious beliefs say he cannot sell to a Christian.
> 
> IF the law says that business's have to provide services to the public regardless of their sexual identity, then that business cannot refuse to service someone because the owner is a Christian who thinks his religious beliefs say he cannot sell to a Lesbian.
> 
> What is the recourse? Well just like gay couples who believed that anti-gay marriage laws were unconstiutional, that baker or photographer can attempt to change the law by:
> a) going to court- like some gay couples have or
> b) changing the law through the ballot or legislation- as other gay couples have.
> 
> Both are legitimate ways to change the law.
> 
> But a business is not a church.
> A church is not a business.
> 
> No church should- or will- be forced to marry anyone- black, Jew, Christian, gay- against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then it appears that in these things that have been created and that are now being forced on us today,  are simply in violation of the very constitution and things in which were believed in and/or has been honored and lived by for many years now. .
Click to expand...


What 'things' are being forced on you today?

No one is forcing you to marry someone you don't want to marry. 

If you believe a law is unconstitutional, then you have recourse to the same courts that the Lovings appealed to, and that gay couples are appealing to now.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....oh Silhouette- what would you do if you could not lie in a post?
> 
> IF the law says that business's have to provide services to the public regardless of their race, religion, national origin or gender- then those business's cannot refuse service to someone because owner is a Muslim who thinks his religious beliefs say he cannot sell to a Christian.
> 
> IF the law says that business's have to provide services to the public regardless of their *sexual identity*, then that business cannot refuse to service someone because the owner is a Christian who thinks his religious beliefs say he cannot sell to a Lesbian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is "sexual identity"?  Is that like "I am a bulimic-American"?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> What does the expanded Colorado
> Anti-Discrimination Act now prohibit?
> 
> Places of public accommodation may not
> deny any person participation, entry, or
> services based upon the person’s sexual
> orientation, including transgender status.
> 
> What is a “place of public accommodation”?
> 
> A public accommodation is any place of
> business engaged in o!ering sales or
> services of any kind to the public, as well
> as any place o!ering facilities, privileges,
> advantages or other accommodations to
> the public. Typical examples of public
> accommodations include, but are not
> limited to, hotels, restaurants, stores,
> hospitals, clinics, and health clubs.
> 
> Is any place of public accommodation
> exempt from the law?
> 
> Yes. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and
> other places used primarily for religious
> purposes are exempt from the definition of
> public accommodation.
Click to expand...


If a business is labeled as a Christian business in example of, (*The Glory Land recording Studio* where we uplift the Lord through the Joy of music or *Joey's Christian Bakery and services,* where we like building our cakes from scratch or *In "Light of Him" photography services*, were we are made possible by the Good Lord who has given us the talent to serve him through you and your needs of the photography industry), and the list can go on in the millions of ones choosing in these regards.  Then the government can not violate the separation of church and state clause, in which it swore to uphold in this nation period. If I open a Christian book store and call it that, then the government can not force me to sell porn literature or any other kind of anti-religious material to those who may want that from my store period. If it does then it is in violation of my religious rights and freedoms to own and operate a Christian book store that would serve my Christian brothers and sisters or to serve any other person who may want or have an interest in my materials that are sold in that store. A gay person would not be denied access into the store, nor would he or she be denied access to the materials that are sold in the store, so you see how that works ?  Now if I am branded as a Christian business, and I do customized work there like painting portraits, baking customized cakes and such , and say a gay person walked in and asked if the store could paint a gay couple on a portrait, or bake a cake with a gay couple standing a top of it, then the store by it's branding could refuse services to the gay person based upon that branding in which told the gay person of what the store was in regards to it's business model and services it offers. No government official is able to do anything about that without being in violation of the Church and State clause. It's time for Christians to brand their businesses as to who they are, and to what their beliefs are, and also in regards to what they sell in which echoes those beliefs. This will end this tyranny that is against them now in America. I do blame the Christians for seeking to profit by not doing this, and therefore opening themselves up to attacks because they didn't dot their I's and cross their T's in life.

Just because a business brands themselves as being Christian based or Muslim religion based and/or etc.doesn't mean that they can't still provide services to anyone that they want or wish to for whom may walk in, but it will set up a store front where as anyone just can't walk in and demand of them anything that they want just for the Hell of it either.  See how that works ?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

beagle9 said:


> If I open a Christian book store and call it that, then the government can not force me to sell porn literature or any other kind of anti-religious material to those who may want that from my store period.


No, but it can force you to serve all paying customers, regardless of their faith.  See how that works?

Don't confuse business with faith.  The rules are not the same.


----------



## beagle9

PaintMyHouse said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I open a Christian book store and call it that, then the government can not force me to sell porn literature or any other kind of anti-religious material to those who may want that from my store period.
> 
> 
> 
> No, but it can force you to serve all paying customers, regardless of their faith.  See how that works?
> 
> Don't confuse business with faith.  The rules are not the same.
Click to expand...

Says you, but that isn't the way the law is written in this nation. If you brand your business as one of being a Christian run Business, then like I said the government can not force you to engage in anti-Christian activity within that business. Now if you make no mention of your faith upon your label, then you are open to scrutiny and even fines by the feds if you choose to not sell your products to or give your services to someone as based upon their race, religion, their gender or possibly upon their demands upon you because they didn't realize that what they are demanding is not your desire to give to them, because it wasn't in your label as it should have been. It's time for Americans to start deciding what they are going to have as their business models in America, because religion and the freedom there of is still protected by the feds, and they ca not force religious people to go against their religion or faith in privacy there of or in business there of if they label themselves properly when engaging in these things. Chic-Filet made a statement there for giving their ideology behind their business model and workings within that business model, and they got in trouble for it by the government who criticized them for this, but let me tell you that they are tremendously popular afterwards, and they are tremendously profitable afterwards, because people who are Americans that agreed with this stance, are supporting this chain so much so, that you can't hardly get into the parking lot to get served. They are a top notch operation in every way, and it shows big time that sometimes standing up for what you believe has great rewards, even when you think it may not. Now they don't refuse services to anyone based upon their race, religion, gender or their faith, but when they were asked about their stance on gay marriage, then they answered truthfully about it.

Hey to the gay's and/or to any other out there, if you don't want to know, then don't ask and they won't tell, because if you ask them about the issues then they will tell, and if you don't like the answer then don't ask. That goes for those who tried to set up Duck Dynasty or any other militant who is out to push the Christians into the closet now, and all because they have since come out of it. People can exist here together, but it's only if people respect one another's positions on issues in which they hold dear unto themselves and their faith, along with the protection of their cultures in society that it will work out for all.

The government has become a hit man in all of this, and I think people know this now.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

beagle9 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I open a Christian book store and call it that, then the government can not force me to sell porn literature or any other kind of anti-religious material to those who may want that from my store period.
> 
> 
> 
> No, but it can force you to serve all paying customers, regardless of their faith.  See how that works?
> 
> Don't confuse business with faith.  The rules are not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says you, but that isn't the way the law is written in this nation. If you brand your business as one of being a Christian run Business, then like I said the government can not force you to engage in anti-Christian activity within that business. Now if you make no mention of your faith upon your label, then you are open to scrutiny and even fines by the feds if you choose to not sell your products to or give your services to someone as based upon their race, religion, their gender or possibly upon their demands upon you because they didn't realize that what they are demanding is not your desire to give to them, because it wasn't in your label as it should have been. It's time for Americans to start deciding what they are going to have as their business models in America, because religion and the freedom there of is still protected by the feds, and they ca not force religious people to go against their religion or faith in privacy there of or in business there of if they label themselves properly when engaging in these things. Chic-Filet made a statement there for giving their ideology behind their business model and workings within that business model, and they got in trouble for it by the government who criticized them for this, but let me tell you that they are tremendously popular afterwards, and they are tremendously profitable afterwards, because people who are Americans that agreed with this stance, are supporting this chain so much so, that you can't hardly get into the parking lot to get served. They are a top notch operation in every way, and it shows big time that sometimes standing up for what you believe has great rewards, even when you think it may not. Now they don't refuse services to anyone based upon their race, religion, gender or their faith, but when they were asked about their stance on gay marriage, then they answered truthfully about it.
> 
> Hey to the gay's and/or to any other out there, if you don't want to know, then don't ask and they won't tell, because if you ask them about the issues then they will tell, and if you don't like the answer then don't ask. That goes for those who tried to set up Duck Dynasty or any other militant who is out to push the Christians into the closet now, and all because they have since come out of it. People can exist here together, but it's only if people respect one another's positions on issues in which they hold dear unto themselves and their faith, along with the protection of their cultures in society that it will work out for all.
> 
> The government has become a hit man in all of this, and I think people know this now.
Click to expand...

By chance, have you heard of the word Verbose?  Just curious.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....oh Silhouette- what would you do if you could not lie in a post?
> 
> IF the law says that business's have to provide services to the public regardless of their race, religion, national origin or gender- then those business's cannot refuse service to someone because owner is a Muslim who thinks his religious beliefs say he cannot sell to a Christian.
> 
> IF the law says that business's have to provide services to the public regardless of their *sexual identity*, then that business cannot refuse to service someone because the owner is a Christian who thinks his religious beliefs say he cannot sell to a Lesbian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is "sexual identity"?  Is that like "I am a bulimic-American"?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> What does the expanded Colorado
> Anti-Discrimination Act now prohibit?
> 
> Places of public accommodation may not
> deny any person participation, entry, or
> services based upon the person’s sexual
> orientation, including transgender status.
> 
> What is a “place of public accommodation”?
> 
> A public accommodation is any place of
> business engaged in o!ering sales or
> services of any kind to the public, as well
> as any place o!ering facilities, privileges,
> advantages or other accommodations to
> the public. Typical examples of public
> accommodations include, but are not
> limited to, hotels, restaurants, stores,
> hospitals, clinics, and health clubs.
> 
> Is any place of public accommodation
> exempt from the law?
> 
> Yes. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and
> other places used primarily for religious
> purposes are exempt from the definition of
> public accommodation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a business is labeled as a Christian business in example of, (*The Glory Land recording Studio* where we uplift the Lord through the Joy of music or *Joey's Christian Bakery and services,* where we like building our cakes from scratch or *In "Light of Him" photography services*, were we are made possible by the Good Lord who has given us the talent to serve him through you and your needs of the photography industry), and the list can go on in the millions of ones choosing in these regards.  Then the government can not violate the separation of church and state clause, in which it swore to uphold in this nation period. If I open a Christian book store and call it that, then the government can not force me to sell porn literature or any other kind of anti-religious material to those who may want that from my store period. If it does then it is in violation of my religious rights and freedoms to own and operate a Christian book store that would serve my Christian brothers and sisters or to serve any other person who may want or have an interest in my materials that are sold in that store. A gay person would not be denied access into the store, nor would he or she be denied access to the materials that are sold in the store, so you see how that works ?  Now if I am branded as a Christian business, and I do customized work there like painting portraits, baking customized cakes and such , and say a gay person walked in and asked if the store could paint a gay couple on a portrait, or bake a cake with a gay couple standing a top of it, then the store by it's branding could refuse services to the gay person based upon that branding in which told the gay person of what the store was in regards to it's business model and services it offers. No government official is able to do anything about that without being in violation of the Church and State clause. It's time for Christians to brand their businesses as to who they are, and to what their beliefs are, and also in regards to what they sell in which echoes those beliefs. This will end this tyranny that is against them now in America. I do blame the Christians for seeking to profit by not doing this, and therefore opening themselves up to attacks because they didn't dot their I's and cross their T's in life.
> 
> Just because a business brands themselves as being Christian based or Muslim religion based and/or etc.doesn't mean that they can't still provide services to anyone that they want or wish to for whom may walk in, but it will set up a store front where as anyone just can't walk in and demand of them anything that they want just for the Hell of it either.  See how that works ?
Click to expand...


Frequently Asked Questions

What does the expanded Colorado
Anti-Discrimination Act now prohibit?

Places of public accommodation may not
deny any person participation, entry, or
services based upon the person’s sexual
orientation, including transgender status.

What is a “place of public accommodation”?

A public accommodation is any place of
business engaged in o!ering sales or
services of any kind to the public, as well
as any place o!ering facilities, privileges,
advantages or other accommodations to
the public. Typical examples of public
accommodations include, but are not
limited to, hotels, restaurants, stores,
hospitals, clinics, and health clubs.

Is any place of public accommodation
exempt from the law?

Yes. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and
other places used primarily for religious
purposes are exempt from the definition of
public accommodation.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....oh Silhouette- what would you do if you could not lie in a post?
> 
> IF the law says that business's have to provide services to the public regardless of their race, religion, national origin or gender- then those business's cannot refuse service to someone because owner is a Muslim who thinks his religious beliefs say he cannot sell to a Christian.
> 
> IF the law says that business's have to provide services to the public regardless of their *sexual identity*, then that business cannot refuse to service someone because the owner is a Christian who thinks his religious beliefs say he cannot sell to a Lesbian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is "sexual identity"?  Is that like "I am a bulimic-American"?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> What does the expanded Colorado
> Anti-Discrimination Act now prohibit?
> 
> Places of public accommodation may not
> deny any person participation, entry, or
> services based upon the person’s sexual
> orientation, including transgender status.
> 
> What is a “place of public accommodation”?
> 
> A public accommodation is any place of
> business engaged in o!ering sales or
> services of any kind to the public, as well
> as any place o!ering facilities, privileges,
> advantages or other accommodations to
> the public. Typical examples of public
> accommodations include, but are not
> limited to, hotels, restaurants, stores,
> hospitals, clinics, and health clubs.
> 
> Is any place of public accommodation
> exempt from the law?
> 
> Yes. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and
> other places used primarily for religious
> purposes are exempt from the definition of
> public accommodation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a business is labeled as a Christian business in example of, (*The Glory Land recording Studio* where we uplift the Lord through the Joy of music or *Joey's Christian Bakery and services,* where we like building our cakes from scratch or *In "Light of Him" photography services*, were we are made possible by the Good Lord who has given us the talent to serve him through you and your needs of the photography industry), and the list can go on in the millions of ones choosing in these regards.  Then the government can not violate the separation of church and state clause, in which it swore to uphold in this nation period. If I open a Christian book store and call it that, then the government can not force me to sell porn literature or any other kind of anti-religious material to those who may want that from my store period. If it does then it is in violation of my religious rights and freedoms to own and operate a Christian book store that would serve my Christian brothers and sisters or to serve any other person who may want or have an interest in my materials that are sold in that store. A gay person would not be denied access into the store, nor would he or she be denied access to the materials that are sold in the store, so you see how that works ?  Now if I am branded as a Christian business, and I do customized work there like painting portraits, baking customized cakes and such , and say a gay person walked in and asked if the store could paint a gay couple on a portrait, or bake a cake with a gay couple standing a top of it, then the store by it's branding could refuse services to the gay person based upon that branding in which told the gay person of what the store was in regards to it's business model and services it offers. No government official is able to do anything about that without being in violation of the Church and State clause. It's time for Christians to brand their businesses as to who they are, and to what their beliefs are, and also in regards to what they sell in which echoes those beliefs. This will end this tyranny that is against them now in America. I do blame the Christians for seeking to profit by not doing this, and therefore opening themselves up to attacks because they didn't dot their I's and cross their T's in life.
> 
> Just because a business brands themselves as being Christian based or Muslim religion based and/or etc.doesn't mean that they can't still provide services to anyone that they want or wish to for whom may walk in, but it will set up a store front where as anyone just can't walk in and demand of them anything that they want just for the Hell of it either.  See how that works ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> What does the expanded Colorado
> Anti-Discrimination Act now prohibit?
> 
> Places of public accommodation may not
> deny any person participation, entry, or
> services based upon the person’s sexual
> orientation, including transgender status.
> 
> What is a “place of public accommodation”?
> 
> A public accommodation is any place of
> business engaged in o!ering sales or
> services of any kind to the public, as well
> as any place o!ering facilities, privileges,
> advantages or other accommodations to
> the public. Typical examples of public
> accommodations include, but are not
> limited to, hotels, restaurants, stores,
> hospitals, clinics, and health clubs.
> 
> Is any place of public accommodation
> exempt from the law?
> 
> Yes. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and
> other places used primarily for religious
> purposes are exempt from the definition of
> public accommodation.
Click to expand...


It sounds as if these public accommodation laws or their creation of, have either been highjacked or extended to mean far more than they were meant to be or that the constitution would allow them to be after their creation, so what happened ?  

Now I know laws had to be created in order to force accommodation to the public as far as the use of public restrooms went and/or because of not allowing a race equal rights to all areas of the public square in which business was being conducted in, jobs were being accessed in or citizens would go about freely in their day to day activities. 

Now if they were expanded beyond that to include sexual orientation, then what does someones sexual orientation have to do with anything in the public square or their access to it ? I mean are they thinking that someone may wear a Tu-Tu into the public square seeking a girls restroom when they are a boy in gender now, so the accommodation enforcement would include this action to be forced or allowed in the public square now, or from someone to seek a job in that outfit when the job may have a uniform requirement like steel toe boots and etc. so the accommodation laws would make a company give an exception to the worker who wants to wear what he or she wants to in that area as well or was it in fear that a person would be laughed at in the public square so they sought to suppress ones feelings about such things, and so the accommodation laws would force a person to not break a smile if saw a person running around in a TU-Tu on a winter day, while everyone else is wearing heavy clothes ?  Did the laws being changed have the will of the people involved, or did the government get paid off to accommodate a group based upon their command of the feds in this way now ? 

Like I said before, if I open up a Christian Book store in the public square, and it is labeled as this, then the government can not force me to sell porn materials or anything that a customer might wish that my services would include but they don't, because that would be illegal for the feds to do. Now you know I am right, and so you just go on and admit to it finally.


----------



## beagle9

PaintMyHouse said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I open a Christian book store and call it that, then the government can not force me to sell porn literature or any other kind of anti-religious material to those who may want that from my store period.
> 
> 
> 
> No, but it can force you to serve all paying customers, regardless of their faith.  See how that works?
> 
> Don't confuse business with faith.  The rules are not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says you, but that isn't the way the law is written in this nation. If you brand your business as one of being a Christian run Business, then like I said the government can not force you to engage in anti-Christian activity within that business. Now if you make no mention of your faith upon your label, then you are open to scrutiny and even fines by the feds if you choose to not sell your products to or give your services to someone as based upon their race, religion, their gender or possibly upon their demands upon you because they didn't realize that what they are demanding is not your desire to give to them, because it wasn't in your label as it should have been. It's time for Americans to start deciding what they are going to have as their business models in America, because religion and the freedom there of is still protected by the feds, and they ca not force religious people to go against their religion or faith in privacy there of or in business there of if they label themselves properly when engaging in these things. Chic-Filet made a statement there for giving their ideology behind their business model and workings within that business model, and they got in trouble for it by the government who criticized them for this, but let me tell you that they are tremendously popular afterwards, and they are tremendously profitable afterwards, because people who are Americans that agreed with this stance, are supporting this chain so much so, that you can't hardly get into the parking lot to get served. They are a top notch operation in every way, and it shows big time that sometimes standing up for what you believe has great rewards, even when you think it may not. Now they don't refuse services to anyone based upon their race, religion, gender or their faith, but when they were asked about their stance on gay marriage, then they answered truthfully about it.
> 
> Hey to the gay's and/or to any other out there, if you don't want to know, then don't ask and they won't tell, because if you ask them about the issues then they will tell, and if you don't like the answer then don't ask. That goes for those who tried to set up Duck Dynasty or any other militant who is out to push the Christians into the closet now, and all because they have since come out of it. People can exist here together, but it's only if people respect one another's positions on issues in which they hold dear unto themselves and their faith, along with the protection of their cultures in society that it will work out for all.
> 
> The government has become a hit man in all of this, and I think people know this now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By chance, have you heard of the word Verbose?  Just curious.
Click to expand...

I know, I know ... LOL


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....oh Silhouette- what would you do if you could not lie in a post?
> 
> IF the law says that business's have to provide services to the public regardless of their race, religion, national origin or gender- then those business's cannot refuse service to someone because owner is a Muslim who thinks his religious beliefs say he cannot sell to a Christian.
> 
> IF the law says that business's have to provide services to the public regardless of their *sexual identity*, then that business cannot refuse to service someone because the owner is a Christian who thinks his religious beliefs say he cannot sell to a Lesbian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is "sexual identity"?  Is that like "I am a bulimic-American"?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> What does the expanded Colorado
> Anti-Discrimination Act now prohibit?
> 
> Places of public accommodation may not
> deny any person participation, entry, or
> services based upon the person’s sexual
> orientation, including transgender status.
> 
> What is a “place of public accommodation”?
> 
> A public accommodation is any place of
> business engaged in o!ering sales or
> services of any kind to the public, as well
> as any place o!ering facilities, privileges,
> advantages or other accommodations to
> the public. Typical examples of public
> accommodations include, but are not
> limited to, hotels, restaurants, stores,
> hospitals, clinics, and health clubs.
> 
> Is any place of public accommodation
> exempt from the law?
> 
> Yes. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and
> other places used primarily for religious
> purposes are exempt from the definition of
> public accommodation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a business is labeled as a Christian business in example of, (*The Glory Land recording Studio* where we uplift the Lord through the Joy of music or *Joey's Christian Bakery and services,* where we like building our cakes from scratch or *In "Light of Him" photography services*, were we are made possible by the Good Lord who has given us the talent to serve him through you and your needs of the photography industry), and the list can go on in the millions of ones choosing in these regards.  Then the government can not violate the separation of church and state clause, in which it swore to uphold in this nation period. If I open a Christian book store and call it that, then the government can not force me to sell porn literature or any other kind of anti-religious material to those who may want that from my store period. If it does then it is in violation of my religious rights and freedoms to own and operate a Christian book store that would serve my Christian brothers and sisters or to serve any other person who may want or have an interest in my materials that are sold in that store. A gay person would not be denied access into the store, nor would he or she be denied access to the materials that are sold in the store, so you see how that works ?  Now if I am branded as a Christian business, and I do customized work there like painting portraits, baking customized cakes and such , and say a gay person walked in and asked if the store could paint a gay couple on a portrait, or bake a cake with a gay couple standing a top of it, then the store by it's branding could refuse services to the gay person based upon that branding in which told the gay person of what the store was in regards to it's business model and services it offers. No government official is able to do anything about that without being in violation of the Church and State clause. It's time for Christians to brand their businesses as to who they are, and to what their beliefs are, and also in regards to what they sell in which echoes those beliefs. This will end this tyranny that is against them now in America. I do blame the Christians for seeking to profit by not doing this, and therefore opening themselves up to attacks because they didn't dot their I's and cross their T's in life.
> 
> Just because a business brands themselves as being Christian based or Muslim religion based and/or etc.doesn't mean that they can't still provide services to anyone that they want or wish to for whom may walk in, but it will set up a store front where as anyone just can't walk in and demand of them anything that they want just for the Hell of it either.  See how that works ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> What does the expanded Colorado
> Anti-Discrimination Act now prohibit?
> 
> Places of public accommodation may not
> deny any person participation, entry, or
> services based upon the person’s sexual
> orientation, including transgender status.
> 
> What is a “place of public accommodation”?
> 
> A public accommodation is any place of
> business engaged in o!ering sales or
> services of any kind to the public, as well
> as any place o!ering facilities, privileges,
> advantages or other accommodations to
> the public. Typical examples of public
> accommodations include, but are not
> limited to, hotels, restaurants, stores,
> hospitals, clinics, and health clubs.
> 
> Is any place of public accommodation
> exempt from the law?
> 
> Yes. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and
> other places used primarily for religious
> purposes are exempt from the definition of
> public accommodation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds as if these public accommodation laws or their creation of, have either been highjacked or extended to mean far more than they were meant to be or that the constitution would allow them to be after their creation, so what happened ?
> 
> Now I know laws had to be created in order to force accommodation to the public as far as the use of public restrooms went and/or because of not allowing a race equal rights to all areas of the public square in which business was being conducted in, jobs were being accessed in or citizens would go about freely in their day to day activities.
> 
> Now if they were expanded beyond that to include sexual orientation, then what does someones sexual orientation have to do with anything in the public square or their access to it ? I mean are they thinking that someone may wear a Tu-Tu into the public square seeking a girls restroom when they are a boy in gender now, so the accommodation enforcement would include this action to be forced or allowed in the public square now, or from someone to seek a job in that outfit when the job may have a uniform requirement like steel toe boots and etc. so the accommodation laws would make a company give an exception to the worker who wants to wear what he or she wants to in that area as well or was it in fear that a person would be laughed at in the public square so they sought to suppress ones feelings about such things, and so the accommodation laws would force a person to not break a smile if saw a person running around in a TU-Tu on a winter day, while everyone else is wearing heavy clothes ?  Did the laws being changed have the will of the people involved, or did the government get paid off to accommodate a group based upon their command of the feds in this way now ?
> 
> Like I said before, if I open up a Christian Book store in the public square, and it is labeled as this, then the government can not force me to sell porn materials or anything that a customer might wish that my services would include but they don't, because that would be illegal for the feds to do. Now you know I am right, and so you just go on and admit to it finally.
Click to expand...


If you believe the law is unconstitutional- you can try to change the law.

That can be done through the courts- as homosexual couples have sought for protection or through legislation.


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> Example: *Gay guy walks into a cake bakery, but he see's a sign that say's it is a Christian bakery, then that should end it all right there, because the gay guy knows that his lifestyle is in contradiction of that establishment ownerships beliefs system as it is listed*, so he then turns and leaves to find another bakery that may be neutral to his needs and wants as an American citizen who respects the freedom of religion in the nation as it reads in the constitution, and in which he or she is guided by, and therefore lives by also in the nation. No government intervention is needed and it shouldn't be asked for period.


 
Keyword: "lifestyle".  Correct beagle9.  Since LGBT is a cult of alternate lifestyles that are strictly forbidden (qualified as a mortal sin deserving of eternity in hell no less) in the christian church to promote in any way, shape or form (see Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament), their demanding that a christian baker participate in such an intimate and promotional way of a lifestyle that is forbidden for the baker to participate in at the core of his faith, the equivalent would be a christian walking up to an orthodox jewish caterer and demanding he handle and serve pork to be served at the wedding.  And if he won't, suing him.  Serving and eating pork isn't even a mortal sin in the jewish faith like promoting homosexuality is.  Yet nobody would expect an orthodox jew to serve pork as a caterer.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Example: *Gay guy walks into a cake bakery, but he see's a sign that say's it is a Christian bakery, then that should end it all right there, because the gay guy knows that his lifestyle is in contradiction of that establishment ownerships beliefs system as it is listed*, so he then turns and leaves to find another bakery that may be neutral to his needs and wants as an American citizen who respects the freedom of religion in the nation as it reads in the constitution, and in which he or she is guided by, and therefore lives by also in the nation. No government intervention is needed and it shouldn't be asked for period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keyword: "lifestyle".  Correct beagle9.  Since LGBT is a cult of alternate lifestyles that are strictly forbidden (qualified as a mortal sin deserving of eternity in hell no less) in the christian church to promote in any way, shape or form (see Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament), their demanding that a christian baker participate in such an intimate and promotional way of a lifestyle that is forbidden for the baker to participate in at the core of his faith, the equivalent would be a christian walking up to an orthodox jewish caterer and demanding he handle and serve pork to be served at the wedding.  And if he won't, suing him.  Serving and eating pork isn't even a mortal sin in the jewish faith like promoting homosexuality is.  Yet nobody would expect an orthodox jew to serve pork as a caterer.
Click to expand...

If you don't serve pork, then don't.  What you don't get to say is for you I serve pork but not for this other guy.  If you bake weddings cakes for a living who is getting married is none of your fucking business.  It's business, not faith.  How long before you morons learn that?


----------



## beagle9

PaintMyHouse said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Example: *Gay guy walks into a cake bakery, but he see's a sign that say's it is a Christian bakery, then that should end it all right there, because the gay guy knows that his lifestyle is in contradiction of that establishment ownerships beliefs system as it is listed*, so he then turns and leaves to find another bakery that may be neutral to his needs and wants as an American citizen who respects the freedom of religion in the nation as it reads in the constitution, and in which he or she is guided by, and therefore lives by also in the nation. No government intervention is needed and it shouldn't be asked for period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keyword: "lifestyle".  Correct beagle9.  Since LGBT is a cult of alternate lifestyles that are strictly forbidden (qualified as a mortal sin deserving of eternity in hell no less) in the christian church to promote in any way, shape or form (see Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament), their demanding that a christian baker participate in such an intimate and promotional way of a lifestyle that is forbidden for the baker to participate in at the core of his faith, the equivalent would be a christian walking up to an orthodox jewish caterer and demanding he handle and serve pork to be served at the wedding.  And if he won't, suing him.  Serving and eating pork isn't even a mortal sin in the jewish faith like promoting homosexuality is.  Yet nobody would expect an orthodox jew to serve pork as a caterer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't serve pork, then don't.  What you don't get to say is for you I serve pork but not for this other guy.  If you bake weddings cakes for a living who is getting married is none of your fucking business.  It's business, not faith.  How long before you morons learn that?
Click to expand...



Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business? Just because the citizens might own and operate a business in America, doesn't mean one loses his faith in life all because of such a thing. You don't lose it, but the thing is this, the cake baker if wants to have his faith recognized in his business, then he or she needs to advertise in that way. That would be the best way to let people know that you can't engage in things that are contrary to your faith if asked while owning and operating your business. Once that is done then certain protections are available for the baker in which the public can't abuse or demand him or her to do if he or she doesn't want to.

The United States constitution recognizes religion, and so it is directed to protect the freedoms of religion and of the assembly there of, and that means where ever religion is in America it is protected, and where it is also excepted by the majority whom wants it there it should also be protected. Now the state also separates itself between the Church and the State in many ways and/or in various instances legally. So what it deems as being the State, then religion can't enforce itself upon it, nor can the state enforce itself upon what is considered as religious grounds outside of the state boundaries in which seem to shift or move a lot yet all depending. Now some intermingling has gone on to everyone's satisfaction over the years, but now that we have this militant group who wants to push everything apart, then the nation must figure out what to do again inlight of the current situation.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

beagle9 said:


> Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?


It's easy, you don't confuse business with faith.  Baking cakes isn't serving God, and neither is filling gas tanks.  If you want to serve God then do so, but running a business for profit isn't serving God and if you serve the public then you serve all of the public, not just the ones you personally approve of.


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Example: *Gay guy walks into a cake bakery, but he see's a sign that say's it is a Christian bakery, then that should end it all right there, because the gay guy knows that his lifestyle is in contradiction of that establishment ownerships beliefs system as it is listed*, so he then turns and leaves to find another bakery that may be neutral to his needs and wants as an American citizen who respects the freedom of religion in the nation as it reads in the constitution, and in which he or she is guided by, and therefore lives by also in the nation. No government intervention is needed and it shouldn't be asked for period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keyword: "lifestyle".  Correct beagle9.  Since LGBT is a cult of alternate lifestyles that are strictly forbidden (qualified as a mortal sin deserving of eternity in hell no less) in the christian church to promote in any way, shape or form (see Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament), their demanding that a christian baker participate in such an intimate and promotional way of a lifestyle that is forbidden for the baker to participate in at the core of his faith, the equivalent would be a christian walking up to an orthodox jewish caterer and demanding he handle and serve pork to be served at the wedding.  And if he won't, suing him.  Serving and eating pork isn't even a mortal sin in the jewish faith like promoting homosexuality is.  Yet nobody would expect an orthodox jew to serve pork as a caterer.
Click to expand...

Just hasn't been challenged yet, so the caterer should take heed as to what is going on, because a re-branding of the business just might be at hand.


----------



## beagle9

PaintMyHouse said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy, you don't confuse business with faith.  Baking cakes isn't serving God, and neither is filling gas tanks.  If you want to serve God then do so, but running a business for profit isn't serving God and if you serve the public then you serve all of the public, not just the ones you personally approve of.
Click to expand...

It's not about not serving all of the public, but it's about letting the public know who you are in so that it's not confused when asking about a service in which for example the baker doesn't engage in or shouldn't engage in as according to his or her faith. Now the baker will still serve the person by selling him a cake that he or she would like or to get someone he or she knows to decorate it for him or herself afterwards, but that doesn't suffice does it ?  No it's as if people want to see that the baker is forced to go against his or her faith, just like a person standing there watching a person struggle under the oppression of a Nazi who would make a Jewish person wash his feet if he could, and that is the way that I see it in life when a person is forced to go against his or her faith in any thing that they do in life. America is not Nazi Germany, and it shouldn't become Nazi Germany, because there is something here for everbody.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

beagle9 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy, you don't confuse business with faith.  Baking cakes isn't serving God, and neither is filling gas tanks.  If you want to serve God then do so, but running a business for profit isn't serving God and if you serve the public then you serve all of the public, not just the ones you personally approve of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not about not serving all of the public, but it's about letting the public know who you are in so that it's not confused when asking about a service in which for example the baker doesn't engage in or shouldn't engage in as according to his or her faith. Now the baker will still serve the person by selling him a cake that he or she would like or to get someone he or she knows to decorate it for him or herself afterwards, but that doesn't suffice does it ?  No it's as if people want to see that the baker is forced to go against his or her faith, just like a person standing there watching a person struggle under the oppression of a Nazi who would make a Jewish person wash his feet if he could, and that is the way that I see it in life when a person is forced to go against his or her faith in any thing that they do in life. America is not Nazi Germany, and it shouldn't become Nazi Germany, because there is something here for everbody.
Click to expand...

The way you see it matters not a damn.  In faith you have a certain leeway, in business you follow our rules.  Those are the rules.  Grow up and deal with it.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy, you don't confuse business with faith.  Baking cakes isn't serving God, and neither is filling gas tanks.  If you want to serve God then do so, but running a business for profit isn't serving God and if you serve the public then you serve all of the public, not just the ones you personally approve of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not about not serving all of the public, but it's about letting the public know who you are in so that it's not confused when asking about a service in which for example the baker doesn't engage in or shouldn't engage in as according to his or her faith. Now the baker will still serve the person by selling him a cake that he or she would like or to get someone he or she knows to decorate it for him or herself afterwards, but that doesn't suffice does it ?  No it's as if people want to see that the baker is forced to go against his or her faith, just like a person standing there watching a person struggle under the oppression of a Nazi who would make a Jewish person wash his feet if he could, and that is the way that I see it in life when a person is forced to go against his or her faith in any thing that they do in life. America is not Nazi Germany, and it shouldn't become Nazi Germany, because there is something here for everbody.
Click to expand...


Luckily in the United States we have a Constitution. 

And if a law is unconstitutional everyone has the right to go to court to try to get that law overturned.

If you believe the law to be unconstitutional, you have recourse.


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business? Just because the citizens might own and operate a business in America, doesn't mean one loses his faith in life all because of such a thing. You don't lose it, but the thing is this, *the cake baker if wants to have his faith recognized in his business, then he or she needs to advertise in that way*. That would be the best way to let people know that you can't engage in things that are contrary to your faith if asked while owning and operating your business. Once that is done then certain protections are available for the baker in which the public can't abuse or demand him or her to do if he or she doesn't want to.


 
That's an excellent compromise, providing LGBTs can hold onto the marriage experiment long enough for it to matter.  SCOTUS may decide the states have the final say on alternative lifestyles-as-parents... for the sake of the children involved.

But if SCOTUS doesn't care that it is forcing the separate states to incentivize homes where children will be missing one of their blood parents or opposite gender-as-role-model 100% of the time, then yes, that's a good way of covering one's bases.

Nobody would sue an orthodox jewish caterer for not serving pork at their wedding.  Likewise, nobody can sue a christian baker for refusing to participate in promoting the LGBT subculture by recognizing their "marriage" in any way, shape or form.  That is forbidden to christians.  Just like pork is forbidden to an orthodox jew.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?



The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.

If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.


----------



## Skylar

> That's an excellent compromise, providing LGBTs can hold onto the marriage experiment long enough for it to matter. SCOTUS may decide the states have the final say on alternative lifestyles-as-parents... for the sake of the children involved.



Check Kennedy's ruling in Windsor on the effects on the children of gay parents when their parents are denied the recognition of marriage if you want a preview of how the court will likely rule on that topic.


----------



## beagle9

PaintMyHouse said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy, you don't confuse business with faith.  Baking cakes isn't serving God, and neither is filling gas tanks.  If you want to serve God then do so, but running a business for profit isn't serving God and if you serve the public then you serve all of the public, not just the ones you personally approve of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not about not serving all of the public, but it's about letting the public know who you are in so that it's not confused when asking about a service in which for example the baker doesn't engage in or shouldn't engage in as according to his or her faith. Now the baker will still serve the person by selling him a cake that he or she would like or to get someone he or she knows to decorate it for him or herself afterwards, but that doesn't suffice does it ?  No it's as if people want to see that the baker is forced to go against his or her faith, just like a person standing there watching a person struggle under the oppression of a Nazi who would make a Jewish person wash his feet if he could, and that is the way that I see it in life when a person is forced to go against his or her faith in any thing that they do in life. America is not Nazi Germany, and it shouldn't become Nazi Germany, because there is something here for everbody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way you see it matters not a damn.  In faith you have a certain leeway, *in business you follow our rules.*  Those are the rules.  Grow up and deal with it.
Click to expand...

Our rules ? Well just who do you think that you are in suggesting that someone should follow your rules in the way that you interpret them as or that you would expect us to follow upon whom ever else would expect us also to do the same ? What are these new rules in which would entail that which you think is grounded, and yet is now being re-interpreted in a new way that takes away from the old ones that were grounded, and is now being done without any ones permission upon in order to do such a thing as this ?  Are these rules being changed as to there original meaning of, or as is found within those rules or laws now, and do you want them to now read from a minority view point in which you want us to follow them in that way ?  The arrogance of the minority view point upon the majority is just amazing these days I tell ya..


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.
> 
> If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.
Click to expand...


The same does not apply to every instance or issue, but it is noted how you all love to couple or fuse them together, even though they don't fly together in every issue like you all want them to.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> That's an excellent compromise, providing LGBTs can hold onto the marriage experiment long enough for it to matter. SCOTUS may decide the states have the final say on alternative lifestyles-as-parents... for the sake of the children involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check Kennedy's ruling in Windsor on the effects on the children of gay parents when their parents are denied the recognition of marriage if you want a preview of how the court will likely rule on that topic.
Click to expand...

Kids being used as leverage again eh ? Is that the same as human shields ?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an excellent compromise, providing LGBTs can hold onto the marriage experiment long enough for it to matter. SCOTUS may decide the states have the final say on alternative lifestyles-as-parents... for the sake of the children involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check Kennedy's ruling in Windsor on the effects on the children of gay parents when their parents are denied the recognition of marriage if you want a preview of how the court will likely rule on that topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kids being used as leverage again eh ? Is that the same as human shields ?
Click to expand...


More accurately, children of gays and lesbians are harmed when their parents can't marry.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.
> 
> If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same does not apply to every instance or issue, but it is noted how you all love to couple or fuse them together, even though they don't fly together in every issue like you all want them to.
Click to expand...


Leon Bazile made it clear that God was the basis of his interracial marriage ruling. And there were plenty of other bigots of the day who did the same thing:



> "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
> 
> Leon Bazile, 1965



It was bullshit then. Its bullshit now. Fair and equitable treatment of all customers is reasonable and proper for a State to require. As the States have authority over intrastate commerce.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.
> 
> If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same does not apply to every instance or issue, but it is noted how you all love to couple or fuse them together, even though they don't fly together in every issue like you all want them to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leon Bazile made it clear that God was the basis of his interracial marriage ruling. And there were plenty of other bigots of the day who did the same thing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
> 
> Leon Bazile, 1965
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was bullshit then. Its bullshit now. Fair and equitable treatment of all customers is reasonable and proper for a State to require. As the States have authority over intrastate commerce.
Click to expand...


And anyone who does not think that such laws are constitutional?

Well they have recourse to the same legal system that same gender couples have used to fight laws that they feel are unconstitutional. 

Those Christian bakers who feel like their rights are being abused? Well they can do what the gay couples who feel like their rights were being abused did- go to court- make the argument- prove their case. 

Or change the law.

Because the argument is not with the enforcement, or the people enforcing the law- it is with the law itself.


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh- more lies.
> 
> No churches will be forced to perform any marriages- not Jewish marriages, not Buddhist marriages, not African American marriages and not same gender marriages.
> 
> Just lies by anti-gay activists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure how true this is, but someone told me today that *churches could lose their tax exempt status* if they choose to discriminate by virtue of their religion or religious beliefs as found in the ways that they live by and believe as a religious people do upon the issues that are being debated in America today.
> 
> Oh I'm sure they are a target, just like so many other things have since become a target in this nation now by the feds. Will the feds gain total control over this nation soon, and if so who does that control ultimately affect in a negative way, and what effect will it ultimately have on the nation or it's people when all is said and done ? It appears that no stone will be missed, as all of them will be turned over in this new transformation or want to be utopic world in which is being envisioned now in America by a few, but not quite yet by the majority.
Click to expand...


Someone lied to you.


----------



## bendog

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh- more lies.
> 
> No churches will be forced to perform any marriages- not Jewish marriages, not Buddhist marriages, not African American marriages and not same gender marriages.
> 
> Just lies by anti-gay activists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure how true this is, but someone told me today that *churches could lose their tax exempt status* if they choose to discriminate by virtue of their religion or religious beliefs as found in the ways that they live by and believe as a religious people do upon the issues that are being debated in America today.
> 
> Oh I'm sure they are a target, just like so many other things have since become a target in this nation now by the feds. Will the feds gain total control over this nation soon, and if so who does that control ultimately affect in a negative way, and what effect will it ultimately have on the nation or it's people when all is said and done ? It appears that no stone will be missed, as all of them will be turned over in this new transformation or want to be utopic world in which is being envisioned now in America by a few, but not quite yet by the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone lied to you.
Click to expand...

It's easy to lie to people who want to be victims.


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh- more lies.
> 
> No churches will be forced to perform any marriages- not Jewish marriages, not Buddhist marriages, not African American marriages and not same gender marriages.
> 
> Just lies by anti-gay activists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure how true this is, but someone told me today that *churches could lose their tax exempt status* if they choose to discriminate by virtue of their religion or religious beliefs as found in the ways that they live by and believe as a religious people do upon the issues that are being debated in America today.
> 
> Oh I'm sure they are a target, just like so many other things have since become a target in this nation now by the feds. Will the feds gain total control over this nation soon, and if so who does that control ultimately affect in a negative way, and what effect will it ultimately have on the nation or it's people when all is said and done ? It appears that no stone will be missed, as all of them will be turned over in this new transformation or want to be utopic world in which is being envisioned now in America by a few, but not quite yet by the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone lied to you.
Click to expand...


Yup. Not only lied, but did so with the explicit intention of frightening him. So he's almost certainly being manipulated.


----------



## mikegriffith1

In other words, should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Bible-believing churches to host ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other churches or facilities that would be willing to host the ceremonies?

And should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Christian photographers to attend and service ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other photographers who would not mind servicing the ceremonies?

If the gay rights crowd would practice a little tolerance and respect, this would not even be an issue. It's not that they "need" to hold their ceremonies in conservative churches or "need" to have Christian photographers service their ceremonies--it's that they want to do so because they want to insult and humiliate conservative Christians.


----------



## jillian

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh- more lies.
> 
> No churches will be forced to perform any marriages- not Jewish marriages, not Buddhist marriages, not African American marriages and not same gender marriages.
> 
> Just lies by anti-gay activists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure how true this is, but someone told me today that *churches could lose their tax exempt status* if they choose to discriminate by virtue of their religion or religious beliefs as found in the ways that they live by and believe as a religious people do upon the issues that are being debated in America today.
> 
> Oh I'm sure they are a target, just like so many other things have since become a target in this nation now by the feds. Will the feds gain total control over this nation soon, and if so who does that control ultimately affect in a negative way, and what effect will it ultimately have on the nation or it's people when all is said and done ? It appears that no stone will be missed, as all of them will be turned over in this new transformation or want to be utopic world in which is being envisioned now in America by a few, but not quite yet by the majority.
Click to expand...


it's not true at all.. someone is trying to get you revved up for no reason.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

mikegriffith1 said:


> In other words, should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Bible-believing churches to host ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other churches or facilities that would be willing to host the ceremonies?


Ain't gonna happen here.  That's just fear-mongering.


----------



## Syriusly

mikegriffith1 said:


> In other words, should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Bible-believing churches to host ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other churches or facilities that would be willing to host the ceremonies?
> 
> And should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Christian photographers to attend and service ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other photographers who would not mind servicing the ceremonies?
> 
> If the gay rights crowd would practice a little tolerance and respect, this would not even be an issue. It's not that they "need" to hold their ceremonies in conservative churches or "need" to have Christian photographers service their ceremonies--it's that they want to do so because they want to insult and humiliate conservative Christians.



Churches have not- and will not- be forced to marry anyone that they do not want to marry- whether they are black, Jewish or homosexual.

Merely fear mongering by the far right.


----------



## Silhouette

mikegriffith1 said:


> In other words, should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Bible-believing churches to host ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other churches or facilities that would be willing to host the ceremonies?
> 
> *And should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Christian photographers to attend and service ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive* when we know we could easily find other photographers who would not mind servicing the ceremonies?
> 
> If the gay rights crowd would practice a little tolerance and respect, this would not even be an issue. It's not that they "need" to hold their ceremonies in conservative churches or "need" to have Christian photographers service their ceremonies--it's that they want to do so because they want to insult and humiliate conservative Christians.


 
It's not merely "morally offensive" to christians.  If you read Jude 1, it is a FUCKING MANDATE, that if they are foolish enough to ignore in favor of social expediency or some other such secular pressures, they are thrown into the pit of fire for eternity as if they were worse than the homosexual culture they failed to prevent advancing. 

I mean, right in Jude 1 it discusses precisely how secular pressures have been used in the past and would be used again in the future to make christians promote a homosexual subculture.  It discusses how those secular word-wizards have smooth tongues and speak with authority, using the influences of social positioning to mandate the spread of their mental disease into the very thresholds of christian homes and minds. (places of business, halls of worship, what have you) 

Read Jude 1.  It sounds like it was written yesterday.  Yet it came from the hand of Jesus's personal daily assistant.  Jude represents that these words came straight from his savior and best friend's mouth.  Bear in mind that Jesus by and large was sort of a pacifist.  So him preaching that anyone who aids and abets the spread of homosexuality is a significant thing.  Jude 1 talks of Sodom and other cities like it that the residents en masse (not just the gay ones) will be sentenced to hell.  Apparently the Big Guy isn't keen on homosexual cultures taking over whole regions or nations.  Yet Jude 1 tells christians to reach out to INDIVIDUAL homosexuals in order to help with their salvation and obvious distresses. 

Basically if you had to render Jude 1 into a simple and clear Command, it says "help the individual homosexual with his sufferings via compassion or tools of psychology and you will enter the Kingdom of Heaven....help a homosexual subculture spread and overtake the region you live in by doing nothing or even giving them a hand when you're forced to and you will burn in Hell for eternity."


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.
> 
> If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.
Click to expand...


Why are you Leftists so terrified of freedom of association?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.
> 
> If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you Leftists so terrified of freedom of association?
Click to expand...

They aren't, they just don't want people to have to drive all over town to get gas because all the stations say No *******.  That interferes with the freedom of others to get on with their lives.  If you don't like the rules, don't go into business, and if the rules change not to your liking, close up and watch the birds all day.

How long before you guys accept the fact that you've lost this fight?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

PaintMyHouse said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.
> 
> If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you Leftists so terrified of freedom of association?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't, they just don't want people to have to drive all over town to get gas because all the stations say No *******.  That interferes with the freedom of others to get on with their lives.  If you don't like the rules, don't go into business, and if the rules change not to your liking, close up and watch the birds all day.
Click to expand...

So what you Leftists fear is something that couldn't happen to begin with.  If your local Chevron station had a sign saying "No *******" would you go there?  I wouldn't either.  It would go out of business. That's what happens with free association, it's the shortest route to true social justice.


----------



## Skylar

mikegriffith1 said:


> In other words, should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Bible-believing churches to host ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other churches or facilities that would be willing to host the ceremonies?



Nope. You're clearly not following the thread. 



> And should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Christian photographers to attend and service ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other photographers who would not mind servicing the ceremonies?



If a photographer is doing business with the public, they should treat all of their customers fairly and equitably. If they can't, they shouldn't be doing business. 



> If the gay rights crowd would practice a little tolerance and respect, this would not even be an issue. It's not that they "need" to hold their ceremonies in conservative churches or "need" to have Christian photographers service their ceremonies--it's that they want to do so because they want to insult and humiliate conservative Christians.



Gays are looking for no more or less consideration than any black person would be at the Woolworth's lunch counter.

'We don't serve your kind here' isn't an acceptable practice in business for most States. Nor should it be.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.
> 
> If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you Leftists so terrified of freedom of association?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't, they just don't want people to have to drive all over town to get gas because all the stations say No *******.  That interferes with the freedom of others to get on with their lives.  If you don't like the rules, don't go into business, and if the rules change not to your liking, close up and watch the birds all day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you Leftists fear is something that couldn't happen to begin with.  If your local Chevron station had a sign saying "No *******" would you go there?  I wouldn't either.  It would go out of business. That's what happens with free association, it's the shortest route to true social justice.
Click to expand...

Actually it isn't, but passing a law is.  Thems the rules eh?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

A "rule" that forces Christian bookstores to hire a transvestite or a wiccan isn't social justice, it's a violation of the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Skylar

> It's not merely "morally offensive" to christians. If you read Jude 1, it is a FUCKING MANDATE, that if they are foolish enough to ignore in favor of social expediency or some other such secular pressures, they are thrown into the pit of fire for eternity as if they were worse than the homosexual culture they failed to prevent advancing.



If your religion doesn't allow you to conduct business fairly and equitably, you shouldn't be in business. Same if your religion forbids you from serving Christians, or women, or Muslims in your public business.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.
> 
> If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you Leftists so terrified of freedom of association?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't, they just don't want people to have to drive all over town to get gas because all the stations say No *******.  That interferes with the freedom of others to get on with their lives.  If you don't like the rules, don't go into business, and if the rules change not to your liking, close up and watch the birds all day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you Leftists fear is something that couldn't happen to begin with.  If your local Chevron station had a sign saying "No *******" would you go there?  I wouldn't either.  It would go out of business. That's what happens with free association, it's the shortest route to true social justice.
Click to expand...


I'd take actions to enforce local laws so the sign was taken down and all black customers were treated fairly and equitably. 

'No blacks served at this lunch counter' may be consistent with conservative values. But its not consistent with American values.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now just how do you separate ones faith from a person or the owners of a business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.
> 
> If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you Leftists so terrified of freedom of association?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't, they just don't want people to have to drive all over town to get gas because all the stations say No *******.  That interferes with the freedom of others to get on with their lives.  If you don't like the rules, don't go into business, and if the rules change not to your liking, close up and watch the birds all day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you Leftists fear is something that couldn't happen to begin with.  If your local Chevron station had a sign saying "No *******" would you go there?  I wouldn't either.  It would go out of business. That's what happens with free association, it's the shortest route to true social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd take actions to enforce local laws so the sign was taken down and all black customers were treated fairly and equitably.
> 
> 'No blacks served at this lunch counter' may be consistent with conservative values. But its not consistent with American values.
Click to expand...

Such a law would be perfectly fine if passed by the state and not the federal government.  The former does not violate the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same way we did when folks tried to argue that it was against their religion to serve Jews or Black people.
> 
> If you're going to do business with the public, its both reasonable and proper that they be subject to minimum standard of fair and equitable conduct with your customers by the State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you Leftists so terrified of freedom of association?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't, they just don't want people to have to drive all over town to get gas because all the stations say No *******.  That interferes with the freedom of others to get on with their lives.  If you don't like the rules, don't go into business, and if the rules change not to your liking, close up and watch the birds all day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you Leftists fear is something that couldn't happen to begin with.  If your local Chevron station had a sign saying "No *******" would you go there?  I wouldn't either.  It would go out of business. That's what happens with free association, it's the shortest route to true social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd take actions to enforce local laws so the sign was taken down and all black customers were treated fairly and equitably.
> 
> 'No blacks served at this lunch counter' may be consistent with conservative values. But its not consistent with American values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such a law would be perfectly fine if passed by the state and not the federal government.  The former does not violate the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.
Click to expand...


I agree. The feds have jurisdiction over interstate commerce. The states, intrastate commerce. And the laws punishing business owners for not treating gays fairly and equitably have been exclusively state laws so far.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you Leftists so terrified of freedom of association?
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't, they just don't want people to have to drive all over town to get gas because all the stations say No *******.  That interferes with the freedom of others to get on with their lives.  If you don't like the rules, don't go into business, and if the rules change not to your liking, close up and watch the birds all day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you Leftists fear is something that couldn't happen to begin with.  If your local Chevron station had a sign saying "No *******" would you go there?  I wouldn't either.  It would go out of business. That's what happens with free association, it's the shortest route to true social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd take actions to enforce local laws so the sign was taken down and all black customers were treated fairly and equitably.
> 
> 'No blacks served at this lunch counter' may be consistent with conservative values. But its not consistent with American values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such a law would be perfectly fine if passed by the state and not the federal government.  The former does not violate the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. The feds have jurisdiction over interstate commerce. The states, intrastate commerce. And the laws punishing business owners for not treating gays fairly and equitably have been exclusively state laws so far.
Click to expand...


You mean we agree on something?


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Bible-believing churches to host ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other churches or facilities that would be willing to host the ceremonies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. You're clearly not following the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Christian photographers to attend and service ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other photographers who would not mind servicing the ceremonies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a photographer is doing business with the public, they should treat all of their customers fairly and equitably. If they can't, they shouldn't be doing business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the gay rights crowd would practice a little tolerance and respect, this would not even be an issue. It's not that they "need" to hold their ceremonies in conservative churches or "need" to have Christian photographers service their ceremonies--it's that they want to do so because they want to insult and humiliate conservative Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays are looking for no more or less consideration than any black person would be at the Woolworth's lunch counter.
> 
> 'We don't serve your kind here' isn't an acceptable practice in business for most States. Nor should it be.
Click to expand...

If gay's didn't have black people to keep falling back on, then what would they do ? Oh yes and how exactly does one wear his sexuality upon his skin or upon his sleeve again ? I thought so..


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't, they just don't want people to have to drive all over town to get gas because all the stations say No *******.  That interferes with the freedom of others to get on with their lives.  If you don't like the rules, don't go into business, and if the rules change not to your liking, close up and watch the birds all day.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you Leftists fear is something that couldn't happen to begin with.  If your local Chevron station had a sign saying "No *******" would you go there?  I wouldn't either.  It would go out of business. That's what happens with free association, it's the shortest route to true social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd take actions to enforce local laws so the sign was taken down and all black customers were treated fairly and equitably.
> 
> 'No blacks served at this lunch counter' may be consistent with conservative values. But its not consistent with American values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such a law would be perfectly fine if passed by the state and not the federal government.  The former does not violate the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. The feds have jurisdiction over interstate commerce. The states, intrastate commerce. And the laws punishing business owners for not treating gays fairly and equitably have been exclusively state laws so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean we agree on something?
Click to expand...


I don't see why we shouldn't. My positions are formed autonomous of political party. I believe in gay marriage because its right, just and reasonable. I oppose federal laws governing intrastate commerce because its clearly not a power they were granted or ever intended to have.

The two positions don't have much to do with each other.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you Leftists fear is something that couldn't happen to begin with.  If your local Chevron station had a sign saying "No *******" would you go there?  I wouldn't either.  It would go out of business. That's what happens with free association, it's the shortest route to true social justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd take actions to enforce local laws so the sign was taken down and all black customers were treated fairly and equitably.
> 
> 'No blacks served at this lunch counter' may be consistent with conservative values. But its not consistent with American values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such a law would be perfectly fine if passed by the state and not the federal government.  The former does not violate the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. The feds have jurisdiction over interstate commerce. The states, intrastate commerce. And the laws punishing business owners for not treating gays fairly and equitably have been exclusively state laws so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean we agree on something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see why we shouldn't. My positions are formed autonomous of political party. I believe in gay marriage because its right, just and reasonable. I oppose federal laws governing intrastate commerce because its clearly not a power they were granted or ever intended to have.
> 
> The two positions don't have much to do with each other.
Click to expand...


But they do.  Marriage has always been governed by the states until 1862 when the federal government started regulating it to be defined, ironically, as one man and one woman.  This illegal intrusion on states' rights paved the way for DOMA and all manner of other violations of the 10th Amendment.  Now it's just assumed that the federal government is in charge of any issue it wants to be, including marriage.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Bible-believing churches to host ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other churches or facilities that would be willing to host the ceremonies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. You're clearly not following the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Christian photographers to attend and service ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other photographers who would not mind servicing the ceremonies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a photographer is doing business with the public, they should treat all of their customers fairly and equitably. If they can't, they shouldn't be doing business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the gay rights crowd would practice a little tolerance and respect, this would not even be an issue. It's not that they "need" to hold their ceremonies in conservative churches or "need" to have Christian photographers service their ceremonies--it's that they want to do so because they want to insult and humiliate conservative Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays are looking for no more or less consideration than any black person would be at the Woolworth's lunch counter.
> 
> 'We don't serve your kind here' isn't an acceptable practice in business for most States. Nor should it be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If gay's didn't have black people to keep falling back on, then what would they do ? Oh yes and how exactly does one wear his sexuality upon his skin or upon his sleeve again ? I thought so..
Click to expand...


If the arguments against gay rights didn't mirror the failed rhetoric against minority rights as closely as they do, the comparisons likely wouldn't be made as often as they are. Even the appeals to religion are the same. 



> Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
> 
> Judge Leon Bazile, 1965



It was bullshit then. And its bullshit now.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> A "rule" that forces Christian bookstores to hire a transvestite or a wiccan isn't social justice, it's a violation of the Bill of Rights.


How lucky for me that the law is on my side, not yours.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

PaintMyHouse said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "rule" that forces Christian bookstores to hire a transvestite or a wiccan isn't social justice, it's a violation of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> How lucky for me that the law is on my side, not yours.
Click to expand...


That's how all Leftists think. They don't give a damn about the Constitution, civil rights, or who gets trampled by their agenda.  Getting your way is all you care about.

Demonic.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "rule" that forces Christian bookstores to hire a transvestite or a wiccan isn't social justice, it's a violation of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> How lucky for me that the law is on my side, not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's how all Leftists think. They don't give a damn about the Constitution, civil rights, or who gets trampled by their agenda.  Getting your way is all you care about.
> 
> Demonic.
Click to expand...

In this case it's just good business and good policy, and we all like to get our way.  Your side passes every bill possible to try and ban abortion, when it's legal.  And so it goes.


----------



## beagle9

PaintMyHouse said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "rule" that forces Christian bookstores to hire a transvestite or a wiccan isn't social justice, it's a violation of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> How lucky for me that the law is on my side, not yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's how all Leftists think. They don't give a damn about the Constitution, civil rights, or who gets trampled by their agenda.  Getting your way is all you care about.
> 
> Demonic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this case it's just good business and good policy, and we all like to get our way.  Your side passes every bill possible to try and ban abortion, when it's legal.  And so it goes.
Click to expand...

Do you agree with abortion ? Also *how does one wear his or her sexuality upon their sleeve or upon their skin ?* The government had dealt in the skin color thing because of the discrimination that was going on against ones skin color in the nation, and that is as far as it should have ever went, but here it is dealing with ones sexuality that should only be displayed or acted upon in the privacy of ones bedroom or in private where ever that bush or car or room may be now....* It* *(sexuality)* *should have absolutely nothing to do with anything that the government is to be involved in period*.

Can anyone believe that we are actually being dictated to over ones sexuality in life by our government ?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

beagle9 said:


> Do you agree with abortion ?


Yes...


----------



## beagle9

PaintMyHouse said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree with abortion ?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...
Click to expand...

It figures..


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's how all Leftists think. They don't give a damn about the Constitution, civil rights, or who gets trampled by their agenda.  Getting your way is all you care about.
> 
> Demonic.
> 
> 
> 
> In this case it's just good business and good policy, and we all like to get our way.  Your side passes every bill possible to try and ban abortion, when it's legal.  And so it goes.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, we all like to get our way.  It just so happens that religion is never getting its way and the cult trying to usurp it ALWAYS get their way by carefully-placed people in places of power.  Like the activist decisions in the federal circuits so far (all but the 6th) that force states opposed to allow the repugnant notion of "gay marriage", done illegally by the lower courts circumventing process and overruling Baker 1971 and Windsor 2013 from underneath.

Do you know what we call a "law" enacted by illegal process?  It's called "not a law".  Any state falling for this ruse should fire their AG.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's how all Leftists think. They don't give a damn about the Constitution, civil rights, or who gets trampled by their agenda.  Getting your way is all you care about.
> 
> Demonic.
> 
> 
> 
> In this case it's just good business and good policy, and we all like to get our way.  Your side passes every bill possible to try and ban abortion, when it's legal.  And so it goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we all like to get our way.  It just so happens that religion is never getting its way and the cult trying to usurp it ALWAYS get their way by carefully-placed people in places of power.  Like the activist decisions in the federal circuits so far (all but the 6th) that force states opposed to allow the repugnant notion of "gay marriage", done illegally by the lower courts circumventing process and overruling Baker 1971 and Windsor 2013 from underneath.
> 
> Do you know what we call a "law" enacted by illegal process?  It's called "not a law".  Any state falling for this ruse should fire their AG.
Click to expand...

You lost little homophobe, even in the court of public opinion.  Just grow up and deal with it.


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> You lost little homophobe, even in the court of public opinion.  Just grow up and deal with it.


 
You sound like a playground child with those remarks.  Speak to the points I made and don't rely so heavily on "neeener neeener neeener"...OK?


----------



## JakeStarkey

There are no points in "It just so happens that religion is never getting its way and the cult trying to usurp it ALWAYS get their way by carefully-placed people in places of power".  That is simply whining.  Give us examples of how it was done and who the these are "people".  Tell us who where the Presidents and the politicians supporting the appointments to judgeship.

There is no conspiracy.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> There are no points in "It just so happens that religion is never getting its way and the cult trying to usurp it ALWAYS get their way by carefully-placed people in places of power".  That is simply whining.  Give us examples of how it was done and who the these are "people".  Tell us who where the Presidents and the politicians supporting the appointments to judgeship.
> 
> There is no conspiracy.


Here's your examples: Gay Marriages in States Forced by Circuit Courts to Allow Them Are Not Legal Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I'd say that four sets of circuit court judges overruling SCOTUS' Baker and Windsor decisions from underneath qualifies.   Who were they appointed by?  Readers can google it and follow the breadcrumbs backwards to the money.

Oh and speaking of that source....here's one of them...  LGBT Election Victory Fund Fund Founding Member Arrested For Sex With Juvenile US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your link goes back to your thread of yours, *Gay Marriages in States Forced by Circuit Courts to Allow Them Are Not Legal *and *LGBT Election "Victory Fund" Fund Founding Member Arrested For Sex With Juvenile.
*
Good grief, I asked you for "who where the Presidents and the politicians supporting the appointments to judgeship."

You are not smart enough to gamesmanship on this thread.  Answer the questions or go away.

The real answer?  There is no cult and no conspiracy.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Your link goes back to your thread of yours, *Gay Marriages in States Forced by Circuit Courts to Allow Them Are Not Legal *and *LGBT Election "Victory Fund" Fund Founding Member Arrested For Sex With Juvenile.
> *Good grief, I asked you for "who where the Presidents and the politicians supporting the appointments to judgeship."
> You are not smart enough to gamesmanship on this thread.  Answer the questions or go away.
> The real answer?  There is no cult and no conspiracy.


 Yes, and on both of my threads are links to the information you seek.  All you have to do is follow them.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Still banging on the fags eh Sil?  Got news for ya, the faggots won and you lost.  Now what?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your link goes back to your thread of yours, *Gay Marriages in States Forced by Circuit Courts to Allow Them Are Not Legal *and *LGBT Election "Victory Fund" Fund Founding Member Arrested For Sex With Juvenile.*
> Good grief, I asked you for "who where the Presidents and the politicians supporting the appointments to judgeship."
> You are not smart enough to gamesmanship on this thread.  Answer the questions or go away.
> The real answer?  There is no cult and no conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and on both of my threads are links to the information you seek.  All you have to do is follow them.
Click to expand...


I need you to link the quotes or the paraphrases, not the threads.  You got to do better, kid.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your link goes back to your thread of yours, *Gay Marriages in States Forced by Circuit Courts to Allow Them Are Not Legal *and *LGBT Election "Victory Fund" Fund Founding Member Arrested For Sex With Juvenile.*
> Good grief, I asked you for "who where the Presidents and the politicians supporting the appointments to judgeship."
> You are not smart enough to gamesmanship on this thread.  Answer the questions or go away.
> The real answer?  There is no cult and no conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and on both of my threads are links to the information you seek.  All you have to do is follow them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need you to link the quotes or the paraphrases, not the threads.  You got to do better, kid.
Click to expand...

 Why?  For your sake?  I think the readers here who have a question about why Mr. Bean, key LGBT fundraiser for lobbying for the cult was arrested for sex with a 15 year old boy, or why the LGBT cult worships Harvey Milk's sexuality (which was with a minor 16 year old boy and others) can find out for themselves by following my threads...which always...always come with links to what I assert. 

They can follow the links to judge Sutton's 6th circuit decision on agreeing his four states can deny gay marriages and other types of marriage....how the other circuit decisions in this regard are procedurally illegal.  Maybe I could see one circuit court getting it wrong procedurally...but three...four...how many have tried to overrule Baker and Windsor from underneath so far?

Sutton said "this is wrong and the buck stops here".  Anyone can read that at those threads.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Link the quotes, dear, not the threads, if you want any respect as a poster.

You have lost this fight . . . a long time ago.


----------



## 1776

Since the majority of blacks are against gays and gay marriage....are liberals going to attack traditional black churches for not opening their doors to gays???

You know the same black churches used to spread lies about the GOP and whites in order to get Democrap voters....


----------



## PaintMyHouse

1776 said:


> Since the majority of blacks are against gays and gay marriage....are liberals going to attack traditional black churches for not opening their doors to gays???
> 
> You know the same black churches used to spread lies about the GOP and whites in order to get Democrap voters....


Who cares what they think, since their opinions, and votes, on this issue don't matter a damn.


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the majority of blacks are against gays and gay marriage....are liberals going to attack traditional black churches for not opening their doors to gays???
> 
> You know the same black churches used to spread lies about the GOP and whites in order to get Democrap voters....
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what they think, since their opinions, and votes, on this issue don't matter a damn.
Click to expand...

 
You realize that LGBT is a lifestyle and that what you just said makes you look like Jim Jones, right?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the majority of blacks are against gays and gay marriage....are liberals going to attack traditional black churches for not opening their doors to gays???
> 
> You know the same black churches used to spread lies about the GOP and whites in order to get Democrap voters....
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares what they think, since their opinions, and votes, on this issue don't matter a damn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize that LGBT is a lifestyle and that what you just said makes you look like Jim Jones, right?
Click to expand...

Human Sexuality isn't a lifestyle, it's a sliding scale of sexual attraction, but it can result in certain lifestyles, and I don't give a damn what it makes me look like, it happens to be true.


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that LGBT is a lifestyle and that what you just said makes you look like Jim Jones, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Human Sexuality isn't a lifestyle, it's a sliding scale of sexual attraction, but it can result in certain lifestyles, and I don't give a damn what it makes me look like, it happens to be true.
Click to expand...

 
OK, let me rephrase it: Sexual orientation is transitory (Anne Heche) is environmental and therefore behavioral.  Better?

Behaviors aren't protected in the Constitution except religion.  When will LGBT be applying for tax-exempt status?  Also, compulsive theft and bulimia are orientations of behavior.  Where are their guarantees?  When LGBT "marriages" strip children involved of one blood parent 100% of the time or one complimentary gender-as-role-model 100% of the time, they don't have marriage rights.  The state (and the fed by extension of the states, who derives its power only from the states...remember polysci?) only interest in marriage is to incentivized the best formative environment for children.  All other concerns...as you say...the state "doesn't give a damn about".

It just so happens that man/woman is the best incentivized arrangement to insure any children procreated have both blood parents in the home or at least both complimentary gender-as-role-models in the home..

In short, the legal condensed version; the state (and the fed bound by deriving its powers from the states) only considers marriage a "child formation environment".  The adults involved are peripheral to the main concern.  So any state's focus will be "that environment which is paramount for the best formation of well-rounded children".


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that LGBT is a lifestyle and that what you just said makes you look like Jim Jones, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Human Sexuality isn't a lifestyle, it's a sliding scale of sexual attraction, but it can result in certain lifestyles, and I don't give a damn what it makes me look like, it happens to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, let me rephrase it: Sexual orientation is transitory (Anne Heche) is environmental and therefore behavioral.  Better?
> 
> Behaviors aren't protected in the Constitution except religion.  When will LGBT be applying for tax-exempt status?  Also, compulsive theft and bulimia are orientations of behavior.  Where are their guarantees?  When LGBT "marriages" strip children involved of one blood parent 100% of the time or one complimentary gender-as-role-model 100% of the time, they don't have marriage rights.  The state (and the fed by extension of the states, who derives its power only from the states...remember polysci?) only interest in marriage is to incentivized the best formative environment for children.  All other concerns...as you say...the state "doesn't give a damn about".
> 
> It just so happens that man/woman is the best incentivized arrangement to ensure any children procreated have both blood parents in the home or at least both complimentary gender-as-role-models in the home..
Click to expand...

Your assumptions are incorrect. as usual, but they are also pointless at this point, as is any continuing debate on what is now legal in most of the US.  It's over, find a new dead horse to beat.


----------



## rdean

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?


Churches should have to pay taxes.


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> Your assumptions are incorrect. as usual, but they are also pointless at this point, as is any continuing debate on what is now legal in most of the US.  *It's over, find a new dead horse to beat*.


 
I once had a horse I thought was dead.  He collapsed on a long hike I was packing him on.  His eyes rolled back in his head and it looked like he stopped breathing.  I sat down very bummed and began taking off his packs to at least salvage them.  We were in the backcountry.  After I loosened the cinch, he began jerking and suddenly jumped to his feet.  Turns out I had the cinch on too tight and just the right adjustment allowed him to expand his lungs.  He just wasn't getting enough air to his brain and muscles during exertion.  Went to girths with elastic in them after that day and won't ever overtighten again.

Also, once a friend of mine had a mule at the end of a pack string that fell off a precipice on a steep high alpine trial when the animal before her knocked some rocks loose.  They wrote her off for dead and kept moving the string along.  There was clearly no way that mule could've survived.  So imagine their surprise when at supper that night at a camp all the stock started whinnying to the site of this mule running up to camp...cuts and bruises but no broken bones.  All they lost were the packs and one saddle she'd torn off or fell off during her fall.

Mules can be amazingly stubborn creatures and are very sure footed.  It ain't over until the fat mule sings..


----------



## deltex1

Why don't you fags just go fuck each other and shut up already.  Corn holing your husband is not the major issue of the day...in or out of the church pew.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> Why don't you fags just go fuck each other and shut up already.  Corn holing your husband is not the major issue of the day...in or out of the church pew.


Why don't you just deal with the fact that the faggots won and you lost?


----------



## deltex1

PaintMyHouse said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you fags just go fuck each other and shut up already.  Corn holing your husband is not the major issue of the day...in or out of the church pew.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just deal with the fact that the faggots won and you lost?
Click to expand...

I lost nothing...they gained a myth.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you fags just go fuck each other and shut up already.  Corn holing your husband is not the major issue of the day...in or out of the church pew.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just deal with the fact that the faggots won and you lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I lost nothing...they gained a myth.
Click to expand...

Good to know, but your opinion matters not a damn.


----------



## deltex1

PaintMyHouse said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you fags just go fuck each other and shut up already.  Corn holing your husband is not the major issue of the day...in or out of the church pew.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just deal with the fact that the faggots won and you lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I lost nothing...they gained a myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good to know, but your opinion matters not a damn.
Click to expand...

Then we're even.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you fags just go fuck each other and shut up already.  Corn holing your husband is not the major issue of the day...in or out of the church pew.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just deal with the fact that the faggots won and you lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I lost nothing...they gained a myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good to know, but your opinion matters not a damn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then we're even.
Click to expand...

Only my side won...


----------



## deltex1

Won nothing.  You won the right to call yourself a woman...but you'll never have a ****.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> Won nothing.  You won the right to call yourself a woman...but you'll never have a ****.


I've been married longer than you've been alive, chances are.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won nothing.  You won the right to call yourself a woman...but you'll never have a ****.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been married longer than you've been alive, chances are.
Click to expand...

My sympathies go out to the bitch that was dumb enough to marry you.


----------



## Jackinthebox

Should churches be forced to accommodate incestual weddings? First cousins is legal in NY, but not in other states.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won nothing.  You won the right to call yourself a woman...but you'll never have a ****.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been married longer than you've been alive, chances are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My sympathies go out to the bitch that was dumb enough to marry you.
Click to expand...

Be polite.  You're supposed to be Pro-Family, remember?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Jackinthebox said:


> Should churches be forced to accommodate incestual weddings? First cousins is legal in NY, but not in other states.


Not if they don't wish to, same as all the rest.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won nothing.  You won the right to call yourself a woman...but you'll never have a ****.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been married longer than you've been alive, chances are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My sympathies go out to the bitch that was dumb enough to marry you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be polite.  You're supposed to be Pro-Family, remember?
Click to expand...


That was polite.  I'm pro family but some families, or at least part of them, need sympathy because of the one they married.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won nothing.  You won the right to call yourself a woman...but you'll never have a ****.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been married longer than you've been alive, chances are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My sympathies go out to the bitch that was dumb enough to marry you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be polite.  You're supposed to be Pro-Family, remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was polite.  I'm pro family but some families, or at least part of them, need sympathy because of the one they married.
Click to expand...

That version of polite would have found you over a knee in my house.  Who raised you, wolves?


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won nothing.  You won the right to call yourself a woman...but you'll never have a ****.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been married longer than you've been alive, chances are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My sympathies go out to the bitch that was dumb enough to marry you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be polite.  You're supposed to be Pro-Family, remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was polite.  I'm pro family but some families, or at least part of them, need sympathy because of the one they married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That version of polite would have found you over a knee in my house.  Who raised you, wolves?
Click to expand...


Since I'm not in your house, don't work for you, nor do you sign my check, that's irrelevant.  I was raised by people who expected you to tell the truth despite how much it hurt the one hearing it.  Don't like political incorrectness, tough shit old man.  I wasn't put on Earth to say the way you want to hear it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been married longer than you've been alive, chances are.
> 
> 
> 
> My sympathies go out to the bitch that was dumb enough to marry you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be polite.  You're supposed to be Pro-Family, remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was polite.  I'm pro family but some families, or at least part of them, need sympathy because of the one they married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That version of polite would have found you over a knee in my house.  Who raised you, wolves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was raised by people who expected you to tell the truth despite how much it hurt the one hearing it.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you were raised by wolves, got it now.  And I hate PC, it gets in the way, but I was raised to be polite and at times that means lying.


----------



## deltex1

PaintMyHouse said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won nothing.  You won the right to call yourself a woman...but you'll never have a ****.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been married longer than you've been alive, chances are.
Click to expand...

I apologize...I never imagined you were a hundred years old.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My sympathies go out to the bitch that was dumb enough to marry you.
> 
> 
> 
> Be polite.  You're supposed to be Pro-Family, remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was polite.  I'm pro family but some families, or at least part of them, need sympathy because of the one they married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That version of polite would have found you over a knee in my house.  Who raised you, wolves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was raised by people who expected you to tell the truth despite how much it hurt the one hearing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you were raised by wolves, got it now.  And I hate PC, it gets in the way, but I was raised to be polite and at times that means lying.
Click to expand...


So you admit you're a liar.  Sounds to me like you were raised by liars.   That you are willing to lie when the truth needs to be told and call it being polite, you do like PC.  You admitted you practice it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won nothing.  You won the right to call yourself a woman...but you'll never have a ****.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been married longer than you've been alive, chances are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I apologize...I never imagined you were a hundred years old.
Click to expand...

No fool like an old fool then.  You win, you're both old and stupid.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be polite.  You're supposed to be Pro-Family, remember?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was polite.  I'm pro family but some families, or at least part of them, need sympathy because of the one they married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That version of polite would have found you over a knee in my house.  Who raised you, wolves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was raised by people who expected you to tell the truth despite how much it hurt the one hearing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you were raised by wolves, got it now.  And I hate PC, it gets in the way, but I was raised to be polite and at times that means lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit you're a liar.  Sounds to me like you were raised by liars.   That you are willing to lie when the truth needs to be told and call it being polite, you do like PC.  You admitted you practice it.
Click to expand...

I lie to be polite, and I am anything but PC.  You should learn The Noble Lie:Noble lie - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Most adults lie three times a day BTW, and kids even more.  Lying makes the world go round since if you didn't believe that those little green pieces of paper we carry around to trade with had value, they wouldn't.


----------



## deltex1

PaintMyHouse said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won nothing.  You won the right to call yourself a woman...but you'll never have a ****.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been married longer than you've been alive, chances are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I apologize...I never imagined you were a hundred years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fool like an old fool then.  You win, you're both old and stupid.
Click to expand...

And you're young(er) and gay...with a calloused asshole.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won nothing.  You won the right to call yourself a woman...but you'll never have a ****.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been married longer than you've been alive, chances are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I apologize...I never imagined you were a hundred years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fool like an old fool then.  You win, you're both old and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're young(er) and gay...with a calloused asshole.
Click to expand...

Straight actually, and your homophobia will be gone soon enough, as well you.


----------



## deltex1

PaintMyHouse said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won nothing.  You won the right to call yourself a woman...but you'll never have a ****.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been married longer than you've been alive, chances are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I apologize...I never imagined you were a hundred years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fool like an old fool then.  You win, you're both old and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're young(er) and gay...with a calloused asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straight actually, and your homophobia will be gone soon enough, as well you.
Click to expand...

So you say, Shaquille.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been married longer than you've been alive, chances are.
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize...I never imagined you were a hundred years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fool like an old fool then.  You win, you're both old and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're young(er) and gay...with a calloused asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straight actually, and your homophobia will be gone soon enough, as well you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say, Shaquille.
Click to expand...

That I do Cracker.  Or in this case, Cracker with one foot in the grave.


----------



## deltex1

Come a bit closer...you'll have one foot up your ass.


----------



## Jarlaxle

PaintMyHouse said:


> That version of polite would have found you over a knee in my house.  Who raised you, wolves?



Please do not air your sexual perversions on this forum.  Those discussions should be limited to you and your shrink.


----------



## Jarlaxle

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My sympathies go out to the bitch that was dumb enough to marry you.
> 
> 
> 
> Be polite.  You're supposed to be Pro-Family, remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was polite.  I'm pro family but some families, or at least part of them, need sympathy because of the one they married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That version of polite would have found you over a knee in my house.  Who raised you, wolves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was raised by people who expected you to tell the truth despite how much it hurt the one hearing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you were raised by wolves, got it now.  And I hate PC, it gets in the way, but I was raised to be polite and at times that means lying.
Click to expand...


In other words: you are a two-faced weasel raised by two-faced weasels.


----------



## Conservative65

Jarlaxle said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be polite.  You're supposed to be Pro-Family, remember?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was polite.  I'm pro family but some families, or at least part of them, need sympathy because of the one they married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That version of polite would have found you over a knee in my house.  Who raised you, wolves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was raised by people who expected you to tell the truth despite how much it hurt the one hearing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you were raised by wolves, got it now.  And I hate PC, it gets in the way, but I was raised to be polite and at times that means lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words: you are a two-faced weasel raised by two-faced weasels.
Click to expand...


He admitted it's OK to lie.  Not much character there.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was polite.  I'm pro family but some families, or at least part of them, need sympathy because of the one they married.
> 
> 
> 
> That version of polite would have found you over a knee in my house.  Who raised you, wolves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was raised by people who expected you to tell the truth despite how much it hurt the one hearing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you were raised by wolves, got it now.  And I hate PC, it gets in the way, but I was raised to be polite and at times that means lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words: you are a two-faced weasel raised by two-faced weasels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He admitted it's OK to lie.  Not much character there.
Click to expand...

Lying is more than okay, it's even necessary for one to be polite, or to govern for that matter, but you were raised by wolves so there you go.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Jarlaxle said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be polite.  You're supposed to be Pro-Family, remember?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was polite.  I'm pro family but some families, or at least part of them, need sympathy because of the one they married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That version of polite would have found you over a knee in my house.  Who raised you, wolves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was raised by people who expected you to tell the truth despite how much it hurt the one hearing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you were raised by wolves, got it now.  And I hate PC, it gets in the way, but I was raised to be polite and at times that means lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words: you are a two-faced weasel raised by two-faced weasels.
Click to expand...

Nope.  Are you a child by chance?  Only they are told not to lie.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Jarlaxle said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> That version of polite would have found you over a knee in my house.  Who raised you, wolves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not air your sexual perversions on this forum.  Those discussions should be limited to you and your shrink.
Click to expand...

Spankings, naps. and vegetables, things children hate and adults enjoy.  Sorry little man.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> That version of polite would have found you over a knee in my house.  Who raised you, wolves?
> 
> 
> 
> I was raised by people who expected you to tell the truth despite how much it hurt the one hearing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you were raised by wolves, got it now.  And I hate PC, it gets in the way, but I was raised to be polite and at times that means lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words: you are a two-faced weasel raised by two-faced weasels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He admitted it's OK to lie.  Not much character there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying is more than okay, it's even necessary for one to be polite, or to govern for that matter, but you were raised by wolves so there you go.
Click to expand...


That's show your low level character much like the trash that butt fucked and shit you out.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was polite.  I'm pro family but some families, or at least part of them, need sympathy because of the one they married.
> 
> 
> 
> That version of polite would have found you over a knee in my house.  Who raised you, wolves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was raised by people who expected you to tell the truth despite how much it hurt the one hearing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you were raised by wolves, got it now.  And I hate PC, it gets in the way, but I was raised to be polite and at times that means lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words: you are a two-faced weasel raised by two-faced weasels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Are you a child by chance?  Only they are told not to lie.
Click to expand...


That you think lying is OK shows low character.  If you have to lie to get ahead it means you have no ability to do so on your own.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> That version of polite would have found you over a knee in my house.  Who raised you, wolves?
> 
> 
> 
> I was raised by people who expected you to tell the truth despite how much it hurt the one hearing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you were raised by wolves, got it now.  And I hate PC, it gets in the way, but I was raised to be polite and at times that means lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words: you are a two-faced weasel raised by two-faced weasels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Are you a child by chance?  Only they are told not to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you think lying is OK shows low character.  If you have to lie to get ahead it means you have no ability to do so on your own.
Click to expand...

Not get ahead, get along.  Are you a child?  That's the kind of thing they would say.


----------



## Silhouette

What is more disturbing that Paint lying and saying it's OK to lie is that he's lying about the poll at the top of the page.  And he knows that if his LGBT cult pulls off their coup by the illegal lower circuit decisions attempting to overrule Baker 1971 and Windsor 2013, before the ink is dry on any gay marriage federal mandate there will be lawsuits filed upon churches and the temple of the individual christian's mind to force this cult's lifestyle-dogma onto those that cannot practice or aide it in any way (those that believe the mortal mandate of Jude 1 of the New Testament)..


----------



## deltex1

At least we got the conversation off the OP.  Now maybe this woeful thread will die.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

This thread is in Zone 2.  Stick to the topic and not each other.


----------



## Silhouette

deltex1 said:


> At least we got the conversation off the OP. Now maybe this woeful thread will die.





Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> This thread is in Zone 2.  Stick to the topic and not each other.


With the previous post, I direct the moderator to note that a deliberate wish on behalf of the LGBT sock puppetry guild that this thread would be killed by a flame war or other such manufactured "thread-killing" diversion.

Again, the thread should not pay the price for the actions of those intent on killing it purposefully through artifice.  They want those unbelievably weighty numbers in the poll to disappear forever.  That has been their game all along.  Those numbers hugely interfere with smoke and mirrors.  Their zeal for concealing the truth to paint a new reality to the liking of their dogma in preference and domination over christian principles is concerning.

Kudos to the staff here for maintaining freedom of speech.  And now we all see what diabolical lengths those intent on suppressing free speech will go to.

If I ran a website, one of the worst offenses that would get posters permanently banned would be this type of artifice geared to suppress free speech in others.  Your free speech limits stop right at the threshold of forcibly depriving others of them using artifice.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Bible-believing churches to host ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive when we know we could easily find other churches or facilities that would be willing to host the ceremonies?
> 
> *And should we use anti-discrimination laws to force Christian photographers to attend and service ceremonies that we know they will find morally offensive* when we know we could easily find other photographers who would not mind servicing the ceremonies?
> 
> If the gay rights crowd would practice a little tolerance and respect, this would not even be an issue. It's not that they "need" to hold their ceremonies in conservative churches or "need" to have Christian photographers service their ceremonies--it's that they want to do so because they want to insult and humiliate conservative Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not merely "morally offensive" to christians.  If you read Jude 1, it is a FUCKING MANDATE, that if they are foolish enough to ignore in favor of social expediency or some other such secular pressures, they are thrown into the pit of fire for eternity as if they were worse than the homosexual culture they failed to prevent advancing.
> 
> I mean, right in Jude 1 it discusses precisely how secular pressures have been used in the past and would be used again in the future to make christians promote a homosexual subculture.
Click to expand...




Silhouette said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least we got the conversation off the OP. Now maybe this woeful thread will die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is in Zone 2.  Stick to the topic and not each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With the previous post, I direct the moderator to note that a deliberate wish on behalf of the LGBT sock puppetry guild that this thread would be killed by a flame war or other such manufactured "thread-killing" diversion.
> 
> Again, the thread should not pay the price for the actions of those intent on killing it purposefully through artifice.  They want those unbelievably weighty numbers in the poll to disappear forever.  That has been their game all along.  Those numbers hugely interfere with smoke and mirrors.  Their zeal for concealing the truth to paint a new reality to the liking of their dogma in preference and domination over christian principles is concerning.
> 
> Kudos to the staff here for maintaining freedom of speech.  And now we all see what diabolical lengths those intent on suppressing free speech will go to.
> 
> If I ran a website, one of the worst offenses that would get posters permanently banned would be this type of artifice geared to suppress free speech in others.  Your free speech limits stop right at the threshold of forcibly depriving others of them using artifice.
Click to expand...


On point- no church will ever be forced to accomodate homosexual, or black or jewish or Armenian weddings- or should be.

Just as no Catholic Church has ever been forced to marry a jewish couple, no church will ever be forced to marry any couple that does not meet that church's requirements.


----------



## deltex1

I, for one, am not trying to stifle free speech...I just grow weary of beating dead horses.  The point has been made.  Move on....I say.


----------



## Seawytch

deltex1 said:


> I, for one, am not trying to stifle free speech...I just grow weary of beating dead horses.  The point has been made.  Move on....I say.



Little tip for you...commenting in the thread keeps it alive.


----------



## deltex1

Thanks for the tip...so stop keeping it alive.  This reply will disappear in 30 seconds.


----------



## Jarlaxle

PaintMyHouse said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> That version of polite would have found you over a knee in my house.  Who raised you, wolves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not air your sexual perversions on this forum.  Those discussions should be limited to you and your shrink.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spankings, naps. and vegetables, things children hate and adults enjoy.  Sorry little man.
Click to expand...


Toddlers, old men, and pregnant women enjoy naps.  Which one are you...a crochety old fart, a child, or a pregnant woman?


----------



## Jarlaxle

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was raised by people who expected you to tell the truth despite how much it hurt the one hearing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so you were raised by wolves, got it now.  And I hate PC, it gets in the way, but I was raised to be polite and at times that means lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words: you are a two-faced weasel raised by two-faced weasels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Are you a child by chance?  Only they are told not to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you think lying is OK shows low character.  If you have to lie to get ahead it means you have no ability to do so on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not get ahead, get along.  Are you a child?  That's the kind of thing they would say.
Click to expand...


I get along fine without being a two-faced weasel.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Jarlaxle said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so you were raised by wolves, got it now.  And I hate PC, it gets in the way, but I was raised to be polite and at times that means lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words: you are a two-faced weasel raised by two-faced weasels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Are you a child by chance?  Only they are told not to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you think lying is OK shows low character.  If you have to lie to get ahead it means you have no ability to do so on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not get ahead, get along.  Are you a child?  That's the kind of thing they would say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get along fine without being a two-faced weasel.
Click to expand...

Mr. President, when do we bomb Iran?
Honey, does this dress make me look fat?
Daddy, how does Santa get down the chimney?

If you can't lie well in all three cases, you're a child not a man.   Lying makes the world go round, especially the Nobel Lie.


----------



## Silhouette

You can also steal and cheat too.  Don't forget.  You can murder or really do anything you want as long as you justify it in your mind...

Let us know when you touch back to reality.  You say "since no man is perfect, perfection is a stupid ideal".  So you remove the brass ring and pray for helter-skelter.  The Manson family would have loved you. 

You are an evil person Paint.  You are the reason religion exists in the first place.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> You can also steal and cheat too.  Don't forget.  You can murder or really do anything you want as long as you justify it in your mind...
> 
> Let us know when you touch back to reality.  You say "since no man is perfect, perfection is a stupid ideal".  So you remove the brass ring and pray for helter-skelter.  The Manson family would have loved you.
> 
> You are an evil person Paint.  You are the reason religion exists in the first place.


Men are the reason that religion exists and men are evil therefore, religion is evil. However, lying can be a very kind and even necessary thing.  Only child believe lying is bad.  Lying, like anything other human thing, is a tool.  Use it properly and it will serve you, and others, well.


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> Men are the reason that religion exists and men are evil therefore, religion is evil. However, lying can be a very kind and even necessary thing.  Only child believe lying is bad.  Lying, like anything other human thing, is a tool.  Use it properly and it will serve you, and others, well.


Well, that's what you think.

Thankfully most of us are here striving to better ourselves.  Sometimes keeping your mouth shut is better than lying..


----------



## Jarlaxle

PaintMyHouse said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words: you are a two-faced weasel raised by two-faced weasels.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Are you a child by chance?  Only they are told not to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you think lying is OK shows low character.  If you have to lie to get ahead it means you have no ability to do so on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not get ahead, get along.  Are you a child?  That's the kind of thing they would say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get along fine without being a two-faced weasel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. President, when do we bomb Iran?
> Honey, does this dress make me look fat?
> Daddy, how does Santa get down the chimney?
> 
> If you can't lie well in all three cases, you're a child not a man.   Lying makes the world go round, especially the Nobel Lie.
Click to expand...


Stop tap-dancing.  You are (still) a dishonest, two-faced weasel.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Song seemingly written with PMH in mind...


----------



## Silhouette

Jarlaxle said:


> Stop tap-dancing.  You are (still) a dishonest, two-faced weasel.


 
Now now Jar Jar.  You're just mad that I nailed Paint.  

BTW, it's two tin soldiers, not just one.  Me and Judge Sutton of the 6th circuit....well there's a few tens of million others too.  Check this Fall's election results...or the poll results at the top of this page and get back to me..


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Well, the Issue noted by the OP was largely responsible for the Landslide Victory of Conservatives in the last two elections, wherein well over 1200 Democrats were dismissed from Public office across the US, in every facet of Local, State and Federal Governance.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop tap-dancing.  You are (still) a dishonest, two-faced weasel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now now Jar Jar.  You're just mad that I nailed Paint.
> 
> BTW, it's two tin soldiers, not just one.  Me and Judge Sutton of the 6th circuit....well there's a few tens of million others too.  Check this Fall's election results...or the poll results at the top of this page and get back to me..
Click to expand...


If I wanted your opinion, bitch, I would give it to you.  You're also a two-faced weasel, but unlike PMH, you do not revel in it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil still insists she understands Sutton and represents America on this issue


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Jarlaxle said:


> Song seemingly written with PMH in mind...


Haven't heard that in about 30 years.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men are the reason that religion exists and men are evil therefore, religion is evil. However, lying can be a very kind and even necessary thing.  Only child believe lying is bad.  Lying, like anything other human thing, is a tool.  Use it properly and it will serve you, and others, well.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's what you think.
> 
> Thankfully most of us are here striving to better ourselves.  Sometimes keeping your mouth shut is better than lying..
Click to expand...

Your better self needs to learn how to lie, and when.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Jarlaxle said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop tap-dancing.  You are (still) a dishonest, two-faced weasel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now now Jar Jar.  You're just mad that I nailed Paint.
> 
> BTW, it's two tin soldiers, not just one.  Me and Judge Sutton of the 6th circuit....well there's a few tens of million others too.  Check this Fall's election results...or the poll results at the top of this page and get back to me..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I wanted your opinion, bitch, I would give it to you.  You're also a two-faced weasel, but unlike PMH, you do not revel in it.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!  I SO adore the sweeter ironies.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Is that a side effect of the ditch weed you smoked?


----------



## beagle9

I know one thing, sil can sure light'em up in here...LOL


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Now now Jar Jar.  You're just mad that I nailed Paint.
> 
> BTW, it's two tin soldiers, not just one.  Me and Judge Sutton of the 6th circuit....well there's a few tens of million others too.  Check this Fall's election results...or the poll results at the top of this page and get back to me..


 


Jarlaxle said:


> If I wanted your opinion, bitch, I would give it to you.  You're also a two-faced weasel, but unlike PMH, you do not revel in it.


 
Ha, got busy and missed this little gem from Jar Jar.  



Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ROFLMNAO!  I SO adore the sweeter ironies.


 
I know, right?


----------



## Silhouette

Jar Jar is just really mad that this thread exposes the fact that 82% of Americans feel same sex marriage doesn't belong forced into christian establishments; which would also include the minds of the faithful.  So that really reflects poorly on any numbers his cult claims are "in support of gay marriage".  If they're in support, it is very lukewarm indeed.  Look at the way the "no" question was worded...  And the vast number of people who voted here.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Jar Jar is just really mad that this thread exposes the fact that 82% of Americans feel same sex marriage doesn't belong forced into christian .



Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.

Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Jar Jar is just really mad that this thread exposes the fact that 82% of Americans feel same sex marriage doesn't belong forced into christian establishments; which would also include the minds of the faithful.  So that really reflects poorly on any numbers his cult claims are "in support of gay marriage".  If they're in support, it is very lukewarm indeed.  Look at the way the "no" question was worded...  And the vast number of people who voted here.



No, Silly, you are lying, again and still.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jar Jar is just really mad that this thread exposes the fact that 82% of Americans feel same sex marriage doesn't belong forced into christian .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.
> 
> Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans.
Click to expand...



I don't know, they forced or tried to force a Christian Cake Baker to capitulate on the issue, and this instead of respecting his religious views and lifestyle in which he lives, but they weren't going to stand for it were they ? Then they attacked Phil of Duck Dynasty because he is a Christian, next it was the Dugger family , and then there is the Christian Photographer and on and on it all goes. I mean do you blame anyone for being skeptical about what these people are up to, and how far they are willing to go in order to silence all opposition to their lifestyle choices in America ? The Christians because of what the Bible teaches them, I think is one of their biggest targets to deal with by them, and that is why you see the Christians being attacked like they are now, and it is why everything that is Christian is attempted to be taken down or made an outcast in society now, so stay tuned is all I'm saying because they and the atheist or others who oppose Christian power in society, aren't done yet by no stretch of the imagination.. It can only get worse for the Christians as times are changing faster than a speeding locomotive now, and the way things are changing seems to put the Christians right in the bulls eye of these groups as they gain more and more power.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jar Jar is just really mad that this thread exposes the fact that 82% of Americans feel same sex marriage doesn't belong forced into christian .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.
> 
> Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, they forced or tried to force a Christian Cake Baker to capitulate on the issue, .
Click to expand...


Business's are not churches. 

Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.

Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jar Jar is just really mad that this thread exposes the fact that 82% of Americans feel same sex marriage doesn't belong forced into christian .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.
> 
> Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, they forced or tried to force a Christian Cake Baker to capitulate on the issue, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Business's are not churches.
> 
> Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.
> 
> Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans
Click to expand...

If there were only a certain amount businesses in America to choose from, then I might understand your position on things, but that isn't the case at all an you know it. So the only thing I can think of is that this is all agenda driven, and not so much about the suggesting that they are refusing their very important life sustaining services to you, and you just have no place else to go, but it's more about let's set them up and then destroy them and their bigotry and/or belief systems.


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jar Jar is just really mad that this thread exposes the fact that 82% of Americans feel same sex marriage doesn't belong forced into christian .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.
> 
> Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, they forced or tried to force a Christian Cake Baker to capitulate on the issue, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Business's are not churches.
> 
> Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.
> 
> Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there were only a certain amount businesses in America to choose from, then I might understand your position on things, but that isn't the case at all an you know it. So the only thing I can think of is that this is all agenda driven, and not so much about the suggesting that they are refusing their very important life sustaining services to you, and you just have no place else to go, but it's more about let's set them up and then destroy them and their bigotry and/or belief systems.
Click to expand...



Allow me to direct your attention to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title II:

_TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

OOOSEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. _

Either repeal it and abolish all PA laws or STFU because in some places they _also _protect gays.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

If those who oppose gay marriage were smart , they would claim that homosexuality is a mental defect and therefor those who are gay are legally not able to consent to ANY marriage

And use SeaBytch and Bodecea as proof of this mental illness.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> If those who oppose gay marriage were smart , they would claim that homosexuality is a mental defect and therefor those who are gay are legally not able to consent to ANY marriage
> 
> And use SeaBytch and Bodecea as proof of this mental illness.



Oh look, Dumber than a Doornail has decided that he can't discuss the actual topic anymore and instead has resorted to animus and deflection. Well played!


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jar Jar is just really mad that this thread exposes the fact that 82% of Americans feel same sex marriage doesn't belong forced into christian .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.
> 
> Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, they forced or tried to force a Christian Cake Baker to capitulate on the issue, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Business's are not churches.
> 
> Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.
> 
> Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there were only a certain amount businesses in America to choose from, then I might understand your position on things, but that isn't the case at all an you know it. So the only thing I can think of is that this is all agenda driven, and not so much about the suggesting that they are refusing their very important life sustaining services to you, and you just have no place else to go, but it's more about let's set them up and then destroy them and their bigotry and/or belief systems.
Click to expand...


What part of business's are not churches do you not understand?

Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform

Any business which believes that their rights are being violated because they are being required by law to serve someone that they don't want to has the same options as anyone else- such as gay couples who want to get legally married- has to fight a law they disagree with- either:

a) legislatively change the law they disagree with or
b) fight the law in court, arguing that it is unconstitutional.

These business owners have the same legal options to fight what they consider unconstitutional laws as gay couples who have fought laws against same gender marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> If those who oppose gay marriage were smart , they would claim that homosexuality is a mental defect and therefor those who are gay are legally not able to consent to ANY marriage
> 
> And use SeaBytch and Bodecea as proof of this mental illness.



Yeah- you are just a font of honest observation.


----------



## mdk

Another day, another church not being forced to marry a gay couple. Maybe tomorrow will be different...


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> If those who oppose gay marriage were smart , they would claim that homosexuality is a mental defect and therefor those who are gay are legally not able to consent to ANY marriage
> 
> And use SeaBytch and Bodecea as proof of this mental illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- you are just a font of honest observation.
Click to expand...


Indeed, and you just well. Dumb


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Another day, another church not being forced to marry a gay couple. Maybe tomorrow will be different...


 Only if federal court procedures are suspended and lower courts are allowed to overrule SCOTUS effectively a la Windsor 2013 from underneath.

Then yes, the moment that ink is dry, lawsuits around the country will be manufactured, revolving around "churches that provide a service to the public that are discriminating against gay people"... You can set your watch by it...


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another day, another church not being forced to marry a gay couple. Maybe tomorrow will be different...
> 
> 
> 
> Only if federal court procedures are suspended and lower courts are allowed to overrule SCOTUS effectively a la Windsor 2013 from underneath.
> 
> Then yes, the moment that ink is dry, lawsuits around the country will be manufactured, revolving around "churches that provide a service to the public that are discriminating against gay people"... You can set your watch by it...
Click to expand...


I don't think I'll set my watch by it. Not a single church has been forced to marry anyone aganist their wishes. I am sure some idiot will try and sue but it will be laughed out of court, just like all of your anti-gay marriage talking points have been on numerous occasions.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> I don't think I'll set my watch by it. *Not a single church has been forced to marry anyone aganist their wishes*. I am sure some idiot will try and sue but it will be laughed out of court, just like all of your anti-gay marriage talking points have been on numerous occasions.


 
Yet....


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'll set my watch by it. *Not a single church has been forced to marry anyone aganist their wishes*. I am sure some idiot will try and sue but it will be laughed out of court, just like all of your anti-gay marriage talking points have been on numerous occasions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet....
Click to expand...


Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?


Not yet.  But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.

Can you imagine that?


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> If those who oppose gay marriage were smart , they would claim that homosexuality is a mental defect and therefor those who are gay are legally not able to consent to ANY marriage
> 
> And use SeaBytch and Bodecea as proof of this mental illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- you are just a font of honest observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, and you just well. Dumb
Click to expand...


LOL....I can speak just fine. But thanks for contributing another one of your 'special' insights.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.  But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Can you imagine that?
Click to expand...


Any idiot can file a lawsuit- even you. But any such lawsuit would be dismissed- because Churches cannot be forced to marry blacks, Jews, homosexuals, or anyone else that they do not believe that they should not marry.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.  But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Can you imagine that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any idiot can file a lawsuit- even you. But any such lawsuit would be dismissed- because Churches cannot be forced to marry blacks, Jews, homosexuals, or anyone else that they do not believe that they should not marry.
Click to expand...



Oh really? Please do explain what the legal basis for such an opinion would be? You're wrong, under current PA laws there is certainly room for a judge to rule that a church MUST perform weddings.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.  But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Can you imagine that?
Click to expand...


You clearly do not understand public accommodation laws. There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.  But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Can you imagine that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any idiot can file a lawsuit- even you. But any such lawsuit would be dismissed- because Churches cannot be forced to marry blacks, Jews, homosexuals, or anyone else that they do not believe that they should not marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? Please do explain what the legal basis for such an opinion would be? You're wrong, under current PA laws there is certainly room for a judge to rule that a church MUST perform weddings.
Click to expand...


Feel free to cite such current PA law.

The legal basis is quite simple- 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; - See more at: First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

Churches are treated differently than non-churches- which is why they have a different tax status among other things. 

But if you feel otherwise- feel free to file a lawsuit- unless you are a Catholic, you cannot be married in a Catholic Church- feel free to file a lawsuit to say that your rights are being violated by the Catholic Church not allowing you to marry in your local Cathedral.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> You clearly do not understand public accommodation laws. *There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone*.


 
Yet....


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand public accommodation laws. *There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet....
Click to expand...



In all the years public accommodation laws have been in place not a single protected class has forced a church to marry them against their wishes. Not one. I know that doesn't fit your narrative but it is fact nonetheless. 

I suspect the closer the SC gets to ruling on this issue the more you'll ratchet up the fear mongering and pearl clutching.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jar Jar is just really mad that this thread exposes the fact that 82% of Americans feel same sex marriage doesn't belong forced into christian .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.
> 
> Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, they forced or tried to force a Christian Cake Baker to capitulate on the issue, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Business's are not churches.
> 
> Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.
> 
> Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans
Click to expand...


Riiiight.  So we should just trust you that you're ONLY going to violate the First Amendment rights of businesses and private citizens, but you'll DEFINITELY stop at the rights of churches . . . because why?


----------



## Nutz

The government telling churches what their believes have to be is unconstitutional.  I would join the tea party wackos in their efforts to violently overthrow the government if any such law were passed. I would be the one guy fighting for the black churches, keeping the teapers from starting a race war in that effort.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> If those who oppose gay marriage were smart , they would claim that homosexuality is a mental defect and therefor those who are gay are legally not able to consent to ANY marriage
> 
> And use SeaBytch and Bodecea as proof of this mental illness.



Many of us DO consider homosexuality a mental defect.  However, it generally doesn't render people incompetent and non-functional.  That requires liberalism.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Cecilie1200 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> If those who oppose gay marriage were smart , they would claim that homosexuality is a mental defect and therefor those who are gay are legally not able to consent to ANY marriage
> 
> And use SeaBytch and Bodecea as proof of this mental illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of us DO consider homosexuality a mental defect.  However, it generally doesn't render people incompetent and non-functional.  That requires liberalism.
Click to expand...

You and others on the right are at liberty to believe whatever you wish, and to exhibit your ignorance and unwarranted hate in the process, as homosexuality is in fact not a 'mental defect.'


----------



## Cecilie1200

mdk said:


> Another day, another church not being forced to marry a gay couple. Maybe tomorrow will be different...



"Another day, another Christian not being herded into the gulags" . . . until the day came that they were.

Only a dumbfuck or a liar thinks that "Ignore the buildup because it's not the actual crisis" is a good plan.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> If those who oppose gay marriage were smart , they would claim that homosexuality is a mental defect and therefor those who are gay are legally not able to consent to ANY marriage
> 
> And use SeaBytch and Bodecea as proof of this mental illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of us DO consider homosexuality a mental defect.  However, it generally doesn't render people incompetent and non-functional.  That requires liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and others on the right are at liberty to believe whatever you wish, and to exhibit your ignorance and unwarranted hate in the process, as homosexuality is in fact not a 'mental defect.'
Click to expand...


Please show where I said I believe homosexuality is a mental defect...


----------



## mdk

Cecilie1200 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another day, another church not being forced to marry a gay couple. Maybe tomorrow will be different...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Another day, another Christian not being herded into the gulags" . . . until the day came that they were.
> 
> Only a dumbfuck or a liar thinks that "Ignore the buildup because it's not the actual crisis" is a good plan.
Click to expand...


How hysterically dramatic. lol


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand public accommodation laws. *There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet....
Click to expand...

This is unsurprisingly ignorant.

Public accommodations laws are authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence allowing for necessary and proper regulation of the local market and all interrelated markets, having nothing to do whatsoever with private organizations such as churches.

As already correctly noted, there has never been a single case of public accommodations law being used to compel a church to marry anyone against the will of the church members, nor will this ever happen – to maintain otherwise is unfounded demagoguery.


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> If those who oppose gay marriage were smart , they would claim that homosexuality is a mental defect and therefor those who are gay are legally not able to consent to ANY marriage
> 
> And use SeaBytch and Bodecea as proof of this mental illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of us DO consider homosexuality a mental defect.  However, it generally doesn't render people incompetent and non-functional.  That requires liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and others on the right are at liberty to believe whatever you wish, and to exhibit your ignorance and unwarranted hate in the process, as homosexuality is in fact not a 'mental defect.'
Click to expand...


Oh, well, since YOU say so, that just settles everything, doesn't it?

Rumors of your importance are greatly exaggerated.


----------



## Cecilie1200

mdk said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another day, another church not being forced to marry a gay couple. Maybe tomorrow will be different...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Another day, another Christian not being herded into the gulags" . . . until the day came that they were.
> 
> Only a dumbfuck or a liar thinks that "Ignore the buildup because it's not the actual crisis" is a good plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How hysterically dramatic. lol
Click to expand...


It's definitely convincing when you protest that our rights are not under attack . . . by using the exact same dismissals, word for word, that were used then.

The more you tell us you aren't a threat, the more like a threat you sound.

USSR anti-religious campaign 1921 28 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The elimination of all religion and its replacement with atheism supported with a materialist world view was a fundamental ideological goal of the state. To this end the state conducted anti-religious persecutions against believers that were meant to hurt and destroy religion. _It was never made illegal to be a believer or to have religion, and so the activities of this campaign were often veiled under other pretexts (usually resistance to the regime) that the state invoked or invented in order to justify its activities._

The tenth party congress met in early 1921 and issued the resolution "On Glavpolitprosvet and the Agitation: Propaganda Problems of the Party". This resolution called for_ "widescale organization, leadership, and cooperation in the task of anti-religious agitation and propaganda among the broad masses of the workers, using the mass media, films, books, lectures, and other devices.

Tikhon produced an encyclical on political neutrality and disengagement of the Church from worldly politics,_ and the official propaganda depicted it as a form of camouflage to hide his real aim of support for autocratic bourgeois-aristocracy._ Tikhon emphasized the freedom of the Church in the separation of Church and State and the duty of believers to be loyal to the state in civic matters, in as much as this did not contradict a Christian’s primary loyalty to God.

Faith had to be turned into a private affair and made as invisible as possible. The regime could not tolerate dynamic faith or popular religious leaders who could inspire and lead millions of people.
_
That was all just the FIRST ten-year program.  The people who said the Bolshevik Revolution would lead to mass killings and imprisonment of Christians just for being Christian were "hysterical and overdramatic" . . . until it happened.  The Nazis said they "just" wanted to move the Jews into ghettos, "just" make them wear the Star of David, "just" limit a few activities.  Chairman Mao "just" wanted . . . Pol Pot "just" wanted . . .  Tyranny doesn't start with mass murder and imprisonment.  It starts with "just" wanting something small, and then something else, and it's just so silly and hysterical to expect that it will EVER go farther.

Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  Those who lie about history and pretend it can't be repeated should be horsewhipped.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.  But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Can you imagine that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any idiot can file a lawsuit- even you. But any such lawsuit would be dismissed- because Churches cannot be forced to marry blacks, Jews, homosexuals, or anyone else that they do not believe that they should not marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? Please do explain what the legal basis for such an opinion would be? You're wrong, under current PA laws there is certainly room for a judge to rule that a church MUST perform weddings.
Click to expand...


Washington Senate Bill 6239

Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 26.04 RCW to read as follows:
(1) Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization
offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.
(2) A refusal by any religious organization to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage does not
create a civil claim or cause of action unless the organization offers those accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public in transactions governed by law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW.

Yeah, no plans whatsoever to bludgeon churches into silence and compliance . . . you lying sacks of leftist shit.


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> If those who oppose gay marriage were smart , they would claim that homosexuality is a mental defect and therefor those who are gay are legally not able to consent to ANY marriage
> 
> And use SeaBytch and Bodecea as proof of this mental illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of us DO consider homosexuality a mental defect.  However, it generally doesn't render people incompetent and non-functional.  That requires liberalism.
Click to expand...


Many of us DO consider bigotry and homophobia to be a mental defect. It often accompanies incompetency in being able to handle social situations. Luckily it doesn't affect all conservatives.


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jar Jar is just really mad that this thread exposes the fact that 82% of Americans feel same sex marriage doesn't belong forced into christian .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.
> 
> Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, they forced or tried to force a Christian Cake Baker to capitulate on the issue, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Business's are not churches.
> 
> Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.
> 
> Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiight.  So we should just trust you that you're ONLY going to violate the First Amendment rights of businesses and private citizens, but you'll DEFINITELY stop at the rights of churches . . . because why?
Click to expand...


LOL....I am not advocating violating the rights of anyone. 

IF you want to repeal the laws that require business's to do business with blacks or Jews or homosexuals- then you can take the same route that homosexuals have taken to repeal laws they  thought were unfair- you can either change the law legislatively or argue that the law is unconstitutional.

Meanwhile- I can tell the diffrence between a church and a business- and since no one has told a church in the 50 years since the civil rights act that a church must marry someone that the church doesn't want to, it isn't going to happen now.


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another day, another church not being forced to marry a gay couple. Maybe tomorrow will be different...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Another day, another Christian not being herded into the gulags" . . . until the day came that they were.
> 
> Only a dumbfuck or a liar thinks that "Ignore the buildup because it's not the actual crisis" is a good plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How hysterically dramatic. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's definitely convincing when you protest that our rights are not under attack . . . by using the exact same dismissals, word for word, that were used then.
> 
> The more you tell us you aren't a threat, the more like a threat you sound.
> 
> USSR anti-religious campaign 1921 28 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> The elimination of all religion and its replacement with atheism supported with a materialist world view was a fundamental ideological goal of the state. To this end the state conducted anti-religious persecutions against believers that were meant to hurt and destroy religion. _It was never made illegal to be a believer or to have religion, and so the activities of this campaign were often veiled under other pretexts (usually resistance to the regime) that the state invoked or invented in order to justify its activities._
> 
> The tenth party congress met in early 1921 and issued the resolution "On Glavpolitprosvet and the Agitation: Propaganda Problems of the Party". This resolution called for_ "widescale organization, leadership, and cooperation in the task of anti-religious agitation and propaganda among the broad masses of the workers, using the mass media, films, books, lectures, and other devices.
> 
> Tikhon produced an encyclical on political neutrality and disengagement of the Church from worldly politics,_ and the official propaganda depicted it as a form of camouflage to hide his real aim of support for autocratic bourgeois-aristocracy._ Tikhon emphasized the freedom of the Church in the separation of Church and State and the duty of believers to be loyal to the state in civic matters, in as much as this did not contradict a Christian’s primary loyalty to God.
> 
> Faith had to be turned into a private affair and made as invisible as possible. The regime could not tolerate dynamic faith or popular religious leaders who could inspire and lead millions of people.
> _
> That was all just the FIRST ten-year program.  The people who said the Bolshevik Revolution would lead to mass killings and imprisonment of Christians just for being Christian were "hysterical and overdramatic" . . . until it happened.  The Nazis said they "just" wanted to move the Jews into ghettos, "just" make them wear the Star of David, "just" limit a few activities.  Chairman Mao "just" wanted . . . Pol Pot "just" wanted . . .  Tyranny doesn't start with mass murder and imprisonment.  It starts with "just" wanting something small, and then something else, and it's just so silly and hysterical to expect that it will EVER go farther.
> 
> Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  Those who lie about history and pretend it can't be repeated should be horsewhipped.
Click to expand...


And that of course has nothing to do with the United States.

Here in the United States, we are all protected by the Constitution- and that includes churches and homosexuals.


----------



## Billy000

It blows my mind this thread has gone on for so long. The obvious answer to this question is NO. 82% of the people polled agree with me. Let's put the issue to bed.


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.  But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Can you imagine that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any idiot can file a lawsuit- even you. But any such lawsuit would be dismissed- because Churches cannot be forced to marry blacks, Jews, homosexuals, or anyone else that they do not believe that they should not marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? Please do explain what the legal basis for such an opinion would be? You're wrong, under current PA laws there is certainly room for a judge to rule that a church MUST perform weddings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Washington Senate Bill 6239
> 
> Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 26.04 RCW to read as follows:
> (1) Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization
> offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.
> (2) A refusal by any religious organization to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage does not
> create a civil claim or cause of action unless the organization offers those accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public in transactions governed by law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW.
> 
> Yeah, no plans whatsoever to bludgeon churches into silence and compliance . . . you lying sacks of leftist shit.
Click to expand...




Cecilie1200 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.  But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Can you imagine that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any idiot can file a lawsuit- even you. But any such lawsuit would be dismissed- because Churches cannot be forced to marry blacks, Jews, homosexuals, or anyone else that they do not believe that they should not marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? Please do explain what the legal basis for such an opinion would be? You're wrong, under current PA laws there is certainly room for a judge to rule that a church MUST perform weddings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Washington Senate Bill 6239
> 
> Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 26.04 RCW to read as follows:
> (1) Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization
> offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.
> (2) A refusal by any religious organization to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage does not
> create a civil claim or cause of action unless the organization offers those accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public in transactions governed by law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW.
> 
> Yeah, no plans whatsoever to bludgeon churches into silence and compliance . . . you lying sacks of leftist shit.
Click to expand...


I am not certain what you think you are proving. What you posted stated very unambiguously that religious organizations are not treated as public accomodations under the law. 

Nothing about 'bludgeoning churches into silence' at all. 

You lying sack of homophobic shit.


----------



## beagle9

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.  But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Can you imagine that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand *public accommodation laws*. There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone.
Click to expand...

All depends on who interprets the laws then doesn't it, because right now gay's are interpreting the laws to mean that a Christian Cake Baker has to bake a *customized* wedding cake for a Gay couple, and you know what ? No one saw that one coming either. The feds and it's cronyism for whom run the feds, well if they are looking for constituencies for new voting blocks to draw from, then you will see many issues stretched beyond ones imagination in this nation because no one rides for free, and if you think that is a lie, then just take a look backwards and you will see what goes on in it all.  People/huge groups are selling their votes to the feds, but it's all for something in return, and they know it, we know it, and everyone knows it now.  Sil is right when she says "maybe not yet", but stay tuned.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another day, another church not being forced to marry a gay couple. Maybe tomorrow will be different...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Another day, another Christian not being herded into the gulags" . . . until the day came that they were.
> 
> Only a dumbfuck or a liar thinks that "Ignore the buildup because it's not the actual crisis" is a good plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How hysterically dramatic. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's definitely convincing when you protest that our rights are not under attack . . . by using the exact same dismissals, word for word, that were used then.
> 
> The more you tell us you aren't a threat, the more like a threat you sound.
> 
> USSR anti-religious campaign 1921 28 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> The elimination of all religion and its replacement with atheism supported with a materialist world view was a fundamental ideological goal of the state. To this end the state conducted anti-religious persecutions against believers that were meant to hurt and destroy religion. _It was never made illegal to be a believer or to have religion, and so the activities of this campaign were often veiled under other pretexts (usually resistance to the regime) that the state invoked or invented in order to justify its activities._
> 
> The tenth party congress met in early 1921 and issued the resolution "On Glavpolitprosvet and the Agitation: Propaganda Problems of the Party". This resolution called for_ "widescale organization, leadership, and cooperation in the task of anti-religious agitation and propaganda among the broad masses of the workers, using the mass media, films, books, lectures, and other devices.
> 
> Tikhon produced an encyclical on political neutrality and disengagement of the Church from worldly politics,_ and the official propaganda depicted it as a form of camouflage to hide his real aim of support for autocratic bourgeois-aristocracy._ Tikhon emphasized the freedom of the Church in the separation of Church and State and the duty of believers to be loyal to the state in civic matters, in as much as this did not contradict a Christian’s primary loyalty to God.
> 
> Faith had to be turned into a private affair and made as invisible as possible. The regime could not tolerate dynamic faith or popular religious leaders who could inspire and lead millions of people.
> _
> That was all just the FIRST ten-year program.  The people who said the Bolshevik Revolution would lead to mass killings and imprisonment of Christians just for being Christian were "hysterical and overdramatic" . . . until it happened.  The Nazis said they "just" wanted to move the Jews into ghettos, "just" make them wear the Star of David, "just" limit a few activities.  Chairman Mao "just" wanted . . . Pol Pot "just" wanted . . .  Tyranny doesn't start with mass murder and imprisonment.  It starts with "just" wanting something small, and then something else, and it's just so silly and hysterical to expect that it will EVER go farther.
> 
> Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  Those who lie about history and pretend it can't be repeated should be horsewhipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that of course has nothing to do with the United States.
> 
> Here in the United States, we are all protected by the Constitution- and that includes churches and homosexuals.
Click to expand...

I thought everything was progressive these days, otherwise always changing, so what's stopping anyone now ? Isn't their a saying "the enemy is now at the gates" ? Now everyone knows that the enemy doesn't have to be a person, but rather what the person or person's might want right ? Many issues have been highjacked by groups who seek to piggy back or ride in off of what was done for others upon specific issues, and it has been a progressive muddying of the waters ever since in this nation.


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> All depends on who interprets the laws then doesn't it, because right now gay's are interpreting the laws to mean that a Christian Cake Baker has to bake a *customized* wedding cake for a Gay couple .



Do you have a link to support your claim?


----------



## mdk

Cecilie1200 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another day, another church not being forced to marry a gay couple. Maybe tomorrow will be different...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Another day, another Christian not being herded into the gulags" . . . until the day came that they were.
> 
> Only a dumbfuck or a liar thinks that "Ignore the buildup because it's not the actual crisis" is a good plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How hysterically dramatic. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's definitely convincing when you protest that our rights are not under attack . . . by using the exact same dismissals, word for word, that were used then.
> 
> The more you tell us you aren't a threat, the more like a threat you sound.
> 
> USSR anti-religious campaign 1921 28 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> The elimination of all religion and its replacement with atheism supported with a materialist world view was a fundamental ideological goal of the state. To this end the state conducted anti-religious persecutions against believers that were meant to hurt and destroy religion. _It was never made illegal to be a believer or to have religion, and so the activities of this campaign were often veiled under other pretexts (usually resistance to the regime) that the state invoked or invented in order to justify its activities._
> 
> The tenth party congress met in early 1921 and issued the resolution "On Glavpolitprosvet and the Agitation: Propaganda Problems of the Party". This resolution called for_ "widescale organization, leadership, and cooperation in the task of anti-religious agitation and propaganda among the broad masses of the workers, using the mass media, films, books, lectures, and other devices.
> 
> Tikhon produced an encyclical on political neutrality and disengagement of the Church from worldly politics,_ and the official propaganda depicted it as a form of camouflage to hide his real aim of support for autocratic bourgeois-aristocracy._ Tikhon emphasized the freedom of the Church in the separation of Church and State and the duty of believers to be loyal to the state in civic matters, in as much as this did not contradict a Christian’s primary loyalty to God.
> 
> Faith had to be turned into a private affair and made as invisible as possible. The regime could not tolerate dynamic faith or popular religious leaders who could inspire and lead millions of people.
> _
> That was all just the FIRST ten-year program.  The people who said the Bolshevik Revolution would lead to mass killings and imprisonment of Christians just for being Christian were "hysterical and overdramatic" . . . until it happened.  The Nazis said they "just" wanted to move the Jews into ghettos, "just" make them wear the Star of David, "just" limit a few activities.  Chairman Mao "just" wanted . . . Pol Pot "just" wanted . . .  Tyranny doesn't start with mass murder and imprisonment.  It starts with "just" wanting something small, and then something else, and it's just so silly and hysterical to expect that it will EVER go farther.
> 
> Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  Those who lie about history and pretend it can't be repeated should be horsewhipped.
Click to expand...


I don't believe gays having access to marriage and being covered in some states' public accommodation laws is going to lead to American versions of The Killing Fields and/or Kristallnacht. You sound exactly like the overly dramatic gays that says Christians are going to round them up and cart them off to camps or jail. Two peas in a hysterically dramatic pod. 

Besides, I am totally down with scrapping PA laws in most instances. The free market will decide if these businesses that refuse to serve gays, Jews, Muslims, the disabled or whatever will remain open or not.


----------



## mdk

beagle9 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.  But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Can you imagine that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand *public accommodation laws*. There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All depends on who interprets the laws then doesn't it, because right now gay's are interpreting the laws to mean that a Christian Cake Baker has to bake a *customized* wedding cake for a Gay couple, and you know what ? No one saw that one coming either. The feds and it's cronyism for whom run the feds, well if they are looking for constituencies for new voting blocks to draw from, then you will see many issues stretched beyond ones imagination in this nation because no one rides for free, and if you think that is a lie, then just take a look backwards and you will see what goes on in it all.  People/huge groups are selling their votes to the feds, but it's all for something in return, and they know it, we know it, and everyone knows it now.  Sil is right when she says "maybe not yet", but stay tuned.
Click to expand...


The states where those bakers reside have PA laws that include gays. If you open a public business in one of those states you can't refuse service on that basis. The people that "didn't see this coming" we're ignorant of the law in their states. These laws need to be scrapped almost entirely in my opinion. The free market will decide if they should remain open or not if they refuse to serve X members of society.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another day, another church not being forced to marry a gay couple. Maybe tomorrow will be different...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Another day, another Christian not being herded into the gulags" . . . until the day came that they were.
> 
> Only a dumbfuck or a liar thinks that "Ignore the buildup because it's not the actual crisis" is a good plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How hysterically dramatic. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's definitely convincing when you protest that our rights are not under attack . . . by using the exact same dismissals, word for word, that were used then.
> 
> The more you tell us you aren't a threat, the more like a threat you sound.
> 
> USSR anti-religious campaign 1921 28 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> The elimination of all religion and its replacement with atheism supported with a materialist world view was a fundamental ideological goal of the state. To this end the state conducted anti-religious persecutions against believers that were meant to hurt and destroy religion. _It was never made illegal to be a believer or to have religion, and so the activities of this campaign were often veiled under other pretexts (usually resistance to the regime) that the state invoked or invented in order to justify its activities._
> 
> The tenth party congress met in early 1921 and issued the resolution "On Glavpolitprosvet and the Agitation: Propaganda Problems of the Party". This resolution called for_ "widescale organization, leadership, and cooperation in the task of anti-religious agitation and propaganda among the broad masses of the workers, using the mass media, films, books, lectures, and other devices.
> 
> Tikhon produced an encyclical on political neutrality and disengagement of the Church from worldly politics,_ and the official propaganda depicted it as a form of camouflage to hide his real aim of support for autocratic bourgeois-aristocracy._ Tikhon emphasized the freedom of the Church in the separation of Church and State and the duty of believers to be loyal to the state in civic matters, in as much as this did not contradict a Christian’s primary loyalty to God.
> 
> Faith had to be turned into a private affair and made as invisible as possible. The regime could not tolerate dynamic faith or popular religious leaders who could inspire and lead millions of people.
> _
> That was all just the FIRST ten-year program.  The people who said the Bolshevik Revolution would lead to mass killings and imprisonment of Christians just for being Christian were "hysterical and overdramatic" . . . until it happened.  The Nazis said they "just" wanted to move the Jews into ghettos, "just" make them wear the Star of David, "just" limit a few activities.  Chairman Mao "just" wanted . . . Pol Pot "just" wanted . . .  Tyranny doesn't start with mass murder and imprisonment.  It starts with "just" wanting something small, and then something else, and it's just so silly and hysterical to expect that it will EVER go farther.
> 
> Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  Those who lie about history and pretend it can't be repeated should be horsewhipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that of course has nothing to do with the United States.
> 
> Here in the United States, we are all protected by the Constitution- and that includes churches and homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought everything was progressive these days, otherwise always changing, so what's stopping anyone now ? Isn't their a saying "the enemy is now at the gates" ? Now everyone knows that the enemy doesn't have to be a person, but rather what the person or person's might want right ? Many issues have been highjacked by groups who seek to piggy back or ride in off of what was done for others upon specific issues, and it has been a progressive muddying of the waters ever since in this nation.
Click to expand...


The only thing constant is change.

If you want to change the Constitution so that churches do not have the freedom to operate as they will, just change the Constitution.

Until then- no you can't force a church to marry blacks or Jews or homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.  But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Can you imagine that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand *public accommodation laws*. There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All depends on who interprets the laws then doesn't it, because right now gay's are interpreting the laws to mean that a Christian Cake Baker has to bake a *customized* wedding cake for a Gay couple, and you know what ?
Click to expand...


The Christian Baker has the same legal option every gay couple who believed that the law was wrong.

He can either sue to change the law- as gay couples have done- or get the public behind changing the law and change it through vote or legislation- which has also been done when it comes to marriage rights.

But the law was put in place by voters who were opposed to business' discriminating against people based upon their sexual orientation. Hardly a case of no one could anticipate it would be used against a business who discriminated against someone based upon their sexual orientation.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.  But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Can you imagine that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand *public accommodation laws*. There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All depends on who interprets the laws then doesn't it, because right now gay's are interpreting the laws to mean that a Christian Cake Baker has to bake a *customized* wedding cake for a Gay couple, and you know what ? No one saw that one coming either. The feds and it's cronyism for whom run the feds, well if they are looking for constituencies for new voting blocks to draw from, then you will see many issues stretched beyond ones imagination in this nation because no one rides for free, and if you think that is a lie, then just take a look backwards and you will see what goes on in it all.  People/huge groups are selling their votes to the feds, but it's all for something in return, and they know it, we know it, and everyone knows it now.  Sil is right when she says "maybe not yet", but stay tuned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states where those bakers reside have PA laws that include gays. If you open a public business in one of those states you can't refuse service on that basis. The people that "didn't see this coming" we're ignorant of the law in their states. These laws need to be scrapped almost entirely in my opinion. The free market will decide if they should remain open or not if they refuse to serve X members of society.
Click to expand...


Well, laws who provide for the equal treatment of people who are handicapped by their skin color, injury, physical malady, etc... are worthy, as they serve to sustain justice.

Sexual Abnormality is a direct consequences of intellectual perversion.  And intellectual perversion is a threat to justice... rejecting the objectivity which the is essential to the very concept of justice itself.

What you're dealing with there is, quite simply, old fashion evil.  It's a lie designed for no other purpose than to produce chaos, calamity and catastrophe.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.  But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Can you imagine that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand *public accommodation laws*. There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All depends on who interprets the laws then doesn't it, because right now gay's are interpreting the laws to mean that a Christian Cake Baker has to bake a *customized* wedding cake for a Gay couple, and you know what ? No one saw that one coming either. The feds and it's cronyism for whom run the feds, well if they are looking for constituencies for new voting blocks to draw from, then you will see many issues stretched beyond ones imagination in this nation because no one rides for free, and if you think that is a lie, then just take a look backwards and you will see what goes on in it all.  People/huge groups are selling their votes to the feds, but it's all for something in return, and they know it, we know it, and everyone knows it now.  Sil is right when she says "maybe not yet", but stay tuned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states where those bakers reside have PA laws that include gays. If you open a public business in one of those states you can't refuse service on that basis. The people that "didn't see this coming" we're ignorant of the law in their states. These laws need to be scrapped almost entirely in my opinion. The free market will decide if they should remain open or not if they refuse to serve X members of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, laws who provide for the equal treatment of people who are handicapped by their skin color, injury, physical malady, etc... are worthy, as they serve to sustain justice..
Click to expand...


'handicapped by their skin color'

The issue is not that someone is handicapped by their skin color- it is that bigots don't want to serve them because of their skin color- or race- or religion- or national origin- or gender- or sexual preference.


----------



## Seawytch

mdk said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.  But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Can you imagine that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand *public accommodation laws*. There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All depends on who interprets the laws then doesn't it, because right now gay's are interpreting the laws to mean that a Christian Cake Baker has to bake a *customized* wedding cake for a Gay couple, and you know what ? No one saw that one coming either. The feds and it's cronyism for whom run the feds, well if they are looking for constituencies for new voting blocks to draw from, then you will see many issues stretched beyond ones imagination in this nation because no one rides for free, and if you think that is a lie, then just take a look backwards and you will see what goes on in it all.  People/huge groups are selling their votes to the feds, but it's all for something in return, and they know it, we know it, and everyone knows it now.  Sil is right when she says "maybe not yet", but stay tuned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states where those bakers reside have PA laws that include gays. If you open a public business in one of those states you can't refuse service on that basis. The people that "didn't see this coming" we're ignorant of the law in their states. These laws need to be scrapped almost entirely in my opinion. The free market will decide if they should remain open or not if they refuse to serve X members of society.
Click to expand...


It's easy for people to say "let the free market decide" when they live in an area with an actual market. There is one Septic Service that operates in my area. What if he chooses not to do business with me? There is one store within 20 miles of my house, a small local market. If I need formula for my baby, am I supposed to drive 60 miles in the middle of the night because they won't sell me food? Maybe gays can just grow their own food like this guy suggests...

*Washington State Staffer: Gay People Should 'Just Grow Their Own Food' To Deal With Discrimination*


----------



## Silhouette

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> What you're dealing with there is, quite simply, old fashion evil.  It's a lie designed for no other purpose than to produce chaos, calamity and catastrophe.


 
Actually, there's a purpose.  Civil unions affording all the same access to dying spouse stuff, inheritance of assets etc. weren't good enough for the LGBT cult.  That's because there was one "benefit" that was still being denied them in marriage.  Access to rights to adopt vulnerable orphans.

I won't say more about that here except to direct the reader to my signature line and to post this picture of the Harvey Milk stamp here:






Want some drugs little "waif"?...


----------



## Jarlaxle

Yes yes, Silly...your absolute OBSESSION with Harvey Milk is hardly news.  Have you seen a shrink to deal with your obsession yet?


----------



## hazlnut

Silhouette said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're dealing with there is, quite simply, old fashion evil.  It's a lie designed for no other purpose than to produce chaos, calamity and catastrophe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there's a purpose.  Civil unions affording all the same access to dying spouse stuff, inheritance of assets etc. weren't good enough for the LGBT cult.  That's because there was one "benefit" that was still being denied them in marriage.  Access to rights to adopt vulnerable orphans.
> 
> I won't say more about that here except to direct the reader to my signature line and to post this picture of the Harvey Milk stamp here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want some drugs little "waif"?...
Click to expand...



You're a vile homophobe.

You know the dumb redneck asshole character in the films about the 60's civil rights struggle?  That's how you'll be portrayed in future movies about the marriage equality days.

And you know how it was always the most racist dickhole who secretly lusted after black women -- guess how that common truth about bigots will apply to you?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

hazlnut said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're dealing with there is, quite simply, old fashion evil.  It's a lie designed for no other purpose than to produce chaos, calamity and catastrophe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there's a purpose.  Civil unions affording all the same access to dying spouse stuff, inheritance of assets etc. weren't good enough for the LGBT cult.  That's because there was one "benefit" that was still being denied them in marriage.  Access to rights to adopt vulnerable orphans.
> 
> I won't say more about that here except to direct the reader to my signature line and to post this picture of the Harvey Milk stamp here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want some drugs little "waif"?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a vile homophobe.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!  

There's literally no such thing as a 'homophobe'.  

But how cool is it that you're insufficiently bright to figure that out?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're dealing with there is, quite simply, old fashion evil.  It's a lie designed for no other purpose than to produce chaos, calamity and catastrophe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there's a purpose.  Civil unions affording all the same access to dying spouse stuff, inheritance of assets etc. weren't good enough for the LGBT cult.  That's because there was one "benefit" that was still being denied them in marriage.  Access to rights to adopt vulnerable orphans.
> 
> I won't say more about that here except to direct the reader to my signature line and to post this picture of the Harvey Milk stamp here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want some drugs little "waif"?...
Click to expand...


Yes... Civil Unions merely provided legal privilege and not the Legitimacy inherent in Marriage.  

And it is Legitimacy which sexual abnormality precludes... and it is THAT which the sexually abnormal crave MOST.

Just not enough to turn from the behavior which precludes it.


----------



## Silhouette

Jarlaxle said:


> Yes yes, Silly...your absolute OBSESSION with Harvey Milk is hardly news.  Have you seen a shrink to deal with your obsession yet?


 
Jar Jar, I wasn't the one who chose a child predator as my "sexuality icon".  The LGBT cult did.  Who and what a person or group of people or cult choose to worship says worlds about the base mores of that person, group or people or cult.  Harvey isn't worshipped by the LGBT cult for his skills in badmitten or inventing new forms of energy or a patented device or musical skill etc.  Harvey is worshipped by the LGBT cult specifically for his sexual behavior.  That behavior as described by his fundamentally-honest gay biographer and friend was a "...a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems".  Putting it more simply, Harvey liked to drug rape teen homeless boys.

That was his sexuality.

His sexuality is why LGBTs admire him.   Do you want me to do the logical "If...Then.." equation for you or can you and the readers just fill in the blanks?


----------



## Jarlaxle

No, everyone except you filled in the blanks a long time ago.  You REALLY should get professional psychiatric help to deal with your obsession .


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're dealing with there is, quite simply, old fashion evil.  It's a lie designed for no other purpose than to produce chaos, calamity and catastrophe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there's a purpose.  Civil unions affording all the same access to dying spouse stuff, inheritance of assets etc. weren't good enough for the LGBT cult.  That's because there was one "benefit" that was still being denied them in marriage.  Access to rights to adopt vulnerable orphans.
> 
> I won't say more about that here except to direct the reader to my signature line and to post this picture of the Harvey Milk stamp here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want some drugs little "waif"?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... Civil Unions merely provided legal privilege and not the Legitimacy inherent in Marriage.
> 
> And it is Legitimacy which sexual abnormality precludes... and it is THAT which the sexually abnormal crave MOST.
> 
> Just not enough to turn from the behavior which precludes it.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

'Civil unions' are un-Constitutional because they're predicated on the illegal doctrine of 'separate but equal,' repugnant to the 14th Amendment.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into the same marriage contracts as opposite-sex couples, where state measures seeking to deny them that access lack a rational basis, are devoid of objective, documented evidence in support, and fail to pursue a proper legislative end – such measures exist solely to make gay Americans different from everyone else, which the states cannot do. Indeed, the fear, ignorance, and hate you and others have exhibited in this thread with regard to gay Americans alone is proof of that.

Gay Americans seeking their comprehensive civil rights is not 'evil,' and that you subjectively perceive homosexuality as a 'sexual abnormality' is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as animus toward gay Americans alone is not justification to deny them their civil liberties.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 'Civil unions' are un-Constitutional ...



ROFLMNAO!   You simply cannot hide the idiots.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes yes, Silly...your absolute OBSESSION with Harvey Milk is hardly news.  Have you seen a shrink to deal with your obsession yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jar Jar, I wasn't the one who chose a child predator as my "sexuality icon".  The LGBT cult did.  Who and what a person or group of people or cult choose to worship says worlds about the base mores of that person, group or people or cult.  Harvey isn't worshipped by the LGBT cult for his skills in badmitten or inventing new forms of energy or a patented device or musical skill etc.  Harvey is worshipped by the LGBT cult specifically for his sexual behavior.  That behavior as described by his fundamentally-honest gay biographer and friend was a "...a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems".  Putting it more simply, Harvey liked to drug rape teen homeless boys.
> 
> That was his sexuality.
> 
> His sexuality is why LGBTs admire him.   Do you want me to do the logical "If...Then.." equation for you or can you and the readers just fill in the blanks?
Click to expand...


Such is the nature of evil.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Why am I not surprised?

Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake And Is Denied Service By All Of Them WATCH THE SHOCKING VIDEO - Walid Shoebat


----------



## Seawytch

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake And Is Denied Service By All Of Them WATCH THE SHOCKING VIDEO - Walid Shoebat



A special order is completely different than simply being asked to bake a cake out of a catalog. In none of the Public Accommodation cases did the gay couples ask for a service or item not already provided by the business.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Seawytch said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake And Is Denied Service By All Of Them WATCH THE SHOCKING VIDEO - Walid Shoebat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A special order is completely different than simply being asked to bake a cake out of a catalog. In none of the Public Accommodation cases did the gay couples ask for a service or item not already provided by the business.
Click to expand...


You're making up shit.


----------



## Seawytch

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake And Is Denied Service By All Of Them WATCH THE SHOCKING VIDEO - Walid Shoebat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A special order is completely different than simply being asked to bake a cake out of a catalog. In none of the Public Accommodation cases did the gay couples ask for a service or item not already provided by the business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making up shit.
Click to expand...


No, I'm countering your ridiculous hyperbole with facts. None of the couples made a special order of the businesses, they simply asked that they provide a service they would provide any other couple. Your bovine feces blogger was making a special order not ordering what the company provides. You can't walk into a Jewish deli and order an un-kosher product if they don't carry it. That's not discrimination.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake And Is Denied Service By All Of Them WATCH THE SHOCKING VIDEO - Walid Shoebat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A special order is completely different than simply being asked to bake a cake out of a catalog. In none of the Public Accommodation cases did the gay couples ask for a service or item not already provided by the business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making up shit.
Click to expand...

No, you're ignorant of the facts and the law.

Public accommodations laws apply solely to goods and services offered to the general public in the normal course of doing business.

If a baker doesn't sell wedding cakes he cannot be compelled to sell one to a same-sex couple.

If a baker sells wedding cakes to the general public in the normal course of business he may not refuse to accommodate a patron because that patron is gay, if the law in his jurisdiction affords protections to gay customers.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Seawytch said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake And Is Denied Service By All Of Them WATCH THE SHOCKING VIDEO - Walid Shoebat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A special order is completely different than simply being asked to bake a cake out of a catalog. In none of the Public Accommodation cases did the gay couples ask for a service or item not already provided by the business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making up shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm countering your ridiculous hyperbole with facts. None of the couples made a special order of the businesses, they simply asked that they provide a service they would provide any other couple. Your bovine feces blogger was making a special order not ordering what the company provides. You can't walk into a Jewish deli and order an un-kosher product if they don't carry it. That's not discrimination.
Click to expand...


A gay couple in Oregon demanded a special cake and were denied.  They sued and won.

Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple Fox News


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake And Is Denied Service By All Of Them WATCH THE SHOCKING VIDEO - Walid Shoebat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A special order is completely different than simply being asked to bake a cake out of a catalog. In none of the Public Accommodation cases did the gay couples ask for a service or item not already provided by the business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making up shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're ignorant of the facts and the law.
> 
> Public accommodations laws apply solely to goods and services offered to the general public in the normal course of doing business.
> 
> If a baker doesn't sell wedding cakes he cannot be compelled to sell one to a same-sex couple.
> 
> If a baker sells wedding cakes to the general public in the normal course of business he may not refuse to accommodate a patron because that patron is gay, if the law in his jurisdiction affords protections to gay customers.
> 
> Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
Click to expand...


We're gonna change the law.


----------



## Seawytch

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake And Is Denied Service By All Of Them WATCH THE SHOCKING VIDEO - Walid Shoebat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A special order is completely different than simply being asked to bake a cake out of a catalog. In none of the Public Accommodation cases did the gay couples ask for a service or item not already provided by the business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making up shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm countering your ridiculous hyperbole with facts. None of the couples made a special order of the businesses, they simply asked that they provide a service they would provide any other couple. Your bovine feces blogger was making a special order not ordering what the company provides. You can't walk into a Jewish deli and order an un-kosher product if they don't carry it. That's not discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay couple in Oregon demanded a special cake and were denied.  They sued and won.
> 
> Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple Fox News
Click to expand...



No liar, they ordered a wedding cake. It wasn't "special", it was a wedding cake, just like the wedding cakes they baked *all the time.*


----------



## Seawytch

Neil N. Blowme said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake And Is Denied Service By All Of Them WATCH THE SHOCKING VIDEO - Walid Shoebat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A special order is completely different than simply being asked to bake a cake out of a catalog. In none of the Public Accommodation cases did the gay couples ask for a service or item not already provided by the business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making up shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're ignorant of the facts and the law.
> 
> Public accommodations laws apply solely to goods and services offered to the general public in the normal course of doing business.
> 
> If a baker doesn't sell wedding cakes he cannot be compelled to sell one to a same-sex couple.
> 
> If a baker sells wedding cakes to the general public in the normal course of business he may not refuse to accommodate a patron because that patron is gay, if the law in his jurisdiction affords protections to gay customers.
> 
> Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're gonna change the law.
Click to expand...


Oh? Which law are "we" going to change? All Public Accommodation laws or just the gay ones?


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Seawytch said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake And Is Denied Service By All Of Them WATCH THE SHOCKING VIDEO - Walid Shoebat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A special order is completely different than simply being asked to bake a cake out of a catalog. In none of the Public Accommodation cases did the gay couples ask for a service or item not already provided by the business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making up shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm countering your ridiculous hyperbole with facts. None of the couples made a special order of the businesses, they simply asked that they provide a service they would provide any other couple. Your bovine feces blogger was making a special order not ordering what the company provides. You can't walk into a Jewish deli and order an un-kosher product if they don't carry it. That's not discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay couple in Oregon demanded a special cake and were denied.  They sued and won.
> 
> Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple Fox News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No liar, they ordered a wedding cake. It wasn't "special", it was a wedding cake, just like the wedding cakes they baked *all the time.*
Click to expand...


They had cakes already made they were willing to sell them.  Read the article, queer.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Seawytch said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake And Is Denied Service By All Of Them WATCH THE SHOCKING VIDEO - Walid Shoebat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A special order is completely different than simply being asked to bake a cake out of a catalog. In none of the Public Accommodation cases did the gay couples ask for a service or item not already provided by the business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making up shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're ignorant of the facts and the law.
> 
> Public accommodations laws apply solely to goods and services offered to the general public in the normal course of doing business.
> 
> If a baker doesn't sell wedding cakes he cannot be compelled to sell one to a same-sex couple.
> 
> If a baker sells wedding cakes to the general public in the normal course of business he may not refuse to accommodate a patron because that patron is gay, if the law in his jurisdiction affords protections to gay customers.
> 
> Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're gonna change the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh? Which law are "we" going to change? All Public Accommodation laws or just the gay ones?
Click to expand...


The ones we don't like.  Suck on it.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're dealing with there is, quite simply, old fashion evil.  It's a lie designed for no other purpose than to produce chaos, calamity and catastrophe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want some drugs little "waif"?...
Click to expand...


Finally you acknowledge Elvis and Priscilla......of course you would never condemn a heterosexual such a thing....


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake And Is Denied Service By All Of Them WATCH THE SHOCKING VIDEO - Walid Shoebat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A special order is completely different than simply being asked to bake a cake out of a catalog. In none of the Public Accommodation cases did the gay couples ask for a service or item not already provided by the business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making up shit.
Click to expand...


That's what is known as "relativism"... it is the same perversion of human reasoning which justifies sexual gratification through sexual behavior with their own gender.  It's OKA: Delusion.

At one time in this society, we put millions of people just like that in facilities which housed them.

For decades now, they have gone untreated... and the election of a Non-"Natural Born" individual to the Office of the Chief Executive.  An individual who has known loyalties to the religion with which the United States is largely at war and whose known background is mired in replete examples of his life long indoctrination in an ideology which is vehemently hostile to American principle... and we're now experiencing the consequences of tolerating insanity, for decades.  

And sadly, the delusional have now trained up subsequent generations on their perverse reasoning.  It is all their idiot children know... and I am sad to report that because of that, there is little hope that those idiots will ever be capable of rising above the infliction that their worthless parents have saddled upon them.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

It was never about "equality".  It's about submission.


----------



## Seawytch

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> A special order is completely different than simply being asked to bake a cake out of a catalog. In none of the Public Accommodation cases did the gay couples ask for a service or item not already provided by the business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making up shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm countering your ridiculous hyperbole with facts. None of the couples made a special order of the businesses, they simply asked that they provide a service they would provide any other couple. Your bovine feces blogger was making a special order not ordering what the company provides. You can't walk into a Jewish deli and order an un-kosher product if they don't carry it. That's not discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay couple in Oregon demanded a special cake and were denied.  They sued and won.
> 
> Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple Fox News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No liar, they ordered a wedding cake. It wasn't "special", it was a wedding cake, just like the wedding cakes they baked *all the time.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had cakes already made they were willing to sell them.  Read the article, queer.
Click to expand...



They would not sell the couple a wedding cake...that they would sell any other couple. The gay couple did not ask for a product the business did not provide, just one they did not want to provide to THAT couple. Hence the discrimination. If you ask for a product the company does not sell it is not discrimination.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Seawytch said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making up shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm countering your ridiculous hyperbole with facts. None of the couples made a special order of the businesses, they simply asked that they provide a service they would provide any other couple. Your bovine feces blogger was making a special order not ordering what the company provides. You can't walk into a Jewish deli and order an un-kosher product if they don't carry it. That's not discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay couple in Oregon demanded a special cake and were denied.  They sued and won.
> 
> Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple Fox News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No liar, they ordered a wedding cake. It wasn't "special", it was a wedding cake, just like the wedding cakes they baked *all the time.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had cakes already made they were willing to sell them.  Read the article, queer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They would not sell the couple a wedding cake...that they would sell any other couple. The gay couple did not ask for a product the business did not provide, just one they did not want to provide to THAT couple. Hence the discrimination. If you ask for a product the company does not sell it is not discrimination.
Click to expand...


The owners had cakes to sell them.  The queers wanted a special cake made.  Read the article.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme




----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Seawytch said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making up shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm countering your ridiculous hyperbole with facts. None of the couples made a special order of the businesses, they simply asked that they provide a service they would provide any other couple. Your bovine feces blogger was making a special order not ordering what the company provides. You can't walk into a Jewish deli and order an un-kosher product if they don't carry it. That's not discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay couple in Oregon demanded a special cake and were denied.  They sued and won.
> 
> Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple Fox News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No liar, they ordered a wedding cake. It wasn't "special", it was a wedding cake, just like the wedding cakes they baked *all the time.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had cakes already made they were willing to sell them.  Read the article, queer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They would not sell the couple a wedding cake...that they would sell any other couple. The gay couple did not ask for a product the business did not provide, just one they did not want to provide to THAT couple. Hence the discrimination. If you ask for a product the company does not sell it is not discrimination.
Click to expand...


LOL.  Next thing you'll tell me is queers aren't deliberately targeting Christian businesses.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

And to their demand for our submission, we, the Americans respond only with our contempt and our unwavering demand that they kiss our ass.



Seawytch said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making up shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm countering your ridiculous hyperbole with facts. None of the couples made a special order of the businesses, they simply asked that they provide a service they would provide any other couple. Your bovine feces blogger was making a special order not ordering what the company provides. You can't walk into a Jewish deli and order an un-kosher product if they don't carry it. That's not discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay couple in Oregon demanded a special cake and were denied.  They sued and won.
> 
> Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple Fox News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No liar, they ordered a wedding cake. It wasn't "special", it was a wedding cake, just like the wedding cakes they baked *all the time.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had cakes already made they were willing to sell them.  Read the article, queer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They would not sell the couple a wedding cake...that they would sell any other couple. The gay couple did not ask for a product the business did not provide, just one they did not want to provide to THAT couple. Hence the discrimination. If you ask for a product the company does not sell it is not discrimination.
Click to expand...


Relativism ON PARADE!


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> It was never about "equality".  It's about submission.



We aren't interested in whether you are a submissive or not.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> And to their demand for our submission, we, the Americans respond only with our contempt and our unwavering demand that they kiss our ass.


![/QUOTE]

So you are admitting you just want homosexuals to be performing analingus on your ass?


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was never about "equality".  It's about submission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't interested in whether you are a submissive or not.
Click to expand...


It's not about me.  It's about queers hate for Christians.  Queers want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs.  Fuck you.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake And Is Denied Service By All Of Them WATCH THE SHOCKING VIDEO - Walid Shoebat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A special order is completely different than simply being asked to bake a cake out of a catalog. In none of the Public Accommodation cases did the gay couples ask for a service or item not already provided by the business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making up shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what is known as "relativism"... it is the same perversion of human reasoning which justifies sexual gratification through sexual behavior with their own gender.  It's OKA: Delusion.
> 
> At one time in this society, we put millions of people just like that in facilities which housed them.
> 
> For decades now, they have gone untreated... and the election of a Non-"Natural Born" individual to the Office of the Chief Executive.  An individual who has known loyalties to the religion with which the United States is largely at war and whose known background is mired in replete examples of his life long indoctrination in an ideology which is vehemently hostile to American principle... and we're now experiencing the consequences of tolerating insanity, for decades.
> 
> And sadly, the delusional have now trained up subsequent generations on their perverse reasoning.  It is all their idiot children know... and I am sad to report that because of that, there is little hope that those idiots will ever be capable of rising above the infliction that their worthless parents have saddled upon them.
Click to expand...


You now need to have a neutral third party examine your computer for evidence of lesbian pornography.


----------



## Silhouette

Neil N. Blowme said:


> LOL.  Next thing you'll tell me is queers aren't deliberately targeting Christian businesses.


 
Right.  It's choreographed for sure.  That's why whenever one of the LGBT cultees spouts about "how there's not been one church sued under public accomodation for not performing gay marriages" I always answer "Not yet".  Because we all know it's coming...


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> And to their demand for our submission, we, the Americans respond only with our contempt and our unwavering demand that they kiss our ass.
> 
> 
> 
> !
Click to expand...


So you are admitting you just want homosexuals to be performing analingus on your ass?[/QUOTE]

Yes.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme




----------



## beagle9

Seawytch said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.  But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Can you imagine that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand *public accommodation laws*. There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All depends on who interprets the laws then doesn't it, because right now gay's are interpreting the laws to mean that a Christian Cake Baker has to bake a *customized* wedding cake for a Gay couple, and you know what ? No one saw that one coming either. The feds and it's cronyism for whom run the feds, well if they are looking for constituencies for new voting blocks to draw from, then you will see many issues stretched beyond ones imagination in this nation because no one rides for free, and if you think that is a lie, then just take a look backwards and you will see what goes on in it all.  People/huge groups are selling their votes to the feds, but it's all for something in return, and they know it, we know it, and everyone knows it now.  Sil is right when she says "maybe not yet", but stay tuned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states where those bakers reside have PA laws that include gays. If you open a public business in one of those states you can't refuse service on that basis. The people that "didn't see this coming" we're ignorant of the law in their states. These laws need to be scrapped almost entirely in my opinion. The free market will decide if they should remain open or not if they refuse to serve X members of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's easy for people to say "let the free market decide" when they live in an area with an actual market. There is one Septic Service that operates in my area. What if he chooses not to do business with me? There is one store within 20 miles of my house, a small local market. If I need formula for my baby, am I supposed to drive 60 miles in the middle of the night because they won't sell me food? Maybe gays can just grow their own food like this guy suggests...
> 
> *Washington State Staffer: Gay People Should 'Just Grow Their Own Food' To Deal With Discrimination*
Click to expand...

The big difference in you needing what you described, is that you don't have to run in and tell anyone about yourself in order to get those things that you described, but in the case of asking a cake baker to bake a specific customized cake for a gay couple, and this upon their request is another issue altogether. I mean what if that request is found going against the cake bakers religious values and morals on such a thing for which he believes in ? I'd say that Houston we have a unique and special problem on all our hands now don't we ?

Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like *Marriage* in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Meanwhile in Texas and with regard to the subjective nature of the Jurists 'deciding' in favor of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality... there's this:

''The day for finality and legal certainty in the long and difficult journey for equality is closer than ever before," Judge Garcia wrote, adding that he remains convinced that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately decide the issue.

Read more: Judge: No gay marriage in Texas... - MRT.com: State & Nation Judge No gay marriage in Texas for now - MRT.com State Nation 
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution"


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.  But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Can you imagine that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand *public accommodation laws*. There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All depends on who interprets the laws then doesn't it, because right now gay's are interpreting the laws to mean that a Christian Cake Baker has to bake a *customized* wedding cake for a Gay couple, and you know what ? No one saw that one coming either. The feds and it's cronyism for whom run the feds, well if they are looking for constituencies for new voting blocks to draw from, then you will see many issues stretched beyond ones imagination in this nation because no one rides for free, and if you think that is a lie, then just take a look backwards and you will see what goes on in it all.  People/huge groups are selling their votes to the feds, but it's all for something in return, and they know it, we know it, and everyone knows it now.  Sil is right when she says "maybe not yet", but stay tuned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states where those bakers reside have PA laws that include gays. If you open a public business in one of those states you can't refuse service on that basis. The people that "didn't see this coming" we're ignorant of the law in their states. These laws need to be scrapped almost entirely in my opinion. The free market will decide if they should remain open or not if they refuse to serve X members of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's easy for people to say "let the free market decide" when they live in an area with an actual market. There is one Septic Service that operates in my area. What if he chooses not to do business with me? There is one store within 20 miles of my house, a small local market. If I need formula for my baby, am I supposed to drive 60 miles in the middle of the night because they won't sell me food? Maybe gays can just grow their own food like this guy suggests...
> 
> *Washington State Staffer: Gay People Should 'Just Grow Their Own Food' To Deal With Discrimination*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The big difference in you needing what you described, is that you don't have to run in and tell anyone about yourself in order to get those things that you described, but in the case of asking a cake baker to bake a specific customized cake for a gay couple, and this upon their request is another issue altogether. I mean what if that request is found going against the cake bakers religious values and morals on such a thing for which he believes in ? I'd say that Houston we have a unique and special problem on all our hands now don't we ?
> 
> Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like *Marriage* in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Marriage isn't being 'hijacked.' Same-sex couples are currently eligible to participate in marriage, that's why it's un-Constitutional to deny them access to marriage law.

Moreover, that something's perceived to be 'traditional' or 'historic' is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, it has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the protected liberty afforded same-sex couples by the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand *public accommodation laws*. There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> All depends on who interprets the laws then doesn't it, because right now gay's are interpreting the laws to mean that a Christian Cake Baker has to bake a *customized* wedding cake for a Gay couple, and you know what ? No one saw that one coming either. The feds and it's cronyism for whom run the feds, well if they are looking for constituencies for new voting blocks to draw from, then you will see many issues stretched beyond ones imagination in this nation because no one rides for free, and if you think that is a lie, then just take a look backwards and you will see what goes on in it all.  People/huge groups are selling their votes to the feds, but it's all for something in return, and they know it, we know it, and everyone knows it now.  Sil is right when she says "maybe not yet", but stay tuned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states where those bakers reside have PA laws that include gays. If you open a public business in one of those states you can't refuse service on that basis. The people that "didn't see this coming" we're ignorant of the law in their states. These laws need to be scrapped almost entirely in my opinion. The free market will decide if they should remain open or not if they refuse to serve X members of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's easy for people to say "let the free market decide" when they live in an area with an actual market. There is one Septic Service that operates in my area. What if he chooses not to do business with me? There is one store within 20 miles of my house, a small local market. If I need formula for my baby, am I supposed to drive 60 miles in the middle of the night because they won't sell me food? Maybe gays can just grow their own food like this guy suggests...
> 
> *Washington State Staffer: Gay People Should 'Just Grow Their Own Food' To Deal With Discrimination*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The big difference in you needing what you described, is that you don't have to run in and tell anyone about yourself in order to get those things that you described, but in the case of asking a cake baker to bake a specific customized cake for a gay couple, and this upon their request is another issue altogether. I mean what if that request is found going against the cake bakers religious values and morals on such a thing for which he believes in ? I'd say that Houston we have a unique and special problem on all our hands now don't we ?
> 
> Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like *Marriage* in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Marriage isn't being 'hijacked.' Same-sex couples are currently eligible to participate in marriage, that's why it's un-Constitutional to deny them access to marriage law.
> 
> Moreover, that something's perceived to be 'traditional' or 'historic' is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, it has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the protected liberty afforded same-sex couples by the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...


Oh bull.  You can do whatever you want, but you can't force people to accept it.  Liberty.  Live and let live.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand *public accommodation laws*. There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> All depends on who interprets the laws then doesn't it, because right now gay's are interpreting the laws to mean that a Christian Cake Baker has to bake a *customized* wedding cake for a Gay couple, and you know what ? No one saw that one coming either. The feds and it's cronyism for whom run the feds, well if they are looking for constituencies for new voting blocks to draw from, then you will see many issues stretched beyond ones imagination in this nation because no one rides for free, and if you think that is a lie, then just take a look backwards and you will see what goes on in it all.  People/huge groups are selling their votes to the feds, but it's all for something in return, and they know it, we know it, and everyone knows it now.  Sil is right when she says "maybe not yet", but stay tuned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states where those bakers reside have PA laws that include gays. If you open a public business in one of those states you can't refuse service on that basis. The people that "didn't see this coming" we're ignorant of the law in their states. These laws need to be scrapped almost entirely in my opinion. The free market will decide if they should remain open or not if they refuse to serve X members of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's easy for people to say "let the free market decide" when they live in an area with an actual market. There is one Septic Service that operates in my area. What if he chooses not to do business with me? There is one store within 20 miles of my house, a small local market. If I need formula for my baby, am I supposed to drive 60 miles in the middle of the night because they won't sell me food? Maybe gays can just grow their own food like this guy suggests...
> 
> *Washington State Staffer: Gay People Should 'Just Grow Their Own Food' To Deal With Discrimination*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The big difference in you needing what you described, is that you don't have to run in and tell anyone about yourself in order to get those things that you described, but in the case of asking a cake baker to bake a specific customized cake for a gay couple, and this upon their request is another issue altogether. I mean what if that request is found going against the cake bakers religious values and morals on such a thing for which he believes in ? I'd say that Houston we have a unique and special problem on all our hands now don't we ?
> 
> Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like *Marriage* in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Marriage isn't being 'hijacked.' Same-sex couples are currently eligible to participate in marriage, that's why it's un-Constitutional to deny them access to marriage law.
> 
> Moreover, that something's perceived to be 'traditional' or 'historic' is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, it has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the protected liberty afforded same-sex couples by the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Could you have written this 4 years ago, 8 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, 50 years ago, 70 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and it would have applied ? No you couldn't have.

Like I said high jacking is what is going on to get these things done, but what people don't understand is it won't stop just there, it's just going to keep on steamrolling forward in these ways because it has been found out on how to get it done in these ways. I watched on Fox news this morning about how they have been forced at a high school currently to erase the Ten Commandments from the stone monument on the grounds. Now I'll ask you why is it OK for people to be offended by something, but when it comes to Christians being offended by something it doesn't apply for them ? This nations radicals are successfully erasing anything and everything that offends them, and the Christians are being erased from the public square. So as long as the Christians go into the closet, then the extremist, radicals anti this and anti that will be happy in this country then won't they ? The radicals and extremist seek to make this nation there own, and you had best believe it. Groups have finally realized that the broad interpretation of the civil rights laws, gives them the opportunity to be protected by the feds in order to get their causes or wants forwarded also, but in the process they have to push others who have freedom now, into the closet or running scared of them. They are loving this, and so is Satan who is their leader in all of this. Satan will be completely out of his box soon, as he is 3/4's of the way out now.


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.  But I can imagine a lawsuit based on 'public accomodation' alleging that it is illegal to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Can you imagine that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand *public accommodation laws*. There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All depends on who interprets the laws then doesn't it, because right now gay's are interpreting the laws to mean that a Christian Cake Baker has to bake a *customized* wedding cake for a Gay couple, and you know what ? No one saw that one coming either. The feds and it's cronyism for whom run the feds, well if they are looking for constituencies for new voting blocks to draw from, then you will see many issues stretched beyond ones imagination in this nation because no one rides for free, and if you think that is a lie, then just take a look backwards and you will see what goes on in it all.  People/huge groups are selling their votes to the feds, but it's all for something in return, and they know it, we know it, and everyone knows it now.  Sil is right when she says "maybe not yet", but stay tuned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states where those bakers reside have PA laws that include gays. If you open a public business in one of those states you can't refuse service on that basis. The people that "didn't see this coming" we're ignorant of the law in their states. These laws need to be scrapped almost entirely in my opinion. The free market will decide if they should remain open or not if they refuse to serve X members of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's easy for people to say "let the free market decide" when they live in an area with an actual market. There is one Septic Service that operates in my area. What if he chooses not to do business with me? There is one store within 20 miles of my house, a small local market. If I need formula for my baby, am I supposed to drive 60 miles in the middle of the night because they won't sell me food? Maybe gays can just grow their own food like this guy suggests...
> 
> *Washington State Staffer: Gay People Should 'Just Grow Their Own Food' To Deal With Discrimination*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The big difference in you needing what you described, is that you don't have to run in and tell anyone about yourself in order to get those things that you described, but in the case of asking a cake baker to bake a specific customized cake for a gay couple, and this upon their request is another issue altogether. I mean what if that request is found going against the cake bakers religious values and morals on such a thing for which he believes in ? I'd say that Houston we have a unique and special problem on all our hands now don't we ?
> 
> Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like *Marriage* in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?
Click to expand...


If you live in a small town, everyone knows your business. You don't have to tell anyone, they know. 

The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The business sells wedding cakes. All they had to do was sell the cake and they chose not to, which violated the state's public accommodation laws. You don't get to pull the religion card when you want to discriminate against a group of people.

Nobody has "hijacked" marriage, for pity sake. Civil marriage exists in this country and it does a lot of things for couples. You wouldn't deny a gay person a driver's license because they are gay, why would you deny a marriage license issued by the same authority? 

Yes...until about a decade ago, marriage has been "just for straights" ...but at the time of the founding, voting was only for rich white men. Should it have stayed that way just because that's the way it was at the founding? "Tradition" said that blacks couldn't marry whites until about 50 years ago. Guess that is a tradition that should have stood as well in your book?


----------



## beagle9

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand *public accommodation laws*. There hasn't been a single case of a public accommodation being used to force a church to marry anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> All depends on who interprets the laws then doesn't it, because right now gay's are interpreting the laws to mean that a Christian Cake Baker has to bake a *customized* wedding cake for a Gay couple, and you know what ? No one saw that one coming either. The feds and it's cronyism for whom run the feds, well if they are looking for constituencies for new voting blocks to draw from, then you will see many issues stretched beyond ones imagination in this nation because no one rides for free, and if you think that is a lie, then just take a look backwards and you will see what goes on in it all.  People/huge groups are selling their votes to the feds, but it's all for something in return, and they know it, we know it, and everyone knows it now.  Sil is right when she says "maybe not yet", but stay tuned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states where those bakers reside have PA laws that include gays. If you open a public business in one of those states you can't refuse service on that basis. The people that "didn't see this coming" we're ignorant of the law in their states. These laws need to be scrapped almost entirely in my opinion. The free market will decide if they should remain open or not if they refuse to serve X members of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's easy for people to say "let the free market decide" when they live in an area with an actual market. There is one Septic Service that operates in my area. What if he chooses not to do business with me? There is one store within 20 miles of my house, a small local market. If I need formula for my baby, am I supposed to drive 60 miles in the middle of the night because they won't sell me food? Maybe gays can just grow their own food like this guy suggests...
> 
> *Washington State Staffer: Gay People Should 'Just Grow Their Own Food' To Deal With Discrimination*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The big difference in you needing what you described, is that you don't have to run in and tell anyone about yourself in order to get those things that you described, but in the case of asking a cake baker to bake a specific customized cake for a gay couple, and this upon their request is another issue altogether. I mean what if that request is found going against the cake bakers religious values and morals on such a thing for which he believes in ? I'd say that Houston we have a unique and special problem on all our hands now don't we ?
> 
> Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like *Marriage* in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you live in a small town, everyone knows your business. You don't have to tell anyone, they know.
> 
> The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The business sells wedding cakes. All they had to do was sell the cake and they chose not to, which violated the state's public accommodation laws. You don't get to pull the religion card when you want to discriminate against a group of people.
> 
> Nobody has "hijacked" marriage, for pity sake. Civil marriage exists in this country and it does a lot of things for couples. You wouldn't deny a gay person a driver's license because they are gay, why would you deny a marriage license issued by the same authority?
> 
> Yes...until about a decade ago, marriage has been "just for straights" ...but at the time of the founding, voting was only for rich white men. Should it have stayed that way just because that's the way it was at the founding? "Tradition" said that blacks couldn't marry whites until about 50 years ago. Guess that is a tradition that should have stood as well in your book?
Click to expand...

You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.

Nice try on the small town analogy, but I think that if the gay would have just went in and purchased a wedding cake without customization being involved, then in no way would the cake baker had refused the person to purchase a cake without the request of customization being involved. Like I said there are test being conducted all over the place, and we have seen a preview of these test being conducted, and you know what ? This nation with the media of today is also the same as a small town, and the people know what is going on in all of this stuff. 

There are test being conducted, and we see these test being conducted, and it's not only concerning this issue, but a more broader test is being conducted in this nation on many issues, traditions and standards, and these test are to see how the Christians can be placed in a box in this country now, because Christians are offensive to all who are conducting these test. WAKE UP PEOPLE!


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All depends on who interprets the laws then doesn't it, because right now gay's are interpreting the laws to mean that a Christian Cake Baker has to bake a *customized* wedding cake for a Gay couple, and you know what ? No one saw that one coming either. The feds and it's cronyism for whom run the feds, well if they are looking for constituencies for new voting blocks to draw from, then you will see many issues stretched beyond ones imagination in this nation because no one rides for free, and if you think that is a lie, then just take a look backwards and you will see what goes on in it all.  People/huge groups are selling their votes to the feds, but it's all for something in return, and they know it, we know it, and everyone knows it now.  Sil is right when she says "maybe not yet", but stay tuned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The states where those bakers reside have PA laws that include gays. If you open a public business in one of those states you can't refuse service on that basis. The people that "didn't see this coming" we're ignorant of the law in their states. These laws need to be scrapped almost entirely in my opinion. The free market will decide if they should remain open or not if they refuse to serve X members of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's easy for people to say "let the free market decide" when they live in an area with an actual market. There is one Septic Service that operates in my area. What if he chooses not to do business with me? There is one store within 20 miles of my house, a small local market. If I need formula for my baby, am I supposed to drive 60 miles in the middle of the night because they won't sell me food? Maybe gays can just grow their own food like this guy suggests...
> 
> *Washington State Staffer: Gay People Should 'Just Grow Their Own Food' To Deal With Discrimination*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The big difference in you needing what you described, is that you don't have to run in and tell anyone about yourself in order to get those things that you described, but in the case of asking a cake baker to bake a specific customized cake for a gay couple, and this upon their request is another issue altogether. I mean what if that request is found going against the cake bakers religious values and morals on such a thing for which he believes in ? I'd say that Houston we have a unique and special problem on all our hands now don't we ?
> 
> Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like *Marriage* in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you live in a small town, everyone knows your business. You don't have to tell anyone, they know.
> 
> The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The business sells wedding cakes. All they had to do was sell the cake and they chose not to, which violated the state's public accommodation laws. You don't get to pull the religion card when you want to discriminate against a group of people.
> 
> Nobody has "hijacked" marriage, for pity sake. Civil marriage exists in this country and it does a lot of things for couples. You wouldn't deny a gay person a driver's license because they are gay, why would you deny a marriage license issued by the same authority?
> 
> Yes...until about a decade ago, marriage has been "just for straights" ...but at the time of the founding, voting was only for rich white men. Should it have stayed that way just because that's the way it was at the founding? "Tradition" said that blacks couldn't marry whites until about 50 years ago. Guess that is a tradition that should have stood as well in your book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.
Click to expand...



No, it was not a customized cake, it was a wedding cake out of a catalog of wedding cakes. If it had been an item the baker did not bake, there would have been no lawsuit. Seriously, turn off Rush or Hannity or whoever and read something, I beg you.


----------



## beagle9

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states where those bakers reside have PA laws that include gays. If you open a public business in one of those states you can't refuse service on that basis. The people that "didn't see this coming" we're ignorant of the law in their states. These laws need to be scrapped almost entirely in my opinion. The free market will decide if they should remain open or not if they refuse to serve X members of society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy for people to say "let the free market decide" when they live in an area with an actual market. There is one Septic Service that operates in my area. What if he chooses not to do business with me? There is one store within 20 miles of my house, a small local market. If I need formula for my baby, am I supposed to drive 60 miles in the middle of the night because they won't sell me food? Maybe gays can just grow their own food like this guy suggests...
> 
> *Washington State Staffer: Gay People Should 'Just Grow Their Own Food' To Deal With Discrimination*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The big difference in you needing what you described, is that you don't have to run in and tell anyone about yourself in order to get those things that you described, but in the case of asking a cake baker to bake a specific customized cake for a gay couple, and this upon their request is another issue altogether. I mean what if that request is found going against the cake bakers religious values and morals on such a thing for which he believes in ? I'd say that Houston we have a unique and special problem on all our hands now don't we ?
> 
> Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like *Marriage* in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you live in a small town, everyone knows your business. You don't have to tell anyone, they know.
> 
> The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The business sells wedding cakes. All they had to do was sell the cake and they chose not to, which violated the state's public accommodation laws. You don't get to pull the religion card when you want to discriminate against a group of people.
> 
> Nobody has "hijacked" marriage, for pity sake. Civil marriage exists in this country and it does a lot of things for couples. You wouldn't deny a gay person a driver's license because they are gay, why would you deny a marriage license issued by the same authority?
> 
> Yes...until about a decade ago, marriage has been "just for straights" ...but at the time of the founding, voting was only for rich white men. Should it have stayed that way just because that's the way it was at the founding? "Tradition" said that blacks couldn't marry whites until about 50 years ago. Guess that is a tradition that should have stood as well in your book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not a customized cake, it was a wedding cake out of a catalog of wedding cakes. If it had been an item the baker did not bake, there would have been no lawsuit. Seriously, turn off Rush or Hannity or whoever and read something, I beg you.
Click to expand...

And so you think that the gay in no way alerted the baker as to who or what the cake was being created for ? I mean even if it were in a book, it still had to be customized to fit the occasion because the baker didn't make wedding cakes for gay's.


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy for people to say "let the free market decide" when they live in an area with an actual market. There is one Septic Service that operates in my area. What if he chooses not to do business with me? There is one store within 20 miles of my house, a small local market. If I need formula for my baby, am I supposed to drive 60 miles in the middle of the night because they won't sell me food? Maybe gays can just grow their own food like this guy suggests...
> 
> *Washington State Staffer: Gay People Should 'Just Grow Their Own Food' To Deal With Discrimination*
> 
> 
> 
> The big difference in you needing what you described, is that you don't have to run in and tell anyone about yourself in order to get those things that you described, but in the case of asking a cake baker to bake a specific customized cake for a gay couple, and this upon their request is another issue altogether. I mean what if that request is found going against the cake bakers religious values and morals on such a thing for which he believes in ? I'd say that Houston we have a unique and special problem on all our hands now don't we ?
> 
> Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like *Marriage* in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you live in a small town, everyone knows your business. You don't have to tell anyone, they know.
> 
> The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The business sells wedding cakes. All they had to do was sell the cake and they chose not to, which violated the state's public accommodation laws. You don't get to pull the religion card when you want to discriminate against a group of people.
> 
> Nobody has "hijacked" marriage, for pity sake. Civil marriage exists in this country and it does a lot of things for couples. You wouldn't deny a gay person a driver's license because they are gay, why would you deny a marriage license issued by the same authority?
> 
> Yes...until about a decade ago, marriage has been "just for straights" ...but at the time of the founding, voting was only for rich white men. Should it have stayed that way just because that's the way it was at the founding? "Tradition" said that blacks couldn't marry whites until about 50 years ago. Guess that is a tradition that should have stood as well in your book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not a customized cake, it was a wedding cake out of a catalog of wedding cakes. If it had been an item the baker did not bake, there would have been no lawsuit. Seriously, turn off Rush or Hannity or whoever and read something, I beg you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so you think that the gay in no way alerted the baker as to who or what the cake was being created for ? I mean even if it were in a book, it still had to be customized to fit the occasion because the baker didn't make wedding cakes for gay's.
Click to expand...


Of course they did...just by walking in and ordering a wedding cake. They were a gay couple ordering a wedding cake just like a straight couple. The only difference in the transaction was the people, not the cake...hence the discrimination and the lawsuit. They broke the law. 

The cake is just a cake it was the people ordering that the baker objected to, which was a violation of the law.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Its simply amazing that SeaBytch believes that people who should not be able to tell others who they may marry should be able to be told who they have to do business with.

Simply amazing. Proves she doesn't give one shit about freedom. She cares about gays getting their way PERIOD.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Its simply amazing that SeaBytch believes that people who should not be able to tell others who they may marry should be able to be told who they have to do business with.
> 
> Simply amazing. Proves she doesn't give one shit about freedom. She cares about gays getting their way PERIOD.



Oh look, I have a stalker. How cute. 

I care about equality. Public Accommodation laws protect you, a Christian, in all 50 states. Those same laws protect gays in a handful. Wah.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its simply amazing that SeaBytch believes that people who should not be able to tell others who they may marry should be able to be told who they have to do business with.
> 
> Simply amazing. Proves she doesn't give one shit about freedom. She cares about gays getting their way PERIOD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look, I have a stalker. How cute.
> 
> I care about equality. Public Accommodation laws protect you, a Christian, in all 50 states. Those same laws protect gays in a handful. Wah.
Click to expand...



That's irrelevant stupid. I don't want other people being told by the government that they have to do business with me, because there is NO Constitutional authority for them to do so.

Just like there is no Constitutional authority for them to tell you fags you can't marry.


----------



## beagle9

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big difference in you needing what you described, is that you don't have to run in and tell anyone about yourself in order to get those things that you described, but in the case of asking a cake baker to bake a specific customized cake for a gay couple, and this upon their request is another issue altogether. I mean what if that request is found going against the cake bakers religious values and morals on such a thing for which he believes in ? I'd say that Houston we have a unique and special problem on all our hands now don't we ?
> 
> Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like *Marriage* in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you live in a small town, everyone knows your business. You don't have to tell anyone, they know.
> 
> The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The business sells wedding cakes. All they had to do was sell the cake and they chose not to, which violated the state's public accommodation laws. You don't get to pull the religion card when you want to discriminate against a group of people.
> 
> Nobody has "hijacked" marriage, for pity sake. Civil marriage exists in this country and it does a lot of things for couples. You wouldn't deny a gay person a driver's license because they are gay, why would you deny a marriage license issued by the same authority?
> 
> Yes...until about a decade ago, marriage has been "just for straights" ...but at the time of the founding, voting was only for rich white men. Should it have stayed that way just because that's the way it was at the founding? "Tradition" said that blacks couldn't marry whites until about 50 years ago. Guess that is a tradition that should have stood as well in your book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not a customized cake, it was a wedding cake out of a catalog of wedding cakes. If it had been an item the baker did not bake, there would have been no lawsuit. Seriously, turn off Rush or Hannity or whoever and read something, I beg you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so you think that the gay in no way alerted the baker as to who or what the cake was being created for ? I mean even if it were in a book, it still had to be customized to fit the occasion because the baker didn't make wedding cakes for gay's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they did...just by walking in and ordering a wedding cake. They were a gay couple ordering a wedding cake just like a straight couple. The only difference in the transaction was the people, not the cake...hence the discrimination and the lawsuit. They broke the law.
> 
> The cake is just a cake it was the people ordering that the baker objected to, which was a violation of the law.
Click to expand...

Do you have the transcript of the lawsuit and/or the event as it is told by both sides, because I would sure like to know if your assertions are true or not. I mean were you there, and do you know that this is what happened exactly between them all or did you read this somewhere ? How were the two acting while in the shop ? Were they taunting the baker with their actions, and therefore causing the baker to pull his beliefs and moral standards out on them, and this in order to deprive them of the service in which they had required of the baker, and in which are standards that are based upon the beliefs and standards that the baker lived by?

 I mean isn't there are all sorts of lead ways in the laws that go on between a business giving their services willingly or even in denying their services based upon the rules set forth by a business owner (shoes and shirt required or no service), and upon the attitudes that causes gaps to form between a person or persons that are doing business together or to even be ousted from a business if necessary when things don't work out between all parties involved ? I mean this happens all the time doesn't it ? Otherwise a business if things go wrong will not be doing business with the person or persons anymore by it's choosing right, and this if it is the persons fault that things went wrong and not the business owners fault instead ? If I go into a business, and I think that can conduct myself in anyway that I want to or if I demand from that business anything that I want, then does the business have any rights to deny me their service if I am unreasonable in my demands or if my actions go against everything that a citizen and/or business owner doth believe in ? If the owner thinks that I am offensive or belligerent as a customer, then does that business have any rights in America any longer to deny me their services ?  The window once believed in within America, is closing faster than a speeding bullet now, and the box is getting smaller and smaller that the American people are being placed into. I guess it all comes down to who is getting into the box, the believers or the attackers of the believers in this nation ?  If the government has anything to do with it, it will be the Christians who will be forced into the box, so get ready Christians because their coming for you now.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you live in a small town, everyone knows your business. You don't have to tell anyone, they know.
> 
> The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The business sells wedding cakes. All they had to do was sell the cake and they chose not to, which violated the state's public accommodation laws. You don't get to pull the religion card when you want to discriminate against a group of people.
> 
> Nobody has "hijacked" marriage, for pity sake. Civil marriage exists in this country and it does a lot of things for couples. You wouldn't deny a gay person a driver's license because they are gay, why would you deny a marriage license issued by the same authority?
> 
> Yes...until about a decade ago, marriage has been "just for straights" ...but at the time of the founding, voting was only for rich white men. Should it have stayed that way just because that's the way it was at the founding? "Tradition" said that blacks couldn't marry whites until about 50 years ago. Guess that is a tradition that should have stood as well in your book?
> 
> 
> 
> You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not a customized cake, it was a wedding cake out of a catalog of wedding cakes. If it had been an item the baker did not bake, there would have been no lawsuit. Seriously, turn off Rush or Hannity or whoever and read something, I beg you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so you think that the gay in no way alerted the baker as to who or what the cake was being created for ? I mean even if it were in a book, it still had to be customized to fit the occasion because the baker didn't make wedding cakes for gay's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they did...just by walking in and ordering a wedding cake. They were a gay couple ordering a wedding cake just like a straight couple. The only difference in the transaction was the people, not the cake...hence the discrimination and the lawsuit. They broke the law.
> 
> The cake is just a cake it was the people ordering that the baker objected to, which was a violation of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have the transcript of the lawsuit and/or the event as it is told by both sides, because I would sure like to know if your assertions are true or not. I mean were you there, and do you know that this is what happened exactly between them all or did you read this somewhere ? How were the two acting while in the shop ? Were they taunting the baker with their actions, and therefore causing the baker to pull his beliefs and moral standards out on them, and this in order to deprive them of the service in which they had required of the baker, and in which are standards that are based upon the beliefs and standards that the baker lived by?
> 
> I mean isn't there are all sorts of lead ways in the laws that go on between a business giving their services willingly or even in denying their services based upon the rules set forth by a business owner (shoes and shirt required or no service), and upon the attitudes that causes gaps to form between a person or persons that are doing business together or to even be ousted from a business if necessary when things don't work out between all parties involved ? I mean this happens all the time doesn't it ? Otherwise a business if things go wrong will not be doing business with the person or persons anymore by it's choosing right, and this if it is the persons fault that things went wrong and not the business owners fault instead ? If I go into a business, and I think that can conduct myself in anyway that I want to or if I demand from that business anything that I want, then does the business have any rights to deny me their service if I am unreasonable in my demands or if my actions go against everything that a citizen and/or business owner doth believe in ? If the owner thinks that I am offensive or belligerent as a customer, then does that business have any rights in America any longer to deny me their services ?  The window once believed in within America, is closing faster than a speeding bullet now, and the box is getting smaller and smaller that the American people are being placed into. I guess it all comes down to who is getting into the box, the believers or the attackers of the believers in this nation ?  If the government has anything to do with it, it will be the Christians who will be forced into the box, so get ready Christians because their coming for you now.
Click to expand...



SeaBytch doesn''t care about right and wrong only about getting what SHE wants.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


>



Who do you think you are not allowed to criticize Neal?

There is no freedom from criticism.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  Next thing you'll tell me is queers aren't deliberately targeting Christian businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  It's choreographed for sure.  That's why whenever one of the LGBT cultees spouts about "how there's not been one church sued under public accomodation for not performing gay marriages" I always answer "Not yet".  Because we all know it's coming...
Click to expand...


Well if you know 'its coming' we can be fairly certain it won't happen. Your record of 'success' on predictions speaks for itself.

No one has sued a church demanding that they allow Jews to be married there, or sued a church demanding that a Baptist Church allow a Mormon to be married there, or sued a church to demand that they allow blacks to marry there.

That is because the only one who claim churches will be sued are homophobes who don't want homosexuals to be married by anyone- anywhere.

So they try to scare people.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was never about "equality".  It's about submission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't interested in whether you are a submissive or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not about me.  It's about queers hate for Christians.  Queers want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs.  Fuck you.
Click to expand...


Its not about me. It's about Christians hate for queers. Christians want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs. Fuck you.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  Next thing you'll tell me is queers aren't deliberately targeting Christian businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  It's choreographed for sure.  That's why whenever one of the LGBT cultees spouts about "how there's not been one church sued under public accomodation for not performing gay marriages" I always answer "Not yet".  Because we all know it's coming...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you know 'its coming' we can be fairly certain it won't happen. Your record of 'success' on predictions speaks for itself.
> 
> No one has sued a church demanding that they allow Jews to be married there, or sued a church demanding that a Baptist Church allow a Mormon to be married there, or sued a church to demand that they allow blacks to marry there.
> 
> That is because the only one who claim churches will be sued are homophobes who don't want homosexuals to be married by anyone- anywhere.
> 
> So they try to scare people.
Click to expand...


wrong

I think fags should able to marry whomever they wish.I also know that many fags are assholes like SeaBytch and they WILL sue churches, just to be assholes.

It WILL happen, maybe not today maybe not tomorrow, but eventually some asshole queer will sue a church.

After all, if they weren't assholes, they'd just move on down the street when one baker said "I can't support gay "marriage" , sorry"


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was never about "equality".  It's about submission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't interested in whether you are a submissive or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not about me.  It's about queers hate for Christians.  Queers want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs.  Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not about me. It's about Christians hate for queers.* Christians want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs*. Fuck you.
Click to expand...



Says the fucking idiot who wants to force Christians to work for gays LOL


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you are not allowed to criticize Neal?
> 
> There is no freedom from criticism.
Click to expand...


Am I free to criticize without being demonized by the left.  Nope.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like *Marriage* in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?



I didn't consider that my wife and I were 'wearing our sexuality' on our sleeves when we ordered our wedding cake some 20 years ago. We were just ordering a wedding cake.

Why would same gender couples want to be treated legally just like my wife and I are treated? 

Why wouldn't they want to be treated equally?


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  Next thing you'll tell me is queers aren't deliberately targeting Christian businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  It's choreographed for sure.  That's why whenever one of the LGBT cultees spouts about "how there's not been one church sued under public accomodation for not performing gay marriages" I always answer "Not yet".  Because we all know it's coming...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you know 'its coming' we can be fairly certain it won't happen. Your record of 'success' on predictions speaks for itself.
> 
> No one has sued a church demanding that they allow Jews to be married there, or sued a church demanding that a Baptist Church allow a Mormon to be married there, or sued a church to demand that they allow blacks to marry there.
> 
> That is because the only one who claim churches will be sued are homophobes who don't want homosexuals to be married by anyone- anywhere.
> 
> So they try to scare people.
Click to expand...


Christophobic bigot.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was never about "equality".  It's about submission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't interested in whether you are a submissive or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not about me.  It's about queers hate for Christians.  Queers want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs.  Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not about me. It's about Christians hate for queers.* Christians want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs*. Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the fucking idiot who wants to force Christians to work for gays LOL
Click to expand...


Well fuck you also.


----------



## DriftingSand

No!!!

The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you are not allowed to criticize Neal?
> 
> There is no freedom from criticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I free to criticize without being demonized by the left.  Nope.
Click to expand...


Oh so you think that your criticisms should be free of criticism?

Thats not how it works.

You are free to say what you will. 

I am free to say what I will about what you say- and vice versa.

There is no freedom from criticism.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was never about "equality".  It's about submission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't interested in whether you are a submissive or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not about me.  It's about queers hate for Christians.  Queers want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs.  Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not about me. It's about Christians hate for queers.* Christians want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs*. Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the fucking idiot who wants to force Christians to work for gays LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well fuck you also.
Click to expand...


What a well reasoned response. I must have really stung you when I pointed out your blatant hypocrisy.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you are not allowed to criticize Neal?
> 
> There is no freedom from criticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I free to criticize without being demonized by the left.  Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so you think that your criticisms should be free of criticism?
> 
> Thats not how it works.
> 
> You are free to say what you will.
> 
> I am free to say what I will about what you say- and vice versa.
> 
> There is no freedom from criticism.
Click to expand...

Free of name calling.  Christophobic bigot.


----------



## Syriusly

DriftingSand said:


> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.



Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.

Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.

Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't interested in whether you are a submissive or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about me.  It's about queers hate for Christians.  Queers want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs.  Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not about me. It's about Christians hate for queers.* Christians want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs*. Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the fucking idiot who wants to force Christians to work for gays LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well fuck you also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a well reasoned response. I must have really stung you when I pointed out your blatant hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


I thought about your response, and decided that it deserved a succintly well reasoned response.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you are not allowed to criticize Neal?
> 
> There is no freedom from criticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I free to criticize without being demonized by the left.  Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so you think that your criticisms should be free of criticism?
> 
> Thats not how it works.
> 
> You are free to say what you will.
> 
> I am free to say what I will about what you say- and vice versa.
> 
> There is no freedom from criticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free of name calling.  Christophobic bigot.
Click to expand...


You mean you think someone should prevent you from this statement?
_It's not about me. It's about queers hate for Christians. Queers want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs. Fuck you._

You are allowed to be a homophobic bigot and spout your homophobic tirades. I am not trying to prevent you from spouting your hate.

But I can criticize it.

If you can't handle the criticism- that is your problem.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about me.  It's about queers hate for Christians.  Queers want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs.  Fuck you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not about me. It's about Christians hate for queers.* Christians want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs*. Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the fucking idiot who wants to force Christians to work for gays LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well fuck you also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a well reasoned response. I must have really stung you when I pointed out your blatant hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought about your response, and decided that it deserved a succintly well reasoned response.
Click to expand...



Yeah you did, I pointed out your hypocrisy and you screamed "fuck you" like a child.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you are not allowed to criticize Neal?
> 
> There is no freedom from criticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I free to criticize without being demonized by the left.  Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so you think that your criticisms should be free of criticism?
> 
> Thats not how it works.
> 
> You are free to say what you will.
> 
> I am free to say what I will about what you say- and vice versa.
> 
> There is no freedom from criticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free of name calling.  Christophobic bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean you think someone should prevent you from this statement?
> _It's not about me. It's about queers hate for Christians. Queers want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs. Fuck you._
> 
> You are allowed to be a homophobic bigot and spout your homophobic tirades. I am not trying to prevent you from spouting your hate.
> 
> But I can criticize it.
> 
> If you can't handle the criticism- that is your problem.
Click to expand...

You hateful Christophobic bigoted asslicker.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
> Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.
> 
> Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.
> 
> Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.
Click to expand...



Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
> Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.
> 
> Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.
> 
> Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.
Click to expand...


Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.

And by the way once again- since it is so timely

Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....

All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
> Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.
> 
> Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.
> 
> Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.
> 
> And by the way once again- since it is so timely
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
Click to expand...

You forgot "homophobe", you Christophobic bigoted cocksucker.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
> Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.
> 
> Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.
> 
> Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.
> 
> And by the way once again- since it is so timely
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
Click to expand...



I have never called anyone a k!ke, a c&nt, or a sp!c

BUT, out of curiosity, how did you determine that using one of those words is ANY less polite than childishly screaming "fuck you" to someone who disagrees with you?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you are not allowed to criticize Neal?
> 
> There is no freedom from criticism.
Click to expand...

To criticize is one thing, but to cry to the federal government to get it to enforce it's big stick on the business owners is another.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you are not allowed to criticize Neal?
> 
> There is no freedom from criticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To criticize is one thing, but to cry to the federal government to get it to enforce it's big stick on the business owners is another.
Click to expand...



And to scream that "you don't have a right to do that" as you are doing something that you don't have a right to do just begs to get someone slapped.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
> Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.
> 
> Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.
> 
> Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.
> 
> And by the way once again- since it is so timely
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never called anyone a k!ke, a c&nt, or a sp!c
> 
> BUT, out of curiosity, how did you determine that using one of those words is ANY less polite than childishly screaming "fuck you" to someone who disagrees with you?
Click to expand...


Well thanks for sharing.

In my opinion

Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....

Are all the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
> Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.
> 
> Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.
> 
> Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.
> 
> And by the way once again- since it is so timely
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never called anyone a k!ke, a c&nt, or a sp!c
> 
> BUT, out of curiosity, how did you determine that using one of those words is ANY less polite than childishly screaming "fuck you" to someone who disagrees with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thanks for sharing.
> 
> In my opinion
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> Are all the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
Click to expand...



so, scared to answer the question eh? I don't blame you. I knew the answer before I asked.


----------



## rdean

Churches should be taxed.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you are not allowed to criticize Neal?
> 
> There is no freedom from criticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To criticize is one thing, but to cry to the federal government to get it to enforce it's big stick on the business owners is another.
Click to expand...


Hmmm who is asking the federal government to enforce anything regarding business owners?

Just to be clear- there is no federal law that prohibits business's from discriminating against persons based upon their sexual preference.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
> Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.
> 
> Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.
> 
> Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.
> 
> And by the way once again- since it is so timely
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never called anyone a k!ke, a c&nt, or a sp!c
> 
> BUT, out of curiosity, how did you determine that using one of those words is ANY less polite than childishly screaming "fuck you" to someone who disagrees with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thanks for sharing.
> 
> In my opinion
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> Are all the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so, scared to answer the question eh? I don't blame you. I knew the answer before I asked.
Click to expand...


I think for the person who uses terms like faggot and n*gger and k*ke and c*nt- it was a sufficient answer.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
> Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.
> 
> Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.
> 
> Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.
> 
> And by the way once again- since it is so timely
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot "homophobe", you Christophobic bigoted cocksucker.
Click to expand...


Feel free to start your own list. If you think calling someone a homophobe because they hate homosexuals and want to be able to discriminate against them is the same as calling someone a 'f*ggot' because they happen to be attracted to the same sex- go for it.

I am not free from criticism, nor do I pretend I should be.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you are not allowed to criticize Neal?
> 
> There is no freedom from criticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To criticize is one thing, but to cry to the federal government to get it to enforce it's big stick on the business owners is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And to scream that "you don't have a right to do that" as you are doing something that you don't have a right to do just begs to get someone slapped.
Click to expand...




rdean said:


> Churches should be taxed.



Nope.  Seperation of church and state?


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.
> 
> And by the way once again- since it is so timely
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never called anyone a k!ke, a c&nt, or a sp!c
> 
> BUT, out of curiosity, how did you determine that using one of those words is ANY less polite than childishly screaming "fuck you" to someone who disagrees with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thanks for sharing.
> 
> In my opinion
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> Are all the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so, scared to answer the question eh? I don't blame you. I knew the answer before I asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think for the person who uses terms like faggot and n*gger and k*ke and c*nt- it was a sufficient answer.
Click to expand...

And homophobe.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
> Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.
> 
> Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.
> 
> Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.
> 
> And by the way once again- since it is so timely
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot "homophobe", you Christophobic bigoted cocksucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to start your own list. If you think calling someone a homophobe because they hate homosexuals and want to be able to discriminate against them is the same as calling someone a 'f*ggot' because they happen to be attracted to the same sex- go for it.
> 
> I am not free from criticism, nor do I pretend I should be.
Click to expand...

You hate Christians.  Hypocrite.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was never about "equality".  It's about submission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't interested in whether you are a submissive or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not about me.  It's about queers hate for Christians.  Queers want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs.  Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not about me. It's about Christians hate for queers. Christians want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs. Fuck you.
Click to expand...

It's more about Gays hate for Christians, because for years this nation didn't have these problems, but now here we are.. Now what has changed ? The Christians are the same as they ever were in this nation, but all of a sudden there is this huge coming about of these issues all at once in America ? When did the multiplying or explosion begin to take off (what influenced it?), and how long has it been to get these things going now ? Like I said, the true Christians are the same as they were hundreds of years ago, but this gay explosion is something new in America as opposed to around the world. Should the Christians be concerned of this new hatred towards them in which these Gay's do hold for them ? Christians are taught that being gay is a sin, so how does that change among the Christians ? It doesn't, so what to do is what should be the answer all should seek within it all, and a solution should be looked at by all parties involved. Clinton was faced with this dilemma concerning the military, and therefore the solution at the time was the "Don't ask, Don't tell" rule, but that was not enough so on ward it all goes with people wearing their sexuality on their sleeves or wanting to in everything that they do. People need to be pushed back into the bedroom is what needs to happen with this sexuality thing, instead of all this flaunting of ones sexuality for all to see, and then the using of it to demand all sorts of favors with it or all because of it.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

It's about submission.  The queers want Christians to shut up.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Neil N. Blowme said:


> It's about submission.  The queers want Christians to shut up.



OF COURSE that's what it's about. All their bullshit about "the majority don't have the right to bully the minority" what they want is for the minority to bully the majority. PATHETIC

But one must remember that they are not all gays. Some gays just want to live their lives, and shouldn't be penalized bc of these assholes.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was never about "equality".  It's about submission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't interested in whether you are a submissive or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not about me.  It's about queers hate for Christians.  Queers want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs.  Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not about me. It's about Christians hate for queers. Christians want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs. Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's more about Gays hate for Christians, because for years this nation didn't have these problems, but now here we are.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm- "for years this nation didn't have these problems".

First of all lets talk about what problems this nation did have for years. For years homosexuals were persecuted. Sexual activity between them was criminalized. Police activily persecuted them to the point of calling employers after arresting someone for being a homosexual so that the employer would fire them.

Homosexuals were fired from the State Department- simply for being homosexuals. Veterans were fired from the armed forces for being homosexuals.  Homosexuals were banned from teaching in public schools. 

And much of this was done at the urging of Christians who believed that society should persecute homosexuals. 

Now I can't speak for homosexuals, but if I were homosexuals, I might be angry with Christians in general for such persecution- just like some Christians appear to be angry with homosexuals because a few homosexuals fight for their rights. 

But the reality is that a large percentage of homosexuals are Christians, so they wouldn't hate all Christians. 

What i don't know is why you appear to be so angry that homosexuals would ask that laws be enforced.

IF you think that the laws are wrong- then you should be asking to have the laws changed. I see nothing more wrong with homosexuals asking that laws for public accomodation be enforced for them, than I see anything wrong with a Christian asking that PA laws be enforced if he was discriminated against for being Christian.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about submission.  The queers want Christians to shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OF COURSE that's what it's about. All their bullshit about "the majority don't have the right to bully the minority" what they want is for the minority to bully the majority. PATHETIC
> 
> But one must remember that they are not all gays. Some gays just want to live their lives, and shouldn't be penalized bc of these assholes.
Click to expand...

Yes.  The militant queers.  The gay mafia.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was never about "equality".  It's about submission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't interested in whether you are a submissive or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not about me.  It's about queers hate for Christians.  Queers want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs.  Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not about me. It's about Christians hate for queers. Christians want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs. Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's more about Gays hate for Christians, because for years this nation didn't have these problems, but now here we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm- "for years this nation didn't have these problems".
> 
> First of all lets talk about what problems this nation did have for years. For years homosexuals were persecuted. Sexual activity between them was criminalized. Police activily persecuted them to the point of calling employers after arresting someone for being a homosexual so that the employer would fire them.
> 
> Homosexuals were fired from the State Department- simply for being homosexuals. Veterans were fired from the armed forces for being homosexuals.  Homosexuals were banned from teaching in public schools.
> 
> And much of this was done at the urging of Christians who believed that society should persecute homosexuals.
> 
> Now I can't speak for homosexuals, but if I were homosexuals, I might be angry with Christians in general for such persecution- just like some Christians appear to be angry with homosexuals because a few homosexuals fight for their rights.
> 
> *But the reality is that a large percentage of homosexuals are Christians, so they wouldn't hate all Christians. *
> 
> What i don't know is why you appear to be so angry that homosexuals would ask that laws be enforced.
> 
> IF you think that the laws are wrong- then you should be asking to have the laws changed. I see nothing more wrong with homosexuals asking that laws for public accomodation be enforced for them, than I see anything wrong with a Christian asking that PA laws be enforced if he was discriminated against for being Christian.
Click to expand...


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> It's about submission.  The queers want Christians to shut up.



Seems Christians can't handle criticism much then. 

Christians of course want homosexuals to shut up. 

And by 'Christians' I mean only 'homophobes who claim to be Christians and just use that as an excuse to complain about homosexuals'.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about submission.  The queers want Christians to shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OF COURSE that's what it's about. All their bullshit about "the majority don't have the right to bully the minority" what they want is for the minority to bully the majority. PATHETIC
> 
> But one must remember that they are not all gays. Some gays just want to live their lives, and shouldn't be penalized bc of these assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  The militant queers.  The gay mafia.
Click to expand...


i.e. the ones who ask to have the law enforced equally.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about submission.  The queers want Christians to shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OF COURSE that's what it's about. All their bullshit about "the majority don't have the right to bully the minority" what they want is for the minority to bully the majority. PATHETIC
> 
> But one must remember that they are not all gays. Some gays just want to live their lives, and shouldn't be penalized bc of these assholes.
Click to expand...


Exactly- just as one must remember that it is not all Christians. Some Christians just want to live their lives, and shouldn't be penalized because of these assholes.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its simply amazing that SeaBytch believes that people who should not be able to tell others who they may marry should be able to be told who they have to do business with.
> 
> Simply amazing. Proves she doesn't give one shit about freedom. She cares about gays getting their way PERIOD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look, I have a stalker. How cute.
> 
> I care about equality. Public Accommodation laws protect you, a Christian, in all 50 states. Those same laws protect gays in a handful. Wah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's irrelevant stupid. I don't want other people being told by the government that they have to do business with me, because there is NO Constitutional authority for them to do so.
> 
> Just like there is no Constitutional authority for them to tell you fags you can't marry.
Click to expand...


It's quite relevant. I have to serve you in all 50 states but you want to cry like a bitch because you have to serve me in a small handful. Boo freaking Hoo.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
> Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.
> 
> Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.
> 
> Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.
> 
> And by the way once again- since it is so timely
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot "homophobe", you Christophobic bigoted cocksucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to start your own list. If you think calling someone a homophobe because they hate homosexuals and want to be able to discriminate against them is the same as calling someone a 'f*ggot' because they happen to be attracted to the same sex- go for it.
> 
> I am not free from criticism, nor do I pretend I should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You hate Christians.  Hypocrite.
Click to expand...


LOL....believe what you want. 

But I don't live in a world of hate like the homophobes do. I don't hate anyone. 

Not even homophobic bigots who hate homosexuals.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  Next thing you'll tell me is queers aren't deliberately targeting Christian businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  It's choreographed for sure.  That's why whenever one of the LGBT cultees spouts about "how there's not been one church sued under public accomodation for not performing gay marriages" I always answer "Not yet".  Because we all know it's coming...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you know 'its coming' we can be fairly certain it won't happen. Your record of 'success' on predictions speaks for itself.
> 
> No one has sued a church demanding that they allow Jews to be married there, or sued a church demanding that a Baptist Church allow a Mormon to be married there, or sued a church to demand that they allow blacks to marry there.
> 
> That is because the only one who claim churches will be sued are homophobes who don't want homosexuals to be married by anyone- anywhere.
> 
> So they try to scare people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong
> 
> I think fags should able to marry whomever they wish.I also know that many fags are assholes like SeaBytch and they WILL sue churches, just to be assholes.
> 
> It WILL happen, maybe not today maybe not tomorrow, but eventually some asshole queer will sue a church.
> 
> After all, if they weren't assholes, they'd just move on down the street when one baker said "I can't support gay "marriage" , sorry"
Click to expand...


They won't win. Anyone can sue...they will get laughed out of court.


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you live in a small town, everyone knows your business. You don't have to tell anyone, they know.
> 
> The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The business sells wedding cakes. All they had to do was sell the cake and they chose not to, which violated the state's public accommodation laws. You don't get to pull the religion card when you want to discriminate against a group of people.
> 
> Nobody has "hijacked" marriage, for pity sake. Civil marriage exists in this country and it does a lot of things for couples. You wouldn't deny a gay person a driver's license because they are gay, why would you deny a marriage license issued by the same authority?
> 
> Yes...until about a decade ago, marriage has been "just for straights" ...but at the time of the founding, voting was only for rich white men. Should it have stayed that way just because that's the way it was at the founding? "Tradition" said that blacks couldn't marry whites until about 50 years ago. Guess that is a tradition that should have stood as well in your book?
> 
> 
> 
> You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not a customized cake, it was a wedding cake out of a catalog of wedding cakes. If it had been an item the baker did not bake, there would have been no lawsuit. Seriously, turn off Rush or Hannity or whoever and read something, I beg you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so you think that the gay in no way alerted the baker as to who or what the cake was being created for ? I mean even if it were in a book, it still had to be customized to fit the occasion because the baker didn't make wedding cakes for gay's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they did...just by walking in and ordering a wedding cake. They were a gay couple ordering a wedding cake just like a straight couple. The only difference in the transaction was the people, not the cake...hence the discrimination and the lawsuit. They broke the law.
> 
> The cake is just a cake it was the people ordering that the baker objected to, which was a violation of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have the transcript of the lawsuit and/or the event as it is told by both sides, because I would sure like to know if your assertions are true or not. I mean were you there, and do you know that this is what happened exactly between them all or did you read this somewhere ? How were the two acting while in the shop ? Were they taunting the baker with their actions, and therefore causing the baker to pull his beliefs and moral standards out on them, and this in order to deprive them of the service in which they had required of the baker, and in which are standards that are based upon the beliefs and standards that the baker lived by?
> 
> I mean isn't there are all sorts of lead ways in the laws that go on between a business giving their services willingly or even in denying their services based upon the rules set forth by a business owner (shoes and shirt required or no service), and upon the attitudes that causes gaps to form between a person or persons that are doing business together or to even be ousted from a business if necessary when things don't work out between all parties involved ? I mean this happens all the time doesn't it ? Otherwise a business if things go wrong will not be doing business with the person or persons anymore by it's choosing right, and this if it is the persons fault that things went wrong and not the business owners fault instead ? If I go into a business, and I think that can conduct myself in anyway that I want to or if I demand from that business anything that I want, then does the business have any rights to deny me their service if I am unreasonable in my demands or if my actions go against everything that a citizen and/or business owner doth believe in ? If the owner thinks that I am offensive or belligerent as a customer, then does that business have any rights in America any longer to deny me their services ?  The window once believed in within America, is closing faster than a speeding bullet now, and the box is getting smaller and smaller that the American people are being placed into. I guess it all comes down to who is getting into the box, the believers or the attackers of the believers in this nation ?  If the government has anything to do with it, it will be the Christians who will be forced into the box, so get ready Christians because their coming for you now.
Click to expand...


They ordered a cake. If it had been an item the business didn't provide, there would have been no lawsuit.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not a customized cake, it was a wedding cake out of a catalog of wedding cakes. If it had been an item the baker did not bake, there would have been no lawsuit. Seriously, turn off Rush or Hannity or whoever and read something, I beg you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so you think that the gay in no way alerted the baker as to who or what the cake was being created for ? I mean even if it were in a book, it still had to be customized to fit the occasion because the baker didn't make wedding cakes for gay's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they did...just by walking in and ordering a wedding cake. They were a gay couple ordering a wedding cake just like a straight couple. The only difference in the transaction was the people, not the cake...hence the discrimination and the lawsuit. They broke the law.
> 
> The cake is just a cake it was the people ordering that the baker objected to, which was a violation of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have the transcript of the lawsuit and/or the event as it is told by both sides, because I would sure like to know if your assertions are true or not. I mean were you there, and do you know that this is what happened exactly between them all or did you read this somewhere ? How were the two acting while in the shop ? Were they taunting the baker with their actions, and therefore causing the baker to pull his beliefs and moral standards out on them, and this in order to deprive them of the service in which they had required of the baker, and in which are standards that are based upon the beliefs and standards that the baker lived by?
> 
> I mean isn't there are all sorts of lead ways in the laws that go on between a business giving their services willingly or even in denying their services based upon the rules set forth by a business owner (shoes and shirt required or no service), and upon the attitudes that causes gaps to form between a person or persons that are doing business together or to even be ousted from a business if necessary when things don't work out between all parties involved ? I mean this happens all the time doesn't it ? Otherwise a business if things go wrong will not be doing business with the person or persons anymore by it's choosing right, and this if it is the persons fault that things went wrong and not the business owners fault instead ? If I go into a business, and I think that can conduct myself in anyway that I want to or if I demand from that business anything that I want, then does the business have any rights to deny me their service if I am unreasonable in my demands or if my actions go against everything that a citizen and/or business owner doth believe in ? If the owner thinks that I am offensive or belligerent as a customer, then does that business have any rights in America any longer to deny me their services ?  The window once believed in within America, is closing faster than a speeding bullet now, and the box is getting smaller and smaller that the American people are being placed into. I guess it all comes down to who is getting into the box, the believers or the attackers of the believers in this nation ?  If the government has anything to do with it, it will be the Christians who will be forced into the box, so get ready Christians because their coming for you now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch doesn''t care about right and wrong only about getting what SHE wants.
Click to expand...


Oh the irony. It's beagle that is misrepresenting the facts. There was no special order. The couple ordered a wedding cake, period.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about submission.  The queers want Christians to shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems Christians can't handle criticism much then.
> 
> Christians of course want homosexuals to shut up.
> 
> And by 'Christians' I mean only 'homophobes who claim to be Christians and just use that as an excuse to complain about homosexuals'.
Click to expand...



I don't care if they marry, and I want them to shut up. Just freaking get married already.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about submission.  The queers want Christians to shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems Christians can't handle criticism much then.
> 
> Christians of course want homosexuals to shut up.
> 
> And by 'Christians' I mean only 'homophobes who claim to be Christians and just use that as an excuse to complain about homosexuals'.
Click to expand...

The Christian scriptures condemn homosexuality.  Jesus said marriage is a man and a woman.  Jesus was a homophobic bigot.  Right?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not a customized cake, it was a wedding cake out of a catalog of wedding cakes. If it had been an item the baker did not bake, there would have been no lawsuit. Seriously, turn off Rush or Hannity or whoever and read something, I beg you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so you think that the gay in no way alerted the baker as to who or what the cake was being created for ? I mean even if it were in a book, it still had to be customized to fit the occasion because the baker didn't make wedding cakes for gay's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they did...just by walking in and ordering a wedding cake. They were a gay couple ordering a wedding cake just like a straight couple. The only difference in the transaction was the people, not the cake...hence the discrimination and the lawsuit. They broke the law.
> 
> The cake is just a cake it was the people ordering that the baker objected to, which was a violation of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have the transcript of the lawsuit and/or the event as it is told by both sides, because I would sure like to know if your assertions are true or not. I mean were you there, and do you know that this is what happened exactly between them all or did you read this somewhere ? How were the two acting while in the shop ? Were they taunting the baker with their actions, and therefore causing the baker to pull his beliefs and moral standards out on them, and this in order to deprive them of the service in which they had required of the baker, and in which are standards that are based upon the beliefs and standards that the baker lived by?
> 
> I mean isn't there are all sorts of lead ways in the laws that go on between a business giving their services willingly or even in denying their services based upon the rules set forth by a business owner (shoes and shirt required or no service), and upon the attitudes that causes gaps to form between a person or persons that are doing business together or to even be ousted from a business if necessary when things don't work out between all parties involved ? I mean this happens all the time doesn't it ? Otherwise a business if things go wrong will not be doing business with the person or persons anymore by it's choosing right, and this if it is the persons fault that things went wrong and not the business owners fault instead ? If I go into a business, and I think that can conduct myself in anyway that I want to or if I demand from that business anything that I want, then does the business have any rights to deny me their service if I am unreasonable in my demands or if my actions go against everything that a citizen and/or business owner doth believe in ? If the owner thinks that I am offensive or belligerent as a customer, then does that business have any rights in America any longer to deny me their services ?  The window once believed in within America, is closing faster than a speeding bullet now, and the box is getting smaller and smaller that the American people are being placed into. I guess it all comes down to who is getting into the box, the believers or the attackers of the believers in this nation ?  If the government has anything to do with it, it will be the Christians who will be forced into the box, so get ready Christians because their coming for you now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They ordered a cake. If it had been an item the business didn't provide, there would have been no lawsuit.
Click to expand...


You're ignoring, on purpose, the point. Why be a child? Why not just go elsewhere?


----------



## Seawytch

DriftingSand said:


> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.



Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not a customized cake, it was a wedding cake out of a catalog of wedding cakes. If it had been an item the baker did not bake, there would have been no lawsuit. Seriously, turn off Rush or Hannity or whoever and read something, I beg you.
> 
> 
> 
> And so you think that the gay in no way alerted the baker as to who or what the cake was being created for ? I mean even if it were in a book, it still had to be customized to fit the occasion because the baker didn't make wedding cakes for gay's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they did...just by walking in and ordering a wedding cake. They were a gay couple ordering a wedding cake just like a straight couple. The only difference in the transaction was the people, not the cake...hence the discrimination and the lawsuit. They broke the law.
> 
> The cake is just a cake it was the people ordering that the baker objected to, which was a violation of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have the transcript of the lawsuit and/or the event as it is told by both sides, because I would sure like to know if your assertions are true or not. I mean were you there, and do you know that this is what happened exactly between them all or did you read this somewhere ? How were the two acting while in the shop ? Were they taunting the baker with their actions, and therefore causing the baker to pull his beliefs and moral standards out on them, and this in order to deprive them of the service in which they had required of the baker, and in which are standards that are based upon the beliefs and standards that the baker lived by?
> 
> I mean isn't there are all sorts of lead ways in the laws that go on between a business giving their services willingly or even in denying their services based upon the rules set forth by a business owner (shoes and shirt required or no service), and upon the attitudes that causes gaps to form between a person or persons that are doing business together or to even be ousted from a business if necessary when things don't work out between all parties involved ? I mean this happens all the time doesn't it ? Otherwise a business if things go wrong will not be doing business with the person or persons anymore by it's choosing right, and this if it is the persons fault that things went wrong and not the business owners fault instead ? If I go into a business, and I think that can conduct myself in anyway that I want to or if I demand from that business anything that I want, then does the business have any rights to deny me their service if I am unreasonable in my demands or if my actions go against everything that a citizen and/or business owner doth believe in ? If the owner thinks that I am offensive or belligerent as a customer, then does that business have any rights in America any longer to deny me their services ?  The window once believed in within America, is closing faster than a speeding bullet now, and the box is getting smaller and smaller that the American people are being placed into. I guess it all comes down to who is getting into the box, the believers or the attackers of the believers in this nation ?  If the government has anything to do with it, it will be the Christians who will be forced into the box, so get ready Christians because their coming for you now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They ordered a cake. If it had been an item the business didn't provide, there would have been no lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're ignoring, on purpose, the point. Why be a child? Why not just go elsewhere?
Click to expand...


I'm stating the facts, not homophobic hyperbole.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Seawytch said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
Click to expand...

Learn about religious freedom in America.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
Click to expand...


A private club IS a place of business you idiot.

But, since you brought it up, please give the legal reason you differentiate between a "private club " and a business in regards to the unconstitutional public accommodation laws.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so you think that the gay in no way alerted the baker as to who or what the cake was being created for ? I mean even if it were in a book, it still had to be customized to fit the occasion because the baker didn't make wedding cakes for gay's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did...just by walking in and ordering a wedding cake. They were a gay couple ordering a wedding cake just like a straight couple. The only difference in the transaction was the people, not the cake...hence the discrimination and the lawsuit. They broke the law.
> 
> The cake is just a cake it was the people ordering that the baker objected to, which was a violation of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have the transcript of the lawsuit and/or the event as it is told by both sides, because I would sure like to know if your assertions are true or not. I mean were you there, and do you know that this is what happened exactly between them all or did you read this somewhere ? How were the two acting while in the shop ? Were they taunting the baker with their actions, and therefore causing the baker to pull his beliefs and moral standards out on them, and this in order to deprive them of the service in which they had required of the baker, and in which are standards that are based upon the beliefs and standards that the baker lived by?
> 
> I mean isn't there are all sorts of lead ways in the laws that go on between a business giving their services willingly or even in denying their services based upon the rules set forth by a business owner (shoes and shirt required or no service), and upon the attitudes that causes gaps to form between a person or persons that are doing business together or to even be ousted from a business if necessary when things don't work out between all parties involved ? I mean this happens all the time doesn't it ? Otherwise a business if things go wrong will not be doing business with the person or persons anymore by it's choosing right, and this if it is the persons fault that things went wrong and not the business owners fault instead ? If I go into a business, and I think that can conduct myself in anyway that I want to or if I demand from that business anything that I want, then does the business have any rights to deny me their service if I am unreasonable in my demands or if my actions go against everything that a citizen and/or business owner doth believe in ? If the owner thinks that I am offensive or belligerent as a customer, then does that business have any rights in America any longer to deny me their services ?  The window once believed in within America, is closing faster than a speeding bullet now, and the box is getting smaller and smaller that the American people are being placed into. I guess it all comes down to who is getting into the box, the believers or the attackers of the believers in this nation ?  If the government has anything to do with it, it will be the Christians who will be forced into the box, so get ready Christians because their coming for you now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They ordered a cake. If it had been an item the business didn't provide, there would have been no lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're ignoring, on purpose, the point. Why be a child? Why not just go elsewhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm stating the facts, not homophobic hyperbole.
Click to expand...



The next fact you state





will be the first


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so you think that the gay in no way alerted the baker as to who or what the cake was being created for ? I mean even if it were in a book, it still had to be customized to fit the occasion because the baker didn't make wedding cakes for gay's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did...just by walking in and ordering a wedding cake. They were a gay couple ordering a wedding cake just like a straight couple. The only difference in the transaction was the people, not the cake...hence the discrimination and the lawsuit. They broke the law.
> 
> The cake is just a cake it was the people ordering that the baker objected to, which was a violation of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have the transcript of the lawsuit and/or the event as it is told by both sides, because I would sure like to know if your assertions are true or not. I mean were you there, and do you know that this is what happened exactly between them all or did you read this somewhere ? How were the two acting while in the shop ? Were they taunting the baker with their actions, and therefore causing the baker to pull his beliefs and moral standards out on them, and this in order to deprive them of the service in which they had required of the baker, and in which are standards that are based upon the beliefs and standards that the baker lived by?
> 
> I mean isn't there are all sorts of lead ways in the laws that go on between a business giving their services willingly or even in denying their services based upon the rules set forth by a business owner (shoes and shirt required or no service), and upon the attitudes that causes gaps to form between a person or persons that are doing business together or to even be ousted from a business if necessary when things don't work out between all parties involved ? I mean this happens all the time doesn't it ? Otherwise a business if things go wrong will not be doing business with the person or persons anymore by it's choosing right, and this if it is the persons fault that things went wrong and not the business owners fault instead ? If I go into a business, and I think that can conduct myself in anyway that I want to or if I demand from that business anything that I want, then does the business have any rights to deny me their service if I am unreasonable in my demands or if my actions go against everything that a citizen and/or business owner doth believe in ? If the owner thinks that I am offensive or belligerent as a customer, then does that business have any rights in America any longer to deny me their services ?  The window once believed in within America, is closing faster than a speeding bullet now, and the box is getting smaller and smaller that the American people are being placed into. I guess it all comes down to who is getting into the box, the believers or the attackers of the believers in this nation ?  If the government has anything to do with it, it will be the Christians who will be forced into the box, so get ready Christians because their coming for you now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They ordered a cake. If it had been an item the business didn't provide, there would have been no lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're ignoring, on purpose, the point. Why be a child? Why not just go elsewhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm stating the facts, not homophobic hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Once again you demonize and call names.  That's not "criticism".  You don't get it.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

SeaBytch was no doubt "born a lesbian" when she realized ALL men found her repulsive, she's a nasty piece of work.

Can't even be honest in a discussion


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All depends on who interprets the laws then doesn't it, because right now gay's are interpreting the laws to mean that a Christian Cake Baker has to bake a *customized* wedding cake for a Gay couple, and you know what ? No one saw that one coming either. The feds and it's cronyism for whom run the feds, well if they are looking for constituencies for new voting blocks to draw from, then you will see many issues stretched beyond ones imagination in this nation because no one rides for free, and if you think that is a lie, then just take a look backwards and you will see what goes on in it all.  People/huge groups are selling their votes to the feds, but it's all for something in return, and they know it, we know it, and everyone knows it now.  Sil is right when she says "maybe not yet", but stay tuned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The states where those bakers reside have PA laws that include gays. If you open a public business in one of those states you can't refuse service on that basis. The people that "didn't see this coming" we're ignorant of the law in their states. These laws need to be scrapped almost entirely in my opinion. The free market will decide if they should remain open or not if they refuse to serve X members of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's easy for people to say "let the free market decide" when they live in an area with an actual market. There is one Septic Service that operates in my area. What if he chooses not to do business with me? There is one store within 20 miles of my house, a small local market. If I need formula for my baby, am I supposed to drive 60 miles in the middle of the night because they won't sell me food? Maybe gays can just grow their own food like this guy suggests...
> 
> *Washington State Staffer: Gay People Should 'Just Grow Their Own Food' To Deal With Discrimination*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The big difference in you needing what you described, is that you don't have to run in and tell anyone about yourself in order to get those things that you described, but in the case of asking a cake baker to bake a specific customized cake for a gay couple, and this upon their request is another issue altogether. I mean what if that request is found going against the cake bakers religious values and morals on such a thing for which he believes in ? I'd say that Houston we have a unique and special problem on all our hands now don't we ?
> 
> Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like *Marriage* in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you live in a small town, everyone knows your business. You don't have to tell anyone, they know.
> 
> The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The business sells wedding cakes. All they had to do was sell the cake and they chose not to, which violated the state's public accommodation laws. You don't get to pull the religion card when you want to discriminate against a group of people.
> 
> Nobody has "hijacked" marriage, for pity sake. Civil marriage exists in this country and it does a lot of things for couples. You wouldn't deny a gay person a driver's license because they are gay, why would you deny a marriage license issued by the same authority?
> 
> Yes...until about a decade ago, marriage has been "just for straights" ...but at the time of the founding, voting was only for rich white men. Should it have stayed that way just because that's the way it was at the founding? "Tradition" said that blacks couldn't marry whites until about 50 years ago. Guess that is a tradition that should have stood as well in your book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.
> 
> Nice try on the small town analogy, but I think that if the gay would have just went in and purchased a wedding cake without customization being involved, then in no way would the cake baker had refused the person to purchase a cake without the request of customization being involved. Like I said there are test being conducted all over the place, and we have seen a preview of these test being conducted, and you know what ? This nation with the media of today is also the same as a small town, and the people know what is going on in all of this stuff.
> 
> There are test being conducted, and we see these test being conducted, and it's not only concerning this issue, but a more broader test is being conducted in this nation on many issues, traditions and standards, and these test are to see how the Christians can be placed in a box in this country now, because Christians are offensive to all who are conducting these test. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

This is a civil rights issue.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states where those bakers reside have PA laws that include gays. If you open a public business in one of those states you can't refuse service on that basis. The people that "didn't see this coming" we're ignorant of the law in their states. These laws need to be scrapped almost entirely in my opinion. The free market will decide if they should remain open or not if they refuse to serve X members of society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy for people to say "let the free market decide" when they live in an area with an actual market. There is one Septic Service that operates in my area. What if he chooses not to do business with me? There is one store within 20 miles of my house, a small local market. If I need formula for my baby, am I supposed to drive 60 miles in the middle of the night because they won't sell me food? Maybe gays can just grow their own food like this guy suggests...
> 
> *Washington State Staffer: Gay People Should 'Just Grow Their Own Food' To Deal With Discrimination*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The big difference in you needing what you described, is that you don't have to run in and tell anyone about yourself in order to get those things that you described, but in the case of asking a cake baker to bake a specific customized cake for a gay couple, and this upon their request is another issue altogether. I mean what if that request is found going against the cake bakers religious values and morals on such a thing for which he believes in ? I'd say that Houston we have a unique and special problem on all our hands now don't we ?
> 
> Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like *Marriage* in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you live in a small town, everyone knows your business. You don't have to tell anyone, they know.
> 
> The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The business sells wedding cakes. All they had to do was sell the cake and they chose not to, which violated the state's public accommodation laws. You don't get to pull the religion card when you want to discriminate against a group of people.
> 
> Nobody has "hijacked" marriage, for pity sake. Civil marriage exists in this country and it does a lot of things for couples. You wouldn't deny a gay person a driver's license because they are gay, why would you deny a marriage license issued by the same authority?
> 
> Yes...until about a decade ago, marriage has been "just for straights" ...but at the time of the founding, voting was only for rich white men. Should it have stayed that way just because that's the way it was at the founding? "Tradition" said that blacks couldn't marry whites until about 50 years ago. Guess that is a tradition that should have stood as well in your book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.
> 
> Nice try on the small town analogy, but I think that if the gay would have just went in and purchased a wedding cake without customization being involved, then in no way would the cake baker had refused the person to purchase a cake without the request of customization being involved. Like I said there are test being conducted all over the place, and we have seen a preview of these test being conducted, and you know what ? This nation with the media of today is also the same as a small town, and the people know what is going on in all of this stuff.
> 
> There are test being conducted, and we see these test being conducted, and it's not only concerning this issue, but a more broader test is being conducted in this nation on many issues, traditions and standards, and these test are to see how the Christians can be placed in a box in this country now, because Christians are offensive to all who are conducting these test. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> This is a civil rights issue.
Click to expand...



It certainly is. 

Freedom of association - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about submission.  The queers want Christians to shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems Christians can't handle criticism much then.
> 
> Christians of course want homosexuals to shut up.
> 
> And by 'Christians' I mean only 'homophobes who claim to be Christians and just use that as an excuse to complain about homosexuals'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if they marry, and I want them to shut up. Just freaking get married already.
Click to expand...


Well then apparently I am not talking about you when I say

Seems Christians can't handle criticism much then.

Christians of course want homosexuals to shut up.

And by 'Christians' I mean only 'homophobes who claim to be Christians and just use that as an excuse to complain about homosexuals'.

Of course I would love it if Christians would just shut up about homosexuals.

But I don't pretend that Christians aren't free to whine about homosexuals as much as they want.


----------



## toxicmedia

I always like to drop in on mega threads like this, just to see what has become of the original topic, afterr 500some frickken pages.....

At least everyone is still on the subject of religion.

My only problem with the OP is they called it a "homosexual wedding"...and I wonder if they also dissapprove of "taking a marijuana"....just kidding...


----------



## DriftingSand

Seawytch said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
Click to expand...


I've never belonged to a church that was a "place of business."  I've either belonged to churches made up of friends and family or churches that used collection money to pay for overhead and to help the needy.  So I guess you, not I, need to learn the difference.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> SeaBytch was no doubt "born a lesbian" when she realized ALL men found her repulsive, she's a nasty piece of work.
> 
> Can't even be honest in a discussion



Yeah- your post is all about honest discussion......


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch was no doubt "born a lesbian" when she realized ALL men found her repulsive, she's a nasty piece of work.
> 
> Can't even be honest in a discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- your post is all about honest discussion......
Click to expand...


not with her it isn't because she's a vile disgusting piece of crap. Sorry you idiots on the left believe you should be able to "debate" however you would like and then cry foul when the other side responds in kind,, but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A private club IS a place of business you idiot.
> 
> But, since you brought it up, please give the legal reason you differentiate between a "private club " and a business in regards to the unconstitutional public accommodation laws.
Click to expand...


Wiki and Google are your friend. Wiki:

Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers. *Private clubs *and religious institutions are exempt. Public accommodation must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.[1][2]


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A private club IS a place of business you idiot.
> 
> But, since you brought it up, please give the legal reason you differentiate between a "private club " and a business in regards to the unconstitutional public accommodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wiki and Google are your friend. Wiki:
> 
> Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers. *Private clubs *and religious institutions are exempt. Public accommodation must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.[1][2]
Click to expand...



I didn't ask for Wiki,I asked for your OPINION

Are you conceding that you are incapable of individual , intelligent thought.


----------



## Seawytch

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn about religious freedom in America.
Click to expand...


Religious freedom is not infringed upon by public accommodations laws. You can't use your religion to discriminate against blacks or Muslims and in some places gays.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn about religious freedom in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious freedom is not infringed upon by public accommodations laws. You can't use your religion to discriminate against blacks or Muslims and in some places gays.
Click to expand...



oh,so separation of church and state is right out the window when convenient for you eh SeaBytch?


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A private club IS a place of business you idiot.
> 
> But, since you brought it up, please give the legal reason you differentiate between a "private club " and a business in regards to the unconstitutional public accommodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wiki and Google are your friend. Wiki:
> 
> Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers. *Private clubs *and religious institutions are exempt. Public accommodation must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.[1][2]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask for Wiki,I asked for your OPINION
> 
> Are you conceding that you are incapable of individual , intelligent thought.
Click to expand...


No you didn't, you asked for the legal reason. I gave it. Private clubs are not subject to public accommodation laws nor should they. They are a private club...membership required.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn about religious freedom in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious freedom is not infringed upon by public accommodations laws. You can't use your religion to discriminate against blacks or Muslims and in some places gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh,so separation of church and state is right out the window when convenient for you eh SeaBytch?
Click to expand...


Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A private club IS a place of business you idiot.
> 
> But, since you brought it up, please give the legal reason you differentiate between a "private club " and a business in regards to the unconstitutional public accommodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wiki and Google are your friend. Wiki:
> 
> Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers. *Private clubs *and religious institutions are exempt. Public accommodation must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.[1][2]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask for Wiki,I asked for your OPINION
> 
> Are you conceding that you are incapable of individual , intelligent thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you didn't, you asked for the legal reason. I gave it. Private clubs are not subject to public accommodation laws nor should they. They are a private club...membership required.
Click to expand...


No, I asked for your OPINION on what the legal difference between a private club and a business was. You deflected, per usual.


----------



## Seawytch

DriftingSand said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never belonged to a church that was a "place of business."  I've either belonged to churches made up of friends and family or churches that used collection money to pay for overhead and to help the needy.  So I guess you, not I, need to learn the difference.
Click to expand...


Churches aren't subject to PA laws.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

I'm hoping that the first bill the new Congress passes says

"states can't nullify gay "marriage" and PA laws are no longer valid"

Dare Obama to veto that bill.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A private club IS a place of business you idiot.
> 
> But, since you brought it up, please give the legal reason you differentiate between a "private club " and a business in regards to the unconstitutional public accommodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wiki and Google are your friend. Wiki:
> 
> Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers. *Private clubs *and religious institutions are exempt. Public accommodation must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.[1][2]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask for Wiki,I asked for your OPINION
> 
> Are you conceding that you are incapable of individual , intelligent thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you didn't, you asked for the legal reason. I gave it. Private clubs are not subject to public accommodation laws nor should they. They are a private club...membership required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I asked for your OPINION on what the legal difference between a private club and a business was. You deflected, per usual.
Click to expand...


I answered it quite plainly. Private clubs are not, nor should they be, subject to PA laws. They will accept new members the same way churches will...public pressure.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> I'm hoping that the first bill the new Congress passes says
> 
> "states can't nullify gay "marriage" and PA laws are no longer valid"
> 
> Dare Obama to veto that bill.



Great! Call your congressman and get them to repeal title II of the Civil Rights Act. I'm all for it. I don't want to serve Christians, but the law (federal law at that) requires that I do.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hoping that the first bill the new Congress passes says
> 
> "states can't nullify gay "marriage" and PA laws are no longer valid"
> 
> Dare Obama to veto that bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great! Call your congressman and get them to repeal title II of the Civil Rights Act. I'm all for it. I don't want to serve Christians, but the law (federal law at that) requires that I do.
Click to expand...


LOL, thanks for admitting that you are Christophobe.

Meanwhile,I don't need a law to tell me to serve every person who has cash.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hoping that the first bill the new Congress passes says
> 
> "states can't nullify gay "marriage" and PA laws are no longer valid"
> 
> Dare Obama to veto that bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great! Call your congressman and get them to repeal title II of the Civil Rights Act. I'm all for it. I don't want to serve Christians, but the law (federal law at that) requires that I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, thanks for admitting that you are Christophobe.
> 
> Meanwhile,I don't need a law to tell me to serve every person who has cash.
Click to expand...



Nope, just want equality. Intolerant Christians get to discriminate against me....I should get to return the favor don't you think?


----------



## Katzndogz

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hoping that the first bill the new Congress passes says
> 
> "states can't nullify gay "marriage" and PA laws are no longer valid"
> 
> Dare Obama to veto that bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great! Call your congressman and get them to repeal title II of the Civil Rights Act. I'm all for it. I don't want to serve Christians, but the law (federal law at that) requires that I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, thanks for admitting that you are Christophobe.
> 
> Meanwhile,I don't need a law to tell me to serve every person who has cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just want equality. Intolerant Christians get to discriminate against me....I should get to return the favor don't you think?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hoping that the first bill the new Congress passes says
> 
> "states can't nullify gay "marriage" and PA laws are no longer valid"
> 
> Dare Obama to veto that bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great! Call your congressman and get them to repeal title II of the Civil Rights Act. I'm all for it. I don't want to serve Christians, but the law (federal law at that) requires that I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, thanks for admitting that you are Christophobe.
> 
> Meanwhile,I don't need a law to tell me to serve every person who has cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just want equality. Intolerant Christians get to discriminate against me....I should get to return the favor don't you think?
Click to expand...



Um you're wrong SeaBytch, I dont want anyone to discriminate against anyone, I simply want the government to mind their own fucking business.

The same EXACT situation with how I feel about gay "marriage" I don't want gays "marrying" , but it certainly is no concern of the governments.

And OF COURSE you would have the same right to discriminate as anyone else.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hoping that the first bill the new Congress passes says
> 
> "states can't nullify gay "marriage" and PA laws are no longer valid"
> 
> Dare Obama to veto that bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great! Call your congressman and get them to repeal title II of the Civil Rights Act. I'm all for it. I don't want to serve Christians, but the law (federal law at that) requires that I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, thanks for admitting that you are Christophobe.
> 
> Meanwhile,I don't need a law to tell me to serve every person who has cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just want equality. Intolerant Christians get to discriminate against me....I should get to return the favor don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Um you're wrong SeaBytch, I dont want anyone to discriminate against anyone, I simply want the government to mind their own fucking business.
> 
> The same EXACT situation with how I feel about gay "marriage" I don't want gays "marrying" , but it certainly is no concern of the governments.
> 
> And OF COURSE you would have the same right to discriminate as anyone else.
Click to expand...



Narcissistic much? I didn't say YOU...I said intolerant Christians. Guilty conscience?


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn about religious freedom in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious freedom is not infringed upon by public accommodations laws. You can't use your religion to discriminate against blacks or Muslims and in some places gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh,so separation of church and state is right out the window when convenient for you eh SeaBytch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.
Click to expand...


There's the race card.  How convenient.  There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hoping that the first bill the new Congress passes says
> 
> "states can't nullify gay "marriage" and PA laws are no longer valid"
> 
> Dare Obama to veto that bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great! Call your congressman and get them to repeal title II of the Civil Rights Act. I'm all for it. I don't want to serve Christians, but the law (federal law at that) requires that I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, thanks for admitting that you are Christophobe.
> 
> Meanwhile,I don't need a law to tell me to serve every person who has cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just want equality. Intolerant Christians get to discriminate against me....I should get to return the favor don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Um you're wrong SeaBytch, I dont want anyone to discriminate against anyone, I simply want the government to mind their own fucking business.
> 
> The same EXACT situation with how I feel about gay "marriage" I don't want gays "marrying" , but it certainly is no concern of the governments.
> 
> And OF COURSE you would have the same right to discriminate as anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Narcissistic much? I didn't say YOU...I said intolerant Christians. Guilty conscience?
Click to expand...

Jesus was an intolerant Christian, huh.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did...just by walking in and ordering a wedding cake. They were a gay couple ordering a wedding cake just like a straight couple. The only difference in the transaction was the people, not the cake...hence the discrimination and the lawsuit. They broke the law.
> 
> The cake is just a cake it was the people ordering that the baker objected to, which was a violation of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have the transcript of the lawsuit and/or the event as it is told by both sides, because I would sure like to know if your assertions are true or not. I mean were you there, and do you know that this is what happened exactly between them all or did you read this somewhere ? How were the two acting while in the shop ? Were they taunting the baker with their actions, and therefore causing the baker to pull his beliefs and moral standards out on them, and this in order to deprive them of the service in which they had required of the baker, and in which are standards that are based upon the beliefs and standards that the baker lived by?
> 
> I mean isn't there are all sorts of lead ways in the laws that go on between a business giving their services willingly or even in denying their services based upon the rules set forth by a business owner (shoes and shirt required or no service), and upon the attitudes that causes gaps to form between a person or persons that are doing business together or to even be ousted from a business if necessary when things don't work out between all parties involved ? I mean this happens all the time doesn't it ? Otherwise a business if things go wrong will not be doing business with the person or persons anymore by it's choosing right, and this if it is the persons fault that things went wrong and not the business owners fault instead ? If I go into a business, and I think that can conduct myself in anyway that I want to or if I demand from that business anything that I want, then does the business have any rights to deny me their service if I am unreasonable in my demands or if my actions go against everything that a citizen and/or business owner doth believe in ? If the owner thinks that I am offensive or belligerent as a customer, then does that business have any rights in America any longer to deny me their services ?  The window once believed in within America, is closing faster than a speeding bullet now, and the box is getting smaller and smaller that the American people are being placed into. I guess it all comes down to who is getting into the box, the believers or the attackers of the believers in this nation ?  If the government has anything to do with it, it will be the Christians who will be forced into the box, so get ready Christians because their coming for you now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They ordered a cake. If it had been an item the business didn't provide, there would have been no lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're ignoring, on purpose, the point. Why be a child? Why not just go elsewhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm stating the facts, not homophobic hyperbole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you demonize and call names.  That's not "criticism".  You don't get it.
Click to expand...




SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A private club IS a place of business you idiot.
> 
> But, since you brought it up, please give the legal reason you differentiate between a "private club " and a business in regards to the unconstitutional public accommodation laws.
Click to expand...


Not according to the Supreme Court

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE

_Held:_  Applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale *violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association.*

 Government actions that unconstitutionally burden that right may take many forms, *one of which is intrusion into a group’s internal affairs by forcing it to accept a member it does not desire. Roberts v. United States Jaycees,468 U.S. 609, 623. Such forced membership is unconstitutional if the person’s presence affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York,487 U.S. 1, 13. *However, the freedom of expressive association is not absolute; it can be overridden by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms. _Roberts, _468 U.S., at 623. To determine whether a group is protected, this Court must determine whether the group engages in “expressive association.” The record clearly reveals that the Boy Scouts does so when its adult leaders inculcate its youth members with its value system. See _id.,_ at 636. Thus, the Court must determine whether the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect the Boy Scouts’ ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. The Court first must inquire, to a limited extent, into the nature of the Boy Scouts’ viewpoints. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly those represented by the terms “morally straight” and “clean,” and that the organization does not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior. The Court gives deference to the Boy Scouts’ assertions regarding the nature of its expression, see,_Democratic Party of United States_ v. _Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette,_450 U.S. 107, 123—124. The Court then inquires whether Dale’s presence as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly burden the expression of those viewpoints. Dale, by his own admission, is one of a group of gay Scouts who have become community leaders and are open and honest about their sexual orientation. His presence as an assistant scoutmaster would interfere with the Scouts’ choice not to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs. See _Hurley, _515 U.S., at 576—577. This Court disagrees with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s determination that the Boy Scouts’ ability to disseminate its message would not be significantly affected by the forced inclusion of Dale. First, contrary to the state court’s view, an association need not associate for the purpose of disseminating a certain message in order to be protected, but must merely engage in expressive activity that could be impaired. Second, even if the Boy Scouts discourages Scout leaders from disseminating views on sexual issues, its method of expression is protected. Third, the First Amendment does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group’s policy to be “expressive association.” *Given that the Boy Scouts’ expression would be burdened, the Court must inquire whether the application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law here runs afoul the Scouts’ freedom of expressive association, and concludes that it does. *


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have the transcript of the lawsuit and/or the event as it is told by both sides, because I would sure like to know if your assertions are true or not. I mean were you there, and do you know that this is what happened exactly between them all or did you read this somewhere ? How were the two acting while in the shop ? Were they taunting the baker with their actions, and therefore causing the baker to pull his beliefs and moral standards out on them, and this in order to deprive them of the service in which they had required of the baker, and in which are standards that are based upon the beliefs and standards that the baker lived by?
> 
> I mean isn't there are all sorts of lead ways in the laws that go on between a business giving their services willingly or even in denying their services based upon the rules set forth by a business owner (shoes and shirt required or no service), and upon the attitudes that causes gaps to form between a person or persons that are doing business together or to even be ousted from a business if necessary when things don't work out between all parties involved ? I mean this happens all the time doesn't it ? Otherwise a business if things go wrong will not be doing business with the person or persons anymore by it's choosing right, and this if it is the persons fault that things went wrong and not the business owners fault instead ? If I go into a business, and I think that can conduct myself in anyway that I want to or if I demand from that business anything that I want, then does the business have any rights to deny me their service if I am unreasonable in my demands or if my actions go against everything that a citizen and/or business owner doth believe in ? If the owner thinks that I am offensive or belligerent as a customer, then does that business have any rights in America any longer to deny me their services ?  The window once believed in within America, is closing faster than a speeding bullet now, and the box is getting smaller and smaller that the American people are being placed into. I guess it all comes down to who is getting into the box, the believers or the attackers of the believers in this nation ?  If the government has anything to do with it, it will be the Christians who will be forced into the box, so get ready Christians because their coming for you now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ordered a cake. If it had been an item the business didn't provide, there would have been no lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're ignoring, on purpose, the point. Why be a child? Why not just go elsewhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm stating the facts, not homophobic hyperbole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you demonize and call names.  That's not "criticism".  You don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A private club IS a place of business you idiot.
> 
> But, since you brought it up, please give the legal reason you differentiate between a "private club " and a business in regards to the unconstitutional public accommodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the Supreme Court
> 
> BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE
> 
> _Held:_  Applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale *violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association.*
> 
> Government actions that unconstitutionally burden that right may take many forms, *one of which is intrusion into a group’s internal affairs by forcing it to accept a member it does not desire. Roberts v. United States Jaycees,468 U.S. 609, 623. Such forced membership is unconstitutional if the person’s presence affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York,487 U.S. 1, 13. *However, the freedom of expressive association is not absolute; it can be overridden by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms. _Roberts, _468 U.S., at 623. To determine whether a group is protected, this Court must determine whether the group engages in “expressive association.” The record clearly reveals that the Boy Scouts does so when its adult leaders inculcate its youth members with its value system. See _id.,_ at 636. Thus, the Court must determine whether the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect the Boy Scouts’ ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. The Court first must inquire, to a limited extent, into the nature of the Boy Scouts’ viewpoints. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly those represented by the terms “morally straight” and “clean,” and that the organization does not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior. The Court gives deference to the Boy Scouts’ assertions regarding the nature of its expression, see,_Democratic Party of United States_ v. _Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette,_450 U.S. 107, 123—124. The Court then inquires whether Dale’s presence as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly burden the expression of those viewpoints. Dale, by his own admission, is one of a group of gay Scouts who have become community leaders and are open and honest about their sexual orientation. His presence as an assistant scoutmaster would interfere with the Scouts’ choice not to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs. See _Hurley, _515 U.S., at 576—577. This Court disagrees with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s determination that the Boy Scouts’ ability to disseminate its message would not be significantly affected by the forced inclusion of Dale. First, contrary to the state court’s view, an association need not associate for the purpose of disseminating a certain message in order to be protected, but must merely engage in expressive activity that could be impaired. Second, even if the Boy Scouts discourages Scout leaders from disseminating views on sexual issues, its method of expression is protected. Third, the First Amendment does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group’s policy to be “expressive association.” *Given that the Boy Scouts’ expression would be burdened, the Court must inquire whether the application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law here runs afoul the Scouts’ freedom of expressive association, and concludes that it does. *
Click to expand...



Correct, but the faggot DID sue and force the issue all the way to SCOTUS instead of being reasonable and saying "okay a private group doesn't want me, so be it"


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> 
> 
> Learn about religious freedom in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious freedom is not infringed upon by public accommodations laws. You can't use your religion to discriminate against blacks or Muslims and in some places gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh,so separation of church and state is right out the window when convenient for you eh SeaBytch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's the race card.  How convenient.  There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.
Click to expand...


Yet Christians have argued that the Bible does instruct Christians to discriminate.

It was a common argument during Jim Crow days all the way back to the days of slavery.

The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org 







It was an argument for segregation- even as ministers said that segregation was not discrimination

 Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh 

Yes- the founder of Bob Jones University explaining why it was scripturally correct to exclude blacks from the University.

I would agree that there is nothing in the Bible which says that people should be discriminated against because of their skin color.

But lots of Christians have said the Bible says just that.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> They ordered a cake. If it had been an item the business didn't provide, there would have been no lawsuit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignoring, on purpose, the point. Why be a child? Why not just go elsewhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm stating the facts, not homophobic hyperbole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you demonize and call names.  That's not "criticism".  You don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A private club IS a place of business you idiot.
> 
> But, since you brought it up, please give the legal reason you differentiate between a "private club " and a business in regards to the unconstitutional public accommodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the Supreme Court
> 
> BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE
> 
> _Held:_  Applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale *violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association.*
> 
> Government actions that unconstitutionally burden that right may take many forms, *one of which is intrusion into a group’s internal affairs by forcing it to accept a member it does not desire. Roberts v. United States Jaycees,468 U.S. 609, 623. Such forced membership is unconstitutional if the person’s presence affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York,487 U.S. 1, 13. *However, the freedom of expressive association is not absolute; it can be overridden by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms. _Roberts, _468 U.S., at 623. To determine whether a group is protected, this Court must determine whether the group engages in “expressive association.” The record clearly reveals that the Boy Scouts does so when its adult leaders inculcate its youth members with its value system. See _id.,_ at 636. Thus, the Court must determine whether the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect the Boy Scouts’ ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. The Court first must inquire, to a limited extent, into the nature of the Boy Scouts’ viewpoints. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly those represented by the terms “morally straight” and “clean,” and that the organization does not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior. The Court gives deference to the Boy Scouts’ assertions regarding the nature of its expression, see,_Democratic Party of United States_ v. _Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette,_450 U.S. 107, 123—124. The Court then inquires whether Dale’s presence as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly burden the expression of those viewpoints. Dale, by his own admission, is one of a group of gay Scouts who have become community leaders and are open and honest about their sexual orientation. His presence as an assistant scoutmaster would interfere with the Scouts’ choice not to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs. See _Hurley, _515 U.S., at 576—577. This Court disagrees with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s determination that the Boy Scouts’ ability to disseminate its message would not be significantly affected by the forced inclusion of Dale. First, contrary to the state court’s view, an association need not associate for the purpose of disseminating a certain message in order to be protected, but must merely engage in expressive activity that could be impaired. Second, even if the Boy Scouts discourages Scout leaders from disseminating views on sexual issues, its method of expression is protected. Third, the First Amendment does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group’s policy to be “expressive association.” *Given that the Boy Scouts’ expression would be burdened, the Court must inquire whether the application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law here runs afoul the Scouts’ freedom of expressive association, and concludes that it does. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, but the faggot DID sue and force the issue all the way to SCOTUS instead of being reasonable and saying "okay a private group doesn't want me, so be it"
Click to expand...


An American used his lawful right to file a lawsuit. I don't agree with lots of lawsuits, and find many of them unreasonable. 

You asked for the legal distinction- the Supreme Court's decision provided that legal distinction for you. 

You claimed:
_A private club IS a place of business you idiot._

And I showed that the Supreme Court disagrees with you. 

I hope you enjoyed your lesson.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn about religious freedom in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious freedom is not infringed upon by public accommodations laws. You can't use your religion to discriminate against blacks or Muslims and in some places gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh,so separation of church and state is right out the window when convenient for you eh SeaBytch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's the race card.  How convenient.  There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet Christians have argued that the Bible does instruct Christians to discriminate.
> 
> It was a common argument during Jim Crow days all the way back to the days of slavery.
> 
> The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was an argument for segregation- even as ministers said that segregation was not discrimination
> 
> Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh
> 
> Yes- the founder of Bob Jones University explaining why it was scripturally correct to exclude blacks from the University.
> 
> I would agree that there is nothing in the Bible which says that people should be discriminated against because of their skin color.
> 
> But lots of Christians have said the Bible says just that.
Click to expand...

People say a lot of things, not just Christians.  My point is it is not a Christian doctrine.  Condemnation of homosexuality is.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch was no doubt "born a lesbian" when she realized ALL men found her repulsive, she's a nasty piece of work.
> 
> Can't even be honest in a discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- your post is all about honest discussion......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not with her it isn't because she's a vile disgusting piece of crap. Sorry you idiots on the left believe you should be able to "debate" however you would like and then cry foul when the other side responds in kind,, but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.
Click to expand...


I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.

Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch was no doubt "born a lesbian" when she realized ALL men found her repulsive, she's a nasty piece of work.
> 
> Can't even be honest in a discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- your post is all about honest discussion......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not with her it isn't because she's a vile disgusting piece of crap. Sorry you idiots on the left believe you should be able to "debate" however you would like and then cry foul when the other side responds in kind,, but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.
> 
> Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.
Click to expand...

Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?


----------



## beagle9

Neil N. Blowme said:


> It's about submission.  The queers want Christians to shut up.


They've got to be after the Christians wouldn't you think ? I mean because the Christians belief in sin is one thing that includes their lifestyle in that belief in sin.


----------



## Syriusly

_


Neil N. Blowme said:





Syriusly said:





Neil N. Blowme said:





Seawytch said:





SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:





Seawytch said:



			Religious freedom is not infringed upon by public accommodations laws. You can't use your religion to discriminate against blacks or Muslims and in some places gays.
		
Click to expand...



oh,so separation of church and state is right out the window when convenient for you eh SeaBytch?
		
Click to expand...


Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.
		
Click to expand...


There's the race card.  How convenient.  There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.
		
Click to expand...


Yet Christians have argued that the Bible does instruct Christians to discriminate.

It was a common argument during Jim Crow days all the way back to the days of slavery.
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...

_


Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org _
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was an argument for segregation- even as ministers said that segregation was not discrimination
> _
> _ Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh _
> _
> Yes- the founder of Bob Jones University explaining why it was scripturally correct to exclude blacks from the University.
> 
> I would agree that there is nothing in the Bible which says that people should be discriminated against because of their skin color.
> 
> But lots of Christians have said the Bible says just that._
> 
> 
> 
> _
> People say a lot of things, not just Christians.  My point is it is not a Christian doctrine.  Condemnation of homosexuality is._
Click to expand...

_

LOL....thats what Christians always say when they oppose something.

Lets talk about that 'condemnation of homosexuality' as a Christian doctrine.

I will assume we are not speaking of Leviticus- because that is the Old Testament and if we go with Leviticus you should be condemning lots of other things that you aren't.

So lets stick with the New Testament.

Where is homosexuality condemned in the New Testament? 

Clearly Jesus never mentions it. 

Jesus specifically condemns all adultery, and specifically condemns remarriage after divorce as adultery, EXCEPT in the case of adultery by the wife(not the husband).

Do you spend as much time condemning divorce as you do homosexuality? It doesn't get much more explicit than the words of Jesus himself:

*8*Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.*9*And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.d”_

Where is homosexuality 'condemned' in the New Testament?
_
Really only in Romans

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

*27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet*.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
_
*30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,*
_
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
_
So God puts men who have sex with men in the same category as the 'inventors of evil things' and those ;disobedient to parents'

And boasters and the proud_._

It has been my observation that those who most condemn Homosexuality based upon Biblical claims, rather cherry pick what Biblical condemnations to promote.

And just like the issue of race- Christians have been willing to use the issue of homosexuality to promote discrimination against a group that they just think should be discriminated against.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch was no doubt "born a lesbian" when she realized ALL men found her repulsive, she's a nasty piece of work.
> 
> Can't even be honest in a discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- your post is all about honest discussion......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not with her it isn't because she's a vile disgusting piece of crap. Sorry you idiots on the left believe you should be able to "debate" however you would like and then cry foul when the other side responds in kind,, but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.
> 
> Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?
Click to expand...


Have you stopped beating your wife?

And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch was no doubt "born a lesbian" when she realized ALL men found her repulsive, she's a nasty piece of work.
> 
> Can't even be honest in a discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- your post is all about honest discussion......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not with her it isn't because she's a vile disgusting piece of crap. Sorry you idiots on the left believe you should be able to "debate" however you would like and then cry foul when the other side responds in kind,, but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.
> 
> Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> 
> And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have.  My constitution protects my religious beliefs.  You can't force me to accept queer marriage.


----------



## Skylar

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- your post is all about honest discussion......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not with her it isn't because she's a vile disgusting piece of crap. Sorry you idiots on the left believe you should be able to "debate" however you would like and then cry foul when the other side responds in kind,, but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.
> 
> Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> 
> And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you have.  My constitution protects my religious beliefs.  You can't force me to accept queer marriage.
Click to expand...


You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.


----------



## koshergrl

Who the hell seriously believes those Scandanavian barbarians are enlightened?


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Y


Syriusly said:


> _
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh,so separation of church and state is right out the window when convenient for you eh SeaBytch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's the race card.  How convenient.  There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet Christians have argued that the Bible does instruct Christians to discriminate.
> 
> It was a common argument during Jim Crow days all the way back to the days of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org _
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was an argument for segregation- even as ministers said that segregation was not discrimination
> _
> _ Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh _
> _
> Yes- the founder of Bob Jones University explaining why it was scripturally correct to exclude blacks from the University.
> 
> I would agree that there is nothing in the Bible which says that people should be discriminated against because of their skin color.
> 
> But lots of Christians have said the Bible says just that._
> 
> 
> 
> _People say a lot of things, not just Christians.  My point is it is not a Christian doctrine.  Condemnation of homosexuality is._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> LOL....thats what Christians always say when they oppose something.
> 
> Lets talk about that 'condemnation of homosexuality' as a Christian doctrine.
> 
> I will assume we are not speaking of Leviticus- because that is the Old Testament and if we go with Leviticus you should be condemning lots of other things that you aren't.
> 
> So lets stick with the New Testament.
> 
> Where is homosexuality condemned in the New Testament?
> 
> Clearly Jesus never mentions it.
> 
> Jesus specifically condemns all adultery, and specifically condemns remarriage after divorce as adultery, EXCEPT in the case of adultery by the wife(not the husband).
> 
> Do you spend as much time condemning divorce as you do homosexuality? It doesn't get much more explicit than the words of Jesus himself:
> 
> *8*Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.*9*And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.d”_
> 
> Where is homosexuality 'condemned' in the New Testament?
> _
> Really only in Romans
> 
> 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> 
> *27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet*.
> 
> 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
> 
> 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
> _
> *30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,*
> _
> 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
> 
> 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
> _
> So God puts men who have sex with men in the same category as the 'inventors of evil things' and those ;disobedient to parents'
> 
> And boasters and the proud_._
> 
> It has been my observation that those who most condemn Homosexuality based upon Biblical claims, rather cherry pick what Biblical condemnations to promote.
> 
> And just like the issue of race- Christians have been willing to use the issue of homosexuality to promote discrimination against a group that they just think should be discriminated against.
Click to expand...

You forgot First Corinthians 6:9-10.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Skylar said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> not with her it isn't because she's a vile disgusting piece of crap. Sorry you idiots on the left believe you should be able to "debate" however you would like and then cry foul when the other side responds in kind,, but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.
> 
> Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> 
> And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you have.  My constitution protects my religious beliefs.  You can't force me to accept queer marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.
Click to expand...

My constitution trumps your law.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- your post is all about honest discussion......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not with her it isn't because she's a vile disgusting piece of crap. Sorry you idiots on the left believe you should be able to "debate" however you would like and then cry foul when the other side responds in kind,, but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.
> 
> Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> 
> And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you have.  My constitution protects my religious beliefs.  You can't force me to accept queer marriage.
Click to expand...


You don't have to accept anything. No one will force you into a 'queer marriage' as you so quaintly put it.

You are free to practice your religious beliefs, but if you own a business you have to follow the law. That means you can't use your religious beliefs as an excuse to refuse to do business with Jews for instance when it comes to Federal law.


----------



## koshergrl

Homosexuality isn't a religion. Or an ethnicity. It's a behavior.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> not with her it isn't because she's a vile disgusting piece of crap. Sorry you idiots on the left believe you should be able to "debate" however you would like and then cry foul when the other side responds in kind,, but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.
> 
> Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> 
> And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you have.  My constitution protects my religious beliefs.  You can't force me to accept queer marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to accept anything. No one will force you into a 'queer marriage' as you so quaintly put it.
> 
> You are free to practice your religious beliefs, but if you own a business you have to follow the law. That means you can't use your religious beliefs as an excuse to refuse to do business with Jews for instance when it comes to Federal law.
Click to expand...

Nope.  My constitutional rights do not go away because I own a business.  How silly.


----------



## Skylar

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.
> 
> Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> 
> And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you have.  My constitution protects my religious beliefs.  You can't force me to accept queer marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My constitution trumps your law.
Click to expand...


If we consulted you personally on who as allowed to be married, perhaps. But you alone are pretty much irrelevant. The law recognizes marriage even if you don't.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Homosexuality isn't a religion. Or an ethnicity. It's a behavior.



Speech is a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Religion is a behavior.

So what?


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Skylar said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> 
> And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you have.  My constitution protects my religious beliefs.  You can't force me to accept queer marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My constitution trumps your law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we consulted you personally on who as allowed to be married, perhaps. But you alone are pretty much irrelevant. The law recognizes marriage even if you don't.
Click to expand...

No matter how you twist it, my constitution makes my religious beliefs relevant.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a religion. Or an ethnicity. It's a behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speech is a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Religion is a behavior.
> 
> So what?
Click to expand...

All protected by our constitution.  The document you don't respect.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.
> 
> Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> 
> And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you have.  My constitution protects my religious beliefs.  You can't force me to accept queer marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My constitution trumps your law.
Click to expand...


Well if you believe that Public Accomadation laws violate your Constitutional rights- I will say once again for maybe the 20th time- you have the same options as gay couples who believed that laws against same gender marriage violated their rights.

You can either
a) legislatively move to change the law- i.e. repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all subsequaint PA laws or 
b) file a lawsuit against the specific law arguing that it is unconstitutional.

That is how you argue that 'your constitution' trumps the law- its working for homosexual couples right now.


----------



## Seawytch

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> 
> 
> Learn about religious freedom in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious freedom is not infringed upon by public accommodations laws. You can't use your religion to discriminate against blacks or Muslims and in some places gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh,so separation of church and state is right out the window when convenient for you eh SeaBytch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's the race card.  How convenient.  There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.
Click to expand...


Not true. Racist bigots are just as sure of their bible verses as anti gay bigots are.


----------



## Skylar

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> 
> And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you have.  My constitution protects my religious beliefs.  You can't force me to accept queer marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My constitution trumps your law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we consulted you personally on who as allowed to be married, perhaps. But you alone are pretty much irrelevant. The law recognizes marriage even if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter how you twist it, my constitution makes my religious beliefs relevant.
Click to expand...


Not in the legal definition of marriage it doesn't. You are free to believe whatever you want. And the law still recognizes the marriages of gays and lesbians as being just as valid as any straights in 36 of 50 States.

You having the freedom to practice your religion doesn't mean that your religious belief defines our laws.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> Homosexuality isn't a religion. Or an ethnicity. It's a behavior.



Religion is a behavior.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> 
> And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you have.  My constitution protects my religious beliefs.  You can't force me to accept queer marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My constitution trumps your law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you believe that Public Accomadation laws violate your Constitutional rights- I will say once again for maybe the 20th time- you have the same options as gay couples who believed that laws against same gender marriage violated their rights.
> 
> You can either
> a) legislatively move to change the law- i.e. repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all subsequaint PA laws or
> b) file a lawsuit against the specific law arguing that it is unconstitutional.
> 
> That is how you argue that 'your constitution' trumps the law- its working for homosexual couples right now.
Click to expand...


These cases are going to the USSC.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a religion. Or an ethnicity. It's a behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is a behavior.
Click to expand...

What is conscience?


----------



## Seawytch

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great! Call your congressman and get them to repeal title II of the Civil Rights Act. I'm all for it. I don't want to serve Christians, but the law (federal law at that) requires that I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, thanks for admitting that you are Christophobe.
> 
> Meanwhile,I don't need a law to tell me to serve every person who has cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just want equality. Intolerant Christians get to discriminate against me....I should get to return the favor don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Um you're wrong SeaBytch, I dont want anyone to discriminate against anyone, I simply want the government to mind their own fucking business.
> 
> The same EXACT situation with how I feel about gay "marriage" I don't want gays "marrying" , but it certainly is no concern of the governments.
> 
> And OF COURSE you would have the same right to discriminate as anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Narcissistic much? I didn't say YOU...I said intolerant Christians. Guilty conscience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus was an intolerant Christian, huh.
Click to expand...


He wasn't...he would bake the cake. It's not Jesus that has the problem, just some of his fans.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Skylar said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you have.  My constitution protects my religious beliefs.  You can't force me to accept queer marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My constitution trumps your law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we consulted you personally on who as allowed to be married, perhaps. But you alone are pretty much irrelevant. The law recognizes marriage even if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter how you twist it, my constitution makes my religious beliefs relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in the legal definition of marriage it doesn't. You are free to believe whatever you want. And the law still recognizes the marriages of gays and lesbians as being just as valid as any straights in 36 of 50 States.
> 
> You having the freedom to practice your religion doesn't mean that your religious belief defines our laws.
Click to expand...

My constitution trumps your laws.  Round and round we go.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states where those bakers reside have PA laws that include gays. If you open a public business in one of those states you can't refuse service on that basis. The people that "didn't see this coming" we're ignorant of the law in their states. These laws need to be scrapped almost entirely in my opinion. The free market will decide if they should remain open or not if they refuse to serve X members of society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy for people to say "let the free market decide" when they live in an area with an actual market. There is one Septic Service that operates in my area. What if he chooses not to do business with me? There is one store within 20 miles of my house, a small local market. If I need formula for my baby, am I supposed to drive 60 miles in the middle of the night because they won't sell me food? Maybe gays can just grow their own food like this guy suggests...
> 
> *Washington State Staffer: Gay People Should 'Just Grow Their Own Food' To Deal With Discrimination*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The big difference in you needing what you described, is that you don't have to run in and tell anyone about yourself in order to get those things that you described, but in the case of asking a cake baker to bake a specific customized cake for a gay couple, and this upon their request is another issue altogether. I mean what if that request is found going against the cake bakers religious values and morals on such a thing for which he believes in ? I'd say that Houston we have a unique and special problem on all our hands now don't we ?
> 
> Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like *Marriage* in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you live in a small town, everyone knows your business. You don't have to tell anyone, they know.
> 
> The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The business sells wedding cakes. All they had to do was sell the cake and they chose not to, which violated the state's public accommodation laws. You don't get to pull the religion card when you want to discriminate against a group of people.
> 
> Nobody has "hijacked" marriage, for pity sake. Civil marriage exists in this country and it does a lot of things for couples. You wouldn't deny a gay person a driver's license because they are gay, why would you deny a marriage license issued by the same authority?
> 
> Yes...until about a decade ago, marriage has been "just for straights" ...but at the time of the founding, voting was only for rich white men. Should it have stayed that way just because that's the way it was at the founding? "Tradition" said that blacks couldn't marry whites until about 50 years ago. Guess that is a tradition that should have stood as well in your book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.
> 
> Nice try on the small town analogy, but I think that if the gay would have just went in and purchased a wedding cake without customization being involved, then in no way would the cake baker had refused the person to purchase a cake without the request of customization being involved. Like I said there are test being conducted all over the place, and we have seen a preview of these test being conducted, and you know what ? This nation with the media of today is also the same as a small town, and the people know what is going on in all of this stuff.
> 
> There are test being conducted, and we see these test being conducted, and it's not only concerning this issue, but a more broader test is being conducted in this nation on many issues, traditions and standards, and these test are to see how the Christians can be placed in a box in this country now, because Christians are offensive to all who are conducting these test. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> This is a civil rights issue.
Click to expand...

How does ones sexuality, and the flaunting of that sexuality become a *civil rights* issue for someone ? I mean that is what it is all about isn't it ? How come people can't just keep themselves acting and living decent or respectful while out in the public square, and then keep their sexual habits or lifestyles at home ? Government has no business residing over these issues like it has, but the government has become a vote seeking whore anymore, and it will stop at nothing to trash this nation if the votes say do IT.... No one wants to know about these things, and it needs to stop. But in order to make a law that bands public affection being on display while out in the public square, then millions of hetero sexual's would lose their freedoms in which they have enjoyed for centuries in this nation (i.e. hugging, kissing, holding hands while walking in the park etc.),, but they may be ready for that to happen if it can stop people from trampling their Christian religious beliefs in this nation like they have been lately.  May even want to poll them on the issue in that way, just to see where they are at on it now.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Seawytch said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, thanks for admitting that you are Christophobe.
> 
> Meanwhile,I don't need a law to tell me to serve every person who has cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just want equality. Intolerant Christians get to discriminate against me....I should get to return the favor don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Um you're wrong SeaBytch, I dont want anyone to discriminate against anyone, I simply want the government to mind their own fucking business.
> 
> The same EXACT situation with how I feel about gay "marriage" I don't want gays "marrying" , but it certainly is no concern of the governments.
> 
> And OF COURSE you would have the same right to discriminate as anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Narcissistic much? I didn't say YOU...I said intolerant Christians. Guilty conscience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus was an intolerant Christian, huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wasn't...he would bake the cake. It's not Jesus that has the problem, just some of his fans.
Click to expand...

No, he wouldn't.  Jesus said marriage is a man and a woman.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Y
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's the race card.  How convenient.  There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet Christians have argued that the Bible does instruct Christians to discriminate.
> 
> It was a common argument during Jim Crow days all the way back to the days of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org _
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was an argument for segregation- even as ministers said that segregation was not discrimination
> _
> _ Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh _
> _
> Yes- the founder of Bob Jones University explaining why it was scripturally correct to exclude blacks from the University.
> 
> I would agree that there is nothing in the Bible which says that people should be discriminated against because of their skin color.
> 
> But lots of Christians have said the Bible says just that._
> 
> 
> 
> _People say a lot of things, not just Christians.  My point is it is not a Christian doctrine.  Condemnation of homosexuality is._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> LOL....thats what Christians always say when they oppose something.
> 
> Lets talk about that 'condemnation of homosexuality' as a Christian doctrine.
> 
> I will assume we are not speaking of Leviticus- because that is the Old Testament and if we go with Leviticus you should be condemning lots of other things that you aren't.
> 
> So lets stick with the New Testament.
> 
> Where is homosexuality condemned in the New Testament?
> 
> Clearly Jesus never mentions it.
> 
> Jesus specifically condemns all adultery, and specifically condemns remarriage after divorce as adultery, EXCEPT in the case of adultery by the wife(not the husband).
> 
> Do you spend as much time condemning divorce as you do homosexuality? It doesn't get much more explicit than the words of Jesus himself:
> 
> *8*Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.*9*And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.d”_
> 
> Where is homosexuality 'condemned' in the New Testament?
> _
> Really only in Romans
> 
> 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> 
> *27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet*.
> 
> 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
> 
> 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
> _
> *30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,*
> _
> 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
> 
> 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
> _
> So God puts men who have sex with men in the same category as the 'inventors of evil things' and those ;disobedient to parents'
> 
> And boasters and the proud_._
> 
> It has been my observation that those who most condemn Homosexuality based upon Biblical claims, rather cherry pick what Biblical condemnations to promote.
> 
> And just like the issue of race- Christians have been willing to use the issue of homosexuality to promote discrimination against a group that they just think should be discriminated against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot First Corinthians 6:9-10.
Click to expand...


My bad- forgot that one that told Christians not to file lawsuits with other Christians.

_*1*When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believersa! *2*Don’t you realize that someday we believers will judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can’t you decide even these little things among yourselves? *3*Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life. *4*If you have legal disputes about such matters, why go to outside judges who are not respected by the church? *5*I am saying this to shame you. Isn’t there anyone in all the church who is wise enough to decide these issues? *6**But instead, one believerb sues another—right in front of unbelievers!*

*7*Even to have such lawsuits with one another is a defeat for you. Why not just accept the injustice and leave it at that? Why not let yourselves be cheated? *8*Instead, you yourselves are the ones who do wrong and cheat even your fellow believers.c

*9**Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God?* Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, *or practice homosexuality,* *10*or are thieves, or greedy people,* or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people*—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. *11*Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
_
Are you opposed to drunkards being able to legally marry?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy for people to say "let the free market decide" when they live in an area with an actual market. There is one Septic Service that operates in my area. What if he chooses not to do business with me? There is one store within 20 miles of my house, a small local market. If I need formula for my baby, am I supposed to drive 60 miles in the middle of the night because they won't sell me food? Maybe gays can just grow their own food like this guy suggests...
> 
> *Washington State Staffer: Gay People Should 'Just Grow Their Own Food' To Deal With Discrimination*
> 
> 
> 
> The big difference in you needing what you described, is that you don't have to run in and tell anyone about yourself in order to get those things that you described, but in the case of asking a cake baker to bake a specific customized cake for a gay couple, and this upon their request is another issue altogether. I mean what if that request is found going against the cake bakers religious values and morals on such a thing for which he believes in ? I'd say that Houston we have a unique and special problem on all our hands now don't we ?
> 
> Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like *Marriage* in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you live in a small town, everyone knows your business. You don't have to tell anyone, they know.
> 
> The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The business sells wedding cakes. All they had to do was sell the cake and they chose not to, which violated the state's public accommodation laws. You don't get to pull the religion card when you want to discriminate against a group of people.
> 
> Nobody has "hijacked" marriage, for pity sake. Civil marriage exists in this country and it does a lot of things for couples. You wouldn't deny a gay person a driver's license because they are gay, why would you deny a marriage license issued by the same authority?
> 
> Yes...until about a decade ago, marriage has been "just for straights" ...but at the time of the founding, voting was only for rich white men. Should it have stayed that way just because that's the way it was at the founding? "Tradition" said that blacks couldn't marry whites until about 50 years ago. Guess that is a tradition that should have stood as well in your book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.
> 
> Nice try on the small town analogy, but I think that if the gay would have just went in and purchased a wedding cake without customization being involved, then in no way would the cake baker had refused the person to purchase a cake without the request of customization being involved. Like I said there are test being conducted all over the place, and we have seen a preview of these test being conducted, and you know what ? This nation with the media of today is also the same as a small town, and the people know what is going on in all of this stuff.
> 
> There are test being conducted, and we see these test being conducted, and it's not only concerning this issue, but a more broader test is being conducted in this nation on many issues, traditions and standards, and these test are to see how the Christians can be placed in a box in this country now, because Christians are offensive to all who are conducting these test. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> This is a civil rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does ones sexuality, and the flaunting of that sexuality become a *civil rights* issue for someone ? I mean that is what it is all about isn't it ? .
Click to expand...


No it isn't. 

That has been explained to you before. 

The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> 
> And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you have.  My constitution protects my religious beliefs.  You can't force me to accept queer marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My constitution trumps your law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you believe that Public Accomadation laws violate your Constitutional rights- I will say once again for maybe the 20th time- you have the same options as gay couples who believed that laws against same gender marriage violated their rights.
> 
> You can either
> a) legislatively move to change the law- i.e. repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all subsequaint PA laws or
> b) file a lawsuit against the specific law arguing that it is unconstitutional.
> 
> That is how you argue that 'your constitution' trumps the law- its working for homosexual couples right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These cases are going to the USSC.
Click to expand...


Which cases are those? Gay marriage cases? Almost inevitably. I am not aware of any PA cases on their way to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's the race card.  How convenient.  There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet Christians have argued that the Bible does instruct Christians to discriminate.
> 
> It was a common argument during Jim Crow days all the way back to the days of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org _
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was an argument for segregation- even as ministers said that segregation was not discrimination
> _
> _ Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh _
> _
> Yes- the founder of Bob Jones University explaining why it was scripturally correct to exclude blacks from the University.
> 
> I would agree that there is nothing in the Bible which says that people should be discriminated against because of their skin color.
> 
> But lots of Christians have said the Bible says just that._
> 
> 
> 
> _People say a lot of things, not just Christians.  My point is it is not a Christian doctrine.  Condemnation of homosexuality is._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> LOL....thats what Christians always say when they oppose something.
> 
> Lets talk about that 'condemnation of homosexuality' as a Christian doctrine.
> 
> I will assume we are not speaking of Leviticus- because that is the Old Testament and if we go with Leviticus you should be condemning lots of other things that you aren't.
> 
> So lets stick with the New Testament.
> 
> Where is homosexuality condemned in the New Testament?
> 
> Clearly Jesus never mentions it.
> 
> Jesus specifically condemns all adultery, and specifically condemns remarriage after divorce as adultery, EXCEPT in the case of adultery by the wife(not the husband).
> 
> Do you spend as much time condemning divorce as you do homosexuality? It doesn't get much more explicit than the words of Jesus himself:
> 
> *8*Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.*9*And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.d”_
> 
> Where is homosexuality 'condemned' in the New Testament?
> _
> Really only in Romans
> 
> 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> 
> *27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet*.
> 
> 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
> 
> 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
> _
> *30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,*
> _
> 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
> 
> 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
> _
> So God puts men who have sex with men in the same category as the 'inventors of evil things' and those ;disobedient to parents'
> 
> And boasters and the proud_._
> 
> It has been my observation that those who most condemn Homosexuality based upon Biblical claims, rather cherry pick what Biblical condemnations to promote.
> 
> And just like the issue of race- Christians have been willing to use the issue of homosexuality to promote discrimination against a group that they just think should be discriminated against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot First Corinthians 6:9-10.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bad- forgot that one that told Christians not to file lawsuits with other Christians.
> 
> _*1*When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believersa! *2*Don’t you realize that someday we believers will judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can’t you decide even these little things among yourselves? *3*Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life. *4*If you have legal disputes about such matters, why go to outside judges who are not respected by the church? *5*I am saying this to shame you. Isn’t there anyone in all the church who is wise enough to decide these issues? *6**But instead, one believerb sues another—right in front of unbelievers!*
> 
> *7*Even to have such lawsuits with one another is a defeat for you. Why not just accept the injustice and leave it at that? Why not let yourselves be cheated? *8*Instead, you yourselves are the ones who do wrong and cheat even your fellow believers.c
> 
> *9**Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God?* Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, *or practice homosexuality,* *10*or are thieves, or greedy people,* or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people*—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. *11*Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
> _
> Are you opposed to drunkards being able to legally marry?
Click to expand...

You don't believe scripture.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you have.  My constitution protects my religious beliefs.  You can't force me to accept queer marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My constitution trumps your law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you believe that Public Accomadation laws violate your Constitutional rights- I will say once again for maybe the 20th time- you have the same options as gay couples who believed that laws against same gender marriage violated their rights.
> 
> You can either
> a) legislatively move to change the law- i.e. repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all subsequaint PA laws or
> b) file a lawsuit against the specific law arguing that it is unconstitutional.
> 
> That is how you argue that 'your constitution' trumps the law- its working for homosexual couples right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These cases are going to the USSC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which cases are those? Gay marriage cases? Almost inevitably. I am not aware of any PA cases on their way to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

The bakery cases.


----------



## beagle9

Seawytch said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, thanks for admitting that you are Christophobe.
> 
> Meanwhile,I don't need a law to tell me to serve every person who has cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just want equality. Intolerant Christians get to discriminate against me....I should get to return the favor don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Um you're wrong SeaBytch, I dont want anyone to discriminate against anyone, I simply want the government to mind their own fucking business.
> 
> The same EXACT situation with how I feel about gay "marriage" I don't want gays "marrying" , but it certainly is no concern of the governments.
> 
> And OF COURSE you would have the same right to discriminate as anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Narcissistic much? I didn't say YOU...I said intolerant Christians. Guilty conscience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus was an intolerant Christian, huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wasn't...he would bake the cake. It's not Jesus that has the problem, just some of his fans.
Click to expand...

Yeah he would baked the cake of course, just as he had went into the publican house as he was invited to go into back in the day, but don't be fooled of this, and do read on in the story because *it was with a wise and powerful message that he had went into the house to deliver*, and that message got through to those whom he had visited with in these ways and in those days. The message is still the same today.  Now if the cake baker would have agreed to bake the cake, and in the agreeing with this he would have said can I give you a message before you go if I bake this cake for you, and they would have said yes, well when he began to give the message what do you think would have been their reaction ?


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.
> 
> 
> 
> My constitution trumps your law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you believe that Public Accomadation laws violate your Constitutional rights- I will say once again for maybe the 20th time- you have the same options as gay couples who believed that laws against same gender marriage violated their rights.
> 
> You can either
> a) legislatively move to change the law- i.e. repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all subsequaint PA laws or
> b) file a lawsuit against the specific law arguing that it is unconstitutional.
> 
> That is how you argue that 'your constitution' trumps the law- its working for homosexual couples right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These cases are going to the USSC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which cases are those? Gay marriage cases? Almost inevitably. I am not aware of any PA cases on their way to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bakery cases.
Click to expand...


I don't believe that they have even been appealed yet. But let me know how that goes- I absolutely support the rights of these business men to go to court for what they believe- just as gay couples did.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big difference in you needing what you described, is that you don't have to run in and tell anyone about yourself in order to get those things that you described, but in the case of asking a cake baker to bake a specific customized cake for a gay couple, and this upon their request is another issue altogether. I mean what if that request is found going against the cake bakers religious values and morals on such a thing for which he believes in ? I'd say that Houston we have a unique and special problem on all our hands now don't we ?
> 
> Why would anyone want to walk around wearing their sexuality on their sleeve to begin with, and then why would people be trying to highjack something like *Marriage* in which has been straight for as long as this nation can remember or rather has been around and/or intact since it's early founding ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you live in a small town, everyone knows your business. You don't have to tell anyone, they know.
> 
> The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The business sells wedding cakes. All they had to do was sell the cake and they chose not to, which violated the state's public accommodation laws. You don't get to pull the religion card when you want to discriminate against a group of people.
> 
> Nobody has "hijacked" marriage, for pity sake. Civil marriage exists in this country and it does a lot of things for couples. You wouldn't deny a gay person a driver's license because they are gay, why would you deny a marriage license issued by the same authority?
> 
> Yes...until about a decade ago, marriage has been "just for straights" ...but at the time of the founding, voting was only for rich white men. Should it have stayed that way just because that's the way it was at the founding? "Tradition" said that blacks couldn't marry whites until about 50 years ago. Guess that is a tradition that should have stood as well in your book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.
> 
> Nice try on the small town analogy, but I think that if the gay would have just went in and purchased a wedding cake without customization being involved, then in no way would the cake baker had refused the person to purchase a cake without the request of customization being involved. Like I said there are test being conducted all over the place, and we have seen a preview of these test being conducted, and you know what ? This nation with the media of today is also the same as a small town, and the people know what is going on in all of this stuff.
> 
> There are test being conducted, and we see these test being conducted, and it's not only concerning this issue, but a more broader test is being conducted in this nation on many issues, traditions and standards, and these test are to see how the Christians can be placed in a box in this country now, because Christians are offensive to all who are conducting these test. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> This is a civil rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does ones sexuality, and the flaunting of that sexuality become a *civil rights* issue for someone ? I mean that is what it is all about isn't it ? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> That has been explained to you before.
> 
> The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.
Click to expand...

You can't force me to violate my religious bel

If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery.  Duh.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Christians have argued that the Bible does instruct Christians to discriminate.
> 
> It was a common argument during Jim Crow days all the way back to the days of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org _
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was an argument for segregation- even as ministers said that segregation was not discrimination
> _
> _ Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh _
> _
> Yes- the founder of Bob Jones University explaining why it was scripturally correct to exclude blacks from the University.
> 
> I would agree that there is nothing in the Bible which says that people should be discriminated against because of their skin color.
> 
> But lots of Christians have said the Bible says just that._
> 
> 
> 
> _People say a lot of things, not just Christians.  My point is it is not a Christian doctrine.  Condemnation of homosexuality is._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> LOL....thats what Christians always say when they oppose something.
> 
> Lets talk about that 'condemnation of homosexuality' as a Christian doctrine.
> 
> I will assume we are not speaking of Leviticus- because that is the Old Testament and if we go with Leviticus you should be condemning lots of other things that you aren't.
> 
> So lets stick with the New Testament.
> 
> Where is homosexuality condemned in the New Testament?
> 
> Clearly Jesus never mentions it.
> 
> Jesus specifically condemns all adultery, and specifically condemns remarriage after divorce as adultery, EXCEPT in the case of adultery by the wife(not the husband).
> 
> Do you spend as much time condemning divorce as you do homosexuality? It doesn't get much more explicit than the words of Jesus himself:
> 
> *8*Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.*9*And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.d”_
> 
> Where is homosexuality 'condemned' in the New Testament?
> _
> Really only in Romans
> 
> 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> 
> *27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet*.
> 
> 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
> 
> 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
> _
> *30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,*
> _
> 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
> 
> 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
> _
> So God puts men who have sex with men in the same category as the 'inventors of evil things' and those ;disobedient to parents'
> 
> And boasters and the proud_._
> 
> It has been my observation that those who most condemn Homosexuality based upon Biblical claims, rather cherry pick what Biblical condemnations to promote.
> 
> And just like the issue of race- Christians have been willing to use the issue of homosexuality to promote discrimination against a group that they just think should be discriminated against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot First Corinthians 6:9-10.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bad- forgot that one that told Christians not to file lawsuits with other Christians.
> 
> _*1*When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believersa! *2*Don’t you realize that someday we believers will judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can’t you decide even these little things among yourselves? *3*Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life. *4*If you have legal disputes about such matters, why go to outside judges who are not respected by the church? *5*I am saying this to shame you. Isn’t there anyone in all the church who is wise enough to decide these issues? *6**But instead, one believerb sues another—right in front of unbelievers!*
> 
> *7*Even to have such lawsuits with one another is a defeat for you. Why not just accept the injustice and leave it at that? Why not let yourselves be cheated? *8*Instead, you yourselves are the ones who do wrong and cheat even your fellow believers.c
> 
> *9**Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God?* Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, *or practice homosexuality,* *10*or are thieves, or greedy people,* or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people*—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. *11*Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
> _
> Are you opposed to drunkards being able to legally marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't believe scripture.
Click to expand...


I don't believe in the divine nature of scripture. 

I do believe that there are lots of scriptures written down.

Tell me about how you advocate against allowing remarriage after divorce.


----------



## koshergrl

Seawytch said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn about religious freedom in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious freedom is not infringed upon by public accommodations laws. You can't use your religion to discriminate against blacks or Muslims and in some places gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh,so separation of church and state is right out the window when convenient for you eh SeaBytch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's the race card.  How convenient.  There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. Racist bigots are just as sure of their bible verses as anti gay bigots are.
Click to expand...


The racist bigots who use the bible to support racism are in my experience primarily left wing moonbats.


----------



## Skylar

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you live in a small town, everyone knows your business. You don't have to tell anyone, they know.
> 
> The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The business sells wedding cakes. All they had to do was sell the cake and they chose not to, which violated the state's public accommodation laws. You don't get to pull the religion card when you want to discriminate against a group of people.
> 
> Nobody has "hijacked" marriage, for pity sake. Civil marriage exists in this country and it does a lot of things for couples. You wouldn't deny a gay person a driver's license because they are gay, why would you deny a marriage license issued by the same authority?
> 
> Yes...until about a decade ago, marriage has been "just for straights" ...but at the time of the founding, voting was only for rich white men. Should it have stayed that way just because that's the way it was at the founding? "Tradition" said that blacks couldn't marry whites until about 50 years ago. Guess that is a tradition that should have stood as well in your book?
> 
> 
> 
> You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.
> 
> Nice try on the small town analogy, but I think that if the gay would have just went in and purchased a wedding cake without customization being involved, then in no way would the cake baker had refused the person to purchase a cake without the request of customization being involved. Like I said there are test being conducted all over the place, and we have seen a preview of these test being conducted, and you know what ? This nation with the media of today is also the same as a small town, and the people know what is going on in all of this stuff.
> 
> There are test being conducted, and we see these test being conducted, and it's not only concerning this issue, but a more broader test is being conducted in this nation on many issues, traditions and standards, and these test are to see how the Christians can be placed in a box in this country now, because Christians are offensive to all who are conducting these test. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> This is a civil rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does ones sexuality, and the flaunting of that sexuality become a *civil rights* issue for someone ? I mean that is what it is all about isn't it ? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> That has been explained to you before.
> 
> The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't force me to violate my religious bel
> 
> If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery.  Duh.
Click to expand...


And where does the Bible prohibit gay wedding cakes? I've read Leviticus. It never mentions wedding cakes.


----------



## koshergrl

Seawytch said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, thanks for admitting that you are Christophobe.
> 
> Meanwhile,I don't need a law to tell me to serve every person who has cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just want equality. Intolerant Christians get to discriminate against me....I should get to return the favor don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Um you're wrong SeaBytch, I dont want anyone to discriminate against anyone, I simply want the government to mind their own fucking business.
> 
> The same EXACT situation with how I feel about gay "marriage" I don't want gays "marrying" , but it certainly is no concern of the governments.
> 
> And OF COURSE you would have the same right to discriminate as anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Narcissistic much? I didn't say YOU...I said intolerant Christians. Guilty conscience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus was an intolerant Christian, huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wasn't...he would bake the cake. It's not Jesus that has the problem, just some of his fans.
Click to expand...


Yeah, like he "baked the cake" on the temple steps.

He flogged the pigs away from the temple. Jesus wouldn't bake the cake. He wasn't about submitting to depravity, ever.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious freedom is not infringed upon by public accommodations laws. You can't use your religion to discriminate against blacks or Muslims and in some places gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh,so separation of church and state is right out the window when convenient for you eh SeaBytch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's the race card.  How convenient.  There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. Racist bigots are just as sure of their bible verses as anti gay bigots are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The racist bigots who use the bible to support racism are in my experience primarily left wing moonbats.
Click to expand...


I don't account your experience as amounting to much.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Seawytch said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn about religious freedom in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious freedom is not infringed upon by public accommodations laws. You can't use your religion to discriminate against blacks or Muslims and in some places gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh,so separation of church and state is right out the window when convenient for you eh SeaBytch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's the race card.  How convenient.  There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. Racist bigots are just as sure of their bible verses as anti gay bigots are.
Click to expand...

Christophobic bigot.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you live in a small town, everyone knows your business. You don't have to tell anyone, they know.
> 
> The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The business sells wedding cakes. All they had to do was sell the cake and they chose not to, which violated the state's public accommodation laws. You don't get to pull the religion card when you want to discriminate against a group of people.
> 
> Nobody has "hijacked" marriage, for pity sake. Civil marriage exists in this country and it does a lot of things for couples. You wouldn't deny a gay person a driver's license because they are gay, why would you deny a marriage license issued by the same authority?
> 
> Yes...until about a decade ago, marriage has been "just for straights" ...but at the time of the founding, voting was only for rich white men. Should it have stayed that way just because that's the way it was at the founding? "Tradition" said that blacks couldn't marry whites until about 50 years ago. Guess that is a tradition that should have stood as well in your book?
> 
> 
> 
> You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.
> 
> Nice try on the small town analogy, but I think that if the gay would have just went in and purchased a wedding cake without customization being involved, then in no way would the cake baker had refused the person to purchase a cake without the request of customization being involved. Like I said there are test being conducted all over the place, and we have seen a preview of these test being conducted, and you know what ? This nation with the media of today is also the same as a small town, and the people know what is going on in all of this stuff.
> 
> There are test being conducted, and we see these test being conducted, and it's not only concerning this issue, but a more broader test is being conducted in this nation on many issues, traditions and standards, and these test are to see how the Christians can be placed in a box in this country now, because Christians are offensive to all who are conducting these test. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> This is a civil rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does ones sexuality, and the flaunting of that sexuality become a *civil rights* issue for someone ? I mean that is what it is all about isn't it ? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> That has been explained to you before.
> 
> The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't force me to violate my religious bel
> 
> If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery.  Duh.
Click to expand...


Sort of like saying- if you want a black wedding cake then go to a black bakery- or a jewish wedding cake- go to a jewish bakery.

I will just point out once again- your argument is with the law- not with me. You can hold whatever discriminatory beliefs you want to hold.

But you can't break the law just because you can claim it violates your religious beliefs.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh,so separation of church and state is right out the window when convenient for you eh SeaBytch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's the race card.  How convenient.  There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. Racist bigots are just as sure of their bible verses as anti gay bigots are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The racist bigots who use the bible to support racism are in my experience primarily left wing moonbats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't account your experience as amounting to much.
Click to expand...


Embrace your ignorance, then.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh,so separation of church and state is right out the window when convenient for you eh SeaBytch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's the race card.  How convenient.  There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. Racist bigots are just as sure of their bible verses as anti gay bigots are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The racist bigots who use the bible to support racism are in my experience primarily left wing moonbats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't account your experience as amounting to much.
Click to expand...

You're irrelevant.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.
> 
> Nice try on the small town analogy, but I think that if the gay would have just went in and purchased a wedding cake without customization being involved, then in no way would the cake baker had refused the person to purchase a cake without the request of customization being involved. Like I said there are test being conducted all over the place, and we have seen a preview of these test being conducted, and you know what ? This nation with the media of today is also the same as a small town, and the people know what is going on in all of this stuff.
> 
> There are test being conducted, and we see these test being conducted, and it's not only concerning this issue, but a more broader test is being conducted in this nation on many issues, traditions and standards, and these test are to see how the Christians can be placed in a box in this country now, because Christians are offensive to all who are conducting these test. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> This is a civil rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does ones sexuality, and the flaunting of that sexuality become a *civil rights* issue for someone ? I mean that is what it is all about isn't it ? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> That has been explained to you before.
> 
> The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't force me to violate my religious bel
> 
> If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where does the Bible prohibit gay wedding cakes? I've read Leviticus. It never mentions wedding cakes.
Click to expand...


Maybe its in the section where it says not to eat shellfish?


----------



## koshergrl

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.
> 
> Nice try on the small town analogy, but I think that if the gay would have just went in and purchased a wedding cake without customization being involved, then in no way would the cake baker had refused the person to purchase a cake without the request of customization being involved. Like I said there are test being conducted all over the place, and we have seen a preview of these test being conducted, and you know what ? This nation with the media of today is also the same as a small town, and the people know what is going on in all of this stuff.
> 
> There are test being conducted, and we see these test being conducted, and it's not only concerning this issue, but a more broader test is being conducted in this nation on many issues, traditions and standards, and these test are to see how the Christians can be placed in a box in this country now, because Christians are offensive to all who are conducting these test. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> This is a civil rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does ones sexuality, and the flaunting of that sexuality become a *civil rights* issue for someone ? I mean that is what it is all about isn't it ? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> That has been explained to you before.
> 
> The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't force me to violate my religious bel
> 
> If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sort of like saying- if you want a black wedding cake then go to a black bakery- or a jewish wedding cake- go to a jewish bakery.
> 
> I will just point out once again- your argument is with the law- not with me. You can hold whatever discriminatory beliefs you want to hold.
> 
> But you can't break the law just because you can claim it violates your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


Is homosexuality a race, or a religion?

No?

Okay then. It's a behavior.

One could actually exclude homos from a place of business from a health standpoint.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see, you can't speak without pulling the civil right card in which wasn't originally intended to cover all these things, but you as a group have figured it all out upon how to use a card to cover your movement also haven't you? The cake baker wasn't just asked to bake a wedding cake, but was instead asked to bake a customized cake for a gay couple, in which undoubtedly was a foreign concept to the baker, because he hadn't been tested to go against his faith and beliefs that counter such things in his life I would imagine, so instead of the gay respecting his religious view on life, he instead would rather the baker be shut down and ran out of town on a rail, and so I ask you where does it all stop on trying to destroy the Christians in this nation, and where does respect return for each others beliefs in this nation again? It doesn't, and so there will always be winners and losers in these things, and depending on who runs the government I guess will determine such things in the future.
> 
> Nice try on the small town analogy, but I think that if the gay would have just went in and purchased a wedding cake without customization being involved, then in no way would the cake baker had refused the person to purchase a cake without the request of customization being involved. Like I said there are test being conducted all over the place, and we have seen a preview of these test being conducted, and you know what ? This nation with the media of today is also the same as a small town, and the people know what is going on in all of this stuff.
> 
> There are test being conducted, and we see these test being conducted, and it's not only concerning this issue, but a more broader test is being conducted in this nation on many issues, traditions and standards, and these test are to see how the Christians can be placed in a box in this country now, because Christians are offensive to all who are conducting these test. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> This is a civil rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does ones sexuality, and the flaunting of that sexuality become a *civil rights* issue for someone ? I mean that is what it is all about isn't it ? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> That has been explained to you before.
> 
> The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't force me to violate my religious bel
> 
> If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sort of like saying- if you want a black wedding cake then go to a black bakery- or a jewish wedding cake- go to a jewish bakery.
> 
> I will just point out once again- your argument is with the law- not with me. You can hold whatever discriminatory beliefs you want to hold.
> 
> But you can't break the law just because you can claim it violates your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can. Your law violates my CONSTITUTIONAL rights.  Round and round you go.


----------



## koshergrl

Syriusly said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> This is a civil rights issue.
> 
> 
> 
> How does ones sexuality, and the flaunting of that sexuality become a *civil rights* issue for someone ? I mean that is what it is all about isn't it ? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> That has been explained to you before.
> 
> The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't force me to violate my religious bel
> 
> If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where does the Bible prohibit gay wedding cakes? I've read Leviticus. It never mentions wedding cakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe its in the section where it says not to eat shellfish?
Click to expand...


Travel to the Midian desert and chow on some shellfish and see where that lands you, before you scoff.


----------



## Skylar

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> This is a civil rights issue.
> 
> 
> 
> How does ones sexuality, and the flaunting of that sexuality become a *civil rights* issue for someone ? I mean that is what it is all about isn't it ? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> That has been explained to you before.
> 
> The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't force me to violate my religious bel
> 
> If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sort of like saying- if you want a black wedding cake then go to a black bakery- or a jewish wedding cake- go to a jewish bakery.
> 
> I will just point out once again- your argument is with the law- not with me. You can hold whatever discriminatory beliefs you want to hold.
> 
> But you can't break the law just because you can claim it violates your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your law violates my rights.  Round and round you go.
Click to expand...


So said the segregationists. The argument didn't carry much water then. I doubt its going to hold much more water now.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> This is a civil rights issue.
> 
> 
> 
> How does ones sexuality, and the flaunting of that sexuality become a *civil rights* issue for someone ? I mean that is what it is all about isn't it ? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> That has been explained to you before.
> 
> The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't force me to violate my religious bel
> 
> If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sort of like saying- if you want a black wedding cake then go to a black bakery- or a jewish wedding cake- go to a jewish bakery.
> 
> I will just point out once again- your argument is with the law- not with me. You can hold whatever discriminatory beliefs you want to hold.
> 
> But you can't break the law just because you can claim it violates your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is homosexuality a race, or a religion?
> 
> No?
> 
> Okay then. It's a behavior.
> 
> One could actually exclude homos from a place of business from a health standpoint.
Click to expand...


You aren't exactly strong on logic are you?

Religion is a choice- and a behavior
Race is not
Sexual preference may or may not be a choice- and may or may not be a behavior.

Marriage is always a behavior.

I remember people advocating excluding blacks from business's from a health standpoint also.

Pretty much for the same real reasons.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Skylar said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does ones sexuality, and the flaunting of that sexuality become a *civil rights* issue for someone ? I mean that is what it is all about isn't it ? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> That has been explained to you before.
> 
> The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't force me to violate my religious bel
> 
> If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sort of like saying- if you want a black wedding cake then go to a black bakery- or a jewish wedding cake- go to a jewish bakery.
> 
> I will just point out once again- your argument is with the law- not with me. You can hold whatever discriminatory beliefs you want to hold.
> 
> But you can't break the law just because you can claim it violates your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your law violates my rights.  Round and round you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So said the segregationists. The argument didn't carry much water then. I doubt its going to hold much more water now.
Click to expand...

The segregationists were not protected by the constitution.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> This is a civil rights issue.
> 
> 
> 
> How does ones sexuality, and the flaunting of that sexuality become a *civil rights* issue for someone ? I mean that is what it is all about isn't it ? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> That has been explained to you before.
> 
> The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't force me to violate my religious bel
> 
> If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sort of like saying- if you want a black wedding cake then go to a black bakery- or a jewish wedding cake- go to a jewish bakery.
> 
> I will just point out once again- your argument is with the law- not with me. You can hold whatever discriminatory beliefs you want to hold.
> 
> But you can't break the law just because you can claim it violates your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is homosexuality a race, or a religion?
> 
> No?
> 
> Okay then. It's a behavior.
> 
> One could actually exclude homos from a place of business from a health standpoint.
Click to expand...


Speech is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. The practice of religion is a behavior. 

They're protected. And if you don't think that gays are protected, read Lawrence V. Texas, Romer V. Evans and Windsor v. the US. Then read who wrote every such decision.

We call him 'Mr. Swing Voter'.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does ones sexuality, and the flaunting of that sexuality become a *civil rights* issue for someone ? I mean that is what it is all about isn't it ? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> That has been explained to you before.
> 
> The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't force me to violate my religious bel
> 
> If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where does the Bible prohibit gay wedding cakes? I've read Leviticus. It never mentions wedding cakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe its in the section where it says not to eat shellfish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Travel to the Midian desert and chow on some shellfish and see where that lands you, before you scoff.
Click to expand...


Observant Jews do not eat the freshest shellfish regardless how safe it is.

An omnipotent God would know that shellfish can be safe to eat. 

But he told all Jews- not just the ones in the desert, not to eat shellfish.

Or pigs. And a number of other things.

Ever- not for safety reasons- because they are abominations.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Rinse and repeat.


----------



## Skylar

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> That has been explained to you before.
> 
> The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force me to violate my religious bel
> 
> If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sort of like saying- if you want a black wedding cake then go to a black bakery- or a jewish wedding cake- go to a jewish bakery.
> 
> I will just point out once again- your argument is with the law- not with me. You can hold whatever discriminatory beliefs you want to hold.
> 
> But you can't break the law just because you can claim it violates your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your law violates my rights.  Round and round you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So said the segregationists. The argument didn't carry much water then. I doubt its going to hold much more water now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The segregationists were not protected by the constitution.
Click to expand...


That's not what they said. They said what you are saying....that their religion defines their beliefs. And because they're religious convinction mandated they treat blacks as less, that any attempt to prevent them from doing so was a violation of their religion.

It didn't work out well for them. You're recycling the same argument.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> That has been explained to you before.
> 
> The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force me to violate my religious bel
> 
> If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sort of like saying- if you want a black wedding cake then go to a black bakery- or a jewish wedding cake- go to a jewish bakery.
> 
> I will just point out once again- your argument is with the law- not with me. You can hold whatever discriminatory beliefs you want to hold.
> 
> But you can't break the law just because you can claim it violates your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your law violates my rights.  Round and round you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So said the segregationists. The argument didn't carry much water then. I doubt its going to hold much more water now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The segregationists were not protected by the constitution.
Click to expand...


Of course they were.

We are all protected by the Constitution.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force me to violate my religious bel
> 
> If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery.  Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like saying- if you want a black wedding cake then go to a black bakery- or a jewish wedding cake- go to a jewish bakery.
> 
> I will just point out once again- your argument is with the law- not with me. You can hold whatever discriminatory beliefs you want to hold.
> 
> But you can't break the law just because you can claim it violates your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your law violates my rights.  Round and round you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So said the segregationists. The argument didn't carry much water then. I doubt its going to hold much more water now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The segregationists were not protected by the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they were.
> 
> We are all protected by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You just lost your credibility.

High Court Rules Bus Segregation Unconstitutional


----------



## Skylar

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like saying- if you want a black wedding cake then go to a black bakery- or a jewish wedding cake- go to a jewish bakery.
> 
> I will just point out once again- your argument is with the law- not with me. You can hold whatever discriminatory beliefs you want to hold.
> 
> But you can't break the law just because you can claim it violates your religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> Your law violates my rights.  Round and round you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So said the segregationists. The argument didn't carry much water then. I doubt its going to hold much more water now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The segregationists were not protected by the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they were.
> 
> We are all protected by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just lost your credibility.
Click to expand...


No he didn't. He just corrected you.


----------



## Syriusly

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force me to violate my religious bel
> 
> If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery.  Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like saying- if you want a black wedding cake then go to a black bakery- or a jewish wedding cake- go to a jewish bakery.
> 
> I will just point out once again- your argument is with the law- not with me. You can hold whatever discriminatory beliefs you want to hold.
> 
> But you can't break the law just because you can claim it violates your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your law violates my rights.  Round and round you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So said the segregationists. The argument didn't carry much water then. I doubt its going to hold much more water now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The segregationists were not protected by the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they were.
> 
> We are all protected by the Constitution.
Click to expand...


LOL you don't get it.

Segregationist are protected by the Constitution too. 

They were wrong. And they, like you, believed the Constitution supported them. 

But we are all protected by the Constitution.

Even when you disagree with it.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Skylar said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your law violates my rights.  Round and round you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So said the segregationists. The argument didn't carry much water then. I doubt its going to hold much more water now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The segregationists were not protected by the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they were.
> 
> We are all protected by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just lost your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he didn't. He just corrected you.
Click to expand...

Now you just lost your credibility.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like saying- if you want a black wedding cake then go to a black bakery- or a jewish wedding cake- go to a jewish bakery.
> 
> I will just point out once again- your argument is with the law- not with me. You can hold whatever discriminatory beliefs you want to hold.
> 
> But you can't break the law just because you can claim it violates your religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> Your law violates my rights.  Round and round you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So said the segregationists. The argument didn't carry much water then. I doubt its going to hold much more water now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The segregationists were not protected by the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they were.
> 
> We are all protected by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL you don't get it.
> 
> Segregationist are protected by the Constitution too.
> 
> They were wrong. And they, like you, believed the Constitution supported them.
> 
> But we are all protected by the Constitution.
> 
> Even when you disagree with it.
Click to expand...


High Court Rules Bus Segregation Unconstitutional


----------



## Seawytch

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> My constitution trumps your law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you believe that Public Accomadation laws violate your Constitutional rights- I will say once again for maybe the 20th time- you have the same options as gay couples who believed that laws against same gender marriage violated their rights.
> 
> You can either
> a) legislatively move to change the law- i.e. repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all subsequaint PA laws or
> b) file a lawsuit against the specific law arguing that it is unconstitutional.
> 
> That is how you argue that 'your constitution' trumps the law- its working for homosexual couples right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These cases are going to the USSC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which cases are those? Gay marriage cases? Almost inevitably. I am not aware of any PA cases on their way to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bakery cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe that they have even been appealed yet. But let me know how that goes- I absolutely support the rights of these business men to go to court for what they believe- just as gay couples did.
Click to expand...


The Elaine Photography case went...the SCOTUS didn't hear it, leaving the lower court ruling in place. The court ruled against the bigots.


----------



## koshergrl

Syriusly said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> That has been explained to you before.
> 
> The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force me to violate my religious bel
> 
> If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where does the Bible prohibit gay wedding cakes? I've read Leviticus. It never mentions wedding cakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe its in the section where it says not to eat shellfish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Travel to the Midian desert and chow on some shellfish and see where that lands you, before you scoff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Observant Jews do not eat the freshest shellfish regardless how safe it is.
> 
> An omnipotent God would know that shellfish can be safe to eat.
> 
> But he told all Jews- not just the ones in the desert, not to eat shellfish.
> 
> Or pigs. And a number of other things.
> 
> Ever- not for safety reasons- because they are abominations.
Click to expand...


Good for them.

But Leviticus was a set of directions for a very specific group of Hebrews, at a very specific time, and those rules were meant to keep the people on the right path until the law was fulfilled.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force me to violate my religious bel
> 
> If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery.  Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where does the Bible prohibit gay wedding cakes? I've read Leviticus. It never mentions wedding cakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe its in the section where it says not to eat shellfish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Travel to the Midian desert and chow on some shellfish and see where that lands you, before you scoff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Observant Jews do not eat the freshest shellfish regardless how safe it is.
> 
> An omnipotent God would know that shellfish can be safe to eat.
> 
> But he told all Jews- not just the ones in the desert, not to eat shellfish.
> 
> Or pigs. And a number of other things.
> 
> Ever- not for safety reasons- because they are abominations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for them.
> 
> But Leviticus was a set of directions for a very specific group of Hebrews, at a very specific time, and those rules were meant to keep the people on the right path until the law was fulfilled.
Click to expand...


And as far as Jews are concerned those laws are still in effect, and they are still waiting for the law to be fulfilled. 

Nothing to do with safety reasons.


----------



## koshergrl

Yes well last I heard, this thread was about Christian churches.

Not synagogues and temples.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your law violates my rights.  Round and round you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So said the segregationists. The argument didn't carry much water then. I doubt its going to hold much more water now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The segregationists were not protected by the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they were.
> 
> We are all protected by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL you don't get it.
> 
> Segregationist are protected by the Constitution too.
> 
> They were wrong. And they, like you, believed the Constitution supported them.
> 
> But we are all protected by the Constitution.
> 
> Even when you disagree with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> High Court Rules Bus Segregation Unconstitutional
Click to expand...


Clearly you don't get it. That ruling doesn't say that Segregationists are not protected by the Constitution. 

Segregationist they were- and are protected by the Constitution. 

They were wrong. And they, like you, believed the Constitution supported them.

But we are all protected by the Constitution.

Even when you disagree with it.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Yes well last I heard, this thread was about Christian churches.
> 
> Not synagogues and temples.



Talking to yourself again?


----------



## koshergrl

Syriusly said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes well last I heard, this thread was about Christian churches.
> 
> Not synagogues and temples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talking to yourself again?
Click to expand...

No, I was responding to your nonsensical garbage about Leviticus and shellfish.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes well last I heard, this thread was about Christian churches.
> 
> Not synagogues and temples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talking to yourself again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I was responding to your nonsensical garbage about Leviticus and shellfish.
Click to expand...


The quote function works so well when you want to pretend like you are responding to someone's post.


----------



## koshergrl

Syriusly said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes well last I heard, this thread was about Christian churches.
> 
> Not synagogues and temples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talking to yourself again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I was responding to your nonsensical garbage about Leviticus and shellfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The quote function works so well when you want to pretend like you are responding to someone's post.
Click to expand...


Meh. People tend to fixate on that when they can't make their point.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes well last I heard, this thread was about Christian churches.
> 
> Not synagogues and temples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talking to yourself again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I was responding to your nonsensical garbage about Leviticus and shellfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The quote function works so well when you want to pretend like you are responding to someone's post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh. People tend to fixate on that when they can't make their point.
Click to expand...


Meh. People tend to ignore the quote function when they don't want people to see their response.


----------



## koshergrl

Syriusly said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes well last I heard, this thread was about Christian churches.
> 
> Not synagogues and temples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talking to yourself again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I was responding to your nonsensical garbage about Leviticus and shellfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The quote function works so well when you want to pretend like you are responding to someone's post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh. People tend to fixate on that when they can't make their point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh. People tend to ignore the quote function when they don't want people to see their response.
Click to expand...


Riiight. That's it, lol. 

Nice distraction. But you still lose.


----------



## Silhouette

koshergrl said:


> No, I was responding to your nonsensical garbage about Leviticus and shellfish.


 
Leviticus=Old Testament + shellfish = Venial Sin and doing penance

Jude 1 = New Testament + promoting a homosexual cultural spread  = Mortal Sin and eternity in the pit of fire.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I was responding to your nonsensical garbage about Leviticus and shellfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus=Old Testament + shellfish = Venial Sin and doing penance
> 
> Jude 1 = New Testament + promoting a homosexual cultural spread  = Mortal Sin and eternity in the pit of fire.
Click to expand...


And thank you for affirming for us what we all already knew: that your opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with the law. And everything to do with your religion.

As I've said so many times before, there is a reason why opponents of gay marriage tend to do poorly in court: because they can't argue their actual motivation. They have to come up with a litany of second string nonsense arguments that they can neither defend nor make much sense.


----------



## beagle9

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just want equality. Intolerant Christians get to discriminate against me....I should get to return the favor don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um you're wrong SeaBytch, I dont want anyone to discriminate against anyone, I simply want the government to mind their own fucking business.
> 
> The same EXACT situation with how I feel about gay "marriage" I don't want gays "marrying" , but it certainly is no concern of the governments.
> 
> And OF COURSE you would have the same right to discriminate as anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Narcissistic much? I didn't say YOU...I said intolerant Christians. Guilty conscience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus was an intolerant Christian, huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wasn't...he would bake the cake. It's not Jesus that has the problem, just some of his fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, like he "baked the cake" on the temple steps.
> 
> He flogged the pigs away from the temple. Jesus wouldn't bake the cake. He wasn't about submitting to depravity, ever.
Click to expand...

He went into the publicans house as he was invited, and the disciples became very distraught over the incident, but it was just another test found in the Bible, and it was also a chance to get the work of the Lord done as was intended it be done by him.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I was responding to your nonsensical garbage about Leviticus and shellfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus=Old Testament + shellfish = Venial Sin and doing penance
> 
> Jude 1 = New Testament + promoting a homosexual cultural spread  = Mortal Sin and eternity in the pit of fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And thank you for affirming for us what we all already knew: that your opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with the law. ...
Click to expand...


True, as the law is only valid where such serves justice.  So we can readily see that the opposition to gay-marriage rests upon the natural standards of marriage, wherein marriage is defined by human physiology, thus marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  IF you NEED the issue to be about 'The Law', then it would be reasonable to recognize that marriage is defined by the natural law, wherein the statutes are expressed in the design of the respective genders, and the adjudication of such is expressed in their complimenting nature.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> True, as the law is only valid where such serves justice.  So we can readily see that the opposition to gay-marriage rests upon the natural standards of marriage, wherein marriage is defined by human physiology, thus marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.



And what relevance does 'human physiology' have with your 'natural standards of marriage' or 'justice'. Tell us what requirement of marriage they satisfy that a gay couple could not.

Remembering of course that procreation is off the table. As infertile couples are allowed to marry. And the marriages of childless couples are perfectly valid. Nor is any couple required to have kids or be able to have them in order to be married. *Demonstrating undeniably that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have them. *



> IF you NEED the issue to be about 'The Law', then it would be reasonable to recognize that marriage is defined by the natural law, wherein the statutes are expressed in the design of the respective genders, and the adjudication of such is expressed in their complimenting nature.



Equal protection under the law is all I'm concerned with. Your subjective imagination about the 'justice' of 'human physiology' and random appeals to authority are meaningless. As you neither speak for 'nature', nor objectively define any relevant conception of justice. Its just you.....offering us yet another obtuse fallacy of logic.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need them.

So what else have you got?


----------



## Steinlight

Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, as the law is only valid where such serves justice.  So we can readily see that the opposition to gay-marriage rests upon the natural standards of marriage, wherein marriage is defined by human physiology, thus marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what relevance does 'human physiology' have with your 'natural standards of marriage' or 'justice'.
Click to expand...


Good question.  Human physiology establishes the standard of Marriage, by defining marriage through the physiological standard; wherein the male gender _intrinsically compliments the female gender._



> Tell us what requirement of marriage they satisfy that a gay couple could not.



A sexually abnormal couple is two people of the same, non-complimenting gender.



> IF you NEED the issue to be about 'The Law', then it would be reasonable to recognize that marriage is defined by the natural law, wherein the statutes are expressed in the design of the respective genders, and the adjudication of such is expressed in their complimenting nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law is all I'm concerned with.
Click to expand...


Great!  Then we're _good to go_.  Given that the law does not exclude the sexually abnormal from marriage.  It merely requires the sexually abnormal to meet the same standards are everyone else, which... if youre keeping score, is the sexually abnormal being treated EQUALLY... before THE LAW.


----------



## Skylar

Steinlight said:


> Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.



By that standard, neither do blow jobs,  infertile couples or those on birth control. Does that mean that Nana and PopPop's marriage certificate became invalid after Nana has a hysterectomy? 

*Of course not. *

As the infertile and childless demonstrate, there are clearly valid foundations of marriage that have nothing to do children or the ability to have them. Rendering the 'your intercourse must serve a societal purpose!' standard meaningless nonsense. As no one is held to that standard. No straight couple is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married.

Why then would we invent a standard that doesn't exist and then apply it exclusively to gays? It makes no sense.


----------



## Skylar

> Good question. Human physiology establishes the standard of Marriage, by defining marriage through the physiological standard; wherein the male gender intrinsically compliments the female gender.



Why does gender establish the 'standards of marriage'? And says who? Again, nature doesn't have anything to say on marriage. So you're citing yourself AS nature. Which is just a generic appeal to authority. A classic fallacy of logic. 

When I ask you to back the claims with sound logic and reason......you simply state your conclusion again. That's not a reason. That's not logic. That's merely a personal opinion. You can't even explain what requirement of marriage that gay couple can't satisfy that straight couples can. 

As there is none. Its just you....saying it must be so. And your personal opinion is woefully inadequate in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. 



> Great! Then we're _good to go_. Given that the law does not exclude the sexually abnormal from marriage. It merely requires the sexually abnormal to meet the same standards are everyone else, which... if youre keeping score, is the sexually abnormal being treated EQUALLY... before THE LAW.



So same sex marriage is legal and recognized already? Oh, then the issue appears to have resolved itself.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By that standard, neither do blow jobs,  infertile couples or those on birth control.
Click to expand...


And none of those are licensed by the government or sanctioned by the Church.

But there's a great reason for that.  As THOSE THINGS are PRIVATE BEHAVIOR!  

Now let's review: 

Marriage: Public Sanction.

Blow Jobs: Private Behavior.

See the difference?

Public Policy...

Private Behavior... 

P U B L I C . . .

.
.
.

P R I V A T E . . .

Anything gettin' through here?


----------



## Skylar

> And none of those are licensed by the government or sanctioned by the Church.



Yet all of them render their intercourse of no value to society. Which is the standard homosexuals are being held to. If the reasoning was valid, it would be valid in every instance of 'no value' intercourse. It isn't. It doesn't work in any instance. As no one is required to have 'societally beneficial intercourse' in order to get married. 

The standard doesn't exist. Why then would we make it up from nothing, bizarrely exempt every straight couple who fails it, and apply it exclusively to gays?

Obviously, we wouldn't. And in 36 of 50 States, we don't.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Good question. Human physiology establishes the standard of Marriage, by defining marriage through the physiological standard; wherein the male gender intrinsically compliments the female gender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does gender establish the 'standards of marriage'?
Click to expand...


Because they're the standard of the beings being joined.  Now if you've got something other than Human beings that you'd like to discuss and how those things might be joined with regard to public policy, then I suppose we can discuss it, but you should probably open another thread.




> And says who?


  Nature says... the force that created the beings central to the issue.



> When I ask you to back the claims with sound logic and reason......you simply state your conclusion again.



Yeah, that's because the points intrinsic to the conclusion remain standing... wholly unaffected by your rationalizations.  Ya see, you claiming that human physiology is irrelevant to human behavior, is ludicrous; which is to say so foolish, unreasonable, and/or out of place, as to be amusing; ridiculous.



> That's not a reason. That's not logic.



Well, here's the thing... 'that' is reason and it is perfectly in alignment with the principles of logic.  And that is was expressed by me, does not render it less so, or in any way relieve it of the authority which the aforementioned elements otherwise provide.



> Great! Then we're _good to go_. Given that the law does not exclude the sexually abnormal from marriage. It merely requires the sexually abnormal to meet the same standards are everyone else, which... if youre keeping score, is the sexually abnormal being treated EQUALLY... before THE LAW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So same sex marriage is legal and recognized already?
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!  So Equality is *not *the issue, as ya claimed 10 minutes ago.

But let's set that aside and work on your newest twist.  First, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Therefore, there is no such thing as same-sex marriage.  Beyond the extent that sex in marriage is always _the same sex._


----------



## Steinlight

Skylar said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By that standard, neither do blow jobs,  infertile couples or those on birth control. Does that mean that Nana and PopPop's marriage certificate became invalid after Nana has a hysterectomy?
> 
> *Of course not. *
> 
> As the infertile and childless demonstrate, there are clearly valid foundations of marriage that have nothing to do children or the ability to have them. Rendering the 'your intercourse must serve a societal purpose!' standard meaningless nonsense. As no one is held to that standard. No straight couple is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married.
> 
> Why then would we invent a standard that doesn't exist and then apply it exclusively to gays? It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I don't think you should be given a government license or subsidy for blow jobs or birth control either.

Exceptions to the rule don't change the rule. Fundamentally, the purpose of marriage is for men and women to join in a union to build a family through procreation. Yes, there are some infertile couples, but this doesn't negate marriage's primary role. Infertile couples getting married certainly doesn't justify homosexual getting married. Infertile couples can adopt and provide the nuclear family structure homosexual couples can't by providing the foundation of a mother and father. 

The role of the the state should be to promote procreation and a stable family environment for the children of these unions. Legalizing gay marriage serves no purpose towards this end and incentivizes a degenerate and destructive lifestyle.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> And none of those are licensed by the government or sanctioned by the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet all of them render their intercourse of no value to society.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!  Good lord... that is somewhere between insane and ludicrous.  But it is NO WHERE NEAR within the standards required for one's speech to be worthy of consideration by reasonable people.  

You are one twisted female.

And such is the case with a majority of your would-be 'contributions', so I am afraid that I am going to have to sentence you to life in Ignore... 

Say hello to the other idiots for me, will ya?

TTFE


----------



## Cecilie1200

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you are not allowed to criticize Neal?
> 
> There is no freedom from criticism.
Click to expand...


Any of the left's victims _du jour_.  Every frigging cause on the left has its untouchable martyrs and human shields that no one's supposed to say anything about, and it's just beyond all bounds of human decency to criticize them, and suddenly you find that any criticism of the cause they're the face for automatically becomes criticism of them, and the debate goes straight to name-calling against the heartless bastard who violated the left's doctrine of infallibility.

Want to have a rational, adult American-citizen debate about government policies and the current political administration?  Well, you can't, because the President is black, and the only reason you don't like his governance is because you're a racist.

Want to have a reasonable, thorough investigation of the attacks of 9/11?  Well, you can't, because the screeching harpies flacking for the 9/11 Commission whitewash are widows, and you're a heartless chauvinist pig.

Want to have a logical discussion about gun rights and sensible ways to curb gun violence?  Well, you can't, because this or that or some other person whose child was in a school shooting is demanding that gun ownership be outlawed, and you're a cretin who wants children to die.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was never about "equality".  It's about submission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't interested in whether you are a submissive or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not about me.  It's about queers hate for Christians.  Queers want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs.  Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not about me. It's about Christians hate for queers. Christians want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs. Fuck you.
Click to expand...


_Christians _are trying to force people to act contrary to their beliefs?  When?  These people strongly believe that their wedding cake MUST come from this bakery, and shopping somewhere else is a sin in their eyes?  Is that really the position you want to try to argue?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
> Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.
> 
> Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.
> 
> Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.
> 
> And by the way once again- since it is so timely
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
Click to expand...


Yup, it's the old "slippery slope, so it must not be true" argument - last refuge of those who desperately wish slippery slopes weren't true.  It must suck to know you have no argument and have to deflect virtually every time you open your cakehole, huh?


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you are not allowed to criticize Neal?
> 
> There is no freedom from criticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any of the left's victims _du jour_.  Every frigging cause on the left has its untouchable martyrs and human shields that no one's supposed to say anything about, and it's just beyond all bounds of human decency to criticize them, and suddenly you find that any criticism of the cause they're the face for automatically becomes criticism of them, and the debate goes straight to name-calling against the heartless bastard who violated the left's doctrine of infallibility.
> 
> Want to have a rational, adult American-citizen debate about government policies and the current political administration?  Well, you can't, because the President is black, and the only reason you don't like his governance is because you're a racist.
> 
> Want to have a reasonable, thorough investigation of the attacks of 9/11?  Well, you can't, because the screeching harpies flacking for the 9/11 Commission whitewash are widows, and you're a heartless chauvinist pig.
> 
> Want to have a logical discussion about gun rights and sensible ways to curb gun violence?  Well, you can't, because this or that or some other person whose child was in a school shooting is demanding that gun ownership be outlawed, and you're a cretin who wants children to die.
Click to expand...


LOL.....sorry....your partisan blindness is amusing to me. 

Every frigging cause on the right has its untouchable martyrs and issues that no ones supposed to say anything about.

Want a rational adult American debate on gun control? The NRA will gladly fund the campaign to defeat you from office. 

Want a rational discussion about immigration? Well it is hard because your suddenly a cretin who wants America invaded by Mexican Muslim terrorists carrying Ebola.


Freedom to criticize does not mean freedom  from criticism.

Just because others yell at your for your ideas mean your ideas are being stifled- they have as much right to yell as you do.

This is the market of ideas- and you are free to express yours, and I am free to criticize your ideas.

If that intimidates you, well that is your issue- not mine. You have the same freedom to criticize my ideas- and I am not threatened by that.


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was never about "equality".  It's about submission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't interested in whether you are a submissive or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not about me.  It's about queers hate for Christians.  Queers want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs.  Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not about me. It's about Christians hate for queers. Christians want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs. Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Christians _are trying to force people to act contrary to their beliefs?  When?  These people strongly believe that their wedding cake MUST come from this bakery, and shopping somewhere else is a sin in their eyes?  Is that really the position you want to try to argue?
Click to expand...


Christians- meaning those homophobes who claim to be Christians- want to force gay couples to act contrary to their beliefs and not get married. 

Christians have been trying to force their beliefs on homosexuals for centuries- and in far more dangerous ways than trying to order a cake.


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
> Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.
> 
> Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.
> 
> Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.
> 
> And by the way once again- since it is so timely
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, it's the old "slippery slope, so it must not be true" argument - last refuge of those who desperately wish slippery slopes weren't true.  It must suck to know you have no argument and have to deflect virtually every time you open your cakehole, huh?
Click to expand...


LOL....well I do appreciate your attempt to use my own words back at me, the reality is that the slippery slope argument is not legally persuasive and is the usual refuge of those who have no moral argument.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about submission.  The queers want Christians to shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems Christians can't handle criticism much then.
> 
> Christians of course want homosexuals to shut up.
> 
> And by 'Christians' I mean only 'homophobes who claim to be Christians and just use that as an excuse to complain about homosexuals'.
Click to expand...


Actually, we don't give a tin shit if they want to talk or not.  We'd just appreciate it if they'd be gracious enough to acknowledge our right to avoid and ignore them while they do it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Syriusly said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
> Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.
> 
> Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.
> 
> Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.
> 
> And by the way once again- since it is so timely
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, it's the old "slippery slope, so it must not be true" argument - last refuge of those who desperately wish slippery slopes weren't true.  It must suck to know you have no argument and have to deflect virtually every time you open your cakehole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....well I do appreciate your attempt to use my own words back at me, the reality is that the slippery slope argument is not legally persuasive and is the usual refuge of those who have no moral argument.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it's the refuge of those who have no 'argument' at all.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Syriusly said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
> Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.
> 
> Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.
> 
> Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.
> 
> And by the way once again- since it is so timely
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, it's the old "slippery slope, so it must not be true" argument - last refuge of those who desperately wish slippery slopes weren't true.  It must suck to know you have no argument and have to deflect virtually every time you open your cakehole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....well I do appreciate your attempt to use my own words back at me, the reality is that the slippery slope argument is not legally persuasive and is the usual refuge of those who have no moral argument.
Click to expand...


No, the reality is that slippery slopes are real.  Reality isn't determined by "legally persuasive", and certainly not by YOUR perception of it.  Likewise, the only person who has no argument is the one whose entire response is "slippery slope argument = invalid".  Tell us WHY it's invalid; otherwise, all you've done is scream, "You're right, and I can't debate it!"

The truth is that you know very well that it's completely plausible, logical, and likely that the fact that homosexuals already sue people for "discrimination" who are exempt from public accommodation laws means they intend to do the same to churches as soon as they've nibbled away at the First Amendment sufficiently.  You're just too disingenuous and cowardly to admit it.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> [
> The role of the the state should be to promote procreation and a stable family environment for the children of these unions. Legalizing gay marriage serves no purpose towards this end and incentivizes a degenerate and destructive lifestyle.



I think you are thinking of something completely different from marriage. 

Because marriage right now doesn't promote procreation or a stable family environment for children.

Marriage only legally binds two people together. 

Those two people can choose to try to have children or chose to not try to have children- and the state doesn't care. 
Those two people can have children- and not marry- and the state doesn't care. 
Those two people can be married, and have children- and decide to divorce- and the state doesn't care. 

Really- if you want marriage to promote procreation and a stable family environment you needs something radically different than current legal marriage. There is nothing about current marriage law that accomplishes those things.

Hell Wisconsin requires first cousins to prove that they cannot have children together before they can marry- i.e. just the opposite of what you say the role of the State should be. 

But if you want to treat same gender couples the same as opposite gender couples who cannot- or do not want to have children- and only allow marriage to those couples who are physically capable of procreation, and commit to having children, and become divorced if they don't have children- but can't divorce if they do have children- well that would be equal at least.

But right now all you are in essence saying is that you don't want the children of gay couples to have married parents.


----------



## Obejoekenobe

Ibentoken said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?*
Click to expand...


And if the church practices sharia law as part of their doctrine, would the state then have a right to intervene?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
Click to expand...


A private club?  You mean like Augusta National Golf Club?  Or any of dozens of other private clubs that have been harassed by the left on behalf of feminists, blacks, homosexuals, etc.?  THAT sort of private club?

Be serious, twit.  We don't believe you people have any intention of respecting the rights of private organizations, and you don't believe it, either.  You're just hoping we're as stupid as you are, and will be lulled into complacency by your thin, shabby lies.


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
> Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.
> 
> Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.
> 
> Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.
> 
> And by the way once again- since it is so timely
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, it's the old "slippery slope, so it must not be true" argument - last refuge of those who desperately wish slippery slopes weren't true.  It must suck to know you have no argument and have to deflect virtually every time you open your cakehole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....well I do appreciate your attempt to use my own words back at me, the reality is that the slippery slope argument is not legally persuasive and is the usual refuge of those who have no moral argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the reality is that slippery slopes are real.  Reality isn't determined by "legally persuasive", and certainly not by YOUR perception of it.  Likewise, the only person who has no argument is the one whose entire response is "slippery slope argument = invalid".  Tell us WHY it's invalid; otherwise, all you've done is scream, "You're right, and I can't debate it!"
> 
> The truth is that you know very well that it's completely plausible, logical, and likely that the fact that homosexuals already sue people for "discrimination" who are exempt from public accommodation laws means they intend to do the same to churches as soon as they've nibbled away at the First Amendment sufficiently.  You're just too disingenuous and cowardly to admit it.
Click to expand...


Public Accomodation laws have been around for 50 years now.

People have been suing to enforce them for 50 years. Sued to business's that wouldn't serve blacks, business' that would not treat women equally, business' that would not treat Jews equally.

We even had a homosexual sue the Boy Scouts. And the Supreme Court told him to pound sand.

Any idiot- even homophobic idiots and homosexual idiots can file a lawsuit. 
Any American can file a lawsuit to claim Constitutional rights- and that includes homosexuals and gun owners. 

But in that 50 years.....there have been no successful lawsuits telling the Catholic church that they must marry Jews, or a Segregationist church that they must marry blacks. 

Where is that slippery slope?


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A private club?  You mean like Augusta National Golf Club?  Or any of dozens of other private clubs that have been harassed by the left on behalf of feminists, blacks, homosexuals, etc.?  THAT sort of private club?.
Click to expand...


Yeah imagine organizations that exclude blacks and women and homosexuals being sued for discrimination?

The ones that run as business's lose.

If you don't like the 1964 Civil Rights Act, I suggest you push Republicans to repeal it. 

I strongly approve of  Republicans being the face of the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.



My wife and I got married because we a) loved each other and b) because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives- legally, publicly, completely. Our marriage serves a societal purpose regardless of procreation.

And if we were two people of the same gender, that same purpose would be achieved.


----------



## Obejoekenobe

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about submission.  The queers want Christians to shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems Christians can't handle criticism much then.
> 
> Christians of course want homosexuals to shut up.
> 
> And by 'Christians' I mean only 'homophobes who claim to be Christians and just use that as an excuse to complain about homosexuals'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Christian scriptures condemn homosexuality.  Jesus said marriage is a man and a woman.  Jesus was a homophobic bigot.  Right?
Click to expand...


No. Just out of date and irrelevant to today's society and changing social mores.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> The role of the the state should be to promote procreation and a stable family environment for the children of these unions. Legalizing gay marriage serves no purpose towards this end and incentivizes a degenerate and destructive lifestyle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are thinking of something completely different from marriage.
> 
> Because marriage right now doesn't promote procreation or a stable family environment for children.
> 
> Marriage only legally binds two people together.
> 
> Those two people can choose to try to have children or chose to not try to have children- and the state doesn't care.
> Those two people can have children- and not marry- and the state doesn't care.
> Those two people can be married, and have children- and decide to divorce- and the state doesn't care.
> 
> Really- if you want marriage to promote procreation and a stable family environment you needs something radically different than current legal marriage. There is nothing about current marriage law that accomplishes those things.
> 
> Hell Wisconsin requires first cousins to prove that they cannot have children together before they can marry- i.e. just the opposite of what you say the role of the State should be.
> 
> But if you want to treat same gender couples the same as opposite gender couples who cannot- or do not want to have children- and only allow marriage to those couples who are physically capable of procreation, and commit to having children, and become divorced if they don't have children- but can't divorce if they do have children- well that would be equal at least.
> 
> But right now all you are in essence saying is that you don't want the children of gay couples to have married parents.
Click to expand...

No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment. 

But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false. Currently, our government offers child tax credits and tax cuts for married couples. I support both of these things. I think these programs should be extended, along with some kind of maternity leave program. Though such a program would be more practical on a state level most likely...


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My wife and I got married because we a) loved each other and b) because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives- legally, publicly, completely. Our marriage serves a societal purpose regardless of procreation.
> 
> And if we were two people of the same gender, that same purpose would be achieved.
Click to expand...

I disagree, you both represent the foundation of the nuclear family as husband and wife, and could potentially still procreate or adopt and thus provide a traditional structure to children. But the reality is, your situation doesn't represent the majority, and policy shouldn't be based on your exception to the rule.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Steinlight said:


> Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.


Nonsense.

Marriage is contract law where two equal, consenting adult partners enter into an agreement of commitment recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex. The state values that commitment and acknowledges it accordingly with marriage.

The states are not at liberty to deny access to those eligible to participate in marriage law motivated solely by animus toward gay Americans (_Romer v. Evans_ (1996)).


----------



## Seawytch

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just want equality. Intolerant Christians get to discriminate against me....I should get to return the favor don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um you're wrong SeaBytch, I dont want anyone to discriminate against anyone, I simply want the government to mind their own fucking business.
> 
> The same EXACT situation with how I feel about gay "marriage" I don't want gays "marrying" , but it certainly is no concern of the governments.
> 
> And OF COURSE you would have the same right to discriminate as anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Narcissistic much? I didn't say YOU...I said intolerant Christians. Guilty conscience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus was an intolerant Christian, huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wasn't...he would bake the cake. It's not Jesus that has the problem, just some of his fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, he wouldn't.  Jesus said marriage is a man and a woman.
Click to expand...


Jesus was talking about divorce at the time. Jesus never said a thing about gays, just the sexually repressed Paul...who likely was a closeted gay man.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just want equality. Intolerant Christians get to discriminate against me....I should get to return the favor don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um you're wrong SeaBytch, I dont want anyone to discriminate against anyone, I simply want the government to mind their own fucking business.
> 
> The same EXACT situation with how I feel about gay "marriage" I don't want gays "marrying" , but it certainly is no concern of the governments.
> 
> And OF COURSE you would have the same right to discriminate as anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Narcissistic much? I didn't say YOU...I said intolerant Christians. Guilty conscience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus was an intolerant Christian, huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wasn't...he would bake the cake. It's not Jesus that has the problem, just some of his fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, like he "baked the cake" on the temple steps.
> 
> He flogged the pigs away from the temple. Jesus wouldn't bake the cake. He wasn't about submitting to depravity, ever.
Click to expand...


Well, the Jesus I read about wouldn't thing gays were "depraved" for one thing.


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A private club?  You mean like Augusta National Golf Club?  Or any of dozens of other private clubs that have been harassed by the left on behalf of feminists, blacks, homosexuals, etc.?  THAT sort of private club?
> 
> Be serious, twit.  We don't believe you people have any intention of respecting the rights of private organizations, and you don't believe it, either.  You're just hoping we're as stupid as you are, and will be lulled into complacency by your thin, shabby lies.
Click to expand...



Private clubs and churches change through public pressure not government intervention.


----------



## Mac1958

.

Hey folks, I'm having one heckuva time getting proponents of public accommodations laws to express their outrage on this thread:

Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Traditional Marriage Cake Turned Down By All Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Little help here!

.


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
> Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.
> 
> Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.
> 
> Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.
> 
> And by the way once again- since it is so timely
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, it's the old "slippery slope, so it must not be true" argument - last refuge of those who desperately wish slippery slopes weren't true.  It must suck to know you have no argument and have to deflect virtually every time you open your cakehole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....well I do appreciate your attempt to use my own words back at me, the reality is that the slippery slope argument is not legally persuasive and is the usual refuge of those who have no moral argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the reality is that slippery slopes are real.  .
Click to expand...


Yet you provide no evidence that this slippery slope exists. 

50 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed. 

No one has successfully used it- or any similar PA law to require a church marry a Jew, a church marry a black or a church marry a homosexual.

Best get crackin' on that slippery slope because right now it is absolutely flat.


----------



## Syriusly

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Hey folks, I'm having one heckuva time getting proponents of public accommodations laws to express their outrage on this thread:
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Traditional Marriage Cake Turned Down By All Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Little help here!
> 
> .



What traditional 'marriage cake' says "gay marriage is wrong"?

But if the guy who was turned down feels like his rights were violated(though what rights I don't know) he has the same option as the gay couple had- he can sue or ask the city to enforce the law.


----------



## Syriusly

Obejoekenobe said:


> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if the church practices sharia law as part of their doctrine, would the state then have a right to intervene?
Click to expand...


If a church 'practices' sharia law the state wouldn't care- so long as such practices don't conflict with secular law. 

If the 'Sharia law' being practiced is illegal- it is illegal- and the state has every right to intervene.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.
> 
> And by the way once again- since it is so timely
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, it's the old "slippery slope, so it must not be true" argument - last refuge of those who desperately wish slippery slopes weren't true.  It must suck to know you have no argument and have to deflect virtually every time you open your cakehole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....well I do appreciate your attempt to use my own words back at me, the reality is that the slippery slope argument is not legally persuasive and is the usual refuge of those who have no moral argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the reality is that slippery slopes are real.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you provide no evidence that this slippery slope exists.
> 
> 50 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed.
> 
> No one has successfully used it- or any similar PA law to require a church marry a Jew, a church marry a black or a church marry a homosexual.
> 
> Best get crackin' on that slippery slope because right now it is absolutely flat.
Click to expand...



Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail



wouldnt ever happen


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My wife and I got married because we a) loved each other and b) because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives- legally, publicly, completely. Our marriage serves a societal purpose regardless of procreation.
> 
> And if we were two people of the same gender, that same purpose would be achieved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree, you both represent the foundation of the nuclear family as husband and wife, and could potentially still procreate or adopt and thus provide a traditional structure to children. But the reality is, your situation doesn't represent the majority, and policy shouldn't be based on your exception to the rule.
Click to expand...


Your disagreement has nothing to do with my point. 

The State didn't care whether or not my wife and I intended to procreate or not when we got married. Nor was the reason for our marriage because we intended to procreate. 

Our marriage served a societal purpose regardless of procreation. 

IF marriage was only about procreation we wouldn't be allowing 80 year old couples to marry. We wouldn't have states requiring some couples to prove that they cannot have children before they are allowed to marry.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.
> 
> And by the way once again- since it is so timely
> 
> Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....
> 
> All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, it's the old "slippery slope, so it must not be true" argument - last refuge of those who desperately wish slippery slopes weren't true.  It must suck to know you have no argument and have to deflect virtually every time you open your cakehole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....well I do appreciate your attempt to use my own words back at me, the reality is that the slippery slope argument is not legally persuasive and is the usual refuge of those who have no moral argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the reality is that slippery slopes are real.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you provide no evidence that this slippery slope exists.
> 
> 50 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed.
> 
> No one has successfully used it- or any similar PA law to require a church marry a Jew, a church marry a black or a church marry a homosexual.
> 
> Best get crackin' on that slippery slope because right now it is absolutely flat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail
> 
> 
> 
> wouldnt ever happen
Click to expand...


_Reading comprehension past the headline is important.

United Methodist Church (UMC) pastor in the United States *had had a formal complaint filed against him* by a same-sex couple who are part of his congregation because he refused to officiate at their wedding.

Kenneth Barner and Scott Chappell have charged Rev Kelly Carpenter, pastor of Green Street church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, with “failure to perform the work of ministry”, according to the United Methodist News Service (UMNS). They also accuse him of “gender discrimination”.

*Both are chargeable offences according to the UMC’s Book of Discipline.* However, so is officiating at a same-sex wedding.

According to Barner and Chappell, the rules are contradictory. “God’s grace is available to all and so should the pastoral ministry (be)”, the charge says.


Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail_

Do you think that church members should not be allowed to file complaints according to the church's own rules?

Here is a better article about it- with an accurate headline:

*Gay couple files complaint for refusal of wedding*

*“I have initiated the proper response according to The Book of Discipline,” the bishop told UMNS. “Because this is now a personnel matter of the annual conference, it will need to remain confidential until further notice.”

As bishop, Goodpaster is charged with following a process that encourages finding a resolution that satisfies the bishop, the individuals lodging a complaint, and the one facing the complaint. 

Carpenter said he didn’t know how the process would go “mostly because we are pretty much in agreement about the problem in the church. We need to figure that out.”

He said he thinks the church’s public witness in this dispute has the potential to be “uniting” for the congregation. Carpenter stressed that Barner and Chappell are serious about the complaint, but he commended them for finding a creative way designed not to harm the church.

Carpenter is sympathetic to the cause, saying: “If there was a way for me to be a co-signer with the complaint, I think it’s right on the money.

“It really calls out the contradictions in our Book of Discipline, which calls us to be ministry with all people.”


Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail

This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.

Why would you object to that?
*


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> The role of the the state should be to promote procreation and a stable family environment for the children of these unions. Legalizing gay marriage serves no purpose towards this end and incentivizes a degenerate and destructive lifestyle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are thinking of something completely different from marriage.
> 
> Because marriage right now doesn't promote procreation or a stable family environment for children.
> 
> Marriage only legally binds two people together.
> 
> Those two people can choose to try to have children or chose to not try to have children- and the state doesn't care.
> Those two people can have children- and not marry- and the state doesn't care.
> Those two people can be married, and have children- and decide to divorce- and the state doesn't care.
> 
> Really- if you want marriage to promote procreation and a stable family environment you needs something radically different than current legal marriage. There is nothing about current marriage law that accomplishes those things.
> 
> Hell Wisconsin requires first cousins to prove that they cannot have children together before they can marry- i.e. just the opposite of what you say the role of the State should be.
> 
> But if you want to treat same gender couples the same as opposite gender couples who cannot- or do not want to have children- and only allow marriage to those couples who are physically capable of procreation, and commit to having children, and become divorced if they don't have children- but can't divorce if they do have children- well that would be equal at least.
> 
> But right now all you are in essence saying is that you don't want the children of gay couples to have married parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment.
> ..
Click to expand...


Well there we go.

You start from a position of wanting to deny children parents- if they happen to be gay.

And you don't believe in equal treatment.

You don't want the children of gay couples to have married parents.

In the words of Justice Kennedy- the likely swing vote when this reaches the Supreme Court:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

You are telling Justice Kennedy "Hell no"


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, it's the old "slippery slope, so it must not be true" argument - last refuge of those who desperately wish slippery slopes weren't true.  It must suck to know you have no argument and have to deflect virtually every time you open your cakehole, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....well I do appreciate your attempt to use my own words back at me, the reality is that the slippery slope argument is not legally persuasive and is the usual refuge of those who have no moral argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the reality is that slippery slopes are real.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you provide no evidence that this slippery slope exists.
> 
> 50 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed.
> 
> No one has successfully used it- or any similar PA law to require a church marry a Jew, a church marry a black or a church marry a homosexual.
> 
> Best get crackin' on that slippery slope because right now it is absolutely flat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail
> 
> 
> 
> wouldnt ever happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Reading comprehension past the headline is important.
> 
> United Methodist Church (UMC) pastor in the United States *had had a formal complaint filed against him* by a same-sex couple who are part of his congregation because he refused to officiate at their wedding.
> 
> Kenneth Barner and Scott Chappell have charged Rev Kelly Carpenter, pastor of Green Street church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, with “failure to perform the work of ministry”, according to the United Methodist News Service (UMNS). They also accuse him of “gender discrimination”.
> 
> *Both are chargeable offences according to the UMC’s Book of Discipline.* However, so is officiating at a same-sex wedding.
> 
> According to Barner and Chappell, the rules are contradictory. “God’s grace is available to all and so should the pastoral ministry (be)”, the charge says.
> 
> 
> Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail_
> 
> Do you think that church members should not be allowed to file complaints according to the church's own rules?
> 
> Here is a better article about it- with an accurate headline:
> 
> *Gay couple files complaint for refusal of wedding*
> 
> *“I have initiated the proper response according to The Book of Discipline,” the bishop told UMNS. “Because this is now a personnel matter of the annual conference, it will need to remain confidential until further notice.”*
> 
> *As bishop, Goodpaster is charged with following a process that encourages finding a resolution that satisfies the bishop, the individuals lodging a complaint, and the one facing the complaint. *
> 
> *Carpenter said he didn’t know how the process would go “mostly because we are pretty much in agreement about the problem in the church. We need to figure that out.”*
> 
> *He said he thinks the church’s public witness in this dispute has the potential to be “uniting” for the congregation. Carpenter stressed that Barner and Chappell are serious about the complaint, but he commended them for finding a creative way designed not to harm the church.*
> 
> *Carpenter is sympathetic to the cause, saying: “If there was a way for me to be a co-signer with the complaint, I think it’s right on the money.*
> 
> *“It really calls out the contradictions in our Book of Discipline, which calls us to be ministry with all people.”*
> 
> 
> *Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail*
> 
> *This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.*
> 
> *Why would you object to that?*
Click to expand...



Same as all my other examples, it shows that gays are building up to suing churches to perform gay "marriages"

Why you deny it is probable in the future is beyond comprehension.


----------



## Seawytch

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Hey folks, I'm having one heckuva time getting proponents of public accommodations laws to express their outrage on this thread:
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Traditional Marriage Cake Turned Down By All Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Little help here!
> 
> .



If the bakers do not carry or provide the item the customer asks for, no laws are being broken. 

Example One:

Customer walks into a gadget store and orders gadget out of catalog or off the shelf. Business sells gadget to person A but not person B because they don't like the religion of person B. Discrimination has occurred. 

Example Two:

Customer walks into gadget store and asks for a non gadget item that the business does not nor have they ever provided.  No discrimination has occurred.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....well I do appreciate your attempt to use my own words back at me, the reality is that the slippery slope argument is not legally persuasive and is the usual refuge of those who have no moral argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the reality is that slippery slopes are real.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you provide no evidence that this slippery slope exists.
> 
> 50 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed.
> 
> No one has successfully used it- or any similar PA law to require a church marry a Jew, a church marry a black or a church marry a homosexual.
> 
> Best get crackin' on that slippery slope because right now it is absolutely flat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail
> 
> 
> 
> wouldnt ever happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Reading comprehension past the headline is important.
> 
> United Methodist Church (UMC) pastor in the United States *had had a formal complaint filed against him* by a same-sex couple who are part of his congregation because he refused to officiate at their wedding.
> 
> Kenneth Barner and Scott Chappell have charged Rev Kelly Carpenter, pastor of Green Street church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, with “failure to perform the work of ministry”, according to the United Methodist News Service (UMNS). They also accuse him of “gender discrimination”.
> 
> *Both are chargeable offences according to the UMC’s Book of Discipline.* However, so is officiating at a same-sex wedding.
> 
> According to Barner and Chappell, the rules are contradictory. “God’s grace is available to all and so should the pastoral ministry (be)”, the charge says.
> 
> 
> Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail_
> 
> Do you think that church members should not be allowed to file complaints according to the church's own rules?
> 
> Here is a better article about it- with an accurate headline:
> 
> *Gay couple files complaint for refusal of wedding*
> 
> *“I have initiated the proper response according to The Book of Discipline,” the bishop told UMNS. “Because this is now a personnel matter of the annual conference, it will need to remain confidential until further notice.”*
> 
> *As bishop, Goodpaster is charged with following a process that encourages finding a resolution that satisfies the bishop, the individuals lodging a complaint, and the one facing the complaint. *
> 
> *Carpenter said he didn’t know how the process would go “mostly because we are pretty much in agreement about the problem in the church. We need to figure that out.”*
> 
> *He said he thinks the church’s public witness in this dispute has the potential to be “uniting” for the congregation. Carpenter stressed that Barner and Chappell are serious about the complaint, but he commended them for finding a creative way designed not to harm the church.*
> 
> *Carpenter is sympathetic to the cause, saying: “If there was a way for me to be a co-signer with the complaint, I think it’s right on the money.*
> 
> *“It really calls out the contradictions in our Book of Discipline, which calls us to be ministry with all people.”*
> 
> 
> *Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail*
> 
> *This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.*
> 
> *Why would you object to that?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Same as all my other examples, it shows that gays are building up to suing churches to perform gay "marriages"
> 
> Why you deny it is probable in the future is beyond comprehension.
Click to expand...



They won't win even if someone DOES sue. It's impossible. Won't happen. No church has ever nor will they ever be forced *by the government* to perform a ceremony against the perceived tenants of their faith. E-V-E-R. 

Pressure from their own church members is another thing altogether (and how churches ARE changing)


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Hey folks, I'm having one heckuva time getting proponents of public accommodations laws to express their outrage on this thread:
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Traditional Marriage Cake Turned Down By All Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Little help here!
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the bakers do not carry or provide the item the customer asks for, no laws are being broken.
> 
> Example One:
> 
> Customer walks into a gadget store and orders gadget out of catalog or off the shelf. Business sells gadget to person A but not person B because they don't like the religion of person B. Discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Example Two:
> 
> Customer walks into gadget store and asks for a non gadget item that the business does not nor have they ever provided.  No discrimination has occurred.
Click to expand...



You're such a dishonest piece of shit.

Bakeries who sell cakes advertise that they sell CUSTOM cakes. Have you EVER been to a bakery which only sold cakes that were actually on their display? Of course not you idiot.

You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Hey folks, I'm having one heckuva time getting proponents of public accommodations laws to express their outrage on this thread:
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Traditional Marriage Cake Turned Down By All Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Little help here!
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the bakers do not carry or provide the item the customer asks for, no laws are being broken.
> 
> Example One:
> 
> Customer walks into a gadget store and orders gadget out of catalog or off the shelf. Business sells gadget to person A but not person B because they don't like the religion of person B. Discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Example Two:
> 
> Customer walks into gadget store and asks for a non gadget item that the business does not nor have they ever provided.  No discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a dishonest piece of shit.
> 
> Bakeries who sell cakes advertise that they sell CUSTOM cakes. Have you EVER been to a bakery which only sold cakes that were actually on their display? Of course not you idiot.
> 
> You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?
Click to expand...


If it is a custom order, it is up to the discretion of the business as to whether or not they can or will do it. No discrimination occurred. 

Customer A is straight, buys wedding cake. Customer B is gay is refused same exact cake. Discrimination

Customer A and B both order a custom made cake...business can refuse either or both. No discrimination.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....well I do appreciate your attempt to use my own words back at me, the reality is that the slippery slope argument is not legally persuasive and is the usual refuge of those who have no moral argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the reality is that slippery slopes are real.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you provide no evidence that this slippery slope exists.
> 
> 50 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed.
> 
> No one has successfully used it- or any similar PA law to require a church marry a Jew, a church marry a black or a church marry a homosexual.
> 
> Best get crackin' on that slippery slope because right now it is absolutely flat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail
> 
> 
> 
> wouldnt ever happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Reading comprehension past the headline is important.
> 
> United Methodist Church (UMC) pastor in the United States *had had a formal complaint filed against him* by a same-sex couple who are part of his congregation because he refused to officiate at their wedding.
> 
> Kenneth Barner and Scott Chappell have charged Rev Kelly Carpenter, pastor of Green Street church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, with “failure to perform the work of ministry”, according to the United Methodist News Service (UMNS). They also accuse him of “gender discrimination”.
> 
> *Both are chargeable offences according to the UMC’s Book of Discipline.* However, so is officiating at a same-sex wedding.
> 
> According to Barner and Chappell, the rules are contradictory. “God’s grace is available to all and so should the pastoral ministry (be)”, the charge says.
> 
> 
> Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail_
> 
> Do you think that church members should not be allowed to file complaints according to the church's own rules?
> 
> Here is a better article about it- with an accurate headline:
> 
> *Gay couple files complaint for refusal of wedding*
> 
> *“I have initiated the proper response according to The Book of Discipline,” the bishop told UMNS. “Because this is now a personnel matter of the annual conference, it will need to remain confidential until further notice.”*
> 
> *As bishop, Goodpaster is charged with following a process that encourages finding a resolution that satisfies the bishop, the individuals lodging a complaint, and the one facing the complaint. *
> 
> *Carpenter said he didn’t know how the process would go “mostly because we are pretty much in agreement about the problem in the church. We need to figure that out.”*
> 
> *He said he thinks the church’s public witness in this dispute has the potential to be “uniting” for the congregation. Carpenter stressed that Barner and Chappell are serious about the complaint, but he commended them for finding a creative way designed not to harm the church.*
> 
> *Carpenter is sympathetic to the cause, saying: “If there was a way for me to be a co-signer with the complaint, I think it’s right on the money.*
> 
> *“It really calls out the contradictions in our Book of Discipline, which calls us to be ministry with all people.”*
> 
> 
> *Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail*
> 
> *This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.*
> 
> *Why would you object to that?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Same as all my other examples, it shows that gays are building up to suing churches to perform gay "marriages"
> 
> Why you deny it is probable in the future is beyond comprehension.
Click to expand...


Actually I have said before- any idiot can file a law suit.

However- you posted an article with the headline that was inaccurate- about a situation that is not a lawsuit but an internal rules dispute within a church.

Your post was inaccurate- and you don't seem to care about your inaccuracy. 

*This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.*

*Why would you object to that?*


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Hey folks, I'm having one heckuva time getting proponents of public accommodations laws to express their outrage on this thread:
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Traditional Marriage Cake Turned Down By All Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Little help here!
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the bakers do not carry or provide the item the customer asks for, no laws are being broken.
> 
> Example One:
> 
> Customer walks into a gadget store and orders gadget out of catalog or off the shelf. Business sells gadget to person A but not person B because they don't like the religion of person B. Discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Example Two:
> 
> Customer walks into gadget store and asks for a non gadget item that the business does not nor have they ever provided.  No discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a dishonest piece of shit.
> 
> Bakeries who sell cakes advertise that they sell CUSTOM cakes. Have you EVER been to a bakery which only sold cakes that were actually on their display? Of course not you idiot.
> 
> You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is a custom order, it is up to the discretion of the business as to whether or not they can or will do it. No discrimination occurred.
> 
> Customer A is straight, buys wedding cake. Customer B is gay is refused same exact cake. Discrimination
> 
> Customer A and B both order a custom made cake...business can refuse either or both. No discrimination.
Click to expand...


Wrong moron, that's not how the law works

Jesus Christ educate yourself before you go arguing shit.

Who the fuck has EVER bought a wedding cake out of a display case? NO ONE , they are ALL custom cakes.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Hey folks, I'm having one heckuva time getting proponents of public accommodations laws to express their outrage on this thread:
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Traditional Marriage Cake Turned Down By All Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Little help here!
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the bakers do not carry or provide the item the customer asks for, no laws are being broken.
> 
> Example One:
> 
> Customer walks into a gadget store and orders gadget out of catalog or off the shelf. Business sells gadget to person A but not person B because they don't like the religion of person B. Discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Example Two:
> 
> Customer walks into gadget store and asks for a non gadget item that the business does not nor have they ever provided.  No discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a dishonest piece of shit.
> 
> Bakeries who sell cakes advertise that they sell CUSTOM cakes. Have you EVER been to a bakery which only sold cakes that were actually on their display? Of course not you idiot.
> 
> You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?
Click to expand...


Are those bakeries in violation of the law?

What law was violated?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the reality is that slippery slopes are real.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you provide no evidence that this slippery slope exists.
> 
> 50 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed.
> 
> No one has successfully used it- or any similar PA law to require a church marry a Jew, a church marry a black or a church marry a homosexual.
> 
> Best get crackin' on that slippery slope because right now it is absolutely flat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail
> 
> 
> 
> wouldnt ever happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Reading comprehension past the headline is important.
> 
> United Methodist Church (UMC) pastor in the United States *had had a formal complaint filed against him* by a same-sex couple who are part of his congregation because he refused to officiate at their wedding.
> 
> Kenneth Barner and Scott Chappell have charged Rev Kelly Carpenter, pastor of Green Street church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, with “failure to perform the work of ministry”, according to the United Methodist News Service (UMNS). They also accuse him of “gender discrimination”.
> 
> *Both are chargeable offences according to the UMC’s Book of Discipline.* However, so is officiating at a same-sex wedding.
> 
> According to Barner and Chappell, the rules are contradictory. “God’s grace is available to all and so should the pastoral ministry (be)”, the charge says.
> 
> 
> Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail_
> 
> Do you think that church members should not be allowed to file complaints according to the church's own rules?
> 
> Here is a better article about it- with an accurate headline:
> 
> *Gay couple files complaint for refusal of wedding*
> 
> *“I have initiated the proper response according to The Book of Discipline,” the bishop told UMNS. “Because this is now a personnel matter of the annual conference, it will need to remain confidential until further notice.”*
> 
> *As bishop, Goodpaster is charged with following a process that encourages finding a resolution that satisfies the bishop, the individuals lodging a complaint, and the one facing the complaint. *
> 
> *Carpenter said he didn’t know how the process would go “mostly because we are pretty much in agreement about the problem in the church. We need to figure that out.”*
> 
> *He said he thinks the church’s public witness in this dispute has the potential to be “uniting” for the congregation. Carpenter stressed that Barner and Chappell are serious about the complaint, but he commended them for finding a creative way designed not to harm the church.*
> 
> *Carpenter is sympathetic to the cause, saying: “If there was a way for me to be a co-signer with the complaint, I think it’s right on the money.*
> 
> *“It really calls out the contradictions in our Book of Discipline, which calls us to be ministry with all people.”*
> 
> 
> *Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail*
> 
> *This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.*
> 
> *Why would you object to that?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Same as all my other examples, it shows that gays are building up to suing churches to perform gay "marriages"
> 
> Why you deny it is probable in the future is beyond comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I have said before- any idiot can file a law suit.
> 
> However- you posted an article with the headline that was inaccurate- about a situation that is not a lawsuit but an internal rules dispute within a church.
> 
> Your post was inaccurate- and you don't seem to care about your inaccuracy.
> 
> *This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.*
> 
> *Why would you object to that?*
Click to expand...


No sir , The thread title is accurate. He wasn't sued in court, because the church has a policy of self mediating such things, but he was sued.

I do admit , however, that it could mislead people who don't understand hat sued doesn't necessarily mean in civil court.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Hey folks, I'm having one heckuva time getting proponents of public accommodations laws to express their outrage on this thread:
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Traditional Marriage Cake Turned Down By All Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Little help here!
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the bakers do not carry or provide the item the customer asks for, no laws are being broken.
> 
> Example One:
> 
> Customer walks into a gadget store and orders gadget out of catalog or off the shelf. Business sells gadget to person A but not person B because they don't like the religion of person B. Discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Example Two:
> 
> Customer walks into gadget store and asks for a non gadget item that the business does not nor have they ever provided.  No discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a dishonest piece of shit.
> 
> Bakeries who sell cakes advertise that they sell CUSTOM cakes. Have you EVER been to a bakery which only sold cakes that were actually on their display? Of course not you idiot.
> 
> You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those bakeries in violation of the law?
> 
> What law was violated?
Click to expand...


Depends on their state laws. I haven't looked yet to be honest.

In either case you very well know by now that I believe they were within their rights to refuse service.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Hey folks, I'm having one heckuva time getting proponents of public accommodations laws to express their outrage on this thread:
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Traditional Marriage Cake Turned Down By All Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Little help here!
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the bakers do not carry or provide the item the customer asks for, no laws are being broken.
> 
> Example One:
> 
> Customer walks into a gadget store and orders gadget out of catalog or off the shelf. Business sells gadget to person A but not person B because they don't like the religion of person B. Discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Example Two:
> 
> Customer walks into gadget store and asks for a non gadget item that the business does not nor have they ever provided.  No discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a dishonest piece of shit.
> 
> Bakeries who sell cakes advertise that they sell CUSTOM cakes. Have you EVER been to a bakery which only sold cakes that were actually on their display? Of course not you idiot.
> 
> You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is a custom order, it is up to the discretion of the business as to whether or not they can or will do it. No discrimination occurred.
> 
> Customer A is straight, buys wedding cake. Customer B is gay is refused same exact cake. Discrimination
> 
> Customer A and B both order a custom made cake...business can refuse either or both. No discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong moron, that's not how the law works
> 
> Jesus Christ educate yourself before you go arguing shit.
> 
> Who the fuck has EVER bought a wedding cake out of a display case? NO ONE , they are ALL custom cakes.
Click to expand...



What I said and is true is that no business must provide an item that they do not already provide. And yes, wedding cakes are ordered out of a catalog, you dolt. You don't walk in with a fucking blueprint, Dumber than the Average Cockroach. 

If you sell the product to Person A, you must also sell the product to Person B. It can't get any simpler than that and you still don't understand? That's so sad...


----------



## Skylar

Steinlight said:


> No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment.



The law does.



> But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.



Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. *But its a standard that no one is held to. *With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.

The second problem:* many gays and lesbians have children.* And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its  also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.

It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you provide no evidence that this slippery slope exists.
> 
> 50 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed.
> 
> No one has successfully used it- or any similar PA law to require a church marry a Jew, a church marry a black or a church marry a homosexual.
> 
> Best get crackin' on that slippery slope because right now it is absolutely flat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail
> 
> 
> 
> wouldnt ever happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Reading comprehension past the headline is important.
> 
> United Methodist Church (UMC) pastor in the United States *had had a formal complaint filed against him* by a same-sex couple who are part of his congregation because he refused to officiate at their wedding.
> 
> Kenneth Barner and Scott Chappell have charged Rev Kelly Carpenter, pastor of Green Street church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, with “failure to perform the work of ministry”, according to the United Methodist News Service (UMNS). They also accuse him of “gender discrimination”.
> 
> *Both are chargeable offences according to the UMC’s Book of Discipline.* However, so is officiating at a same-sex wedding.
> 
> According to Barner and Chappell, the rules are contradictory. “God’s grace is available to all and so should the pastoral ministry (be)”, the charge says.
> 
> 
> Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail_
> 
> Do you think that church members should not be allowed to file complaints according to the church's own rules?
> 
> Here is a better article about it- with an accurate headline:
> 
> *Gay couple files complaint for refusal of wedding*
> 
> *“I have initiated the proper response according to The Book of Discipline,” the bishop told UMNS. “Because this is now a personnel matter of the annual conference, it will need to remain confidential until further notice.”*
> 
> *As bishop, Goodpaster is charged with following a process that encourages finding a resolution that satisfies the bishop, the individuals lodging a complaint, and the one facing the complaint. *
> 
> *Carpenter said he didn’t know how the process would go “mostly because we are pretty much in agreement about the problem in the church. We need to figure that out.”*
> 
> *He said he thinks the church’s public witness in this dispute has the potential to be “uniting” for the congregation. Carpenter stressed that Barner and Chappell are serious about the complaint, but he commended them for finding a creative way designed not to harm the church.*
> 
> *Carpenter is sympathetic to the cause, saying: “If there was a way for me to be a co-signer with the complaint, I think it’s right on the money.*
> 
> *“It really calls out the contradictions in our Book of Discipline, which calls us to be ministry with all people.”*
> 
> 
> *Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail*
> 
> *This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.*
> 
> *Why would you object to that?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Same as all my other examples, it shows that gays are building up to suing churches to perform gay "marriages"
> 
> Why you deny it is probable in the future is beyond comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I have said before- any idiot can file a law suit.
> 
> However- you posted an article with the headline that was inaccurate- about a situation that is not a lawsuit but an internal rules dispute within a church.
> 
> Your post was inaccurate- and you don't seem to care about your inaccuracy.
> 
> *This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.*
> 
> *Why would you object to that?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir , The thread title is accurate. He wasn't sued in court, because the church has a policy of self mediating such things, but he was sued.
> 
> I do admit , however, that it could mislead people who don't understand hat sued doesn't necessarily mean in civil court.
Click to expand...


Oh it could be misleading since we were discussing law suits- and whether churches can be sued and the headline uses a term that is used almost exclusively for law suits- when this is an internal church dispute.

Once again:

*This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.*

*Why would you object to that?*


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Hey folks, I'm having one heckuva time getting proponents of public accommodations laws to express their outrage on this thread:
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Traditional Marriage Cake Turned Down By All Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Little help here!
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the bakers do not carry or provide the item the customer asks for, no laws are being broken.
> 
> Example One:
> 
> Customer walks into a gadget store and orders gadget out of catalog or off the shelf. Business sells gadget to person A but not person B because they don't like the religion of person B. Discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Example Two:
> 
> Customer walks into gadget store and asks for a non gadget item that the business does not nor have they ever provided.  No discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a dishonest piece of shit.
> 
> Bakeries who sell cakes advertise that they sell CUSTOM cakes. Have you EVER been to a bakery which only sold cakes that were actually on their display? Of course not you idiot.
> 
> You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is a custom order, it is up to the discretion of the business as to whether or not they can or will do it. No discrimination occurred.
> 
> Customer A is straight, buys wedding cake. Customer B is gay is refused same exact cake. Discrimination
> 
> Customer A and B both order a custom made cake...business can refuse either or both. No discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong moron, that's not how the law works
> 
> Jesus Christ educate yourself before you go arguing shit.
> 
> Who the fuck has EVER bought a wedding cake out of a display case? NO ONE , they are ALL custom cakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I said and is true is that no business must provide an item that they do not already provide. And yes, wedding cakes are ordered out of a catalog, you dolt. You don't walk in with a fucking blueprint, Dumber than the Average Cockroach.
> 
> If you sell the product to Person A, you must also sell the product to Person B. It can't get any simpler than that and you still don't understand? That's so sad...
Click to expand...


Exactly. There's no qualitative difference between a cake for gays or a cake for straights. Its all just cake. If you sell cake, you sell to those who want to buy cake. Its within the authority of the States to regulate intrastate commerce within their own borders. And its reasonable for the States to require basic standards of fairness in business. 

Though I do agree with folks who object to the Federal Government sticking their dick into these issues of intrastate commerce. Not because I believe the Federal Governments efforts are wrong, but because their laws should lack jurisdiction over issues of intrastate commerce, IMHO.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Hey folks, I'm having one heckuva time getting proponents of public accommodations laws to express their outrage on this thread:
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Traditional Marriage Cake Turned Down By All Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Little help here!
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the bakers do not carry or provide the item the customer asks for, no laws are being broken.
> 
> Example One:
> 
> Customer walks into a gadget store and orders gadget out of catalog or off the shelf. Business sells gadget to person A but not person B because they don't like the religion of person B. Discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Example Two:
> 
> Customer walks into gadget store and asks for a non gadget item that the business does not nor have they ever provided.  No discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a dishonest piece of shit.
> 
> Bakeries who sell cakes advertise that they sell CUSTOM cakes. Have you EVER been to a bakery which only sold cakes that were actually on their display? Of course not you idiot.
> 
> You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is a custom order, it is up to the discretion of the business as to whether or not they can or will do it. No discrimination occurred.
> 
> Customer A is straight, buys wedding cake. Customer B is gay is refused same exact cake. Discrimination
> 
> Customer A and B both order a custom made cake...business can refuse either or both. No discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong moron, that's not how the law works
> 
> Jesus Christ educate yourself before you go arguing shit.
> 
> Who the fuck has EVER bought a wedding cake out of a display case? NO ONE , they are ALL custom cakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I said and is true is that no business must provide an item that they do not already provide. And yes, wedding cakes are ordered out of a catalog, you dolt. You don't walk in with a fucking blueprint, Dumber than the Average Cockroach.
> 
> If you sell the product to Person A, you must also sell the product to Person B. It can't get any simpler than that and you still don't understand? That's so sad...
Click to expand...



You are so stupid and dishonest.

Look at this link

Elegant Cakery. Porcelain Cake Toppers

show me where you see a wedding cake topper with two men or two women. You don't.

Should that bakery be forced to provide one should a gay couple want one?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail
> 
> 
> 
> wouldnt ever happen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Reading comprehension past the headline is important.
> 
> United Methodist Church (UMC) pastor in the United States *had had a formal complaint filed against him* by a same-sex couple who are part of his congregation because he refused to officiate at their wedding.
> 
> Kenneth Barner and Scott Chappell have charged Rev Kelly Carpenter, pastor of Green Street church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, with “failure to perform the work of ministry”, according to the United Methodist News Service (UMNS). They also accuse him of “gender discrimination”.
> 
> *Both are chargeable offences according to the UMC’s Book of Discipline.* However, so is officiating at a same-sex wedding.
> 
> According to Barner and Chappell, the rules are contradictory. “God’s grace is available to all and so should the pastoral ministry (be)”, the charge says.
> 
> 
> Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail_
> 
> Do you think that church members should not be allowed to file complaints according to the church's own rules?
> 
> Here is a better article about it- with an accurate headline:
> 
> *Gay couple files complaint for refusal of wedding*
> 
> *“I have initiated the proper response according to The Book of Discipline,” the bishop told UMNS. “Because this is now a personnel matter of the annual conference, it will need to remain confidential until further notice.”*
> 
> *As bishop, Goodpaster is charged with following a process that encourages finding a resolution that satisfies the bishop, the individuals lodging a complaint, and the one facing the complaint. *
> 
> *Carpenter said he didn’t know how the process would go “mostly because we are pretty much in agreement about the problem in the church. We need to figure that out.”*
> 
> *He said he thinks the church’s public witness in this dispute has the potential to be “uniting” for the congregation. Carpenter stressed that Barner and Chappell are serious about the complaint, but he commended them for finding a creative way designed not to harm the church.*
> 
> *Carpenter is sympathetic to the cause, saying: “If there was a way for me to be a co-signer with the complaint, I think it’s right on the money.*
> 
> *“It really calls out the contradictions in our Book of Discipline, which calls us to be ministry with all people.”*
> 
> 
> *Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail*
> 
> *This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.*
> 
> *Why would you object to that?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Same as all my other examples, it shows that gays are building up to suing churches to perform gay "marriages"
> 
> Why you deny it is probable in the future is beyond comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I have said before- any idiot can file a law suit.
> 
> However- you posted an article with the headline that was inaccurate- about a situation that is not a lawsuit but an internal rules dispute within a church.
> 
> Your post was inaccurate- and you don't seem to care about your inaccuracy.
> 
> *This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.*
> 
> *Why would you object to that?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir , The thread title is accurate. He wasn't sued in court, because the church has a policy of self mediating such things, but he was sued.
> 
> I do admit , however, that it could mislead people who don't understand hat sued doesn't necessarily mean in civil court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it could be misleading since we were discussing law suits- and whether churches can be sued and the headline uses a term that is used almost exclusively for law suits- when this is an internal church dispute.
> 
> Once again:
> 
> *This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.*
> 
> *Why would you object to that?*
Click to expand...



You are of course prepared to show where I objected to that?


----------



## Skylar

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the bakers do not carry or provide the item the customer asks for, no laws are being broken.
> 
> Example One:
> 
> Customer walks into a gadget store and orders gadget out of catalog or off the shelf. Business sells gadget to person A but not person B because they don't like the religion of person B. Discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Example Two:
> 
> Customer walks into gadget store and asks for a non gadget item that the business does not nor have they ever provided.  No discrimination has occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a dishonest piece of shit.
> 
> Bakeries who sell cakes advertise that they sell CUSTOM cakes. Have you EVER been to a bakery which only sold cakes that were actually on their display? Of course not you idiot.
> 
> You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is a custom order, it is up to the discretion of the business as to whether or not they can or will do it. No discrimination occurred.
> 
> Customer A is straight, buys wedding cake. Customer B is gay is refused same exact cake. Discrimination
> 
> Customer A and B both order a custom made cake...business can refuse either or both. No discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong moron, that's not how the law works
> 
> Jesus Christ educate yourself before you go arguing shit.
> 
> Who the fuck has EVER bought a wedding cake out of a display case? NO ONE , they are ALL custom cakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I said and is true is that no business must provide an item that they do not already provide. And yes, wedding cakes are ordered out of a catalog, you dolt. You don't walk in with a fucking blueprint, Dumber than the Average Cockroach.
> 
> If you sell the product to Person A, you must also sell the product to Person B. It can't get any simpler than that and you still don't understand? That's so sad...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are so stupid and dishonest.
> 
> Look at this link
> 
> Elegant Cakery. Porcelain Cake Toppers
> 
> show me where you see a wedding cake topper with two men or two women. You don't.
> 
> Should that bakery be forced to provide one should a gay couple want one?
Click to expand...


As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.


----------



## koshergrl

Syriusly said:


> Obejoekenobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if the church practices sharia law as part of their doctrine, would the state then have a right to intervene?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a church 'practices' sharia law the state wouldn't care- so long as such practices don't conflict with secular law.
> 
> If the 'Sharia law' being practiced is illegal- it is illegal- and the state has every right to intervene.
Click to expand...


No church practices sharia law.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Skylar said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a dishonest piece of shit.
> 
> Bakeries who sell cakes advertise that they sell CUSTOM cakes. Have you EVER been to a bakery which only sold cakes that were actually on their display? Of course not you idiot.
> 
> You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it is a custom order, it is up to the discretion of the business as to whether or not they can or will do it. No discrimination occurred.
> 
> Customer A is straight, buys wedding cake. Customer B is gay is refused same exact cake. Discrimination
> 
> Customer A and B both order a custom made cake...business can refuse either or both. No discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong moron, that's not how the law works
> 
> Jesus Christ educate yourself before you go arguing shit.
> 
> Who the fuck has EVER bought a wedding cake out of a display case? NO ONE , they are ALL custom cakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I said and is true is that no business must provide an item that they do not already provide. And yes, wedding cakes are ordered out of a catalog, you dolt. You don't walk in with a fucking blueprint, Dumber than the Average Cockroach.
> 
> If you sell the product to Person A, you must also sell the product to Person B. It can't get any simpler than that and you still don't understand? That's so sad...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are so stupid and dishonest.
> 
> Look at this link
> 
> Elegant Cakery. Porcelain Cake Toppers
> 
> show me where you see a wedding cake topper with two men or two women. You don't.
> 
> Should that bakery be forced to provide one should a gay couple want one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.
Click to expand...


And that has WHAT to do with the question I asked SeaBytch?


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.


 
What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).

Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.

1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and

2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.


----------



## koshergrl

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is a custom order, it is up to the discretion of the business as to whether or not they can or will do it. No discrimination occurred.
> 
> Customer A is straight, buys wedding cake. Customer B is gay is refused same exact cake. Discrimination
> 
> Customer A and B both order a custom made cake...business can refuse either or both. No discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong moron, that's not how the law works
> 
> Jesus Christ educate yourself before you go arguing shit.
> 
> Who the fuck has EVER bought a wedding cake out of a display case? NO ONE , they are ALL custom cakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I said and is true is that no business must provide an item that they do not already provide. And yes, wedding cakes are ordered out of a catalog, you dolt. You don't walk in with a fucking blueprint, Dumber than the Average Cockroach.
> 
> If you sell the product to Person A, you must also sell the product to Person B. It can't get any simpler than that and you still don't understand? That's so sad...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are so stupid and dishonest.
> 
> Look at this link
> 
> Elegant Cakery. Porcelain Cake Toppers
> 
> show me where you see a wedding cake topper with two men or two women. You don't.
> 
> Should that bakery be forced to provide one should a gay couple want one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has WHAT to do with the question I asked SeaBytch?
Click to expand...

 Derefag and Seahag are both on ignore...you should try it, your life gets that much less annoying. I can't handle being harrangued continually by know-nothing lunatics, and I have found they have NEVER added anything of value to any conversation they engage in. Until I see someone responding to their stupidity, I don't even know they're posting. They're seriously that irrelevant.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

koshergrl said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong moron, that's not how the law works
> 
> Jesus Christ educate yourself before you go arguing shit.
> 
> Who the fuck has EVER bought a wedding cake out of a display case? NO ONE , they are ALL custom cakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I said and is true is that no business must provide an item that they do not already provide. And yes, wedding cakes are ordered out of a catalog, you dolt. You don't walk in with a fucking blueprint, Dumber than the Average Cockroach.
> 
> If you sell the product to Person A, you must also sell the product to Person B. It can't get any simpler than that and you still don't understand? That's so sad...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are so stupid and dishonest.
> 
> Look at this link
> 
> Elegant Cakery. Porcelain Cake Toppers
> 
> show me where you see a wedding cake topper with two men or two women. You don't.
> 
> Should that bakery be forced to provide one should a gay couple want one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has WHAT to do with the question I asked SeaBytch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Derefag and Seahag are both on ignore...you should try it, your life gets that much less annoying. I can't handle being harrangued continually by know-nothing lunatics, and I have found they have NEVER added anything of value to any conversation they engage in. Until I see someone responding to their stupidity, I don't even know they're posting. They're seriously that irrelevant.
Click to expand...



Dear, I have 48 people on ignore, if I ignore EVERYONE who is a shit bag soon I'd have no one left to "debate" with.

SeaBytch definitely exposed herself here as a complete hypocrite.


----------



## koshergrl

Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.


----------



## koshergrl

In fact, Derefag is #5, lol.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Hey folks, I'm having one heckuva time getting proponents of public accommodations laws to express their outrage on this thread:
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Traditional Marriage Cake Turned Down By All Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Little help here!
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the bakers do not carry or provide the item the customer asks for, no laws are being broken.
> 
> Example One:
> 
> Customer walks into a gadget store and orders gadget out of catalog or off the shelf. Business sells gadget to person A but not person B because they don't like the religion of person B. Discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Example Two:
> 
> Customer walks into gadget store and asks for a non gadget item that the business does not nor have they ever provided.  No discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a dishonest piece of shit.
> 
> Bakeries who sell cakes advertise that they sell CUSTOM cakes. Have you EVER been to a bakery which only sold cakes that were actually on their display? Of course not you idiot.
> 
> You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those bakeries in violation of the law?
> 
> What law was violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on their state laws. I haven't looked yet to be honest.
> 
> In either case you very well know by now that I believe they were within their rights to refuse service.
Click to expand...


Then why did you assert:
_You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?_

You were asking Sea to be 'honest' and say the bakeries were in violation of the law as it stands.

So be honest and tell us what law that is that you expect her to be honest about.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obejoekenobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if the church practices sharia law as part of their doctrine, would the state then have a right to intervene?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a church 'practices' sharia law the state wouldn't care- so long as such practices don't conflict with secular law.
> 
> If the 'Sharia law' being practiced is illegal- it is illegal- and the state has every right to intervene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No church practices sharia law.
Click to expand...


Tell that to the guy who asked the question.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
> 
> Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.
> 
> 1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and
> 
> 2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.
Click to expand...


More of Silhouette's bat guano crazy legal theory.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Hey folks, I'm having one heckuva time getting proponents of public accommodations laws to express their outrage on this thread:
> 
> Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Traditional Marriage Cake Turned Down By All Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Little help here!
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the bakers do not carry or provide the item the customer asks for, no laws are being broken.
> 
> Example One:
> 
> Customer walks into a gadget store and orders gadget out of catalog or off the shelf. Business sells gadget to person A but not person B because they don't like the religion of person B. Discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Example Two:
> 
> Customer walks into gadget store and asks for a non gadget item that the business does not nor have they ever provided.  No discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a dishonest piece of shit.
> 
> Bakeries who sell cakes advertise that they sell CUSTOM cakes. Have you EVER been to a bakery which only sold cakes that were actually on their display? Of course not you idiot.
> 
> You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those bakeries in violation of the law?
> 
> What law was violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on their state laws. I haven't looked yet to be honest.
> 
> In either case you very well know by now that I believe they were within their rights to refuse service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did you assert:
> _You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?_
> 
> You were asking Sea to be 'honest' and say the bakeries were in violation of the law as it stands.
> 
> So be honest and tell us what law that is that you expect her to be honest about.
Click to expand...



I admit that "in violation of the law" depends on the state they live in. I didn't mean otherwise.

The point stands SeaBytch believes gays should have to be served, but should be able to refuse service to those who don't like gays. That's beyond obvious.


----------



## koshergrl

Syriusly said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obejoekenobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if the church practices sharia law as part of their doctrine, would the state then have a right to intervene?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a church 'practices' sharia law the state wouldn't care- so long as such practices don't conflict with secular law.
> 
> If the 'Sharia law' being practiced is illegal- it is illegal- and the state has every right to intervene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No church practices sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the guy who asked the question.
Click to expand...


I'm telling you. You said "If a church 'practices' sharia law."

It's nonsensical, because churches don't practice sharia law.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

koshergrl said:


> In fact, Derefag is #5, lol.



Oh I just realized who "Derefag" is, yeah I have that moron on ignore.


----------



## koshergrl

CHURCHES DON'T PRACTICE SHARIA LAW, people. Try to stick to the subject. This is ridiculous, and irrelevant.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Reading comprehension past the headline is important.
> 
> United Methodist Church (UMC) pastor in the United States *had had a formal complaint filed against him* by a same-sex couple who are part of his congregation because he refused to officiate at their wedding.
> 
> Kenneth Barner and Scott Chappell have charged Rev Kelly Carpenter, pastor of Green Street church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, with “failure to perform the work of ministry”, according to the United Methodist News Service (UMNS). They also accuse him of “gender discrimination”.
> 
> *Both are chargeable offences according to the UMC’s Book of Discipline.* However, so is officiating at a same-sex wedding.
> 
> According to Barner and Chappell, the rules are contradictory. “God’s grace is available to all and so should the pastoral ministry (be)”, the charge says.
> 
> 
> Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail_
> 
> Do you think that church members should not be allowed to file complaints according to the church's own rules?
> 
> Here is a better article about it- with an accurate headline:
> 
> *Gay couple files complaint for refusal of wedding*
> 
> *“I have initiated the proper response according to The Book of Discipline,” the bishop told UMNS. “Because this is now a personnel matter of the annual conference, it will need to remain confidential until further notice.”*
> 
> *As bishop, Goodpaster is charged with following a process that encourages finding a resolution that satisfies the bishop, the individuals lodging a complaint, and the one facing the complaint. *
> 
> *Carpenter said he didn’t know how the process would go “mostly because we are pretty much in agreement about the problem in the church. We need to figure that out.”*
> 
> *He said he thinks the church’s public witness in this dispute has the potential to be “uniting” for the congregation. Carpenter stressed that Barner and Chappell are serious about the complaint, but he commended them for finding a creative way designed not to harm the church.*
> 
> *Carpenter is sympathetic to the cause, saying: “If there was a way for me to be a co-signer with the complaint, I think it’s right on the money.*
> 
> *“It really calls out the contradictions in our Book of Discipline, which calls us to be ministry with all people.”*
> 
> 
> *Read more at Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Marriage The Christian Mail*
> 
> *This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.*
> 
> *Why would you object to that?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same as all my other examples, it shows that gays are building up to suing churches to perform gay "marriages"
> 
> Why you deny it is probable in the future is beyond comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I have said before- any idiot can file a law suit.
> 
> However- you posted an article with the headline that was inaccurate- about a situation that is not a lawsuit but an internal rules dispute within a church.
> 
> Your post was inaccurate- and you don't seem to care about your inaccuracy.
> 
> *This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.*
> 
> *Why would you object to that?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir , The thread title is accurate. He wasn't sued in court, because the church has a policy of self mediating such things, but he was sued.
> 
> I do admit , however, that it could mislead people who don't understand hat sued doesn't necessarily mean in civil court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it could be misleading since we were discussing law suits- and whether churches can be sued and the headline uses a term that is used almost exclusively for law suits- when this is an internal church dispute.
> 
> Once again:
> 
> *This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.*
> 
> *Why would you object to that?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are of course prepared to show where I objected to that?
Click to expand...


This appeared to be an objection to me

_Same as all my other examples, it shows that gays are building up to suing churches to perform gay "marriages"

Why you deny it is probable in the future is beyond comprehension._

Unless you are saying you have no objection to gays or blacks or jews suing churches in order to be married there.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

koshergrl said:


> CHURCHES DON'T PRACTICE SHARIA LAW, people. Try to stick to the subject. This is ridiculous, and irrelevant.




Is it any more ridiculous than

"Christians should have to serve gays, but gays shouldn't have to serve people who don't like gays?"


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> CHURCHES DON'T PRACTICE SHARIA LAW, people. Try to stick to the subject. This is ridiculous, and irrelevant.



Yet you keep it alive by posting about it. 

Someone asked whether the state could intervene if a church practiced Sharia law. 

I responded.

The issue was dead until you got your nose bent out of joint and stuck it in.

If you want the issue to be dead- stop posting about it.


----------



## koshergrl

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> CHURCHES DON'T PRACTICE SHARIA LAW, people. Try to stick to the subject. This is ridiculous, and irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it any more ridiculous than
> 
> "Christians should have to serve gays, but gays shouldn't have to serve people who don't like gays?"
Click to expand...


That's why I have them on ignore.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same as all my other examples, it shows that gays are building up to suing churches to perform gay "marriages"
> 
> Why you deny it is probable in the future is beyond comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I have said before- any idiot can file a law suit.
> 
> However- you posted an article with the headline that was inaccurate- about a situation that is not a lawsuit but an internal rules dispute within a church.
> 
> Your post was inaccurate- and you don't seem to care about your inaccuracy.
> 
> *This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.*
> 
> *Why would you object to that?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir , The thread title is accurate. He wasn't sued in court, because the church has a policy of self mediating such things, but he was sued.
> 
> I do admit , however, that it could mislead people who don't understand hat sued doesn't necessarily mean in civil court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it could be misleading since we were discussing law suits- and whether churches can be sued and the headline uses a term that is used almost exclusively for law suits- when this is an internal church dispute.
> 
> Once again:
> 
> *This is an internal church dispute- filed by church members.*
> 
> *Why would you object to that?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are of course prepared to show where I objected to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This appeared to be an objection to me
> 
> _Same as all my other examples, it shows that gays are building up to suing churches to perform gay "marriages"
> 
> Why you deny it is probable in the future is beyond comprehension._
> 
> Unless you are saying you have no objection to gays or blacks or jews suing churches in order to be married there.
Click to expand...



I have no objection to anyone availing themselves of the legal system when they feel they have been wronged.

That however is different than saying I have no problem with whichever law they are using to claim they were wronged.

For example, I abhor any and all "public accommodation" laws, they are blatantly unconstitutional.

BUT, I don't blame anyone for suing when they feel that their legal rights have been violated.


----------



## Silhouette

You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?

Tsk Tsk.  I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you.  Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?

Meanwhile:



Skylar said:


> As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.


What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.

1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and

2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> CHURCHES DON'T PRACTICE SHARIA LAW, people. Try to stick to the subject. This is ridiculous, and irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it any more ridiculous than
> 
> "Christians should have to serve gays, but gays shouldn't have to serve people who don't like gays?"
Click to expand...


Your objection is to the law.

The law in some places says that business's must serve persons even if they are gay. 
The law everywhere in the U.S. says that business's must serve persons even if they are Christian.

If any gay business people refused to do business with a Christian because he is a Christian he would be breaking the law.
if any Christian business person refuses to do business with a homosexual because he is a homosexual he would be breaking the law(if that was the law in that jurisdiction).

Simply refusing to serve bigots isn't against the law anywhere.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> CHURCHES DON'T PRACTICE SHARIA LAW, people. Try to stick to the subject. This is ridiculous, and irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you keep it alive by posting about it.
> 
> Someone asked whether the state could intervene if a church practiced Sharia law.
> 
> I responded.
> 
> The issue was dead until you got your nose bent out of joint and stuck it in.
> 
> If you want the issue to be dead- stop posting about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn to use the quote function properly.
> 
> I'm not posting about it. I'm continuing to point out that your commentary about sharia law and the previous drivel about Leviticus that was posted is irrelevant drivel meant to hide the fact that the anti-Christian left can't make an intelligent argument.
Click to expand...


Yet you keep it alive by posting about it.

Someone asked whether the state could intervene if a church practiced Sharia law.

I responded.

The issue was dead until you got your nose bent out of joint and stuck it in.

If you want the issue to be dead- stop posting about it.


----------



## koshergrl

Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.

The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Silhouette said:


> You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?
> 
> Tsk Tsk.  I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you.  *Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?*
> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.
> 
> 
> 
> What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
> Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.
> 
> 1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and
> 
> 2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.
Click to expand...



Man, I've let you be this entire thread, but holy fuck you are an idiot. The poll in THIS thread has ZERO to do with if most people support gay marriage or not. I know for absolute fact that of 10 posters, myself included, who support legalized gay "marriage" who voted no in THIS poll.


----------



## Conservative65

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...

 Are you saying if two homos ask a church to do their wedding the church should have to do it?


----------



## Conservative65

koshergrl said:


> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.


 
Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Conservative65 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
Click to expand...


Jury nullification.


----------



## koshergrl

Conservative65 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
Click to expand...


I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.

In some instances, armed confrontation is.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

koshergrl said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> *In some instances, armed confrontation is*.
Click to expand...



The black "protesters" certainly would agree


----------



## Conservative65

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jury nullification.
Click to expand...

 
Juries determine guilt or no guilt not change laws.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Conservative65 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jury nullification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Juries determine guilt or no guilt not change laws.
Click to expand...



And that has WHAT to do with what I posted?


----------



## Conservative65

koshergrl said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
Click to expand...

 
Who determines whether or not it's a bad law, YOU?  Seems you are saying if you don't like it you can disobey it and not be punished.  You are more than welcome to use civil disobedience to protest what you call bad laws or overreach.  However, that doens't mean you are exempt from being punished for it.


----------



## Conservative65

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jury nullification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Juries determine guilt or no guilt not change laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that has WHAT to do with what I posted?
Click to expand...

 
Perhaps you need to define what you mean by jury nullification.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Conservative65 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jury nullification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Juries determine guilt or no guilt not change laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that has WHAT to do with what I posted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you need to define what you mean by jury nullification.
Click to expand...


Are you serious here?

Jury nullification is when you broke the law, and EVERYONE - including the jury - knows it  and the jury finds you not guilty anyway based on the belief that the law is unjust.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?
> 
> Tsk Tsk.  I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you.  Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?
> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.
> 
> 
> 
> What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
> Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.
> 
> 1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and
> 
> 2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.
Click to expand...


It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).



It wouldn't be particularly interesting in California, where gay marriage is legal and gay marriage bans were overturned as unconstitutional. As California recognizes gays and lesbians as a protected class in terms of public accommodation. The outcome would be drolly predictable. 

And why would I deny paying clients? Especially those so enamored with my work that they are willing to purchase some of my most expensive designs or include lucrative custom upgrades? I've done cake toppers for 2 gays weddings (no lesbian weddings yet) and they were among the most expensive, most profitable projects I've done in that side of my business. 



> 1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and



The issue was already settled. The Federal Judiciary overturned prop 8 as unconstitutional. And the USSC preserved that ruling by denying cert.. And the Attorney General of California isn't appealing the lower court ruling, so there are no pending anything. There is no credible legal question as to whether gay marriage is legal in California. 

You've imagined it. 



> 2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.



I've read the Bible cover to cover. And I found not a single mention of cake toppers. God, it seems, is mute on the topic. My customers aren't.


----------



## koshergrl

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?
> 
> Tsk Tsk.  I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you.  Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?
> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.
> 
> 
> 
> What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
> Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.
> 
> 1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and
> 
> 2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.
Click to expand...


This is the intellect we have to work with.

In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.

She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.

Because they are straight up idiots.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be particularly interesting in California, where gay marriage is legal and gay marriage bans were overturned as unconstitutional. As California recognizes gays and lesbians as a protected class in terms of public accommodation. The outcome would be drolly predictable.
> 
> And why would I deny paying clients? Especially those so enamored with my work that they are willing to purchase some of my most expensive designs or include lucrative custom upgrades? I've done cake toppers for 2 gays weddings (no lesbian weddings yet) and they were among the most expensive, most profitable projects I've done in that side of my business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue was already settled. The Federal Judiciary overturned prop 8 as unconstitutional. And the USSC preserved that ruling by denying cert.. And the Attorney General of California isn't appealing the lower court ruling, so there are no pending anything. There is no credible legal question as to whether gay marriage is legal in California.
> 
> You've imagined it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read the Bible cover to cover. And I found not a single mention of cake toppers. God, it seems, is mute on the topic. My customers aren't.
Click to expand...


I assume you own a retail store?


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
Click to expand...




koshergrl said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
Click to expand...


The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience. 

Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage. 

Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

koshergrl said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?
> 
> Tsk Tsk.  I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you.  Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?
> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.
> 
> 
> 
> What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
> Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.
> 
> 1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and
> 
> 2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the intellect we have to work with.
> 
> In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
> 
> She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
> 
> Because they are straight up idiots.
Click to expand...


Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
> 
> Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
> 
> Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
Click to expand...


Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.


----------



## koshergrl

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?
> 
> Tsk Tsk.  I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you.  Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?
> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.
> 
> 
> 
> What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
> Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.
> 
> 1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and
> 
> 2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the intellect we have to work with.
> 
> In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
> 
> She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
> 
> Because they are straight up idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
Click to expand...


No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.

Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.

And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

koshergrl said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?
> 
> Tsk Tsk.  I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you.  Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?
> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.
> 
> 
> 
> What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
> Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.
> 
> 1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and
> 
> 2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the intellect we have to work with.
> 
> In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
> 
> She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
> 
> Because they are straight up idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.
> 
> Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.
> 
> And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.
Click to expand...



Oh, I don't know about that, look at idiots like Keys, at first glance he seems intelligent, but read his threads and its clear he isn't very smart.

On THAT front I think left/right are even on this board

Where the left has a HUGE lead is in the number of douches who lie and just ignore facts which run counter to their opinions.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
> 
> Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
> 
> Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
Click to expand...


Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences. 

IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?
> 
> Tsk Tsk.  I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you.  Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?
> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.
> 
> 
> 
> What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
> Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.
> 
> 1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and
> 
> 2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the intellect we have to work with.
> 
> In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
> 
> She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
> 
> Because they are straight up idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.
> 
> Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.
> 
> And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.
Click to expand...


LOL....the irony is thick in that post.


----------



## mdk

koshergrl said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?
> 
> Tsk Tsk.  I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you.  Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?
> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.
> 
> 
> 
> What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
> Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.
> 
> 1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and
> 
> 2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the intellect we have to work with.
> 
> In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
> 
> She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
> 
> Because they are straight up idiots.
Click to expand...


You'll find straight up idiots from all sides of the political spectrum here on this forum and elsewhere. Some people can never admit that they are wrong because they are too proud to do so.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
Click to expand...


I think you'd find precious few who would agree that armed confrontation over gay marriage is justified.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?
> 
> Tsk Tsk.  I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you.  Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?
> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
> Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.
> 
> 1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and
> 
> 2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the intellect we have to work with.
> 
> In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
> 
> She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
> 
> Because they are straight up idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.
> 
> Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.
> 
> And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't know about that, look at idiots like Keys, at first glance he seems intelligent, but read his threads and its clear he isn't very smart.
> 
> On THAT front I think left/right are even on this board
> 
> Where the left has a HUGE lead is in the number of douches who lie and just ignore facts which run counter to their opinions.
Click to expand...


I wonder how we could measure that- because by my vantage point the right as huge lead in both the number of douches who are just assholes- and who lie and ignore the facts.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
> 
> Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
> 
> Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
> 
> IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
Click to expand...

 
The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
> 
> Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
> 
> Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
Click to expand...

 
What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong?  It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree. 

It's easy to see why those supporting same sex perversion use the courts.  They know they can't get it done legislatively but can find one sympathizer to the cause.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the intellect we have to work with.
> 
> In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
> 
> She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
> 
> Because they are straight up idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.
> 
> Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.
> 
> And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't know about that, look at idiots like Keys, at first glance he seems intelligent, but read his threads and its clear he isn't very smart.
> 
> On THAT front I think left/right are even on this board
> 
> Where the left has a HUGE lead is in the number of douches who lie and just ignore facts which run counter to their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder how we could measure that- because by my vantage point the right as huge lead in both the number of douches who are just assholes- and who lie and ignore the facts.
Click to expand...


but youre a leftie, whereas I'm a moderate so your viewpoint is skewed and mine isn't. 

I daresay you can't think of a single thing where "lefties" as a group on this board are worse than "righties" whereas I certainly can.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
> 
> Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
> 
> Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong?  It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree.
> 
> It's easy to see why those supporting same sex perversion use the courts.  They know they can't get it done legislatively but can find one sympathizer to the cause.
Click to expand...


Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?
> 
> Tsk Tsk.  I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you.  Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?
> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
> Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.
> 
> 1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and
> 
> 2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the intellect we have to work with.
> 
> In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
> 
> She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
> 
> Because they are straight up idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.
> 
> Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.
> 
> And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't know about that, look at idiots like Keys, at first glance he seems intelligent, but read his threads and its clear he isn't very smart.
> 
> On THAT front I think left/right are even on this board
> 
> Where the left has a HUGE lead is in the number of douches who lie and just ignore facts which run counter to their opinions.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!  

Calm down scamp.  Just because I'm here, doesn't mean that you're somehow reduced.

Their opinions are their lies.  Such is the nature of the douche and that's truly all there is to it.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the intellect we have to work with.
> 
> In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
> 
> She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
> 
> Because they are straight up idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.
> 
> Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.
> 
> And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't know about that, look at idiots like Keys, at first glance he seems intelligent, but read his threads and its clear he isn't very smart.
> 
> On THAT front I think left/right are even on this board
> 
> Where the left has a HUGE lead is in the number of douches who lie and just ignore facts which run counter to their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder how we could measure that- because by my vantage point the right as huge lead in both the number of douches who are just assholes- and who lie and ignore the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but youre a leftie, whereas I'm a moderate so your viewpoint is skewed and mine isn't.
> 
> I daresay you can't think of a single thing where "lefties" as a group on this board are worse than "righties" whereas I certainly can.
Click to expand...


Oh I certainly can. 

But you see- I am a moderate liberal. 

And you are not.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the intellect we have to work with.
> 
> In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
> 
> She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
> 
> Because they are straight up idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.
> 
> Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.
> 
> And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't know about that, look at idiots like Keys, at first glance he seems intelligent, but read his threads and its clear he isn't very smart.
> 
> On THAT front I think left/right are even on this board
> 
> Where the left has a HUGE lead is in the number of douches who lie and just ignore facts which run counter to their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Calm down scamp.  Just because I'm here, doesn't mean that you're somehow reduced.
> 
> Their opinions are their lies.  Such is the nature of the douche and that's truly all there is to it.
Click to expand...



Son, stick to offering to money for Ravi's identity.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Conservative65 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
Click to expand...


Haven't you ever heard of the concept of civil disobedience?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.
> 
> Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.
> 
> And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't know about that, look at idiots like Keys, at first glance he seems intelligent, but read his threads and its clear he isn't very smart.
> 
> On THAT front I think left/right are even on this board
> 
> Where the left has a HUGE lead is in the number of douches who lie and just ignore facts which run counter to their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder how we could measure that- because by my vantage point the right as huge lead in both the number of douches who are just assholes- and who lie and ignore the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but youre a leftie, whereas I'm a moderate so your viewpoint is skewed and mine isn't.
> 
> I daresay you can't think of a single thing where "lefties" as a group on this board are worse than "righties" whereas I certainly can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly can.
> 
> But you see- I am a moderate liberal.
> 
> And you are not.
Click to expand...


Quite correct, I am NOT a moderate liberal.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Conservative65 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who determines whether or not it's a bad law, YOU?  Seems you are saying if you don't like it you can disobey it and not be punished.  You are more than welcome to use civil disobedience to protest what you call bad laws or overreach.  However, that doens't mean you are exempt from being punished for it.
Click to expand...


Yes, one's individual conscience and conscientious actions are determined by that individual.  And no, civil disobedience generally requires an acceptance that if you are caught, you WILL be punished.  In many cases, the punishment is the point, in order to bring the incorrectness of the law into the public eye.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
> 
> Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
> 
> Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong?  It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree.
> .
Click to expand...


LOL- you are missing the entire point. 

Kosher said: _The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
_
The point being is that you and I may disagree about which laws are 'wrong'

Arguing for disobeying 'wrong' laws and possible 'armed confrontation' leads to things like John Brown's raid.

The right way is to change the law.

And that can be done legislatively or through the courts.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
> 
> Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
> 
> Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
> 
> IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
Click to expand...


Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
> 
> Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
> 
> Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
> 
> IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
Click to expand...


We hear much more about the cases that are not civil.

And for the record- I am absolutely against violent disobedience which I don't consider to be civil.


----------



## Conservative65

Cecilie1200 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
> 
> Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
> 
> Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
> 
> IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
Click to expand...

 
Much like Ferguson, MO.  Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified.  I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Cecilie1200 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who determines whether or not it's a bad law, YOU?  Seems you are saying if you don't like it you can disobey it and not be punished.  You are more than welcome to use civil disobedience to protest what you call bad laws or overreach.  However, that doens't mean you are exempt from being punished for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, one's individual conscience and conscientious actions are determined by that individual.  And no, civil disobedience generally requires an acceptance that if you are caught, you WILL be punished.  In many cases, the punishment is the point, in order to bring the incorrectness of the law into the public eye.
Click to expand...


Correct.Which is what makes, for example, these n!ggers running around today screaming about justice a pimple on  Rosie Parks', for example, ass.

Mrs Parks KNEW that refusing to move to the back of the bus would land her in trouble. She did it anyway. When the police showed up, dd she fight them? Did she scream about she didn't do anything wrong? Nope, she calmly accepted her punishment.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
> 
> Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
> 
> Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
> 
> IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We hear much more about the cases that are not civil.
> 
> And for the record- I am absolutely against violent disobedience which I don't consider to be civil.
Click to expand...

 
That's because there is very little civil disobedience.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
> 
> Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
> 
> Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
> 
> IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much like Ferguson, MO.  Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified.  I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
Click to expand...


I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.


----------



## Conservative65

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who determines whether or not it's a bad law, YOU?  Seems you are saying if you don't like it you can disobey it and not be punished.  You are more than welcome to use civil disobedience to protest what you call bad laws or overreach.  However, that doens't mean you are exempt from being punished for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, one's individual conscience and conscientious actions are determined by that individual.  And no, civil disobedience generally requires an acceptance that if you are caught, you WILL be punished.  In many cases, the punishment is the point, in order to bring the incorrectness of the law into the public eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.Which is what makes, for example, these n!ggers running around today screaming about justice a pimple on  Rosie Parks', for example, ass.
> 
> Mrs Parks KNEW that refusing to move to the back of the bus would land her in trouble. She did it anyway. When the police showed up, dd she fight them? Did she scream about she didn't do anything wrong? Nope, she calmly accepted her punishment.
Click to expand...

 
That was a prime example of civil disobedience.  The problem comes in when people start out in a civil manner and when arrests are made get violent or resist because they think civil disobedience means the punishment shouldn't apply because they disagree with the law they are protesting.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Syriusly said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
> 
> Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
> 
> Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
> 
> IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We hear much more about the cases that are not civil.
> 
> And for the record- I am absolutely against violent disobedience which I don't consider to be civil.
Click to expand...


And you want what?  A medal for graciously acceding to the bare minimum of civilized, decent human thought?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
> 
> IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much like Ferguson, MO.  Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified.  I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
Click to expand...



Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
> 
> IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much like Ferguson, MO.  Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified.  I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
Click to expand...


LOTS of people have argued that it was okay.  What rock have you been hiding under?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
> 
> Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
> 
> Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong?  It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree.
> 
> It's easy to see why those supporting same sex perversion use the courts.  They know they can't get it done legislatively but can find one sympathizer to the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?
Click to expand...


No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record.  What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'.   With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.

Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning.  Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.  

Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.

Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?

Any ideas why that would be the case?


----------



## Skylar

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
> 
> IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much like Ferguson, MO.  Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified.  I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.
Click to expand...


I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.

You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
> 
> IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much like Ferguson, MO.  Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified.  I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people have argued that it was okay.  What rock have you been hiding under?
Click to expand...

I guess I missed those posts. Or more likely, didn't read the same inferences that you did in the posts I did see.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.
> 
> The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
> 
> Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
> 
> Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong?  It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree.
> 
> It's easy to see why those supporting same sex perversion use the courts.  They know they can't get it done legislatively but can find one sympathizer to the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record.  What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'.   With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.
> 
> Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning.  Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.
> 
> Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.
> 
> Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?
> 
> Any ideas why that would be the case?
Click to expand...



I'll put it to you plainly

I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Skylar said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much like Ferguson, MO.  Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified.  I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.
> 
> You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.
Click to expand...



I mean we have several posters on this board who have openly declared that they hope police get killed.That would indicate agreeing with the violence, would it not?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the intellect we have to work with.
> 
> In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.
> 
> She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.
> 
> Because they are straight up idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.
> 
> Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.
> 
> And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't know about that, look at idiots like Keys, at first glance he seems intelligent, but read his threads and its clear he isn't very smart.
> 
> On THAT front I think left/right are even on this board
> 
> Where the left has a HUGE lead is in the number of douches who lie and just ignore facts which run counter to their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Calm down scamp.  Just because I'm here, doesn't mean that you're somehow reduced.
> 
> Their opinions are their lies.  Such is the nature of the douche and that's truly all there is to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Son, stick to offering to money for Ravi's identity.
Click to expand...


LOL!  So you're drinking all the time now?

Oh well... more's the pity and so typical of the pitiful.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
> 
> Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
> 
> Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong?  It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree.
> 
> It's easy to see why those supporting same sex perversion use the courts.  They know they can't get it done legislatively but can find one sympathizer to the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record.  What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'.   With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.
> 
> Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning.  Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.
> 
> Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.
> 
> Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?
> 
> Any ideas why that would be the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put it to you plainly
> 
> I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.
Click to expand...


Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Which brings us to the answer of 'why'.   Congrats!  I knew you could do it.

fir the edification of the Intellectually Less Fortunate... SmarterThanTheAverageBear is a Progressive pretending to be an American.


----------



## Skylar

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much like Ferguson, MO.  Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified.  I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.
> 
> You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean we have several posters on this board who have openly declared that they hope police get killed.That would indicate agreeing with the violence, would it not?
Click to expand...


Maybe, depending on the context of the statement. I'd disagree in just about every context.


----------



## Conservative65

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
> 
> IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much like Ferguson, MO.  Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified.  I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people have argued that it was okay.  What rock have you been hiding under?
Click to expand...

 
If they were rioting that are, at the very least, implying it's OK.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much like Ferguson, MO.  Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified.  I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people have argued that it was okay.  What rock have you been hiding under?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they were rioting that are, at the very least, implying it's OK.
Click to expand...


Or caught up in the moment. I've done plenty of shit that I later realized was wrong.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Skylar said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much like Ferguson, MO.  Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified.  I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.
> 
> You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean we have several posters on this board who have openly declared that they hope police get killed.That would indicate agreeing with the violence, would it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, depending on the context of the statement. I'd disagree in just about every context.
Click to expand...


So, if in a thread about the protesters someone writes " I hope a cop gets killed" you would disagree that they support the violence in those protests?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much like Ferguson, MO.  Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified.  I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.
> 
> You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean we have several posters on this board who have openly declared that they hope police get killed.That would indicate agreeing with the violence, would it not?
Click to expand...


Oh there's nothing more hateful and violent than the common Liberal.  And that is due to Left-think resting in Relativism... 

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.

It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the *objectivity* which is essential to truth.  



And with truth being essential to trust and, _both of those_ being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And that is why the common Liberal is so often found calling for the injustice to which you referred.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much like Ferguson, MO.  Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified.  I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people have argued that it was okay.  What rock have you been hiding under?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they were rioting that are, at the very least, implying it's OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or caught up in the moment. I've done plenty of shit that I later realized was wrong.
Click to expand...

 
The difference is you realized it was wrong.  They continue to do it.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much like Ferguson, MO.  Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified.  I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.
> 
> You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean we have several posters on this board who have openly declared that they hope police get killed.That would indicate agreeing with the violence, would it not?
Click to expand...


I think that anyone announcing that they hope police get killed are sick degenerate bastards.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much like Ferguson, MO.  Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified.  I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.
> 
> You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean we have several posters on this board who have openly declared that they hope police get killed.That would indicate agreeing with the violence, would it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh there's nothing more hateful and violent than the common Liberal.  And that is due to Left-think resting in Relativism...
> 
> Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.
> 
> It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the *objectivity* which is essential to truth.
> 
> 
> 
> And with truth being essential to trust and, _both of those_ being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.
> 
> And that is why the common Liberal is so often found calling for the injustice to which you referred.
Click to expand...


More idiocy from Keyes


----------



## Conservative65

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much like Ferguson, MO.  Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified.  I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.
> 
> You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean we have several posters on this board who have openly declared that they hope police get killed.That would indicate agreeing with the violence, would it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh there's nothing more hateful and violent than the common Liberal.  And that is due to Left-think resting in Relativism...
> 
> Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.
> 
> It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the *objectivity* which is essential to truth.
> 
> 
> 
> And with truth being essential to trust and, _both of those_ being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.
> 
> And that is why the common Liberal is so often found calling for the injustice to which you referred.
Click to expand...

 
That's why Liberals will say a certain term in itself is racist yet justify how the race claiming it's a racist term using it isn't racist.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much like Ferguson, MO.  Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified.  I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOTS of people have argued that it was okay.  What rock have you been hiding under?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they were rioting that are, at the very least, implying it's OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or caught up in the moment. I've done plenty of shit that I later realized was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is you realized it was wrong.  They continue to do it.
Click to expand...


Such is the nature of relativism... it rejects the objectivity essential to truth, thus what is 'right'... therefore there is no means to know what is not-right.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it?  If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.
> 
> In some instances, armed confrontation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
> 
> Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
> 
> Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong?  It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree.
> 
> It's easy to see why those supporting same sex perversion use the courts.  They know they can't get it done legislatively but can find one sympathizer to the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record.  What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'.   With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.
> 
> Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning.  Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.
> 
> Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.
> 
> Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?
> 
> Any ideas why that would be the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put it to you plainly
> 
> I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.
Click to expand...


We do have some areas where we are in agreement.


----------



## Conservative65

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much like Ferguson, MO.  Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified.  I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.
> 
> You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean we have several posters on this board who have openly declared that they hope police get killed.That would indicate agreeing with the violence, would it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh there's nothing more hateful and violent than the common Liberal.  And that is due to Left-think resting in Relativism...
> 
> Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.
> 
> It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the *objectivity* which is essential to truth.
> 
> 
> 
> And with truth being essential to trust and, _both of those_ being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.
> 
> And that is why the common Liberal is so often found calling for the injustice to which you referred.
Click to expand...

 
That's the Liberal mindset with things like Affirmative Action.  They claim using race to refuse to hire someone is wrong yet are perfectly OK with using race when it comes to determining someone should get a job.  If using race, the common factor in both cases, is wrong, it's wrong either way.


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
> 
> IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We hear much more about the cases that are not civil.
> 
> And for the record- I am absolutely against violent disobedience which I don't consider to be civil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you want what?  A medal for graciously acceding to the bare minimum of civilized, decent human thought?
Click to expand...


LOL- I wanted to participate in a conversation with a civil human being.

Clearly I chose the wrong person.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.
> 
> IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We hear much more about the cases that are not civil.
> 
> And for the record- I am absolutely against violent disobedience which I don't consider to be civil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you want what?  A medal for graciously acceding to the bare minimum of civilized, decent human thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- I wanted to participate in a conversation with a civil human being.
> 
> Clearly I chose the wrong person.
Click to expand...

 
Clearly, you think people should do things your way, otherwise, you consider it wrong, uncivil, etc.  Clearly, you're a Liberal.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.
> 
> Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.
> 
> Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong?  It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree.
> 
> It's easy to see why those supporting same sex perversion use the courts.  They know they can't get it done legislatively but can find one sympathizer to the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record.  What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'.   With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.
> 
> Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning.  Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.
> 
> Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.
> 
> Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?
> 
> Any ideas why that would be the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put it to you plainly
> 
> I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have some areas where we are in agreement.
Click to expand...


We have several. I told you, I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a common sensitive.


----------



## Skylar

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.
> 
> You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean we have several posters on this board who have openly declared that they hope police get killed.That would indicate agreeing with the violence, would it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, depending on the context of the statement. I'd disagree in just about every context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if in a thread about the protesters someone writes " I hope a cop gets killed" you would disagree that they support the violence in those protests?
Click to expand...


In that context, I'd say you were probably right in your interpretation that they supported the riots.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

...


SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong?  It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree.
> 
> It's easy to see why those supporting same sex perversion use the courts.  They know they can't get it done legislatively but can find one sympathizer to the cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record.  What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'.   With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.
> 
> Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning.  Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.
> 
> Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.
> 
> Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?
> 
> Any ideas why that would be the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put it to you plainly
> 
> I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have some areas where we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have several. I told you, I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a common sensitive.
Click to expand...


What you are is a fraud.  A progressive who pretends to be an American.  But hey, such is the nature of evil... now isn't it?

As that is how evil progresses, it pretends or deceives through fraudulent means, to be something it is not, as a means to influence the willfully ignorant.  And how remarkable that these are precisely the fundamental elements of socialism?  Why its as if it all fits a natural puzzle, doesn't it?  And there you are, exposed for what you are, trapped by your own defining attributes.

Now I gotta say, that is _pretty dam' coo_l.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ...
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record.  What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'.   With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.
> 
> Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning.  Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.
> 
> Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.
> 
> Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?
> 
> Any ideas why that would be the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put it to you plainly
> 
> I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have some areas where we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have several. I told you, I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a common sensitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are is a fraud.  A progressive who pretends to be an America.  But hey, such is the nature of evil... now isn't it?
> 
> As that is how evil progresses, it pretends or deceives through fraudulent means, to be something it is not, as a means to influence the willfully ignorant.  And how remarkable that these are precisely the fundamental elements of socialism?  Why its as if it all fits a natural puzzle, doesn't it?  And there you are, exposed for what you are, trapped by your own defining attributes.
> 
> Now I gotta say, that is _pretty dam' coo_l.
Click to expand...



What a buffoon. Sir BOTH of my parents are US citizens, and I was born Inside the continental US, I AM a US citizen, your stupid belief that not agreeing with YOUR politics means I'm not notwithstanding.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Oh there's nothing more hateful and violent than the common Liberal.



ISIS is plenty conservative. And plenty hateful. And plenty violent. Most of the folks you call liberal don't riot or violently try to impose their religious values through the gun or hijacked airplane. Rendering your statement a rather poor reflection of reality.

But you did just give us a lovely little window into your mind. 



> Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.
> 
> It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the *objectivity* which is essential to truth.




The obvious problem being that your society, history, culture and personal context flavor what you consider to be truth and morality. Take the founders. In their context,  culture and history...they interpreted the Bible as mandating execution for sodomy. So they killed anyone they found practicing it.

Today, most modern American Christians live with a very different context, culture and history. So they interpret around those sections of the Bible they don't like. And neither execute gays for sodomy nor advocate their execution by others. 

Same exact religious text, two entirely different conceptions of 'morality', truth and the word of God. Based on subjective interpretation. And that's in the same culture, same nation, same language, same religion separated by a meager span of only a couple of centuries. Expand the time frame, the region, the language, the culture, the religion, or the text.....and the interpretations  of 'the will of god' become wildly unstable and disparate.

Which is anything but 'objective'. Being instead deeply and personally subjective. 



> And with truth being essential to trust and, _both of those_ being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.



But whose truth? The founders considered it truth that gays must be executed for sodomy. Modern Christians don't accept that as truth, making up new interpretations that allow them to ignore whatever they don't like. Just as the founders did when they refused to execute those who commit adultrery....despite the same section of the same Bible they used as their justification for executing gays mandating the same punishment for adulterers. While the Puritans before them did execute for adultery, interpreting the Bible differently yet again.

Religion is extremely contextual and hopelessly prone to culture, history, society and personal context. Even the basis of most religions; faith, is the belief in something that isn't supported by objective evidence and exists within the subjective perceive of it. Making it deeply personal and subjective. 

Rendering your 'relativism v. objectivity' dichotomy irrelevant. As both are of the processes you describe are subjective.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong?  It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree.
> 
> It's easy to see why those supporting same sex perversion use the courts.  They know they can't get it done legislatively but can find one sympathizer to the cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record.  What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'.   With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.
> 
> Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning.  Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.
> 
> Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.
> 
> Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?
> 
> Any ideas why that would be the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put it to you plainly
> 
> I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have some areas where we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have several. I told you, I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a common sensitive.
Click to expand...




SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record.  What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'.   With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.
> 
> Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning.  Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.
> 
> Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.
> 
> Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?
> 
> Any ideas why that would be the case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put it to you plainly
> 
> I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have some areas where we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have several. I told you, I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a common sensitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are is a fraud.  A progressive who pretends to be an American.  But hey, such is the nature of evil... now isn't it?
> 
> As that is how evil progresses, it pretends or deceives through fraudulent means, to be something it is not, as a means to influence the willfully ignorant.  And how remarkable that these are precisely the fundamental elements of socialism?  Why its as if it all fits a natural puzzle, doesn't it?  And there you are, exposed for what you are, trapped by your own defining attributes.
> 
> Now I gotta say, that is _pretty dam' coo_l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a buffoon. Sir BOTH of my parents are US citizens, and I was born Inside the continental US, I AM a US citizen, your stupid belief that not agreeing with YOUR politics means I'm not notwithstanding.
Click to expand...


So you're saying that you're a US Citizen?  Anyone here see anyone contest that?

Here's the thing... An American is one who recognizes, respects, defends and adheres to the principles that define America.

This is a standard which far exceeds the lowly standard for mere 'citizenship'.  Which is typified by the happenstance wherein one finds that the birth-canal they slid down was situated within the border of the United States... not exactly a foundation for any significant point of pride there.

As no less an authority than a moderator of this very board recently made known:

_*"THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!"*_​


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record.  What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'.   With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.
> 
> Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning.  Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.
> 
> Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.
> 
> Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?
> 
> Any ideas why that would be the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put it to you plainly
> 
> I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have some areas where we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have several. I told you, I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a common sensitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put it to you plainly
> 
> I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have some areas where we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have several. I told you, I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a common sensitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are is a fraud.  A progressive who pretends to be an American.  But hey, such is the nature of evil... now isn't it?
> 
> As that is how evil progresses, it pretends or deceives through fraudulent means, to be something it is not, as a means to influence the willfully ignorant.  And how remarkable that these are precisely the fundamental elements of socialism?  Why its as if it all fits a natural puzzle, doesn't it?  And there you are, exposed for what you are, trapped by your own defining attributes.
> 
> Now I gotta say, that is _pretty dam' coo_l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a buffoon. Sir BOTH of my parents are US citizens, and I was born Inside the continental US, I AM a US citizen, your stupid belief that not agreeing with YOUR politics means I'm not notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that you're a US Citizen?  Anyone here see anyone contest that?
> 
> Here's the thing... An American is one who recognizes, respects, defends and adheres to the principles that define America.
> 
> This is a standard which far exceeds the lowly standard for mere 'citizenship'.  Which is typified by the happenstance wherein one finds that the birth-canal they slid down was situated within the border of the United States... not exactly a foundation for any significant point of pride there.
> 
> *As no less an authority than a moderator of this very board recently made known:*
> 
> _*"THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!"*_​
Click to expand...



Being a moderator on this board makes one no less stupid. For God's sakes Bodecea was a moderator on this board.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record.  What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'.   With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.
> 
> Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning.  Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.
> 
> Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.
> 
> Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?
> 
> Any ideas why that would be the case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put it to you plainly
> 
> I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have some areas where we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have several. I told you, I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a common sensitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do have some areas where we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have several. I told you, I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a common sensitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are is a fraud.  A progressive who pretends to be an American.  But hey, such is the nature of evil... now isn't it?
> 
> As that is how evil progresses, it pretends or deceives through fraudulent means, to be something it is not, as a means to influence the willfully ignorant.  And how remarkable that these are precisely the fundamental elements of socialism?  Why its as if it all fits a natural puzzle, doesn't it?  And there you are, exposed for what you are, trapped by your own defining attributes.
> 
> Now I gotta say, that is _pretty dam' coo_l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a buffoon. Sir BOTH of my parents are US citizens, and I was born Inside the continental US, I AM a US citizen, your stupid belief that not agreeing with YOUR politics means I'm not notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that you're a US Citizen?  Anyone here see anyone contest that?
> 
> Here's the thing... An American is one who recognizes, respects, defends and adheres to the principles that define America.
> 
> This is a standard which far exceeds the lowly standard for mere 'citizenship'.  Which is typified by the happenstance wherein one finds that the birth-canal they slid down was situated within the border of the United States... not exactly a foundation for any significant point of pride there.
> 
> *As no less an authority than a moderator of this very board recently made known:*
> 
> _*"THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!"*_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Being a moderator on this board makes one no less stupid.
Click to expand...


No?  Well now, that is something... .


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We hear much more about the cases that are not civil.
> 
> And for the record- I am absolutely against violent disobedience which I don't consider to be civil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you want what?  A medal for graciously acceding to the bare minimum of civilized, decent human thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- I wanted to participate in a conversation with a civil human being.
> 
> Clearly I chose the wrong person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly, you think people should do things your way, otherwise, you consider it wrong, uncivil, etc.  Clearly, you're a Liberal.
Click to expand...


Clearly you have a reading comprehension problem. Which is a different problem from your partisan blindness.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

What Happens When a Christian Man Asks Gay Bakers to Make Him a Cake for a Traditional Marriage Celebration Watch and Find Out Video John Hawkins Right Wing News


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> What Happens When a Christian Man Asks Gay Bakers to Make Him a Cake for a Traditional Marriage Celebration Watch and Find Out Video John Hawkins Right Wing News



A whole thread is devoted to that. Feel free to join in the discussion there.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My wife and I got married because we a) loved each other and b) because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives- legally, publicly, completely. Our marriage serves a societal purpose regardless of procreation.
> 
> And if we were two people of the same gender, that same purpose would be achieved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree, you both represent the foundation of the nuclear family as husband and wife, and could potentially still procreate or adopt and thus provide a traditional structure to children. But the reality is, your situation doesn't represent the majority, and policy shouldn't be based on your exception to the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your disagreement has nothing to do with my point.
> 
> The State didn't care whether or not my wife and I intended to procreate or not when we got married. Nor was the reason for our marriage because we intended to procreate.
> 
> Our marriage served a societal purpose regardless of procreation.
> 
> IF marriage was only about procreation we wouldn't be allowing 80 year old couples to marry. We wouldn't have states requiring some couples to prove that they cannot have children before they are allowed to marry.
Click to expand...

You aren't making any sense. 80 year old people getting married doesn't negate the fact the government provides tax cuts to married couples who have children. Just because not everyone takes advantage of the incentive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And on that point, marriage as an institution proceeds the US Government,  it existed long before and will exist long after. The purpose of marriage traditionally speaking is for men and women coming together to build a family. I don't really see a convincing argument for why this should be redefined


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My wife and I got married because we a) loved each other and b) because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives- legally, publicly, completely. Our marriage serves a societal purpose regardless of procreation.
> 
> And if we were two people of the same gender, that same purpose would be achieved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree, you both represent the foundation of the nuclear family as husband and wife, and could potentially still procreate or adopt and thus provide a traditional structure to children. But the reality is, your situation doesn't represent the majority, and policy shouldn't be based on your exception to the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your disagreement has nothing to do with my point.
> 
> The State didn't care whether or not my wife and I intended to procreate or not when we got married. Nor was the reason for our marriage because we intended to procreate.
> 
> Our marriage served a societal purpose regardless of procreation.
> 
> IF marriage was only about procreation we wouldn't be allowing 80 year old couples to marry. We wouldn't have states requiring some couples to prove that they cannot have children before they are allowed to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't making any sense. 80 year old people getting married doesn't negate the fact the government provides tax cuts to married couples who have children. Just because not everyone takes advantage of the incentive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And on that point, marriage as an institution proceeds the US Government,  it existed long before and will exist long after. The purpose of marriage traditionally speaking is for men and women coming together to build a family. I don't really see a convincing argument for why this should be redefined
Click to expand...


Just a bit of a correction. 

Anyone gets tax breaks for their children. Or more specifically- you can only claim dependents. If two parents are not married one of them can claim their child as a dependent. If two parents are married- but filing seperately- one can declare the child as a dependent.

The tax break is for the children. Not the marriage. As someone who has been married for over 20 years, I can say that at least twice I paid more taxes because we are married. 

If you take two 80 year olds who want to get married- Bob and Edna and Bob and Edward- neither couple will ever reproduce with each other- but states have never had a legal issue with 80 year olds getting married. 

As long as they are the opposite gender.

My wife and I didn't come together to create a family- we did do so- but we came together because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Happens When a Christian Man Asks Gay Bakers to Make Him a Cake for a Traditional Marriage Celebration Watch and Find Out Video John Hawkins Right Wing News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A whole thread is devoted to that. Feel free to join in the discussion there.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out your team's hypocrisy.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Happens When a Christian Man Asks Gay Bakers to Make Him a Cake for a Traditional Marriage Celebration Watch and Find Out Video John Hawkins Right Wing News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A whole thread is devoted to that. Feel free to join in the discussion there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just pointing out your team's hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


LOL....yeah....like I said- a whole thread full your team posting over there.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Happens When a Christian Man Asks Gay Bakers to Make Him a Cake for a Traditional Marriage Celebration Watch and Find Out Video John Hawkins Right Wing News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A whole thread is devoted to that. Feel free to join in the discussion there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just pointing out your team's hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....yeah....like I said- a whole thread full your team posting over there.
Click to expand...


My team pointing out the hypocrisy of the gay mafia.  Cool.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Happens When a Christian Man Asks Gay Bakers to Make Him a Cake for a Traditional Marriage Celebration Watch and Find Out Video John Hawkins Right Wing News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A whole thread is devoted to that. Feel free to join in the discussion there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just pointing out your team's hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....yeah....like I said- a whole thread full your team posting over there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My team pointing out the hypocrisy of the gay mafia.  Cool.
Click to expand...


Your team is terrified of an imaginary gay mafia with pink tommyguns and rainbow cadillacs.....


----------



## Steinlight

Skylar said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want gays to be able to   No it doesnt. Same set marriages weren't permitted at the inception of the 14th Amendment. So the idea equality under the law mandates a man must be allowed to marry a man. This is not in the spirit of the amendment. Even though I disagree with it. It cannot be construed this way legitimately. No American is denied the ability to marry, meaning join in a union with someone of the opposite sex. so equal protection isn't violated
> 
> The law does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. *But its a standard that no one is held to. *With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.
> 
> The second problem:* many gays and lesbians have children.* And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its  also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.
> 
> It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Skylar said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. *But its a standard that no one is held to. *With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.
> 
> The second problem:* many gays and lesbians have children.* And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its  also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.
> 
> It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.
Click to expand...

I disagree, the law isn't set in stone as you suggest at all. It certainly wasn't the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment to allow interracial marriage, much less same sex marriage. So you can make your appeal based on equality, but you can't make it on the law as you claim. Also, the whole question where homosexuals are protected class is an issue. Than the question arises, are homosexuals denied the right to marry(enter a union with someone of the opposite sex)? No, there is nothing stopping someone based on their orientation from entering into a marriage contract. So even if we accept your premise, which I disagree with, that homosexuals are a protected class under the 14th Amendment, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. 

Gays and Lesbians can adopt children or create children with a surrogate, but the two partners can't have children. 

Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with  same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. That is an argument against gay adoption, not one for gay marriage. As for the discussion about children not receiving inheritance. Shouldn't they have thought of that by creating a will before time, or going through the proper adopting channels and gaining full parental rights on hospital issues? None of this is necessary for marriage, and it is a disingenuous argument that is supposed to pull at our heart strings so we give sanction to their immoral lifestyle.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> The role of the the state should be to promote procreation and a stable family environment for the children of these unions. Legalizing gay marriage serves no purpose towards this end and incentivizes a degenerate and destructive lifestyle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are thinking of something completely different from marriage.
> 
> Because marriage right now doesn't promote procreation or a stable family environment for children.
> 
> Marriage only legally binds two people together.
> 
> Those two people can choose to try to have children or chose to not try to have children- and the state doesn't care.
> Those two people can have children- and not marry- and the state doesn't care.
> Those two people can be married, and have children- and decide to divorce- and the state doesn't care.
> 
> Really- if you want marriage to promote procreation and a stable family environment you needs something radically different than current legal marriage. There is nothing about current marriage law that accomplishes those things.
> 
> Hell Wisconsin requires first cousins to prove that they cannot have children together before they can marry- i.e. just the opposite of what you say the role of the State should be.
> 
> But if you want to treat same gender couples the same as opposite gender couples who cannot- or do not want to have children- and only allow marriage to those couples who are physically capable of procreation, and commit to having children, and become divorced if they don't have children- but can't divorce if they do have children- well that would be equal at least.
> 
> But right now all you are in essence saying is that you don't want the children of gay couples to have married parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment.
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well there we go.
> 
> You start from a position of wanting to deny children parents- if they happen to be gay.
> 
> And you don't believe in equal treatment.
> 
> You don't want the children of gay couples to have married parents.
> 
> In the words of Justice Kennedy- the likely swing vote when this reaches the Supreme Court:
> 
> "There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"
> 
> You are telling Justice Kennedy "Hell no"
Click to expand...

Well, if Justice Kennedy said that, I am very disappointed in him. That a learned man would say something as silly that children's biased opinions should be reflected in our law and government policy. I suppose he thinks that voting age restrictions are bad as well. Aren't children's voices important on a plethora of issues by that standard?


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want gays to be able to   No it doesnt. Same set marriages weren't permitted at the inception of the 14th Amendment. So the idea equality under the law mandates a man must be allowed to marry a man. This is not in the spirit of the amendment. Even though I disagree with it. It cannot be construed this way legitimately. No American is denied the ability to marry, meaning join in a union with someone of the opposite sex. so equal protection isn't violated
> 
> The law does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. *But its a standard that no one is held to. *With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.
> 
> The second problem:* many gays and lesbians have children.* And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its  also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.
> 
> It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. *But its a standard that no one is held to. *With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.
> 
> The second problem:* many gays and lesbians have children.* And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its  also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.
> 
> It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree, the law isn't set in stone as you suggest at all. It certainly wasn't the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment to allow interracial marriage, much less same sex marriage. So you can make your appeal based on equality, but you can't make it on the law as you claim. Also, the whole question where homosexuals are protected class is an issue. Than the question arises, are homosexuals denied the right to marry(enter a union with someone of the opposite sex)? No, there is nothing stopping someone based on their orientation from entering into a marriage contract. So even if we accept your premise, which I disagree with, that homosexuals are a protected class under the 14th Amendment, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow..
Click to expand...


The legal claim has been successfully made multiple times now. 

You may disagree with it- but your disagreement doesn't change the fact that thousands of people in love now are legally able to get married.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want gays to be able to   No it doesnt. Same set marriages weren't permitted at the inception of the 14th Amendment. So the idea equality under the law mandates a man must be allowed to marry a man. This is not in the spirit of the amendment. Even though I disagree with it. It cannot be construed this way legitimately. No American is denied the ability to marry, meaning join in a union with someone of the opposite sex. so equal protection isn't violated
> 
> The law does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. *But its a standard that no one is held to. *With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.
> 
> The second problem:* many gays and lesbians have children.* And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its  also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.
> 
> It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. *But its a standard that no one is held to. *With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.
> 
> The second problem:* many gays and lesbians have children.* And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its  also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.
> 
> It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays and Lesbians can adopt children or create children with a surrogate, but the two partners can't have children.
> .
Click to expand...


Exactly the same as millions of heterosexual couples. 

This is the problem with your argument- the State does not care about the potential of procreation when it comes to opposite gender couples. They only raise the issue when it comes to same gender couples.

Because the argument is only meant to prevent same gender marriage.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Happens When a Christian Man Asks Gay Bakers to Make Him a Cake for a Traditional Marriage Celebration Watch and Find Out Video John Hawkins Right Wing News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A whole thread is devoted to that. Feel free to join in the discussion there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just pointing out your team's hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....yeah....like I said- a whole thread full your team posting over there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My team pointing out the hypocrisy of the gay mafia.  Cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your team is terrified of an imaginary gay mafia with pink tommyguns and rainbow cadillacs.....
Click to expand...

Nope.  Your team is targeting Christian businesses.  Gay mafia fits.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My wife and I got married because we a) loved each other and b) because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives- legally, publicly, completely. Our marriage serves a societal purpose regardless of procreation.
> 
> And if we were two people of the same gender, that same purpose would be achieved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree, you both represent the foundation of the nuclear family as husband and wife, and could potentially still procreate or adopt and thus provide a traditional structure to children. But the reality is, your situation doesn't represent the majority, and policy shouldn't be based on your exception to the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your disagreement has nothing to do with my point.
> 
> The State didn't care whether or not my wife and I intended to procreate or not when we got married. Nor was the reason for our marriage because we intended to procreate.
> 
> Our marriage served a societal purpose regardless of procreation.
> 
> IF marriage was only about procreation we wouldn't be allowing 80 year old couples to marry. We wouldn't have states requiring some couples to prove that they cannot have children before they are allowed to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't making any sense. 80 year old people getting married doesn't negate the fact the government provides tax cuts to married couples who have children. Just because not everyone takes advantage of the incentive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And on that point, marriage as an institution proceeds the US Government,  it existed long before and will exist long after. The purpose of marriage traditionally speaking is for men and women coming together to build a family. I don't really see a convincing argument for why this should be redefined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a bit of a correction.
> 
> Anyone gets tax breaks for their children. Or more specifically- you can only claim dependents. If two parents are not married one of them can claim their child as a dependent. If two parents are married- but filing seperately- one can declare the child as a dependent.
> 
> The tax break is for the children. Not the marriage. As someone who has been married for over 20 years, I can say that at least twice I paid more taxes because we are married.
> 
> If you take two 80 year olds who want to get married- Bob and Edna and Bob and Edward- neither couple will ever reproduce with each other- but states have never had a legal issue with 80 year olds getting married.
> 
> As long as they are the opposite gender.
> 
> My wife and I didn't come together to create a family- we did do so- but we came together because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives.
Click to expand...

The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits. 

I have no issue with Bob and Edna getting married, but elderly man and woman people getting married isn't the traditional purpose. Like I said before, they form the foundation of the nuclear family with the union, so theoretically they could still go adopt, but the institution of marriage isn't based on this exception to the rule. It isn't just a question of tradition, which is important, but a question of societal continuity and survival. Marriage doesn't exist as an institution to have everyone get married when they are 80 and have no children, or letting two men play house, if that were the case society would cease to exist after a generation. It is for a man and woman in the sight of God and the community to make vows of loyalty to one another for life and provide a stable and legitimate union for their future children to be brought into.

So there you go, you and your wife built a family, even you admit it.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> [
> Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with  same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .



Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children? 

Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?

And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?

And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?

Curious minds would like to know.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> A whole thread is devoted to that. Feel free to join in the discussion there.
> 
> 
> 
> Just pointing out your team's hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....yeah....like I said- a whole thread full your team posting over there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My team pointing out the hypocrisy of the gay mafia.  Cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your team is terrified of an imaginary gay mafia with pink tommyguns and rainbow cadillacs.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Your team is targeting Christian businesses.  Gay mafia fits.
Click to expand...


Hmmm see, you and I have different images of the mafia.

To me, the mafia are criminals working outside the law, breaking legs, running prostitution rings, selling drugs.

But to you- gay citizens who have the temerity to claim protection under the law are the real mafia.

And you are terrified of them.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want gays to be able to   No it doesnt. Same set marriages weren't permitted at the inception of the 14th Amendment. So the idea equality under the law mandates a man must be allowed to marry a man. This is not in the spirit of the amendment. Even though I disagree with it. It cannot be construed this way legitimately. No American is denied the ability to marry, meaning join in a union with someone of the opposite sex. so equal protection isn't violated
> 
> The law does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. *But its a standard that no one is held to. *With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.
> 
> The second problem:* many gays and lesbians have children.* And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its  also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.
> 
> It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. *But its a standard that no one is held to. *With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.
> 
> The second problem:* many gays and lesbians have children.* And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its  also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.
> 
> It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree, the law isn't set in stone as you suggest at all. It certainly wasn't the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment to allow interracial marriage, much less same sex marriage. So you can make your appeal based on equality, but you can't make it on the law as you claim. Also, the whole question where homosexuals are protected class is an issue. Than the question arises, are homosexuals denied the right to marry(enter a union with someone of the opposite sex)? No, there is nothing stopping someone based on their orientation from entering into a marriage contract. So even if we accept your premise, which I disagree with, that homosexuals are a protected class under the 14th Amendment, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The legal claim has been successfully made multiple times now.
> 
> You may disagree with it- but your disagreement doesn't change the fact that thousands of people in love now are legally able to get married.
Click to expand...

The idea that has come about in post-modern secular society that  marriage is based on two people "loving each other", is flawed, and one of the primary reasons the institution is falling apart. Marriage the the moral context to pursue romantic sex and love, not vice versa.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> My wife and I got married because we a) loved each other and b) because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives- legally, publicly, completely. Our marriage serves a societal purpose regardless of procreation.
> 
> And if we were two people of the same gender, that same purpose would be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, you both represent the foundation of the nuclear family as husband and wife, and could potentially still procreate or adopt and thus provide a traditional structure to children. But the reality is, your situation doesn't represent the majority, and policy shouldn't be based on your exception to the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your disagreement has nothing to do with my point.
> 
> The State didn't care whether or not my wife and I intended to procreate or not when we got married. Nor was the reason for our marriage because we intended to procreate.
> 
> Our marriage served a societal purpose regardless of procreation.
> 
> IF marriage was only about procreation we wouldn't be allowing 80 year old couples to marry. We wouldn't have states requiring some couples to prove that they cannot have children before they are allowed to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't making any sense. 80 year old people getting married doesn't negate the fact the government provides tax cuts to married couples who have children. Just because not everyone takes advantage of the incentive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And on that point, marriage as an institution proceeds the US Government,  it existed long before and will exist long after. The purpose of marriage traditionally speaking is for men and women coming together to build a family. I don't really see a convincing argument for why this should be redefined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a bit of a correction.
> 
> Anyone gets tax breaks for their children. Or more specifically- you can only claim dependents. If two parents are not married one of them can claim their child as a dependent. If two parents are married- but filing seperately- one can declare the child as a dependent.
> 
> The tax break is for the children. Not the marriage. As someone who has been married for over 20 years, I can say that at least twice I paid more taxes because we are married.
> 
> If you take two 80 year olds who want to get married- Bob and Edna and Bob and Edward- neither couple will ever reproduce with each other- but states have never had a legal issue with 80 year olds getting married.
> 
> As long as they are the opposite gender.
> 
> My wife and I didn't come together to create a family- we did do so- but we came together because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits..
Click to expand...


No.

You are just wrong. 

You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent. 

Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want gays to be able to   No it doesnt. Same set marriages weren't permitted at the inception of the 14th Amendment. So the idea equality under the law mandates a man must be allowed to marry a man. This is not in the spirit of the amendment. Even though I disagree with it. It cannot be construed this way legitimately. No American is denied the ability to marry, meaning join in a union with someone of the opposite sex. so equal protection isn't violated
> 
> The law does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. *But its a standard that no one is held to. *With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.
> 
> The second problem:* many gays and lesbians have children.* And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its  also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.
> 
> It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. *But its a standard that no one is held to. *With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.
> 
> The second problem:* many gays and lesbians have children.* And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its  also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.
> 
> It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree, the law isn't set in stone as you suggest at all. It certainly wasn't the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment to allow interracial marriage, much less same sex marriage. So you can make your appeal based on equality, but you can't make it on the law as you claim. Also, the whole question where homosexuals are protected class is an issue. Than the question arises, are homosexuals denied the right to marry(enter a union with someone of the opposite sex)? No, there is nothing stopping someone based on their orientation from entering into a marriage contract. So even if we accept your premise, which I disagree with, that homosexuals are a protected class under the 14th Amendment, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The legal claim has been successfully made multiple times now.
> 
> You may disagree with it- but your disagreement doesn't change the fact that thousands of people in love now are legally able to get married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The idea that has come about in post-modern secular society that  marriage is based on two people "loving each other", is flawed, and one of the primary reasons the institution is falling apart. Marriage the the moral context to pursue romantic sex and love, not vice versa.
Click to expand...


Says you.

Marriage has meant many things, including that the husband transferred ownership from the father to himself. 

I like this quote:


"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Maybe you don't intend to marry for love, but I certainly did. 

My wife and I married to be partners- to enjoy a 'bilateral loyalty' for the rest of our lives.

Our child is a welcome bonus to our marriage- but our marriage would be just as successful whether we were ever lucky enough to be parents or not.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just pointing out your team's hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....yeah....like I said- a whole thread full your team posting over there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My team pointing out the hypocrisy of the gay mafia.  Cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your team is terrified of an imaginary gay mafia with pink tommyguns and rainbow cadillacs.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Your team is targeting Christian businesses.  Gay mafia fits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm see, you and I have different images of the mafia.
> 
> To me, the mafia are criminals working outside the law, breaking legs, running prostitution rings, selling drugs.
> 
> But to you- gay citizens who have the temerity to claim protection under the law are the real mafia.
> 
> And you are terrified of them.
Click to expand...

I think the gay mafia is just the same.  Passing unjust laws and then targeting Christians who will not give in to threats, thereby losing their business.  Piss on the queers.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [. It is for a man and woman in the sight of God and the community to make vows of loyalty to one another for life and provide a stable and legitimate union for their future children to be brought into.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We make the vows whether there is any chance of future children or not.
> 
> You keep making this linkage to procreation, but the law keeps denying this linkage.
> 
> The law allows heterosexuals who cannot procreate to marry- but you say homosexuals can't be allowed to marry because they won't be able to procreate.
> 
> Wisconsin even requires some couples to prove that they are unable to procreate before they will allow them to marry- unless of course they are gay- which Wisconsin law prohibited.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....yeah....like I said- a whole thread full your team posting over there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My team pointing out the hypocrisy of the gay mafia.  Cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your team is terrified of an imaginary gay mafia with pink tommyguns and rainbow cadillacs.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Your team is targeting Christian businesses.  Gay mafia fits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm see, you and I have different images of the mafia.
> 
> To me, the mafia are criminals working outside the law, breaking legs, running prostitution rings, selling drugs.
> 
> But to you- gay citizens who have the temerity to claim protection under the law are the real mafia.
> 
> And you are terrified of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the gay mafia is just the same.  Passing unjust laws and then targeting Christians who will not give in to threats, thereby losing their business.  Piss on the queers.
Click to expand...


Yeah- I imagine you do go around watching over your shoulders in fear of the 'gay mafia' with their pink tommy guns and rainbow cadillacs.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with  same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?
> 
> Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?
> 
> And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?
> 
> And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?
> 
> Curious minds would like to know.
Click to expand...

A homosexual couple can't give birth to children. I don't need to make it illegal. I think what you mean is should it be illegal for homosexual couples to use surrogates or in vitro fertilization? Correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I think it should be illegal. It isn't the purview of the Federal Government, but yes, if it were a state initiative or I were a state representative and a law came to vote, I would support it. 

If it came up where they illegally used these procedures in violation of the law, than yes, I would arrest them. If a person is so reckless as to violate such a serious law, why should they be allowed to have children if they were willing to take such a risk in the first place. If they are willing to risk their biological child like this, why wouldn't they put their child at risk in other ways? It shows they don't care about the child if they do something like that in that case. 

Gays don't just adopt children from foster care, they adopt them from single moms, unmarried couples, from overseas. So no, I reject your premise that they will all languish in US foster care. It simply isn't true.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want gays to be able to   No it doesnt. Same set marriages weren't permitted at the inception of the 14th Amendment. So the idea equality under the law mandates a man must be allowed to marry a man. This is not in the spirit of the amendment. Even though I disagree with it. It cannot be construed this way legitimately. No American is denied the ability to marry, meaning join in a union with someone of the opposite sex. so equal protection isn't violated
> 
> The law does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. *But its a standard that no one is held to. *With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.
> 
> The second problem:* many gays and lesbians have children.* And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its  also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.
> 
> It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. *But its a standard that no one is held to. *With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.
> 
> The second problem:* many gays and lesbians have children.* And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its  also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.
> 
> It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree, the law isn't set in stone as you suggest at all. It certainly wasn't the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment to allow interracial marriage, much less same sex marriage. So you can make your appeal based on equality, but you can't make it on the law as you claim. Also, the whole question where homosexuals are protected class is an issue. Than the question arises, are homosexuals denied the right to marry(enter a union with someone of the opposite sex)? No, there is nothing stopping someone based on their orientation from entering into a marriage contract. So even if we accept your premise, which I disagree with, that homosexuals are a protected class under the 14th Amendment, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The legal claim has been successfully made multiple times now.
> 
> You may disagree with it- but your disagreement doesn't change the fact that thousands of people in love now are legally able to get married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The idea that has come about in post-modern secular society that  marriage is based on two people "loving each other", is flawed, and one of the primary reasons the institution is falling apart. Marriage the the moral context to pursue romantic sex and love, not vice versa.
Click to expand...

The goal of these filthy creatures is to destroy, not build.


Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> My team pointing out the hypocrisy of the gay mafia.  Cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your team is terrified of an imaginary gay mafia with pink tommyguns and rainbow cadillacs.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Your team is targeting Christian businesses.  Gay mafia fits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm see, you and I have different images of the mafia.
> 
> To me, the mafia are criminals working outside the law, breaking legs, running prostitution rings, selling drugs.
> 
> But to you- gay citizens who have the temerity to claim protection under the law are the real mafia.
> 
> And you are terrified of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the gay mafia is just the same.  Passing unjust laws and then targeting Christians who will not give in to threats, thereby losing their business.  Piss on the queers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- I imagine you do go around watching over your shoulders in fear of the 'gay mafia' with their pink tommy guns and rainbow cadillacs.
Click to expand...


Whatever.  I'm not the freak.  The filth you support are.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, you both represent the foundation of the nuclear family as husband and wife, and could potentially still procreate or adopt and thus provide a traditional structure to children. But the reality is, your situation doesn't represent the majority, and policy shouldn't be based on your exception to the rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your disagreement has nothing to do with my point.
> 
> The State didn't care whether or not my wife and I intended to procreate or not when we got married. Nor was the reason for our marriage because we intended to procreate.
> 
> Our marriage served a societal purpose regardless of procreation.
> 
> IF marriage was only about procreation we wouldn't be allowing 80 year old couples to marry. We wouldn't have states requiring some couples to prove that they cannot have children before they are allowed to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't making any sense. 80 year old people getting married doesn't negate the fact the government provides tax cuts to married couples who have children. Just because not everyone takes advantage of the incentive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And on that point, marriage as an institution proceeds the US Government,  it existed long before and will exist long after. The purpose of marriage traditionally speaking is for men and women coming together to build a family. I don't really see a convincing argument for why this should be redefined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a bit of a correction.
> 
> Anyone gets tax breaks for their children. Or more specifically- you can only claim dependents. If two parents are not married one of them can claim their child as a dependent. If two parents are married- but filing seperately- one can declare the child as a dependent.
> 
> The tax break is for the children. Not the marriage. As someone who has been married for over 20 years, I can say that at least twice I paid more taxes because we are married.
> 
> If you take two 80 year olds who want to get married- Bob and Edna and Bob and Edward- neither couple will ever reproduce with each other- but states have never had a legal issue with 80 year olds getting married.
> 
> As long as they are the opposite gender.
> 
> My wife and I didn't come together to create a family- we did do so- but we came together because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> You are just wrong.
> 
> You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.
Click to expand...

Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent. 

The State does, and they should incentivize procreation and marriage if they didn't. I actually think they should provide more subsidies, and maternity leave as well, as long as they are not on welfare and can provide for the child. Procreation is necessary for the continuity of society and having a married father and mother provides the most stable and ideal environment for this child to grow up in.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with  same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?
> 
> Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?
> 
> And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?
> 
> And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?
> 
> Curious minds would like to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A homosexual couple can't give birth to children. I don't need to make it illegal. I think what you mean is should it be illegal for homosexual couples to use surrogates or in vitro fertilization? Correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I think it should be illegal. It isn't the purview of the Federal Government, but yes, if it were a state initiative or I were a state representative and a law came to vote, I would support it..
Click to expand...


Why am I not surprised that you would intrude the government into decisions on child bearing?

Long before modern techniques, lesbians would get sperm donations from male friends and get impregnated.

Now is it a specific Conservative doctrine to remove a child from its mother simply because she is queer- or is that your own particular cry for Big Brother?

And who raises those children then- does Big Brother choose what fine I mean straight families would be required to raise these children? Or just dump them on foster homes?


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with  same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?
> 
> Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?
> 
> And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?
> 
> And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?
> 
> Curious minds would like to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays don't just adopt children from foster care, they adopt them from single moms, unmarried couples, from overseas. So no, I reject your premise that they will all languish in US foster care. It simply isn't true.
Click to expand...


Every American  child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.

Facts and Statistics
_
*In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

*In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

*Three years is the average length of time a child in foster care waits* to be adopted. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally._

Yet to you- all of that is better than letting a single child be adopted by a loving gay couple.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with  same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?
> 
> Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?
> 
> And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?
> 
> And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?
> 
> Curious minds would like to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A homosexual couple can't give birth to children. I don't need to make it illegal. I think what you mean is should it be illegal for homosexual couples to use surrogates or in vitro fertilization? Correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I think it should be illegal. It isn't the purview of the Federal Government, but yes, if it were a state initiative or I were a state representative and a law came to vote, I would support it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would intrude the government into decisions on child bearing?
> 
> Long before modern techniques, lesbians would get sperm donations from male friends and get impregnated.
> 
> Now is it a specific Conservative doctrine to remove a child from its mother simply because she is queer- or is that your own particular cry for Big Brother?
> 
> And who raises those children then- does Big Brother choose what fine I mean straight families would be required to raise these children? Or just dump them on foster homes?
Click to expand...

But you don't mind using big brother to enforce your corrupt laws when you target Christian businesses.  You have a glaring hypocrisy problem.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your disagreement has nothing to do with my point.
> 
> The State didn't care whether or not my wife and I intended to procreate or not when we got married. Nor was the reason for our marriage because we intended to procreate.
> 
> Our marriage served a societal purpose regardless of procreation.
> 
> IF marriage was only about procreation we wouldn't be allowing 80 year old couples to marry. We wouldn't have states requiring some couples to prove that they cannot have children before they are allowed to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't making any sense. 80 year old people getting married doesn't negate the fact the government provides tax cuts to married couples who have children. Just because not everyone takes advantage of the incentive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And on that point, marriage as an institution proceeds the US Government,  it existed long before and will exist long after. The purpose of marriage traditionally speaking is for men and women coming together to build a family. I don't really see a convincing argument for why this should be redefined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a bit of a correction.
> 
> Anyone gets tax breaks for their children. Or more specifically- you can only claim dependents. If two parents are not married one of them can claim their child as a dependent. If two parents are married- but filing seperately- one can declare the child as a dependent.
> 
> The tax break is for the children. Not the marriage. As someone who has been married for over 20 years, I can say that at least twice I paid more taxes because we are married.
> 
> If you take two 80 year olds who want to get married- Bob and Edna and Bob and Edward- neither couple will ever reproduce with each other- but states have never had a legal issue with 80 year olds getting married.
> 
> As long as they are the opposite gender.
> 
> My wife and I didn't come together to create a family- we did do so- but we came together because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> You are just wrong.
> 
> You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.
Click to expand...


I didn't mention divorce or move any goal posts. 

As I said:

You are just wrong.

You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.

Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with  same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?
> 
> Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?
> 
> And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?
> 
> And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?
> 
> Curious minds would like to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A homosexual couple can't give birth to children. I don't need to make it illegal. I think what you mean is should it be illegal for homosexual couples to use surrogates or in vitro fertilization? Correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I think it should be illegal. It isn't the purview of the Federal Government, but yes, if it were a state initiative or I were a state representative and a law came to vote, I would support it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would intrude the government into decisions on child bearing?
> 
> Long before modern techniques, lesbians would get sperm donations from male friends and get impregnated.
> 
> Now is it a specific Conservative doctrine to remove a child from its mother simply because she is queer- or is that your own particular cry for Big Brother?
> 
> And who raises those children then- does Big Brother choose what fine I mean straight families would be required to raise these children? Or just dump them on foster homes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you don't mind using big brother to enforce your corrupt laws when you target Christian businesses.  You have a glaring hypocrisy problem.
Click to expand...


The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with  same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?
> 
> Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?
> 
> And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?
> 
> And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?
> 
> Curious minds would like to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A homosexual couple can't give birth to children. I don't need to make it illegal. I think what you mean is should it be illegal for homosexual couples to use surrogates or in vitro fertilization? Correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I think it should be illegal. It isn't the purview of the Federal Government, but yes, if it were a state initiative or I were a state representative and a law came to vote, I would support it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would intrude the government into decisions on child bearing?
> 
> Long before modern techniques, lesbians would get sperm donations from male friends and get impregnated.
> 
> Now is it a specific Conservative doctrine to remove a child from its mother simply because she is queer- or is that your own particular cry for Big Brother?
> 
> And who raises those children then- does Big Brother choose what fine I mean straight families would be required to raise these children? Or just dump them on foster homes?
Click to expand...

I don't think a women(homosexual or single and unmarried) should be allowed to get impregnated from a sperm bank, period. A woman should not be allowed to recklessly bring a child into a single parent environment and deny the child their father. This is morally sick and is detrimental to the child. 

I am not going to remove children form their mothers at this point. Just because we cannot stop it now doesn't mean we shouldn't look to curb it in the future, that is a logical fallacy. Obviously, we cannot stop a lesbian from from hypothetically having sex with a man to bear her a child. Obviously there is no way for the law to get involved there. Doesn't mean it is a good thing though. You are creating strawman arguments.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't making any sense. 80 year old people getting married doesn't negate the fact the government provides tax cuts to married couples who have children. Just because not everyone takes advantage of the incentive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And on that point, marriage as an institution proceeds the US Government,  it existed long before and will exist long after. The purpose of marriage traditionally speaking is for men and women coming together to build a family. I don't really see a convincing argument for why this should be redefined
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a bit of a correction.
> 
> Anyone gets tax breaks for their children. Or more specifically- you can only claim dependents. If two parents are not married one of them can claim their child as a dependent. If two parents are married- but filing seperately- one can declare the child as a dependent.
> 
> The tax break is for the children. Not the marriage. As someone who has been married for over 20 years, I can say that at least twice I paid more taxes because we are married.
> 
> If you take two 80 year olds who want to get married- Bob and Edna and Bob and Edward- neither couple will ever reproduce with each other- but states have never had a legal issue with 80 year olds getting married.
> 
> As long as they are the opposite gender.
> 
> My wife and I didn't come together to create a family- we did do so- but we came together because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> You are just wrong.
> 
> You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't mention divorce or move any goal posts.
> 
> As I said:
> 
> You are just wrong.
> 
> You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done
Click to expand...

You just said when the mother and father are separated, again!

Sorry, you are simply wrong, dependent exemptions and for that matter child tax credits are given, whether the married couples, whether they file jointly, with a single head of household, or the mother and father do so on separate forms. In this way they incentivize married couples to have children.

Even if they didn't, they should, as it is smart policy.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with  same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?
> 
> Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?
> 
> And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?
> 
> And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?
> 
> Curious minds would like to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays don't just adopt children from foster care, they adopt them from single moms, unmarried couples, from overseas. So no, I reject your premise that they will all languish in US foster care. It simply isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every American  child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
Click to expand...

Well one, not every child adopted is American. Two, that is simply wrong, many children are adopted privately. 

The Differences Between Private and Foster Care Adoption


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't making any sense. 80 year old people getting married doesn't negate the fact the government provides tax cuts to married couples who have children. Just because not everyone takes advantage of the incentive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And on that point, marriage as an institution proceeds the US Government,  it existed long before and will exist long after. The purpose of marriage traditionally speaking is for men and women coming together to build a family. I don't really see a convincing argument for why this should be redefined
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a bit of a correction.
> 
> Anyone gets tax breaks for their children. Or more specifically- you can only claim dependents. If two parents are not married one of them can claim their child as a dependent. If two parents are married- but filing seperately- one can declare the child as a dependent.
> 
> The tax break is for the children. Not the marriage. As someone who has been married for over 20 years, I can say that at least twice I paid more taxes because we are married.
> 
> If you take two 80 year olds who want to get married- Bob and Edna and Bob and Edward- neither couple will ever reproduce with each other- but states have never had a legal issue with 80 year olds getting married.
> 
> As long as they are the opposite gender.
> 
> My wife and I didn't come together to create a family- we did do so- but we came together because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> You are just wrong.
> 
> You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done
Click to expand...

That is a problem, part of the rise in single motherhood is the incenvization through tax credits of such anti-social behavior.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a bit of a correction.
> 
> Anyone gets tax breaks for their children. Or more specifically- you can only claim dependents. If two parents are not married one of them can claim their child as a dependent. If two parents are married- but filing seperately- one can declare the child as a dependent.
> 
> The tax break is for the children. Not the marriage. As someone who has been married for over 20 years, I can say that at least twice I paid more taxes because we are married.
> 
> If you take two 80 year olds who want to get married- Bob and Edna and Bob and Edward- neither couple will ever reproduce with each other- but states have never had a legal issue with 80 year olds getting married.
> 
> As long as they are the opposite gender.
> 
> My wife and I didn't come together to create a family- we did do so- but we came together because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> You are just wrong.
> 
> You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a problem, part of the rise in single motherhood is the incenvization through tax credits of such anti-social behavior.
Click to expand...


Appears then that you have an issue with heterosexuals then.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with  same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?
> 
> Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?
> 
> And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?
> 
> And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?
> 
> Curious minds would like to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays don't just adopt children from foster care, they adopt them from single moms, unmarried couples, from overseas. So no, I reject your premise that they will all languish in US foster care. It simply isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every American  child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well one, not every child adopted is American. Two, that is simply wrong, many children are adopted privately.
> 
> The Differences Between Private and Foster Care Adoption
Click to expand...


And you conveniently ignore my post.

Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.

Facts and Statistics
_
*In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

*In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

*Three years is the average length of time a child in foster care waits* to be adopted. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally._

Yet to you- all of that is better than letting a single child be adopted by a loving gay couple.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with  same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?
> 
> Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?
> 
> And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?
> 
> And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?
> 
> Curious minds would like to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A homosexual couple can't give birth to children. I don't need to make it illegal. I think what you mean is should it be illegal for homosexual couples to use surrogates or in vitro fertilization? Correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I think it should be illegal. It isn't the purview of the Federal Government, but yes, if it were a state initiative or I were a state representative and a law came to vote, I would support it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would intrude the government into decisions on child bearing?
> 
> Long before modern techniques, lesbians would get sperm donations from male friends and get impregnated.
> 
> Now is it a specific Conservative doctrine to remove a child from its mother simply because she is queer- or is that your own particular cry for Big Brother?
> 
> And who raises those children then- does Big Brother choose what fine I mean straight families would be required to raise these children? Or just dump them on foster homes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you don't mind using big brother to enforce your corrupt laws when you target Christian businesses.  You have a glaring hypocrisy problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms.
Click to expand...

Oh, bullshit.  If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a bit of a correction.
> 
> Anyone gets tax breaks for their children. Or more specifically- you can only claim dependents. If two parents are not married one of them can claim their child as a dependent. If two parents are married- but filing seperately- one can declare the child as a dependent.
> 
> The tax break is for the children. Not the marriage. As someone who has been married for over 20 years, I can say that at least twice I paid more taxes because we are married.
> 
> If you take two 80 year olds who want to get married- Bob and Edna and Bob and Edward- neither couple will ever reproduce with each other- but states have never had a legal issue with 80 year olds getting married.
> 
> As long as they are the opposite gender.
> 
> My wife and I didn't come together to create a family- we did do so- but we came together because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> You are just wrong.
> 
> You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't mention divorce or move any goal posts.
> 
> As I said:
> 
> You are just wrong.
> 
> You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just said when the mother and father are separated, again!
> 
> Sorry, you are simply wrong, dependent exemptions and for that matter child tax credits are given, whether the married couples, whether they file jointly, with a single head of household, or the mother and father do so on separate forms. In this way they incentivize married couples to have children.
> 
> Even if they didn't, they should, as it is smart policy.
Click to expand...


I am pointing out that parents get the same credit for a dependent whether they are married- even if they are seperated. We only get to claim claim our dependents on one tax return.

There is no tax incentive for me to have children. 

I agree that marriage helps protect my child and I would always prefer parents do marry.

Which is why I think you are wrong when you want to deny marriage to the children of gay couples.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> You are just wrong.
> 
> You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a problem, part of the rise in single motherhood is the incenvization through tax credits of such anti-social behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appears then that you have an issue with heterosexuals then.
Click to expand...

No, I have a problem with birth out of wedlock. What a dumb thing to say. But you know that.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?
> 
> Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?
> 
> And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?
> 
> And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?
> 
> Curious minds would like to know.
> 
> 
> 
> A homosexual couple can't give birth to children. I don't need to make it illegal. I think what you mean is should it be illegal for homosexual couples to use surrogates or in vitro fertilization? Correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I think it should be illegal. It isn't the purview of the Federal Government, but yes, if it were a state initiative or I were a state representative and a law came to vote, I would support it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would intrude the government into decisions on child bearing?
> 
> Long before modern techniques, lesbians would get sperm donations from male friends and get impregnated.
> 
> Now is it a specific Conservative doctrine to remove a child from its mother simply because she is queer- or is that your own particular cry for Big Brother?
> 
> And who raises those children then- does Big Brother choose what fine I mean straight families would be required to raise these children? Or just dump them on foster homes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you don't mind using big brother to enforce your corrupt laws when you target Christian businesses.  You have a glaring hypocrisy problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, bullshit.  If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.
Click to expand...

The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> You are just wrong.
> 
> You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a problem, part of the rise in single motherhood is the incenvization through tax credits of such anti-social behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appears then that you have an issue with heterosexuals then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I have a problem with birth out of wedlock. What a dumb thing to say. But you know that.
Click to expand...


And who is responsible for most birth out of wedlock- heterosexuals or homosexuals?


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with  same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?
> 
> Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?
> 
> And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?
> 
> And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?
> 
> Curious minds would like to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays don't just adopt children from foster care, they adopt them from single moms, unmarried couples, from overseas. So no, I reject your premise that they will all languish in US foster care. It simply isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every American  child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well one, not every child adopted is American. Two, that is simply wrong, many children are adopted privately.
> 
> The Differences Between Private and Foster Care Adoption
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you conveniently ignore my post.
> 
> Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> Facts and Statistics
> _
> *In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.
> 
> *In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
> 
> *Three years is the average length of time a child in foster care waits* to be adopted. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally._
> 
> Yet to you- all of that is better than letting a single child be adopted by a loving gay couple.
Click to expand...

I didn't ignore your post, what you said simply isn't true. not every child adopted by an American couple is American, and not every American child is adopted through foster care. So you are the one ignoring my post, not me ignoring you. As far as your numbers. If the government wanted to encourage adoption, they could do it without putting children in vulnerable situations with homosexuals who are on average, poorer, more likely to molest, suicidal, and mentally ill in general. Provide tax credits like they do for people who have children. There are several ways to remedy this if this is an issue.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> A homosexual couple can't give birth to children. I don't need to make it illegal. I think what you mean is should it be illegal for homosexual couples to use surrogates or in vitro fertilization? Correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I think it should be illegal. It isn't the purview of the Federal Government, but yes, if it were a state initiative or I were a state representative and a law came to vote, I would support it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would intrude the government into decisions on child bearing?
> 
> Long before modern techniques, lesbians would get sperm donations from male friends and get impregnated.
> 
> Now is it a specific Conservative doctrine to remove a child from its mother simply because she is queer- or is that your own particular cry for Big Brother?
> 
> And who raises those children then- does Big Brother choose what fine I mean straight families would be required to raise these children? Or just dump them on foster homes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you don't mind using big brother to enforce your corrupt laws when you target Christian businesses.  You have a glaring hypocrisy problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, bullshit.  If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms
Click to expand...




Your both fascist fags , I see no difference in the two stances.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> You are just wrong.
> 
> You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't mention divorce or move any goal posts.
> 
> As I said:
> 
> You are just wrong.
> 
> You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just said when the mother and father are separated, again!
> 
> Sorry, you are simply wrong, dependent exemptions and for that matter child tax credits are given, whether the married couples, whether they file jointly, with a single head of household, or the mother and father do so on separate forms. In this way they incentivize married couples to have children.
> 
> Even if they didn't, they should, as it is smart policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pointing out that parents get the same credit for a dependent whether they are married- even if they are seperated. We only get to claim claim our dependents on one tax return.
> 
> There is no tax incentive for me to have children.
> 
> I agree that marriage helps protect my child and I would always prefer parents do marry.
> 
> Which is why I think you are wrong when you want to deny marriage to the children of gay couples.
Click to expand...

The fact that you can claim a dependent even if you are divorced doesn't mean that married couples can't claim dependents or child tax credit, one doesn't negate the other. This is what you don't seem to understand. And honestly, I can't fix your stupidity here. The dependent claim, the child tax credit, is the incentive to have children, you couldn't get it without having children. This is simple stuff.

I would have preferred you didn't have kids. Hopefully your child can overcome the fact their father is a stupid, morally relativist, weak, feminine, faggot, but I don't like the odds.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> You are just wrong.
> 
> You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a problem, part of the rise in single motherhood is the incenvization through tax credits of such anti-social behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appears then that you have an issue with heterosexuals then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I have a problem with birth out of wedlock. What a dumb thing to say. But you know that.
Click to expand...

That you have a 'problem' with birth out of wedlock has no bearing whatsoever on the protected rights of gay Americans.

That you have a 'problem' with birth out of wedlock has no bearing whatsoever on the protected rights of any class of Americans, for that matter – as your 'problem' is subjective and irrelevant, a foul manifestation of the authoritarian right.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a problem, part of the rise in single motherhood is the incenvization through tax credits of such anti-social behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appears then that you have an issue with heterosexuals then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I have a problem with birth out of wedlock. What a dumb thing to say. But you know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who is responsible for most birth out of wedlock- heterosexuals or homosexuals?
Click to expand...

obviously heterosexuals. 

What is your point, that homosexuality is preferable as a lifestyle, or less socially destructive? Look, if you are trying to find a way to legitimize your closet homosexuality, you shouldn't be doing it on the internet to some stranger.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?
> 
> Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?
> 
> And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?
> 
> And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?
> 
> Curious minds would like to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays don't just adopt children from foster care, they adopt them from single moms, unmarried couples, from overseas. So no, I reject your premise that they will all languish in US foster care. It simply isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every American  child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well one, not every child adopted is American. Two, that is simply wrong, many children are adopted privately.
> 
> The Differences Between Private and Foster Care Adoption
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you conveniently ignore my post.
> 
> Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> Facts and Statistics
> _
> *In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.
> 
> *In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
> 
> *Three years is the average length of time a child in foster care waits* to be adopted. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally._
> 
> Yet to you- all of that is better than letting a single child be adopted by a loving gay couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't ignore your post, what you said simply isn't true. not every child adopted by an American couple is American, and not every American child is adopted through foster care. So you are the one ignoring my post, not me ignoring you. As far as your numbers. If the government wanted to encourage adoption, they could do it without putting children in vulnerable situations with homosexuals who are on average, poorer, more likely to molest, suicidal, and mentally ill in general. Provide tax credits like they do for people who have children. There are several ways to remedy this if this is an issue.
Click to expand...


What I said was true- you just ignored what I said.

_*In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted..
_
Any of these children adopted by a gay couple would be out of foster care, and would no longer be part of those statistics. But that is not important to you. 
_
*In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
_
Any of these children adopted by a gay couple would not be aging out of the system and would have a family for emotional and financial support.

You do not want a single one of those children rescued from foster care or aging out of the system by any gay people. 

_with homosexuals who are on average, poorer,_
_
Would you deny adoption to straight couples from say Arkansas because on average they are 'poorer'?

But of course that claim is false also

Gay people earn more owe less - Dec. 6 2012_
*Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peopleare better at managing their money than the average American, new research shows.*
They earn more, save more, have less debt and are better prepared for retirement, according to a Prudential survey of more than 1,000 LGBT respondents.
Respondents not only reported significantly higher annual incomes -- $61,500 compared with the national median of $50,054 -- but they also carried about $4,000 less in debt than the average American and had $6,000 more in household savings. They were even slightly more likely to have jobs in the first place, with an unemployment rate of 7% versus the national rate of 7.9%, Prudential found.

Men are more likely to molest than women- all men- all women- this is absolute- men are the molesters up to 98% of the time. Would you deny men or couples with men in them because they are more likely to molest?

Suicidal? Would you deny adoption to people who come from industries with a higher rate of suicide- just in case? Same thing with mental illness. What about if they come from states with higher suicide rates?

These are standards you apply to homosexuals- and do not apply to heterosexuals.

Because your concern is not about the welfare of the children. 

It is about your issues with homosexuals. 


_
_


----------



## Steinlight

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a problem, part of the rise in single motherhood is the incenvization through tax credits of such anti-social behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appears then that you have an issue with heterosexuals then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I have a problem with birth out of wedlock. What a dumb thing to say. But you know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you have a 'problem' with birth out of wedlock has no bearing whatsoever on the protected rights of gay Americans.
> 
> That you have a 'problem' with birth out of wedlock has no bearing whatsoever on the protected rights of any class of Americans, for that matter – as your 'problem' is subjective and irrelevant, a foul manifestation of the authoritarian right.
Click to expand...

Individuals don't have rights based on their sexuality. "Gay rights" certainly aren't protected by the Constitution, what nonsense. 

The only subjective one here is you, trying to pervert marriage and redefine it.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done
> 
> 
> 
> That is a problem, part of the rise in single motherhood is the incenvization through tax credits of such anti-social behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appears then that you have an issue with heterosexuals then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I have a problem with birth out of wedlock. What a dumb thing to say. But you know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who is responsible for most birth out of wedlock- heterosexuals or homosexuals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously heterosexuals.
> 
> What is your point, that homosexuality is preferable as a lifestyle, or less socially destructive? Look, if you are trying to find a way to legitimize your closet homosexuality, you shouldn't be doing it on the internet to some stranger.
Click to expand...


LOL....what a lame attempt at attacking me. I guess you are getting a little too challenged by my use of facts and logic.

You brought up the issue of marriage laws and single parenting. I was pointing out that is a predominately heterosexual issue- not a homosexual issue.

My wife and I are raising our child. That is what i think parents should do- whether they are gay or straight. 

You, though,  are in favor of the government taking children away from gay parents. 

And leaving them in foster care. Or on the streets.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays don't just adopt children from foster care, they adopt them from single moms, unmarried couples, from overseas. So no, I reject your premise that they will all languish in US foster care. It simply isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every American  child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well one, not every child adopted is American. Two, that is simply wrong, many children are adopted privately.
> 
> The Differences Between Private and Foster Care Adoption
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you conveniently ignore my post.
> 
> Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> Facts and Statistics
> _
> *In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.
> 
> *In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
> 
> *Three years is the average length of time a child in foster care waits* to be adopted. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally._
> 
> Yet to you- all of that is better than letting a single child be adopted by a loving gay couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't ignore your post, what you said simply isn't true. not every child adopted by an American couple is American, and not every American child is adopted through foster care. So you are the one ignoring my post, not me ignoring you. As far as your numbers. If the government wanted to encourage adoption, they could do it without putting children in vulnerable situations with homosexuals who are on average, poorer, more likely to molest, suicidal, and mentally ill in general. Provide tax credits like they do for people who have children. There are several ways to remedy this if this is an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said was true- you just ignored what I said.
> 
> _*In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted..
> _
> Any of these children adopted by a gay couple would be out of foster care, and would no longer be part of those statistics. But that is not important to you.
> _
> *In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
> _
> Any of these children adopted by a gay couple would not be aging out of the system and would have a family for emotional and financial support.
> 
> You do not want a single one of those children rescued from foster care or aging out of the system by any gay people.
> 
> _with homosexuals who are on average, poorer,
> 
> Would you deny adoption to straight couples from say Arkansas because on average they are 'poorer'?
> 
> But of course that claim is false also
> 
> Gay people earn more owe less - Dec. 6 2012_
> *Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peopleare better at managing their money than the average American, new research shows.*
> They earn more, save more, have less debt and are better prepared for retirement, according to a Prudential survey of more than 1,000 LGBT respondents.
> Respondents not only reported significantly higher annual incomes -- $61,500 compared with the national median of $50,054 -- but they also carried about $4,000 less in debt than the average American and had $6,000 more in household savings. They were even slightly more likely to have jobs in the first place, with an unemployment rate of 7% versus the national rate of 7.9%, Prudential found.
> 
> Men are more likely to molest than women- all men- all women- this is absolute- men are the molesters up to 98% of the time. Would you deny men or couples with men in them because they are more likely to molest?
> 
> Suicidal? Would you deny adoption to people who come from industries with a higher rate of suicide- just in case? Same thing with mental illness. What about if they come from states with higher suicide rates?
> 
> These are standards you apply to homosexuals- and do not apply to heterosexuals.
> 
> Because your concern is not about the welfare of the children.
> 
> It is about your issues with homosexuals.
> 
> These kinds of statistics are so stupid. Regardless of which side posts them.
Click to expand...


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every American  child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> 
> 
> Well one, not every child adopted is American. Two, that is simply wrong, many children are adopted privately.
> 
> The Differences Between Private and Foster Care Adoption
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you conveniently ignore my post.
> 
> Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> Facts and Statistics
> _
> *In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.
> 
> *In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
> 
> *Three years is the average length of time a child in foster care waits* to be adopted. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally._
> 
> Yet to you- all of that is better than letting a single child be adopted by a loving gay couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't ignore your post, what you said simply isn't true. not every child adopted by an American couple is American, and not every American child is adopted through foster care. So you are the one ignoring my post, not me ignoring you. As far as your numbers. If the government wanted to encourage adoption, they could do it without putting children in vulnerable situations with homosexuals who are on average, poorer, more likely to molest, suicidal, and mentally ill in general. Provide tax credits like they do for people who have children. There are several ways to remedy this if this is an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said was true- you just ignored what I said.
> 
> _*In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted..
> _
> Any of these children adopted by a gay couple would be out of foster care, and would no longer be part of those statistics. But that is not important to you.
> _
> *In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
> _
> Any of these children adopted by a gay couple would not be aging out of the system and would have a family for emotional and financial support.
> 
> You do not want a single one of those children rescued from foster care or aging out of the system by any gay people.
> 
> _with homosexuals who are on average, poorer,
> 
> Would you deny adoption to straight couples from say Arkansas because on average they are 'poorer'?
> 
> But of course that claim is false also
> 
> Gay people earn more owe less - Dec. 6 2012_
> *Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peopleare better at managing their money than the average American, new research shows.*
> They earn more, save more, have less debt and are better prepared for retirement, according to a Prudential survey of more than 1,000 LGBT respondents.
> Respondents not only reported significantly higher annual incomes -- $61,500 compared with the national median of $50,054 -- but they also carried about $4,000 less in debt than the average American and had $6,000 more in household savings. They were even slightly more likely to have jobs in the first place, with an unemployment rate of 7% versus the national rate of 7.9%, Prudential found.
> 
> Men are more likely to molest than women- all men- all women- this is absolute- men are the molesters up to 98% of the time. Would you deny men or couples with men in them because they are more likely to molest?
> 
> Suicidal? Would you deny adoption to people who come from industries with a higher rate of suicide- just in case? Same thing with mental illness. What about if they come from states with higher suicide rates?
> 
> These are standards you apply to homosexuals- and do not apply to heterosexuals.
> 
> Because your concern is not about the welfare of the children.
> 
> It is about your issues with homosexuals.
> 
> These kinds of statistics are so stupid. Regardless of which side posts them.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thanks for sharing.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well one, not every child adopted is American. Two, that is simply wrong, many children are adopted privately.
> 
> The Differences Between Private and Foster Care Adoption
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you conveniently ignore my post.
> 
> Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> Facts and Statistics
> _
> *In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.
> 
> *In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
> 
> *Three years is the average length of time a child in foster care waits* to be adopted. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally._
> 
> Yet to you- all of that is better than letting a single child be adopted by a loving gay couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't ignore your post, what you said simply isn't true. not every child adopted by an American couple is American, and not every American child is adopted through foster care. So you are the one ignoring my post, not me ignoring you. As far as your numbers. If the government wanted to encourage adoption, they could do it without putting children in vulnerable situations with homosexuals who are on average, poorer, more likely to molest, suicidal, and mentally ill in general. Provide tax credits like they do for people who have children. There are several ways to remedy this if this is an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said was true- you just ignored what I said.
> 
> _*In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted..
> _
> Any of these children adopted by a gay couple would be out of foster care, and would no longer be part of those statistics. But that is not important to you.
> _
> *In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
> _
> Any of these children adopted by a gay couple would not be aging out of the system and would have a family for emotional and financial support.
> 
> You do not want a single one of those children rescued from foster care or aging out of the system by any gay people.
> 
> _with homosexuals who are on average, poorer,
> 
> Would you deny adoption to straight couples from say Arkansas because on average they are 'poorer'?
> 
> But of course that claim is false also
> 
> Gay people earn more owe less - Dec. 6 2012_
> *Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peopleare better at managing their money than the average American, new research shows.*
> They earn more, save more, have less debt and are better prepared for retirement, according to a Prudential survey of more than 1,000 LGBT respondents.
> Respondents not only reported significantly higher annual incomes -- $61,500 compared with the national median of $50,054 -- but they also carried about $4,000 less in debt than the average American and had $6,000 more in household savings. They were even slightly more likely to have jobs in the first place, with an unemployment rate of 7% versus the national rate of 7.9%, Prudential found.
> 
> Men are more likely to molest than women- all men- all women- this is absolute- men are the molesters up to 98% of the time. Would you deny men or couples with men in them because they are more likely to molest?
> 
> Suicidal? Would you deny adoption to people who come from industries with a higher rate of suicide- just in case? Same thing with mental illness. What about if they come from states with higher suicide rates?
> 
> These are standards you apply to homosexuals- and do not apply to heterosexuals.
> 
> Because your concern is not about the welfare of the children.
> 
> It is about your issues with homosexuals.
> 
> These kinds of statistics are so stupid. Regardless of which side posts them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...



god it pisses me off when i do that. Usually i catch it , but sometimes..................


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you conveniently ignore my post.
> 
> Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> Facts and Statistics
> _
> *In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.
> 
> *In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
> 
> *Three years is the average length of time a child in foster care waits* to be adopted. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally._
> 
> Yet to you- all of that is better than letting a single child be adopted by a loving gay couple.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ignore your post, what you said simply isn't true. not every child adopted by an American couple is American, and not every American child is adopted through foster care. So you are the one ignoring my post, not me ignoring you. As far as your numbers. If the government wanted to encourage adoption, they could do it without putting children in vulnerable situations with homosexuals who are on average, poorer, more likely to molest, suicidal, and mentally ill in general. Provide tax credits like they do for people who have children. There are several ways to remedy this if this is an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said was true- you just ignored what I said.
> 
> _*In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted..
> _
> Any of these children adopted by a gay couple would be out of foster care, and would no longer be part of those statistics. But that is not important to you.
> _
> *In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
> _
> Any of these children adopted by a gay couple would not be aging out of the system and would have a family for emotional and financial support.
> 
> You do not want a single one of those children rescued from foster care or aging out of the system by any gay people.
> 
> _with homosexuals who are on average, poorer,
> 
> Would you deny adoption to straight couples from say Arkansas because on average they are 'poorer'?
> 
> But of course that claim is false also
> 
> Gay people earn more owe less - Dec. 6 2012_
> *Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peopleare better at managing their money than the average American, new research shows.*
> They earn more, save more, have less debt and are better prepared for retirement, according to a Prudential survey of more than 1,000 LGBT respondents.
> Respondents not only reported significantly higher annual incomes -- $61,500 compared with the national median of $50,054 -- but they also carried about $4,000 less in debt than the average American and had $6,000 more in household savings. They were even slightly more likely to have jobs in the first place, with an unemployment rate of 7% versus the national rate of 7.9%, Prudential found.
> 
> Men are more likely to molest than women- all men- all women- this is absolute- men are the molesters up to 98% of the time. Would you deny men or couples with men in them because they are more likely to molest?
> 
> Suicidal? Would you deny adoption to people who come from industries with a higher rate of suicide- just in case? Same thing with mental illness. What about if they come from states with higher suicide rates?
> 
> These are standards you apply to homosexuals- and do not apply to heterosexuals.
> 
> Because your concern is not about the welfare of the children.
> 
> It is about your issues with homosexuals.
> 
> These kinds of statistics are so stupid. Regardless of which side posts them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> god it pisses me off when i do that. Usually i catch it , but sometimes..................
Click to expand...


LOL


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ignore your post, what you said simply isn't true. not every child adopted by an American couple is American, and not every American child is adopted through foster care. So you are the one ignoring my post, not me ignoring you. As far as your numbers. If the government wanted to encourage adoption, they could do it without putting children in vulnerable situations with homosexuals who are on average, poorer, more likely to molest, suicidal, and mentally ill in general. Provide tax credits like they do for people who have children. There are several ways to remedy this if this is an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I said was true- you just ignored what I said.
> 
> _*In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted..
> _
> Any of these children adopted by a gay couple would be out of foster care, and would no longer be part of those statistics. But that is not important to you.
> _
> *In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
> _
> Any of these children adopted by a gay couple would not be aging out of the system and would have a family for emotional and financial support.
> 
> You do not want a single one of those children rescued from foster care or aging out of the system by any gay people.
> 
> _with homosexuals who are on average, poorer,
> 
> Would you deny adoption to straight couples from say Arkansas because on average they are 'poorer'?
> 
> But of course that claim is false also
> 
> Gay people earn more owe less - Dec. 6 2012_
> *Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peopleare better at managing their money than the average American, new research shows.*
> They earn more, save more, have less debt and are better prepared for retirement, according to a Prudential survey of more than 1,000 LGBT respondents.
> Respondents not only reported significantly higher annual incomes -- $61,500 compared with the national median of $50,054 -- but they also carried about $4,000 less in debt than the average American and had $6,000 more in household savings. They were even slightly more likely to have jobs in the first place, with an unemployment rate of 7% versus the national rate of 7.9%, Prudential found.
> 
> Men are more likely to molest than women- all men- all women- this is absolute- men are the molesters up to 98% of the time. Would you deny men or couples with men in them because they are more likely to molest?
> 
> Suicidal? Would you deny adoption to people who come from industries with a higher rate of suicide- just in case? Same thing with mental illness. What about if they come from states with higher suicide rates?
> 
> These are standards you apply to homosexuals- and do not apply to heterosexuals.
> 
> Because your concern is not about the welfare of the children.
> 
> It is about your issues with homosexuals.
> 
> These kinds of statistics are so stupid. Regardless of which side posts them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> god it pisses me off when i do that. Usually i catch it , but sometimes..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...



I can't be the only one. LOL


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> A homosexual couple can't give birth to children. I don't need to make it illegal. I think what you mean is should it be illegal for homosexual couples to use surrogates or in vitro fertilization? Correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I think it should be illegal. It isn't the purview of the Federal Government, but yes, if it were a state initiative or I were a state representative and a law came to vote, I would support it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would intrude the government into decisions on child bearing?
> 
> Long before modern techniques, lesbians would get sperm donations from male friends and get impregnated.
> 
> Now is it a specific Conservative doctrine to remove a child from its mother simply because she is queer- or is that your own particular cry for Big Brother?
> 
> And who raises those children then- does Big Brother choose what fine I mean straight families would be required to raise these children? Or just dump them on foster homes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you don't mind using big brother to enforce your corrupt laws when you target Christian businesses.  You have a glaring hypocrisy problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, bullshit.  If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms
Click to expand...

Go fuck your sick self.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would intrude the government into decisions on child bearing?
> 
> Long before modern techniques, lesbians would get sperm donations from male friends and get impregnated.
> 
> Now is it a specific Conservative doctrine to remove a child from its mother simply because she is queer- or is that your own particular cry for Big Brother?
> 
> And who raises those children then- does Big Brother choose what fine I mean straight families would be required to raise these children? Or just dump them on foster homes?
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't mind using big brother to enforce your corrupt laws when you target Christian businesses.  You have a glaring hypocrisy problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, bullshit.  If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go fuck your sick self.
Click to expand...


Oh quit fantasizing about me. I am happily married and not into homophobic bigots.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would intrude the government into decisions on child bearing?
> 
> Long before modern techniques, lesbians would get sperm donations from male friends and get impregnated.
> 
> Now is it a specific Conservative doctrine to remove a child from its mother simply because she is queer- or is that your own particular cry for Big Brother?
> 
> And who raises those children then- does Big Brother choose what fine I mean straight families would be required to raise these children? Or just dump them on foster homes?
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't mind using big brother to enforce your corrupt laws when you target Christian businesses.  You have a glaring hypocrisy problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, bullshit.  If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your both fascist fags , I see no difference in the two stances.
Click to expand...


Of course you don't.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?
> 
> Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?
> 
> And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?
> 
> And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?
> 
> Curious minds would like to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays don't just adopt children from foster care, they adopt them from single moms, unmarried couples, from overseas. So no, I reject your premise that they will all languish in US foster care. It simply isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every American  child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well one, not every child adopted is American. Two, that is simply wrong, many children are adopted privately.
> 
> The Differences Between Private and Foster Care Adoption
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you conveniently ignore my post.
> 
> Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> Facts and Statistics
> _
> *In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.
> 
> *In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
> 
> *Three years is the average length of time a child in foster care waits* to be adopted. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally._
> 
> Yet to you- all of that is better than letting a single child be adopted by a loving gay couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't ignore your post, what you said simply isn't true..
Click to expand...


And you conveniently ignore my post.

Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.

Facts and Statistics
_
*In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

*In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

*Three years is the average length of time a child in foster care waits* to be adopted. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally._

Yet to you- all of that is better than letting a single child be adopted by a loving gay couple.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays don't just adopt children from foster care, they adopt them from single moms, unmarried couples, from overseas. So no, I reject your premise that they will all languish in US foster care. It simply isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every American  child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well one, not every child adopted is American. Two, that is simply wrong, many children are adopted privately.
> 
> The Differences Between Private and Foster Care Adoption
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you conveniently ignore my post.
> 
> Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> Facts and Statistics
> _
> *In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.
> 
> *In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
> 
> *Three years is the average length of time a child in foster care waits* to be adopted. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally._
> 
> Yet to you- all of that is better than letting a single child be adopted by a loving gay couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't ignore your post, what you said simply isn't true. not every child adopted by an American couple is American, and not every American child is adopted through foster care. So you are the one ignoring my post, not me ignoring you. As far as your numbers. If the government wanted to encourage adoption, they could do it without putting children in vulnerable situations with homosexuals who are on average, poorer, more likely to molest, suicidal, and mentally ill in general. Provide tax credits like they do for people who have children. There are several ways to remedy this if this is an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _
> Gay people earn more owe less - Dec. 6 2012_
> *Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peopleare better at managing their money than the average American, new research shows.*
> They earn more, save more, have less debt and are better prepared for retirement, according to a Prudential survey of more than 1,000 LGBT respondents.
> Respondents not only reported significantly higher annual incomes -- $61,500 compared with the national median of $50,054 -- but they also carried about $4,000 less in debt than the average American and had $6,000 more in household savings. They were even slightly more likely to have jobs in the first place, with an unemployment rate of 7% versus the national rate of 7.9%, Prudential found.
> 
> Men are more likely to molest than women- all men- all women- this is absolute- men are the molesters up to 98% of the time. Would you deny men or couples with men in them because they are more likely to molest?
> 
> Suicidal? Would you deny adoption to people who come from industries with a higher rate of suicide- just in case? Same thing with mental illness. What about if they come from states with higher suicide rates?
> 
> These are standards you apply to homosexuals- and do not apply to heterosexuals.
> 
> Because your concern is not about the welfare of the children.
> 
> It is about your issues with homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously I have a problem with homosexuality, it is a degenerate and socially destructive lifestyle. I don't think homosexuals shouldn't be prohibited from adopting just because they are on average poorer and their children are as well, that is one reason. You need to get with the program, are incredibly repressive society is what keeps gays poorer than heterosexuals. You aren't even on with the correct left wing message at the moment. 
LGBT Parenting in the United States Williams Institute
LGBT poverty Gay and lesbian couples are poorer than straight ones.

Also, you are simply wrong, children from single parent and homosexual households are far more likely to have been physically and sexually abused. So your claim is wrong.
Chapter Five What Factors Contribute to Child Abuse and Neglect 
How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships Findings from the New Family Structures Study
Same-sex parenting and children s outcomes A closer examination of the American psychological association s brief on lesbian and gay parenting

It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf

Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't mind using big brother to enforce your corrupt laws when you target Christian businesses.  You have a glaring hypocrisy problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, bullshit.  If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your both fascist fags , I see no difference in the two stances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't.
Click to expand...



There IS no difference. In EITHER case you are both asking the government to tell someone they can't do something.

You're a bright guy, so I assume you know this, therefor I must assume you are deliberately denying it.

Unless of course, you are telling me that I am wrong and you aren't that bright????


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a problem, part of the rise in single motherhood is the incenvization through tax credits of such anti-social behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appears then that you have an issue with heterosexuals then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I have a problem with birth out of wedlock. What a dumb thing to say. But you know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who is responsible for most birth out of wedlock- heterosexuals or homosexuals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously heterosexuals.
> 
> What is your point, that homosexuality is preferable as a lifestyle, or less socially destructive? Look, if you are trying to find a way to legitimize your closet homosexuality, you shouldn't be doing it on the internet to some stranger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....what a lame attempt at attacking me. I guess you are getting a little too challenged by my use of facts and logic.
> 
> You brought up the issue of marriage laws and single parenting. I was pointing out that is a predominately heterosexual issue- not a homosexual issue.
> 
> My wife and I are raising our child. That is what i think parents should do- whether they are gay or straight.
> 
> You, though,  are in favor of the government taking children away from gay parents.
> 
> And leaving them in foster care. Or on the streets.
Click to expand...

What facts? You made an absolute non-point, and unrelated point. What you are insinuating is that somehow because increasingly heterosexual couples are having children of of wedlock, I should support gay marriage. Since one socially destructive behavior is on the rise, I am somehow compelled to support the rise of another?


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't mind using big brother to enforce your corrupt laws when you target Christian businesses.  You have a glaring hypocrisy problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, bullshit.  If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go fuck your sick self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh quit fantasizing about me. I am happily married and not into homophobic bigots.
Click to expand...

You're very ill.  Hateful Christophobic bigot.


----------



## Steinlight

And there you go with the strawman again, saying , I want to take adopted children out of their homes. Obviously at this point, I support no such thing, and never have. I said from this point forward the practice should be banned. I don't want to amplify the trauma the child is already experiencing. You mischaracterizing me and attacking a position I don't have. As though you are somehow the decent a responsible one, when you support continuing to allow statistically speaking, more sexually depraved, mentally ill, and suicidal people to have access to children cause you believe in "equality!".


----------



## Dante

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, bullshit.  If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go fuck your sick self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh quit fantasizing about me. I am happily married and not into homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're very ill.
Click to expand...

You're not quite inebriated yet are you?

We'll wait

...

...


..


..


..


.



.


----------



## Dante

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> A homosexual couple can't give birth to children. I don't need to make it illegal. I think what you mean is should it be illegal for homosexual couples to use surrogates or in vitro fertilization? Correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I think it should be illegal. It isn't the purview of the Federal Government, but yes, if it were a state initiative or I were a state representative and a law came to vote, I would support it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would intrude the government into decisions on child bearing?
> 
> Long before modern techniques, lesbians would get sperm donations from male friends and get impregnated.
> 
> Now is it a specific Conservative doctrine to remove a child from its mother simply because she is queer- or is that your own particular cry for Big Brother?
> 
> And who raises those children then- does Big Brother choose what fine I mean straight families would be required to raise these children? Or just dump them on foster homes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you don't mind using big brother to enforce your corrupt laws when you target Christian businesses.  You have a glaring hypocrisy problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, bullshit.  If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms
Click to expand...


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Dante said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, bullshit.  If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go fuck your sick self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh quit fantasizing about me. I am happily married and not into homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're very ill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not quite inebriated yet are you?
> 
> We'll wait
> 
> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Troll.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, bullshit.  If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your both fascist fags , I see no difference in the two stances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There IS no difference. In EITHER case you are both asking the government to tell someone they can't do something.
> 
> You're a bright guy, so I assume you know this, therefor I must assume you are deliberately denying it.
> 
> Unless of course, you are telling me that I am wrong and you aren't that bright????
Click to expand...


The government is not tellin' anyone that they can't do something.  Nature has merely provided a standard which precludes perverse reasoning from changing the standard born of its immutable design. 

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

See how that works?


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, bullshit.  If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your both fascist fags , I see no difference in the two stances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There IS no difference. In EITHER case you are both asking the government to tell someone they can't do something.
> 
> You're a bright guy, so I assume you know this, therefor I must assume you are deliberately denying it.
> 
> Unless of course, you are telling me that I am wrong and you aren't that bright????
Click to expand...


There is a difference. We have the government tell people that they can't do things all of the time. We tell business's that they can't sell alcohol on Sundays and we tell people that they can't drive 150 miles per hour down the road. We tell people that they can't drive without a government issued license. 

We put restrictions on business's that we do not put on individuals. We treat business's differently. We regulate business's in ways we do not regulate individuals.

From a legal perspective- one is currently legal- and the other isn't. 

And that is also a distinction.


----------



## Dante

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck your sick self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh quit fantasizing about me. I am happily married and not into homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're very ill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not quite inebriated yet are you?
> 
> We'll wait
> 
> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how easily and quickly you respond and take offense. Amazing and amusing.

carry on oh troll slayer


----------



## Dante

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> See how that works?


only in tradition.

and we overthrow tradition -- just ask the descendents of the slave holding families


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, bullshit.  If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your both fascist fags , I see no difference in the two stances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There IS no difference. In EITHER case you are both asking the government to tell someone they can't do something.
> 
> You're a bright guy, so I assume you know this, therefor I must assume you are deliberately denying it.
> 
> Unless of course, you are telling me that I am wrong and you aren't that bright????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government is not tellin' anyone that they can't do something.  Nature has merely provided a standard which precludes perverse reasoning from changing the standard born of its immutable design.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> See how that works?
Click to expand...


Marriage doesn't exist in nature so therefore it would not have much say on the matter. See how that works?


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every American  child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> 
> 
> Well one, not every child adopted is American. Two, that is simply wrong, many children are adopted privately.
> 
> The Differences Between Private and Foster Care Adoption
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you conveniently ignore my post.
> 
> Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> Facts and Statistics
> _
> *In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.
> 
> *In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
> 
> *Three years is the average length of time a child in foster care waits* to be adopted. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally._
> 
> Yet to you- all of that is better than letting a single child be adopted by a loving gay couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't ignore your post, what you said simply isn't true. not every child adopted by an American couple is American, and not every American child is adopted through foster care. So you are the one ignoring my post, not me ignoring you. As far as your numbers. If the government wanted to encourage adoption, they could do it without putting children in vulnerable situations with homosexuals who are on average, poorer, more likely to molest, suicidal, and mentally ill in general. Provide tax credits like they do for people who have children. There are several ways to remedy this if this is an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _
> Gay people earn more owe less - Dec. 6 2012_
> *Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peopleare better at managing their money than the average American, new research shows.*
> They earn more, save more, have less debt and are better prepared for retirement, according to a Prudential survey of more than 1,000 LGBT respondents.
> Respondents not only reported significantly higher annual incomes -- $61,500 compared with the national median of $50,054 -- but they also carried about $4,000 less in debt than the average American and had $6,000 more in household savings. They were even slightly more likely to have jobs in the first place, with an unemployment rate of 7% versus the national rate of 7.9%, Prudential found.
> 
> Men are more likely to molest than women- all men- all women- this is absolute- men are the molesters up to 98% of the time. Would you deny men or couples with men in them because they are more likely to molest?
> 
> Suicidal? Would you deny adoption to people who come from industries with a higher rate of suicide- just in case? Same thing with mental illness. What about if they come from states with higher suicide rates?
> 
> These are standards you apply to homosexuals- and do not apply to heterosexuals.
> 
> Because your concern is not about the welfare of the children.
> 
> It is about your issues with homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, obviously I have a problem with homosexuality, it is a degenerate and socially destructive lifestyle. I don't think homosexuals shouldn't be prohibited from adopting just because they are on average poorer and their children are as well, that is one reason..
Click to expand...


Clearly you do have a problem with homosexuality- because you presume that it is destructive. 

You were the one who falsely claimed that homosexuals were on average poorer and posed that as one of the reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children.

When I nailed you on that, and your other claims, you now switch claims. 

So lets dance.

I will take each of your claims- and show how you do not apply the same standards to homosexuals- as you do to any other group.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Dante said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck your sick self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh quit fantasizing about me. I am happily married and not into homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're very ill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not quite inebriated yet are you?
> 
> We'll wait
> 
> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's amazing how easily and quickly you respond and take offense. Amazing and amusing.
> 
> carry on oh troll slayer
Click to expand...

You're a weak ignorant coward if all you have is trolling.  Carry on.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your both fascist fags , I see no difference in the two stances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There IS no difference. In EITHER case you are both asking the government to tell someone they can't do something.
> 
> You're a bright guy, so I assume you know this, therefor I must assume you are deliberately denying it.
> 
> Unless of course, you are telling me that I am wrong and you aren't that bright????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government is not tellin' anyone that they can't do something.  Nature has merely provided a standard which precludes perverse reasoning from changing the standard born of its immutable design.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't exist in nature so therefore it would not have much say on the matter. See how that works?
Click to expand...

Are homo sapiens heterosexual by nature?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Dante said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, bullshit.  If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go fuck your sick self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh quit fantasizing about me. I am happily married and not into homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're very ill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not quite inebriated yet are you?
> 
> We'll wait
> 
> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You have consistently demonstrated an intellectual means which fails to meet even the minimal standard required for speech to be considered by reasonable people. As a result you have been sentenced to summary Ignor-cution. 

TTFE


----------



## Dante

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh quit fantasizing about me. I am happily married and not into homophobic bigots.
> 
> 
> 
> You're very ill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not quite inebriated yet are you?
> 
> We'll wait
> 
> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's amazing how easily and quickly you respond and take offense. Amazing and amusing.
> 
> carry on oh troll slayer
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a weak ignorant coward if all you have is trolling.  Carry on.
Click to expand...

God Bless the memory of Ted Kennedy and all he accomplished in his lifetime. 

carry on

now back to bashing gay people


----------



## Dante

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck your sick self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh quit fantasizing about me. I am happily married and not into homophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're very ill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not quite inebriated yet are you?
> 
> We'll wait
> 
> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have consistently demonstrated an intellectual means which fails to meet even the minimal standard required for speech to be considered by reasonable people. As a result you have been sentenced to summary Ignor-cution.
> 
> TTFE
Click to expand...

Ahh, another one from the old tribe?  How thee expose themselves by their grouping and hive like behavior.

carry on


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, bullshit.  If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your both fascist fags , I see no difference in the two stances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There IS no difference. In EITHER case you are both asking the government to tell someone they can't do something.
> 
> You're a bright guy, so I assume you know this, therefor I must assume you are deliberately denying it.
> 
> Unless of course, you are telling me that I am wrong and you aren't that bright????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference. We have the government tell people that they can't do things all of the time. We tell business's that they can't sell alcohol on Sundays and we tell people that they can't drive 150 miles per hour down the road. We tell people that they can't drive without a government issued license.
Click to expand...

Yes we do, but not unless we show that those regulations are worth the infringement of someone's rights. In other words, speed limits only exist because we the people have decided that someone's right to speed is outweighed by the safety to the public of not speeding. Now I must conclde that maybe you are NOT that bright else you would see that that is exactly what those against gay marriage want to do , they want to say that the dangers of gay marriage outweigh the individual rights of those who wish to marry.


> We put restrictions on business's that we do not put on individuals. We treat business's differently. We regulate business's in ways we do not regulate individuals.



Citizens United would say maybe it's not so cut and dry. Further, does my business have first amendment rights? Second? Third? Fourth? Please tell me which enumerated rights my business does not have that do not extend to my business



> From a legal perspective- one is currently legal- and the other isn't.
> 
> And that is also a distinction.



That's your argument? Yep, it's final, you aren't bright. 2 years ago gay marriage was legal NOWHERE in this country, should we have told the faggots to shut up gay marriage wasn't legal and that's that?


----------



## mdk

Neil N. Blowme said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your both fascist fags , I see no difference in the two stances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There IS no difference. In EITHER case you are both asking the government to tell someone they can't do something.
> 
> You're a bright guy, so I assume you know this, therefor I must assume you are deliberately denying it.
> 
> Unless of course, you are telling me that I am wrong and you aren't that bright????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government is not tellin' anyone that they can't do something.  Nature has merely provided a standard which precludes perverse reasoning from changing the standard born of its immutable design.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't exist in nature so therefore it would not have much say on the matter. See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are homo sapiens heterosexual by nature?
Click to expand...


Is it really that hard to believe that both exist in nature?


----------



## Dante

mdk said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There IS no difference. In EITHER case you are both asking the government to tell someone they can't do something.
> 
> You're a bright guy, so I assume you know this, therefor I must assume you are deliberately denying it.
> 
> Unless of course, you are telling me that I am wrong and you aren't that bright????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government is not tellin' anyone that they can't do something.  Nature has merely provided a standard which precludes perverse reasoning from changing the standard born of its immutable design.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't exist in nature so therefore it would not have much say on the matter. See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are homo sapiens heterosexual by nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it really that hard to believe that both exist in nature?
Click to expand...

Nature has gays in it so I guess Neil just doesn't like gays


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well one, not every child adopted is American. Two, that is simply wrong, many children are adopted privately.
> 
> The Differences Between Private and Foster Care Adoption
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you conveniently ignore my post.
> 
> Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> Facts and Statistics
> _
> *In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.
> 
> *In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
> 
> *Three years is the average length of time a child in foster care waits* to be adopted. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally._
> 
> Yet to you- all of that is better than letting a single child be adopted by a loving gay couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't ignore your post, what you said simply isn't true. not every child adopted by an American couple is American, and not every American child is adopted through foster care. So you are the one ignoring my post, not me ignoring you. As far as your numbers. If the government wanted to encourage adoption, they could do it without putting children in vulnerable situations with homosexuals who are on average, poorer, more likely to molest, suicidal, and mentally ill in general. Provide tax credits like they do for people who have children. There are several ways to remedy this if this is an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _
> Gay people earn more owe less - Dec. 6 2012_
> *Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peopleare better at managing their money than the average American, new research shows.*
> They earn more, save more, have less debt and are better prepared for retirement, according to a Prudential survey of more than 1,000 LGBT respondents.
> Respondents not only reported significantly higher annual incomes -- $61,500 compared with the national median of $50,054 -- but they also carried about $4,000 less in debt than the average American and had $6,000 more in household savings. They were even slightly more likely to have jobs in the first place, with an unemployment rate of 7% versus the national rate of 7.9%, Prudential found.
> 
> Men are more likely to molest than women- all men- all women- this is absolute- men are the molesters up to 98% of the time. Would you deny men or couples with men in them because they are more likely to molest?
> 
> Suicidal? Would you deny adoption to people who come from industries with a higher rate of suicide- just in case? Same thing with mental illness. What about if they come from states with higher suicide rates?
> 
> These are standards you apply to homosexuals- and do not apply to heterosexuals.
> 
> Because your concern is not about the welfare of the children.
> 
> It is about your issues with homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, obviously I have a problem with homosexuality, it is a degenerate and socially destructive lifestyle. I don't think homosexuals shouldn't be prohibited from adopting just because they are on average poorer and their children are as well, that is one reason..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you do have a problem with homosexuality- because you presume that it is destructive.
> 
> You were the one who falsely claimed that homosexuals were on average poorer and posed that as one of the reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children.
> 
> When I nailed you on that, and your other claims, you now switch claims.
> 
> So lets dance.
> 
> I will take each of your claims- and show how you do not apply the same standards to homosexuals- as you do to any other group.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously I have a problem with homosexuality, it is a degenerate and socially destructive lifestyle. I don't think homosexuals shouldn't be prohibited from adopting just because they are on average poorer and their children are as well, that is one reason. You need to get with the program, are incredibly repressive society is what keeps gays poorer than heterosexuals. You aren't even on with the correct left wing message at the moment.
LGBT Parenting in the United States Williams Institute
LGBT poverty Gay and lesbian couples are poorer than straight ones.

Also, you are simply wrong, children from single parent and homosexual households are far more likely to have been physically and sexually abused than households with a mother and father. So your claim is wrong.
Chapter Five What Factors Contribute to Child Abuse and Neglect 
How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships Findings from the New Family Structures Study
Same-sex parenting and children s outcomes A closer examination of the American psychological association s brief on lesbian and gay parenting

It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf

Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.


----------



## koshergrl

We know marriage doesn't exist in nature, how? Exactly?
Wolves definitely engage in specialized, long-term coupling behavior that is recognized and supported by the pack....so do other animals.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

mdk said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There IS no difference. In EITHER case you are both asking the government to tell someone they can't do something.
> 
> You're a bright guy, so I assume you know this, therefor I must assume you are deliberately denying it.
> 
> Unless of course, you are telling me that I am wrong and you aren't that bright????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government is not tellin' anyone that they can't do something.  Nature has merely provided a standard which precludes perverse reasoning from changing the standard born of its immutable design.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't exist in nature so therefore it would not have much say on the matter. See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are homo sapiens heterosexual by nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it really that hard to believe that both exist in nature?
Click to expand...




mdk said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There IS no difference. In EITHER case you are both asking the government to tell someone they can't do something.
> 
> You're a bright guy, so I assume you know this, therefor I must assume you are deliberately denying it.
> 
> Unless of course, you are telling me that I am wrong and you aren't that bright????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government is not tellin' anyone that they can't do something.  Nature has merely provided a standard which precludes perverse reasoning from changing the standard born of its immutable design.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't exist in nature so therefore it would not have much say on the matter. See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are homo sapiens heterosexual by nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it really that hard to believe that both exist in nature?
Click to expand...


You didn't answer the question.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your both fascist fags , I see no difference in the two stances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There IS no difference. In EITHER case you are both asking the government to tell someone they can't do something.
> 
> You're a bright guy, so I assume you know this, therefor I must assume you are deliberately denying it.
> 
> Unless of course, you are telling me that I am wrong and you aren't that bright????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government is not tellin' anyone that they can't do something.  Nature has merely provided a standard which precludes perverse reasoning from changing the standard born of its immutable design.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't exist in nature so therefore it would not have much say on the matter. See how that works?
Click to expand...


LOL!  So humanity does not exist in nature? 

ROFLMNAO!

You people have absolutely no control over how stupid you allow yourselves to be, do ya?


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Dante said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> There IS no difference. In EITHER case you are both asking the government to tell someone they can't do something.
> 
> You're a bright guy, so I assume you know this, therefor I must assume you are deliberately denying it.
> 
> Unless of course, you are telling me that I am wrong and you aren't that bright????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government is not tellin' anyone that they can't do something.  Nature has merely provided a standard which precludes perverse reasoning from changing the standard born of its immutable design.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't exist in nature so therefore it would not have much say on the matter. See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are homo sapiens heterosexual by nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it really that hard to believe that both exist in nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nature has gays in it so I guess Neil just doesn't like gays
Click to expand...


You didn't answer the question.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Poor queers.  Can't answer simple questions.  Living a lie is a full time Job.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you conveniently ignore my post.
> 
> Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.
> 
> Facts and Statistics
> _
> *In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families *in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.
> 
> *In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
> 
> *Three years is the average length of time a child in foster care waits* to be adopted. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally._
> 
> Yet to you- all of that is better than letting a single child be adopted by a loving gay couple.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ignore your post, what you said simply isn't true. not every child adopted by an American couple is American, and not every American child is adopted through foster care. So you are the one ignoring my post, not me ignoring you. As far as your numbers. If the government wanted to encourage adoption, they could do it without putting children in vulnerable situations with homosexuals who are on average, poorer, more likely to molest, suicidal, and mentally ill in general. Provide tax credits like they do for people who have children. There are several ways to remedy this if this is an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _
> Gay people earn more owe less - Dec. 6 2012_
> *Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peopleare better at managing their money than the average American, new research shows.*
> They earn more, save more, have less debt and are better prepared for retirement, according to a Prudential survey of more than 1,000 LGBT respondents.
> Respondents not only reported significantly higher annual incomes -- $61,500 compared with the national median of $50,054 -- but they also carried about $4,000 less in debt than the average American and had $6,000 more in household savings. They were even slightly more likely to have jobs in the first place, with an unemployment rate of 7% versus the national rate of 7.9%, Prudential found.
> 
> Men are more likely to molest than women- all men- all women- this is absolute- men are the molesters up to 98% of the time. Would you deny men or couples with men in them because they are more likely to molest?
> 
> Suicidal? Would you deny adoption to people who come from industries with a higher rate of suicide- just in case? Same thing with mental illness. What about if they come from states with higher suicide rates?
> 
> These are standards you apply to homosexuals- and do not apply to heterosexuals.
> 
> Because your concern is not about the welfare of the children.
> 
> It is about your issues with homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, obviously I have a problem with homosexuality, it is a degenerate and socially destructive lifestyle. I don't think homosexuals shouldn't be prohibited from adopting just because they are on average poorer and their children are as well, that is one reason..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you do have a problem with homosexuality- because you presume that it is destructive.
> 
> You were the one who falsely claimed that homosexuals were on average poorer and posed that as one of the reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children.
> 
> When I nailed you on that, and your other claims, you now switch claims.
> 
> So lets dance.
> 
> I will take each of your claims- and show how you do not apply the same standards to homosexuals- as you do to any other group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, obviously I have a problem with homosexuality, it is a degenerate and socially destructive lifestyle. I don't think homosexuals shouldn't be prohibited from adopting just because they are on average poorer and their children are as well, that is one reason. You need to get with the program, are incredibly repressive society is what keeps gays poorer than heterosexuals. You aren't even on with the correct left wing message at the moment.
> LGBT Parenting in the United States Williams Institute
> LGBT poverty Gay and lesbian couples are poorer than straight ones.
> 
> Also, you are simply wrong, children from single parent and homosexual households are far more likely to have been physically and sexually abused than households with a mother and father. So your claim is wrong.
> Chapter Five What Factors Contribute to Child Abuse and Neglect
> How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships Findings from the New Family Structures Study
> Same-sex parenting and children s outcomes A closer examination of the American psychological association s brief on lesbian and gay parenting
> 
> It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
> Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf
> 
> Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.
Click to expand...


What a spankin'... .





​


----------



## Ellipsis

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?


Let's keep church and state separate, please.


----------



## mdk

koshergrl said:


> We know marriage doesn't exist in nature, how? Exactly?
> Wolves definitely engage in specialized, long-term coupling behavior that is recognized and supported by the pack....so do other animals.



Marriage is a man made construct. Pack behavior in wolves in no way supports marriage existing in nature.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> . You need to get with the program, are incredibly repressive society is what keeps gays poorer than heterosexuals. You aren't even on with the correct left wing message at the moment.
> LGBT Parenting in the United States Williams Institute
> LGBT poverty Gay and lesbian couples are poorer than straight ones.
> 
> .



I will give you credit here- your initial claim was incorrect- that homosexuals tend to be poorer- but I believe your intent was correct- your statistics show that homosexual households tend to be poorer than non- homosexuals households. 

Lets look at the statistics:

_Analyses of the Gallup data show that single LGBT adults raising children are three times more likely than comparable non-LGBT
individuals to report household incomes near the poverty threshold (less than $12,000 per year). Married or partnered LGBT individuals living in two-adult households with children are twice as likely as comparable non-LGBT individuals to report household incomes near the poverty threshold (less than $24,000 per year).

The median annual household income of samesex couples with children under age 18 in the
home is lower than comparable different-sex couples (*$63,900 versus $74,000, respectively)*. _

Income is one of the easiest items to check on when it comes to adoption. 

Do you think that gay parents should be prevented from adopting because more of them are poor?

Or do you think that poor people should not be allowed to adopt?

Once again- what I am pointing out here is that you are making an argument against gay people that you will not be using against non-gay people. 

If a gay couple is making $100,000 a year in Oklahoma next door to a straight couple making $50,000 you would automatically disqualify the gay couple. 

Likewise if we go with averages- I can point out that on average there are racial minorities that fare worse than 'average' Americans- yet I am hoping you would not argue that we for instance- do not allow Native Americans to adopt because their average income is lower than most Americans?

I do believe that adoptive parents should have enough income- and wealth to take care of any adoptive children.

But that is easy to measure- and should never be based upon the averages of whatever group someone chooses to place them in.


----------



## koshergrl

How do you know? 

Wolves have a highly structured social system that includes formalized pairings that are recognized by the pack.

How is that not marriage?

What's more, if they act without the authority of the leaders when it comes to pairing, the pack may kill them and their pups.


----------



## Dante

Steinlight said:


> Well, obviously I have a problem with homosexuality, it is a degenerate and socially destructive lifestyle.
> 
> ...


What has been the divorce rate of heterosexual marriages for the last 50/60 years?

What about all the long term gay relationships. Long term in spite of societies marginalization of them and benefits that usually are attached to loving couples? Any fair minded person would see many of these gay relationships as heroic


----------



## Dante

koshergrl said:


> We know marriage doesn't exist in nature, how? Exactly?
> Wolves definitely engage in specialized, long-term coupling behavior that is recognized and supported by the pack....so do other animals.


_Is there a doctor in the house?_​There is obviously a malfunction here. Marriage is a civil contract and sometimes a religious blessing is attached to it. Marriage is a human construct.


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your both fascist fags , I see no difference in the two stances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There IS no difference. In EITHER case you are both asking the government to tell someone they can't do something.
> 
> You're a bright guy, so I assume you know this, therefor I must assume you are deliberately denying it.
> 
> Unless of course, you are telling me that I am wrong and you aren't that bright????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government is not tellin' anyone that they can't do something.  Nature has merely provided a standard which precludes perverse reasoning from changing the standard born of its immutable design.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't exist in nature so therefore it would not have much say on the matter. See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  So humanity does not exist in nature?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> You people have absolutely no control over how stupid you allow yourselves to be, do ya?
Click to expand...


If it makes you feel good to rail against a point I never made then have it mate. Then again why should I be surprised by the self-proclaimed arbiter of nature?


----------



## Dante

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government is not tellin' anyone that they can't do something.  Nature has merely provided a standard which precludes perverse reasoning from changing the standard born of its immutable design.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't exist in nature so therefore it would not have much say on the matter. See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are homo sapiens heterosexual by nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it really that hard to believe that both exist in nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nature has gays in it so I guess Neil just doesn't like gays
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
Click to expand...

Dante is not on trial


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

mdk said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There IS no difference. In EITHER case you are both asking the government to tell someone they can't do something.
> 
> You're a bright guy, so I assume you know this, therefor I must assume you are deliberately denying it.
> 
> Unless of course, you are telling me that I am wrong and you aren't that bright????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government is not tellin' anyone that they can't do something.  Nature has merely provided a standard which precludes perverse reasoning from changing the standard born of its immutable design.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't exist in nature so therefore it would not have much say on the matter. See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are homo sapiens heterosexual by nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it really that hard to believe that both exist in nature?
Click to expand...


Big deal, my dog eats its own poop to, I wouldn't suggest humans do so.


----------



## Dante

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Poor queers.  Can't answer simple questions.  Living a lie is a full time Job.


Poor Neil


living under a rock has few benefits


----------



## mdk

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> There IS no difference. In EITHER case you are both asking the government to tell someone they can't do something.
> 
> You're a bright guy, so I assume you know this, therefor I must assume you are deliberately denying it.
> 
> Unless of course, you are telling me that I am wrong and you aren't that bright????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government is not tellin' anyone that they can't do something.  Nature has merely provided a standard which precludes perverse reasoning from changing the standard born of its immutable design.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't exist in nature so therefore it would not have much say on the matter. See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are homo sapiens heterosexual by nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it really that hard to believe that both exist in nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big deal, my dog eats its own poop to, I wouldn't suggest humans do so.
Click to expand...


Which is why I think making appeals to nature cornering this issue is rather silly.


----------



## Dante

koshergrl said:


> How do you know?
> 
> Wolves have a highly structured social system that includes formalized pairings that are recognized by the pack.
> 
> How is that not marriage?
> 
> What's more, if they act without the authority of the leaders when it comes to pairing, the pack may kill them and their pups.


Lots of animals eat their own young. Humans slaughter their own children.

What's it all about Alfie?


----------



## Dante

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> There IS no difference. In EITHER case you are both asking the government to tell someone they can't do something.
> 
> You're a bright guy, so I assume you know this, therefor I must assume you are deliberately denying it.
> 
> Unless of course, you are telling me that I am wrong and you aren't that bright????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government is not tellin' anyone that they can't do something.  Nature has merely provided a standard which precludes perverse reasoning from changing the standard born of its immutable design.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't exist in nature so therefore it would not have much say on the matter. See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are homo sapiens heterosexual by nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it really that hard to believe that both exist in nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big deal, my dog eats its own poop to, I wouldn't suggest humans do so.
Click to expand...

Why I never let my old pup kiss me.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> [
> Also, you are simply wrong, children from single parent and homosexual households are far more likely to have been physically and sexually abused. So your claim is wrong.
> Chapter Five What Factors Contribute to Child Abuse and Neglect
> How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships Findings from the New Family Structures Study
> Same-sex parenting and children s outcomes A closer examination of the American psychological association s brief on lesbian and gay parenting
> .



Let us start with 'Chapter 5'

Not one mention of being raised by homosexuals there. Not sure why you suddenly want to equate single parent with homosexual households. 

Risk factors they mention:
Parent factors- personality/history of maltreatment/substance abuse/attitudes and knowledge/age
Family Factors- single parents families- families with lots of children- father absence- marital conflict- stress- 
Child factors (not really relevant)
Environmental factors- poverty unemployment/social isolation

I am not sure how you think Chapter 5 supports your case.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government is not tellin' anyone that they can't do something.  Nature has merely provided a standard which precludes perverse reasoning from changing the standard born of its immutable design.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't exist in nature so therefore it would not have much say on the matter. See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are homo sapiens heterosexual by nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it really that hard to believe that both exist in nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big deal, my dog eats its own poop to, I wouldn't suggest humans do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why I think making appeals to nature cornering this issue is rather silly.
Click to expand...


No one is appealing to nature young lady.  The appeal is to the facts of nature, which are represented in the natural physiological design of the human being.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Dante said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't exist in nature so therefore it would not have much say on the matter. See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> Are homo sapiens heterosexual by nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it really that hard to believe that both exist in nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nature has gays in it so I guess Neil just doesn't like gays
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dante is not on trial
Click to expand...

Awwww, poor baby.


----------



## Steinlight

Dante said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, obviously I have a problem with homosexuality, it is a degenerate and socially destructive lifestyle.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> What has been the divorce rate of heterosexual marriages for the last 50/60 years?
> 
> What about all the long term gay relationships. Long term in spite of societies marginalization of them and benefits that usually are attached to loving couples? Any fair minded person would see many of these gay relationships as heroic
Click to expand...

What about the divorce rates? This is the dumb argument your other buddy made. That because the institution of marriage is in decline in the aspect of divorce rates, I should support its destruction further by supporting the redefining of the institution?

Also, another bogus claim, that gays are just as monogamous as heterosexuals. They have far more partners than heterosexuals and are far more promiscuous. Homosexual men far promiscuous than homosexual women as well
Homosexualities A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


If your contention that American society marginalizes them and causes them to be promiscuous,  than how come these numbers across the Western World. Are Australia and Europe evil and homophobic as well? How do you define "marginalization" and please explain how this causes people to have more at risk sex.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships Findings from the New Family Structures Study
> Same-sex parenting and children s outcomes A closer examination of the American psychological association s brief on lesbian and gay parenting.



Ah Mark Regnarus- always seems to come back to his 'studies' doesn't it? Of course his 'foundation' is dedicated to proving that.

I could show you criticism of Regnarus's studies, but why don't I just instead show studies which contradict him?

Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers research shows - The Washington Post

_Children of same-sex couples fare better when it comes to physical health and social well-being than children in the general population, according to researchers at the University of Melbourne in Australia.

“It’s often suggested that children with same-sex parents have poorer outcomes because they’re missing a parent of a particular sex. But research my colleagues and I published in the journal BMC Public Health shows this isn’t the case,” lead researcher Simon Crouch wrote on the Conversation.

Crouch and his team surveyed 315 same-sex parents with a total of 500 children across Australia. About 80 percent of the kids had female parents and about 18 percent had male parents, the study states.

Children from same-sex families scored about 6 percent higher on general health and family cohesion, even when controlling for socio-demographic factors such as parents’ education and household income, Crouch wrote. However, on most health measures, including emotional behavior and physical functioning, there was no difference compared with children from the general population._

And maybe the APA's tract- that your article criticizes?

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian
women or gay men are unfit to be parents or
that psychosocial development among children of
lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative
to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not
a single study has found children of lesbian or gay
parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect
relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed,
the evidence to date suggests that home environments
provided by lesbian and gay parents are as 
likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to
support and enable children's psychosocial growth.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships Findings from the New Family Structures Study
> Same-sex parenting and children s outcomes A closer examination of the American psychological association s brief on lesbian and gay parenting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah Mark Regnarus- always seems to come back to his 'studies' doesn't it? Of course his 'foundation' is dedicated to proving that.
> 
> I could show you criticism of Regnarus's studies, but why don't I just instead show studies which contradict him?
> 
> Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers research shows - The Washington Post
> 
> _Children of same-sex couples fare better when it comes to physical health and social well-being than children in the general population, according to researchers at the University of Melbourne in Australia.
> 
> “It’s often suggested that children with same-sex parents have poorer outcomes because they’re missing a parent of a particular sex. But research my colleagues and I published in the journal BMC Public Health shows this isn’t the case,” lead researcher Simon Crouch wrote on the Conversation.
> 
> Crouch and his team surveyed 315 same-sex parents with a total of 500 children across Australia. About 80 percent of the kids had female parents and about 18 percent had male parents, the study states.
> 
> Children from same-sex families scored about 6 percent higher on general health and family cohesion, even when controlling for socio-demographic factors such as parents’ education and household income, Crouch wrote. However, on most health measures, including emotional behavior and physical functioning, there was no difference compared with children from the general population._
> 
> And maybe the APA's tract- that your article criticizes?
> 
> http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf
> 
> In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian
> women or gay men are unfit to be parents or
> that psychosocial development among children of
> lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative
> to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not
> a single study has found children of lesbian or gay
> parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect
> relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed,
> the evidence to date suggests that home environments
> provided by lesbian and gay parents are as
> likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to
> support and enable children's psychosocial growth.
Click to expand...



OF COURSE there is evidence. If the Regnarus study wasn't evidence you and others wouldn't spend so much time trying to deride it , you would simply say "here's a study that says otherwise"

By the way, the study you cited, yeah it used a WHOPPING 500 kids and didn't give ANY details about the sample size for their kids of straight parents at all, NONE. Literally, for all we know, they compared those 500 kids of faggots to 4 kids of straights and said "there you go, same as "


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Also, you are simply wrong, children from single parent and homosexual households are far more likely to have been physically and sexually abused. So your claim is wrong.
> Chapter Five What Factors Contribute to Child Abuse and Neglect
> How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships Findings from the New Family Structures Study
> Same-sex parenting and children s outcomes A closer examination of the American psychological association s brief on lesbian and gay parenting
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us start with 'Chapter 5'
> 
> Not one mention of being raised by homosexuals there. Not sure why you suddenly want to equate single parent with homosexual households.
> 
> Risk factors they mention:
> Parent factors- personality/history of maltreatment/substance abuse/attitudes and knowledge/age
> Family Factors- single parents families- families with lots of children- father absence- marital conflict- stress-
> Child factors (not really relevant)
> Environmental factors- poverty unemployment/social isolation
> 
> I am not sure how you think Chapter 5 supports your case.
Click to expand...

That link explains increased physical and sexual abuse in single parent households, you claimed a man in the household made it more dangerous for children, when children are more at risk in a single mother household. The bottom two links  explain increased risk in homosexual couple households.

My advice to you is to reread my post and review the links more thoroughly.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

An interesting article, if anyone cares to be honest enough to read it

Not all children raised by gay parents support gay marriage I should know I 8217 m one of them Opinion LifeSite


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
> Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf
> 
> Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.



I will let you know when I manage to find a hint of concern for children among your anti-homosexual posts.

Again- my point is how how you cherry pick reasons why you think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt- and then do not apply the same standards to non-homosexuals.

So on to 'suicide'

Are you applying the same standards when it comes to the risk of suicide to all groups?

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/libra...rategy-suicide-prevention/full_report-rev.pdf

The suicide rate for homosexuals is higher than average. Gay men are 4 times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide. Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to commit suicide.

And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.

_Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1 
_
Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?
_
_


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships Findings from the New Family Structures Study
> Same-sex parenting and children s outcomes A closer examination of the American psychological association s brief on lesbian and gay parenting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah Mark Regnarus- always seems to come back to his 'studies' doesn't it? Of course his 'foundation' is dedicated to proving that.
> 
> I could show you criticism of Regnarus's studies, but why don't I just instead show studies which contradict him?
> 
> Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers research shows - The Washington Post
> 
> _Children of same-sex couples fare better when it comes to physical health and social well-being than children in the general population, according to researchers at the University of Melbourne in Australia.
> 
> “It’s often suggested that children with same-sex parents have poorer outcomes because they’re missing a parent of a particular sex. But research my colleagues and I published in the journal BMC Public Health shows this isn’t the case,” lead researcher Simon Crouch wrote on the Conversation.
> 
> Crouch and his team surveyed 315 same-sex parents with a total of 500 children across Australia. About 80 percent of the kids had female parents and about 18 percent had male parents, the study states.
> 
> Children from same-sex families scored about 6 percent higher on general health and family cohesion, even when controlling for socio-demographic factors such as parents’ education and household income, Crouch wrote. However, on most health measures, including emotional behavior and physical functioning, there was no difference compared with children from the general population._
> 
> And maybe the APA's tract- that your article criticizes?
> 
> http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf
> 
> In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian
> women or gay men are unfit to be parents or
> that psychosocial development among children of
> lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative
> to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not
> a single study has found children of lesbian or gay
> parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect
> relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed,
> the evidence to date suggests that home environments
> provided by lesbian and gay parents are as
> likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to
> support and enable children's psychosocial growth.
Click to expand...

To be honest, your study doesn't have a broad sample size(500 children vs Regenerus's 15,000 adults 18-39). Nor was it randomly selected.  Your study was parent reported, whereas the Regenrus study adult children reported. The latter is far more accurate in reporting the actual condition of children by going to the source, not just trusting parents who will give a biased answer.

Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better


----------



## Dante

Steinlight said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, obviously I have a problem with homosexuality, it is a degenerate and socially destructive lifestyle.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> What has been the divorce rate of heterosexual marriages for the last 50/60 years?
> 
> What about all the long term gay relationships. Long term in spite of societies marginalization of them and benefits that usually are attached to loving couples? Any fair minded person would see many of these gay relationships as heroic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about the divorce rates? This is the dumb argument your other buddy made. That because the institution of marriage is in decline in the aspect of divorce rates, I should support its destruction further by supporting the redefining of the institution?
> 
> Also, another bogus claim, that gays are just as monogamous as heterosexuals. They have far more partners than heterosexuals and are far more promiscuous. Homosexual men far promiscuous than homosexual women as well
> Homosexualities A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> 
> 
> If your contention that American society marginalizes them and causes them to be promiscuous,  than how come these numbers across the Western World. Are Australia and Europe evil and homophobic as well? How do you define "marginalization" and please explain how this causes people to have more at risk sex.
Click to expand...

Outside of your church marriage is a civil contract. Under our Constitution gays will win recognition of their freedom and liberties


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
> Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf
> 
> Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.
> 
> _Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
> 2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
> rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1
> _
> Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?
Click to expand...

That stat in of itself means nothing. If you could show the difference between old white heterosexual males and old white homosexual males that would be a valuable statistic.


----------



## Steinlight

Dante said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, obviously I have a problem with homosexuality, it is a degenerate and socially destructive lifestyle.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> What has been the divorce rate of heterosexual marriages for the last 50/60 years?
> 
> What about all the long term gay relationships. Long term in spite of societies marginalization of them and benefits that usually are attached to loving couples? Any fair minded person would see many of these gay relationships as heroic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about the divorce rates? This is the dumb argument your other buddy made. That because the institution of marriage is in decline in the aspect of divorce rates, I should support its destruction further by supporting the redefining of the institution?
> 
> Also, another bogus claim, that gays are just as monogamous as heterosexuals. They have far more partners than heterosexuals and are far more promiscuous. Homosexual men far promiscuous than homosexual women as well
> Homosexualities A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> 
> 
> If your contention that American society marginalizes them and causes them to be promiscuous,  than how come these numbers across the Western World. Are Australia and Europe evil and homophobic as well? How do you define "marginalization" and please explain how this causes people to have more at risk sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Outside of your church marriage is a civil contract. Under our Constitution gays will win recognition of their freedom and liberties
Click to expand...

Wow, what a non-response.


----------



## Obejoekenobe

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obejoekenobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the church practices sharia law as part of their doctrine, would the state then have a right to intervene?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a church 'practices' sharia law the state wouldn't care- so long as such practices don't conflict with secular law.
> 
> If the 'Sharia law' being practiced is illegal- it is illegal- and the state has every right to intervene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No church practices sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the guy who asked the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm telling you. You said "If a church 'practices' sharia law."
> 
> It's nonsensical, because churches don't practice sharia law.
Click to expand...


My bad, not a church but a Mosque. 

If a.... Mosque..... practices sharia law as part of their tradition, would the state then have a right to intervene?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Obejoekenobe said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obejoekenobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if the church practices sharia law as part of their doctrine, would the state then have a right to intervene?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a church 'practices' sharia law the state wouldn't care- so long as such practices don't conflict with secular law.
> 
> If the 'Sharia law' being practiced is illegal- it is illegal- and the state has every right to intervene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No church practices sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the guy who asked the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm telling you. You said "If a church 'practices' sharia law."
> 
> It's nonsensical, because churches don't practice sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bad, not a church but a Mosque.
> 
> If a.... Mosque..... practices sharia law as part of their tradition, would the state then have a right to intervene?
Click to expand...



Not if that Sharia law didn't violate any laws.


----------



## koshergrl

Dante said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know marriage doesn't exist in nature, how? Exactly?
> Wolves definitely engage in specialized, long-term coupling behavior that is recognized and supported by the pack....so do other animals.
> 
> 
> 
> _Is there a doctor in the house?_​There is obviously a malfunction here. Marriage is a civil contract and sometimes a religious blessing is attached to it. Marriage is a human construct.
Click to expand...


You'll be okay, dainty, you don't need another ER visit.


Obejoekenobe said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obejoekenobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if the church practices sharia law as part of their doctrine, would the state then have a right to intervene?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a church 'practices' sharia law the state wouldn't care- so long as such practices don't conflict with secular law.
> 
> If the 'Sharia law' being practiced is illegal- it is illegal- and the state has every right to intervene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No church practices sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the guy who asked the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm telling you. You said "If a church 'practices' sharia law."
> 
> It's nonsensical, because churches don't practice sharia law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bad, not a church but a Mosque.
> 
> If a.... Mosque..... practices sharia law as part of their tradition, would the state then have a right to intervene?
Click to expand...


Yup, because sharia violates human rights.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Also, you are simply wrong, children from single parent and homosexual households are far more likely to have been physically and sexually abused. So your claim is wrong.
> Chapter Five What Factors Contribute to Child Abuse and Neglect
> How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships Findings from the New Family Structures Study
> Same-sex parenting and children s outcomes A closer examination of the American psychological association s brief on lesbian and gay parenting
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us start with 'Chapter 5'
> 
> Not one mention of being raised by homosexuals there. Not sure why you suddenly want to equate single parent with homosexual households.
> 
> Risk factors they mention:
> Parent factors- personality/history of maltreatment/substance abuse/attitudes and knowledge/age
> Family Factors- single parents families- families with lots of children- father absence- marital conflict- stress-
> Child factors (not really relevant)
> Environmental factors- poverty unemployment/social isolation
> 
> I am not sure how you think Chapter 5 supports your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link explains increased physical and sexual abuse in single parent households, you claimed a man in the household made it more dangerous for children, when children are more at risk in a single mother household. The bottom two links  explain increased risk in homosexual couple households..
Click to expand...


Oh so that is what is tweaking you out. 

What I said was this:

_Men are more likely to molest than women- all men- all women- this is absolute- men are the molesters up to 98% of the time. Would you deny men or couples with men in them because they are more likely to molest?_

And that is a fact

Your Chapter 5 even explains this:


A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. *Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children in this study lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.49*

*The statistics show how much more dangerous men are than women when it comes to child sexual assault.

http://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf*

Table 6- men are the abusers 88-99% of the time. Family members are the abusers 12-49% of the time.

Fathers- step fathers- grandfathers- brothers- all more dangerous than female family members.

IF you used consistent standards you would be saying that lesbian couples are the safest adoptive parents. 

But instead you would deny adoption to every lesbian couple, and deny those children homes, even though they are more at risk- statistically for sexual abuse- than any household with a man in it. 


_
_


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> An interesting article, if anyone cares to be honest enough to read it
> 
> Not all children raised by gay parents support gay marriage I should know I 8217 m one of them Opinion LifeSite



Makes sense. I can say personally that not all children raised by straight parents oppose gay marriage. 

I should know- I am one of them.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting article, if anyone cares to be honest enough to read it
> 
> Not all children raised by gay parents support gay marriage I should know I 8217 m one of them Opinion LifeSite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes sense. I can say personally that not all children raised by straight parents oppose gay marriage.
> 
> I should know- I am one of them.
Click to expand...


but certainly having lived in the situation he's more credible than you or I. And of course my Great Dane is more credible than Keys or that other idiot who are babbling about nature or whatever.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Also, you are simply wrong, children from single parent and homosexual households are far more likely to have been physically and sexually abused. So your claim is wrong.
> Chapter Five What Factors Contribute to Child Abuse and Neglect
> How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships Findings from the New Family Structures Study
> Same-sex parenting and children s outcomes A closer examination of the American psychological association s brief on lesbian and gay parenting
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us start with 'Chapter 5'
> 
> Not one mention of being raised by homosexuals there. Not sure why you suddenly want to equate single parent with homosexual households.
> 
> Risk factors they mention:
> Parent factors- personality/history of maltreatment/substance abuse/attitudes and knowledge/age
> Family Factors- single parents families- families with lots of children- father absence- marital conflict- stress-
> Child factors (not really relevant)
> Environmental factors- poverty unemployment/social isolation
> 
> I am not sure how you think Chapter 5 supports your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link explains increased physical and sexual abuse in single parent households, you claimed a man in the household made it more dangerous for children, when children are more at risk in a single mother household. The bottom two links  explain increased risk in homosexual couple households..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so that is what is tweaking you out.
> 
> What I said was this:
> 
> _Men are more likely to molest than women- all men- all women- this is absolute- men are the molesters up to 98% of the time. Would you deny men or couples with men in them because they are more likely to molest?_
> 
> And that is a fact
> 
> Your Chapter 5 even explains this:
> 
> 
> A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. *Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children in this study lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.49*
> 
> *The statistics show how much more dangerous men are than women when it comes to child sexual assault.
> 
> http://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf*
> 
> Table 6- men are the abusers 88-99% of the time. Family members are the abusers 12-49% of the time.
> 
> Fathers- step fathers- grandfathers- brothers- all more dangerous than female family members.
> 
> IF you used consistent standards you would be saying that lesbian couples are the safest adoptive parents.
> 
> But instead you would deny adoption to every lesbian couple, and deny those children homes, even though they are more at risk- statistically for sexual abuse- than any household with a man in it.
Click to expand...


oh now you want to use statistics. Hey let's step on over and discuss crime stats , shall we?


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting article, if anyone cares to be honest enough to read it
> 
> Not all children raised by gay parents support gay marriage I should know I 8217 m one of them Opinion LifeSite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes sense. I can say personally that not all children raised by straight parents oppose gay marriage.
> 
> I should know- I am one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but certainly having lived in the situation he's more credible than you or I. And of course my Great Dane is more credible than Keys or that other idiot who are babbling about nature or whatever.
Click to expand...


We can always find people who will not be happy by how they were raised. 

Frankly I have known people raised in fine upstanding homes who don't support straight marriage.

And by fine upstanding homes, I mean miserable SOB's who had no reason ever to be parenting anyone but happened to be some twisted version of heterosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Also, you are simply wrong, children from single parent and homosexual households are far more likely to have been physically and sexually abused. So your claim is wrong.
> Chapter Five What Factors Contribute to Child Abuse and Neglect
> How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships Findings from the New Family Structures Study
> Same-sex parenting and children s outcomes A closer examination of the American psychological association s brief on lesbian and gay parenting
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us start with 'Chapter 5'
> 
> Not one mention of being raised by homosexuals there. Not sure why you suddenly want to equate single parent with homosexual households.
> 
> Risk factors they mention:
> Parent factors- personality/history of maltreatment/substance abuse/attitudes and knowledge/age
> Family Factors- single parents families- families with lots of children- father absence- marital conflict- stress-
> Child factors (not really relevant)
> Environmental factors- poverty unemployment/social isolation
> 
> I am not sure how you think Chapter 5 supports your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link explains increased physical and sexual abuse in single parent households, you claimed a man in the household made it more dangerous for children, when children are more at risk in a single mother household. The bottom two links  explain increased risk in homosexual couple households..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so that is what is tweaking you out.
> 
> What I said was this:
> 
> _Men are more likely to molest than women- all men- all women- this is absolute- men are the molesters up to 98% of the time. Would you deny men or couples with men in them because they are more likely to molest?_
> 
> And that is a fact
> 
> Your Chapter 5 even explains this:
> 
> 
> A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. *Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children in this study lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.49*
> 
> *The statistics show how much more dangerous men are than women when it comes to child sexual assault.
> 
> http://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf*
> 
> Table 6- men are the abusers 88-99% of the time. Family members are the abusers 12-49% of the time.
> 
> Fathers- step fathers- grandfathers- brothers- all more dangerous than female family members.
> 
> IF you used consistent standards you would be saying that lesbian couples are the safest adoptive parents.
> 
> But instead you would deny adoption to every lesbian couple, and deny those children homes, even though they are more at risk- statistically for sexual abuse- than any household with a man in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh now you want to use statistics. Hey let's step on over and discuss crime stats , shall we?
Click to expand...


LOL....if people want to start making claims about things, I will refute them with statistics which refute their claims.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting article, if anyone cares to be honest enough to read it
> 
> Not all children raised by gay parents support gay marriage I should know I 8217 m one of them Opinion LifeSite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes sense. I can say personally that not all children raised by straight parents oppose gay marriage.
> 
> I should know- I am one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but certainly having lived in the situation he's more credible than you or I. And of course my Great Dane is more credible than Keys or that other idiot who are babbling about nature or whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can always find people who will not be happy by how they were raised.
> 
> Frankly I have known people raised in fine upstanding homes who don't support straight marriage.
> 
> And by fine upstanding homes, I mean miserable SOB's who had no reason ever to be parenting anyone but happened to be some twisted version of heterosexuals.
Click to expand...


I SERIOUSLY doubt that you know of ANYONE who says there childhood was unhappy because their parents were heterosexual. I mean come on...


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Also, you are simply wrong, children from single parent and homosexual households are far more likely to have been physically and sexually abused. So your claim is wrong.
> Chapter Five What Factors Contribute to Child Abuse and Neglect
> How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships Findings from the New Family Structures Study
> Same-sex parenting and children s outcomes A closer examination of the American psychological association s brief on lesbian and gay parenting
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us start with 'Chapter 5'
> 
> Not one mention of being raised by homosexuals there. Not sure why you suddenly want to equate single parent with homosexual households.
> 
> Risk factors they mention:
> Parent factors- personality/history of maltreatment/substance abuse/attitudes and knowledge/age
> Family Factors- single parents families- families with lots of children- father absence- marital conflict- stress-
> Child factors (not really relevant)
> Environmental factors- poverty unemployment/social isolation
> 
> I am not sure how you think Chapter 5 supports your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link explains increased physical and sexual abuse in single parent households, you claimed a man in the household made it more dangerous for children, when children are more at risk in a single mother household. The bottom two links  explain increased risk in homosexual couple households..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so that is what is tweaking you out.
> 
> What I said was this:
> 
> _Men are more likely to molest than women- all men- all women- this is absolute- men are the molesters up to 98% of the time. Would you deny men or couples with men in them because they are more likely to molest?_
> 
> And that is a fact
> 
> Your Chapter 5 even explains this:
> 
> 
> A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. *Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children in this study lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.49*
> 
> *The statistics show how much more dangerous men are than women when it comes to child sexual assault.
> 
> http://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf*
> 
> Table 6- men are the abusers 88-99% of the time. Family members are the abusers 12-49% of the time.
> 
> Fathers- step fathers- grandfathers- brothers- all more dangerous than female family members.
> 
> IF you used consistent standards you would be saying that lesbian couples are the safest adoptive parents.
> 
> But instead you would deny adoption to every lesbian couple, and deny those children homes, even though they are more at risk- statistically for sexual abuse- than any household with a man in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh now you want to use statistics. Hey let's step on over and discuss crime stats , shall we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....if people want to start making claims about things, I will refute them with statistics which refute their claims.
Click to expand...


which is of course the point of debate, and completely reasonable, except when it comes to race on this board.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Also, you are simply wrong, children from single parent and homosexual households are far more likely to have been physically and sexually abused. So your claim is wrong.
> Chapter Five What Factors Contribute to Child Abuse and Neglect
> How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships Findings from the New Family Structures Study
> Same-sex parenting and children s outcomes A closer examination of the American psychological association s brief on lesbian and gay parenting
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us start with 'Chapter 5'
> 
> Not one mention of being raised by homosexuals there. Not sure why you suddenly want to equate single parent with homosexual households.
> 
> Risk factors they mention:
> Parent factors- personality/history of maltreatment/substance abuse/attitudes and knowledge/age
> Family Factors- single parents families- families with lots of children- father absence- marital conflict- stress-
> Child factors (not really relevant)
> Environmental factors- poverty unemployment/social isolation
> 
> I am not sure how you think Chapter 5 supports your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link explains increased physical and sexual abuse in single parent households, you claimed a man in the household made it more dangerous for children, when children are more at risk in a single mother household. The bottom two links  explain increased risk in homosexual couple households..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so that is what is tweaking you out.
> 
> What I said was this:
> 
> _Men are more likely to molest than women- all men- all women- this is absolute- men are the molesters up to 98% of the time. Would you deny men or couples with men in them because they are more likely to molest?_
> 
> And that is a fact
> 
> Your Chapter 5 even explains this:
> 
> 
> A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. *Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children in this study lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.49*
> 
> *The statistics show how much more dangerous men are than women when it comes to child sexual assault.
> 
> http://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf*
> 
> Table 6- men are the abusers 88-99% of the time. Family members are the abusers 12-49% of the time.
> 
> Fathers- step fathers- grandfathers- brothers- all more dangerous than female family members.
> 
> IF you used consistent standards you would be saying that lesbian couples are the safest adoptive parents.
> 
> But instead you would deny adoption to every lesbian couple, and deny those children homes, even though they are more at risk- statistically for sexual abuse- than any household with a man in it.
Click to expand...


I know what I posted, you claimed households without men are safer, my link shows that children in single mother households or from broken families are more vulnerable and your reposted my link. Why are you proving my points for me? 

 Children who grow up with homosexual parents are more likely to be abused sexually and physically than children heterosexual households my studies from Regnerus showed, ten times more likely. That doesn't even begin to touch the issue of domestic abuse. Homosexuals have higher instances of domestic violence, Lesbians have the highest rate of domestic violence of any pairing. 
Domestic violence rates are higher for homosexual couples than for heterosexual couples Wintery Knight

Now I know you might say, domestic violence doesn't affect children, but it does. 
Impact of Domestic Violence on Children


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the bakers do not carry or provide the item the customer asks for, no laws are being broken.
> 
> Example One:
> 
> Customer walks into a gadget store and orders gadget out of catalog or off the shelf. Business sells gadget to person A but not person B because they don't like the religion of person B. Discrimination has occurred.
> 
> Example Two:
> 
> Customer walks into gadget store and asks for a non gadget item that the business does not nor have they ever provided.  No discrimination has occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a dishonest piece of shit.
> 
> Bakeries who sell cakes advertise that they sell CUSTOM cakes. Have you EVER been to a bakery which only sold cakes that were actually on their display? Of course not you idiot.
> 
> You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is a custom order, it is up to the discretion of the business as to whether or not they can or will do it. No discrimination occurred.
> 
> Customer A is straight, buys wedding cake. Customer B is gay is refused same exact cake. Discrimination
> 
> Customer A and B both order a custom made cake...business can refuse either or both. No discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong moron, that's not how the law works
> 
> Jesus Christ educate yourself before you go arguing shit.
> 
> Who the fuck has EVER bought a wedding cake out of a display case? NO ONE , they are ALL custom cakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I said and is true is that no business must provide an item that they do not already provide. And yes, wedding cakes are ordered out of a catalog, you dolt. You don't walk in with a fucking blueprint, Dumber than the Average Cockroach.
> 
> If you sell the product to Person A, you must also sell the product to Person B. It can't get any simpler than that and you still don't understand? That's so sad...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are so stupid and dishonest.
> 
> Look at this link
> 
> Elegant Cakery. Porcelain Cake Toppers
> 
> show me where you see a wedding cake topper with two men or two women. You don't.
> 
> Should that bakery be forced to provide one should a gay couple want one?
Click to expand...


A cake topper is not a cake Dolt Bear. If they don't sell same sex cake toppers, they don't have to carry them but they still have to make the cake. 

I don't think I can make this any simpler for your poor stupid little brain. If you sell an item to the straight couple, in some states you also have to sell it to the gay couple.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.



And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.


----------



## Dante

Steinlight said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, obviously I have a problem with homosexuality, it is a degenerate and socially destructive lifestyle.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> What has been the divorce rate of heterosexual marriages for the last 50/60 years?
> 
> What about all the long term gay relationships. Long term in spite of societies marginalization of them and benefits that usually are attached to loving couples? Any fair minded person would see many of these gay relationships as heroic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about the divorce rates? This is the dumb argument your other buddy made. That because the institution of marriage is in decline in the aspect of divorce rates, I should support its destruction further by supporting the redefining of the institution?
> 
> Also, another bogus claim, that gays are just as monogamous as heterosexuals. They have far more partners than heterosexuals and are far more promiscuous. Homosexual men far promiscuous than homosexual women as well
> Homosexualities A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> 
> 
> If your contention that American society marginalizes them and causes them to be promiscuous,  than how come these numbers across the Western World. Are Australia and Europe evil and homophobic as well? How do you define "marginalization" and please explain how this causes people to have more at risk sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Outside of your church marriage is a civil contract. Under our Constitution gays will win recognition of their freedom and liberties
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, what a non-response.
Click to expand...

What is there to debate? The train has left the stations -- the cat's out of the bag. It's essentially over. The leaders of the GOP know this, but use it to keep the poor demented base riled up and ready to march to the tune of freedom


----------



## Seawytch

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Also, you are simply wrong, children from single parent and homosexual households are far more likely to have been physically and sexually abused. So your claim is wrong.
> Chapter Five What Factors Contribute to Child Abuse and Neglect
> How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships Findings from the New Family Structures Study
> Same-sex parenting and children s outcomes A closer examination of the American psychological association s brief on lesbian and gay parenting
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us start with 'Chapter 5'
> 
> Not one mention of being raised by homosexuals there. Not sure why you suddenly want to equate single parent with homosexual households.
> 
> Risk factors they mention:
> Parent factors- personality/history of maltreatment/substance abuse/attitudes and knowledge/age
> Family Factors- single parents families- families with lots of children- father absence- marital conflict- stress-
> Child factors (not really relevant)
> Environmental factors- poverty unemployment/social isolation
> 
> I am not sure how you think Chapter 5 supports your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link explains increased physical and sexual abuse in single parent households, you claimed a man in the household made it more dangerous for children, when children are more at risk in a single mother household. The bottom two links  explain increased risk in homosexual couple households..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so that is what is tweaking you out.
> 
> What I said was this:
> 
> _Men are more likely to molest than women- all men- all women- this is absolute- men are the molesters up to 98% of the time. Would you deny men or couples with men in them because they are more likely to molest?_
> 
> And that is a fact
> 
> Your Chapter 5 even explains this:
> 
> 
> A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. *Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children in this study lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.49*
> 
> *The statistics show how much more dangerous men are than women when it comes to child sexual assault.
> 
> http://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf*
> 
> Table 6- men are the abusers 88-99% of the time. Family members are the abusers 12-49% of the time.
> 
> Fathers- step fathers- grandfathers- brothers- all more dangerous than female family members.
> 
> IF you used consistent standards you would be saying that lesbian couples are the safest adoptive parents.
> 
> But instead you would deny adoption to every lesbian couple, and deny those children homes, even though they are more at risk- statistically for sexual abuse- than any household with a man in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what I posted, you claimed households without men are safer, my link shows that children in single mother households or from broken families are more vulnerable and your reposted my link. Why are you proving my points for me?
> 
> Children who grow up with homosexual parents are more likely to be abused sexually and physically than children heterosexual households my studies from Regnerus showed, ten times more likely. That doesn't even begin to touch the issue of domestic abuse. Homosexuals have higher instances of domestic violence, Lesbians have the highest rate of domestic violence of any pairing.
> Domestic violence rates are higher for homosexual couples than for heterosexual couples Wintery Knight
> 
> Now I know you might say, domestic violence doesn't affect children, but it does.
> Impact of Domestic Violence on Children
Click to expand...


The Regenerus study is pure bunk and has been laughed out of court. Anti gay bigots fighting to keep anti gay bans in place have even abandoned his flawed study...but the bigots here keep referring too it.  Classic.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> A cake topper is not a cake Dolt Bear. If they don't sell same sex cake toppers, they don't have to carry them but they still have to make the cake....



LMAO!

Now how pitiful is THAT?  Hypocrisy galore and as expected they would, they can't find the strength of character to just admit that they didn't want to do it... .  

So simple: "We just didn't want to do it, so we refused... "  

There's nothing hard about it, it's just simple honesty.  Yet, as simple as it is, it is impossible for the lowly relativist.


----------



## Seawytch

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
> Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf
> 
> Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will let you know when I manage to find a hint of concern for children among your anti-homosexual posts.
> 
> Again- my point is how how you cherry pick reasons why you think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt- and then do not apply the same standards to non-homosexuals.
> 
> So on to 'suicide'
> 
> Are you applying the same standards when it comes to the risk of suicide to all groups?
> 
> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/libra...rategy-suicide-prevention/full_report-rev.pdf
> 
> The suicide rate for homosexuals is higher than average. Gay men are 4 times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide. Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to commit suicide.
> 
> And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.
> 
> _Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
> 2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
> rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1
> _
> Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?
Click to expand...


22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> An interesting article, if anyone cares to be honest enough to read it
> 
> Not all children raised by gay parents support gay marriage I should know I 8217 m one of them Opinion LifeSite




Yup...keep telling us how you're not a homophobic bigot while you troll NARTH.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a dishonest piece of shit.
> 
> Bakeries who sell cakes advertise that they sell CUSTOM cakes. Have you EVER been to a bakery which only sold cakes that were actually on their display? Of course not you idiot.
> 
> You truly can't just be honest and say "those gay bakeries are in violation of the law as it stands" can you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it is a custom order, it is up to the discretion of the business as to whether or not they can or will do it. No discrimination occurred.
> 
> Customer A is straight, buys wedding cake. Customer B is gay is refused same exact cake. Discrimination
> 
> Customer A and B both order a custom made cake...business can refuse either or both. No discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong moron, that's not how the law works
> 
> Jesus Christ educate yourself before you go arguing shit.
> 
> Who the fuck has EVER bought a wedding cake out of a display case? NO ONE , they are ALL custom cakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I said and is true is that no business must provide an item that they do not already provide. And yes, wedding cakes are ordered out of a catalog, you dolt. You don't walk in with a fucking blueprint, Dumber than the Average Cockroach.
> 
> If you sell the product to Person A, you must also sell the product to Person B. It can't get any simpler than that and you still don't understand? That's so sad...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are so stupid and dishonest.
> 
> Look at this link
> 
> Elegant Cakery. Porcelain Cake Toppers
> 
> show me where you see a wedding cake topper with two men or two women. You don't.
> 
> Should that bakery be forced to provide one should a gay couple want one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A cake topper is not a cake Dolt Bear. If they don't sell same sex cake toppers, they don't have to carry them but they still have to make the cake.
> 
> I don't think I can make this any simpler for your poor stupid little brain. If you sell an item to the straight couple, in some states you also have to sell it to the gay couple.
Click to expand...


God you are stupid.

When was the last time you heard of ANYONE buying a wedding cake without a topper? Oh, that's right, they don't. 

Why are you so dishonest SeaBytch? Why must you make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE to have a rationale discussion with you? Do you see a poster like say Syriusly who has almost the exact same opinions as you but doesn't feel the need to LIE about everything?

NOBODY, but NOBODY walks into a bakery and buys a wedding cake and doesn't have it customized for them.

Meaning , that every couple who buys a wedding cake is asking for it to be made FOR THEM. It isn't like faggots are walking into buy a set of tires that are on a shelf.

Last chance, bring up your bullshit about this again and I'll place you on ignore with the other children.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> The Regenerus study is pure bunk and has been laughed out of court.



Where's the point of pride in claiming that something was laughed out of a subjective court?

The courts in which such cases prevail have their decisions made before their set on the docket.  The good news there, is that such fails to serve justice thus such never prevails in the long game.

We know this because the normalization of sexual abnormality has been attempted in numerous cultures throughout human history.  The BAD NEWS is that such has always been a harbinger of cultural collapse.

So... it won't be any time at all before the fudgepackers and carpet munchers are again cloistered in the back of the highest shelf in the proverbial closet.  Well... at least the one's that survive the impending purge.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> ... And of course my Great Dane has more credible than Keys ... babbling about nature or whatever.



LOL!  _Ownership!  _It DO have its privileges.

For instance... I get to live rent free in your head.  And sure, it ain't much, but there's ALL THIS Empty SPACE!

*HELLOOooo  *HELLOOooo HELLOOooo HELLOOooo HELLOOooo

*Spook* Spook  Spook  Spook Spook Spook 


.

.

.

The acoustics are a little bright... but the possibilities are endless.  Maybe I'll put in a gym, or a range.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting article, if anyone cares to be honest enough to read it
> 
> Not all children raised by gay parents support gay marriage I should know I 8217 m one of them Opinion LifeSite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup...keep telling us how you're not a homophobic bigot while you troll NARTH.
Click to expand...


what the hell are you talking about?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting article, if anyone cares to be honest enough to read it
> 
> Not all children raised by gay parents support gay marriage I should know I 8217 m one of them Opinion LifeSite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup...keep telling us how you're not a homophobic bigot while you troll NARTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what the hell are you talking about?
Click to expand...


She's pointing out your overbearing bitterness regarding your curious and somewhat obvious disdain for the lowly homosexual... .

Which portends your own likely unrepressed, but covert sexual cravings for gratification through intercourse with individuals of your own gender. (She's noticed your feminized nature and is appealing to it... hoping to simultaneously shaming you and lull you into a public confession... .  My guess is that you're likely gush an emotional profession, at any moment.)


----------



## Dante

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is a custom order, it is up to the discretion of the business as to whether or not they can or will do it. No discrimination occurred.
> 
> Customer A is straight, buys wedding cake. Customer B is gay is refused same exact cake. Discrimination
> 
> Customer A and B both order a custom made cake...business can refuse either or both. No discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong moron, that's not how the law works
> 
> Jesus Christ educate yourself before you go arguing shit.
> 
> Who the fuck has EVER bought a wedding cake out of a display case? NO ONE , they are ALL custom cakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I said and is true is that no business must provide an item that they do not already provide. And yes, wedding cakes are ordered out of a catalog, you dolt. You don't walk in with a fucking blueprint, Dumber than the Average Cockroach.
> 
> If you sell the product to Person A, you must also sell the product to Person B. It can't get any simpler than that and you still don't understand? That's so sad...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are so stupid and dishonest.
> 
> Look at this link
> 
> Elegant Cakery. Porcelain Cake Toppers
> 
> show me where you see a wedding cake topper with two men or two women. You don't.
> 
> Should that bakery be forced to provide one should a gay couple want one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A cake topper is not a cake Dolt Bear. If they don't sell same sex cake toppers, they don't have to carry them but they still have to make the cake.
> 
> I don't think I can make this any simpler for your poor stupid little brain. If you sell an item to the straight couple, in some states you also have to sell it to the gay couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God you are stupid.
> 
> When was the last time you heard of ANYONE buying a wedding cake without a topper? Oh, that's right, they don't.
> 
> Why are you so dishonest SeaBytch? Why must you make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE to have a rationale discussion with you? Do you see a poster like say Syriusly who has almost the exact same opinions as you but doesn't feel the need to LIE about everything?
> 
> NOBODY, but NOBODY walks into a bakery and buys a wedding cake and doesn't have it customized for them.
> 
> Meaning , that every couple who buys a wedding cake is asking for it to be made FOR THEM. It isn't like faggots are walking into buy a set of tires that are on a shelf.
> 
> Last chance, bring up your bullshit about this again and I'll place you on ignore with the other children.
Click to expand...

Who gives two shits about cake toppers? A baker can tell people to get their own. It has been done before. People can and do use their own custom topper

geeze


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting article, if anyone cares to be honest enough to read it
> 
> Not all children raised by gay parents support gay marriage I should know I 8217 m one of them Opinion LifeSite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup...keep telling us how you're not a homophobic bigot while you troll NARTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what the hell are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's pointing out your overbearing bitterness regarding your curious and somewhat obvious disdain for the lowly homosexual... .
> 
> Which portends your own likely unrepressed, but covert sexual cravings for gratification through intercourse with individuals of your own gender. (She's noticed your feminized nature and is appealing to it... hoping to simultaneously shaming you and lull you into a public confession... .  My guess is that you're likely gush an emotional profession, at any moment.)
Click to expand...


^ LOL


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> She's pointing out your overbearing bitterness regarding your curious and somewhat obvious disdain for the lowly homosexual... .
> 
> Which portends your own likely unrepressed, but covert sexual cravings for gratification through intercourse with individuals of your own gender. (She's noticed your feminized nature and is appealing to it... hoping to simultaneously shaming you and lull you into a public confession... .  My guess is that you're likely gush an emotional profession, at any moment.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ LOL
Click to expand...


LOL^


----------



## Dante

Voted Other, because of the ridiculous commentary associated with the NO vote.

Churches do not have to accommodate. They can and do discriminate.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Dante said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong moron, that's not how the law works
> 
> Jesus Christ educate yourself before you go arguing shit.
> 
> Who the fuck has EVER bought a wedding cake out of a display case? NO ONE , they are ALL custom cakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I said and is true is that no business must provide an item that they do not already provide. And yes, wedding cakes are ordered out of a catalog, you dolt. You don't walk in with a fucking blueprint, Dumber than the Average Cockroach.
> 
> If you sell the product to Person A, you must also sell the product to Person B. It can't get any simpler than that and you still don't understand? That's so sad...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are so stupid and dishonest.
> 
> Look at this link
> 
> Elegant Cakery. Porcelain Cake Toppers
> 
> show me where you see a wedding cake topper with two men or two women. You don't.
> 
> Should that bakery be forced to provide one should a gay couple want one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A cake topper is not a cake Dolt Bear. If they don't sell same sex cake toppers, they don't have to carry them but they still have to make the cake.
> 
> I don't think I can make this any simpler for your poor stupid little brain. If you sell an item to the straight couple, in some states you also have to sell it to the gay couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God you are stupid.
> 
> 
> When was the last time you heard of ANYONE buying a wedding cake without a topper? Oh, that's right, they don't.
> 
> Why are you so dishonest SeaBytch? Why must you make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE to have a rationale discussion with you? Do you see a poster like say Syriusly who has almost the exact same opinions as you but doesn't feel the need to LIE about everything?
> 
> NOBODY, but NOBODY walks into a bakery and buys a wedding cake and doesn't have it customized for them.
> 
> Meaning , that every couple who buys a wedding cake is asking for it to be made FOR THEM. It isn't like faggots are walking into buy a set of tires that are on a shelf.
> 
> Last chance, bring up your bullshit about this again and I'll place you on ignore with the other children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who gives two shits about cake toppers? A baker can tell people to get their own. It has been done before. People can and do use their own custom topper
> 
> geeze
Click to expand...


The point being , SeaBytch has been claiming for two days that the bakers would have had no idea if they were gay because all they did was walk in and pick a cake out of a catalog, and it doesn't work that way. 

Not unless you're doing your wedding for $50 total I guess.

I've been married 8 years and when we found a baker, we spent 2 fucking weeks tasting cakes, choosing cakes, choosing frostings, etc etc, the baker definitely realized we were man and soon to be wife. She didn't have to ask.


----------



## Dante

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I said and is true is that no business must provide an item that they do not already provide. And yes, wedding cakes are ordered out of a catalog, you dolt. You don't walk in with a fucking blueprint, Dumber than the Average Cockroach.
> 
> If you sell the product to Person A, you must also sell the product to Person B. It can't get any simpler than that and you still don't understand? That's so sad...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so stupid and dishonest.
> 
> Look at this link
> 
> Elegant Cakery. Porcelain Cake Toppers
> 
> show me where you see a wedding cake topper with two men or two women. You don't.
> 
> Should that bakery be forced to provide one should a gay couple want one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A cake topper is not a cake Dolt Bear. If they don't sell same sex cake toppers, they don't have to carry them but they still have to make the cake.
> 
> I don't think I can make this any simpler for your poor stupid little brain. If you sell an item to the straight couple, in some states you also have to sell it to the gay couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God you are stupid.
> 
> 
> When was the last time you heard of ANYONE buying a wedding cake without a topper? Oh, that's right, they don't.
> 
> Why are you so dishonest SeaBytch? Why must you make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE to have a rationale discussion with you? Do you see a poster like say Syriusly who has almost the exact same opinions as you but doesn't feel the need to LIE about everything?
> 
> NOBODY, but NOBODY walks into a bakery and buys a wedding cake and doesn't have it customized for them.
> 
> Meaning , that every couple who buys a wedding cake is asking for it to be made FOR THEM. It isn't like faggots are walking into buy a set of tires that are on a shelf.
> 
> Last chance, bring up your bullshit about this again and I'll place you on ignore with the other children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who gives two shits about cake toppers? A baker can tell people to get their own. It has been done before. People can and do use their own custom topper
> 
> geeze
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point being , SeaBytch has been claiming for two days that the bakers would have had no idea if they were gay because all they did was walk in and pick a cake out of a catalog, and it doesn't work that way.
> 
> Not unless you're doing your wedding for $50 total I guess.
> 
> I've been married 8 years and when we found a baker, we spent 2 fucking weeks tasting cakes, choosing cakes, choosing frostings, etc etc, the baker definitely realized we were man and soon to be wife. She didn't have to ask.
Click to expand...

What business is it of the baker's? Maybe two people want a wedding cake for a party of sexual deviants who like rubbing cake all over the bodies before committing suicide during sex? Just sell the friggin cake damn it


----------



## Steinlight

Dante said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, obviously I have a problem with homosexuality, it is a degenerate and socially destructive lifestyle.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> What has been the divorce rate of heterosexual marriages for the last 50/60 years?
> 
> What about all the long term gay relationships. Long term in spite of societies marginalization of them and benefits that usually are attached to loving couples? Any fair minded person would see many of these gay relationships as heroic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about the divorce rates? This is the dumb argument your other buddy made. That because the institution of marriage is in decline in the aspect of divorce rates, I should support its destruction further by supporting the redefining of the institution?
> 
> Also, another bogus claim, that gays are just as monogamous as heterosexuals. They have far more partners than heterosexuals and are far more promiscuous. Homosexual men far promiscuous than homosexual women as well
> Homosexualities A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> 
> 
> If your contention that American society marginalizes them and causes them to be promiscuous,  than how come these numbers across the Western World. Are Australia and Europe evil and homophobic as well? How do you define "marginalization" and please explain how this causes people to have more at risk sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Outside of your church marriage is a civil contract. Under our Constitution gays will win recognition of their freedom and liberties
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, what a non-response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is there to debate? The train has left the stations -- the cat's out of the bag. It's essentially over. The leaders of the GOP know this, but use it to keep the poor demented base riled up and ready to march to the tune of freedom
Click to expand...

The GOP has no courage, the problem isn't that they stand up for their conservative base. It is that they are cowards and cave to faggot nihilists like you because they want to look "respectable" and "politically correct" with the dying mainstream media. Gay marriage is another issue the GOP avoids and one of the reasons they will decline in the long run.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Dante said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so stupid and dishonest.
> 
> Look at this link
> 
> Elegant Cakery. Porcelain Cake Toppers
> 
> show me where you see a wedding cake topper with two men or two women. You don't.
> 
> Should that bakery be forced to provide one should a gay couple want one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A cake topper is not a cake Dolt Bear. If they don't sell same sex cake toppers, they don't have to carry them but they still have to make the cake.
> 
> I don't think I can make this any simpler for your poor stupid little brain. If you sell an item to the straight couple, in some states you also have to sell it to the gay couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God you are stupid.
> 
> 
> When was the last time you heard of ANYONE buying a wedding cake without a topper? Oh, that's right, they don't.
> 
> Why are you so dishonest SeaBytch? Why must you make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE to have a rationale discussion with you? Do you see a poster like say Syriusly who has almost the exact same opinions as you but doesn't feel the need to LIE about everything?
> 
> NOBODY, but NOBODY walks into a bakery and buys a wedding cake and doesn't have it customized for them.
> 
> Meaning , that every couple who buys a wedding cake is asking for it to be made FOR THEM. It isn't like faggots are walking into buy a set of tires that are on a shelf.
> 
> Last chance, bring up your bullshit about this again and I'll place you on ignore with the other children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who gives two shits about cake toppers? A baker can tell people to get their own. It has been done before. People can and do use their own custom topper
> 
> geeze
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point being , SeaBytch has been claiming for two days that the bakers would have had no idea if they were gay because all they did was walk in and pick a cake out of a catalog, and it doesn't work that way.
> 
> Not unless you're doing your wedding for $50 total I guess.
> 
> I've been married 8 years and when we found a baker, we spent 2 fucking weeks tasting cakes, choosing cakes, choosing frostings, etc etc, the baker definitely realized we were man and soon to be wife. She didn't have to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What business is it of the baker's? Maybe two people want a wedding cake for a party of sexual deviants who like rubbing cake all over the bodies before committing suicide during sex? Just sell the friggin cake damn it
Click to expand...


Personally, I would just sell the cake, but the principle is the thing.

What business is it of the governments who I won't sell things to? ESPECIALLY when that government is picking and choosing which attributes I must not discriminate against.

I hate brown eyed people. I' gonna stop serving steaks to brown eyed people. That's okay.......... Perfectly legal.


----------



## Dante

Steinlight said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has been the divorce rate of heterosexual marriages for the last 50/60 years?
> 
> What about all the long term gay relationships. Long term in spite of societies marginalization of them and benefits that usually are attached to loving couples? Any fair minded person would see many of these gay relationships as heroic
> 
> 
> 
> What about the divorce rates? This is the dumb argument your other buddy made. That because the institution of marriage is in decline in the aspect of divorce rates, I should support its destruction further by supporting the redefining of the institution?
> 
> Also, another bogus claim, that gays are just as monogamous as heterosexuals. They have far more partners than heterosexuals and are far more promiscuous. Homosexual men far promiscuous than homosexual women as well
> Homosexualities A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> 
> 
> If your contention that American society marginalizes them and causes them to be promiscuous,  than how come these numbers across the Western World. Are Australia and Europe evil and homophobic as well? How do you define "marginalization" and please explain how this causes people to have more at risk sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Outside of your church marriage is a civil contract. Under our Constitution gays will win recognition of their freedom and liberties
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, what a non-response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is there to debate? The train has left the stations -- the cat's out of the bag. It's essentially over. The leaders of the GOP know this, but use it to keep the poor demented base riled up and ready to march to the tune of freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP has no courage, the problem isn't that they stand up for their conservative base. It is that they are cowards and cave to faggot nihilists like you because they want to look "respectable" and "politically correct" with the dying mainstream media. Gay marriage is another issue the GOP avoids and one of the reasons they will decline in the long run.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what county and state you reside in, but it would be interesting to know just who your US Rep is.


----------



## Steinlight

Seawytch said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
> Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf
> 
> Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will let you know when I manage to find a hint of concern for children among your anti-homosexual posts.
> 
> Again- my point is how how you cherry pick reasons why you think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt- and then do not apply the same standards to non-homosexuals.
> 
> So on to 'suicide'
> 
> Are you applying the same standards when it comes to the risk of suicide to all groups?
> 
> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/libra...rategy-suicide-prevention/full_report-rev.pdf
> 
> The suicide rate for homosexuals is higher than average. Gay men are 4 times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide. Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to commit suicide.
> 
> And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.
> 
> _Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
> 2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
> rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1
> _
> Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?
Click to expand...




Seawytch said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
> Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf
> 
> Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will let you know when I manage to find a hint of concern for children among your anti-homosexual posts.
> 
> Again- my point is how how you cherry pick reasons why you think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt- and then do not apply the same standards to non-homosexuals.
> 
> So on to 'suicide'
> 
> Are you applying the same standards when it comes to the risk of suicide to all groups?
> 
> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/libra...rategy-suicide-prevention/full_report-rev.pdf
> 
> The suicide rate for homosexuals is higher than average. Gay men are 4 times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide. Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to commit suicide.
> 
> And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.
> 
> _Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
> 2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
> rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1
> _
> Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?
Click to expand...

I must hate America!


----------



## Dante

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> A cake topper is not a cake Dolt Bear. If they don't sell same sex cake toppers, they don't have to carry them but they still have to make the cake.
> 
> I don't think I can make this any simpler for your poor stupid little brain. If you sell an item to the straight couple, in some states you also have to sell it to the gay couple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God you are stupid.
> 
> 
> When was the last time you heard of ANYONE buying a wedding cake without a topper? Oh, that's right, they don't.
> 
> Why are you so dishonest SeaBytch? Why must you make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE to have a rationale discussion with you? Do you see a poster like say Syriusly who has almost the exact same opinions as you but doesn't feel the need to LIE about everything?
> 
> NOBODY, but NOBODY walks into a bakery and buys a wedding cake and doesn't have it customized for them.
> 
> Meaning , that every couple who buys a wedding cake is asking for it to be made FOR THEM. It isn't like faggots are walking into buy a set of tires that are on a shelf.
> 
> Last chance, bring up your bullshit about this again and I'll place you on ignore with the other children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who gives two shits about cake toppers? A baker can tell people to get their own. It has been done before. People can and do use their own custom topper
> 
> geeze
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point being , SeaBytch has been claiming for two days that the bakers would have had no idea if they were gay because all they did was walk in and pick a cake out of a catalog, and it doesn't work that way.
> 
> Not unless you're doing your wedding for $50 total I guess.
> 
> I've been married 8 years and when we found a baker, we spent 2 fucking weeks tasting cakes, choosing cakes, choosing frostings, etc etc, the baker definitely realized we were man and soon to be wife. She didn't have to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What business is it of the baker's? Maybe two people want a wedding cake for a party of sexual deviants who like rubbing cake all over the bodies before committing suicide during sex? Just sell the friggin cake damn it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I would just sell the cake, but the principle is the thing.
> 
> What business is it of the governments who I won't sell things to? ESPECIALLY when that government is picking and choosing which attributes I must not discriminate against.
> 
> I hate brown eyed people. I' gonna stop serving steaks to brown eyed people. That's okay.......... Perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

If brown eyed people were widely discriminated against and had a history of being murdered and tortured for having brown eyes, then I guess they'd sue to be a protected class.

Why not use a more relevant example? Let us say a baker doesn't like racially mixed marriages? Does it still not matter?


----------



## Dante

Steinlight said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
> Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf
> 
> Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will let you know when I manage to find a hint of concern for children among your anti-homosexual posts.
> 
> Again- my point is how how you cherry pick reasons why you think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt- and then do not apply the same standards to non-homosexuals.
> 
> So on to 'suicide'
> 
> Are you applying the same standards when it comes to the risk of suicide to all groups?
> 
> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/libra...rategy-suicide-prevention/full_report-rev.pdf
> 
> The suicide rate for homosexuals is higher than average. Gay men are 4 times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide. Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to commit suicide.
> 
> And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.
> 
> _Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
> 2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
> rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1
> _
> Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
> Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf
> 
> Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will let you know when I manage to find a hint of concern for children among your anti-homosexual posts.
> 
> Again- my point is how how you cherry pick reasons why you think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt- and then do not apply the same standards to non-homosexuals.
> 
> So on to 'suicide'
> 
> Are you applying the same standards when it comes to the risk of suicide to all groups?
> 
> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/libra...rategy-suicide-prevention/full_report-rev.pdf
> 
> The suicide rate for homosexuals is higher than average. Gay men are 4 times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide. Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to commit suicide.
> 
> And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.
> 
> _Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
> 2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
> rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1
> _
> Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must hate America!
Click to expand...

Not sure, only you can answer that one, but it's obvious you are full of hatred


----------



## Steinlight

Dante said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
> Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf
> 
> Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will let you know when I manage to find a hint of concern for children among your anti-homosexual posts.
> 
> Again- my point is how how you cherry pick reasons why you think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt- and then do not apply the same standards to non-homosexuals.
> 
> So on to 'suicide'
> 
> Are you applying the same standards when it comes to the risk of suicide to all groups?
> 
> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/libra...rategy-suicide-prevention/full_report-rev.pdf
> 
> The suicide rate for homosexuals is higher than average. Gay men are 4 times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide. Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to commit suicide.
> 
> And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.
> 
> _Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
> 2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
> rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1
> _
> Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
> Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf
> 
> Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will let you know when I manage to find a hint of concern for children among your anti-homosexual posts.
> 
> Again- my point is how how you cherry pick reasons why you think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt- and then do not apply the same standards to non-homosexuals.
> 
> So on to 'suicide'
> 
> Are you applying the same standards when it comes to the risk of suicide to all groups?
> 
> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/libra...rategy-suicide-prevention/full_report-rev.pdf
> 
> The suicide rate for homosexuals is higher than average. Gay men are 4 times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide. Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to commit suicide.
> 
> And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.
> 
> _Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
> 2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
> rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1
> _
> Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must hate America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure, only you can answer that one, but it's obvious you are full of hatred
Click to expand...

Interesting that gay teens are more suicidal the combat veterans. Only twice the suicide rate of the general population, Homosexual teens are 4 to 6 times a suicidal. But yea, Homosexuals are mentally well adjusted while veterans have PTSD. 
Suicide rate for veterans far exceeds that of civilian population Center for Public Integrity


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I said and is true is that no business must provide an item that they do not already provide. And yes, wedding cakes are ordered out of a catalog, you dolt. You don't walk in with a fucking blueprint, Dumber than the Average Cockroach.
> 
> If you sell the product to Person A, you must also sell the product to Person B. It can't get any simpler than that and you still don't understand? That's so sad...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so stupid and dishonest.
> 
> Look at this link
> 
> Elegant Cakery. Porcelain Cake Toppers
> 
> show me where you see a wedding cake topper with two men or two women. You don't.
> 
> Should that bakery be forced to provide one should a gay couple want one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A cake topper is not a cake Dolt Bear. If they don't sell same sex cake toppers, they don't have to carry them but they still have to make the cake.
> 
> I don't think I can make this any simpler for your poor stupid little brain. If you sell an item to the straight couple, in some states you also have to sell it to the gay couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God you are stupid.
> 
> 
> When was the last time you heard of ANYONE buying a wedding cake without a topper? Oh, that's right, they don't.
> 
> Why are you so dishonest SeaBytch? Why must you make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE to have a rationale discussion with you? Do you see a poster like say Syriusly who has almost the exact same opinions as you but doesn't feel the need to LIE about everything?
> 
> NOBODY, but NOBODY walks into a bakery and buys a wedding cake and doesn't have it customized for them.
> 
> Meaning , that every couple who buys a wedding cake is asking for it to be made FOR THEM. It isn't like faggots are walking into buy a set of tires that are on a shelf.
> 
> Last chance, bring up your bullshit about this again and I'll place you on ignore with the other children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who gives two shits about cake toppers? A baker can tell people to get their own. It has been done before. People can and do use their own custom topper
> 
> geeze
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point being , SeaBytch has been claiming for two days that the bakers would have had no idea if they were gay because all they did was walk in and pick a cake out of a catalog, and it doesn't work that way.
> 
> Not unless you're doing your wedding for $50 total I guess.
> 
> I've been married 8 years and when we found a baker, we spent 2 fucking weeks tasting cakes, choosing cakes, choosing frostings, etc etc, the baker definitely realized we were man and soon to be wife. She didn't have to ask.
Click to expand...


I get it... she's full of it and I believe ya.  

She's just pushin' your buttons.  It means that is all she's got left.  You're wearin' her down.


----------



## Dante

Steinlight said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
> Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf
> 
> Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will let you know when I manage to find a hint of concern for children among your anti-homosexual posts.
> 
> Again- my point is how how you cherry pick reasons why you think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt- and then do not apply the same standards to non-homosexuals.
> 
> So on to 'suicide'
> 
> Are you applying the same standards when it comes to the risk of suicide to all groups?
> 
> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/libra...rategy-suicide-prevention/full_report-rev.pdf
> 
> The suicide rate for homosexuals is higher than average. Gay men are 4 times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide. Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to commit suicide.
> 
> And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.
> 
> _Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
> 2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
> rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1
> _
> Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
> Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf
> 
> Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will let you know when I manage to find a hint of concern for children among your anti-homosexual posts.
> 
> Again- my point is how how you cherry pick reasons why you think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt- and then do not apply the same standards to non-homosexuals.
> 
> So on to 'suicide'
> 
> Are you applying the same standards when it comes to the risk of suicide to all groups?
> 
> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/libra...rategy-suicide-prevention/full_report-rev.pdf
> 
> The suicide rate for homosexuals is higher than average. Gay men are 4 times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide. Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to commit suicide.
> 
> And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.
> 
> _Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
> 2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
> rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1
> _
> Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must hate America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure, only you can answer that one, but it's obvious you are full of hatred
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting that gay teens are more suicidal the combat veterans. Only twice the suicide rate of the general population, Homosexual teens are 4 to 6 times a suicidal. But yea, Homosexuals are mentally well adjusted while veterans have PTSD.
> Suicide rate for veterans far exceeds that of civilian population Center for Public Integrity
Click to expand...


Idiot alert!

you do know most active military with PTSD serve without reasonable accommodations? It's because PTSD is a normal response and hardly debilitating -- unless your a Vietnam era vet looking to scam the system. 

I suspect gay teens have PTSD too after maybe growing up near the likes of you


----------



## Steinlight

Dante said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will let you know when I manage to find a hint of concern for children among your anti-homosexual posts.
> 
> Again- my point is how how you cherry pick reasons why you think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt- and then do not apply the same standards to non-homosexuals.
> 
> So on to 'suicide'
> 
> Are you applying the same standards when it comes to the risk of suicide to all groups?
> 
> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/libra...rategy-suicide-prevention/full_report-rev.pdf
> 
> The suicide rate for homosexuals is higher than average. Gay men are 4 times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide. Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to commit suicide.
> 
> And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.
> 
> _Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
> 2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
> rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1
> _
> Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will let you know when I manage to find a hint of concern for children among your anti-homosexual posts.
> 
> Again- my point is how how you cherry pick reasons why you think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt- and then do not apply the same standards to non-homosexuals.
> 
> So on to 'suicide'
> 
> Are you applying the same standards when it comes to the risk of suicide to all groups?
> 
> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/libra...rategy-suicide-prevention/full_report-rev.pdf
> 
> The suicide rate for homosexuals is higher than average. Gay men are 4 times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide. Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to commit suicide.
> 
> And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.
> 
> _Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
> 2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
> rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1
> _
> Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must hate America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure, only you can answer that one, but it's obvious you are full of hatred
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting that gay teens are more suicidal the combat veterans. Only twice the suicide rate of the general population, Homosexual teens are 4 to 6 times a suicidal. But yea, Homosexuals are mentally well adjusted while veterans have PTSD.
> Suicide rate for veterans far exceeds that of civilian population Center for Public Integrity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot alert!
> 
> you do know most active military with PTSD serve without reasonable accommodations? It's because PTSD is a normal response and hardly debilitating -- unless your a Vietnam era vet looking to scam the system.
> 
> I suspect gay teens have PTSD too after maybe growing up near the likes of you
Click to expand...

Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## Dante

Steinlight said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must hate America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure, only you can answer that one, but it's obvious you are full of hatred
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting that gay teens are more suicidal the combat veterans. Only twice the suicide rate of the general population, Homosexual teens are 4 to 6 times a suicidal. But yea, Homosexuals are mentally well adjusted while veterans have PTSD.
> Suicide rate for veterans far exceeds that of civilian population Center for Public Integrity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot alert!
> 
> you do know most active military with PTSD serve without reasonable accommodations? It's because PTSD is a normal response and hardly debilitating -- unless your a Vietnam era vet looking to scam the system.
> 
> I suspect gay teens have PTSD too after maybe growing up near the likes of you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
> Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI
Click to expand...


The same way I'd explain why women in industrialized capitalist democracies where commercialism reigns supreme are into Choke and Puke as an _apéritif_ and yoyo dieting is a way of life.

Self esteem and self worth get defined by the culture. If you think gays are not discriminated in other industrialized nations you really do need to crawl out from under your rock

Okay Stein-lite?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Steinlight said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must hate America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure, only you can answer that one, but it's obvious you are full of hatred
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting that gay teens are more suicidal the combat veterans. Only twice the suicide rate of the general population, Homosexual teens are 4 to 6 times a suicidal. But yea, Homosexuals are mentally well adjusted while veterans have PTSD.
> Suicide rate for veterans far exceeds that of civilian population Center for Public Integrity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot alert!
> 
> you do know most active military with PTSD serve without reasonable accommodations? It's because PTSD is a normal response and hardly debilitating -- unless your a Vietnam era vet looking to scam the system.
> 
> I suspect gay teens have PTSD too after maybe growing up near the likes of you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
> Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI
Click to expand...


LOL!  Ain't it cool how no matter WHAT the issue is, "THEY" are never responsible for a dam' thing "they" do... unless "THEY" are Americans... then "THEY" are responsible for _ALL OF IT!_


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must hate America!
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure, only you can answer that one, but it's obvious you are full of hatred
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting that gay teens are more suicidal the combat veterans. Only twice the suicide rate of the general population, Homosexual teens are 4 to 6 times a suicidal. But yea, Homosexuals are mentally well adjusted while veterans have PTSD.
> Suicide rate for veterans far exceeds that of civilian population Center for Public Integrity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot alert!
> 
> you do know most active military with PTSD serve without reasonable accommodations? It's because PTSD is a normal response and hardly debilitating -- unless your a Vietnam era vet looking to scam the system.
> 
> I suspect gay teens have PTSD too after maybe growing up near the likes of you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
> Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same way I'd explain why women in industrialized capitalist democracies where commercialism reigns supreme are into Choke and Puke as an _apéritif_ and yoyo dieting is a way of life.
> 
> Self esteem and self worth get defined by the culture. If you think gays are not discriminated in other industrialized nations you really do need to crawl out from under your rock
Click to expand...




Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> The role of the the state should be to promote procreation and a stable family environment for the children of these unions. Legalizing gay marriage serves no purpose towards this end and incentivizes a degenerate and destructive lifestyle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are thinking of something completely different from marriage.
> 
> Because marriage right now doesn't promote procreation or a stable family environment for children.
> 
> Marriage only legally binds two people together.
> 
> Those two people can choose to try to have children or chose to not try to have children- and the state doesn't care.
> Those two people can have children- and not marry- and the state doesn't care.
> Those two people can be married, and have children- and decide to divorce- and the state doesn't care.
> 
> Really- if you want marriage to promote procreation and a stable family environment you needs something radically different than current legal marriage. There is nothing about current marriage law that accomplishes those things.
> 
> Hell Wisconsin requires first cousins to prove that they cannot have children together before they can marry- i.e. just the opposite of what you say the role of the State should be.
> 
> But if you want to treat same gender couples the same as opposite gender couples who cannot- or do not want to have children- and only allow marriage to those couples who are physically capable of procreation, and commit to having children, and become divorced if they don't have children- but can't divorce if they do have children- well that would be equal at least.
> 
> But right now all you are in essence saying is that you don't want the children of gay couples to have married parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment.
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well there we go.
> 
> You start from a position of wanting to deny children parents- if they happen to be gay.
> 
> And you don't believe in equal treatment.
> 
> You don't want the children of gay couples to have married parents.
> 
> In the words of Justice Kennedy- the likely swing vote when this reaches the Supreme Court:
> 
> "There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"
> 
> You are telling Justice Kennedy "Hell no"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if Justice Kennedy said that, I am very disappointed in him. That a learned man would say something as silly that children's biased opinions should be reflected in our law and government policy. I suppose he thinks that voting age restrictions are bad as well. Aren't children's voices important on a plethora of issues by that standard?
Click to expand...

You have no idea what Kennedy says on things like this?  Yet you comment as if you -- oh never mind.

btw, who is your US Rep?


----------



## Dante

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must hate America!
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure, only you can answer that one, but it's obvious you are full of hatred
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting that gay teens are more suicidal the combat veterans. Only twice the suicide rate of the general population, Homosexual teens are 4 to 6 times a suicidal. But yea, Homosexuals are mentally well adjusted while veterans have PTSD.
> Suicide rate for veterans far exceeds that of civilian population Center for Public Integrity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot alert!
> 
> you do know most active military with PTSD serve without reasonable accommodations? It's because PTSD is a normal response and hardly debilitating -- unless your a Vietnam era vet looking to scam the system.
> 
> I suspect gay teens have PTSD too after maybe growing up near the likes of you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
> Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Ain't it cool how no matter WHAT the issue is, "THEY" are never responsible for a dam' thing "they" do... unless "THEY" are Americans... then "THEY" are responsible for _ALL OF IT!_
Click to expand...



can we get a translator in Room 666?


----------



## Steinlight

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must hate America!
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure, only you can answer that one, but it's obvious you are full of hatred
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting that gay teens are more suicidal the combat veterans. Only twice the suicide rate of the general population, Homosexual teens are 4 to 6 times a suicidal. But yea, Homosexuals are mentally well adjusted while veterans have PTSD.
> Suicide rate for veterans far exceeds that of civilian population Center for Public Integrity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot alert!
> 
> you do know most active military with PTSD serve without reasonable accommodations? It's because PTSD is a normal response and hardly debilitating -- unless your a Vietnam era vet looking to scam the system.
> 
> I suspect gay teens have PTSD too after maybe growing up near the likes of you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
> Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Ain't it cool how no matter WHAT the issue is, "THEY" are never responsible for a dam' thing "they" do... unless "THEY" are Americans... then "THEY" are responsible for _ALL OF IT!_
Click to expand...

Yea, like how America's imperialism caused the Taliban to kill 100 Pakistani children today, or a Muslim fanatic to kill 2 Australian hostages. Oppressive right wing racist shitlords.


----------



## Steinlight

Dante said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must hate America!
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure, only you can answer that one, but it's obvious you are full of hatred
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting that gay teens are more suicidal the combat veterans. Only twice the suicide rate of the general population, Homosexual teens are 4 to 6 times a suicidal. But yea, Homosexuals are mentally well adjusted while veterans have PTSD.
> Suicide rate for veterans far exceeds that of civilian population Center for Public Integrity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot alert!
> 
> you do know most active military with PTSD serve without reasonable accommodations? It's because PTSD is a normal response and hardly debilitating -- unless your a Vietnam era vet looking to scam the system.
> 
> I suspect gay teens have PTSD too after maybe growing up near the likes of you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
> Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same way I'd explain why women in industrialized capitalist democracies where commercialism reigns supreme are into Choke and Puke as an _apéritif_ and yoyo dieting is a way of life.
> 
> Self esteem and self worth get defined by the culture. If you think gays are not discriminated in other industrialized nations you really do need to crawl out from under your rock
> 
> Okay Stein-lite?
Click to expand...

How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Steinlight said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure, only you can answer that one, but it's obvious you are full of hatred
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that gay teens are more suicidal the combat veterans. Only twice the suicide rate of the general population, Homosexual teens are 4 to 6 times a suicidal. But yea, Homosexuals are mentally well adjusted while veterans have PTSD.
> Suicide rate for veterans far exceeds that of civilian population Center for Public Integrity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot alert!
> 
> you do know most active military with PTSD serve without reasonable accommodations? It's because PTSD is a normal response and hardly debilitating -- unless your a Vietnam era vet looking to scam the system.
> 
> I suspect gay teens have PTSD too after maybe growing up near the likes of you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
> Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Ain't it cool how no matter WHAT the issue is, "THEY" are never responsible for a dam' thing "they" do... unless "THEY" are Americans... then "THEY" are responsible for _ALL OF IT!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea, like how America's imperialism caused the Taliban to kill 100 Pakistani children today, or a Muslim fanatic to kill 2 Australian hostages. Oppressive right wing racist shitlords.
Click to expand...


*BAD US!* _*BAD US* FOR MAKING ISLAM SO BAD!_


----------



## Dante

Steinlight said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure, only you can answer that one, but it's obvious you are full of hatred
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that gay teens are more suicidal the combat veterans. Only twice the suicide rate of the general population, Homosexual teens are 4 to 6 times a suicidal. But yea, Homosexuals are mentally well adjusted while veterans have PTSD.
> Suicide rate for veterans far exceeds that of civilian population Center for Public Integrity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot alert!
> 
> you do know most active military with PTSD serve without reasonable accommodations? It's because PTSD is a normal response and hardly debilitating -- unless your a Vietnam era vet looking to scam the system.
> 
> I suspect gay teens have PTSD too after maybe growing up near the likes of you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
> Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Ain't it cool how no matter WHAT the issue is, "THEY" are never responsible for a dam' thing "they" do... unless "THEY" are Americans... then "THEY" are responsible for _ALL OF IT!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea, like how America's imperialism caused the Taliban to kill 100 Pakistani children today, or a Muslim fanatic to kill 2 Australian hostages. Oppressive right wing racist shitlords.
Click to expand...

jesus, you're pathetically unoriginal


----------



## Dante

Steinlight said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure, only you can answer that one, but it's obvious you are full of hatred
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that gay teens are more suicidal the combat veterans. Only twice the suicide rate of the general population, Homosexual teens are 4 to 6 times a suicidal. But yea, Homosexuals are mentally well adjusted while veterans have PTSD.
> Suicide rate for veterans far exceeds that of civilian population Center for Public Integrity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot alert!
> 
> you do know most active military with PTSD serve without reasonable accommodations? It's because PTSD is a normal response and hardly debilitating -- unless your a Vietnam era vet looking to scam the system.
> 
> I suspect gay teens have PTSD too after maybe growing up near the likes of you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
> Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same way I'd explain why women in industrialized capitalist democracies where commercialism reigns supreme are into Choke and Puke as an _apéritif_ and yoyo dieting is a way of life.
> 
> Self esteem and self worth get defined by the culture. If you think gays are not discriminated in other industrialized nations you really do need to crawl out from under your rock
> 
> Okay Stein-lite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?
Click to expand...

Try asking somebody who is gay and from there


----------



## Steinlight

Dante said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that gay teens are more suicidal the combat veterans. Only twice the suicide rate of the general population, Homosexual teens are 4 to 6 times a suicidal. But yea, Homosexuals are mentally well adjusted while veterans have PTSD.
> Suicide rate for veterans far exceeds that of civilian population Center for Public Integrity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot alert!
> 
> you do know most active military with PTSD serve without reasonable accommodations? It's because PTSD is a normal response and hardly debilitating -- unless your a Vietnam era vet looking to scam the system.
> 
> I suspect gay teens have PTSD too after maybe growing up near the likes of you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
> Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same way I'd explain why women in industrialized capitalist democracies where commercialism reigns supreme are into Choke and Puke as an _apéritif_ and yoyo dieting is a way of life.
> 
> Self esteem and self worth get defined by the culture. If you think gays are not discriminated in other industrialized nations you really do need to crawl out from under your rock
> 
> Okay Stein-lite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try asking somebody who is gay and from there
Click to expand...

I am asking you, because you said discrimination there is responsible for the high suicide rate. How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?


----------



## Dante

Steinlight said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot alert!
> 
> you do know most active military with PTSD serve without reasonable accommodations? It's because PTSD is a normal response and hardly debilitating -- unless your a Vietnam era vet looking to scam the system.
> 
> I suspect gay teens have PTSD too after maybe growing up near the likes of you
> 
> 
> 
> Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
> Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same way I'd explain why women in industrialized capitalist democracies where commercialism reigns supreme are into Choke and Puke as an _apéritif_ and yoyo dieting is a way of life.
> 
> Self esteem and self worth get defined by the culture. If you think gays are not discriminated in other industrialized nations you really do need to crawl out from under your rock
> 
> Okay Stein-lite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try asking somebody who is gay and from there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am asking you, because you said discrimination there is responsible for the high suicide rate. How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?
Click to expand...

A contributing factor of course. Go look it up.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Steinlight said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot alert!
> 
> you do know most active military with PTSD serve without reasonable accommodations? It's because PTSD is a normal response and hardly debilitating -- unless your a Vietnam era vet looking to scam the system.
> 
> I suspect gay teens have PTSD too after maybe growing up near the likes of you
> 
> 
> 
> Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
> Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same way I'd explain why women in industrialized capitalist democracies where commercialism reigns supreme are into Choke and Puke as an _apéritif_ and yoyo dieting is a way of life.
> 
> Self esteem and self worth get defined by the culture. If you think gays are not discriminated in other industrialized nations you really do need to crawl out from under your rock
> 
> Okay Stein-lite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try asking somebody who is gay and from there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you, because you said discrimination there is responsible for the high suicide rate. How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?
Click to expand...


​


----------



## Steinlight

Dante said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
> Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way I'd explain why women in industrialized capitalist democracies where commercialism reigns supreme are into Choke and Puke as an _apéritif_ and yoyo dieting is a way of life.
> 
> Self esteem and self worth get defined by the culture. If you think gays are not discriminated in other industrialized nations you really do need to crawl out from under your rock
> 
> Okay Stein-lite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try asking somebody who is gay and from there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am asking you, because you said discrimination there is responsible for the high suicide rate. How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A contributing factor of course. Go look it up.
Click to expand...

You are just repeating yourself, saying it causes suicide. How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands? You made the claim, the onus is on you to prove the claim. Why do you keep avoiding the question?


----------



## Steinlight

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, fair enough, I am a bible thumping fly over country bigot, perhaps lets just assume that is the case and my internet posts and America's "persecution" of homosexual causes suicide. But then how do you explain gays are more suicidal due to underlying mental pathologies across the world? Including in a progressive, socially liberal place like the Netherlands, where drugs and prostitution among other deviant behaviors abound with no restrictions and "no judging!".
> Suicidality and sexual orientation differences between men and wom... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way I'd explain why women in industrialized capitalist democracies where commercialism reigns supreme are into Choke and Puke as an _apéritif_ and yoyo dieting is a way of life.
> 
> Self esteem and self worth get defined by the culture. If you think gays are not discriminated in other industrialized nations you really do need to crawl out from under your rock
> 
> Okay Stein-lite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try asking somebody who is gay and from there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you, because you said discrimination there is responsible for the high suicide rate. How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...

He won't ever get give a concrete answer. He will just say how "obvious" it is and to "google it". But somehow I am the homophobic shitlord demanding he back up his claims. The thing with the Left is they never have to prove anything. Their world view is confirmed by their FEELINGS, how dare you invalidate them!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

aq`1  <<  LOL!  My Dog "Gunner" typed that!




Steinlight said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same way I'd explain why women in industrialized capitalist democracies where commercialism reigns supreme are into Choke and Puke as an _apéritif_ and yoyo dieting is a way of life.
> 
> Self esteem and self worth get defined by the culture. If you think gays are not discriminated in other industrialized nations you really do need to crawl out from under your rock
> 
> Okay Stein-lite?
> 
> 
> 
> How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try asking somebody who is gay and from there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you, because you said discrimination there is responsible for the high suicide rate. How are gays discriminated against in the Netherlands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He won't ever get give a concrete answer. He will just say how "obvious" it is and to "google it". But somehow I am the homophobic shitlord demanding he back up his claims. The thing with the Left is they never have to prove anything. Their world view is confirmed by their FEELINGS, how dare you invalidate them!
Click to expand...


LOL!  I know... it's pure Ideological GOLD!


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I said and is true is that no business must provide an item that they do not already provide. And yes, wedding cakes are ordered out of a catalog, you dolt. You don't walk in with a fucking blueprint, Dumber than the Average Cockroach.
> 
> If you sell the product to Person A, you must also sell the product to Person B. It can't get any simpler than that and you still don't understand? That's so sad...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so stupid and dishonest.
> 
> Look at this link
> 
> Elegant Cakery. Porcelain Cake Toppers
> 
> show me where you see a wedding cake topper with two men or two women. You don't.
> 
> Should that bakery be forced to provide one should a gay couple want one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A cake topper is not a cake Dolt Bear. If they don't sell same sex cake toppers, they don't have to carry them but they still have to make the cake.
> 
> I don't think I can make this any simpler for your poor stupid little brain. If you sell an item to the straight couple, in some states you also have to sell it to the gay couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God you are stupid.
> 
> 
> When was the last time you heard of ANYONE buying a wedding cake without a topper? Oh, that's right, they don't.
> 
> Why are you so dishonest SeaBytch? Why must you make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE to have a rationale discussion with you? Do you see a poster like say Syriusly who has almost the exact same opinions as you but doesn't feel the need to LIE about everything?
> 
> NOBODY, but NOBODY walks into a bakery and buys a wedding cake and doesn't have it customized for them.
> 
> Meaning , that every couple who buys a wedding cake is asking for it to be made FOR THEM. It isn't like faggots are walking into buy a set of tires that are on a shelf.
> 
> Last chance, bring up your bullshit about this again and I'll place you on ignore with the other children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who gives two shits about cake toppers? A baker can tell people to get their own. It has been done before. People can and do use their own custom topper
> 
> geeze
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point being , SeaBytch has been claiming for two days that the bakers would have had no idea if they were gay because all they did was walk in and pick a cake out of a catalog, and it doesn't work that way.
> 
> Not unless you're doing your wedding for $50 total I guess.
> 
> I've been married 8 years and when we found a baker, we spent 2 fucking weeks tasting cakes, choosing cakes, choosing frostings, etc etc, the baker definitely realized we were man and soon to be wife. She didn't have to ask.
Click to expand...


Wrong. I never said the baker didn't know they were gay Too Dumb to Breath, I said that they ordered the same cake a heterosexual would order and the baker refused them. That's where the law breaking and discrimination come in, Stupid as Fuck.


----------



## Seawytch

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting article, if anyone cares to be honest enough to read it
> 
> Not all children raised by gay parents support gay marriage I should know I 8217 m one of them Opinion LifeSite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup...keep telling us how you're not a homophobic bigot while you troll NARTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what the hell are you talking about?
Click to expand...


I'm talking about your false claim that you're not a homophobe. People who are not homophobes don't troll homophobic sites for bullshit studies.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so stupid and dishonest.
> 
> Look at this link
> 
> Elegant Cakery. Porcelain Cake Toppers
> 
> show me where you see a wedding cake topper with two men or two women. You don't.
> 
> Should that bakery be forced to provide one should a gay couple want one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A cake topper is not a cake Dolt Bear. If they don't sell same sex cake toppers, they don't have to carry them but they still have to make the cake.
> 
> I don't think I can make this any simpler for your poor stupid little brain. If you sell an item to the straight couple, in some states you also have to sell it to the gay couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God you are stupid.
> 
> 
> When was the last time you heard of ANYONE buying a wedding cake without a topper? Oh, that's right, they don't.
> 
> Why are you so dishonest SeaBytch? Why must you make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE to have a rationale discussion with you? Do you see a poster like say Syriusly who has almost the exact same opinions as you but doesn't feel the need to LIE about everything?
> 
> NOBODY, but NOBODY walks into a bakery and buys a wedding cake and doesn't have it customized for them.
> 
> Meaning , that every couple who buys a wedding cake is asking for it to be made FOR THEM. It isn't like faggots are walking into buy a set of tires that are on a shelf.
> 
> Last chance, bring up your bullshit about this again and I'll place you on ignore with the other children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who gives two shits about cake toppers? A baker can tell people to get their own. It has been done before. People can and do use their own custom topper
> 
> geeze
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point being , SeaBytch has been claiming for two days that the bakers would have had no idea if they were gay because all they did was walk in and pick a cake out of a catalog, and it doesn't work that way.
> 
> Not unless you're doing your wedding for $50 total I guess.
> 
> I've been married 8 years and when we found a baker, we spent 2 fucking weeks tasting cakes, choosing cakes, choosing frostings, etc etc, the baker definitely realized we were man and soon to be wife. She didn't have to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. I never said the baker didn't know they were gay Too Dumb to Breath, I said that they ordered the same cake a heterosexual would order and the baker refused them. That's where the law breaking and discrimination come in, Stupid as Fuck.
Click to expand...


Of course they refused... they're people of the same gender pretending to _get MARRIED! _ What self respecting person _would_ serve them?

Let me help you through this: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  Been that way sinc the flood sweety.  Nothing complicated about any of this.

If you people can't get THIS much right, how do you expect anyone to accept you as people?

"People" know these things.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Seawytch said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting article, if anyone cares to be honest enough to read it
> 
> Not all children raised by gay parents support gay marriage I should know I 8217 m one of them Opinion LifeSite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup...keep telling us how you're not a homophobic bigot while you troll NARTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what the hell are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about your false claim that you're not a homophobe. People who are not homophobes don't troll homophobic sites for bullshit studies.
Click to expand...



LOL I googled and that's the first study that came up.

HILARIOUS, now I'm a homophobe for attempting to educate myself before posting? I mean I realize that doing so is completely foreign to you , but homophobic? LOL


----------



## koshergrl

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.
Click to expand...


You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.

Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say. 

There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.

The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.
> 
> Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.
> 
> There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.
> 
> The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.
Click to expand...


So you lied and you really do read my posts. Totes adorbs!


----------



## Skylar

Steinlight said:


> I disagree, the law isn't set in stone as you suggest at all.



I never argued that the law was 'set in stone'. Quite the opposite. I've argued that even using your rational, the law makes millions upon millions of exceptions for straight couples. And that if it makes them for straights, it should make them for gays.



> It certainly wasn't the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment to allow interracial marriage, much less same sex marriage.



The framers of the 14th amendment intended the amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. And the 9th amendment makes clear that there are reserve rights that are unemumerated, yet still held by the people. Marriage is among them, recognized by the USSC as a fundamental right.

If you're going to deny that right to gays and lesbians, you'll need a very good reason.



> So you can make your appeal based on equality, but you can't make it on the law as you claim.



Obviously you can. As the framers of the 14th wanted all privileges and immunities of federal citizens protected from state interference. They demanded equal protection in the law. They didn't list which laws, they indicated merely 'the law'. The type of explicit cherry picking you're doing is something the framers of the 14th amendment never did.

And of course, the courts don't accept as valid. Rendering your standards irrelevant, both historically, logically, and legally.



> Also, the whole question where homosexuals are protected class is an issue.



Read Romer V. Evans and especially Windsor v the US if you want an indication of whether or not gays are protected. Pay special attention to those sections of the Windsor rulings on the harm to children done to children of gay parents when their parent's marriages aren't recognized under the law. Many of the same arguments I've made here were made by the justice that wrote both rulings: Justice Kennedy.

Or as I like to call him 'Mr. Swing Voter'. The man who most often breaks the ties in the USSC's most controversial cases. So to answer your question or whether or not gays are protected, the answer is a definitive 'yes'.



> Than the question arises, are homosexuals denied the right to marry(enter a union with someone of the opposite sex)? No, there is nothing stopping someone based on their orientation from entering into a marriage contract. So even if we accept your premise, which I disagree with, that homosexuals are a protected class under the 14th Amendment, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.



That's the same reasoning that was used to justify interracial marriage bans. Where since whites and blacks were both restricted to their own race, there were no equality conflicts, as the limitations applied to both whites and blacks equally.

*Problem is....there was no valid reason for the restriction. *Gay marriage bans run into the same problem. You'll need a valid state interest and a rational reason for the restriction. And gay marriage opponents have neither.

As the millions upon millions of the infertile or childless that are either married or are allowed to marry demonstrates, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. And in fact no one is required to have children or be able to have children in order to get married.

Why then would we invent a standard that applies to no one, exempt all straights and then apply it exclusively to gays? There's simply no reason.



> Gays and Lesbians can adopt children or create children with a surrogate, but the two partners can't have children.



Nor can infertile couples. Or those that choose to adopt rather than have their own children. But no one would insist that these aren't their children because of issues of fertility or adoption. Nor would that have any relevance to their parents ability to get married.

*If they're straight, that is.*

If they're gay, then your argument is quite common. And quite invalid. As you're holding gays to a completely different standard than you do straights. The children of gay couples are the children of gay couples, regardless of whether or not both are the biological parents. Or in the case of adoption, regardless of either are the biological parents.

And these children are harmed by the state refusing to recognize the marriages of their parents.



> Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license.



Why wouldn't we allow homosexuals to care for children? They have children, you know that right? Why would we not allow them to care for their own kids? And under what rational would we prevent them from adopting?

I'm not quite following your logic.



> I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with  same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents.



And on what rationale would you base this conclusion upon? You feel this to be true because.....

....you feel it to be true, apparently. But denying gays and lesbians the right to marry because you feel something you have no evidence to support isn't a very good reason.



> As for the discussion about children not receiving inheritance. Shouldn't they have thought of that by creating a will before time, or going through the proper adopting channels and gaining full parental rights on hospital issues?



Why should gay parents have to do any more or less 'thinking' about children than straight parents? The existence of such unjust restrictions doesn't actually justify such unjust restrictions.



> None of this is necessary for marriage, and it is a disingenuous argument that is supposed to pull at our heart strings so we give sanction to their immoral lifestyle.


[/quote]

The person you're arguing with isn't me. Its Justice Kennedy. As I very, very closely paraphrased his own ruling in the Windsor case.



> The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see _Lawrence_, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.
> 
> Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. It prevents same-sex married couplesfrom obtaining government healthcare benefits they would otherwise receive. See 5 U. S. C. §§8901(5), 8905. It deprives them of the Bankruptcy Code’s special protections for domestic-support obligations. See 11 U. S. C. §§101(14A), 507(a)(1)(A), 523(a)(5), 523(a)(15). It forces them to follow a complicated procedure to file their state and federal taxes jointly. Technical Bulletin TB–55, 2010 Vt. Tax LEXIS 6 (Oct. 7, 2010); Brief for Federalism Scholars as _Amici Curiae_ 34. It prohibits them from being buried together in veterans’ cemeteries. National Cemetery Administration Directive 3210/1, p. 37 (June 4, 2008).
> 
> DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas. Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 1998). And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. See Social Security Administration, Social Security Survivors Benefits 5 (2012) (benefits available to a surviving spouse caring for the couple’s child), online at http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf.
> 
> Justice Kennedy delivering the Majority Decision
> Windsor V. US (2013)
> 
> UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR LII Legal Information Institute



You can dismiss the majority decision of the USSC as a 'disingenuous argument that is supposed to pull at our heart strings so we give sanction to their immoral lifestyle". But I doubt you're going to see much legal progress with such an argument.

And of course, what about gays and lesbians getting married or raising children is 'immoral'?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Of course they refused... they're people of the same gender pretending to _get MARRIED! _ What self respecting person _would_ serve them?



The State recognizes their marriages as being as valid and as protected as any straight couple's marriage in 36 of 50 states. You can insist that these aren't marriages. The law says otherwise. 

And among the self respecting people that would serve gay folks, I would include myself. Part of my business is making custom cake toppers. I've made 2 for gay couples. And they paid very well. Why wouldn't I do business with them? 



> Let me help you through this: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  Been that way sinc the flood sweety.  Nothing complicated about any of this.



So you say. The law in 36 states says marriage can include one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman. That you disagree is legally irrelevant. As we don't base our law on your agreement.



> If you people can't get THIS much right, how do you expect anyone to accept you as people?



Because they are people. Its not that complicated.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Also, you are simply wrong, children from single parent and homosexual households are far more likely to have been physically and sexually abused. So your claim is wrong.
> Chapter Five What Factors Contribute to Child Abuse and Neglect
> How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships Findings from the New Family Structures Study
> Same-sex parenting and children s outcomes A closer examination of the American psychological association s brief on lesbian and gay parenting
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us start with 'Chapter 5'
> 
> Not one mention of being raised by homosexuals there. Not sure why you suddenly want to equate single parent with homosexual households.
> 
> Risk factors they mention:
> Parent factors- personality/history of maltreatment/substance abuse/attitudes and knowledge/age
> Family Factors- single parents families- families with lots of children- father absence- marital conflict- stress-
> Child factors (not really relevant)
> Environmental factors- poverty unemployment/social isolation
> 
> I am not sure how you think Chapter 5 supports your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link explains increased physical and sexual abuse in single parent households, you claimed a man in the household made it more dangerous for children, when children are more at risk in a single mother household. The bottom two links  explain increased risk in homosexual couple households..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so that is what is tweaking you out.
> 
> What I said was this:
> 
> _Men are more likely to molest than women- all men- all women- this is absolute- men are the molesters up to 98% of the time. Would you deny men or couples with men in them because they are more likely to molest?_
> 
> And that is a fact
> 
> Your Chapter 5 even explains this:
> 
> 
> A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. *Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children in this study lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.49*
> 
> *The statistics show how much more dangerous men are than women when it comes to child sexual assault.
> 
> http://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf*
> 
> Table 6- men are the abusers 88-99% of the time. Family members are the abusers 12-49% of the time.
> 
> Fathers- step fathers- grandfathers- brothers- all more dangerous than female family members.
> 
> IF you used consistent standards you would be saying that lesbian couples are the safest adoptive parents.
> 
> But instead you would deny adoption to every lesbian couple, and deny those children homes, even though they are more at risk- statistically for sexual abuse- than any household with a man in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what I posted, you claimed households without men are safer, my link shows that children in single mother households or from broken families are more vulnerable and your reposted my link. Why are you proving my points for me?
> 
> Children who grow up with homosexual parents are more likely to be abused sexually and physically than children heterosexual households my studies from Regnerus showed, ten times more likely. That doesn't even begin to touch the issue of domestic abuse. Homosexuals have higher instances of domestic violence, Lesbians have the highest rate of domestic violence of any pairing.
> Domestic violence rates are higher for homosexual couples than for heterosexual couples Wintery Knight
> 
> Now I know you might say, domestic violence doesn't affect children, but it does.
> Impact of Domestic Violence on Children
Click to expand...


I claimed that men are more much more likely to sexually molest a child than women. 
Remember- you were the one who made the false claim that homosexuals were more likely to molest than heterosexuals. I pointed out that statistically- all men are around 10 times more likely to molest a child than a woman is.

IF you want to make an argument that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt because they molest more than heterosexuals- then unless you also agree that men should not be allowed to adopt because men are much, much more likely to molest than women- you are just being hypocritical or disingenuous.

And then of course you come up with your next reason de jure....domestic violence.

Domestic violence is a very real problem- for both straight and gay couples. 

Lets look at the data

 as opposed to 46 percent of lesbian women and 43 percent of straight women. 
 For gay men, it was 40 percent, and 21 percent for straight men.

The rates for lesbians virtually identical as that for straight women.
Gay men suffer almost twice as high....suspiciously similar the rates suffered by straight women......all by men.

Again- the question is do you apply these same standards to all people- or just to homosexuals?

For instance- black women are 2.5 times more likely to be murdered than white women by their partners. Does that mean we shouldn't allow black women to adopt?

Every excuse you give for discriminating against homosexuals, I have shown that you do not apply the same standards to other populations. 

You simply are mining for excuses to discriminate against homosexuals- and don't care when the same issues affect other groups.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
> Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf
> 
> Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.
> 
> _Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
> 2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
> rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1
> _
> Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That stat in of itself means nothing. If you could show the difference between old white heterosexual males and old white homosexual males that would be a valuable statistic.
Click to expand...


None of the statistics mean anything when it comes to child rearing. 

The claim was made that homosexuals commit suicide more often than the average. Older white men commit suicide more often than the average. 

But you will not apply the same standard to other populations that you demand from homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.
> 
> Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.
> 
> There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.
> 
> The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.
Click to expand...


I always find it ironic- deeply and hilariously ironic- when kosher talks about other posters being hysterical poorly educated loons who cannot debate- who provide nothing but propaganda and tripe.

I think mirrors must break when she walks by.

Note the reference to Nazi's.

Loser.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
> Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf
> 
> Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will let you know when I manage to find a hint of concern for children among your anti-homosexual posts.
> 
> Again- my point is how how you cherry pick reasons why you think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt- and then do not apply the same standards to non-homosexuals.
> 
> So on to 'suicide'
> 
> Are you applying the same standards when it comes to the risk of suicide to all groups?
> 
> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/libra...rategy-suicide-prevention/full_report-rev.pdf
> 
> The suicide rate for homosexuals is higher than average. Gay men are 4 times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide. Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to commit suicide.
> 
> And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.
> 
> _Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
> 2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
> rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1
> _
> Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't just an issue of suicide rate. But on pure suicide rates, the most suicidal profession, physicians, are 1.87 times the average. Whereas LGBT youth for example are 4 to 6 times the average. Totally different degree of severity. Also whereas physicians aren't inherently suicidal, there is a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness that triggers suicidal tendencies.
> Highest Suicide Rate by Profession New Health Guide
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf
> 
> Honestly guy, you are out of your depth here. You are essentially ceding to my arguments but admitting you don't care. You put your egalitarian pathology above care for children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will let you know when I manage to find a hint of concern for children among your anti-homosexual posts.
> 
> Again- my point is how how you cherry pick reasons why you think homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt- and then do not apply the same standards to non-homosexuals.
> 
> So on to 'suicide'
> 
> Are you applying the same standards when it comes to the risk of suicide to all groups?
> 
> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/libra...rategy-suicide-prevention/full_report-rev.pdf
> 
> The suicide rate for homosexuals is higher than average. Gay men are 4 times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide. Lesbians are twice as likely as straight women to commit suicide.
> 
> And older white men are 3 times more likely than average Americans to commit suicide.
> 
> _Older men, in particular those who are white, have disproportionately high rates of death by suicide. In
> 2009, the rate of death by suicide among older white men was 30.15 per 100,000—almost three times the
> rate among the general population (11.77 per 100,000).1
> _
> Would you then advocate that couples that include an older white man shouldn't be allowed to adopt- because there is an increased likelihood that he will commit suicide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 22 Veterans commit suicide every single day. Guess veterans shouldn't have children or be able to adopt using this morons logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must hate America!
Click to expand...


Actually I think you hate Americans.


----------



## koshergrl

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.
> 
> Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.
> 
> There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.
> 
> The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you lied and you really do read my posts. Totes adorbs!
Click to expand...


I didn't lie. I said I had you on ignore because your posts are a total waste of time, and that since I have you on ignore I am able to mostly forget about you, because there is no gap left in ANY thread you're in, when your words are left out. You can't even tell someone's speaking..until someone gets sucked into your nonsense and THEY start talking to you. 

And somehow I un-ignored you..I need to remedy that now.


----------



## koshergrl

Syriusly said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.
> 
> Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.
> 
> There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.
> 
> The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always find it ironic- deeply and hilariously ironic- when kosher talks about other posters being hysterical poorly educated loons who cannot debate- who provide nothing but propaganda and tripe.
> 
> I think mirrors must break when she walks by.
> 
> Note the reference to Nazi's.
> 
> Loser.
Click to expand...


Nazis were heavily vested in propaganda, just like progressive loons.

And they counted on the support of dumb people who thought they were being fed *knowledge* instead of *propaganda*. Dumbasses like you.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.
> 
> Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.
> 
> There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.
> 
> The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always find it ironic- deeply and hilariously ironic- when kosher talks about other posters being hysterical poorly educated loons who cannot debate- who provide nothing but propaganda and tripe.
> 
> I think mirrors must break when she walks by.
> 
> Note the reference to Nazi's.
> 
> Loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazis were heavily vested in propaganda, just like progressive loons.
> 
> And they counted on the support of dumb people who thought they were being fed *knowledge* instead of *propaganda*. Dumbasses like you.
Click to expand...


Like I said- note the Nazi reference.

Godwin s law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
*Godwin's law* (or *Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies*)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitlerapproaches 1"[2][3]— that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.
> 
> Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.
> 
> There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.
> 
> The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you lied and you really do read my posts. Totes adorbs!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't lie. I said I had you on ignore because your posts are a total waste of time, and that since I have you on ignore I am able to mostly forget about you, because there is no gap left in ANY thread you're in, when your words are left out. You can't even tell someone's speaking..until someone gets sucked into your nonsense and THEY start talking to you.
> 
> And somehow I un-ignored you..I need to remedy that now.
Click to expand...



Liar, liar pants on fire!


----------



## koshergrl

Syriusly said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.
> 
> Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.
> 
> There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.
> 
> The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always find it ironic- deeply and hilariously ironic- when kosher talks about other posters being hysterical poorly educated loons who cannot debate- who provide nothing but propaganda and tripe.
> 
> I think mirrors must break when she walks by.
> 
> Note the reference to Nazi's.
> 
> Loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazis were heavily vested in propaganda, just like progressive loons.
> 
> And they counted on the support of dumb people who thought they were being fed *knowledge* instead of *propaganda*. Dumbasses like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said- note the Nazi reference.
Click to expand...


Get used to it. You loons think you can snigger about "Godwin's Law" and that will shame people into never commenting on the fact that you are the same people (different generation) that facilitated the nastiest aspects of nazism to take root, grow, and eventually bring shame to people of all nationalities who bought into their garbage.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.
> 
> Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.
> 
> There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.
> 
> The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always find it ironic- deeply and hilariously ironic- when kosher talks about other posters being hysterical poorly educated loons who cannot debate- who provide nothing but propaganda and tripe.
> 
> I think mirrors must break when she walks by.
> 
> Note the reference to Nazi's.
> 
> Loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazis were heavily vested in propaganda, just like progressive loons.
> 
> And they counted on the support of dumb people who thought they were being fed *knowledge* instead of *propaganda*. Dumbasses like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said- note the Nazi reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get used to it. You loons think you can snigger about "Godwin's Law" and that will shame people into .
Click to expand...


Oh I have no illusions that no one could make you feel shame about anything you post.

I am just enjoying pointing out that your arguments are reduced to calling out "Nazi's!" "Nazi's"


----------



## koshergrl

Syriusly said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.
> 
> Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.
> 
> There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.
> 
> The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always find it ironic- deeply and hilariously ironic- when kosher talks about other posters being hysterical poorly educated loons who cannot debate- who provide nothing but propaganda and tripe.
> 
> I think mirrors must break when she walks by.
> 
> Note the reference to Nazi's.
> 
> Loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazis were heavily vested in propaganda, just like progressive loons.
> 
> And they counted on the support of dumb people who thought they were being fed *knowledge* instead of *propaganda*. Dumbasses like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said- note the Nazi reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get used to it. You loons think you can snigger about "Godwin's Law" and that will shame people into .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I have no illusions that no one could make you feel shame about anything you post.
> 
> I am just enjoying pointing out that your arguments are reduced to calling out "Nazi's!" "Nazi's"
Click to expand...


It's not *reduced*...at least not in the way you like to pretend.

Progressives of today are, and always have been, the same as the progressives of yesteryear. Brain dead dupes who in their arrogance and their desperation to be considered *superior* despite the fact there is nothing particularly special about them, accept any feel-good claptrap thrown their way that will justify their self-serving criminality and innate laziness, and allow them to wipe out the competition DESPITE the fact they are unwilling to compete, but instead seek just to force their will upon vulnerable people..so that they may have more than their fair share of whatever resources are available.

You think you're special. You aren't. You're just criminal cretins. Nothing has changed at all. Least of all the types of people who allow that sort of nauseating ideology to take root and prosper.


----------



## Skylar

> Progressives of today are, and always have been, the same as the progressives of yesteryear. Brain dead dupes who in their arrogance and their desperation to be considered *superior* despite the fact there is nothing particularly special about them, accept any feel-good claptrap thrown their way that will justify their self-serving criminality and innate laziness, and allow them to wipe out the competition DESPITE the fact they are unwilling to compete, but instead seek just to force their will upon vulnerable people..so that they may have more than their fair share of whatever resources are available.



Or....we're people that think that if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you'll need a very good reason.

Which you don't have.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> Progressives of today are, and always have been, the same as the progressives of yesteryear. Brain dead dupes who in their arrogance and their desperation to be considered *superior* despite the fact there is nothing particularly special about them, accept any feel-good claptrap thrown their way that will justify their self-serving criminality and innate laziness, and allow them to wipe out the competition DESPITE the fact they are unwilling to compete, but instead seek just to force their will upon vulnerable people..so that they may have more than their fair share of whatever resources are available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or....we're people that think that if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you'll need a very good reason.
> 
> Which you don't have.
Click to expand...


Nope. 

You're the same lunatics who thought it was okay to corral Jews and kill off the disabled. For the sake of *health* and betterment of the race, of course.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> Progressives of today are, and always have been, the same as the progressives of yesteryear. Brain dead dupes who in their arrogance and their desperation to be considered *superior* despite the fact there is nothing particularly special about them, accept any feel-good claptrap thrown their way that will justify their self-serving criminality and innate laziness, and allow them to wipe out the competition DESPITE the fact they are unwilling to compete, but instead seek just to force their will upon vulnerable people..so that they may have more than their fair share of whatever resources are available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or....we're people that think that if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you'll need a very good reason.
> 
> Which you don't have.
Click to expand...


I could care less if queers get married in their own churches. I reserve the right not to marry them in mine.


----------



## Skylar

And almost everyone to reply to this thread, including the overwhelming majority of those you dismiss as 'criminal cretins' would agree with that. Marriage equality is about equal protection under the law. 

Religious belief I leave to the faithful.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Nope.
> 
> You're the same lunatics who thought it was okay to corral Jews and kill off the disabled. For the sake of *health* and betterment of the race, of course.



Nope. I've never made any such claim. If you believe I have, quote me. Just don't hold your breath while you look.

I'm the person that has said that gays and lesbians should have the same right to marry as anyone else. And who has openly and vocally come out in support of same sex marriage.


----------



## koshergrl

Good for you. Squawking about queers isn't what makes you a progressive. If you are pro-queer marriage but anti-abortion, then you aren't a progressive. If you are pro-abortion, and you think the state has the authority to FORCE the church to marry queers, then you are a progressive and you fit perfectly with my version of the progressive nazi psycho puke.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Good for you. Squawking about queers isn't what makes you a progressive. If you are pro-queer marriage but anti-abortion, then you aren't a progressive. If you are pro-abortion, and you think the state has the authority to FORCE the church to marry queers, then you are a progressive and you fit perfectly with my version of the progressive nazi psycho puke.



I don't know of anyone here that thinks the churches should be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. Most here are advocating the legal recognition of gay and lesbian marriages. And many have also argued that gays should be treated fairly and equally in business transactions. Beyond that, live and let live.


----------



## MaryL

Gays are the cause de jour, like big eyed sad little abused puppy dogs. Accept, they are just  sexual  perverts with big wallets and bought out the liberal conscience. Apparently you have to do what the masses dictate, and not be aloud to follow your conscience and descent because that's bigotry or homophobia or whatever, because THEY say so.


----------



## Skylar

MaryL said:


> Gays are the cause de jour, like big eyed sad little abused puppy dogs. Accept, they are just  sexual  perverts with big wallets and bought out the liberal conscience.



There must be a lot of liberals in this country then. As support for gay marriage is outpacing opposition by between 12 and 19 points is almost every poll over the last 2 years.

Support has even skyrocketed among self proclaimed conservatives.



> Apparently you have to do what the masses dictate, and not be aloud to follow your conscience and descent because that's bigotry or homophobia or whatever, because THEY say so.



Or what the constitution requires in terms of equal protection in the law.


----------



## MaryL

I am at a loss as to why homosexuality has become such an issue. I am missing something here. I see the rise in gays as an economic power,  buying out lawyers and coopting American culture. THAT is what I am seeing. America managed to get along  for over 250 years without recognizing sexual perversity as an issue until the last 20 years or so. I think this  goes a lot deeper than liberalism, if that is indeed what liberalism is about.


----------



## Skylar

MaryL said:


> I am at a loss as to why homosexuality has become such an issue. I am missing something here.



The issue is centered around treating gays and lesbians like people. With the same rights, freedoms and privileges as anyone else. 



> I see the rise in gays as an economic power,  buying out lawyers and coopting American culture. THAT is what I am seeing.



Its genuine public sentiment that seems to be shifting. As when you ask why gays should be treated poorly, like less, with fewer rights and freedoms, most opponents to gay marriage really couldn't give a good answer. 



> America managed to get along  for over 250 years without recognizing sexual perversity as an issue until the last 20 years or so. I think this  goes a lot deeper than liberalism, if that is indeed what liberalism is about.


[/quote]

It lasted a full 2 centuries without recognizing interracial marriage either. Clearly there are just some ideas that take a while to sink in.


----------



## Seawytch

MaryL said:


> I am at a loss as to why homosexuality has become such an issue. I am missing something here. I see the rise in gays as an economic power,  buying out lawyers and coopting American culture. THAT is what I am seeing. America managed to get along  for over 250 years without recognizing sexual perversity as an issue until the last 20 years or so. I think this  goes a lot deeper than liberalism, if that is indeed what liberalism is about.



Yeah, it's so surprising that a group of people would fight for their civil rights and after decades of doing so finally start to win them. Shocking!!!

What has precipitated the seemingly fast track on LGBT civil rights was first the AIDS epidemic which forced thousand of men out of their closets. Other people started joining them and soon there were too many people with gay family members that couldn't look their gay loved one in the eye and discriminate against them. 

Perversity is in the eye of the beholder and your fantasies about the sex lives of gays have nothing to do with whether or not they should be able to, as tax paying Americans, civilly marry each other. America won't end as a result, I promise.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> Good for you. Squawking about queers isn't what makes you a progressive. If you are pro-queer marriage but anti-abortion, then you aren't a progressive. If you are pro-abortion, and you think the state has the authority to FORCE the church to marry queers, then you are a progressive and you fit perfectly with my version of the progressive nazi psycho puke.




Somebody's off her meds. 

Guess what? You've obviously not read the thread and decided to just froth about "queers" because not a single person that has commented in the thread has advocated for the government forcing churches to marry *anybody*. You know they can't right? No church in the United States has ever, in the history of ever, been forced by the government to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. If you weren't aware, you're very welcome. It was my pleasure to educate. 

Nobody is "pro-abortion".


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always find it ironic- deeply and hilariously ironic- when kosher talks about other posters being hysterical poorly educated loons who cannot debate- who provide nothing but propaganda and tripe.
> 
> I think mirrors must break when she walks by.
> 
> Note the reference to Nazi's.
> 
> Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis were heavily vested in propaganda, just like progressive loons.
> 
> And they counted on the support of dumb people who thought they were being fed *knowledge* instead of *propaganda*. Dumbasses like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said- note the Nazi reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get used to it. You loons think you can snigger about "Godwin's Law" and that will shame people into .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I have no illusions that no one could make you feel shame about anything you post.
> 
> I am just enjoying pointing out that your arguments are reduced to calling out "Nazi's!" "Nazi's"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not *reduced*...at least not in the way you like to pretend.
> 
> Progressives of today are, and always have been, the same as the progressives of yesteryear. Brain dead dupes wr.
Click to expand...


Oh I have no illusions that no one could make you feel shame about anything you post.

I am just enjoying pointing out that your arguments are reduced to calling out "Nazi's!" "Nazi's"

After reading your last post- its just a variation on calling us all Nazi's.

Because that is all you have.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives of today are, and always have been, the same as the progressives of yesteryear. Brain dead dupes who in their arrogance and their desperation to be considered *superior* despite the fact there is nothing particularly special about them, accept any feel-good claptrap thrown their way that will justify their self-serving criminality and innate laziness, and allow them to wipe out the competition DESPITE the fact they are unwilling to compete, but instead seek just to force their will upon vulnerable people..so that they may have more than their fair share of whatever resources are available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or....we're people that think that if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you'll need a very good reason.
> 
> Which you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> You're the same lunatics who thought it was okay to corral Jews and kill off the disabled. For the sake of *health* and betterment of the race, of course.
Click to expand...


LOL- you are projecting your own fantasies of genocide I am afraid. The fantasies of bigots who believe that anyone who is different can be disposed of.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives of today are, and always have been, the same as the progressives of yesteryear. Brain dead dupes who in their arrogance and their desperation to be considered *superior* despite the fact there is nothing particularly special about them, accept any feel-good claptrap thrown their way that will justify their self-serving criminality and innate laziness, and allow them to wipe out the competition DESPITE the fact they are unwilling to compete, but instead seek just to force their will upon vulnerable people..so that they may have more than their fair share of whatever resources are available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or....we're people that think that if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you'll need a very good reason.
> 
> Which you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could care less if queers get married in their own churches. I reserve the right not to marry them in mine.
Click to expand...


Then why are you even in this thread? 

No one is going to force you church to marry anyone. No one has forced your church to marry Jews or blacks or Mormons and no one will force your church to marry homosexuals. Or force you to marry a homosexual.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you. Squawking about queers isn't what makes you a progressive. If you are pro-queer marriage but anti-abortion, then you aren't a progressive. If you are pro-abortion, and you think the state has the authority to FORCE the church to marry queers, then you are a progressive and you fit perfectly with my version of the progressive nazi psycho puke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone here that thinks the churches should be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. Most here are advocating the legal recognition of gay and lesbian marriages. And many have also argued that gays should be treated fairly and equally in business transactions. Beyond that, live and let live.
Click to expand...


Did you miss the thread title?


----------



## koshergrl

Syriusly said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives of today are, and always have been, the same as the progressives of yesteryear. Brain dead dupes who in their arrogance and their desperation to be considered *superior* despite the fact there is nothing particularly special about them, accept any feel-good claptrap thrown their way that will justify their self-serving criminality and innate laziness, and allow them to wipe out the competition DESPITE the fact they are unwilling to compete, but instead seek just to force their will upon vulnerable people..so that they may have more than their fair share of whatever resources are available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or....we're people that think that if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you'll need a very good reason.
> 
> Which you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could care less if queers get married in their own churches. I reserve the right not to marry them in mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are you even in this thread?
> 
> No one is going to force you church to marry anyone. No one has forced your church to marry Jews or blacks or Mormons and no one will force your church to marry homosexuals. Or force you to marry a homosexual.
Click to expand...


So the point of the thread is moot?

You agree that churches should never be forced to marry homosexuals, or be forced to accept them for membership, or be forced to accommodate homosexual social events..right?

I don't think so. I think what you are saying is that if a church ever allows their building to be used by the public, they must allow homosexuals to defile it at will.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives of today are, and always have been, the same as the progressives of yesteryear. Brain dead dupes who in their arrogance and their desperation to be considered *superior* despite the fact there is nothing particularly special about them, accept any feel-good claptrap thrown their way that will justify their self-serving criminality and innate laziness, and allow them to wipe out the competition DESPITE the fact they are unwilling to compete, but instead seek just to force their will upon vulnerable people..so that they may have more than their fair share of whatever resources are available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or....we're people that think that if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you'll need a very good reason.
> 
> Which you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could care less if queers get married in their own churches. I reserve the right not to marry them in mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are you even in this thread?
> 
> No one is going to force you church to marry anyone. No one has forced your church to marry Jews or blacks or Mormons and no one will force your church to marry homosexuals. Or force you to marry a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the point of the thread is moot?
> 
> You agree that churches should never be forced to marry homosexuals, or be forced to accept them for membership, or be forced to accommodate homosexual social events..right?
> 
> I don't think so. I think what you are saying is that if a church ever allows their building to be used by the public, they must allow homosexuals to defile it at will.
Click to expand...


I have repeatedly in this thread said that Churches should not- and will not- be forced to marry anyone against the churches will- and that would include homosexuals, blacks, Jews, Mormons, dwarfs, fat people or people with big hair. 

No church will be- or should be- required to allow membership for any person they don't believe meets their membership requirements- whether because they are gay or black or because they are Baptists.

Nor should any church be required to accommodate any social event by any persons that they do not believe they should- and that could include homosexuals or blacks or Mormons or Jews or fat people.

Your complete lack of reading comprehension from my repeated posts of my opinions that Churches should not- and will not be forced to marry anyone- including homosexuals that they don't want to- just shows how blind your bigotry and partisanship makes you.


----------



## koshergrl

So we agree.

I'm glad you came around.


----------



## WorldWatcher

koshergrl said:


> So the point of the thread is moot?



Pretty much if the basis of the discussion is government "force" as it pertains to religious ceremonies.



koshergrl said:


> You agree that churches should never be forced to marry homosexuals, or be forced to accept them for membership, or be forced to accommodate homosexual social events..right?



I recommend qualifying who you mean is doing the "Forcing".  If it is the government doing it, absolutely not.  On the other hand if it is the congregation that is telling the leadership of the church to be more accepting of LGBT individuals, and it passes by a majority vote, then the leadership can accept that result or resign.



koshergrl said:


> I don't think so. I think what you are saying is that if a church ever allows their building to be used by the public, they must allow homosexuals to defile it at will.



If a religious organization is renting the meeting halls, sports centers, family life space to the general public, then those specific activities are governed as commerce (advertising for and renting space is a business activity) and they may fall under Public Accommodation provisions (or not depending on state law).  If the religious organization doesn't want that to happen, simply don't rent to the general public - rent only to members of the congregation which means the activity is under the provisions of a private club and not a public business.


>>>>


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> So we agree.
> 
> I'm glad you came around.



I wonder who you are talking to- or maybe you are agreeing with yourself and think that the bigoted side of you finally came around and joined the intollerant side of you?

Meanwhile- I have consistently said that Churches will not and should not be forced to marry anyone against their will



Here are quotes of mine going back a week in this thread stating the same thing. 

_If you want to change the Constitution so that churches do not have the freedom to operate as they will, just change the Constitution.

Until then- no you can't force a church to marry blacks or Jews or homosexuals.


Any idiot can file a lawsuit- even you. But any such lawsuit would be dismissed- because Churches cannot be forced to marry blacks, Jews, homosexuals, or anyone else that they do not believe that they should not marry.

Churches are treated differently than non-churches- which is why they have a different tax status among other things.

But if you feel otherwise- feel free to file a lawsuit- unless you are a Catholic, you cannot be married in a Catholic Church- feel free to file a lawsuit to say that your rights are being violated by the Catholic Church not allowing you to marry in your local Cathedral

Pretty much everyone here who supports gay marriage- such as myself- also have said churches should not- and will not be forced to allow gay, jewish, black or any other marriage that churches do not want to perform.

Just a boogeyman by the homophobes to scare Americans.
_
*Your complete lack of reading comprehension from my repeated posts of my opinions that Churches should not- and will not be forced to marry anyone- including homosexuals that they don't want to- just shows how blind your bigotry and intellectual dishonesty makes you.*


----------



## koshergrl

Awesome. I'm glad I was able to convince you.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Awesome. I'm glad I was able to convince you.



I am just glad I was able to get you to admit you are a homophobic bigot who posts nothing but lies and hate.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you. Squawking about queers isn't what makes you a progressive. If you are pro-queer marriage but anti-abortion, then you aren't a progressive. If you are pro-abortion, and you think the state has the authority to FORCE the church to marry queers, then you are a progressive and you fit perfectly with my version of the progressive nazi psycho puke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone here that thinks the churches should be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. Most here are advocating the legal recognition of gay and lesbian marriages. And many have also argued that gays should be treated fairly and equally in business transactions. Beyond that, live and let live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the thread title?
Click to expand...


Did you miss the poll results?


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives of today are, and always have been, the same as the progressives of yesteryear. Brain dead dupes who in their arrogance and their desperation to be considered *superior* despite the fact there is nothing particularly special about them, accept any feel-good claptrap thrown their way that will justify their self-serving criminality and innate laziness, and allow them to wipe out the competition DESPITE the fact they are unwilling to compete, but instead seek just to force their will upon vulnerable people..so that they may have more than their fair share of whatever resources are available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or....we're people that think that if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you'll need a very good reason.
> 
> Which you don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could care less if queers get married in their own churches. I reserve the right not to marry them in mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are you even in this thread?
> 
> No one is going to force you church to marry anyone. No one has forced your church to marry Jews or blacks or Mormons and no one will force your church to marry homosexuals. Or force you to marry a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the point of the thread is moot?
> 
> You agree that churches should never be forced to marry homosexuals, or be forced to accept them for membership, or be forced to accommodate homosexual social events..right?
> 
> I don't think so. I think what you are saying is that if a church ever allows their building to be used by the public, they must allow homosexuals to defile it at will.
Click to expand...


A church should never have to perform any ceremony that is contrary to their faith.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignoring, on purpose, the point. Why be a child? Why not just go elsewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm stating the facts, not homophobic hyperbole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you demonize and call names.  That's not "criticism".  You don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> No!!!
> 
> The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
> The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
> The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
> Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A private club IS a place of business you idiot.
> 
> But, since you brought it up, please give the legal reason you differentiate between a "private club " and a business in regards to the unconstitutional public accommodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the Supreme Court
> 
> BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE
> 
> _Held:_  Applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale *violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association.*
> 
> Government actions that unconstitutionally burden that right may take many forms, *one of which is intrusion into a group’s internal affairs by forcing it to accept a member it does not desire. Roberts v. United States Jaycees,468 U.S. 609, 623. Such forced membership is unconstitutional if the person’s presence affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York,487 U.S. 1, 13. *However, the freedom of expressive association is not absolute; it can be overridden by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms. _Roberts, _468 U.S., at 623. To determine whether a group is protected, this Court must determine whether the group engages in “expressive association.” The record clearly reveals that the Boy Scouts does so when its adult leaders inculcate its youth members with its value system. See _id.,_ at 636. Thus, the Court must determine whether the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect the Boy Scouts’ ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. The Court first must inquire, to a limited extent, into the nature of the Boy Scouts’ viewpoints. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly those represented by the terms “morally straight” and “clean,” and that the organization does not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior. The Court gives deference to the Boy Scouts’ assertions regarding the nature of its expression, see,_Democratic Party of United States_ v. _Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette,_450 U.S. 107, 123—124. The Court then inquires whether Dale’s presence as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly burden the expression of those viewpoints. Dale, by his own admission, is one of a group of gay Scouts who have become community leaders and are open and honest about their sexual orientation. His presence as an assistant scoutmaster would interfere with the Scouts’ choice not to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs. See _Hurley, _515 U.S., at 576—577. This Court disagrees with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s determination that the Boy Scouts’ ability to disseminate its message would not be significantly affected by the forced inclusion of Dale. First, contrary to the state court’s view, an association need not associate for the purpose of disseminating a certain message in order to be protected, but must merely engage in expressive activity that could be impaired. Second, even if the Boy Scouts discourages Scout leaders from disseminating views on sexual issues, its method of expression is protected. Third, the First Amendment does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group’s policy to be “expressive association.” *Given that the Boy Scouts’ expression would be burdened, the Court must inquire whether the application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law here runs afoul the Scouts’ freedom of expressive association, and concludes that it does. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, but the faggot DID sue and force the issue all the way to SCOTUS instead of being reasonable and saying "okay a private group doesn't want me, so be it"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An American used his lawful right to file a lawsuit. I don't agree with lots of lawsuits, and find many of them unreasonable.
> 
> You asked for the legal distinction- the Supreme Court's decision provided that legal distinction for you.
> 
> You claimed:
> _A private club IS a place of business you idiot._
> 
> And I showed that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
> 
> I hope you enjoyed your lesson.
Click to expand...


Except that private clubs HAVE been forced to accept members they do not want.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Jarlaxle said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm stating the facts, not homophobic hyperbole.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you demonize and call names.  That's not "criticism".  You don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A private club IS a place of business you idiot.
> 
> But, since you brought it up, please give the legal reason you differentiate between a "private club " and a business in regards to the unconstitutional public accommodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the Supreme Court
> 
> BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE
> 
> _Held:_  Applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale *violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association.*
> 
> Government actions that unconstitutionally burden that right may take many forms, *one of which is intrusion into a group’s internal affairs by forcing it to accept a member it does not desire. Roberts v. United States Jaycees,468 U.S. 609, 623. Such forced membership is unconstitutional if the person’s presence affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York,487 U.S. 1, 13. *However, the freedom of expressive association is not absolute; it can be overridden by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms. _Roberts, _468 U.S., at 623. To determine whether a group is protected, this Court must determine whether the group engages in “expressive association.” The record clearly reveals that the Boy Scouts does so when its adult leaders inculcate its youth members with its value system. See _id.,_ at 636. Thus, the Court must determine whether the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect the Boy Scouts’ ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. The Court first must inquire, to a limited extent, into the nature of the Boy Scouts’ viewpoints. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly those represented by the terms “morally straight” and “clean,” and that the organization does not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior. The Court gives deference to the Boy Scouts’ assertions regarding the nature of its expression, see,_Democratic Party of United States_ v. _Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette,_450 U.S. 107, 123—124. The Court then inquires whether Dale’s presence as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly burden the expression of those viewpoints. Dale, by his own admission, is one of a group of gay Scouts who have become community leaders and are open and honest about their sexual orientation. His presence as an assistant scoutmaster would interfere with the Scouts’ choice not to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs. See _Hurley, _515 U.S., at 576—577. This Court disagrees with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s determination that the Boy Scouts’ ability to disseminate its message would not be significantly affected by the forced inclusion of Dale. First, contrary to the state court’s view, an association need not associate for the purpose of disseminating a certain message in order to be protected, but must merely engage in expressive activity that could be impaired. Second, even if the Boy Scouts discourages Scout leaders from disseminating views on sexual issues, its method of expression is protected. Third, the First Amendment does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group’s policy to be “expressive association.” *Given that the Boy Scouts’ expression would be burdened, the Court must inquire whether the application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law here runs afoul the Scouts’ freedom of expressive association, and concludes that it does. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, but the faggot DID sue and force the issue all the way to SCOTUS instead of being reasonable and saying "okay a private group doesn't want me, so be it"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An American used his lawful right to file a lawsuit. I don't agree with lots of lawsuits, and find many of them unreasonable.
> 
> You asked for the legal distinction- the Supreme Court's decision provided that legal distinction for you.
> 
> You claimed:
> _A private club IS a place of business you idiot._
> 
> And I showed that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
> 
> I hope you enjoyed your lesson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that private clubs HAVE been forced to accept members they do not want.
Click to expand...



Would you be so kind as to provide some examples of Private Clubs being forced by the government to accept members they do not want when those "clubs" have acted as a truly Private Club under legal analysis and not someone calling themselves a "Private Club" but yet functions as a for-profit public business?

Legal determination of truly "Private Clubs":
Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not - FindLaw


Thank you in advance.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

Churches are not private clubs so the argument is a moot one.  Churches by their very nature throw their doors open to anyone who wants to walk through them.  In fact they even go out of their way to evangelize to bring more and more people in.  The idea is that the public at large is a wayward and sinful lot.  A church's bid is to call them over to a better life.

So the public accomodation laws will be used to force churches to perform so-called "gay marriages".  You can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on that one.  When SCOTUS sits on that case, that's when the rubber is really going to meet the road...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Syriusly said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seahag and Deridfag can't debate. That's my point. I have fewer than 48 and they are definitely at the top of the list as useless usmb trolls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.
> 
> Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.
> 
> There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.
> 
> The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always find it ironic- deeply and hilariously ironic- when kosher talks about other posters being hysterical poorly educated loons who cannot debate- who provide nothing but propaganda and tripe.
> 
> I think mirrors must break when she walks by.
> 
> Note the reference to Nazi's.
> 
> Loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazis were heavily vested in propaganda, just like progressive loons.
> 
> And they counted on the support of dumb people who thought they were being fed *knowledge* instead of *propaganda*. Dumbasses like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said- note the Nazi reference.
> 
> Godwin s law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> *Godwin's law* (or *Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies*)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitlerapproaches 1"[2][3]— that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.
Click to expand...


Well, Wikipedia says so.  That MUST mean you're the brilliant uber-poster and you win.

Or not.


----------



## Syriusly

Cecilie1200 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you're the one that seemingly can't debate since you claim to have me on ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're on ignore because you're irrelevant and stupid.
> 
> Not because you're great at debating. I want to read what the good debaters have to say.
> 
> There are very few great progressive debaters, however. Most of them are hysterical, poorly educated loons. Like you. They rage continually, and their information pool consists of propaganda and internet/media tripe.
> 
> The Nazis were exactly the same. Poorly educated, largely criminal, often stupid and always depraved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always find it ironic- deeply and hilariously ironic- when kosher talks about other posters being hysterical poorly educated loons who cannot debate- who provide nothing but propaganda and tripe.
> 
> I think mirrors must break when she walks by.
> 
> Note the reference to Nazi's.
> 
> Loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazis were heavily vested in propaganda, just like progressive loons.
> 
> And they counted on the support of dumb people who thought they were being fed *knowledge* instead of *propaganda*. Dumbasses like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said- note the Nazi reference.
> 
> Godwin s law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> *Godwin's law* (or *Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies*)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitlerapproaches 1"[2][3]— that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Wikipedia says so.  That MUST mean you're the brilliant uber-poster and you win.
> 
> Or not.
Click to expand...


Yes- thanks for recognizing my win.

Have a wonderful day!


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Churches are not private clubs so the argument is a moot one.  Churches by their very nature throw their doors open to anyone who wants to walk through them.  In fact they even go out of their way to evangelize to bring more and more people in.  The idea is that the public at large is a wayward and sinful lot.  A church's bid is to call them over to a better life.
> 
> So the public accomodation laws will be used to force churches to perform so-called "gay marriages".  You can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on that one.  When SCOTUS sits on that case, that's when the rubber is really going to meet the road...



Churches are specifically exempted from public accomodation laws and should not- and will not be forced to accomoate anyone that the church does not want to- because they are black or homosexual or fat or Jewish.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are not private clubs so the argument is a moot one.  Churches by their very nature throw their doors open to anyone who wants to walk through them.  In fact they even go out of their way to evangelize to bring more and more people in.  The idea is that the public at large is a wayward and sinful lot.  A church's bid is to call them over to a better life.
> 
> So the public accomodation laws will be used to force churches to perform so-called "gay marriages".  You can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on that one.  When SCOTUS sits on that case, that's when the rubber is really going to meet the road...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are specifically exempted from public accomodation laws and should not- and will not be forced to accomoate anyone that the church does not want to- because they are black or homosexual or fat or Jewish.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!  

IF it were ever possible to make it impossible for people to apply straw reasoning, the Ideological Left would *vanish*_ in that instant.  _


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are not private clubs so the argument is a moot one.  Churches by their very nature throw their doors open to anyone who wants to walk through them.  In fact they even go out of their way to evangelize to bring more and more people in.  The idea is that the public at large is a wayward and sinful lot.  A church's bid is to call them over to a better life.
> 
> So the public accomodation laws will be used to force churches to perform so-called "gay marriages".  You can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on that one.  When SCOTUS sits on that case, that's when the rubber is really going to meet the road...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are specifically exempted from public accomodation laws and should not- and will not be forced to accomoate anyone that the church does not want to- because they are black or homosexual or fat or Jewish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> IF it were ever possible to make it impossible for people to apply straw reasoning, the Ideological Left would *vanish*_ in that instant.  _
Click to expand...


As usual- your post is just bat guano crazy.

Meanwhile

Churches are specifically exempted from public accomodation laws and should not- and will not be forced to accomoate anyone that the church does not want to- whether it is because they are black or homosexual or fat or Jewish.


----------



## Katzndogz

Churches are not for profit businesses.   Public accommodation laws do not apply.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Churches are specifically exempted from public accomodation laws and should not- and will not be forced to accomoate anyone that the church does not want to- because they are black or homosexual or fat or Jewish.


 
Finally.  I was waiting for you to say that.

What exactly makes that church so sacred Syriusly?  It is the faith that drives it. Yes, we both know the answer to why they are exempt.  Because that faith transcends public laws.

With me so far?  Good.

Where is the origin of that faith Syriusly?  Answer: in the heart of every man, woman and child from whose spirit it springs forth from.

Ergo, forcing a christian baker to make a "gay wedding" cake is the most fundamental violation of the 1st Amendment there is.  I'm not aware of a church that is registered with tax-exempt status in the US that preaches that you should avoid black people.  I am aware of thousands of churches that preach you should avoid promoting a homosexual culture.  Race vs culture/(emphasis on "CULT")


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are specifically exempted from public accomodation laws and should not- and will not be forced to accomoate anyone that the church does not want to- because they are black or homosexual or fat or Jewish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally.  I was waiting for you to say that.
> 
> What exactly makes that church so sacred Syriusly?  It is the faith that drives it. Yes, we both know the answer to why they are exempt.  Because that faith transcends public laws.
> 
> With me so far?  Good.
> 
> Where is the origin of that faith Syriusly?  Answer: in the heart of every man, woman and child from whose spirit it springs forth from.
> 
> Ergo, forcing a christian baker to make a "gay wedding" cake is the most fundamental violation of the 1st Amendment there is.  I'm not aware of a church that is registered with tax-exempt status in the US that preaches that you should avoid black people.  I am aware of thousands of churches that preach you should avoid promoting a homosexual culture.  Race vs culture/(emphasis on "CULT")
Click to expand...


Silhouette,

Freedom of religion- i.e. freedom to practice religion- or not practice religion- free from governmental restrictions is one our fundamental rights. And as part of that Americans have decided that churches- houses of worship- synogogues, temples, mosques etc are all treated differently from individuals or business's. They are devoted to worship.

Public Accomodation laws specifically exempt churches- but not individuals- from the laws. Why is that? Because churches are treated differently under the law.

Now- if you want individuals to be able to claim exemption from public accomodation laws based upon personal religious beliefs- then we might as well get rid of them- because anyone could discriminate against anyone for any reason and claim it is because of their religious beliefs.

And yes- faith has been used as a rational to discriminate against blacks and Jews and Muslims and native Americans and others.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette,
> 
> Freedom of religion- i.e. freedom to practice religion- or not practice religion- free from governmental restrictions is one our fundamental rights. And as part of that Americans have decided that churches- houses of worship- synogogues, temples, mosques etc are all treated differently from individuals or business's. They are devoted to worship.


 
Your ignorance of what religion is, is apparent.  A church or a syogogue or a mosque is not the religion.  It is a place where the religious go to congregate.  The religious are the individuals.  The religion is lodged within their breast.

Try again.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Let My Homos Go!


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome. I'm glad I was able to convince you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just glad I was able to get you to admit you are a homophobic bigot who posts nothing but lies and hate.
Click to expand...


Hateful lying Christophobic bigot poopy pants.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome. I'm glad I was able to convince you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just glad I was able to get you to admit you are a homophobic bigot who posts nothing but lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hateful lying Christophobic bigot poopy pants.
Click to expand...


Hateful lying homophobic bigot who enjoys wearing poopy pants.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette,
> 
> Freedom of religion- i.e. freedom to practice religion- or not practice religion- free from governmental restrictions is one our fundamental rights. And as part of that Americans have decided that churches- houses of worship- synogogues, temples, mosques etc are all treated differently from individuals or business's. They are devoted to worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of what religion is, is apparent.  A church or a syogogue or a mosque is not the religion.  It is a place where the religious go to congregate.  The religious are the individuals.  The religion is lodged within their breast.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


LOL.....no I think I will just let you rant against homosexuals some more.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome. I'm glad I was able to convince you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just glad I was able to get you to admit you are a homophobic bigot who posts nothing but lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hateful lying Christophobic bigot poopy pants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hateful lying homophobic bigot who enjoys wearing poopy pants.
Click to expand...

Hateful deranged Christophobc pusillanimous pissant prairie punk.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome. I'm glad I was able to convince you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just glad I was able to get you to admit you are a homophobic bigot who posts nothing but lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hateful lying Christophobic bigot poopy pants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hateful lying homophobic bigot who enjoys wearing poopy pants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hateful deranged Christophobc pusillanimous pissant prairie punk.
Click to expand...


Hate filled, and obsessed with hatred, hating homophobic hater who hates homosexuals and Americans having happy holidays and healthy thoughts.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette,
> 
> Freedom of religion- i.e. freedom to practice religion- or not practice religion- free from governmental restrictions is one our fundamental rights. And as part of that Americans have decided that churches- houses of worship- synogogues, temples, mosques etc are all treated differently from individuals or business's. They are devoted to worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of what religion is, is apparent.  A church or a syogogue or a mosque is not the religion.  It is a place where the religious go to congregate.  The religious are the individuals.  The religion is lodged within their breast.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.....no I think I will just let you rant against homosexuals some more.
Click to expand...

How long are you going whine about this


Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome. I'm glad I was able to convince you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just glad I was able to get you to admit you are a homophobic bigot who posts nothing but lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hateful lying Christophobic bigot poopy pants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hateful lying homophobic bigot who enjoys wearing poopy pants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hateful deranged Christophobc pusillanimous pissant prairie punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate filled, and obsessed with hatred, hating homophobic hater who hates homosexuals and Americans having happy holidays and healthy thoughts.
Click to expand...

Up your hole with a jelly roll, twice as far with a Hershey bar.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette,
> 
> Freedom of religion- i.e. freedom to practice religion- or not practice religion- free from governmental restrictions is one our fundamental rights. And as part of that Americans have decided that churches- houses of worship- synogogues, temples, mosques etc are all treated differently from individuals or business's. They are devoted to worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of what religion is, is apparent.  A church or a syogogue or a mosque is not the religion.  It is a place where the religious go to congregate.  The religious are the individuals.  The religion is lodged within their breast.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.....no I think I will just let you rant against homosexuals some more.
Click to expand...


Queers are confused, sometimes deranged, pitiful creatures who should never be mistreated.  However, their sick agenda should be opposed by all decent patriotic Americans.


----------



## Carib Gyal

I have many homosexual friends. They're all really gay.


----------



## Silhouette

I think we all purposefully got off the topic.  Let's return...



Silhouette said:


> A church or a syogogue or a mosque is not the religion.  It is a place where the religious go to congregate.  The religious are the individuals.  The religion is lodged within their breast.
> 
> Try again.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> I think we all purposefully got off the topic.  Let's return...
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> A church or a syogogue or a mosque is not the religion.  It is a place where the religious go to congregate.  The religious are the individuals.  The religion is lodged within their breast.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


On topic.

Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.

it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette,
> 
> Freedom of religion- i.e. freedom to practice religion- or not practice religion- free from governmental restrictions is one our fundamental rights. And as part of that Americans have decided that churches- houses of worship- synogogues, temples, mosques etc are all treated differently from individuals or business's. They are devoted to worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of what religion is, is apparent.  A church or a syogogue or a mosque is not the religion.  It is a place where the religious go to congregate.  The religious are the individuals.  The religion is lodged within their breast.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.....no I think I will just let you rant against homosexuals some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Queers are confused, sometimes deranged, pitiful creatures who should never be mistreated.  However, their sick agenda should be opposed by all decent patriotic Americans.
Click to expand...


Homophobes are hate ridden, always deranged, pitiful creatures who project their hatred onto homosexuals. 

Their sick agenda should be opposed by all decent patriotic Americans.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette,
> 
> Freedom of religion- i.e. freedom to practice religion- or not practice religion- free from governmental restrictions is one our fundamental rights. And as part of that Americans have decided that churches- houses of worship- synogogues, temples, mosques etc are all treated differently from individuals or business's. They are devoted to worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of what religion is, is apparent.  A church or a syogogue or a mosque is not the religion.  It is a place where the religious go to congregate.  The religious are the individuals.  The religion is lodged within their breast.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.....no I think I will just let you rant against homosexuals some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How long are you going whine about this
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am just glad I was able to get you to admit you are a homophobic bigot who posts nothing but lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hateful lying Christophobic bigot poopy pants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hateful lying homophobic bigot who enjoys wearing poopy pants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hateful deranged Christophobc pusillanimous pissant prairie punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate filled, and obsessed with hatred, hating homophobic hater who hates homosexuals and Americans having happy holidays and healthy thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Up your hole with a jelly roll, twice as far with a Hershey bar.
Click to expand...



And that pretty much sums up the intellectual capacity of the homophobes.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette,
> 
> Freedom of religion- i.e. freedom to practice religion- or not practice religion- free from governmental restrictions is one our fundamental rights. And as part of that Americans have decided that churches- houses of worship- synogogues, temples, mosques etc are all treated differently from individuals or business's. They are devoted to worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of what religion is, is apparent.  A church or a syogogue or a mosque is not the religion.  It is a place where the religious go to congregate.  The religious are the individuals.  The religion is lodged within their breast.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.....no I think I will just let you rant against homosexuals some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Queers are confused, sometimes deranged, pitiful creatures who should never be mistreated.  However, their sick agenda should be opposed by all decent patriotic Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homophobes are hate ridden, always deranged, pitiful creatures who project their hatred onto homosexuals.
> 
> Their sick agenda should be opposed by all decent patriotic Americans.
Click to expand...


LOL.  You're the freaks, not us.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette,
> 
> Freedom of religion- i.e. freedom to practice religion- or not practice religion- free from governmental restrictions is one our fundamental rights. And as part of that Americans have decided that churches- houses of worship- synogogues, temples, mosques etc are all treated differently from individuals or business's. They are devoted to worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of what religion is, is apparent.  A church or a syogogue or a mosque is not the religion.  It is a place where the religious go to congregate.  The religious are the individuals.  The religion is lodged within their breast.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.....no I think I will just let you rant against homosexuals some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Queers are confused, sometimes deranged, pitiful creatures who should never be mistreated.  However, their sick agenda should be opposed by all decent patriotic Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homophobes are hate ridden, always deranged, pitiful creatures who project their hatred onto homosexuals.
> 
> Their sick agenda should be opposed by all decent patriotic Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  You're the freaks, not us.
Click to expand...


Not sure what that means... When you say 'freaks', are you assigning that to those who behave within the human physiological norm or those who deviate from that standard, as a direct result of a perversion of human reasoning, wherein they crave sexual gratification from those of their own gender, which also tends toward their disregarding other norms, such as the pursuit of children for sexual gratification.  

So... what of those, which are the freaks?

OH!  Never mind, I see that you were speaking of the freaks; as in the sexually abnormal, who are demanding that sexual abnormality should be 'considered' perfectly normal.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

NEIL N. BLOWME SAID:

"Queers are confused, sometimes deranged, pitiful creatures who should never be mistreated. However, their sick agenda should be opposed by all decent patriotic Americans."

Seeking one's comprehensive civil rights does not constitute an 'agenda.'

The hate and ignorance exhibited by you and others on the right clearly indicate that the civil rights of gay Americans remain very much in jeopardy.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Liberals have bent over backwards for those people and it's only left a bad taste in their mouths.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> NEIL N. BLOWME SAID:
> 
> "Queers are confused, sometimes deranged, pitiful creatures who should never be mistreated. However, their sick agenda should be opposed by all decent patriotic Americans."
> 
> Seeking one's comprehensive civil rights does not constitute an 'agenda.'
> 
> The hate and ignorance exhibited by you and others on the right clearly indicate that the civil rights of gay Americans remain very much in jeopardy.



There is no right for a person to re-write the natural standards of marriage.  Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  This the result of the natural design intrinsic to human physiology, relevant to the respective, complimenting genders.  

That those who exercise a perversion of human reasoning, which provides that they seek sexual gratification from their own gender, does not obligate anyone else to accept their reasoning... or the deviant behavior which stems from it.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> On topic.
> 
> Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.
> 
> it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.


Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.

Blacks, Jews, Muslims, fat people and homosexuals are all welcome in the church of Christ.  They have to leave their other faith behind though.  They are not allowed to dictate redactions or augmentations to the edicts of faith.  One of those is the mandate forbidding the promotion of a homosexual culture.  (not individual homosexuals).  Paramount example of Jude 1's New Testament warning?  That would be gays trying to "marry" and raise children as "mother and father".


----------



## Jarlaxle

Neil N. Blowme said:


> LOL.  You're the freaks, not us.



You now need to have a neutral third party  examine your computer for evidence of lesbian pornography.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.  it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.





Silhouette said:


> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.  Blacks, Jews, Muslims, fat people and homosexuals are all welcome in the church of Christ.  They have to leave their other faith behind though.  They are not allowed to dictate redactions or augmentations to the edicts of faith.  One of those is the mandate forbidding the promotion of a homosexual culture.  (not individual homosexuals).  Paramount example of Jude 1's New Testament warning?  That would be gays trying to "marry" and raise children as "mother and father".


 
The church is within the individual.  That's where we need to start with all this, where exactly does "church" reside?  Is it wood, nails, formica?  No.  Is it papers, books or telephones?  No.  Is it the minister, the priest, the nuns?  No.  Is it the symbolic holy sacrament?  No. 

The relgion resides within the man.  The church and its phasod, its routines are merely the eddy that draws in the parishoners, the flock.  The actual religion is what is instilled within the mind and soul of each of the congregation, whether gathered or apart in their daily lives.  "Church" doesn't stop happening when someone walks out the door and down the front steps.  It is happening all the time in the soul of the faithful.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.  it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.  Blacks, Jews, Muslims, fat people and homosexuals are all welcome in the church of Christ.  They have to leave their other faith behind though.  They are not allowed to dictate redactions or augmentations to the edicts of faith.  One of those is the mandate forbidding the promotion of a homosexual culture.  (not individual homosexuals).  Paramount example of Jude 1's New Testament warning?  That would be gays trying to "marry" and raise children as "mother and father".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The church is within the individual.  That's where we need to start with all this, where exactly does "church" reside?  Is it wood, nails, formica?  No.  Is it papers, books or telephones?  No.  Is it the minister, the priest, the nuns?  No.  Is it the symbolic holy sacrament?  No.
> 
> The relgion resides within the man.  The church and its phasod, its routines are merely the eddy that draws in the parishoners, the flock.  The actual religion is what is instilled within the mind and soul of each of the congregation, whether gathered or apart in their daily lives.  "Church" doesn't stop happening when someone walks out the door and down the front steps.  It is happening all the time in the soul of the faithful.
Click to expand...



On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.  it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> On topic.
> 
> Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.
> 
> it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.
> .
Click to expand...


No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> On topic.
> 
> Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.
> 
> it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.
Click to expand...

But they will be forced to cater.


----------



## Syriusly

Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> On topic.
> 
> Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.
> 
> it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they will be forced to cater.
Click to expand...


IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.

If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.  it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.  Blacks, Jews, Muslims, fat people and homosexuals are all welcome in the church of Christ.  They have to leave their other faith behind though.  They are not allowed to dictate redactions or augmentations to the edicts of faith.  One of those is the mandate forbidding the promotion of a homosexual culture.  (not individual homosexuals).  Paramount example of Jude 1's New Testament warning?  That would be gays trying to "marry" and raise children as "mother and father".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The church is within the individual.  That's where we need to start with all this, where exactly does "church" reside?  Is it wood, nails, formica?  No.  Is it papers, books or telephones?  No.  Is it the minister, the priest, the nuns?  No.  Is it the symbolic holy sacrament?  No.
> 
> The relgion resides within the man.  The church and its phasod, its routines are merely the eddy that draws in the parishoners, the flock.  The actual religion is what is instilled within the mind and soul of each of the congregation, whether gathered or apart in their daily lives.  "Church" doesn't stop happening when someone walks out the door and down the front steps.  It is happening all the time in the soul of the faithful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.  it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years
Click to expand...

If a Jew or Muslim wanted to be married in a Christian church instead of a temple or mosque, it might mean they aren't Jews or Muslims at all.


----------



## Silhouette

Carib Gyal said:


> If a Jew or Muslim wanted to be married in a Christian church instead of a temple or mosque, it might mean they aren't Jews or Muslims at all.


 
Yes, it would be a change in faith, an outward indication of that.

So it gays want to be married or have christians participate in their marriage in the bakery, photo shop or church, they have to accept that to ask them to do this is to ask them to abdicate their faith and enter the "church of LGBT" instead.  It is something you cannot force someone to do: to abdicate their faith for another cult.  Choice is one thing.  Force is quite another...


----------



## beagle9

One of the huge mistakes that this government has made could very well be, in the allowing of ones *sexual orientation* to become some sort of protected status in this nation, and worse is the way that it has all been done now or what it means in this nation now.

Now this situation is seeking to abuse it's new founded protections in which the government has given it, because sexual orientation can be and does mean many things under such a broad label in which has been given unto it by this government or rather when it is being eternally interpreted and reinterpreted by this government upon each case that arises under the status, and so all one has to do is to declare protected status under these labels that are given them, and they can freely abuse the rights of whom ever they wish to it appears now, and this they will do just as long as they claim this status in which the government has given them in protection there of. I ask  this, so why can't peoples sexuality stay in the bedroom, and in private without any intervening by this government anymore ? The harmony of a well balanced society lay within it's fragile but well kept together balance in which kept certain things in check between it all, but as we all move forward it's as if the boundaries between the issues are being knocked down now, and this is where all the troubles seem to begin.

I wonder what perpetuated these things over time, and how is it that we should be viewing them in perspective of or rather giving a protective status upon or well maybe not ?


----------



## Carib Gyal

beagle9 said:


> One of the huge mistakes that this government has made could very well be, in the allowing of ones *sexual orientation* to become some sort of protected status in this nation, and worse is the way that it has all been done now or what it means in this nation now.
> 
> Now this situation is seeking to abuse it's new founded protections in which the government has given it, because sexual orientation can be and does mean many things under such a broad label in which has been given unto it by this government or rather when it is being eternally interpreted and reinterpreted by this government upon each case that arises under the status, and so all one has to do is to declare protected status under these labels that are given them, and they can freely abuse the rights of whom ever they wish to it appears now, and this they will do just as long as they claim this status in which the government has given them in protection there of. I ask  this, so why can't peoples sexuality stay in the bedroom, and in private without any intervening by this government anymore ? The harmony of a well balanced society lay within it's fragile but well kept together balance in which kept certain things in check between it all, but as we all move forward it's as if the boundaries between the issues are being knocked down now, and this is where all the troubles seem to begin.
> 
> I wonder what perpetuated these things over time, and how is it that we should be viewing them in perspective of or rather giving a protective status upon or well maybe not ?


Lobbyists. If a group has a strong/powerful enough lobby, they, too, can be given protective status. Let's take short or fat people as an example. They have certainly been historically "oppressed." If they can organize and hire strong enough lobbies for their cause, we could see stature and weight being given protective status, as well.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> On topic.
> 
> Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.
> 
> it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they will be forced to cater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
Click to expand...

Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.


----------



## beagle9

Carib Gyal said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the huge mistakes that this government has made could very well be, in the allowing of ones *sexual orientation* to become some sort of protected status in this nation, and worse is the way that it has all been done now or what it means in this nation now.
> 
> Now this situation is seeking to abuse it's new founded protections in which the government has given it, because sexual orientation can be and does mean many things under such a broad label in which has been given unto it by this government or rather when it is being eternally interpreted and reinterpreted by this government upon each case that arises under the status, and so all one has to do is to declare protected status under these labels that are given them, and they can freely abuse the rights of whom ever they wish to it appears now, and this they will do just as long as they claim this status in which the government has given them in protection there of. I ask  this, so why can't peoples sexuality stay in the bedroom, and in private without any intervening by this government anymore ? The harmony of a well balanced society lay within it's fragile but well kept together balance in which kept certain things in check between it all, but as we all move forward it's as if the boundaries between the issues are being knocked down now, and this is where all the troubles seem to begin.
> 
> I wonder what perpetuated these things over time, and how is it that we should be viewing them in perspective of or rather giving a protective status upon or well maybe not ?
> 
> 
> 
> Lobbyists. If a group has a strong/powerful enough lobby, they, too, can be given protective status. Let's take short or fat people as an example. They have certainly been historically "oppressed." If they can organize and hire strong enough lobbies for their cause, we could see stature and weight being given protective status, as well.
Click to expand...

Yes it could mean that all the efforts that the former mayor of NYC had put in place, in order to deny people their right to a large coke or all the donuts they wish to eat, be repealed due to the new protected status in which overweight people will have gotten for themselves through their powerful lobby. I got it, as the goal post is always changing, and so what is today in America may not be tomorrow in this nation.


----------



## Carib Gyal

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> On topic.
> 
> Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.
> 
> it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they will be forced to cater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, although I think there is no difference. Churches (or synagogues or mosques) will not be forced to marry anyone. Just as you cannot be forced to have gay sex with someone. It's not discrimination, it's just that you're not down with it.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> On topic.
> 
> Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.
> 
> it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they will be forced to cater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
Click to expand...

Nope.  Just nasty queers which will always be my right.


----------



## Syriusly

Carib Gyal said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.  it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.  Blacks, Jews, Muslims, fat people and homosexuals are all welcome in the church of Christ.  They have to leave their other faith behind though.  They are not allowed to dictate redactions or augmentations to the edicts of faith.  One of those is the mandate forbidding the promotion of a homosexual culture.  (not individual homosexuals).  Paramount example of Jude 1's New Testament warning?  That would be gays trying to "marry" and raise children as "mother and father".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The church is within the individual.  That's where we need to start with all this, where exactly does "church" reside?  Is it wood, nails, formica?  No.  Is it papers, books or telephones?  No.  Is it the minister, the priest, the nuns?  No.  Is it the symbolic holy sacrament?  No.
> 
> The relgion resides within the man.  The church and its phasod, its routines are merely the eddy that draws in the parishoners, the flock.  The actual religion is what is instilled within the mind and soul of each of the congregation, whether gathered or apart in their daily lives.  "Church" doesn't stop happening when someone walks out the door and down the front steps.  It is happening all the time in the soul of the faithful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.  it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If a Jew or Muslim wanted to be married in a Christian church instead of a temple or mosque, it might mean they aren't Jews or Muslims at all.
Click to expand...


Or it could be that they particularly admired that Cathedral and wanted to hold their Jewish wedding there.


Neil N. Blowme said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> On topic.
> 
> Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.
> 
> it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they will be forced to cater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Just nasty queers which will always be my right.
Click to expand...


Oh you can refuse service to 'nasty queers', nasty negroes or nasty jews or nasty Muslims- you can be bigoted towards anyone once you get the law changed to make your bigotry legal.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Syriusly said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.  it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.  Blacks, Jews, Muslims, fat people and homosexuals are all welcome in the church of Christ.  They have to leave their other faith behind though.  They are not allowed to dictate redactions or augmentations to the edicts of faith.  One of those is the mandate forbidding the promotion of a homosexual culture.  (not individual homosexuals).  Paramount example of Jude 1's New Testament warning?  That would be gays trying to "marry" and raise children as "mother and father".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The church is within the individual.  That's where we need to start with all this, where exactly does "church" reside?  Is it wood, nails, formica?  No.  Is it papers, books or telephones?  No.  Is it the minister, the priest, the nuns?  No.  Is it the symbolic holy sacrament?  No.
> 
> The relgion resides within the man.  The church and its phasod, its routines are merely the eddy that draws in the parishoners, the flock.  The actual religion is what is instilled within the mind and soul of each of the congregation, whether gathered or apart in their daily lives.  "Church" doesn't stop happening when someone walks out the door and down the front steps.  It is happening all the time in the soul of the faithful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.  it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If a Jew or Muslim wanted to be married in a Christian church instead of a temple or mosque, it might mean they aren't Jews or Muslims at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it could be that they particularly admired that Cathedral and wanted to hold their Jewish wedding there.
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they will be forced to cater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Just nasty queers which will always be my right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you can refuse service to 'nasty queers', nasty negroes or nasty jews or nasty Muslims- you can be bigoted towards anyone once you get the law changed to make your bigotry legal.
Click to expand...

Are the nasty Consitutionally protected?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> On topic.
> 
> Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.
> 
> it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they will be forced to cater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.
Click to expand...


There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections. 

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.

Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.

Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a Jew or Muslim wanted to be married in a Christian church instead of a temple or mosque, it might mean they aren't Jews or Muslims at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it would be a change in faith, an outward indication of that.
> 
> So it gays want to be married or have christians participate in their marriage in the bakery, photo shop or church, they have to accept that to ask them to do this is to ask them to abdicate their faith and enter the "church of LGBT" instead.  It is something you cannot force someone to do: to abdicate their faith for another cult.  Choice is one thing.  Force is quite another...
Click to expand...


Then your issue is with the law. 

Not with homosexuals. 

If the public accomodation laws protect persons whose lifestyle is Christian, and they also protect homosexuals in the same way from discrimination- then your objection is to the law. 

Simple enough- change the law if you disagree with protecting people from bigotry.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.  it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.  Blacks, Jews, Muslims, fat people and homosexuals are all welcome in the church of Christ.  They have to leave their other faith behind though.  They are not allowed to dictate redactions or augmentations to the edicts of faith.  One of those is the mandate forbidding the promotion of a homosexual culture.  (not individual homosexuals).  Paramount example of Jude 1's New Testament warning?  That would be gays trying to "marry" and raise children as "mother and father".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The church is within the individual.  That's where we need to start with all this, where exactly does "church" reside?  Is it wood, nails, formica?  No.  Is it papers, books or telephones?  No.  Is it the minister, the priest, the nuns?  No.  Is it the symbolic holy sacrament?  No.
> 
> The relgion resides within the man.  The church and its phasod, its routines are merely the eddy that draws in the parishoners, the flock.  The actual religion is what is instilled within the mind and soul of each of the congregation, whether gathered or apart in their daily lives.  "Church" doesn't stop happening when someone walks out the door and down the front steps.  It is happening all the time in the soul of the faithful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> On topic. Churches have not- and will not be forced to marry anyone that the churches do not want to- whether its because the couples are black, Jewish, Muslim, fat, or homosexuals.  it hasn't happened in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed, and it won't happen in the next 50 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If a Jew or Muslim wanted to be married in a Christian church instead of a temple or mosque, it might mean they aren't Jews or Muslims at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it could be that they particularly admired that Cathedral and wanted to hold their Jewish wedding there.
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they will be forced to cater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Just nasty queers which will always be my right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you can refuse service to 'nasty queers', nasty negroes or nasty jews or nasty Muslims- you can be bigoted towards anyone once you get the law changed to make your bigotry legal.
Click to expand...

Nope.  Just nasty queers, which is my right.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a Jew or Muslim wanted to be married in a Christian church instead of a temple or mosque, it might mean they aren't Jews or Muslims at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it would be a change in faith, an outward indication of that.
> 
> So it gays want to be married or have christians participate in their marriage in the bakery, photo shop or church, they have to accept that to ask them to do this is to ask them to abdicate their faith and enter the "church of LGBT" instead.  It is something you cannot force someone to do: to abdicate their faith for another cult.  Choice is one thing.  Force is quite another...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then your issue is with the law.
> 
> Not with homosexuals.
> 
> If the public accomodation laws protect persons whose lifestyle is Christian, and they also protect homosexuals in the same way from discrimination- then your objection is to the law.
> 
> Simple enough- change the law if you disagree with protecting people from bigotry.
Click to expand...

Shove your law you know where.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they will be forced to cater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.
> 
> Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.
> 
> Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.
Click to expand...

I think he was asking, how do you get on the list of protected status. 

Are you saying a mosque would be forced to perform a Jewish wedding? I don't think that's true.


----------



## Neil N. Blowme

Carib Gyal said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.
> 
> 
> 
> But they will be forced to cater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.
> 
> Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.
> 
> Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he was asking, how do you get on the list of protected status.
> 
> Are you saying a mosque would be forced to perform a Jewish wedding? I don't think that's true.
Click to expand...


He doesn't know what he's saying.  He's more confused than a termite in a yo yo.


----------



## Syriusly

Carib Gyal said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.
> 
> 
> 
> But they will be forced to cater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.
> 
> Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.
> 
> Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he was asking, how do you get on the list of protected status.
> 
> Are you saying a mosque would be forced to perform a Jewish wedding? I don't think that's true.
Click to expand...


By politicians passing laws.

No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Syriusly said:


> By politicians passing laws.
> 
> No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.


I already answered him. But my answer had to do with lobbyists.

How do you reconcile your previous statement, _

"Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections. 

Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle."_

With the above statement? Are weddings not services?


----------



## beagle9

Carib Gyal said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they will be forced to cater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, although I think there is no difference. Churches (or synagogues or mosques) will not be forced to marry anyone. Just as you cannot be forced to have gay sex with someone. It's not discrimination, it's just that you're not down with it.
Click to expand...

If one is not down with it, and one is objectionable to the lifestyle that leads to it, and all because of ones faith, then should the government intervene and force an individual to cater to the people that do these things in which a person may figure will take them to hell all because of or if they support such a thing or give support to such a thing in life ? The Church is not a building of brick and mortar, but rather it is that the Church resides in the individual who carries the message of the Lord within him or her, so I ask where does their rights begin and end in this nation that is fast becoming something in which many don't recognize any longer ?


Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individual christians, where the church of Christ resides within will not be forced to marry gays or participate in gay marriages.  Right.  So we both agree.  Good.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they will be forced to cater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.
> 
> Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.
> 
> Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.
Click to expand...

You love to throw in all these other things such as race - religion or national origin and such, but why do you do this ? Is it because if you separate all these from the other, then the other won't be able to stand upon it's own ?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they will be forced to cater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.
> 
> Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.
> 
> Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he was asking, how do you get on the list of protected status.
> 
> Are you saying a mosque would be forced to perform a Jewish wedding? I don't think that's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By politicians passing laws.
> 
> No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

I thought someone already posted a link to someone attempting to sue a pastor and/or a church for not performing the ceremony or refusing to ?


----------



## beagle9

You know, looking around at America and the world now, it really is getting harder for people to separate along any lines anymore, because if they do then they are figured as the enemy to those who will not except the separation even if the lines that are drawn are along religious lines or cultural lines now.


----------



## WorldWatcher

beagle9 said:


> I thought someone already posted a link to someone attempting to sue a pastor and/or a church for not performing the ceremony or refusing to ?




Been here since the beginning, haven't' seen anyone post a reputable link to an example of a member of the Clergy or a bonafide Church being sued, let alone losing the case, for refusing to perform a religious ceremony.


>>>>


----------



## Katzndogz

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
> 
> 
> 
> Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.
> 
> Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.
> 
> Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he was asking, how do you get on the list of protected status.
> 
> Are you saying a mosque would be forced to perform a Jewish wedding? I don't think that's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By politicians passing laws.
> 
> No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought someone already posted a link to someone attempting to sue a pastor and/or a church for not performing the ceremony or refusing to ?
Click to expand...

Yes.  In Nevada.   The pastor won.  Win isn't quite correct since it never rose to the lawsuit level.  The gay couple realized they could not win and abandoned the claim.


----------



## Seawytch

Carib Gyal said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the huge mistakes that this government has made could very well be, in the allowing of ones *sexual orientation* to become some sort of protected status in this nation, and worse is the way that it has all been done now or what it means in this nation now.
> 
> Now this situation is seeking to abuse it's new founded protections in which the government has given it, because sexual orientation can be and does mean many things under such a broad label in which has been given unto it by this government or rather when it is being eternally interpreted and reinterpreted by this government upon each case that arises under the status, and so all one has to do is to declare protected status under these labels that are given them, and they can freely abuse the rights of whom ever they wish to it appears now, and this they will do just as long as they claim this status in which the government has given them in protection there of. I ask  this, so why can't peoples sexuality stay in the bedroom, and in private without any intervening by this government anymore ? The harmony of a well balanced society lay within it's fragile but well kept together balance in which kept certain things in check between it all, but as we all move forward it's as if the boundaries between the issues are being knocked down now, and this is where all the troubles seem to begin.
> 
> I wonder what perpetuated these things over time, and how is it that we should be viewing them in perspective of or rather giving a protective status upon or well maybe not ?
> 
> 
> 
> Lobbyists. If a group has a strong/powerful enough lobby, they, too, can be given protective status. Let's take short or fat people as an example. They have certainly been historically "oppressed." If they can organize and hire strong enough lobbies for their cause, we could see stature and weight being given protective status, as well.
Click to expand...


In some places they are.

Council on Size and Weight Discrimination - Weight Discrimination Attorneys


----------



## Seawytch

Tipsycatlover said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.
> 
> Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.
> 
> Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he was asking, how do you get on the list of protected status.
> 
> Are you saying a mosque would be forced to perform a Jewish wedding? I don't think that's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By politicians passing laws.
> 
> No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought someone already posted a link to someone attempting to sue a pastor and/or a church for not performing the ceremony or refusing to ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  In Nevada.   The pastor won.  Win isn't quite correct since it never rose to the lawsuit level.  The gay couple realized they could not win and abandoned the claim.
Click to expand...


Got a link? Anyone?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> You know, looking around at America and the world now, it really is getting harder for people to separate along any lines anymore, because if they do then they are figured as the enemy to those who will not except the separation even if the lines that are drawn are along religious lines or cultural lines now.



People are doing that in many places in the world right now- it is the curse that is behind the violence in Iraq, Syria and many other countries.

I am fine with getting away from that type of 'separation'


----------



## beagle9

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought someone already posted a link to someone attempting to sue a pastor and/or a church for not performing the ceremony or refusing to ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been here since the beginning, haven't' seen anyone post a reputable link to an example of a member of the Clergy or a bonafide Church being sued, let alone losing the case, for refusing to perform a religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

What was I seeing or reading then ? Oh it must have not been a credible link as you said.. I must admit that I didn't click on the link, but I did see someone post a link to that affect in which was saying this sort of thing.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.
> 
> 
> 
> But they will be forced to cater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, although I think there is no difference. Churches (or synagogues or mosques) will not be forced to marry anyone. Just as you cannot be forced to have gay sex with someone. It's not discrimination, it's just that you're not down with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If one is not down with it, and one is objectionable to the lifestyle that leads to it, and all because of ones faith, then should the government intervene and force an individual to cater to the people that do these things in which a person may figure will take them to hell all because of or if they support such a thing or give support to such a thing in life ? The Church is not a building of brick and mortar, but rather it is that the Church resides in the individual who carries the message of the Lord within him or her, so I ask where does their rights begin and end in this nation that is fast becoming something in which many don't recognize any longer ?
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one will ever be forced to marry a gay person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they will be forced to cater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.
> 
> Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.
> 
> Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You love to throw in all these other things such as race - religion or national origin and such, but why do you do this ? Is it because if you separate all these from the other, then the other won't be able to stand upon it's own ?
Click to expand...


Because the public accomodation laws include the groups I mention. 

And because in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act- the granddaddy PA law- no one has used PA laws to force a church to marry anyone the Church doesn't want to. 

What I keep saying is that no one is going to force churches to marry anyone that the church doesn't want to- they haven't and they won't.


----------



## Syriusly

Carib Gyal said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> By politicians passing laws.
> 
> No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered him. But my answer had to do with lobbyists.
> 
> How do you reconcile your previous statement,
> _
> "Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle."_
> 
> With the above statement? Are weddings not services?
Click to expand...


Marriage in a church is protected both by the Constitution, and every Public Accomodation law I have seen- i.e. anything religious done in a church is protected.

Civil marriage outside of a church is subject to PA laws.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they will be forced to cater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, although I think there is no difference. Churches (or synagogues or mosques) will not be forced to marry anyone. Just as you cannot be forced to have gay sex with someone. It's not discrimination, it's just that you're not down with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If one is not down with it, and one is objectionable to the lifestyle that leads to it, and all because of ones faith, then should the government intervene and force an individual to cater to the people that do these things in which a person may figure will take them to hell all because of or if they support such a thing or give support to such a thing in life ? The Church is not a building of brick and mortar, but rather it is that the Church resides in the individual who carries the message of the Lord within him or her, so I ask where does their rights begin and end in this nation that is fast becoming something in which many don't recognize any longer ?
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neil N. Blowme said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they will be forced to cater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.
> 
> Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.
> 
> Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You love to throw in all these other things such as race - religion or national origin and such, but why do you do this ? Is it because if you separate all these from the other, then the other won't be able to stand upon it's own ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the public accomodation laws include the groups I mention.
> 
> And because in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act- the granddaddy PA law- no one has used PA laws to force a church to marry anyone the Church doesn't want to.
> 
> What I keep saying is that no one is going to force churches to marry anyone that the church doesn't want to- they haven't and they won't.
Click to expand...

Well it is my thoughts then, that a business that wants to have their religion known before their customers enter into the business, should place their religious title before the name of the business.

Otherwise it should read "*Joe's Christian Bakery,*" where we make angel cakes that will send your taste buds into heaven.  Then if a person tries to come in and request that the bakery do business in a way that would not follow the religious context in which the bakery operates upon, then that customer can be directed to another bakery that may accommodate their needs in a specific way in which they might request from the other bakery instead.

To not place your values and beliefs upon your business logo, leaves the door wide open for someone to come in and request almost anything that your business may have as it's product for sale, and then to ask you to customize that product to their liking. Come on people and figure this out already, because the government can't enforce anything upon you if you title your business in a way that leaves no confusion to the public who might come in to do business with you along those lines. It's just like a Christian book store that is titled as a Christian book store, where as someone knows that they can't very well walk into that store and request a copy of playboy magazine now can they ? Also the feds can't make the store start carrying the magazine based upon a citizens request either... I think the reason this has not been the case thus far, is because people think that they will lose business if they do this or will be banned by potential customers if they do this, but what are your values and morals worth to you in your life right ?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
> 
> 
> 
> Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, although I think there is no difference. Churches (or synagogues or mosques) will not be forced to marry anyone. Just as you cannot be forced to have gay sex with someone. It's not discrimination, it's just that you're not down with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If one is not down with it, and one is objectionable to the lifestyle that leads to it, and all because of ones faith, then should the government intervene and force an individual to cater to the people that do these things in which a person may figure will take them to hell all because of or if they support such a thing or give support to such a thing in life ? The Church is not a building of brick and mortar, but rather it is that the Church resides in the individual who carries the message of the Lord within him or her, so I ask where does their rights begin and end in this nation that is fast becoming something in which many don't recognize any longer ?
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF the law says that companies that offer catering services cannot deny service based upon race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation.
> 
> If you don't like that law, change so an individual can discriminate against an African American or Jew or Muslim or Mexican or Homosexual by claiming a religious objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.
> 
> Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.
> 
> Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You love to throw in all these other things such as race - religion or national origin and such, but why do you do this ? Is it because if you separate all these from the other, then the other won't be able to stand upon it's own ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the public accomodation laws include the groups I mention.
> 
> And because in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act- the granddaddy PA law- no one has used PA laws to force a church to marry anyone the Church doesn't want to.
> 
> What I keep saying is that no one is going to force churches to marry anyone that the church doesn't want to- they haven't and they won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well it is my thoughts then, that a business that wants to have their religion known before their customers enter into the business, should place their religious title before the name of the business.
> 
> Otherwise it should read "*Joe's Christian Bakery,*" where we make angel cakes that will send your taste buds into heaven.  Then if a person tries to come in and request that the bakery do business in a way that would not follow the religious context in which the bakery operates upon, then that customer can be directed to another bakery that may accommodate their needs in a specific way in which they might request from the other bakery instead.
> 
> To not place your values and beliefs upon your business logo, leaves the door wide open for someone to come in and request almost anything that your business may have as it's product for sale. Come on people and figure this out already, because the government can't enforce anything upon you if you title your business in a way that leaves no confusion to the public who might come in to do business with you along those lines. It's just like a Christian book store that is titles as a Christian book store, where as someone knows that they can't very well walk into that store and request a copy of playboy magazine now can they ? Also the feds can't make the store start carrying the magazine based upon a citizens request either... I think the reason this has not been the case thus far, is because people think that they will lose business if they do this or will be banned by potential customers if they do this, but what are your values and morals worth to you in your life right ?
Click to expand...


If that is what you want- then you will need to change the law- starting with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Go for it


----------



## Carib Gyal

Syriusly said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> By politicians passing laws.
> 
> No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered him. But my answer had to do with lobbyists.
> 
> How do you reconcile your previous statement,
> _
> "Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle."_
> 
> With the above statement? Are weddings not services?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage in a church is protected both by the Constitution, and every Public Accomodation law I have seen- i.e. anything religious done in a church is protected.
> 
> Civil marriage outside of a church is subject to PA laws.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. So you can deny services to anyone you want - including gays - by claiming you have religious objections to serving them.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, although I think there is no difference. Churches (or synagogues or mosques) will not be forced to marry anyone. Just as you cannot be forced to have gay sex with someone. It's not discrimination, it's just that you're not down with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If one is not down with it, and one is objectionable to the lifestyle that leads to it, and all because of ones faith, then should the government intervene and force an individual to cater to the people that do these things in which a person may figure will take them to hell all because of or if they support such a thing or give support to such a thing in life ? The Church is not a building of brick and mortar, but rather it is that the Church resides in the individual who carries the message of the Lord within him or her, so I ask where does their rights begin and end in this nation that is fast becoming something in which many don't recognize any longer ?
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what is the difference in one claiming a lifestyle or cultural objection to something, as opposed to someone claiming a religious objection to something ? Why is one being protected but not the other one who has the same right also to object to something ? Now when it comes to skin color, well that issue has been settled in this nation, and it has nothing to do with all the issues that have tried to piggy back that issue in order to get another issue passed or recognized as well under the same protected status that it was given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.
> 
> Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.
> 
> Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You love to throw in all these other things such as race - religion or national origin and such, but why do you do this ? Is it because if you separate all these from the other, then the other won't be able to stand upon it's own ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the public accomodation laws include the groups I mention.
> 
> And because in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act- the granddaddy PA law- no one has used PA laws to force a church to marry anyone the Church doesn't want to.
> 
> What I keep saying is that no one is going to force churches to marry anyone that the church doesn't want to- they haven't and they won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well it is my thoughts then, that a business that wants to have their religion known before their customers enter into the business, should place their religious title before the name of the business.
> 
> Otherwise it should read "*Joe's Christian Bakery,*" where we make angel cakes that will send your taste buds into heaven.  Then if a person tries to come in and request that the bakery do business in a way that would not follow the religious context in which the bakery operates upon, then that customer can be directed to another bakery that may accommodate their needs in a specific way in which they might request from the other bakery instead.
> 
> To not place your values and beliefs upon your business logo, leaves the door wide open for someone to come in and request almost anything that your business may have as it's product for sale. Come on people and figure this out already, because the government can't enforce anything upon you if you title your business in a way that leaves no confusion to the public who might come in to do business with you along those lines. It's just like a Christian book store that is titles as a Christian book store, where as someone knows that they can't very well walk into that store and request a copy of playboy magazine now can they ? Also the feds can't make the store start carrying the magazine based upon a citizens request either... I think the reason this has not been the case thus far, is because people think that they will lose business if they do this or will be banned by potential customers if they do this, but what are your values and morals worth to you in your life right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is what you want- then you will need to change the law- starting with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Go for it
Click to expand...

The civil rights act has nothing to do with what is going on in all of this these days, and no civil rights laws need to be changed, but what needs to be changed, is for Christians to change the way in which they do business in this nation, and they should not fear this change at all.


----------



## deltex1

Has Howey announced he's pregnant yet?


----------



## beagle9

Why would this nation begin engaging in the denying of Christians their rights to separate themselves as based upon their religious tenets in life, I mean will they be missed that badly by these people or is it that they (the Christians) are under attack now, and so they are being sought after in order to be wiped out in the public square, and then placed nice and neatly into a tiny little box now ?


----------



## beagle9

Carib Gyal said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> By politicians passing laws.
> 
> No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered him. But my answer had to do with lobbyists.
> 
> How do you reconcile your previous statement,
> _
> "Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle."_
> 
> With the above statement? Are weddings not services?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage in a church is protected both by the Constitution, and every Public Accomodation law I have seen- i.e. anything religious done in a church is protected.
> 
> Civil marriage outside of a church is subject to PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know. So you can deny services to anyone you want - including gays - by claiming you have religious objections to serving them.
Click to expand...

Whats wrong with having religious objections to not encouraging or engaging in anything that is sinful according to a Christian in this nation ? Remember that freedom of religion and religious expression is built into the nations dialog, so has that all changed somehow now ?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Tipsycatlover said:


> Yes.  In Nevada.   The pastor won.  Win isn't quite correct since it never rose to the lawsuit level.  The gay couple realized they could not win and abandoned the claim.




You are referring to "The Hitching Post" I believe:

1.  No "gay couple" sued, as a matter of fact it was the Pastor that filed a ore-emptive lawsuit against the city.

2.  The pastor was not in charge of a Church, the pastor was running a for profit business which advertised for BOTH religious and civil ceremonies and it was only the civil ceremonies that would have fallen under public accommodation laws.  However that is irrelevant because prior to Same-sex Civil Marriage going into effect the Hitiching Post changed it's business model and now only offers religious ceremonies.









>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought someone already posted a link to someone attempting to sue a pastor and/or a church for not performing the ceremony or refusing to ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been here since the beginning, haven't' seen anyone post a reputable link to an example of a member of the Clergy or a bonafide Church being sued, let alone losing the case, for refusing to perform a religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was I seeing or reading then ? Oh it must have not been a credible link as you said.. I must admit that I didn't click on the link, but I did see someone post a link to that affect in which was saying this sort of thing.
Click to expand...



People say a lot of things.  Being able to back them up is another thing.  

I've seen no links to any credible lawsuit in the United States where a pastor or Church has been sued for refusing to perform an interracial marriage, an interfaith marriage, a marriage where one or both of the couple were divorced for reasons other than adultery, or since SSCM has been legal in at least one State for over a decade for refusing to perform an same-sex religious ceremony.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher

beagle9 said:


> Well it is my thoughts then, that a business that wants to have their religion known before their customers enter into the business, should place their religious title before the name of the business.
> 
> Otherwise it should read "*Joe's Christian Bakery,*" where we make angel cakes that will send your taste buds into heaven.  Then if a person tries to come in and request that the bakery do business in a way that would not follow the religious context in which the bakery operates upon, then that customer can be directed to another bakery that may accommodate their needs in a specific way in which they might request from the other bakery instead.




Why do you assume that because the business name is "Joe's Christian Bakery" that homosexuals would not be welcome there?  There are plenty of Christians that have no problem with same-sex marriage and there are plenty of Christian Churches that will host a Same-sex Religious Ceremony (by choice).


>>>>


----------



## beagle9

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is my thoughts then, that a business that wants to have their religion known before their customers enter into the business, should place their religious title before the name of the business.
> 
> Otherwise it should read "*Joe's Christian Bakery,*" where we make angel cakes that will send your taste buds into heaven.  Then if a person tries to come in and request that the bakery do business in a way that would not follow the religious context in which the bakery operates upon, then that customer can be directed to another bakery that may accommodate their needs in a specific way in which they might request from the other bakery instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that because the business name is "Joe's Christian Bakery" that homosexuals would not be welcome there?  There are plenty of Christians that have no problem with same-sex marriage and there are plenty of Christian Churches that will host a Same-sex Religious Ceremony (by choice).
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

I don't assume that at all... Now those are your words cast upon me, so be careful that you don't try baiting someone before your audience in that way, because that is cheesy for someone like you to do or try to do, but you did it didn't you ? 

Now what it does, is that it will make the ones who don't want to engage in that type of thing, not have to, and the customers will understand this because of the listing or title of the business they have walked into. Now who knows just like you say, there may be another Christian bakery down the road that the one Christian bakery might refer them to next, and that will be great also in the situation if they are welcome there, but the main thing is that the government forces no one to do something against their will in the situation, and that is what freedom is all about in this nation or that it should be about in this nation.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Why would this nation begin engaging in the denying of Christians their rights to separate themselves as based upon their religious tenets in life, I mean will they be missed that badly by these people or is it that they (the Christians) are under attack now, and so they are being sought after in order to be wiped out in the public square, and then placed nice and neatly into a tiny little box now ?



Well certainly it would be wrong if Christians were being targeted for their religion.

But since the same laws apply equally to all Americans- Christians are not being targeted, nor are they under attack.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> You know, looking around at America and the world now, it really is getting harder for people to separate along any lines anymore, because if they do then they are figured as the enemy to those who will not except the separation even if the lines that are drawn are along religious lines or cultural lines now.


Nonsense.

The First Amendment right to freedom of association remains fully intact, and as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court (_BSA v. Dale _(2000)). Private organizations remain at liberty to exclude whomever they wish with impunity.

Public accommodations laws are authorized by the Commerce Clause, having nothing to do with freedom of association jurisprudence. 

This is subjective perception on your part.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> By politicians passing laws.
> 
> No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered him. But my answer had to do with lobbyists.
> 
> How do you reconcile your previous statement,
> _
> "Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle."_
> 
> With the above statement? Are weddings not services?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage in a church is protected both by the Constitution, and every Public Accomodation law I have seen- i.e. anything religious done in a church is protected.
> 
> Civil marriage outside of a church is subject to PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know. So you can deny services to anyone you want - including gays - by claiming you have religious objections to serving them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats wrong with having religious objections to not encouraging or engaging in anything that is sinful according to a Christian in this nation ? Remember that freedom of religion and religious expression is built into the nations dialog, so has that all changed somehow now ?
Click to expand...


And when people refuse to do business with blacks or Jews or Chinese or women or the handicapped by claiming that selling them gas will violate their religious beliefs?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, although I think there is no difference. Churches (or synagogues or mosques) will not be forced to marry anyone. Just as you cannot be forced to have gay sex with someone. It's not discrimination, it's just that you're not down with it.
> 
> 
> 
> If one is not down with it, and one is objectionable to the lifestyle that leads to it, and all because of ones faith, then should the government intervene and force an individual to cater to the people that do these things in which a person may figure will take them to hell all because of or if they support such a thing or give support to such a thing in life ? The Church is not a building of brick and mortar, but rather it is that the Church resides in the individual who carries the message of the Lord within him or her, so I ask where does their rights begin and end in this nation that is fast becoming something in which many don't recognize any longer ?
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no difference between plain bigotry and claiming a religious objection to something. Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle.
> 
> Some states and communities have additional protections for sexual preference- and it works the same way in those communities.
> 
> Don't like the law- change it so you can discriminate to your hearts content.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You love to throw in all these other things such as race - religion or national origin and such, but why do you do this ? Is it because if you separate all these from the other, then the other won't be able to stand upon it's own ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the public accomodation laws include the groups I mention.
> 
> And because in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act- the granddaddy PA law- no one has used PA laws to force a church to marry anyone the Church doesn't want to.
> 
> What I keep saying is that no one is going to force churches to marry anyone that the church doesn't want to- they haven't and they won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well it is my thoughts then, that a business that wants to have their religion known before their customers enter into the business, should place their religious title before the name of the business.
> 
> Otherwise it should read "*Joe's Christian Bakery,*" where we make angel cakes that will send your taste buds into heaven.  Then if a person tries to come in and request that the bakery do business in a way that would not follow the religious context in which the bakery operates upon, then that customer can be directed to another bakery that may accommodate their needs in a specific way in which they might request from the other bakery instead.
> 
> To not place your values and beliefs upon your business logo, leaves the door wide open for someone to come in and request almost anything that your business may have as it's product for sale. Come on people and figure this out already, because the government can't enforce anything upon you if you title your business in a way that leaves no confusion to the public who might come in to do business with you along those lines. It's just like a Christian book store that is titles as a Christian book store, where as someone knows that they can't very well walk into that store and request a copy of playboy magazine now can they ? Also the feds can't make the store start carrying the magazine based upon a citizens request either... I think the reason this has not been the case thus far, is because people think that they will lose business if they do this or will be banned by potential customers if they do this, but what are your values and morals worth to you in your life right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is what you want- then you will need to change the law- starting with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Go for it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The civil rights act has nothing to do with what is going on in all of this these days, and no civil rights laws need to be changed, but what needs to be changed, is for Christians to change the way in which they do business in this nation, and they should not fear this change at all.
Click to expand...


If you want Christians to be able to discriminate against certain groups by claiming it would violate their religious beliefs, yes you will need to change all of the Public Accomadation laws.


----------



## beagle9

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought someone already posted a link to someone attempting to sue a pastor and/or a church for not performing the ceremony or refusing to ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been here since the beginning, haven't' seen anyone post a reputable link to an example of a member of the Clergy or a bonafide Church being sued, let alone losing the case, for refusing to perform a religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was I seeing or reading then ? Oh it must have not been a credible link as you said.. I must admit that I didn't click on the link, but I did see someone post a link to that affect in which was saying this sort of thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People say a lot of things.  Being able to back them up is another thing.
> 
> I've seen no links to any credible lawsuit in the United States where a pastor or Church has been sued for refusing to perform an interracial marriage, an interfaith marriage, a marriage where one or both of the couple were divorced for reasons other than adultery, or since SSCM has been legal in at least one State for over a decade for refusing to perform an same-sex religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...




Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> By politicians passing laws.
> 
> No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered him. But my answer had to do with lobbyists.
> 
> How do you reconcile your previous statement,
> _
> "Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle."_
> 
> With the above statement? Are weddings not services?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage in a church is protected both by the Constitution, and every Public Accomodation law I have seen- i.e. anything religious done in a church is protected.
> 
> Civil marriage outside of a church is subject to PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know. So you can deny services to anyone you want - including gays - by claiming you have religious objections to serving them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats wrong with having religious objections to not encouraging or engaging in anything that is sinful according to a Christian in this nation ? Remember that freedom of religion and religious expression is built into the nations dialog, so has that all changed somehow now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when people refuse to do business with blacks or Jews or Chinese or women or the handicapped by claiming that selling them gas will violate their religious beliefs?
Click to expand...

Not going to happen, and if you suggest this, then you are also one for silently agreeing upon the final attempt of suing a Church, but you won't go there just yet now will you ?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one is not down with it, and one is objectionable to the lifestyle that leads to it, and all because of ones faith, then should the government intervene and force an individual to cater to the people that do these things in which a person may figure will take them to hell all because of or if they support such a thing or give support to such a thing in life ? The Church is not a building of brick and mortar, but rather it is that the Church resides in the individual who carries the message of the Lord within him or her, so I ask where does their rights begin and end in this nation that is fast becoming something in which many don't recognize any longer ?
> You love to throw in all these other things such as race - religion or national origin and such, but why do you do this ? Is it because if you separate all these from the other, then the other won't be able to stand upon it's own ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the public accomodation laws include the groups I mention.
> 
> And because in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act- the granddaddy PA law- no one has used PA laws to force a church to marry anyone the Church doesn't want to.
> 
> What I keep saying is that no one is going to force churches to marry anyone that the church doesn't want to- they haven't and they won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well it is my thoughts then, that a business that wants to have their religion known before their customers enter into the business, should place their religious title before the name of the business.
> 
> Otherwise it should read "*Joe's Christian Bakery,*" where we make angel cakes that will send your taste buds into heaven.  Then if a person tries to come in and request that the bakery do business in a way that would not follow the religious context in which the bakery operates upon, then that customer can be directed to another bakery that may accommodate their needs in a specific way in which they might request from the other bakery instead.
> 
> To not place your values and beliefs upon your business logo, leaves the door wide open for someone to come in and request almost anything that your business may have as it's product for sale. Come on people and figure this out already, because the government can't enforce anything upon you if you title your business in a way that leaves no confusion to the public who might come in to do business with you along those lines. It's just like a Christian book store that is titles as a Christian book store, where as someone knows that they can't very well walk into that store and request a copy of playboy magazine now can they ? Also the feds can't make the store start carrying the magazine based upon a citizens request either... I think the reason this has not been the case thus far, is because people think that they will lose business if they do this or will be banned by potential customers if they do this, but what are your values and morals worth to you in your life right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is what you want- then you will need to change the law- starting with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Go for it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The civil rights act has nothing to do with what is going on in all of this these days, and no civil rights laws need to be changed, but what needs to be changed, is for Christians to change the way in which they do business in this nation, and they should not fear this change at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want Christians to be able to discriminate against certain groups by claiming it would violate their religious beliefs, yes you will need to change all of the Public Accomadation laws.
Click to expand...

No, just change their charter or title is all, but most won't do it because they fear they would go bankrupt in the deal, so they will remain silent. The Christian baker spoke out, but his problem was that he wanted to profess his Christianity in the case, but his business didn't reflect his beliefs or anything other than he sold cakes to the public. The public should not be confused as to who it is that they are dealing with in my opinion, so I think it time for businesses to change their titles if they want to profess their religious beliefs in their business model. I guarantee you that it wouldn't be a problem anymore if this was the case.


----------



## WorldWatcher

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is my thoughts then, that a business that wants to have their religion known before their customers enter into the business, should place their religious title before the name of the business.
> 
> Otherwise it should read "*Joe's Christian Bakery,*" where we make angel cakes that will send your taste buds into heaven.  Then if a person tries to come in and request that the bakery do business in a way that would not follow the religious context in which the bakery operates upon, then that customer can be directed to another bakery that may accommodate their needs in a specific way in which they might request from the other bakery instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that because the business name is "Joe's Christian Bakery" that homosexuals would not be welcome there?  There are plenty of Christians that have no problem with same-sex marriage and there are plenty of Christian Churches that will host a Same-sex Religious Ceremony (by choice).
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't assume that at all... Now those are your words cast upon me, so be careful that you don't try baiting someone before your audience in that way, because that is cheesy for someone like you to do or try to do, but you did it didn't you ?
> 
> Now what it does, is that it will make the ones who don't want to engage in that type of thing, not have to, and the customers will understand this because of the listing or title of the business they have walked into. Now who knows just like you say, there may be another Christian bakery down the road that the one Christian bakery might refer them to next, and that will be great also in the situation if they are welcome there, but the main thing is that the government forces no one to do something against their will in the situation, and that is what freedom is all about in this nation or that it should be about in this nation.
Click to expand...


Excuse me, I did assume anything.

You are the one that said a bakery should clearly have to indicate their religion as part of their business model, not I.

Personally I don't see the need for special rights being available to a business to discriminate by claiming something is against their religion.  I think Public Accommodation laws should be repealed as applied to private businesses and they should be able to refuse service for any reason: black, white, Christian, Muslim, man, woman, Mexican, Irishman, Straight or Gay.  If that is the case then there is no need to grant special privileges for someone to hide behind religion.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher

beagle9 said:


> No, just change their charter or title is all, but most won't do it because they fear they would go bankrupt in the deal, so they will remain silent. The Christian baker spoke out, but his problem was that he wanted to profess his Christianity in the case, but his business didn't reflect his beliefs or anything other than he sold cakes to the public. The public should not be confused as to who it is that they are dealing with in my opinion, so I think it time for businesses to change their titles if they want to profess their religious beliefs in their business model. I guarantee you that it wouldn't be a problem anymore if this was the case.



You know that changing the business name does not exempt them from Public Accommodation laws - right?

Below is the Colorado Public Accommodation law, the law applicable in one of the "bakery" cases.  Notice the "name" of the business is irrelevant to the functioning of a for profit public accommodation.

Colorado Revised Statutes

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, al status, national origin, or ancestry.


COCODE​http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/24-34-601.html​http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/24-34-601.html


>>>>


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought someone already posted a link to someone attempting to sue a pastor and/or a church for not performing the ceremony or refusing to ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been here since the beginning, haven't' seen anyone post a reputable link to an example of a member of the Clergy or a bonafide Church being sued, let alone losing the case, for refusing to perform a religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was I seeing or reading then ? Oh it must have not been a credible link as you said.. I must admit that I didn't click on the link, but I did see someone post a link to that affect in which was saying this sort of thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People say a lot of things.  Being able to back them up is another thing.
> 
> I've seen no links to any credible lawsuit in the United States where a pastor or Church has been sued for refusing to perform an interracial marriage, an interfaith marriage, a marriage where one or both of the couple were divorced for reasons other than adultery, or since SSCM has been legal in at least one State for over a decade for refusing to perform an same-sex religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered him. But my answer had to do with lobbyists.
> 
> How do you reconcile your previous statement,
> _
> "Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle."_
> 
> With the above statement? Are weddings not services?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage in a church is protected both by the Constitution, and every Public Accomodation law I have seen- i.e. anything religious done in a church is protected.
> 
> Civil marriage outside of a church is subject to PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know. So you can deny services to anyone you want - including gays - by claiming you have religious objections to serving them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats wrong with having religious objections to not encouraging or engaging in anything that is sinful according to a Christian in this nation ? Remember that freedom of religion and religious expression is built into the nations dialog, so has that all changed somehow now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when people refuse to do business with blacks or Jews or Chinese or women or the handicapped by claiming that selling them gas will violate their religious beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not going to happen, and if you suggest this, then you are also one for silently agreeing upon the final attempt of suing a Church, but you won't go there just yet now will you ?
Click to expand...


Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.

Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.

What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them. 

Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.

If that is what you want.


----------



## beagle9

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is my thoughts then, that a business that wants to have their religion known before their customers enter into the business, should place their religious title before the name of the business.
> 
> Otherwise it should read "*Joe's Christian Bakery,*" where we make angel cakes that will send your taste buds into heaven.  Then if a person tries to come in and request that the bakery do business in a way that would not follow the religious context in which the bakery operates upon, then that customer can be directed to another bakery that may accommodate their needs in a specific way in which they might request from the other bakery instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that because the business name is "Joe's Christian Bakery" that homosexuals would not be welcome there?  There are plenty of Christians that have no problem with same-sex marriage and there are plenty of Christian Churches that will host a Same-sex Religious Ceremony (by choice).
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't assume that at all... Now those are your words cast upon me, so be careful that you don't try baiting someone before your audience in that way, because that is cheesy for someone like you to do or try to do, but you did it didn't you ?
> 
> Now what it does, is that it will make the ones who don't want to engage in that type of thing, not have to, and the customers will understand this because of the listing or title of the business they have walked into. Now who knows just like you say, there may be another Christian bakery down the road that the one Christian bakery might refer them to next, and that will be great also in the situation if they are welcome there, but the main thing is that the government forces no one to do something against their will in the situation, and that is what freedom is all about in this nation or that it should be about in this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me, I did assume anything.
> 
> You are the one that said a bakery should clearly have to indicate their religion as part of their business model, not I.
> 
> Personally I don't see the need for special rights being available to a business to discriminate by claiming something is against their religion.  I think Public Accommodation laws should be repealed as applied to private businesses and they should be able to refuse service for any reason: black, white, Christian, Muslim, man, woman, Mexican, Irishman, Straight or Gay.  If that is the case then there is no need to grant special privileges for someone to hide behind religion.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

I disagree, because I think the only thing that a Christian business would want to discriminate against, is the promotion of something that goes against their faith, otherwise that is *sinful *as is laid out in the Bible in which they do believe in and base their religion upon. Now because of a persons color, gender or religion, well these are things that don't have sin attached to them, so the Christian would have no problem servicing these individuals or groups when entering into their business, but to participate in something that clearly goes against their moral and ethical beliefs, is somewhat a different issue altogether for them to grapple with..


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought someone already posted a link to someone attempting to sue a pastor and/or a church for not performing the ceremony or refusing to ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been here since the beginning, haven't' seen anyone post a reputable link to an example of a member of the Clergy or a bonafide Church being sued, let alone losing the case, for refusing to perform a religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was I seeing or reading then ? Oh it must have not been a credible link as you said.. I must admit that I didn't click on the link, but I did see someone post a link to that affect in which was saying this sort of thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People say a lot of things.  Being able to back them up is another thing.
> 
> I've seen no links to any credible lawsuit in the United States where a pastor or Church has been sued for refusing to perform an interracial marriage, an interfaith marriage, a marriage where one or both of the couple were divorced for reasons other than adultery, or since SSCM has been legal in at least one State for over a decade for refusing to perform an same-sex religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage in a church is protected both by the Constitution, and every Public Accomodation law I have seen- i.e. anything religious done in a church is protected.
> 
> Civil marriage outside of a church is subject to PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know. So you can deny services to anyone you want - including gays - by claiming you have religious objections to serving them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats wrong with having religious objections to not encouraging or engaging in anything that is sinful according to a Christian in this nation ? Remember that freedom of religion and religious expression is built into the nations dialog, so has that all changed somehow now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when people refuse to do business with blacks or Jews or Chinese or women or the handicapped by claiming that selling them gas will violate their religious beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not going to happen, and if you suggest this, then you are also one for silently agreeing upon the final attempt of suing a Church, but you won't go there just yet now will you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.
> 
> Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.
> 
> What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them.
> 
> Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.
> 
> If that is what you want.
Click to expand...

No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ?   Hmmm..


----------



## beagle9

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just change their charter or title is all, but most won't do it because they fear they would go bankrupt in the deal, so they will remain silent. The Christian baker spoke out, but his problem was that he wanted to profess his Christianity in the case, but his business didn't reflect his beliefs or anything other than he sold cakes to the public. The public should not be confused as to who it is that they are dealing with in my opinion, so I think it time for businesses to change their titles if they want to profess their religious beliefs in their business model. I guarantee you that it wouldn't be a problem anymore if this was the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know that changing the business name does not exempt them from Public Accommodation laws - right?
> 
> Below is the Colorado Public Accommodation law, the law applicable in one of the "bakery" cases.  Notice the "name" of the business is irrelevant to the functioning of a for profit public accommodation.
> 
> Colorado Revised Statutes
> 
> 24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
> 
> (1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> (2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, al status, national origin, or ancestry.
> 
> 
> COCODE​
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

Oh joy, so I can go into a Christian book store and demand they sell me a playboy magazine right ? And if they don't have one (them being a book store and all), then I should be able to force them by the government doing it for me, to now have to carry that magazine for me right ? I mean hey I will say that I don't have a car, and the book store is in walking distance, and it does have book store in it's title, and it is open to the public, so why can't it carry my magazine for me ? Why can't it ACCOMMODATE ME ? sic.

I have far more respect than to get into these games, but some don't have any respect at all.


----------



## WorldWatcher

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just change their charter or title is all, but most won't do it because they fear they would go bankrupt in the deal, so they will remain silent. The Christian baker spoke out, but his problem was that he wanted to profess his Christianity in the case, but his business didn't reflect his beliefs or anything other than he sold cakes to the public. The public should not be confused as to who it is that they are dealing with in my opinion, so I think it time for businesses to change their titles if they want to profess their religious beliefs in their business model. I guarantee you that it wouldn't be a problem anymore if this was the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know that changing the business name does not exempt them from Public Accommodation laws - right?
> 
> Below is the Colorado Public Accommodation law, the law applicable in one of the "bakery" cases.  Notice the "name" of the business is irrelevant to the functioning of a for profit public accommodation.
> 
> Colorado Revised Statutes
> 
> 24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
> 
> (1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> (2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, al status, national origin, or ancestry.
> 
> 
> COCODE​
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh joy, so I can go into a Christian book store and demand they sell me a playboy magazine right ? And if they don't have one (them being a book store and all), then I should be able to force them by the government doing it for me, to now have to carry that magazine for me right ? I mean hey I will say that I don't have a car, and the book store is in walking distance, and it does have book store in it's title, and it is open to the public, so why can't it carry my magazine for me ? Why can't it ACCOMMODATE ME ? sic.
> 
> I have far more respect than to get into these games, but some don't have any respect at all.
Click to expand...


It becomes painfully obvious when someone makes a statement like "Oh joy, so I can go into a Christian book store and demand they sell me a playboy magazine right ?*" *that the individual has no clue about how Public Accommodation laws work.

But sigh, I'll answer anyway.

Public Accommodation laws DO NOT mandate what goods and services a business chooses to offer, the ONLY mandate that if a business VOLUNTARILY chooses to offer goods and services that the business cannot refuse sell those goods and services to a customer based on various criteria defined in the law.  Different States have defined different criteria but some examples include: race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, and yes sexual orientation.

A Christian Book store that does not stock playboy magazines isn't required to sell them to anyone because they are not a good that a business offers.  If they do stock the magazine for sale, then they cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.

A kosher deli is not required to sell a ham sandwich to a customer if they are kosher and don't stock ham.  However if ham sandwiches are a normal menu item they cannot cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.

A baker is not required to offer wedding cakes are part of their business model, however if they VOLUNTARILY choose to offer them they cannot cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> ...A Christian Book store that does not stock playboy magazines isn't required to sell them to anyone because they are not a good that a business offers.  If they do stock the magazine for sale, then they cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the custome...


 
This is a good example to talk about.  Let's say a christian book store sells almost every type of magazine there is, except it refuses to sell "gay marriage digest", in spite of numerous requests by certain customers to stock and sell it.

Then lets say a christian baker will bake cakes for every wedding there is, except gay ones.

Good example.  Even you admit there are limits when it comes to public accomodation.


----------



## beagle9

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just change their charter or title is all, but most won't do it because they fear they would go bankrupt in the deal, so they will remain silent. The Christian baker spoke out, but his problem was that he wanted to profess his Christianity in the case, but his business didn't reflect his beliefs or anything other than he sold cakes to the public. The public should not be confused as to who it is that they are dealing with in my opinion, so I think it time for businesses to change their titles if they want to profess their religious beliefs in their business model. I guarantee you that it wouldn't be a problem anymore if this was the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know that changing the business name does not exempt them from Public Accommodation laws - right?
> 
> Below is the Colorado Public Accommodation law, the law applicable in one of the "bakery" cases.  Notice the "name" of the business is irrelevant to the functioning of a for profit public accommodation.
> 
> Colorado Revised Statutes
> 
> 24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
> 
> (1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> (2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, al status, national origin, or ancestry.
> 
> 
> COCODE​
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh joy, so I can go into a Christian book store and demand they sell me a playboy magazine right ? And if they don't have one (them being a book store and all), then I should be able to force them by the government doing it for me, to now have to carry that magazine for me right ? I mean hey I will say that I don't have a car, and the book store is in walking distance, and it does have book store in it's title, and it is open to the public, so why can't it carry my magazine for me ? Why can't it ACCOMMODATE ME ? sic.
> 
> I have far more respect than to get into these games, but some don't have any respect at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It becomes painfully obvious when someone makes a statement like "Oh joy, so I can go into a Christian book store and demand they sell me a playboy magazine right ?*" *that the individual has no clue about how Public Accommodation laws work.
> 
> But sigh, I'll answer anyway.
> 
> Public Accommodation laws DO NOT mandate what goods and services a business chooses to offer, the ONLY mandate that if a business VOLUNTARILY chooses to offer goods and services that the business cannot refuse sell those goods and services to a customer based on various criteria defined in the law.  Different States have defined different criteria but some examples include: race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, and yes sexual orientation.
> 
> A Christian Book store that does not stock playboy magazines isn't required to sell them to anyone because they are not a good that a business offers.  If they do stock the magazine for sale, then they cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.
> 
> A kosher deli is not required to sell a ham sandwich to a customer if they are kosher and don't stock ham.  However if ham sandwiches are a normal menu item they cannot cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.
> 
> A baker is not required to offer wedding cakes are part of their business model, however if they VOLUNTARILY choose to offer them they cannot cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

The key word is Christian, and so if a Christian decides to label his or her business as a Christian Bakery, meaning that they don't engage in any activity that would be against their belief, their charter or their operational standard in which they keep, and the customers are fully aware that they are a Christian Bakery and all, then would you think it right that if I were to walk in and demand or ask for a Cake topper with a Devil, and maybe a demonic symbol on top that they should make it for me, otherwise to *accommodate* me ?  And if the Baker refuses, then should I be able to go and get the feds to force that Bakery to create the topper in which I had ask it to make for me ? I didn't think so, but it's once again your move chess player..


----------



## beagle9

The key I would think is how one labels their business if they are Christians in this day and age, and this way there is no confusion at all in these things or there shouldn't be any confusion.


----------



## WorldWatcher

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just change their charter or title is all, but most won't do it because they fear they would go bankrupt in the deal, so they will remain silent. The Christian baker spoke out, but his problem was that he wanted to profess his Christianity in the case, but his business didn't reflect his beliefs or anything other than he sold cakes to the public. The public should not be confused as to who it is that they are dealing with in my opinion, so I think it time for businesses to change their titles if they want to profess their religious beliefs in their business model. I guarantee you that it wouldn't be a problem anymore if this was the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know that changing the business name does not exempt them from Public Accommodation laws - right?
> 
> Below is the Colorado Public Accommodation law, the law applicable in one of the "bakery" cases.  Notice the "name" of the business is irrelevant to the functioning of a for profit public accommodation.
> 
> Colorado Revised Statutes
> 
> 24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
> 
> (1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> (2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, al status, national origin, or ancestry.
> 
> 
> COCODE​
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh joy, so I can go into a Christian book store and demand they sell me a playboy magazine right ? And if they don't have one (them being a book store and all), then I should be able to force them by the government doing it for me, to now have to carry that magazine for me right ? I mean hey I will say that I don't have a car, and the book store is in walking distance, and it does have book store in it's title, and it is open to the public, so why can't it carry my magazine for me ? Why can't it ACCOMMODATE ME ? sic.
> 
> I have far more respect than to get into these games, but some don't have any respect at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It becomes painfully obvious when someone makes a statement like "Oh joy, so I can go into a Christian book store and demand they sell me a playboy magazine right ?*" *that the individual has no clue about how Public Accommodation laws work.
> 
> But sigh, I'll answer anyway.
> 
> Public Accommodation laws DO NOT mandate what goods and services a business chooses to offer, the ONLY mandate that if a business VOLUNTARILY chooses to offer goods and services that the business cannot refuse sell those goods and services to a customer based on various criteria defined in the law.  Different States have defined different criteria but some examples include: race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, and yes sexual orientation.
> 
> A Christian Book store that does not stock playboy magazines isn't required to sell them to anyone because they are not a good that a business offers.  If they do stock the magazine for sale, then they cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.
> 
> A kosher deli is not required to sell a ham sandwich to a customer if they are kosher and don't stock ham.  However if ham sandwiches are a normal menu item they cannot cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.
> 
> A baker is not required to offer wedding cakes are part of their business model, however if they VOLUNTARILY choose to offer them they cannot cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key word is Christian, and so if a Christian decides to label his or her business as a Christian Bakery, meaning that they don't engage in any activity that would be against their belief, their charter or their operational standard in which they keep, and the customers are fully aware that they are a Christian Bakery and all, then would you think it right that if I were to walk in and demand or ask for a Cake topper with a Devil, and maybe a demonic symbol on top that they should make it for me, otherwise to *accommodate* me ?  And if the Baker refuses, then should I be able to go and get the feds to force that Bakery to create the topper in which I had ask it to make for me ? I didn't think so, but it's once again your move chess player..
Click to expand...



What I think is "right" isn't relevant to the discussion but as I've already shared with you I'll repeat.  I think that public accommodation laws as applied to private for-profit businesses should be repealed and the business owner free to refuse service based on whatever criteria they choose to function under.  If they don't like black people, they can refuse service.  If they don't like white people, they can refuse service.  If they don't like Irish people, they can refuse service.  If they don't like Muslim people, they can refuse service.    If they don't like Christian people, they can refuse service.  If they don't like homosexual people, they can refuse service.  I don't think it's "right", but then again I don't think government should be dictating such things.

A discussion of what I think things should be and a discussion of the reality of how things are are two different discussions.

Whether a business uses "Christian" in the name of their business, under the law is irrelevant to how the laws function.

And again for your silly example, if a bakery stocks Devil cake toppers and sells them to straight couples, then (in states where sexual orientation is included under anti-discrimination law) they can't refuse to sell them to devil worshipers but sell them to Christians.  If they don't stock them at all, then they are not required to sell them to anyone.  If a bakery stocks male toppers and separate female toppers and sells them as individual items - they cannot refuse to sell two male or two female toppers to same-sex couples.  Now if the bakery ONLY sold single toppers consisting of males and females as one unit - then they wouldn't be required to place a special order to procure single toppers with both figures being male or female.  Unless of course special ordering toppers, instead of only selling from stock, is a service they provide to other patrons, in that case they provide such a service and would need to provide that service equally.  To not fall into that problem, only sell toppers from stock and don't offer special orders.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher

beagle9 said:


> The key I would think is how one labels their business if they are Christians in this day and age, and this way there is no confusion at all in these things or there shouldn't be any confusion.



It's not, but you are free to think that is the way it should be.  The current measuring stick under the law is the goods and services offered by the business, not the name of the business.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> It's not, but you are free to think that is the way it should be.  The current measuring stick under the law is the goods and services offered by the business, not the name of the business.


But if the church resides in the breast of each man, how can you require him to defile that church by promoting a homosexual lifestyle, which is forbidden under threat of eternal damnation in Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament?

Will you be forcing a muslim baker to make a gay wedding cake next?   (The answer is, if you value your head, 'no', of course...)


----------



## Carib Gyal

beagle9 said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> By politicians passing laws.
> 
> No church or mosque or synogue will be forced to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry- for whatever reason.
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered him. But my answer had to do with lobbyists.
> 
> How do you reconcile your previous statement,
> _
> "Neither is protected by the law- you can't deny service to an African American because you claim you have religious objections to serving him, nor can you deny service to a Jew by claiming religious objections.
> 
> Race- religion- national origin- gender- those are all protected by Federal law- and it is against the law to deny service to someone because they live a Jewish lifestyle or a Christian lifestyle."_
> 
> With the above statement? Are weddings not services?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage in a church is protected both by the Constitution, and every Public Accomodation law I have seen- i.e. anything religious done in a church is protected.
> 
> Civil marriage outside of a church is subject to PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know. So you can deny services to anyone you want - including gays - by claiming you have religious objections to serving them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats wrong with having religious objections to not encouraging or engaging in anything that is sinful according to a Christian in this nation ? Remember that freedom of religion and religious expression is built into the nations dialog, so has that all changed somehow now ?
Click to expand...

I'm all for Christians being allowed their freedom of religion. It's just interesting from a purely American standpoint when these so-called extralegal rights clash with the basic rights established in the Constitution.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> The key I would think is how one labels their business if they are Christians in this day and age, and this way there is no confusion at all in these things or there shouldn't be any confusion.



Labeling a business 'Christian' would be insufficient. You'd have to have the business created as a religious corporation.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not, but you are free to think that is the way it should be.  The current measuring stick under the law is the goods and services offered by the business, not the name of the business.
> 
> 
> 
> But if the church resides in the breast of each man, how can you require him to defile that church by promoting a homosexual lifestyle, which is forbidden under threat of eternal damnation in Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament?
Click to expand...


If your religion forbids you from treating your customers fairly and equally, then you'll probably run into issues. 


> Will you be forcing a muslim baker to make a gay wedding cake next?   (The answer is, if you value your head, 'no', of course...)



We'd expect a muslim baker to sell the goods he sells to say, Christians. Even if he feels that doing so would 'prommote a Christian lifestyle' which he may find offense.


----------



## Skylar

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just change their charter or title is all, but most won't do it because they fear they would go bankrupt in the deal, so they will remain silent. The Christian baker spoke out, but his problem was that he wanted to profess his Christianity in the case, but his business didn't reflect his beliefs or anything other than he sold cakes to the public. The public should not be confused as to who it is that they are dealing with in my opinion, so I think it time for businesses to change their titles if they want to profess their religious beliefs in their business model. I guarantee you that it wouldn't be a problem anymore if this was the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know that changing the business name does not exempt them from Public Accommodation laws - right?
> 
> Below is the Colorado Public Accommodation law, the law applicable in one of the "bakery" cases.  Notice the "name" of the business is irrelevant to the functioning of a for profit public accommodation.
> 
> Colorado Revised Statutes
> 
> 24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
> 
> (1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> (2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, al status, national origin, or ancestry.
> 
> 
> COCODE​
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh joy, so I can go into a Christian book store and demand they sell me a playboy magazine right ? And if they don't have one (them being a book store and all), then I should be able to force them by the government doing it for me, to now have to carry that magazine for me right ? I mean hey I will say that I don't have a car, and the book store is in walking distance, and it does have book store in it's title, and it is open to the public, so why can't it carry my magazine for me ? Why can't it ACCOMMODATE ME ? sic.
> 
> I have far more respect than to get into these games, but some don't have any respect at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It becomes painfully obvious when someone makes a statement like "Oh joy, so I can go into a Christian book store and demand they sell me a playboy magazine right ?*" *that the individual has no clue about how Public Accommodation laws work.
> 
> But sigh, I'll answer anyway.
> 
> Public Accommodation laws DO NOT mandate what goods and services a business chooses to offer, the ONLY mandate that if a business VOLUNTARILY chooses to offer goods and services that the business cannot refuse sell those goods and services to a customer based on various criteria defined in the law.  Different States have defined different criteria but some examples include: race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, and yes sexual orientation.
> 
> A Christian Book store that does not stock playboy magazines isn't required to sell them to anyone because they are not a good that a business offers.  If they do stock the magazine for sale, then they cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.
> 
> A kosher deli is not required to sell a ham sandwich to a customer if they are kosher and don't stock ham.  However if ham sandwiches are a normal menu item they cannot cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.
> 
> A baker is not required to offer wedding cakes are part of their business model, however if they VOLUNTARILY choose to offer them they cannot cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...



They know exactly what public accommodation laws are. They're offering us obtuse analogies in hopes that those reading the thread, don't.

As is so common, their argument is dependent on the ignorance of their audience.


----------



## beagle9

Has anyone noticed that Christmas has been attacked for so long now, that it appears that people are intimidated about participating in it anymore or they are saying to themselves what's the use anymore ?? Has anyone noticed how due to the infiltration that has been made in the destruction of this national holiday, that people are losing their spirit when it comes to Christmas anymore these days ? I mean the new generations I think feel that the holiday is something that is wrong to celebrate anymore, and they are being taught this from a very young age now if at all possible by those who are doing this to them, and wildly by those who we have intrusted to teach them...

I mean here it is two days before Christmas, and the malls and stores where I live, are in no ways anywhere near the capacity of the crowds in which they have once held in the past, so what is the cause of it all I wondered ? I think it is the constant attacks on Christianity in this nation, and how in the schools where the kids are young and impressionable, and they are teaching anti-Christianity these days.  These attacks have worked wonders for those who are wanting to get rid of Christianity in this nation in the foreseeable future, and they want it gone so they can have these new and strangely lived lifestyles and/or beliefs in which they have created for themselves now, and so they figure that a Christian nation would be against such a thing, and onward it all goes including what is going on in this thread just as well.  All one has to do is connect the dots, and then look at how people are reacting to the Christian holiday in this nation anymore along with everything else, and then wonder to ourselves how can we be so blind about it all ? Will America soon end it's Christianity side of this nation, and give way to things that are harmful and destructive to the people of a nation on down the road, and far into her future because of this loss ? How has the spirit moved you this season, and is Christianity under attack just like it is here by so many ?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Has anyone noticed that Christmas has been attacked for so long now, that it appears that people are intimidated about participating in it anymore or they are saying to themselves what's the use anymore ??



Anyone notice how many Christians are defining their faith by imagined attacks upon it? And I thought the Wiccans buried the needle on that one.

And notice how wildly irrelevant your point is to any issue we're discussing regarding gay marriage?


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key I would think is how one labels their business if they are Christians in this day and age, and this way there is no confusion at all in these things or there shouldn't be any confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Labeling a business 'Christian' would be insufficient. You'd have to have the business created as a religious corporation.
Click to expand...

Is that what a Christian book store is, *a religious corporation *?


Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone noticed that Christmas has been attacked for so long now, that it appears that people are intimidated about participating in it anymore or they are saying to themselves what's the use anymore ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone notice how many Christians are defining their faith by imagined attacks upon it? And I thought the Wiccans buried the needle on that one.
> 
> And notice how wildly irrelevant your point is to any issue we're discussing regarding gay marriage?
Click to expand...

It is right on point, because it appears that the gay's have been testing the waters on the Christians lately, just like many others have been doing on it upon just about every other issue they can find to pick a bone about with the Christians. I'm saying that there is a war on Christianity in this nation, and the gay's attacking it is just another part of that fight. Marriage in this nation was always between a man and a woman, and it was mostly a religious ceremony also, but just like the ten commandments and the boy scouts being run off of public government properties, and the offense challenges between those who are offended of our pledge of allegiance or about the cross at the military burial grounds excetra excetra, so don't tell me my points aren't relevant, when you know dang well that they are... It is a connect the dots game, where as some are quite good at it but others just try and act dumb about it. You want to act dumb about it, but we see through that also.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone noticed that Christmas has been attacked for so long now, that it appears that people are intimidated about participating in it anymore or they are saying to themselves what's the use anymore ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone notice how many Christians are defining their faith by imagined attacks upon it? And I thought the Wiccans buried the needle on that one.
> 
> And notice how wildly irrelevant your point is to any issue we're discussing regarding gay marriage?
Click to expand...

We have Wyccans here, but they're Indians. Loincloth and feather Indians. They live way up in the bush by themselves and they come down to town once in a while to sell birds and iguanas and stuff they make.

But I digress.


----------



## Skylar

> Is that what a Christian book store is, *a religious corporation *?



A religious corporation is a particular corporation type. Legally speaking, there's no such thing as a 'christian corporation'. There is, however, a religious corporation. 

If you start your business as such, you'd probably have stronger grounds regarding public accommodation laws. But they bring with them all sorts of restrictions that the average business person might not be interested in.



> I'm saying that there is a war on Christianity in this nation, and the gay's attacking it is just another part of that fight.



And I'm saying that your supposed 'war on Christianity' is overwhelmingly imagined. And gays are seeking legal rights under the law. You may believe whatever religious views you'd like.


----------



## beagle9

Carib Gyal said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone noticed that Christmas has been attacked for so long now, that it appears that people are intimidated about participating in it anymore or they are saying to themselves what's the use anymore ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone notice how many Christians are defining their faith by imagined attacks upon it? And I thought the Wiccans buried the needle on that one.
> 
> And notice how wildly irrelevant your point is to any issue we're discussing regarding gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have Wyccans here, but they're Indians. Loincloth and feather Indians. They live way up in the bush by themselves and they come down to town once in a while to sell birds and iguanas and stuff they make.
> 
> But I digress.
Click to expand...

Would you ask one of them wiccans to bake you a cake for a gay wedding if they were to also bake cakes to sell, and if they refused based upon their belief in what ever it is that wiccans believe in, would you try and get them banned from coming down to sell their cakes, birds and iguanas all because of ?


----------



## Carib Gyal

beagle9 said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone noticed that Christmas has been attacked for so long now, that it appears that people are intimidated about participating in it anymore or they are saying to themselves what's the use anymore ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone notice how many Christians are defining their faith by imagined attacks upon it? And I thought the Wiccans buried the needle on that one.
> 
> And notice how wildly irrelevant your point is to any issue we're discussing regarding gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have Wyccans here, but they're Indians. Loincloth and feather Indians. They live way up in the bush by themselves and they come down to town once in a while to sell birds and iguanas and stuff they make.
> 
> But I digress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you ask one of them wiccans to bake you a cake for a gay wedding if they were to also bake cakes to sell, and if they refused based upon their belief in what ever it is that wiccans believe in, would you try and get them banned from coming down to sell their cakes, birds and iguanas all because of ?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're asking me. Would I ask them to bake me a cake for a gay wedding? Sure.

But I'm not in America and we can pretty much do....or not do....what we want to here.


----------



## beagle9

Carib Gyal said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone noticed that Christmas has been attacked for so long now, that it appears that people are intimidated about participating in it anymore or they are saying to themselves what's the use anymore ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone notice how many Christians are defining their faith by imagined attacks upon it? And I thought the Wiccans buried the needle on that one.
> 
> And notice how wildly irrelevant your point is to any issue we're discussing regarding gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have Wyccans here, but they're Indians. Loincloth and feather Indians. They live way up in the bush by themselves and they come down to town once in a while to sell birds and iguanas and stuff they make.
> 
> But I digress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you ask one of them wiccans to bake you a cake for a gay wedding if they were to also bake cakes to sell, and if they refused based upon their belief in what ever it is that wiccans believe in, would you try and get them banned from coming down to sell their cakes, birds and iguanas all because of ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure what you're asking me. Would I ask them to bake me a cake for a gay wedding? Sure.
> 
> But I'm not in America and we can pretty much do....or not do....what we want to here.
Click to expand...


If they refused would you want them banned, and if you don't but others did, would you fight for their freedom of choice in the matter ?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been here since the beginning, haven't' seen anyone post a reputable link to an example of a member of the Clergy or a bonafide Church being sued, let alone losing the case, for refusing to perform a religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> What was I seeing or reading then ? Oh it must have not been a credible link as you said.. I must admit that I didn't click on the link, but I did see someone post a link to that affect in which was saying this sort of thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People say a lot of things.  Being able to back them up is another thing.
> 
> I've seen no links to any credible lawsuit in the United States where a pastor or Church has been sued for refusing to perform an interracial marriage, an interfaith marriage, a marriage where one or both of the couple were divorced for reasons other than adultery, or since SSCM has been legal in at least one State for over a decade for refusing to perform an same-sex religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know. So you can deny services to anyone you want - including gays - by claiming you have religious objections to serving them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats wrong with having religious objections to not encouraging or engaging in anything that is sinful according to a Christian in this nation ? Remember that freedom of religion and religious expression is built into the nations dialog, so has that all changed somehow now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when people refuse to do business with blacks or Jews or Chinese or women or the handicapped by claiming that selling them gas will violate their religious beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not going to happen, and if you suggest this, then you are also one for silently agreeing upon the final attempt of suing a Church, but you won't go there just yet now will you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.
> 
> Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.
> 
> What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them.
> 
> Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.
> 
> If that is what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ?   Hmmm..
Click to expand...


Christians can't even agree with themselves.

Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.

Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.

And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not? 

For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?


----------



## Syriusly

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just change their charter or title is all, but most won't do it because they fear they would go bankrupt in the deal, so they will remain silent. The Christian baker spoke out, but his problem was that he wanted to profess his Christianity in the case, but his business didn't reflect his beliefs or anything other than he sold cakes to the public. The public should not be confused as to who it is that they are dealing with in my opinion, so I think it time for businesses to change their titles if they want to profess their religious beliefs in their business model. I guarantee you that it wouldn't be a problem anymore if this was the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know that changing the business name does not exempt them from Public Accommodation laws - right?
> 
> Below is the Colorado Public Accommodation law, the law applicable in one of the "bakery" cases.  Notice the "name" of the business is irrelevant to the functioning of a for profit public accommodation.
> 
> Colorado Revised Statutes
> 
> 24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
> 
> (1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> (2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, al status, national origin, or ancestry.
> 
> 
> COCODE​
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh joy, so I can go into a Christian book store and demand they sell me a playboy magazine right ? And if they don't have one (them being a book store and all), then I should be able to force them by the government doing it for me, to now have to carry that magazine for me right ? I mean hey I will say that I don't have a car, and the book store is in walking distance, and it does have book store in it's title, and it is open to the public, so why can't it carry my magazine for me ? Why can't it ACCOMMODATE ME ? sic.
> 
> I have far more respect than to get into these games, but some don't have any respect at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It becomes painfully obvious when someone makes a statement like "Oh joy, so I can go into a Christian book store and demand they sell me a playboy magazine right ?*" *that the individual has no clue about how Public Accommodation laws work.
> 
> But sigh, I'll answer anyway.
> 
> Public Accommodation laws DO NOT mandate what goods and services a business chooses to offer, the ONLY mandate that if a business VOLUNTARILY chooses to offer goods and services that the business cannot refuse sell those goods and services to a customer based on various criteria defined in the law.  Different States have defined different criteria but some examples include: race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, and yes sexual orientation.
> 
> A Christian Book store that does not stock playboy magazines isn't required to sell them to anyone because they are not a good that a business offers.  If they do stock the magazine for sale, then they cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.
> 
> A kosher deli is not required to sell a ham sandwich to a customer if they are kosher and don't stock ham.  However if ham sandwiches are a normal menu item they cannot cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.
> 
> A baker is not required to offer wedding cakes are part of their business model, however if they VOLUNTARILY choose to offer them they cannot cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key word is Christian, and so if a Christian decides to label his or her business as a Christian Bakery, meaning that they don't engage in any activity that would be against their belief, their charter or their operational standard in which they keep, and the customers are fully aware that they are a Christian Bakery and all, then would you think it right that if I were to walk in and demand or ask for a Cake topper with a Devil, and maybe a demonic symbol on top that they should make it for me, otherwise to *accommodate* me ?  And if the Baker refuses, then should I be able to go and get the feds to force that Bakery to create the topper in which I had ask it to make for me ? I didn't think so, but it's once again your move chess player..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I think is "right" isn't relevant to the discussion but as I've already shared with you I'll repeat.  I think that public accommodation laws as applied to private for-profit businesses should be repealed and the business owner free to refuse service based on whatever criteria they choose to function under.  If they don't like black people, they can refuse service.  If they don't like white people, they can refuse service.  If they don't like Irish people, they can refuse service.  If they don't like Muslim people, they can refuse service.    If they don't like Christian people, they can refuse service.  If they don't like homosexual people, they can refuse service.  I don't think it's "right", but then again I don't think government should be dictating such things.
> 
> A discussion of what I think things should be and a discussion of the reality of how things are are two different discussions.
> 
> Whether a business uses "Christian" in the name of their business, under the law is irrelevant to how the laws function.
> 
> And again for your silly example, if a bakery stocks Devil cake toppers and sells them to straight couples, then (in states where sexual orientation is included under anti-discrimination law) they can't refuse to sell them to devil worshipers but sell them to Christians.  If they don't stock them at all, then they are not required to sell them to anyone.  If a bakery stocks male toppers and separate female toppers and sells them as individual items - they cannot refuse to sell two male or two female toppers to same-sex couples.  Now if the bakery ONLY sold single toppers consisting of males and females as one unit - then they wouldn't be required to place a special order to procure single toppers with both figures being male or female.  Unless of course special ordering toppers, instead of only selling from stock, is a service they provide to other patrons, in that case they provide such a service and would need to provide that service equally.  To not fall into that problem, only sell toppers from stock and don't offer special orders.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Great post.


----------



## Carib Gyal

beagle9 said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone noticed that Christmas has been attacked for so long now, that it appears that people are intimidated about participating in it anymore or they are saying to themselves what's the use anymore ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone notice how many Christians are defining their faith by imagined attacks upon it? And I thought the Wiccans buried the needle on that one.
> 
> And notice how wildly irrelevant your point is to any issue we're discussing regarding gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have Wyccans here, but they're Indians. Loincloth and feather Indians. They live way up in the bush by themselves and they come down to town once in a while to sell birds and iguanas and stuff they make.
> 
> But I digress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you ask one of them wiccans to bake you a cake for a gay wedding if they were to also bake cakes to sell, and if they refused based upon their belief in what ever it is that wiccans believe in, would you try and get them banned from coming down to sell their cakes, birds and iguanas all because of ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure what you're asking me. Would I ask them to bake me a cake for a gay wedding? Sure.
> 
> But I'm not in America and we can pretty much do....or not do....what we want to here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they refused would you want them banned, and if you don't but others did, would you fight for their freedom of choice in the matter ?
Click to expand...

I would understand if they didn't want to for whatever reason. Religious, lazy, didn't like me personally, whatever. But I ain't fighting anybody unless they want to harm me or mine.

But ban them? Nah.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Has anyone noticed that Christmas has been attacked for so long now, that it appears that people are intimidated about participating in it anymore or they are saying to themselves what's the use anymore ??



No. 

I have seen Christmas becoming more and more commercialized, but I haven't seen anyone 'intimidated' about Christmas.

Perhaps some people are really, really, really easily intimidated.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not, but you are free to think that is the way it should be.  The current measuring stick under the law is the goods and services offered by the business, not the name of the business.
> 
> 
> 
> But if the church resides in the breast of each man, how can you require him to defile that church by promoting a homosexual lifestyle, which is forbidden under threat of eternal damnation in Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament?
> 
> Will you be forcing a muslim baker to make a gay wedding cake next? .)
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter whether the baker is Christian or Muslim or Jewish or an Atheist.

If the law forbids a business from discriminating against persons because of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual preference, etc, etc- then the business cannot discriminate based upon those things without breaking the law. 

Don't like it- change the law.


----------



## beagle9

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just change their charter or title is all, but most won't do it because they fear they would go bankrupt in the deal, so they will remain silent. The Christian baker spoke out, but his problem was that he wanted to profess his Christianity in the case, but his business didn't reflect his beliefs or anything other than he sold cakes to the public. The public should not be confused as to who it is that they are dealing with in my opinion, so I think it time for businesses to change their titles if they want to profess their religious beliefs in their business model. I guarantee you that it wouldn't be a problem anymore if this was the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know that changing the business name does not exempt them from Public Accommodation laws - right?
> 
> Below is the Colorado Public Accommodation law, the law applicable in one of the "bakery" cases.  Notice the "name" of the business is irrelevant to the functioning of a for profit public accommodation.
> 
> Colorado Revised Statutes
> 
> 24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
> 
> (1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> (2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, al status, national origin, or ancestry.
> 
> 
> COCODE​
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh joy, so I can go into a Christian book store and demand they sell me a playboy magazine right ? And if they don't have one (them being a book store and all), then I should be able to force them by the government doing it for me, to now have to carry that magazine for me right ? I mean hey I will say that I don't have a car, and the book store is in walking distance, and it does have book store in it's title, and it is open to the public, so why can't it carry my magazine for me ? Why can't it ACCOMMODATE ME ? sic.
> 
> I have far more respect than to get into these games, but some don't have any respect at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It becomes painfully obvious when someone makes a statement like "Oh joy, so I can go into a Christian book store and demand they sell me a playboy magazine right ?*" *that the individual has no clue about how Public Accommodation laws work.
> 
> But sigh, I'll answer anyway.
> 
> Public Accommodation laws DO NOT mandate what goods and services a business chooses to offer, the ONLY mandate that if a business VOLUNTARILY chooses to offer goods and services that the business cannot refuse sell those goods and services to a customer based on various criteria defined in the law.  Different States have defined different criteria but some examples include: race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, and yes sexual orientation.
> 
> A Christian Book store that does not stock playboy magazines isn't required to sell them to anyone because they are not a good that a business offers.  If they do stock the magazine for sale, then they cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.
> 
> A kosher deli is not required to sell a ham sandwich to a customer if they are kosher and don't stock ham.  However if ham sandwiches are a normal menu item they cannot cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.
> 
> A baker is not required to offer wedding cakes are part of their business model, however if they VOLUNTARILY choose to offer them they cannot cannot refuse sales based on (depending on the State) the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, veterans status, or sexual orientation of the customer.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key word is Christian, and so if a Christian decides to label his or her business as a Christian Bakery, meaning that they don't engage in any activity that would be against their belief, their charter or their operational standard in which they keep, and the customers are fully aware that they are a Christian Bakery and all, then would you think it right that if I were to walk in and demand or ask for a Cake topper with a Devil, and maybe a demonic symbol on top that they should make it for me, otherwise to *accommodate* me ?  And if the Baker refuses, then should I be able to go and get the feds to force that Bakery to create the topper in which I had ask it to make for me ? I didn't think so, but it's once again your move chess player..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I think is "right" isn't relevant to the discussion but as I've already shared with you I'll repeat.  I think that public accommodation laws as applied to private for-profit businesses should be repealed and the business owner free to refuse service based on whatever criteria they choose to function under. * If they don't like black people, they can refuse service.  If they don't like white people, they can refuse service.  If they don't like Irish people, they can refuse service.  If they don't like Muslim people, they can refuse service.    If they don't like Christian people, they can refuse service.  If they don't like homosexual people, they can refuse service.  I don't think it's "right", but then again I don't think government should be dictating such things.*
> 
> A discussion of what I think things should be and a discussion of the reality of how things are are two different discussions.
> 
> Whether a business uses "Christian" in the name of their business, under the law is irrelevant to how the laws function.
> 
> And again for your silly example, if a bakery stocks Devil cake toppers and sells them to straight couples, then (in states where sexual orientation is included under anti-discrimination law) they can't refuse to sell them to devil worshipers but sell them to Christians.  If they don't stock them at all, then they are not required to sell them to anyone.  If a bakery stocks male toppers and separate female toppers and sells them as individual items - they cannot refuse to sell two male or two female toppers to same-sex couples.  Now if the bakery ONLY sold single toppers consisting of males and females as one unit - then they wouldn't be required to place a special order to procure single toppers with both figures being male or female.  Unless of course special ordering toppers, instead of only selling from stock, is a service they provide to other patrons, in that case they provide such a service and would need to provide that service equally.  To not fall into that problem, only sell toppers from stock and don't offer special orders.>>>>
Click to expand...


I have to disagree with your broad statements above, because I only think that people would refuse a service based upon the sinfulness or sin that would be a part of the customers request, in which the service may become entangled with in a way that would cause the Christian to become an enabler of that sin in which he or she would be against as a Christian in life. The others mentioned are not that of either sin or a sinfulness in life, so not sure where you came from in that opinion you had given.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not, but you are free to think that is the way it should be.  The current measuring stick under the law is the goods and services offered by the business, not the name of the business.
> 
> 
> 
> But if the church resides in the breast of each man, how can you require him to defile that church by promoting a homosexual lifestyle, which is forbidden under threat of eternal damnation in Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament?
> 
> Will you be forcing a muslim baker to make a gay wedding cake next? .)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter whether the baker is Christian or Muslim or Jewish or an Atheist.
> 
> If the law forbids a business from discriminating against persons because of race, religion, national origin, gender, *sexual preference*, etc, etc- then the business cannot discriminate based upon those things without breaking the law.
> 
> Don't like it- change the law.
Click to expand...


Sexual preference ? That's the one that just has me scratching my head here, because how on earth did that ever get to be on the protected status class like it did ? I can understand the others, but sexual preference or the sexuality of a person ? How did that (ones sexuality) go from the bed room all the way to the federal governments protected status class ? It's simply amazing when one thinks about it..


----------



## Carib Gyal

I would like to see a white guy try to become a member of the National Black Caucus. A fine brouhaha that would make.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not, but you are free to think that is the way it should be.  The current measuring stick under the law is the goods and services offered by the business, not the name of the business.
> 
> 
> 
> But if the church resides in the breast of each man, how can you require him to defile that church by promoting a homosexual lifestyle, which is forbidden under threat of eternal damnation in Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament?
> 
> Will you be forcing a muslim baker to make a gay wedding cake next? .)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter whether the baker is Christian or Muslim or Jewish or an Atheist.
> 
> If the law forbids a business from discriminating against persons because of race, religion, national origin, gender, *sexual preference*, etc, etc- then the business cannot discriminate based upon those things without breaking the law.
> 
> Don't like it- change the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sexual preference ? That's the one that just has me scratching my head here, because how on earth did that ever get to be on the protected status class like it did ? I can understand the others, but sexual preference or the sexuality of a person ? How did that (ones sexuality) go from the bed room all the way to the federal governments protected status class ? It's simply amazing when one thinks about it..
Click to expand...


I'm astounded too that anyone would give a crap about someone's sexual orientation when selling them cake. But some people make it an issue. The laws in many states sets minimum codes of conduct for proprietors serving the public. And you have to treat all your customers fairly and equally.


----------



## Skylar

Carib Gyal said:


> I would like to see a white guy try to become a member of the National Black Caucus. A fine brouhaha that would make.



The National Black Caucus isn't a public business.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was I seeing or reading then ? Oh it must have not been a credible link as you said.. I must admit that I didn't click on the link, but I did see someone post a link to that affect in which was saying this sort of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People say a lot of things.  Being able to back them up is another thing.
> 
> I've seen no links to any credible lawsuit in the United States where a pastor or Church has been sued for refusing to perform an interracial marriage, an interfaith marriage, a marriage where one or both of the couple were divorced for reasons other than adultery, or since SSCM has been legal in at least one State for over a decade for refusing to perform an same-sex religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whats wrong with having religious objections to not encouraging or engaging in anything that is sinful according to a Christian in this nation ? Remember that freedom of religion and religious expression is built into the nations dialog, so has that all changed somehow now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when people refuse to do business with blacks or Jews or Chinese or women or the handicapped by claiming that selling them gas will violate their religious beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not going to happen, and if you suggest this, then you are also one for silently agreeing upon the final attempt of suing a Church, but you won't go there just yet now will you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.
> 
> Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.
> 
> What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them.
> 
> Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.
> 
> If that is what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ?   Hmmm..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians can't even agree with themselves.
> 
> Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.
> 
> Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.
> 
> And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?
> 
> For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?
Click to expand...

All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Skylar said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see a white guy try to become a member of the National Black Caucus. A fine brouhaha that would make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National Black Caucus isn't a public business.
Click to expand...

It's a congressional organization. This is interesting, and I think I agree with it, especially the last paragraph:

_*Non-Black membership*

All past and present members of the caucus have been black. In 2006, while running for Congress in a Tennessee district which is 60% black, white candidate Steve Cohen pledged to apply for membership in order to represent his constituents. However, after his election, his application was refused.[7] Although the bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, former and current members of the caucus agreed that the group should remain "exclusively black". In response to the decision, Rep. Cohen referred to his campaign promise as "a social faux pas" because "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."


Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr., D-MO., the son of Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-MO., a co-founder of the caucus, said: "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the caucus is black. It's time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It's an unwritten rule. It's understood." Clay also issued the following statement:


Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept—there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.


Later the same week Representative Tom Tancredo, R-CO., objected to the continued existence of the CBC as well as the Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Republican Congressional Hispanic Conference arguing that, "I*t is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a color-blind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race. If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses*."_

Congressional Black Caucus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> People say a lot of things.  Being able to back them up is another thing.
> 
> I've seen no links to any credible lawsuit in the United States where a pastor or Church has been sued for refusing to perform an interracial marriage, an interfaith marriage, a marriage where one or both of the couple were divorced for reasons other than adultery, or since SSCM has been legal in at least one State for over a decade for refusing to perform an same-sex religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when people refuse to do business with blacks or Jews or Chinese or women or the handicapped by claiming that selling them gas will violate their religious beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not going to happen, and if you suggest this, then you are also one for silently agreeing upon the final attempt of suing a Church, but you won't go there just yet now will you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.
> 
> Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.
> 
> What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them.
> 
> Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.
> 
> If that is what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ?   Hmmm..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians can't even agree with themselves.
> 
> Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.
> 
> Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.
> 
> And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?
> 
> For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.
Click to expand...


If merely labeling a store made it immune from public accomidations laws, perhaps. But you're factually wrong on that point. Calling a store 'Christian' or "Muslim' doesn't change the fact that they are subject to public accomidation laws.

_Your Black Muslim Bakery_ was 'properly labeled' per your estimation. But they couldn't refuse service to non-blacks or non-muslims anymore than say, Macy's or Sears could.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not, but you are free to think that is the way it should be.  The current measuring stick under the law is the goods and services offered by the business, not the name of the business.
> 
> 
> 
> But if the church resides in the breast of each man, how can you require him to defile that church by promoting a homosexual lifestyle, which is forbidden under threat of eternal damnation in Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament?
> 
> Will you be forcing a muslim baker to make a gay wedding cake next? .)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter whether the baker is Christian or Muslim or Jewish or an Atheist.
> 
> If the law forbids a business from discriminating against persons because of race, religion, national origin, gender, *sexual preference*, etc, etc- then the business cannot discriminate based upon those things without breaking the law.
> 
> Don't like it- change the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sexual preference ? That's the one that just has me scratching my head here, because how on earth did that ever get to be on the protected status class like it did ? I can understand the others, but sexual preference or the sexuality of a person ? How did that (ones sexuality) go from the bed room all the way to the federal governments protected status class ? It's simply amazing when one thinks about it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm astounded too that anyone would give a crap about someone's sexual orientation when selling them cake. But some people make it an issue. The laws in many states sets minimum codes of conduct for proprietors serving the public. And you have to treat all your customers fairly and equally.
Click to expand...

The gay thing and marriage is new though, so the reaction to it is going to continue to cause problems among some or many, and it is understandable because people hate to see what they always felt that America represented once to them slowly slipping away, and it now going in a direction that is being found as a new and in uncharted waters. No one knows where the boat is now sailing, nor if the course that has been chartered is the right course or not for them to return from... Now in a nation that is fast becoming more and more foriiegn to them all,  they are saddened about it all because the war on them continues from many directions now, and on to their dismay it all keeps on going.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not going to happen, and if you suggest this, then you are also one for silently agreeing upon the final attempt of suing a Church, but you won't go there just yet now will you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.
> 
> Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.
> 
> What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them.
> 
> Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.
> 
> If that is what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ?   Hmmm..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians can't even agree with themselves.
> 
> Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.
> 
> Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.
> 
> And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?
> 
> For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If merely labeling a store made it immune from public accomidations laws, perhaps. But you're factually wrong on that point. Calling a store 'Christian' or "Muslim' doesn't change the fact that they are subject to public accomidation laws.
> 
> _Your Black Muslim Bakery_ was 'properly labeled' per your estimation. But they couldn't refuse service to non-blacks or non-muslims anymore than say, Macy's or Sears could.
Click to expand...


Exact business I was thinking of.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> People say a lot of things.  Being able to back them up is another thing.
> 
> I've seen no links to any credible lawsuit in the United States where a pastor or Church has been sued for refusing to perform an interracial marriage, an interfaith marriage, a marriage where one or both of the couple were divorced for reasons other than adultery, or since SSCM has been legal in at least one State for over a decade for refusing to perform an same-sex religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when people refuse to do business with blacks or Jews or Chinese or women or the handicapped by claiming that selling them gas will violate their religious beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not going to happen, and if you suggest this, then you are also one for silently agreeing upon the final attempt of suing a Church, but you won't go there just yet now will you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.
> 
> Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.
> 
> What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them.
> 
> Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.
> 
> If that is what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ?   Hmmm..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians can't even agree with themselves.
> 
> Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.
> 
> Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.
> 
> And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?
> 
> For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.
Click to expand...


No- frankly- if you want it to change- you need to change the law- otherwise you are just hoping that if someone puts a big sign saying "Christian" that no one you disagree with wants to buy something from you.


----------



## Skylar

> The gay thing and marriage is new though, so the reaction to it is going to continue to cause problems among some or many, and it is understandable because people hate to see what they always felt that America represented once to them slowly slipping away, and it now going in a direction that is being found as a new and in uncharted waters.



I imagine those who believed in executing gays felt the same way when such laws were abandoned. And that those who supported segregation when such laws were overturned. And those that opposed interracial marriage when those laws were overturned. There will always be those that cling to such things. 

But as a Christian, if you feel that society only 'represents you' if they discrimination against someone else, you may want to change the passages of your Bible that you're focusing on.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not going to happen, and if you suggest this, then you are also one for silently agreeing upon the final attempt of suing a Church, but you won't go there just yet now will you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.
> 
> Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.
> 
> What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them.
> 
> Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.
> 
> If that is what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ?   Hmmm..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians can't even agree with themselves.
> 
> Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.
> 
> Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.
> 
> And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?
> 
> For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If merely labeling a store made it immune from public accomidations laws, perhaps. But you're factually wrong on that point. Calling a store 'Christian' or "Muslim' doesn't change the fact that they are subject to public accomidation laws.
> 
> _Your Black Muslim Bakery_ was 'properly labeled' per your estimation. But they couldn't refuse service to non-blacks or non-Muslims anymore than say, Macy's or Sears could.
Click to expand...

Non-blacks or non-Muslims have nothing to do with *sin* as in homosexual sin in which all would agree upon (as a religious people) is *sin* that is found written within these religious belief systems in which they all hold. Now if a gay couple were to go in and ask the baker to fix them up a cake for a wedding, and the Muslim bakery refused based upon that very strict religious tenet, then should the bakery be shut down or forced out of business by the government ? I mean the gay couple should know that a Muslim Bakery wouldn't make them a cake to begin with right, but would they have went in anyway, and all in hopes to expose the bakery in that way, and then in hopes to somehow shut it down ?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.
> 
> Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.
> 
> What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them.
> 
> Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.
> 
> If that is what you want.
> 
> 
> 
> No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ?   Hmmm..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians can't even agree with themselves.
> 
> Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.
> 
> Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.
> 
> And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?
> 
> For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If merely labeling a store made it immune from public accomidations laws, perhaps. But you're factually wrong on that point. Calling a store 'Christian' or "Muslim' doesn't change the fact that they are subject to public accomidation laws.
> 
> _Your Black Muslim Bakery_ was 'properly labeled' per your estimation. But they couldn't refuse service to non-blacks or non-Muslims anymore than say, Macy's or Sears could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-blacks or non-Muslims have nothing to do with *sin* as in homosexual sin in which all would agree upon that is sin within these religious belief systems in which they hold. Now if a gay couple were to go in and ask the baker to fix them up a cake for a wedding, and the Muslim bakery refused based upon that very strict religious tenet, then should the bakery be shut down or forced out of business by the government ? I mean the gay couple should know that a Muslim Bakery wouldn't make them a cake to begin with right, but would they have went in anyway, and all in hopes to expose the bakery in that way, and then in hopes to somehow shut it down ?
Click to expand...



Again- your argument is with the law.

If you don't like it- change the law.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I have said repeatedly- any idiot can sue for any reason.
> 
> Someone may sue a church someday for refusing to marry a Jew or a Black or Mormon or a homosexual- and they will be laughed out of court.
> 
> What you propose are laws that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone by claiming that they have religious objections to them.
> 
> Which would effectively gut public accomodation laws.
> 
> If that is what you want.
> 
> 
> 
> No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ?   Hmmm..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians can't even agree with themselves.
> 
> Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.
> 
> Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.
> 
> And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?
> 
> For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If merely labeling a store made it immune from public accomidations laws, perhaps. But you're factually wrong on that point. Calling a store 'Christian' or "Muslim' doesn't change the fact that they are subject to public accomidation laws.
> 
> _Your Black Muslim Bakery_ was 'properly labeled' per your estimation. But they couldn't refuse service to non-blacks or non-Muslims anymore than say, Macy's or Sears could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-blacks or non-Muslims have nothing to do with *sin* as in homosexual sin in which all would agree upon that is sin within these religious belief systems in which they hold.
Click to expand...


To you perhaps. But we don't base our public accommodation laws on your arbitrary declarations and made up standards. Your 'label' standards were met. Public accommodation laws still applied. Demonstrating the uselessness of yet another made up standard that has nothing to do with the law.

Calling yourself a 'Christian' business doesn't exempt you from any law. You are quite simply wrong on that claim.



> Now if a gay couple were to go in and ask the baker to fix them up a cake for a wedding, and the Muslim bakery refused based upon that very strict religious tenet, then should the bakery be shut down or forced out of business by the government ?



They should be subject to the same public accommodation laws that everyone else is subject to. If they refuse to serve someone because race, religion, sexual orientation, creed, etc......and the laws of their state forbid this, they should be subject to whatever penalties accompany the violation of such laws. 

Why would Christians get a pass for a law that applies to Muslims, Jews, Hindus or anyone else?


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see a white guy try to become a member of the National Black Caucus. A fine brouhaha that would make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National Black Caucus isn't a public business.
Click to expand...

A different issue altogether... Your answer doesn't apply even though you figured it did.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see a white guy try to become a member of the National Black Caucus. A fine brouhaha that would make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National Black Caucus isn't a public business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A different issue altogether... Your answer doesn't apply even though you figured it did.
Click to expand...


Since we're speaking of businesses and the application of public accommodation laws upon them, my answer is both relevance and applicable. As the Black Causus isn't a business and isn't subject to any public accommodation law. It isn't even open to the public. But only congressmen and women.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because what is religious in belief would have to be proven as such, otherwise it can't just be used like people are using the civil rights laws to include everything but the kitchen sink these days now can they, or wait a cotton picken second here, maybe they can use religion in the same ways that people are using the civil rights laws as well. Tit-for Tat right ?   Hmmm..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians can't even agree with themselves.
> 
> Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.
> 
> Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.
> 
> And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?
> 
> For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If merely labeling a store made it immune from public accomidations laws, perhaps. But you're factually wrong on that point. Calling a store 'Christian' or "Muslim' doesn't change the fact that they are subject to public accomidation laws.
> 
> _Your Black Muslim Bakery_ was 'properly labeled' per your estimation. But they couldn't refuse service to non-blacks or non-Muslims anymore than say, Macy's or Sears could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-blacks or non-Muslims have nothing to do with *sin* as in homosexual sin in which all would agree upon that is sin within these religious belief systems in which they hold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To you perhaps. But we don't base our public accommodation laws on your arbitrary declarations and made up standards. Your 'label' standards were met. Public accommodation laws still applied. Demonstrating the uselessness of yet another made up standard that has nothing to do with the law.
> 
> Calling yourself a 'Christian' business doesn't exempt you from any law. You are quite simply wrong on that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if a gay couple were to go in and ask the baker to fix them up a cake for a wedding, and the Muslim bakery refused based upon that very strict religious tenet, then should the bakery be shut down or forced out of business by the government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should be subject to the same public accommodation laws that everyone else is subject to. If they refuse to serve someone because race, religion, sexual orientation, creed, etc......and the laws of their state forbid this, they should be subject to whatever penalties accompany the violation of such laws.
> 
> Why would Christians get a pass for a law that applies to Muslims, Jews, Hindus or anyone else?
Click to expand...

A Christian book store sells books right, and the customer because of this labeling knows the store only sells Christian or agreeable books that meet with the standards in which the store lives and goes by, but then here comes a person in and action all dumb you see, and they ask the store "hey you sell books" right ? The store owner says yes, ok then could you get me a copy of the latest addition of playboy, and the owner saws well we can't sell that kind of book here, "but you said you sell books" right ? Well yes said the store owner, "then why can't you get that book for me says the customer" ? Next the customer steams out and runs to the government and says hey these people said they sell books, but for some reason they won't get me the book that I need, now what are you going to do about that, and isn't that discriminating against me ? Who do you think the government would side with once they went out and saw that the book store was a Christian Book Store, and it having no illusions to it's customers because there it was big as can be, and in black and white letters "*CHRISTIAN BOOK STORE*"!!!


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians can't even agree with themselves.
> 
> Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.
> 
> Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.
> 
> And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?
> 
> For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?
> 
> 
> 
> All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If merely labeling a store made it immune from public accomidations laws, perhaps. But you're factually wrong on that point. Calling a store 'Christian' or "Muslim' doesn't change the fact that they are subject to public accomidation laws.
> 
> _Your Black Muslim Bakery_ was 'properly labeled' per your estimation. But they couldn't refuse service to non-blacks or non-Muslims anymore than say, Macy's or Sears could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-blacks or non-Muslims have nothing to do with *sin* as in homosexual sin in which all would agree upon that is sin within these religious belief systems in which they hold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To you perhaps. But we don't base our public accommodation laws on your arbitrary declarations and made up standards. Your 'label' standards were met. Public accommodation laws still applied. Demonstrating the uselessness of yet another made up standard that has nothing to do with the law.
> 
> Calling yourself a 'Christian' business doesn't exempt you from any law. You are quite simply wrong on that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if a gay couple were to go in and ask the baker to fix them up a cake for a wedding, and the Muslim bakery refused based upon that very strict religious tenet, then should the bakery be shut down or forced out of business by the government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should be subject to the same public accommodation laws that everyone else is subject to. If they refuse to serve someone because race, religion, sexual orientation, creed, etc......and the laws of their state forbid this, they should be subject to whatever penalties accompany the violation of such laws.
> 
> Why would Christians get a pass for a law that applies to Muslims, Jews, Hindus or anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Christian book store sells books right, and the customer because of this labeling knows the store only sells Christian or agreeable books that meet with the standards in which the store lives and goes by, but then here comes a person in and action all dumb you see, and they ask the store "hey you sell books" right ? The store owner says yes, ok then could you get me a copy of the latest addition of playboy, and the owner saws well we can't sell that kind of book here, "but you said you sell books" right ? Well yes said the store owner, "then why can't you get that book for me says the customer" ? Next the customer steams out and runs to the government and says hey these people said they sell books, but for some reason they won't get me the book that I need, now what are you going to do about that, and isn't that discriminating against me ? Who do you think the government would side with once they went out and saw that the book store was a Christian Book Store, and it having no illusions to it's customers because there it was big as can be, and in black and white letters "*CHRISTIAN BOOK STORE*"!!!
Click to expand...



Your problem is the law- and that you don't realize your problem is the law.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians can't even agree with themselves.
> 
> Look at the issue of Divorce. Jesus of course mentions divorce- but most Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage.
> 
> Christian ministers have argued for racial segregation in the past- citing passages from the Bible to support it.
> 
> And then who decides whether someone has a 'genuine' religious objection, and who does not?
> 
> For example- if a shop keeper refused to sell a woman pants- who would judge whether he refused because of religious objections or because she happened to be a woman?
> 
> 
> 
> All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If merely labeling a store made it immune from public accomidations laws, perhaps. But you're factually wrong on that point. Calling a store 'Christian' or "Muslim' doesn't change the fact that they are subject to public accomidation laws.
> 
> _Your Black Muslim Bakery_ was 'properly labeled' per your estimation. But they couldn't refuse service to non-blacks or non-Muslims anymore than say, Macy's or Sears could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-blacks or non-Muslims have nothing to do with *sin* as in homosexual sin in which all would agree upon that is sin within these religious belief systems in which they hold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To you perhaps. But we don't base our public accommodation laws on your arbitrary declarations and made up standards. Your 'label' standards were met. Public accommodation laws still applied. Demonstrating the uselessness of yet another made up standard that has nothing to do with the law.
> 
> Calling yourself a 'Christian' business doesn't exempt you from any law. You are quite simply wrong on that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if a gay couple were to go in and ask the baker to fix them up a cake for a wedding, and the Muslim bakery refused based upon that very strict religious tenet, then should the bakery be shut down or forced out of business by the government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should be subject to the same public accommodation laws that everyone else is subject to. If they refuse to serve someone because race, religion, sexual orientation, creed, etc......and the laws of their state forbid this, they should be subject to whatever penalties accompany the violation of such laws.
> 
> Why would Christians get a pass for a law that applies to Muslims, Jews, Hindus or anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Christian book store sells books right, and the customer because of this labeling knows the store only sells Christian or agreeable books that meet with the standards in which the store lives and goes by, but then here comes a person in and action all dumb you see, and they ask the store "hey you sell books" right ? The store owner says yes, ok then could you get me a copy of the latest addition of playboy, and the owner saws well we can't sell that kind of book here, "but you said you sell books" right ? Well yes said the store owner, "then why can't you get that book for me says the customer" ?
Click to expand...


Beagle....you know that's not public accommodation laws. This has been explained to you over and over again. A business need only sell what it ordinarily sells. If you sell wedding cake, there's no different in a cake for Christians, Muslims, gays, or straights. Its just cake. 

So your scenario where someone is expected to carry and sell a product that they don't sell is yet another misconception on your part. Albeit an intentional one in this case, as you already know better.

A closer analogy would be a christian bookstore that sold journals. But refused to sell one to a gay person, because they didn't want to encourage a record of an 'immoral lifestyle'. That would violate the public accommodation laws. As journals are a normally stocked item that they simply refuse to sell based on sexual orientation. 

And labeling your store 'Christian' would do nothing to prevent the application of that law.


----------



## WorldWatcher

beagle9 said:


> All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.



No it wouldn't for a couple of reasons:

1.  The businesses name under public accommodation laws is irrelevant.

2.  There are many "Christian" businesses that have no problem providing equal access to goods and services to homosexuals and there are a number of "Christian" Churches around the country that perform same-sex ceremonies.​

So a bakery named "Joe's Crhistian Bakery" doesn't do anything to indicate whether they provide goods and services to homosexuals.  While "Joe's - We Don't Serve Gays - Christian Bakery" might, that wouldn't be a very good business name.


>>>>


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Has anyone noticed that Christmas has been attacked for so long now, that it appears that people are intimidated about participating in it anymore or they are saying to themselves what's the use anymore ??



No. I see stores not wanting to alienate non Christian customers by saying "Happy Holidays", but I still can't swing a purse without hitting a christmas tree two days before Halloween.


----------



## beagle9

I apologize to yall, as I had to stop and watch the episode of "Miracle on 34th Street', the original 1947 version, and I apologize for not editing my last post before I left.... uggh. What we need now in this nation, is a savy lawyer like Khris Kringle had in which I saw depicted in that show, then maybe we could get back on some solid footing once again in this nation. I swear I'm living in the wrong time period I think.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see a white guy try to become a member of the National Black Caucus. A fine brouhaha that would make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National Black Caucus isn't a public business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A different issue altogether... Your answer doesn't apply even though you figured it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we're speaking of businesses and the application of public accommodation laws upon them, my answer is both relevance and applicable. As the Black Causus isn't a business and isn't subject to any public accommodation law. It isn't even open to the public. But only congressmen and women.
Click to expand...

Evidently, only on black congressmen and women.

Let us now speculate on the formation of the National White Caucus.


----------



## Skylar

Carib Gyal said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see a white guy try to become a member of the National Black Caucus. A fine brouhaha that would make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National Black Caucus isn't a public business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A different issue altogether... Your answer doesn't apply even though you figured it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we're speaking of businesses and the application of public accommodation laws upon them, my answer is both relevance and applicable. As the Black Causus isn't a business and isn't subject to any public accommodation law. It isn't even open to the public. But only congressmen and women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidently, only on black congressmen and women.
> 
> Let us now speculate on the formation of the National White Caucus.
Click to expand...


Lets speculate on the relevance to public accommodation laws. As the Black Caucus isn't a business and it isn't open to the public.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All such problems would be solved if Christians labeled their stores appropriately, where as there would be no miss-perceptions as to who or what it is that one would be dealing with. Next all people have to do is frequent the business or not, and let the chips fall where they may.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If merely labeling a store made it immune from public accomidations laws, perhaps. But you're factually wrong on that point. Calling a store 'Christian' or "Muslim' doesn't change the fact that they are subject to public accomidation laws.
> 
> _Your Black Muslim Bakery_ was 'properly labeled' per your estimation. But they couldn't refuse service to non-blacks or non-Muslims anymore than say, Macy's or Sears could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-blacks or non-Muslims have nothing to do with *sin* as in homosexual sin in which all would agree upon that is sin within these religious belief systems in which they hold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To you perhaps. But we don't base our public accommodation laws on your arbitrary declarations and made up standards. Your 'label' standards were met. Public accommodation laws still applied. Demonstrating the uselessness of yet another made up standard that has nothing to do with the law.
> 
> Calling yourself a 'Christian' business doesn't exempt you from any law. You are quite simply wrong on that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if a gay couple were to go in and ask the baker to fix them up a cake for a wedding, and the Muslim bakery refused based upon that very strict religious tenet, then should the bakery be shut down or forced out of business by the government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should be subject to the same public accommodation laws that everyone else is subject to. If they refuse to serve someone because race, religion, sexual orientation, creed, etc......and the laws of their state forbid this, they should be subject to whatever penalties accompany the violation of such laws.
> 
> Why would Christians get a pass for a law that applies to Muslims, Jews, Hindus or anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Christian book store sells books right, and the customer because of this labeling knows the store only sells Christian or agreeable books that meet with the standards in which the store lives and goes by, but then here comes a person in and action all dumb you see, and they ask the store "hey you sell books" right ? The store owner says yes, ok then could you get me a copy of the latest addition of playboy, and the owner saws well we can't sell that kind of book here, "but you said you sell books" right ? Well yes said the store owner, "then why can't you get that book for me says the customer" ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beagle....you know that's not public accommodation laws. This has been explained to you over and over again. A business need only sell what it ordinarily sells. If you sell wedding cake, there's no different in a cake for Christians, Muslims, gays, or straights. Its just cake.
> 
> So your scenario where someone is expected to carry and sell a product that they don't sell is yet another misconception on your part. Albeit an intentional one in this case, as you already know better.
> 
> A closer analogy would be a christian bookstore that sold journals. But refused to sell one to a gay person, because they didn't want to encourage a record of an 'immoral lifestyle'. That would violate the public accommodation laws. As journals are a normally stocked item that they simply refuse to sell based on sexual orientation.
> 
> And labeling your store 'Christian' would do nothing to prevent the application of that law.
Click to expand...

In the eyes of a Christian who makes the cake, well it's more than just a cake. It is something that represents his Godly talents and attributes that were given onto him by God from his birth, and this in order to perform in his life's journey as God would have him do so while in the world. Anyone who would challenge God's people in these ways is pure evil, and that is what I see taking place today, and it won't stop until the Christians are pushed all the way into a small little tiny square, then these people will be happy in life, and not before hand. Watch for more actions in the future, because the push is far from over in this nation.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Skylar said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see a white guy try to become a member of the National Black Caucus. A fine brouhaha that would make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National Black Caucus isn't a public business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A different issue altogether... Your answer doesn't apply even though you figured it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we're speaking of businesses and the application of public accommodation laws upon them, my answer is both relevance and applicable. As the Black Causus isn't a business and isn't subject to any public accommodation law. It isn't even open to the public. But only congressmen and women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidently, only on black congressmen and women.
> 
> Let us now speculate on the formation of the National White Caucus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets speculate on the relevance to public accommodation laws. As the Black Caucus isn't a business and it isn't open to the public.
Click to expand...

So, no?

Well it's good to know the NBC isn't about accommodating the public.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> In the eyes of a Christian who makes the cake, well it's more than just a cake.



And the eyes of the law, there's no such thing as 'gay cake'. Its just cake. That you imagine a distinction that doesn't exist doesn't mean that the laws are obligated to similarly imagine with you. If you sell cake, you sell cake.

If you're going to do business in many states, you'll need to meet minimum codes of conduct in commerce, treating your customers fairly and equally.



> Anyone who would challenge God's people in these ways is pure evil, and that is what I see taking place today, and it won't stop until the Christians are pushed all the way into a small little tiny square, then these people will be happy in life, and not before hand. Watch for more actions in the future, because the push is far from over in this nation.



Says you. And you're hardly an arbiter of god's will or morality. I've checked the bible. It doesn't have a thing to say about cake. Nor does it demand that you don't do business with homosexuals. That's you. Citing you. To which I reply....

.....so what?

Its hardly evil to treat people like people....with basic human dignity, fairness and equality.


----------



## Skylar

Carib Gyal said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The National Black Caucus isn't a public business.
> 
> 
> 
> A different issue altogether... Your answer doesn't apply even though you figured it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we're speaking of businesses and the application of public accommodation laws upon them, my answer is both relevance and applicable. As the Black Causus isn't a business and isn't subject to any public accommodation law. It isn't even open to the public. But only congressmen and women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidently, only on black congressmen and women.
> 
> Let us now speculate on the formation of the National White Caucus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets speculate on the relevance to public accommodation laws. As the Black Caucus isn't a business and it isn't open to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, no?
> 
> Well it's good to know the NBC isn't about accommodating the public.
Click to expand...


So you couldn't think of a single point of relevance either? Well, you're in excellent company.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Skylar said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A different issue altogether... Your answer doesn't apply even though you figured it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're speaking of businesses and the application of public accommodation laws upon them, my answer is both relevance and applicable. As the Black Causus isn't a business and isn't subject to any public accommodation law. It isn't even open to the public. But only congressmen and women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidently, only on black congressmen and women.
> 
> Let us now speculate on the formation of the National White Caucus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets speculate on the relevance to public accommodation laws. As the Black Caucus isn't a business and it isn't open to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, no?
> 
> Well it's good to know the NBC isn't about accommodating the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you couldn't think of a single point of relevance either? Well, you're in excellent company.
Click to expand...

I've already agreed with you in your circular conversation. Let's not take it anywhere else.


----------



## Skylar

Carib Gyal said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're speaking of businesses and the application of public accommodation laws upon them, my answer is both relevance and applicable. As the Black Causus isn't a business and isn't subject to any public accommodation law. It isn't even open to the public. But only congressmen and women.
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, only on black congressmen and women.
> 
> Let us now speculate on the formation of the National White Caucus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets speculate on the relevance to public accommodation laws. As the Black Caucus isn't a business and it isn't open to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, no?
> 
> Well it's good to know the NBC isn't about accommodating the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you couldn't think of a single point of relevance either? Well, you're in excellent company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've already agreed with you in your circular conversation. Let's not take it anywhere else.
Click to expand...


Like....to public accommodation laws and their application to businesses?


----------



## Carib Gyal

Skylar said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, only on black congressmen and women.
> 
> Let us now speculate on the formation of the National White Caucus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets speculate on the relevance to public accommodation laws. As the Black Caucus isn't a business and it isn't open to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, no?
> 
> Well it's good to know the NBC isn't about accommodating the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you couldn't think of a single point of relevance either? Well, you're in excellent company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've already agreed with you in your circular conversation. Let's not take it anywhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like....to public accommodation laws and their application to businesses?
Click to expand...

For the last four days. Yes.


----------



## Skylar

Carib Gyal said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets speculate on the relevance to public accommodation laws. As the Black Caucus isn't a business and it isn't open to the public.
> 
> 
> 
> So, no?
> 
> Well it's good to know the NBC isn't about accommodating the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you couldn't think of a single point of relevance either? Well, you're in excellent company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've already agreed with you in your circular conversation. Let's not take it anywhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like....to public accommodation laws and their application to businesses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the last four days. Yes.
Click to expand...


It kinda is the topic of the thread. Churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Skylar said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, no?
> 
> Well it's good to know the NBC isn't about accommodating the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you couldn't think of a single point of relevance either? Well, you're in excellent company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've already agreed with you in your circular conversation. Let's not take it anywhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like....to public accommodation laws and their application to businesses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the last four days. Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It kinda is the topic of the thread. Churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are.
Click to expand...

Yeah so you said. Then Beagle said but what if they're gay. Then you said that churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are. Then Beagle said yeah but what if they're really, really gay. And you said churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are.

etc.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the eyes of a Christian who makes the cake, well it's more than just a cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the eyes of the law, there's no such thing as 'gay cake'. Its just cake. That you imagine a distinction that doesn't exist doesn't mean that the laws are obligated to similarly imagine with you. If you sell cake, you sell cake.
> 
> If you're going to do business in many states, you'll need to meet minimum codes of conduct in commerce, treating your customers fairly and equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who would challenge God's people in these ways is pure evil, and that is what I see taking place today, and it won't stop until the Christians are pushed all the way into a small little tiny square, then these people will be happy in life, and not before hand. Watch for more actions in the future, because the push is far from over in this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. And you're hardly an arbiter of god's will or morality. I've checked the bible. It doesn't have a thing to say about cake. Nor does it demand that you don't do business with homosexuals. That's you. Citing you. To which I reply....
> 
> .....so what?
> 
> Its hardly evil to treat people like people....with basic human dignity, fairness and equality.
Click to expand...

You can rant all you want, and come up with every angle that you want just like me, but what goes on today is something way different than most in this nation were ready to deal with, and so it may be that the laws might be revisited in order to give protections to Christians in this nation also. I mean hey why not, it would be just like all these other groups whom want the government to give them special rights above and beyond another now, and even if it abuses another's rights when doing so, they still press onward in it all.
 I guess all people want their cake (lifestyle), and I guess as the old saying goes they want to eat (live) it too. Hey I know that I am particular about who bakes my family a cake in life, and aren't we all ?   It just leads me to think that the cake baker may have been targeted just like Phil of Duck Dynasty was, and so on and on and so forth it all goes in this nation right ?

I agree that everyone has a right to live free and prosperous in this nation, and all have a right to protections under the laws of course, but isn't it that we should all be able to live together without invading each others lives and spaces if we don't have to so much ? What happened to respecting each others religions, cultures, spaces, lives and privacy in this nation ? Is that even possible anymore ?


----------



## Skylar

Carib Gyal said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you couldn't think of a single point of relevance either? Well, you're in excellent company.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already agreed with you in your circular conversation. Let's not take it anywhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like....to public accommodation laws and their application to businesses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the last four days. Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It kinda is the topic of the thread. Churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah so you said. Then Beagle said but what if they're gay. Then you said that churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are. Then Beagle said yeah but what if they're really, really gay. And you said churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are.
> 
> etc.
Click to expand...


The direct issues of the thread were addressed and resolved weeks ago. No, churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate any ceremony they object to. The rest of the threads are variations of 'what if'.


----------



## beagle9

Carib Gyal said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you couldn't think of a single point of relevance either? Well, you're in excellent company.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already agreed with you in your circular conversation. Let's not take it anywhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like....to public accommodation laws and their application to businesses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the last four days. Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It kinda is the topic of the thread. Churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah so you said. Then Beagle said but what if they're gay. Then you said that churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are. Then Beagle said yeah but what if they're really, really gay. And you said churches aren't businesses so generally aren't subject to public accommodation laws. Businesses are, and are.
> 
> etc.
Click to expand...

Being a smarty I see, and if you want to say what I say, then it best you quote me directly or you are in violation of the forum rules. Got it..


----------



## Carib Gyal

Skylar said:


> No, churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate any ceremony they object to.


I agree.    



beagle9 said:


> Being a smarty I see, and if you want to say what I say, then it best you quote me directly or you are in violation of the forum rules. Got it..


Yes.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> You can rant all you want, and come up with every angle that you want just like me, but what goes on today is something way different than most in this nation were ready to deal with, and so it may be that the laws might be revisited in order to give protections to Christians in this nation also.





> You can rant all you want, and come up with every angle that you want just like me, but what goes on today is something way different than most in this nation were ready to deal with, and so it may be that the laws might be revisited in order to give protections to Christians in this nation also.



And our 'Christian nation' has withstood changes in our law that defied the 'will of god' according to some people. 



> Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
> 
> Judge Leon Bazile



People got used to it when interracial marriage was overturned, despite it being done in defiance of 'God's will' according to those who claimed to speak for God. It took until the 90s before a majority recognized interracial marriage as valid. We're in luck....as for gay marriage, support precedes its universal legalization, with support for gay marriage outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points.

As for revising the law to 'protect Christians', why should they receive any special treatment? Christians, like Muslims, Atheists, Hindus, Jews and anyone else, should be treated equally in the law. They should have all the laws protections, but no more or less than anyone else.



> guess all people want their cake (lifestyle), and I guess as the old saying goes they want to eat (live) it too. Hey I know that I am particular about who bakes my family a cake in life, and aren't we all ?   It just leads me to think that the cake baker may have been targeted just like Phil of Duck Dynasty was, and so on and on and so forth it all goes in this nation right ?



You're free to say whatever you're want. You're not free to avoid personal consequence for what you say. Phil offended some folks. That offense may have cost him. Just like it would anyone else. 



> I agree that everyone has a right to live free and prosperous in this nation, and all have a right to protections under the laws of course, but isn't it that we should all be able to live together without invading each others lives and spaces if we don't have to so much ?



Going into a public business and attempting to buy a good or service the business already sells is hardly 'invading one's life'. 



> What happened to respecting each others religions, cultures, spaces, lives and privacy in this nation ? Is that even possible anymore ?



Sure it is. If you sell cake, sell cake. Its none of your business what someone wants to do with it.


----------



## Silhouette

I keep seeing the comparison of race to gay lifestyles and cannot for the life of me gather how they are even remotely the same thing.  They aren't even distant legal cousins.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> I apologize to yall, as I had to stop and watch the episode of "Miracle on 34th Street', the original 1947 version, and I apologize for not editing my last post before I left.... uggh. What we need now in this nation, is a savy lawyer like Khris Kringle had in which I saw depicted in that show, then maybe we could get back on some solid footing once again in this nation. I swear I'm living in the wrong time period I think.



I love that movie. 

But again- your issue is not needing a savvy lawyer- it is you disagree with certain laws.

The answer is to try to change the laws that you disagree with.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> I keep seeing the comparison of race to gay lifestyles and cannot for the life of me gather how they are even remotely the same thing.  They aren't even distant legal cousins.



You will never understand how discrimination against homosexuals is not appropriate.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the eyes of a Christian who makes the cake, well it's more than just a cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the eyes of the law, there's no such thing as 'gay cake'. Its just cake. That you imagine a distinction that doesn't exist doesn't mean that the laws are obligated to similarly imagine with you. If you sell cake, you sell cake.
> 
> If you're going to do business in many states, you'll need to meet minimum codes of conduct in commerce, treating your customers fairly and equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who would challenge God's people in these ways is pure evil, and that is what I see taking place today, and it won't stop until the Christians are pushed all the way into a small little tiny square, then these people will be happy in life, and not before hand. Watch for more actions in the future, because the push is far from over in this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. And you're hardly an arbiter of god's will or morality. I've checked the bible. It doesn't have a thing to say about cake. Nor does it demand that you don't do business with homosexuals. That's you. Citing you. To which I reply....
> 
> .....so what?
> 
> Its hardly evil to treat people like people....with basic human dignity, fairness and equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can rant all you want, and come up with every angle that you want just like me, but what goes on today is something way different than most in this nation were ready to deal with, and so it may be that the laws might be revisited in order to give protections to Christians in this nation also. I mean hey why not, it would be just like all these other groups whom want the government to give them special rights above and beyond another now, and even if it abuses another's rights when doing so, they still press onward in it all.
Click to expand...


Christians have all of the same rights as anyone else. 

For instance- no one can refuse to provide service to a Christian because of his religion. 

Why do you think that Christians need special protections beyond everyone else?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> I keep seeing the comparison of race to gay lifestyles and cannot for the life of me gather how they are even remotely the same thing.  They aren't even distant legal cousins.



You keep using the same arguments, almost word for word, that the opponents of interracial marriage used. Stop using their arguments and I'll stop mentioning that you're using their arguments.

Deal?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the eyes of a Christian who makes the cake, well it's more than just a cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the eyes of the law, there's no such thing as 'gay cake'. Its just cake. That you imagine a distinction that doesn't exist doesn't mean that the laws are obligated to similarly imagine with you. If you sell cake, you sell cake.
> 
> If you're going to do business in many states, you'll need to meet minimum codes of conduct in commerce, treating your customers fairly and equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who would challenge God's people in these ways is pure evil, and that is what I see taking place today, and it won't stop until the Christians are pushed all the way into a small little tiny square, then these people will be happy in life, and not before hand. Watch for more actions in the future, because the push is far from over in this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. And you're hardly an arbiter of god's will or morality. I've checked the bible. It doesn't have a thing to say about cake. Nor does it demand that you don't do business with homosexuals. That's you. Citing you. To which I reply....
> 
> .....so what?
> 
> Its hardly evil to treat people like people....with basic human dignity, fairness and equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can rant all you want, and come up with every angle that you want just like me, but what goes on today is something way different than most in this nation were ready to deal with, and so it may be that the laws might be revisited in order to give protections to Christians in this nation also. I mean hey why not, it would be just like all these other groups whom want the government to give them special rights above and beyond another now, and even if it abuses another's rights when doing so, they still press onward in it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians have all of the same rights as anyone else.
> 
> For instance- no one can refuse to provide service to a Christian because of his religion.
> 
> Why do you think that Christians need special protections beyond everyone else?
Click to expand...

No I don't think that Christians will continue to have all their* rights* as they have enjoyed in the past in America, because Christians won't be able to freely separate themselves from *sin* any longer, and this as they have always sought after in their beliefs, and in their religion to therefore separate themselves from *SIN.. *They have done this as best that they can in order that it doesn't consume them nor their religion in which they do live by as Christians.  And so it is that *sin* possibly will consume them in the end, along with their children as well.  It will continue to creep forward these things till finally at the gates will there then stand those who want the Christians therefore put into a final box, while outside the box it will change into something that is unrecognizable by most who had come before them, and for those whom do live now. All one has to do is look around, and one can see these things in real time as we speak, and yes the Bible does speak or tell us of these things that which are yet to come, and many are forming right before our very eyes.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the eyes of a Christian who makes the cake, well it's more than just a cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the eyes of the law, there's no such thing as 'gay cake'. Its just cake. That you imagine a distinction that doesn't exist doesn't mean that the laws are obligated to similarly imagine with you. If you sell cake, you sell cake.
> 
> If you're going to do business in many states, you'll need to meet minimum codes of conduct in commerce, treating your customers fairly and equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who would challenge God's people in these ways is pure evil, and that is what I see taking place today, and it won't stop until the Christians are pushed all the way into a small little tiny square, then these people will be happy in life, and not before hand. Watch for more actions in the future, because the push is far from over in this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. And you're hardly an arbiter of god's will or morality. I've checked the bible. It doesn't have a thing to say about cake. Nor does it demand that you don't do business with homosexuals. That's you. Citing you. To which I reply....
> 
> .....so what?
> 
> Its hardly evil to treat people like people....with basic human dignity, fairness and equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can rant all you want, and come up with every angle that you want just like me, but what goes on today is something way different than most in this nation were ready to deal with, and so it may be that the laws might be revisited in order to give protections to Christians in this nation also. I mean hey why not, it would be just like all these other groups whom want the government to give them special rights above and beyond another now, and even if it abuses another's rights when doing so, they still press onward in it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians have all of the same rights as anyone else.
> 
> For instance- no one can refuse to provide service to a Christian because of his religion.
> 
> Why do you think that Christians need special protections beyond everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I don't think that Christians will continue to have all their* rights* as they have enjoyed in the past in America, because Christians won't be able to freely separate themselves from *sin* any longer, and this as they have always sought after in their beliefs, and in their religion to therefore separate themselves from *SIN.. *They have done this as best that they can in order that it doesn't consume them nor their religion in which they do live by as Christians.  And so it is that *sin* possibly will consume them in the end, along with their children as well.  It will continue to creep forward these things till finally at the gates will there then stand those who want the Christians therefore put into a final box, while outside the box it will change into something that is unrecognizable by most who had come before them, and for those whom do live now. All one has to do is look around, and one can see these things in real time as we speak, and yes the Bible does speak or tell us of these things that which are yet to come, and many are forming right before our very eyes.
Click to expand...


And in that way Christians are no different from anyone else.

Everyone judges things about who should do what.

But- as I pointed out Christians have all the same rights as everyone else.

You apparently want some sort of special exemption for Christians.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the eyes of a Christian who makes the cake, well it's more than just a cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the eyes of the law, there's no such thing as 'gay cake'. Its just cake. That you imagine a distinction that doesn't exist doesn't mean that the laws are obligated to similarly imagine with you. If you sell cake, you sell cake.
> 
> If you're going to do business in many states, you'll need to meet minimum codes of conduct in commerce, treating your customers fairly and equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who would challenge God's people in these ways is pure evil, and that is what I see taking place today, and it won't stop until the Christians are pushed all the way into a small little tiny square, then these people will be happy in life, and not before hand. Watch for more actions in the future, because the push is far from over in this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. And you're hardly an arbiter of god's will or morality. I've checked the bible. It doesn't have a thing to say about cake. Nor does it demand that you don't do business with homosexuals. That's you. Citing you. To which I reply....
> 
> .....so what?
> 
> Its hardly evil to treat people like people....with basic human dignity, fairness and equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can rant all you want, and come up with every angle that you want just like me, but what goes on today is something way different than most in this nation were ready to deal with, and so it may be that the laws might be revisited in order to give protections to Christians in this nation also. I mean hey why not, it would be just like all these other groups whom want the government to give them special rights above and beyond another now, and even if it abuses another's rights when doing so, they still press onward in it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians have all of the same rights as anyone else.
> 
> For instance- no one can refuse to provide service to a Christian because of his religion.
> 
> Why do you think that Christians need special protections beyond everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I don't think that Christians will continue to have all their* rights* as they have enjoyed in the past in America, because Christians won't be able to freely separate themselves from *sin* any longer, and this as they have always sought after in their beliefs, and in their religion to therefore separate themselves from *SIN.. *They have done this as best that they can in order that it doesn't consume them nor their religion in which they do live by as Christians.  And so it is that *sin* possibly will consume them in the end, along with their children as well.  It will continue to creep forward these things till finally at the gates will there then stand those who want the Christians therefore put into a final box, while outside the box it will change into something that is unrecognizable by most who had come before them, and for those whom do live now. All one has to do is look around, and one can see these things in real time as we speak, and yes the Bible does speak or tell us of these things that which are yet to come, and many are forming right before our very eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in that way Christians are no different from anyone else.
> 
> Everyone judges things about who should do what.
> 
> But- as I pointed out Christians have all the same rights as everyone else.
> 
> You apparently want some sort of special exemption for Christians.
Click to expand...

Why not, isn't that what everyone else wants these days ? Also if the Christians are under attack as I see that they are, then yes the rules or laws should change or work better in order to protect the rights of the Christians in this nation, just like any other. I'm telling you bro,  they along with their religion are under attack now in this nation (being driven from the public square), but it seems that we are in a lull due to all in which has transpired lately on the other fronts and/or issues that are being dealt with now in America. The other issues may even serve as a temporary distraction at the moment, but that's just what they are a temporary distraction that will remain to find out that these issues will remain hot also in peoples minds just as well.  The attacks will continue sadly enough, and this is well because they always have in this nation, so stay tuned for more action on the religious front verses the wild and whacky secular front, because just as soon as the Protest issues calm down, and things seem back to what ever normal means to anyone anymore in this nation.  The attacks along the Christian front will continue by these people in this nation who are against Christians, and for whom have been engaging in such attacks against (the Christian right), forever and a day now it seems..


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the eyes of the law, there's no such thing as 'gay cake'. Its just cake. That you imagine a distinction that doesn't exist doesn't mean that the laws are obligated to similarly imagine with you. If you sell cake, you sell cake.
> 
> If you're going to do business in many states, you'll need to meet minimum codes of conduct in commerce, treating your customers fairly and equally.
> 
> Says you. And you're hardly an arbiter of god's will or morality. I've checked the bible. It doesn't have a thing to say about cake. Nor does it demand that you don't do business with homosexuals. That's you. Citing you. To which I reply....
> 
> .....so what?
> 
> Its hardly evil to treat people like people....with basic human dignity, fairness and equality.
> 
> 
> 
> You can rant all you want, and come up with every angle that you want just like me, but what goes on today is something way different than most in this nation were ready to deal with, and so it may be that the laws might be revisited in order to give protections to Christians in this nation also. I mean hey why not, it would be just like all these other groups whom want the government to give them special rights above and beyond another now, and even if it abuses another's rights when doing so, they still press onward in it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians have all of the same rights as anyone else.
> 
> For instance- no one can refuse to provide service to a Christian because of his religion.
> 
> Why do you think that Christians need special protections beyond everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I don't think that Christians will continue to have all their* rights* as they have enjoyed in the past in America, because Christians won't be able to freely separate themselves from *sin* any longer, and this as they have always sought after in their beliefs, and in their religion to therefore separate themselves from *SIN.. *They have done this as best that they can in order that it doesn't consume them nor their religion in which they do live by as Christians.  And so it is that *sin* possibly will consume them in the end, along with their children as well.  It will continue to creep forward these things till finally at the gates will there then stand those who want the Christians therefore put into a final box, while outside the box it will change into something that is unrecognizable by most who had come before them, and for those whom do live now. All one has to do is look around, and one can see these things in real time as we speak, and yes the Bible does speak or tell us of these things that which are yet to come, and many are forming right before our very eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in that way Christians are no different from anyone else.
> 
> Everyone judges things about who should do what.
> 
> But- as I pointed out Christians have all the same rights as everyone else.
> 
> You apparently want some sort of special exemption for Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not, isn't that what everyone else wants these days ? Also if the Christians are under attack as I see that they are, then yes the rules or laws should change or work better in order to protect the rights of the Christians in this nation, just like any other. I'm telling you bro,  they along with their religion are under attack now in this nation (being driven from the public square)..
Click to expand...


I think you protesteth too much.

Merry Christmas and may everyone's 2015 be filled with love and joy.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can rant all you want, and come up with every angle that you want just like me, but what goes on today is something way different than most in this nation were ready to deal with, and so it may be that the laws might be revisited in order to give protections to Christians in this nation also. I mean hey why not, it would be just like all these other groups whom want the government to give them special rights above and beyond another now, and even if it abuses another's rights when doing so, they still press onward in it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians have all of the same rights as anyone else.
> 
> For instance- no one can refuse to provide service to a Christian because of his religion.
> 
> Why do you think that Christians need special protections beyond everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I don't think that Christians will continue to have all their* rights* as they have enjoyed in the past in America, because Christians won't be able to freely separate themselves from *sin* any longer, and this as they have always sought after in their beliefs, and in their religion to therefore separate themselves from *SIN.. *They have done this as best that they can in order that it doesn't consume them nor their religion in which they do live by as Christians.  And so it is that *sin* possibly will consume them in the end, along with their children as well.  It will continue to creep forward these things till finally at the gates will there then stand those who want the Christians therefore put into a final box, while outside the box it will change into something that is unrecognizable by most who had come before them, and for those whom do live now. All one has to do is look around, and one can see these things in real time as we speak, and yes the Bible does speak or tell us of these things that which are yet to come, and many are forming right before our very eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in that way Christians are no different from anyone else.
> 
> Everyone judges things about who should do what.
> 
> But- as I pointed out Christians have all the same rights as everyone else.
> 
> You apparently want some sort of special exemption for Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not, isn't that what everyone else wants these days ? Also if the Christians are under attack as I see that they are, then yes the rules or laws should change or work better in order to protect the rights of the Christians in this nation, just like any other. I'm telling you bro,  they along with their religion are under attack now in this nation (being driven from the public square)..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you protesteth too much.
> 
> Merry Christmas and may everyone's 2015 be filled with love and joy.
Click to expand...

Right back at cha, and lets hope that the good Lord shall continue to shed his blessings and mercy upon all in the world, as he giveth hope unto the world's people for another year that all is not forgotten or lost in the world, and who so ever shall believe upon him and his name shall not perish. Amen!


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> No I don't think that Christians will continue to have all their* rights* as they have enjoyed in the past in America, because Christians won't be able to freely separate themselves from *sin* any longer, and this as they have always sought after in their beliefs, and in their religion to therefore separate themselves from *SIN.. *



You're asking for a special exemption, where public accomidation laws don't apply to you. If Muslims refused to serve Christians using the same rationale, your ilk would likely scream like crushed cats. And of course, if Christianity can be used to trump civil law, why couldn't anyone beliefs be used to trump it? For example, Sharia law would trump civil law per your reasoning. 

Where as the solution to the problem is remarkably simple: quit making it an issue. This only becomes a problem when someone tries to poke their nose into someone else's private life. If you don't like homosexuality, don't practice it. But denying service, goods, housing, employment to gays and lesbians because you don't like homosexuality is punishing _them_ for your religious beliefs. And that's a step too far. 



> They have done this as best that they can in order that it doesn't consume them nor their religion in which they do live by as Christians.



How does selling cake 'consume' someone? If you suddenly have the urge to suck a dick after selling a cake, I'm pretty sure the two aren't connected. 

Christians have the same rights and privileges as anyone else. What you're demanding are special exemptions that no one else has, where you can ignore the civil law of your choice based on your religious beliefs.

Um, no. Generally applicable civil law applies to everyone.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> How does selling cake 'consume' someone? If you suddenly have the urge to suck a dick after selling a cake, I'm pretty sure the two aren't connected.
> 
> Christians have the same rights and privileges as anyone else. What you're demanding are special exemptions that no one else has, where you can ignore the civil law of your choice based on your religious beliefs.
> 
> Um, no. Generally applicable civil law applies to everyone.


 
How would you tell a christian to promote homosexual culture by making a "gay wedding cake" or catering a "gay wedding", while at the same time that christian knows from Jude 1 that to do so is certain banishment to the pit of fire for eternity?

How would you ask a christian person to square that up?  This isn't eating pork on friday....and a slap on the wrist.  Promoting gay lifestyles/culture is a major mortal sin for christians.  There is no gray area.  It's right there in the New Testament...

"Thou Shalt NOT"  "PERIOD".  That is Jude 1 summed up.  God feels very strongly about these type of social maladies becoming mainstreamed with a leg up from well-meaning or too passive "Sunday-only" christians.  Reading Jude 1 that is more than amply evident.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> How would you tell a christian to promote homosexual culture by making a "gay wedding cake" or catering a "gay wedding", while at the same time that christian knows from Jude 1 that to do so is certain banishment to the pit of fire for eternity?



And how is selling a cake promoting anything? Its cake.  Jude 1 doesn't say a thing about selling wedding cake. Nor say a thing about 'banishment into the pits of fire for eternity' for selling cake.

That would be you, pretending to be God. 

Your religious beliefs don't exempt you from generally applicable law. Its entirely reasonable for the State to mandate those doing business in their jurisdiction to adhere to minimum standards of fairness and equality. And if your State has such a standard, then you should treat all customers fairly and equally.

"We don't serve your kind here'' may have been a common sentiment in the not to distant south. But its far less acceptable now. Even when you try and use your religion as your justification for such sentiments....as your ilk did when arguing against interracial marriage.



> This isn't eating pork on friday....and a slap on the wrist.  Promoting gay lifestyles/culture is a major mortal sin for christians.  There is no gray area.  It's right there in the New Testament...



Doing business with gays isn't 'promoting the gay lifestyle', anymore than selling a Muslim a sandwich is promoting Islam. If you sell cake, you're promoting cake. Not the customer.

You've 'reimagined' the word promote to justify any discrimination you want to pile upon anyone for anything they do that you don't agree with. Your personal religious beliefs don't exempt you from generally applicable civil law.

If they did, then Sharia would apply as surely as your interpretation of Jude 1.



> "Thou Shalt NOT"  "PERIOD".  That is Jude 1 summed up.



And where does it say 'thou shalt not sell cake to homosexuals'? There's no prohibition from selling cake, or doing business with anyone in the Bible. You've completely imagined it. And then insist that your imagination trumps civil law.

It doesn't.



> God feels very strongly about these type of social maladies becoming mainstreamed with a leg up from well-meaning or too passive "Sunday-only" christians.  Reading Jude 1 that is more than amply evident.



God doesn't say a thing about doing business with homosexuals. That would be you.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does selling cake 'consume' someone? If you suddenly have the urge to suck a dick after selling a cake, I'm pretty sure the two aren't connected.
> 
> Christians have the same rights and privileges as anyone else. What you're demanding are special exemptions that no one else has, where you can ignore the civil law of your choice based on your religious beliefs.
> 
> Um, no. Generally applicable civil law applies to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you tell a christian to promote homosexual culture by making a "gay wedding cake" or catering a "gay wedding", while at the same time that christian knows from Jude 1 that to do so is certain banishment to the pit of fire for eternity?
> 
> How would you ask a christian person to square that up?  This isn't eating pork on friday....and a slap on the wrist.  Promoting gay lifestyles/culture is a major mortal sin for christians.  There is no gray area.  It's right there in the New Testament...
> 
> "Thou Shalt NOT"  "PERIOD".  That is Jude 1 summed up.  God feels very strongly about these type of social maladies becoming mainstreamed with a leg up from well-meaning or too passive "Sunday-only" christians.  Reading Jude 1 that is more than amply evident.
Click to expand...


Pork on Friday? Seriously what religion do you think has a problem with that?

Eating pork is a major 'sin' for both Jews and Muslims- it violates the Old Testament laws. Now what are 'major' and 'minor' sins to Christians? We know that adultery is a 'major sin'- Jesus talked about adultery often. Should good Christians refuse to do business with anyone who is having sex while unmarried? Should the Cable TV guy refuse to hook up the cable if there is an unmarried couple living in an Apartment.

What about divorce- Jesus himself tells Christians that remarriage after divorce is adultery unless the woman(only the woman) had committed adultery. IF a Christian knows that a person is ordering a wedding cake for a second marriage- is that Christian Baker obligated- under penalty of eternal damnation- not to sell that wedding cake?


Oh and nothing in Jude 1 about not selling cakes to homosexuals.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing the comparison of race to gay lifestyles and cannot for the life of me gather how they are even remotely the same thing.  They aren't even distant legal cousins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will never understand how discrimination against homosexuals is not appropriate.
Click to expand...


And you will never understand how "I don't think that's appropriate" doesn't automatically translate to "Therefore, it should be illegal."

I don't think Speedos on obese, hairy men are "appropriate", but that doesn't mean I'm leading a crusade to make it illegal.


----------



## Dante

*Who is demanding *
*Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? *


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Dante said:


> *Who is demanding *
> *Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? *



SeaBytch has, oh sure she claims that she only wants to use peer pressure to do so, but that's dishonest. Peer pressure doesn't force anything


----------



## Skylar

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who is demanding *
> *Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch has, oh sure she claims that she only wants to use peer pressure to do so, but that's dishonest. Peer pressure doesn't force anything
Click to expand...


And she would be pretty  much the only one. Its an issue that some Christians have soiled themselves in fear of. Some even making up claims of imminent arrest and prosecution for violating local ordinances if they don't marry gays. But it just hasn't happened.

And shouldn't.


----------



## Dante

Skylar said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who is demanding *
> *Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch has, oh sure she claims that she only wants to use peer pressure to do so, but that's dishonest. Peer pressure doesn't force anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And she would be pretty  much the only one. Its an issue that some Christians have soiled themselves in fear of. Some even making up claims of imminent arrest and prosecution for violating local ordinances if they don't marry gays. But it just hasn't happened.
> 
> And shouldn't.
Click to expand...

not-much-smarter-than-an-average-bear is not too smart at all


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Skylar said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who is demanding *
> *Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch has, oh sure she claims that she only wants to use peer pressure to do so, but that's dishonest. Peer pressure doesn't force anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And she would be pretty  much the only one. Its an issue that some Christians have soiled themselves in fear of. Some even making up claims of imminent arrest and prosecution for violating local ordinances if they don't marry gays. But it just hasn't happened.
> 
> And shouldn't.
Click to expand...


And of course I only argue that it DOES and WILL happen, the idea that it won't is as silly as the claim that it will be widespread


----------



## Skylar

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who is demanding *
> *Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch has, oh sure she claims that she only wants to use peer pressure to do so, but that's dishonest. Peer pressure doesn't force anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And she would be pretty  much the only one. Its an issue that some Christians have soiled themselves in fear of. Some even making up claims of imminent arrest and prosecution for violating local ordinances if they don't marry gays. But it just hasn't happened.
> 
> And shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course I only argue that it DOES and WILL happen, the idea that it won't is as silly as the claim that it will be widespread
Click to expand...


Which church has it happened? Or are you referring to someone, somewhere, insisting it should?

Check the poll results. They're in a distinct minority.


----------



## Dante

Skylar said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who is demanding *
> *Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch has, oh sure she claims that she only wants to use peer pressure to do so, but that's dishonest. Peer pressure doesn't force anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And she would be pretty  much the only one. Its an issue that some Christians have soiled themselves in fear of. Some even making up claims of imminent arrest and prosecution for violating local ordinances if they don't marry gays. But it just hasn't happened.
> 
> And shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course I only argue that it DOES and WILL happen, the idea that it won't is as silly as the claim that it will be widespread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which church has it happened? Or are you referring to someone, somewhere, insisting it should?
> 
> Check the poll results. They're in a distinct minority.
Click to expand...


???  List of fallacies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ???


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Skylar said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who is demanding *
> *Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch has, oh sure she claims that she only wants to use peer pressure to do so, but that's dishonest. Peer pressure doesn't force anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And she would be pretty  much the only one. Its an issue that some Christians have soiled themselves in fear of. Some even making up claims of imminent arrest and prosecution for violating local ordinances if they don't marry gays. But it just hasn't happened.
> 
> And shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course I only argue that it DOES and WILL happen, the idea that it won't is as silly as the claim that it will be widespread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which church has it happened? Or are you referring to someone, somewhere, insisting it should?
> 
> Check the poll results. They're in a distinct minority.
Click to expand...



Here's an idea, stop being dishonest. You've been in this thread the entire time I have, you know that what I've said is that I believe it WILL happen in the future, not that it IS happening now


----------



## Skylar

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who is demanding *
> *Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch has, oh sure she claims that she only wants to use peer pressure to do so, but that's dishonest. Peer pressure doesn't force anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And she would be pretty  much the only one. Its an issue that some Christians have soiled themselves in fear of. Some even making up claims of imminent arrest and prosecution for violating local ordinances if they don't marry gays. But it just hasn't happened.
> 
> And shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course I only argue that it DOES and WILL happen, the idea that it won't is as silly as the claim that it will be widespread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which church has it happened? Or are you referring to someone, somewhere, insisting it should?
> 
> Check the poll results. They're in a distinct minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an idea, stop being dishonest. You've been in this thread the entire time I have, you know that what I've said is that I believe it WILL happen in the future, not that it IS happening now
Click to expand...


You say a lot of things. I'm asking you what you're saying now. Asking a question isn't dishonesty. Especially when you're being intentionally vague. What, pray tell, is 'it'?


----------



## Seawytch

Skylar said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who is demanding *
> *Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch has, oh sure she claims that she only wants to use peer pressure to do so, but that's dishonest. Peer pressure doesn't force anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And she would be pretty  much the only one. Its an issue that some Christians have soiled themselves in fear of. Some even making up claims of imminent arrest and prosecution for violating local ordinances if they don't marry gays. But it just hasn't happened.
> 
> And shouldn't.
Click to expand...




Since she doesn't believe that churches should be forced by anyone other than their own congregation to accept people, she's NOT the "only one". Lots of people believe just as I do, that churches should be more accepting of gays and lesbians. In fact, it is a main reason cited by young people for not attending church. 

Dumber than Fuck Bear is LYING...which I understand makes the baby Jesus cry.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't think that Christians will continue to have all their* rights* as they have enjoyed in the past in America, because Christians won't be able to freely separate themselves from *sin* any longer, and this as they have always sought after in their beliefs, and in their religion to therefore separate themselves from *SIN.. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking for a special exemption, where public accomidation laws don't apply to you. If Muslims refused to serve Christians using the same rationale, your ilk would likely scream like crushed cats. And of course, if Christianity can be used to trump civil law, why couldn't anyone beliefs be used to trump it? For example, Sharia law would trump civil law per your reasoning.
> 
> Where as the solution to the problem is remarkably simple: quit making it an issue. *This only becomes a problem when someone tries to poke their nose into someone else's private life*. If you don't like homosexuality, don't practice it. But denying service, goods, housing, employment to gays and lesbians because you don't like homosexuality is punishing _them_ for your religious beliefs. And that's a step too far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have done this as best that they can in order that it doesn't consume them nor their religion in which they do live by as Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does selling cake 'consume' someone? If you suddenly have the urge to suck a dick after selling a cake, I'm pretty sure the two aren't connected.
> 
> Christians have the same rights and privileges as anyone else. What you're demanding are special exemptions that no one else has, where you can ignore the civil law of your choice based on your religious beliefs.
> 
> Um, no. Generally applicable civil law applies to everyone.
Click to expand...


And what I highlighted above, is exactly what has been happening with these attacks on Christianity or the culture of Christianity all over the place now in America, where as in order to change something one must first try and change the culture, the people, their religion and so on and so forth, and the only way to do that is to invade the very area in which makes them tick (their private lives, belief systems, religion, and even what they had built across this nation over time). If anyone thinks that movements aren't in play to change many things in this nation, then what hole have they been living in for far to long now ?


----------



## beagle9

Seawytch said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who is demanding *
> *Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch has, oh sure she claims that she only wants to use peer pressure to do so, but that's dishonest. Peer pressure doesn't force anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And she would be pretty  much the only one. Its an issue that some Christians have soiled themselves in fear of. Some even making up claims of imminent arrest and prosecution for violating local ordinances if they don't marry gays. But it just hasn't happened.
> 
> And shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since she doesn't believe that churches should be forced by anyone other than their own congregation to accept people, she's NOT the "only one". Lots of people believe just as I do, that churches should be more accepting of gays and lesbians. In fact, it is a main reason cited by young people for not attending church.
> 
> Dumber than Fuck Bear is LYING...which I understand makes the baby Jesus cry.
Click to expand...

And because of the unlearned or inexperience of young people, this nation should change everything for them ? Since when did the day care start being run by the children instead of by the adults ? What's going to be crazy is when the young people someday wake up and realize that they have been duped. Then what ?


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who is demanding *
> *Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch has, oh sure she claims that she only wants to use peer pressure to do so, but that's dishonest. Peer pressure doesn't force anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And she would be pretty  much the only one. Its an issue that some Christians have soiled themselves in fear of. Some even making up claims of imminent arrest and prosecution for violating local ordinances if they don't marry gays. But it just hasn't happened.
> 
> And shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since she doesn't believe that churches should be forced by anyone other than their own congregation to accept people, she's NOT the "only one". Lots of people believe just as I do, that churches should be more accepting of gays and lesbians. In fact, it is a main reason cited by young people for not attending church.
> 
> Dumber than Fuck Bear is LYING...which I understand makes the baby Jesus cry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And because of the unlearned or inexperience of young people, this nation should change everything for them ? Since when did the day care start being run by the children instead of by the adults ? What's going to be crazy is when the young people someday wake up and realize that they have been duped. Then what ?
Click to expand...



Churches need a congregation. When the old bigots die off, somebody's butt has to fill the seats (and the collection plate). Churches are becoming more gay friendly because if they don't, they'll be preaching to emptier and emptier seats. 

Churches will be forced to change, rightfully so, but it won't be by the government.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> And what I highlighted above, is exactly what has been happening with these attacks on Christianity or the culture of Christianity all over the place now in America, where as in order to change something one must first try and change the culture, the people, their religion and so on and so forth, and the only way to do that is to invade the very area in which makes them tick (their private lives, belief systems, religion, and even what they had built across this nation over time). If anyone thinks that movements aren't in play to change many things in this nation, then what hole have they been living in for far to long now ?


[/quote]

Obvious nonsense. No one is prying into your private life or cares what you believe. You can be a Christian, a Hindu, or a Fascist Anarchist for all anyone cares. As long as you treat your customers fairly and equally in business. 

*You are the one prying into a customer's private life, something as intimate as their sex life and based on that alone refusing to do business with them*. Its none of your business how they get their nut. It has nothing to do with your business. You still need to treat them fairly and equally.

You're desperate to cast yourself as a victim because we won't treat Christians differently than we do everyone else. That Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else. Sorry, but your religion doesn't trump civil law. You don't get special exemptions from the law anymore than Muslims, Atheists or Pastafarians. If you want to do business with the public, you need to treat your customers fairly and equally. Its not that complicated.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> And because of the unlearned or inexperience of young people, this nation should change everything for them ? Since when did the day care start being run by the children instead of by the adults ? What's going to be crazy is when the young people someday wake up and realize that they have been duped. Then what ?



Or....perhaps they'll grow into adults who don't retain the pointless discriminatory instincts and naked bigotry of previous generations. Just as your generation did when putting behind them the shameless bigotry against race that riddled the generations before you. Its unlikely that you're going to 'wake up' and suddenly start to institute segregation or Jim Crow laws.

Its equally unlikely that young people are going to suddenly wake up and decide they need to start discriminating against gays for no particular reason.

In another generation we're going to look back at attitudes such as yours with the same dumbfounded wonder and incomprehension as we do now listening to Wallace and his 'segregation now, segregation forever' speeches. And ask ourselves how people could have been so foolish back then.


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who is demanding *
> *Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch has, oh sure she claims that she only wants to use peer pressure to do so, but that's dishonest. Peer pressure doesn't force anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And she would be pretty  much the only one. Its an issue that some Christians have soiled themselves in fear of. Some even making up claims of imminent arrest and prosecution for violating local ordinances if they don't marry gays. But it just hasn't happened.
> 
> And shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since she doesn't believe that churches should be forced by anyone other than their own congregation to accept people, she's NOT the "only one". Lots of people believe just as I do, that churches should be more accepting of gays and lesbians. In fact, it is a main reason cited by young people for not attending church.
> 
> Dumber than Fuck Bear is LYING...which I understand makes the baby Jesus cry.
Click to expand...


Then scratch Seawytch. Who then is advocating churches having to accommodate gay weddings against the wills? I'm sure someone, somewhere, at sometime will eventually back this position. But I have yet to meet them.


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who is demanding *
> *Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch has, oh sure she claims that she only wants to use peer pressure to do so, but that's dishonest. Peer pressure doesn't force anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And she would be pretty  much the only one. Its an issue that some Christians have soiled themselves in fear of. Some even making up claims of imminent arrest and prosecution for violating local ordinances if they don't marry gays. But it just hasn't happened.
> 
> And shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since she doesn't believe that churches should be forced by anyone other than their own congregation to accept people, she's NOT the "only one". Lots of people believe just as I do, that churches should be more accepting of gays and lesbians. In fact, it is a main reason cited by young people for not attending church.
> 
> Dumber than Fuck Bear is LYING...which I understand makes the baby Jesus cry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And because of the unlearned or inexperience of young people, this nation should change everything for them ? Since when did the day care start being run by the children instead of by the adults ? What's going to be crazy is when the young people someday wake up and realize that they have been duped. Then what ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Churches need a congregation. When the old bigots die off, somebody's butt has to fill the seats (and the collection plate). Churches are becoming more gay friendly because if they don't, they'll be preaching to emptier and emptier seats.
> 
> Churches will be forced to change, rightfully so, but it won't be by the government.
Click to expand...


I've been the churches where they are still preaching fire and brimstone at the gays. I lowered the average age by 10 years just by walking in.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> SeaBytch has, oh sure she claims that she only wants to use peer pressure to do so, but that's dishonest. Peer pressure doesn't force anything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And she would be pretty  much the only one. Its an issue that some Christians have soiled themselves in fear of. Some even making up claims of imminent arrest and prosecution for violating local ordinances if they don't marry gays. But it just hasn't happened.
> 
> And shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since she doesn't believe that churches should be forced by anyone other than their own congregation to accept people, she's NOT the "only one". Lots of people believe just as I do, that churches should be more accepting of gays and lesbians. In fact, it is a main reason cited by young people for not attending church.
> 
> Dumber than Fuck Bear is LYING...which I understand makes the baby Jesus cry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And because of the unlearned or inexperience of young people, this nation should change everything for them ? Since when did the day care start being run by the children instead of by the adults ? What's going to be crazy is when the young people someday wake up and realize that they have been duped. Then what ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Churches need a congregation. When the old bigots die off, somebody's butt has to fill the seats (and the collection plate). Churches are becoming more gay friendly because if they don't, they'll be preaching to emptier and emptier seats.
> 
> Churches will be forced to change, rightfully so, but it won't be by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been the churches where they are still preaching fire and brimstone at the gays. I lowered the average age by 10 years just by walking in.
Click to expand...


yep not one poster has suggested that Churches be 'forced' to marry any persons- homosexual, jew, black, Canadian- against the policy or will of the church. 

No church should or will be forced to marry anyone against its will. 

Just a scare tactic by homophobes to incite resentment towards homosexuals.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> yep not one poster has suggested that Churches be 'forced' to marry any persons- homosexual, jew, black, Canadian- against the policy or will of the church.
> 
> No church should or will be forced to marry anyone against its will.
> 
> Just a scare tactic by homophobes to incite resentment towards homosexuals.


 
Again, the church resides within the breast of each man.  And since religious men have been sued by LGBT lifestyle faddists repeatedly, there is zero expectation that the last audacious step of this breach of the First Amendment won't cross into the congregational halls of those religious men.  What's the difference?  Some wood, siding, glass, nails, cloth and pews?

The church of LGBT will attack and force christian organizations to participate in the promotion of their subculture over the christian one.  The epitome of that is so-called "gay marriage".  What better way to usurp a culture than by replacing the core of it with your own warped value system?  Once one church that is diametrically opposed to the core edicts of another, forces its submission legally to promote itself instead, that other faith had ceased to be.  You cannot defy the core edicts of a faith and still have it be alive.  At that point it is dead.

And this is PRECISELY what homosexual activists haven't even been shy about stating as their objective.  They have already taken strides and delivered on promises to do exactly that.  The lawsuits against bakers, photographers and caterers are just the tip of an iceberg with horns and a forked tail heading straight at the good ship christianity.  The bulk of it lies just outside the view under the sea.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Again, the church resides within the breast of each man. And since religious men have been sued by LGBT lifestyle faddists repeatedly, there is zero expectation that the last audacious step of this breach of the First Amendment won't cross into the congregational halls of those religious men. What's the difference? Some wood, siding, glass, nails, cloth and pews?


You may want to read the OP again:



> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



And the answer is no. They shouldn't. No one so far has advocated such.

The 'religious men' being sued by LGBT folks are _business people_ that refuse to serve gays and lesbians in violation of local and state laws.

Not churches forced to accommodate gay weddings.  And thus another one of your argument falls victim to the actual meaning of words.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> You may want to read the OP again:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is no. They shouldn't. No one so far has advocated such.
> 
> The 'religious men' being sued by LGBT folks are _business people_ that refuse to serve gays and lesbians in violation of local and state laws.
> 
> Not churches forced to accommodate gay weddings.  And thus another one of your argument falls victim to the actual meaning of words.
Click to expand...

 
1. Again, a "temple" is the heart of a religious man.  Not a building, wood, nails etc.

2. Being a business person is a religious man's SECONDARY function.  His primary function is a religious man.  You cannot make secular law superior to freedom of religion.  Not in this country.

There are your legal obstacles.  Good luck overcoming them.

Oh, and there's a third obstacle...

3. Gay lifestyles do not qualify for "civil rights", unless they themselves want to be recognized as a religion.  Non-religious lifestyles do not have legal power to force anyone to promote them over their own religion..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> The church of LGBT will attack and force christian organizations to participate in the promotion of their subculture over the christian one.



Doing business with someone isn't 'promoting their lifestyle'. Its promoting the good or service being sold. Not the customer.

Next.



> The epitome of that is so-called "gay marriage".  What better way to usurp a culture than by replacing the core of it with your own warped value system?  Once one church that is diametrically opposed to the core edicts of another, forces its submission legally to promote itself instead, that other faith had ceased to be.  You cannot defy the core edicts of a faith and still have it be alive.  At that point it is dead.



The obvious problem with that reasoning being that gay marriage isn't particularly warped. You just don't like it. Which doesn't form the basis of our laws, nor should.

And there's no portion of the Bible that says a thing about doing business with gays, or not. Or prohibits the sale of cake to gay people.

If your faith is based exclusively on your right to deny gay people access to cake, you may want to reexamine your faith.



> And this is PRECISELY what homosexual activists haven't even been shy about stating as their objective.  They have already taken strides and delivered on promises to do exactly that.  The lawsuits against bakers, photographers and caterers are just the tip of an iceberg with horns and a forked tail heading straight at the good ship christianity.  The bulk of it lies just outside the view under the sea.



Says the guy who lamented about the end of civilization and nuclear meltdowns if we treated an ebola patient in the US, and raged against a coup in California with the prop 8 being overturned.

You are our board's resident drama queen. And your predictions of future outcome are less accurate than guessing. Making your latest round of prognostications a rather firm indication of what's likely NOT to happen.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> 1. Again, a "temple" is the heart of a religious man.  Not a building, wood, nails etc.



Says you. Back in reality, words have actual meanings. And you are not a synagogue or a mosque Silo. Nor are you legally recognized as such by any law, state or court.

Though at least you're not longer pretending that your religion isn't the basis of your opposition to gay marriage. So that's progress of a sort, I suppose.



> 2. Being a business person is a religious man's SECONDARY function.  His primary function is a religious man.  You cannot make secular law superior to freedom of religion.  Not in this country.



When he's conducting business, he's a business man.



> There are your legal obstacles.  Good luck overcoming them.



No, that's your latest round of pseudo-legal gibberish. And it has no relevance to our system of law as you just made it up. Remember, Silo...and this point is fundamental: *legally speaking, you're essentially clueless. You have no idea how the law works. *

And your imagination on how the law 'oughta work' has no particular relevance to how it actually does.



> 3. Gay lifestyles do not qualify for "civil rights", unless they themselves want to be recognized as a religion.  Non-religious lifestyles do not have legal power to force anyone to promote them over their own religion..



You do realize that this latest piece of pseudo-legal nonsense doesn't actually exist in any law, nor stand as a requirement for anyone, right? I'm sure you believe that whatever you make up is legally binding....but it really isn't.

As the 'the gay lifestyle must be recognized as a religion for gays to have civil rights' standard was pulled sideways out of your ass. And is legally meaningless, as no such requirement exists.

And if you don't believe that the rights of gays are protected, might I recommend you read the Lawrence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US rulings. Where Justice Kennedy will systematically disabuse you of your misconceptions.....with the recognition of the rights of gays becoming stronger with each successive ruling.

You can ignore the courts. But you can't make us or the USSC justices ignore them. Which is why you continue to fail.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep not one poster has suggested that Churches be 'forced' to marry any persons- homosexual, jew, black, Canadian- against the policy or will of the church.
> 
> No church should or will be forced to marry anyone against its will.
> 
> Just a scare tactic by homophobes to incite resentment towards homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the church resides within the breast of each man..
Click to expand...


Anyone can claim to have a 'church within' and thereby excuse any behavior.

That is why there is a distinction between a church and an individual. 

Meanwhile back on topic

yep not one poster has suggested that Churches be 'forced' to marry any persons- homosexual, jew, black, Canadian- against the policy or will of the church.

No church should or will be forced to marry anyone against its will.

Just a scare tactic by homophobes to incite resentment towards homosexuals


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> [Q
> 3. Gay lifestyles do not qualify for "civil rights", unless they themselves want to be recognized as a religion.  Non-religious lifestyles do not have legal power to force anyone to promote them over their own religion..



Says who? If the State of Colorado or whatever decides to enact a law saying that sexual preference is to be treated like gender, or religion or race or handicap and require business's to do business with persons without discrimination- they can do so.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And because of the unlearned or inexperience of young people, this nation should change everything for them ? Since when did the day care start being run by the children instead of by the adults ? What's going to be crazy is when the young people someday wake up and realize that they have been duped. Then what ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or....perhaps they'll grow into adults who don't retain the pointless discriminatory instincts and naked bigotry of previous generations. Just as your generation did when putting behind them the shameless bigotry against race that riddled the generations before you. Its unlikely that you're going to 'wake up' and suddenly start to institute segregation or Jim Crow laws.
> 
> Its equally unlikely that young people are going to suddenly wake up and decide they need to start discriminating against gays for no particular reason.
> 
> In another generation we're going to look back at attitudes such as yours with the same dumbfounded wonder and incomprehension as we do now listening to Wallace and his 'segregation now, segregation forever' speeches. And ask ourselves how people could have been so foolish back then.
Click to expand...

OR NOT....


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And because of the unlearned or inexperience of young people, this nation should change everything for them ? Since when did the day care start being run by the children instead of by the adults ? What's going to be crazy is when the young people someday wake up and realize that they have been duped. Then what ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or....perhaps they'll grow into adults who don't retain the pointless discriminatory instincts and naked bigotry of previous generations. Just as your generation did when putting behind them the shameless bigotry against race that riddled the generations before you. Its unlikely that you're going to 'wake up' and suddenly start to institute segregation or Jim Crow laws.
> 
> Its equally unlikely that young people are going to suddenly wake up and decide they need to start discriminating against gays for no particular reason.
> 
> In another generation we're going to look back at attitudes such as yours with the same dumbfounded wonder and incomprehension as we do now listening to Wallace and his 'segregation now, segregation forever' speeches. And ask ourselves how people could have been so foolish back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OR NOT....
Click to expand...


Given how consistently our nation has been moving away from pointless bigotry and discrimination over time, it seems unlikely that this trend would inexplicably reverse itself for no particular reason.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 3. Gay lifestyles do not qualify for "civil rights", unless they themselves want to be recognized as a religion.  Non-religious lifestyles do not have legal power to force anyone to promote them over their own religion..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? If the State of Colorado or whatever decides to enact a law saying that sexual preference is to be treated like gender, or religion or race or handicap and require business's to do business with persons without discrimination- they can do so.
Click to expand...

People are taking this government and using in it almost anyway imaginable, but they are the only ones allowed to do so, everyone else is just abused by it all and/or in the aftermath of it.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And because of the unlearned or inexperience of young people, this nation should change everything for them ? Since when did the day care start being run by the children instead of by the adults ? What's going to be crazy is when the young people someday wake up and realize that they have been duped. Then what ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or....perhaps they'll grow into adults who don't retain the pointless discriminatory instincts and naked bigotry of previous generations. Just as your generation did when putting behind them the shameless bigotry against race that riddled the generations before you. Its unlikely that you're going to 'wake up' and suddenly start to institute segregation or Jim Crow laws.
> 
> Its equally unlikely that young people are going to suddenly wake up and decide they need to start discriminating against gays for no particular reason.
> 
> In another generation we're going to look back at attitudes such as yours with the same dumbfounded wonder and incomprehension as we do now listening to Wallace and his 'segregation now, segregation forever' speeches. And ask ourselves how people could have been so foolish back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OR NOT....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given how consistently our nation has been moving away from pointless bigotry and discrimination over time, it seems unlikely that this trend would inexplicably reverse itself for no particular reason.
Click to expand...

Even if what is being tried may be found out to be wrong, but still no reversing itself ? That's kind of dumb isn't it ?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And because of the unlearned or inexperience of young people, this nation should change everything for them ? Since when did the day care start being run by the children instead of by the adults ? What's going to be crazy is when the young people someday wake up and realize that they have been duped. Then what ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or....perhaps they'll grow into adults who don't retain the pointless discriminatory instincts and naked bigotry of previous generations. Just as your generation did when putting behind them the shameless bigotry against race that riddled the generations before you. Its unlikely that you're going to 'wake up' and suddenly start to institute segregation or Jim Crow laws.
> 
> Its equally unlikely that young people are going to suddenly wake up and decide they need to start discriminating against gays for no particular reason.
> 
> In another generation we're going to look back at attitudes such as yours with the same dumbfounded wonder and incomprehension as we do now listening to Wallace and his 'segregation now, segregation forever' speeches. And ask ourselves how people could have been so foolish back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OR NOT....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given how consistently our nation has been moving away from pointless bigotry and discrimination over time, it seems unlikely that this trend would inexplicably reverse itself for no particular reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if what is being tried may be found out to be wrong, but still no reversing itself ? That's kind of dumb isn't it ?
Click to expand...


That assumes what is being tried is wrong. And that's an assumption I'm not willing to share with you. Nor are most of the young people. Hell, even republicans have moved dramatically on gay marriage, with far more supporting it now than ever before.

That may be a product of changing views ....or those opposing gay marriage simply dying of old age. Either way the trend is pretty dramatic.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And because of the unlearned or inexperience of young people, this nation should change everything for them ? Since when did the day care start being run by the children instead of by the adults ? What's going to be crazy is when the young people someday wake up and realize that they have been duped. Then what ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or....perhaps they'll grow into adults who don't retain the pointless discriminatory instincts and naked bigotry of previous generations. Just as your generation did when putting behind them the shameless bigotry against race that riddled the generations before you. Its unlikely that you're going to 'wake up' and suddenly start to institute segregation or Jim Crow laws.
> 
> Its equally unlikely that young people are going to suddenly wake up and decide they need to start discriminating against gays for no particular reason.
> 
> In another generation we're going to look back at attitudes such as yours with the same dumbfounded wonder and incomprehension as we do now listening to Wallace and his 'segregation now, segregation forever' speeches. And ask ourselves how people could have been so foolish back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OR NOT....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given how consistently our nation has been moving away from pointless bigotry and discrimination over time, it seems unlikely that this trend would inexplicably reverse itself for no particular reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if what is being tried may be found out to be wrong, but still no reversing itself ? That's kind of dumb isn't it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That assumes what is being tried is wrong. And that's an assumption I'm not willing to share with you. Nor are most of the young people. Hell, even republicans have moved dramatically on gay marriage, with far more supporting it now than ever before.
> 
> That may be a product of changing views ....or those opposing gay marriage simply dying of old age. Either way the trend is pretty dramatic.
Click to expand...

You do a lot of assuming, but you get angry when others do the same thing ? Nobody knows the future or what it holds for this nation, and why do you assume that I am against gay's as in human beings or as American citizens who should keep their sex life private like everyone else should do the same ? I'm not, but when a Mr's America contestant is attacked by this militancy, and Phil of duck dynasty is also attacked along with so many others in which the list is getting very long now, then I have a problem with that because it is targeting Christians every time in these attacks. Christianity was the bedrock of this nation for hundreds of years, and it is responsible for all the positive changes this nation has had over the years, but now it can't even put up a nativity scene where no one has a problem with it except for a militant who is deciding what ever is the supposed quirk of the day he or she wants to advocate or be a part of ? People are getting sick of it all is what I think..


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> You do a lot of assuming, but you get angry when others do the same thing ?



I'm doing no more than you, who baselessly assumes what is being done is 'wrong'. And in my favor I have decades of abandonment of pointless bigotry and discrimination. 

Why would this trend inexplicably change for no particular reason? 

And 'get angry'? I haven't gotten angry at any of your posts. Perhaps you're projecting.



> Nobody knows the future or what it holds for this nation, and why do you assume that I am against gay's as in human beings or as American citizens who should keep their sex life private like everyone else should do the same ?



I don't claim to know the future. I claim to use the available evidence to make predictions of what's likely. We have generations of movement toward acceptance and away from bigotry and discrimination, across the board. Race, religion, gender, even sexual orientation. 

We also have powerful trends today where support for gay marriage outpaces opposition by 12 to 19 points, with no signs of stopping. This year Gallup recorded its highest level of support for gay marriage on record: 55%. And among moderates, liberals, independents and the young....support is closer to 60% to 70%. 

Why would this change? You can't give me a reason. You just imagine it will. That's not evidence. Where polling and generations long trends toward acceptance are evidence. And they explicitly contradict you.



> Christianity was the bedrock of this nation for hundreds of years, and it is responsible for all the positive changes this nation has had over the years, but now it can't even put up a nativity scene where no one has a problem with it except for a militant who is deciding what ever is the supposed quirk of the day he or she wants to advocate or be a part of



I think trying to define your faith by opposition to it  is a losing game. The Wiccans tried it. It didn't work out well. You'll need to convince each generation of the value of what you offer. And Christianity isn't working toward that goal effectively with opposition to gays. Which is why many Christians are abandoning such opposition or deprioritizing it. 



> People are getting sick of it all is what I think..



I think you're projecting again, assuming that if you're sick of Christians being criticized, everyone else must share your views. 

That's not necessarily the case.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The church of LGBT will attack and force christian organizations to participate in the promotion of their subculture over the christian one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doing business with someone isn't 'promoting their lifestyle'. Its promoting the good or service being sold. Not the customer...
Click to expand...

 
We are talking about marriage here, not selling turnips by the pound.  Marriage is the foundation of any society.  Turnips are not.  Marriage is the formative environment states incentivize for our most precious resource as a society: our children.  Turnips are not.  Promoting gay marriage in any way shape or form is one and the same, inseperable from promoting that spread within a culture at its core.  Promoting turnips is not.

I know you can see the difference.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> We are talking about marriage here, not selling turnips by the pound.



Doing business with a gay person doesn't mean you have to marry them. You're not the one getting married. You're the one selling cake.

And there's no biblical prohibition against selling cake to gay people.



> Marriage is the foundation of any society.  Turnips are not.



Gay people aren't turnips. Rendering your analogy both surprisingly irrelevant and surprisingly bizarre. 



> Promoting gay marriage in any way shape or form is one and the same, inseperable from promoting that spread within a culture at its core.  Promoting turnips is not.



Doing business with a gay person isn't 'promoting' them or their lifestyle. Its promoting a good or service. Not a customer. The entire premise of your argument is nonsense.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Doing business with a gay person isn't 'promoting' them or their lifestyle. Its promoting a good or service. Not a customer. The entire premise of your argument is nonsense.


 
Under normal circumstances I do not know how anyone would know a person practices a deviant sex lifestyle unless they were inappropriately advertising their sex life in public (exhibitionism).  But they certainly would know if that person requested the shop keep to participate in their gay wedding.

That's the crucial difference.  And you already know that....

The core of any culture is marriage.  So a homosexual asking a christian to participate IN ANY WAY in promoting a gay marriage is inseperable conceptually from that homosexual asking a christian to usurp society at its core and replace it with LGBT cult values.  Since any church resides in its most important essence within the heart of each man, no homosexual may require them in any walk of their life to participate in their "gay marriage".

Again, we aren't talking about a homosexual being denied turnips for sale by a produce store.  We are talking about a homosexual being denied a leg-up to usurp the core of christian values at their heart (marriage).  No homosexual has the right to ask a christian to abdicate his religion in favor of promoting the LGBT religion to strike at the heart of christian culture (marriage) with a depraved torpedo..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doing business with a gay person isn't 'promoting' them or their lifestyle. Its promoting a good or service. Not a customer. The entire premise of your argument is nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under normal circumstances I do not know how anyone would know a person practices a deviant sex lifestyle unless they were inappropriately advertising their sex life in public (exhibitionism).  But they certainly would know if that person requested the shop keep to participate in their gay wedding.
Click to expand...


The shop sells cake. Folks are buying cake. That's not 'promoting' anything other than cake. You don't promote the customer when you sell them something. *You promote the product.*

The central premise of your argument, that selling a customer something promotes the customer, is blithering nonsense. Any argument based on that premise is similarly nonsense. You can't get around that.



> So a homosexual asking a christian to participate IN ANY WAY in promoting a gay marriage is inseperable conceptually from that homosexual asking a christian to usurp society at its core and replace it with LGBT cult values.



Um, nope. The idea that selling a product to a customer promotes the customer is simple nonsense. And gay marriage doesn't 'usurp' society. Or cause it any harm at all. Gay marriage prevents harm to those denied the right to marry and their children. As the courts have already found. And LGBT isn't a cult. Its just a group of people.

You managed to pack 3 fallacies into one sentence. That's some potent babble density right there.



> Since any church resides in its most important essence within the heart of each man, no homosexual may require them in any walk of their life to participate in their "gay marriage".



You're not a church, Silo. You're not a mosque. You're not a synagogue. You're a person. After creatively reimagining the word 'promote', now you're making up a brand new version of the word 'church'. Your problem is that words already have meanings. And you pulling an imaginary made up one out of your ass is meaningless jibber jabber. As it has no relevance to anyone but you.

And you aren't the basis of any legal ruling.



> Again, we aren't talking about a homosexual being denied turnips for sale by a produce store.  We are talking about a homosexual being denied a leg-up to usurp the core of christian values at their heart (marriage).



Save of course, that homosexuals aren't usurping society by getting married. They're_ contributing _to it.  There's no harm being done to you. There's nothing being taken away from you when a gay person gets married. You've imagined harm that doesn't exist, and then insist that we have to deprive people of fundamental rights based on your imagination.

Um, no. We don't.



> No homosexual has the right to ask a christian to abdicate his religion in favor of promoting the LGBT religion to strike at the heart of christian culture (marriage) with a depraved torpedo..



There's no biblical prohibition against selling someone cake. So the commandment being violated by selling cake* is non-existent. *

If  you want to do business with the public, you're subject to the basic standards of conduct with your customers based on the laws of your state. You have to treat your customers fairly and equally. 'We don't serve your kind here' may have been superb fair at southern lunch counters in the 50s. But its invalid clap trap by the laws of today.


----------



## Silhouette

What about if the gay couple wants "just married" or two figurines of the same gender on the cake?  What about caterers who would have to attend the gay reception?  And photographers?

Nope, none of those people can be made to promote gay lifestyle marriage that violates the core of their faith.  Once they are aware of what's going on, they have every right to refuse.  Like I said, they're not selling turnips.  It's marriage.  And that changes everything from a faith based point of view.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> What about if the gay couple wants "just married" or two figurines of the same gender on the cake?  What about caterers who would have to attend the gay reception?  And photographers?
> 
> Nope, none of those people can be made to promote gay lifestyle marriage that violates the core of their faith.  Once they are aware of what's going on, they have every right to refuse.  Like I said, they're not selling turnips.  It's marriage.  And that changes everything from a faith based point of view.


Business is business my little homophobe. Take the money, and bake the cake.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doing business with a gay person isn't 'promoting' them or their lifestyle. Its promoting a good or service. Not a customer. The entire premise of your argument is nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under normal circumstances I do not know how anyone would know a person practices a deviant sex lifestyle unless they were inappropriately advertising their sex life in public (exhibitionism).  But they certainly would know if that person requested the shop keep to participate in their gay wedding...
Click to expand...


When my wife and I ordered our wedding cake- I really hope the baker wasn't thinking about our sex life.

And if you worked in a bakery- I really, really hope, you wouldn't spend your time fantasizing about the sex life of every couple that comes in an orders a wedding cake. 

That is really creepy.


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> Business is business my little homophobe. Take the money, and bake the cake.


 
NO.

And I would walk that "NO" straight to the supreme court and kick your ass all the way back to the bath house with the 1st Amendment.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> When my wife and I ordered our wedding cake- I really hope the baker wasn't thinking about our sex life.
> 
> And if you worked in a bakery- I really, really hope, you wouldn't spend your time fantasizing about the sex life of every couple that comes in an orders a wedding cake.
> 
> That is really creepy.


 
You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you?  That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...

Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.  The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men.  That is a shocking concept that a state would be forced by illegal lower courts in contempt of Windsor 2013 to have to incentivize...

Child abuse shocks people.  Your mind is in the gutter 24-7.  You cannot conceive from your point of view that anyone might have other objections to your lifestyle trying to "marry".

BTW, you and your partner had better go to a state with legal gay marriage because it never has been legal in California.  The people voted it down twice.  That is the standing law in the CA Constitution today and cannot be changed by an activist lower court in contempt of SCOTUS (The Supremes did not rule on the merits of Prop 8), nor seditious governor or AG.  The People have the ultimate power of legislating in that state and Windsor describes that each state has the "unquestioned authority" on thumbs up or down to gay marriage until further notice...

If you want to marry legally as a person doing the gay lifestyle (for now until one of you "Anne Heche's" on the other), you must do so in a state that has allowed it by its own Will and not fake gay marriages going on in states participating in forced sedition..


----------



## mdk

Another year has gone and not a single church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Maybe the fear-mongering will work better next year but I highly doubt it.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Another year has gone and not a single church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Maybe the fear-mongering will work better next year but I highly doubt it.


Many years went by without gays forcing christian bakers and photographers into court...before they actually became emboldened enough to do so recently.

I wonder how long it will be if SCOTUS overturns Windsor 2013 and forces gay marraige upon the unwilling states, before the lawsuits against churches will start "after so many years of not"...?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce from what's happening today into what will happen tomorrow of a same or similar nature from the same unstoppable cult..


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another year has gone and not a single church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Maybe the fear-mongering will work better next year but I highly doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> Many years went by without gays forcing christian bakers and photographers into court...before they actually became emboldened enough to do so recently.
> 
> I wonder how long it will be if SCOTUS overturns Windsor 2013 and forces gay marraige upon the unwilling states, before the lawsuits against churches will start "after so many years of not"...?
> 
> It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce from what's happening today into what will happen tomorrow of a same or similar nature from the same unstoppable cult..
Click to expand...


Muslim cabbies in Minnesota claimed accepting fares from people carrying booze, drunks, or dogs would violate their religious beliefs. The state ordered them to do so regardless because they were violation of the state's PA laws. That decision was hailed by many social conservatives as a slap against creeping Sharia. However when a Christian baker decides to violate PA laws and then uses the same logic it is hailed as a fight for religious liberties. Rank hypocrisy.

I am opposed to PA laws because a business owner should not have to do business with anyone. They should let it be known what people they refuse to serve and let the free market decide.

PA laws have been in place for many years and there hasn't been a single church forced to marry anyone. And yes, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you are nothing more an overly dramatic alarmist with an axe to grind.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Muslim cabbies in Minnesota claimed accepting fares from people carrying booze, drunks, or dogs would violate their religious beliefs. The state ordered them to do so regardless because they were violation of the state's PA laws.


 
So you have without realizing it, just affirmed what I just said...that your cult is gearing up to sue churches to force them to perform gay weddings.  You will no doubt also be gearing up to sue islamics to perform gay weddings in mosques?  No?

Drunks, dogs etc. if I believe I'm correct are venial sins.  The muslim isn't participating in "promoting dog attendance of muslims" or "promoting the imbibing of alcohol by muslims" so the proximate harm has not been caused to their faith.  Requiring christians to participate in a ceremony that violates the core of their faith and forces their participation would be the equivalent of making the muslim cabbies to drink the alcohol with their passenger.

So those laws are not the same as requiring a muslim to drink (requiring a christian to participate a gay marriage in any way, shape or form).

I'd love to see two gay people sue an islamic baker and force them to participate in a gay wedding... 

Besides, Jude 1 of the New Testament of Jesus's teachings says that promoting a gay cultural takeover (marriage as the core of any culture) means eternity in the pit of fire with no exceptions.  That's what's called a mortal sin.  Not a venial one prescribing 50 lashes or what have you.  That's the soul's eternal damnation. You cannot require a religious person to do such a thing.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim cabbies in Minnesota claimed accepting fares from people carrying booze, drunks, or dogs would violate their religious beliefs. The state ordered them to do so regardless because they were violation of the state's PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have without realizing it, just affirmed what I just said...that your cult is gearing up to sue churches to force them to perform gay weddings.  You will no doubt also be gearing up to sue islamics to perform gay weddings in mosques?  No?
> 
> Drunks, dogs etc. if I believe I'm correct are venial sins.  The muslim isn't participating in "promoting dog attendance of muslims" or "promoting the imbibing of alcohol by muslims" so the proximate harm has not been caused to their faith.  Requiring christians to participate in a ceremony that violates the core of their faith and forces their participation would be the equivalent of making the muslim cabbies to drink the alcohol with their passenger.
> 
> So those laws are not the same as requiring a muslim to drink (requiring a christian to participate a gay marriage in any way, shape or form).
> 
> I'd love to see two gay people sue an islamic baker and force them to participate in a gay wedding...
> 
> Besides, Jude 1 of the New Testament of Jesus's teachings says that promoting a gay cultural takeover (marriage as the core of any culture) means eternity in the pit of fire with no exceptions.  That's what's called a mortal sin.  Not a venial one prescribing 50 lashes or what have you.  That's the soul's eternal damnation. You cannot require a religious person to do such a thing.
Click to expand...


Too funny, I in now way affirmed your absurd position. Gays have been getting married for years now in some states and not yet a single house of worship has been forced to marry ANY couple. No place of worship should be forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise against their wishes. Good thing it is not happening anywhere here in this nation. 

Of course you don't see the cases as similar. It doesn't for your anti-gay narrative. The cabbies were forced to promote a lifestyle that ran contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs by carting around those carrying booze or drunks. The were told by the state they were violating PA laws. 

A Muslim baker that refused to serve gays would be in violation of the law if they state where the operate prohibits public businesses from discriminating against gays. The same baker would be in violation if he refused to serve an infidel. The states where these cases reside have laws that protect gays from being discriminated against.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Too funny, I in now way affirmed your absurd position. Gays have been getting married for years now in some states and not yet a single house of worship has been forced to marry ANY couple. No place of worship should be forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise against their wishes. Good thing it is not happening anywhere here in this nation.
> 
> Of course you don't see the cases as similar. It doesn't for your anti-gay narrative. The cabbies were forced to promote a lifestyle that ran contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs by carting around those carrying booze or drunks. The were told by the state they were violating PA laws.


 
They were not being asked to participate in the drinking with their patrons.  With marriage that's what would be asked of them: participation.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> When my wife and I ordered our wedding cake- I really hope the baker wasn't thinking about our sex life.
> 
> And if you worked in a bakery- I really, really hope, you wouldn't spend your time fantasizing about the sex life of every couple that comes in an orders a wedding cake.
> 
> That is really creepy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you?  That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.  The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men.  .
Click to expand...


What children?

Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it. 

Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.

Just you.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny, I in now way affirmed your absurd position. Gays have been getting married for years now in some states and not yet a single house of worship has been forced to marry ANY couple. No place of worship should be forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise against their wishes. Good thing it is not happening anywhere here in this nation.
> 
> Of course you don't see the cases as similar. It doesn't for your anti-gay narrative. The cabbies were forced to promote a lifestyle that ran contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs by carting around those carrying booze or drunks. The were told by the state they were violating PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were not being asked to participate in the drinking with their patrons.  With marriage that's what would be asked of them: participation.
Click to expand...


Actually his point is spot on.

You just can't see it.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim cabbies in Minnesota claimed accepting fares from people carrying booze, drunks, or dogs would violate their religious beliefs. The state ordered them to do so regardless because they were violation of the state's PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have without realizing it, just affirmed what I just said...that your cult is gearing up to sue churches to force them to perform gay weddings.  You will no doubt also be gearing up to sue islamics to perform gay weddings in mosques?  No?.
Click to expand...


Homosexuals are not like your cult of homophobes. 

Nobody is proposing to sue churches- and any idiot who does will be laughed out of court- whether he sues to make a church marry an African American, a Jew or a homosexual.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> When my wife and I ordered our wedding cake- I really hope the baker wasn't thinking about our sex life.
> 
> And if you worked in a bakery- I really, really hope, you wouldn't spend your time fantasizing about the sex life of every couple that comes in an orders a wedding cake.
> 
> That is really creepy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you?  That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.  The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you.
Click to expand...

Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?

It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> [
> I wonder how long it will be if SCOTUS overturns Windsor 2013 and forces gay marraige upon the unwilling states, before the lawsuits against churches will start "after so many years of not"...?..



If Scotus 'overturned' Windsor (which technically is not possible) then the only result would be that the Federal Government would no longer recognized gay marriages.

The only ones suggesting lawsuits against churches are angry homophobes trying to scare the gullible.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> When my wife and I ordered our wedding cake- I really hope the baker wasn't thinking about our sex life.
> 
> And if you worked in a bakery- I really, really hope, you wouldn't spend your time fantasizing about the sex life of every couple that comes in an orders a wedding cake.
> 
> That is really creepy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you?  That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.  The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?
> 
> It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.
Click to expand...


What children?

Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.

Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.

Just you


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> When my wife and I ordered our wedding cake- I really hope the baker wasn't thinking about our sex life.
> 
> And if you worked in a bakery- I really, really hope, you wouldn't spend your time fantasizing about the sex life of every couple that comes in an orders a wedding cake.
> 
> That is really creepy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you?  That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.  The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?
> 
> It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you
Click to expand...


You missed the point.  Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue.  Homo marriage by itself is wrong.


----------



## toxicmedia

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> When my wife and I ordered our wedding cake- I really hope the baker wasn't thinking about our sex life.
> 
> And if you worked in a bakery- I really, really hope, you wouldn't spend your time fantasizing about the sex life of every couple that comes in an orders a wedding cake.
> 
> That is really creepy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you?  That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.  The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?
> 
> It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed the point.  Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue.  Homo marriage by itself is wrong.
Click to expand...

That's refreshing, a man who is honest about where he is at.

Which I respect a whole lot more than someone who says they don't dissapprove of being gay, and don't care if gays live together, and then roll into this facade about "protection of an institution", and it's a tax issue...blah buh blah buh blah.

Thank you


----------



## mdk

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> When my wife and I ordered our wedding cake- I really hope the baker wasn't thinking about our sex life.
> 
> And if you worked in a bakery- I really, really hope, you wouldn't spend your time fantasizing about the sex life of every couple that comes in an orders a wedding cake.
> 
> That is really creepy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you?  That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.  The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?
> 
> It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed the point.  Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue.  Homo marriage by itself is wrong.
Click to expand...


You have every right to believe gay marriage is wrong. Despite your objections and hand-wringing gays will continue to marry.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> What about if the gay couple wants "just married" or two figurines of the same gender on the cake?  What about caterers who would have to attend the gay reception?  And photographers?



What about it? Again, there's no biblical prohibitions to squirting frosting on a cake in the shape of any word. And as long as the figurine isn't a golden calf, I think you're good biblically. 

Christians get treated like everyone else. They are subject to the same laws and standards of business conduct as anyone else. If you want to do business in many states, you need to treat your customers fairly and equally. If you can't do this, you'll be subject to the same penalties as someone who insisted they 'don't serve blacks here'. 



> Nope, none of those people can be made to promote gay lifestyle marriage that violates the core of their faith.  Once they are aware of what's going on, they have every right to refuse.  Like I said, they're not selling turnips.  It's marriage.  And that changes everything from a faith based point of view.



Doing business with someone isn't promoting them. Its promoting the good or service _you _sell. The very basis of your argument is a pointless fallacy.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.



What they do in their bedroom is none of your business. You're making their sex life your issue unnecessarily. There's no biblical requirement that you involve yourself in other people's sex life. Nor any commandment that you don't sell homosexuals cake.

You've imagined all of it. You just don't like gays. And you don't have to like them. You do have to treat them fairly and equally if you're doing business with the public.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> When my wife and I ordered our wedding cake- I really hope the baker wasn't thinking about our sex life.
> 
> And if you worked in a bakery- I really, really hope, you wouldn't spend your time fantasizing about the sex life of every couple that comes in an orders a wedding cake.
> 
> That is really creepy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you?  That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.  The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?
> 
> It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed the point.  Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue.  Homo marriage by itself is wrong.
Click to expand...


But why would you consider 'homo marriage' to be wrong? See, this is where your argument always breaks. As you have no rational nor logical reason for your condemnation that means anything to one who doesn't already believe exactly as you do.

And of course, the courts don't care about your religious beliefs when deciding if gay marriage should be recognized.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you?  That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.  The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?
> 
> It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed the point.  Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue.  Homo marriage by itself is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But why would you consider 'homo marriage' to be wrong? See, this is where your argument always breaks. As you have no rational nor logical reason for your condemnation that means anything to one who doesn't already believe exactly as you do.
> 
> And of course, the courts don't care about your religious beliefs when deciding if gay marriage should be recognized.
Click to expand...


The courts are legislating from the bench and that's the issue.  There is nothing in the Constitution that allows them to give the federal government jurisdiction over marriage.  None.  And here's a fact about democracy that I know ires the godless Left.  People can vote and pass laws for whatever reason they want, including religion.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they do in their bedroom is none of your business. You're making their sex life your issue unnecessarily. There's no biblical requirement that you involve yourself in other people's sex life. Nor any commandment that you don't sell homosexuals cake.
> 
> You've imagined all of it. You just don't like gays. And you don't have to like them. You do have to treat them fairly and equally if you're doing business with the public.
Click to expand...


Actually, what faggots do in their bedroom IS everyone else's business?  Why?  Because they've shoved their lifestyle down everyone's throats.  It's in every sector of society, even in football.  You people are not that important.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

mdk said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you?  That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.  The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?
> 
> It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed the point.  Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue.  Homo marriage by itself is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have every right to believe gay marriage is wrong. Despite your objections and hand-wringing gays will continue to marry.
Click to expand...



Not necessarily.  You may fantasize that the debate has been settled, but legally speaking, it hasn't.


----------



## toxicmedia

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they do in their bedroom is none of your business. You're making their sex life your issue unnecessarily. There's no biblical requirement that you involve yourself in other people's sex life. Nor any commandment that you don't sell homosexuals cake.
> 
> You've imagined all of it. You just don't like gays. And you don't have to like them. You do have to treat them fairly and equally if you're doing business with the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, what faggots do in their bedroom IS everyone else's business?  Why?  Because they've shoved their lifestyle down everyone's throats.  It's in every sector of society, even in football.  You people are not that important.
Click to expand...

Wow, I take back any respect I might have had for anything you might say


----------



## mdk

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you.
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?
> 
> It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed the point.  Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue.  Homo marriage by itself is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have every right to believe gay marriage is wrong. Despite your objections and hand-wringing gays will continue to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  You may fantasize that the debate has been settled, but legally speaking, it hasn't.
Click to expand...


Legally speaking, the writing is on the wall. The debate amongst the citizens will happen for years to come.


----------



## toxicmedia

mdk said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?
> 
> It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed the point.  Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue.  Homo marriage by itself is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have every right to believe gay marriage is wrong. Despite your objections and hand-wringing gays will continue to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  You may fantasize that the debate has been settled, but legally speaking, it hasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legally speaking, the writing is on the wall. The debate amongst the citizens will happen for years to come.
Click to expand...

Some people seem oblivious to the fact that the GOP has declared gay marriage a complete loss for them.

There are fewer and fewer carrying the torch for intolerant prudish bible thumpers.

I hope they all die soon.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you.
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?
> 
> It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed the point.  Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue.  Homo marriage by itself is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have every right to believe gay marriage is wrong. Despite your objections and hand-wringing gays will continue to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  You may fantasize that the debate has been settled, but legally speaking, it hasn't.
Click to expand...


You're not making legal arguments. You're making religious ones. Which are as irrelevant to legal proceedings as you can get


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

toxicmedia said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they do in their bedroom is none of your business. You're making their sex life your issue unnecessarily. There's no biblical requirement that you involve yourself in other people's sex life. Nor any commandment that you don't sell homosexuals cake.
> 
> You've imagined all of it. You just don't like gays. And you don't have to like them. You do have to treat them fairly and equally if you're doing business with the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, what faggots do in their bedroom IS everyone else's business?  Why?  Because they've shoved their lifestyle down everyone's throats.  It's in every sector of society, even in football.  You people are not that important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, I take back any respect I might have had for anything you might say
Click to expand...


Oh....HUGE loss!

If ever I get the respect of Leftists, I need to revisit my strategy.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

toxicmedia said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point.  Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue.  Homo marriage by itself is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have every right to believe gay marriage is wrong. Despite your objections and hand-wringing gays will continue to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  You may fantasize that the debate has been settled, but legally speaking, it hasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legally speaking, the writing is on the wall. The debate amongst the citizens will happen for years to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some people seem oblivious to the fact that the GOP has declared gay marriage a complete loss for them.
> 
> There are fewer and fewer carrying the torch for intolerant prudish bible thumpers.
> 
> I hope they all die soon.
Click to expand...



You hope people die soon?  Any more Leftist "tolerance" you want to share?


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they do in their bedroom is none of your business. You're making their sex life your issue unnecessarily. There's no biblical requirement that you involve yourself in other people's sex life. Nor any commandment that you don't sell homosexuals cake.
> 
> You've imagined all of it. You just don't like gays. And you don't have to like them. You do have to treat them fairly and equally if you're doing business with the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, what faggots do in their bedroom IS everyone else's business?  Why?  Because they've shoved their lifestyle down everyone's throats.  It's in every sector of society, even in football.  You people are not that important.
Click to expand...



And by 'shoving it down everyone's throats', you mean merely *existing*? They've done nothing to you. You've suffered no losses because the rights of gays are recognized. Your marriage is in no way impacted. 

And yet you're bending over backwards to portray yourself as some victim. You're not. Nothing has happened to you.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?
> 
> It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed the point.  Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue.  Homo marriage by itself is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have every right to believe gay marriage is wrong. Despite your objections and hand-wringing gays will continue to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  You may fantasize that the debate has been settled, but legally speaking, it hasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not making legal arguments. You're making religious ones. Which are as irrelevant to legal proceedings as you can get
Click to expand...


Actually I've made several legal arguments, lengthy ones, to parry your idiotic assertion that somewhere in the Constitution is a "right" to butt sex marriage.  

Good memory, 50 first dates!


----------



## Katzndogz

The pool of civilization has been poisoned.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they do in their bedroom is none of your business. You're making their sex life your issue unnecessarily. There's no biblical requirement that you involve yourself in other people's sex life. Nor any commandment that you don't sell homosexuals cake.
> 
> You've imagined all of it. You just don't like gays. And you don't have to like them. You do have to treat them fairly and equally if you're doing business with the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, what faggots do in their bedroom IS everyone else's business?  Why?  Because they've shoved their lifestyle down everyone's throats.  It's in every sector of society, even in football.  You people are not that important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And by 'shoving it down everyone's throats', you mean merely *existing*? They've done nothing to you. You've suffered no losses because the rights of gays are recognized. Your marriage is in no way impacted.
> 
> And yet you're bending over backwards to portray yourself as some victim. You're not. Nothing has happened to you.
Click to expand...


No, I mean shoving it down everyone's throats.  When businesses are forced to bend over to give them special rights in the workplace, when football players gain notoriety for "coming out" instead of achieving athletic excellence, when bakers and photographers are forced to cater to gay marriages and pastors are forced to conduct them, when schools start pushing gay propaganda on children, and when there's no place in life where we don't hear about the gay agenda being pushed on us, that means it's being shoved down our throats.

Nobody cared what you faggots did in your bedroom until you made it our business, so on behalf of America, FUCK YOU!


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point.  Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue.  Homo marriage by itself is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have every right to believe gay marriage is wrong. Despite your objections and hand-wringing gays will continue to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  You may fantasize that the debate has been settled, but legally speaking, it hasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not making legal arguments. You're making religious ones. Which are as irrelevant to legal proceedings as you can get
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I've made several legal arguments, lengthy ones, to parry your idiotic assertion that somewhere in the Constitution is a "right" to butt sex marriage.
Click to expand...


Not lately, you haven't. You pretty much abandoned those poorly thought through legal arguments days ago. And well you should have.....they were born of some profound misunderstandings of the role of the judiciary, a startling lack of understanding of the difference between rights and laws, and a stark misinterpretation of the first section of the 14th amendment.

You're making religiously based value judgements now, backed by your own personal opinions.

Which are legally irrelevant.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> No, I mean shoving it down everyone's throats.  When businesses are forced to bend over to give them special rights in the workplace



What 'special rights' are you referring to? The right to marry isn't particularly special. Equal and fair treatment in business isn't particularly special. Its actually pretty baseline.

So what are you referring to? 



> when football players gain notoriety for "coming out" instead of achieving athletic excellence


And how were you even remotely injured by this? How were you harmed? What was taken from you? 

This is the part I don't get. You squeal like a struck cat because a foot ball player came out. But what relevance does it have to your life? What cost did you have to pay?

_Nothing._



> when bakers and photographers are forced to cater to gay marriages and pastors are forced to conduct them



They're not forced. They can refuse and pay the appropriate fines based on the public accommodation laws of their states. 'We don't serve your kind here' may have been a popular approach for your ilk in the 50 and 60s, but its not a valid basis of business conduct in many States.

Following some pretty basic laws that require folks to trreat their customers with minimum levels of equality and fairness isn't 'shoving' anything down your throat. Its treating you like everyone else. You're demanding special rights. And society has generally said no. 

As for pastors being forced to conduct gay weddings, you may want to check that again. I think you're describing your fears rather than the actual reality. 



> , when schools start pushing gay propaganda on children



And by gay propaganda, you mean *not* threatening them with 'rampages' as you have? *Not* telling gays to 'sit down and shut up' or they're going to get a 'war that will make hate crimes seem like sunday brunch'?

The *lack* of hateful threats of violence, murder and oppression isn't 'propaganda'. 



> Nobody cared what you faggots did in your bedroom until you made it our business, so on behalf of America, FUCK YOU!



You're not 'America', you get that right? Because gay marriage is enjoying a 12 to 19 point lead in support among actual Americans. And growing. With Gallup recording the highest support ever for gay marriage, with a solid 55% of Americans behind it.  *You know....the majority.*

You may be confusing your personal and irrational enmity of gays with the sentiment of the general population. 'Even Jesus went on a rampage' may be your solution for interacting with gays. But for most folks, treating them like everyone else is a much more useful approach.

But take heart. Most folks that think like you are ebbing toward their dirt nap, with the simple attrition of age gratefully taking the sharper edges of your kind of bigotry with it.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people seem oblivious to the fact that the GOP has declared gay marriage a complete loss for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science long ago recognized that Marriage is the natural result of human physiology, wherein one man joins with one woman; further recognizing that a person who accepts that which demonstrably deviates from the biological norm, thus that which is deviant, as normal, such an individual is delusional... and where a sufficient sum of individuals accepts such, the culture which they represent is likewise delusional and to that culture, viability is lost.
Click to expand...


That's not marriage. That's fucking. 

Marriage is a social construct of our own invention. And it is whatever we say it is. As all the infertile and childless couples being allowed to marry or stay married demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

As for your claims that gays are 'delusional', that would be you citing yourself. Not science. And you're nobody.



> You can pretend that the rejection of the acceptance of sexual abnormality is a function of religion, it is science which proves that such is deviant and it is science which proves that accepting such is foolish.



Apparently your go to 'Appeals to Authority' of 'god' and 'nature' weren't working out too well. So you've awkwardly tried to appropriate science as your new 'god'. 

Your tired fallacy of logic doesn't work any better with a new name than it did the old. You have no logical or rational basis to deny gays their right to marry. You simply have the desire to. 

That's not good enough.


----------



## toxicmedia

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point.  Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue.  Homo marriage by itself is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have every right to believe gay marriage is wrong. Despite your objections and hand-wringing gays will continue to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  You may fantasize that the debate has been settled, but legally speaking, it hasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legally speaking, the writing is on the wall. The debate amongst the citizens will happen for years to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some people seem oblivious to the fact that the GOP has declared gay marriage a complete loss for them.
> 
> There are fewer and fewer carrying the torch for intolerant prudish bible thumpers.
> 
> I hope they all die soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You hope people die soon?  Any more Leftist "tolerance" you want to share?
Click to expand...

Those who dedicate themselves to hating gays aren't people


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

toxicmedia said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have every right to believe gay marriage is wrong. Despite your objections and hand-wringing gays will continue to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  You may fantasize that the debate has been settled, but legally speaking, it hasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legally speaking, the writing is on the wall. The debate amongst the citizens will happen for years to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some people seem oblivious to the fact that the GOP has declared gay marriage a complete loss for them.
> 
> There are fewer and fewer carrying the torch for intolerant prudish bible thumpers.
> 
> I hope they all die soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You hope people die soon?  Any more Leftist "tolerance" you want to share?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who dedicate themselves to hating gays aren't people
Click to expand...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

toxicmedia said:


> Some people seem oblivious to the fact that the GOP has declared gay marriage a complete loss for them.



Science long ago recognized that Marriage is the natural result of human physiology, wherein one man joins with one woman; further recognizing that a person who accepts that which demonstrably deviates from the biological norm, thus that which is deviant, as normal, such an individual is delusional... and where a sufficient sum of individuals accepts such, the culture which they represent is likewise delusional and to that culture, viability is lost.

You can pretend that the rejection of the acceptance of sexual abnormality is a function of religion, it is science which proves that such is deviant and it is science which proves that accepting such is foolish.

So your bitch is with science... bitch.


----------



## Silhouette

toxicmedia said:


> Those who dedicate themselves to hating gays aren't people


 
You're close.  Saintmichael isn't against gays. S/he is one playing the role of a "gay hater" using abusive language to spark sympathy for his crowd.  It's a theater act.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people seem oblivious to the fact that the GOP has declared gay marriage a complete loss for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science long ago recognized that Marriage is the natural result of human physiology, wherein one man joins with one woman;
Click to expand...


Science has long since recognize that reproduction is a natural result of intercourse between reproductively viable men and women. 

Marriage is a_ social _construct, not a scientific one. And it is whatever we say it is. Some societies have recognized marriage as between one man and one woman. Others, one man and 4 women. Others, one man, one woman, or one man, one man or one woman, one woman. 

As a social construct, we can make it whatever we want it to be.



> further recognizing that a person who accepts that which demonstrably deviates from the biological norm  thus that which is deviant, as normal, such an individual is delusional


That's not science. That's just you citing yourself. Which is meaningless. 



> .. and where a sufficient sum of individuals accepts such, the culture which they represent is likewise delusional and to that culture, viability is lost.



Given that gays are about 1.5%-3% of the population, we're no where near your 'sufficient sum'. You're offering us a slippery slope fallacy. And a pretty stupid one.



> You can pretend that the rejection of the acceptance of sexual abnormality is a function of religion, it is science which proves that such is deviant and it is science which proves that accepting such is foolish.



You're just offering us yet another variant on the same Appeal to Authority fallacy. Where you can't offer us a logic or rational reason why your position is valid. So you insist its valid because an 'authority' says it is. First 'god, then 'nature'....with your new god being 'science'. 

Same fallacy, different authority. And no logic or reason behind your claims in any case.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim cabbies in Minnesota claimed accepting fares from people carrying booze, drunks, or dogs would violate their religious beliefs. *The state ordered them* to do so regardless because they were violation of the state's PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have without realizing it, just affirmed what I just said...that your cult is gearing up to sue churches to force them to perform gay weddings.  You will no doubt also be gearing up to sue islamics to perform gay weddings in mosques?  No?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not like your cult of homophobes.
> 
> Nobody is proposing to sue churches- and any idiot who does will be laughed out of court- whether he sues to make a church marry an African American, a Jew or a homosexual.
Click to expand...

Not sue, but they are willing to ask that someone be fired in a heart beat, if they don't tow the line after they are asked about what they think of gay people or the gay lifestyle. The contestant for Mrs. America knows all about that one because she was attempted to be fired because of her opinion given when asked, and so does Phil of Duck Dynasty along with The former Chic-Filet CEO, and the baker, the photographer and so on and so forth. Now whats the difference in being sued as opposed to the attempt by the militants to oust one from their business or in the stopping of their ability to do business in America any longer and/or for ones business to be shut down in America all because of ? Is there a difference ? I don't see one... Oh and how did the cabbies become an issue in which you described about them ? Will the state or government enforcers finally be won over by such groups completely soon, and therefore the proceedings would then start immediately on attacking those who would try and separate themselves from the promoting of very bad sinful lifestyles in which goes directly against their faith or religious beliefs in this nation ? Look at what has happened in the last 30 years, and where the attacks on Christianity in the public square has gone. NO NATIVITY SCENES, NO TEN COMMANDMENTS POSTED, NO PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RECITED,  NO BOY SCOUTS OR RATHER THAT BOY SCOUTS NEED TO EXCEPT GAY SCOUT MASTERS, NO CROSS IN THE MILITARY CEMETERY, AND ON AND ON IT ALL KEEPS ON GOING. I think many of these issues have been dragged before the courts also, so don't tell us that something won't happen, when we know by proof of that things will happen sooner or later on such issues, and they will be dragged before the court when they happen.

No one is fooled by progressives here, and what they want for America to be like for them in the coming future, so I don't know why you all don't know this by now.


----------



## toxicmedia

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim cabbies in Minnesota claimed accepting fares from people carrying booze, drunks, or dogs would violate their religious beliefs. *The state ordered them* to do so regardless because they were violation of the state's PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have without realizing it, just affirmed what I just said...that your cult is gearing up to sue churches to force them to perform gay weddings.  You will no doubt also be gearing up to sue islamics to perform gay weddings in mosques?  No?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not like your cult of homophobes.
> 
> Nobody is proposing to sue churches- and any idiot who does will be laughed out of court- whether he sues to make a church marry an African American, a Jew or a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sue, but they are willing to ask that someone be fired in a heart beat, if they don't tow the line after they are asked about what they think of gay people or the gay lifestyle. The contestant for Mrs. America knows all about that one because she was attempted to be fired because of her opinion given when asked, and so does Phil of Duck Dynasty along with The former Chic-Filet CEO, and the baker, the photographer and so on and so forth. Now whats the difference in being sued as opposed to the attempt by the militants to oust one from their business or in the stopping of their ability to do business in America any longer and/or for ones business to be shut down in America all because of ? Is there a difference ? I don't see one... Oh and how did the cabbies become an issue in which you described about them ? Will the state or government enforcers finally be won over by such groups completely soon, and therefore the proceedings would then start immediately on attacking those who would try and separate themselves from the promoting of very bad sinful lifestyles in which goes directly against their faith or religious beliefs in this nation ? Look at what has happened in the last 30 years, and where the attacks on Christianity in the public square has gone. NO NATIVITY SCENES, NO TEN COMMANDMENTS POSTED, NO PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RECITED,  NO BOY SCOUTS OR RATHER THAT BOY SCOUTS NEED TO EXCEPT GAY SCOUT MASTERS, NO CROSS IN THE MILITARY CEMETERY, AND ON AND ON IT ALL KEEPS ON GOING. I think many of these issues have been dragged before the courts also, so don't tell us that something won't happen, when we know by proof of that things will happen sooner or later on such issues, and they will be dragged before the court when they happen.
> 
> No one is fooled by progressives here, and what they want for America to be like for them in the coming future, so I don't know why you all don't know this by now.
Click to expand...

I find it interesting how complicated arguments agains being gay, or gays getting married, can become.

For me it's quite simple.

What gays do...in terms of getting married, just living together, or kissing in public...doesn't have any physical or financial effect on the institution of man/woman only marriages, or those who oppose it.

Gay marriage, is a truly eroding vestigal social taboo that has roots in very primitaive behavior, and practiced by those who embrace their version of "tradition" over human compassion.


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> Look at what has happened in the last 30 years, and where the attacks on Christianity in the public square has gone. NO NATIVITY SCENES, NO TEN COMMANDMENTS POSTED, NO PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RECITED,  NO BOY SCOUTS OR RATHER THAT BOY SCOUTS NEED TO EXCEPT GAY SCOUT MASTERS, NO CROSS IN THE MILITARY CEMETERY, AND ON AND ON IT ALL KEEPS ON GOING. I think many of these issues have been dragged before the courts also, so don't tell us that something won't happen, when we know by proof of that things will happen sooner or later on such issues, and they will be dragged before the court when they happen.
> 
> No one is fooled by progressives here, and what they want for America to be like for them in the coming future, so I don't know why you all don't know this by now.


 
Agreed.  And perhaps it wouldn't even be so terrible if those requesting that suppression of freedom of expression of one's religion were merely atheist secularists.  But they're not.  They have a religion of their own: it is the religion of those against religion.  They have a rigid dogma "oppose all expressions of the sublime faiths" and "turn a blind eye when its demonic, indulgent or promotes deviant sexuality".  That religion is A-OK and always allowed, even naked, gyrating down main street in front of kids...

It is the war of one faith "The church of LGBT" waged against those that are diametrically opposed to it.  One church's dogma is selfishness, physical pleasures, excess and aggression.  The others, much older (or perhaps formed way back because of the first always finding a way to rear its head in successive generations to the ruin of various civilizations) teach altruism, self moderation/restraint/humility.

Since the two are diametrically opposed on nearly every form of principles, they are at war.  And currently we are letting the faith of the beast take the lead.  This was forbidden in Jude 1.  And those who pretend like it is anything but what it is will be going to the same place as those in the beast-faith.


----------



## Silhouette

Read Jude 1 when you get a minute


----------



## toxicmedia

Silhouette said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting how complicated arguments agains being gay, or gays getting married, can become.  For me it's quite simple.  *What gays do...in terms of getting married, just living together, or kissing in public...doesn't have any physical or financial effect on the institution of man/woman only marriages, or those who oppose it*.
> 
> Gay marriage, is a truly eroding vestigal social taboo that has roots in very primitaive behavior, and practiced by those who embrace their version of "tradition" over human compassion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my last post for how your smooth words are the opposite of true.  Jude 1 even warned about talk exactly like yours to try to win the hearts of the faithful into promoting the forbidden: that which is malignantly deviant.
> 
> Jude 1, New Testament:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling _words_, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
> 
> 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ
> 
> 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay marriage has a direct effect not only on the children in them who will be deprived of the complimentary gender as parent 100% of the time, but in so doing will be raising a generation of people who think that is "normal".  Multiply that by time and you'll understand why such a warped institution is forbidden by God.  The Bible isn't some "Chicken soup for the mythologically-inclined".  It is a practical guide given to human civilizations that gives a basic framework within which to not repeat prevoius mistakes and catastrophes back into time forgotten.  That's the reason it's devine; we simply cannot remember that far back. So the Bible does the remembering for us.  It is a book of memories, good and bad.  What worked and what didn't and how humans can live in societies with the least amount of progressive harm to themselves over time.
Click to expand...

I don't give a rat's ass about what the bible says, doesn't say, or anyone's interpretation of what the bible says about gay marriage. We don't have our own verison of Christian Sharia law going on in this country.

Legislation has to stand on it's own merit, without assistance from religion


----------



## Silhouette

True and gay marriage cannot stand on its own merit because states have no business incentivizing marriages that are guaranteed to give children in them a lack of the complimentary gender (which may be the child's own) 100% of the time.  That's essentially the same formatively, as the state granting single parents the right to marry themselves as monosexuals who prefer to be alone.

If you want to make the argument that the Supreme Court should "think of the children currently being deprived of the privelege of marriage", there are vastly larger numbers of those children caught up in monosexual homes than homosexual ones.

Don't even get me started on the thousands of kids caught up on polygamy marriages...





toxicmedia said:


> I find it interesting how complicated arguments agains being gay, or gays getting married, can become. For me it's quite simple. *What gays do...in terms of getting married, just living together, or kissing in public...doesn't have any physical or financial effect on the institution of man/woman only marriages, or those who oppose it*....


Toxic, see my last post for how your smooth words are the opposite of true. Jude 1 even warned about talk exactly like yours to try to win the hearts of the faithful into promoting the forbidden: that which is malignantly deviant.
Jude 1, New Testament:


> 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling _words_, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
> 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ
> 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts


Gay marriage has a direct effect not only on the children in them who will be deprived of the complimentary gender as parent 100% of the time, but in so doing will be raising a generation of people who think that is "normal". Multiply that by time and you'll understand why such a warped institution is forbidden by God.

The Bible isn't some "Chicken soup for the mythologically-inclined". It is a practical guide given to human civilizations that gives a basic framework within which to not repeat previous mistakes and catastrophes back into time forgotten. That's the reason it's devine; we simply cannot remember that far back. So the Bible does the remembering for us. It is a book of memories, good and bad. What worked and what didn't and how humans can live in societies with the least amount of progressive harm to themselves over time.

You may not care about the Bible but this is a thread that discusses your religion vs the christian one so it's fair game..  If you want to discuss how much LGBT resembles a cult who recruits and evangelizes, I'll be happy to "go there"...


----------



## beagle9

toxicmedia said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim cabbies in Minnesota claimed accepting fares from people carrying booze, drunks, or dogs would violate their religious beliefs. *The state ordered them* to do so regardless because they were violation of the state's PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have without realizing it, just affirmed what I just said...that your cult is gearing up to sue churches to force them to perform gay weddings.  You will no doubt also be gearing up to sue islamics to perform gay weddings in mosques?  No?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not like your cult of homophobes.
> 
> Nobody is proposing to sue churches- and any idiot who does will be laughed out of court- whether he sues to make a church marry an African American, a Jew or a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sue, but they are willing to ask that someone be fired in a heart beat, if they don't tow the line after they are asked about what they think of gay people or the gay lifestyle. The contestant for Mrs. America knows all about that one because she was attempted to be fired because of her opinion given when asked, and so does Phil of Duck Dynasty along with The former Chic-Filet CEO, and the baker, the photographer and so on and so forth. Now whats the difference in being sued as opposed to the attempt by the militants to oust one from their business or in the stopping of their ability to do business in America any longer and/or for ones business to be shut down in America all because of ? Is there a difference ? I don't see one... Oh and how did the cabbies become an issue in which you described about them ? Will the state or government enforcers finally be won over by such groups completely soon, and therefore the proceedings would then start immediately on attacking those who would try and separate themselves from the promoting of very bad sinful lifestyles in which goes directly against their faith or religious beliefs in this nation ? Look at what has happened in the last 30 years, and where the attacks on Christianity in the public square has gone. NO NATIVITY SCENES, NO TEN COMMANDMENTS POSTED, NO PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RECITED,  NO BOY SCOUTS OR RATHER THAT BOY SCOUTS NEED TO EXCEPT GAY SCOUT MASTERS, NO CROSS IN THE MILITARY CEMETERY, AND ON AND ON IT ALL KEEPS ON GOING. I think many of these issues have been dragged before the courts also, so don't tell us that something won't happen, when we know by proof of that things will happen sooner or later on such issues, and they will be dragged before the court when they happen.
> 
> No one is fooled by progressives here, and what they want for America to be like for them in the coming future, so I don't know why you all don't know this by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it interesting how complicated arguments agains being gay, or gays getting married, can become.
> 
> For me it's quite simple.
> 
> What gays do...in terms of getting married, just living together, or kissing in public...doesn't have any physical or financial effect on the institution of man/woman only marriages, or those who oppose it.
> 
> Gay marriage, is a truly eroding vestigal social taboo that has roots in very primitaive behavior, and practiced by those who embrace their version of "tradition" over human compassion.
Click to expand...






Silhouette said:


> Read Jude 1 when you get a minute


Will do..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> True and gay marriage cannot stand on its own merit because states have no business incentivizing marriages...



Well thanks for that opinion piece from the homophobe cult.

Meanwhile in 35 states, people in love are getting married.

that means in 35 states, there are children who now have married parents.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim cabbies in Minnesota claimed accepting fares from people carrying booze, drunks, or dogs would violate their religious beliefs. *The state ordered them* to do so regardless because they were violation of the state's PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have without realizing it, just affirmed what I just said...that your cult is gearing up to sue churches to force them to perform gay weddings.  You will no doubt also be gearing up to sue islamics to perform gay weddings in mosques?  No?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not like your cult of homophobes.
> 
> Nobody is proposing to sue churches- and any idiot who does will be laughed out of court- whether he sues to make a church marry an African American, a Jew or a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sue, but they are willing to ask that someone be fired in a heart beat, if they don't tow the line after they are asked about what they think of gay people or the gay lifestyle. The contestant for Mrs. America knows all about that one because she was attempted to be fired because of her opinion given when asked, and so does Phil of Duck Dynasty along with The former Chic-Filet CEO, and the baker, the photographer and so on and so forth. Now whats the difference in being sued as opposed to the attempt by the militants to oust one from their business or in the stopping of their ability to do business in America any longer and/or for ones business to be shut down in America all because of ?
Click to expand...


As are every other special interest group- from the NRA to the Christian Right.

The Christian Right has led several boycotts- including of Disney- because of perception that they were too gay friendly.
Want a list of other business's boycotted because they were perceived as treating gays with too much compassion?

The Million Mom's group tried to get Ellen Degeneres fired from her job as a spokesperson for JCPenney- because of course she is openly gay.

The Million Mom's group also took credit for getting a TV show canceled- that is several hundred people that lost their jobs because those fine Christians thought that show was too gay friendly.

Now do these represent all Christians? Of course not- nor do the persons who called for the firing of the Duck Dynasty folks represent all homosexuals. But every group has the right to speak out- and and speak their mind. 

And while I think boycotts are counter productive in most cases- it is every persons right to call for a boycott.

What is the difference between being sued and appealing to public opinion?

One is asking for the legal protections afforded under the law.

The other is trying to use the power of public opinion to bring about change. 

Both have their time and place.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> True and gay marriage cannot stand on its own merit because states have no business incentivizing marriages...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thanks for that opinion piece from the homophobe cult.
> 
> *Meanwhile in 35 states, people in love are getting married.*
> 
> that means in 35 states, there are children who now have married parents.
Click to expand...

 
Not legally in most of those 35 states. Gay Marriages in States Forced by Circuit Courts to Allow Them Are Not Legal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 And no, those children still do not have a father and mother as parents so they are not children of a marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at what has happened in the last 30 years, and where the attacks on Christianity in the public square has gone. NO NATIVITY SCENES, NO TEN COMMANDMENTS POSTED, NO PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RECITED,  NO BOY SCOUTS OR RATHER THAT BOY SCOUTS NEED TO EXCEPT GAY SCOUT MASTERS, NO CROSS IN THE MILITARY CEMETERY, AND ON AND ON IT ALL KEEPS ON GOING. I think many of these issues have been dragged before the courts also, so don't tell us that something won't happen, when we know by proof of that things will happen sooner or later on such issues, and they will be dragged before the court when they happen.
> 
> No one is fooled by progressives here, and what they want for America to be like for them in the coming future, so I don't know why you all don't know this by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  And perhaps it wouldn't even be so terrible if those requesting that suppression of freedom of expression of one's religion were merely atheist secularists.  But they're not.  They have a religion of their own: it is the religion of those against religion.  They have a rigid dogma "oppose all expressions of the sublime faiths" .
Click to expand...


Pure homophobic bat shit crazy.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> True and gay marriage cannot stand on its own merit because states have no business incentivizing marriages...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thanks for that opinion piece from the homophobe cult.
> 
> *Meanwhile in 35 states, people in love are getting married.*
> 
> that means in 35 states, there are children who now have married parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not legally in most of those 35 states. Gay Marriages in States Forced by Circuit Courts to Allow Them Are Not Legal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> And no, those children still do not have a father and mother as parents so they are not children of a marriage.
Click to expand...


Legally in every single one of those 35 states.

And those children with gay marriage have married parents. Without gay marriage have no married parents. 

Why do you hate the children of gay parents?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who dedicate themselves to hating gays aren't people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're close.  Saintmichael isn't against gays. S/he is one playing the role of a "gay hater" using abusive language to spark sympathy for his crowd.  It's a theater act.
Click to expand...


LOL....unlike most people, when Silhouette hears hoof beats, she doesn't think horses- or even zebras.....she is convinced that it is a herd of evil unicorns.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they do in their bedroom is none of your business. You're making their sex life your issue unnecessarily. There's no biblical requirement that you involve yourself in other people's sex life. Nor any commandment that you don't sell homosexuals cake.
> 
> You've imagined all of it. You just don't like gays. And you don't have to like them. You do have to treat them fairly and equally if you're doing business with the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, what faggots do in their bedroom IS everyone else's business?  Why?  Because they've shoved their lifestyle down everyone's throats.  It's in every sector of society, even in football.  You people are not that important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And by 'shoving it down everyone's throats', you mean merely *existing*? They've done nothing to you. You've suffered no losses because the rights of gays are recognized. Your marriage is in no way impacted.
> 
> And yet you're bending over backwards to portray yourself as some victim. You're not. Nothing has happened to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean shoving it down everyone's throats.  When businesses are forced to bend over to give them special rights in the workplace,!
Click to expand...


If you don't like the laws that say that business's cannot discriminate against African Americans, Jews, Women or homosexuals lobby to change the laws.

But otherwise- I have no more sympathy for you than I do for the bigot who doesn't want to serve African Americans at the lunch counter.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point.  Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue.  Homo marriage by itself is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have every right to believe gay marriage is wrong. Despite your objections and hand-wringing gays will continue to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  You may fantasize that the debate has been settled, but legally speaking, it hasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not making legal arguments. You're making religious ones. Which are as irrelevant to legal proceedings as you can get
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I've made several legal arguments, lengthy ones, to parry your idiotic assertion that somewhere in the Constitution is a "right" to butt sex marriage.
Click to expand...


What is butt sex marriage? 

There is just marriage.

And in 35 states- that includes same gender couples.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you.
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?
> 
> It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What children?
> 
> Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.
> 
> Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.
> 
> Just you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed the point.  Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue.  Homo marriage by itself is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But why would you consider 'homo marriage' to be wrong? See, this is where your argument always breaks. As you have no rational nor logical reason for your condemnation that means anything to one who doesn't already believe exactly as you do.
> 
> And of course, the courts don't care about your religious beliefs when deciding if gay marriage should be recognized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts are legislating from the bench and that's the issue.  There is nothing in the Constitution that allows them to give the federal government jurisdiction over marriage.  None.  And here's a fact about democracy that I know ires the godless Left.  People can vote and pass laws for whatever reason they want, including religion.
Click to expand...


Then your argument is with the Constitution and the Supreme Court

People can vote and pass laws- but if they are not Constitutional- the courts can strike them down.

And that pisses off all of you bigots.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they do in their bedroom is none of your business. You're making their sex life your issue unnecessarily. There's no biblical requirement that you involve yourself in other people's sex life. Nor any commandment that you don't sell homosexuals cake.
> 
> You've imagined all of it. You just don't like gays. And you don't have to like them. You do have to treat them fairly and equally if you're doing business with the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, what faggots do in their bedroom IS everyone else's business?  Why?  Because they've shoved their lifestyle down everyone's throats.  It's in every sector of society, even in football.  You people are not that important.
Click to expand...


F*ggot, n*gger, c*nt, k*ke.

Same words used by bigots for the same purpose.

You fantasizing about how people have sex in their bedroom is not shoving anything down your throat.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they do in their bedroom is none of your business. You're making their sex life your issue unnecessarily. There's no biblical requirement that you involve yourself in other people's sex life. Nor any commandment that you don't sell homosexuals cake.
> 
> You've imagined all of it. You just don't like gays. And you don't have to like them. You do have to treat them fairly and equally if you're doing business with the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, what faggots do in their bedroom IS everyone else's business?  Why?  Because they've shoved their lifestyle down everyone's throats.  It's in every sector of society, even in football.  You people are not that important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> F*ggot, n*gger, c*nt, k*ke.
> 
> Same words used by bigots for the same purpose.
> 
> You fantasizing about how people have sex in their bedroom is not shoving anything down your throat.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They make it everyone's business. This is the point. People wish they would keep that shit to themselves.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they do in their bedroom is none of your business. You're making their sex life your issue unnecessarily. There's no biblical requirement that you involve yourself in other people's sex life. Nor any commandment that you don't sell homosexuals cake.
> 
> You've imagined all of it. You just don't like gays. And you don't have to like them. You do have to treat them fairly and equally if you're doing business with the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, what faggots do in their bedroom IS everyone else's business?  Why?  Because they've shoved their lifestyle down everyone's throats.  It's in every sector of society, even in football.  You people are not that important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> F*ggot, n*gger, c*nt, k*ke.
> 
> Same words used by bigots for the same purpose.
> 
> You fantasizing about how people have sex in their bedroom is not shoving anything down your throat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. They make it everyone's business. This is the point. People wish they would keep that shit to themselves.
Click to expand...

Actually people wish you would keep your shit to yourself, and stop supporting a church that rapes small children.  You lost Chief Sellout, give it a rest.  It's Friday so you have fish to catch for dinner.


----------



## Silhouette

I would like the moderators to notice that Saintmichaeldefendthem (in antagonist role), Syriusly and Paint are all LGBT activists engaged in a make-believe flame war calculated to disappear this thread because of the importance of the poll results in it.

This wouldn't be the first time this trick has been used to try to "disappear" threads with subject matter, headings or poll results the cult doesn't like..


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> I would like the moderators to notice that Saintmichaeldefendthem (in antagonist role), Syriusly and Paint are all LGBT activists engaged in a flame war calculated to disappear this thread because of the importance of the poll results in it.


Your note is as insane as you are.  You lost.  Shut up and deal with it, we ain't going back to when you could openly hate the faggots and most supported you.


----------



## Silhouette

Back to the topic.  (Hey Saint, still have the rainbow in your signature I see ..)...

Gay activists (when they are not role-playing flame wars or drumming up sympathy) are here at this thread trying to assure the 82% who voted up above that they would not take their lawsuits against bakers, photographers or caterers into the churches (the hearts of the religious).

I say it will be within a nanosecond of any Supreme Court finding that changes gay-lifestyle-marraige (to the detriment of children) from a currently state-controlled privelege to a federally-guaranteed "right".  Upon that very instant you will find gay people filing lawsuits against churches.  You can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat upon that...


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two women marrying means deviants.  It doesn't have to involve sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they do in their bedroom is none of your business. You're making their sex life your issue unnecessarily. There's no biblical requirement that you involve yourself in other people's sex life. Nor any commandment that you don't sell homosexuals cake.
> 
> You've imagined all of it. You just don't like gays. And you don't have to like them. You do have to treat them fairly and equally if you're doing business with the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, what faggots do in their bedroom IS everyone else's business?  Why?  Because they've shoved their lifestyle down everyone's throats.  It's in every sector of society, even in football.  You people are not that important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> F*ggot, n*gger, c*nt, k*ke.
> 
> Same words used by bigots for the same purpose.
> 
> You fantasizing about how people have sex in their bedroom is not shoving anything down your throat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. They make it everyone's business. This is the point. People wish they would keep that shit to themselves.
Click to expand...


Yeah- like I said- bigots like yourself use

F*ggot, n*gger, c*nt, k*ke.

Same words used by bigots for the same purpose.

You fantasizing about how people have sex in their bedroom is not shoving anything down your throat.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Back to the topic.  (Hey Saint, still have the rainbow in your signature I see ..)...
> 
> Gay activists (when they are not role-playing flame wars or drumming up sympathy) are here at this thread trying to assure the 82% who voted up above that they would not take their lawsuits against bakers, photographers or caterers into the churches (the hearts of the religious).
> 
> I say it will be within a nanosecond of any Supreme Court finding that changes gay-lifestyle-marraige (to the detriment of children) from a currently state-controlled privelege to a federally-guaranteed "right".  Upon that very instant you will find gay people filing lawsuits against churches.  You can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat upon that...



Just more bat shit crazy Silhouette crap.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> I would like the moderators to notice that Saintmichaeldefendthem (in antagonist role), Syriusly and Paint are all LGBT activists engaged in a make-believe flame war calculated to disappear this thread because of the importance of the poll results in it.
> 
> This wouldn't be the first time this trick has been used to try to "disappear" threads with subject matter, headings or poll results the cult doesn't like..



God you are really delusional. 

Seriously delusional.


----------



## Silhouette

No, that is precisely what you and your buddy Saintmichaeldefendthem are up to.

This thread is about the 82% of people who have reasonable concern and alarm that if the federal government decides to take the word "marriage" out of its current status as a state-extended privelege and into a "federally guaranteed right", the church of LGBT will have a legal gun pointed at the head of sublime faiths forcing them to abdicate core values and participate in promoting the forbidden "gay marriage".

Your ruse has failed.  Back to the topic.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim cabbies in Minnesota claimed accepting fares from people carrying booze, drunks, or dogs would violate their religious beliefs. *The state ordered them* to do so regardless because they were violation of the state's PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have without realizing it, just affirmed what I just said...that your cult is gearing up to sue churches to force them to perform gay weddings.  You will no doubt also be gearing up to sue islamics to perform gay weddings in mosques?  No?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not like your cult of homophobes.
> 
> Nobody is proposing to sue churches- and any idiot who does will be laughed out of court- whether he sues to make a church marry an African American, a Jew or a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sue, but they are willing to ask that someone be fired in a heart beat, if they don't tow the line after they are asked about what they think of gay people or the gay lifestyle. The contestant for Mrs. America knows all about that one because she was attempted to be fired because of her opinion given when asked, and so does Phil of Duck Dynasty along with The former Chic-Filet CEO, and the baker, the photographer and so on and so forth. Now whats the difference in being sued as opposed to the attempt by the militants to oust one from their business or in the stopping of their ability to do business in America any longer and/or for ones business to be shut down in America all because of ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As are every other special interest group- from the NRA to the Christian Right.
> 
> The Christian Right has led several boycotts- including of Disney- because of perception that they were too gay friendly.
> Want a list of other business's boycotted because they were perceived as treating gays with too much compassion?
> 
> The Million Mom's group tried to get Ellen Degeneres fired from her job as a spokesperson for JCPenney- because of course she is openly gay.
> 
> The Million Mom's group also took credit for getting a TV show canceled- that is several hundred people that lost their jobs because those fine Christians thought that show was too gay friendly.
> 
> Now do these represent all Christians? Of course not- nor do the persons who called for the firing of the Duck Dynasty folks represent all homosexuals. But every group has the right to speak out- and and speak their mind.
> 
> And while I think boycotts are counter productive in most cases- it is every persons right to call for a boycott.
> 
> What is the difference between being sued and appealing to public opinion?
> 
> One is asking for the legal protections afforded under the law.
> 
> The other is trying to use the power of public opinion to bring about change.
> 
> *Both have their time and place*.
Click to expand...

I am for boycott's big time, and I am definitely for either side boycotting the other on any occasion now.  

I say let the best man or woman or business win. The government however won't allow this freedom to take place in America anymore, and this they won't do if they can help it now, because it (the feds) are on the dole or take big time anymore on this stuff, and they are in the tank for special interest groups in a sick way these days, and that is where it thinks that it gets it's power from for the most part, so the best way to deal with that is to boycott individuals who are attempting to be elected, and to do this by not giving them our vote no matter what they try and lie and say or do. 

It's time to role back some of this idiocy that is suffering the Christians in America, and that is my opinion because it just isn't funny anymore upon what is going on in so many ways now. If we can keep the government from engaging in their vote pimping or stop it from whoring itself out in such a  bad way for a vote, then we all might stand a chance once again in America, but that is a *big if* these days and times.


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> It's time to role back some of this idiocy that is suffering the Christians in America, and that is my opinion because it just isn't funny anymore upon what is going on in so many ways now. *If we can keep the government from engaging in their vote pimping or stop it from whoring itself out in such a  bad way for a vote, then we all might stand a chance once again in America, but that is a big if these days and times*.


 
I don't know about that beagle.  Congress right now is in a position to impeach some lower circuit judges for calculated overreach and contempt of Windsor 2013 to the detriment of the several states affected and democracy itself.

Roll a couple of those heads and the far left should sit up a little straighter in their chairs...If they want to use the courts to circumvent due process and force their cult values on the states then let the punishment for that artifice be at the court level too.  Judges beware..


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> It's time to role back some of this idiocy that is suffering the Christians in America, and that is my opinion because it just isn't funny anymore upon what is going on in so many ways now. If we can keep the government from engaging in their vote pimping or stop it from whoring itself out in such a  bad way for a vote, then we all might stand a chance once again in America, but that is a *big if* these days and times.



For once, I'd like to see a conservative expression of 'freedom' that doesn't involve treating others like pieces of shit.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's time to role back some of this idiocy that is suffering the Christians in America, and that is my opinion because it just isn't funny anymore upon what is going on in so many ways now. *If we can keep the government from engaging in their vote pimping or stop it from whoring itself out in such a  bad way for a vote, then we all might stand a chance once again in America, but that is a big if these days and times*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about that beagle.  Congress right now is in a position to impeach some lower circuit judges for calculated overreach and contempt of Windsor 2013 to the detriment of the several states affected and democracy itself.
Click to expand...


With the obvious problem being that Windsor decision doesn't say what you claim. Nor can you quote the parts of the decision where the USSC ruled that gay marriage bans are constitutional. Or even mentions gay marriage bans.

So how, pray tell, can a lower court be in 'contempt' of a passage from the Windsor ruling......*that doesn't exist?*

But you've set your '30 days or less' time frame for the impeachments. and my laughing and finger pointing will slowly get louder as we approach yet another batshit prediction based on nothing. And you've earned it.



> Roll a couple of those heads and the far left should sit up a little straighter in their chairs...If they want to use the courts to circumvent due process and force their cult values on the states then let the punishment for that artifice be at the court level too.  Judges beware..



And when no judges are impeached on the basis of your pseudo-legal gibberish, what then? Will you try and pretend you never made such a prediction?

I'm not going to let you, Silo. As your record of accuracy in predicting the future has been worse than guessing.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> No, that is precisely what you and your buddy Saintmichaeldefendthem are up to.
> 
> This thread is about the 82% of people who have reasonable concern and alarm that if the federal government decides to take the word "marriage" out of its current status as a state-extended privelege and into a "federally guaranteed right", the church of LGBT will have a legal gun pointed at the head of sublime faiths forcing them to abdicate core values and participate in promoting the forbidden "gay marriage".



You may want to read the poll again. As it asks nothing about the 'federal government deciding to take the word 'marriage' out of its current status as a state extended privileged and into a 'federally guaranteed right'.  You quite literally hallucinated all of that.

The poll is about churches being forced to accommodate gay weddings. As any reader can verify by simply scrolling to the top of the page. Something so easy to verify, it begs the question......why bother to misrepresent the poll of this thread?

I mean, do you really think we can't read it? Or that we wouldn't notice? There doesn't seem to be an end game here. You're burning through credibility.....and getting nothing in exchange.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> True and gay marriage cannot stand on its own merit because states have no business incentivizing marriages that are guaranteed to give children in them a lack of the complimentary gender (which may be the child's own) 100% of the time.



Says who? There's you and......who? 



> That's essentially the same formatively, as the state granting single parents the right to marry themselves as monosexuals who prefer to be alone.



Except for the whole 'single' part of 'single parent'. You know, the defining characteristic of raising a child alone? 

Two parents means twice the financial resources, or a heapload more time that can be spent on the child.



> If you want to make the argument that the Supreme Court should "think of the children currently being deprived of the privelege of marriage", there are vastly larger numbers of those children caught up in monosexual homes than homosexual ones.



You seem confused. That's not us 'wanting to make the argument'. That's Justice Kennedy....who has made the argument. And recognized in the Windsor ruling the harm done to the children of same sex parents when the marriages of their parents aren't recognized under the law.

Do you get the difference? Because good ol' Mr. Swing voter certainly does.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> No, that is precisely what you and your buddy Saintmichaeldefendthem are up to.
> 
> This thread is about the 82% of people who have reasonable concern and alarm that if the federal government decides to take the word "marriage" out of its current status as a state-extended privelege and into a "federally guaranteed right", the church of LGBT will have a legal gun pointed at the head of sublime faiths forcing them to abdicate core values and participate in promoting the forbidden "gay marriage".
> 
> Your ruse has failed.  Back to the topic.



You are delusional and now talking to yourself.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's time to role back some of this idiocy that is suffering the Christians in America, and that is my opinion because it just isn't funny anymore upon what is going on in so many ways now. *If we can keep the government from engaging in their vote pimping or stop it from whoring itself out in such a  bad way for a vote, then we all might stand a chance once again in America, but that is a big if these days and times*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about that beagle.  Congress right now is in a position to impeach some lower circuit judges for calculated overreach and contempt of Windsor 2013 to the detriment of the several states affected and democracy itself..
Click to expand...


Congress could impeach judges for having the wrong hair color- but just like your pronouncements won't.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim cabbies in Minnesota claimed accepting fares from people carrying booze, drunks, or dogs would violate their religious beliefs. *The state ordered them* to do so regardless because they were violation of the state's PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have without realizing it, just affirmed what I just said...that your cult is gearing up to sue churches to force them to perform gay weddings.  You will no doubt also be gearing up to sue islamics to perform gay weddings in mosques?  No?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not like your cult of homophobes.
> 
> Nobody is proposing to sue churches- and any idiot who does will be laughed out of court- whether he sues to make a church marry an African American, a Jew or a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sue, but they are willing to ask that someone be fired in a heart beat, if they don't tow the line after they are asked about what they think of gay people or the gay lifestyle. The contestant for Mrs. America knows all about that one because she was attempted to be fired because of her opinion given when asked, and so does Phil of Duck Dynasty along with The former Chic-Filet CEO, and the baker, the photographer and so on and so forth. Now whats the difference in being sued as opposed to the attempt by the militants to oust one from their business or in the stopping of their ability to do business in America any longer and/or for ones business to be shut down in America all because of ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As are every other special interest group- from the NRA to the Christian Right.
> 
> The Christian Right has led several boycotts- including of Disney- because of perception that they were too gay friendly.
> Want a list of other business's boycotted because they were perceived as treating gays with too much compassion?
> 
> The Million Mom's group tried to get Ellen Degeneres fired from her job as a spokesperson for JCPenney- because of course she is openly gay.
> 
> The Million Mom's group also took credit for getting a TV show canceled- that is several hundred people that lost their jobs because those fine Christians thought that show was too gay friendly.
> 
> Now do these represent all Christians? Of course not- nor do the persons who called for the firing of the Duck Dynasty folks represent all homosexuals. But every group has the right to speak out- and and speak their mind.
> 
> And while I think boycotts are counter productive in most cases- it is every persons right to call for a boycott.
> 
> What is the difference between being sued and appealing to public opinion?
> 
> One is asking for the legal protections afforded under the law.
> 
> The other is trying to use the power of public opinion to bring about change.
> 
> *Both have their time and place*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am for boycott's big time, and I am definitely for either side boycotting the other on any occasion now.
> 
> I say let the best man or woman or business win. The government however won't allow this freedom to take place in America anymore, .
Click to expand...


Then go ahead and work to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And then you can work on the State laws that legislators passed to protect minorities rights. 

And then local city ordinances.

Because you don't want States or cities determining their own laws and regulations.


----------



## mgh80

Churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages-and currently they aren't. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't impose on your religion currently.

PS: I'm a practicing Christian (Catholic) for the record...and I believe in "judge not, lest you be judged".


----------



## Steinlight

Fuck the  OP who started this worthless thread. What are the odds this cue ball faggot in a turtle neck has gotten gay married since starting this thread?


----------



## Steinlight

mgh80 said:


> Churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages-and currently they aren't. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't impose on your religion currently.
> 
> PS: I'm a practicing Christian (Catholic) for the record...and I believe in "judge not, lest you be judged".


A "practicing Christian", and a real life idiot.


----------



## mgh80

Steinlight said:


> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages-and currently they aren't. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't impose on your religion currently.
> 
> PS: I'm a practicing Christian (Catholic) for the record...and I believe in "judge not, lest you be judged".
> 
> 
> 
> A "practicing Christian", and a real life idiot.
Click to expand...


How judgmental of you...I wonder what your bible says about that?

edit: If you're a "practicing Christian" I suggest you pay attention to the New Testament a little more carefully. You know the whole loving your neighbors, not judging, forgiveness, etc.

I hope you're not arrogant enough to suggest that you're in a position to judge other people, when that's clearly up to God? Or are you claiming that you speak on behalf of God?


----------



## Syriusly

mgh80 said:


> Churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages-and currently they aren't. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't impose on your religion currently.
> 
> PS: I'm a practicing Christian (Catholic) for the record...and I believe in "judge not, lest you be judged".



churches will never be forced to marry anyone that they do not want to marry.

In the 50 years since the passage of the 1964 Civil rights act- no one has forced any church to marry any person described in the act- no church was forced to marry African Americans or Jews or Muslims etc, etc.


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

Hell no. Fagotry is a sin and God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for being pickle ticklers


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Fuck the  OP who started this worthless thread. What are the odds this cue ball faggot in a turtle neck has gotten gay married since starting this thread?



f*ggot, n*gger, k*ke, c*nt.....

Words used by bigots for the same purpose.


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

Fagotry is lead by the love of satan


----------



## mgh80

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> Hell no. Fagotry is a sin and God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for being pickle ticklers



Then that is God's decision and job-NOT yours (or any other human's).


----------



## Steinlight

mgh80 said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages-and currently they aren't. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't impose on your religion currently.
> 
> PS: I'm a practicing Christian (Catholic) for the record...and I believe in "judge not, lest you be judged".
> 
> 
> 
> A "practicing Christian", and a real life idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How judgmental of you...I wonder what your bible says about that?
Click to expand...

The Bible doesn't prohibit one from being discerning. There isn't "your bible", or "my bible". There is one Bible, and you clearly don't understand the passage you quoted if you think it means you can't "judge people".


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck the  OP who started this worthless thread. What are the odds this cue ball faggot in a turtle neck has gotten gay married since starting this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> f*ggot, n*gger, k*ke, c*nt.....
> 
> Words used by bigots for the same purpose.
Click to expand...

LOL, the OP calls himself a "heathen gamer", what a nerd. This loser got one too many wedgies in high school like you and it got to his head.


----------



## Syriusly

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> Fagotry is lead by the love of satan



Bigots are the devil's cheer leaders.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck the  OP who started this worthless thread. What are the odds this cue ball faggot in a turtle neck has gotten gay married since starting this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> f*ggot, n*gger, k*ke, c*nt.....
> 
> Words used by bigots for the same purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, the OP calls himself a "heathen gamer", what a nerd. This loser got one too many wedgies in high school like you and it got to his head.
Click to expand...


And as I said- in response to your use of words like f*ggot, n*gger, c*nt

f*ggot, n*gger, k*ke, c*nt.....

Words used by bigots for the same purpose.


----------



## mgh80

Steinlight said:


> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages-and currently they aren't. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't impose on your religion currently.
> 
> PS: I'm a practicing Christian (Catholic) for the record...and I believe in "judge not, lest you be judged".
> 
> 
> 
> A "practicing Christian", and a real life idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How judgmental of you...I wonder what your bible says about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible doesn't prohibit one from being discerning. There isn't "your bible", or "my bible". There is one Bible, and you clearly don't understand the passage you quoted if you think it means you can't "judge people".
Click to expand...


When I said "your bible" I was implying YOUR bible (as in the bible that you physically own). I don't think you understand my point.

I'm well versed on the bible first of all. However if you go into the bible with a self-fulfilling prophecy of course you're going to read what you want to read. What about this: "let him that is without sin cast the first stone".

Ultimately the bible is VERY clear: this is God's world. He makes his rules-not you and not me.

PS: There ARE several versions (translations) of the bible.

As I I said earlier if you're egotistical and or/delusional enough where you actually think that God agrees with all of your discerning.....you're in for a rude awakening.


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

God hates butt hurt ass gobblers


----------



## Syriusly

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> God hates butt hurt ass gobblers



God hates self rightious bigots.


----------



## Steinlight

mgh80 said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages-and currently they aren't. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't impose on your religion currently.
> 
> PS: I'm a practicing Christian (Catholic) for the record...and I believe in "judge not, lest you be judged".
> 
> 
> 
> A "practicing Christian", and a real life idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How judgmental of you...I wonder what your bible says about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible doesn't prohibit one from being discerning. There isn't "your bible", or "my bible". There is one Bible, and you clearly don't understand the passage you quoted if you think it means you can't "judge people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I said "your bible" I was implying YOUR bible (as in the bible that you physically own). I don't think you understand my point.
> 
> I'm well versed on the bible first of all. However if you go into the bible with a self-fulfilling prophecy of course you're going to read what you want to read. What about this: "let him that is without sin cast the first stone".
> 
> Ultimately the bible is VERY clear: this is God's world. He makes his rules-not you and not me.
> 
> PS: There ARE several versions (translations) of the bible.
Click to expand...

What both of the verses are talking about very clearly is the idea of hypocrisy, not of judging. They are saying that one should hold themselves to the standards they set for others, and should up hold them. They are not saying, "don't judge". They aren't promoting moral relativism for us here on earth and "leaving it to God" to sort out the rest. 

The kind of moral relativism you promote for our society is antithetical to that of a Christian society, where we strive to create God's Kingdom here on Earth through his Church. You are not only immoral, you are cowardly. You at best aid and abet nihilism and at worst partake in it.


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

Keep your gay marriage in your own "church"


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's time to role back some of this idiocy that is suffering the Christians in America, and that is my opinion because it just isn't funny anymore upon what is going on in so many ways now. *If we can keep the government from engaging in their vote pimping or stop it from whoring itself out in such a  bad way for a vote, then we all might stand a chance once again in America, but that is a big if these days and times*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about that beagle.  Congress right now is in a position to impeach some lower circuit judges for calculated overreach and contempt of Windsor 2013 to the detriment of the several states affected and democracy itself.
> 
> Roll a couple of those heads and the far left should sit up a little straighter in their chairs...If they want to use the courts to circumvent due process and force their cult values on the states then let the punishment for that artifice be at the court level too.  Judges beware..
Click to expand...

I agree that some of these Judges have become this huge problem in America on many issues now, because as you say they are circumventing their sworn duties to adjudicate the law in a way that is fair for everyone involved as best that they can. 

They are persuaded and have become unjust for quite sometime now it seems, and this by their rulings made. It is all due to their activism on the bench along with the thwarting of the whole nations will and resolve of such issues by what they (the Judges) look at as a popularity contest in America, instead of what should be the resolve of such issues in a righteous manor or way coming from their bench in America.  They are interpreting or enforcing their own twisted reasoning of how the nation should move forward or either to move backwards on these things in which they reside over. They have managed to throw this nation into chaos is what they have managed to do, and they have opened the doors to many things that we see going wrong today, and it has backfired on the nation in many ways all because of their wanting to be popular and hip these days or it could be that they have become totally corrupted which is even worse than wanting to become popular and hip to the scene these days.

No one is against people in the ways that people want to believe that they are in America, but only that people need space to be given them in very much important ways, and when this space is given it then encourages everyone to have for themselves a protection of their liberties, and to be able to live their own brands of freedom in America without people getting into each others faces with what they think might be good for them, but yet it's not for someone else by what their demands or wants are upon them. Now what is found is that in the process it destroys another's freedoms, beliefs, and cultures all because of these demands that are being placed upon another these days in resistance there of. The Judges haven't been ruling in consideration of this important balance that always needs to be kept, and that's why it all has gone wrong for all in America today. It's like the Judges have become none other than trouble makers more so than trouble solvers.

We need the ole character of an Andy Griffith to rule from the bench these days, and well yes indeed I can just see him now sitting there like he had to with ole Barn, and rubbing his chin to come up with a plan of action, which always led to a just and righteous solution that which was a solution in which usually satisfied everyone in that show's message that was being given or created for us to consume.

It seems that this nation has lost that focus or message these days, but it needs to return to these kind of ideals is what I think. Where are the righteous and just Judges anymore in America, and do they even exist anymore ?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck the  OP who started this worthless thread. What are the odds this cue ball faggot in a turtle neck has gotten gay married since starting this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> f*ggot, n*gger, k*ke, c*nt.....
> 
> Words used by bigots for the same purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, the OP calls himself a "heathen gamer", what a nerd. This loser got one too many wedgies in high school like you and it got to his head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as I said- in response to your use of words like f*ggot, n*gger, c*nt
> 
> f*ggot, n*gger, k*ke, c*nt.....
> 
> Words used by bigots for the same purpose.
Click to expand...

Are you writing such words, in order to get away with saying such words ?  I mean you keep on writing the same thing over and over it appears


----------



## beagle9

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> Keep your gay marriage in your own "church"


And as with anything pertaining to *sex*, that church should be in ones own bedroom, and it should remain there and out of sight period. Why anyone feels that their sex life has to be out in front in order to live a good life, is just confusing to me.


----------



## mgh80

Steinlight said:


> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages-and currently they aren't. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't impose on your religion currently.
> 
> PS: I'm a practicing Christian (Catholic) for the record...and I believe in "judge not, lest you be judged".
> 
> 
> 
> A "practicing Christian", and a real life idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How judgmental of you...I wonder what your bible says about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible doesn't prohibit one from being discerning. There isn't "your bible", or "my bible". There is one Bible, and you clearly don't understand the passage you quoted if you think it means you can't "judge people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I said "your bible" I was implying YOUR bible (as in the bible that you physically own). I don't think you understand my point.
> 
> I'm well versed on the bible first of all. However if you go into the bible with a self-fulfilling prophecy of course you're going to read what you want to read. What about this: "let him that is without sin cast the first stone".
> 
> Ultimately the bible is VERY clear: this is God's world. He makes his rules-not you and not me.
> 
> PS: There ARE several versions (translations) of the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What both of the verses are talking about very clearly is the idea of hypocrisy, not of judging. They are saying that one should hold themselves to the standards they set for others, and should up hold them. They are not saying, "don't judge". They aren't promoting moral relativism for us here on earth and "leaving it to God" to sort out the rest.
> 
> The kind of moral relativism you promote for our society is antithetical to that of a Christian society, where we strive to create God's Kingdom here on Earth through his Church. You are not only immoral, you are cowardly. You at best aid and abet nihilism and at worst partake in it.
Click to expand...


It seems like you might be illiterate and need reading comprehensions skills.

PS: Nobody is advocating forcing any church to marry gay people. Show me one shred of evidence of that from a legit source.


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

There are strait camps that can fix your anal obsession disorder. We Witnesses prefer to call them "gay purge" camps


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fagotry is lead by the love of satan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bigots are the devil's cheer leaders.
Click to expand...

If you are against Christians and their freedom to believe what they believe in life, and for them to be able to separate themselves along those lines, then what should we call you ? A Bigot and then a hypocrite maybe ?


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

Check into a "we will make you love pussy" 
De brainwashing center for Jesus immediately and your treatment is as free as your salvation is


----------



## beagle9

mgh80 said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mgh80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "practicing Christian", and a real life idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How judgmental of you...I wonder what your bible says about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible doesn't prohibit one from being discerning. There isn't "your bible", or "my bible". There is one Bible, and you clearly don't understand the passage you quoted if you think it means you can't "judge people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I said "your bible" I was implying YOUR bible (as in the bible that you physically own). I don't think you understand my point.
> 
> I'm well versed on the bible first of all. However if you go into the bible with a self-fulfilling prophecy of course you're going to read what you want to read. What about this: "let him that is without sin cast the first stone".
> 
> Ultimately the bible is VERY clear: this is God's world. He makes his rules-not you and not me.
> 
> PS: There ARE several versions (translations) of the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What both of the verses are talking about very clearly is the idea of hypocrisy, not of judging. They are saying that one should hold themselves to the standards they set for others, and should up hold them. They are not saying, "don't judge". They aren't promoting moral relativism for us here on earth and "leaving it to God" to sort out the rest.
> 
> The kind of moral relativism you promote for our society is antithetical to that of a Christian society, where we strive to create God's Kingdom here on Earth through his Church. You are not only immoral, you are cowardly. You at best aid and abet nihilism and at worst partake in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems like you might be illiterate and need reading comprehensions skills.
> 
> PS: Nobody is advocating forcing any church to marry gay people. Show me one shred of evidence of that from a legit source.
Click to expand...


Of course there is no direct results or links to this specific question as of yet, but what people are looking at is these movements that are happening in America and all around them now, and what the movements may mean on down the road for them. So what they are drawing from as evidence of these things in which they feel are still yet to come, is the things that have already happened in the past, and then how they have happened.  

So this is just an exorcize I guess on whether or not people think as based upon what has already happened in which they do know about, as to whether or not that what comes next could very well be what the question in the OP is asking people to ponder or to think about in light of what has happened in the other situations that have come to pass already. 

It is all being based upon what has happened thus far in all that they see or have seen in pertaining to this kind of stuff, and what might or could very easily happen next within this kind of stuff.


----------



## beagle9

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> Check into a "we will make you love pussy"
> De brainwashing center for Jesus immediately and your treatment is as free as your salvation is


Now I think Sil might be right about someone like you, because I think you might be trying to play a duel role here. Your going to Heaven eh ?


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

That's right unholy filth!


----------



## beagle9

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> That's right unholy filth!


That's what I thought...


----------



## Silhouette

You can always report suspect sock-puppets and their attempts to troll/flame-war etc. topics off the boards.

This one really bugs them beagle.  Just look at those poll results.  I think it's the largest poll EVER at USMB...suggesting that the topic is of the very most interest and importance to people, far far above any other topic I've seen to date with a poll.  This one is like the Goliath of important topics.  So they're really pulling out the stops to try to kill the thread and make the polling results above go away.  

This thread has over 53,000 views as of today..a fact that does not sit well with the church of LGBT and their smoke and mirrors "everyone supports gay marriage" campaign ...."fake it till you make it".

Only they haven't made it.  Windsor 2013 said the states get to choose until further notice and that as of that Decision only some states have legal gay marriage.  We all know states don't make their laws by lower federal courts dictating those to them in violation of a specific question of law such as "do states get to ratify or refuse gay marriage"?.  Lower courts are prohibited from overturning such a specific question of law until SCOTUS acts further..


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> I agree that some of these Judges have become this huge problem in America on many issues now, because as you say they are circumventing their sworn duties to adjudicate the law in a way that is fair for everyone involved as best that they can.



The judges duty is to uphold rights and interpret the law. So why would we impeach a judge for doing both?

There's not going to be any impeachments based on Prop 8.  Its a fantasy based on desperate, wishful thinking and profound misinterpretations of the Windsor ruling. Where any mention of 'constitutional guarantees' is ignored. But why would a rational person ignore those passages in the Windsor ruling?

There is no reason.



> They are persuaded and have become unjust for quite sometime now it seems, and this by their rulings made. It is all due to their activism on the bench along with the thwarting of the whole nations will and resolve of such issues by what they (the Judges) look at as a popularity contest in America, instead of what should be the resolve of such issues in a righteous manor or way coming from their bench in America.



Rights aren't up to a vote. So what does it matter that the majority doesn't think a minority should have rights? The 'Tyranny of the Majority' isn't how we operate. Nor how we're supposed to.



> They are interpreting or enforcing their own twisted reasoning of how the nation should move forward or either to move backwards on these things in which they reside over. They have managed to throw this nation into chaos is what they have managed to do, and they have opened the doors to many things that we see going wrong today, and it has backfired on the nation in many ways all because of their wanting to be popular and hip these days or it could be that they have become totally corrupted which is even worse than wanting to become popular and hip to the scene these days.



The nation isn't 'in chaos'. Melodramatic much?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> This thread has over 53,000 views as of today..a fact that does not sit well with the church of LGBT and their smoke and mirrors "everyone supports gay marriage" campaign ...."fake it till you make it".



Save of course that the poll in this thread doesn't ask a single question about the legality of gay marriage . But churches being forced to accomidate gay marriges.

While Gallup asked directly about gay marriage support. 



> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> Americans' support for the law recognizing same-sex marriages as legally valid has increased yet again, now at 55%. Marriage equality advocates have had a string of legal successes over the past year, most recently this week in Pennsylvania and Oregon where federal judges struck down bans on gay marriage.



You ignore the Gallup poll and all other national polls showing surging support for gay marriage across the country. And so what? Its not like the polls disappear  just because you close your eyes. You're simply in denial. 



> Only they haven't made it.  Windsor 2013 said the states get to choose until further notice and that as of that Decision only some states have legal gay marriage.



The Windsor ruling says that subject to certain constitutional guarantees, the States regulate marriage. *The Windsor ruling never found that same sex marriage bans are constitutional. Or even mentions same sex marriage bans.*

You imagined all of that. And your imagination has no legal relevance.



> We all know states don't make their laws by lower federal courts dictating those to them in violation of a specific question of law such as "do states get to ratify or refuse gay marriage"?.  Lower courts are prohibited from overturning such a specific question of law until SCOTUS acts further..



The Windsor ruling didn't ask or answer that question. It didn't address it at all. The question that was asked, was does Federal law trump state law on marriage. The answer was no. The Windsor court said absolutely nothing about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. Nor even mentions them. As justice Roberts make ludicriously clear:



> But while I disagree with the result to which the major-ity’s analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its analysis leads no further. *The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage.*"
> 
> Chief Justice Roberts



Explicitly contradicting you. So you ignore Roberts....gallup, the Windsor ruling. Anything that doesn't say what you want to believe.

You fail because you can't make us ignore it.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> *Rights aren't up to a vote.* So what does it matter that the majority doesn't think a minority should have rights? *The 'Tyranny of the Majority' isn't how we operate.* Nor how we're supposed to.



1. If rights weren't up to a vote amongst those who gave us those rights, then how in the world did we come about our rights to begin with ? Otherwise if there was no agreement upon or consensus found between the members of our founders and/or beyond that in this nation, then where did our rules, laws and rights within the nation come from ?

2. So the tyranny of the minority upon us, and this by way of a delusional federal government who is abusing it's power over us now, umm is the way that we are all just supposed to roll these days ?

If we allow our children for example, to be part of the boy scouts in which is a Christian group that has always been accepted and wanted by the majority in this nation, to all of a sudden be dictated to by a very confused person who says that there should be gay scout masters allowed in the scouts now, even when this goes against the majority who see it otherwise, then should we allow this based upon that small minority view against the majority view who does not want this in or around their children ?  Now should the scouts be attacked as they have been in the past by those who work within the government or from these small groups for whom wanted the scouts banned in many ways, and all because of their minority view in which they had on such a thing ? These minorities who are in certain groups out there, are always wanting everything changed as based upon their small minority views on life, but that doesn't always work for them, nor should it always work for them. Some if not most of the issues should be decided on a majority standpoint or view, but not all of them.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> 1. If rights weren't up to a vote amongst those who gave us those rights



From the reasoning used at the birth of our country? Nobody. They already existed. They were merely recognized.

And in our system of laws, rights aren't up to a vote. The city of Chicago, for example, can't vote to strip you of your right to keep and bear arms. Nor can California strip gays and lesbians of their right to marry with the passage of a proposition.

As these matters aren't up to a vote. If you're going to deny rights you need a really good reason and a compelling state interest. And opponents of gay marriage have neither.

You're literally arguing for the tyranny of the majority....where any right can be stripped away from any  minority with a majority vote. Um, no thank you. You're clearly not thinking that through.



> 2. So the tyranny of the minority upon us, and this by way of a delusional federal government who is abusing it's power over us now, umm is the way that we are all just supposed to roll these days ?



The federal government is supposed to protect rights. That's what they're doing. Nixing your 'abuse' argument.



> If we allow our children for example, to be part of the boy scouts in which is a Christian group that has always been accepted and wanted by the majority in this nation, to all of a sudden be dictated to by a very confused person who says that there should be gay scout masters allowed in the scouts now, even when this goes against the majority who see it otherwise, then should we allow this based upon that small minority view against the majority view who does not want this in or around their children ?



You aware that the USSC ruled that the Boy Scouts DON'T have to allow gays in, right?


----------



## Syriusly

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> Keep your gay marriage in your own "church"



Since no one is attempting to force any church to marry anyone that doesn't want to marry them- 'gay marriages' only happen in churches that welcome the loving marriage of two people.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> It seems that this nation has lost that focus or message these days, but it needs to return to these kind of ideals is what I think. Where are the righteous and just Judges anymore in America, and do they even exist anymore ?



None are so blind as those who will not see.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> 2. So the tyranny of the minority upon us, and this by way of a delusional federal government who is abusing it's power over us now, umm is the way that we are all just supposed to roll these days ?



That is how Southerners felt when racial discrimination laws were being forced to be eliminated by Federal laws and judges decisions.

For them- not being able to discriminate against a minority- was the tyranny of the minority.

Most of us think that ending the tyranny of the majority then was right- and that it was not a 'tyranny of the minority' to give equal rights to everyone regardless of their color. 

What do you think?


----------



## Syriusly

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> That's right unholy filth!



this guy is sort of his own posting symbol of Tourette's syndrome.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right unholy filth!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this guy is sort of his own posting symbol of Tourette's syndrome.
Click to expand...


Or someone playing the sock game. That guys just a little too stereotypical to be taken seriously.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fagotry is lead by the love of satan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bigots are the devil's cheer leaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are against Christians and their freedom to believe what they believe in life, and for them to be able to separate themselves along those lines, then what should we call you ? A Bigot and then a hypocrite maybe ?
Click to expand...


Who said I am against Christians? 

Christians can do anything that they want. 

but if the run a business- and the law says that they cannot discriminate against blacks or Mormons, or Jews or homosexuals- then they can't use the excuse of their religion to not do business with them.

Anymore than the orthodox jew can refuse to do business with a woman or a Muslim can refuse to sell to a jew. 

As I have repeatedly said- you don't like the law- then change the law.

Meanwhile- my post was tongue in cheek- a response to the idiotic posts of Heaven boy- my apologies if i offended you.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your gay marriage in your own "church"
> 
> 
> 
> And as with anything pertaining to *sex*, that church should be in ones own bedroom, and it should remain there and out of sight period. Why anyone feels that their sex life has to be out in front in order to live a good life, is just confusing to me.
Click to expand...


I don't know of anyone whose 'sex life' is out in the open.

I have been to weddings- both straight and gay- and believe it or not- at the gay wedding, they don't finish it by having sex in front of us.

Marriage includes the expectation that there will be sex- but I don't go to any wedding thinking wondering what kind of sex the couple has.

Are homophobes different than me in that way?


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> I don't know of anyone whose 'sex life' is out in the open.  I have been to weddings- both straight and gay- and believe it or not- at the gay wedding, they don't finish it by having sex in front of us.  Marriage includes the expectation that there will be sex- but I don't go to any wedding thinking wondering what kind of sex the couple has.  Are homophobes different than me in that way?


 
You're expecting people to really play super dumb along with you. 

It's too late.  Soon the Supreme Court will take the LGBT advice in the last round and they will really start thinking about the children in marriages....and how depriving them of the complimentary gender as parent (and a source of self-esteem and modeling should the child be of that ostracized gender) 100% of the time won't be a good idea for the vastly larger number of children into the untold future than the mere few thousands of those caught up in the gay lifestyle today. 

Making gay lifestyles "legitimate" in marriage is not a favor to kids.  Quite the opposite in fact..  The Supreme Court is set to launch a torpedo at the nucleus of society into time unfathomable.  The reverberations of that act will be felt in churches too as before any ink dries on an unfortunate, myopic decision in the short term to "think of the kids" vs the longer and deeper term "think of the kids", the church of LGBT's fold will be filing lawsuits against christian churches to force them to perform gay marriages. 

Again, there is every reason to believe the unstoppable-lawsuit trend will continue and no reason to believe it will not...


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone whose 'sex life' is out in the open.  I have been to weddings- both straight and gay- and believe it or not- at the gay wedding, they don't finish it by having sex in front of us.  Marriage includes the expectation that there will be sex- but I don't go to any wedding thinking wondering what kind of sex the couple has.  Are homophobes different than me in that way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're expecting people to really play super dumb along with you.
> 
> It's too late.  Soon the Supreme Court will take the LGBT advice in the last round and they will really start thinking about the children in marriages
Click to expand...


They already have started thinking about children in marriage. *The harm caused to the children of same sex parents when the marriages of their parents weren't legally recognized was all over the Windsor decision. *And it was an argument in favor of same sex marriages. Not against.

You seem confused.



> ....and how depriving them of the complimentary gender as parent (and a source of self-esteem and modeling should the child be of that ostracized gender) 100% of the time won't be a good idea for the vastly larger number of children into the untold future than the mere few thousands of those caught up in the gay lifestyle today.



The obvious problem with that reasoning is two fold. First, this is your standard. This USSC has never indicated it gives a fiddler's fuck about the 'complimentary gender' standard in raising children. So you're literally projecting your beliefs onto the courts........for no particular reason.

Second, gays and lesbians are already having kids. And the LACK of marriage for their parents is recognized as harm, per the courts. Literally the opposite of what you're claiming.

Why then would the supreme court ignore its own rulings and instead follow whatever you believe? There is no reason.



> The Supreme Court is set to launch a torpedo at the nucleus of society into time unfathomable.



Oh, the humanities. But weren't we supposed to have all died from the nuclear melt downs and end of civlization from that Ebola patient being let into the US? Or was that just your *last* uselessly inaccurate prediction of doom unless we do whatever you imagine?

Sorry, the melodrama kinds of blends together.


----------



## Silhouette

We shall see.  The new Congress convenes soon and the divide in the lower courts, one on board with Windsor 2013 and the others in contempt of it will be ushering in a new case to reiterate the fed's position on state's choice on gay marriage, polygamy marriage and all the others that will be immediately graced if the Supremes decide marriage is a right and not what it currently is: a state-bestowed privelege when it comes to lifestyles..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone whose 'sex life' is out in the open.  I have been to weddings- both straight and gay- and believe it or not- at the gay wedding, they don't finish it by having sex in front of us.  Marriage includes the expectation that there will be sex- but I don't go to any wedding thinking wondering what kind of sex the couple has.  Are homophobes different than me in that way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're expecting people to really play super dumb along with you.
> 
> It's too late.  Soon the Supreme Court will take the LGBT advice in the last round and they will really start thinking about the children in marriages.
Click to expand...


Chief Justice Kennedy already has been thinking about it

"DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others," the decision says, going on to conclude that the federal statute "is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> We shall see.  The new Congress convenes soon and the divide in the lower courts, one on board with Windsor 2013 and the others in contempt of it will be ushering in a new case to reiterate the fed's position on state's choice on gay marriage, polygamy marriage and all the others that will be immediately graced if the Supremes decide marriage is a right and not what it currently is: a state-bestowed privelege when it comes to lifestyles..



the new Congress won't be touching gay marriage with a tent pole. It has no authority over the judiciary or the Supreme Court.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> We shall see.  The new Congress convenes soon and the divide in the lower courts, one on board with Windsor 2013 and the others in contempt of it will be ushering in a new case to reiterate the fed's position on state's choice on gay marriage, polygamy marriage and all the others that will be immediately graced if the Supremes decide marriage is a right and not what it currently is: a state-bestowed privelege when it comes to lifestyles..




And when nothing happens in the next '30 days or less', is it cool if I point and laugh at you for yet another meaningless prediction drawn from your fundamentally broken analytical process?


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> 1. If rights weren't up to a vote amongst those who gave us those rights



If your going to quote someone, then how about giving the entire quote.. This is another tactic that is used by the left isn't it ?




Skylar said:


> From the reasoning used at the birth of our country? Nobody. They already existed. They were merely recognized.



They already existed eh ? We merely founded the nation with everything already in place or intact, and so all we had to do was just recognize this eh, and then implement it all ? Are you smoking something like crack maybe ?



Skylar said:


> And in our system of laws, rights aren't up to a vote. The city of Chicago, for example, can't vote to strip you of your right to keep and bear arms. Nor can California strip gays and lesbians of their right to marry with the passage of a proposition.
> 
> As these matters aren't up to a vote. If you're going to deny rights you need a really good reason and a compelling state interest. And opponents of gay marriage have neither.



And if we find as a majority that there is a very good reason, and that also there is a very compelling state interest on some matters in which we might find just as important to either be held back or even reveresed, then how do we go about challenging those who might want to take away our rights, and for whom might want to squash our freedoms without us having an equal avenue to travel down in order to do so ?  Just like anyone else or any other group has, we should also hold the same right to challenge something as any other, but the left is trying to convince us that only their ideas or rights matter, and that ours doesn't. One group doesn't have the right to have access to challenging things, and another group doesn't, but that is what is trying to be suggested in all of this, and it's not working because it's just wrong. 



Skylar said:


> You're literally arguing for the tyranny of the majority....where any right can be stripped away from any  minority with a majority vote. Um, no thank you. You're clearly not thinking that through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that isn't what I'm after or advocating at all, but rather just to protect the majority who has agreed that somethings are just decent and good, and that they should not be infringed upon by another just because the other all of a sudden says so or wants it to be so even if what they want is wrong in the eyes of the majority on some issues, but not on all issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government is supposed to protect rights. That's what they're doing. Nixing your 'abuse' argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if your so called right is something that is just now being interpreted as a right by you and a few more, but it hasn't met the standard yet of being a so called right that is recognized by the majority of the citizens or by the nation as a whole yet ? Does your so called right nix others rights in the nation, I mean if this is what it does when you exorcize it ?
> 
> If we allow our children for example, to be part of the boy scouts in which is a Christian group that has always been accepted and wanted by the majority in this nation, to all of a sudden be dictated to by a very confused person who says that there should be gay scout masters allowed in the scouts now, even when this goes against the majority who see it otherwise, then should we allow this based upon that small minority view against the majority view who does not want this in or around their children ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aware that the USSC ruled that the Boy Scouts DON'T have to allow gays in, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just using it as an example in the thread, where as there are somethings that are not won, nor should they have been won out by a minority over a majority in some cases and/or situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> They already existed eh ? We merely founded the nation with everything already in place or intact, and so all we had to do was just recognize this eh, and then implement it all ? Are you smoking something like crack maybe ?



The founders argued that the rights always existed. And we simply recognized them. They treated rights much like say, physics. Where the laws of physics predated our discovery of it. You can debate their rationale. But that's the rationale they based the concept of rights upon.

And in our system of laws, rights aren't up for a vote. You may want to them to be. They aren't. Get used to the idea.



> And if we find as a majority that there is a very good reason, and that also there is a very compelling state interest on some matters in which we might find just as important to either be held back or even reveresed, then how do we go about challenging those who might want to take away our rights, and for whom might want to squash our freedoms without us having an equal avenue to travel down in order to do so ?



Show me the very good reason and compelling state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry.....and we can discuss it. The problem you face, that all opponents of gay marriage face....is that neither exists.



> Just like anyone else or any other group has, we should also hold the same right to challenge something as any other, but the left is trying to convince us that only their ideas or rights matter, and that ours doesn't. One group doesn't have the right to have access to challenging things, and another group doesn't, but that is what is trying to be suggested in all of this, and it's not working because it's just wrong.



Legally speaking, not all ideas are equal. The reasoning offered by opponents of same sex marriage isn't particularly compelling, as it has no rational or logical basis. Its religious in origins. And the era where we punished gays because of Leviticus is long, long over. We try as much as possible to base our rulings on reason, not religion.

If you want religion as the basis of your laws, try Vatican City or Tehran. They'll both accommodate you.



> No, that isn't what I'm after or advocating at all, but rather just to protect the majority who has agreed that somethings are just decent and good, and that they should not be infringed upon by another just because the other all of a sudden says so or wants it to be so even if what they want is wrong in the eyes of the majority on some issues, but not on all issues.



You want a special exemption from public accommodation laws because you object to gays.

No. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.



> What if your so called right is something that is just now being interpreted as a right by you and a few more, but it hasn't met the standard yet of being a so called right that is recognized by the majority of the citizens or by the nation as a whole yet ? Does your so called right nix others rights in the nation, I mean if this is what it does when you exorcize it ?



The right to marriage isn't 'so called'. Its quite real. The question now being addressed by the judiciary is does that right extend to same sex couples. And most indications point to yes. With the USSC overturning DOMA's Federal prohibitions against same sex marriage and preserving every single ruling that overturns State prohibitions against same sex marriage.

Without exception.



> Just using it as an example in the thread, where as there are somethings that are not won, nor should they have been won out by a minority over a majority in some cases and/or situations.



Its an example of how your argument doesn't work. As the persecutions you've described doesn't exist.

You haven't made much headway with the 'eternal Christian victim' argument. You may want to reconsider your position


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> We shall see.  The new Congress convenes soon and the divide in the lower courts, one on board with Windsor 2013 and the others in contempt of it will be ushering in a new case to reiterate the fed's position on state's choice on gay marriage, polygamy marriage and all the others that will be immediately graced if the Supremes decide marriage is a right and not what it currently is: a state-bestowed privelege when it comes to lifestyles..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the new Congress won't be touching gay marriage with a tent pole. It has no authority over the judiciary or the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

So the judiciary and the supreme court operates under whose authority and direction then ? I mean they have to answer to someone right, so who is it ?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> We shall see.  The new Congress convenes soon and the divide in the lower courts, one on board with Windsor 2013 and the others in contempt of it will be ushering in a new case to reiterate the fed's position on state's choice on gay marriage, polygamy marriage and all the others that will be immediately graced if the Supremes decide marriage is a right and not what it currently is: a state-bestowed privelege when it comes to lifestyles..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the new Congress won't be touching gay marriage with a tent pole. It has no authority over the judiciary or the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the judiciary and the supreme court operates under whose authority and direction then ? I mean they have to answer to someone right, so who is it ?
Click to expand...


Sy's not strictly speaking, accurate. Congress can vote to limit the scope of the cases that the USSC can rule over. And the legislative branch does have impeachment powers over the judiciary. 

But he's right on the idea that congress isn't impeaching anyone over gay marriage. Its a spectacularly stupid move, as they can't remove anyone from office without a 2/3 vote in the Senate (which they don't have). And it would highlight the GOP being on the wrong side of an issue the public supports by wide margins: 12 to 19 points.

Silo is just doing his 'the universe must conform to my every belief!!' schtick, where he insists that the future will be whatever he wishes it to be. His record of accuracy is worse than guessing. As neither the universe nor the folks in it give a shit what Silo thinks.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> We shall see.  The new Congress convenes soon and the divide in the lower courts, one on board with Windsor 2013 and the others in contempt of it will be ushering in a new case to reiterate the fed's position on state's choice on gay marriage, polygamy marriage and all the others that will be immediately graced if the Supremes decide marriage is a right and not what it currently is: a state-bestowed privelege when it comes to lifestyles..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the new Congress won't be touching gay marriage with a tent pole. It has no authority over the judiciary or the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the judiciary and the supreme court operates under whose authority and direction then ? I mean they have to answer to someone right, so who is it ?
Click to expand...


Do you not know how our system of government works?

We have three co-equal branches of government:
The Executive- that would be the President and all of the Departments that administer the laws.
The Legislative- that would be Congress- the House and the Senate- that make the law. 
The Judiciary- that is topped by the Supreme Court- which has ultimate authority over the decisions made by lower courts- the Appellate Courts and Federal Courts.

The Supreme Court 'answers' to no one- other than Congress can impeach a Justice- technically for breaking the law- though again there is no one who could tell Congress that they did impeachment illegally- so Congress could impeach Justice Kagan for the crime of being Jewish if Congress wanted to. 

Congress even seen as trying to tell the Supreme Court what it should do would be seen as incredibly unconstitutional- and would likely go down in infamy along with Roosevelt's effort to pack the court.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> The founders argued that the rights always existed. And we simply recognized them. They treated rights much like say, physics. Where the laws of physics predated our discovery of it. You can debate their rationale. But that's the rationale they based the concept of rights upon.
> 
> And so in our system of laws, rights aren't up for a vote. You may want them to be. They aren't. Get used to the idea.



If a right is to be considered a right at all, you know as in something new that would fall up under the definition of a what a right is or as it would somehow be added to or is applied properly in the name of what is to be deemed as a right in the eyes of the nation, then it must be recognized by the court, the state, the feds or the nation as a whole in that sense. Now how do we get there from here, where all of a sudden someone decides that something to them should be a right or is a right when others or many figure it doesn't pass the test or it would abuse others if it is allowed to become a right and then to be exercised as such  ?  I mean someone has to be the decider of that process or to finally allow that suggestion to be considered as such right ?  Then it would be inducted as such into the system, but you suggest that it is a hands off process that just appears to work out of no where, and without any opposition at all to it or no debate to be allowed in it either ?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founders argued that the rights always existed. And we simply recognized them. They treated rights much like say, physics. Where the laws of physics predated our discovery of it. You can debate their rationale. But that's the rationale they based the concept of rights upon.
> 
> And so in our system of laws, rights aren't up for a vote. You may want them to be. They aren't. Get used to the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a right is to be considered a right at all, you know as in something new that would fall up under the definition of a what a right is or as it would somehow be added to or is applied properly in the name of what is to be deemed as a right in the eyes of the nation, then it must be recognized by the court, the state, the feds or the nation as a whole in that sense. Now how do we get there from here, where all of a sudden someone decides that something to them should be a right or is a right when others or many figure it doesn't pass the test or it would abuse others if it is allowed to become a right and then to be exercised as such  ?  I mean someone has to be the decider of that process or to finally allow that suggestion to be considered as such right ?  Then it would be inducted as such into the system, but you suggest that it is a hands off process that just appears to work out of no where, and without any opposition at all to it or no debate to be allowed in it either ?
Click to expand...


i will let you tackle this one Skylar.

I can't figure out what his point is. 

More paragraph breaks, fewer run on sentences would probably help. 

But maybe not.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founders argued that the rights always existed. And we simply recognized them. They treated rights much like say, physics. Where the laws of physics predated our discovery of it. You can debate their rationale. But that's the rationale they based the concept of rights upon.
> 
> And so in our system of laws, rights aren't up for a vote. You may want them to be. They aren't. Get used to the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a right is to be considered a right at all, you know as in something new that would fall up under the definition of a what a right is or as it would somehow be added to or is applied properly in the name of what is to be deemed as a right in the eyes of the nation, then it must be recognized by the court, the state, the feds or the nation as a whole in that sense.
Click to expand...


It has to be recognized as a right in order to be protected, yes. And the method most common on that front is judicial review. Its their duty to adjudicate cases of constitutional significance and interpret the constitution. 

On the State level, extending rights can be done by a vote. But not taking rights away.


----------



## TooTall

RWHeathenGamer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
Click to expand...


What Church has a clause in their doctrine that bans mixed race marriage?


----------



## Skylar

TooTall said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Church has a clause in their doctrine that bans mixed race marriage?
Click to expand...



Whatever church Judge Leon Bazile was attending, perhaps?



> Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
> 
> Leon Bazile ruling on Richard and Mildred Loving



Using God as justification for some pretty awful shit has a long pedigree.


----------



## beagle9

Many feel that health care should be a right or should become a right, and then you have others who see that differently, so the debate and issue rages on. Now the gay's want no debate at all on their issue or it is that they want no opposition to their wanting to get married as a man and a woman always has traditionally in the nation, but that isn't happening where as they just get a pass without debate.  People look at everything involved in what a right might mean completely if it is passed or allowed to be called a right under a new directive or law that would recognize such as a right, and then protect that right afterwards.   

Some seek to subvert the process by any means possible, and they will seek to attach their issue to other issues just to give themselves hope that they can get it all done in this way also. The best thing for everybody, is to put sex back into the bedrooms, and to get it the hec out of the public square because it is to much of a divisive thing when worn on someones sleeve for all to grapple with or to deal with out in the public square.


----------



## TooTall

RWHeathenGamer said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's disturbing that this question is even being asked....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more disturbing are a number of responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed, don't synagogues already marry gays, why can't the bigoted goys get with the times?
Click to expand...


The Islam Mosque will marry gays and cut their heads off immediately following the service.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Many feel that health care should be a right or should become a right, and then you have others who see that differently, so the debate and issue rages on, but the gay's want no debate at all on their issue or it is that they want no opposition to their wanting to get married as a man and a woman always has traditionally in the nation, but that isn't happening where as they just get a pass without debate, because people look at everything involved in what a right might mean completely if it is passed or allowed to be called a right under a new directive or law that would recognize such a right, and then protect that right.



Epic. Run-on. Sentence.

Rights can't be taken away by a vote. 



> Some seek to subvert the process by any means possible, and they will seek to attach their issue to other issues just to give themselves hope that they can get it all done in this way also. The best thing for everybody, is to put sex back into the bedrooms, and to get it the hec out of the public square because it is to much of a divisive thing when worn on someones sleeve for all to grapple with or to deal with out in the public square.



I've been to the Folsom Street Leather fair. And even there, sex wasn't in the street. 

I've been to gay weddings. They didn't fuck in front of the congregation after saying 'I Do'. Or in the street for that matter.

Gays and lesbians no more flaunt their activities in the bedroom than straights do. They're simply seeking equal protection under the law, and equal access to the same rights enjoyed by everyone else.


----------



## Skylar

TooTall said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's disturbing that this question is even being asked....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more disturbing are a number of responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed, don't synagogues already marry gays, why can't the bigoted goys get with the times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Islam Mosque will marry gays and cut their heads off immediately following the service.
Click to expand...


Not the one down the street.


----------



## beagle9

Sex education should be taken out of the public schools just as well, because who in the world ever thought that a school should teach children about sex instead of the children's parents in this nation ? Now look at what goes on in the public schools, where as people are just about idiots for allowing their kids to be taught by the state anymore. The state has betrayed the trust of the parents who sent their kids to be taught subjects like Math, English, Spelling, Social studies, Science and etc. and the state has betrayed them by teaching the kids things in which should have never become subjects in a public school.  Teaching about the anatomy is one thing, and doing it in a very scientific way, but going beyond that should have been totally unacceptable to the parents is my opinion, and it still should be now.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Gays and lesbians no more flaunt their activities in the bedroom than straights do. They're simply seeking equal protection under the law, and equal access to the same rights *enjoyed* by everyone else.



Did you mean *out of the bedroom* no more than straights do ? Um, I haven't seen a straight *sex* pride parade out in the public streets yet, have you ?

*Enjoyed* by everyone else, and what might everyone else enjoy that they don't enjoy ? I thought that civil unions were OK with the gay's, and that this took care of a lot of the legal issues in which they were being denied in life ?


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Gays and lesbians no more flaunt their activities in the bedroom than straights do. They're simply seeking equal protection under the law, and equal access to the same rights *enjoyed* by everyone else.


 
1. Marriage is a privelege and not a right.

2. "Everyone else" do not enjoy the privelege of marriage.  Monosexuals (single people, particulary with kids) do not.  Polygamists do not.  Incestuous pairs do not.  Minors do not.  Gays do not.

3. The only interest states have in marriage is to incentivize the best formative environment for kids.  That is one with both complimentary genders that a child might find his own missing. Gay marriage guarantees the state that any children in the home will be missing one of the complimentary gender role models 100% of the time.  This can be devastating to a child's self esteem if their gender is the one missing from "parents".  And it can be dysfunctional if the represented gender is the same as the childs since that child will be growing up with no clue how to relate to the missing gender.

States don't incentivize this or diluting parenthood by too many wives/offspring (polygamy) nor the lack of two people (monosexual) nor people too young to parent kids (minors themselves), nor couples who can be predicted to produce birth defects in natural children (incest).

Don't feel especially singled out.  The states deny the PRIVELEGE of marriage to many walks of lifestyles.  Yours is but one of several that do not qualify.  And for a very good reason as it turns out: the formative years of children..


----------



## Syriusly

TooTall said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Church has a clause in their doctrine that bans mixed race marriage?
Click to expand...


Any church could put such a clause in their doctrine. 

I lived in the South about 20 years ago- and I had a co-worker quite sincerely tell me her pastor told her that mixed race relationships were against gods will. He not only was opposed to them- he was convinced that such relationships were sinful. 

That minister would not have married a mixed race couple in his church- and he would be within his rights not to do so. 

No one can force a church to marry any couple against the will of the church.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays and lesbians no more flaunt their activities in the bedroom than straights do. They're simply seeking equal protection under the law, and equal access to the same rights *enjoyed* by everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Marriage is a privelege and not a right.
> ..
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court disagrees with you- often

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

_Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"

In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*

In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

_Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


Zablocki

The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays and lesbians no more flaunt their activities in the bedroom than straights do. They're simply seeking equal protection under the law, and equal access to the same rights *enjoyed* by everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mean *out of the bedroom* no more than straights do ? Um, I haven't seen a straight *sex* pride parade out in the public streets yet, have you ?
> 
> *Enjoyed* by everyone else, and what might everyone else enjoy that they don't enjoy ? I thought that civil unions were OK with the gay's, and that this took care of a lot of the legal issues in which they were being denied in life ?
Click to expand...


I have been to numerous Gay Pride Parades- never ever heard of a Gay Sex Parade. 

I live in San Francisco- and I have seen couples have sex in public exactly two times- both times heterosexual. 

We live in a society flooded with images of heterosexual sexuality- what you object to is the relatively few images of homosexual relationships portrayed in the same manner.

Civil Unions were never a perfect answer- since the Federal Government refused to recognize them. Then states got worried and started passing laws ensuring that they would not have to recognize same sex unions in other states. I used to think that civil unions were a reasonable compromise- but then I saw how the bigots fought civil unions too.

So now I agree with the gay community- they deserve the same marriage my wife and I enjoy.


----------



## Syriusly

TooTall said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's disturbing that this question is even being asked....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more disturbing are a number of responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed, don't synagogues already marry gays, why can't the bigoted goys get with the times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Islam Mosque will marry gays and cut their heads off immediately following the service.
Click to expand...


And so many bigots would be thrilled by htat.


----------



## Silhouette

You assume, erroneously Syriusly, that the US Supreme Court will be weighing this question in favor of adults with kids as only a secondary consideration.

I can virtually guarantee you that it will be the opposite of that this time around.  This time around the Court knows their Decision will be read far and wide.  As such, they will be very careful to include every parameter of the most important people in marriage: children. And they will understand this time around that states get nothing but loss from incentivizing marriage...except the payoff that producing excellent children/future citizens that make the state less expensive to run in the long run.  The privelege of marriage in any state is that state's investment in its future citizens.  Otherwise there would be no earthly reason for a state to be involved in marriage at all.  Most states I know are not giddy about giving out random tax breaks for zero reason.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> I would like the moderators to notice that Saintmichaeldefendthem (in antagonist role), Syriusly and Paint are all LGBT activists engaged in a make-believe flame war calculated to disappear this thread because of the importance of the poll results in it.
> 
> This wouldn't be the first time this trick has been used to try to "disappear" threads with subject matter, headings or poll results the cult doesn't like..



You have an extremely high opinion of your own importance, Silly...and it has NO basis in reality.  You are having delusions of grandeur again.


----------



## TooTall

Syriusly said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Church has a clause in their doctrine that bans mixed race marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any church could put such a clause in their doctrine.
> 
> I lived in the South about 20 years ago- and I had a co-worker quite sincerely tell me her pastor told her that mixed race relationships were against gods will. He not only was opposed to them- he was convinced that such relationships were sinful.
> 
> That minister would not have married a mixed race couple in his church- and he would be within his rights not to do so.
> 
> No one can force a church to marry any couple against the will of the church.
Click to expand...


I didn't ask if a Church could put a clause banning mixed marriage in their doctrine, I asked which one(s) have one.  What someone told you a pastor said may or may not be true.  I happen to agree that it is up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister who he decides to marry.


----------



## Silhouette

Jarlaxle said:


> You have an extremely high opinion of your own importance, Silly...and it has NO basis in reality.  You are having delusions of grandeur again.


 
Thanks for bumping the thread Jar Jar.  People need to see those poll results.


----------



## Silhouette

TooTall said:


> I didn't ask if a Church could put a clause banning mixed marriage in their doctrine, I asked which one(s) have one.  What someone told you a pastor said may or may not be true.  I happen to agree that it is up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister who he decides to marry.


 
I wonder....is it up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister to defy Jude 1 of the New Testament?


----------



## Syriusly

TooTall said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Church has a clause in their doctrine that bans mixed race marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any church could put such a clause in their doctrine.
> 
> I lived in the South about 20 years ago- and I had a co-worker quite sincerely tell me her pastor told her that mixed race relationships were against gods will. He not only was opposed to them- he was convinced that such relationships were sinful.
> 
> That minister would not have married a mixed race couple in his church- and he would be within his rights not to do so.
> 
> No one can force a church to marry any couple against the will of the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't ask if a Church could put a clause banning mixed marriage in their doctrine, I asked which one(s) have one.  What someone told you a pastor said may or may not be true.  I happen to agree that it is up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister who he decides to marry.
Click to expand...


Any church can refuse to marry a couple for any reason it wants to- the most common reason being that one or both of the couple is the wrong 'flavor' of Christianity- but a church could reject a couple for any reason it wanted to- because the couple was Jewish- because they were previously divorced- because they had lived together before marriage- because they were from Mexico because they were black or because they are homosexual.

Churches- synogoguges- Temples- mosques- can exclude anyone that they want from any activities that they want to.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask if a Church could put a clause banning mixed marriage in their doctrine, I asked which one(s) have one.  What someone told you a pastor said may or may not be true.  I happen to agree that it is up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister who he decides to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder....is it up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister to defy Jude 1 of the New Testament?
Click to expand...


LOL- do you really know so little of the history of Christianity in America?

Look at the Westboro Baptist Church- a church consisting mainly of family members- not affiliated with any other church- it broadcasts its interpretation of the Bible- an interpretation that is full of hatred towards gays and most Americans. 

There are churches that are part of denominations with strong doctrinal requirements- and others that are loosely affiliated with churches of similar practices or similar doctrines. 

Pastors regularly interpret passages of the Bible- and many of them in ways you would never approve of. IF that pastor is part of a church with a strong hierarchy(The Catholic Church for instance) he may be rebuked or removed...or may not. IF the pastor is with the Westboro Baptist Church- he will likely be applauded.

And by the way- the Westboro Baptist Church has left a light on for you Silhouette- they need a few new bigots.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> You assume, erroneously Syriusly, that the US Supreme Court will be weighing this question in favor of adults with kids as only a secondary consideration.
> 
> I can virtually guarantee you that it will be the opposite of that this time around..



You are delusional.


----------



## koshergrl

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays and lesbians no more flaunt their activities in the bedroom than straights do. They're simply seeking equal protection under the law, and equal access to the same rights *enjoyed* by everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Marriage is a privelege and not a right.
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court disagrees with you- often
> 
> Loving v Virginia
> 
> "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
> 
> Zablocki v. Rehail
> 
> Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
> 
> _Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"
> 
> In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*
> 
> In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
> 
> "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
> 
> _Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)
> 
> "While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,
> 
> Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
> 
> "This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"
> 
> 
> Zablocki
> 
> The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.
Click to expand...


Yeah, this is what progressives do.

If they can't get the people to approve legislation they propose, and they haven't the support to force laws the people reject (repeatedly) upon them, then they just change the definition of the terms, so that whatever depraved activity they are attempting to force upon the public against it's wishes suddenly becomes something else.


----------



## koshergrl

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask if a Church could put a clause banning mixed marriage in their doctrine, I asked which one(s) have one.  What someone told you a pastor said may or may not be true.  I happen to agree that it is up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister who he decides to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder....is it up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister to defy Jude 1 of the New Testament?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- do you really know so little of the history of Christianity in America?
> 
> Look at the Westboro Baptist Church- a church consisting mainly of family members- not affiliated with any other church- it broadcasts its interpretation of the Bible- an interpretation that is full of hatred towards gays and most Americans.
> 
> There are churches that are part of denominations with strong doctrinal requirements- and others that are loosely affiliated with churches of similar practices or similar doctrines.
> 
> Pastors regularly interpret passages of the Bible- and many of them in ways you would never approve of. IF that pastor is part of a church with a strong hierarchy(The Catholic Church for instance) he may be rebuked or removed...or may not. IF the pastor is with the Westboro Baptist Church- he will likely be applauded.
> 
> And by the way- the Westboro Baptist Church has left a light on for you Silhouette- they need a few new bigots.
Click to expand...


Westboro Baptist Church is one small church, with a small congregation.

It speaks volumes of the anti-Christian homo promoters that it is the "go to" example of wide-spread Christian *hatred*. If this alleged hatred and bigotry was so wide spread, there would be examples world wide, and you'd hear our leaders praising Westboro all over the place. Like your leaders praise hate mongers like Jeremiah Wright, and Jesse Jackson, and various and assorted Muslim pigs.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays and lesbians no more flaunt their activities in the bedroom than straights do. They're simply seeking equal protection under the law, and equal access to the same rights *enjoyed* by everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Marriage is a privelege and not a right.
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court disagrees with you- often
> 
> Loving v Virginia
> 
> "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
> 
> Zablocki v. Rehail
> 
> Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
> 
> _Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"
> 
> In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*
> 
> In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
> 
> "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
> 
> _Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)
> 
> "While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,
> 
> Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
> 
> "This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"
> 
> 
> Zablocki
> 
> The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, this is what progressives do.
> 
> If they can't get the people to approve legislation they propose, and they haven't the support to force laws the people reject (repeatedly) upon them, then they just change the definition of the terms, so that whatever depraved activity they are attempting to force upon the public against it's wishes suddenly becomes something else.
Click to expand...


I will repost my post again- just because your response amuses me- feel free to tell us why you think the Supreme Court was wrong in each of these declarations that marriage is a right- starting with Loving v. Virginia:



*Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."*

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although _Loving _arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

_Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"

In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*

In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

_Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


Zablocki

The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask if a Church could put a clause banning mixed marriage in their doctrine, I asked which one(s) have one.  What someone told you a pastor said may or may not be true.  I happen to agree that it is up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister who he decides to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder....is it up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister to defy Jude 1 of the New Testament?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- do you really know so little of the history of Christianity in America?
> 
> Look at the Westboro Baptist Church- a church consisting mainly of family members- not affiliated with any other church- it broadcasts its interpretation of the Bible- an interpretation that is full of hatred towards gays and most Americans.
> 
> There are churches that are part of denominations with strong doctrinal requirements- and others that are loosely affiliated with churches of similar practices or similar doctrines.
> 
> Pastors regularly interpret passages of the Bible- and many of them in ways you would never approve of. IF that pastor is part of a church with a strong hierarchy(The Catholic Church for instance) he may be rebuked or removed...or may not. IF the pastor is with the Westboro Baptist Church- he will likely be applauded.
> 
> And by the way- the Westboro Baptist Church has left a light on for you Silhouette- they need a few new bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Westboro Baptist Church is one small church, with a small congregation.
> 
> It speaks volumes of the anti-Christian homo promoters that it is the "go to" example of wide-spread Christian *hatred*. If this alleged hatred and bigotry was so wide spread, there would be examples world wide, and you'd hear our leaders praising Westboro all over the place. Like your leaders praise hate mongers like Jeremiah Wright, and Jesse Jackson, and various and assorted Muslim pigs.
Click to expand...


Silhouette and yourself would be right at home with Westboro.

I pointed out that Westboro consists mainly of family members- but I am sure you could be accepted there.

I can't imagine any mainstream church that would want you.


----------



## koshergrl

I already provided my commentary on it. I'm under no obligation to keep rephrasing it until you understand what I said. You seem to think that if you don't agree with a comment, then it has no validity. I'm here to tell you that's a juvenile supposition, and your ignorance won't compel me to waste time trying to make you understand simple English.


----------



## Skylar

TooTall said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.
> 
> No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Church has a clause in their doctrine that bans mixed race marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any church could put such a clause in their doctrine.
> 
> I lived in the South about 20 years ago- and I had a co-worker quite sincerely tell me her pastor told her that mixed race relationships were against gods will. He not only was opposed to them- he was convinced that such relationships were sinful.
> 
> That minister would not have married a mixed race couple in his church- and he would be within his rights not to do so.
> 
> No one can force a church to marry any couple against the will of the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't ask if a Church could put a clause banning mixed marriage in their doctrine, I asked which one(s) have one.  What someone told you a pastor said may or may not be true.  I happen to agree that it is up to the individual Pastor, Preacher or Minister who he decides to marry.
Click to expand...



The church that judge Leon Bazille went to perhaps?



> Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
> 
> 
> Judge Leon Bazile, ruling on Richard and Mildred Loving



Not many *do*. But its clear that prohibitions against interracial marriage have a religious doctrinal pedigree in the past. After being overturned by the USSC legally, not so much anymore.

Lets hope that religious prohibitions against gay marriage follow the same pattern.


----------



## koshergrl

God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.

He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> I already provided my commentary on it. I'm under no obligation to keep rephrasing it until you understand what I said.



Or apparently  to even post a coherent response.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.
> 
> He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.



And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.


----------



## koshergrl

Syriusly said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already provided my commentary on it. I'm under no obligation to keep rephrasing it until you understand what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or apparently  to even post a coherent response.
Click to expand...


Like I said, just because you don't understand English doesn't mean a thing to me.

Nothing gets through the chatter in your head. It's sad, but common amongst your type.


----------



## koshergrl

Syriusly said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.
> 
> He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.
> 
> Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you think you made a point here.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.
> 
> He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.
> 
> Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you think you made a point here.
Click to expand...


That religious justification for restrictions on marriage don't always hold up legally, or make much sense rationally?


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already provided my commentary on it. I'm under no obligation to keep rephrasing it until you understand what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or apparently  to even post a coherent response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, just because you don't understand English doesn't mean a thing to me.
> 
> Nothing gets through the chatter in your head. It's sad, but common amongst your type.
Click to expand...


You have nothing to offer but hate- it is what rattles around your head.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.
> 
> He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.
> 
> Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you think you made a point here.
Click to expand...


Thanks- glad to offer it again:

And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.
> 
> He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.
> 
> Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you think you made a point here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks- glad to offer it again:
> 
> And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.
> 
> *Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be*.
Click to expand...


This thing that you keep saying about  the "churches" being under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and they never will be, and then you use Blacks, Jews and other scenario's in which you keep creating for your hypothetical analysis in which has a hate message that is being placed into this thread against the entire church by you, but it is all just so transparent of you... You are trying to convey such a message in a way as if to say you are for the church's right to do what you are saying, when in fact you are not for it at all, and you are trying to nudge us and/or your affiliates to tell us how the Churches are just a bunch of bigots, but that is their right to be a Bigot even though you disagree with this thought process in which you are using... How kind of you to point all that out to us, but we know better about what you are up to in here. You are selling snake oil is what you are doing.

With this speak you are trying to paint religious people and churches as these bigots in every way that you can in your speak, and you expect people to not pick up on what you are doing because you figure that people are to dumb to see what you are doing, and you think that they think that you are protecting the churches rights in which you are giving to them a pass on in your speak, but really you are getting away with calling them bigots under the guise that they are not going to be forced to marry anyone they don't want to as you keep shouting from the roof top.

Yes, you are actually trying to build some sort of future angst against the church in the way that you keep saying these things, and you figure that the angst will build over time into a mob who will seek to change what you keep saying the church will never have to do, but you figure that all due to the anger against it, then it will be persuaded or forced to do so by consensus, where as it will finally break down and marry them gay's right there in the Church due to the pressures you and others created for them over time to do so, and then the government kicking in on them, and to force them to do so.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Thanks- glad to offer it again:
> 
> And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.
> 
> Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.


 
Race isn't lifestyle.  Try again.   Since a church = religion and religion is in the heart of a man, and because religious men have already been sued by the cult of LGBT to force them to violate their faith to promote LGBT cult values, then we can conclude that we will in fact see LGBT lawsuits against "churches" (and all that they are) forcing them to marry gays if the fed overturns Windsor and reverts the power of the states back to the fed on the question of "lifestyle-marriages" that the states have rejected by consensus..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks- glad to offer it again:
> 
> And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.
> 
> Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Race isn't lifestyle.  Try again. .
Click to expand...


Sexual attraction is not a lifestyle either.


And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.

Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.
> 
> He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.
> 
> Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you think you made a point here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks- glad to offer it again:
> 
> And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.
> 
> *Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thing that you keep saying about  the "churches" being under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and they never will be, and then you use Blacks, Jews and other scenario's in which you keep creating for your hypothetical analysis in which has a hate message that is being placed into this thread against the entire church by you, but it is all just so transparent of you... You are trying to convey such a message in a way as if to say you are for the church's right to do what you are saying, when in fact you are not for it at all, and you are trying to nudge us and/or your affiliates to tell us how the Churches are just a bunch of bigots, but that is their right to be a Bigot even though you disagree with this thought process in which you are using... How kind of you to point all that out to us, but we know better about what you are up to in here. You are selling snake oil is what you are doing.
Click to expand...


I am absolutely serious when I say that every Church has the right to decide how to deal with church matters- and can discriminate in any fashion it chooses to. 

Yes- Churches have the right to be bigots. 

And yes- I see no moral or legal difference between any church refusing to marry a couple because 

they are mixed race
they are gay
they are Jewish
they are Puerto Rican
they are fat
they are divorced
Do you think that churches do not have that right? Do you think that there are not churches who have advocated say racial segregation? Been against mixed race marriages? 

Have you ever heard of the sermon by Bob Jones- founder of Bob Jones University- a Christian college which famously forbade mixed race dating. 

 Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh 

Its a fine sermon where Bob Jones explains how God wants the races segregated. Bob Jones University rules prohibited mixed race dating on Biblical grounds until 14 years ago.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> This thing that you keep saying about  the "churches" being under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and they never will be, and then you use Blacks, Jews and other scenario's in which you keep creating for your hypothetical analysis in which has a hate message that is being placed into this thread against the entire church by you, but it is all just so transparent of you...



That's not a hypothetical analysis. The use of religion as the justification for all sorts of silly, silly shit is a matter of historical fact. Just look at the steaming rhetorical pile used by Judge Leon Bazile when he convicted Richard and Mildred Loving of 'interracial marriage'. 



> "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
> 
> Judge Leon Bazile



And even this ignorance is protected under freedom of religion. If your church wants to argue that interracial marriage should never be performed and won't perform one.....they're free to do so. There is no one forcing religions to perform weddings they don't want to perform. Not now. Not 50 or so years ago when interracial marriage bans were overturned.

And what's so amusing in all this? You're offering us the very thing you just denounced: hypothetical analysis. As no church is being required to perform any gay wedding. But that doesn't stop you from railing against the hypothetical, does it?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks- glad to offer it again:
> 
> And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.
> 
> Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Race isn't lifestyle.  Try again.   Since a church = religion and religion is in the heart of a man, and because religious men have already been sued by the cult of LGBT to force them to violate their faith to promote LGBT cult values, then we can conclude that we will in fact see LGBT lawsuits against "churches" (and all that they are) forcing them to marry gays if the fed overturns Windsor and reverts the power of the states back to the fed on the question of "lifestyle-marriages" that the states have rejected by consensus..
Click to expand...


No religious person has been forced to marry anyone they don't want to. No one. Even the rather public case of a pair of professional ministers falling under public accommodation laws turned out to be a steaming pile of horse shit. As the city never charged them with anything, nor indicated that they would. The city instead pointed out that the very law that the ministers were citing as forcing them to marry gays........has an explicit exemption for religious corporations.

They were fear mongering. Just as you are now. Or as Beagle would call it 'hypothetical analysis'. 

No one is forcing churches to perform gay weddings. And I defy you to cite a single example. You can't. As there is none.


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> *Yes, you are actually trying to build some sort of future angst against the church in the way that you keep saying these things, and you figure that the angst will build over time into a mob who will seek to change what you keep saying the church will never have to do*, but you figure that all due to the anger against it, then it will be persuaded or forced to do so by consensus, where as it will finally break down and marry them gay's right there in the Church due to the pressures you and others created for them over time to do so, and then the government kicking in on them, and to force them to do so.


 
Did you catch Rachael Maddow's show last night?  She was trying to equate christians (all of them) with the white supremecists' movement....

...and in so doing, she inadvertently colored her network's ramping up of the "racial hysteria" shootings, chokeholds/cop killings etc." with a nefarious hue..

I suspect and long have that the LGBT fallback will be to incite racial tensions, tag on their lifestyle BS onto "civil rights" in general and using that greased skid, slide right into all sorts of federal mandates on who can say yes or no to the cult of deviant sexuality..churches will not be immune..


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil keeps issuing false syllogisms, I see.

Not to worry about Rachel because Sil has told us she is not religious.  I doubt that Maddow did anything of the sort.

Your lies keep tripping you up.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil keeps issuing false syllogisms, I see.
> 
> Not to worry about Rachel because Sil has told us she is not religious.  I doubt that Maddow did anything of the sort.
> 
> Your lies keep tripping you up.


 Watch the program.  Why doubt?  Clear up the mystery.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, you are actually trying to build some sort of future angst against the church in the way that you keep saying these things, and you figure that the angst will build over time into a mob who will seek to change what you keep saying the church will never have to do*, but you figure that all due to the anger against it, then it will be persuaded or forced to do so by consensus, where as it will finally break down and marry them gay's right there in the Church due to the pressures you and others created for them over time to do so, and then the government kicking in on them, and to force them to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you catch Rachael Maddow's show last night?  She was trying to equate christians (all of them) with the white supremecists' movement......
Click to expand...


You mean like homophobes equate homosexuals(all of them) to pedophiles?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, you are actually trying to build some sort of future angst against the church in the way that you keep saying these things, and you figure that the angst will build over time into a mob who will seek to change what you keep saying the church will never have to do*, but you figure that all due to the anger against it, then it will be persuaded or forced to do so by consensus, where as it will finally break down and marry them gay's right there in the Church due to the pressures you and others created for them over time to do so, and then the government kicking in on them, and to force them to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you catch Rachael Maddow's show last night?  She was trying to equate christians (all of them) with the white supremecists' movement....
> 
> ...and in so doing, she inadvertently colored her network's ramping up of the "racial hysteria" shootings, chokeholds/cop killings etc." with a nefarious hue..
> 
> I suspect and long have that the LGBT fallback will be to incite racial tensions, tag on their lifestyle BS onto "civil rights" in general and using that greased skid, slide right into all sorts of federal mandates on who can say yes or no to the cult of deviant sexuality..churches will not be immune..
Click to expand...



Wow, that was an abrupt change. I take it you couldn't find a single example of a church anywhere in the US being forced to accomindate any gay wedding. 

So with absolutely zero examples of any church anywhere being forced to accomindate any gay wedding........you offer us your imagination that it will happen. Backed by nothing. 

So riddle me this: if 'civil rights' are a valid basis to force churches to perform weddings they don't want, can you show us any application of any PA law where a church was forced to perform an interracial wedding against its will?

Ever......? I mean, if its as inevitable as you claim, then the roughly 50 years since the Loving ruling will have provided you with a plethora of examples. Show us one.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil keeps issuing false syllogisms, I see.
> 
> Not to worry about Rachel because Sil has told us she is not religious.  I doubt that Maddow did anything of the sort.
> 
> Your lies keep tripping you up.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the program.  Why doubt?  Clear up the mystery.
Click to expand...




Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil keeps issuing false syllogisms, I see.
> 
> Not to worry about Rachel because Sil has told us she is not religious.  I doubt that Maddow did anything of the sort.
> 
> Your lies keep tripping you up.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the program.  Why doubt?  Clear up the mystery.
Click to expand...


You posted- which means the greatest likelihood is that you are lying.

I don't watch Fox and I don't watch MSNBC- not going to bother now just to catch you at another lie.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil says all sorts of things that are false or made up or absurd.

As does Where R My Keys.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil says all sorts of things that are false or made up or absurd.
> 
> As does Where R My Keys.



Keyes will make shit up and then abandon it. Silo will make shit up and then cling to it tenaciously. He's still arguing that this thread's poll shows that the majority of Americans don't approve of gay marriage. And is more reliable than any poll done by any polling agency. Despite the fact that the thread poll doesn't ask anything about the approval of gay marriage. 

That's a special kind of stupid.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Wow, that was an abrupt change. I take it you couldn't find a single example of a church anywhere in the US being forced to accomindate any gay wedding.
> 
> So with absolutely zero examples of any church anywhere being forced to accomindate any gay wedding........you offer us your imagination that it will happen. Backed by nothing..


 
10 years ago I couldn't find any examples of christian bakers, photographers or caterers being sued for not participating in gay marriages.

You act as if time + momentum does not = results?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that was an abrupt change. I take it you couldn't find a single example of a church anywhere in the US being forced to accomindate any gay wedding.
> 
> So with absolutely zero examples of any church anywhere being forced to accomindate any gay wedding........you offer us your imagination that it will happen. Backed by nothing..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 years ago I couldn't find any examples of christian bakers, photographers or caterers being sued for not participating in gay marriages.
> 
> You act as if time + momentum does not = results?
Click to expand...


And can you find a single example of a church being forced to conduct a gay wedding by PA laws? Ever? Its been a decade now. Surely there have been several hundred. Unless you're talking out of your ass.....

Then you'll be able to find exactly none.

And can you find a single example of a church being forced to conduct a interracial wedding by PA laws? Ever? Its been nearly 50 years since the Loving decision overturned interracial marriage bans. And those clearly had a strong religious element to them. So if your logic were valid, there would be thousands of such instances.

But you can't find one, can you? Not in nearly 50 years.

And what 'momentum' is there to force churches to conduct gay weddings? I've seen no significant support for that anywhere. Even among gay marriage proponents, like myself. Even your 'poll' shows overwhelming opposition to this idea.

So.....more empty fearmongering? Remember, Silo......*you don't know what you're talking about. *Because we'll certainly remember this fact.


----------



## JakeStarkey

She cannot find any example of a church being forced to marry gays or lesbians.  That undermines its clumsy poll.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> She cannot find any example of a church being forced to marry gays or lesbians.  That undermines its clumsy poll.




I disagree. It supports the poll. As WHO is claiming that churches should be forced to perform ceremonies for gays or lesbians against their will?

No one. No one on this thread, in 600 pages has taken such a position. With virtually everyone to comment on it rejecting the idea. And the poll demonstrating that there's no momentum for such a position. At least among those participating in the thread.

Every single one of Silo's assertions are either speculative nonsense, or explicitly contradicted by his own sources.


----------



## Silhouette

I'm sure 100s of anonymous gay-lifestyle "marriage" supporters lined up to oppose churches having to recognize gay lifestyles by performing marriage.

Sure, that's who voted for the 82% above...uh huh... Especially how the question that got the 82% was worded..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> I'm sure 100s of anonymous gay-lifestyle "marriage" supporters lined up to oppose churches having to recognize gay lifestyles by performing marriage.
> 
> Sure, that's who voted for the 82% above...uh huh... Especially how the question that got the 82% was worded..



Show us. Don't tell us. You're the one claiming the 'momentum' is with churches being forced to perform gay marriages.....*even when your own source explicitly contradicts this assumption by about an order of magnitude.*

Remember, your imagination isn't evidence. Its an excuse for it.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> I'm sure 100s of anonymous gay-lifestyle "marriage" supporters lined up to oppose churches having to recognize gay lifestyles by performing marriage.
> 
> Sure, that's who voted for the 82% above...uh huh... Especially how the question that got the 82% was worded..



What are you talking about? Gay isn't a lifestyle, why would they be anonymous, and there's no reason for "100s" of equal marriage supporters to defend churches from oppression because _it's not happening_. Why would anyone protest oppression of religious freedom that isn't happening??


----------



## Silhouette

Paperman299 said:


> What are you talking about? *Gay isn't a lifestyle*, why would they be anonymous, and there's no reason for "100s" of equal marriage supporters to defend churches from oppression because _it's not happening_. Why would anyone protest oppression of religious freedom that isn't happening??


 
All posters here are anonymous as far as I know.  Do any of us post with our legal names?

I'll have to check with Anne Heche and the tens of thousands of "lesbians" like her that woke up and thought..."If I'm attracted to all things masculine then....?"   and get back to you on whether or not it's a lifestyle..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? *Gay isn't a lifestyle*, why would they be anonymous, and there's no reason for "100s" of equal marriage supporters to defend churches from oppression because _it's not happening_. Why would anyone protest oppression of religious freedom that isn't happening??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All posters here are anonymous as far as I know.  Do any of us post with our legal names?
> 
> I'll have to check with Anne Heche and the tens of thousands of "lesbians" like her that woke up and thought..."If I'm attracted to all things masculine then....?"   and get back to you on whether or not it's a lifestyle..
Click to expand...


So....which church has been forced to conduct a gay wedding? And who is advocating such? 

If you don't know their legal names, give us the handles...with accompanying quotes.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> So....which church has been forced to conduct a gay wedding? And who is advocating such?


 
So which christian baker or florist or photographer or caterer was being forced to accomodate a gay wedding 10 years ago?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....which church has been forced to conduct a gay wedding? And who is advocating such?
> 
> If you don't know their legal names, give us the handles...with accompanying quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So which christian baker or florist or photographer or caterer was being forced to accomodate a gay wedding 10 years ago?
Click to expand...


Bakers, Florists and Photographers aren't churches. 

So which church has been forced to conduct a gay wedding? And who is advocating such?

This is the 5th time I've asked you this. And your record of failure is perfect. Can we then conclude that you have no such example? That you're merely fearmongering again?


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Bakers, Florists and Photographers aren't churches.
> 
> So which church has been forced to conduct a gay wedding? And who is advocating such?
> 
> This is the 5th time I've asked you this. And your record of failure is perfect. Can we then conclude that you have no such example? That you're merely fearmongering again?


 
They are christians and the church is within the heart of the faithful...so...again...I haven't heard ten years ago of christan bakers, florists, photographers or caterers getting sued by the LGBT fold...until recently..


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.
> 
> He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.
> 
> Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you think you made a point here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks- glad to offer it again:
> 
> And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.
> 
> *Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thing that you keep saying about  the "churches" being under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and they never will be, and then you use Blacks, Jews and other scenario's in which you keep creating for your hypothetical analysis in which has a hate message that is being placed into this thread against the entire church by you, but it is all just so transparent of you... You are trying to convey such a message in a way as if to say you are for the church's right to do what you are saying, when in fact you are not for it at all, and you are trying to nudge us and/or your affiliates to tell us how the Churches are just a bunch of bigots, but that is their right to be a Bigot even though you disagree with this thought process in which you are using... How kind of you to point all that out to us, but we know better about what you are up to in here. You are selling snake oil is what you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am absolutely serious when I say that every Church has the right to decide how to deal with church matters- and can discriminate in any fashion it chooses to.
> 
> Yes- Churches have the right to be bigots.
> 
> And yes- I see no moral or legal difference between any church refusing to marry a couple because
> 
> they are mixed race
> they are gay
> they are Jewish
> they are Puerto Rican
> they are fat
> they are divorced
> Do you think that churches do not have that right? Do you think that there are not churches who have advocated say racial segregation? Been against mixed race marriages?
> 
> Have you ever heard of the sermon by Bob Jones- founder of Bob Jones University- a Christian college which famously forbade mixed race dating.
> 
> Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh
> 
> Its a fine sermon where Bob Jones explains how God wants the races segregated. Bob Jones University rules prohibited mixed race dating on Biblical grounds until 14 years ago.
Click to expand...


And like I said, this is how *the movement* is going after, and have gone after the Christians for whom they target as a whole group when going after them, and they are doing this because they feel that they (the Christians) are a threat to their cause in which they want to push heavily now in life.

They (those who have an agenda) want to blanket the Christians or stereo type them altogether as being bigoted Christians, and they want to do this by way of bringing your so called bigot theory into play almost every time against them, and to do this for the broader agenda being pushed. You want to use it against them all this claim of bigotry, and you want to use those who misrepresent the Christians the most. This is the goal otherwise to go after them all with this broad brush you keep using on them in this way. 

Now we all know that there are those who are bad amongst every group now don't we, but it doesn't mean that those that are bad somehow represent the whole group and you should know this also, but here you are doing what you do.. Why?

Now there are bigots of course who are mixed into everything, just like every other race, religion or culture has the same...  The Blacks have them, the whites have them, the Chinese Americans has them, the Mexican Americans has them,  the Italian Americans has them, and on and on it all goes..... Every group out there has them, but they never control the whole group,  so do you get the picture on something you already know ?  Everyone has within their groups the same things that are mixed in and amongst their groups, but the *movement* wants to put the bad who are amongst the Christians *((out into the fore front)), *and they do this in order to try and stick them as representing all those who are Christian, and they do this for a reason, and they do it for their overall political agenda, and then ultimately their goals in life.

You and your buds figure that they (the bigots), are hiding always in and amongst the flock. and so you will begin by saying that they are of course those who are against interracial marriages as you might suggest or say that they are (or) that they are those for whom would deny marrying a Jewish man and a catholic woman within a baptist church as you might say that they would do, but it's all for a larger agenda that you say these things in which you do hope leads others to be bigoted against Christians.. This is why the question is asked I guess
*Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?, because the person who wrote the OP, must think that it is coming soon, and he or she must think this because of all the signs that would suggest such a thing will soon come to pass. *

Hey, we all could take the worst among any group in the nation, and we could try to stereo type the whole group by use of or by way of the bad who are amongst the group that might be targeted in this way, but people are smarter than this, so you fail in your tactic as is used here.

They (those with an agenda), want to use the bigots who are amongst all as an excuse, and they do this in order to try and test the* faith* or *beliefs* of those who disagree with the agenda in life maybe, but hey (the Christians) also disagree with a lot of other things in life just as well, and they do this mainly for themselves and their children as is based upon Biblical teachings about such things. The Christians are not a threat, and they just want to be left alone is all.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.
> 
> Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you think you made a point here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks- glad to offer it again:
> 
> And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.
> 
> *Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thing that you keep saying about  the "churches" being under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and they never will be, and then you use Blacks, Jews and other scenario's in which you keep creating for your hypothetical analysis in which has a hate message that is being placed into this thread against the entire church by you, but it is all just so transparent of you... You are trying to convey such a message in a way as if to say you are for the church's right to do what you are saying, when in fact you are not for it at all, and you are trying to nudge us and/or your affiliates to tell us how the Churches are just a bunch of bigots, but that is their right to be a Bigot even though you disagree with this thought process in which you are using... How kind of you to point all that out to us, but we know better about what you are up to in here. You are selling snake oil is what you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am absolutely serious when I say that every Church has the right to decide how to deal with church matters- and can discriminate in any fashion it chooses to.
> 
> Yes- Churches have the right to be bigots.
> 
> And yes- I see no moral or legal difference between any church refusing to marry a couple because
> 
> they are mixed race
> they are gay
> they are Jewish
> they are Puerto Rican
> they are fat
> they are divorced
> Do you think that churches do not have that right? Do you think that there are not churches who have advocated say racial segregation? Been against mixed race marriages?
> 
> Have you ever heard of the sermon by Bob Jones- founder of Bob Jones University- a Christian college which famously forbade mixed race dating.
> 
> Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh
> 
> Its a fine sermon where Bob Jones explains how God wants the races segregated. Bob Jones University rules prohibited mixed race dating on Biblical grounds until 14 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And like I said, this is how *the movement* is going after, and have gone after the Christians for whom they target as a whole group when going after them, and they are doing this because they feel that they (the Christians) are a threat to their cause in which they want to push heavily now in life.
> 
> They (those who have an agenda) want to blanket the Christians or stereo type them altogether as being bigoted Christians, and they want to do this by way of bringing your so called bigot theory into play almost every time against them, and to do this for the broader agenda being pushed. You want to use it against them all this claim of bigotry, and you want to use those who misrepresent the Christians the most. This is the goal otherwise to go after them all with this broad brush you keep using on them in this way.l.
Click to expand...


The title of this thread is 'should churches be forced to accomodate homosexual weddings'- and churches are Christian.

I didn't ask the question- I have repeatedly said that no- churches should not- and will not be forced to accomodate homosexual or any other weddings.

I bring up the issue of racial prohibitions because the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed 50 years ago- and in that entire time no one has used that act to sue a church to require them to marry a couple because one of them is African American.

My agenda is equal treatment under the law for homosexuals- for them to have the exact same legal treatment as my wife and I enjoy.

If my pointing out that bigotry is bigotry makes you uncomfortable- so be it. 

But my posts are always on point- no one will be forcing any church to marry any couple against their will.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bakers, Florists and Photographers aren't churches.
> 
> So which church has been forced to conduct a gay wedding? And who is advocating such?
> 
> This is the 5th time I've asked you this. And your record of failure is perfect. Can we then conclude that you have no such example? That you're merely fearmongering again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are christians and the church is within the heart of the faithful...so...again...I haven't heard ten years ago of christan bakers, florists, photographers or caterers getting sued by the LGBT fold...until recently..
Click to expand...


Churches are not subject to taxation. 

Bakers are.

Show me a Baker who has tax exempt status because he is a church, and I will show you a baker who has no obligation to comply with public accomodation laws.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> I'm sure 100s of anonymous gay-lifestyle "marriage" supporters lined up to oppose churches having to recognize gay lifestyles by performing marriage.
> 
> Sure, that's who voted for the 82% above...uh huh... Especially how the question that got the 82% was worded..



You are delusional.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bakers, Florists and Photographers aren't churches.
> 
> So which church has been forced to conduct a gay wedding? And who is advocating such?
> 
> This is the 5th time I've asked you this. And your record of failure is perfect. Can we then conclude that you have no such example? That you're merely fearmongering again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are christians and the church is within the heart of the faithful...so...again...I haven't heard ten years ago of christan bakers, florists, photographers or caterers getting sued by the LGBT fold...until recently..
Click to expand...


You're not a church, Silo. You're not a mosque. You're not a synogugue. You're a person. Ending any 'church in your heart' nonsense. As Sy pointed out, churches are tax exempt. People clearly aren't. Offering you an undeniable and superbly concrete example of how uselessly inapplicable your 'place of worship is clogging my aorta' actually is.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you think you made a point here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks- glad to offer it again:
> 
> And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.
> 
> *Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thing that you keep saying about  the "churches" being under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and they never will be, and then you use Blacks, Jews and other scenario's in which you keep creating for your hypothetical analysis in which has a hate message that is being placed into this thread against the entire church by you, but it is all just so transparent of you... You are trying to convey such a message in a way as if to say you are for the church's right to do what you are saying, when in fact you are not for it at all, and you are trying to nudge us and/or your affiliates to tell us how the Churches are just a bunch of bigots, but that is their right to be a Bigot even though you disagree with this thought process in which you are using... How kind of you to point all that out to us, but we know better about what you are up to in here. You are selling snake oil is what you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am absolutely serious when I say that every Church has the right to decide how to deal with church matters- and can discriminate in any fashion it chooses to.
> 
> Yes- Churches have the right to be bigots.
> 
> And yes- I see no moral or legal difference between any church refusing to marry a couple because
> 
> they are mixed race
> they are gay
> they are Jewish
> they are Puerto Rican
> they are fat
> they are divorced
> Do you think that churches do not have that right? Do you think that there are not churches who have advocated say racial segregation? Been against mixed race marriages?
> 
> Have you ever heard of the sermon by Bob Jones- founder of Bob Jones University- a Christian college which famously forbade mixed race dating.
> 
> Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh
> 
> Its a fine sermon where Bob Jones explains how God wants the races segregated. Bob Jones University rules prohibited mixed race dating on Biblical grounds until 14 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And like I said, this is how *the movement* is going after, and have gone after the Christians for whom they target as a whole group when going after them, and they are doing this because they feel that they (the Christians) are a threat to their cause in which they want to push heavily now in life.
> 
> They (those who have an agenda) want to blanket the Christians or stereo type them altogether as being bigoted Christians, and they want to do this by way of bringing your so called bigot theory into play almost every time against them, and to do this for the broader agenda being pushed. You want to use it against them all this claim of bigotry, and you want to use those who misrepresent the Christians the most. This is the goal otherwise to go after them all with this broad brush you keep using on them in this way.l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is 'should churches be forced to accomodate homosexual weddings'- and churches are Christian.
> 
> I didn't ask the question- I have repeatedly said that no- churches should not- and will not be forced to accomodate homosexual or any other weddings.
> 
> I bring up the issue of racial prohibitions because the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed 50 years ago- and in that entire time no one has used that act to sue a church to require them to marry a couple because one of them is African American.
> 
> My agenda is equal treatment under the law for homosexuals- for them to have the exact same legal treatment as my wife and I enjoy.
> 
> If my pointing out that bigotry is bigotry makes you uncomfortable- so be it.
> 
> But my posts are always on point- no one will be forcing any church to marry any couple against their will.
Click to expand...

If you couldn't interject race into these threads somehow, and for what ever reason that you do so, then I think you would fear losing the argument if you didn't or couldn't interject race so easily into it, and with government back up also if it is needed. 

Now the funny thing is, is that it has nothing to do with the issue of another peoples struggle in which they feel that they have once lived in life, but opportunity knocks right, and now you all want to come forward with every excuse under the sun these days it seems..


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks- glad to offer it again:
> 
> And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.
> 
> *Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thing that you keep saying about  the "churches" being under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and they never will be, and then you use Blacks, Jews and other scenario's in which you keep creating for your hypothetical analysis in which has a hate message that is being placed into this thread against the entire church by you, but it is all just so transparent of you... You are trying to convey such a message in a way as if to say you are for the church's right to do what you are saying, when in fact you are not for it at all, and you are trying to nudge us and/or your affiliates to tell us how the Churches are just a bunch of bigots, but that is their right to be a Bigot even though you disagree with this thought process in which you are using... How kind of you to point all that out to us, but we know better about what you are up to in here. You are selling snake oil is what you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am absolutely serious when I say that every Church has the right to decide how to deal with church matters- and can discriminate in any fashion it chooses to.
> 
> Yes- Churches have the right to be bigots.
> 
> And yes- I see no moral or legal difference between any church refusing to marry a couple because
> 
> they are mixed race
> they are gay
> they are Jewish
> they are Puerto Rican
> they are fat
> they are divorced
> Do you think that churches do not have that right? Do you think that there are not churches who have advocated say racial segregation? Been against mixed race marriages?
> 
> Have you ever heard of the sermon by Bob Jones- founder of Bob Jones University- a Christian college which famously forbade mixed race dating.
> 
> Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh
> 
> Its a fine sermon where Bob Jones explains how God wants the races segregated. Bob Jones University rules prohibited mixed race dating on Biblical grounds until 14 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And like I said, this is how *the movement* is going after, and have gone after the Christians for whom they target as a whole group when going after them, and they are doing this because they feel that they (the Christians) are a threat to their cause in which they want to push heavily now in life.
> 
> They (those who have an agenda) want to blanket the Christians or stereo type them altogether as being bigoted Christians, and they want to do this by way of bringing your so called bigot theory into play almost every time against them, and to do this for the broader agenda being pushed. You want to use it against them all this claim of bigotry, and you want to use those who misrepresent the Christians the most. This is the goal otherwise to go after them all with this broad brush you keep using on them in this way.l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is 'should churches be forced to accomodate homosexual weddings'- and churches are Christian.
> 
> I didn't ask the question- I have repeatedly said that no- churches should not- and will not be forced to accomodate homosexual or any other weddings.
> 
> I bring up the issue of racial prohibitions because the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed 50 years ago- and in that entire time no one has used that act to sue a church to require them to marry a couple because one of them is African American.
> 
> My agenda is equal treatment under the law for homosexuals- for them to have the exact same legal treatment as my wife and I enjoy.
> 
> If my pointing out that bigotry is bigotry makes you uncomfortable- so be it.
> 
> But my posts are always on point- no one will be forcing any church to marry any couple against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you couldn't interject race into these threads somehow, and for what ever reason that you do so, then I think you would fear losing the argument if you didn't or couldn't interject race so easily into it, and with government back up also if it is needed.
> 
> Now the funny thing is, is that it has nothing to do with the issue of another peoples struggle in which they feel that they have once lived in life, but opportunity knocks right, and now you all want to come forward with every excuse under the sun these days it seems..
Click to expand...


You seem to overlook that I have provided many other examples besides race- you are the one obsessed with race here- not me.

No church will ever be forced to marry a couple that it doesn't want to- in the 60 years since the 1964 Civil Rights Act- which prohibited denial of service of public accommodations based upon- race- religion- national origin- and I believe gender.

In those 60 years- not one church has been forced to marry a couple that they don't want to. 

Yet you fall right for the fear mongering of the homophobes.  

You fear 'persecution' of Christians- when in reality it has never been Christians in America who have been persecuted- and it still is not. 

Christian couples can get married in all 50 states. Christians have not been fired for being Christian, and Christians have not been arrested for having sex with another Christian. 

Now- do you want to discuss your fears of homosexual marriage? And why you fear others getting married?


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> You're not a church, Silo. You're not a mosque. You're not a synogugue. You're a person. Ending any 'church in your heart' nonsense. As Sy pointed out, churches are tax exempt. People clearly aren't. Offering you an undeniable and superbly concrete example of how uselessly inapplicable your 'place of worship is clogging my aorta' actually is.


 
The First Amendment doesn't read "Freedom of Church".  It reads "Freedom of religion".  And religion is, for a FACT, in the heart of a man.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not a church, Silo. You're not a mosque. You're not a synogugue. You're a person. Ending any 'church in your heart' nonsense. As Sy pointed out, churches are tax exempt. People clearly aren't. Offering you an undeniable and superbly concrete example of how uselessly inapplicable your 'place of worship is clogging my aorta' actually is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment doesn't read "Freedom of Church".  It reads "Freedom of religion".  And religion is, for a FACT, in the heart of a man.
Click to expand...


And you're more than welcome to practice your religion. But it doesn't exempt you from commonly applied laws. 

And since the question is are churches required to conduct gay weddings against their will, the answer is no. Because you are not a church. You can tell me that you have a building lodged in a ventricle all you like. You're not a mosque either. Nor a synagogue. You're a person. And if you do business with the public, you're required to meet minimum standards of fairness and equity with the public. 

Just like everyone else. You aren't special. And you aren't exempt.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> The First Amendment doesn't read "Freedom of Church".  It reads "Freedom of religion".  And religion is, for a FACT, in the heart of a man.


 


Skylar said:


> And you're more than welcome to practice your religion. But it doesn't exempt you from commonly applied laws.
> And since the question is are churches required to conduct gay weddings against their will, the answer is no. Because you are not a church. You can tell me that you have a building lodged in a ventricle all you like. You're not a mosque either. Nor a synagogue. You're a person. And if you do business with the public, you're required to meet minimum standards of fairness and equity with the public.
> 
> Just like everyone else. You aren't special. And you aren't exempt.


 
Well churches are made up of individuals, aren't they?  So I can see where you're eventually going to build up your argument towards...which everybody knows is the case and when you deny it, you are lying through your teeth..

You cannot guarantee a man freedom of RELIGION and then tell him "oh but if we want you to, you have to abandon key elements and edicts of that religion, like Jude 1, which will damn your soul to hell for an eternity."

If you say that to a person, it better be about if his religion requires that he kill someone or discriminates against a race of people.  It better not be to require him to participate in another faith-about-lifestyles like LGBT.  Especially if when he is told if he does so, he will go to Hell for eternity.  A gay person cannot require any christian to violate Jude 1 of the NEW Testament.


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> If you couldn't interject race into these threads somehow, and for what ever reason that you do so, then I think you would fear losing the argument if you didn't or couldn't interject race so easily into it, and with government back up also if it is needed.
> 
> Now the funny thing is, is that it has nothing to do with the issue of another peoples struggle in which they feel that they have once lived in life, but opportunity knocks right, and now you all want to come forward with every excuse under the sun these days it seems..


 
Gay lifestyle marriage for sure is not about a race of people.  A race is a noun.  A lifestyle is an action.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.
> 
> He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.
> 
> Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you think you made a point here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That religious justification for restrictions on marriage don't always hold up legally, or make much sense rationally?
Click to expand...


It makes a lot of sense, and in this country, since just about anybody can get married by someone somewhere, it holds up perfectly fine legally as well. 

A church is under no obligation to marry anyone if they don't want to.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you couldn't interject race into these threads somehow, and for what ever reason that you do so, then I think you would fear losing the argument if you didn't or couldn't interject race so easily into it, and with government back up also if it is needed.
> 
> Now the funny thing is, is that it has nothing to do with the issue of another peoples struggle in which they feel that they have once lived in life, but opportunity knocks right, and now you all want to come forward with every excuse under the sun these days it seems..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay lifestyle marriage for sure is not about a race of people.  A race is a noun.  A lifestyle is an action.
Click to expand...


Gay is a noun. 

Marriage IS a lifestyle- whether it is marriage between two Jews, two whites, two teachers or two homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment doesn't read "Freedom of Church".  It reads "Freedom of religion".  And religion is, for a FACT, in the heart of a man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're more than welcome to practice your religion. But it doesn't exempt you from commonly applied laws.
> And since the question is are churches required to conduct gay weddings against their will, the answer is no. Because you are not a church. You can tell me that you have a building lodged in a ventricle all you like. You're not a mosque either. Nor a synagogue. You're a person. And if you do business with the public, you're required to meet minimum standards of fairness and equity with the public.
> 
> Just like everyone else. You aren't special. And you aren't exempt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well churches are made up of individuals, aren't they?
Click to expand...


Churches are not taxed.

Individuals are.

Just because you are a member of a church doesn't mean you can refuse to pay taxes.

Just because you are a member of a church doesn't mean you can refuse to obey the law.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Well churches are made up of individuals, aren't they?  So I can see where you're eventually going to build up your argument towards...which everybody knows is the case and when you deny it, you are lying through your teeth..



You aren't a church, Skylar. You aren't a mosque. You aren't a synagogue. You're a person. These simple facts obliterate your pseudo-legal gibberish.



> You cannot guarantee a man freedom of RELIGION and then tell him "oh but if we want you to, you have to abandon key elements and edicts of that religion, like Jude 1, which will damn your soul to hell for an eternity."



There's nothing in Jude 1 that says anything about selling cake. Nor condemns those who sell cake to 'hell for an eternity'. You've imagined it.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> *There's nothing in Jude 1 that says anything about selling cake*. Nor condemns those who sell cake to 'hell for an eternity'. You've imagined it.


 
What kind of cake? Birthday or wedding?  Because wedding means the promotion of a lifestyle at the bedrock of a society.  A birthday is a random event that only applies to one person on that particular day. It affects society not in any way.

See the difference?  Yes, I know you do..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There's nothing in Jude 1 that says anything about selling cake*. Nor condemns those who sell cake to 'hell for an eternity'. You've imagined it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of cake? Birthday or wedding?  Because wedding means the promotion of a lifestyle at the bedrock of a society.  A birthday is a random event that only applies to one person on that particular day. It affects society not in any way.
> 
> See the difference?  Yes, I know you do..
Click to expand...


There's no mention of any cake. Of any variety. See, that's where your argument breaks down. First, you're not a church. You've imagined it. Second, the prohibition you lament about violating doesn't exist. You've imagined it. 

See the pattern? 

And your imagination doesn't exempt you from any law.


----------



## Silhouette

I'm not imagining that LGBTers are about suing christian bakers to make them a "gay wedding cake".


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> I'm not imagining that LGBTers are about suing christian bakers to make them a "gay wedding cake".



Yeah, but you are imagining the biblical prohibition against selling cake to gay people. It doesn't exist.


----------



## koshergrl

Nobody said the bible prohibits selling gakes. 

Try another tactic. This one is a miserable failure.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Nobody said the bible prohibits selling gakes.
> 
> Try another tactic. This one is a miserable failure.



Then what  about selling a cake will lead to eternal damnation according to Jude 1? What exactly is the sin involved with selling cake to gay people. I've got the 10 commandments right here and there's no mention of cake.


----------



## koshergrl

Er..nobody said that.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

There is no 'sin' selling anything to a gay person.

In fact, a Christian business owner who accommodates a gay patron is in no way 'violating' or 'going against' his faith.


----------



## koshergrl

It might or might not be sinful.

But that's not the topic, and I'm fairly certain that nobody has said there's a specific commandment that makes it particularly sinful to sell gakes.


----------



## koshergrl

But this thread begs the question...do all homos suffer from adhd?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There's nothing in Jude 1 that says anything about selling cake*. Nor condemns those who sell cake to 'hell for an eternity'. You've imagined it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of cake? Birthday or wedding?  Because wedding.
Click to expand...


A wedding cake is a cake. A birthday is a cake. The bible has many dietary restrictions but nothing about cake.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> But this thread begs the question...do all homos suffer from adhd?



if all homosapiens suffer from ADHD then are we really all suffering?


----------



## koshergrl

Syriusly said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this thread begs the question...do all homos suffer from adhd?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if all homosapiens suffer from ADHD then are we really all suffering?
Click to expand...


I am referring to queers, natch.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> A wedding cake is a cake. A birthday is a cake. The bible has many dietary restrictions but nothing about cake.


 
More intellectual dishonesty and a blatant strawman.  You're not even trying anymore Syriusly.

The WEDDING part you left out.   And that is a promotion of a deviant lifestyle into the core of society...forbidden to the faithful in the New Testament, Jude 1..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wedding cake is a cake. A birthday is a cake. The bible has many dietary restrictions but nothing about cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More intellectual dishonesty and a blatant strawman.  You're not even trying anymore Syriusly.
> 
> The WEDDING part you left out.   And that is a promotion of a deviant lifestyle into the core of society...forbidden to the faithful in the New Testament, Jude 1..
Click to expand...


When you sell a product to a customer, you're promoting the product. Not the customer. Another logical and rational fail.


----------



## beagle9

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's admonitions regarding the intermarrying between races had NOTHING to do with skin color and everything to do with religion.
> 
> He told his chosen people not to marry outside their own faith. It's sound advice, the same advice I give my children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet there were- and probably still are- people who believe that God does not want people to intermarry between races- and any church could refuse to marry an inter-racial couple if it chose to do so.
> 
> Churches are under no obligation to marry any couple it does not want to marry- and never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you think you made a point here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That religious justification for restrictions on marriage don't always hold up legally, or make much sense rationally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes a lot of sense, and in this country, since just about anybody can get married by someone somewhere, it holds up perfectly fine legally as well.
> 
> A church is under no obligation to marry anyone if they don't want to.
Click to expand...

OK so the church (*meaning those who make up the churches and the church doctrines within this nation*) are not going to be required to marry anyone it does not want to right, and so that is what you and others here want to keep saying in this thread right ?  OK, so we get that from you all now, but where is the church or what is the church in your opinion, and then who holds the belief of this religion outside of the church walls ? Millions do as they carry it with them once they learn of these things in life....The church is only a gathering place or a building right ? You see the religious hold within themselves a belief in which is practiced inside and outside of the church walls or even within a building in which they use as a church or place of worship that is accepted by all as well, and that is A-OK with these things.. 

They do this as they freely carry the message in which they believe within their personal lives daily onward, and just as well they do this where ever it is that they take their beliefs and religion into the world or into the nation that accepts them and their ways in which they have on this. The nation has always accepted the Christians and their practicing of their religious beliefs just about and/or almost everywhere they went in the nation once upon a time, but as times seem to be changing or the generations are changing & failing us all left and right, the practice of Christianity as it has always been known in this nation, is now under siege by various groups who don't like it or they don't like the message it conveys unto the masses..

Example : The Billy Gram crusade has always been accepted or wanted by the masses, and they were always alright with this situation as I once recall in life growing up...    

The Christians only want others to respect them, and to accept them in peace while they practice their beliefs just as any other does the same also in the nation.  Now where it is that they (the Christians) have acquired land, property, buildings, businesses, homes and etc. it is to them a part of the Gospel or message of what Christ can do, and that all things are possible with him having our backs always Amen. 

All they want is for these places in which they dwell, to always represent them or to accept them as a people, and as a peaceful people who mean no harm to anyone. The Christians just want to be respected as to who they are, and as to what they believe in life, that's all.

In summary, all the Christians ask for is to be respected and their privacy be respected, along with their beliefs being respected also, and their freedoms to be respected just as they respect others out in the world, and within this nation all the same. 

However,  this hasn't been happening for them as of late, and it is getting more and more one sided everyday, The Chrstians have been under some serious attacks for quite along time now in the world, and also within this nation. It needs to stop is what I say about it all, but it won't until certain groups render them faithless and helpless if they have anything to say or do about it anymore.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this thread begs the question...do all homos suffer from adhd?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if all homosapiens suffer from ADHD then are we really all suffering?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am referring to queers, natch.
Click to expand...


Oh I am sorry- you were unclear as to your bigotry.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wedding cake is a cake. A birthday is a cake. The bible has many dietary restrictions but nothing about cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More intellectual dishonesty and a blatant strawman.  You're not even trying anymore Syriusly.
> .
Click to expand...


A baker sells cakes- not weddings. 

And its not a strawman- you have the corner on the market on those.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> However,  this hasn't been happening for them as of late, and it is getting more and more one sided everyday, The Chrstians have been under some serious attacks for quite along time now in the world, and also within this nation. It needs to stop is what I say about it all, but it won't until certain groups render them faithless and helpless if they have anything to say or do about it anymore.




Under serious attack?

Really? 

How many Christians in the U.S. have been assaulted just for being Christians?
How many Christians have been fired for being Christian?
How many Christians have been denied marriage because they are Christian?
When was the last campaign to make it illegal for Christians to be teachers in public schools?

Those would be 'serious attacks'- those are all attacks that homosexuals have experienced. 

Excuse me if I don't take the crocodile tears of a Christian who feels threatened to seriously just because a baker who happens to be Christian is told that he has to obey the law just like a Jew or a Muslim or an African American or yes- just like a homosexual has to obey the law.

You show me how American Christians are under serious attacks like American homosexuals have actually suffered- then we can talk.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> The Christians only want others to respect them, and to accept them in peace while they practice their beliefs just as any other does the same also in the nation.  Now where it is that they (the Christians) have acquired land, property, buildings, businesses, homes and etc. it is to them a part of the Gospel or message of what Christ can do, and that all things are possible with him having our backs always Amen.
> 
> All they want is for these places in which they dwell, to always represent them or to accept them as a people, and as a peaceful people who mean no harm to anyone. The Christians just want to be respected as to who they are, and as to what they believe in life, that's all.



And you're more than welcome to your beliefs and your free worship. But a religious conviction doesn't exempt you from our laws. We're not a theocracy. Religious belief doesn't trump civil law. Laws aren't being made to single Christians out. These are the same laws that apply to everyone else. You're simply not being given a special exemption.

And in business, many states require that you treat your customers fairly and equally. You can't refuse to serve someone because they're black, for example. No matter what your religious says. Or because they're a woman. Or because they're a Christian. Or because they're your gay. There are minimum codes of conduct for business.

Live in peace. Practice your beliefs. And in business, treat everyone fairly and equally. And you'll get along great here.



> However,  this hasn't been happening for them as of late, and it is getting more and more one sided everyday, The Chrstians have been under some serious attacks for quite along time now in the world, and also within this nation. It needs to stop is what I say about it all, but it won't until certain groups render them faithless and helpless if they have anything to say or do about it anymore.




What attacks have you been subject to? And have you been following these 'homosexual dillema threads'.....where your fellow Christians have been lauding Putin for his crack down on the free speech of gays. Where gays are called despised, abhorred, abominable, and evil?

*Where your fellow Christians are calling for legal prohibition for any gay or lesbian to ever be allowed to have children?* Where gays will be subject to a 'war' that will make 'hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch' if they don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up'? With your fellow Christians justifying such violence with the little rhetorical turd that 'Even Jesus went on a rampage'?

Is that the kind of persecution that you're facing? Because I haven't seen it.


----------



## TimothysAlaska

No they should not be required to hold any wedding.  But they will lose monetary income for the church.  But why would a gay couple want to be married At a place that is against them?  Kind of defeats the purpose to give money to people who despise you.  If the church wants to be retarded then that is their right.  They lose money and possibly good people at the church and they lose.  It's not like churches are doing good anyway.  For all the comments on here you would think all the conservatives go to church but they don't, they talk a big game but churches are drifting off to obscurity. I saw it in the uk all those beautiful
Cathedrals Tiffany glad windows vaulted ceilings and over 300 years old pretty much empty except for tourists and old people.


----------



## Silhouette

TimothysAlaska said:


> .. why would a gay couple want to be married At a place that is against them?


 
Why would a gay couple want to force a christian baker that finds their "union" repugnant and forbidden to his faith to make them a "gay wedding cake"?  Why would a gay couple want to force a christian photographer to film a gay wedding that he is forbidden to promote? 

Why indeed?  I'll offer an answer: to force society to participate in their cult until the cult values replace all religious ones.


----------



## TimothysAlaska

Oh


Silhouette said:


> TimothysAlaska said:
> 
> 
> 
> .. why would a gay couple want to be married At a place that is against them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a gay couple want to force a christian baker that finds their "union" repugnant and forbidden to his faith to make them a "gay wedding cake"?  Why would a gay couple want to force a christian photographer to film a gay wedding that he is forbidden to promote?
> 
> Why indeed?  I'll offer an answer: to force society to participate in their cult until the cult values replace all religious ones.
Click to expand...

 oh give it rest hater!   You need a license to get married issued by the state.  So your saying only straight people can get a license for marriage? It's in the states hands therefore out of the realm of religious affinity!  If they don't want to make them a cake, I will and take their money meanwhile that baker will lose business.  Who cares dude live your life to your own damn values and leave everyone to what they hold dear.  Hell even pagan people before Christ were married it is not just a Christian entity.  So get off your high horse.   I don't think your Jesus would want people to hold to such stupid beliefs.  He hung out with whores crooks and thieves,  you should invite those kind of people into your church it's what Christianity is about...


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> TimothysAlaska said:
> 
> 
> 
> .. why would a gay couple want to be married At a place that is against them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a gay couple want to force a christian baker that finds their "union" repugnant and forbidden to his faith to make them a "gay wedding cake"?  Why would a gay couple want to force a christian photographer to film a gay wedding that he is forbidden to promote?
> 
> Why indeed?  I'll offer an answer: to force society to participate in their cult until the cult values replace all religious ones.
Click to expand...


Why are you calling Christianity a cult?


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Why are you calling Christianity a cult?


 
YOU are calling christianity a cult and as usual, putting words in other people's mouths to prove your strawman..

Christians are not forcing gays to attend church.  But gays are forcing christians legally to "attend gay" when they force christians to participate in "gay weddings".  One has clear legal leverage (so they think) over the other currently.  One does not.  The more aggressive group is the cult.  The more passive one is the religion.

Cults have as their hallmark above all other things that differentiate themselves from religion: aggression.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you calling Christianity a cult?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are calling christianity a cult and as usual,.
Click to expand...


You were the one mentioning a cult- and the only group that you could be referring to would be Christianity, since in your post it was the only religious group. 

Cult:
: a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> However,  this hasn't been happening for them as of late, and it is getting more and more one sided everyday, The Chrstians have been under some serious attacks for quite along time now in the world, and also within this nation. It needs to stop is what I say about it all, but it won't until certain groups render them faithless and helpless if they have anything to say or do about it anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under serious attack?
> 
> Really?
> 
> How many Christians in the U.S. have been assaulted just for being Christians?
> How many Christians have been fired for being Christian?
> How many Christians have been denied marriage because they are Christian?
> When was the last campaign to make it illegal for Christians to be teachers in public schools?
> 
> Those would be 'serious attacks'- those are all attacks that homosexuals have experienced.
> 
> Excuse me if I don't take the crocodile tears of a Christian who feels threatened to seriously just because a baker who happens to be Christian is told that he has to obey the law just like a Jew or a Muslim or an African American or yes- just like a homosexual has to obey the law.
> 
> You show me how American Christians are under serious attacks like American homosexuals have actually suffered- then we can talk.
Click to expand...

Their under serious or a series of attacks these days and/or right now is what I meant to say. It is proven, and no they haven't been attacked much as you stated above in the past when looking back now in America, but do you know why that is ?  It was because there was and is no need to attack them right ? However when they were attacked in those instances when they were attacked, it always amounted to a very small percentage of the population doing so against them, and then they were doing so in very clever ways of course, by petitioning the government for it's help to soon disperse their so called enemy.  This is when they lost ground in those attacks each time, and therefore it has set the stage for the battles that we all are seeing happening right now in America. 

Everything is changing super fast now, and you know what, I think you know it to be true don't you ? The attacks will increase, and especially when you have an administration like you have now, whom one of them has claimed himself to be a Christian, but yet he has done everything that a Christian wouldn't do when calling themselves a Christian.


----------



## TimothysAlaska

Boo


Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you calling Christianity a cult?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are calling christianity a cult and as usual, putting words in other people's mouths to prove your strawman..
> 
> Christians are not forcing gays to attend church.  But gays are forcing christians legally to "attend gay" when they force christians to participate in "gay weddings".  One has clear legal leverage (so they think) over the other currently.  One does not.  The more aggressive group is the cult.  The more passive one is the religion.
> 
> Cults have as their hallmark above all other things that differentiate themselves from religion: aggression.
Click to expand...

 boo hoo if a "gay"wedding is held in your church.....your church gets money which your church can use to pay the electric bills buy food for the homeless and help with all the functions your church does....or money to spread more hate about gays....I know terrible isn't it.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> However,  this hasn't been happening for them as of late, and it is getting more and more one sided everyday, The Chrstians have been under some serious attacks for quite along time now in the world, and also within this nation. It needs to stop is what I say about it all, but it won't until certain groups render them faithless and helpless if they have anything to say or do about it anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under serious attack?
> 
> Really?
> 
> How many Christians in the U.S. have been assaulted just for being Christians?
> How many Christians have been fired for being Christian?
> How many Christians have been denied marriage because they are Christian?
> When was the last campaign to make it illegal for Christians to be teachers in public schools?
> 
> Those would be 'serious attacks'- those are all attacks that homosexuals have experienced.
> 
> Excuse me if I don't take the crocodile tears of a Christian who feels threatened to seriously just because a baker who happens to be Christian is told that he has to obey the law just like a Jew or a Muslim or an African American or yes- just like a homosexual has to obey the law.
> 
> You show me how American Christians are under serious attacks like American homosexuals have actually suffered- then we can talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their under serious or a series of attacks these days and/or right now is what I meant to say. It is proven,
Click to expand...


Then prove it. Should be simple for you if 'it is proven'.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you calling Christianity a cult?
> 
> 
> 
> Christians are not forcing gays to attend church.  But gays are forcing christians legally to "attend gay" when they force christians to participate in "gay weddings". .
Click to expand...


Not one Christian is being forced to participate in a gay wedding. 

Not one. 

Now business's are obligated to follow the law- but if they have religious objections to complying with the law- then they can change their business- by for instance- no longer making wedding cakes.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> TimothysAlaska said:
> 
> 
> 
> .. why would a gay couple want to be married At a place that is against them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a gay couple want to force a christian baker that finds their "union" repugnant and forbidden to his faith to make them a "gay wedding cake"?  Why would a gay couple want to force a christian photographer to film a gay wedding that he is forbidden to promote?
> 
> Why indeed?  I'll offer an answer: to force society to participate in their cult until the cult values replace all religious ones.
Click to expand...


Religion is exclusive by nature. Business isn't. And if you're going to conduct business with the public, its reasonable that you meet minimum codes of conduct with your customers: namely, treating them fairly and equally.


----------



## TimothysAlaska

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> However,  this hasn't been happening for them as of late, and it is getting more and more one sided everyday, The Chrstians have been under some serious attacks for quite along time now in the world, and also within this nation. It needs to stop is what I say about it all, but it won't until certain groups render them faithless and helpless if they have anything to say or do about it anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under serious attack?
> 
> Really?
> 
> How many Christians in the U.S. have been assaulted just for being Christians?
> How many Christians have been fired for being Christian?
> How many Christians have been denied marriage because they are Christian?
> When was the last campaign to make it illegal for Christians to be teachers in public schools?
> 
> Those would be 'serious attacks'- those are all attacks that homosexuals have experienced.
> 
> Excuse me if I don't take the crocodile tears of a Christian who feels threatened to seriously just because a baker who happens to be Christian is told that he has to obey the law just like a Jew or a Muslim or an African American or yes- just like a homosexual has to obey the law.
> 
> You show me how American Christians are under serious attacks like American homosexuals have actually suffered- then we can talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their under serious or a series of attacks these days and/or right now is what I meant to say. It is proven, and no they haven't been attacked much as you stated above in the past when looking back now in America, but do you know why that is ?  It was because there was and is no need to attack them right ? However when they were attacked in those instances when they were attacked, it always amounted to a very small percentage of the population doing so against them, and then they were doing so in very clever ways of course, by petitioning the government for it's help to soon disperse their so called enemy.  This is when they lost ground in those attacks each time, and therefore it has set the stage for the battles that we all are seeing happening right now in America.
> 
> Everything is changing super fast now, and you know what, I think you know it to be true don't you ? The attacks will increase, and especially when you have an administration like you have now, whom one of them has claimed himself to be a Christian, but yet he has done everything that a Christian wouldn't do when calling themselves a Christian.
Click to expand...




Look I have my issues with obama but this is just wrong.  Obama has done everything a good Christian should do. Offer the olive branch to historic enemies, try to stop wars, anger Israel, turn the other cheek.  Try to help the uninsured... What is your definition of a good Christian?


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Not one Christian is being forced to participate in a gay wedding.
> 
> Not one.
> 
> Now business's are obligated to follow the law- but if they have religious objections to complying with the law- then they can change their business- by for instance- no longer making wedding cakes.


 
A religion is within the heart of a man, not a building or some abstract concept as "a church".  A congregation within a religion is simply an aggregate of religious men/women.  The religion is within the individual.

And since you and your pals bled off another page I'll repeat what I answered to you before:

YOU are calling christianity a cult and as usual, putting words in other people's mouths to prove your strawman..
Christians are not forcing gays to attend church. But gays are forcing christians legally to "attend gay" when they force christians to participate in "gay weddings". One has clear legal leverage (so they think) over the other currently. One does not. The more aggressive group is the cult. The more passive one is the religion.
Cults have as their hallmark above all other things that differentiate themselves from religion: aggression.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> , whom one of them has claimed himself to be a Christian, but yet he has done everything that a Christian wouldn't do when calling themselves a Christian.



Well this is entirely off topic- but feel free to explain that one also. This often comes up with the wingnuts who claim Obama is a Sekrit Mooslim so I have discussed before.

What do we know that President Obama has done?
Well his daughters are baptized.
He was married in a Christian Church.
He speaks openly of his Christian faith.

What wouldn't a Christian do?


And Jesus replied: “‘You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely.*19 *Honor your father and mother. Love your neighbor as yourself.’h”

Which of those do you think that Obama has done? The only one I can see an argument for is lying- but then again he is a politician- and I challenge you to find any politician- Christian or otherwise- who it can't be argued that they have lied.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one Christian is being forced to participate in a gay wedding.
> 
> Not one.
> 
> Now business's are obligated to follow the law- but if they have religious objections to complying with the law- then they can change their business- by for instance- no longer making wedding cakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are calling christianity a cult n.
Click to expand...


I never called Christianity a cult- I asked why you were calling Christianity a cult. Since you now claim that Christianity is a cult, we are left with your delusional claims that homosexuals are a cult. 

But like I said- you are delusional- I was just trying to figure out what you were delusional about this time.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Religion is exclusive by nature. Business isn't. And if you're going to conduct business with the public, its reasonable that you meet minimum codes of conduct with your customers: namely, treating them fairly and equally.


Freedom of religion trumps freedom of cult.  See my last post for the differences. #6195

Since gay lifestyles are not a racial issue and people like Anne Heche prove they are transitory, a lifestyle may not dictate over the 1st Amendment.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you calling Christianity a cult?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are calling christianity a cult and as usual,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one mentioning a cult- and the only group that you could be referring to would be Christianity, since in your post it was the only religious group.
> 
> Cult:
> : a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous
Click to expand...

Where did you get that definition ? It is a wrong definition in my opinion, where as it should only say *group* and not say *religious* at all. A cult can exist amongst any group as a splinter off of a group when it formed, otherwise it would be the extremist part of a group sometimes, and would have cult like powers to persuade others to join that part of it or to create a whole new group all together. It usually is a wing of a group that has also organized itself into a group, and it then elects a new leader either in secret or openly in which leads the people ultimately in the group in a *cult like manor*.

The followers and their leaders by their own cult like actions, should always alert us of such a group that is new and forming into a cult or has formed into a cult , where as before it may not have been that way at all.  A cult is many times a splintered group who has decided to go off on it's own way of thinking and organizing into something either new or recreated into something it wants from the crumbs of another.

It's actions are always never represented nor are they anywhere near to the actions and beliefs that are held by the original ideals of the parent group in which it may have spawned from, but people will still try and tie them somehow to the parent group if they can form one or make a connection somehow to it, and especially so if they have their own agenda in which is to try and destroy *all the groups as one *or as being together by way of the actions committed by a possible splinter group or even because of one group being similar to another in order for them to somehow make the leap. They do this even when there is no way that they can be connected, but they will try and connect them anyway. The group usually is an outcast or has been ousted by the parent group once found out everything it needed to know about the situation,  The newly formed alliance and group who is operating as a cult will be called a cult, and this is because of the influence it has on it's members or believers who have joined or transferred over.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one Christian is being forced to participate in a gay wedding.
> 
> Not one.
> 
> Now business's are obligated to follow the law- but if they have religious objections to complying with the law- then they can change their business- by for instance- no longer making wedding cakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A religion is within the heart of a man, not a building or some abstract concept as "a church".  A congregation within a religion is simply an aggregate of religious men/women.  The religion is within the individual.
Click to expand...


You are not a church, Silo. You're not a mosque. You're not a synogogue. So any awkward attempt to equate yourself with a church is nonsense. 

You're a person. And as such, you're subject to the same laws that everyone is subject to. You're not special and you're not exempt. Nor does your religious beliefs exempt you from the law.

If you're going to conduct business with the public, you'll need to meet minimum standards of conduct with the public: namely, treating all customers fairly and equally.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you calling Christianity a cult?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are calling christianity a cult and as usual,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one mentioning a cult- and the only group that you could be referring to would be Christianity, since in your post it was the only religious group.
> 
> Cult:
> : a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get that definition ? .
Click to expand...


Webster.

Still waiting for you to prove your claims that American Christians are under serious attack.


----------



## beagle9

TimothysAlaska said:


> Boo
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you calling Christianity a cult?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are calling christianity a cult and as usual, putting words in other people's mouths to prove your strawman..
> 
> Christians are not forcing gays to attend church.  But gays are forcing christians legally to "attend gay" when they force christians to participate in "gay weddings".  One has clear legal leverage (so they think) over the other currently.  One does not.  The more aggressive group is the cult.  The more passive one is the religion.
> 
> Cults have as their hallmark above all other things that differentiate themselves from religion: aggression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> boo hoo if a "gay"wedding is held in your church.....your church gets money which your church can use to pay the electric bills buy food for the homeless and help with all the functions your church does....or money to spread more hate about gays....I know terrible isn't it.
Click to expand...

You speak of something that is also forbidden in the church. 
To sell the churches principles and beliefs out for money, well that is a big no, no or it should always be a big no no if you ask me.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you calling Christianity a cult?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are calling christianity a cult and as usual,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one mentioning a cult- and the only group that you could be referring to would be Christianity, since in your post it was the only religious group.
> 
> Cult:
> : a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get that definition ?
Click to expand...


That would be the dictionary:



> Cult:
> : a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous
> 
> Cult - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



I'd say extremists Christians that call for gays to be legally prohibited from every having children, or laud Putin's crackdown on the free speech of gays, or calling for a war against gays if they don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' or trying to justify such violence with the claims that 'even Jesus went on a rampage' would qualify as being part of a cult. A splinter version of Christianity that is hyper violent toward homosexuals.

And we have such posters on this board. Who have participated in this thread. Most Christians aren't like that.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one Christian is being forced to participate in a gay wedding.
> 
> Not one.
> 
> Now business's are obligated to follow the law- but if they have religious objections to complying with the law- then they can change their business- by for instance- no longer making wedding cakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A religion is within the heart of a man, not a building or some abstract concept as "a church".  A congregation within a religion is simply an aggregate of religious men/women.  The religion is within the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a church, Silo. You're not a mosque. You're not a synogogue. So any awkward attempt to equate yourself with a church is nonsense.
> 
> You're a person. And as such, you're subject to the same laws that everyone is subject to. You're not special and you're not exempt. Nor does your religious beliefs exempt you from the law.
> 
> If you're going to conduct business with the public, you'll need to meet minimum standards of conduct with the public: namely, treating all customers fairly and equally.
Click to expand...

A person is made up of what ? Beliefs and such right ? Now what makes the person, and then what makes up that church ? It is the people who come into the building and have church, and not the church building itself. The Church building is only a place of worship in order to get together and practice one's beliefs in life. People carry their religion with them in life, and they have the constitutional protections to have these beliefs and practices. The Christians must be able to practice them in freedom there of also, but not be aggressive towards others whom don't agree to believe in what they believe and vice-verso . We must all obey the laws of course, but we must not be asked to betray our beliefs nor our faith in life by these laws or views in which would be unjust if they demanded for us to do so. We must refuse this when it happens or we are not Christians at all. The same could be said for the nation, where as if we allow others to trash our constitution, then we are not Americans but instead we are traitors.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one Christian is being forced to participate in a gay wedding.
> 
> Not one.
> 
> Now business's are obligated to follow the law- but if they have religious objections to complying with the law- then they can change their business- by for instance- no longer making wedding cakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A religion is within the heart of a man, not a building or some abstract concept as "a church".  A congregation within a religion is simply an aggregate of religious men/women.  The religion is within the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a church, Silo. You're not a mosque. You're not a synogogue. So any awkward attempt to equate yourself with a church is nonsense.
> 
> You're a person. And as such, you're subject to the same laws that everyone is subject to. You're not special and you're not exempt. Nor does your religious beliefs exempt you from the law.
> 
> If you're going to conduct business with the public, you'll need to meet minimum standards of conduct with the public: namely, treating all customers fairly and equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A person made up of what ? Beliefs and such right ? Now what makes the person, and then what makes up that church ? It is the people who come into the building and have church, and not the church building itself.
Click to expand...


A spark plug is not a car, Beagle. A person is not a church. These are cartoon simple axioms that completely confound your argument. 

And as a person, you're subject to the law. The same as everyone else. You're demanding that we offer you special exemptions from the law. That based on whatever you choose to believe, you should be able to ignore any law.

Um, no. That's how a theocracy works. That's not how a democratic republic does. While we can have no laws that explicitly target religion, its perfectly reasonable to have laws that apply to everyone. Including the religious.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you calling Christianity a cult?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are calling christianity a cult and as usual,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one mentioning a cult- and the only group that you could be referring to would be Christianity, since in your post it was the only religious group.
> 
> Cult:
> : a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get that definition ? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Webster.
> 
> Still waiting for you to prove your claims that American Christians are under serious attack.
Click to expand...

Just ask the former Mrs. America contestant who was attacked after she had been asked a question, and then ask Phil Robinson of Duck Dynasty next. Then on to ask Chic-Filet about what they had went through or the cake baker, the photographer and so on and so forth. I bet I am just scraping the surface of this stuff.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you calling Christianity a cult?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are calling christianity a cult and as usual,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one mentioning a cult- and the only group that you could be referring to would be Christianity, since in your post it was the only religious group.
> 
> Cult:
> : a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get that definition ? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Webster.
> 
> Still waiting for you to prove your claims that American Christians are under serious attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just ask the former Mrs. America contestant who was attacked after she had been asked a question, and then ask Phil Robinson of Duck Dynasty next. Then on to ask Chic-Filet about what they had went through or the cake baker, the photographer and so on and so forth. I bet I am just scraping the surface of this stuff.
Click to expand...


That is your 'proof'? Seriously?

What 'formers Mrs. America'- you can't name her or what question- or how she was attacked- did someone throw acid on her? Beat her up? Break one of her fingernails? What harm did she suffer exactly?

Phil Robinson of Duck Dynasty- what harm did he suffer exactly?

Chic Filet- what harm did Chic Filet suffer exactly

The Cake baker- what harm did he suffer exactly?

Want examples of 'serious attack'?

Dad killed daughter lesbian lover because they were gay mom - NY Daily News

*Texas dad killed daughter, her lesbian lover because he disliked that she was gay: mom*
*James Cosby, 46, is behind bars and may face murder charges after evidence linked him to the deaths of Britney Cosby, his daughter, and Crystal Jackson. The women, both 24, were found dead, left near a Dumpster in Port Bolivar, Texas.*

*Want me to go on?*

*You want to compare the 'serious attack' that Christians are undergoing with the attacks that homosexuals suffer?*

*Fine- once again- show me the examples and tell me exactly what harm.*

*I have the murder of two homosexuals simply for being gay as my examples of 'serious attacks'*


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one Christian is being forced to participate in a gay wedding.
> 
> Not one.
> 
> Now business's are obligated to follow the law- but if they have religious objections to complying with the law- then they can change their business- by for instance- no longer making wedding cakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A religion is within the heart of a man, not a building or some abstract concept as "a church".  A congregation within a religion is simply an aggregate of religious men/women.  The religion is within the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a church, Silo. You're not a mosque. You're not a synogogue. So any awkward attempt to equate yourself with a church is nonsense.
> 
> You're a person. And as such, you're subject to the same laws that everyone is subject to. You're not special and you're not exempt. Nor does your religious beliefs exempt you from the law.
> 
> If you're going to conduct business with the public, you'll need to meet minimum standards of conduct with the public: namely, treating all customers fairly and equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A person made up of what ? Beliefs and such right ? Now what makes the person, and then what makes up that church ? It is the people who come into the building and have church, and not the church building itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A spark plug is not a car, Beagle. A person is not a church. These are cartoon simple axioms that completely confound your argument.
> 
> And as a person, you're subject to the law. The same as everyone else. You're demanding that we offer you special exemptions from the law. That based on whatever you choose to believe, you should be able to ignore any law.
> 
> Um, no. That's how a theocracy works. That's not how a democratic republic does. While we can have no laws that explicitly target religion, its perfectly reasonable to have laws that apply to everyone. Including the religious.
Click to expand...




Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are calling christianity a cult and as usual,.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were the one mentioning a cult- and the only group that you could be referring to would be Christianity, since in your post it was the only religious group.
> 
> Cult:
> : a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get that definition ? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Webster.
> 
> Still waiting for you to prove your claims that American Christians are under serious attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just ask the former Mrs. America contestant who was attacked after she had been asked a question, and then ask Phil Robinson of Duck Dynasty next. Then on to ask Chic-Filet about what they had went through or the cake baker, the photographer and so on and so forth. I bet I am just scraping the surface of this stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your 'proof'? Seriously?
> 
> What 'formers Mrs. America'- you can't name her or what question- or how she was attacked- did someone throw acid on her? Beat her up? Break one of her fingernails? What harm did she suffer exactly?
> 
> Phil Robinson of Duck Dynasty- what harm did he suffer exactly?
> 
> Chic Filet- what harm did Chic Filet suffer exactly
> 
> The Cake baker- what harm did he suffer exactly?
> 
> Want examples of 'serious attack'?
> 
> Dad killed daughter lesbian lover because they were gay mom - NY Daily News
> 
> *Texas dad killed daughter, her lesbian lover because he disliked that she was gay: mom*
> *James Cosby, 46, is behind bars and may face murder charges after evidence linked him to the deaths of Britney Cosby, his daughter, and Crystal Jackson. The women, both 24, were found dead, left near a Dumpster in Port Bolivar, Texas.*
> 
> *Want me to go on?*
> 
> *You want to compare the 'serious attack' that Christians are undergoing with the attacks that homosexuals suffer?*
> 
> *Fine- once again- show me the examples and tell me exactly what harm.*
> 
> *I have the murder of two homosexuals simply for being gay as my examples of 'serious attacks'*
Click to expand...



*A homosexual activist “judge” kept Carrie Prejean from winning the Miss USA contest. *
*Next, the homosexual “marriage” activists who led the California pageant tried to get Carrie fired, but Donald Trump said no. *

*Finally, the homosexual activist director of the Miss California Pageant persisted and got rid of Carrie. *

*Keith Lewis, the director of the Miss California USA Pageant, is an open homosexual and obviously very insecure. After Carrie said on national TV on April 19 that marriage is only for a man and a woman, Lewis said he was personally offended. For weeks, he campaigned unprofessionally, publicly and continually attacking Carrie and aggressively lobbied Donald Trump to fire her. *

*Lewis’ anti-natural-marriage campaign showed its venom on May 11. That’s when Lewis and then-co-director Shanna Moakler (who strongly believes in homosexual “marriage” and was a Playboy centerfold) held a Beverly Hills news conference blasting Carrie for “unauthorized” speaking engagements at her church and at a traditional marriage news conference, as well as Carrie’s lingerie and swimsuit photos, and called for her to be fired. *

*The next day, May 12, pageant owner Donald Trump directed everyone to “make nice” and said Carrie would keep her crown. But what does oil have in common with water or light in common with dark? The 12-page contract Carrie signed is horrible and gave Keith Lewis so much power over her. *

*The day after the “unity event” in New York, Moakler and Lewis came back to California. That same day, Moakler resigned from her pageant post to protest Carrie keeping her crown. And Lewis began “keeping a file” ((Something illegal to do)) on Carrie in an effort to eventually fire her himself. *

*Then Phil was asked a question, and then when he answered it they attacked him also, and if they could have they wanted him FIRED and the whole show taken off the air. *

*Then the CEO of Chic-Filet was asked the set up question also, and when he responded they wanted him to step it back and apologize or they wanted Chic-Filet to be boycotted. Chic-Filet has been so prosperous since then, that it just isn't funny. You can't even get into the parking lot hardly anymore. Not sure if it was because of all of that, but it sure seems like it was.*

*Then it is the cake baker attempted to be shut down and on and on it keeps going. Now all these people are confessed to be Christians, so is there an agenda to harass and continue to attack the Christians ? Umm I would say so.*

*It's unfortunate that you have people who are ignorant and violent in America, because all these things or hang ups people have, should never resort to violence in any of these things, but it's just that ((space)) is what is needed by all in these things, and then respect for each other as human beings is needed next in life. SEX needs to get itself back into the bedroom where it belongs, and then the problems will subside for the most part, but you will always have the sick and/or twisted minds in society without a doubt, and for whom want to commit either violence or abusive actions against another in all sorts of ways, and especially when they don't like something someone stands for or says in which contradicts their ideology or positions on life.*

*The best way is for people to not be after one another, and to leave each other alone like it was in the past, but this is now and not the past anymore, so things will get worse by all indicators.*

*Marriage to me is between a man and a woman, and it is sacred in that sense, but that is just me.*


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one Christian is being forced to participate in a gay wedding.
> 
> Not one.
> 
> Now business's are obligated to follow the law- but if they have religious objections to complying with the law- then they can change their business- by for instance- no longer making wedding cakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A religion is within the heart of a man, not a building or some abstract concept as "a church".  A congregation within a religion is simply an aggregate of religious men/women.  The religion is within the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a church, Silo. You're not a mosque. You're not a synogogue. So any awkward attempt to equate yourself with a church is nonsense.
> 
> You're a person. And as such, you're subject to the same laws that everyone is subject to. You're not special and you're not exempt. Nor does your religious beliefs exempt you from the law.
> 
> If you're going to conduct business with the public, you'll need to meet minimum standards of conduct with the public: namely, treating all customers fairly and equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A person made up of what ? Beliefs and such right ? Now what makes the person, and then what makes up that church ? It is the people who come into the building and have church, and not the church building itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A spark plug is not a car, Beagle. A person is not a church. These are cartoon simple axioms that completely confound your argument.
> 
> And as a person, you're subject to the law. The same as everyone else. You're demanding that we offer you special exemptions from the law. That based on whatever you choose to believe, you should be able to ignore any law.
> 
> Um, no. That's how a theocracy works. That's not how a democratic republic does. While we can have no laws that explicitly target religion, its perfectly reasonable to have laws that apply to everyone. Including the religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were the one mentioning a cult- and the only group that you could be referring to would be Christianity, since in your post it was the only religious group.
> 
> Cult:
> : a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get that definition ? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Webster.
> 
> Still waiting for you to prove your claims that American Christians are under serious attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just ask the former Mrs. America contestant who was attacked after she had been asked a question, and then ask Phil Robinson of Duck Dynasty next. Then on to ask Chic-Filet about what they had went through or the cake baker, the photographer and so on and so forth. I bet I am just scraping the surface of this stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your 'proof'? Seriously?
> 
> What 'formers Mrs. America'- you can't name her or what question- or how she was attacked- did someone throw acid on her? Beat her up? Break one of her fingernails? What harm did she suffer exactly?
> 
> Phil Robinson of Duck Dynasty- what harm did he suffer exactly?
> 
> Chic Filet- what harm did Chic Filet suffer exactly
> 
> The Cake baker- what harm did he suffer exactly?
> 
> Want examples of 'serious attack'?
> 
> Dad killed daughter lesbian lover because they were gay mom - NY Daily News
> 
> *Texas dad killed daughter, her lesbian lover because he disliked that she was gay: mom*
> *James Cosby, 46, is behind bars and may face murder charges after evidence linked him to the deaths of Britney Cosby, his daughter, and Crystal Jackson. The women, both 24, were found dead, left near a Dumpster in Port Bolivar, Texas.*
> 
> *Want me to go on?*
> 
> *You want to compare the 'serious attack' that Christians are undergoing with the attacks that homosexuals suffer?*
> 
> *Fine- once again- show me the examples and tell me exactly what harm.*
> 
> *I have the murder of two homosexuals simply for being gay as my examples of 'serious attacks'*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *A homosexual activist “judge” kept Carrie Prejean from winning the Miss USA contest. *
> *Next, the homosexual “marriage” activists who led the California pageant tried to get Carrie fired, but Donald Trump said no. *
> 
> *Finally, the homosexual activist director of the Miss California Pageant persisted and got rid of Carrie.**.*
Click to expand...


To summarize- Carrie Prejean said she was against gay marriage, which upset one judge- and may have cost her Miss USA crown. She didn't say anything at the time about being a Christian- nor was the criticism directed at her based upon her faith- but her statement against same gender marriage.

So you think criticism by 'gay activists' is an attack on a Christian?

Well then what about this criticism by Christian anti-gay activists?

“Since April, JC Penney's has not aired Ellen DeGeneres in one of their commercials until now. A new JCP ad features Ellen and three elves,” writes OMM. “JCP has made their choice to offend a huge majority of their customers again. Christians must now vote with their wallets. We have contacted JC Penney's several times in the past with our concerns, and they will not listen. They have decided to ignore our complaints so we will avoid them at all costs.”

They were attempting to get Ellen fired- simply for being gay- and being in an ad.

Would you agree now that Homosexuals are as much subject to 'serious attack' as Christians then?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> [
> *Then Phil was asked a question, and then when he answered it they attacked him also, and if they could have they wanted him FIRED and the whole show taken off the air.*



Duck Dynasty - A E






Doesn't look canceled to me.

Meanwhile- once again- Christian Activists call for a show they think is too gay friendly to be canceled:

_A premiere date has not been set, but One Million Moms wanted to sound the alarm about this new series. It will be airing on the network soon unless we do something about it. They are in the beginning stages.

ABC Family reported the comedy-drama pilot, working with the title The Fosters, is about two women raising a “21st century,” multi-ethnic mix of foster and biological kids. While foster care and adoption is a wonderful thing and the Bible does teach us to help orphans, this program is attempting to redefine marriage and family by having two moms raise these children together. One Million Moms is not sure how the explanation will be given on how the biological children were conceived. None of this material is acceptable content for a family show.

Hollywood is continuing to push an agenda that homosexuality is acceptable when scripture states clearly it is a sin. As Christians, the Bible also says that we must speak up against sin. If we remain silent then we are guilty of sin also._

Since you consider crticism of Duck Dynasty to be a serious attack- you would agree then that homosexuals are also under serious attack?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> A homosexual activist “judge” kept Carrie Prejean from winning the Miss USA contest.
> Next, the homosexual “marriage” activists who led the California pageant tried to get Carrie fired, but Donald Trump said no.
> 
> Finally, the homosexual activist director of the Miss California Pageant persisted and got rid of Carrie.



Her horrible answer prevented her from winning. As regardless of your take on the issue, her job is to be diplomatic and charismatic.She was released from her Miss California contract because she posed for partially nude photos, a breach of her contract. And Prejean masturbating on video, another breach of her contract.

Now....lets compare that to Alexander "AJ" Betts Jr..



> *Gay Iowa Teen Commits Suicide, Was Allegedly Bullied By Classmates*
> 
> An Iowa community is reeling after a teen's suicide, the fifth to rattle the local high school over the past five years.
> 
> According to his mother Sheryl Moore, Alexander "AJ" Betts Jr. was subjected to intense bullying at Southeast Polk High School because of his sexuality (he came out as gay about a year and a half ago) and his mixed race background, the Des Moines Register is reporting.
> 
> Calling her 16-year-old son's death "the most painful thing I have been through in my entire life," Moore has since vowed to help educate people on how "words hurt."
> 
> Gay Iowa Teen Commits Suicide Was Allegedly Bullied By Classmates



*Bullied....to death.* Compared to losing a contract because she violated said contract by doing porn.

These are orders of magnitude apart. Yet you consistently try and portray yourself as the victim. While ignoring the horrible consequences of the actual persecution of gays.



> Then Phil was asked a question, and then when he answered it they attacked him also, and if they could have they wanted him FIRED and the whole show taken off the air.



Phil is a multi-millionaire working as an entertainer. And he alienated many of his audience. He didn't lose his job. And he made millions more.

Now, lets compare that with say......increased depression and suicide among children due to persecution of gays.



> THURSDAY, May 16 (HealthDay News) -- Students targeted because they're believed to be gay -- as many as one in seven young teens -- are much more likely than others to be suicidal and depressed, a new survey finds.
> 
> More than 10 percent of eighth-grade boys and girls reported that they're victimized because of perceived sexual orientation, according to a large survey of students in Washington state.
> 
> Anti-Gay Bullying Tied to Teen Depression Suicide - US News



So a multimillionare entertainer being criticized for offending much of his audience.....and NOT losing his job. Compared with depression, misery and suicide for our children caused by persecution of gays.

And yet you ignore the misery and death....and focus on the multi millionare, casting yourself as a victim. You may want to consider reevaluating your priorities.



> Then the CEO of Chic-Filet was asked the set up question also, and when he responded they wanted him to step it back and apologize or they wanted Chic-Filet to be boycotted. Chic-Filet has been so prosperous since then, that it just isn't funny. You can't even get into the parking lot hardly anymore. Not sure if it was because of all of that, but is sure seems like it was.


More accurately...


> January 2011, the media reported that the American fast food restaurant chain Chick-fil-A was co-sponsoring a marriage conference along with the Pennsylvania Family Institute (PFI), an organization that had filed an amicus brief against striking down Proposition 8 in California (see _Perry v. Brown_).[3][4][5][6][7][8] The PFI lobbied against a state effort to ban discrimination in Pennsylvania on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.[9] Responding on its official company Facebook page, Chick-fil-A said that support of the PFI retreat had come from a local franchisee, stating "We have determined that one of our independent restaurant operators in Pennsylvania was asked to provide sandwiches to two Art of Marriage video seminars."[10]



*Chick Filet actively worked and spent money to deprive gays of their rights. *And it Chick Filet that is being 'persecuted'?

Lets compare that with say, Jamie Hubley. A teen who commited suicide after years of relentless abuse for being gay:



> Jamie Hubley, a gay 15-year-old from Ottawa, Canada, committed suicide on Friday.
> 
> The 10th grade student documented his life, including his depression and the hardships of being a gay teen, in a blog, reports the _Ottawa Citizen_.
> 
> Jamie Hubley Gay 15-Year-Old Ottawa Canada Teen Commits Suicide Cites Depression School Troubles



See the pattern here?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> [
> *Then the CEO of Chic-Filet was asked the set up question also, and when he responded they wanted him to step it back and apologize or they wanted Chic-Filet to be boycotted. Chic-Filet has been so prosperous since then, that it just isn't funny. You can't even get into the parking lot hardly anymore. Not sure if it was because of all of that, but it sure seems like it was.*
> *.*



Homosexuals called for a boycott of Chic Filet- and it failed.

Christians called for a boycott of Disney- because it wanted Disney to discriminate against homosexuals- and that boycott failed.

Now- do you hold Christian activists to the same standard that you want to hold homosexual activists to?

You have provided a few examples where homosexuals attempt to use public opinion to change things- who do you think that they learned this from? 

Christian organizations have been boycotting or threatening boycotts of business's for years and years for being too gay friendly- Starbucks, Sears, Disney.

Are those serious attacks also?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> [
> *It's unfortunate that you have people who are ignorant and violent in America, because all these things or hang ups people have, should never resort to violence in any of these things, but it's just that ((space)) is what is needed by all in these things, and then respect for each other as human beings is needed next in life. SEX needs to get itself back into the bedroom **.*



I didn't see anything about that dad killing his daughter because she wasn't having sex in the bedroom- he killed her- and her GF for being homosexuals. 

You speak of serious attack- that is a serious attack.

That is the kind of serious attack homosexuals actually face- for being homosexuals. 

Does it happen often? I am sure I can find as many examples of physical attack as the number of examples of public criticism that you identified. 

How many Christians fear for their safety when they tell their parents that they have become born Again?
How many Christians are beaten up for being Christians in high school?


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> *Gay Iowa Teen Commits Suicide, Was Allegedly Bullied By Classmates*
> 
> An Iowa community is reeling after a teen's suicide, the fifth to rattle the local high school over the past five years.


 
Desperation-time...Know how I know?  LGBTs ALWAYS trot out/exploit teen suicides when they feel their back is against the wall in any debate.  There's nothing more shocking than a child's suicide death...except of course those who exploit those deaths to promote a type of marriage that insures more psychological harm to kids; depriving them of both complimentary genders vital to the best formative environment..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Gay Iowa Teen Commits Suicide, Was Allegedly Bullied By Classmates*
> 
> An Iowa community is reeling after a teen's suicide, the fifth to rattle the local high school over the past five years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperation-time...Know how I know?  LGBTs ALWAYS trot out/exploit teen suicides ..
Click to expand...


You are delusional.

The claim was made that Christians were under attack. 

That post was a response showing how homosexuals suffer real attacks- not getting their nose bent out of shape by criticism.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> You are delusional.
> 
> The claim was made that Christians were under attack.
> 
> That post was a response showing how homosexuals suffer real attacks- not getting their nose bent out of shape by criticism.


 
No gays I know of are being sued by Christians to abdicate their lifestyles in favor of Jude 1 of the Christian New Testament.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional.
> 
> The claim was made that Christians were under attack.
> 
> That post was a response showing how homosexuals suffer real attacks- not getting their nose bent out of shape by criticism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No gays I know of are being sued by Christians to abdicate their lifestyles in favor of Jude 1 of the Christian New Testament.
Click to expand...


Well good for you. 

Homosexuals are getting killed just for being homosexuals.

Which is a 'serious attack'- a lawsuit for violating the law- or getting murdered for being gay?


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Well good for you.
> 
> Homosexuals are getting killed just for being homosexuals.
> 
> Which is a 'serious attack'- a lawsuit for violating the law- or getting murdered for being gay?


 
No murder is excuseable.  Neither is suing someone to force them to abdicate their faith to accomodate gay lifestyles.  Murder of the body or soul is an equally abhorrent crime. Also inexcuseable is using someone's random, non-common death as a platform to force the agenda of a lifestyle-group onto people who do not want that new-religion..

Like I said, no gays I know of are being sued by christians to abdicate their LGBT lifestyles..  Ever been sued?  It's the same as getting beaten up...or financially-killed.


----------



## TimothysAlaska

beagle9 said:


> TimothysAlaska said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boo
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you calling Christianity a cult?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are calling christianity a cult and as usual, putting words in other people's mouths to prove your strawman..
> 
> Christians are not forcing gays to attend church.  But gays are forcing christians legally to "attend gay" when they force christians to participate in "gay weddings".  One has clear legal leverage (so they think) over the other currently.  One does not.  The more aggressive group is the cult.  The more passive one is the religion.
> 
> Cults have as their hallmark above all other things that differentiate themselves from religion: aggression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> boo hoo if a "gay"wedding is held in your church.....your church gets money which your church can use to pay the electric bills buy food for the homeless and help with all the functions your church does....or money to spread more hate about gays....I know terrible isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You speak of something that is also forbidden in the church.
> To sell the churches principles and beliefs out for money, well that is a big no, no or it should always be a big no no if you ask me.
Click to expand...

  What commandments are a gay person breaking?  And where does it say gays can't be married?  Think about that and if you realize they are not breaking any commandments according to Christian tradition what is wrong?  I bet you break a few of commandments yet you still go to church and were probably married in one.  What makes you better then a gay couple?  Or are sinners not allowed in your church?  I thought Christians were not allowed to judge...I mean come on man you are not a very good Christian at all according to your rantings,  I mean you seriously need to repent!


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well good for you.
> 
> Homosexuals are getting killed just for being homosexuals.
> 
> Which is a 'serious attack'- a lawsuit for violating the law- or getting murdered for being gay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No murder is excuseable.  Neither is suing someone to force them to abdicate their faith to accomodate gay lifestyles. .
Click to expand...


Wow- so you think that murder is the same thing as filing a law suit?

You are even more delusional than I thought.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> *Then Phil was asked a question, and then when he answered it they attacked him also, and if they could have they wanted him FIRED and the whole show taken off the air.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duck Dynasty - A E
> 
> View attachment 35702
> 
> Doesn't look canceled to me.
> 
> Meanwhile- once again- Christian Activists call for a show they think is too gay friendly to be canceled:
> 
> _A premiere date has not been set, but One Million Moms wanted to sound the alarm about this new series. It will be airing on the network soon unless we do something about it. They are in the beginning stages.
> 
> ABC Family reported the comedy-drama pilot, working with the title The Fosters, is about two women raising a “21st century,” multi-ethnic mix of foster and biological kids. While foster care and adoption is a wonderful thing and the Bible does teach us to help orphans, this program is attempting to redefine marriage and family by having two moms raise these children together. One Million Moms is not sure how the explanation will be given on how the biological children were conceived. None of this material is acceptable content for a family show.
> 
> Hollywood is continuing to push an agenda that homosexuality is acceptable when scripture states clearly it is a sin. As Christians, the Bible also says that we must speak up against sin. If we remain silent then we are guilty of sin also._
> 
> Since you consider crticism of Duck Dynasty to be a serious attack- you would agree then that homosexuals are also under serious attack?
Click to expand...

Well I guess that It is an unwritten cultural war that is going on according to what you suggest or say here, and who knows where all that will ultimately end, but hopefully it will remain peaceful as it should always remain peaceful in the nation, and this in regards to such things as this and/or so many other issues as well that the nation faces or deals with daily now.

What may result from it all though, is the separation of the people along cultural and religious lines in this nation, because people are going to teach their children about what they think is right, and what they think is wrong in life, and the government won't stop them from doing this no matter how much those idiots at MSNBC talk about the children don't belong to the parents anymore, but rather that they belong to the state or village now. So as the boundaries or lines continue to shrink around the people who see something wrong with this kind of stuff, then the verbal attacks by various groups will probably remain on the increase be it against a religious way of life or many other ways of life. If trying to be a Christian it will get worse in the future I think, and it will get worse for all in the nation I'm afraid.  The various groups will clash and seek space from one another when the boundaries shrink more and more between them, but what will they do in order to resolve these issues that have been created recently or is on the increase in America ?

The main thing is everyone should remain peaceful and calm about it all, then everything can be worked out as it should be in life. Like I said before, there is enough room in this nation for everyone, but it must try and deal with the culture clash to the satisfaction of everyone involved and it can be done... The nation must continue to feed and promote freedom and liberty just as it should be doing here in this nation, and to not instead be divisive like those within this administration has been over so many issues now. 

All this stuff has become a huge distraction from what is important in life, but the ones doing the distracting could care less about that, because they have their agenda, and it comes complete with a goal in mind, and this goal is to be reached regardless of what happens to others who think differently in life or maybe some are just innocent bystanders in it all, where as I guess somehow people just get caught up in it all, yet it is a distraction is what it is, because people have to much time on their hands is what I think these days.

I mean these people that I mentioned were just minding their own business when the questions were asked of them right, and then they responded honestly to them right ? Now should people be targeted in this way, otherwise when a person don't like an answer someone gives them after they had asked a question while the defendant being asked was just minding his or hers own business ?  I mean otherwise weren't they minding their own business when all of a sudden BAM a mouth goes off on them, and the next thing you know their livelihood is being challenged as a result of ?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"All this stuff has become a huge distraction from what is important in life"

Nonsense.

Seeking one's comprehensive civil liberties is of the utmost importance.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A homosexual activist “judge” kept Carrie Prejean from winning the Miss USA contest.
> Next, the homosexual “marriage” activists who led the California pageant tried to get Carrie fired, but Donald Trump said no.
> 
> Finally, the homosexual activist director of the Miss California Pageant persisted and got rid of Carrie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her horrible answer prevented her from winning. As regardless of your take on the issue, her job is to be diplomatic and charismatic.She was released from her Miss California contract because she posed for partially nude photos, a breach of her contract. And Prejean masturbating on video, another breach of her contract.
> 
> Now....lets compare that to Alexander "AJ" Betts Jr..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Gay Iowa Teen Commits Suicide, Was Allegedly Bullied By Classmates*
> 
> An Iowa community is reeling after a teen's suicide, the fifth to rattle the local high school over the past five years.
> 
> According to his mother Sheryl Moore, Alexander "AJ" Betts Jr. was subjected to intense bullying at Southeast Polk High School because of his sexuality (he came out as gay about a year and a half ago) and his mixed race background, the Des Moines Register is reporting.
> 
> Calling her 16-year-old son's death "the most painful thing I have been through in my entire life," Moore has since vowed to help educate people on how "words hurt."
> 
> Gay Iowa Teen Commits Suicide Was Allegedly Bullied By Classmates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bullied....to death.* Compared to losing a contract because she violated said contract by doing porn.
> 
> These are orders of magnitude apart. Yet you consistently try and portray yourself as the victim. While ignoring the horrible consequences of the actual persecution of gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Phil was asked a question, and then when he answered it they attacked him also, and if they could have they wanted him FIRED and the whole show taken off the air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phil is a multi-millionaire working as an entertainer. And he alienated many of his audience. He didn't lose his job. And he made millions more.
> 
> Now, lets compare that with say......increased depression and suicide among children due to persecution of gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THURSDAY, May 16 (HealthDay News) -- Students targeted because they're believed to be gay -- as many as one in seven young teens -- are much more likely than others to be suicidal and depressed, a new survey finds.
> 
> More than 10 percent of eighth-grade boys and girls reported that they're victimized because of perceived sexual orientation, according to a large survey of students in Washington state.
> 
> Anti-Gay Bullying Tied to Teen Depression Suicide - US News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a multimillionare entertainer being criticized for offending much of his audience.....and NOT losing his job. Compared with depression, misery and suicide for our children caused by persecution of gays.
> 
> And yet you ignore the misery and death....and focus on the multi millionare, casting yourself as a victim. You may want to consider reevaluating your priorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the CEO of Chic-Filet was asked the set up question also, and when he responded they wanted him to step it back and apologize or they wanted Chic-Filet to be boycotted. Chic-Filet has been so prosperous since then, that it just isn't funny. You can't even get into the parking lot hardly anymore. Not sure if it was because of all of that, but is sure seems like it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More accurately...
> 
> 
> 
> January 2011, the media reported that the American fast food restaurant chain Chick-fil-A was co-sponsoring a marriage conference along with the Pennsylvania Family Institute (PFI), an organization that had filed an amicus brief against striking down Proposition 8 in California (see _Perry v. Brown_).[3][4][5][6][7][8] The PFI lobbied against a state effort to ban discrimination in Pennsylvania on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.[9] Responding on its official company Facebook page, Chick-fil-A said that support of the PFI retreat had come from a local franchisee, stating "We have determined that one of our independent restaurant operators in Pennsylvania was asked to provide sandwiches to two Art of Marriage video seminars."[10]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Chick Filet actively worked and spent money to deprive gays of their rights. *And it Chick Filet that is being 'persecuted'?
> 
> Lets compare that with say, Jamie Hubley. A teen who commited suicide after years of relentless abuse for being gay:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jamie Hubley, a gay 15-year-old from Ottawa, Canada, committed suicide on Friday.
> 
> The 10th grade student documented his life, including his depression and the hardships of being a gay teen, in a blog, reports the _Ottawa Citizen_.
> 
> Jamie Hubley Gay 15-Year-Old Ottawa Canada Teen Commits Suicide Cites Depression School Troubles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the pattern here?
Click to expand...

So are you *blaming* the Christians for all these incidents in which you have listed ? Can anyone take on some personal responsibility in their life anymore (or) is it just a blame game for the overall agenda that is reached for by a group or by groups these days ? Can you bring us proof that all these cases were ever involving Christians and them being against the gay lifestyle when these incidents happen to take place or had happened ?  The Christian brothers and sisters I know generally mind their own business in life, so what are you saying here really  ?


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "All this stuff has become a huge distraction from what is important in life"
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Seeking one's comprehensive civil liberties is of the utmost importance.


Yet all at the expense of another's liberty, is it that important ?


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> So are you *blaming* the Christians for all these incidents in which you have listed ? Can anyone take on some personal responsibility in their life anymore (or) is it just a blame game for the overall agenda that is reached for by a group or by groups these days ? Can you bring us proof that all these cases were ever involving Christians and them being against the gay lifestyle when these incidents happen to take place or had happened ?  The Christian brothers and sisters I know generally mind their own business in life, so what are you saying here really  ?


 
Beagle, they always reach for "gay teen suicides" when the chips are down.  It means they're nervous about something that has come up in debate:  (post 151) 11th Circuit Gears Up For Gay Marriage Case SCOTUS Page 16 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you *blaming* the Christians for all these incidents in which you have listed ? Can anyone take on some personal responsibility in their life anymore (or) is it just a blame game for the overall agenda that is reached for by a group or by groups these days ? Can you bring us proof that all these cases were ever involving Christians and them being against the gay lifestyle when these incidents happen to take place or had happened ?  The Christian brothers and sisters I know generally mind their own business in life, so what are you saying here really  ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beagle, they always reach for "gay teen suicides" when the chips are down.  It means they're nervous about something that has come up in debate:  (post 151) 11th Circuit Gears Up For Gay Marriage Case SCOTUS Page 16 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...

Yes the environment that children grow up in is definitely of a very huge importance for a society, and especially so when it comes to leading the world on the moral fronts in which we have done or tried to do in the past. As our society changes, then so goes the world to either be for us or against us afterwards. I think that we must remain a moral nation to a large extent or we will end up paying a huge price as we slip beneath the waves with a talent (huge stone) being added to us and then weighed in around our necks as we sink to the bottom.

The bible says that we are to teach the children right, and if we don't it will be better that we place a talent around our necks, and to sink ourselves to the bottom of the ocean. Even then we won't be able to hide from his wrath that will come against us, and this is so if we teach these children to SIN.


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> Yes the environment that children grow up in is definitely of a very huge importance for a society, and especially so when it comes to leading the world on the moral fronts in which we have done or tried to do in the past. As our society changes, then so goes the world to either be for us or against us afterwards. I think that we must remain a moral nation to a large extent or we will end up paying a huge price as we slip beneath the waves with a talent (huge stone) being added to us and then weighed in around our necks as we sink to the bottom.
> 
> The bible says that we are to teach the children right, and if we don't it will be better that we place a talent around our necks, and to sink ourselves to the bottom of the ocean. Even then we won't be able to hide from his wrath that will come against us, and this is so if we teach these children to SIN.


 
The Bible is nice, but what do you say about the secular position that a single-gender parent home is not the best formative environment for children that we find represented in both genders?  Not from a moralist standpoint, but from one of sheer child-developmental psychology?  How many studies do we have already on the detrimental outcomes of homes where children grow up with just one gender represented?


----------



## Silhouette

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "All this stuff has become a huge distraction from what is important in life"
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Seeking one's comprehensive civil liberties is of the utmost importance.


Speaking of comprehensive...

How would anyone leave monosexuals (single parents also depriving children of the complimentary gender) and polysexuals out of the marriage equality discussions?  If homosexuals gain marriage equality as a right, how is it again that we can leave other alternative sexual lifestyles out of the word "marriage"?  A right is a right.  Remember, those are available to all, not just some.  Currently marriage is a state-granted privelege.  Once its a federally mandated right, you know that means it covers every conceivable combination of consenting adults...


----------



## Silhouette

And once the status of privelege has morphed into a "right", won't churches then be in violation of "civil rights" for refusing to marry homosexuals, monosexuals (to themselves so their kids don't suffer "immediate legal harm") and polysexuals?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The strain on Sil is evident.


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the environment that children grow up in is definitely of a very huge importance for a society, and especially so when it comes to leading the world on the moral fronts in which we have done or tried to do in the past. As our society changes, then so goes the world to either be for us or against us afterwards. I think that we must remain a moral nation to a large extent or we will end up paying a huge price as we slip beneath the waves with a talent (huge stone) being added to us and then weighed in around our necks as we sink to the bottom.
> 
> The bible says that we are to teach the children right, and if we don't it will be better that we place a talent around our necks, and to sink ourselves to the bottom of the ocean. Even then we won't be able to hide from his wrath that will come against us, and this is so if we teach these children to SIN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is nice, but what do you say about the secular position that a single-gender parent home is not the best formative environment for children that we find represented in both genders?  Not from a moralist standpoint, but from one of sheer child-developmental psychology?  How many studies do we have already on the detrimental outcomes of homes where children grow up with just one gender represented?
Click to expand...

I'd say that I agree with you Sil, and many these days should agree with you also, because they have lived it. They should know better than anyone about what a dysfunctional situation is or can be in which they lived through, but for some reason many are brainwashed and/or work for the devil on these things... They hide the detriment that had come as a result of what you speak here in many ways, and that has become a problem in and of itself these days.


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> And once the status of privelege has morphed into a "right", won't churches then be in violation of "civil rights" for refusing to marry homosexuals, monosexuals (to themselves so their kids don't suffer "immediate legal harm") and polysexuals?


Well they say that the churches will have and keep the right to refuse these things right, but how long will that last for the churches, and especially since they are the main supplier of marriage services in the nation?  

Then we have many people whom *claim *to be Christians or other religious types in the nation, and they do this even if they are not living a lifestyle that represents being Christian or any other religious type when making the claim these days,  so will it be that if they might claim to be Christian or any other religious type, then by doing so they would demand they have access to a church wedding under that claim ? 

Could the Church refuse them if they claim to be of the religious family in which the church represents, even though they don't attend a church as a member ? There are so many ways to break something down, that it just isn't funny anymore. The only way that standards and traditions are held up, is if people stand together and up for what they believe in. 

If they don't then they will just fall down into the fog with everyone else is what will happen to them. They just better hope that it isn't the fog in which the horror movie depicted way back in the day.


----------



## JakeStarkey

So two delusional individuals hold a confirmation bias conversation.

You two: listen up. 

Associate with those who feel like you.

Understand marriage equality will become the law of the land.

Hide in your corners and be astounded no one attempts to make churches marry folks they don't want to marry.

Then slowly fade away into history as a dusty footnote of little import.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Well they say that the churches will have and keep the right to refuse these things right, but how long will that last for the churches, and especially since they are the main supplier of marriage services in the nation?



Its lasted since interracial marriage bans were lifted, so nearly 50 years without any sign of changing.

There's zero indication of any change otherwise.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> s no matter how much those idiots at MSNBC talk about the children don't belong to the parents anymore, but rather that they belong to the state or village now.



See you start of sounding kind of reasonable and then you just drop this crap into your post.

Prove it.

See I think you are just reciting crap you have heard from Conservatives- crap spread by Conservatives to incite their more gullible base.

I am a liberal- I am lucky enough to be a father of a child- and she is part of our family- she doesn't 'belong' to us like a dog or a car. And I am lucky enough to live in a city and state and country that we are all part of. 

Why do you repeat this crap if when you appear to be trying to have a reasonable conversation about a completely different conversation- because I will call you out on it.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> So two delusional individuals hold a confirmation bias conversation.  You two: listen up.  Associate with those who feel like you.  Understand marriage equality will be come the law of the land.
> Hide in your corners and be astounded no one attempts to make churches marry folks they don't want to marry.
> Then slowly fade away into history as a dusty footnote of little import.


 
In your "perfect" world Jakey... 

When you say "marriage equality" Jakey, you're talking I assume about a "right" which will be afforded for the first time federally to alternative sexual lifestyles such as monosexuals (singles who deprive children also of the complimentary gendered parent/role model 100% of the time), homosexuals and polysexuals (polygamists)?

Rights cannot be arbitrarily disenfranchised once they are in place, from any other person.  So once and if marriage equality becomes a federally mandated right, all are welcome to enjoy it, correct?  Please explain how when it comes to the legal discussion of a right, I am wrong?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Yes the environment that children grow up in is definitely of a very huge importance for a society, and especially so when it comes to leading the world on the moral fronts in which we have done or tried to do in the past. As our society changes, then so goes the world to either be for us or against us afterwards. I think that we must remain a moral nation to a large extent or we will end up paying a huge price as we slip beneath the waves with a talent (huge stone) being added to us and then weighed in around our necks as we sink to the bottom.



The recognition of rights is quite moral. While there's nothing particularly immoral about gay marriage. Quite the contrary, I'd argue that monogamy would probably tip more toward the moral side. Or at the very least, safer and more stable.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> So two delusional individuals hold a confirmation bias conversation.  You two: listen up.  Associate with those who feel like you.  Understand marriage equality will be come the law of the land.
> Hide in your corners and be astounded no one attempts to make churches marry folks they don't want to marry.
> Then slowly fade away into history as a dusty footnote of little import.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your "perfect" world Jakey...
> 
> When you say "marriage equality" Jakey, you're talking I assume about a "right" which will be afforded for the first time federally to alternative sexual lifestyles such as monosexuals (singles who deprive children also of the complimentary gendered parent/role model 100% of the time), homosexuals and polysexuals (polygamists)?
> 
> Rights cannot be arbitrarily disenfranchised once they are in place, from any other person.  So once and if marriage equality becomes a federally mandated right, all are welcome to enjoy it, correct?  Please explain how when it comes to the legal discussion of a right, I am wrong?
Click to expand...


Dunno. The court isn't addressing 'monosexuals' or 'polysexuals'. Its addressing gay marriage. The specifics of which you seem increasingly reluctant to discuss.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once the status of privelege has morphed into a "right", won't churches then be in violation of "civil rights" for refusing to marry homosexuals, monosexuals (to themselves so their kids don't suffer "immediate legal harm") and polysexuals?
> 
> 
> 
> Well they say that the churches will have and keep the right to refuse these things right, but how long will that last for the churches, and especially since they are the main supplier of marriage services in the nation?
> 
> Then we have many people whom *claim *to be Christians or other religious types in the nation, and they do this even if they are not living a lifestyle that represents being Christian or any other religious type when making the claim these days,  so will it be that if they might claim to be Christian or any other religious type, then by doing so they would demand they have access to a church wedding under that claim ?
> 
> Could the Church refuse them if they claim to be of the religious family in which the church represents, even though they don't attend a church as a member ? .
Click to expand...


Do you even belong to a Church? Have you ever attended a wedding at a church? 

I am no expert on religion, but from what little I know, getting married in the Catholic Church has many requirements- among them that both persons must be Catholics in order to get married. 

Yet no one is fearing that somehow Episcopalians will be 'forcing' the Catholic Church to be required to marry there.

Churches cannot be forced to marry- or forced to include any persons for whatever reasons- in any Church ritual. 

The Mormon Church excluded blacks from the priesthood until about 30 years ago- the Church didn't change because of lawsuits- they changed for their own (complicated) reasons- but they were not forced to open the church to blacks.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly, nobody would have conceived of the thought ten years ago that gays would be forcing christian photographers to film their weddings.  Now they are..

Nobody is fooled that if gays turn marriage from a state-defined/granted privelege it currently is to a federally-mandated "right" that it will be longer than a year before the first lawsuit is filed.  You are not every gay person.  There are some very virluent evangelists in your ranks who HATE christianity and want it eradicated from our society.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> And once the status of privelege has morphed into a "right", won't churches then be in violation of "civil rights" for refusing to marry homosexuals, monosexuals



As always- what the hell are you talking about?

*Monosexuality* is romantic or sexual attraction to members of one sex or gender only.[1] A monosexual person may identify as heterosexual or homosexual.[2][3] In discussions of sexual orientation, the term is chiefly used in contrast to bisexuality.[4] It is sometimes considered derogatory by the people to whom it is applied.[2]


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno. The court isn't addressing 'monosexuals' or 'polysexuals'. Its addressing gay marriage. The specifics of which you seem increasingly reluctant to discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> When I'm discussing ANY alternative sexual lifestylist, I AM discussing gay marriage. ..
Click to expand...


And that is the only thing the courts are addressing- 'gay' or 'same gender' marriage.

None of your strawmen.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All this stuff has become a huge distraction from what is important in life"
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Seeking one's comprehensive civil liberties is of the utmost importance.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of comprehensive...
> 
> How would anyone leave monosexuals.
Click to expand...


Monosexuals can marry anyone that they want in some 36 states now.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Dunno. The court isn't addressing 'monosexuals' or 'polysexuals'. Its addressing gay marriage. The specifics of which you seem increasingly reluctant to discuss.


When I'm discussing ANY alternative sexual lifestylist, I AM discussing gay marriage. There is nothing sacred about being gay as opposed to any other type of deviant sexuality. The only sacred thing that will come up in discussions in the upcoming Hearing this year will be individual rights as to marriage vs the privelege that states have always been in control of defining and granting. Ergo, since you cannot discriminate arbitrarily, as you are now hypocritically trying to do, we must discuss all alternative-sexual lifestyles when discussing "gay marriage"..
You know that, oh intellectually-dishonest one..  How come "gay" is so special?  Wouldn't "LGBTQ" also include polysexuals?  Monosexuals?  You bigoted towards them are you?  Judgmental of them?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno. The court isn't addressing 'monosexuals' or 'polysexuals'. Its addressing gay marriage. The specifics of which you seem increasingly reluctant to discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> When I'm discussing ANY alternative sexual lifestylist, I AM discussing gay marriage.
Click to expand...


Not according to the courts. The courts address specific legal questions. And the issues of 'monoseuxality' and 'polysexuality' aren't under consideration in any case the USSC is currently hearing.

When and if that changes, talk to me. Your insistence that we ignore actual cases in favor of any imaginary case you wish to make up doesn't similarly obligate me to do the same. 

If your claims regarding gay marriage had merit, you wouldn't have had to abandon them


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Monosexuals can marry anyone that they want in some 36 states now.


That's like saying "Gays can marry the opposite sex in all 50 states".  Monosexual people often choose to be that way, alone.  Who are you to force them to abandon their sexual preference?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All this stuff has become a huge distraction from what is important in life"
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Seeking one's comprehensive civil liberties is of the utmost importance.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet all at the expense of another's liberty, is it that important ?
Click to expand...


If you don't approve of public accommodation laws- then by all means go ahead and advocate their repeal.

Many of those who support gay marriage also oppose public accommodation laws on a liberty issue. 

Many of them are at a city or State level, and would be easier than repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Your argument is with the law- why do you keep arguing about homosexuals?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monosexuals can marry anyone that they want in some 36 states now.
> 
> 
> 
> That's like saying "Gays can marry the opposite sex in all 50 states".  Monosexual people often choose to be that way, alone.  Who are you to force them to abandon their sexual preference?
Click to expand...


And which case involving 'monosexual rights' is the court currently hearing or likely to hear?


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> If you don't approve of public accommodation laws- then by all means go ahead and advocate their repeal.
> 
> Many of those who support gay marriage also oppose public accommodation laws on a liberty issue.
> 
> Many of them are at a city or State level, and would be easier than repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Your argument is with the law- why do you keep arguing about homosexuals?


 
While Syriusly and other LGBT advocates here profess innocence, you get comments like these ^^ that are preambles to the for-a-fact lawsuits in the future that will force churches to perform gay marriage/defy their faith at its core...


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A homosexual activist “judge” kept Carrie Prejean from winning the Miss USA contest.
> Next, the homosexual “marriage” activists who led the California pageant tried to get Carrie fired, but Donald Trump said no.
> 
> Finally, the homosexual activist director of the Miss California Pageant persisted and got rid of Carrie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her horrible answer prevented her from winning. As regardless of your take on the issue, her job is to be diplomatic and charismatic.She was released from her Miss California contract because she posed for partially nude photos, a breach of her contract. And Prejean masturbating on video, another breach of her contract.
> 
> Now....lets compare that to Alexander "AJ" Betts Jr..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Gay Iowa Teen Commits Suicide, Was Allegedly Bullied By Classmates*
> 
> An Iowa community is reeling after a teen's suicide, the fifth to rattle the local high school over the past five years.
> 
> According to his mother Sheryl Moore, Alexander "AJ" Betts Jr. was subjected to intense bullying at Southeast Polk High School because of his sexuality (he came out as gay about a year and a half ago) and his mixed race background, the Des Moines Register is reporting.
> 
> Calling her 16-year-old son's death "the most painful thing I have been through in my entire life," Moore has since vowed to help educate people on how "words hurt."
> 
> Gay Iowa Teen Commits Suicide Was Allegedly Bullied By Classmates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bullied....to death.* Compared to losing a contract because she violated said contract by doing porn.
> 
> These are orders of magnitude apart. Yet you consistently try and portray yourself as the victim. While ignoring the horrible consequences of the actual persecution of gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Phil was asked a question, and then when he answered it they attacked him also, and if they could have they wanted him FIRED and the whole show taken off the air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phil is a multi-millionaire working as an entertainer. And he alienated many of his audience. He didn't lose his job. And he made millions more.
> 
> Now, lets compare that with say......increased depression and suicide among children due to persecution of gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THURSDAY, May 16 (HealthDay News) -- Students targeted because they're believed to be gay -- as many as one in seven young teens -- are much more likely than others to be suicidal and depressed, a new survey finds.
> 
> More than 10 percent of eighth-grade boys and girls reported that they're victimized because of perceived sexual orientation, according to a large survey of students in Washington state.
> 
> Anti-Gay Bullying Tied to Teen Depression Suicide - US News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a multimillionare entertainer being criticized for offending much of his audience.....and NOT losing his job. Compared with depression, misery and suicide for our children caused by persecution of gays.
> 
> And yet you ignore the misery and death....and focus on the multi millionare, casting yourself as a victim. You may want to consider reevaluating your priorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the CEO of Chic-Filet was asked the set up question also, and when he responded they wanted him to step it back and apologize or they wanted Chic-Filet to be boycotted. Chic-Filet has been so prosperous since then, that it just isn't funny. You can't even get into the parking lot hardly anymore. Not sure if it was because of all of that, but is sure seems like it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More accurately...
> 
> 
> 
> January 2011, the media reported that the American fast food restaurant chain Chick-fil-A was co-sponsoring a marriage conference along with the Pennsylvania Family Institute (PFI), an organization that had filed an amicus brief against striking down Proposition 8 in California (see _Perry v. Brown_).[3][4][5][6][7][8] The PFI lobbied against a state effort to ban discrimination in Pennsylvania on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.[9] Responding on its official company Facebook page, Chick-fil-A said that support of the PFI retreat had come from a local franchisee, stating "We have determined that one of our independent restaurant operators in Pennsylvania was asked to provide sandwiches to two Art of Marriage video seminars."[10]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Chick Filet actively worked and spent money to deprive gays of their rights. *And it Chick Filet that is being 'persecuted'?
> 
> Lets compare that with say, Jamie Hubley. A teen who commited suicide after years of relentless abuse for being gay:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jamie Hubley, a gay 15-year-old from Ottawa, Canada, committed suicide on Friday.
> 
> The 10th grade student documented his life, including his depression and the hardships of being a gay teen, in a blog, reports the _Ottawa Citizen_.
> 
> Jamie Hubley Gay 15-Year-Old Ottawa Canada Teen Commits Suicide Cites Depression School Troubles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the pattern here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are you *blaming* the Christians for all these incidents in which you have listed ? Can anyone take on some personal responsibility in their life anymore (or) is it just a blame game for the overall agenda that is reached for by a group or by groups these days ? Can you bring us proof that all these cases were ever involving Christians and them being against the gay lifestyle when these incidents happen to take place or had happened ?  The Christian brothers and sisters I know generally mind their own business in life, so what are you saying here really  ?
Click to expand...


You mean like you were blaming homosexuals for all of the rather trivial incidences you have listed?

Can anyone take on some personal responsibility in their life anymore?

The homosexual brothers and sister I know generally mind their own business in life- yet you think that Christianity itself is under attack because a few persons who happen to be Christians are criticised. 

You are using different standards for homosexuals than you are for Christians. 

Do you even recognize that?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't approve of public accommodation laws- then by all means go ahead and advocate their repeal.
> 
> Many of those who support gay marriage also oppose public accommodation laws on a liberty issue.
> 
> Many of them are at a city or State level, and would be easier than repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Your argument is with the law- why do you keep arguing about homosexuals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While Syriusly and other LGBT advocates here profess innocence, you get comments like these ^^ that are preambles to the for-a-fact lawsuits in the future that will force churches to perform gay marriage/defy their faith at its core...
Click to expand...

No one is going to force the churches here to hold gay weddings.  Not in this country, not a chance in hell, pun intended. Fear-mongering, nothing more..


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> And which case involving 'monosexual rights' is the court currently hearing or likely to hear?


 
You ask the easiest questions!  That would be the case seeking to turn marraige from a state-defined/granted privelege into a federally-mandated right for all people.  You are familiar with the legal definition of a federal-right?  Are you already planning on excluding some people from it? 

How ironic..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And which case involving 'monosexual rights' is the court currently hearing or likely to hear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ask the easiest questions!  That would be the case seeking to turn marraige from a state-defined/granted privelege into a federally-mandated right for all people.  You are familiar with the legal definition of a federal-right?  Are you already planning on excluding some people from it?
Click to expand...


Which case would that be, specifically? Surely it has a name, and asks a specific legal question.

Lets see what that question is.

Show us. Don't tell us


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> I mean these people that I mentioned were just minding their own business when the questions were asked of them right, and then they responded honestly to them right ? Now should people be targeted in this way, otherwise when a person don't like an answer someone gives them after they had asked a question while the defendant being asked was just minding his or hers own business ?  I mean otherwise weren't they minding their own business when all of a sudden BAM a mouth goes off on them, and the next thing you know their livelihood is being challenged as a result of ?



Beagle- you claimed that Christians were under serious attack. You provided 4 rather insignificant 'attacks'- including one being a millionaire who didn't lose his TV show for his opinions. 

I have shown Christians attacking homosexuals such as Ellen Degeneres for simply being gay- not their opinions- but because they have the temerity to be openly gay. 

You have not addressed two key points:
a) The reality that homosexuals face physical attacks simply for being homosexuals
b) The reality that Christians engage in the very same kinds of attacks that you claim Christians are being victimized by.

Before I take seriously again your complaint that Christians are under attack- I hope to see you address those two points.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't approve of public accommodation laws- then by all means go ahead and advocate their repeal.
> 
> Many of those who support gay marriage also oppose public accommodation laws on a liberty issue.
> 
> Many of them are at a city or State level, and would be easier than repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Your argument is with the law- why do you keep arguing about homosexuals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While Syriusly and other LGBT advocates here profess innocence, you get comments like these ^^ that are preambles to the for-a-fact lawsuits in the future that will force churches to perform gay marriage/defy their faith at its core...
Click to expand...


I am innocent of law breaking- not innocent of many other things. 

Certainly I am innocent of the lying and fear mongering that you do.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monosexuals can marry anyone that they want in some 36 states now.
> 
> 
> 
> That's like saying "Gays can marry the opposite sex in all 50 states".  Monosexual people often choose to be that way, alone.  Who are you to force them to abandon their sexual preference?
Click to expand...


I am not forcing monosexuals to abandon anything.

Monosexuals can marry anyone they want depending on the state-  in all 50 states they can marry someone of the opposite gender- in 36 states they can also marry someone of the same gender. 

Monosexuals are attracted to a single gender- if they want to marry another monosexual who happens to be attracted to the same gender, then they are currently limited to the states which have marriage equality.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't approve of public accommodation laws- then by all means go ahead and advocate their repeal.
> 
> Many of those who support gay marriage also oppose public accommodation laws on a liberty issue.
> 
> Many of them are at a city or State level, and would be easier than repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Your argument is with the law- why do you keep arguing about homosexuals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While Syriusly and other LGBT advocates here profess innocence, you get comments like these ^^ that are preambles to the for-a-fact lawsuits in the future that will force churches to perform gay marriage/defy their faith at its core...
Click to expand...


Give me a break. Gays have been getting married for years in some states and I can't recall a single case of a gay or straight couple suing a church because they refused to marry the couple. Spare us all the fear mongering and overly dramatic claptrap. I am sure your next weak repose will be "yet" and you'll act that is some sort of great victory but we know a silly slippery slope when we see one. 

Even if some fools in the future do sue for the aforementioned reasons they would be laughed out of court and more than likely forced to pay the legal fees of the defendant.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Give me a break. Gays have been getting married for years in some states and I can't recall a single case of a gay or straight couple suing a church because they refused to marry the couple. Spare us all the fear mongering and overly dramatic claptrap. I am sure your next weak repose will be "yet" and you'll act that is some sort of great victory but we know a silly slippery slope when we see one.
> 
> Even if some fools in the future do sue for the aforementioned reasons they would be laughed out of court and more than likely forced to pay the legal fees of the defendant.


 

Gays have not been getting legally married in most states. Only a small handful have deliberated statewide pro and con and then ratified a new lifestyle to lord over children in incentivized married homes; minus one of the vital genders as parent/role model of course (structurally just like monosexual/single parents).

The fact that we haven't yet seen a LGBT fold case against a church forcing them to marry gays doesn't mean we will not.  The public isn't that gullible.  Your smoke and mirrors can only stretch so far before it is so thin that everyone can see straight through it.. Like the poll at the top of this page, for example..  82%..._impressive numbers against gay marriage when we're being told "everyone is in support of gay marriage"_


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> So two delusional individuals hold a confirmation bias conversation.
> 
> You two: listen up.
> 
> Associate with those who feel like you.
> 
> Understand marriage equality will be come the law of the land.
> 
> Hide in your corners and be astounded no one attempts to make churches marry folks they don't want to marry.
> 
> Then slowly fade away into history as a dusty footnote of little import.


Either you comment with an opinion or don't speak to us at all... I mean here you are with your *"you two listen up"* crap, as if you are some sort of authoritarian when you speak about something in here. If you have a rational counter in a civilized manor to something that is said in here then give it, but don't tell anyone to *listen up* as if you are someone special or over anyone in here because you aren't Jake the SNAKE!


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have nothing to say about whom I talk to, so listen up and learn, beagle9..

I am, and those like me, trule followers our Lord and Savior, far more than authority on this issue than any social con crack brain evangelical or fundamentalist follower of heresy like you and your ilk.

Sux to be like you, I know, but you earned the badge of shame.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno. The court isn't addressing 'monosexuals' or 'polysexuals'. Its addressing gay marriage. The specifics of which you seem increasingly reluctant to discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> When I'm discussing ANY alternative sexual lifestylist, I AM discussing gay marriage. There is nothing sacred about being gay as opposed to any other type of deviant sexuality. The only sacred thing that will come up in discussions in the upcoming Hearing this year will be individual rights as to marriage vs the privelege that states have always been in control of defining and granting. Ergo, since you cannot discriminate arbitrarily, as you are now hypocritically trying to do, we must discuss all alternative-sexual lifestyles when discussing "gay marriage"..
> You know that, oh intellectually-dishonest one..  How come "gay" is so special?  Wouldn't "LGBTQ" also include polysexuals?  Monosexuals?  You bigoted towards them are you?  Judgmental of them?
Click to expand...


You calling anyone intellectual dishonest is as rich as Croesus. On numerous occasions you have claimed that this thread poll means 80% do not support gay marriage despite the fact that this poll doesn't even ask about gay marriage. You continue to ignore every single poll that does ask the question about same sex marriage directly because it is inconvenient to blind anti-gay narrative.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break. Gays have been getting married for years in some states and I can't recall a single case of a gay or straight couple suing a church because they refused to marry the couple. Spare us all the fear mongering and overly dramatic claptrap. I am sure your next weak repose will be "yet" and you'll act that is some sort of great victory but we know a silly slippery slope when we see one.
> 
> Even if some fools in the future do sue for the aforementioned reasons they would be laughed out of court and more than likely forced to pay the legal fees of the defendant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays have not been getting legally married in most states. _"_
Click to expand...


In 36 states- happy couples are being issued marriage licenses and are legally married.

And the haters hate that.

And the delusional reject that it is even happening.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> You have nothing to say about whom I talk to, so listen up and learn, beagle9..
> 
> I am, and those like me, trule followers our Lord and Savior, far more than authority on this issue than any social con crack brain evangelical or fundamentalist follower of heresy like you and your ilk.
> 
> Sux to be like you, I know, but you earned the badge of shame.


 
But you ignore Jude 1 and Jesus's teachings/warnings in Jude 1 of the New Testament I assume?  You'd have to completely ignore it because there's no spinning what is said there.  Jesus's personal servant and constant companion Jude recounts how his master/friend and Son of God forbade the promotion of homosexuality as a culture into any social venue.  It simply isn't permissable.  And for those who ignore the warning awaits eternal damnation in the Pit of Fire.  It teaches to hate the affliction while reaching out to the afflicted to show them the error of their ways; in true Christian form: Hate the sin, love the sinner.

How do you square that up oh "true and devout" Jakey?  And how do you lie to the public saying "a majority of Americans now support gay marraige" when the poll at the top screams in the opposite direction.  To deny what the poll is saying (and I've heard your excuses by now) is to say (realizing that race is not lifestyle) "blacks would be OK with Loving v Virginia, even if it meant some chapels could legally discriminate against them"  Which of course is a lie.  So the numbers speak for themselves.  A majority, a CLEAR majority at the largest poll EVER in USMB history say that gay lifestyles do not belong everywhere....

...that is a fact you cannot dispute.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break. Gays have been getting married for years in some states and I can't recall a single case of a gay or straight couple suing a church because they refused to marry the couple. Spare us all the fear mongering and overly dramatic claptrap. I am sure your next weak repose will be "yet" and you'll act that is some sort of great victory but we know a silly slippery slope when we see one.
> 
> Even if some fools in the future do sue for the aforementioned reasons they would be laughed out of court and more than likely forced to pay the legal fees of the defendant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays have not been getting legally married in most states. Only a small handful have deliberated statewide pro and con and then ratified a new lifestyle to lord over children in incentivized married homes; minus one of the vital genders as parent/role model of course (structurally just like monosexual/single parents).
> 
> The fact that we haven't yet seen a LGBT fold case against a church forcing them to marry gays doesn't mean we will not.  The public isn't that gullible.  Your smoke and mirrors can only stretch so far before it is so thin that everyone can see straight through it.. Like the poll at the top of this page, for example..  82%..._impressive numbers against gay marriage when we're being told "everyone is in support of gay marriage"_
Click to expand...


Despite all of your hand wringing and teeth gnashing gays are getting legally married. Churches have never been forced to marry anyone; gay or otherwise, against their wishes. There hasn't been a single case where a church was ordered to marry any couple. Not black, not Jewish, not gay, not straight, not interracial...not a single case.

For someone that loves to quote from the Book of Jude so often you sure seem to blatantly ignore Proverbs 12:22 when claiming this poll means 80% are against gay marriage. It doesn't help your case when you have to lie to make your point and make no mistake you lie as effortlessly as I breath.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once the status of privelege has morphed into a "right", won't churches then be in violation of "civil rights" for refusing to marry homosexuals, monosexuals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always- what the hell are you talking about?
> 
> *Monosexuality* is romantic or sexual attraction to members of one sex or gender only.[1] A monosexual person may identify as heterosexual or homosexual.[2][3] In discussions of sexual orientation, the term is chiefly used in contrast to bisexuality.[4] It is sometimes considered derogatory by the people to whom it is applied.[2]
Click to expand...

Just put sex back into the bedrooms already, and the problems will be solved.. Um, but that isn't going to happen now is it, so the movement will be using new and unheard of before strategy's for it's next move, and the anti-movement who just wants to be left alone will be watchful of that next move in which they are sure the movement will be trying next on someone who has great influence and/or maybe even stardom in the nation, so stay tuned I guess. 

The movement within Hollywood works it's power over the stars, by making the stars participate in these things in some kind of way or by using ways to get a star to play a role or act in a movie that seals the deal for them.  It isn't hard for them to do this these days, because people, and even the stars are weak in character anymore, and so goes the nation along with them in this weakness.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing to say about whom I talk to, so listen up and learn, beagle9..
> 
> I am, and those like me, trule followers our Lord and Savior, far more than authority on this issue than any social con crack brain evangelical or fundamentalist follower of heresy like you and your ilk.
> 
> Sux to be like you, I know, but you earned the badge of shame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you ignore Jude 1 and Jesus's teachings/warnings in Jude 1 of the New Testament I assume? .
Click to expand...


Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuals even once.

*Jude 1 King James Version (KJV)*
1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

And Jesus never once condemned homosexuals.

He did however condemn lying- like you do all the time.

You are a sinner to Jesus.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All this stuff has become a huge distraction from what is important in life"
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Seeking one's comprehensive civil liberties is of the utmost importance.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet all at the expense of another's liberty, is it that important ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't approve of public accommodation laws- then by all means go ahead and advocate their repeal.
> 
> Many of those who support gay marriage also oppose public accommodation laws on a liberty issue.
> 
> Many of them are at a city or State level, and would be easier than repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Your argument is with the law- why do you keep arguing about homosexuals?
Click to expand...

My argument is the attacks on Christians, and the laws are being used for this I guess, so you might be right that the laws may need to be changed some in order to not be abusive as they are in this respect or because they are being used to abuse with by another, and that is wrong for this nation who is diverse and needs space between the cultures as so to encourage them to be free and live free without being subjected to abuse instead by another culture who would want to do this to another.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing to say about whom I talk to, so listen up and learn, beagle9..
> 
> I am, and those like me, trule followers our Lord and Savior, far more than authority on this issue than any social con crack brain evangelical or fundamentalist follower of heresy like you and your ilk.
> 
> Sux to be like you, I know, but you earned the badge of shame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you ignore Jude 1 and Jesus's teachings/warnings in Jude 1 of the New Testament I assume? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuals even once.
> 
> *Jude 1 King James Version (KJV)*
> 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
> 
> 2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
> 
> 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
> 
> 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
> 
> 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
> 
> 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
> 
> 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 
> 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
> 
> 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 
> 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
> 
> 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
> 
> 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
> 
> 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
> 
> 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
> 
> 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
> 
> 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
> 
> 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
> 
> 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
> 
> 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
> 
> And Jesus never once condemned homosexuals.
> 
> He did however condemn lying- like you do all the time.
> 
> You are a sinner to Jesus.
Click to expand...

Um # 7 dude.. Sorry.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once the status of privelege has morphed into a "right", won't churches then be in violation of "civil rights" for refusing to marry homosexuals, monosexuals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always- what the hell are you talking about?
> 
> *Monosexuality* is romantic or sexual attraction to members of one sex or gender only.[1] A monosexual person may identify as heterosexual or homosexual.[2][3] In discussions of sexual orientation, the term is chiefly used in contrast to bisexuality.[4] It is sometimes considered derogatory by the people to whom it is applied.[2]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just put sex back into the bedrooms already, and the problems will be solved.. .
Click to expand...


The only 'sex' I see outside the bedroom 'onscreen' is normally heterosexual- and shows that have sex in them are immensely popular.

Big Bang Theory, Scandal, Grey's Anatomy, etc, etc.

Two popular comedies- 2 and half Men and "how I met your mother' were essentially about people trying to get laid. 

How do you propose we 'put sex back in the bedrooms'?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing to say about whom I talk to, so listen up and learn, beagle9..
> 
> I am, and those like me, trule followers our Lord and Savior, far more than authority on this issue than any social con crack brain evangelical or fundamentalist follower of heresy like you and your ilk.
> 
> Sux to be like you, I know, but you earned the badge of shame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you ignore Jude 1 and Jesus's teachings/warnings in Jude 1 of the New Testament I assume? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuals even once.
> 
> *Jude 1 King James Version (KJV)*
> 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
> 
> 2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
> 
> 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
> 
> 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
> 
> 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
> 
> 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
> 
> 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 
> 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
> 
> 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 
> 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
> 
> 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
> 
> 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
> 
> 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
> 
> 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
> 
> 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
> 
> 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
> 
> 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
> 
> 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
> 
> 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
> 
> And Jesus never once condemned homosexuals.
> 
> He did however condemn lying- like you do all the time.
> 
> You are a sinner to Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um # 7 dude.. Sorry.
Click to expand...


Please feel free to show me that word:

_7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire._


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All this stuff has become a huge distraction from what is important in life"
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Seeking one's comprehensive civil liberties is of the utmost importance.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet all at the expense of another's liberty, is it that important ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't approve of public accommodation laws- then by all means go ahead and advocate their repeal.
> 
> Many of those who support gay marriage also oppose public accommodation laws on a liberty issue.
> 
> Many of them are at a city or State level, and would be easier than repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Your argument is with the law- why do you keep arguing about homosexuals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My argument is the attacks on Christians, and the laws are being used for this I guess, so you might be right that the laws may need to be changed some in order to not be abusive as they are in this respect or because they are being used to abuse with by another, and that is wrong for this nation who is diverse and needs space between the cultures as so to encourage them to be free and live free without being subjected to abuse instead by another culture who would want to do this to another.
Click to expand...


Public accommodation laws aren't 'attacks on Christians'. They simply hold Christians to the same minimum standards of conduct in business that we hold every one else to.

You're demanding special treatment so you can treat certain customers unfairly and unequally. And the answer is no.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All this stuff has become a huge distraction from what is important in life"
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Seeking one's comprehensive civil liberties is of the utmost importance.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet all at the expense of another's liberty, is it that important ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't approve of public accommodation laws- then by all means go ahead and advocate their repeal.
> 
> Many of those who support gay marriage also oppose public accommodation laws on a liberty issue.
> 
> Many of them are at a city or State level, and would be easier than repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Your argument is with the law- why do you keep arguing about homosexuals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My argument is the attacks on Christians, and the laws are being used for this I guess, so you might be right that the laws may need to be changed some in order to not be abusive as they are in this respect or because they are being used to abuse with by another, and that is wrong for this nation who is diverse and needs space between the cultures as so to encourage them to be free and live free without being subjected to abuse instead by another culture who would want to do this to another.
Click to expand...


So you really don't care about the laws- except for how they affect Christians?

What about a Muslim baker who refuses to bake a cake for a Christian? Or an orthodox Jewish shoemaker who refuses to do business with a woman?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Listen up, Sil and Beagle 9.

Sil is no Christian by admission and can be ignored when it comes to scriptures.

Beagle9, folks attack Christians, Christians attack others, so get over yourself.

Neither of you have any worth to offer in this discussion based on your unwillingness to be honest and clear.

One, marriage equality will be the law of the land this year; and that will be the end of it.

Two, no one is going to try to make churches marry those whom they wish not.

Three, public accommodation laws are neutral to maintain a fair and level playing ground.

Four, that is the way of it, and you know it.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing to say about whom I talk to, so listen up and learn, beagle9..
> 
> I am, and those like me, trule followers our Lord and Savior, far more than authority on this issue than any social con crack brain evangelical or fundamentalist follower of heresy like you and your ilk.
> 
> Sux to be like you, I know, but you earned the badge of shame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you ignore Jude 1 and Jesus's teachings/warnings in Jude 1 of the New Testament I assume? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuals even once.
> 
> *Jude 1 King James Version (KJV)*
> 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
> 
> 2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
> 
> 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
> 
> 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
> 
> 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
> 
> 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
> 
> 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 
> 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
> 
> 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 
> 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
> 
> 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
> 
> 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
> 
> 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
> 
> 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
> 
> 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
> 
> 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
> 
> 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
> 
> 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
> 
> 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
> 
> And Jesus never once condemned homosexuals.
> 
> He did however condemn lying- like you do all the time.
> 
> You are a sinner to Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um # 7 dude.. Sorry.
Click to expand...


Tell me Beagle- what do you think the basic message of Jude 1 is?


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All this stuff has become a huge distraction from what is important in life"
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Seeking one's comprehensive civil liberties is of the utmost importance.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet all at the expense of another's liberty, is it that important ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't approve of public accommodation laws- then by all means go ahead and advocate their repeal.
> 
> Many of those who support gay marriage also oppose public accommodation laws on a liberty issue.
> 
> Many of them are at a city or State level, and would be easier than repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Your argument is with the law- why do you keep arguing about homosexuals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My argument is the attacks on Christians, and the laws are being used for this I guess, so you might be right that the laws may need to be changed some in order to not be abusive as they are in this respect or because they are being used to abuse with by another, and that is wrong for this nation who is diverse and needs space between the cultures as so to encourage them to be free and live free without being subjected to abuse instead by another culture who would want to do this to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public accommodation laws aren't 'attacks on Christians'. They simply hold Christians to the same minimum standards of conduct in business that we hold every one else to.
> 
> You're demanding special treatment so you can treat certain customers unfairly and unequally. And the answer is no.
Click to expand...

No I said that the laws are being used by another to set up or to abuse a shop owner, and that is not what the laws were written for or were intended to be used for either. The constitution of the United states is also under attack, and it has been for quite sometime now. 

Hey it is the same tactics that are being used also.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> No I said that the laws are being used by another to set up or to abuse a shop owner, and that is not what the laws were written for or were intended to be used for either.



The laws were intended to prevent discrimination against people in business based on race, age, sexual orientation, religion, creed or ethnicity. 

And that's what they do.



> The constitution of the United states is also under attack, and it has been for quite sometime now.



These are state laws. And the State have every constitutional authority over intrastate commerce. Moreover, its completely reasonable that the states requiring those engaged in commerce in their state to treat their customers fairly and equally. 

So your argument fails on two fronts.

The 'attack on Christians' is largely imagined. While the attack on gays and lesbians, isn't.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing to say about whom I talk to, so listen up and learn, beagle9..
> 
> I am, and those like me, trule followers our Lord and Savior, far more than authority on this issue than any social con crack brain evangelical or fundamentalist follower of heresy like you and your ilk.
> 
> Sux to be like you, I know, but you earned the badge of shame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you ignore Jude 1 and Jesus's teachings/warnings in Jude 1 of the New Testament I assume? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuals even once.
> 
> *Jude 1 King James Version (KJV)*
> 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
> 
> 2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
> 
> 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
> 
> 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
> 
> 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
> 
> 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
> 
> 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 
> 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
> 
> 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 
> 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
> 
> 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
> 
> 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
> 
> 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
> 
> 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
> 
> 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
> 
> 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
> 
> 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
> 
> 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
> 
> 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
> 
> And Jesus never once condemned homosexuals.
> 
> He did however condemn lying- like you do all the time.
> 
> You are a sinner to Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um # 7 dude.. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me Beagle- what do you think the basic message of Jude 1 is?
Click to expand...

It has many messages within it, but the main one is to follow Christ and his teachings in life, but this is just one of the message to those whom believe, and it is also a message (just as anything in the Bible is for), that is spoken and geared towards the sinners that may come seeking someday to respect such a message, and to be saved by these same teachings and message that are given unto them.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I said that the laws are being used by another to set up or to abuse a shop owner, and that is not what the laws were written for or were intended to be used for either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws were intended to prevent discrimination against people in business based on race, age, sexual orientation, religion, creed or ethnicity.
> 
> And that's what they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution of the United states is also under attack, and it has been for quite sometime now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are state laws. And the State have every constitutional authority over intrastate commerce. Moreover, its completely reasonable that the states requiring those engaged in commerce in their state to treat their customers fairly and equally.
> 
> So your argument fails on two fronts.
> 
> The 'attack on Christians' is largely imagined. While the attack on gays and lesbians, isn't.
Click to expand...

Anything can become a reversal on, and this would include  discrimination.  If a group or people decide that they would use something for that purpose instead of equality, then we are all abused by this reversal that is used against us now.

We have seen this now in many ways, where as the special privileges that are granted for another, can easily become a way for another to abuse another with, and this be it out of vengeance or even upon the thoughts in which the newly protected might have afterwards. Once granted some see that they now have a government sanctioning of their ideals on life over another, and it suggest to them that everyone else was always wrong, and that they will now pay for that wrong by way of those things in which were granted unto them... They then see it all as a way to get at them by way of now, instead of it being about equality as some might think it was all about...

Equality ? HA it's more like vengeance is what it has become, and that is what some in these groups seek after by way of or by use of these created protections in which to hide behind while attacking another with them.

You see as long as the devil remains in the details, these things can happen, and they have happened. This is why we see some challenges to try and repeal some of these things or to change them, because it is learned that amongst the crowd that certain things were created to protect the group with, it has become a situation where their is a percentage of those within a group who would take those protections, and then to use them to gain access to try and abuse another with.

It is a huge problem that many of the justices didn't take into consideration when granting rights and privileges by law for some, but then not realizing that there is a huge chance that there are many whom may be amongst a group that would abuse those rights and privileges granted unto them, in order to then abuse another or even hundreds of thousands with if they can get away with it.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing to say about whom I talk to, so listen up and learn, beagle9..
> 
> I am, and those like me, trule followers our Lord and Savior, far more than authority on this issue than any social con crack brain evangelical or fundamentalist follower of heresy like you and your ilk.
> 
> Sux to be like you, I know, but you earned the badge of shame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you ignore Jude 1 and Jesus's teachings/warnings in Jude 1 of the New Testament I assume? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuals even once.
> 
> *Jude 1 King James Version (KJV)*
> 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
> 
> 2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
> 
> 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
> 
> 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
> 
> 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
> 
> 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
> 
> 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 
> 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
> 
> 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 
> 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
> 
> 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
> 
> 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
> 
> 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
> 
> 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
> 
> 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
> 
> 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
> 
> 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
> 
> 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
> 
> 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
> 
> And Jesus never once condemned homosexuals.
> 
> He did however condemn lying- like you do all the time.
> 
> You are a sinner to Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um # 7 dude.. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me Beagle- what do you think the basic message of Jude 1 is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has many messages within it, but the main one is to follow Christ and his teachings in life, but this is just one of the message to those whom believe, and it is also a message (just as anything in the Bible is for), that is spoken and geared towards the sinners that may come seeking someday to respect such a message, and to be saved by these same teachings and message that are given unto them.
Click to expand...


Heyy- we agree on something!

Mostly this letter is to warn Christians against 'false teachers'- there is nothing in this letter condemning homosexuality, nor are these Jesus's own words. 

The mention of Sodom and Gomorrah is part of a list of Old Testament punishments by God against bad behavior


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I said that the laws are being used by another to set up or to abuse a shop owner, and that is not what the laws were written for or were intended to be used for either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws were intended to prevent discrimination against people in business based on race, age, sexual orientation, religion, creed or ethnicity.
> 
> And that's what they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution of the United states is also under attack, and it has been for quite sometime now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are state laws. And the State have every constitutional authority over intrastate commerce. Moreover, its completely reasonable that the states requiring those engaged in commerce in their state to treat their customers fairly and equally.
> 
> So your argument fails on two fronts.
> 
> The 'attack on Christians' is largely imagined. While the attack on gays and lesbians, isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything can become a reversal on, and this would include   discrimination.  If a group or people decide that they would use something for that purpose, then we are all abused by this reversal.
> 
> We have seen this now in many ways, where as the special privileges that are granted for another, can easily become a way for another to abuse another with, and this be it out of vengeance or even upon the thoughts that the newly protected might have, in which has now a government sanctioning of their ideals on life over another, and it suggest to them that everyone else was always wrong, and that they will now pay for that wrong by way of those things in which were granted unto them, and they then see as a way to get at them with now. Equality ? HA it's more like vengeance is what it has become, and that is what some in these groups seek after by way of or by use of these created protections in which to hide behind while attacking another with them.
> 
> You see as long as the devil remains in the details, these things can happen, and they have happened. This is why we see some challenges to try and repeal some of these things or to change them, because it is that amongst the crowd that certain things were created to protect the group, but their is a percentage of those who would take those protections, and then to use them to gain access to try and abuse another with. It is a huge problem that many of the justices didn't take into consideration when granting rights and privileges by law for some, but then not realizing that there is a huge chance that there are many whom may be amongst a group that would abuse those rights and privileges granted unto them, in order to then abuse another or even hundreds of thousands with if they can get away with it.
Click to expand...


Once again- your argument is with public accommodation laws- or you are arguing that Christians should be treated differently.

Anyone can argue that they are unfairly targeted by enforcement of PA laws- and certainly there are strong arguments to be made- look at the issue of accommodations for handicapped.

But your sense of 'targeting' could be made by any of the business's that were forced to serve any minority because of PA lawsuit.

_There recently has been a surge of private plaintiff lawsuits
fi led under the public accommodation provisions of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”).1
Public accommodation lawsuits have been common for several
years in states such as Florida and California, but in the past two
years have been fi led with increasing frequency in several states
including North Carolina, Virginia, and Alabama_


----------



## JakeStarkey

Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists cannot be treated differently in the public square because of their religion.

In the secular world of public commerce, religionists don't exist as special groups.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Anything can become a reversal on, and this would include  discrimination.  If a group or people decide that they would use something for that purpose instead of equality, then we are all abused by this reversal that is used against us now.



The laws in question explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Claiming that they weren't intended to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation is thus invalid.

The laws are doing exactly what they were designed to do. You just think you should be treated special and be exempt from the laws that apply to everyone else.

No.


> You see as long as the devil remains in the details, these things can happen, and they have happened.



In 50 years since interracial marriage bans were lifted, no church has been forced to perform an interracial marriage they didn't want to.

There are zero examples of churches will be forced to perform gay weddings in contradiction of their beliefs.

There's zero indication that churches will be forced to perform gay weddings in contradiction of their beliefs.

If anyone does try to force churches to perform weddings against their doctrine, I'll gladly stand shoulder to shoulder with you in opposition to it. As, I suspect,  would almost everyone in this thread.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you ignore Jude 1 and Jesus's teachings/warnings in Jude 1 of the New Testament I assume? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuals even once.
> 
> *Jude 1 King James Version (KJV)*
> 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
> 
> 2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
> 
> 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
> 
> 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
> 
> 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
> 
> 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
> 
> 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 
> 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
> 
> 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 
> 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
> 
> 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
> 
> 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
> 
> 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
> 
> 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
> 
> 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
> 
> 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
> 
> 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
> 
> 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
> 
> 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
> 
> And Jesus never once condemned homosexuals.
> 
> He did however condemn lying- like you do all the time.
> 
> You are a sinner to Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um # 7 dude.. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me Beagle- what do you think the basic message of Jude 1 is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has many messages within it, but the main one is to follow Christ and his teachings in life, but this is just one of the message to those whom believe, and it is also a message (just as anything in the Bible is for), that is spoken and geared towards the sinners that may come seeking someday to respect such a message, and to be saved by these same teachings and message that are given unto them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heyy- we agree on something!
> 
> Mostly this letter is to warn Christians against 'false teachers'- there is nothing in this letter condemning homosexuality, nor are these Jesus's own words.
> 
> The mention of Sodom and Gomorrah is part of a list of Old Testament punishments by God against bad behavior
Click to expand...

And what pray tell is bad behavior ? The new testemant and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists cannot be treated differently in the public square because of their religion.
> 
> In the secular world of public commerce, religionists don't exist as special groups.


Tell that to the government who wants to give special privileges to all those whom want to cry victim hood the loudest and forever now, and then we have the new so called victims who are watching and learning from the old ones, that is now telling them that eternal victim hood works on the government, so just keep on crying till the cows come home, because the government will squash.everyone else over those it considers as victims, even when they aren't victims when they say that they are.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything can become a reversal on, and this would include  discrimination.  If a group or people decide that they would use something for that purpose instead of equality, then we are all abused by this reversal that is used against us now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws in question explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Claiming that they weren't intended to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation is thus invalid.
> 
> The laws are doing exactly what they were designed to do. You just think you should be treated special and be exempt from the laws that apply to everyone else.
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> You see as long as the devil remains in the details, these things can happen, and they have happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 50 years since interracial marriage bans were lifted, no church has been forced to perform an interracial marriage they didn't want to.
> 
> There are zero examples of churches will be forced to perform gay weddings in contradiction of their beliefs.
> 
> There's zero indication that churches will be forced to perform gay weddings in contradiction of their beliefs.
> 
> If anyone does try to force churches to perform weddings against their doctrine, I'll gladly stand shoulder to shoulder with you in opposition to it. As, I suspect,  would almost everyone in this thread.
Click to expand...

The baker who is a Christian, therefore he carries within himself the religious beliefs that are the same in which they gather together in a church building to speak of and then to learn about, was either forced to participate or be closed down right ? Is this not an attack on the Church that resides within the member indirectly, because it was attacking one of it's extended members who carries within himself the doctrine and belief of those who make up the church right ? Just because the attack happened out in the street, does it mean that the attack didn't occur ?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> The baker who is a Christian, therefore he carries within himself the religious beliefs that are the same in which they gather together in a church building to speak of and then to learn about, was either forced to participate or be closed down right ?



The baker isn't a church anymore than the guy at the woolworth's counter that told black folks 'no coloreds served here'. He's a person. He doesn't perform religious ceremonies. He makes cakes.

And if he's going to make cakes as part of a business to the public, he is subject to the States laws that require he treat his customers fairly and equally. Its not a law specifically targeting bakers. Or Christians. Or cake makers. It applies to everyone.

You're demanding that you should get a special exemption from any civil law based one whatever you choose to believe. That the law that apply to everyone somehow not apply to you.

*No. *



> Is this not an attack on the Church that resides within the member indirectly, because it was attacking one of it's extended members who carries within himself the doctrine and belief of those who make up the church right ? Just because the attack happened out in the street, does it mean that the attack didn't occur ?



Nope. Its not an attack on a church. As a baker isn't a church. Anymore than a hubcap is a car.

There are zero examples of any church being forced to perform a marriage they don't want to. There is zero indication of this changing. You can fear monger all you like. But this simple math equation kills it every time:

0 + 0 - 0 = 0


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuals even once.
> 
> *Jude 1 King James Version (KJV)*
> 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
> 
> 2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
> 
> 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
> 
> 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
> 
> 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
> 
> 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
> 
> 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 
> 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
> 
> 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 
> 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
> 
> 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
> 
> 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
> 
> 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
> 
> 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
> 
> 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
> 
> 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
> 
> 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
> 
> 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
> 
> 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
> 
> And Jesus never once condemned homosexuals.
> 
> He did however condemn lying- like you do all the time.
> 
> You are a sinner to Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> Um # 7 dude.. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me Beagle- what do you think the basic message of Jude 1 is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has many messages within it, but the main one is to follow Christ and his teachings in life, but this is just one of the message to those whom believe, and it is also a message (just as anything in the Bible is for), that is spoken and geared towards the sinners that may come seeking someday to respect such a message, and to be saved by these same teachings and message that are given unto them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heyy- we agree on something!
> 
> Mostly this letter is to warn Christians against 'false teachers'- there is nothing in this letter condemning homosexuality, nor are these Jesus's own words.
> 
> The mention of Sodom and Gomorrah is part of a list of Old Testament punishments by God against bad behavior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what pray tell is bad behavior ? The new testemant and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it.
Click to expand...


You are a Christian heretic and spiritual weakling, beagle boy.

Jesus is disappointed in your ilk.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The baker who is a Christian, therefore he carries within himself the religious beliefs that are the same in which they gather together in a church building to speak of and then to learn about, was either forced to participate or be closed down right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The baker isn't a church anymore than the guy at the woolworth's counter that told black folks 'no coloreds served here'. He's a person. He doesn't perform religious ceremonies. He makes cakes.
> 
> And if he's going to make cakes as part of a business to the public, he is subject to the States laws that require he treat his customers fairly and equally. Its not a law specifically targeting bakers. Or Christians. Or cake makers. It applies to everyone.
> 
> You're demanding that you should get a special exemption from any civil law based one whatever you choose to believe. That the law that apply to everyone somehow not apply to you.
> 
> *No. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this not an attack on the Church that resides within the member indirectly, because it was attacking one of it's extended members who carries within himself the doctrine and belief of those who make up the church right ? Just because the attack happened out in the street, does it mean that the attack didn't occur ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Its not an attack on a church. As a baker isn't a church. Anymore than a hubcap is a car.
> 
> There are zero examples of any church being forced to perform a marriage they don't want to. There is zero indication of this changing. You can fear monger all you like. But this simple math equation kills it every time:
> 
> 0 + 0 - 0 = 0
Click to expand...

If you separate a person from their belief system and/or religion in life, then what purpose does that belief system or religion serve him or her if it is cut off from them ? I mean what purpose is a church and it's teachings, otherwise if when one walks just outside the door everything is then lost or not allowed to be spoken of ? 

Otherwise if it were to be cut off from within that persons life by request of or the demand of another, then what good is Church or religion at all in this nation or within any nation ? The Lord in my estimation said that if a person is a shamed of him or refuses to say his name out loud, then I would ask how is that  he (the Lord) would then represent that person come the judgement ? So if you attack Christians, and they buckle under the pressures, then what will they have done or what have you asked that they do in respect to your secular ideals or thoughts on such matters ?

Hey people are crying to the government on a daily basis now for the want of special privileges or rights that gives them more protections, rights and/or privileges than most citizens enjoy or have in this nation now. Then they (the average citizens whom don't have hardly any of these protections or special privileges afforded to them) are being abused by the government who has empowered these people to abuse them and their beliefs like they have been doing at times. They do this without even a twinkling of and eye over it when they do it, but how dare anyone call them out on it, because someone will say hey they are protected and you can't do anything about it now, and the government backs them up with an attack on you if you don't conform or get with the program finally. 

Hec we have a government now that won't even call terrorism by it's real and/or proper name, even after we have seen some horrific acts by these terrorist in this nation and out in the world now.   They still are bogged down in political correctness gone haywire, and they are also bogged down with agenda's that are divisive to the max as they push them forward against all those who haven't had these kinds of things challenging them in their lives, but here they all are now.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um # 7 dude.. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me Beagle- what do you think the basic message of Jude 1 is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has many messages within it, but the main one is to follow Christ and his teachings in life, but this is just one of the message to those whom believe, and it is also a message (just as anything in the Bible is for), that is spoken and geared towards the sinners that may come seeking someday to respect such a message, and to be saved by these same teachings and message that are given unto them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heyy- we agree on something!
> 
> Mostly this letter is to warn Christians against 'false teachers'- there is nothing in this letter condemning homosexuality, nor are these Jesus's own words.
> 
> The mention of Sodom and Gomorrah is part of a list of Old Testament punishments by God against bad behavior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what pray tell is bad behavior ? The new testemant and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a Christian heretic and spiritual weakling, beagle boy.
> 
> Jesus is disappointed in your ilk.
Click to expand...

Like I said before, do you have something of importance to add or are you just trolling ?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> If you separate a person from their belief system and/or religion in life, then what purpose does that belief system or religion serve him or her if it is cut off from them ? I mean what purpose is a church and it's teachings, otherwise if when one walks just outside the door everything is then lost or not allowed to be spoken of ?



A person is not a church. Its that simple. Words have meaning. And a person isn't a mosque. They aren't a synagogue. They aren't a chapel. They're a person.

That's not 'separating a person from their belief system'. That's separating your imagination from the actual meaning of words.

Next, lets see if you actually believe your own argument. Muslims believe in their faith. Many believe that sharia law is the religious duty of any Muslim.* Would then Sharia law trump any US law using your reasoning? Would then a Muslim be immune to any US or State law that they didn't feel their religion allowed to be applied to them?*

If not, why not?



> Otherwise if it were to be cut off from within that persons life by request of or the demand of another, then what good is Church or religion at all in this nation or within any nation ? The Lord in my estimation said that if a person is a shamed of him or refuses to say his name out loud, then I would ask how is that  he (the Lord) would then represent that person come the judgement ? So if you attack Christians, and they buckle under the pressures, then what will they have done or what have you asked that they do in respect to your secular ideals or thoughts on such matters ?



Holding Christians to Public Accommodation laws isn't 'attacking' them. Invalidating your entire analogy.

You are demanding that our laws be ignored if you don't believe you should have to follow them. With the only person making that decision being you. *Its a religiously based 'Soveriegn Citizen' argument. *That has never been the basis of our republic, nor should it be.

You are subject to the same civil laws as everyone else. YOu believe you are special, that the laws don't apply to you. You're wrong.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything can become a reversal on, and this would include  discrimination.  If a group or people decide that they would use something for that purpose instead of equality, then we are all abused by this reversal that is used against us now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws in question explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Claiming that they weren't intended to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation is thus invalid.
> 
> The laws are doing exactly what they were designed to do. You just think you should be treated special and be exempt from the laws that apply to everyone else.
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> You see as long as the devil remains in the details, these things can happen, and they have happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 50 years since interracial marriage bans were lifted, no church has been forced to perform an interracial marriage they didn't want to.
> 
> There are zero examples of churches will be forced to perform gay weddings in contradiction of their beliefs.
> 
> There's zero indication that churches will be forced to perform gay weddings in contradiction of their beliefs.
> 
> If anyone does try to force churches to perform weddings against their doctrine, I'll gladly stand shoulder to shoulder with you in opposition to it. As, I suspect,  would almost everyone in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The baker who is a Christian, therefore he carries within himself the religious beliefs that are the same in which they gather together in a church building to speak of and then to learn about, was either forced to participate or be closed down right ?
Click to expand...


Whether the Baker is a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew- public accommodation laws apply.

I don't know what you are arguing about anymore.

Churches are different than business's.

Public Accomodation laws do not apply to churches- and never will- churches can and have discriminated against people for many, many reasons- and they are not sued for that.

Business's have to comply with public accomodation laws- regardless of what the owners believe. 

If you do not want to have to comply with public accomodation laws- either change them or run a business that does not have to deal with the public.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuals even once.
> 
> *Jude 1 King James Version (KJV)*
> 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
> 
> 2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
> 
> 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
> 
> 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
> 
> 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
> 
> 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
> 
> 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 
> 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
> 
> 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 
> 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
> 
> 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
> 
> 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
> 
> 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
> 
> 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
> 
> 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
> 
> 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
> 
> 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
> 
> 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
> 
> 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
> 
> And Jesus never once condemned homosexuals.
> 
> He did however condemn lying- like you do all the time.
> 
> You are a sinner to Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> Um # 7 dude.. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me Beagle- what do you think the basic message of Jude 1 is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has many messages within it, but the main one is to follow Christ and his teachings in life, but this is just one of the message to those whom believe, and it is also a message (just as anything in the Bible is for), that is spoken and geared towards the sinners that may come seeking someday to respect such a message, and to be saved by these same teachings and message that are given unto them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heyy- we agree on something!
> 
> Mostly this letter is to warn Christians against 'false teachers'- there is nothing in this letter condemning homosexuality, nor are these Jesus's own words.
> 
> The mention of Sodom and Gomorrah is part of a list of Old Testament punishments by God against bad behavior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what pray tell is bad behavior ? The new testemant and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it.
Click to expand...


really- you really want to go into what the Old Testament deems 'bad behavior'?  Do you really believe that eating oysters is bad behavior? Or that women wearing pants is bad behavior?

Jesus said to obey the commandments- that seems like pretty sound and straightforward to me.

*16*Someone came to Jesus with this question: “Teacher,f what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”

*17*“Why ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. But to answer your question—if you want to receive eternal life, keepg the commandments.”

*18*“Which ones?” the man asked.

And Jesus replied: “‘You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. *19*Honor your father and mother. Love your neighbor as yourself.’h”


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> It is a huge problem that many of the justices didn't take into consideration when granting rights and privileges by law for some, but then not realizing that there is a huge chance that there are many whom may be amongst a group that would abuse those rights and privileges granted unto them, in order to then abuse another or even hundreds of thousands with if they can get away with it.



You are maddeningly both overly broad and vague.

What are you talking about?

Are you talking about the justices saying that we all have the individual right to own guns- and thereby there would be those that would abuse those priveleges in order to abuse others?

Or what?

You make these absurdly broad and vague accusations- and then don't back them with anything.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you separate a person from their belief system and/or religion in life, then what purpose does that belief system or religion serve him or her if it is cut off from them ? I mean what purpose is a church and it's teachings, otherwise if when one walks just outside the door everything is then lost or not allowed to be spoken of ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person is not a church. Its that simple. Words have meaning. And a person isn't a mosque. They aren't a synagogue. They aren't a chapel. They're a person.
> 
> That's not 'separating a person from their belief system'. That's separating your imagination from the actual meaning of words.
> 
> Next, lets see if you actually believe your own argument. Muslims believe in their faith. Many believe that sharia law is the religious duty of any Muslim.* Would then Sharia law trump any US law using your reasoning? Would then a Muslim be immune to any US or State law that they didn't feel their religion allowed to be applied to them?*
> 
> If not, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise if it were to be cut off from within that persons life by request of or the demand of another, then what good is Church or religion at all in this nation or within any nation ? The Lord in my estimation said that if a person is a shamed of him or refuses to say his name out loud, then I would ask how is that  he (the Lord) would then represent that person come the judgement ? So if you attack Christians, and they buckle under the pressures, then what will they have done or what have you asked that they do in respect to your secular ideals or thoughts on such matters ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holding Christians to Public Accommodation laws isn't 'attacking' them. Invalidating your entire analogy.
> 
> You are demanding that our laws be ignored if you don't believe you should have to follow them. With the only person making that decision being you. *Its a religiously based 'Sovereign Citizen' argument. *That has never been the basis of our republic, nor should it be.
> 
> You are subject to the same civil laws as everyone else. YOu believe you are special, that the laws don't apply to you. You're wrong.
Click to expand...

If there were no attacks on Christians (and there were and still is), then we wouldn't be having the conversation that we are having between each other would we ?  

OK, then it may just have to become a sovereign citizen argument, and this for such a thing to be considered now going forward.

I mean if the attacks keep up then we might have to look at other ways for people to not abuse each other in the ways that they are doing now or within the not so distant past. Hey you all are ones to always want change right, so whats wrong with change then ? Are you scared of it ? Oh that's right you aren't if it only goes your way all the time, and then to hec with everyone else right ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me Beagle- what do you think the basic message of Jude 1 is?
> 
> 
> 
> It has many messages within it, but the main one is to follow Christ and his teachings in life, but this is just one of the message to those whom believe, and it is also a message (just as anything in the Bible is for), that is spoken and geared towards the sinners that may come seeking someday to respect such a message, and to be saved by these same teachings and message that are given unto them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heyy- we agree on something!
> 
> Mostly this letter is to warn Christians against 'false teachers'- there is nothing in this letter condemning homosexuality, nor are these Jesus's own words.
> 
> The mention of Sodom and Gomorrah is part of a list of Old Testament punishments by God against bad behavior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what pray tell is bad behavior ? The new testemant and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a Christian heretic and spiritual weakling, beagle boy.
> 
> Jesus is disappointed in your ilk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said before, do you have something of importance to add or are you just trolling ?
Click to expand...


You are the one trolling:

Your repeated immoral trolling of discredited scriptural interpretation;

Your repeated nonsense in long paragraphs that say nothing of worth;

Your repeated refusal to accept that you are truly wrong.

You have a right to your beliefs, and so does everyone else, friend.

You are in the minority, you don't have SCOTUS, law, the vote, or the Bible.

The OP is about churches and marriage.  No one will allow churches to be forced to marry those who are not wanted.

You are nothing more than a blip, then you will be relegated to the Kluckers and apartheid folks.

It's over.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um # 7 dude.. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me Beagle- what do you think the basic message of Jude 1 is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has many messages within it, but the main one is to follow Christ and his teachings in life, but this is just one of the message to those whom believe, and it is also a message (just as anything in the Bible is for), that is spoken and geared towards the sinners that may come seeking someday to respect such a message, and to be saved by these same teachings and message that are given unto them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heyy- we agree on something!
> 
> Mostly this letter is to warn Christians against 'false teachers'- there is nothing in this letter condemning homosexuality, nor are these Jesus's own words.
> 
> The mention of Sodom and Gomorrah is part of a list of Old Testament punishments by God against bad behavior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what pray tell is bad behavior ? The new testemant and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really- you really want to go into what the Old Testament deems 'bad behavior'?  Do you really believe that eating oysters is bad behavior? Or that women wearing pants is bad behavior?
> 
> Jesus said to obey the commandments- that seems like pretty sound and straightforward to me.
> 
> *16*Someone came to Jesus with this question: “Teacher,f what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”
> 
> *17*“Why ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. But to answer your question—if you want to receive eternal life, keepg the commandments.”
> 
> *18*“Which ones?” the man asked.
> 
> And Jesus replied: “‘You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. *19*Honor your father and mother. Love your neighbor as yourself.’h”
Click to expand...

Why are you placing words into my mouth, when I have not said to you what I think the interpretation of bad behavior is within the text, and it appears that you don't either in the way that you try and run everything together for the sake of your twisted argument.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has many messages within it, but the main one is to follow Christ and his teachings in life, but this is just one of the message to those whom believe, and it is also a message (just as anything in the Bible is for), that is spoken and geared towards the sinners that may come seeking someday to respect such a message, and to be saved by these same teachings and message that are given unto them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heyy- we agree on something!
> 
> Mostly this letter is to warn Christians against 'false teachers'- there is nothing in this letter condemning homosexuality, nor are these Jesus's own words.
> 
> The mention of Sodom and Gomorrah is part of a list of Old Testament punishments by God against bad behavior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what pray tell is bad behavior ? The new testemant and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a Christian heretic and spiritual weakling, beagle boy.
> 
> Jesus is disappointed in your ilk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said before, do you have something of importance to add or are you just trolling ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one trolling:
> 
> Your repeated immoral trolling of discredited scriptural interpretation;
> 
> Your repeated nonsense in long paragraphs that say nothing of worth;
> 
> Your repeated refusal to accept that you are truly wrong.
> 
> You have a right to your beliefs, and so does everyone else, friend.
> 
> You are in the minority, you don't have SCOTUS, law, the vote, or the Bible.
> 
> The OP is about churches and marriage.  No one will allow churches to be forced to marry those who are not wanted.
> 
> You are nothing more than a blip, then you will be relegated to the Kluckers and apartheid folks.
> 
> It's over.
Click to expand...

Still nothing of worth to say eh ?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me Beagle- what do you think the basic message of Jude 1 is?
> 
> 
> 
> It has many messages within it, but the main one is to follow Christ and his teachings in life, but this is just one of the message to those whom believe, and it is also a message (just as anything in the Bible is for), that is spoken and geared towards the sinners that may come seeking someday to respect such a message, and to be saved by these same teachings and message that are given unto them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heyy- we agree on something!
> 
> Mostly this letter is to warn Christians against 'false teachers'- there is nothing in this letter condemning homosexuality, nor are these Jesus's own words.
> 
> The mention of Sodom and Gomorrah is part of a list of Old Testament punishments by God against bad behavior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what pray tell is bad behavior ? The new testemant and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really- you really want to go into what the Old Testament deems 'bad behavior'?  Do you really believe that eating oysters is bad behavior? Or that women wearing pants is bad behavior?
> 
> Jesus said to obey the commandments- that seems like pretty sound and straightforward to me.
> 
> *16*Someone came to Jesus with this question: “Teacher,f what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”
> 
> *17*“Why ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. But to answer your question—if you want to receive eternal life, keepg the commandments.”
> 
> *18*“Which ones?” the man asked.
> 
> And Jesus replied: “‘You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. *19*Honor your father and mother. Love your neighbor as yourself.’h”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you placing words into my mouth, when I have not said to you what I think the interpretation of bad behavior is within the text, and it appears that you don't either in the way that you try and run everything together for the sake of your twisted argument.
Click to expand...


You asked me what I thought was bad behavior- and you said that everything described in the NT and OT as bad behavior is either believed or isn't- which is it?

The Old Testament says that eating shellfish is a sin. The OT says that it is a sin for women to wear men's clothing. Among other rather archaic sins. 

So I suggested the commandments as guidance- just as Jesus did:

*16*Someone came to Jesus with this question: “Teacher,f what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”

*17*“Why ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. But to answer your question—if you want to receive eternal life, keepg the commandments.”

*18*“Which ones?” the man asked.

And Jesus replied: “‘You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. *19*Honor your father and mother. Love your neighbor as yourself.’h”


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a huge problem that many of the justices didn't take into consideration when granting rights and privileges by law for some, but then not realizing that there is a huge chance that there are many whom may be amongst a group that would abuse those rights and privileges granted unto them, in order to then abuse another or even hundreds of thousands with if they can get away with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are maddeningly both overly broad and vague.
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> Are you talking about the justices saying that we all have the individual right to own guns- and thereby there would be those that would abuse those priveleges in order to abuse others?
> 
> Or what?
> 
> You make these absurdly broad and vague accusations- and then don't back them with anything.
Click to expand...

The main thing is to keep everything as best you can in context, where as we aren't talking about guns are we ?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> You asked me what I thought was bad behavior- *and you said that everything described in the NT and OT as bad behavior* is either believed or isn't- which is it?


It still comes down to what each of us deems as bad behavior now doesn't it ? So what do you think is bad behavior as is described in the books of the Bible pertaining to this conversation ? Then apply it to our conversation here if you will. Eating certain kinds of food (even though might be considered bad behavior in the old testament) is not the best example to fit with this conversation we are having wouldn't you say ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Stay on OP, beagle boy, stay in context.

You have been bobbling for some time.

You have no real evidence that anyone can force churches to marry those they don't want to?


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> Stay on OP, beagle boy, stay in context.
> 
> You have been bobbling for some time.
> 
> You have no real evidence that anyone can force churches to mayy those they don't want to?


As in all these conversations, they do broaden to include the things that have led up to the problems that are being experienced now by many or they might even project a little into the future if the problems aren't resolved somehow in the present, so just follow along if you want to, but don't try and derail when you get worried that the conversation isn't going the way that you think that it should.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stay on OP, beagle boy, stay in context.
> 
> You have been bobbling for some time.
> 
> You have no real evidence that anyone can force churches to mayy those they don't want to?
> 
> 
> 
> As in all these conversations, they do broaden to include the things that have led up to the problems that are being experienced now by many or they might even project a little into the future if the problems aren't resolved somehow in the present, so just follow along if you want to, but don't try and derail when you get worried that the conversation isn't going the way that you think that it should.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or organizations such as churches.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stay on OP, beagle boy, stay in context.
> 
> You have been bobbling for some time.
> 
> You have no real evidence that anyone can force churches to mayy those they don't want to?
> 
> 
> 
> As in all these conversations, they do broaden to include the things that have led up to the problems that are being experienced now by many or they might even project a little into the future if the problems aren't resolved somehow in the present, so just follow along if you want to, but don't try and derail when you get worried that the conversation isn't going the way that you think that it should.
Click to expand...

 You will never be allowed to derail the thread, bobble boy.

One, those 'precursors' are only in your head and don't matter to normal people.

Two, no one is going to make religious churches marry people they don't want to marry.

Let's stay on OP.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> If there were no attacks on Christians (and there were and still is), then we wouldn't be having the conversation that we are having between each other would we ?



That assumes that anything you choose to talk about must be true. I don't subscribe to that interpretation. Your belief of persecution may motivate you to talk about it. But it need not have the slightest connection to reality. Rendering your logic invalid.

Second, we're talking about the application of PA laws. Which aren't attacks against Christianity or Christians. They're minimum standards of conduct when conducting business. And they apply to everyone.

You're demanding special treatment. And the lack of special treatment isn't an 'attack'. Again, words have meanings.



> OK, then it may just have to become a sovereign citizen argument, and this for such a thing to be considered now going forward.



So you're not subject to any law unless you agree you are, huh?

Oh my. Surely you realize that such an argument is so wildly void of connection to reality, our history and the founders as to be the punchline of some joke, right?

And of course, you never did answer my question: *Would then Sharia law trump any US law using your reasoning? Would then a Muslim be immune to any US or State law that they didn't feel their religion allowed to be applied to them?*

You're avoiding answering the question. I strongly suspect you don't actually believe in religious freedoms as you describe them. I suspect that you believe in *Christian *religious freedoms as you describe them. With other religions held to a completely different standard.

If that turns out to be true, then we have a word for that: Hypocrisy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Any "sovereign citizen" argument the refuses to accept the law can be immediately dismissed as having almost no worth.

We live in a constitutional republic, and that is not going to change.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> Any "sovereign citizen" argument the refuses to accept the law can be immediately dismissed as having almost no worth.
> 
> We live in a constitutional republic, and that is not going to change.



That genuinely appears to be what they're arguing. And with his explicit refusal to extend such vast powers to Sharia law potentially demonstrates.....apparently only for Christians.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there were no attacks on Christians (and there were and still is), then we wouldn't be having the conversation that we are having between each other would we ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That assumes that anything you choose to talk about must be true. I don't subscribe to that interpretation. Your belief of persecution may motivate you to talk about it. But it need not have the slightest connection to reality. Rendering your logic invalid.
> 
> Second, we're talking about the application of PA laws. Which aren't attacks against Christianity or Christians. They're minimum standards of conduct when conducting business. And they apply to everyone.
> 
> You're demanding special treatment. And the lack of special treatment isn't an 'attack'. Again, words have meanings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, then it may just have to become a sovereign citizen argument, and this for such a thing to be considered now going forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're not subject to any law unless you agree you are, huh?
> 
> Oh my. Surely you realize that such an argument is so wildly void of connection to reality, our history and the founders as to be the punchline of some joke, right?
> 
> And of course, you never did answer my question: *Would then Sharia law trump any US law using your reasoning? Would then a Muslim be immune to any US or State law that they didn't feel their religion allowed to be applied to them?*
> 
> You're avoiding answering the question. I strongly suspect you don't actually believe in religious freedoms as you describe them. I suspect that you believe in *Christian *religious freedoms as you describe them. With other religions held to a completely different standard.
> 
> If that turns out to be true, then we have a word for that: Hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

You all are reading wildly so much into my post, and then you create all these insinuations about my post in which you try and apply to my post in every kind of way imaginable, where as I can barely keep up with all your insinuations and interpretations that you all come up with.. It appears that you all are straining at a gnat while you swallow a camel. PS. That is in the Bible also if you want to look it up. 

I mean hey I'm not all that complicated of a person in life nor are many others who live life daily as Christians in this nation, so keep it all at a common sense level that is simple for both me and you all to work with, and then I know we can get a consensus maybe somewhere on this stuff do you think ? Hmm I wonder if you all complicate things more than what they are, because in the confusion you hope to confuse with, others might be confused as well on these things. 

I mean look at how much you all have put into fighting this stuff, so there must be something to it all unless you all just don't have anything else to do in life.. LOL 

It amazes me where or how far you all have gone on this subject, and especially when all people are asking, is for the attackers to leave the Christians alone now and in the future. There is enough cake bakers out there, that the one speaking on his religious values in which doesn't allow him to participate in promoting a gay wedding by baking them a cake, should have been enough for the ones wanting the cake baked from that baker, but no they were offended and wanted the baker punished for his not going along wit the woe's of a society in which in his mind is being promoted now against his religious standards and values in life.

I mean in his world he couldn't have even gone home and told his family if he had given in to the pressures in that way. I mean what would he have said to his kids if they would have asked him what's a gay wedding dad ? Would he lie or tell them the truth about what he thinks of that situation, I mean if they were to have asked him about it ? This is what the movement disregards when they want the nation to just up and join them in their promotion of that lifestyle. Now you all say that the customer never told him what the cake was for, but how did he know exactly what it was for if no one told him what it was for ? If he just looked at a person without them saying anything, and he would have refused a service to them as based upon ones looks, then he was in the wrong I would say, otherwise by refusing the person a cake based upon a profile analysis of the person, yet the person said nothing other than I need a cake for a wedding, then he was in the wrong I would say.


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> You all are reading wildly so much into my post, and then you create all these insinuations about my post in which you try and apply to my post in every kind of way imaginable, where as I can barely keep up with all your insinuations and interpretations that you all come up with...


 
Yes, they've made diversion into quite an artform, haven't they?  If they obfuscate the laser points you are making, and get you sidetracked, then you engage in a strawman and they've "won" the debate by silencing the issues they're afraid of confronting...

...like how homosexual marraige guarantees children in the home are structurally-deprived the same as single parent (monosexual) homes of the complimentary gender 100% of the time..


----------



## beagle9

beagle9 said:


> You all are reading wildly so much into my post, and then you create all these insinuations about my post in which you try and apply to my post in every kind of way imaginable, where as I can barely keep up with all your insinuations and interpretations that you all come up with.. It appears that you all are straining at a gnat while you swallow a camel. PS. That is in the Bible also if you want to look it up.
> 
> I mean hey I'm not all that complicated of a person in life nor are many others who live life daily as Christians in this nation, so keep it all at a common sense level that is simple for both me and you all to work with, and then I know we can get a consensus maybe somewhere on this stuff do you think ? Hmm I wonder if you all complicate things more than what they are, because in the confusion you hope to confuse with, others might be confused as well on these things.
> 
> I mean look at how much you all have put into fighting this stuff, so there must be something to it all unless you all just don't have anything else to do in life.. LOL
> 
> It amazes me where or how far you all have gone on this subject, and especially when all people are asking, is for the attackers to leave the Christians alone now and in the future. There is enough cake bakers out there, that the one speaking on his religious values in which doesn't allow him to participate in promoting a gay wedding by baking them a cake, should have been enough for the ones wanting the cake baked from that baker, but no they were offended and wanted the baker punished for his not going along wit the woe's of a society in which in his mind is being promoted now against his religious standards and values in life.
> 
> I mean in his world he couldn't have even gone home and told his family if he had given in to the pressures in that way. I mean what would he have said to his kids if they would have asked him what's a gay wedding dad ? Would he lie or tell them the truth about what he thinks of that situation, I mean if they were to have asked him about it ? This is what the movement disregards when they want the nation to just up and join them in their promotion of that lifestyle everywhere and anywhere. Now you all say that the customer never told him what the cake was for, but how did he know exactly what it was for if no one told him what it was for ? *If he just looked at a person without them saying anything, and he would have refused a service to them as based upon ones looks in life, then he was in the wrong I would say, otherwise by refusing the person a cake based upon a profile analysis of the person, yet the person said nothing other than I need a cake for a wedding, then he (the baker) was in the wrong I would say if that is what he done. He could have been buying a cake for his sisters wedding for all the baker knew, so I wonder what alerted the baker to the reason for the wedding cake in the situation ?*


Wouldn't let me edit as the time limit had expired, so I will do it this way..


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all are reading wildly so much into my post, and then you create all these insinuations about my post in which you try and apply to my post in every kind of way imaginable, where as I can barely keep up with all your insinuations and interpretations that you all come up with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they've made diversion into quite an artform, haven't they?  If they obfuscate the laser points you are making, and get you sidetracked, then you engage in a strawman and they've "won" the debate by silencing the issues they're afraid of confronting...
> 
> ...like how homosexual marraige guarantees children in the home are structurally-deprived the same as single parent (monosexual) homes of the complimentary gender 100% of the time..
Click to expand...

Just when you think you've seen it all or heard it all, they go and come up with something else..LOL


----------



## Silhouette

Just don't let them divert you from your points.  That's my point.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked me what I thought was bad behavior- *and you said that everything described in the NT and OT as bad behavior* is either believed or isn't- which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> It still comes down to what each of us deems as bad behavior now doesn't it ? So what do you think is bad behavior as is described in the books of the Bible pertaining to this conversation ? Then apply it to our conversation here if you will. Eating certain kinds of food (even though might be considered bad behavior in the old testament) is not the best example to fit with this conversation we are having wouldn't you say ?
Click to expand...


That is not what you said before:

_The new testemant and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it._

According to your own standards- you either believe what whole Old Testament says or you don't.

I don't consider homosexuality or unmarried sex bad behavior.  I don't believe that celebrating the marriage of two people who are in love and want to commit to themselves for the rest of their lives is bad behavior.  I do consider adultery by married people to be bad behavior because that is breaking promises to each other. 

You appear to want to pick and choose which 'bad behavior' from the Bible you want to deem 'bad'- and ignore the others.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a huge problem that many of the justices didn't take into consideration when granting rights and privileges by law for some, but then not realizing that there is a huge chance that there are many whom may be amongst a group that would abuse those rights and privileges granted unto them, in order to then abuse another or even hundreds of thousands with if they can get away with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are maddeningly both overly broad and vague.
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> Are you talking about the justices saying that we all have the individual right to own guns- and thereby there would be those that would abuse those priveleges in order to abuse others?
> 
> Or what?
> 
> You make these absurdly broad and vague accusations- and then don't back them with anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main thing is to keep everything as best you can in context, where as we aren't talking about guns are we ?
Click to expand...


The main thing is to actually say what you mean. 

You are maddeningly both overly broad and vague.

What are you talking about?

Are you talking about the justices saying that we all have the individual right to own guns- and thereby there would be those that would abuse those priveleges in order to abuse others?

Or what?

You make these absurdly broad and vague accusations- and then don't back them with anything.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Just don't let them divert you from your points.  That's my point.



Right- follow Silhouette's lead and just make up crap and pretend like its points.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> I mean hey I'm not all that complicated of a person in life nor are many others who live life daily as Christians in this nation, so keep it all at a common sense level that is simple for both me and you all to work with, and then I know we can get a consensus maybe somewhere on this stuff do you think ? Hmm I wonder if you all complicate things more than what they are, because in the confusion you hope to confuse with, others might be confused as well on these things.



But the daily life often runs lately to consensus common to the sense of simple stuff that all work with. Complicate think the wonder complicated? Life daily for you all.



> I mean in his world he couldn't have even gone home and told his family if he had given in to the pressures in that way. I mean what would he have said to his kids if they would have asked him what's a gay wedding dad ? Would he lie or tell them the truth about what he thinks of that situation, I mean if they were to have asked him about it ? This is what the movement disregards when they want the nation to just up and join them in their promotion of that lifestyle.
> Now you all say that the customer never told him what the cake was for, but how did he know exactly what it was for if no one told him what it was for ? If he just looked at a person without them saying anything, and he would have refused a service to them as based upon ones looks, then he was in the wrong I would say, otherwise by refusing the person a cake based upon a profile analysis of the person, yet the person said nothing other than I need a cake for a wedding, then he was in the wrong I would say.



But cake the person says anything would refuse the nation just up. Asking him the other nothing about a customer never person promotion. But the lifestyle? The profile analysis of the movement disregarding. Join the promotion, mean the promotion, have you asked him I would say. 

And don't read too wildly into what I just posted. Just look at how much you have put into fighting this stuff.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just don't let them divert you from your points.  That's my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right- follow Silhouette's lead and just make up crap and pretend like its points.
Click to expand...


Hey...if we're lucky, Silo will make up yet another version of what Edith Windsor asked the courts to decide. I'm betting this next version will involve monosexuals!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Will Sil remain on the Board after SCOTUS rules for marriage equality?

Or Where R My Keys?

Hope they do.  Fun to kick around.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Will Sil remain on the Board after SCOTUS rules for marriage equality?
> 
> Or Where R My Keys?
> 
> Hope they do.  Fun to kick around.


Marriage equalty for ALL I say!  I can't wait for singles to marry themselves now that the complimentary gendered parent as role model has been discarded to the winds.  Their tens of millions kids have been "in immediate legal harm" for too long simply because of their parent's relationship-preference.  And the polygamists too.  Jonathan Turley should be ready to make "the phone call" to the Browns really soon now..

Homosexual, monosexual and polysexual marriage-equality TODAY!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

"I can't wait for singles to marry themselves now that the complimentary gendered parent as role model has been discarded to the winds."


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sorry your life has turned out as it has.

But, Sil, the ultimate responsibility is yours to get better.

This is not the way.


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just don't let them divert you from your points.  That's my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right- follow Silhouette's lead and just make up crap and pretend like its points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey...if we're lucky, Silo will make up yet another version of what Edith Windsor asked the courts to decide. I'm betting this next version will involve monosexuals!
Click to expand...


Well since she has abandoned "the child being denied a blood parent 100% of time" hogwash, so my guess is some poppycock about complimentary gender roles.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Well since she has *abandoned "the child being denied a blood parent 100% of time"* hogwash, so my guess is some poppycock about complimentary gender roles.


 
That argument has not been abandoned.

Gay marraige, like single parent households, guarantee the children are missing one blood parent AND the complimentary gender as vital role model 100% of the time.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked me what I thought was bad behavior- *and you said that everything described in the NT and OT as bad behavior* is either believed or isn't- which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> It still comes down to what each of us deems as bad behavior now doesn't it ? So what do you think is bad behavior as is described in the books of the Bible pertaining to this conversation ? Then apply it to our conversation here if you will. Eating certain kinds of food (even though might be considered bad behavior in the old testament) is not the best example to fit with this conversation we are having wouldn't you say ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what you said before:
> 
> _The new testemant and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it._
> 
> According to your own standards- you either believe what whole Old Testament says or you don't.
> 
> I don't consider homosexuality or unmarried sex bad behavior.  I don't believe that celebrating the marriage of two people who are in love and want to commit to themselves for the rest of their lives is bad behavior.  I do consider adultery by married people to be bad behavior because that is breaking promises to each other.
> 
> You appear to want to pick and choose which 'bad behavior' from the Bible you want to deem 'bad'- and ignore the others.
Click to expand...

No I don't, but you want to interpret me as believing this way... What am I going to do with you..LOL


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well since she has *abandoned "the child being denied a blood parent 100% of time"* hogwash, so my guess is some poppycock about complimentary gender roles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That argument has not been abandoned.
> 
> Gay marraige, like single parent households, guarantee the children are missing one blood parent AND the complimentary gender as vital role model 100% of the time.
Click to expand...

The 'argument' should be abandoned, as it's devoid of merit.

Children thrive in homes where they are loved and cared for – that includes homes with same-sex parents and single parents.


----------



## Silhouette

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The 'argument' should be abandoned, as it's devoid of merit.
> 
> Children thrive in homes where they are loved and cared for – that includes homes with same-sex parents and single parents.


 
Yes, but how much better they would thrive if single parents (monosexuals) and the more numerous polysexual parents had the same access for those kids that are in the same "immediate legal harm' as kids in homosexual households?

You can't make the argument that other sexual lifestyles are devoid of a newly-won right that is "other than" man/woman..  There is nothing exceptional or special about homosexual marriage that places it above mono or polysexual marriages, or incest marriage either.  And if there is, do let us know.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> Will Sil remain on the Board after SCOTUS rules for marriage equality?
> 
> Or Where R My Keys?
> 
> Hope they do.  *Fun to kick around*.



You get *pleasure* in that sort of thing eh ? I think it *pains* them to do what they do here, but it is undoubtedly that they feel that they have a strong need to do what they do, and I guess it is that you have a strong need to counter them. Such is the history of this nation by all parties involved...


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will Sil remain on the Board after SCOTUS rules for marriage equality?
> 
> Or Where R My Keys?
> 
> Hope they do.  *Fun to kick around*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get *pleasure* in that sort of thing eh ? I think it *pains* them to do what they do here, but it is undoubtedly that they feel that they have a strong need to do what they do, and I guess it is that you have a strong need to counter them. Such is the history of this nation by all parties involved...
Click to expand...


beagle, I hit harder than I am hit as you have found out for some time.  Be polite, and you will get it in return.

You folks are wrong, period.  Marriage equality threatens no one, female vote threatens no one, minority voting threatens no one.

But the far social con right threatens all of American freedoms.  And I will fight that to the utmost.  I don't want heretics running this country.


----------



## MaryL

Isn't accepting homosexuality all about NOT FORCING people to kowtow to other groups? Seems a tad bit...hypocritical. But what do I know? I always thought homosexuals were a bunch of prissy perverts with a persecution complex. And they dress well and can hire all those great lawyers, so that evens things out.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The social con far right wants the rest of America to bow.

Not going to happen.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well since she has *abandoned "the child being denied a blood parent 100% of time"* hogwash, so my guess is some poppycock about complimentary gender roles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That argument has not been abandoned.
> 
> Gay marraige, like single parent households, guarantee the children are missing one blood parent AND the complimentary gender as vital role model 100% of the time.
Click to expand...

So what? That isn't exactly a compelling enough argument to deny gays access to marriage. Besides, what about gay couples that do not have or want kids? And let's be honest,  kids are nothing more then pawns in your anti-gay game of chess.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will Sil remain on the Board after SCOTUS rules for marriage equality?
> 
> Or Where R My Keys?
> 
> Hope they do.  *Fun to kick around*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get *pleasure* in that sort of thing eh ? I think it *pains* them to do what they do here, but it is undoubtedly that they feel that they have a strong need to do what they do, and I guess it is that you have a strong need to counter them. Such is the history of this nation by all parties involved...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> beagle, I hit harder than I am hit as you have found out for some time.  Be polite, and you will get it in return.
> 
> You folks are wrong, period.  Marriage equality threatens no one, female vote threatens no one, minority voting threatens no one.
> 
> But the far social con right threatens all of American freedoms.  And I will fight that to the utmost.  I don't want heretics running this country.
Click to expand...

If you all couldn't mix this issue in with other issues to somehow give it strength, then I don't think that you all think that the issue could actually stand on it's own merits without mixing it in with others. Now I ask, is this why we are always seeing the race card being thrown down or as is with you now (the women vote card being thrown), and/or etc. ? What card are you all a gonna throw down next I wonder ? LOL


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will Sil remain on the Board after SCOTUS rules for marriage equality?
> 
> Or Where R My Keys?
> 
> Hope they do.  *Fun to kick around*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get *pleasure* in that sort of thing eh ? I think it *pains* them to do what they do here, but it is undoubtedly that they feel that they have a strong need to do what they do, and I guess it is that you have a strong need to counter them. Such is the history of this nation by all parties involved...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> beagle, *I hit harder than I am hit as you have found out for some time.  Be polite, and you will get it in return.*
Click to expand...

 Were you drunk when you wrote this ? LOL


----------



## JakeStarkey

It's the truth, beagle.  The far right acts nasty, they get slammed down, and they always, always cry.  Your drinking does not excuse that.

Be nice.  Try it.  Won't hurt, I promise you.


----------



## Syriusly

Aren't we all looking forward to seeing Silhouette leading the campaign for the right of a person to marry themselves?

So that when he dies he can inherit his own estate!

And visit himself in the hospital!

And file a joint return with himself!

Hmmm wouldn't marrying yourself be an particularly odd version of homosexuality? Not just attracted to your own gender- but exclusively to yourself?


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> Will Sil remain on the Board after SCOTUS rules for marriage equality?
> 
> Or Where R My Keys?
> 
> Hope they do.  Fun to kick around.



Of course they will. But from silo, expect plenty of blather involving the words 'sedition', 'treason', 'coup', 'revolution' and 'traitor'.....if they don't rule exactly how Silo demands. Followed by another gloriously batshit conspiracy about how the courts *really* meant the exact opposite of what they ruled. 

Some folks just don't know how to reason.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well since she has *abandoned "the child being denied a blood parent 100% of time"* hogwash, so my guess is some poppycock about complimentary gender roles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That argument has not been abandoned.
> 
> Gay marraige, like single parent households, guarantee the children are missing one blood parent AND the complimentary gender as vital role model 100% of the time.
Click to expand...


Gay marriage does no such thing. Gay parents are having kids anyway. If they're married, if they're not married. Eliminating 'marriage' as the cause of your supposed 'effect'.

The only question remaining is, are those children better off if their parents are married, or not. And the courts have ruled that the children of same sex parents were harmed by the lack of recognition of the marriage of their parents.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked me what I thought was bad behavior- *and you said that everything described in the NT and OT as bad behavior* is either believed or isn't- which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> It still comes down to what each of us deems as bad behavior now doesn't it ? So what do you think is bad behavior as is described in the books of the Bible pertaining to this conversation ? Then apply it to our conversation here if you will. Eating certain kinds of food (even though might be considered bad behavior in the old testament) is not the best example to fit with this conversation we are having wouldn't you say ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what you said before:
> 
> _The new testemant and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it._
> 
> According to your own standards- you either believe what whole Old Testament says or you don't.
> 
> I don't consider homosexuality or unmarried sex bad behavior.  I don't believe that celebrating the marriage of two people who are in love and want to commit to themselves for the rest of their lives is bad behavior.  I do consider adultery by married people to be bad behavior because that is breaking promises to each other.
> 
> You appear to want to pick and choose which 'bad behavior' from the Bible you want to deem 'bad'- and ignore the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I don't, but you want to interpret me as believing this way... What am I going to do with you..LOL
Click to expand...


So when you said that the whole book is either believed or it isn't....you didn't mean to be interpreted as meaning that the whole book is either believed or it isn't?

Laughing.....it seems you don't take your claims much more seriously than we do.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Aren't we all looking forward to seeing Silhouette leading the campaign for the right of a person to marry themselves?  So that when he dies he can inherit his own estate!  And visit himself in the hospital!  And file a joint return with himself!  Hmmm wouldn't marrying yourself be an particularly odd version of homosexuality? Not just attracted to your own gender- but exclusively to yourself?


Syriusly, aren't you the one who constantly keeps quoting Justice Kennedy's words that children currently being deprived of the benefits of marriage are in "immediate legal harm"?  You would discard those tens of millions in single parent households?  Why do you hate those kids?

Who are you to scoff at, judge and mock monosexual lifestlyes?  Do they not also have children?  Do they not also have rights?  And polysexuals?  Why is it love cannot be married just because your argument of convenience (and bigotry towards your sexual cousins) says "polygamy is too complicated"...

..Really?  With today's swarms of lawyers?  I think they could figure out a pre-nup for polygamists...

If you're going to gut the current state-granted privelege of marriage and turn it into a "lifestyle right" for all Americans, you cannot presume your sexual lifestyle is superior to others.  In fact, a polysexual lifestyle offers up both genders to the children as role models at the very least, although diluted.  So that way it is superior to homosexual marriage.  We must argue first that the most beneficial lifestyle to kids in the "alternative" form to man/woman should go first, then homosexual, then monosexual, in the order of predictable deprivation to the wellbeing of kids.

One thing's for sure, with such a radical change to marriage to the detriment of childrens' formative environment, the state its happening in had better damn well retain the say of deliberation of its citizens instead of having it forced down their throats without the governed consent.  Guess who is going to have to pick up the tab for indigency, elevated crime, prison rolls and mental institutions for the statistical product of homes that deprive children of vital role models?

That's right, it's the citizens of each state..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly, aren't you the one who constantly keeps quoting Justice Kennedy's words that children currently being deprived of the benefits of marriage are in "immediate legal harm"?  You would discard those tens of millions in single parent households?  Why do you hate those kids?



So when Kennedy was speaking of the harm caused by to children of same sex parents when same sex marriage isn't recognized.....what he ACTUALLY meant was that children are harmed when their parents aren't allowed to marry....

.....themselves?

Is there some sort of mercy rule in USMB debate? Because I'm starting to feel like a grown man kicking a puppy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Indeed, the puppy has been stomped.

Sil continual to argue backwardly reveals clearly a disintegrating awareness of reality around him.

Now that Sil understands that churches will not be required to marry homosexuals, let's go ahead and close the thread.  It has never served a practical or useful purpose.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't we all looking forward to seeing Silhouette leading the campaign for the right of a person to marry themselves?  So that when he dies he can inherit his own estate!  And visit himself in the hospital!  And file a joint return with himself!  Hmmm wouldn't marrying yourself be an particularly odd version of homosexuality? Not just attracted to your own gender- but exclusively to yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly, aren't you the one who constantly keeps quoting Justice Kennedy's words that children currently being deprived of the benefits of marriage are in "immediate legal harm"?  You would discard those tens of millions in single parent households?  Why do you hate those kids?..
Click to expand...


Like I said- we are all looking forward to your campaign for your right to marry yourself.

Unlike you- I am not arguing against the parents of any kids. 

Unlike you- i am not arguing to deprive the children of gay parents the benefits of marriage.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked me what I thought was bad behavior- *and you said that everything described in the NT and OT as bad behavior* is either believed or isn't- which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> It still comes down to what each of us deems as bad behavior now doesn't it ? So what do you think is bad behavior as is described in the books of the Bible pertaining to this conversation ? Then apply it to our conversation here if you will. Eating certain kinds of food (even though might be considered bad behavior in the old testament) is not the best example to fit with this conversation we are having wouldn't you say ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what you said before:
> 
> _The new testemant and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it._
> 
> According to your own standards- you either believe what whole Old Testament says or you don't.
> 
> I don't consider homosexuality or unmarried sex bad behavior.  I don't believe that celebrating the marriage of two people who are in love and want to commit to themselves for the rest of their lives is bad behavior.  I do consider adultery by married people to be bad behavior because that is breaking promises to each other.
> 
> You appear to want to pick and choose which 'bad behavior' from the Bible you want to deem 'bad'- and ignore the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I don't, but you want to interpret me as believing this way... What am I going to do with you..LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when you said that the whole book is either believed or it isn't....you didn't mean to be interpreted as meaning that the whole book is either believed or it isn't?
> 
> Laughing.....it seems you don't take your claims much more seriously than we do.
Click to expand...

You know exactly what people say and what people mean when they speak, but you think that your job here is to confuse others about what is being said in here, and then you think that your job is to stir up and then to counter things within a conversation that is active or to confuse those things that exist within your mind in which goes beyond what the conversation is. There are many conversational attachments but still they are on point, and sometimes the changing context when people speak about the bigger picture on these things makes all the sense in the world, but you must shoot it down while in your protect at all cost mode you seem to stay in.  

So what is it that you are protecting or trying to protect when doing these things in which you do ? What's in it for you that you are in protect mode over such things that includes you having to try and confuse the masses somehow by re-arranging someone's thoughts written into their words, and into their writings on such things ?  Most here who can think for themselves see right through your charade, so I do hope you know this. I think you do, but that won't stop you because your ego is far to big to get into a conversation that has points on all sides when people are speaking about certain things, and to be open minded in all directions as the conversation goes forward.  It would show character if you would agree with some points being made sometimes, and this because no one is always wrong in life, but this is what tells us who you are when you won't agree at all to some points that are being made about these things, and I do hope you know this..


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Indeed, the puppy has been stomped.
> 
> Sil continual to argue backwardly reveals clearly a disintegrating awareness of reality around him.
> 
> Now that Sil understands that churches will not be required to marry homosexuals, let's go ahead and close the thread.  It has never served a practical or useful purpose.


 
You think that people watching the lawsuits against christian bakers, photographers, florists and caterers are suddenly going to fantasize that this legal-steamroller known as the LGBT cult Agenda is suddenly going to put on the brakes when it comes to the congregation of the faithful if they morph "marriage" from its current status as a state-defined privelege into a federally-mandated right?

You been smokin' a crackpipe Brah..?

Nobody is that stupid.

And hence the reason the poll sits as it does at the top with 82% of voters on the largest most popular topic ever at USMB saying to gay marriage "this far and no farther" or just flat out "NO"...

Yeah, I bet you want this thread closed.  Don't want the Justices taking a peek at those numbers at the top, do you?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't we all looking forward to seeing Silhouette leading the campaign for the right of a person to marry themselves?  So that when he dies he can inherit his own estate!  And visit himself in the hospital!  And file a joint return with himself!  Hmmm wouldn't marrying yourself be an particularly odd version of homosexuality? Not just attracted to your own gender- but exclusively to yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly, aren't you the one who constantly keeps quoting Justice Kennedy's words that children currently being deprived of the benefits of marriage are in "immediate legal harm"?  You would discard those tens of millions in single parent households?  Why do you hate those kids?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said- we are all looking forward to your campaign for your right to marry yourself.
> 
> Unlike you- I am not arguing against the parents of any kids.
> 
> Unlike you- i am not arguing to deprive the children of gay parents the benefits of marriage.
Click to expand...

Like the Bible says, teach these little ones to sin, and it best that a person place a talent around their neck, and to SINK themselves to the bottom of the sea. It's going to be that bad for them come the judgement, so if they want to make their bed on that bed of nails then so be it.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> You know exactly what people say and what people mean when they speak, but you think that your job here is to confuse others about what is being said in here, and then you think that your job is to stir up and then to counter things within a conversation that is active or to confuse those things that exist within your mind in which goes beyond what the conversation is.



Then when you said 'the new testament and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it'
you meant that either the whole book is believed or it isn't.

That was easy.



> So what is it that you are protecting or trying to protect when doing these things in which you do ?



What things are you referring to? Are you misinterpreting me again?



> What's in it for you that you are in protect mode over such things that includes you having to try and confuse the masses somehow by re-arranging someone's thoughts written into their words, and into their writings on such things ?



What 'such things' are you referring to? And just because you're confused doesn't mean the masses are.



> Most here who can think for themselves see right through your charade, so I do hope you know this. I think you do, but that won't stop you because your ego is far to big to get into a conversation that has points on all sides when people are speaking about certain things, and to be open minded in all directions as the conversation goes forward.  It would show character if you would agree with some points being made sometimes, and this because no one is always wrong in life, but this is what tells us who you are when you won't agree at all to some points that are being made about these things, and I do hope you know this..



And when have I said you're always wrong in life? Perhaps you're misinterpreting.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the puppy has been stomped.
> 
> Sil continual to argue backwardly reveals clearly a disintegrating awareness of reality around him.
> 
> Now that Sil understands that churches will not be required to marry homosexuals, let's go ahead and close the thread.  It has never served a practical or useful purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that people watching the lawsuits against christian bakers, photographers, florists and caterers are suddenly going to fantasize that this legal-steamroller known as the LGBT cult Agenda is suddenly going to put on the brakes when it comes to the congregation of the faithful if they morph "marriage" from its current status as a state-defined privelege into a federally-mandated right?
Click to expand...


Save of course that marriage is already a right. And you're just straight up clueless.



> Nobody is that stupid.



0 + 0 - 0 = 0.

No church is required to perform a gay wedding. Nor ever has been.



> And hence the reason the poll sits as it does at the top with 82% of voters on the largest most popular topic ever at USMB saying to gay marriage "this far and no farther" or just flat out "NO"...
> 
> Yeah, I bet you want this thread closed.  Don't want the Justices taking a peek at those numbers at the top, do you?



I'd bet you know you've lost the gay marriage debate. And so you're doubling down on personal fantasy as a coping mechanism.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't we all looking forward to seeing Silhouette leading the campaign for the right of a person to marry themselves?  So that when he dies he can inherit his own estate!  And visit himself in the hospital!  And file a joint return with himself!  Hmmm wouldn't marrying yourself be an particularly odd version of homosexuality? Not just attracted to your own gender- but exclusively to yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly, aren't you the one who constantly keeps quoting Justice Kennedy's words that children currently being deprived of the benefits of marriage are in "immediate legal harm"?  You would discard those tens of millions in single parent households?  Why do you hate those kids?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said- we are all looking forward to your campaign for your right to marry yourself.
> 
> Unlike you- I am not arguing against the parents of any kids.
> 
> Unlike you- i am not arguing to deprive the children of gay parents the benefits of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like the Bible says, teach these little ones to sin, and it best that a person place a talent around their neck, and to SINK themselves to the bottom of the sea. It's going to be that bad for them come the judgement, so if they want to make their bed on that bed of nails then so be it.
Click to expand...


And you maintain your personal fantasies of children 'getting it bad' on judgment day. Meanwhile, gays and lesbians will continue to marry, have kids, and go about their lives.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know exactly what people say and what people mean when they speak, but you think that your job here is to confuse others about what is being said in here, and then you think that your job is to stir up and then to counter things within a conversation that is active or to confuse those things that exist within your mind in which goes beyond what the conversation is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then when you said 'the new testament and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it'
> you meant that either the whole book is believed or it isn't.
> 
> That was easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what is it that you are protecting or trying to protect when doing these things in which you do ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What things are you referring to? Are you misinterpreting me again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's in it for you that you are in protect mode over such things that includes you having to try and confuse the masses somehow by re-arranging someone's thoughts written into their words, and into their writings on such things ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What 'such things' are you referring to? And just because you're confused doesn't mean the masses are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most here who can think for themselves see right through your charade, so I do hope you know this. I think you do, but that won't stop you because your ego is far to big to get into a conversation that has points on all sides when people are speaking about certain things, and to be open minded in all directions as the conversation goes forward.  It would show character if you would agree with some points being made sometimes, and this because no one is always wrong in life, but this is what tells us who you are when you won't agree at all to some points that are being made about these things, and I do hope you know this..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when have I said you're always wrong in life? Perhaps you're misinterpreting.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]
I'll do this one for you, and that's it.... The whole book is of course to be believed, and just because things changed within the book, and throughout the generations, does not make the point that was being made wrong now does it ?  You tried to take something of old (cherry picked it), and then you tried to apply it to this conversation in an attempt to make someone look silly with it or to confuse others with it, but you fail because people aren't that dumb or simple as you think that they are.  It's an old trick that is played over and over again by the ones who work for the evil one in these ways, and this is why it fails today for you, so get with the program or speak when you know better how to conduct yourself in a far more better and truthful way. I mean you might be more believable then, but for now your just exposed.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't we all looking forward to seeing Silhouette leading the campaign for the right of a person to marry themselves?  So that when he dies he can inherit his own estate!  And visit himself in the hospital!  And file a joint return with himself!  Hmmm wouldn't marrying yourself be an particularly odd version of homosexuality? Not just attracted to your own gender- but exclusively to yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly, aren't you the one who constantly keeps quoting Justice Kennedy's words that children currently being deprived of the benefits of marriage are in "immediate legal harm"?  You would discard those tens of millions in single parent households?  Why do you hate those kids?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said- we are all looking forward to your campaign for your right to marry yourself.
> 
> Unlike you- I am not arguing against the parents of any kids.
> 
> Unlike you- i am not arguing to deprive the children of gay parents the benefits of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like the Bible says, teach these little ones to sin, and it best that a person place a talent around their neck, and to SINK themselves to the bottom of the sea. It's going to be that bad for them come the judgement, so if they want to make their bed on that bed of nails then so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you maintain your personal fantasies of children 'getting it bad' on judgment day. Meanwhile, gays and lesbians will continue to marry, have kids, and go about their lives.
Click to expand...

Now see there you go again..I mean you just can't help yourself can you ?.. I said that adults who teach children to sin will get it bad on judgement day, and not the children for they were innocent when bad things become a normal thing to come into their lives, and this because bad adults made it that away for them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle and Sil continue to flail as the thread's fail becomes ever more apparent.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle and Sil continue to flail as the thread's fail becomes ever more apparent.


 I'd hardly call 82% a "fail"...the poll above and the 50,000 views on this most popular thread in USMB's history are anything but a "fail"...

Do you think your spin on the truth has that potent of an effect? 

(Translation: PLEASE! Moderators _please make this thread go away_ right now especially!!)


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> beagle and Sil continue to flail as the thread's fail becomes ever more apparent.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd hardly call 82% a "fail"...the poll above and the 50,000 views on this most popular thread in USMB's history are anything but a "fail"...
> 
> Do you think your spin on the truth has that potent of an effect?
> 
> (Translation: PLEASE! Moderators _please make this thread go away_ right now especially!!)
Click to expand...


I cannot begin to wrap my head around this. How is it that you see a poll affirming that the vast majority of the USMB is AGAINST churches being forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual partners, and come away with the idea that it shows churches WILL be forced to do that very thing?


----------



## Silhouette

Paperman299 said:


> I cannot begin to wrap my head around this. *How is it that you see a poll* affirming that the vast majority of the USMB is AGAINST churches being forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual partners, *and come away with the idea that it shows churches WILL be forced to do that very thing?*


I don't.  I can extrapolate that conclusion from the many lawsuits already done or in progress against christian bakers, photographers etc.  A "church" is merely a congregation of christians.  It is no more special or different from an individual christian.  Just the numbers of them together in one place.

The importance of the poll at the top is related in that it shows how many people are afraid that churches will be next in that legal steamroller's path.

Sure you can begin to wrap your head around those simple and patently obvious concepts.  You're just saying you cannot in order to entice other readers here to say to themselves "maybe this obvious logic isn't what it is".  You're intending to introduce obfuscation of the simple and visible and turn it into something "one should doubt in their own mind".

Y'all's bag of tricks is deep and wide.  I'll give you that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Extrapolate" to Sil simply means he can make moonbeams out of honey.

Those visits to the thread is 98% laughter at him and his position.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked me what I thought was bad behavior- *and you said that everything described in the NT and OT as bad behavior* is either believed or isn't- which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> It still comes down to what each of us deems as bad behavior now doesn't it ? So what do you think is bad behavior as is described in the books of the Bible pertaining to this conversation ? Then apply it to our conversation here if you will. Eating certain kinds of food (even though might be considered bad behavior in the old testament) is not the best example to fit with this conversation we are having wouldn't you say ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what you said before:
> 
> _The new testemant and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it._
> 
> According to your own standards- you either believe what whole Old Testament says or you don't.
> 
> I don't consider homosexuality or unmarried sex bad behavior.  I don't believe that celebrating the marriage of two people who are in love and want to commit to themselves for the rest of their lives is bad behavior.  I do consider adultery by married people to be bad behavior because that is breaking promises to each other.
> 
> You appear to want to pick and choose which 'bad behavior' from the Bible you want to deem 'bad'- and ignore the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I don't, but you want to interpret me as believing this way... What am I going to do with you..LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when you said that the whole book is either believed or it isn't....you didn't mean to be interpreted as meaning that the whole book is either believed or it isn't?
> 
> Laughing.....it seems you don't take your claims much more seriously than we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know exactly what people say and what people mean when they speak..
Click to expand...


Beagle- you do not speak concisely, or directly- we are just trying to figure out what you are saying. 

You seemed to have posted that either the entire Bible is to be believed or it isn't- and since you seem to claim you believe in the Bible it would seem that you should be believing in the entire book.

And especially when you delve into the Old Testament, there are many, many 'bad behaviors' that I bet you don't consider bad behavior- my favorite is women wearing men's clothing. 

I really don't care what you believe- but I would wish you would try to post concisely and with some attempt at brevity.

Tell us specifically what you object to- with 1 or 2 examples- rather than overly broad sweeping statements "Christians are under attack".


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot begin to wrap my head around this. *How is it that you see a poll* affirming that the vast majority of the USMB is AGAINST churches being forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual partners, *and come away with the idea that it shows churches WILL be forced to do that very thing?*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I can extrapolate that conclusion from the many lawsuits already done or in progress against christian bakers, photographers etc.  A "church" is merely a congregation of christians.  It is no more special or different from an individual christian.  .
Click to expand...


A church is tax exempt.
An individual Christian is not.

Really not hard for most rational persons to understand the difference.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> beagle and Sil continue to flail as the thread's fail becomes ever more apparent.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd hardly call 82% a "fail"...the poll above and the 50,000 views on this most popular thread in USMB's history are anything but a "fail"...
Click to expand...


That 82% includes almost every person here who supports gay marriage.

Which is why your 'poll' not only is statistically meaningless, but doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

I believe gay couples should be treated legally the exact same way as my wife and I are.

Which also means that I don't believe that any  church should or could be forced to marry them- no more than my wife and I could force a church to marry us.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't we all looking forward to seeing Silhouette leading the campaign for the right of a person to marry themselves?  So that when he dies he can inherit his own estate!  And visit himself in the hospital!  And file a joint return with himself!  Hmmm wouldn't marrying yourself be an particularly odd version of homosexuality? Not just attracted to your own gender- but exclusively to yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly, aren't you the one who constantly keeps quoting Justice Kennedy's words that children currently being deprived of the benefits of marriage are in "immediate legal harm"?  You would discard those tens of millions in single parent households?  Why do you hate those kids?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said- we are all looking forward to your campaign for your right to marry yourself.
> 
> Unlike you- I am not arguing against the parents of any kids.
> 
> Unlike you- i am not arguing to deprive the children of gay parents the benefits of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like the Bible says, teach these little ones to sin, and it best that a person place a talent around their neck, and to SINK themselves to the bottom of the sea. It's going to be that bad for them come the judgement, so if they want to make their bed on that bed of nails then so be it.
Click to expand...


Lets talk about that one a little bit- shall we?

A Gay couple has children- but is not married. The 'sin' those children would be learning, I think you would say, is that homosexuality is okay, but those children would also be learning about 'adultery' in the same way(sex outside of marriage)

A Gay couple has children- and then gets married- the children would then be observing only the 'sin' of homosexuality- but no longer adultery. 

The only difference between the two is that in the second instance the children now have married parents. Why specifically are you opposed to that?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the puppy has been stomped.
> 
> Sil continual to argue backwardly reveals clearly a disintegrating awareness of reality around him.
> 
> Now that Sil understands that churches will not be required to marry homosexuals, let's go ahead and close the thread.  It has never served a practical or useful purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that people watching the lawsuits against christian bakers, photographers, florists and caterers
Click to expand...


Those are all lawsuits based upon public accomodation laws.

Churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.

Any lawsuits against a church would therefore be dismissed at the first hearing. 

But yes- there would be idiots who would attempt such a lawsuit. Any idiot can file a lawsuit, just like any idiot can claim that it is still illegal for gay couples to marry in California.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot begin to wrap my head around this. *How is it that you see a poll* affirming that the vast majority of the USMB is AGAINST churches being forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual partners, *and come away with the idea that it shows churches WILL be forced to do that very thing?*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I can extrapolate that conclusion from the many lawsuits already done or in progress against christian bakers, photographers etc.  A "church" is merely a congregation of christians.  It is no more special or different from an individual christian.  Just the numbers of them together in one place.
> 
> The importance of the poll at the top is related in that it shows how many people are afraid that churches will be next in that legal steamroller's path.
> 
> Sure you can begin to wrap your head around those simple and patently obvious concepts.  You're just saying you cannot in order to entice other readers here to say to themselves "maybe this obvious logic isn't what it is".  You're intending to introduce obfuscation of the simple and visible and turn it into something "one should doubt in their own mind".
> 
> Y'all's bag of tricks is deep and wide.  I'll give you that.
Click to expand...


...Everything you just said came from your imagination.

A "church" is not merely a congregation of Christians. I understand why this idea appeals to you on a philosophical level, but a real, legal church has tax-exempt status. It is a legally-protected space in which to perform religious worship.

The fact that people jumped in to affirm that they don't want churches forced to perform this kind of ceremony is proof that they're afraid it will happen? But then why are so many gay marriage supporters on here, voting the same and saying they don't want that option? 

And believe it or not, there was no secret agenda in my question. _I do not understand how you are coming to these conclusions_. And when someone asks you a question about your logic and you respond that your logic is so self-evident that they must be out to get you, that makes you seem crazy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Paperman299 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> beagle and Sil continue to flail as the thread's fail becomes ever more apparent.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd hardly call 82% a "fail"...the poll above and the 50,000 views on this most popular thread in USMB's history are anything but a "fail"...
> 
> Do you think your spin on the truth has that potent of an effect?
> 
> (Translation: PLEASE! Moderators _please make this thread go away_ right now especially!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot begin to wrap my head around this. How is it that you see a poll affirming that the vast majority of the USMB is AGAINST churches being forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual partners, and come away with the idea that it shows churches WILL be forced to do that very thing?
Click to expand...


Because Sil has been anything but honest. 

He argues that opinions mean the exact opposite of what they mean. 

He denies that the gays here overwhelmingly support the churches' right to choose who they will marry.

He argues his poll is a referendum on gay marriage.

His arguments have been rightfully quirted down, and now he is in the corner snarling along with his rabid pack.

He is losing and is crying, crying, crying.

Hetero-fascists: listen up.  You brought this on yourself, and the future's generations are going to hold you up as a laughing stock, just like that of the KKK and the White Citizens Councils.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> I don't.  I can extrapolate that conclusion from the many lawsuits already done or in progress against christian bakers, photographers etc.  A "church" is merely a congregation of christians.  It is no more special or different from an individual christian.  Just the numbers of them together in one place.



Save that a church doesn't pay taxes, isn't a business and* isn't subject to Public Accommodation laws. *

As usual, Silo.....you're clueless. You don't now what you're talking about. And your 'extrapolations' are based on a series of nested assumptions, none of which are true.



> The importance of the poll at the top is related in that it shows how many people are afraid that churches will be next in that legal steamroller's path.



Um, the poll doesn't demonstrate fear, nor does it ask about fear. It demonstrates opinion, as it asked us what we think should happen. I have zero fear that churches will be forced to accommodate gay weddings. I don't think they should. 

And you imagine the poll to mean whatever is convenient to your argument at the moment. When you were arguing that all the dozens of polls showing support for gay marriage were lies and that gay marriage support was collapsing....you cited the exact same USMB poll as your evidence.

Despite the fact that the poll never asks about support for gay marriage. 



> Sure you can begin to wrap your head around those simple and patently obvious concepts.  You're just saying you cannot in order to entice other readers here to say to themselves "maybe this obvious logic isn't what it is".  You're intending to introduce obfuscation of the simple and visible and turn it into something "one should doubt in their own mind".



So its obvious that something that *isn't* a business and *isn't* subject to public accommodation laws* is the same as* a business and* is* subject to public accommodation laws?

I don't think 'obvious' means what you think it means. I think rather than 'obvious', the words 'batshit crazy' would apply more aptly.


----------



## Skylar

Paperman299 said:


> ...Everything you just said came from your imagination.



And that, right there, is a perfect one sentence summary of all of Silo's arguments on the matter.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> I'll do this one for you, and that's it.... The whole book is of course to be believed, and just because things changed within the book, and throughout the generations, does not make the point that was being made wrong now does it ?



So when you said 'the new testament and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it'
you meant that either the whole book is believed or it isn't?



> You tried to take something of old (cherry picked it), and then you tried to apply it to this conversation in an attempt to make someone look silly with it or to confuse others with it, but you fail because people aren't that dumb or simple as you think that they are.  It's an old trick that is played over and over again by the ones who work for the evil one in these ways, and this is why it fails today for you, so get with the program or speak when you know better how to conduct yourself in a far more better and truthful way. I mean you might be more believable then, but for now your just exposed.



Oh my, a direct and accurate quote.  How devious of me.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't we all looking forward to seeing Silhouette leading the campaign for the right of a person to marry themselves?  So that when he dies he can inherit his own estate!  And visit himself in the hospital!  And file a joint return with himself!  Hmmm wouldn't marrying yourself be an particularly odd version of homosexuality? Not just attracted to your own gender- but exclusively to yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly, aren't you the one who constantly keeps quoting Justice Kennedy's words that children currently being deprived of the benefits of marriage are in "immediate legal harm"?  You would discard those tens of millions in single parent households?  Why do you hate those kids?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said- we are all looking forward to your campaign for your right to marry yourself.
> 
> Unlike you- I am not arguing against the parents of any kids.
> 
> Unlike you- i am not arguing to deprive the children of gay parents the benefits of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like the Bible says, teach these little ones to sin, and it best that a person place a talent around their neck, and to SINK themselves to the bottom of the sea. It's going to be that bad for them come the judgement, so if they want to make their bed on that bed of nails then so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you maintain your personal fantasies of children 'getting it bad' on judgment day. Meanwhile, gays and lesbians will continue to marry, have kids, and go about their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now see there you go again..I mean you just can't help yourself can you ?.. I said that adults who teach children to sin will get it bad on judgement day, and not the children for they were innocent when bad things become a normal thing to come into their lives, and this because bad adults made it that away for them.
Click to expand...


So when you said 'them' in Its going to be bad for them come the judgement', you weren't referring to children? Or you weren't referring to judgment day when you referred to 'the judgment'?

See, Beagle....my quotes are accurate. Its your story that changes as you desperately backpedal. Keep running.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll do this one for you, and that's it.... The whole book is of course to be believed, and just because things changed within the book, and throughout the generations, does not make the point that was being made wrong now does it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when you said 'the new testament and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it'
> you meant that either the whole book is believed or it isn't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tried to take something of old (cherry picked it), and then you tried to apply it to this conversation in an attempt to make someone look silly with it or to confuse others with it, but you fail because people aren't that dumb or simple as you think that they are.  It's an old trick that is played over and over again by the ones who work for the evil one in these ways, and this is why it fails today for you, so get with the program or speak when you know better how to conduct yourself in a far more better and truthful way. I mean you might be more believable then, but for now your just exposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my, a direct and accurate quote.  How devious of me.
Click to expand...


Beagle means that you should believe all of it the way he does, but he is unable to explain it, so just trust him, I guess.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Those are all lawsuits based upon public accomodation laws. Churches are exempt from public accomodation laws. Any lawsuits against a church would therefore be dismissed at the first hearing.  But yes- there would be idiots who would attempt such a lawsuit. Any idiot can file a lawsuit, just like any idiot can claim that it is still illegal for gay couples to marry in California.


 
But isn't a church simply a congregation of christians?  How is it more or less than that?  And if christians have been successfully forced to promote gay-lifestyle "marriages" in violation of their core faith values, how is it again that this would legally protect a congregation of them?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all lawsuits based upon public accomodation laws. Churches are exempt from public accomodation laws. Any lawsuits against a church would therefore be dismissed at the first hearing.  But yes- there would be idiots who would attempt such a lawsuit. Any idiot can file a lawsuit, just like any idiot can claim that it is still illegal for gay couples to marry in California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't a church simply a congregation of christians?  How is it more or less than that?  And if christians have been successfully forced to promote gay-lifestyle "marriages" in violation of their core faith values, how is it again that this would legally protect a congregation of them?
Click to expand...


----------



## beagle9

Paperman299 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> beagle and Sil continue to flail as the thread's fail becomes ever more apparent.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd hardly call 82% a "fail"...the poll above and the 50,000 views on this most popular thread in USMB's history are anything but a "fail"...
> 
> Do you think your spin on the truth has that potent of an effect?
> 
> (Translation: PLEASE! Moderators _please make this thread go away_ right now especially!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot begin to wrap my head around this. How is it that you see a poll affirming that the vast majority of the USMB is AGAINST churches being forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual partners, and come away with the idea that it shows churches WILL be forced to do that very thing?
Click to expand...

The reason is the evidence that has been found in the recent and/or not so recent attacks on Christians, and this being coupled with the judges now siding with the homosexuals on marriage, in which is a new thing for the gay's and lesbians. Some in society may feel or do feel that it is just the tip of the iceberg on what is yet to come in it all, and they wonder if the two can exist together without going after one another's beliefs in life, and this because a judge or judges have decided to go along with a new idea that gay's and lesbians should be married just like heteros have been married in the past. I guess the 82% that Sil is talking about, is that she looks at it like 82% would not go along with the gay's and lesbians taking it any further than it is going right now (i.e. to force a church to marry them against the churches will).


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't we all looking forward to seeing Silhouette leading the campaign for the right of a person to marry themselves?  So that when he dies he can inherit his own estate!  And visit himself in the hospital!  And file a joint return with himself!  Hmmm wouldn't marrying yourself be an particularly odd version of homosexuality? Not just attracted to your own gender- but exclusively to yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly, aren't you the one who constantly keeps quoting Justice Kennedy's words that children currently being deprived of the benefits of marriage are in "immediate legal harm"?  You would discard those tens of millions in single parent households?  Why do you hate those kids?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said- we are all looking forward to your campaign for your right to marry yourself.
> 
> Unlike you- I am not arguing against the parents of any kids.
> 
> Unlike you- i am not arguing to deprive the children of gay parents the benefits of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like the Bible says, teach these little ones to sin, and it best that a person place a talent around their neck, and to SINK themselves to the bottom of the sea. It's going to be that bad for them come the judgement, so if they want to make their bed on that bed of nails then so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets talk about that one a little bit- shall we?
> 
> A Gay couple has children- but is not married. The 'sin' those children would be learning, I think you would say, is that homosexuality is okay, but those children would also be learning about 'adultery' in the same way(sex outside of marriage)
> 
> A Gay couple has children- and then gets married- the children would then be observing only the 'sin' of homosexuality- but no longer adultery.
> 
> The only difference between the two is that in the second instance the children now have married parents. Why specifically are you opposed to that?
Click to expand...

Sin is sin no matter what goes on in it all, and it is that we should try our best to avoid it as best we can, and to do what the Lord wants for us to do in life as best we can. We must try and do at the best of our abilities to not sin if we can help it, and definitely we are not to teach our children to sin... We are not perfect at all ourselves in life, but to teach the children to sin as we would (IMHO) is a huge mistake that will seal the deal quickly for us if we do this thing knowingly I really do believe. The main thing for believers in Christianity like me, is to not get caught up in these things in agreement of, and to not partake in such things as if we would agree with such things, nor to support any sin as the Bible requires that we all should try to avoid as best that we can in life.  How all the Christians react to or deal with all of this stuff, and this when it comes knocking at the door and/or passes over, will be interesting to live, see or to observe going forward in life. May the good Lord have mercy upon us all, and to guide us all be it sinners and believers unto his grace and mercy in the days ahead. Amen!


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> beagle and Sil continue to flail as the thread's fail becomes ever more apparent.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd hardly call 82% a "fail"...the poll above and the 50,000 views on this most popular thread in USMB's history are anything but a "fail"...
> 
> Do you think your spin on the truth has that potent of an effect?
> 
> (Translation: PLEASE! Moderators _please make this thread go away_ right now especially!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot begin to wrap my head around this. How is it that you see a poll affirming that the vast majority of the USMB is AGAINST churches being forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual partners, and come away with the idea that it shows churches WILL be forced to do that very thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason is the evidence that has been found in the recent and/or not so recent attacks on Christians, and this being coupled with the judges now siding with the homosexuals on marriage, in which is a new thing for the gay's and lesbians. Some in society may feel or do feel that it is just the tip of the iceberg on what is yet to come in it all, and they wonder if the two can exist together without going after one another's beliefs in life, and this because a judge or judges have decided to go along with a new idea that gay's and lesbians should be married just like heteros have been married in the past. I guess the 82% that Sil is talking about, is that she looks at it like 82% would not go along with the gay's and lesbians taking it any further than it is going right now (i.e. to force a church to marry them against the churches will).
Click to expand...


But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?


----------



## Silhouette

Paperman299 said:


> But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?


 
82% does not necessarily include homomsexuals.  Homosexuals do not comprise 18% of the total population....so that's not a given mathematically.  However, give it a few years and homosexuals may outdo 18% and rise even higher....

My evidence for that?

Here:



> Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
> 
> Most *new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010*. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS


Hey, aren't those the same years the big gay media push/gay marriage push really went into full tilt?.....fads sure catch on with the young..


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 82% does not necessarily include homomsexuals.  Homosexuals do not comprise 18% of the total population....so that's not a given mathematically.  However, give it a few years and homosexuals may outdo 18% and rise even higher....
> 
> My evidence for that?
> 
> Here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
> 
> Most *new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010*. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, aren't those the same years the big gay media push/gay marriage push really went into full tilt?.....fads sure catch on with the young..
Click to expand...

Sil, you've lost, completely.  How long before you stop beating this dead faggot?


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> Sil, you've lost, completely.  How long before you stop beating this dead faggot?


 
I wasn't aware that the Justices of the US Supreme Court had already met, decided on a date to hear the case, heard the case and reversed their Winsor 2013 Findings on states' role in defining marriage as to the question of alternative sexual lifestyle-marriage.  Wow, that was fast.  Do you have a link to the oral arguments and the Final Decision?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, you've lost, completely.  How long before you stop beating this dead faggot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that the Justices of the US Supreme Court had already met, decided on a date to hear the case, heard the case and reversed their Winsor 2013 Findings on states' role in defining marriage as to the question of alternative sexual lifestyle-marriage.  Wow, that was fast.  Do you have a link to the oral arguments and the Final Decision?
Click to expand...

The direction is obvious.  It's legal in most of the US already.  Sorry kiddo, you lost.


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> The direction is obvious.  It's legal in most of the US already.  Sorry kiddo, you lost.


 
Sorry kiddo.  That's not what Windsor 2013 or Sutton's Opinion said..


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your evaluation of Windsor is imaginary, doesn't exist.

The vote now will be 6-3, maybe even 7-2.  None of the judges want to be on the wrong side of an opinion as momentous as _Brown_.

Lie to yourself all you want; the rest of us will just step back and let you flounder.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Your evaluation of Windsor is imaginary, doesn't exist.
> 
> The vote now will be 6-3, maybe even 7-2.  None of the judges want to be on the wrong side of an opinion as momentous as _Brown_.
> 
> Lie to yourself all you want; the rest of us will just step back and let you flounder.


 
If you are so sure the Court will reverse Windsor at 6-3 or 7-2, then I guess the Hearing will be a mere formality?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all lawsuits based upon public accomodation laws. Churches are exempt from public accomodation laws. Any lawsuits against a church would therefore be dismissed at the first hearing.  But yes- there would be idiots who would attempt such a lawsuit. Any idiot can file a lawsuit, just like any idiot can claim that it is still illegal for gay couples to marry in California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't a church simply a congregation of christians?  How is it more or less than that?  And if christians have been successfully forced to promote gay-lifestyle "marriages" in violation of their core faith values, how is it again that this would legally protect a congregation of them?
Click to expand...


Do you think that if you are a Christian you are exempt from taxes?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your evaluation of Windsor is imaginary, doesn't exist.
> 
> The vote now will be 6-3, maybe even 7-2.  None of the judges want to be on the wrong side of an opinion as momentous as _Brown_.
> 
> Lie to yourself all you want; the rest of us will just step back and let you flounder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are so sure the Court will reverse Windsor at 6-3 or 7-2, then I guess the Hearing will be a mere formality?
Click to expand...


The Court is not and will not be considering Windsor at all.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 82% does not necessarily include homomsexuals.  Homosexuals do not comprise 18% of the total population....so that's not a given mathematically.  However, give it a few years and homosexuals may outdo 18% and rise even higher....
> 
> My evidence for that?
> 
> Here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
> 
> Most *new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010*. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, aren't those the same years the big gay media push/gay marriage push really went into full tilt?.....fads sure catch on with the young..
Click to expand...


But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), *then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?*


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> But isn't a church simply a congregation of christians?



Didn't you just say that a church was something lodged in your heart....like a pig valve, or arterial plaque? Then that you yourself were a church?

Your definition changes with virtually every recitation. And you're still stymied by simple, simple math:

0 +0 - 0 = 0

That's the number cases where churches have been forced to accommodate gay weddings this year, *plus *the number of cases where churches have been forced to accommodate gay weddings in this country over the last year *minus* the number of times churches have been forced to accommodate gay marriages since the Windsor ruling *equaling* the number of times that churches have been forced to accommodate gay weddings in this country, ever.

Which is zero on all courts.



> And if christians have been successfully forced to promote gay-lifestyle "marriages" in violation of their core faith values, how is it again that this would legally protect a congregation of them?



Selling a good or service isn't 'promoting' the customer. Its promoting the good or service. So the entire premise of your argument is backward.


----------



## Skylar

Paperman299 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 82% does not necessarily include homomsexuals.  Homosexuals do not comprise 18% of the total population....so that's not a given mathematically.  However, give it a few years and homosexuals may outdo 18% and rise even higher....
> 
> My evidence for that?
> 
> Here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
> 
> Most *new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010*. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, aren't those the same years the big gay media push/gay marriage push really went into full tilt?.....fads sure catch on with the young..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), *then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?*
Click to expand...


But paperman.....overwhelming opposition, without a single board member voicing support for an idea clearly demonstrates that its about to happen. At least in the wasteland of Silo's imagination.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> The reason is the evidence that has been found in the recent and/or not so recent attacks on Christians, and this being coupled with the judges now siding with the homosexuals on marriage, in which is a new thing for the gay's and lesbians.



And how many times have churches been forced to accommodate gay marriages? Can you round the number of incidents off to the nearest thousand please. If that's too difficult, how about to the nearly hundred. The nearly dozen?

*Or...as we both already know, is the number exactly zero?*

Not a single example of churches being forced to accommodate gay weddings in the history of country. But still your ilk are left standing in steaming yellow puddles over their fantasy which has never happened, nor any ruling has supported, regarding laws that don't even apply to churches.

Once again, for the cheap seats and the desperately, willfully ignorant,* PA laws don't apply to churches.* Nor even have. The apply only to public businesses.



> Some in society may feel or do feel that it is just the tip of the iceberg on what is yet to come in it all, and they wonder if the two can exist together without going after one another's beliefs in life, and this because a judge or judges have decided to go along with a new idea that gay's and lesbians should be married just like heteros have been married in the past.



And those some would be basing their conclusions on hysteric emotion, mascara melting fear, and hapless delusion while ignoring the pristine lack of any evidence to support them, nor bridge from the fear stained wasteland of their imagination to the world the rest of us live in.

0 + 0 - 0 = 0, buddy.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> beagle and Sil continue to flail as the thread's fail becomes ever more apparent.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd hardly call 82% a "fail"...the poll above and the 50,000 views on this most popular thread in USMB's history are anything but a "fail"...
> 
> Do you think your spin on the truth has that potent of an effect?
> 
> (Translation: PLEASE! Moderators _please make this thread go away_ right now especially!!)
Click to expand...


Oh please, nobody is trying to get this thread shut down and the poll you so foolishly hang your hat on doesn't even as about gay marriage. You have been reminded on numerous occasions that many of the same people that support gay marriage also support the right of churches to marry or not marry any couple as they see fit. You obtusely ignore every inconvenient poll that states a majority of Americans support gays having access to marriage. Instead you bizarrely cling to this poll, long lines at Chick-fil-A, and Facebook pages "likes" as proof that most Americans _really_ do not support gay marriage. You reek of desperation and it warms the cockles of my heart.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> The Court is not and will not be considering Windsor at all.


 


??????????????????????

The US Surpreme Court in Deciding once and for all its position for removing state-defined privelege for the protection of children to a "federally-mandated free-for-all...formative structure for kids be damned" ....to become a "right" (for ALL alternative lifestyes, remember the Constitution..) will _not_ consult Its Own most recent and comprehensive thoughts on that direct and specific question of law?????????????????????????????????

Damn girl.  Put down that crack pipe!

That goes for you too, Paperman..



Paperman299 said:


> But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), *then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?*


 
All it takes is one person to file a lawsuit.  A church is merely a congregation of individuals of a faith.  Look what has already been set as a precedent to the individual christian...bakers, florist, photographers...


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> The US Surpreme Court in Deciding once and for all its position for removing state-defined privelege for the protection of children to a "federally-mandated free-for-all...formative structure for kids be damned" ....to become a "right" (for ALL alternative lifestyes, remember the Constitution..) will _not_ consult Its Own most recent and comprehensive thoughts on that direct and specific question of law?



Windsor wasn't about the legality of State gay marriage bans. Nor did it decide any issue related to them. Remember, *you grossly misunderstood the question being answered by Edith Windsor for the court to answer.*

Every lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage has done so on the basis that such bans violate constitutional guarantees. The petition for writ of cert distributed for the January 15th conference (_DeBoer v. Snyder, Bourke v. Beshear, Obergefell v. Wymyslo, _and_ Tanco v. Haslam) _are all questions about the violation of constitutional guarentees by gay marriage bans.

And issue that Windsor does not rule on. 

And yet in another stunning display of desperate, willful ignorance, you ignore the constitutional guarantees Windsor insists all state marriage laws are subject to, ignore all the federal rulings that overturn gay marriage on the basis of the violation of those guarantees and ignore every request for cert now distributed to the USSC for their conference.....
*
....despite every single case about gay marriage being considered by the USSC involving violation of constitutional guarantees.*

The willful ignorance is simply stunning. And it won't change a thing. Constitutional guarantees are the fulcrum around which any case regarding gay marriage will be decided by the USSC this year. 



> All it takes is one person to file a lawsuit.  A church is merely a congregation of individuals of a faith.  Look what has already been set as a precedent to the individual christian...bakers, florist, photographers..



None of which are churches. But instead, public businesses. Churches aren't businesses and aren't subject to public accommodation laws. And just like you ignore any mention of 'constitutional guarentees' in the Windsor ruling, you ignore the fact that no PA law applies to any church.

Rendering your prediction more useless fearmongering.


----------



## Silhouette

Paperman299 said:


> But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), *then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?*


 
No, unfortunately, no it isn't.

A majority in all the states currently believing erroneously that they must allow gay-lifestyle marraige against their will enacted laws limiting marriage to one man/one woman.  And still they were legally-forced to accept (not that they have to) that which is repugnant to the majority.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), *then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, unfortunately, no it isn't.
> 
> A majority in all the states currently believing erroneously that they must allow gay-lifestyle marraige against their will enacted laws limiting marriage to one man/one woman.  And still they were legally-forced to accept (not that they have to) that which is repugnant to the majority.
Click to expand...


The poll is still the kind of evidence I stated it was. A percentage of 82% saying "no" is evidence people _won't_ force churches to do something churches don't want to do. 

Your _new_ evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to _religious_ freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?


----------



## Silhouette

Paperman299 said:


> Your _new_ evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to _religious_ freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?


The evidence is that christians have already been legally forced to abdicate their faith in favor of the LGBT lifestyle.

What YOU are dodging around is that churches are nothing but congregations of christians.  All it takes is one plaintiff.  ONE.  The precedent for forcing christians to abdicate their beliefs in favor of deviant lifestyles forbidden to promote by their religion HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Paperman299 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), *then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, unfortunately, no it isn't.
> 
> A majority in all the states currently believing erroneously that they must allow gay-lifestyle marraige against their will enacted laws limiting marriage to one man/one woman.  And still they were legally-forced to accept (not that they have to) that which is repugnant to the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poll is still the kind of evidence I stated it was. A percentage of 82% saying "no" is evidence people _won't_ force churches to do something churches don't want to do.
> 
> Your _new_ evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to _religious_ freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Court is not and will not be considering Windsor at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ??????????????????????
> 
> The US Surpreme Court in Deciding o...
Click to expand...


whether making it illegal for gay couples to marry is constitutional or not.

And that is all they will be deciding.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your _new_ evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to _religious_ freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is that christians have already been legally forced to abdicate their faith in favor of the LGBT lifestyle.
> 
> What YOU are dodging around is that churches are nothing but congregations of christians.  All it takes is one plaintiff.  ONE.  The precedent for forcing christians to abdicate their beliefs in favor of deviant lifestyles forbidden to promote by their religion HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.
Click to expand...


Christians have not been forced to abdicate their faith. In fact, if you are a straight person, then laws pertaining to marriages between same-sex partners don't affect you at all. Christians can believe and worship exactly what they were believing and worshiping before, in the same way they were before, regardless of who other people are marrying. The only caveat is they can't make OTHER people do it.

As to your second statement, I and others have actually tackled this "a church is wherever Christians are" argument multiple times. A church, legally, is a different entity than a business. It is tax-exempt, and it enjoys special protections.

And you still have provided zero evidence that anyone is seeking government intervention in how religious ceremonies are conducted. Your imaginary plaintiff does not exist, and never has. And if someone ever did come forward and try to sue a church over how they conducted their religious ceremonies, they A) would have NO CASE, and B) would enjoy no support from me or anyone else you've been arguing with on this thread.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), *then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, unfortunately, no it isn't.
> 
> A majority in all the states currently believing erroneously that they must allow gay-lifestyle marraige against their will enacted laws limiting marriage to one man/one woman.  And still they were legally-forced to accept (not that they have to) that which is repugnant to the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poll is still the kind of evidence I stated it was. A percentage of 82% saying "no" is evidence people _won't_ force churches to do something churches don't want to do.
> 
> Your _new_ evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to _religious_ freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

Hey little faggot hater, when are you going to realize that your society says that is bullshit, never?


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), *then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, unfortunately, no it isn't.
> 
> A majority in all the states currently believing erroneously that they must allow gay-lifestyle marraige against their will enacted laws limiting marriage to one man/one woman.  And still they were legally-forced to accept (not that they have to) that which is repugnant to the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poll is still the kind of evidence I stated it was. A percentage of 82% saying "no" is evidence people _won't_ force churches to do something churches don't want to do.
> 
> Your _new_ evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to _religious_ freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


And in almost 40 states, it is two men or two women.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

This fight is so fucking over.  Why are they even trying?  Can they just not let go of the anchor?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your _new_ evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to _religious_ freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is that christians have already been legally forced to abdicate their faith in favor of the LGBT lifestyle.
> .
Click to expand...


No- Christians and Jews and Muslims and atheists all have to obey the law.

Churches are not subject to PA laws or taxes.

Individuals are.


----------



## Syriusly

PaintMyHouse said:


> This fight is so fucking over.  Why are they even trying?  Can they just not let go of the anchor?



Silhouette will still be predicting how the Supreme Court will decide, months after the decision is announced.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> All it takes is one person to file a lawsuit.  A church is merely a congregation of individuals of a faith.  Look what has already been set as a precedent to the individual christian...bakers, florist, photographers...



Any idiot can file a lawsuit- but since churches are exempt from PA laws the idiots will of course lose.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Syriusly said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> This fight is so fucking over.  Why are they even trying?  Can they just not let go of the anchor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette will still be predicting how the Supreme Court will decide, months after the decision is announced.
Click to expand...

I fucking believe it.  How long do the little morons have to bang their heads against the brick wall before a tiny little bit of reality sinks in and they realize, Fuck, nobody but a few dicks like me cares about this?  It's like watching dogs chase parked cars.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Any idiot can file a lawsuit- but since churches are exempt from PA laws the idiots will of course lose.


 
You mean religions are exempt from PA laws, don't you?  Are you aware that religion resides in the heart of a man and it is individuals who are protected as to religious freedoms under the 1st?

Nobody cares about this subject Paint?  This is a thread with 55,000 views, 641 pages with the largest poll response ever on one of the most popular political websites on the internet.  That poll result yielded 82% opposed to LGBT values being imposed upon the religious.

But one LGBT plaintiff will be enough to run with the baker/photographer/caterer/florist precedent imposed upon the church (the religion in the heart of one of the congregation).  It will happen and there will be nothing stopping it when the cult of LGBT takes this crusade in the courts to its natural and final end.


----------



## TSJohnson

If they're going to be tax exempt then they at least need to follow government rules. Yes. If a church doesn't want to perform a wedding for a gay couple then they need to have their exemption revoked.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any idiot can file a lawsuit- but since churches are exempt from PA laws the idiots will of course lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean religions are exempt from PA laws, don't you?.
Click to expand...


No I don't.

Look you are an idiot. 

Here is an example of the language from Colorado's PA law

"Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

Not religions- facilities principally used for religious purposes.

COCODE


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any idiot can file a lawsuit- but since churches are exempt from PA laws the idiots will of course lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean religions are exempt from PA laws, don't you?  Are you aware that religion resides in the heart of a man and it is individuals who are protected as to religious freedoms under the 1st?
> 
> Nobody cares about this subject Paint?  This is a thread with 55,000 views, 641 pages with the largest poll response ever on one of the most popular political websites on the internet.  That poll result yielded 82% opposed to LGBT values being imposed upon the religious.
> 
> But one LGBT plaintiff will be enough to run with the baker/photographer/caterer/florist precedent imposed upon the church (the religion in the heart of one of the congregation)..
Click to expand...


You are delusional.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> You mean religions are exempt from PA laws, don't you?  Are you aware that religion resides in the heart of a man and it is individuals who are protected as to religious freedoms under the 1st?


1. Private (churches, no ******* golf club)
2. Private open to the Public (Jack in the Box, Bob's Christian Book Store)
3. Public. (parks, rec centers, government buildings)

Three different locations that follow three different sets of rules.  1 is exempt, 2 and 3 aren't, and neither are the people who work there.  Now you know.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> "Place of *public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes*.
> 
> Not religions- facilities principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> COCODE


One of those places is a man's heart...  For where else does religion and the freedom of it ultimately reside?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

TSJohnson said:


> If they're going to be tax exempt then they at least need to follow government rules. Yes. If a church doesn't want to perform a wedding for a gay couple then they need to have their exemption revoked.


Ain't gonna happen.  If you won't rent your church park to a gay couple but you do to the rest of the public, now your ass is grass.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Place of *public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes*.
> 
> Not religions- facilities principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> COCODE
> 
> 
> 
> One of those places is a man's heart...  For where else does religion and the freedom of it ultimately reside?
Click to expand...

Saying the religion in my heart tells me to shoot ******* and fuck 12-year-olds isn't going to keep me out of jail.  Just because you think God requires you to hate the faggots doesn't mean we have the let you get your way in all situations.


----------



## beagle9

Paperman299 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), *then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, unfortunately, no it isn't.
> 
> A majority in all the states currently believing erroneously that they must allow gay-lifestyle marraige against their will enacted laws limiting marriage to one man/one woman.  And still they were legally-forced to accept (not that they have to) that which is repugnant to the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poll is still the kind of evidence I stated it was. A percentage of 82% saying "no" is evidence people _won't_ force churches to do something churches don't want to do.
> 
> Your _new_ evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to _religious_ freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?
Click to expand...

Heard the other day that in some state there is an army veteran from the Afghan conflict, who wanted a statue of a soldier kneeling down at a cross in a military or city/government run cemetery to now go, and why was this ? It was of course none other than it offended him (poor wittle tang), so next he and some organization sued the city over it for around 2 mil I think... I saw this report on Fox news the other day, so I just had to stop in front of the TV to listen up a sec. and just to hear another piece of Christianity being attacked yet again in this nation.

As Sil says over and over again that the LGBT is an organization/cult/activist group right ? Do you think that any of this stuff will stop just because you and a few others in here say so ? ROTFLMBO.


----------



## beagle9

PaintMyHouse said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Place of *public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes*.
> 
> Not religions- facilities principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> COCODE
> 
> 
> 
> One of those places is a man's heart...  For where else does religion and the freedom of it ultimately reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying the religion in my heart tells me to shoot ******* and fuck 12-year-olds isn't going to keep me out of jail.  Just because you think God requires you to hate the faggots doesn't mean we have to let you get your way in all situations.
Click to expand...

And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on Christians and Christianity, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, should realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as Christians (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good Christians like you all have been doing lately.

You can't have it just one way in life, and you will never have it that way, so deal with it if you can, because Christians aren't backing down from what they live for and what they believe in their life. PERIOD! The Christians should be grandfathered in anyways in this nation by now, and otherwise they should always have their place within this nation in which is respected by others in the nation, and all this new stuff should have to prove itself first, and so far the track record isn't looking so good when one looks at the statistics, and at other things that go on among the groups who want something new to evolve in America.  Disrespecting and attacking others or other groups isn't the way to get it done (IMHO), but it seems that the new groups and their leaderships having a so called cause now, do think that it is the way to get it done, and they are doing it in that way even if it causes backlashes to occur on their agenda, and/or upon their cause when it is implemented in the ways that they do so.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil does not know what is in the heart of man.

A thread of 55000 views with 641 page celebrates 1st amendment for churches AND the marriage equality, which is not what Sil expected.

No LGBT complainant will ever win a case against a church for not marrying LGBT against its will.

That is the natural end of all of this.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle, it is not going to happen your way.


----------



## Conservative65

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...

 
A church should have the right to the "free exercise" of it's beliefs.  Take that how you will.


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil does not know what is in the heart of man.
> 
> A thread of 55000 views with 641 page celebrates 1st amendment for churches AND the marriage equality, which is not what Sil expected.
> 
> No LGBT complainant will ever win a case against a church for not marrying LGBT against its will.
> 
> That is the natural end of all of this.


 
Don't be so sure and don't believe the sexually deviant crowd isn't looking for ways around it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am quite sure about, and rwheathengamer does not understand that in the religious sphere, under our Constitution, the churches will easily withstand any assault trying to make them marry people they don't want to marry.


----------



## mdk

TSJohnson said:


> If they're going to be tax exempt then they at least need to follow government rules. Yes. If a church doesn't want to perform a wedding for a gay couple then they need to have their exemption revoked.



I strongly disagree. I support the church's right to marry or not marry any couple as they see fit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

TSJohnson will have to get an amendment ratified because the courts will not invalidate the 1st's protections for churches.  Most gays will sustain the 1st as well, very loudly.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Place of *public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes*.
> 
> Not religions- facilities principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> COCODE
> 
> 
> 
> One of those places is a man's heart...  For where else does religion and the freedom of it ultimately reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying the religion in my heart tells me to shoot ******* and fuck 12-year-olds isn't going to keep me out of jail.  Just because you think God requires you to hate the faggots doesn't mean we have to let you get your way in all situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on Christians and Christianity, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, should realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as Christians (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good Christians like you all have been doing lately.
Click to expand...


Holding Christians to the same standards we do everyone else isn't 'attacking them'. 



> You can't have it just one way in life, and you will never have it that way, so deal with it if you can, because Christians aren't backing down from what they live for and what they believe in their life. PERIOD! The Christians should be grandfathered in anyways in this nation by now, and otherwise they should always have their place within this nation in which is respected by others in the nation, and all this new stuff should have to prove itself first, and so far the track record isn't looking so good when one looks at the statistics, and at other things that go on among the groups who want something new to evolve in America.



And what do you mean by 'grandfathered in' as it relates to Public Accommodation Laws? I know....specifics, your kryptonite. And its utterly futile to ask you to get specific about anything. But I want to be on record having tried.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A church should have the right to the "free exercise" of it's beliefs.  Take that how you will.
Click to expand...


No one is saying that a church should have to perform weddings it doesn't want to. Only that anyone conducting business with the public should treat its customers fairly and equally. Regardless of their race, creed, religion or sexual orientation.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PA laws excepts religions.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any idiot can file a lawsuit- but since churches are exempt from PA laws the idiots will of course lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean religions are exempt from PA laws, don't you?  Are you aware that religion resides in the heart of a man and it is individuals who are protected as to religious freedoms under the 1st?
Click to expand...


Wow, you just suck at paraphrasing. Churches are exempt from public accommodation laws. You guys know this....but really hope we don't.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A church should have the right to the "free exercise" of it's beliefs.  Take that how you will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is saying that a church should have to perform weddings it doesn't want to. Only that anyone conducting business with the public should treat its customers fairly and equally. Regardless of their race, creed, religion or sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

 
Not yet.  WHEN it happens they won't be going after the church as a church but as a public accommodation.  My church is open to anyone that walks through the doors at anytime a service is conducted.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Place of *public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes*.
> 
> Not religions- facilities principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> COCODE
> 
> 
> 
> One of those places is a man's heart...  For where else does religion and the freedom of it ultimately reside?
Click to expand...


Silo.....you aren't a church. You're not a synagogue. You're not a mosque. 

Any argument you offer based on the concept that you are is already toast. As its silly, stupid, and legally irrelevant.


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> PA laws excepts religions.


 
As of now but that is how the push will take place.  It won't the church as a church but as a public accommodation.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A church should have the right to the "free exercise" of it's beliefs.  Take that how you will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is saying that a church should have to perform weddings it doesn't want to. Only that anyone conducting business with the public should treat its customers fairly and equally. Regardless of their race, creed, religion or sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not yet.  WHEN it happens they won't be going after the church as a church but as a public accommodation.  My church is open to anyone that walks through the doors at anytime a service is conducted.
Click to expand...


CHurches aren't businesses. They are explicitedly exempted from public accommodation laws. Someone will inevitably sue a church under public accomodation. And just as inevitably, everyone from the judge to the balliff to the court reporter will point and laugh as they toss the case out of court. 

There are zero cases of public accommodation laws being used to force churches to perform weddings they don't want to perform. Nor is there a single advocate of such in 660 pages of this thread. 

Its just fearmongering.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PA laws excepts religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As of now but that is how the push will take place.  It won't the church as a church but as a public accommodation.
Click to expand...


Again, churches are explicitly exempted from public accommodation laws. Public accommodation laws apply only to public businesses. Churches aren't public businesses. 

You're literally arguing your imagination.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> I am quite sure about, and rwheathengamer does not understand that in the religious sphere, under our Constitution, the churches will easily withstand any assault trying to make them marry people they don't want to marry.


Well grab the brake lever on the run away train then, and slow that assault wagon down already, but you can't slow it down either can you, so just keep on jabbering like the rest of us I guess...LOL


----------



## JakeStarkey

Not worried about it, beagle, and neither should you be.

If anyone tries to force you to marry someone of your own sex, call me.  I will don my cape and fly to your rescue.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A church should have the right to the "free exercise" of it's beliefs.  Take that how you will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is saying that a church should have to perform weddings it doesn't want to. Only that anyone conducting business with the public should treat its customers fairly and equally. Regardless of their race, creed, religion or sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not yet.  WHEN it happens they won't be going after the church as a church but as a public accommodation.  My church is open to anyone that walks through the doors at anytime a service is conducted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CHurches aren't businesses. They are explicitedly exempted from public accommodation laws. Someone will inevitably sue a church under public accomodation. And just as inevitably, everyone from the judge to the balliff to the court reporter will point and laugh as they toss the case out of court.
> 
> There are zero cases of public accommodation laws being used to force churches to perform weddings they don't want to perform. Nor is there a single advocate of such in 660 pages of this thread.
> 
> Its just fearmongering.
Click to expand...

 
I'm aware that those laws CURRENTLY exist.  I'm also aware that many laws dealing with unrelated things have gone by the wayside using the same argument I said would be used to do this. 

30 years ago, when it came to same sex marriage in my State, a judge would have done exactly the same thing and laughed when a same sex couple said their rights were being violated. 

30 years ago there weren't as many advocates of same sex marriage as there is today.

What you seem to forget is that things change and this will be one of them.  I'm willing to bet if an actual legal proceeding does happen, you and plenty of those on this thread will get in behind it because that's what your handlers will tell you is fair.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite sure about, and rwheathengamer does not understand that in the religious sphere, under our Constitution, the churches will easily withstand any assault trying to make them marry people they don't want to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> Well grab the brake lever on the run away train then, and slow that assault wagon down already, but you can't slow it down either can you, so just keep on jabbering like the rest of us I guess...LOL
Click to expand...



Dude, what 'assault'? There are zero cases of churches ever being forced to perform a wedding they didn't want to.

You're fear mongering.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A church should have the right to the "free exercise" of it's beliefs.  Take that how you will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is saying that a church should have to perform weddings it doesn't want to. Only that anyone conducting business with the public should treat its customers fairly and equally. Regardless of their race, creed, religion or sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not yet.  WHEN it happens they won't be going after the church as a church but as a public accommodation.  My church is open to anyone that walks through the doors at anytime a service is conducted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CHurches aren't businesses. They are explicitedly exempted from public accommodation laws. Someone will inevitably sue a church under public accomodation. And just as inevitably, everyone from the judge to the balliff to the court reporter will point and laugh as they toss the case out of court.
> 
> There are zero cases of public accommodation laws being used to force churches to perform weddings they don't want to perform. Nor is there a single advocate of such in 660 pages of this thread.
> 
> Its just fearmongering.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll give you a task then, umm I mean since you are so good at making so many excuses as to why something won't happen in your mind, then why not trying to give us the many excuses as to why it might surely occur, and this from within your mind about the foreseeable future maybe ? I know in that mind of yours you can come up with something... Try playing the opposite advocate for a change, because an open mind is never a good thing to waist right..LOL


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> I'm aware that those laws CURRENTLY exist.  I'm also aware that many laws dealing with unrelated things have gone by the wayside using the same argument I said would be used to do this.



Which laws that have 'gone by the wayside' are used to force churches to perform weddings they don't want to perform.

Cite the law and cite an example of a church being forced to perform a wedding they don't want. You'll find both are purely imaginary.



> 30 years ago, when it came to same sex marriage in my State, a judge would have done exactly the same thing and laughed when a same sex couple said their rights were being violated.



And 50 years ago, judges laughed interracial marriage out of many states. So? A tradition of pointless bigotry doesn't magically justify it. 



> What you seem to forget is that things change and this will be one of them.  I'm willing to bet if an actual legal proceeding does happen, you and plenty of those on this thread will get in behind it because that's what your handlers will tell you is fair.



And what you seem to forget is that there are virtually no advocates for churches being forced to accommodate gay weddings. There's no legislation that indicates as much. Every PA law explicitly exempts religion. And there's no significant call for any such change.

You're arguing your imagination. And you have no connection to the real world.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PA laws excepts religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As of now but that is how the push will take place.  It won't the church as a church but as a public accommodation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, churches are explicitly exempted from public accommodation laws. Public accommodation laws apply only to public businesses. Churches aren't public businesses.
> 
> You're literally arguing your imagination.
Click to expand...

 
AGAIN, as of now. 

30 years ago a judge would have thrown out a case where homosexuals argued for same sex marriage being legal.  Recently, 30 years later, look what we have.  You want to say it's imagination when plenty of things once not applicable now take place every day. Thinking it can't happen is imaginative.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> OK, I'll give you a task then, umm I mean since you are so good at making so many excuses as to why something won't happen in your mind, then why not trying to give us the many excuses as to why it might surely occur, and this from within your mind about the foreseeable future maybe ? I know in that mind of yours you can come up with something... Try playing the opposite advocate for a change, because an open mind is never a good thing to waist right..LOL



Oh, Beagle...you're not giving anyone any tasks until you've completed one of your own. 



> You can't have it just one way in life, and you will never have it that way, so deal with it if you can, because Christians aren't backing down from what they live for and what they believe in their life. PERIOD! The Christians should be grandfathered in anyways in this nation by now, and otherwise they should always have their place within this nation in which is respected by others in the nation, and all this new stuff should have to prove itself first, and so far the track record isn't looking so good when one looks at the statistics, and at other things that go on among the groups who want something new to evolve in America.



And what do you mean by 'grandfathered in' as it relates to Public Accommodation Laws?  

When you've completed your task by answering the question, you can ask one of someone else. Until then, you'll be assigning no duties to anyone.


----------



## Conservative65

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A church should have the right to the "free exercise" of it's beliefs.  Take that how you will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is saying that a church should have to perform weddings it doesn't want to. Only that anyone conducting business with the public should treat its customers fairly and equally. Regardless of their race, creed, religion or sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not yet.  WHEN it happens they won't be going after the church as a church but as a public accommodation.  My church is open to anyone that walks through the doors at anytime a service is conducted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CHurches aren't businesses. They are explicitedly exempted from public accommodation laws. Someone will inevitably sue a church under public accomodation. And just as inevitably, everyone from the judge to the balliff to the court reporter will point and laugh as they toss the case out of court.
> 
> There are zero cases of public accommodation laws being used to force churches to perform weddings they don't want to perform. Nor is there a single advocate of such in 660 pages of this thread.
> 
> Its just fearmongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, I'll give you a task then, umm I mean since you are so good at making so many excuses as to why something won't happen in your mind, then why not trying to give us the many excuses as to why it might surely occur, and this from within your mind about the foreseeable future maybe ? I know in that mind of yours you can come up with something... Try playing the opposite advocate for a change, because an open mind is never a good thing to waist right..LOL
Click to expand...

 
30 years ago,  a judge would have thrown out a case where two homos wanted him/her to overturn a State law against same sex marriage within that state.  Skylar wants to make it out as if this can't change.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PA laws excepts religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As of now but that is how the push will take place.  It won't the church as a church but as a public accommodation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, churches are explicitly exempted from public accommodation laws. Public accommodation laws apply only to public businesses. Churches aren't public businesses.
> 
> You're literally arguing your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AGAIN, as of now.\
Click to expand...


So you're arguing against something that doesn't exist,  that hasn't happened and there's no indication ever will, that the laws explicitly forbid, and there's no significant support for?

Okay.....I don't know to tell you. As your entire argument begins and ends in your own head. There's no external evidence to support your fear. So you just keep imagining harder.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A church should have the right to the "free exercise" of it's beliefs.  Take that how you will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is saying that a church should have to perform weddings it doesn't want to. Only that anyone conducting business with the public should treat its customers fairly and equally. Regardless of their race, creed, religion or sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not yet.  WHEN it happens they won't be going after the church as a church but as a public accommodation.  My church is open to anyone that walks through the doors at anytime a service is conducted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CHurches aren't businesses. They are explicitedly exempted from public accommodation laws. Someone will inevitably sue a church under public accomodation. And just as inevitably, everyone from the judge to the balliff to the court reporter will point and laugh as they toss the case out of court.
> 
> There are zero cases of public accommodation laws being used to force churches to perform weddings they don't want to perform. Nor is there a single advocate of such in 660 pages of this thread.
> 
> Its just fearmongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, I'll give you a task then, umm I mean since you are so good at making so many excuses as to why something won't happen in your mind, then why not trying to give us the many excuses as to why it might surely occur, and this from within your mind about the foreseeable future maybe ? I know in that mind of yours you can come up with something... Try playing the opposite advocate for a change, because an open mind is never a good thing to waist right..LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 30 years ago,  a judge would have thrown out a case where two homos wanted him/her to overturn a State law against same sex marriage within that state.  Skylar wants to make it out as if this can't change.
Click to expand...


And 50 years ago, judges did throw out interracial marriages, imprisoning those who were engaged in them.

And? What's your point?


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware that those laws CURRENTLY exist.  I'm also aware that many laws dealing with unrelated things have gone by the wayside using the same argument I said would be used to do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which laws that have 'gone by the wayside' are used to force churches to perform weddings they don't want to perform.
> 
> Cite the law and cite an example of a church being forced to perform a wedding they don't want. You'll find both are purely imaginary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 30 years ago, when it came to same sex marriage in my State, a judge would have done exactly the same thing and laughed when a same sex couple said their rights were being violated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And 50 years ago, judges laughed interracial marriage out of many states. So? A tradition of pointless bigotry doesn't magically justify it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you seem to forget is that things change and this will be one of them.  I'm willing to bet if an actual legal proceeding does happen, you and plenty of those on this thread will get in behind it because that's what your handlers will tell you is fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what you seem to forget is that there are virtually no advocates for churches being forced to accommodate gay weddings. There's no legislation that indicates as much. Every PA law explicitly exempts religion. And there's no significant call for any such change.
> 
> You're arguing your imagination. And you have no connection to the real world.
Click to expand...

 
Seems you only read portions of what is posted.  I never said it happened with churches.  I said it happened in OTHER unrelated areas using the mindset that will be used to do this eventually. 

30 years ago a judge would have thrown out a case where two homos sued to have him/her overturn a state law prohibiting it.  Recently, it happened.  Your problem is you think since something hasn't, it can't.   I didn't say it has, I said it will happen and you'll be the first one in line agreeing that churches should do it.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PA laws excepts religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As of now but that is how the push will take place.  It won't the church as a church but as a public accommodation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, churches are explicitly exempted from public accommodation laws. Public accommodation laws apply only to public businesses. Churches aren't public businesses.
> 
> You're literally arguing your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AGAIN, as of now.\
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're arguing against something that doesn't exist,  that hasn't happened and there's no indication ever will, that the laws explicitly forbid, and there's no significant support for?
> 
> Okay.....I don't know to tell you. As your entire argument begins and ends in your own head. There's no external evidence to support your fear. So you just keep imagining harder.
Click to expand...

 
30 years ago there was no indication that a judge would overturn state law prohibiting two fags marrying.  It has happened.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is saying that a church should have to perform weddings it doesn't want to. Only that anyone conducting business with the public should treat its customers fairly and equally. Regardless of their race, creed, religion or sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.  WHEN it happens they won't be going after the church as a church but as a public accommodation.  My church is open to anyone that walks through the doors at anytime a service is conducted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CHurches aren't businesses. They are explicitedly exempted from public accommodation laws. Someone will inevitably sue a church under public accomodation. And just as inevitably, everyone from the judge to the balliff to the court reporter will point and laugh as they toss the case out of court.
> 
> There are zero cases of public accommodation laws being used to force churches to perform weddings they don't want to perform. Nor is there a single advocate of such in 660 pages of this thread.
> 
> Its just fearmongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, I'll give you a task then, umm I mean since you are so good at making so many excuses as to why something won't happen in your mind, then why not trying to give us the many excuses as to why it might surely occur, and this from within your mind about the foreseeable future maybe ? I know in that mind of yours you can come up with something... Try playing the opposite advocate for a change, because an open mind is never a good thing to waist right..LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 30 years ago,  a judge would have thrown out a case where two homos wanted him/her to overturn a State law against same sex marriage within that state.  Skylar wants to make it out as if this can't change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And 50 years ago, judges did throw out interracial marriages, imprisoning those who were engaged in them.
> 
> And? What's your point?
Click to expand...

 
And with Loving v. Virginia, a court threw out laws doing that. 

You keep saying because it hasn't happened, thinking it can is imaginary.  The point is that because it happened doesn't mean it won't and thinking it can't simply because it hasn't is imaginary.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PA laws excepts religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As of now but that is how the push will take place.  It won't the church as a church but as a public accommodation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, churches are explicitly exempted from public accommodation laws. Public accommodation laws apply only to public businesses. Churches aren't public businesses.
> 
> You're literally arguing your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AGAIN, as of now.\
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're arguing against something that doesn't exist,  that hasn't happened and there's no indication ever will, that the laws explicitly forbid, and there's no significant support for?
> 
> Okay.....I don't know to tell you. As your entire argument begins and ends in your own head. There's no external evidence to support your fear. So you just keep imagining harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 30 years ago there was no indication that a judge would overturn state law prohibiting two fags marrying.  It has happened.
Click to expand...


Talk to me when there is any indication of PA laws being applied to churches to force them to perform weddings.

As there isn't any. If that changes, show us.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.  WHEN it happens they won't be going after the church as a church but as a public accommodation.  My church is open to anyone that walks through the doors at anytime a service is conducted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CHurches aren't businesses. They are explicitedly exempted from public accommodation laws. Someone will inevitably sue a church under public accomodation. And just as inevitably, everyone from the judge to the balliff to the court reporter will point and laugh as they toss the case out of court.
> 
> There are zero cases of public accommodation laws being used to force churches to perform weddings they don't want to perform. Nor is there a single advocate of such in 660 pages of this thread.
> 
> Its just fearmongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, I'll give you a task then, umm I mean since you are so good at making so many excuses as to why something won't happen in your mind, then why not trying to give us the many excuses as to why it might surely occur, and this from within your mind about the foreseeable future maybe ? I know in that mind of yours you can come up with something... Try playing the opposite advocate for a change, because an open mind is never a good thing to waist right..LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 30 years ago,  a judge would have thrown out a case where two homos wanted him/her to overturn a State law against same sex marriage within that state.  Skylar wants to make it out as if this can't change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And 50 years ago, judges did throw out interracial marriages, imprisoning those who were engaged in them.
> 
> And? What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And with Loving v. Virginia, a court threw out laws doing that.
> 
> You keep saying because it hasn't happened, thinking it can is imaginary.  The point is that because it happened doesn't mean it won't and thinking it can't simply because it hasn't is imaginary.
Click to expand...


Your point is that anything can happen at some unspecified date in the future....unless it doesn't? That's a useless standard, as it isn't predictive. It doesn't demonstrate the likelihood of anything. It could happen in a hundred years or 10,000 years, or never. Which makes discussion of it uselessly speculative. As there's no bridge from your speculation to reality. 

Which is my point.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As of now but that is how the push will take place.  It won't the church as a church but as a public accommodation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, churches are explicitly exempted from public accommodation laws. Public accommodation laws apply only to public businesses. Churches aren't public businesses.
> 
> You're literally arguing your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AGAIN, as of now.\
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're arguing against something that doesn't exist,  that hasn't happened and there's no indication ever will, that the laws explicitly forbid, and there's no significant support for?
> 
> Okay.....I don't know to tell you. As your entire argument begins and ends in your own head. There's no external evidence to support your fear. So you just keep imagining harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 30 years ago there was no indication that a judge would overturn state law prohibiting two fags marrying.  It has happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk to me when there is any indication of PA laws being applied to churches to force them to perform weddings.
> 
> As there isn't any. If that changes, show us.
Click to expand...

 
When that changes, and it will as history has shown, I won't have to show you.  You'll be the first one in line claiming you support it and it's the "equal thing to do".


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> CHurches aren't businesses. They are explicitedly exempted from public accommodation laws. Someone will inevitably sue a church under public accomodation. And just as inevitably, everyone from the judge to the balliff to the court reporter will point and laugh as they toss the case out of court.
> 
> There are zero cases of public accommodation laws being used to force churches to perform weddings they don't want to perform. Nor is there a single advocate of such in 660 pages of this thread.
> 
> Its just fearmongering.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I'll give you a task then, umm I mean since you are so good at making so many excuses as to why something won't happen in your mind, then why not trying to give us the many excuses as to why it might surely occur, and this from within your mind about the foreseeable future maybe ? I know in that mind of yours you can come up with something... Try playing the opposite advocate for a change, because an open mind is never a good thing to waist right..LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 30 years ago,  a judge would have thrown out a case where two homos wanted him/her to overturn a State law against same sex marriage within that state.  Skylar wants to make it out as if this can't change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And 50 years ago, judges did throw out interracial marriages, imprisoning those who were engaged in them.
> 
> And? What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And with Loving v. Virginia, a court threw out laws doing that.
> 
> You keep saying because it hasn't happened, thinking it can is imaginary.  The point is that because it happened doesn't mean it won't and thinking it can't simply because it hasn't is imaginary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point is that anything can happen at some unspecified date in the future....unless it doesn't? That's a useless standard, as it isn't predictive. It doesn't demonstrate the likelihood of anything. It could happen in a hundred years or 10,000 years, or never. Which makes discussion of it uselessly speculative. As there's no bridge from your speculation to reality.
> 
> Which is my point.
Click to expand...

 
Your statement is that because it hasn't, it means it won't. 

I never said it would happen tomorrow or next year but it will happen.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, churches are explicitly exempted from public accommodation laws. Public accommodation laws apply only to public businesses. Churches aren't public businesses.
> 
> You're literally arguing your imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN, as of now.\
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're arguing against something that doesn't exist,  that hasn't happened and there's no indication ever will, that the laws explicitly forbid, and there's no significant support for?
> 
> Okay.....I don't know to tell you. As your entire argument begins and ends in your own head. There's no external evidence to support your fear. So you just keep imagining harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 30 years ago there was no indication that a judge would overturn state law prohibiting two fags marrying.  It has happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk to me when there is any indication of PA laws being applied to churches to force them to perform weddings.
> 
> As there isn't any. If that changes, show us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When that changes, and it will as history has shown, I won't have to show you.  You'll be the first one in line claiming you support it and it's the "equal thing to do".
Click to expand...


History has never shown churches being forced to perform gay marriages. That history changes is indisputable. That history changes in the exact manner you're lamenting about is very much in dispute. As there's exactly nothing indicating it will.

You're simply offering us your imagination of some future event that may happen at some future time.....unless it doesn't. Because, you know, history. 

That's silly. You're not predicting anything, you're offering us the likelihood of anything. You're simply verbalizing emotion.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I'll give you a task then, umm I mean since you are so good at making so many excuses as to why something won't happen in your mind, then why not trying to give us the many excuses as to why it might surely occur, and this from within your mind about the foreseeable future maybe ? I know in that mind of yours you can come up with something... Try playing the opposite advocate for a change, because an open mind is never a good thing to waist right..LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 30 years ago,  a judge would have thrown out a case where two homos wanted him/her to overturn a State law against same sex marriage within that state.  Skylar wants to make it out as if this can't change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And 50 years ago, judges did throw out interracial marriages, imprisoning those who were engaged in them.
> 
> And? What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And with Loving v. Virginia, a court threw out laws doing that.
> 
> You keep saying because it hasn't happened, thinking it can is imaginary.  The point is that because it happened doesn't mean it won't and thinking it can't simply because it hasn't is imaginary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point is that anything can happen at some unspecified date in the future....unless it doesn't? That's a useless standard, as it isn't predictive. It doesn't demonstrate the likelihood of anything. It could happen in a hundred years or 10,000 years, or never. Which makes discussion of it uselessly speculative. As there's no bridge from your speculation to reality.
> 
> Which is my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statement is that because it hasn't, it means it won't.
Click to expand...


Again, anything is possible. Dinosaurs created from reclomated frog DNA taking over the earth during a meteor shower is possible. But isn't terribly likely.

Nor is there the slightest evidence that such an event will happen. Compare that with say, the 2016 election. You can say, with some assurance of evidence, that there will be a presidential election in that year. As people are announcing for this election, we've had elections just like it on a regular cycle, as its written into our law.

Can you see the difference between mathematically possible...........and even remotely likely?



> I never said it would happen tomorrow or next year but it will happen.



And that's where you run into problems. You're claim that it 'will' happen. There's nothing that indicates that it will. You're jumping from 'you can't prove it won't ever happen' to 'it must happen'. And that's a leap of logic that Willie E. Coyote couldn't jump with a pair of rocket skates.

As the former doesn't support the latter.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN, as of now.\
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're arguing against something that doesn't exist,  that hasn't happened and there's no indication ever will, that the laws explicitly forbid, and there's no significant support for?
> 
> Okay.....I don't know to tell you. As your entire argument begins and ends in your own head. There's no external evidence to support your fear. So you just keep imagining harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 30 years ago there was no indication that a judge would overturn state law prohibiting two fags marrying.  It has happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk to me when there is any indication of PA laws being applied to churches to force them to perform weddings.
> 
> As there isn't any. If that changes, show us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When that changes, and it will as history has shown, I won't have to show you.  You'll be the first one in line claiming you support it and it's the "equal thing to do".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has never shown churches being forced to perform gay marriages. That history changes is indisputable. That history changes in the exact manner you're lamenting about is very much in dispute. As there's exactly nothing indicating it will.
> 
> You're simply offering us your imagination of some future event that may happen at some future time.....unless it doesn't. Because, you know, history.
> 
> That's silly. You're not predicting anything, you're offering us the likelihood of anything. You're simply verbalizing emotion.
Click to expand...

 
History has shown that things people said would never change have.   

Your problem is you say things can change then refuse to believe that this can also change.  What's in dispute is whether or not you have the ability to understand it.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 30 years ago,  a judge would have thrown out a case where two homos wanted him/her to overturn a State law against same sex marriage within that state.  Skylar wants to make it out as if this can't change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And 50 years ago, judges did throw out interracial marriages, imprisoning those who were engaged in them.
> 
> And? What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And with Loving v. Virginia, a court threw out laws doing that.
> 
> You keep saying because it hasn't happened, thinking it can is imaginary.  The point is that because it happened doesn't mean it won't and thinking it can't simply because it hasn't is imaginary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point is that anything can happen at some unspecified date in the future....unless it doesn't? That's a useless standard, as it isn't predictive. It doesn't demonstrate the likelihood of anything. It could happen in a hundred years or 10,000 years, or never. Which makes discussion of it uselessly speculative. As there's no bridge from your speculation to reality.
> 
> Which is my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statement is that because it hasn't, it means it won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, anything is possible. Dinosaurs created from reclomated frog DNA taking over the earth during a meteor shower is possible. But isn't terribly likely.
> 
> Nor is there the slightest evidence that such an event will happen. Compare that with say, the 2016 election. You can say, with some assurance of evidence, that there will be a presidential election in that year. As people are announcing for this election, we've had elections just like it on a regular cycle, as its written into our law.
> 
> Can you see the difference between mathematically possible...........and even remotely likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it would happen tomorrow or next year but it will happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's where you run into problems. You're claim that it 'will' happen. There's nothing that indicates that it will. You're jumping from 'you can't prove it won't ever happen' to 'it must happen'. And that's a leap of logic that Willie E. Coyote couldn't jump with a pair of rocket skates.
> 
> As the former doesn't support the latter.
Click to expand...

 
Can you see a judge ruling overrulling PA laws and  a judge overturning today what he wouldn't have done 30 years is equally likely.  It's not unlikely because you say it won't happen.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're arguing against something that doesn't exist,  that hasn't happened and there's no indication ever will, that the laws explicitly forbid, and there's no significant support for?
> 
> Okay.....I don't know to tell you. As your entire argument begins and ends in your own head. There's no external evidence to support your fear. So you just keep imagining harder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 30 years ago there was no indication that a judge would overturn state law prohibiting two fags marrying.  It has happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk to me when there is any indication of PA laws being applied to churches to force them to perform weddings.
> 
> As there isn't any. If that changes, show us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When that changes, and it will as history has shown, I won't have to show you.  You'll be the first one in line claiming you support it and it's the "equal thing to do".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has never shown churches being forced to perform gay marriages. That history changes is indisputable. That history changes in the exact manner you're lamenting about is very much in dispute. As there's exactly nothing indicating it will.
> 
> You're simply offering us your imagination of some future event that may happen at some future time.....unless it doesn't. Because, you know, history.
> 
> That's silly. You're not predicting anything, you're offering us the likelihood of anything. You're simply verbalizing emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has shown that things people said would never change have.
Click to expand...


There's no indication that history will change on this issue. You have nothing. No public support, no changes in the law, no credibly proposed changes, no history of this ever happening.

Your argument is quite literally 'because you can't prove it won't happen, it must happen'. That's not logical. As the former doesn't support the latter.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And 50 years ago, judges did throw out interracial marriages, imprisoning those who were engaged in them.
> 
> And? What's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And with Loving v. Virginia, a court threw out laws doing that.
> 
> You keep saying because it hasn't happened, thinking it can is imaginary.  The point is that because it happened doesn't mean it won't and thinking it can't simply because it hasn't is imaginary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point is that anything can happen at some unspecified date in the future....unless it doesn't? That's a useless standard, as it isn't predictive. It doesn't demonstrate the likelihood of anything. It could happen in a hundred years or 10,000 years, or never. Which makes discussion of it uselessly speculative. As there's no bridge from your speculation to reality.
> 
> Which is my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statement is that because it hasn't, it means it won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, anything is possible. Dinosaurs created from reclomated frog DNA taking over the earth during a meteor shower is possible. But isn't terribly likely.
> 
> Nor is there the slightest evidence that such an event will happen. Compare that with say, the 2016 election. You can say, with some assurance of evidence, that there will be a presidential election in that year. As people are announcing for this election, we've had elections just like it on a regular cycle, as its written into our law.
> 
> Can you see the difference between mathematically possible...........and even remotely likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it would happen tomorrow or next year but it will happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's where you run into problems. You're claim that it 'will' happen. There's nothing that indicates that it will. You're jumping from 'you can't prove it won't ever happen' to 'it must happen'. And that's a leap of logic that Willie E. Coyote couldn't jump with a pair of rocket skates.
> 
> As the former doesn't support the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you see a judge ruling overrulling PA laws and  a judge overturning today what he wouldn't have done 30 years is equally likely.  It's not unlikely because you say it won't happen.
Click to expand...


Again, you're offering us speculation based on nothing. You claim that churches will be forced to accommodate gay weddings. *But you have no evidence of it. *You simply assume that it must be......um, because 'history'.

That's not a rational basis of anything. Your logic also doesn't work. As you're arguing that since something can't be proven never to happen, it must happen. That doesn't follow either.

So what evidence do you have that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Conservative, stop the silly argument that the sky might fall.  Give us clear and concise proof that this is happening now or will happen soon.


----------



## Seawytch

JakeStarkey said:


> Conservative, stop the silly argument that the sky might fall.  Give us clear and concise proof that this is happening now or will happen soon.



Or that it happened in the United States in the past. Surely they can cite all the times a church has been forced by the government to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. An interracial or interfaith marriage perhaps? A baptism? A Bris? Anything?


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 30 years ago there was no indication that a judge would overturn state law prohibiting two fags marrying.  It has happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to me when there is any indication of PA laws being applied to churches to force them to perform weddings.
> 
> As there isn't any. If that changes, show us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When that changes, and it will as history has shown, I won't have to show you.  You'll be the first one in line claiming you support it and it's the "equal thing to do".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has never shown churches being forced to perform gay marriages. That history changes is indisputable. That history changes in the exact manner you're lamenting about is very much in dispute. As there's exactly nothing indicating it will.
> 
> You're simply offering us your imagination of some future event that may happen at some future time.....unless it doesn't. Because, you know, history.
> 
> That's silly. You're not predicting anything, you're offering us the likelihood of anything. You're simply verbalizing emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has shown that things people said would never change have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no indication that history will change on this issue. You have nothing. No public support, no changes in the law, no credibly proposed changes, no history of this ever happening.
> 
> Your argument is quite literally 'because you can't prove it won't happen, it must happen'. That's not logical. As the former doesn't support the latter.
Click to expand...

 

My argument is that things people said would never happen have and this is no different.   There is history to prove that things change and this is as likely as anything else whether you agree or not.  You agreement isn't necessary.  All you need to do is accept that it can and be willing to admit you were wrong when it does.


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> Conservative, stop the silly argument that the sky might fall.  Give us clear and concise proof that this is happening now or will happen soon.


 You say the same thing people said 30 years ago, even 5 years ago, when people like me said federal judges will overstep their bounds and tell States they can't prohibit same sex marriages.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to me when there is any indication of PA laws being applied to churches to force them to perform weddings.
> 
> As there isn't any. If that changes, show us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When that changes, and it will as history has shown, I won't have to show you.  You'll be the first one in line claiming you support it and it's the "equal thing to do".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has never shown churches being forced to perform gay marriages. That history changes is indisputable. That history changes in the exact manner you're lamenting about is very much in dispute. As there's exactly nothing indicating it will.
> 
> You're simply offering us your imagination of some future event that may happen at some future time.....unless it doesn't. Because, you know, history.
> 
> That's silly. You're not predicting anything, you're offering us the likelihood of anything. You're simply verbalizing emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has shown that things people said would never change have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no indication that history will change on this issue. You have nothing. No public support, no changes in the law, no credibly proposed changes, no history of this ever happening.
> 
> Your argument is quite literally 'because you can't prove it won't happen, it must happen'. That's not logical. As the former doesn't support the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is that things people said would never happen have and this is no different.   There is history to prove that things change and this is as likely as anything else whether you agree or not.  You agreement isn't necessary.  All you need to do is accept that it can and be willing to admit you were wrong when it does.
Click to expand...


The problem with your argument is that it doesn't demonstrate any particular future outcome. As things people said would never happen.....still haven't happened. So 'things people have said would never happen' isn't a predictive model. As it produces both results. With almost all of those results contradicting you. 

So what evidence do you have that churches will be required to perform gay weddings? Show us, don't tell us.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative, stop the silly argument that the sky might fall.  Give us clear and concise proof that this is happening now or will happen soon.
> 
> 
> 
> You say the same thing people said 30 years ago, even 5 years ago, when people like me said federal judges will overstep their bounds and tell States they can't prohibit same sex marriages.
Click to expand...


You're not simply claiming that churches MAY be forced to perform gay weddings in the future. You're insisting that churches WILL be forced to perform gay marriages in the future. And there's nothing that indicates that this is even likely. Let alone certain.

So what is your evidence that churches will be forced to perform gay weddings? Specifically.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative, stop the silly argument that the sky might fall.  Give us clear and concise proof that this is happening now or will happen soon.
> 
> 
> 
> You say the same thing people said 30 years ago, even 5 years ago, when people like me said federal judges will overstep their bounds and tell States they can't prohibit same sex marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not simply claiming that churches MAY be forced to perform gay weddings in the future. You're insisting that churches WILL be forced to perform gay marriages in the future. And there's nothing that indicates that this is even likely. Let alone certain.
> 
> So what is your evidence that churches will be forced to perform gay weddings? Specifically.
Click to expand...

 

That's what I've been saying and gave an example of how it would be approached when it does.  I also gave examples of situations where people said on other issues that "there's nothing that indicates that is even likely to happen" yet is has happened.  You can't say the future is ever changing then claim that it does except on something you aren't willing to admit.

I'm claiming ti will happen and how I think it will come about.  Will you, when it does, be man enough to admit you're wrong?  Doubt it.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When that changes, and it will as history has shown, I won't have to show you.  You'll be the first one in line claiming you support it and it's the "equal thing to do".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History has never shown churches being forced to perform gay marriages. That history changes is indisputable. That history changes in the exact manner you're lamenting about is very much in dispute. As there's exactly nothing indicating it will.
> 
> You're simply offering us your imagination of some future event that may happen at some future time.....unless it doesn't. Because, you know, history.
> 
> That's silly. You're not predicting anything, you're offering us the likelihood of anything. You're simply verbalizing emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has shown that things people said would never change have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no indication that history will change on this issue. You have nothing. No public support, no changes in the law, no credibly proposed changes, no history of this ever happening.
> 
> Your argument is quite literally 'because you can't prove it won't happen, it must happen'. That's not logical. As the former doesn't support the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is that things people said would never happen have and this is no different.   There is history to prove that things change and this is as likely as anything else whether you agree or not.  You agreement isn't necessary.  All you need to do is accept that it can and be willing to admit you were wrong when it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that it doesn't demonstrate any particular future outcome. As things people said would never happen.....still haven't happened. So 'things people have said would never happen' isn't a predictive model. As it produces both results. With almost all of those results contradicting you.
> 
> So what evidence do you have that churches will be required to perform gay weddings? Show us, don't tell us.
Click to expand...

 
A lot of things people said would never happen have and are somewhat related to what I say the peter puffers and carpet munchers will attempt.    You're simply unwilling to acknowledge that is can, say now that this shouldn't, but will be right up front when it does claiming you supported it all the time.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> History has never shown churches being forced to perform gay marriages. That history changes is indisputable. That history changes in the exact manner you're lamenting about is very much in dispute. As there's exactly nothing indicating it will.
> 
> You're simply offering us your imagination of some future event that may happen at some future time.....unless it doesn't. Because, you know, history.
> 
> That's silly. You're not predicting anything, you're offering us the likelihood of anything. You're simply verbalizing emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History has shown that things people said would never change have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no indication that history will change on this issue. You have nothing. No public support, no changes in the law, no credibly proposed changes, no history of this ever happening.
> 
> Your argument is quite literally 'because you can't prove it won't happen, it must happen'. That's not logical. As the former doesn't support the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is that things people said would never happen have and this is no different.   There is history to prove that things change and this is as likely as anything else whether you agree or not.  You agreement isn't necessary.  All you need to do is accept that it can and be willing to admit you were wrong when it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that it doesn't demonstrate any particular future outcome. As things people said would never happen.....still haven't happened. So 'things people have said would never happen' isn't a predictive model. As it produces both results. With almost all of those results contradicting you.
> 
> So what evidence do you have that churches will be required to perform gay weddings? Show us, don't tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of things people said would never happen have and are somewhat related to what I say the peter puffers and carpet munchers will attempt.    You're simply unwilling to acknowledge that is can, say now that this shouldn't, but will be right up front when it does claiming you supported it all the time.
Click to expand...


A lot of people said things would never happen....that didn't happen. Your model predicts nothing. Yet you insist it *will* happen. 

So what evidence do you have that churches will be forced to accommodate gay weddings?


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative, stop the silly argument that the sky might fall.  Give us clear and concise proof that this is happening now or will happen soon.
> 
> 
> 
> You say the same thing people said 30 years ago, even 5 years ago, when people like me said federal judges will overstep their bounds and tell States they can't prohibit same sex marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not simply claiming that churches MAY be forced to perform gay weddings in the future. You're insisting that churches WILL be forced to perform gay marriages in the future. And there's nothing that indicates that this is even likely. Let alone certain.
> 
> So what is your evidence that churches will be forced to perform gay weddings? Specifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I've been saying and gave an example of how it would be approached when it does.
Click to expand...


Unless it doesn't. Do you get that you imagining something happening in the future* isn't actually evidence of happening? *Or it being likely to happen?

There's no support for such changes, judicially, legislatively, or popularly. There's no laws that require it. All PA laws expressly forbid it. There's no credible proposals for changing those laws. There's simply no indication that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.

That you imagine a scenario were it *could* happen doesn't mean that your imagination is even remotely likely TO happen?

Do you get the difference? Your imagination isn't evidence.



> I also gave examples of situations where people said on other issues that "there's nothing that indicates that is even likely to happen" yet is has happened.  You can't say the future is ever changing then claim that it does except on something you aren't willing to admit.



And I've given you examples of things that folks insisted would never happened.....that never happened. Demonstrating that 'things folks predicated would never happen' doesn't demonstrate they will.

You're predicting that a specific event is certain: that churches WILL be required to perform gay weddings. And you can provide with exactly dick by way of evidence that indicates as much. With your reasoning being that since we can't prove it *won't* happen, it must happen.

Um, that's illogical nonsense.



> I'm claiming ti will happen and how I think it will come about.  Will you, when it does, be man enough to admit you're wrong?  Doubt it.



And if it doesn't happen, what then?


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative, stop the silly argument that the sky might fall.  Give us clear and concise proof that this is happening now or will happen soon.
> 
> 
> 
> You say the same thing people said 30 years ago, even 5 years ago, when people like me said federal judges will overstep their bounds and tell States they can't prohibit same sex marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not simply claiming that churches MAY be forced to perform gay weddings in the future. You're insisting that churches WILL be forced to perform gay marriages in the future. And there's nothing that indicates that this is even likely. Let alone certain.
> 
> So what is your evidence that churches will be forced to perform gay weddings? Specifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I've been saying and gave an example of how it would be approached when it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless it doesn't. Do you get that you imagining something happening in the future* isn't actually evidence of happening? *Or it being likely to happen?
> 
> There's no support for such changes, judicially, legislatively, or popularly. There's no laws that require it. All PA laws expressly forbid it. There's no credible proposals for changing those laws. There's simply no indication that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.
> 
> That you imagine a scenario were it *could* happen doesn't mean that your imagination is even remotely likely TO happen?
> 
> Do you get the difference? Your imagination isn't evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also gave examples of situations where people said on other issues that "there's nothing that indicates that is even likely to happen" yet is has happened.  You can't say the future is ever changing then claim that it does except on something you aren't willing to admit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I've given you examples of things that folks insisted would never happened.....that never happened. Demonstrating that 'things folks predicated would never happen' doesn't demonstrate they will.
> 
> You're predicting that a specific event is certain: that churches WILL be required to perform gay weddings. And you can provide with exactly dick by way of evidence that indicates as much. With your reasoning being that since we can't prove it *won't* happen, it must happen.
> 
> Um, that's illogical nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm claiming ti will happen and how I think it will come about.  Will you, when it does, be man enough to admit you're wrong?  Doubt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if it doesn't happen, what then?
Click to expand...

 
The laws forbid it now and you want to make it out as if it won't change.  Laws prohibited same sex marriage in my State until some judge overruled them.  If that can change, why do you not believe PA laws related to this can change. 

I'm almost 50.  Like I've said, it may be another 30 years or more before it does.  I may not be around when it does.


----------



## Silhouette

Conservative65 said:


> The laws forbid it now and you want to make it out as if it won't change.  Laws prohibited same sex marriage in my State until some judge overruled them.  If that can change, why do you not believe PA laws related to this can change.
> 
> I'm almost 50.  Like I've said, it may be another 30 years or more before it does.  I may not be around when it does.


 
Reality check.  You've already been around when it changed.  A church is nothing more, legally speaking, than a congregation of individual christians.  Individual christians have already been successfully sued as bakers/florists/photographers by the cult of LGBT.  Their crusade has already forced the faithful to abdicate their core edicts and promote homosexual cultural spread forbidden to be done by them under punishment of eternal damnation as explained in Jude 1 of the New Testament.  That's a done deal.

To make that leap to a congregation of individual christians (a church) is a matter of filing the paperwork.  Within one calendar month of the LGBT cult gaining any federal mandate to change marriage from what it is now, a state-defined privelege/child formative environment incentive program into a "right" (alternative sexual lifestyles free-for-all...the kids be damned), you will see a lawsuit filed against a church, citing the lawsuits against individual christians as precedents, and you will see that lawsuit go to the Supreme Court in your lifetime.  The Supreme Court will have a hellof a time saying no to something they've said "yes" to in the case they will be deciding this year.  Ginsburg will be saying again something like gay marriage is like nonfat milk, it doesn't enjoy the richness of being allowed in churches!"  And BINGO, christianity will be dead.

If a secular lifestyle cult can order the faithful to abandon their religion legally, then religion is dead unless the faithful practice civil disobedience.  But if they do, they could lose everything they have and even wind up in jail.  Yes, there will be a day if a church refuses to marry a gay "situation" (there will be gay polygamists by then..don't laugh...I actually know some...), the pastor or others involved in the refusal may even be sent to jail.  That will be a long time off.  But the lawsuits will come the day after the ink is dry on this year's Big Gay Decision.


----------



## Conservative65

Silhouette said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws forbid it now and you want to make it out as if it won't change.  Laws prohibited same sex marriage in my State until some judge overruled them.  If that can change, why do you not believe PA laws related to this can change.
> 
> I'm almost 50.  Like I've said, it may be another 30 years or more before it does.  I may not be around when it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality check.  You've already been around when it changed.  A church is nothing more, legally speaking, than a congregation of individual christians.  Individual christians have already been successfully sued as bakers/florists/photographers by the cult of LGBT.  Their crusade has already forced the faithful to abdicate their core edicts and promote homosexual cultural spread forbidden to be done by them under punishment of eternal damnation as explained in Jude 1 of the New Testament.  That's a done deal.
> 
> To make that leap to a congregation of individual christians (a church) is a matter of filing the paperwork.  Within one calendar month of the LGBT cult gaining any federal mandate to change marriage from what it is now, a state-defined privelege/child formative environment incentive program into a "right" (alternative sexual lifestyles free-for-all...the kids be damned), you will see a lawsuit filed against a church, citing the lawsuits against individual christians as precedents, and you will see that lawsuit go to the Supreme Court in your lifetime.  The Supreme Court will have a hellof a time saying no to something they've said "yes" to in the case they will be deciding this year.  Ginsburg will be saying again something like gay marriage is like nonfat milk, it doesn't enjoy the richness of being allowed in churches!"  And BINGO, christianity will be dead.
> 
> If a secular lifestyle cult can order the faithful to abandon their religion legally, then religion is dead unless the faithful practice civil disobedience.  But if they do, they could lose everything they have and even wind up in jail.  Yes, there will be a day if a church refuses to marry a gay "situation" (there will be gay polygamists by then..don't laugh...I actually know some...), the pastor or others involved in the refusal may even be sent to jail.  That will be a long time off.  But the lawsuits will come the day after the ink is dry on this year's Big Gay Decision.
Click to expand...

 
People like Skylar don't seem to get that if other things change, so can laws that exempt churches.  I'm not claiming that it is guaranteed.  I'm claiming that if/when it happens, that's how it wil be approached.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite sure about, and rwheathengamer does not understand that in the religious sphere, under our Constitution, the churches will easily withstand any assault trying to make them marry people they don't want to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> Well grab the brake lever on the run away train then, and slow that assault wagon down already, but you can't slow it down either can you, so just keep on jabbering like the rest of us I guess...LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, what 'assault'? There are zero cases of churches ever being forced to perform a wedding they didn't want to.
> 
> You're fear mongering.
Click to expand...

The assault on Christianity in this nation right ? Also the assaults on many other peoples wishes not to engage or participate in such things and/or to not support such things either directly or indirectly. 

You know what ? The Church is a huge part of the belief system in which is under attack in this nation, and so why would you think that it is off limits to these attacks.in which people have been experiencing and witnessing all over the place now ? The Church might be the last hold out (like the Alamo), and this being part of the whole war that is being waged against the morals and values once held dear to this nation, and in which was learned in a Church.  So it may not be a matter of *IF* it will be attacked, but more so of a matter of *when* it finally will be attacked all be it directly or indirectly. I think it is the hopes of some that it will fall sooner if not later on the inside, and this over the outside pressures that are constantly being brought in and around it now.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite sure about, and rwheathengamer does not understand that in the religious sphere, under our Constitution, the churches will easily withstand any assault trying to make them marry people they don't want to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> Well grab the brake lever on the run away train then, and slow that assault wagon down already, but you can't slow it down either can you, so just keep on jabbering like the rest of us I guess...LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, what 'assault'? There are zero cases of churches ever being forced to perform a wedding they didn't want to.
> 
> You're fear mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The assault on Christianity in this nation right ?
Click to expand...


No. There is no assault on Christianity in this country. Nor is requiring someone to follow the same law that everyone else follows an attack, assault, rape, romp, ass kicking, or any other colorfully violent description you may wish to apply.

You're not David Bowie. This isn't the alamo. You're just being a little melodramatic.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws forbid it now and you want to make it out as if it won't change.  Laws prohibited same sex marriage in my State until some judge overruled them.  If that can change, why do you not believe PA laws related to this can change.
> 
> I'm almost 50.  Like I've said, it may be another 30 years or more before it does.  I may not be around when it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality check.  You've already been around when it changed.  A church is nothing more, legally speaking, than a congregation of individual christians.  Individual christians have already been successfully sued as bakers/florists/photographers by the cult of LGBT.  Their crusade has already forced the faithful to abdicate their core edicts and promote homosexual cultural spread forbidden to be done by them under punishment of eternal damnation as explained in Jude 1 of the New Testament.  That's a done deal.
> 
> To make that leap to a congregation of individual christians (a church) is a matter of filing the paperwork.  Within one calendar month of the LGBT cult gaining any federal mandate to change marriage from what it is now, a state-defined privelege/child formative environment incentive program into a "right" (alternative sexual lifestyles free-for-all...the kids be damned), you will see a lawsuit filed against a church, citing the lawsuits against individual christians as precedents, and you will see that lawsuit go to the Supreme Court in your lifetime.  The Supreme Court will have a hellof a time saying no to something they've said "yes" to in the case they will be deciding this year.  Ginsburg will be saying again something like gay marriage is like nonfat milk, it doesn't enjoy the richness of being allowed in churches!"  And BINGO, christianity will be dead.
> 
> If a secular lifestyle cult can order the faithful to abandon their religion legally, then religion is dead unless the faithful practice civil disobedience.  But if they do, they could lose everything they have and even wind up in jail.  Yes, there will be a day if a church refuses to marry a gay "situation" (there will be gay polygamists by then..don't laugh...I actually know some...), the pastor or others involved in the refusal may even be sent to jail.  That will be a long time off.  But the lawsuits will come the day after the ink is dry on this year's Big Gay Decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like Skylar don't seem to get that if other things change, so can laws that exempt churches.  I'm not claiming that it is guaranteed.  I'm claiming that if/when it happens, that's how it wil be approached.
Click to expand...


Again, for 20th times....you're claiming that churches most certainly WILL be required to accommodate gay weddings. Yet when I ask you for the evidence of this, the results are always the same:

Jack shit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

There is absolutely no evidence.

The shrill intensity and verbosity of the anti marriage equality folks merely demonstrates the growing awareness (and acceptance) they have lost.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Reality check.  You've already been around when it changed.  A church is nothing more, legally speaking, than a congregation of individual christians.



'Legally speaking'? Reality Check, Silo..... you don't know what you're talking about. Churches are explicitly exempted from PA laws. These laws only apply to businesses which churches aren't. The law couldn't be clearer.

Yet you ignore the law, imagine up your version, and then lament about your imagination.

Its like watching Ed Norton have a fist fight with Tyler Durden.



> Their crusade has already forced the faithful to abdicate their core edicts and promote homosexual cultural spread forbidden to be done by them under punishment of eternal damnation as explained in Jude 1 of the New Testament.  That's a done deal.



Where in Jude 1 is there a prohibition against selling cake? Because I'm pretty sure you just made that up.



> To make that leap to a congregation of individual christians (a church) is a matter of filing the paperwork.



Save for the fact that PA laws explicitly exclude all churches.  Again, Silo.....you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. You're literally just making this shit up as you go along.



> Within one calendar month of the LGBT cult gaining any federal mandate to change marriage from what it is now, a state-defined privelege/child formative environment incentive program into a "right" (alternative sexual lifestyles free-for-all...the kids be damned), you will see a lawsuit filed against a church, citing the lawsuits against individual christians as precedents, and you will see that lawsuit go to the Supreme Court in your lifetime.



A lawsuit is certainly possible. *But it will be laughed out of court. *As PA laws don't apply to churches. Churches are expressly, and explicitly exempt. You equate a person with a church. The law doesn't.

And remember, your 'timelines' are useless gibberish. We're 2 weeks into your claims that federal judges who overturned gay marriage bans will be 'impeached within 30 days'. Um, no. They won't. You're hopelessly clueless.



> The Supreme Court will have a hellof a time saying no to something they've said "yes" to in the case they will be deciding this year.  Ginsburg will be saying again something like gay marriage is like nonfat milk, it doesn't enjoy the richness of being allowed in churches!"  And BINGO, christianity will be dead.



The USSC has never held that churches are subject to PA laws. And all PA laws explicit exempt churches.

Remember, you're just making this shit up as you go along. And you don't actually know what you're talking about.[/quote]


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> There is absolutely no evidence.
> 
> The shrill intensity and verbosity of the anti marriage equality folks merely demonstrates the growing awareness (and acceptance) they have lost.



You kinda get that vibe, dontcha? They're already preparing for what they imagine is the next fight, as they clearly didn't do so well in this one. 

The obvious problem being......there prepping the ground in the wrong place.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws forbid it now and you want to make it out as if it won't change.  Laws prohibited same sex marriage in my State until some judge overruled them.  If that can change, why do you not believe PA laws related to this can change.
> 
> I'm almost 50.  Like I've said, it may be another 30 years or more before it does.  I may not be around when it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality check.  You've already been around when it changed.  A church is nothing more, legally speaking, than a congregation of individual christians.  Individual christians have already been successfully sued as bakers/florists/photographers by the cult of LGBT.  Their crusade has already forced the faithful to abdicate their core edicts and promote homosexual cultural spread forbidden to be done by them under punishment of eternal damnation as explained in Jude 1 of the New Testament.  That's a done deal.
> 
> To make that leap to a congregation of individual christians (a church) is a matter of filing the paperwork.  Within one calendar month of the LGBT cult gaining any federal mandate to change marriage from what it is now, a state-defined privelege/child formative environment incentive program into a "right" (alternative sexual lifestyles free-for-all...the kids be damned), you will see a lawsuit filed against a church, citing the lawsuits against individual christians as precedents, and you will see that lawsuit go to the Supreme Court in your lifetime.  The Supreme Court will have a hellof a time saying no to something they've said "yes" to in the case they will be deciding this year.  Ginsburg will be saying again something like gay marriage is like nonfat milk, it doesn't enjoy the richness of being allowed in churches!"  And BINGO, christianity will be dead.
> 
> If a secular lifestyle cult can order the faithful to abandon their religion legally, then religion is dead unless the faithful practice civil disobedience.  But if they do, they could lose everything they have and even wind up in jail.  Yes, there will be a day if a church refuses to marry a gay "situation" (there will be gay polygamists by then..don't laugh...I actually know some...), the pastor or others involved in the refusal may even be sent to jail.  That will be a long time off.  But the lawsuits will come the day after the ink is dry on this year's Big Gay Decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like Skylar don't seem to get that if other things change, so can laws that exempt churches.  I'm not claiming that it is guaranteed.  I'm claiming that if/when it happens, that's how it wil be approached.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, for 20th times....you're claiming that churches most certainly WILL be required to accommodate gay weddings. Yet when I ask you for the evidence of this, the results are always the same:
> 
> Jack shit.
Click to expand...

 
For the 20th time, I'm claiming that when it happens, that's how I say it wil come about.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence.
> 
> The shrill intensity and verbosity of the anti marriage equality folks merely demonstrates the growing awareness (and acceptance) they have lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You kinda get that vibe, dontcha? They're already preparing for what they imagine is the next fight, as they clearly didn't do so well in this one.
> 
> The obvious problem being......there prepping the ground in the wrong place.
Click to expand...

 
Since not a single marriage of two fags will ever be on the same level as mine, you can't lose to second class people.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence.
> 
> The shrill intensity and verbosity of the anti marriage equality folks merely demonstrates the growing awareness (and acceptance) they have lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You kinda get that vibe, dontcha? They're already preparing for what they imagine is the next fight, as they clearly didn't do so well in this one.
> 
> The obvious problem being......there prepping the ground in the wrong place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since not a single marriage of two fags will ever be on the same level as mine, you can't lose to second class people.
Click to expand...


And you feel free to believe that. No one really gives a shit. Gays and lesbians will continue to get married and enjoy the privileges and protections of the law, raise their families and go about their lives.

Sounds like a win-win to me.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws forbid it now and you want to make it out as if it won't change.  Laws prohibited same sex marriage in my State until some judge overruled them.  If that can change, why do you not believe PA laws related to this can change.
> 
> I'm almost 50.  Like I've said, it may be another 30 years or more before it does.  I may not be around when it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality check.  You've already been around when it changed.  A church is nothing more, legally speaking, than a congregation of individual christians.  Individual christians have already been successfully sued as bakers/florists/photographers by the cult of LGBT.  Their crusade has already forced the faithful to abdicate their core edicts and promote homosexual cultural spread forbidden to be done by them under punishment of eternal damnation as explained in Jude 1 of the New Testament.  That's a done deal.
> 
> To make that leap to a congregation of individual christians (a church) is a matter of filing the paperwork.  Within one calendar month of the LGBT cult gaining any federal mandate to change marriage from what it is now, a state-defined privelege/child formative environment incentive program into a "right" (alternative sexual lifestyles free-for-all...the kids be damned), you will see a lawsuit filed against a church, citing the lawsuits against individual christians as precedents, and you will see that lawsuit go to the Supreme Court in your lifetime.  The Supreme Court will have a hellof a time saying no to something they've said "yes" to in the case they will be deciding this year.  Ginsburg will be saying again something like gay marriage is like nonfat milk, it doesn't enjoy the richness of being allowed in churches!"  And BINGO, christianity will be dead.
> 
> If a secular lifestyle cult can order the faithful to abandon their religion legally, then religion is dead unless the faithful practice civil disobedience.  But if they do, they could lose everything they have and even wind up in jail.  Yes, there will be a day if a church refuses to marry a gay "situation" (there will be gay polygamists by then..don't laugh...I actually know some...), the pastor or others involved in the refusal may even be sent to jail.  That will be a long time off.  But the lawsuits will come the day after the ink is dry on this year's Big Gay Decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like Skylar don't seem to get that if other things change, so can laws that exempt churches.  I'm not claiming that it is guaranteed.  I'm claiming that if/when it happens, that's how it wil be approached.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, for 20th times....you're claiming that churches most certainly WILL be required to accommodate gay weddings. Yet when I ask you for the evidence of this, the results are always the same:
> 
> Jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the 20th time, I'm claiming that when it happens, that's how I say it wil come about.
Click to expand...


You're assuming its going to happen. And you can't factually establish that it will, or even show us evidence that indicates its likely. You simply believe.

Um, so?


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence.
> 
> The shrill intensity and verbosity of the anti marriage equality folks merely demonstrates the growing awareness (and acceptance) they have lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You kinda get that vibe, dontcha? They're already preparing for what they imagine is the next fight, as they clearly didn't do so well in this one.
> 
> The obvious problem being......there prepping the ground in the wrong place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since not a single marriage of two fags will ever be on the same level as mine, you can't lose to second class people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you feel free to believe that. No one really gives a shit. Gays and lesbians will continue to get married and enjoy the privileges and protections of the law, raise their families and go about their lives.
> 
> Sounds like a win-win to me.
Click to expand...

 
They will still be second class.  Feel free to belive they won't but no one except faggots give a shit about what you think.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws forbid it now and you want to make it out as if it won't change.  Laws prohibited same sex marriage in my State until some judge overruled them.  If that can change, why do you not believe PA laws related to this can change.
> 
> I'm almost 50.  Like I've said, it may be another 30 years or more before it does.  I may not be around when it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality check.  You've already been around when it changed.  A church is nothing more, legally speaking, than a congregation of individual christians.  Individual christians have already been successfully sued as bakers/florists/photographers by the cult of LGBT.  Their crusade has already forced the faithful to abdicate their core edicts and promote homosexual cultural spread forbidden to be done by them under punishment of eternal damnation as explained in Jude 1 of the New Testament.  That's a done deal.
> 
> To make that leap to a congregation of individual christians (a church) is a matter of filing the paperwork.  Within one calendar month of the LGBT cult gaining any federal mandate to change marriage from what it is now, a state-defined privelege/child formative environment incentive program into a "right" (alternative sexual lifestyles free-for-all...the kids be damned), you will see a lawsuit filed against a church, citing the lawsuits against individual christians as precedents, and you will see that lawsuit go to the Supreme Court in your lifetime.  The Supreme Court will have a hellof a time saying no to something they've said "yes" to in the case they will be deciding this year.  Ginsburg will be saying again something like gay marriage is like nonfat milk, it doesn't enjoy the richness of being allowed in churches!"  And BINGO, christianity will be dead.
> 
> If a secular lifestyle cult can order the faithful to abandon their religion legally, then religion is dead unless the faithful practice civil disobedience.  But if they do, they could lose everything they have and even wind up in jail.  Yes, there will be a day if a church refuses to marry a gay "situation" (there will be gay polygamists by then..don't laugh...I actually know some...), the pastor or others involved in the refusal may even be sent to jail.  That will be a long time off.  But the lawsuits will come the day after the ink is dry on this year's Big Gay Decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like Skylar don't seem to get that if other things change, so can laws that exempt churches.  I'm not claiming that it is guaranteed.  I'm claiming that if/when it happens, that's how it wil be approached.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, for 20th times....you're claiming that churches most certainly WILL be required to accommodate gay weddings. Yet when I ask you for the evidence of this, the results are always the same:
> 
> Jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the 20th time, I'm claiming that when it happens, that's how I say it wil come about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're assuming its going to happen. And you can't factually establish that it will, or even show us evidence that indicates its likely. You simply believe.
> 
> Um, so?
Click to expand...

 
You seem to be saying it never will.  The only thing that never will happen is fags being normal


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite sure about, and rwheathengamer does not understand that in the religious sphere, under our Constitution, the churches will easily withstand any assault trying to make them marry people they don't want to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> Well grab the brake lever on the run away train then, and slow that assault wagon down already, but you can't slow it down either can you, so just keep on jabbering like the rest of us I guess...LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, what 'assault'? There are zero cases of churches ever being forced to perform a wedding they didn't want to.
> 
> You're fear mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The assault on Christianity in this nation right ? Also the assaults on many other peoples wishes not to engage or participate in such things and/or to not support such things either directly or indirectly.
> 
> You know what ? The Church is a huge part of the belief system in which is under attack in this nation, and so why would you think that it is off limits to these attacks.in which people have been experiencing and witnessing all over the place now ? The Church might be the last hold out (like the Alamo), and this being part of the whole war that is being waged against the morals and values once held dear to this nation, and in which was learned in a Church.  So it may not be a matter of *IF* it will be attacked, but more so of a matter of *when* it finally will be attacked all be it directly or indirectly. I think it is the hopes of some that it will fall sooner if not later on the inside, and this over the outside pressures that are constantly being brought in and around it now.
Click to expand...


Beagle means far right Christian denominations' assaults on the Constitution and the rights of other Americans.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence.
> 
> The shrill intensity and verbosity of the anti marriage equality folks merely demonstrates the growing awareness (and acceptance) they have lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You kinda get that vibe, dontcha? They're already preparing for what they imagine is the next fight, as they clearly didn't do so well in this one.
> 
> The obvious problem being......there prepping the ground in the wrong place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since not a single marriage of two fags will ever be on the same level as mine, you can't lose to second class people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you feel free to believe that. No one really gives a shit. Gays and lesbians will continue to get married and enjoy the privileges and protections of the law, raise their families and go about their lives.
> 
> Sounds like a win-win to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will still be second class.  Feel free to belive they won't but no one except faggots give a shit about what you think.
Click to expand...


Second class on to your far right social con ilk, a small minority in America now.

Keep it up, you will be second class to 250 million Americans.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite sure about, and rwheathengamer does not understand that in the religious sphere, under our Constitution, the churches will easily withstand any assault trying to make them marry people they don't want to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> Well grab the brake lever on the run away train then, and slow that assault wagon down already, but you can't slow it down either can you, so just keep on jabbering like the rest of us I guess...LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, what 'assault'? There are zero cases of churches ever being forced to perform a wedding they didn't want to.
> 
> You're fear mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The assault on Christianity in this nation right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. There is no assault on Christianity in this country. Nor is requiring someone to follow the same law that everyone else follows an attack, assault, rape, romp, ass kicking, or any other colorfully violent description you may wish to apply.
> 
> You're not David Bowie. This isn't the alamo. You're just being a little melodramatic.
Click to expand...

Nobody is requiring anyone else to believe in and/or to abide by what one believes in, but that is the way you want to play it here. It really is a clever way in which you and others attack the Christians by the ways in which you use here, so let's chalk this one up as just another attack, but this time it was being conducted by you.  I mean hey you just conducted yourself in a disingenuous manor, and we see right into the core of the machine in which you all are running now. Got anymore tactics to be exposed so easily ?


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), *then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, unfortunately, no it isn't.
> 
> A majority in all the states currently believing erroneously that they must allow gay-lifestyle marraige against their will enacted laws limiting marriage to one man/one woman.  And still they were legally-forced to accept (not that they have to) that which is repugnant to the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poll is still the kind of evidence I stated it was. A percentage of 82% saying "no" is evidence people _won't_ force churches to do something churches don't want to do.
> 
> Your _new_ evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to _religious_ freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heard the other day that in some state there is an army veteran from the Afghan conflict, who wanted a statue of a soldier kneeling down at a cross in a military or city/government run cemetery to now go, and why was this ? It was of course none other than it offended him (poor wittle tang), so next he and some organization sued the city over it for around 2 mil I think... I saw this report on Fox news the other day, so I just had to stop in front of the TV to listen up a sec. and just to hear another piece of Christianity being attacked yet again in this nation.
> 
> As Sil says over and over again that the LGBT is an organization/cult/activist group right ? Do you think that any of this stuff will stop just because you and a few others in here say so ? ROTFLMBO.
Click to expand...


Was it removed from a church? No? 

The statue was on public grounds. What you are construing as an "attack" was actually a scaling-back of religion's wider influence. 

Just think of it this way: right now, religion in America is like the British colonial empire. It's stretched out into all these places claiming it deserves to be there. And now we're seeing that power ebb, but it doesn't mean this ends with India taking over England. India doesn't even _want_ to take over England. This ends with England being back inside England, period, acknowledgements, about the author.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence.
> 
> The shrill intensity and verbosity of the anti marriage equality folks merely demonstrates the growing awareness (and acceptance) they have lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You kinda get that vibe, dontcha? They're already preparing for what they imagine is the next fight, as they clearly didn't do so well in this one.
> 
> The obvious problem being......there prepping the ground in the wrong place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since not a single marriage of two fags will ever be on the same level as mine, you can't lose to second class people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you feel free to believe that. No one really gives a shit. Gays and lesbians will continue to get married and enjoy the privileges and protections of the law, raise their families and go about their lives.
> 
> Sounds like a win-win to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will still be second class.  Feel free to belive they won't but no one except faggots give a shit about what you think.
Click to expand...


Whatever. You believe whatever makes you comfortable. And gays get the legal recognition and protection that they want. 

Everyone wins!


----------



## pillars

Government should not interfere with the free practice of religion according to the dictates of one's conscience.  Churches should not be forced to marry gay couples against their will.  However, that doesn't mean that gay marriage should not be legal, it should.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite sure about, and rwheathengamer does not understand that in the religious sphere, under our Constitution, the churches will easily withstand any assault trying to make them marry people they don't want to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> Well grab the brake lever on the run away train then, and slow that assault wagon down already, but you can't slow it down either can you, so just keep on jabbering like the rest of us I guess...LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, what 'assault'? There are zero cases of churches ever being forced to perform a wedding they didn't want to.
> 
> You're fear mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The assault on Christianity in this nation right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. There is no assault on Christianity in this country. Nor is requiring someone to follow the same law that everyone else follows an attack, assault, rape, romp, ass kicking, or any other colorfully violent description you may wish to apply.
> 
> You're not David Bowie. This isn't the alamo. You're just being a little melodramatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is requiring anyone else to believe in and/or to abide by what one believes in, but that is the way you want to play it here. It really is a clever way in which you and others attack the Christians by the ways in which you use here, so let's chalk this one up as just another attack, but this time it was being conducted by you.  I mean hey you just conducted yourself in a disingenuous manor, and we see right into the core of the machine in which you all are running now. Got anymore tactics to be exposed so easily ?
Click to expand...


Applying the law the same to Christians the same way you do everyone else isn't 'attacking Christians'. As Christians aren't exempt from the law. 

If you want to do business publicly, you're required to meet minimum standards of conduct with  your customers. They must be treated fairly and equally. 

That's not unreasonable. And that's not an 'attack on Christianity', Mr. Bowie.


----------



## Skylar

pillars said:


> Government should not interfere with the free practice of religion according to the dictates of one's conscience.  Churches should not be forced to marry gay couples against their will.  However, that doesn't mean that gay marriage should not be legal, it should.



ANd no one, in 660 pages, has argued that churches should be required to perform gay weddings. 

This thread is mostly about addressing the hysteria of the right wing in their belief that they will. Despite zero evidence to support such a conclusion.


----------



## pillars

A church isn't a business.  It's a faith-based organization with constitutional protections that do not apply to businesses.


----------



## pillars

Skylar said:


> This thread is mostly about addressing the hysteria of the right wing in their belief that they will. Despite zero evidence to support such a conclusion.


You know what's crazy is the thought that a gay couple would want to celebrate one of the happiest days of their life being married by a religion that thinks they are subhuman.  I lulz at that all the time.  Like, do you really think gay people are breaking down the doors of your local church to get married there?  Churches/pastors already make individual determinations on who can get married there with straight couples.  Most pastors won't marry a couple that doesn't fulfill specific conditions (premarital counseling, member of the congregation, etc.).


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality check.  You've already been around when it changed.  A church is nothing more, legally speaking, than a congregation of individual christians.  Individual christians have already been successfully sued as bakers/florists/photographers by the cult of LGBT.  Their crusade has already forced the faithful to abdicate their core edicts and promote homosexual cultural spread forbidden to be done by them under punishment of eternal damnation as explained in Jude 1 of the New Testament.  That's a done deal.
> 
> To make that leap to a congregation of individual christians (a church) is a matter of filing the paperwork.  Within one calendar month of the LGBT cult gaining any federal mandate to change marriage from what it is now, a state-defined privelege/child formative environment incentive program into a "right" (alternative sexual lifestyles free-for-all...the kids be damned), you will see a lawsuit filed against a church, citing the lawsuits against individual christians as precedents, and you will see that lawsuit go to the Supreme Court in your lifetime.  The Supreme Court will have a hellof a time saying no to something they've said "yes" to in the case they will be deciding this year.  Ginsburg will be saying again something like gay marriage is like nonfat milk, it doesn't enjoy the richness of being allowed in churches!"  And BINGO, christianity will be dead.
> 
> If a secular lifestyle cult can order the faithful to abandon their religion legally, then religion is dead unless the faithful practice civil disobedience.  But if they do, they could lose everything they have and even wind up in jail.  Yes, there will be a day if a church refuses to marry a gay "situation" (there will be gay polygamists by then..don't laugh...I actually know some...), the pastor or others involved in the refusal may even be sent to jail.  That will be a long time off.  But the lawsuits will come the day after the ink is dry on this year's Big Gay Decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like Skylar don't seem to get that if other things change, so can laws that exempt churches.  I'm not claiming that it is guaranteed.  I'm claiming that if/when it happens, that's how it wil be approached.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, for 20th times....you're claiming that churches most certainly WILL be required to accommodate gay weddings. Yet when I ask you for the evidence of this, the results are always the same:
> 
> Jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the 20th time, I'm claiming that when it happens, that's how I say it wil come about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're assuming its going to happen. And you can't factually establish that it will, or even show us evidence that indicates its likely. You simply believe.
> 
> Um, so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be saying it never will.  The only thing that never will happen is fags being normal
Click to expand...


I'm saying that there is no indication that it will ever happen. No support publicly, legislatively or judicially, with churches explicitly exempted from PA laws, PA laws applying only to businesses...which churches aren't.

You insist it certainly will happen. But when I ask you to show me the evidence to support your conclusion, you always provide the same thing:

Jack shit.


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence.
> 
> The shrill intensity and verbosity of the anti marriage equality folks merely demonstrates the growing awareness (and acceptance) they have lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You kinda get that vibe, dontcha? They're already preparing for what they imagine is the next fight, as they clearly didn't do so well in this one.
> 
> The obvious problem being......there prepping the ground in the wrong place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since not a single marriage of two fags will ever be on the same level as mine, you can't lose to second class people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you feel free to believe that. No one really gives a shit. Gays and lesbians will continue to get married and enjoy the privileges and protections of the law, raise their families and go about their lives.
> 
> Sounds like a win-win to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will still be second class.  Feel free to belive they won't but no one except faggots give a shit about what you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Second class on to your far right social con ilk, a small minority in America now.
> 
> Keep it up, you will be second class to 250 million Americans.
Click to expand...

 
Still second class.

I'll never be second class behind the 250 you reference.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence.
> 
> The shrill intensity and verbosity of the anti marriage equality folks merely demonstrates the growing awareness (and acceptance) they have lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You kinda get that vibe, dontcha? They're already preparing for what they imagine is the next fight, as they clearly didn't do so well in this one.
> 
> The obvious problem being......there prepping the ground in the wrong place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since not a single marriage of two fags will ever be on the same level as mine, you can't lose to second class people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you feel free to believe that. No one really gives a shit. Gays and lesbians will continue to get married and enjoy the privileges and protections of the law, raise their families and go about their lives.
> 
> Sounds like a win-win to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will still be second class.  Feel free to belive they won't but no one except faggots give a shit about what you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever. You believe whatever makes you comfortable. And gays get the legal recognition and protection that they want.
> 
> Everyone wins!
Click to expand...

 
I believe what's true.  The legal recognition doesn't equate to being on the same level as normal heterosexuals.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You kinda get that vibe, dontcha? They're already preparing for what they imagine is the next fight, as they clearly didn't do so well in this one.
> 
> The obvious problem being......there prepping the ground in the wrong place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since not a single marriage of two fags will ever be on the same level as mine, you can't lose to second class people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you feel free to believe that. No one really gives a shit. Gays and lesbians will continue to get married and enjoy the privileges and protections of the law, raise their families and go about their lives.
> 
> Sounds like a win-win to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will still be second class.  Feel free to belive they won't but no one except faggots give a shit about what you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever. You believe whatever makes you comfortable. And gays get the legal recognition and protection that they want.
> 
> Everyone wins!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe what's true.  The legal recognition doesn't equate to being on the same level as normal heterosexuals.
Click to expand...

Normal heterosexuals?  I've yet to meet ones of those.  I know a lot of crazy fucker heterosexuals though.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well grab the brake lever on the run away train then, and slow that assault wagon down already, but you can't slow it down either can you, so just keep on jabbering like the rest of us I guess...LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, what 'assault'? There are zero cases of churches ever being forced to perform a wedding they didn't want to.
> 
> You're fear mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The assault on Christianity in this nation right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. There is no assault on Christianity in this country. Nor is requiring someone to follow the same law that everyone else follows an attack, assault, rape, romp, ass kicking, or any other colorfully violent description you may wish to apply.
> 
> You're not David Bowie. This isn't the alamo. You're just being a little melodramatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is requiring anyone else to believe in and/or to abide by what one believes in, but that is the way you want to play it here. It really is a clever way in which you and others attack the Christians by the ways in which you use here, so let's chalk this one up as just another attack, but this time it was being conducted by you.  I mean hey you just conducted yourself in a disingenuous manor, and we see right into the core of the machine in which you all are running now. Got anymore tactics to be exposed so easily ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Applying the law the same to Christians the same way you do everyone else isn't 'attacking Christians'. As Christians aren't exempt from the law.
> 
> If you want to do business publicly, you're required to meet minimum standards of conduct with  your customers. They must be treated fairly and equally.
> 
> That's not unreasonable. And that's not an 'attack on Christianity', Mr. Bowie.
Click to expand...

 
13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong 
When should these homos be expected to bake a cake or are they exempt?

If these homos want to do business publicly, they're required to do the same.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since not a single marriage of two fags will ever be on the same level as mine, you can't lose to second class people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you feel free to believe that. No one really gives a shit. Gays and lesbians will continue to get married and enjoy the privileges and protections of the law, raise their families and go about their lives.
> 
> Sounds like a win-win to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will still be second class.  Feel free to belive they won't but no one except faggots give a shit about what you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever. You believe whatever makes you comfortable. And gays get the legal recognition and protection that they want.
> 
> Everyone wins!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe what's true.  The legal recognition doesn't equate to being on the same level as normal heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Normal heterosexuals?  I've yet to meet ones of those.  I know a lot of crazy fucker heterosexuals though.
Click to expand...

 
Normal heterosexuals.  A man that likes women and vice versa.  Anything else is abnormal.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, what 'assault'? There are zero cases of churches ever being forced to perform a wedding they didn't want to.
> 
> You're fear mongering.
> 
> 
> 
> The assault on Christianity in this nation right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. There is no assault on Christianity in this country. Nor is requiring someone to follow the same law that everyone else follows an attack, assault, rape, romp, ass kicking, or any other colorfully violent description you may wish to apply.
> 
> You're not David Bowie. This isn't the alamo. You're just being a little melodramatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is requiring anyone else to believe in and/or to abide by what one believes in, but that is the way you want to play it here. It really is a clever way in which you and others attack the Christians by the ways in which you use here, so let's chalk this one up as just another attack, but this time it was being conducted by you.  I mean hey you just conducted yourself in a disingenuous manor, and we see right into the core of the machine in which you all are running now. Got anymore tactics to be exposed so easily ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Applying the law the same to Christians the same way you do everyone else isn't 'attacking Christians'. As Christians aren't exempt from the law.
> 
> If you want to do business publicly, you're required to meet minimum standards of conduct with  your customers. They must be treated fairly and equally.
> 
> That's not unreasonable. And that's not an 'attack on Christianity', Mr. Bowie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong
> When should these homos be expected to bake a cake or are they exempt?
> 
> If these homos want to do business publicly, they're required to do the same.
Click to expand...


But they will make the cake. And that's the hanging point...not the speech on the cake. But the cake itself. I'll give any baker a pass on speech. But on selling your signature product? Nope.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, what 'assault'? There are zero cases of churches ever being forced to perform a wedding they didn't want to.
> 
> You're fear mongering.
> 
> 
> 
> The assault on Christianity in this nation right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. There is no assault on Christianity in this country. Nor is requiring someone to follow the same law that everyone else follows an attack, assault, rape, romp, ass kicking, or any other colorfully violent description you may wish to apply.
> 
> You're not David Bowie. This isn't the alamo. You're just being a little melodramatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is requiring anyone else to believe in and/or to abide by what one believes in, but that is the way you want to play it here. It really is a clever way in which you and others attack the Christians by the ways in which you use here, so let's chalk this one up as just another attack, but this time it was being conducted by you.  I mean hey you just conducted yourself in a disingenuous manor, and we see right into the core of the machine in which you all are running now. Got anymore tactics to be exposed so easily ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Applying the law the same to Christians the same way you do everyone else isn't 'attacking Christians'. As Christians aren't exempt from the law.
> 
> If you want to do business publicly, you're required to meet minimum standards of conduct with  your customers. They must be treated fairly and equally.
> 
> That's not unreasonable. And that's not an 'attack on Christianity', Mr. Bowie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong
> When should these homos be expected to bake a cake or are they exempt?
> 
> If these homos want to do business publicly, they're required to do the same.
Click to expand...

Bake the cake, ignore the message, that he can do on his own.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you feel free to believe that. No one really gives a shit. Gays and lesbians will continue to get married and enjoy the privileges and protections of the law, raise their families and go about their lives.
> 
> Sounds like a win-win to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will still be second class.  Feel free to belive they won't but no one except faggots give a shit about what you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever. You believe whatever makes you comfortable. And gays get the legal recognition and protection that they want.
> 
> Everyone wins!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe what's true.  The legal recognition doesn't equate to being on the same level as normal heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Normal heterosexuals?  I've yet to meet ones of those.  I know a lot of crazy fucker heterosexuals though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Normal heterosexuals.  A man that likes women and vice versa.  Anything else is abnormal.
Click to expand...

By chance, do you no what abnormal means?  Left-handed people are abnormal for instance.


----------



## pillars

Conservative65 said:


> I believe what's true.  The legal recognition doesn't equate to being on the same level as normal heterosexuals.



In your opinion, which you are entitled to hold. What matters is to give people legal equality, not try and force people to accept that which they don't agree with.  No one should care what opinion you hold, as long as you follow the law.


----------



## Conservative65

pillars said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe what's true.  The legal recognition doesn't equate to being on the same level as normal heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your opinion, which you are entitled to hold. What matters is to give people legal equality, not try and force people to accept that which they don't agree with.  No one should care what opinion you hold, as long as you follow the law.
Click to expand...

 
Never said anyone had to agree including you. 

I was following he law of my State which some activist, faggot friendly judge decided to step beyond his bounds and overturn.  Unlike him, the law was made by a legislature that was elected by the people of  the State.  Seems you think an appointed member of the government should have more power than those elected by the people.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will still be second class.  Feel free to belive they won't but no one except faggots give a shit about what you think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever. You believe whatever makes you comfortable. And gays get the legal recognition and protection that they want.
> 
> Everyone wins!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe what's true.  The legal recognition doesn't equate to being on the same level as normal heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Normal heterosexuals?  I've yet to meet ones of those.  I know a lot of crazy fucker heterosexuals though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Normal heterosexuals.  A man that likes women and vice versa.  Anything else is abnormal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By chance, do you no what abnormal means?  Left-handed people are abnormal for instance.
Click to expand...

 
I don't equate those in the numerical minority as abnormal because they have a fewer number.  It's based on action.


----------



## pillars

Conservative65 said:


> I was following he law of my State which some activist, faggot friendly judge decided to step beyond his bounds and overturn.  Unlike him, the law was made by a legislature that was elected by the people of  the State.  Seems you think an appointed member of the government should have more power than those elected by the people.



I think that a role of the courts is to test legislation against the constitution, which is the system set up by the founding fathers.  Just because the majority enacts a law does not mean that the law is constitutional.  That's what the term equal protection means...it helps to prevent tyranny of the majority against the minority.

Say you were a member of a minority belief system...not Christianity.  Wouldn't you want that legal protection for you to practice your beliefs, according to the dictates of your conscience?


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assault on Christianity in this nation right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. There is no assault on Christianity in this country. Nor is requiring someone to follow the same law that everyone else follows an attack, assault, rape, romp, ass kicking, or any other colorfully violent description you may wish to apply.
> 
> You're not David Bowie. This isn't the alamo. You're just being a little melodramatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is requiring anyone else to believe in and/or to abide by what one believes in, but that is the way you want to play it here. It really is a clever way in which you and others attack the Christians by the ways in which you use here, so let's chalk this one up as just another attack, but this time it was being conducted by you.  I mean hey you just conducted yourself in a disingenuous manor, and we see right into the core of the machine in which you all are running now. Got anymore tactics to be exposed so easily ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Applying the law the same to Christians the same way you do everyone else isn't 'attacking Christians'. As Christians aren't exempt from the law.
> 
> If you want to do business publicly, you're required to meet minimum standards of conduct with  your customers. They must be treated fairly and equally.
> 
> That's not unreasonable. And that's not an 'attack on Christianity', Mr. Bowie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong
> When should these homos be expected to bake a cake or are they exempt?
> 
> If these homos want to do business publicly, they're required to do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they will make the cake. And that's the hanging point...not the speech on the cake. But the cake itself. I'll give any baker a pass on speech. But on selling your signature product? Nope.
Click to expand...

 
What's on it is as important as the cake itself. 

So you'll give a fag baker a pass on what is on the cake yet the Christian baker opposed has to put two male names and two males figures ON the cake?  Hypocrite.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever. You believe whatever makes you comfortable. And gays get the legal recognition and protection that they want.
> 
> Everyone wins!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe what's true.  The legal recognition doesn't equate to being on the same level as normal heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Normal heterosexuals?  I've yet to meet ones of those.  I know a lot of crazy fucker heterosexuals though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Normal heterosexuals.  A man that likes women and vice versa.  Anything else is abnormal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By chance, do you no what abnormal means?  Left-handed people are abnormal for instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't equate those in the numerical minority as abnormal because they have a fewer number.  It's based on action.
Click to expand...

Well then, you would be incorrect.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. There is no assault on Christianity in this country. Nor is requiring someone to follow the same law that everyone else follows an attack, assault, rape, romp, ass kicking, or any other colorfully violent description you may wish to apply.
> 
> You're not David Bowie. This isn't the alamo. You're just being a little melodramatic.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is requiring anyone else to believe in and/or to abide by what one believes in, but that is the way you want to play it here. It really is a clever way in which you and others attack the Christians by the ways in which you use here, so let's chalk this one up as just another attack, but this time it was being conducted by you.  I mean hey you just conducted yourself in a disingenuous manor, and we see right into the core of the machine in which you all are running now. Got anymore tactics to be exposed so easily ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Applying the law the same to Christians the same way you do everyone else isn't 'attacking Christians'. As Christians aren't exempt from the law.
> 
> If you want to do business publicly, you're required to meet minimum standards of conduct with  your customers. They must be treated fairly and equally.
> 
> That's not unreasonable. And that's not an 'attack on Christianity', Mr. Bowie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong
> When should these homos be expected to bake a cake or are they exempt?
> 
> If these homos want to do business publicly, they're required to do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they will make the cake. And that's the hanging point...not the speech on the cake. But the cake itself. I'll give any baker a pass on speech. But on selling your signature product? Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's on it is as important as the cake itself.
> 
> So you'll give a fag baker a pass on what is on the cake yet the Christian baker opposed has to put two male names and two males figures ON the cake?  Hypocrite.
Click to expand...

He didn't ask for one of these on the cake now did he?  That they do all the time.


----------



## Conservative65

pillars said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was following he law of my State which some activist, faggot friendly judge decided to step beyond his bounds and overturn.  Unlike him, the law was made by a legislature that was elected by the people of  the State.  Seems you think an appointed member of the government should have more power than those elected by the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that a role of the courts is to test legislation against the constitution, which is the system set up by the founding fathers.  Just because the majority enacts a law does not mean that the law is constitutional.  That's what the term equal protection means...it helps to prevent tyranny of the majority against the minority.
> 
> Say you were a member of a minority belief system...not Christianity.  Wouldn't you want that legal protection for you to practice your beliefs, according to the dictates of your conscience?
Click to expand...

 
Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage a judge can't rule on something for which the Constitution doesn't give authority.  That's how you fags work.  You can't convince enough people to support you so you go around the lawmaking process and get faggot loving judges to rule for you. 

When it comes to religion, that legal protection is already there in the 1st Amendment.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe what's true.  The legal recognition doesn't equate to being on the same level as normal heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Normal heterosexuals?  I've yet to meet ones of those.  I know a lot of crazy fucker heterosexuals though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Normal heterosexuals.  A man that likes women and vice versa.  Anything else is abnormal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By chance, do you no what abnormal means?  Left-handed people are abnormal for instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't equate those in the numerical minority as abnormal because they have a fewer number.  It's based on action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then, you would be incorrect.
Click to expand...

 
That is your OPINION dickhead.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage a judge can't rule on something for which the Constitution doesn't give authority.


Who told you that utter nonsense?  That's what it is BTW.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Normal heterosexuals?  I've yet to meet ones of those.  I know a lot of crazy fucker heterosexuals though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normal heterosexuals.  A man that likes women and vice versa.  Anything else is abnormal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By chance, do you no what abnormal means?  Left-handed people are abnormal for instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't equate those in the numerical minority as abnormal because they have a fewer number.  It's based on action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then, you would be incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your OPINION dickhead.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't, it's a fact.  Abnormal is abnormal, meaning not the norm of 50% + 1.  Giving blowjobs is normal, as in more than 50% of the population does such a thing.  Skydiving is abnormal, meaning less than 50% of the population does such a thing.

So feel free to call most Americans cocksuckers, since they are.


----------



## Silhouette

Conservative65 said:


> That is your OPINION dickhead.


 
Enter the abusive sympathy-generating role-player "conservative" poster.  What, did the name "Saintmichaeldefendthem" get too cumbersome to write all the time?

Here's where we were before the choreographed-flame-war began, in order to disappear the numbers of the poll on this thread...

My, oh my how you want those numbers to be "locked" and disappeared right about now.  I get it.  I really do..



Conservative65 said:


> The laws forbid it now and you want to make it out as if it won't change. Laws prohibited same sex marriage in my State until some judge overruled them. If that can change, why do you not believe PA laws related to this can change.
> I'm almost 50. Like I've said, it may be another 30 years or more before it does. I may not be around when it does.


 
Reality check. You've already been around when it changed. A church is nothing more, legally speaking, than a congregation of individual christians. Individual christians have already been successfully sued as bakers/florists/photographers by the cult of LGBT. Their crusade has already forced the faithful to abdicate their core edicts and promote homosexual cultural spread forbidden to be done by them under punishment of eternal damnation as explained in Jude 1 of the New Testament. That's a done deal.

To make that leap to a congregation of individual christians (a church) is a matter of filing the paperwork. Within one calendar month of the LGBT cult gaining any federal mandate to change marriage from what it is now, a state-defined privelege/child formative environment incentive program into a "right" (alternative sexual lifestyles free-for-all...the kids be damned), you will see a lawsuit filed against a church, citing the lawsuits against individual christians as precedents, and you will see that lawsuit go to the Supreme Court in your lifetime. The Supreme Court will have a hellof a time saying no to something they've said "yes" to in the case they will be deciding this year. Ginsburg will be saying again something like gay marriage is like nonfat milk, it doesn't enjoy the richness of being allowed in churches!" And BINGO, christianity will be dead.

If a secular lifestyle cult can order the faithful to abandon their religion legally, then religion is dead unless the faithful practice civil disobedience. But if they do, they could lose everything they have and even wind up in jail. Yes, there will be a day if a church refuses to marry a gay "situation" (there will be gay polygamists by then..don't laugh...I actually know some...), the pastor or others involved in the refusal may even be sent to jail. That will be a long time off. But the lawsuits will come the day after the ink is dry on this year's Big Gay Decision.


----------



## pillars

Conservative65 said:


> Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage a judge can't rule on something for which the Constitution doesn't give authority.  That's how you fags work.  You can't convince enough people to support you so you go around the lawmaking process and get faggot loving judges to rule for you.
> 
> When it comes to religion, that legal protection is already there in the 1st Amendment.



Actually, while marriage is not expressly discussed in the constitution, gay marriage is viewed by many, even conservatives, as an extension of Loving v. Virginia (1967), and prohibitions against gay marriage as a violation of the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protection.  Thus, your argument that the constitution doesn't address this isn't specifically accurate, and your point that judges can't rule on issues not addressed in the constitution is incorrect.  In fact, most supreme court rulings in the modern era are based upon the bill of rights, rather than just the constitution.  And yes, courts can indeed interpret legislation in light of the bill of rights.


----------



## Silhouette

pillars said:


> Actually, while marriage is not expressly discussed in the constitution, gay marriage is viewed by many, even conservatives, as an extension of Loving v. Virginia (1967), and prohibitions against gay marriage as a violation of the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protection.  Thus, your argument that the constitution doesn't address this isn't specifically accurate, and your point that judges can't rule on issues not addressed in the constitution is incorrect.  In fact, most supreme court rulings in the modern era are based upon the bill of rights, rather than just the constitution.  And yes, courts can indeed interpret legislation in light of the bill of rights.


 
He already knows that.  S/he is on your team don't forget.  Let me guess, he'll flame you until he meekly concedes that you are right, then disappear shortly after this thread is closed for your manufactured flame-fight?  Isn't that about how it goes?


----------



## pillars

Silhouette said:


> He already knows that.  S/he is on your team don't forget.  Let me guess, he'll flame you until he meekly concedes that you are right, then disappear shortly after this thread is closed for your manufactured flame-fight?  Isn't that about how it goes?


What team do you consider me to be on?  You don't seem to understand my position on the subject, at all, if you think that Conservative number guy and I are in agreement here.


----------



## Silhouette

pillars said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> He already knows that.  S/he is on your team don't forget.  Let me guess, he'll flame you until he meekly concedes that you are right, then disappear shortly after this thread is closed for your manufactured flame-fight?  Isn't that about how it goes?
> 
> 
> 
> What team do you consider me to be on?  You don't seem to understand my position on the subject, at all, if you think that Conservative number guy and I are in agreement here.
Click to expand...

My contention is that periodically, "conservative" posters are brought to this thread to start "beating up on the gays" so that they have an excuse/reason to petition the modators to shut down the thread ..because the LGBT cult REALLY REALLY REALLY doesn't want the general public to see:

1. How popular this topic is.

2. How many people voted on the poll and

3. How they voted on the poll.

This thing pops up reliably any time one of the lower circuits or now the SUPREMES themselves take up new arguments.  The numbers in the poll completely refute all the smoke and mirrors that the cult has been feeding the press about "suddenly everyone loves gay marriage".  While they're still afraid to put it to a vote on state ballots...

Yeah, anything, even a staged fight to make this thread disappear.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

This thread wasn't worth the letters I just typed.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is requiring anyone else to believe in and/or to abide by what one believes in, but that is the way you want to play it here. It really is a clever way in which you and others attack the Christians by the ways in which you use here, so let's chalk this one up as just another attack, but this time it was being conducted by you.  I mean hey you just conducted yourself in a disingenuous manor, and we see right into the core of the machine in which you all are running now. Got anymore tactics to be exposed so easily ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Applying the law the same to Christians the same way you do everyone else isn't 'attacking Christians'. As Christians aren't exempt from the law.
> 
> If you want to do business publicly, you're required to meet minimum standards of conduct with  your customers. They must be treated fairly and equally.
> 
> That's not unreasonable. And that's not an 'attack on Christianity', Mr. Bowie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong
> When should these homos be expected to bake a cake or are they exempt?
> 
> If these homos want to do business publicly, they're required to do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they will make the cake. And that's the hanging point...not the speech on the cake. But the cake itself. I'll give any baker a pass on speech. But on selling your signature product? Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's on it is as important as the cake itself.
> 
> So you'll give a fag baker a pass on what is on the cake yet the Christian baker opposed has to put two male names and two males figures ON the cake?  Hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't ask for one of these on the cake now did he?  That they do all the time.
Click to expand...

 
The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual.  According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it. 

The fags asked for two of the same kind.


----------



## pillars

Silhouette said:


> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> He already knows that.  S/he is on your team don't forget.  Let me guess, he'll flame you until he meekly concedes that you are right, then disappear shortly after this thread is closed for your manufactured flame-fight?  Isn't that about how it goes?
> 
> 
> 
> What team do you consider me to be on?  You don't seem to understand my position on the subject, at all, if you think that Conservative number guy and I are in agreement here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My contention is that periodically, "conservative" posters are brought to this thread to start "beating up on the gays" so that they have an excuse/reason to petition the modators to shut down the thread ..because the LGBT cult REALLY REALLY REALLY doesn't want the general public to see:
> 
> 1. How popular this topic is.
> 
> 2. How many people voted on the poll and
> 
> 3. How they voted on the poll.
> 
> This thing pops up reliably any time one of the lower circuits or now the SUPREMES themselves take up new arguments.  The numbers in the poll completely refute all the smoke and mirrors that the cult has been feeding the press about "suddenly everyone loves gay marriage".  While they're still afraid to put it to a vote on state ballots...
> 
> Yeah, anything, even a staged fight to make this thread disappear.
Click to expand...


Where have I beaten up on anyone? I support gay marriage, but I don't support forcing religious congregations to perform ceremonies that violate their beliefs. 

I'm not a conservative poster, and I haven't made any personal attacks in this thread. I've explained why gay marriage should be legal, and why there is no conflict between legalized gay marriage and churches deciding not to perform gay marriages. Both are legal. 

Whatever you think happened here, it happened inside your head, not on the thread.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying the law the same to Christians the same way you do everyone else isn't 'attacking Christians'. As Christians aren't exempt from the law.
> 
> If you want to do business publicly, you're required to meet minimum standards of conduct with  your customers. They must be treated fairly and equally.
> 
> That's not unreasonable. And that's not an 'attack on Christianity', Mr. Bowie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong
> When should these homos be expected to bake a cake or are they exempt?
> 
> If these homos want to do business publicly, they're required to do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they will make the cake. And that's the hanging point...not the speech on the cake. But the cake itself. I'll give any baker a pass on speech. But on selling your signature product? Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's on it is as important as the cake itself.
> 
> So you'll give a fag baker a pass on what is on the cake yet the Christian baker opposed has to put two male names and two males figures ON the cake?  Hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't ask for one of these on the cake now did he?  That they do all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual.  According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.
> 
> The fags asked for two of the same kind.
Click to expand...

If it was this, or a rainbow cake and they make rainbow cakes, no problem and perfectly fair.


----------



## Conservative65

pillars said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage a judge can't rule on something for which the Constitution doesn't give authority.  That's how you fags work.  You can't convince enough people to support you so you go around the lawmaking process and get faggot loving judges to rule for you.
> 
> When it comes to religion, that legal protection is already there in the 1st Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, while marriage is not expressly discussed in the constitution, gay marriage is viewed by many, even conservatives, as an extension of Loving v. Virginia (1967), and prohibitions against gay marriage as a violation of the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protection.  Thus, your argument that the constitution doesn't address this isn't specifically accurate, and your point that judges can't rule on issues not addressed in the constitution is incorrect.  In fact, most supreme court rulings in the modern era are based upon the bill of rights, rather than just the constitution.  And yes, courts can indeed interpret legislation in light of the bill of rights.
Click to expand...

 
A true Conservative would not view it that way. 

You agree that marriage is not specifically addressed in the Constitution.  That is correct.  That you use equal protection to support your argument is interpretive in it's application to marriage. 

Since the Bill of Rights, although 10 Amendments, are as much a part of the Constitution as the original document pass just a few years prior to them being added.  At least you got that the belief the 14th amendment equal protection clause is interpretive when it comes to marriage.  What you don't seem to get is that the word "marriage" doesn't exist in it and that should take precedence over what someone thinks something means.


----------



## Silhouette

Conservative65 said:


> The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual.  According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.
> 
> The fags asked for two of the same kind.


 
^^ this is the poster role-playing the "beating up on gays" role.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong
> When should these homos be expected to bake a cake or are they exempt?
> 
> If these homos want to do business publicly, they're required to do the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they will make the cake. And that's the hanging point...not the speech on the cake. But the cake itself. I'll give any baker a pass on speech. But on selling your signature product? Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's on it is as important as the cake itself.
> 
> So you'll give a fag baker a pass on what is on the cake yet the Christian baker opposed has to put two male names and two males figures ON the cake?  Hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't ask for one of these on the cake now did he?  That they do all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual.  According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.
> 
> The fags asked for two of the same kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it was this, or a rainbow cake and they make rainbow cakes, no problem and perfectly fair.
Click to expand...

 
Not according to Skylar.  Skylar stated that it was OK to not do something on the cake as long as they did the cake.  Should the fag bakers be required to do a cake with wording that say "gay marriage is wrong" if it's on a cake they make even if they don't agree?  That's what you expect from the Christian baker.


----------



## pillars

Conservative65 said:


> A true Conservative would not view it that way.
> 
> You agree that marriage is not specifically addressed in the Constitution.  That is correct.  That you use equal protection to support your argument is interpretive in it's application to marriage.
> 
> Since the Bill of Rights, although 10 Amendments, are as much a part of the Constitution as the original document pass just a few years prior to them being added.  At least you got that the belief the 14th amendment equal protection clause is interpretive when it comes to marriage.  What you don't seem to get is that the word "marriage" doesn't exist in it and that should take precedence over what someone thinks something means.



The 14th amendment has already been interpreted to cover marriage in earlier court decisions (Loving v. Virginia), thus there is a precedent for using it to examine gay marriage.  Something doesn't specifically have to be addressed in the constitution for there to be a role in interpreting whether a statute is relevant.  For instance, drones aren't addressed in the constitution, but the court will be eventually examining the legality of these items in light of prohibitions against warrantless searches, etc.

And, I'm not a conservative.


----------



## Conservative65

Silhouette said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual.  According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.
> 
> The fags asked for two of the same kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ this is the poster role-playing the "beating up on gays" role.
Click to expand...

 I don't role play anything.  I believe it's an abnormal abomination but apparently the fags think words mean beating up on them.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they will make the cake. And that's the hanging point...not the speech on the cake. But the cake itself. I'll give any baker a pass on speech. But on selling your signature product? Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's on it is as important as the cake itself.
> 
> So you'll give a fag baker a pass on what is on the cake yet the Christian baker opposed has to put two male names and two males figures ON the cake?  Hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't ask for one of these on the cake now did he?  That they do all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual.  According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.
> 
> The fags asked for two of the same kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it was this, or a rainbow cake and they make rainbow cakes, no problem and perfectly fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to Skylar.  Skylar stated that it was OK to not do something on the cake as long as they did the cake.  Should the fag bakers be required to do a cake with wording that say "gay marriage is wrong" if it's on a cake they make even if they don't agree?  That's what you expect from the Christian baker.
Click to expand...

I expect the Christian baker to follow the same rules and bake the stupid cake.


----------



## Conservative65

pillars said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A true Conservative would not view it that way.
> 
> You agree that marriage is not specifically addressed in the Constitution.  That is correct.  That you use equal protection to support your argument is interpretive in it's application to marriage.
> 
> Since the Bill of Rights, although 10 Amendments, are as much a part of the Constitution as the original document pass just a few years prior to them being added.  At least you got that the belief the 14th amendment equal protection clause is interpretive when it comes to marriage.  What you don't seem to get is that the word "marriage" doesn't exist in it and that should take precedence over what someone thinks something means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment has already been interpreted to cover marriage in earlier court decisions (Loving v. Virginia), thus there is a precedent for using it to examine gay marriage.  Something doesn't specifically have to be addressed in the constitution for there to be a role in interpreting whether a statute is relevant.  For instance, drones aren't addressed in the constitution, but the court will be eventually examining the legality of these items in light of prohibitions against warrantless searches, etc.
> 
> And, I'm not a conservative.
Click to expand...

 
Do you know the specifics behind that case? 

You're far from a conservative.  You sound like one of the faggot loving Liberals to me.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual.  According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.
> 
> The fags asked for two of the same kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ this is the poster role-playing the "beating up on gays" role.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't role play anything.  I believe it's an abnormal abomination but apparently the fags think words mean beating up on them.
Click to expand...

"The Christians are worthless assholes who might as well be Nazis" is just words, but am I beating up on them?


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage a judge can't rule on something for which the Constitution doesn't give authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that utter nonsense?  That's what it is BTW.
Click to expand...

 
Whjo told you two men together is normal?  They were wrong.


----------



## Silhouette

Conservative65 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual.  According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.
> 
> The fags asked for two of the same kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ this is the poster role-playing the "beating up on gays" role.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't role play anything.  I believe it's an abnormal abomination but apparently the fags think words mean beating up on them.
Click to expand...

 Nope.  You're timing means that you are hear role-playing a gay-basher so the thread will be shut down.  It isn't the first time y'all have tried this here.  Some of your buddies have even just said outright "let's just shut this thread down...it's boring" or "this thread is not popular" (with 50,000 views).  This is your last-ditch hope.  A manufactured flame war.

Your timing is what gave you away.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A true Conservative would not view it that way.
> 
> You agree that marriage is not specifically addressed in the Constitution.  That is correct.  That you use equal protection to support your argument is interpretive in it's application to marriage.
> 
> Since the Bill of Rights, although 10 Amendments, are as much a part of the Constitution as the original document pass just a few years prior to them being added.  At least you got that the belief the 14th amendment equal protection clause is interpretive when it comes to marriage.  What you don't seem to get is that the word "marriage" doesn't exist in it and that should take precedence over what someone thinks something means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment has already been interpreted to cover marriage in earlier court decisions (Loving v. Virginia), thus there is a precedent for using it to examine gay marriage.  Something doesn't specifically have to be addressed in the constitution for there to be a role in interpreting whether a statute is relevant.  For instance, drones aren't addressed in the constitution, but the court will be eventually examining the legality of these items in light of prohibitions against warrantless searches, etc.
> 
> And, I'm not a conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the specifics behind that case?
> 
> You're far from a conservative.  You sound like one of the faggot loving Liberals to me.
Click to expand...

When exactly did Jesus tell you not to love the faggots?  He probably was one you know.


----------



## pillars

Conservative65 said:


> Do you know the specifics behind that case?
> 
> You're far from a conservative.  You sound like one of the faggot loving Liberals to me.



Of course I know the specifics behind that case.  And, I do believe in the right of g/l/b/t individuals to have equal protection and access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual.  According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.
> 
> The fags asked for two of the same kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ this is the poster role-playing the "beating up on gays" role.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't role play anything.  I believe it's an abnormal abomination but apparently the fags think words mean beating up on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Christians are worthless assholes who might as well be Nazis" is just words, but am I beating up on them?
Click to expand...

 
Unlike you, I believe in freedom of speech regardless of what you say.


----------



## Silhouette

Again, the manufactured flame war should get you guys banned from this website.  I will be reporting you.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage a judge can't rule on something for which the Constitution doesn't give authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that utter nonsense?  That's what it is BTW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whjo told you two men together is normal?  They were wrong.
Click to expand...

It is for homosexuals, who are a small minority normal to many animal species.


----------



## pillars

Silhouette said:


> Nope.  You're timing means that you are hear role-playing a gay-basher so the thread will be shut down.  It isn't the first time y'all have tried this here.  Some of your buddies have even just said outright "let's just shut this thread down...it's boring" or "this thread is not popular" (with 50,000 views).  This is your last-ditch hope.  A manufactured flame war.
> 
> Your timing is what gave you away.



I strongly suspect that if people keep their cool and respond in a civil fashion that this strategy will be ineffective.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A true Conservative would not view it that way.
> 
> You agree that marriage is not specifically addressed in the Constitution.  That is correct.  That you use equal protection to support your argument is interpretive in it's application to marriage.
> 
> Since the Bill of Rights, although 10 Amendments, are as much a part of the Constitution as the original document pass just a few years prior to them being added.  At least you got that the belief the 14th amendment equal protection clause is interpretive when it comes to marriage.  What you don't seem to get is that the word "marriage" doesn't exist in it and that should take precedence over what someone thinks something means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment has already been interpreted to cover marriage in earlier court decisions (Loving v. Virginia), thus there is a precedent for using it to examine gay marriage.  Something doesn't specifically have to be addressed in the constitution for there to be a role in interpreting whether a statute is relevant.  For instance, drones aren't addressed in the constitution, but the court will be eventually examining the legality of these items in light of prohibitions against warrantless searches, etc.
> 
> And, I'm not a conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the specifics behind that case?
> 
> You're far from a conservative.  You sound like one of the faggot loving Liberals to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When exactly did Jesus tell you not to love the faggots?  He probably was one you know.
Click to expand...

 
Jesus didn't tolerate sin nor would be expect me to do so.  Since he was sinless and being a faggot is a sin, your last statment is nothing more than another faggot lover running his dick sucker.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual.  According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.
> 
> The fags asked for two of the same kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ this is the poster role-playing the "beating up on gays" role.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't role play anything.  I believe it's an abnormal abomination but apparently the fags think words mean beating up on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Christians are worthless assholes who might as well be Nazis" is just words, but am I beating up on them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I believe in freedom of speech regardless of what you say.
Click to expand...

So do I, but it is limited as to time and place.  Still, answer the question.  Was I beating up on the Christians?


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage a judge can't rule on something for which the Constitution doesn't give authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that utter nonsense?  That's what it is BTW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whjo told you two men together is normal?  They were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is for homosexuals, who are a small minority normal to many animal species.
Click to expand...

 
If you want to put faggots on the same level as a dog, I agree.


----------



## Silhouette

Conservative65 said:


> Jesus didn't tolerate sin nor would be expect me to do so.  Since he was sinless and being a faggot is a sin, your last statment is nothing more than another faggot lover running his dick sucker.


 
You have been reported to the moderators for posing as a gay-basher in order to disappear this thread.  And Paint, you're on deck for doing the dance with him, egging on the flame war.  If this was my website y'all would've been 86'd ages ago.  "Pillars" sudden appearance concurrent with "Conservative65" on the thread is also noted for the record..


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A true Conservative would not view it that way.
> 
> You agree that marriage is not specifically addressed in the Constitution.  That is correct.  That you use equal protection to support your argument is interpretive in it's application to marriage.
> 
> Since the Bill of Rights, although 10 Amendments, are as much a part of the Constitution as the original document pass just a few years prior to them being added.  At least you got that the belief the 14th amendment equal protection clause is interpretive when it comes to marriage.  What you don't seem to get is that the word "marriage" doesn't exist in it and that should take precedence over what someone thinks something means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment has already been interpreted to cover marriage in earlier court decisions (Loving v. Virginia), thus there is a precedent for using it to examine gay marriage.  Something doesn't specifically have to be addressed in the constitution for there to be a role in interpreting whether a statute is relevant.  For instance, drones aren't addressed in the constitution, but the court will be eventually examining the legality of these items in light of prohibitions against warrantless searches, etc.
> 
> And, I'm not a conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the specifics behind that case?
> 
> You're far from a conservative.  You sound like one of the faggot loving Liberals to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When exactly did Jesus tell you not to love the faggots?  He probably was one you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus didn't tolerate sin nor would be expect me to do so.  Since he was sinless and being a faggot is a sin, your last statment is nothing more than another faggot lover running his dick sucker.
Click to expand...

Jesus tolerated a great deal of sin, even had some of his own, although he preached against sin as he should have.  And an unmarried Jewish man of his age in that time?  Either he was gay or married, pick one?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage a judge can't rule on something for which the Constitution doesn't give authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that utter nonsense?  That's what it is BTW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whjo told you two men together is normal?  They were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is for homosexuals, who are a small minority normal to many animal species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to put faggots on the same level as a dog, I agree.
Click to expand...

All humans are on the same level as dogs.  We are all animals.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus didn't tolerate sin nor would be expect me to do so.  Since he was sinless and being a faggot is a sin, your last statment is nothing more than another faggot lover running his dick sucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been reported to the moderators for posing as a gay-basher in order to disappear this thread.  And Paint, you're on deck for doing the dance with him, egging on the flame war.  If this was my website y'all would've been 86'd ages ago.  "Pillars" sudden appearance concurrent with "Conservative65" on the thread is also noted for the record..
Click to expand...

How lucky for us then that you have no power here, and that they respect free speech more than you do...


----------



## Silhouette

The people who voted at the top of this thread did so because they know that christian bakers/photographers/caterers etc. have already been sued and forced to abdicate their religion's core values to promote a homosexual cult's lifestyles.  A church is nothing more than a congregation of individual christians.  There is no legal protection for the church if gay trumps the 1st in any venue, even the heart of the individual christian baker..



PaintMyHouse said:


> How lucky for us then that you have no power here, and that they respect free speech more than you do...


 
Just as I thought..You are protecting "Conservative's" "right" to beat up gays because it may serve to shut the thread down.  You are guilty as charged.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> The people who voted at the top of this thread did so because they know that christian bakers/photographers/caterers etc. have already been sued and forced to abdicate their religion's core values to promote a homosexual cult's lifestyles.  A church is nothing more than a congregation of individual christians.  There is no legal protection for the church if gay trumps the 1st in any venue, even the heart of the individual christian baker..


The heart of the Christian baker matters not a damn in the instance.  The fact that he runs a business open to the public does though.


----------



## Silhouette

Wow you are transparent...



PaintMyHouse said:


> How lucky for us then that you have no power here, and that they respect free speech more than you do...


 
Just as I thought..You are protecting "Conservative's" "right" to beat up gays because it may serve to shut the thread down. You are guilty as charged

The people who voted at the top of this thread did so because they know that christian bakers/photographers/caterers etc. have already been sued and forced to abdicate their religion's core values to promote a homosexual cult's lifestyles. A church is nothing more than a congregation of individual christians. There is no legal protection for the church if gay trumps the 1st in any venue, even the heart of the individual christian baker..


----------



## beagle9

Paperman299 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), *then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, unfortunately, no it isn't.
> 
> A majority in all the states currently believing erroneously that they must allow gay-lifestyle marraige against their will enacted laws limiting marriage to one man/one woman.  And still they were legally-forced to accept (not that they have to) that which is repugnant to the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poll is still the kind of evidence I stated it was. A percentage of 82% saying "no" is evidence people _won't_ force churches to do something churches don't want to do.
> 
> Your _new_ evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to _religious_ freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heard the other day that in some state there is an army veteran from the Afghan conflict, who wanted a statue of a soldier kneeling down at a cross in a military or city/government run cemetery to now go, and why was this ? It was of course none other than it offended him (poor wittle tang), so next he and some organization sued the city over it for around 2 mil I think... I saw this report on Fox news the other day, so I just had to stop in front of the TV to listen up a sec. and just to hear another piece of Christianity being attacked yet again in this nation.
> 
> As Sil says over and over again that the LGBT is an organization/cult/activist group right ? Do you think that any of this stuff will stop just because you and a few others in here say so ? ROTFLMBO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was it removed from a church? No?
> 
> The statue was on public grounds. What you are construing as an "attack" was actually a scaling-back of religion's wider influence.
> 
> Just think of it this way: right now, religion in America is like the British colonial empire. It's stretched out into all these places claiming it deserves to be there. And now we're seeing that power ebb, but it doesn't mean this ends with India taking over England. India doesn't even _want_ to take over England. This ends with England being back inside England, period, acknowledgements, about the author.
Click to expand...

I rest my case folks, because this is exactly the thinking of these people, where as they think something that has been here for 200 years, is supposed to be put into a box now, yet meanwhile they push their agenda wildly into every place that religion once existed freely and accepted in this nation by the majority, so stay tuned because there is a lot more to come with this stuff.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> He already knows that.  S/he is on your team don't forget.  Let me guess, he'll flame you until he meekly concedes that you are right, then disappear shortly after this thread is closed for your manufactured flame-fight?  Isn't that about how it goes?
> 
> 
> 
> What team do you consider me to be on?  You don't seem to understand my position on the subject, at all, if you think that Conservative number guy and I are in agreement here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My contention is that periodically, "conservative" posters are brought to this thread to start "beating up on the gays" so that they have an excuse/reason to petition the modators to shut down the thread ..because the LGBT cult REALLY REALLY REALLY doesn't want the general public to see:
> 
> 1. How popular this topic is.
> 
> 2. How many people voted on the poll and
> 
> 3. How they voted on the poll.
> 
> This thing pops up reliably any time one of the lower circuits or now the SUPREMES themselves take up new arguments.  The numbers in the poll completely refute all the smoke and mirrors that the cult has been feeding the press about "suddenly everyone loves gay marriage".  While they're still afraid to put it to a vote on state ballots...
> 
> Yeah, anything, even a staged fight to make this thread disappear.
Click to expand...


Basically, you're assuming that 153 people voted the way you did for the same reason you did, out of fear. But that's IMPOSSIBLE, because you don't get an 82% consensus on a popular poll (especially on this message board) without agreement from both sides. Equal marriage supporters voted "NO, I thought this was AMERICA" to show that forcing churches to conduct these ceremonies was not one of their goals.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they will make the cake. And that's the hanging point...not the speech on the cake. But the cake itself. I'll give any baker a pass on speech. But on selling your signature product? Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's on it is as important as the cake itself.
> 
> So you'll give a fag baker a pass on what is on the cake yet the Christian baker opposed has to put two male names and two males figures ON the cake?  Hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't ask for one of these on the cake now did he?  That they do all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual.  According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.
> 
> The fags asked for two of the same kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it was this, or a rainbow cake and they make rainbow cakes, no problem and perfectly fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to Skylar.  Skylar stated that it was OK to not do something on the cake as long as they did the cake.  Should the fag bakers be required to do a cake with wording that say "gay marriage is wrong" if it's on a cake they make even if they don't agree?  That's what you expect from the Christian baker.
Click to expand...


You cannot expect a business to provide something they do not provide. The baker was not asked to provide a product or service they don't normally provide. The gay couple ordered a cake, that's it.


----------



## beagle9

PaintMyHouse said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who voted at the top of this thread did so because they know that christian bakers/photographers/caterers etc. have already been sued and forced to abdicate their religion's core values to promote a homosexual cult's lifestyles.  A church is nothing more than a congregation of individual christians.  There is no legal protection for the church if gay trumps the 1st in any venue, even the heart of the individual christian baker..
> 
> 
> 
> The heart of the Christian baker matters not a damn in the instance.  The fact that he runs a business open to the public does though.
Click to expand...

I thought that it says somewhere in the constitution that the government will not stand against religion in this nation, and that it will instead allow it to exist openly and freely in the nation. The only way to do this is to respect it, and then to encourage it by not standing in it's way like we are seeing so much of that happening now in America. Some one is offended right, and they go and get the government to come running to stomp out the fire for them ?.....  I know it was mainly speaking of the Christians at the time when the constitution was written, yet people should look at these attacks as being against all established religions that are here now, and they should see these attacks going on against the Christians of today, as also attacks on them and their values just as well.  If the Christian's fall, then they all fall in the end, and all should know this by now. They in their minds, are trying to go straight for the most affluent of the old religions here in the nation first, and if they can shake that foundation, then who or what else can stand afterwards ?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

beagle9 said:


> I thought that it says somewhere in the constitution that the government will not stand against religion...


No, it says the government cannot Establish a religion.  The limits that it places on it are both varied and many.


----------



## beagle9

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's on it is as important as the cake itself.
> 
> So you'll give a fag baker a pass on what is on the cake yet the Christian baker opposed has to put two male names and two males figures ON the cake?  Hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't ask for one of these on the cake now did he?  That they do all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual.  According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.
> 
> The fags asked for two of the same kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it was this, or a rainbow cake and they make rainbow cakes, no problem and perfectly fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to Skylar.  Skylar stated that it was OK to not do something on the cake as long as they did the cake.  Should the fag bakers be required to do a cake with wording that say "gay marriage is wrong" if it's on a cake they make even if they don't agree?  That's what you expect from the Christian baker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot expect a business to provide something they do not provide. The baker was not asked to provide a product or service they don't normally provide. The gay couple ordered a cake, that's it.
Click to expand...

What kind of cake, and for whom was the wedding for again ? Did they alert the baker of the reason for the cake or not ?


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), *then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, unfortunately, no it isn't.
> 
> A majority in all the states currently believing erroneously that they must allow gay-lifestyle marraige against their will enacted laws limiting marriage to one man/one woman.  And still they were legally-forced to accept (not that they have to) that which is repugnant to the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poll is still the kind of evidence I stated it was. A percentage of 82% saying "no" is evidence people _won't_ force churches to do something churches don't want to do.
> 
> Your _new_ evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to _religious_ freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heard the other day that in some state there is an army veteran from the Afghan conflict, who wanted a statue of a soldier kneeling down at a cross in a military or city/government run cemetery to now go, and why was this ? It was of course none other than it offended him (poor wittle tang), so next he and some organization sued the city over it for around 2 mil I think... I saw this report on Fox news the other day, so I just had to stop in front of the TV to listen up a sec. and just to hear another piece of Christianity being attacked yet again in this nation.
> 
> As Sil says over and over again that the LGBT is an organization/cult/activist group right ? Do you think that any of this stuff will stop just because you and a few others in here say so ? ROTFLMBO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was it removed from a church? No?
> 
> The statue was on public grounds. What you are construing as an "attack" was actually a scaling-back of religion's wider influence.
> 
> Just think of it this way: right now, religion in America is like the British colonial empire. It's stretched out into all these places claiming it deserves to be there. And now we're seeing that power ebb, but it doesn't mean this ends with India taking over England. India doesn't even _want_ to take over England. This ends with England being back inside England, period, acknowledgements, about the author.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case folks, because this is exactly the thinking of these people, where as they think something that has been here for 200 years, is supposed to be put into a box now, yet meanwhile they push their agenda wildly into every place that religion once existed freely and accepted in this nation by the majority, so stay tuned because there is a lot more to come with this stuff.
Click to expand...


What's missing from this post, of course, is zero evidence that churches are going to be forced to  do anything they don't want to do.

How about more of this:





And less of this:


----------



## beagle9

PaintMyHouse said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that it says somewhere in the constitution that the government will not stand against religion...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it says the government cannot Establish a religion.  The limits that it places on it are both varied and many.
Click to expand...

What, so your saying that the government can not establish a religion of it's own then, because the nation already had a religion in which was called CHRISTIAN ?  Otherwise if the government was to establish one of it's own, then it would come in direct conflict with the already established religion that was in place back then right, just like it is now since the government has already established it's own religion or ways of thinking that is foreign or hostel even to the ones that exist now in America ?  Think about it!


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Paperman299 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, unfortunately, no it isn't.
> 
> A majority in all the states currently believing erroneously that they must allow gay-lifestyle marraige against their will enacted laws limiting marriage to one man/one woman.  And still they were legally-forced to accept (not that they have to) that which is repugnant to the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poll is still the kind of evidence I stated it was. A percentage of 82% saying "no" is evidence people _won't_ force churches to do something churches don't want to do.
> 
> Your _new_ evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to _religious_ freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heard the other day that in some state there is an army veteran from the Afghan conflict, who wanted a statue of a soldier kneeling down at a cross in a military or city/government run cemetery to now go, and why was this ? It was of course none other than it offended him (poor wittle tang), so next he and some organization sued the city over it for around 2 mil I think... I saw this report on Fox news the other day, so I just had to stop in front of the TV to listen up a sec. and just to hear another piece of Christianity being attacked yet again in this nation.
> 
> As Sil says over and over again that the LGBT is an organization/cult/activist group right ? Do you think that any of this stuff will stop just because you and a few others in here say so ? ROTFLMBO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was it removed from a church? No?
> 
> The statue was on public grounds. What you are construing as an "attack" was actually a scaling-back of religion's wider influence.
> 
> Just think of it this way: right now, religion in America is like the British colonial empire. It's stretched out into all these places claiming it deserves to be there. And now we're seeing that power ebb, but it doesn't mean this ends with India taking over England. India doesn't even _want_ to take over England. This ends with England being back inside England, period, acknowledgements, about the author.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case folks, because this is exactly the thinking of these people, where as they think something that has been here for 200 years, is supposed to be put into a box now, yet meanwhile they push their agenda wildly into every place that religion once existed freely and accepted in this nation by the majority, so stay tuned because there is a lot more to come with this stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's missing from this post, of course, is zero evidence that churches are going to be forced to anything they don't want to do.
> 
> How about more of this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And less of this:
Click to expand...

LOL


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> The people who voted at the top of this thread did so because they know that christian bakers/photographers/caterers etc. have already been sued and forced to abdicate their religion's core values to promote a homosexual cult's lifestyles.



Says who? Again, Silo....you're just making shit up again. Pretending to speak for those who voted in the poll. And you don't speak for us. You speak for you.

The poll doesn't ask anything about caterers or bakers. It asks about churches. And it defines them as places of worship. You can try to retcon the poll. But any of us can just read it.



> A church is nothing more than a congregation of individual christians.  There is no legal protection for the church if gay trumps the 1st in any venue, even the heart of the individual christian baker..



More pseudo-legal gibberish. Churches aren't people. People pay taxes. Churches don't. People are subject to PA laws in their public businesses. Churches are explicltly excluded from PA laws. Nor are churches businesses. 

You insist they are the same. You're clueless. Its okay...the law recognizes the distinctions you clearly can't.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

beagle9 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that it says somewhere in the constitution that the government will not stand against religion...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it says the government cannot Establish a religion.  The limits that it places on it are both varied and many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, so your saying that the government can not establish a religion of it's own then, because the nation already had a religion in which was called CHRISTIAN ?  Otherwise if the government was to establish one of it's own, then it would come in direct conflict with the already established religion that was in place back then right, just like it is now since the government has already established it's own religion or ways of thinking that is foreign or hostel even to the ones that exist now in America ?  Think about it!
Click to expand...

It cannot establish a religion period, even though at the time that mostly meant Christian Sect.  The US does not have an official religion but many nations do.  We are a secular nation, that you are free to leave should not be happy about that.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual.  According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.
> 
> The fags asked for two of the same kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ this is the poster role-playing the "beating up on gays" role.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't role play anything.  I believe it's an abnormal abomination but apparently the fags think words mean beating up on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Christians are worthless assholes who might as well be Nazis" is just words, but am I beating up on them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I believe in freedom of speech regardless of what you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do I, but it is limited as to time and place.  Still, answer the question.  Was I beating up on the Christians?
Click to expand...

 
I bet you think the time and place you determine is the correct one.

I answered it for myself personally with my free speech part.  Say what you will about Christians.  Your opinions is about was worthwhile as a faggot i


PaintMyHouse said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus didn't tolerate sin nor would be expect me to do so.  Since he was sinless and being a faggot is a sin, your last statment is nothing more than another faggot lover running his dick sucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been reported to the moderators for posing as a gay-basher in order to disappear this thread.  And Paint, you're on deck for doing the dance with him, egging on the flame war.  If this was my website y'all would've been 86'd ages ago.  "Pillars" sudden appearance concurrent with "Conservative65" on the thread is also noted for the record..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How lucky for us then that you have no power here, and that they respect free speech more than you do...
Click to expand...

 
I suspected you were on of those types of cowards. 

Are you claiming I and Pillars are the same person?  I suggest you prove it.


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's on it is as important as the cake itself.
> 
> So you'll give a fag baker a pass on what is on the cake yet the Christian baker opposed has to put two male names and two males figures ON the cake?  Hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't ask for one of these on the cake now did he?  That they do all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual.  According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.
> 
> The fags asked for two of the same kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it was this, or a rainbow cake and they make rainbow cakes, no problem and perfectly fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to Skylar.  Skylar stated that it was OK to not do something on the cake as long as they did the cake.  Should the fag bakers be required to do a cake with wording that say "gay marriage is wrong" if it's on a cake they make even if they don't agree?  That's what you expect from the Christian baker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot expect a business to provide something they do not provide. The baker was not asked to provide a product or service they don't normally provide. The gay couple ordered a cake, that's it.
Click to expand...

 
The homo bakers normally provide cakes with all sorts of things written on them.  That they don't like what someone put on something they normally provide is irrelevant.  The Christian baker was sued for not doing a cake for two homos and doing it for two homos isn't normally what that baker did.


----------



## pillars

Conservative65 said:


> Are you claiming I and Pillars are the same person?  I suggest you prove it.


 
Those are fighting words right there.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ this is the poster role-playing the "beating up on gays" role.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't role play anything.  I believe it's an abnormal abomination but apparently the fags think words mean beating up on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Christians are worthless assholes who might as well be Nazis" is just words, but am I beating up on them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I believe in freedom of speech regardless of what you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do I, but it is limited as to time and place.  Still, answer the question.  Was I beating up on the Christians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet you think the time and place you determine is the correct one.
> 
> I answered it for myself personally with my free speech part.  Say what you will about Christians.  Your opinions is about was worthwhile as a faggot i
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus didn't tolerate sin nor would be expect me to do so.  Since he was sinless and being a faggot is a sin, your last statment is nothing more than another faggot lover running his dick sucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been reported to the moderators for posing as a gay-basher in order to disappear this thread.  And Paint, you're on deck for doing the dance with him, egging on the flame war.  If this was my website y'all would've been 86'd ages ago.  "Pillars" sudden appearance concurrent with "Conservative65" on the thread is also noted for the record..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How lucky for us then that you have no power here, and that they respect free speech more than you do...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspected you were on of those types of cowards.
> 
> Are you claiming I and Pillars are the same person?  I suggest you prove it.
Click to expand...

You seem to have mixed up who is posting what?

And the times and places the courts have determined.  Since I live in the real world I deal with them as an adult should.


----------



## pillars

Paperman299 said:


> Basically, you're assuming that 153 people voted the way you did for the same reason you did, out of fear. But that's IMPOSSIBLE, because you don't get an 82% consensus on a popular poll (especially on this message board) without agreement from both sides. Equal marriage supporters voted "NO, I thought this was AMERICA" to show that forcing churches to conduct these ceremonies was not one of their goals.


 
This.  I completely support equal marriage, but I do not support state incursions on religious liberty.


----------



## Conservative65

pillars said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming I and Pillars are the same person?  I suggest you prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are fighting words right there.
Click to expand...

 
PaintMyHouse seems to think we are the same person.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't role play anything.  I believe it's an abnormal abomination but apparently the fags think words mean beating up on them.
> 
> 
> 
> "The Christians are worthless assholes who might as well be Nazis" is just words, but am I beating up on them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I believe in freedom of speech regardless of what you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do I, but it is limited as to time and place.  Still, answer the question.  Was I beating up on the Christians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet you think the time and place you determine is the correct one.
> 
> I answered it for myself personally with my free speech part.  Say what you will about Christians.  Your opinions is about was worthwhile as a faggot i
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus didn't tolerate sin nor would be expect me to do so.  Since he was sinless and being a faggot is a sin, your last statment is nothing more than another faggot lover running his dick sucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been reported to the moderators for posing as a gay-basher in order to disappear this thread.  And Paint, you're on deck for doing the dance with him, egging on the flame war.  If this was my website y'all would've been 86'd ages ago.  "Pillars" sudden appearance concurrent with "Conservative65" on the thread is also noted for the record..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How lucky for us then that you have no power here, and that they respect free speech more than you do...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspected you were on of those types of cowards.
> 
> Are you claiming I and Pillars are the same person?  I suggest you prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to have mixed up who is posting what?
> 
> And the times and places the courts have determined.  Since I live in the real world I deal with them as an adult should.
Click to expand...

 
The courts haven't determined a time but I be you keep making the claim.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage a judge can't rule on something for which the Constitution doesn't give authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that utter nonsense?  That's what it is BTW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whjo told you two men together is normal?  They were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is for homosexuals, who are a small minority normal to many animal species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to put faggots on the same level as a dog, I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All humans are on the same level as dogs.  We are all animals.
Click to expand...

 
Some like me think and some like you are only a lower level than humans.


----------



## pillars

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse seems to think we are the same person.


 
I'm not sure who should be more offended...you or me.  Probably me.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming I and Pillars are the same person?  I suggest you prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are fighting words right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse seems to think we are the same person.
Click to expand...

Why would you think that, when I don't?


----------



## pillars

PaintMyHouse said:


> Why would you think that, when I don't?


 
Because I find it offensive to be assumed to be one with a complete homophobe.

Just because I defend his right to hold an opinion doesn't mean I agree with his opinion.  I support protections on religious liberty because I hold an unpopular religious perspective (atheist).


----------



## PaintMyHouse

pillars said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you think that, when I don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I find it offensive to be assumed to be one with a complete homophobe.
> 
> Just because I defend his right to hold an opinion doesn't mean I agree with his opinion.  I support protections on religious liberty because I hold an unpopular religious perspective (atheist).
Click to expand...

I don't think you're the same person, maybe Sil does, and I don't give a fuck what either of you say.


----------



## Conservative65

Silhouette said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus didn't tolerate sin nor would be expect me to do so.  Since he was sinless and being a faggot is a sin, your last statment is nothing more than another faggot lover running his dick sucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been reported to the moderators for posing as a gay-basher in order to disappear this thread.  And Paint, you're on deck for doing the dance with him, egging on the flame war.  If this was my website y'all would've been 86'd ages ago.  "Pillars" sudden appearance concurrent with "Conservative65" on the thread is also noted for the record..
Click to expand...

 
Since this isn't your website, run along and mind your own damn business.  Report what you want.  It only shows that you are opposed to free speech and politically correct.  You don't want people saying what you don't agree with nor the way they say it.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you think that, when I don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I find it offensive to be assumed to be one with a complete homophobe.
> 
> Just because I defend his right to hold an opinion doesn't mean I agree with his opinion.  I support protections on religious liberty because I hold an unpopular religious perspective (atheist).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you're the same person, maybe Sil does, and I don't give a fuck what either of you say.
Click to expand...

 
And you think I give a fuck what you say or that you exist.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you think that, when I don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I find it offensive to be assumed to be one with a complete homophobe.
> 
> Just because I defend his right to hold an opinion doesn't mean I agree with his opinion.  I support protections on religious liberty because I hold an unpopular religious perspective (atheist).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you're the same person, maybe Sil does, and I don't give a fuck what either of you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think I give a fuck what you say or that you exist.
Click to expand...

Hey conjob, where's my apology for mixing me up with Sil?  Next time keep who posted what straight.


----------



## pillars

Why would I assume this?  I've been polite to you, though, in spite of your views and lack of civility.


----------



## Conservative65

pillars said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you think that, when I don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I find it offensive to be assumed to be one with a complete homophobe.
> 
> Just because I defend his right to hold an opinion doesn't mean I agree with his opinion.  I support protections on religious liberty because I hold an unpopular religious perspective (atheist).
Click to expand...

 If you're offended, that's your problem.  You don't have a right not be be offended. 

I'm not a homophobe as not one dick sucker scares me.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you think that, when I don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I find it offensive to be assumed to be one with a complete homophobe.
> 
> Just because I defend his right to hold an opinion doesn't mean I agree with his opinion.  I support protections on religious liberty because I hold an unpopular religious perspective (atheist).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you're the same person, maybe Sil does, and I don't give a fuck what either of you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think I give a fuck what you say or that you exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey conjob, where's my apology for mixing me up with Sil?  Next time keep who posted what straight.
Click to expand...

 
At the bottom of the ocean.  Go get it.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Place of *public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes*.
> 
> Not religions- facilities principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> COCODE
> 
> 
> 
> One of those places is a man's heart...  For where else does religion and the freedom of it ultimately reside?
Click to expand...


"Place of *public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes*.

Not religions- facilities principally used for religious purposes.

COCODE

Not according to the law- but let me know when you figure out how to have a wedding insides a man's heart- that would be interesting.


----------



## Conservative65

Silhouette said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual.  According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.
> 
> The fags asked for two of the same kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ this is the poster role-playing the "beating up on gays" role.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't role play anything.  I believe it's an abnormal abomination but apparently the fags think words mean beating up on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  You're timing means that you are hear role-playing a gay-basher so the thread will be shut down.  It isn't the first time y'all have tried this here.  Some of your buddies have even just said outright "let's just shut this thread down...it's boring" or "this thread is not popular" (with 50,000 views).  This is your last-ditch hope.  A manufactured flame war.
> 
> Your timing is what gave you away.
Click to expand...

 
I don't want it shut down.  It's hilarious watching abnormal supporters try to explain how deviant behavior is normal.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you think that, when I don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I find it offensive to be assumed to be one with a complete homophobe.
> 
> Just because I defend his right to hold an opinion doesn't mean I agree with his opinion.  I support protections on religious liberty because I hold an unpopular religious perspective (atheist).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're offended, that's your problem.  You don't have a right not be be offended.
> 
> I'm not a homophobe as not one dick sucker scares me.
Click to expand...


Your a homophobe because you are both scared of homosexuals and you also promote hatred and discrimination against homosexuals.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you think that, when I don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I find it offensive to be assumed to be one with a complete homophobe.
> 
> Just because I defend his right to hold an opinion doesn't mean I agree with his opinion.  I support protections on religious liberty because I hold an unpopular religious perspective (atheist).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you're the same person, maybe Sil does, and I don't give a fuck what either of you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think I give a fuck what you say or that you exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey conjob, where's my apology for mixing me up with Sil?  Next time keep who posted what straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the bottom of the ocean.  Go get it.
Click to expand...

Yep, I knew you wouldn't a man about.  A man would have said, Sorry, I was wrong, but you're still an asshole.


----------



## pillars

Conservative65 said:


> If you're offended, that's your problem.  You don't have a right not be be offended.


 
I'm not offended by your views, though they are stupid;  I'm offended to be thought stupid.



> I'm not a homophobe as not one dick sucker scares me.


 

"People often have the most hateful and negative attitudes towards things they secretly crave, but feel that they shouldn't have."

Homophobic Men Most Aroused by Gay Male Porn Psychology Today


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Place of *public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes*.
> 
> Not religions- facilities principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> COCODE
> 
> 
> 
> One of those places is a man's heart...  For where else does religion and the freedom of it ultimately reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Place of *public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes*.
> 
> Not religions- facilities principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> COCODE
> 
> Not according to the law- but let me know when you figure out how to have a wedding insides a man's heart- that would be interesting.
Click to expand...

 
Are you saying it's impossible for those laws to be judge unconstitutional?


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I find it offensive to be assumed to be one with a complete homophobe.
> 
> Just because I defend his right to hold an opinion doesn't mean I agree with his opinion.  I support protections on religious liberty because I hold an unpopular religious perspective (atheist).
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you're the same person, maybe Sil does, and I don't give a fuck what either of you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think I give a fuck what you say or that you exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey conjob, where's my apology for mixing me up with Sil?  Next time keep who posted what straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the bottom of the ocean.  Go get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, I knew you wouldn't a man about.  A man would have said, Sorry, I was wrong, but you're still an asshole.
Click to expand...

 
A man doesn't demand something from me unless he's willing to come and get it in person.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil does not know what is in the heart of man.
> 
> A thread of 55000 views with 641 page celebrates 1st amendment for churches AND the marriage equality, which is not what Sil expected.
> 
> No LGBT complainant will ever win a case against a church for not marrying LGBT against its will.
> 
> That is the natural end of all of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be so sure and don't believe the sexually deviant crowd isn't looking for ways around it.
Click to expand...


Like I said- any idiot can file a law suit- even your sexually deviant crowd.

However, since the law specifically excludes churches.......your lawsuits will fail.


----------



## pillars

It's extremely unlikely in light of legal precedent and the 1st amendment.  I think it's a better use of one's time to focus on likely hazards rather than assuming the sky is falling all the damn time.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil does not know what is in the heart of man.
> 
> A thread of 55000 views with 641 page celebrates 1st amendment for churches AND the marriage equality, which is not what Sil expected.
> 
> No LGBT complainant will ever win a case against a church for not marrying LGBT against its will.
> 
> That is the natural end of all of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be so sure and don't believe the sexually deviant crowd isn't looking for ways around it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said- any idiot can file a law suit- even your sexually deviant crowd.
> 
> However, since the law specifically excludes churches.......your lawsuits will fail.
Click to expand...

 
That's what the idiot homos did.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you're the same person, maybe Sil does, and I don't give a fuck what either of you say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you think I give a fuck what you say or that you exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey conjob, where's my apology for mixing me up with Sil?  Next time keep who posted what straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the bottom of the ocean.  Go get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, I knew you wouldn't a man about.  A man would have said, Sorry, I was wrong, but you're still an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A man doesn't demand something from me unless he's willing to come and get it in person.
Click to expand...

Oooh, the big bad faggot of the Internet.  And I shouldn't even have to ask if you were a real man.  Carry on tough guy.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Place of *public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes*.
> 
> Not religions- facilities principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> COCODE
> 
> 
> 
> One of those places is a man's heart...  For where else does religion and the freedom of it ultimately reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Place of *public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes*.
> 
> Not religions- facilities principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> COCODE
> 
> Not according to the law- but let me know when you figure out how to have a wedding insides a man's heart- that would be interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying it's impossible for those laws to be judge unconstitutional?
Click to expand...


Actually I have often said that if anyone believes that public Accomodation laws are unconstitutional, they can do exactly the same thing that same gender couples who believe that anti-gay marriage laws are unconstitutional- they can try to either change the law- or they can file a lawsuit arguing that the law is unconstitutional.

See- I believe even homophobes have the same rights as all Americans.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"You know what's crazy is the thought that a gay couple would want to celebrate one of the happiest days of their life being married by a religion that thinks they are subhuman."  

The great majority of Christians think no such thing.

A majority of Christians support marriage equality.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil does not know what is in the heart of man.
> 
> A thread of 55000 views with 641 page celebrates 1st amendment for churches AND the marriage equality, which is not what Sil expected.
> 
> No LGBT complainant will ever win a case against a church for not marrying LGBT against its will.
> 
> That is the natural end of all of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be so sure and don't believe the sexually deviant crowd isn't looking for ways around it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said- any idiot can file a law suit- even your sexually deviant crowd.
> 
> However, since the law specifically excludes churches.......your lawsuits will fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what the idiot homos did.
Click to expand...


Thats what who did to whom where? 

Your post is nonsensical....I don't know why I am acting like I am surprised....


----------



## Conservative65

pillars said:


> It's extremely unlikely in light of legal precedent and the 1st amendment.  I think it's a better use of one's time to focus on likely hazards rather than assuming the sky is falling all the damn time.


 
This issue came up at a meeting at the church last week.  I'm  almost 50 and younger compared to most at the meeting.  More than one of them said that 30 years ago they would have never thought a judge would have overtturned State law related to same sex marriage.  We both know what happened.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Conservative65 said:


> I'll never be second class behind the 250 you reference.


 You already are acting as if you are second class or worse.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A church should have the right to the "free exercise" of it's beliefs.  Take that how you will.
Click to expand...


And every church does have that right. 

The LDS discriminated against African Americans for years, up until fairly recently- and it was perfectly legal.

No one can force any church to marry- or perform any ritual against its will.


----------



## pillars

Conservative65 said:


> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's extremely unlikely in light of legal precedent and the 1st amendment.  I think it's a better use of one's time to focus on likely hazards rather than assuming the sky is falling all the damn time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This issue came up at a meeting at the church last week.  I'm  almost 50 and younger compared to most at the meeting.  More than one of them said that 30 years ago they would have never thought a judge would have overtturned State law related to same sex marriage.  We both know what happened.
Click to expand...

 
 Overturning a state law and overturning the bill of rights are vastly different.  State laws get overturned every year.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's extremely unlikely in light of legal precedent and the 1st amendment.  I think it's a better use of one's time to focus on likely hazards rather than assuming the sky is falling all the damn time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This issue came up at a meeting at the church last week.  I'm  almost 50 and younger compared to most at the meeting.  More than one of them said that 30 years ago they would have never thought a judge would have overtturned State law related to same sex marriage.  We both know what happened.
Click to expand...


Hmmm exactly what state law was in effect 30 years ago that forbade same sex marriage?


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> "You know what's crazy is the thought that a gay couple would want to celebrate one of the happiest days of their life being married by a religion that thinks they are subhuman."
> 
> The great majority of Christians think no such thing.
> 
> A majority of Christians support marriage equality.


 
What's amazing is that someone can read what the Bible says about marriage and still think same sex marriage is acceptable in God's eyes. 

That supposed majority should read their Bibles.  A large percentage also think a lot of things for which the Bible says is wrong.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Place of *public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes*.
> 
> Not religions- facilities principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> COCODE
> 
> 
> 
> One of those places is a man's heart...  For where else does religion and the freedom of it ultimately reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying the religion in my heart tells me to shoot ******* and fuck 12-year-olds isn't going to keep me out of jail.  Just because you think God requires you to hate the faggots doesn't mean we have to let you get your way in all situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on Christians and Christianity, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, should realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as Christians (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good Christians like you all have been doing lately.
> .
Click to expand...


Let me show you the irony of your post:

_And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on homosexuals and homosexuality, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, should realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as homosexuals (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good homosexuals like you all have been doing lately._

As I have shown in my responses to you- for every action you call an 'attack on Christians', I can show equal or worse attacks by Christians on homosexuals. 

What you justify as 'a few fanatics or radicals' when they are Christians could equally be applied to those homosexuals you disagree with.

You are blind to your hypocrisy on this issue. 

IF you want to argue that Christians are under attack- then homosexuals are at least as much under attack- because homosexuals are actually being physically harmed just for being homosexuals in the United States.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> ! The Christians should be grandfathered in anyways in this nation by now,.



So you think Christians should be treated differently- as in given treatment or exemptions- from every other American in America?

Really?


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't ask for one of these on the cake now did he?  That they do all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual.  According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.
> 
> The fags asked for two of the same kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it was this, or a rainbow cake and they make rainbow cakes, no problem and perfectly fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to Skylar.  Skylar stated that it was OK to not do something on the cake as long as they did the cake.  Should the fag bakers be required to do a cake with wording that say "gay marriage is wrong" if it's on a cake they make even if they don't agree?  That's what you expect from the Christian baker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot expect a business to provide something they do not provide. The baker was not asked to provide a product or service they don't normally provide. The gay couple ordered a cake, that's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of cake, and for whom was the wedding for again ? Did they alert the baker of the reason for the cake or not ?
Click to expand...



A cake is a cake. They ordered a cake. If the business sells wedding cakes, they sell the couple a wedding cake.  If they don't sell wedding cakes to anyone, they don't have to sell them to gays.


----------



## pillars

Conservative65 said:


> What's amazing is that someone can read what the Bible says about marriage and still think same sex marriage is acceptable in God's eyes.
> 
> That supposed majority should read their Bibles.  A large percentage also think a lot of things for which the Bible says is wrong.


 
I don't mean to offend you, and I completely support your right to believe as you do, but I don't give a fuck what the bible says about this subject, or what you consider to be God's opinion on the subject.  And, the majority of people who are going to be around when you and I are gone are not interested in these sorts of legalistic interpretations of faith.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Conservative65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You know what's crazy is the thought that a gay couple would want to celebrate one of the happiest days of their life being married by a religion that thinks they are subhuman."
> 
> The great majority of Christians think no such thing.
> 
> A majority of Christians support marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's amazing is that someone can read what the Bible says about marriage and still think same sex marriage is acceptable in God's eyes.
> 
> That supposed majority should read their Bibles.  A large percentage also think a lot of things for which the Bible says is wrong.
Click to expand...


The true heart of Christianity in America is not letting your ilk define the Bible for anyone else.  You are a modern-day Pharisee.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's extremely unlikely in light of legal precedent and the 1st amendment.  I think it's a better use of one's time to focus on likely hazards rather than assuming the sky is falling all the damn time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This issue came up at a meeting at the church last week.  I'm  almost 50 and younger compared to most at the meeting.  More than one of them said that 30 years ago they would have never thought a judge would have overtturned State law related to same sex marriage.  We both know what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm exactly what state law was in effect 30 years ago that forbade same sex marriage?
Click to expand...

 
South Carolina Code of Laws Title 20, Chapter 1, Article 1, Section 15 states "A marriage between persons of the same sex is void ab initio and against the public policy of this State."  So you don't have to look it up, ab initio means from the beginning.


----------



## Conservative65

pillars said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's amazing is that someone can read what the Bible says about marriage and still think same sex marriage is acceptable in God's eyes.
> 
> That supposed majority should read their Bibles.  A large percentage also think a lot of things for which the Bible says is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean to offend you, and I completely support your right to believe as you do, but I don't give a fuck what the bible says about this subject, or what you consider to be God's opinion on the subject.  And, the majority of people who are going to be around when you and I are gone are not interested in these sorts of legalistic interpretations of faith.
Click to expand...

 
You can't offend me. 

That will mean heaven won't have people who think they can't ignore God's word and go there.  More room for my mansion.


----------



## pillars

Conservative65 said:


> You can't offend me.
> 
> That will mean heaven won't have people who think they can't ignore God's word and go there.  More room for my mansion.


 
A heaven populated by haters would surely be much like hell.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's amazing is that someone can read what the Bible says about marriage and still think same sex marriage is acceptable in God's eyes.
> 
> That supposed majority should read their Bibles.  A large percentage also think a lot of things for which the Bible says is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean to offend you, and I completely support your right to believe as you do, but I don't give a fuck what the bible says about this subject, or what you consider to be God's opinion on the subject.  And, the majority of people who are going to be around when you and I are gone are not interested in these sorts of legalistic interpretations of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't offend me.
> 
> That will mean heaven won't have people who think they can't ignore God's word and go there.  More room for my mansion.
Click to expand...

A 6-year-old's dream of Heaven.  How many virgins do you get?


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You know what's crazy is the thought that a gay couple would want to celebrate one of the happiest days of their life being married by a religion that thinks they are subhuman."
> 
> The great majority of Christians think no such thing.
> 
> A majority of Christians support marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's amazing is that someone can read what the Bible says about marriage and still think same sex marriage is acceptable in God's eyes.
> 
> That supposed majority should read their Bibles.  A large percentage also think a lot of things for which the Bible says is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The true heart of Christianity in America is not letting your ilk define the Bible for anyone else.  You are a modern-day Pharisee.
Click to expand...

 
If those who think same sex marriage is something God would support, they aren't the true heart of Christianity.  God defines what is right and wrong not those like you that would twist his word to suit your personal desires.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's amazing is that someone can read what the Bible says about marriage and still think same sex marriage is acceptable in God's eyes.
> 
> That supposed majority should read their Bibles.  A large percentage also think a lot of things for which the Bible says is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean to offend you, and I completely support your right to believe as you do, but I don't give a fuck what the bible says about this subject, or what you consider to be God's opinion on the subject.  And, the majority of people who are going to be around when you and I are gone are not interested in these sorts of legalistic interpretations of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't offend me.
> 
> That will mean heaven won't have people who think they can't ignore God's word and go there.  More room for my mansion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A 6-year-old's dream of Heaven.  How many virgins do you have?
Click to expand...

 
Wrong religion.


----------



## pillars

Conservative65 said:


> If those who think same sex marriage is something God would support, they aren't the true heart of Christianity.  God defines what is right and wrong not those like you that would twist his word to suit your personal desires.


 
Your capacity to speak adequately for an all powerful deity is what's really in question here.  I'll leave it to God to let me know if/when I meet him/her face to face.


----------



## Conservative65

pillars said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't offend me.
> 
> That will mean heaven won't have people who think they can't ignore God's word and go there.  More room for my mansion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A heaven populated by haters would surely be much like hell.
Click to expand...

 
You'll get your chance for the real hell while I won't have to listen to people like you claim something God says is wrong isn't.


----------



## Conservative65

pillars said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're offended, that's your problem.  You don't have a right not be be offended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not offended by your views, though they are stupid;  I'm offended to be thought stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a homophobe as not one dick sucker scares me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "People often have the most hateful and negative attitudes towards things they secretly crave, but feel that they shouldn't have."
> 
> Homophobic Men Most Aroused by Gay Male Porn Psychology Today
Click to expand...

 
I can promise you that there is absolutely no craving for a person of the same gender.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's amazing is that someone can read what the Bible says about marriage and still think same sex marriage is acceptable in God's eyes.
> 
> That supposed majority should read their Bibles.  A large percentage also think a lot of things for which the Bible says is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean to offend you, and I completely support your right to believe as you do, but I don't give a fuck what the bible says about this subject, or what you consider to be God's opinion on the subject.  And, the majority of people who are going to be around when you and I are gone are not interested in these sorts of legalistic interpretations of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't offend me.
> 
> That will mean heaven won't have people who think they can't ignore God's word and go there.  More room for my mansion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A 6-year-old's dream of Heaven.  How many virgins do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong religion.
Click to expand...

Not in this case.  What else do have in Heaven, a really nice car, a Supermodel wife, dogs that never fart?  Do tell?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're offended, that's your problem.  You don't have a right not be be offended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not offended by your views, though they are stupid;  I'm offended to be thought stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a homophobe as not one dick sucker scares me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "People often have the most hateful and negative attitudes towards things they secretly crave, but feel that they shouldn't have."
> 
> Homophobic Men Most Aroused by Gay Male Porn Psychology Today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can promise you that there is absolutely no craving for a person of the same gender.
Click to expand...

So tell us, you're watching a straight porn film, do you want to watch one with a guy with a big cock or a tiny one hmmm?  Faggot!


----------



## Conservative65

pillars said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If those who think same sex marriage is something God would support, they aren't the true heart of Christianity.  God defines what is right and wrong not those like you that would twist his word to suit your personal desires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your capacity to speak adequately for an all powerful deity is what's really in question here.  I'll leave it to God to let me know if/when I meet him/her face to face.
Click to expand...

 
I'm not speaking for God.  God has spoken through his word for Himself.  Don't confuse letting you know what is said means I'm the one that said it. 

He'll let you know.  Problem is you won't like it and will whine because you don't like the answer.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's amazing is that someone can read what the Bible says about marriage and still think same sex marriage is acceptable in God's eyes.
> 
> That supposed majority should read their Bibles.  A large percentage also think a lot of things for which the Bible says is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean to offend you, and I completely support your right to believe as you do, but I don't give a fuck what the bible says about this subject, or what you consider to be God's opinion on the subject.  And, the majority of people who are going to be around when you and I are gone are not interested in these sorts of legalistic interpretations of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't offend me.
> 
> That will mean heaven won't have people who think they can't ignore God's word and go there.  More room for my mansion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A 6-year-old's dream of Heaven.  How many virgins do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in this case.  What else do have in Heaven, a really nice car, a Supermodel wife, dogs that never fart?  Do tell?
Click to expand...

 
I can only tell you what God's word says about heaven.  Other than that, I don't know.  What I do know is who won't be there and it's also according to God's word.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're offended, that's your problem.  You don't have a right not be be offended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not offended by your views, though they are stupid;  I'm offended to be thought stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a homophobe as not one dick sucker scares me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "People often have the most hateful and negative attitudes towards things they secretly crave, but feel that they shouldn't have."
> 
> Homophobic Men Most Aroused by Gay Male Porn Psychology Today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can promise you that there is absolutely no craving for a person of the same gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell us, you're watching a straight porn film, do you want to watch one with a guy with a big cock or a tiny one hmmm?  Faggot!
Click to expand...

 
So tell me, what gives you the opinion I watch porn.  Assuming makes you a faggot loving retard.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean to offend you, and I completely support your right to believe as you do, but I don't give a fuck what the bible says about this subject, or what you consider to be God's opinion on the subject.  And, the majority of people who are going to be around when you and I are gone are not interested in these sorts of legalistic interpretations of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't offend me.
> 
> That will mean heaven won't have people who think they can't ignore God's word and go there.  More room for my mansion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A 6-year-old's dream of Heaven.  How many virgins do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in this case.  What else do have in Heaven, a really nice car, a Supermodel wife, dogs that never fart?  Do tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can only tell you what God's word says about heaven.  Other than that, I don't know.  What I do know is who won't be there and it's also according to God's word.
Click to expand...

Where in the Bible, chapter and verse, did God say you were going to live in a mansion in Heaven after death?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're offended, that's your problem.  You don't have a right not be be offended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not offended by your views, though they are stupid;  I'm offended to be thought stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a homophobe as not one dick sucker scares me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "People often have the most hateful and negative attitudes towards things they secretly crave, but feel that they shouldn't have."
> 
> Homophobic Men Most Aroused by Gay Male Porn Psychology Today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can promise you that there is absolutely no craving for a person of the same gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell us, you're watching a straight porn film, do you want to watch one with a guy with a big cock or a tiny one hmmm?  Faggot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me, what gives you the opinion I watch porn.  Assuming makes you a faggot loving retard.
Click to expand...

If you aren't a total puss, you watch porn.  It's a straight male thing.  That and jerking off.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you think that, when I don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I find it offensive to be assumed to be one with a complete homophobe.
> 
> Just because I defend his right to hold an opinion doesn't mean I agree with his opinion.  I support protections on religious liberty because I hold an unpopular religious perspective (atheist).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're offended, that's your problem.  You don't have a right not be be offended.
> 
> I'm not a homophobe as not one dick sucker scares me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your a homophobe because you are both scared of homosexuals and you also promote hatred and discrimination against homosexuals.
Click to expand...

 
I have zero fear of someone that thinks liking the same sex is normal. 

Homophobe, if you break down the word, means fear of the same.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't offend me.
> 
> That will mean heaven won't have people who think they can't ignore God's word and go there.  More room for my mansion.
> 
> 
> 
> A 6-year-old's dream of Heaven.  How many virgins do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in this case.  What else do have in Heaven, a really nice car, a Supermodel wife, dogs that never fart?  Do tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can only tell you what God's word says about heaven.  Other than that, I don't know.  What I do know is who won't be there and it's also according to God's word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Bible, chapter and verse, did God say you were going to live in a mansion in Heaven after death?
Click to expand...

 
John 14:2 - In my Father's house are many mansions: if _it were_ not _so_, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're offended, that's your problem.  You don't have a right not be be offended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not offended by your views, though they are stupid;  I'm offended to be thought stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a homophobe as not one dick sucker scares me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "People often have the most hateful and negative attitudes towards things they secretly crave, but feel that they shouldn't have."
> 
> Homophobic Men Most Aroused by Gay Male Porn Psychology Today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can promise you that there is absolutely no craving for a person of the same gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell us, you're watching a straight porn film, do you want to watch one with a guy with a big cock or a tiny one hmmm?  Faggot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me, what gives you the opinion I watch porn.  Assuming makes you a faggot loving retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you aren't a total puss, you watch porn.  It's a straight male thing.  That and jerking off.
Click to expand...

 
It might be for someone like you.  It's the only way you'll ever see what a woman has.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jesus never spoke about marriage equality or homosexuality.

Conservative65 has nothing of worth to offer on the subject.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> A 6-year-old's dream of Heaven.  How many virgins do you have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in this case.  What else do have in Heaven, a really nice car, a Supermodel wife, dogs that never fart?  Do tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can only tell you what God's word says about heaven.  Other than that, I don't know.  What I do know is who won't be there and it's also according to God's word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Bible, chapter and verse, did God say you were going to live in a mansion in Heaven after death?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John 14:2 - In my Father's house are many mansions: if _it were_ not _so_, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you
Click to expand...

John, had to be you'd pick that.  Well, you just plan for that nice big house then.  It won't matter anyway,.


----------



## beagle9

pillars said:


> It's extremely unlikely in light of legal precedent and the 1st amendment.  I think it's a better use of one's time to focus on likely hazards rather than assuming the sky is falling all the damn time.


When lawsuits fly left and right because the gay's or anyone else is offended about something today or they want to challenge something in this nation every time one turns around anymore, then for those who are being challenged by a sea of the newly offended in this nation, then I'd say yes indeed the sky to them could very well be falling in their opinions of it all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9, that made no sense.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> Jesus never spoke about marriage equality or homosexuality.
> 
> Conservative65 has nothing of worth to offer on the subject.


The Bible where you learned about the one you just spoke about, and whom undoubtedly must be one that you respect as you spoke his name, inspired  the men to write the very gospels in which the Bible has written into it, so what is your point ?


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in this case.  What else do have in Heaven, a really nice car, a Supermodel wife, dogs that never fart?  Do tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can only tell you what God's word says about heaven.  Other than that, I don't know.  What I do know is who won't be there and it's also according to God's word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Bible, chapter and verse, did God say you were going to live in a mansion in Heaven after death?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John 14:2 - In my Father's house are many mansions: if _it were_ not _so_, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> John, had to be you'd pick that.  Well, you just plan for that nice big house then.  It won't matter anyway,.
Click to expand...

 
You better hope,  where you're going, there are plenty of water hoses.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in this case.  What else do have in Heaven, a really nice car, a Supermodel wife, dogs that never fart?  Do tell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can only tell you what God's word says about heaven.  Other than that, I don't know.  What I do know is who won't be there and it's also according to God's word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Bible, chapter and verse, did God say you were going to live in a mansion in Heaven after death?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John 14:2 - In my Father's house are many mansions: if _it were_ not _so_, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> John, had to be you'd pick that.  Well, you just plan for that nice big house then.  It won't matter anyway,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You better hope,  where you're going, there are plenty of water hoses.
Click to expand...

There is no God, more than likely, and no Heaven, and no Hell, and the like.  You have one life and the world works exactly as you would expect it to if there was no God.  Sorry, you've been sold a lie, a big one.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can only tell you what God's word says about heaven.  Other than that, I don't know.  What I do know is who won't be there and it's also according to God's word.
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Bible, chapter and verse, did God say you were going to live in a mansion in Heaven after death?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John 14:2 - In my Father's house are many mansions: if _it were_ not _so_, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> John, had to be you'd pick that.  Well, you just plan for that nice big house then.  It won't matter anyway,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You better hope,  where you're going, there are plenty of water hoses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no God, more than likely, and no Heaven, and no Hell, and the like.  You have one life and the world works exactly as you would expect it to if there was no God.  Sorry, you've been sold a lie, a big one.
Click to expand...

 
That is your opinion.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Bible, chapter and verse, did God say you were going to live in a mansion in Heaven after death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John 14:2 - In my Father's house are many mansions: if _it were_ not _so_, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> John, had to be you'd pick that.  Well, you just plan for that nice big house then.  It won't matter anyway,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You better hope,  where you're going, there are plenty of water hoses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no God, more than likely, and no Heaven, and no Hell, and the like.  You have one life and the world works exactly as you would expect it to if there was no God.  Sorry, you've been sold a lie, a big one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your opinion.
Click to expand...

And so is yours.  Just opinions, only I thought it through and you accepted those of others.  Carry on.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> John 14:2 - In my Father's house are many mansions: if _it were_ not _so_, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you
> 
> 
> 
> John, had to be you'd pick that.  Well, you just plan for that nice big house then.  It won't matter anyway,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You better hope,  where you're going, there are plenty of water hoses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no God, more than likely, and no Heaven, and no Hell, and the like.  You have one life and the world works exactly as you would expect it to if there was no God.  Sorry, you've been sold a lie, a big one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so is yours.  Just opinions, only I thought it through and you accepted those of others.  Carry on.
Click to expand...

 
Never said it wasn't my opinion. 

I don't accept yours.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> John, had to be you'd pick that.  Well, you just plan for that nice big house then.  It won't matter anyway,.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You better hope,  where you're going, there are plenty of water hoses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no God, more than likely, and no Heaven, and no Hell, and the like.  You have one life and the world works exactly as you would expect it to if there was no God.  Sorry, you've been sold a lie, a big one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so is yours.  Just opinions, only I thought it through and you accepted those of others.  Carry on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said it wasn't my opinion.
> 
> I don't accept yours.
Click to expand...

So don't, just know out of all of man's religions yours is but one.  And you believe it to be the One True Religion just like anyone else raised in that same faith, that's how it works.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Place of *public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes*.
> 
> Not religions- facilities principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> COCODE
> 
> 
> 
> One of those places is a man's heart...  For where else does religion and the freedom of it ultimately reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Place of *public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes*.
> 
> Not religions- facilities principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> COCODE
> 
> Not according to the law- but let me know when you figure out how to have a wedding insides a man's heart- that would be interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying it's impossible for those laws to be judge unconstitutional?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I have often said that if anyone believes that public Accomodation laws are unconstitutional, they can do exactly the same thing that same gender couples who believe that anti-gay marriage laws are unconstitutional- they can try to either change the law- or they can file a lawsuit arguing that the law is unconstitutional.
> 
> See- I believe even homophobes have the same rights as all Americans.
Click to expand...

Many people have rights yes indeed we all do, but it's what people do with those rights or it's their interpretation of such rights that ends up making a huge difference in what makes up the whole nation called America and it's character.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You better hope,  where you're going, there are plenty of water hoses.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no God, more than likely, and no Heaven, and no Hell, and the like.  You have one life and the world works exactly as you would expect it to if there was no God.  Sorry, you've been sold a lie, a big one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so is yours.  Just opinions, only I thought it through and you accepted those of others.  Carry on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said it wasn't my opinion.
> 
> I don't accept yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So don't, just know out of all of man's religions yours is but one.  And you believe it to be the One True Religion just like anyone else raised in that same faith, that's how it works.
Click to expand...

 
Never said mine was the only one that is around. 

Why would I believe in it if I didn't know it was the one true religion?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus never spoke about marriage equality or homosexuality.
> 
> Conservative65 has nothing of worth to offer on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible where you learned about the one you just spoke about, and whom undoubtedly must be one that you respect as you spoke his name, inspired  the men to write the very gospels in which the Bible has written into it, so what is your point ?
Click to expand...

The point is that religion has no legal bearing whatsoever on the issue of same-sex couples' 14th Amendment right to access marriage law.

Just as 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches, where members of the clergy cannot be 'forced' by government to perform religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> Jesus never spoke about marriage equality or homosexuality.
> 
> Conservative65 has nothing of worth to offer on the subject.


 
Actually, He did speak about marraige.  While the actual discussion was about divorce, plenty like you say that the principle can be made even if the specifics aren't what the discussion is about.  For example, same sex marriage supporters claim Loving v. Virginia upheld the principle that marriage is a right protected by the 14th Amendment equal protection clause.  The case revolved around interracial couples yet the homo supporters say the principle applied to same sex marriage. 

Jesus stated, when dicsussion divorce, that a man should leave his parents and be with his wife.  The principle here is that marriage is between a man and a woman. 

Seems you believe your disagreement means what I say has no value.  Typical of your kind.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Place of *public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes*.
> 
> Not religions- facilities principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> COCODE
> 
> 
> 
> One of those places is a man's heart...  For where else does religion and the freedom of it ultimately reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying the religion in my heart tells me to shoot ******* and fuck 12-year-olds isn't going to keep me out of jail.  Just because you think God requires you to hate the faggots doesn't mean we have to let you get your way in all situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on Christians and Christianity, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, it should be realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as Christians (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good Christians like you all have been doing lately.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me show you the irony of your post:
> 
> _And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on homosexuals and homosexuality, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, should realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as Christians (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good Christians like you all have been doing lately._
> 
> As I have shown in my responses to you- for every action you call an 'attack on Christians', I can show equal or worse attacks by Christians on homosexuals.
> 
> What you justify as 'a few fanatics or radicals' when they are Christians could equally be applied to those homosexuals you disagree with.
> 
> You are blind to your hypocrisy on this issue.
> 
> IF you want to argue that Christians are under attack- then homosexuals are at least as much under attack- because homosexuals are actually being physically harmed just for being homosexuals in the United States.
Click to expand...


Don't play around with the words in my postings and then re-post them, and I don't care if you are trying to show some sort of irony or what ever by doing that. Make your point as you did afterwards, it will work just the same.
You could have said replace the word Christian in the post above with homosexual, and that would have worked also... Just saying!


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus never spoke about marriage equality or homosexuality.
> 
> Conservative65 has nothing of worth to offer on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible where you learned about the one you just spoke about, and whom undoubtedly must be one that you respect as you spoke his name, inspired  the men to write the very gospels in which the Bible has written into it, so what is your point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that religion has no legal bearing whatsoever on the issue of same-sex couples' 14th Amendment right to access marriage law.
> 
> Just as 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches, where members of the clergy cannot be 'forced' by government to perform religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.
Click to expand...

Duh, we already know all this Clay-Ton, what we are speaking about is the coming storms by evidence of the storms that have been raging already.. LOL


----------



## beagle9

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can only tell you what God's word says about heaven.  Other than that, I don't know.  What I do know is who won't be there and it's also according to God's word.
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Bible, chapter and verse, did God say you were going to live in a mansion in Heaven after death?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John 14:2 - In my Father's house are many mansions: if _it were_ not _so_, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> John, had to be you'd pick that.  Well, you just plan for that nice big house then.  It won't matter anyway,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You better hope,  where you're going, there are plenty of water hoses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no God, more than likely, and no Heaven, and no Hell, and the like.  You have one life and the world works exactly as you would expect it to if there was no God.  Sorry, you've been sold a lie, a big one.
Click to expand...

And those are the common words of a desperate poster, and this when he resorts to using such personal attacks on someones beliefs like this, and it comes complete with rank opinions cast upon another who is a believer in here. LOL wow.


----------



## pillars

beagle9 said:


> Duh, we already know all this Clay-Ton, what we are speaking about is the coming storms by evidence of the storms that have been raging already.. LOL


The bill of rights has been overturned?


----------



## beagle9

pillars said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duh, we already know all this Clay-Ton, what we are speaking about is the coming storms by evidence of the storms that have been raging already.. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> The bill of rights has been overturned?
Click to expand...

Is that what Clay-Ton said ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus never spoke about marriage equality or homosexuality.
> 
> Conservative65 has nothing of worth to offer on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible where you learned about the one you just spoke about, and whom undoubtedly must be one that you respect as you spoke his name, inspired  the men to write the very gospels in which the Bible has written into it, so what is your point ?
Click to expand...

That tired old heresy of the social conservatives that the Bible is the Sole Word of God.  You should be a Muslim for that is the believers saw about the Qu'ran.  I bet you believe in the 200 year old heresy that a Rapture or millennial event will occur in the last days: which of the 31 millennial theories do you believe?

The Bible is for inspiration and guidance, your Director is Jesus.  You need to shift your focus.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JakeStarkey said:


> Jesus never spoke about marriage equality or homosexuality.  Conservative65 has nothing of worth to offer on the subject.



"Actually, He did speak about marraige."  *Thank you for admitting by omission that He did not speak about marriage equality or homosexuality*.    

"While the actual discussion was about divorce, plenty like you say that the principle can be made even if the specifics aren't what the discussion is about."  *Nope, they can.*

"For example, same sex marriage supporters claim Loving v. Virginia upheld the principle that marriage is a right protected by the 14th Amendment equal protection clause.  The case revolved around interracial couples yet the homo supporters say the principle applied to same sex marriage."  *False comparison.  Loving is about the right to marry the person one wants.*

"Jesus stated, when dicsussion divorce, that a man should leave his parents and be with his wife.  The principle here is that marriage is between a man and a woman."   *No, the principle is that outside forces should never divide or prevent marriage of a loving couple.*

"Seems you believe your disagreement means what I say has no value.  Typical of your kind." *That means your kind argue falsely and by omission, argumentation without value.*


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Place of *public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes*.
> 
> Not religions- facilities principally used for religious purposes.
> 
> COCODE
> 
> 
> 
> One of those places is a man's heart...  For where else does religion and the freedom of it ultimately reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying the religion in my heart tells me to shoot ******* and fuck 12-year-olds isn't going to keep me out of jail.  Just because you think God requires you to hate the faggots doesn't mean we have to let you get your way in all situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on Christians and Christianity, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, it should be realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as Christians (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good Christians like you all have been doing lately.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me show you the irony of your post:
> 
> _And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on homosexuals and homosexuality, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, should realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as Christians (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good Christians like you all have been doing lately._
> 
> As I have shown in my responses to you- for every action you call an 'attack on Christians', I can show equal or worse attacks by Christians on homosexuals.
> 
> What you justify as 'a few fanatics or radicals' when they are Christians could equally be applied to those homosexuals you disagree with.
> 
> You are blind to your hypocrisy on this issue.
> 
> IF you want to argue that Christians are under attack- then homosexuals are at least as much under attack- because homosexuals are actually being physically harmed just for being homosexuals in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't play around with the words in my postings and then re-post them, and I don't care if you are trying to show some sort of irony or what ever by doing that. Make your point as you did afterwards, it will work just the same.
> You could have said replace the word Christian in the post above with homosexual, and that would have worked also... Just saying!
Click to expand...


And you don't address or respond to my point.

Let me show you the irony of your post- again- by simply replacing one word. 

_And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on homosexuals and homosexuality, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, should realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as homosexuals (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good homosexuals like you all have been doing lately._

As I have shown in my responses to you- for every action you call an 'attack on Christians', I can show equal or worse attacks by Christians on homosexuals.

What you justify as 'a few fanatics or radicals' when they are Christians could equally be applied to those homosexuals you disagree with.

You are blind to your hypocrisy on this issue.

IF you want to argue that Christians are under attack- then homosexuals are at least as much under attack- because homosexuals are actually being physically harmed just for being homosexuals in the United States


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus never spoke about marriage equality or homosexuality.
> 
> Conservative65 has nothing of worth to offer on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Loving v. Virginia upheld the principle that marriage is a right protected by the 14th Amendment equal protection clause.  The case revolved around interracial couples yet the homo supporters say the principle applied to same sex marriage..
Click to expand...


Loving v. Virginia upheld the principle that marriage is a right proteced by the 14th Amendment- both equal protection and due process. 

And only the equal protection part was because of race


_There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. [Footnote 11] We have consistently deniedthe constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom* to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.*_

*These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.*

Note the two parts and the distinction.

Same gender couples have been consistently winning cases in courts around the United States based upon the equal protection clause and the Due Process Clause. 

And because as the court pointed out- *The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men*


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's extremely unlikely in light of legal precedent and the 1st amendment.  I think it's a better use of one's time to focus on likely hazards rather than assuming the sky is falling all the damn time.
> 
> 
> 
> When lawsuits fly left and right because the gay's or anyone else is offended about something today or they want to challenge something in this nation every time one turns around anymore, then for those who are being challenged by a sea of the newly offended in this nation, then I'd say yes indeed the sky to them could very well be falling in their opinions of it all.
Click to expand...


Seriously do you really believe that homosexuals are the first to file lawsuits to challenge something?

Are you unaware of the NRA and its lawsuits?
Every side of every issue files lawsuits.

If you don't think that a law is correct- your right is to file a lawsuit.
If you think someone is violating a regulation- your right is often to file a lawsuit.

And it doesn't matter what religion either the offender or the offendee is.


----------



## Silhouette

Offender....I wasn't aware praciting religion is an offense, for passively refusing to do something that is forbidden by your faith.


----------



## Silhouette

pillars said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duh, we already know all this Clay-Ton, what we are speaking about is the coming storms by evidence of the storms that have been raging already.. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> The bill of rights has been overturned?
Click to expand...

 
Driving isn't a right.  Marriage isn't a right.  If it was, everyone could drive or get married.  But that isn't appropriate  on the road or the formative environment of kids.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of those places is a man's heart...  For where else does religion and the freedom of it ultimately reside?
> 
> 
> 
> Saying the religion in my heart tells me to shoot ******* and fuck 12-year-olds isn't going to keep me out of jail.  Just because you think God requires you to hate the faggots doesn't mean we have to let you get your way in all situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on Christians and Christianity, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, it should be realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as Christians (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good Christians like you all have been doing lately.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me show you the irony of your post:
> 
> _And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on homosexuals and homosexuality, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, should realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as Christians (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good Christians like you all have been doing lately._
> 
> As I have shown in my responses to you- for every action you call an 'attack on Christians', I can show equal or worse attacks by Christians on homosexuals.
> 
> What you justify as 'a few fanatics or radicals' when they are Christians could equally be applied to those homosexuals you disagree with.
> 
> You are blind to your hypocrisy on this issue.
> 
> IF you want to argue that Christians are under attack- then homosexuals are at least as much under attack- because homosexuals are actually being physically harmed just for being homosexuals in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't play around with the words in my postings and then re-post them, and I don't care if you are trying to show some sort of irony or what ever by doing that. Make your point as you did afterwards, it will work just the same.
> You could have said replace the word Christian in the post above with homosexual, and that would have worked also... Just saying!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you don't address or respond to my point.
> 
> Let me show you the irony of your post- again- by simply replacing one word.
> 
> _And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on homosexuals and homosexuality, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, should realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as homosexuals (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good homosexuals like you all have been doing lately._
> 
> As I have shown in my responses to you- for every action you call an 'attack on Christians', I can show equal or worse attacks by Christians on homosexuals.
> 
> What you justify as 'a few fanatics or radicals' when they are Christians could equally be applied to those homosexuals you disagree with.
> 
> You are blind to your hypocrisy on this issue.
> 
> IF you want to argue that Christians are under attack- then homosexuals are at least as much under attack- because homosexuals are actually being physically harmed just for being homosexuals in the United States
Click to expand...

Isn't it a violation of site rules for changing the words or even a word that changes the original meaning of a post, and then re-posting that post without the posters permission ? Heck someone of your ilk doesn't care about that now do you ??... Why is your kind such a rude and obnoxious people to deal with I wonder ????... Folks these are the kinds of people that are taking over your country, and you want THIS for your future ?????? What kind of fools are the people in this nation anymore to want these kinds of characters to be in control of this nation now or anytime in the near or far future  ????????? I mean look at the devastation they are causing in this nation in so many ways, and all the while they are constantly claiming to be the victims or rather they are always claiming that they are helping the so called victims while doing so ? Kidding me right ?

Victim-hood works I guess, but who wants to live their lives claiming to be a victim all the time ? I guess if it pays dividends, so it is that a lot of people do these days...Duh I answered my own question just that quick..LOL


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> Offender....I wasn't aware practicing religion is an offense, for passively refusing to do something that is forbidden by your faith.


This is the one they have just got to get around, but it has them in desperation mode in trying to do so..LOL

When you have to file a lawsuit, you are in desperation mode at that point...


----------



## WorldWatcher

beagle9 said:


> Isn't it a violation of site rules for changing the words or even a word that changes the original meaning of a post, and then re-posting that post without the posters permission ?



Yes it is, however that is not what was done.

That rule (and a Mod can correct me if I'm wrong) applies to quoting the individual in a quote box, changing the text, and attributing it to that individual.  Making a change OUTSIDE the quote box in your own reply means the text is not attributable to the original poster, it's actually the new poster typing the new text.

For example:


			
				Mary said:
			
		

> I had a lamb whose fleece was white as snow.





			
				John said:
			
		

> Mary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a lamb whose fleece was black as coal.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what you really meant.
Click to expand...


The above would be a violation of the rule as it changes the quote inside the box saying that Mary said something she didn't say.

On the other hand:



			
				Mary said:
			
		

> I had a lamb whose fleece was white as snow.





			
				John said:
			
		

> Let me change that: I had a lamb whose fleece was black as coal.



That wouldn't be a violation since it is clear the text wasn't actually a quote of Mary.  Hope that helps.


>>>>


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> I mean look at the devastation they are causing in this nation in so many ways, and all the while they are constantly claiming to be the victims or rather they are always claiming that they are helping the so called victims while doing so ? Kidding me right ?



Please, be so kind as to cite this "devastations" "they" are causing "in this nation in so many ways". Be very specific.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying the religion in my heart tells me to shoot ******* and fuck 12-year-olds isn't going to keep me out of jail.  Just because you think God requires you to hate the faggots doesn't mean we have to let you get your way in all situations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on Christians and Christianity, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, it should be realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as Christians (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good Christians like you all have been doing lately.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me show you the irony of your post:
> 
> _And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on homosexuals and homosexuality, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, should realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as Christians (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good Christians like you all have been doing lately._
> 
> As I have shown in my responses to you- for every action you call an 'attack on Christians', I can show equal or worse attacks by Christians on homosexuals.
> 
> What you justify as 'a few fanatics or radicals' when they are Christians could equally be applied to those homosexuals you disagree with.
> 
> You are blind to your hypocrisy on this issue.
> 
> IF you want to argue that Christians are under attack- then homosexuals are at least as much under attack- because homosexuals are actually being physically harmed just for being homosexuals in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't play around with the words in my postings and then re-post them, and I don't care if you are trying to show some sort of irony or what ever by doing that. Make your point as you did afterwards, it will work just the same.
> You could have said replace the word Christian in the post above with homosexual, and that would have worked also... Just saying!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you don't address or respond to my point.
> 
> Let me show you the irony of your post- again- by simply replacing one word.
> 
> _And just because there are those whom think that they can justify attacks on homosexuals and homosexuality, and all because of a few fanatics or radicals who are amongst the many groups out there that do bad things, should realize that there are individuals who do dwell among all the groups that (heck yes ((do many bad things either in a groups name, or in it's religion's name or other)), but this won't allow us as homosexuals (who are balanced in life) to stay quiet when your ilk fires up the guns when it wants to, and if it wants to on the balanced and good homosexuals like you all have been doing lately._
> 
> As I have shown in my responses to you- for every action you call an 'attack on Christians', I can show equal or worse attacks by Christians on homosexuals.
> 
> What you justify as 'a few fanatics or radicals' when they are Christians could equally be applied to those homosexuals you disagree with.
> 
> You are blind to your hypocrisy on this issue.
> 
> IF you want to argue that Christians are under attack- then homosexuals are at least as much under attack- because homosexuals are actually being physically harmed just for being homosexuals in the United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it a violation of site rules for changing the words or even a word that changes the original meaning of a post, and then re-posting that post without the posters permission ? Heck someone of your ilk doesn't care about that now do you ??... Why is your kind such a rude and obnoxious people to deal with I wonder ????...L
Click to expand...


Please point out where I changed any words in your post- I am not aware that I changed any- your words are shown as your words.

What I did do is copy your post, pasted it -and  substituted  /homosexuals/ for 'Christians' and clearly showed that as my post- and I did so openly and said as much 

_Let me show you the irony of your post- again- by simply replacing one word._

Rather than deal with the content of my post- showing you how what you are claiming could be applied just as equally to homosexuals- you just want to continue to claim victimhood.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Offender....I wasn't aware practicing religion is an offense, for passively refusing to do something that is forbidden by your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the one they have just got to get around, but it has them in desperation mode in trying to do so..LOL
> 
> When you have to file a lawsuit, you are in desperation mode at that point...
Click to expand...


People file lawsuits all the time- the NRA- Christians- homosexuals- Republicans- Democrats- blacks- whites.

Or are you once again just claiming it is wrong when homosexuals do it?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duh, we already know all this Clay-Ton, what we are speaking about is the coming storms by evidence of the storms that have been raging already.. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> The bill of rights has been overturned?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Driving isn't a right.  Marriage isn't a right.  If it was, everyone could drive or get married.  But that isn't appropriate  on the road or the formative environment of kids.
Click to expand...


Driving isn't a right. Driving is a privilege. 
Marriage is a right.

Seriously how many times do I have to post the Supreme Court saying- yes marriage is a right.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although _Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

_Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"

In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*

In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

_Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Offender....I wasn't aware praciting religion is an offense, for passively refusing to do something that is forbidden by your faith.



Is it possible that the reason why you don't understand anything is because you just don't understand the written word?


If you don't think that a law is correct- it is your right is to file a lawsuit.
If you think someone is violating a regulation- your right is often to file a lawsuit.

And it doesn't matter what religion either the person suing or the person being sued is.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean look at the devastation they are causing in this nation in so many ways, and all the while they are constantly claiming to be the victims or rather they are always claiming that they are helping the so called victims while doing so ? Kidding me right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, be so kind as to cite this "devastations" "they" are causing "in this nation in so many ways". Be very specific.
Click to expand...


Are you serious?  

The Ideological Left has attacked nearly every essential standard that can be attacked, claiming, in essence, that 'standards themselves are discriminatory' thus lowering the standards to accommodate those who would not otherwise meet the standard.

This is lowered performance in marriage, education, the military, business, religion, personal life and in every facet of the culture.

Now... if you deny that, which is an axiomatic certainty, you need only show where the left's attack upon essential standards has INCREASED PERFORMANCE... . 

(There's something you need to know... lowering a standard has NEVER inspired ANYONE, ANYWHERE, AT ANY TIME to increase performance.)


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean look at the devastation they are causing in this nation in so many ways, and all the while they are constantly claiming to be the victims or rather they are always claiming that they are helping the so called victims while doing so ? Kidding me right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, be so kind as to cite this "devastations" "they" are causing "in this nation in so many ways". Be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> The Ideological Left has attacked nearly every essential standard that can be attacked, claiming, in essence, that 'standards themselves are discriminatory' thus lowering the standards to accommodate those who would not otherwise meet the standard.
> .
Click to expand...


Prove your bat shit ideologically partisan claims.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> The bill of rights has been overturned?



Driving isn't a right.  Marriage isn't a right.  If it was, everyone could drive or get married.  But that isn't appropriate  on the road or the formative environment of kids.[/QUOTE]

Says you. The USSC says that marriage is a right. Legally speaking, they're authoritative. And you're not.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean look at the devastation they are causing in this nation in so many ways, and all the while they are constantly claiming to be the victims or rather they are always claiming that they are helping the so called victims while doing so ? Kidding me right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, be so kind as to cite this "devastations" "they" are causing "in this nation in so many ways". Be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> The Ideological Left has attacked nearly every essential standard that can be attacked, claiming, in essence, that 'standards themselves are discriminatory' thus lowering the standards to accommodate those who would not otherwise meet the standard.
Click to expand...


And who, pray tell, is the 'ideological left'? 

And the left doesn't reject standards. It just rejects you setting them.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Driving isn't a right.  Marriage isn't a right.  If it was, everyone could drive or get married.  But that isn't appropriate  on the road or the formative environment of kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. The USSC says that marriage is a right. Legally speaking, they're authoritative. And you're not.
Click to expand...

 
Blind people by their structure do not fit the structure of driving.  They would cause harm to others on the road.  So they cannot get a driver's license.

Homosexual people, by their structure harm children in the home by depriving them of the vital complimentary role model 100% of the time, which may be the child's own gender and therefore source of self esteem.  Homosexuals by their relationship structure harm the structure of marriage that is best for children: the most important people in marriage.

Blind drivers harm people.  It's not the blind person's fault, they were born or made that way by circumstance.  It's just that their driving is unsafe for other people.  In other words when considering the blind for driving, the state finds that there are other human interests besides the blind person's civil rights to take into account.

Likewise when considering gays for marriage, the state finds that there are other human interests besides the homosexuals' "civil rights" to take into account.  Marriage almost always involves more people than those on the license.  In this case, people still in their formative years to be future citizens.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Blind people by their structure do not fit the structure of driving.  They would cause harm to others on the road.  So they cannot get a driver's license.



Again, the issue of whether or not marriage is a right is long settled. It is. And a fundamental right. 

You can disagree of course. But neither your agreement nor your disagreement have any relevance on any USSC ruling, as the case law has already answered this question. And case law will be the standard by which the courts will most likely decide the issue. 

If you want a discussion on whether not it *should* be a right, I'm up for it. But whether or not it *is* a right in our law isn't a matter of debate. Its a matter of precedent.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Driving isn't a right.  Marriage isn't a right.  If it was, everyone could drive or get married.  But that isn't appropriate  on the road or the formative environment of kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. The USSC says that marriage is a right. Legally speaking, they're authoritative. And you're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexual people, by their structure harm children in the home.
Click to expand...


First of all- that is just your unsubstantiated opinion. 

Secondly- that has nothing to do with marriage.

As I keep pointing out, prohibiting gay marriage just ensures those children will not have married parents.

Of course the next step by your kind would be to start taking children away from their gay parents.....leading logically to demanding that pregnant lesbians get abortions.......

Next think you know, Christians will be suing lesbians to have them sterilized.....all to protect the children....


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> As I keep pointing out, prohibiting gay marriage just ensures those children will not have married parents.  Of course the next step by your kind would be to start taking children away from their gay parents.....leading logically to demanding that pregnant lesbians get abortions.......Next think you know, Christians will be suing lesbians to have them sterilized.....all to protect the children....


 
Wow, hyperbole much?  Not one child has been taken away from any gay parent because they were gay.  Conversely, many rights have been taken away in courts from christian bakers, florists etc.  Churches are nothing more than congregations if individual christians.

When we deny a blind person a driver's license, do we hate them?  Are we trying to punish them?  Or are we trying to protect "the others involved in the blind person's "driving experience"?..


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Driving isn't a right.  Marriage isn't a right.  If it was, everyone could drive or get married.  But that isn't appropriate  on the road or the formative environment of kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. The USSC says that marriage is a right. Legally speaking, they're authoritative. And you're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexual people, by their structure harm children in the home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all- that is just your unsubstantiated opinion.
> 
> Secondly- that has nothing to do with marriage.
> 
> As I keep pointing out, prohibiting gay marriage just ensures those children will not have married parents.
> 
> Of course the next step by your kind would be to start taking children away from their gay parents.....leading logically to demanding that pregnant lesbians get abortions.......
> 
> Next think you know, Christians will be suing lesbians to have them sterilized.....all to protect the children....
Click to expand...


There have already been gay marriage opponents that have insisted that gays and lesbians should be legally prohibited from ever having children. They didn't explain how that would be enforced.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> There have already been gay marriage opponents that have insisted that gays and lesbians should be legally prohibited from ever having children. They didn't explain how that would be enforced.


 
Have they taken gays to court and won?  No.

Have gays taken christians to court to force them to abdicate their edicts to promote a gay lifestyle culture, and won?  Yes, yes they have.  Proof is in the pudding.  I'm sure there are some whackos in the world that have said all manner of things about everything under the sun.  It's when the courts support those words when the public should sit up and take notice.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Wow, hyperbole much?  Not one child has been taken away from any gay parent because they were gay.



Its hardly outside the realm of possibility. Forced sterilization for gays and lesbians was policy for quite a while in our country. While taking children away from gays is being debated in other countries:



> Russian lawmakers will in February debate a bill that could see homosexual couples lose custody of their children, parliamentary documents showed Wednesday.
> 
> Russia To Debate Taking Children Away From Gay Parents



With posters in this thread having lauded the Russia approach to gays, and even insisted that gays should be legally forbidden from ever having children.



> Conversely, many right have been taken away in courts from christian bakers, florists etc.



Discrimination against minorities isn't a right. 



> Churches are nothing more than congregations if individual christians.



They're quite more. They are exempted from PA laws. Businesses aren't. Churches are exempt from taxation. Businesses aren't. You equate them.

You're wrong.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, hyperbole much?  Not one child has been taken away from any gay parent because they were gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its hardly outside the realm of possibility. Forced sterilization for gays and lesbians was policy for quite a while in our country. While taking children away from gays is being debated in other countries...
Click to expand...

 
Frontal lobotomies and bleeding with leeches were popular here too.  As well as slavery.  You don't have a point in the real world.  We can only look to our current legal climate which includes actual real examples of gays legally forcing individual christians to abdicate their faith in order to promote the LGBT one as dominant.  A church is nothing more than a congregation of individual christians.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have already been gay marriage opponents that have insisted that gays and lesbians should be legally prohibited from ever having children. They didn't explain how that would be enforced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have they taken gays to court and won?  No.
Click to expand...


Nope. Nor has any church been required to accommodate any gay wedding.

The difference is.....your ilk are calling for gays to be legally forbidden from ever having children. No one here has called for churches to be forced to accommodate gay weddings.



> Have gays taken christians to court to force them to abdicate their edicts to promote a gay lifestyle culture, and won?  Yes, yes they have.



You're confused. Its not the gays that have taken folks to court. Its the State's human rights commission that has, for violating State anti-discrimination laws. 

And of course, a baker isn't a church. Rendering your entire argument moot.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Frontal lobotomies and bleeding with leeches were popular here too.



We don't hear many calls for a return to either. But your ilk have spoken fondly of rolling back the clock on gay rights, stripping them of the right to adopt, the right to free speech, even the privilege of driving. Some others opponents of gay marriage on this board talking about the death penalty for gays to protect society. 

Who has called for churches to be forced to abide public accommodation laws?


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Nope. Nor has any church been required to accommodate any gay wedding....
> And of course, a baker isn't a church. Rendering your entire argument moot.


 
A baker is a person.  And people have rights.  One of them is the 1st Amendment.  Part of a church HAS been required to accomodate gay weddings: an individual christian...

..I'm talking like a lawyer talks, analytically...so pay attention...

If a church is merely an aggregate if individual christians, then the aggregate is legally the same as the individual as to rights to practice religion.  Religion doesn't begin and end at the church steps.  It is merely a place where religion comes for a "refresh" once a week.  The real religion is day to day in the heart of a man.  In fact, I wouldn't be exaggerating to say that outside the church is where religion really matters.  For it is in the trenches where the resolve of christians is tested...not in the sublime and calm walls of an ornate building with a pleasant pipe organ and choir..


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Skylar said:


> The difference is.....your ilk are calling for gays to be legally forbidden from ever having children. No one here has called for churches to be forced to accommodate gay weddings.



You are talking about extremists which are present in many cases.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frontal lobotomies and bleeding with leeches were popular here too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hear many calls for a return to either. But your ilk have spoken fondly of rolling back the clock on gay rights, stripping them of the right to adopt, the right to free speech, even the privilege of driving. Some others opponents of gay marriage on this board talking about the death penalty for gays to protect society.
Click to expand...


There are a lot of nuts out there, and it is no surprise to find a few here. Nuts often want attention.


----------



## Skylar

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is.....your ilk are calling for gays to be legally forbidden from ever having children. No one here has called for churches to be forced to accommodate gay weddings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking about extremists which are present in many cases.
Click to expand...


I'm talking about participants in this thread.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Skylar said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is.....your ilk are calling for gays to be legally forbidden from ever having children. No one here has called for churches to be forced to accommodate gay weddings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking about extremists which are present in many cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about participants in this thread.
Click to expand...


Exactly who is an extremist here?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Nor has any church been required to accommodate any gay wedding....
> And of course, a baker isn't a church. Rendering your entire argument moot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A baker is a person.  And people have rights.  One of them is the 1st Amendment.  Part of a church HAS been required to accommodate gay weddings: an individual christian...
Click to expand...


A person isn't a church anymore than a hub cap is a car. You keep trying to equate a person with a church. And they aren't the same. Not logically, nor legally.

Your argument is simply invalid. 



> ..I'm talking like a lawyer talks, analytically...so pay attention...



And yet your argument ignores the law, ignores the legal status of churches, ignores PA laws, and ignores reason. There are few lawyers that remain employed who do the same.



> If a church is merely an aggregate if individual christians, then the aggregate is legally the same as the individual as to rights to practice religion.



Save that it isn't. Churches are recognized as a separate entity from its parishioners. A church is tax exempt. Parishioners aren't. A church isn't a business. While parishioners can have businesses. And those businesses are subject to PA laws. Churches are expressly exempt. 

You claim regarding the legal status of churches and parishioners being the same is quite simply wrong. You're inventing pseudo-law that doesn't exist to support your argument. While we're speaking of the actual law.



> It is merely a place where religion comes for a "refresh" once a week.  The real religion is day to day in the heart of a man.



While churches are locations. You don't hold weddings in your heart, Sil. Its too small, and you'd get blood all over the bride's dress.

You can re-imagine the meaning of 'church' if you wish. But it has no relevance to the law, this thread, or its poll.


----------



## Skylar

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is.....your ilk are calling for gays to be legally forbidden from ever having children. No one here has called for churches to be forced to accommodate gay weddings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking about extremists which are present in many cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about participants in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly who is an extremist here?
Click to expand...


I'm not using the word 'extremeists'. I'm describing the positions of participants in this thread. Are you looking for their handles?


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Victim-hood works I guess, but who wants to live their lives claiming to be a victim all the time ?



Christians opposed to equal marriage in this thread, apparently.


----------



## Skylar

Paperman299 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Victim-hood works I guess, but who wants to live their lives claiming to be a victim all the time ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians opposed to equal marriage in this thread, apparently.
Click to expand...


Religion is the one of the most common motivations for opposing gay marriage. Tradition and homophobia being the other two. With lots and lots of overlap.


----------



## Contumacious

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?




Yes, indeed.

Today I sent a text message to the Socialist -In-Chief demanding that he  send the the Delta Force and/or Navy Seal Team 6 to teach Pastor Ray Chavez a lesson. Accuse him of fucking little 12 year old girls then burn the church to the ground. 

I mean the pretext worked in Waco.


.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, hyperbole much?  Not one child has been taken away from any gay parent because they were gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its hardly outside the realm of possibility. Forced sterilization for gays and lesbians was policy for quite a while in our country. While taking children away from gays is being debated in other countries...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frontal lobotomies and bleeding with leeches were popular here too.  As well as slavery.  You don't have a point in the real world.  We can only look to our current legal climate which includes actual real examples of gays legally forcing individual christians to abdicate their faith in order to promote the LGBT one as dominant.  A church is nothing more than a congregation of individual christians.
Click to expand...


Your slippery slope argument applies here as well, don't you know, Sil?

Quit being such an ass.


----------



## beagle9

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean look at the devastation they are causing in this nation in so many ways, and all the while they are constantly claiming to be the victims or rather they are always claiming that they are helping the so called victims while doing so ? Kidding me right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, be so kind as to cite this "devastations" "they" are causing "in this nation in so many ways". Be very specific.
Click to expand...

When Chic-Filet, Phil Robertson, the cake baker, the Mrs. America contestant etc. were attacked, well don't you think that it most defintnitely caused un-needed stress and/or anguish in these peoples lives over such a thing ? I mean we might not see upon the surface these things in which people suffer from afterwards, and this is because it may be months or even years before it could affect a person in a negative way, either in their health or in their minds yet all depending.

Now is that specific enough for you ? The same also goes for others who are struggling in life all the same or just trying to live their lives all the same without incident, so it mainly rest on who did the attack, and then what the goals were in the attack otherwise when anyone attacks anyone over an issue or over a belief on something in this nation. There are many issues all over the place now, but the main thing is to wonder why someone needs to attack another persons liberty, freedoms, their religion or their religious beliefs as we see so much of going on now in America ?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Offender....I wasn't aware praciting religion is an offense, for passively refusing to do something that is forbidden by your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that the reason why you don't understand anything is because you just don't understand the written word?
> 
> 
> If you don't think that a law is correct- it is your right is to file a lawsuit.
> If you think someone is violating a regulation- your right is often to file a lawsuit.
> 
> And it doesn't matter what religion either the person suing or the person being sued is.
Click to expand...

That's the answer always isn't with the left, hey just file a LAWSUIT, File a LAWSUIT, file a LAWSUIT, and this instead of just getting a consensus on everything that people do feel important to them, then just let them vote on it. How about we all leave the lawyers and their LAWSUIT pimping alone for a change. This is the problem right now in America, where as people have been taught that to get what you want just FILE A LAWSUIT. Next what they have learned is that they will usually get money out of it even when they are wrong, and that solves everything to them now doesn't it ?


----------



## beagle9

Paperman299 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Victim-hood works I guess, but who wants to live their lives claiming to be a victim all the time ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians opposed to equal marriage in this thread, apparently.
Click to expand...

No I think Christians just want to keep traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and they want to keep it sacred in that way. Now they don't have a problem with people wanting something new and then calling it something new, because their job is not to control peoples lives or minds at all, but to freely accept those who have lived a hard and confusing life, and that might be ready to give their sinfulness up freely, and to join a good Church where their lives can be changed hopefully forever. I think that their are many Christians who are afraid of the slippery slope that these things are all sitting on now, and so they are asking for marriage to be preserved to a man and a woman in the traditional sense is all. The reasons the Christians feel they are under attack as in victims now also as you put it, is due to the heated debate that has caused people to go out and to try and set people up over the situation.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Victim-hood works I guess, but who wants to live their lives claiming to be a victim all the time ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians opposed to equal marriage in this thread, apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I think Christians just want to keep traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and they want to keep it sacred in that way. Now they don't have a problem with people wanting something new and then calling it something new, because their job is not to control peoples lives or minds at all, but to freely accept those who have lived a hard and confusing life, and that might be ready to give their sinfulness up freely, and to join a good Church where their lives can be changed hopefully forever. I think that their are many Christians who are afraid of the slippery slope that these things are all sitting on now, and so they are asking for marriage to be preserved to a man and a woman in the traditional sense is all. The reasons the Christians feel they are under attack as in victims now also as you put it, is due to the heated debate that has caused people to go out and to try and set people up over the situation.
Click to expand...

The Christians don't write the laws of this nation.  And I mean this in the nicest way possible, fuck 'em.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Marriage equality continues so that some Christians right to "keep traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and they want to keep it sacred in that way."

What we can can't do is keep it so for others who disagree.


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean look at the devastation they are causing in this nation in so many ways, and all the while they are constantly claiming to be the victims or rather they are always claiming that they are helping the so called victims while doing so ? Kidding me right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, be so kind as to cite this "devastations" "they" are causing "in this nation in so many ways". Be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When Chic-Filet, Phil Robertson, the cake baker, the Mrs. America contestant etc. were attacked, well don't you think that it most defintnitely caused un-needed stress and/or anguish in these peoples lives over such a thing ? I mean we might not see upon the surface these things in which people suffer from afterwards, and this is because it may be months or even years before it could affect a person in a negative way, either in their health or in their minds yet all depending.
> 
> Now is that specific enough for you ? The same also goes for others who are struggling in life all the same or just trying to live their lives all the same without incident, so it mainly rest on who did the attack, and then what the goals were in the attack otherwise when anyone attacks anyone over an issue or over a belief on something in this nation. There are many issues all over the place now, but the main thing is to wonder why someone needs to attack another persons liberty, freedoms, their religion or their religious beliefs as we see so much of going on now in America ?
Click to expand...


Yes, that was very specific *hyperbole*. Chick-Fil-A, Phil Robertson, Miss America, etc all said things that were offensive to gays. Do you think Free Speech only applies to bigots? You think bigots should be free to say whatever they and nobody gets to say anything back? 

As for Public Accommodation laws, they protect Christians in all 50 states against discrimination for being gay. The gay person must serve the Christian in all 50 states. Such the victims.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> Yes, that was very specific *hyperbole*. Chick-Fil-A, Phil Robertson, Miss America, etc all said things that were offensive to gays. Do you think Free Speech only applies to bigots? You think bigots should be free to say whatever they and nobody gets to say anything back?
> 
> As for Public Accommodation laws, they protect Christians in all 50 states against discrimination for being gay. The gay person must serve the Christian in all 50 states. Such the victims.


 
The hyperbole I was referring to was that poster's projection "from thin air" that somehow limiting marriage to man/woman means the next step is taking kids away from gays.  Since gays and single parents are structurally the same (depriving the kids of one of the vital genders as role model 100% of the time) and kids of single parents in the tens of millions haven't been "taken away", the posters comments were hyperbole.

However, individual christian bakers, florists and photographers HAVE ALREADY been sued by the LGBT faithful.  (Pay attention to the logical deduction here, because this is how lawyers argue successfully in court). ERGO, since a church is merely a congregation of the faithful come to "retune" their religion once a week at a building, and WHEREAS the real meat of religion is in day to day life "in the trenches", and WHEREAS individual christians "in the trenches" are being forced to abdicate their faith, THEREFORE a church is not immune to a forced abdication to accomodate gay marriage...just like it's individual components are being forced to..

THAT isn't hyperbole.  That is mundane deduction from events that HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean look at the devastation they are causing in this nation in so many ways, and all the while they are constantly claiming to be the victims or rather they are always claiming that they are helping the so called victims while doing so ? Kidding me right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, be so kind as to cite this "devastations" "they" are causing "in this nation in so many ways". Be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When Chic-Filet, Phil Robertson, the cake baker, the Mrs. America contestant etc. were attacked, well don't you think that it most defintnitely caused un-needed stress and/or anguish in these peoples lives over such a thing ? I mean we might not see upon the surface these things in which people suffer from afterwards, and this is because it may be months or even years before it could affect a person in a negative way, either in their health or in their minds yet all depending.
> 
> Now is that specific enough for you ? The same also goes for others who are struggling in life all the same or just trying to live their lives all the same without incident, so it mainly rest on who did the attack, and then what the goals were in the attack otherwise when anyone attacks anyone over an issue or over a belief on something in this nation. There are many issues all over the place now, but the main thing is to wonder why someone needs to attack another persons liberty, freedoms, their religion or their religious beliefs as we see so much of going on now in America ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that was very specific *hyperbole*. Chick-Fil-A, Phil Robertson, Miss America, etc all said things that were offensive to gays. Do you think Free Speech only applies to bigots? You think bigots should be free to say whatever they and nobody gets to say anything back?
> 
> As for Public Accommodation laws, they protect Christians in all 50 states against discrimination for being gay. The gay person must serve the Christian in all 50 states. Such the victims.
Click to expand...


It doesn't violate the religious beliefs for gays to serve Christians because gays don't have any.  It doesn't violate their morals because gays don't have morals.  How many asymmetrical comparisons do you want to come up with?


----------



## mdk

Another day and another church not forced to marry any couple against their wishes. It is a shame we cannot harness fear mongering as an alternative energy source because we would be energy independent from this thread alone.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Blathering foolishness from a non-Christian like Sil and from one who threw it away like stmike.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Another day and another church not forced to marry any couple against their wishes. It is a shame we cannot harness fear mongering as an alternative energy source because we would be energy independent from this thread alone.


 
Meanwhle back in 2009...they were saying...

"Another day and another christian baker/photographer/florist not forced to participate in the marriage of any couple against their wishes..."


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another day and another church not forced to marry any couple against their wishes. It is a shame we cannot harness fear mongering as an alternative energy source because we would be energy independent from this thread alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhle back in 2009...they were saying...
> 
> "Another day and another christian baker/photographer/florist not forced to participate in the marriage of any couple against their wishes..."
Click to expand...


I am pretty sure in 2009 people could not use their faith as an excuse to violate civil laws. Muslim cabbies violate PA laws and lose which is seen as fight against creeping Sharia. A few Christan business owners  violate PA laws as well and when they lose you hypocrite whine and cry about religious liberties being stripped away. Spare us all your hypocrisy and slippery slope fear-mongering


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I keep pointing out, prohibiting gay marriage just ensures those children will not have married parents.  Of course the next step by your kind would be to start taking children away from their gay parents.....leading logically to demanding that pregnant lesbians get abortions.......Next think you know, Christians will be suing lesbians to have them sterilized.....all to protect the children....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, hyperbole much?  Not one child has been taken away from any gay parent because they were gay.  Conversely, many rights have been taken away in courts from christian bakers, florists etc.  Churches are nothing more than congregations if individual christians...
Click to expand...


Seriously are you this ignorant? It used to be very common for children to be removed from the custody of one parent because that parent was gay. 

_Infamously, in 1999, Mississippi’s Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that David Weigand could not have custody of his 15-year-old son because Weigand was living with a male partner. Weigand’s ex-wife had married a convicted felon, and Weigand sued for custody after his son called 911 to report that his stepfather was beating his mother and threatening to kill both of them.

The court found that Weigand’s son would be better raised by his stepfather — who had an established record of domestic violence — than by two gay men. As the dissent wrote in the case, “The majority believes a minor is best served by living in an explosive environment in which the unemployed stepfather is a convicted felon, drinker, drug-taker, adulterer, wife-beater, and child-threatener.”_


No rights have been taken away from any Christians-  as business people they have to follow the same laws as Jews and Muslims and Atheists. There is no special law for Christians.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, hyperbole much?  Not one child has been taken away from any gay parent because they were gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its hardly outside the realm of possibility. Forced sterilization for gays and lesbians was policy for quite a while in our country. While taking children away from gays is being debated in other countries...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frontal lobotomies and bleeding with leeches were popular here too.  As well as slavery.  You don't have a point in the real world.  We can only look to our current legal climate which includes actual real examples of gays legally forcing individual christians to abdicate their faith in order to promote the LGBT one as dominant.  A church is nothing more than a congregation of individual christians.
Click to expand...


Gays actually insisting that Christians follow the same laws that Jews, Muslims and Atheists are required to follow.

Oh the tragedy.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Offender....I wasn't aware praciting religion is an offense, for passively refusing to do something that is forbidden by your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that the reason why you don't understand anything is because you just don't understand the written word?
> 
> 
> If you don't think that a law is correct- it is your right is to file a lawsuit.
> If you think someone is violating a regulation- your right is often to file a lawsuit.
> 
> And it doesn't matter what religion either the person suing or the person being sued is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the answer always isn't with the left, hey just file a LAWSUIT, File a LAWSUIT, file a LAWSUIT, and this instead of just getting a consensus on everything that people do feel important to them, then just let them vote on it. How about we all leave the lawyers and their LAWSUIT pimping alone for a change. This is the problem right now in America, where as people have been taught that to get what you want just FILE A LAWSUIT. Next what they have learned is that they will usually get money out of it even when they are wrong, and that solves everything to them now doesn't it ?
Click to expand...


So you mean Americans should never file lawsuits?

Do you think Christians should not file lawsuits if they think their rights are being violated?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean look at the devastation they are causing in this nation in so many ways, and all the while they are constantly claiming to be the victims or rather they are always claiming that they are helping the so called victims while doing so ? Kidding me right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, be so kind as to cite this "devastations" "they" are causing "in this nation in so many ways". Be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When Chic-Filet, Phil Robertson, the cake baker, the Mrs. America contestant etc. were attacked, well don't you think that it most defintnitely caused un-needed stress and/or anguish in these peoples lives over such a thing
Click to expand...


Chic-Filet made more money because of the issue. Phil Robertson started as a millionaire and hasn't lost a dime. 

How do you feel about the devastations caused by Christians who have attacked Homosexuals- as in the case of Ellen Degeneres? Or Starbucks for being too gay friendly?


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> (Pay attention to the logical deduction here, because this is how lawyers argue successfully in court). ERGO, since a church is merely a congregation of the faithful


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Victim-hood works I guess, but who wants to live their lives claiming to be a victim all the time ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians opposed to equal marriage in this thread, apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I think Christians just want to keep traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and they want to keep it sacred in that way. Now they don't have a problem with people wanting something new and then calling it something new, because their job is not to control peoples lives or minds at all, but to freely accept those who have lived a hard and confusing life, and that might be ready to give their sinfulness up freely, and to join a good Church where their lives can be changed hopefully forever. I think that their are many Christians who are afraid of the slippery slope that these things are all sitting on now, and so they are asking for marriage to be preserved to a man and a woman in the traditional sense is all. The reasons the Christians feel they are under attack as in victims now also as you put it, is due to the heated debate that has caused people to go out and to try and set people up over the situation.
Click to expand...


The Christians on this thread, including yourself, have made their own victimhood a core pillar of their argument. You've all spent nearly 700 pages arguing "lots of bad things are happening to Christians" as evidence for this highly unlikely outcome with churches and gay marriage. Literally minutes before you made this post, you made another where you posted *a list of attacks on Christians*. Despite the fact that 80% of Americans believe in God, and despite the fact that atleast two of your examples were flashes of slightly negative press followed by money hurricanes.

So don't throw yourself on the cross and then tell me you aren't claiming to be a victim.


----------



## Silhouette

You want a logic fail?  Here you go..



mdk said:


> *Another day and another church not forced to marry any couple against their wishes*. It is a shame we cannot harness fear mongering as an alternative energy source because we would be energy independent from this thread alone.


 
mdk postulates that because TODAY no church is being forced to perform gay weddings, that this congregation of individual christians is somehow safe from future lawsuits to do just that.

Like I said...Meanwhle back in 2009...they were saying...

"Another day and another christian baker/photographer/florist not forced to participate in the marriage of any homosexual couple against their wishes..."

Gee, if you could go back in time 6 years you'd be able to tell those people how wrong they were...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Paperman299 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Victim-hood works I guess, but who wants to live their lives claiming to be a victim all the time ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians opposed to equal marriage in this thread, apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I think Christians just want to keep traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and they want to keep it sacred in that way. Now they don't have a problem with people wanting something new and then calling it something new, because their job is not to control peoples lives or minds at all, but to freely accept those who have lived a hard and confusing life, and that might be ready to give their sinfulness up freely, and to join a good Church where their lives can be changed hopefully forever. I think that their are many Christians who are afraid of the slippery slope that these things are all sitting on now, and so they are asking for marriage to be preserved to a man and a woman in the traditional sense is all. The reasons the Christians feel they are under attack as in victims now also as you put it, is due to the heated debate that has caused people to go out and to try and set people up over the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christians on this thread, including yourself, have made their own victimhood a core pillar of their argument. You've all spent nearly 700 pages arguing "lots of bad things are happening to Christians..."
Click to expand...


That's not just false, it's absurdly false.

Recognizing abnormality as normal is delusion.  

There's no upside to normalizing delusion scamp... nothing good can possibly come from it.

Now, maybe you would like to disagree with that.  

Please, pray tell... what are the potential cultural upsides of normalizing delusion?


----------



## JoeMoma

Damn! This sure is a long thread when the answer is simply........NO!


----------



## Paperman299

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Victim-hood works I guess, but who wants to live their lives claiming to be a victim all the time ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians opposed to equal marriage in this thread, apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I think Christians just want to keep traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and they want to keep it sacred in that way. Now they don't have a problem with people wanting something new and then calling it something new, because their job is not to control peoples lives or minds at all, but to freely accept those who have lived a hard and confusing life, and that might be ready to give their sinfulness up freely, and to join a good Church where their lives can be changed hopefully forever. I think that their are many Christians who are afraid of the slippery slope that these things are all sitting on now, and so they are asking for marriage to be preserved to a man and a woman in the traditional sense is all. The reasons the Christians feel they are under attack as in victims now also as you put it, is due to the heated debate that has caused people to go out and to try and set people up over the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christians on this thread, including yourself, have made their own victimhood a core pillar of their argument. You've all spent nearly 700 pages arguing "lots of bad things are happening to Christians..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not just false, it's absurdly false.
> 
> Recognizing abnormality as normal is delusion.
> 
> There's no upside to normalizing delusion scamp... nothing good can possibly come from it.
> 
> Now, maybe you would like to disagree with that.
> 
> Please, pray tell... what are the potential cultural upsides of normalizing delusion?
Click to expand...


None at all. So if you want to help me tear down some normalized delusion, let's start with this thread and the delusion that Christians are under attack and it won't stop until the government is forcing churches to marry homosexual couples.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Paperman299 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Victim-hood works I guess, but who wants to live their lives claiming to be a victim all the time ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians opposed to equal marriage in this thread, apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I think Christians just want to keep traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and they want to keep it sacred in that way. Now they don't have a problem with people wanting something new and then calling it something new, because their job is not to control peoples lives or minds at all, but to freely accept those who have lived a hard and confusing life, and that might be ready to give their sinfulness up freely, and to join a good Church where their lives can be changed hopefully forever. I think that their are many Christians who are afraid of the slippery slope that these things are all sitting on now, and so they are asking for marriage to be preserved to a man and a woman in the traditional sense is all. The reasons the Christians feel they are under attack as in victims now also as you put it, is due to the heated debate that has caused people to go out and to try and set people up over the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christians on this thread, including yourself, have made their own victimhood a core pillar of their argument. You've all spent nearly 700 pages arguing "lots of bad things are happening to Christians..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not just false, it's absurdly false.
> 
> Recognizing abnormality as normal is delusion.
> 
> There's no upside to normalizing delusion scamp... nothing good can possibly come from it.
> 
> Now, maybe you would like to disagree with that.
> 
> Please, pray tell... what are the potential cultural upsides of normalizing delusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None at all. So if you want to help me tear down some normalized delusion, let's start with this thread and the delusion that Christians are under attack and it won't stop until the government is forcing churches to marry homosexual couples.
Click to expand...


This thread is about evil... which must attack good.  

Are you suggesting that there's some exception being played out here?

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality had a glimpse of power... and they used it precisely as nature requires they must.   Don't sit there and try to pretend that they were not lawyered up suing everything that even hesitated to stand up and salute their perversion and declare it NORMAL!

This thread came about as a result of those lawsuits and civil authorities moving to force Christians to accept Sexual Abnormality as normal.

So please... what is it that you're tryin' to say?  That it didn't happen?  

LOL!  Friend, that's delusional.  And you've just admitted that there's no upside to that, so... what are ya after here?


----------



## Paperman299

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians opposed to equal marriage in this thread, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> No I think Christians just want to keep traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and they want to keep it sacred in that way. Now they don't have a problem with people wanting something new and then calling it something new, because their job is not to control peoples lives or minds at all, but to freely accept those who have lived a hard and confusing life, and that might be ready to give their sinfulness up freely, and to join a good Church where their lives can be changed hopefully forever. I think that their are many Christians who are afraid of the slippery slope that these things are all sitting on now, and so they are asking for marriage to be preserved to a man and a woman in the traditional sense is all. The reasons the Christians feel they are under attack as in victims now also as you put it, is due to the heated debate that has caused people to go out and to try and set people up over the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christians on this thread, including yourself, have made their own victimhood a core pillar of their argument. You've all spent nearly 700 pages arguing "lots of bad things are happening to Christians..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not just false, it's absurdly false.
> 
> Recognizing abnormality as normal is delusion.
> 
> There's no upside to normalizing delusion scamp... nothing good can possibly come from it.
> 
> Now, maybe you would like to disagree with that.
> 
> Please, pray tell... what are the potential cultural upsides of normalizing delusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None at all. So if you want to help me tear down some normalized delusion, let's start with this thread and the delusion that Christians are under attack and it won't stop until the government is forcing churches to marry homosexual couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is about evil... which must attack good.
> 
> Are you suggesting that there's some exception being played out here?
> 
> The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality had a glimpse of power... and they used it precisely as nature requires they must.   Don't sit there and try to pretend that they were not lawyered up suing everything that even hesitated to stand up and salute their perversion and declare it NORMAL!
> 
> This thread came about as a result of those lawsuits and civil authorities moving to force Christians to accept Sexual Abnormality as normal.
> 
> So please... what is it that you're tryin' to say?  That it didn't happen?
> 
> LOL!  Friend, that's delusional.  And you've just admitted that there's no upside to that, so... what are ya after here?
Click to expand...


Level with me. Are you some false flag guy posting here to make opponents of equal marriage look silly? If you are, write another outlandish post about good and evil and PM me a winky face.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Paperman299 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I think Christians just want to keep traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and they want to keep it sacred in that way. Now they don't have a problem with people wanting something new and then calling it something new, because their job is not to control peoples lives or minds at all, but to freely accept those who have lived a hard and confusing life, and that might be ready to give their sinfulness up freely, and to join a good Church where their lives can be changed hopefully forever. I think that their are many Christians who are afraid of the slippery slope that these things are all sitting on now, and so they are asking for marriage to be preserved to a man and a woman in the traditional sense is all. The reasons the Christians feel they are under attack as in victims now also as you put it, is due to the heated debate that has caused people to go out and to try and set people up over the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians on this thread, including yourself, have made their own victimhood a core pillar of their argument. You've all spent nearly 700 pages arguing "lots of bad things are happening to Christians..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not just false, it's absurdly false.
> 
> Recognizing abnormality as normal is delusion.
> 
> There's no upside to normalizing delusion scamp... nothing good can possibly come from it.
> 
> Now, maybe you would like to disagree with that.
> 
> Please, pray tell... what are the potential cultural upsides of normalizing delusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None at all. So if you want to help me tear down some normalized delusion, let's start with this thread and the delusion that Christians are under attack and it won't stop until the government is forcing churches to marry homosexual couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is about evil... which must attack good.
> 
> Are you suggesting that there's some exception being played out here?
> 
> The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality had a glimpse of power... and they used it precisely as nature requires they must.   Don't sit there and try to pretend that they were not lawyered up suing everything that even hesitated to stand up and salute their perversion and declare it NORMAL!
> 
> This thread came about as a result of those lawsuits and civil authorities moving to force Christians to accept Sexual Abnormality as normal.
> 
> So please... what is it that you're tryin' to say?  That it didn't happen?
> 
> LOL!  Friend, that's delusional.  And you've just admitted that there's no upside to that, so... what are ya after here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Level with me. Are you some false flag guy posting here to make opponents of equal marriage look silly? If you are, write another outlandish post about good and evil and PM me a winky face.
Click to expand...


First, _Marriage_ is the joining of one man and one woman.

With that said...  you can't tell me what your goal is here?  And because of that, you need to trot out some feckless attempt to demean me?

Let's try it again...

This thread is about evil... which must attack good.

Are you suggesting that there's some exception being played out here?

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality had a glimpse of power... and they used it precisely as nature requires they must.   Don't sit there and try to pretend that they were not lawyered up suing everything that even hesitated to stand up and salute their perversion and declare it NORMAL!

This thread came about as a result of those lawsuits and civil authorities moving to force Christians to accept Sexual Abnormality as normal.

So please... what is it that you're tryin' to say?  That it didn't happen?

LOL!  Friend, that's delusional.  And you've just admitted that there's no upside to that, so... what are ya after here?


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> So you mean Americans should never file lawsuits?
> 
> Do you think Christians should not file lawsuits if they think their rights are being violated?


 
Sounds like you're stumping for the lawsuits-to-come against churches as an LGBT 'right'....

Notice you spammed out another page. 

In 2009 nobody was thinking "I'll bet christian florists will never be forced to participate in a gay wedding"...

...how wrong they were.  In six years from any federally-mandated "gay marriage" churches (merely a congregation of individual christians) will be sued also to accomodate them..


----------



## Silhouette

Paperman299 said:


> So if you want to help me tear down some normalized delusion, let's start with this thread and the delusion that Christians are under attack and it won't stop until the government is forcing churches to marry homosexual couples.


 
It's no delusion that individual christian florists, bakers, photographers etc. are being sued.  It isn't a stretch to imagine that congregations of individual christians (churches) will be sued.


----------



## beagle9

Paperman299 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Victim-hood works I guess, but who wants to live their lives claiming to be a victim all the time ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians opposed to equal marriage in this thread, apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I think Christians just want to keep traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and they want to keep it sacred in that way. Now they don't have a problem with people wanting something new and then calling it something new, because their job is not to control peoples lives or minds at all, but to freely accept those who have lived a hard and confusing life, and that might be ready to give their sinfulness up freely, and to join a good Church where their lives can be changed hopefully forever. I think that their are many Christians who are afraid of the slippery slope that these things are all sitting on now, and so they are asking for marriage to be preserved to a man and a woman in the traditional sense is all. The reasons the Christians feel they are under attack as in victims now also as you put it, is due to the heated debate that has caused people to go out and to try and set people up over the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christians on this thread, including yourself, have made their own victimhood a core pillar of their argument. You've all spent nearly 700 pages arguing "lots of bad things are happening to Christians..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not just false, it's absurdly false.
> 
> Recognizing abnormality as normal is delusion.
> 
> There's no upside to normalizing delusion scamp... nothing good can possibly come from it.
> 
> Now, maybe you would like to disagree with that.
> 
> Please, pray tell... what are the potential cultural upsides of normalizing delusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None at all. So if you want to help me tear down some normalized delusion, let's start with this thread and the delusion that Christians are under attack and it won't stop until the government is forcing churches to marry homosexual couples.
Click to expand...



The government might not actually walk into the door of the church literally to declare victory over it as of yet, but it will push the Christians all the way back to the church yard 1st, and then up and onto the porch of the Church next where it figures they (the Christians) all belong and/or need to stay anyways.

It seems to be proven these days, because every where one looks the Christian religion in this nation is under attack anymore.   I mean the only reason Christmas (celebrated as the birthday of Christ), has since survived so far I think, is because the government doesn't want to cause a catastrophe in the economy at this time of the year, and this by it acting to extreme or radical during this time of the year against the retailers / big money tax payers. So Christmas will stand for now, but for how much longer before someone tries to call it something else or tries to change it's name to mean something else or tries to ban it altogether ? Right now it's being chipped away slowly, and everybody knows this now.

There now are groups and/or as we have seen in some cases (just a few persons) who have the power to persuade a lost and miss-guided government to then act against the majority or against an American group or against an American individual be it wrongfully now in a heart beat these days, and they will do this even if the action taken by them our (government) is found wrong in the eyes of the people when it has done so, yet it still does it anyway ?

We have seen this a lot now in America, and the activist judges are reeking havoc in this nation by their crazy rulings, interpretations, and/or actions in which they had taken upon themselves to rule in some kind of weird justifying way to themselves these days.  They abuse their powers I think these days, and it shows in their rulings they make. They have left the understanding of the American *people,* along with the *constitution* in this nation, and they have become the servants of another in this nation since, and not the servants of the two mentioned above as it should still be.

One talked about how *some judges should just laugh some cases out of court,* but I wish they had done this along time ago when the nation became under attack by those who sought to change it over night.

True "Christians" just want to be left alone in order to practice their religion as they have always done, and to raise their families without so much dog gone drama going on in their lives, and so it appears that they are having a harder and harder time doing this these days, and especially as the walls keep closing closer and closer to them.  They feel as if they are being trapped within it all somehow, but I think it will all work out somehow to satisfy everyone in the end, so lets hope and pray for that now, and this instead of not praying for anything at all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yes, it is "a stretch to imagine that congregations of individual christians (churches) will be sued."

What a bunch of sillies.  Want to create false slippery slope charges while ignoring their own being pointed out.

The only evil here is the so called crusaders of Christian hate.  Yes, we are calling out you haters of good and doers of evil, Where and Sil.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> You want a logic fail?  Here you go..
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Another day and another church not forced to marry any couple against their wishes*. It is a shame we cannot harness fear mongering as an alternative energy source because we would be energy independent from this thread alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk postulates that because TODAY no church is being forced to perform gay weddings, that this congregation of individual christians is somehow safe from future lawsuits to do just that.
> 
> Like I said...Meanwhle back in 2009...they were saying...
> 
> "Another day and another christian baker/photographer/florist not forced to participate in the marriage of any homosexual couple against their wishes..."
> 
> Gee, if you could go back in time 6 years you'd be able to tell those people how wrong they were...
Click to expand...


Oh the drama. There hasn't been a single case where a church was forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes in this nation. Not one. Nobody is buying your silly slippery-slope and fear peddling. 

And yes, back 2009 it was still safe to say that people could not use their faith as an excuse to violate civil laws.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you want to help me tear down some normalized delusion, let's start with this thread and the delusion that Christians are under attack and it won't stop until the government is forcing churches to marry homosexual couples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's no delusion that individual christian florists, bakers, photographers etc. are being sued.  It isn't a stretch to imagine that congregations of individual christians (churches) will be sued.
Click to expand...


It is a delusion that people defending their right to equal access to goods and services means some day churches will be forced to change their private practices. And I don't know how many times this has to be said to you: churches are not just congregations of Christians. Legally, they have a whole special set of protections.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Oh the drama. There hasn't been a single case where a church was forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes in this nation. Not one. Nobody is buying your silly slippery-slope and fear peddling.
> 
> And yes, back 2009 it was still safe to say that people could not use their faith as an excuse to violate civil laws.


 
Back in 2009 people were certain christians couldn't be forced to accomodate so-called "gay weddings".  Six short years later and what do we have? 

Churches are nothing more than aggregates of individual christians. 

It's going to happen, the minute the ink is dry on any Overturning of Windsor 2013.


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians opposed to equal marriage in this thread, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> No I think Christians just want to keep traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and they want to keep it sacred in that way. Now they don't have a problem with people wanting something new and then calling it something new, because their job is not to control peoples lives or minds at all, but to freely accept those who have lived a hard and confusing life, and that might be ready to give their sinfulness up freely, and to join a good Church where their lives can be changed hopefully forever. I think that their are many Christians who are afraid of the slippery slope that these things are all sitting on now, and so they are asking for marriage to be preserved to a man and a woman in the traditional sense is all. The reasons the Christians feel they are under attack as in victims now also as you put it, is due to the heated debate that has caused people to go out and to try and set people up over the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christians on this thread, including yourself, have made their own victimhood a core pillar of their argument. You've all spent nearly 700 pages arguing "lots of bad things are happening to Christians..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not just false, it's absurdly false.
> 
> Recognizing abnormality as normal is delusion.
> 
> There's no upside to normalizing delusion scamp... nothing good can possibly come from it.
> 
> Now, maybe you would like to disagree with that.
> 
> Please, pray tell... what are the potential cultural upsides of normalizing delusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None at all. So if you want to help me tear down some normalized delusion, let's start with this thread and the delusion that Christians are under attack and it won't stop until the government is forcing churches to marry homosexual couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The government might not actually walk into the door of the church literally to declare victory over it as of yet, but it will push the Christians all the way back to the church yard 1st, and then up and onto the porch of the Church next where it figures they (the Christians) all belong and/or need to stay anyways.
> 
> It seems to be proven these days, because every where one looks the Christian religion in this nation is under attack anymore.   I mean the only reason Christmas (celebrated as the birthday of Christ), has since survived so far I think, is because the government doesn't want to cause a catastrophe in the economy at this time of the year, and this by it acting to extreme or radical during this time of the year against the retailers / big money tax payers. So Christmas will stand for now, but for how much longer before someone tries to call it something else or tries to change it's name to mean something else or tries to ban it altogether ? Right now it's being chipped away slowly, and everybody knows this now.
> 
> There now are groups and/or as we have seen in some cases (just a few persons) who have the power to persuade a lost and miss-guided government to then act against the majority or against an American group or against an American individual be it wrongfully now in a heart beat these days, and they will do this even if the action taken by them our (government) is found wrong in the eyes of the people when it has done so, yet it still does it anyway ?
> 
> We have seen this a lot now in America, and the activist judges are reeking havoc in this nation by their crazy rulings, interpretations, and/or actions in which they had taken upon themselves to rule in some kind of weird justifying way to themselves these days.  They abuse their powers I think these days, and it shows in their rulings they make. They have left the understanding of the American *people,* along with the *constitution* in this nation, and they have become the servants of another in this nation since, and not the servants of the two mentioned above as it should still be.
> 
> One talked about how *some judges should just laugh some cases out of court,* but I wish they had done this along time ago when the nation became under attack by those who sought to change it over night.
> 
> True "Christians" just want to be left alone in order to practice their religion as they have always done, and to raise their families without so much dog gone drama going on in their lives, and so it appears that they are having a harder and harder time doing this these days, and especially as the walls keep closing closer and closer to them.  They feel as if they are being trapped within it all somehow, but I think it will all work out somehow to satisfy everyone in the end, so lets hope and pray for that now, and this instead of not praying for anything at all.
Click to expand...


Look at your own post. You take umbrage at having your position described as delusional, then explain how *the government wants to destroy Christmas. *And you want me to believe a handful of especially charismatic individuals have taken the reigns of government, which is basically what the Illuminati is. It's a Dan Brown novel.

Doesn't this get exhausting? Look how much work goes into keeping your position viable in your own mind. You literally have to create two (at least) government conspiracies to sustain it.

But you have to know this part is fiction: "True "Christians" just want to be left alone in order to practice their religion as they have always done." This whole issue ONLY exists because Christians want to control who else can get married. Just think of the arrogance: They want to control marriage itself in this country, as if Jesus invented that shit.

If ever you actually want to stop feeling like you're in conflict with others, it's entirely in Christians' hands to end it. Just let other people live their fucking lives.


----------



## Silhouette

Paperman299 said:


> If ever you actually want to stop feeling like you're in conflict with others, it's entirely in Christians' hands to end it. Just let other people live their fucking lives.


That goes for you too bro.  Stop forcing other people to participate in your cult.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If ever you actually want to stop feeling like you're in conflict with others, it's entirely in Christians' hands to end it. Just let other people live their fucking lives.
> 
> 
> 
> That goes for you too bro.  Stop forcing other people to participate in your cult.
Click to expand...

Equality isn't a cult Sil, and you're fucked on this one since you lost, big time.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk postulates that because TODAY no church is being forced to perform gay weddings, that this congregation of individual christians is somehow safe from future lawsuits to do just that.



There's zero indication that churches will be forced to accomidate gay weddings. PA laws only apply to businesses, which churches aren't. PA laws explicitly exempt churches. There's no significant support to extend PA laws to churches. There's no credible legislation proposed to extend PA laws to churches. 

And not a single example in history of it ever happening in this country. 

You're fear mongering, Silo. And you can't back up your fear with anything more than the fear itself.



> "Another day and another christian baker/photographer/florist not forced to participate in the marriage of any homosexual couple against their wishes..."
> 
> Gee, if you could go back in time 6 years you'd be able to tell those people how wrong they were...



Its the business that is subject to the PA laws. Churches are exempt from all PA laws. 

You ignore this. But you can't make us ignore it. Which is why you fail.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Victim-hood works I guess, but who wants to live their lives claiming to be a victim all the time ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians opposed to equal marriage in this thread, apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I think Christians just want to keep traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and they want to keep it sacred in that way.
Click to expand...


And you're more than welcome to your beliefs. But your religious beliefs won't be reflected in our laws.  



> Now they don't have a problem with people wanting something new and then calling it something new, because their job is not to control peoples lives or minds at all, but to freely accept those who have lived a hard and confusing life, and that might be ready to give their sinfulness up freely, and to join a good Church where their lives can be changed hopefully forever.



There's no 'mind control', Beagle. There's disagreement. Just because a Christian says something doesn't mean that no one is allowed to disagree. Your idea that any Christian should be able to say anything they want....with no response from anyone, is outrageously unreasonable. Christians have the freedom to believe as they wish, to say what they will without any interference from the government.

They don't have the right to be free from consequence, disagreement or response to their statements.


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> It seems to be proven these days, because every where one looks the Christian religion in this nation is under attack anymore.   I mean the only reason Christmas (celebrated as the birthday of Christ), has since survived so far I think, is because the government doesn't want to cause a catastrophe in the economy at this time of the year, and this by it acting to extreme or radical during this time of the year against the retailers / big money tax payers. So Christmas will stand for now, but for how much longer before someone tries to call it something else or tries to change it's name to mean something else or tries to ban it altogether ? Right now it's being chipped away slowly, and everybody knows this now.



Hmmm, or maybe it could be that America self identifies as 77% Christian Captain Hyperbole. 



> There now are groups and/or as we have seen in some cases (just a few persons) who have the power to persuade a lost and miss-guided government to then act against the majority or against an American group or against an American individual be it wrongfully now in a heart beat these days, and they will do this even if the action taken by them our (government) is found wrong in the eyes of the people when it has done so, yet it still does it anyway ?



You mean like in 1967 when the Supreme Court was persuaded by just one case to go against the majority of the country? Only 20% of Americans approved of marriage between blacks and whites in 1967. How could they still do that? 



> We have seen this a lot now in America, and the activist judges are reeking havoc in this nation by their crazy rulings, interpretations, and/or actions in which they had taken upon themselves to rule in some kind of weird justifying way to themselves these days.  They abuse their powers I think these days, and it shows in their rulings they make. They have left the understanding of the American *people,* along with the *constitution* in this nation, and they have become the servants of another in this nation since, and not the servants of the two mentioned above as it should still be.



What you have seen is the judicial process working as it was designed to do. Tax paying gay Americans are using the system set up by the founders to redress their grievances. 

They are winning because you have no rational bases to deny equality. There have been dozens and dozens of rulings now. Out of all those rulings, only one agrees with you that gays don't have a right to civil marriage for their partnerships. You really think all those rulings, by justices appointed by both Republican and Democratic administrations, equate to "judicial activism"? 



> One talked about how *some judges should just laugh some cases out of court,* but I wish they had done this along time ago when the nation became under attack by those who sought to change it over night.



Trust  me, it hasn't changed over night. Oh, I'm sure it has seemed really fast for the bigots. Yes, gay rights has been on a fast track in the last few years, but it's been a long haul since Stonewall. 



> True "Christians" just want to be left alone in order to practice their religion as they have always done, and to raise their families without so much dog gone drama going on in their lives, and so it appears that they are having a harder and harder time doing this these days, and especially as the walls keep closing closer and closer to them.  They feel as if they are being trapped within it all somehow, but I think it will all work out somehow to satisfy everyone in the end, so lets hope and pray for that now, and this instead of not praying for anything at all.



Nobody is stopping them from practicing their religion. You can practice away. What you can't do is use your religion as an excuse to violate civil law.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the drama. There hasn't been a single case where a church was forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes in this nation. Not one. Nobody is buying your silly slippery-slope and fear peddling.
> 
> And yes, back 2009 it was still safe to say that people could not use their faith as an excuse to violate civil laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back in 2009 people were certain christians couldn't be forced to accomodate so-called "gay weddings".  Six short years later and what do we have?
> 
> Churches are nothing more than aggregates of individual christians.
> 
> It's going to happen, the minute the ink is dry on any Overturning of Windsor 2013.
Click to expand...


(1) Marriage equality does not overturn Windsor: anyone who says so is a liar.

(2) No church is going to have to perform weddings it does not want to perform: anyone who says so is a liar.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the drama. There hasn't been a single case where a church was forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes in this nation. Not one. Nobody is buying your silly slippery-slope and fear peddling.
> 
> And yes, back 2009 it was still safe to say that people could not use their faith as an excuse to violate civil laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back in 2009 people were certain christians couldn't be forced to accomodate so-called "gay weddings".  Six short years later and what do we have?
> 
> Churches are nothing more than aggregates of individual christians.
> 
> It's going to happen, the minute the ink is dry on any Overturning of Windsor 2013.
Click to expand...



Your track record of predictions around here is abyssal so pardon me if I take it with a very small grain of salt. 

In the states where these cases originate gays were already covered under PA laws. So yes, in 2009 these same businesses couldn't use their faith as an excuse to not offer gays a service they freely offer to the public. PA laws have been around for many decades and there hasn't been a single church forced to marry anyone as a result.


----------



## Seawytch

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the drama. There hasn't been a single case where a church was forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes in this nation. Not one. Nobody is buying your silly slippery-slope and fear peddling.
> 
> And yes, back 2009 it was still safe to say that people could not use their faith as an excuse to violate civil laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back in 2009 people were certain christians couldn't be forced to accomodate so-called "gay weddings".  Six short years later and what do we have?
> 
> Churches are nothing more than aggregates of individual christians.
> 
> It's going to happen, the minute the ink is dry on any Overturning of Windsor 2013.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your track record of predictions around here is abyssal so pardon me if I take it with a very small grain of salt.
> 
> In the states where these cases originate gays were already covered under PA laws. So yes, in 2009 these same businesses couldn't use their faith as an excuse to not offer gays a service they freely offer to the public. PA laws have been around for many decades and there hasn't been a single church forced to marry anyone as a result.
Click to expand...


And there was no civil marriage equality in the states where the cases took place either...so trying to equate marriage equality and Public Accommodation laws is ridiculous.


----------



## mdk

Seawytch said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the drama. There hasn't been a single case where a church was forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes in this nation. Not one. Nobody is buying your silly slippery-slope and fear peddling.
> 
> And yes, back 2009 it was still safe to say that people could not use their faith as an excuse to violate civil laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back in 2009 people were certain christians couldn't be forced to accomodate so-called "gay weddings".  Six short years later and what do we have?
> 
> Churches are nothing more than aggregates of individual christians.
> 
> It's going to happen, the minute the ink is dry on any Overturning of Windsor 2013.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your track record of predictions around here is abyssal so pardon me if I take it with a very small grain of salt.
> 
> In the states where these cases originate gays were already covered under PA laws. So yes, in 2009 these same businesses couldn't use their faith as an excuse to not offer gays a service they freely offer to the public. PA laws have been around for many decades and there hasn't been a single church forced to marry anyone as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there was no civil marriage equality in the states where the cases took place either...so trying to equate marriage equality and Public Accommodation laws is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


You're correct. Sil was hoping the rest of us did know that fact but she is sadly mistake. A common theme it seems.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Paperman299 said:


> Look at your own post. You take umbrage at having your position described as delusional, then explain how *the government wants to destroy Christmas. *And you want me to believe a handful of especially charismatic individuals have taken the reigns of government, which is basically what the Illuminati is. It's a Dan Brown novel.



The fact that there is an attack by a group of mind-numbingly obtuse bureaucrats, who simultaneously find a basis that someone is offended by Christianity, but find no basis in Christians being offended  by them... provides that 'it', is _reality.  _

See how that works?



Paperman299 said:


> Doesn't this get exhausting? Look how much work goes into keeping your position viable in your own mind. You literally have to create two (at least) government conspiracies to sustain it.



Reality sustains itself... so, there's no effort involved, given that we're not the one's doing 'it'.



Paperman299 said:


> But you have to know this part is fiction: "True "Christians" just want to be left alone in order to practice their religion as they have always done." This whole issue ONLY exists because Christians want to control who else can get married. Just think of the arrogance: They want to control marriage itself in this country, as if Jesus invented that shit.



Christians did not create the universe, we do not set the laws of nature... and the laws of nature define the standard for marriage, as it has defined the species.

Wherein two distinct, but complimenting genders join together, forming one sustainable body from two, through which is conceived a new body, to be sustained through that union, until it becomes able to sustain itself...  and the process begins anew.

So, if you've a grievance with Nature's design of humanity... you should probably take it up with the Creator of Humanity.  We're merely those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the laws which nature has established, to govern human behavior.



Paperman299 said:


> If ever you actually want to stop feeling like you're in conflict with others, it's entirely in Christians' hands to end it. Just let other people live their fucking lives.



We're not the aggressor... and the aggressor determines when the conflict is over.  So at the moment, you've the choice to stop and where ya take that choice, it will stop.

But we're human beings... and we have limits.  And I want you to think about this... That closet is one which you people created for yourselves.  We didn't create... you did.

For the vast majority of human existence, you people have been locked in there.

Now why do you suppose that is?

Do you suppose that in the brief, interval periods throughout that history, the _normalization of sexual abnormality_ produced a long and distinguished list of cultural benefits, which when set against a tiny short list of cultural liabilities, that the net result to those now long since extinct cultures was a HUGE SOCIETAL PLUS; therefore, the survivors of the collapse were quick to re-establish the normalization of sexual abnormality which had provided such a profound benefit to the previous, but defunct society...?

Do ya think that is why you people have locked yourselves in the closet for the vast majority of the 5000 years of human civilization, because the result of accepting your behavior nets the culture more benefit than it cost them in liabilities?

I gotta be honest with ya... in just the 30 years that I've watched ya work.  I get the sense that you people are ALL liability.  I can't find a single potential benefit.  You're a cancer, or maybe a virus; there's a good argument for both analogues... because ya spreads like the wind once it is activated, or once the cultural body is infected and the effect you bring can only be described as decay and destruction.

So knowing that... what would you say would be "*A*" reason that you would like to latch onto, which could give you ANY HOPE to believe that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality will stand?

When ever you're ready, I'll be hear for ya.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> And there was no civil marriage equality in the states where the cases took place either...so trying to equate marriage equality and Public Accommodation laws is ridiculous.



There's no marriage equality... because Marriage is one thing and one thing only: 

*Marriage:* _is the joining of one man and one woman._​


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> Nobody is stopping them from practicing their religion. You can practice away. What you can't do is use your religion as an excuse to violate civil law.



Law?

Ya mean like: "_Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..._?  Did I get that right?  Ya know... I'm a survivor 70s, so I sometimes need to reference the foundation of American Law to remember...

US Constitution... Amendment 1:

Ahh... yes!  Not bad for an old man.

*"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
*
So there it is... A law which forces a Christian to take action which is anathema to the practice of their religion... is forbidden by the foundation of US Law.  Therefore, such law is axiomatically invalid, thus no American is obligated to recognize it as law; thus we are not bound to obey it, as no consent to be governed by such has been extended, as the basis of that consent, is set forth in the US Constitution.

Of course, you likely disagree... which is perfectly understandable.  But you need to understand that this is not a point which is debatable and we, the Americans, have no intention of compromising in this point... therefore... well, you should probably consider this, from the Charter of American Principles:

_"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. ..."
_
People often disagree.  And often a given perspective is incline to concede to the mouthy demands of a fractious minority, as a means to quiet them.  And sometimes that tolerance extends for generations until the assumption becomes, particularly by those most recently brought to the stage, that such is simply 'what happens', one merely,  "Bitches  enough and one "gets". 

Ahh... but alas, such was merely a function of cause and effect, and not a law unto itself... And that, from time to time, (Twice in the history of the US, so far...) has forced the society into a state of war; as this is nature's way.

So, don't sweat this... as someone recently noted, this will all work itself out.  And I'm sure that when it's all said and done, that the homosexuals will be free to go forth and propagate and all will be well in the world.  Or not...


----------



## Silhouette

Pretty bold lies, saying there's not freedom of religion.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> And you're more than welcome to your beliefs. But your religious beliefs won't be reflected in our laws...


Ahem.... You've heard of the 1st Amendment? Whereas nothing at all is said in the Constitution about gay marriage, or marriage at all for that matter (when marriage is a state-granted privelege; see: Windsor 2013), there is quite a bit in the Constitution said about freedom of religion.  Windsor 2013 was clear: state's decide on lifestyle-marriage.

Good luck tweaking the Constitution to favor your cult forcing christians to abdicate their faith in daily life as individuals and congregated together at a building called "a church". Remember, the 1st doesn't grant "Freedom of Church"... it grants "Freedom of Religion". Religion is in the heart of each of the faithful. It's most hallowed ground is in day to day life as each christian faces off with temptation to evil.

Courtesy of "Keys" from the previous page:

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

The "exercise thereof" is the exercise of saying "NO" to promoting homosexual lifetyles.  Jude 1 of the New Testament (Jesus' redaction, not the Old Testament) prohibits doing that under promise of eternal damnation for failing.


----------



## Silhouette

I've scanned the Constitution over and over and nowhere do I find marriage listed as a "right".  Currently it's a privelege.  So in order for the Supreme Court to say that marriage is a "lifestyle-right" it would have to change the power of the Constitution significantly to remove the power of states to regulate their own discreet communities with regards to human behavior, and instead grant sweeping powers to the fed to "approve or disapprove of behaviors" above the states.

It would fundamentally wreck the foundation of the local penal and civil law systems over time...using precedent.  This would be the first time ever that behaviors got special treatment at the federal level...favoritism if you like..  What other behaviors currenlty repugnant to the majority will have their day in Court?  "Equality"...don't forget..  Used improprerly, the application of that principle is poised to create great legal havoc.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> I've scanned the Constitution over and over and nowhere do I find marriage listed as a "right".  Currently it's a privelege.  So in order for the Supreme Court to say that marriage is a "lifestyle-right" it would have to change the power of the Constitution significantly to remove the power of states to regulate their own discreet communities with regards to human behavior, and instead grant sweeping powers to the fed to "approve or disapprove of behaviors" above the states.



The Supreme Court has already said marriage is a right. From 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights



> _Maynard v. Hill__, _125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
> _Meyer v. Nebraska__, _262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
> _Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson_, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> _Griswold v. Connecticut_, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
> _Loving v. Virginia_, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
> _Boddie v. Connecticut_, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
> _Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur_, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
> _Moore v. City of East Cleveland_, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
> _Carey v. Population Services International_, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “_t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
> [*]Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
> [*]Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
> [*]Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
> [*]M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
> [*]Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
> _
> _
> _


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> I've scanned the Constitution over and over and nowhere do I find marriage listed as a "right".




People that have actually read the Constitution understand that rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution to be held by people.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> I've scanned the Constitution over and over and nowhere do I find marriage listed as a "right".  Currently it's a privelege.  So in order for the Supreme Court to say that marriage is a "lifestyle-right" it would have to change the power of the Constitution significantly to remove the power of states to regulate their own discreet communities with regards to human behavior, and instead grant sweeping powers to the fed to "approve or disapprove of behaviors" above the states.


 


Paperman299 said:


> The Supreme Court has already said marriage is a right. From 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights ...


 
For whom?  Oh, that would be ANY man or woman to marry each other.  What you have to understand is that when all those decisions were written, the word "marriage" is and was inseparable from the number "two" and the pairing "man/woman".

Those cases were about race.  You cannot change the definition of a word without the permission of the general public. Otherwise, blind people could change the word "driver's license" to mean "the inaliable right to drive".  And then they would go on to claim they have rights to drive because the defintiion of the words "driver's license" had changed..

Lawrence v Texas was about whether or not men could fuck each other in the ass and not get arrested.  The Justices at the time warned the public that their decriminalization of sodomy was in no way an endorsement of "gay marriage".

Let's visit your dates and see in those years, what the definition was universally-understood as meaning "man/woman"

1888: man/woman
1923: man/woman
1942: man/woman
1965: man/woman
1967: man/woman
1971: man/woman
1974: man/woman
1977: man/woman
1977: man/woman
1978: man/woman
1992: man/woman
1996: man/woman
2003: man/woman

There was no other concept of what "marriage" meant in those years so there is no other interpretation of what the Courts were talking about except man/woman.

[BELOW vv]
Here's "Syriusly's" rebuttal when s/he has nothing to offer of substance: YOU'RE EVIL!

Hilarious.  Go back to kindergarten Syriously, it's obvious you are in over you head here.. This is a legal discussion, not a mud-slinging contest, or high theater of the "victimized gays" or a spam festival.  You and your derailing cohorts begone if you can't handle the debate civilly.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians opposed to equal marriage in this thread, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> No I think Christians just want to keep traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and they want to keep it sacred in that way. Now they don't have a problem with people wanting something new and then calling it something new, because their job is not to control peoples lives or minds at all, but to freely accept those who have lived a hard and confusing life, and that might be ready to give their sinfulness up freely, and to join a good Church where their lives can be changed hopefully forever. I think that their are many Christians who are afraid of the slippery slope that these things are all sitting on now, and so they are asking for marriage to be preserved to a man and a woman in the traditional sense is all. The reasons the Christians feel they are under attack as in victims now also as you put it, is due to the heated debate that has caused people to go out and to try and set people up over the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christians on this thread, including yourself, have made their own victimhood a core pillar of their argument. You've all spent nearly 700 pages arguing "lots of bad things are happening to Christians..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not just false, it's absurdly false.
> 
> Recognizing abnormality as normal is delusion.
> 
> There's no upside to normalizing delusion scamp... nothing good can possibly come from it.
> 
> Now, maybe you would like to disagree with that.
> 
> Please, pray tell... what are the potential cultural upsides of normalizing delusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None at all. So if you want to help me tear down some normalized delusion, let's start with this thread and the delusion that Christians are under attack and it won't stop until the government is forcing churches to marry homosexual couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is about evil... which must attack good.
Click to expand...


Absolutely- this thread is about evil people attacking homosexuals simply because they are attracted to persons of the same gender.

And that is evil.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've scanned the Constitution over and over and nowhere do I find marriage listed as a "right".  Currently it's a privelege.  So in order for the Supreme Court to say that marriage is a "lifestyle-right" it would have to change the power of the Constitution significantly to remove the power of states to regulate their own discreet communities with regards to human behavior, and instead grant sweeping powers to the fed to "approve or disapprove of behaviors" above the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has already said marriage is a right. From 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For whom?  Oh, that would be ANY man or woman to marry each other..
Click to expand...


Yet not one of those cases actually said 'any man or woman'.

Here let me give you some examples of what they actually said:

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

_Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"

In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*

And this is my favorite:

In _Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. *Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."*


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Pretty bold lies, saying there's not freedom of religion.



Silhouette is talking to herself again.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If ever you actually want to stop feeling like you're in conflict with others, it's entirely in Christians' hands to end it. Just let other people live their fucking lives.
> 
> 
> 
> That goes for you too bro.  Stop forcing other people to participate in your cult.
Click to expand...


No one is being forced to participate in anything.

Other than to follow the law.

If Citizen's of Pennsylvania don't like the law- then they can change it.
Or if the business people feel like their rights are being violated- then just like gay couples who want to be able to legally marry each  other- they can file a lawsuit to overturn the law.

But the law treats all business owners the same- no special treatment just because they are Christians.


----------



## Silhouette

Spammed another page...oh well...


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> I've scanned the Constitution over and over and nowhere do I find marriage listed as a "right". Currently it's a privelege. So in order for the Supreme Court to say that marriage is a "lifestyle-right" it would have to change the power of the Constitution significantly to remove the power of states to regulate their own discreet communities with regards to human behavior, and instead grant sweeping powers to the fed to "approve or disapprove of behaviors" above the states.





Paperman299 said:


> The Supreme Court has already said marriage is a right. From 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights ...


 
For whom? Oh, that would be ANY man or woman to marry each other. What you have to understand is that when all those decisions were written, the word "marriage" is and was inseparable from the number "two" and the pairing "man/woman".

Those cases were about race. You cannot change the definition of a word without the permission of the general public. Otherwise, blind people could change the word "driver's license" to mean "the inaliable right to drive". And then they would go on to claim they have rights to drive because the defintiion of the words "driver's license" had changed..

Lawrence v Texas was about whether or not men could pretend each other's anuses were women's vaginas, and not get arrested. The Justices at the time warned the public that their decriminalization of sodomy was in no way an endorsement of "gay marriage".

Let's visit your dates and see in those years, what the definition was universally-understood as meaning "man/woman"

1888: man/woman
1923: man/woman
1942: man/woman
1965: man/woman
1967: man/woman
1971: man/woman
1974: man/woman
1977: man/woman
1977: man/woman
1978: man/woman
1992: man/woman
1996: man/woman
2003: man/woman

There was no other concept of what "marriage" meant in those years so there is no other interpretation of what the Courts were talking about except man/woman.

"Syriusly's" rebuttal when s/he has nothing to offer of substance: YOU'RE EVIL!
Hilarious. Go back to kindergarten Syriously, it's obvious you are in over you head here.. This is a legal discussion, not a mud-slinging contest, or high theater of the "victimized gays" or a spam festival. You and your derailing cohorts begone if you can't handle the debate civilly.

*********

From Syriusly's previously-spammed page (trying to derail the topic by disappearing pages, if not the entire thread with her buddies St.Mike and "Conservative"'s _"Gay Bashing Theater"_  )

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online



> *Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on tr*ack, a hard-hitting report warns today. *The Prince’s Trust youth index*, the largest survey of its kind, *found that*....*67 per cent more likely to be unemployed* than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....*It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess*..


 


> *Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime *as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was *based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models*, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests *young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging*.


 


> With no father to look to as he grew up, Arfan Naseer fell into a life of drugs and gangs...He even spent time in prison after becoming involved with the wrong crowd, impressed by their expensive cars and gangster lifestyle...He believes that if he had had a father or male role model to look up to, he would have seen the error of his ways at a much earlier age.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you mean Americans should never file lawsuits?
> 
> Do you think Christians should not file lawsuits if they think their rights are being violated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you're stumping for the lawsuits-to-come against churches as an LGBT 'right'....
> .
Click to expand...


Silhouette- you are such a fucking liar- and i so rarely use that word.

In this thread alone I have probably stated at least 30 times that Churches should not- and will not ever be forced to marry homosexuals- OR anyone else a church doesn't want to marry.

You have seen my posts before- and commented on them- so that makes you a big fucking liar. 

Not that anyone is shocked by this. 

Churches should not- and will not be forced to marry- or do any other ritual- with anyone- black-gay-Jewish-handicapped-Puerto Rican- Chinese- women(seriously how many women have successfully sued the Catholic Church for not allowing them to be Priests?).

Churches are exempt from PA laws- and should be. And will continue to be.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're more than welcome to your beliefs. But your religious beliefs won't be reflected in our laws...
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem.... You've heard of the 1st Amendment? Whereas nothing at all is said in the Constitution about gay marriage, or marriage at all for that matter (when marriage is a state-granted privelege; see: Windsor 2013), there is quite a bit in the Constitution said about freedom of religion.  Windsor 2013 was clear: state's decide on lifestyle-marriage.
> 
> Good luck tweaking the Constitution to favor your cult forcing christians to abdicate their faith in daily life as individuals and congregated together at a building called "a church". Remember, the 1st doesn't grant "Freedom of Church"... it grants "Freedom of Religion". Religion is in the heart of each of the faithful. It's most hallowed ground is in day to day life as each christian faces off with temptation to evil.
> 
> Courtesy of "Keys" from the previous page:
> 
> *"*_*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."*_
> 
> The "exercise thereof" is the exercise of saying "NO" to promoting homosexual lifetyles.  Jude 1 of the New Testament (Jesus' redaction, not the Old Testament) prohibits doing that under promise of eternal damnation for failing.
Click to expand...


In the 60s many people objected to serving black people on religious grounds. Sauce Is Boycotted and Slavery Is the Issue - NYTimes.com



> Mr. Bessinger spent much of the 1950's and 60's attacking race-mixing, running the National Association for the Preservation of White People and refusing to let blacks into his main dining room, long after most other restaurants had given in. The Supreme Court eventually forced him to comply with the law.



In fact, that decision was 8-0. You don't have the "right" to refuse goods and services to any demographic on religious grounds (and of course, the government has yet to take any steps to force churches to perform interracial marriages)


----------



## Silhouette

Blacks are a race.  Lifestyles are behaviors.  There is no provision in the Constitution for lifestyles.  There is for race.  Do make a note of that for setting up your future premises for argument...


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've scanned the Constitution over and over and nowhere do I find marriage listed as a "right". Currently it's a privelege. So in order for the Supreme Court to say that marriage is a "lifestyle-right" it would have to change the power of the Constitution significantly to remove the power of states to regulate their own discreet communities with regards to human behavior, and instead grant sweeping powers to the fed to "approve or disapprove of behaviors" above the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has already said marriage is a right. From 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For whom? Oh, that would be ANY man or woman to marry each other. What you have to understand is that when all those decisions were written, the word "marriage" is and was inseparable from the number "two" and the pairing "man/woman".
> Those cases were about race..
Click to expand...


Wow- you are an idiot.

No- those cases were not about 'race'- only Loving v. Virginia were about a couple that wanted to get married but were prevented by State laws against mixed race marriage. 

The other cases had to do with among other things: regulations against prisoners marrying, laws preventing a parent with unpaid child support from getting married- by the way that is an interesting case- and not a good one for you.

Much like your bizarre theory about 'complimentary' parents- the State argued that preventing a parent from marrying who owed child support would 'incentivize' that parent to be a responsible parent.

The court noted that there is no indication that preventing a parent from marrying would work to get him or her to pay back child support- nor would it prevent him or her from having more children.

And threw out the State law.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Blacks are a race.  Lifestyles are behaviors.  There is no provision in the Constitution for lifestyles.  There is for race.  Do make a note of that for setting up your future premises for argument...



Silhouette is talking to herself again. 

I wonder which side of the brain is trying to convince the other side?


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've scanned the Constitution over and over and nowhere do I find marriage listed as a "right".  Currently it's a privelege.  So in order for the Supreme Court to say that marriage is a "lifestyle-right" it would have to change the power of the Constitution significantly to remove the power of states to regulate their own discreet communities with regards to human behavior, and instead grant sweeping powers to the fed to "approve or disapprove of behaviors" above the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has already said marriage is a right. From 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For whom?  Oh, that would be ANY man or woman to marry each other.  What you have to understand is that when all those decisions were written, the word "marriage" is and was inseparable from the number "two" and the pairing "man/woman".
> 
> Those cases were about race.  You cannot change the definition of a word without the permission of the general public. Otherwise, blind people could change the word "driver's license" to mean "the inaliable right to drive".  And then they would go on to claim they have rights to drive because the defintiion of the words "driver's license" had changed..
> 
> Lawrence v Texas was about whether or not men could fuck each other in the ass and not get arrested.  The Justices at the time warned the public that their decriminalization of sodomy was in no way an endorsement of "gay marriage".
> 
> Let's visit your dates and see in those years, what the definition was universally-understood as meaning "man/woman"
> 
> 1888: man/woman
> 1923: man/woman
> 1942: man/woman
> 1965: man/woman
> 1967: man/woman
> 1971: man/woman
> 1974: man/woman
> 1977: man/woman
> 1977: man/woman
> 1978: man/woman
> 1992: man/woman
> 1996: man/woman
> 2003: man/woman
> 
> There was no other concept of what "marriage" meant in those years so there is no other interpretation of what the Courts were talking about except man/woman.
> 
> [BELOW vv]
> Here's "Syriusly's" rebuttal when s/he has nothing to offer of substance: YOU'RE EVIL!
> 
> Hilarious.  Go back to kindergarten Syriously, it's obvious you are in over you head here.. This is a legal discussion, not a mud-slinging contest, or high theater of the "victimized gays" or a spam festival.  You and your derailing cohorts begone if you can't handle the debate civilly.
Click to expand...


So you agree then that "marriage" (whose definition we currently disagree on) is a right, and not a privilege?


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> No- those cases were not about 'race'- only Loving v. Virginia were about a couple that wanted to get married but were prevented by State laws against mixed race marriage.
> 
> The other cases had to do with among other things: regulations against prisoners marrying, laws preventing a parent with unpaid child support from getting married- by the way that is an interesting case- and not a good one for you...


 
And all knew and understood at the time those decisions were made that the word "marriage" meant, without exception or even innuendo at anything else, "a lifelong union between a man and a woman for the benefit of a family in which children almost certainly will arrive".


----------



## Silhouette

Paperman299 said:


> So you agree then that "marriage" (whose definition we currently disagree on) is a right, and not a privilege?


 
Only for pairs of man/woman of any race, yes, it's a right.  As long as they are old enough, not polysexual or all the other qualifiers.  The structure of man/woman is not dissolvable by alternative lifestyles if it is set by the state as such.  The fed limits the states to who they can exclude with regard to RACE.  With regards to lifestyles however, the state defines marriage as a privelege; with the wellbeing of children in mind.  The structure of man/woman isn't harmed by how well one of the spouses can tan at the beach.  It is defined however by if the two or more people involved present zero complimentary-gendered adult/parent role model.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Blacks are a race.  Lifestyles are behaviors.  There is no provision in the Constitution for lifestyles.  There is for race.  Do make a note of that for setting up your future premises for argument...



Whether the case concerned black people, gay people, or people from a Renaissance faire is irrelevant. 

a) You can't refuse to serve a type of people based on religious grounds

b) this has never come back to infringe on, specifically, the church's right to refuse to marry whoever they wanted.


----------



## Silhouette

Paperman299 said:


> Whether the case concerned black people, gay people, or people from a Renaissance faire is irrelevant.
> 
> a) You can't refuse to serve a type of people based on religious grounds
> 
> b) this has never come back to infringe on, specifically, the church's right to refuse to marry whoever they wanted.


 
Yes, Windsor 2013 says states get to define which lifestyles may set examples for children.  They say overwhelmingly that that structure for the benefit of children must include representatives from both the childrens' genders, not just one. 

A church is merely a congregation of individual christians.  And as such, a church's individual components most certainly have been sued in attempts to force them to abdicate their faith in favor of promoting the LGBT cult values "in marriage".  In fact, entire states' majorities have been sued and forced to abdicate their own democratic rule when it comes to setting paramaters for childrens' best formative environments.

Properly, hundreds of millions of people have been forced to swallow LGBT cult values that are repugnant to them...to adopt a repugnant lifestyle directly into ground-zero of their future citizens' (childrens') formative environment.

If you think for one minute that the congregation of indivdiual christans/voters will not be sued to accomodate "gay weddings" you are on drugs buddy..


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree then that "marriage" (whose definition we currently disagree on) is a right, and not a privilege?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only for pairs of man/woman of any race, yes, it's a right.  As long as they are old enough, not polysexual or all the other qualifiers.  The structure of man/woman is not dissolvable by alternative lifestyles if it is set by the state as such.  The fed limits the states to who they can exclude with regard to RACE.  With regards to lifestyles however, the state defines marriage as a privelege; with the wellbeing of children in mind.  The structure of man/woman isn't harmed by how well one of the spouses can tan at the beach.  It is defined however by if the two or more people involved present zero complimentary-gendered adult/parent role model.
Click to expand...


The state defines marriage as a right no matter the context. You can disavow your previous posts about marriage being a privilege or you can take in this new information and modify your views, but you can't do neither. Something can't be a right for one citizen and a privilege for another. The only question now is the definition of marriage and what, exactly, one's right to marry gives them.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- those cases were not about 'race'- only Loving v. Virginia were about a couple that wanted to get married but were prevented by State laws against mixed race marriage.
> 
> The other cases had to do with among other things: regulations against prisoners marrying, laws preventing a parent with unpaid child support from getting married- by the way that is an interesting case- and not a good one for you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all knew and understood at the time those decisions were made that the word "marriage" meant, without exception or even innuendo at anything else, "a lifelong union between a man and a woman for the benefit of a family in which children almost certainly will arrive".
Click to expand...


Prove it.

See here is the thing- you just make crap up.  Look at my favorite Supreme Court definition of marriage:

In _Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

_"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
_
Not one mention of 'family in which children almost certainly will arrive'.

You just make crap up. 

You are not married- yet you lecture us on what marriage is.
You are not a parent- yet you lecture us on what good parenting is.
You are not educated- yet you lecture us on what the law is. 

Now what makes your claim specifically ignorant is because of what Griswold was about.

Griswold was about the right of a married couple to use contraceptives. State law prevented anyone from legally using contraceptives. The court said married couples have the right to prevent pregnancies. Not one word in the decision about marriage being about having children.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the case concerned black people, gay people, or people from a Renaissance faire is irrelevant.
> 
> a) You can't refuse to serve a type of people based on religious grounds
> 
> b) this has never come back to infringe on, specifically, the church's right to refuse to marry whoever they wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Windsor 2013 says states get to defin..
Click to expand...


No- Windsor didn't say that.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree then that "marriage" (whose definition we currently disagree on) is a right, and not a privilege?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only for pairs of man/woman of any race, yes, it's a right..
Click to expand...


So you think pairs of homosexuals do not have the same rights as my wife and I have?


----------



## Paperman299

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at your own post. You take umbrage at having your position described as delusional, then explain how *the government wants to destroy Christmas. *And you want me to believe a handful of especially charismatic individuals have taken the reigns of government, which is basically what the Illuminati is. It's a Dan Brown novel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that there is an attack by a group of mind-numbingly obtuse bureaucrats, who simultaneously find a basis that someone is offended by Christianity, but find no basis in Christians being offended  by them... provides that 'it', is _reality.  _
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't this get exhausting? Look how much work goes into keeping your position viable in your own mind. You literally have to create two (at least) government conspiracies to sustain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality sustains itself... so, there's no effort involved, given that we're not the one's doing 'it'.
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you have to know this part is fiction: "True "Christians" just want to be left alone in order to practice their religion as they have always done." This whole issue ONLY exists because Christians want to control who else can get married. Just think of the arrogance: They want to control marriage itself in this country, as if Jesus invented that shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians did not create the universe, we do not set the laws of nature... and the laws of nature define the standard for marriage, as it has defined the species.
> 
> Wherein two distinct, but complimenting genders join together, forming one sustainable body from two, through which is conceived a new body, to be sustained through that union, until it becomes able to sustain itself...  and the process begins anew.
> 
> So, if you've a grievance with Nature's design of humanity... you should probably take it up with the Creator of Humanity.  We're merely those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the laws which nature has established, to govern human behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If ever you actually want to stop feeling like you're in conflict with others, it's entirely in Christians' hands to end it. Just let other people live their fucking lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not the aggressor... and the aggressor determines when the conflict is over.  So at the moment, you've the choice to stop and where ya take that choice, it will stop.
> 
> But we're human beings... and we have limits.  And I want you to think about this... That closet is one which you people created for yourselves.  We didn't create... you did.
> 
> For the vast majority of human existence, you people have been locked in there.
> 
> Now why do you suppose that is?
> 
> *Do you suppose that in the brief, interval periods throughout that history, the normalization of sexual abnormality produced a long and distinguished list of cultural benefits, which when set against a tiny short list of cultural liabilities, that the net result to those now long since extinct cultures was a HUGE SOCIETAL PLUS; therefore, the survivors of the collapse were quick to re-establish the normalization of sexual abnormality which had provided such a profound benefit to the previous, but defunct society...?*
> 
> Do ya think that is why you people have locked yourselves in the closet for the vast majority of the 5000 years of human civilization, because the result of accepting your behavior nets the culture more benefit than it cost them in liabilities?
> 
> I gotta be honest with ya... in just the 30 years that I've watched ya work.  I get the sense that you people are ALL liability.  I can't find a single potential benefit.  You're a cancer, or maybe a virus; there's a good argument for both analogues... because ya spreads like the wind once it is activated, or once the cultural body is infected and the effect you bring can only be described as decay and destruction.
> 
> So knowing that... what would you say would be "*A*" reason that you would like to latch onto, which could give you ANY HOPE to believe that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality will stand?
> 
> When ever you're ready, I'll be hear for ya.
Click to expand...


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the case concerned black people, gay people, or people from a Renaissance faire is irrelevant.
> 
> a) You can't refuse to serve a type of people based on religious grounds
> 
> b) this has never come back to infringe on, specifically, the church's right to refuse to marry whoever they wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Windsor 2013 says states get to define which lifestyles may set examples for children.  They say overwhelmingly that that structure for the benefit of children must include representatives from both the childrens' genders, not just one.
> 
> A church is merely a congregation of individual christians.  And as such, a church's individual components most certainly have been sued in attempts to force them to abdicate their faith in favor of promoting the LGBT cult values "in marriage".  In fact, entire states' majorities have been sued and forced to abdicate their own democratic rule when it comes to setting paramaters for childrens' best formative environments.
> 
> Properly, hundreds of millions of people have been forced to swallow LGBT cult values that are repugnant to them...to adopt a repugnant lifestyle directly into ground-zero of their future citizens' (childrens') formative environment.
> 
> If you think for one minute that the congregation of indivdiual christans/voters will not be sued to accomodate "gay weddings" you are on drugs buddy..
Click to expand...


So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?


----------



## Seawytch

Paperman299 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the case concerned black people, gay people, or people from a Renaissance faire is irrelevant.
> 
> a) You can't refuse to serve a type of people based on religious grounds
> 
> b) this has never come back to infringe on, specifically, the church's right to refuse to marry whoever they wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Windsor 2013 says states get to define which lifestyles may set examples for children.  They say overwhelmingly that that structure for the benefit of children must include representatives from both the childrens' genders, not just one.
> 
> A church is merely a congregation of individual christians.  And as such, a church's individual components most certainly have been sued in attempts to force them to abdicate their faith in favor of promoting the LGBT cult values "in marriage".  In fact, entire states' majorities have been sued and forced to abdicate their own democratic rule when it comes to setting paramaters for childrens' best formative environments.
> 
> Properly, hundreds of millions of people have been forced to swallow LGBT cult values that are repugnant to them...to adopt a repugnant lifestyle directly into ground-zero of their future citizens' (childrens') formative environment.
> 
> If you think for one minute that the congregation of indivdiual christans/voters will not be sued to accomodate "gay weddings" you are on drugs buddy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
Click to expand...


Wake Forest Law Review 8211 A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're more than welcome to your beliefs. But your religious beliefs won't be reflected in our laws...
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem.... You've heard of the 1st Amendment?
Click to expand...


I have. And the 1st amendment doesn't make you immune to generally applicable law. You are subject to all generally applicable law that everyone else is. Not simple that law that you agree with. Your interpretation of religious liberty has been rejected by the court. The longer advocates for your brand of 'religious liberty' push their philosophy, the more it sounds like a religiously based Sovereign Citizen argument.



> Whereas nothing at all is said in the Constitution about gay marriage, or marriage at all for that matter (when marriage is a state-granted privelege; see: Windsor 2013), there is quite a bit in the Constitution said about freedom of religion.  Windsor 2013 was clear: state's decide on lifestyle-marriage.



Read the 9th amendment. You are exactly the  kiind of person that the opponents of a Bill of Rights spoke of; those who would reject a right if it weren't explicitly enumerated. The 9th was created to balm those valid concerns, clearly indicating that reserve rights exist regardless of enumeration.

The Windsor Decision clearly said that subject to constitution guarantees that States were free to choose. 



> *Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia*, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” _Sosna_ v. _Iowa_, 419 U. S. 393.
> 
> Windsor V. US



Its the constitutional guarantees part of Windsor you consistently omit and refuse to acknowledge exists in the Windsor Ruling. Which is ironic, given that your very argument now is constitutional guarantees. And* every ruling that overturned gay marriage bans did so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. *

You can ignore this issue. But the courts won't. And haven't.



> Good luck tweaking the Constitution to favor your cult forcing christians to abdicate their faith in daily life as individuals and congregated together at a building called "a church".


[

There's no biblical prohibition against selling cake. You've imagined it. 



> Remember, the 1st doesn't grant "Freedom of Church"... it grants "Freedom of Religion". Religion is in the heart of each of the faithful. It's most hallowed ground is in day to day life as each christian faces off with temptation to evil.



Religious liberty does not grant you the authority to ignore any generally applicable law that you disagree with. What you're arguing for is a Soverign Citizen argument, where only those laws that you like apply to you.

That's not the way our republic works nor has ever worked. Not in any era of our nation. Generally applicable laws apply to everyone. Regardless of if you personally agree with them. PA laws don't target Christians exclusively or specifically. They apply to everyone who does business. 



> The "exercise thereof" is the exercise of saying "NO" to promoting homosexual lifetyles.  Jude 1 of the New Testament (Jesus' redaction, not the Old Testament) prohibits doing that under promise of eternal damnation for failing.



Selling a product or service isn't 'promoting' the customer. Its promoting the good or service. The very premise of your argument is invalid.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If ever you actually want to stop feeling like you're in conflict with others, it's entirely in Christians' hands to end it. Just let other people live their fucking lives.
> 
> 
> 
> That goes for you too bro.  Stop forcing other people to participate in your cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is being forced to participate in anything.
> 
> Other than to follow the law.
> 
> If Citizen's of Pennsylvania don't like the law- then they can change it.
> Or if the business people feel like their rights are being violated- then just like gay couples who want to be able to legally marry each  other- they can file a lawsuit to overturn the law.
> 
> But the law treats all business owners the same- no special treatment just because they are Christians.
Click to expand...


And that's what some Christians are lamenting over. That they aren't being treated specially. That they are being treated like everyone else. Beagle has lamented about the prized position of Christianity over all other faiths in our nation's past. And describes the lack of the same today as an 'attack'.

Its not. Its called equality. Get used to it.


----------



## Silhouette

Paperman299 said:


> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?


 
Racial discrimination is prohibited.  Lifestyle discrimination is not when it comes to marriage.  Read the Constitution.  What one IS may not be treated as inferior.  What one DOES may.  So unless your church of LGBT has tax-exempt status and places of woship like gay bars and pride parades, you're stuck having to abide by local regulations.

A person may be gay.  The Bible does not say in Jude 1 "treat the individual gay harshly".  In fact, Jude 1 says to take them in with compassion "making a difference".  What Jude 1 prohibits is christians participating in promoting a homosexual culture into the fabric of normal society.  Assiting so-called "gay marriages" is that direct prohibited thing.

Ergo, you cannot force christians to promote gay marriage in any way, shape or form.  The gay lifestyle (not the individual) is forbidden to christians to promote.  From the NEW Testament.  Under threat of eternal damnation no less.  This isn't some petty "hail Mary/count your rosary beads" crime.  It gets you directly to the Big House Down Under for "Life".


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> (1) Marriage equality does not overturn Windsor: anyone who says so is a liar.



Silo knows this. He simply refuses to acknowledge the 'Constitutional Guarantees' part of the ruling, despite it being the only issue germane to gay marriage ban challenges.

No one is challenging such bans on the grounds that the States lack the authority to define marriage. They are challenging the bans on the grounds that such bans violate constitutional guarantees. *Every single federal ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans has done so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.*

Which makes Silo's refusal to acknowledge or discuss such guarantees all the more obvious and conspicuous. 



> (2) No church is going to have to perform weddings it does not want to perform: anyone who says so is a liar.



It seems remarkably unlikely. With no evidence pointing toward  move in that direction. PA laws apply only to businesses. Churches aren't businesses. PA laws explicitly exempt churches. There's no significant public support to change these laws. There's no significant judicial support to change these laws. There are no credible proposals to change these laws.

The fear of churches being forced to accommodate gay weddings is backed by nothing but fear. Its an argument that begins and ends with pure emotion.


----------



## kaz

Paperman299 said:


> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?



Here's a fun fact for you.  Jim Crow ... laws ... were government.  Didn't know that, did you?

Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If ever you actually want to stop feeling like you're in conflict with others, it's entirely in Christians' hands to end it. Just let other people live their fucking lives.
> 
> 
> 
> That goes for you too bro.  Stop forcing other people to participate in your cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is being forced to participate in anything.
> 
> Other than to follow the law.
> 
> If Citizen's of Pennsylvania don't like the law- then they can change it.
> Or if the business people feel like their rights are being violated- then just like gay couples who want to be able to legally marry each  other- they can file a lawsuit to overturn the law.
> 
> But the law treats all business owners the same- no special treatment just because they are Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's what some Christians are lamenting over. That they aren't being treated specially. That they are being treated like everyone else. Beagle has lamented about the prized position of Christianity over all other faiths in our nation's past. And describes the lack of the same today as an 'attack'.
> 
> Its not. Its called equality. Get used to it.
Click to expand...


Bull, you are full of shit.  I'm not even a Christian and clearly the left is not treating them the same.  Back this up with links.  I'm calling you out on your crap.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racial discrimination is prohibited.  Lifestyle discrimination is not when it comes to marriage.  Read the Constitution.  What one IS may not be treated as inferior.  What one DOES may.  So unless your church of LGBT has tax-exempt status and places of woship like gay bars and pride parades, you're stuck having to abide by local regulations.
> 
> A person may be gay.  The Bible does not say in Jude 1 "treat the individual gay harshly".  In fact, Jude 1 says to take them in with compassion "making a difference".  What Jude 1 prohibits is christians participating in promoting a homosexual culture into the fabric of normal society.  Assiting so-called "gay marriages" is that direct prohibited thing.
> 
> Ergo, you cannot force christians to promote gay marriage in any way, shape or form.  The gay lifestyle (not the individual) is forbidden to christians to promote.  From the NEW Testament.  Under threat of eternal damnation no less.  This isn't some petty "hail Mary/count your rosary beads" crime.  It gets you directly to the Big House Down Under for "Life".
Click to expand...


Mr. Bessinger, the restauranteur in that link, had some strong religious arguments of his own on why he shouldn't have to serve black people at his BBQ joint. He was overruled, not because there was a stronger theological argument, but because he legally could not discriminate against people. The justification for his discrimination is totally irrelevant.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> ...No one is challenging such bans on the grounds that the States lack the authority to define marriage. They are challenging the bans on the grounds that such bans violate constitutional guarantees. *Every single federal ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans has done so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees...*


 
Yet none of them count because procedurally, lower courts may not overturn previous SCOTUS Findings, even in anticipation of different findings, unless SCOTUS does so itself.  Windsor 2013 said states get to choose on gay marriage.  It said so dozens of times.  It even concluded within its own Opinion that gay marraige was only legal " in some states".  In case there was any ambiguity how they were coming down on the side of states'-powers..

Oh well.  If you read Sutton's decision, he discusses how the other lower courts are in violation of federal law. 6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb s Up to States Choice on Gay Marriage Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Racial discrimination is prohibited.  Lifestyle discrimination is not when it comes to marriage.  Read the Constitution.  What one IS may not be treated as inferior.  What one DOES may.



Read the 14th amendment. Specifically the due process and equal protect clauses. The States do not have the authority to violate constitutional guarantees of federal citizens. And all State marriage laws are subject to those constitutional guarantees:



> Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see_, e.g., Loving_ v. _Virginia_, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” _Sosna_ v. _Iowa_, 419 U. S. 393.
> 
> Windsor V. US



Which you know. But which you refuse to acknowledge or discuss. Just because you ignore the constitutional guarantees that all marriage laws are subject to doesn't mean that they suddenly aren't. And marriage is recognized as a constitutional right. 



> A person may be gay.  The Bible does not say in Jude 1 "treat the individual gay harshly".  In fact, Jude 1 says to take them in with compassion "making a difference".  What Jude 1 prohibits is christians participating in promoting a homosexual culture into the fabric of normal society.  Assiting so-called "gay marriages" is that direct prohibited thing.



Jude 1 makes no mention of gay marriages. Nor prohibits the selling of cake. You're reimagining the Bible just like you're reimagining the law. And neither form the foundation of a valid argument.



> Ergo, you cannot force christians to promote gay marriage in any way, shape or form.



Selling cake isn't promoting a customer. Its promoting cake. Ergo, the very premise of your argument is invalid and irrelevant.


----------



## Paperman299

kaz said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you.  Jim Crow ... laws ... were government.  Didn't know that, did you?
> 
> Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.
Click to expand...


Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do _anything_" is just not a constructive argument.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...No one is challenging such bans on the grounds that the States lack the authority to define marriage. They are challenging the bans on the grounds that such bans violate constitutional guarantees. *Every single federal ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans has done so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet none of them count because procedurally, lower courts may not overturn previous SCOTUS Findings, even in anticipation of different findings, unless SCOTUS does so itself.
Click to expand...


There is no previous SCOTUS ruling that found that gay marriage bans are constitutional. While there is the Windsor ruling that found that gay marriage bans cause immediate legal harm to both the same sex couple being denied marriage and to their children. 

And a USSC ruling (Romer V. Evans) that have found that a law that strips protections from gays must have a valid reason and a compelling state interest. Neither of which has ever been found in gay marriage bans. 

*As gay marriage in 36 of 50 states demonstrate, the lower court rulings most definitely count. *With the USSC preserving every single one of those rulings overturning gay marriage bans, without exception. 

You can ignore this. You can't make us ignore this.


----------



## Skylar

Paperman299 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you.  Jim Crow ... laws ... were government.  Didn't know that, did you?
> 
> Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do _anything_" is just not a constructive argument.
Click to expand...


Kaz tries to turn any discussion into an anarchy discussion. Its his schtick.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If ever you actually want to stop feeling like you're in conflict with others, it's entirely in Christians' hands to end it. Just let other people live their fucking lives.
> 
> 
> 
> That goes for you too bro.  Stop forcing other people to participate in your cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is being forced to participate in anything.
> 
> Other than to follow the law.
> 
> If Citizen's of Pennsylvania don't like the law- then they can change it.
> Or if the business people feel like their rights are being violated- then just like gay couples who want to be able to legally marry each  other- they can file a lawsuit to overturn the law.
> 
> But the law treats all business owners the same- no special treatment just because they are Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's what some Christians are lamenting over. That they aren't being treated specially. That they are being treated like everyone else. Beagle has lamented about the prized position of Christianity over all other faiths in our nation's past. And describes the lack of the same today as an 'attack'.
> 
> Its not. Its called equality. Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull, you are full of shit.  I'm not even a Christian and clearly the left is not treating them the same.  Back this up with links.  I'm calling you out on your crap.
Click to expand...


The 'left', huh? And who is the 'left' in your post above?


----------



## kaz

Paperman299 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you.  Jim Crow ... laws ... were government.  Didn't know that, did you?
> 
> Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do _anything_" is just not a constructive argument.
Click to expand...


So in response to government forcing people to do business with gays, you brought up that government forced people to not do business with blacks as a rebuttal.  My pointing out that is government both time is irrelevant.  Got it.  Liberals trying to do logic always cracks me up.

You should think about my point.   Government using force to compel it's citizens who they do or don't do business with is wrong.  It's a great point


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If ever you actually want to stop feeling like you're in conflict with others, it's entirely in Christians' hands to end it. Just let other people live their fucking lives.
> 
> 
> 
> That goes for you too bro.  Stop forcing other people to participate in your cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is being forced to participate in anything.
> 
> Other than to follow the law.
> 
> If Citizen's of Pennsylvania don't like the law- then they can change it.
> Or if the business people feel like their rights are being violated- then just like gay couples who want to be able to legally marry each  other- they can file a lawsuit to overturn the law.
> 
> But the law treats all business owners the same- no special treatment just because they are Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's what some Christians are lamenting over. That they aren't being treated specially. That they are being treated like everyone else. Beagle has lamented about the prized position of Christianity over all other faiths in our nation's past. And describes the lack of the same today as an 'attack'.
> 
> Its not. Its called equality. Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull, you are full of shit.  I'm not even a Christian and clearly the left is not treating them the same.  Back this up with links.  I'm calling you out on your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'left', huh? And who is the 'left' in your post above?
Click to expand...


Your deflection is a clear admission you can't back up that Christians are asking for special legal rights.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you.  Jim Crow ... laws ... were government.  Didn't know that, did you?
> 
> Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do _anything_" is just not a constructive argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kaz tries to turn any discussion into an anarchy discussion. Its his schtick.
Click to expand...


First of all, moron, I'm not an anarchist.  Tell me again how liberals are smarter than conservatives because you're not all black and white like they are, LOL.  Here you go.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum 

And as I pointed out, you turn every discussion into a socialism discussion.  So explain how your advocating your consistent authoritarian leftist views in every discussion is OK but my discussing ... small ... government isn't?


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> That goes for you too bro.  Stop forcing other people to participate in your cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is being forced to participate in anything.
> 
> Other than to follow the law.
> 
> If Citizen's of Pennsylvania don't like the law- then they can change it.
> Or if the business people feel like their rights are being violated- then just like gay couples who want to be able to legally marry each  other- they can file a lawsuit to overturn the law.
> 
> But the law treats all business owners the same- no special treatment just because they are Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's what some Christians are lamenting over. That they aren't being treated specially. That they are being treated like everyone else. Beagle has lamented about the prized position of Christianity over all other faiths in our nation's past. And describes the lack of the same today as an 'attack'.
> 
> Its not. Its called equality. Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull, you are full of shit.  I'm not even a Christian and clearly the left is not treating them the same.  Back this up with links.  I'm calling you out on your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'left', huh? And who is the 'left' in your post above?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your deflection is a clear admission you can't back up that Christians are asking for special legal rights.
Click to expand...


Its immediately relevant. As if by the 'left', you're speaking of some government that's going to be starkly different than if by the 'left', you're speaking of some private citizens who complained or boycotted a business.

The former has to do with legal rights. The latter, private consequence for statements or actions. Which has nothing to do with legal rights. 

So.... who is the 'left' in your post above?


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you.  Jim Crow ... laws ... were government.  Didn't know that, did you?
> 
> Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do _anything_" is just not a constructive argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kaz tries to turn any discussion into an anarchy discussion. Its his schtick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, moron, I'm not an anarchist.  Tell me again how liberals are smarter than conservatives because you're not all black and white like they are, LOL.  Here you go.
> 
> What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> And as I pointed out, you turn every discussion into a socialism discussion.  So explain how your advocating your consistent authoritarian leftist views in every discussion is OK but my discussing ... small ... government isn't?
Click to expand...


See, Paperman. Its the same schtick.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

KNB said:


> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.



Not bad.  I may have said it a bit differently, but you got the gist of it.  And fast, too.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you.  Jim Crow ... laws ... were government.  Didn't know that, did you?
> 
> Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do _anything_" is just not a constructive argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in response to government forcing people to do business with gays, you brought up that government forced people to not do business with blacks as a rebuttal.  My pointing out that is government both time is irrelevant.  Got it.  Liberals trying to do logic always cracks me up.
Click to expand...


Obviously, its not. The States have authority over Intra-state commerce. Its reasonable and within their authority to establish minimum standards of conduct for those engaged in commerce. Namely, that those conducting commerce with the public within their state treat their customers fairly and equally.

The State can and does fine them if they violate these minimum standards.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> Its immediately relevant. As if by the 'left', you're speaking of some government that's going to be starkly different than if by the 'left', you're speaking of some private citizens who complained or boycotted a business.
> 
> The former has to do with legal rights. The latter, private consequence for statements or actions. Which has nothing to do with legal rights.
> 
> So.... who is the 'left' in your post above?



Who are you claiming Christians want to treat them as "Special?"


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you.  Jim Crow ... laws ... were government.  Didn't know that, did you?
> 
> Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do _anything_" is just not a constructive argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kaz tries to turn any discussion into an anarchy discussion. Its his schtick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, moron, I'm not an anarchist.  Tell me again how liberals are smarter than conservatives because you're not all black and white like they are, LOL.  Here you go.
> 
> What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> And as I pointed out, you turn every discussion into a socialism discussion.  So explain how your advocating your consistent authoritarian leftist views in every discussion is OK but my discussing ... small ... government isn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, Paperman. Its the same schtick.
Click to expand...


It's the same schtick you use with socialism.  Your solution to every problem is government.  I think government should be minimized.  Every time I argue that, you whine it's a schtick, move on, but your solution is always government.  How is it different?  Why can you not STFU about government solutions as you advocate I STFU about free markets?


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its immediately relevant. As if by the 'left', you're speaking of some government that's going to be starkly different than if by the 'left', you're speaking of some private citizens who complained or boycotted a business.
> 
> The former has to do with legal rights. The latter, private consequence for statements or actions. Which has nothing to do with legal rights.
> 
> So.... And who is the 'left' in your post above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you claiming Christians want to treat them as "Special?"
Click to expand...


The government, through PA laws. With Christians to be given special exemptions from generally applicable laws of commerce forbidding discrimination. 

So, for the third time..... who is the 'left' in your post above? If you don't know, just say so.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you.  Jim Crow ... laws ... were government.  Didn't know that, did you?
> 
> Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do _anything_" is just not a constructive argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in response to government forcing people to do business with gays, you brought up that government forced people to not do business with blacks as a rebuttal.  My pointing out that is government both time is irrelevant.  Got it.  Liberals trying to do logic always cracks me up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, its not. The States have authority over Intra-state commerce. Its reasonable and within their authority to establish minimum standards of conduct for those engaged in commerce. Namely, that those conducting commerce with the public within their state treat their customers fairly and equally.
> 
> The State can and does fine them if they violate these minimum standards.
Click to expand...


Get off the socialism schtick, government is your solution to every problem.  Stop turning every discussion into a platform to spout socialism.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you.  Jim Crow ... laws ... were government.  Didn't know that, did you?
> 
> Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do _anything_" is just not a constructive argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in response to government forcing people to do business with gays, you brought up that government forced people to not do business with blacks as a rebuttal.  My pointing out that is government both time is irrelevant.  Got it.  Liberals trying to do logic always cracks me up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, its not. The States have authority over Intra-state commerce. Its reasonable and within their authority to establish minimum standards of conduct for those engaged in commerce. Namely, that those conducting commerce with the public within their state treat their customers fairly and equally.
> 
> The State can and does fine them if they violate these minimum standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get off the socialism schtick, government is your solution to every problem.  Stop turning every discussion into a platform to spout socialism.
Click to expand...


Notice how you don't actually disagree with me on the authority granted the States over intrastate commerce. The State's authority is immediately relevant to the issue, contrary to your claims otherwise.

Notice how you don't actually disagree with me on it being reasonable for the State to establish minimum standards of conduct in business. 

Its both reasonable and quite legal for the States to set up PA laws. And to fine those who violate them.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its immediately relevant. As if by the 'left', you're speaking of some government that's going to be starkly different than if by the 'left', you're speaking of some private citizens who complained or boycotted a business.
> 
> The former has to do with legal rights. The latter, private consequence for statements or actions. Which has nothing to do with legal rights.
> 
> So.... And who is the 'left' in your post above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you claiming Christians want to treat them as "Special?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government, through PA laws. With Christians to be given special exemptions from generally applicable laws of commerce forbidding discrimination.
> 
> So, for the third time..... who is the 'left' in your post above? If you don't know, just say so.
Click to expand...


As always:

#1:  Again with the socialism.  Move on, you are a one trick pony.  Every discussion doesn't need to turn into your views that government will solve all problems.  Every discussion does not need to be about your socialist ideology.

#2:  You didn't show Christians want to be the only ones exempted from those laws, everything I've seen is they want "religion" exempted.  Show where they only want Christians exempted, which was your claim.

#3:  The true left are libertarians, we are classic liberals.  The modern left are authoritarian leftists.  The majority of those are Democrats, and the majority of the rest vote for Democrats.  I don't see the relevance, which is why I wasn't addressing it.  But there is nothing liberal about the modern "left," not at all.  You are all about removing choice.  Like in this discussion.  Where you are harping on your socialism again.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its immediately relevant. As if by the 'left', you're speaking of some government that's going to be starkly different than if by the 'left', you're speaking of some private citizens who complained or boycotted a business.
> 
> The former has to do with legal rights. The latter, private consequence for statements or actions. Which has nothing to do with legal rights.
> 
> So.... And who is the 'left' in your post above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you claiming Christians want to treat them as "Special?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government, through PA laws. With Christians to be given special exemptions from generally applicable laws of commerce forbidding discrimination.
> 
> So, for the third time..... who is the 'left' in your post above? If you don't know, just say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As always:
> 
> #1:  Again with the socialism.  Move on, you are a one trick pony.  Every discussion doesn't need to turn into your views that government will solve all problems.  Every discussion does not need to be about your socialist ideology.
> 
> #2:  You didn't show Christians want to be the only ones exempted from those laws, everything I've seen is they want "religion" exempted.  Show where they only want Christians exempted, which was your claim.
> 
> #3:  The true left are libertarians, we are classic liberals.  The modern left are authoritarian leftists.  The majority of those are Democrats, and the majority of the rest vote for Democrats.  I don't see the relevance, which is why I wasn't addressing it.
Click to expand...



So can't tell us who the 'left' is in your criticism of Christians being treated unfairly by 'the left'. When you can, talk to us.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you.  Jim Crow ... laws ... were government.  Didn't know that, did you?
> 
> Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do _anything_" is just not a constructive argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in response to government forcing people to do business with gays, you brought up that government forced people to not do business with blacks as a rebuttal.  My pointing out that is government both time is irrelevant.  Got it.  Liberals trying to do logic always cracks me up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, its not. The States have authority over Intra-state commerce. Its reasonable and within their authority to establish minimum standards of conduct for those engaged in commerce. Namely, that those conducting commerce with the public within their state treat their customers fairly and equally.
> 
> The State can and does fine them if they violate these minimum standards.
Click to expand...


That doesn't contradict what I said.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> Notice how you don't actually disagree with me on the authority granted the States over intrastate commerce. The State's authority is immediately relevant to the issue, contrary to your claims otherwise.



I didn't disagree because the Constitution doesn't prevent them from doing that.



Skylar said:


> Notice how you don't actually disagree with me on it being reasonable for the State to establish minimum standards of conduct in business.


Bull, everything I said contradicts your socialist views on that.  



Skylar said:


> Its both reasonable and quite legal for the States to set up PA laws. And to fine those who violate them.


Begging the question


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you.  Jim Crow ... laws ... were government.  Didn't know that, did you?
> 
> Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do _anything_" is just not a constructive argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in response to government forcing people to do business with gays, you brought up that government forced people to not do business with blacks as a rebuttal.  My pointing out that is government both time is irrelevant.  Got it.  Liberals trying to do logic always cracks me up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, its not. The States have authority over Intra-state commerce. Its reasonable and within their authority to establish minimum standards of conduct for those engaged in commerce. Namely, that those conducting commerce with the public within their state treat their customers fairly and equally.
> 
> The State can and does fine them if they violate these minimum standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't contradict what I said.
Click to expand...


You said the State was irrelevant to the issue. You're wrong. Given that the State has both the authority and a rational reason to apply that authority, PA laws are immediately relevant. As the fines applied to businesses that violate the PA laws demonstrate.

Its both reasonable and legal for the States to mandate minimum standards of fairness and equality from those who are conducting business with the public.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racial discrimination is prohibited.  Lifestyle discrimination is not when it comes to marriage.  Read the Constitution. .
Click to expand...


Hmmm nowhere in the Constitution does it say that racial discrimination is prohibited. The Constitution does prohibit governmental discrimination based upon race- but not private discrimination. 

Once again- you just make stuff up.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its immediately relevant. As if by the 'left', you're speaking of some government that's going to be starkly different than if by the 'left', you're speaking of some private citizens who complained or boycotted a business.
> 
> The former has to do with legal rights. The latter, private consequence for statements or actions. Which has nothing to do with legal rights.
> 
> So.... And who is the 'left' in your post above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you claiming Christians want to treat them as "Special?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government, through PA laws. With Christians to be given special exemptions from generally applicable laws of commerce forbidding discrimination.
> 
> So, for the third time..... who is the 'left' in your post above? If you don't know, just say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As always:
> 
> #1:  Again with the socialism.  Move on, you are a one trick pony.  Every discussion doesn't need to turn into your views that government will solve all problems.  Every discussion does not need to be about your socialist ideology.
> 
> #2:  You didn't show Christians want to be the only ones exempted from those laws, everything I've seen is they want "religion" exempted.  Show where they only want Christians exempted, which was your claim.
> 
> #3:  The true left are libertarians, we are classic liberals.  The modern left are authoritarian leftists.  The majority of those are Democrats, and the majority of the rest vote for Democrats.  I don't see the relevance, which is why I wasn't addressing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So can't tell us who the 'left' is in your criticism of Christians being treated unfairly by 'the left'. When you can, talk to us.
Click to expand...


LOL, "us."  Yes, little girl, there is an army of people behind you that you speak for.  They are reading every word, cheering you on and saying wow, Sylar is speaking for me.  I am part of his army.

Man up and speak for yourself.  That is so sad.

So you can't show any law despite your endless claims that Christians only want Christian exemptions, not religious exemptions.  When you can, get back to ... me.  The person and only person I speak for.  But I'm a man, that's all I need.


----------



## Syriusly

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If ever you actually want to stop feeling like you're in conflict with others, it's entirely in Christians' hands to end it. Just let other people live their fucking lives.
> 
> 
> 
> That goes for you too bro.  Stop forcing other people to participate in your cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is being forced to participate in anything.
> 
> Other than to follow the law.
> 
> If Citizen's of Pennsylvania don't like the law- then they can change it.
> Or if the business people feel like their rights are being violated- then just like gay couples who want to be able to legally marry each  other- they can file a lawsuit to overturn the law.
> 
> But the law treats all business owners the same- no special treatment just because they are Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's what some Christians are lamenting over. That they aren't being treated specially. That they are being treated like everyone else. Beagle has lamented about the prized position of Christianity over all other faiths in our nation's past. And describes the lack of the same today as an 'attack'.
> 
> Its not. Its called equality. Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull, you are full of shit.  I'm not even a Christian and clearly the left is not treating them the same.  Back this up with links.  I'm calling you out on your crap.
Click to expand...


Read Beagle's posts throughout this thread. And Silhouette's for that matter.

Public Accommodation laws apply to all business's regardless of the religion of the owner of the business.

Both Beagle and Silhouette argue that Christians do not/should not have to follow public accommodation laws.

But PA apply equally to everyone, regardless of their religion.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't contradict what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said the State was irrelevant to the issue. You're wrong
Click to expand...


I never said that.  Show me the quote you are referring to.



Skylar said:


> Given that the State has both the authority and a rational reason to apply that authority, PA laws are immediately relevant. As the fines applied to businesses that violate the PA laws demonstrate.
> 
> Its both reasonable and legal for the States to mandate minimum standards of fairness and equality from those who are conducting business with the public.


Begging the question.  And again, you're turning the discussion into your socialist ideology again, get off it, every discussion doesn't need to be about socialism as you insist on turning it into.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...No one is challenging such bans on the grounds that the States lack the authority to define marriage. They are challenging the bans on the grounds that such bans violate constitutional guarantees. *Every single federal ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans has done so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet none of them count because procedurally,
Click to expand...


They all count- that is why people in love are getting married, even though the haters don't want them to.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how you don't actually disagree with me on the authority granted the States over intrastate commerce. The State's authority is immediately relevant to the issue, contrary to your claims otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't disagree because the Constitution doesn't prevent them from doing that.
Click to expand...


So we're in agreement the States possess the authority over intra-state commerce sufficient to apply PA laws. Which throughly undermines your claim that the government was 'irrelevant'. 

Irrelevant is being unrelated to the subject matter being considered. And government is immediately related to it.



Skylar said:


> Notice how you don't actually disagree with me on it being reasonable for the State to establish minimum standards of conduct in business.


Bull, everything I said contradicts your socialist views on that.  
[/quote]

So you don't think PA laws should exist. Noted. However, your claim was that the government was irrelevant to the issue. And as both the existence of the laws, the authority, and their application demonstrate, government is immediately relevant to this issue. 



Skylar said:


> Its both reasonable and quite legal for the States to set up PA laws. And to fine those who violate them.


Begging the question[/QUOTE]

How is that 'begging the question'? I don't think you know how that fallacy works.


----------



## kaz

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If ever you actually want to stop feeling like you're in conflict with others, it's entirely in Christians' hands to end it. Just let other people live their fucking lives.
> 
> 
> 
> That goes for you too bro.  Stop forcing other people to participate in your cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is being forced to participate in anything.
> 
> Other than to follow the law.
> 
> If Citizen's of Pennsylvania don't like the law- then they can change it.
> Or if the business people feel like their rights are being violated- then just like gay couples who want to be able to legally marry each  other- they can file a lawsuit to overturn the law.
> 
> But the law treats all business owners the same- no special treatment just because they are Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's what some Christians are lamenting over. That they aren't being treated specially. That they are being treated like everyone else. Beagle has lamented about the prized position of Christianity over all other faiths in our nation's past. And describes the lack of the same today as an 'attack'.
> 
> Its not. Its called equality. Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull, you are full of shit.  I'm not even a Christian and clearly the left is not treating them the same.  Back this up with links.  I'm calling you out on your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read Beagle's posts throughout this thread. And Silhouette's for that matter.
> 
> Public Accommodation laws apply to all business's regardless of the religion of the owner of the business.
> 
> Both Beagle and Silhouette argue that Christians do not/should not have to follow public accommodation laws.
> 
> But PA apply equally to everyone, regardless of their religion.
Click to expand...




So based on two posters you claim that "Christians" want special treatment.  That's too funny.


----------



## Syriusly

kaz said:


> Government using force to compel it's citizens who they do or don't do business with is wrong.  It's a great point



Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then. 

But you are in a thread that starts from a premise that churches will be forced to accommodate homosexual marriages- what is your position on the topic?


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how you don't actually disagree with me on the authority granted the States over intrastate commerce. The State's authority is immediately relevant to the issue, contrary to your claims otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't disagree because the Constitution doesn't prevent them from doing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we're in agreement the States possess the authority over intra-state commerce sufficient to apply PA laws. Which throughly undermines your claim that the government was 'irrelevant'.
> 
> Irrelevant is being unrelated to the subject matter being considered. And government is immediately related to it.
Click to expand...


Strawman, I never said that.  And begging the question, I already asked you to show what you are referring to.  I never said government is "irrelevant" and i don't even know what you are talking about.  Then neither do you.



Skylar said:


> So you don't think PA laws should exist. Noted. However, your claim was that the government was irrelevant to the issue. And as both the existence of the laws, the authority, and their application demonstrate, government is immediately relevant to this issue.



Strawman



Skylar said:


> How is that 'begging the question'? I don't think you know how that fallacy works.



It's begging the question because you reasserted the point in question as truth.  If you don't know that's begging the question, you are the one who doesn't know how that fallacy works.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't contradict what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said the State was irrelevant to the issue. You're wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.  Show me the quote you are referring to.
Click to expand...


Do you deny making this statement?



> So in response to government forcing people to do business with gays, you brought up that government forced people to not do business with blacks as a rebuttal*. My pointing out that is government both time is irrelevant. *Got it. Liberals trying to do logic always cracks me up.
> 
> Kaz



*And you're wrong.* Government is immediately relevant. The State possesses the authority to make such laws. They have made such laws. They have applied such laws. 



Skylar said:


> Begging the question.  And again, you're turning the discussion into your socialist ideology again, get off it, every discussion doesn't need to be about socialism as you insist on turning it into.



You're simply interpreting anything you disagree with as 'socialist ideology'. As you do in every conversation. We're not discussing socialism. We're discussing churches being forced to accommodate gay weddings.

And again, you don't seem to understand what 'begging the question' is. It appears to be like your conception of socialism; merely a random pejorative you apply to what you don't like.


----------



## Syriusly

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> That goes for you too bro.  Stop forcing other people to participate in your cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is being forced to participate in anything.
> 
> Other than to follow the law.
> 
> If Citizen's of Pennsylvania don't like the law- then they can change it.
> Or if the business people feel like their rights are being violated- then just like gay couples who want to be able to legally marry each  other- they can file a lawsuit to overturn the law.
> 
> But the law treats all business owners the same- no special treatment just because they are Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's what some Christians are lamenting over. That they aren't being treated specially. That they are being treated like everyone else. Beagle has lamented about the prized position of Christianity over all other faiths in our nation's past. And describes the lack of the same today as an 'attack'.
> 
> Its not. Its called equality. Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull, you are full of shit.  I'm not even a Christian and clearly the left is not treating them the same.  Back this up with links.  I'm calling you out on your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read Beagle's posts throughout this thread. And Silhouette's for that matter.
> 
> Public Accommodation laws apply to all business's regardless of the religion of the owner of the business.
> 
> Both Beagle and Silhouette argue that Christians do not/should not have to follow public accommodation laws.
> 
> But PA apply equally to everyone, regardless of their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So based on two posters you claim that "Christians" want special treatment.  That's too funny.
Click to expand...


You really are a troll- aren't you?

Here is what the poster originally said

_And that's what *some Christians* are lamenting over._

Silhouette and Beagle= 'some Christians'


----------



## Syriusly

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its immediately relevant. As if by the 'left', you're speaking of some government that's going to be starkly different than if by the 'left', you're speaking of some private citizens who complained or boycotted a business.
> 
> The former has to do with legal rights. The latter, private consequence for statements or actions. Which has nothing to do with legal rights.
> 
> So.... And who is the 'left' in your post above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you claiming Christians want to treat them as "Special?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government, through PA laws. With Christians to be given special exemptions from generally applicable laws of commerce forbidding discrimination.
> 
> So, for the third time..... who is the 'left' in your post above? If you don't know, just say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As always:
> 
> #1:  Again with the socialism.  Move on, you are a one trick pony.  Every discussion doesn't need to turn into your views that government will solve all problems.  Every discussion does not need to be about your socialist ideology.
> 
> #2:  You didn't show Christians want to be the only ones exempted from those laws, everything I've seen is they want "religion" exempted.  Show where they only want Christians exempted, which was your claim.
> 
> #3:  The true left are libertarians, we are classic liberals.  The modern left are authoritarian leftists.  The majority of those are Democrats, and the majority of the rest vote for Democrats.  I don't see the relevance, which is why I wasn't addressing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So can't tell us who the 'left' is in your criticism of Christians being treated unfairly by 'the left'. When you can, talk to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, "us."  Yes, little girl, there is an army of people behind you that you speak for.  They are reading every word, cheering you on and saying wow, Sylar is speaking for me.  I am part of his army.
> 
> Man up and speak for yourself.  That is so sad.
> 
> So you can't show any law despite your endless claims that Christians only want Christian exemptions, not religious exemptions.  When you can, get back to ... me.  The person and only person I speak for.  But I'm a man, that's all I need.
Click to expand...


What a troll.


----------



## kaz

Syriusly said:


> Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.



The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment



Syriusly said:


> But you are in a thread that starts from a premise that churches will be forced to accommodate homosexual marriages- what is your position on the topic?



Obviously the State has no business forcing churches to do anything.  I like how when I respond to something you feel is off topic, you come to me and ignore what i was responding to.


----------



## Paperman299

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you.  Jim Crow ... laws ... were government.  Didn't know that, did you?
> 
> Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do _anything_" is just not a constructive argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kaz tries to turn any discussion into an anarchy discussion. Its his schtick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, moron, I'm not an anarchist.  Tell me again how liberals are smarter than conservatives because you're not all black and white like they are, LOL.  Here you go.
> 
> What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> And as I pointed out, you turn every discussion into a socialism discussion.  So explain how your advocating your consistent authoritarian leftist views in every discussion is OK but my discussing ... small ... government isn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, Paperman. Its the same schtick.
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said the State was irrelevant to the issue. You're wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that.  Show me the quote you are referring to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny making this statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in response to government forcing people to do business with gays, you brought up that government forced people to not do business with blacks as a rebuttal*. My pointing out that is government both time is irrelevant. *Got it. Liberals trying to do logic always cracks me up.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


OMG, you are illiterate.  I was pointing out YOU said that and mocking you for that.  Wow.  Liberals are so dumb you never even recognize when you are being mocked.  In your minds, you are always the smartest guy in the room.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in response to government forcing people to do business with gays, you brought up that government forced people to not do business with blacks as a rebuttal*. My pointing out that is government both time is irrelevant. *Got it. Liberals trying to do logic always cracks me up.
> 
> Kaz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And you're wrong.* Government is immediately relevant. The State possesses the authority to make such laws. They have made such laws. They have applied such laws.
Click to expand...


I'm not wrong, I didn't say government was irrelevant, you can't read.



Skylar said:


> You're simply interpreting anything you disagree with as 'socialist ideology'. As you do in every conversation. We're not discussing socialism. We're discussing churches being forced to accommodate gay weddings.
> 
> Ding, ding, ding!  I am a small government libertarian.  I argue in discussions we don't need government to do that and you hold me to a completely different standard than you do for yourself.  You always advocate government.  I usually oppose government.  The former is OK (to you), the latter is not.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman, I never said that.  And begging the question, I already asked you to show what you are referring to.  I never said government is "irrelevant" and i don't even know what you are talking about.  Then neither do you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except when you did:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in response to government forcing people to do business with gays, you brought up that government forced people to not do business with blacks as a rebuttal. *My pointing out that is government both time is irrelevant. *Got it. Liberals trying to do logic always cracks me up.
> 
> Kaz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a statement you made less than an hour again. It seems I'm better at quoting you than you are.
Click to expand...


Reading is your issue.

I didn't say that as my view, I said it in mocking your response to my statement.  You are seriously not a bright guy.  If you disagree with my view, that's fine, you can argue that.  But this is a case you can't read.  Go back to the original post and try reading it again.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Ding, ding, ding!  I am a small government libertarian.  I argue in discussions we don't need government to do that and you hold me to a completely different standard than you do for yourself.  You always advocate government.  I usually oppose government.  The former is OK (to you), the latter is not.



I argue that the State has every authority to make PA laws (which you don't dispute) and that its reasonable for the State to require minimum standards of fairness and equality of those conducting business with the public in the State.


----------



## kaz

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is being forced to participate in anything.
> 
> Other than to follow the law.
> 
> If Citizen's of Pennsylvania don't like the law- then they can change it.
> Or if the business people feel like their rights are being violated- then just like gay couples who want to be able to legally marry each  other- they can file a lawsuit to overturn the law.
> 
> But the law treats all business owners the same- no special treatment just because they are Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's what some Christians are lamenting over. That they aren't being treated specially. That they are being treated like everyone else. Beagle has lamented about the prized position of Christianity over all other faiths in our nation's past. And describes the lack of the same today as an 'attack'.
> 
> Its not. Its called equality. Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull, you are full of shit.  I'm not even a Christian and clearly the left is not treating them the same.  Back this up with links.  I'm calling you out on your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read Beagle's posts throughout this thread. And Silhouette's for that matter.
> 
> Public Accommodation laws apply to all business's regardless of the religion of the owner of the business.
> 
> Both Beagle and Silhouette argue that Christians do not/should not have to follow public accommodation laws.
> 
> But PA apply equally to everyone, regardless of their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So based on two posters you claim that "Christians" want special treatment.  That's too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a troll- aren't you?
> 
> Here is what the poster originally said
> 
> _And that's what *some Christians* are lamenting over._
> 
> Silhouette and Beagle= 'some Christians'
Click to expand...


You're the troll.  That is such a nit picking argument.  And your expectation I read 120 pages before I post is pathetic and a standard  you clearly don't apply to yourself or other liberals.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding, ding, ding!  I am a small government libertarian.  I argue in discussions we don't need government to do that and you hold me to a completely different standard than you do for yourself.  You always advocate government.  I usually oppose government.  The former is OK (to you), the latter is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I argue that the State has every authority to make PA laws (which you don't dispute)
Click to expand...


Correct



Skylar said:


> and that its reasonable for the State to require minimum standards of fairness and equality of those conducting business with the public in the State.



Yes, that's the discussion.  Maybe you can participate now that you're clear on the question.


----------



## Syriusly

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's what some Christians are lamenting over. That they aren't being treated specially. That they are being treated like everyone else. Beagle has lamented about the prized position of Christianity over all other faiths in our nation's past. And describes the lack of the same today as an 'attack'.
> 
> Its not. Its called equality. Get used to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull, you are full of shit.  I'm not even a Christian and clearly the left is not treating them the same.  Back this up with links.  I'm calling you out on your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read Beagle's posts throughout this thread. And Silhouette's for that matter.
> 
> Public Accommodation laws apply to all business's regardless of the religion of the owner of the business.
> 
> Both Beagle and Silhouette argue that Christians do not/should not have to follow public accommodation laws.
> 
> But PA apply equally to everyone, regardless of their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So based on two posters you claim that "Christians" want special treatment.  That's too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a troll- aren't you?
> 
> Here is what the poster originally said
> 
> _And that's what *some Christians* are lamenting over._
> 
> Silhouette and Beagle= 'some Christians'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the troll.  That is such a nit picking argument.  And your expectation I read 120 pages before I post is pathetic and a standard  you clearly don't apply to yourself or other liberals.
Click to expand...


You were the one who ignorantly jumped into a thread- and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

Like I said- you are a troll- you show up and want to derail a thread just because you just like picking crap fights over nothing.

You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda.


----------



## Syriusly

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said the State was irrelevant to the issue. You're wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that.  Show me the quote you are referring to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny making this statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in response to government forcing people to do business with gays, you brought up that government forced people to not do business with blacks as a rebuttal*. My pointing out that is government both time is irrelevant. *Got it. Liberals trying to do logic always cracks me up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, you are illiterate.  I was pointing out YOU said that and mocking you for that.  Wow.  Liberals are so dumb you never even recognize when you are being mocked.  In your minds, you are always the smartest guy in the room.
Click to expand...


What a troll.


----------



## Paperman299

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment
Click to expand...


Do you write for Ron Paul's newsletter?


----------



## Syriusly

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment
> .
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court clearly disagrees with you- having ruled in favor in cases regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act at least 4 times.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding, ding, ding!  I am a small government libertarian.  I argue in discussions we don't need government to do that and you hold me to a completely different standard than you do for yourself.  You always advocate government.  I usually oppose government.  The former is OK (to you), the latter is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I argue that the State has every authority to make PA laws (which you don't dispute)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that its reasonable for the State to require minimum standards of fairness and equality of those conducting business with the public in the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's the discussion.  Maybe you can participate now that you're clear on the question.
Click to expand...


Its essentially irrelevant to this discussion, as whether or not you believe they should exist doesn't change the fact that they do. What we're discussing now is the scope of such laws, fairness in application, civil law v. religious liberty, etc. 

If you want to have a discussion on whether or not PA laws should exist, start a thread.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> *You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda*.


 
Looks like another "flame war" has popped up!  Quick!  Lock the thread and disappear it so Syriusly and pals don't have to disappear pages one by one with the calculated tripe.  So much easier to disappear a thread than individual pages after all..

Where were we?  oh right, here:



Skylar said:


> ...No one is challenging such bans on the grounds that the States lack the authority to define marriage. They are challenging the bans on the grounds that such bans violate constitutional guarantees. *Every single federal ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans has done so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees...*


Yet none of them count because procedurally, lower courts may not overturn previous SCOTUS Findings, even in anticipation of different findings, unless SCOTUS does so itself. Windsor 2013 said states get to choose on gay marriage. It said so dozens of times. It even concluded within its own Opinion that gay marraige was only legal " in some states". In case there was any ambiguity how they were coming down on the side of states'-powers..

Oh well. If you read Sutton's decision, he discusses how the other lower courts are in violation of federal law. 6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb s Up to States Choice on Gay Marriage Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And:

A church is merely a congregation of individual christians. And as such, a church's individual components most certainly have been sued in attempts to force them to abdicate their faith in favor of promoting the LGBT cult values "in marriage". In fact, entire states' majorities have been sued and forced to abdicate their own democratic rule when it comes to setting paramaters for childrens' best formative environments.

Properly, hundreds of millions of people have been forced to swallow LGBT cult values that are repugnant to them...to adopt a repugnant lifestyle directly into ground-zero of their future citizens' (childrens') formative environment.

If you think for one minute that the congregation of indivdiual christans/voters will not be sued to accomodate "gay weddings" you are on drugs buddy..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Where were we?  oh right, here:



And as I said on page 676:



Silhouette said:


> Yet none of them count because procedurally, lower courts may not overturn previous SCOTUS Findings, even in anticipation of different findings, unless SCOTUS does so itself.



There is no previous SCOTUS ruling that found that gay marriage bans are constitutional. While there is the Windsor ruling that found that gay marriage bans cause immediate legal harm to both the same sex couple being denied marriage and to their children.

And a USSC ruling (Romer V. Evans) that have found that a law that strips protections from gays must have a valid reason and a compelling state interest. Neither of which has ever been found in gay marriage bans.

*As gay marriage in 36 of 50 states demonstrate, the lower court rulings most definitely count. *With the USSC preserving every single one of those rulings overturning gay marriage bans, without exception.

You can ignore this. You can't make us ignore this


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> LOL, "us."  Yes, little girl, there is an army of people behind you that you speak for.  They are reading every word, cheering you on and saying wow, Sylar is speaking for me.  I am part of his army.



By 'us', I mean everyone reading the thread. You can't define who you are talking about. And 'who' is immediately relevant. As government regulation would involve 'legal rights'. Private citizens disagreeing or boycotting wouldn't involve any.

And we're discussing legal rights.

When and if you can tell us who 'the left' is in your claim regarding legal rights, feel free.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like another "flame war" has popped up!  Quick!  Lock the thread and disappear it so Syriusly and pals don't have to disappear pages one by one with the calculated tripe.  So much easier to disappear a thread than individual pages after all..
> 
> Where were we?  oh right, here:
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...No one is challenging such bans on the grounds that the States lack the authority to define marriage. They are challenging the bans on the grounds that such bans violate constitutional guarantees. *Every single federal ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans has done so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet none of them count because procedurally,..
Click to expand...


Clearly they do since in all the states that those courts have ruled, same gender couples are getting married.


----------



## kaz

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull, you are full of shit.  I'm not even a Christian and clearly the left is not treating them the same.  Back this up with links.  I'm calling you out on your crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read Beagle's posts throughout this thread. And Silhouette's for that matter.
> 
> Public Accommodation laws apply to all business's regardless of the religion of the owner of the business.
> 
> Both Beagle and Silhouette argue that Christians do not/should not have to follow public accommodation laws.
> 
> But PA apply equally to everyone, regardless of their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So based on two posters you claim that "Christians" want special treatment.  That's too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a troll- aren't you?
> 
> Here is what the poster originally said
> 
> _And that's what *some Christians* are lamenting over._
> 
> Silhouette and Beagle= 'some Christians'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the troll.  That is such a nit picking argument.  And your expectation I read 120 pages before I post is pathetic and a standard  you clearly don't apply to yourself or other liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one who ignorantly jumped into a thread- and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.
> 
> Like I said- you are a troll- you show up and want to derail a thread just because you just like picking crap fights over nothing.
> 
> You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda.
Click to expand...


Questioning why government has to be involved in something is an "agenda."  Your assumption that government needs to fix every problem isn't.  Gotcha, thanks for that.


----------



## kaz

Paperman299 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you write for Ron Paul's newsletter?
Click to expand...


No, why?


----------



## kaz

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court clearly disagrees with you- having ruled in favor in cases regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act at least 4 times.
Click to expand...


We already know the Supreme Court knows nothing about the Constitution, they have demonstrated that repeatedly everywhere from that people are property to government can tell us what healthcare we can get and force us into a private contract with an insurance company.


----------



## Syriusly

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read Beagle's posts throughout this thread. And Silhouette's for that matter.
> 
> Public Accommodation laws apply to all business's regardless of the religion of the owner of the business.
> 
> Both Beagle and Silhouette argue that Christians do not/should not have to follow public accommodation laws.
> 
> But PA apply equally to everyone, regardless of their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So based on two posters you claim that "Christians" want special treatment.  That's too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a troll- aren't you?
> 
> Here is what the poster originally said
> 
> _And that's what *some Christians* are lamenting over._
> 
> Silhouette and Beagle= 'some Christians'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the troll.  That is such a nit picking argument.  And your expectation I read 120 pages before I post is pathetic and a standard  you clearly don't apply to yourself or other liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one who ignorantly jumped into a thread- and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.
> 
> Like I said- you are a troll- you show up and want to derail a thread just because you just like picking crap fights over nothing.
> 
> You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Questioning why government has to be involved in something is an "agenda."  Your assumption that government needs to fix every problem isn't.  Gotcha, thanks for that.
Click to expand...


Your ability to actually carry on a conversation is noted, along with trying to make every thread about your libertarian agenda.


----------



## Syriusly

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court clearly disagrees with you- having ruled in favor in cases regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act at least 4 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We already know the Supreme Court knows nothing about the Constitution.
Click to expand...


We- is that you- yourself and the voices in your head?


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding, ding, ding!  I am a small government libertarian.  I argue in discussions we don't need government to do that and you hold me to a completely different standard than you do for yourself.  You always advocate government.  I usually oppose government.  The former is OK (to you), the latter is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I argue that the State has every authority to make PA laws (which you don't dispute)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that its reasonable for the State to require minimum standards of fairness and equality of those conducting business with the public in the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's the discussion.  Maybe you can participate now that you're clear on the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its essentially irrelevant to this discussion, as whether or not you believe they should exist doesn't change the fact that they do. What we're discussing now is the scope of such laws, fairness in application, civil law v. religious liberty, etc.
> 
> If you want to have a discussion on whether or not PA laws should exist, start a thread.
Click to expand...


I responded to posts on PA laws.  Yet the only one you whine about is me.  LOL.  Of course you are.


----------



## Seawytch

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So based on two posters you claim that "Christians" want special treatment.  That's too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a troll- aren't you?
> 
> Here is what the poster originally said
> 
> _And that's what *some Christians* are lamenting over._
> 
> Silhouette and Beagle= 'some Christians'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the troll.  That is such a nit picking argument.  And your expectation I read 120 pages before I post is pathetic and a standard  you clearly don't apply to yourself or other liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one who ignorantly jumped into a thread- and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.
> 
> Like I said- you are a troll- you show up and want to derail a thread just because you just like picking crap fights over nothing.
> 
> You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Questioning why government has to be involved in something is an "agenda."  Your assumption that government needs to fix every problem isn't.  Gotcha, thanks for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ability to actually carry on a conversation is noted, along with trying to make every thread about your libertarian agenda.
Click to expand...


All the while being civilly married and enjoying the benefits....


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, "us."  Yes, little girl, there is an army of people behind you that you speak for.  They are reading every word, cheering you on and saying wow, Sylar is speaking for me.  I am part of his army.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By 'us', I mean everyone reading the thread. You can't define who you are talking about. And 'who' is immediately relevant. As government regulation would involve 'legal rights'. Private citizens disagreeing or boycotting wouldn't involve any.
> 
> And we're discussing legal rights.
> 
> When and if you can tell us who 'the left' is in your claim regarding legal rights, feel free.
Click to expand...


And you believe it's your right to speak for "everyone reading the thread?"  How did you get that power exactly?  As for me, I'm man enough to stand behind my own statements, I don't need imagined hordes of followers to justify what I said to believe it has value.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a troll- aren't you?
> 
> Here is what the poster originally said
> 
> _And that's what *some Christians* are lamenting over._
> 
> Silhouette and Beagle= 'some Christians'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the troll.  That is such a nit picking argument.  And your expectation I read 120 pages before I post is pathetic and a standard  you clearly don't apply to yourself or other liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one who ignorantly jumped into a thread- and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.
> 
> Like I said- you are a troll- you show up and want to derail a thread just because you just like picking crap fights over nothing.
> 
> You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Questioning why government has to be involved in something is an "agenda."  Your assumption that government needs to fix every problem isn't.  Gotcha, thanks for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ability to actually carry on a conversation is noted, along with trying to make every thread about your libertarian agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the while being civilly married and enjoying the benefits....
Click to expand...


Enjoying?  No, I don't, pretty clearly.


----------



## kaz

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So based on two posters you claim that "Christians" want special treatment.  That's too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a troll- aren't you?
> 
> Here is what the poster originally said
> 
> _And that's what *some Christians* are lamenting over._
> 
> Silhouette and Beagle= 'some Christians'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the troll.  That is such a nit picking argument.  And your expectation I read 120 pages before I post is pathetic and a standard  you clearly don't apply to yourself or other liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one who ignorantly jumped into a thread- and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.
> 
> Like I said- you are a troll- you show up and want to derail a thread just because you just like picking crap fights over nothing.
> 
> You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Questioning why government has to be involved in something is an "agenda."  Your assumption that government needs to fix every problem isn't.  Gotcha, thanks for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ability to actually carry on a conversation is noted, along with trying to make every thread about your libertarian agenda.
Click to expand...


So in any topic X.

You:  Government needs to solve that problem.

Kaz:  Why does government need to do that?

For me it's an agenda, for you it isn't.  You are Syriusly Stupid, that's an idiotic argument.


----------



## Seawytch

Paperman299 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you write for Ron Paul's newsletter?
Click to expand...


Rand has walked back his comments on the issue. There is no will to get rid of PA laws.

And shouldn't Libertarians be supporting states rights when it comes to PA laws?


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the troll.  That is such a nit picking argument.  And your expectation I read 120 pages before I post is pathetic and a standard  you clearly don't apply to yourself or other liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were the one who ignorantly jumped into a thread- and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.
> 
> Like I said- you are a troll- you show up and want to derail a thread just because you just like picking crap fights over nothing.
> 
> You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Questioning why government has to be involved in something is an "agenda."  Your assumption that government needs to fix every problem isn't.  Gotcha, thanks for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ability to actually carry on a conversation is noted, along with trying to make every thread about your libertarian agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the while being civilly married and enjoying the benefits....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enjoying?  No, I don't, pretty clearly.
Click to expand...


Right...sorry. Hates taking advantage of...but does it just the same.


----------



## kaz

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court clearly disagrees with you- having ruled in favor in cases regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act at least 4 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We already know the Supreme Court knows nothing about the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We- is that you- yourself and the voices in your head?
Click to expand...


LOL.  I didn't mean we in the same way, but that's a fair comment.

Sylar was referring to actual people in the thread and stating he speaks for all of them.

I was referring to those of us who grasp the Constitution in general.  I wasn't speaking for anyone


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were the one who ignorantly jumped into a thread- and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.
> 
> Like I said- you are a troll- you show up and want to derail a thread just because you just like picking crap fights over nothing.
> 
> You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Questioning why government has to be involved in something is an "agenda."  Your assumption that government needs to fix every problem isn't.  Gotcha, thanks for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ability to actually carry on a conversation is noted, along with trying to make every thread about your libertarian agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the while being civilly married and enjoying the benefits....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enjoying?  No, I don't, pretty clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...sorry. Hates taking advantage of...but does it just the same.
Click to expand...


Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married.  As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you write for Ron Paul's newsletter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rand has walked back his comments on the issue. There is no will to get rid of PA laws.
> 
> And shouldn't Libertarians be supporting states rights when it comes to PA laws?
Click to expand...


We support that the Federal government should stay out of it and that States should not implement them.   Explain the contradiction in that.  I don't get it.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Questioning why government has to be involved in something is an "agenda."  Your assumption that government needs to fix every problem isn't.  Gotcha, thanks for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ability to actually carry on a conversation is noted, along with trying to make every thread about your libertarian agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the while being civilly married and enjoying the benefits....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enjoying?  No, I don't, pretty clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...sorry. Hates taking advantage of...but does it just the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married.  As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.
Click to expand...


Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.

I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you write for Ron Paul's newsletter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rand has walked back his comments on the issue. There is no will to get rid of PA laws.
> 
> And shouldn't Libertarians be supporting states rights when it comes to PA laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We support that the Federal government should stay out of it and that States should not implement them.   Explain the contradiction in that.  I don't get it.
Click to expand...


But when they do, it's their state right, right?


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ability to actually carry on a conversation is noted, along with trying to make every thread about your libertarian agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the while being civilly married and enjoying the benefits....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enjoying?  No, I don't, pretty clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...sorry. Hates taking advantage of...but does it just the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married.  As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.
> 
> I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.
Click to expand...


You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her?  Wow, I didn't know that.  You are like my wife.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you write for Ron Paul's newsletter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rand has walked back his comments on the issue. There is no will to get rid of PA laws.
> 
> And shouldn't Libertarians be supporting states rights when it comes to PA laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We support that the Federal government should stay out of it and that States should not implement them.   Explain the contradiction in that.  I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But when they do, it's their state right, right?
Click to expand...


Simple concepts are so difficult to grasp for liberals.  I'll break it down more.

Federal government - They have no say either way in PA laws.  There is no Constitutional authority, therefore by the 10th amendment that power is prohibited to them.  The Federal government cannot require PA laws, it can also not restrict PA laws.  It cannot prevent States from implementing them.

State governments - They have the Constitutional authority by the 10th amendment to implement them or not to implement them.  I oppose them implementing them.

What you said is right, but you're still asking it as a question.  Have we connected yet?


----------



## Syriusly

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a troll- aren't you?
> 
> Here is what the poster originally said
> 
> _And that's what *some Christians* are lamenting over._
> 
> Silhouette and Beagle= 'some Christians'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the troll.  That is such a nit picking argument.  And your expectation I read 120 pages before I post is pathetic and a standard  you clearly don't apply to yourself or other liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one who ignorantly jumped into a thread- and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.
> 
> Like I said- you are a troll- you show up and want to derail a thread just because you just like picking crap fights over nothing.
> 
> You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Questioning why government has to be involved in something is an "agenda."  Your assumption that government needs to fix every problem isn't.  Gotcha, thanks for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ability to actually carry on a conversation is noted, along with trying to make every thread about your libertarian agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in any topic X.
> 
> You:  Government needs to solve that problem.
> 
> Kaz:  Why does government need to do that?
> 
> For me it's an agenda, for you it isn't.  You are Syriusly Stupid, that's an idiotic argument.
Click to expand...


Your ability to actually carry on a conversation is noted, along with trying to make every thread about your libertarian agenda


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding, ding, ding!  I am a small government libertarian.  I argue in discussions we don't need government to do that and you hold me to a completely different standard than you do for yourself.  You always advocate government.  I usually oppose government.  The former is OK (to you), the latter is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I argue that the State has every authority to make PA laws (which you don't dispute)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that its reasonable for the State to require minimum standards of fairness and equality of those conducting business with the public in the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's the discussion.  Maybe you can participate now that you're clear on the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its essentially irrelevant to this discussion, as whether or not you believe they should exist doesn't change the fact that they do. What we're discussing now is the scope of such laws, fairness in application, civil law v. religious liberty, etc.
> 
> If you want to have a discussion on whether or not PA laws should exist, start a thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I responded to posts on PA laws.  Yet the only one you whine about is me.  LOL.  Of course you are.
Click to expand...


The PA laws are. You can pretend that they aren't, or lament about they shouldn't be. But they are. 

Within that reality, I'd be happy to discuss PA laws with you. If all you want to do is discuss whether PA laws should exist, then start a thread of your own. Because this isn't it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kaz's wack libertarian system is a non starter.


----------



## Paperman299

Well soon the issue which spawned this fearmongering will be put to rest anyway (not that it will kill this thread):  US supreme court agrees to hear cases on right to same-sex marriage nationwide World news The Guardian


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the while being civilly married and enjoying the benefits....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoying?  No, I don't, pretty clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...sorry. Hates taking advantage of...but does it just the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married.  As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.
> 
> I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her?  Wow, I didn't know that.  You are like my wife.
Click to expand...


You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her. 

Gays marry for the same reasons you did.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you write for Ron Paul's newsletter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rand has walked back his comments on the issue. There is no will to get rid of PA laws.
> 
> And shouldn't Libertarians be supporting states rights when it comes to PA laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We support that the Federal government should stay out of it and that States should not implement them.   Explain the contradiction in that.  I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But when they do, it's their state right, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple concepts are so difficult to grasp for liberals.  I'll break it down more.
> 
> Federal government - They have no say either way in PA laws.  There is no Constitutional authority, therefore by the 10th amendment that power is prohibited to them.  The Federal government cannot require PA laws, it can also not restrict PA laws.  It cannot prevent States from implementing them.
> 
> State governments - They have the Constitutional authority by the 10th amendment to implement them or not to implement them.  I oppose them implementing them.
> 
> What you said is right, but you're still asking it as a question.  Have we connected yet?
Click to expand...


Everywhere they are implemented for gays, it's at the state and local level.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Paperman299 said:


> Well soon the issue which spawned this fearmongering will be put to rest anyway (not that it will kill this thread):  US supreme court agrees to hear cases on right to same-sex marriage nationwide World news The Guardian




Yes it will... and there will be much weeping and gnashin' of tooth.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well soon the issue which spawned this fearmongering will be put to rest anyway (not that it will kill this thread):  US supreme court agrees to hear cases on right to same-sex marriage nationwide World news The Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it will... and there will be much weeping and gnashin' of tooth.
Click to expand...


Possibly. The question is, by whom?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well soon the issue which spawned this fearmongering will be put to rest anyway (not that it will kill this thread):  US supreme court agrees to hear cases on right to same-sex marriage nationwide World news The Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it will... and there will be much weeping and gnashin' of tooth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Possibly. The question is, by whom?
Click to expand...


"tooth"... thus Leftists.


----------



## JakeStarkey

When the ruling comes down for Marriage Equality, I think Where will disappear.  He won't have the moral turpitude to stand up and take the heat.  His kind are and always have been moral cowards.,


----------



## Staidhup

Will the same apply to Mosques? The problem with the gay community is the gay community and their self righteous behavior.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well soon the issue which spawned this fearmongering will be put to rest anyway (not that it will kill this thread):  US supreme court agrees to hear cases on right to same-sex marriage nationwide World news The Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it will... and there will be much weeping and gnashin' of tooth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Possibly. The question is, by whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "tooth"... thus Leftists.
Click to expand...


We'll see. Things don't necessarily look good for your side of things though. The USSC has preserved every single ruling that overturns gay marriage bans.

But the one that doesn't.......they take up.


----------



## Skylar

Staidhup said:


> Will the same apply to Mosques? The problem with the gay community is the gay community and their self righteous behavior.



And by 'self righteous behavior', you mean demanding the same rights as everyone else?


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> And by 'self righteous behavior', you mean demanding the same rights as everyone else?


 
Nobody I  know of has "rights" to marry except under the structure that has always been known and synonymous with the word "marriage".  And that is a man marrying a woman.  Not a man marrying three or five women.  Not women marrying women.  Just, man/woman.  The word marriage cannot be used to describe anything society has not agreed it means.

Maybe gays and polygamists can be "hitched" or "melded" or "flobbygoosted"....but not "married"..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Nobody I  know of has "rights" to marry except under the structure that has always been known and synonymous with the word "marriage".



But you're hamstrung by the misconception that marriage isn't a right, citing only yourself. But your arbitrary declarations of personal opinion as fact don't have much meaning to the rest of us. And thus don't form the foundation of any reasonable argument. Marriage is a right in our system of law. That you disagree is irrelevant.



> And that is a man marrying a woman.



In 36 of 50 states marriage is also a man marrying a man. Or a woman marrying a woman. That you don't know any of them personally doesn't change this fact.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Staidhup said:


> Will the same apply to Mosques? The problem with the gay community is the gay community and their self righteous behavior.



Staidhup, the problem for you is, of course, mr. hypocrite, the far right social con Christians are getting what they deserve.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by 'self righteous behavior', you mean demanding the same rights as everyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody I  know of has "rights" to marry except under the structure that has always been known and synonymous with the word "marriage".  And that is a man marrying a woman.  Not a man marrying three or five women.  Not women marrying women.  Just, man/woman.  The word marriage cannot be used to describe anything society has not agreed it means.
> 
> Maybe gays and polygamists can be "hitched" or "melded" or "flobbygoosted"....but not "married"..
Click to expand...


Of course they have in the past, now, and in the future.

The only question is the imprimatur of the state approving marriage equality, and, guess what, Sil?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil and Where think they are authorities, and have no one else to cite now, they cite themselves.

What a giggle.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't we all looking forward to seeing Silhouette leading the campaign for the right of a person to marry themselves?  So that when he dies he can inherit his own estate!  And visit himself in the hospital!  And file a joint return with himself!  Hmmm wouldn't marrying yourself be an particularly odd version of homosexuality? Not just attracted to your own gender- but exclusively to yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly, aren't you the one who constantly keeps quoting Justice Kennedy's words that children currently being deprived of the benefits of marriage are in "immediate legal harm"?  You would discard those tens of millions in single parent households?  Why do you hate those kids?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said- we are all looking forward to your campaign for your right to marry yourself.
> 
> Unlike you- I am not arguing against the parents of any kids.
> 
> Unlike you- i am not arguing to deprive the children of gay parents the benefits of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like the Bible says, teach these little ones to sin, and it best that a person place a talent around their neck, and to SINK themselves to the bottom of the sea. It's going to be that bad for them come the judgement, so if they want to make their bed on that bed of nails then so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets talk about that one a little bit- shall we?
> 
> A Gay couple has children- but is not married. The 'sin' those children would be learning, I think you would say, is that homosexuality is okay, but those children would also be learning about 'adultery' in the same way(sex outside of marriage)
Click to expand...


Do not use words unless you know what they mean.  "Adultery" is NOT sex without marriage.



> A Gay couple has children- and then gets married- the children would then be observing only the 'sin' of homosexuality- but no longer adultery.
> 
> The only difference between the two is that in the second instance the children now have married parents. Why specifically are you opposed to that?



Please stop listening to the voices in your head, Silly.


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the case concerned black people, gay people, or people from a Renaissance faire is irrelevant.
> 
> a) You can't refuse to serve a type of people based on religious grounds
> 
> b) this has never come back to infringe on, specifically, the church's right to refuse to marry whoever they wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Windsor 2013 says states get to define which lifestyles may set examples for children.  They say overwhelmingly that that structure for the benefit of children must include representatives from both the childrens' genders, not just one.
> 
> A church is merely a congregation of individual christians.  And as such, a church's individual components most certainly have been sued in attempts to force them to abdicate their faith in favor of promoting the LGBT cult values "in marriage".  In fact, entire states' majorities have been sued and forced to abdicate their own democratic rule when it comes to setting paramaters for childrens' best formative environments.
> 
> Properly, hundreds of millions of people have been forced to swallow LGBT cult values that are repugnant to them...to adopt a repugnant lifestyle directly into ground-zero of their future citizens' (childrens') formative environment.
> 
> If you think for one minute that the congregation of indivdiual christans/voters will not be sued to accomodate "gay weddings" you are on drugs buddy..
Click to expand...


I wonder if the coming after marriage, was just another attempt to get at or after another Christian value, or it's belief system in which has long held definitions of what our traditions are or did mean to most of us within this nation ?   I wonder if it was just all in order to break the Christians down in this nation maybe one more level or notch in order that the Christians would not be as influential in either creating or promoting some long held American values for America or for the Americans any longer, and to get after it's core principles as they were once known within the nation by all for a many a year looking back at it all now  ?  

Yes there were fanatics always in every group in this nation, and there were huge mistakes made of course by the allowing of certain peoples to then infiltrate a group, and then to attempt to represent wrongfully the group or the Christian groups that allowed this to happen to them also, but I think that the core was always solid in the end, and the majority believed in that core in which led so many out of the wilderness when it was all said and done.  It created the peaceful nation in which we have here today, where we all have within reason the freedom to go and come as we please, and to live within reason as we please. Now as so many are choosing differently these days, and are going their own ways, will we find added peace and harmony or will it begin to crumble what had been built here over the hundreds of years now ? 

Could it be that Christians are being blamed for all the troubles or set backs in which the gay's and lesbians have experienced over the years ?  Is this held maybe within their minds ? Is it that the Christians have got to be broken down in order to remove the obstacles that stand in the way of them having total freedoms to bring their lifestyle or culture out completely into the main stream finally ? I mean it is out now, but how far will it all go as far as with the Christians remaining free to practice their faith in the public and/or even in their private lives I wonder ? Will Christians be able to still practice and teach their children what they teach them without being called out on it, and will they be told that they are wrong for teaching Christian beliefs, values, and principles unto their young and up and coming ? Will it all push Christians into hiding their teachings and values so that they won't be punished for them, and this when they come out into the public while having such beliefs and teachings held within their hearts ? Pandora's box holds many unknowns in all of this, so one has to look at the past events now in order to understand the future or to be cautious of the future as we all move forward in it.  

I mean the liberal media touts openly all the time their speakings about the *whites* *will soon be the minority in so many years in this nation*, as if that is a great thing when they say it, so could it be that the same sentiment is thought of when thinking about Christians also in this nation ? I mean hey the ones speaking this mess about the whites in that way, are doing so because they see the *whites* as a constant and future threat to people of brown color, and so in the heat of discussions this kind of speak by them comes out, but is it true ? Nope!  The only thing that is true in life's journey's for many is the culture clashes that can pop up, and this happens when one culture collides with another in a crowded way, so how do we keep the cultures happy in the nation or to speak in ways that brings peace always instead of turmoil and chaos in the nation ? It wasn't a problem before, because people mostly believed in the same things by a majority in which the nation was founded upon and had as it's core values & principles based upon. Being an American meant something to all, and they all figured out a way to live as one nation, under God, and with liberty and justice for all. So what happened ? 

Now does the government feel that through it's actions, that it is making this nation more compatible for all who live here or does it even know what it is doing when it deals with all these things now ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

A lot of voices in your head, Beagle.  The rest of America does not want to be like First Baptist or whatever you attend.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding, ding, ding!  I am a small government libertarian.  I argue in discussions we don't need government to do that and you hold me to a completely different standard than you do for yourself.  You always advocate government.  I usually oppose government.  The former is OK (to you), the latter is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I argue that the State has every authority to make PA laws (which you don't dispute)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that its reasonable for the State to require minimum standards of fairness and equality of those conducting business with the public in the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's the discussion.  Maybe you can participate now that you're clear on the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its essentially irrelevant to this discussion, as whether or not you believe they should exist doesn't change the fact that they do. What we're discussing now is the scope of such laws, fairness in application, civil law v. religious liberty, etc.
> 
> If you want to have a discussion on whether or not PA laws should exist, start a thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I responded to posts on PA laws.  Yet the only one you whine about is me.  LOL.  Of course you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA laws are. You can pretend that they aren't, or lament about they shouldn't be. But they are.
> 
> Within that reality, I'd be happy to discuss PA laws with you. If all you want to do is discuss whether PA laws should exist, then start a thread of your own. Because this isn't it.
Click to expand...


Your instructions on what I am and am not allowed to discuss are noted.  How do you get your head through doorways?


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoying?  No, I don't, pretty clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right...sorry. Hates taking advantage of...but does it just the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married.  As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.
> 
> I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her?  Wow, I didn't know that.  You are like my wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.
> 
> Gays marry for the same reasons you did.
Click to expand...


Because you weren't getting your partner out of her parent's house without a piece of paper?  Seriously?  I didn't know parents of gays were to adamant that you have a government marriage even when there isn't such a thing.  This is very educational.  So you only date conservative Republican Christians from the upper crust of a traditional Korean background who are OK with their kids being gay but not OK with them leaving the house without a piece of paper.

I have to tell you, I think you're full of shit.  I don't believe that.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you write for Ron Paul's newsletter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rand has walked back his comments on the issue. There is no will to get rid of PA laws.
> 
> And shouldn't Libertarians be supporting states rights when it comes to PA laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We support that the Federal government should stay out of it and that States should not implement them.   Explain the contradiction in that.  I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But when they do, it's their state right, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple concepts are so difficult to grasp for liberals.  I'll break it down more.
> 
> Federal government - They have no say either way in PA laws.  There is no Constitutional authority, therefore by the 10th amendment that power is prohibited to them.  The Federal government cannot require PA laws, it can also not restrict PA laws.  It cannot prevent States from implementing them.
> 
> State governments - They have the Constitutional authority by the 10th amendment to implement them or not to implement them.  I oppose them implementing them.
> 
> What you said is right, but you're still asking it as a question.  Have we connected yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everywhere they are implemented for gays, it's at the state and local level.
Click to expand...


And what is the relevance of that since I haven't mentioned the Federal government in my argument?  I am against PA laws. I keep getting asked by liberals about the Federal level.  I am not obsessed with one size fits all government like you are.  I am pro-choice, but I think the Feds should stay out of it.  I'm against the death penalty, but I think the feds should stay out of it.  I think drugs should be legal, but I think the feds should stay out of it.  I'm against PA laws, but I think the feds should stay out of it.  Believing in the 10th amendment doesn't mean I'm for or against a particular position on the issue.   I don't get your or Sylar or other liberal's obsession with that.


----------



## beagle9

Paperman299 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the case concerned black people, gay people, or people from a Renaissance faire is irrelevant.
> 
> a) You can't refuse to serve a type of people based on religious grounds
> 
> b) this has never come back to infringe on, specifically, the church's right to refuse to marry whoever they wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Windsor 2013 says states get to define which lifestyles may set examples for children.  They say overwhelmingly that that structure for the benefit of children must include representatives from both the childrens' genders, not just one.
> 
> A church is merely a congregation of individual christians.  And as such, a church's individual components most certainly have been sued in attempts to force them to abdicate their faith in favor of promoting the LGBT cult values "in marriage".  In fact, entire states' majorities have been sued and forced to abdicate their own democratic rule when it comes to setting paramaters for childrens' best formative environments.
> 
> Properly, hundreds of millions of people have been forced to swallow LGBT cult values that are repugnant to them...to adopt a repugnant lifestyle directly into ground-zero of their future citizens' (childrens') formative environment.
> 
> If you think for one minute that the congregation of indivdiual christans/voters will not be sued to accomodate "gay weddings" you are on drugs buddy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
Click to expand...

If all the groups now wanting something new in life, didn't have the black issue or arguments to attach their cause to, then they would be completely lost in life. Think about it...

The black issues were solved in America, and the wrong was realized in the SPECIFIC issues of discrimination against ones color or race, but it doesn't mean that it will apply to every issue that is brought up today. So don't feel bad if it didn't apply to your issue, because it might not, and if it doesn't then get over it right ?

Now everyone don't stop fighting for what you might believe in OK, because hey some in the past who thought they were right on something, well they were proved to be wrong on that something also. There could be a chance that some could be wrong today just as well. 

Now know this though, that somethings are just wrong in the eyes of many, and it could be a huge task or a huge up hill battle to get people to give in on an issue, so if people are up to the task then so be it, but don't wake up one morning to realize that maybe you were wrong, and that your whole life was wasted.trying to fight for something that was wrong, because sometimes that can happen also. The KKK found that out in concerns of discrimination against a persons race, because they ridiculously figured that a people could not have equality based upon their color, when we all know that there are some great black people within our midst, and they had proven themselves as able as anyone else was in life, and also to be as good as or as great as any citizens are within this nation.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoying?  No, I don't, pretty clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right...sorry. Hates taking advantage of...but does it just the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married.  As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.
> 
> I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her?  Wow, I didn't know that.  You are like my wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.
> 
> Gays marry for the same reasons you did.
Click to expand...


To produce a family through the natural procreative process?

I don't think so.


----------



## kaz

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right...sorry. Hates taking advantage of...but does it just the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married.  As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.
> 
> I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her?  Wow, I didn't know that.  You are like my wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.
> 
> Gays marry for the same reasons you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To produce a family through the natural procreative process?
> 
> I don't think so.
Click to expand...


That isn't why I got married.  At least not the government part of it.  I think government in marriage is irrelevant.

What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper.  I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.


----------



## Silhouette

kaz said:


> That isn't why I got married.  At least not the government part of it.  I think government in marriage is irrelevant.
> 
> What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper.  I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.


Plan B: If an orchestrated flame war doesn't work, begin discussing personal details of poster's lives; another thing the moderators forbid and that almost always succeeds in getting a thread shut down.

Y'all really don't like the poll results at the top of the page, do you?


----------



## kaz

Silhouette said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't why I got married.  At least not the government part of it.  I think government in marriage is irrelevant.
> 
> What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper.  I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.
> 
> 
> 
> Plan B: If an orchestrated flame war doesn't work, begin discussing personal details of poster's lives; another thing the moderators forbid and that almost always succeeds in getting a thread shut down.
> 
> Y'all really don't like the poll results at the top of the page, do you?
Click to expand...


All I said is why I got married.  How is that talking about anyone but me?  I find seawytch's claim she wants marriage for the same reason to be ridiculous, but I don't see how that's an attack on anyone either.  It's pretty much impossible to discuss marriage without indirectly referring to who we are married to.  But I don't see how any of it either way was critical in any way of the other's partner.  Maybe you can shed light on that.  This is a thread about gay marriage.  

As for you claim on the poll, again, don't get it.  I am against government marriage.  All I said was government has no part in it.  I was married by a minister to my wife.  That does matter to me.  So obviously I voted with the majority on this.


----------



## Edgetho

I don't care where I go, what Board, what internet community, it doesn't matter....

A thread about queers breaks every single record ever set 

Every time.

Talk about boring.

That is all


----------



## Silhouette

Edgetho said:


> I don't care where I go, what Board, what internet community, it doesn't matter....
> 
> A thread about queers breaks every single record ever set
> 
> Every time.
> 
> Talk about boring.
> 
> That is all


 Well, the topic sure is popular I'll grant you that.  It isn't every day a deviant sex cult takes on christianity with the expressed intent to stamp its moral edicts out of existence...and wins in courts...

So yeah, it's popular.  Sorry the destruction of the Constitutional protections has you in such a state of boredom.  Thankfully while some like you sit on your ass, others are proactive keeping the principles and structure of decency preserved as best we can in this day and age..


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

kaz said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married.  As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.
> 
> I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her?  Wow, I didn't know that.  You are like my wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.
> 
> Gays marry for the same reasons you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To produce a family through the natural procreative process?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't why I got married.  At least not the government part of it.  I think government in marriage is irrelevant.
> 
> What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper.  I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.
Click to expand...


Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite.  I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time.  She said I was lying.  I cast pearls before swine.

If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right...sorry. Hates taking advantage of...but does it just the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married.  As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.
> 
> I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her?  Wow, I didn't know that.  You are like my wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.
> 
> Gays marry for the same reasons you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you weren't getting your partner out of her parent's house without a piece of paper?  Seriously?  I didn't know parents of gays were to adamant that you have a government marriage even when there isn't such a thing.  This is very educational.  So you only date conservative Republican Christians from the upper crust of a traditional Korean background who are OK with their kids being gay but not OK with them leaving the house without a piece of paper.
> 
> I have to tell you, I think you're full of shit.  I don't believe that.
Click to expand...


I do recall you saying that at the time you asked her to marry you, you wanted that "gubmit" marriage and that you came to your loathing of it later in life. Are you taking that back now? 

Gays marry for all the same reasons straights do. Let me know how your protests of city clerks offices are going.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rand has walked back his comments on the issue. There is no will to get rid of PA laws.
> 
> And shouldn't Libertarians be supporting states rights when it comes to PA laws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We support that the Federal government should stay out of it and that States should not implement them.   Explain the contradiction in that.  I don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But when they do, it's their state right, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple concepts are so difficult to grasp for liberals.  I'll break it down more.
> 
> Federal government - They have no say either way in PA laws.  There is no Constitutional authority, therefore by the 10th amendment that power is prohibited to them.  The Federal government cannot require PA laws, it can also not restrict PA laws.  It cannot prevent States from implementing them.
> 
> State governments - They have the Constitutional authority by the 10th amendment to implement them or not to implement them.  I oppose them implementing them.
> 
> What you said is right, but you're still asking it as a question.  Have we connected yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everywhere they are implemented for gays, it's at the state and local level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is the relevance of that since I haven't mentioned the Federal government in my argument?  I am against PA laws. I keep getting asked by liberals about the Federal level.  I am not obsessed with one size fits all government like you are.  I am pro-choice, but I think the Feds should stay out of it.  I'm against the death penalty, but I think the feds should stay out of it.  I think drugs should be legal, but I think the feds should stay out of it.  I'm against PA laws, but I think the feds should stay out of it.  Believing in the 10th amendment doesn't mean I'm for or against a particular position on the issue.   I don't get your or Sylar or other liberal's obsession with that.
Click to expand...



The Feds have been staying out of it for the gays. Christians get the Federal protections..you should concentrate on taking those away...leave the state and local level alone.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.
> 
> I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her?  Wow, I didn't know that.  You are like my wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.
> 
> Gays marry for the same reasons you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To produce a family through the natural procreative process?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't why I got married.  At least not the government part of it.  I think government in marriage is irrelevant.
> 
> What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper.  I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite.  I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time.  She said I was lying.  I cast pearls before swine.
> 
> If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.
Click to expand...


I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her?  Wow, I didn't know that.  You are like my wife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.
> 
> Gays marry for the same reasons you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To produce a family through the natural procreative process?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't why I got married.  At least not the government part of it.  I think government in marriage is irrelevant.
> 
> What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper.  I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite.  I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time.  She said I was lying.  I cast pearls before swine.
> 
> If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
Click to expand...


Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?


----------



## Silhouette

You and St. Mike had better drop the manufactured flame war or I'm reporting you...again...





Seawytch said:


> The Feds have been staying out of it for the gays. Christians get the Federal protections..you should concentrate on taking those away...leave the state and local level alone.


Don't worry, the LGBT cult has already been taking freedom of religion away from christians...they have the monopoly on that gig in the courts at the present time.

But then you and your fellow cult members will turn and assure the shocked public "don't worry, we won't come after churches next".  Guess what honey?  You already have.  You and yours have already forced christians to abdicate the core edicts of their faith to promote yours...


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Silhouette said:


> You and St. Mike had better drop the manufactured flame war or I'm reporting you...again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Feds have been staying out of it for the gays. Christians get the Federal protections..you should concentrate on taking those away...leave the state and local level alone.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, the LGBT cult has already been taking freedom of religion away from christians...they have the monopoly on that gig in the courts at the present time.
> 
> But then you and your fellow cult members will turn and assure the shocked public "don't worry, we won't come after churches next".  Guess what honey?  You already have.  You and yours have already forced christians to abdicate the core edicts of their faith to promote yours...
Click to expand...


Reporting me for what, you horse's ass?


----------



## Silhouette

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Reporting me for what, you horse's ass?


 
Well, like Paint said, "the right to bash gays" which he was arguing to defend here.  And that seems odd since a person rabidly defending gays like Paint always does wouldn't seem eager to encourage people's "right to bash gays".

You are playing a role.  I've called you out on it before.  Paint spilled the beans.  Your gig is up, the game is out in the open.  Run along before you get banned.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Silhouette said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reporting me for what, you horse's ass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, like Paint said, "the right to bash gays" which he was arguing to defend here.  And that seems odd since a person rabidly defending gays like Paint always does wouldn't seem eager to encourage people's "right to bash gays".
> 
> You are playing a role.  I've called you out on it before.  Paint spilled the beans.  Your gig is up, the game is out in the open.  Run along before you get banned.
Click to expand...


Paint?  I put that asshat on ignore when I first got here.  And you don't have the power to get me banned.  People are laughing at your stupid ass claiming that I'm secretly playing a role.  That can be said about anyone, and nobody wants to be the idiot who makes that claim...except you of course.

And since you're as much of a troll as Paint, I'm putting you on ignore too.

Life's too short.


----------



## Silhouette

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Paint?  I put that asshat on ignore when I first got here.  And you don't have the power to get me banned.  People are laughing at your stupid ass claiming that I'm secretly playing a role.  That can be said about anyone, and nobody wants to be the idiot who makes that claim...except you of course.
> 
> And since you're as much of a troll as Paint, I'm putting you on ignore too.
> 
> Life's too short.


 
Yep, that response is exactly NOT what I'd expect from an authentic conservative here to opine against gay marriage.

You folks are going to be suing churches the second any ink is dry on gaining the complete reworking of the structure of marriage as "a federally-enforced right".  Christians are nothing but congregations of individual christians.  Right St. Mike?  Don't you agree?


----------



## Silhouette

Sure got quiet all of a sudden...must be that thread on the teenager who is engaged to marry her biological father and then move to New Jersey where that's legal..


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Selling cake isn't promoting a customer. Its promoting cake. Ergo, the very premise of your argument is invalid and irrelevant.



How does one promote a wedding cake other than what it will be used for ?  If the cake baker ask the customer what it will be used for, and this in order to promote it in an artful way by designing it, topping it, and dressing it for a specific occasion, ((and the cake baker is a Christian)), then I ask how could he then bake and/or dress a cake for a gay wedding without being offended by that as a Christain ? He could probably sell a customer a plain cake that will be dressed out by someone else, but to engage in the dressing out of the cake himself, and this for a specific occasion is in my thoughts another situation altogether wouldn't you say ? Otherwise when it becomes personal as in a customized work goes, then people take it personally at that point. Would a person have the right to refuse the personalized work, but then sell a person a plain cake that could be dressed out by someone else ?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Selling cake isn't promoting a customer. Its promoting cake. Ergo, the very premise of your argument is invalid and irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does one promote a wedding cake other than what it will be used for ?  If the cake baker ask the customer what it will be used for, and this in order to promote it in an artful way by designing it, topping it, and dressing it for a specific occasion, ((and the cake baker is a Christian)), then I ask how could he then bake and/or dress a cake for a gay wedding without being offended by that as a Christain ? He could probably sell a customer a plain cake that will be dressed out by someone else, but to engage in the dressing out of the cake himself, and this for a specific occasion is in my thoughts another situation altogether wouldn't you say ? Otherwise when it becomes personal as in a customized work goes, then people take it personally at that point. Would a person have the right to refuse the personalized work, but then sell a person a plain cake that could be dressed out by someone else ?
Click to expand...


That's a good point.  Are we saying that a baker's artistic abilities are yolked into slave labor?  This proves more than anything how the Left doesn't just want equality, they want unmitigated intellectual and moral ascent to their agenda. They want us all converted heart, mind, and soul to their agenda.

But I think that Christians are now going to be smarter about turning down service to queer weddings.  They can say they're docket is full, they don't have the supplies, the culinary artist is on sick leave, etc....countless excuse rather than a direct confrontation.  I think Christians need to be smarter about exercising their beliefs while avoiding the wrath of the homosexual militia.  Oh, we should do everything in our power to give them a stinking idea that we're not doing it because they're gay, but not give them anything they can prove.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will the same apply to Mosques? The problem with the gay community is the gay community and their self righteous behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Staidhup, the problem for you is, of course, mr. hypocrite, the far right social con Christians are getting what they deserve.
Click to expand...


Oh yea, and what exactly is it that the Christians are getting in which you and others think that they deserve ? Now we are coming across the agenda folks, and hey look it isn't purdy is it ?


----------



## beagle9

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Selling cake isn't promoting a customer. Its promoting cake. Ergo, the very premise of your argument is invalid and irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does one promote a wedding cake other than what it will be used for ?  If the cake baker ask the customer what it will be used for, and this in order to promote it in an artful way by designing it, topping it, and dressing it for a specific occasion, ((and the cake baker is a Christian)), then I ask how could he then bake and/or dress a cake for a gay wedding without being offended by that as a Christain ? He could probably sell a customer a plain cake that will be dressed out by someone else, but to engage in the dressing out of the cake himself, and this for a specific occasion is in my thoughts another situation altogether wouldn't you say ? Otherwise when it becomes personal as in a customized work goes, then people take it personally at that point. Would a person have the right to refuse the personalized work, but then sell a person a plain cake that could be dressed out by someone else ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a good point.  *Are we saying that a baker's artistic abilities are yolked into slave labor?*  This proves more than anything how the Left doesn't just want equality, they want unmitigated intellectual and moral ascent to their agenda. They want us all converted heart, mind, and soul to their agenda.
> 
> But I think that Christians are now going to be smarter about turning down service to queer weddings.  They can say they're docket is full, they don't have the supplies, the culinary artist is on sick leave, etc....countless excuse rather than a direct confrontation.  I think Christians need to be smarter about exercising their beliefs while avoiding the wrath of the homosexual militia.  Oh, we should do everything in our power to give them a stinking idea that we're not doing it because they're gay, but not give them anything they can prove.
Click to expand...


Great point above, because this very well could be what it will all come down to in the end.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will the same apply to Mosques? The problem with the gay community is the gay community and their self righteous behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Staidhup, the problem for you is, of course, mr. hypocrite, the far right social con Christians are getting what they deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yea, and what exactly is it that the Christians are getting in which you and others think that they deserve ? Now we are coming across the agenda folks, and hey look it isn't purdy is it ?
Click to expand...


The far right reaction social con reactionaries do not run the "morals" of this country.

Don't like it?  No one really cares, son.


----------



## JakeStarkey

stmike's comment about "homosexual militia" reveals his mind is suffering from terminal dementia.  What a goofy!


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the case concerned black people, gay people, or people from a Renaissance faire is irrelevant.
> 
> a) You can't refuse to serve a type of people based on religious grounds
> 
> b) this has never come back to infringe on, specifically, the church's right to refuse to marry whoever they wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Windsor 2013 says states get to define which lifestyles may set examples for children.  They say overwhelmingly that that structure for the benefit of children must include representatives from both the childrens' genders, not just one.
> 
> A church is merely a congregation of individual christians.  And as such, a church's individual components most certainly have been sued in attempts to force them to abdicate their faith in favor of promoting the LGBT cult values "in marriage".  In fact, entire states' majorities have been sued and forced to abdicate their own democratic rule when it comes to setting paramaters for childrens' best formative environments.
> 
> Properly, hundreds of millions of people have been forced to swallow LGBT cult values that are repugnant to them...to adopt a repugnant lifestyle directly into ground-zero of their future citizens' (childrens') formative environment.
> 
> If you think for one minute that the congregation of indivdiual christans/voters will not be sued to accomodate "gay weddings" you are on drugs buddy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If all the groups now wanting something new in life, didn't have the black issue or arguments to attach their cause to, then they would be completely lost in life. Think about it...
> 
> The black issues were solved in America, and the wrong was realized in the SPECIFIC issues of discrimination against ones color or race, but it doesn't mean that it will apply to every issue that is brought up today. So don't feel bad if it didn't apply to your issue, because it might not, and if it doesn't then get over it right ?
> 
> Now everyone don't stop fighting for what you might believe in OK, because hey some in the past who thought they were right on something, well they were proved to be wrong on that something also. There could be a chance that some could be wrong today just as well.
> 
> Now know this though, that somethings are just wrong in the eyes of many, and it could be a huge task or a huge up hill battle to get people to give in on an issue, so if people are up to the task then so be it, but don't wake up one morning to realize that maybe you were wrong, and that your whole life was wasted.trying to fight for something that was wrong, because sometimes that can happen also. The KKK found that out in concerns of discrimination against a persons race, because they ridiculously figured that a people could not have equality based upon their color, when we all know that there are some great black people within our midst, and they had proven themselves as able as anyone else was in life, and also to be as good as or as great as any citizens are within this nation.
Click to expand...


First of all: the black issues were "solved?" Turn on the news.

Secondly, you're missing the point. You can't discriminate for _any reason. _Your religion is not grounds to refuse service to any type of people. Bronies, midgets, cosplayers, Juggalos. An-y-bo-dy. It's great that Christians (now) recognize that racism is wrong and that it's not (now) part of their religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean you can move on to discriminating against _other_ people. This "it's totally different this time" argument is ludicrous.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Staidhup, the problem for you is, of course, mr. hypocrite, the far right social con *Christians are getting what they deserve*.


 
Yep...It will be about one week after if SCOTUS removes states' rights (Windsor 2013) to regulate which lifestyles can be married that lawsuits will be filed against congregations of individual christians (churches) to force them to accomodate gay marriage...just like what was done to christian bakers and florists etc.

One week +/-


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nope, it won't.

We now have a Silly Trinity of Sil, stmike, and Where r my Keys.


----------



## Paperman299

kaz said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't why I got married.  At least not the government part of it.  I think government in marriage is irrelevant.
> 
> What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper.  I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.
> 
> 
> 
> Plan B: If an orchestrated flame war doesn't work, begin discussing personal details of poster's lives; another thing the moderators forbid and that almost always succeeds in getting a thread shut down.
> 
> Y'all really don't like the poll results at the top of the page, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I said is why I got married.  How is that talking about anyone but me?  I find seawytch's claim she wants marriage for the same reason to be ridiculous, but I don't see how that's an attack on anyone either.  It's pretty much impossible to discuss marriage without indirectly referring to who we are married to.  But I don't see how any of it either way was critical in any way of the other's partner.  Maybe you can shed light on that.  This is a thread about gay marriage.
> 
> As for you claim on the poll, again, don't get it.  I am against government marriage.  All I said was government has no part in it.  I was married by a minister to my wife.  That does matter to me.  So obviously I voted with the majority on this.
Click to expand...


Silhouette is convinced an increasing number of posters on this thread are part of a plan to get this thread taken down, because everyone seeing all the pro-equal marriage supporters voting against churches being forced to conduct same-sex religious weddings will somehow hurt our position.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will the same apply to Mosques? The problem with the gay community is the gay community and their self righteous behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Staidhup, the problem for you is, of course, mr. hypocrite, the far right social con Christians are getting what they deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yea, and what exactly is it that the Christians are getting in which you and others think that they deserve ? Now we are coming across the agenda folks, and hey look it isn't purdy is it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The far right reaction social con reactionaries do not run the "morals" of this country.
> 
> Don't like it?  No one really cares, son.
Click to expand...

Who runs the morals of this country then ? Any ideas or is it that you think the country shouldn't have any morals at all ? I think your ilk thinks the country shouldn't have any morals at all, because that way you can't be convicted in your conscience when you do bad things right ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

I do know that the far right social cons are the last ones in America to run the country's morals.  My conscience is much clearer than yours in morals and beliefs and life's actions, beagle; of that I have no doubt, if you want to get in a shoving match.

We are not the First Baptist United States.


----------



## beagle9

Paperman299 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the case concerned black people, gay people, or people from a Renaissance faire is irrelevant.
> 
> a) You can't refuse to serve a type of people based on religious grounds
> 
> b) this has never come back to infringe on, specifically, the church's right to refuse to marry whoever they wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Windsor 2013 says states get to define which lifestyles may set examples for children.  They say overwhelmingly that that structure for the benefit of children must include representatives from both the childrens' genders, not just one.
> 
> A church is merely a congregation of individual christians.  And as such, a church's individual components most certainly have been sued in attempts to force them to abdicate their faith in favor of promoting the LGBT cult values "in marriage".  In fact, entire states' majorities have been sued and forced to abdicate their own democratic rule when it comes to setting paramaters for childrens' best formative environments.
> 
> Properly, hundreds of millions of people have been forced to swallow LGBT cult values that are repugnant to them...to adopt a repugnant lifestyle directly into ground-zero of their future citizens' (childrens') formative environment.
> 
> If you think for one minute that the congregation of indivdiual christans/voters will not be sued to accomodate "gay weddings" you are on drugs buddy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If all the groups now wanting something new in life, didn't have the black issue or arguments to attach their cause to, then they would be completely lost in life. Think about it...
> 
> The black issues were solved in America, and the wrong was realized in the SPECIFIC issues of discrimination against ones color or race, but it doesn't mean that it will apply to every issue that is brought up today. So don't feel bad if it didn't apply to your issue, because it might not, and if it doesn't then get over it right ?
> 
> Now everyone don't stop fighting for what you might believe in OK, because hey some in the past who thought they were right on something, well they were proved to be wrong on that something also. There could be a chance that some could be wrong today just as well.
> 
> Now know this though, that somethings are just wrong in the eyes of many, and it could be a huge task or a huge up hill battle to get people to give in on an issue, so if people are up to the task then so be it, but don't wake up one morning to realize that maybe you were wrong, and that your whole life was wasted.trying to fight for something that was wrong, because sometimes that can happen also. The KKK found that out in concerns of discrimination against a persons race, because they ridiculously figured that a people could not have equality based upon their color, when we all know that there are some great black people within our midst, and they had proven themselves as able as anyone else was in life, and also to be as good as or as great as any citizens are within this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *First of all: the black issues were "solved?" Turn on the news.*
> 
> Secondly, you're missing the point. *You can't discriminate for any reason. *Your religion is not grounds to refuse service to any type of people. Bronies, midgets, cosplayers, Juggalos. An-y-bo-dy. It's great that Christians (now) recognize that racism is wrong and that it's not (now) part of their religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean you can move on to discriminating against _other_ people. This "it's totally different this time" argument is ludicrous.
Click to expand...


1. Yes they were solved, but who in America can help it if some of them or even if many of them didn't get the memo right ? There are blacks out there that don't want it solved, and it was evident in some of the news stories that you are probably referring to. Now just as you interpret the news, and then make statements like you make, well it tells me what exactly kind of feller that you are. It's that you like to play word or head games is what you like to do, but the problem for you is that you are so transparent.

2. Discrimination against someone or something can be viable if the reason for that discrimination is justified and is right when it happens. People do it all the time, and rightfully so yet all depending upon the circumstances or situation in which warrants such a reaction. Someone may interpret something as being discriminative against them, yet the shop owner saw the gun, club or whatever in the persons pants when he ask the person to leave because of the possible threat that might materialize or could very well exist in the situation. 

Otherwise if I see that trouble is fixing to come up and on to my property or even up into my place of business, and that trouble finds it's way in because of PA laws that tell me to let that person in until he or she reacts in a bad way, then how stupid was I that I listened to the government and got my butt shot off because the government says that I am suppose to put all my senses in check, and I am to allow the person to take action against me before I can take action against that person if they are a threat ? I mean that would be simply ludicrous for me to ignore the obvious and you know it. Many have got their butt's shot off because they were afraid to act before the person acted on them in a situation, and that is a shame and disgrace. 

You see the problem with the government telling people in a blanket sort of way what to do, is that they allow the devils in society to exploit that open door in which the government then gives by force unwittingly to those who are bad, just as well as they try to give the open door to those who are good in which is the intent of it all. The people at ground zero are the only ones who suffer because of government, and they are the only ones who can separate the two (bad from the good) by being keen as to who it is that they know they are dealing with, and then upon who it is that is going to do them harm in life. How many times has the cops arrived after the store or shop owner was killed ? Think about it...


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> I do know that the far right social cons are the last ones in America to run the country's morals.  My conscience is much clearer than yours in morals and beliefs and life's actions, beagle; of that I have no doubt, if you want to get in a shoving match.
> 
> We are not the First Baptist United States.


Like I ask who who runs the morals in the country then, do you have an answer ? I thought not...


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> I do know that the far right social cons are the last ones in America to run the country's morals.  My conscience is much clearer than yours in morals and beliefs and life's actions, beagle; of that I have no doubt, if you want to get in a shoving match.
> 
> We are not the First Baptist United States.


My conscience is clear, and I'm glad yours is to, now lets keep asking the good questions and getting to the answers then shall we ?


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the case concerned black people, gay people, or people from a Renaissance faire is irrelevant.
> 
> a) You can't refuse to serve a type of people based on religious grounds
> 
> b) this has never come back to infringe on, specifically, the church's right to refuse to marry whoever they wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Windsor 2013 says states get to define which lifestyles may set examples for children.  They say overwhelmingly that that structure for the benefit of children must include representatives from both the childrens' genders, not just one.
> 
> A church is merely a congregation of individual christians.  And as such, a church's individual components most certainly have been sued in attempts to force them to abdicate their faith in favor of promoting the LGBT cult values "in marriage".  In fact, entire states' majorities have been sued and forced to abdicate their own democratic rule when it comes to setting paramaters for childrens' best formative environments.
> 
> Properly, hundreds of millions of people have been forced to swallow LGBT cult values that are repugnant to them...to adopt a repugnant lifestyle directly into ground-zero of their future citizens' (childrens') formative environment.
> 
> If you think for one minute that the congregation of indivdiual christans/voters will not be sued to accomodate "gay weddings" you are on drugs buddy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If all the groups now wanting something new in life, didn't have the black issue or arguments to attach their cause to, then they would be completely lost in life. Think about it...
> 
> The black issues were solved in America, and the wrong was realized in the SPECIFIC issues of discrimination against ones color or race, but it doesn't mean that it will apply to every issue that is brought up today. So don't feel bad if it didn't apply to your issue, because it might not, and if it doesn't then get over it right ?
> 
> Now everyone don't stop fighting for what you might believe in OK, because hey some in the past who thought they were right on something, well they were proved to be wrong on that something also. There could be a chance that some could be wrong today just as well.
> 
> Now know this though, that somethings are just wrong in the eyes of many, and it could be a huge task or a huge up hill battle to get people to give in on an issue, so if people are up to the task then so be it, but don't wake up one morning to realize that maybe you were wrong, and that your whole life was wasted.trying to fight for something that was wrong, because sometimes that can happen also. The KKK found that out in concerns of discrimination against a persons race, because they ridiculously figured that a people could not have equality based upon their color, when we all know that there are some great black people within our midst, and they had proven themselves as able as anyone else was in life, and also to be as good as or as great as any citizens are within this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *First of all: the black issues were "solved?" Turn on the news.*
> 
> Secondly, you're missing the point. *You can't discriminate for any reason. *Your religion is not grounds to refuse service to any type of people. Bronies, midgets, cosplayers, Juggalos. An-y-bo-dy. It's great that Christians (now) recognize that racism is wrong and that it's not (now) part of their religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean you can move on to discriminating against _other_ people. This "it's totally different this time" argument is ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Yes they were solved, but who in America can help it if some of them or even if many of them didn't get the memo right ? There are blacks out there that don't want it solved, and it was evident in some of the news stories that you are probably referring to. Now just as you interpret the news, and then make statements like you make, well it tells me what exactly kind of feller that you are. It's that you like to play word or head games is what you like to do, but the problem for you is that you are so transparent.
> 
> 2. Discrimination against someone or something can be viable if the reason for that discrimination is justified and is right when it happens. People do it all the time, and rightfully so yet all depending upon the circumstances or situation in which warrants such a reaction. Someone may interpret something as being discriminative against them, yet the shop owner saw the gun, club or whatever in the persons pants when he ask the person to leave because of the possible threat that might materialize or could very well exist in the situation.
> 
> Otherwise if I see that trouble is fixing to come up and on to my property or even up into my place of business, and that trouble finds it's way in because of PA laws that tell me to let that person in until he or she reacts in a bad way, then how stupid was I that I listened to the government and got my butt shot off because the government says that I am suppose to put all my senses in check, and I am to allow the person to take action against me before I can take action against that person if they are a threat ? I mean that would be simply ludicrous for me to ignore the obvious and you know it. Many have got their butt's shot off because they were afraid to act before the person acted on them in a situation, and that is a shame and disgrace.
> 
> You see the problem with the government telling people in a blanket sort of way what to do, is that they allow the devils in society to exploit that open door in which the government then gives by force unwittingly to those who are bad, just as well as they try to give the open door to those who are good in which is the intent of it all. The people at ground zero are the only ones who suffer because of government, and they are the only ones who can separate the two (bad from the good) by being keen as to who it is that they know they are dealing with, and then upon who it is that is going to do them harm in life. How many times has the cops arrived after the store or shop owner was killed ? Think about it...
Click to expand...


1. In fact, I've been as transparent as possible from the beginning. So if something about me surprises you at this point, then that surprises me. Anyway, I'm not going to derail the thread trying to point out how horribly wrong you are on this entirely separate topic. 

2. Discrimination is not viable. What you are describing in your example is being attacked, and that you had to reach for such a dramatic and violent hypothetical should, like your liberal Illuminati theory, illustrate how weak your position is. Can you actually describe a type of person it's reasonable to discriminate against, instead of an intent you'd want to shield yourself from? Or is there a rash of violent gay robberies I've missed?

In fact, and I can't repeat this enough, gay people getting married doesn't affect you at all. It's the very opposite of being attacked! When same-sex marriages are legal in all 50 states, you will be completely fine. I promise.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.
> 
> Gays marry for the same reasons you did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To produce a family through the natural procreative process?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't why I got married.  At least not the government part of it.  I think government in marriage is irrelevant.
> 
> What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper.  I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite.  I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time.  She said I was lying.  I cast pearls before swine.
> 
> If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?
Click to expand...



Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.


----------



## kaz

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.
> 
> I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her?  Wow, I didn't know that.  You are like my wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.
> 
> Gays marry for the same reasons you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To produce a family through the natural procreative process?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't why I got married.  At least not the government part of it.  I think government in marriage is irrelevant.
> 
> What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper.  I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite.  I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time.  She said I was lying.  I cast pearls before swine.
> 
> If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.
Click to expand...


Yes, she gets in those moods.  When she gets bad I just start telling her to repent her sinful ways so she doesn't fry in hell.  Actually, I'm not a Christian and  have no issue with gays.  I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay.  My wife and I both have a good friend who is lesbian, and it's not the same person.  And I agree, being gay wouldn't affect my babysitting choice.  There are gays I wouldn't let sit for kids, but there are straights I wouldn't let sit for kids either.  That fact would be irrelevant.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married.  As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.
> 
> I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her?  Wow, I didn't know that.  You are like my wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.
> 
> Gays marry for the same reasons you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you weren't getting your partner out of her parent's house without a piece of paper?  Seriously?  I didn't know parents of gays were to adamant that you have a government marriage even when there isn't such a thing.  This is very educational.  So you only date conservative Republican Christians from the upper crust of a traditional Korean background who are OK with their kids being gay but not OK with them leaving the house without a piece of paper.
> 
> I have to tell you, I think you're full of shit.  I don't believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do recall you saying that at the time you asked her to marry you, you wanted that "gubmit" marriage and that you came to your loathing of it later in life. Are you taking that back now?
> 
> Gays marry for all the same reasons straights do. Let me know how your protests of city clerks offices are going.
Click to expand...


Bam!  You're starting to develop a long term memory.  You still can't state anything without overt bias, but what you said is actually based on what I said.  Let's hope that can hold.

I didn't actually say either of those strawmen though.  A

Seawytch: "I do recall you saying that at the time you asked her to marry you, you wanted that "gubmit" marriage"

- I said that I didn't question government in marriage at that time.  The reason I wanted it was the reasons I said, my wife wasn't going to marry me in the church or outside it without a government marriage.   The government in my marriage wasn't that important to me then either but I didn't question it then.  I was always pretty libertarian, but in the 80s I was really a conservative as for example I was pro-life, for the war on drugs and supported being in the middle east.  I always opposed morality laws.  That started changing as I read Atlas Shrugged and other Ayn Rand and libertarian writers and I started to question everything government did.  I am still against abortion, but I don't think it's government's job to do that, so politically I am pro-choice.  I oppose drugs, but I don't think it's government's job to do that and oppose the war on drugs.  I first voted Libertarian (for the party) in 96.     I said now I am against government in marriage, then I wasn't.  That isn't what your strawman asserted.

Seawytch:  "and that you came to your loathing of it later in life. Are you taking that back now? "

- No, I don't need to take back something I never said.  I said the government part is meaningless in my marriage to me and I think government should not be involved in marriage at all.  I support changing the law so the reasons it exists aren't necessary.  No one should pay a tax for dying, it's another redundant tax and it's for social policy not tax revenue.  Taxes should be flat.  Parentage should be determined by genes not paper.  What couples are agreeing to should be a contract between them, not a contract between them and their politician and bureaucrat.  Ironic since you get that with abortion decisions, LOL.

You use words like "loathing" because since you are such an angry person, you assume everyone else is angry too and see it even when it's not there.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We support that the Federal government should stay out of it and that States should not implement them.   Explain the contradiction in that.  I don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when they do, it's their state right, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple concepts are so difficult to grasp for liberals.  I'll break it down more.
> 
> Federal government - They have no say either way in PA laws.  There is no Constitutional authority, therefore by the 10th amendment that power is prohibited to them.  The Federal government cannot require PA laws, it can also not restrict PA laws.  It cannot prevent States from implementing them.
> 
> State governments - They have the Constitutional authority by the 10th amendment to implement them or not to implement them.  I oppose them implementing them.
> 
> What you said is right, but you're still asking it as a question.  Have we connected yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everywhere they are implemented for gays, it's at the state and local level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is the relevance of that since I haven't mentioned the Federal government in my argument?  I am against PA laws. I keep getting asked by liberals about the Federal level.  I am not obsessed with one size fits all government like you are.  I am pro-choice, but I think the Feds should stay out of it.  I'm against the death penalty, but I think the feds should stay out of it.  I think drugs should be legal, but I think the feds should stay out of it.  I'm against PA laws, but I think the feds should stay out of it.  Believing in the 10th amendment doesn't mean I'm for or against a particular position on the issue.   I don't get your or Sylar or other liberal's obsession with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Feds have been staying out of it for the gays. Christians get the Federal protections..you should concentrate on taking those away...leave the state and local level alone.
Click to expand...


LOL, liberals crack me up.  Sylar says I'm not allowed to question whether government should do something, only what government should do.  You say I'm allowed to have an opinion on the Federal level but not what States and local government's do.  You're both idiots, I don't know how to respond to that other than to let you know I'm going to pass on your instructions.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her?  Wow, I didn't know that.  You are like my wife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.
> 
> Gays marry for the same reasons you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To produce a family through the natural procreative process?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't why I got married.  At least not the government part of it.  I think government in marriage is irrelevant.
> 
> What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper.  I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite.  I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time.  She said I was lying.  I cast pearls before swine.
> 
> If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
Click to expand...


So being friends with a lesbian couple and having them babysit is the same as hating gays and condemning them to hell.  It's no "less."  LOL, liberals have no gray at all.  It cracks me up when you call Republicans black and white.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> To produce a family through the natural procreative process?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't why I got married.  At least not the government part of it.  I think government in marriage is irrelevant.
> 
> What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper.  I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite.  I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time.  She said I was lying.  I cast pearls before swine.
> 
> If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.
Click to expand...


The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Seawytch said:


> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.



Now everyone knows you're a liar.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> I do know that the far right social cons are the last ones in America to run the country's morals.  My conscience is much clearer than yours in morals and beliefs and life's actions, beagle; of that I have no doubt, if you want to get in a shoving match.


 
A shoving match...hmmm...wouldn't that get the thread shut down?  ..lol..

Yes Jake, you must be overwhelmed with how clear your conscience is lying to the general public as you are here, with your knowledge of legal ease and how precedents work, insisting that congregations of individual christians (churches) have nothing to fear being sued as individual christians have already received the whip of today.

"Oh, no!  The church of LGBT will draw the line at suing GROUPS of chrisitans...worry not!"

That is very very intellectually dishonest of you Jakey.  Not a clear conscience for you at all..


----------



## JakeStarkey

The intellectual dishonesty of Sil comes in part from not telling the truth and in part from suggesting "shoving match" used above is violent rhetoric.

Foolish Sil.  It is not such and Sil knows it, but is reduced to vague threats because the issue will be over in June.

Lying Sil.  Sil knows churches of all religions have nothing to fear from the impending ruling.  Sil's fear mongering reveals his terror that feels for what is coming.


----------



## beagle9

Paperman299 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Windsor 2013 says states get to define which lifestyles may set examples for children.  They say overwhelmingly that that structure for the benefit of children must include representatives from both the childrens' genders, not just one.
> 
> A church is merely a congregation of individual christians.  And as such, a church's individual components most certainly have been sued in attempts to force them to abdicate their faith in favor of promoting the LGBT cult values "in marriage".  In fact, entire states' majorities have been sued and forced to abdicate their own democratic rule when it comes to setting paramaters for childrens' best formative environments.
> 
> Properly, hundreds of millions of people have been forced to swallow LGBT cult values that are repugnant to them...to adopt a repugnant lifestyle directly into ground-zero of their future citizens' (childrens') formative environment.
> 
> If you think for one minute that the congregation of indivdiual christans/voters will not be sued to accomodate "gay weddings" you are on drugs buddy..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If all the groups now wanting something new in life, didn't have the black issue or arguments to attach their cause to, then they would be completely lost in life. Think about it...
> 
> The black issues were solved in America, and the wrong was realized in the SPECIFIC issues of discrimination against ones color or race, but it doesn't mean that it will apply to every issue that is brought up today. So don't feel bad if it didn't apply to your issue, because it might not, and if it doesn't then get over it right ?
> 
> Now everyone don't stop fighting for what you might believe in OK, because hey some in the past who thought they were right on something, well they were proved to be wrong on that something also. There could be a chance that some could be wrong today just as well.
> 
> Now know this though, that somethings are just wrong in the eyes of many, and it could be a huge task or a huge up hill battle to get people to give in on an issue, so if people are up to the task then so be it, but don't wake up one morning to realize that maybe you were wrong, and that your whole life was wasted.trying to fight for something that was wrong, because sometimes that can happen also. The KKK found that out in concerns of discrimination against a persons race, because they ridiculously figured that a people could not have equality based upon their color, when we all know that there are some great black people within our midst, and they had proven themselves as able as anyone else was in life, and also to be as good as or as great as any citizens are within this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *First of all: the black issues were "solved?" Turn on the news.*
> 
> Secondly, you're missing the point. *You can't discriminate for any reason. *Your religion is not grounds to refuse service to any type of people. Bronies, midgets, cosplayers, Juggalos. An-y-bo-dy. It's great that Christians (now) recognize that racism is wrong and that it's not (now) part of their religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean you can move on to discriminating against _other_ people. This "it's totally different this time" argument is ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Yes they were solved, but who in America can help it if some of them or even if many of them didn't get the memo right ? There are blacks out there that don't want it solved, and it was evident in some of the news stories that you are probably referring to. Now just as you interpret the news, and then make statements like you make, well it tells me what exactly kind of feller that you are. It's that you like to play word or head games is what you like to do, but the problem for you is that you are so transparent.
> 
> 2. Discrimination against someone or something can be viable if the reason for that discrimination is justified and is right when it happens. People do it all the time, and rightfully so yet all depending upon the circumstances or situation in which warrants such a reaction. Someone may interpret something as being discriminative against them, yet the shop owner saw the gun, club or whatever in the persons pants when he ask the person to leave because of the possible threat that might materialize or could very well exist in the situation.
> 
> Otherwise if I see that trouble is fixing to come up and on to my property or even up into my place of business, and that trouble finds it's way in because of PA laws that tell me to let that person in until he or she reacts in a bad way, then how stupid was I that I listened to the government and got my butt shot off because the government says that I am suppose to put all my senses in check, and I am to allow the person to take action against me before I can take action against that person if they are a threat ? I mean that would be simply ludicrous for me to ignore the obvious and you know it. Many have got their butt's shot off because they were afraid to act before the person acted on them in a situation, and that is a shame and disgrace.
> 
> You see the problem with the government telling people in a blanket sort of way what to do, is that they allow the devils in society to exploit that open door in which the government then gives by force unwittingly to those who are bad, just as well as they try to give the open door to those who are good in which is the intent of it all. The people at ground zero are the only ones who suffer because of government, and they are the only ones who can separate the two (bad from the good) by being keen as to who it is that they know they are dealing with, and then upon who it is that is going to do them harm in life. How many times has the cops arrived after the store or shop owner was killed ? Think about it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. In fact, I've been as transparent as possible from the beginning. So if something about me surprises you at this point, then that surprises me. Anyway, I'm not going to derail the thread trying to point out how horribly wrong you are on this entirely separate topic.
> 
> 2. Discrimination is not viable. What you are describing in your example is being attacked, and that you had to reach for such a dramatic and violent hypothetical should, like your liberal Illuminati theory, illustrate how weak your position is. Can you actually describe a type of person it's reasonable to discriminate against, instead of an intent you'd want to shield yourself from? Or is there a rash of violent gay robberies I've missed?
> 
> In fact, and I can't repeat this enough, gay people getting married doesn't affect you at all. It's the very opposite of being attacked! When same-sex marriages are legal in all 50 states, you will be completely fine. I promise.
Click to expand...

I can't believe that you took something that is said about a broader interpretation of discrimination on here, and somehow turned what I said towards the gay's. Kidding me right ? Sometimes we may veer off topic for a second or two in order to discuss an item or two that may or may not be related, but that doesn't mean that the item applies to the thread in the way that you tried to work it in that way. You people are as cunning as a snake and more poisonous than a green mamba I think.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> The intellectual dishonesty of Sil comes in part from not telling the truth and in part from suggesting "shoving match" used above is violent rhetoric.
> 
> Foolish Sil.  It is not such and Sil knows it, but is reduced to vague threats because the issue will be over in June.
> 
> Lying Sil.  Sil knows churches of all religions have nothing to fear from the impending ruling.  Sil's fear mongering reveals his terror that feels for what is coming.


Let me ask you something Jake.. When a person goes to Church to learn about sin and what the Bible says about that sin, and the Christians then leave the Church or place of teachings armed with the knowledge of sin, then how is that the Christian student is supposed to apply those teachings in their everyday lives in America now ? I mean when the Christians leave that Church does the learning that was taught to them end there ? Is it not allowed for them to come out into the public having the knowledge of sin in their understanding now, and also having the knowledge of what it does to a human being as it now resides within their hearts and minds these teachings ?  How are they to separate themselves freely from that sin when it is encountered by them where ever they might go in life ?

Are they discriminating against someone, when they are trying to separate themselves from the sin in which may be engulfing the person in which they would want to help all because of or would it be better for them to go on and attempt to get themselves away from that sin if they are rejected by the person who see's that sin as being OK in his or her life ? As the number grows in the acceptance of sin these days, is it safe to say that Christians territory in America will be shrinking by leaps and bounds now in America ? Will they survive it all or will *sin* win the day in the end against them and their beliefs in these things ?


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
> 
> 
> 
> If all the groups now wanting something new in life, didn't have the black issue or arguments to attach their cause to, then they would be completely lost in life. Think about it...
> 
> The black issues were solved in America, and the wrong was realized in the SPECIFIC issues of discrimination against ones color or race, but it doesn't mean that it will apply to every issue that is brought up today. So don't feel bad if it didn't apply to your issue, because it might not, and if it doesn't then get over it right ?
> 
> Now everyone don't stop fighting for what you might believe in OK, because hey some in the past who thought they were right on something, well they were proved to be wrong on that something also. There could be a chance that some could be wrong today just as well.
> 
> Now know this though, that somethings are just wrong in the eyes of many, and it could be a huge task or a huge up hill battle to get people to give in on an issue, so if people are up to the task then so be it, but don't wake up one morning to realize that maybe you were wrong, and that your whole life was wasted.trying to fight for something that was wrong, because sometimes that can happen also. The KKK found that out in concerns of discrimination against a persons race, because they ridiculously figured that a people could not have equality based upon their color, when we all know that there are some great black people within our midst, and they had proven themselves as able as anyone else was in life, and also to be as good as or as great as any citizens are within this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *First of all: the black issues were "solved?" Turn on the news.*
> 
> Secondly, you're missing the point. *You can't discriminate for any reason. *Your religion is not grounds to refuse service to any type of people. Bronies, midgets, cosplayers, Juggalos. An-y-bo-dy. It's great that Christians (now) recognize that racism is wrong and that it's not (now) part of their religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean you can move on to discriminating against _other_ people. This "it's totally different this time" argument is ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Yes they were solved, but who in America can help it if some of them or even if many of them didn't get the memo right ? There are blacks out there that don't want it solved, and it was evident in some of the news stories that you are probably referring to. Now just as you interpret the news, and then make statements like you make, well it tells me what exactly kind of feller that you are. It's that you like to play word or head games is what you like to do, but the problem for you is that you are so transparent.
> 
> 2. Discrimination against someone or something can be viable if the reason for that discrimination is justified and is right when it happens. People do it all the time, and rightfully so yet all depending upon the circumstances or situation in which warrants such a reaction. Someone may interpret something as being discriminative against them, yet the shop owner saw the gun, club or whatever in the persons pants when he ask the person to leave because of the possible threat that might materialize or could very well exist in the situation.
> 
> Otherwise if I see that trouble is fixing to come up and on to my property or even up into my place of business, and that trouble finds it's way in because of PA laws that tell me to let that person in until he or she reacts in a bad way, then how stupid was I that I listened to the government and got my butt shot off because the government says that I am suppose to put all my senses in check, and I am to allow the person to take action against me before I can take action against that person if they are a threat ? I mean that would be simply ludicrous for me to ignore the obvious and you know it. Many have got their butt's shot off because they were afraid to act before the person acted on them in a situation, and that is a shame and disgrace.
> 
> You see the problem with the government telling people in a blanket sort of way what to do, is that they allow the devils in society to exploit that open door in which the government then gives by force unwittingly to those who are bad, just as well as they try to give the open door to those who are good in which is the intent of it all. The people at ground zero are the only ones who suffer because of government, and they are the only ones who can separate the two (bad from the good) by being keen as to who it is that they know they are dealing with, and then upon who it is that is going to do them harm in life. How many times has the cops arrived after the store or shop owner was killed ? Think about it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. In fact, I've been as transparent as possible from the beginning. So if something about me surprises you at this point, then that surprises me. Anyway, I'm not going to derail the thread trying to point out how horribly wrong you are on this entirely separate topic.
> 
> 2. Discrimination is not viable. What you are describing in your example is being attacked, and that you had to reach for such a dramatic and violent hypothetical should, like your liberal Illuminati theory, illustrate how weak your position is. Can you actually describe a type of person it's reasonable to discriminate against, instead of an intent you'd want to shield yourself from? Or is there a rash of violent gay robberies I've missed?
> 
> In fact, and I can't repeat this enough, gay people getting married doesn't affect you at all. It's the very opposite of being attacked! When same-sex marriages are legal in all 50 states, you will be completely fine. I promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't believe that you took something that is said about a broader interpretation of discrimination on here, and somehow turned what I said towards the gay's. Kidding me right ? Sometimes we may veer off topic for a second or two in order to discuss an item or two that may or may not be related, but that doesn't mean that the item applies to the thread in the way that you tried to work it in that way. You people are as cunning as a snake and more poisonous than a green mamba I think.
Click to expand...


Everything I wrote after "Secondly" in that post was pertaining to discrimination against homosexuals. Those "_other_ people" I referenced were homosexuals. Since you numbered your post the same way, I assumed in my next reply that you had ordered your content the same way, and that all that you wrote in your #2 spot pertained to discrimination against homosexuals.

It's a misunderstanding. Bring it down a notch.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.
> 
> Gays marry for the same reasons you did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To produce a family through the natural procreative process?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't why I got married.  At least not the government part of it.  I think government in marriage is irrelevant.
> 
> What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper.  I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite.  I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time.  She said I was lying.  I cast pearls before swine.
> 
> If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So being friends with a lesbian couple and having them babysit is the same as hating gays and condemning them to hell.  It's no "less."  LOL, liberals have no gray at all.  It cracks me up when you call Republicans black and white.
Click to expand...



I didn't say that. I didn't say he hated gays and condemned them to hell. I said he was an anti gay bigot. An anti gay bigot is someone who opposes marriage equality for gays or wishes to discriminate against gays.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't why I got married.  At least not the government part of it.  I think government in marriage is irrelevant.
> 
> What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper.  I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite.  I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time.  She said I was lying.  I cast pearls before swine.
> 
> If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now everyone knows you're a liar.
Click to expand...


That doesn't support your claim that I called you a liar. I said that your story does not make you less of an anti gay bigot. It does not. You still wish to discriminate against gays and deny them equal access to civil marriage, yes? That is what makes you an anti gay bigot. Knowing and liking a gay couple does not negate your bigotry.


----------



## JakeStarkey

A Christian does not rely on the far right social con churches to tell him about sin, righteousness, and morality, for they a sink pit of depraved heresies that exalt a false interpretation of Jesus and His Will.

The Pharisees of our religious far right today are interested in controlling others, not their personal welfare or their salvation.

beagle, most American Christians simply don't accept your intepretations.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite.  I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time.  She said I was lying.  I cast pearls before swine.
> 
> If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now everyone knows you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't support your claim that I called you a liar. I said that your story does not make you less of an anti gay bigot. It does not. You still wish to discriminate against gays and deny them equal access to civil marriage, yes? That is what makes you an anti gay bigot. Knowing and liking a gay couple does not negate your bigotry.
Click to expand...


stmike is a bigot and liar both.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> To produce a family through the natural procreative process?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't why I got married.  At least not the government part of it.  I think government in marriage is irrelevant.
> 
> What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper.  I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite.  I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time.  She said I was lying.  I cast pearls before swine.
> 
> If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So being friends with a lesbian couple and having them babysit is the same as hating gays and condemning them to hell.  It's no "less."  LOL, liberals have no gray at all.  It cracks me up when you call Republicans black and white.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





Seawytch said:


> I didn't say that. I didn't say he hated gays and condemned them to hell.




Um...that isn't what I said.  Your reading comprehension skills are terrible.




Seawytch said:


> I said he was an anti gay bigot. An anti gay bigot is someone who opposes marriage equality for gays or wishes to discriminate against gays.



And you also said "your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.  Hence my point you didn't comprehend.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite.  I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time.  She said I was lying.  I cast pearls before swine.
> 
> If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now everyone knows you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't support your claim that I called you a liar. I said that your story does not make you less of an anti gay bigot. It does not. You still wish to discriminate against gays and deny them equal access to civil marriage, yes? That is what makes you an anti gay bigot. Knowing and liking a gay couple does not negate your bigotry.
Click to expand...


Wow, you seriously need to take remedial reading.  He did show you called him a liar.  Seriously, what is wrong with you?  I put it in green for you.  You clearly called him a liar.


----------



## kaz

JakeStarkey said:


> The Pharisees of our religious far right today are interested in controlling others, not their personal welfare or their salvation.



Yes, they are a lot like you liberals


----------



## Silhouette

Meanwhile back to the regularly scheduled topic... Read the logic for forcing a christian to abdicate her faith here. And remember, churches are nothing more than congregations of individual christians who have pledged every waking minute of their lives to their faith, not just on Sunday..



> A florist who reportedly refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding because of her religious beliefs is being sued by the Washington State Attorney General...Stutzman told Ingersoll she was unable to provide flowers for his wedding "because of [her] relationship with Jesus Christ," according to the complaint...At the time of the alleged denial, Stutzman was aware Ingersoll's "upcoming wedding for which he was seeking to purchase flowers would be to another man," the complaint stated..."The fact that Mr. Ingersoll, a gay man, was seeking to purchase flowers for his wedding to another man was a substantial factor in [Stutzman's] refusal to sell him flowers," the complaint said. Washington Florist Sued For Refusing to Provide Flowers For Same-Sex Wedding - ABC News


 


> A lesbian couple went to Sweet Cakes, a Gresham, Ore., bakery Jan. 17 to order their wedding cake, but said they were told the bakery didn't serve same-sex marriages...Aaron Klein, who owns Sweet Cakes with his wife, Melissa, told ABC News affiliate KATU-TV he was living in accordance with his religious beliefs when he refused to make the couple a wedding cake..."I honestly did not mean to hurt anybody, didn't mean to make anybody upset, [it's] just something I believe in very strongly," he said....*A complaint was filed with the Oregon Department of Justice; however a spokesman told ABCNews.com the couple said last month they planned to move the complaint to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries*.


 
Another company "Ace of Cakes" offered to bake the gay people a cake for free, but apparently this interfered with their plans to sue the christians and force them to abdicate their faith in favor of the Church of LGBT..



> "Ace of Cakes" star Duff Goldman heard about the plight of the brides-to-be and said he would bake them a wedding cake free of charge.


----------



## Paperman299

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't why I got married.  At least not the government part of it.  I think government in marriage is irrelevant.
> 
> What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper.  I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite.  I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time.  She said I was lying.  I cast pearls before swine.
> 
> If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now everyone knows you're a liar.
Click to expand...


This...this proves she *didn't* call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is *what she claimed she said*...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??


----------



## Silhouette

> - Christian photographers Elane Photography in New Mexico were approached by a same sex couple looking to hire a wedding photographer. Elane Photography politely declined citing their Christian faith and were sued by the couple under the state’s anti-discriminatory laws, and won. In New Mexico you apparently have no right to your free expression and practice of faith any longer Gay marriage incompatible with religious freedom Fox News


 
But don't worry, this is just individual christians...congregations of them are impervious to precedent..


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Meanwhile back to the regularly scheduled topic... Read the logic for forcing a christian to abdicate her faith here. And remember, churches are nothing more than congregations of individual christians who have pledged every waking minute of their lives to their faith, not just on Sunday..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A florist who reportedly refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding because of her religious beliefs is being sued by the Washington State Attorney General...Stutzman told Ingersoll she was unable to provide flowers for his wedding "because of [her] relationship with Jesus Christ," according to the complaint...At the time of the alleged denial, Stutzman was aware Ingersoll's "upcoming wedding for which he was seeking to purchase flowers would be to another man," the complaint stated..."The fact that Mr. Ingersoll, a gay man, was seeking to purchase flowers for his wedding to another man was a substantial factor in [Stutzman's] refusal to sell him flowers," the complaint said. Washington Florist Sued For Refusing to Provide Flowers For Same-Sex Wedding - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lesbian couple went to Sweet Cakes, a Gresham, Ore., bakery Jan. 17 to order their wedding cake, but said they were told the bakery didn't serve same-sex marriages...Aaron Klein, who owns Sweet Cakes with his wife, Melissa, told ABC News affiliate KATU-TV he was living in accordance with his religious beliefs when he refused to make the couple a wedding cake..."I honestly did not mean to hurt anybody, didn't mean to make anybody upset, [it's] just something I believe in very strongly," he said....*A complaint was filed with the Oregon Department of Justice; however a spokesman told ABCNews.com the couple said last month they planned to move the complaint to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another company "Ace of Cakes" offered to bake the gay people a cake for free, but apparently this interfered with their plans to sue the christians and force them to abdicate their faith in favor of the Church of LGBT..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Ace of Cakes" star Duff Goldman heard about the plight of the brides-to-be and said he would bake them a wedding cake free of charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So they chose to sit in at the lunch counter that wouldn't serve them. Good for them. 

Anyway, please show me an example of the government forcing a church to conduct an interracial ceremony. Find one instance in the USA where, say, a church was sued over the issue and lost, or where a church lost its tax-exempt status over not providing interracial religious wedding ceremonies. One example.


----------



## Silhouette

Paperman299 said:


> So they chose to sit in at the lunch counter that wouldn't serve them. Good for them.
> 
> Anyway, please show me an example of the government forcing a church to conduct an interracial ceremony. Find one instance in the USA where, say, a church was sued over the issue and lost, or where a church lost its tax-exempt status over not providing interracial religious wedding ceremonies. One example.


 
Oh, but lifestyles are in no way equivalent to race.  There is no Constitutional provision for either 1. Marriage guarantees or 2. Lifestyle guarantees if the public finds your lifestyle repugnant to the idea of raising children in our state-sanctioneed child-raising institution (marriage license and perks)

Two races marrying does not defy the structure of man/woman that is at the basement of the word "marriage".  You cannot dig deeper for reinterpretation.  And you most particularly may not do so arbitrarily, trying to plead the church of LGBT's case while pretending polygamists, incest and others will somehow be excluded.  That's false advertising.  Why do you abandon your legal cousins so readily?


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they chose to sit in at the lunch counter that wouldn't serve them. Good for them.
> 
> Anyway, please show me an example of the government forcing a church to conduct an interracial ceremony. Find one instance in the USA where, say, a church was sued over the issue and lost, or where a church lost its tax-exempt status over not providing interracial religious wedding ceremonies. One example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but lifestyles are in no way equivalent to race.  There is no Constitutional provision for either 1. Marriage guarantees or 2. Lifestyle guarantees if the public finds your lifestyle repugnant to the idea of raising children in our state-sanctioneed child-raising institution (marriage license and perks)
> 
> Two races marrying does not defy the structure of man/woman that is at the basement of the word "marriage".  You cannot dig deeper for reinterpretation.  And you most particularly may not do so arbitrarily, trying to plead the church of LGBT's case while pretending polygamists, incest and others will somehow be excluded.  That's false advertising.  Why do you abandon your legal cousins so readily?
Click to expand...


What does any of that matter? Once interracial marriage became law, by your logic, there was nothing to stop us cultist-liberals from forcing that kind of equality on churches. Yet in over forty years since the Loving v. Virginia decision, we haven't. 

It's not like there isn't racism to fight in this issue in the present day. 2009, a justice of the peace in Louisiana was forced to resign because he wouldn't marry an interracial couple. Surely that sort of racism is also present in pastors and priests across the country. But we haven't yet forced any interracial marriages on private churches. 

You've pointed out yourself that us liberals see no difference between homosexual and civil rights issues (though you think we're wrong on this). So why haven't we forced even one church to perform interracial weddings, in all this time? If it's definitely going to happen when same-sex marriages become legal, why didn't it happen for this?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Paperman299 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite.  I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time.  She said I was lying.  I cast pearls before swine.
> 
> If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now everyone knows you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This...this proves she *didn't* call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is *what she claimed she said*...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??
Click to expand...


That "him" is me and you have no clue what we were discussing unless you followed the link and read the exchange.  That's what happens when you jump in the middle of a conversation you know nothing about.


----------



## Silhouette

St Mike, you still trying to make the bad old poll results at the top go away by role-playing the thread derailer/gay basher?  If I was a moderator you'd have been packin' up ages ago..


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Oh, but lifestyles are in no way equivalent to race. There is no Constitutional provision for either 1. Marriage guarantees or 2. Lifestyle guarantees if the public finds your lifestyle repugnant to the idea of raising children in our state-sanctioneed child-raising institution (marriage license and perks)
> Two races marrying does not defy the structure of man/woman that is at the basement of the word "marriage". You cannot dig deeper for reinterpretation. And you most particularly may not do so arbitrarily, trying to plead the church of LGBT's case while pretending polygamists, incest and others will somehow be excluded. That's false advertising. Why do you abandon your legal cousins so readily?





Paperman299 said:


> What does any of that matter? Once interracial marriage became law, by your logic, there was nothing to stop us cultist-liberals from forcing that kind of equality on churches. Yet in over forty years since the Loving v. Virginia decision, we haven't...


What does it matter?  It matters because your premise on which you base all the rest of your "legal deductions" upon is fatally-flawed. Your premise is that "sexual lifestyles are equal to race in Constitutional consideration for protections"...and ..."therefore..."... All that follows "therefore.." in your deduction is completely inadmissable in this discussion. Sorry.


Your "we" have actually in fact sued churches to accomodate "gay weddings". Loving v Virgina ...? That wasn't about deviant sexual lifestyles. That was about race. Black people find this comparison extremely offensive BTW.

Your "we" have sued christian bakers, florist, photographers, restaurants and more, trying to force them to accomdate "gay weddings". A church is the same as an individual christian. They both represent the faith and the 1st Amedment right.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> St Mike, you still trying to make the bad old poll results at the top go away by role-playing the thread derailer/gay basher?  If I was a moderator you'd have been packin' up ages ago..


Stop trying to pass your trash onto us. St. Mike is a part of your anti-gay troupe of mummers. Sorry if that is inconvenient to your narrative and all.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite.  I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time.  She said I was lying.  I cast pearls before swine.
> 
> If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now everyone knows you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't support your claim that I called you a liar. I said that your story does not make you less of an anti gay bigot. It does not. You still wish to discriminate against gays and deny them equal access to civil marriage, yes? That is what makes you an anti gay bigot. Knowing and liking a gay couple does not negate your bigotry.
Click to expand...


Yes it does and now you're backpeddling on it.  Now you see why I have a policy of believing people when they tell me details about their lives on these discussion board.  It's a virtue to give people the benefit of the doubt unless there's strong reason to call it into question.


----------



## Silhouette

A premise gone awry...planned that way...

From: *Black Enterprise* online:

Gay Rights Are Not The Same As Civil Rights



> Growing up in St. Louis, there was no such thing or word as being gay (yes, I am sure they existed, but they definitely were not publicly known or out). So, *the gay community studied Blacks and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s and made a conscious decision to adopt—some would say hijack—the language of the Civil Rights community.*
> They went from *gay rights to Civil Rights*; from *gay marriage* to marriage equality. Anyone that knows anything about PR knows that marketing is all about language and communications....


 


> Civil Rights for Blacks was never about acceptance, but rather enforcement of the *U.S. Constitution*. The Constitution had already guaranteed us the very rights we were fighting for—right to vote, right to live anywhere, right to due process, etc. We were not seeking to create a special class of rights based on “choices” we voluntarily made (we were born Black—we did not choose to be Black). We did not choose to come to America nor did we choose to be slaves. So, our Civil Rights movement was about enforcement of the rights we were already guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, in my opinion, there can be no equating Blacks and Civil Rights with gays and special rights! So, for Obama, Sharpton, the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus *to equate gay rights with Civil Rights should be an insult not only to the Black community; but also to all who sacrificed for Blacks to gain the Civil Rights that Blacks were already due*.


 


> ..Gays understood that Americans would not support gay marriage, but who can be against “marriage equality?” What a brilliant PR move!
> Republicans need to do a better job of educating the American people that they are not against gay people; they are against “special rights” for gays. If Obama and the Democrats think gay rights is a civil right, then how can they at the same time say they will leave it up to the states to decide the issue? Huh?


----------



## JakeStarkey

stmike got caught yet again, and he will lie about it.

stmike and Sil are joined at the hip and thigh.

Christian churches will not be forced to marry LGBT.  There is not the slightest chance that such could happen.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but lifestyles are in no way equivalent to race. There is no Constitutional provision for either 1. Marriage guarantees or 2. Lifestyle guarantees if the public finds your lifestyle repugnant to the idea of raising children in our state-sanctioneed child-raising institution (marriage license and perks)
> Two races marrying does not defy the structure of man/woman that is at the basement of the word "marriage". You cannot dig deeper for reinterpretation. And you most particularly may not do so arbitrarily, trying to plead the church of LGBT's case while pretending polygamists, incest and others will somehow be excluded. That's false advertising. Why do you abandon your legal cousins so readily?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does any of that matter? Once interracial marriage became law, by your logic, there was nothing to stop us cultist-liberals from forcing that kind of equality on churches. Yet in over forty years since the Loving v. Virginia decision, we haven't...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it matter?  It matters because your premise on which you base all the rest of your "legal deductions" upon is fatally-flawed. Your premise is that "sexual lifestyles are equal to race in Constitutional consideration for protections"...and ..."therefore..."... All that follows "therefore.." in your deduction is completely inadmissable in this discussion. Sorry.
> 
> 
> Your "we" have actually in fact sued churches to accomodate "gay weddings". Loving v Virgina ...? That wasn't about deviant sexual lifestyles. That was about race. Black people find this comparison extremely offensive BTW.
> 
> Your "we" have sued christian bakers, florist, photographers, restaurants and more, trying to force them to accomdate "gay weddings". A church is the same as an individual christian. They both represent the faith and the 1st Amedment right.
Click to expand...


You've missed my point again. Try to think critically here. You claim that once equal marriage is the law of the land, that the "LGBT cultists" will force churches to perform same-sex weddings.

In 1967, Loving v. Virginia made interracial marriage the law of the land. The next step, by your own logic, was to force churches to perform interracial marriages. It never happened.

By your own thought process, civil rights is a much more legitimate movement than gay rights, and so it would be even more urgent to force racial equality into churches. But it has never happened. So my question is: why not? Why have we never forced churches to perform interracial marriages? Forget gay rights for a second. Why, when nearly everyone agrees that racism is wrong, have we still not made it law that churches must perform interracial ceremonies?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Paperman299 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but lifestyles are in no way equivalent to race. There is no Constitutional provision for either 1. Marriage guarantees or 2. Lifestyle guarantees if the public finds your lifestyle repugnant to the idea of raising children in our state-sanctioneed child-raising institution (marriage license and perks)
> Two races marrying does not defy the structure of man/woman that is at the basement of the word "marriage". You cannot dig deeper for reinterpretation. And you most particularly may not do so arbitrarily, trying to plead the church of LGBT's case while pretending polygamists, incest and others will somehow be excluded. That's false advertising. Why do you abandon your legal cousins so readily?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does any of that matter? Once interracial marriage became law, by your logic, there was nothing to stop us cultist-liberals from forcing that kind of equality on churches. Yet in over forty years since the Loving v. Virginia decision, we haven't...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it matter?  It matters because your premise on which you base all the rest of your "legal deductions" upon is fatally-flawed. Your premise is that "sexual lifestyles are equal to race in Constitutional consideration for protections"...and ..."therefore..."... All that follows "therefore.." in your deduction is completely inadmissable in this discussion. Sorry.
> 
> 
> Your "we" have actually in fact sued churches to accomodate "gay weddings". Loving v Virgina ...? That wasn't about deviant sexual lifestyles. That was about race. Black people find this comparison extremely offensive BTW.
> 
> Your "we" have sued christian bakers, florist, photographers, restaurants and more, trying to force them to accomdate "gay weddings". A church is the same as an individual christian. They both represent the faith and the 1st Amedment right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've missed my point again. Try to think critically here. You claim that once equal marriage is the law of the land, that the "LGBT cultists" will force churches to perform same-sex weddings.
> 
> In 1967, Loving v. Virginia made interracial marriage the law of the land. The next step, by your own logic, was to force churches to perform interracial marriages. It never happened.
> 
> By your own thought process, civil rights is a much more legitimate movement than gay rights, and so it would be even more urgent to force racial equality into churches. But it has never happened. So my question is: why not? Why have we never forced churches to perform interracial marriages? Forget gay rights for a second. Why, when nearly everyone agrees that racism is wrong, have we still not made it law that churches must perform interracial ceremonies?
Click to expand...



Bullshit. 

Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times


----------



## Silhouette

Paperman299 said:


> You've missed my point again. Try to think critically here. You claim that once equal marriage is the law of the land, that the "LGBT cultists" will force churches to perform same-sex weddings.
> 
> In 1967, Loving v. Virginia made interracial marriage the law of the land. The next step, by your own logic, was to force churches to perform interracial marriages. It never happened..


 
What does Loving v Virginia have to do with lifestyles forcing people to integrate them into marriage?  Wasn't Loving v Virginia about a black MAN wanting to marry a white WOMAN?

The structure of marriage was in no way harmed by granting them that right that already existed.  Gays want to create new rights in the Constitution that do not exist...protection of certain lifestyles that the majority finds repugnant.  They want to remove regulation of behaviors and dupe the SCOTUS into granting their lifestyle-cult legal-dominance over actual religions and democracy itself.

LGBT cultists HAVE ALREADY SUED CHRISTIANS.  Are you that dense?  A church is nothing more, and I mean literally nothing more in a judge's eye than a congregation of individual christians.  If the church is open to the public (which they all are), then within a week of the cult of LGBT gaining a federal club to force their dogma on other people legally, there will be a lawsuit filed against a church to accomodate a gay wedding within its halls. If it's open to the general public, they will be sued as a congregated group of individual christians.

Your assurance otherwise is flimsy, transparent and factually a lie.  Moreover made worse by the fact that you know it is a lie...


----------



## JakeStarkey

stmike and sil are running around in circles, hooting at the sun.

There is no chance churches of ANY religion will have to marry gays.


----------



## WorldWatcher

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times











The Hitching Post isn't a Church it was a for-profit business that at the time advertised for and perform non-religious Civil Ceremonies.

(They have since changed that business model and no fall under an exception to the City's anti-discrimination law.)



>>>>


----------



## kaz

Paperman299 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite.  I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time.  She said I was lying.  I cast pearls before swine.
> 
> If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now everyone knows you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This...this proves she *didn't* call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is *what she claimed she said*...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??
Click to expand...


So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've missed my point again. Try to think critically here. You claim that once equal marriage is the law of the land, that the "LGBT cultists" will force churches to perform same-sex weddings.
> 
> In 1967, Loving v. Virginia made interracial marriage the law of the land. The next step, by your own logic, was to force churches to perform interracial marriages. It never happened..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does Loving v Virginia have to do with lifestyles forcing people to integrate them into marriage?  Wasn't Loving v Virginia about a black MAN wanting to marry a white WOMAN?
> 
> The structure of marriage was in no way harmed by granting them that right that already existed.  Gays want to create new rights in the Constitution that do not exist...protection of certain lifestyles that the majority finds repugnant.  They want to remove regulation of behaviors and dupe the SCOTUS into granting their lifestyle-cult legal-dominance over actual religions and democracy itself.
> 
> LGBT cultists HAVE ALREADY SUED CHRISTIANS.  Are you that dense?  A church is nothing more, and I mean literally nothing more in a judge's eye than a congregation of individual christians.  If the church is open to the public (which they all are), then within a week of the cult of LGBT gaining a federal club to force their dogma on other people legally, there will be a lawsuit filed against a church to accomodate a gay wedding within its halls. If it's open to the general public, they will be sued as a congregated group of individual christians.
> 
> Your assurance otherwise is flimsy, transparent and factually a lie.  Moreover made worse by the fact that you know it is a lie...
Click to expand...


You keep tying my question to whether civil rights and gay rights are the same thing to you. Of course, you don't think so. We've established that. We've also established that I and many pro-marriage equality types do, and think gay rights deserve as much consideration as civil rights do, to the point of learning from techniques at that time and adapting them to the present struggle. So far, all I've done is describe viewpoints, and I don't think anything so far could cause disagreement.

Now, take another look at the paragraph from my last post that you (a bit tellingly, I think) left out your quote:

"By your own thought process, civil rights is a much more legitimate movement than gay rights, and so it would be even more urgent [to activists] to force racial equality into churches. But it has never happened. So my question is: why not? Why have we never forced churches to perform interracial marriages? *Forget gay rights for a second. Why, when nearly everyone agrees that racism is wrong, have we still not made it law that churches must perform interracial ceremonies?*"


----------



## Paperman299

kaz said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now everyone knows you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This...this proves she *didn't* call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is *what she claimed she said*...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?
Click to expand...


Oh my God, is THAT what has you guys so upset? Look, when a racist claims they have a "black best friend," no one doubts that the black person exists or that they have some kind of relationship. They just think, based on the racist's views, that they have exaggerated that relationship in their own mind. 

Maybe they're wrong! Maybe that racist has a real JD & Turk thing going on there. But based on their views, probably not. And there is an implied claim in the "I have a black best friend" statement that the racist has a certain level of insight into the black experience, which he most likely does not. 

Anyway, wow, point being, no one doubts you have gay people in your life somewhere. But it doesn't change the negative impact of your views on that type of person if you do. Get it?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

WorldWatcher said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hitching Post isn't a Church it was a for-profit business that at the time advertised for and perform non-religious Civil Ceremonies.
> 
> (They have since changed that business model and no fall under an exception to the City's anti-discrimination law.)
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

You missed the point.   The article isn't about a particular chapel, it's about the fact that Couer D_Alene is forcing pastors to marry gays even when it violates their religious beliefs.  We're talking about all churches and all pastors.  From the article you didn't read:

“On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined,” The Daily Signal reported. “The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and a $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.”

Read more: Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Paperman299 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now everyone knows you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This...this proves she *didn't* call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is *what she claimed she said*...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my God, is THAT what has you guys so upset? Look, when a racist claims they have a "black best friend," no one doubts that the black person exists or that they have some kind of relationship. They just think, based on the racist's views, that they have exaggerated that relationship in their own mind.
> 
> Maybe they're wrong! Maybe that racist has a real JD & Turk thing going on there. But based on their views, probably not. And there is an implied claim in the "I have a black best friend" statement that the racist has a certain level of insight into the black experience, which he most likely does not.
> 
> Anyway, wow, point being, no one doubts you have gay people in your life somewhere. But it doesn't change the negative impact of your views on that type of person if you do. Get it?
Click to expand...



Just a few of points....are we talking about real racists or people you Leftists call racist because they opt out of the political correctness game?

And another point, you failed to understand another viable option, that the friends we have don't buy into the political correctness crap.  Many blacks are very conservative Republican types that don't like how you on the racist Left use race hustling for political points.

Another point still is that you have no idea who you're talking to on the internet.  One look at me changes the context of everything I say because I'm Native American, not white.  But you people have an image in your mind of all races falling into appropriate slots in the political spectrum, gays included...

Which brings me to my final point, the women who are friends of mine and my wife's are a lesbian couple who are actually set to get married this summer now that it's legal.  But in most respects, they don't fit into the Leftist victim agenda because they hate LGBT as much as I do, don't like gays pushing their lifestyle in people's faces, and are outraged at hearing that gays are suing Christians for not providing services for their weddings.  They actually call them faggots.

One of them was a teacher of mine when I was in junior high school.  None of us ever knew she was gay because she didn't push it on us and she was the model of modesty, the kind that's lost in this country for both gays and straights.  It used to be that nobody spoke publicly about things that should be private, sex being one of them.  Most interfaces of society were G rated, whether we're talking about TV, radio, or just the way people talked to each other.  As an adult I pursued a continued friendship with this woman and found that she was gay and living with another woman.  It's not that she felt she had something to hide, but more that she didn't push things on us kids that should be none of our business.  

The pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.  We've gone from a love that dare not speak it's name to a love that won't STFU and demands that everyone accommodate it.  These ladies remind me that not all gays are like the faggots I encounter on sites like this.


----------



## beagle9

Paperman299 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but lifestyles are in no way equivalent to race. There is no Constitutional provision for either 1. Marriage guarantees or 2. Lifestyle guarantees if the public finds your lifestyle repugnant to the idea of raising children in our state-sanctioneed child-raising institution (marriage license and perks)
> Two races marrying does not defy the structure of man/woman that is at the basement of the word "marriage". You cannot dig deeper for reinterpretation. And you most particularly may not do so arbitrarily, trying to plead the church of LGBT's case while pretending polygamists, incest and others will somehow be excluded. That's false advertising. Why do you abandon your legal cousins so readily?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does any of that matter? Once interracial marriage became law, by your logic, there was nothing to stop us cultist-liberals from forcing that kind of equality on churches. Yet in over forty years since the Loving v. Virginia decision, we haven't...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it matter?  It matters because your premise on which you base all the rest of your "legal deductions" upon is fatally-flawed. Your premise is that "sexual lifestyles are equal to race in Constitutional consideration for protections"...and ..."therefore..."... All that follows "therefore.." in your deduction is completely inadmissable in this discussion. Sorry.
> 
> 
> Your "we" have actually in fact sued churches to accomodate "gay weddings". Loving v Virgina ...? That wasn't about deviant sexual lifestyles. That was about race. Black people find this comparison extremely offensive BTW.
> 
> Your "we" have sued christian bakers, florist, photographers, restaurants and more, trying to force them to accomdate "gay weddings". A church is the same as an individual christian. They both represent the faith and the 1st Amedment right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've missed my point again. Try to think critically here. You claim that once equal marriage is the law of the land, that the "LGBT cultists" will force churches to perform same-sex weddings.
> 
> In 1967, Loving v. Virginia made interracial marriage the law of the land. The next step, by your own logic, was to force churches to perform interracial marriages. It never happened.
> 
> By your own thought process, civil rights is a much more legitimate movement than gay rights, and so it would be even more urgent to force racial equality into churches. But it has never happened. So my question is: why not? Why have we never forced churches to perform interracial marriages? Forget gay rights for a second. Why, when nearly everyone agrees that racism is wrong, have we still not made it law that churches must perform interracial ceremonies?
Click to expand...



Didn't have to make it a law or a forced situation, because people made the needed corrections on their own, and they were self implemented by the people when it came to marriage between a man and a woman still, and this was regardless of their skin colors in life when doing so. 

Now Churches don't want to get into a situation where as they feel that the Christian religion is being used or made a mockery of by those who think that if they use the Church to justify something their up to, and all in order to make others look at their joining together as being a legitimate thing when it is not by their own doing, and yet they do this in the eyes of society but not in the eyes of God, well it won't last so why promote it or encourage it in that way at the Church level anyways right ?  Many times and later on down the line, the people find out that it was all a sham marriage, and that is not a good thing to learn, because it is all just a waist of time, and then a mockery of the Church services and more when this occurs.. 

When the marriage is found to be a huge mistake according to one or the other of the couples that are involved, and then it ends quickly afterwards, then this is why many Churches don't want to encourage marriages to much that involve wasting the Churches time and even the couples time when all is said and done in this way. Keep it simple and Godly is what the Churches want always.


----------



## beagle9

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hitching Post isn't a Church it was a for-profit business that at the time advertised for and perform non-religious Civil Ceremonies.
> 
> (They have since changed that business model and no fall under an exception to the City's anti-discrimination law.)
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You missed the point.   The article isn't about a particular chapel, it's about the fact that Couer D_Alene is forcing pastors to marry gays even when it violates their religious beliefs.  We're talking about all churches and all pastors.  From the article you didn't read:
> 
> “On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined,” The Daily Signal reported. “The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and a $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.”
> 
> Read more: Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times
> Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Click to expand...

WOW!


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> What does it matter?  It matters because your premise on which you base all the rest of your "legal deductions" upon is fatally-flawed.



You're not following his reasoning. You accept that race is a constitutional consideration for protection that is valid. And interracial marriage bans were clearly based in the religion of many who opposed it. This from the Virginia judge that convicted Richard and Mildred Loving:



> "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
> 
> Judge Leon Bazile



Yet despite what even you recognize as a valid legal basis for protection, not once in nearly 50 years has a church been forced to conduct an interracial marriage against its will.

*Not once.*

If your fear mongering regarding gay marriage and churches being forced to perform them had any logical or rational basis, then it would have been just as true for the last 50 years regarding interracial marriage. Perhaps more so, as even you recognize the basis of protection of race as being constitutionally grounded. And the courts certainly do.

Yet nothing. *Your standard of fear mongering has been tested against history. And it failed perfectly. *What you predicted would happen never has. Not once in nearly half a century. And you've presented absolutely nothing to indicate that it will.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Didn't have to make it a law or a forced situation, because people made the needed corrections on their own, and they were self implemented by the people when it came to marriage between a man and a woman still, and this was regardless of their skin colors in life when doing so.



The 'self correction' you're speaking of didn't reach majority proportions for 30 more years. It wasn't until the late 1990s when a majority of nation approved of the legality of interracial marriage. 

By those standard, *we've already there for gay marriage. With a solid majority favoring the legality of gay marriage already. *



> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> Nearly eight in 10 young adults favor gay marriage
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55



The people already 'self corrected'. Now the law simply needs to catch up.


----------



## dadsgm

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



No if it against their religious doctrine.  And any priest, bishop, minister, rabbi, etc should make the decision for his congregation.


----------



## Skylar

dadsgm said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No if it against their religious doctrine.  And any priest, bishop, minister, rabbi, etc should make the decision for his congregation.
Click to expand...


That's the perfect consensus in this thread. Not one poster has argued that a church should be forced to perform any wedding against their will.

What we have is a shit load of fear mongering from the right insisting that it will happen. Despite the fact that it never has....under any circumstance.


----------



## WorldWatcher

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> The article isn't about a particular chapel, it's about the fact that Couer D_Alene is forcing pastors to marry gays even when it violates their religious beliefs.




The City is doing no such thing, and it's been pointed out before so one can only assume you choose to perpetuate an untruth. 

In September/October The Hitching Post stopped performing Civil Ceremonies and restructured their business.  The City notified The Hitching Post on October 23rd that they are exempt from the law as long as they function as a religious corporation.

Hitching Post exempt - Coeur d Alene Press Local News



beagle9 said:


> WOW!



I agree, "Wow" people should catch up on a story if they are going to talk about it.



>>>>


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does it matter?  It matters because your premise on which you base all the rest of your "legal deductions" upon is fatally-flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not following his reasoning. You accept that race is a constitutional consideration for protection that is valid. And interracial marriage bans were clearly based in the religion of many who opposed it. This from the Virginia judge that convicted Richard and Mildred Loving:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
> 
> Judge Leon Bazile
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet despite what even you recognize as a valid legal basis for protection, not once in nearly 50 years has a church been forced to conduct an interracial marriage against its will.
> 
> *Not once.*
> 
> If your fear mongering regarding gay marriage and churches being forced to perform them had any logical or rational basis, then it would have been just as true for the last 50 years regarding interracial marriage. Perhaps more so, as even you recognize the basis of protection of race as being constitutionally grounded. And the courts certainly do.
> 
> Yet nothing. *Your standard of fear mongering has been tested against history. And it failed perfectly. *What you predicted would happen never has. Not once in nearly half a century. And you've presented absolutely nothing to indicate that it will.
Click to expand...


The past, the past, the past, is that all you all can bring up as an argument ?  How about bringing up the evidence of what is being experienced right now as in the present, and then it leading to the possibility of those things that can come soon or within the near future. Things change, and hey isn't that Obama's mantra "Hope and Change"?, so your premise of the years gone by didn't yield any results on certain things, doesn't mean squat that it can't change now, because it is changing now on a lot of things.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> The past, the past, the past, is that all you all can bring up as an argument ?



Because the past had all the elements you insist are an indication of churches being forced to perform marriages agaisnt their will.

And it never happened. Your 'indications' don't result in the outcome you assume. If they did, they would have.



> How about bringing up the evidence of what is being experienced right now as in the present, and then it leading to the possibility of those things that can come soon or within the near future. Things change, and hey isn't that Obama's mantra "Hope and Change"?, so your premise of the years gone by didn't yield any results on certain things, doesn't mean squat that it can't change now, because it is changing now on a lot of things.



Show us a single church being forced  perform a gay wedding. *There is none. *

Show us the PA laws that apply to churches. *There are none. *

Show us any significant public support for changing those laws to include churches. *There is none. *

Show us any credible legislation to change the PA laws. *There is none.*

You want to talk about the present indication of churches being forced to perform gay weddings?* There is none. *


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now everyone knows you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This...this proves she *didn't* call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is *what she claimed she said*...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?
Click to expand...



No, it wasn't. It's calling  him a bigot.


----------



## kaz

Paperman299 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now everyone knows you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This...this proves she *didn't* call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is *what she claimed she said*...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my God, is THAT what has you guys so upset? Look, when a racist claims they have a "black best friend," no one doubts that the black person exists or that they have some kind of relationship. They just think, based on the racist's views, that they have exaggerated that relationship in their own mind.
> 
> Maybe they're wrong! Maybe that racist has a real JD & Turk thing going on there. But based on their views, probably not. And there is an implied claim in the "I have a black best friend" statement that the racist has a certain level of insight into the black experience, which he most likely does not.
> 
> Anyway, wow, point being, no one doubts you have gay people in your life somewhere. But it doesn't change the negative impact of your views on that type of person if you do. Get it?
Click to expand...


Wow, I'm sorry I made you cry.  It's OK, guy, it's just an internet conversation.  Those are some serious tears.  Take deep breaths and calm down.  Here's a tissue.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't why I got married.  At least not the government part of it.  I think government in marriage is irrelevant.
> 
> What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper.  I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite.  I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time.  She said I was lying.  I cast pearls before swine.
> 
> If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So being friends with a lesbian couple and having them babysit is the same as hating gays and condemning them to hell.  It's no "less."  LOL, liberals have no gray at all.  It cracks me up when you call Republicans black and white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. I didn't say he hated gays and condemned them to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Um...that isn't what I said.  Your reading comprehension skills are terrible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said he was an anti gay bigot. An anti gay bigot is someone who opposes marriage equality for gays or wishes to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you also said "your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.  Hence my point you didn't comprehend.
Click to expand...


And it does not. I did not say I disbelieved his story, only that his story did not make him less of an anti gay bigot. Is that so difficult for you to understand?


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now everyone knows you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't support your claim that I called you a liar. I said that your story does not make you less of an anti gay bigot. It does not. You still wish to discriminate against gays and deny them equal access to civil marriage, yes? That is what makes you an anti gay bigot. Knowing and liking a gay couple does not negate your bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does and now you're backpeddling on it.  Now you see why I have a policy of believing people when they tell me details about their lives on these discussion board.  It's a virtue to give people the benefit of the doubt unless there's strong reason to call it into question.
Click to expand...


I've not backpeddled on anything. I called you a bigot not a liar. I never claimed your story wasn't true, only that it does not make you less of a bigot...which it does not.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now everyone knows you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This...this proves she *didn't* call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is *what she claimed she said*...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wasn't. It's calling  him a bigot.
Click to expand...


Liar


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now everyone knows you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This...this proves she *didn't* call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is *what she claimed she said*...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?
Click to expand...


Except I wasn't. Racists do often claim to have a black best friend. That does not mean that they don't, it just means that they are still racists. I never even implied his story wasn't true, only that it was irrelevant to whether he is an anti gay bigot or not. He clearly still is despite liking a couple of lesbians.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite.  I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time.  She said I was lying.  I cast pearls before swine.
> 
> If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So being friends with a lesbian couple and having them babysit is the same as hating gays and condemning them to hell.  It's no "less."  LOL, liberals have no gray at all.  It cracks me up when you call Republicans black and white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. I didn't say he hated gays and condemned them to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Um...that isn't what I said.  Your reading comprehension skills are terrible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said he was an anti gay bigot. An anti gay bigot is someone who opposes marriage equality for gays or wishes to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you also said "your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.  Hence my point you didn't comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it does not. I did not say I disbelieved his story, only that his story did not make him less of an anti gay bigot. Is that so difficult for you to understand?
Click to expand...


That isn't what it says and you know that.  You are a liar.  Let's move on.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So being friends with a lesbian couple and having them babysit is the same as hating gays and condemning them to hell.  It's no "less."  LOL, liberals have no gray at all.  It cracks me up when you call Republicans black and white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. I didn't say he hated gays and condemned them to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Um...that isn't what I said.  Your reading comprehension skills are terrible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said he was an anti gay bigot. An anti gay bigot is someone who opposes marriage equality for gays or wishes to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you also said "your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.  Hence my point you didn't comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it does not. I did not say I disbelieved his story, only that his story did not make him less of an anti gay bigot. Is that so difficult for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what it says and you know that.  You are a liar.  Let's move on.
Click to expand...


That's exactly what it says.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So being friends with a lesbian couple and having them babysit is the same as hating gays and condemning them to hell.  It's no "less."  LOL, liberals have no gray at all.  It cracks me up when you call Republicans black and white.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. I didn't say he hated gays and condemned them to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Um...that isn't what I said.  Your reading comprehension skills are terrible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said he was an anti gay bigot. An anti gay bigot is someone who opposes marriage equality for gays or wishes to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you also said "your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.  Hence my point you didn't comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it does not. I did not say I disbelieved his story, only that his story did not make him less of an anti gay bigot. Is that so difficult for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what it says and you know that.  You are a liar.  Let's move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it says.
Click to expand...


It says you don't believe him, you called him a liar.  Now you are showing that you are the liar.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The past, the past, the past, is that all you all can bring up as an argument ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the past had all the elements you insist are an indication of churches being forced to perform marriages agaisnt their will.
> 
> And it never happened. Your 'indications' don't result in the outcome you assume. If they did, they would have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about bringing up the evidence of what is being experienced right now as in the present, and then it leading to the possibility of those things that can come soon or within the near future. Things change, and hey isn't that Obama's mantra "Hope and Change"?, so your premise of the years gone by didn't yield any results on certain things, doesn't mean squat that it can't change now, because it is changing now on a lot of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us a single church being forced  perform a gay wedding. *There is none. *
> 
> Show us the PA laws that apply to churches. *There are none. *
> 
> Show us any significant public support for changing those laws to include churches. *There is none. *
> 
> Show us any credible legislation to change the PA laws. *There is none.*
> 
> You want to talk about the present indication of churches being forced to perform gay weddings?* There is none. *
Click to expand...

Attacks on christianity is an attack on the church.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now everyone knows you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This...this proves she *didn't* call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is *what she claimed she said*...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except I wasn't. Racists do often claim to have a black best friend. That does not mean that they don't, it just means that they are still racists. I never even implied his story wasn't true, only that it was irrelevant to whether he is an anti gay bigot or not. He clearly still is despite liking a couple of lesbians.
Click to expand...

Those women are NOTHING like you and I mean NOTHING! This is the point. The more you scream bigot, the more you advertise that you are the bigot. They don't hate, you do. They don't judge, you do. They don't push their lifestyle on people. You do. In every way they prove why they are good friends with me and my wife, but an lying asshole like you could never be.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. I didn't say he hated gays and condemned them to hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um...that isn't what I said.  Your reading comprehension skills are terrible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said he was an anti gay bigot. An anti gay bigot is someone who opposes marriage equality for gays or wishes to discriminate against gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you also said "your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.  Hence my point you didn't comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it does not. I did not say I disbelieved his story, only that his story did not make him less of an anti gay bigot. Is that so difficult for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what it says and you know that.  You are a liar.  Let's move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says you don't believe him, you called him a liar.  Now you are showing that you are the liar.
Click to expand...


It says no such thing. It says I still think he is an anti gay bigot despite liking a couple of lesbians. I never once said that I didn't believe his story, I said that he is still an anti gay bigot. I believe his story to be true, I just don't think it makes him any less of an anti gay bigot. People who say racist things and then say "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" are still racist. Yes, I'm sure they have a friend...someone they like, but they are still racist. Is that clear enough for you to understand?


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, you need to provide the link. Link to where I called your story untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now everyone knows you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This...this proves she *didn't* call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is *what she claimed she said*...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except I wasn't. Racists do often claim to have a black best friend. That does not mean that they don't, it just means that they are still racists. I never even implied his story wasn't true, only that it was irrelevant to whether he is an anti gay bigot or not. He clearly still is despite liking a couple of lesbians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those women are NOTHING like you and I mean NOTHING! This is the point. The more you scream bigot, the more you advertise that you are the bigot. They don't hate, you do. They don't judge, you do. They don't push their lifestyle on people. You do. In every way they prove why they are good friends with me and my wife, but an lying asshole like you could never be.
Click to expand...



I don't hate anyone. Okay...sometimes I really hate bicycle riders...not to the point of wanting to hurt them or anything...but wishing flat tires on all of them kind of hate. I don't hate you, I hate your bigotry. You wish to deny me equal rights. I don't wish to deny you equal rights. 

I also never ascribed hatred to you, just anti gay bigotry. Yes, I am a bigot. I'm intolerant of intolerance. 

You have yet to point out where I have lied.


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The past, the past, the past, is that all you all can bring up as an argument ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the past had all the elements you insist are an indication of churches being forced to perform marriages agaisnt their will.
> 
> And it never happened. Your 'indications' don't result in the outcome you assume. If they did, they would have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about bringing up the evidence of what is being experienced right now as in the present, and then it leading to the possibility of those things that can come soon or within the near future. Things change, and hey isn't that Obama's mantra "Hope and Change"?, so your premise of the years gone by didn't yield any results on certain things, doesn't mean squat that it can't change now, because it is changing now on a lot of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us a single church being forced  perform a gay wedding. *There is none. *
> 
> Show us the PA laws that apply to churches. *There are none. *
> 
> Show us any significant public support for changing those laws to include churches. *There is none. *
> 
> Show us any credible legislation to change the PA laws. *There is none.*
> 
> You want to talk about the present indication of churches being forced to perform gay weddings?* There is none. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Attacks on christianity is an attack on the church.
Click to expand...



Which has NOTHING to do with what was pointed out to you. You are determined to believe that the sky will fall if gays legally marry. Gays have been religiously marrying for decades (as in more than one) and civilly marrying for at least a decade. There are still no churches, in ten years, that have been successfully sued to marry a gay couple. (Just as in almost half a century, no church has been required to marry an interracial couple)

How's the sky Chicken Little?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> Now everyone knows you're a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This...this proves she *didn't* call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is *what she claimed she said*...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except I wasn't. Racists do often claim to have a black best friend. That does not mean that they don't, it just means that they are still racists. I never even implied his story wasn't true, only that it was irrelevant to whether he is an anti gay bigot or not. He clearly still is despite liking a couple of lesbians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those women are NOTHING like you and I mean NOTHING! This is the point. The more you scream bigot, the more you advertise that you are the bigot. They don't hate, you do. They don't judge, you do. They don't push their lifestyle on people. You do. In every way they prove why they are good friends with me and my wife, but an lying asshole like you could never be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate anyone. Okay...sometimes I really hate bicycle riders...not to the point of wanting to hurt them or anything...but wishing flat tires on all of them kind of hate. I don't hate you, I hate your bigotry. You wish to deny me equal rights. I don't wish to deny you equal rights.
> 
> I also never ascribed hatred to you, just anti gay bigotry. Yes, I am a bigot. I'm intolerant of intolerance.
> 
> You have yet to point out where I have lied.
Click to expand...

That you lied is now a foregone conclusion. And that you are intolerant of intolerance means you are self loathing and possibly mentally ill. You hate people with unrivaled passion, anyone who doesn't go along with the fag militia.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This...this proves she *didn't* call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is *what she claimed she said*...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except I wasn't. Racists do often claim to have a black best friend. That does not mean that they don't, it just means that they are still racists. I never even implied his story wasn't true, only that it was irrelevant to whether he is an anti gay bigot or not. He clearly still is despite liking a couple of lesbians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those women are NOTHING like you and I mean NOTHING! This is the point. The more you scream bigot, the more you advertise that you are the bigot. They don't hate, you do. They don't judge, you do. They don't push their lifestyle on people. You do. In every way they prove why they are good friends with me and my wife, but an lying asshole like you could never be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate anyone. Okay...sometimes I really hate bicycle riders...not to the point of wanting to hurt them or anything...but wishing flat tires on all of them kind of hate. I don't hate you, I hate your bigotry. You wish to deny me equal rights. I don't wish to deny you equal rights.
> 
> I also never ascribed hatred to you, just anti gay bigotry. Yes, I am a bigot. I'm intolerant of intolerance.
> 
> You have yet to point out where I have lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you lied is now a foregone conclusion. And that you are intolerant of intolerance means you are self loathing and possibly mentally ill. You hate people with unrivaled passion, anyone who doesn't go along with the fag militia.
Click to expand...


It's not a forgone conclusion, it's your perception. I understand that makes it your reality, but it does not make it true. I believe your story. I can't make it any plainer than that. I believe that there are lesbians that you like. You are still an anti gay bigot. You still wish to deny equal rights to gay couples based on animus. That is what makes you an anti gay bigot, not whether or not there are a couple of lesbians you like. (Um, the use of the f word for gay man is also a good indicator of your animus)


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um...that isn't what I said.  Your reading comprehension skills are terrible.
> 
> 
> And you also said "your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.  Hence my point you didn't comprehend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it does not. I did not say I disbelieved his story, only that his story did not make him less of an anti gay bigot. Is that so difficult for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what it says and you know that.  You are a liar.  Let's move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says you don't believe him, you called him a liar.  Now you are showing that you are the liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says no such thing. It says I still think he is an anti gay bigot despite liking a couple of lesbians. I never once said that I didn't believe his story, I said that he is still an anti gay bigot. I believe his story to be true, I just don't think it makes him any less of an anti gay bigot. People who say racist things and then say "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" are still racist. Yes, I'm sure they have a friend...someone they like, but they are still racist. Is that clear enough for you to understand?
Click to expand...


Bull.  You are lying your ass off, you are a liar.  When you said, every racist has a black best friend, that was not saying you don't believe him, you actually think every racist has a black best friend.

BTW, I never called you a liar, you can't prove otherwise.  What a liar.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Homosexual Dilemma Page 141 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> Now everyone knows you're a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This...this proves she *didn't* call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is *what she claimed she said*...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except I wasn't. Racists do often claim to have a black best friend. That does not mean that they don't, it just means that they are still racists. I never even implied his story wasn't true, only that it was irrelevant to whether he is an anti gay bigot or not. He clearly still is despite liking a couple of lesbians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those women are NOTHING like you and I mean NOTHING! This is the point. The more you scream bigot, the more you advertise that you are the bigot. They don't hate, you do. They don't judge, you do. They don't push their lifestyle on people. You do. In every way they prove why they are good friends with me and my wife, but an lying asshole like you could never be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate anyone. Okay...sometimes I really hate bicycle riders...not to the point of wanting to hurt them or anything...but wishing flat tires on all of them kind of hate. I don't hate you, I hate your bigotry. You wish to deny me equal rights. I don't wish to deny you equal rights.
> 
> I also never ascribed hatred to you, just anti gay bigotry. Yes, I am a bigot. I'm intolerant of intolerance.
> 
> You have yet to point out where I have lied.
Click to expand...


You've been presented with your quote calling him a liar numerous times.  I want you to show me where I ever called you a liar, liar.   I never said that.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it does not. I did not say I disbelieved his story, only that his story did not make him less of an anti gay bigot. Is that so difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what it says and you know that.  You are a liar.  Let's move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says you don't believe him, you called him a liar.  Now you are showing that you are the liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says no such thing. It says I still think he is an anti gay bigot despite liking a couple of lesbians. I never once said that I didn't believe his story, I said that he is still an anti gay bigot. I believe his story to be true, I just don't think it makes him any less of an anti gay bigot. People who say racist things and then say "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" are still racist. Yes, I'm sure they have a friend...someone they like, but they are still racist. Is that clear enough for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  You are lying your ass off, you are a liar.  When you said, every racist has a black best friend, that was not saying you don't believe him, you actually think every racist has a black best friend.
> 
> BTW, I never called you a liar, you can't prove otherwise.  What a liar.
Click to expand...



Gosh, this is really upsetting you isn't it? I believe his story. I cannot  make it any plainer. I believe there are lesbians he likes, just as I believe racists when they say there is a black person they like. They are still racist and St.Mike is still an anti gay bigot.


----------



## kaz

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This...this proves she *didn't* call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is *what she claimed she said*...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except I wasn't. Racists do often claim to have a black best friend. That does not mean that they don't, it just means that they are still racists. I never even implied his story wasn't true, only that it was irrelevant to whether he is an anti gay bigot or not. He clearly still is despite liking a couple of lesbians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those women are NOTHING like you and I mean NOTHING! This is the point. The more you scream bigot, the more you advertise that you are the bigot. They don't hate, you do. They don't judge, you do. They don't push their lifestyle on people. You do. In every way they prove why they are good friends with me and my wife, but an lying asshole like you could never be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate anyone. Okay...sometimes I really hate bicycle riders...not to the point of wanting to hurt them or anything...but wishing flat tires on all of them kind of hate. I don't hate you, I hate your bigotry. You wish to deny me equal rights. I don't wish to deny you equal rights.
> 
> I also never ascribed hatred to you, just anti gay bigotry. Yes, I am a bigot. I'm intolerant of intolerance.
> 
> You have yet to point out where I have lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you lied is now a foregone conclusion. And that you are intolerant of intolerance means you are self loathing and possibly mentally ill. You hate people with unrivaled passion, anyone who doesn't go along with the fag militia.
Click to expand...

 
She turns every discussion into a gay thread.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what it says and you know that.  You are a liar.  Let's move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says you don't believe him, you called him a liar.  Now you are showing that you are the liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says no such thing. It says I still think he is an anti gay bigot despite liking a couple of lesbians. I never once said that I didn't believe his story, I said that he is still an anti gay bigot. I believe his story to be true, I just don't think it makes him any less of an anti gay bigot. People who say racist things and then say "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" are still racist. Yes, I'm sure they have a friend...someone they like, but they are still racist. Is that clear enough for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  You are lying your ass off, you are a liar.  When you said, every racist has a black best friend, that was not saying you don't believe him, you actually think every racist has a black best friend.
> 
> BTW, I never called you a liar, you can't prove otherwise.  What a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, this is really upsetting you isn't it? I believe his story. I cannot  make it any plainer. I believe there are lesbians he likes, just as I believe racists when they say there is a black person they like. They are still racist and St.Mike is still an anti gay bigot.
Click to expand...


God, now it's the water works.  Look, you can't break down and sob every time someone doesn't agree with you.  Maybe you should stay off the internet for a while until you calm down.  OMG, here the tears start again.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what it says and you know that.  You are a liar.  Let's move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says you don't believe him, you called him a liar.  Now you are showing that you are the liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says no such thing. It says I still think he is an anti gay bigot despite liking a couple of lesbians. I never once said that I didn't believe his story, I said that he is still an anti gay bigot. I believe his story to be true, I just don't think it makes him any less of an anti gay bigot. People who say racist things and then say "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" are still racist. Yes, I'm sure they have a friend...someone they like, but they are still racist. Is that clear enough for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  You are lying your ass off, you are a liar.  When you said, every racist has a black best friend, that was not saying you don't believe him, you actually think every racist has a black best friend.
> 
> BTW, I never called you a liar, you can't prove otherwise.  What a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, this is really upsetting you isn't it? I believe his story. I cannot  make it any plainer. I believe there are lesbians he likes, just as I believe racists when they say there is a black person they like. They are still racist and St.Mike is still an anti gay bigot.
Click to expand...


Going with the Hillary Clinton gambit are you?  She was stunned (according to her book) when she found out Clinton got a Monica even though she knew he'd repeatedly cheated on her.  She couldn't breathe, she was gasping for breath.

Just like you're not a liar because you actually believe every racist has a black best friend.  That's your story, they are telling the truth, so you're not a liar.

I always find lies bizarre that if we believe you, you look worse than if we don't.  It's an odd defense.  No, I am not guilty of armed robbery, I am guilty of murder!

LOL.  You just keep sticking to that story.  I'm still waiting for you to show where I ever called your lying ass a liar.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This...this proves she *didn't* call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is *what she claimed she said*...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except I wasn't. Racists do often claim to have a black best friend. That does not mean that they don't, it just means that they are still racists. I never even implied his story wasn't true, only that it was irrelevant to whether he is an anti gay bigot or not. He clearly still is despite liking a couple of lesbians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those women are NOTHING like you and I mean NOTHING! This is the point. The more you scream bigot, the more you advertise that you are the bigot. They don't hate, you do. They don't judge, you do. They don't push their lifestyle on people. You do. In every way they prove why they are good friends with me and my wife, but an lying asshole like you could never be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate anyone. Okay...sometimes I really hate bicycle riders...not to the point of wanting to hurt them or anything...but wishing flat tires on all of them kind of hate. I don't hate you, I hate your bigotry. You wish to deny me equal rights. I don't wish to deny you equal rights.
> 
> I also never ascribed hatred to you, just anti gay bigotry. Yes, I am a bigot. I'm intolerant of intolerance.
> 
> You have yet to point out where I have lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been presented with your quote calling him a liar numerous times.  I want you to show me where I ever called you a liar, liar.   I never said that.
Click to expand...


I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to him. What is wrong with you?


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except I wasn't. Racists do often claim to have a black best friend. That does not mean that they don't, it just means that they are still racists. I never even implied his story wasn't true, only that it was irrelevant to whether he is an anti gay bigot or not. He clearly still is despite liking a couple of lesbians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those women are NOTHING like you and I mean NOTHING! This is the point. The more you scream bigot, the more you advertise that you are the bigot. They don't hate, you do. They don't judge, you do. They don't push their lifestyle on people. You do. In every way they prove why they are good friends with me and my wife, but an lying asshole like you could never be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate anyone. Okay...sometimes I really hate bicycle riders...not to the point of wanting to hurt them or anything...but wishing flat tires on all of them kind of hate. I don't hate you, I hate your bigotry. You wish to deny me equal rights. I don't wish to deny you equal rights.
> 
> I also never ascribed hatred to you, just anti gay bigotry. Yes, I am a bigot. I'm intolerant of intolerance.
> 
> You have yet to point out where I have lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you lied is now a foregone conclusion. And that you are intolerant of intolerance means you are self loathing and possibly mentally ill. You hate people with unrivaled passion, anyone who doesn't go along with the fag militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She turns every discussion into a gay thread.
Click to expand...


You keep making that claim, but have not yet proven it despite being asked to do so. I don't bring up my orientation in unrelated threads...that's usually you or Fishy doing that. A dimestore psychologist might have an opinion on that, but I reserve judgement. 

This IS a "gay thread" you know.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says you don't believe him, you called him a liar.  Now you are showing that you are the liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says no such thing. It says I still think he is an anti gay bigot despite liking a couple of lesbians. I never once said that I didn't believe his story, I said that he is still an anti gay bigot. I believe his story to be true, I just don't think it makes him any less of an anti gay bigot. People who say racist things and then say "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" are still racist. Yes, I'm sure they have a friend...someone they like, but they are still racist. Is that clear enough for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  You are lying your ass off, you are a liar.  When you said, every racist has a black best friend, that was not saying you don't believe him, you actually think every racist has a black best friend.
> 
> BTW, I never called you a liar, you can't prove otherwise.  What a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, this is really upsetting you isn't it? I believe his story. I cannot  make it any plainer. I believe there are lesbians he likes, just as I believe racists when they say there is a black person they like. They are still racist and St.Mike is still an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, now it's the water works.  Look, you can't break down and sob every time someone doesn't agree with you.  Maybe you should stay off the internet for a while until you calm down.  OMG, here the tears start again.
Click to expand...


You have difficulty with emotions it would seem. Where did I seem upset? I'm not the one calling everyone a liar and swearing, that would be you.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says you don't believe him, you called him a liar.  Now you are showing that you are the liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says no such thing. It says I still think he is an anti gay bigot despite liking a couple of lesbians. I never once said that I didn't believe his story, I said that he is still an anti gay bigot. I believe his story to be true, I just don't think it makes him any less of an anti gay bigot. People who say racist things and then say "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" are still racist. Yes, I'm sure they have a friend...someone they like, but they are still racist. Is that clear enough for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  You are lying your ass off, you are a liar.  When you said, every racist has a black best friend, that was not saying you don't believe him, you actually think every racist has a black best friend.
> 
> BTW, I never called you a liar, you can't prove otherwise.  What a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, this is really upsetting you isn't it? I believe his story. I cannot  make it any plainer. I believe there are lesbians he likes, just as I believe racists when they say there is a black person they like. They are still racist and St.Mike is still an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Going with the Hillary Clinton gambit are you?  She was stunned (according to her book) when she found out Clinton got a Monica even though she knew he'd repeatedly cheated on her.  She couldn't breathe, she was gasping for breath.
> 
> Just like you're not a liar because you actually believe every racist has a black best friend.  That's your story, they are telling the truth, so you're not a liar.
> 
> I always find lies bizarre that if we believe you, you look worse than if we don't.  It's an odd defense.  No, I am not guilty of armed robbery, I am guilty of murder!
> 
> LOL.  You just keep sticking to that story.  I'm still waiting for you to show where I ever called your lying ass a liar.
Click to expand...



You really like going off on unrelated tangents don't you? ADD?

I never said you called me a liar. The post you are getting your panties in a wad about was a reply to St. Mike, not to poor little victim Kaz.


----------



## Valerie

kaz said:


> She turns every discussion into a gay thread.




this IS a gay thread, spaz.


----------



## Valerie

kaz said:


> That isn't what it says and you know that.  You are a liar.  Let's move on.




see spaz spaz with the lie lie.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says you don't believe him, you called him a liar.  Now you are showing that you are the liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says no such thing. It says I still think he is an anti gay bigot despite liking a couple of lesbians. I never once said that I didn't believe his story, I said that he is still an anti gay bigot. I believe his story to be true, I just don't think it makes him any less of an anti gay bigot. People who say racist things and then say "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" are still racist. Yes, I'm sure they have a friend...someone they like, but they are still racist. Is that clear enough for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  You are lying your ass off, you are a liar.  When you said, every racist has a black best friend, that was not saying you don't believe him, you actually think every racist has a black best friend.
> 
> BTW, I never called you a liar, you can't prove otherwise.  What a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, this is really upsetting you isn't it? I believe his story. I cannot  make it any plainer. I believe there are lesbians he likes, just as I believe racists when they say there is a black person they like. They are still racist and St.Mike is still an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, now it's the water works.  Look, you can't break down and sob every time someone doesn't agree with you.  Maybe you should stay off the internet for a while until you calm down.  OMG, here the tears start again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have difficulty with emotions it would seem. Where did I seem upset? I'm not the one calling everyone a liar and swearing, that would be you.
Click to expand...

Who's calling "everyone" a liar? You're lying again.  You just can't help yourself, can you?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says you don't believe him, you called him a liar.  Now you are showing that you are the liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says no such thing. It says I still think he is an anti gay bigot despite liking a couple of lesbians. I never once said that I didn't believe his story, I said that he is still an anti gay bigot. I believe his story to be true, I just don't think it makes him any less of an anti gay bigot. People who say racist things and then say "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" are still racist. Yes, I'm sure they have a friend...someone they like, but they are still racist. Is that clear enough for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  You are lying your ass off, you are a liar.  When you said, every racist has a black best friend, that was not saying you don't believe him, you actually think every racist has a black best friend.
> 
> BTW, I never called you a liar, you can't prove otherwise.  What a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, this is really upsetting you isn't it? I believe his story. I cannot  make it any plainer. I believe there are lesbians he likes, just as I believe racists when they say there is a black person they like. They are still racist and St.Mike is still an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Going with the Hillary Clinton gambit are you?  She was stunned (according to her book) when she found out Clinton got a Monica even though she knew he'd repeatedly cheated on her.  She couldn't breathe, she was gasping for breath.
> 
> Just like you're not a liar because you actually believe every racist has a black best friend.  That's your story, they are telling the truth, so you're not a liar.
> 
> I always find lies bizarre that if we believe you, you look worse than if we don't.  It's an odd defense.  No, I am not guilty of armed robbery, I am guilty of murder!
> 
> LOL.  You just keep sticking to that story.  I'm still waiting for you to show where I ever called your lying ass a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really like going off on unrelated tangents don't you? ADD?
> 
> I never said you called me a liar. The post you are getting your panties in a wad about was a reply to St. Mike, not to poor little victim Kaz.
Click to expand...

You should send a PM if you want a private conversation. Otherwise anything you post is up for discussion with anyone. I'm just glad I'm not the only one who sees you were caught in a lie.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except I wasn't. Racists do often claim to have a black best friend. That does not mean that they don't, it just means that they are still racists. I never even implied his story wasn't true, only that it was irrelevant to whether he is an anti gay bigot or not. He clearly still is despite liking a couple of lesbians.
> 
> 
> 
> Those women are NOTHING like you and I mean NOTHING! This is the point. The more you scream bigot, the more you advertise that you are the bigot. They don't hate, you do. They don't judge, you do. They don't push their lifestyle on people. You do. In every way they prove why they are good friends with me and my wife, but an lying asshole like you could never be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate anyone. Okay...sometimes I really hate bicycle riders...not to the point of wanting to hurt them or anything...but wishing flat tires on all of them kind of hate. I don't hate you, I hate your bigotry. You wish to deny me equal rights. I don't wish to deny you equal rights.
> 
> I also never ascribed hatred to you, just anti gay bigotry. Yes, I am a bigot. I'm intolerant of intolerance.
> 
> You have yet to point out where I have lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you lied is now a foregone conclusion. And that you are intolerant of intolerance means you are self loathing and possibly mentally ill. You hate people with unrivaled passion, anyone who doesn't go along with the fag militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She turns every discussion into a gay thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep making that claim, but have not yet proven it despite being asked to do so. I don't bring up my orientation in unrelated threads...that's usually you or Fishy doing that. A dimestore psychologist might have an opinion on that, but I reserve judgement.
> 
> This IS a "gay thread" you know.
Click to expand...


LOL, you really can't read, can you?  I showed you your quote in a thread that had nothing to do with gays and you started with the "reluctant hypocrite" crap.  You did like you are doing here, denying what you said meant what you said.  So when are you going to show me the quote I called you a liar?  You're such a liar, I never said that.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except I wasn't. Racists do often claim to have a black best friend. That does not mean that they don't, it just means that they are still racists. I never even implied his story wasn't true, only that it was irrelevant to whether he is an anti gay bigot or not. He clearly still is despite liking a couple of lesbians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those women are NOTHING like you and I mean NOTHING! This is the point. The more you scream bigot, the more you advertise that you are the bigot. They don't hate, you do. They don't judge, you do. They don't push their lifestyle on people. You do. In every way they prove why they are good friends with me and my wife, but an lying asshole like you could never be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate anyone. Okay...sometimes I really hate bicycle riders...not to the point of wanting to hurt them or anything...but wishing flat tires on all of them kind of hate. I don't hate you, I hate your bigotry. You wish to deny me equal rights. I don't wish to deny you equal rights.
> 
> I also never ascribed hatred to you, just anti gay bigotry. Yes, I am a bigot. I'm intolerant of intolerance.
> 
> You have yet to point out where I have lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been presented with your quote calling him a liar numerous times.  I want you to show me where I ever called you a liar, liar.   I never said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to him. What is wrong with you?
Click to expand...


We've both shown you your quote calling him a liar.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says you don't believe him, you called him a liar.  Now you are showing that you are the liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says no such thing. It says I still think he is an anti gay bigot despite liking a couple of lesbians. I never once said that I didn't believe his story, I said that he is still an anti gay bigot. I believe his story to be true, I just don't think it makes him any less of an anti gay bigot. People who say racist things and then say "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" are still racist. Yes, I'm sure they have a friend...someone they like, but they are still racist. Is that clear enough for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  You are lying your ass off, you are a liar.  When you said, every racist has a black best friend, that was not saying you don't believe him, you actually think every racist has a black best friend.
> 
> BTW, I never called you a liar, you can't prove otherwise.  What a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, this is really upsetting you isn't it? I believe his story. I cannot  make it any plainer. I believe there are lesbians he likes, just as I believe racists when they say there is a black person they like. They are still racist and St.Mike is still an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, now it's the water works.  Look, you can't break down and sob every time someone doesn't agree with you.  Maybe you should stay off the internet for a while until you calm down.  OMG, here the tears start again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have difficulty with emotions it would seem. Where did I seem upset? I'm not the one calling everyone a liar and swearing, that would be you.
Click to expand...


OMG, that's funny.  You never get anything.  Read the thread again and maybe you'll get it.  But I'm tired of explaining conversations to you.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says you don't believe him, you called him a liar.  Now you are showing that you are the liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says no such thing. It says I still think he is an anti gay bigot despite liking a couple of lesbians. I never once said that I didn't believe his story, I said that he is still an anti gay bigot. I believe his story to be true, I just don't think it makes him any less of an anti gay bigot. People who say racist things and then say "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" are still racist. Yes, I'm sure they have a friend...someone they like, but they are still racist. Is that clear enough for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  You are lying your ass off, you are a liar.  When you said, every racist has a black best friend, that was not saying you don't believe him, you actually think every racist has a black best friend.
> 
> BTW, I never called you a liar, you can't prove otherwise.  What a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, this is really upsetting you isn't it? I believe his story. I cannot  make it any plainer. I believe there are lesbians he likes, just as I believe racists when they say there is a black person they like. They are still racist and St.Mike is still an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Going with the Hillary Clinton gambit are you?  She was stunned (according to her book) when she found out Clinton got a Monica even though she knew he'd repeatedly cheated on her.  She couldn't breathe, she was gasping for breath.
> 
> Just like you're not a liar because you actually believe every racist has a black best friend.  That's your story, they are telling the truth, so you're not a liar.
> 
> I always find lies bizarre that if we believe you, you look worse than if we don't.  It's an odd defense.  No, I am not guilty of armed robbery, I am guilty of murder!
> 
> LOL.  You just keep sticking to that story.  I'm still waiting for you to show where I ever called your lying ass a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really like going off on unrelated tangents don't you? ADD?
> 
> I never said you called me a liar. The post you are getting your panties in a wad about was a reply to St. Mike, not to poor little victim Kaz.
Click to expand...


OMG, and the tears start flowing again.  I told you that you should get away from your computer for a while and calm down.  This is just an internet political discussion, you need to stop getting so upset.  Maybe a wine spritzer would help.  But stop crying, it's embarrassing to watch.


----------



## kaz

Valerie said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> She turns every discussion into a gay thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this IS a gay thread, spaz.
Click to expand...


I wasn't talking about this thread, Einstein.


----------



## kaz

Valerie said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what it says and you know that.  You are a liar.  Let's move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> see spaz spaz with the lie lie.
Click to expand...


Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you, my dear?  Another liberal who doesn't grasp the discussion.


----------



## Paperman299

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says you don't believe him, you called him a liar.  Now you are showing that you are the liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says no such thing. It says I still think he is an anti gay bigot despite liking a couple of lesbians. I never once said that I didn't believe his story, I said that he is still an anti gay bigot. I believe his story to be true, I just don't think it makes him any less of an anti gay bigot. People who say racist things and then say "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" are still racist. Yes, I'm sure they have a friend...someone they like, but they are still racist. Is that clear enough for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  You are lying your ass off, you are a liar.  When you said, every racist has a black best friend, that was not saying you don't believe him, you actually think every racist has a black best friend.
> 
> BTW, I never called you a liar, you can't prove otherwise.  What a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, this is really upsetting you isn't it? I believe his story. I cannot  make it any plainer. I believe there are lesbians he likes, just as I believe racists when they say there is a black person they like. They are still racist and St.Mike is still an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Going with the Hillary Clinton gambit are you?  She was stunned (according to her book) when she found out Clinton got a Monica even though she knew he'd repeatedly cheated on her.  She couldn't breathe, she was gasping for breath.
> 
> Just like you're not a liar because you actually believe every racist has a black best friend.  That's your story, they are telling the truth, so you're not a liar.
> 
> I always find lies bizarre that if we believe you, you look worse than if we don't.  It's an odd defense.  No, I am not guilty of armed robbery, I am guilty of murder!
> 
> LOL.  You just keep sticking to that story.  I'm still waiting for you to show where I ever called your lying ass a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really like going off on unrelated tangents don't you? ADD?
> 
> I never said you called me a liar. The post you are getting your panties in a wad about was a reply to St. Mike, not to poor little victim Kaz.
Click to expand...


Logic is wasted here. I've seen the quote, it's perfectly obvious what you said, but Kaz and Mike NEED it to be something else. The Chicken Littles on this thread haven't had a good point in thirty pages and they know it. They thought they had a smoking gun with that guy in Idaho, and now that the "Hitching Post" wedding-o-matic turned out to be one step removed from a nuptials drive-thru, being butthurt over this is all they have. 

And guys. Pro tip: no one gets this wildly defensive when someone dismisses their "I have X minority friend" claim except bigots (yes, even Native Americans can still be bigots). No one. So dry those tears ya'll. Pull yourselves together. No one cares about any of this USMB High drama.


----------



## Silhouette

Paperman299 said:


> Logic is wasted here. I've seen the quote, it's perfectly obvious what you said, but Kaz and Mike NEED it to be something else. *The Chicken Littles on this thread haven't had a good point in thirty pages and they know it*.... No one cares about any of this USMB High drama.


 
Ah yes, another veiled plea to moderators to "shut this thread down!!". 

For "nobody caring" about "any of this USMB High drama", it's odd that this thread has 58,000 views, 7,000 replies, sports the most popular poll in USMB history and keeps on getting new votes on that poll pretty much daily, if not every other day, certainly weekly.  It registers high in search engines and has brought quite a lot of advertising revenue to this site.

So, once again, facts fly in the face of LGBT smoke-and-mirrors assertions to the opposite.

And that being said, with all the lawsuits against individual christians going forward and sticking, assurances from the LGBT crowd that congregations of individual christians (churches) "will not be sued" are worth exactly as much as Paperman's comments above that "nobody cares about this thread"...

...(So PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!  Make these numbers...er..um...I mean "It" _go away_..)


----------



## Silhouette

So Paperman,

How do you square up your conclusion that this topic is unpopular against the count numbers on it at USMB and the continued responses to the poll?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is wasted here. I've seen the quote, it's perfectly obvious what you said, but Kaz and Mike NEED it to be something else. *The Chicken Littles on this thread haven't had a good point in thirty pages and they know it*.... No one cares about any of this USMB High drama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, another veiled plea to moderators to "shut this thread down!!".
> 
> For "nobody caring" about "any of this USMB High drama", it's odd that this thread has 58,000 views, 7,000 replies, sports the most popular poll in USMB history and keeps on getting new votes on that poll pretty much daily, if not every other day, certainly weekly.  It registers high in search engines and has brought quite a lot of advertising revenue to this site.
> 
> So, once again, facts fly in the face of LGBT smoke-and-mirrors assertions to the opposite.
> 
> And that being said, with all the lawsuits against individual christians going forward and sticking, assurances from the LGBT crowd that congregations of individual christians (churches) "will not be sued" are worth exactly as much as Paperman's comments above that "nobody cares about this thread"...
> 
> ...(So PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!  Make these numbers...er..um...I mean "It" _go away_..)
Click to expand...



a) You are delusional
b) No one has- should- or will- force any church to marry anyone against their will- not homosexuals, not blacks, not Jews, not dogs.

Only homophobic idiots claim they will.


----------



## Syriusly

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those women are NOTHING like you and I mean NOTHING! This is the point. The more you scream bigot, the more you advertise that you are the bigot. They don't hate, you do. They don't judge, you do. They don't push their lifestyle on people. You do. In every way they prove why they are good friends with me and my wife, but an lying asshole like you could never be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate anyone. Okay...sometimes I really hate bicycle riders...not to the point of wanting to hurt them or anything...but wishing flat tires on all of them kind of hate. I don't hate you, I hate your bigotry. You wish to deny me equal rights. I don't wish to deny you equal rights.
> 
> I also never ascribed hatred to you, just anti gay bigotry. Yes, I am a bigot. I'm intolerant of intolerance.
> 
> You have yet to point out where I have lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you lied is now a foregone conclusion. And that you are intolerant of intolerance means you are self loathing and possibly mentally ill. You hate people with unrivaled passion, anyone who doesn't go along with the fag militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She turns every discussion into a gay thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep making that claim, but have not yet proven it despite being asked to do so. I don't bring up my orientation in unrelated threads...that's usually you or Fishy doing that. A dimestore psychologist might have an opinion on that, but I reserve judgement.
> 
> This IS a "gay thread" you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you really can't read, can you?  I showed you your quote in a thread that had nothing to do with gays and you started with the "reluctant hypocrite" crap.  You did like you are doing here, denying what you said meant what you said.  So when are you going to show me the quote I called you a liar?  You're such a liar, I never said that.
Click to expand...


What a troll.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This...this proves she *didn't* call him in a liar in those prior posts, she called him a bigot, which is *what she claimed she said*...it proves she's not a liar...why did you even post this??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't grasp when she said "Racists always claim to have a black best friend" that was calling him a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except I wasn't. Racists do often claim to have a black best friend. That does not mean that they don't, it just means that they are still racists. I never even implied his story wasn't true, only that it was irrelevant to whether he is an anti gay bigot or not. He clearly still is despite liking a couple of lesbians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those women are NOTHING like you and I mean NOTHING! This is the point. The more you scream bigot, the more you advertise that you are the bigot. They don't hate, you do. They don't judge, you do. They don't push their lifestyle on people. You do. In every way they prove why they are good friends with me and my wife, but an lying asshole like you could never be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate anyone. Okay...sometimes I really hate bicycle riders...not to the point of wanting to hurt them or anything...but wishing flat tires on all of them kind of hate. I don't hate you, I hate your bigotry. You wish to deny me equal rights. I don't wish to deny you equal rights.
> 
> I also never ascribed hatred to you, just anti gay bigotry. Yes, I am a bigot. I'm intolerant of intolerance.
> 
> You have yet to point out where I have lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you lied is now a foregone conclusion. And that you are intolerant of intolerance means you are self loathing and possibly mentally ill. You hate people with unrivaled passion, anyone who doesn't go along with the fag militia.
Click to expand...


LOL.....how ironic coming from one of the foremost homosexual haters on the board.


----------



## Silhouette

Three spammed posts... The "Syriusly spammed post prevalence litmus scale" means my last post moderately annoyed you.  The last post I made on the other thread here got five spammed posts to try to disappear the inspected points.  US Supreme Court to Meet This Week To Decide To Take Up Gay Marriage Debate Case Page 28 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


So there was something that really really bothered you about what I put on that page.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is wasted here. I've seen the quote, it's perfectly obvious what you said, but Kaz and Mike NEED it to be something else. *The Chicken Littles on this thread haven't had a good point in thirty pages and they know it*.... No one cares about any of this USMB High drama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, another veiled plea to moderators to "shut this thread down!!".
> 
> For "nobody caring" about "any of this USMB High drama", it's odd that this thread has 58,000 views, 7,000 replies, sports the most popular poll in USMB history and keeps on getting new votes on that poll pretty much daily, if not every other day, certainly weekly.  It registers high in search engines and has brought quite a lot of advertising revenue to this site.
> 
> So, once again, facts fly in the face of LGBT smoke-and-mirrors assertions to the opposite.
> 
> And that being said, with all the lawsuits against individual christians going forward and sticking, assurances from the LGBT crowd that congregations of individual christians (churches) "will not be sued" are worth exactly as much as Paperman's comments above that "nobody cares about this thread"...
> 
> ...(So PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!  Make these numbers...er..um...I mean "It" _go away_..)
Click to expand...


The kind of thing I'm about to point out to you usually comes with a lot of mean-spirited jabs at the other person's intelligence, and I'd appreciate if you took notice that I'm not doing that. 

You have misread my post. No problem, I've done the same thing. If you look again, you'll see that I'm only talking about this "who lied" spat between Kaz, Mike, and Seawytch. I am not saying the thread is not popular or interesting to people, which obviously it is.


----------



## Silhouette

The history..


Paperman299 said:


> Logic is wasted here. I've seen the quote, it's perfectly obvious what you said, but Kaz and Mike NEED it to be something else. *The Chicken Littles on this thread haven't had a good point in thirty pages and they know it*.... No one cares about any of this USMB High drama.


 


Silhouette said:


> Ah yes, another veiled plea to moderators to "shut this thread down!!".  For "nobody caring" about "any of this USMB High drama", it's odd that this thread has 58,000 views, 7,000 replies, sports the most popular poll in USMB history and keeps on getting new votes on that poll pretty much daily, if not every other day, certainly weekly.  It registers high in search engines and has brought quite a lot of advertising revenue to this site.  So, once again, facts fly in the face of LGBT smoke-and-mirrors assertions to the opposite.  And that being said, with all the lawsuits against individual christians going forward and sticking, assurances from the LGBT crowd that congregations of individual christians (churches) "will not be sued" are worth exactly as much as Paperman's comments above that "nobody cares about this thread"......(So PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!  Make these numbers...er..um...I mean "It" _go away_..)


 


Paperman299 said:


> The kind of thing I'm about to point out to you usually comes with a lot of mean-spirited jabs at the other person's intelligence, and I'd appreciate if you took notice that I'm not doing that.
> 
> You have misread my post. No problem, I've done the same thing. If you look again, you'll see that I'm only talking about this "who lied" spat between Kaz, Mike, and Seawytch. I am not saying the thread is not popular or interesting to people, which obviously it is.


 
What and who pray tell were you referring to as "The Chicken Littles of this thread"?  You know damn well its me and any other poster either legitimately opposed to the Gay Agenda or role-playing a "gay basher" to ramp up sympathy for your cause (you know, since lucid rebuttal and the old choreographed flame-war to lock the threads away routine isn't working for you anymore).

A Chicken Little is a person who is being accused of getting uptight about a danger that ostensibly doesn't exist.  There was no actual spat.  St. Mike is on your team.  What you really, actually meant was a lie.  You were lying saying this thread wasn't popular and that its points and data are not compelling.  You said the "Chicken Littles" (christians concerned about gays suing churches to accomodate gay weddings) "hadn't had a good point in 30 pages here"..

Which is a lie.  You manufactured a lie to sell to the public.  Which is precisely why the public becomes concerned when you and your "creative/flexible" ilk tell us we should not expect congregations of individual christians (also known as "churches") will be forced to peform "gay weddings".  We know you are lying..

What you are doing in your last post is clear evidence of your cult's penchant for "artful historical revisionism"


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those women are NOTHING like you and I mean NOTHING! This is the point. The more you scream bigot, the more you advertise that you are the bigot. They don't hate, you do. They don't judge, you do. They don't push their lifestyle on people. You do. In every way they prove why they are good friends with me and my wife, but an lying asshole like you could never be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate anyone. Okay...sometimes I really hate bicycle riders...not to the point of wanting to hurt them or anything...but wishing flat tires on all of them kind of hate. I don't hate you, I hate your bigotry. You wish to deny me equal rights. I don't wish to deny you equal rights.
> 
> I also never ascribed hatred to you, just anti gay bigotry. Yes, I am a bigot. I'm intolerant of intolerance.
> 
> You have yet to point out where I have lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you lied is now a foregone conclusion. And that you are intolerant of intolerance means you are self loathing and possibly mentally ill. You hate people with unrivaled passion, anyone who doesn't go along with the fag militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She turns every discussion into a gay thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep making that claim, but have not yet proven it despite being asked to do so. I don't bring up my orientation in unrelated threads...that's usually you or Fishy doing that. A dimestore psychologist might have an opinion on that, but I reserve judgement.
> 
> This IS a "gay thread" you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you really can't read, can you?  I showed you your quote in a thread that had nothing to do with gays and you started with the "reluctant hypocrite" crap.  You did like you are doing here, denying what you said meant what you said.  So when are you going to show me the quote I called you a liar?  You're such a liar, I never said that.
Click to expand...


Which did not bring up *my *sexual orientation....you did that yourself in response to that comment.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except I wasn't. Racists do often claim to have a black best friend. That does not mean that they don't, it just means that they are still racists. I never even implied his story wasn't true, only that it was irrelevant to whether he is an anti gay bigot or not. He clearly still is despite liking a couple of lesbians.
> 
> 
> 
> Those women are NOTHING like you and I mean NOTHING! This is the point. The more you scream bigot, the more you advertise that you are the bigot. They don't hate, you do. They don't judge, you do. They don't push their lifestyle on people. You do. In every way they prove why they are good friends with me and my wife, but an lying asshole like you could never be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate anyone. Okay...sometimes I really hate bicycle riders...not to the point of wanting to hurt them or anything...but wishing flat tires on all of them kind of hate. I don't hate you, I hate your bigotry. You wish to deny me equal rights. I don't wish to deny you equal rights.
> 
> I also never ascribed hatred to you, just anti gay bigotry. Yes, I am a bigot. I'm intolerant of intolerance.
> 
> You have yet to point out where I have lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been presented with your quote calling him a liar numerous times.  I want you to show me where I ever called you a liar, liar.   I never said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to him. What is wrong with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've both shown you your quote calling him a liar.
Click to expand...


Except that's not where I called him a liar. I did not disbelieve his story about his lesbian friends. I really, truly do believe he has friends who are lesbian. 

It also does not make him any less of an anti gay bigot...as I have stated repeatedly.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says no such thing. It says I still think he is an anti gay bigot despite liking a couple of lesbians. I never once said that I didn't believe his story, I said that he is still an anti gay bigot. I believe his story to be true, I just don't think it makes him any less of an anti gay bigot. People who say racist things and then say "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" are still racist. Yes, I'm sure they have a friend...someone they like, but they are still racist. Is that clear enough for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  You are lying your ass off, you are a liar.  When you said, every racist has a black best friend, that was not saying you don't believe him, you actually think every racist has a black best friend.
> 
> BTW, I never called you a liar, you can't prove otherwise.  What a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, this is really upsetting you isn't it? I believe his story. I cannot  make it any plainer. I believe there are lesbians he likes, just as I believe racists when they say there is a black person they like. They are still racist and St.Mike is still an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Going with the Hillary Clinton gambit are you?  She was stunned (according to her book) when she found out Clinton got a Monica even though she knew he'd repeatedly cheated on her.  She couldn't breathe, she was gasping for breath.
> 
> Just like you're not a liar because you actually believe every racist has a black best friend.  That's your story, they are telling the truth, so you're not a liar.
> 
> I always find lies bizarre that if we believe you, you look worse than if we don't.  It's an odd defense.  No, I am not guilty of armed robbery, I am guilty of murder!
> 
> LOL.  You just keep sticking to that story.  I'm still waiting for you to show where I ever called your lying ass a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really like going off on unrelated tangents don't you? ADD?
> 
> I never said you called me a liar. The post you are getting your panties in a wad about was a reply to St. Mike, not to poor little victim Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, and the tears start flowing again.  I told you that you should get away from your computer for a while and calm down.  This is just an internet political discussion, you need to stop getting so upset.  Maybe a wine spritzer would help.  But stop crying, it's embarrassing to watch.
Click to expand...


What indication are you getting from my posts that I'm upset? Have I called you names? I don't even think I've used any exclamation points. You obviously can't address the actual content of my posts so you deflect with silliness. Have fun.


----------



## TSJohnson

A church is a business. It makes money selling an intangible product, but it's still a business with employees, a loyal customer base, and an economic interest. There is no reason they should not be subject to government oversight just like any other business, fined for stepping out of line just like any other business, or prevented from discriminating against protected classes just like any other business. Let them keep their churches. Take away their tax dodging privilege and slap them with fines when they misbehave.


----------



## mdk

Nobody wants this thread to be shut down drama queen. This thread has become a glorious repository of dramatic pearl-clutching, abject fear-peddling, and, rank desperation from the self-righteous social conservatives. They are losing their anti-gay crusade on almost every front so I suspect they will become more unhinged in the following months. The desperation of which I speak of is beautifully displayed every time Sil tries to claim that this poll means that 80% of the respondents also disapprove of gay marriage even though the vast and overwhelming majority that support gay marriage also voted that the church has every right to marry or not marry any couple as they see fit.


----------



## Skylar

TSJohnson said:


> A church is a business.



Not according to PA laws. No State recognizes a church as a business. And virtually all explicitly exempt religious corporations from all PA laws.



> There is no reason they should not be subject to government oversight just like any other business, fined for stepping out of line just like any other business, or prevented from discriminating against protected classes just like any other business.



Sure there is: religion is inherently and inexplicably discriminatory. By its very nature, it must discriminate. Be it between Jew and Gentile, sinners and saints, the meek and the proud, those 'Of the Book' and those 'Not of the Book', those enlightened and those not.  Religion can't function without the capacity for discrimination. And yet religion is clearly constitutional.

In a contest between discrimination and religion, religion wins hands down.


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Nobody wants this thread to be shut down drama queen. This thread has become a glorious repository of dramatic pearl-clutching, abject fear-peddling, and, rank desperation from the self-righteous social conservatives. They are losing their anti-gay crusade on almost every front so I suspect they will become more unhinged in the following months. The desperation of which I speak of is beautifully displayed every time Sil tries to claim that this poll means that 80% of the respondents also disapprove of gay marriage even though the vast and overwhelming majority that support gay marriage also voted that the church has every right to marry or not marry any couple as they see fit.



Just go to Silo's old thread on California removing Prop 8 from its books if you want a preview of the panty shitting hysterics you'll see when and if gay marriage is protected by the courts.

Expect endless babble about 'treason' and 'tyranny' and 'coups' and 'judicial fiat' and 'traitors' with heavy dallops of chickenshit references to 'civil wars' and threats of violence against gays for not 'sitting down and shutting the fuck up'.

Thuggery tends to lose its thin veneer of pseudo-legal shellack when the courts expressly contradict its reasoning. Batshit crazy certainly does.


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants this thread to be shut down drama queen. This thread has become a glorious repository of dramatic pearl-clutching, abject fear-peddling, and, rank desperation from the self-righteous social conservatives. They are losing their anti-gay crusade on almost every front so I suspect they will become more unhinged in the following months. The desperation of which I speak of is beautifully displayed every time Sil tries to claim that this poll means that 80% of the respondents also disapprove of gay marriage even though the vast and overwhelming majority that support gay marriage also voted that the church has every right to marry or not marry any couple as they see fit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just go to Silo's old thread on California removing Prop 8 from its books if you want a preview of the panty shitting hysterics you'll see when and if gay marriage is protected by the courts.
> 
> Expect endless babble about 'treason' and 'tyranny' and 'coups' and 'judicial fiat' and 'traitors' with heavy dallops of chickenshit references to 'civil wars' and threats of violence against gays for not 'sitting down and shutting the fuck up'.
> 
> Thuggery tends to lose its thin veneer of pseudo-legal shellack when the courts expressly contradict its reasoning. Batshit crazy certainly does.
Click to expand...


I've read through that hot mess of a thread. How any rationale person could take Sil's predictions or wild legal interpretations seriously is truly mind boggling. Apparently gay marriage is still banned in California because...well...ummm...Sil said so. lol 

Is that the same thread where if gays do not back off they'll "make hate crimes look like picnics" or something?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Three spammed posts..



You are delusional.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Which is a lie.  You manufactured a lie to sell to the public.



The irony of Silhouette complaining that someone else is a liar......lol....

As she lies her ass off in every thread.

Like she lies about her supposed 'poll'.

No one is forcing churches to marry anyone it doesn't want to- nor should they- nor will they. 

Just a lie promoted by the homophobic bigots.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  You are lying your ass off, you are a liar.  When you said, every racist has a black best friend, that was not saying you don't believe him, you actually think every racist has a black best friend.
> 
> BTW, I never called you a liar, you can't prove otherwise.  What a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, this is really upsetting you isn't it? I believe his story. I cannot  make it any plainer. I believe there are lesbians he likes, just as I believe racists when they say there is a black person they like. They are still racist and St.Mike is still an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Going with the Hillary Clinton gambit are you?  She was stunned (according to her book) when she found out Clinton got a Monica even though she knew he'd repeatedly cheated on her.  She couldn't breathe, she was gasping for breath.
> 
> Just like you're not a liar because you actually believe every racist has a black best friend.  That's your story, they are telling the truth, so you're not a liar.
> 
> I always find lies bizarre that if we believe you, you look worse than if we don't.  It's an odd defense.  No, I am not guilty of armed robbery, I am guilty of murder!
> 
> LOL.  You just keep sticking to that story.  I'm still waiting for you to show where I ever called your lying ass a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really like going off on unrelated tangents don't you? ADD?
> 
> I never said you called me a liar. The post you are getting your panties in a wad about was a reply to St. Mike, not to poor little victim Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, and the tears start flowing again.  I told you that you should get away from your computer for a while and calm down.  This is just an internet political discussion, you need to stop getting so upset.  Maybe a wine spritzer would help.  But stop crying, it's embarrassing to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What indication are you getting from my posts that I'm upset? Have I called you names? I don't even think I've used any exclamation points. You obviously can't address the actual content of my posts so you deflect with silliness. Have fun.
Click to expand...

You're bleeding all over the thread. It's actually quite embarassing. Have some dignity, will you?


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, this is really upsetting you isn't it? I believe his story. I cannot  make it any plainer. I believe there are lesbians he likes, just as I believe racists when they say there is a black person they like. They are still racist and St.Mike is still an anti gay bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going with the Hillary Clinton gambit are you?  She was stunned (according to her book) when she found out Clinton got a Monica even though she knew he'd repeatedly cheated on her.  She couldn't breathe, she was gasping for breath.
> 
> Just like you're not a liar because you actually believe every racist has a black best friend.  That's your story, they are telling the truth, so you're not a liar.
> 
> I always find lies bizarre that if we believe you, you look worse than if we don't.  It's an odd defense.  No, I am not guilty of armed robbery, I am guilty of murder!
> 
> LOL.  You just keep sticking to that story.  I'm still waiting for you to show where I ever called your lying ass a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really like going off on unrelated tangents don't you? ADD?
> 
> I never said you called me a liar. The post you are getting your panties in a wad about was a reply to St. Mike, not to poor little victim Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, and the tears start flowing again.  I told you that you should get away from your computer for a while and calm down.  This is just an internet political discussion, you need to stop getting so upset.  Maybe a wine spritzer would help.  But stop crying, it's embarrassing to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What indication are you getting from my posts that I'm upset? Have I called you names? I don't even think I've used any exclamation points. You obviously can't address the actual content of my posts so you deflect with silliness. Have fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're bleeding all over the thread. It's actually quite embarassing. Have some dignity, will you?
Click to expand...


Oh can I just use that as a response to all of your posts? It is so apt for you

You're bleeding all over the thread. It's actually quite embarrassing. Have some dignity, will you?


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> The history..
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is wasted here. I've seen the quote, it's perfectly obvious what you said, but Kaz and Mike NEED it to be something else. *The Chicken Littles on this thread haven't had a good point in thirty pages and they know it*.... No one cares about any of this USMB High drama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, another veiled plea to moderators to "shut this thread down!!".  For "nobody caring" about "any of this USMB High drama", it's odd that this thread has 58,000 views, 7,000 replies, sports the most popular poll in USMB history and keeps on getting new votes on that poll pretty much daily, if not every other day, certainly weekly.  It registers high in search engines and has brought quite a lot of advertising revenue to this site.  So, once again, facts fly in the face of LGBT smoke-and-mirrors assertions to the opposite.  And that being said, with all the lawsuits against individual christians going forward and sticking, assurances from the LGBT crowd that congregations of individual christians (churches) "will not be sued" are worth exactly as much as Paperman's comments above that "nobody cares about this thread"......(So PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!  Make these numbers...er..um...I mean "It" _go away_..)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The kind of thing I'm about to point out to you usually comes with a lot of mean-spirited jabs at the other person's intelligence, and I'd appreciate if you took notice that I'm not doing that.
> 
> You have misread my post. No problem, I've done the same thing. If you look again, you'll see that I'm only talking about this "who lied" spat between Kaz, Mike, and Seawytch. I am not saying the thread is not popular or interesting to people, which obviously it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What and who pray tell were you referring to as "The Chicken Littles of this thread"?  You know damn well its me and any other poster either legitimately opposed to the Gay Agenda or role-playing a "gay basher" to ramp up sympathy for your cause (you know, since lucid rebuttal and the old choreographed flame-war to lock the threads away routine isn't working for you anymore).
> 
> A Chicken Little is a person who is being accused of getting uptight about a danger that ostensibly doesn't exist.  There was no actual spat.  St. Mike is on your team.  What you really, actually meant was a lie.  You were lying saying this thread wasn't popular and that its points and data are not compelling.  You said the "Chicken Littles" (christians concerned about gays suing churches to accomodate gay weddings) "hadn't had a good point in 30 pages here"..
> 
> Which is a lie.  You manufactured a lie to sell to the public.  Which is precisely why the public becomes concerned when you and your "creative/flexible" ilk tell us we should not expect congregations of individual christians (also known as "churches") will be forced to peform "gay weddings".  We know you are lying..
> 
> What you are doing in your last post is clear evidence of your cult's penchant for "artful historical revisionism"
Click to expand...


It's ironic you'd accuse me of "historical revisionism" when you keep editing my posts to say what you want them to say. Here's the most pertinent slice of what you cut out this time:



> And guys [meaning Kaz and Mike]. Pro tip: no one gets this wildly defensive when someone dismisses their "I have X minority friend" claim except bigots (yes, even Native Americans can still be bigots). No one. So dry those tears ya'll. Pull yourselves together. No one cares about any of this USMB High drama.



So does it look now like I'm talking about the whole thread in that last paragraph, or Kaz and Mike's ongoing hysterics?

Now, when I asked before why interracial marriage wasn't forced on churches after the Loving decision, you said that basically, people just accepted it on their own. So you're claiming churches then and now all freely administer interracial weddings, correct? Essentially, that overt racism is gone from the church?


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants this thread to be shut down drama queen. This thread has become a glorious repository of dramatic pearl-clutching, abject fear-peddling, and, rank desperation from the self-righteous social conservatives. They are losing their anti-gay crusade on almost every front so I suspect they will become more unhinged in the following months. The desperation of which I speak of is beautifully displayed every time Sil tries to claim that this poll means that 80% of the respondents also disapprove of gay marriage even though the vast and overwhelming majority that support gay marriage also voted that the church has every right to marry or not marry any couple as they see fit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just go to Silo's old thread on California removing Prop 8 from its books if you want a preview of the panty shitting hysterics you'll see when and if gay marriage is protected by the courts.
> 
> Expect endless babble about 'treason' and 'tyranny' and 'coups' and 'judicial fiat' and 'traitors' with heavy dallops of chickenshit references to 'civil wars' and threats of violence against gays for not 'sitting down and shutting the fuck up'.
> 
> Thuggery tends to lose its thin veneer of pseudo-legal shellack when the courts expressly contradict its reasoning. Batshit crazy certainly does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read through that hot mess of a thread. How any rationale person could take Sil's predictions or wild legal interpretations seriously is truly mind boggling. Apparently gay marriage is still banned in California because...well...ummm...Sil said so. lol
> 
> Is that the same thread where if gays do not back off they'll "make hate crimes look like picnics" or something?
Click to expand...


No, Silo has never made such a claim. My bad if my post inferred as much. Silo is many things. But thuggishly violent isn't one of them.

That was Where_r_my_keys. Backed by St. Mikey who said, and I quote 'even Jesus went on a rampage' when defending threats of violence against gays.

You can't make this shit up.


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants this thread to be shut down drama queen. This thread has become a glorious repository of dramatic pearl-clutching, abject fear-peddling, and, rank desperation from the self-righteous social conservatives. They are losing their anti-gay crusade on almost every front so I suspect they will become more unhinged in the following months. The desperation of which I speak of is beautifully displayed every time Sil tries to claim that this poll means that 80% of the respondents also disapprove of gay marriage even though the vast and overwhelming majority that support gay marriage also voted that the church has every right to marry or not marry any couple as they see fit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just go to Silo's old thread on California removing Prop 8 from its books if you want a preview of the panty shitting hysterics you'll see when and if gay marriage is protected by the courts.
> 
> Expect endless babble about 'treason' and 'tyranny' and 'coups' and 'judicial fiat' and 'traitors' with heavy dallops of chickenshit references to 'civil wars' and threats of violence against gays for not 'sitting down and shutting the fuck up'.
> 
> Thuggery tends to lose its thin veneer of pseudo-legal shellack when the courts expressly contradict its reasoning. Batshit crazy certainly does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read through that hot mess of a thread. How any rationale person could take Sil's predictions or wild legal interpretations seriously is truly mind boggling. Apparently gay marriage is still banned in California because...well...ummm...Sil said so. lol
> 
> Is that the same thread where if gays do not back off they'll "make hate crimes look like picnics" or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Silo has never made such a claim. My bad if my post inferred as much. Silo is many things. But thuggishly violent isn't one of them.
> 
> That was Where_r_my_keys. Backed by St. Mikey who said, and I quote 'even Jesus went on a rampage' when defending threats of violence against gays.
> 
> You can't make this shit up.
Click to expand...


I know. Silo may be silly and overly dramatic but threatening and/or violent she is not. I disagree with most of her posts but I respect the fact that she remains mostly civil.


----------



## Syriusly

mdk said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants this thread to be shut down drama queen. This thread has become a glorious repository of dramatic pearl-clutching, abject fear-peddling, and, rank desperation from the self-righteous social conservatives. They are losing their anti-gay crusade on almost every front so I suspect they will become more unhinged in the following months. The desperation of which I speak of is beautifully displayed every time Sil tries to claim that this poll means that 80% of the respondents also disapprove of gay marriage even though the vast and overwhelming majority that support gay marriage also voted that the church has every right to marry or not marry any couple as they see fit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just go to Silo's old thread on California removing Prop 8 from its books if you want a preview of the panty shitting hysterics you'll see when and if gay marriage is protected by the courts.
> 
> Expect endless babble about 'treason' and 'tyranny' and 'coups' and 'judicial fiat' and 'traitors' with heavy dallops of chickenshit references to 'civil wars' and threats of violence against gays for not 'sitting down and shutting the fuck up'.
> 
> Thuggery tends to lose its thin veneer of pseudo-legal shellack when the courts expressly contradict its reasoning. Batshit crazy certainly does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read through that hot mess of a thread. How any rationale person could take Sil's predictions or wild legal interpretations seriously is truly mind boggling. Apparently gay marriage is still banned in California because...well...ummm...Sil said so. lol
> 
> Is that the same thread where if gays do not back off they'll "make hate crimes look like picnics" or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Silo has never made such a claim. My bad if my post inferred as much. Silo is many things. But thuggishly violent isn't one of them.
> 
> That was Where_r_my_keys. Backed by St. Mikey who said, and I quote 'even Jesus went on a rampage' when defending threats of violence against gays.
> 
> You can't make this shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. Silo may be silly and overly dramatic but threatening and/or violent she is not. I disagree with most of her posts but I respect the fact that she remains mostly civil.
Click to expand...


Agreed- Sil is mostly civil and mostly delusional, but unlike say Greenboy or Keys, never advocating violence towards homosexuals.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  You are lying your ass off, you are a liar.  When you said, every racist has a black best friend, that was not saying you don't believe him, you actually think every racist has a black best friend.
> 
> BTW, I never called you a liar, you can't prove otherwise.  What a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, this is really upsetting you isn't it? I believe his story. I cannot  make it any plainer. I believe there are lesbians he likes, just as I believe racists when they say there is a black person they like. They are still racist and St.Mike is still an anti gay bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Going with the Hillary Clinton gambit are you?  She was stunned (according to her book) when she found out Clinton got a Monica even though she knew he'd repeatedly cheated on her.  She couldn't breathe, she was gasping for breath.
> 
> Just like you're not a liar because you actually believe every racist has a black best friend.  That's your story, they are telling the truth, so you're not a liar.
> 
> I always find lies bizarre that if we believe you, you look worse than if we don't.  It's an odd defense.  No, I am not guilty of armed robbery, I am guilty of murder!
> 
> LOL.  You just keep sticking to that story.  I'm still waiting for you to show where I ever called your lying ass a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really like going off on unrelated tangents don't you? ADD?
> 
> I never said you called me a liar. The post you are getting your panties in a wad about was a reply to St. Mike, not to poor little victim Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, and the tears start flowing again.  I told you that you should get away from your computer for a while and calm down.  This is just an internet political discussion, you need to stop getting so upset.  Maybe a wine spritzer would help.  But stop crying, it's embarrassing to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What indication are you getting from my posts that I'm upset? Have I called you names? I don't even think I've used any exclamation points. You obviously can't address the actual content of my posts so you deflect with silliness. Have fun.
Click to expand...


My God, you are dense.  You really can't think logically or follow a conversation at all


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> I know. Silo may be silly and overly dramatic but threatening and/or violent she is not. I disagree with most of her posts but I respect the fact that she remains mostly civil.


 
Thanks.  And most people who disagree with "gay marriage" and the Gay Agenda in general are also not thuggish folk.  They simple feel, know, believe and like me, have studied about how it is wrong and harmful to society.

You keep your private lives private.  But do not demand they become part of the inherited fabric of society. 

But we've wandered away from talking about how if individual christians can be sued, congregations of them (churches) most certainly are next.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, this is really upsetting you isn't it? I believe his story. I cannot  make it any plainer. I believe there are lesbians he likes, just as I believe racists when they say there is a black person they like. They are still racist and St.Mike is still an anti gay bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going with the Hillary Clinton gambit are you?  She was stunned (according to her book) when she found out Clinton got a Monica even though she knew he'd repeatedly cheated on her.  She couldn't breathe, she was gasping for breath.
> 
> Just like you're not a liar because you actually believe every racist has a black best friend.  That's your story, they are telling the truth, so you're not a liar.
> 
> I always find lies bizarre that if we believe you, you look worse than if we don't.  It's an odd defense.  No, I am not guilty of armed robbery, I am guilty of murder!
> 
> LOL.  You just keep sticking to that story.  I'm still waiting for you to show where I ever called your lying ass a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really like going off on unrelated tangents don't you? ADD?
> 
> I never said you called me a liar. The post you are getting your panties in a wad about was a reply to St. Mike, not to poor little victim Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, and the tears start flowing again.  I told you that you should get away from your computer for a while and calm down.  This is just an internet political discussion, you need to stop getting so upset.  Maybe a wine spritzer would help.  But stop crying, it's embarrassing to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What indication are you getting from my posts that I'm upset? Have I called you names? I don't even think I've used any exclamation points. You obviously can't address the actual content of my posts so you deflect with silliness. Have fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My God, you are dense.  You really can't think logically or follow a conversation at all
Click to expand...


I'm following the conversation just fine...obviously or you and St. Mike wouldn't be attempting to deflect with your personal insults. 

Out of bullets and throwing the gun I see.


----------



## Seawytch

Syriusly said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants this thread to be shut down drama queen. This thread has become a glorious repository of dramatic pearl-clutching, abject fear-peddling, and, rank desperation from the self-righteous social conservatives. They are losing their anti-gay crusade on almost every front so I suspect they will become more unhinged in the following months. The desperation of which I speak of is beautifully displayed every time Sil tries to claim that this poll means that 80% of the respondents also disapprove of gay marriage even though the vast and overwhelming majority that support gay marriage also voted that the church has every right to marry or not marry any couple as they see fit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just go to Silo's old thread on California removing Prop 8 from its books if you want a preview of the panty shitting hysterics you'll see when and if gay marriage is protected by the courts.
> 
> Expect endless babble about 'treason' and 'tyranny' and 'coups' and 'judicial fiat' and 'traitors' with heavy dallops of chickenshit references to 'civil wars' and threats of violence against gays for not 'sitting down and shutting the fuck up'.
> 
> Thuggery tends to lose its thin veneer of pseudo-legal shellack when the courts expressly contradict its reasoning. Batshit crazy certainly does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read through that hot mess of a thread. How any rationale person could take Sil's predictions or wild legal interpretations seriously is truly mind boggling. Apparently gay marriage is still banned in California because...well...ummm...Sil said so. lol
> 
> Is that the same thread where if gays do not back off they'll "make hate crimes look like picnics" or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Silo has never made such a claim. My bad if my post inferred as much. Silo is many things. But thuggishly violent isn't one of them.
> 
> That was Where_r_my_keys. Backed by St. Mikey who said, and I quote 'even Jesus went on a rampage' when defending threats of violence against gays.
> 
> You can't make this shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. Silo may be silly and overly dramatic but threatening and/or violent she is not. I disagree with most of her posts but I respect the fact that she remains mostly civil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed- Sil is mostly civil and mostly delusional, but unlike say Greenboy or Keys, never advocating violence towards homosexuals.
Click to expand...


She has however, just like Greenbean and Keys, repeatedly implied that gays are akin to pedophiles.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going with the Hillary Clinton gambit are you?  She was stunned (according to her book) when she found out Clinton got a Monica even though she knew he'd repeatedly cheated on her.  She couldn't breathe, she was gasping for breath.
> 
> Just like you're not a liar because you actually believe every racist has a black best friend.  That's your story, they are telling the truth, so you're not a liar.
> 
> I always find lies bizarre that if we believe you, you look worse than if we don't.  It's an odd defense.  No, I am not guilty of armed robbery, I am guilty of murder!
> 
> LOL.  You just keep sticking to that story.  I'm still waiting for you to show where I ever called your lying ass a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really like going off on unrelated tangents don't you? ADD?
> 
> I never said you called me a liar. The post you are getting your panties in a wad about was a reply to St. Mike, not to poor little victim Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG, and the tears start flowing again.  I told you that you should get away from your computer for a while and calm down.  This is just an internet political discussion, you need to stop getting so upset.  Maybe a wine spritzer would help.  But stop crying, it's embarrassing to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What indication are you getting from my posts that I'm upset? Have I called you names? I don't even think I've used any exclamation points. You obviously can't address the actual content of my posts so you deflect with silliness. Have fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My God, you are dense.  You really can't think logically or follow a conversation at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm following the conversation just fine...obviously or you and St. Mike wouldn't be attempting to deflect with your personal insults.
> 
> Out of bullets and throwing the gun I see.
Click to expand...


No, you seriously aren't following the conversation.  If you did follow it, you wouldn't have just asked me question where the answer was butt obvious.  I was going to put the key parts in green, but I'm tired of explaining conversations to you.  It's all in this quote.  If you can't figure it out, you will have to remain ignorant.  Maybe rather than grasping it, you can just ask Bodecea and she can tell you she doesn't get it either then you can feel better about yourself even though the obvious just flew right past your head again.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really like going off on unrelated tangents don't you? ADD?
> 
> I never said you called me a liar. The post you are getting your panties in a wad about was a reply to St. Mike, not to poor little victim Kaz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, and the tears start flowing again.  I told you that you should get away from your computer for a while and calm down.  This is just an internet political discussion, you need to stop getting so upset.  Maybe a wine spritzer would help.  But stop crying, it's embarrassing to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What indication are you getting from my posts that I'm upset? Have I called you names? I don't even think I've used any exclamation points. You obviously can't address the actual content of my posts so you deflect with silliness. Have fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My God, you are dense.  You really can't think logically or follow a conversation at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm following the conversation just fine...obviously or you and St. Mike wouldn't be attempting to deflect with your personal insults.
> 
> Out of bullets and throwing the gun I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you seriously aren't following the conversation.  If you did follow it, you wouldn't have just asked me question where the answer was butt obvious.  I was going to put the key parts in green, but I'm tired of explaining conversations to you.  It's all in this quote.  If you can't figure it out, you will have to remain ignorant.  Maybe rather than grasping it, you can just ask Bodecea and she can tell you she doesn't get it either then you can feel better about yourself even though the obvious just flew right past your head again.
Click to expand...


Right...nobody get's poor misunderstood Kaz...so it must be their fault. 

Call me some more names, maybe that will help your case. 

Out of bullets.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, and the tears start flowing again.  I told you that you should get away from your computer for a while and calm down.  This is just an internet political discussion, you need to stop getting so upset.  Maybe a wine spritzer would help.  But stop crying, it's embarrassing to watch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What indication are you getting from my posts that I'm upset? Have I called you names? I don't even think I've used any exclamation points. You obviously can't address the actual content of my posts so you deflect with silliness. Have fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My God, you are dense.  You really can't think logically or follow a conversation at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm following the conversation just fine...obviously or you and St. Mike wouldn't be attempting to deflect with your personal insults.
> 
> Out of bullets and throwing the gun I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you seriously aren't following the conversation.  If you did follow it, you wouldn't have just asked me question where the answer was butt obvious.  I was going to put the key parts in green, but I'm tired of explaining conversations to you.  It's all in this quote.  If you can't figure it out, you will have to remain ignorant.  Maybe rather than grasping it, you can just ask Bodecea and she can tell you she doesn't get it either then you can feel better about yourself even though the obvious just flew right past your head again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...nobody get's poor misunderstood Kaz...so it must be their fault.
> 
> Call me some more names, maybe that will help your case.
> 
> Out of bullets.
Click to expand...


Wow, I thought you'd gotten a grip, now the tears are back.  You seriously need a break from the internet if you can't stop getting so upset.  People will disagree with you, you can't break down and weep every time.  Maybe you should take up knitting.  Then again you'd probably find a way to break down and cry over that too.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> What indication are you getting from my posts that I'm upset? Have I called you names? I don't even think I've used any exclamation points. You obviously can't address the actual content of my posts so you deflect with silliness. Have fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My God, you are dense.  You really can't think logically or follow a conversation at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm following the conversation just fine...obviously or you and St. Mike wouldn't be attempting to deflect with your personal insults.
> 
> Out of bullets and throwing the gun I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you seriously aren't following the conversation.  If you did follow it, you wouldn't have just asked me question where the answer was butt obvious.  I was going to put the key parts in green, but I'm tired of explaining conversations to you.  It's all in this quote.  If you can't figure it out, you will have to remain ignorant.  Maybe rather than grasping it, you can just ask Bodecea and she can tell you she doesn't get it either then you can feel better about yourself even though the obvious just flew right past your head again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...nobody get's poor misunderstood Kaz...so it must be their fault.
> 
> Call me some more names, maybe that will help your case.
> 
> Out of bullets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, I thought you'd gotten a grip, now the tears are back.  You seriously need a break from the internet if you can't stop getting so upset.  People will disagree with you, you can't break down and weep every time.  Maybe you should take up knitting.  Then again you'd probably find a way to break down and cry over that too.
Click to expand...



You really do have a problem reading emotions don't you. Have you seen a professional? You read laughing icons as sadness. How very odd.


----------



## Silhouette

Ah and the flame war continues.  Kaz, I had wondered about you before, but now I know.  Thanks for the heads up.

You guys are desperate to make this popular thread get locked.  But the thing is, it's such a source of revenue for USMB.  And to successfully get it locked would mean that USMB, the last bastion of free speech on political websites in the US (one of the rare few for sure) will take on the color of just another Rainbow-nazi outfit where civil opposition to gay marriage is met with the gestapo, instant warnings and permanent bans. 

Nobody likes those types of websites and they dry up quickly like leaves in the hot wind.

Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters who's sole aim is to start bickering with the more typical gay-advocate types.  It's like the Kaz's, St. Mikes and Conservatives of this board exist only as names to be called in to fake being the opposition to gay marraige, only to quickly drop that topic and turn to a flame war that surely would get the thread shut down.

Very weird.


----------



## Syriusly

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really like going off on unrelated tangents don't you? ADD?
> 
> I never said you called me a liar. The post you are getting your panties in a wad about was a reply to St. Mike, not to poor little victim Kaz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, and the tears start flowing again.  I told you that you should get away from your computer for a while and calm down.  This is just an internet political discussion, you need to stop getting so upset.  Maybe a wine spritzer would help.  But stop crying, it's embarrassing to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What indication are you getting from my posts that I'm upset? Have I called you names? I don't even think I've used any exclamation points. You obviously can't address the actual content of my posts so you deflect with silliness. Have fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My God, you are dense.  You really can't think logically or follow a conversation at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm following the conversation just fine...obviously or you and St. Mike wouldn't be attempting to deflect with your personal insults.
> 
> Out of bullets and throwing the gun I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you seriously aren't following the conversation.  If you did follow it, you wouldn't have just asked me question where the answer was butt obvious.  I was going to put the key parts in green, but I'm tired of explaining conversations to you.  It's all in this quote.  If you can't figure it out, you will have to remain ignorant.  Maybe rather than grasping it, you can just ask Bodecea and she can tell you she doesn't get it either then you can feel better about yourself even though the obvious just flew right past your head again.
Click to expand...


There is no conversation with you to follow. You do not contribute to threads- you come to troll.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters
> Very weird.



It is very weird that you keep bringing up 'congregations of individual christians'.

Churches are exempt from PA laws- and taxes
Business's are subject to PA laws- and taxes.

No church has been, should be, or will be forced to marry anyone it does not want to.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters
> Very weird.


 


Syriusly said:


> It is very weird that you keep bringing up 'congregations of individual christians'.
> 
> Churches are exempt from PA laws- and taxes
> Business's are subject to PA laws- and taxes.
> 
> No church has been, should be, or will be forced to marry anyone it does not want to.


 
Couple of questions for you page-spammer, fake flame-war fanner:

1. What EXACTLY is a "church", if not a congregation of individual christans? and..

2. Does the 1st Amendment say "practice of freedom of CHURCH (a congregation)" or does it say "practice of freedom of RELIGION (of an individual)"? and ..

3. If the 1st IS about freedom of religion of the individual, which is dominant?  Public accomodation laws or the 1st Amendment?

Take your time.  I don't expect a direct answer from you.  I do expect about five one or two line posts all in a row, spamming this page out of the general public's eye.. Or maybe St. Mike, Kaz or Conservative would like to start calling you derogatory names back and forth.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Ah and the flame war continues.  Kaz, I had wondered about you before, but now I know.  Thanks for the heads up.
> 
> You guys are desperate to make this popular thread get locked.  But the thing is, it's such a source of revenue for USMB.  And to successfully get it locked would mean that USMB, the last bastion of free speech on political websites in the US (one of the rare few for sure) will take on the color of just another Rainbow-nazi outfit where civil opposition to gay marriage is met with the gestapo, instant warnings and permanent bans.
> 
> Nobody likes those types of websites and they dry up quickly like leaves in the hot wind.
> 
> Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters who's sole aim is to start bickering with the more typical gay-advocate types.  It's like the Kaz's, St. Mikes and Conservatives of this board exist only as names to be called in to fake being the opposition to gay marraige, only to quickly drop that topic and turn to a flame war that surely would get the thread shut down.
> 
> Very weird.



a) No one is trying to get the thread locked down. 
b) The people who agree with you on this thread are not false-flags.
c) Churches are not just congregations of individuals Christians. 
d) This "flame war" is, sadly, entirely real. 
e) Repeating things doesn't make them true


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters
> Very weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very weird that you keep bringing up 'congregations of individual christians'.
> 
> Churches are exempt from PA laws- and taxes
> Business's are subject to PA laws- and taxes.
> 
> No church has been, should be, or will be forced to marry anyone it does not want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couple of questions for you page-spammer, fake flame-war fanner:
> 
> 1. What EXACTLY is a "church", if not a congregation of individual christans? and..
> 
> 2. Does the 1st Amendment say "practice of freedom of CHURCH (a congregation)" or does it say "practice of freedom of RELIGION (of an individual)"? and ..
> 
> 3. If the 1st IS about freedom of religion of the individual, which is dominant?  Public accomodation laws or the 1st Amendment?
> 
> Take your time.  I don't expect a direct answer from you.  I do expect about five one or two line posts all in a row, spamming this page out of the general public's eye.. Or maybe St. Mike, Kaz or Conservative would like to start calling you derogatory names back and forth.
Click to expand...


Here's some decent guidelines.



> a distinct legal existence and religious history,
> a recognized creed and form of worship,
> established places of worship,
> a regular congregation and regular religious services, and
> an organization of ordained ministers



Did you find an example of activist judges forcing a church to perform an interracial marriage yet?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters
> Very weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very weird that you keep bringing up 'congregations of individual christians'.
> 
> Churches are exempt from PA laws- and taxes
> Business's are subject to PA laws- and taxes.
> 
> No church has been, should be, or will be forced to marry anyone it does not want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couple of questions for you page-spammer, fake flame-war fanner:.
Click to expand...


LOL....you are delusional.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters
> Very weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very weird that you keep bringing up 'congregations of individual christians'.
> 
> Churches are exempt from PA laws- and taxes
> Business's are subject to PA laws- and taxes.
> 
> No church has been, should be, or will be forced to marry anyone it does not want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couple of questions for you page-spammer, fake flame-war fanner:
> 
> 1. What EXACTLY is a "church", if not a congregation of individual christans? and..
Click to expand...


Right from Colorado's PA law

(1) As used in this part 6,* "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public*, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. 

*"Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes*.

Pretty straight forward to me.


----------



## Silhouette

Colorado, Syriusly, is not where this legal question is headed.  It is headed to the US Supreme Court..



Paperman299 said:


> a distinct legal existence and religious history,
> a recognized creed and form of worship,
> established places of worship,
> a regular *congregation* and regular religious services, and
> an organization of ordained ministers
Click to expand...

 
OK so are individuals involved in practicing the edicts of their faith, or are they a fractillated part of a larger whole?  How would the 1st Amendment view that?  ie: is it "freedom of church for congregations or ordained ministers" or is is "freedom of religion for individuals"?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters
> Very weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very weird that you keep bringing up 'congregations of individual christians'.
> 
> Churches are exempt from PA laws- and taxes
> Business's are subject to PA laws- and taxes.
> 
> No church has been, should be, or will be forced to marry anyone it does not want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. Does the 1st Amendment say "practice of freedom of CHURCH (a congregation)" or does it say "practice of freedom of RELIGION (of an individual)"? and ..
> 
> 3. If the 1st IS about freedom of religion of the individual, which is dominant?  Public accomodation laws or the 1st Amendment?.
Click to expand...


The First Amendment doesn't say either of those things.

*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;*

Now your argument- I believe- is that Christians who own business's can discriminate in their business practices by claiming that any law is a violation of their first amendment freedom to practice their religion.

I think that the business owner has every right to file law suit, claiming that this law violates his constitutional rights- he may even win- look at Hobby Lobby.  I think that business owners have the exact same right to go to the courts to attempt to have laws overturned on Constitutional grounds as same gender couples do.

Do you agree that either side can file suit seeking to overturn laws that they believe are unconstitutional?
*
*


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Do you agree that either side can file suit seeking to overturn laws that they believe are unconstitutional?


 
You can file suit on anything you like.  That's how we resolve conflict in the US.  It doesn't guarantee a win though...



> * "..or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"*


 
When & where?  Just in a church or all the time?  Dominant or submissive to local PA laws?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Colorado, Syriusly, is not where this legal question is headed.  It is headed to the US Supreme Court..
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a distinct legal existence and religious history,
> a recognized creed and form of worship,
> established places of worship,
> a regular *congregation* and regular religious services, and
> an organization of ordained ministers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so are individuals involved in practicing the edicts of their faith, or are they a fractillated part of a larger whole?  How would the 1st Amendment view that?  ie: is it "freedom of church for congregations or ordained ministers" or is is "freedom of religion for individuals"?
Click to expand...


Here is an article with a whole discussion of the issue

Wake Forest Law Review 8211 A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that either side can file suit seeking to overturn laws that they believe are unconstitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can file suit on anything you like.  That's how we resolve conflict in the US.  It doesn't guarantee a win though...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * "..or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When & where?  Just in a church or all the time?  Dominant or submissive to local PA laws?
Click to expand...


I think that the business owner has every right to file law suit, claiming that this law violates his constitutional rights- he may even win- look at Hobby Lobby. I think that business owners have the exact same right to go to the courts to attempt to have laws overturned on Constitutional grounds as same gender couples do.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> *I think that the business owner has every right to file law suit, claiming that this law violates his constitutional rights- he may even win- look at Hobby Lobby*. I think that business owners have the exact same right to go to the courts to attempt to have laws overturned on Constitutional grounds as same gender couples do.


But for now you're content to err on the side of forced abdication of a person's faith...in favor of perverse sexual lifestyles...gotcha...

Combine your last two posts.  There is no need to separate paragraphs by an entire post.  That chews up bandwidth.  I'd ban you.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think that the business owner has every right to file law suit, claiming that this law violates his constitutional rights- he may even win- look at Hobby Lobby*. I think that business owners have the exact same right to go to the courts to attempt to have laws overturned on Constitutional grounds as same gender couples do.
> 
> 
> 
> But for now you're content to err on the side of forced abdication of a person's faith...in favor of perverse sexual lifestyles...gotcha...
> 
> Combine your last two posts.  There is no need to separate paragraphs by an entire post.  That chews up bandwidth.  I'd ban you.
Click to expand...


Oh heck- I am confident you would ban any person who speaks up for equal rights if you could do it.

What I err on is the side of the truth.

These owners are expected to comply with the law just like anyone else. You claim that they should have a religious exemption to discriminate against homosexuals and therefore should be exempt.

I say- the owners can either try to change the law legislatively or through the courts- both are their rights. 

In the meantime- business's are still expected to comply with the law.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Colorado, Syriusly, is not where this legal question is headed.  It is headed to the US Supreme Court..



This question is not headed to the Supreme Court at all. 

Maybe someday- but not even on the radar yet.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> My God, you are dense.  You really can't think logically or follow a conversation at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm following the conversation just fine...obviously or you and St. Mike wouldn't be attempting to deflect with your personal insults.
> 
> Out of bullets and throwing the gun I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you seriously aren't following the conversation.  If you did follow it, you wouldn't have just asked me question where the answer was butt obvious.  I was going to put the key parts in green, but I'm tired of explaining conversations to you.  It's all in this quote.  If you can't figure it out, you will have to remain ignorant.  Maybe rather than grasping it, you can just ask Bodecea and she can tell you she doesn't get it either then you can feel better about yourself even though the obvious just flew right past your head again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...nobody get's poor misunderstood Kaz...so it must be their fault.
> 
> Call me some more names, maybe that will help your case.
> 
> Out of bullets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, I thought you'd gotten a grip, now the tears are back.  You seriously need a break from the internet if you can't stop getting so upset.  People will disagree with you, you can't break down and weep every time.  Maybe you should take up knitting.  Then again you'd probably find a way to break down and cry over that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really do have a problem reading emotions don't you. Have you seen a professional? You read laughing icons as sadness. How very odd.
Click to expand...


That's just funny.  I keep mocking you for telling me how I feel and you don't get it, even when I keep doing it only after you inform me how I feel.  You ask and I tell you to read the thread and you still don't notice that.  Damn you're dumb. Are you a blond?  This is just classically funny.


----------



## Syriusly

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm following the conversation just fine...obviously or you and St. Mike wouldn't be attempting to deflect with your personal insults.
> 
> Out of bullets and throwing the gun I see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you seriously aren't following the conversation.  If you did follow it, you wouldn't have just asked me question where the answer was butt obvious.  I was going to put the key parts in green, but I'm tired of explaining conversations to you.  It's all in this quote.  If you can't figure it out, you will have to remain ignorant.  Maybe rather than grasping it, you can just ask Bodecea and she can tell you she doesn't get it either then you can feel better about yourself even though the obvious just flew right past your head again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...nobody get's poor misunderstood Kaz...so it must be their fault.
> 
> Call me some more names, maybe that will help your case.
> 
> Out of bullets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, I thought you'd gotten a grip, now the tears are back.  You seriously need a break from the internet if you can't stop getting so upset.  People will disagree with you, you can't break down and weep every time.  Maybe you should take up knitting.  Then again you'd probably find a way to break down and cry over that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really do have a problem reading emotions don't you. Have you seen a professional? You read laughing icons as sadness. How very odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just funny.  I keep mocking you for telling me how I feel and you don't get it, even when I keep doing it only after you inform me how I feel.  You ask and I tell you to read the thread and you still don't notice that.  Damn you're dumb. Are you a blond?  This is just classically funny.
Click to expand...


What a troll.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm following the conversation just fine...obviously or you and St. Mike wouldn't be attempting to deflect with your personal insults.
> 
> Out of bullets and throwing the gun I see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you seriously aren't following the conversation.  If you did follow it, you wouldn't have just asked me question where the answer was butt obvious.  I was going to put the key parts in green, but I'm tired of explaining conversations to you.  It's all in this quote.  If you can't figure it out, you will have to remain ignorant.  Maybe rather than grasping it, you can just ask Bodecea and she can tell you she doesn't get it either then you can feel better about yourself even though the obvious just flew right past your head again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...nobody get's poor misunderstood Kaz...so it must be their fault.
> 
> Call me some more names, maybe that will help your case.
> 
> Out of bullets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, I thought you'd gotten a grip, now the tears are back.  You seriously need a break from the internet if you can't stop getting so upset.  People will disagree with you, you can't break down and weep every time.  Maybe you should take up knitting.  Then again you'd probably find a way to break down and cry over that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really do have a problem reading emotions don't you. Have you seen a professional? You read laughing icons as sadness. How very odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just funny.  I keep mocking you for telling me how I feel and you don't get it, even when I keep doing it only after you inform me how I feel.  You ask and I tell you to read the thread and you still don't notice that.  Damn you're dumb. Are you a blond?  This is just classically funny.
Click to expand...


When have I ascribed feelings to you? You're the one that keeps mentioning how "upset" I am, despite evidence to the contrary. It's just another way you deflect.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> When have I ascribed feelings to you?



Read every post you wrote that I responded to when I said you are crying.  Jesus you are dumb.  I hope you're hot.


----------



## Paperman299

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you seriously aren't following the conversation.  If you did follow it, you wouldn't have just asked me question where the answer was butt obvious.  I was going to put the key parts in green, but I'm tired of explaining conversations to you.  It's all in this quote.  If you can't figure it out, you will have to remain ignorant.  Maybe rather than grasping it, you can just ask Bodecea and she can tell you she doesn't get it either then you can feel better about yourself even though the obvious just flew right past your head again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right...nobody get's poor misunderstood Kaz...so it must be their fault.
> 
> Call me some more names, maybe that will help your case.
> 
> Out of bullets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, I thought you'd gotten a grip, now the tears are back.  You seriously need a break from the internet if you can't stop getting so upset.  People will disagree with you, you can't break down and weep every time.  Maybe you should take up knitting.  Then again you'd probably find a way to break down and cry over that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really do have a problem reading emotions don't you. Have you seen a professional? You read laughing icons as sadness. How very odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just funny.  I keep mocking you for telling me how I feel and you don't get it, even when I keep doing it only after you inform me how I feel.  You ask and I tell you to read the thread and you still don't notice that.  Damn you're dumb. Are you a blond?  This is just classically funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When have I ascribed feelings to you? You're the one that keeps mentioning how "upset" I am, despite evidence to the contrary. It's just another way you deflect.
Click to expand...


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Colorado, Syriusly, is not where this legal question is headed.  It is headed to the US Supreme Court..
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a distinct legal existence and religious history,
> a recognized creed and form of worship,
> established places of worship,
> a regular *congregation* and regular religious services, and
> an organization of ordained ministers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so are individuals involved in practicing the edicts of their faith, or are they a fractillated part of a larger whole?  How would the 1st Amendment view that?  ie: is it "freedom of church for congregations or ordained ministers" or is is "freedom of religion for individuals"?
Click to expand...


It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." 

So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?


----------



## kaz

Paperman299 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Colorado, Syriusly, is not where this legal question is headed.  It is headed to the US Supreme Court..
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a distinct legal existence and religious history,
> a recognized creed and form of worship,
> established places of worship,
> a regular *congregation* and regular religious services, and
> an organization of ordained ministers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so are individuals involved in practicing the edicts of their faith, or are they a fractillated part of a larger whole?  How would the 1st Amendment view that?  ie: is it "freedom of church for congregations or ordained ministers" or is is "freedom of religion for individuals"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
> 
> So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?
Click to expand...


Freedom of speech refers to the right to express your views.  Yelling fire in a crowed theater is not expressing your view. Freedom of speech is unlimited for the intended purpose.  Your example is not of what freedom of speech means, it's a twisting of it.  Give an example for religion of where you want to limit it for it's intended purpose.  Examples that are not it's intended purpose is being a member of a religion does not allow you to remove someone else's rights.  So for example you cannot force your wife to serve you against her will.  That is not freedom of you practicing your own religion.  It does not give you the right to abuse your kids.  Like underage sex, a minor cannot consent to be abused by an adult.  Once they are 18 then it is their right to live their life as they chose.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Colorado, Syriusly, is not where this legal question is headed.  It is headed to the US Supreme Court..OK so are individuals involved in practicing the edicts of their faith, or are they a fractillated part of a larger whole?  How would the 1st Amendment view that?  ie: is it "freedom of church for congregations or ordained ministers" or is is "freedom of religion for individuals"?


 


Paperman299 said:


> It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
> 
> So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?


 
You haven't delineated whether or not the 1st Amendment protects the excercise of religion of a congregation of christians (churches) only, or of individual ones?  Which has the protection, collections of christians or individual ones?


----------



## Paperman299

kaz said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Colorado, Syriusly, is not where this legal question is headed.  It is headed to the US Supreme Court..
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a distinct legal existence and religious history,
> a recognized creed and form of worship,
> established places of worship,
> a regular *congregation* and regular religious services, and
> an organization of ordained ministers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so are individuals involved in practicing the edicts of their faith, or are they a fractillated part of a larger whole?  How would the 1st Amendment view that?  ie: is it "freedom of church for congregations or ordained ministers" or is is "freedom of religion for individuals"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
> 
> So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom of speech refers to the right to express your views.  Yelling fire in a crowed theater is not expressing your view. Freedom of speech is unlimited for the intended purpose.  Your example is not of what freedom of speech means, it's a twisting of it.  Give an example for religion of where you want to limit it for it's intended purpose.  Examples that are not it's intended purpose is being a member of a religion does not allow you to remove someone else's rights.  So for example you cannot force your wife to serve you against her will.  That is not freedom of you practicing your own religion.  It does not give you the right to abuse your kids.  Like underage sex, a minor cannot consent to be abused by an adult.  Once they are 18 then it is their right to live their life as they chose.
Click to expand...


I actually did not mention what freedom of speech means in my post, so I could hardly have twisted it. And I am not on board with limiting freedom of expression to only the expression of opinions - for instance, it's also your right to communicate information. 

But just so, expressing your view on its own is not an unlimited right. There can be concerns over obscenity, for example. Expressing your view in such a way that you violate laws unrelated to free speech is also not protected, i.e. burning your draft card. Expressing your views in such a way that you will likely incite the person you're addressing to violence ("fighting words.") Defamation is not protected. 

No, neither in theory nor in practice do we have an unlimited ability to express our views.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you seriously aren't following the conversation.  If you did follow it, you wouldn't have just asked me question where the answer was butt obvious.  I was going to put the key parts in green, but I'm tired of explaining conversations to you.  It's all in this quote.  If you can't figure it out, you will have to remain ignorant.  Maybe rather than grasping it, you can just ask Bodecea and she can tell you she doesn't get it either then you can feel better about yourself even though the obvious just flew right past your head again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right...nobody get's poor misunderstood Kaz...so it must be their fault.
> 
> Call me some more names, maybe that will help your case.
> 
> Out of bullets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, I thought you'd gotten a grip, now the tears are back.  You seriously need a break from the internet if you can't stop getting so upset.  People will disagree with you, you can't break down and weep every time.  Maybe you should take up knitting.  Then again you'd probably find a way to break down and cry over that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really do have a problem reading emotions don't you. Have you seen a professional? You read laughing icons as sadness. How very odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just funny.  I keep mocking you for telling me how I feel and you don't get it, even when I keep doing it only after you inform me how I feel.  You ask and I tell you to read the thread and you still don't notice that.  Damn you're dumb. Are you a blond?  This is just classically funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When have I ascribed feelings ... .
Click to expand...


With every single post, including that one... .   Your entire argument is entirely emotional and wholly devoid of reason.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

kaz said:


> Freedom of speech refers to the right to express your views.  Yelling fire in a crowed theater is not expressing your view. Freedom of speech is unlimited for the intended purpose.  Your example is not of what freedom of speech means, it's a twisting of it.  Give an example for religion of where you want to limit it for it's intended purpose.  Examples that are not it's intended purpose is being a member of a religion does not allow you to remove someone else's rights.  So for example you cannot force your wife to serve you against her will.  That is not freedom of you practicing your own religion.  It does not give you the right to abuse your kids.  Like underage sex, a minor cannot consent to be abused by an adult.  Once they are 18 then it is their right to live their life as they chose.



Well said...  Like every other right, the right to speak freely rest entirely upon the right to speak RESPONSIBLY.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Colorado, Syriusly, is not where this legal question is headed.  It is headed to the US Supreme Court..OK so are individuals involved in practicing the edicts of their faith, or are they a fractillated part of a larger whole?  How would the 1st Amendment view that?  ie: is it "freedom of church for congregations or ordained ministers" or is is "freedom of religion for individuals"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
> 
> So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't delineated whether or not the 1st Amendment protects the excercise of religion of a congregation of christians (churches) only, or of individual ones?  Which has the protection, collections of christians or individual ones?
Click to expand...


And I addressed _why_ I didn't reply to your post under your stringent standards straight away. Now, can we agree that freedom of religion is not an unlimited right, and has always carried restrictions? And if not, then why is it that freedom of religion should be an unlimited right, when freedom of speech is not?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Paperman299 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Colorado, Syriusly, is not where this legal question is headed.  It is headed to the US Supreme Court..OK so are individuals involved in practicing the edicts of their faith, or are they a fractillated part of a larger whole?  How would the 1st Amendment view that?  ie: is it "freedom of church for congregations or ordained ministers" or is is "freedom of religion for individuals"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
> 
> So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't delineated whether or not the 1st Amendment protects the excercise of religion of a congregation of christians (churches) only, or of individual ones?  Which has the protection, collections of christians or individual ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I addressed _why_ I didn't reply to your post under your stringent standards straight away. Now, can we agree that freedom of religion is not an unlimited right, and has always carried restrictions? And if not, then why is it that freedom of religion should be an unlimited right, when freedom of speech is not?
Click to expand...


ALL RIGHTS are limited by the RESPONSIBILITIES which sustain that right.

Such as the responsibility to freely speak out against the murder of pre-born children and other aspects of the normalization of sexual abnormality; debauchery, hedonism and the balance of the unenviable traits common to the Ideological Left.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> When have I ascribed feelings to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read every post you wrote that I responded to when I said you are crying.  Jesus you are dumb.  I hope you're hot.
Click to expand...


You are making absolutely no sense...but that seems to be a theme with you. YOU claim I'm "upset" and then you say I'm the one ascribing "feelings".


----------



## kaz

Paperman299 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Colorado, Syriusly, is not where this legal question is headed.  It is headed to the US Supreme Court..
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a distinct legal existence and religious history,
> a recognized creed and form of worship,
> established places of worship,
> a regular *congregation* and regular religious services, and
> an organization of ordained ministers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so are individuals involved in practicing the edicts of their faith, or are they a fractillated part of a larger whole?  How would the 1st Amendment view that?  ie: is it "freedom of church for congregations or ordained ministers" or is is "freedom of religion for individuals"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
> 
> So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom of speech refers to the right to express your views.  Yelling fire in a crowed theater is not expressing your view. Freedom of speech is unlimited for the intended purpose.  Your example is not of what freedom of speech means, it's a twisting of it.  Give an example for religion of where you want to limit it for it's intended purpose.  Examples that are not it's intended purpose is being a member of a religion does not allow you to remove someone else's rights.  So for example you cannot force your wife to serve you against her will.  That is not freedom of you practicing your own religion.  It does not give you the right to abuse your kids.  Like underage sex, a minor cannot consent to be abused by an adult.  Once they are 18 then it is their right to live their life as they chose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually did not mention what freedom of speech means in my post, so I could hardly have twisted it. And I am not on board with limiting freedom of expression to only the expression of opinions - for instance, it's also your right to communicate information.
> 
> But just so, expressing your view on its own is not an unlimited right. There can be concerns over obscenity, for example. Expressing your view in such a way that you violate laws unrelated to free speech is also not protected, i.e. burning your draft card. Expressing your views in such a way that you will likely incite the person you're addressing to violence ("fighting words.") Defamation is not protected.
> 
> No, neither in theory nor in practice do we have an unlimited ability to express our views.
Click to expand...


Again you use an example which is not expressing your views


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> When have I ascribed feelings to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read every post you wrote that I responded to when I said you are crying.  Jesus you are dumb.  I hope you're hot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making absolutely no sense...but that seems to be a theme with you. YOU claim I'm "upset" and then you say I'm the one ascribing "feelings".
Click to expand...


Yes, every time I said you were upset it was in direct response to a post you told me how I feel.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> When have I ascribed feelings to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read every post you wrote that I responded to when I said you are crying.  Jesus you are dumb.  I hope you're hot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making absolutely no sense...but that seems to be a theme with you. YOU claim I'm "upset" and then you say I'm the one ascribing "feelings".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, every time I said you were upset it was in direct response to a post you told me how I feel.
Click to expand...


 Except I didn't. I posted my perception of your victimhood.


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know. Silo may be silly and overly dramatic but threatening and/or violent she is not. I disagree with most of her posts but I respect the fact that she remains mostly civil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  And most people who disagree with "gay marriage" and the Gay Agenda in general are also not thuggish folk.  They simple feel, know, believe and like me, have studied about how it is wrong and harmful to society.
> 
> You keep your private lives private.  But do not demand they become part of the inherited fabric of society.
> 
> But we've wandered away from talking about how if individual christians can be sued, congregations of them (churches) most certainly are next.
Click to expand...

To attack an individual Christian for an agenda or for political and power purposes, is the same as attacking the congregation or an entire Church or a "Christian" Church if so be it the target of an attack through it's members.

It's like I ask Jake, how or where does one practice the faith in which one has learned in life, and this when they have gone to Church in order to learn these things ?  I mean if not throughout ones life as one would actually live it and freely practice it, then where ? There have been attacks on Christians and their faith throughout this nation now, and therefore the Church itself is under assault daily by the militant thugs who are doing this to them for their own selfish reasoning.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters
> Very weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very weird that you keep bringing up 'congregations of individual christians'.
> 
> Churches are exempt from PA laws- and taxes
> Business's are subject to PA laws- and taxes.
> 
> No church has been, should be, or will be forced to marry anyone it does not want to.
Click to expand...

But to bake a cake maybe ?


----------



## beagle9

Paperman299 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Colorado, Syriusly, is not where this legal question is headed.  It is headed to the US Supreme Court..OK so are individuals involved in practicing the edicts of their faith, or are they a fractillated part of a larger whole?  How would the 1st Amendment view that?  ie: is it "freedom of church for congregations or ordained ministers" or is is "freedom of religion for individuals"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
> 
> So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't delineated whether or not the 1st Amendment protects the excercise of religion of a congregation of christians (churches) only, or of individual ones?  Which has the protection, collections of christians or individual ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I addressed _why_ I didn't reply to your post under your stringent standards straight away. Now, can we agree that freedom of religion is not an unlimited right, and has always carried restrictions? And if not, then why is it that freedom of religion should be an unlimited right, when freedom of speech is not?
Click to expand...


Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out. This would not be an abuse of the freedom of religion clause, but rather it was an actual example of someone using it upon how it was intended to be used when stated or rather it would be the only way that it can be used by just one example of right ?

When confronted by a situation in which he was confronted with, he did what his religion had directed or taught him to do, and therefore he used his first amendment rights in a non-abusive manor I suspect, in order to do what he thought he had to do in the case. The problem is these days, is that it could end there for the ones wanting him to abdicate his faith or violate it but it don't or it never does anymore, now why is this you all suppose ?

Then ohhh brother here comes the miss-guided or vote pimping government to save the day again right ?

In a nation where the balance is leaned in favor now for so many, and for their ways of living and thinking now, well it is that these situations don't even have to collide any longer like they are doing, but they usually collide because some one is wanting to challenge the other person or persons culture, faith, and even a large group when these things are happening. The government is just being used in the situations by those who lobby it to bring in a big stick for them, and to knock the other one or the whole other group over the head with it.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Colorado, Syriusly, is not where this legal question is headed.  It is headed to the US Supreme Court..OK so are individuals involved in practicing the edicts of their faith, or are they a fractillated part of a larger whole?  How would the 1st Amendment view that?  ie: is it "freedom of church for congregations or ordained ministers" or is is "freedom of religion for individuals"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
> 
> So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't delineated whether or not the 1st Amendment protects the excercise of religion of a congregation of christians (churches) only, or of individual ones?  Which has the protection, collections of christians or individual ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I addressed _why_ I didn't reply to your post under your stringent standards straight away. Now, can we agree that freedom of religion is not an unlimited right, and has always carried restrictions? And if not, then why is it that freedom of religion should be an unlimited right, when freedom of speech is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALL RIGHTS are limited by the RESPONSIBILITIES which sustain that right.
> 
> Such as the responsibility to freely speak out against the murder of pre-born children and other aspects of the normalization of sexual abnormality; debauchery, hedonism and the balance of the unenviable traits common to the Ideological Left.
Click to expand...


There are no such responsibilities, Keyes. You just made that all up.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know. Silo may be silly and overly dramatic but threatening and/or violent she is not. I disagree with most of her posts but I respect the fact that she remains mostly civil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  And most people who disagree with "gay marriage" and the Gay Agenda in general are also not thuggish folk.  They simple feel, know, believe and like me, have studied about how it is wrong and harmful to society.
> 
> You keep your private lives private.  But do not demand they become part of the inherited fabric of society.
> 
> But we've wandered away from talking about how if individual christians can be sued, congregations of them (churches) most certainly are next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To attack an individual Christian for an agenda or for political and power purposes, is the same as attacking the congregation or an entire Church or a "Christian" Church if so be it the target of an attack through it's members.
Click to expand...


Obvious nonsense. A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.

Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.



You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow. 

Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.

That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Colorado, Syriusly, is not where this legal question is headed.  It is headed to the US Supreme Court..OK so are individuals involved in practicing the edicts of their faith, or are they a fractillated part of a larger whole?  How would the 1st Amendment view that?  ie: is it "freedom of church for congregations or ordained ministers" or is is "freedom of religion for individuals"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
> 
> So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't delineated whether or not the 1st Amendment protects the excercise of religion of a congregation of christians (churches) only, or of individual ones?  Which has the protection, collections of christians or individual ones?
Click to expand...


Given that our discussion is regarding churches being forced to accommodate weddings, we're clearly not speaking of individual business people, Silo. 

As a person is not a church anymore than a hubcap is a car.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> When have I ascribed feelings to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read every post you wrote that I responded to when I said you are crying.  Jesus you are dumb.  I hope you're hot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making absolutely no sense...but that seems to be a theme with you. YOU claim I'm "upset" and then you say I'm the one ascribing "feelings".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, every time I said you were upset it was in direct response to a post you told me how I feel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except I didn't. I posted my perception of your victimhood.
Click to expand...


And I posted my perception you did that because you are bawling your eyes out because you're a weeping mess.  Same thing.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> When have I ascribed feelings to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read every post you wrote that I responded to when I said you are crying.  Jesus you are dumb.  I hope you're hot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making absolutely no sense...but that seems to be a theme with you. YOU claim I'm "upset" and then you say I'm the one ascribing "feelings".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, every time I said you were upset it was in direct response to a post you told me how I feel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except I didn't. I posted my perception of your victimhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I posted my perception you did that because you are bawling your eyes out because you're a weeping mess.  Same thing.
Click to expand...



 Except you're actually exhibiting victimy tendencies whereas I'm not exhibiting anything resembling sadness or upset. 

Poor Kaz, he's so "subtle" nobody understands him.


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.


 


Skylar said:


> You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.
> 
> Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.
> 
> That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.


 
When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.  Only yours isn't a registered religion.  Until you make it so and gain tax exempt status, yours is merely a cult.

Christians have protection under the 1st.  Lifestyles don't.  Better get busy filling out all the paperwork and designate (finally) the Church of LGBT for what it really is.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.
> 
> Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.
> 
> That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.
Click to expand...


This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest. 

This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> *This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples*. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.
> 
> This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.


 
^^ See, there it is, right there!  ^^  You didn't even wait two posts and you admitted what I said was true.  You are fighting to deny marriage equality to all.  You want special treatment just for homosexuals!  It's a religion and right now polygamists and incest groups are "heresy" so you "reject" them, because they aren't politically expedient, not because you fundamentally disagree with their "right to marry" alongside any you might gain.  (marriage is currently a privelege).  They are happy to stand quietly by too.  They know their kink is too weird even now for society to accept.  The majority sure would turn on a dime if they knew those were coming along for the ride.  So y'all have a gentleman's agreement for your weirder legal first cousins to stay mute while your tsunami attempts to wash away states' rights to define marriage so that all the other flotsam and jetsum can roll in behind you.

Your despicable.  You really are.  Only mental people would stretch to such machinations to pull off a ruse.  Even the numbers at the top of this thread are denied.  Smoke and mirrors employed to trick the herd into balling up on your side of the fence.  There really is no subterfuge you won't try.  And your ilk are supposed to be the next 70 generations of "parents" to kids?  I think we've seen enough..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> ^^ See, there it is, right there!  ^^  You didn't even wait two posts and you admitted what I said was true.



So you admit that this years hearings don't involve any challenges to any laws regarding polygamy or incest.

So....um....why would the USSC rule on those issue this year....when they aren't hearing any legal challenges to either?


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.
> 
> Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.
> 
> That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.
> 
> This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.
Click to expand...

 
Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right.  It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.
> 
> Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.
> 
> That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.
> 
> This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right.  It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.
Click to expand...


Marriage being a right is immediately relevant to same sex marriage. As those same sex couples that want to marry are both Federal Citizens. And as such both retain the right to marry.

If you're going to deny them that right, then you need a compelling state interest in doing so and a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage have neither.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.
> 
> Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.
> 
> That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.
> 
> This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right.  It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage being a right is immediately relevant to same sex marriage. As those same sex couples that want to marry are both Federal Citizens. And as such both retain the right to marry.
> 
> If you're going to deny them that right, then you need a compelling state interest in doing so and a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage have neither.
Click to expand...

 
If marriage is a right, it's relevant to any situation involving the argument used by you fags.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read every post you wrote that I responded to when I said you are crying.  Jesus you are dumb.  I hope you're hot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are making absolutely no sense...but that seems to be a theme with you. YOU claim I'm "upset" and then you say I'm the one ascribing "feelings".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, every time I said you were upset it was in direct response to a post you told me how I feel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except I didn't. I posted my perception of your victimhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I posted my perception you did that because you are bawling your eyes out because you're a weeping mess.  Same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except you're actually exhibiting victimy tendencies whereas I'm not exhibiting anything resembling sadness or upset.
> 
> Poor Kaz, he's so "subtle" nobody understands him.
Click to expand...


It must stink to be so full of shit like that.


----------



## bluedog1

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



no.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."


----------



## timslash

No, they shouldn't, because wedding between man and woman - is tradition, very old tradition and the church is keeper of traditions. Wedding between man and man - is perversion. Church should not support perversions. Simple logic.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know. Silo may be silly and overly dramatic but threatening and/or violent she is not. I disagree with most of her posts but I respect the fact that she remains mostly civil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  And most people who disagree with "gay marriage" and the Gay Agenda in general are also not thuggish folk.  They simple feel, know, believe and like me, have studied about how it is wrong and harmful to society.
> 
> You keep your private lives private.  But do not demand they become part of the inherited fabric of society.
> 
> But we've wandered away from talking about how if individual christians can be sued, congregations of them (churches) most certainly are next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To attack an individual Christian for an agenda or for political and power purposes, is the same as attacking the congregation or an entire Church or a "Christian" Church if so be it the target of an attack through it's members.
> .
Click to expand...


So you are offended every time President Obama is attacked for political or power purposes? You see every attack on Mitt Romney as an attack on the Mormon Church? When Joe Lieberman was being attacked for political purposes was it an attack on the Jewish religion?

Of course not. Because criticizing- or filing suit- or demanding that the law be followed- by a person who happens to be Christian or Mormon or Jewish is not the same thing as attacking a church or a faith.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters
> Very weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is very weird that you keep bringing up 'congregations of individual christians'.
> 
> Churches are exempt from PA laws- and taxes
> Business's are subject to PA laws- and taxes.
> 
> No church has been, should be, or will be forced to marry anyone it does not want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But to bake a cake maybe ?
Click to expand...


Who bakes cakes for a profit- churches or business's?

Churches are exempt from PA laws- and taxes
Business's are subject to PA laws- and taxes.

No church has been, should be, or will be forced to marry anyone it does not want to.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.
> 
> Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.
> 
> That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.
> 
> This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right.  It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.
Click to expand...


Another strawman.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples*. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.
> 
> This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ See, there it is, right there!  ^^  You didn't even wait two posts and you admitted what I said was true.  You are fighting to deny marriage equality to all.
Click to expand...


Once again you are just lying. Which is rather redundant for me to post.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.
> 
> Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.
> 
> That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, .
Click to expand...


Here are the questions the Supreme Court said it was addressing:

_The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of
certiorari are granted limited to the following questions: 
1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a
marriage between two people of the same sex? 
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was
lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state? _

Nothing more- nothing less- this is what the Supreme Court will be considering.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.
> 
> Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.
> 
> That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.
> 
> This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right.  It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage being a right is immediately relevant to same sex marriage. As those same sex couples that want to marry are both Federal Citizens. And as such both retain the right to marry.
> 
> If you're going to deny them that right, then you need a compelling state interest in doing so and a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage have neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, it's relevant to any situation involving the argument used by you fags.
Click to expand...


f*g....n*gger.....k*ke....c*nt........same kinds of words....used by the same kinds of people....for the exact same purpose.

If this was 1967 the only change you would have made is swapping out n*ggers for f*gs.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.
> 
> Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.
> 
> That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.
> 
> This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right.  It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another strawman.
Click to expand...

 

Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are making absolutely no sense...but that seems to be a theme with you. YOU claim I'm "upset" and then you say I'm the one ascribing "feelings".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, every time I said you were upset it was in direct response to a post you told me how I feel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except I didn't. I posted my perception of your victimhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I posted my perception you did that because you are bawling your eyes out because you're a weeping mess.  Same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except you're actually exhibiting victimy tendencies whereas I'm not exhibiting anything resembling sadness or upset.
> 
> Poor Kaz, he's so "subtle" nobody understands him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It must stink to be so full of shit like that.
Click to expand...



Ooh, biting!!!


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.
> 
> This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right.  It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage being a right is immediately relevant to same sex marriage. As those same sex couples that want to marry are both Federal Citizens. And as such both retain the right to marry.
> 
> If you're going to deny them that right, then you need a compelling state interest in doing so and a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage have neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, it's relevant to any situation involving the argument used by you fags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> f*g....n*gger.....k*ke....c*nt........same kinds of words....used by the same kinds of people....for the exact same purpose.
> 
> If this was 1967 the only change you would have made is swapping out n*ggers for f*gs.
Click to expand...

I use the words when it applies to those being addressed.


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, every time I said you were upset it was in direct response to a post you told me how I feel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except I didn't. I posted my perception of your victimhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I posted my perception you did that because you are bawling your eyes out because you're a weeping mess.  Same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except you're actually exhibiting victimy tendencies whereas I'm not exhibiting anything resembling sadness or upset.
> 
> Poor Kaz, he's so "subtle" nobody understands him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It must stink to be so full of shit like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ooh, biting!!!
Click to expand...

 
You would know homo.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.
> 
> Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.
> 
> That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.
> 
> This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right.  It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.
Click to expand...


Where did anyone say that? 

Either the people you are arguing for have a valid argument or they don't.  Marriage equality for gays has nothing to do with it. 

I wish you luck with your fight.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.
> 
> Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.
> 
> That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.
> 
> This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right.  It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.
Click to expand...


Seems you are simply another bigot- f*g....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt.....all words used by bigots for the same purpose.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.
> 
> This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right.  It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems you are simply another bigot- f*g....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt.....all words used by bigots for the same purpose.
Click to expand...

 
Seems you are simply another fag lover.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.
> 
> This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right.  It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage being a right is immediately relevant to same sex marriage. As those same sex couples that want to marry are both Federal Citizens. And as such both retain the right to marry.
> 
> If you're going to deny them that right, then you need a compelling state interest in doing so and a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage have neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If marriage is a right, it's relevant to any situation involving the argument used by you fags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> f*g....n*gger.....k*ke....c*nt........same kinds of words....used by the same kinds of people....for the exact same purpose.
> 
> If this was 1967 the only change you would have made is swapping out n*ggers for f*gs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I use the words when it applies to those being addressed.
Click to expand...


Yep exactly what those who use the word n*gger say

f*g....n*gger.....k*ke....c*nt........same kinds of words....used by the same kinds of people....for the exact same purpose.

If this was 1967 the only change you would have made is swapping out n*ggers for f*gs.


----------



## Silhouette

Two pages spammed with another conspicuous flame war...


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.
> 
> This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right.  It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did anyone say that?
> 
> Either the people you are arguing for have a valid argument or they don't.  Marriage equality for gays has nothing to do with it.
> 
> I wish you luck with your fight.
Click to expand...

 
If you argue for marriage equality, shouldn't that apply to all consenting adults?  You're not for equality.  You're for an agenda for freaks like you.


----------



## Seawytch

timslash said:


> No, they shouldn't, because wedding between man and woman - is tradition, very old tradition and the church is keeper of traditions. Wedding between man and man - is perversion. Church should not support perversions. Simple logic.



Churches have been marrying gays for decades...much much longer than we've been able to civilly marry. 

It should be up to the church should it not?


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.
> 
> This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right.  It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did anyone say that?
> 
> Either the people you are arguing for have a valid argument or they don't.  Marriage equality for gays has nothing to do with it.
> 
> I wish you luck with your fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you argue for marriage equality, shouldn't that apply to all consenting adults?  You're not for equality.  You're for an agenda for freaks like you.
Click to expand...


I am. Like I said, good luck.


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right.  It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did anyone say that?
> 
> Either the people you are arguing for have a valid argument or they don't.  Marriage equality for gays has nothing to do with it.
> 
> I wish you luck with your fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you argue for marriage equality, shouldn't that apply to all consenting adults?  You're not for equality.  You're for an agenda for freaks like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am. Like I said, good luck.
Click to expand...

 No you're not or you would be arguing for equality of other types of marriages.


----------



## Silhouette

Here we go again..

Let's see what the theater group is trying to bury with their role-player Conservative (did Kaz and St. Mike take the day off today?) back in the game trying to shut down the thread with yet another manufactured flame-war.....oh...yes...two pages back...here we go..


Skylar said:


> *This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples*. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.
> This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.





Silhouette said:


> ^^ See, there it is, right there! ^^ You didn't even wait two posts and you admitted what I said was true. You are fighting to deny marriage equality to all. You want special treatment just for homosexuals! It's a religion and right now polygamists and incest groups are "heresy" so you "reject" them, because they aren't politically expedient, not because you fundamentally disagree with their "right to marry" alongside any you might gain. (marriage is currently a privelege). They are happy to stand quietly by too. They know their kink is too weird even now for society to accept. The majority sure would turn on a dime if they knew those were coming along for the ride. So y'all have a gentleman's agreement for your weirder legal first cousins to stay mute while your tsunami attempts to wash away states' rights to define marriage so that all the other flotsam and jetsum can roll in behind you.
> You're despicable. You really are. Only mental people would stretch to such machinations to pull off a ruse. Even the numbers at the top of this thread are denied. Smoke and mirrors employed to trick the herd into balling up on your side of the fence. There really is no subterfuge you won't try. And your ilk are supposed to be the next 70 generations of "parents" to kids? I think we've seen enough..


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did anyone say that?
> 
> Either the people you are arguing for have a valid argument or they don't.  Marriage equality for gays has nothing to do with it.
> 
> I wish you luck with your fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you argue for marriage equality, shouldn't that apply to all consenting adults?  You're not for equality.  You're for an agenda for freaks like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am. Like I said, good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you're not or you would be arguing for equality of other types of marriages.
Click to expand...


Strawman by someone who just can't argue against same gender marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Here we go again..
> 
> Let's see what the theater group is trying to bury with their role-player Conservative (did Kaz and St. Mike take the day off today?)]



You are delusional.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did anyone say that?
> 
> Either the people you are arguing for have a valid argument or they don't.  Marriage equality for gays has nothing to do with it.
> 
> I wish you luck with your fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you argue for marriage equality, shouldn't that apply to all consenting adults?  You're not for equality.  You're for an agenda for freaks like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am. Like I said, good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you're not or you would be arguing for equality of other types of marriages.
Click to expand...


Why? I don't care. Good luck.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Two pages spammed with another conspicuous flame war...



You are delusional.


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did anyone say that?
> 
> Either the people you are arguing for have a valid argument or they don't.  Marriage equality for gays has nothing to do with it.
> 
> I wish you luck with your fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you argue for marriage equality, shouldn't that apply to all consenting adults?  You're not for equality.  You're for an agenda for freaks like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am. Like I said, good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you're not or you would be arguing for equality of other types of marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? I don't care. Good luck.
Click to expand...

 
You got what you wanted.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Here we go again..
> 
> Let's see what the theater group is trying to bury with their role-player Conservative (did Kaz and St. Mike take the day off today?) back in the game trying to shut down the thread with yet another manufactured flame-war.....oh...yes...two pages back...here we go..
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples*. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.
> This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ See, there it is, right there! ^^ You didn't even wait two posts and you admitted what I said was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So you openly admit that no polygamy law nor incest law is being challenged in any case before the USSC this year.

*Why then would the USSC rule on laws that aren't being challenged nor even addressed in the cases its hearing this year?*

You never could explain that.


----------



## Coyote

*Let's get back on topic folks....*


----------



## Skylar

Fair enough. 

If you're going to deny gays the right to marry, you'll need a valid state interest and a very good reason. Opponents of gay marriage have neither.

Which might explain their near perfect record of failure in the federal courts.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know. Silo may be silly and overly dramatic but threatening and/or violent she is not. I disagree with most of her posts but I respect the fact that she remains mostly civil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  And most people who disagree with "gay marriage" and the Gay Agenda in general are also not thuggish folk.  They simple feel, know, believe and like me, have studied about how it is wrong and harmful to society.
> 
> You keep your private lives private.  But do not demand they become part of the inherited fabric of society.
> 
> But we've wandered away from talking about how if individual christians can be sued, congregations of them (churches) most certainly are next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To attack an individual Christian for an agenda or for political and power purposes, is the same as attacking the congregation or an entire Church or a "Christian" Church if so be it the target of an attack through it's members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense.* A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. *Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.
> 
> Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.
Click to expand...


You like saying those things, but you are wrong because without the people who believe in what the Church teaches, then there is no church at all. Like I ask Jake before, and so I'll let you tell me then, how does a person practice their faith and avoid the things that the faith teaches them to avoid in life, if they are not allowed to do so by another's yoke now being upon them ? Are Christians slaves in this nation now, where as are they allowed to go and *play* Church only, and this just as long as they leave there afterwards maybe laughing about it all, and to not dare practice afterwards ? What then, are they not to abide by the teachings in which they went there to learn about in life now ?  Where is the freedom of religion or the practice there of in this nation, otherwise if the Christians are now under another's yoke in the nation now, then who is the judge and jury over the Christians now in this nation (the government) ?

There was not a problem in the past, because Christianity was a great thing in which the nation recognized as such, and it even sank it into just about every asset or facet of the American traditions it had, and It placed it into it's mindset along with it's history, but now it is all a problem eh ? Hmm, now why is that you suppose ?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know. Silo may be silly and overly dramatic but threatening and/or violent she is not. I disagree with most of her posts but I respect the fact that she remains mostly civil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  And most people who disagree with "gay marriage" and the Gay Agenda in general are also not thuggish folk.  They simple feel, know, believe and like me, have studied about how it is wrong and harmful to society.
> 
> You keep your private lives private.  But do not demand they become part of the inherited fabric of society.
> 
> But we've wandered away from talking about how if individual christians can be sued, congregations of them (churches) most certainly are next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To attack an individual Christian for an agenda or for political and power purposes, is the same as attacking the congregation or an entire Church or a "Christian" Church if so be it the target of an attack through it's members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense.* A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. *Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.
> 
> Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like saying those things, but you are wrong because without the people who believe in what the Church teaches, then there is no church at all.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. I'm obviously right. A person is not a church. Not semantically, linguistically, rationally, or legally. The last being most germane to our discussion. A church is not a business. And PA laws only apply to businesses.

*You're trying so, so hard to apply PA laws to churches*. And they just don't apply. Churches are explicitly exempt. Which of course you know. But really hope we don't.



> Are Christians slaves in this nation now, where as are they allowed to go and *play* Church only, and this just as long as they leave there afterwards maybe laughing about it all, and to not dare practice afterwards ?



Nope. Christians simply aren't given special exemptions for any laws they don't like. You're demanding special treatment, special privileges, special immunities.....and whining melodramatically when you're treated like everyone else.

And the most stunning part? The part that just drops jaws? All you're held under the law to do...*.is treat your customers fairly and equally when conducting business. *

That's it. There's no need for the running mascara, the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. Dry those eyes, get up off your fainting couch....and just treat others with simple human dignity. And you'll be fine.


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know. Silo may be silly and overly dramatic but threatening and/or violent she is not. I disagree with most of her posts but I respect the fact that she remains mostly civil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  And most people who disagree with "gay marriage" and the Gay Agenda in general are also not thuggish folk.  They simple feel, know, believe and like me, have studied about how it is wrong and harmful to society.
> 
> You keep your private lives private.  But do not demand they become part of the inherited fabric of society.
> 
> But we've wandered away from talking about how if individual christians can be sued, congregations of them (churches) most certainly are next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To attack an individual Christian for an agenda or for political and power purposes, is the same as attacking the congregation or an entire Church or a "Christian" Church if so be it the target of an attack through it's members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense.* A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. *Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.
> 
> Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like saying those things, but you are wrong because without the people who believe in what the Church teaches, then there is no church at all. Like I ask Jake before, and so I'll let you tell me then, how does a person practice their faith and avoid the things that the faith teaches them to avoid in life, if they are not allowed to do so by another's yoke now being upon them ? Are Christians slaves in this nation now, where as are they allowed to go and *play* Church only, and this just as long as they leave there afterwards maybe laughing about it all, and to not dare practice afterwards ? What then, are they not to abide by the teachings in which they went there to learn about in life now ?  Where is the freedom of religion or the practice there of in this nation, otherwise if the Christians are now under another's yoke in the nation now, then who is the judge and jury over the Christians now in this nation (the government) ?
> 
> There was not a problem in the past, because Christianity was a great thing in which the nation recognized as such, and it even sank it into just about every asset or facet of the American traditions it had, and It placed it into it's mindset along with it's history, but now it is all a problem eh ? Hmm, now why is that you suppose ?
Click to expand...


You're arguing that Christians should be allowed to break the law.


----------



## Skylar

Paperman299 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know. Silo may be silly and overly dramatic but threatening and/or violent she is not. I disagree with most of her posts but I respect the fact that she remains mostly civil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  And most people who disagree with "gay marriage" and the Gay Agenda in general are also not thuggish folk.  They simple feel, know, believe and like me, have studied about how it is wrong and harmful to society.
> 
> You keep your private lives private.  But do not demand they become part of the inherited fabric of society.
> 
> But we've wandered away from talking about how if individual christians can be sued, congregations of them (churches) most certainly are next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To attack an individual Christian for an agenda or for political and power purposes, is the same as attacking the congregation or an entire Church or a "Christian" Church if so be it the target of an attack through it's members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense.* A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. *Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.
> 
> Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like saying those things, but you are wrong because without the people who believe in what the Church teaches, then there is no church at all. Like I ask Jake before, and so I'll let you tell me then, how does a person practice their faith and avoid the things that the faith teaches them to avoid in life, if they are not allowed to do so by another's yoke now being upon them ? Are Christians slaves in this nation now, where as are they allowed to go and *play* Church only, and this just as long as they leave there afterwards maybe laughing about it all, and to not dare practice afterwards ? What then, are they not to abide by the teachings in which they went there to learn about in life now ?  Where is the freedom of religion or the practice there of in this nation, otherwise if the Christians are now under another's yoke in the nation now, then who is the judge and jury over the Christians now in this nation (the government) ?
> 
> There was not a problem in the past, because Christianity was a great thing in which the nation recognized as such, and it even sank it into just about every asset or facet of the American traditions it had, and It placed it into it's mindset along with it's history, but now it is all a problem eh ? Hmm, now why is that you suppose ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're arguing that Christians should be allowed to break the law.
Click to expand...

Not just break the law. But ignore any law they don't like. Making this distinction individually.

Its nothing more than a religiously based Sovereign Citizen argument.


----------



## Paperman299

Skylar said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  And most people who disagree with "gay marriage" and the Gay Agenda in general are also not thuggish folk.  They simple feel, know, believe and like me, have studied about how it is wrong and harmful to society.
> 
> You keep your private lives private.  But do not demand they become part of the inherited fabric of society.
> 
> But we've wandered away from talking about how if individual christians can be sued, congregations of them (churches) most certainly are next.
> 
> 
> 
> To attack an individual Christian for an agenda or for political and power purposes, is the same as attacking the congregation or an entire Church or a "Christian" Church if so be it the target of an attack through it's members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense.* A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. *Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.
> 
> Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like saying those things, but you are wrong because without the people who believe in what the Church teaches, then there is no church at all. Like I ask Jake before, and so I'll let you tell me then, how does a person practice their faith and avoid the things that the faith teaches them to avoid in life, if they are not allowed to do so by another's yoke now being upon them ? Are Christians slaves in this nation now, where as are they allowed to go and *play* Church only, and this just as long as they leave there afterwards maybe laughing about it all, and to not dare practice afterwards ? What then, are they not to abide by the teachings in which they went there to learn about in life now ?  Where is the freedom of religion or the practice there of in this nation, otherwise if the Christians are now under another's yoke in the nation now, then who is the judge and jury over the Christians now in this nation (the government) ?
> 
> There was not a problem in the past, because Christianity was a great thing in which the nation recognized as such, and it even sank it into just about every asset or facet of the American traditions it had, and It placed it into it's mindset along with it's history, but now it is all a problem eh ? Hmm, now why is that you suppose ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're arguing that Christians should be allowed to break the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just break the law. But ignore any law they don't like. Making this distinction individually.
> 
> Its nothing more than a religiously based Sovereign Citizen argument.
Click to expand...


It really is. They might as well argue that they shouldn't have to abdicate their faith by putting license plates on their cars.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know. Silo may be silly and overly dramatic but threatening and/or violent she is not. I disagree with most of her posts but I respect the fact that she remains mostly civil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  And most people who disagree with "gay marriage" and the Gay Agenda in general are also not thuggish folk.  They simple feel, know, believe and like me, have studied about how it is wrong and harmful to society.
> 
> You keep your private lives private.  But do not demand they become part of the inherited fabric of society.
> 
> But we've wandered away from talking about how if individual christians can be sued, congregations of them (churches) most certainly are next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To attack an individual Christian for an agenda or for political and power purposes, is the same as attacking the congregation or an entire Church or a "Christian" Church if so be it the target of an attack through it's members.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So you are offended every time President Obama is attacked for political or power purposes? You see every attack on Mitt Romney as an attack on the Mormon Church? When Joe Lieberman was being attacked for political purposes was it an attack on the Jewish religion?*
> 
> Of course not. Because criticizing- or filing suit- or demanding that the law be followed- by a person who happens to be Christian or Mormon or Jewish is not the same thing as attacking a church or a faith.
Click to expand...



Only when the attack is directed at that part of the person's make up or belief system in life specifically, would I say that yes it is an attack on the Church indirectly, and even when one of it's flock is attacked as an individual yet he or she is a representative of the Church.


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> Only when the attack is directed at that part of the person's make up or belief system in life specifically, would I say that yes it is *an attack on the Church indirectly, and even when one of it's flock is attacked as an individual* yet he or she is a representative of the Church.


 
Or, more properly, an attack on an individual christian is an attack on the church and the 1st Amendment that individual enjoys.  His ultimate place of worship is in his heart.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Obvious nonsense.* A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. *Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.
> 
> Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.


 
hmmm... *Thumbs through Constitution*.... still cannot find "Freedom of Church" in here...  all it says is freedom of the exercise of religion.  Hey, aren't individuals the ones that are religious?  I've never seen a church building genuflect before.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only when the attack is directed at that part of the person's make up or belief system in life specifically, would I say that yes it is *an attack on the Church indirectly, and even when one of it's flock is attacked as an individual* yet he or she is a representative of the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, more properly, an attack on an individual christian is an attack on the church and the 1st Amendment that individual enjoys.  His ultimate place of worship is in his heart.
Click to expand...


So is this guy being attacked- and is this an attack on his church- when the attacker is his church?

Prominent Mormon Podcaster May Face Excommunication

_Dehlin is a Mormon who has doubts about his faith. But his public search for answers may banish him from the church that is his spiritual home.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made moves to excommunicate Dehlin, The New York Times reported on Thursday.

Dehlin is the founder of "Mormon Stories," a well-known website and podcast that has discussed controversial topics within the faith, including same-sex marriage and the ordination of women.

According to the Associated Press, Dehlin was told by a regional church leader that he's been summoned to a disciplinary hearing on Jan. 25, at which he could be either censured or excommunicated._

To recap: this gentleman is a Mormon- who is being attacked because of his religious beliefs- by his own church. 

But you have argued that an attack on a religious individual is an attack on the church.

So- is the church guilty of attacking itself?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense.* A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. *Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.
> 
> Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm... *Thumbs through Constitution*.... still cannot find "Freedom of Church" in here...  all it says is freedom of the exercise of religion.  Hey, aren't individuals the ones that are religious?  I've never seen a church building genuflect before.
Click to expand...


From the Supreme Court:
_Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs[p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly_


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know. Silo may be silly and overly dramatic but threatening and/or violent she is not. I disagree with most of her posts but I respect the fact that she remains mostly civil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  And most people who disagree with "gay marriage" and the Gay Agenda in general are also not thuggish folk.  They simple feel, know, believe and like me, have studied about how it is wrong and harmful to society.
> 
> You keep your private lives private.  But do not demand they become part of the inherited fabric of society.
> 
> But we've wandered away from talking about how if individual christians can be sued, congregations of them (churches) most certainly are next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To attack an individual Christian for an agenda or for political and power purposes, is the same as attacking the congregation or an entire Church or a "Christian" Church if so be it the target of an attack through it's members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense.* A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. *Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.
> 
> Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like saying those things, but you are wrong because without the people who believe in what the Church teaches, then there is no church at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I'm obviously right. A person is not a church. Not semantically, linguistically, rationally, or legally. The last being most germane to our discussion. A church is not a business. And PA laws only apply to businesses.
> 
> *You're trying so, so hard to apply PA laws to churches*. And they just don't apply. Churches are explicitly exempt. Which of course you know. But really hope we don't..
Click to expand...


They are trying so hard to manufacture outrage. 

And claim special priveleges for Christians from laws that apply equally to everyone.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  And most people who disagree with "gay marriage" and the Gay Agenda in general are also not thuggish folk.  They simple feel, know, believe and like me, have studied about how it is wrong and harmful to society.
> 
> You keep your private lives private.  But do not demand they become part of the inherited fabric of society.
> 
> But we've wandered away from talking about how if individual christians can be sued, congregations of them (churches) most certainly are next.
> 
> 
> 
> To attack an individual Christian for an agenda or for political and power purposes, is the same as attacking the congregation or an entire Church or a "Christian" Church if so be it the target of an attack through it's members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense.* A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. *Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.
> 
> Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like saying those things, but you are wrong because without the people who believe in what the Church teaches, then there is no church at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I'm obviously right. A person is not a church. Not semantically, linguistically, rationally, or legally. The last being most germane to our discussion. A church is not a business. And PA laws only apply to businesses.
> 
> *You're trying so, so hard to apply PA laws to churches*. And they just don't apply. Churches are explicitly exempt. Which of course you know. But really hope we don't..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are trying so hard to manufacture outrage.
> 
> And claim special priveleges for Christians from laws that apply equally to everyone.
Click to expand...


Read Beagle's earlier posts about the position of Christianity in American culture in the past. Theirs isn't an argument for equality, fairness or freedom. But instead, entitlement and special status. Where many Christians are lamenting that they no longer hold the position of privilege that they once did. That they are being treated like everyone else.

Which astonishingly they interpret as 'attacks', with Christians now 'slaves' because they no longer receive the special treatment they once did. 

Its like watching a spoiled brat insist that not buying them a new toy is 'child abuse'.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense.* A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. *Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.
> 
> Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm... *Thumbs through Constitution*.... still cannot find "Freedom of Church" in here...  all it says is freedom of the exercise of religion.  Hey, aren't individuals the ones that are religious?  I've never seen a church building genuflect before.
Click to expand...


You don't get to ignore any law you don't like on religious grounds. We don't have theocratic anarchy. We're a constitutional republic. And the laws being applied to you are the same ones being applied to everyone else. 

As for churches, they aren't being forced to accommodate weddings. PA laws don't apply to churches. And try as you might to claim otherwise, a person is not a church.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense.* A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. *Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.
> 
> Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm... *Thumbs through Constitution*.... still cannot find "Freedom of Church" in here...  all it says is freedom of the exercise of religion.  Hey, aren't individuals the ones that are religious?  I've never seen a church building genuflect before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to ignore any law you don't like on religious grounds. We don't have theocratic anarchy. We're a constitutional republic. And the laws being applied to you are the same ones being applied to everyone else.
> 
> As for churches, they aren't being forced to accommodate weddings. PA laws don't apply to churches. And try as you might to claim otherwise, a person is not a church.
Click to expand...

 
What is a church?


----------



## Skylar

Paperman299 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To attack an individual Christian for an agenda or for political and power purposes, is the same as attacking the congregation or an entire Church or a "Christian" Church if so be it the target of an attack through it's members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense.* A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. *Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.
> 
> Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like saying those things, but you are wrong because without the people who believe in what the Church teaches, then there is no church at all. Like I ask Jake before, and so I'll let you tell me then, how does a person practice their faith and avoid the things that the faith teaches them to avoid in life, if they are not allowed to do so by another's yoke now being upon them ? Are Christians slaves in this nation now, where as are they allowed to go and *play* Church only, and this just as long as they leave there afterwards maybe laughing about it all, and to not dare practice afterwards ? What then, are they not to abide by the teachings in which they went there to learn about in life now ?  Where is the freedom of religion or the practice there of in this nation, otherwise if the Christians are now under another's yoke in the nation now, then who is the judge and jury over the Christians now in this nation (the government) ?
> 
> There was not a problem in the past, because Christianity was a great thing in which the nation recognized as such, and it even sank it into just about every asset or facet of the American traditions it had, and It placed it into it's mindset along with it's history, but now it is all a problem eh ? Hmm, now why is that you suppose ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're arguing that Christians should be allowed to break the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just break the law. But ignore any law they don't like. Making this distinction individually.
> 
> Its nothing more than a religiously based Sovereign Citizen argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is. They might as well argue that they shouldn't have to abdicate their faith by putting license plates on their cars.
Click to expand...


There is no distinction whatsoever. Its the exact same argument. And its been rejected explicitly and repeated by the USSC. You don't get to pick which laws apply to you and which don't. Not on the basis of 'personal freedom'. Not on the basis of 'religion'.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense.* A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. *Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.
> 
> Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm... *Thumbs through Constitution*.... still cannot find "Freedom of Church" in here...  all it says is freedom of the exercise of religion.  Hey, aren't individuals the ones that are religious?  I've never seen a church building genuflect before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to ignore any law you don't like on religious grounds. We don't have theocratic anarchy. We're a constitutional republic. And the laws being applied to you are the same ones being applied to everyone else.
> 
> As for churches, they aren't being forced to accommodate weddings. PA laws don't apply to churches. And try as you might to claim otherwise, a person is not a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a church?
Click to expand...


By and large, a religious corporation.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense.* A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. *Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.
> 
> Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm... *Thumbs through Constitution*.... still cannot find "Freedom of Church" in here...  all it says is freedom of the exercise of religion.  Hey, aren't individuals the ones that are religious?  I've never seen a church building genuflect before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to ignore any law you don't like on religious grounds. We don't have theocratic anarchy. We're a constitutional republic. And the laws being applied to you are the same ones being applied to everyone else.
> 
> As for churches, they aren't being forced to accommodate weddings. PA laws don't apply to churches. And try as you might to claim otherwise, a person is not a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By and large, a religious corporation.
Click to expand...

 
Shows how little you know moron.  Bet you think the church includes the buildings.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense.* A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. *Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.
> 
> Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm... *Thumbs through Constitution*.... still cannot find "Freedom of Church" in here...  all it says is freedom of the exercise of religion.  Hey, aren't individuals the ones that are religious?  I've never seen a church building genuflect before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to ignore any law you don't like on religious grounds. We don't have theocratic anarchy. We're a constitutional republic. And the laws being applied to you are the same ones being applied to everyone else.
> 
> As for churches, they aren't being forced to accommodate weddings. PA laws don't apply to churches. And try as you might to claim otherwise, a person is not a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By and large, a religious corporation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shows how little you know moron.  Bet you think the church includes the buildings.
Click to expand...


The law defines a church. A person is not a church. 

What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm... *Thumbs through Constitution*.... still cannot find "Freedom of Church" in here...  all it says is freedom of the exercise of religion.  Hey, aren't individuals the ones that are religious?  I've never seen a church building genuflect before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to ignore any law you don't like on religious grounds. We don't have theocratic anarchy. We're a constitutional republic. And the laws being applied to you are the same ones being applied to everyone else.
> 
> As for churches, they aren't being forced to accommodate weddings. PA laws don't apply to churches. And try as you might to claim otherwise, a person is not a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By and large, a religious corporation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shows how little you know moron.  Bet you think the church includes the buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law defines a church. A person is not a church.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
Click to expand...

 
God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to ignore any law you don't like on religious grounds. We don't have theocratic anarchy. We're a constitutional republic. And the laws being applied to you are the same ones being applied to everyone else.
> 
> As for churches, they aren't being forced to accommodate weddings. PA laws don't apply to churches. And try as you might to claim otherwise, a person is not a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By and large, a religious corporation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shows how little you know moron.  Bet you think the church includes the buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law defines a church. A person is not a church.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
Click to expand...


You're free to believe that, but in America a church is clearly defined by law. 
What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By and large, a religious corporation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shows how little you know moron.  Bet you think the church includes the buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law defines a church. A person is not a church.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that, but in America a church is clearly defined by law.
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
Click to expand...

 Don't confuse requirements of what a body of people wanting to be considered a church must meet with what a church is.  The regulations can be there all day long and mean nothing until that body of people, what is truly the church under God's law, decided to apply them.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> By and large, a religious corporation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shows how little you know moron.  Bet you think the church includes the buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law defines a church. A person is not a church.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that, but in America a church is clearly defined by law.
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't confuse requirements of what a body of people wanting to be considered a church must meet with what a church is.  The regulations can be there all day long and mean nothing until that body of people, what is truly the church under God's law, decided to apply them.
Click to expand...


You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met. 

What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shows how little you know moron.  Bet you think the church includes the buildings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law defines a church. A person is not a church.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that, but in America a church is clearly defined by law.
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't confuse requirements of what a body of people wanting to be considered a church must meet with what a church is.  The regulations can be there all day long and mean nothing until that body of people, what is truly the church under God's law, decided to apply them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
Click to expand...

 
Again, don't confuse the process with the result. 

While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to ignore any law you don't like on religious grounds. We don't have theocratic anarchy. We're a constitutional republic. And the laws being applied to you are the same ones being applied to everyone else.
> 
> As for churches, they aren't being forced to accommodate weddings. PA laws don't apply to churches. And try as you might to claim otherwise, a person is not a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By and large, a religious corporation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shows how little you know moron.  Bet you think the church includes the buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law defines a church. A person is not a church.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
Click to expand...


We're speaking of PA laws requiring churches to accommodate homosexual weddings. You know, the name of the thread. And a church is very specific legally.

What you believe God defines is up to you. What you believe the law defines isn't.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By and large, a religious corporation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shows how little you know moron.  Bet you think the church includes the buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law defines a church. A person is not a church.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're speaking of PA laws requiring churches to accommodate homosexual weddings. You know, the name of the thread. And a church is very specific legally.
> 
> What you believe God defines is up to you. What you believe the law defines isn't.
Click to expand...

 That you can't distinguish process from result like SeaBytch must have something to do with your sexually deviant lifestyle choice.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law defines a church. A person is not a church.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that, but in America a church is clearly defined by law.
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't confuse requirements of what a body of people wanting to be considered a church must meet with what a church is.  The regulations can be there all day long and mean nothing until that body of people, what is truly the church under God's law, decided to apply them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, don't confuse the process with the result.
> 
> While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.
Click to expand...


When speaking of the law, the legal definitions matter.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law defines a church. A person is not a church.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that, but in America a church is clearly defined by law.
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't confuse requirements of what a body of people wanting to be considered a church must meet with what a church is.  The regulations can be there all day long and mean nothing until that body of people, what is truly the church under God's law, decided to apply them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, don't confuse the process with the result.
> 
> While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.
Click to expand...


 God doesn't care what consenting adult I'm civilly married to.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> By and large, a religious corporation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shows how little you know moron.  Bet you think the church includes the buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law defines a church. A person is not a church.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're speaking of PA laws requiring churches to accommodate homosexual weddings. You know, the name of the thread. And a church is very specific legally.
> 
> What you believe God defines is up to you. What you believe the law defines isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you can't distinguish process from result like SeaBytch must have something to do with your sexually deviant lifestyle choice.
Click to expand...


We're speaking of the law. Churches are immune from PA laws. And thus, aren't required to accommodate any homosexual wedding. 

Any religious 'process and result' definitions you want to invent are your business.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that, but in America a church is clearly defined by law.
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't confuse requirements of what a body of people wanting to be considered a church must meet with what a church is.  The regulations can be there all day long and mean nothing until that body of people, what is truly the church under God's law, decided to apply them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, don't confuse the process with the result.
> 
> While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When speaking of the law, the legal definitions matter.
Click to expand...

 
You're speaking of procedural requirements.  A church isn't something simply because of what it is but what it DOES.  People like you won't ever understand that because you look at it from a secular viewpoint and religion isn't secular.


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that, but in America a church is clearly defined by law.
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't confuse requirements of what a body of people wanting to be considered a church must meet with what a church is.  The regulations can be there all day long and mean nothing until that body of people, what is truly the church under God's law, decided to apply them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, don't confuse the process with the result.
> 
> While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God doesn't care what consenting adult I'm civilly married to.
Click to expand...

 Sure He does.  Even Jesus said so.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shows how little you know moron.  Bet you think the church includes the buildings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law defines a church. A person is not a church.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're speaking of PA laws requiring churches to accommodate homosexual weddings. You know, the name of the thread. And a church is very specific legally.
> 
> What you believe God defines is up to you. What you believe the law defines isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you can't distinguish process from result like SeaBytch must have something to do with your sexually deviant lifestyle choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're speaking of the law. Churches are immune from PA laws. And thus, aren't required to accommodate any homosexual wedding.
> 
> Any religious 'process and result' definitions you want to invent are your business.
Click to expand...

 
Each of those have definitions and they don't mean the same thing.


----------



## Ubiquitor

to do so would require a violation of the separation of church and state.  Religious ceremonies are not subject to gov't intervention unless, of course, they are harming someone, eg human sacrifice.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that, but in America a church is clearly defined by law.
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> 
> 
> Don't confuse requirements of what a body of people wanting to be considered a church must meet with what a church is.  The regulations can be there all day long and mean nothing until that body of people, what is truly the church under God's law, decided to apply them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, don't confuse the process with the result.
> 
> While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When speaking of the law, the legal definitions matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're speaking of procedural requirements.  A church isn't something simply because of what it is but what it DOES.  People like you won't ever understand that because you look at it from a secular viewpoint and religion isn't secular.
Click to expand...


I'm speaking of the legal definition of a church in a discussion of churches being forced to accommodate homosexual weddings by Public Accommodation laws.

You can imagine a church to be anything you want it to be. But the only definition relevant to the law is the law's definition.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't confuse requirements of what a body of people wanting to be considered a church must meet with what a church is.  The regulations can be there all day long and mean nothing until that body of people, what is truly the church under God's law, decided to apply them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, don't confuse the process with the result.
> 
> While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When speaking of the law, the legal definitions matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're speaking of procedural requirements.  A church isn't something simply because of what it is but what it DOES.  People like you won't ever understand that because you look at it from a secular viewpoint and religion isn't secular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm speaking of the legal definition of a church in a discussion of churches being forced to accommodate homosexual weddings by Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> You can imagine a church to be anything you want it to be. But the only definition relevant to the law is the law's definition.
Click to expand...

 
You continue to confuse the list of things a body of people wantingn to become a church must meet.  When they meet those things, that body of people is the church not the list.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law defines a church. A person is not a church.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're speaking of PA laws requiring churches to accommodate homosexual weddings. You know, the name of the thread. And a church is very specific legally.
> 
> What you believe God defines is up to you. What you believe the law defines isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you can't distinguish process from result like SeaBytch must have something to do with your sexually deviant lifestyle choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're speaking of the law. Churches are immune from PA laws. And thus, aren't required to accommodate any homosexual wedding.
> 
> Any religious 'process and result' definitions you want to invent are your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each of those have definitions and they don't mean the same thing.
Click to expand...


In a discussion of PA laws and their application to churches, only the legal definition is relevant. You can make up whatever personal definition you wish. Its quite simply irrelevant to any discussion of the application of law.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, don't confuse the process with the result.
> 
> While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When speaking of the law, the legal definitions matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're speaking of procedural requirements.  A church isn't something simply because of what it is but what it DOES.  People like you won't ever understand that because you look at it from a secular viewpoint and religion isn't secular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm speaking of the legal definition of a church in a discussion of churches being forced to accommodate homosexual weddings by Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> You can imagine a church to be anything you want it to be. But the only definition relevant to the law is the law's definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to confuse the list of things a body of people wantingn to become a church must meet.  When they meet those things, that body of people is the church not the list.
Click to expand...


No, I continue to recognize that in a discussion of the law, legal definitions are relevant. Whatever you want to make up isn't.

And a church has a legal definition. You are more than welcome to imagine whatever additional definitions you like. But they have no relevance to a discussion of the law.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, don't confuse the process with the result.
> 
> While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When speaking of the law, the legal definitions matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're speaking of procedural requirements.  A church isn't something simply because of what it is but what it DOES.  People like you won't ever understand that because you look at it from a secular viewpoint and religion isn't secular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm speaking of the legal definition of a church in a discussion of churches being forced to accommodate homosexual weddings by Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> You can imagine a church to be anything you want it to be. But the only definition relevant to the law is the law's definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to confuse the list of things a body of people wantingn to become a church must meet.  When they meet those things, that body of people is the church not the list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I continue to recognize that in a discussion of the law, legal definitions are relevant. Whatever you want to make up isn't.
> 
> And a church has a legal definition. You are more than welcome to imagine whatever additional definitions you like. But they have no relevance to a discussion of the law.
Click to expand...

 
You recognize the process to become one not in being one.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> When speaking of the law, the legal definitions matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're speaking of procedural requirements.  A church isn't something simply because of what it is but what it DOES.  People like you won't ever understand that because you look at it from a secular viewpoint and religion isn't secular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm speaking of the legal definition of a church in a discussion of churches being forced to accommodate homosexual weddings by Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> You can imagine a church to be anything you want it to be. But the only definition relevant to the law is the law's definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to confuse the list of things a body of people wantingn to become a church must meet.  When they meet those things, that body of people is the church not the list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I continue to recognize that in a discussion of the law, legal definitions are relevant. Whatever you want to make up isn't.
> 
> And a church has a legal definition. You are more than welcome to imagine whatever additional definitions you like. But they have no relevance to a discussion of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You recognize the process to become one not in being one.
Click to expand...


I recognize the legal definition of a church has being relevant to the application of the law. I don't recognize your personal definition of a church as being relevant to the application of the law.

Sorry, Conservative....but the law isn't bound to whatever you make up. Your personal definitions are irrelevant to the application of the law.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're speaking of procedural requirements.  A church isn't something simply because of what it is but what it DOES.  People like you won't ever understand that because you look at it from a secular viewpoint and religion isn't secular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm speaking of the legal definition of a church in a discussion of churches being forced to accommodate homosexual weddings by Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> You can imagine a church to be anything you want it to be. But the only definition relevant to the law is the law's definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to confuse the list of things a body of people wantingn to become a church must meet.  When they meet those things, that body of people is the church not the list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I continue to recognize that in a discussion of the law, legal definitions are relevant. Whatever you want to make up isn't.
> 
> And a church has a legal definition. You are more than welcome to imagine whatever additional definitions you like. But they have no relevance to a discussion of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You recognize the process to become one not in being one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize the legal definition of a church has being relevant to the application of the law. I don't recognize your personal definition of a church as being relevant to the application of the law.
> 
> Sorry, Conservative....but the law isn't bound to whatever you make up. Your personal definitions are irrelevant to the application of the law.
Click to expand...

 
I don't recognize your faggot existence as anything but a second class individual.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm speaking of the legal definition of a church in a discussion of churches being forced to accommodate homosexual weddings by Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> You can imagine a church to be anything you want it to be. But the only definition relevant to the law is the law's definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to confuse the list of things a body of people wantingn to become a church must meet.  When they meet those things, that body of people is the church not the list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I continue to recognize that in a discussion of the law, legal definitions are relevant. Whatever you want to make up isn't.
> 
> And a church has a legal definition. You are more than welcome to imagine whatever additional definitions you like. But they have no relevance to a discussion of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You recognize the process to become one not in being one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize the legal definition of a church has being relevant to the application of the law. I don't recognize your personal definition of a church as being relevant to the application of the law.
> 
> Sorry, Conservative....but the law isn't bound to whatever you make up. Your personal definitions are irrelevant to the application of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recognize your faggot existence as anything but a second class individual.
Click to expand...


You don't need to. The law recognizes gays and lesbians are having the same rights and freedoms as anyone else. 

You're more than welcome to your personal opinions, perceptions, beliefs and definitions. No one really gives a shit.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to confuse the list of things a body of people wantingn to become a church must meet.  When they meet those things, that body of people is the church not the list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I continue to recognize that in a discussion of the law, legal definitions are relevant. Whatever you want to make up isn't.
> 
> And a church has a legal definition. You are more than welcome to imagine whatever additional definitions you like. But they have no relevance to a discussion of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You recognize the process to become one not in being one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize the legal definition of a church has being relevant to the application of the law. I don't recognize your personal definition of a church as being relevant to the application of the law.
> 
> Sorry, Conservative....but the law isn't bound to whatever you make up. Your personal definitions are irrelevant to the application of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recognize your faggot existence as anything but a second class individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need to. The law recognizes gays and lesbians are having the same rights and freedoms as anyone else.
> 
> You're more than welcome to your personal opinions, perceptions, beliefs and definitions. No one really gives a shit.
Click to expand...

 
No one but your second class kind gives a shit about what you are.  You've made a lifestyle choice to be beneath me and always will be .


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I continue to recognize that in a discussion of the law, legal definitions are relevant. Whatever you want to make up isn't.
> 
> And a church has a legal definition. You are more than welcome to imagine whatever additional definitions you like. But they have no relevance to a discussion of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You recognize the process to become one not in being one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize the legal definition of a church has being relevant to the application of the law. I don't recognize your personal definition of a church as being relevant to the application of the law.
> 
> Sorry, Conservative....but the law isn't bound to whatever you make up. Your personal definitions are irrelevant to the application of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recognize your faggot existence as anything but a second class individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need to. The law recognizes gays and lesbians are having the same rights and freedoms as anyone else.
> 
> You're more than welcome to your personal opinions, perceptions, beliefs and definitions. No one really gives a shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one but your second class kind gives a shit about what you are.  You've made a lifestyle choice to be beneath me and always will be .
Click to expand...


Whatever. Your personal opinion really don't matter on this issue. Its the law and court's findings that matter. And under the law, gays and lesbians have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You recognize the process to become one not in being one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recognize the legal definition of a church has being relevant to the application of the law. I don't recognize your personal definition of a church as being relevant to the application of the law.
> 
> Sorry, Conservative....but the law isn't bound to whatever you make up. Your personal definitions are irrelevant to the application of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recognize your faggot existence as anything but a second class individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need to. The law recognizes gays and lesbians are having the same rights and freedoms as anyone else.
> 
> You're more than welcome to your personal opinions, perceptions, beliefs and definitions. No one really gives a shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one but your second class kind gives a shit about what you are.  You've made a lifestyle choice to be beneath me and always will be .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever. Your personal opinion really don't matter on this issue. Its the law and court's findings that matter. And under the law, gays and lesbians have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else.
Click to expand...

 
Have what you want.  You're still beneath me homo.


----------



## Skylar

You keep having your fantasies about having homosexuals 'beneath you'. And gays and lesbians will keep enjoying equal protection under the law.

Sounds like a win-win to me!


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense.* A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. *Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.
> 
> Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm... *Thumbs through Constitution*.... still cannot find "Freedom of Church" in here...  all it says is freedom of the exercise of religion.  Hey, aren't individuals the ones that are religious?  I've never seen a church building genuflect before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to ignore any law you don't like on religious grounds. We don't have theocratic anarchy. We're a constitutional republic. And the laws being applied to you are the same ones being applied to everyone else.
> 
> As for churches, they aren't being forced to accommodate weddings. PA laws don't apply to churches. And try as you might to claim otherwise, a person is not a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a church?
Click to expand...


Once again- I am glad to quote from the Colorado PA laws which specifies the specific exemptions

_(1) As used in this part 6, *"place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public *and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.
_
* "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.*


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law defines a church. A person is not a church.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that, but in America a church is clearly defined by law.
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't confuse requirements of what a body of people wanting to be considered a church must meet with what a church is.  The regulations can be there all day long and mean nothing until that body of people, what is truly the church under God's law, decided to apply them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, don't confuse the process with the result.
> 
> While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.
Click to expand...


Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to ignore any law you don't like on religious grounds. We don't have theocratic anarchy. We're a constitutional republic. And the laws being applied to you are the same ones being applied to everyone else.
> 
> As for churches, they aren't being forced to accommodate weddings. PA laws don't apply to churches. And try as you might to claim otherwise, a person is not a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By and large, a religious corporation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shows how little you know moron.  Bet you think the church includes the buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law defines a church. A person is not a church.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
Click to expand...


Really? Well we have a problem then.

See there are legal exemptions for churches and other houses of worship- and if we have to leave it to God to tell us which is really a church....well he hasn't been available for consultation for a couple thousand years(I mean if you believe that sort of thing).....

I would stick with the legal definition instead.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By and large, a religious corporation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shows how little you know moron.  Bet you think the church includes the buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law defines a church. A person is not a church.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Well we have a problem then.
> 
> See there are legal exemptions for churches and other houses of worship- and if we have to leave it to God to tell us which is really a church....well he hasn't been available for consultation for a couple thousand years(I mean if you believe that sort of thing).....
> 
> I would stick with the legal definition instead.
Click to expand...

 
I can look at God's word to see how He defines a church.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that, but in America a church is clearly defined by law.
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't confuse requirements of what a body of people wanting to be considered a church must meet with what a church is.  The regulations can be there all day long and mean nothing until that body of people, what is truly the church under God's law, decided to apply them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, don't confuse the process with the result.
> 
> While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
Click to expand...

 
I'm not saying.  Just passing along what has already been said.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense.* A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. *Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.
> 
> Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm... *Thumbs through Constitution*.... still cannot find "Freedom of Church" in here...  all it says is freedom of the exercise of religion.  Hey, aren't individuals the ones that are religious?  I've never seen a church building genuflect before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to ignore any law you don't like on religious grounds. We don't have theocratic anarchy. We're a constitutional republic. And the laws being applied to you are the same ones being applied to everyone else.
> 
> As for churches, they aren't being forced to accommodate weddings. PA laws don't apply to churches. And try as you might to claim otherwise, a person is not a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again- I am glad to quote from the Colorado PA laws which specifies the specific exemptions
> 
> _(1) As used in this part 6, *"place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public *and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.
> _
> * "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.*
Click to expand...

 
Once again, my State's law said marriage was between a man and a woman.  A judge overruled it.  I didn't think that would happen but you seem to think it can't happen with PA laws.  I can post what my State has on its books.  Means nothing when judges come in an change what the people supported.  May not happen tomorrow or a year from now but don't be stupid enough to believe it can't.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> By and large, a religious corporation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shows how little you know moron.  Bet you think the church includes the buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law defines a church. A person is not a church.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Well we have a problem then.
> 
> See there are legal exemptions for churches and other houses of worship- and if we have to leave it to God to tell us which is really a church....well he hasn't been available for consultation for a couple thousand years(I mean if you believe that sort of thing).....
> 
> I would stick with the legal definition instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can look at God's word to see how He defines a church.
Click to expand...


Okay- well legally 'churches'- and all houses of worship are treated differently than business'.

How does God define a synogogue? How does God define a Mosque? How does God define a Buddhist Temple?

And does the government come to you each time to tell them whether that institution meets God's word?


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shows how little you know moron.  Bet you think the church includes the buildings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law defines a church. A person is not a church.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Well we have a problem then.
> 
> See there are legal exemptions for churches and other houses of worship- and if we have to leave it to God to tell us which is really a church....well he hasn't been available for consultation for a couple thousand years(I mean if you believe that sort of thing).....
> 
> I would stick with the legal definition instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can look at God's word to see how He defines a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- well legally 'churches'- and all houses of worship are treated differently than business'.
> 
> How does God define a synogogue? How does God define a Mosque? How does God define a Buddhist Temple?
> 
> And does the government come to you each time to tell them whether that institution meets God's word?
Click to expand...

 
God doesn't define a mosque.  It's Islam.  You'll have to ask the pedophile that started it.  God isn't a Buddhist.  You'll have to ask one. 

In some areas, churches are treated exactly like non-religious businesses.  Bet you can't figure out in what areas?


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense.* A person is no more a church than a hub cap is a car. *Holding a business to PA laws does not mean that churches are held to PA laws. As churches aren't businesses.
> 
> Try as you might, PA laws simply don't apply to churches. Churches and religious corporations are explicitly exempted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm... *Thumbs through Constitution*.... still cannot find "Freedom of Church" in here...  all it says is freedom of the exercise of religion.  Hey, aren't individuals the ones that are religious?  I've never seen a church building genuflect before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to ignore any law you don't like on religious grounds. We don't have theocratic anarchy. We're a constitutional republic. And the laws being applied to you are the same ones being applied to everyone else.
> 
> As for churches, they aren't being forced to accommodate weddings. PA laws don't apply to churches. And try as you might to claim otherwise, a person is not a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again- I am glad to quote from the Colorado PA laws which specifies the specific exemptions
> 
> _(1) As used in this part 6, *"place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public *and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.
> _
> * "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, my State's law said marriage was between a man and a woman.  A judge overruled it.  I didn't think that would happen but you seem to think it can't happen with PA laws.  I can post what my State has on its books.  Means nothing when judges come in an change what the people supported.  May not happen tomorrow or a year from now but don't be stupid enough to believe it can't.
Click to expand...


The only thing that a court could do is find the PA law itself unconstitutional- which would eliminate the problem. 

The reality is that PA laws have been in effect since the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and in those 50 years- no one has successfully sued any Church for refusing to perform any religious rituals on anyone the church refuses to do. And that includes the Church of Latter Day Saints who did not provide fully equality within the church to African Americans- and that includes the Catholic Church which does not allow women in the priesthood.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that, but in America a church is clearly defined by law.
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> 
> 
> Don't confuse requirements of what a body of people wanting to be considered a church must meet with what a church is.  The regulations can be there all day long and mean nothing until that body of people, what is truly the church under God's law, decided to apply them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, don't confuse the process with the result.
> 
> While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying.  Just passing along what has already been said.
Click to expand...


And I am saying

Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law defines a church. A person is not a church.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Well we have a problem then.
> 
> See there are legal exemptions for churches and other houses of worship- and if we have to leave it to God to tell us which is really a church....well he hasn't been available for consultation for a couple thousand years(I mean if you believe that sort of thing).....
> 
> I would stick with the legal definition instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can look at God's word to see how He defines a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- well legally 'churches'- and all houses of worship are treated differently than business'.
> 
> How does God define a synogogue? How does God define a Mosque? How does God define a Buddhist Temple?
> 
> And does the government come to you each time to tell them whether that institution meets God's word?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God doesn't define a mosque.  It's Islam.  You'll have to ask the pedophile that started it.  God isn't a Buddhist.  You'll have to ask one.
Click to expand...


Yet legally a church is exactly the same thing as a temple, is exactly the same thing as a mosque- and the same laws applies to all houses of worship- regardless of which God you happen to believe in.

Who decides which house of worship is a bonavide house of worship- you? Me? Or the law?


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm... *Thumbs through Constitution*.... still cannot find "Freedom of Church" in here...  all it says is freedom of the exercise of religion.  Hey, aren't individuals the ones that are religious?  I've never seen a church building genuflect before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to ignore any law you don't like on religious grounds. We don't have theocratic anarchy. We're a constitutional republic. And the laws being applied to you are the same ones being applied to everyone else.
> 
> As for churches, they aren't being forced to accommodate weddings. PA laws don't apply to churches. And try as you might to claim otherwise, a person is not a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again- I am glad to quote from the Colorado PA laws which specifies the specific exemptions
> 
> _(1) As used in this part 6, *"place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public *and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.
> _
> * "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, my State's law said marriage was between a man and a woman.  A judge overruled it.  I didn't think that would happen but you seem to think it can't happen with PA laws.  I can post what my State has on its books.  Means nothing when judges come in an change what the people supported.  May not happen tomorrow or a year from now but don't be stupid enough to believe it can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing that a court could do is find the PA law itself unconstitutional- which would eliminate the problem.
> 
> The reality is that PA laws have been in effect since the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and in those 50 years- no one has successfully sued any Church for refusing to perform any religious rituals on anyone the church refuses to do. And that includes the Church of Latter Day Saints who did not provide fully equality within the church to African Americans- and that includes the Catholic Church which does not allow women in the priesthood.
Click to expand...

 
The law in my State saying marriage is between a man and a woman has been in effect much longer.  Seems it took a while for the fags to successfully sue and get their panties untwisted. 

Courts can find portions of laws unconstitutional.  Don't think so, continue to be a Liberal moron.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God defines a church.  The people are the church not the buildings or anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Well we have a problem then.
> 
> See there are legal exemptions for churches and other houses of worship- and if we have to leave it to God to tell us which is really a church....well he hasn't been available for consultation for a couple thousand years(I mean if you believe that sort of thing).....
> 
> I would stick with the legal definition instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can look at God's word to see how He defines a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- well legally 'churches'- and all houses of worship are treated differently than business'.
> 
> How does God define a synogogue? How does God define a Mosque? How does God define a Buddhist Temple?
> 
> And does the government come to you each time to tell them whether that institution meets God's word?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God doesn't define a mosque.  It's Islam.  You'll have to ask the pedophile that started it.  God isn't a Buddhist.  You'll have to ask one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet legally a church is exactly the same thing as a temple, is exactly the same thing as a mosque- and the same laws applies to all houses of worship- regardless of which God you happen to believe in.
> 
> Who decides which house of worship is a bonavide house of worship- you? Me? Or the law?
Click to expand...

 
God when it comes to the purpose of the church.  Man can set procedural, God sets theological.   You don't have to agree as God does not require you to do so.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to ignore any law you don't like on religious grounds. We don't have theocratic anarchy. We're a constitutional republic. And the laws being applied to you are the same ones being applied to everyone else.
> 
> As for churches, they aren't being forced to accommodate weddings. PA laws don't apply to churches. And try as you might to claim otherwise, a person is not a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again- I am glad to quote from the Colorado PA laws which specifies the specific exemptions
> 
> _(1) As used in this part 6, *"place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public *and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.
> _
> * "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, my State's law said marriage was between a man and a woman.  A judge overruled it.  I didn't think that would happen but you seem to think it can't happen with PA laws.  I can post what my State has on its books.  Means nothing when judges come in an change what the people supported.  May not happen tomorrow or a year from now but don't be stupid enough to believe it can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing that a court could do is find the PA law itself unconstitutional- which would eliminate the problem.
> 
> The reality is that PA laws have been in effect since the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and in those 50 years- no one has successfully sued any Church for refusing to perform any religious rituals on anyone the church refuses to do. And that includes the Church of Latter Day Saints who did not provide fully equality within the church to African Americans- and that includes the Catholic Church which does not allow women in the priesthood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law in my State saying marriage is between a man and a woman has been in effect much longer.  Seems it took a while for the fags to successfully sue and get their panties untwisted.
> 
> Courts can find portions of laws unconstitutional.  Don't think so, continue to be a Liberal moron.
Click to expand...


If the court found that portion of the law 'unconstitutional' then they would still be exempt- because if you read the PA laws they describe very clearly the business's that are subject to the PA laws

The only thing that a court could do is find the PA law itself unconstitutional- which would eliminate the problem.

The reality is that PA laws have been in effect since the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and in those 50 years- no one has successfully sued any Church for refusing to perform any religious rituals on anyone the church refuses to do. And that includes the Church of Latter Day Saints who did not provide fully equality within the church to African Americans- and that includes the Catholic Church which does not allow women in the priesthood.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't confuse requirements of what a body of people wanting to be considered a church must meet with what a church is.  The regulations can be there all day long and mean nothing until that body of people, what is truly the church under God's law, decided to apply them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, don't confuse the process with the result.
> 
> While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying.  Just passing along what has already been said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am saying
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
Click to expand...

 
You'll be warm alright.


----------



## Vigilante

All QUEER weddings should have to go to muslim mosques for their religious ceremonies....


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again- I am glad to quote from the Colorado PA laws which specifies the specific exemptions
> 
> _(1) As used in this part 6, *"place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public *and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.
> _
> * "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, my State's law said marriage was between a man and a woman.  A judge overruled it.  I didn't think that would happen but you seem to think it can't happen with PA laws.  I can post what my State has on its books.  Means nothing when judges come in an change what the people supported.  May not happen tomorrow or a year from now but don't be stupid enough to believe it can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing that a court could do is find the PA law itself unconstitutional- which would eliminate the problem.
> 
> The reality is that PA laws have been in effect since the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and in those 50 years- no one has successfully sued any Church for refusing to perform any religious rituals on anyone the church refuses to do. And that includes the Church of Latter Day Saints who did not provide fully equality within the church to African Americans- and that includes the Catholic Church which does not allow women in the priesthood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law in my State saying marriage is between a man and a woman has been in effect much longer.  Seems it took a while for the fags to successfully sue and get their panties untwisted.
> 
> Courts can find portions of laws unconstitutional.  Don't think so, continue to be a Liberal moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the court found that portion of the law 'unconstitutional' then they would still be exempt- because if you read the PA laws they describe very clearly the business's that are subject to the PA laws
> 
> The only thing that a court could do is find the PA law itself unconstitutional- which would eliminate the problem.
> 
> The reality is that PA laws have been in effect since the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and in those 50 years- no one has successfully sued any Church for refusing to perform any religious rituals on anyone the church refuses to do. And that includes the Church of Latter Day Saints who did not provide fully equality within the church to African Americans- and that includes the Catholic Church which does not allow women in the priesthood.
Click to expand...

 
If the court found the portion that says a place of public accommodation does not include a church, a church would then be considered a public accommodation.


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only when the attack is directed at that part of the person's make up or belief system in life specifically, would I say that yes it is *an attack on the Church indirectly, and even when one of it's flock is attacked as an individual* yet he or she is a representative of the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, more properly, an attack on an individual christian is an attack on the church and the 1st Amendment that individual enjoys.  His ultimate place of worship is in his heart.
Click to expand...

Exactly...Thanks


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, don't confuse the process with the result.
> 
> While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying.  Just passing along what has already been said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am saying
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll be warm alright.
Click to expand...


I feel all warm and fuzzy right now. Just feeling your Christian love for me.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again- I am glad to quote from the Colorado PA laws which specifies the specific exemptions
> 
> _(1) As used in this part 6, *"place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public *and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.
> _
> * "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, my State's law said marriage was between a man and a woman.  A judge overruled it.  I didn't think that would happen but you seem to think it can't happen with PA laws.  I can post what my State has on its books.  Means nothing when judges come in an change what the people supported.  May not happen tomorrow or a year from now but don't be stupid enough to believe it can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing that a court could do is find the PA law itself unconstitutional- which would eliminate the problem.
> 
> The reality is that PA laws have been in effect since the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and in those 50 years- no one has successfully sued any Church for refusing to perform any religious rituals on anyone the church refuses to do. And that includes the Church of Latter Day Saints who did not provide fully equality within the church to African Americans- and that includes the Catholic Church which does not allow women in the priesthood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law in my State saying marriage is between a man and a woman has been in effect much longer.  Seems it took a while for the fags to successfully sue and get their panties untwisted.
> 
> Courts can find portions of laws unconstitutional.  Don't think so, continue to be a Liberal moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the court found that portion of the law 'unconstitutional' then they would still be exempt- because if you read the PA laws they describe very clearly the business's that are subject to the PA laws
> 
> The only thing that a court could do is find the PA law itself unconstitutional- which would eliminate the problem.
> 
> The reality is that PA laws have been in effect since the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and in those 50 years- no one has successfully sued any Church for refusing to perform any religious rituals on anyone the church refuses to do. And that includes the Church of Latter Day Saints who did not provide fully equality within the church to African Americans- and that includes the Catholic Church which does not allow women in the priesthood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the court found the portion that says a place of public accommodation does not include a church, a church would then be considered a public accommodation.
Click to expand...


Feel free to point it out here:

_(1) As used in this part 6, *"place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public *and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor._
_
_


----------



## Syriusly

Vigilante said:


> All QUEER weddings should have to go to muslim mosques for their religious ceremonies....



So you think Mosques should be forced to marry homosexuals.......because they are Muslim....but Christian churches are somehow too special for that?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only when the attack is directed at that part of the person's make up or belief system in life specifically, would I say that yes it is *an attack on the Church indirectly, and even when one of it's flock is attacked as an individual* yet he or she is a representative of the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, more properly, an attack on an individual christian is an attack on the church and the 1st Amendment that individual enjoys.  His ultimate place of worship is in his heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is this guy being attacked- and is this an attack on his church- when the attacker is his church?
> 
> Prominent Mormon Podcaster May Face Excommunication
> 
> _Dehlin is a Mormon who has doubts about his faith. But his public search for answers may banish him from the church that is his spiritual home.
> 
> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made moves to excommunicate Dehlin, The New York Times reported on Thursday.
> 
> Dehlin is the founder of "Mormon Stories," a well-known website and podcast that has discussed controversial topics within the faith, including same-sex marriage and the ordination of women.
> 
> According to the Associated Press, Dehlin was told by a regional church leader that he's been summoned to a disciplinary hearing on Jan. 25, at which he could be either censured or excommunicated._
> 
> To recap: this gentleman is a Mormon- who is being attacked because of his religious beliefs- by his own church.
> 
> But you have argued that an attack on a religious individual is an attack on the church.
> 
> So- is the church guilty of attacking itself?
Click to expand...


Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning. 

How is the Church attacking a member in the way that you put this, and especially in accordance to my words written about the outside attacks being waged against the Church through it's members when they are attacked from the outside, and they are attacked against their person in which is a representative of the Church when the attack on their belief or religion occurs ? 

Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.  We are talking about outsiders attacking members of a Church in order to get at the whole Church eventually, and we are not talking about matters that go on within a Church as you are speaking about here..I mean your "Kidding me" right ? This was so desperate on your part to hang yourself out there like this, that it was purely laughable when I read it...LOL.


----------



## Vigilante

Syriusly said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> All QUEER weddings should have to go to muslim mosques for their religious ceremonies....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think Mosques should be forced to marry homosexuals.......because they are Muslim....but Christian churches are somehow too special for that?
Click to expand...


No, I think all the queers that want to start shit with religious institutions should start with muslims, and those that are left after a few ALLAH AKBAR'S can then concentrate on Christian religions!


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.



Then apply your own logic.

Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.



> Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.



Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only when the attack is directed at that part of the person's make up or belief system in life specifically, would I say that yes it is *an attack on the Church indirectly, and even when one of it's flock is attacked as an individual* yet he or she is a representative of the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, more properly, an attack on an individual christian is an attack on the church and the 1st Amendment that individual enjoys.  His ultimate place of worship is in his heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is this guy being attacked- and is this an attack on his church- when the attacker is his church?
> 
> Prominent Mormon Podcaster May Face Excommunication
> 
> _Dehlin is a Mormon who has doubts about his faith. But his public search for answers may banish him from the church that is his spiritual home.
> 
> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made moves to excommunicate Dehlin, The New York Times reported on Thursday.
> 
> Dehlin is the founder of "Mormon Stories," a well-known website and podcast that has discussed controversial topics within the faith, including same-sex marriage and the ordination of women.
> 
> According to the Associated Press, Dehlin was told by a regional church leader that he's been summoned to a disciplinary hearing on Jan. 25, at which he could be either censured or excommunicated._
> 
> To recap: this gentleman is a Mormon- who is being attacked because of his religious beliefs- by his own church.
> 
> But you have argued that an attack on a religious individual is an attack on the church.
> 
> So- is the church guilty of attacking itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matters that reside within the Church, .
Click to expand...


Great- now we agree that the Church is separate from the individual.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't confuse requirements of what a body of people wanting to be considered a church must meet with what a church is.  The regulations can be there all day long and mean nothing until that body of people, what is truly the church under God's law, decided to apply them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, don't confuse the process with the result.
> 
> While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying.  Just passing along what has already been said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am saying
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot. It's very Christian to warn people about hellfire. Where the "hell" did you get your information on Christian conduct?


----------



## Conservative65

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, don't confuse the process with the result.
> 
> While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying.  Just passing along what has already been said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am saying
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot. It's very Christian to warn people about hellfire. Where the "hell" did you get your information on Christian conduct?
Click to expand...


He's one that thinks he knows more about the Bible than someone that actually reads it in the theological manner in which is supposed to be read.  He reads it from a secular standpoint then can't understand why he doesn't get what it says.


----------



## Paperman299

"And yay," Jesus did say, "when you meet the non-believers, do tell them they are beneath you, and hurl epithets at them. Above all remember that when I say to ye do not be prideful, that I am totally joking. Know ye that you are better than other people, and they must know it also."


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your own logic.
> 
> Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?
Click to expand...

The key word is *agreed* to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your own logic.
> 
> Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key word is *agreed* to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?
Click to expand...


PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?


----------



## beagle9

Paperman299 said:


> "And yay," Jesus did say, "when you meet the non-believers, do tell them they are beneath you, and hurl epithets at them. Above all remember that when I say to ye do not be prideful, that I am totally joking. Know ye that you are better than other people, and they must know it also."


You make a mockery of the word, and you do this because you are attempting to defend the indefensible...


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your own logic.
> 
> Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key word is *agreed* to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?
Click to expand...

Last I checked *consent* was no where in the room when these new things that are yes *new* did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "And yay," Jesus did say, "when you meet the non-believers, do tell them they are beneath you, and hurl epithets at them. Above all remember that when I say to ye do not be prideful, that I am totally joking. Know ye that you are better than other people, and they must know it also."
> 
> 
> 
> You make a mockery of the word, and you do this because you are attempting to defend the indefensible...
Click to expand...


Its only a mockery if you claim that such positions don't reflect Jesus' teachings.

And there's nothing particularly 'indefensible' about being gay or getting married.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your own logic.
> 
> Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key word is *agreed* to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I checked *consent* was no where in the room when these new things that are yes *new* did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.
Click to expand...


So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?


----------



## Kosh

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your own logic.
> 
> Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key word is *agreed* to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I checked *consent* was no where in the room when these new things that are yes *new* did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?
Click to expand...


Yes we know the far left wants to force churches to perform same sex marriages..

We know that already, stop pretending that they don't.


----------



## Seawytch

Kosh said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your own logic.
> 
> Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?
> 
> 
> 
> The key word is *agreed* to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I checked *consent* was no where in the room when these new things that are yes *new* did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we know the far left wants to force churches to perform same sex marriages..
> 
> We know that already, stop pretending that they don't.
Click to expand...


Not by the government we don't.


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "And yay," Jesus did say, "when you meet the non-believers, do tell them they are beneath you, and hurl epithets at them. Above all remember that when I say to ye do not be prideful, that I am totally joking. Know ye that you are better than other people, and they must know it also."
> 
> 
> 
> You make a mockery of the word, and you do this because you are attempting to defend the indefensible...
Click to expand...


I'm making a mockery of Conservative65. These are his exact positions, and he claims his behavior is in line with Scripture.


----------



## Silhouette

Kosh said:


> Yes we know the far left wants to force churches to perform same sex marriages..
> 
> We know that already, stop pretending that they don't.


 
Given: That a church is merely a congregation of individual Christians and...

Given: That individual Christians embody the soul of any religion and...

Given: That individual Christians greatest exercise of their faith is in daily life and...

Given: That individual Christians are being sued and losing for exercising their faith in daily life...

THEREFORE: Churches are ALREADY being sued by the LGBT cult to force a complete abdication of one religion for another.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe whatever you want....but you must follow the secular laws. A person is not a church until the legal requirements are met.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, don't confuse the process with the result.
> 
> While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying.  Just passing along what has already been said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am saying
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot. It's very Christian to warn people about hellfire. Where the "hell" did you get your information on Christian conduct?
Click to expand...


And I am saying

Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

I often find comfort in the words of Jesus....

_*21*“You have heard that our ancestors were told, ‘You must not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.’d*22*

But I say, if you are even angry with someone,e you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot,f you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone,[URL='http://biblehub.com/nlt/matthew/5.htm#footnotesg']g you are in danger of the fires of hell.h[/URL]_


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we know the far left wants to force churches to perform same sex marriages..
> 
> We know that already, stop pretending that they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given: That a church is merely a congregation of individual Christians and...
> 
> Given: That individual Christians embody the soul of any religion and...
> 
> Given: That individual Christians greatest exercise of their faith is in daily life and...
> 
> Given: That individual Christians are being sued and losing for exercising their faith in daily life...
> 
> THEREFORE: Churches are ALREADY being sued by the LGBT cult to force a complete abdication of one religion for another.
Click to expand...

Baking cakes for a living is serving a Profit, not a Prophet.  Now you know.

And when are you going to give this up?  You're running out of time.  By the end of June this will be over and done with.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> THEREFORE: Churches are ALREADY being sued by the LGBT cult to force a complete abdication of one religion for another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore you are delusional.
Click to expand...


----------



## Syriusly

Kosh said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your own logic.
> 
> Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?
> 
> 
> 
> The key word is *agreed* to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I checked *consent* was no where in the room when these new things that are yes *new* did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we know the far left wants to force churches to perform same sex marriages..
> .
Click to expand...


The voices in your head don't really count as 'we'


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your own logic.
> 
> Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key word is *agreed* to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I checked *consent* was no where in the room when these new things that are yes *new* did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.
Click to expand...


Do you believe that laws passed by your elected representatives are not passed with your implicit consent? That in our representative Democracy, that we delegate our vote to our representatives and that they 'represent' us when they cast their votes?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your own logic.
> 
> Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key word is *agreed* to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?
Click to expand...


"Out of Control" government?

Does your state or city have PA laws? Do you even know if they do? Are they acceptable to you- or not?

And if not- what have you done about them? Have you contacted your legislators?


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, don't confuse the process with the result.
> 
> While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying.  Just passing along what has already been said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am saying
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot. It's very Christian to warn people about hellfire. Where the "hell" did you get your information on Christian conduct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's one that thinks he knows more about the Bible than someone that actually reads it in the theological manner in which is supposed to be read.
Click to expand...


'in which it is supposed to be read'

LOL.....well even Christians can't agree on how the Bible should be read- heck they can't even agree on which translation is the most accurate translation.

Catholics don't agree with Protestants who don't agree with Eastern Orthodox who don't agree with Copts. Even within Protestants, the Episcopalians don't agree with the Baptists who don't agree with Seventh Day Adventists who don't agree with Christian Scientists


----------



## Syriusly

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying.  Just passing along what has already been said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am saying
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot. It's very Christian to warn people about hellfire. Where the "hell" did you get your information on Christian conduct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's one that thinks he knows more about the Bible than someone that actually reads it in the theological manner in which is supposed to be read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'in which it is supposed to be read'
> 
> LOL.....well even Christians can't agree on how the Bible should be read- heck they can't even agree on which translation is the most accurate translation.
> 
> Catholics don't agree with Protestants who don't agree with Eastern Orthodox who don't agree with Copts. Even within Protestants, the Episcopalians don't agree with the Baptists who don't agree with Seventh Day Adventists who don't agree with Christian Scientists
Click to expand...


As an aside- what can get a member banned here? I just noticed one of the posters was- and I am not speaking about his situation- but other than calling someone a pedophile- how do posters possibly end up banned on this board?


----------



## Paperman299

Syriusly said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying.  Just passing along what has already been said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I am saying
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot. It's very Christian to warn people about hellfire. Where the "hell" did you get your information on Christian conduct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's one that thinks he knows more about the Bible than someone that actually reads it in the theological manner in which is supposed to be read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'in which it is supposed to be read'
> 
> LOL.....well even Christians can't agree on how the Bible should be read- heck they can't even agree on which translation is the most accurate translation.
> 
> Catholics don't agree with Protestants who don't agree with Eastern Orthodox who don't agree with Copts. Even within Protestants, the Episcopalians don't agree with the Baptists who don't agree with Seventh Day Adventists who don't agree with Christian Scientists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As an aside- what can get a member banned here? I just noticed one of the posters was- and I am not speaking about his situation- but other than calling someone a pedophile- how do posters possibly end up banned on this board?
Click to expand...


Paint got banned once, though what for I can't possibly imagine since each post is pretty much as offensive as he can make it.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Given: That a church is merely a congregation of individual Christians and...



Given that 'church' has a specific legal definition and this is a question of churches being forced to accommodate homosexual weddings by PA laws, only the legal definitions are relevant.

Your made up definitions aren't.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying.  Just passing along what has already been said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I am saying
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot. It's very Christian to warn people about hellfire. Where the "hell" did you get your information on Christian conduct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's one that thinks he knows more about the Bible than someone that actually reads it in the theological manner in which is supposed to be read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'in which it is supposed to be read'
> 
> LOL.....well even Christians can't agree on how the Bible should be read- heck they can't even agree on which translation is the most accurate translation.
> 
> Catholics don't agree with Protestants who don't agree with Eastern Orthodox who don't agree with Copts. Even within Protestants, the Episcopalians don't agree with the Baptists who don't agree with Seventh Day Adventists who don't agree with Christian Scientists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As an aside- what can get a member banned here? I just noticed one of the posters was- and I am not speaking about his situation- but other than calling someone a pedophile- how do posters possibly end up banned on this board?
Click to expand...

Arbitrary standards. There's a mod here who has a real hard on for me. No rules were violated, but I got warnings all the same. Of course you get this with every moderated discussion board. This one is still the best I've come across in years.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, don't confuse the process with the result.
> 
> While you may enjoy the secular laws now with you sexual deviance, God's laws will be the only thing that matters eventually.  The secular ones mean nothing to Him.  Good luck munching that carpet when it's hot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying.  Just passing along what has already been said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am saying
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot. It's very Christian to warn people about hellfire. Where the "hell" did you get your information on Christian conduct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am saying
> 
> Ah nothing is more 'Christian' than having a poster say your going to hell.
> 
> Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> I often find comfort in the words of Jesus....
> 
> _*21*“You have heard that our ancestors were told, ‘You must not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.’d*22*
> 
> But I say, if you are even angry with someone,e you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot,f you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone,g you are in danger of the fires of hell.h_
Click to expand...

May you be infested with the fleas of a thousand camels.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your own logic.
> 
> Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key word is *agreed* to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I checked *consent* was no where in the room when these new things that are yes *new* did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?
Click to expand...

You just keep spinning and spinning your little heart out, but you know good and well that I was talking about the consent of the governed as in the citizenry at large or for those who are found in the majority upon many issues, but not for me personally as you tried to spin it no. 

Good try though, and so I guess spin it is from you now. Carry on...


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your own logic.
> 
> Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key word is *agreed* to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I checked *consent* was no where in the room when these new things that are yes *new* did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe that laws passed by your elected representatives are not passed with your implicit consent? That in our representative Democracy, that we delegate our vote to our representatives and that they 'represent' us when they cast their votes?
Click to expand...


Maybe once upon a time they represented us, and they honored our wishes given them upon our consent for them to represent us on such wishes, and then upon our asking of them to do so, but not anymore they don't. They look at us as fools anymore, and they look at us now as if we can't find our way any longer, so they have to find it for us. WHAT HAPPENED?


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your own logic.
> 
> Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?
> 
> 
> 
> The key word is *agreed* to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I checked *consent* was no where in the room when these new things that are yes *new* did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just keep spinning and spinning your little heart out, but you know good and well that I was talking about the consent of the governed as in the citizenry at large or for those who are found in the majority upon many issues, but not for me personally as you tried to spin it no.
> 
> Good try though, and so I guess spin it is from you now. Carry on...
Click to expand...


Funny how only the anti-gay marriage folks accuse people of consciously spinning material. Paranoid much?

Public accommodation laws exist with the consent of the governed. Within those laws, discriminating with your business is not legal. Sometimes the majority is in favor of somehow bending the law to support their extralegal prejudices, as in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Though anti-miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1967, in 1968, 73% of Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage. Today we're widely in agreement that those judges did not just the right thing, but the legal thing, and gave a more correct interpretation of American laws not possible under the prejudices of earlier history. The same thing is happening today but with, I add, far more public support.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your own logic.
> 
> Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key word is *agreed* to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Out of Control" government?
> 
> Does your state or city have PA laws? Do you even know if they do? Are they acceptable to you- or not?
> 
> And if not- what have you done about them? Have you contacted your legislators?
Click to expand...

Of course they have them, but no one has challenged every concept of them here, and especially by what we are seeing going on out in the nation these days and times. I guess we are playing catch up, but that is OK also.


----------



## beagle9

Paperman299 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key word is *agreed* to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I checked *consent* was no where in the room when these new things that are yes *new* did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just keep spinning and spinning your little heart out, but you know good and well that I was talking about the consent of the governed as in the citizenry at large or for those who are found in the majority upon many issues, but not for me personally as you tried to spin it no.
> 
> Good try though, and so I guess spin it is from you now. Carry on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how only the anti-gay marriage folks accuse people of consciously spinning material. Paranoid much?
> 
> Public accommodation laws exist with the consent of the governed. Within those laws, discriminating with your business is not legal. Sometimes the majority is in favor of somehow bending the law to support their extralegal prejudices, as in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Though anti-miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1967, in 1968, 73% of Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage. Today we're widely in agreement that those judges did not just the right thing, but the legal thing, and gave a more correct interpretation of American laws not possible under the prejudices of earlier history. The same thing is happening today but with, I add, far more public support.
Click to expand...

The grouping everything together is a tactic being used, and it is a problem because in doing so it makes a larger crowd look as if they agree about something, when in fact they don't for the most part. But because one part of the grouped may be popular, then the more unpopular side may get pulled through because it has been grouped together with something else. Heck they do bill's like this all the time, where as have you ever heard of PORK laden bill's, but they pass because of something being very popular in the entire bill ? I don't think it's right when they do this, but it has been going on for quite sometime now.


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?
> 
> 
> 
> Last I checked *consent* was no where in the room when these new things that are yes *new* did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just keep spinning and spinning your little heart out, but you know good and well that I was talking about the consent of the governed as in the citizenry at large or for those who are found in the majority upon many issues, but not for me personally as you tried to spin it no.
> 
> Good try though, and so I guess spin it is from you now. Carry on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how only the anti-gay marriage folks accuse people of consciously spinning material. Paranoid much?
> 
> Public accommodation laws exist with the consent of the governed. Within those laws, discriminating with your business is not legal. Sometimes the majority is in favor of somehow bending the law to support their extralegal prejudices, as in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Though anti-miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1967, in 1968, 73% of Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage. Today we're widely in agreement that those judges did not just the right thing, but the legal thing, and gave a more correct interpretation of American laws not possible under the prejudices of earlier history. The same thing is happening today but with, I add, far more public support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The grouping everything together is a tactic being used, and it is a problem because in doing so it makes a larger crowd look as if they agree about something, when in fact they don't for the most part. But because one part of the grouped may be popular, then the more unpopular side may get pulled through because it has been grouped together with something else. Heck they do bill's like this all the time, where as have you ever heard of PORK laden bill's, but they pass because of something being very popular in the entire bill ? I don't think it's right when they do this, but it has been going on for quite sometime now.
Click to expand...


Are you talking about opinion polls? If that's what you mean, the question of gay marriage is a straightforward yes-or-no. There's no sleight of hand in those results.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your own logic.
> 
> Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?
> 
> 
> 
> The key word is *agreed* to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I checked *consent* was no where in the room when these new things that are yes *new* did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe that laws passed by your elected representatives are not passed with your implicit consent? That in our representative Democracy, that we delegate our vote to our representatives and that they 'represent' us when they cast their votes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe once upon a time they represented us, and they honored our wishes given them upon our consent for them to represent us on such wishes, and then upon our asking of them to do so, but not anymore they don't. They look at us as fools anymore, and they look at us now as if we can't find our way any longer, so they have to find it for us. WHAT HAPPENED?
Click to expand...


I am sorry that you feel like your representatives do not represent the wishes of you and your fellow citizens.

My Senators and Congresswoman represents my concerns fairly well-  as do my state legislators. Sure I disagree from time to time- but there are others who do agree.  

I believe in the power of the ballot- even though I was not happy at the overall results of the last election- certainly those who got elected did so because the persons voting for them thought they would represent their interests- I am happy the elections took place and show our Constitutional system in action.


----------



## beagle9

Paperman299 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last I checked *consent* was no where in the room when these new things that are yes *new* did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just keep spinning and spinning your little heart out, but you know good and well that I was talking about the consent of the governed as in the citizenry at large or for those who are found in the majority upon many issues, but not for me personally as you tried to spin it no.
> 
> Good try though, and so I guess spin it is from you now. Carry on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how only the anti-gay marriage folks accuse people of consciously spinning material. Paranoid much?
> 
> Public accommodation laws exist with the consent of the governed. Within those laws, discriminating with your business is not legal. Sometimes the majority is in favor of somehow bending the law to support their extralegal prejudices, as in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Though anti-miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1967, in 1968, 73% of Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage. Today we're widely in agreement that those judges did not just the right thing, but the legal thing, and gave a more correct interpretation of American laws not possible under the prejudices of earlier history. The same thing is happening today but with, I add, far more public support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The grouping everything together is a tactic being used, and it is a problem because in doing so it makes a larger crowd look as if they agree about something, when in fact they don't for the most part. But because one part of the grouped may be popular, then the more unpopular side may get pulled through because it has been grouped together with something else. Heck they do bill's like this all the time, where as have you ever heard of PORK laden bill's, but they pass because of something being very popular in the entire bill ? I don't think it's right when they do this, but it has been going on for quite sometime now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you talking about opinion polls? If that's what you mean, the question of gay marriage is a straightforward yes-or-no. There's no sleight of hand in those results.
Click to expand...

These are polls, and just look to the bottom where it says NOTE meaning *take note* when reading the results of a poll, because there are questions that are also included that may be answered differently by the people being polled. This could in essence skew the poll to the on lookers if not savvy abut something like that.  Now the *vote* like Californians took (prop 8), there are many who think that it should have meant something instead of being over turned by an activist federal judge. Wouldn't you agree that the people spoke, and that it should have meant something when they spoke or not ? I guess polls are like the jobless economy being gauged, where as there are a lot of people who had given up looking for a job after a while, so they aren't counted any longer in that stat by the government, and that also skews the truth about something like that as well doesn't it ?  The games are endless when one thinks about it.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your own logic.
> 
> Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key word is *agreed* to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Out of Control" government?
> 
> Does your state or city have PA laws? Do you even know if they do? Are they acceptable to you- or not?
> 
> And if not- what have you done about them? Have you contacted your legislators?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they have them, but no one has challenged every concept of them here, and especially by what we are seeing going on out in the nation these days and times. I guess we are playing catch up, but that is OK also.
Click to expand...


Are they acceptable to you- or not?

And if not- what have you done about them? Have you contacted your legislators?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?
> 
> 
> 
> You just keep spinning and spinning your little heart out, but you know good and well that I was talking about the consent of the governed as in the citizenry at large or for those who are found in the majority upon many issues, but not for me personally as you tried to spin it no.
> 
> Good try though, and so I guess spin it is from you now. Carry on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how only the anti-gay marriage folks accuse people of consciously spinning material. Paranoid much?
> 
> Public accommodation laws exist with the consent of the governed. Within those laws, discriminating with your business is not legal. Sometimes the majority is in favor of somehow bending the law to support their extralegal prejudices, as in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Though anti-miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1967, in 1968, 73% of Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage. Today we're widely in agreement that those judges did not just the right thing, but the legal thing, and gave a more correct interpretation of American laws not possible under the prejudices of earlier history. The same thing is happening today but with, I add, far more public support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The grouping everything together is a tactic being used, and it is a problem because in doing so it makes a larger crowd look as if they agree about something, when in fact they don't for the most part. But because one part of the grouped may be popular, then the more unpopular side may get pulled through because it has been grouped together with something else. Heck they do bill's like this all the time, where as have you ever heard of PORK laden bill's, but they pass because of something being very popular in the entire bill ? I don't think it's right when they do this, but it has been going on for quite sometime now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you talking about opinion polls? If that's what you mean, the question of gay marriage is a straightforward yes-or-no. There's no sleight of hand in those results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These are polls, .
Click to expand...


Yes- they are polls. 

Do you have a better method for measuring public opinion?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just keep spinning and spinning your little heart out, but you know good and well that I was talking about the consent of the governed as in the citizenry at large or for those who are found in the majority upon many issues, but not for me personally as you tried to spin it no.
> 
> Good try though, and so I guess spin it is from you now. Carry on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how only the anti-gay marriage folks accuse people of consciously spinning material. Paranoid much?
> 
> Public accommodation laws exist with the consent of the governed. Within those laws, discriminating with your business is not legal. Sometimes the majority is in favor of somehow bending the law to support their extralegal prejudices, as in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Though anti-miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1967, in 1968, 73% of Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage. Today we're widely in agreement that those judges did not just the right thing, but the legal thing, and gave a more correct interpretation of American laws not possible under the prejudices of earlier history. The same thing is happening today but with, I add, far more public support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The grouping everything together is a tactic being used, and it is a problem because in doing so it makes a larger crowd look as if they agree about something, when in fact they don't for the most part. But because one part of the grouped may be popular, then the more unpopular side may get pulled through because it has been grouped together with something else. Heck they do bill's like this all the time, where as have you ever heard of PORK laden bill's, but they pass because of something being very popular in the entire bill ? I don't think it's right when they do this, but it has been going on for quite sometime now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you talking about opinion polls? If that's what you mean, the question of gay marriage is a straightforward yes-or-no. There's no sleight of hand in those results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These are polls, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes- they are polls.
> 
> Do you have a better method for measuring public opinion?
Click to expand...

THE ALLOWED VOTE!


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your own logic.
> 
> Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?
> 
> 
> 
> The key word is *agreed* to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I checked *consent* was no where in the room when these new things that are yes *new* did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just keep spinning and spinning your little heart out, but you know good and well that I was talking about the consent of the governed as in the citizenry at large or for those who are found in the majority upon many issues, but not for me personally as you tried to spin it no.
> 
> Good try though, and so I guess spin it is from you now. Carry on...
Click to expand...


I don't think you get what consent of the governed is. Its not that YOU agree with every law. That the people consent the establishment of a government and laws created through our representatives.

That you personally don't like one particular law doesn't mean that the US doesn't operate under the consent of the governed. It means that more people support PA laws that oppose them. 

Yet consistently, you keep insisting that unless you agree with a PA law, it shouldn't apply to you. Um, of course it should.


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?
> 
> 
> 
> You just keep spinning and spinning your little heart out, but you know good and well that I was talking about the consent of the governed as in the citizenry at large or for those who are found in the majority upon many issues, but not for me personally as you tried to spin it no.
> 
> Good try though, and so I guess spin it is from you now. Carry on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how only the anti-gay marriage folks accuse people of consciously spinning material. Paranoid much?
> 
> Public accommodation laws exist with the consent of the governed. Within those laws, discriminating with your business is not legal. Sometimes the majority is in favor of somehow bending the law to support their extralegal prejudices, as in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Though anti-miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1967, in 1968, 73% of Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage. Today we're widely in agreement that those judges did not just the right thing, but the legal thing, and gave a more correct interpretation of American laws not possible under the prejudices of earlier history. The same thing is happening today but with, I add, far more public support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The grouping everything together is a tactic being used, and it is a problem because in doing so it makes a larger crowd look as if they agree about something, when in fact they don't for the most part. But because one part of the grouped may be popular, then the more unpopular side may get pulled through because it has been grouped together with something else. Heck they do bill's like this all the time, where as have you ever heard of PORK laden bill's, but they pass because of something being very popular in the entire bill ? I don't think it's right when they do this, but it has been going on for quite sometime now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you talking about opinion polls? If that's what you mean, the question of gay marriage is a straightforward yes-or-no. There's no sleight of hand in those results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These are polls, and just look to the bottom where it says NOTE meaning *take note* when reading the results of a poll, because there are questions that are also included that may be answered differently by the people being polled. This could in essence skew the poll to the on lookers if not savvy abut something like that.  Now the *vote* like Californians took (prop 8), there are many who think that it should have meant something instead of being over turned by an activist federal judge. Wouldn't you agree that the people spoke, and that it should have meant something when they spoke or not ? I guess polls are like the jobless economy being gauged, where as there are a lot of people who had given up looking for a job after a while, so they aren't counted any longer in that stat by the government, and that also skews the truth about something like that as well doesn't it ?  The games are endless when one thinks about it.
Click to expand...


That "take note" only lets us know that other questions were (gasp) asked on the same poll. The results represented graphically are still only the answers to that one question. If you're suggesting that those preceding questions could have influenced the person being polled, well, it's possible but highly unlikely. Especially considering most every respectable nationwide poll gives us the same results. Civil Rights

*ABC News/Washington Post Poll*. Oct. 9-12, 2014. N=1,006 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5. . "Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court action this week that allows gay marriages to go forward in several more states?" 
Support > 56%
Oppose > 38%

*CBS News/New York Times Poll*. Sept. 12-15, 2014. N=1,009 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3. . "Do you think it should be legal or not legal for same-sex couples to marry?" 
Legal > 56%
Not legal > 36%
Unsure/ No answer > 7%

*Pew Research Center*. Feb. 12-26, 2014. N=3,338 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 2. . "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?" 
Favor > 54%
Oppose > 39%
Unsure/Refused > 7%

There's more of these if you want to click that link, and they all say the same thing. So no, there's no polling trickery going on. You are genuinely in the minority when it comes to the question of making same-sex marriage legal.


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> These are polls, and just look to the bottom where it says NOTE meaning *take note* when reading the results of a poll, because there are questions that are also included that may be answered differently by the people being polled. This could in essence skew the poll to the on lookers if not savvy abut something like that.  *Now the vote like Californians took (prop 8), there are many who think that it should have meant something instead of being over turned by an activist federal judge. Wouldn't you agree that the people spoke, and that it should have meant something when they spoke or not ?* I guess polls are like the jobless economy being gauged, where as there are a lot of people who had given up looking for a job after a while, so they aren't counted any longer in that stat by the government, and that also skews the truth about something like that as well doesn't it ?  The games are endless when one thinks about it.



As I stated before, and which you have so easily forgotten, in the year after the Loving v. Virginia SCOTUS decision struck down anti-miscegenation laws Americans STILL disapproved of interracial marriage by 73%. 






*73%.
*
Today we agree that those judges made the right call. They gave us a better interpretation of American laws than we previously had, one which recognized that existing laws were in conflict with the promises of the Constitution. So if California voters decide on a law which violates the Constitution, then that law must be struck down no matter how popular it is. 

They still have recourse, however; they could always change the Constitution.


----------



## Silhouette

Paperman299 said:


> Today we agree that those judges made the right call. They gave us a better interpretation of American laws than we previously had, one which recognized that existing laws were in conflict with the promises of the Constitution. So if California voters decide on a law which violates the Constitution, then that law must be struck down no matter how popular it is.
> 
> They still have recourse, however; they could always change the Constitution.


 
Well, no actually.  We DON'T agree that they made the right call.  That's why the US Supreme Court is running through this question again this year.

Judge Sutton of the 6th pointed out that procedurally, no lower court may overturn SCOTUS from underneath on a specific question of law.  Windsor sait it was up to the states.  That's that until further notice.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Syriusly said:


> As an aside- what can get a member banned here? I just noticed one of the posters was- and I am not speaking about his situation- but other than calling someone a pedophile- how do posters possibly end up banned on this board?



Use the Report button to the lower right of the thread involved, copy the link and the post number.

It is about one of two things that can get you banned for some time.


----------



## Steinlight

The OP looks like a bald headed faggot. Cue ball ass mothafucka.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Windsor said marriage was between two people, did not overrule marriage equality, and reserved the right of SCOTUS to weigh in if necessary.

It's necessary, and Sil's crowd is going to be shown the door to the alley.


----------



## Steinlight

America, the modern day Soddom and Gommorah. Get the PIV and AIDS drugs ready...


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Windsor said marriage was between two people, did not overrule marriage equality, and reserved the right of SCOTUS to weigh in if necessary.
> 
> It's necessary, and Sil's crowd is going to be shown the door to the alley.


 So in your opinion then they will be overturning Windsor in two years time.  OK, there's always a first for everything..


----------



## JakeStarkey

That's your opinion.  My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all.  The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> That's your opinion.  My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all.  The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.


 
Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all.  The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..
Click to expand...


Keep dreaming. I am pretty sure they are focusing on more credible polling/internal numbers and not lines at a food food joint, "likes" on Facebook, and a random internet poll. The fact you have to use these examples only highlights your desperation.


----------



## mdk

Steinlight said:


> America, the modern day Soddom and Gommorah. Get the PIV and AIDS drugs ready...



Be sure and have a fainting couch and some clutching pearls ready as well. I hear it helps alleviate those suffering from drama fits.


----------



## Steinlight

mdk said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> America, the modern day Soddom and Gommorah. Get the PIV and AIDS drugs ready...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be sure and have a fainting couch and some clutching pearls ready as well. I hear it helps alleviate those suffering from drama fits.
Click to expand...

LOL, yea those squares need to get with the times, cutting off your genitals and engaging in homosexuality is completely normal!


----------



## MaryL

Should gays be FORCED to accommodate Christian weddings? I don't know what that means, but turn about is fair play. Given that Homosexuality is just sexual dysfunction not mentioned in the constitution,  religion IS, I don't think churches should have to be made to accommodate perverts. Nope.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key word is *agreed* to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I checked *consent* was no where in the room when these new things that are yes *new* did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe that laws passed by your elected representatives are not passed with your implicit consent? That in our representative Democracy, that we delegate our vote to our representatives and that they 'represent' us when they cast their votes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe once upon a time they represented us, and they honored our wishes given them upon our consent for them to represent us on such wishes, and then upon our asking of them to do so, but not anymore they don't. They look at us as fools anymore, and they look at us now as if we can't find our way any longer, so they have to find it for us. WHAT HAPPENED?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry that you feel like your representatives do not represent the wishes of you and your fellow citizens.
> 
> My Senators and Congresswoman represents my concerns fairly well-  as do my state legislators. Sure I disagree from time to time- but there are others who do agree.
> 
> I* believe in the power of the ballot-* even though I was not happy at the overall results of the last election- certainly those who got elected did so because the persons voting for them thought they would represent their interests- I am happy the elections took place and show our Constitutional system in action.
Click to expand...


Bullshit, you audacious liar!

You do NOT believe in the ballot box, you or any of your little faggot friends.  Pushing your perverted agenda through the courts showed a special contempt for the democratic process.  You didn't prevail upon hearts and minds, you didn't bow before the expressed will of the people, you overturned democracy through ideologue hack judges who themselves will go to hell just like you.

Stop lying, faggots!


----------



## beagle9

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all.  The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. I am pretty sure they are focusing on more credible polling/internal numbers and not lines at a food food joint, "likes" on Facebook, and a random internet poll. The fact you have to use these examples only highlights your desperation.
Click to expand...

The fact that you have to use polls instead of allowing the peoples vote to stand or be held, shows your desperation.


----------



## mdk

beagle9 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all.  The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. I am pretty sure they are focusing on more credible polling/internal numbers and not lines at a food food joint, "likes" on Facebook, and a random internet poll. The fact you have to use these examples only highlights your desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you have to use polls instead of allowing the peoples vote to stand or be held, shows your desperation.
Click to expand...


What I am to be desperate about? Gays are getting married in 37 states and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it other then toss around slippery slopes and dramatic fear mongering. Besides, the will of the people is entirely irrelevant if that will is violating the Constitution.


----------



## mdk

MaryL said:


> Should gays be FORCED to accommodate Christian weddings? I don't know what that means, but turn about is fair play. Given that Homosexuality is just sexual dysfunction not mentioned in the constitution,  religion IS, I don't think churches should have to be made to accommodate perverts. Nope.



In all 50 states a business owned by gay person isn't allowed to refuse service to a customer on the basis of their religion. If they did, they would be violation of the very same public accommodation laws that many people here decry because a few states have added gays to the list of people you can't discriminate against in business.


----------



## WorldWatcher

beagle9 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all.  The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. I am pretty sure they are focusing on more credible polling/internal numbers and not lines at a food food joint, "likes" on Facebook, and a random internet poll. The fact you have to use these examples only highlights your desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you have to use polls instead of allowing the peoples vote to stand or be held, shows your desperation.
Click to expand...


The last 4 General Election Results where SSCM appeared on the ballot:

Maryland Same-Sex Civil Marriage Referendum Question 6 2012 - Ballotpedia

Washington Same-Sex Marriage Veto Referendum Referendum 74 2012 - Ballotpedia

Maine Same-Sex Marriage Question Question 1 2012 - Ballotpedia

Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Amendment Amendment 1 2012 - Ballotpedia ****​


**** In Minnesota, since the measure was defeated to ban SSCM, the legislature passed it shortly after the defeat.

>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all.  The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..
Click to expand...


The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles.  Your poll is a farce as you well know.

The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation.  In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling.  They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.   

The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today we agree that those judges made the right call. They gave us a better interpretation of American laws than we previously had, one which recognized that existing laws were in conflict with the promises of the Constitution. So if California voters decide on a law which violates the Constitution, then that law must be struck down no matter how popular it is.
> 
> They still have recourse, however; they could always change the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no actually.  We DON'T agree that they made the right call.  That's why the US Supreme Court is running through this question again this year.
> 
> Judge Sutton of the 6th pointed out that procedurally, no lower court may overturn SCOTUS from underneath on a specific question of law.  Windsor sait it was up to the states.  That's that until further notice.
Click to expand...


Whether Sutton or Sil disagree are irrelevant.

Windsor said marriage was between two adults, that it was a state duty supervised by the Constitution, and that SCOTUS held the final authority.

That it was what almost all attorneys and knowledgeable lay persons agree.


----------



## JakeStarkey

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all.  The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. I am pretty sure they are focusing on more credible polling/internal numbers and not lines at a food food joint, "likes" on Facebook, and a random internet poll. The fact you have to use these examples only highlights your desperation.
Click to expand...


Sil's desperation has been reaching the near hysterical lately.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all.  The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles.  Your poll is a farce as you well know.
> 
> The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation.  In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling.  *They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.   *
> 
> The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.
Click to expand...

Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!

So the fear is for the judges now, is that they are so power hungry themselves, that they would throw away their principles for fear of being challenged over them simply remaining in their job's ? Is this the weakness that is smelled coming from the bench now in every courtroom across America anymore ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The fear is that the social con far right wants to exclude people from its concept of marriage when everyone else, from responsible right to far left, want every adult couple to share the right to marriage equality.  Beagle9's way is anti-American, period.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> The fear is that the social con far right wants to exclude people from its concept of marriage when everyone else, from responsible right to far left, want every adult couple to share the right to marriage equality.  Beagle9's way is anti-American, period.


No beagles way is American, but the new way is something foreign to what America always was, and in many peoples minds still should be on some of these issues, but the strategies of those who push these foreign concepts on everyone now, has been I must say clever to say the least. 

It doesn't make it right still, but clever it definitely has been for sure.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, Beagle, you are now an outlier of American society, not its core.

The concept is not foreign, but yours is becoming such.


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!
> 
> So the fear is for the judges now, is that they are so power hungry themselves, that they would throw away their principles for fear of being challenged over them simply remaining in their job's ? Is this the weakness that is smelled coming from the bench now in every courtroom across America anymore ?


 
Lower court judges are no more powerful than the system's rules they belong to.  In pretending that states had to violate their public's consensus limiting marriage to man/woman, several lower court judges actually attempted to overrule Windsor 2013 from underneath; which is prohibited.

The Big Legal Secret is that those decisions aren't worth the paper they're written on: and neither are the marriage licenses issued in those states to same-sex people, in violation of the statewide-consensus' Will in those states.

Windsor's Finding on a specific question of law was that 11 states had legal "gay marriage" because their statewide legal process made that so; and that is how it must be and the fed must respect that until further notice.

There has been no further notice on the merits of any challenge to that Finding.  Only SCOTUS may overturn itself on a specific question of law.  As has been pointed out to me several times, granting of stays without explanation is not a Finding on the merits.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

JakeStarkey said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all.  The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. I am pretty sure they are focusing on more credible polling/internal numbers and not lines at a food food joint, "likes" on Facebook, and a random internet poll. The fact you have to use these examples only highlights your desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sil's desperation has been reaching the near hysterical lately.
Click to expand...

That's because in five short months this is over and done with.  What will she harp endlessly on about next?


----------



## JakeStarkey

That is not what Windsor says; Sil is being ludicrous and is becoming even more desperate.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> That is not what Windsor says; Sil is being ludicrous and is becoming even more desperate.


 
United States v. Windsor


> Opinion page 14
> "And so New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage. New York, in common with, *as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry*....After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage... By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States.."


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fear is that the social con far right wants to exclude people from its concept of marriage when everyone else, from responsible right to far left, want every adult couple to share the right to marriage equality.  Beagle9's way is anti-American, period.
> 
> 
> 
> No beagles way is American, but the new way is something foreign to what America always was, and in many peoples minds still should be on some of these issues, but the strategies of those who push these foreign concepts on everyone now, has been I must say clever to say the least.
> 
> It doesn't make it right still, but clever it definitely has been for sure.
Click to expand...


Nope. Most Americans are no where near that whiny or desperate to be victims.


----------



## Silhouette

I love shutting Jake down.. 


JakeStarkey said:


> That is not what Windsor says; Sil is being ludicrous and is becoming even more desperate.


United States v. Windsor


> Opinion page 14
> "And so New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage. New York, in common with, *as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry*....After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage... By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States.."


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!
> 
> So the fear is for the judges now, is that they are so power hungry themselves, that they would throw away their principles for fear of being challenged over them simply remaining in their job's ? Is this the weakness that is smelled coming from the bench now in every courtroom across America anymore ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lower court judges are no more powerful than the system's rules they belong to.  In pretending that states had to violate their public's consensus limiting marriage to man/woman, several lower court judges actually attempted to overrule Windsor 2013 from underneath; which is prohibited.
Click to expand...


No they didn't, Silo. Remember, you don't know how the law works. There's no provision of the Windsor ruling that any lower court overruled. Windsor never even mentions gay marriage bans, let alone affirms their constitutionality. You simply ignore those portions of the Windsor ruling that you don't like. Such as.....



> *Subject to certain constitutional guarantees,* see_, e.g., Loving_ v. _Virginia_, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” _Sosna_ v. _Iowa_, 419 U. S. 393.
> 
> Windsor v. US



You always try to pretend that no state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. Which is silly, as all State laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. And every lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans did so on the basis of the violation of those guarantees.

You know, the guarantees you pretend don't exist.



Silhouette said:


> The Big Legal Secret is that those decisions aren't worth the paper they're written on: and neither are the marriage licenses issued in those states to same-sex people, in violation of the statewide-consensus' Will in those states.



And by 'Big Legal Secret', you mean the latest piece of pseudo-legal gibberish you made up?

If the lower court rulings overturning gay marriage aren't worth the paper they are printed on.....then why did the USSC preserve ever single one of them?



> Windsor's Finding on a specific question of law was that 11 states had legal "gay marriage" because their statewide legal process made that so; and that is how it must be and the fed must respect that until further notice.



Where does the Windsor ruling state 'that is how it must be' regarding state wide legal processes?

*Nowhere.* You imagined it.



> There has been no further notice on the merits of any challenge to that Finding.  Only SCOTUS may overturn itself on a specific question of law.  As has been pointed out to me several times, granting of stays without explanation is not a Finding on the merits.



As usual, Silo.....you have no idea what you're talking about. You don't even know what a 'finding' is. A finding is a decision based on a question of fact. *The question posed to the Windsor court had nothing to with the applicability of State law.* But the applicability of Federal law.

The Windsor court never ruled on the constitutionality of gay marriage bans or even mentioned them. You've imagined it. They ruled on the applicability of the Federal Defense of Marriage finding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.



> I love shutting Jake down..



And I rather enjoy shutting you down. You'd be shocked at how little effort it takes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

MaryL said:


> Should gays be FORCED to accommodate Christian weddings? I don't know what that means, but turn about is fair play. Given that Homosexuality is just sexual dysfunction not mentioned in the constitution,  religion IS, I don't think churches should have to be made to accommodate perverts. Nope.


The far right social cons are religious perverts, without a doubt.

Not to worry, MaryL, the thirteen people that want churches to marry folks they don't want to marry won't make it happen.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?
> 
> 
> 
> Last I checked *consent* was no where in the room when these new things that are yes *new* did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe that laws passed by your elected representatives are not passed with your implicit consent? That in our representative Democracy, that we delegate our vote to our representatives and that they 'represent' us when they cast their votes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe once upon a time they represented us, and they honored our wishes given them upon our consent for them to represent us on such wishes, and then upon our asking of them to do so, but not anymore they don't. They look at us as fools anymore, and they look at us now as if we can't find our way any longer, so they have to find it for us. WHAT HAPPENED?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry that you feel like your representatives do not represent the wishes of you and your fellow citizens.
> 
> My Senators and Congresswoman represents my concerns fairly well-  as do my state legislators. Sure I disagree from time to time- but there are others who do agree.
> 
> I* believe in the power of the ballot-* even though I was not happy at the overall results of the last election- certainly those who got elected did so because the persons voting for them thought they would represent their interests- I am happy the elections took place and show our Constitutional system in action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit, you audacious liar!
> 
> You do NOT believe in the ballot box, you or any of your little faggot friends.  Pushing your perverted agenda through the courts showed a special contempt for the democratic process.  You didn't prevail upon hearts and minds, you didn't bow before the expressed will of the people, you overturned democracy through ideologue hack judges who themselves will go to hell just like you.
> 
> Stop lying, faggots!
Click to expand...


Shut your pie hole, your far right social con religious pervert.

That you don't understand how our government and political systems work means we have to listen to your pissing and moaning.

Yes, it's constitutional, yes, it's appropriate, and, yes, you are wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all.  The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming. I am pretty sure they are focusing on more credible polling/internal numbers and not lines at a food food joint, "likes" on Facebook, and a random internet poll. The fact you have to use these examples only highlights your desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you have to use polls instead of allowing the peoples vote to stand or be held, shows your desperation.
Click to expand...


Your desperation is showing, beagle.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all.  The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles.  Your poll is a farce as you well know.
> 
> The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation.  In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling.  *They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.   *
> 
> The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!
Click to expand...


Or...that Christians are expected to follow the same laws as everyone else.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And Sil, who is stupid enough to contradict me on Windsor by taking bits of it our of contradiction, gets her butt kicked by Sklyar in correction.

Sil can't abstract, simply is a concrete learner.  Put it in her head, settles like concrete.

It's a good day to be American.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?
> 
> 
> 
> Last I checked *consent* was no where in the room when these new things that are yes *new* did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe that laws passed by your elected representatives are not passed with your implicit consent? That in our representative Democracy, that we delegate our vote to our representatives and that they 'represent' us when they cast their votes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe once upon a time they represented us, and they honored our wishes given them upon our consent for them to represent us on such wishes, and then upon our asking of them to do so, but not anymore they don't. They look at us as fools anymore, and they look at us now as if we can't find our way any longer, so they have to find it for us. WHAT HAPPENED?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry that you feel like your representatives do not represent the wishes of you and your fellow citizens.
> 
> My Senators and Congresswoman represents my concerns fairly well-  as do my state legislators. Sure I disagree from time to time- but there are others who do agree.
> 
> I* believe in the power of the ballot-* even though I was not happy at the overall results of the last election- certainly those who got elected did so because the persons voting for them thought they would represent their interests- I am happy the elections took place and show our Constitutional system in action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit, you audacious liar!
> 
> You do NOT believe in the ballot box, you or any of your little faggot friends.  Pushing your perverted agenda through the courts showed a special contempt for the democratic process.  You didn't prevail upon hearts and minds, you didn't bow before the expressed will of the people, you overturned democracy through ideologue hack judges who themselves will go to hell just like you.
> 
> Stop lying, faggots!
Click to expand...


LOL- you reek of desperation.  

Among the 'perverted agenda' that has been pushed through the courts:

- the right to remain silent
- the right for all children to equal public education regardless of their race
- the right to an attorney
- the right to marriage
- the right for a mixed race couple to marry
- the right to privacy
- the right to use contraception
- the right for adults to have private consensual sex
- and in many states- the right to marry a person of the same gender.

I believe in the Constitution- and the Constitution provides for a legislative process that I am proud to participate in- I vote for my  representatives and I vote for referendums. 

But all such laws are subject to the Constitution- and every American has the right to appeal to the courts for redress against what they believe is an unconstitutional law- whether that is a Christian baker or a gay couple. 

Bigots like yourself- shouting "f*ggots' or 'n*gger' or 'c*nts' at the people you hate just show how little and petty you are. 

I can't predict what the Supreme Court will rule- but assuming that they rule in favor of marriage equality, I look forward with great anticipation to your mental and emotional outburst here on the boards, and how you will call the court 'F*ggot lovers' just like racists called them 'n*gger lovers' when they ruled against race laws.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what Windsor says; Sil is being ludicrous and is becoming even more desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States v. Windsor
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion page 14
> "And so New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage. New York, in common with, *as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry*....After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage... By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States.."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Or we could actually read the conclusion

_The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. *By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. *This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed._

It is so ordered.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil is a liar.

Sil is increasingly showing desperation.

SCOTUS will rule for it, and the without a doubt the nation as defined by the majority of citizens will uphold that ruling.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last I checked *consent* was no where in the room when these new things that are yes *new* did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that laws passed by your elected representatives are not passed with your implicit consent? That in our representative Democracy, that we delegate our vote to our representatives and that they 'represent' us when they cast their votes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe once upon a time they represented us, and they honored our wishes given them upon our consent for them to represent us on such wishes, and then upon our asking of them to do so, but not anymore they don't. They look at us as fools anymore, and they look at us now as if we can't find our way any longer, so they have to find it for us. WHAT HAPPENED?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry that you feel like your representatives do not represent the wishes of you and your fellow citizens.
> 
> My Senators and Congresswoman represents my concerns fairly well-  as do my state legislators. Sure I disagree from time to time- but there are others who do agree.
> 
> I* believe in the power of the ballot-* even though I was not happy at the overall results of the last election- certainly those who got elected did so because the persons voting for them thought they would represent their interests- I am happy the elections took place and show our Constitutional system in action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit, you audacious liar!
> 
> You do NOT believe in the ballot box, you or any of your little faggot friends.  Pushing your perverted agenda through the courts showed a special contempt for the democratic process.  You didn't prevail upon hearts and minds, you didn't bow before the expressed will of the people, you overturned democracy through ideologue hack judges who themselves will go to hell just like you.
> 
> Stop lying, faggots!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- you reek of desperation.
> 
> Among the 'perverted agenda' that has been pushed through the courts:
> 
> - the right to remain silent
> - the right for all children to equal public education regardless of their race
> - the right to an attorney
> - the right to marriage
> - the right for a mixed race couple to marry
> - the right to privacy
> - the right to use contraception
> - the right for adults to have private consensual sex
> - and in many states- the right to marry a person of the same gender.
> 
> I believe in the Constitution- and the Constitution provides for a legislative process that I am proud to participate in- I vote for my  representatives and I vote for referendums.
> 
> But all such laws are subject to the Constitution- and every American has the right to appeal to the courts for redress against what they believe is an unconstitutional law- whether that is a Christian baker or a gay couple.
> 
> Bigots like yourself- shouting "f*ggots' or 'n*gger' or 'c*nts' at the people you hate just show how little and petty you are.
> 
> I can't predict what the Supreme Court will rule- but assuming that they rule in favor of marriage equality, I look forward with great anticipation to your mental and emotional outburst here on the boards, and how you will call the court 'F*ggot lovers' just like racists called them 'n*gger lovers' when they ruled against race laws.
Click to expand...


You believe in democracy until you don't get your way.  It's as simple as that.  You're no better than the conservatives that pushed DOMA.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all.  The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles.  Your poll is a farce as you well know.
> 
> The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation.  In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling.  *They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.   *
> 
> The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or...that Christians are expected to follow the same laws as everyone else.
Click to expand...

How do Christians practice what they preach anymore then, and where are they allowed to practice what they preach in their lives ? They teach their children that homosexuality is a sin right, and they are not going to end that teaching, so what do you do with the millions of up and coming citizens who don't believe in Gay Marriage or even being gay at all ? What, maybe lock them all away until they are changed by the government  somehow ? I mean how does it play out between all the religious and non-religious groups in this nation in the future, otherwise I mean one has to wonder about such things right ? Can they all co-exist by themselves or does the government have to force it all somehow ?

If the government has to force it all, then I guess we have been seeing a preview of that right ?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all.  The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles.  Your poll is a farce as you well know.
> 
> The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation.  In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling.  *They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.   *
> 
> The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or...that Christians are expected to follow the same laws as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do Christians practice what they preach anymore then, and where are they allowed to practice what they preach in their lives ? They teach their children that homosexuality is a sin right, and they are not going to end that teaching, so what do you do with the millions of up and coming citizens who don't believe in Gay Marriage or even being gay at all ? What, maybe lock them all away until they are changed by the government  somehow ? I mean how does it play out between all the religious and non-religious groups in this nation in the future, otherwise I mean one has to wonder about such things right ? Can they all co-exist by themselves or does the government have to force it all somehow ?
> 
> If the government has to force it all, then I guess we have been seeing a preview of that right ?
Click to expand...

Teach your kids whatever you'd like. And in your business, treat your customers fairly and equally. As the law applies to the same as everyone else.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that laws passed by your elected representatives are not passed with your implicit consent? That in our representative Democracy, that we delegate our vote to our representatives and that they 'represent' us when they cast their votes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe once upon a time they represented us, and they honored our wishes given them upon our consent for them to represent us on such wishes, and then upon our asking of them to do so, but not anymore they don't. They look at us as fools anymore, and they look at us now as if we can't find our way any longer, so they have to find it for us. WHAT HAPPENED?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry that you feel like your representatives do not represent the wishes of you and your fellow citizens.
> 
> My Senators and Congresswoman represents my concerns fairly well-  as do my state legislators. Sure I disagree from time to time- but there are others who do agree.
> 
> I* believe in the power of the ballot-* even though I was not happy at the overall results of the last election- certainly those who got elected did so because the persons voting for them thought they would represent their interests- I am happy the elections took place and show our Constitutional system in action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit, you audacious liar!
> 
> You do NOT believe in the ballot box, you or any of your little faggot friends.  Pushing your perverted agenda through the courts showed a special contempt for the democratic process.  You didn't prevail upon hearts and minds, you didn't bow before the expressed will of the people, you overturned democracy through ideologue hack judges who themselves will go to hell just like you.
> 
> Stop lying, faggots!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- you reek of desperation.
> 
> Among the 'perverted agenda' that has been pushed through the courts:
> 
> - the right to remain silent
> - the right for all children to equal public education regardless of their race
> - the right to an attorney
> - the right to marriage
> - the right for a mixed race couple to marry
> - the right to privacy
> - the right to use contraception
> - the right for adults to have private consensual sex
> - and in many states- the right to marry a person of the same gender.
> 
> I believe in the Constitution- and the Constitution provides for a legislative process that I am proud to participate in- I vote for my  representatives and I vote for referendums.
> 
> But all such laws are subject to the Constitution- and every American has the right to appeal to the courts for redress against what they believe is an unconstitutional law- whether that is a Christian baker or a gay couple.
> 
> Bigots like yourself- shouting "f*ggots' or 'n*gger' or 'c*nts' at the people you hate just show how little and petty you are.
> 
> I can't predict what the Supreme Court will rule- but assuming that they rule in favor of marriage equality, I look forward with great anticipation to your mental and emotional outburst here on the boards, and how you will call the court 'F*ggot lovers' just like racists called them 'n*gger lovers' when they ruled against race laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe in democracy until you don't get your way.  It's as simple as that.  You're no better than the conservatives that pushed DOMA.
Click to expand...


I believe in the Constitution- and our representative government. .

Among the 'perverted agenda' that has been pushed through the courts:

- the right to remain silent
- the right for all children to equal public education regardless of their race
- the right to an attorney
- the right to marriage
- the right for a mixed race couple to marry
- the right to privacy
- the right to use contraception
- the right for adults to have private consensual sex
- and in many states- the right to marry a person of the same gender.

I believe in the Constitution- and the Constitution provides for a legislative process that I am proud to participate in- I vote for my  representatives and I vote for referendums.

But all such laws are subject to the Constitution- and every American has the right to appeal to the courts for redress against what they believe is an unconstitutional law- whether that is a Christian baker or a gay couple.

Bigots like yourself- shouting "f*ggots' or 'n*gger' or 'c*nts' at the people you hate just show how little and petty you are.

I can't predict what the Supreme Court will rule- but assuming that they rule in favor of marriage equality, I look forward with great anticipation to your mental and emotional outburst here on the boards, and how you will call the court 'F*ggot lovers' just like racists called them 'n*gger lovers' when they ruled against race laws


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all.  The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles.  Your poll is a farce as you well know.
> 
> The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation.  In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling.  *They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.   *
> 
> The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or...that Christians are expected to follow the same laws as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do Christians practice what they preach anymore then, and where are they allowed to practice what they preach in their lives ? They teach their children that homosexuality is a sin right, and they are not going to end that teaching, so what do you do with the millions of up and coming citizens who don't believe in Gay Marriage or even being gay at all ? What, maybe lock them all away until they are changed by the government  somehow ? I mean how does it play out between all the religious and non-religious groups in this nation in the future, otherwise I mean one has to wonder about such things right ? Can they all co-exist by themselves or does the government have to force it all somehow ?
> 
> If the government has to force it all, then I guess we have been seeing a preview of that right ?
Click to expand...

You teach that in the secular world and by law each are equal and you treat them that way.

That's what you do.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles.  Your poll is a farce as you well know.
> 
> The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation.  In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling.  *They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.   *
> 
> The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or...that Christians are expected to follow the same laws as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do Christians practice what they preach anymore then, and where are they allowed to practice what they preach in their lives ? They teach their children that homosexuality is a sin right, and they are not going to end that teaching, so what do you do with the millions of up and coming citizens who don't believe in Gay Marriage or even being gay at all ? What, maybe lock them all away until they are changed by the government  somehow ? I mean how does it play out between all the religious and non-religious groups in this nation in the future, otherwise I mean one has to wonder about such things right ? Can they all co-exist by themselves or does the government have to force it all somehow ?
> 
> If the government has to force it all, then I guess we have been seeing a preview of that right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Teach your kids whatever you'd like. And in your business, treat your customers fairly and equally. As the law applies to the same as everyone else.
Click to expand...

You have to ask yourself, how did this nation get to this point now ? If your not asking yourself this, then it could be that you are one of the ones who want everything changed in this nation and/or for everything that is new to be accepted by all in this nation, but is that a reality in the end or a recipe for disaster in the end ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle, you arguing your subjective theology to marriage equality.  Unimportant.

The nation is not headed for disaster.  You remind of the priest in "The Last Valley", who tortured and burned the woman in order to save her eternally.  You, and he, make no sense.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle, you arguing your subjective theology to marriage equality.  Unimportant.
> 
> The nation is not headed for disaster.  You remind of the priest in "The Last Valley", who tortured and burned the woman in order to save her eternally.  You, and he, make no sense.


You calling it *marriage equality *doesn't nessesarily make it so, so what are you really up to in this nation ? How far does it all go, and will the Christians be able to live a Christian life in this nation when all is said and done ? By the situations that we have seen as a preview, I don't think the Christians will ever live peacefully & free in this nation again, at least not in the public square they won't. If a Christian family shields their child's eyes from that which they don't aspire to or believe in, then what reaction will be drawn from that action by the ones who are being shunned in such a way ? How will Christians and the open sinners live openly together in the public square, if the square is promoting something that the Christians don't believe in ? Will the square promote any longer anything that the Christians believe in equally ? 

Will everything end up as one sided in the public square as promoted by government, and the other side (Christians) will have to go into a box that only allows freedom of religion and expression to stay within the box, but no longer outside of the box ? What are we replacing with, against all that we are losing now in this nation ? Think about it..


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> You teach that in the secular world and by law each are equal and you treat them that way.
> 
> That's what you do.


 
So, a Christian's civil rights are equal to a gay person's?  Well, that's where you see a clash and why all this "gay vs baker" crap is headed to the US Supreme Court.  They will have to sort out which is dominant.. Because they both are about dogma and behaviors...


----------



## JakeStarkey

They are both about equality in the secular public world.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> They are both about equality in the secular public world.


The secular world under the question of two conflicting dogmas/lifestyles is not dominant to the 1st Amendment.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "gays lifestylists have the right to marry/comprise the formative environment that states incentivize for raising children".  I don't see that as a right anywhere.

Children have the most dominant civil rights beef in this debate, because they are the group most repressed/suppressed in this conversation and the ones with the least power to vote to affect their future.  I believe that is the litmus test to discern if one's class is having its civil rights repressed.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are both about equality in the secular public world.
> 
> 
> 
> The secular world under the question of two conflicting dogmas/lifestyles is not dominant to the 1st Amendment.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "gays lifestylists have the right to marry/comprise the formative environment that states incentivize for raising children".  I don't see that as a right anywhere.
> 
> Children have the most dominant civil rights beef in this debate, because they are the group most repressed/suppressed in this conversation and the ones with the least power to vote to affect their future.  I believe that is the litmus test to discern if one's class is having its civil rights repressed.
Click to expand...

Marriage is not about children, they have nothing to do with the debate.  How long before you understand that?

We don't do for children what is best for them, and never have.


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> Marriage is not about children, they have nothing to do with the debate.  How long before you understand that?
> 
> We don't do for children what is best for them, and never have.


 
Back in the day the KKK said _"Voting is not about slaves, they have nothing to do with the debate.  How long before you understand that?"_

An oppressed group is most simply and historically defined by their inability to act to affect change in their lives.  Not being able to vote was one of those acts.  Children have no control over their formative environment.  The only hope they have is of a state incentivizing that best situation for them; for they cannot do it for themselves.

A state derives a net loss from sanctioning marriage for any other reason.  Can you conceive of any reason why a state would benefit from no guidelines for the formative environment for kids?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is not about children, they have nothing to do with the debate.  How long before you understand that?
> 
> We don't do for children what is best for them, and never have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the day the KKK said "Voting is not about slaves, they have nothing to do with the debate.  How long before you understand that?"
Click to expand...

I don't give a damn who said what about what.  What I said is entirely true.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "gays lifestylists have the right to marry/comprise the formative environment that states incentivize for raising children"". 

And we all agree with you if that were the case, but it is not.

Marriage equality is not perverse or obscene.

But you are with you continued whining, pissing, and moaning.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PMH is wrong, and Sil is similar to the KKK indeed.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Children have the most dominant civil rights beef in this debate, because they are the group most repressed/suppressed in this conversation and the ones with the least power to vote to affect their future.  I believe that is the litmus test to discern if one's class is having its civil rights repressed.



If your interested in how harm to children may effect the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage, you may want to look at Kennedy's elaborate documentation of the harm caused to the children of same sex couples *when the marriages of their parents are not recognized:*



> And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives...
> 
> .....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.
> 
> Justice Kennedy Delivering the Majority Opinion in Windsor v. US



Its highly unlikely that Kennedy is going to ignore himself for whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you've made up this week.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil writes, "The secular world under the question of two conflicting dogmas/lifestyles is not dominant to the 1st Amendment."  She is, of course, wrong.  The Constitution is a secular dominant first and always.

Kennedy is far more concerned about single parent households and divorce effects on children than the sex of the parents.


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all.  The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles.  Your poll is a farce as you well know.
> 
> The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation.  In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling.  *They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.   *
> 
> The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or...that Christians are expected to follow the same laws as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do Christians practice what they preach anymore then, and where are they allowed to practice what they preach in their lives ? They teach their children that homosexuality is a sin right, and they are not going to end that teaching, so what do you do with the millions of up and coming citizens who don't believe in Gay Marriage or even being gay at all ? What, maybe lock them all away until they are changed by the government  somehow ? I mean how does it play out between all the religious and non-religious groups in this nation in the future, otherwise I mean one has to wonder about such things right ? Can they all co-exist by themselves or does the government have to force it all somehow ?
> 
> If the government has to force it all, then I guess we have been seeing a preview of that right ?
Click to expand...


Why CAN'T Christians still practice what they preach? No one is forcing any Christians to get gay married. And if you want to teach your kids that homosexuality is a sin, no one can stop you from doing something that wretched. You can live your life the exact same way you did before, you just have to serve people at your business without discrimination, including black people at your diner...Sorry, I meant gay people at your bakery.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The social cons heretics on the Christian far right want to make everyone do what they say they do, even though they don't.


----------



## beagle9

Paperman299 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles.  Your poll is a farce as you well know.
> 
> The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation.  In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling.  *They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.   *
> 
> The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or...that Christians are expected to follow the same laws as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do Christians practice what they preach anymore then, and where are they allowed to practice what they preach in their lives ? They teach their children that homosexuality is a sin right, and they are not going to end that teaching, so what do you do with the millions of up and coming citizens who don't believe in Gay Marriage or even being gay at all ? What, maybe lock them all away until they are changed by the government  somehow ? I mean how does it play out between all the religious and non-religious groups in this nation in the future, otherwise I mean one has to wonder about such things right ? Can they all co-exist by themselves or does the government have to force it all somehow ?
> 
> If the government has to force it all, then I guess we have been seeing a preview of that right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why CAN'T Christians still practice what they preach? No one is forcing any Christians to get gay married. And if you want to teach your kids that homosexuality is a sin, no one can stop you from doing something that wretched. You can live your life the exact same way you did before, you just have to serve people at your business without discrimination, including black people at your diner...Sorry, I meant gay people at your bakery.
Click to expand...

No problem serving anyone, just as long as it remains non-personal when the transactions take place. When a person makes what they do known, and then expects a person to support that in some way, then should a person be forced to do so by the government telling them to do so ? I think this is what happened in the case of the baker and others maybe wouldn't you agree ? I agree that you can sell a product without worrying about who the customer is or trying to find out anything about the customer, but if the transaction becomes personal somehow, then that is when people want to opt out of a situation in order for them to not do something they think is wrong for them to do right ? It could be that a person could direct the person to someone who may do the job for them, and shouldn't that be OK also ? I mean directing someone to another bakery makes the situation for the Christian baker non-personal, because he may not even know the other baker, but just knows that it would suit the customer more better than he could.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Good thinking, beagle9, but it will depend on the PA law and the customer/provider reasonableness.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> No problem serving anyone, just as long as it remains non-personal when the transactions take place. When a person makes what they do known, and then expects a person to support that in some way, then should a person be forced to do so by the government telling them to do so ?



Its completely non-personal. The PA laws in questions aren't targeting Christians by name or by faith, or even the concept of religion. They apply to everyone of any faith, of any sex, of any gender or sexual orientation. IF you're going do business with the public, you are required to treat your customers fairly and equally.

You don't get a special exemption from the law because you're Christian. You don't get special treatment. You are treated like everyone else. Which is the exact opposite of 'personal'.


----------



## beagle9

Paperman299 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles.  Your poll is a farce as you well know.
> 
> The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation.  In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling.  *They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.   *
> 
> The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or...that Christians are expected to follow the same laws as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do Christians practice what they preach anymore then, and where are they allowed to practice what they preach in their lives ? They teach their children that homosexuality is a sin right, and they are not going to end that teaching, so what do you do with the millions of up and coming citizens who don't believe in Gay Marriage or even being gay at all ? What, maybe lock them all away until they are changed by the government  somehow ? I mean how does it play out between all the religious and non-religious groups in this nation in the future, otherwise I mean one has to wonder about such things right ? Can they all co-exist by themselves or does the government have to force it all somehow ?
> 
> If the government has to force it all, then I guess we have been seeing a preview of that right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why CAN'T Christians still practice what they preach? No one is forcing any Christians to get gay married. And if you want to teach your kids that homosexuality is a sin, no one can stop you from *doing something that wretched.* You can live your life the exact same way you did before, you just have to serve people at your business without discrimination, including black people at your diner...Sorry, I meant gay people at your bakery.
Click to expand...


Doing something that wretched eh ? So you think that the Lord would have the Christians do something as *wretched *as to teach their children about those things in which are deemed as being sinful in the Bible ?

The thing is that all should be compassionate and empathetic to those who are living in sin, and to pray for them daily as Christians should do.

It can be done without becoming guilty of big time sinning in respect to ones own self in life also, but boundaries must be respected and held upon the belief in those boundaries, and this if one is going to be a helper instead of a victim themselves in life. Those who condemn the sinners (cutting them off completely), are not Christians at all, but rather they are weak and afraid. A Christian must be strong in order to be of good character in life, and one should be merciful, compassionate and full of love for his fellow human beings in life (all of them), but in that strength gained, he or she is able to endure without falling into the pit themselves while doing the Lord's work when or if called upon to do so.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> The thing is that all should be compassionate and empathetic to those who are living in sin, and to pray for them daily as Christians should do.


And how is treating a gay person as less by pointlessly discriminating against them in business an act of 'compassion' or 'empathy'? Its obvious not. Believe as you wish. But in business with the public, treat your customers with fairness and equality.

And you'll do fine.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem serving anyone, just as long as it remains non-personal when the transactions take place. When a person makes what they do known, and then expects a person to support that in some way, then should a person be forced to do so by the government telling them to do so ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its completely non-personal. The PA laws in questions aren't targeting Christians by name or by faith, or even the concept of religion. They apply to everyone of any faith, of any sex, of any gender or sexual orientation. IF you're going do business with the public, you are required to treat your customers fairly and equally.
> 
> You don't get a special exemption from the law because you're Christian. You don't get special treatment. You are treated like everyone else. Which is the exact opposite of 'personal'.
Click to expand...

Of course the law is non-personal and targets no one, but when you introduce people into the equation, that's when things can get tricky. 

I'll take it back to a Christian book store analogy, where as if a person walks in and the book store is a Christian book store, but lets say that the person didn't notice the sign out front that says it is a Christian book store, and so then the person ask for a copy of playboy, but the book store or shop keeper doesn't realize the person didn't see the sign, and next becomes angry and shocked at the request because he thinks he is being set up somehow..Now what ? 

OK, so now the customer doesn't want to apologize and just walk out, but instead he wants to get his lawyer to make the book store change the sign to a huge and neon glowing sign, and also he wants restitution for the attitude that the shocked shop keeper gave him in the situation. Now a negotiation between the two could solve the situation, but both heads have got to cool down (a cool off period), and this can be done without the government clobbering someone over the head wouldn't you agree ?


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is that all should be compassionate and empathetic to those who are living in sin, and to pray for them daily as Christians should do.
> 
> 
> 
> And how is treating a gay person as less by pointlessly discriminating against them in business an act of 'compassion' or 'empathy'? Its obvious not. Believe as you wish. But in business with the public, treat your customers with fairness and equality.
> 
> And you'll do fine.
Click to expand...

Are you actually following along, or are you just blabbering without reading more closely the conversation ?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem serving anyone, just as long as it remains non-personal when the transactions take place. When a person makes what they do known, and then expects a person to support that in some way, then should a person be forced to do so by the government telling them to do so ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its completely non-personal. The PA laws in questions aren't targeting Christians by name or by faith, or even the concept of religion. They apply to everyone of any faith, of any sex, of any gender or sexual orientation. IF you're going do business with the public, you are required to treat your customers fairly and equally.
> 
> You don't get a special exemption from the law because you're Christian. You don't get special treatment. You are treated like everyone else. Which is the exact opposite of 'personal'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course the law is non-personal and targets no one, but when you introduce people into the equation, that's when things can get tricky.
Click to expand...


Only if you're demanding special treatment and a privileged exemption from the law. If we treat you like everyone else, as the law demands, its remarkably simple. 

Which is exactly what is happening: *you're being treated like everyone else and required in business with the public to treat your customers fairly and equally. *

See how simple that is?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is that all should be compassionate and empathetic to those who are living in sin, and to pray for them daily as Christians should do.
> 
> 
> 
> And how is treating a gay person as less by pointlessly discriminating against them in business an act of 'compassion' or 'empathy'? Its obvious not. Believe as you wish. But in business with the public, treat your customers with fairness and equality.
> 
> And you'll do fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you actually following along, or are you just blabbering without reading more closely the conversation ?
Click to expand...


I'm actually following along. And discrimination in business isn't an act of compassion or empathy. But inequity, injustice and callous disregard. 

Which might explain why the PA laws of many states forbids it.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is that all should be compassionate and empathetic to those who are living in sin, and to pray for them daily as Christians should do.
> 
> 
> 
> And how is treating a gay person as less by pointlessly discriminating against them in business an act of 'compassion' or 'empathy'? Its obvious not. Believe as you wish. But in business with the public, treat your customers with fairness and equality.
> 
> And you'll do fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you actually following along, or are you just blabbering without reading more closely the conversation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm actually following along. And discrimination in business isn't an act of compassion or empathy. But inequity, injustice and callous disregard.
> 
> Which might explain why the PA laws of many states forbids it.
Click to expand...

There is no discrimination in business, but merely a personal opt out of a request that one may figure endangers his or her faith, otherwise it could be that of an employee or of an owner that is found in said business being operated. If the request is unreasonable or unethical as according to the employee or the owner in which the request was made personally to, then an opt out of the request might be warranted at that point, and it could be shifted to another that may serve the customer as according to the new appointee's willingness to assist the person in their request, and then as according to the customers needs.

Wouldn't you agree ?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is that all should be compassionate and empathetic to those who are living in sin, and to pray for them daily as Christians should do.
> 
> 
> 
> And how is treating a gay person as less by pointlessly discriminating against them in business an act of 'compassion' or 'empathy'? Its obvious not. Believe as you wish. But in business with the public, treat your customers with fairness and equality.
> 
> And you'll do fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you actually following along, or are you just blabbering without reading more closely the conversation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm actually following along. And discrimination in business isn't an act of compassion or empathy. But inequity, injustice and callous disregard.
> 
> Which might explain why the PA laws of many states forbids it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no discrimination in business, but merely a personal opt out of a request that one may figure endangers his or her faith be this of an employee or of an owner that is found in said business being operated. If the request is unreasonable or unethical as according to the employee or the owner in which the request was made personally to, then an opt out of the request might be warranted at that point.
Click to expand...


If you refuse to do public business with someone because of their sexual orientation, that's an explicit act of discrimination. And an illegal one.

You don't get an exemption from the law because you call it an 'opt out'. Its a callous, unjust and illegal act that in many states is rightly punished with fines.

And there's nothing 'compassionate' or 'empathetic' about such discrimination.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is that all should be compassionate and empathetic to those who are living in sin, and to pray for them daily as Christians should do.
> 
> 
> 
> And how is treating a gay person as less by pointlessly discriminating against them in business an act of 'compassion' or 'empathy'? Its obvious not. Believe as you wish. But in business with the public, treat your customers with fairness and equality.
> 
> And you'll do fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you actually following along, or are you just blabbering without reading more closely the conversation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm actually following along. And discrimination in business isn't an act of compassion or empathy. But inequity, injustice and callous disregard.
> 
> Which might explain why the PA laws of many states forbids it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no discrimination in business, but merely a personal opt out of a request that one may figure endangers his or her faith be this of an employee or of an owner that is found in said business being operated. If the request is unreasonable or unethical as according to the employee or the owner in which the request was made personally to, then an opt out of the request might be warranted at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you refuse to do public business with someone because of their sexual orientation, that's an explicit act of discrimination. And an illegal one.
> 
> You don't get an exemption from the law because you call it an 'opt out'. Its a callous, unjust and illegal act that in many states is rightly punished with fines.
> 
> And there's nothing 'compassionate' or 'empathetic' about such discrimination.
Click to expand...

Why are you taking the words compassion and empathy out of context like you keep doing ? So if a person comes into a pet store, and they say to the owner I want to buy that puppy so I can kill it and eat it for food, would the owner have a valid reasoning for not selling that dog to that customer based upon his upbringing and belief in the Bible where it says we shouldn't eat anything that has a paw on it, and the fact that it was a strange request that the person had not ever heard of before in concerns of ones faith and teachings on such matters ?


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> If you refuse to do public business with someone because of their sexual orientation, that's an explicit act of discrimination. And an illegal one.
> 
> You don't get an exemption from the law because you call it an 'opt out'. Its a callous, unjust and illegal act that in many states is rightly punished with fines.
> 
> And there's nothing 'compassionate' or 'empathetic' about such discrimination.


 
Sexual orientation/lifestyles do not have dominance in the US Constitution over the Guarantee of the 1st Amendment for individuals to "freedom to exercise of their relgion".

Jude 1 mandates that Christians MAY NOT promote a homosexual culture; while they MAY extend compassion to individual homosexuals.  If they fail, they are warned in this New Testament passage of Jesus's personal servant that they will spend an eternity in the Pit of Fire.

Marriage is the hub of any culture.  THEREFORE, requiring a Christian to abet or aide a "gay marriage" is requiring them to defy the mandate of Jude 1.

The Court will have to sort out who has dominance.  And they'll probably tip the scales on historic dominance in our culture and the 1st Amendment.  A church is nothing but a congregation of individual Christians..


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is that all should be compassionate and empathetic to those who are living in sin, and to pray for them daily as Christians should do.
> 
> 
> 
> And how is treating a gay person as less by pointlessly discriminating against them in business an act of 'compassion' or 'empathy'? Its obvious not. Believe as you wish. But in business with the public, treat your customers with fairness and equality.
> 
> And you'll do fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you actually following along, or are you just blabbering without reading more closely the conversation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm actually following along. And discrimination in business isn't an act of compassion or empathy. But inequity, injustice and callous disregard.
> 
> Which might explain why the PA laws of many states forbids it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no discrimination in business, but merely a personal opt out of a request that one may figure endangers his or her faith be this of an employee or of an owner that is found in said business being operated. If the request is unreasonable or unethical as according to the employee or the owner in which the request was made personally to, then an opt out of the request might be warranted at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you refuse to do public business with someone because of their sexual orientation, that's an explicit act of discrimination. And an illegal one.
> 
> You don't get an exemption from the law because you call it an 'opt out'. Its a callous, unjust and illegal act that in many states is rightly punished with fines.
> 
> And there's nothing 'compassionate' or 'empathetic' about such discrimination.
Click to expand...

Is every law concrete or is there wiggle room in every law in order for it to balance and flow properly in America ? You know good and well that when laws are made, that the justices can't know all the situations that may challenge their created law or of the breaking of their law due to some circumstances that are involved, so to court it will go just as it should go in order to add, re-write, settle and/or to re-settle a law when need be.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how is treating a gay person as less by pointlessly discriminating against them in business an act of 'compassion' or 'empathy'? Its obvious not. Believe as you wish. But in business with the public, treat your customers with fairness and equality.
> 
> And you'll do fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually following along, or are you just blabbering without reading more closely the conversation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm actually following along. And discrimination in business isn't an act of compassion or empathy. But inequity, injustice and callous disregard.
> 
> Which might explain why the PA laws of many states forbids it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no discrimination in business, but merely a personal opt out of a request that one may figure endangers his or her faith be this of an employee or of an owner that is found in said business being operated. If the request is unreasonable or unethical as according to the employee or the owner in which the request was made personally to, then an opt out of the request might be warranted at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you refuse to do public business with someone because of their sexual orientation, that's an explicit act of discrimination. And an illegal one.
> 
> You don't get an exemption from the law because you call it an 'opt out'. Its a callous, unjust and illegal act that in many states is rightly punished with fines.
> 
> And there's nothing 'compassionate' or 'empathetic' about such discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you taking the words compassion and empathy out of context like you keep doing ?
Click to expand...


I'm stating that discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation is neither compassionate nor empathetic. And you have yet to disagree with me.



> So if a person comes into a pet store, and they say to the owner I want to buy that puppy so I can kill it and eat it for food, would the owner have a valid reasoning for not selling that dog to that customer based upon his upbringing and belief in the Bible where it says we shouldn't eat anything that has a paw on it, and the fact that it was a strange request that the person had not ever heard of before in concerns of ones faith and teachings on such matters ?



A cake isn't alive. A cake isn't being 'killed' by being baked or sold. Rendering your analogy inert.

If you're going to do business with the public, you're expected to treat your customers fairly and equally. And you get no special exemption for being Christian. The laws apply to you  just like they apply to everyone else.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Jude 1 mandates that Christians MAY NOT promote a homosexual culture; while they MAY extend compassion to individual homosexuals.  If they fail, they are warned in this New Testament passage of Jesus's personal servant that they will spend an eternity in the Pit of Fire.



Selling a cake isn't promoting the customer. Its promoting the cake. Thus, killing your entire line of reasoning.


> Marriage is the hub of any culture.  THEREFORE, requiring a Christian to abet or aide a "gay marriage" is requiring them to defy the mandate of Jude 1.



Nope. As there's no Biblical prohibition against selling cake. THEREFORE, you've imagined it. And no one is immune to PA laws because of your imagination.



> The Court will have to sort out who has dominance.  And they'll probably tip the scales on historic dominance in our culture and the 1st Amendment.  A church is nothing but a congregation of individual Christians..



Legally a church has a specific legal definition. You can ignore that definition.....but don't expect the law to.


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles.  Your poll is a farce as you well know.
> 
> The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation.  In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling.  *They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.   *
> 
> The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.
> 
> 
> 
> Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or...that Christians are expected to follow the same laws as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do Christians practice what they preach anymore then, and where are they allowed to practice what they preach in their lives ? They teach their children that homosexuality is a sin right, and they are not going to end that teaching, so what do you do with the millions of up and coming citizens who don't believe in Gay Marriage or even being gay at all ? What, maybe lock them all away until they are changed by the government  somehow ? I mean how does it play out between all the religious and non-religious groups in this nation in the future, otherwise I mean one has to wonder about such things right ? Can they all co-exist by themselves or does the government have to force it all somehow ?
> 
> If the government has to force it all, then I guess we have been seeing a preview of that right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why CAN'T Christians still practice what they preach? No one is forcing any Christians to get gay married. And if you want to teach your kids that homosexuality is a sin, no one can stop you from doing something that wretched. You can live your life the exact same way you did before, you just have to serve people at your business without discrimination, including black people at your diner...Sorry, I meant gay people at your bakery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No problem serving anyone, just as long as it remains non-personal when the transactions take place. When a person makes what they do known, and then expects a person to support that in some way, then should a person be forced to do so by the government telling them to do so ? I think this is what happened in the case of the baker and others maybe wouldn't you agree ? I agree that you can sell a product without worrying about who the customer is or trying to find out anything about the customer, but if the transaction becomes personal somehow, then that is when people want to opt out of a situation in order for them to not do something they think is wrong for them to do right ? It could be that a person could direct the person to someone who may do the job for them, and shouldn't that be OK also ? I mean directing someone to another bakery makes the situation for the Christian baker non-personal, because he may not even know the other baker, but just knows that it would suit the customer more better than he could.
Click to expand...


To expect a same-sex couple not make their situation "known" when ordering their wedding cake is not asking for discretion, it's expecting them to hide themselves. 

And it's not "support," it's a business transaction. "Support" is donating a fraction of your profits, or agreeing to let them advertise in your space, or hosting events for them. Just doing the service you sell on your sign and accepting money for it isn't supporting anything.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles.  Your poll is a farce as you well know.
> 
> The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation.  In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling.  *They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.   *
> 
> The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.
> 
> 
> 
> Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or...that Christians are expected to follow the same laws as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do Christians practice what they preach anymore then, and where are they allowed to practice what they preach in their lives ? They teach their children that homosexuality is a sin right, and they are not going to end that teaching, so what do you do with the millions of up and coming citizens who don't believe in Gay Marriage or even being gay at all ? What, maybe lock them all away until they are changed by the government  somehow ? I mean how does it play out between all the religious and non-religious groups in this nation in the future, otherwise I mean one has to wonder about such things right ? Can they all co-exist by themselves or does the government have to force it all somehow ?
> 
> If the government has to force it all, then I guess we have been seeing a preview of that right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Teach your kids whatever you'd like. And in your business, treat your customers fairly and equally. As the law applies to the same as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to ask yourself, how did this nation get to this point now ? If your not asking yourself this, then it could be that you are one of the ones who want everything changed in this nation and/or for everything that is new to be accepted by all in this nation, but is that a reality in the end or a recipe for disaster in the end ?
Click to expand...


How did we get to this point? By confronting discrimination


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles.  Your poll is a farce as you well know.
> 
> The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation.  In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling.  *They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.   *
> 
> The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.
> 
> 
> 
> Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or...that Christians are expected to follow the same laws as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do Christians practice what they preach anymore then, and where are they allowed to practice what they preach in their lives ? They teach their children that homosexuality is a sin right, and they are not going to end that teaching, so what do you do with the millions of up and coming citizens who don't believe in Gay Marriage or even being gay at all ? What, maybe lock them all away until they are changed by the government  somehow ? I mean how does it play out between all the religious and non-religious groups in this nation in the future, otherwise I mean one has to wonder about such things right ? Can they all co-exist by themselves or does the government have to force it all somehow ?
> 
> If the government has to force it all, then I guess we have been seeing a preview of that right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why CAN'T Christians still practice what they preach? No one is forcing any Christians to get gay married. And if you want to teach your kids that homosexuality is a sin, no one can stop you from *doing something that wretched.* You can live your life the exact same way you did before, you just have to serve people at your business without discrimination, including black people at your diner...Sorry, I meant gay people at your bakery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doing something that wretched eh ? So you think that the Lord would have the Christians do something as *wretched *as to teach their children about those things in which are deemed as being sinful in the Bible ?
> 
> The thing is that all should be compassionate and empathetic to those who are living in sin, and to pray for them daily as Christians should do.
> 
> It can be done without becoming guilty of big time sinning in respect to ones own self in life also, but boundaries must be respected and held upon the belief in those boundaries, and this if one is going to be a helper instead of a victim themselves in life. Those who condemn the sinners (cutting them off completely), are not Christians at all, but rather they are weak and afraid. A Christian must be strong in order to be of good character in life, and one should be merciful, compassionate and full of love for his fellow human beings in life (all of them), but in that strength gained, he or she is able to endure without falling into the pit themselves while doing the Lord's work when or if called upon to do so.
Click to expand...


I'm aware there are one or two passages in the Bible condemning homosexuality. You're free to pass that horrific text on to your own kids, over dinners of shellfish or pork. But you can spare me your shallow theological justifications for choosing to adopt this as part of your religious beliefs.


----------



## Silhouette

Paperman299 said:


> To expect a same-sex couple not make their situation "known" when ordering their wedding cake is not asking for discretion, it's expecting them to hide themselves.
> 
> And it's not "support," it's a business transaction. "Support" is donating a fraction of your profits, or agreeing to let them advertise in your space, or hosting events for them. Just doing the service you sell on your sign and accepting money for it isn't supporting anything.


 
So what has legal dominance according to the Constitution?  Gays demanding a Christian abdicate the mandates in Jude 1, effectively rendering themself a non-Christian?  Or a Christian's right to free exercise of their religion at all times of the day and night?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To expect a same-sex couple not make their situation "known" when ordering their wedding cake is not asking for discretion, it's expecting them to hide themselves.
> 
> And it's not "support," it's a business transaction. "Support" is donating a fraction of your profits, or agreeing to let them advertise in your space, or hosting events for them. Just doing the service you sell on your sign and accepting money for it isn't supporting anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what has legal dominance according to the Constitution?  Gays demanding a Christian abdicate the mandates in Jude 1, effectively rendering themself a non-Christian?  Or a Christian's right to free exercise of their religion at all times of the day and night?
Click to expand...


Again, there's no prohibition in the Bible forbidding anyone to sell cake. You've hallucinated it. 

And your religious beliefs don't allow you to ignore the law. Yours is nothing more than a religiously based sovereign citizen argument, where you are exempt from any law you don't like.

Um, no. You're not.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To expect a same-sex couple not make their situation "known" when ordering their wedding cake is not asking for discretion, it's expecting them to hide themselves.
> 
> And it's not "support," it's a business transaction. "Support" is donating a fraction of your profits, or agreeing to let them advertise in your space, or hosting events for them. Just doing the service you sell on your sign and accepting money for it isn't supporting anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what has legal dominance according to the Constitution?  Gays demanding a Christian abdicate the mandates in Jude 1, effectively rendering themself a non-Christian?  Or a Christian's right to free exercise of their religion at all times of the day and night?
Click to expand...


_Effectively rendering themselves a non-Christian?_ Wow. What happened, I wonder, the first time someone didn't get to stone his bride when she didn't bleed on their wedding night? Do you think they made the same arguments? 

What you mean is that you don't get to be exactly the kind of Christian you want to be. It's pretty tough, I agree, that you don't get to follow the roughly 20% of the Old Testament you choose to take seriously in a way that's perfectly in line with your own interpretations. But you don't live in a theocracy. How you treat other people is subject to a democratically-constructed law which applies to everyone.


----------



## JakeStarkey

When one writes, "there is no discrimination in business," yet wants an exception or special treatment, one is hypocritical.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Again, there's no prohibition in the Bible forbidding anyone to sell cake. You've hallucinated it.
> 
> And your religious beliefs don't allow you to ignore the law. Yours is nothing more than a religiously based sovereign citizen argument, where you are exempt from any law you don't like.


 
Again, individual Christians enjoy the 1st Amendment right to exercise their faith.  Exercise is an active, not a passive word.  And that exercise is active and effective 24/7/365.  In other words, it can never be disenfranchised by the state or fed or any other entity at any moment in time, including while that person is running a business. 

The gay cult interfers with their 1st Amendment right specifically in this way:  Jude 1 of Jesus's New Testament forbids Christians from promoting ANY gay culture, while it encourages them to reach out to individual gays making a difference in their life.  If they fail, they are damned to an eternity in the Pit of Fire.  The terms of this Biblical passage are non-negotiable.

Making a cake isn't what gets them there.  Marriage is the core of any culture.  To promote so-called "gay marriage" is promoting gay culture in a way most potent and insidious of all.  So it is not even the tiniest exaggeration to say that if a Christian is forced to make a GAY WEDDING cake, specifically, it is the same as forcing that Christian to abdicate his or her religion; to abandon the exercise of their faith.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there's no prohibition in the Bible forbidding anyone to sell cake. You've hallucinated it.
> 
> And your religious beliefs don't allow you to ignore the law. Yours is nothing more than a religiously based sovereign citizen argument, where you are exempt from any law you don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, individual Christians enjoy the 1st Amendment right to exercise their faith.  Exercise is an active, not a passive word.
Click to expand...


And your exercise of religion doesn't trump civil law. Religion can't be targeted with a particular law. But the religious can be subject to the same laws as everyone else. Public Accommodation laws, taxes, speed limits, etc. If your religious faith allowed you to arbitrarily ignore any law you wished, then you'd have essential anarchy. With any law a mere suggestion.

That's not our system nor has it ever been nor was it ever intended to be.



> And that exercise is active and effective 24/7/365.  In other words, it can never be disenfranchised by the state or fed or any other entity at any moment in time, including while that person is running a business.



Says you. You're still subject to all the same laws as everyone else. If your religion required say, human sacrifice....too bad, so sad. If it required that you never pay taxes, well, it sucks to be you. If it requires that you be able to keep slaves, do whatever drugs you want, you're out of luck.

Religion does not trump civil law. What you're describing is a theocracy. And it is not ours.



> The gay cult interfers with their 1st Amendment right specifically in this way:  Jude 1 of Jesus's New Testament forbids Christians from promoting ANY gay culture, while it encourages them to reach out to individual gays making a difference in their life.  If they fail, they are damned to an eternity in the Pit of Fire.  The terms of this Biblical passage are non-negotiable.



And selling a cake isn't promoting your customer. The very premise of your argument is nonsense. Selling a cake is promoting the cake and your business. There is no biblical prohibition against selling cake. None. You've quite literally invented it because you don't like gay people.

And like all the generally applicable laws that apply to the devout and non-devout alike, your subjective religious beliefs don't make you exempt. You want your religion to trump any law, so you can use your religious beliefs as justification for treating gays and less, for abusing them, for discriminating against them. But your need to treat others as less doesn't grant you immunity from laws.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> And your exercise of religion doesn't trump civil law. Religion can't be targeted with a particular law. But the religious can be subject to the same laws as everyone else...


 
I'd argue that a secular law cannot force a religious person to practice another religion; which is what the LGBT cult is.  When one lifestyle/religion's core values violate those of another, one cannot dominate and force that other to abdicate its cores.  That's why it is extremely important for the US Supreme Court to correctly identify what it is dealing with first in LGBT (a lifestyle and not a race), how people behave in that lifestyle and that a lifestyle is not dominant to a religon.

You could not require a Muslim baker to depict the face of Muhammed, for example.

You could not require a gay baker to write the passage of Jude 1 on a cake; that would violate his dogma & faith...

..and so on...


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your exercise of religion doesn't trump civil law. Religion can't be targeted with a particular law. But the religious can be subject to the same laws as everyone else...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd argue that a secular law cannot force a religious person to practice another religion; which is what the LGBT cult is.  When one lifestyle/religion's core values violate those of another, one cannot dominate and force that other to abdicate its cores.  That's why it is extremely important for the US Supreme Court to correctly identify what it is dealing with first in LGBT (a lifestyle and not a race), how people behave in that lifestyle and that a lifestyle is not dominant to a religon.
Click to expand...

Religion can be a lifestyle, if it actually matters to you that is, and in America religion is all talk, no walk.


----------



## jasonnfree

I voted other.  A church should be able to discriminate unless they get tax deductions or "free stuff" from the taxpayers.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles.  Your poll is a farce as you well know.
> 
> The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation.  In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling.  *They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.   *
> 
> The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.
> 
> 
> 
> Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or...that Christians are expected to follow the same laws as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do Christians practice what they preach anymore then, and where are they allowed to practice what they preach in their lives ? They teach their children that homosexuality is a sin right, and they are not going to end that teaching, so what do you do with the millions of up and coming citizens who don't believe in Gay Marriage or even being gay at all ? What, maybe lock them all away until they are changed by the government  somehow ? I mean how does it play out between all the religious and non-religious groups in this nation in the future, otherwise I mean one has to wonder about such things right ? Can they all co-exist by themselves or does the government have to force it all somehow ?
> 
> If the government has to force it all, then I guess we have been seeing a preview of that right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why CAN'T Christians still practice what they preach? No one is forcing any Christians to get gay married. And if you want to teach your kids that homosexuality is a sin, no one can stop you from *doing something that wretched.* You can live your life the exact same way you did before, you just have to serve people at your business without discrimination, including black people at your diner...Sorry, I meant gay people at your bakery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doing something that wretched eh ? So you think that the Lord would have the Christians do something as *wretched *as to teach their children about those things in which are deemed as being sinful in the Bible ?.
Click to expand...


There are many, many 'sin's in the Bible.

Do you teach your children never to do business with anyone who is living that sin?


beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how is treating a gay person as less by pointlessly discriminating against them in business an act of 'compassion' or 'empathy'? Its obvious not. Believe as you wish. But in business with the public, treat your customers with fairness and equality.
> 
> And you'll do fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually following along, or are you just blabbering without reading more closely the conversation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm actually following along. And discrimination in business isn't an act of compassion or empathy. But inequity, injustice and callous disregard.
> 
> Which might explain why the PA laws of many states forbids it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no discrimination in business, but merely a personal opt out of a request that one may figure endangers his or her faith be this of an employee or of an owner that is found in said business being operated. If the request is unreasonable or unethical as according to the employee or the owner in which the request was made personally to, then an opt out of the request might be warranted at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you refuse to do public business with someone because of their sexual orientation, that's an explicit act of discrimination. And an illegal one.
> 
> You don't get an exemption from the law because you call it an 'opt out'. Its a callous, unjust and illegal act that in many states is rightly punished with fines.
> 
> And there's nothing 'compassionate' or 'empathetic' about such discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you taking the words compassion and empathy out of context like you keep doing ? So if a person comes into a pet store, and they say to the owner I want to buy that puppy so I can kill it and eat it for food, would the owner have a valid reasoning for not selling that dog to that customer based upon his upbringing and belief in the Bible where it says we shouldn't eat anything that has a paw on it, and the fact that it was a strange request that the person had not ever heard of before in concerns of ones faith and teachings on such matters ?
Click to expand...


So Christians shouldn't be selling shell fish?

Really?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your exercise of religion doesn't trump civil law. Religion can't be targeted with a particular law. But the religious can be subject to the same laws as everyone else...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd argue that a secular law cannot force a religious person to practice another religion; which is what the LGBT cult is.  When one lifestyle/religion's core values violate those of another, one cannot dominate and force that other to abdicate its cores.  That's why it is extremely important for the US Supreme Court to correctly identify what it is dealing with first in LGBT (a lifestyle and not a race), how people behave in that lifestyle and that a lifestyle is not dominant to a religon.
> 
> You could not require a Muslim baker to depict the face of Muhammed, for example.
> 
> You could not require a gay baker to write the passage of Jude 1 on a cake; that would violate his dogma & faith...
> 
> ..and so on...
Click to expand...


Well you would argue all sorts of crazy crap. Which makes it pretty obvious that you are wrong.

Public Accommodation laws treat all customers equally- everyone- Christians- Jews- Muslims- that are covered by the law cannot be excluded simply because the person running the business doesn't approve of their religion or national origin or race or sexual preference.

A devote Muslim baker  would have a policy of not putting any images of living things on cakes- but if the Muslim baker offered to decorate cakes with other images- and a Christian ordered a cake with a cross on it- yeah- the Muslim baker would be obligated to make the cake. The Muslim baker could prevent that by not allowing any special order decorations- if that was his concern.

And I doubt any 'gay baker' would have any problem with putting a quote from Jude 1 on a cake but even if he did- if that baker offered for sale custom cake wording, he would be violating the law if he refused to put verses from the Bible on the cake even if they personally offended him.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To expect a same-sex couple not make their situation "known" when ordering their wedding cake is not asking for discretion, it's expecting them to hide themselves.
> 
> And it's not "support," it's a business transaction. "Support" is donating a fraction of your profits, or agreeing to let them advertise in your space, or hosting events for them. Just doing the service you sell on your sign and accepting money for it isn't supporting anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what has legal dominance according to the Constitution?  Gays demanding a Christian abdicate the mandates in Jude 1, effectively rendering themself a non-Christian?  Or a Christian's right to free exercise of their religion at all times of the day and night?
Click to expand...


I support your right- and the baker's right to challenge the law in court- just as I support the right of gay couples to challenge the state ban's on same gender marriage in court.

Your entire post is nutty- but sure, a Christian could make an actual rational argument as to why their rights would be violated- they would probably lose- but that is what courts are for.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your exercise of religion doesn't trump civil law. Religion can't be targeted with a particular law. But the religious can be subject to the same laws as everyone else...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd argue that a secular law cannot force a religious person to practice another religion; which is what the LGBT cult is
Click to expand...


And I'd argue that your claim is both irrational and silly. As your designation of LGBT folks as a 'cult' is just an arbitrary label that is void of any credible use of the term's actual meaning. Nor is making a cake making anyone practice a 'religion'. Worse, under your meaningless redefinition of 'cult', it could be applied to anyone doing anything, at any time. Rendering your entire argument both logical and rational gibberish.....as the arbitrary application of the term would absolve you of the obligation to follow any secular law using your standards.

Worse, your claims fails on all the same points above: your personal religious beliefs don't make you immune to secular law. Religion does not trump secular law. If this were the case, then Sharia would trump any civil law we created, and we'd have no civil jurisdiction over Muslims. Thankfully, this isn't the case. And civil law trumps religious doctrine.



> When one lifestyle/religion's core values violate those of another, one cannot dominate and force that other to abdicate its cores.



Cake is not, nor ever has been the 'core' of the Christian faith. Selling cake doesn't damn you to hell. It doesn't make you 'not a Christian'. It doesn't make you practice another's faith. Each of your assertions is more wildly overstated than the last. And each less connected to reality, law and any semblance of reason.

You are not 'dominated' by gays. You are simply required to meet minimum standards of conduct when conducting business with the public; *treating everyone fairly and equally. *Which is both reasonable and entirely possible.[/quote]


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your exercise of religion doesn't trump civil law. Religion can't be targeted with a particular law. But the religious can be subject to the same laws as everyone else...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd argue that a secular law cannot force a religious person to practice another religion; which is what the LGBT cult is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'd argue that your claim is both irrational and silly. As your designation of LGBT folks as a 'cult' is just an arbitrary label that is void of any credible use of the term's actual meaning. Nor is making a cake making anyone practice a 'religion'. Worse, under your meaningless redefinition of 'cult', it could be applied to anyone doing anything, at any time. Rendering your entire argument both logical and rational gibberish.....as the arbitrary application of the term would absolve you of the obligation to follow any secular law using your standards.
> 
> Worse, your claims fails on all the same points above: your personal religious beliefs don't make you immune to secular law. Religion does not trump secular law. If this were the case, then Sharia would trump any civil law we created, and we'd have no civil jurisdiction over Muslims. Thankfully, this isn't the case. And civil law trumps religious doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When one lifestyle/religion's core values violate those of another, one cannot dominate and force that other to abdicate its cores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cake is not, nor ever has been the 'core' of the Christian faith. Selling cake doesn't damn you to hell. It doesn't make you 'not a Christian'. It doesn't make you practice another's faith. Each of your assertions is more wildly overstated than the last. And each less connected to reality, law and any semblance of reason.
> 
> You are not 'dominated' by gays. You are simply required to meet minimum standards of conduct when conducting business with the public; *treating everyone fairly and equally. *Which is both reasonable and entirely possible.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

If this was a case about a baker refusing to sell a wedding cake because the couple getting married consisted of a black man and a white woman- citing the bakers own closely held religious beliefs- none of these people would be making an argument. 

Silhouette wouldn't because she doesn't give a damn about anything except excluding gays. 
Beagle wouldn't because he rationalizes that its okay to deny service for biblical reasons to gays but not okay to deny service for biblical reasons because of race.
Really only Stevie boy would be up for making the biblical argument that Christians shouldn't sell cakes to gays, Jews or blacks....


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> So Christians shouldn't be selling shell fish?
> 
> Really?


 
Christians don't follow the Old Testament.  They use it as a "where we came from" reference only.  They follow the New Testament.  Jews are all about the old food customs, stoning and all that stuff.  Don't you remember Jesus's famous saying "he who is without sin cast the first stone"?

You really ought to brush up on your religions before you dive headfirst into a debate about one of them...

Many "thou shalt nots" come from the New Testament with the promise of a sound rebuking, not eternal soul death.  Jude 1 differs from those in promising eternal soul death for any Christian failing to be proactive in turning back homosexual cultural inroads into the normal culture.  Apparently cultures (classrooms) being completely usurped by the dark one with the aide of Christians really pisses off the Big Guy to where even pacifist Jesus warned his servant Jude that failing to preserve normal cultures even he can't save you from the punishment for that mortal sin..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Christians shouldn't be selling shell fish?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians don't follow the Old Testament.  They use it as a "where we came from" reference only.  They follow the New Testament.  Jews are all about the old food customs, stoning and all that stuff.  Don't you remember Jesus's famous saying "he who is without sin cast the first stone"?
> 
> You really ought to brush up on your religions before you dive headfirst into a debate about one of them...
Click to expand...


LOL....oh I know that Christians both cite the Old Testament when they want to condemn Homosexuals and then ignore it when it comes to food prohibitions.

I was specifically replying to Beagle's post about a Christian not selling a dog to a customer to eat because it has 'paws'.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, by admission, is no Christian, and the commentary above demonstrates the discriminating reader needs to look for commentary on Christianity and Christians.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, by admission, is no Christian, and the commentary above demonstrates the discriminating reader needs to look for commentary on Christianity and Christians.


I was raised christian, became confirmed after passing a Bible study exam.  So I know a little bit about what I'm talking about.  I just am not one now...per se..


----------



## JakeStarkey

None of which makes your an appropriate, knowing mouthpiece for Christianity and its doctrines.  

Look at the twisting you have done with Windsor to have it say what it does not.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Christians shouldn't be selling shell fish?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians don't follow the Old Testament.  They use it as a "where we came from" reference only.  They follow the New Testament.  Jews are all about the old food customs, stoning and all that stuff.  Don't you remember Jesus's famous saying "he who is without sin cast the first stone"?
> 
> You really ought to brush up on your religions before you dive headfirst into a debate about one of them...
> 
> Many "thou shalt nots" come from the New Testament with the promise of a sound rebuking, not eternal soul death.  Jude 1 differs from those in promising eternal soul death for any Christian failing to be proactive in turning back homosexual cultural inroads into the normal culture.  Apparently cultures (classrooms) being completely usurped by the dark one with the aide of Christians really pisses off the Big Guy to where even pacifist Jesus warned his servant Jude that failing to preserve normal cultures even he can't save you from the punishment for that mortal sin..
Click to expand...


Empirically wrong on three counts.

First, Christians absolutely believe in the Old Testament, even if they take a salad bar approach to its rules. Or did the Ten Commandments come from the Sermon on the Mount?

Secondly, there's considerable disagreement among scholars on whether Jesus really said that bit about the stone. Besides contradicting his "I have not come to destroy the law" bit in Mathew, and being written in a different style, the whole story is missing from the earlier manuscripts. 

Thirdly, Jude 1 makes no mention of homosexuality whatsoever. The only Biblical prostrations against homosexuality are in the OT. 

So not only are you wrong about what Christians should be able to do in a lawful society, you're wrong about what they themselves believe in the first place.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That is because Sil is confused by Sil's own belief.


----------



## Skylar

Paperman299 said:


> Empirically wrong on three counts.
> 
> First, Christians absolutely believe in the Old Testament, even if they take a salad bar approach to its rules. Or did the Ten Commandments come from the Sermon on the Mount?



Yup. The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays, citing the Bible.

The Founders killed only gays, with Pennsylvania actually citing portions of Leviticus word for word as its law.

Most modern day Christians don't kill either.

Its clearly the "Whopper" approach to theology. Christians will eventually get more used to gays and interpret around that to. The 'Extra Pickles' interpretation of their faith.


----------



## Paperman299

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Empirically wrong on three counts.
> 
> First, Christians absolutely believe in the Old Testament, even if they take a salad bar approach to its rules. Or did the Ten Commandments come from the Sermon on the Mount?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays, citing the Bible.
> 
> The Founders killed only gays, with Pennsylvania actually citing portions of Leviticus word for word as its law.
> 
> Most modern day Christians don't kill either.
> 
> Its clearly the "Whopper" approach to theology. Christians will eventually get more used to gays and interpret around that to. The 'Extra Pickles' interpretation of their faith.
Click to expand...


Did you take my reasonable post and credit it to Sil? 

...How dare you, sir.


----------



## Skylar

Paperman299 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Empirically wrong on three counts.
> 
> First, Christians absolutely believe in the Old Testament, even if they take a salad bar approach to its rules. Or did the Ten Commandments come from the Sermon on the Mount?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays, citing the Bible.
> 
> The Founders killed only gays, with Pennsylvania actually citing portions of Leviticus word for word as its law.
> 
> Most modern day Christians don't kill either.
> 
> Its clearly the "Whopper" approach to theology. Christians will eventually get more used to gays and interpret around that to. The 'Extra Pickles' interpretation of their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you take my reasonable post and credit it to Sil?
> 
> ...How dare you, sir.
Click to expand...


The edit button! Where's the edit button?!


----------



## Paperman299

Skylar said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Empirically wrong on three counts.
> 
> First, Christians absolutely believe in the Old Testament, even if they take a salad bar approach to its rules. Or did the Ten Commandments come from the Sermon on the Mount?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays, citing the Bible.
> 
> The Founders killed only gays, with Pennsylvania actually citing portions of Leviticus word for word as its law.
> 
> Most modern day Christians don't kill either.
> 
> Its clearly the "Whopper" approach to theology. Christians will eventually get more used to gays and interpret around that to. The 'Extra Pickles' interpretation of their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you take my reasonable post and credit it to Sil?
> 
> ...How dare you, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The edit button! Where's the edit button?!
Click to expand...


LOL


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Yup. *The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays, citing the* *Bible.*
> 
> The Founders killed only gays, with Pennsylvania actually *citing portions of Leviticus* word for word as its law.
> 
> Most modern day Christians don't kill either.
> 
> Its clearly the "Whopper" approach to theology. Christians will eventually get more used to gays and interpret around that to. The 'Extra Pickles' interpretation of their faith.


 
Then they too will burn in the fires of Hell for eternity.  Leviticus is the Old Testament.  Jesus came to redact that.  Jude 1 is of the New Testament and says that christians should extend compassion to individual homosexuals but by no means whatsoever should a Chirstian sit idlly by or worse yet abet while homosexuals (plural, as a movement or group) move to overtake the basic structure of a culture.

Guess what is at the base of all cultures?  That's right, marriage.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. *The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays, citing the* *Bible.*
> 
> The Founders killed only gays, with Pennsylvania actually *citing portions of Leviticus* word for word as its law.
> 
> Most modern day Christians don't kill either.
> 
> Its clearly the "Whopper" approach to theology. Christians will eventually get more used to gays and interpret around that to. The 'Extra Pickles' interpretation of their faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they too will burn in the fires of Hell for eternity.  Leviticus is the Old Testament.  Jesus came to redact that.  Jude 1 is of the New Testament and says that christians should extend compassion to individual homosexuals but by no means whatsoever should a Chirstian sit idlly by or worse yet abet while homosexuals (plural, as a movement or group) move to overtake the basic structure of a culture.
> 
> Guess what is at the base of all cultures?  That's right, marriage.
Click to expand...


So you're saying a religious group can believe they're being totally righteous, and still completely fuck it up? Wow. I wonder if that applies in any way to our situation today.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. *The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays, citing the* *Bible.*
> 
> The Founders killed only gays, with Pennsylvania actually *citing portions of Leviticus* word for word as its law.
> 
> Most modern day Christians don't kill either.
> 
> Its clearly the "Whopper" approach to theology. Christians will eventually get more used to gays and interpret around that to. The 'Extra Pickles' interpretation of their faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they too will burn in the fires of Hell for eternity. .
Click to expand...


If you are not a Christian any longer-why do you believe anyone will burn in hell?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. *The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays, citing the* *Bible.*
> 
> The Founders killed only gays, with Pennsylvania actually *citing portions of Leviticus* word for word as its law.
> 
> Most modern day Christians don't kill either.
> 
> Its clearly the "Whopper" approach to theology. Christians will eventually get more used to gays and interpret around that to. The 'Extra Pickles' interpretation of their faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they too will burn in the fires of Hell for eternity.  Leviticus is the Old Testament.  Jesus came to redact that.  Jude 1 is of the New Testament and says that christians should extend compassion to individual homosexuals but by no means whatsoever should a Chirstian sit idlly by or worse yet abet while homosexuals (plural, as a movement or group) move to overtake the basic structure of a culture..
Click to expand...


Like so many things- Sil lies about Jude 1- not one reference to homosexuality in Jude 1


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. *The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays, citing the* *Bible.*
> 
> The Founders killed only gays, with Pennsylvania actually *citing portions of Leviticus* word for word as its law.
> 
> Most modern day Christians don't kill either.
> 
> Its clearly the "Whopper" approach to theology. Christians will eventually get more used to gays and interpret around that to. The 'Extra Pickles' interpretation of their faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they too will burn in the fires of Hell for eternity.  Leviticus is the Old Testament.  Jesus came to redact that.  Jude 1 is of the New Testament and says that christians should extend compassion to individual homosexuals but by no means whatsoever should a Chirstian sit idlly by or worse yet abet while homosexuals (plural, as a movement or group) move to overtake the basic structure of a culture.
> 
> Guess what is at the base of all cultures?  That's right, marriage.
Click to expand...


Btw, repeating your theological claims doesn't make them true. Jesus redacting nothing, or are the Ten Commandments null and void now? Matthew 5:17-18: 



> "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…



And for the second time, Jude 1 mentions _nothing_ about homosexuality. *Nothing*. The only mention about homosexuality is in Leviticus, in the Old Testament, _which you claim has been redacted_. 







And even if there was a Jude 1:26 saying "And if your neighbor says he will marry a man, sayeth unto him 'no brah' and giveth him no cake," it would still be irrelevant. Just because your religion says to do something, that doesn't mean society will allow it. 

Take note from the Puritans and the Founders, and check yourself before you wreck yourself.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> If you are not a Christian any longer-why do you believe anyone will burn in hell?


 
I don't have to be a master chef to know how to read a basic cookbook.  Jude 1 isn't vague or open to interpretation.  Its mandates are straightforward and simple.  I know that Christians are adherents to the New Testment and use the Old one as a "where we came from" reference only.

I am not authorized to weigh in on whether or not the dire mandate/warning in Jude 1 is true.  I'd suggest erring on the side of caution for all Christians though...


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are not a Christian any longer-why do you believe anyone will burn in hell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to be a master chef to know how to read a basic cookbook.  Jude 1 isn't vague or open to interpretation.  Its mandates are straightforward and simple.  I know that Christians are adherents to the New Testment and use the Old one as a "where we came from" reference only.
Click to expand...


Jude 1 doesn't say a thing about gay marriage. Or about wedding cakes.

That's just you, pretending that you know what Jude 1 'really means'. And you don't know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Jude 1 doesn't say a thing about gay marriage. Or about wedding cakes...


 
Marriage is the core of any culture.  Jude 1 says "do not aide or abet actively or passively any homosexual takeover of your culture".  So then Jude 1 says do not aide or abet "gay marriage".  A "gay wedding cake" is that aiding and abetting.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 doesn't say a thing about gay marriage. Or about wedding cakes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the core of any culture.  Jude 1 says "do not aide or abet actively or passively any homosexual takeover of your culture".  So then Jude 1 says do not aide or abet "gay marriage".  A "gay wedding cake" is that aiding and abetting.
Click to expand...



And which verse is that, exactly? Because I'm pretty sure you're just pulling that sideways out of your ass.


----------



## Paperman299

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 doesn't say a thing about gay marriage. Or about wedding cakes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the core of any culture.  Jude 1 says "do not aide or abet actively or passively any homosexual takeover of your culture".  So then Jude 1 says do not aide or abet "gay marriage".  A "gay wedding cake" is that aiding and abetting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And which verse is that, exactly? Because I'm pretty sure you're just pulling that sideways out of your ass.
Click to expand...


There is no verse like that, at all. Where would Sil even get...holy crap. Silhouette, have you been _trolling us???_


----------



## Skylar

Paperman299 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 doesn't say a thing about gay marriage. Or about wedding cakes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the core of any culture.  Jude 1 says "do not aide or abet actively or passively any homosexual takeover of your culture".  So then Jude 1 says do not aide or abet "gay marriage".  A "gay wedding cake" is that aiding and abetting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And which verse is that, exactly? Because I'm pretty sure you're just pulling that sideways out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no verse like that, at all. Where would Sil even get...holy crap. Silhouette, have you been _trolling us???_
Click to expand...


Oh, no. You've just gotten a look behind the curtain. He believes it.

Silo is quite delusional. You should see the imaginative shit he imagines for the Windsor decision. Entire passages that simply never existed. We've even coined a phrase for it:

Silhallucination.


----------



## Paperman299

Skylar said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 doesn't say a thing about gay marriage. Or about wedding cakes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the core of any culture.  Jude 1 says "do not aide or abet actively or passively any homosexual takeover of your culture".  So then Jude 1 says do not aide or abet "gay marriage".  A "gay wedding cake" is that aiding and abetting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And which verse is that, exactly? Because I'm pretty sure you're just pulling that sideways out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no verse like that, at all. Where would Sil even get...holy crap. Silhouette, have you been _trolling us???_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, no. You've just gotten a look behind the curtain. He believes it.
> 
> Silo is quite delusional. You should see the imaginative shit he imagines for the Windsor decision. Entire passages that simply never existed. We've even coined a phrase for it:
> 
> Silhallucination.
Click to expand...


Nooo. No one would just _make up_ a Bible verse. This is an incredibly long-term troll.


----------



## Skylar

Paperman299 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 doesn't say a thing about gay marriage. Or about wedding cakes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the core of any culture.  Jude 1 says "do not aide or abet actively or passively any homosexual takeover of your culture".  So then Jude 1 says do not aide or abet "gay marriage".  A "gay wedding cake" is that aiding and abetting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And which verse is that, exactly? Because I'm pretty sure you're just pulling that sideways out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no verse like that, at all. Where would Sil even get...holy crap. Silhouette, have you been _trolling us???_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, no. You've just gotten a look behind the curtain. He believes it.
> 
> Silo is quite delusional. You should see the imaginative shit he imagines for the Windsor decision. Entire passages that simply never existed. We've even coined a phrase for it:
> 
> Silhallucination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nooo. No one would just _make up_ a Bible verse. This is an incredibly long-term troll.
Click to expand...

 
Quotation marks in SIlo's mind aren't actually a gramatical tool. They're a statement of what he things something oughta mean.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there's no prohibition in the Bible forbidding anyone to sell cake. You've hallucinated it.
> 
> And your religious beliefs don't allow you to ignore the law. Yours is nothing more than a religiously based sovereign citizen argument, where you are exempt from any law you don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, individual Christians enjoy the 1st Amendment right to exercise their faith.  Exercise is an active, not a passive word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your exercise of religion doesn't trump civil law. Religion can't be targeted with a particular law. But the religious can be subject to the same laws as everyone else. Public Accommodation laws, taxes, speed limits, etc. If your religious faith allowed you to arbitrarily ignore any law you wished, then you'd have essential anarchy. With any law a mere suggestion.
> 
> That's not our system nor has it ever been nor was it ever intended to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that exercise is active and effective 24/7/365.  In other words, it can never be disenfranchised by the state or fed or any other entity at any moment in time, including while that person is running a business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. You're still subject to all the same laws as everyone else. If your religion required say, human sacrifice....too bad, so sad. If it required that you never pay taxes, well, it sucks to be you. If it requires that you be able to keep slaves, do whatever drugs you want, you're out of luck.
> 
> Religion does not trump civil law. What you're describing is a theocracy. And it is not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gay cult interfers with their 1st Amendment right specifically in this way:  Jude 1 of Jesus's New Testament forbids Christians from promoting ANY gay culture, while it encourages them to reach out to individual gays making a difference in their life.  If they fail, they are damned to an eternity in the Pit of Fire.  The terms of this Biblical passage are non-negotiable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And selling a cake isn't promoting your customer. The very premise of your argument is nonsense. Selling a cake is promoting the cake and your business. There is no biblical prohibition against selling cake. None. You've quite literally invented it because you don't like gay people.
> 
> And like all the generally applicable laws that apply to the devout and non-devout alike, your subjective religious beliefs don't make you exempt. You want your religion to trump any law, so you can use your religious beliefs as justification for treating gays and less, for abusing them, for discriminating against them. But your need to treat others as less doesn't grant you immunity from laws.
Click to expand...

Selling a cake is one thing, but to cutomize it would be another. When something gets personal, it gets personal. I wonder if the customer knew the baker was a christian, and therefore he knew what the outcome would be the whole time ?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there's no prohibition in the Bible forbidding anyone to sell cake. You've hallucinated it.
> 
> And your religious beliefs don't allow you to ignore the law. Yours is nothing more than a religiously based sovereign citizen argument, where you are exempt from any law you don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, individual Christians enjoy the 1st Amendment right to exercise their faith.  Exercise is an active, not a passive word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your exercise of religion doesn't trump civil law. Religion can't be targeted with a particular law. But the religious can be subject to the same laws as everyone else. Public Accommodation laws, taxes, speed limits, etc. If your religious faith allowed you to arbitrarily ignore any law you wished, then you'd have essential anarchy. With any law a mere suggestion.
> 
> That's not our system nor has it ever been nor was it ever intended to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that exercise is active and effective 24/7/365.  In other words, it can never be disenfranchised by the state or fed or any other entity at any moment in time, including while that person is running a business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. You're still subject to all the same laws as everyone else. If your religion required say, human sacrifice....too bad, so sad. If it required that you never pay taxes, well, it sucks to be you. If it requires that you be able to keep slaves, do whatever drugs you want, you're out of luck.
> 
> Religion does not trump civil law. What you're describing is a theocracy. And it is not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gay cult interfers with their 1st Amendment right specifically in this way:  Jude 1 of Jesus's New Testament forbids Christians from promoting ANY gay culture, while it encourages them to reach out to individual gays making a difference in their life.  If they fail, they are damned to an eternity in the Pit of Fire.  The terms of this Biblical passage are non-negotiable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And selling a cake isn't promoting your customer. The very premise of your argument is nonsense. Selling a cake is promoting the cake and your business. There is no biblical prohibition against selling cake. None. You've quite literally invented it because you don't like gay people.
> 
> And like all the generally applicable laws that apply to the devout and non-devout alike, your subjective religious beliefs don't make you exempt. You want your religion to trump any law, so you can use your religious beliefs as justification for treating gays and less, for abusing them, for discriminating against them. But your need to treat others as less doesn't grant you immunity from laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Selling a cake is one thing, but to cutomize it would be another. When something gets personal, it gets personal. I wonder if the customer knew the baker was a christian, and therefore he knew what the outcome would be the whole time ?
Click to expand...


Given that they refused to do either, your point is moot.


----------



## WorldWatcher

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there's no prohibition in the Bible forbidding anyone to sell cake. You've hallucinated it.
> 
> And your religious beliefs don't allow you to ignore the law. Yours is nothing more than a religiously based sovereign citizen argument, where you are exempt from any law you don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, individual Christians enjoy the 1st Amendment right to exercise their faith.  Exercise is an active, not a passive word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your exercise of religion doesn't trump civil law. Religion can't be targeted with a particular law. But the religious can be subject to the same laws as everyone else. Public Accommodation laws, taxes, speed limits, etc. If your religious faith allowed you to arbitrarily ignore any law you wished, then you'd have essential anarchy. With any law a mere suggestion.
> 
> That's not our system nor has it ever been nor was it ever intended to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that exercise is active and effective 24/7/365.  In other words, it can never be disenfranchised by the state or fed or any other entity at any moment in time, including while that person is running a business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. You're still subject to all the same laws as everyone else. If your religion required say, human sacrifice....too bad, so sad. If it required that you never pay taxes, well, it sucks to be you. If it requires that you be able to keep slaves, do whatever drugs you want, you're out of luck.
> 
> Religion does not trump civil law. What you're describing is a theocracy. And it is not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gay cult interfers with their 1st Amendment right specifically in this way:  Jude 1 of Jesus's New Testament forbids Christians from promoting ANY gay culture, while it encourages them to reach out to individual gays making a difference in their life.  If they fail, they are damned to an eternity in the Pit of Fire.  The terms of this Biblical passage are non-negotiable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And selling a cake isn't promoting your customer. The very premise of your argument is nonsense. Selling a cake is promoting the cake and your business. There is no biblical prohibition against selling cake. None. You've quite literally invented it because you don't like gay people.
> 
> And like all the generally applicable laws that apply to the devout and non-devout alike, your subjective religious beliefs don't make you exempt. You want your religion to trump any law, so you can use your religious beliefs as justification for treating gays and less, for abusing them, for discriminating against them. But your need to treat others as less doesn't grant you immunity from laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Selling a cake is one thing, but to cutomize it would be another. When something gets personal, it gets personal. I wonder if the customer knew the baker was a christian, and therefore he knew what the outcome would be the whole time ?
Click to expand...


I wonder at the time of the bakers advertized on the web, yellow pages, etc. that they sold wedding cakes?


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> I wonder at the time of the bakers advertized on the web, yellow pages, etc. that they sold wedding cakes?
> 
> 
> >>>>


 
Doesn't matter whether they did or not.  They cannot promote a type of core value of a culture (marriage) to be taken over by homosexuals.  It is expressly forbidden as a mortal sin in the New Testament of Jesus in Jude 1.  It's not a gray-area mandate.  To deny that mandate is for a Christian to completely abdicate their faith.  It is made implicitly clear that being passive about that takeover is equally punishable as being active about assiting it (making a "gay wedding cake").  There simply is no choice for a Christian.  They are forbidden to do so.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are not a Christian any longer-why do you believe anyone will burn in hell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to be a master chef
Click to expand...


Why am I not surprised you just have no clue.

I am not a Christian- I do not believe anyone will 'burn in hell'

You say you are not a Christian- do you believe in hell- even though you don't believe in Jesus?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder at the time of the bakers advertized on the web, yellow pages, etc. that they sold wedding cakes?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter whether they did or not.  They cannot promote a type of core value of a culture (marriage).
Click to expand...


See I happen to think that these would be the core values- not something that Jesus never mentioned


You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
So if a Christian orders a cake from a Jewish baker- can the Jewish baker refuse to bake that cake for the Christian- just because he is a Christian- because that baker believes that the Christian has another god other than Ywh?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder at the time of the bakers advertized on the web, yellow pages, etc. that they sold wedding cakes?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter whether they did or not.  They cannot promote a type of core value of a culture (marriage).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See I happen to think that these would be the core values- not something that Jesus never mentioned
> 
> 
> You shall have no other gods before Me.
> You shall not make idols.
> You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
> Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
> Honor your father and your mother.
> You shall not murder.
> You shall not commit adultery.
> You shall not steal.
> You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
> You shall not covet.
> So if a Christian orders a cake from a Jewish baker- can the Jewish baker refuse to bake that cake for the Christian- just because he is a Christian- because that baker believes that the Christian has another god other than Ywh?
Click to expand...

The Jews believe in Jesus also. There is more than just one name in the bible for God.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Doesn't matter whether they did or not.  They cannot promote a type of core value of a culture (marriage) to be taken over by homosexuals.



Same problem as last time: selling a cake isn't promoting the customer. Its promoting the cake. Your entire basis of argument is nonsense.



> It is expressly forbidden as a mortal sin in the New Testament of Jesus in Jude 1.  It's not a gray-area mandate.



Where? We've asked you to quote the verse at least a dozen times. And you've never been able to.



> To deny that mandate is for a Christian to completely abdicate their faith.



Save that there's no prohibition against selling cake in the Bible. And you're not even Christian. Making your assessment of 'complete abdication' meaningless twaddle.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder at the time of the bakers advertized on the web, yellow pages, etc. that they sold wedding cakes?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter whether they did or not.  They cannot promote a type of core value of a culture (marriage).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See I happen to think that these would be the core values- not something that Jesus never mentioned
> 
> 
> You shall have no other gods before Me.
> You shall not make idols.
> You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
> Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
> Honor your father and your mother.
> You shall not murder.
> You shall not commit adultery.
> You shall not steal.
> You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
> You shall not covet.
> So if a Christian orders a cake from a Jewish baker- can the Jewish baker refuse to bake that cake for the Christian- just because he is a Christian- because that baker believes that the Christian has another god other than Ywh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews believe in Jesus also. There is more than just one name in the bible for God.
Click to expand...


No....Jews do not 'believe in Jesus' other than to believe that there are men who have been named Jesus.

And it doesn't matter what you 'believe'- if a Jewish baker believes it would be offending his faith if he served a Christian- who would you support- the Christian or the Jew?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder at the time of the bakers advertized on the web, yellow pages, etc. that they sold wedding cakes?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter whether they did or not.  They cannot promote a type of core value of a culture (marriage).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See I happen to think that these would be the core values- not something that Jesus never mentioned
> 
> 
> You shall have no other gods before Me.
> You shall not make idols.
> You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
> Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
> Honor your father and your mother.
> You shall not murder.
> You shall not commit adultery.
> You shall not steal.
> You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
> You shall not covet.
> So if a Christian orders a cake from a Jewish baker- can the Jewish baker refuse to bake that cake for the Christian- just because he is a Christian- because that baker believes that the Christian has another god other than Ywh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews believe in Jesus also. There is more than just one name in the bible for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No....Jews do not 'believe in Jesus' other than to believe that there are men who have been named Jesus.
> 
> And it doesn't matter what you 'believe'- if a Jewish baker believes it would be offending his faith if he served a Christian- who would you support- the Christian or the Jew?
Click to expand...

The Jew.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder at the time of the bakers advertized on the web, yellow pages, etc. that they sold wedding cakes?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter whether they did or not.  They cannot promote a type of core value of a culture (marriage).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See I happen to think that these would be the core values- not something that Jesus never mentioned
> 
> 
> You shall have no other gods before Me.
> You shall not make idols.
> You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
> Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
> Honor your father and your mother.
> You shall not murder.
> You shall not commit adultery.
> You shall not steal.
> You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
> You shall not covet.
> So if a Christian orders a cake from a Jewish baker- can the Jewish baker refuse to bake that cake for the Christian- just because he is a Christian- because that baker believes that the Christian has another god other than Ywh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews believe in Jesus also. There is more than just one name in the bible for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No....Jews do not 'believe in Jesus' other than to believe that there are men who have been named Jesus.
> 
> And it doesn't matter what you 'believe'- if a Jewish baker believes it would be offending his faith if he served a Christian- who would you support- the Christian or the Jew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jew.
Click to expand...


LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?

What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?


----------



## Skylar

Sounds more and more like a religious 'sovereign citizen' argument to me.

Though don't bother asking about Sharia or Muslims. Beagle knows his answer. He also knows the ludicrous inconsistency of refusing to put sharia above our civil law, but insisting we do exactly that for Christianity. So he won't touch the question with a 10 foot pole. 

Because his issue isn't about the freedom of religion. Its about the supremacy of Christianity over civil law. Not freedom of religion.


----------



## Syriusly

I wonder what other laws Christians are supposed to be exempt from? I mean if they can claim a 'deeply held religious conviction'?

I mean the Bible is pretty clear that the penalty for adultery is death- does Beagle think that a Christian husband can kill his wife if she commit adultery- if that is his deeply held religious conviction?


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> I wonder what other laws Christians are supposed to be exempt from? I mean if they can claim a 'deeply held religious conviction'?
> 
> I mean the Bible is pretty clear that the penalty for adultery is death- does Beagle think that a Christian husband can kill his wife if she commit adultery- if that is his deeply held religious conviction?



Apparently if he can't kill her....he abdicates his Christianity. And the 1st amendment is clearly more important that socially repugnant behavior......like adultery.

At least that's what I hear.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter whether they did or not.  They cannot promote a type of core value of a culture (marriage).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See I happen to think that these would be the core values- not something that Jesus never mentioned
> 
> 
> You shall have no other gods before Me.
> You shall not make idols.
> You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
> Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
> Honor your father and your mother.
> You shall not murder.
> You shall not commit adultery.
> You shall not steal.
> You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
> You shall not covet.
> So if a Christian orders a cake from a Jewish baker- can the Jewish baker refuse to bake that cake for the Christian- just because he is a Christian- because that baker believes that the Christian has another god other than Ywh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews believe in Jesus also. There is more than just one name in the bible for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No....Jews do not 'believe in Jesus' other than to believe that there are men who have been named Jesus.
> 
> And it doesn't matter what you 'believe'- if a Jewish baker believes it would be offending his faith if he served a Christian- who would you support- the Christian or the Jew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?
> 
> What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?
Click to expand...

OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down. 

It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?

For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> See I happen to think that these would be the core values- not something that Jesus never mentioned
> 
> 
> You shall have no other gods before Me.
> You shall not make idols.
> You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
> Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
> Honor your father and your mother.
> You shall not murder.
> You shall not commit adultery.
> You shall not steal.
> You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
> You shall not covet.
> So if a Christian orders a cake from a Jewish baker- can the Jewish baker refuse to bake that cake for the Christian- just because he is a Christian- because that baker believes that the Christian has another god other than Ywh?
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews believe in Jesus also. There is more than just one name in the bible for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No....Jews do not 'believe in Jesus' other than to believe that there are men who have been named Jesus.
> 
> And it doesn't matter what you 'believe'- if a Jewish baker believes it would be offending his faith if he served a Christian- who would you support- the Christian or the Jew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?
> 
> What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.
> 
> It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?
> 
> For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.
Click to expand...


Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole. 

Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews believe in Jesus also. There is more than just one name in the bible for God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No....Jews do not 'believe in Jesus' other than to believe that there are men who have been named Jesus.
> 
> And it doesn't matter what you 'believe'- if a Jewish baker believes it would be offending his faith if he served a Christian- who would you support- the Christian or the Jew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?
> 
> What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.
> 
> It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?
> 
> For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.
> 
> Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.
Click to expand...

No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> See I happen to think that these would be the core values- not something that Jesus never mentioned
> 
> 
> You shall have no other gods before Me.
> You shall not make idols.
> You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
> Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
> Honor your father and your mother.
> You shall not murder.
> You shall not commit adultery.
> You shall not steal.
> You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
> You shall not covet.
> So if a Christian orders a cake from a Jewish baker- can the Jewish baker refuse to bake that cake for the Christian- just because he is a Christian- because that baker believes that the Christian has another god other than Ywh?
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews believe in Jesus also. There is more than just one name in the bible for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No....Jews do not 'believe in Jesus' other than to believe that there are men who have been named Jesus.
> 
> And it doesn't matter what you 'believe'- if a Jewish baker believes it would be offending his faith if he served a Christian- who would you support- the Christian or the Jew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?
> 
> What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases,.
Click to expand...


But that is why laws are written to be 'completely solid'

Under your example- for instance you appear to be arguing that any person claiming 'faith-morals' standards-common sense- business model' could among other things:

refuse to rent a room to a black man
refuse to sell a car to a Jew
refuse to sell a wedding cake to a Christian
refuse to rent a facility for a wedding between a white woman and an Asian man
There is a reason why the law is very specific- and the law says a business owner cannot refuse service to someone because they are black- regardless of whether or not the business owner has deep personally held convictions that he should not do business with a black person.

He can't refuse to do business with a Jew- just because he believes that Jews killed Christ and he shouldn't have anything to do with Jews. 

He can't refuse to sell a wedding cake to a Christian- just because i he has firmly held beliefs that Christians are immoral.

He can't refuse to rent a wedding hall out to a mixed race couple- just because if a mixed race wedding offends him

And in Colorado- he can't refuse to do business with a gay person because they are gay.


----------



## beagle9

I just love the way people here try to assign some sort of thinking to another without them saying it, and they do this even though the other doesn't give them some kind of indication or information in which they could then assign to them what is being assigned to them in this way... It's really amazing to watch and read the way these things like that do go here in that way.  Wow!


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> I just love the way people here try to assign some sort of thinking to another without them saying it, and they do this even though the other doesn't give them some kind of indication or information in which they could then assign to them what is being assigned to them in this way... It's really amazing to watch and read the way these things like that do go here in that way.  Wow!



Well since I can't get you to actually respond to any of my actual posts- but instead you post a wall of stream of thoughts- I am glad you are loving something.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No....Jews do not 'believe in Jesus' other than to believe that there are men who have been named Jesus.
> 
> And it doesn't matter what you 'believe'- if a Jewish baker believes it would be offending his faith if he served a Christian- who would you support- the Christian or the Jew?
> 
> 
> 
> The Jew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?
> 
> What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.
> 
> It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?
> 
> For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.
> 
> Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?
Click to expand...


You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.

If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment. 

Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?
> 
> What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.
> 
> It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?
> 
> For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.
> 
> Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.
> 
> If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.
> 
> Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?
Click to expand...


Who said Christianity trumps civil law?  Are you lying again?


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?
> 
> What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.
> 
> It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?
> 
> For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.
> 
> Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.
> 
> If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.
> 
> Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said Christianity trumps civil law?  Are you lying again?
Click to expand...



Are you?


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?
> 
> What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.
> 
> It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?
> 
> For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.
> 
> Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.
> 
> If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.
> 
> Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?
Click to expand...

Not real sure about sharia laws or that religion, but is there some reason you don't approve of that religion or it's laws if they are peaceful and excepted by it's believers ?


----------



## beagle9

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?
> 
> What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.
> 
> It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?
> 
> For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.
> 
> Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.
> 
> If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.
> 
> Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said Christianity trumps civil law?  Are you lying again?
Click to expand...

He's trying to suggest that I am claiming that, but I am not. I'm just saying that every case may have different merits and outcomes sometimes. He wants the law to be rigid, but no one wants that ever.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?
> 
> What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.
> 
> It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?
> 
> For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.
> 
> Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.
> 
> If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.
> 
> Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not real sure about sharia laws or that religion, but is there some reason you don't approve of that religion or it's laws if they are peaceful and excepted by it's believers ?
Click to expand...


If religious conviction is your standard for trumping a civil law, would it matter?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.
> 
> It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?
> 
> For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.
> 
> Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.
> 
> If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.
> 
> Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not real sure about sharia laws or that religion, but is there some reason you don't approve of that religion or it's laws if they are peaceful and excepted by it's believers ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If religious conviction is your standard for trumping a civil law, would it matter?
Click to expand...


You're lying.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.
> 
> It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?
> 
> For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.
> 
> Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.
> 
> If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.
> 
> Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not real sure about sharia laws or that religion, but is there some reason you don't approve of that religion or it's laws if they are peaceful and excepted by it's believers ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If religious conviction is your standard for trumping a civil law, would it matter?
Click to expand...

Does it matter to you if Christians have religious freedom, and the ability to practice said religion in peace? Does your thinking trump the constitution of this united states ?


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> If religious conviction is your standard for trumping a civil law, would it matter?


 
I got to thinking about this point.  If the LGBT lifestylists and others force the states to perform their "marriages" against the will of the states' interest in incentivizing the best formative environment for kids (mother and father), then pretty much yeah, LGBT would be declared the new federal religion that everyone had to follow.  Because a lifestyle isn't a race or a gender, it's a lifestyle, behaviors.  This would be a precedent setting case indeed if the US Supreme Court decided that transient lifestyles control local laws and the 1st Amendment right to exercise of religion..


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If religious conviction is your standard for trumping a civil law, would it matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got to thinking about this point.  If the LGBT lifestylists and others force the states to perform their "marriages" against the will of the states' interest in incentivizing the best formative environment for kids (mother and father), then pretty much yeah, LGBT would be declared the new federal religion that everyone had to follow.  Because a lifestyle isn't a race or a gender, it's a lifestyle, behaviors.  This would be a precedent setting case indeed if the US Supreme Court decided that transient lifestyles control local laws and the 1st Amendment right to exercise of religion..
Click to expand...

So your basically saying that *transient lifestyles* would then trump local laws (i.e. Federal Judges over ruling the states as it were), and therefore cancelling out the1st Amendment right to have without interference from government the freedom in the exorcize of one's religion within the nation and within the states as it were ? People were allowed to exorcize their freedom of their religion for ever it seems, but now that all these things have come up, such a thing is now under assault anymore. Look at how many cases have come up in the past 30 to 35 years now.


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> So your basically saying that *transient lifestyles* would then trump local laws (i.e. Federal Judges over ruling the states as it were), and therefore cancelling out the1st Amendment right to have without interference from government the freedom in the exorcize of one's religion within the nation and within the states as it were ? People were allowed to exorcize their freedom of their religion for ever it seems, but now that all these things have come up, such a thing is now under assault anymore. Look at how many cases have come up in the past 30 to 35 years now.


 
Well, what I'm saying is that it won't happen.  And if it does happen, pack your bags to move to Russia or maybe North Korea where there would be more freedom at that point.

BTW, it's "exercise".  But yeah, maybe we need an exorcism right about now...lol.  Not judging.  I'm a terrible speller myself.  I'm thinking of having a spellcheck microchip installed in my brain.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.
> 
> It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?
> 
> For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.
> 
> Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.
> 
> If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.
> 
> Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said Christianity trumps civil law?  Are you lying again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's trying to suggest that I am claiming that, but I am not. I'm just saying that every case may have different merits and outcomes sometimes. He wants the law to be rigid, but no one wants that ever.
Click to expand...


But that is why laws are written to be 'completely solid'

Under your example- for instance you appear to be arguing that any person claiming 'faith-morals' standards-common sense- business model' could among other things:

refuse to rent a room to a black man
refuse to sell a car to a Jew
refuse to sell a wedding cake to a Christian
refuse to rent a facility for a wedding between a white woman and an Asian man
There is a reason why the law is very specific- and the law says a business owner cannot refuse service to someone because they are black- regardless of whether or not the business owner has deep personally held convictions that he should not do business with a black person.

He can't refuse to do business with a Jew- just because he believes that Jews killed Christ and he shouldn't have anything to do with Jews. 

He can't refuse to sell a wedding cake to a Christian- just because i he has firmly held beliefs that Christians are immoral.

He can't refuse to rent a wedding hall out to a mixed race couple- just because if a mixed race wedding offends him

And in Colorado- he can't refuse to do business with a gay person because they are gay.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> [ if the US Supreme Court decided that transient lifestyles control local laws and the 1st Amendment right to exercise of religion..



We do not know for sure whether or not homosexuality is imprinted or not- but we do know that religious choice is transient.

If the criteria is that 'transient life styles' don't have legal protections then there would be no protections for Christians and Jews and Muslims based upon their religion.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your basically saying that *transient lifestyles* would then trump local laws (i.e. Federal Judges over ruling the states as it were), and therefore cancelling out the1st Amendment right to have without interference from government the freedom in the exorcize of one's religion within the nation and within the states as it were ? People were allowed to exorcize their freedom of their religion for ever it seems, but now that all these things have come up, such a thing is now under assault anymore. Look at how many cases have come up in the past 30 to 35 years now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what I'm saying is that it won't happen.  And if it does happen, pack your bags to move to Russia or maybe North Korea where there would be more freedom at that point.n.
Click to expand...


You would be happier in Russia- where gay marriage is illegal, and discrimination against homosexuals is encouraged- it is your kind of place.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ if the US Supreme Court decided that transient lifestyles control local laws and the 1st Amendment right to exercise of religion..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not know for sure whether or not homosexuality is imprinted or not- but we do know that religious choice is transient.
> 
> If the criteria is that 'transient life styles' don't have legal protections then there would be no protections for Christians and Jews and Muslims based upon their religion.
Click to expand...


Lifestyle choices are transient too.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.
> 
> Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.
> 
> 
> 
> No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.
> 
> If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.
> 
> Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not real sure about sharia laws or that religion, but is there some reason you don't approve of that religion or it's laws if they are peaceful and excepted by it's believers ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If religious conviction is your standard for trumping a civil law, would it matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does it matter to you if Christians have religious freedom, and the ability to practice said religion in peace? Does your thinking trump the constitution of this united states ?
Click to expand...


Depends on what you mean by 'practice religious freedom'? Does that mean that they can ignore any law that they feel conflicts with their religion? 

If so, then why not Sharia?


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ if the US Supreme Court decided that transient lifestyles control local laws and the 1st Amendment right to exercise of religion..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not know for sure whether or not homosexuality is imprinted or not- but we do know that religious choice is transient.
> 
> If the criteria is that 'transient life styles' don't have legal protections then there would be no protections for Christians and Jews and Muslims based upon their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lifestyle choices are transient too.
Click to expand...


Yep- Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism- all transient.


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your basically saying that *transient lifestyles* would then trump local laws (i.e. Federal Judges over ruling the states as it were), and therefore cancelling out the1st Amendment right to have without interference from government the freedom in the exorcize of one's religion within the nation and within the states as it were ? People were allowed to exorcize their freedom of their religion for ever it seems, but now that all these things have come up, such a thing is now under assault anymore. Look at how many cases have come up in the past 30 to 35 years now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what I'm saying is that it won't happen.  And if it does happen, pack your bags to move to Russia or maybe North Korea where there would be more freedom at that point.
> 
> BTW, it's "exercise".  But yeah, maybe we need an exorcism right about now...lol.  Not judging.  I'm a terrible speller myself.  I'm thinking of having a spellcheck microchip installed in my brain.
Click to expand...

LoL... Thanks for the spell check sil...That was a good one with the exorcism needed before long. I thank the nation will need it for sure. Note - The new testament is full of speak about the sin of today, so I don't know why so many are in denial about it.


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> LoL... Thanks for the spell check sil...That was a good one with the exorcism needed before long. I thank the nation will need it for sure. Note - The new testament is full of speak about the sin of today, so I don't know why so many are in denial about it.


 
Jude 1 is an interesting passage.  It really doesn't mince words.  It really emphasizes the Old Testament tales of Sodom and reminds newer jews (christians) of how entire regions were scrubbed by God for refusing to push back on advances of homosexuals who were organizing to replace common moral values with their own set of depraved dogma.  The warning is simple, concise and to the point: passive assent to this or active assitance gets you eternity in the Big Slammer down under, roasting in the fires of hell forever.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Well said Silouette.

Read an article yesterday that said one of the Bakers who refused to be involved with the celebration of depravity, is likely to be fined 150K.

So....  looks like the US is heading for a divine beat down.  And all because we can't find the sand to call a perv, a demented pervert.

But hey... ya get what ya pay for.


----------



## WorldWatcher

>

Anyone have a reference to the actual law (not some reporters claim) as to liability?

From my reading of the law if this is a first offense then fines are limited to $1,000.

ORS 659A.855 - Civil penalty for certain complaints filed by commissioner - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes


No the latest ruling shows that the March hearing is about "damages" (if any) that the Klien's actions caused to the complainants.

>>>>


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Jude 1 is an interesting passage.



And which passage are you referring to specifically? I've read all of Jude 1. And it never mentions wedding cakes once. 



> It really emphasizes the Old Testament tales of Sodom and reminds newer jews (christians) of how entire regions were scrubbed by God for refusing to push back on advances of homosexuals who were organizing to replace common moral values with their own set of depraved dogma.



"Depraved dogma"? What's depraved about getting married and raising a family?


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your basically saying that *transient lifestyles* would then trump local laws (i.e. Federal Judges over ruling the states as it were), and therefore cancelling out the1st Amendment right to have without interference from government the freedom in the exorcize of one's religion within the nation and within the states as it were ? People were allowed to exorcize their freedom of their religion for ever it seems, but now that all these things have come up, such a thing is now under assault anymore. Look at how many cases have come up in the past 30 to 35 years now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what I'm saying is that it won't happen.  And if it does happen, pack your bags to move to Russia or maybe North Korea where there would be more freedom at that point.n.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would be happier in Russia- where gay marriage is illegal, and discrimination against homosexuals is encouraged- it is your kind of place.
Click to expand...


I think transexuals are no longer allowed to drive.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LoL... Thanks for the spell check sil...That was a good one with the exorcism needed before long. I thank the nation will need it for sure. Note - The new testament is full of speak about the sin of today, so I don't know why so many are in denial about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 is an interesting passage.  It really doesn't mince words.  It really emphasizes the Old Testament tales of Sodom and reminds newer jews (christians) of how entire regions were scrubbed by God for refusing to push back on advances of homosexuals who were organizing to replace common moral values with their own set of depraved dogma.  The warning is simple, concise and to the point: passive assent to this or active assitance gets you eternity in the Big Slammer down under, roasting in the fires of hell forever.
Click to expand...


Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuals at all.


----------



## Silhouette

Yes, it does.  It also mentions people who manipulate speech/language in order to forward the homosexual agenda...

...oddly enough...

...you know, like denying what is being said, isolating words apart from one another and pretending context doesn't matter...that type of thing....all of it gets you sentenced to forever in the Pit if you are conniving against the Word of God on this matter..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Yes, it does.  It also mentions people who manipulate speech/language in order to forward the homosexual agenda....



Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuals even once.

You are delusional.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Yes, it does.  It also mentions people who manipulate speech/language in order to forward the homosexual agenda...
> 
> ...oddly enough...
> 
> ...you know, like denying what is being said, isolating words apart from one another and pretending context doesn't matter...that type of thing....all of it gets you sentenced to forever in the Pit if you are conniving against the Word of God on this matter..



Show us the passage you're referring to. Every time we ask, you get really, really vague.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Yes, it does.  It also mentions people who manipulate speech/language in order to forward the homosexual agenda...
> 
> ...oddly enough...
> 
> ...you know, like denying what is being said, isolating words apart from one another and pretending context doesn't matter...that type of thing....all of it gets you sentenced to forever in the Pit if you are conniving against the Word of God on this matter..


 


Skylar said:


> Show us the passage you're referring to. Every time we ask, you get really, really vague.


You mean, show you again?  Put "Jude 1" into the search bar and click the button.  You'll find my posts with the full text of that passage in it...numbers of them..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  It also mentions people who manipulate speech/language in order to forward the homosexual agenda...
> 
> ...oddly enough...
> 
> ...you know, like denying what is being said, isolating words apart from one another and pretending context doesn't matter...that type of thing....all of it gets you sentenced to forever in the Pit if you are conniving against the Word of God on this matter..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us the passage you're referring to. Every time we ask, you get really, really vague.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, show you again?  Put "Jude 1" into the search bar and click the button.  You'll find my posts with the full text of that passage in it...numbers of them..
Click to expand...


You claim to be quoting a portion of Jude 1. Who us the portion you're quoting. Either Jude 1 says what you claim it does....or it doesn't.

And as your excuses for why you can't possibly back up your claims demonstrates.......it doesn't.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Yes, it does.  It also mentions people who manipulate speech/language in order to forward the homosexual agenda...
> 
> ...oddly enough...
> 
> ...you know, like denying what is being said, isolating words apart from one another and pretending context doesn't matter...that type of thing....all of it gets you sentenced to forever in the Pit if you are conniving against the Word of God on this matter..



I've often said that the reason that gay marriage opponents do so pathetically in court is that they can't bring their actual motivation to bear. Its simply irrelevant, legally. So they're left with half assed second tier arguments that are laughed out of court. 

I don't think 'conniving against the Word of God' is going to be the cornerstone of any SCOTUS ruling on the matter. Or even mentioned as being remotely relevant legally.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Well said Silouette.
> 
> Read an article yesterday that said one of the Bakers who refused to be involved with the celebration of depravity, is likely to be fined 150K.
> 
> So....  looks like the US is heading for a divine beat down.  And all because we can't find the sand to call a perv, a demented pervert.
> 
> But hey... ya get what ya pay for.



Odd, our economy has improved sharply since 2011 when support for gay marriage has surged. And improved even more since 2013 when support for gay marriage became a majority position. And improved even more since 2014 when gay marriage was found to be legal in 36 of 50 States.

If outcome is a demonstration of 'God's will', then 'God's' clearly picked a team on the gay marriage debate. 

You may want to remain open to the possibility that the desire to hurt gays and Americans isn't 'God's will'. But your own personal desires. As demonstrated so elegantly by your disjoined rant on how gays better 'sit down and shut the fuck up' else a war will be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday brunch'.

You may wish calamity, war and destruction on our nation. Most folks living here don't join you.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Silouette.
> 
> Read an article yesterday that said one of the Bakers who refused to be involved with the celebration of depravity, is likely to be fined 150K.
> 
> So....  looks like the US is heading for a divine beat down.  And all because we can't find the sand to call a perv, a demented pervert.
> 
> But hey... ya get what ya pay for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odd, our economy has improved sharply since 2011 when support for gay marriage has surged...
Click to expand...

 
I note you picked the date "since 2011".. (even though gay marriage was going on before that).  Could it be that you wanted to avoid discussing something else that has surged because of gay marriage before that date?

Yes, your choice of 2011 sure is odd..random...



> *Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010*.
> 
> Most new HIV infections among youth occur *among gay and bisexual males*; there was *a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010*. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> I note you picked the date "since 2011".. (even though gay marriage was going on before that).



I picked that year since that's when the support for gay marriage began to surge dramatically.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note you picked the date "since 2011".. (even though gay marriage was going on before that).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I picked that year since that's when the *support for gay marriage began to surge* dramatically.
Click to expand...

 
Surge with whom?  Have you seen the results at the top (the most popular poll in USMB history)?

Is this big surge the reason why y'all pulled gay marraige off the ballot in Ohio?  And why it lost twice in California as recently as late 2008?

Or did you choose 2011 as "the magic support date for gay marraige" to cover up another surge going on at the time...



> *Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010*.
> 
> Most new HIV infections among youth occur *among gay and bisexual males*; there was *a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010*. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS


----------



## PaintMyHouse

You lost Sil, months ago.  Give it up.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note you picked the date "since 2011".. (even though gay marriage was going on before that).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I picked that year since that's when the *support for gay marriage began to surge* dramatically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surge with whom?  Have you seen the results at the top (the most popular poll in USMB history)?
Click to expand...


Surged with the US public. Until today its a majority position:



> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55



With supporters outpacing opposition by about 13 points. With numerous other polls putting it between 12 and 19 points. All of which you ignore. Just like you ignore anything that contradicts what you choose to believe. Any study, any poll, any source, any methodology, any country.

But no rational person would ignore what you do. And the courts certainly don't. Rendering your desperate, willful ignorance gloriously irrelevant to the outcome of any court case.

4 Months until the USSC ruling, Silo.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note you picked the date "since 2011".. (even though gay marriage was going on before that).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I picked that year since that's when the *support for gay marriage began to surge* dramatically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surge with whom?  Have you seen the results at the top (the most popular poll in USMB history)?]
Click to expand...


Which is not a poll on gay marriage.......

I support marriage equality for homosexuals- and I am opposed to any efforts to make churches do anything.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> I support marriage equality for homosexuals- and I am opposed to any efforts to make churches do anything.



Do you support parenting-equality for children? ie: do you believe every child should have their state encourage both a father and a mother in their home?

Do you also support all other forms of marriage equality, or just for homosexuals?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support marriage equality for homosexuals- and I am opposed to any efforts to make churches do anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support parenting-equality for children? ie: do you believe every child should have their state encourage both a father and a mother in their home?
> 
> Do you also support all other forms of marriage equality, or just for homosexuals?
Click to expand...


What part of my statement do you find hard to understand?

I support marriage equality for homosexuals- and I am opposed to any efforts to make churches do anything

You oppose marriage equality for homosexuals, and oppose children of homosexuals having married parents.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support marriage equality for homosexuals- and I am opposed to any efforts to make churches do anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support parenting-equality for children? ie: do you believe every child should have their state encourage both a father and a mother in their home?
Click to expand...


You do realize that 'parenting-equality' is a term you just made up, right?


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> You do realize that 'parenting-equality' is a term you just made up, right?


 
What's the harm in that?  "Marriage equality" is a term your ilk has just made up in recent years also.  You think you have a monopoly on coining terms and phrases?

If the shoe fits, you can call it parenting-equality for children.   Sure you can if it is a legitimate phenomenon currently being hashed out in debate.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that 'parenting-equality' is a term you just made up, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the harm in that?
Click to expand...


Because I don't put any weight in your made up terms. Anymore than I do your made up version of legal decisions. Anymore than I do your willful ignorance of anything you disagree with. 

You citing you is meaningless, Silo.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note you picked the date "since 2011".. (even though gay marriage was going on before that).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I picked that year since that's when the *support for gay marriage began to surge* dramatically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surge with whom?  Have you seen the results at the top (the most popular poll in USMB history)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surged with the US public. Until today its a majority position:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With supporters outpacing opposition by about 13 points. With numerous other polls putting it between 12 and 19 points. All of which you ignore. Just like you *ignore* anything that contradicts what you choose to believe. Any study, any poll, any source, any methodology, any country.
> 
> But no rational person would ignore what you do. And the courts certainly don't. Rendering your desperate, willful ignorance gloriously irrelevant to the outcome of any court case.
> 
> 4 Months until the USSC ruling, Silo.
Click to expand...

What just like they *ignored* the voters in Cali on Prop 8 ? Now who is ignoring who again ?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note you picked the date "since 2011".. (even though gay marriage was going on before that).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I picked that year since that's when the *support for gay marriage began to surge* dramatically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surge with whom?  Have you seen the results at the top (the most popular poll in USMB history)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surged with the US public. Until today its a majority position:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With supporters outpacing opposition by about 13 points. With numerous other polls putting it between 12 and 19 points. All of which you ignore. Just like you *ignore* anything that contradicts what you choose to believe. Any study, any poll, any source, any methodology, any country.
> 
> But no rational person would ignore what you do. And the courts certainly don't. Rendering your desperate, willful ignorance gloriously irrelevant to the outcome of any court case.
> 
> 4 Months until the USSC ruling, Silo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What just like they *ignored* the voters in Cali on Prop 8 ? Now who is ignoring who again ?
Click to expand...



The voters were not ignored- my fellow citizens voted in an unconstitutional law.

And like many other unconstitutional laws voted upon by citizens, it was overturned by the court.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note you picked the date "since 2011".. (even though gay marriage was going on before that).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I picked that year since that's when the *support for gay marriage began to surge* dramatically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surge with whom?  Have you seen the results at the top (the most popular poll in USMB history)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surged with the US public. Until today its a majority position:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With supporters outpacing opposition by about 13 points. With numerous other polls putting it between 12 and 19 points. All of which you ignore. Just like you *ignore* anything that contradicts what you choose to believe. Any study, any poll, any source, any methodology, any country.
> 
> But no rational person would ignore what you do. And the courts certainly don't. Rendering your desperate, willful ignorance gloriously irrelevant to the outcome of any court case.
> 
> 4 Months until the USSC ruling, Silo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What just like they *ignored* the voters in Cali on Prop 8 ? Now who is ignoring who again ?
Click to expand...


The federal judiciary ruled Prop 8 violated constitutional guarantees. With the courts putting individual rights above state powers. 

Exactly as they are supposed to.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note you picked the date "since 2011".. (even though gay marriage was going on before that).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I picked that year since that's when the *support for gay marriage began to surge* dramatically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surge with whom?  Have you seen the results at the top (the most popular poll in USMB history)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surged with the US public. Until today its a majority position:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With supporters outpacing opposition by about 13 points. With numerous other polls putting it between 12 and 19 points. All of which you ignore. Just like you *ignore* anything that contradicts what you choose to believe. Any study, any poll, any source, any methodology, any country.
> 
> But no rational person would ignore what you do. And the courts certainly don't. Rendering your desperate, willful ignorance gloriously irrelevant to the outcome of any court case.
> 
> 4 Months until the USSC ruling, Silo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What just like they *ignored* the voters in Cali on Prop 8 ? Now who is ignoring who again ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal judiciary ruled Prop 8 violated constitutional guarantees. With the courts putting individual rights above state powers.
> 
> Exactly as they are supposed to.
Click to expand...

An individuals right to what exactly ? There are many things guaranteed under our Constitution for sure, but are some of  these supposed things in which people are coming up with or rather that they are thinking of today actually covered or should they be ? Otherwise are some things truly covered in the interpretation of the constitution as it was written back then or are many things just being adapted to it or added to it somehow in hopes of being covered these days, and this even though the original intent was not intended to cover the things in which people are trying to have covered under the founding documents today ?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I picked that year since that's when the *support for gay marriage began to surge* dramatically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surge with whom?  Have you seen the results at the top (the most popular poll in USMB history)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surged with the US public. Until today its a majority position:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With supporters outpacing opposition by about 13 points. With numerous other polls putting it between 12 and 19 points. All of which you ignore. Just like you *ignore* anything that contradicts what you choose to believe. Any study, any poll, any source, any methodology, any country.
> 
> But no rational person would ignore what you do. And the courts certainly don't. Rendering your desperate, willful ignorance gloriously irrelevant to the outcome of any court case.
> 
> 4 Months until the USSC ruling, Silo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What just like they *ignored* the voters in Cali on Prop 8 ? Now who is ignoring who again ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal judiciary ruled Prop 8 violated constitutional guarantees. With the courts putting individual rights above state powers.
> 
> Exactly as they are supposed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An individuals right to what exactly ?
Click to expand...


Liberty and equal protection under the law, specifically. If you're genuinely curious, look at the specific legal questions being answered by the courts.


----------



## elektra

Yes, legal protection under the law, except if your a Child, then it is the Courts who decide and force Orphaned Children into Homosexual Lifestyles against their will.

It is more important for Homosexual's to have what they desire, the Orphaned Children have zero choice.


----------



## mikegriffith1

One, why would you want to force anyone to attend your wedding, especially if you knew they would find it offensive?  Who does that?  Put aside all blabber about "rights" and "born that way." Just as a matter of basic human decency and tolerance, why would you want to force anyone to attend your wedding against their will? Why?

Two, whatever happened to the often-repeated guarantee that "if you're not gay, gay marriage won't affect you"?  Hey?  What happened to that line?  Now we're finding out that gay rights activists are trying to use gay marriage laws to force churches and Christian businesses to host/service gay ceremonies against their will.  Gee, what about "tolerance" and "live and let live"? 

Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?


----------



## Silhouette

mikegriffith1 said:


> *..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs*, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?


 
Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.  If you discard the premise that LGBT is a cult, then your wonderings make sense.  If you embrace that LGBT is a cult that seeks to replace common mores with their own bacchanal-think, then you understand quite clearly why LGBTs are trying to force others who reject their dogma into participation.  That's what cults do, they assimilate minds..by force if necessary...in this case, using the courts to accomplish that goal..

They will force churches to provide gay weddings as soon as any ink is dry on their hope for a federal mandate of gay marriage across the 50 states...you can set your watch by it.


----------



## Syriusly

elektra said:


> Yes, legal protection under the law, except if your a Child, then it is the Courts who decide and force Orphaned Children into Homosexual Lifestyles against their will.
> 
> It is more important for Homosexual's to have what they desire, the Orphaned Children have zero choice.



Courts don't put any children in any households.

However, all children who are adopted are essentially put into homes 'against their will' i.e. adults decide for them.

But the lucky children who are adopted, end up with a home- too bad you are against that.


----------



## Skylar

elektra said:


> Yes, legal protection under the law, except if your a Child, then it is the Courts who decide and force Orphaned Children into Homosexual Lifestyles against their will.
> 
> It is more important for Homosexual's to have what they desire, the Orphaned Children have zero choice.



With the 'homosexual lifestyle' just being every day life. Having lunch. Doing laundry. Watching TV. Attending birthday parties. The occasional funeral. Watching the Superbowl. Save that you're gay while you do it.


----------



## Skylar

mikegriffith1 said:


> One, why would you want to force anyone to attend your wedding, especially if you knew they would find it offensive?  Who does that?  Put aside all blabber about "rights" and "born that way." Just as a matter of basic human decency and tolerance, why would you want to force anyone to attend your wedding against their will? Why?
> 
> Two, whatever happened to the often-repeated guarantee that "if you're not gay, gay marriage won't affect you"?  Hey?  What happened to that line?  Now we're finding out that gay rights activists are trying to use gay marriage laws to force churches and Christian businesses to host/service gay ceremonies against their will.  Gee, what about "tolerance" and "live and let live"?
> 
> Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?



Which churches? Because I think you'll find that no church has been forced to accommodate a gay wedding. As for 'Christian Business', if they're religious corporations, they're exempt from PA laws. If they're not....then they're just plain old businesses. 

And a plain old business can't discriminate against customers based on race or sex or sexual orientation. At least in many States.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs*, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.
Click to expand...


More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'. 

That's just selling cake.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs*, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.
Click to expand...

 


Skylar said:


> More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.
> 
> That's just selling cake.


 
Public accomodation laws on behaviors that must be tolerated and assisted/promoted vs 1st Amendment rights to the EXERCISE (an activity) of one's faith in day to day life..

Hmmm...should be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court gives weight in that question when it comes before them.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs*, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.
> 
> That's just selling cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public accomodation laws on behaviors that must be tolerated and assisted/promoted vs 1st Amendment rights to the EXERCISE (an activity) of one's faith in day to day life..
> 
> Hmmm...should be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court gives weight in that question when it comes before them.
Click to expand...


So religion trumps civil law? The court has already addressed that topic, and explicitly rejected it.

No law can target religion specifically. PA laws apply to everyone. You can't discriminate against a customer due to sex. Or race. Or creed. Or religion. Or sexual orientation. The motivations for the discrimination are irrelevant.

Its the act the laws prohibit. And Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs*, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.
> 
> That's just selling cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public accomodation laws on behaviors that must be tolerated and assisted/promoted vs 1st Amendment rights to the EXERCISE (an activity) of one's faith in day to day life..
> 
> Hmmm...should be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court gives weight in that question when it comes before them.
Click to expand...

Public accommodations laws are predicated on settled, accepted Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where the prohibition of businesses to deny service to a potential patron based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States_ (1964)).

Consequently it's ignorant nonsense to infer that public accommodations laws in any manner 'violate' the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (_Employment Division v. Smith_ (1990)).

Business owners with an unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans motivated by an erroneous perception of religious dogma remain at liberty to practice their religion of fear, ignorance, and hate unrestricted by state public accommodations laws. 

Last, the Supreme Court has already reviewed the Constitutionality of state and local laws incorrectly perceived by some to 'violate' religious liberty and determined them to be valid (_City of Boerne v. Flores _(1997)).


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs*, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.
> 
> That's just selling cake.
Click to expand...

Yes, selling an undressed or plain dressed cake in the display counter is one thing, but to have the cake maker dress the cake out for a specific wedding is quite another thing altogether wouldn't you agree ? This is when it gets personal for the baker, and it could involve the baker opting out due to his religious convictions concerning things in which he doesn't want to promote or participate in as according to his learning's or upbringings in life. Now what's wrong with that baker referring the customer to another baker who may not have had a problem with dressing a cake out for the occasion as was requested for ? There is nothing wrong with that I'm guessing.  Was it the intent to make the baker participate in order to teach him a lesson on how not to refuse a person's lifestyle choices in life, and was this refusal based upon the bakers religious convictions and/or faith in which he used when refused the customer ?  Why can't it also be instead about the customer respecting the bakers position on such a thing in accordance with his religious convictions in which was being stated on such a thing by the baker in the case ? Respect is always a two way street don't you think ? 

Like I said before the law's are never concrete, and there have always been wiggle room within the laws of this land as we have seen, and this is because every case or scenario can't be addressed during the lawmaking or rulings in which are handed down for all to try and follow (i.e. laws and law making are not a perfect science by no means). This is why the people have to bring their unique circumstances before the courts again and again sometimes. Why is this ? It is in order that a law might be re-visited as based upon the circumstances or findings that were maybe not considered before in a situation when the law was written or handed down, and then a judge is to review what maybe went wrong or wasn't considered before next. This review may cause him or her to make some adjustments or exceptions within a law or laws as they were written down but were not completed in total by his or her understandings of such things when a law was enacted and enforced. I mean just look at Obamacare for example or illegal immigration and such. How bad are the laws being bent in those cases now ?


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs*, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.
> 
> That's just selling cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public accomodation laws on behaviors that must be tolerated and assisted/promoted vs 1st Amendment rights to the EXERCISE (an activity) of one's faith in day to day life..
> 
> Hmmm...should be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court gives weight in that question when it comes before them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Public accommodations laws are predicated on settled, accepted Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where the prohibition of businesses to deny service to a potential patron based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States_ (1964)).
> 
> Consequently it's ignorant nonsense to infer that public accommodations laws in any manner 'violate' the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (_Employment Division v. Smith_ (1990)).
> 
> Business owners with an unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans motivated by an erroneous perception of religious dogma remain at liberty to practice their religion of fear, ignorance, and hate unrestricted by state public accommodations laws.
> 
> Last, the Supreme Court has already reviewed the Constitutionality of state and local laws incorrectly perceived by some to 'violate' religious liberty and determined them to be valid (_City of Boerne v. Flores _(1997)).
Click to expand...

Judges can be wrong in their *one size fits all concept* when making rulings and laws apply to everyone also, and as soon as people realize this, then maybe the system can be tweaked to a better level of acceptance and understanding by all that participate in society once more, and this when cases go before the courts for further review. How do you take some cases and apply that to all in the future ? Anything can be revisited and re-reviewed for better results always.


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> Judges can be wrong in their *one size fits all concept* when making rulings and laws apply to everyone also, and as soon as people realize this, then maybe the system can be tweaked to a better level of acceptance and understanding by all that participate in society once more, and this when cases go before the courts for further review. How do you take some cases and apply that to all in the future ? Anything can be revisited and re-reviewed for better results always.


 
If you look at the Gay vs the Separate Sovereign States of America case coming up this next month or so, there really is also a base mechanical legal consideration that has to be going through the Justices's minds. 

If they reiterate Windsor, reminding everyone how they said 56 times in that Decision that gay marriage was and is up to the separate states, then there is no harm at all done to any type of law; no revisions to the Constitution inserting any conceivable lifestyle (in the name of equality, remember) "as protected federally", and leaving behaviors to be regulated locally, by discreet communities as they always have been.

However, the quagmire the Court would create in granting special federal protection for any conceivable lifestyle that wants legal access to kids (through the loophole of marriage perks) and money from states in tax breaks ...could have no limits.  Into the future my mind reels at the numbers that will follow in the "well you let people who do gay sex have special protections..even while that was repugnant to the majority...what makes gay sex so special when [fill in the blank behavior here of any type or form] is just as harmless?  It wouldn't just end at marriage either.  All manner of [fill in the blank] lifestyles would want special access to things they are currently forbidden from accessing.  And once the standard of "behaviors repugnant to the majority are protected" has been set, how can the Court _fairly_ tease out one from another without appearing biased against them?

I see this going back to the states, for many reasons, and I haven't even touched in this post on how the 1st Amendment will be ramrodded the second the ink is dry on any extremely foolish myopic "empathy Decision" granting federal protections for gays in marriage.  Churches will be hauled into court as their individual parishoners already are by this _very powerful_ cult.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs*, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.
> 
> That's just selling cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public accomodation laws on behaviors that must be tolerated and assisted/promoted vs 1st Amendment rights to the EXERCISE (an activity) of one's faith in day to day life..
> 
> Hmmm...should be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court gives weight in that question when it comes before them.
Click to expand...




Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judges can be wrong in their *one size fits all concept* when making rulings and laws apply to everyone also, and as soon as people realize this, then maybe the system can be tweaked to a better level of acceptance and understanding by all that participate in society once more, and this when cases go before the courts for further review. How do you take some cases and apply that to all in the future ? Anything can be revisited and re-reviewed for better results always.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at the Gay vs the Separate Sovereign States of America case coming up this next month or so, there really is also a base mechanical legal consideration that has to be going through the Justices's minds.
> 
> If they reiterate Windsor, reminding everyone how they.
Click to expand...


If the courts refer to Windsor, they will be referring to a case where they specifically stated that State laws must meet constitutional requirements.

And of course that is exactly one of the questions that is before the Court.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't why I got married.  At least not the government part of it.  I think government in marriage is irrelevant.
> 
> What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper.  I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.
> 
> 
> 
> Plan B: If an orchestrated flame war doesn't work, begin discussing personal details of poster's lives; another thing the moderators forbid and that almost always succeeds in getting a thread shut down.
> 
> Y'all really don't like the poll results at the top of the page, do you?
Click to expand...


"Y'all" are projection-flailing yet again, Silly.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reporting me for what, you horse's ass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, like Paint said, "the right to bash gays" which he was arguing to defend here.  And that seems odd since a person rabidly defending gays like Paint always does wouldn't seem eager to encourage people's "right to bash gays".
> 
> You are playing a role.  I've called you out on it before.  Paint spilled the beans.  Your gig is up, the game is out in the open.  Run along before you get banned.
Click to expand...


Does anyone but you not realize yet that almost everyone here is basically pointing and laughing at you?  You have turned into the nut running around screaming, "THE END IS NEAR!" with a pair of Depends on his head.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Staidhup, the problem for you is, of course, mr. hypocrite, the far right social con *Christians are getting what they deserve*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...It will be about one week after if SCOTUS removes states' rights (Windsor 2013) to regulate which lifestyles can be married that lawsuits will be filed against congregations of individual christians (churches) to force them to accomodate gay marriage...just like what was done to christian bakers and florists etc.
> 
> One week +/-
Click to expand...


No matter how many times you squeak this bullshit, it is *still bullshit*, Silly!


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> St Mike, you still trying to make the bad old poll results at the top go away by role-playing the thread derailer/gay basher?  If I was a moderator you'd have been packin' up ages ago..



Of course you would, Silly.

Let me guess: growing up, your two favorite words were, *"I'M TELLING!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support marriage equality for homosexuals- and I am opposed to any efforts to make churches do anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support parenting-equality for children? ie: do you believe every child should have their state encourage both a father and a mother in their home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that 'parenting-equality' is a term you just made up, right?
Click to expand...


He makes a lot of things up. It's all he has.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs*, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.
> 
> That's just selling cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public accomodation laws on behaviors that must be tolerated and assisted/promoted vs 1st Amendment rights to the EXERCISE (an activity) of one's faith in day to day life..
> 
> Hmmm...should be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court gives weight in that question when it comes before them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Public accommodations laws are predicated on settled, accepted Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where the prohibition of businesses to deny service to a potential patron based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States_ (1964)).
> 
> Consequently it's ignorant nonsense to infer that public accommodations laws in any manner 'violate' the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (_Employment Division v. Smith_ (1990)).
> 
> Business owners with an unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans motivated by an erroneous perception of religious dogma remain at liberty to practice their religion of fear, ignorance, and hate unrestricted by state public accommodations laws.
> 
> Last, the Supreme Court has already reviewed the Constitutionality of state and local laws incorrectly perceived by some to 'violate' religious liberty and determined them to be valid (_City of Boerne v. Flores _(1997)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judges can be wrong in their *one size fits all concept* when making rulings and laws apply to everyone also, and as soon as people realize this, then maybe the system can be tweaked to a better level of acceptance and understanding by all that participate in society once more, and this when cases go before the courts for further review. How do you take some cases and apply that to all in the future ? Anything can be revisited and re-reviewed for better results always.
Click to expand...


And by 'tweaking', you mean that Christians can ignore any law they don't like.

Yeah, I've got a better idea.  Let's treat Christians just like anyone else.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs*, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.
> 
> That's just selling cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public accomodation laws on behaviors that must be tolerated and assisted/promoted vs 1st Amendment rights to the EXERCISE (an activity) of one's faith in day to day life..
> 
> Hmmm...should be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court gives weight in that question when it comes before them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Public accommodations laws are predicated on settled, accepted Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where the prohibition of businesses to deny service to a potential patron based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States_ (1964)).
> 
> Consequently it's ignorant nonsense to infer that public accommodations laws in any manner 'violate' the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (_Employment Division v. Smith_ (1990)).
> 
> Business owners with an unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans motivated by an erroneous perception of religious dogma remain at liberty to practice their religion of fear, ignorance, and hate unrestricted by state public accommodations laws.
> 
> Last, the Supreme Court has already reviewed the Constitutionality of state and local laws incorrectly perceived by some to 'violate' religious liberty and determined them to be valid (_City of Boerne v. Flores _(1997)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judges can be wrong in their *one size fits all concept* when making rulings and laws apply to everyone also, and as soon as people realize this, then maybe the system can be tweaked to a better level of acceptance and understanding by all that participate in society once more, and this when cases go before the courts for further review. How do you take some cases and apply that to all in the future ? Anything can be revisited and re-reviewed for better results always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'tweaking', you mean that Christians can ignore any law they don't like.
> 
> Yeah, I've got a better idea.  Let's treat Christians just like anyone else.
Click to expand...


So only gays get special rights? I see.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Yes, selling an undressed or plain dressed cake in the display counter is one thing, but to have the cake maker dress the cake out for a specific wedding is quite another thing altogether wouldn't you agree ?




Given that the bakers that were recently fined $150,000 refused to do either, what's your point?


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> More accurately, public accommodation laws require that those doing business treat their customers fairly and equally. So if you make cake, and a gay person wants to buy a cake, you sell them a cake. That's not 'forcing you to participate in their cult'.
> 
> That's just selling cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public accomodation laws on behaviors that must be tolerated and assisted/promoted vs 1st Amendment rights to the EXERCISE (an activity) of one's faith in day to day life..
> 
> Hmmm...should be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court gives weight in that question when it comes before them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Public accommodations laws are predicated on settled, accepted Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where the prohibition of businesses to deny service to a potential patron based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States_ (1964)).
> 
> Consequently it's ignorant nonsense to infer that public accommodations laws in any manner 'violate' the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (_Employment Division v. Smith_ (1990)).
> 
> Business owners with an unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans motivated by an erroneous perception of religious dogma remain at liberty to practice their religion of fear, ignorance, and hate unrestricted by state public accommodations laws.
> 
> Last, the Supreme Court has already reviewed the Constitutionality of state and local laws incorrectly perceived by some to 'violate' religious liberty and determined them to be valid (_City of Boerne v. Flores _(1997)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judges can be wrong in their *one size fits all concept* when making rulings and laws apply to everyone also, and as soon as people realize this, then maybe the system can be tweaked to a better level of acceptance and understanding by all that participate in society once more, and this when cases go before the courts for further review. How do you take some cases and apply that to all in the future ? Anything can be revisited and re-reviewed for better results always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'tweaking', you mean that Christians can ignore any law they don't like.
> 
> Yeah, I've got a better idea.  Let's treat Christians just like anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So only gays get special rights? I see.
Click to expand...


Having their marriages recognized isn't a 'special right'. Its an equal one.


----------



## Silhouette

Jarlaxle said:


> No matter how many times you squeak this bullshit, it is *still bullshit*, Silly!


 
Can you please provide a link to where the US Supreme Court already decided the homosexuals vs the States case of 2015?  I wasn't aware that had been heard and Decided yet..

Can you assure the readers here how if individual christians are being successfully sued by the aggressive LGBT cult/lobby, how collections of individual christians (churches) will be immune to those same lawsuits?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Squeak, squeak, squeak, Silly...just more trolling.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Public accomodation laws on behaviors that must be tolerated and assisted/promoted vs 1st Amendment rights to the EXERCISE (an activity) of one's faith in day to day life..
> 
> Hmmm...should be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court gives weight in that question when it comes before them.
> 
> 
> 
> Public accommodations laws are predicated on settled, accepted Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where the prohibition of businesses to deny service to a potential patron based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States_ (1964)).
> 
> Consequently it's ignorant nonsense to infer that public accommodations laws in any manner 'violate' the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (_Employment Division v. Smith_ (1990)).
> 
> Business owners with an unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans motivated by an erroneous perception of religious dogma remain at liberty to practice their religion of fear, ignorance, and hate unrestricted by state public accommodations laws.
> 
> Last, the Supreme Court has already reviewed the Constitutionality of state and local laws incorrectly perceived by some to 'violate' religious liberty and determined them to be valid (_City of Boerne v. Flores _(1997)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judges can be wrong in their *one size fits all concept* when making rulings and laws apply to everyone also, and as soon as people realize this, then maybe the system can be tweaked to a better level of acceptance and understanding by all that participate in society once more, and this when cases go before the courts for further review. How do you take some cases and apply that to all in the future ? Anything can be revisited and re-reviewed for better results always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'tweaking', you mean that Christians can ignore any law they don't like.
> 
> Yeah, I've got a better idea.  Let's treat Christians just like anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So only gays get special rights? I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having their marriages recognized isn't a 'special right'. Its an equal one.
Click to expand...

Yes it is.  Marriage laws were already equal, allowing any adult to marry any unrelated adult of the opposite sex. It was applied regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.  But you people wanted special rights, insisting that the right to marry means the right to marry whoever you want, same sex, sister, aunt, goat, whatever. Equality was not enough for you, you wanted special rights just for your little faggot group.


----------



## beagle9

Jarlaxle said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> St Mike, you still trying to make the bad old poll results at the top go away by role-playing the thread derailer/gay basher?  If I was a moderator you'd have been packin' up ages ago..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you would, Silly.
> 
> Let me guess: growing up, your two favorite words were, *"I'M TELLING!!!!!!!!!*
Click to expand...

Do you have something of intelligence to say in response to the topic or not ? So far you are just flaming another poster, and I think that is against the rules isn't it ?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Are you a sock for Silly or is she a sock for you?


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you squeak this bullshit, it is *still bullshit*, Silly!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please provide a link to where the US Supreme Court already decided the homosexuals vs the States case of 2015?  I wasn't aware that had been heard and Decided yet..
> 
> Can you assure the readers here how if individual christians are being successfully sued by the aggressive LGBT cult/lobby, how collections of individual christians (churches) will be immune to those same lawsuits?
Click to expand...

Yes, so the question is how does one separate themselves from their religion and faith, and become enablers of things in which the Bible speaks against ? I mean why would a Christian even waist all that time if they can't use it in their everyday lives as it should be used by them ? This nation has acknowledged the Christian religion since it's founding, but now it is under assault from many directions anymore. Is it that the nation has become so evil in it's ways, that Christianity has to be shrunken down to a minority in which would make it toothless and useless to it's faithful followers while out and about in society now ?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you squeak this bullshit, it is *still bullshit*, Silly!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please provide a link to where the US Supreme Court already decided the homosexuals vs the States case of 2015?  I wasn't aware that had been heard and Decided yet..
> 
> Can you assure the readers here how if individual christians are being successfully sued by the aggressive LGBT cult/lobby, how collections of individual christians (churches) will be immune to those same lawsuits?
Click to expand...


As has been explained to you at least a dozen times, and ignore by you a dozen more.... Christians aren't churches. You hopelessly unable to recognize any such distinctions. 

The law does.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you squeak this bullshit, it is *still bullshit*, Silly!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please provide a link to where the US Supreme Court already decided the homosexuals vs the States case of 2015?  I wasn't aware that had been heard and Decided yet..
> 
> Can you assure the readers here how if individual christians are being successfully sued by the aggressive LGBT cult/lobby, how collections of individual christians (churches) will be immune to those same lawsuits?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, so the question is how does one separate themselves from their religion and faith, and become enablers of things in which the Bible speaks against ?
Click to expand...


Nope. PA laws explicitly exempt religious corporations. If you're not a religious corporation, you're not exempt.

The question is....why do you keep ignoring this crystal clear distinction? Surely you realize that the law doesn't change just because you ignore it.

Oh, and the Bible says nothing about selling wedding cake.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, selling an undressed or plain dressed cake in the display counter is one thing, but to have the cake maker dress the cake out for a specific wedding is quite another thing altogether wouldn't you agree ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that the bakers that were recently fined $150,000 refused to do either, what's your point?
Click to expand...


Technically speaking, no baker was fined $150,000.  That figure is used in reference to the Sweetcakes by Melissa case.  However the hearing to set the fine is scheduled for March 10th.  Kind of hard to have been fined when the hearing hasn't taken place yet.




>>>>


----------



## Skylar

WorldWatcher said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, selling an undressed or plain dressed cake in the display counter is one thing, but to have the cake maker dress the cake out for a specific wedding is quite another thing altogether wouldn't you agree ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that the bakers that were recently fined $150,000 refused to do either, what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically speaking, no baker was fined $150,000.  That figure is used in reference to the Sweetcakes by Melissa case.  However the hearing to set the fine is scheduled for March 10th.  Kind of hard to have been fined when the hearing hasn't taken place yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Then let me restate it. Given that the bakers that were recently found culpable for anti-gay discrimination and could be fined as much as $150,000 refused to do either, what's your point?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Skylar said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, selling an undressed or plain dressed cake in the display counter is one thing, but to have the cake maker dress the cake out for a specific wedding is quite another thing altogether wouldn't you agree ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that the bakers that were recently fined $150,000 refused to do either, what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically speaking, no baker was fined $150,000.  That figure is used in reference to the Sweetcakes by Melissa case.  However the hearing to set the fine is scheduled for March 10th.  Kind of hard to have been fined when the hearing hasn't taken place yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then let me restate it. Given that the bakers that were recently found culpable for anti-gay discrimination and could be fined as much as $150,000 refused to do either, what's your point?
Click to expand...


Just pointing out that the assumption that Aaron and Melissa Klein have been fined $150,000 in that case is wrong.

To date their has been no fine and the actual fine could be much less.  Some news outlets have reported scare headlines indicating that that amount is a done deal - it isn't.

Considering that it is a first offense - it appears - then the likely fine would be much less.


Paragraph (1) - in my reading - would be applicable because Para (2) deals with disability and housing.  Under Para (1) the fine is $1,000.  Since Aaron and Melissa Klein were charged as individuals (one for performing the discrimination and [IIRC] one for aiding and abetting the discrimination) then the maximum fine they would face together is $2,000.  (ORS 659A.855 - Civil penalty for certain complaints filed by commissioner - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

Now in addition to the fine, the owners could be required to pay actual damages to the couple refused, the key word being "actual" meaning that the couple would have to show some form of monetary loss to qualify for actual damages.  (ORS 659A.850 - Hearing - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

(I could be wrong though, anyone familiar with the Oregon laws on the matter that can show me where a 1st offense Public Accommodation law offender can be fined $75,000 (each) - feel free to post the law.    )


>>>>


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Public accommodations laws are predicated on settled, accepted Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where the prohibition of businesses to deny service to a potential patron based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States_ (1964)).
> 
> Consequently it's ignorant nonsense to infer that public accommodations laws in any manner 'violate' the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (_Employment Division v. Smith_ (1990)).
> 
> Business owners with an unwarranted hostility toward gay Americans motivated by an erroneous perception of religious dogma remain at liberty to practice their religion of fear, ignorance, and hate unrestricted by state public accommodations laws.
> 
> Last, the Supreme Court has already reviewed the Constitutionality of state and local laws incorrectly perceived by some to 'violate' religious liberty and determined them to be valid (_City of Boerne v. Flores _(1997)).
> 
> 
> 
> Judges can be wrong in their *one size fits all concept* when making rulings and laws apply to everyone also, and as soon as people realize this, then maybe the system can be tweaked to a better level of acceptance and understanding by all that participate in society once more, and this when cases go before the courts for further review. How do you take some cases and apply that to all in the future ? Anything can be revisited and re-reviewed for better results always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'tweaking', you mean that Christians can ignore any law they don't like.
> 
> Yeah, I've got a better idea.  Let's treat Christians just like anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So only gays get special rights? I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having their marriages recognized isn't a 'special right'. Its an equal one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is.  Marriage laws were already equal, allowing any adult to marry any unrelated adult of the opposite sex. It was applied regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.  But you people wanted special rights, insisting that the right to marry means the right to marry whoever you want, same sex, sister, aunt, goat, whatever. Equality was not enough for you, you wanted special rights just for your little faggot group.
Click to expand...


little f*ggot group.....little n*gger group.....little c*nt group....little k*ke group.....you think all of those groups just want special rights when they want to be treated equally


----------



## Thoughts N Views

Let me state from the start that I do not believe that the government can discriminate in these matters. According to Article IV section 2 of the Constitution I believe that Gays have the same right to be married under the law as do straights.

There is, however, separation of Church and State in this country. Liberals only seem to like this when it favor their anti religion (read: Christianity) views. In other words they do not want the church setting state policy. They are correct in this. No church should set government policy.

The other side of separation of church and state (the side Liberals do not like) is that the state cannot set church policy either. So long as church policy is not endangering anyone's life or safety the government cannot interfere.

You are free to worship or not worship as you wish in the United States. If you do not like a particular church's views on Gay marriage (or any other topic) you are free to leave that church and join another. No one is forced to belong to a church.

Government policy is something else We are all citizens of this country and therefore must all enjoy the same rights and privileges as our fellow citizens, so long as we are not endangering anyone's life or safety.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you squeak this bullshit, it is *still bullshit*, Silly!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please provide a link to where the US Supreme Court already decided the homosexuals vs the States case of 2015?  I wasn't aware that had been heard and Decided yet..
> 
> Can you assure the readers here how if individual christians are being successfully sued by the aggressive LGBT cult/lobby, how collections of individual christians (churches) will be immune to those same lawsuits?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, so the question is how does one separate themselves from their religion and faith, and become enablers of things in which the Bible speaks against ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. PA laws explicitly exempt religious corporations. If you're not a religious corporation, you're not exempt.
> 
> The question is....why do you keep ignoring this crystal clear distinction? Surely you realize that the law doesn't change just because you ignore it.
> 
> Oh, and the Bible says nothing about selling wedding cake.
Click to expand...

No one is ignoring anything, but rather just challenging the rational and validity behind the laws at hand. Do you think that man isn't or can't be fallible in life? Judges and lawmakers are men and women, and yes they can make huge mistakes when making rulings, interpretations, or laws.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you squeak this bullshit, it is *still bullshit*, Silly!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please provide a link to where the US Supreme Court already decided the homosexuals vs the States case of 2015?  I wasn't aware that had been heard and Decided yet..
> 
> Can you assure the readers here how if individual christians are being successfully sued by the aggressive LGBT cult/lobby, how collections of individual christians (churches) will be immune to those same lawsuits?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, so the question is how does one separate themselves from their religion and faith, and become enablers of things in which the Bible speaks against ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. PA laws explicitly exempt religious corporations. If you're not a religious corporation, you're not exempt.
> 
> The question is....why do you keep ignoring this crystal clear distinction? Surely you realize that the law doesn't change just because you ignore it.
> 
> Oh, and the Bible says nothing about selling wedding cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is ignoring anything, but rather just challenging the rational and validity behind the laws at hand. Do you think that man isn't or can't be falable in life? Judges and lawmakers are men and women, and yes they can make huge mistakes when making rulings, interpretations, or laws.
Click to expand...


I think that the law should apply the same way to everyone. And that Christians should be treated with the same respect and consideration that everyone else receives under these laws.

If you don't like PA laws, change them.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you squeak this bullshit, it is *still bullshit*, Silly!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please provide a link to where the US Supreme Court already decided the homosexuals vs the States case of 2015?  I wasn't aware that had been heard and Decided yet..
> 
> Can you assure the readers here how if individual christians are being successfully sued by the aggressive LGBT cult/lobby, how collections of individual christians (churches) will be immune to those same lawsuits?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, so the question is how does one separate themselves from their religion and faith, and become enablers of things in which the Bible speaks against ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. PA laws explicitly exempt religious corporations. If you're not a religious corporation, you're not exempt.
> 
> The question is....why do you keep ignoring this crystal clear distinction? Surely you realize that the law doesn't change just because you ignore it.
> 
> Oh, and the Bible says nothing about selling wedding cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is ignoring anything, but rather just challenging the rational and validity behind the laws at hand. Do you think that man isn't or can't be falable in life? Judges and lawmakers are men and women, and yes they can make huge mistakes when making rulings, interpretations, or laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that the law should apply the same way to everyone. And that Christians should be treated with the same respect and consideration that everyone else receives under these laws.
> 
> If you don't like PA laws, change them.
Click to expand...

They may need to be changed some, and that might be what the court will recognize if the right lawyers with their presentations and interpretations being presented can convince them of. They need another way of looking at things finally in the end. The cake baker should have been able to opt out of the situation as based upon his religion and faith. The Church exist within the person as it is carried within that person's heart and soul, and it really amazes me how the courts can't see it that away when they should see it that way according to the constitution. Like I said how does one practice ones faith and religion in his or her life, if the state or feds say otherwise about it ? So as one comes out of the shadows, then the other has to go in to the shadows I guess.

Once the Christians were free and offended no one, but now their religion and faith is offensive in America ? Now the President is on the bandwagon against the Christians in America as well ? How did this happen, because this is absolutely not the America that our families and forefathers grew up in, so what is it then ? Is it a police state for some that are considered as the others now,  where as they are no longer granted their freedoms as it were, but instead they are chastised and harassed under the current conditions in which they are living under ? The Bible tells of these things in it's writings that are over hundreds and hundreds of years old, but it is being scoffed at by an evil generation now ? WOW!


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> They may need to be changed some, and that might be what the court will recognize if the right lawyers with their presentations and interpretations being presented can convince them of.



The courts have already considered the idea of laws being subject to religious beliefs, and rejected the idea soundly. And most of the justices who ruled against your interpretation of religious freedom are still on the bench.



> They need another way of looking at things finally in the end. The cake baker should have been able to opt out of the situation as based upon his religion and faith.



No, he shouldn't. Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else. If the baker had merely refused to put gay marriage related writing on the cake, I'd agree with you. But the baker refused to sell the cake at all. And it was explicitly because the customers were gay.

That's a clear violation of the PA laws of the state.



> The Church exist within the person as it is carried within that person's heart and soul, and it really amazes me how the courts can't see it that away when they should see it that way according to the constitution.



Simple: because if the applicability of law were predicated on a person's 'heart and soul', then only those laws that they agreed with would apply to them. Which is not our system of law, nor ever has been.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please provide a link to where the US Supreme Court already decided the homosexuals vs the States case of 2015?  I wasn't aware that had been heard and Decided yet..
> 
> Can you assure the readers here how if individual christians are being successfully sued by the aggressive LGBT cult/lobby, how collections of individual christians (churches) will be immune to those same lawsuits?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, so the question is how does one separate themselves from their religion and faith, and become enablers of things in which the Bible speaks against ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. PA laws explicitly exempt religious corporations. If you're not a religious corporation, you're not exempt.
> 
> The question is....why do you keep ignoring this crystal clear distinction? Surely you realize that the law doesn't change just because you ignore it.
> 
> Oh, and the Bible says nothing about selling wedding cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is ignoring anything, but rather just challenging the rational and validity behind the laws at hand. Do you think that man isn't or can't be falable in life? Judges and lawmakers are men and women, and yes they can make huge mistakes when making rulings, interpretations, or laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that the law should apply the same way to everyone. And that Christians should be treated with the same respect and consideration that everyone else receives under these laws.
> 
> If you don't like PA laws, change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once the Christians were free and offended no one, but now their religion and faith is offensive in America ? Now the President is on the bandwagon against the Christians in America as well ? !
Click to expand...


Really- cry me a river.

Christians in America have offended plenty. I have nothing against Christianity or Christians- but I do have something against ignorance and revisionist history.

Christians in early America were quite discriminatory- most communities required church attendence, and payment of a church tax of sorts- enforced by secular authorities. 

And heaven forbid you were the 'wrong' kind of Christian- look at the history of the early colonies and it was rife with stories of people being driven out of the colonies for not being the right kind of Protestant- let alone be a Catholic.

And if you were Jewish? Christians in early America had quite a few laws against Judaism. 

Christianity is still the dominant religion in the United States and is still protected- like all religions- by the Constitution. 

And no- President Obama is not against 'Christians' either- why would he be against himself, his wife and his daughter?


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Really- cry me a river.
> 
> Christians in America have offended plenty. I have nothing against Christianity or Christians- but I do have something against ignorance and revisionist history.
> 
> Christians in early America were quite discriminatory- most communities required church attendence, and payment of a church tax of sorts- enforced by secular authorities.


 
And your religion is how much better than Christianity again?  The cult of LGBT and the old punitive ways of puritan christans  are two wrongs that don't make a right.  I suggest if you want to sue churches (congregations merely of individual christians) into obedience, first make your religion official.  At least have the decency to do that...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil is mentally degenerating, per the above.

SCOTUS ruling Alabama is clearing the way for complete national marriage equality in June.

Sil can move to Albania.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil is mentally degenerating, per the above.
> 
> SCOTUS ruling Alabama is clearing the way for complete national marriage equality in June.
> 
> Sil can move to Albania.


I'm imagining that individual christians are being forced to accomodate gay weddings against their will?  Did I imagine that christian bakers, florists, photographers and caterers are being sued by gays?

Did I imagine that 82% of the general public strongly disagrees with that practice? (poll above)


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really- cry me a river.
> 
> Christians in America have offended plenty. I have nothing against Christianity or Christians- but I do have something against ignorance and revisionist history.
> 
> Christians in early America were quite discriminatory- most communities required church attendence, and payment of a church tax of sorts- enforced by secular authorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your religion is how much better than Christianity again?  The cult of LGBT and the old punitive ways of puritan christans  are two wrongs that don't make a right.  I suggest if you want to sue churches (congregations merely of individual christians) into obedience, first make your religion official.  At least have the decency to do that...
Click to expand...


Serious question, Silly: do you have all of your BS saved in Word documents?  That would seem to save time when you regurgitate the same tired old BS for the thirtieth time in the same thread.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really- cry me a river.
> 
> Christians in America have offended plenty. I have nothing against Christianity or Christians- but I do have something against ignorance and revisionist history.
> 
> Christians in early America were quite discriminatory- most communities required church attendence, and payment of a church tax of sorts- enforced by secular authorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your religion is how much better than Christianity again?  The cult of LGBT.
Click to expand...


God you are stupid.

_Christians in America have offended plenty. I have nothing against Christianity or Christians- but I do have something against ignorance and revisionist history._

I have no religion- I don't believe in any god or any religion- but I do believe in accuracy.

Early Christian communities, other than the one founded by Penn, were rife with discrimination against other Christians and Jews. 

That was in response to the post saying American Christians had 'offended no one'- American Christians have done great things in America- but to claim that they have 'offended no one' is just ignorant nonsense.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil is mentally degenerating, per the above.
> 
> SCOTUS ruling Alabama is clearing the way for complete national marriage equality in June.
> 
> Sil can move to Albania.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I imagine that 82% of the general public strongly disagrees with that practice? (poll above)
Click to expand...


Yes- you do imagine that.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> I have no religion- I don't believe in any god or any religion-


 
Accurately, sure you do.  Your dogma is "avoiding the opposite gender completely and utterly".  It is a narcissistic religion where only your own gender (self) can be seen as desireable.  "Other than self" (as represented by males) is a non-issue for you.

Your God is Self-Indulgence.  Your Messiah was Harvey Milk.  Your religious festivals are deviant sex parades in public (in front of kids "in pride").  You evangelize to children in the form of "gay education" in sex ed in schools...how to do "fisting".....parties and events that invite "bi-curious youth" to attend.  You punish heretics like Anne Heche; making her name synonymous with "traitor" in your colorful vernacular.

You are quite religious Syriusly.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no religion- I don't believe in any god or any religion-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Accurately, sure you do..
Click to expand...


No- as usual you are just delusional.

And of course a liar.


----------



## Skylar

Jarlaxle said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really- cry me a river.
> 
> Christians in America have offended plenty. I have nothing against Christianity or Christians- but I do have something against ignorance and revisionist history.
> 
> Christians in early America were quite discriminatory- most communities required church attendence, and payment of a church tax of sorts- enforced by secular authorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your religion is how much better than Christianity again?  The cult of LGBT and the old punitive ways of puritan christans  are two wrongs that don't make a right.  I suggest if you want to sue churches (congregations merely of individual christians) into obedience, first make your religion official.  At least have the decency to do that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Serious question, Silly: do you have all of your BS saved in Word documents?  That would seem to save time when you regurgitate the same tired old BS for the thirtieth time in the same thread.
Click to expand...


"Silly". Why didn't I think of that one?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no religion- I don't believe in any god or any religion-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Accurately, sure you do.  Your dogma is "avoiding the opposite gender completely and utterly".  It is a narcissistic religion where only your own gender (self) can be seen as desireable.  "Other than self" (as represented by males) is a non-issue for you.
Click to expand...


You realize that Sy is married to a woman, right? That you're completely talking out of your ass?

If not, consider yourself informed.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no religion- I don't believe in any god or any religion-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Accurately, sure you do.  Your dogma is "avoiding the opposite gender completely and utterly".  It is a narcissistic religion where only your own gender (self) can be seen as desireable.  "Other than self" (as represented by males) is a non-issue for you.
> 
> Your God is Self-Indulgence.  Your Messiah was Harvey Milk.  Your religious festivals are deviant sex parades in public (in front of kids "in pride").  You evangelize to children in the form of "gay education" in sex ed in schools...how to do "fisting".....parties and events that invite "bi-curious youth" to attend.  You punish heretics like Anne Heche; making her name synonymous with "traitor" in your colorful vernacular.
> 
> You are quite religious Syriusly.
Click to expand...


Does it HURT to be this stupid?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, so the question is how does one separate themselves from their religion and faith, and become enablers of things in which the Bible speaks against ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. PA laws explicitly exempt religious corporations. If you're not a religious corporation, you're not exempt.
> 
> The question is....why do you keep ignoring this crystal clear distinction? Surely you realize that the law doesn't change just because you ignore it.
> 
> Oh, and the Bible says nothing about selling wedding cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is ignoring anything, but rather just challenging the rational and validity behind the laws at hand. Do you think that man isn't or can't be falable in life? Judges and lawmakers are men and women, and yes they can make huge mistakes when making rulings, interpretations, or laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that the law should apply the same way to everyone. And that Christians should be treated with the same respect and consideration that everyone else receives under these laws.
> 
> If you don't like PA laws, change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once the Christians were free and offended no one, but now their religion and faith is offensive in America ? Now the President is on the bandwagon against the Christians in America as well ? !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really- cry me a river.
> 
> Christians in America have offended plenty. I have nothing against Christianity or Christians- but I do have something against ignorance and revisionist history.
> 
> Christians in early America were quite discriminatory- most communities required church attendence, and payment of a church tax of sorts- enforced by secular authorities.
> 
> And heaven forbid you were the 'wrong' kind of Christian- look at the history of the early colonies and it was rife with stories of people being driven out of the colonies for not being the right kind of Protestant- let alone be a Catholic.
> 
> And if you were Jewish? Christians in early America had quite a few laws against Judaism.
> 
> Christianity is still the dominant religion in the United States and is still protected- like all religions- by the Constitution.
> 
> And no- President Obama is not against 'Christians' either- why would he be against himself, his wife and his daughter?
Click to expand...


Obama a Christian ? LOL... I see you have drank the coolaid also. This tells me that you might believe or go along with just about anything these days.

As is with any thing in this nation over time, it has *progressed* from the more crude forms of man's many mistakes being made through out history, to a more peaceful and far more knowledgeable understanding of how things should be, and how they should have been when they were wrong through out history during certain time periods. They (man and woman) should work in life much harder and more better always when applying the teachings or wisdom in which they have learned from their mistakes over time, and also from the word (the Bible), in which told them of their mistakes prior to, but they refused instruction while going about it on their own, therefore their folly was then known of them, and the mistakes were then made. Just like we have had for so long here in America, men and women should keep their faith active no matter what, and they should be truthful always in their faith and about their faith.

Man has got to get over his miss-understandings, and he is to be careful with his worldly knowledge about the things in which he doesn't understand, and in which he has struggled with in his life. Man needs to get his act together in so that he can help others along with himself to reach a far more better understanding of life in general on these things. He should do this all while keeping the faith while in his present world just as it should be.

Many men have hopefully realized that they need spiritual guidance and help in order to see for themselves their folly in life, and this would be in order to help them through to a more enlightened plain, where as they could become the men in which they needed to become finally or in the first place, and it is to help others as they are then charged to do once they are schooled in such things that enlighten them along with many countless others on the _*Truth*. _

It's just like the Old testament in which had led into the New testament (progressed), and how Jesus had come to place man back into favor after he had fallen off the wagon yet again and again and again. See how that works ? However there are individuals and groups who refuse the knowledge of the truth, but they do this as they work for the evil one who has duped them over and over again through out time in their lives.

You would think that people would learn someday finally.

You all keep trying to go back to the past in order to cancel out the future with it (or) you are trying to justify something that is *strange now *because of what you can dig up in the past, but people aren't fooled by this game or strategy being used. I mean it is so transparent, and many are finally catching on to the game. Obama is trying to use this same game strategy just as well, and it is really an hilarious yet sad thing to watch because he is so bad at it.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. PA laws explicitly exempt religious corporations. If you're not a religious corporation, you're not exempt.
> 
> The question is....why do you keep ignoring this crystal clear distinction? Surely you realize that the law doesn't change just because you ignore it.
> 
> Oh, and the Bible says nothing about selling wedding cake.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is ignoring anything, but rather just challenging the rational and validity behind the laws at hand. Do you think that man isn't or can't be falable in life? Judges and lawmakers are men and women, and yes they can make huge mistakes when making rulings, interpretations, or laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that the law should apply the same way to everyone. And that Christians should be treated with the same respect and consideration that everyone else receives under these laws.
> 
> If you don't like PA laws, change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once the Christians were free and offended no one, but now their religion and faith is offensive in America ? Now the President is on the bandwagon against the Christians in America as well ? !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really- cry me a river.
> 
> Christians in America have offended plenty. I have nothing against Christianity or Christians- but I do have something against ignorance and revisionist history.
> 
> Christians in early America were quite discriminatory- most communities required church attendence, and payment of a church tax of sorts- enforced by secular authorities.
> 
> And heaven forbid you were the 'wrong' kind of Christian- look at the history of the early colonies and it was rife with stories of people being driven out of the colonies for not being the right kind of Protestant- let alone be a Catholic.
> 
> And if you were Jewish? Christians in early America had quite a few laws against Judaism.
> 
> Christianity is still the dominant religion in the United States and is still protected- like all religions- by the Constitution.
> 
> And no- President Obama is not against 'Christians' either- why would he be against himself, his wife and his daughter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama a Christian ? LOL... I see you have drank the coolaid also. This tells me that you might believe or go along with just about anything these days.it.
Click to expand...


From all of the evidence we have- I have much, much more evidence that Barack Obama Jr. is a Christian than I have that you are.

What evidence do I have that you are a Christian?

Nothing but your unsubstantiated, and anonymous declaration that you are. Do you go to church? Who knows. Were you ever baptized? No one here will ever know. Are your children baptized? We don't even know if you have children. 

The world is full of 'Christians' who are all too ready to tell me who 'real' Christians are- and some of them would tell me that you aren't a real Christian.

Why? I don't know- there is always someone ready to declare that someone else is not a 'true Christian'.

But here is what I know about Barack Obama- he has publicly- and not anonymously declared his faith in Jesus multiple times. We know he has attended church- we know he is married to a Christian woman, and that his children are baptized. 

If you can come up with a better measurement of who a Christian is- other than their own personal declaration, with examples of what would normally be associated with Christian behavior- such as going to church, getting baptized and having your children baptized- feel free to enlighten me.

Because so far from what I have seen- the only one who seems to have 'drunk the koolaid' here is you.


----------



## Silhouette

Would you require muslims to perform gay weddings?  I keep looking for a muslim baker, florist or photographer getting sued by gays but for some odd reason I cannot find them anywhere. 

Links anyone?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *..Just as a matter of basic human decency and respect for others' beliefs*, why don't gays just use the many liberal churches and secular businesses that would be glad to host or service their sick little ceremonies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the legal system allows them to force people to particpate in their cult.  If you discard the premise that LGBT is a cult, then your wonderings make sense.  If you embrace that LGBT is a cult that seeks to replace common mores with their own bacchanal-think, then you understand quite clearly why LGBTs are trying to force others who reject their dogma into participation.  That's what cults do, they assimilate minds..by force if necessary...in this case, using the courts to accomplish that goal..
> 
> They will force churches to provide gay weddings as soon as any ink is dry on their hope for a federal mandate of gay marriage across the 50 states...you can set your watch by it.
Click to expand...


You are a strange creature, Sil.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Would you require muslims to perform gay weddings?  I keep looking for a muslim baker, florist or photographer getting sued by gays but for some odd reason I cannot find them anywhere.
> 
> Links anyone?



I am still waiting for links where any person is being forced to preform gay weddings in this country, Muslim or otherwise. Links anyone? 

If a business owned by Muslims refused service to gays in a state that covers gays under PA laws they would also be in violation of the law. They are treated no differently. Sorry if that doesn't fit your whiny pattern of victimhood.


----------



## JakeStarkey

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you require muslims to perform gay weddings?  I keep looking for a muslim baker, florist or photographer getting sued by gays but for some odd reason I cannot find them anywhere.
> 
> Links anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for links where any person is being forced to preform gay weddings in this country, Muslim or otherwise. Links anyone?
> 
> If a business owned by Muslims refused service to gays in a state that covers gays under PA laws they would also be in violation of the law. They are treated no differently. Sorry if that doesn't fit your whiny pattern of victimhood.
Click to expand...

Excellent point.  Couples who can't get married because of archaic laws that violate basic civil liberties are the victims, not folks like Sil.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. PA laws explicitly exempt religious corporations. If you're not a religious corporation, you're not exempt.
> 
> The question is....why do you keep ignoring this crystal clear distinction? Surely you realize that the law doesn't change just because you ignore it.
> 
> Oh, and the Bible says nothing about selling wedding cake.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is ignoring anything, but rather just challenging the rational and validity behind the laws at hand. Do you think that man isn't or can't be falable in life? Judges and lawmakers are men and women, and yes they can make huge mistakes when making rulings, interpretations, or laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that the law should apply the same way to everyone. And that Christians should be treated with the same respect and consideration that everyone else receives under these laws.
> 
> If you don't like PA laws, change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once the Christians were free and offended no one, but now their religion and faith is offensive in America ? Now the President is on the bandwagon against the Christians in America as well ? !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really- cry me a river.
> 
> Christians in America have offended plenty. I have nothing against Christianity or Christians- but I do have something against ignorance and revisionist history.
> 
> Christians in early America were quite discriminatory- most communities required church attendence, and payment of a church tax of sorts- enforced by secular authorities.
> 
> And heaven forbid you were the 'wrong' kind of Christian- look at the history of the early colonies and it was rife with stories of people being driven out of the colonies for not being the right kind of Protestant- let alone be a Catholic.
> 
> And if you were Jewish? Christians in early America had quite a few laws against Judaism.
> 
> Christianity is still the dominant religion in the United States and is still protected- like all religions- by the Constitution.
> 
> And no- President Obama is not against 'Christians' either- why would he be against himself, his wife and his daughter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama a Christian ? LOL... I see you have drank the coolaid also. This tells me that you might believe or go along with just about anything these days.
> 
> As is with any thing in this nation over time, it has *progressed* from the more crude forms of man's many mistakes being made through out history, to a more peaceful and far more knowledgeable understanding of how things should be, and how they should have been when they were wrong through out history during certain time periods. They (man and woman) should work in life much harder and more better always when applying the teachings or wisdom in which they have learned from their mistakes over time, and also from the word (the Bible), in which told them of their mistakes prior to, but they refused instruction while going about it on their own, therefore their folly was then known of them, and the mistakes were then made. Just like we have had for so long here in America, men and women should keep their faith active no matter what, and they should be truthful always in their faith and about their faith.
> 
> Man has got to get over his miss-understandings, and he is to be careful with his worldly knowledge about the things in which he doesn't understand, and in which he has struggled with in his life. Man needs to get his act together in so that he can help others along with himself to reach a far more better understanding of life in general on these things. He should do this all while keeping the faith while in his present world just as it should be.
> 
> Many men have hopefully realized that they need spiritual guidance and help in order to see for themselves their folly in life, and this would be in order to help them through to a more enlightened plain, where as they could become the men in which they needed to become finally or in the first place, and it is to help others as they are then charged to do once they are schooled in such things that enlighten them along with many countless others on the _*Truth*. _
> 
> It's just like the Old testament in which had led into the New testament (progressed), and how Jesus had come to place man back into favor after he had fallen off the wagon yet again and again and again. See how that works ? However there are individuals and groups who refuse the knowledge of the truth, but they do this as they work for the evil one who has duped them over and over again through out time in their lives.
> 
> You would think that people would learn someday finally.
> 
> You all keep trying to go back to the past in order to cancel out the future with it (or) you are trying to justify something that is *strange now *because of what you can dig up in the past, but people aren't fooled by this game or strategy being used. I mean it is so transparent, and many are finally catching on to the game. Obama is trying to use this same game strategy just as well, and it is really an hilarious yet sad thing to watch because he is so bad at it.
Click to expand...


Um, yeah. We're still not letting Christians ignore any law they don't like. We're still treating Christians like anyone else.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Christians don't get a pass because they are Christians.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> Christians don't get a pass because they are Christians.


So what you are saying, is that a christian is not allowed to be a christian in certain settings in America?


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians don't get a pass because they are Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying, is that a christian is not allowed to be a christian in certain settings in America?
Click to expand...


No. What is being said quite plainly is that you cannot use your religion as an excuse to violate civil law. Satanists wanting to practice human sacrifice can't do that either. Tyranny!!!!!


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians don't get a pass because they are Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying, is that a christian is not allowed to be a christian in certain settings in America?
Click to expand...


What we're saying is what we've always said: Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else. They don't get special treatment. They don't get special exceptions.

You're demanding one special, more lenient set of rules for Christians. And a second, stricter set of rules for everyone else.

Nope.


----------



## beagle9

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians don't get a pass because they are Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying, is that a christian is not allowed to be a christian in certain settings in America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. What is being said quite plainly is that you cannot use your religion as an excuse to violate civil law. Satanists wanting to practice human sacrifice can't do that either. Tyranny!!!!!
Click to expand...

You compare satanist wanting to practice human sacrifice with Christians merely wanting to opt out of participating in something that the Bible tells them is sinful activity or the promoting of sexual immorality if they do participate in it ?  In your world, can a Christian even own a business any more, and somehow remain a Christian ? How does a Christian separate oneself from his or her faith, and to somehow keep from promoting the things in which the Bible says is sin ? A Christian is not to partake in such things as is written right, but to instead help those for whom want help if they ask for it, but not force it upon them right ? Will America soon get to the point that a Christian becomes an outsider who will have no rights what so ever in this nation, and so they will have to go underground in order to practice the faith when it is all said and done ? Will the Christians in this nation be treated like the Christians in other nations, where they are being persecuted and killed for being Christian ? Will all these wants of a new generation, now make this nation a new non-Christian unfriendly nation for Christians to live, and otherwise make it a nation of evilness and sorrows that will soon become the new norm or has become the new norm ?

It appears that this nation is on it's way to that level just as fast and hard as it can go. Again no one is fooled by any of this, but it is interesting to actually see it unfold right before our very eyes finally. For so long the youth figured that these things would not come in their life times when they were spoken about, and that is what their hopes were when such things were spoken about to them, but here it all is, and here it all comes, so be ready always for the signs of the times are being revealed to all in these latter days in which we all do live.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians don't get a pass because they are Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying, is that a christian is not allowed to be a christian in certain settings in America?
Click to expand...

That's what you are saying, not me.

I am saying christians, like all religionists, operate within the law.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians don't get a pass because they are Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying, is that a christian is not allowed to be a christian in certain settings in America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we're saying is what we've always said: Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else. They don't get special treatment. They don't get special exceptions.
> 
> You're demanding one special, more lenient set of rules for Christians. And a second, stricter set of rules for everyone else.
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...

Nope just an *option* needed to not be forced to participate in something that is anti-Christian belief is all, and nope there is no need for a stricter set of rules wanted for everyone else, but just an allowance to allow a Christian to not be forced to participate or partake in the things that are dangerous to a Christians core values and understandings of the very religion that a Christian believes in. How hard can that be ?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians don't get a pass because they are Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying, is that a christian is not allowed to be a christian in certain settings in America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we're saying is what we've always said: Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else. They don't get special treatment. They don't get special exceptions.
> 
> You're demanding one special, more lenient set of rules for Christians. And a second, stricter set of rules for everyone else.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope just an *option* needed to not be forced to participate in something that is anti-Christian belief is all, and nope there is no need for a stricter set of rules wanted for everyone else, but just an allowance to allow a Christian to not be forced to participate or partake in the things that are dangerous to a Christians core values and understandings of the very religion that a Christian believes in. How hard can that be ?
Click to expand...

An 'option' that allows Christians to ignore any law they don't like. While the rest of us still have to follow the law.

Nope. Christians don't get special privileges. They don't get special exemptions. They're treated like everyone else.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Christians offend others all the time, and some lie about it, as we see above.  You folks use the same old-anti civil rights arguments.

This is going to happen.

You can't stop it.

You will never repeal it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please provide a link to where the US Supreme Court already decided the homosexuals vs the States case of 2015?  I wasn't aware that had been heard and Decided yet..
> 
> Can you assure the readers here how if individual christians are being successfully sued by the aggressive LGBT cult/lobby, how collections of individual christians (churches) will be immune to those same lawsuits?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, so the question is how does one separate themselves from their religion and faith, and become enablers of things in which the Bible speaks against ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. PA laws explicitly exempt religious corporations. If you're not a religious corporation, you're not exempt.
> 
> The question is....why do you keep ignoring this crystal clear distinction? Surely you realize that the law doesn't change just because you ignore it.
> 
> Oh, and the Bible says nothing about selling wedding cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is ignoring anything, but rather just challenging the rational and validity behind the laws at hand. Do you think that man isn't or can't be falable in life? Judges and lawmakers are men and women, and yes they can make huge mistakes when making rulings, interpretations, or laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that the law should apply the same way to everyone. And that Christians should be treated with the same respect and consideration that everyone else receives under these laws.
> 
> If you don't like PA laws, change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They may need to be changed some, and that might be what the court will recognize if the right lawyers with their presentations and interpretations being presented can convince them of. They need another way of looking at things finally in the end. The cake baker should have been able to opt out of the situation as based upon his religion and faith. The Church exist within the person as it is carried within that person's heart and soul, and it really amazes me how the courts can't see it that away when they should see it that way according to the constitution. Like I said how does one practice ones faith and religion in his or her life, if the state or feds say otherwise about it ? So as one comes out of the shadows, then the other has to go in to the shadows I guess.
> 
> Once the Christians were free and offended no one, but now their religion and faith is offensive in America ? Now the President is on the bandwagon against the Christians in America as well ? How did this happen, because this is absolutely not the America that our families and forefathers grew up in, so what is it then ? Is it a police state for some that are considered as the others now,  where as they are no longer granted their freedoms as it were, but instead they are chastised and harassed under the current conditions in which they are living under ? The Bible tells of these things in it's writings that are over hundreds and hundreds of years old, but it is being scoffed at by an evil generation now ? WOW!
Click to expand...


Christians offend all the time.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians don't get a pass because they are Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying, is that a christian is not allowed to be a christian in certain settings in America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we're saying is what we've always said: Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else. They don't get special treatment. They don't get special exceptions.
> 
> You're demanding one special, more lenient set of rules for Christians. And a second, stricter set of rules for everyone else.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope just an *option* needed to not be forced to participate in something that is anti-Christian belief is all, and nope there is no need for a stricter set of rules wanted for everyone else, but just an allowance to allow a Christian to not be forced to participate or partake in the things that are dangerous to a Christians core values and understandings of the very religion that a Christian believes in. How hard can that be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An 'option' that allows Christians to ignore any law they don't like. While the rest of us still have to follow the law.
> 
> Nope. Christians don't get special privileges. They don't get special exemptions. They're treated like everyone else.
Click to expand...


What's happened to the children who are now adults in this nation, is simply a shame and disgrace to say the least. Payday is coming for those who have turned this nation into what it is now fast becoming, and it is not man for whom they should worry about no, but rather it is God who holds the keys to life and the *second *death within his hands, and for whom can take those who refused his guidance upon how to stay away from the evil one as best they could in life (none perfect), and to give them their due in which they have sought after hard and heavy in life, but only if he does not truly repent.. Now even though they were warned time and time again about such things, they still refuse instruction. Now it is their freedom of choice however in which he has given them to use, and there will be no complaining come the day of judgement. Their eyes shall be opened to the truth in which they have refused in their life as adults, and there will be no place in which to hide from him (NO PLACE), and they shall know this. All Christians want to do, is to give them their space, and to expect the same in return, but that is not what is happening anymore now is it ? The challenging of Christians will get worse and worse as the days and possible years go by (no man shall no the time nor the hour, yet a man can read the whether can't he ?). Can not the signs of the times be read as a man can read the whether ? When a man see's a storm, does he not call it a storm that is approaching him ? When a man see's sin in action, does he not call it sin when he see's it in action ? If a man see's a looming disaster, does he not take cover ? Think about it..


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians don't get a pass because they are Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying, is that a christian is not allowed to be a christian in certain settings in America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we're saying is what we've always said: Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else. They don't get special treatment. They don't get special exceptions.
> 
> You're demanding one special, more lenient set of rules for Christians. And a second, stricter set of rules for everyone else.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope just an *option* needed to not be forced to participate in something that is anti-Christian belief is all, and nope there is no need for a stricter set of rules wanted for everyone else, but just an allowance to allow a Christian to not be forced to participate or partake in the things that are dangerous to a Christians core values and understandings of the very religion that a Christian believes in. How hard can that be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An 'option' that allows Christians to ignore any law they don't like. While the rest of us still have to follow the law.
> 
> Nope. Christians don't get special privileges. They don't get special exemptions. They're treated like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's happened to the children who are now adults in this nation, is simply a shame and disgrace to say the least. Payday is coming for those who have turned this nation into what it is now fast becoming, and it is not man for whom they should worry about no, but rather it is God who holds the keys to life and the *second *death within his hands, and for whom can take those who refused his guidance upon how to stay away from the evil one as best they could in life (none perfect), and to give them their due in which they have sought after hard and heavy in life, but only if he does not truly repent.. Now even though they were warned time and time again about such things, they still refuse instruction. Now it is their freedom of choice however in which he has given them to use, and there will be no complaining come the day of judgement. Their eyes shall be opened to the truth in which they have refused in their life as adults, and there will be no place in which to hide from him (NO PLACE), and they shall know this. All Christians want to do, is to give them their space, and to expect the same in return, but that is not what is happening anymore now is it ? The challenging of Christians will get worse and worse as the days and possible years go by (no man shall no the time nor the hour, yet a man can read the whether can't he ?). Can not the signs of the times be read as a man can read the whether ? When a man see's a storm, does he not call it a storm that is approaching him ? When a man see's sin in action, does he not call it sin when he see's it in action ? If a man see's a looming disaster, does he not take cover ? Think about it..
Click to expand...


Its neither a 'disgrace' nor a 'shame' that Christians are treated like everyone else. Its equal protection under the law. CHristians have no special privileges sand no special exemptions from the law.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Would you require muslims to perform gay weddings?  I keep looking for a muslim baker, florist or photographer getting sued by gays but for some odd reason I cannot find them anywhere.
> 
> Links anyone?



This is not complicated

ANY business is obligated to follow public accomodation laws- if your local PA laws forbid discrimination against homosexuals, then it doesn't matter whether the business owner is Christian, Muslim, black, white, man, woman- he or she is obligated to do business with a person regardless of whether they are a homosexual or not.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians don't get a pass because they are Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying, is that a christian is not allowed to be a christian in certain settings in America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we're saying is what we've always said: Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else. They don't get special treatment. They don't get special exceptions.
> 
> You're demanding one special, more lenient set of rules for Christians. And a second, stricter set of rules for everyone else.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope just an *option* needed to not be forced to participate in something that is anti-Christian belief is all, and nope there is no need for a stricter set of rules wanted for everyone else, but just an allowance to allow a Christian to not be forced to participate or partake in the things that are dangerous to a Christians core values and understandings of the very religion that a Christian believes in. How hard can that be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An 'option' that allows Christians to ignore any law they don't like. While the rest of us still have to follow the law.
> 
> Nope. Christians don't get special privileges. They don't get special exemptions. They're treated like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's happened to the children who are now adults in this nation, is simply a shame and disgrace to say the least. Payday is coming for those who have turned this nation into what it is now fast becoming, and it is not man for whom they should worry about no, but rather it is God who holds the keys to life and the *second *death within his hands, and for whom can take those who refused his guidance upon how to stay away from the evil one as best they could in life (none perfect), and to give them their due in which they have sought after hard and heavy in life, but only if he does not truly repent.. Now even though they were warned time and time again about such things, they still refuse instruction. Now it is their freedom of choice however in which he has given them to use, and there will be no complaining come the day of judgement. Their eyes shall be opened to the truth in which they have refused in their life as adults, and there will be no place in which to hide from him (NO PLACE), and they shall know this. All Christians want to do, is to give them their space, and to expect the same in return, but that is not what is happening anymore now is it ? The challenging of Christians will get worse and worse as the days and possible years go by (no man shall no the time nor the hour, yet a man can read the whether can't he ?). Can not the signs of the times be read as a man can read the whether ? When a man see's a storm, does he not call it a storm that is approaching him ? When a man see's sin in action, does he not call it sin when he see's it in action ? If a man see's a looming disaster, does he not take cover ? Think about it..
Click to expand...


What a wall of text.

Christians receive equal treatment under the law and are expected to follow the law equally.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians don't get a pass because they are Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying, is that a christian is not allowed to be a christian in certain settings in America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we're saying is what we've always said: Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else. They don't get special treatment. They don't get special exceptions.
> 
> You're demanding one special, more lenient set of rules for Christians. And a second, stricter set of rules for everyone else.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope just an *option* needed to not be forced to participate in something that is anti-Christian belief is all, and nope there is no need for a stricter set of rules wanted for everyone else, but just an allowance to allow a Christian to not be forced to participate or partake in the things that are dangerous to a Christians core values and understandings of the very religion that a Christian believes in. How hard can that be ?
Click to expand...


Again- you are asking for special rules just for Christians.

Do you not even see the problem with that?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians don't get a pass because they are Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying, is that a christian is not allowed to be a christian in certain settings in America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. What is being said quite plainly is that you cannot use your religion as an excuse to violate civil law. Satanists wanting to practice human sacrifice can't do that either. Tyranny!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You compare satanist wanting to practice human sacrifice with Christians merely wanting to opt out of participating in something that the Bible tells them is sinful activity or the promoting of sexual immorality if they do participate in it ?  In your world, can a Christian even own a business any more, and somehow remain a Christian ? How does a Christian separate oneself from his or her faith, and to somehow keep from promoting the things in which the Bible says is sin ? .
Click to expand...


Such an excuse can be used to justify any behavior by a Christian- look at this court ruling 

Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:

The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.

- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/4708#sthash.ulRMAqia.dpuf


----------



## Jarlaxle

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians don't get a pass because they are Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying, is that a christian is not allowed to be a christian in certain settings in America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we're saying is what we've always said: Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else. They don't get special treatment. They don't get special exceptions.
> 
> You're demanding one special, more lenient set of rules for Christians. And a second, stricter set of rules for everyone else.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope just an *option* needed to not be forced to participate in something that is anti-Christian belief is all, and nope there is no need for a stricter set of rules wanted for everyone else, but just an allowance to allow a Christian to not be forced to participate or partake in the things that are dangerous to a Christians core values and understandings of the very religion that a Christian believes in. How hard can that be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An 'option' that allows Christians to ignore any law they don't like. While the rest of us still have to follow the law.
> 
> Nope. Christians don't get special privileges. They don't get special exemptions. They're treated like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's happened to the children who are now adults in this nation, is simply a shame and disgrace to say the least. Payday is coming for those who have turned this nation into what it is now fast becoming, and it is not man for whom they should worry about no, but rather it is God who holds the keys to life and the *second *death within his hands, and for whom can take those who refused his guidance upon how to stay away from the evil one as best they could in life (none perfect), and to give them their due in which they have sought after hard and heavy in life, but only if he does not truly repent.. Now even though they were warned time and time again about such things, they still refuse instruction. Now it is their freedom of choice however in which he has given them to use, and there will be no complaining come the day of judgement. Their eyes shall be opened to the truth in which they have refused in their life as adults, and there will be no place in which to hide from him (NO PLACE), and they shall know this. All Christians want to do, is to give them their space, and to expect the same in return, but that is not what is happening anymore now is it ? The challenging of Christians will get worse and worse as the days and possible years go by (no man shall no the time nor the hour, yet a man can read the whether can't he ?). Can not the signs of the times be read as a man can read the whether ? When a man see's a storm, does he not call it a storm that is approaching him ? When a man see's sin in action, does he not call it sin when he see's it in action ? If a man see's a looming disaster, does he not take cover ? Think about it..
Click to expand...


Please confine your sermons to the appropriate forum, dude.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Christians are subject to the same law as all Americans.

Why would anyone expect special treatment in a secular state because of his religion.


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians don't get a pass because they are Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying, is that a christian is not allowed to be a christian in certain settings in America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. What is being said quite plainly is that you cannot use your religion as an excuse to violate civil law. Satanists wanting to practice human sacrifice can't do that either. Tyranny!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You compare satanist wanting to practice human sacrifice with Christians merely wanting to opt out of participating in something that the Bible tells them is sinful activity or the promoting of sexual immorality if they do participate in it ?  In your world, can a Christian even own a business any more, and somehow remain a Christian ? How does a Christian separate oneself from his or her faith, and to somehow keep from promoting the things in which the Bible says is sin ? A Christian is not to partake in such things as is written right, but to instead help those for whom want help if they ask for it, but not force it upon them right ? Will America soon get to the point that a Christian becomes an outsider who will have no rights what so ever in this nation, and so they will have to go underground in order to practice the faith when it is all said and done ? Will the Christians in this nation be treated like the Christians in other nations, where they are being persecuted and killed for being Christian ? Will all these wants of a new generation, now make this nation a new non-Christian unfriendly nation for Christians to live, and otherwise make it a nation of evilness and sorrows that will soon become the new norm or has become the new norm ?
> 
> It appears that this nation is on it's way to that level just as fast and hard as it can go. Again no one is fooled by any of this, but it is interesting to actually see it unfold right before our very eyes finally. For so long the youth figured that these things would not come in their life times when they were spoken about, and that is what their hopes were when such things were spoken about to them, but here it all is, and here it all comes, so be ready always for the signs of the times are being revealed to all in these latter days in which we all do live.
Click to expand...


It's an analogy, Drama Queen. You want Christians to be exempt from civil law...but no other religion? How about them moooooslums. Should they get to just "opt out" of whatever laws they feel violate their religion?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you require muslims to perform gay weddings?  I keep looking for a muslim baker, florist or photographer getting sued by gays but for some odd reason I cannot find them anywhere.
> 
> Links anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not complicated
> 
> ANY business is obligated to follow public accomodation laws- if your local PA laws forbid discrimination against homosexuals, then it doesn't matter whether the business owner is Christian, Muslim, black, white, man, woman- he or she is obligated to do business with a person regardless of whether they are a homosexual or not.
Click to expand...


Yes, but did the government, judges or lawmakers consider all angles of every possible scenario in which the laws would bring about when they were enacted and/or were considered before being enacted for all or against all who opposed them ? Can any group with a new twist in life, just make use of the laws willy nilly now, in which were maybe not intended to cover every single scenario or situation out there ? They are doing this by adopting the laws in order to protect their interest against the opposition for whom they know will be soon mounting a case against them or maybe even trying to avoid them in a situation or case such as with the baker.  They do this whether they are right or wrong upon what they might be asking for in life, and both parties involved will fight for what they believe in, and that is always expected. The problem here is exactly what the baker and customer had encountered, where as the Christian baker should be allowed to opt out of the situation instead of being forced to go along with it by governments strong arming him to do so in that situation, but there was no relief mechanism or definitions added in the law in which should have been added for some citizens to opt out as based upon their religious beliefs or cultural standards in which they live by and go by in life.  

Now It's the same isn't it, where as the debate rages on about federal funds (tax payer money's), in which are attempting to be thrown at or could be next to fund abortion right, and to promote abortion through that planned parenthood group or organization in which is also causing havoc and debate now in America right ?  Again there are Christians along with countless others who are not wanting to engage in that mess either or to have their tax dollars fund that mess at all. So now the government has been wringing it's hands over that issue just as well, and so far the tax payers pushing back along with these religious organizations have held back the tidal wave coming down on them from above. There will be no place safe for people to practice their faith in the end if it all keeps up, and this is why democracy should be allowed to work as it should in America, and the votes should be honored when they are in on the issues about these things be it one way or the other. Both or all parties can exist together in our society, but they must be allowed the proper space in order to do so, and then respect for one another as human beings comes next until the day of judgement comes for all. If by popularity one shrinks and the other grows in areas, then this is no different than what has always went on in America, but when government intervenes or meddles where it shouldn't, then people begin to get abused by this action taken by government.

The baker and the customer could have easily resolved the issue on their own with maybe *proper mediation* added (in order to protect both peoples rights in a situation), and this by either local government or even federal gov. helping out and not using force against either of them instead.  It can be done (remember the beer summit or sit down?). Not sure how that went, but it was an example of the tricky situations that people can get themselves into at times, and how the government tried diplomatically to resolve the issue. Did it work ?

Now it seems that the federal government has got to come to the rescue of every single crying group or individual out there anymore, and it's not because they actually care, but it's more about the potential voter base they figure is at stake over all else in the nation now.  The government seems to be living in some sort of bubble that some groups has placed it in, and so it has become impotent to some, but on fire for others. 

The only thing that the government should be doing is keeping the *peace* always in America, and then arresting people who break the law with violence in which damages the peace and harmony between all groups that live peacefully in America. Disagreements between people shouldn't ever be on the Federal Governments radar and/or agenda ever, unless it gets ugly and violent between the groups or individuals in which can cause serious harm in society towards one another when that occurs. We have been far from this type of problem in these situations, but government has been meddling badly, and has been stirring up or creating a lot of bad stuff out in the societies lately. We need better government, who represents all in America again, and even the Christians once again in America as well.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians don't get a pass because they are Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying, is that a christian is not allowed to be a christian in certain settings in America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. What is being said quite plainly is that you cannot use your religion as an excuse to violate civil law. Satanists wanting to practice human sacrifice can't do that either. Tyranny!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You compare satanist wanting to practice human sacrifice with Christians merely wanting to opt out of participating in something that the Bible tells them is sinful activity or the promoting of sexual immorality if they do participate in it ?  In your world, can a Christian even own a business any more, and somehow remain a Christian ? How does a Christian separate oneself from his or her faith, and to somehow keep from promoting the things in which the Bible says is sin ? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such an excuse can be used to justify any behavior by a Christian- look at this court ruling
> 
> Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
> 
> The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
> 
> - See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
Click to expand...

It was wrong and it was corrected, so what's your point ? The issues of today are still being debated as to their validity or potential wrong that they may be, and they will be worked out soon just like they always have been in America. Our issues of today could be wrong and they could be right, so I guess some guy like you will pick up a book 85 years from now, and possibly see all the things we may have gotten wrong right now in this nation or society, and then try and use that on his society in order to justify something he wants just as well for that society ?  LOL


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you require muslims to perform gay weddings?  I keep looking for a muslim baker, florist or photographer getting sued by gays but for some odd reason I cannot find them anywhere.
> 
> Links anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not complicated
> 
> ANY business is obligated to follow public accomodation laws- if your local PA laws forbid discrimination against homosexuals, then it doesn't matter whether the business owner is Christian, Muslim, black, white, man, woman- he or she is obligated to do business with a person regardless of whether they are a homosexual or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but did the government, judges or lawmakers consider all angles of every possible scenario in which the laws would bring about when they were enacted and/or were considered before being enacted for all or against all who opposed them ? Can any group with a new twist in life, just make use of the laws willy nilly now, in which were maybe not intended to cover every single scenario or situation out there ?
Click to expand...


PA laws certainly cover this one. If you're going to do business with the public, you can't discriminate against someone because of their race, sexual orentation, religion, gender, etc. 

Christians are subject to these laws just like Hindus just like agnostics, just like Muslims. You're not special and you're not exempt.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Almost any guy who picks up a book in 2100 and reads that there were folks like you, beagle9, is going to ask, "What was wrong with those folks?"


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> Almost any guy who picks up a book in 2100 and reads that there were folks like you, beagle9, is going to ask, "What was wrong with those folks?"


LOL


----------



## JakeStarkey




----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> Almost any guy who picks up a book in 2100 and reads that there were folks like you, beagle9, is going to ask, "What was wrong with those folks?"


Or say wow look at where it all went wrong back then, and you know that beagle9 was right because look at where we are right now because of all of that back then. We are slaves now, so when can we steal another book to read about the past without our slave masters catching us, and thank God we can still read...


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost any guy who picks up a book in 2100 and reads that there were folks like you, beagle9, is going to ask, "What was wrong with those folks?"
> 
> 
> 
> Or say wow look at where it all went wrong back then, and you know that beagle9 was right because look at where we are right now because of all of that back then. We are slaves now, so when can we steal another book to read about the past without our slave masters catching us, and thank God we can still read...
Click to expand...

That's the moonshine talking, my friend.

A government of We the People is a republic with a constitution.  Our Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment prevent the majority from keeping the civil rights from the minority that the majority enjoys.

No court has ever made a church marry folks of which the church disapproves, for whatever reason.

That is not going to change.

The militant atheists have no more chance of making that happen than your ilk has of preventing marriage equality: none.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you require muslims to perform gay weddings?  I keep looking for a muslim baker, florist or photographer getting sued by gays but for some odd reason I cannot find them anywhere.
> 
> Links anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not complicated
> 
> ANY business is obligated to follow public accomodation laws- if your local PA laws forbid discrimination against homosexuals, then it doesn't matter whether the business owner is Christian, Muslim, black, white, man, woman- he or she is obligated to do business with a person regardless of whether they are a homosexual or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but did the government, judges or lawmakers consider all angles l.
Click to expand...


Does anyone bother to read these walls of text?

Lawmakers make laws. Hopefully they attempt to consider the ramifications, but I am not aware of any requirement to do so.

Meanwhile- each business is obligated to follow public accommodation laws.

If you don't like that- well change public accomodation laws.

But no- Christians don't get a special pass for being Christian.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost any guy who picks up a book in 2100 and reads that there were folks like you, beagle9, is going to ask, "What was wrong with those folks?"
> 
> 
> 
> Or say wow look at where it all went wrong back then, and you know that beagle9 was right because look at where we are right now because of all of that back then. We are slaves now, so when can we steal another book to read about the past without our slave masters catching us, and thank God we can still read...
Click to expand...


If you think you are a slave you are as ignorant about history as you are about the law.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost any guy who picks up a book in 2100 and reads that there were folks like you, beagle9, is going to ask, "What was wrong with those folks?"
> 
> 
> 
> Or say wow look at where it all went wrong back then, and you know that beagle9 was right because look at where we are right now because of all of that back then. We are slaves now, so when can we steal another book to read about the past without our slave masters catching us, and thank God we can still read...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think you are a slave you are as ignorant about history as you are about the law.
Click to expand...

Umm, I said heading to become a slave, but not a slave right now or as of yet........Keep Up for crying out loud... LOL


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost any guy who picks up a book in 2100 and reads that there were folks like you, beagle9, is going to ask, "What was wrong with those folks?"
> 
> 
> 
> Or say wow look at where it all went wrong back then, and you know that beagle9 was right because look at where we are right now because of all of that back then. We are slaves now, so when can we steal another book to read about the past without our slave masters catching us, and thank God we can still read...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think you are a slave you are as ignorant about history as you are about the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, I said heading to become a slave, but not a slave right now or as of yet........Keep Up for crying out loud... LOL
Click to expand...


Yeah, because 'headed to becoming a slave' is not hysteric and melodramatic at all.

All because we refuse to give you special privileges and to ignore any law you don't like.

Sigh.....you are among the most downtrodden, victimized people that our old world has ever known, or ever could. Because you have to sell _cake._


----------



## orogenicman

If a religious institution receives government funds, it should comply with government regulations/law.  Otherwise, it can marry or not whomever they want or else forfeit those funds.


----------



## Skylar

orogenicman said:


> If a religious institution receives government funds, it should comply with government regulations/law.  Otherwise, it can marry or not whomever they want or else forfeit those funds.



This isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agrees that churches shouldn't be forced to perform gay weddings they don't want to. This is about private businesses. Like say....cake sellers. Who refuse to sell cake to gay couples because they are gay.


----------



## orogenicman

Skylar said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a religious institution receives government funds, it should comply with government regulations/law.  Otherwise, it can marry or not whomever they want or else forfeit those funds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agrees that churches shouldn't be forced to perform gay weddings they don't want to. This is about private businesses. Like say....cake sellers. Who refuse to sell cake to gay couples because they are gay.
Click to expand...


Really?  Then why the title (Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?)?  It goes without saying that private business should not be allowed to discriminate.  But that isn't what the OP was addressing?


----------



## Skylar

orogenicman said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a religious institution receives government funds, it should comply with government regulations/law.  Otherwise, it can marry or not whomever they want or else forfeit those funds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agrees that churches shouldn't be forced to perform gay weddings they don't want to. This is about private businesses. Like say....cake sellers. Who refuse to sell cake to gay couples because they are gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why the title (Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?)?  It goes without saying that private business should not be allowed to discriminate.  But that isn't what the OP was addressing?
Click to expand...


Let me rephrase that. This discussion isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agreed from the outset that churches shouldn't be forced to accomidate churches. I think there was a grand total of one guy who thought they should.

So you really can't debate a point everyone agrees on. 

What we're discussing now is private businesses being held to State Public Accommodation laws. With many Christians insisting that they should be exempted from such laws on the grounds that they conflict with their religious values.


----------



## orogenicman

Skylar said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a religious institution receives government funds, it should comply with government regulations/law.  Otherwise, it can marry or not whomever they want or else forfeit those funds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agrees that churches shouldn't be forced to perform gay weddings they don't want to. This is about private businesses. Like say....cake sellers. Who refuse to sell cake to gay couples because they are gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why the title (Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?)?  It goes without saying that private business should not be allowed to discriminate.  But that isn't what the OP was addressing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me rephrase that. This discussion isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agreed from the outset that churches shouldn't be forced to accomidate churches. I think there was a grand total of one guy who thought they should.
> 
> So you really can't debate a point everyone agrees on.
> 
> What we're discussing now is private businesses being held to State Public Accommodation laws. With many Christians insisting that they should be exempted from such laws on the grounds that they conflict with their religious values.
Click to expand...


"Pretty much everyone agreed from the outset that churches shouldn't be forced to accomidate churches".  Erm, what?

Sorry, I wasn't here at the outset so "everyone" could not have agreed from the "outset".  I was posting an on topic response to the OP.  If you guys want to change the subject, perhaps you should start another thread for that purpose.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

The Government will not be going around forcing Churches to marry anyone .


----------



## Skylar

orogenicman said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a religious institution receives government funds, it should comply with government regulations/law.  Otherwise, it can marry or not whomever they want or else forfeit those funds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agrees that churches shouldn't be forced to perform gay weddings they don't want to. This is about private businesses. Like say....cake sellers. Who refuse to sell cake to gay couples because they are gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why the title (Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?)?  It goes without saying that private business should not be allowed to discriminate.  But that isn't what the OP was addressing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me rephrase that. This discussion isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agreed from the outset that churches shouldn't be forced to accomidate churches. I think there was a grand total of one guy who thought they should.
> 
> So you really can't debate a point everyone agrees on.
> 
> What we're discussing now is private businesses being held to State Public Accommodation laws. With many Christians insisting that they should be exempted from such laws on the grounds that they conflict with their religious values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Pretty much everyone agreed from the outset that churches shouldn't be forced to accomidate churches".  Erm, what?
Click to expand...


Sorry. Churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings. Its a point no one really disagrees with. 

Where there is disagreement is the PA laws.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a religious institution receives government funds, it should comply with government regulations/law.  Otherwise, it can marry or not whomever they want or else forfeit those funds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agrees that churches shouldn't be forced to perform gay weddings they don't want to. This is about private businesses. Like say....cake sellers. Who refuse to sell cake to gay couples because they are gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why the title (Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?)?  It goes without saying that private business should not be allowed to discriminate.  But that isn't what the OP was addressing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me rephrase that. This discussion isn't about churches. Pretty much everyone agreed from the outset that churches shouldn't be forced to accomidate churches. I think there was a grand total of one guy who thought they should.
> 
> So you really can't debate a point everyone agrees on.
> 
> What we're discussing now is private businesses being held to State Public Accommodation laws. With many Christians insisting that they should be exempted from such laws on the grounds that they conflict with their religious values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Pretty much everyone agreed from the outset that churches shouldn't be forced to accomidate churches".  Erm, what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry. Churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings. Its a point no one really disagrees with.
> 
> Where there is disagreement is the PA laws.
Click to expand...


And oddly enough- no one seems to be complaining about the PA laws themselves- the complaints break down to either:

a) Christians shouldn't have to comply with  PA laws when they don't want to or
b) Homosexuals are wrong if they ask that PA laws be enforced.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. Churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings. Its a point no one really disagrees with.
> Where there is disagreement is the PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And oddly enough- no one seems to be complaining about the PA laws themselves- the complaints break down to either:
> 
> a) Christians shouldn't have to comply with  PA laws when they don't want to or
> b) Homosexuals are wrong if they ask that PA laws be enforced.
Click to expand...

 
When you say "churches", we the readers know that you mean "congregations of individual christians", making Skylar's conclusion a moot point since churches are already being legally-forced by the LGBT litigant-army to accomodate gay weddings.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. Churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings. Its a point no one really disagrees with.
> Where there is disagreement is the PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And oddly enough- no one seems to be complaining about the PA laws themselves- the complaints break down to either:
> 
> a) Christians shouldn't have to comply with  PA laws when they don't want to or
> b) Homosexuals are wrong if they ask that PA laws be enforced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say "churches", .
Click to expand...


I mean churches.

You know- the facilities and organizations that are legally exempt from PA laws and don't have to pay taxes?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. Churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings. Its a point no one really disagrees with.
> Where there is disagreement is the PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And oddly enough- no one seems to be complaining about the PA laws themselves- the complaints break down to either:
> 
> a) Christians shouldn't have to comply with  PA laws when they don't want to or
> b) Homosexuals are wrong if they ask that PA laws be enforced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say "churches", we the readers know that you mean "congregations of individual christians", making Skylar's conclusion a moot point since churches are already being legally-forced by the LGBT litigant-army to accomodate gay weddings.
Click to expand...


More accurately, what I mean is churches. You keep trying to bizarrely insist that an individual is a church. Which is clearly blithering idiocy. 

PA laws explicitly exempt churches. They apply only to businesses that serve the public.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. Churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings. Its a point no one really disagrees with.
> Where there is disagreement is the PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And oddly enough- no one seems to be complaining about the PA laws themselves- the complaints break down to either:
> 
> a) Christians shouldn't have to comply with  PA laws when they don't want to or
> b) Homosexuals are wrong if they ask that PA laws be enforced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say "churches", .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean churches.
> 
> You know- the facilities and organizations that are legally exempt from PA laws and don't have to pay taxes?
Click to expand...

The organization as it congregates to collect monies to keep the doors open, lights on, grass cut, repairs made, and it's activities funded for it's members isn't being taxed of course, and why is this ? It's because it is all non-profit for non-profit activities in which benefits the members in that way. Separate from that is the freedom of religion in which the individual Christian is supposed to have protected by the constitution, and yet is not being preserved or afforded the Christians under the current rules that violate the constitutional guarantee's in which had been laid out in the documents concerning the freedom as it reads, and in which the President took an oath to uphold and to protect.

Now how does one practice that which is legal in this nation, if there are those that claim now that it is illegal to practice such a thing in this nation ?

How is it that exemptions were made concerning religious institutions over the issue of contraception, and about who should be required to endorse it, issue it and/or cover it ? It's all because the feds knew they were in anti-constitutional territory when they tried to force that on the religious institutions in this nation, so they had to back off and re-think their anti-constitutional ideology when attempting to woo once again a voter block in the nation.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. Churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings. Its a point no one really disagrees with.
> Where there is disagreement is the PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And oddly enough- no one seems to be complaining about the PA laws themselves- the complaints break down to either:
> 
> a) Christians shouldn't have to comply with  PA laws when they don't want to or
> b) Homosexuals are wrong if they ask that PA laws be enforced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say "churches", .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean churches.
> 
> You know- the facilities and organizations that are legally exempt from PA laws and don't have to pay taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The organization as it congregates to collect monies to keep the doors open, lights on, grass cut, repairs made, and it's activities funded for it's members isn't being taxed of course, and why is this ? It's because it is all non-profit for non-profit activities in which benefits the members in that way. Separate from that is the freedom of religion in which the individual Christian is supposed to have protected by the constitution, and yet is not being preserved or afforded the Christians under the current rules that violate the constitutional guarantee's in which had been laid out in the documents concerning the freedom as it reads, and in which the President took an oath to uphold and to protect.
> 
> Now how does one practice that which is legal in this nation, if there are those that claim now that it is illegal to practice such a thing in this nation ?
> 
> How is it that exemptions were made concerning religious institutions over the issue of contraception, and about who should be required to endorse it, issue it and/or cover it ? It's all because the feds knew they were in anti-constitutional territory when they tried to force that on the religious institutions in this nation, so they had to back off and re-think their anti-constitutional ideology when attempting to woo once again a voter block in the nation.
Click to expand...


Meanwhile- no special exemption for Christians just for being Christians.

Churches are exempt from PA laws. 

That pretty much covers it.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. Churches shouldn't be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings. Its a point no one really disagrees with.
> Where there is disagreement is the PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And oddly enough- no one seems to be complaining about the PA laws themselves- the complaints break down to either:
> 
> a) Christians shouldn't have to comply with  PA laws when they don't want to or
> b) Homosexuals are wrong if they ask that PA laws be enforced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say "churches", .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean churches.
> 
> You know- the facilities and organizations that are legally exempt from PA laws and don't have to pay taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The organization as it congregates to collect monies to keep the doors open, lights on, grass cut, repairs made, and it's activities funded for it's members isn't being taxed of course, and why is this ? It's because it is all non-profit for non-profit activities in which benefits the members in that way. Separate from that is the freedom of religion in which the individual Christian is supposed to have protected by the constitution, and yet is not being preserved or afforded the Christians under the current rules that violate the constitutional guarantee's in which had been laid out in the documents concerning the freedom as it reads, and in which the President took an oath to uphold and to protect.
> 
> Now how does one practice that which is legal in this nation, if there are those that claim now that it is illegal to practice such a thing in this nation ?
> 
> How is it that exemptions were made concerning religious institutions over the issue of contraception, and about who should be required to endorse it, issue it and/or cover it ? It's all because the feds knew they were in anti-constitutional territory when they tried to force that on the religious institutions in this nation, so they had to back off and re-think their anti-constitutional ideology when attempting to woo once again a voter block in the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meanwhile- no special exemption for Christians just for being Christians.
> 
> Churches are exempt from PA laws.
> 
> That pretty much covers it.
Click to expand...

Christians need no added special exemptions other than the original document to be upheld for them, and that is the freedom of religion as they do practice it in their daily lives in this nation legally. If their rights are taken from them, then who ever is taking those rights are in violation of the Constitution in which every President has sworn an oath to up hold in this nation.

Now when a Christian is challenged to abdicate their faith in order to accommodate another in an anti-Christian way, then shouldn't there be an option for that Christian to opt out of a situation that may challenge the Christians individual faith (or) wouldn't it make the person a hypocrite if they were to practice one thing, but then preach and/or try and live another ?  It is a dilemma that should have never gotten to this point at all in this nation, but hope and change is fast becoming destroy and replace for many. 

Now that we have people trying all sorts of things, then more than just Christians rights are going to be challenged in this nation, and we are seeing a preview of it all on display daily in these days and times now.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And oddly enough- no one seems to be complaining about the PA laws themselves- the complaints break down to either:
> 
> a) Christians shouldn't have to comply with  PA laws when they don't want to or
> b) Homosexuals are wrong if they ask that PA laws be enforced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say "churches", .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean churches.
> 
> You know- the facilities and organizations that are legally exempt from PA laws and don't have to pay taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The organization as it congregates to collect monies to keep the doors open, lights on, grass cut, repairs made, and it's activities funded for it's members isn't being taxed of course, and why is this ? It's because it is all non-profit for non-profit activities in which benefits the members in that way. Separate from that is the freedom of religion in which the individual Christian is supposed to have protected by the constitution, and yet is not being preserved or afforded the Christians under the current rules that violate the constitutional guarantee's in which had been laid out in the documents concerning the freedom as it reads, and in which the President took an oath to uphold and to protect.
> 
> Now how does one practice that which is legal in this nation, if there are those that claim now that it is illegal to practice such a thing in this nation ?
> 
> How is it that exemptions were made concerning religious institutions over the issue of contraception, and about who should be required to endorse it, issue it and/or cover it ? It's all because the feds knew they were in anti-constitutional territory when they tried to force that on the religious institutions in this nation, so they had to back off and re-think their anti-constitutional ideology when attempting to woo once again a voter block in the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meanwhile- no special exemption for Christians just for being Christians.
> 
> Churches are exempt from PA laws.
> 
> That pretty much covers it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christians need no added special exemptions other than the original document to be upheld for them, and that is the freedom of religion as they do practice it in their daily lives in this nation legally.
Click to expand...


The freedom of religion does not grant Christians the authority to ignore any law they don't believe in. It merely prevents any laws specifically targeting religion. PA laws don't. Its a generally applicable law that applies to everyone, regardless of their motivation.

You  are asking for a special exemption, for Christians to have the right to 'opt out' of any law they don't believe they should follow, with Christians being held to a special, more lenient standard of the law. With a harsher standard for all the rest of us.

No. We're not doing that. Christians will be treated like everyone else.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you say "churches", .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean churches.
> 
> You know- the facilities and organizations that are legally exempt from PA laws and don't have to pay taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The organization as it congregates to collect monies to keep the doors open, lights on, grass cut, repairs made, and it's activities funded for it's members isn't being taxed of course, and why is this ? It's because it is all non-profit for non-profit activities in which benefits the members in that way. Separate from that is the freedom of religion in which the individual Christian is supposed to have protected by the constitution, and yet is not being preserved or afforded the Christians under the current rules that violate the constitutional guarantee's in which had been laid out in the documents concerning the freedom as it reads, and in which the President took an oath to uphold and to protect.
> 
> Now how does one practice that which is legal in this nation, if there are those that claim now that it is illegal to practice such a thing in this nation ?
> 
> How is it that exemptions were made concerning religious institutions over the issue of contraception, and about who should be required to endorse it, issue it and/or cover it ? It's all because the feds knew they were in anti-constitutional territory when they tried to force that on the religious institutions in this nation, so they had to back off and re-think their anti-constitutional ideology when attempting to woo once again a voter block in the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meanwhile- no special exemption for Christians just for being Christians.
> 
> Churches are exempt from PA laws.
> 
> That pretty much covers it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christians need no added special exemptions other than the original document to be upheld for them, and that is the freedom of religion as they do practice it in their daily lives in this nation legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The freedom of religion does not grant Christians the authority to ignore any law they don't believe in. It merely prevents any laws specifically targeting religion. PA laws don't. Its a generally applicable law that applies to everyone, regardless of their motivation.
> 
> You  are asking for a special exemption, for Christians to have the right to 'opt out' of any law they don't believe they should follow, with Christians being held to a special, more lenient standard of the law. With a standard, harsher standard for all the rest of us.
> 
> No. We're not doing that. Christians will be treated like everyone else.
Click to expand...

The law isn't suppose to give people the right to abuse christians either, where as that is the way in which the laws are being abused now in these ways today. Now who exactly is getting special treatment today?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean churches.
> 
> You know- the facilities and organizations that are legally exempt from PA laws and don't have to pay taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> The organization as it congregates to collect monies to keep the doors open, lights on, grass cut, repairs made, and it's activities funded for it's members isn't being taxed of course, and why is this ? It's because it is all non-profit for non-profit activities in which benefits the members in that way. Separate from that is the freedom of religion in which the individual Christian is supposed to have protected by the constitution, and yet is not being preserved or afforded the Christians under the current rules that violate the constitutional guarantee's in which had been laid out in the documents concerning the freedom as it reads, and in which the President took an oath to uphold and to protect.
> 
> Now how does one practice that which is legal in this nation, if there are those that claim now that it is illegal to practice such a thing in this nation ?
> 
> How is it that exemptions were made concerning religious institutions over the issue of contraception, and about who should be required to endorse it, issue it and/or cover it ? It's all because the feds knew they were in anti-constitutional territory when they tried to force that on the religious institutions in this nation, so they had to back off and re-think their anti-constitutional ideology when attempting to woo once again a voter block in the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meanwhile- no special exemption for Christians just for being Christians.
> 
> Churches are exempt from PA laws.
> 
> That pretty much covers it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christians need no added special exemptions other than the original document to be upheld for them, and that is the freedom of religion as they do practice it in their daily lives in this nation legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The freedom of religion does not grant Christians the authority to ignore any law they don't believe in. It merely prevents any laws specifically targeting religion. PA laws don't. Its a generally applicable law that applies to everyone, regardless of their motivation.
> 
> You  are asking for a special exemption, for Christians to have the right to 'opt out' of any law they don't believe they should follow, with Christians being held to a special, more lenient standard of the law. With a standard, harsher standard for all the rest of us.
> 
> No. We're not doing that. Christians will be treated like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law isn't suppose to give people the right to abuse christians either, where as that is the way in which the laws are being abused now in these ways today. Now who exactly is getting special treatment today?
Click to expand...


Christians aren't being abused by following generally applicable law. You're not special and you're not exempt. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else. 

There's no special lenient 'Christian' version of the law. There's the plain old 'American' version.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The organization as it congregates to collect monies to keep the doors open, lights on, grass cut, repairs made, and it's activities funded for it's members isn't being taxed of course, and why is this ? It's because it is all non-profit for non-profit activities in which benefits the members in that way. Separate from that is the freedom of religion in which the individual Christian is supposed to have protected by the constitution, and yet is not being preserved or afforded the Christians under the current rules that violate the constitutional guarantee's in which had been laid out in the documents concerning the freedom as it reads, and in which the President took an oath to uphold and to protect.
> 
> Now how does one practice that which is legal in this nation, if there are those that claim now that it is illegal to practice such a thing in this nation ?
> 
> How is it that exemptions were made concerning religious institutions over the issue of contraception, and about who should be required to endorse it, issue it and/or cover it ? It's all because the feds knew they were in anti-constitutional territory when they tried to force that on the religious institutions in this nation, so they had to back off and re-think their anti-constitutional ideology when attempting to woo once again a voter block in the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile- no special exemption for Christians just for being Christians.
> 
> Churches are exempt from PA laws.
> 
> That pretty much covers it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christians need no added special exemptions other than the original document to be upheld for them, and that is the freedom of religion as they do practice it in their daily lives in this nation legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The freedom of religion does not grant Christians the authority to ignore any law they don't believe in. It merely prevents any laws specifically targeting religion. PA laws don't. Its a generally applicable law that applies to everyone, regardless of their motivation.
> 
> You  are asking for a special exemption, for Christians to have the right to 'opt out' of any law they don't believe they should follow, with Christians being held to a special, more lenient standard of the law. With a standard, harsher standard for all the rest of us.
> 
> No. We're not doing that. Christians will be treated like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law isn't suppose to give people the right to abuse christians either, where as that is the way in which the laws are being abused now in these ways today. Now who exactly is getting special treatment today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians aren't being abused by following generally applicable law. You're not special and you're not exempt. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.
> 
> There's no special lenient 'Christian' version of the law. There's the plain old 'American' version.
Click to expand...

Yes they are being abused now.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile- no special exemption for Christians just for being Christians.
> 
> Churches are exempt from PA laws.
> 
> That pretty much covers it.
> 
> 
> 
> Christians need no added special exemptions other than the original document to be upheld for them, and that is the freedom of religion as they do practice it in their daily lives in this nation legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The freedom of religion does not grant Christians the authority to ignore any law they don't believe in. It merely prevents any laws specifically targeting religion. PA laws don't. Its a generally applicable law that applies to everyone, regardless of their motivation.
> 
> You  are asking for a special exemption, for Christians to have the right to 'opt out' of any law they don't believe they should follow, with Christians being held to a special, more lenient standard of the law. With a standard, harsher standard for all the rest of us.
> 
> No. We're not doing that. Christians will be treated like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law isn't suppose to give people the right to abuse christians either, where as that is the way in which the laws are being abused now in these ways today. Now who exactly is getting special treatment today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians aren't being abused by following generally applicable law. You're not special and you're not exempt. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.
> 
> There's no special lenient 'Christian' version of the law. There's the plain old 'American' version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they are being abused now.
Click to expand...


Nope.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile- no special exemption for Christians just for being Christians.
> 
> Churches are exempt from PA laws.
> 
> That pretty much covers it.
> 
> 
> 
> Christians need no added special exemptions other than the original document to be upheld for them, and that is the freedom of religion as they do practice it in their daily lives in this nation legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The freedom of religion does not grant Christians the authority to ignore any law they don't believe in. It merely prevents any laws specifically targeting religion. PA laws don't. Its a generally applicable law that applies to everyone, regardless of their motivation.
> 
> You  are asking for a special exemption, for Christians to have the right to 'opt out' of any law they don't believe they should follow, with Christians being held to a special, more lenient standard of the law. With a standard, harsher standard for all the rest of us.
> 
> No. We're not doing that. Christians will be treated like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law isn't suppose to give people the right to abuse christians either, where as that is the way in which the laws are being abused now in these ways today. Now who exactly is getting special treatment today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians aren't being abused by following generally applicable law. You're not special and you're not exempt. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.
> 
> There's no special lenient 'Christian' version of the law. There's the plain old 'American' version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they are being abused now.
Click to expand...


On the contrary- the law protects Christians much more comprehensively than it does homosexuals.

Christians are protected from discrimination by business owners based upon their Christianity in the entire United States- whereas homosexuals rights to service are protected in only some states and municipalities.

Christians are not being 'abused' by being required to follow the same law that also protects them.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> On the contrary- the law protects Christians much more comprehensively than it does homosexuals...Christians are protected from discrimination by business owners based upon their Christianity in the entire United States- whereas homosexuals rights to service are protected in only some states and municipalities...Christians are not being 'abused' by being required to follow the same law that also protects them.


 
So you're admitting then that LGBT is a relgion?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary- the law protects Christians much more comprehensively than it does homosexuals...Christians are protected from discrimination by business owners based upon their Christianity in the entire United States- whereas homosexuals rights to service are protected in only some states and municipalities...Christians are not being 'abused' by being required to follow the same law that also protects them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're admitting then that LGBT is a relgion?
Click to expand...


Wow. You're amazingly bad at paraphrasing.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary- the law protects Christians much more comprehensively than it does homosexuals...Christians are protected from discrimination by business owners based upon their Christianity in the entire United States- whereas homosexuals rights to service are protected in only some states and municipalities...Christians are not being 'abused' by being required to follow the same law that also protects them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're admitting then that LGBT is a relgion?
Click to expand...


Nope- but i will admit that you are delusional.


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary- the law protects Christians much more comprehensively than it does homosexuals...Christians are protected from discrimination by business owners based upon their Christianity in the entire United States- whereas homosexuals rights to service are protected in only some states and municipalities...Christians are not being 'abused' by being required to follow the same law that also protects them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're admitting then that LGBT is a relgion?
Click to expand...

They wish it was a religion, but frankly no one knows what it is, and in fact I don't think that they know yet either what it really is or what it really means.

I'm still scratching my head as to how *sexual orientation* got added to the special status list in this nation, because what goes on in ones bedroom, well should just stay in ones bedroom period. Why people want to flaunt their sexuality out in the public square is simply dumbfounding and idiotic to me. 

Race - white, black, red, yellow, brown, and all depending on the circumstances in each case, I'd say (yes) for special status against discrimination and/or any other thing within reason that the government wants to help them with. I'd also go along with gender (yes), and handicapped of course (yes), but sexual orientation? (no).


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians need no added special exemptions other than the original document to be upheld for them, and that is the freedom of religion as they do practice it in their daily lives in this nation legally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The freedom of religion does not grant Christians the authority to ignore any law they don't believe in. It merely prevents any laws specifically targeting religion. PA laws don't. Its a generally applicable law that applies to everyone, regardless of their motivation.
> 
> You  are asking for a special exemption, for Christians to have the right to 'opt out' of any law they don't believe they should follow, with Christians being held to a special, more lenient standard of the law. With a standard, harsher standard for all the rest of us.
> 
> No. We're not doing that. Christians will be treated like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law isn't suppose to give people the right to abuse christians either, where as that is the way in which the laws are being abused now in these ways today. Now who exactly is getting special treatment today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians aren't being abused by following generally applicable law. You're not special and you're not exempt. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.
> 
> There's no special lenient 'Christian' version of the law. There's the plain old 'American' version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they are being abused now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary- the law protects Christians much more comprehensively than it does homosexuals.
> 
> Christians are protected from discrimination by business owners based upon their Christianity in the entire United States- whereas homosexuals rights to service are protected in only some states and municipalities.
> 
> Christians are not being 'abused' by being required to follow the same law that also protects them.
Click to expand...

They are being abused by having to hide their Christianity in the public square now or to fear using it as it was intended to be used by them in their lives daily. There was never a problem with Christians practicing their faith and religion in this nation before, but now there is ? Well I wonder why that is ? What has changed in the nation in which says that the Christian religion and faith is no longer allowed to be practiced or believed openly in this nation any longer ?


----------



## koshergrl

Being fined for being Christian, being denied to right to conduct business because they're Christian...


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> Being fined for being Christian, being denied to right to conduct business because they're Christian...



Wrong. They're not being allowed to violate secular laws and use religion as an excuse.


----------



## beagle9

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being fined for being Christian, being denied to right to conduct business because they're Christian...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. They're not being allowed to violate secular laws and use religion as an excuse.
Click to expand...

Whose wrong ? Them or is it the ones who are challenging the Christians with a new twist in life, and this by utilizing the law that was not created with the intent for which it is being used against them in such a way now ?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being fined for being Christian, being denied to right to conduct business because they're Christian...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. They're not being allowed to violate secular laws and use religion as an excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whose wrong ? Them or is it the ones who are challenging the Christians with a new twist in life, and this by utilizing the law that was not created with the intent for which it is being used against them in such a way now ?
Click to expand...


The PA laws were absolutely designed to prevent discrimination against gays in business with the public. So that argument is out the window. We're not making any law 'optional' for Christians. We're not creating one harsher set of laws for all of us....and a second, more lenient set for Christians.

You're scrambling from excuse to excuse for why you should get special treatment, why the rules don't apply to you, why you should be able to ignore any law you wish.

No. We're not doing any of that. Christians will be treated with the same as anyone else.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The freedom of religion does not grant Christians the authority to ignore any law they don't believe in. It merely prevents any laws specifically targeting religion. PA laws don't. Its a generally applicable law that applies to everyone, regardless of their motivation.
> 
> You  are asking for a special exemption, for Christians to have the right to 'opt out' of any law they don't believe they should follow, with Christians being held to a special, more lenient standard of the law. With a standard, harsher standard for all the rest of us.
> 
> No. We're not doing that. Christians will be treated like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> The law isn't suppose to give people the right to abuse christians either, where as that is the way in which the laws are being abused now in these ways today. Now who exactly is getting special treatment today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians aren't being abused by following generally applicable law. You're not special and you're not exempt. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.
> 
> There's no special lenient 'Christian' version of the law. There's the plain old 'American' version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they are being abused now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary- the law protects Christians much more comprehensively than it does homosexuals.
> 
> Christians are protected from discrimination by business owners based upon their Christianity in the entire United States- whereas homosexuals rights to service are protected in only some states and municipalities.
> 
> Christians are not being 'abused' by being required to follow the same law that also protects them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are being abused by having to hide their Christianity in the public square now
Click to expand...


Christians are not being 'abused by being required to follow the very same laws that also protect them.


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being fined for being Christian, being denied to right to conduct business because they're Christian...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. They're not being allowed to violate secular laws and use religion as an excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whose wrong ? Them or is it the ones who are challenging the Christians with a new twist in life, and this by utilizing the law that was not created with the intent for which it is being used against them in such a way now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA laws were absolutely designed to prevent discrimination against gays in business with the public. So that argument is out the window. We're not making any law 'optional' for Christians. We're not creating one harsher set of laws for all of us....and a second, more lenient set for Christians.
> 
> You're scrambling from excuse to excuse for why you should get special treatment, why the rules don't apply to you, why you should be able to ignore any law you wish.
> 
> No. We're not doing any of that. Christians will be treated with the same as anyone else.
Click to expand...



*Arkansas Legislature Passes Bill Allowing LGBT Discrimination*


*LMFAO  - One Down 49 to Go.  :>*


----------



## Silhouette

GreenBean said:


> *Arkansas Legislature Passes Bill Allowing LGBT Discrimination*
> 
> 
> *LMFAO  - One Down 49 to Go.  :>*


 
Trouble is, Kennedy will see this and put on his blinders about all the other good reasons (childrens' welfare and need for a father and mother) to return the question of gay marriage to the states.

I smell a gay activist behind this one..


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The freedom of religion does not grant Christians the authority to ignore any law they don't believe in. It merely prevents any laws specifically targeting religion. PA laws don't. Its a generally applicable law that applies to everyone, regardless of their motivation.
> 
> You  are asking for a special exemption, for Christians to have the right to 'opt out' of any law they don't believe they should follow, with Christians being held to a special, more lenient standard of the law. With a standard, harsher standard for all the rest of us.
> 
> No. We're not doing that. Christians will be treated like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> The law isn't suppose to give people the right to abuse christians either, where as that is the way in which the laws are being abused now in these ways today. Now who exactly is getting special treatment today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians aren't being abused by following generally applicable law. You're not special and you're not exempt. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.
> 
> There's no special lenient 'Christian' version of the law. There's the plain old 'American' version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they are being abused now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary- the law protects Christians much more comprehensively than it does homosexuals.
> 
> Christians are protected from discrimination by business owners based upon their Christianity in the entire United States- whereas homosexuals rights to service are protected in only some states and municipalities.
> 
> Christians are not being 'abused' by being required to follow the same law that also protects them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are being abused by having to hide their Christianity in the public square now
Click to expand...


Christians are not being 'abused by being required to follow the very same laws that also protect them.


GreenBean said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being fined for being Christian, being denied to right to conduct business because they're Christian...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. They're not being allowed to violate secular laws and use religion as an excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whose wrong ? Them or is it the ones who are challenging the Christians with a new twist in life, and this by utilizing the law that was not created with the intent for which it is being used against them in such a way now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA laws were absolutely designed to prevent discrimination against gays in business with the public. So that argument is out the window. We're not making any law 'optional' for Christians. We're not creating one harsher set of laws for all of us....and a second, more lenient set for Christians.
> 
> You're scrambling from excuse to excuse for why you should get special treatment, why the rules don't apply to you, why you should be able to ignore any law you wish.
> 
> No. We're not doing any of that. Christians will be treated with the same as anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Arkansas Legislature Passes Bill Allowing LGBT Discrimination*
> 
> 
> *LMFAO  - One Down 49 to Go.  :>*
Click to expand...


Well so much for the argument about 'the will of the people'......
.
Gov. Asa Hutchinson said he will allow the bill to become law, *thereby preventing cities and counties from passing ordinances designed to protect LGBT people from discrimination in housing, jobs, and businesses*.

If voters from Little Rock want to outlaw discrimination against LGBT- the State of Arkansas is going to overrule those voters.

I look forward to hearing more about 'the will of the voters'........


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Arkansas Legislature Passes Bill Allowing LGBT Discrimination*
> 
> 
> *LMFAO  - One Down 49 to Go.  :>*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I smell a gay activist behind this one..
Click to expand...


You smell gay activists in anything that happens anywhere.


----------



## Greeneyedlady

No. You can't force people to accept gayism if it goes against everything they believe in.
The whole gay marriage thing is an attack against tradition, religion, and the nuclear family.


----------



## Syriusly

Greeneyedlady said:


> No. You can't force people to accept gayism if it goes against everything they believe in.
> The whole gay marriage thing is an attack against tradition, religion, and the nuclear family.



Because of course, if we allow a gay couple to marry, the nuclear family will cease to exist..........


----------



## Greeneyedlady

No. If a gay couple wants to marry they shouldn't force it in a venue where it offends other people.
Who wants to start a marriage like that?


----------



## Syriusly

Greeneyedlady said:


> No. If a gay couple wants to marry they shouldn't force it in a venue where it offends other people.
> Who wants to start a marriage like that?




If a black couple wants to marry, they shouldn't force it in a venue where it offends other people.

Who wants to start a marriage like that?

If a Jewish couple wants to marry, they shouldn't force it in a venue where ti offends other people.

Who wants to start a marriage like that?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Arkansas Legislature Passes Bill Allowing LGBT Discrimination*
> 
> 
> *LMFAO  - One Down 49 to Go.  :>*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble is, Kennedy will see this and put on his blinders about all the other good reasons (childrens' welfare and need for a father and mother) to return the question of gay marriage to the states.
> 
> I smell a gay activist behind this one..
Click to expand...


I smell bullshit. Or more specifically, you having completely misread the court for years. With all of your predictions and assumptions on what the Windsor decision 'really meant' being nothing more than blithering nonsense. 

Though finally, it seems you're cluing in to what's going to happen in June.


----------



## Paperman299

Greeneyedlady said:


> No. You can't force people to accept gayism if it goes against everything they believe in.
> The whole gay marriage thing is an attack against tradition, religion, and the nuclear family.



It's not an attack. It doesn't even affect any of those things. People who want a "nuclear" family can still have them, with absolutely no more trouble than they would have had before.


----------



## Greeneyedlady

You can't force people to accept something they know and believe is wrong.


----------



## Seawytch

Greeneyedlady said:


> You can't force people to accept something they know and believe is wrong.




How are you "forced to accept" my civil marriage? Were you there, chained to a post, and I missed you? So sorry. What a terrible host I am.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law isn't suppose to give people the right to abuse christians either, where as that is the way in which the laws are being abused now in these ways today. Now who exactly is getting special treatment today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians aren't being abused by following generally applicable law. You're not special and you're not exempt. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.
> 
> There's no special lenient 'Christian' version of the law. There's the plain old 'American' version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they are being abused now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary- the law protects Christians much more comprehensively than it does homosexuals.
> 
> Christians are protected from discrimination by business owners based upon their Christianity in the entire United States- whereas homosexuals rights to service are protected in only some states and municipalities.
> 
> Christians are not being 'abused' by being required to follow the same law that also protects them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are being abused by having to hide their Christianity in the public square now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians are not being 'abused by being required to follow the very same laws that also protect them.
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being fined for being Christian, being denied to right to conduct business because they're Christian...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. They're not being allowed to violate secular laws and use religion as an excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whose wrong ? Them or is it the ones who are challenging the Christians with a new twist in life, and this by utilizing the law that was not created with the intent for which it is being used against them in such a way now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA laws were absolutely designed to prevent discrimination against gays in business with the public. So that argument is out the window. We're not making any law 'optional' for Christians. We're not creating one harsher set of laws for all of us....and a second, more lenient set for Christians.
> 
> You're scrambling from excuse to excuse for why you should get special treatment, why the rules don't apply to you, why you should be able to ignore any law you wish.
> 
> No. We're not doing any of that. Christians will be treated with the same as anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Arkansas Legislature Passes Bill Allowing LGBT Discrimination*
> 
> 
> *LMFAO  - One Down 49 to Go.  :>*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well so much for the argument about 'the will of the people'......
> .
> Gov. Asa Hutchinson said he will allow the bill to become law, *thereby preventing cities and counties from passing ordinances designed to protect LGBT people from discrimination in housing, jobs, and businesses*.
> 
> If voters from Little Rock want to outlaw discrimination against LGBT- the State of Arkansas is going to overrule those voters.
> 
> I look forward to hearing more about 'the will of the voters'........
Click to expand...




> If voters from Little Rock want to outlaw discrimination against LGBT- the State of Arkansas is going to overrule those voters.



The people of Little Rock DO NOT want to outlaw "discrimination"  against perverts ... they simply want to outlaw discrimination against normal sane people and families cloaked as LGBT legislation.   LGBT and Feminazis are masters at "framing" and the public is beginning to see through the facade.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. If a gay couple wants to marry they shouldn't force it in a venue where it offends other people.
> Who wants to start a marriage like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a black couple wants to marry, they shouldn't force it in a venue where it offends other people.
> 
> Who wants to start a marriage like that?
> 
> If a Jewish couple wants to marry, they shouldn't force it in a venue where ti offends other people.
> 
> Who wants to start a marriage like that?
Click to expand...

Are you sure that blacks or Jews like you equating their marriages in these ways? They probably hate it, but in this nation now, well who cares about what other people think if they are used in these ways right?


----------



## GreenBean

Paperman299 said:


> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. You can't force people to accept gayism if it goes against everything they believe in.
> The whole gay marriage thing is an attack against tradition, religion, and the nuclear family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an attack. It doesn't even affect any of those things. People who want a "nuclear" family can still have them, with absolutely no more trouble than they would have had before.
Click to expand...

Absolute unadulterated and uninformed BullSh*t


----------



## beagle9

Greeneyedlady said:


> You can't force people to accept something they know and believe is wrong.


Or worse to be forced to participate in something that their religion and beliefs tell them not to partcipate in or to endorse in their daily lives.  The christian is to love the sinners if they seek to be loved, and even in prayer if they don't seek to be loved, but they are not to love or endorse the sin in ones life.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. If a gay couple wants to marry they shouldn't force it in a venue where it offends other people.
> Who wants to start a marriage like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a black couple wants to marry, they shouldn't force it in a venue where it offends other people.
> 
> Who wants to start a marriage like that?
> 
> If a Jewish couple wants to marry, they shouldn't force it in a venue where ti offends other people.
> 
> Who wants to start a marriage like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure that blacks or Jews like you equating their marriages in these ways? They probably hate it, but in this nation now, well who cares about what other people think if they are used in these ways right?
Click to expand...


I am sure that my using that same rational for other people makes you uncomfortable. 

If the criteria is 'not offending other people' do you think that should only apply to homosexuals?


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians aren't being abused by following generally applicable law. You're not special and you're not exempt. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.
> 
> There's no special lenient 'Christian' version of the law. There's the plain old 'American' version.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they are being abused now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary- the law protects Christians much more comprehensively than it does homosexuals.
> 
> Christians are protected from discrimination by business owners based upon their Christianity in the entire United States- whereas homosexuals rights to service are protected in only some states and municipalities.
> 
> Christians are not being 'abused' by being required to follow the same law that also protects them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are being abused by having to hide their Christianity in the public square now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians are not being 'abused by being required to follow the very same laws that also protect them.
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. They're not being allowed to violate secular laws and use religion as an excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whose wrong ? Them or is it the ones who are challenging the Christians with a new twist in life, and this by utilizing the law that was not created with the intent for which it is being used against them in such a way now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA laws were absolutely designed to prevent discrimination against gays in business with the public. So that argument is out the window. We're not making any law 'optional' for Christians. We're not creating one harsher set of laws for all of us....and a second, more lenient set for Christians.
> 
> You're scrambling from excuse to excuse for why you should get special treatment, why the rules don't apply to you, why you should be able to ignore any law you wish.
> 
> No. We're not doing any of that. Christians will be treated with the same as anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Arkansas Legislature Passes Bill Allowing LGBT Discrimination*
> 
> 
> *LMFAO  - One Down 49 to Go.  :>*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well so much for the argument about 'the will of the people'......
> .
> Gov. Asa Hutchinson said he will allow the bill to become law, *thereby preventing cities and counties from passing ordinances designed to protect LGBT people from discrimination in housing, jobs, and businesses*.
> 
> If voters from Little Rock want to outlaw discrimination against LGBT- the State of Arkansas is going to overrule those voters.
> 
> I look forward to hearing more about 'the will of the voters'........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If voters from Little Rock want to outlaw discrimination against LGBT- the State of Arkansas is going to overrule those voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people of Little Rock DO NOT want to outlaw "discrimination"  against perverts ... they simply want to outlaw discrimination against normal sane people and families cloaked as LGBT legislation.   LGBT and Feminazis are masters at "framing" and the public is beginning to see through the facade.
Click to expand...


Wow- good attempt at '1984' double speak. War is peace. Equal rights is discrimination. 

The law the State of Arkansas is passing would forbid every city and county in Arkansas from enacting their own laws to protect LGBT people from discrimination in housing, jobs and business's.

That means if the people of Little Rock vote by a huge majority to pass such a city ordinance, the State of Arkansas says- NO- you can't do that.

Which makes all of the crocodile tears I have heard from the opponents of gay marriage about how 'the rights of the voters are being ignored' just wonderfully ironic.


----------



## Greeneyedlady

Seawytch said:


> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force people to accept something they know and believe is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are you "forced to accept" my civil marriage? Were you there, chained to a post, and I missed you? So sorry. What a terrible host I am.
Click to expand...

If you force my church to hold your ceremony when you know darn well it goes against their religion, yes you are forcing an issue on people who don't approve.


----------



## Greeneyedlady

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. If a gay couple wants to marry they shouldn't force it in a venue where it offends other people.
> Who wants to start a marriage like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a black couple wants to marry, they shouldn't force it in a venue where it offends other people.
> 
> Who wants to start a marriage like that?
> 
> If a Jewish couple wants to marry, they shouldn't force it in a venue where ti offends other people.
> 
> Who wants to start a marriage like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure that blacks or Jews like you equating their marriages in these ways? They probably hate it, but in this nation now, well who cares about what other people think if they are used in these ways right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure that my using that same rational for other people makes you uncomfortable.
> 
> If the criteria is 'not offending other people' do you think that should only apply to homosexuals?
Click to expand...

No not at all, but then you don't see Jewish people forcing a Christian church to hold their ceremonies either. Nice try with throwing racism into a conversation about homosexual marriage. If you are trying to make a comparison between racism and homosexuality, you failed miserably.


----------



## Syriusly

Greeneyedlady said:


> You can't force people to accept something they know and believe is wrong.



but you can legally prevent them from acting on such bigotry.

In 1967, the people knew and believed that mixed race marriage was wrong.


Greeneyedlady said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force people to accept something they know and believe is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are you "forced to accept" my civil marriage? Were you there, chained to a post, and I missed you? So sorry. What a terrible host I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you force my church to hold your ceremony when you know darn well it goes against their religion, yes you are forcing an issue on people who don't approve.
Click to expand...


No one is forcing any church to hold any ceremonies.

No one.


----------



## Syriusly

Greeneyedlady said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. If a gay couple wants to marry they shouldn't force it in a venue where it offends other people.
> Who wants to start a marriage like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a black couple wants to marry, they shouldn't force it in a venue where it offends other people.
> 
> Who wants to start a marriage like that?
> 
> If a Jewish couple wants to marry, they shouldn't force it in a venue where ti offends other people.
> 
> Who wants to start a marriage like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure that blacks or Jews like you equating their marriages in these ways? They probably hate it, but in this nation now, well who cares about what other people think if they are used in these ways right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure that my using that same rational for other people makes you uncomfortable.
> 
> If the criteria is 'not offending other people' do you think that should only apply to homosexuals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No not at all, but then you don't see Jewish people forcing a Christian church to hold their ceremonies either. Nice try with throwing racism into a conversation about homosexual marriage. If you are trying to make a comparison between racism and homosexuality, you failed miserably.
Click to expand...


And you don't see homosexuals forcing a Christian church to hold their ceremonies either.

No one can force any church to have any ceremony or ritual or anything else that the church doesn't want. to have.


----------



## Greeneyedlady

Then why the topic question at all?


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> but you can legally prevent them from acting on such bigotry.
> 
> In 1967, the people knew and believed that mixed race marriage was wrong...No one is forcing any church to hold any ceremonies.
> 
> No one.


 
1. Greeneyedlady said your premise that race issues = deviant sex lifestyles is a false comparison.  And she is correct. 

2. Churches have already been forced to accomodate homosexual weddings. 
   A. Churches are nothing more than congregations of individual Christians and..
   B. Individual Christians are being forced legally by the LGBT litigious army to accomodate homosexual weddings.

IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you can legally prevent them from acting on such bigotry.
> 
> In 1967, the people knew and believed that mixed race marriage was wrong...No one is forcing any church to hold any ceremonies.
> 
> No one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Greeneyedlady said your premise that race issues = deviant sex lifestyles is a false comparison.  And she is correct.
> 
> 2. Churches have already been forced to accomodate homosexual weddings.
> A. Churches are nothing more than congregations of individual Christians and..
> B. Individual Christians are being forced legally by the LGBT litigious army to accomodate homosexual weddings.
> 
> IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING..
Click to expand...


No one is forcing any church to hold any ceremonies.

No one.


----------



## Syriusly

Greeneyedlady said:


> Then why the topic question at all?



To create faux outrage. 

Public Accomodation laws specifically exempt houses of worship- so from the beginning it was a false thread. 

Beyond that, churches have always had the authority to discriminate as the church wishes to- the Catholic Church doesn't allow women priests, the LDS for years treated African Americans as a different level of membership within the church- all perfectly legal. 

No one will ever force a church to marry anyone the church doesn't want to.


----------



## Seawytch

Greeneyedlady said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force people to accept something they know and believe is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are you "forced to accept" my civil marriage? Were you there, chained to a post, and I missed you? So sorry. What a terrible host I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you force my church to hold your ceremony when you know darn well it goes against their religion, yes you are forcing an issue on people who don't approve.
Click to expand...


Yeah? Who is doing that? You know that's impossible in the United States, right? 

Now, churches will end up accepting gay members and performing gay weddings, but it won't be the government forcing them to do it, it will be it's own constituents.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> Yeah? Who is doing that? *You know that's impossible in the United States, right*?
> 
> Now, churches will end up accepting gay members and performing gay weddings, but it won't be the government forcing them to do it, it will be it's own constituents.


 Not impossible sweetie...already happening...

Read again (now that your buddy Syriusly helped spam this off the other page)



Syriusly said:


> but you can legally prevent them from acting on such bigotry.
> In 1967, the people knew and believed that mixed race marriage was wrong...No one is forcing any church to hold any ceremonies.
> No one.


1. Greeneyedlady said your premise that race issues = deviant sex lifestyles is a false comparison. And she is correct.
2. Churches have already been forced to accomodate homosexual weddings.
A. Churches are nothing more than congregations of individual Christians and..
B. Individual Christians are being forced legally by the LGBT litigious army to accomodate homosexual weddings.
IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? Who is doing that? *You know that's impossible in the United States, right*?
> 
> Now, churches will end up accepting gay members and performing gay weddings, but it won't be the government forcing them to do it, it will be it's own constituents.
> 
> 
> 
> Not impossible sweetie...already happening...
> ..
Click to expand...


Nope- no one is forcing churches to marry anyone- and no one will.

Just your usual attempt to flame hatred and intollerance towards homosexuals.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force people to accept something they know and believe is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you can legally prevent them from acting on such bigotry.
> 
> In 1967, the people knew and believed that mixed race marriage was wrong.
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force people to accept something they know and believe is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How are you "forced to accept" my civil marriage? Were you there, chained to a post, and I missed you? So sorry. What a terrible host I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you force my church to hold your ceremony when you know darn well it goes against their religion, yes you are forcing an issue on people who don't approve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is forcing any church to hold any ceremonies.
> 
> No one.
Click to expand...

By forcing a member of a church to participate, are you not forcing the church to participate ? How does one become separated from his or her church teachings when out in society ? What if that person goes back to the church and tells the church that he or she was forced to participate in something that is totally against the church and it's biblical teachings ? Wouldn't the church see that as an attack on it through one of it's members while out in society now ? What should the churches response to such a thing be when a member reports back to it, and should it move to protect it's members from being subjected to those things in which it speaks against on Sunday's or should it tell it's member to just shut up and go along with society no matter what, because the church has become impotent in today's society in regards to it's members now ? All Christians want is to be left alone, and not chaseth by the devil into every aspect of their lives as they live them in this nation and society. Why would you not want Christians to have that respect given them or is it that they can't be defeated if they are left alone on these things in which are simply new unto them now ?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force people to accept something they know and believe is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you can legally prevent them from acting on such bigotry.
> 
> In 1967, the people knew and believed that mixed race marriage was wrong.
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force people to accept something they know and believe is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How are you "forced to accept" my civil marriage? Were you there, chained to a post, and I missed you? So sorry. What a terrible host I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you force my church to hold your ceremony when you know darn well it goes against their religion, yes you are forcing an issue on people who don't approve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is forcing any church to hold any ceremonies.
> 
> No one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By forcing a member of a church to participate, are you not forcing the church to participate ?
Click to expand...


No.

If a baker sells cakes for children's parties- can a Christian then refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah party- because Bar Mitzah's are a Jewish ritual that he doesnt' believe in?

Can a Muslim baker refuse to sell cakes to a Christian- just because he believes that doing business with a Christian forces him to participate in Christianity?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force people to accept something they know and believe is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you can legally prevent them from acting on such bigotry.
> 
> In 1967, the people knew and believed that mixed race marriage was wrong.
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force people to accept something they know and believe is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How are you "forced to accept" my civil marriage? Were you there, chained to a post, and I missed you? So sorry. What a terrible host I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you force my church to hold your ceremony when you know darn well it goes against their religion, yes you are forcing an issue on people who don't approve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is forcing any church to hold any ceremonies.
> 
> No one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By forcing a member of a church to participate, are you not forcing the church to participate ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> If a baker sells cakes for children's parties- can a Christian then refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah party- because Bar Mitzah's are a Jewish ritual that he doesnt' believe in?
> 
> Can a Muslim baker refuse to sell cakes to a Christian- just because he believes that doing business with a Christian forces him to participate in Christianity?
Click to expand...

These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force people to accept something they know and believe is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you can legally prevent them from acting on such bigotry.
> 
> In 1967, the people knew and believed that mixed race marriage was wrong.
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are you "forced to accept" my civil marriage? Were you there, chained to a post, and I missed you? So sorry. What a terrible host I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you force my church to hold your ceremony when you know darn well it goes against their religion, yes you are forcing an issue on people who don't approve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is forcing any church to hold any ceremonies.
> 
> No one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By forcing a member of a church to participate, are you not forcing the church to participate ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> If a baker sells cakes for children's parties- can a Christian then refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah party- because Bar Mitzah's are a Jewish ritual that he doesnt' believe in?
> 
> Can a Muslim baker refuse to sell cakes to a Christian- just because he believes that doing business with a Christian forces him to participate in Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.
Click to expand...



They don't?

LOL.......

Public Accomodation laws protect Christians from discrimination.

If you want to eliminate PA laws- go for it.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Greeneyedlady said:


> If you force my church to hold your ceremony when you know darn well it goes against their religion, yes you are forcing an issue on people who don't approve.





Greeneyedlady said:


> If you force my church to hold your ceremony when you know darn well it goes against their religion, yes you are forcing an issue on people who don't approve.



We've had Same-sex Civil Marriage for over 10-years in at least one State in this country.

Please provide any reputable source showing that a Church has been required to perform a religious ceremony for:

1.  An interracial couple where that Church has indicated interracial marriages are against the religious dogma of that Church.

2.  An interfaith couple where that Church has indicated interfaith marriages are against the religious dogma of that Church.

3.  When one or both members of the couple have been divorced where that Church has indicated that that type of divorce is against the religious dogma of that Church.

4.  Again since there has been SSCM's for 10-years in this country a same-sex couple where that Church has indicated same-sex marriages are against the religious dogma of that Church.​

Did the government step in and force this Church to perform the religious ceremony -->> Mississippi Church Rejects Black Wedding - ABC News


>>>>


----------



## Paperman299

Greeneyedlady said:


> Then why the topic question at all?


Welcome to the rabbit hole.


----------



## Paperman299

GreenBean said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. You can't force people to accept gayism if it goes against everything they believe in.
> The whole gay marriage thing is an attack against tradition, religion, and the nuclear family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an attack. It doesn't even affect any of those things. People who want a "nuclear" family can still have them, with absolutely no more trouble than they would have had before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolute unadulterated and uninformed BullSh*t
Click to expand...

Really. I would love to hear you expand on this. How are straight people who want to get married and have 2.5 kids now obstructed in doing so?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Greeneyedlady said:


> You can't force people to accept something they know and believe is wrong.


No one is 'forcing' anyone to 'accept' anything.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches, it's idiocy to maintain otherwise.

Churches will remain at liberty to not afford same-sex couples religious marriages.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Greeneyedlady said:


> Then why the topic question at all?




Fearmongering.


>>>>


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force people to accept something they know and believe is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you can legally prevent them from acting on such bigotry.
> 
> In 1967, the people knew and believed that mixed race marriage was wrong.
> 
> 
> Greeneyedlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you force my church to hold your ceremony when you know darn well it goes against their religion, yes you are forcing an issue on people who don't approve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is forcing any church to hold any ceremonies.
> 
> No one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By forcing a member of a church to participate, are you not forcing the church to participate ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> If a baker sells cakes for children's parties- can a Christian then refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah party- because Bar Mitzah's are a Jewish ritual that he doesnt' believe in?
> 
> Can a Muslim baker refuse to sell cakes to a Christian- just because he believes that doing business with a Christian forces him to participate in Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't?
> 
> LOL.......
> 
> Public Accomodation laws protect Christians from discrimination.
> 
> If you want to eliminate PA laws- go for it.
Click to expand...

When have you heard of any Christians in this nation needing protection with PA laws ? You keep saying that as if there have been cases where Christians have been discriminated against at a business because of being Christian, but I can't think of any myself can you ? As far as I know Christians aren't doing anything that would rise to a level of someone wanting to discriminate against them. Lately it seems that gay's have been demanding that Christians promote or agree to their lifestyle in certain kinds of ways, but Christians aren't wanting to participate in the promotion of their life stye choices in which they make, and the gay's see that as discrimination against them when asked, but the Christians just want to be left alone in order to live in peace is all.


----------



## Silhouette

Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage.  Bakers, photographers, florists.  The building itself?  That's just a mere formality that the very careful litigious LGBT army is waiting for a federal-mandate on marriage to slam dunk in the next lawsuit.

Drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on that one..


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you can legally prevent them from acting on such bigotry.
> 
> In 1967, the people knew and believed that mixed race marriage was wrong.
> No one is forcing any church to hold any ceremonies.
> 
> No one.
> 
> 
> 
> By forcing a member of a church to participate, are you not forcing the church to participate ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> If a baker sells cakes for children's parties- can a Christian then refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah party- because Bar Mitzah's are a Jewish ritual that he doesnt' believe in?
> 
> Can a Muslim baker refuse to sell cakes to a Christian- just because he believes that doing business with a Christian forces him to participate in Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't?
> 
> LOL.......
> 
> Public Accomodation laws protect Christians from discrimination.
> 
> If you want to eliminate PA laws- go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have you heard of any Christians in this nation needing protection with PA laws ? You keep saying that as if there have been cases where Christians have been discriminated against at a business because of being Christian, but I can't think of any myself can you ? As far as I know Christians aren't doing anything that would rise to a level of someone wanting to discriminate against them. Lately it seems that gay's have been demanding that Christians promote or agree to their lifestyle in certain kinds of ways, but Christians aren't wanting to participate in the promotion of their life stye choices in which they make, and the gay's see that as discrimination against them when asked, but the Christians just want to be left alone in order to live in peace is all.
Click to expand...


Denying someone else their right to marry the person they love is the farthest thing from "wanting to be left alone."


----------



## Silhouette

Paperman299 said:


> Denying someone else their right to marry the person they love is the farthest thing from "wanting to be left alone."


 
There is no such "right" in the Constitution.  The privelege exists currently at the state level.  All those "gay marraiges" in states where the High Court is forcing attrition of their sovereignty by denying stays aren't legal.  Nor are they anyone's "right".

Children are involved in this conversation.  They cannot vote, whereas the people calling themselves by their lifestyles "gay" can vote.  Children thrive in situations where they find their gender as an adult role model.  They suffer if they don't have that.  The Prince's Trust study confirms this.  Therefore, in a "gay marriage" 50% of the children involved would be predicted to be maladjusted and suffer.  In hetero marriage from that causal agent, 0% of them would be expected to suffer.

So the fed has NO business forcing states (whether by a decision on the merits or by meritless refusal to apply interim stays) that have access to the Prince's Trust survey, the largest of its kind, to incentivize any other type of marriage but hetero.  And this is because hetero is the most functional marriage psychologically for the most important people in this conversation: children.

Let me repeat that conclusion: People calling themselves by their lifestyles "gay" are not the most important people in this debate; children are.  It is solely their interest that all decisions must be made since marriage is an insitution by, for and about their formative environment.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

It's over Sil, so what is it that keeps you going?  You lost, long ago.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you can legally prevent them from acting on such bigotry.
> 
> In 1967, the people knew and believed that mixed race marriage was wrong.
> No one is forcing any church to hold any ceremonies.
> 
> No one.
> 
> 
> 
> By forcing a member of a church to participate, are you not forcing the church to participate ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> If a baker sells cakes for children's parties- can a Christian then refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah party- because Bar Mitzah's are a Jewish ritual that he doesnt' believe in?
> 
> Can a Muslim baker refuse to sell cakes to a Christian- just because he believes that doing business with a Christian forces him to participate in Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't?
> 
> LOL.......
> 
> Public Accomodation laws protect Christians from discrimination.
> 
> If you want to eliminate PA laws- go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have you heard of any Christians in this nation needing protection with PA laws ? You keep saying that as if there have been cases where Christians have been discriminated against at a business because of being Christian, but I can't think of any myself can you ? As far as I know Christians aren't doing anything that would rise to a level of someone wanting to discriminate against them. Lately it seems that gay's have been demanding that Christians promote or agree to their lifestyle in certain kinds of ways, but Christians aren't wanting to participate in the promotion of their life stye choices in which they make, and the gay's see that as discrimination against them when asked, but the Christians just want to be left alone in order to live in peace is all.
Click to expand...

Then your perception is wrong.

Gay Americans seek only the Constitutional protections the 14th Amendment affords them.

Gay Americans are not 'promoting' their 'lifestyle,' they make no 'demands' on Christians to 'promote' or 'agree with anything, the notion is ridiculous and unfounded.


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> It's over Sil, so what is it that keeps you going?  You lost, long ago.


 My soul is still intact and my own.  I don't consider that a loss.  You however...you might want to look up the word "won" in the dictionary....with respect to your soul..


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SILHOUETTE SAID:

'There is no such "right" in the Constitution'

Incorrect.

The right to marry can be found here in the Constitution:

_Zablocki v. Redhail, Turner v. Safley_

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law. “But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying someone else their right to marry the person they love is the farthest thing from "wanting to be left alone."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such "right" in the Constitution.  .
Click to expand...


Yet every American has that right- I have shown you the quotes before- so I will just point out that once again- you are lying.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..



Not a single church has been sued.

While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you can legally prevent them from acting on such bigotry.
> 
> In 1967, the people knew and believed that mixed race marriage was wrong.
> No one is forcing any church to hold any ceremonies.
> 
> No one.
> 
> 
> 
> By forcing a member of a church to participate, are you not forcing the church to participate ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> If a baker sells cakes for children's parties- can a Christian then refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah party- because Bar Mitzah's are a Jewish ritual that he doesnt' believe in?
> 
> Can a Muslim baker refuse to sell cakes to a Christian- just because he believes that doing business with a Christian forces him to participate in Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't?
> 
> LOL.......
> 
> Public Accomodation laws protect Christians from discrimination.
> 
> If you want to eliminate PA laws- go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have you heard of any Christians in this nation needing protection with PA laws ?.
Click to expand...


So do you think that Christians do not deserve to be protected under Public Accomodation laws?

If you look at the history of PA laws, they are clearly intended to protect a historically discriminated minority from the majority- in religion that would in our history include among others Jews and Mormons. 

But those same laws protect Christians equally.

Do you think we:
a) should eliminate all PA laws?
b) eliminate the religion as a category in PA laws or
c) just say there is  no need to protect Christians in PA laws?


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..


 


Syriusly said:


> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.


 
Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?  If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?

Every single Christian church I know of is open to public attendance.  In fact it is their hallmark that they encourage all of the public to attend.  You're trying to convince us that even when groups of Christians have already been forced to legally-abdicate their faith to promote homosexuality taking over our culture (via that most potent vehicle to do so: marriage), that you won't be applying public accomodation laws to the places where these litigant-losers congregate?

Bullshit!


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?  If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?
Click to expand...


A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage.  Bakers, photographers, florists.  The building itself?  That's just a mere formality that the very careful litigious LGBT army is waiting for a federal-mandate on marriage to slam dunk in the next lawsuit.
> 
> Drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on that one..


It may not come in the form of just walking up to the door and saying marry us, but it will come in the form of infiltration, because as the outside falls or crumbles, then soon the inside shall follow suit.


----------



## beagle9

Paperman299 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By forcing a member of a church to participate, are you not forcing the church to participate ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> If a baker sells cakes for children's parties- can a Christian then refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah party- because Bar Mitzah's are a Jewish ritual that he doesnt' believe in?
> 
> Can a Muslim baker refuse to sell cakes to a Christian- just because he believes that doing business with a Christian forces him to participate in Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't?
> 
> LOL.......
> 
> Public Accomodation laws protect Christians from discrimination.
> 
> If you want to eliminate PA laws- go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have you heard of any Christians in this nation needing protection with PA laws ? You keep saying that as if there have been cases where Christians have been discriminated against at a business because of being Christian, but I can't think of any myself can you ? As far as I know Christians aren't doing anything that would rise to a level of someone wanting to discriminate against them. Lately it seems that gay's have been demanding that Christians promote or agree to their lifestyle in certain kinds of ways, but Christians aren't wanting to participate in the promotion of their life stye choices in which they make, and the gay's see that as discrimination against them when asked, but the Christians just want to be left alone in order to live in peace is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denying someone else their right to marry the person they love is the farthest thing from "wanting to be left alone."
Click to expand...

Oh so your basically saying that Christians are the main ones holding the gay's back ? What about all others who are also real concerned about the changing of the traditions and ways of this nation now, and in this thought I ask why do you leave them out ? Not only Christians are concerned about all the things that are going on these days, but there are many more who are in the mix as just as well.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?  If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.
Click to expand...

They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By forcing a member of a church to participate, are you not forcing the church to participate ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> If a baker sells cakes for children's parties- can a Christian then refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah party- because Bar Mitzah's are a Jewish ritual that he doesnt' believe in?
> 
> Can a Muslim baker refuse to sell cakes to a Christian- just because he believes that doing business with a Christian forces him to participate in Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't?
> 
> LOL.......
> 
> Public Accomodation laws protect Christians from discrimination.
> 
> If you want to eliminate PA laws- go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have you heard of any Christians in this nation needing protection with PA laws ? You keep saying that as if there have been cases where Christians have been discriminated against at a business because of being Christian, but I can't think of any myself can you ? As far as I know Christians aren't doing anything that would rise to a level of someone wanting to discriminate against them. Lately it seems that gay's have been demanding that Christians promote or agree to their lifestyle in certain kinds of ways, but Christians aren't wanting to participate in the promotion of their life stye choices in which they make, and the gay's see that as discrimination against them when asked, but the Christians just want to be left alone in order to live in peace is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then your perception is wrong.
> 
> Gay Americans seek only the Constitutional protections the 14th Amendment affords them.
> 
> Gay Americans are not 'promoting' their 'lifestyle,' they make no 'demands' on Christians to 'promote' *or 'agree with anything, *the notion is ridiculous and unfounded.
Click to expand...


Then why is the question asked if the answer is not desired when it is asked ? Unfounded you say ? Did you just wake up in 2015 or did I miss something ?


----------



## mdk

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?  If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
Click to expand...


No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?  If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
Click to expand...


Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.


----------



## beagle9

mdk said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?  If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.
Click to expand...




Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?  If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.
Click to expand...

Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?  If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?  If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.
Click to expand...


Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.

*If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so.* But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.

Laughable, really.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?  If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?  If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.
Click to expand...


Men and women made the laws- and men and women interpret the laws.

If you want to change the law, just convince enough men and women to change the laws.

But changing it so it just doesn't apply when it offends Christians won't fly.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?  If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
Click to expand...


Legally they are very distinct.

And that is what we are talking here- legally.

People pay taxes
Churches do not.


----------



## Paperman299

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> If a baker sells cakes for children's parties- can a Christian then refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah party- because Bar Mitzah's are a Jewish ritual that he doesnt' believe in?
> 
> Can a Muslim baker refuse to sell cakes to a Christian- just because he believes that doing business with a Christian forces him to participate in Christianity?
> 
> 
> 
> These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't?
> 
> LOL.......
> 
> Public Accomodation laws protect Christians from discrimination.
> 
> If you want to eliminate PA laws- go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have you heard of any Christians in this nation needing protection with PA laws ? You keep saying that as if there have been cases where Christians have been discriminated against at a business because of being Christian, but I can't think of any myself can you ? As far as I know Christians aren't doing anything that would rise to a level of someone wanting to discriminate against them. Lately it seems that gay's have been demanding that Christians promote or agree to their lifestyle in certain kinds of ways, but Christians aren't wanting to participate in the promotion of their life stye choices in which they make, and the gay's see that as discrimination against them when asked, but the Christians just want to be left alone in order to live in peace is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denying someone else their right to marry the person they love is the farthest thing from "wanting to be left alone."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh so your basically saying that Christians are the main ones holding the gay's back ? What about all others who are also real concerned about the changing of the traditions and ways of this nation now, and in this thought I ask why do you leave them out ? Not only Christians are concerned about all the things that are going on these days, but there are many more who are in the mix as just as well.
Click to expand...

Actively pressing for others beside yourself to have less rights is not "just wanting to be left alone." That is the entirety of what I said


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it.  He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister.  It is one or the other.


----------



## Silhouette

Jeremiah said:


> Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it.  He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister.  It is one or the other.


Jeremiah, they have no choice legally.

Groups of christians are already being bifurcated from their faith.  What makes a minister who holds his doors open to the public (public accomodation laws are how Christians are now being successfully sued) so special?

Nothing.


----------



## Paperman299

Jeremiah said:


> Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it.  He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister.  It is one or the other.


And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it.  He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister.  It is one or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah, they have no choice legally.
> 
> Groups of christians are already being bifurcated from their faith.  What makes a minister who holds his doors open to the public (public accomodation laws are how Christians are now being successfully sued) so special?
> 
> Nothing.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about "the Hitching Post" again?


----------



## Silhouette

Paperman299 said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it.  He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister.  It is one or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord
Click to expand...

So I'm sensing the new strategy is Paperman and Jerimiah narrowing down just exactly what makes a Christian devout, making it black or white, and then shooting it out of the sky when Jeremiah takes a stalwart "all or nothing" stance on BOTH the New and Old Testaments?...Ignoring the fact that assisting or refusing to stave off a homosexual cultural takeover was expressly and specifically forbidden as out of the words of the New Testament in Jude 1 as a non-negotiable, New Testament MORTAL sin that gets the transgressor eternity in the Pit of Fire..

Did I get that right?  Gonna have Jeremiah take the hard "black or white" "religious" role and then bring up pork, stonings and wife beating from the Old Testament to smear all New Testament Christians claim to faith?

Is that how the meeting went today?  I'll be watching Jeremiah and Paperman's exchange together with a friggin microscope.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it.  He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister.  It is one or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I'm sensing the new strategy is Paperman and Jerimiah narrowing down just exactly what makes a Christian devout, making it black or white, and then shooting it out of the sky when Jeremiah takes a stalwart "all or nothing" stance on BOTH the New and Old Testaments?...Ignoring the fact that assisting or refusing to stave off a homosexual cultural takeover was expressly and specifically forbidden as out of the words of the New Testament in Jude 1 as a non-negotiable, New Testament MORTAL sin that gets the transgressor eternity in the Pit of Fire..
Click to expand...


Selling cake isn't mentioned anywhere in Jude 1. Simply destroying your entire argument.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Groups of christians are already being bifurcated from their faith.  What makes a minister who holds his doors open to the public (public accomodation laws are how Christians are now being successfully sued) so special?


The fact that churches and religious corporations are specifically exempted. 

You can ignore this fact. But you can't make us ignore it. Or the law.


----------



## Silhouette

Yes, churches ARE religious corporations...made up of individual christians...who have already been successfully sued and forced as a matter of secular law to abdicate core mandates of their faith (Jude 1).


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Yes, churches ARE religious corporations...made up of individual christians...who have already been successfully sued and forced as a matter of secular law to abdicate core mandates of their faith (Jude 1).



And an individual Christian is not a church anymore than a hub cap is a car. Your argument that any individual is a church is pseudo-legal gibberish.

And Jude 1 makes no mention of cake or the selling of it. Your religious argument is pseudo-religious gibberish.


----------



## Steinlight

To the original poster, change your profile picture you fucking faggot.


----------



## Paperman299

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it.  He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister.  It is one or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I'm sensing the new strategy is Paperman and Jerimiah narrowing down just exactly what makes a Christian devout, making it black or white, and then shooting it out of the sky when Jeremiah takes a stalwart "all or nothing" stance on BOTH the New and Old Testaments?...Ignoring the fact that assisting or refusing to stave off a homosexual cultural takeover was expressly and specifically forbidden as out of the words of the New Testament in Jude 1 as a non-negotiable, New Testament MORTAL sin that gets the transgressor eternity in the Pit of Fire..
> 
> Did I get that right?  Gonna have Jeremiah take the hard "black or white" "religious" role and then bring up pork, stonings and wife beating from the Old Testament to smear all New Testament Christians claim to faith?
> 
> Is that how the meeting went today?  I'll be watching Jeremiah and Paperman's exchange together with a friggin microscope.
Click to expand...

Here's what's funny. You keep making wild accusations of collusion or schemes between people on this thread, as if anyone but you thinks they need anything but their arguments to "win" (they don't). And yet, it's only you I see attempting to outmaneuver other people's arguments rather than addressing them. 

For instance, this "marriage is a privilege" nonsense. I'm pretty sure it was Syriusly who posted a staggering list of quotes from important judges who declared unequivocally that marriage was a right. He put that shit to bed. And here you are, making the same claim and hoping no one will notice. 

And now you're even bringing up Jude 1 again. As if we haven't posted the entire text and shown that there are no references to homosexuality. 

So the next time that you want to accuse someone else here of being sneaky, I'd like to ask that you please stop projecting on us.


----------



## Skylar

Paperman299 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it.  He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister.  It is one or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I'm sensing the new strategy is Paperman and Jerimiah narrowing down just exactly what makes a Christian devout, making it black or white, and then shooting it out of the sky when Jeremiah takes a stalwart "all or nothing" stance on BOTH the New and Old Testaments?...Ignoring the fact that assisting or refusing to stave off a homosexual cultural takeover was expressly and specifically forbidden as out of the words of the New Testament in Jude 1 as a non-negotiable, New Testament MORTAL sin that gets the transgressor eternity in the Pit of Fire..
> 
> Did I get that right?  Gonna have Jeremiah take the hard "black or white" "religious" role and then bring up pork, stonings and wife beating from the Old Testament to smear all New Testament Christians claim to faith?
> 
> Is that how the meeting went today?  I'll be watching Jeremiah and Paperman's exchange together with a friggin microscope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's what's funny. You keep making wild accusations of collusion or schemes between people on this thread, as if anyone but you thinks they need anything but their arguments to "win" (they don't). And yet, it's only you I see attempting to outmaneuver other people's arguments rather than addressing them.
Click to expand...


Silo quite regularly accuses others of what he's doing. I suspect its so when someone accuses him of say, spamming (posted the Trust study 131 times over the last 2 weeks), he can claim they're just copying his accusation.

On the plus side, its a wonderful telegraph of what he plans on doing more of.


----------



## Steinlight

Paperman299 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it.  He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister.  It is one or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I'm sensing the new strategy is Paperman and Jerimiah narrowing down just exactly what makes a Christian devout, making it black or white, and then shooting it out of the sky when Jeremiah takes a stalwart "all or nothing" stance on BOTH the New and Old Testaments?...Ignoring the fact that assisting or refusing to stave off a homosexual cultural takeover was expressly and specifically forbidden as out of the words of the New Testament in Jude 1 as a non-negotiable, New Testament MORTAL sin that gets the transgressor eternity in the Pit of Fire..
> 
> Did I get that right?  Gonna have Jeremiah take the hard "black or white" "religious" role and then bring up pork, stonings and wife beating from the Old Testament to smear all New Testament Christians claim to faith?
> 
> Is that how the meeting went today?  I'll be watching Jeremiah and Paperman's exchange together with a friggin microscope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's what's funny. You keep making wild accusations of collusion or schemes between people on this thread, as if anyone but you thinks they need anything but their arguments to "win" (they don't). And yet, it's only you I see attempting to outmaneuver other people's arguments rather than addressing them.
> 
> For instance, this "marriage is a privilege" nonsense. I'm pretty sure it was Syriusly who posted a staggering list of quotes from important judges who declared unequivocally that marriage was a right. He put that shit to bed. And here you are, making the same claim and hoping no one will notice.
> 
> And now you're even bringing up Jude 1 again. As if we haven't posted the entire text and shown that there are no references to homosexuality.
> 
> So the next time that you want to accuse someone else here of being sneaky, I'd like to ask that you please stop projecting on us.
Click to expand...

It is incorrect to compare a mosaic law about "wearing mixed fabrics" and comparing this somehow to scriptural condemnation of homosexuality. Christians aren't required to abide by mosaic laws like those on fabrics or diet or whatever. Whereas the New Testament expressly condemns homosexuality, like in Paul's letter to the Corinthians. 



> Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, *nor effeminate*, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.


1 Corinthians 6 KJV - Dare any of you having a matter - Bible Gateway

I don't really understand your point. Is it that Christianity is homophobic and should have no place in the gay marriage question, or that Christianity has no issue with homosexuality theologically speaking and therefore we as Christians should support gay marriage on this basis?


----------



## Paperman299

Steinlight said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it.  He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister.  It is one or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I'm sensing the new strategy is Paperman and Jerimiah narrowing down just exactly what makes a Christian devout, making it black or white, and then shooting it out of the sky when Jeremiah takes a stalwart "all or nothing" stance on BOTH the New and Old Testaments?...Ignoring the fact that assisting or refusing to stave off a homosexual cultural takeover was expressly and specifically forbidden as out of the words of the New Testament in Jude 1 as a non-negotiable, New Testament MORTAL sin that gets the transgressor eternity in the Pit of Fire..
> 
> Did I get that right?  Gonna have Jeremiah take the hard "black or white" "religious" role and then bring up pork, stonings and wife beating from the Old Testament to smear all New Testament Christians claim to faith?
> 
> Is that how the meeting went today?  I'll be watching Jeremiah and Paperman's exchange together with a friggin microscope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's what's funny. You keep making wild accusations of collusion or schemes between people on this thread, as if anyone but you thinks they need anything but their arguments to "win" (they don't). And yet, it's only you I see attempting to outmaneuver other people's arguments rather than addressing them.
> 
> For instance, this "marriage is a privilege" nonsense. I'm pretty sure it was Syriusly who posted a staggering list of quotes from important judges who declared unequivocally that marriage was a right. He put that shit to bed. And here you are, making the same claim and hoping no one will notice.
> 
> And now you're even bringing up Jude 1 again. As if we haven't posted the entire text and shown that there are no references to homosexuality.
> 
> So the next time that you want to accuse someone else here of being sneaky, I'd like to ask that you please stop projecting on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is incorrect to compare a mosaic law about "wearing mixed fabrics" and comparing this somehow to scriptural condemnation of homosexuality. Christians aren't required to abide by mosaic laws like those on fabrics or diet or whatever. Whereas the New Testament expressly condemns homosexuality, like in Paul's letter to the Corinthians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, *nor effeminate*, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 Corinthians 6 KJV - Dare any of you having a matter - Bible Gateway
> 
> I don't really understand your point. Is it that Christianity is homophobic and should have no place in the gay marriage question, or that Christianity has no issue with homosexuality theologically speaking and therefore we as Christians should support gay marriage on this basis?
Click to expand...


My point is two-fold. First, that the bizarre rules of ancient religious texts are in no way sufficient grounds for exceptions from modern laws. And as a spoonful of sugar to help that medicine go down, I would add that there are many rules which have been dropped down through the centuries, and that focusing in on this one in particular is not being Godly but all too human.


----------



## Steinlight

Paperman299 said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it.  He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister.  It is one or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I'm sensing the new strategy is Paperman and Jerimiah narrowing down just exactly what makes a Christian devout, making it black or white, and then shooting it out of the sky when Jeremiah takes a stalwart "all or nothing" stance on BOTH the New and Old Testaments?...Ignoring the fact that assisting or refusing to stave off a homosexual cultural takeover was expressly and specifically forbidden as out of the words of the New Testament in Jude 1 as a non-negotiable, New Testament MORTAL sin that gets the transgressor eternity in the Pit of Fire..
> 
> Did I get that right?  Gonna have Jeremiah take the hard "black or white" "religious" role and then bring up pork, stonings and wife beating from the Old Testament to smear all New Testament Christians claim to faith?
> 
> Is that how the meeting went today?  I'll be watching Jeremiah and Paperman's exchange together with a friggin microscope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's what's funny. You keep making wild accusations of collusion or schemes between people on this thread, as if anyone but you thinks they need anything but their arguments to "win" (they don't). And yet, it's only you I see attempting to outmaneuver other people's arguments rather than addressing them.
> 
> For instance, this "marriage is a privilege" nonsense. I'm pretty sure it was Syriusly who posted a staggering list of quotes from important judges who declared unequivocally that marriage was a right. He put that shit to bed. And here you are, making the same claim and hoping no one will notice.
> 
> And now you're even bringing up Jude 1 again. As if we haven't posted the entire text and shown that there are no references to homosexuality.
> 
> So the next time that you want to accuse someone else here of being sneaky, I'd like to ask that you please stop projecting on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is incorrect to compare a mosaic law about "wearing mixed fabrics" and comparing this somehow to scriptural condemnation of homosexuality. Christians aren't required to abide by mosaic laws like those on fabrics or diet or whatever. Whereas the New Testament expressly condemns homosexuality, like in Paul's letter to the Corinthians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, *nor effeminate*, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 Corinthians 6 KJV - Dare any of you having a matter - Bible Gateway
> 
> I don't really understand your point. Is it that Christianity is homophobic and should have no place in the gay marriage question, or that Christianity has no issue with homosexuality theologically speaking and therefore we as Christians should support gay marriage on this basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is two-fold. First, that the bizarre rules of ancient religious texts are in no way sufficient grounds for exceptions from modern laws. And as a spoonful of sugar to help that medicine go down, I would add that there are many rules which have been dropped down through the centuries, and that focusing in on this one in particular is not being Godly but all too human.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Bible's opposition to homosexuality is bizarre at all. Disapproval of and revulsion towards homosexuality is pretty universal throughout the world, minus the more secular element of western societies in very recent times. Revulsion towards this anti-social and self destructive mental illness is a perfectly natural reaction. In reality, you are the one with a bizarre point of view on the matter. You are really going to have to come up with a better argument than somehow calling me the bizarre one, which is actually hilarious.


----------



## Paperman299

Steinlight said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm sensing the new strategy is Paperman and Jerimiah narrowing down just exactly what makes a Christian devout, making it black or white, and then shooting it out of the sky when Jeremiah takes a stalwart "all or nothing" stance on BOTH the New and Old Testaments?...Ignoring the fact that assisting or refusing to stave off a homosexual cultural takeover was expressly and specifically forbidden as out of the words of the New Testament in Jude 1 as a non-negotiable, New Testament MORTAL sin that gets the transgressor eternity in the Pit of Fire..
> 
> Did I get that right?  Gonna have Jeremiah take the hard "black or white" "religious" role and then bring up pork, stonings and wife beating from the Old Testament to smear all New Testament Christians claim to faith?
> 
> Is that how the meeting went today?  I'll be watching Jeremiah and Paperman's exchange together with a friggin microscope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's what's funny. You keep making wild accusations of collusion or schemes between people on this thread, as if anyone but you thinks they need anything but their arguments to "win" (they don't). And yet, it's only you I see attempting to outmaneuver other people's arguments rather than addressing them.
> 
> For instance, this "marriage is a privilege" nonsense. I'm pretty sure it was Syriusly who posted a staggering list of quotes from important judges who declared unequivocally that marriage was a right. He put that shit to bed. And here you are, making the same claim and hoping no one will notice.
> 
> And now you're even bringing up Jude 1 again. As if we haven't posted the entire text and shown that there are no references to homosexuality.
> 
> So the next time that you want to accuse someone else here of being sneaky, I'd like to ask that you please stop projecting on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is incorrect to compare a mosaic law about "wearing mixed fabrics" and comparing this somehow to scriptural condemnation of homosexuality. Christians aren't required to abide by mosaic laws like those on fabrics or diet or whatever. Whereas the New Testament expressly condemns homosexuality, like in Paul's letter to the Corinthians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, *nor effeminate*, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 Corinthians 6 KJV - Dare any of you having a matter - Bible Gateway
> 
> I don't really understand your point. Is it that Christianity is homophobic and should have no place in the gay marriage question, or that Christianity has no issue with homosexuality theologically speaking and therefore we as Christians should support gay marriage on this basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is two-fold. First, that the bizarre rules of ancient religious texts are in no way sufficient grounds for exceptions from modern laws. And as a spoonful of sugar to help that medicine go down, I would add that there are many rules which have been dropped down through the centuries, and that focusing in on this one in particular is not being Godly but all too human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think the Bible's opposition to homosexuality is bizarre at all. Disapproval of and revulsion towards homosexuality is pretty universal throughout the world, minus the more secular element of western societies in very recent times. Revulsion towards this anti-social and self destructive mental illness is a perfectly natural reaction. In reality, you are the one with a bizarre point of view on the matter. You are really going to have to come up with a better argument than somehow calling me the bizarre one, which is actually hilarious.
Click to expand...

Universal? Hardly. In fact, throughout history, outside of Christianity and Islam, homosexual practices were pretty common. 

But if you want to insist on justifying your prejudicial attitude by relativizing it, well, let's talk about some other attitudes that, throughout history, have been common. Slavery has been pretty abundant. Cruel and unusual punishments (ie stoning adulterers). Racism. Sexism. All if this is A-OK in the Bible, but attempting to apply Biblical strictures in these areas to modern life would seem pretty bizarre now.


----------



## Syriusly

Jeremiah said:


> Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it.  He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister.  It is one or the other.



Yet Christian ministers are marrying same gender couples and 'he' still calls himself a Christian minister.

I don't think that "he' cares what you think.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?!
Click to expand...


I don't miss it- I ignore it- because your premise is false. 

A person is not a church
A church is not a person

A person pays taxes
A church doesn't pay taxes.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And woe to that shepherd who allows his flock to wear mixed fabrics! For truly, they are all damned in the eyes of the Lord
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm sensing the new strategy is Paperman and Jerimiah narrowing down just exactly what makes a Christian devout, making it black or white, and then shooting it out of the sky when Jeremiah takes a stalwart "all or nothing" stance on BOTH the New and Old Testaments?...Ignoring the fact that assisting or refusing to stave off a homosexual cultural takeover was expressly and specifically forbidden as out of the words of the New Testament in Jude 1 as a non-negotiable, New Testament MORTAL sin that gets the transgressor eternity in the Pit of Fire..
> 
> Did I get that right?  Gonna have Jeremiah take the hard "black or white" "religious" role and then bring up pork, stonings and wife beating from the Old Testament to smear all New Testament Christians claim to faith?
> 
> Is that how the meeting went today?  I'll be watching Jeremiah and Paperman's exchange together with a friggin microscope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's what's funny. You keep making wild accusations of collusion or schemes between people on this thread, as if anyone but you thinks they need anything but their arguments to "win" (they don't). And yet, it's only you I see attempting to outmaneuver other people's arguments rather than addressing them.
> 
> For instance, this "marriage is a privilege" nonsense. I'm pretty sure it was Syriusly who posted a staggering list of quotes from important judges who declared unequivocally that marriage was a right. He put that shit to bed. And here you are, making the same claim and hoping no one will notice.
> 
> And now you're even bringing up Jude 1 again. As if we haven't posted the entire text and shown that there are no references to homosexuality.
> 
> So the next time that you want to accuse someone else here of being sneaky, I'd like to ask that you please stop projecting on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is incorrect to compare a mosaic law about "wearing mixed fabrics" and comparing this somehow to scriptural condemnation of homosexuality. Christians aren't required to abide by mosaic laws like those on fabrics or diet or whatever. Whereas the New Testament expressly condemns homosexuality, like in Paul's letter to the Corinthians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, *nor effeminate*, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 Corinthians 6 KJV - Dare any of you having a matter - Bible Gateway
> 
> I don't really understand your point. Is it that Christianity is homophobic and should have no place in the gay marriage question, or that Christianity has no issue with homosexuality theologically speaking and therefore we as Christians should support gay marriage on this basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is two-fold. First, that the bizarre rules of ancient religious texts are in no way sufficient grounds for exceptions from modern laws. And as a spoonful of sugar to help that medicine go down, I would add that there are many rules which have been dropped down through the centuries, and that focusing in on this one in particular is not being Godly but all too human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Revulsion towards this anti-social and self destructive mental illness is a perfectly natural reaction..
Click to expand...


To bigots.

To anyone not raised in an atmosphere of bigotry- no it isn't.

My child has no revulsion towards homosexuals- her revulsion is towards bigots like yourself.

She and her peers find your attitudes no different than those who argued that African Americans were not equal to European Americans- or that a black man should not be able to marry a white woman. 

And she is right.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?  If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?  If you accept, as most people do, that churches are no more than mere congregations of individual Christians, then when a group of Christians such as bakers, photographers, caterers and florists have been ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY SUED by the carefully coordinated LGBT litigious army, precisely how long do you think the buildings where they congregate (churches) will be forced to also accomodate "gay marriage" in violation to the core of their faith and their First Amendment rights to exercise their religious values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.
> 
> *If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so.* But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.
> 
> Laughable, really.
Click to expand...

Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all.  I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?


----------



## Seawytch

Jeremiah said:


> Any Christian minister who marries a homosexual couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it.  He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister.  It is one or the other.



Any Christian minister who marries a divorced couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it.  He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister.  It is one or the other.

Any Christian minister who marries a couple with a child has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it.  He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister.  It is one or the other.

Any Christian minister who marries a fat couple has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it.  He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister.  It is one or the other.

Any Christian minister who marries a couple who eat shellfish has committed a sin against God and is going to answer for it.  He cannot do it and call himself a Christian minister.  It is one or the other.

And on and on and on


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.
> 
> *If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so.* But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.
> 
> Laughable, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all.  I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?
Click to expand...


Then get the constitution changed so we get to popular vote on everything. Taxing the rich...Done! Universal background checks for weapons purchases...Done! No Republican President again ever...Done!

Get on it!


----------



## Steinlight

I never said gay marriage should be prohibited because most other cultures oppose it. You claimed that opposing gay marriage is bizarre or unusual, which it isnt. Historically and today, most of the world doesn't approve of the practice. My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. The


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.
> 
> *If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so.* But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.
> 
> Laughable, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all.  I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?
Click to expand...


Obviously not enough to change the legal definitions. If you do, change them. If you can't, then you're subject to them.


----------



## Paperman299

Steinlight said:


> I never said gay marriage should be prohibited because most other cultures oppose it. You claimed that opposing gay marriage is bizarre or unusual, which it isnt. Historically and today, most of the world doesn't approve of the practice. My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. The



It's funny to me that you're more interested in proving your view is normal than that it is right. As it turns out, you're wrong both times. Most of the world? In fact, except for places like Communist China or the Middle East, the views are much more mixed. The Global Divide on Homosexuality Pew Research Center s Global Attitudes Project

And historically, what we now call homosexual behavior saw much more acceptance across the world, in places like Greece, Rome, and the Americas ("Two-Spirit" people). 

But don't worry. If this thread has proven anything, it's that once equal marriage is the law of the land, churches will be allowed to hold on to these prejudices and refuse to marry anyone they want. It won't make it right, and the more time goes by the less normal it will be, but they'll have that right.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person isn't a church. Your argument assumes a person is a church. You're obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.
> 
> *If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so.* But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.
> 
> Laughable, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all.  I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?
Click to expand...


Who won't allow a vote on what?

If you want to change PA laws- go ahead and work to change them.

Heck the Governor of Arkansas- showing his great respect for the 'voters' just told cities and counties in Arkansas that any regulations that they vote to pass giving LGBT protection will be null and void.

I am sure you will be upset by the Governor of Arkansas working against voters in that case too.......


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> I My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. e



In other words, your objection is based upon bigotry.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't miss it- I ignore it- because your premise is false.
> 
> A person is not a church
> A church is not a person
> 
> A person pays taxes
> A church doesn't pay taxes.
Click to expand...




Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.
> 
> *If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so.* But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.
> 
> Laughable, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all.  I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then get the constitution changed so we get to popular vote on everything. Taxing the rich...Done! Universal background checks for weapons purchases...Done! No Republican President again ever...Done!
> 
> Get on it!
Click to expand...

Don't be too sure of yourself, because I wouldn't want you to be terribly disappointed when you finally realize just how the people do feel and look at these issues in their minds. You and your buds best keep plenty of them thar federal judges working it for you, because without them y'all know the party would end very quickly, and it would end in ways that would leave you & your pals speechless afterwards.

I say bring it, because I am confident that the American people would finally show what they really do think on the issues, and this by a vote being allowed and honored afterwards if and when it was taken.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are an extension of the church, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.
> 
> *If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so.* But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.
> 
> Laughable, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all.  I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who won't allow a vote on what?
> 
> If you want to change PA laws- go ahead and work to change them.
> 
> Heck the Governor of Arkansas- showing his great respect for the 'voters' just told cities and counties in Arkansas that any regulations that they vote to pass giving LGBT protection will be null and void.
> 
> I am sure you will be upset by the Governor of Arkansas working against voters in that case too.......
Click to expand...

Could it be that he thinks the process would be corrupt, and therefore cheating would erupt quickly or during the process ? If he is shutting the people down in fear that they may disagree with him, then that is sad. With so much corruption going on these days when it comes to fair, legal and honorable elections, then it's so wonder there are people like him that have become afraid of the democratic process, and afraid of the allowance to let the people speak freely on the issues through their vote.


----------



## mdk

We don't leave matters of civil rights up to a plebiscite. The will of the people is entirely irrelevant when that will is in violation of the Constitution. 

There still hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, aganist their wishes. Not one.


----------



## Steinlight

Paperman299 said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said gay marriage should be prohibited because most other cultures oppose it. You claimed that opposing gay marriage is bizarre or unusual, which it isnt. Historically and today, most of the world doesn't approve of the practice. My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. The
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny to me that you're more interested in proving your view is normal than that it is right. As it turns out, you're wrong both times. Most of the world? In fact, except for places like Communist China or the Middle East, the views are much more mixed. The Global Divide on Homosexuality Pew Research Center s Global Attitudes Project
> 
> And historically, what we now call homosexual behavior saw much more acceptance across the world, in places like Greece, Rome, and the Americas ("Two-Spirit" people).
> 
> But don't worry. If this thread has proven anything, it's that once equal marriage is the law of the land, churches will be allowed to hold on to these prejudices and refuse to marry anyone they want. It won't make it right, and the more time goes by the less normal it will be, but they'll have that right.
Click to expand...

I think it is right and I articulated why in some part, I view it is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive and I don't think the government should promote it through offering such relations equal recognition. You claimed my view on gay marriage was bizarre, this was the base of your argument, so I responded to that, by saying my view isn't unusual or bizarre but shared by many individuals across cultures. Your survey doesn't confirm otherwise.As I said in the last post, my view on gay marriage isn't based on what percentage in what country agree or disagree with it, so to claim I am more interested in saying my view is normal is false. You insinuated in some part my view is wrong because it is bizarre. And your contention  your insinuation, is wrong on that basis.

Gay Marriage was not practiced in Greece or Rome. So not only is the premise of your argument wrong, Your argument is a logical fallacy as an appeal to authority. Because well, if Rome or Greece did it, they didn't, they must be right.


----------



## Paperman299

Steinlight said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said gay marriage should be prohibited because most other cultures oppose it. You claimed that opposing gay marriage is bizarre or unusual, which it isnt. Historically and today, most of the world doesn't approve of the practice. My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. The
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny to me that you're more interested in proving your view is normal than that it is right. As it turns out, you're wrong both times. Most of the world? In fact, except for places like Communist China or the Middle East, the views are much more mixed. The Global Divide on Homosexuality Pew Research Center s Global Attitudes Project
> 
> And historically, what we now call homosexual behavior saw much more acceptance across the world, in places like Greece, Rome, and the Americas ("Two-Spirit" people).
> 
> But don't worry. If this thread has proven anything, it's that once equal marriage is the law of the land, churches will be allowed to hold on to these prejudices and refuse to marry anyone they want. It won't make it right, and the more time goes by the less normal it will be, but they'll have that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it is right and I articulated why in some part, I view it is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive and I don't think the government should promote it through offering such relations equal recognition. You claimed my view on gay marriage was bizarre, this was the base of your argument, so I responded to that, by saying my view isn't unusual or bizarre but shared by many individuals across cultures. Your survey doesn't confirm otherwise.As I said in the last post, my view on gay marriage isn't based on what percentage in what country agree or disagree with it, so to claim I am more interested in saying my view is normal is false. You insinuated in some part my view is wrong because it is bizarre. And your contention  your insinuation, is wrong on that basis.
> 
> Gay Marriage was not practiced in Greece or Rome. So not only is the premise of your argument wrong, Your argument is a logical fallacy as an appeal to authority. Because well, if Rome or Greece did it, they didn't, they must be right.
Click to expand...

What a mess of moving the goalposts and strawmen. You didn't say people "share your views," you said your view was basically "universal."  






You were wrong. 

I said that what we would today describe as _homosexual behavior_ appears very frequently throughout history, not equal marriage. 

What you've gotten most wrong, though, was my frickin' point. My characterization of anti-homosexual prejudice as "bizarre" was *not* the point of my post.



> ...the bizarre rules of ancient religious texts are in no way sufficient grounds for exceptions from modern laws. And as a spoonful of sugar to help that medicine go down, I would add that there are many rules which have been dropped down through the centuries, and that focusing in on this one in particular is not being Godly but all too human.



They key word there isn't "bizarre," they're "ancient religious texts." And technically, I wasn't just talking about the Bible's anti-homosexual prejudice, I was talking about *a lot* of its Bronze Age rules which would be crazy to follow today. The reason it's not in American law that adulterers will be stoned, or that we can't eat shellfish, isn't that those things are in the Old Testament instead of the New; it's that something being in the Bible is _in no way_ good cause to make it law. How much less sense it would make, then, that these things should supercede modern law where the two contradict?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.
> 
> 
> 
> The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.
> 
> *If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so.* But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.
> 
> Laughable, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all.  I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who won't allow a vote on what?
> 
> If you want to change PA laws- go ahead and work to change them.
> 
> Heck the Governor of Arkansas- showing his great respect for the 'voters' just told cities and counties in Arkansas that any regulations that they vote to pass giving LGBT protection will be null and void.
> 
> I am sure you will be upset by the Governor of Arkansas working against voters in that case too.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could it be that he thinks the process would be corrupt, and therefore cheating would erupt quickly or during the process ?e.
Click to expand...


Hey- that is exactly why we aren't putting the issue of gay marriage on the ballot- we are afraid that the process would be corrupt, and therefore cheating would erupt quickly, by the corrupt homophobes......

See how that works?

Rationalization can make up any conspiracy theory.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said gay marriage should be prohibited because most other cultures oppose it. You claimed that opposing gay marriage is bizarre or unusual, which it isnt. Historically and today, most of the world doesn't approve of the practice. My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. The
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny to me that you're more interested in proving your view is normal than that it is right. As it turns out, you're wrong both times. Most of the world? In fact, except for places like Communist China or the Middle East, the views are much more mixed. The Global Divide on Homosexuality Pew Research Center s Global Attitudes Project
> 
> And historically, what we now call homosexual behavior saw much more acceptance across the world, in places like Greece, Rome, and the Americas ("Two-Spirit" people).
> 
> But don't worry. If this thread has proven anything, it's that once equal marriage is the law of the land, churches will be allowed to hold on to these prejudices and refuse to marry anyone they want. It won't make it right, and the more time goes by the less normal it will be, but they'll have that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I I view it is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive and I don't think the government should promote it through offering such relations equal recognition. Yt.
Click to expand...


I think bigotry like yours is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive, but I still think you should be allowed to marry.

I am tolerant that way.


----------



## Steinlight

Paperman299 said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said gay marriage should be prohibited because most other cultures oppose it. You claimed that opposing gay marriage is bizarre or unusual, which it isnt. Historically and today, most of the world doesn't approve of the practice. My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. The
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny to me that you're more interested in proving your view is normal than that it is right. As it turns out, you're wrong both times. Most of the world? In fact, except for places like Communist China or the Middle East, the views are much more mixed. The Global Divide on Homosexuality Pew Research Center s Global Attitudes Project
> 
> And historically, what we now call homosexual behavior saw much more acceptance across the world, in places like Greece, Rome, and the Americas ("Two-Spirit" people).
> 
> But don't worry. If this thread has proven anything, it's that once equal marriage is the law of the land, churches will be allowed to hold on to these prejudices and refuse to marry anyone they want. It won't make it right, and the more time goes by the less normal it will be, but they'll have that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it is right and I articulated why in some part, I view it is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive and I don't think the government should promote it through offering such relations equal recognition. You claimed my view on gay marriage was bizarre, this was the base of your argument, so I responded to that, by saying my view isn't unusual or bizarre but shared by many individuals across cultures. Your survey doesn't confirm otherwise.As I said in the last post, my view on gay marriage isn't based on what percentage in what country agree or disagree with it, so to claim I am more interested in saying my view is normal is false. You insinuated in some part my view is wrong because it is bizarre. And your contention  your insinuation, is wrong on that basis.
> 
> Gay Marriage was not practiced in Greece or Rome. So not only is the premise of your argument wrong, Your argument is a logical fallacy as an appeal to authority. Because well, if Rome or Greece did it, they didn't, they must be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a mess of moving the goalposts and strawmen. You didn't say people "share your views," you said your view was basically "universal."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were wrong.
> 
> I said that what we would today describe as _homosexual behavior_ appears very frequently throughout history, not equal marriage.
> 
> What you've gotten most wrong, though, was my frickin' point. My characterization of anti-homosexual prejudice as "bizarre" was *not* the point of my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...the bizarre rules of ancient religious texts are in no way sufficient grounds for exceptions from modern laws. And as a spoonful of sugar to help that medicine go down, I would add that there are many rules which have been dropped down through the centuries, and that focusing in on this one in particular is not being Godly but all too human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They key word there isn't "bizarre," they're "ancient religious texts." And technically, I wasn't just talking about the Bible's anti-homosexual prejudice, I was talking about *a lot* of its Bronze Age rules which would be crazy to follow today. The reason it's not in American law that adulterers will be stoned, or that we can't eat shellfish, isn't that those things are in the Old Testament instead of the New; it's that something being in the Bible is _in no way_ good cause to make it law. How much less sense it would make, then, that these things should supercede modern law where the two contradict?
Click to expand...

You are the only one moving the goal posts and creating strawmen. What does "accept homosexuality" entail? And it is an entirely different question than marriage. So my point stands. Your contention was my view on gay marriage was bizarre and thus wrong, I responded by saying my view on gay marriage is pretty universal outside the secular west, across cultures historically and in modern times. You have yet to prove my view on gay marriage is bizarre, meaning unusual or odd, thus your argument on those grounds is flawed. Not only is the premise flawed, the argument is a logical fallacy as it suggests a view is right based on majority consensus. 

I never stated homosexual behavior is a modern manifestation, so I don't understand what exactly you are talking about here. So what exactly is your point here and how does homosexuality in the ancient world relate to gay marriage now? None of the societies you cited allowed gay marriage, so what exactly is your point here? 

Just because a code of morality is old or comes from ancient times doesn't make it wrong. You even admit this when you cite Rome and ancient Greece, though incorrectly. But you appeal to ancients. In many way the ancients were wiser than us moderns. 

You implied we as Christians were hypocritical and picking and choosing which laws we follow. You claimed we ignore dietary laws, but follow the passages which tell us homosexuality is a sin. Your assertion we are hypocrites is simply incorrect, as we aren't bound by those mosaic laws as Christians. So your basis we are picking or choosing and our opposition to homosexuality is arbitrary is false. 

I never said the law should be based on the Bible. I joined the conversation when you were discussing whether there was any clear condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament and I provided scripture to that end. What I said is that the government shouldn't promote a homosexuality, which is a mental illness, and a personally and socially destructive lifestyle as equal to the union of a man in the wife who come together to have children and build a family.


----------



## beagle9

Steinlight said:


> I My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. e






Syriusly said:


> In other words, your objection is based upon bigotry.






Syriusly said:


> I think bigotry like yours is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive, but I still think you should be allowed to marry.
> 
> I am tolerant that way.



Now let me see - Hmm, would you call a doctor a* bigot*, or any of the other labels people love to give each other in life ? Would you use such a name on a doctor if he were to be treating say a person's sexual disease for instance in life, in which he or she may have gotten by doing things that are not wise to do in life ?

Now the doctor would want to explain to the patient (i.e. get into his or her business on the matter), and to tell them how it best not to engage in certain activities in which they might have engaged in, but why ? It's because it may have led to or caused the disease in which he or she might have gotten out of it all right ?  Now there are diseases in which are now being treated by doctors who know best about them as according to the millions that are treated by such doctors across this great united states and beyond, and thank God for that because the world needs them, but are they being listened to these days, and are they just bigots themselves ?.

There are many sicknesses today that usually causes the investigation of an illness in order to find out what most likely causes these diseases that we are all seeing in today's societies now in result of, and Doctors are on the front lines of these fights, but have they been silenced about the causes and the effects over time ?

I mean there are people out there who do crazy things in life right, but how dare anyone try and steer them in a better light or direction in life afterwards. People give advice all the time in order to help others avoid dire consequences all due their actions taken in life, and this is just as a Doctor would do by offering such advice to his patients just as well, but hey you don't ever hear of a doctor being called a *bigot* or other such grand titles when trying to help others or to treat them and/or to inform them in life about the things that hurt human beings now do you ?


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. e
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, your objection is based upon bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think bigotry like yours is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive, but I still think you should be allowed to marry.
> 
> I am tolerant that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now let me see - Hmm, would you call a doctor a* bigot*, or any of the other labels people love to give each other in life ? Would you use such a name on a doctor if he were to be treating say a person's sexual disease for instance in life, in which he or she may have gotten by doing things that are not wise to do in life ?
> 
> Now the doctor would want to explain to the patient (i.e. get into his or her business on the matter), and to tell them how it best not to engage in certain activities in which they might have engaged in, but why ? It's because it may have led to or caused the disease in which he or she might have gotten out of it all right ?  Now there are diseases in which are now being treated by doctors who know best about them as according to the millions that are treated by such doctors across this great united states and beyond, and thank God for that because the world needs them, but are they being listened to these days, and are they just bigots themselves ?.
Click to expand...


You know you can apply the above to a heterosexual, right? Anyone who engages in unsafe sex is at risk for sexually transmitted diseases. THAT is what a doctor will say to a patient. 

Were you aware that lesbians are in the lowest risk category for sexually transmitted diseases?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't miss it- I ignore it- because your premise is false.
> 
> A person is not a church
> A church is not a person
> 
> A person pays taxes
> A church doesn't pay taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are very separable. If they were not separable, individual members of the church would be exempt from paying taxes. Try it this tax season and see what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per you, perhaps. Per the law they are separate entities. As this is a discussion of the law, your personal opinion is meaningless. The law's definitions are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.
> 
> *If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so.* But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.
> 
> Laughable, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all.  I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then get the constitution changed so we get to popular vote on everything. Taxing the rich...Done! Universal background checks for weapons purchases...Done! No Republican President again ever...Done!
> 
> Get on it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be too sure of yourself, because I wouldn't want you to be terribly disappointed when you finally realize just how the people do feel and look at these issues in their minds. You and your buds best keep plenty of them thar federal judges working it for you, because without them y'all know the party would end very quickly, and it would end in ways that would leave you & your pals speechless afterwards.
> 
> I say bring it, because I am confident that the American people would finally show what they really do think on the issues, and this by a vote being allowed and honored afterwards if and when it was taken.
Click to expand...




beagle9 said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. e
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, your objection is based upon bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think bigotry like yours is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive, but I still think you should be allowed to marry.
> 
> I am tolerant that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now let me see - Hmm, would you call a doctor a* bigot*, or any of the other labels people love to give each other in life ?
Click to expand...


I would call a doctor a bigot if that doctor is a bigot.

Meanwhile, I think those that are not doctors- but insist on declaring that they know that homosexuality is a mental illness, even though the medical community says it is not- are indeed bigots.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> I would call a doctor a bigot if that doctor is a bigot.
> Meanwhile, I think those that are not doctors- but insist on declaring that they know that homosexuality is a mental illness, even though the medical community says it is not- are indeed bigots.


The medical community relies nearly 100% on the APA's public position for the psychological components of medicine. This is highly problematic when a cult takes over the APA. Watch the full 8 minutes of the video on this OP if you really care about this topic and where "the truth" on these subjects is coming from.. It's chilling and this is not made up folks. Follow the links and see for yourselves: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would call a doctor a bigot if that doctor is a bigot.
> Meanwhile, I think those that are not doctors- but insist on declaring that they know that homosexuality is a mental illness, even though the medical community says it is not- are indeed bigots.
> 
> 
> 
> The medical community relies
Click to expand...


The medical community consists of actual experts on medicine and health, as opposed to anonymous bigots on the internet.


----------



## mdk

Hmm...I wonder whom has more creditability when deciding if homosexuality is a mental illness or not? Trained medical professionals backed by research or random internet bigots with an axe to grind? Such a tough a choice here but I think I am going to have to side with the people whom are experts in their respective fields over internet randoms.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't miss it- I ignore it- because your premise is false.
> 
> A person is not a church
> A church is not a person
> 
> A person pays taxes
> A church doesn't pay taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tax thing is pertaining keeping the church open in a mon-profit
> Who made the laws ? Men right ? Now why can't any ones opinion matter concerning unjust and/or ridiculous laws (or) is it just you trying to make it appears as if no one can change or challenge a law whether it be in opinion of or in the actual changing of said laws that may have been contrived by men for whom may have been corrupted at the time ? I like the way you try and word yourself as if no one but no one can ever challenge a law or change a law in this nation.. It's laughable really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.
> 
> *If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so.* But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.
> 
> Laughable, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all.  I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then get the constitution changed so we get to popular vote on everything. Taxing the rich...Done! Universal background checks for weapons purchases...Done! No Republican President again ever...Done!
> 
> Get on it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be too sure of yourself, because I wouldn't want you to be terribly disappointed when you finally realize just how the people do feel and look at these issues in their minds. You and your buds best keep plenty of them thar federal judges working it for you, because without them y'all know the party would end very quickly, and it would end in ways that would leave you & your pals speechless afterwards.
> 
> I say bring it, because I am confident that the American people would finally show what they really do think on the issues, and this by a vote being allowed and honored afterwards if and when it was taken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. e
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, your objection is based upon bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think bigotry like yours is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive, but I still think you should be allowed to marry.
> 
> I am tolerant that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now let me see - Hmm, would you call a doctor a* bigot*, or any of the other labels people love to give each other in life ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would call a doctor a bigot if that doctor is a bigot.
> 
> Meanwhile, I think those that are not doctors- but insist on declaring that they know that homosexuality is a mental illness, even though the medical community says it is not- are indeed bigots.
Click to expand...




Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. e
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, your objection is based upon bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think bigotry like yours is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive, but I still think you should be allowed to marry.
> 
> I am tolerant that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now let me see - Hmm, would you call a doctor a* bigot*, or any of the other labels people love to give each other in life ? Would you use such a name on a doctor if he were to be treating say a person's sexual disease for instance in life, in which he or she may have gotten by doing things that are not wise to do in life ?
> 
> Now the doctor would want to explain to the patient (i.e. get into his or her business on the matter), and to tell them how it best not to engage in certain activities in which they might have engaged in, but why ? It's because it may have led to or caused the disease in which he or she might have gotten out of it all right ?  Now there are diseases in which are now being treated by doctors who know best about them as according to the millions that are treated by such doctors across this great united states and beyond, and thank God for that because the world needs them, but are they being listened to these days, and are they just bigots themselves ?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You know you can apply the above to a heterosexual, right?* Anyone who engages in unsafe sex is at risk for sexually transmitted diseases. THAT is what a doctor will say to a patient.
> 
> Were you aware that lesbians are in the lowest risk category for sexually transmitted diseases?
Click to expand...



Of course you can, but think about it this way.  Do you think it as normal to even have to use a term like SAFE SEX when one decides to have sex with another in life ? I mean God designed the *man* and the *woman* to have sex with each other by that very design right, and if they do what God had intended for them to do, in which is to keep it normal and clean between them naturally, then without any help at all isn't it considered as the safest sex when doing it just as God had planned it and designed it all to be ? The idea that people have to shield themselves when having sex is an UN-natural thing, so what are people doing wrong that they have to protect themselves in an UN-natural way ? Also just because someone can take medicine to keep a sickness at bay, doesn't mean that such a thing as that is a natural thing either. The natural thing in life is to be medicine free, and living as God had designed us all to live without all the modern crutches that people are using and promoting in today's society to get by now.  However if one does get sick in life, then think God for doctors and medicine in hopes to correct the situation.


----------



## beagle9

mdk said:


> Hmm...I wonder whom has more creditability when deciding if homosexuality is a mental illness or not? Trained medical professionals backed by research or random internet bigots with an axe to grind? Such a tough a choice here but I think I am going to have to side with the people whom are experts in their respective fields over internet randoms.


You wouldn't side with medical professionals either would you, otherwise if your mind was made up, and they told you something that you didn't want to hear ?


----------



## mdk

beagle9 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...I wonder whom has more creditability when deciding if homosexuality is a mental illness or not? Trained medical professionals backed by research or random internet bigots with an axe to grind? Such a tough a choice here but I think I am going to have to side with the people whom are experts in their respective fields over internet randoms.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't side with medical professionals either would you, otherwise if your mind was made up, and they told you something that you didn't want to hear ?
Click to expand...


I tend to place a little more weight on the opinions of medical and health experts than random folks on the internet. I am crazy like that I suppose.

That being said, being a medical expert in no way makes one any less of a quack if what they claim isn't supported by any facts or by the other peers in their field. Being gay isn't a mental illness and the overwhelming majority of health and medical professionals would agree with that statement. Of course they are all in on the vast gay conspiracy or something. lol


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't miss it- I ignore it- because your premise is false.
> 
> A person is not a church
> A church is not a person
> 
> A person pays taxes
> A church doesn't pay taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.
> 
> *If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so.* But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.
> 
> Laughable, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all.  I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then get the constitution changed so we get to popular vote on everything. Taxing the rich...Done! Universal background checks for weapons purchases...Done! No Republican President again ever...Done!
> 
> Get on it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be too sure of yourself, because I wouldn't want you to be terribly disappointed when you finally realize just how the people do feel and look at these issues in their minds. You and your buds best keep plenty of them thar federal judges working it for you, because without them y'all know the party would end very quickly, and it would end in ways that would leave you & your pals speechless afterwards.
> 
> I say bring it, because I am confident that the American people would finally show what they really do think on the issues, and this by a vote being allowed and honored afterwards if and when it was taken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. e
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, your objection is based upon bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think bigotry like yours is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive, but I still think you should be allowed to marry.
> 
> I am tolerant that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now let me see - Hmm, would you call a doctor a* bigot*, or any of the other labels people love to give each other in life ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would call a doctor a bigot if that doctor is a bigot.
> 
> Meanwhile, I think those that are not doctors- but insist on declaring that they know that homosexuality is a mental illness, even though the medical community says it is not- are indeed bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. e
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, your objection is based upon bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think bigotry like yours is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive, but I still think you should be allowed to marry.
> 
> I am tolerant that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now let me see - Hmm, would you call a doctor a* bigot*, or any of the other labels people love to give each other in life ? Would you use such a name on a doctor if he were to be treating say a person's sexual disease for instance in life, in which he or she may have gotten by doing things that are not wise to do in life ?
> 
> Now the doctor would want to explain to the patient (i.e. get into his or her business on the matter), and to tell them how it best not to engage in certain activities in which they might have engaged in, but why ? It's because it may have led to or caused the disease in which he or she might have gotten out of it all right ?  Now there are diseases in which are now being treated by doctors who know best about them as according to the millions that are treated by such doctors across this great united states and beyond, and thank God for that because the world needs them, but are they being listened to these days, and are they just bigots themselves ?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You know you can apply the above to a heterosexual, right?* Anyone who engages in unsafe sex is at risk for sexually transmitted diseases. THAT is what a doctor will say to a patient.
> 
> Were you aware that lesbians are in the lowest risk category for sexually transmitted diseases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can, but think about it this way.  Do you think it as normal to even have to use a term like SAFE SEX when one decides to have sex with another in life ? I mean God designed the *man* and the *woman* to have sex with each other by that very design right, and if they do what God had intended for them to do, in which is to keep it normal and clean between them naturally, then without any help at all isn't it considered as the safest sex when doing it just as God had planned it and designed it all to be ? The idea that people have to shield themselves when having sex is an UN-natural thing, so what are people doing wrong that they have to protect themselves in an UN-natural way ? Also just because someone can take medicine to keep a sickness at bay, doesn't mean that such a thing as that is a natural thing either. The natural thing in life is to be medicine free, and living as God had designed us all to live without all the modern crutches that people are using and promoting in today's society to get by now.  However if one does get sick in life, then think God for doctors and medicine in hopes to correct the situation.
Click to expand...


Do you have a point? The way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases is to use protection or to be in a monogamous relationship. Gay or straight. If you have unsafe and unprotected sex, you are at risk for STDs, period.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...I wonder whom has more creditability when deciding if homosexuality is a mental illness or not? Trained medical professionals backed by research or random internet bigots with an axe to grind? Such a tough a choice here but I think I am going to have to side with the people whom are experts in their respective fields over internet randoms.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't side with medical professionals either would you, otherwise if your mind was made up, and they told you something that you didn't want to hear ?
Click to expand...


I go to medical professionals to get medical advise. If they told me I have cancer, even though I didn't want to hear it, yes I would believe I had cancer. 

I wouldn't go ask for a second opinion in USMB.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't miss it- I ignore it- because your premise is false.
> 
> A person is not a church
> A church is not a person
> 
> A person pays taxes
> A church doesn't pay taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.
> 
> *If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so.* But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.
> 
> Laughable, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all.  I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then get the constitution changed so we get to popular vote on everything. Taxing the rich...Done! Universal background checks for weapons purchases...Done! No Republican President again ever...Done!
> 
> Get on it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be too sure of yourself, because I wouldn't want you to be terribly disappointed when you finally realize just how the people do feel and look at these issues in their minds. You and your buds best keep plenty of them thar federal judges working it for you, because without them y'all know the party would end very quickly, and it would end in ways that would leave you & your pals speechless afterwards.
> 
> I say bring it, because I am confident that the American people would finally show what they really do think on the issues, and this by a vote being allowed and honored afterwards if and when it was taken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. e
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, your objection is based upon bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think bigotry like yours is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive, but I still think you should be allowed to marry.
> 
> I am tolerant that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now let me see - Hmm, would you call a doctor a* bigot*, or any of the other labels people love to give each other in life ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would call a doctor a bigot if that doctor is a bigot.
> 
> Meanwhile, I think those that are not doctors- but insist on declaring that they know that homosexuality is a mental illness, even though the medical community says it is not- are indeed bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. e
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, your objection is based upon bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think bigotry like yours is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive, but I still think you should be allowed to marry.
> 
> I am tolerant that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now let me see - Hmm, would you call a doctor a* bigot*, or any of the other labels people love to give each other in life ? Would you use such a name on a doctor if he were to be treating say a person's sexual disease for instance in life, in which he or she may have gotten by doing things that are not wise to do in life ?
> 
> Now the doctor would want to explain to the patient (i.e. get into his or her business on the matter), and to tell them how it best not to engage in certain activities in which they might have engaged in, but why ? It's because it may have led to or caused the disease in which he or she might have gotten out of it all right ?  Now there are diseases in which are now being treated by doctors who know best about them as according to the millions that are treated by such doctors across this great united states and beyond, and thank God for that because the world needs them, but are they being listened to these days, and are they just bigots themselves ?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You know you can apply the above to a heterosexual, right?* Anyone who engages in unsafe sex is at risk for sexually transmitted diseases. THAT is what a doctor will say to a patient.
> 
> Were you aware that lesbians are in the lowest risk category for sexually transmitted diseases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can, but think about it this way.  Do you think it as normal to even have to use a term like SAFE SEX when one decides to have sex with another in life ? .
Click to expand...


Are you familiar with the syphilis?

The sexually transmitted disease, which if you believe God created everything, that God created. 
Before man invented anti-biotics it was the 'AID's' of man's history- killing and driving insane millions of humans.

Sure- if humans only had sex between 1 man and 1 woman(or 1 man with 1 man or 1 woman with 1 woman) their entire lives, and no one ever raped anyone, then STD's would die off.

But the history of humankind is a history of STD's. Just say no campaigns just ensures people will catch STD's.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, which are merely congregations of individual Christians, have already been sued to accomodate for gay marriage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single church has been sued.
> 
> While any idiot- even you- can file a lawsuit for any reason- so it is possible that some idiot some day will file a lawsuit, it will be tossed immediately- because churches are exempt from public accomodation laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep purposefully missing the premise of my argument?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't miss it- I ignore it- because your premise is false.
> 
> A person is not a church
> A church is not a person
> 
> A person pays taxes
> A church doesn't pay taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the legal definitions carry with it the power of the people. And you, Beagle aren't 'the people'. You're a person. And your personal opinion doesn't trump legal definitions.
> 
> *If you want to change the legal definition, convince your state legislature to do so.* But you just 'imagining' that the definition is different is legally meaningless.
> 
> Laughable, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh but I am one of many who feel this way, but y'all won't allow a vote to hold up or allow a vote to take place at all.  I want to know what you fear about the democratic process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then get the constitution changed so we get to popular vote on everything. Taxing the rich...Done! Universal background checks for weapons purchases...Done! No Republican President again ever...Done!
> 
> Get on it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be too sure of yourself, because I wouldn't want you to be terribly disappointed when you finally realize just how the people do feel and look at these issues in their minds. You and your buds best keep plenty of them thar federal judges working it for you, because without them y'all know the party would end very quickly, and it would end in ways that would leave you & your pals speechless afterwards.
> 
> I say bring it, because I am confident that the American people would finally show what they really do think on the issues, and this by a vote being allowed and honored afterwards if and when it was taken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. e
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, your objection is based upon bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think bigotry like yours is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive, but I still think you should be allowed to marry.
> 
> I am tolerant that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now let me see - Hmm, would you call a doctor a* bigot*, or any of the other labels people love to give each other in life ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would call a doctor a bigot if that doctor is a bigot.
> 
> Meanwhile, I think those that are not doctors- but insist on declaring that they know that homosexuality is a mental illness, even though the medical community says it is not- are indeed bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. e
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, your objection is based upon bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think bigotry like yours is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive, but I still think you should be allowed to marry.
> 
> I am tolerant that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now let me see - Hmm, would you call a doctor a* bigot*, or any of the other labels people love to give each other in life ? Would you use such a name on a doctor if he were to be treating say a person's sexual disease for instance in life, in which he or she may have gotten by doing things that are not wise to do in life ?
> 
> Now the doctor would want to explain to the patient (i.e. get into his or her business on the matter), and to tell them how it best not to engage in certain activities in which they might have engaged in, but why ? It's because it may have led to or caused the disease in which he or she might have gotten out of it all right ?  Now there are diseases in which are now being treated by doctors who know best about them as according to the millions that are treated by such doctors across this great united states and beyond, and thank God for that because the world needs them, but are they being listened to these days, and are they just bigots themselves ?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You know you can apply the above to a heterosexual, right?* Anyone who engages in unsafe sex is at risk for sexually transmitted diseases. THAT is what a doctor will say to a patient.
> 
> Were you aware that lesbians are in the lowest risk category for sexually transmitted diseases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The natural thing in life is to be medicine free, and living as God had designed us all to live without all the modern crutches that people are using and promoting in today's society to get by now..
Click to expand...


_The natural thing in life is to be medicine free, and living as God had designed us all to live without all the modern crutches that people are using and promoting in today's society to get by now_

So- no vaccinations? 

You think that Polio was natural and that it was natural to let children catch Polio, to die or get paralyzed?

I can continue- but I think I will stop. If there truly is a God, and if he truly did create everything, then he created polio and smallpox and HPV and HIV and Ebola. He created juvenile diabetes and leukemia. They are all 'natural'.


----------



## Silhouette

Sounds like we're getting a little off topic.

The real question is: Will churches be sued to accomodate gay weddings if the Court mandates them federally against the Will of the states?

The answer already is "Yes".  Because churches are nothing more than congregations of individual Christians; a place where they congregate.  And since the individual components of the whole ALREADY HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY SUED TO ACCOMODATE HOMOSEXUAL WEDDINGS, the word "church" is a mere legal technicality in the face of the LGBT litigious army.

Yes, churches already are being forced to accomodate gay weddings and yes, they will continue to be more and more with time.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Sounds like we're getting a little off topic.
> 
> The real question is: Will churches be sued to accomodate gay weddings if the Court mandates them federally against the Will of the states?
> 
> The answer already is "Yes".  Because churches are nothing more than congregations of individual Christians; a place where they congregate.  And since the individual components of the whole ALREADY HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY SUED TO ACCOMODATE HOMOSEXUAL WEDDINGS, the word "church" is a mere legal technicality in the face of the LGBT litigious army.
> 
> Yes, churches already are being forced to accomodate gay weddings and yes, they will continue to be more and more with time.



No, that actually the isn't the _real_ question. The real question is rather plain and states "should churches be forced to accommodate weddings?" The answer is no. There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry any couple; gay or otherwise, against their wishes. Not one. Since that doesn't fit your narrative you now claim that individual members of the church are actually churches themselves so you can claim churches are in fact being forced to marry gays. Not only is that absurd it is also not supported by any law in this nation. Don't believe me? Next time to you file taxes, claim you do not have to pay any b/c you yourself are a church and see what happens.


----------



## Silhouette

Let's say the baker that was sued to accomodate a gay wedding, went to the same church as a photographer forced to accomodate a gay wedding; and they both went to the same church as the florist and a couple of caterers that were also forced to accomodate gay weddings.

Let's say there's a church in the near future where 30 people have all been sued successfully by gays to accomodate their gay weddings against the individual's faith, and there are only 35 people in the whole church total, including the minister.  And like most churches, that one opens its doors wide to any and all of the public to attend...

..Will that mean that a church has been forced to accomodate a homosexual wedding?


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Let's say the baker that was sued to accomodate a gay wedding, went to the same church as a photographer forced to accomodate a gay wedding; and they both went to the same church as the florist and a couple of caterers that were also forced to accomodate gay weddings.
> 
> Let's say there's a church in the near future where 30 people have all been sued successfully by gays to accomodate their gay weddings against the individual's faith, and there are only 35 people in the whole church total, including the minister.  And like most churches, that one opens its doors wide to any and all of the public to attend...
> 
> ..Will that mean that a church has been forced to accomodate a homosexual wedding?



Why the need for a hypothetical? Churches are already being forced to accommodate gay weddings against their wishes according to a legal definition that doesn't exist and no one but you uses.


----------



## Desperado

Should the government force churches to accommodate gay weddings?
Should the Government tell the church who they can baptize?
Should the Government tell the church who can receive Holy Communion?
Should the Government tell the church who can receive the Last Rites?
Of course not, that is why there is a separation of Church and State!


----------



## mdk

Desperado said:


> Should the government force churches to accommodate gay weddings?
> Should the Government tell the church who they can baptize?
> Should the Government tell the church who can receive Holy Communion?
> Should the Government tell the church who can receive the Last Rites?
> Of course not, that is why there is a separation of Church and State!



I couldn't agree more.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


Homosexuals are not a race, please stop attempting to compare the two


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Sounds like we're getting a little off topic.
> 
> The real question is: Will churches be sued to accomodate gay weddings if the Court mandates them federally against the Will of the states?
> 
> The answer already is "Yes".  .



Just demonstrating once again that you are delusional

Churches may be sued- anyone can be sued- but such lawsuits are as invalid as suing a church because they don't allow unicorns in.

Churches are exempt from PA laws, Churches don't have to marry anyone that they don't want to.

And they never will- despite the fearmongering by homophobes.


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not a race, please stop attempting to compare the two
Click to expand...


Churches can discriminate against anyone that they want to, for any reason that they want to- race, religion, gender, and sexual preference.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Let's say the baker that was sued to accomodate a gay wedding, went to the same church as a photographer forced to accomodate a gay wedding; and they both went to the same church as the florist and a couple of caterers that were also forced to accomodate gay weddings.
> 
> Let's say there's a church in the near future where 30 people have all been sued successfully by gays to accomodate their gay weddings against the individual's faith, and there are only 35 people in the whole church total, including the minister.  And like most churches, that one opens its doors wide to any and all of the public to attend...
> 
> ..Will that mean that a church has been forced to accomodate a homosexual wedding?



According to your scenario, unicorns will suddenly be part of the congregation.....

Churches cannot- and will not- be forced to marry anyone against their wishes.

Catholic Churches will not be forced to marry Baptists. 
Baptist Churches will not be forced to marry Jews.
Mormon churches will not be forced to marry homosexuals.

Just not happening.


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not a race, please stop attempting to compare the two
Click to expand...


Nobody is. The discrimination is compared and comparable. 

Churches CAN discriminate based on race if they want to. Societal pressure means most don't want to now.

Same will happen with gays.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not a race, please stop attempting to compare the two
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is. The discrimination is compared and comparable.
> 
> Churches CAN discriminate based on race if they want to. Societal pressure means most don't want to now.
> 
> Same will happen with gays.
Click to expand...


Sorry but one is born into race, to date it's never been proven anyone is born homosexual. There is no comparison


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not a race, please stop attempting to compare the two
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is. The discrimination is compared and comparable.
> 
> Churches CAN discriminate based on race if they want to. Societal pressure means most don't want to now.
> 
> Same will happen with gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but one is born into race, to date it's never been proven anyone is born homosexual. There is no comparison
Click to expand...


Discrimination is discrimination. 

No one is born 'a Christian' but it is still discrimination if someone refuses to hire someone because that person is a Christian.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not a race, please stop attempting to compare the two
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is. The discrimination is compared and comparable.
> 
> Churches CAN discriminate based on race if they want to. Societal pressure means most don't want to now.
> 
> Same will happen with gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but one is born into race, to date it's never been proven anyone is born homosexual. There is no comparison
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discrimination is discrimination.
> 
> No one is born 'a Christian' but it is still discrimination if someone refuses to hire someone because that person is a Christian.
Click to expand...


How did we get from homosexuals in churches to hiring homosexuals? Please stay on point


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not a race, please stop attempting to compare the two
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is. The discrimination is compared and comparable.
> 
> Churches CAN discriminate based on race if they want to. Societal pressure means most don't want to now.
> 
> Same will happen with gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but one is born into race, to date it's never been proven anyone is born homosexual. There is no comparison
Click to expand...


Again, nobody is comparing these two innate traits, just the discrimination suffered by both. 

There is an exact comparison to that. Take the test...

Bet You Can t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not a race, please stop attempting to compare the two
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is. The discrimination is compared and comparable.
> 
> Churches CAN discriminate based on race if they want to. Societal pressure means most don't want to now.
> 
> Same will happen with gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but one is born into race, to date it's never been proven anyone is born homosexual. There is no comparison
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discrimination is discrimination.
> 
> No one is born 'a Christian' but it is still discrimination if someone refuses to hire someone because that person is a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did we get from homosexuals in churches to hiring homosexuals? Please stay on point
Click to expand...


He who is without sin, cast the first stone.

You drove off the road when you started complaining about mentioning discrimination because of sexual orientation and discrimination  because of race.

The issue of this thread is whether churches will be forced to marry homosexuals- if you want to keep the thread on that track- well the way to do so would be to post about that subject.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals are not a race, please stop attempting to compare the two
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is. The discrimination is compared and comparable.
> 
> Churches CAN discriminate based on race if they want to. Societal pressure means most don't want to now.
> 
> Same will happen with gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but one is born into race, to date it's never been proven anyone is born homosexual. There is no comparison
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discrimination is discrimination.
> 
> No one is born 'a Christian' but it is still discrimination if someone refuses to hire someone because that person is a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did we get from homosexuals in churches to hiring homosexuals? Please stay on point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He who is without sin, cast the first stone.
> 
> You drove off the road when you started complaining about mentioning discrimination because of sexual orientation and discrimination  because of race.
> 
> The issue of this thread is whether churches will be forced to marry homosexuals- if you want to keep the thread on that track- well the way to do so would be to post about that subject.
Click to expand...


I never posted about discrimination. You're not very good at this sort of thing are you?


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is. The discrimination is compared and comparable.
> 
> Churches CAN discriminate based on race if they want to. Societal pressure means most don't want to now.
> 
> Same will happen with gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but one is born into race, to date it's never been proven anyone is born homosexual. There is no comparison
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discrimination is discrimination.
> 
> No one is born 'a Christian' but it is still discrimination if someone refuses to hire someone because that person is a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did we get from homosexuals in churches to hiring homosexuals? Please stay on point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He who is without sin, cast the first stone.
> 
> You drove off the road when you started complaining about mentioning discrimination because of sexual orientation and discrimination  because of race.
> 
> The issue of this thread is whether churches will be forced to marry homosexuals- if you want to keep the thread on that track- well the way to do so would be to post about that subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never posted about discrimination. You're not very good at this sort of thing are you?
Click to expand...


How did we get from homosexuals in churches to hiring homosexuals? Please stay on point


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass did you take the test? How'd you do?

Bet You Can t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass did you take the test? How'd you do?
> 
> Bet You Can t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite



Again, one is born that way, the other not so much. It's my belief homosexuality is a choice. I have no use for a left loon "quiz" on the differences between a choice and something one is born into


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass did you take the test? How'd you do?
> 
> Bet You Can t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, one is born that way, the other not so much. It's my belief homosexuality is a choice. I have no use for a left loon "quiz" on the differences between a choice and something one is born into
Click to expand...


I was born gay and you certainly can't prove otherwise.

Of course you have no use for something that proves my point exactly and destroys yours.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass did you take the test? How'd you do?
> 
> Bet You Can t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, one is born that way, the other not so much. It's my belief homosexuality is a choice. I have no use for a left loon "quiz" on the differences between a choice and something one is born into
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was born gay and you certainly can't prove otherwise.
> 
> Of course you have no use for something that proves my point exactly and destroys yours.
Click to expand...


The flip side is you can't prove you were born gay. Why oh why has science failed you?


----------



## mdk

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass did you take the test? How'd you do?
> 
> Bet You Can t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, one is born that way, the other not so much. It's my belief homosexuality is a choice. I have no use for a left loon "quiz" on the differences between a choice and something one is born into
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was born gay and you certainly can't prove otherwise.
> 
> Of course you have no use for something that proves my point exactly and destroys yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The flip side is you can't prove you were born gay. Why oh why has science failed you?
Click to expand...


To be fair, the science concerning if you are born gay or not isn't conclusive at the moment. It may very well never be known one way or the other. It is why I avoid using absolutes that people are born gay or that being gay is a simply choice. There isn't enough scientific evidence one or the way to make such statements.


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass did you take the test? How'd you do?
> 
> Bet You Can t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, one is born that way, the other not so much. It's my belief homosexuality is a choice. I have no use for a left loon "quiz" on the differences between a choice and something one is born into
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was born gay and you certainly can't prove otherwise.
> 
> Of course you have no use for something that proves my point exactly and destroys yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The flip side is you can't prove you were born gay. Why oh why has science failed you?
Click to expand...


Ah, but the scientific community is unified in the belief that orientation is not chosen. The scientific consensus is that gays ARE "born that way". 

I know I did not choose. Who are you to refute that? 

The discrimination is the same. We know you can't refute that.

How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation - The Wire


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass did you take the test? How'd you do?
> 
> Bet You Can t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, one is born that way, the other not so much. It's my belief homosexuality is a choice. I have no use for a left loon "quiz" on the differences between a choice and something one is born into
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was born gay and you certainly can't prove otherwise.
> 
> Of course you have no use for something that proves my point exactly and destroys yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The flip side is you can't prove you were born gay. Why oh why has science failed you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but the scientific community is unified in the belief that orientation is not chosen. The scientific consensus is that gays ARE "born that way".
> 
> I know I did not choose. Who are you to refute that?
> 
> The discrimination is the same. We know you can't refute that.
> 
> How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation - The Wire
Click to expand...


Well when you can scientifically prove you were born a homosexual perhaps your argument will be valid but since you can't, it  isn't


----------



## Seawytch

mdk said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass did you take the test? How'd you do?
> 
> Bet You Can t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, one is born that way, the other not so much. It's my belief homosexuality is a choice. I have no use for a left loon "quiz" on the differences between a choice and something one is born into
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was born gay and you certainly can't prove otherwise.
> 
> Of course you have no use for something that proves my point exactly and destroys yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The flip side is you can't prove you were born gay. Why oh why has science failed you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be fair, the science concerning if you are born gay or not isn't conclusive at the moment. It may very well never be known one way or the other. It is why I avoid using absolutes that people are born gay or that being gay is a simply choice. There isn't enough scientific evidence one or the way to make such statements.
Click to expand...


Scientists disagree. While they may not have identified what makes people gay, the consensus is that it is not a choice.


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass did you take the test? How'd you do?
> 
> Bet You Can t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, one is born that way, the other not so much. It's my belief homosexuality is a choice. I have no use for a left loon "quiz" on the differences between a choice and something one is born into
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was born gay and you certainly can't prove otherwise.
> 
> Of course you have no use for something that proves my point exactly and destroys yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The flip side is you can't prove you were born gay. Why oh why has science failed you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but the scientific community is unified in the belief that orientation is not chosen. The scientific consensus is that gays ARE "born that way".
> 
> I know I did not choose. Who are you to refute that?
> 
> The discrimination is the same. We know you can't refute that.
> 
> How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation - The Wire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well when you can scientifically prove you were born a homosexual perhaps your argument will be valid but since you can't, it  isn't
Click to expand...


Why does it have to be proven? My argument doesn't hinge on gay being a choice, yours does. The discrimination is the same whether orientation is chosen or not. 

I know I didn't choose. Did you? The only ones it really matters to are the bigots and they don't believe the science anyway.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, one is born that way, the other not so much. It's my belief homosexuality is a choice. I have no use for a left loon "quiz" on the differences between a choice and something one is born into
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was born gay and you certainly can't prove otherwise.
> 
> Of course you have no use for something that proves my point exactly and destroys yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The flip side is you can't prove you were born gay. Why oh why has science failed you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but the scientific community is unified in the belief that orientation is not chosen. The scientific consensus is that gays ARE "born that way".
> 
> I know I did not choose. Who are you to refute that?
> 
> The discrimination is the same. We know you can't refute that.
> 
> How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation - The Wire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well when you can scientifically prove you were born a homosexual perhaps your argument will be valid but since you can't, it  isn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it have to be proven? My argument doesn't hinge on gay being a choice, yours does. The discrimination is the same whether orientation is chosen or not.
> 
> I know I didn't choose. Did you? The only ones it really matters to are the bigots and they don't believe the science anyway.
Click to expand...


You don't choose to be normal, normal is normal. Your use of bigot and homophobic is childish and annoying, with that said good luck with your choice and have a great day


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was born gay and you certainly can't prove otherwise.
> 
> Of course you have no use for something that proves my point exactly and destroys yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flip side is you can't prove you were born gay. Why oh why has science failed you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but the scientific community is unified in the belief that orientation is not chosen. The scientific consensus is that gays ARE "born that way".
> 
> I know I did not choose. Who are you to refute that?
> 
> The discrimination is the same. We know you can't refute that.
> 
> How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation - The Wire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well when you can scientifically prove you were born a homosexual perhaps your argument will be valid but since you can't, it  isn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it have to be proven? My argument doesn't hinge on gay being a choice, yours does. The discrimination is the same whether orientation is chosen or not.
> 
> I know I didn't choose. Did you? The only ones it really matters to are the bigots and they don't believe the science anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't choose to be normal, normal is normal. Your use of bigot and homophobic is childish and annoying, with that said good luck with your choice and have a great day
Click to expand...


Normal is subjective. Red hair, green eyes and left handedness isn't "normal". 

Unlike my sexuality, your bigotry is a choice.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flip side is you can't prove you were born gay. Why oh why has science failed you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but the scientific community is unified in the belief that orientation is not chosen. The scientific consensus is that gays ARE "born that way".
> 
> I know I did not choose. Who are you to refute that?
> 
> The discrimination is the same. We know you can't refute that.
> 
> How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation - The Wire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well when you can scientifically prove you were born a homosexual perhaps your argument will be valid but since you can't, it  isn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it have to be proven? My argument doesn't hinge on gay being a choice, yours does. The discrimination is the same whether orientation is chosen or not.
> 
> I know I didn't choose. Did you? The only ones it really matters to are the bigots and they don't believe the science anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't choose to be normal, normal is normal. Your use of bigot and homophobic is childish and annoying, with that said good luck with your choice and have a great day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Normal is subjective. Red hair, green eyes and left handedness isn't "normal".
> 
> Unlike my sexuality, your bigotry is a choice.
Click to expand...


You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease.


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but the scientific community is unified in the belief that orientation is not chosen. The scientific consensus is that gays ARE "born that way".
> 
> I know I did not choose. Who are you to refute that?
> 
> The discrimination is the same. We know you can't refute that.
> 
> How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation - The Wire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well when you can scientifically prove you were born a homosexual perhaps your argument will be valid but since you can't, it  isn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it have to be proven? My argument doesn't hinge on gay being a choice, yours does. The discrimination is the same whether orientation is chosen or not.
> 
> I know I didn't choose. Did you? The only ones it really matters to are the bigots and they don't believe the science anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't choose to be normal, normal is normal. Your use of bigot and homophobic is childish and annoying, with that said good luck with your choice and have a great day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Normal is subjective. Red hair, green eyes and left handedness isn't "normal".
> 
> Unlike my sexuality, your bigotry is a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease.
Click to expand...


We do? Describe that in an average persons day. What is your perception of what that looks like. 

Do you know any gay people?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well when you can scientifically prove you were born a homosexual perhaps your argument will be valid but since you can't, it  isn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it have to be proven? My argument doesn't hinge on gay being a choice, yours does. The discrimination is the same whether orientation is chosen or not.
> 
> I know I didn't choose. Did you? The only ones it really matters to are the bigots and they don't believe the science anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't choose to be normal, normal is normal. Your use of bigot and homophobic is childish and annoying, with that said good luck with your choice and have a great day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Normal is subjective. Red hair, green eyes and left handedness isn't "normal".
> 
> Unlike my sexuality, your bigotry is a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do? Describe that in an average persons day. What is your perception of what that looks like.
> 
> Do you know any gay people?
Click to expand...


I know a few but I tend to let them do whatever it is they do and live my own life. But I do run into homosexuals on boards and comment sections and it's always the same, if you don't agree with me you're a homophobic bigot, blah blah blah. Once it starts I know any type of civility is hopeless.


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it have to be proven? My argument doesn't hinge on gay being a choice, yours does. The discrimination is the same whether orientation is chosen or not.
> 
> I know I didn't choose. Did you? The only ones it really matters to are the bigots and they don't believe the science anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't choose to be normal, normal is normal. Your use of bigot and homophobic is childish and annoying, with that said good luck with your choice and have a great day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Normal is subjective. Red hair, green eyes and left handedness isn't "normal".
> 
> Unlike my sexuality, your bigotry is a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do? Describe that in an average persons day. What is your perception of what that looks like.
> 
> Do you know any gay people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know a few but I tend to let them do whatever it is they do and live my own life. But I do run into homosexuals on boards and comment sections and it's always the same, if you don't agree with me you're a homophobic bigot, blah blah blah. Once it starts I know any type of civility is hopeless.
Click to expand...


Disagreeing and wishing to discriminate are not the same. If you want to deny gays and lesbians equal rights, you are a bigot. 

You didn't answer the question. What does it look like in an average day when "you homosexuals" (gay is easier to type you know) "let your sexuality define and control you"? Describe a typical "homosexual day" won't you?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't choose to be normal, normal is normal. Your use of bigot and homophobic is childish and annoying, with that said good luck with your choice and have a great day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normal is subjective. Red hair, green eyes and left handedness isn't "normal".
> 
> Unlike my sexuality, your bigotry is a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do? Describe that in an average persons day. What is your perception of what that looks like.
> 
> Do you know any gay people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know a few but I tend to let them do whatever it is they do and live my own life. But I do run into homosexuals on boards and comment sections and it's always the same, if you don't agree with me you're a homophobic bigot, blah blah blah. Once it starts I know any type of civility is hopeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing and wishing to discriminate are not the same. If you want to deny gays and lesbians equal rights, you are a bigot.
> 
> You didn't answer the question. What does it look like in an average day when "you homosexuals" (gay is easier to type you know) "let your sexuality define and control you"? Describe a typical "homosexual day" won't you?
Click to expand...


Sorry, our children are home form school and need attention. Have a great day and relax a little, you seem a tad uptight


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but the scientific community is unified in the belief that orientation is not chosen. The scientific consensus is that gays ARE "born that way".
> 
> I know I did not choose. Who are you to refute that?
> 
> The discrimination is the same. We know you can't refute that.
> 
> How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation - The Wire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well when you can scientifically prove you were born a homosexual perhaps your argument will be valid but since you can't, it  isn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it have to be proven? My argument doesn't hinge on gay being a choice, yours does. The discrimination is the same whether orientation is chosen or not.
> 
> I know I didn't choose. Did you? The only ones it really matters to are the bigots and they don't believe the science anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't choose to be normal, normal is normal. Your use of bigot and homophobic is childish and annoying, with that said good luck with your choice and have a great day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Normal is subjective. Red hair, green eyes and left handedness isn't "normal".
> 
> Unlike my sexuality, your bigotry is a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease.
Click to expand...


I could say the same thing about Catholics.

You Catholics let your choice of worship define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really, but all part of the disease.

But since I want to keep this thread on track- Catholics have every right to discriminate against homosexuals and women in their religion and church.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well when you can scientifically prove you were born a homosexual perhaps your argument will be valid but since you can't, it  isn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it have to be proven? My argument doesn't hinge on gay being a choice, yours does. The discrimination is the same whether orientation is chosen or not.
> 
> I know I didn't choose. Did you? The only ones it really matters to are the bigots and they don't believe the science anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't choose to be normal, normal is normal. Your use of bigot and homophobic is childish and annoying, with that said good luck with your choice and have a great day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Normal is subjective. Red hair, green eyes and left handedness isn't "normal".
> 
> Unlike my sexuality, your bigotry is a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about Catholics.
> 
> You Catholics let your choice of worship define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really, but all part of the disease.
> 
> But since I want to keep this thread on track- Catholics have every right to discriminate against homosexuals and women in their religion and church.
Click to expand...


Well I am a Catholic and I take my faith very serious, with that said at least I didn't call you a bigoted religiphobe and demand you tolerate me or I will have the Catholicstapo come after you, eh?


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it have to be proven? My argument doesn't hinge on gay being a choice, yours does. The discrimination is the same whether orientation is chosen or not.
> 
> I know I didn't choose. Did you? The only ones it really matters to are the bigots and they don't believe the science anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't choose to be normal, normal is normal. Your use of bigot and homophobic is childish and annoying, with that said good luck with your choice and have a great day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Normal is subjective. Red hair, green eyes and left handedness isn't "normal".
> 
> Unlike my sexuality, your bigotry is a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about Catholics.
> 
> You Catholics let your choice of worship define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really, but all part of the disease.
> 
> But since I want to keep this thread on track- Catholics have every right to discriminate against homosexuals and women in their religion and church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am a Catholic and I take my faith very serious, with that said at least I didn't call you a bigoted religiphobe and demand you tolerate me or I will have the Catholicstapo come after you, eh?
Click to expand...


And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?

Here is what you did:

You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
_You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._

And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.

I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't choose to be normal, normal is normal. Your use of bigot and homophobic is childish and annoying, with that said good luck with your choice and have a great day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normal is subjective. Red hair, green eyes and left handedness isn't "normal".
> 
> Unlike my sexuality, your bigotry is a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about Catholics.
> 
> You Catholics let your choice of worship define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really, but all part of the disease.
> 
> But since I want to keep this thread on track- Catholics have every right to discriminate against homosexuals and women in their religion and church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am a Catholic and I take my faith very serious, with that said at least I didn't call you a bigoted religiphobe and demand you tolerate me or I will have the Catholicstapo come after you, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
Click to expand...


I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.

As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.


----------



## deltex1

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't choose to be normal, normal is normal. Your use of bigot and homophobic is childish and annoying, with that said good luck with your choice and have a great day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normal is subjective. Red hair, green eyes and left handedness isn't "normal".
> 
> Unlike my sexuality, your bigotry is a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do? Describe that in an average persons day. What is your perception of what that looks like.
> 
> Do you know any gay people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know a few but I tend to let them do whatever it is they do and live my own life. But I do run into homosexuals on boards and comment sections and it's always the same, if you don't agree with me you're a homophobic bigot, blah blah blah. Once it starts I know any type of civility is hopeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing and wishing to discriminate are not the same. If you want to deny gays and lesbians equal rights, you are a bigot.
> 
> You didn't answer the question. What does it look like in an average day when "you homosexuals" (gay is easier to type you know) "let your sexuality define and control you"? Describe a typical "homosexual day" won't you?
Click to expand...

Equal rights to what, exactly?


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Normal is subjective. Red hair, green eyes and left handedness isn't "normal".
> 
> Unlike my sexuality, your bigotry is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about Catholics.
> 
> You Catholics let your choice of worship define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really, but all part of the disease.
> 
> But since I want to keep this thread on track- Catholics have every right to discriminate against homosexuals and women in their religion and church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am a Catholic and I take my faith very serious, with that said at least I didn't call you a bigoted religiphobe and demand you tolerate me or I will have the Catholicstapo come after you, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
Click to expand...


And there is no scientific proof that a Catholic is born a Catholic.

Why the hell are you even in this thread?

You have not addressed the topic of the thread even once- even while complaining to me that I was off topic.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about Catholics.
> 
> You Catholics let your choice of worship define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really, but all part of the disease.
> 
> But since I want to keep this thread on track- Catholics have every right to discriminate against homosexuals and women in their religion and church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am a Catholic and I take my faith very serious, with that said at least I didn't call you a bigoted religiphobe and demand you tolerate me or I will have the Catholicstapo come after you, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is no scientific proof that a Catholic is born a Catholic.
> 
> Why the hell are you even in this thread?
> 
> You have not addressed the topic of the thread even once- even while complaining to me that I was off topic.
Click to expand...


I never claimed a Catholic was born a Catholic. 

I am here because I choose to be here and if it gives you gas I am here I will remain here.


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about Catholics.
> 
> You Catholics let your choice of worship define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really, but all part of the disease.
> 
> But since I want to keep this thread on track- Catholics have every right to discriminate against homosexuals and women in their religion and church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am a Catholic and I take my faith very serious, with that said at least I didn't call you a bigoted religiphobe and demand you tolerate me or I will have the Catholicstapo come after you, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is no scientific proof that a Catholic is born a Catholic.
> 
> Why the hell are you even in this thread?
> 
> You have not addressed the topic of the thread even once- even while complaining to me that I was off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed a Catholic was born a Catholic.
> 
> I am here because I choose to be here and if it gives you gas I am here I will remain here.
Click to expand...


Well welcome to the show.

Let us know when you have anything to contribute.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am a Catholic and I take my faith very serious, with that said at least I didn't call you a bigoted religiphobe and demand you tolerate me or I will have the Catholicstapo come after you, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is no scientific proof that a Catholic is born a Catholic.
> 
> Why the hell are you even in this thread?
> 
> You have not addressed the topic of the thread even once- even while complaining to me that I was off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed a Catholic was born a Catholic.
> 
> I am here because I choose to be here and if it gives you gas I am here I will remain here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well welcome to the show.
> 
> Let us know when you have anything to contribute.
Click to expand...


I did contribute, you were at a loss as to how to respond.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Normal is subjective. Red hair, green eyes and left handedness isn't "normal".
> 
> Unlike my sexuality, your bigotry is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about Catholics.
> 
> You Catholics let your choice of worship define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really, but all part of the disease.
> 
> But since I want to keep this thread on track- Catholics have every right to discriminate against homosexuals and women in their religion and church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am a Catholic and I take my faith very serious, with that said at least I didn't call you a bigoted religiphobe and demand you tolerate me or I will have the Catholicstapo come after you, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
Click to expand...

And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.

Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.


----------



## Syriusly

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about Catholics.
> 
> You Catholics let your choice of worship define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really, but all part of the disease.
> 
> But since I want to keep this thread on track- Catholics have every right to discriminate against homosexuals and women in their religion and church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am a Catholic and I take my faith very serious, with that said at least I didn't call you a bigoted religiphobe and demand you tolerate me or I will have the Catholicstapo come after you, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.
Click to expand...


Thank you- you expressed so much better than I did what I was trying to say that I will repost your post

_And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.

Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference_


----------



## SassyIrishLass

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about Catholics.
> 
> You Catholics let your choice of worship define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really, but all part of the disease.
> 
> But since I want to keep this thread on track- Catholics have every right to discriminate against homosexuals and women in their religion and church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am a Catholic and I take my faith very serious, with that said at least I didn't call you a bigoted religiphobe and demand you tolerate me or I will have the Catholicstapo come after you, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.
Click to expand...


The thread is about Gays getting married in the Church, no?  Even the Constitution can't force that to happen, in fact it prevents it from happening. I could really care less if two misguided and confused people get pretend married and want to appear normal and mainstream as long as they keep it away from my Church and the very most important thing, far, far, far away from our children.


----------



## deltex1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about Catholics.
> 
> You Catholics let your choice of worship define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really, but all part of the disease.
> 
> But since I want to keep this thread on track- Catholics have every right to discriminate against homosexuals and women in their religion and church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am a Catholic and I take my faith very serious, with that said at least I didn't call you a bigoted religiphobe and demand you tolerate me or I will have the Catholicstapo come after you, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.
Click to expand...

Same sex couples demanding to be opposite sex couples is unwarranted and illogical.  They are different and should get equal rights by different means.


----------



## Syriusly

deltex1 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about Catholics.
> 
> You Catholics let your choice of worship define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really, but all part of the disease.
> 
> But since I want to keep this thread on track- Catholics have every right to discriminate against homosexuals and women in their religion and church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am a Catholic and I take my faith very serious, with that said at least I didn't call you a bigoted religiphobe and demand you tolerate me or I will have the Catholicstapo come after you, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same sex couples demanding to be opposite sex couples is unwarranted and illogical.  They are different and should get equal rights by different means.
Click to expand...


They aren't demanding to be opposite gender couples- they are saying that they should be treated exactly the same as my wife and I agree- I think that is logical, warranted, and Constitutional.


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about Catholics.
> 
> You Catholics let your choice of worship define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really, but all part of the disease.
> 
> But since I want to keep this thread on track- Catholics have every right to discriminate against homosexuals and women in their religion and church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am a Catholic and I take my faith very serious, with that said at least I didn't call you a bigoted religiphobe and demand you tolerate me or I will have the Catholicstapo come after you, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thread is about Gays getting married in the Church, no?  Even the Constitution can't force that to happen, in fact it prevents it from happening. I could really care less if two misguided and confused people get pretend married and want to appear normal and mainstream as long as they keep it away from my Church and the very most important thing, far, far, far away from our children.
Click to expand...


You church does not and does not have to marry anyone it doesn't want to- Baptists- homosexuals- Mormons. 

And the easiest way to keep your children away from the trauma of a same gender wedding is for you not to take them- no one is going to force you or your children to attend a same gender wedding.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am a Catholic and I take my faith very serious, with that said at least I didn't call you a bigoted religiphobe and demand you tolerate me or I will have the Catholicstapo come after you, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thread is about Gays getting married in the Church, no?  Even the Constitution can't force that to happen, in fact it prevents it from happening. I could really care less if two misguided and confused people get pretend married and want to appear normal and mainstream as long as they keep it away from my Church and the very most important thing, far, far, far away from our children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You church does not and does not have to marry anyone it doesn't want to- Baptists- homosexuals- Mormons.
> 
> And the easiest way to keep your children away from the trauma of a same gender wedding is for you not to take them- no one is going to force you or your children to attend a same gender wedding.
Click to expand...


I meant homosexuals need to stay far far away from our children period. I'm well aware of the long term goals


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thread is about Gays getting married in the Church, no?  Even the Constitution can't force that to happen, in fact it prevents it from happening. I could really care less if two misguided and confused people get pretend married and want to appear normal and mainstream as long as they keep it away from my Church and the very most important thing, far, far, far away from our children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You church does not and does not have to marry anyone it doesn't want to- Baptists- homosexuals- Mormons.
> 
> And the easiest way to keep your children away from the trauma of a same gender wedding is for you not to take them- no one is going to force you or your children to attend a same gender wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant homosexuals need to stay far far away from our children period. I'm well aware of the long term goals
Click to expand...


I would like to keep people like you as far away from our children period. I'm well aware of your long term goals.


----------



## deltex1

Syriusly said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am a Catholic and I take my faith very serious, with that said at least I didn't call you a bigoted religiphobe and demand you tolerate me or I will have the Catholicstapo come after you, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same sex couples demanding to be opposite sex couples is unwarranted and illogical.  They are different and should get equal rights by different means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't demanding to be opposite gender couples- they are saying that they should be treated exactly the same as my wife and I agree- I think that is logical, warranted, and Constitutional.
Click to expand...

They can be treated exactly the same under a different set of laws...because they are different.


----------



## mdk

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thread is about Gays getting married in the Church, no?  Even the Constitution can't force that to happen, in fact it prevents it from happening. I could really care less if two misguided and confused people get pretend married and want to appear normal and mainstream as long as they keep it away from my Church and the very most important thing, far, far, far away from our children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You church does not and does not have to marry anyone it doesn't want to- Baptists- homosexuals- Mormons.
> 
> And the easiest way to keep your children away from the trauma of a same gender wedding is for you not to take them- no one is going to force you or your children to attend a same gender wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant homosexuals need to stay far far away from our children period. I'm well aware of the long term goals
Click to expand...


And what, may I ask, are these long term goals you are aware of?


----------



## Syriusly

deltex1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same sex couples demanding to be opposite sex couples is unwarranted and illogical.  They are different and should get equal rights by different means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't demanding to be opposite gender couples- they are saying that they should be treated exactly the same as my wife and I agree- I think that is logical, warranted, and Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can be treated exactly the same under a different set of laws...because they are different.
Click to expand...


Separate but equal never works out well.

I think it is logical, warranted, and Constitutional to treat same gender couples, and opposite gender couples- such as my wife and I- exactly the same legally.


----------



## deltex1

Syriusly said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same sex couples demanding to be opposite sex couples is unwarranted and illogical.  They are different and should get equal rights by different means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't demanding to be opposite gender couples- they are saying that they should be treated exactly the same as my wife and I agree- I think that is logical, warranted, and Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can be treated exactly the same under a different set of laws...because they are different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separate but equal never works out well.
> 
> I think it is logical, warranted, and Constitutional to treat same gender couples, and opposite gender couples- such as my wife and I- exactly the same legally.
Click to expand...

You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially.  To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority.  Why be that stubborn?


----------



## WorldWatcher

deltex1 said:


> You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially.  To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority.  Why be that stubborn?



The ceremonies aren't defined by the government.  They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.

Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.

Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member  (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​


Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.


>>>>


----------



## deltex1

WorldWatcher said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially.  To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority.  Why be that stubborn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ceremonies aren't defined by the government.  They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.
> 
> Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member  (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​
> 
> 
> Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
.


----------



## WorldWatcher

deltex1 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially.  To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority.  Why be that stubborn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ceremonies aren't defined by the government.  They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.
> 
> Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member  (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​
> 
> 
> Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
> .
Click to expand...



Churches, Temples, Synagogues or other religious organizations that perform same-sex religious weddings are not required to do so because of the government.

Same-sex couples have been getting religiously married in Churches for at least about 50-years even before the first State recognized their marriage under Civil law (which of course was Massachusetts in 2004).

That wasn't the government doing anything.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

deltex1 said:


> ...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
> .


 
The state government should be the only government to change the meaning of the word marriage, if there is any change at all.

If 30 Christians of a given church were sued and forced to accomodate gay weddings in violation of their faith, and the congregation total was 35 people, could we say that that church was forced to accomodate gay weddings?


----------



## deltex1

WorldWatcher said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially.  To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority.  Why be that stubborn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ceremonies aren't defined by the government.  They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.
> 
> Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member  (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​
> 
> 
> Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, Temples, Synagogues or other religious organizations that perform same-sex religious weddings are not required to do so because of the government.
> 
> Same-sex couples have been getting religiously married in Churches for at least about 50-years even before the first State recognized their marriage under Civil law (which of course was Massachusetts in 2004).
> 
> That wasn't the government doing anything.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".


----------



## Syriusly

deltex1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.
> 
> 
> 
> Same sex couples demanding to be opposite sex couples is unwarranted and illogical.  They are different and should get equal rights by different means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't demanding to be opposite gender couples- they are saying that they should be treated exactly the same as my wife and I agree- I think that is logical, warranted, and Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can be treated exactly the same under a different set of laws...because they are different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separate but equal never works out well.
> 
> I think it is logical, warranted, and Constitutional to treat same gender couples, and opposite gender couples- such as my wife and I- exactly the same legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially.  To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority.  Why be that stubborn?
Click to expand...


Frankly i have no idea what you mean.

If you are saying that we treat same gender couples legally equally by allowing them the same legal marriage as my wife and I enjoy, then we are in agreement. 

If you mean by 'ceremonially' a church wedding, then I will say what I have said repeatedly in this thread- no church has been, or will be forced to marry any couple it does not wish to- for whatever reason.


----------



## Syriusly

deltex1 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially.  To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority.  Why be that stubborn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ceremonies aren't defined by the government.  They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.
> 
> Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member  (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​
> 
> 
> Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
> .
Click to expand...


The legal definition is a civil definition.

The religious definition is left up to the religion.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The state government should be the only government to change the meaning of the word marriage, if there is any change at all.
> 
> If 30 Christians of a given church were sued and forced to accomodate gay weddings in violation of their faith, and the congregation total was 35 people, could we say that that church was forced to accomodate gay weddings?
Click to expand...


No.

Individuals are not churches. Churches are not individuals. 

If 30 Christian business owners all refused to accomodate gay weddings- if this was the First Church of Holy Wedding Photography- and were all told that they had to comply with state law, that would have no effect on the Church.

The Church would still marry- or not marry- as it saw fit. 

Just fear mongering by homophobes.


----------



## WorldWatcher

deltex1 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially.  To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority.  Why be that stubborn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ceremonies aren't defined by the government.  They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.
> 
> Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member  (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​
> 
> 
> Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, Temples, Synagogues or other religious organizations that perform same-sex religious weddings are not required to do so because of the government.
> 
> Same-sex couples have been getting religiously married in Churches for at least about 50-years even before the first State recognized their marriage under Civil law (which of course was Massachusetts in 2004).
> 
> That wasn't the government doing anything.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".
Click to expand...


You said before that marriage should be recognized as a religious ceremony, I pointed out that same-sex couples also get married in religious ceremonies.  Now it's the government should recognize only certain religious ceremonies?

Let me guess, the religious ones you agree with?


>>>>


----------



## beagle9

mdk said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thread is about Gays getting married in the Church, no?  Even the Constitution can't force that to happen, in fact it prevents it from happening. I could really care less if two misguided and confused people get pretend married and want to appear normal and mainstream as long as they keep it away from my Church and the very most important thing, far, far, far away from our children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You church does not and does not have to marry anyone it doesn't want to- Baptists- homosexuals- Mormons.
> 
> And the easiest way to keep your children away from the trauma of a same gender wedding is for you not to take them- no one is going to force you or your children to attend a same gender wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant homosexuals need to stay far far away from our children period. I'm well aware of the long term goals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what, may I ask, are these long term goals you are aware of?
Click to expand...




WorldWatcher said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially.  To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority.  Why be that stubborn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The ceremonies aren't defined by the government.*  They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.
> 
> Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member  (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​
> 
> 
> Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...





Silhouette said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The state government should be the only government to change the meaning of the word marriage, if there is any change at all.
> 
> If 30 Christians of a given church were sued and forced to accomodate gay weddings in violation of their faith, and the congregation total was 35 people, could we say that that church was forced to accomodate gay weddings?
Click to expand...

What good is the church if it's members it can't support or protect? What good is a church without it's members?


----------



## deltex1

Are religions all separate but equal?  Does that concept work?


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thread is about Gays getting married in the Church, no?  Even the Constitution can't force that to happen, in fact it prevents it from happening. I could really care less if two misguided and confused people get pretend married and want to appear normal and mainstream as long as they keep it away from my Church and the very most important thing, far, far, far away from our children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You church does not and does not have to marry anyone it doesn't want to- Baptists- homosexuals- Mormons.
> 
> And the easiest way to keep your children away from the trauma of a same gender wedding is for you not to take them- no one is going to force you or your children to attend a same gender wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant homosexuals need to stay far far away from our children period. I'm well aware of the long term goals
Click to expand...


Well, unless you raise your children in a bubble, they will be exposed to gays and lesbians. They will go to school with gays and lesbians and the children of gays and lesbians. 

What "long term goals" would those be? The only one I'm aware of, as a gay person, is equality. What secret "goal" was told to you?


----------



## Seawytch

deltex1 said:


> Are religions all separate but equal?  Does that concept work?



What? That statement makes no sense.


----------



## deltex1

Seawytch said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are religions all separate but equal?  Does that concept work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? That statement makes no sense.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a statement.  It was a question....one you evidently can't answer.  I'm going to play racquetball...as all good christians do.  Pax vobiscum.


----------



## Seawytch

deltex1 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are religions all separate but equal?  Does that concept work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? That statement makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't a statement.  It was a question....one you evidently can't answer.  I'm going to play racquetball...as all good christians do.  Pax vobiscum.
Click to expand...


It has to make sense in order to answer it.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

deltex1 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially.  To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority.  Why be that stubborn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ceremonies aren't defined by the government.  They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.
> 
> Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member  (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​
> 
> 
> Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, Temples, Synagogues or other religious organizations that perform same-sex religious weddings are not required to do so because of the government.
> 
> Same-sex couples have been getting religiously married in Churches for at least about 50-years even before the first State recognized their marriage under Civil law (which of course was Massachusetts in 2004).
> 
> That wasn't the government doing anything.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".
Click to expand...


Getting back to


Seawytch said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are religions all separate but equal?  Does that concept work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? That statement makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't a statement.  It was a question....one you evidently can't answer.  I'm going to play racquetball...as all good christians do.  Pax vobiscum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has to make sense in order to answer it.
Click to expand...



You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...


----------



## Seawytch

WorldWatcher said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially.  To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority.  Why be that stubborn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ceremonies aren't defined by the government.  They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.
> 
> Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member  (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​
> 
> 
> Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, Temples, Synagogues or other religious organizations that perform same-sex religious weddings are not required to do so because of the government.
> 
> Same-sex couples have been getting religiously married in Churches for at least about 50-years even before the first State recognized their marriage under Civil law (which of course was Massachusetts in 2004).
> 
> That wasn't the government doing anything.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Indeed. I attended my first gay wedding at a Southern Baptist Church in San Francisco in 1985.


----------



## deltex1

If churches want to change their definition of marriage, so be it.  Not the gummints business.  Homos still get their benefits....one way or another.


----------



## mdk

beagle9 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is about Gays getting married in the Church, no?  Even the Constitution can't force that to happen, in fact it prevents it from happening. I could really care less if two misguided and confused people get pretend married and want to appear normal and mainstream as long as they keep it away from my Church and the very most important thing, far, far, far away from our children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You church does not and does not have to marry anyone it doesn't want to- Baptists- homosexuals- Mormons.
> 
> And the easiest way to keep your children away from the trauma of a same gender wedding is for you not to take them- no one is going to force you or your children to attend a same gender wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant homosexuals need to stay far far away from our children period. I'm well aware of the long term goals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what, may I ask, are these long term goals you are aware of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially.  To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority.  Why be that stubborn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The ceremonies aren't defined by the government.*  They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.
> 
> Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member  (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​
> 
> 
> Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state government should be the only government to change the meaning of the word marriage, if there is any change at all.
> 
> If 30 Christians of a given church were sued and forced to accomodate gay weddings in violation of their faith, and the congregation total was 35 people, could we say that that church was forced to accomodate gay weddings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What good is the church if it's members it can't support or protect? What good is a church without it's members?
Click to expand...


While the church is made up of people, the individuals themselves are not churches, certainly not by any legal definition. It is a concept not supported by any law. That being said, I am still opposed to any church being forced to marry any couple against their wishes.


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can treat them the same legally without treating them the same ceremonially.  To do that you have to take away a fundamental belief from the vast majority.  Why be that stubborn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ceremonies aren't defined by the government.  They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.
> 
> Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member  (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​
> 
> 
> Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, Temples, Synagogues or other religious organizations that perform same-sex religious weddings are not required to do so because of the government.
> 
> Same-sex couples have been getting religiously married in Churches for at least about 50-years even before the first State recognized their marriage under Civil law (which of course was Massachusetts in 2004).
> 
> That wasn't the government doing anything.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting back to
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are religions all separate but equal?  Does that concept work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? That statement makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't a statement.  It was a question....one you evidently can't answer.  I'm going to play racquetball...as all good christians do.  Pax vobiscum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has to make sense in order to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...
Click to expand...


Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ceremonies aren't defined by the government.  They are between the individual couples and the individual officiating the ceremony.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary in a city county building after getting a license.
> 
> Some may have a simple non-religious exchange of oaths (same-sex and different-sex) before a Justice of the Peace, Judge, County Clerk or Notary at a ceremony with close friends and/or relatives at a beach, forest setting, or while parachuting.
> 
> Some may have a religious ceremony by a Church, Temple, Synagogue or that organizations clergy member  (same-sex and different-sex) before close friends or relatives.​
> 
> 
> Same-sex couples can already have all the same ceremonies, that does not mean that different-sex couples can't have the same ceremonies anymore.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, Temples, Synagogues or other religious organizations that perform same-sex religious weddings are not required to do so because of the government.
> 
> Same-sex couples have been getting religiously married in Churches for at least about 50-years even before the first State recognized their marriage under Civil law (which of course was Massachusetts in 2004).
> 
> That wasn't the government doing anything.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting back to
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are religions all separate but equal?  Does that concept work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? That statement makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't a statement.  It was a question....one you evidently can't answer.  I'm going to play racquetball...as all good christians do.  Pax vobiscum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has to make sense in order to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.
Click to expand...


I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, Temples, Synagogues or other religious organizations that perform same-sex religious weddings are not required to do so because of the government.
> 
> Same-sex couples have been getting religiously married in Churches for at least about 50-years even before the first State recognized their marriage under Civil law (which of course was Massachusetts in 2004).
> 
> That wasn't the government doing anything.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting back to
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? That statement makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't a statement.  It was a question....one you evidently can't answer.  I'm going to play racquetball...as all good christians do.  Pax vobiscum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has to make sense in order to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.
Click to expand...


Really? You got all that out of *"Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?"
*
How? Seriously. How did you get that he was talking about civil unions with the above question?

Now that might be your pet peeve, but I don't see how it relates to the bolded question.

Now, let's address YOUR separate water fountain idea. Civil marriage is what ya'll straight folks set up. If you don't want it called a civil marriage anymore, you're more than welcome to get the name changed...for everyone. The idea that straights get marriage and gays get civil unions is the definition of separate but equal.

We have partnerships. We have relationships. We have families. We believe they should be afforded the exact same rights, benefits and privileges you and your husband enjoy. A majority of Americans actually agree with me, not you and a vast majority of Americans do "accept it as normal". Where have you been Rip Van Winkle?


----------



## WorldWatcher

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, Temples, Synagogues or other religious organizations that perform same-sex religious weddings are not required to do so because of the government.
> 
> Same-sex couples have been getting religiously married in Churches for at least about 50-years even before the first State recognized their marriage under Civil law (which of course was Massachusetts in 2004).
> 
> That wasn't the government doing anything.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting back to
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? That statement makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't a statement.  It was a question....one you evidently can't answer.  I'm going to play racquetball...as all good christians do.  Pax vobiscum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has to make sense in order to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.
Click to expand...


If you review the exchange, his point was that marriage is a religious ceremony and therefore should be recognized by the government as such.

I pointed out that same-sex couples have been having religious marriage ceremonies for many decades , pointing out the faulty nature of his logic.

He want's government recognition of his religious ceremony, but wants to deny the same government recognition to another religious organizations religious ceremony and feels the government should be wasteful and inefficient by creating a whole separate but equal structure called something else.

He appears to also want to ignore that Civil Marriage is a function of secular law and that couples (same-sex and different-sex) can and do get Civilly Married without any religious component.

>>>>


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, Temples, Synagogues or other religious organizations that perform same-sex religious weddings are not required to do so because of the government.
> 
> Same-sex couples have been getting religiously married in Churches for at least about 50-years even before the first State recognized their marriage under Civil law (which of course was Massachusetts in 2004).
> 
> That wasn't the government doing anything.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting back to
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a statement.  It was a question....one you evidently can't answer.  I'm going to play racquetball...as all good christians do.  Pax vobiscum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has to make sense in order to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gallup also claims Obama enjoys a 50% approval rating...sorry bu
> 
> 
> You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You got all that out of *"Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?"
> *
> How? Seriously. How did you get that he was talking about civil unions with the above question?
> 
> Now that might be your pet peeve, but I don't see how it relates to the bolded question.
> 
> Now, let's address YOUR separate water fountain idea. Civil marriage is what ya'll straight folks set up. If you don't want it called a civil marriage anymore, you're more than welcome to get the name changed...for everyone. The idea that straights get marriage and gays get civil unions is the definition of separate but equal.
> 
> We have partnerships. We have relationships. We have families. We believe they should be afforded the exact same rights, benefits and privileges you and your husband enjoy. A majority of Americans actually agree with me, not you and a vast majority of Americans do "accept it as normal". Where have you been Rip Van Winkle?
Click to expand...



Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result


----------



## mdk

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to make sense in order to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gallup also claims Obama enjoys a 50% approval rating...sorry bu
> 
> 
> You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You got all that out of *"Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?"
> *
> How? Seriously. How did you get that he was talking about civil unions with the above question?
> 
> Now that might be your pet peeve, but I don't see how it relates to the bolded question.
> 
> Now, let's address YOUR separate water fountain idea. Civil marriage is what ya'll straight folks set up. If you don't want it called a civil marriage anymore, you're more than welcome to get the name changed...for everyone. The idea that straights get marriage and gays get civil unions is the definition of separate but equal.
> 
> We have partnerships. We have relationships. We have families. We believe they should be afforded the exact same rights, benefits and privileges you and your husband enjoy. A majority of Americans actually agree with me, not you and a vast majority of Americans do "accept it as normal". Where have you been Rip Van Winkle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result
Click to expand...


If the poll had supported your assertion you would be shouting it from the rooftops and using it as evidence of your position. Since it doesn't, you just dismiss it. You are entitled to ignore the numerous polls that show a majority of Americans support gays having access to marriage all you wish but the rest of us under no such obligation. The idea that roughly 50% do not support same-sex marriage is entirely inaccurate.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

mdk said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to
> Gallup also claims Obama enjoys a 50% approval rating...sorry bu
> 
> 
> You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You got all that out of *"Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?"
> *
> How? Seriously. How did you get that he was talking about civil unions with the above question?
> 
> Now that might be your pet peeve, but I don't see how it relates to the bolded question.
> 
> Now, let's address YOUR separate water fountain idea. Civil marriage is what ya'll straight folks set up. If you don't want it called a civil marriage anymore, you're more than welcome to get the name changed...for everyone. The idea that straights get marriage and gays get civil unions is the definition of separate but equal.
> 
> We have partnerships. We have relationships. We have families. We believe they should be afforded the exact same rights, benefits and privileges you and your husband enjoy. A majority of Americans actually agree with me, not you and a vast majority of Americans do "accept it as normal". Where have you been Rip Van Winkle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the poll had supported your assertion you would be shouting it from the rooftops and using it as evidence of your position. Since it doesn't, you just dismiss it. You are entitled to ignore the numerous polls that show a majority of Americans support gays having access to marriage all you wish but the rest of us under no such obligation. The idea that roughly 50% do not support same-sex marriage is entirely inaccurate.
Click to expand...


Again, any poll can achieve any desired result, I could put up polls that show an approval for SSM at lower than 50%...then you would scream about the poll, demographics, etc. Polls cannot be trusted


----------



## WorldWatcher

WorldWatcher said:


> Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result




Over a decade ago (2000/2004 time frame, anti-gay General Election ballot initiatives/referendums passed with (IIRC) 23-76% margins of victory.

By 2008/2009, anti-gay General Election ballot initiatives/referendums squeaked by where a change of only about 2.5% would have changed the outcome.

In 2012 there were 4 marriages initiatives/referendums on the General Election ballot and all won by about 2.5%.  And in one of those States it was a reversal of an initiative passed just a few years before in 2009.



Anyone with an ounce of sense sees that is actual election results showing a shift in views on same-sex civil marriage.



>>>>


----------



## SassyIrishLass

WorldWatcher said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over a decade ago (2000/2004 time frame, anti-gay General Election ballot initiatives/referendums passed with (IIRC) 23-76% margins of victory.
> 
> By 2008/2009, anti-gay General Election ballot initiatives/referendums squeaked by where a change of only about 2.5% would have changed the outcome.
> 
> In 2012 there were 4 marriages initiatives/referendums on the General Election ballot and all won by about 2.5%.  And in one of those States it was a reversal of an initiative passed just a few years before in 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with an ounce of sense sees that is actual election results showing a shift in views on same-sex civil marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Sigh...once again...any poll can achieve any desired result


----------



## WorldWatcher

SassyIrishLass said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over a decade ago (2000/2004 time frame, anti-gay General Election ballot initiatives/referendums passed with (IIRC) 23-76% margins of victory.
> 
> By 2008/2009, anti-gay General Election ballot initiatives/referendums squeaked by where a change of only about 2.5% would have changed the outcome.
> 
> In 2012 there were 4 marriages initiatives/referendums on the General Election ballot and all won by about 2.5%.  And in one of those States it was a reversal of an initiative passed just a few years before in 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with an ounce of sense sees that is actual election results showing a shift in views on same-sex civil marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh...once again...any poll can achieve any desired result
Click to expand...



Sigh...once again.  Those are not polls, those are General Election Results.


>>>>


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to make sense in order to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gallup also claims Obama enjoys a 50% approval rating...sorry bu
> 
> 
> You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You got all that out of *"Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?"
> *
> How? Seriously. How did you get that he was talking about civil unions with the above question?
> 
> Now that might be your pet peeve, but I don't see how it relates to the bolded question.
> 
> Now, let's address YOUR separate water fountain idea. Civil marriage is what ya'll straight folks set up. If you don't want it called a civil marriage anymore, you're more than welcome to get the name changed...for everyone. The idea that straights get marriage and gays get civil unions is the definition of separate but equal.
> 
> We have partnerships. We have relationships. We have families. We believe they should be afforded the exact same rights, benefits and privileges you and your husband enjoy. A majority of Americans actually agree with me, not you and a vast majority of Americans do "accept it as normal". Where have you been Rip Van Winkle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result
Click to expand...


So, naturally, you can counter it with a poll that says differently? No...you just "know" it isn't right. Not even Drudge?


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> Again, any poll can achieve any desired result, I could put up polls that show an approval for SSM at lower than 50%...then you would scream about the poll, demographics, etc. Polls cannot be trusted



Then by all means do so. Provide us a current national poll that says what you claim.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to
> Gallup also claims Obama enjoys a 50% approval rating...sorry bu
> 
> 
> You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You got all that out of *"Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?"
> *
> How? Seriously. How did you get that he was talking about civil unions with the above question?
> 
> Now that might be your pet peeve, but I don't see how it relates to the bolded question.
> 
> Now, let's address YOUR separate water fountain idea. Civil marriage is what ya'll straight folks set up. If you don't want it called a civil marriage anymore, you're more than welcome to get the name changed...for everyone. The idea that straights get marriage and gays get civil unions is the definition of separate but equal.
> 
> We have partnerships. We have relationships. We have families. We believe they should be afforded the exact same rights, benefits and privileges you and your husband enjoy. A majority of Americans actually agree with me, not you and a vast majority of Americans do "accept it as normal". Where have you been Rip Van Winkle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, naturally, you can counter it with a poll that says differently? No...you just "know" it isn't right. Not even Drudge?
Click to expand...



You people are stuck on polls, it's that desire to feel normal and accepted. For the last time, ANY poll can achieve ANY desired result. Furthermore I could put up a poll revealing a lower than 50% approval rating for SSM and your heads would spin and explode as you scream the poll is rigged. Get past polls and stay on point


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, any poll can achieve any desired result, I could put up polls that show an approval for SSM at lower than 50%...then you would scream about the poll, demographics, etc. Polls cannot be trusted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then by all means do so. Provide us a current national poll that says what you claim.
Click to expand...


Pew poll shows drop in support for same-sex marriage new trend or a blip News LifeSite


----------



## mdk

I agree, we should stay on point. 

Should churches be forced to marry homosexuals? No. A church can marry or not marry any couple as they see fit. The vast and overwhelming majority of the participates in this thread agree. I clearly support gays having access to marriage but I am entirely opposed to a church being forced to marry anyone against their wishes.


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, any poll can achieve any desired result, I could put up polls that show an approval for SSM at lower than 50%...then you would scream about the poll, demographics, etc. Polls cannot be trusted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then by all means do so. Provide us a current national poll that says what you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pew poll shows drop in support for same-sex marriage new trend or a blip News LifeSite
Click to expand...


That link does not support your contention that support for marriage equality is below 50%. You probably didn't notice that your article did not link to the actual poll. Here, let me get that for you. 

Pew: Same Sex Marriage


----------



## Seawytch

mdk said:


> I agree, we should stay on point.
> 
> Should churches be forced to marry homosexuals? No. A church can marry or not marry any couple as they see fit. The vast and overwhelming majority of the participates in this thread agree. I clearly support gays having access to marriage but I am entirely opposed to a church being forced to marry anyone against their wishes.



Absolutely 100% agree. The government will never force a church to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith, as it should be. 

The congregation doing the "forcing" is another story...


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly...the government is changing the definition of that ceremony for no good reason...and without it being any of their business,
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, Temples, Synagogues or other religious organizations that perform same-sex religious weddings are not required to do so because of the government.
> 
> Same-sex couples have been getting religiously married in Churches for at least about 50-years even before the first State recognized their marriage under Civil law (which of course was Massachusetts in 2004).
> 
> That wasn't the government doing anything.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting back to
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? That statement makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't a statement.  It was a question....one you evidently can't answer.  I'm going to play racquetball...as all good christians do.  Pax vobiscum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has to make sense in order to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.
Click to expand...


Sigh.

In order to have the legal protections and responsibilities of marriage- same gender couples need to get married. For years 'civil unions' was pursued as a 'seperate but equal' option- but guess what?

a) Civil unions never had the same protections and responsibilities as legal marriage and
b) Conservatives such as yourself fought tooth and nail against 'civil unions' as an option. 

_Denver, Colo., May 11, 2012 / 09:13 am (CNA).- The Colorado Catholic Conference and the Catholic bishops of Colorado are urging voters to oppose Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper’s call for a special legislative session to vote on civil unions legislation._

I at one time thought that 'civil union's' if they were treated exactly the same as legal marriage was an option- I even told my gay friends that I thought that was the best route to take- that America was too homophobic to even attempt marriage equality. 

But I was wrong- and they were right. 

Same gender couples have every legal- and moral right- to pursue equal treatment through the courts- and I applaud their successes. They should be treated legally exactly as my wife and i are when it comes to marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to make sense in order to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gallup also claims Obama enjoys a 50% approval rating...sorry bu
> 
> 
> You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You got all that out of *"Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?"
> *
> How? Seriously. How did you get that he was talking about civil unions with the above question?
> 
> Now that might be your pet peeve, but I don't see how it relates to the bolded question.
> 
> Now, let's address YOUR separate water fountain idea. Civil marriage is what ya'll straight folks set up. If you don't want it called a civil marriage anymore, you're more than welcome to get the name changed...for everyone. The idea that straights get marriage and gays get civil unions is the definition of separate but equal.
> 
> We have partnerships. We have relationships. We have families. We believe they should be afforded the exact same rights, benefits and privileges you and your husband enjoy. A majority of Americans actually agree with me, not you and a vast majority of Americans do "accept it as normal". Where have you been Rip Van Winkle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result
Click to expand...


Of course- because you of course know what all Americans are thinking.

Unlike Gallup....who actually asks Americans.......


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches, Temples, Synagogues or other religious organizations that perform same-sex religious weddings are not required to do so because of the government.
> 
> Same-sex couples have been getting religiously married in Churches for at least about 50-years even before the first State recognized their marriage under Civil law (which of course was Massachusetts in 2004).
> 
> That wasn't the government doing anything.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting back to
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a statement.  It was a question....one you evidently can't answer.  I'm going to play racquetball...as all good christians do.  Pax vobiscum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has to make sense in order to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> In order to have the legal protections and responsibilities of marriage- same gender couples need to get married. For years 'civil unions' was pursued as a 'seperate but equal' option- but guess what?
> 
> a) Civil unions never had the same protections and responsibilities as legal marriage and
> b) Conservatives such as yourself fought tooth and nail against 'civil unions' as an option.
> 
> _Denver, Colo., May 11, 2012 / 09:13 am (CNA).- The Colorado Catholic Conference and the Catholic bishops of Colorado are urging voters to oppose Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper’s call for a special legislative session to vote on civil unions legislation._
> 
> I at one time thought that 'civil union's' if they were treated exactly the same as legal marriage was an option- I even told my gay friends that I thought that was the best route to take- that America was too homophobic to even attempt marriage equality.
> 
> But I was wrong- and they were right.
> 
> Same gender couples have every legal- and moral right- to pursue equal treatment through the courts- and I applaud their successes. They should be treated legally exactly as my wife and i are when it comes to marriage.
Click to expand...


Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You got all that out of *"Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?"
> *
> How? Seriously. How did you get that he was talking about civil unions with the above question?
> 
> Now that might be your pet peeve, but I don't see how it relates to the bolded question.
> 
> Now, let's address YOUR separate water fountain idea. Civil marriage is what ya'll straight folks set up. If you don't want it called a civil marriage anymore, you're more than welcome to get the name changed...for everyone. The idea that straights get marriage and gays get civil unions is the definition of separate but equal.
> 
> We have partnerships. We have relationships. We have families. We believe they should be afforded the exact same rights, benefits and privileges you and your husband enjoy. A majority of Americans actually agree with me, not you and a vast majority of Americans do "accept it as normal". Where have you been Rip Van Winkle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, naturally, you can counter it with a poll that says differently? No...you just "know" it isn't right. Not even Drudge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You people are stuck on polls, it's that desire to feel normal and accepted.
Click to expand...


Well please tell us where you got your 50% figure, other than pulling it out of your posterior?

You were the one who claimed: 
_the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. _

So what was that statement based upon- if we can't trust polls_?_


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to
> Gallup also claims Obama enjoys a 50% approval rating...sorry bu
> 
> 
> You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You got all that out of *"Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?"
> *
> How? Seriously. How did you get that he was talking about civil unions with the above question?
> 
> Now that might be your pet peeve, but I don't see how it relates to the bolded question.
> 
> Now, let's address YOUR separate water fountain idea. Civil marriage is what ya'll straight folks set up. If you don't want it called a civil marriage anymore, you're more than welcome to get the name changed...for everyone. The idea that straights get marriage and gays get civil unions is the definition of separate but equal.
> 
> We have partnerships. We have relationships. We have families. We believe they should be afforded the exact same rights, benefits and privileges you and your husband enjoy. A majority of Americans actually agree with me, not you and a vast majority of Americans do "accept it as normal". Where have you been Rip Van Winkle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course- because you of course know what all Americans are thinking.
> 
> Unlike Gallup....who actually asks Americans.......
Click to expand...


The question begs...which faction of "real Americans" is Gallup polling?  There is no way in hell Obungles has a 50% approval rating, no way in hell


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You got all that out of *"Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?"
> *
> How? Seriously. How did you get that he was talking about civil unions with the above question?
> 
> Now that might be your pet peeve, but I don't see how it relates to the bolded question.
> 
> Now, let's address YOUR separate water fountain idea. Civil marriage is what ya'll straight folks set up. If you don't want it called a civil marriage anymore, you're more than welcome to get the name changed...for everyone. The idea that straights get marriage and gays get civil unions is the definition of separate but equal.
> 
> We have partnerships. We have relationships. We have families. We believe they should be afforded the exact same rights, benefits and privileges you and your husband enjoy. A majority of Americans actually agree with me, not you and a vast majority of Americans do "accept it as normal". Where have you been Rip Van Winkle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, naturally, you can counter it with a poll that says differently? No...you just "know" it isn't right. Not even Drudge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You people are stuck on polls, it's that desire to feel normal and accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well please tell us where you got your 50% figure, other than pulling it out of your posterior?
> 
> You were the one who claimed:
> _the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. _
> 
> So what was that statement based upon- if we can't trust polls_?_
Click to expand...


YOUR polls. Simple as that


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to make sense in order to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> In order to have the legal protections and responsibilities of marriage- same gender couples need to get married. For years 'civil unions' was pursued as a 'seperate but equal' option- but guess what?
> 
> a) Civil unions never had the same protections and responsibilities as legal marriage and
> b) Conservatives such as yourself fought tooth and nail against 'civil unions' as an option.
> 
> _Denver, Colo., May 11, 2012 / 09:13 am (CNA).- The Colorado Catholic Conference and the Catholic bishops of Colorado are urging voters to oppose Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper’s call for a special legislative session to vote on civil unions legislation._
> 
> I at one time thought that 'civil union's' if they were treated exactly the same as legal marriage was an option- I even told my gay friends that I thought that was the best route to take- that America was too homophobic to even attempt marriage equality.
> 
> But I was wrong- and they were right.
> 
> Same gender couples have every legal- and moral right- to pursue equal treatment through the courts- and I applaud their successes. They should be treated legally exactly as my wife and i are when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".
Click to expand...


Your *people *have fought against civil unions- you called yourself a devout Catholic- and the Church has repeatedly fought against civil unions. 

_Denver, Colo., May 11, 2012 / 09:13 am (CNA).- The Colorado Catholic Conference and the Catholic bishops of Colorado are urging voters to oppose Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper’s call for a special legislative session to vote on civil unions legislation.
_

*Bishops of Illinois urge opposition to civil unions bill*
Bishops of Illinois urge *opposition* to civil unions bill. ... the *civil union* legislation. Senate Bill 1716 seeks to afford all the "legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, ..

I at one time thought that 'civil union's' if they were treated exactly the same as legal marriage was an option- I even told my gay friends that I thought that was the best route to take- that America was too homophobic to even attempt marriage equality.

But I was wrong- and they were right.

Same gender couples have every legal- and moral right- to pursue equal treatment through the courts- and I applaud their successes. They should be treated legally exactly as my wife and i are when it comes to marriage.[


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to
> You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> In order to have the legal protections and responsibilities of marriage- same gender couples need to get married. For years 'civil unions' was pursued as a 'seperate but equal' option- but guess what?
> 
> a) Civil unions never had the same protections and responsibilities as legal marriage and
> b) Conservatives such as yourself fought tooth and nail against 'civil unions' as an option.
> 
> _Denver, Colo., May 11, 2012 / 09:13 am (CNA).- The Colorado Catholic Conference and the Catholic bishops of Colorado are urging voters to oppose Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper’s call for a special legislative session to vote on civil unions legislation._
> 
> I at one time thought that 'civil union's' if they were treated exactly the same as legal marriage was an option- I even told my gay friends that I thought that was the best route to take- that America was too homophobic to even attempt marriage equality.
> 
> But I was wrong- and they were right.
> 
> Same gender couples have every legal- and moral right- to pursue equal treatment through the courts- and I applaud their successes. They should be treated legally exactly as my wife and i are when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your *people *have fought against civil unions- you called yourself a devout Catholic- and the Church has repeatedly fought against civil unions.
> 
> _Denver, Colo., May 11, 2012 / 09:13 am (CNA).- The Colorado Catholic Conference and the Catholic bishops of Colorado are urging voters to oppose Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper’s call for a special legislative session to vote on civil unions legislation.
> _
> 
> *Bishops of Illinois urge opposition to civil unions bill*
> Bishops of Illinois urge *opposition* to civil unions bill. ... the *civil union* legislation. Senate Bill 1716 seeks to afford all the "legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, ..
> 
> I at one time thought that 'civil union's' if they were treated exactly the same as legal marriage was an option- I even told my gay friends that I thought that was the best route to take- that America was too homophobic to even attempt marriage equality.
> 
> But I was wrong- and they were right.
> 
> Same gender couples have every legal- and moral right- to pursue equal treatment through the courts- and I applaud their successes. They should be treated legally exactly as my wife and i are when it comes to marriage.[
Click to expand...


Once again, not everyone is "you people". Cease projecting, please


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You got all that out of *"Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?"
> *
> How? Seriously. How did you get that he was talking about civil unions with the above question?
> 
> Now that might be your pet peeve, but I don't see how it relates to the bolded question.
> 
> Now, let's address YOUR separate water fountain idea. Civil marriage is what ya'll straight folks set up. If you don't want it called a civil marriage anymore, you're more than welcome to get the name changed...for everyone. The idea that straights get marriage and gays get civil unions is the definition of separate but equal.
> 
> We have partnerships. We have relationships. We have families. We believe they should be afforded the exact same rights, benefits and privileges you and your husband enjoy. A majority of Americans actually agree with me, not you and a vast majority of Americans do "accept it as normal". Where have you been Rip Van Winkle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, naturally, you can counter it with a poll that says differently? No...you just "know" it isn't right. Not even Drudge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You people are stuck on polls, it's that desire to feel normal and accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well please tell us where you got your 50% figure, other than pulling it out of your posterior?
> 
> You were the one who claimed:
> _the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. _
> 
> So what was that statement based upon- if we can't trust polls_?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOUR polls. Simple as that
Click to expand...


So you were relying upon the polls that you said we can't rely upon?

You are just going further down the rabbit hole.


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> In order to have the legal protections and responsibilities of marriage- same gender couples need to get married. For years 'civil unions' was pursued as a 'seperate but equal' option- but guess what?
> 
> a) Civil unions never had the same protections and responsibilities as legal marriage and
> b) Conservatives such as yourself fought tooth and nail against 'civil unions' as an option.
> 
> _Denver, Colo., May 11, 2012 / 09:13 am (CNA).- The Colorado Catholic Conference and the Catholic bishops of Colorado are urging voters to oppose Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper’s call for a special legislative session to vote on civil unions legislation._
> 
> I at one time thought that 'civil union's' if they were treated exactly the same as legal marriage was an option- I even told my gay friends that I thought that was the best route to take- that America was too homophobic to even attempt marriage equality.
> 
> But I was wrong- and they were right.
> 
> Same gender couples have every legal- and moral right- to pursue equal treatment through the courts- and I applaud their successes. They should be treated legally exactly as my wife and i are when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your *people *have fought against civil unions- you called yourself a devout Catholic- and the Church has repeatedly fought against civil unions.
> 
> _Denver, Colo., May 11, 2012 / 09:13 am (CNA).- The Colorado Catholic Conference and the Catholic bishops of Colorado are urging voters to oppose Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper’s call for a special legislative session to vote on civil unions legislation.
> _
> 
> *Bishops of Illinois urge opposition to civil unions bill*
> Bishops of Illinois urge *opposition* to civil unions bill. ... the *civil union* legislation. Senate Bill 1716 seeks to afford all the "legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, ..
> 
> I at one time thought that 'civil union's' if they were treated exactly the same as legal marriage was an option- I even told my gay friends that I thought that was the best route to take- that America was too homophobic to even attempt marriage equality.
> 
> But I was wrong- and they were right.
> 
> Same gender couples have every legal- and moral right- to pursue equal treatment through the courts- and I applaud their successes. They should be treated legally exactly as my wife and i are when it comes to marriage.[
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, not everyone is "you people". Cease projecting, please
Click to expand...



I said 'your people'- i.e. the Catholic Church- the Catholic community- Catholics-

Your *people *have fought against civil unions- you called yourself a devout Catholic- and the Church has repeatedly fought against civil unions.

_Denver, Colo., May 11, 2012 / 09:13 am (CNA).- The Colorado Catholic Conference and the Catholic bishops of Colorado are urging voters to oppose Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper’s call for a special legislative session to vote on civil unions legislation.
_

*Bishops of Illinois urge opposition to civil unions bill*
Bishops of Illinois urge *opposition* to civil unions bill. ... the *civil union* legislation. Senate Bill 1716 seeks to afford all the "legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, ..

I at one time thought that 'civil union's' if they were treated exactly the same as legal marriage was an option- I even told my gay friends that I thought that was the best route to take- that America was too homophobic to even attempt marriage equality.

But I was wrong- and they were right.

Same gender couples have every legal- and moral right- to pursue equal treatment through the courts- and I applaud their successes. They should be treated legally exactly as my wife and i are when it comes to marriage.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, naturally, you can counter it with a poll that says differently? No...you just "know" it isn't right. Not even Drudge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You people are stuck on polls, it's that desire to feel normal and accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well please tell us where you got your 50% figure, other than pulling it out of your posterior?
> 
> You were the one who claimed:
> _the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. _
> 
> So what was that statement based upon- if we can't trust polls_?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOUR polls. Simple as that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you were relying upon the polls that you said we can't rely upon?
> 
> You are just going further down the rabbit hole.
Click to expand...


I'm using your polls against you....you're just too dumb to recognize it


----------



## Silhouette

SassyIrishLass said:


> The question begs...which faction of "real Americans" is Gallup polling?


 
All the Americans at the gay bar on Castro Street in SF, California said they approve of gay marriage so, it's become popular with the majority.

But remember, today's "science" prefers small samples in its surveys.. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

[refer to specifics on "CQR"]


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question begs...which faction of "real Americans" is Gallup polling?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the Americans at the gay bar on Castro Street in SF, California said they approve of gay marriage so, it's become popular with the majority.
> 
> But remember, today's "science" prefers small samples in its surveys.. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> [refer to specifics on "CQR"]
Click to expand...


The Prince's Trust is entirely irrelevant to the topic of "Should Churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings?" The reason you can't stay on topic is b/c churches are not being forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Of course, now comes the part of where you foolishly claim individual members of the church are in fact churches themselves. The law in no way supports your claim whatsoever. You want it to be that way so you can lie and claim are churches in fact being forced to marry gays. They are not.


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, naturally, you can counter it with a poll that says differently? No...you just "know" it isn't right. Not even Drudge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You people are stuck on polls, it's that desire to feel normal and accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well please tell us where you got your 50% figure, other than pulling it out of your posterior?
> 
> You were the one who claimed:
> _the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. _
> 
> So what was that statement based upon- if we can't trust polls_?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOUR polls. Simple as that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you were relying upon the polls that you said we can't rely upon?
> 
> You are just going further down the rabbit hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm using your polls against you....you're just too dumb to recognize it
Click to expand...


Your just making crap up- and then complaining about when people post actual polls.

You both want to argue that most Americans are against gay marriage, and then reject all evidence which shows that you are just making that crap up.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question begs...which faction of "real Americans" is Gallup polling?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the Americans at the gay bar on Castro Street in SF, California said they approve of gay marriage so, it's become popular with the majority."]
Click to expand...


Which 'gay bar' would that be Silhouette- and how long were you there probing until you got to the bottom of it?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are stuck on polls, it's that desire to feel normal and accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well please tell us where you got your 50% figure, other than pulling it out of your posterior?
> 
> You were the one who claimed:
> _the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. _
> 
> So what was that statement based upon- if we can't trust polls_?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOUR polls. Simple as that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you were relying upon the polls that you said we can't rely upon?
> 
> You are just going further down the rabbit hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm using your polls against you....you're just too dumb to recognize it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your just making crap up- and then complaining about when people post actual polls.
> 
> You both want to argue that most Americans are against gay marriage, and then reject all evidence which shows that you are just making that crap up.
Click to expand...


You spend an awful amount of time on homosexual issues, in fact you remind me of some of the Yahoo Gaystapo crowd, they keep claiming they are straight and married while in reality they are old queens trying to make it appear they have all this "str8" support. Just an observation


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SassyIrishLass said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about Catholics.
> 
> You Catholics let your choice of worship define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really, but all part of the disease.
> 
> But since I want to keep this thread on track- Catholics have every right to discriminate against homosexuals and women in their religion and church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am a Catholic and I take my faith very serious, with that said at least I didn't call you a bigoted religiphobe and demand you tolerate me or I will have the Catholicstapo come after you, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thread is about Gays getting married in the Church, no?  Even the Constitution can't force that to happen, in fact it prevents it from happening. I could really care less if two misguided and confused people get pretend married and want to appear normal and mainstream as long as they keep it away from my Church and the very most important thing, far, far, far away from our children.
Click to expand...

No, it's not; the premise of the thread is ignorant idiocy, abandoned long ago.

The issue is solely between gay Americans and their respective state governments, having nothing to do with private organizations such as churches.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

deltex1 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Normal is subjective. Red hair, green eyes and left handedness isn't "normal".
> 
> Unlike my sexuality, your bigotry is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do? Describe that in an average persons day. What is your perception of what that looks like.
> 
> Do you know any gay people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know a few but I tend to let them do whatever it is they do and live my own life. But I do run into homosexuals on boards and comment sections and it's always the same, if you don't agree with me you're a homophobic bigot, blah blah blah. Once it starts I know any type of civility is hopeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreeing and wishing to discriminate are not the same. If you want to deny gays and lesbians equal rights, you are a bigot.
> 
> You didn't answer the question. What does it look like in an average day when "you homosexuals" (gay is easier to type you know) "let your sexuality define and control you"? Describe a typical "homosexual day" won't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal rights to what, exactly?
Click to expand...

Equal protection of (equal access to) the law, in this case marriage law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

deltex1 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about Catholics.
> 
> You Catholics let your choice of worship define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really, but all part of the disease.
> 
> But since I want to keep this thread on track- Catholics have every right to discriminate against homosexuals and women in their religion and church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am a Catholic and I take my faith very serious, with that said at least I didn't call you a bigoted religiphobe and demand you tolerate me or I will have the Catholicstapo come after you, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same sex couples demanding to be opposite sex couples is unwarranted and illogical.  They are different and should get equal rights by different means.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

They are currently eligible to participate in marriage law, to seek to deny them access to that marriage law is un-Constitutional.


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well please tell us where you got your 50% figure, other than pulling it out of your posterior?
> 
> You were the one who claimed:
> _the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. _
> 
> So what was that statement based upon- if we can't trust polls_?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR polls. Simple as that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you were relying upon the polls that you said we can't rely upon?
> 
> You are just going further down the rabbit hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm using your polls against you....you're just too dumb to recognize it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your just making crap up- and then complaining about when people post actual polls.
> 
> You both want to argue that most Americans are against gay marriage, and then reject all evidence which shows that you are just making that crap up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend an awful amount of time on homosexual issues, in fact you remind me of some of the Yahoo Gaystapo crowd, they keep claiming they are straight and married while in reality they are old queens trying to make it appear they have all this "str8" support. Just an observation
Click to expand...


And yet here you are- spending an awful amount of time on homosexual issues. In fact you remind me of some of the homophobic racists who keep claiming that they aren't bigots while in fact they hate blacks, Jews and homosexuals with the same vigor. 

Just an observation.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are stuck on polls, it's that desire to feel normal and accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well please tell us where you got your 50% figure, other than pulling it out of your posterior?
> 
> You were the one who claimed:
> _the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. _
> 
> So what was that statement based upon- if we can't trust polls_?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOUR polls. Simple as that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you were relying upon the polls that you said we can't rely upon?
> 
> You are just going further down the rabbit hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm using your polls against you....you're just too dumb to recognize it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your just making crap up- and then complaining about when people post actual polls.
> 
> You both want to argue that most Americans are against gay marriage, and then reject all evidence which shows that you are just making that crap up.
Click to expand...


You spend an awful amount of time on homosexual issues, in fact you remind me of some of the Yahoo Gaystapo crowd, they keep claiming they are straight and married while in reality they are old queens trying to make it appear they have all this "str8" support. Just an observation


Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR polls. Simple as that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you were relying upon the polls that you said we can't rely upon?
> 
> You are just going further down the rabbit hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm using your polls against you....you're just too dumb to recognize it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your just making crap up- and then complaining about when people post actual polls.
> 
> You both want to argue that most Americans are against gay marriage, and then reject all evidence which shows that you are just making that crap up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend an awful amount of time on homosexual issues, in fact you remind me of some of the Yahoo Gaystapo crowd, they keep claiming they are straight and married while in reality they are old queens trying to make it appear they have all this "str8" support. Just an observation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here you are- spending an awful amount of time on homosexual issues. In fact you remind me of some of the homophobic racists who keep claiming that they aren't bigots while in fact they hate blacks, Jews and homosexuals with the same vigor.
> 
> Just an observation.
Click to expand...


Your constant use of "homophobic" is telling.


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well please tell us where you got your 50% figure, other than pulling it out of your posterior?
> 
> You were the one who claimed:
> _the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. _
> 
> So what was that statement based upon- if we can't trust polls_?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR polls. Simple as that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you were relying upon the polls that you said we can't rely upon?
> 
> You are just going further down the rabbit hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm using your polls against you....you're just too dumb to recognize it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your just making crap up- and then complaining about when people post actual polls.
> 
> You both want to argue that most Americans are against gay marriage, and then reject all evidence which shows that you are just making that crap up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend an awful amount of time on homosexual issues, in fact you remind me of some of the Yahoo Gaystapo crowd, they keep claiming they are straight and married while in reality they are old queens trying to make it appear they have all this "str8" support. Just an observation
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you were relying upon the polls that you said we can't rely upon?
> 
> You are just going further down the rabbit hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm using your polls against you....you're just too dumb to recognize it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your just making crap up- and then complaining about when people post actual polls.
> 
> You both want to argue that most Americans are against gay marriage, and then reject all evidence which shows that you are just making that crap up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend an awful amount of time on homosexual issues, in fact you remind me of some of the Yahoo Gaystapo crowd, they keep claiming they are straight and married while in reality they are old queens trying to make it appear they have all this "str8" support. Just an observation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here you are- spending an awful amount of time on homosexual issues. In fact you remind me of some of the homophobic racists who keep claiming that they aren't bigots while in fact they hate blacks, Jews and homosexuals with the same vigor.
> 
> Just an observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your constant use of "homophobic" is telling.
Click to expand...


And yet here you are- spending an awful amount of time on homosexual issues. In fact you remind me of some of the homophobic racists who keep claiming that they aren't bigots while in fact they hate blacks, Jews and homosexuals with the same vigor.

Just an observation.

Your constant use of 'Gaystapo' is telling.


----------



## deltex1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am a Catholic and I take my faith very serious, with that said at least I didn't call you a bigoted religiphobe and demand you tolerate me or I will have the Catholicstapo come after you, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't call you a bigoted homophobe, and demand that you 'tolerate' homosexuals, or I will have the 'homostap' come after you eh?
> 
> Here is what you did:
> 
> You jumped into a discussion about discrimination of homosexuals to complain that race is not the same thing as homosexuality- something no one ever claimed.
> You base this upon your conviction that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than genetic.
> You then insulted all homosexuals with this comment
> _You homosexuals let your choice of sexuality define you and control every aspect of your life...sad really but all part of the disease._
> 
> And yes- I then threw a parody of your insult back at you- showing what it would be like for a group that was discriminated against for something that we know for certain is a personal choice.
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics- nor do I think its is okay to rationalize discriminating against Catholics or Jews or Buddhists etc because religion is a choice- not genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated my opinion, if you don't like it then it's really too bad for you isn't it? Once again, there is NO scientific proof a homosexual is born a homosexual, none, nada, zilch. I don't want to hear about "scientist's consensus" or "peer reviewed studies" I want solid scientific proof and to date none has been offered up.
> 
> As for me being "insulted" at your jab at Catholics? I'm not a thin skinned cry baby, it's YOUR opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it's legally irrelevant.
> 
> Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice, it makes no difference, as gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty to make that choice absent unwarranted interference by the state – and denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is unwarranted, un-Constitutional interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same sex couples demanding to be opposite sex couples is unwarranted and illogical.  They are different and should get equal rights by different means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> They are currently eligible to participate in marriage law, to seek to deny them access to that marriage law is un-Constitutional.
Click to expand...

You mean civil marriage law?


----------



## deltex1

Man does not define religious marriage...God does.  Fag man wants everything equal.  God wants everything right.


----------



## deltex1

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR polls. Simple as that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you were relying upon the polls that you said we can't rely upon?
> 
> You are just going further down the rabbit hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm using your polls against you....you're just too dumb to recognize it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your just making crap up- and then complaining about when people post actual polls.
> 
> You both want to argue that most Americans are against gay marriage, and then reject all evidence which shows that you are just making that crap up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend an awful amount of time on homosexual issues, in fact you remind me of some of the Yahoo Gaystapo crowd, they keep claiming they are straight and married while in reality they are old queens trying to make it appear they have all this "str8" support. Just an observation
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm using your polls against you....you're just too dumb to recognize it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your just making crap up- and then complaining about when people post actual polls.
> 
> You both want to argue that most Americans are against gay marriage, and then reject all evidence which shows that you are just making that crap up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend an awful amount of time on homosexual issues, in fact you remind me of some of the Yahoo Gaystapo crowd, they keep claiming they are straight and married while in reality they are old queens trying to make it appear they have all this "str8" support. Just an observation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here you are- spending an awful amount of time on homosexual issues. In fact you remind me of some of the homophobic racists who keep claiming that they aren't bigots while in fact they hate blacks, Jews and homosexuals with the same vigor.
> 
> Just an observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your constant use of "homophobic" is telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here you are- spending an awful amount of time on homosexual issues. In fact you remind me of some of the homophobic racists who keep claiming that they aren't bigots while in fact they hate blacks, Jews and homosexuals with the same vigor.
> 
> Just an observation.
> 
> Your constant use of 'Gaystapo' is telling.
Click to expand...

Look at how many posts there are on this stupid subject...you people can't let it go.


----------



## Syriusly

deltex1 said:


> Man does not define religious marriage...God does.  Fag man wants everything equal.  God wants everything right.



Men define religious marriage all the time. 

However the only thing we are talking about here is civil law.

Religions can do whatever they want.


----------



## Syriusly

deltex1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you were relying upon the polls that you said we can't rely upon?
> 
> You are just going further down the rabbit hole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm using your polls against you....you're just too dumb to recognize it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your just making crap up- and then complaining about when people post actual polls.
> 
> You both want to argue that most Americans are against gay marriage, and then reject all evidence which shows that you are just making that crap up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend an awful amount of time on homosexual issues, in fact you remind me of some of the Yahoo Gaystapo crowd, they keep claiming they are straight and married while in reality they are old queens trying to make it appear they have all this "str8" support. Just an observation
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your just making crap up- and then complaining about when people post actual polls.
> 
> You both want to argue that most Americans are against gay marriage, and then reject all evidence which shows that you are just making that crap up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend an awful amount of time on homosexual issues, in fact you remind me of some of the Yahoo Gaystapo crowd, they keep claiming they are straight and married while in reality they are old queens trying to make it appear they have all this "str8" support. Just an observation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here you are- spending an awful amount of time on homosexual issues. In fact you remind me of some of the homophobic racists who keep claiming that they aren't bigots while in fact they hate blacks, Jews and homosexuals with the same vigor.
> 
> Just an observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your constant use of "homophobic" is telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here you are- spending an awful amount of time on homosexual issues. In fact you remind me of some of the homophobic racists who keep claiming that they aren't bigots while in fact they hate blacks, Jews and homosexuals with the same vigor.
> 
> Just an observation.
> 
> Your constant use of 'Gaystapo' is telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at how many posts there are on this stupid subject...you people can't let it go.
Click to expand...


Look at how many posts there are on this stupid subject...you people can't let it go


----------



## deltex1

Syriusly said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man does not define religious marriage...God does.  Fag man wants everything equal.  God wants everything right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men define religious marriage all the time.
> 
> However the only thing we are talking about here is civil law.
> 
> Religions can do whatever they want.
Click to expand...

Check the op again, GERTRUDE.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Look at how many posts there are on this stupid subject...you people can't let it go


 
Very good dear, you're catching on...

..people aren't letting "go" of the topic of being forced to abdicate their faith in favor of a deviant sex cult adamant to replace morality with depravity.

Very good...you're finally getting it!


----------



## deltex1

I've had it all along, Mona.


----------



## Syriusly

deltex1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man does not define religious marriage...God does.  Fag man wants everything equal.  God wants everything right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men define religious marriage all the time.
> 
> However the only thing we are talking about here is civil law.
> 
> Religions can do whatever they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Check the op again, GERTRUDE.
Click to expand...


Check it yourself, Shirley. 

However the only thing we are talking about here is civil law.

Religions can do whatever they want


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at how many posts there are on this stupid subject...you people can't let it go
> 
> 
> 
> a deviant sex cult adamant to replace morality with depravity.
Click to expand...


We aren't talking about you this time Silhouette.


----------



## Paperman299

Steinlight said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said gay marriage should be prohibited because most other cultures oppose it. You claimed that opposing gay marriage is bizarre or unusual, which it isnt. Historically and today, most of the world doesn't approve of the practice. My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. The
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny to me that you're more interested in proving your view is normal than that it is right. As it turns out, you're wrong both times. Most of the world? In fact, except for places like Communist China or the Middle East, the views are much more mixed. The Global Divide on Homosexuality Pew Research Center s Global Attitudes Project
> 
> And historically, what we now call homosexual behavior saw much more acceptance across the world, in places like Greece, Rome, and the Americas ("Two-Spirit" people).
> 
> But don't worry. If this thread has proven anything, it's that once equal marriage is the law of the land, churches will be allowed to hold on to these prejudices and refuse to marry anyone they want. It won't make it right, and the more time goes by the less normal it will be, but they'll have that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it is right and I articulated why in some part, I view it is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive and I don't think the government should promote it through offering such relations equal recognition. You claimed my view on gay marriage was bizarre, this was the base of your argument, so I responded to that, by saying my view isn't unusual or bizarre but shared by many individuals across cultures. Your survey doesn't confirm otherwise.As I said in the last post, my view on gay marriage isn't based on what percentage in what country agree or disagree with it, so to claim I am more interested in saying my view is normal is false. You insinuated in some part my view is wrong because it is bizarre. And your contention  your insinuation, is wrong on that basis.
> 
> Gay Marriage was not practiced in Greece or Rome. So not only is the premise of your argument wrong, Your argument is a logical fallacy as an appeal to authority. Because well, if Rome or Greece did it, they didn't, they must be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a mess of moving the goalposts and strawmen. You didn't say people "share your views," you said your view was basically "universal."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were wrong.
> 
> I said that what we would today describe as _homosexual behavior_ appears very frequently throughout history, not equal marriage.
> 
> What you've gotten most wrong, though, was my frickin' point. My characterization of anti-homosexual prejudice as "bizarre" was *not* the point of my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...the bizarre rules of ancient religious texts are in no way sufficient grounds for exceptions from modern laws. And as a spoonful of sugar to help that medicine go down, I would add that there are many rules which have been dropped down through the centuries, and that focusing in on this one in particular is not being Godly but all too human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They key word there isn't "bizarre," they're "ancient religious texts." And technically, I wasn't just talking about the Bible's anti-homosexual prejudice, I was talking about *a lot* of its Bronze Age rules which would be crazy to follow today. The reason it's not in American law that adulterers will be stoned, or that we can't eat shellfish, isn't that those things are in the Old Testament instead of the New; it's that something being in the Bible is _in no way_ good cause to make it law. How much less sense it would make, then, that these things should supercede modern law where the two contradict?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only one moving the goal posts and creating strawmen. What does "accept homosexuality" entail? And it is an entirely different question than marriage. So my point stands. Your contention was my view on gay marriage was bizarre and thus wrong, I responded by saying my view on gay marriage is pretty universal outside the secular west, across cultures historically and in modern times. You have yet to prove my view on gay marriage is bizarre, meaning unusual or odd, thus your argument on those grounds is flawed. Not only is the premise flawed, the argument is a logical fallacy as it suggests a view is right based on majority consensus.
> 
> I never stated homosexual behavior is a modern manifestation, so I don't understand what exactly you are talking about here. So what exactly is your point here and how does homosexuality in the ancient world relate to gay marriage now? None of the societies you cited allowed gay marriage, so what exactly is your point here?
> 
> Just because a code of morality is old or comes from ancient times doesn't make it wrong. You even admit this when you cite Rome and ancient Greece, though incorrectly. But you appeal to ancients. In many way the ancients were wiser than us moderns.
> 
> You implied we as Christians were hypocritical and picking and choosing which laws we follow. You claimed we ignore dietary laws, but follow the passages which tell us homosexuality is a sin. Your assertion we are hypocrites is simply incorrect, as we aren't bound by those mosaic laws as Christians. So your basis we are picking or choosing and our opposition to homosexuality is arbitrary is false.
> 
> I never said the law should be based on the Bible. I joined the conversation when you were discussing whether there was any clear condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament and I provided scripture to that end. What I said is that the government shouldn't promote a homosexuality, which is a mental illness, and a personally and socially destructive lifestyle as equal to the union of a man in the wife who come together to have children and build a family.
Click to expand...


First, I clearly said ancient religious texts were no basis for legal exceptions because they were ancient religious texts. I even quoted it, people can read that, so I don't know why you think you can straw man me on this point.

Perhaps for the same reason you think you can continue to claim your view is "universal," or near-to, when I have posted a poll clearly refuting this. If you averaged all those scores (including some horrendously morally backwards Middle Eastern nations), you'd probably have something like 60% who are prejudiced against homosexuality, 40% who think it's fine. Hardly universal.

I have really no interest in discussing whether Christians are bound by Old Testament laws, and whether it's a "fair" comparison. Enough of them point to "mosaic" passages to justify their position, and hang the Ten Commandments in their churches (and our courthouses) that I am inclined to believe you are the minority view. I also seem to recall Jesus himself disagreeing with you; however, the Bible is so endlessly open to interpretation that there can be no definitive position.

Regardless, it matters not one whit what the Bible says, in the eyes of the law.


----------



## Seawytch

deltex1 said:


> Man does not define religious marriage...God does.  Fag man wants everything equal.  God wants everything right.



Of course man defines religious marriage. Do you really think God forbade interracial marriage...until he didn't? The anti miscegenationists used the same bible the anti gay bigots do. Man, however, has decided that prohibitions on interracial marriage are passe.


----------



## deltex1

Seawytch said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man does not define religious marriage...God does.  Fag man wants everything equal.  God wants everything right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course man defines religious marriage. Do you really think God forbade interracial marriage...until he didn't? The anti miscegenationists used the same bible the anti gay bigots do. Man, however, has decided that prohibitions on interracial marriage are passe.
Click to expand...

Man is in constant search for Gods truth...it will take billions of years to discover it all. Man didn't decide shit...they discovered a bit of Gods truth.


----------



## Paperman299

deltex1 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man does not define religious marriage...God does.  Fag man wants everything equal.  God wants everything right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course man defines religious marriage. Do you really think God forbade interracial marriage...until he didn't? The anti miscegenationists used the same bible the anti gay bigots do. Man, however, has decided that prohibitions on interracial marriage are passe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man is in constant search for Gods truth...it will take billions of years to discover it all. Man didn't decide shit...they discovered a bit of Gods truth.
Click to expand...

Discover this truth faster, please.


----------



## deltex1

Paperman299 said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man does not define religious marriage...God does.  Fag man wants everything equal.  God wants everything right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course man defines religious marriage. Do you really think God forbade interracial marriage...until he didn't? The anti miscegenationists used the same bible the anti gay bigots do. Man, however, has decided that prohibitions on interracial marriage are passe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man is in constant search for Gods truth...it will take billions of years to discover it all. Man didn't decide shit...they discovered a bit of Gods truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discover this truth faster, please.
Click to expand...

When it is  all discovered, God will have fulfilled his goal and the world will end.  Man will know what God knows...and will be one with God.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

deltex1 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man does not define religious marriage...God does.  Fag man wants everything equal.  God wants everything right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course man defines religious marriage. Do you really think God forbade interracial marriage...until he didn't? The anti miscegenationists used the same bible the anti gay bigots do. Man, however, has decided that prohibitions on interracial marriage are passe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man is in constant search for Gods truth...it will take billions of years to discover it all. Man didn't decide shit...they discovered a bit of Gods truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discover this truth faster, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is  all discovered, God will have fulfilled his goal and the world will end.  Man will know what God knows...and will be one with God.
Click to expand...


I'm very comfortable with you "advicing" Kenz


----------



## deltex1

SassyIrishLass said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man does not define religious marriage...God does.  Fag man wants everything equal.  God wants everything right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course man defines religious marriage. Do you really think God forbade interracial marriage...until he didn't? The anti miscegenationists used the same bible the anti gay bigots do. Man, however, has decided that prohibitions on interracial marriage are passe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man is in constant search for Gods truth...it will take billions of years to discover it all. Man didn't decide shit...they discovered a bit of Gods truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discover this truth faster, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is  all discovered, God will have fulfilled his goal and the world will end.  Man will know what God knows...and will be one with God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm very comfortable with you "advicing" Kenz
Click to expand...

I pray a lot over that role....she is a jewel.


----------



## Paperman299

deltex1 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man does not define religious marriage...God does.  Fag man wants everything equal.  God wants everything right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course man defines religious marriage. Do you really think God forbade interracial marriage...until he didn't? The anti miscegenationists used the same bible the anti gay bigots do. Man, however, has decided that prohibitions on interracial marriage are passe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man is in constant search for Gods truth...it will take billions of years to discover it all. Man didn't decide shit...they discovered a bit of Gods truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discover this truth faster, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is  all discovered, God will have fulfilled his goal and the world will end.  Man will know what God knows...and will be one with God.
Click to expand...

Gay people who don't yet have their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to equal treatment under the law right now are much comforted that Christians are working on changing their own opinion.


----------



## deltex1

Paperman299 said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man does not define religious marriage...God does.  Fag man wants everything equal.  God wants everything right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course man defines religious marriage. Do you really think God forbade interracial marriage...until he didn't? The anti miscegenationists used the same bible the anti gay bigots do. Man, however, has decided that prohibitions on interracial marriage are passe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man is in constant search for Gods truth...it will take billions of years to discover it all. Man didn't decide shit...they discovered a bit of Gods truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Discover this truth faster, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is  all discovered, God will have fulfilled his goal and the world will end.  Man will know what God knows...and will be one with God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay people who don't yet have their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to equal treatment under the law right now are much comforted that Christians are working on changing their own opinion.
Click to expand...

Does that include treatment for aids?


----------



## beagle9

deltex1 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are religions all separate but equal?  Does that concept work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? That statement makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't a statement.  It was a question....one you evidently can't answer.  I'm going to play racquetball...as all good christians do.  Pax vobiscum.
Click to expand...




SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state should recognize their arrangement...their agreement...not their "marriage".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to make sense in order to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gallup also claims Obama enjoys a 50% approval rating...sorry bu
> 
> 
> You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You got all that out of *"Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?"
> *
> How? Seriously. How did you get that he was talking about civil unions with the above question?
> 
> Now that might be your pet peeve, but I don't see how it relates to the bolded question.
> 
> Now, let's address YOUR separate water fountain idea. Civil marriage is what ya'll straight folks set up. If you don't want it called a civil marriage anymore, you're more than welcome to get the name changed...for everyone. The idea that straights get marriage and gays get civil unions is the definition of separate but equal.
> 
> We have partnerships. We have relationships. We have families. We believe they should be afforded the exact same rights, benefits and privileges you and your husband enjoy. A majority of Americans actually agree with me, not you and a vast majority of Americans do "accept it as normal". Where have you been Rip Van Winkle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to think that polls may be the most corrupt thing ever invented in this nation, and even crazier than that, these polls are being relied upon so heavily in the nation now but why ? I think it's because people have become way to smart in a bad way anymore you see, and they can manipulate just about anything in order to achieve their desired results now in a poll, and they are using these polls against the majority who may see things way differently than they want them to see them now. 

Polls have become a doorway to jump through for those that are in the minority view on some things and/or issues, and they use them in a way to get over on the majority now I think. 

Isn't it funny that when you ask people on the street about the issues, that they are shockingly oblivious to what these polls are suggesting as to be somehow the truth in their worlds, and this even as they don't agree with the polls that would suggest otherwise ?  I mean the ones you actually speak to in real life, have a sentiment or agreement on the issues that are totally opposite in their views, and this is most of the time from what the poll's are saying, but regardless the poll reader or taker will suggest otherwise that it is the truth, and then use a poll to back them up even if it is bogus on the results.


----------



## beagle9

WorldWatcher said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over a decade ago (2000/2004 time frame, anti-gay General Election ballot initiatives/referendums passed with (IIRC) 23-76% margins of victory.
> 
> By 2008/2009, anti-gay General Election ballot initiatives/referendums squeaked by where a change of only about 2.5% would have changed the outcome.
> 
> In 2012 there were 4 marriages initiatives/referendums on the General Election ballot and all won by about 2.5%.  And in one of those States it was a reversal of an initiative passed just a few years before in 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with an ounce of sense sees that is actual election results showing a shift in views on same-sex civil marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

Yeah, and how did those views come about ? Was it by a person's choice without influence by intimidation or having their arms twisted by powerful people who sold out to a few ?


----------



## WorldWatcher

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over a decade ago (2000/2004 time frame, anti-gay General Election ballot initiatives/referendums passed with (IIRC) 23-76% margins of victory.
> 
> By 2008/2009, anti-gay General Election ballot initiatives/referendums squeaked by where a change of only about 2.5% would have changed the outcome.
> 
> In 2012 there were 4 marriages initiatives/referendums on the General Election ballot and all won by about 2.5%.  And in one of those States it was a reversal of an initiative passed just a few years before in 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with an ounce of sense sees that is actual election results showing a shift in views on same-sex civil marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and how did those views come about ? Was it by a person's choice without influence by intimidation or having their arms twisted by powerful people who sold out to a few ?
Click to expand...



I voted against the Virginia anti-same-sex marriage ballot initiative about 10-years ago.

1.  It was my own choice.

2.  There was no intimidation.

3.  There was no arm twisting by powerful people.


>>>>


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are religions all separate but equal?  Does that concept work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? That statement makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't a statement.  It was a question....one you evidently can't answer.  I'm going to play racquetball...as all good christians do.  Pax vobiscum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to
> Gallup also claims Obama enjoys a 50% approval rating...sorry bu
> 
> 
> You have to be intelligent enough to know what is being asked...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, you break it down. What's he asking? Explain his concept of separate but equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect he is saying something along the lines why do homosexuals insist on calling it "marriage", why not call it civil unions and enjoy (or suffer) the benefits of marriage?  It's part of the "we have to appear normal" thing homosexuals desire and crave and the reality is roughly 50% of the nation doesn't accept it as normal. On the flip side heterosexual marriage is considered normal and accepted by the vast majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You got all that out of *"Are religions all separate but equal? Does that concept work?"
> *
> How? Seriously. How did you get that he was talking about civil unions with the above question?
> 
> Now that might be your pet peeve, but I don't see how it relates to the bolded question.
> 
> Now, let's address YOUR separate water fountain idea. Civil marriage is what ya'll straight folks set up. If you don't want it called a civil marriage anymore, you're more than welcome to get the name changed...for everyone. The idea that straights get marriage and gays get civil unions is the definition of separate but equal.
> 
> We have partnerships. We have relationships. We have families. We believe they should be afforded the exact same rights, benefits and privileges you and your husband enjoy. A majority of Americans actually agree with me, not you and a vast majority of Americans do "accept it as normal". Where have you been Rip Van Winkle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm beginning to think that polls may be the most corrupt thing ever invented in this nation, .
Click to expand...


Because you disagree with the results of the polls.

Polls can be incorrect- polls can even be misleading depending on how the question is phrased, or even skewed depending upon the audience. 

But when the reputable polling groups- Pew- Gallup- come up with similar results, with trends that seem to be consistent (not varying wildly year by year), you have to be pretty ostrichy to conclude that the problem is with the polls, not with your opinion differing with the majority.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup also says Obama is at 50% approval, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that isn't correct. Any poll can achieve any desired result
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over a decade ago (2000/2004 time frame, anti-gay General Election ballot initiatives/referendums passed with (IIRC) 23-76% margins of victory.
> 
> By 2008/2009, anti-gay General Election ballot initiatives/referendums squeaked by where a change of only about 2.5% would have changed the outcome.
> 
> In 2012 there were 4 marriages initiatives/referendums on the General Election ballot and all won by about 2.5%.  And in one of those States it was a reversal of an initiative passed just a few years before in 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with an ounce of sense sees that is actual election results showing a shift in views on same-sex civil marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and how did those views come about ? Was it by a person's choice without influence by intimidation or having their arms twisted by powerful people who sold out to a few ?
Click to expand...


Anyone twisting your arm? Anyone showing up at your home to intimidate you into supporting marriage equality?


----------



## Steinlight

Paperman299 said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said gay marriage should be prohibited because most other cultures oppose it. You claimed that opposing gay marriage is bizarre or unusual, which it isnt. Historically and today, most of the world doesn't approve of the practice. My objection to gay marriage is not based on what other societies think. It is based on the issue that this mental illness, this anti social and destructive behavior should not be promoted by the state. The
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny to me that you're more interested in proving your view is normal than that it is right. As it turns out, you're wrong both times. Most of the world? In fact, except for places like Communist China or the Middle East, the views are much more mixed. The Global Divide on Homosexuality Pew Research Center s Global Attitudes Project
> 
> And historically, what we now call homosexual behavior saw much more acceptance across the world, in places like Greece, Rome, and the Americas ("Two-Spirit" people).
> 
> But don't worry. If this thread has proven anything, it's that once equal marriage is the law of the land, churches will be allowed to hold on to these prejudices and refuse to marry anyone they want. It won't make it right, and the more time goes by the less normal it will be, but they'll have that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it is right and I articulated why in some part, I view it is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive and I don't think the government should promote it through offering such relations equal recognition. You claimed my view on gay marriage was bizarre, this was the base of your argument, so I responded to that, by saying my view isn't unusual or bizarre but shared by many individuals across cultures. Your survey doesn't confirm otherwise.As I said in the last post, my view on gay marriage isn't based on what percentage in what country agree or disagree with it, so to claim I am more interested in saying my view is normal is false. You insinuated in some part my view is wrong because it is bizarre. And your contention  your insinuation, is wrong on that basis.
> 
> Gay Marriage was not practiced in Greece or Rome. So not only is the premise of your argument wrong, Your argument is a logical fallacy as an appeal to authority. Because well, if Rome or Greece did it, they didn't, they must be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a mess of moving the goalposts and strawmen. You didn't say people "share your views," you said your view was basically "universal."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were wrong.
> 
> I said that what we would today describe as _homosexual behavior_ appears very frequently throughout history, not equal marriage.
> 
> What you've gotten most wrong, though, was my frickin' point. My characterization of anti-homosexual prejudice as "bizarre" was *not* the point of my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...the bizarre rules of ancient religious texts are in no way sufficient grounds for exceptions from modern laws. And as a spoonful of sugar to help that medicine go down, I would add that there are many rules which have been dropped down through the centuries, and that focusing in on this one in particular is not being Godly but all too human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They key word there isn't "bizarre," they're "ancient religious texts." And technically, I wasn't just talking about the Bible's anti-homosexual prejudice, I was talking about *a lot* of its Bronze Age rules which would be crazy to follow today. The reason it's not in American law that adulterers will be stoned, or that we can't eat shellfish, isn't that those things are in the Old Testament instead of the New; it's that something being in the Bible is _in no way_ good cause to make it law. How much less sense it would make, then, that these things should supercede modern law where the two contradict?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only one moving the goal posts and creating strawmen. What does "accept homosexuality" entail? And it is an entirely different question than marriage. So my point stands. Your contention was my view on gay marriage was bizarre and thus wrong, I responded by saying my view on gay marriage is pretty universal outside the secular west, across cultures historically and in modern times. You have yet to prove my view on gay marriage is bizarre, meaning unusual or odd, thus your argument on those grounds is flawed. Not only is the premise flawed, the argument is a logical fallacy as it suggests a view is right based on majority consensus.
> 
> I never stated homosexual behavior is a modern manifestation, so I don't understand what exactly you are talking about here. So what exactly is your point here and how does homosexuality in the ancient world relate to gay marriage now? None of the societies you cited allowed gay marriage, so what exactly is your point here?
> 
> Just because a code of morality is old or comes from ancient times doesn't make it wrong. You even admit this when you cite Rome and ancient Greece, though incorrectly. But you appeal to ancients. In many way the ancients were wiser than us moderns.
> 
> You implied we as Christians were hypocritical and picking and choosing which laws we follow. You claimed we ignore dietary laws, but follow the passages which tell us homosexuality is a sin. Your assertion we are hypocrites is simply incorrect, as we aren't bound by those mosaic laws as Christians. So your basis we are picking or choosing and our opposition to homosexuality is arbitrary is false.
> 
> I never said the law should be based on the Bible. I joined the conversation when you were discussing whether there was any clear condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament and I provided scripture to that end. What I said is that the government shouldn't promote a homosexuality, which is a mental illness, and a personally and socially destructive lifestyle as equal to the union of a man in the wife who come together to have children and build a family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I clearly said ancient religious texts were no basis for legal exceptions because they were ancient religious texts. I even quoted it, people can read that, so I don't know why you think you can straw man me on this point.
> 
> Perhaps for the same reason you think you can continue to claim your view is "universal," or near-to, when I have posted a poll clearly refuting this. If you averaged all those scores (including some horrendously morally backwards Middle Eastern nations), you'd probably have something like 60% who are prejudiced against homosexuality, 40% who think it's fine. Hardly universal.
> 
> I have really no interest in discussing whether Christians are bound by Old Testament laws, and whether it's a "fair" comparison. Enough of them point to "mosaic" passages to justify their position, and hang the Ten Commandments in their churches (and our courthouses) that I am inclined to believe you are the minority view. I also seem to recall Jesus himself disagreeing with you; however, the Bible is so endlessly open to interpretation that there can be no definitive position.
> 
> Regardless, it matters not one whit what the Bible says, in the eyes of the law.
Click to expand...

That was a lot of effort to just repeat yourself.

You have yet to prove my view on gay marriage unusual, accepting homosexuality as something that exists and will be practiced is entirely different from supporting gay marriage. You have yet to establish that Christians are picking and choosing when it comes to opposing homosexual marriage.

Now you are making some argument that I want to oppose the bible on you and stop your gay marriage when I never said anything about having biblically based law. I only brought up the bible when you used it to call us hypocrites and you have yet to provide proof to that end. You just cited some old kosher laws we Christians aren't bound to. Last I checked, the ten Commandments don't require us to keep kosher.

So as I said before. My view on gay marriage is not unusual. And is nearly universal outside of the view of some in secular western societies. And we Christians aren't hypocrites for opposing it because we don't follow some jewish laws. I reject the legal equality of gay marriages to traditional marriages because they clearly aren't equal in value to society, and I don't support destructive anti social behaviors like homosexuality being encouraged by the state.


----------



## Paperman299

Steinlight said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny to me that you're more interested in proving your view is normal than that it is right. As it turns out, you're wrong both times. Most of the world? In fact, except for places like Communist China or the Middle East, the views are much more mixed. The Global Divide on Homosexuality Pew Research Center s Global Attitudes Project
> 
> And historically, what we now call homosexual behavior saw much more acceptance across the world, in places like Greece, Rome, and the Americas ("Two-Spirit" people).
> 
> But don't worry. If this thread has proven anything, it's that once equal marriage is the law of the land, churches will be allowed to hold on to these prejudices and refuse to marry anyone they want. It won't make it right, and the more time goes by the less normal it will be, but they'll have that right.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is right and I articulated why in some part, I view it is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive and I don't think the government should promote it through offering such relations equal recognition. You claimed my view on gay marriage was bizarre, this was the base of your argument, so I responded to that, by saying my view isn't unusual or bizarre but shared by many individuals across cultures. Your survey doesn't confirm otherwise.As I said in the last post, my view on gay marriage isn't based on what percentage in what country agree or disagree with it, so to claim I am more interested in saying my view is normal is false. You insinuated in some part my view is wrong because it is bizarre. And your contention  your insinuation, is wrong on that basis.
> 
> Gay Marriage was not practiced in Greece or Rome. So not only is the premise of your argument wrong, Your argument is a logical fallacy as an appeal to authority. Because well, if Rome or Greece did it, they didn't, they must be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a mess of moving the goalposts and strawmen. You didn't say people "share your views," you said your view was basically "universal."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were wrong.
> 
> I said that what we would today describe as _homosexual behavior_ appears very frequently throughout history, not equal marriage.
> 
> What you've gotten most wrong, though, was my frickin' point. My characterization of anti-homosexual prejudice as "bizarre" was *not* the point of my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...the bizarre rules of ancient religious texts are in no way sufficient grounds for exceptions from modern laws. And as a spoonful of sugar to help that medicine go down, I would add that there are many rules which have been dropped down through the centuries, and that focusing in on this one in particular is not being Godly but all too human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They key word there isn't "bizarre," they're "ancient religious texts." And technically, I wasn't just talking about the Bible's anti-homosexual prejudice, I was talking about *a lot* of its Bronze Age rules which would be crazy to follow today. The reason it's not in American law that adulterers will be stoned, or that we can't eat shellfish, isn't that those things are in the Old Testament instead of the New; it's that something being in the Bible is _in no way_ good cause to make it law. How much less sense it would make, then, that these things should supercede modern law where the two contradict?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only one moving the goal posts and creating strawmen. What does "accept homosexuality" entail? And it is an entirely different question than marriage. So my point stands. Your contention was my view on gay marriage was bizarre and thus wrong, I responded by saying my view on gay marriage is pretty universal outside the secular west, across cultures historically and in modern times. You have yet to prove my view on gay marriage is bizarre, meaning unusual or odd, thus your argument on those grounds is flawed. Not only is the premise flawed, the argument is a logical fallacy as it suggests a view is right based on majority consensus.
> 
> I never stated homosexual behavior is a modern manifestation, so I don't understand what exactly you are talking about here. So what exactly is your point here and how does homosexuality in the ancient world relate to gay marriage now? None of the societies you cited allowed gay marriage, so what exactly is your point here?
> 
> Just because a code of morality is old or comes from ancient times doesn't make it wrong. You even admit this when you cite Rome and ancient Greece, though incorrectly. But you appeal to ancients. In many way the ancients were wiser than us moderns.
> 
> You implied we as Christians were hypocritical and picking and choosing which laws we follow. You claimed we ignore dietary laws, but follow the passages which tell us homosexuality is a sin. Your assertion we are hypocrites is simply incorrect, as we aren't bound by those mosaic laws as Christians. So your basis we are picking or choosing and our opposition to homosexuality is arbitrary is false.
> 
> I never said the law should be based on the Bible. I joined the conversation when you were discussing whether there was any clear condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament and I provided scripture to that end. What I said is that the government shouldn't promote a homosexuality, which is a mental illness, and a personally and socially destructive lifestyle as equal to the union of a man in the wife who come together to have children and build a family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I clearly said ancient religious texts were no basis for legal exceptions because they were ancient religious texts. I even quoted it, people can read that, so I don't know why you think you can straw man me on this point.
> 
> Perhaps for the same reason you think you can continue to claim your view is "universal," or near-to, when I have posted a poll clearly refuting this. If you averaged all those scores (including some horrendously morally backwards Middle Eastern nations), you'd probably have something like 60% who are prejudiced against homosexuality, 40% who think it's fine. Hardly universal.
> 
> I have really no interest in discussing whether Christians are bound by Old Testament laws, and whether it's a "fair" comparison. Enough of them point to "mosaic" passages to justify their position, and hang the Ten Commandments in their churches (and our courthouses) that I am inclined to believe you are the minority view. I also seem to recall Jesus himself disagreeing with you; however, the Bible is so endlessly open to interpretation that there can be no definitive position.
> 
> Regardless, it matters not one whit what the Bible says, in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a lot of effort to just repeat yourself.
> 
> You have yet to prove my view on gay marriage unusual, accepting homosexuality as something that exists and will be practiced is entirely different from supporting gay marriage. You have yet to establish that Christians are picking and choosing when it comes to opposing homosexual marriage.
> 
> Now you are making some argument that I want to oppose the bible on you and stop your gay marriage when I never said anything about having biblically based law. I only brought up the bible when you used it to call us hypocrites and you have yet to provide proof to that end. You just cited some old kosher laws we Christians aren't bound to. Last I checked, the ten Commandments don't require us to keep kosher.
> 
> So as I said before. My view on gay marriage is not unusual. And is nearly universal outside of the view of some in secular western societies. And we Christians aren't hypocrites for opposing it because we don't follow some jewish laws. I reject the legal equality of gay marriages to traditional marriages because they clearly aren't equal in value to society, and I don't support destructive anti social behaviors like homosexuality being encouraged by the state.
Click to expand...

People didn't acknowledge homosexuality exists, they said they were okay with it. And how can you continue to demand proof of the changing opinion of equal marriage specifically when the last three pages of this thread have been about nothing but?

If you have confidence in your theological stance, fine. 50 years ago we'd have had this same argument over anti-miscegenation laws. "But it's in the New Testament!" "But the Ten Commandments are still hip because they're not kosher!" These theological minutiae mean nothing to me, but if the Old Testament is so unimportant you may want to inform fellow Christians, who continue to tout its lessons.

If you have any proof besides the Bible that equal marriage is destructive for society, by all means share it with us.


----------



## Steinlight

Paperman299 said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is right and I articulated why in some part, I view it is a mental illness that is personally and socially destructive and I don't think the government should promote it through offering such relations equal recognition. You claimed my view on gay marriage was bizarre, this was the base of your argument, so I responded to that, by saying my view isn't unusual or bizarre but shared by many individuals across cultures. Your survey doesn't confirm otherwise.As I said in the last post, my view on gay marriage isn't based on what percentage in what country agree or disagree with it, so to claim I am more interested in saying my view is normal is false. You insinuated in some part my view is wrong because it is bizarre. And your contention  your insinuation, is wrong on that basis.
> 
> Gay Marriage was not practiced in Greece or Rome. So not only is the premise of your argument wrong, Your argument is a logical fallacy as an appeal to authority. Because well, if Rome or Greece did it, they didn't, they must be right.
> 
> 
> 
> What a mess of moving the goalposts and strawmen. You didn't say people "share your views," you said your view was basically "universal."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were wrong.
> 
> I said that what we would today describe as _homosexual behavior_ appears very frequently throughout history, not equal marriage.
> 
> What you've gotten most wrong, though, was my frickin' point. My characterization of anti-homosexual prejudice as "bizarre" was *not* the point of my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...the bizarre rules of ancient religious texts are in no way sufficient grounds for exceptions from modern laws. And as a spoonful of sugar to help that medicine go down, I would add that there are many rules which have been dropped down through the centuries, and that focusing in on this one in particular is not being Godly but all too human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They key word there isn't "bizarre," they're "ancient religious texts." And technically, I wasn't just talking about the Bible's anti-homosexual prejudice, I was talking about *a lot* of its Bronze Age rules which would be crazy to follow today. The reason it's not in American law that adulterers will be stoned, or that we can't eat shellfish, isn't that those things are in the Old Testament instead of the New; it's that something being in the Bible is _in no way_ good cause to make it law. How much less sense it would make, then, that these things should supercede modern law where the two contradict?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only one moving the goal posts and creating strawmen. What does "accept homosexuality" entail? And it is an entirely different question than marriage. So my point stands. Your contention was my view on gay marriage was bizarre and thus wrong, I responded by saying my view on gay marriage is pretty universal outside the secular west, across cultures historically and in modern times. You have yet to prove my view on gay marriage is bizarre, meaning unusual or odd, thus your argument on those grounds is flawed. Not only is the premise flawed, the argument is a logical fallacy as it suggests a view is right based on majority consensus.
> 
> I never stated homosexual behavior is a modern manifestation, so I don't understand what exactly you are talking about here. So what exactly is your point here and how does homosexuality in the ancient world relate to gay marriage now? None of the societies you cited allowed gay marriage, so what exactly is your point here?
> 
> Just because a code of morality is old or comes from ancient times doesn't make it wrong. You even admit this when you cite Rome and ancient Greece, though incorrectly. But you appeal to ancients. In many way the ancients were wiser than us moderns.
> 
> You implied we as Christians were hypocritical and picking and choosing which laws we follow. You claimed we ignore dietary laws, but follow the passages which tell us homosexuality is a sin. Your assertion we are hypocrites is simply incorrect, as we aren't bound by those mosaic laws as Christians. So your basis we are picking or choosing and our opposition to homosexuality is arbitrary is false.
> 
> I never said the law should be based on the Bible. I joined the conversation when you were discussing whether there was any clear condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament and I provided scripture to that end. What I said is that the government shouldn't promote a homosexuality, which is a mental illness, and a personally and socially destructive lifestyle as equal to the union of a man in the wife who come together to have children and build a family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I clearly said ancient religious texts were no basis for legal exceptions because they were ancient religious texts. I even quoted it, people can read that, so I don't know why you think you can straw man me on this point.
> 
> Perhaps for the same reason you think you can continue to claim your view is "universal," or near-to, when I have posted a poll clearly refuting this. If you averaged all those scores (including some horrendously morally backwards Middle Eastern nations), you'd probably have something like 60% who are prejudiced against homosexuality, 40% who think it's fine. Hardly universal.
> 
> I have really no interest in discussing whether Christians are bound by Old Testament laws, and whether it's a "fair" comparison. Enough of them point to "mosaic" passages to justify their position, and hang the Ten Commandments in their churches (and our courthouses) that I am inclined to believe you are the minority view. I also seem to recall Jesus himself disagreeing with you; however, the Bible is so endlessly open to interpretation that there can be no definitive position.
> 
> Regardless, it matters not one whit what the Bible says, in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a lot of effort to just repeat yourself.
> 
> You have yet to prove my view on gay marriage unusual, accepting homosexuality as something that exists and will be practiced is entirely different from supporting gay marriage. You have yet to establish that Christians are picking and choosing when it comes to opposing homosexual marriage.
> 
> Now you are making some argument that I want to oppose the bible on you and stop your gay marriage when I never said anything about having biblically based law. I only brought up the bible when you used it to call us hypocrites and you have yet to provide proof to that end. You just cited some old kosher laws we Christians aren't bound to. Last I checked, the ten Commandments don't require us to keep kosher.
> 
> So as I said before. My view on gay marriage is not unusual. And is nearly universal outside of the view of some in secular western societies. And we Christians aren't hypocrites for opposing it because we don't follow some jewish laws. I reject the legal equality of gay marriages to traditional marriages because they clearly aren't equal in value to society, and I don't support destructive anti social behaviors like homosexuality being encouraged by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People didn't acknowledge homosexuality exists, they said they were okay with it. And how can you continue to demand proof of the changing opinion of equal marriage specifically when the last three pages of this thread have been about nothing but?
> 
> If you have confidence in your theological stance, fine. 50 years ago we'd have had this same argument over anti-miscegenation laws. "But it's in the New Testament!" "But the Ten Commandments are still hip because they're not kosher!" These theological minutiae mean nothing to me, but if the Old Testament is so unimportant you may want to inform fellow Christians, who continue to tout its lessons.
> 
> If you have any proof besides the Bible that equal marriage is destructive for society, by all means share it with us.
Click to expand...

What do they mean by ok with it? It depends how you word it. Basically, in no way does your question mean these people support gay marriage. Someone can be against sodomy laws, but oppose gay marriage. someone can support sodomy laws, but support lenient enforcement, like most people did until recently. Basically, keep the behavior to the fringes of society and only prosecute those who are overt in their displays of sodomy and keep it from children. I support this. I guess depending on how the question is worded, I "accept it", meaning I don't think people should be arrested for having this mental illness and engaging in their deviant acts as long as it is private. However, I support Russian style laws, where their propaganda is banned and they can't make displays in public. So in conclusion, you haven't shown what is meant by the question, and it can be interpreted several different ways. But none of those way entail support for gay marriage. Thus, you have failed in your contention that my view is unusual, and therefore invalid. 

Also, you are misconstruing my position. My position on gay marriage isn't based on public opinion. My contention was with your characterization of my view as unusual, which it isn't. You are the one with the odd view. Outside of your secular western bubble, opposition to gay marriage is nearly universal. 

You are just creating strawman after strawman. Look, if you have problems with Jesus not holding us to kosher laws you cite and perfecting the Old Testament law, perhaps you should look to Judaism. However, you cannot call us hypocrites or picking and choosing when we oppose gay marriage but don't follow Kosher laws. 



> "Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him." And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:14-19)





> [L]et no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon . . . These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ . . . Why do you submit to regulations, "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" (referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh. (Col. 2:16-17; 20-23)



Why We Are Not Bound by Everything in the Old Law Catholic Answers

I think the proof that homosexuality as a "lifestyle" is more destructive than heterosexuality is obvious, if you need a link to see this, I don't really see us going anywhere.


----------



## Steinlight

Also, in my country, interracial marriage isn't promoted like it is in your mainstream media, though I don't think many people believe in it as they don't practice it. So don't guilt trip me with that. I don't have the white guilt that Americans do.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:

'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'

Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.

There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And this one marriage law is called _*marriage*_, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.


----------



## Geaux4it

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:
> 
> 'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'
> 
> Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.
> 
> There is *only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts.* This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.
> 
> And this one marriage law is called _*marriage*_, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.



Ignorance once again by a law school drop-out

Correction.. Recognized by the Federal Government as this is no longer a state issue. The FEDS have taken the reign

-Geaux


----------



## SassyIrishLass

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:
> 
> 'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'
> 
> Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.
> 
> There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.
> 
> And this one marriage law is called _*marriage*_, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.



It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.


----------



## Geaux4it

SassyIrishLass said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:
> 
> 'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'
> 
> Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.
> 
> There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.
> 
> And this one marriage law is called _*marriage*_, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.
Click to expand...


When in actuality, we all feel sorry for them.... and more so for their parents

-Geaux


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:
> 
> 'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'
> 
> Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.
> 
> There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.
> 
> And this one marriage law is called _*marriage*_, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.
Click to expand...


Actually it goes back to gays wanting to be treated equally under the law and bigots wanting to prevent that equality.

It's "Tyson Homosexual" in fourth place... Christian website's automated filter changes name of US sprinter


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:
> 
> 'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'
> 
> Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.
> 
> There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.
> 
> And this one marriage law is called _*marriage*_, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it goes back to gays wanting to be treated equally under the law and bigots wanting to prevent that equality.
> 
> It's "Tyson Homosexual" in fourth place... Christian website's automated filter changes name of US sprinter
Click to expand...


When you can comment without feeling the need to call anyone who dares disagree with you a bigot you might be taken a little more serious.


----------



## Seawytch

Geaux4it said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:
> 
> 'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'
> 
> Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.
> 
> There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.
> 
> And this one marriage law is called _*marriage*_, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When in actuality, we all feel sorry for them.... and more so for their parents
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Not as sorry as we feel for ya'lls gay kids...having to grow up with that kind of hate.


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:
> 
> 'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'
> 
> Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.
> 
> There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.
> 
> And this one marriage law is called _*marriage*_, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it goes back to gays wanting to be treated equally under the law and bigots wanting to prevent that equality.
> 
> It's "Tyson Homosexual" in fourth place... Christian website's automated filter changes name of US sprinter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you can comment without feeling the need to call anyone who dares disagree with you a bigot you might be taken a little more serious.
Click to expand...


If you don't say anti gay and bigoted things, people won't call you a bigot.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:
> 
> 'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'
> 
> Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.
> 
> There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.
> 
> And this one marriage law is called _*marriage*_, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it goes back to gays wanting to be treated equally under the law and bigots wanting to prevent that equality.
> 
> It's "Tyson Homosexual" in fourth place... Christian website's automated filter changes name of US sprinter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you can comment without feeling the need to call anyone who dares disagree with you a bigot you might be taken a little more serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't say anti gay and bigoted things, people won't call you a bigot.
Click to expand...


I doubt you even know the definition of the word bigot, if you did you'd realize you are one


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:
> 
> 'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'
> 
> Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.
> 
> There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.
> 
> And this one marriage law is called _*marriage*_, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it goes back to gays wanting to be treated equally under the law and bigots wanting to prevent that equality.
> 
> It's "Tyson Homosexual" in fourth place... Christian website's automated filter changes name of US sprinter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you can comment without feeling the need to call anyone who dares disagree with you a bigot you might be taken a little more serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't say anti gay and bigoted things, people won't call you a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt you even know the definition of the word bigot, if you did you'd realize you are one
Click to expand...


I suppose you could call me a bigot. I am intolerant of intolerance. It's not your view I'm inotolerant of, you're free to have your opinion. It's when you want to discriminate based on your opinion that I become intolerant. 

See, there is no right I want to deny you. You can't say the same can you? You don't believe I should have a civil marriage (I do) and you don't believe my civil marriage should be recognized in all 50 states. I'm sorry it offends you, but that makes you an anti gay bigot. 

Unlike being gay, you choose your bigotry and you CAN change.


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:
> 
> 'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'
> 
> Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.
> 
> There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.
> 
> And this one marriage law is called _*marriage*_, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.
Click to expand...


It always goes back to the homophobes think that they know what homosexuals want.


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:
> 
> 'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'
> 
> Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.
> 
> There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.
> 
> And this one marriage law is called _*marriage*_, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it goes back to gays wanting to be treated equally under the law and bigots wanting to prevent that equality.
> 
> It's "Tyson Homosexual" in fourth place... Christian website's automated filter changes name of US sprinter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you can comment without feeling the need to call anyone who dares disagree with you a bigot you might be taken a little more serious.
Click to expand...


Stop posting bigoted remarks and then you will stop being called a bigot.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Stop posting bigoted remarks and then you will stop being called a bigot.


 
Translation: stop exercizing free speech and we'll stop beating you up.  The irony is they claim they are being bullied.  Very Orweillian.  The Ministry of Anti-Bullying dishes out the most abuse.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop posting bigoted remarks and then you will stop being called a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: stop exercizing free speech and we'll stop beating you up.  The irony is they claim they are being bullied.  Very Orweillian.  The Ministry of Anti-Bullying dishes out the most abuse.
Click to expand...


Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.

This forum allows you to post all the  bigoted, homophobic crap you invent. 

It also allows me to criticize you and your bigoted, homophobic crap. 

That is free speech.


----------



## Paperman299

Steinlight said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a mess of moving the goalposts and strawmen. You didn't say people "share your views," you said your view was basically "universal."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were wrong.
> 
> I said that what we would today describe as _homosexual behavior_ appears very frequently throughout history, not equal marriage.
> 
> What you've gotten most wrong, though, was my frickin' point. My characterization of anti-homosexual prejudice as "bizarre" was *not* the point of my post.
> 
> They key word there isn't "bizarre," they're "ancient religious texts." And technically, I wasn't just talking about the Bible's anti-homosexual prejudice, I was talking about *a lot* of its Bronze Age rules which would be crazy to follow today. The reason it's not in American law that adulterers will be stoned, or that we can't eat shellfish, isn't that those things are in the Old Testament instead of the New; it's that something being in the Bible is _in no way_ good cause to make it law. How much less sense it would make, then, that these things should supercede modern law where the two contradict?
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one moving the goal posts and creating strawmen. What does "accept homosexuality" entail? And it is an entirely different question than marriage. So my point stands. Your contention was my view on gay marriage was bizarre and thus wrong, I responded by saying my view on gay marriage is pretty universal outside the secular west, across cultures historically and in modern times. You have yet to prove my view on gay marriage is bizarre, meaning unusual or odd, thus your argument on those grounds is flawed. Not only is the premise flawed, the argument is a logical fallacy as it suggests a view is right based on majority consensus.
> 
> I never stated homosexual behavior is a modern manifestation, so I don't understand what exactly you are talking about here. So what exactly is your point here and how does homosexuality in the ancient world relate to gay marriage now? None of the societies you cited allowed gay marriage, so what exactly is your point here?
> 
> Just because a code of morality is old or comes from ancient times doesn't make it wrong. You even admit this when you cite Rome and ancient Greece, though incorrectly. But you appeal to ancients. In many way the ancients were wiser than us moderns.
> 
> You implied we as Christians were hypocritical and picking and choosing which laws we follow. You claimed we ignore dietary laws, but follow the passages which tell us homosexuality is a sin. Your assertion we are hypocrites is simply incorrect, as we aren't bound by those mosaic laws as Christians. So your basis we are picking or choosing and our opposition to homosexuality is arbitrary is false.
> 
> I never said the law should be based on the Bible. I joined the conversation when you were discussing whether there was any clear condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament and I provided scripture to that end. What I said is that the government shouldn't promote a homosexuality, which is a mental illness, and a personally and socially destructive lifestyle as equal to the union of a man in the wife who come together to have children and build a family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I clearly said ancient religious texts were no basis for legal exceptions because they were ancient religious texts. I even quoted it, people can read that, so I don't know why you think you can straw man me on this point.
> 
> Perhaps for the same reason you think you can continue to claim your view is "universal," or near-to, when I have posted a poll clearly refuting this. If you averaged all those scores (including some horrendously morally backwards Middle Eastern nations), you'd probably have something like 60% who are prejudiced against homosexuality, 40% who think it's fine. Hardly universal.
> 
> I have really no interest in discussing whether Christians are bound by Old Testament laws, and whether it's a "fair" comparison. Enough of them point to "mosaic" passages to justify their position, and hang the Ten Commandments in their churches (and our courthouses) that I am inclined to believe you are the minority view. I also seem to recall Jesus himself disagreeing with you; however, the Bible is so endlessly open to interpretation that there can be no definitive position.
> 
> Regardless, it matters not one whit what the Bible says, in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a lot of effort to just repeat yourself.
> 
> You have yet to prove my view on gay marriage unusual, accepting homosexuality as something that exists and will be practiced is entirely different from supporting gay marriage. You have yet to establish that Christians are picking and choosing when it comes to opposing homosexual marriage.
> 
> Now you are making some argument that I want to oppose the bible on you and stop your gay marriage when I never said anything about having biblically based law. I only brought up the bible when you used it to call us hypocrites and you have yet to provide proof to that end. You just cited some old kosher laws we Christians aren't bound to. Last I checked, the ten Commandments don't require us to keep kosher.
> 
> So as I said before. My view on gay marriage is not unusual. And is nearly universal outside of the view of some in secular western societies. And we Christians aren't hypocrites for opposing it because we don't follow some jewish laws. I reject the legal equality of gay marriages to traditional marriages because they clearly aren't equal in value to society, and I don't support destructive anti social behaviors like homosexuality being encouraged by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People didn't acknowledge homosexuality exists, they said they were okay with it. And how can you continue to demand proof of the changing opinion of equal marriage specifically when the last three pages of this thread have been about nothing but?
> 
> If you have confidence in your theological stance, fine. 50 years ago we'd have had this same argument over anti-miscegenation laws. "But it's in the New Testament!" "But the Ten Commandments are still hip because they're not kosher!" These theological minutiae mean nothing to me, but if the Old Testament is so unimportant you may want to inform fellow Christians, who continue to tout its lessons.
> 
> If you have any proof besides the Bible that equal marriage is destructive for society, by all means share it with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do they mean by ok with it? It depends how you word it. Basically, in no way does your question mean these people support gay marriage. Someone can be against sodomy laws, but oppose gay marriage. someone can support sodomy laws, but support lenient enforcement, like most people did until recently. Basically, keep the behavior to the fringes of society and only prosecute those who are overt in their displays of sodomy and keep it from children. I support this. I guess depending on how the question is worded, I "accept it", meaning I don't think people should be arrested for having this mental illness and engaging in their deviant acts as long as it is private. However, I support Russian style laws, where their propaganda is banned and they can't make displays in public. So in conclusion, you haven't shown what is meant by the question, and it can be interpreted several different ways. But none of those way entail support for gay marriage. Thus, you have failed in your contention that my view is unusual, and therefore invalid.
> 
> Also, you are misconstruing my position. My position on gay marriage isn't based on public opinion. My contention was with your characterization of my view as unusual, which it isn't. You are the one with the odd view. Outside of your secular western bubble, opposition to gay marriage is nearly universal.
> 
> You are just creating strawman after strawman. Look, if you have problems with Jesus not holding us to kosher laws you cite and perfecting the Old Testament law, perhaps you should look to Judaism. However, you cannot call us hypocrites or picking and choosing when we oppose gay marriage but don't follow Kosher laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him." And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:14-19)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [L]et no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon . . . These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ . . . Why do you submit to regulations, "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" (referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh. (Col. 2:16-17; 20-23)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why We Are Not Bound by Everything in the Old Law Catholic Answers
> 
> I think the proof that homosexuality as a "lifestyle" is more destructive than heterosexuality is obvious, if you need a link to see this, I don't really see us going anywhere.
Click to expand...

The wording of the question is "Should Society Accept Homosexuality?" In fact, it's right there at the top of the poll. This disingenuous tactic of demanding to have your hand held through every tedious step of the discussion is getting tiring, as is your insistence on vacillating between homosexuality and equal marriage as suits your purpose. 

And then you post more scripture! I am not a Christian. I do not care about your myriad self-contradictory rules. And my position, no matter how many times you have tried to misconstrue it, remains the same: not that your position is invalid because it's unusual, but that the Bible has no legal standing. 

Just for a change of pace, though let's talk about your monstrous "position." "Keep the behavior to the fringes of society?" "Prosecute those who are overt in their displays of sodomy?" "Keep it from children?" "Russian-style laws?" It amazes me how often bigots will weaponize children to justify their own prejudices. And how do you justify these strict measures? You've offered no proof of homosexuality's detrimental effect on society. You insist it's self-apparent, but that's bull. If there was current, solid medical or sociological evidence of your claim, you'd be touting it like a banner.


----------



## Paperman299

SassyIrishLass said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SASSYIRISHLASS SAID:
> 
> 'Cease with your projection, I never "fought" against civil unions and in fact I have no qualms about same sex people having a union. Just don't call it "marriage".'
> 
> Which is ignorant, ridiculous, and unwarranted.
> 
> There is only one marriage law written by the states and administered by state courts. This law can accommodate two consenting equal adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.
> 
> And this one marriage law is called _*marriage*_, regardless the gender configuration of the couple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always goes back to the homosexuals think by being "married" they will appear normal and accepted.
Click to expand...

So in your mind it has just nothing, nothing to do with two people who love each other and won't settle for a demonstrably inferior "civil union?"


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop posting bigoted remarks and then you will stop being called a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: stop exercizing free speech and we'll stop beating you up.  The irony is they claim they are being bullied.  Very Orweillian.  The Ministry of Anti-Bullying dishes out the most abuse.
Click to expand...

 


Syriusly said:


> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.
> 
> This forum allows you to post all the * bigoted, homophobic crap* you invent.
> 
> It also allows me to criticize you and your bigoted, homophobic crap.
> 
> That is free speech.


 
There is criticism, like what I do; and there is abuse, like what you do.  And you aren't alone.  Pretty much every single LGBT person lashes out abusively to A-N-Y criticism of their patently deviant and ill lifestyles.  You harbor ZERO tolerance for defectors of your dogma while feeling quite at liberty to expect endless (literally, without end) tolerances from those who oppose your lifestyles....or_ else!_

There are no concessions from your ilk, even when concession is absolutely called for in the name of sanity, even in the name of consistency.  For instance, you don't say "you know, maybe we should take a pedophile (Harvey Milk) off our "venerated sexual icon" list.  Instead, and any correlation drawn from critics of your movement that you seem tolerant of pedophilia, you lash out with attacks, and defend Milk simultaneously.

Or when it's suggested your gay education czar Jennings should reel in his "fisting" or "the joys of anal sex" curriculum taught to little kids, you lash out with abusive language and double down on inviting youngsters to your "bi-curious youth parties"..

It's the lack of reason in your ilk that is alarming, and your zero tolerance of criticism which makes you seem like the Nazi Party of WWII.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop posting bigoted remarks and then you will stop being called a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: stop exercizing free speech and we'll stop beating you up.  The irony is they claim they are being bullied.  Very Orweillian.  The Ministry of Anti-Bullying dishes out the most abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.
> 
> This forum allows you to post all the * bigoted, homophobic crap* you invent.
> 
> It also allows me to criticize you and your bigoted, homophobic crap.
> 
> That is free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is criticism, like what I do; and there is abuse, like what you do. .
Click to expand...


'abuse'? No- abuse is what you do- as you continually insult Americans for being homosexuals, and attempt to foment discrimination against them.

I will continue to criticize you and your bigoted, homophobic crap.


----------



## Silhouette

No, see, that's abuse, not criticism.  That you don't even know the difference is the bold, italicized underscore to my points in post 7762.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> No, see, that's abuse, not criticism.  That you don't even know the difference is the bold, italicized underscore to my points in post 7762.



Stop posting homophobic, bigoted crap, and I will stop criticizing it.


----------



## Silhouette

Sure, I'll be happy to return to the subject of this thread which is essentially that if 30 christian bakers, photographers, caterers and florists all belong to the same church with say 35 people total, that church _has been already sued to accomodate homosexual weddings_..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Sure, I'll be happy to return to the subject of this thread which is essentially that if 30 christian bakers, photographers, caterers and florists all belong to the same church with say 35 people total, that church _has been already sued to accomodate homosexual weddings_..



No.

No more than the Church has already paid income taxes because those 30 people paid income taxes. 

Churches are churches.
Business's are business's. 

Business's are obligated to follow laws regarding business's- including public accomodation laws.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop posting bigoted remarks and then you will stop being called a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: stop exercizing free speech and we'll stop beating you up.  The irony is they claim they are being bullied.  Very Orweillian.  The Ministry of Anti-Bullying dishes out the most abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.
> 
> This forum allows you to post all the * bigoted, homophobic crap* you invent.
> 
> It also allows me to criticize you and your bigoted, homophobic crap.
> 
> That is free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is criticism, like what I do; and there is abuse, like what you do.  And you aren't alone.  Pretty much every single LGBT person lashes out abusively to A-N-Y criticism of their patently deviant and ill lifestyles.
Click to expand...


So if you are called bigoted and homophobic, that's abuse. But if you call gays 'deviant and ill', that's criticism?

Huh.


----------



## Seawytch

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, I'll be happy to return to the subject of this thread which is essentially that if 30 christian bakers, photographers, caterers and florists all belong to the same church with say 35 people total, that church _has been already sued to accomodate homosexual weddings_..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No more than the Church has already paid income taxes because those 30 people paid income taxes.
> 
> Churches are churches.
> Business's are business's.
> 
> Business's are obligated to follow laws regarding business's- including public accomodation laws.
Click to expand...

The case was rather open-and-shut. On March 1, 2013, “Stutzman refused to provide to Ingersoll a service she provided to others,” Ekstrom wrote. What she believes about same-sex marriage is immaterial, because the law’s protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation “address _conduct_, not beliefs.” Agreeing with the plaintiffs and the attorney general, Ekstrom asserted that “*no Court has ever held that religiously motivated conduct, expressive or otherwise, trumps state discrimination law in public accommodations*.” He also pointed out that *Stutzman is not a minister nor is Arlene’s Flowers a religious organization*. Likewise, the law does not specifically target her because of her beliefs, but is “neutral and generally applicable” to all people of all beliefs.

Ekstrom agreed that “the State’s compelling interest in combating discrimination in public accommodations is well settled” and is not superseded by an individual’s religious beliefs. As the Supreme Court wrote in the 1982 case _United States v. Lee_, “*When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption… operates to impose [the follower’s] religious faith on the [person sought to be protected by the law.]”*​*Religion is Not an Excuse to Defy Anti Discrimination Laws*


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Sure, I'll be happy to return to the subject of this thread which is essentially that if 30 christian bakers, photographers, caterers and florists all belong to the same church with say 35 people total, that church _has been already sued to accomodate homosexual weddings_..



That isn't the topic of this thread. The topic is rather plain and it is "should churches be forced to accommodate homosexuals weddings?" The answer from gay marriage supporters and opponents alike is a clear no. 

Now you have been reduced to making up nonsensical hypotheticals so you can claim churches are being forced to marry gay people. I am sure your next silliness will include how individual members of the church are in fact churches themselves which is absurd and not supported any law. Don't believe me? Do not pay taxes this year and claim it is b/c you're a church.


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop posting bigoted remarks and then you will stop being called a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: stop exercizing free speech and we'll stop beating you up.  The irony is they claim they are being bullied.  Very Orweillian.  The Ministry of Anti-Bullying dishes out the most abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.
> 
> This forum allows you to post all the * bigoted, homophobic crap* you invent.
> 
> It also allows me to criticize you and your bigoted, homophobic crap.
> 
> That is free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is criticism, like what I do; and there is abuse, like what you do.  And you aren't alone.  Pretty much every single LGBT person lashes out abusively to A-N-Y criticism of their patently deviant and ill lifestyles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you are called bigoted and homophobic, that's abuse. But if you call gays 'deviant and ill', that's criticism?
> 
> Huh.
Click to expand...


Countless gays have been beaten, murderer, discharged from their jobs, imprisoned, institutionalized, and subject to shock therapy but we must remember Sil and her ilk are the true victims here. Never forget!  Perhaps they can get Toby Keith to write a song about the enormous struggles they've had to endure?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

mdk said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop posting bigoted remarks and then you will stop being called a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: stop exercizing free speech and we'll stop beating you up.  The irony is they claim they are being bullied.  Very Orweillian.  The Ministry of Anti-Bullying dishes out the most abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.
> 
> This forum allows you to post all the * bigoted, homophobic crap* you invent.
> 
> It also allows me to criticize you and your bigoted, homophobic crap.
> 
> That is free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is criticism, like what I do; and there is abuse, like what you do.  And you aren't alone.  Pretty much every single LGBT person lashes out abusively to A-N-Y criticism of their patently deviant and ill lifestyles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you are called bigoted and homophobic, that's abuse. But if you call gays 'deviant and ill', that's criticism?
> 
> Huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Countless gays have been beaten, murderer, discharged from their jobs, imprisoned, institutionalized, and subject to shock therapy but we must remember Sil and her ilk are the true victims here. Never forget!  Perhaps they can get Toby Keith to write a song about the enormous struggles they've had to endure?
Click to expand...


You choose a perverted lifestyle you're probably going to have problems. I never claimed to be a "victim" that's strictly a leftist thing


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop posting bigoted remarks and then you will stop being called a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: stop exercizing free speech and we'll stop beating you up.  The irony is they claim they are being bullied.  Very Orweillian.  The Ministry of Anti-Bullying dishes out the most abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.
> 
> This forum allows you to post all the * bigoted, homophobic crap* you invent.
> 
> It also allows me to criticize you and your bigoted, homophobic crap.
> 
> That is free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is criticism, like what I do; and there is abuse, like what you do.  And you aren't alone.  Pretty much every single LGBT person lashes out abusively to A-N-Y criticism of their patently deviant and ill lifestyles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you are called bigoted and homophobic, that's abuse. But if you call gays 'deviant and ill', that's criticism?
> 
> Huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Countless gays have been beaten, murderer, discharged from their jobs, imprisoned, institutionalized, and subject to shock therapy but we must remember Sil and her ilk are the true victims here. Never forget!  Perhaps they can get Toby Keith to write a song about the enormous struggles they've had to endure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You choose a perverted lifestyle you're probably going to have problems. I never claimed to be a "victim" that's strictly a leftist thing
Click to expand...


Wow....describing murder for being gay as 'going to have problem's.......


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: stop exercizing free speech and we'll stop beating you up.  The irony is they claim they are being bullied.  Very Orweillian.  The Ministry of Anti-Bullying dishes out the most abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.
> 
> This forum allows you to post all the * bigoted, homophobic crap* you invent.
> 
> It also allows me to criticize you and your bigoted, homophobic crap.
> 
> That is free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is criticism, like what I do; and there is abuse, like what you do.  And you aren't alone.  Pretty much every single LGBT person lashes out abusively to A-N-Y criticism of their patently deviant and ill lifestyles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you are called bigoted and homophobic, that's abuse. But if you call gays 'deviant and ill', that's criticism?
> 
> Huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Countless gays have been beaten, murderer, discharged from their jobs, imprisoned, institutionalized, and subject to shock therapy but we must remember Sil and her ilk are the true victims here. Never forget!  Perhaps they can get Toby Keith to write a song about the enormous struggles they've had to endure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You choose a perverted lifestyle you're probably going to have problems. I never claimed to be a "victim" that's strictly a leftist thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow....describing murder for being gay as 'going to have problem's.......
Click to expand...


The homosexual victim mentality has ran it's course. Far too many have got caught faking these crimes and now it's like the boy who cried wolf


----------



## Skylar

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is criticism, like what I do; and there is abuse, like what you do.  And you aren't alone.  Pretty much every single LGBT person lashes out abusively to A-N-Y criticism of their patently deviant and ill lifestyles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you are called bigoted and homophobic, that's abuse. But if you call gays 'deviant and ill', that's criticism?
> 
> Huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Countless gays have been beaten, murderer, discharged from their jobs, imprisoned, institutionalized, and subject to shock therapy but we must remember Sil and her ilk are the true victims here. Never forget!  Perhaps they can get Toby Keith to write a song about the enormous struggles they've had to endure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You choose a perverted lifestyle you're probably going to have problems. I never claimed to be a "victim" that's strictly a leftist thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow....describing murder for being gay as 'going to have problem's.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homosexual victim mentality has ran it's course. Far too many have got caught faking these crimes and now it's like the boy who cried wolf
Click to expand...


Says who?


----------



## mdk

SassyIrishLass said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop posting bigoted remarks and then you will stop being called a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: stop exercizing free speech and we'll stop beating you up.  The irony is they claim they are being bullied.  Very Orweillian.  The Ministry of Anti-Bullying dishes out the most abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.
> 
> This forum allows you to post all the * bigoted, homophobic crap* you invent.
> 
> It also allows me to criticize you and your bigoted, homophobic crap.
> 
> That is free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is criticism, like what I do; and there is abuse, like what you do.  And you aren't alone.  Pretty much every single LGBT person lashes out abusively to A-N-Y criticism of their patently deviant and ill lifestyles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you are called bigoted and homophobic, that's abuse. But if you call gays 'deviant and ill', that's criticism?
> 
> Huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Countless gays have been beaten, murderer, discharged from their jobs, imprisoned, institutionalized, and subject to shock therapy but we must remember Sil and her ilk are the true victims here. Never forget!  Perhaps they can get Toby Keith to write a song about the enormous struggles they've had to endure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You choose a perverted lifestyle you're probably going to have problems. I never claimed to be a "victim" that's strictly a leftist thing
Click to expand...


I've been in a long-term monogamous relationship for 14 years so I doubt it. Good for you, I am glad you've never been a victim before.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Skylar said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you are called bigoted and homophobic, that's abuse. But if you call gays 'deviant and ill', that's criticism?
> 
> Huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Countless gays have been beaten, murderer, discharged from their jobs, imprisoned, institutionalized, and subject to shock therapy but we must remember Sil and her ilk are the true victims here. Never forget!  Perhaps they can get Toby Keith to write a song about the enormous struggles they've had to endure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You choose a perverted lifestyle you're probably going to have problems. I never claimed to be a "victim" that's strictly a leftist thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow....describing murder for being gay as 'going to have problem's.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homosexual victim mentality has ran it's course. Far too many have got caught faking these crimes and now it's like the boy who cried wolf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who?
Click to expand...


Anyone paying attention


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is criticism, like what I do; and there is abuse, like what you do.  And you aren't alone.  Pretty much every single LGBT person lashes out abusively to A-N-Y criticism of their patently deviant and ill lifestyles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you are called bigoted and homophobic, that's abuse. But if you call gays 'deviant and ill', that's criticism?
> 
> Huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Countless gays have been beaten, murderer, discharged from their jobs, imprisoned, institutionalized, and subject to shock therapy but we must remember Sil and her ilk are the true victims here. Never forget!  Perhaps they can get Toby Keith to write a song about the enormous struggles they've had to endure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You choose a perverted lifestyle you're probably going to have problems. I never claimed to be a "victim" that's strictly a leftist thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow....describing murder for being gay as 'going to have problem's.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homosexual victim mentality has ran it's course. Far too many have got caught faking these crimes and now it's like the boy who cried wolf
Click to expand...


You are the person who described murder for being gay as 'going to have problems'.

And that is really disgusting.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you are called bigoted and homophobic, that's abuse. But if you call gays 'deviant and ill', that's criticism?
> 
> Huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Countless gays have been beaten, murderer, discharged from their jobs, imprisoned, institutionalized, and subject to shock therapy but we must remember Sil and her ilk are the true victims here. Never forget!  Perhaps they can get Toby Keith to write a song about the enormous struggles they've had to endure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You choose a perverted lifestyle you're probably going to have problems. I never claimed to be a "victim" that's strictly a leftist thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow....describing murder for being gay as 'going to have problem's.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homosexual victim mentality has ran it's course. Far too many have got caught faking these crimes and now it's like the boy who cried wolf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the person who described murder for being gay as 'going to have problems'.
> 
> And that is really disgusting.
Click to expand...


You're once again projecting...and it's getting tiresome


----------



## Steinlight

Paperman299 said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one moving the goal posts and creating strawmen. What does "accept homosexuality" entail? And it is an entirely different question than marriage. So my point stands. Your contention was my view on gay marriage was bizarre and thus wrong, I responded by saying my view on gay marriage is pretty universal outside the secular west, across cultures historically and in modern times. You have yet to prove my view on gay marriage is bizarre, meaning unusual or odd, thus your argument on those grounds is flawed. Not only is the premise flawed, the argument is a logical fallacy as it suggests a view is right based on majority consensus.
> 
> I never stated homosexual behavior is a modern manifestation, so I don't understand what exactly you are talking about here. So what exactly is your point here and how does homosexuality in the ancient world relate to gay marriage now? None of the societies you cited allowed gay marriage, so what exactly is your point here?
> 
> Just because a code of morality is old or comes from ancient times doesn't make it wrong. You even admit this when you cite Rome and ancient Greece, though incorrectly. But you appeal to ancients. In many way the ancients were wiser than us moderns.
> 
> You implied we as Christians were hypocritical and picking and choosing which laws we follow. You claimed we ignore dietary laws, but follow the passages which tell us homosexuality is a sin. Your assertion we are hypocrites is simply incorrect, as we aren't bound by those mosaic laws as Christians. So your basis we are picking or choosing and our opposition to homosexuality is arbitrary is false.
> 
> I never said the law should be based on the Bible. I joined the conversation when you were discussing whether there was any clear condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament and I provided scripture to that end. What I said is that the government shouldn't promote a homosexuality, which is a mental illness, and a personally and socially destructive lifestyle as equal to the union of a man in the wife who come together to have children and build a family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I clearly said ancient religious texts were no basis for legal exceptions because they were ancient religious texts. I even quoted it, people can read that, so I don't know why you think you can straw man me on this point.
> 
> Perhaps for the same reason you think you can continue to claim your view is "universal," or near-to, when I have posted a poll clearly refuting this. If you averaged all those scores (including some horrendously morally backwards Middle Eastern nations), you'd probably have something like 60% who are prejudiced against homosexuality, 40% who think it's fine. Hardly universal.
> 
> I have really no interest in discussing whether Christians are bound by Old Testament laws, and whether it's a "fair" comparison. Enough of them point to "mosaic" passages to justify their position, and hang the Ten Commandments in their churches (and our courthouses) that I am inclined to believe you are the minority view. I also seem to recall Jesus himself disagreeing with you; however, the Bible is so endlessly open to interpretation that there can be no definitive position.
> 
> Regardless, it matters not one whit what the Bible says, in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a lot of effort to just repeat yourself.
> 
> You have yet to prove my view on gay marriage unusual, accepting homosexuality as something that exists and will be practiced is entirely different from supporting gay marriage. You have yet to establish that Christians are picking and choosing when it comes to opposing homosexual marriage.
> 
> Now you are making some argument that I want to oppose the bible on you and stop your gay marriage when I never said anything about having biblically based law. I only brought up the bible when you used it to call us hypocrites and you have yet to provide proof to that end. You just cited some old kosher laws we Christians aren't bound to. Last I checked, the ten Commandments don't require us to keep kosher.
> 
> So as I said before. My view on gay marriage is not unusual. And is nearly universal outside of the view of some in secular western societies. And we Christians aren't hypocrites for opposing it because we don't follow some jewish laws. I reject the legal equality of gay marriages to traditional marriages because they clearly aren't equal in value to society, and I don't support destructive anti social behaviors like homosexuality being encouraged by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People didn't acknowledge homosexuality exists, they said they were okay with it. And how can you continue to demand proof of the changing opinion of equal marriage specifically when the last three pages of this thread have been about nothing but?
> 
> If you have confidence in your theological stance, fine. 50 years ago we'd have had this same argument over anti-miscegenation laws. "But it's in the New Testament!" "But the Ten Commandments are still hip because they're not kosher!" These theological minutiae mean nothing to me, but if the Old Testament is so unimportant you may want to inform fellow Christians, who continue to tout its lessons.
> 
> If you have any proof besides the Bible that equal marriage is destructive for society, by all means share it with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do they mean by ok with it? It depends how you word it. Basically, in no way does your question mean these people support gay marriage. Someone can be against sodomy laws, but oppose gay marriage. someone can support sodomy laws, but support lenient enforcement, like most people did until recently. Basically, keep the behavior to the fringes of society and only prosecute those who are overt in their displays of sodomy and keep it from children. I support this. I guess depending on how the question is worded, I "accept it", meaning I don't think people should be arrested for having this mental illness and engaging in their deviant acts as long as it is private. However, I support Russian style laws, where their propaganda is banned and they can't make displays in public. So in conclusion, you haven't shown what is meant by the question, and it can be interpreted several different ways. But none of those way entail support for gay marriage. Thus, you have failed in your contention that my view is unusual, and therefore invalid.
> 
> Also, you are misconstruing my position. My position on gay marriage isn't based on public opinion. My contention was with your characterization of my view as unusual, which it isn't. You are the one with the odd view. Outside of your secular western bubble, opposition to gay marriage is nearly universal.
> 
> You are just creating strawman after strawman. Look, if you have problems with Jesus not holding us to kosher laws you cite and perfecting the Old Testament law, perhaps you should look to Judaism. However, you cannot call us hypocrites or picking and choosing when we oppose gay marriage but don't follow Kosher laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him." And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:14-19)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [L]et no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon . . . These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ . . . Why do you submit to regulations, "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" (referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh. (Col. 2:16-17; 20-23)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why We Are Not Bound by Everything in the Old Law Catholic Answers
> 
> I think the proof that homosexuality as a "lifestyle" is more destructive than heterosexuality is obvious, if you need a link to see this, I don't really see us going anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wording of the question is "Should Society Accept Homosexuality?" In fact, it's right there at the top of the poll. This disingenuous tactic of demanding to have your hand held through every tedious step of the discussion is getting tiring, as is your insistence on vacillating between homosexuality and equal marriage as suits your purpose.
> 
> And then you post more scripture! I am not a Christian. I do not care about your myriad self-contradictory rules. And my position, no matter how many times you have tried to misconstrue it, remains the same: not that your position is invalid because it's unusual, but that the Bible has no legal standing.
> 
> Just for a change of pace, though let's talk about your monstrous "position." "Keep the behavior to the fringes of society?" "Prosecute those who are overt in their displays of sodomy?" "Keep it from children?" "Russian-style laws?" It amazes me how often bigots will weaponize children to justify their own prejudices. And how do you justify these strict measures? You've offered no proof of homosexuality's detrimental effect on society. You insist it's self-apparent, but that's bull. If there was current, solid medical or sociological evidence of your claim, you'd be touting it like a banner.
Click to expand...

You are the only one being disingenuous when you conflate "accepting homosexuality" with "gay marriage" when clearly explained how these are different things. I shouldn't have to explain the difference because it is common sense. Your use of language, whether it be in calling me unusual or disingenuous, is ironic, since these things are more aptly applied to your views and use of language.

I post more scripture because you claimed we as Christians are hypocrites when this simply isn't the case, that is why I posted it. If you don't like me posting the scripture, than don't make the argument where you call us hypocrites for not following the kosher laws of the old testament.

I need to provide you a peer reviewed study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality? So if I provided you the peer reviewed study you would change your view on gay marriage?


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Countless gays have been beaten, murderer, discharged from their jobs, imprisoned, institutionalized, and subject to shock therapy but we must remember Sil and her ilk are the true victims here. Never forget!  Perhaps they can get Toby Keith to write a song about the enormous struggles they've had to endure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You choose a perverted lifestyle you're probably going to have problems. I never claimed to be a "victim" that's strictly a leftist thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow....describing murder for being gay as 'going to have problem's.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homosexual victim mentality has ran it's course. Far too many have got caught faking these crimes and now it's like the boy who cried wolf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the person who described murder for being gay as 'going to have problems'.
> 
> And that is really disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're once again projecting...and it's getting tiresome
Click to expand...


How is it "projection" to quote you? 

Only one group suffers more hate crimes than gays, Muslims. What percentage of the 17% of hate crimes suffered by gays do you believe are "faking"?


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Countless gays have been beaten, murderer, discharged from their jobs, imprisoned, institutionalized, and subject to shock therapy but we must remember Sil and her ilk are the true victims here. Never forget!  Perhaps they can get Toby Keith to write a song about the enormous struggles they've had to endure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You choose a perverted lifestyle you're probably going to have problems. I never claimed to be a "victim" that's strictly a leftist thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow....describing murder for being gay as 'going to have problem's.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homosexual victim mentality has ran it's course. Far too many have got caught faking these crimes and now it's like the boy who cried wolf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the person who described murder for being gay as 'going to have problems'.
> 
> And that is really disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're once again projecting...and it's getting tiresome
Click to expand...


No- I am a person who is pointing out that in reference to a post about homosexuals being murdered you said:

_You choose a perverted lifestyle you're probably going to have problems._

And that is really disgusting.


----------



## Seawytch

Steinlight said:


> I post more scripture because you claimed we as Christians are hypocrites when this simply isn't the case, that is why I posted it. If you don't like me posting the scripture, than don't make the argument where you call us hypocrites for not following the kosher laws of the Old Testament.



Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites. 



> I need to provide you a peer reviewed study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality? So if I provided you the peer reviewed study you would change your view on gay marriage?



Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.


----------



## Steinlight

Seawytch said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post more scripture because you claimed we as Christians are hypocrites when this simply isn't the case, that is why I posted it. If you don't like me posting the scripture, than don't make the argument where you call us hypocrites for not following the kosher laws of the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to provide you a peer reviewed study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality? So if I provided you the peer reviewed study you would change your view on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.
Click to expand...

No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.

So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Steinlight said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post more scripture because you claimed we as Christians are hypocrites when this simply isn't the case, that is why I posted it. If you don't like me posting the scripture, than don't make the argument where you call us hypocrites for not following the kosher laws of the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to provide you a peer reviewed study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality? So if I provided you the peer reviewed study you would change your view on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
Click to expand...


Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.

Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals


----------



## Seawytch

Steinlight said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post more scripture because you claimed we as Christians are hypocrites when this simply isn't the case, that is why I posted it. If you don't like me posting the scripture, than don't make the argument where you call us hypocrites for not following the kosher laws of the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to provide you a peer reviewed study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality? So if I provided you the peer reviewed study you would change your view on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
Click to expand...


That's not what Jesus said.

"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”  (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)  

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."  (Luke 16:17 NAB)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."  (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."  (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)


I'm gay, so no, you're not going to change my views on marriage equality. 

Nothing from NARTH or FRC has been peer reviewed.


----------



## Steinlight

SassyIrishLass said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post more scripture because you claimed we as Christians are hypocrites when this simply isn't the case, that is why I posted it. If you don't like me posting the scripture, than don't make the argument where you call us hypocrites for not following the kosher laws of the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to provide you a peer reviewed study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality? So if I provided you the peer reviewed study you would change your view on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
Click to expand...

Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.


----------



## Seawytch

Steinlight said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post more scripture because you claimed we as Christians are hypocrites when this simply isn't the case, that is why I posted it. If you don't like me posting the scripture, than don't make the argument where you call us hypocrites for not following the kosher laws of the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to provide you a peer reviewed study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality? So if I provided you the peer reviewed study you would change your view on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
Click to expand...


No you don't need a study to know that statements like yours a are silly. Everyone isn't gay....just god's chosen people. 

You straights do keep having us though.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Seawytch said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post more scripture because you claimed we as Christians are hypocrites when this simply isn't the case, that is why I posted it. If you don't like me posting the scripture, than don't make the argument where you call us hypocrites for not following the kosher laws of the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to provide you a peer reviewed study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality? So if I provided you the peer reviewed study you would change your view on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't need a study to know that statements like yours a are silly. Everyone isn't gay....just god's chosen people.
> 
> You straights do keep having us though.
Click to expand...


You're going to be very surprised what He chooses for you


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.
> 
> Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.
> 
> 
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't need a study to know that statements like yours a are silly. Everyone isn't gay....just god's chosen people.
> 
> You straights do keep having us though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're going to be very surprised what He chooses for you
Click to expand...


I'll take my chances with the Jesus I read about...not the guy the haters write fanfic about.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't need a study to know that statements like yours a are silly. Everyone isn't gay....just god's chosen people.
> 
> You straights do keep having us though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're going to be very surprised what He chooses for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take my chances with the Jesus I read about...not the guy the haters write fanfic about.
Click to expand...


Your problem is you only read part about Jesus...that's what cherry picking gets you and homosexuals are notorious for doing it in regards to the Bible


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't need a study to know that statements like yours a are silly. Everyone isn't gay....just god's chosen people.
> 
> You straights do keep having us though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're going to be very surprised what He chooses for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take my chances with the Jesus I read about...not the guy the haters write fanfic about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your problem is you only read part about Jesus...that's what cherry picking gets you and homosexuals are notorious for doing it in regards to the Bible
Click to expand...


 I love that you see it as a problem to stick with what Jesus himself said, not his crazy fans.


----------



## Steinlight

Seawytch said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post more scripture because you claimed we as Christians are hypocrites when this simply isn't the case, that is why I posted it. If you don't like me posting the scripture, than don't make the argument where you call us hypocrites for not following the kosher laws of the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to provide you a peer reviewed study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality? So if I provided you the peer reviewed study you would change your view on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what Jesus said.
> 
> "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”  (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)
> 
> "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."  (Luke 16:17 NAB)
> 
> "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."  (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
> 
> "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."  (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)
> 
> "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
> 
> 
> I'm gay, so no, you're not going to change my views on marriage equality.
> 
> Nothing from NARTH or FRC has been peer reviewed.
Click to expand...

The verses you cite from Timothy and Peter have nothing to do with the subject at hand. That verse from Luke has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Because Christ didn't come to invalidate the law, the Old Law prepared the way for his coming and he fulfilled it with his coming. Salvation comes through Christ and Christ alone, not the Old Law. We were under the Old Law until Christ came. With his coming, we are saved by faith in Christ, and are no longer under the law as is stated in Galatians 3. Particularly look from Galatians 3:22 onward.



> 1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
> 
> 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
> 
> 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
> 
> 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
> 
> *5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?*
> 
> 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
> 
> 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
> 
> 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
> 
> 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
> 
> 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
> 
> 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
> 
> 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
> 
> *13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:*
> 
> 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
> 
> 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
> 
> 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
> 
> 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
> 
> 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
> 
> 19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
> 
> 20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
> 
> 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
> 
> *22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
> 
> 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
> 
> 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
> 
> 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
> 
> 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.*





As for Matthew 5:18-19, the commandments he is talking about are the Beatitudes, but you would have to read more than that verse to understand what he is talking about. You would have to read all of Matthew 5.

If you are interested in reading how we as Christians are no longer bound by the Old Law, meaning the ceremonial laws of Exodus or the Judicial put forth by Moses in Leviticus, you need to read Summa Theologica, written by the theologian Thomas Aquinas who explains how Christ fulfilled the Old Law with his coming. If you are going to criticize Christianity as an atheist, you should really know more about the subject as opposed to haphazardly putting together Bible verses that you don't understand.
SUMMA THEOLOGICA The judicial precepts Prima Secundae Partis Q. 104 

So stop calling us hypocrites, for you know not hat you say.

I don't believe in equality in either the natural or legal sense. You need professional medical treatment for your condition, not links to peer reviewed studies.


----------



## Steinlight

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't need a study to know that statements like yours a are silly. Everyone isn't gay....just god's chosen people.
> 
> You straights do keep having us though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're going to be very surprised what He chooses for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take my chances with the Jesus I read about...not the guy the haters write fanfic about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your problem is you only read part about Jesus...that's what cherry picking gets you and homosexuals are notorious for doing it in regards to the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love that you see it as a problem to stick with what Jesus himself said, not his crazy fans.
Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 6:9 lays out pretty clearly the fate of homosexuals who don't repent. The Jesus you read about talked about Hell much more than he talked about Heaven by the way.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't need a study to know that statements like yours a are silly. Everyone isn't gay....just god's chosen people.
> 
> You straights do keep having us though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're going to be very surprised what He chooses for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take my chances with the Jesus I read about...not the guy the haters write fanfic about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your problem is you only read part about Jesus...that's what cherry picking gets you and homosexuals are notorious for doing it in regards to the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love that you see it as a problem to stick with what Jesus himself said, not his crazy fans.
Click to expand...


Mathew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post more scripture because you claimed we as Christians are hypocrites when this simply isn't the case, that is why I posted it. If you don't like me posting the scripture, than don't make the argument where you call us hypocrites for not following the kosher laws of the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to provide you a peer reviewed study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality? So if I provided you the peer reviewed study you would change your view on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
Click to expand...


If everyone was male, then the human race would cease to exist in a generation but does that mean males are inherently destructive?

Unless you really believe that you are in danger of suddenly becoming gay if we treat homosexuals equally, there is no reason for you to believe that everyone will become homosexual- just a strawman you raise to support your bigotry.

Treating homosexual couples exactly equally with my wife and I, doesn't harm you- doesn't harm anyone- it is just the right thing to do.


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't need a study to know that statements like yours a are silly. Everyone isn't gay....just god's chosen people.
> 
> You straights do keep having us though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to be very surprised what He chooses for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take my chances with the Jesus I read about...not the guy the haters write fanfic about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your problem is you only read part about Jesus...that's what cherry picking gets you and homosexuals are notorious for doing it in regards to the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love that you see it as a problem to stick with what Jesus himself said, not his crazy fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mathew 7:21
> Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Click to expand...


Oh goody

I love Bible quotes!

The Rich and the Kingdom of God

*16*Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

*17*“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

*18*“Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, *19*honor your father and mother,’c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”

*20*“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

*21*Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

*22*When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

*23*Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. *24*Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.


----------



## Paperman299

Steinlight said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post more scripture because you claimed we as Christians are hypocrites when this simply isn't the case, that is why I posted it. If you don't like me posting the scripture, than don't make the argument where you call us hypocrites for not following the kosher laws of the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to provide you a peer reviewed study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality? So if I provided you the peer reviewed study you would change your view on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
Click to expand...

There's many genes that are beneficial which need not be immediately expressed. Carrying the genetics for homosexuality and expressing it selectively can have benefits for a population as a whole, ie caretaking. 

Now where's this current, reputable, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of homosexuality's destructive effects you've been teasing us with? Come on now!


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to be very surprised what He chooses for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take my chances with the Jesus I read about...not the guy the haters write fanfic about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your problem is you only read part about Jesus...that's what cherry picking gets you and homosexuals are notorious for doing it in regards to the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love that you see it as a problem to stick with what Jesus himself said, not his crazy fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mathew 7:21
> Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh goody
> 
> I love Bible quotes!
> 
> The Rich and the Kingdom of God
> 
> *16*Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
> 
> *17*“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
> 
> *18*“Which ones?” he inquired.
> 
> Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, *19*honor your father and mother,’c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”
> 
> *20*“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
> 
> *21*Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
> 
> *22*When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
> 
> *23*Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. *24*Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
Click to expand...


You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?


----------



## Paperman299

SassyIrishLass said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post more scripture because you claimed we as Christians are hypocrites when this simply isn't the case, that is why I posted it. If you don't like me posting the scripture, than don't make the argument where you call us hypocrites for not following the kosher laws of the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to provide you a peer reviewed study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality? So if I provided you the peer reviewed study you would change your view on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
Click to expand...

Better throw away your cell phone, then, since the system which discovered the basic principles it's founded on is apparently worthless.


----------



## MaryL

NOPE.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post more scripture because you claimed we as Christians are hypocrites when this simply isn't the case, that is why I posted it. If you don't like me posting the scripture, than don't make the argument where you call us hypocrites for not following the kosher laws of the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to provide you a peer reviewed study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality? So if I provided you the peer reviewed study you would change your view on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If everyone was male, then the human race would cease to exist in a generation but does that mean males are inherently destructive?
> 
> Unless you really believe that you are in danger of suddenly becoming gay if we treat homosexuals equally, there is no reason for you to believe that everyone will become homosexual- just a strawman you raise to support your bigotry.
> 
> Treating homosexual couples exactly equally with my wife and I, doesn't harm you- doesn't harm anyone- it is just the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

If there was a surplus of men in society that had no women, it would absolutely be socially destructive, just as homosexuality would be if it were practiced on a mass scale, as opposed to heterosexuality. You asked for a difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality and how they are inherently unequal, so I gave it. And you can't dispute that. That's without going into all the other anti-social and destructive elements of the homosexual lifestyle.

I never said that gay marriage would result in making everyone a homosexual. So you are just creating an strawman. 

I don't believe in equality, and don't believe it the right thing to do. I don't accept the premise of equality as the unquestioned dogma. I also reject the premise of so called "harm based morality", I think it narrow minded and autistic. One of my primary objections with homosexual marriage is that the normalization and promotion of homosexual relations through gay marriage feeds the persisting condition of Anomie that plagues Western society. That is that moral relativism and secularism begets moral nihilism and atomization, which has social costs, that the narrow sighted "harm based morality" doesn't capture.


----------



## Steinlight

Paperman299 said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post more scripture because you claimed we as Christians are hypocrites when this simply isn't the case, that is why I posted it. If you don't like me posting the scripture, than don't make the argument where you call us hypocrites for not following the kosher laws of the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to provide you a peer reviewed study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality? So if I provided you the peer reviewed study you would change your view on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's many genes that are beneficial which need not be immediately expressed. Carrying the genetics for homosexuality and expressing it selectively can have benefits for a population as a whole, ie caretaking.
> 
> Now where's this current, reputable, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of homosexuality's destructive effects you've been teasing us with? Come on now!
Click to expand...

So if I provided a peer reviewed study on how homosexuality is more destructive than heterosexuality, you would reverse your view on gay marriage? So your view is based on empiricism, not the premise of egalitarianism? 

That's a rather odd position. I don't think I have ever heard of anyone basing their position on gay marriage on a peer reviewed study. That is very odd.


----------



## Steinlight

Paperman299 said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post more scripture because you claimed we as Christians are hypocrites when this simply isn't the case, that is why I posted it. If you don't like me posting the scripture, than don't make the argument where you call us hypocrites for not following the kosher laws of the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to provide you a peer reviewed study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality? So if I provided you the peer reviewed study you would change your view on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's many genes that are beneficial which need not be immediately expressed. Carrying the genetics for homosexuality and expressing it selectively can have benefits for a population as a whole, ie caretaking.
> 
> Now where's this current, reputable, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of homosexuality's destructive effects you've been teasing us with? Come on now!
Click to expand...

Homosexuals, a care taking gene? Where is our peer reviewed study that there is a relation between homosexuals and a care taking gene?


----------



## Seawytch

SassyIrishLass said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take my chances with the Jesus I read about...not the guy the haters write fanfic about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is you only read part about Jesus...that's what cherry picking gets you and homosexuals are notorious for doing it in regards to the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love that you see it as a problem to stick with what Jesus himself said, not his crazy fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mathew 7:21
> Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh goody
> 
> I love Bible quotes!
> 
> The Rich and the Kingdom of God
> 
> *16*Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
> 
> *17*“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
> 
> *18*“Which ones?” he inquired.
> 
> Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, *19*honor your father and mother,’c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”
> 
> *20*“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
> 
> *21*Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
> 
> *22*When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
> 
> *23*Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. *24*Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?
Click to expand...


You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?


----------



## Steinlight

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is you only read part about Jesus...that's what cherry picking gets you and homosexuals are notorious for doing it in regards to the Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love that you see it as a problem to stick with what Jesus himself said, not his crazy fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mathew 7:21
> Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh goody
> 
> I love Bible quotes!
> 
> The Rich and the Kingdom of God
> 
> *16*Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
> 
> *17*“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
> 
> *18*“Which ones?” he inquired.
> 
> Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, *19*honor your father and mother,’c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”
> 
> *20*“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
> 
> *21*Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
> 
> *22*When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
> 
> *23*Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. *24*Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?
Click to expand...

Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.


----------



## Seawytch

Steinlight said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.
> 
> Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.
> 
> 
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's many genes that are beneficial which need not be immediately expressed. Carrying the genetics for homosexuality and expressing it selectively can have benefits for a population as a whole, ie caretaking.
> 
> Now where's this current, reputable, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of homosexuality's destructive effects you've been teasing us with? Come on now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexuals, a care taking gene? Where is our peer reviewed study that there is a relation between homosexuals and a care taking gene?
Click to expand...


The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality - BBC News


----------



## Steinlight

Seawytch said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's many genes that are beneficial which need not be immediately expressed. Carrying the genetics for homosexuality and expressing it selectively can have benefits for a population as a whole, ie caretaking.
> 
> Now where's this current, reputable, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of homosexuality's destructive effects you've been teasing us with? Come on now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexuals, a care taking gene? Where is our peer reviewed study that there is a relation between homosexuals and a care taking gene?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality - BBC News
Click to expand...

What is your point?


----------



## Seawytch

Steinlight said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love that you see it as a problem to stick with what Jesus himself said, not his crazy fans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathew 7:21
> Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh goody
> 
> I love Bible quotes!
> 
> The Rich and the Kingdom of God
> 
> *16*Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
> 
> *17*“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
> 
> *18*“Which ones?” he inquired.
> 
> Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, *19*honor your father and mother,’c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”
> 
> *20*“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
> 
> *21*Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
> 
> *22*When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
> 
> *23*Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. *24*Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.
Click to expand...


Tsk, tsk...try  1 Timothy 2:12


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.
> 
> Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.
> 
> 
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If everyone was male, then the human race would cease to exist in a generation but does that mean males are inherently destructive?
> 
> Unless you really believe that you are in danger of suddenly becoming gay if we treat homosexuals equally, there is no reason for you to believe that everyone will become homosexual- just a strawman you raise to support your bigotry.
> 
> Treating homosexual couples exactly equally with my wife and I, doesn't harm you- doesn't harm anyone- it is just the right thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was a surplus of men in society that had no women, it would absolutely be socially destructive, just as homosexuality would be if it were practiced on a mass scale, as opposed to heterosexuality. You asked for a difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality and how they are inherently unequal, so I gave it. And you can't dispute that. That's without going into all the other anti-social and destructive elements of the homosexual lifestyle.
> 
> I never said that gay marriage would result in making everyone a homosexual. So you are just creating an strawman.
> 
> I don't believe in equality, and don't believe it the right thing to do. I don't accept the premise of equality as the unquestioned dogma. I also reject the premise of so called "harm based morality", I think it narrow minded and autistic. One of my primary objections with homosexual marriage is that the normalization and promotion of homosexual relations through gay marriage feeds the persisting condition of Anomie that plagues Western society. That is that moral relativism and secularism begets moral nihilism and atomization, which has social costs, that the narrow sighted "harm based morality" doesn't capture.
Click to expand...


You've just perfectly described the idiocy OKA: Relativism.

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this perversion of reason wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the *objectivity* that is otherwise _*essential *to *truth*_*.* 

Therefore, only the lowly Relativist could demand that that which is otherwise irrefutably *deviant*, is *perfectly normal.*

And with truth being essential to trust and, _both of those_ being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And given that the Ideological Left rests ENTIRELY upon Relativism, that is why since the Left came to power only 8 years ago... all sense of truth, trust, morality and justice have been rinsed from US Governance.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Steinlight said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love that you see it as a problem to stick with what Jesus himself said, not his crazy fans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathew 7:21
> Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh goody
> 
> I love Bible quotes!
> 
> The Rich and the Kingdom of God
> 
> *16*Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
> 
> *17*“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
> 
> *18*“Which ones?” he inquired.
> 
> Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, *19*honor your father and mother,’c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”
> 
> *20*“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
> 
> *21*Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
> 
> *22*When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
> 
> *23*Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. *24*Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.
Click to expand...

Which illustrates why errant, subjective religious dogma is legally irrelevant.  

And thankfully so.


----------



## Steinlight

Seawytch said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mathew 7:21
> Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goody
> 
> I love Bible quotes!
> 
> The Rich and the Kingdom of God
> 
> *16*Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
> 
> *17*“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
> 
> *18*“Which ones?” he inquired.
> 
> Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, *19*honor your father and mother,’c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”
> 
> *20*“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
> 
> *21*Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
> 
> *22*When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
> 
> *23*Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. *24*Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tsk, tsk...try  1 Timothy 2:12
Click to expand...

What about Timothy 2:12?


----------



## Steinlight

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mathew 7:21
> Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goody
> 
> I love Bible quotes!
> 
> The Rich and the Kingdom of God
> 
> *16*Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
> 
> *17*“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
> 
> *18*“Which ones?” he inquired.
> 
> Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, *19*honor your father and mother,’c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”
> 
> *20*“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
> 
> *21*Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
> 
> *22*When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
> 
> *23*Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. *24*Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which illustrates why errant, subjective religious dogma is legally irrelevant.
> 
> And thankfully so.
Click to expand...

Gender roles aren't subjective, but rather emerge from the inherent biological and sociological differences between the sexes, and societies that pursue "social equality" aka androgyny do so at their own peril.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C-Clayton said:
			
		

> Which illustrates why errant, subjective religious dogma is legally irrelevant.



First: Religion rests ENTIRELY in objectivism... 

Second: 'Congress shall make no law .. _prohibiting the free exercise of _religion'.  

In terms of 'law', it doesn't get_ *MORE* Relevant._


----------



## MaryL

PERSONALY?  Gays don't need marriage any more than a fish needs a bicycle.


----------



## Paperman299

Steinlight said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.
> 
> Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.
> 
> 
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's many genes that are beneficial which need not be immediately expressed. Carrying the genetics for homosexuality and expressing it selectively can have benefits for a population as a whole, ie caretaking.
> 
> Now where's this current, reputable, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of homosexuality's destructive effects you've been teasing us with? Come on now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if I provided a peer reviewed study on how homosexuality is more destructive than heterosexuality, you would reverse your view on gay marriage? So your view is based on empiricism, not the premise of egalitarianism?
> 
> That's a rather odd position. I don't think I have ever heard of anyone basing their position on gay marriage on a peer reviewed study. That is very odd.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is, you don't have evidence of homosexuality's deleterious effects on society, that it's something you imagined?


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goody
> 
> I love Bible quotes!
> 
> The Rich and the Kingdom of God
> 
> *16*Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
> 
> *17*“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
> 
> *18*“Which ones?” he inquired.
> 
> Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, *19*honor your father and mother,’c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”
> 
> *20*“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
> 
> *21*Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
> 
> *22*When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
> 
> *23*Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. *24*Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which illustrates why errant, subjective religious dogma is legally irrelevant.
> 
> And thankfully so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gender roles aren't subjective, but rather emerge from the inherent biological and sociological differences between the sexes, and societies that pursue "social equality" aka androgyny do so at their own peril.
Click to expand...


Gender roles have changed- 100 years ago in the United States women were virtual property of men- luckily that has changed- no matter how much you object to the changes.


----------



## Syriusly

MaryL said:


> PERSONALY?  Gays don't need marriage any more than a fish needs a bicycle.



Personally- I really don't care what a bigot like yourself thinks. 

Same gender couples can marry legally now just like my wife and I are married in over 30 states- and that is a great thing.


----------



## Paperman299

MaryL said:


> PERSONALY?  Gays don't need marriage any more than a fish needs a bicycle.


Funny. Subverting a classic feminist line into something that beings down homosexuals instead of empowering women. Of course, women have hardly taken the line to heart, at least in an absolute sense. (Straight) women continue to seek out and form relationships with men. How appropriate that you've maintained the line's outlandishly hyperbolic nature.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love that you see it as a problem to stick with what Jesus himself said, not his crazy fans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathew 7:21
> Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh goody
> 
> I love Bible quotes!
> 
> The Rich and the Kingdom of God
> 
> *16*Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
> 
> *17*“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
> 
> *18*“Which ones?” he inquired.
> 
> Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, *19*honor your father and mother,’c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”
> 
> *20*“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
> 
> *21*Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
> 
> *22*When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
> 
> *23*Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. *24*Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.
Click to expand...


LOL......that just will be a big winning argument for you- "Women you need to shut up in church and let the men folk do your thinkin for you"


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus contains more than just dietary restrictions. Bible Buffeters that use Leviticus to bash gays, but ignore everything else contained in it ARE hypocrites.
> 
> Just an "FYI", nothing from NARTH or FRC is peer reviewed.
> 
> 
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If everyone was male, then the human race would cease to exist in a generation but does that mean males are inherently destructive?
> 
> Unless you really believe that you are in danger of suddenly becoming gay if we treat homosexuals equally, there is no reason for you to believe that everyone will become homosexual- just a strawman you raise to support your bigotry.
> 
> Treating homosexual couples exactly equally with my wife and I, doesn't harm you- doesn't harm anyone- it is just the right thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was a surplus of men in society that had no women, it would absolutely be socially destructive,.
Click to expand...


And if horses were zebras, there would be shortage of horses.

Treating homosexual couples exactly equally with my wife and I, doesn't harm you- doesn't harm anyone- it is just the right thing to do


----------



## Steinlight

Paperman299 said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's many genes that are beneficial which need not be immediately expressed. Carrying the genetics for homosexuality and expressing it selectively can have benefits for a population as a whole, ie caretaking.
> 
> Now where's this current, reputable, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of homosexuality's destructive effects you've been teasing us with? Come on now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if I provided a peer reviewed study on how homosexuality is more destructive than heterosexuality, you would reverse your view on gay marriage? So your view is based on empiricism, not the premise of egalitarianism?
> 
> That's a rather odd position. I don't think I have ever heard of anyone basing their position on gay marriage on a peer reviewed study. That is very odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you're saying is, you don't have evidence of homosexuality's deleterious effects on society, that it's something you imagined?
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my questions, and now you are putting words in my mouth.

So if I provided a peer reviewed study on how homosexuality is more destructive than heterosexuality, you would reverse your view on gay marriage? So your view is based on empiricism, not the premise of egalitarianism?


----------



## Liminal

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



I would say yes, only if the same law requires all gay people to convert to either Islam or Mormonism, as a condition for marriage.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they aren't, because the New Testament reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians for example. Whereas we explicitly aren't bound by the Old Law as Christ has fulfilled, our salvation comes not through the Old Law, but through him. The problem is, you don't understand that which you criticize.
> 
> So if I provided a peer review study that homosexuality is more destructive as a lifestyle than heterosexuality, than you would change your view on  gay marriage? I thought your view on gay marriage was based in egalitarianism, not empiricism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If everyone was male, then the human race would cease to exist in a generation but does that mean males are inherently destructive?
> 
> Unless you really believe that you are in danger of suddenly becoming gay if we treat homosexuals equally, there is no reason for you to believe that everyone will become homosexual- just a strawman you raise to support your bigotry.
> 
> Treating homosexual couples exactly equally with my wife and I, doesn't harm you- doesn't harm anyone- it is just the right thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was a surplus of men in society that had no women, it would absolutely be socially destructive,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if horses were zebras, there would be shortage of horses.
> 
> Treating homosexual couples exactly equally with my wife and I, doesn't harm you- doesn't harm anyone- it is just the right thing to do
Click to expand...

That is true, there would be a shortage of horses, how astute.

I don't care if gay marriage doesn't harm me directly, as I said before, I reject your notion of "harm based morality" as narrow minded and autistic and reject the premise of equality as established moral dogma. As I established through my example of what would happen if everyone adopted homosexuality, the "orientations are inherently different and unequal. One of my primary objections with homosexual marriage is that the normalization and promotion of homosexual relations through gay marriage feeds the persisting condition of Anomie that plagues Western society. That is that moral relativism and secularism begets moral nihilism and atomization, which has social costs, that the narrow sighted "harm based morality" doesn't capture.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mathew 7:21
> Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goody
> 
> I love Bible quotes!
> 
> The Rich and the Kingdom of God
> 
> *16*Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
> 
> *17*“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
> 
> *18*“Which ones?” he inquired.
> 
> Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, *19*honor your father and mother,’c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”
> 
> *20*“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
> 
> *21*Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
> 
> *22*When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
> 
> *23*Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. *24*Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL......that just will be a big winning argument for you- "Women you need to shut up in church and let the men folk do your thinkin for you"
Click to expand...

Women are allowed to think, but not to lead the Church. If you don't like it, you can go to one of the several heretical choices that ignore scripture here, or not go to Church at all.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which illustrates why errant, subjective religious dogma is legally irrelevant.
> 
> And thankfully so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gender roles aren't subjective, but rather emerge from the inherent biological and sociological differences between the sexes, and societies that pursue "social equality" aka androgyny do so at their own peril.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gender roles have changed- 100 years ago in the United States women were virtual property of men- luckily that has changed- no matter how much you object to the changes.
Click to expand...

They have changed to an extreme pendulum that has been destructive for western society, but it will not always remain this way. History moves in cycles, and the secular liberal cycle is entering it's dying days across the test because it simply isn't sustainable in the long run.


----------



## Seawytch

Steinlight said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goody
> 
> I love Bible quotes!
> 
> The Rich and the Kingdom of God
> 
> *16*Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
> 
> *17*“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
> 
> *18*“Which ones?” he inquired.
> 
> Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, *19*honor your father and mother,’c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”
> 
> *20*“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
> 
> *21*Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
> 
> *22*When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
> 
> *23*Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. *24*Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tsk, tsk...try  1 Timothy 2:12
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about Timothy 2:12?
Click to expand...


_9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;_

_10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works._

_11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection._

_12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence._


----------



## beagle9

Seawytch said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tsk, tsk...try  1 Timothy 2:12
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about Timothy 2:12?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;_
> 
> _10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works._
> 
> _11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection._
> 
> _12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence._
Click to expand...

And?


----------



## Paperman299

Steinlight said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals love "peer reviewed", even if it is worthless.
> 
> Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really need a peer reviewed study to figure out that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist in a generation? But yea, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same, they are equal, homosexuality isn't destructive at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's many genes that are beneficial which need not be immediately expressed. Carrying the genetics for homosexuality and expressing it selectively can have benefits for a population as a whole, ie caretaking.
> 
> Now where's this current, reputable, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of homosexuality's destructive effects you've been teasing us with? Come on now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if I provided a peer reviewed study on how homosexuality is more destructive than heterosexuality, you would reverse your view on gay marriage? So your view is based on empiricism, not the premise of egalitarianism?
> 
> That's a rather odd position. I don't think I have ever heard of anyone basing their position on gay marriage on a peer reviewed study. That is very odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you're saying is, you don't have evidence of homosexuality's deleterious effects on society, that it's something you imagined?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer my questions, and now you are putting words in my mouth.
> 
> So if I provided a peer reviewed study on how homosexuality is more destructive than heterosexuality, you would reverse your view on gay marriage? So your view is based on empiricism, not the premise of egalitarianism?
Click to expand...

Putting words in your mouth?? You know what, you should be so lucky to have my words in your mouth, it'd be the first coherent thing you've said.

Stubbornly insisting someone pick one of two childishly simple and absolute views isn't debate, it's just stubborn, and a transparent attempt at distraction to boot. You've asserted over and over that homosexuality has deleterious effects for society, without once explaining what those are. Now that we're asking to hear about those effects, you try and start playing logic games on my views like some bargain bin Socrates.

You've made an assertion that homosexuality harms society. Back it up.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Paperman299 said:


> So what you're saying is, you don't have evidence of homosexuality's deleterious effects on society, that it's something you imagined?



ROFLMNAO!  Have you READ the title of this thread?   Wherein the OP is questioning the intent of *The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality's* intent to force others to accept PROFOUND ABNORMALITY as NORMAL and to abuse public accommodation laws to do so?

They are DEMANDING THAT ABNORMAL REASONING BE RECOGNIZED AS NORMAL!  The potential consequences of such being NOTHING BUT: *DELETERIOUS.*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tsk, tsk...try  1 Timothy 2:12
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about Timothy 2:12?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;_
> 
> _10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works._
> 
> _11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection._
> 
> _12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence._
Click to expand...

Point?


----------



## Paperman299

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is, you don't have evidence of homosexuality's deleterious effects on society, that it's something you imagined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Have you READ the title of this thread?   Wherein the OP is questioning the intent of *The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality's* intent to force others to accept PROFOUND ABNORMALITY as NORMAL and to abuse public accommodation laws to do so?
> 
> They are DEMANDING THAT ABNORMAL REASONING BE RECOGNIZED AS NORMAL!  The potential consequences of such being NOTHING BUT: *DELETERIOUS.*
Click to expand...


The actual medical community does not share your view that homosexuality is abnormal. 

So no specific harmful effects? Not one prediction?


----------



## Silhouette

Paperman299 said:


> The actual medical community does not share your view that homosexuality is abnormal.
> 
> So no specific harmful effects? Not one prediction?


 
Paperman here is trying to pretend as if the OP in this thread doesn't exist: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Pretty much every medical entity takes its psychological talking points from the APA.  But when the apex of all knowledge is a cult, then all the lower entities who used to take orders from a bone fide scientific organization that was overtaken silently and insidiously by that cult, would have no way really to know that this new flow of information was completely bogus and sullied with a political agenda.

But lucky for you dear readers, I've provided links and excerpts showing that the American medical community is proceeding on biased information that may or may not have anything to do with the facts.  Areas of particular suspect are any areas having to do with homosexuals or so-called "transexuals".

The APA has adopted using surveys of small numbers, clouded with a new priority of audited group-consensus in preference to actual numbers in studies.  For those of you laypeople, that means that the APA has discarded science in favor of dogma for all positions it takes for public consumption "as fact".  This is the type of situation that George Orwell warned about.


----------



## beagle9

Paperman299 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is, you don't have evidence of homosexuality's deleterious effects on society, that it's something you imagined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Have you READ the title of this thread?   Wherein the OP is questioning the intent of *The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality's* intent to force others to accept PROFOUND ABNORMALITY as NORMAL and to abuse public accommodation laws to do so?
> 
> They are DEMANDING THAT ABNORMAL REASONING BE RECOGNIZED AS NORMAL!  The potential consequences of such being NOTHING BUT: *DELETERIOUS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The actual medical community does not share your view that homosexuality is abnormal.
> 
> So no specific harmful effects? Not one prediction?
Click to expand...

Could it be that the medical community is fudging on the numbers just like the climate scientist have done also these days & times maybe? Hmm.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Paperman299 said:


> The actual medical community does not share your view that homosexuality is abnormal.
> 
> So no specific harmful effects? Not one prediction?



OH!  A fallacious appeal to misleading authority?

Who in the class would like to formally identify this specific fatally flawed construct and explain why it represents a perversion of human reasoning, thus why discourse representing such is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people?

In point of fact, there is no denying that Homosexuality, not only deviates from the physiological human norm, it deviates AS FAR FROM THE PHYSIOLOGICAL HUMAN NORM AS IS POSSIBLE, WHERE THE SUBJECTS BOTH REMAIN: HUMAN!  

And this without regard to how many degrees in higher education one may have obtained... . 

It's not even a _remotely *debatable* point._


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actual medical community does not share your view that homosexuality is abnormal.
> 
> So no specific harmful effects? Not one prediction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman here is trying to pretend as if the OP in this thread doesn't exist: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Pretty much every medical entity takes its psychological talking points from the APA.  But when the apex of all knowledge is a cult, then all the lower entities who used to take orders from a bone fide scientific organization that was overtaken silently and insidiously by that cult, would have no way really to know that this new flow of information was completely bogus and sullied with a political agenda.
> 
> But lucky for you dear readers, I've provided links and excerpts showing that the American medical community is proceeding on biased information that may or may not have anything to do with the facts.  Areas of particular suspect are any areas having to do with homosexuals or so-called "transexuals".
> 
> The APA has adopted using surveys of small numbers, clouded with a new priority of audited group-consensus in preference to actual numbers in studies.  For those of you laypeople, that means that the APA has discarded science in favor of dogma for all positions it takes for public consumption "as fact".  This is the type of situation that George Orwell warned about.
Click to expand...

Reminds us of climate gate...I mean who can believe anything much these days right?


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> Could it be that the medical community is fudging on the numbers just like the climate scientist have done also these days & times maybe? Hmm.


 
No, see you go introducing strawmen like that and you allow a loophole for middle voters to leave this platform.  What is wrong with you?  There is no comparison between the fact of the 1st Amendment and your tinfoil allegations that "climate change experts ....all 700 accredited experts...are lying to the public about climate change".

Why do you self-dilute your arguments that way?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

beagle9 said:


> Reminds us of climate gate...I mean who can believe anything much these days right?



Indeed... 'trust' is a very difficult these days.  But that's because of the rise of evil, which uses a perversion of human reasoning OKA: Relativism, to advance deceit, through fraudulence, as a means to influence the _willful ignorant_..  

Such is the foundational species of reasoning of that which is known as *Left-Think... *or the addled intellectual soup on which "Liberalism, Progressivism (fascism), socialism, communism and Islam... rests.

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this, perversion of reason, wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the *objectivity* that is essential to truth.  

And with truth being essential to trust and, _both of those_ being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

So now that we understand the addled processes, we can see why suddenly, we're hearing idiots proclaim that THAT WHICH IS *ABNORMAL*... is _perfectly *normal*._


----------



## Steinlight

...


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goody
> 
> I love Bible quotes!
> 
> The Rich and the Kingdom of God
> 
> *16*Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
> 
> *17*“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
> 
> *18*“Which ones?” he inquired.
> 
> Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, *19*honor your father and mother,’c and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”
> 
> *20*“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
> 
> *21*Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
> 
> *22*When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
> 
> *23*Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. *24*Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL......that just will be a big winning argument for you- "Women you need to shut up in church and let the men folk do your thinkin for you"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Women are allowed to think, but not to lead the Church. If you don't like it, you can go to one of the several heretical choices that ignore scripture here, or not go to Church at all.
Click to expand...


LOL....indeed I can.....still upset that Martin Luther opened the door that resulted in women leading churches? So do you think that Jesus will send those women to hell? Or do you think that Jesus will send everyone to hell who doesn't agree with your particular band of Jesus believers?


----------



## Steinlight

beagle9 said:


> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is, you don't have evidence of homosexuality's deleterious effects on society, that it's something you imagined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Have you READ the title of this thread?   Wherein the OP is questioning the intent of *The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality's* intent to force others to accept PROFOUND ABNORMALITY as NORMAL and to abuse public accommodation laws to do so?
> 
> They are DEMANDING THAT ABNORMAL REASONING BE RECOGNIZED AS NORMAL!  The potential consequences of such being NOTHING BUT: *DELETERIOUS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The actual medical community does not share your view that homosexuality is abnormal.
> 
> So no specific harmful effects? Not one prediction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could it be that the medical community is fudging on the numbers just like the climate scientist have done also these days & times maybe? Hmm.
Click to expand...


It is actually interesting, the reasoning to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder was entirely political and based on the lobbying. Rather than being based on evidence and scientific investigation.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which illustrates why errant, subjective religious dogma is legally irrelevant.
> 
> And thankfully so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gender roles aren't subjective, but rather emerge from the inherent biological and sociological differences between the sexes, and societies that pursue "social equality" aka androgyny do so at their own peril.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gender roles have changed- 100 years ago in the United States women were virtual property of men- luckily that has changed- no matter how much you object to the changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have changed to an extreme pendulum that has been destructive for western society, but it will not always remain this way. History moves in cycles, and the secular liberal cycle is entering it's dying days across the test because it simply isn't sustainable in the long run.
Click to expand...


Yet Western Society continues to thrive.....and societies that represent your backward type of thinking are represented by the most backward, repressive and least free societies on Earth.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds us of climate gate...I mean who can believe anything much these days right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed... 'trust' is a very difficult these days.  But that's because of the rise of evil, which uses a perversion of human reasoning OKA: Relativism, to advance deceit, through fraudulence, as a means to influence the _willful ignorant_..
> 
> Such is the foundational species of reasoning of that which is known as *Left-Think... *or the addled intellectual soup on which "Liberalism, Progressivism (fascism), socialism, communism and Islam... rests.
> 
> Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.
> 
> It is through this, perversion of reason, wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the *objectivity* that is essential to truth.
> 
> And with truth being essential to trust and, _both of those_ being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.
> 
> So now that we understand the addled processes, we can see why suddenly, we're hearing idiots proclaim that THAT WHICH IS *ABNORMAL*... is _perfectly *normal*._
Click to expand...

That you and many others on the right have an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans illustrates why we need the Constitution and its case law as much today as during any time in America's history; case law that protects gay Americans from your unwarranted, irrational fear and hate.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is, you don't have evidence of homosexuality's deleterious effects on society, that it's something you imagined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Have you READ the title of this thread?   Wherein the OP is questioning the intent of *The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality's* intent to force others to accept PROFOUND ABNORMALITY as NORMAL and to abuse public accommodation laws to do so?
> 
> They are DEMANDING THAT ABNORMAL REASONING BE RECOGNIZED AS NORMAL!  The potential consequences of such being NOTHING BUT: *DELETERIOUS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The actual medical community does not share your view that homosexuality is abnormal.
> 
> So no specific harmful effects? Not one prediction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could it be that the medical community is fudging on the numbers just like the climate scientist have done also these days & times maybe? Hmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is actually interesting, the reasoning to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder was entirely political and based on the lobbying. Rather than being based on evidence and scientific investigation.
Click to expand...


Oh Youtube?
LOL

If you read the history of 'homosexuality as a mental disorder'- it was listed for 20 years- and that listing was never based upon evidence and scientific investigation. 

What you complain about as being a flawed process for changing the designation was the very same flawed process that labeled homosexuality as a mental illness in the 1950's. 

Meanwhile the consensus of the medical community is that homosexuality is not a mental illness. You disagree with them- but then again you think women should be second class citizens too.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that call what you do an abomination, why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep avoiding the ones that says a woman must remain silent. (NT) Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL......that just will be a big winning argument for you- "Women you need to shut up in church and let the men folk do your thinkin for you"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Women are allowed to think, but not to lead the Church. If you don't like it, you can go to one of the several heretical choices that ignore scripture here, or not go to Church at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....indeed I can.....still upset that Martin Luther opened the door that resulted in women leading churches? So do you think that Jesus will send those women to hell? Or do you think that Jesus will send everyone to hell who doesn't agree with your particular band of Jesus believers?
Click to expand...

Jesus doesn't send people to hell, people put themselves there. Since you don't understand basic Christian doctrine, perhaps you should stop commenting on these things?


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.
> 
> 
> 
> Which illustrates why errant, subjective religious dogma is legally irrelevant.
> 
> And thankfully so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gender roles aren't subjective, but rather emerge from the inherent biological and sociological differences between the sexes, and societies that pursue "social equality" aka androgyny do so at their own peril.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gender roles have changed- 100 years ago in the United States women were virtual property of men- luckily that has changed- no matter how much you object to the changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have changed to an extreme pendulum that has been destructive for western society, but it will not always remain this way. History moves in cycles, and the secular liberal cycle is entering it's dying days across the test because it simply isn't sustainable in the long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet Western Society continues to thrive.....and societies that represent your backward type of thinking are represented by the most backward, repressive and least free societies on Earth.
Click to expand...

Thrive in what sense? Materially? Perhaps, but even that is coming to an end, particularly in Europe as the EU becomes less tenable. Demographically thriving? Certainly not, birthrates are on the decline and social systems contingent on population growth are becoming financially unsustainable, at this point, you are dependent on immigrants from illiberal societies for your future population. Morally and spiritually? Doesn't look like it, marriage rates are down, divorce rates up, children born out of wedlock up, drug/drink abuse up, depression/anxiety and mental disorders up. The secular and liberal west is a historical anomaly and as the United States becomes less the dominate global force and we move towards a multipolar world, this culture will continue to wane.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That you and many others on the right have an unwarranted fear...



Site anything I've said which you feel represents fear. 

Now, because NOTHING I have said can reasonably, or even possibly be inferred as 'fear'... I hereby accept your inevitable failure to produce such evidence, as your concession to me, that you must change the subject from scientific FACT, wherein such which deviates from the human physiological standard, thus DEVIATES from that standard is ABNORMAL... .  And what is ABNORMAL is *NOT* NORMAL, because you have no means to sustain your no wholly refuted 'point of view, perspective, opinion and feelings... .

_Such is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is, you don't have evidence of homosexuality's deleterious effects on society, that it's something you imagined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Have you READ the title of this thread?   Wherein the OP is questioning the intent of *The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality's* intent to force others to accept PROFOUND ABNORMALITY as NORMAL and to abuse public accommodation laws to do so?
> 
> They are DEMANDING THAT ABNORMAL REASONING BE RECOGNIZED AS NORMAL!  The potential consequences of such being NOTHING BUT: *DELETERIOUS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The actual medical community does not share your view that homosexuality is abnormal.
> 
> So no specific harmful effects? Not one prediction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could it be that the medical community is fudging on the numbers just like the climate scientist have done also these days & times maybe? Hmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is actually interesting, the reasoning to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder was entirely political and based on the lobbying. Rather than being based on evidence and scientific investigation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Youtube?
> LOL
> 
> If you read the history of 'homosexuality as a mental disorder'- it was listed for 20 years- and that listing was never based upon evidence and scientific investigation.
> 
> What you complain about as being a flawed process for changing the designation was the very same flawed process that labeled homosexuality as a mental illness in the 1950's.
> 
> Meanwhile the consensus of the medical community is that homosexuality is not a mental illness. You disagree with them- but then again you think women should be second class citizens too.
Click to expand...

This is the former President of the APA, and he knows more on the subject than you. I know you don't care what he has to say, because you are a dogmatic believer in egalitarianism and nothing would sway you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Steinlight said:


> This is the former President of the APA, and he knows more on the subject than you. I know you don't care what he has to say, because you are a dogmatic believer in egalitarianism and nothing would sway you.



It's Relativism... addled subjectivism which rejects reality and substitutes limitless falsity more in keeping with its own _relative_, personal _*'needs'.*_


----------



## beagle9

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could it be that the medical community is fudging on the numbers just like the climate scientist have done also these days & times maybe? Hmm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, see you go introducing strawmen like that and you allow a loophole for middle voters to leave this platform.  What is wrong with you?  There is no comparison between the fact of the 1st Amendment and your tinfoil allegations that "climate change experts ....all 700 accredited experts...are lying to the public about climate change".
> 
> Why do you self-dilute your arguments that way?
Click to expand...


Well seeing that you and me disagree on the issue of climate gate, where as I read that the numbers were being manipulated by so called educated people in which case it was admitted as such, then it is you that is therefore injecting your bias in this post and not me. You are therefore diluting my point based upon your bias in another thread, where as I was just using it as an illustration that people shouldn't always look to the educated as if they are clean and UN-corruptible in life, when in fact the evidence is to the contrary to those who are open minded about such things.

It could be that you may be causing your own problems here, by being UN-movable and biased on some issues in which are still highly debatable and unsolved as of yet.

Wait a minute, didn't you say that the APA is infiltrated by those who have silenced or now controls something that you were talking about ?  It's all just illustrations of groups, organizations, politics and etc. that can become corrupted and infiltrated, and then the educated who are bad in a smart way are then the ones who protect the corruption at all cost. We being supposedly the lowly ignorant ones, are supposed to always respect education right, and even if it is going against the grain we are still to do this, but isn't this what creates sheeple, and then comes the end next ?


----------



## Silhouette

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> It's Relativism... addled subjectivism which rejects reality and substitutes limitless falsity more in keeping with its own _relative_, personal _*'needs'.*_


 
And while ignoring/subjegating the extinction of the rights of people to the exercise (daily practice in and outside of a church building) of their faith and its core values at the very least.

Oh, and also while ignoring the needs of children to a mother and father, insisting this voteless class be mere subjects/lab rats in an untested social experiment poised to replace the standard of thousands of years in human society.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they should remain silent in churches. scripture is very clear women cannot be priests.
> 
> 
> 
> Which illustrates why errant, subjective religious dogma is legally irrelevant.
> 
> And thankfully so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gender roles aren't subjective, but rather emerge from the inherent biological and sociological differences between the sexes, and societies that pursue "social equality" aka androgyny do so at their own peril.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gender roles have changed- 100 years ago in the United States women were virtual property of men- luckily that has changed- no matter how much you object to the changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have changed to an extreme pendulum that has been destructive for western society, but it will not always remain this way. History moves in cycles, and the secular liberal cycle is entering it's dying days across the test because it simply isn't sustainable in the long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet Western Society continues to thrive.....and societies that represent your backward type of thinking are represented by the most backward, repressive and least free societies on Earth.
Click to expand...


So you are of the attitude that *Freedom* should be more and not less of an anything goes type of thing in which you want to see more of today (or) that we should try and get as close to that sort of thinking as possible now right ? Then we will have become a modern society in your way of thinking right ? Should we break down all the gates that have made us the most free society in the world now (i.e. decency, morals, standards, guidelines, religion the constitution and etc.), and to do this in order to become the most decadent & immoral society in the western world now ?


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> So you are of the attitude that *Freedom* should be more and not less of an anything goes type of thing in which you want to see more of today (or) that we should try and get as close to that sort of thinking as possible now right ? Then we will have become a modern society in your way of thinking right ? Should we break down all the gates that have made us the most free society in the world now (i.e. decency, morals, standards, guidelines, religion the constitution and etc.), and to do this in order to become the most decadent & immoral society in the western world now ?


 
I'll bet you that Syriusly would want people to have a modicum of morality when they deal with her.  She'd be the first to shriek bloody murder if someone cut her off in traffic, say.

Yet that person cutting her off has a different "driving orientation" than she does.  What a bigot she would be for becoming angry at being cut off by someone just enjoying their "right" to do so?

Rules are for losers!  (unless them being broken steps on your toes)... friggin' hypocrites..


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which illustrates why errant, subjective religious dogma is legally irrelevant.
> 
> And thankfully so.
> 
> 
> 
> Gender roles aren't subjective, but rather emerge from the inherent biological and sociological differences between the sexes, and societies that pursue "social equality" aka androgyny do so at their own peril.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gender roles have changed- 100 years ago in the United States women were virtual property of men- luckily that has changed- no matter how much you object to the changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have changed to an extreme pendulum that has been destructive for western society, but it will not always remain this way. History moves in cycles, and the secular liberal cycle is entering it's dying days across the test because it simply isn't sustainable in the long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet Western Society continues to thrive.....and societies that represent your backward type of thinking are represented by the most backward, repressive and least free societies on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are of the attitude that *Freedom* should be more and not less of an anything goes type of thing in which you want to see more of today (or) that we should try and get as close to that sort of thinking as possible now right ? Then we will have become a modern society in your way of thinking right ? Should we break down all the gates that have made us the most free society in the world now (i.e. decency, morals, standards, guidelines, religion the constitution and etc.), and to do this in order to become the most decadent & immoral society in the western world now ?
Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense.

No one is advocating 'breaking down' anything.

That you and others on the right have an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans doesn't justify discriminating against them.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gender roles aren't subjective, but rather emerge from the inherent biological and sociological differences between the sexes, and societies that pursue "social equality" aka androgyny do so at their own peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gender roles have changed- 100 years ago in the United States women were virtual property of men- luckily that has changed- no matter how much you object to the changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have changed to an extreme pendulum that has been destructive for western society, but it will not always remain this way. History moves in cycles, and the secular liberal cycle is entering it's dying days across the test because it simply isn't sustainable in the long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet Western Society continues to thrive.....and societies that represent your backward type of thinking are represented by the most backward, repressive and least free societies on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are of the attitude that *Freedom* should be more and not less of an anything goes type of thing in which you want to see more of today (or) that we should try and get as close to that sort of thinking as possible now right ? Then we will have become a modern society in your way of thinking right ? Should we break down all the gates that have made us the most free society in the world now (i.e. decency, morals, standards, guidelines, religion the constitution and etc.), and to do this in order to become the most decadent & immoral society in the western world now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This doesn't make any sense.
> 
> No one is advocating 'breaking down' anything.
> 
> That you and others on the right have an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans doesn't justify discriminating against them.
Click to expand...


Putting words in someones mouth are you ? No one *hates* anyone, but you want to try and play it that way don't you ? Now why is that I wonder ? No one *fears* anyone either. The only thing people want is to be respected as to what they believe in, and to be respected in what they have been taught in life about sin. Your ilk wants to sue them, harass them, use big words on them (or) to use the twisting of the laws on them in hopes that they would think that you are legit in order to do to them what you are doing to them. People hopefully are waking up to the game that has been going on in these ways, just like the way you tried to assign your words of hate and fear to me, and this in order to suggest to others that this is what I do, or what I think or in who I am, but you are wrong.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gender roles have changed- 100 years ago in the United States women were virtual property of men- luckily that has changed- no matter how much you object to the changes.
> 
> 
> 
> They have changed to an extreme pendulum that has been destructive for western society, but it will not always remain this way. History moves in cycles, and the secular liberal cycle is entering it's dying days across the test because it simply isn't sustainable in the long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet Western Society continues to thrive.....and societies that represent your backward type of thinking are represented by the most backward, repressive and least free societies on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are of the attitude that *Freedom* should be more and not less of an anything goes type of thing in which you want to see more of today (or) that we should try and get as close to that sort of thinking as possible now right ? Then we will have become a modern society in your way of thinking right ? Should we break down all the gates that have made us the most free society in the world now (i.e. decency, morals, standards, guidelines, religion the constitution and etc.), and to do this in order to become the most decadent & immoral society in the western world now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This doesn't make any sense.
> 
> No one is advocating 'breaking down' anything.
> 
> That you and others on the right have an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans doesn't justify discriminating against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putting words in someones mouth are you ? No one *hates* anyone, but you want to try and play it that way don't you ? Now why is that I wonder ? No one *fears* anyone either. The only thing people want is to be respected as to what they believe in, and to be respected in what they have been taught in life about sin. Your ilk wants to sue them, harass them, use big words on them (or) to use the twisting of the laws on them in hopes that they would think that you are legit in order to do to them what you are doing to them. People hopefully are waking up to the game that has been going on in these ways, just like the way you tried to assign your words of hate and fear to me, and this in order to suggest to others that this is what I do, or what I think or in who I am, but you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Of course you have an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans – hence this nonsense about “break[ing] down all the gates that have made us the most free society in the world now (i.e. decency, morals, standards, guidelines, religion the constitution and etc.),” where to recognize the comprehensive civil rights of gay Americans will 'imperil' our free society, as well as being an 'affront' to decency, morals, and standards.

Acknowledging the right of gay Americans to access marriage law is not 'indecent,' nor is it 'immoral,' and it comports with our most fundamental American standards of equal protection of the law and the rule of law.

Indeed, your hatred of gay Americans is in fact indecent and immoral.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have changed to an extreme pendulum that has been destructive for western society, but it will not always remain this way. History moves in cycles, and the secular liberal cycle is entering it's dying days across the test because it simply isn't sustainable in the long run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Western Society continues to thrive.....and societies that represent your backward type of thinking are represented by the most backward, repressive and least free societies on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are of the attitude that *Freedom* should be more and not less of an anything goes type of thing in which you want to see more of today (or) that we should try and get as close to that sort of thinking as possible now right ? Then we will have become a modern society in your way of thinking right ? Should we break down all the gates that have made us the most free society in the world now (i.e. decency, morals, standards, guidelines, religion the constitution and etc.), and to do this in order to become the most decadent & immoral society in the western world now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This doesn't make any sense.
> 
> No one is advocating 'breaking down' anything.
> 
> That you and others on the right have an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans doesn't justify discriminating against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putting words in someones mouth are you ? No one *hates* anyone, but you want to try and play it that way don't you ? Now why is that I wonder ? No one *fears* anyone either. The only thing people want is to be respected as to what they believe in, and to be respected in what they have been taught in life about sin. Your ilk wants to sue them, harass them, use big words on them (or) to use the twisting of the laws on them in hopes that they would think that you are legit in order to do to them what you are doing to them. People hopefully are waking up to the game that has been going on in these ways, just like the way you tried to assign your words of hate and fear to me, and this in order to suggest to others that this is what I do, or what I think or in who I am, but you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you have an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans – hence this nonsense about “break[ing] down all the gates that have made us the most free society in the world now (i.e. decency, morals, standards, guidelines, religion the constitution and etc.),” where to recognize the comprehensive civil rights of gay Americans will 'imperil' our free society, as well as being an 'affront' to decency, morals, and standards.
> 
> Acknowledging the right of gay Americans to access marriage law is not 'indecent,' nor is it 'immoral,' and it comports with our most fundamental American standards of equal protection of the law and the rule of law.
> 
> Indeed, your hatred of gay Americans is in fact indecent and immoral.
Click to expand...

Your projecting again ClayTON.... No in your world suing people, threatening people if they don't go along, in which is to shut their businesses down or to shut their free speech / freedom to practice their religion as individuals down, (HA) well of course that is no threat to this nation in your mind ClayTON.. No it's not at all a problem in the world in which you live, but for the rest of us it is a new direct and indirect assault on the freedoms we all have protected and enjoyed in this nation over time. Fear ? You all are the ones who FEAR democracy, because you don't trust the results or the outcomes if Democracy is allowed to take place on the issues.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are of the attitude that *Freedom* should be more and not less of an anything goes type of thing in which you want to see more of today (or) that we should try and get as close to that sort of thinking as possible now right ? Then we will have become a modern society in your way of thinking right ? Should we break down all the gates that have made us the most free society in the world now (i.e. decency, morals, standards, guidelines, religion the constitution and etc.), and to do this in order to become the most decadent & immoral society in the western world now ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bet you that Syriusly
Click to expand...


You are delusional.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which illustrates why errant, subjective religious dogma is legally irrelevant.
> 
> And thankfully so.
> 
> 
> 
> Gender roles aren't subjective, but rather emerge from the inherent biological and sociological differences between the sexes, and societies that pursue "social equality" aka androgyny do so at their own peril.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gender roles have changed- 100 years ago in the United States women were virtual property of men- luckily that has changed- no matter how much you object to the changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have changed to an extreme pendulum that has been destructive for western society, but it will not always remain this way. History moves in cycles, and the secular liberal cycle is entering it's dying days across the test because it simply isn't sustainable in the long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet Western Society continues to thrive.....and societies that represent your backward type of thinking are represented by the most backward, repressive and least free societies on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are of the attitude that *Freedom*
Click to expand...


I am of an opinion that our societies are improving and that Freedom of expression and freedom from oppression are good things.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Relativism... addled subjectivism which rejects reality and substitutes limitless falsity more in keeping with its own _relative_, personal _*'needs'.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And while ignoring/subjegating the extinction of the rights of people to the exercise (.
Click to expand...


Everyone still has the right to the free exercise of religion- just as long that free exercise doesn't intrude onto others people's  freedoms.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Have you READ the title of this thread?   Wherein the OP is questioning the intent of *The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality's* intent to force others to accept PROFOUND ABNORMALITY as NORMAL and to abuse public accommodation laws to do so?
> 
> They are DEMANDING THAT ABNORMAL REASONING BE RECOGNIZED AS NORMAL!  The potential consequences of such being NOTHING BUT: *DELETERIOUS.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The actual medical community does not share your view that homosexuality is abnormal.
> 
> So no specific harmful effects? Not one prediction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could it be that the medical community is fudging on the numbers just like the climate scientist have done also these days & times maybe? Hmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is actually interesting, the reasoning to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder was entirely political and based on the lobbying. Rather than being based on evidence and scientific investigation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Youtube?
> LOL
> 
> If you read the history of 'homosexuality as a mental disorder'- it was listed for 20 years- and that listing was never based upon evidence and scientific investigation.
> 
> What you complain about as being a flawed process for changing the designation was the very same flawed process that labeled homosexuality as a mental illness in the 1950's.
> 
> Meanwhile the consensus of the medical community is that homosexuality is not a mental illness. You disagree with them- but then again you think women should be second class citizens too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the former President of the APA, and he knows more on the subject than you. I know you don't care what he has to say, because you are a dogmatic believer in egalitarianism and nothing would sway you.
Click to expand...


That is the 'former' President of the APA- he certainly knows much more than I do- but not the rest of the mental health professionals that disagree with him. 

I know you don't care what they have to say, because you are a homophobic bigot, and nothing would sway you.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actual medical community does not share your view that homosexuality is abnormal.
> 
> So no specific harmful effects? Not one prediction?
> 
> 
> 
> Could it be that the medical community is fudging on the numbers just like the climate scientist have done also these days & times maybe? Hmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is actually interesting, the reasoning to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder was entirely political and based on the lobbying. Rather than being based on evidence and scientific investigation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Youtube?
> LOL
> 
> If you read the history of 'homosexuality as a mental disorder'- it was listed for 20 years- and that listing was never based upon evidence and scientific investigation.
> 
> What you complain about as being a flawed process for changing the designation was the very same flawed process that labeled homosexuality as a mental illness in the 1950's.
> 
> Meanwhile the consensus of the medical community is that homosexuality is not a mental illness. You disagree with them- but then again you think women should be second class citizens too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the former President of the APA, and he knows more on the subject than you. I know you don't care what he has to say, because you are a dogmatic believer in egalitarianism and nothing would sway you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the 'former' President of the APA- he certainly knows much more than I do- but not the rest of the mental health professionals that disagree with him.
> 
> I know you don't care what they have to say, because you are a homophobic bigot, and nothing would sway you.
Click to expand...


Isnt' that the same guy that still agrees that homosexuality isn't a mental illness? 

Clearly the gay marriage opponents or homophobes don't put much credence or credibility in what the guy has to say when they disagree with him.

Either he's credible. Or he isn't. Its one or the other.


----------



## Steinlight

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paperman299 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The actual medical community does not share your view that homosexuality is abnormal.
> 
> So no specific harmful effects? Not one prediction?
> 
> 
> 
> Could it be that the medical community is fudging on the numbers just like the climate scientist have done also these days & times maybe? Hmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is actually interesting, the reasoning to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder was entirely political and based on the lobbying. Rather than being based on evidence and scientific investigation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Youtube?
> LOL
> 
> If you read the history of 'homosexuality as a mental disorder'- it was listed for 20 years- and that listing was never based upon evidence and scientific investigation.
> 
> What you complain about as being a flawed process for changing the designation was the very same flawed process that labeled homosexuality as a mental illness in the 1950's.
> 
> Meanwhile the consensus of the medical community is that homosexuality is not a mental illness. You disagree with them- but then again you think women should be second class citizens too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the former President of the APA, and he knows more on the subject than you. I know you don't care what he has to say, because you are a dogmatic believer in egalitarianism and nothing would sway you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the 'former' President of the APA- he certainly knows much more than I do- but not the rest of the mental health professionals that disagree with him.
> 
> I know you don't care what they have to say, because you are a homophobic bigot, and nothing would sway you.
Click to expand...

On what body of work do they suggest it isn't a mental illness? It has never been established, as the APA President said, it was a political decision, not based on scientific evidence.


----------



## Silhouette

Steinlight said:


> On what body of work do they suggest it isn't a mental illness? It has never been established, as the APA President said, it was a political decision, not based on scientific evidence.


 
Yes, the decision to remove homosexuals from the DSM was political and not based on science.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> On what body of work do they suggest it isn't a mental illness? It has never been established, as the APA President said, it was a political decision, not based on scientific evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the decision to remove homosexuals from the DSM was political and not based on science.
Click to expand...

Had it not been for religion they wouldn't have been in there, and never should have been.  Nothing more than human ignorance and fear, just like when epileptics were once thought to be cursed.


----------



## Steinlight

Silhouette said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> On what body of work do they suggest it isn't a mental illness? It has never been established, as the APA President said, it was a political decision, not based on scientific evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the decision to remove homosexuals from the DSM was political and not based on science.
Click to expand...

Correct. 

Video for reference.


----------



## Silhouette

Here's how the "APA" does "science" today:

(Jim Jones would be proud of the small samples and audited findings..)

_This lively and practical text presents a fresh and comprehensive approach to conducting *consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an inductive method that is characterized by open-ended interview questions, small samples, a reliance on words over numbers*, the *importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team*. It is especially well-suited to research that requires rich descriptions of inner experiences, attitudes, and convictions._

_Written to help researchers navigate their way through qualitative techniques and methodology, leading expert Clara E. Hill and her associates provide readers with step-by-step practical guidance during each stage of the research process. *Readers learn about adaptive ways of designing studies; collecting, coding, and analyzing data*; and reporting findings._

_*Key aspects of the researcher's craft* are addressed, such as establishing the research team, recruiting and interviewing participants, adhering to ethical standards, *raising cultural awareness, auditing within case analyses and cross analyses, and writing up the study*._ Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena


----------



## Silhouette

Jude 1 of the New Testament would say that any "researcher" at the APA who practiced this type of deceptive "science" to lull the public into a homosexual cultural takeover (dubbing the insane as "sane") would be burning in the pit of fire for eternity.  It's giving a leg-up to that which must not replace a sane culture.


----------



## Syriusly

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could it be that the medical community is fudging on the numbers just like the climate scientist have done also these days & times maybe? Hmm.
> 
> 
> 
> It is actually interesting, the reasoning to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder was entirely political and based on the lobbying. Rather than being based on evidence and scientific investigation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Youtube?
> LOL
> 
> If you read the history of 'homosexuality as a mental disorder'- it was listed for 20 years- and that listing was never based upon evidence and scientific investigation.
> 
> What you complain about as being a flawed process for changing the designation was the very same flawed process that labeled homosexuality as a mental illness in the 1950's.
> 
> Meanwhile the consensus of the medical community is that homosexuality is not a mental illness. You disagree with them- but then again you think women should be second class citizens too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the former President of the APA, and he knows more on the subject than you. I know you don't care what he has to say, because you are a dogmatic believer in egalitarianism and nothing would sway you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the 'former' President of the APA- he certainly knows much more than I do- but not the rest of the mental health professionals that disagree with him.
> 
> I know you don't care what they have to say, because you are a homophobic bigot, and nothing would sway you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On what body of work do they suggest it isn't a mental illness? It has never been established, as the APA President said, it was a political decision, not based on scientific evidence.
Click to expand...


On what body of work did they suggest it was a mental illness?

Inclusion of homosexuality as a mental illness was never based upon 'scientific evidence'.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Jude 1 of the New Testament .



Jude 1 doesnt' mention homosexuality or the APA.

You are delusional.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 of the New Testament .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 doesnt' mention homosexuality or the APA.
> 
> You are delusional.
Click to expand...


Its Jude 1 word salad at this point. I'm shocked he hasn't folded in kitchen sinks and global warming into Jude 1 for as much relevance as his claims have.


----------



## Silhouette

Without further ado, Jude 1 from the New Testament King James Bible: (parenthesis mine)

1*Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ*, _and_ called:

2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

3 Beloved, *when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation*, it was needful for me to write unto you, *and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith* which was once delivered unto the saints. (Note: earnestly does not mean passively or not at all)

4 For *there are certain men crept in unawares*, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, *ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness*, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Dictionary : _Lascivious _"inclined towards sexual lust)

5 *I will therefore put you in remembrance*, though ye once knew this, *how that the Lord*, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward *destroyed them that believed not*.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 *Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner*, *giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.* (Sodom and Gomorrha could quite easily be San Francisco, CA and Hollywood, CA today respectively) ("going after strange flesh, like using another man's anus as an artificial vagina..)

8 Likewise also *these filthy dreamers defile the flesh*, despise dominion, *and speak evil of dignities*.

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, *as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves*.

11 *Woe unto them!* for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds _they are_ without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 *Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.*

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard _speeches_ which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16 *These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage*. (GLAAD, Kevin Jennings, and a host of other well-placed LGBT militants)

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you *there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts*.

19These be they *who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit*.

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23 And others save with fear, pulling _them_ out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24 *Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory* with exceeding joy, (those who fail to _earnestly_ contend for the common salvation.. #3.. are doomed as much as those who do nothing at all to stop this cultural coup)

25 To the only wise God our Saviour, _be_ glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Without further ado, Jude 1 from the New Testament King James Bible: (parenthesis mine)
> 
> 1*Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ*, _and_ called:
> 
> 2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
> 
> 3 Beloved, *when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation*, it was needful for me to write unto you, *and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith* which was once delivered unto the saints. (Note: earnestly does not mean passively or not at all)
> 
> 4 For *there are certain men crept in unawares*, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, *ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness*, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Dictionary : _Lascivious _"inclined towards sexual lust)
> 
> 5 *I will therefore put you in remembrance*, though ye once knew this, *how that the Lord*, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward *destroyed them that believed not*.
> 
> 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
> 
> 7 *Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner*, *giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.* (Sodom and Gomorrha could quite easily be San Francisco, CA and Hollywood, CA today respectively) ("going after strange flesh, like using another man's anus as an artificial vagina..)
> 
> 8 Likewise also *these filthy dreamers defile the flesh*, despise dominion, *and speak evil of dignities*.
> 
> 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 
> 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, *as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves*.
> 
> 11 *Woe unto them!* for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 
> 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds _they are_ without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
> 
> 13 *Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.*
> 
> 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard _speeches_ which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
> 
> 16 *These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage*. (GLAAD, Kevin Jennings, and a host of other well-placed LGBT militants)
> 
> 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18 How that they told you *there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts*.
> 
> 19These be they *who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit*.
> 
> 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
> 
> 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
> 
> 23 And others save with fear, pulling _them_ out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24 *Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory* with exceeding joy, (those who fail to _earnestly_ contend for the common salvation.. #3.. are doomed as much as those who do nothing at all to stop this cultural coup)
> 
> 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, _be_ glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.



Like I have said every time before- not one word in there about homosexuals.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Without further ado, Jude 1 from the New Testament King James Bible: (parenthesis mine)
> 
> 1*Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ*, _and_ called:
> 
> 2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
> 
> 3 Beloved, *when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation*, it was needful for me to write unto you, *and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith* which was once delivered unto the saints. (Note: earnestly does not mean passively or not at all)
> 
> 4 For *there are certain men crept in unawares*, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, *ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness*, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Dictionary : _Lascivious _"inclined towards sexual lust)
> 
> 5 *I will therefore put you in remembrance*, though ye once knew this, *how that the Lord*, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward *destroyed them that believed not*.
> 
> 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
> 
> 7 *Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner*, *giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.* (Sodom and Gomorrha could quite easily be San Francisco, CA and Hollywood, CA today respectively) ("going after strange flesh, like using another man's anus as an artificial vagina..)
> 
> 8 Likewise also *these filthy dreamers defile the flesh*, despise dominion, *and speak evil of dignities*.
> 
> 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 
> 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, *as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves*.
> 
> 11 *Woe unto them!* for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 
> 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds _they are_ without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
> 
> 13 *Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.*
> 
> 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 
> 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard _speeches_ which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
> 
> 16 *These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage*. (GLAAD, Kevin Jennings, and a host of other well-placed LGBT militants)
> 
> 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18 How that they told you *there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts*.
> 
> 19These be they *who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit*.
> 
> 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
> 
> 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
> 
> 23 And others save with fear, pulling _them_ out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24 *Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory* with exceeding joy, (those who fail to _earnestly_ contend for the common salvation.. #3.. are doomed as much as those who do nothing at all to stop this cultural coup)
> 
> 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, _be_ glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.



And where is any prohibition against selling cake to gay people? Name the verse, because I didn't see it.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Like I have said every time before- not one word in there about homosexuals.


 
Oh, you want me to include Romans 1 for emphasis?  OK..

20 *For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen*, being understood by the things that are made, _even_ his eternal power and Godhead; *so that they are without excuse*:

21 Because that, when they knew *God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened*.

22 *Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools*,

23 *And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man*, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


24 Wherefore God also gave them up *to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:*

25 Who *changed the truth of God into a lie*, and worshipped and *served the creature more than the Creator*, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up *unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:*

27 *And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,* and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in _their_ knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 *Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things*, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, *covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful*:

32 Who knowing *the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them*.


In other words, that last bit #32 is a warning to those who fail to stop this cultural spread.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I have said every time before- not one word in there about homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you want me to include Romans 1 for emphasis?  OK..
> 
> 20 *For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen*, being understood by the things that are made, _even_ his eternal power and Godhead; *so that they are without excuse*:
> 
> 21 Because that, when they knew *God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened*.
> 
> 22 *Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools*,
> 
> 23 *And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man*, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
> 
> 
> 24 Wherefore God also gave them up *to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:*
> 
> 25 Who *changed the truth of God into a lie*, and worshipped and *served the creature more than the Creator*, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up *unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:*
> 
> 27 *And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,* and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
> 
> 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in _their_ knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
> 
> 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
> 
> 30 *Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things*, disobedient to parents,
> 
> 31 Without understanding, *covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful*:
> 
> 32 Who knowing *the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them*.
> 
> 
> In other words, that last bit #32 is a warning to those who fail to stop this cultural spread.
Click to expand...


Still no mention of selling cake to gays. 

As I said, you're hallucinating the passages you claim to be citing.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I have said every time before- not one word in there about homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you want me to include Romans 1 for emphasis?  OK...
Click to expand...


Oh I know what Romans says.

But Jude doesn't say anything about homosexuals- contrary to what you keep claiming.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I have said every time before- not one word in there about homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you want me to include Romans 1 for emphasis?  OK..
> 
> 20 *For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen*, being understood by the things that are made, _even_ his eternal power and Godhead; *so that they are without excuse*:
> 
> 21 Because that, when they knew *God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened*.
> 
> 22 *Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools*,
> 
> 23 *And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man*, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
> 
> 
> 24 Wherefore God also gave them up *to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:*
> 
> 25 Who *changed the truth of God into a lie*, and worshipped and *served the creature more than the Creator*, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up *unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:*
> 
> 27 *And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,* and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
> 
> 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in _their_ knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
> 
> 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
> 
> 30 *Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things*, disobedient to parents,
> 
> 31 Without understanding, *covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful*:
> 
> 32 Who knowing *the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them*.
> 
> 
> In other words, that last bit #32 is a warning to those who fail to stop this cultural spread.
Click to expand...



So Romans says that male homosexuality is as bad as boasting.

Lots of folks are going to hell. 

If you believe that stuff.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I have said every time before- not one word in there about homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you want me to include Romans 1 for emphasis?  OK...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I know what Romans says.
> 
> But Jude doesn't say anything about homosexuals- contrary to what you keep claiming.
Click to expand...

 It's called interpretation, and I know you can do it, I just know you can or can you?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I have said every time before- not one word in there about homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you want me to include Romans 1 for emphasis?  OK..
> 
> 20 *For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen*, being understood by the things that are made, _even_ his eternal power and Godhead; *so that they are without excuse*:
> 
> 21 Because that, when they knew *God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened*.
> 
> 22 *Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools*,
> 
> 23 *And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man*, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
> 
> 
> 24 Wherefore God also gave them up *to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:*
> 
> 25 Who *changed the truth of God into a lie*, and worshipped and *served the creature more than the Creator*, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up *unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:*
> 
> 27 *And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,* and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
> 
> 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in _their_ knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
> 
> 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
> 
> 30 *Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things*, disobedient to parents,
> 
> 31 Without understanding, *covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful*:
> 
> 32 Who knowing *the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them*.
> 
> 
> In other words, that last bit #32 is a warning to those who fail to stop this cultural spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So Romans says that male homosexuality is as bad as boasting.
> 
> Lots of folks are going to hell.
> 
> If you believe that stuff.
Click to expand...

There are degree's of everything you know.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I have said every time before- not one word in there about homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you want me to include Romans 1 for emphasis?  OK...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I know what Romans says.
> 
> But Jude doesn't say anything about homosexuals- contrary to what you keep claiming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called interpretation, and I know you can do it, I just know you can or can you?
Click to expand...


Interpretation is a great thing.

Responsible for the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, the schism between the Protestants and the Catholic Church, responsible for the differences between Baptists and Methodists and every other Protestant variety.

So when someone tells me 'oh you just aren't interpreting the Bible right', well I am in good company since that is what Christians have been telling other Christians for almost 2000 years.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I have said every time before- not one word in there about homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you want me to include Romans 1 for emphasis?  OK..
> 
> 20 *For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen*, being understood by the things that are made, _even_ his eternal power and Godhead; *so that they are without excuse*:
> 
> 21 Because that, when they knew *God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened*.
> 
> 22 *Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools*,
> 
> 23 *And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man*, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
> 
> 
> 24 Wherefore God also gave them up *to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:*
> 
> 25 Who *changed the truth of God into a lie*, and worshipped and *served the creature more than the Creator*, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up *unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:*
> 
> 27 *And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,* and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
> 
> 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in _their_ knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
> 
> 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
> 
> 30 *Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things*, disobedient to parents,
> 
> 31 Without understanding, *covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful*:
> 
> 32 Who knowing *the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them*.
> 
> 
> In other words, that last bit #32 is a warning to those who fail to stop this cultural spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So Romans says that male homosexuality is as bad as boasting.
> 
> Lots of folks are going to hell.
> 
> If you believe that stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are degree's of everything you know.
Click to expand...


Well Dante believed there were circles to hell, but I didn't think that most Christians believed that there are 50 degrees of hell.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I have said every time before- not one word in there about homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you want me to include Romans 1 for emphasis?  OK...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I know what Romans says.
> 
> But Jude doesn't say anything about homosexuals- contrary to what you keep claiming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called interpretation, and I know you can do it, I just know you can or can you?
Click to expand...


Then you're citing your interpretation. Not the actual scripture. 

Jude 1 says exactly nothing about selling cake to gay people.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Interpretation is a great thing.
> 
> Responsible for the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, the schism between the Protestants and the Catholic Church, responsible for the differences between Baptists and Methodists and every other Protestant variety.
> 
> So when someone tells me 'oh you just aren't interpreting the Bible right', well I am in good company since that is what Christians have been telling other Christians for almost 2000 years.


 
All those Christian sects you just mentioned follow the teachings of the New Testament.  Furthermore, there are sins and there are sins.  Some venial, some mortal.  Jude 1 & Romans 1 clearly tell followers of Jesus's teachings that the sin of enabling the spread of a homosexual culture (as opposed to showing compassion for individual homosexuals) IST VERBOTEN....under threat of eternal damnation.  So severe is the Rule on that in God's law.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation is a great thing.
> 
> Responsible for the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, the schism between the Protestants and the Catholic Church, responsible for the differences between Baptists and Methodists and every other Protestant variety.
> 
> So when someone tells me 'oh you just aren't interpreting the Bible right', well I am in good company since that is what Christians have been telling other Christians for almost 2000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those Christian sects you just mentioned follow the teachings of the New Testament. .
Click to expand...


And all of those sects interpret the New Testament differently.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation is a great thing.
> 
> Responsible for the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, the schism between the Protestants and the Catholic Church, responsible for the differences between Baptists and Methodists and every other Protestant variety.
> 
> So when someone tells me 'oh you just aren't interpreting the Bible right', well I am in good company since that is what Christians have been telling other Christians for almost 2000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those Christian sects you just mentioned follow the teachings of the New Testament. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all of those sects interpret the New Testament differently.
Click to expand...

 
Well then I guess they're entitled to their interpretation.  You're going to have trouble forcing your cult values down the throats of religious people.

You will not be allowed to hijack the words "Minority" or "Race" in your legal arguments.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation is a great thing.
> 
> Responsible for the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, the schism between the Protestants and the Catholic Church, responsible for the differences between Baptists and Methodists and every other Protestant variety.
> 
> So when someone tells me 'oh you just aren't interpreting the Bible right', well I am in good company since that is what Christians have been telling other Christians for almost 2000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those Christian sects you just mentioned follow the teachings of the New Testament. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all of those sects interpret the New Testament differently.
Click to expand...

 
Wrong.  You assume they do, and state your erroneous assumption as fact.  BIG surprise.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> And all of those sects interpret the New Testament differently.


 
The ones who take Jude 1 verbatim are entitled via the 1st Amendment to daily loyalty to their scripture.  A threat of eternal damnation is no "Hail Marys or count your rosary beads" venial sin..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And all of those sects interpret the New Testament differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ones who take Jude 1 verbatim are entitled via the 1st Amendment to daily loyalty to their scripture.  A threat of eternal damnation is no "Hail Marys or count your rosary beads" venial sin..
Click to expand...


There's nothing in Jude 1 that mentions selling cake to gay people. So 'vertabim' is off the table.

Sorry, Silo....but people aren't churches. And Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else. They don't get an exemption just because they believe they do.


----------



## Silhouette

Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...



I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again. As granting a woman the right to discriminate against anyone she wishes based on religion essentially dismantled all PA laws and anti-discrimination laws. Something the court is loath to do. With Kennedy making it explicitly clear in the Hobby Lobby ruling that this ruling applied only to ACA, and only to this one issue. And that they were not opening the door for discrimination.

You say otherwise. Once again, I think Kennedy has a far better idea of how the courts are going to rule than you do. Remember, your record of predicting the rulings of the court is just awful. I mean, absolutely absymal...for one simple reason:

You simply project your beliefs. That's your entire method of prediction, the totality of your process. You pretend that others believe what you believe. That they assume what you do. That they think what you think. And they act like you want them to act.

But they don't think like you, they don't believe what you do. And pretending otherwise has not served you well. But I doubt you're going to learn from your mistakes.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...


 


Skylar said:


> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.


 
I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby
Click to expand...


You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale. 

Get that fainting couch ready.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby
Click to expand...

The only case they took was the one that didn't allow for gay marriage.  You Sil, are a loon.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...



Unlike yourself, I support a persons right to use judicial system. She has every right to appeal.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And all of those sects interpret the New Testament differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ones who take Jude 1 verbatim are entitled via the 1st Amendment to daily loyalty to their scripture.  A threat of eternal damnation is no "Hail Marys or count your rosary beads" venial sin..
Click to expand...


Do you imagine that even makes any sense?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again. As granting a woman the right to discriminate against anyone she wishes based on religion essentially dismantled all PA laws and anti-discrimination laws.
Click to expand...


Laws which serve to promote mental disorder are illegitimate, as such undermines the objective public interests. So, where PA laws serve to promote such, they should be dismantled. 

Ya see, for law to be valid, it must be objective... and there is no means for a law which promotes chaos to serve the objective interests of the collective.  Just as normalizing abnormality cannot serve the interests of those afflicted with such perverse reasoning and by extension, such cannot serve the whole of the community.  

The harm such brings to the individual is devastating, the harm such brings the community is profound, the potential for such is catastrophic.  Tolerating such is something well beyond foolish.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.
> 
> Get that fainting couch ready.
Click to expand...


Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.
> 
> Get that fainting couch ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.
Click to expand...




Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again. As granting a woman the right to discriminate against anyone she wishes based on religion essentially dismantled all PA laws and anti-discrimination laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws which serve to promote mental disorder are illegitimate, as such undermines the objective public interests. So, where PA laws serve to promote such, they should be dismantled.
Click to expand...


Yeah, we're not dismantling Public Accommodation laws because you don't like gay people.



> Ya see, for law to be valid, it must be objective... and there is no means for a law which promotes chaos to serve the objective interests of the collective.  Just as normalizing abnormality cannot serve the interests of those afflicted with such perverse reasoning and by extension, such cannot serve the whole of the community.



Agreement with you isn't a standard of objectivity. As you aren't objective.

So what else have you got?



> The harm such brings to the individual is devastating, the harm such brings the community is profound, the potential for such is catastrophic.  Tolerating such is something well beyond foolish.



Is this the part where you offer up your fantasies of civil war and the collapse of society unless we start persecuting gay people?

Or the part where you tell us if gays don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that they'll be subject to a war that 'will make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch'.

Alas, your ilk only want to hurt people when it costs you nothing and there are no consequences. And your 'war' involves consequences. Which is why both you and gay folks will remain pristinely safe from one another.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.
> 
> Get that fainting couch ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again. As granting a woman the right to discriminate against anyone she wishes based on religion essentially dismantled all PA laws and anti-discrimination laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws which serve to promote mental disorder are illegitimate, as such undermines the objective public interests. So, where PA laws serve to promote such, they should be dismantled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, we're not dismantling Public Accommodation laws because you don't like gay people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya see, for law to be valid, it must be objective... and there is no means for a law which promotes chaos to serve the objective interests of the collective.  Just as normalizing abnormality cannot serve the interests of those afflicted with such perverse reasoning and by extension, such cannot serve the whole of the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreement with you isn't a standard of objectivity. As you aren't objective.
> 
> So what else have you got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The harm such brings to the individual is devastating, the harm such brings the community is profound, the potential for such is catastrophic.  Tolerating such is something well beyond foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this the part where you offer up your fantasies of civil war and the collapse of society unless we start persecuting gay people?
> 
> Or the part where you tell us if gays don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that they'll be subject to a war that 'will make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch'.
> 
> Alas, your ilk only want to hurt people when it costs you nothing and there are no consequences. And your 'war' involves consequences. Which is why both you and gay folks will remain pristinely safe from one another.
Click to expand...

Isn't it the gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them as being based upon their religious beliefs?  What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> Isn't it the *gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them* as being based upon their religious beliefs?  What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?


 
A church, remember, is nothing more than a congregation of individual Christians who exercise their faith in everyday life.  First Amendment stuff.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.
> 
> Get that fainting couch ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.
Click to expand...

Further confirmation that you're a ridiculous idiot.  
Like most on the right you ignore facts of law and instead attack with inane lies.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I have said every time before- not one word in there about homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you want me to include Romans 1 for emphasis?  OK...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I know what Romans says.
> 
> But Jude doesn't say anything about homosexuals- contrary to what you keep claiming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called interpretation, and I know you can do it, I just know you can or can you?
Click to expand...

It's also called legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

Even if your bible explicitly forbade selling cake to homosexuals, public accommodations laws would remain valid and Constitutional, because the sole focus and intent of such laws would be to regulate commerce, not 'disadvantage' Christians.

If your bible explicitly forbade homosexuals from marrying, this too would be legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, because subjective religious dogma is completely devoid of legal merit, and cannot be used to 'justify' laws seeking to deny gay Americans their civil rights in violation of the First Amendment.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.
> 
> Get that fainting couch ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Further confirmation that you're a ridiculous idiot.
> Like most on the right you ignore facts of law and instead attack with inane lies.
Click to expand...

What about when Christians are being attacked, where are you then? No where to be found huh.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I have said every time before- not one word in there about homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you want me to include Romans 1 for emphasis?  OK...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I know what Romans says.
> 
> But Jude doesn't say anything about homosexuals- contrary to what you keep claiming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called interpretation, and I know you can do it, I just know you can or can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's also called legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> Even if your bible explicitly forbade selling cake to homosexuals, public accommodations laws would remain valid and Constitutional, because the sole focus and intent of such laws would be to regulate commerce, not 'disadvantage' Christians.
> 
> If your bible explicitly forbade homosexuals from marrying, this too would be legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, because subjective religious dogma is completely devoid of legal merit, and cannot be used to 'justify' laws seeking to deny gay Americans their civil rights in violation of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

Their civil right is to force a baker to bake a cake for their wedding, even if it violates his freedom to practice his religion in which tells him that such a thing is to aid and abed sin , and this by the endorsement of through his agreeing to empower it by going along with it? Think about all the other scenario's or implications this might have or how it could easily fall into the same line of thinking if people become forced to go along with anything and everything now.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.
> 
> Get that fainting couch ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Further confirmation that you're a ridiculous idiot.
> Like most on the right you ignore facts of law and instead attack with inane lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about when Christians are being attacked, where are you then? No where to be found huh.
Click to expand...


What Christians are being attacked in the U.S.?

In regards to this thread, Christians are expected to follow the same law as everyone else.

That is not an attack.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it the *gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them* as being based upon their religious beliefs?  What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A church, remember, is nothing more than a congregation of individual Christians who exercise their faith in everyday life.  First Amendment stuff.
Click to expand...


And a church is not a business.

And a business is not a church.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.
> 
> Get that fainting couch ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again. As granting a woman the right to discriminate against anyone she wishes based on religion essentially dismantled all PA laws and anti-discrimination laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws which serve to promote mental disorder are illegitimate, as such undermines the objective public interests. So, where PA laws serve to promote such, they should be dismantled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, we're not dismantling Public Accommodation laws because you don't like gay people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya see, for law to be valid, it must be objective... and there is no means for a law which promotes chaos to serve the objective interests of the collective.  Just as normalizing abnormality cannot serve the interests of those afflicted with such perverse reasoning and by extension, such cannot serve the whole of the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreement with you isn't a standard of objectivity. As you aren't objective.
> 
> So what else have you got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The harm such brings to the individual is devastating, the harm such brings the community is profound, the potential for such is catastrophic.  Tolerating such is something well beyond foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this the part where you offer up your fantasies of civil war and the collapse of society unless we start persecuting gay people?
> 
> Or the part where you tell us if gays don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that they'll be subject to a war that 'will make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch'.
> 
> Alas, your ilk only want to hurt people when it costs you nothing and there are no consequences. And your 'war' involves consequences. Which is why both you and gay folks will remain pristinely safe from one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't it the gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them as being based upon their religious beliefs?  What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?
Click to expand...


How are 'gay's attacking' when they are asking that the same law that also applies to Christians be enforced?


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.
> 
> Get that fainting couch ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.
Click to expand...


Oh I am certain you will find any ruling you don't agree with 'illegitimate'.

But you are irrelevant.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.
> 
> Get that fainting couch ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Further confirmation that you're a ridiculous idiot.
> Like most on the right you ignore facts of law and instead attack with inane lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about when Christians are being attacked, where are you then? No where to be found huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Christians are being attacked in the U.S.?
> 
> In regards to this thread, Christians are expected to follow the same law as everyone else.
> 
> That is not an attack.
Click to expand...

Phil Robertson comes to mind quickly, and the lady who was a former Miss. America contestant, and the Chic Filet CEO. Your kidding me that you don't know these things right ?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.
> 
> Get that fainting couch ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again. As granting a woman the right to discriminate against anyone she wishes based on religion essentially dismantled all PA laws and anti-discrimination laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws which serve to promote mental disorder are illegitimate, as such undermines the objective public interests. So, where PA laws serve to promote such, they should be dismantled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, we're not dismantling Public Accommodation laws because you don't like gay people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya see, for law to be valid, it must be objective... and there is no means for a law which promotes chaos to serve the objective interests of the collective.  Just as normalizing abnormality cannot serve the interests of those afflicted with such perverse reasoning and by extension, such cannot serve the whole of the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreement with you isn't a standard of objectivity. As you aren't objective.
> 
> So what else have you got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The harm such brings to the individual is devastating, the harm such brings the community is profound, the potential for such is catastrophic.  Tolerating such is something well beyond foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this the part where you offer up your fantasies of civil war and the collapse of society unless we start persecuting gay people?
> 
> Or the part where you tell us if gays don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that they'll be subject to a war that 'will make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch'.
> 
> Alas, your ilk only want to hurt people when it costs you nothing and there are no consequences. And your 'war' involves consequences. Which is why both you and gay folks will remain pristinely safe from one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't it the gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them as being based upon their religious beliefs?  What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are 'gay's attacking' when they are asking that the same law that also applies to Christians be enforced?
Click to expand...

Well what I've heard is when the question is asked to certain people if they are OK with gay marriage, and they don't answer correctly according to the one asking, then they are attacked. It was hoped for that Chic Filet would be boycotted, and that Phil of Duck Dynasty would be run off the air of A&E (or) that the crown would be taken from the former Miss America contestant Carrie Prejean (Miss California), if she would have won (or) to be disqualified by Trump because of her stance when asked.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.
> 
> Get that fainting couch ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Further confirmation that you're a ridiculous idiot.
> Like most on the right you ignore facts of law and instead attack with inane lies.
Click to expand...


LOL!  Would you bet you life that Kennedy has never had a cock on his ass?   And I seriously doubt that Kagan has not gone more than a couple of weeks without a throughly flossing.  

You're welcome to deny it, but Kennedy lack the masculinity of PeeWee Herman and Kagan is the embodiment  every bull-dyke, ever.

Neither of them should be allowed IN THE BUILDING where issues regarding The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality are being considered.  

The Booze-Hound has already stated how she intends to vote, so where objectivity has any kinship with law, Ginsburg is quite literally disqualified from hearing arguments.

Nothing


----------



## Jarlaxle

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By forcing a member of a church to participate, are you not forcing the church to participate ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> If a baker sells cakes for children's parties- can a Christian then refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah party- because Bar Mitzah's are a Jewish ritual that he doesnt' believe in?
> 
> Can a Muslim baker refuse to sell cakes to a Christian- just because he believes that doing business with a Christian forces him to participate in Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't?
> 
> LOL.......
> 
> Public Accomodation laws protect Christians from discrimination.
> 
> If you want to eliminate PA laws- go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have you heard of any Christians in this nation needing protection with PA laws ?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do you think that Christians do not deserve to be protected under Public Accomodation laws?
> 
> If you look at the history of PA laws, they are clearly intended to protect a historically discriminated minority from the majority- in religion that would in our history include among others Jews and Mormons.
> 
> But those same laws protect Christians equally.
> 
> Do you think we:
> a) should eliminate all PA laws?
> b) eliminate the religion as a category in PA laws or
> c) just say there is  no need to protect Christians in PA laws?
Click to expand...


A.


----------



## beagle9

Jarlaxle said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> If a baker sells cakes for children's parties- can a Christian then refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah party- because Bar Mitzah's are a Jewish ritual that he doesnt' believe in?
> 
> Can a Muslim baker refuse to sell cakes to a Christian- just because he believes that doing business with a Christian forces him to participate in Christianity?
> 
> 
> 
> These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't?
> 
> LOL.......
> 
> Public Accomodation laws protect Christians from discrimination.
> 
> If you want to eliminate PA laws- go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have you heard of any Christians in this nation needing protection with PA laws ?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do you think that Christians do not deserve to be protected under Public Accomodation laws?
> 
> If you look at the history of PA laws, they are clearly intended to protect a historically discriminated minority from the majority- in religion that would in our history include among others Jews and Mormons.
> 
> But those same laws protect Christians equally.
> 
> Do you think we:
> a) should eliminate all PA laws?
> b) eliminate the religion as a category in PA laws or
> c) just say there is  no need to protect Christians in PA laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A.
Click to expand...

Yep, but the ONLY ONE that should remain (IMHO) is the one concerning ones race, and this is due to if we feel that as citizens maybe we haven't gotten there quite yet in the nation concerning such an issue (or) if the latest Al Sharpton and crews antics over a few incidents in which they were wrong about, may have caused a re-opening of the old racist ideology among some people who would use that to try and justify discrimination all because of.

We need to keep the PA law concerning race open I'm thinking, but maybe the blacks should be best to decide that one, and this in evidence of possible incidents that may be still happening in which they can prove as such. I know that it isn't a major problem much anymore I'm thinking, but what do you think Jaraxle? I say all others should go, and business owners should have more freedom to run their businesses like he or she wants to. No shirt and no shoes -No service. Disruption to other customers -No service. Creating an incident that was un-called for, and threatens the business -No service. Demanding things that are not ethical or moral according to a business owners faith, business ethics and charter - No service. Demanding services outside of the scope of the business model or set up - No service. Once people know where to take their business too, and owners know what to expect from their customers who understand what they are dealing with, then everything would have a better flow to it. I think the nation would begin to move in a forward direction again, instead of being bogged down with the baggage it has been bogged down with for years now. Once freedom is restored, then people will invest and maybe begin start ups once again in many fields of interest that otherwise wouldn't have before


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well see... the case is pending on it's way on up as we speak.  The florist in Washington is appealing, as you know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.
> 
> Get that fainting couch ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Further confirmation that you're a ridiculous idiot.
> Like most on the right you ignore facts of law and instead attack with inane lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Would you bet you life that Kennedy has never had a cock on his ass?   And I seriously doubt that Kagan has not gone more than a couple of weeks without a throughly flossing.
> g
Click to expand...


Why is it that Conservatives can think of nothing but sex?

Keyes is clearly obsessed with wondering about who has had a cock up his ass......


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.
> 
> Get that fainting couch ready.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be soundly disappointed yet again. As granting a woman the right to discriminate against anyone she wishes based on religion essentially dismantled all PA laws and anti-discrimination laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws which serve to promote mental disorder are illegitimate, as such undermines the objective public interests. So, where PA laws serve to promote such, they should be dismantled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, we're not dismantling Public Accommodation laws because you don't like gay people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya see, for law to be valid, it must be objective... and there is no means for a law which promotes chaos to serve the objective interests of the collective.  Just as normalizing abnormality cannot serve the interests of those afflicted with such perverse reasoning and by extension, such cannot serve the whole of the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreement with you isn't a standard of objectivity. As you aren't objective.
> 
> So what else have you got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The harm such brings to the individual is devastating, the harm such brings the community is profound, the potential for such is catastrophic.  Tolerating such is something well beyond foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this the part where you offer up your fantasies of civil war and the collapse of society unless we start persecuting gay people?
> 
> Or the part where you tell us if gays don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that they'll be subject to a war that 'will make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch'.
> 
> Alas, your ilk only want to hurt people when it costs you nothing and there are no consequences. And your 'war' involves consequences. Which is why both you and gay folks will remain pristinely safe from one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't it the gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them as being based upon their religious beliefs?  What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are 'gay's attacking' when they are asking that the same law that also applies to Christians be enforced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well what I've heard is when the question is asked to certain people if they are OK with gay marriage, and they don't answer correctly according to the one asking, then they are attacked. It was hoped for that Chic Filet would be boycotted, and that Phil of Duck Dynasty would be run off the air of A&E (or) that the crown would be taken from the former Miss America contestant Carrie Prejean (Miss California), if she would have won (or) to be disqualified by Trump because of her stance when asked.
Click to expand...


Okay- if you want to go there- you are then admitting that Christians have been attacking Gays?

When Christians demand boycotts of business's that treat Gays equally? Boycotts for hiring a lesbian spokesperson? 

IF you want to claim that those are examples of Christians being attacked- then in the same logic- there are examples of Christians attacking homosexuals.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws which serve to promote mental disorder are illegitimate, as such undermines the objective public interests. So, where PA laws serve to promote such, they should be dismantled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, we're not dismantling Public Accommodation laws because you don't like gay people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya see, for law to be valid, it must be objective... and there is no means for a law which promotes chaos to serve the objective interests of the collective.  Just as normalizing abnormality cannot serve the interests of those afflicted with such perverse reasoning and by extension, such cannot serve the whole of the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreement with you isn't a standard of objectivity. As you aren't objective.
> 
> So what else have you got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The harm such brings to the individual is devastating, the harm such brings the community is profound, the potential for such is catastrophic.  Tolerating such is something well beyond foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this the part where you offer up your fantasies of civil war and the collapse of society unless we start persecuting gay people?
> 
> Or the part where you tell us if gays don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that they'll be subject to a war that 'will make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch'.
> 
> Alas, your ilk only want to hurt people when it costs you nothing and there are no consequences. And your 'war' involves consequences. Which is why both you and gay folks will remain pristinely safe from one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't it the gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them as being based upon their religious beliefs?  What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are 'gay's attacking' when they are asking that the same law that also applies to Christians be enforced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well what I've heard is when the question is asked to certain people if they are OK with gay marriage, and they don't answer correctly according to the one asking, then they are attacked. It was hoped for that Chic Filet would be boycotted, and that Phil of Duck Dynasty would be run off the air of A&E (or) that the crown would be taken from the former Miss America contestant Carrie Prejean (Miss California), if she would have won (or) to be disqualified by Trump because of her stance when asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- if you want to go there- you are then admitting that Christians have been attacking Gays?
> 
> When Christians demand boycotts of business's that treat Gays equally? Boycotts for hiring a lesbian spokesperson?
> 
> IF you want to claim that those are examples of Christians being attacked- then in the same logic- there are examples of Christians attacking homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Not aware of the attacks you speak of, and how can you be sure they were *Christians* who were allegedly attacking them ? Now a protest of an issue is different from an attack, so just be sure that you are clear on that difference........ Can you be more specific maybe ? Now keep it current as we don't want you to go back to the beginning of time in order to make your points.

You say that Christians demanded boycotts of businesses that were treating gay's equally ?


----------



## Jarlaxle

beagle9 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These things don't happen because there is respect among the differences in religions and such, but the other see's no respect in anything, therefore it wants forced participation or else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't?
> 
> LOL.......
> 
> Public Accomodation laws protect Christians from discrimination.
> 
> If you want to eliminate PA laws- go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have you heard of any Christians in this nation needing protection with PA laws ?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do you think that Christians do not deserve to be protected under Public Accomodation laws?
> 
> If you look at the history of PA laws, they are clearly intended to protect a historically discriminated minority from the majority- in religion that would in our history include among others Jews and Mormons.
> 
> But those same laws protect Christians equally.
> 
> Do you think we:
> a) should eliminate all PA laws?
> b) eliminate the religion as a category in PA laws or
> c) just say there is  no need to protect Christians in PA laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, but the ONLY ONE that should remain (IMHO) is the one concerning ones race, and this is due to if we feel that as citizens maybe we haven't gotten there quite yet in the nation concerning such an issue (or) if the latest Al Sharpton and crews antics over a few incidents in which they were wrong about, may have caused a re-opening of the old racist ideology among some people who would use that to try and justify discrimination all because of.
> 
> We need to keep the PA law concerning race open I'm thinking, but maybe the blacks should be best to decide that one, and this in evidence of possible incidents that may be still happening in which they can prove as such. I know that it isn't a major problem much anymore I'm thinking, but what do you think Jaraxle? I say all others should go, and business owners should have more freedom to run their businesses like he or she wants to. No shirt and no shoes -No service. Disruption to other customers -No service. Creating an incident that was un-called for, and threatens the business -No service. Demanding things that are not ethical or moral according to a business owners faith, business ethics and charter - No service. Demanding services outside of the scope of the business model or set up - No service. Once people know where to take their business too, and owners know what to expect from their customers who understand what they are dealing with, then everything would have a better flow to it. I think the nation would begin to move in a forward direction again, instead of being bogged down with the baggage it has been bogged down with for years now. Once freedom is restored, then people will invest and maybe begin start ups once again in many fields of interest that otherwise wouldn't have before
Click to expand...


I think exactly what I posted: all PA laws should be broomed.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't that disappointed with Hobby Lobby
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.
> 
> Get that fainting couch ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Further confirmation that you're a ridiculous idiot.
> Like most on the right you ignore facts of law and instead attack with inane lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Would you bet you life that Kennedy has never had a cock on his ass?   And I seriously doubt that Kagan has not gone more than a couple of weeks without a throughly flossing.
> g
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that Conservatives can think of nothing but sex?
> 
> Keyes is clearly obsessed with wondering about who has had a cock up his ass......
Click to expand...


He isn 't a conservative...he is just a kookburger.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.
> 
> Get that fainting couch ready.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Further confirmation that you're a ridiculous idiot.
> Like most on the right you ignore facts of law and instead attack with inane lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about when Christians are being attacked, where are you then? No where to be found huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Christians are being attacked in the U.S.?
> 
> In regards to this thread, Christians are expected to follow the same law as everyone else.
> 
> That is not an attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Phil Robertson comes to mind quickly, and the lady who was a former Miss. America contestant, and the Chic Filet CEO. Your kidding me that you don't know these things right ?
Click to expand...




beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we're not dismantling Public Accommodation laws because you don't like gay people.
> 
> Agreement with you isn't a standard of objectivity. As you aren't objective.
> 
> So what else have you got?
> 
> Is this the part where you offer up your fantasies of civil war and the collapse of society unless we start persecuting gay people?
> 
> Or the part where you tell us if gays don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that they'll be subject to a war that 'will make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch'.
> 
> Alas, your ilk only want to hurt people when it costs you nothing and there are no consequences. And your 'war' involves consequences. Which is why both you and gay folks will remain pristinely safe from one another.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it the gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them as being based upon their religious beliefs?  What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are 'gay's attacking' when they are asking that the same law that also applies to Christians be enforced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well what I've heard is when the question is asked to certain people if they are OK with gay marriage, and they don't answer correctly according to the one asking, then they are attacked. It was hoped for that Chic Filet would be boycotted, and that Phil of Duck Dynasty would be run off the air of A&E (or) that the crown would be taken from the former Miss America contestant Carrie Prejean (Miss California), if she would have won (or) to be disqualified by Trump because of her stance when asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- if you want to go there- you are then admitting that Christians have been attacking Gays?
> 
> When Christians demand boycotts of business's that treat Gays equally? Boycotts for hiring a lesbian spokesperson?
> 
> IF you want to claim that those are examples of Christians being attacked- then in the same logic- there are examples of Christians attacking homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not aware of the attacks you speak of, and how can you be sure they were *Christians* who were allegedly attacking them ? Now a protest of an issue is different from an attack, so just be sure that you are clear on that difference........ Can you be more specific maybe ? Now keep it current as we don't want you to go back to the beginning of time in order to make your points.
> 
> You say that Christians demanded boycotts of businesses that were treating gay's equally ?
Click to expand...


Yes- that is exactly what I am saying.

Southern Baptists calling for a boycott of Disney for being too gay friendly.
Million Mom's - a Christian right wing organization calling for a boycott of well pretty much everybody- including the cancelation of a TV show for daring to have a gay character,
and trying to be Ellen Degeneres fired for daring to be a lesbian spokesperson for JC Penney

The Catholic League has a number of boycotts going
*Bill Donohue Of Catholic League Urges Beer Boycott Of Guinness, Heineken, And Sam Adams For Supporting Gay Equality*

*The Christian right wing American Family Association boycott of Home Depot for being too gay friendly*

_
*SHARP: We’re glad to report that we are suspending the boycott of The Home Depot. After monitoring the company for several months,we’re satisfied that the company has withdrawn its major financial contributions to gay activist groups and to their activities. […]

We certainly do expect The Home Depot to deny that they have turned back their contributions to gay activist groups, but AFA has monitored the company – and actions speak louder than words.
American Family Association Ends Home Depot Boycott With Nothing To Show For It ThinkProgress







A Christian pastor is asking customers to boycott Starbucks due to the company's support of a bill to legalize gay marriage in Washington state, King 5 News reports. 

"Christians are upset with Starbucks for turning against God...Starbucks can follow Satan if they want to," Steven Andrew, and evangelical pastor and president of the USA Christian Ministries in California, said in a statement. "However, pastors are to help Christians. Are you on the Lord's side? Will you help the USA be blessed by God?"

The Christian "Family Research Council"
On Thursday, Tony Perkins, founder of Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., called upon listeners to his daily radio commentary to join the organization in its boycott against the company.

 
“At Betty Crocker, the only thing they’re mixing up is their priorities,” he stated. “If you ask conservatives, Betty Crocker’s latest promotion is a recipe for disaster.”

 
Perkins then pointed to a website providing additional information on the boycott against Betty Crocker and its parent company General Mills, which includes a letter that supporters can sign to express their disappointment.

 
“I never thought that by eating Cheerios for breakfast I would be supporting gay marriage. Your decision to pander to same-sex marriage activists has forced me to choose between your food products and my conscience,” it reads. “As long as food is produced by other companies my conscience is going to win out over the desire for another bowl of Lucky Charms.”
*_

*How many more examples would you like?*


----------



## Syriusly

Jarlaxle said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've been disappointed with pretty much every ruling the court's made regarding gay marriage. And Kennedy doesn't sound terribly supportive of your 'religious belief trumps all discrimination laws' rationale.
> 
> Get that fainting couch ready.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Further confirmation that you're a ridiculous idiot.
> Like most on the right you ignore facts of law and instead attack with inane lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Would you bet you life that Kennedy has never had a cock on his ass?   And I seriously doubt that Kagan has not gone more than a couple of weeks without a throughly flossing.
> g
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that Conservatives can think of nothing but sex?
> 
> Keyes is clearly obsessed with wondering about who has had a cock up his ass......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He isn 't a conservative...he is just a kookburger.
Click to expand...


He is both.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.
> 
> 
> 
> Further confirmation that you're a ridiculous idiot.
> Like most on the right you ignore facts of law and instead attack with inane lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about when Christians are being attacked, where are you then? No where to be found huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Christians are being attacked in the U.S.?
> 
> In regards to this thread, Christians are expected to follow the same law as everyone else.
> 
> That is not an attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Phil Robertson comes to mind quickly, and the lady who was a former Miss. America contestant, and the Chic Filet CEO. Your kidding me that you don't know these things right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it the gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them as being based upon their religious beliefs?  What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are 'gay's attacking' when they are asking that the same law that also applies to Christians be enforced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well what I've heard is when the question is asked to certain people if they are OK with gay marriage, and they don't answer correctly according to the one asking, then they are attacked. It was hoped for that Chic Filet would be boycotted, and that Phil of Duck Dynasty would be run off the air of A&E (or) that the crown would be taken from the former Miss America contestant Carrie Prejean (Miss California), if she would have won (or) to be disqualified by Trump because of her stance when asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- if you want to go there- you are then admitting that Christians have been attacking Gays?
> 
> When Christians demand boycotts of business's that treat Gays equally? Boycotts for hiring a lesbian spokesperson?
> 
> IF you want to claim that those are examples of Christians being attacked- then in the same logic- there are examples of Christians attacking homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not aware of the attacks you speak of, and how can you be sure they were *Christians* who were allegedly attacking them ? Now a protest of an issue is different from an attack, so just be sure that you are clear on that difference........ Can you be more specific maybe ? Now keep it current as we don't want you to go back to the beginning of time in order to make your points.
> 
> You say that Christians demanded boycotts of businesses that were treating gay's equally ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes- that is exactly what I am saying.
> 
> Southern Baptists calling for a boycott of Disney for being too gay friendly.
> Million Mom's - a Christian right wing organization calling for a boycott of well pretty much everybody- including the cancelation of a TV show for daring to have a gay character,
> and trying to be Ellen Degeneres fired for daring to be a lesbian spokesperson for JC Penney
> 
> The Catholic League has a number of boycotts going
> *Bill Donohue Of Catholic League Urges Beer Boycott Of Guinness, Heineken, And Sam Adams For Supporting Gay Equality*
> 
> *The Christian right wing American Family Association boycott of Home Depot for being too gay friendly*
> 
> _
> *SHARP: We’re glad to report that we are suspending the boycott of The Home Depot. After monitoring the company for several months,we’re satisfied that the company has withdrawn its major financial contributions to gay activist groups and to their activities. […]*
> 
> *We certainly do expect The Home Depot to deny that they have turned back their contributions to gay activist groups, but AFA has monitored the company – and actions speak louder than words.*
> *American Family Association Ends Home Depot Boycott With Nothing To Show For It ThinkProgress*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *A Christian pastor is asking customers to boycott Starbucks due to the company's support of a bill to legalize gay marriage in Washington state, King 5 News reports. *
> 
> *"Christians are upset with Starbucks for turning against God...Starbucks can follow Satan if they want to," Steven Andrew, and evangelical pastor and president of the USA Christian Ministries in California, said in a statement. "However, pastors are to help Christians. Are you on the Lord's side? Will you help the USA be blessed by God?"*
> 
> *The Christian "Family Research Council"*
> *On Thursday, Tony Perkins, founder of Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., called upon listeners to his daily radio commentary to join the organization in its boycott against the company.*
> 
> 
> *“At Betty Crocker, the only thing they’re mixing up is their priorities,” he stated. “If you ask conservatives, Betty Crocker’s latest promotion is a recipe for disaster.”*
> 
> 
> *Perkins then pointed to a website providing additional information on the boycott against Betty Crocker and its parent company General Mills, which includes a letter that supporters can sign to express their disappointment.*
> 
> 
> *“I never thought that by eating Cheerios for breakfast I would be supporting gay marriage. Your decision to pander to same-sex marriage activists has forced me to choose between your food products and my conscience,” it reads. “As long as food is produced by other companies my conscience is going to win out over the desire for another bowl of Lucky Charms.”*
> _
> 
> *How many more examples would you like?*
Click to expand...

OK  so basically their protesting these companies, because they are empowering the gay culture and their activist/activities in which are doing just what they had expected them to do, and that is to attack Christians if they don't get their way about taking their culture more into the mainstream. I wonder who keeps striking first? The Christians aren't changing or trying to change society, so it is that they are the ones who are on the defence instead of the offence.


----------



## MaryL

I am at a bit of a quandary here. I don't respect religion much, but mandatorily accommodating sexual perverts isn't on my list of necessities, either. No.  Religion and homosexuality don't mix, and I am cool with that. Why not, as long as no one is being physically hurt, what is the big deal?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy?  LOL!   Any ruling Kennedy is involved with regarding this issue is illegitimate, given his 'proclivities' in that area.    Same with the booze hound Ginsburg and Butch Kagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws which serve to promote mental disorder are illegitimate, as such undermines the objective public interests. So, where PA laws serve to promote such, they should be dismantled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, we're not dismantling Public Accommodation laws because you don't like gay people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya see, for law to be valid, it must be objective... and there is no means for a law which promotes chaos to serve the objective interests of the collective.  Just as normalizing abnormality cannot serve the interests of those afflicted with such perverse reasoning and by extension, such cannot serve the whole of the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreement with you isn't a standard of objectivity. As you aren't objective.
> 
> So what else have you got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The harm such brings to the individual is devastating, the harm such brings the community is profound, the potential for such is catastrophic.  Tolerating such is something well beyond foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this the part where you offer up your fantasies of civil war and the collapse of society unless we start persecuting gay people?
> 
> Or the part where you tell us if gays don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that they'll be subject to a war that 'will make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch'.
> 
> Alas, your ilk only want to hurt people when it costs you nothing and there are no consequences. And your 'war' involves consequences. Which is why both you and gay folks will remain pristinely safe from one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't it the gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them as being based upon their religious beliefs?  What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are 'gay's attacking' when they are asking that the same law that also applies to Christians be enforced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well what I've heard is when the question is asked to certain people if they are OK with gay marriage, and they don't answer correctly according to the one asking, then they are attacked. It was hoped for that Chic Filet would be boycotted, and that Phil of Duck Dynasty would be run off the air of A&E (or) that the crown would be taken from the former Miss America contestant Carrie Prejean (Miss California), if she would have won (or) to be disqualified by Trump because of her stance when asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- if you want to go there- you are then admitting that Christians have been attacking Gays?
> 
> When Christians demand boycotts of business's that treat Gays equally? Boycotts for hiring a lesbian spokesperson?
> 
> IF you want to claim that those are examples of Christians being attacked- then in the same logic- there are examples of Christians attacking homosexuals.
Click to expand...


Christians aren't attacking the Sexual Deviants... .  And without regard to the idiocy that claims otherwise, noting that a professed homosexual is a sexual deviant is not an attack, it is quite simply, a medical fact.

I will not do business with anyone who openly caters to the Sexually Abnormal and that is because such businesses promote the increased likelihood for children to be harmed either in their facilities or as a result of having been to those facilities... . I cut Comcast out of our home nearly 3 years ago because of its pro-sexual-deviant policies, I haven't eaten at Burger King since they introduced the Gay-Whopper and Target will never get a dollar which was earned by me until they take an adult position on sexual deviancy.

But as far as I'm concerned, homosexuals are human, thus they possess the same rights as everyone else and with those rights they're bound to the correlating responsibilities of each and every one of those rights.

The problem is that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, being wholly relativist, rejects the objectivity essential to truth, thus they reject any sense of responsibility... and THAT means that they forfeit the rights inwhich they fail to bear the correlating responsibilities, as they exercise those rights.

They of course reject that self-evident truth, but what they fail to understand is that their rejecting natural law, has no bearing on the immutable nature of the law and it is through that truth, that we know that it is only a matter of time before the consequences of their behavior will result in the destruction of most of them and the survivors being sent scurrying back into the closet... with society having ONCE AGAIN been reminded of why they were shut-up in the closest *IN THE FIRST PLACE!*


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further confirmation that you're a ridiculous idiot.
> Like most on the right you ignore facts of law and instead attack with inane lies.
> 
> 
> 
> What about when Christians are being attacked, where are you then? No where to be found huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Christians are being attacked in the U.S.?
> 
> In regards to this thread, Christians are expected to follow the same law as everyone else.
> 
> That is not an attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Phil Robertson comes to mind quickly, and the lady who was a former Miss. America contestant, and the Chic Filet CEO. Your kidding me that you don't know these things right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are 'gay's attacking' when they are asking that the same law that also applies to Christians be enforced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well what I've heard is when the question is asked to certain people if they are OK with gay marriage, and they don't answer correctly according to the one asking, then they are attacked. It was hoped for that Chic Filet would be boycotted, and that Phil of Duck Dynasty would be run off the air of A&E (or) that the crown would be taken from the former Miss America contestant Carrie Prejean (Miss California), if she would have won (or) to be disqualified by Trump because of her stance when asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- if you want to go there- you are then admitting that Christians have been attacking Gays?
> 
> When Christians demand boycotts of business's that treat Gays equally? Boycotts for hiring a lesbian spokesperson?
> 
> IF you want to claim that those are examples of Christians being attacked- then in the same logic- there are examples of Christians attacking homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not aware of the attacks you speak of, and how can you be sure they were *Christians* who were allegedly attacking them ? Now a protest of an issue is different from an attack, so just be sure that you are clear on that difference........ Can you be more specific maybe ? Now keep it current as we don't want you to go back to the beginning of time in order to make your points.
> 
> You say that Christians demanded boycotts of businesses that were treating gay's equally ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes- that is exactly what I am saying.
> 
> Southern Baptists calling for a boycott of Disney for being too gay friendly.
> Million Mom's - a Christian right wing organization calling for a boycott of well pretty much everybody- including the cancelation of a TV show for daring to have a gay character,
> and trying to be Ellen Degeneres fired for daring to be a lesbian spokesperson for JC Penney
> 
> The Catholic League has a number of boycotts going
> *Bill Donohue Of Catholic League Urges Beer Boycott Of Guinness, Heineken, And Sam Adams For Supporting Gay Equality*
> 
> *The Christian right wing American Family Association boycott of Home Depot for being too gay friendly*
> 
> _
> *SHARP: We’re glad to report that we are suspending the boycott of The Home Depot. After monitoring the company for several months,we’re satisfied that the company has withdrawn its major financial contributions to gay activist groups and to their activities. […]*
> 
> *We certainly do expect The Home Depot to deny that they have turned back their contributions to gay activist groups, but AFA has monitored the company – and actions speak louder than words.*
> *American Family Association Ends Home Depot Boycott With Nothing To Show For It ThinkProgress*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *A Christian pastor is asking customers to boycott Starbucks due to the company's support of a bill to legalize gay marriage in Washington state, King 5 News reports. *
> 
> *"Christians are upset with Starbucks for turning against God...Starbucks can follow Satan if they want to," Steven Andrew, and evangelical pastor and president of the USA Christian Ministries in California, said in a statement. "However, pastors are to help Christians. Are you on the Lord's side? Will you help the USA be blessed by God?"*
> 
> *The Christian "Family Research Council"*
> *On Thursday, Tony Perkins, founder of Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., called upon listeners to his daily radio commentary to join the organization in its boycott against the company.*
> 
> 
> *“At Betty Crocker, the only thing they’re mixing up is their priorities,” he stated. “If you ask conservatives, Betty Crocker’s latest promotion is a recipe for disaster.”*
> 
> 
> *Perkins then pointed to a website providing additional information on the boycott against Betty Crocker and its parent company General Mills, which includes a letter that supporters can sign to express their disappointment.*
> 
> 
> *“I never thought that by eating Cheerios for breakfast I would be supporting gay marriage. Your decision to pander to same-sex marriage activists has forced me to choose between your food products and my conscience,” it reads. “As long as food is produced by other companies my conscience is going to win out over the desire for another bowl of Lucky Charms.”*
> _
> 
> *How many more examples would you like?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK  so basically their protesting these companies, because they are empowering the gay culture and their activist/activities in which are doing just what they had expected them to do, and that is to attack Christians if they don't get their way about taking their culture more into the mainstream. I wonder who keeps striking first? The Christians aren't changing or trying to change society, so it is that they are the ones who are on the defence instead of the offence.
Click to expand...


So let me understand this:
When homosexuals call for boycotts of a business like Chik Fil E for perceiving that the business is 'anti-gay' that is an attack on Christians.

But when Christians call for boycotts of a business like Starbucks, or JC Penney, for being pro-gay, that is not an attack by Christians on homosexuals.......

That is quite the rational for a double standard.

Beagle- if its an attack when one group does the action- it is an attack if another group does the exact same action. 

But of course in reality- neither is an attack- you are just whiny when it happens to business owners who want to be able to discriminate against homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we're not dismantling Public Accommodation laws because you don't like gay people.
> 
> Agreement with you isn't a standard of objectivity. As you aren't objective.
> 
> So what else have you got?
> 
> Is this the part where you offer up your fantasies of civil war and the collapse of society unless we start persecuting gay people?
> 
> Or the part where you tell us if gays don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that they'll be subject to a war that 'will make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch'.
> 
> Alas, your ilk only want to hurt people when it costs you nothing and there are no consequences. And your 'war' involves consequences. Which is why both you and gay folks will remain pristinely safe from one another.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it the gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them as being based upon their religious beliefs?  What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are 'gay's attacking' when they are asking that the same law that also applies to Christians be enforced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well what I've heard is when the question is asked to certain people if they are OK with gay marriage, and they don't answer correctly according to the one asking, then they are attacked. It was hoped for that Chic Filet would be boycotted, and that Phil of Duck Dynasty would be run off the air of A&E (or) that the crown would be taken from the former Miss America contestant Carrie Prejean (Miss California), if she would have won (or) to be disqualified by Trump because of her stance when asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- if you want to go there- you are then admitting that Christians have been attacking Gays?
> 
> When Christians demand boycotts of business's that treat Gays equally? Boycotts for hiring a lesbian spokesperson?
> 
> IF you want to claim that those are examples of Christians being attacked- then in the same logic- there are examples of Christians attacking homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians aren't attacking the Sexual Deviants.*!*
Click to expand...


You are a sexual deviant.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

MaryL said:


> I am at a bit of a quandary here. I don't respect religion much, but mandatorily accommodating sexual perverts isn't on my list of necessities, either. No.  Religion and homosexuality don't mix, and I am cool with that. Why not, as long as no one is being physically hurt, what is the big deal?



Homosexuality isn't the issue.  The issue is normalizing that which is profoundly abnormal.

It is harmful because it is a FUNDAMENTAL DECEIT... Setting up as PUBLIC POLICY, the intentional PRETENSE that a LIE, is truth.

Now you may not much care for religion, but surely you can see the potential for harm, where your culture considers DECEIT: TRUTH and that once that precedent is established, it will become impossible to know truth from deceit and, once that happens ... there is nothing on which to set civilization. 

Now... perhaps you have doubt that such is the case.

And I surely understand how someone who may not have considered the issue fully could have some reservations with regard to that reasoning.

But, ask yourself... given the history of cultures which are historically known to have embraced sexual abnormality, and given that each and every culture which did so, either collapsed or was conquered shortly thereafter... do you agree that a culture whose means to know what was true and not true... is compromised, would have a very difficult time sustaining itself?

And if you agree with that otherwise obvious truth, and given that history has established that culture's which embraced such deceits as truth... POWERFUL EXPANSIVE CULTURES... the Greeks, the Romans... who reigned for THOUSANDS of years, were sent into history shortly after they lost the means to recognize the distinction between what was right, true and good, from that which was evil.

Then surely you can agree that the rapid decay of your culture is definitively HARMFUL to you, your family and children.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it the gay's that are attacking if people as individuals don't go along with them as being based upon their religious beliefs?  What did they do, reveal their motives if people don't cave or go along with them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are 'gay's attacking' when they are asking that the same law that also applies to Christians be enforced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well what I've heard is when the question is asked to certain people if they are OK with gay marriage, and they don't answer correctly according to the one asking, then they are attacked. It was hoped for that Chic Filet would be boycotted, and that Phil of Duck Dynasty would be run off the air of A&E (or) that the crown would be taken from the former Miss America contestant Carrie Prejean (Miss California), if she would have won (or) to be disqualified by Trump because of her stance when asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- if you want to go there- you are then admitting that Christians have been attacking Gays?
> 
> When Christians demand boycotts of business's that treat Gays equally? Boycotts for hiring a lesbian spokesperson?
> 
> IF you want to claim that those are examples of Christians being attacked- then in the same logic- there are examples of Christians attacking homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians aren't attacking the Sexual Deviants.*!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a sexual deviant.
Click to expand...


HEY LOOK!  A Deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

Now MaryL, a professed member of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality has JUST attempted to HARM ME... through the false assertion that I am a sexual deviant. 

Now, if they'll do that to me, why would they not do so to YOU?

They're unprincipled, therefore unreasonable people.  Which is what one should reasonably expect of those whose behavior is manifested from a disordered mind.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am at a bit of a quandary here. I don't respect religion much, but mandatorily accommodating sexual perverts isn't on my list of necessities, either. No.  Religion and homosexuality don't mix, and I am cool with that. Why not, as long as no one is being physically hurt, what is the big deal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't the issue.  The issue is normalizing that which is profoundly abnormal.
> 
> It is harmful because it is a FUNDAMENTAL DECEIT....
Click to expand...


The deceit is the abuse you heap on the English language by your verbose homophobic rants.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are 'gay's attacking' when they are asking that the same law that also applies to Christians be enforced?
> 
> 
> 
> Well what I've heard is when the question is asked to certain people if they are OK with gay marriage, and they don't answer correctly according to the one asking, then they are attacked. It was hoped for that Chic Filet would be boycotted, and that Phil of Duck Dynasty would be run off the air of A&E (or) that the crown would be taken from the former Miss America contestant Carrie Prejean (Miss California), if she would have won (or) to be disqualified by Trump because of her stance when asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- if you want to go there- you are then admitting that Christians have been attacking Gays?
> 
> When Christians demand boycotts of business's that treat Gays equally? Boycotts for hiring a lesbian spokesperson?
> 
> IF you want to claim that those are examples of Christians being attacked- then in the same logic- there are examples of Christians attacking homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians aren't attacking the Sexual Deviants.*!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a sexual deviant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HEY LOOK!  A Deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.
> 
> Now MaryL, a professed member of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality has JUST attempted to HARM ME... through the false assertion that I am a sexual deviant.
> 
> Now, if they'll do that to me, why would they not do so to YOU?
> 
> They're unprincipled, therefore unreasonable people.  Which is what one should reasonably expect of those whose behavior is manifested from a disordered mind.
Click to expand...


You are a sexual deviant.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> When homosexuals call for boycotts of a business like Chik Fil E ...



You're speaking of the would-be "boycott" which resulted in among the highest volume of sales ever recorded by a fast food company, in the history of fast food companies?

LOL!  Oh YES!   THAT was powerful!

Sadly you lacked the means to understand the source of the power... .   

(Pssst... its the same power the established the human physiological standard from which sexual abnormality so profoundly DEVIATES!)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am at a bit of a quandary here. I don't respect religion much, but mandatorily accommodating sexual perverts isn't on my list of necessities, either. No.  Religion and homosexuality don't mix, and I am cool with that. Why not, as long as no one is being physically hurt, what is the big deal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't the issue.  The issue is normalizing that which is profoundly abnormal.
> 
> It is harmful because it is a FUNDAMENTAL DECEIT....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The deceit is the abuse you heap on the English language by your verbose homophobic rants.
Click to expand...


So you feel my rants present evidence of my having an irrational fear of myself?

REALLY? 

Any chance that you can show your math on how ya came up with that?

Again MaryL... do you see the hostility that the ANSA Cult is presenting here?  Does that not seem potentially "harmful"?

I mean they just make up words and pretend that the words mean something that it cannot mean what they claim it means... yet there they are making the claim, nonetheless.

homo= self
Phobia= irrational fear
Homophobe: One presenting irrational fear of them self.

Demonstrated deceit, advanced as truth.  Just a I said... .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> You are a sexual deviant.






Syriusly said:


> You are a sexual deviant.



MaryL...

Do you see any potential for harm in ^^ THAT ^^ behavior?

Deceit, fraudulently advanced as truth, as a means to influence the ignorant.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> Why is it that Conservatives can think of nothing but sex?
> 
> Keyes is clearly obsessed with wondering about who has had a cock up his ass......



MaryL...

One doesn't have to like religion to see that when a person publicly professes such abject deceit, as truth...  wherein an author, 'advises' the reader of something which they KNOW TO BE FALSE, as TRUTH, in hopes that the reader will be influenced by such; deceit from which the reader could and likely would, where they 'believe' such to be true, vote for legislators who are themselves proponents of the same inviable reasoning... Legislators who pass bills, signed into laws by Chief Executives who were themselves elected by the same form of ignorance.

Do you see any potential for harm to you in THAT?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am at a bit of a quandary here. I don't respect religion much, but mandatorily accommodating sexual perverts isn't on my list of necessities, either. No.  Religion and homosexuality don't mix, and I am cool with that. Why not, as long as no one is being physically hurt, what is the big deal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't the issue.  The issue is normalizing that which is profoundly abnormal.
> 
> It is harmful because it is a FUNDAMENTAL DECEIT... Setting up as PUBLIC POLICY, the intentional PRETENSE that a LIE, is truth.
Click to expand...


You haven't yet established the harm. We no longer hate and persecute gay people. And then....

Nothing. Your cause doesn't produce your assumed effect. 

We're simply not stripping gays of any rights, persecuting them, hurting them, or waging a war that will make 'hate crimes look like sunday brunch' against them if they don't 'sit down and shut up' as you demand they do.



> And if you agree with that otherwise obvious truth, and given that history has established that culture's which embraced such deceits as truth... POWERFUL EXPANSIVE CULTURES... the Greeks, the Romans... who reigned for THOUSANDS of years, were sent into history shortly after they lost the means to recognize the distinction between what was right, true and good, from that which was evil.



And those societies that *didn't *embrace homosexuality also collapsed. *Virtually every civilization that has ever existed has collapsed. *If they embraced homosexuality, if they didn't. So when your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', clearly you've grossly misunderstood the concept of causation.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that Conservatives can think of nothing but sex?
> 
> Keyes is clearly obsessed with wondering about who has had a cock up his ass......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL...
> 
> One doesn't have to like religion to see that when a person publicly professes such abject deceit, as truth...  wherein an author, 'advises' the reader of something which they KNOW TO BE FALSE, as TRUTH, in hopes that the reader will be influenced by such; deceit from which the reader could and likely would, where they 'believe' such to be true, vote for legislators who are themselves proponents of the same inviable reasoning... Legislators who pass bills, signed into laws by Chief Executives who were themselves elected by the same form of ignorance.
> 
> Do you see any potential for harm to you in THAT?
Click to expand...


Is that a pointlessly long winded way of referring to gay marriage?

As you know, marriage is our invention. It is whatever we say it is. And in 37 of 50 States, it includes same sex couples. There's nothing 'deceitful' or 'dishonest' about applying a more inclusive standard to what we recognize as marriage.

You hold a different opinion. And?


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> When homosexuals call for boycotts of a business like Chik Fil E ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're speaking of the would-be "boycott" which resulted in among the highest volume of sales ever recorded by a fast food company, in the history of fast food companies?
> )
Click to expand...


I was speaking of idiotic attempted boycotts both by self proclaimed Christians against companies who dared treat homosexuals equally and attempted boycotts by LGBT groups against companies who they believe didn't treat homosexuals equally. 

I find most boycott attempts pretty stupid. I was pointing out that Christians do against homosexuals what Beagle claims is an attack when homosexuals do it. I was pointing out the hypocrisy. 

But that is far too complicated for you to understand.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am at a bit of a quandary here. I don't respect religion much, but mandatorily accommodating sexual perverts isn't on my list of necessities, either. No.  Religion and homosexuality don't mix, and I am cool with that. Why not, as long as no one is being physically hurt, what is the big deal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't the issue.  The issue is normalizing that which is profoundly abnormal.
> 
> It is harmful because it is a FUNDAMENTAL DECEIT....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The deceit is the abuse you heap on the English language by your verbose homophobic rants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you feel my rants present evidence of my having an irrational fear of myself?
> .
Click to expand...


No I am pointing out that your irrational rants are evidence of your bigotry.

*Definition of HOMOPHOBIA*
*:*  irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a sexual deviant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a sexual deviant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MaryL...
> 
> Do you see any potential for harm in ^^ THAT ^^ behavior?
> 
> Deceit, fraudulently advanced as truth, as a means to influence the ignorant.
Click to expand...


You are a sexual deviant.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about when Christians are being attacked, where are you then? No where to be found huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Christians are being attacked in the U.S.?
> 
> In regards to this thread, Christians are expected to follow the same law as everyone else.
> 
> That is not an attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Phil Robertson comes to mind quickly, and the lady who was a former Miss. America contestant, and the Chic Filet CEO. Your kidding me that you don't know these things right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well what I've heard is when the question is asked to certain people if they are OK with gay marriage, and they don't answer correctly according to the one asking, then they are attacked. It was hoped for that Chic Filet would be boycotted, and that Phil of Duck Dynasty would be run off the air of A&E (or) that the crown would be taken from the former Miss America contestant Carrie Prejean (Miss California), if she would have won (or) to be disqualified by Trump because of her stance when asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- if you want to go there- you are then admitting that Christians have been attacking Gays?
> 
> When Christians demand boycotts of business's that treat Gays equally? Boycotts for hiring a lesbian spokesperson?
> 
> IF you want to claim that those are examples of Christians being attacked- then in the same logic- there are examples of Christians attacking homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not aware of the attacks you speak of, and how can you be sure they were *Christians* who were allegedly attacking them ? Now a protest of an issue is different from an attack, so just be sure that you are clear on that difference........ Can you be more specific maybe ? Now keep it current as we don't want you to go back to the beginning of time in order to make your points.
> 
> You say that Christians demanded boycotts of businesses that were treating gay's equally ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes- that is exactly what I am saying.
> 
> Southern Baptists calling for a boycott of Disney for being too gay friendly.
> Million Mom's - a Christian right wing organization calling for a boycott of well pretty much everybody- including the cancelation of a TV show for daring to have a gay character,
> and trying to be Ellen Degeneres fired for daring to be a lesbian spokesperson for JC Penney
> 
> The Catholic League has a number of boycotts going
> *Bill Donohue Of Catholic League Urges Beer Boycott Of Guinness, Heineken, And Sam Adams For Supporting Gay Equality*
> 
> *The Christian right wing American Family Association boycott of Home Depot for being too gay friendly*
> 
> _
> *SHARP: We’re glad to report that we are suspending the boycott of The Home Depot. After monitoring the company for several months,we’re satisfied that the company has withdrawn its major financial contributions to gay activist groups and to their activities. […]*
> 
> *We certainly do expect The Home Depot to deny that they have turned back their contributions to gay activist groups, but AFA has monitored the company – and actions speak louder than words.*
> *American Family Association Ends Home Depot Boycott With Nothing To Show For It ThinkProgress*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *A Christian pastor is asking customers to boycott Starbucks due to the company's support of a bill to legalize gay marriage in Washington state, King 5 News reports. *
> 
> *"Christians are upset with Starbucks for turning against God...Starbucks can follow Satan if they want to," Steven Andrew, and evangelical pastor and president of the USA Christian Ministries in California, said in a statement. "However, pastors are to help Christians. Are you on the Lord's side? Will you help the USA be blessed by God?"*
> 
> *The Christian "Family Research Council"*
> *On Thursday, Tony Perkins, founder of Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., called upon listeners to his daily radio commentary to join the organization in its boycott against the company.*
> 
> 
> *“At Betty Crocker, the only thing they’re mixing up is their priorities,” he stated. “If you ask conservatives, Betty Crocker’s latest promotion is a recipe for disaster.”*
> 
> 
> *Perkins then pointed to a website providing additional information on the boycott against Betty Crocker and its parent company General Mills, which includes a letter that supporters can sign to express their disappointment.*
> 
> 
> *“I never thought that by eating Cheerios for breakfast I would be supporting gay marriage. Your decision to pander to same-sex marriage activists has forced me to choose between your food products and my conscience,” it reads. “As long as food is produced by other companies my conscience is going to win out over the desire for another bowl of Lucky Charms.”*
> _
> 
> *How many more examples would you like?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK  so basically their protesting these companies, because they are empowering the gay culture and their activist/activities in which are doing just what they had expected them to do, and that is to attack Christians if they don't get their way about taking their culture more into the mainstream. I wonder who keeps striking first? The Christians aren't changing or trying to change society, so it is that they are the ones who are on the defence instead of the offence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me understand this:
> When homosexuals call for boycotts of a business like Chik Fil E for perceiving that the business is 'anti-gay' that is an attack on Christians.
> 
> But when Christians call for boycotts of a business like Starbucks, or JC Penney, for being pro-gay, that is not an attack by Christians on homosexuals.......
> 
> That is quite the rational for a double standard.
> 
> Beagle- if its an attack when one group does the action- it is an attack if another group does the exact same action.
> 
> But of course in reality- neither is an attack- you are just whiny when it happens to business owners who want to be able to discriminate against homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? Like I say,  in order to bring such a thing out into every facet and/or area of life, then it should be expected to find plenty of resistance or a differing of opinion upon how marriage is supposed to be from a world that which some or many people do feel is being encroached upon now. Get used to it again I guess (the resistance to change on some things), because such a lifestyle that is seeking marriage in order to be more legit if that is the case, may not be accepted by everyone in their spheres of influence or within their ideologies or cultures in which they keep within the nation, and I'm guessing you know that by now.


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? Like I say,  in order to bring such a thing out into every facet and/or area of life, then it should be expected to find plenty of resistance or a differing of opinion upon how marriage is supposed to be from a world that which some or many people do feel is being encroached upon now. Get used to it again I guess (the resistance to change on some things), because such a lifestyle that is seeking marriage in order to be more legit if that is the case, may not be accepted by everyone in their spheres of influence or within their ideologies or cultures in which they keep within the nation, and I'm guessing you know that by now.


 
Good points beagle.  And judging by the poll at the top of the page, there is quite a lot of resistance in the real world to the idea of gay lifestyle marriage as a new lab experiment (to the kids having to be raised minus one of the genders in that artificial setting) replacing commonly held social values.  82% of the public are resistant to this change.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? Like I say,  in order to bring such a thing out into every facet and/or area of life, then it should be expected to find plenty of resistance or a differing of opinion upon how marriage is supposed to be from a world that which some or many people do feel is being encroached upon now. Get used to it again I guess (the resistance to change on some things), because such a lifestyle that is seeking marriage in order to be more legit if that is the case, may not be accepted by everyone in their spheres of influence or within their ideologies or cultures in which they keep within the nation, and I'm guessing you know that by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good points beagle.  And judging by the poll at the top of the page, there is quite a lot of resistance in the real world to the idea of gay lifestyle marriage as a new lab experiment (to the kids having to be raised minus one of the genders in that artificial setting) replacing commonly held social values.  82% of the public are resistant to this change.
Click to expand...


The poll at the top have this page literally says nothing about children being raised by gay parents. 82% of participants in this thread's poll do not believe churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. The vast and overwhelming of people that support gay marriage in this thread also believe the church shouldn't be forced to marry any couple. This of course is the part where you'll foolishly gas on about how individual members of the church are in fact churches themselves. An argument with no legal backing whatsoever.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> When homosexuals call for boycotts of a business like Chik Fil E ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're speaking of the would-be "boycott" which resulted in among the highest volume of sales ever recorded by a fast food company, in the history of fast food companies?
> )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was speaking of idiotic attempted boycotts both by self proclaimed Christians against companies who dared treat homosexuals equally and attempted boycotts by LGBT groups against companies who they believe didn't treat homosexuals equally.
Click to expand...


I understand... But ya did so through the recognition of the ANSA Cult (evil) declaring a "boycott" of _Chick fil A,_ which resulted in the highest volume of sales ever recorded by a fast food company, in the history of fast food companies.  

The point being that the presumed popularity of your cult and your cult's advocacy, is not just demonstrably FALSE, but hysterically false.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> When homosexuals call for boycotts of a business like Chik Fil E ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're speaking of the would-be "boycott" which resulted in among the highest volume of sales ever recorded by a fast food company, in the history of fast food companies?
> )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was speaking of idiotic attempted boycotts both by self proclaimed Christians against companies who dared treat homosexuals equally and attempted boycotts by LGBT groups against companies who they believe didn't treat homosexuals equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand...
Click to expand...


You understand nothing but the voices in your head. 

You are a sexual deviant.


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? Like I say,  in order to bring such a thing out into every facet and/or area of life, then it should be expected to find plenty of resistance or a differing of opinion upon how marriage is supposed to be from a world that which some or many people do feel is being encroached upon now. Get used to it again I guess (the resistance to change on some things), because such a lifestyle that is seeking marriage in order to be more legit if that is the case, may not be accepted by everyone in their spheres of influence or within their ideologies or cultures in which they keep within the nation, and I'm guessing you know that by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good points beagle.  And judging by the poll at the top of the page, there is quite a lot of resistance in the real world to the idea of gay lifestyle marriage as a new lab experiment (to the kids having to be raised minus one of the genders in that artificial setting) replacing commonly held social values.  82% of the public are resistant to this change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poll at the top have this page literally says nothing about children being raised by gay parents. 82% of participants in this thread's poll do not believe churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. The vast and overwhelming of people that support gay marriage in this thread also believe the church shouldn't be forced to marry any couple. This of course is the part where you'll foolishly gas on about how individual members of the church are in fact churches themselves. An argument with no legal backing whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Is Silo reimagning the poll again?

This is what? the 4th or 5th 'retcon' of the poll......when anyone can just scroll to the top of the page and see that Silo is having another hallucinatory fit.

I'm telling you, this isn't for us. This is a self soothing excercise that Silo is using for himself.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Christians are being attacked in the U.S.?
> 
> In regards to this thread, Christians are expected to follow the same law as everyone else.
> 
> That is not an attack.
> 
> 
> 
> Phil Robertson comes to mind quickly, and the lady who was a former Miss. America contestant, and the Chic Filet CEO. Your kidding me that you don't know these things right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay- if you want to go there- you are then admitting that Christians have been attacking Gays?
> 
> When Christians demand boycotts of business's that treat Gays equally? Boycotts for hiring a lesbian spokesperson?
> 
> IF you want to claim that those are examples of Christians being attacked- then in the same logic- there are examples of Christians attacking homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not aware of the attacks you speak of, and how can you be sure they were *Christians* who were allegedly attacking them ? Now a protest of an issue is different from an attack, so just be sure that you are clear on that difference........ Can you be more specific maybe ? Now keep it current as we don't want you to go back to the beginning of time in order to make your points.
> 
> You say that Christians demanded boycotts of businesses that were treating gay's equally ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes- that is exactly what I am saying.
> 
> Southern Baptists calling for a boycott of Disney for being too gay friendly.
> Million Mom's - a Christian right wing organization calling for a boycott of well pretty much everybody- including the cancelation of a TV show for daring to have a gay character,
> and trying to be Ellen Degeneres fired for daring to be a lesbian spokesperson for JC Penney
> 
> The Catholic League has a number of boycotts going
> *Bill Donohue Of Catholic League Urges Beer Boycott Of Guinness, Heineken, And Sam Adams For Supporting Gay Equality*
> 
> *The Christian right wing American Family Association boycott of Home Depot for being too gay friendly*
> 
> _
> *SHARP: We’re glad to report that we are suspending the boycott of The Home Depot. After monitoring the company for several months,we’re satisfied that the company has withdrawn its major financial contributions to gay activist groups and to their activities. […]*
> 
> *We certainly do expect The Home Depot to deny that they have turned back their contributions to gay activist groups, but AFA has monitored the company – and actions speak louder than words.*
> *American Family Association Ends Home Depot Boycott With Nothing To Show For It ThinkProgress*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *A Christian pastor is asking customers to boycott Starbucks due to the company's support of a bill to legalize gay marriage in Washington state, King 5 News reports. *
> 
> *"Christians are upset with Starbucks for turning against God...Starbucks can follow Satan if they want to," Steven Andrew, and evangelical pastor and president of the USA Christian Ministries in California, said in a statement. "However, pastors are to help Christians. Are you on the Lord's side? Will you help the USA be blessed by God?"*
> 
> *The Christian "Family Research Council"*
> *On Thursday, Tony Perkins, founder of Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., called upon listeners to his daily radio commentary to join the organization in its boycott against the company.*
> 
> 
> *“At Betty Crocker, the only thing they’re mixing up is their priorities,” he stated. “If you ask conservatives, Betty Crocker’s latest promotion is a recipe for disaster.”*
> 
> 
> *Perkins then pointed to a website providing additional information on the boycott against Betty Crocker and its parent company General Mills, which includes a letter that supporters can sign to express their disappointment.*
> 
> 
> *“I never thought that by eating Cheerios for breakfast I would be supporting gay marriage. Your decision to pander to same-sex marriage activists has forced me to choose between your food products and my conscience,” it reads. “As long as food is produced by other companies my conscience is going to win out over the desire for another bowl of Lucky Charms.”*
> _
> 
> *How many more examples would you like?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK  so basically their protesting these companies, because they are empowering the gay culture and their activist/activities in which are doing just what they had expected them to do, and that is to attack Christians if they don't get their way about taking their culture more into the mainstream. I wonder who keeps striking first? The Christians aren't changing or trying to change society, so it is that they are the ones who are on the defence instead of the offence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me understand this:
> When homosexuals call for boycotts of a business like Chik Fil E for perceiving that the business is 'anti-gay' that is an attack on Christians.
> 
> But when Christians call for boycotts of a business like Starbucks, or JC Penney, for being pro-gay, that is not an attack by Christians on homosexuals.......
> 
> That is quite the rational for a double standard.
> 
> Beagle- if its an attack when one group does the action- it is an attack if another group does the exact same action.
> 
> But of course in reality- neither is an attack- you are just whiny when it happens to business owners who want to be able to discriminate against homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way?
Click to expand...


Holding a Christian to the same laws that apply to everyone else isn't 'attacking them'. 

Ending your entire line of reasoning.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Christians are being attacked in the U.S.?
> 
> In regards to this thread, Christians are expected to follow the same law as everyone else.
> 
> That is not an attack.
> 
> 
> 
> Phil Robertson comes to mind quickly, and the lady who was a former Miss. America contestant, and the Chic Filet CEO. Your kidding me that you don't know these things right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay- if you want to go there- you are then admitting that Christians have been attacking Gays?
> 
> When Christians demand boycotts of business's that treat Gays equally? Boycotts for hiring a lesbian spokesperson?
> 
> IF you want to claim that those are examples of Christians being attacked- then in the same logic- there are examples of Christians attacking homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not aware of the attacks you speak of, and how can you be sure they were *Christians* who were allegedly attacking them ? Now a protest of an issue is different from an attack, so just be sure that you are clear on that difference........ Can you be more specific maybe ? Now keep it current as we don't want you to go back to the beginning of time in order to make your points.
> 
> You say that Christians demanded boycotts of businesses that were treating gay's equally ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes- that is exactly what I am saying.
> 
> Southern Baptists calling for a boycott of Disney for being too gay friendly.
> Million Mom's - a Christian right wing organization calling for a boycott of well pretty much everybody- including the cancelation of a TV show for daring to have a gay character,
> and trying to be Ellen Degeneres fired for daring to be a lesbian spokesperson for JC Penney
> 
> The Catholic League has a number of boycotts going
> *Bill Donohue Of Catholic League Urges Beer Boycott Of Guinness, Heineken, And Sam Adams For Supporting Gay Equality*
> 
> *The Christian right wing American Family Association boycott of Home Depot for being too gay friendly*
> 
> _
> *SHARP: We’re glad to report that we are suspending the boycott of The Home Depot. After monitoring the company for several months,we’re satisfied that the company has withdrawn its major financial contributions to gay activist groups and to their activities. […]*
> 
> *We certainly do expect The Home Depot to deny that they have turned back their contributions to gay activist groups, but AFA has monitored the company – and actions speak louder than words.*
> *American Family Association Ends Home Depot Boycott With Nothing To Show For It ThinkProgress*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *A Christian pastor is asking customers to boycott Starbucks due to the company's support of a bill to legalize gay marriage in Washington state, King 5 News reports. *
> 
> *"Christians are upset with Starbucks for turning against God...Starbucks can follow Satan if they want to," Steven Andrew, and evangelical pastor and president of the USA Christian Ministries in California, said in a statement. "However, pastors are to help Christians. Are you on the Lord's side? Will you help the USA be blessed by God?"*
> 
> *The Christian "Family Research Council"*
> *On Thursday, Tony Perkins, founder of Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., called upon listeners to his daily radio commentary to join the organization in its boycott against the company.*
> 
> 
> *“At Betty Crocker, the only thing they’re mixing up is their priorities,” he stated. “If you ask conservatives, Betty Crocker’s latest promotion is a recipe for disaster.”*
> 
> 
> *Perkins then pointed to a website providing additional information on the boycott against Betty Crocker and its parent company General Mills, which includes a letter that supporters can sign to express their disappointment.*
> 
> 
> *“I never thought that by eating Cheerios for breakfast I would be supporting gay marriage. Your decision to pander to same-sex marriage activists has forced me to choose between your food products and my conscience,” it reads. “As long as food is produced by other companies my conscience is going to win out over the desire for another bowl of Lucky Charms.”*
> _
> 
> *How many more examples would you like?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK  so basically their protesting these companies, because they are empowering the gay culture and their activist/activities in which are doing just what they had expected them to do, and that is to attack Christians if they don't get their way about taking their culture more into the mainstream. I wonder who keeps striking first? The Christians aren't changing or trying to change society, so it is that they are the ones who are on the defence instead of the offence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me understand this:
> When homosexuals call for boycotts of a business like Chik Fil E for perceiving that the business is 'anti-gay' that is an attack on Christians.
> 
> But when Christians call for boycotts of a business like Starbucks, or JC Penney, for being pro-gay, that is not an attack by Christians on homosexuals.......
> 
> That is quite the rational for a double standard.
> 
> Beagle- if its an attack when one group does the action- it is an attack if another group does the exact same action.
> 
> But of course in reality- neither is an attack- you are just whiny when it happens to business owners who want to be able to discriminate against homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? .
Click to expand...


'Christians are not attacking unless provoked'.

How is Ellen Degeneres as a spokesperson for JC Penny 'provoking' anything?

Christians attempted to get her fired because she is a homosexual. 

Christians have been telling homosexuals that they are evil for centuries- what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way?

You whine about 'Christians' being attacked, but 'Christians' have no compunction against attacking homosexuals for being who they are- like here:

Instruction on Controversial Questions Homosexuality
_In addition, most persons with a homosexual orientation do not sincerely and fully accept *Church teaching that the homosexual orientation is evil *and that homosexual acts are always gravely immoral. Anyone who does not accept this teaching of the Church, or who obstinately doubts this teaching, is in a state of heresy. And heretics are automatically excommunicated under Canon Law._

Now imagine that was what you were hearing from homosexuals all the time- that Christianity is evil, and that practicing Christianity is gravely immoral. 

Christians attack homosexuals all the time- at least in the sense you feel 'attacked'.

Just that you cloak it all in 'faith' and are offended when the same tactics are used against Christians. 

No more double standard hypocrisy- if it is an attack when homosexuals call for a boycott of a business for what they have said or done- it is an attack when Christians call for a boycott of a business for what they have said or done. 

If you can't handle that truth- then you are can't handle the truth.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? Like I say,  in order to bring such a thing out into every facet and/or area of life, then it should be expected to find plenty of resistance or a differing of opinion upon how marriage is supposed to be from a world that which some or many people do feel is being encroached upon now. Get used to it again I guess (the resistance to change on some things), because such a lifestyle that is seeking marriage in order to be more legit if that is the case, may not be accepted by everyone in their spheres of influence or within their ideologies or cultures in which they keep within the nation, and I'm guessing you know that by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good points beagle.  And judging by the poll at the top of the page,e.
Click to expand...


The poll has nothing to do with what the public thinks about 'gay marriage'

Never has- all of us agree no church should or will be forced to marry anyone it doesn't want to marry.


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? Like I say,  in order to bring such a thing out into every facet and/or area of life, then it should be expected to find plenty of resistance or a differing of opinion upon how marriage is supposed to be from a world that which some or many people do feel is being encroached upon now. Get used to it again I guess (the resistance to change on some things), because such a lifestyle that is seeking marriage in order to be more legit if that is the case, may not be accepted by everyone in their spheres of influence or within their ideologies or cultures in which they keep within the nation, and I'm guessing you know that by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good points beagle.  And judging by the poll at the top of the page, there is quite a lot of resistance in the real world to the idea of gay lifestyle marriage as a new lab experiment (to the kids having to be raised minus one of the genders in that artificial setting) replacing commonly held social values.  82% of the public are resistant to this change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poll at the top have this page literally says nothing about children being raised by gay parents. 82% of participants in this thread's poll do not believe churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. The vast and overwhelming of people that support gay marriage in this thread also believe the church shouldn't be forced to marry any couple. This of course is the part where you'll foolishly gas on about how individual members of the church are in fact churches themselves. An argument with no legal backing whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is Silo reimagning the poll again?
> 
> This is what? the 4th or 5th 'retcon' of the poll......when anyone can just scroll to the top of the page and see that Silo is having another hallucinatory fit.
> 
> I'm telling you, this isn't for us. This is a self soothing excercise that Silo is using for himself.
Click to expand...


Months ago Silo was claiming that this poll means 82% of its respondents actually are opposed to gay marriage. Never mind the fact that many of the very same posters in this thread have stated on numerous occasions churches should not be forced to marry any couple despite the fact that we support gay marriage. Now it means 82% of the people don't support gays having children. Tomorrow it will mean the respondents supports wolves marrying if they have children. lol.


----------



## Syriusly

mdk said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? Like I say,  in order to bring such a thing out into every facet and/or area of life, then it should be expected to find plenty of resistance or a differing of opinion upon how marriage is supposed to be from a world that which some or many people do feel is being encroached upon now. Get used to it again I guess (the resistance to change on some things), because such a lifestyle that is seeking marriage in order to be more legit if that is the case, may not be accepted by everyone in their spheres of influence or within their ideologies or cultures in which they keep within the nation, and I'm guessing you know that by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good points beagle.  And judging by the poll at the top of the page, there is quite a lot of resistance in the real world to the idea of gay lifestyle marriage as a new lab experiment (to the kids having to be raised minus one of the genders in that artificial setting) replacing commonly held social values.  82% of the public are resistant to this change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poll at the top have this page literally says nothing about children being raised by gay parents. 82% of participants in this thread's poll do not believe churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. The vast and overwhelming of people that support gay marriage in this thread also believe the church shouldn't be forced to marry any couple. This of course is the part where you'll foolishly gas on about how individual members of the church are in fact churches themselves. An argument with no legal backing whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is Silo reimagning the poll again?
> 
> This is what? the 4th or 5th 'retcon' of the poll......when anyone can just scroll to the top of the page and see that Silo is having another hallucinatory fit.
> 
> I'm telling you, this isn't for us. This is a self soothing excercise that Silo is using for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Months ago Silo was claiming that this poll means 82% of its respondents actually are opposed to gay marriage. Never mind the fact that many of the very same posters in this thread have stated on numerous occasions churches should not be forced to marry any couple despite the fact that we support gay marriage. Now it means 82% of the people don't support gays having children. Tomorrow it will mean the respondents supports wolves marrying if they have children. lol.
Click to expand...


As long as they are heterosexual wolves....well Silhouette will be fine with them marrying and having children....


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? Like I say,  in order to bring such a thing out into every facet and/or area of life, then it should be expected to find plenty of resistance or a differing of opinion upon how marriage is supposed to be from a world that which some or many people do feel is being encroached upon now. Get used to it again I guess (the resistance to change on some things), because such a lifestyle that is seeking marriage in order to be more legit if that is the case, may not be accepted by everyone in their spheres of influence or within their ideologies or cultures in which they keep within the nation, and I'm guessing you know that by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good points beagle.  And judging by the poll at the top of the page, there is quite a lot of resistance in the real world to the idea of gay lifestyle marriage as a new lab experiment (to the kids having to be raised minus one of the genders in that artificial setting) replacing commonly held social values.  82% of the public are resistant to this change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poll at the top have this page literally says nothing about children being raised by gay parents. 82% of participants in this thread's poll do not believe churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. The vast and overwhelming of people that support gay marriage in this thread also believe the church shouldn't be forced to marry any couple. This of course is the part where you'll foolishly gas on about how individual members of the church are in fact churches themselves. An argument with no legal backing whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is Silo reimagning the poll again?
> 
> This is what? the 4th or 5th 'retcon' of the poll......when anyone can just scroll to the top of the page and see that Silo is having another hallucinatory fit.
> 
> I'm telling you, this isn't for us. This is a self soothing excercise that Silo is using for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Months ago Silo was claiming that this poll means 82% of its respondents actually are opposed to gay marriage. Never mind the fact that many of the very same posters in this thread have stated on numerous occasions churches should not be forced to marry any couple despite the fact that we support gay marriage. Now it means 82% of the people don't support gays having children. Tomorrow it will mean the respondents supports wolves marrying if they have children. lol.
Click to expand...


Silo says a lot of shit. Like all polls about gay marriage are faked. Including Gallup, Rueters, Rasmussen, everyone. 

'Silo says' isn't exactly a rock solid standard of utility.


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you listen to yourself when you think , and especially before you write ? Christians (in the current) are not attacking unless provoked, so when their placed in a corner by being asked a question about gay marriage, and then they get attacked after they answer, well what do you expect them to think of such a culture or group who operates in this way? Like I say,  in order to bring such a thing out into every facet and/or area of life, then it should be expected to find plenty of resistance or a differing of opinion upon how marriage is supposed to be from a world that which some or many people do feel is being encroached upon now. Get used to it again I guess (the resistance to change on some things), because such a lifestyle that is seeking marriage in order to be more legit if that is the case, may not be accepted by everyone in their spheres of influence or within their ideologies or cultures in which they keep within the nation, and I'm guessing you know that by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good points beagle.  And judging by the poll at the top of the page, there is quite a lot of resistance in the real world to the idea of gay lifestyle marriage as a new lab experiment (to the kids having to be raised minus one of the genders in that artificial setting) replacing commonly held social values.  82% of the public are resistant to this change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poll at the top have this page literally says nothing about children being raised by gay parents. 82% of participants in this thread's poll do not believe churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. The vast and overwhelming of people that support gay marriage in this thread also believe the church shouldn't be forced to marry any couple. This of course is the part where you'll foolishly gas on about how individual members of the church are in fact churches themselves. An argument with no legal backing whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is Silo reimagning the poll again?
> 
> This is what? the 4th or 5th 'retcon' of the poll......when anyone can just scroll to the top of the page and see that Silo is having another hallucinatory fit.
> 
> I'm telling you, this isn't for us. This is a self soothing excercise that Silo is using for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Months ago Silo was claiming that this poll means 82% of its respondents actually are opposed to gay marriage. Never mind the fact that many of the very same posters in this thread have stated on numerous occasions churches should not be forced to marry any couple despite the fact that we support gay marriage. Now it means 82% of the people don't support gays having children. Tomorrow it will mean the respondents supports wolves marrying if they have children. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silo says a lot of shit. Like all polls about gay marriage are faked. Including Gallup, Rueters, Rasmussen, everyone.
> 
> 'Silo says' isn't exactly a rock solid standard of utility.
Click to expand...


Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people. The real evidence is "likes" on Duck Dynasty's Facebook page, long lines at Chick-fil-A, and this thread's poll with it's ever changing findings.


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good points beagle.  And judging by the poll at the top of the page, there is quite a lot of resistance in the real world to the idea of gay lifestyle marriage as a new lab experiment (to the kids having to be raised minus one of the genders in that artificial setting) replacing commonly held social values.  82% of the public are resistant to this change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poll at the top have this page literally says nothing about children being raised by gay parents. 82% of participants in this thread's poll do not believe churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. The vast and overwhelming of people that support gay marriage in this thread also believe the church shouldn't be forced to marry any couple. This of course is the part where you'll foolishly gas on about how individual members of the church are in fact churches themselves. An argument with no legal backing whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is Silo reimagning the poll again?
> 
> This is what? the 4th or 5th 'retcon' of the poll......when anyone can just scroll to the top of the page and see that Silo is having another hallucinatory fit.
> 
> I'm telling you, this isn't for us. This is a self soothing excercise that Silo is using for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Months ago Silo was claiming that this poll means 82% of its respondents actually are opposed to gay marriage. Never mind the fact that many of the very same posters in this thread have stated on numerous occasions churches should not be forced to marry any couple despite the fact that we support gay marriage. Now it means 82% of the people don't support gays having children. Tomorrow it will mean the respondents supports wolves marrying if they have children. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silo says a lot of shit. Like all polls about gay marriage are faked. Including Gallup, Rueters, Rasmussen, everyone.
> 
> 'Silo says' isn't exactly a rock solid standard of utility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people. The real evidence is "likes" on Duck Dynasty's Facebook page, long lines at Chick-fil-A, and this thread's poll with it's ever changing findings.
Click to expand...


Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll at the top have this page literally says nothing about children being raised by gay parents. 82% of participants in this thread's poll do not believe churches should be forced to marry gays against their wishes. The vast and overwhelming of people that support gay marriage in this thread also believe the church shouldn't be forced to marry any couple. This of course is the part where you'll foolishly gas on about how individual members of the church are in fact churches themselves. An argument with no legal backing whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Silo reimagning the poll again?
> 
> This is what? the 4th or 5th 'retcon' of the poll......when anyone can just scroll to the top of the page and see that Silo is having another hallucinatory fit.
> 
> I'm telling you, this isn't for us. This is a self soothing excercise that Silo is using for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Months ago Silo was claiming that this poll means 82% of its respondents actually are opposed to gay marriage. Never mind the fact that many of the very same posters in this thread have stated on numerous occasions churches should not be forced to marry any couple despite the fact that we support gay marriage. Now it means 82% of the people don't support gays having children. Tomorrow it will mean the respondents supports wolves marrying if they have children. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silo says a lot of shit. Like all polls about gay marriage are faked. Including Gallup, Rueters, Rasmussen, everyone.
> 
> 'Silo says' isn't exactly a rock solid standard of utility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people. The real evidence is "likes" on Duck Dynasty's Facebook page, long lines at Chick-fil-A, and this thread's poll with it's ever changing findings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
Click to expand...

For someone who is so sure of yourself, you sure go to great lengths trying to defend your position here. It says a lot about the fear that y'all have about trying to convince those who are on the fence, that you all are right even though I think you are holding on to your side of the debate by a thread most of the time. Belittling usually signals frustration upon holding ones position on an issue, and it serves only as a distraction in which is usually short lived.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Silo reimagning the poll again?
> 
> This is what? the 4th or 5th 'retcon' of the poll......when anyone can just scroll to the top of the page and see that Silo is having another hallucinatory fit.
> 
> I'm telling you, this isn't for us. This is a self soothing excercise that Silo is using for himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Months ago Silo was claiming that this poll means 82% of its respondents actually are opposed to gay marriage. Never mind the fact that many of the very same posters in this thread have stated on numerous occasions churches should not be forced to marry any couple despite the fact that we support gay marriage. Now it means 82% of the people don't support gays having children. Tomorrow it will mean the respondents supports wolves marrying if they have children. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silo says a lot of shit. Like all polls about gay marriage are faked. Including Gallup, Rueters, Rasmussen, everyone.
> 
> 'Silo says' isn't exactly a rock solid standard of utility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people. The real evidence is "likes" on Duck Dynasty's Facebook page, long lines at Chick-fil-A, and this thread's poll with it's ever changing findings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For someone who is so sure of yourself, you sure go to great lengths trying to defend your position here. It says a lot about the fear that y'all have about trying to convince those who are on the fence, that you all are right even though I think you are holding on to your side of the debate by a thread most of the time. Belittling usually signals frustration upon holding ones position on an issue, and it serves only as a distraction in which is usually short lived.
Click to expand...


Fear of what? 

Silhouette is delusional- and immune to rational thought- we respond to her posts for others sake. 

I had great hopes for you, but not really anymore. Once you showed that you hold homosexuals to a different standard than you do your fellow Christians, and how you rationalized why, its pretty obvious that you just have convinced yourself that you are oppressed.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Silo reimagning the poll again?
> 
> This is what? the 4th or 5th 'retcon' of the poll......when anyone can just scroll to the top of the page and see that Silo is having another hallucinatory fit.
> 
> I'm telling you, this isn't for us. This is a self soothing excercise that Silo is using for himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Months ago Silo was claiming that this poll means 82% of its respondents actually are opposed to gay marriage. Never mind the fact that many of the very same posters in this thread have stated on numerous occasions churches should not be forced to marry any couple despite the fact that we support gay marriage. Now it means 82% of the people don't support gays having children. Tomorrow it will mean the respondents supports wolves marrying if they have children. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silo says a lot of shit. Like all polls about gay marriage are faked. Including Gallup, Rueters, Rasmussen, everyone.
> 
> 'Silo says' isn't exactly a rock solid standard of utility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people. The real evidence is "likes" on Duck Dynasty's Facebook page, long lines at Chick-fil-A, and this thread's poll with it's ever changing findings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For someone who is so sure of yourself, you sure go to great lengths trying to defend your position here.
Click to expand...


8 words is 'great length'?


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Months ago Silo was claiming that this poll means 82% of its respondents actually are opposed to gay marriage. Never mind the fact that many of the very same posters in this thread have stated on numerous occasions churches should not be forced to marry any couple despite the fact that we support gay marriage. Now it means 82% of the people don't support gays having children. Tomorrow it will mean the respondents supports wolves marrying if they have children. lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silo says a lot of shit. Like all polls about gay marriage are faked. Including Gallup, Rueters, Rasmussen, everyone.
> 
> 'Silo says' isn't exactly a rock solid standard of utility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people. The real evidence is "likes" on Duck Dynasty's Facebook page, long lines at Chick-fil-A, and this thread's poll with it's ever changing findings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For someone who is so sure of yourself, you sure go to great lengths trying to defend your position here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 words is 'great length'?
Click to expand...


Beagle is upset that you can respond in a post in less than 600 words.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> *In short, you and your cult are evil... doing what evil has always done.  *



You are a sexual deviant. 

Apparently you have visited California too

Lawyer In California Proposes Killing Gays With Sodomite Suppression Act 

*A lawyer in California has submitted a ballot initiative with the state Department of Justice calling for the death of anyone who engages in sodomy in the state, the San Diego Gay & Lesbian News reports.*

The proposal by Matt McLaughlin, who lists his address in Huntington Beach, was received by the initiative coordinator at the Office of the Attorney General on Feb. 26. Enclosed was a $200 check and the complete text of his"Sodomite Suppression Act."The act outlines seven measuresrelating to those who engage in same-sex sodomy, "a monstrous evil that Almighty God, giver of freedom and liberty, commands us to suppress on pain of our utter destruction even as he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrha."

McLaughlin recommends punishment by death, even though a judge ruled thatCalifornia's death penalty is unconstitutionallast June:

Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God's just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating-wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... Ya know what?  I agree... Polls never represent a true pulse.
> 
> But ya know what DOES represent a true pulse?
> 
> Someone once had this idea... wherein groups of people would gather in distinct geographic areas, wherein these respective collectives had different views of everyday things and as a result had different ideas of how to govern, but for the most part, they agreed on the larger issues and were readily able to live along side one another, with few major challenges, but possessing the means to reason objectively, when larger challenges came along, they would work them out through a central governance, which was designed specifically for such, stating such the preface of it's charter of law, wherein it spoke to this government being designed to promote the best interests of the collective of otherwise distinct states.
> 
> The idea was for those distinct states to govern themselves, within the general Republican framework, where the 'true pulse of the people' would be determined by the legislation which their respective Republican legislatures, would craft bills, which would go to their respective chief executives, who would sign them into law, where the bills were recognized by the executive as being in keeping with the Constitution of their states.
> 
> Now... where one wanted to determine for instance, the 'pulse of the whole collective', one would look at the laws of the sum.
> 
> For instance, where one wanted to know 'the pulse of the people' with regard to say The Recognition of the Natural Standards of Marriage and that should would be defended by law... one should look at the circumstances wherein _THE PEOPLE IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES, ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO INTRODUCED BILLS INTO THEIR CONGRESSIONAL HOUSE AND DEBATED THOSE BILLS, WHEREAFTER THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, VOTED TO PASS THE BILL AND SEND IT TO THE SENATE, WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS OF THE STATES CONSIDERED THE BILL AND DEBATED IT... AND WHEREAFTER, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS PASSED THE BILL AND SENT BACK DOWN TO THE CONGRESS... WHERE IT WAS DEBATED, MARKED UP TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY VETTING TO BE SURE THAT THE BILL COULD BE EFFECTIVELY INTRODUCED INTO LAW, WHEREUPON THE FORMALLY PASSED BILL WAS SENT TO THE STATES' CHIEF EXECUTIVE, WHO THEN CONSIDERED THE BILL AND AFTER DOING SO, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVES PASSED THE BILLS REPRESENTING THE WILL OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE INTO *LAW.*_
Click to expand...


And when the people voted into law interracial marriage bans, those too were invalid. As all state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. Rights trump powers. This concept infuriates many conservatives, who believe they should be able to strip any group they wish of any right they wish with a simple majority vote.

But that's not how our system works. Nor should work. 

And of course, a vote in say....2008 doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the people now. The people solidly support same sex marriage, with support leading opposition by 12 to 19 points. You can ignore any poll that doesn't ape what you want to believe, but its not like public sentiment changes just because you ignore public sentiment.



> *"37 of 50 states have made Gay-Marriage Legal".*
> 
> That is not only NOT TRUE, it is NOWHERE CLOSE TO BEING TRUE.



All the gays getting married in those 37 states say otherwise. 

You keep pretending that no same sex marriage is occuring. Gays and lesbians will keep enjoying the benefits and recognition of same sex marriage. 

Sounds like a win-win to me. 



> The vast majority of the people in those states voted to ENFORCE THE NATURAL STANDARD OF MARRIAGE, through the above noted legislative process.  And less than 10 people, WHO DO NOT LIVE IN THOSE STATES, OVERTURNED *"THE TRUE PULSE OF THE PEOPLE".*



There are no 'natural' standards of marriage, as marriage doesn't exist in nature. We invented it. And it is whatever we say it is. And in 37 of 50 States, marriage includes same sex couples.

Get used to the idea. Its quite likely to expand to all 50 states in June.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> And when the people voted into law interracial marriage bans, ...



Huh... But that was based upon the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States... Have ya read it?

There's nothing in it which requires that laws which sustain reality, aren't enforceable, because a tiny, but mouthy minority claim a reality of their own... .

The 14th amendment does not require that the US Government suspend reality to accommodate, thus promote a deviant species of reasoning, OKA: A MENTAL DISORDER!


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when the people voted into law interracial marriage bans, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... But that was based upon the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States... Have ya read it?
Click to expand...


As are virtually all of the rulings that overturned state gay marriage bans. And the basis of the legal challenge to the gay marriage bans in the 6th circuit court district that the USSC is hearing in a few weeks. 

See how that works? 



> There's nothing in it which requires that laws which sustain reality, aren't enforceable, because a tiny, but mouthy minority claim a reality of their own... .



The 14th amendment requires that US citizens be treated equally under State law. Virtually every federal court to hear cases on gay marriage bans has overturned them on that basis. 

With the USSC preserving every single lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. Without exceptoin. The only case they took up and put themselves in a position to overturn was the lone ruling that affirming gay marriage bans.

June is when they rule on the issue. And even Scalia has concluded that the overturning of state gay marriage bans is 'inevitable'. 

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... Ya know what?  I agree... Polls never represent a true pulse.
> 
> But ya know what DOES represent a true pulse?
> 
> Someone once had this idea... wherein groups of people would gather in distinct geographic areas, wherein these respective collectives had different views of everyday things and as a result had different ideas of how to govern, but for the most part, they agreed on the larger issues and were readily able to live along side one another, with few major challenges, but possessing the means to reason objectively, when larger challenges came along, they would work them out through a central governance, which was designed specifically for such, stating such the preface of it's charter of law, wherein it spoke to this government being designed to promote the best interests of the collective of otherwise distinct states.
> 
> The idea was for those distinct states to govern themselves, within the general Republican framework, where the 'true pulse of the people' would be determined by the legislation which their respective Republican legislatures, would craft bills, which would go to their respective chief executives, who would sign them into law, where the bills were recognized by the executive as being in keeping with the Constitution of their states.
> 
> Now... where one wanted to determine for instance, the 'pulse of the whole collective', one would look at the laws of the sum.
> 
> For instance, where one wanted to know 'the pulse of the people' with regard to say The Recognition of the Natural Standards of Marriage and that should would be defended by law... one should look at the circumstances wherein _THE PEOPLE IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES, ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO INTRODUCED BILLS INTO THEIR CONGRESSIONAL HOUSE AND DEBATED THOSE BILLS, WHEREAFTER THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, VOTED TO PASS THE BILL AND SEND IT TO THE SENATE, WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS OF THE STATES CONSIDERED THE BILL AND DEBATED IT... AND WHEREAFTER, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS PASSED THE BILL AND SENT BACK DOWN TO THE CONGRESS... WHERE IT WAS DEBATED, MARKED UP TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY VETTING TO BE SURE THAT THE BILL COULD BE EFFECTIVELY INTRODUCED INTO LAW, WHEREUPON THE FORMALLY PASSED BILL WAS SENT TO THE STATES' CHIEF EXECUTIVE, WHO THEN CONSIDERED THE BILL AND AFTER DOING SO, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVES PASSED THE BILLS REPRESENTING THE WILL OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE INTO *LAW.*_
> *
> THAT is the only true way to KNOW the 'true pulse of the people'.
> *
> And it is THAT pulse which YOU and the ANSA Cult are desperate to STOP, through the whimsy of illegitimate abuse of power by Subjective reasoning being illicitly applied through the authority of the judiciary, the power of which, rests entirely upon THE OBJECTIVE REASONING ESSENTIAL TO THE LEGITIMACY OF THAT BODY!
> 
> So, your claiming that you're advocating for the majority, when you're entire advocacy is posing a mouthy and otherwise tiny, insignificant minority, as a sweeping majority.
> 
> *"37 of 50 states have made Gay-Marriage Legal".*
> 
> That is not only NOT TRUE, it is NOWHERE CLOSE TO BEING TRUE.
> 
> The vast majority of the people in those states voted to ENFORCE THE NATURAL STANDARD OF MARRIAGE, through the above noted legislative process.  And less than 10 people, WHO DO NOT LIVE IN THOSE STATES, OVERTURNED *"THE TRUE PULSE OF THE PEOPLE".
> 
> 
> In short, you and your cult are evil... doing what evil has always done.
> 
> And we can rest assured that your would-be efforts will result in the same thing that evil ALWAYS RESULTS IN!*
Click to expand...


You're already spamming block posts? Damn.....that didn't take long.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> You're already spamming block posts? Damn.....that didn't take long.



ROFLMNAO!  

And yet on just the last page, the cult was claiming that their opposition was 'too wordy'...   And here they are, demonstrating ONCE AGAIN... their own guilt of that which they project upon others.

Which is twice in as many posts. 

LOL!  Not THAT is _ CRAZY *CONSISTENT. *_


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette is delusional- and immune to rational thought- ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rational thought?
> 
> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your conclusion, that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, IT DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THAT STANDARD NORMALITY AS FAR AS CAN BE ACHIEVED WHERE THE SUBJECTS AT ISSUE REMAIN HUMAN! AND WHICH FURTHER DEMANDS THAT THE PROFOUND DEVIANCY BE COUNTED _AS *"NORMAL"*.  _
Click to expand...


Gays are lesbians are human. Ending your entire line of reasoning. Next fallacy:



> There's nothing in that rationalization, which can be reasonably recognized as being _based upon or in accordance with sound reason or valid logic, thus such is *not *'rational'._



You simply assume that sex can only serve one purpose: procreation. Just like you assume that marriage can only serve one purpose: procreation. *But neither assumption is true.* Almost all sex is reproductively useless. And as all the infertile and childless couples being allowed to marry or remain married demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children.

Your assumption of exclusivity of purpose is thus a logical fallacy void of reason, clear thought or sensibility.

Next fallacy:



> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your assertion *"37 of 50 states have now legalized Gay-Marriage".
> *
> We know this because THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE STATES ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO LONG DEBATED AND PASSED BILLS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO SIGNED INTO LAW: *THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!*



And any law that violates constitutional guarantees is invalid. As rights trump powers.

What else have you got?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're already spamming block posts? Damn.....that didn't take long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> And yet on just the last page, the cult was claiming that their opposition was 'too wordy'...   And here they are, demonstrating ONCE AGAIN... their own guilt of that which they project upon others.
> 
> Which is twice in as many posts.
> 
> LOL!  Not THAT is _ CRAZY *CONSISTENT. *_
Click to expand...


If you can't address the standing points and must flee to block spamming......that's not a good indication for your argument. 

And you've descended into block spam *after only 3 posts. *

Keep running.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance:
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a state of mental conflict
> Hmm...
> 
> Humanity is designed with two distinct but complimenting genders.  This we recognize as the human physiological standard.
> 
> YOU claim that this standard is NOT a standard at all... that the whole of humanity, having been designed this way... should have no bearing on YOU... or your behavior and that the culture should be altered, away from recognition of that standard and toward the recognition of YOU and YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES...
Click to expand...


I've said that marriage has more than one valid basis. See, your claim that marriage can serve procreation doesn't need to be wrong for my argument to work. All I have to do is demonstrate ANOTHER valid basis for marriage that has nothing to do with children. And I win.

And as all the infertile and childless couples marrying or allowed to remain married demonstrates, *there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. *

Having established a non-procreation related basis for marriage, your claim that marriage can ONLY be about procreation collapses.  

See how that works?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when the people voted into law interracial marriage bans, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... But that was based upon the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States... Have ya read it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As are virtually all of the rulings that overturned state gay marriage bans.
Click to expand...


No... those 'rulings' are based upon FRAUDULENCE... wherein the premise is that Homosexuality is NORMAL SEXUALITY, AND THOSE DEMONSTRATING SUCH BEHAVIOR ARE OF A SOUND (NORMAL) MIND.

When in REALITY, Homosexuality not only DEVIATES from the standard established by the Human Physiological NORM...  Homosexuality DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD AS IT HUMANLY POSSIBLE.  And what's more, the deviancy unavoidably recognized as such is the result of a disordered mind.  A disorder which is NOT 'just limited to perverse sexual cravings, but which also causes those inflicted with such, to fail to recognize many other aspects of reality.

You see, 'race' is NOT a mental disorder..., therefore, judicial decisions resting upon race are IRRELEVANT to issues of cognitive deviancy.

But, as an cognitive deviant, _THERE IS NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE KNOWN *THAT!*_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> I've said that marriage has more than one valid basis.



Yes, you have.  And every time you've said that, you've been wrong.

Marriage has but one BASIS: The joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> No... those 'rulings' are based upon FRAUDULENCE



Says you. And you're nobody.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said that marriage has more than one valid basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you have.  And every time you've said that, you've been wrong.
Click to expand...


Says you. All the infertile and childless couples allowed to be married or remain married says otherwise. They demonstrate, undeniably, that there is a perfectly valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

As their marriages are just as real, just as protected, just as valid as anyone else's.

Plurality of purpose invalidates your entire argument.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... Ya know what?  I agree... Polls never represent a true pulse.
> 
> But ya know what DOES represent a true pulse?
> 
> Someone once had this idea... wherein groups of people would gather in distinct geographic areas, wherein these respective collectives had different views of everyday things and as a result had different ideas of how to govern, but for the most part, they agreed on the larger issues and were readily able to live along side one another, with few major challenges, but possessing the means to reason objectively, when larger challenges came along, they would work them out through a central governance, which was designed specifically for such, stating such the preface of it's charter of law, wherein it spoke to this government being designed to promote the best interests of the collective of otherwise distinct states.
> 
> The idea was for those distinct states to govern themselves, within the general Republican framework, where the 'true pulse of the people' would be determined by the legislation which their respective Republican legislatures, would craft bills, which would go to their respective chief executives, who would sign them into law, where the bills were recognized by the executive as being in keeping with the Constitution of their states.
> 
> Now... where one wanted to determine for instance, the 'pulse of the whole collective', one would look at the laws of the sum.
> 
> For instance, where one wanted to know 'the pulse of the people' with regard to say The Recognition of the Natural Standards of Marriage and that should would be defended by law... one should look at the circumstances wherein _THE PEOPLE IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES, ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO INTRODUCED BILLS INTO THEIR CONGRESSIONAL HOUSE AND DEBATED THOSE BILLS, WHEREAFTER THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, VOTED TO PASS THE BILL AND SEND IT TO THE SENATE, WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS OF THE STATES CONSIDERED THE BILL AND DEBATED IT... AND WHEREAFTER, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS PASSED THE BILL AND SENT BACK DOWN TO THE CONGRESS... WHERE IT WAS DEBATED, MARKED UP TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY VETTING TO BE SURE THAT THE BILL COULD BE EFFECTIVELY INTRODUCED INTO LAW, WHEREUPON THE FORMALLY PASSED BILL WAS SENT TO THE STATES' CHIEF EXECUTIVE, WHO THEN CONSIDERED THE BILL AND AFTER DOING SO, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVES PASSED THE BILLS REPRESENTING THE WILL OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE INTO *LAW.*_
> *
> THAT is the only true way to KNOW the 'true pulse of the people'.
> *
> And it is THAT pulse which YOU and the ANSA Cult are desperate to STOP, through the whimsy of illegitimate abuse of power by Subjective reasoning being illicitly applied through the authority of the judiciary, the power of which, rests entirely upon THE OBJECTIVE REASONING ESSENTIAL TO THE LEGITIMACY OF THAT BODY!
> 
> So, your claiming that you're advocating for the majority, when you're entire advocacy is posing a mouthy and otherwise tiny, insignificant minority, as a sweeping majority.
> 
> *"37 of 50 states have made Gay-Marriage Legal".*
> 
> That is not only NOT TRUE, it is NOWHERE CLOSE TO BEING TRUE.
> 
> The vast majority of the people in those states voted to ENFORCE THE NATURAL STANDARD OF MARRIAGE, through the above noted legislative process.  And less than 10 people, WHO DO NOT LIVE IN THOSE STATES, OVERTURNED *"THE TRUE PULSE OF THE PEOPLE".
> 
> 
> In short, you and your cult are evil... doing what evil has always done.
> 
> And we can rest assured that your would-be efforts will result in the same thing that evil ALWAYS RESULTS IN!*
Click to expand...


And we're back to the block spam. I can always tell when you think the argument is going badly for you. Its right where you refuse to address the standing points and flee to block spamming. 

Keep running.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said that marriage has more than one valid basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you have.  And every time you've said that, you've been wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you.
Click to expand...


Says Nature... which it _'said'_, through the standard it created through THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DESIGN of HUMANITY.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette is delusional- and immune to rational thought- ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rational thought?
> 
> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your conclusion, that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, IT DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THAT STANDARD NORMALITY AS FAR AS CAN BE ACHIEVED WHERE THE SUBJECTS AT ISSUE REMAIN HUMAN! AND WHICH FURTHER DEMANDS THAT THE PROFOUND DEVIANCY BE COUNTED _AS *"NORMAL"*.  _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays are lesbians are human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... who suffer a mental disorder
Click to expand...


Says you, citing your personal opinion. And you're nobody.

We're not going to deny gays and lesbians any rights because of your personal opinion. 

Get used to the idea. 



> Ya see... deviation from sound reasoning leads to unsound reasoning and unsound reasoning is *"BAD".  *And it is BAD because it can only lead to CHAOS, CALAMITY AND CATASTROPHE!



Says you. Again, you're offering us the Begging the Question fallacy. Where you hold your beliefs because you hold your beliefs. But you can't actually factually establish them. That's just subjective opinion...with you citing yourself.

And you're not enough. 

So what else have you got?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said that marriage has more than one valid basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you have.  And every time you've said that, you've been wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says Nature... which it _'said'_, through the standard it created in the DESIGN OF THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DESIGN of HUMANITY.
Click to expand...


And now a predictable appeal to authority fallacy. Where you pretend you speak for nature. But you don't. 

Sex, like marriage, can serve more than one purpose too. You insist its only for procreation.

Back in reality, almost all sex is reproductively useless.* There's more than just procreation in having sex. *There's fun. There is pleasure. There is bonding. There is relaxation. There is exercise. All of these are perfectly valid, perfectly rational reasons to have sex.

You've painted yourself into a corner again, insisting that ONLY reproduction is a rational reason to have sex. And your fallacy of exclusivity is provably false. There are many valid reasons. 

You fail again.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing your personal opinion. And you're nobody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm merely quoting nature... the creator of humanity.  Which is the determinator of 'reality'.
Click to expand...


No, you're merely quoting yourself, pretending to be nature. Or the 'creator'. Or whatever other Appeal to Authority fallacy you are clinging to today.

See above for where your 'sex is only for procreation' idiocy broke.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays are lesbians are human.[sic]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... who suffer a mental disorder, wherein they crave sexual gratification from those of their own gender.  A profound DEVIANCY of the HUMAN MIND.)
Click to expand...


blah blah blah.....what a bigot.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> blah blah blah.....what a *bigot*.



What a marvelous demonstration of_* intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself!
*_
(Reader: The definition of the word Bigot, is demonstrated through the very use of the word itself.)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Gays are lesbians are human.[sic]



... who suffer a mental disorder, wherein they crave sexual gratification from those of their own gender.  A profound DEVIANCY of the HUMAN MIND.

Your claim is that because the deviant mind exists, deviancy should be counted as NORMALITY.

Which is a profound demonstration of the perversion of human thought, exemplified through deviant reasoning.

Ya see... deviation from sound reasoning leads to unsound reasoning and unsound reasoning is *"BAD".  *And it is BAD because it can only lead to CHAOS, CALAMITY AND CATASTROPHE!

(Reader, Homosexuals were in the closet, because humanity PUT THEM THERE.  AND WE DID SO *FOR A REASON!*  What we're witnessing today IS A DEMONSTRATION OF THAT REASON.)


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> blah blah blah.....what a *bigot*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a marvelous demonstration of_* intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself!
> *_
> (Reader: The definition of the word Bigot, is demonstrated through the very use of the word itself.)
Click to expand...


Says the guy that insists that if you don't agree with him, you're evil.

Dude, if not for double standards, you'd have no standards at all.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... Ya know what?  I agree... Polls never represent a true pulse.
> 
> But ya know what DOES represent a true pulse?
> 
> Someone once had this idea... wherein groups of people would gather in distinct geographic areas, wherein these respective collectives had different views of everyday things and as a result had different ideas of how to govern, but for the most part, they agreed on the larger issues and were readily able to live along side one another, with few major challenges, but possessing the means to reason objectively, when larger challenges came along, they would work them out through a central governance, which was designed specifically for such, stating such the preface of it's charter of law, wherein it spoke to this government being designed to promote the best interests of the collective of otherwise distinct states.
> 
> The idea was for those distinct states to govern themselves, within the general Republican framework, where the 'true pulse of the people' would be determined by the legislation which their respective Republican legislatures, would craft bills, which would go to their respective chief executives, who would sign them into law, where the bills were recognized by the executive as being in keeping with the Constitution of their states.
> 
> Now... where one wanted to determine for instance, the 'pulse of the whole collective', one would look at the laws of the sum.
> 
> For instance, where one wanted to know 'the pulse of the people' with regard to say The Recognition of the Natural Standards of Marriage and that should would be defended by law... one should look at the circumstances wherein _THE PEOPLE IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES, ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO INTRODUCED BILLS INTO THEIR CONGRESSIONAL HOUSE AND DEBATED THOSE BILLS, WHEREAFTER THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, VOTED TO PASS THE BILL AND SEND IT TO THE SENATE, WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS OF THE STATES CONSIDERED THE BILL AND DEBATED IT... AND WHEREAFTER, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS PASSED THE BILL AND SENT BACK DOWN TO THE CONGRESS... WHERE IT WAS DEBATED, MARKED UP TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY VETTING TO BE SURE THAT THE BILL COULD BE EFFECTIVELY INTRODUCED INTO LAW, WHEREUPON THE FORMALLY PASSED BILL WAS SENT TO THE STATES' CHIEF EXECUTIVE, WHO THEN CONSIDERED THE BILL AND AFTER DOING SO, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVES PASSED THE BILLS REPRESENTING THE WILL OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE INTO *LAW.*_
> *
> THAT is the only true way to KNOW the 'true pulse of the people'.
> *
> And it is THAT pulse which YOU and the ANSA Cult are desperate to STOP, through the whimsy of illegitimate abuse of power by Subjective reasoning being illicitly applied through the authority of the judiciary, the power of which, rests entirely upon THE OBJECTIVE REASONING ESSENTIAL TO THE LEGITIMACY OF THAT BODY!
> 
> So, your claiming that you're advocating for the majority, when you're entire advocacy is posing a mouthy and otherwise tiny, insignificant minority, as a sweeping majority.
> 
> *"37 of 50 states have made Gay-Marriage Legal".*
> 
> That is not only NOT TRUE, it is NOWHERE CLOSE TO BEING TRUE.
> 
> The vast majority of the people in those states voted to ENFORCE THE NATURAL STANDARD OF MARRIAGE, through the above noted legislative process.  And less than 10 people, WHO DO NOT LIVE IN THOSE STATES, OVERTURNED *"THE TRUE PULSE OF THE PEOPLE".
> 
> 
> In short, you and your cult are evil... doing what evil has always done.
> 
> And we can rest assured that your would-be efforts will result in the same thing that evil ALWAYS RESULTS IN!*
Click to expand...


Block spam number 1.

Where you still flee from any standing point as well as the truck sized holes punched in these very claims. 

Keep running.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays are lesbians are human.[sic]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... who suffer a mental disorder, wherein they crave sexual gratification from those of their own gender.  A profound DEVIANCY of the HUMAN MIND.
> 
> Your claim is that because the deviant mind exists, deviancy should be counted as NORMALITY.
> 
> Which is a profound demonstration of the perversion of human thought, exemplified through deviant reasoning.
> 
> Ya see... deviation from sound reasoning leads to unsound reasoning and unsound reasoning is *"BAD".  *And it is BAD because it can only lead to CHAOS, CALAMITY AND CATASTROPHE!
> 
> (Reader, Homosexuals were in the closet, because humanity PUT THEM THERE.  AND WE DID SO *FOR A REASON!*  What we're witnessing today IS A DEMONSTRATION OF THAT REASON.)
Click to expand...


Block spam #2.

Where you once again flee from all standing points, refuse to discuss the topic and just spam huge block posts.

Your rout continues.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Says the guy that insists that if you don't agree with him, you're evil.



HEY LOOK!  It's ANOTHER fallacious example of the _straw reasoning _which takes deceitful pretense (_Fraudulence_) and advances it as TRUTH!... 

Which is a MARVELOUS demonstration of _an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically _*a symptom of mental disorder, *_and by one of our own in-house, *professed homosexuals.*_

Now imagine the SHOCK where one would learn that medical >_science_< (not to be confused with popular polling of sycophant advocates of normalizing sexual abnormality, a cult which is dedicated to the politicization of science, to which they refer as: *"SCIENCE!"* ) recognizes that homosexuality is _a *mental disorder*_... AND a presentation BY a homosexual, *symptomatic of mental disorder.
*
(Reader,  when the obligatory question comes: _'Can you show evidence that Homosexuality is a mental disorder?'_, please bookmark this post, so you can show an actual homosexual presenting _symptomatic *mental disorder.*_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Says you, citing your personal opinion. And you're nobody.



I'm merely quoting nature... the creator of humanity.  Which is the determinator of 'reality'.

But it is SO COOL that you, a professed example of the deviant mind, would come to reject reality, and to do so PUBLICLY and so unapologetically.

LOL!

Behold *my power* Reader:

_I say it here... and it comes out *THERE!

(Reader, please understand that without regard to my opinion... or even my existence, the laws of nature are what they are.  The Human Physiological design IS what IT IS... and where the culture rejects the reality that is nature, it WILL suffer the consequences.

All I'm doing is pointing out that which is otherwise OBVIOUS!

Again... Homosexuals did not lock themselves in the closet.   
*_
*Humanity locked them in the closet.

And humanity did so for a reason.  Now my guess is that the consequences of tolerating the deviant mind, were: "NOT GOOD".  

And history shows that in EVERY SINGLE HISTORICAL INSTANCE which Sexual Deviancy (Cognitive deviancy) was embraced, the embracing culture evaporated, shortly thereafter.  

Please, be my guest... research it yourself.  Go find ONE historical example of a culture which embraced Homosexuality, which continues in peaceful prosperity, to this day... .*


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing your personal opinion. And you're nobody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Again... Homosexuals did not lock themselves in the closet.
> *_
> *Humanity locked them in the closet.
> .*
Click to expand...


You are a sexual deviant.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... Ya know what?  I agree... Polls never represent a true pulse.
> *!*
Click to expand...


You are a sexual deviant.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing your personal opinion. And you're nobody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm merely quoting nature... the creator of humanity.  Which is the determinator of 'reality'.
Click to expand...


You're quoting yourself, pretending to be nature. You ignore any part of nature that doesn't match what you already believe. 

And you're nobody. This is where your argument always breaks: you insist that your personal opinion is indisputable and objective truth.

And it never is. 



> *And history shows that in EVERY SINGLE HISTORICAL INSTANCE which Sexual Deviancy (Cognitive deviancy) was embraced, the embracing culture evaporated, shortly thereafter.
> 
> Please, be my guest... research it yourself.  Go find ONE historical example of a culture which embraced Homosexuality, which continues to this day...*



Ah, I see your confusion. You don't understand what causation is. Let me explain your blunder:

Virtually every civilization that has ever existed has collapsed. If it embraced homosexualiity. If it didn't. It doesn't matter. 

*When your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your cause, that's not causation. *Once again, the bug of your imagination splatters on the windshield of reality. As you can't factually establish your claims. Nor can you support them logically. 

What else have you got?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... Ya know what?  I agree... Polls never represent a true pulse.
> 
> But ya know what DOES represent a true pulse?
> 
> Someone once had this idea... wherein groups of people would gather in distinct geographic areas, wherein these respective collectives had different views of everyday things and as a result had different ideas of how to govern, but for the most part, they agreed on the larger issues and were readily able to live along side one another, with few major challenges, but possessing the means to reason objectively, when larger challenges came along, they would work them out through a central governance, which was designed specifically for such, stating such the preface of it's charter of law, wherein it spoke to this government being designed to promote the best interests of the collective of otherwise distinct states.
> 
> The idea was for those distinct states to govern themselves, within the general Republican framework, where the 'true pulse of the people' would be determined by the legislation which their respective Republican legislatures, would craft bills, which would go to their respective chief executives, who would sign them into law, where the bills were recognized by the executive as being in keeping with the Constitution of their states.
> 
> Now... where one wanted to determine for instance, the 'pulse of the whole collective', one would look at the laws of the sum.
> 
> For instance, where one wanted to know 'the pulse of the people' with regard to say The Recognition of the Natural Standards of Marriage and that should would be defended by law... one should look at the circumstances wherein _THE PEOPLE IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES, ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO INTRODUCED BILLS INTO THEIR CONGRESSIONAL HOUSE AND DEBATED THOSE BILLS, WHEREAFTER THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, VOTED TO PASS THE BILL AND SEND IT TO THE SENATE, WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS OF THE STATES CONSIDERED THE BILL AND DEBATED IT... AND WHEREAFTER, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS PASSED THE BILL AND SENT BACK DOWN TO THE CONGRESS... WHERE IT WAS DEBATED, MARKED UP TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY VETTING TO BE SURE THAT THE BILL COULD BE EFFECTIVELY INTRODUCED INTO LAW, WHEREUPON THE FORMALLY PASSED BILL WAS SENT TO THE STATES' CHIEF EXECUTIVE, WHO THEN CONSIDERED THE BILL AND AFTER DOING SO, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVES PASSED THE BILLS REPRESENTING THE WILL OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE INTO *LAW.*_
> *
> THAT is the only true way to KNOW the 'true pulse of the people'.
> *
> And it is THAT pulse which YOU and the ANSA Cult are desperate to STOP, through the whimsy of illegitimate abuse of power by Subjective reasoning being illicitly applied through the authority of the judiciary, the power of which, rests entirely upon THE OBJECTIVE REASONING ESSENTIAL TO THE LEGITIMACY OF THAT BODY!
> 
> So, your claiming that you're advocating for the majority, when you're entire advocacy is posing a mouthy and otherwise tiny, insignificant minority, as a sweeping majority.
> 
> *"37 of 50 states have made Gay-Marriage Legal".*
> 
> That is not only NOT TRUE, it is NOWHERE CLOSE TO BEING TRUE.
> 
> The vast majority of the people in those states voted to ENFORCE THE NATURAL STANDARD OF MARRIAGE, through the above noted legislative process.  And less than 10 people, WHO DO NOT LIVE IN THOSE STATES, OVERTURNED *"THE TRUE PULSE OF THE PEOPLE".
> 
> 
> In short, you and your cult are evil... doing what evil has always done.
> 
> And we can rest assured that your would-be efforts will result in the same thing that evil ALWAYS RESULTS IN!*
Click to expand...


And back to block post #1. 

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need to keep running from the standing points. 

Keep running.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy that insists that if you don't agree with him, you're evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HEY LOOK!  It's ANOTHER fallacious example of the _straw reasoning _which takes deceitful pretense (_Fraudulence_) and advances it as TRUTH!...
Click to expand...


So you hold Sy to one standard....and yourself to another.

Shocker.



> Which is a MARVELOUS demonstration of _an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically _*a symptom of mental disorder, *_and by one of our own in-house, *professed homosexuals.*_



Says you. Your personal opinion is not fact. No matter how many Appeal to Authority fallacies you offer. You're not 'The Creator'. You're not 'Nature'. You're not 'Natural law'. You're not 'medical science'.

Its just you, citing yourself. And you're nobody. 

*Do you have anything other than your personal opinion?* If not, can you see why your ilk have consistently lost this debate? Why gay marriage is now legal in 37 of 50 states, and why its likely to be legal in 50 of 50 States come June?

If not.....you'll learn in just a few weeks.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm merely quoting nature... the creator of humanity.  Which is the determinator of 'reality'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're quoting yourself, ...
Click to expand...


So Reader, what you've just seen is a cognitive process, which just 30 minutes ago deemed me to be irrelevant...

NOW comes to ADVISE YOU that I am quoting myself... when in _reality_ I merely advised you that *nature* designed the human species with two distinct, but complimenting genders and, that this design is nature's standard *wherein Nature determines that human sexual normality is one male, joining with one female. 
*
Do you see that this perverse form of human cognition is not just concluding fraudulence as TRUTH, but doing so and coming here,_ to advise *YOU* that fraudulence, IS TRUTH?_

And do you understand that 'CONCLUDING FRAUDULENCE AS TRUTH' is a dangerous threat to the survival of anyone who adopts it?

Thus represents axiomatic harm to anyone, and by extension, any culture which allows those applying such disordered reasoning to alter cultural standards and adopt the shifting sands common to their own perverse thinking, AS *LAW?

*


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm merely quoting nature... the creator of humanity.  Which is the determinator of 'reality'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're quoting yourself, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Reader, what you've just seen from a cognition which just 30 minutes ago deemed me to be irrelevant... NOW comes to ADVISE YOU that I am quoting myself... wherein I merely advise you that nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complimenting genders and that this design is nature's standard known as "Human Physiology."  Wherein Nature determines that human sexual normality is one male, joining with one female.
Click to expand...


You keep insisting that sex can have only one purpose: procreation. But that's nonsense. Sex can have all sorts of purposes: procreation, pleasure, fun, bonding, exercise, relaxation, and a litany of others.

*And each is a valid, rational reason to have sex. *Debunking your subjective personal opinion that sex can *only* be about procreation. 

It would be as foolish as insisting that the only 'valid purpose' of eating is to fuel the body. What if you like the taste of a particular food? What if you're having dinner with friends? What if you're just in the mood for pizza? Each of these is a perfectly valid, perfectly rational reason to eat.

Debunking your absurd 'there can be only one' nonsense yet again. Your personal opinion is not objective fact. Or even well thought through.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette is delusional- and immune to rational thought- ...



Rational thought?

You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your conclusion, that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, IT DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THAT STANDARD NORMALITY AS FAR AS CAN BE ACHIEVED WHERE THE SUBJECTS AT ISSUE REMAIN HUMAN! AND WHICH FURTHER DEMANDS THAT THE PROFOUND DEVIANCY BE COUNTED _AS *"NORMAL"*.  _

There's nothing in that rationalization, which can be reasonably recognized as being _based upon or in accordance with sound reason or valid logic, thus such is *not *'rational'._

There's nothing in that rationale, which demonstrates that you're able to _think clearly, sensibly, and logically; _or that you're_ endowed with the capacity to reason soundly or objectively, thus such is *not *'rational'._

LOL!

You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your assertion *"37 of 50 states have now legalized Gay-Marriage". 
*
We know this because THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE STATES ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO LONG DEBATED AND PASSED BILLS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO SIGNED INTO LAW: *THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!
*
So your claim that the people in those states passed laws providing for the lowering of the marriage standard to accommodate, those who otherwise promote deviancy, *is FALSE.*

And there's nothing rational in the pretense that falsity is truth.

BUT!  What IS rational is recognizing that the most profound symptom of the disordered mind is the demand that falsity is truth.    And that is specifically defined as_ an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder, OKA: *DELUSION!*_

So LOL!  Go figure... we've come to yet another point wherein the Left is found accusing their opposition of precisely that of which THEY are demonstrably are so thoroughly,_ incontestably:_ *guilty*.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people.



Huh... Ya know what?  I agree... Polls never represent a true pulse.

But ya know what DOES represent a true pulse?

Someone once had this idea... wherein groups of people would gather in distinct geographic areas, wherein these respective collectives had different views of everyday things and as a result had different ideas of how to govern, but for the most part, they agreed on the larger issues and were readily able to live along side one another, with few major challenges, but possessing the means to reason objectively, when larger challenges came along, they would work them out through a central governance, which was designed specifically for such, stating such the preface of it's charter of law, wherein it spoke to this government being designed to promote the best interests of the collective of otherwise distinct states.

The idea was for those distinct states to govern themselves, within the general Republican framework, where the 'true pulse of the people' would be determined by the legislation wherein their respective Republican legislatures, would craft bills, which would go to their respective chief executives, who would sign them into law, where the bills were recognized by the executive as being in keeping with the Constitution of their states.

Now... where one wanted to determine for instance, the 'pulse of the whole collective', one would look at the laws of the sum.

For instance, where one wanted to know 'the pulse of the people' with regard to say The Recognition of the Natural Standards of Marriage and that such would be defended by law...

One should look at the circumstances wherein _THE PEOPLE IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE STATES, ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO INTRODUCED BILLS INTO THEIR CONGRESSIONAL HOUSE AND DEBATED THOSE BILLS, WHEREAFTER THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, VOTED TO PASS THE BILL AND SEND IT TO THE SENATE, WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS OF THE STATES CONSIDERED THE BILL AND DEBATED IT... AND WHEREAFTER, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS PASSED THE BILL AND SENT BACK DOWN TO THE CONGRESS... WHERE IT WAS DEBATED, MARKED UP TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY VETTING TO BE SURE THAT THE BILL COULD BE EFFECTIVELY INTRODUCED INTO LAW, WHEREUPON THE FORMALLY PASSED BILL WAS SENT TO THE STATES' CHIEF EXECUTIVE, WHO THEN CONSIDERED THE BILL AND AFTER DOING SO, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVES PASSED THE BILLS REPRESENTING THE WILL OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE INTO *LAW.*_
*
THAT is the only true way to KNOW the 'true pulse of the people'.  
*
And it is THAT pulse which YOU and the ANSA Cult are desperate to STOP, through the whimsy of illegitimate abuse of power by Subjective reasoning being illicitly applied through the authority of the judiciary, the power of which, rests entirely upon THE OBJECTIVE REASONING ESSENTIAL TO THE LEGITIMACY OF THAT BODY!

So, your claiming that you're advocating for the majority, when you're entire advocacy is posing a mouthy and otherwise tiny, insignificant minority, as a sweeping majority.

*"37 of 50 states have made Gay-Marriage Legal".*

That is not only NOT TRUE, it is NOWHERE CLOSE TO BEING TRUE.

The vast majority of the people in those states voted to ENFORCE THE NATURAL STANDARD OF MARRIAGE, through the above noted legislative process.  And less than 10 people, WHO DO NOT LIVE IN THOSE STATES, OVERTURNED *"THE TRUE PULSE OF THE PEOPLE".


In short, you and your cult are evil... doing what evil has always done.  

And we can rest assured that your would-be efforts will result in the same thing that evil ALWAYS RESULTS IN!*


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette is delusional- and immune to rational thought- ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rational thought?
> 
> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your conclusion, that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, IT DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THAT STANDARD NORMALITY AS FAR AS CAN BE ACHIEVED WHERE THE SUBJECTS AT ISSUE REMAIN HUMAN! AND WHICH FURTHER DEMANDS THAT THE PROFOUND DEVIANCY BE COUNTED _AS *"NORMAL"*.  _
> 
> There's nothing in that rationalization, which can be reasonably recognized as being _based upon or in accordance with sound reason or valid logic, thus such is *not *'rational'._
> 
> There's nothing in that rationale, which demonstrates that you're able to _think clearly, sensibly, and logically; _or that you're_ endowed with the capacity to reason soundly or objectively, thus such is *not *'rational'._
> 
> LOL!
> 
> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your assertion *"37 of 50 states have now legalized Gay-Marriage".
> *
> We know this because THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE STATES ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO LONG DEBATED AND PASSED BILLS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO SIGNED INTO LAW: *THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!
> *
> So your claim that the people in those states passed laws providing for the lowering of the marriage standard to accommodate, those otherwise promote deviancy, is FALSE.
> 
> And there's nothing rational in the pretense that falsity is truth.
> 
> BUT!  What IS rational is recognizing that the most profound symptom of the disordered mind is the demand that falsity is truth.    And that is specifically defined as_ an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder, OKA: *DELUSION!*_
> 
> So LOL!  Go figure... we've come to yet another point wherein the Left is found accusing their opposition of precisely that of which THEY are demonstrably and so throughly, incontestably *guilty*.
Click to expand...


And you flee back to block posting.

Is there any claim I can't run you off of?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those polls do not represent the true pulse of the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... Ya know what?  I agree... Polls never represent a true pulse.
> 
> But ya know what DOES represent a true pulse?
> 
> Someone once had this idea... wherein groups of people would gather in distinct geographic areas, wherein these respective collectives had different views of everyday things and as a result had different ideas of how to govern, but for the most part, they agreed on the larger issues and were readily able to live along side one another, with few major challenges, but possessing the means to reason objectively, when larger challenges came along, they would work them out through a central governance, which was designed specifically for such, stating such the preface of it's charter of law, wherein it spoke to this government being designed to promote the best interests of the collective of otherwise distinct states.
> 
> The idea was for those distinct states to govern themselves, within the general Republican framework, where the 'true pulse of the people' would be determined by the legislation wherein their respective Republican legislatures, would craft bills, which would go to their respective chief executives, who would sign them into law, where the bills were recognized by the executive as being in keeping with the Constitution of their states.
> 
> Now... where one wanted to determine for instance, the 'pulse of the whole collective', one would look at the laws of the sum.
> 
> For instance, where one wanted to know 'the pulse of the people' with regard to say The Recognition of the Natural Standards of Marriage and that such would be defended by law...
> 
> One should look at the circumstances wherein _THE PEOPLE IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE STATES, ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO INTRODUCED BILLS INTO THEIR CONGRESSIONAL HOUSE AND DEBATED THOSE BILLS, WHEREAFTER THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, VOTED TO PASS THE BILL AND SEND IT TO THE SENATE, WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS OF THE STATES CONSIDERED THE BILL AND DEBATED IT... AND WHEREAFTER, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS PASSED THE BILL AND SENT BACK DOWN TO THE CONGRESS... WHERE IT WAS DEBATED, MARKED UP TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY VETTING TO BE SURE THAT THE BILL COULD BE EFFECTIVELY INTRODUCED INTO LAW, WHEREUPON THE FORMALLY PASSED BILL WAS SENT TO THE STATES' CHIEF EXECUTIVE, WHO THEN CONSIDERED THE BILL AND AFTER DOING SO, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVES PASSED THE BILLS REPRESENTING THE WILL OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE INTO *LAW.*_
> *
> THAT is the only true way to KNOW the 'true pulse of the people'.
> *
> And it is THAT pulse which YOU and the ANSA Cult are desperate to STOP, through the whimsy of illegitimate abuse of power by Subjective reasoning being illicitly applied through the authority of the judiciary, the power of which, rests entirely upon THE OBJECTIVE REASONING ESSENTIAL TO THE LEGITIMACY OF THAT BODY!
> 
> So, your claiming that you're advocating for the majority, when you're entire advocacy is posing a mouthy and otherwise tiny, insignificant minority, as a sweeping majority.
> 
> *"37 of 50 states have made Gay-Marriage Legal".*
> 
> That is not only NOT TRUE, it is NOWHERE CLOSE TO BEING TRUE.
> 
> The vast majority of the people in those states voted to ENFORCE THE NATURAL STANDARD OF MARRIAGE, through the above noted legislative process.  And less than 10 people, WHO DO NOT LIVE IN THOSE STATES, OVERTURNED *"THE TRUE PULSE OF THE PEOPLE".
> 
> 
> In short, you and your cult are evil... doing what evil has always done.
> 
> And we can rest assured that your would-be efforts will result in the same thing that evil ALWAYS RESULTS IN!*
Click to expand...


And block post #2. 

It doesn't take much to send you running, does it? Punch a few holes in your latest fallacy of logic...

...and you run with your tail between your legs back to your block spam.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.



Cognitive dissonance:

Cognitive dissonance is a state of mental conflict
Hmm...

Humanity is designed with two distinct but complimenting genders.  This we recognize as the human physiological standard.

YOU claim that this standard is NOT a standard at all... that the whole of humanity, having been designed this way... should have no bearing on YOU... or your behavior and that the culture should be altered, away from recognition of that standard and toward the recognition of YOU and YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES...

Now, you further claim that where an individual is found respecting the human physiological standard, and the laws which reflect the will of the vast majority of the people, YOU demand that it is the VAST MAJORITY of the people whose mental states _are *conflicted*_.

Hmm... _Now what CAN we make of THAT?_


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance:
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is a state of mental conflict
> Hmm...
> 
> Humanity is designed with two distinct but complimenting genders.  This we recognize as the human physiological standard.
> 
> YOU claim that this standard is NOT a standard at all... that the whole of humanity, having been designed this way... should have no bearing on YOU... or your behavior and that the culture should be altered, away from recognition of that standard and toward the recognition of YOU and YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES...
> 
> Now, you further claim that where an individual is found respecting the human physiological standard, and the laws which reflect the will of the vast majority of the people, YOU demand that it is the VAST MAJORITY of the people whose mental states _are *conflicted*_.
> 
> Hmm... _Now what CAN we make of THAT?_
Click to expand...


And block spam #3

And to think, all I had to do was debunk your premise that sex and marriage could each only serve one purpose and you start running.

Fleeing from the standing points. Keep running.


----------



## koshergrl

You understand that the definition of spam isn't "winning argument with supporting evidence"...right?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> ...all I had to do was debunk your premise that sex and marriage could each only serve one purpose and you start running.



More straw reasoning presented to advise you, the reader that the fraudulence of her own creation, is truth.

Reader, the above cited contributor is demonstrating the mental disorder from which Homosexuality subsequently stems...

The question is often asked: "How does Homosexuality harm anyone?"  And it is a good question... because the initial instinct is the presumption that such is a private matter, right?

But examine this thread, now a full 800 pages... and you'll find that 'homosexuality' is not a private matter, because no where in the 800 pages of this profound discussion of such, is there a contest of the _private_ sexual co-mingling of people of the same gender.

What IS discussed however, is the altering of PUBLIC PERCEPTION... the non-stop attempts by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, to convince YOU, the Reader, that what is demonstrably FALSE, is TRUTH.

And it is in THAT, that we can readily see, the very homosexuals on this very thread, attempting to HARM YOU!  And to alter public policy which will axiomatically harm you, your children and grand children.

Because there is no potential scenario wherein the inability to know truth from falsity is not harmful to the individual saddled with such and by extension those who are subject to the affect and consequences of that delusion.

Again, what we're seeing in this ENDLESS parade of DELUSION, is THE REASON that Homosexuals were "IN THE CLOSET!".  

Our culture is not the first to succumb to such and we're finding out rather quickly that to do so is _*RUINOUS! *_


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> You understand that the definition of spam isn't "winning argument with supporting evidence"...right?



Each of those posts has already been eviscerated, with huge theory killing holes punched into them. 

And how does Keyes resolve the holes punched into his claims? Simple: he runs from them and keep block spamming the same debunked posts.

If it was 'evidence' backing his claims, he wouldn't have had to run. But he started fleeing 3 posts in.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> More straw reasoning presented to advise you, the reader that the fraudulence of her own creation, is truth.
> 
> Reader, the above cited contributor is demonstrating the mental disorder from which Homosexuality subsequently stems...
> 
> The question is often asked: "How does Homosexuality harm anyone?"  And it is a good question... because the initial instinct is the presumption that such is a private matter, right?
> 
> But examine this thread, now a full 800 pages... and you'll find that 'homosexuality' is not a private matter, because no where in the 800 pages of this profound discussion of such, is there a mention of the private sexual co-mingling of people of the same gender.
> 
> What IS discussed however, is the altering of PUBLIC PERCEPTION... the non-stop attempts by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, to convince YOU, the Reader, that what is demonstrably FALSE, is TRUTH.
> 
> And it is in THAT, that we can readily see, the very homosexuals on this very thread, attempting to HARM YOU!  And to alter public policy which will axiomatically harm you, your children and grand children.



How? You just keep Begging the Question. Insisting it does. Because...it does. Its mindless, circular reasoning. 

For example....a gay couple is married in say, Washington state. 

*What impact does that have on you? Specifically. What is taken from you? What do you lose? *

Oh, and your rout from the standing points that sex serves more than one purpose did no go unnoticed. What else can you do when your argument is dismantled with better logic and reasoning....than run? 

Keep running.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> More straw reasoning presented to advise you, the reader that the fraudulence of her own creation, is truth.
> 
> Reader, the above cited contributor is demonstrating the mental disorder from which Homosexuality subsequently stems...
> 
> The question is often asked: "How does Homosexuality harm anyone?"  And it is a good question... because the initial instinct is the presumption that such is a private matter, right?
> 
> But examine this thread, now a full 800 pages... and you'll find that 'homosexuality' is not a private matter, because no where in the 800 pages of this profound discussion of such, is there a mention of the private sexual co-mingling of people of the same gender.
> 
> What IS discussed however, is the altering of PUBLIC PERCEPTION... the non-stop attempts by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, to convince YOU, the Reader, that what is demonstrably FALSE, is TRUTH.
> 
> And it is in THAT, that we can readily see, the very homosexuals on this very thread, attempting to HARM YOU!  And to alter public policy which will axiomatically harm you, your children and grand children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How? You just keep Begging the Question. Insisting it does. Because...it does. Its mindless, circular reasoning.
> 
> For example....a gay couple is married in say, Washington state.
> 
> *What impact does that have on you? Specifically. What is taken from you? What do you lose? *
> 
> Oh, and your rout from the standing points that sex serves more than one purpose did no go unnoticed. What else can you do when your argument is dismantled with better logic and reasoning....than run?
> 
> Keep running.
Click to expand...

It has a lot of impact if the law that determined they can be *married* requires me to participate in said *marriage ceremony* upon demand.

You fools insisted on legislating religion. You just don't get it, do you? Legislation of religion doesn't work. It's not going to work.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> More straw reasoning presented to advise you, the reader that the fraudulence of her own creation, is truth.
> 
> Reader, the above cited contributor is demonstrating the mental disorder from which Homosexuality subsequently stems...
> 
> The question is often asked: "How does Homosexuality harm anyone?"  And it is a good question... because the initial instinct is the presumption that such is a private matter, right?
> 
> But examine this thread, now a full 800 pages... and you'll find that 'homosexuality' is not a private matter, because no where in the 800 pages of this profound discussion of such, is there a mention of the private sexual co-mingling of people of the same gender.
> 
> What IS discussed however, is the altering of PUBLIC PERCEPTION... the non-stop attempts by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, to convince YOU, the Reader, that what is demonstrably FALSE, is TRUTH.
> 
> And it is in THAT, that we can readily see, the very homosexuals on this very thread, attempting to HARM YOU!  And to alter public policy which will axiomatically harm you, your children and grand children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How? You just keep Begging the Question. Insisting it does. Because...it does. Its mindless, circular reasoning.
> 
> For example....a gay couple is married in say, Washington state.
> 
> *What impact does that have on you? Specifically. What is taken from you? What do you lose? *
> 
> Oh, and your rout from the standing points that sex serves more than one purpose did no go unnoticed. What else can you do when your argument is dismantled with better logic and reasoning....than run?
> 
> Keep running.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has a lot of impact if the law that determined they can be *married* requires me to participate in said *marriage ceremony* upon demand.
Click to expand...


If your religion conflicts with your job, get another job. 



> You fools insisted on legislating religion. You just don't get it, do you? Legislation of religion doesn't work. It's not going to work.



There's no regulation of what you believe. Believe as you wish. But there are laws regarding the ACTIONS you  take in business. If you're in business and you can't treat your customers fairly and equally, you'll run into conflict with the law.

You have three choices:

1) Change the law
2) Change your beliefs
3) Pay the fines.

Pick one. But immunity from any law that you don't like isn't an option. You don't get special treatment, you don't get special exemptions. The law applies to you too.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> More straw reasoning presented to advise you, the reader that the fraudulence of her own creation, is truth.
> 
> Reader, the above cited contributor is demonstrating the mental disorder from which Homosexuality subsequently stems...
> 
> The question is often asked: "How does Homosexuality harm anyone?"  And it is a good question... because the initial instinct is the presumption that such is a private matter, right?
> 
> But examine this thread, now a full 800 pages... and you'll find that 'homosexuality' is not a private matter, because no where in the 800 pages of this profound discussion of such, is there a mention of the private sexual co-mingling of people of the same gender.
> 
> What IS discussed however, is the altering of PUBLIC PERCEPTION... the non-stop attempts by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, to convince YOU, the Reader, that what is demonstrably FALSE, is TRUTH.
> 
> And it is in THAT, that we can readily see, the very homosexuals on this very thread, attempting to HARM YOU!  And to alter public policy which will axiomatically harm you, your children and grand children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How? You just keep Begging the Question. Insisting it does. Because...it does. Its mindless, circular reasoning.
> 
> For example....a gay couple is married in say, Washington state.
> 
> *What impact does that have on you? Specifically. What is taken from you? What do you lose? *
> 
> Oh, and your rout from the standing points that sex serves more than one purpose did no go unnoticed. What else can you do when your argument is dismantled with better logic and reasoning....than run?
> 
> Keep running.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has a lot of impact if the law that determined they can be *married* requires me to participate in said *marriage ceremony* upon demand.
> 
> You fools insisted on legislating religion. You just don't get it, do you? Legislation of religion doesn't work. It's not going to work.
Click to expand...


Why do you insist on making things up? No law requires you to "participate" in anyone's marriage ceremony. (Not even your own)

Baking a cake, making flower arrangements or even renting a hall does not require the business owners to "participate" in any way. 

By the way, the state's where these cases took place, didn't have marriage equality at the time the cases were brought. Public Accommodation laws protecting gays have been around a hell of a lot longer than marriage equality.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm merely quoting nature... the creator of humanity.  Which is the determinator of 'reality'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're quoting yourself, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Reader, what you've just seen
Click to expand...


Is you spouting nonsense. 

Rather pathetic.


----------



## koshergrl

If my job is my privately owned business, I don't have to get another job. You can't determine I'm not able to work at a job because of my religion, if that business is mine.

The fascist left ignores the majority and keeps forcing laws upon us that we don't support and don't want. You can't get away with that forever. We won't tolerate legislation of religion. Find some other way to get your jollies.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> More straw reasoning presented to advise you, the reader that the fraudulence of her own creation, is truth.
> 
> Reader, the above cited contributor is demonstrating the mental disorder from which Homosexuality subsequently stems...
> 
> The question is often asked: "How does Homosexuality harm anyone?"  And it is a good question... because the initial instinct is the presumption that such is a private matter, right?
> 
> But examine this thread, now a full 800 pages... and you'll find that 'homosexuality' is not a private matter, because no where in the 800 pages of this profound discussion of such, is there a mention of the private sexual co-mingling of people of the same gender.
> 
> What IS discussed however, is the altering of PUBLIC PERCEPTION... the non-stop attempts by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, to convince YOU, the Reader, that what is demonstrably FALSE, is TRUTH.
> 
> And it is in THAT, that we can readily see, the very homosexuals on this very thread, attempting to HARM YOU!  And to alter public policy which will axiomatically harm you, your children and grand children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How? You just keep Begging the Question. Insisting it does. Because...it does. Its mindless, circular reasoning.
> 
> For example....a gay couple is married in say, Washington state.
> 
> *What impact does that have on you? Specifically. What is taken from you? What do you lose? *
> 
> Oh, and your rout from the standing points that sex serves more than one purpose did no go unnoticed. What else can you do when your argument is dismantled with better logic and reasoning....than run?
> 
> Keep running.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has a lot of impact if the law that determined they can be *married* requires me to participate in said *marriage ceremony* upon demand.
> 
> You fools insisted on legislating religion. You just don't get it, do you? Legislation of religion doesn't work. It's not going to work.
Click to expand...


No one is legislating religion. 

You are the one who pretends that Christians are exempt from the law that applies to everyone- Christians included.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You understand that the definition of spam isn't "winning argument with supporting evidence"...right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those posts has already been eviscerated, with huge theory killing holes punched into them.
> 
> And how does Keyes resolve the holes punched into his claims? Simple: he runs from them and keep block spamming the same debunked posts.
> 
> If it was 'evidence' backing his claims, he wouldn't have had to run. But he started fleeing 3 posts in.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!

*DELUSION on PARADE!*

More Fraudulence advanced as truth... toward the hope of influencing what they consider to be a foolish and ignorant readership.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> If my job is my privately owned business, I don't have to get another job. You can't determine I'm not able to work at a job because of my religion, if that business is mine.
> 
> The fascist left ignores the majority and keeps forcing laws upon us that we don't support and don't want. You can't get away with that forever. We won't tolerate legislation of religion. Find some other way to get your jollies.



These are state laws passed through the legislative process, voted in through majority vote.

How in that teeny tiny little Con brain of yours does that equate to 'fascism'?


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You understand that the definition of spam isn't "winning argument with supporting evidence"...right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those posts has already been eviscerated, with huge theory killing holes punched into them.
> 
> And how does Keyes resolve the holes punched into his claims? Simple: he runs from them and keep block spamming the same debunked posts.
> 
> If it was 'evidence' backing his claims, he wouldn't have had to run. But he started fleeing 3 posts in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *DELUSION on PARADE!*
> .
Click to expand...


Exactly- it describes each and every one of your posts. - delusion on parade


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You understand that the definition of spam isn't "winning argument with supporting evidence"...right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each of those posts has already been eviscerated, with huge theory killing holes punched into them.
> 
> And how does Keyes resolve the holes punched into his claims? Simple: he runs from them and keep block spamming the same debunked posts.
> 
> If it was 'evidence' backing his claims, he wouldn't have had to run. But he started fleeing 3 posts in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> *DELUSION on PARADE!*
> 
> More Fraudulence advanced as truth... toward the hope of influencing what they consider to be a foolish and ignorant readership.
Click to expand...


Laughing....that's why you refuse to shore up any of the theory killing holes I've punched into your claims. And just keep repeating the same debunked bullshit.

Sigh....you make this so easy.

Your claim that marriage serves only one purpose: debunked. Your claim that sex can only serve on purpose: debunked. 

Keep running.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> If my job is my privately owned business, I don't have to get another job. You can't determine I'm not able to work at a job because of my religion, if that business is mine.



The law can determine that you violated PA laws and fine you accordingly. If your religion is eating up your profits in fines, find another job.

You say it can't be done. As the rulings against both the florist and the baker demonstrate, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Denying reality doesn't change it.



> The fascist left ignores the majority and keeps forcing laws upon us that we don't support and don't want. You can't get away with that forever. We won't tolerate legislation of religion. Find some other way to get your jollies.



PA laws were passed by the legislatures of both states. So don't bother giving any lip service to 'laws the people want'. You'll gladly try to ignore any law you don't like, regardless of public support, or method of passage.

You're not exempt from the law, you don't get special privileges because you're religious. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> More straw reasoning presented to advise you, the reader that the fraudulence of her own creation, is truth.
> 
> Reader, the above cited contributor is demonstrating the mental disorder from which Homosexuality subsequently stems...
> 
> The question is often asked: "How does Homosexuality harm anyone?"  And it is a good question... because the initial instinct is the presumption that such is a private matter, right?
> 
> But examine this thread, now a full 800 pages... and you'll find that 'homosexuality' is not a private matter, because no where in the 800 pages of this profound discussion of such, is there a mention of the private sexual co-mingling of people of the same gender.
> 
> What IS discussed however, is the altering of PUBLIC PERCEPTION... the non-stop attempts by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, to convince YOU, the Reader, that what is demonstrably FALSE, is TRUTH.
> 
> And it is in THAT, that we can readily see, the very homosexuals on this very thread, attempting to HARM YOU!  And to alter public policy which will axiomatically harm you, your children and grand children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How? You just keep Begging the Question. Insisting it does. Because...it does. Its mindless, circular reasoning.
> 
> For example....a gay couple is married in say, Washington state.
> 
> *What impact does that have on you? Specifically. What is taken from you? What do you lose? *
> 
> Oh, and your rout from the standing points that sex serves more than one purpose did no go unnoticed. What else can you do when your argument is dismantled with better logic and reasoning....than run?
> 
> Keep running.
Click to expand...


OH!  Reduction to the absurd?  A CLASSIC!

First, no gay couple is married anywhere... because marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

So through your profession, we see the harm to EVERYONE, wherein you claim that something which is FALSE: IS TRUE!

Thus NORMALIZING THE DEVIANCY WHICH HOLDS THAT FALSITY IS TRUTH.  

And FYI: There is absolutely NO Potential that ANYTHING "GOOD" can result from it; meaning that every potential outcome of 'it', is harmful to everyone in the culture which accepts it.

Thank you for the opportunity to help you better understand... . 
_
You concession is duly noted and summarily accepted_


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> More straw reasoning presented to advise you, the reader that the fraudulence of her own creation, is truth.
> 
> Reader, the above cited contributor is demonstrating the mental disorder from which Homosexuality subsequently stems...
> 
> The question is often asked: "How does Homosexuality harm anyone?"  And it is a good question... because the initial instinct is the presumption that such is a private matter, right?
> 
> But examine this thread, now a full 800 pages... and you'll find that 'homosexuality' is not a private matter, because no where in the 800 pages of this profound discussion of such, is there a mention of the private sexual co-mingling of people of the same gender.
> 
> What IS discussed however, is the altering of PUBLIC PERCEPTION... the non-stop attempts by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, to convince YOU, the Reader, that what is demonstrably FALSE, is TRUTH.
> 
> And it is in THAT, that we can readily see, the very homosexuals on this very thread, attempting to HARM YOU!  And to alter public policy which will axiomatically harm you, your children and grand children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How? You just keep Begging the Question. Insisting it does. Because...it does. Its mindless, circular reasoning.
> 
> For example....a gay couple is married in say, Washington state.
> 
> *What impact does that have on you? Specifically. What is taken from you? What do you lose? *
> 
> Oh, and your rout from the standing points that sex serves more than one purpose did no go unnoticed. What else can you do when your argument is dismantled with better logic and reasoning....than run?
> 
> Keep running.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  Reduction to the absurd?  A CLASSIC!
Click to expand...


Clearly 'reduction to the absurd' doesn't mean what you think it means. I'm asking you how you're directly effected by a gay couple getting married.

*And you can't describe any effects whatsoever.* Which is exactly my point.

Far from the catastrophe and melodramatic mascara smearing hysterics you describe.....nothing happens. You aren't effected in anyway.

Yet another reason we're not stripping gays and lesbians of any rights just because you don't like it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my job is my privately owned business, I don't have to get another job. You can't determine I'm not able to work at a job because of my religion, if that business is mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law can determine that you violated PA laws and fine you accordingly...
Click to expand...


The existence of a law, does not a valid law make.

A law which establishes compliance which forces a citizen to violate fundamental tenets of their religious belief, is invalid and no one is morally obligated to comply.

But how positively FASCIST of YOU to claim otherwise!

Again, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my job is my privately owned business, I don't have to get another job. You can't determine I'm not able to work at a job because of my religion, if that business is mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law can determine that you violated PA laws and fine you accordingly. If your religion is eating up your profits in fines, find another job.
> 
> You say it can't be done. As the rulings against both the florist and the baker demonstrate, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Denying reality doesn't change it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fascist left ignores the majority and keeps forcing laws upon us that we don't support and don't want. You can't get away with that forever. We won't tolerate legislation of religion. Find some other way to get your jollies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws were passed by the legislatures of both states. So don't bother giving any lip service to 'laws the people want'. You'll gladly try to ignore any law you don't like, regardless of public support, or method of passage.
> 
> You're not exempt from the law, you don't get special privileges because you're religious. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.
Click to expand...

 
The interpretation that allowed for this ridiculous law suit came from the Supreme Court.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my job is my privately owned business, I don't have to get another job. You can't determine I'm not able to work at a job because of my religion, if that business is mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law can determine that you violated PA laws and fine you accordingly...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of a law, does not a valid law make.
Click to expand...


And your disagreement with a law doesn't make it invalid. Yet you keep insisting that if YOU don't like something, its evil.

Nope. You're nobody. And we don't base the validity of our laws, our morality or our ethics  on your subjective personal opinion.



> A law which establishes compliance which forces a citizen to violate fundamental tenets of their religious belief, is invalid and no one is morally obligated to comply.



If a person's religion forbids them from treating their customers fairly and equally in business, then they can find a job that their religion will allow.

Christians don't get to ignore any law they don't like. The same laws apply to them as apply to everyone else.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my job is my privately owned business, I don't have to get another job. You can't determine I'm not able to work at a job because of my religion, if that business is mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law can determine that you violated PA laws and fine you accordingly. If your religion is eating up your profits in fines, find another job.
> 
> You say it can't be done. As the rulings against both the florist and the baker demonstrate, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Denying reality doesn't change it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fascist left ignores the majority and keeps forcing laws upon us that we don't support and don't want. You can't get away with that forever. We won't tolerate legislation of religion. Find some other way to get your jollies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws were passed by the legislatures of both states. So don't bother giving any lip service to 'laws the people want'. You'll gladly try to ignore any law you don't like, regardless of public support, or method of passage.
> 
> You're not exempt from the law, you don't get special privileges because you're religious. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The interpretation that allowed for this ridiculous law suit came from the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


The PA laws are state laws. And the States have uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce per the constitution. See the 10th amendment.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my job is my privately owned business, I don't have to get another job. You can't determine I'm not able to work at a job because of my religion, if that business is mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law can determine that you violated PA laws and fine you accordingly. If your religion is eating up your profits in fines, find another job.
> 
> You say it can't be done. As the rulings against both the florist and the baker demonstrate, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Denying reality doesn't change it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fascist left ignores the majority and keeps forcing laws upon us that we don't support and don't want. You can't get away with that forever. We won't tolerate legislation of religion. Find some other way to get your jollies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws were passed by the legislatures of both states. So don't bother giving any lip service to 'laws the people want'. You'll gladly try to ignore any law you don't like, regardless of public support, or method of passage.
> 
> You're not exempt from the law, you don't get special privileges because you're religious. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The interpretation that allowed for this ridiculous law suit came from the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA laws are state laws. And the States have uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce per the constitution. See the 10th amendment.
Click to expand...

 
Employment Division v. Smith LII Legal Information Institute


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Clearly 'reduction to the absurd' means what you think it means.



Clearly...  but in fairness, reducing an issue down to absurd values, in hopes of making such seem substantially less serious, thus potentially less damaging is invalid reasoning and, has been recognized as such for a couple of thousand years, it's not like it's a debatable point.

Which makes your incessant need to debate the established truths regarding the human physiological standard, which was established by nature MILLIONS of years ago... .

But hey... let's be honest.  That's just ONE of the downsides to MENTAL DISORDER.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> More straw reasoning presented to advise you, the reader that the fraudulence of her own creation, is truth.
> 
> Reader, the above cited contributor is demonstrating the mental disorder from which Homosexuality subsequently stems...
> 
> The question is often asked: "How does Homosexuality harm anyone?"  And it is a good question... because the initial instinct is the presumption that such is a private matter, right?
> 
> But examine this thread, now a full 800 pages... and you'll find that 'homosexuality' is not a private matter, because no where in the 800 pages of this profound discussion of such, is there a mention of the private sexual co-mingling of people of the same gender.
> 
> What IS discussed however, is the altering of PUBLIC PERCEPTION... the non-stop attempts by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, to convince YOU, the Reader, that what is demonstrably FALSE, is TRUTH.
> 
> And it is in THAT, that we can readily see, the very homosexuals on this very thread, attempting to HARM YOU!  And to alter public policy which will axiomatically harm you, your children and grand children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How? You just keep Begging the Question. Insisting it does. Because...it does. Its mindless, circular reasoning.
> 
> For example....a gay couple is married in say, Washington state.
> 
> *What impact does that have on you? Specifically. What is taken from you? What do you lose? *
> 
> Oh, and your rout from the standing points that sex serves more than one purpose did no go unnoticed. What else can you do when your argument is dismantled with better logic and reasoning....than run?
> 
> Keep running.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  Reduction to the absurd?  A CLASSIC!
> 
> First, no gay couple is married anywhere... because marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> So through your profession, we see the harm to EVERYONE, wherein you claim that something which is FALSE: IS TRUE!
> 
> Thus NORMALIZING THE DEVIANCY WHICH HOLDS THAT FALSITY IS TRUTH.
> 
> And FYI: There is absolutely NO Potential that ANYTHING "GOOD" can result from it; meaning that every potential outcome of 'it', is harmful to everyone in the culture which accepts it.
> 
> Thank you for the opportunity to help you better understand... .
> _
> You concession is duly noted and summarily accepted_
Click to expand...


You are a deviant.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my job is my privately owned business, I don't have to get another job. You can't determine I'm not able to work at a job because of my religion, if that business is mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law can determine that you violated PA laws and fine you accordingly. If your religion is eating up your profits in fines, find another job.
> 
> You say it can't be done. As the rulings against both the florist and the baker demonstrate, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Denying reality doesn't change it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fascist left ignores the majority and keeps forcing laws upon us that we don't support and don't want. You can't get away with that forever. We won't tolerate legislation of religion. Find some other way to get your jollies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws were passed by the legislatures of both states. So don't bother giving any lip service to 'laws the people want'. You'll gladly try to ignore any law you don't like, regardless of public support, or method of passage.
> 
> You're not exempt from the law, you don't get special privileges because you're religious. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The interpretation that allowed for this ridiculous law suit came from the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA laws are state laws. And the States have uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce per the constitution. See the 10th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employment Division v. Smith LII Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...


Those aren't PA laws. Try again.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly 'reduction to the absurd' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly...  but in fairness, reducing an issue down to absurd values, in hopes of making such seem substantially less serious or potentially damaging, is invalid reasoning and has been recognized as such for a couple of thousand years, it's not like it's a debatable point.
> 
> Which makes your incessant need to debate the established truths regarding the human physiological standard, which was established by nature MILLIONS of years ago... .
> 
> But hey... let's be honest.  That's just ONE of the downsides to MENTAL DISORDER.
Click to expand...


And yet again, I ask you how you would be effected if a gay couple was allowed to marry.

And you can't cite any effects. So much for your babble about 'catastrophe'. Gay marriage doesn't effect you nor limit any of your rights.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my job is my privately owned business, I don't have to get another job. You can't determine I'm not able to work at a job because of my religion, if that business is mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law can determine that you violated PA laws and fine you accordingly. If your religion is eating up your profits in fines, find another job.
> 
> You say it can't be done. As the rulings against both the florist and the baker demonstrate, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Denying reality doesn't change it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fascist left ignores the majority and keeps forcing laws upon us that we don't support and don't want. You can't get away with that forever. We won't tolerate legislation of religion. Find some other way to get your jollies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws were passed by the legislatures of both states. So don't bother giving any lip service to 'laws the people want'. You'll gladly try to ignore any law you don't like, regardless of public support, or method of passage.
> 
> You're not exempt from the law, you don't get special privileges because you're religious. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The interpretation that allowed for this ridiculous law suit came from the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


Oh wait- so you think it is fascim when a State passes a law, according to its own Constitution, through the legislative process, and that law is interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court?

That to your teeny tiny Con brain is 'fascism'?

LOL- no wonder its been so easy to overturn all of the gay marriage bans.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly 'reduction to the absurd' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly...  but in fairness, reducing an issue down to absurd values, in hopes of making such seem substantially less serious or potentially damaging, is invalid reasoning and has been recognized as such for a couple of thousand years, it's not like it's a debatable point.
> 
> Which makes your incessant need to debate the established truths regarding the human physiological standard, which was established by nature MILLIONS of years ago... .
> 
> But hey... let's be honest.  That's just ONE of the downsides to MENTAL DISORDER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet again, I ask you how you would be effected if a gay couple was allowed to marry.
> 
> And you can't cite any effects. So much for your babble about 'catastrophe'. Gay marriage doesn't effect you nor limit any of your rights.
Click to expand...


I think his head might explode.

But luckily it would be a very small explosion.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Again, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.



Laughing...your tell already? Keyes, its been what....an hour? And you're already ready to throw in the towel?

You always let us know when you know you're beaten with this 'summary declaration of victory' shtick. Where instead of shoring up the truck sized holes in your claims, you make up excuses to flee.

You don't need an excuse. Just run. Eventually, you always do.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my job is my privately owned business, I don't have to get another job. You can't determine I'm not able to work at a job because of my religion, if that business is mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law can determine that you violated PA laws and fine you accordingly. If your religion is eating up your profits in fines, find another job.
> 
> You say it can't be done. As the rulings against both the florist and the baker demonstrate, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Denying reality doesn't change it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fascist left ignores the majority and keeps forcing laws upon us that we don't support and don't want. You can't get away with that forever. We won't tolerate legislation of religion. Find some other way to get your jollies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws were passed by the legislatures of both states. So don't bother giving any lip service to 'laws the people want'. You'll gladly try to ignore any law you don't like, regardless of public support, or method of passage.
> 
> You're not exempt from the law, you don't get special privileges because you're religious. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The interpretation that allowed for this ridiculous law suit came from the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA laws are state laws. And the States have uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce per the constitution. See the 10th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employment Division v. Smith LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those aren't PA laws. Try again.
Click to expand...

I know what they are.

As I've said repeatedly..this is the root of the problem:

"... the key case is_ Employment Division v. Smith_, which radically revised Supreme Court free exercise jurisprudence in 1990-over twenty years ago. In a nutshell, _Smith _states that valid, generally applicable (criminal) laws do not run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution, even if they hamper some religious practices."

In order to prevent the homo lobby from leveling discriminatory laws against Christians, we have to first address this ^^.

Employment Division v. Smith The Eye of the Storm UPDATE Commonweal Magazine


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laughing...your tell already? Keyes, its been what....an hour? And you're already ready to throw in the towel?
> 
> You always let us know when you know you're beaten with this 'summary declaration of victory' shtick. Where instead of shoring up the truck sized holes in your claims, you make up excuses to flee.
> 
> You don't need an excuse. Just run. Eventually, you always do.
Click to expand...

 
You keep saying he's running, but he seems to be ticking along with a regular dialogue..while all you do is keep parroting the same nonsense about how he's running..over..and over..and over...


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law can determine that you violated PA laws and fine you accordingly. If your religion is eating up your profits in fines, find another job.
> 
> You say it can't be done. As the rulings against both the florist and the baker demonstrate, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Denying reality doesn't change it.
> 
> PA laws were passed by the legislatures of both states. So don't bother giving any lip service to 'laws the people want'. You'll gladly try to ignore any law you don't like, regardless of public support, or method of passage.
> 
> You're not exempt from the law, you don't get special privileges because you're religious. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation that allowed for this ridiculous law suit came from the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA laws are state laws. And the States have uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce per the constitution. See the 10th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employment Division v. Smith LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those aren't PA laws. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what they are.
> 
> As I've said repeatedly..this is the root of the problem:
> 
> "... the key case is_ Employment Division v. Smith_, which radically revised Supreme Court free exercise jurisprudence in 1990-over twenty years ago. In a nutshell, _Smith _states that valid, generally applicable (criminal) laws do not run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution, even if they hamper some religious practices."
> 
> In order to prevent the homo lobby from leveling discriminatory laws against Christians, we have to first address this ^^.
> 
> Employment Division v. Smith The Eye of the Storm UPDATE Commonweal Magazine
Click to expand...


The show me anywhere in the ruling where the term 'public accommodation' is mentioned. Or the intrastate commerce. 

You'll find no such passage


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretation that allowed for this ridiculous law suit came from the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The PA laws are state laws. And the States have uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce per the constitution. See the 10th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employment Division v. Smith LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those aren't PA laws. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what they are.
> 
> As I've said repeatedly..this is the root of the problem:
> 
> "... the key case is_ Employment Division v. Smith_, which radically revised Supreme Court free exercise jurisprudence in 1990-over twenty years ago. In a nutshell, _Smith _states that valid, generally applicable (criminal) laws do not run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution, even if they hamper some religious practices."
> 
> In order to prevent the homo lobby from leveling discriminatory laws against Christians, we have to first address this ^^.
> 
> Employment Division v. Smith The Eye of the Storm UPDATE Commonweal Magazine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The show me anywhere in the ruling where the term 'public accommodation' is mentioned. Or the intrastate commerce.
> 
> You'll find no such passage
Click to expand...

 
I don't need to.

Why would I work to support some weird argument you're making?


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laughing...your tell already? Keyes, its been what....an hour? And you're already ready to throw in the towel?
> 
> You always let us know when you know you're beaten with this 'summary declaration of victory' shtick. Where instead of shoring up the truck sized holes in your claims, you make up excuses to flee.
> 
> You don't need an excuse. Just run. Eventually, you always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying he's running, but he seems to be ticking along with a regular dialogue..while all you do is keep parroting the same nonsense about how he's running..over..and over..and over...
Click to expand...


Oh, of course he's running. He claimed that sex can serve only one purpose. I debunked it, proving that sex could have many purposes. Procreation, fun, bonding, stress relief, relaxation, exercise, etc. And all of it was perfectly rational and logical.

_Keyes now won't discuss the topic, avoiding it completely_.* He ran. *

Keyes claimed that marriage can only be about procreation. I debunked that, showing millions of infertile or childless couples that are allowed to marry or remain married. Demonstrating undeniably that there is a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

_Keyes now won't discuss the topic, avoiding it completely._ *He ran. *

You'd be shocked how little effort it takes to run him off his own topic.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laughing...your tell already? Keyes, its been what....an hour? And you're already ready to throw in the towel?
> 
> You always let us know when you know you're beaten with this 'summary declaration of victory' shtick. Where instead of shoring up the truck sized holes in your claims, you make up excuses to flee.
> 
> You don't need an excuse. Just run. Eventually, you always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying he's running, but he seems to be ticking along with a regular dialogue..while all you do is keep parroting the same nonsense about how he's running..over..and over..and over...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, of course he's running. He claimed that sex can serve only one purpose. I debunked it, proving that sex could have many purposes. Fun, bonding, relaxation, exercise, etc. And all of it was perfectly rational and logical.
> 
> _Keyes now won't discuss the topic, avoiding it completely_.* He ran. *
> 
> Keyes claimed that marriage can only be about procreation. I debunked that, showing millions of infertile or childless couples that are allowed to marry or remain married. Demonstrating undeniably that there is a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.
> 
> _Keyes now won't discuss the topic, avoiding it completely._ *He ran. *
> 
> You'd be shocked how little effort it takes to run him off his own topic.
Click to expand...

 
If he was running, he wouldn't keep responding to you...and you crowing "You're running you're running nanananana" is not evidence that you've won an argument. All you "proved" is that you think your opinion is superior. That's not winning an argument. That's just hubris.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA laws are state laws. And the States have uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce per the constitution. See the 10th amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Employment Division v. Smith LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those aren't PA laws. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what they are.
> 
> As I've said repeatedly..this is the root of the problem:
> 
> "... the key case is_ Employment Division v. Smith_, which radically revised Supreme Court free exercise jurisprudence in 1990-over twenty years ago. In a nutshell, _Smith _states that valid, generally applicable (criminal) laws do not run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution, even if they hamper some religious practices."
> 
> In order to prevent the homo lobby from leveling discriminatory laws against Christians, we have to first address this ^^.
> 
> Employment Division v. Smith The Eye of the Storm UPDATE Commonweal Magazine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The show me anywhere in the ruling where the term 'public accommodation' is mentioned. Or the intrastate commerce.
> 
> You'll find no such passage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to.
Click to expand...


Sure you do if you want to claim that the basis of PA laws is that Supreme Court ruling.

There's no mention of PA laws.


----------



## koshergrl

The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> If he was running, he wouldn't keep responding to you..



But he isn't responding to the topics I've run him off of. He has completely abandoned them, refusing to discuss them, respond to them, or address them.

His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked.* And he ran. *

If sex can serve many purposes, including just being fun and enjoyable, why then would non productive sex like oral, anal, toys, masterbation, etc be 'abhorred' or 'loathed' or 'despised', or any of the other colorful adjectives that Keyes has offered?

Obviously, they wouldn't be. Keyes painted himself into a corner.* And had no choice but to flee.*

Same with marriage. He insists that marriage has a 'natural definition'. But marriage doesn't exist in nature. We invented it. It means what we say it means. And it has far more than the lone purpose of procreation. Given that there is a valid basis of marriage that has NOTHING to do with children or the ability to have them, why would we exclude gays from marriage on the basis that they can't have kids?

It makes no sense. Keyes knows this....*so he ran from this too. *

The fella gives you a road map for how to rhetorically beat him. As he tells you where he knows he is weakest by the topics he abandons. Just stick to those, and his claims fall apart


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.



Says who?

There's you and....who?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my job is my privately owned business, I don't have to get another job. You can't determine I'm not able to work at a job because of my religion, if that business is mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law can determine that you violated PA laws and fine you accordingly. If your religion is eating up your profits in fines, find another job.
> 
> You say it can't be done. As the rulings against both the florist and the baker demonstrate, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Denying reality doesn't change it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fascist left ignores the majority and keeps forcing laws upon us that we don't support and don't want. You can't get away with that forever. We won't tolerate legislation of religion. Find some other way to get your jollies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws were passed by the legislatures of both states. So don't bother giving any lip service to 'laws the people want'. You'll gladly try to ignore any law you don't like, regardless of public support, or method of passage.
> 
> You're not exempt from the law, you don't get special privileges because you're religious. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The interpretation that allowed for this ridiculous law suit came from the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA laws are state laws. And the States have uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce per the constitution. See the 10th amendment.
Click to expand...


WOW!  

One wonders where the contest would come then, of the states power to define public policy essential to the states viability?

Isn't it ADORABLE how the deviant mind finds "INCONTESTABLE POWER" to limit the rights of christians to not promote perversion, but POWERLESS to promote sound mental health, by rejecting the cognitive dissonance which confuses falsity with truth?

You truly can NOT make this crap up.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my job is my privately owned business, I don't have to get another job. You can't determine I'm not able to work at a job because of my religion, if that business is mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law can determine that you violated PA laws and fine you accordingly. If your religion is eating up your profits in fines, find another job.
> 
> You say it can't be done. As the rulings against both the florist and the baker demonstrate, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Denying reality doesn't change it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fascist left ignores the majority and keeps forcing laws upon us that we don't support and don't want. You can't get away with that forever. We won't tolerate legislation of religion. Find some other way to get your jollies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws were passed by the legislatures of both states. So don't bother giving any lip service to 'laws the people want'. You'll gladly try to ignore any law you don't like, regardless of public support, or method of passage.
> 
> You're not exempt from the law, you don't get special privileges because you're religious. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The interpretation that allowed for this ridiculous law suit came from the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA laws are state laws. And the States have uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce per the constitution. See the 10th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW!
> 
> One wonders where the contest would come then, of the states power to define public policy essential to the states viability?
Click to expand...


Why the people. And you, Keyes, aren't the people. You're a person. If you disagree with the laws placed by the people, you can certainly bring your case to the court or try to get laws passed that you agree with.

The PA Laws in both states we're discussing were passed by their respective legislatures made up representatives who were elected by the people and wield the people's power.

See how that works? You all by your lonesome don't get to ignore any law  you don't like. Nor do Christians get a special class of rights that no one else gets. Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else.



> Isn't it ADORABLE how the deviant mind finds "INCONTESTABLE POWER" to limit the rights of christians to not promote perversion, but POWERLESS to promote sound mental health, by rejecting the cognitive dissonance which confuses falsity with truth?



You're clearly confused. I've cited numerous ways in which you can change the law if you don't like it. Or challenge it directly in a court of law.

Does that help you with your obvious blunder?


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> There's you and....who?
Click to expand...

 
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2215&context=facpubs


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> There's you and....who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2215&context=facpubs
Click to expand...


Is there a passage you'd like to share? Or are you just spamming links to arguments you've never read?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked.* And he ran.*


*
There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist.  So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.*

Sex serves one purpose, procreation.  That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.

Now of the two conditions:

1- A Sound Mind

2- A Deviant Mind

Which do you suppose would confuse the effect of sex, with the purpose of sex?

Now, this principle is ubiquitous, just as is the conflation of it, where such is considered by the disordered mind.

To wit:
War kills people and breaks things..., yet killing people and breaking things is not _the *purpose* of war._  The purpose of war is to induce one's will upon another party... .

Now, what would happen to a culture which lost sight of that truth and succumbed to the falsity that war's purpose was to kill people and break things?

Such a culture may come to being incapable of winning a war... pursuing instead of victory, winning the hearts and minds of their adversary.

See how that works and how the perverse reasoning common to the disordered mind, is harmful to you and your children?


----------



## koshergrl

"...the prevailing view tells us, free exercise litigants since Smith have lost consistently on the First Amendment merits in the lower federal and state courts. Since Smith, that is, any free exercise litigants dedicated enough to continue pursuing First Amendment exemptions claims in the wake of lSmith have almost invariably come away disappointed in the lower courts."
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=jcl


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.



Public Accomodation laws existed before that Supreme Court ruling- and they exist after it. 

Christians don't get ignore laws just because they claim to be Christians.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> There's you and....who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2215&context=facpubs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a passage you'd like to share? Or are you just spamming links to arguments you've never read?
Click to expand...

 
You again prove you don't understand what spam is.

Spam isn't a winning argument that you can't grasp. Spam is irrelevant, and what I'm posting is perfectly relevant to the topic, whether or not you are able to understand it.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> "...the prevailing view tells us, free exercise litigants since Smith have lost consistently on the First Amendment merits in the lower federal and state courts. Since Smith, that is, any free exercise litigants dedicated enough to continue pursuing First Amendment exemptions claims in the wake of lSmith have almost invariably come away disappointed in the lower courts."
> http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=jcl



Do you think laws against polygamy are invalid if you belief polygamy is sacred institution?


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked.* And he ran.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex serves one purpose, procreation.
Click to expand...


LOL.....maybe for you.

Not for most other humans.


----------



## koshergrl

"To be sure, a number of well-documented cases have established that Smith has been a catastrophe for religion freedom..."
"To be sure, Employment Division v. Smith represented a serious curtailment by the Supreme Court of First Amendment rights to exercise religious faith."
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=jcl


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked.* And he ran.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist.  So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.*
Click to expand...


Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.

Running as we laughed!

*So you've never run....except for that time, right?*

Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?

And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.

*So you've never run....except for those two times, right?*

Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.

*So you've never run....except for those three times, right?*

Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.



> Sex serves one purpose, procreation.  That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.


It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.

And each of these purposes is completely valid, rational and reasonable.

Your failure is so predictable: *you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. *And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.

...if only reality worked that way.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked.* And he ran.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist.  So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.
> 
> Running as we laughed!
> 
> *So you've never run....except for that time, right?*
> 
> Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?
> 
> And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those two times, right?*
> 
> Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those three times, right?*
> 
> Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex serves one purpose, procreation.  That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.
> 
> And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.
> 
> Your failure is so predictable: *you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. *And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.
> 
> ...if only reality worked that way.
Click to expand...

 
A whole post full of..nothing.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> "To be sure, a number of well-documented cases have established that Smith has been a catastrophe for religion freedom..."
> "To be sure, Employment Division v. Smith represented a serious curtailment by the Supreme Court of First Amendment rights to exercise religious faith."
> http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=jcl



And where is there any mention of PA laws?


----------



## koshergrl

"..almost no one in the field has accepted Justic Scalia's reinterpretation of history in this manner at face value; indeed even ardent supporters of the Smith rule have derided Scalia's reorganization of precedents as "border[ing] on fiction" and "particularly illustrative of poetic license."
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=jcl


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked.* And he ran.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist.  So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.
> 
> Running as we laughed!
> 
> *So you've never run....except for that time, right?*
> 
> Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?
> 
> And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those two times, right?*
> 
> Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those three times, right?*
> 
> Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex serves one purpose, procreation.  That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.
> 
> And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.
> 
> Your failure is so predictable: *you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. *And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.
> 
> ...if only reality worked that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A whole post full of..nothing.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:

*If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control? *

It would be like claiming that the only possible purpose of eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends? What if you want a pint of Chunky Monkey from Ben and Jerry's because you've had a bad day? What if you're just in the mood for pizza? 

*Wouldn't these be valid reasons to eat? If not, why not? *

And of course, if marriage serves only one purpose: procreation......then what of all the infertile or childless couples who are allowed to marry or remain married? They exist by the millions.....demonstrating undeniably that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Nor is any couple required to be able to have kids in order to get married.

*So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?*

I'll understand if you choose to run too.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "To be sure, a number of well-documented cases have established that Smith has been a catastrophe for religion freedom..."
> "To be sure, Employment Division v. Smith represented a serious curtailment by the Supreme Court of First Amendment rights to exercise religious faith."
> http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=jcl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where is there any mention of PA laws?
Click to expand...

 
I have posted multiple quotes that explain how the law affects rulings in the lower courts. Like I said, just because you don't understand doesn't mean you win. The opinion of lawmakers is that the Supreme Court ruling on Smith changed the nature of the application of the first amendment, and reduced our religious freedom, and made it almost impossible for people to obtain any exception to civil law in the lower courts.

The objective is of course to allow the state to exert greater influence over the bodies of our children...to force parents to participate in state-mandated exercises and practices, regardless of their religion..but the result is more far reaching than that.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Why the people. And you, Keyes, aren't the people. You're a person.



Then you as 'a person' are also NOT: THE PEOPLE...

So using your reasoning, your own advocacy made on behalf of THE PEOPLE is also nullified.

Thus the purpose of debate of public policy is likewise 'made invalid'.

Now Reader, do you see how Deviancy has harmed the above cited deviant?

In one stroke, where he reasoning were to be adopted, she would have shut down this entire forum... and Republican governance across the board would have been eliminated.

I ask you, do you see any harm in reasoning which holds that because you are a person, your input on matters of public policy are invalidated, unwelcome and otherwise irrelevant?  

YET: THAT is the reasoning which has not been shown to be common to the same species of reasoning which demands that sexuality which PROFOUNDLY deviates from the human physiological norm, does NOT Deviate from that norm, thus such is perfectly normal.

And as such, I am sure that you, the Reader can readily see that such is a harmful _'way of thinking'_, OKA: _A disordered way of thinking_, AKA: _*A Mental Disorder.*_


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked.* And he ran.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist.  So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.
> 
> Running as we laughed!
> 
> *So you've never run....except for that time, right?*
> 
> Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?
> 
> And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those two times, right?*
> 
> Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those three times, right?*
> 
> Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex serves one purpose, procreation.  That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.
> 
> And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.
> 
> Your failure is so predictable: *you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. *And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.
> 
> ...if only reality worked that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A whole post full of..nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:
> 
> *If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control? *
> 
> It would be like claiming that the only possible purpose of eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends? What if you want a pint of Chunky Monkey from Ben and Jerry's because you've had a bad day? What if you're just in the mood for pizza?
> 
> *Wouldn't these be valid reasons to eat? If not, why not? *
> 
> And of course, if marriage serves only one purpose: procreation......then what of all the infertile or childless couples who are allowed to marry or remain married? They exist by the millions.....demonstrating undeniably that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Nor is any couple required to be able to have kids in order to get married.
> 
> *So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?*
> 
> I'll understand if you choose to run too.
Click to expand...

 
I have no interest in that ridiculous argument. It's totally irrelevant to the OP or to any discussion I'm involved in.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked.* And he ran.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist.  So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.
> 
> Running as we laughed!
> 
> *So you've never run....except for that time, right?*
> 
> Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?
> 
> And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those two times, right?*
> 
> Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those three times, right?*
> 
> Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex serves one purpose, procreation.  That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.
> 
> And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.
> 
> Your failure is so predictable: *you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. *And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.
> 
> ...if only reality worked that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A whole post full of..nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:
> 
> *If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control? *
> 
> It would be like claiming that the only possible purpose of eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends? What if you want a pint of Chunky Monkey from Ben and Jerry's because you've had a bad day? What if you're just in the mood for pizza?
> 
> *Wouldn't these be valid reasons to eat? If not, why not? *
> 
> And of course, if marriage serves only one purpose: procreation......then what of all the infertile or childless couples who are allowed to marry or remain married? They exist by the millions.....demonstrating undeniably that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Nor is any couple required to be able to have kids in order to get married.
> 
> *So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?*
> 
> I'll understand if you choose to run too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in that ridiculous argument. It's totally irrelevant to the OP or to any discussion I'm involved in.
Click to expand...


Its okay, Kosher....I couldn't think of a single reason to exclude gays from marriage either.

Nor could  virtually any federal court to hear challenges to gay marriage bans. Expect that pattern to continue with the USSC.


----------



## mdk

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked.* And he ran.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist.  So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.
> 
> Running as we laughed!
> 
> *So you've never run....except for that time, right?*
> 
> Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?
> 
> And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those two times, right?*
> 
> Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those three times, right?*
> 
> Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex serves one purpose, procreation.  That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.
> 
> And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.
> 
> Your failure is so predictable: *you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. *And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.
> 
> ...if only reality worked that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A whole post full of..nothing.
Click to expand...


And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.

You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would be wise to remember that.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist.  So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.
> 
> Running as we laughed!
> 
> *So you've never run....except for that time, right?*
> 
> Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?
> 
> And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those two times, right?*
> 
> Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those three times, right?*
> 
> Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex serves one purpose, procreation.  That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.
> 
> And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.
> 
> Your failure is so predictable: *you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. *And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.
> 
> ...if only reality worked that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A whole post full of..nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:
> 
> *If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control? *
> 
> It would be like claiming that the only possible purpose of eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends? What if you want a pint of Chunky Monkey from Ben and Jerry's because you've had a bad day? What if you're just in the mood for pizza?
> 
> *Wouldn't these be valid reasons to eat? If not, why not? *
> 
> And of course, if marriage serves only one purpose: procreation......then what of all the infertile or childless couples who are allowed to marry or remain married? They exist by the millions.....demonstrating undeniably that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Nor is any couple required to be able to have kids in order to get married.
> 
> *So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?*
> 
> I'll understand if you choose to run too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in that ridiculous argument. It's totally irrelevant to the OP or to any discussion I'm involved in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its okay, Kosher....I couldn't think of a single reason to exclude gays from marriage either.
> 
> Nor could  virtually any federal court to hear challenges to gay marriage bans. Expect that pattern to continue with the USSC.
Click to expand...

 
My primary objection to homo marriage has always been that it opens the door for state legislation of religion.

And I was absolutely 1000 percent correct. All it has done is establish that the state can dictate to us whether or not we can consider marriage a sacrament...and the state can compel us to participate in sacrilege.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the people. And you, Keyes, aren't the people. You're a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you as 'a person' are also NOT: THE PEOPLE...
Click to expand...


You are not the people, Keyes. You may imagine that whatever you believe is legally binding on the whole of our population. That your beliefs alone exempt you from any law. But it doesn't, and it doesn't.

You're a person. An individual. The threshold of the exercise of the people's authority is the majority. And you are not the majority.

Get used to the idea. 



> In one stroke, where he reasoning were to be adopted, she would have shut down this entire forum... and Republican governance across the board would have been eliminated.



In one stroke, you've completely hallucinated an entire argument that no one has made. And then knocked the stuffing out of it. 

*That would be the Strawman Fallacy. *If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to lean so heavily on logical fallacies.


----------



## koshergrl

mdk said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked.* And he ran.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist.  So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.
> 
> Running as we laughed!
> 
> *So you've never run....except for that time, right?*
> 
> Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?
> 
> And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those two times, right?*
> 
> Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those three times, right?*
> 
> Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex serves one purpose, procreation.  That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.
> 
> And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.
> 
> Your failure is so predictable: *you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. *And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.
> 
> ...if only reality worked that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A whole post full of..nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.
> 
> You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.
Click to expand...

 
Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> "To be sure, a number of well-documented cases have established that Smith has been a catastrophe for religion freedom..."
> "To be sure, Employment Division v. Smith represented a serious curtailment by the Supreme Court of First Amendment rights to exercise religious faith."
> http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=jcl



Since you want to quote this one paper of one scholar's analysis- I thought I would include some of what you left out...

"To be sure, a number of well-documented cases have established that Smith has been a catastrophe for religion freedom *in some circumstances...*

_...Free exercise rights were never really as well protected by courts before Smith as we are inclined to believe now...._And as for the post-Smith period, a number of considerations suggest that perhaps this situation is not as bad for religious interests we we may think


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the people. And you, Keyes, aren't the people. You're a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you as 'a person' are also NOT: THE PEOPLE...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not the people, Keyes. You may imagine that whatever you believe is legally binding on the whole of our population. That your beliefs alone exempt you from any law. But it doesn't, and it doesn't.
> 
> You're a person. An individual. The threshold of the exercise of the people's authority is the majority. And you are not the majority.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one stroke, where he reasoning were to be adopted, she would have shut down this entire forum... and Republican governance across the board would have been eliminated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In one stroke, you've completely hallucinated an entire argument that no one has made. And then knocked the stuffing out of it.
> 
> *That would be the Strawman Fallacy. *If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to lean so heavily on logical fallacies.
Click to expand...

 
*yawn*.

You don't determine who is *the people* and who isn't *the people* you progressive douche.

We're all *the people*. And in this case, the majority disagrees with you.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.
> 
> Running as we laughed!
> 
> *So you've never run....except for that time, right?*
> 
> Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?
> 
> And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those two times, right?*
> 
> Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those three times, right?*
> 
> Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.
> 
> It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.
> 
> And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.
> 
> Your failure is so predictable: *you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. *And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.
> 
> ...if only reality worked that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A whole post full of..nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:
> 
> *If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control? *
> 
> It would be like claiming that the only possible purpose of eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends? What if you want a pint of Chunky Monkey from Ben and Jerry's because you've had a bad day? What if you're just in the mood for pizza?
> 
> *Wouldn't these be valid reasons to eat? If not, why not? *
> 
> And of course, if marriage serves only one purpose: procreation......then what of all the infertile or childless couples who are allowed to marry or remain married? They exist by the millions.....demonstrating undeniably that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Nor is any couple required to be able to have kids in order to get married.
> 
> *So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?*
> 
> I'll understand if you choose to run too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in that ridiculous argument. It's totally irrelevant to the OP or to any discussion I'm involved in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its okay, Kosher....I couldn't think of a single reason to exclude gays from marriage either.
> 
> Nor could  virtually any federal court to hear challenges to gay marriage bans. Expect that pattern to continue with the USSC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My primary objection to homo marriage has always been that it opens the door for state legislation of religion.
Click to expand...


How so? How would your religious objection to selling to someone because they were gay differ from your religious objectiion to selling to someone because they were gay and getting married?

If your religious objection is the basis for you to ignore any law you wish, what would limit that objection to marriage alone? Couldn't you also object to someone's skin color? Or their creed? Or anything about them that offends your religious sensibilities?

It would be like blaming black people for 'state legilstion of religion' because you religiously object to interracial marriage. And thus, refuse to sell anything to them. Its not the black folk's fault YOU have baggage.



> And I was absolutely 1000 percent correct. All it has done is establish that the state can dictate to us whether or not we can consider marriage a sacrament...and the state can compel us to participate in sacrilege.



Nope. You're not even close. No church has ever been force to conduct a gay wedding. Businesses however, aren't churches. And if you choose not to treat your customer's fairly and equally, your business is subject to fines. It was before gay marriage. It was after.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> A whole post full of..nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:
> 
> *If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control? *
> 
> It would be like claiming that the only possible purpose of eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends? What if you want a pint of Chunky Monkey from Ben and Jerry's because you've had a bad day? What if you're just in the mood for pizza?
> 
> *Wouldn't these be valid reasons to eat? If not, why not? *
> 
> And of course, if marriage serves only one purpose: procreation......then what of all the infertile or childless couples who are allowed to marry or remain married? They exist by the millions.....demonstrating undeniably that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Nor is any couple required to be able to have kids in order to get married.
> 
> *So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?*
> 
> I'll understand if you choose to run too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in that ridiculous argument. It's totally irrelevant to the OP or to any discussion I'm involved in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its okay, Kosher....I couldn't think of a single reason to exclude gays from marriage either.
> 
> Nor could  virtually any federal court to hear challenges to gay marriage bans. Expect that pattern to continue with the USSC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My primary objection to homo marriage has always been that it opens the door for state legislation of religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so? How would your religious objection to selling to someone because they were gay differ from your religious objectiion to selling to someone because they were gay and getting married?
> 
> If your religious objection is the basis for you to ignore any law you wish, what would limit that objection to marriage alone? Couldn't you also object to someone's skin color? Or their creed? Or anything about them that offends your religious sensibilities?
> 
> It would be like blaming black people for 'state legilstion of religion' because you religiously object to interracial marriage. And thus, refuse to sell anything to them. Its not the black folk's fault YOU have baggage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I was absolutely 1000 percent correct. All it has done is establish that the state can dictate to us whether or not we can consider marriage a sacrament...and the state can compel us to participate in sacrilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're not even close. No church has ever been force to conduct a gay wedding. Businesses however, aren't churches. And if you choose not to treat your customer's fairly and equally, you're business is subject to fines. It was before gay marriage. It was after.
Click to expand...

 
The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the people. And you, Keyes, aren't the people. You're a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you as 'a person' are also NOT: THE PEOPLE...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not the people, Keyes. You may imagine that whatever you believe is legally binding on the whole of our population. That your beliefs alone exempt you from any law. But it doesn't, and it doesn't.
> 
> You're a person. An individual. The threshold of the exercise of the people's authority is the majority. And you are not the majority.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one stroke, where he reasoning were to be adopted, she would have shut down this entire forum... and Republican governance across the board would have been eliminated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In one stroke, you've completely hallucinated an entire argument that no one has made. And then knocked the stuffing out of it.
> 
> *That would be the Strawman Fallacy. *If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to lean so heavily on logical fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *yawn*.
> 
> You don't determine who is *the people* and who isn't *the people* you progressive douche.
> 
> We're all *the people*. And in this case, the majority disagrees with you.
Click to expand...


No, we're individuals. We do not exercise the People's authority alone. We do so collectively. And the threshold of that excercise of authority is the majority.

You aren't the majority, Kosher. You don't pass binding laws all by your lonesome. You don't create binding precedent all by your lonesome. We do. Through our representatives.

Your authority alone is not the same as the People's authority. 

Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, why?


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked.* And he ran.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist.  So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.
> 
> Running as we laughed!
> 
> *So you've never run....except for that time, right?*
> 
> Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?
> 
> And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those two times, right?*
> 
> Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those three times, right?*
> 
> Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex serves one purpose, procreation.  That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.
> 
> And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.
> 
> Your failure is so predictable: *you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. *And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.
> 
> ...if only reality worked that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A whole post full of..nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.
> 
> You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.
Click to expand...


The law applies to you. 

If you break the law because you believe it is part of your faith- whether it is circumsizing your daughter at home, butchering goats in your backyard, refuse to pay income taxes, or refuse to comply with business regulations, you are subject to the same penalties as anyone else. 

As long as you accept the penalties without whining, I am fine with you pretending like you are above the law.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:
> 
> *If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control? *
> 
> It would be like claiming that the only possible purpose of eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends? What if you want a pint of Chunky Monkey from Ben and Jerry's because you've had a bad day? What if you're just in the mood for pizza?
> 
> *Wouldn't these be valid reasons to eat? If not, why not? *
> 
> And of course, if marriage serves only one purpose: procreation......then what of all the infertile or childless couples who are allowed to marry or remain married? They exist by the millions.....demonstrating undeniably that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Nor is any couple required to be able to have kids in order to get married.
> 
> *So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?*
> 
> I'll understand if you choose to run too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest in that ridiculous argument. It's totally irrelevant to the OP or to any discussion I'm involved in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its okay, Kosher....I couldn't think of a single reason to exclude gays from marriage either.
> 
> Nor could  virtually any federal court to hear challenges to gay marriage bans. Expect that pattern to continue with the USSC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My primary objection to homo marriage has always been that it opens the door for state legislation of religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so? How would your religious objection to selling to someone because they were gay differ from your religious objectiion to selling to someone because they were gay and getting married?
> 
> If your religious objection is the basis for you to ignore any law you wish, what would limit that objection to marriage alone? Couldn't you also object to someone's skin color? Or their creed? Or anything about them that offends your religious sensibilities?
> 
> It would be like blaming black people for 'state legilstion of religion' because you religiously object to interracial marriage. And thus, refuse to sell anything to them. Its not the black folk's fault YOU have baggage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I was absolutely 1000 percent correct. All it has done is establish that the state can dictate to us whether or not we can consider marriage a sacrament...and the state can compel us to participate in sacrilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're not even close. No church has ever been force to conduct a gay wedding. Businesses however, aren't churches. And if you choose not to treat your customer's fairly and equally, you're business is subject to fines. It was before gay marriage. It was after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".
> 
> So get a grip. Come back to the real world.
Click to expand...


Then why have you been posting about everything but that topic?

All of us agree that churches will not be forced to accommodate any wedding the church doesn't want to perform.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:
> 
> *If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?*


*

Again reader, the Professed Sexual Deviant comes to advise you, that what is demonstrably false, is instead "TRUTH".

In truth, the question has been answered ad nauseum. *

Sex is an instinct... which serve THE PURPOSE of procreation.  That some pursue such for the PLEASURABLE EFFECT that comes with the engaging IN SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, does not determine that THE PURPOSE OF SEX is the pleasure it induces.  

Reasoning which holds that the purpose of sex is the pleasure it induces, is a perversion of the facts relevant TO SEX.  And it is through recognizing that perversion of reasoning, that we can know that such represents: PERVERSION.

(Do ya see how 'words' mean things?)


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:
> 
> *If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control? *
> 
> It would be like claiming that the only possible purpose of eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends? What if you want a pint of Chunky Monkey from Ben and Jerry's because you've had a bad day? What if you're just in the mood for pizza?
> 
> *Wouldn't these be valid reasons to eat? If not, why not? *
> 
> And of course, if marriage serves only one purpose: procreation......then what of all the infertile or childless couples who are allowed to marry or remain married? They exist by the millions.....demonstrating undeniably that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Nor is any couple required to be able to have kids in order to get married.
> 
> *So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?*
> 
> I'll understand if you choose to run too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest in that ridiculous argument. It's totally irrelevant to the OP or to any discussion I'm involved in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its okay, Kosher....I couldn't think of a single reason to exclude gays from marriage either.
> 
> Nor could  virtually any federal court to hear challenges to gay marriage bans. Expect that pattern to continue with the USSC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My primary objection to homo marriage has always been that it opens the door for state legislation of religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so? How would your religious objection to selling to someone because they were gay differ from your religious objectiion to selling to someone because they were gay and getting married?
> 
> If your religious objection is the basis for you to ignore any law you wish, what would limit that objection to marriage alone? Couldn't you also object to someone's skin color? Or their creed? Or anything about them that offends your religious sensibilities?
> 
> It would be like blaming black people for 'state legilstion of religion' because you religiously object to interracial marriage. And thus, refuse to sell anything to them. Its not the black folk's fault YOU have baggage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I was absolutely 1000 percent correct. All it has done is establish that the state can dictate to us whether or not we can consider marriage a sacrament...and the state can compel us to participate in sacrilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're not even close. No church has ever been force to conduct a gay wedding. Businesses however, aren't churches. And if you choose not to treat your customer's fairly and equally, you're business is subject to fines. It was before gay marriage. It was after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".
> 
> So get a grip. Come back to the real world.
Click to expand...


Then name a church that has been forced to accommodate a gay wedding.

You'll find there is no such example.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the people. And you, Keyes, aren't the people. You're a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you as 'a person' are also NOT: THE PEOPLE...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not the people, Keyes. You may imagine that whatever you believe is legally binding on the whole of our population. That your beliefs alone exempt you from any law. But it doesn't, and it doesn't.
> 
> You're a person. An individual. The threshold of the exercise of the people's authority is the majority. And you are not the majority.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one stroke, where he reasoning were to be adopted, she would have shut down this entire forum... and Republican governance across the board would have been eliminated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In one stroke, you've completely hallucinated an entire argument that no one has made. And then knocked the stuffing out of it.
> 
> *That would be the Strawman Fallacy. *If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to lean so heavily on logical fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *yawn*.
> 
> You don't determine who is *the people* and who isn't *the people* you progressive douche.
> 
> We're all *the people*. And in this case, the majority disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we're individuals. We do not exercise the People's authority alone. We do so collectively. And the threshold of that excercise of authority is the majority.
> 
> You aren't the majority, Kosher. You don't pass binding laws all by your lonesome. You don't create binding precedent all by your lonesome. We do. Through our representatives.
> 
> Your authority alone is not the same as the People's authority.
> 
> Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, why?
Click to expand...

 
I didn't disagree with that. I never said I was the majority.

Let's hear some more weird stuff that you come up with to distract from the topic. It's fun.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest in that ridiculous argument. It's totally irrelevant to the OP or to any discussion I'm involved in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its okay, Kosher....I couldn't think of a single reason to exclude gays from marriage either.
> 
> Nor could  virtually any federal court to hear challenges to gay marriage bans. Expect that pattern to continue with the USSC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My primary objection to homo marriage has always been that it opens the door for state legislation of religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so? How would your religious objection to selling to someone because they were gay differ from your religious objectiion to selling to someone because they were gay and getting married?
> 
> If your religious objection is the basis for you to ignore any law you wish, what would limit that objection to marriage alone? Couldn't you also object to someone's skin color? Or their creed? Or anything about them that offends your religious sensibilities?
> 
> It would be like blaming black people for 'state legilstion of religion' because you religiously object to interracial marriage. And thus, refuse to sell anything to them. Its not the black folk's fault YOU have baggage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I was absolutely 1000 percent correct. All it has done is establish that the state can dictate to us whether or not we can consider marriage a sacrament...and the state can compel us to participate in sacrilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're not even close. No church has ever been force to conduct a gay wedding. Businesses however, aren't churches. And if you choose not to treat your customer's fairly and equally, you're business is subject to fines. It was before gay marriage. It was after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".
> 
> So get a grip. Come back to the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why have you been posting about everything but that topic?
> 
> All of us agree that churches will not be forced to accommodate any wedding the church doesn't want to perform.
Click to expand...


Oh, Kosher's standards don't actually apply to her. That goes without saying. She can babble about whatever she'd like. Florists, PA laws, fascists, whatever.

Its only the rest of us that are 'going off topic' if we address anything but the thread title.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest in that ridiculous argument. It's totally irrelevant to the OP or to any discussion I'm involved in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its okay, Kosher....I couldn't think of a single reason to exclude gays from marriage either.
> 
> Nor could  virtually any federal court to hear challenges to gay marriage bans. Expect that pattern to continue with the USSC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My primary objection to homo marriage has always been that it opens the door for state legislation of religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so? How would your religious objection to selling to someone because they were gay differ from your religious objectiion to selling to someone because they were gay and getting married?
> 
> If your religious objection is the basis for you to ignore any law you wish, what would limit that objection to marriage alone? Couldn't you also object to someone's skin color? Or their creed? Or anything about them that offends your religious sensibilities?
> 
> It would be like blaming black people for 'state legilstion of religion' because you religiously object to interracial marriage. And thus, refuse to sell anything to them. Its not the black folk's fault YOU have baggage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I was absolutely 1000 percent correct. All it has done is establish that the state can dictate to us whether or not we can consider marriage a sacrament...and the state can compel us to participate in sacrilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're not even close. No church has ever been force to conduct a gay wedding. Businesses however, aren't churches. And if you choose not to treat your customer's fairly and equally, you're business is subject to fines. It was before gay marriage. It was after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".
> 
> So get a grip. Come back to the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then name a church that has been forced to accommodate a gay wedding.
> 
> You'll find there is no such example.
Click to expand...

 
Not yet. You progressive douches always maintain that your statist garbage won't result in loss of freedoms and worse...until after it happens.

Then you play dumb. "Oh wow, I didn't know that would happen! Someone fooled me!"


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the people. And you, Keyes, aren't the people. You're a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you as 'a person' are also NOT: THE PEOPLE...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not the people, Keyes. You may imagine that whatever you believe is legally binding on the whole of our population. That your beliefs alone exempt you from any law. But it doesn't, and it doesn't.
> 
> You're a person. An individual. The threshold of the exercise of the people's authority is the majority. And you are not the majority.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one stroke, where he reasoning were to be adopted, she would have shut down this entire forum... and Republican governance across the board would have been eliminated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In one stroke, you've completely hallucinated an entire argument that no one has made. And then knocked the stuffing out of it.
> 
> *That would be the Strawman Fallacy. *If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to lean so heavily on logical fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *yawn*.
> 
> You don't determine who is *the people* and who isn't *the people* you progressive douche.
> 
> We're all *the people*. And in this case, the majority disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we're individuals. We do not exercise the People's authority alone. We do so collectively. And the threshold of that excercise of authority is the majority.
> 
> You aren't the majority, Kosher. You don't pass binding laws all by your lonesome. You don't create binding precedent all by your lonesome. We do. Through our representatives.
> 
> Your authority alone is not the same as the People's authority.
> 
> Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't disagree with that.
Click to expand...


Then we're on the same page.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its okay, Kosher....I couldn't think of a single reason to exclude gays from marriage either.
> 
> Nor could  virtually any federal court to hear challenges to gay marriage bans. Expect that pattern to continue with the USSC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My primary objection to homo marriage has always been that it opens the door for state legislation of religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so? How would your religious objection to selling to someone because they were gay differ from your religious objectiion to selling to someone because they were gay and getting married?
> 
> If your religious objection is the basis for you to ignore any law you wish, what would limit that objection to marriage alone? Couldn't you also object to someone's skin color? Or their creed? Or anything about them that offends your religious sensibilities?
> 
> It would be like blaming black people for 'state legilstion of religion' because you religiously object to interracial marriage. And thus, refuse to sell anything to them. Its not the black folk's fault YOU have baggage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I was absolutely 1000 percent correct. All it has done is establish that the state can dictate to us whether or not we can consider marriage a sacrament...and the state can compel us to participate in sacrilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're not even close. No church has ever been force to conduct a gay wedding. Businesses however, aren't churches. And if you choose not to treat your customer's fairly and equally, you're business is subject to fines. It was before gay marriage. It was after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".
> 
> So get a grip. Come back to the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why have you been posting about everything but that topic?
> 
> All of us agree that churches will not be forced to accommodate any wedding the church doesn't want to perform.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, Kosher's standards don't actually apply to her. That goes without saying. She can babble about whatever she'd like. Florists, PA laws, fascists, whatever.
> 
> Its only the rest of us that are 'going off topic' if we address anything but the thread title.
Click to expand...

 
Wow you sure like to hear yourself ramble.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> If you break the law because you believe it is part of your faith- whether it is circumsizing your daughter at home, butchering goats in your backyard, refuse to pay income taxes, or refuse to comply with business regulations, you are subject to the same penalties as anyone else.
> 
> As long as you accept the penalties without whining, I am fine with you pretending like you are above the law.



Oh my... isn't that wild?  The Deviant mind finds fault with Islam, the chief political ally of the Ideological Left, which is the chief political vehicle which carries the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... 

LOL!  Holding such as a  RELIGION!

ROFLMNAO!  

Now, Islam is of course, NOT a religion, but a political cult posing as a religion... much as The Ideological Left is a humanist cult posing as a political premise.  

And how remarkable is it that BOTH serve absolutely NO END which is not demonstrably *EVIL?*


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the people. And you, Keyes, aren't the people. You're a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you as 'a person' are also NOT: THE PEOPLE...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not the people, Keyes. You may imagine that whatever you believe is legally binding on the whole of our population. That your beliefs alone exempt you from any law. But it doesn't, and it doesn't.
> 
> You're a person. An individual. The threshold of the exercise of the people's authority is the majority. And you are not the majority.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one stroke, where he reasoning were to be adopted, she would have shut down this entire forum... and Republican governance across the board would have been eliminated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In one stroke, you've completely hallucinated an entire argument that no one has made. And then knocked the stuffing out of it.
> 
> *That would be the Strawman Fallacy. *If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to lean so heavily on logical fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *yawn*.
> 
> You don't determine who is *the people* and who isn't *the people* you progressive douche.
> 
> We're all *the people*. And in this case, the majority disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we're individuals. We do not exercise the People's authority alone. We do so collectively. And the threshold of that excercise of authority is the majority.
> 
> You aren't the majority, Kosher. You don't pass binding laws all by your lonesome. You don't create binding precedent all by your lonesome. We do. Through our representatives.
> 
> Your authority alone is not the same as the People's authority.
> 
> Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't disagree with that. I never said I was the majority.
> 
> Let's hear some more weird stuff that you come up with to distract from the topic. It's fun.
Click to expand...


Wait- when are you planning on posting about the actual topic of this thread?

For the last 2 days all you have posted is whines about what a victim you are because the law applies to you- the law that has nothing to do with weddings in churches. 

So let us know when you suddenly start posting on topic.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:
> 
> *If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Again reader, the Professed Sexual Deviant *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a professed sexual deviant.
Click to expand...


Again... the professed sexual deviant, comes to ADVISE you, the reader, that such which is NOT true, as truth.

Do you see how a species of reasoning which seeks to misinform you, is harmful to you?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:
> 
> *If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Again reader, the Professed Sexual Deviant comes to advise you, that what is demonstrably false, is instead "TRUTH".
> 
> In truth, the question has been answered ad nauseum. *
> 
> Sex is an instinct... which serve THE PURPOSE of procreation.
Click to expand...


And yet we still have sex even if we can't have children. We also use sex for far more than procreation. We use it for bonding. We use it for recreation. For stress relief. Some use it for religious fulfillment. 

*And these purposes are rational and valid. *Your argument is that sex can ONLY be used for procreation, that it ONLY has one purpose.

*All the other uses sex can serve demonstrate you're simply wrong.* There are many purposes to sex. Many uses it can be put to, most of which have nothing to do with children. As almost all sex is reproductively worthless.

With multiple purposes to be found in sex, why then would you apply such hysteric and rabid value judgement like 'abhorred' and 'despised' and 'loathed' to sex that doesn't produce children? When almost all sex doesn't. 

Your singular purpose of sex is debunked. As is any basis for your shrill value judgments and personal hatred.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> My primary objection to homo marriage has always been that it opens the door for state legislation of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so? How would your religious objection to selling to someone because they were gay differ from your religious objectiion to selling to someone because they were gay and getting married?
> 
> If your religious objection is the basis for you to ignore any law you wish, what would limit that objection to marriage alone? Couldn't you also object to someone's skin color? Or their creed? Or anything about them that offends your religious sensibilities?
> 
> It would be like blaming black people for 'state legilstion of religion' because you religiously object to interracial marriage. And thus, refuse to sell anything to them. Its not the black folk's fault YOU have baggage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I was absolutely 1000 percent correct. All it has done is establish that the state can dictate to us whether or not we can consider marriage a sacrament...and the state can compel us to participate in sacrilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're not even close. No church has ever been force to conduct a gay wedding. Businesses however, aren't churches. And if you choose not to treat your customer's fairly and equally, you're business is subject to fines. It was before gay marriage. It was after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".
> 
> So get a grip. Come back to the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why have you been posting about everything but that topic?
> 
> All of us agree that churches will not be forced to accommodate any wedding the church doesn't want to perform.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, Kosher's standards don't actually apply to her. That goes without saying. She can babble about whatever she'd like. Florists, PA laws, fascists, whatever.
> 
> Its only the rest of us that are 'going off topic' if we address anything but the thread title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you sure like to hear yourself ramble.
Click to expand...


The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world


----------



## WorldWatcher

koshergrl said:


> The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.



Federal Public Accommodation laws - 1964.

Employment Division v. Smith - 1990

Federal Public Accommodation laws existed  before 1990.

************************************************************

Washington State Consumer Protection Act - 1960's

Employment Division v. Smith - 1990

State Public Accommodation laws existed before 1990

************************************************************

Timeline does not support your statement since PA laws were passed *before* Employment Division v. Smith.


>>>>


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

koshergrl said:


> Not yet. You progressive douches always maintain that your statist garbage won't result in loss of freedoms and worse...until after it happens.
> 
> Then you play dumb. "Oh wow, I didn't know that would happen! Someone fooled me!"



"We'll just have to pass the bill to know what's in the bill"


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so? How would your religious objection to selling to someone because they were gay differ from your religious objectiion to selling to someone because they were gay and getting married?
> 
> If your religious objection is the basis for you to ignore any law you wish, what would limit that objection to marriage alone? Couldn't you also object to someone's skin color? Or their creed? Or anything about them that offends your religious sensibilities?
> 
> It would be like blaming black people for 'state legilstion of religion' because you religiously object to interracial marriage. And thus, refuse to sell anything to them. Its not the black folk's fault YOU have baggage.
> 
> Nope. You're not even close. No church has ever been force to conduct a gay wedding. Businesses however, aren't churches. And if you choose not to treat your customer's fairly and equally, you're business is subject to fines. It was before gay marriage. It was after.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".
> 
> So get a grip. Come back to the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why have you been posting about everything but that topic?
> 
> All of us agree that churches will not be forced to accommodate any wedding the church doesn't want to perform.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, Kosher's standards don't actually apply to her. That goes without saying. She can babble about whatever she'd like. Florists, PA laws, fascists, whatever.
> 
> Its only the rest of us that are 'going off topic' if we address anything but the thread title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you sure like to hear yourself ramble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".
> 
> So get a grip. Come back to the real world
Click to expand...

 
Did you just cut and paste my comment?

I hate copy cats.


----------



## mdk

koshergrl said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked.* And he ran.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist.  So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.
> 
> Running as we laughed!
> 
> *So you've never run....except for that time, right?*
> 
> Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?
> 
> And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those two times, right?*
> 
> Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those three times, right?*
> 
> Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex serves one purpose, procreation.  That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.
> 
> And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.
> 
> Your failure is so predictable: *you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. *And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.
> 
> ...if only reality worked that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A whole post full of..nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.
> 
> You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.
Click to expand...

Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.


----------



## koshergrl

WorldWatcher said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federal Public Accommodation laws - 1964.
> 
> Employment Division v. Smith - 1990
> 
> Federal Public Accommodation laws existed  before 1990.
> 
> ************************************************************
> 
> Washington State Consumer Protection Act - 1960's
> 
> Employment Division v. Smith - 1990
> 
> State Public Accommodation laws existed before 1990
> 
> ************************************************************
> 
> Timeline does not support your statement since PA laws were passed *before* Employment Division v. Smith.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

 
What I should have said is that until Smith, religious exceptions were taken for granted.

Now they can't be had. At least..not by Christians.

I was going simplistic for the sake of skylar.


----------



## koshergrl

mdk said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist.  So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.
> 
> Running as we laughed!
> 
> *So you've never run....except for that time, right?*
> 
> Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?
> 
> And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those two times, right?*
> 
> Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those three times, right?*
> 
> Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex serves one purpose, procreation.  That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.
> 
> And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.
> 
> Your failure is so predictable: *you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. *And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.
> 
> ...if only reality worked that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A whole post full of..nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.
> 
> You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.
Click to expand...

 
Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.
> 
> Running as we laughed!
> 
> *So you've never run....except for that time, right?*
> 
> Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?
> 
> And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those two times, right?*
> 
> Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those three times, right?*
> 
> Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.
> 
> It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.
> 
> And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.
> 
> Your failure is so predictable: *you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. *And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.
> 
> ...if only reality worked that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A whole post full of..nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.
> 
> You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.
Click to expand...


You're not a church. The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:
> 
> *If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Again reader, the Professed Sexual Deviant *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a professed sexual deviant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... the professed sexual deviant, comes to ADVISE you, the reader, that such which is NOT true, as truth.
> 
> Do you see how a species of reasoning which seeks to misinform you, is harmful to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> A whole post full of..nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.
> 
> You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not a church. The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".
> 
> So get a grip. Come back to the real world
Click to expand...

 
I never said I was a church. Yet another completely irrelevant comment by you. This is tiresome.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federal Public Accommodation laws - 1964.
> 
> Employment Division v. Smith - 1990
> 
> Federal Public Accommodation laws existed  before 1990.
> 
> ************************************************************
> 
> Washington State Consumer Protection Act - 1960's
> 
> Employment Division v. Smith - 1990
> 
> State Public Accommodation laws existed before 1990
> 
> ************************************************************
> 
> Timeline does not support your statement since PA laws were passed *before* Employment Division v. Smith.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Gee... 1964? 

1964... 

WHAT HAPPENED IN MID 1960s WHICH LEAD TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION LAWS?

HMM... Seems like black folks wanted to eat at the counter and sit in the front of the bus and drink at a water fountain not specifically designated for them.

But, that can't be it, because THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PROMOTING DEVIANCY... 

Surely something else must have happened in the mid-60s that provided for people to participate in public celebrations of perversion, debauchery and every form of hedonism... .   At least for your premise to have any legitimacy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

koshergrl said:


> I never said I was a church. Yet another completely irrelevant comment by you. This is tiresome.



Such is the nature of evil.  It seeks to conflate, deflect, obscure and confuse, until ya just get tired of it... at which time it declares itself the most popular and by virtue of that MORALLY SOUND!

It's a lie... a profound deceit, intentionally advanced as a fraudulent means to influence the ignorant.  

It's Evil.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".
> 
> So get a grip. Come back to the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why have you been posting about everything but that topic?
> 
> All of us agree that churches will not be forced to accommodate any wedding the church doesn't want to perform.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, Kosher's standards don't actually apply to her. That goes without saying. She can babble about whatever she'd like. Florists, PA laws, fascists, whatever.
> 
> Its only the rest of us that are 'going off topic' if we address anything but the thread title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you sure like to hear yourself ramble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".
> 
> So get a grip. Come back to the real world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you just cut and paste my comment?
> 
> I hate copy cats.
Click to expand...


Only when you get off topic.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:
> 
> *If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Again reader, the Professed Sexual Deviant *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a professed sexual deviant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... the professed sexual deviant, comes to ADVISE you, the reader, that such which is NOT true, as truth.
> 
> Do you see how a species of reasoning which seeks to misinform you, is harmful to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.
> 
> You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not a church. The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".
> 
> So get a grip. Come back to the real world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I was a church. Yet another completely irrelevant comment by you. This is tiresome.
Click to expand...


If you're not a church, then how is your comment about being 'forced' to attend a gay wedding relevant to this thread?

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world


----------



## mdk

koshergrl said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.
> 
> Running as we laughed!
> 
> *So you've never run....except for that time, right?*
> 
> Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?
> 
> And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those two times, right?*
> 
> Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those three times, right?*
> 
> Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.
> 
> It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.
> 
> And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.
> 
> Your failure is so predictable: *you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. *And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.
> 
> ...if only reality worked that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A whole post full of..nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.
> 
> You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.
Click to expand...




koshergrl said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.
> 
> Running as we laughed!
> 
> *So you've never run....except for that time, right?*
> 
> Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?
> 
> And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those two times, right?*
> 
> Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those three times, right?*
> 
> Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.
> 
> It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.
> 
> And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.
> 
> Your failure is so predictable: *you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. *And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.
> 
> ...if only reality worked that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A whole post full of..nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.
> 
> You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.
Click to expand...

This thread isn't about PA laws. It's about churches, seeing how you're not a church your comment doesn't make sense. Churches are not being forced to marry anyone.


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why have you been posting about everything but that topic?
> 
> All of us agree that churches will not be forced to accommodate any wedding the church doesn't want to perform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Kosher's standards don't actually apply to her. That goes without saying. She can babble about whatever she'd like. Florists, PA laws, fascists, whatever.
> 
> Its only the rest of us that are 'going off topic' if we address anything but the thread title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you sure like to hear yourself ramble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".
> 
> So get a grip. Come back to the real world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you just cut and paste my comment?
> 
> I hate copy cats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only when you get off topic.
Click to expand...

 
I'm not off topic.

You sound like fake. He always accuses other people of the things he's doing. It's boring. I might put you on ignore too...


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> HAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PROMOTING DEVIANCY...





Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federal Public Accommodation laws - 1964.
> 
> Employment Division v. Smith - 1990
> 
> Federal Public Accommodation laws existed  before 1990.
> 
> ************************************************************
> 
> Washington State Consumer Protection Act - 1960's
> 
> Employment Division v. Smith - 1990
> 
> State Public Accommodation laws existed before 1990
> 
> ************************************************************
> 
> Timeline does not support your statement since PA laws were passed *before* Employment Division v. Smith.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee... 1964?
> 
> 1964...
> 
> WHAT HAPPENED IN MID 1960s WHICH LEAD TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION LAWS?
> 
> HMM... Seems like black folks wanted to eat at the counter and sit in the front of the bus and drink at a water fountain not specifically designated for them.
> 
> But, that can't be it, because THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PROMOTING DEVIANCY...
Click to expand...


Why do you assume that PA laws could only apply to race? The States protected gender, creed, religion, sexual orientation, race, etc..

You keep making the same stupid mistake in virtually every argument you make. You pick a purpose, then insist that the purpose is the ONLY possible one that can exist. 

As usual, you don't have the slighest clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Kosher's standards don't actually apply to her. That goes without saying. She can babble about whatever she'd like. Florists, PA laws, fascists, whatever.
> 
> Its only the rest of us that are 'going off topic' if we address anything but the thread title.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you sure like to hear yourself ramble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".
> 
> So get a grip. Come back to the real world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you just cut and paste my comment?
> 
> I hate copy cats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only when you get off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not off topic.
> 
> You sound like fake. He always accuses other people of the things he's doing. It's boring. I might put you on ignore too...
Click to expand...


How would you being 'forced' to attend a wedding be relevance in a thread titled 'should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings'?

You've already admitted you're not a church. So......explain it to us. And make sure you don't stray from the thread title.


----------



## koshergrl

mdk said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> A whole post full of..nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.
> 
> You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> A whole post full of..nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.
> 
> You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This thread isn't about PA laws. It's about churches, seeing how you're not a church your comment doesn't make sense. Churches are not being forced to marry anyone.
Click to expand...

 
#1...I'm not the one who brought PA laws into the convo.
#2 The thread title asks the question, should churches be forced to accommodate queer weddings.
#3...if you can force people to attend religious ceremonies that they do not wish to attend, they you can force churches to host religious ceremonies they have no desire to host.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> You're not a church. The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".
> 
> So get a grip. Come back to the real world



The Reader should know that the above contributor is advancing the specious notion that _"You're entitled to exercise your religion, in your CHURCH, but no where else."
_
It's a lie; a profound deceit, intentionally advanced as a fraudulent means to influence the reader, who they count as being ignorant of American principle which informs you that such is, again... her feelings are *a LIE!*


----------



## koshergrl

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you sure like to hear yourself ramble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".
> 
> So get a grip. Come back to the real world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you just cut and paste my comment?
> 
> I hate copy cats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only when you get off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not off topic.
> 
> You sound like fake. He always accuses other people of the things he's doing. It's boring. I might put you on ignore too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you being 'forced' to attend a wedding be relevance in a thread titled 'should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings'?
> 
> You've already admitted you're not a church. So......explain it to us. And make sure you don't stray from the thread title.
Click to expand...

 
You really don't have any concept of religious freedom, do you?

If you can force people to observe and attend rituals they find offensive, then you will have no problem forcing churches to host rituals the church finds offensive.

It's all about legislation of religion, and it's wrong.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.
> 
> You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.
> 
> You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This thread isn't about PA laws. It's about churches, seeing how you're not a church your comment doesn't make sense. Churches are not being forced to marry anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #1...I'm not the one who brought PA laws into the convo.
Click to expand...


Then you're promoting irrelevancy. Or at least what you claim is irrelevancy. As PA laws have zero to do with churches. Churches are explicitly exempt from them.



> #2 The thread title asks the question, should churches be forced to accommodate queer weddings.



 The subject of the thread is clearly churches. And you're not a church. Thus, any comment about what YOU might be forced to do is irrelevant to the topic. At least per the standards you've applied to us.



> #3...if you can force people to attend religious ceremonies that they do not wish to attend, they you can force churches to host religious ceremonies they have no desire to host.



No you can't. PA laws exempt churches specifically. And you know this. So you're not only bringing up irrelevancies, you're lying to do it.

Name one church that has been forced to perform a gay wedding. You can't....as you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.


----------



## koshergrl

Click.

Done with the noise. Good grief.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".
> 
> So get a grip. Come back to the real world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just cut and paste my comment?
> 
> I hate copy cats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only when you get off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not off topic.
> 
> You sound like fake. He always accuses other people of the things he's doing. It's boring. I might put you on ignore too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you being 'forced' to attend a wedding be relevance in a thread titled 'should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings'?
> 
> You've already admitted you're not a church. So......explain it to us. And make sure you don't stray from the thread title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really don't have any concept of religious freedom, do you?
Click to expand...


Of course I do. But we're discussing churches. Not YOU. You are not a church. Churches are explicitly exempt from PA laws.

Making any reference about you or PA laws utterly irrelevant to the topic of the thread. 

Get a grip.


----------



## Skylar

koshergrl said:


> Click.
> 
> Done with the noise. Good grief.



And now I have a bully pulpit from which to shred your claims!

You rob me of nothing, and blind yourself. Thank you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> How would you being 'forced' to attend a wedding...



ANOTHER LIE!

No one here, in over 800 pages of discussion, has argued that the Left is demanding that Christians 'attend' celebrations of disordered cognition.   

We're talking about people being FORCED TO SERVE THOSE CELEBRATIONS, AND IN THE PROCESS OF NORMALIZING MENTAL DISORDER, DEVIANCY and PERVERSION.

A far greater crime against humanity than the mere forcing of attendance, which she so desperately tried to reduce the discussion DOWN TO.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Click.
> 
> Done with the noise. Good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now I have a bully pulpit from which to shred your claims!
> 
> You rob me of nothing, and blind yourself. Thank you.
Click to expand...

_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you being 'forced' to attend a wedding...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANOTHER LIE!
> 
> No one here, in over 800 pages of discussion, has argued that the Left is demanding that Christians 'attend' celebrations of disordered cognition.
Click to expand...


Except when they did (bold added for emphasis):



> ....*if you can force people to attend religious ceremonies that they do not wish to attend,* they you can force churches to host religious ceremonies they have no desire to host.
> 
> Kosher Girl
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 810 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



She actually used the word 'attend' twice in just one sentence. As usual Keyes.....you're simply not informed sufficiently to discuss the topic intelligently.

Go sit in the corner. The adults are talking.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Click.
> 
> Done with the noise. Good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now I have a bully pulpit from which to shred your claims!
> 
> You rob me of nothing, and blind yourself. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
Click to expand...


Laughing.....and your tell. Where you can't shore up the holes in your claims, you can't refute my logic or evidence......so you bizarrely declare 'victory'.

And then run. When you muster the courage to come on back, I'll be here.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> ...  we're discussing churches. Not YOU. You are not a church. Churches are explicitly exempt from PA laws.



A member of the church is a representative of the Church.

Just as a person is a representative of the people.

Where you infringe upon a member of the church to exercise their rights, you infringe upon the church.

Just as when you infringe upon the means of the person to exercise their right, you infringe upon the rights of the people.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  we're discussing churches. Not YOU. You are not a church. Churches are explicitly exempt from PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A member of the church is a representative of the Church.
Click to expand...


A member of a church is no more a church than a hubcap is a car.

If people were churches, they'd be tax exempt. They aren't. Sending another piece of classic Keyes batshit tail spinning into the rhetorical midden heap.

Next fallacy please.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:
> 
> *If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Again reader, the Professed Sexual Deviant *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a professed sexual deviant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... the professed sexual deviant, comes to ADVISE you, the reader, that such which is NOT true, as truth.
> 
> Do you see how a species of reasoning which seeks to misinform you, is harmful to you?
Click to expand...


You are a professed sexual defiant.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.
> 
> Running as we laughed!
> 
> *So you've never run....except for that time, right?*
> 
> Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?
> 
> And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those two times, right?*
> 
> Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.
> 
> *So you've never run....except for those three times, right?*
> 
> Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.
> 
> It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.
> 
> And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.
> 
> Your failure is so predictable: *you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. *And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.
> 
> ...if only reality worked that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A whole post full of..nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.
> 
> You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.
Click to expand...


Topic of this thread as you shrilly reminded all of us

"Should churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings"

No one is forcing you or anyone else to attend any wedding you don't want to.

The State does have the authority to tell business'- which would not be you- to follow the law.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you being 'forced' to attend a wedding...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANOTHER LIE!
> 
> No one here, in over 800 pages of discussion, has argued that the Left is demanding that Christians 'attend' celebrations of disordered cognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when they did (bold added for emphasis):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....*if you can force people to attend religious ceremonies that they do not wish to attend,* they you can force churches to host religious ceremonies they have no desire to host.
> 
> Kosher Girl
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 810 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She actually used the word 'attend' twice in just one sentence. As usual Keyes.....you're simply not informed sufficiently to discuss the topic intelligently.
> 
> Go sit in the corner. The adults are talking.
Click to expand...


OH!  So you're incapable of deducing from her consistent argument, that she was referring to forced servitude?

(Reader, limited powers of deduction present mental disorder...  Amazing how consistent the symptoms of perversion are demonstrated, isn't it?  And with each demonstration, we see yet another means by which the mental disorder that causes sexual abnormality, is harmful to YOU!)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:
> 
> *If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Again reader, the Professed Sexual Deviant *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a professed sexual deviant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... the professed sexual deviant, comes to ADVISE you, the reader, that such which is NOT true, as truth.
> 
> Do you see how a species of reasoning which seeks to misinform you, is harmful to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a professed sexual defiant.
Click to expand...


False.. I am a demonstrated defiant that abnormality is normality, sexual or otherwise.  And a proponent of reality.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you being 'forced' to attend a wedding...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANOTHER LIE!
> 
> No one here, in over 800 pages of discussion, has argued that the Left is demanding that Christians 'attend' celebrations of disordered cognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when they did (bold added for emphasis):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....*if you can force people to attend religious ceremonies that they do not wish to attend,* they you can force churches to host religious ceremonies they have no desire to host.
> 
> Kosher Girl
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 810 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She actually used the word 'attend' twice in just one sentence. As usual Keyes.....you're simply not informed sufficiently to discuss the topic intelligently.
> 
> Go sit in the corner. The adults are talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  So you're incapable of deducing from her consistent argument, that she was referring to forced servitude?
Click to expand...


Laughing....so now you're claiming that when she said attend she *didn't* mean attend?



> ....if you can force people to *attend* religious ceremonies that they do not wish to *attend,* they you can force churches to host religious ceremonies they have no desire to host.
> 
> Kosher Girl
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 810 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Run along, boy. You're out of your depth.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:
> 
> *If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Again reader, the Professed Sexual Deviant *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a professed sexual deviant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... the professed sexual deviant, comes to ADVISE you, the reader, that such which is NOT true, as truth.
> 
> Do you see how a species of reasoning which seeks to misinform you, is harmful to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a professed sexual defiant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.. I am a demonstrated defiant that abnormality is normality, sexual or otherwise.  And a proponent of reality.
Click to expand...


You're a proponent of hatred. You've called gays 'abhorred', 'despised', and 'loathed'. You've insisted that if gays don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that they will be subject to a war that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch.'

And that's all you. Don't try to blame your irrational hatred, your wild bigotry on anyone else.


----------



## Syriusly

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".
> 
> So get a grip. Come back to the real world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just cut and paste my comment?
> 
> I hate copy cats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only when you get off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not off topic.
> 
> You sound like fake. He always accuses other people of the things he's doing. It's boring. I might put you on ignore too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you being 'forced' to attend a wedding be relevance in a thread titled 'should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings'?
> 
> You've already admitted you're not a church. So......explain it to us. And make sure you don't stray from the thread title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all about legislation of religion, and it's wrong.
Click to expand...


A law which says a business cannot discriminate against among other things- race, religion, veteran status or homosexuality is not about legislation of religion. 

Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> ... when she said attend she *didn't* mean attend?



She meant 'forced into servitude for celebrating the normalization of sexual abnormality... as any reasonable person reading, clearly understood.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> A law which says a business cannot discriminate against among other things- race, religion, veteran status or homosexuality is not about legislation of religion.



True, that is a law which is about delegitimizing the law.

You see, a law which promotes deviancy, is unjust, invalid law, to be ignored by all decent human beings.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> A law which says a business cannot discriminate against among other things- race, religion, veteran status or homosexuality is not about legislation of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, that is a law which is about delegitimizing the law.
Click to expand...


You grow more and more delusional with every post.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... when she said attend she *didn't* mean attend?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She meant 'forced into servitude for celebrating the normalization of sexual abnormality... as any reasonable person reading, clearly understood.
Click to expand...


Laughing.....so much for your claim that "No one here, in over 800 pages of discussion, has argued that the Left is demanding that Christians 'attend' celebrations of disordered cognition."

As usual, Keyes......you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Again reader, the Professed Sexual Deviant *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a professed sexual deviant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... the professed sexual deviant, comes to ADVISE you, the reader, that such which is NOT true, as truth.
> 
> Do you see how a species of reasoning which seeks to misinform you, is harmful to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a professed sexual defiant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.. I am a demonstrated defiant that abnormality is normality, sexual or otherwise.  And a proponent of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a proponent of hatred. ...
Click to expand...


(Reader, what you've just been _'advised', _is that recognizing, respecting, defending and adhering TO the laws of nature, is to the disordered mind: *Hatred.
*
Now, you can clearly see how THAT deviant point is harmful to you, but can you see how harmful it is the very viability of the species?)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Laughing.....


_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a professed sexual deviant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... the professed sexual deviant, comes to ADVISE you, the reader, that such which is NOT true, as truth.
> 
> Do you see how a species of reasoning which seeks to misinform you, is harmful to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a professed sexual defiant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.. I am a demonstrated defiant that abnormality is normality, sexual or otherwise.  And a proponent of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a proponent of hatred. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Reader, what you've just been _'advised', _is that recognizing, respecting, defending and adhering TO the laws of nature, is to the disordered mind: *Hatred.
> *
> Now, you can clearly see how THAT deviant point is harmful to you, but can you see how harmful it is the very viability of the species?)
Click to expand...


'Abhorred'. 'Despised'. 'Loathed'. Those are your words. That's not nature. *That's you. *

And nature doesn't say a thing about your insististence that unless gays 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that they'll be subject to a war that will make 'hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch'. That's your hatred. Those are your words.

And exactly as I predicted, you try to pass the buck for your own hatred.....this time to nature. Your kind of hatred isn't natural. Its subjective. You chose it. Take some personal responsibility.

Gays and Lesbians are just people. We're not going to strip them of a single right because of your personal animus.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> _Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._



Ah, your tell. Now what could you be running from this time? Ah yes. 



Where_r_my_Keys said:


> No one here, in over 800 pages of discussion, has argued that the Left is demanding that Christians 'attend' celebrations of disordered cognition."



Lets see how your relativistic fantasy compared with objective reality:



> ....if you can force people to *attend* religious ceremonies that they do not wish to *attend,* they you can force churches to host religious ceremonies they have no desire to host.
> 
> Kosher Girl
> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 810 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Once again, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, my little relativist.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette is delusional- and immune to rational thought- ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rational thought?
> 
> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your conclusion, that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, IT DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THAT STANDARD NORMALITY AS FAR AS CAN BE ACHIEVED WHERE THE SUBJECTS AT ISSUE REMAIN HUMAN! AND WHICH FURTHER DEMANDS THAT THE PROFOUND DEVIANCY BE COUNTED _AS *"NORMAL"*.  _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays are lesbians are human. Ending your entire line of reasoning. Next fallacy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing in that rationalization, which can be reasonably recognized as being _based upon or in accordance with sound reason or valid logic, thus such is *not *'rational'._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply assume that sex can only serve one purpose: procreation. Just like you assume that marriage can only serve one purpose: procreation. *But neither assumption is true.* Almost all sex is reproductively useless. And as all the infertile and childless couples being allowed to marry or remain married demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children.
> 
> Your assumption of exclusivity of purpose is thus a logical fallacy void of reason, clear thought or sensibility.
> 
> Next fallacy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your assertion *"37 of 50 states have now legalized Gay-Marriage".
> *
> We know this because THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE STATES ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO LONG DEBATED AND PASSED BILLS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO SIGNED INTO LAW: *THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And any law that violates constitutional guarantees is invalid. As rights trump powers.
> 
> What else have you got?
Click to expand...


Sex that requires artificial means (i.e safe sex), in order to accommodate the act between two human beings is going to be called what ? 1. An abnormal thing.  2. A normal thing. ? Otherwise when slipping on a condom or what ever else that is needed to keep from catching something, then how is that viewed by humans mostly ? Is it a normal thing or is it an abnormal thing that one is doing when about to have sex ? Why is there so much need now for condoms, and why is this safe sex campaign so emphasized and important these days if it is a normal thing that is found in the order of things ?  Tell us your opinion on the now and why as opposed to the days of old maybe.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette is delusional- and immune to rational thought- ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rational thought?
> 
> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your conclusion, that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, IT DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THAT STANDARD NORMALITY AS FAR AS CAN BE ACHIEVED WHERE THE SUBJECTS AT ISSUE REMAIN HUMAN! AND WHICH FURTHER DEMANDS THAT THE PROFOUND DEVIANCY BE COUNTED _AS *"NORMAL"*.  _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays are lesbians are human. Ending your entire line of reasoning. Next fallacy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing in that rationalization, which can be reasonably recognized as being _based upon or in accordance with sound reason or valid logic, thus such is *not *'rational'._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply assume that sex can only serve one purpose: procreation. Just like you assume that marriage can only serve one purpose: procreation. *But neither assumption is true.* Almost all sex is reproductively useless. And as all the infertile and childless couples being allowed to marry or remain married demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children.
> 
> Your assumption of exclusivity of purpose is thus a logical fallacy void of reason, clear thought or sensibility.
> 
> Next fallacy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your assertion *"37 of 50 states have now legalized Gay-Marriage".
> *
> We know this because THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE STATES ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO LONG DEBATED AND PASSED BILLS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO SIGNED INTO LAW: *THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And any law that violates constitutional guarantees is invalid. As rights trump powers.
> 
> What else have you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sex that requires artificial means (i.e safe sex), in order to accommodate the act between two human beings is going to be called what ? 1. An abnormal thing.  2. A normal thing. ? Otherwise when slipping on a condom or what ever else that is needed to keep from catching something, then how is that viewed by humans mostly ? Is it a normal thing or is it an abnormal thing that one is doing when about to have sex ? Why is there so much need now for condoms, and why is this safe sex campaign so emphasized and important these days if it is a normal thing that is found in the order of things ?  Tell us your opinion on the now and why as opposed to the days of old maybe.
Click to expand...


The use of condoms goes back to the beginning of the 20th century- back when syphilis and gonorreah were the 'AIDS' of their day- and there was no reliable cure.

Syphillis and all STD's are natural- luckily scientists discovered anti-biotics which cured them, and largely eliminated STD's.....for a time.

Why is there a need for condoms now?

Besides preventing pregancy?

To prevent catching among other things:
HIV
Herpes
Syphilis
HPV
Gonoreah
Hep C(?)

Certainly abstinence eliminates the need for condoms, but humans aren't good at abstinence, barely better at monogamy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette is delusional- and immune to rational thought- ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rational thought?
> 
> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your conclusion, that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, IT DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THAT STANDARD NORMALITY AS FAR AS CAN BE ACHIEVED WHERE THE SUBJECTS AT ISSUE REMAIN HUMAN! AND WHICH FURTHER DEMANDS THAT THE PROFOUND DEVIANCY BE COUNTED _AS *"NORMAL"*.  _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays are lesbians are human. Ending your entire line of reasoning. Next fallacy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing in that rationalization, which can be reasonably recognized as being _based upon or in accordance with sound reason or valid logic, thus such is *not *'rational'._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply assume that sex can only serve one purpose: procreation. Just like you assume that marriage can only serve one purpose: procreation. *But neither assumption is true.* Almost all sex is reproductively useless. And as all the infertile and childless couples being allowed to marry or remain married demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children.
> 
> Your assumption of exclusivity of purpose is thus a logical fallacy void of reason, clear thought or sensibility.
> 
> Next fallacy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your assertion *"37 of 50 states have now legalized Gay-Marriage".
> *
> We know this because THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE STATES ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO LONG DEBATED AND PASSED BILLS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO SIGNED INTO LAW: *THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And any law that violates constitutional guarantees is invalid. As rights trump powers.
> 
> What else have you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sex that requires artificial means (i.e safe sex), in order to accommodate the act between two human beings is going to be called what ? 1. An abnormal thing.  2. A normal thing. ? Otherwise when slipping on a condom or what ever else that is needed to keep from catching something, then how is that viewed by humans mostly ? Is it a normal thing or is it an abnormal thing that one is doing when about to have sex ? Why is there so much need now for condoms, and why is this safe sex campaign so emphasized and important these days if it is a normal thing that is found in the order of things ?  Tell us your opinion on the now and why as opposed to the days of old maybe.
Click to expand...


Well, this is a good point you're making.

The Disordered mind, demanding that sex is purposed for entertainment, has literally rendered sex itself into an excellent conduit of disease and in the case of the demented homosexuals... sex has become an excellent conduit of DEATH.  And DESPITE THAT... their disordered minds simply deny that otherwise irrefutable reality.

_"THE HIV is not a Homosexual Disease", _when in truth, absent homosexuals, there is virtually no means to contract HIV. 

Sure the Reader can see that THAT, in and of itself: is Harm perpetrated by the disordered mind of the homosexual.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> HEY LOOK!  A Deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.
> 
> Now MaryL, a professed member of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality has JUST attempted to HARM ME... through the false assertion that I am a sexual deviant.
> 
> Now, if they'll do that to me, why would they not do so to YOU?
> 
> They're unprincipled, therefore unreasonable people.  Which is what one should reasonably expect of those whose behavior is manifested from a disordered mind.



You have an incredibly over-inflated opinion of your own importance...shared by nobody.  You are having delusions of adequacy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Jarlaxle said:


> You have an incredibly over-inflated opinion of your own importance... .



_And your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette is delusional- and immune to rational thought- ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rational thought?
> 
> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your conclusion, that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, IT DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THAT STANDARD NORMALITY AS FAR AS CAN BE ACHIEVED WHERE THE SUBJECTS AT ISSUE REMAIN HUMAN! AND WHICH FURTHER DEMANDS THAT THE PROFOUND DEVIANCY BE COUNTED _AS *"NORMAL"*.  _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays are lesbians are human. Ending your entire line of reasoning. Next fallacy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing in that rationalization, which can be reasonably recognized as being _based upon or in accordance with sound reason or valid logic, thus such is *not *'rational'._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply assume that sex can only serve one purpose: procreation. Just like you assume that marriage can only serve one purpose: procreation. *But neither assumption is true.* Almost all sex is reproductively useless. And as all the infertile and childless couples being allowed to marry or remain married demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children.
> 
> Your assumption of exclusivity of purpose is thus a logical fallacy void of reason, clear thought or sensibility.
> 
> Next fallacy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your assertion *"37 of 50 states have now legalized Gay-Marriage".
> *
> We know this because THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE STATES ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO LONG DEBATED AND PASSED BILLS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO SIGNED INTO LAW: *THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And any law that violates constitutional guarantees is invalid. As rights trump powers.
> 
> What else have you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sex that requires artificial means (i.e safe sex), in order to accommodate the act between two human beings is going to be called what ? 1. An abnormal thing.  2. A normal thing. ?
Click to expand...


A normal thing.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have an incredibly over-inflated opinion of your own importance... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _And your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
Click to expand...


And Keyes' rout begins anew. 

That was easy.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Keys, you're hallucinating again.

Everyone but you realizes that you're the crazy fuck running around squeaking "the world is ending!" with a pair of Depends on your head.  That is: we are *pointing and laughing at you!*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Jarlaxle said:


> Keys, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Everyone but you realizes that you're the crazy fuck running around squeaking "the world is ending!" with a pair of Depends on your head.  That is: we are *pointing and laughing at you!*



OH!  A RE-CONCESSION!

(You should know that once you've conceded to the standing points, you aren't required to re-concede to those same points.  BUT!  It's mighty sweet of you to do so. )

_Your re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Jarlaxle

Serious question: are you a remarkably sophisticated spambot, or just a remarkably stupid person?


----------



## Skylar

Jarlaxle said:


> Keys, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Everyone but you realizes that you're the crazy fuck running around squeaking "the world is ending!" with a pair of Depends on your head.  That is: we are *pointing and laughing at you!*



Ultimately Keyes is just another bigot. The slow attrition of time and the corrosive effects of hate and anger on one's health cleanses our society of such caustic influences. We'll look back at their ilk in 20 years like we do at interracial marriage opponents are looked at now.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keys, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Everyone but you realizes that you're the crazy fuck running around squeaking "the world is ending!" with a pair of Depends on your head.  That is: we are *pointing and laughing at you!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  A RE-CONCESSION!
> 
> (You should know that once you've conceded to the standing points, you aren't required to re-concede to those same points.  BUT!  It's mighty sweet of you to do so. )
> 
> _Your re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
Click to expand...


You're just doubling down on your tell tonight, Keyes. I can always tell when you've reached the limits of your argument when you start your bizarre mantras of 'summary victory'.

While abandoning your silly arguments.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> The use of condoms goes back to the beginning of the 20th century- back when syphilis and gonorreah were the 'AIDS' of their day-  ... Why is there a need for condoms now?  ... To prevent catching among other things: HIV(AIDS) ... Syphilis... Gonoreah [sic]



ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> You're just doubling down on your tell tonight, Keyes.


_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Ultimately Keyes is just another bigot.



Bigotry: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
_
The Reader should recognize the _by definition_, the use of the word "Bigot" is a demonstration of bigotry.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just doubling down on your tell tonight, Keyes.
> 
> 
> 
> _
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
Click to expand...


Laughing.....and exactly on cue, you've abandoned all your arguments, refuse to discuss the evisceration of your argument....and flee.

Bizarrely 'declaring victory' over your shoulder as you run.

That was easy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Jarlaxle said:


> Serious question: are you a remarkably sophisticated spambot, or just a remarkably stupid person?



Oh the coveted RE-Re-concession!
_
You RE-Re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just doubling down on your tell tonight, Keyes.
> 
> 
> 
> _
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing.....and exactly on cue, you've abandoned all your arguments, refuse to discuss the evisceration of your argument....and flee.
> 
> Bizarrely 'declaring victory' over your shoulder as you run.
> 
> That was easy.
Click to expand...


Oh my it's a river of concessions...  how nice!
_
Your re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately Keyes is just another bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bigotry: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
> _
> The Reader should recognize the by definition, the use of the word "Bigot" is a demonstration of bigotry.
Click to expand...


Its a description of someone who holds bigoted and irrational views. In your case, motivated by personal animus. You've called gays 'despised'. 'Abhorred'. 'Loathed'. You've speculated about how they may all have to be executed for the good of society. And told us how if gays and lesbians don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that they're going to be subject to a war that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch'. 

Um, no. We're not hurting gays, we're not waging war against them, we're not 'despising' them, we're not executing them, we're not stripping them of any right just because you have an irrational hatred of gays.

Your proposal is rejected.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just doubling down on your tell tonight, Keyes.
> 
> 
> 
> _
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing.....and exactly on cue, you've abandoned all your arguments, refuse to discuss the evisceration of your argument....and flee.
> 
> Bizarrely 'declaring victory' over your shoulder as you run.
> 
> That was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my it's a river of concessions...  how nice!
> _
> Your re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
Click to expand...


Keep running.


----------



## Skylar

So with Keyes having predictably devolved into his typical abandonment of the debate and awkward 'declarations of victory', is there anyone who thinks churches should be forced to accommodate gays weddings?

So far, there are zero churches that have been forced to perform any gay wedding. And its unlikely there will be in the foreseeable future.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Its a description of someone who holds bigoted and irrational views.



Yes it is.  And such is never more certain than where one uses the word to describe another, as the use of such is _BY DEFINITION:_ intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

And that remains the case without regard to what you accept... .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> So with Keyes having predictably devolved into his typical abandonment of the debate and awkward 'declarations of victory', is there anyone who thinks churches should be forced to accommodate gays weddings?
> 
> So far, there are zero churches that have been forced to perform any gay wedding. And its unlikely there will be in the foreseeable future.



And ANOTHER RE-Re-concession!  

_Your RE-Re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Does anyone need anything else to firm up their understanding that in fact, sexual abnormality is a consequence of mental disorder?

.

.

.

Anyone?

.

.

.

Anyone at all...?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately Keyes is just another bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bigotry: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
> _
> The Reader should recognize the by definition, the use of the word "Bigot" is a demonstration of bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a description of someone who holds bigoted and irrational views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
Click to expand...


And you hold those bigoted and irrational views. You despise gays, you abhor them, you loath them. By your own words. You speculate on how we may have to execute all gays for the benefit of society. You tell us how a war that will make 'hate crimes look like a Sunday Brunch' if they don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up'

We're not doing any of that, Keyes. We're recognizing their rights. We're protecting their rights. Come June, we'll likely be reocgnizing the right to marry across the nation. And we're slowly purging our society of your kind of bigotry through the inevitable attrition of time. 

In 20 years we'll look back with the same bewilderment and pity for you and your ilk as we do the opponents of interracial marriage of the past.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Does anyone need anything else to firm up their understanding that in fact, sexual abnormality is a consequence of mental disorder?
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Anyone at all...?


Says you. And your personal opinion has no relevance to the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians anywhere in our country.

With gay marriage recognized in 37 of 50 states today. And 50 of 50 in a handful of weeks.

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So with Keyes having predictably devolved into his typical abandonment of the debate and awkward 'declarations of victory', is there anyone who thinks churches should be forced to accommodate gays weddings?
> 
> So far, there are zero churches that have been forced to perform any gay wedding. And its unlikely there will be in the foreseeable future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And ANOTHER RE-Re-concession!
> 
> _Your RE-Re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
Click to expand...


Laughing......you won't touch the topic of the thread with a 10 foot pole, will you?

Is there any topic I can't run you off of?


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The use of condoms goes back to the beginning of the 20th century- back when syphilis and gonorreah were the 'AIDS' of their day-  ... Why is there a need for condoms now?  ... To prevent catching among other things: HIV(AIDS) ... Syphilis... Gonoreah [sic]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> You can NOT make this crap up!
Click to expand...


Your ignorance of history is no surprise.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Does anyone need anything else to firm up their understanding that in fact, sexual abnormality is a consequence of mental disorder?



I understand from your posts that you have a mental disorder that causes your sexual abnormality.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately Keyes is just another bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bigotry: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
> _
> The Reader should recognize the _by definition_, the use of the word "Bigot" is a demonstration of bigotry.
Click to expand...


In the United States we rely upon Webster- and they practically have you picture under the definition of Bigot:

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; _especially_ : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

*Full Definition of BIGOT*
*:*  a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; _especially_ *:*  one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance


----------



## Syriusly

Jarlaxle said:


> Serious question: are you a remarkably sophisticated spambot, or just a remarkably stupid person?



Keyes is a remarkably stupid person is my observation


----------



## Billy000

It's interesting the large majority of the site voted one way yet for some bizarre reason this thread is 8000 posts in. What the fuck?


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately Keyes is just another bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bigotry: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
> _
> The Reader should recognize the by definition, the use of the word "Bigot" is a demonstration of bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a description of someone who holds bigoted and irrational views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you hold those bigoted and irrational views. You despise gays, you abhor them, you loath them. By your own words. You speculate on how we may have to execute all gays for the benefit of society. You tell us how a war that will make 'hate crimes look like a Sunday Brunch' if they don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up'
> 
> We're not doing any of that, Keyes. We're recognizing their rights. We're protecting their rights. Come June, we'll likely be reocgnizing the right to marry across the nation. And we're slowly purging our society of your kind of bigotry through the inevitable attrition of time.
> 
> In 20 years we'll look back with the same bewilderment and pity for you and your ilk as we do the opponents of interracial marriage of the past.
Click to expand...

So you have to defeat him and his ilk you say, and do it in say a span of 20 years, but isn't this also a declaration of war on your part?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette is delusional- and immune to rational thought- ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rational thought?
> 
> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your conclusion, that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, IT DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THAT STANDARD NORMALITY AS FAR AS CAN BE ACHIEVED WHERE THE SUBJECTS AT ISSUE REMAIN HUMAN! AND WHICH FURTHER DEMANDS THAT THE PROFOUND DEVIANCY BE COUNTED _AS *"NORMAL"*.  _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays are lesbians are human. Ending your entire line of reasoning. Next fallacy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing in that rationalization, which can be reasonably recognized as being _based upon or in accordance with sound reason or valid logic, thus such is *not *'rational'._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply assume that sex can only serve one purpose: procreation. Just like you assume that marriage can only serve one purpose: procreation. *But neither assumption is true.* Almost all sex is reproductively useless. And as all the infertile and childless couples being allowed to marry or remain married demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children.
> 
> Your assumption of exclusivity of purpose is thus a logical fallacy void of reason, clear thought or sensibility.
> 
> Next fallacy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your assertion *"37 of 50 states have now legalized Gay-Marriage".
> *
> We know this because THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE STATES ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO LONG DEBATED AND PASSED BILLS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO SIGNED INTO LAW: *THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And any law that violates constitutional guarantees is invalid. As rights trump powers.
> 
> What else have you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sex that requires artificial means (i.e safe sex), in order to accommodate the act between two human beings is going to be called what ? 1. An abnormal thing.  2. A normal thing. ? Otherwise when slipping on a condom or what ever else that is needed to keep from catching something, then how is that viewed by humans mostly ? Is it a normal thing or is it an abnormal thing that one is doing when about to have sex ? Why is there so much need now for condoms, and why is this safe sex campaign so emphasized and important these days if it is a normal thing that is found in the order of things ?  Tell us your opinion on the now and why as opposed to the days of old maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The use of condoms goes back to the beginning of the 20th century- back when syphilis and gonorreah were the 'AIDS' of their day- and there was no reliable cure.
> 
> Syphillis and all STD's are natural- luckily scientists discovered anti-biotics which cured them, and largely eliminated STD's.....for a time.
> 
> Why is there a need for condoms now?
> 
> Besides preventing pregancy?
> 
> To prevent catching among other things:
> HIV
> Herpes
> Syphilis
> HPV
> Gonoreah
> Hep C(?)
> 
> Certainly abstinence eliminates the need for condoms, but humans aren't good at abstinence, barely better at monogamy.
Click to expand...

Is having to protect yourself from your partner, a normal thing or an abnormal thing as found in the make up of things?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette is delusional- and immune to rational thought- ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rational thought?
> 
> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your conclusion, that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, IT DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THAT STANDARD NORMALITY AS FAR AS CAN BE ACHIEVED WHERE THE SUBJECTS AT ISSUE REMAIN HUMAN! AND WHICH FURTHER DEMANDS THAT THE PROFOUND DEVIANCY BE COUNTED _AS *"NORMAL"*.  _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays are lesbians are human. Ending your entire line of reasoning. Next fallacy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing in that rationalization, which can be reasonably recognized as being _based upon or in accordance with sound reason or valid logic, thus such is *not *'rational'._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply assume that sex can only serve one purpose: procreation. Just like you assume that marriage can only serve one purpose: procreation. *But neither assumption is true.* Almost all sex is reproductively useless. And as all the infertile and childless couples being allowed to marry or remain married demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children.
> 
> Your assumption of exclusivity of purpose is thus a logical fallacy void of reason, clear thought or sensibility.
> 
> Next fallacy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your assertion *"37 of 50 states have now legalized Gay-Marriage".
> *
> We know this because THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE STATES ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO LONG DEBATED AND PASSED BILLS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO SIGNED INTO LAW: *THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And any law that violates constitutional guarantees is invalid. As rights trump powers.
> 
> What else have you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sex that requires artificial means (i.e safe sex), in order to accommodate the act between two human beings is going to be called what ? 1. An abnormal thing.  2. A normal thing. ? Otherwise when slipping on a condom or what ever else that is needed to keep from catching something, then how is that viewed by humans mostly ? Is it a normal thing or is it an abnormal thing that one is doing when about to have sex ? Why is there so much need now for condoms, and why is this safe sex campaign so emphasized and important these days if it is a normal thing that is found in the order of things ?  Tell us your opinion on the now and why as opposed to the days of old maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The use of condoms goes back to the beginning of the 20th century- back when syphilis and gonorreah were the 'AIDS' of their day- and there was no reliable cure.
> 
> Syphillis and all STD's are natural- luckily scientists discovered anti-biotics which cured them, and largely eliminated STD's.....for a time.
> 
> Why is there a need for condoms now?
> 
> Besides preventing pregancy?
> 
> To prevent catching among other things:
> HIV
> Herpes
> Syphilis
> HPV
> Gonoreah
> Hep C(?)
> 
> Certainly abstinence eliminates the need for condoms, but humans aren't good at abstinence, barely better at monogamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is having to protect yourself from your partner, a normal thing or an abnormal thing as found in the make up of things?
Click to expand...


What the hell are you talking about? 

IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?

If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms. 

This is basic biology.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately Keyes is just another bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bigotry: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
> _
> The Reader should recognize the by definition, the use of the word "Bigot" is a demonstration of bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a description of someone who holds bigoted and irrational views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you hold those bigoted and irrational views. You despise gays, you abhor them, you loath them. By your own words. You speculate on how we may have to execute all gays for the benefit of society. You tell us how a war that will make 'hate crimes look like a Sunday Brunch' if they don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up'
> 
> We're not doing any of that, Keyes. We're recognizing their rights. We're protecting their rights. Come June, we'll likely be reocgnizing the right to marry across the nation. And we're slowly purging our society of your kind of bigotry through the inevitable attrition of time.
> 
> In 20 years we'll look back with the same bewilderment and pity for you and your ilk as we do the opponents of interracial marriage of the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have to defeat him and his ilk you say, and do it in say a span of 20 years, but isn't this also a declaration of war on your part?
Click to expand...


Reading Skylar's post that you are responding to- clearly not.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rational thought?
> 
> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your conclusion, that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, IT DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THAT STANDARD NORMALITY AS FAR AS CAN BE ACHIEVED WHERE THE SUBJECTS AT ISSUE REMAIN HUMAN! AND WHICH FURTHER DEMANDS THAT THE PROFOUND DEVIANCY BE COUNTED _AS *"NORMAL"*.  _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays are lesbians are human. Ending your entire line of reasoning. Next fallacy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing in that rationalization, which can be reasonably recognized as being _based upon or in accordance with sound reason or valid logic, thus such is *not *'rational'._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply assume that sex can only serve one purpose: procreation. Just like you assume that marriage can only serve one purpose: procreation. *But neither assumption is true.* Almost all sex is reproductively useless. And as all the infertile and childless couples being allowed to marry or remain married demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children.
> 
> Your assumption of exclusivity of purpose is thus a logical fallacy void of reason, clear thought or sensibility.
> 
> Next fallacy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your assertion *"37 of 50 states have now legalized Gay-Marriage".
> *
> We know this because THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE STATES ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO LONG DEBATED AND PASSED BILLS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO SIGNED INTO LAW: *THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And any law that violates constitutional guarantees is invalid. As rights trump powers.
> 
> What else have you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sex that requires artificial means (i.e safe sex), in order to accommodate the act between two human beings is going to be called what ? 1. An abnormal thing.  2. A normal thing. ? Otherwise when slipping on a condom or what ever else that is needed to keep from catching something, then how is that viewed by humans mostly ? Is it a normal thing or is it an abnormal thing that one is doing when about to have sex ? Why is there so much need now for condoms, and why is this safe sex campaign so emphasized and important these days if it is a normal thing that is found in the order of things ?  Tell us your opinion on the now and why as opposed to the days of old maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The use of condoms goes back to the beginning of the 20th century- back when syphilis and gonorreah were the 'AIDS' of their day- and there was no reliable cure.
> 
> Syphillis and all STD's are natural- luckily scientists discovered anti-biotics which cured them, and largely eliminated STD's.....for a time.
> 
> Why is there a need for condoms now?
> 
> Besides preventing pregancy?
> 
> To prevent catching among other things:
> HIV
> Herpes
> Syphilis
> HPV
> Gonoreah
> Hep C(?)
> 
> Certainly abstinence eliminates the need for condoms, but humans aren't good at abstinence, barely better at monogamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is having to protect yourself from your partner, a normal thing or an abnormal thing as found in the make up of things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?
> 
> If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.
> 
> This is basic biology.
Click to expand...

I'm asking if one has to use protection, is this figured as a normal thing or not?


----------



## Penrod

JFK_USA said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, then I also agree businesses should be able to refuse services for whatever reason as well. But I believe in something called freedom of association and private property, novel concepts in today's america.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they provide services to the public, they can't deny services to a certain group of people just because they are that certain group of people. If you are open to anyone, then to serve anyone.
Click to expand...


So the catholic church should be forced to marry a Jewish couple? The very idea of people of the same sex getting married changes the very definition of marriage.


----------



## Silhouette

Billy000 said:


> It's interesting the large majority of the site voted one way yet for some bizarre reason this thread is 8000 posts in. What the fuck?


 It's only because of the claim of the LGBT cult that the results aren't compelling that the conversation continues...that and the fact that they continually sue Christians (you know, LGBTs are "weak" and "downtrodden") to try to force them to promote/enable a homoesexual cultural takeover of the hub of society/marriage.  And because churches are nothing more or less than mere congregations of individual Christians.


----------



## JFK_USA

Penrod said:


> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, then I also agree businesses should be able to refuse services for whatever reason as well. But I believe in something called freedom of association and private property, novel concepts in today's america.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they provide services to the public, they can't deny services to a certain group of people just because they are that certain group of people. If you are open to anyone, then to serve anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the catholic church should be forced to marry a Jewish couple? The very idea of people of the same sex getting married changes the very definition of marriage.
Click to expand...


I doubt a Jewish couple is looking to get married in a church. 

The point is that if you hold open your services to the general public, you can't discriminate certain groups in the general public.


----------



## Penrod

JFK_USA said:


> Penrod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, then I also agree businesses should be able to refuse services for whatever reason as well. But I believe in something called freedom of association and private property, novel concepts in today's america.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they provide services to the public, they can't deny services to a certain group of people just because they are that certain group of people. If you are open to anyone, then to serve anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the catholic church should be forced to marry a Jewish couple? The very idea of people of the same sex getting married changes the very definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt a Jewish couple is looking to get married in a church.
> 
> The point is that if you hold open your services to the general public, you can't discriminate certain groups in the general public.
Click to expand...


Churches are not providing services to the general public. They provide services to their members. Even Catholics can be refused marriage in the Catholic church for a number of reasons. Its not like the church is the only option they can always go to the Justice of the peace.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays are lesbians are human. Ending your entire line of reasoning. Next fallacy:
> 
> You simply assume that sex can only serve one purpose: procreation. Just like you assume that marriage can only serve one purpose: procreation. *But neither assumption is true.* Almost all sex is reproductively useless. And as all the infertile and childless couples being allowed to marry or remain married demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children.
> 
> Your assumption of exclusivity of purpose is thus a logical fallacy void of reason, clear thought or sensibility.
> 
> Next fallacy:
> 
> And any law that violates constitutional guarantees is invalid. As rights trump powers.
> 
> What else have you got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex that requires artificial means (i.e safe sex), in order to accommodate the act between two human beings is going to be called what ? 1. An abnormal thing.  2. A normal thing. ? Otherwise when slipping on a condom or what ever else that is needed to keep from catching something, then how is that viewed by humans mostly ? Is it a normal thing or is it an abnormal thing that one is doing when about to have sex ? Why is there so much need now for condoms, and why is this safe sex campaign so emphasized and important these days if it is a normal thing that is found in the order of things ?  Tell us your opinion on the now and why as opposed to the days of old maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The use of condoms goes back to the beginning of the 20th century- back when syphilis and gonorreah were the 'AIDS' of their day- and there was no reliable cure.
> 
> Syphillis and all STD's are natural- luckily scientists discovered anti-biotics which cured them, and largely eliminated STD's.....for a time.
> 
> Why is there a need for condoms now?
> 
> Besides preventing pregancy?
> 
> To prevent catching among other things:
> HIV
> Herpes
> Syphilis
> HPV
> Gonoreah
> Hep C(?)
> 
> Certainly abstinence eliminates the need for condoms, but humans aren't good at abstinence, barely better at monogamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is having to protect yourself from your partner, a normal thing or an abnormal thing as found in the make up of things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?
> 
> If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.
> 
> This is basic biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm asking if one has to use protection, is this figured as a normal thing or not?
Click to expand...


And I answered that

IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?

If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.


----------



## Syriusly

Penrod said:


> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, then I also agree businesses should be able to refuse services for whatever reason as well. But I believe in something called freedom of association and private property, novel concepts in today's america.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they provide services to the public, they can't deny services to a certain group of people just because they are that certain group of people. If you are open to anyone, then to serve anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the catholic church should be forced to marry a Jewish couple? The very idea of people of the same sex getting married changes the very definition of marriage.
Click to expand...


Once again a church is not a business, and a business is not a church.

Churches can and do discriminate at will about who can use their facilities, and what they can be used for.


----------



## Syriusly

JFK_USA said:


> Penrod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ibentoken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Separation of church and state.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, then I also agree businesses should be able to refuse services for whatever reason as well. But I believe in something called freedom of association and private property, novel concepts in today's america.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they provide services to the public, they can't deny services to a certain group of people just because they are that certain group of people. If you are open to anyone, then to serve anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the catholic church should be forced to marry a Jewish couple? The very idea of people of the same sex getting married changes the very definition of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt a Jewish couple is looking to get married in a church.
> 
> The point is that if you hold open your services to the general public, you can't discriminate certain groups in the general public.
Click to expand...


If by 'services' you mean 'church services'- sure churches can absolutely discriminate anyway they want to.

If by 'services' you mean businesses, business's are subject to public accommodation laws- and business's can discriminate against any 'group' not covered- say for instance they could discriminate against left handed people if they wanted to.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex that requires artificial means (i.e safe sex), in order to accommodate the act between two human beings is going to be called what ? 1. An abnormal thing.  2. A normal thing. ? Otherwise when slipping on a condom or what ever else that is needed to keep from catching something, then how is that viewed by humans mostly ? Is it a normal thing or is it an abnormal thing that one is doing when about to have sex ? Why is there so much need now for condoms, and why is this safe sex campaign so emphasized and important these days if it is a normal thing that is found in the order of things ?  Tell us your opinion on the now and why as opposed to the days of old maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The use of condoms goes back to the beginning of the 20th century- back when syphilis and gonorreah were the 'AIDS' of their day- and there was no reliable cure.
> 
> Syphillis and all STD's are natural- luckily scientists discovered anti-biotics which cured them, and largely eliminated STD's.....for a time.
> 
> Why is there a need for condoms now?
> 
> Besides preventing pregancy?
> 
> To prevent catching among other things:
> HIV
> Herpes
> Syphilis
> HPV
> Gonoreah
> Hep C(?)
> 
> Certainly abstinence eliminates the need for condoms, but humans aren't good at abstinence, barely better at monogamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is having to protect yourself from your partner, a normal thing or an abnormal thing as found in the make up of things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?
> 
> If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.
> 
> This is basic biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm asking if one has to use protection, is this figured as a normal thing or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I answered that
> 
> IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?
> 
> If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.
Click to expand...

No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being? If you meet the love of your life, and you and her begin to date, and the both of you decide to have sex after say a year goes by,  then would you find it strange to reach for a condom when you two are ready?  Would you see that as something normal or abnormal to do? Now what allows disease to travel and manifest itself in humans? What is the root of these problems?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The use of condoms goes back to the beginning of the 20th century- back when syphilis and gonorreah were the 'AIDS' of their day- and there was no reliable cure.
> 
> Syphillis and all STD's are natural- luckily scientists discovered anti-biotics which cured them, and largely eliminated STD's.....for a time.
> 
> Why is there a need for condoms now?
> 
> Besides preventing pregancy?
> 
> To prevent catching among other things:
> HIV
> Herpes
> Syphilis
> HPV
> Gonoreah
> Hep C(?)
> 
> Certainly abstinence eliminates the need for condoms, but humans aren't good at abstinence, barely better at monogamy.
> 
> 
> 
> Is having to protect yourself from your partner, a normal thing or an abnormal thing as found in the make up of things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?
> 
> If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.
> 
> This is basic biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm asking if one has to use protection, is this figured as a normal thing or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I answered that
> 
> IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?
> 
> If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being?
Click to expand...


Its considered normal.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Billy000 said:


> It's interesting the large majority of the site voted one way yet for some bizarre reason this thread is 8000 posts in. What the fuck?



"The Fuck" is that the tiny minority representing the deviant perspective, has no means to control the perverse compulsion to demand a RIGHT to be promote deviancy.

Science is coming to understand that THAT is 'Why' homosexuals were locked in the closet, in the first place.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> And you hold those bigoted and irrational views.



Bigotry: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself._

The best sign that you're talking to a bigot, is that whoever you're talking to, has called *you*_ a bigot_.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Its considered normal.



Let me help you through the code being used in the above rationalization spawned by the disordered mind.

"It" is the use of contraceptives when one engages in the behavior designed BY NATURE for _procreation._

"Normal" means: _"everyone does it".  
_
The words are used inappropriately, and such is intentional, because the goal is to deceive you... thus the illicit use of words which promote the likelihood of your assent, through the allure of popularity, representing what is NOT a representation of human physiological normality: IS represented as such. 

The Reader should recall that the above cited contributor, just a page or two back, demanded that pleasure is a 'purpose' of sex... .

Yet HERE, we find it advising you that 'the purpose of sex' requires that one use contraceptives as a means to avoid the consequence of sex. 

So from THAT we can know the its would-be 'purpose' of sex, requires that it take measures to prevent sex from resulting in what it is DESIGNED TO DO!

_*See how that works?*_


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is having to protect yourself from your partner, a normal thing or an abnormal thing as found in the make up of things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?
> 
> If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.
> 
> This is basic biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm asking if one has to use protection, is this figured as a normal thing or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I answered that
> 
> IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?
> 
> If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its considered normal.
Click to expand...

It's considered normal you say, otherwise to have to ask your partner to place a condom on if you are a woman or for you to have to place a condom on if you are a man before sex ? There is nothing normal about that, but if there is something wrong or abnormal about the persons health in that area, then it only wise to use such protection, but it's not a normal thing that comes between two human beings at all. It's only a protection because something is abnormal in one of the human beings health. Now what is causing these abnormalities in humans, where as a human being has to place a condom on for protection or one has to take medicine in order to stay alive these days ?


----------



## beagle9

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its considered normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you through the code being used in the above rationalization spawned by the disordered mind.
> 
> "It" is the use of contraceptives when one engages in the behavior designed BY NATURE for _procreation._
> 
> "Normal" means: _"everyone does it".
> _
> The words are used inappropriately, and such is intentional, because the goal is to deceive you... thus the illicit use of words which promote the likelihood of your assent, through the allure of popularity, representing what is NOT a representation of human physiological normality: IS represented as such.
> 
> The Reader should recall that the above cited contributor, just a page or two back, demanded that pleasure is a 'purpose' of sex... .
> 
> Yet HERE, we find it advising you that 'the purpose of sex' requires that one use contraceptives as a means to avoid the consequence of sex.
> 
> So from THAT we can know the its would-be 'purpose' of sex, requires that it take measures to prevent sex from resulting in what it is DESIGNED TO DO!
> 
> _*See how that works?*_
Click to expand...

Contraceptives and taking *protective measures* to prevent disease when having sex is two different things, and are really in two different categories wouldn't you agree ?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The use of condoms goes back to the beginning of the 20th century- back when syphilis and gonorreah were the 'AIDS' of their day- and there was no reliable cure.
> 
> Syphillis and all STD's are natural- luckily scientists discovered anti-biotics which cured them, and largely eliminated STD's.....for a time.
> 
> Why is there a need for condoms now?
> 
> Besides preventing pregancy?
> 
> To prevent catching among other things:
> HIV
> Herpes
> Syphilis
> HPV
> Gonoreah
> Hep C(?)
> 
> Certainly abstinence eliminates the need for condoms, but humans aren't good at abstinence, barely better at monogamy.
> 
> 
> 
> Is having to protect yourself from your partner, a normal thing or an abnormal thing as found in the make up of things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?
> 
> If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.
> 
> This is basic biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm asking if one has to use protection, is this figured as a normal thing or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I answered that
> 
> IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?
> 
> If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being? If you meet the love of your life, and you and her begin to date, and the both of you decide to have sex after say a year goes by,  then would you find it strange to reach for a condom when you two are ready?  Would you see that as something normal or abnormal to do? Now what allows disease to travel and manifest itself in humans? What is the root of these problems?
Click to expand...


What is the root of these problems? I presume you mean sexually transmitted disease and not your problem with trying to identify everything as 'normal' or 'abnormal'.

Well if I was a Christian I would say God, because I would believe that God created everything in the world. 

But since I am not a Christian, I would blame evolution and biology. 

Evolution created sexually transmitted diseases and biology ensures that they will spread absent human intervention to prevent their spread.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its considered normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you through the code being used in the above rationalization spawned by the disordered mind.
> 
> "It" is the use of contraceptives when one engages in the behavior designed BY NATURE for _procreation._
> 
> "Normal" means: _"everyone does it".
> _
> The words are used inappropriately, and such is intentional, because the goal is to deceive you... thus the illicit use of words which promote the likelihood of your assent, through the allure of popularity, representing what is NOT a representation of human physiological normality: IS represented as such.
> 
> The Reader should recall that the above cited contributor, just a page or two back, demanded that pleasure is a 'purpose' of sex... .
> 
> Yet HERE, we find it advising you that 'the purpose of sex' requires that one use contraceptives as a means to avoid the consequence of sex.
> 
> So from THAT we can know the its would-be 'purpose' of sex, requires that it take measures to prevent sex from resulting in what it is DESIGNED TO DO!
> 
> _*See how that works?*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Contraceptives and taking *protective measures* to prevent disease when having sex is two different things, and are really in two different categories wouldn't you agree ?
Click to expand...


When referring to condoms- they are exactly the same thing.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?
> 
> If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.
> 
> This is basic biology.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm asking if one has to use protection, is this figured as a normal thing or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I answered that
> 
> IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?
> 
> If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its considered normal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's considered normal you say, otherwise to have to ask your partner to place a condom on if you are a woman or for you to have to place a condom on if you are a man before sex ? There is nothing normal about that, but if there is something wrong or abnormal about the persons health in that area, then it only wise to use such protection, but it's not a normal thing that comes between two human beings at all. It's only a protection because something is abnormal in one of the human beings health. Now what is causing these abnormalities in humans, where as a human being has to place a condom on for protection or one has to take medicine in order to stay alive these days ?
Click to expand...


It has been the normal thing to do for most of the last 100 years.

Other than a very brief period when known STD's were treatable.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is having to protect yourself from your partner, a normal thing or an abnormal thing as found in the make up of things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?
> 
> If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.
> 
> This is basic biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm asking if one has to use protection, is this figured as a normal thing or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I answered that
> 
> IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?
> 
> If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being? If you meet the love of your life, and you and her begin to date, and the both of you decide to have sex after say a year goes by,  then would you find it strange to reach for a condom when you two are ready?  Would you see that as something normal or abnormal to do? Now what allows disease to travel and manifest itself in humans? What is the root of these problems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the root of these problems? I presume you mean sexually transmitted disease and not your problem with trying to identify everything as 'normal' or 'abnormal'.
> 
> Well if I was a Christian I would say God, because I would believe that God created everything in the world.
> 
> But since I am not a Christian, I would blame evolution and biology.
> 
> Evolution created sexually transmitted diseases and biology ensures that they will spread absent human intervention to prevent their spread.
Click to expand...

But isn't there a *code *of* (ethics and morals)* that if people live by them, well don't these diseases completely fail in their attempts to come in contact with them, and then destroy them over time ? If live by a code handed down by our creator, then these things we are talking about (fail) in there attempts to infect those people who live by such a code of ethics and morals.

Now who do you think gave us the code to live by, and did he send down a bag full of condoms with the code ?  Who is breaking the code therefore reeking havoc among the flock these days ? How many have been infected due to being lured into a situation by influential worldly powers that are among us, where as afterwards they who fall then break the code and become infected themselves ? What is the platform in which the code breakers are riding on, and who is fueling the vehicle for which they ride upon (Hollywood is just one I can think of, but it's not all of Hollywood, yet who is winning the over all battle in that arena these days) ?

I acknowledge God as giving us the codes to live by, and I also acknowledge a more sinister being who wants every human being to fall somehow, and in someway. Who do you work for ?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?
> 
> If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.
> 
> This is basic biology.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm asking if one has to use protection, is this figured as a normal thing or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I answered that
> 
> IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?
> 
> If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being? If you meet the love of your life, and you and her begin to date, and the both of you decide to have sex after say a year goes by,  then would you find it strange to reach for a condom when you two are ready?  Would you see that as something normal or abnormal to do? Now what allows disease to travel and manifest itself in humans? What is the root of these problems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the root of these problems? I presume you mean sexually transmitted disease and not your problem with trying to identify everything as 'normal' or 'abnormal'.
> 
> Well if I was a Christian I would say God, because I would believe that God created everything in the world.
> 
> But since I am not a Christian, I would blame evolution and biology.
> 
> Evolution created sexually transmitted diseases and biology ensures that they will spread absent human intervention to prevent their spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But isn't there a *code *of* (ethics and morals)* that if people live by them, well don't these diseases completely fail in their attempts to come in contact with them, and then destroy them over time ? If live by a code handed down by our creator, then these things we are talking about (fail) in there attempts to infect those people who live by such a code of ethics and morals.
> 
> Now who do you think gave us the code to live by, and did he send down a bag full of condoms with the code
Click to expand...


IF there is a God- and that God intentionally afflected the human race with Syphillis and HIV, and HPV and Herpes- then I reject that God.

I don't give a damn about his 'code'- why the hell did he want to see humans die in misery?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm asking if one has to use protection, is this figured as a normal thing or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I answered that
> 
> IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?
> 
> If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being? If you meet the love of your life, and you and her begin to date, and the both of you decide to have sex after say a year goes by,  then would you find it strange to reach for a condom when you two are ready?  Would you see that as something normal or abnormal to do? Now what allows disease to travel and manifest itself in humans? What is the root of these problems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the root of these problems? I presume you mean sexually transmitted disease and not your problem with trying to identify everything as 'normal' or 'abnormal'.
> 
> Well if I was a Christian I would say God, because I would believe that God created everything in the world.
> 
> But since I am not a Christian, I would blame evolution and biology.
> 
> Evolution created sexually transmitted diseases and biology ensures that they will spread absent human intervention to prevent their spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But isn't there a *code *of* (ethics and morals)* that if people live by them, well don't these diseases completely fail in their attempts to come in contact with them, and then destroy them over time ? If live by a code handed down by our creator, then these things we are talking about (fail) in there attempts to infect those people who live by such a code of ethics and morals.
> 
> Now who do you think gave us the code to live by, and did he send down a bag full of condoms with the code
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF there is a God- and that God intentionally afflected the human race with Syphillis and HIV, and HPV and Herpes- then I reject that God.
> 
> I don't give a damn about his 'code'- why the hell did he want to see humans die in misery?
Click to expand...

You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? Now how interesting is that?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

beagle9 said:


> Contraceptives and taking *protective measures* to prevent disease when having sex is two different things, and are really in two different categories wouldn't you agree ?



Well, yessir, of course.

I'll agree that one 'category' seeks to keep somethin' in and the other seeks to keep somethin' out.

In terms of the need to keep something in... ya probably shouldn't be considering intercourse. 

In terms of the need to keep something out, best DOUBLE that.


----------



## Clementine

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


What religion bans minorities?     

Do you think religions should be able to behead gays and people of other religions?


----------



## Clementine

Statistikhengst said:


> No, freedom of speech does not end when a parishioner enters a church, but the law is crystal clear as to what makes for tax-exempt status, and what does not. You are aware of this fact, right?



Does Rev. Wright still have tax exempt status?  Did Al Sharpton lose his?  Jesse Jackson?    If not, then the left does not take that law seriously, at least when it comes to radical left activists.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!

Do you possess the capacity to recognize that there is absolutely NO COMMONALITY between the disordered mind that causes _abnormal sexual behavior_ and RACE?


----------



## beagle9

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contraceptives and taking *protective measures* to prevent disease when having sex is two different things, and are really in two different categories wouldn't you agree ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yessir, of course.
> 
> I'll agree that one 'category' seeks to keep somethin' in and the other seeks to keep somethin' out.
> 
> In terms of the need to keep something in... ya probably shouldn't be considering intercourse.
> 
> In terms of the need to keep something out, DOUBLE that.
Click to expand...

Yes double that or better yet live by a moral code... I think the latter is the best, but many people just can't help but to let their uncontrollable lustful mind get the best of them. Especially in these days and times where so much craziness is going on against just about every moral code that one can think of today.  The funny thing is, is that when it gets them in trouble, well they go into this great big ole denial upon what happened to them, and worse they try and stay silent about it in order that others may fall victim to what hurt them also (how evil is that?). Pride is an evil thing, because it hides the truth about things, and that isn't good at all.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

beagle9 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contraceptives and taking *protective measures* to prevent disease when having sex is two different things, and are really in two different categories wouldn't you agree ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yessir, of course.
> 
> I'll agree that one 'category' seeks to keep somethin' in and the other seeks to keep somethin' out.
> 
> In terms of the need to keep something in... ya probably shouldn't be considering intercourse.
> 
> In terms of the need to keep something out, DOUBLE that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes double that or better yet live by a moral code... I think the latter is the best, but many people just can't help but to let their uncontrollable lustful mind get the best of them. Especially in these days and times where so much craziness is going on against just about every moral code that one can think of today.  The funny thing is, is that when it gets them in trouble, well they go into this great big ole denial upon what happened to them, and worse they try and stay silent about it in order that others may fall victim to what hurt them also (how evil is that?). Pride is an evil thing, because it hides the truth about things, and that isn't good at all.
Click to expand...


'_Yes double that or better yet live by a valid, viable, thus OBJECTIVE moral code.'  _


Agreed and whole heartedly.

(Just to be clear... 'the doubling' was specifically speaking to the advice: _'Probably should avoid intercourse...'. LOL!  _Not the prophylactics.)


----------



## Statistikhengst

Clementine said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, freedom of speech does not end when a parishioner enters a church, but the law is crystal clear as to what makes for tax-exempt status, and what does not. You are aware of this fact, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Rev. Wright still have tax exempt status?  Did Al Sharpton lose his?  Jesse Jackson?    If not, then the left does not take that law seriously, at least when it comes to radical left activists.
Click to expand...



Nice necro!!!!

Slow day at Stormfront for you?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Statistikhengst said:


> Nice necro!!!!
> 
> Slow day at Stormfront for you?



What a LOVELY concession!
_
Noted and accepted._


----------



## Clementine

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice necro!!!!
> 
> Slow day at Stormfront for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a LOVELY concession!
> _
> Noted and accepted._
Click to expand...



When a liberal immediately insults instead of answering the question, you know you've won.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Clementine said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice necro!!!!
> 
> Slow day at Stormfront for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a LOVELY concession!
> _
> Noted and accepted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When a liberal immediately insults instead of answering the question, you know you've won.
Click to expand...



Oh, that's how your super duper Unicorn code works these days....

I heard the sound of sand, coming from someone's vagina...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Statistikhengst said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice necro!!!!
> 
> Slow day at Stormfront for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a LOVELY concession!
> _
> Noted and accepted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When a liberal immediately insults instead of answering the question, you know you've won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's how your super duper Unicorn code works these days....
> 
> I heard the sound of sand, coming from someone's vagina...
Click to expand...


WOW~  

A Re-Concession!  

You should know scamp, that once ya concede to a standing point, you're not required to keep doing it.

But it's super-duper sweet of ya, to do so.
_
Your Re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Statistikhengst

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice necro!!!!
> 
> Slow day at Stormfront for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a LOVELY concession!
> _
> Noted and accepted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When a liberal immediately insults instead of answering the question, you know you've won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's how your super duper Unicorn code works these days....
> 
> I heard the sound of sand, coming from someone's vagina...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW~
> 
> A Re-Concession!
> 
> You should know scamp, that once ya concede to a standing point, you're not required to keep doing it.
> 
> But it's super-duper sweet of ya, to do so.
> _
> Your Re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
Click to expand...



Ahhh, you got the same decoder ring out of your cereal box, eh, l'il slugger?

Cool!

Now, run off and play with the unicorns some more.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Statistikhengst said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice necro!!!!
> 
> Slow day at Stormfront for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a LOVELY concession!
> _
> Noted and accepted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When a liberal immediately insults instead of answering the question, you know you've won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's how your super duper Unicorn code works these days....
> 
> I heard the sound of sand, coming from someone's vagina...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW~
> 
> A Re-Concession!
> 
> You should know scamp, that once ya concede to a standing point, you're not required to keep doing it.
> 
> But it's super-duper sweet of ya, to do so.
> _
> Your Re-Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, you got the same decoder ring out of your cereal box, eh, l'il slugger?
> 
> Cool!
> 
> Now, run off and play with the unicorns some more.
Click to expand...


OH!  A RE-Re-Concession?  SWEET!
_
You're RE-Re-Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> I acknowledge God as giving us the codes to live by, and I also acknowledge a more sinister being who wants every human being to fall somehow, and in someway. Who do you work for ?



But we're not stripping anyone of their rights because of your conceptions of God or the devil. Nor are we exempting you from the law because you believe in God or the devil.

Those are your subjective beliefs.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I acknowledge God as giving us the codes to live by, and I also acknowledge a more sinister being who wants every human being to fall somehow, and in someway. Who do you work for ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we're not stripping anyone of their rights because of your conceptions of God ...
Click to expand...


So what?

What you're doing is selling perverse reasoning as sound reasoning, demanding that people accept deviancy as normality... and that's a danger to you as well as everyone else.

Ya see scamp, it turns out that there's no potential for a right to promote the injury of innocent people.

So... No SALE!  We're going to have to ask ya to ... . (And we're not actually askin'. )


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I acknowledge God as giving us the codes to live by, and I also acknowledge a more sinister being who wants every human being to fall somehow, and in someway. Who do you work for ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we're not stripping anyone of their rights because of your conceptions of God ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
Click to expand...


So gay and lesbians have the right to marry in 37 of 50 States. And in June, its likely to be 50 of 50 states. That some random theist on a message board believes otherwise is irrelevant. As we don't use some random theist's personal opinion as the basis of our laws.


----------



## rickm19

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...

Homosexuals do not really have a religion and if they do they are going against it by choosing their way. There is no discrimination at least from a Christian standpoint but there are guidelines to be followed for any couple in any church if they want to be married by a certain pastor or in a certain chruch. Now I'm positive some church's will let them use the premisis but you would probably have to find your own minister. And if they don't why should they care because they go against what they belive. Its not descrimination it is the principal of the matter. If any pastor is cruel about it well that is just wrong.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I acknowledge God as giving us the codes to live by, and I also acknowledge a more sinister being who wants every human being to fall somehow, and in someway. Who do you work for ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we're not stripping anyone of their rights because of your conceptions of God or the devil. Nor are we exempting you from the law because you believe in God or the devil.
> 
> Those are your subjective beliefs.
Click to expand...

But you want to force your beliefs on an unwilling public, while stating that others are the problem when they were just minding their own business before hand.  Wow!


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I acknowledge God as giving us the codes to live by, and I also acknowledge a more sinister being who wants every human being to fall somehow, and in someway. Who do you work for ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we're not stripping anyone of their rights because of your conceptions of God or the devil. Nor are we exempting you from the law because you believe in God or the devil.
> 
> Those are your subjective beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you want to force your beliefs on an unwilling public, while stating that others are the problem when they were just minding their own business before hand.  Wow!
Click to expand...


I want to protect constitutional guarantees. Rights like....marriage. And equal protection. 

I have no horse in the 'gay' race. Gay marriage doesn't effect me. But I definitely have a horse in the constitutional guarantees race. Which is why I support gay marriage.


----------



## rickm19

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I acknowledge God as giving us the codes to live by, and I also acknowledge a more sinister being who wants every human being to fall somehow, and in someway. Who do you work for ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we're not stripping anyone of their rights because of your conceptions of God or the devil. Nor are we exempting you from the law because you believe in God or the devil.
> 
> Those are your subjective beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you want to force your beliefs on an unwilling public, while stating that others are the problem when they were just minding their own business before hand.  Wow!
Click to expand...


There is no forcing... that is a twisted opinion.. it may seem that way but it's just not true, well maybe some take it too far but it's just the simple fact that we care about others and are strong in our beliefs due to the truths we see at hand and experiences in life... I know I would not be here today if it were not for God watching over me. No one is every minding their own business.. every move you make has an impact on someone, somewhere, at some point in time.


----------



## Skylar

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
Click to expand...


Absolutely. Or genders. Or last name. Religion is by its very nature, discriminatory. And more power to those churches.

But businesses aren't churches. And they most definitely fall under legal regulation.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I answered that
> 
> IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?
> 
> If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being? If you meet the love of your life, and you and her begin to date, and the both of you decide to have sex after say a year goes by,  then would you find it strange to reach for a condom when you two are ready?  Would you see that as something normal or abnormal to do? Now what allows disease to travel and manifest itself in humans? What is the root of these problems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the root of these problems? I presume you mean sexually transmitted disease and not your problem with trying to identify everything as 'normal' or 'abnormal'.
> 
> Well if I was a Christian I would say God, because I would believe that God created everything in the world.
> 
> But since I am not a Christian, I would blame evolution and biology.
> 
> Evolution created sexually transmitted diseases and biology ensures that they will spread absent human intervention to prevent their spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But isn't there a *code *of* (ethics and morals)* that if people live by them, well don't these diseases completely fail in their attempts to come in contact with them, and then destroy them over time ? If live by a code handed down by our creator, then these things we are talking about (fail) in there attempts to infect those people who live by such a code of ethics and morals.
> 
> Now who do you think gave us the code to live by, and did he send down a bag full of condoms with the code
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF there is a God- and that God intentionally afflected the human race with Syphillis and HIV, and HPV and Herpes- then I reject that God.
> 
> I don't give a damn about his 'code'- why the hell did he want to see humans die in misery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? Now how interesting is that?
Click to expand...


I don't believe in your God or your Devil. 

I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.

Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?


----------



## Syriusly

Clementine said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion bans minorities?
> 
> Do you think religions should be able to behead gays and people of other religions?
Click to expand...




Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting the large majority of the site voted one way yet for some bizarre reason this thread is 8000 posts in. What the fuck?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Fuck" is that the tiny minority representing the deviant perspective,.
Click to expand...


You are entitled to post your deviant perspective here, no matter how repulsive your posts are.


----------



## Syriusly

rickm19 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexuals do not really have a religion .
Click to expand...


Homosexuals in the United States are belong to every religion.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I acknowledge God as giving us the codes to live by, and I also acknowledge a more sinister being who wants every human being to fall somehow, and in someway. Who do you work for ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we're not stripping anyone of their rights because of your conceptions of God or the devil. Nor are we exempting you from the law because you believe in God or the devil.
> 
> Those are your subjective beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you want to force your beliefs on an unwilling public, while stating that others are the problem when they were just minding their own business before hand.  Wow!
Click to expand...


I don't really care what you believe, and certainly I am not interested in forcing you to believe in anything.

I am not even particularly a fan of public accommodation law- but as long as PA laws do exist, then they protect everyone enumerated- Christians, homosexuals- and Christian homosexuals alike. 

But when it comes to marriage- homosexual couples have the same right to seek redress as those Christian business owners that think the law is unconstitutional- change the law- regardless of how popular the law is.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.



OH!  Now isn't that PRECIOUS?

Tell me dear, what other natural elements do you not _'believe in'_?  Do you believe in 'Cause and Effect', entropy, chaos, laws of fluid dynamics, the laws of reason...; gravity~, where do ya stand on that, or DO you stand?  Perhaps you perpetually fall, without the chronic attraction of the mass of which you're comprised, being attracted to mass?

Please specify, at least to the extent that your limited intellectual means allows... .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> I don't really care what you believe



Yes... that's sorta the downside of evil... the absence of objectivity, thus the subsequent lack of empathy.  

But it is MARVELOUS stuff for igniting wars and THAT is what nature requires at points such as the one our culture is standing upon today.

My guess is that before that war you're abut to start is over, You'll be found SO WANTING to BELIEVE!  

LOL!  And my guess is that it won't take very long at all for you to get there.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> You are entitled to post your deviant perspective here, no matter how repulsive your posts are.



I am entitled to such, anywhere I am.  Because scamp, I am an American and THAT is how we roll.

Ya see, we are a free people who aren't required to accept perverse reasoning as sound reasoning and when you are found spouting that drivel you can't seem to find to find the strength of character NOT to spew... you will likely find one of us, checking that nonsense... and calling a spade, a spade.  You see its WHAT WE DO!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I acknowledge God as giving us the codes to live by, and I also acknowledge a more sinister being who wants every human being to fall somehow, and in someway. Who do you work for ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we're not stripping anyone of their rights because of your conceptions of God ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So gay and lesbians have the right to marry in 37 of 50 States.
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> I want to protect constitutional guarantees. Rights like....marriage. And equal protection.



Then you'll be happy to know that the joining of one man and one woman, OKA: Marriage,  is FULLY protected by no less an authority than nature itself; which designed the human species, which defines marriage, as the cultural analogue of procreational coitus... and American Principle defends equal protection.

What's more,* right now,* that very principle is under attack by the Advocacy to Normalize Mental Disorder... with the adherents to such claiming a "RIGHT" to _a disordered mind_ and a subsequent "RIGHT" to establish government policy upon the addled reasoning conjured by disordered minds such as sexual abnormality, socialism and so on... .  

Rest assured, Americans are pushing that crap off the table and we're prepared to go to war, to _shut it the fuck down!_

So rest easy... you stated desire is being tended to, while the goal cloaked by your deceit, is being scuttled, even as we speak.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  Now isn't that PRECIOUS?
> .
Click to expand...


And I don't believe in your unicorns or leprechauns either.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I acknowledge God as giving us the codes to live by, and I also acknowledge a more sinister being who wants every human being to fall somehow, and in someway. Who do you work for ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we're not stripping anyone of their rights because of your conceptions of God ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So gay and lesbians have the right to marry in 37 of 50 States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


and in 37 states, Canada and much of Europe- it is also the joining of one man and one man, and the joining of one woman and one woman.

Thats progress.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are entitled to post your deviant perspective here, no matter how repulsive your posts are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am entitled to such, anywhere I am.!
Click to expand...


Because the owners of this site allow your deviant posts here- no matter how repulsive they are.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  Now isn't that PRECIOUS?
> 
> Tell me dear, what other natural elements do you not _'believe in'_?  Do you believe in 'Cause and Effect', entropy, chaos, laws of fluid dynamics, the laws of reason...; gravity~, where do ya stand on that, or DO you stand?  Perhaps you perpetually fall, without the chronic attraction of the mass of which you're comprised, being attracted to mass?
> 
> Please specify, at least to the extent that your limited intellectual means allows... .
Click to expand...


Keyes, we can verify the law of fluid dynamics. When it comes to your conception of god* its almost completely imaginary, relativistic and hopelessly subjective.*

You use a first mover argument as your 'evidence' of a creator. And then straight up imagine elaborate attributes, complex abilities, intricate intentions and rules to your 'god' *that have nothing to do with a first mover argument. *Your evidence simply doesn't match your description. When pressed for proof to back your conception....*you present your imagination.* Its a cycle of perfectly circular bullshit based on nested fallacies and laughable blunders of logic.

And its adorable.

Fluid dynamics, unlike your personal conceptions of god, isn't imaginary. Its objectively measurable and verifiable.* Your faith isn't.* Its inherently subjective, can't be measured, can't be verified.

We're not stripping anyone of any rights, we're not 'loathing', 'despising' or 'abhoring' anyone, we're not going to execute anyone based on your subjective, relativistic imagination.....that even you can't factually support.

Get used to the idea.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being? If you meet the love of your life, and you and her begin to date, and the both of you decide to have sex after say a year goes by,  then would you find it strange to reach for a condom when you two are ready?  Would you see that as something normal or abnormal to do? Now what allows disease to travel and manifest itself in humans? What is the root of these problems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the root of these problems? I presume you mean sexually transmitted disease and not your problem with trying to identify everything as 'normal' or 'abnormal'.
> 
> Well if I was a Christian I would say God, because I would believe that God created everything in the world.
> 
> But since I am not a Christian, I would blame evolution and biology.
> 
> Evolution created sexually transmitted diseases and biology ensures that they will spread absent human intervention to prevent their spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But isn't there a *code *of* (ethics and morals)* that if people live by them, well don't these diseases completely fail in their attempts to come in contact with them, and then destroy them over time ? If live by a code handed down by our creator, then these things we are talking about (fail) in there attempts to infect those people who live by such a code of ethics and morals.
> 
> Now who do you think gave us the code to live by, and did he send down a bag full of condoms with the code
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF there is a God- and that God intentionally afflected the human race with Syphillis and HIV, and HPV and Herpes- then I reject that God.
> 
> I don't give a damn about his 'code'- why the hell did he want to see humans die in misery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? Now how interesting is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
Click to expand...

Have you lost your mind? How about you quit with the false accusations, and then maybe someone would give you some respect. After that ridiculous rant, you may have lost your credibility in total. Now see readers, this type of response that you just witnessed here, is one of desperation.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being? If you meet the love of your life, and you and her begin to date, and the both of you decide to have sex after say a year goes by,  then would you find it strange to reach for a condom when you two are ready?  Would you see that as something normal or abnormal to do? Now what allows disease to travel and manifest itself in humans? What is the root of these problems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the root of these problems? I presume you mean sexually transmitted disease and not your problem with trying to identify everything as 'normal' or 'abnormal'.
> 
> Well if I was a Christian I would say God, because I would believe that God created everything in the world.
> 
> But since I am not a Christian, I would blame evolution and biology.
> 
> Evolution created sexually transmitted diseases and biology ensures that they will spread absent human intervention to prevent their spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But isn't there a *code *of* (ethics and morals)* that if people live by them, well don't these diseases completely fail in their attempts to come in contact with them, and then destroy them over time ? If live by a code handed down by our creator, then these things we are talking about (fail) in there attempts to infect those people who live by such a code of ethics and morals.
> 
> Now who do you think gave us the code to live by, and did he send down a bag full of condoms with the code
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF there is a God- and that God intentionally afflected the human race with Syphillis and HIV, and HPV and Herpes- then I reject that God.
> 
> I don't give a damn about his 'code'- why the hell did he want to see humans die in misery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? Now how interesting is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
Click to expand...


What do you base your argument on that it's "God" that created HIV or Syphillis? I can't find anyone who disagrees that environmental conditions created by man that contaminated the water supply and polluting our skies, are responsible for health conditions such as asthma and cancer. Who is really responsible for a lot of the diseases we encounter? Are you suggesting, that your basis of a belief in God exists through His intervention over the choices we ourselves have chosen to make?


----------



## rickm19

Syriusly said:


> rickm19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexuals do not really have a religion .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals in the United States are belong to every religion.
Click to expand...

WHAT?? Open your eyes bud. They cannot belong to a religion that is for procreation. How do you intend to carry on a family name or heritage without being able to reproduce with your significant other? Do I respect their decision to do what they want and have free will? Of course but why change historical doctrines just to have the same rights and tax benefits of the couples that are carrying on the human race? Marriage is ultimately a sacred bond between man woman and GOD. There is no reason to change that just because you feel it is against your free will and infringing your freedoms. If you love them why not just be happy being able to love them?


----------



## mdk

Another day does by and not single a church has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes. It is a real shame we cannot harness fear mongering as an alternative energy source.


----------



## beagle9

mdk said:


> Another day does by and not single a church has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes. It is a real shame we cannot harness fear mongering as an alternative energy source.


Fear mongering, or maybe the truth being told about a lot of things you might not like to hear ? Many of these topics spin to encompass the entire spectrum of the possibilities that either have led to such things or will lead to many more things as a result of all these things.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Another day does by and not single a church has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes. It is a real shame we cannot harness fear mongering as an alternative energy source.


 Churches are nothing more or less than congregations of individual Christians.

Therefore, they have already been sued and forced to abdicate their faith and mandate in Jude 1, risking eternal damnation in order to be forced as a matter of law to enable the spread of the homosexual culture (not individuals) by overtaking and dismantling the word "marriage".


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another day does by and not single a church has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes. It is a real shame we cannot harness fear mongering as an alternative energy source.
> 
> 
> 
> Fear mongering, or maybe the truth being told about a lot of things you might not like to hear ? Many of these topics spin to encompass the entire spectrum of the possibilities that either have led to such things or will lead to many more things as a result of all these things.
Click to expand...


Or....fear mongering. If you add up all the churches in the entire country that were forced to perform same sex weddings before your fearmongering with all the churches that were forced to perform same sex weddings after your fear mongering, and you get the exact same number:

Zero.


----------



## rcfieldz

Will people start burning those churches, etc. down?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another day does by and not single a church has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes. It is a real shame we cannot harness fear mongering as an alternative energy source.
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are nothing more or less than congregations of individual Christians.
Click to expand...


A Christian is no more a church than a hubcap is a car. 

People aren't churches. Any argument you want to make that relies on the idea that they are is already dead.

Tax exempt status alone should tell you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. 



> Therefore, they have already been sued and forced to abdicate their faith and mandate in Jude 1, risking eternal damnation in order to be forced as a matter of law to enable the spread of the homosexual culture (not individuals) by overtaking and dismantling the word "marriage".



Jude 1 makes no mention of selling cake to gays. You hallucinated it. And when we ask you to show us the passage in Jude 1 that back any of the bullshit you make up, you can't.

Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else. If your religion conflicts with your job....get another job.


----------



## Skylar

rcfieldz said:


> Will people start burning those churches, etc. down?



Probably not. Though 'people' is a pretty broad term.


----------



## rcfieldz

Skylar said:


> rcfieldz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will people start burning those churches, etc. down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not. Though 'people' is a pretty broad term.
Click to expand...

I guess I say this because a few have been set on fire in the state I currently reside, for other reasons, I suppose. And some get graffiti now and then. Only time will tell. I am totally amazed when there are some "polls" say the "majority" of people support unholy copulation holy under the law.


----------



## Skylar

rcfieldz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rcfieldz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will people start burning those churches, etc. down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not. Though 'people' is a pretty broad term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess I say this because a few have been set on fire in the state I currently reside, for other reasons, I suppose. And some get graffiti now and then. Only time will tell. I am totally amazed when there are some "polls" say the "majority" of people support unholy copulation holy under the law.
Click to expand...


Not 'some polls'. Pretty much every poll on the topic indicates that support for gay marriage. But between 12 to 19 points.


----------



## rcfieldz

Skylar said:


> rcfieldz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rcfieldz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will people start burning those churches, etc. down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not. Though 'people' is a pretty broad term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess I say this because a few have been set on fire in the state I currently reside, for other reasons, I suppose. And some get graffiti now and then. Only time will tell. I am totally amazed when there are some "polls" say the "majority" of people support unholy copulation holy under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not 'some polls'. Pretty much every poll on the topic indicates that support for gay marriage. But between 12 to 19 points.
Click to expand...

Every Leftwing Liberal asskissin' poll you meant.


----------



## Skylar

rcfieldz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rcfieldz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rcfieldz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will people start burning those churches, etc. down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not. Though 'people' is a pretty broad term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess I say this because a few have been set on fire in the state I currently reside, for other reasons, I suppose. And some get graffiti now and then. Only time will tell. I am totally amazed when there are some "polls" say the "majority" of people support unholy copulation holy under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not 'some polls'. Pretty much every poll on the topic indicates that support for gay marriage. But between 12 to 19 points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every Leftwing Liberal asskissin' poll you meant.
Click to expand...


Pretty much every mainstream poll in the country. But again, ignore as you wish. No one really gives a shit if you close your eyes and pretend that none of it exists.

Your willful ignorance won't change a thing.


----------



## rcfieldz

God Bless and Pray for America for it doesn't know what is right anymore.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another day does by and not single a church has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes. It is a real shame we cannot harness fear mongering as an alternative energy source.
> 
> 
> 
> Fear mongering, or maybe the truth being told about a lot of things you might not like to hear ? Many of these topics spin to encompass the entire spectrum of the possibilities that either have led to such things or will lead to many more things as a result of all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....fear mongering. If you add up all the churches in the entire country that were forced to perform same sex weddings before your fearmongering with all the churches that were forced to perform same sex weddings after your fear mongering, and you get the exact same number:
> 
> Zero.
Click to expand...

OK, now add up the number of Christians lately who have been attacked, sued or threatened to be boycotted and/or shut down if they don't go along with the new trend or if they don't answer correctly the question of Gay Marriage when asked of them. Can't bring up the past, because the past is ever changing with the future, so what does the future hold with all the evidence we have seen as a preview so far ?


----------



## Skylar

rcfieldz said:


> God Bless and Pray for America for it doesn't know what is right anymore.



Pointless discrimination against gays 'because you can' isn't right. Its an antiquated relic of bigotry that is being tossed on the midden heap of history where it belongs. Along with interracial marriage bans. 

And good riddance.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another day does by and not single a church has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes. It is a real shame we cannot harness fear mongering as an alternative energy source.
> 
> 
> 
> Fear mongering, or maybe the truth being told about a lot of things you might not like to hear ? Many of these topics spin to encompass the entire spectrum of the possibilities that either have led to such things or will lead to many more things as a result of all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or....fear mongering. If you add up all the churches in the entire country that were forced to perform same sex weddings before your fearmongering with all the churches that were forced to perform same sex weddings after your fear mongering, and you get the exact same number:
> 
> Zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, now add up the number of Christians lately who have been attacked, sued or threatened to be boycotted and/or shut down if they don't go along with the new trend or if they don't answer correctly the question of Gay Marriage when asked of them.
Click to expand...


A person isn't a church. 

Ending that argument.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> rcfieldz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God Bless and Pray for America for it doesn't know what is right anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pointless discrimination against gays 'because you can' isn't right. Its an antiquated relic of bigotry that is being tossed on the midden heap of history where it belongs. Along with interracial marriage bans.
> 
> And good riddance.
Click to expand...

I don't see where anyone is discriminating against gay's as you claim, but rather it is that people are just wanting the *institution of marriage* to remain between a man and a woman, and also to remain a holy bond that means something in that respect for the most part. It should remain as a joining together of a man and a woman in the sight of God. Why is it that the gay's aren't wanting to invest in the (civil unions) contract ? No they want to go after an institution that has been sacred and holy between a man and a woman instead for centuries, so why are they doing what they are doing now ? Why not the civil union/ secular contract instead if they honor no God in their picture of life ?


----------



## rcfieldz

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rcfieldz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God Bless and Pray for America for it doesn't know what is right anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pointless discrimination against gays 'because you can' isn't right. Its an antiquated relic of bigotry that is being tossed on the midden heap of history where it belongs. Along with interracial marriage bans.
> 
> And good riddance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where anyone is discriminating against gay's as you claim, but rather it is that people are just wanting the *institution of marriage* to remain between a man and a woman, and also to remain a holy bond that means something in that respect for the most part. It should remain as a joining together of a man and a woman in the sight of God. Why is it that the gay's aren't wanting to invest in the (civil unions) contract ? No they want to go after an institution that has been sacred and holy between a man and a woman instead for centuries, so why are they doing what they are doing now ? Why not the civil union/ secular contract instead if they honor no God in their picture of life ?
Click to expand...

It's Satan and his army.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> It should remain as a joining together of a man and a woman in the sight of God.



Says you. And your religion isn't the basis of our laws. 

As I've said, gay marriage opponents are in a tough position. They can't actually argue what actually motivates them: homophobia or religious conviction. As neither are valid legal arguments. So they're stuck with half assed second tier bullshit arguments.

Which are almost universally laughed out of court.



> Why is it that the gay's aren't wanting to invest in the (civil unions) contract ?



Because the rights and protections under civil unions are inferior to marriage. And 'separate but equal' has a pretty shitty track records. And because there's no reason to deny gays and lesbians same sex marriage. If civil unions and marriage are genuinely the same, then why bother with civil unions?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rcfieldz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God Bless and Pray for America for it doesn't know what is right anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pointless discrimination against gays 'because you can' isn't right. Its an antiquated relic of bigotry that is being tossed on the midden heap of history where it belongs. Along with interracial marriage bans.
> 
> And good riddance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where anyone is discriminating against gay's as you claim, but rather it is that people are just wanting the *institution of marriage* to remain between a man and a woman, and also to remain a holy bond that means something in that respect for the most part. It should remain as a joining together of a man and a woman in the sight of God. Why is it that the gay's aren't wanting to invest in the (civil unions) contract ? No they want to go after an institution that has been sacred and holy between a man and a woman instead for centuries, so why are they doing what they are doing now ? Why not the civil union/ secular contract instead if they honor no God in their picture of life ?
Click to expand...

Then you're blind – likely intentionally, as gay Americans are clearly being discriminated against.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in is in fact discrimination, and un-Constitutional.

This 14th Amendment jurisprudence has no bearing whatsoever on religious institutions, which remain at liberty to refuse to accommodate same-sex couples in their marriage rituals, and relegate their marriage rituals to only men and women.

State and local governments, however, are subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where the Amendment's case law is binding on the states, requiring the states to allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.

Because same-sex couples are eligible to participate in current marriage law – unchanged and unaltered – there is no need to contrive such nonsense as 'civil unions,' as this is nothing more than trite semantics seeking only to designate same-sex couples as being 'unworthy' of participating in the marriage law opposite-sex couples are afforded.

As already correctly noted, 'separate but equal' is as repugnant to the Constitution as denying same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law.


----------



## Seawytch

rcfieldz said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rcfieldz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God Bless and Pray for America for it doesn't know what is right anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pointless discrimination against gays 'because you can' isn't right. Its an antiquated relic of bigotry that is being tossed on the midden heap of history where it belongs. Along with interracial marriage bans.
> 
> And good riddance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where anyone is discriminating against gay's as you claim, but rather it is that people are just wanting the *institution of marriage* to remain between a man and a woman, and also to remain a holy bond that means something in that respect for the most part. It should remain as a joining together of a man and a woman in the sight of God. Why is it that the gay's aren't wanting to invest in the (civil unions) contract ? No they want to go after an institution that has been sacred and holy between a man and a woman instead for centuries, so why are they doing what they are doing now ? Why not the civil union/ secular contract instead if they honor no God in their picture of life ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's Satan and his army.
Click to expand...


Church lady, is that you?


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rcfieldz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God Bless and Pray for America for it doesn't know what is right anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pointless discrimination against gays 'because you can' isn't right. Its an antiquated relic of bigotry that is being tossed on the midden heap of history where it belongs. Along with interracial marriage bans.
> 
> And good riddance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where anyone is discriminating against gay's as you claim, but rather it is that people are just wanting the *institution of marriage* to remain between a man and a woman, and also to remain a holy bond that means something in that respect for the most part. It should remain as a joining together of a man and a woman in the sight of God. Why is it that the gay's aren't wanting to invest in the (civil unions) contract ? No they want to go after an institution that has been sacred and holy between a man and a woman instead for centuries, so why are they doing what they are doing now ? Why not the civil union/ secular contract instead if they honor no God in their picture of life ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you're blind – likely intentionally, as gay Americans are clearly being discriminated against.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in is in fact discrimination, and un-Constitutional.
> 
> This 14th Amendment jurisprudence has no bearing whatsoever on religious institutions, which remain at liberty to refuse to accommodate same-sex couples in their marriage rituals, and relegate their marriage rituals to only men and women.
> 
> State and local governments, however, are subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where the Amendment's case law is binding on the states, requiring the states to allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.
> 
> Because same-sex couples are eligible to participate in current marriage law – unchanged and unaltered – there is no need to contrive such nonsense as 'civil unions,' as this is nothing more than trite semantics seeking only to designate same-sex couples as being 'unworthy' of participating in the marriage law opposite-sex couples are afforded.
> 
> As already correctly noted, 'separate but equal' is as repugnant to the Constitution as denying same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...

You speak as if you know the intentions of this group entirely, and then you try to apply all sorts of laws and such to protect their positions while ignoring the things that they have been up to lately when written about. Then you disqualify very credible post that have been written by those here who have explained the dangers involved in a lot of this stuff, but due to your close minded bias, you can only see one side of an issue. How do you qualify as being an open minded objective realist, if you are only interested in attacking a side that has been attacked by another ? The laws weren't created to represent only one group, so how do you get by with only applying them in that way? Is it your thoughts that only certain groups need to be protected against others regardless of, therefore leaving entire groups out of the process? How fair is this? Your bias has been noted, so don't feel bad if readers aren't impressed with your positions that you've taken in which guide in the way that you oparate here.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I acknowledge God as giving us the codes to live by, and I also acknowledge a more sinister being who wants every human being to fall somehow, and in someway. Who do you work for ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we're not stripping anyone of their rights because of your conceptions of God ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So gay and lesbians have the right to marry in 37 of 50 States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


No matter how many times you regurgitate that, it is still wrong.


----------



## beagle9

Php 4-8


----------



## Silhouette

Oh. look...Jar Jar is back.  Talk to the topic Jar Jar..


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> I don't see where anyone is discriminating against gay's as you claim, but rather it is that people are just wanting the *institution of marriage* to remain between a man and a woman, and also to remain a holy bond that means something in that respect for the most part. It should remain as a joining together of a man and a woman in the sight of God. Why is it that the gay's aren't wanting to invest in the (civil unions) contract ? No they want to go after an institution that has been sacred and holy between a man and a woman instead for centuries, so why are they doing what they are doing now ? Why not the civil union/ secular contract instead if they honor no God in their picture of life ?


More than the institution: the DEFINITION of the word "marriage". The question pending and in use legally is not "same-sex marriage". The legal question is actually redacting the word marriage itself. This is the sleight of hand a lot of people have missed, including me up until recently.

For an institution so vital and so important to the base structure of any society, for 9 people in DC, (2 of which flaunt public bias in favor of fed presiding over that dismantling of the word), to change the definition without the permission of the governed is no less than the same as them changing the entire fabric of society into time unknown and by so doing, acting as uber-tyrants and Supreme Carvers of Destiny of mankind...just 9 fallible creatures pulling that off.

No, since this isn't about race or even same-sex marriage and is instead about redacting the definition of the hub of human culture itself, the masses must always be the ones deciding for themselves for it is they collectively (and not the 9 who will die in a matter of years), that will bear the yoke of this legacy upon their shoulders forever. Once done, it cannot be undone.

Aren't several of the Justices catholic BTW? WTF is the Pope(s) doing during all of this? Playing-pretend that the mandate of Jude 1 doesn't exist?  If they do nothing to intervene then we are really in trouble..


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Oh. look...Jar Jar is back.  Talk to the topic Jar Jar..



What topic?  The topic is a lie, Silly.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> More than the institution: the DEFINITION of the word "marriage". The question pending and in use legally is not "same-sex marriage". The legal question is actually redacting the word marriage itself.



Nope. You're straight up hallucinating again, making up blithering bullshit as you go along.

The question pending is whether or not same sex marriage bans violate the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.



			
				(ORDER LIST: 574 U.S.) said:
			
		

> The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
> 
> CERTIORARI GRANTED
> FRIDAY, JANUARY 16, 2015



As usual, Silo......you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. You don't know what the actual questions the court is addressing are. You don't care. And you just made up your version of the case, pulled sideways out of your ass.

You can make up whatever imaginary version of the court cases you'd like. But the actual cases don't change just because you do.

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rcfieldz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God Bless and Pray for America for it doesn't know what is right anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pointless discrimination against gays 'because you can' isn't right. Its an antiquated relic of bigotry that is being tossed on the midden heap of history where it belongs. Along with interracial marriage bans.
> 
> And good riddance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see where anyone is discriminating against gay's as you claim, but rather it is that people are just wanting the *institution of marriage* to remain between a man and a woman, and also to remain a holy bond that means something in that respect for the most part. It should remain as a joining together of a man and a woman in the sight of God. Why is it that the gay's aren't wanting to invest in the (civil unions) contract ? No they want to go after an institution that has been sacred and holy between a man and a woman instead for centuries, so why are they doing what they are doing now ? Why not the civil union/ secular contract instead if they honor no God in their picture of life ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you're blind – likely intentionally, as gay Americans are clearly being discriminated against.
> 
> Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, to deny them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in is in fact discrimination, and un-Constitutional.
> 
> This 14th Amendment jurisprudence has no bearing whatsoever on religious institutions, which remain at liberty to refuse to accommodate same-sex couples in their marriage rituals, and relegate their marriage rituals to only men and women.
> 
> State and local governments, however, are subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where the Amendment's case law is binding on the states, requiring the states to allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.
> 
> Because same-sex couples are eligible to participate in current marriage law – unchanged and unaltered – there is no need to contrive such nonsense as 'civil unions,' as this is nothing more than trite semantics seeking only to designate same-sex couples as being 'unworthy' of participating in the marriage law opposite-sex couples are afforded.
> 
> As already correctly noted, 'separate but equal' is as repugnant to the Constitution as denying same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You speak as if you know the intentions of this group entirely, and then you try to apply all sorts of laws and such to protect their positions while ignoring the things that they have been up to lately when written about. Then you disqualify very credible post that have been written by those here who have explained the dangers involved in a lot of this stuff, but due to your close minded bias, you can only see one side of an issue. How do you qualify as being an open minded objective realist, if you are only interested in attacking a side that has been attacked by another ?
Click to expand...

The marriages of gays being recognized by the law isn't 'attacking' anyone. It doesn't even involve you, nor effect you. Nixing your entire argument.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> The marriages of gays being recognized by the law isn't 'attacking' anyone. It doesn't even involve you, nor effect you. Nixing your entire argument.


 
I'm speaking for the boys as a matter of a new experiment and redacting the word "marriage" who will not have anyone to call "Dad" or the girls who will not have anyone to call "Mom" .  They should not be used as lab rats in an experiment that you never had to live through..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The marriages of gays being recognized by the law isn't 'attacking' anyone. It doesn't even involve you, nor effect you. Nixing your entire argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm speaking for the boys as a matter of a new experiment and redacting the word "marriage" who will not have anyone to call "Dad" or the girls who will not have anyone to call "Mom" .  They should not be used as lab rats in an experiment that you never had to live through..
Click to expand...


So how does denying marriage to same sex parents benefit those boys? 

And you realize that you completely hallucinated your 'question pending' the courts, don't you? Or does the actual legal questions being asked of the USSC really play no role in the bullshit you tell yourself?


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> So how does denying marriage to same sex parents benefit those boys?
> 
> And you realize that you completely hallucinated your 'question pending' the courts, don't you? Or does the actual legal questions being asked of the USSC really play no role in the bullshit you tell yourself?


How does denying marriage to polygamists benefit their children?  Once you've gotten a federal-mandate that forces states (and the devout) to redact the word "marriage", how would you deny anyone from marrying using the grounds that they are raising children and need the benefits therefore?

Don't evade, use general-denials or ad hominems in your response, if you're able.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how does denying marriage to same sex parents benefit those boys?
> 
> And you realize that you completely hallucinated your 'question pending' the courts, don't you? Or does the actual legal questions being asked of the USSC really play no role in the bullshit you tell yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> How does denying marriage to polygamists benefit their children?  Once you've gotten a federal-mandate that forces states (and the devout) to redact the word "marriage", how would you deny anyone from marrying using the grounds that they are raising children and need the benefits therefore?
Click to expand...


So you claim your issue was advocacy for the children of same sex parents. And yet when I ask you how your proposals benefit the children of same sex parents...

.......you abandon the entire topic. 

That was easy. Is there any topic I can't run you off of?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Skylar said:


> [
> 
> A Christian is no more a church than a hubcap is a car.
> 
> People aren't churches. Any argument you want to make that relies on the idea that they are is already dead.
> 
> Tax exempt status alone should tell you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
> 
> Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else. If your religion conflicts with your job....get another job.



Christians in the bible DIDN'T routinely meet at synagogues but they went house to house or wherever they chose to gather (read the book of ACTS). The disciples themselves didn't hang out at a "church", they sat down and settled wherever Jesus felt like going in order to talk to the people.  I'd at least try and read the bible first, before attempting at humor and engaging in a subject you know little about. 

Christians ought not be forced to follow something they don't believe in, any more than a woman through a change in state law ought to be forced to carry a baby if they don't share in that particular view. Where you support the enforcement of one, don't whine and complain when you find the enforcement of the other as well. It's so interesting when only Christians are told to be tolerant of an opposing view, while the left are usually found as being the hypocrite..


----------



## Skylar

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> A Christian is no more a church than a hubcap is a car.
> 
> People aren't churches. Any argument you want to make that relies on the idea that they are is already dead.
> 
> Tax exempt status alone should tell you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
> 
> Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else. If your religion conflicts with your job....get another job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians in the bible DIDN'T routinely meet at synagogues but they went house to house or wherever they chose to gather (read the book of ACTS). The disciples themselves didn't hang out at a "church", they sat down and settled wherever Jesus felt like going in order to talk to the people.  I'd at least try and read the bible first, before attempting at humor and engaging in a subject you know little about.
> 
> Christians ought not be forced to follow something they don't believe in, any more than a woman through a change in state law ought to be forced to carry a baby if they don't share in that particular view.
Click to expand...


We're not talking about pregnancy. We're talking about commerce. They aren't the same thing. 

If you're going to engage in commerce, treating your customers fairly and equally is not unreasonable.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> We're not talking about pregnancy. We're talking about commerce. They aren't the same thing.
> 
> If you're going to engage in commerce, treating your customers fairly and equally is not unreasonable.


 
How is a congregation of individual Christians (a church) legally different from individual Christians as to their First Amendment protections?

And I'll ask again also...

How does denying marriage to polygamists benefit their children? Once you've gotten a federal-mandate that forces states (and the devout) to redact the word "marriage", how would you deny anyone from marrying using the grounds that they are raising children and need the benefits therefore?
Don't evade, use general-denials or ad hominems in your response, if you're able.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about pregnancy. We're talking about commerce. They aren't the same thing.
> 
> If you're going to engage in commerce, treating your customers fairly and equally is not unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a congregation of individual Christians (a church) legally different from individual Christians as to their First Amendment protections?
Click to expand...


Public Accomidation Laws don't apply to churches.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the root of these problems? I presume you mean sexually transmitted disease and not your problem with trying to identify everything as 'normal' or 'abnormal'.
> 
> Well if I was a Christian I would say God, because I would believe that God created everything in the world.
> 
> But since I am not a Christian, I would blame evolution and biology.
> 
> Evolution created sexually transmitted diseases and biology ensures that they will spread absent human intervention to prevent their spread.
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't there a *code *of* (ethics and morals)* that if people live by them, well don't these diseases completely fail in their attempts to come in contact with them, and then destroy them over time ? If live by a code handed down by our creator, then these things we are talking about (fail) in there attempts to infect those people who live by such a code of ethics and morals.
> 
> Now who do you think gave us the code to live by, and did he send down a bag full of condoms with the code
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF there is a God- and that God intentionally afflected the human race with Syphillis and HIV, and HPV and Herpes- then I reject that God.
> 
> I don't give a damn about his 'code'- why the hell did he want to see humans die in misery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? Now how interesting is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you lost your mind? How about you quit with the false accusations, and then maybe someone would give you some respect. After that ridiculous rant, you may have lost your credibility in total. Now see readers, this type of response that you just witnessed here, is one of desperation.
Click to expand...


And you were completely unable to respond.

I don't believe in your God or your Devil.

I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.

Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?


----------



## Syriusly

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the root of these problems? I presume you mean sexually transmitted disease and not your problem with trying to identify everything as 'normal' or 'abnormal'.
> 
> Well if I was a Christian I would say God, because I would believe that God created everything in the world.
> 
> But since I am not a Christian, I would blame evolution and biology.
> 
> Evolution created sexually transmitted diseases and biology ensures that they will spread absent human intervention to prevent their spread.
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't there a *code *of* (ethics and morals)* that if people live by them, well don't these diseases completely fail in their attempts to come in contact with them, and then destroy them over time ? If live by a code handed down by our creator, then these things we are talking about (fail) in there attempts to infect those people who live by such a code of ethics and morals.
> 
> Now who do you think gave us the code to live by, and did he send down a bag full of condoms with the code
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF there is a God- and that God intentionally afflected the human race with Syphillis and HIV, and HPV and Herpes- then I reject that God.
> 
> I don't give a damn about his 'code'- why the hell did he want to see humans die in misery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? Now how interesting is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you base your argument on that it's "God" that created HIV or Syphillis??
Click to expand...


I don't believe "God" made anything

But according to the hardcore Christian literalists, "God" created all life- and therefore created Syphillis and HIV.

Which is why I would reject any such being.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about pregnancy. We're talking about commerce. They aren't the same thing.
> 
> If you're going to engage in commerce, treating your customers fairly and equally is not unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a congregation of individual Christians (a church) legally different from individual Christians as to their First Amendment protections?
> .
Click to expand...


A Church is a legal entity- which is not taxed, and not subject to many public laws.

Individuals are separate legal entities.

If a minister- representing the church- is sued for molesting a little girl- his employer- the church is liable- not every member of the church.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't there a *code *of* (ethics and morals)* that if people live by them, well don't these diseases completely fail in their attempts to come in contact with them, and then destroy them over time ? If live by a code handed down by our creator, then these things we are talking about (fail) in there attempts to infect those people who live by such a code of ethics and morals.
> 
> Now who do you think gave us the code to live by, and did he send down a bag full of condoms with the code
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF there is a God- and that God intentionally afflected the human race with Syphillis and HIV, and HPV and Herpes- then I reject that God.
> 
> I don't give a damn about his 'code'- why the hell did he want to see humans die in misery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? Now how interesting is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you lost your mind? How about you quit with the false accusations, and then maybe someone would give you some respect. After that ridiculous rant, you may have lost your credibility in total. Now see readers, this type of response that you just witnessed here, is one of desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were completely unable to respond.
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
Click to expand...

You say that I said God created these diseases ? You are wrong in that, and you have once again tried to put words into my mouth in hopes that someone here might actually believe your craziness in which you spew out of your mouth like poison here. God gives instruction on how to avoid disease, and how to live a clean life, but man refuses instruction and therefore does things against his body in an abnormal way, and that is where the diseases come from. It clearly states in the Bible all the do's and all the don't s we must abide by, and this in order to stay safe in life, and to live a clean life if so *CHOOSE*! If you choose to stick your finger in a light socket after having instruction on how not to do so, then are you going to attempt it anyway ?  God is telling you how to avoid it, but you do it anyway ? How crazy is that ?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF there is a God- and that God intentionally afflected the human race with Syphillis and HIV, and HPV and Herpes- then I reject that God.
> 
> I don't give a damn about his 'code'- why the hell did he want to see humans die in misery?
> 
> 
> 
> You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? Now how interesting is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you lost your mind? How about you quit with the false accusations, and then maybe someone would give you some respect. After that ridiculous rant, you may have lost your credibility in total. Now see readers, this type of response that you just witnessed here, is one of desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were completely unable to respond.
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that I said God created these diseases ? You are wrong in that, and you have once again tried to put words into my mouth in hopes that someone here might actually believe your craziness in which you spew out of your mouth like poison here. God gives instruction on how to avoid disease, and how to live a clean life, but man refuses instruction and therefore does things against his body in an abnormal way, and that is where the diseases come from. It clearly states in the Bible all the do's and all the don't s we must abide by, and this in order to stay safe in life, and to live a clean life if so *CHOOSE*! If you choose to stick your finger in a light socket after having instruction on how not to do so, then are you going to attempt it anyway ?  God is telling you how to avoid it, but you do it anyway ? How crazy is that ?
Click to expand...


So if God didn't create diseases, who did?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF there is a God- and that God intentionally afflected the human race with Syphillis and HIV, and HPV and Herpes- then I reject that God.
> 
> I don't give a damn about his 'code'- why the hell did he want to see humans die in misery?
> 
> 
> 
> You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? Now how interesting is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you lost your mind? How about you quit with the false accusations, and then maybe someone would give you some respect. After that ridiculous rant, you may have lost your credibility in total. Now see readers, this type of response that you just witnessed here, is one of desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were completely unable to respond.
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that I said God created these diseases
Click to expand...


No- I do not say that. I am pointing out that you are saying that you believe that God created disease to punish people who don't do what he commands:

I don't believe in your God or your Devil.

I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.

Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? Now how interesting is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you lost your mind? How about you quit with the false accusations, and then maybe someone would give you some respect. After that ridiculous rant, you may have lost your credibility in total. Now see readers, this type of response that you just witnessed here, is one of desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were completely unable to respond.
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that I said God created these diseases ? You are wrong in that, and you have once again tried to put words into my mouth in hopes that someone here might actually believe your craziness in which you spew out of your mouth like poison here. God gives instruction on how to avoid disease, and how to live a clean life, but man refuses instruction and therefore does things against his body in an abnormal way, and that is where the diseases come from. It clearly states in the Bible all the do's and all the don't s we must abide by, and this in order to stay safe in life, and to live a clean life if so *CHOOSE*! If you choose to stick your finger in a light socket after having instruction on how not to do so, then are you going to attempt it anyway ?  God is telling you how to avoid it, but you do it anyway ? How crazy is that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if God didn't create diseases, who did?
Click to expand...


You did or anyone else that refuses instruction of how to live a clean life. I mean would you go and sleep in a hog pen if you know better? Now how do you know better in life Skylar ? In anything in life, there is rules to live by, and if you cross them there are consequences. Go kiss a rattle snake and see what happens.

You know I tire of dealing with the nursery here. Sorry..


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? Now how interesting is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you lost your mind? How about you quit with the false accusations, and then maybe someone would give you some respect. After that ridiculous rant, you may have lost your credibility in total. Now see readers, this type of response that you just witnessed here, is one of desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were completely unable to respond.
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that I said God created these diseases
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- I do not say that. I am pointing out that you are saying that you believe that God created disease to punish people who don't do what he commands:
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
Click to expand...

How do you know what I believe? I tire of people putting words or beliefs to my credit, when in fact you are more manipulating than the media is on such matters. God kills no one, for in his hands is found life ever lasting. Man kills man, and he's good at killing himself wherefore God has to then clean up his mess in one way or another.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> 
> 
> Have you lost your mind? How about you quit with the false accusations, and then maybe someone would give you some respect. After that ridiculous rant, you may have lost your credibility in total. Now see readers, this type of response that you just witnessed here, is one of desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were completely unable to respond.
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that I said God created these diseases
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- I do not say that. I am pointing out that you are saying that you believe that God created disease to punish people who don't do what he commands:
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know what I believe? I tire of people putting words or beliefs to my credit, when in fact you are more manipulating than the media is on such matters. God kills no one, for in his hands is found life ever lasting. Man kills man, and he's good at killing himself wherefore God has to then clean up his mess in one way or another.
Click to expand...


Once again to go back to our entire conversation:


You:
_But isn't there a *code *of* (ethics and morals)* that if people live by them, well don't these diseases completely fail in their attempts to come in contact with them, and then destroy them over time ? If live by a code handed down by our creator, then these things we are talking about (fail) in there attempts to infect those people who live by such a code of ethics and morals.

Now who do you think gave us the code to live by, and did he send down a bag full of condoms with the code
_
Me:
*IF there is a God- and that God intentionally afflected the human race with Syphillis and HIV, and HPV and Herpes- then I reject that God.

I don't give a damn about his 'code'- why the hell did he want to see humans die in misery? You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? Now how interesting is that? I don't believe in your God or your Devil.

I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.

Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?*


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> 
> 
> Have you lost your mind? How about you quit with the false accusations, and then maybe someone would give you some respect. After that ridiculous rant, you may have lost your credibility in total. Now see readers, this type of response that you just witnessed here, is one of desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were completely unable to respond.
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that I said God created these diseases ? You are wrong in that, and you have once again tried to put words into my mouth in hopes that someone here might actually believe your craziness in which you spew out of your mouth like poison here. God gives instruction on how to avoid disease, and how to live a clean life, but man refuses instruction and therefore does things against his body in an abnormal way, and that is where the diseases come from. It clearly states in the Bible all the do's and all the don't s we must abide by, and this in order to stay safe in life, and to live a clean life if so *CHOOSE*! If you choose to stick your finger in a light socket after having instruction on how not to do so, then are you going to attempt it anyway ?  God is telling you how to avoid it, but you do it anyway ? How crazy is that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if God didn't create diseases, who did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did or anyone else that refuses instruction of how to live a clean life. I mean would you go and sleep in a hog pen if you know better? Now how do you know better in life Skylar ? In anything in life, there is rules to live by, and if you cross them there are consequences. Go kiss a rattle snake and see what happens.
> 
> You know I tire of dealing with the nursery here. Sorry..
Click to expand...


Father plants land mines around his entire property  and tells his children 'don't go beyond the red line or you will be blown up- and it will be your fault.

Kids go beyond red line and are blown up.

Whose fault is it- the fathers? or the kids?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you lost your mind? How about you quit with the false accusations, and then maybe someone would give you some respect. After that ridiculous rant, you may have lost your credibility in total. Now see readers, this type of response that you just witnessed here, is one of desperation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you were completely unable to respond.
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that I said God created these diseases
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- I do not say that. I am pointing out that you are saying that you believe that God created disease to punish people who don't do what he commands:
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know what I believe? I tire of people putting words or beliefs to my credit, when in fact you are more manipulating than the media is on such matters. God kills no one, for in his hands is found life ever lasting. Man kills man, and he's good at killing himself wherefore God has to then clean up his mess in one way or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again to go back to our entire conversation:
> 
> 
> You:
> _But isn't there a *code *of* (ethics and morals)* that if people live by them, well don't these diseases completely fail in their attempts to come in contact with them, and then destroy them over time ? If live by a code handed down by our creator, then these things we are talking about (fail) in there attempts to infect those people who live by such a code of ethics and morals.
> 
> Now who do you think gave us the code to live by, and did he send down a bag full of condoms with the code
> _
> Me:
> *IF there is a God- and that God intentionally afflected the human race with Syphillis and HIV, and HPV and Herpes- then I reject that God.
> 
> I don't give a damn about his 'code'- why the hell did he want to see humans die in misery?  **You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? **Now how interesting is that?  I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?*
Click to expand...


Why is my words mingled in with your words in that manor above ?

You listed my words as being under *ME*, and then you listed your words as being under *YOU*, but in the paragraphs that are under *YOU*, well you have my words intermingled with yours in that category.  How about keeping things in context maybe.

No one said or even suggested that he created disease in order to punish people for their having sex outside of marriage, so you are being dishonest in your postings and your way of twisting things around like you keep on doing here. Diseases are not limited to sex only, and are just a part of our environment here, but God has given us the instruction on how to avoid problems that arise or could arise in this environment in which we live in here.   Ole satan himself has thrown a monkey wrench into our enviroment ever since the beginning of his time with us here, and so how about maybe doing a little more constructive and open minded reading maybe, and a lot less hyperventilating about the things you refuse to accept, and also about the things in which you don't understand or just don't want to understand.  Even if you could be enlightened on them better yet you choose to cry, cry, cry instead ?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Skylar said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> A Christian is no more a church than a hubcap is a car.
> 
> People aren't churches. Any argument you want to make that relies on the idea that they are is already dead.
> 
> Tax exempt status alone should tell you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
> 
> Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else. If your religion conflicts with your job....get another job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians in the bible DIDN'T routinely meet at synagogues but they went house to house or wherever they chose to gather (read the book of ACTS). The disciples themselves didn't hang out at a "church", they sat down and settled wherever Jesus felt like going in order to talk to the people.  I'd at least try and read the bible first, before attempting at humor and engaging in a subject you know little about.
> 
> Christians ought not be forced to follow something they don't believe in, any more than a woman through a change in state law ought to be forced to carry a baby if they don't share in that particular view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about pregnancy. We're talking about commerce. They aren't the same thing.
> 
> If you're going to engage in commerce, treating your customers fairly and equally is not unreasonable.
Click to expand...


You are talking about a LAW that is forcing someone's view onto someone else. If someone's moral view happens to believe a child ALSO has rights, and deserves to be treated as such, should a woman then be forced to then do something that is against what she believes because the law forces her to do so? It is very much the same thing, if you happen to believe an unborn child should have the same individual rights as well. They both deal with the interpretation of someone's moral view of society, and how that view should be imposed onto others.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Syriusly said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't there a *code *of* (ethics and morals)* that if people live by them, well don't these diseases completely fail in their attempts to come in contact with them, and then destroy them over time ? If live by a code handed down by our creator, then these things we are talking about (fail) in there attempts to infect those people who live by such a code of ethics and morals.
> 
> Now who do you think gave us the code to live by, and did he send down a bag full of condoms with the code
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF there is a God- and that God intentionally afflected the human race with Syphillis and HIV, and HPV and Herpes- then I reject that God.
> 
> I don't give a damn about his 'code'- why the hell did he want to see humans die in misery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? Now how interesting is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you base your argument on that it's "God" that created HIV or Syphillis??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe "God" made anything
> 
> But according to the hardcore Christian literalists, "God" created all life- and therefore created Syphillis and HIV.
> 
> Which is why I would reject any such being.
Click to expand...


So if you believe God created HIV, then you are trying to say He created moral consequences for how people choose to live? Is that your reasoning? 

If you were to also say then God created other diseases, like cancer, you are rejecting science which shows how environmental conditions ... or even the free choice to smoke ... has everything to do with the cause of cancer. You are trying to remove yourself from any choices you yourself make, by shifting the blame onto someone else.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Father plants land mines around his entire property  and tells his children 'don't go beyond the red line or you will be blown up- and it will be your fault.
> 
> Kids go beyond red line and are blown up.
> 
> Whose fault is it- the fathers? or the kids?



I'll play your silly game for a second... Now if the father plants the mines, and he plants them in the minds of the kids lets say (instruction/education = mines in which creates the red line that exist in the mind), and this he does in order to keep disease or other dangers and hazards at bay and way far away from his children right, and so he instructs them (plants the mines of life) in accordance to the sad state of affairs that has now become a diseased or hazardous environment in which exist all around them, (i.e. contamination from man made hazards that are created by man for example "pollution" or "tainted food", "tainted water ways", "chemical exposures", "sex related illnesses", "physical injuries", "bio agents", "confined spaces" and the list just goes on and on), and these things are all in which we all need good instruction and stats on to be aware of always, so what do you think they all should do when being surrounded by these diseases and other dangers that want to kill them or infect them in life ? Do you think that they should just rebuke the mines in order to free their minds, and therefore cross the red lines without instruction on where these hazards and diseases do lay and wait for them ?

OK, so lets say it's all due to the disease or other factors mentioned above in which they are being instructed by their father who is laying these land mines in their mind for their protection, and he is doing this because of all these things that are surrounding them now, but then lets say that they (the kids in which you used) were to possibly refuse instruction on how to stay safe in life, and so they sadly get blown up (i.e. infected) or even are killed outside the gates by many other things like (drugs) for example (or) what ever else there is because they have (gone over the red line so to speak, and otherwise they had refused instruction of where those mines are in which they were warned about, and are now knowledgeable about in which lay in wait for them), and because of this *refusal of knowledge or instruction they are given*, they then are attacked by the evil one himself right ?  Well I'd say* then it is the kids fault* for not listening to the one who knew best about such things in life, and the father had tried to warn them by placing a red line in their minds in order that they should recognize the threats and hazards when they see them in their midst.

Lets say that the evil one who has many names (i.e. one is disease for example), and it is out there now creeping around in the dark, and it is causing people to have to draw a red line around their children or to help anyone else who refuses to acknowledge such things that exist out there these days or even getting them to acknowledge the ways in which to come in contact with such things in life to begin with, well I'd say people are playing a fools game for sure if they don't acknowledge these things in life that hurt and/or kill people by the thousands or even by the millions.

Let's say that diseases or other hazards can speak now, and they want to play these sorts of word games like you are playing here with me, and so they are yelling to those that are over on the other side of the red line, *"hey we are just here to play and have some fun right, and hey we mean you no harm"*, yet it is that no one is fooled by this stuff anymore hopefully.

Now I was just using your example here, so this was my response to it. You tried to make God a father appear as if he would be oppressive to his children (mankind), and he would lock them in against dangers that are non-existent otherwise is what you want to suggest here, but that is not the God we follow at all, but it is that you want the readers to believe that.


----------



## beagle9

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF there is a God- and that God intentionally afflected the human race with Syphillis and HIV, and HPV and Herpes- then I reject that God.
> 
> I don't give a damn about his 'code'- why the hell did he want to see humans die in misery?
> 
> 
> 
> You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? Now how interesting is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you base your argument on that it's "God" that created HIV or Syphillis??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe "God" made anything
> 
> But according to the hardcore Christian literalists, "God" created all life- and therefore created Syphillis and HIV.
> 
> Which is why I would reject any such being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you believe God created HIV, then you are trying to say He created moral consequences for how people choose to live? Is that your reasoning?
> 
> If you were to also say then God created other diseases, like cancer, you are rejecting science which shows how environmental conditions ... or even the free choice to smoke ... has everything to do with the cause of cancer. You are trying to remove yourself from any choices you yourself make, by shifting the blame onto someone else.
Click to expand...

His utter failure is also that he refuses to acknowledge that there is an evil one's presence out there as well, and it appears that he refuses to acknowledge his role in which is also played or is present in this life amongst us, but he chooses to attack and blame God for everything like he is doing now. 

He can't be enlightened, because he reads or listens for all the wrong reasons when he hears something or when he tries to learn something about life, and this he does in a one sided biased way in which he has going for himself in that way or so it seems. He seemingly is so invested in what ever it is that he is so invested in, that he only see's one side of the coin and not the other side in life anymore.


----------



## Neotrotsky

*Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? *


no


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? Now how interesting is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you base your argument on that it's "God" that created HIV or Syphillis??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe "God" made anything
> 
> But according to the hardcore Christian literalists, "God" created all life- and therefore created Syphillis and HIV.
> 
> Which is why I would reject any such being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you believe God created HIV, then you are trying to say He created moral consequences for how people choose to live? Is that your reasoning?
> 
> If you were to also say then God created other diseases, like cancer, you are rejecting science which shows how environmental conditions ... or even the free choice to smoke ... has everything to do with the cause of cancer. You are trying to remove yourself from any choices you yourself make, by shifting the blame onto someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His utter failure is also that he refuses to acknowledge that there is an evil one's presence out there as well,.
Click to expand...


'an evil one'? What are you like some Harry Potter character who is scared to refer to Satan?

No I don't believe in Satan or your God.

Look- you can believe in any fairy tale you want to- I have lots of friends who are Christians and I do not tell them that they are wrong- but if you want to bring up your God in reference to homosexuality and disease, then I will point out that according to your Bible, God created everything but human choice- and that would mean God created homosexuals and every disease in existence.

You are okay with a god that chooses to inflict misery and death on innocent children(and everyone else)

I am not.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Father plants land mines around his entire property  and tells his children 'don't go beyond the red line or you will be blown up- and it will be your fault.
> 
> Kids go beyond red line and are blown up.
> 
> Whose fault is it- the fathers? or the kids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll play your silly game for a second... Now if the father plants the mines, and he plants them.
Click to expand...


Yet you didn't play my 'silly game'- 

Whose fault is it if the land mines blow up the children?

The fathers- or the children?


----------



## Syriusly

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF there is a God- and that God intentionally afflected the human race with Syphillis and HIV, and HPV and Herpes- then I reject that God.
> 
> I don't give a damn about his 'code'- why the hell did he want to see humans die in misery?
> 
> 
> 
> You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? Now how interesting is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you base your argument on that it's "God" that created HIV or Syphillis??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe "God" made anything
> 
> But according to the hardcore Christian literalists, "God" created all life- and therefore created Syphillis and HIV.
> 
> Which is why I would reject any such being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you believe God created HIV, then you are trying to say He created moral consequences for how people choose to live? Is that your reasoning?
> 
> If you were to also say then God created other diseases, like cancer, you are rejecting science which shows how environmental conditions ... or even the free choice to smoke ... has everything to do with the cause of cancer. You are trying to remove yourself from any choices you yourself make, by shifting the blame onto someone else.
Click to expand...


I don't believe 'God' created anything- I am pointing out that according to the Bible, God created all life- and that would include infectous disease.

Cancer is created both by environment factors- and by a genetic disposition to certain types of Cancer- and yes if the God of the Bible exists he would be responsible for the genetic factors.

Why would any God create HIV and Syphillis just as a punishment for not following the rules he set up?

Especially since HIV and Syphillis can be passed down to children of infected people?


----------



## Silhouette

Got quite a tangent there going dontcha Syriusly?  This is about how if individual Christians are being currently sued by your virulent litigation machine, a collection of them together (aka a church) cannot possibly be immune.  A religious faith doesn't cease the minute a Christian walks off the last step out of the church doors.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

beagle9 said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? Now how interesting is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you base your argument on that it's "God" that created HIV or Syphillis??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe "God" made anything
> 
> But according to the hardcore Christian literalists, "God" created all life- and therefore created Syphillis and HIV.
> 
> Which is why I would reject any such being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you believe God created HIV, then you are trying to say He created moral consequences for how people choose to live? Is that your reasoning?
> 
> If you were to also say then God created other diseases, like cancer, you are rejecting science which shows how environmental conditions ... or even the free choice to smoke ... has everything to do with the cause of cancer. You are trying to remove yourself from any choices you yourself make, by shifting the blame onto someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His utter failure is also that he refuses to acknowledge that there is an evil one's presence out there as well, and it appears that he refuses to acknowledge his role in which is also played or is present in this life amongst us, but he chooses to attack and blame God for everything like he is doing now.
> 
> He can't be enlightened, because he reads or listens for all the wrong reasons when he hears something or when he tries to learn something about life, and this he does in a one sided biased way in which he has going for himself in that way or so it seems. He seemingly is so invested in what ever it is that he is so invested in, that he only see's one side of the coin and not the other side in life anymore.
Click to expand...


I'm allowing Syriusly to explain and defend this view that somehow God would actually want to create a disease that kills someone, because of their reasoning that God also created life. First there is this denial by Syriusly that choices we ourselves make could have anything to do with the consequences we face later in life, by contracting a disease. Environmental conditions created by man, proven through science, show a link to a lot of the health conditions we face. To deny that, is to also deny science. 

Another question to ask is why would a non believer want God to even force Himself to intervene a situation, just to prove an existence to someone who wouldn't believe anything He would do to show them anyways? Why would you even want a God to force His will over the free choice of a human being? It's His preferred position to allow an individual's free choice to accept or deny His existence, without allowing Himself to persuade their actions by force, which shows His compassion and respect towards those who choose to reject Him. To blame God for diseases is to also say that God is somehow responsible for your spending habits, and the overwhelming debt you are facing. You have to be held accountable for your own actions and the consequences you face as a result, that is what God allows for - free will.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Got quite a tangent there going dontcha Syriusly?  This is about how if individual Christians are being currently sued by your virulent litigation machine, a collection of them together (aka a church) cannot possibly be immune.



Save for one small problem: you don't have the slightest clue how the law actually works. Rendering any assessment you make on what is legally possible mere ignorant rambling.

Back in reality, churches aren't subject to PA laws. Business are. You are utterly incapable of recognizing any distinction. Thankfully the law can.


----------



## eots

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



Yes ,by big  black transsexuals..with AK47s dressed in pseudo nazi uniforms


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Got quite a tangent there going dontcha Syriusly?  This is about how if individual Christians are being currently sued by your virulent litigation machine, a collection of them together (aka a church) cannot possibly be immune.  A religious faith doesn't cease the minute a Christian walks off the last step out of the church doors.



'your virulent litigation machine'? LOL. 

Business owners are expected and required to follow the law. Business owners  are being sued by individuals because the business owners are not following public accommodation laws.

Fairly straightforward.


----------



## Syriusly

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in your God or your Devil.
> 
> I am pointing out that any God that created Syphillis and HIV, apparently according to your explanation, as a stick to punish people who have sex outside monogamous marriage, is a vile God that I would never worship.
> 
> Why would you worship a god that so callously kills people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you base your argument on that it's "God" that created HIV or Syphillis??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe "God" made anything
> 
> But according to the hardcore Christian literalists, "God" created all life- and therefore created Syphillis and HIV.
> 
> Which is why I would reject any such being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you believe God created HIV, then you are trying to say He created moral consequences for how people choose to live? Is that your reasoning?
> 
> If you were to also say then God created other diseases, like cancer, you are rejecting science which shows how environmental conditions ... or even the free choice to smoke ... has everything to do with the cause of cancer. You are trying to remove yourself from any choices you yourself make, by shifting the blame onto someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His utter failure is also that he refuses to acknowledge that there is an evil one's presence out there as well, and it appears that he refuses to acknowledge his role in which is also played or is present in this life amongst us, but he chooses to attack and blame God for everything like he is doing now.
> 
> He can't be enlightened, because he reads or listens for all the wrong reasons when he hears something or when he tries to learn something about life, and this he does in a one sided biased way in which he has going for himself in that way or so it seems. He seemingly is so invested in what ever it is that he is so invested in, that he only see's one side of the coin and not the other side in life anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm allowing Syriusly to explain and defend this view that somehow God would actually want to create a disease that kills someone, because of their reasoning that God also created life. First there is this denial by Syriusly that choices we ourselves make could have anything to do with the consequences we face later in life, by contracting a disease. Environmental conditions created by man, proven through science, show a link to a lot of the health conditions we face. To deny that, is to also deny science.
> 
> Another question to ask is why would a non believer want God to even force Himself to intervene a situation, just to prove an existence to someone who wouldn't believe anything He would do to show them anyways? Why would you even want a God to force His will over the free choice of a human being? It's His preferred position to allow an individual's free choice to accept or deny His existence, without allowing Himself to persuade their actions by force, which shows His compassion and respect towards those who choose to reject Him. To blame God for diseases is to also say that God is somehow responsible for your spending habits, and the overwhelming debt you are facing. You have to be held accountable for your own actions and the consequences you face as a result, that is what God allows for - free will.
Click to expand...


Already answered but glad to repost:

I don't believe 'God' created anything- I am pointing out that according to the Bible, God created all life- and that would include infectious disease.

Cancer is created both by environmental factors(both man-made and natural)- and by a genetic disposition to certain types of Cancer- and yes if the God of the Bible exists he would be responsible for the genetic factors.

Why would any God create HIV and Syphillis just as a punishment for not following the rules he set up?

Especially since HIV and Syphillis can be passed down to children of infected people?


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Business owners are expected and required to follow the law. Business owners  are being sued by individuals because the business owners are not following public accommodation laws.
> 
> Fairly straightforward.


 
Couple of quesitions for you:

1. Does a religious faith end the moment a Christian walks down the church steps and into everyday life ...you know...where the preacher just got done lecturing him for an hour where his faith really matters day in and day out?

2. What do you call a congregation of individual Christians?  (I'll answer for you)...It's called a church.

3. Note the title of the thread and the poll at the top.

4. The First Amendment IS pretty straightforward, I agree.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Business owners are expected and required to follow the law. Business owners  are being sued by individuals because the business owners are not following public accommodation laws.
> 
> Fairly straightforward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couple of quesitions for you:
> 
> 1. Does a religious faith end the moment a Christian walks down the church steps and into everyday life ...you know...where the preacher just got done lecturing him for an hour where his faith really matters day in and day out?
> 
> 2. What do you call a congregation of individual Christians?  (I'll answer for you)...It's called a church.
> .
Click to expand...


An excerpt from Colorado's public Accommodation law:





That answers your 'questions'


----------



## Silhouette

When was Colorado appointed as a fourth branch of the federal government?  No state may make a law in direct violation of the US Constitution and its Amendments.  1st Amendment is no exception.  That law isn't worth the paper its written on.  Refer to my last post for details..

Protection for all the various sexual orientations, of which your LGBT groups represents but a few of those kinks, don't have US Constitutional protection that allows them to trump the 1st Amendment.. In fact there's nothing at all mentioned about limited behavioral groups that the majority objects to in the US Constitution as having any protection from majority regulations.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> When was Colorado appointed as a fourth branch of the federal government?  No state may make a law in direct violation of the US Constitution and its Amendments.  1st Amendment is no exception.  That law isn't worth the paper its written on.  Refer to my last post for details..



And who says that PA laws are a violation of the constitution?

Laughing....you? When did you personally become the 'fourth branch of the federal government'? Because you citing yourself doesn't establish anything. Legally or otherwise


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> When was Colorado appointed as a fourth branch of the federal government?  No state may make a law in direct violation of the US Constitution and its Amendments.  1st Amendment is no exception.  That law isn't worth the paper its written on.  Refer to my last post for details..
> 
> Protection for all the various sexual orientations, of which your LGBT groups represents but a few of those kinks, don't have US Constitutional protection that allows them to trump the 1st Amendment.. In fact there's nothing at all mentioned about limited behavioral groups that the majority objects to in the US Constitution as having any protection from majority regulations.



LOL-how hilarious coming from the person who thinks that State laws over-rule the Constitutional!

The basis of that law goes back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and has been successfully defended in court multiple times. 

But anyone who does believe that law is unconstitutional can do what gay couples have done with the laws that they believe are unconstitutional- either change the law legislatively, or go to the courts and argue that the law is unconstitutional.

Go for it!


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was Colorado appointed as a fourth branch of the federal government?  No state may make a law in direct violation of the US Constitution and its Amendments.  1st Amendment is no exception.  That law isn't worth the paper its written on.  Refer to my last post for details..
> 
> Protection for all the various sexual orientations, of which your LGBT groups represents but a few of those kinks, don't have US Constitutional protection that allows them to trump the 1st Amendment.. In fact there's nothing at all mentioned about limited behavioral groups that the majority objects to in the US Constitution as having any protection from majority regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL-how hilarious coming from the person who thinks that State laws over-rule the Constitutional!
> 
> The basis of that law goes back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and has been successfully defended in court multiple times.
> 
> But anyone who does believe that law is unconstitutional can do what gay couples have done with the laws that they believe are unconstitutional- either change the law legislatively, or go to the courts and argue that the law is unconstitutional.
> 
> Go for it!
Click to expand...

Remember that you are defending two men joining up with each other as if they are man and woman, and because of this craziness you and others are trying to turn this nation over onto it's head for that? You know I bet anything in this nation can be twisted and turned into something else by people like you all are, and the sad thing is, is that we don't have qualified council these days to push back against such idiocy as what this is.

Marriage is for a man and a woman and only between a man and a woman. Most agree with this even unto this very day.


----------



## beagle9

Hollywood working side by side with Satan himself, has coerced this nation into believing just about anything these days, and even convincing the feds to go along with it all also.


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Marriage is for a man and a woman and only between a man and a woman. Most agree with this even unto this very day.



Sorry old bigot but that's not even remotely true. In 37 out of 50 states, marriage is also between a man and a man and a woman and a woman. THAT is what "most" agree with.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was Colorado appointed as a fourth branch of the federal government?  No state may make a law in direct violation of the US Constitution and its Amendments.  1st Amendment is no exception.  That law isn't worth the paper its written on.  Refer to my last post for details..
> 
> Protection for all the various sexual orientations, of which your LGBT groups represents but a few of those kinks, don't have US Constitutional protection that allows them to trump the 1st Amendment.. In fact there's nothing at all mentioned about limited behavioral groups that the majority objects to in the US Constitution as having any protection from majority regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL-how hilarious coming from the person who thinks that State laws over-rule the Constitutional!
> 
> The basis of that law goes back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and has been successfully defended in court multiple times.
> 
> But anyone who does believe that law is unconstitutional can do what gay couples have done with the laws that they believe are unconstitutional- either change the law legislatively, or go to the courts and argue that the law is unconstitutional.
> 
> Go for it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember that you are defending two men joining up with each other as if they are man and woman, and because of this craziness you and others are trying to turn this nation over onto it's head for that? .
Click to expand...


I am defending the rights of a same gender couple to be married just like my wife and I are. 

How does their marriage harm you in any way?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was Colorado appointed as a fourth branch of the federal government?  No state may make a law in direct violation of the US Constitution and its Amendments.  1st Amendment is no exception.  That law isn't worth the paper its written on.  Refer to my last post for details..
> 
> Protection for all the various sexual orientations, of which your LGBT groups represents but a few of those kinks, don't have US Constitutional protection that allows them to trump the 1st Amendment.. In fact there's nothing at all mentioned about limited behavioral groups that the majority objects to in the US Constitution as having any protection from majority regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL-how hilarious coming from the person who thinks that State laws over-rule the Constitutional!
> 
> The basis of that law goes back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and has been successfully defended in court multiple times.
> 
> But anyone who does believe that law is unconstitutional can do what gay couples have done with the laws that they believe are unconstitutional- either change the law legislatively, or go to the courts and argue that the law is unconstitutional.
> 
> Go for it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is for a man and a woman and only between a man and a woman. Most agree with this even unto this very day.
Click to expand...


Until the year 2000 the citizen's of Alabama believed that marriage was only for a man and a woman of the same race.

What the majority 'agree' on is not always what is right.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was Colorado appointed as a fourth branch of the federal government?  No state may make a law in direct violation of the US Constitution and its Amendments.  1st Amendment is no exception.  That law isn't worth the paper its written on.  Refer to my last post for details..
> 
> Protection for all the various sexual orientations, of which your LGBT groups represents but a few of those kinks, don't have US Constitutional protection that allows them to trump the 1st Amendment.. In fact there's nothing at all mentioned about limited behavioral groups that the majority objects to in the US Constitution as having any protection from majority regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL-how hilarious coming from the person who thinks that State laws over-rule the Constitutional!
> 
> The basis of that law goes back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and has been successfully defended in court multiple times.
> 
> But anyone who does believe that law is unconstitutional can do what gay couples have done with the laws that they believe are unconstitutional- either change the law legislatively, or go to the courts and argue that the law is unconstitutional.
> 
> Go for it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember that you are defending two men joining up with each other as if they are man and woman, and because of this craziness you and others are trying to turn this nation over onto it's head for that?
Click to expand...


Christians abiding the same laws as every one else isn't 'turning the nation over onto its head'.

You're demanding special treatment, exemptions from any law you don't like, and exhaled legal status. 

Nope. You're just like everyone else. Get used to the idea.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Hollywood working side by side with Satan himself.



I am pretty certain that claim has been made since the era of silent films.......


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollywood working side by side with Satan himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am pretty certain that claim has been made since the era of silent films.......
Click to expand...

It's all about the content of the films, just like it's all about the content of ones character on which to be judged. Things have been rapidly getting worse it seems in the last 30 years or so. Sadly it appears that there are many now who are willfully adding to the worse and not to the good of things.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollywood working side by side with Satan himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am pretty certain that claim has been made since the era of silent films.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all about the content of the films, just like it's all about the content of ones character on which to be judged. Things have been rapidly getting worse it seems in the last 30 years or so. Sadly it appears that there are many now who are willfully adding to the worse and not to the good of things.
Click to expand...


Again- a claim that we have been hearing since before we even had talkies.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was Colorado appointed as a fourth branch of the federal government?  No state may make a law in direct violation of the US Constitution and its Amendments.  1st Amendment is no exception.  That law isn't worth the paper its written on.  Refer to my last post for details..
> 
> Protection for all the various sexual orientations, of which your LGBT groups represents but a few of those kinks, don't have US Constitutional protection that allows them to trump the 1st Amendment.. In fact there's nothing at all mentioned about limited behavioral groups that the majority objects to in the US Constitution as having any protection from majority regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL-how hilarious coming from the person who thinks that State laws over-rule the Constitutional!
> 
> The basis of that law goes back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and has been successfully defended in court multiple times.
> 
> But anyone who does believe that law is unconstitutional can do what gay couples have done with the laws that they believe are unconstitutional- either change the law legislatively, or go to the courts and argue that the law is unconstitutional.
> 
> Go for it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember that you are defending two men joining up with each other as if they are man and woman, and because of this craziness you and others are trying to turn this nation over onto it's head for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians abiding the same laws as every one else isn't 'turning the nation over onto its head'.
> 
> You're demanding special treatment, exemptions from any law you don't like, and exhaled legal status.
> 
> Nope. You're just like everyone else. Get used to the idea.
Click to expand...

How am I demanding special treatment or anyone else for that matter, when we are not the ones doing things that special treatment is being called for? Be honest and do tell who are the ones demanding special treatment these days.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was Colorado appointed as a fourth branch of the federal government?  No state may make a law in direct violation of the US Constitution and its Amendments.  1st Amendment is no exception.  That law isn't worth the paper its written on.  Refer to my last post for details..
> 
> Protection for all the various sexual orientations, of which your LGBT groups represents but a few of those kinks, don't have US Constitutional protection that allows them to trump the 1st Amendment.. In fact there's nothing at all mentioned about limited behavioral groups that the majority objects to in the US Constitution as having any protection from majority regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL-how hilarious coming from the person who thinks that State laws over-rule the Constitutional!
> 
> The basis of that law goes back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and has been successfully defended in court multiple times.
> 
> But anyone who does believe that law is unconstitutional can do what gay couples have done with the laws that they believe are unconstitutional- either change the law legislatively, or go to the courts and argue that the law is unconstitutional.
> 
> Go for it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember that you are defending two men joining up with each other as if they are man and woman, and because of this craziness you and others are trying to turn this nation over onto it's head for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians abiding the same laws as every one else isn't 'turning the nation over onto its head'.
> 
> You're demanding special treatment, exemptions from any law you don't like, and exhaled legal status.
> 
> Nope. You're just like everyone else. Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I demanding special treatment or anyone else for that matter, when we are not the ones doing things that special treatment is being called for? Be honest and do tell who are the ones demanding special treatment these days.
Click to expand...


That would be you, claiming special exemption from public accommodation laws.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was Colorado appointed as a fourth branch of the federal government?  No state may make a law in direct violation of the US Constitution and its Amendments.  1st Amendment is no exception.  That law isn't worth the paper its written on.  Refer to my last post for details..
> 
> Protection for all the various sexual orientations, of which your LGBT groups represents but a few of those kinks, don't have US Constitutional protection that allows them to trump the 1st Amendment.. In fact there's nothing at all mentioned about limited behavioral groups that the majority objects to in the US Constitution as having any protection from majority regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL-how hilarious coming from the person who thinks that State laws over-rule the Constitutional!
> 
> The basis of that law goes back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and has been successfully defended in court multiple times.
> 
> But anyone who does believe that law is unconstitutional can do what gay couples have done with the laws that they believe are unconstitutional- either change the law legislatively, or go to the courts and argue that the law is unconstitutional.
> 
> Go for it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember that you are defending two men joining up with each other as if they are man and woman, and because of this craziness you and others are trying to turn this nation over onto it's head for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians abiding the same laws as every one else isn't 'turning the nation over onto its head'.
> 
> You're demanding special treatment, exemptions from any law you don't like, and exhaled legal status.
> 
> Nope. You're just like everyone else. Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I demanding special treatment or anyone else for that matter, when we are not the ones doing things that special treatment is being called for? Be honest and do tell who are the ones demanding special treatment these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be you, claiming special exemption from public accommodation laws.
Click to expand...

No that would be the ones who are abusing these laws now, and are doing so by forcing their views and lifestyle onto another by way of these laws in which were not intended for that purpose..


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was Colorado appointed as a fourth branch of the federal government?  No state may make a law in direct violation of the US Constitution and its Amendments.  1st Amendment is no exception.  That law isn't worth the paper its written on.  Refer to my last post for details..
> 
> Protection for all the various sexual orientations, of which your LGBT groups represents but a few of those kinks, don't have US Constitutional protection that allows them to trump the 1st Amendment.. In fact there's nothing at all mentioned about limited behavioral groups that the majority objects to in the US Constitution as having any protection from majority regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL-how hilarious coming from the person who thinks that State laws over-rule the Constitutional!
> 
> The basis of that law goes back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and has been successfully defended in court multiple times.
> 
> But anyone who does believe that law is unconstitutional can do what gay couples have done with the laws that they believe are unconstitutional- either change the law legislatively, or go to the courts and argue that the law is unconstitutional.
> 
> Go for it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember that you are defending two men joining up with each other as if they are man and woman, and because of this craziness you and others are trying to turn this nation over onto it's head for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians abiding the same laws as every one else isn't 'turning the nation over onto its head'.
> 
> You're demanding special treatment, exemptions from any law you don't like, and exhaled legal status.
> 
> Nope. You're just like everyone else. Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I demanding special treatment or anyone else for that matter, when we are not the ones doing things that special treatment is being called for? Be honest and do tell who are the ones demanding special treatment these days.
Click to expand...


By demanding that you should be exempted from PA laws because you have a religious objection to homosexuals. 

No.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was Colorado appointed as a fourth branch of the federal government?  No state may make a law in direct violation of the US Constitution and its Amendments.  1st Amendment is no exception.  That law isn't worth the paper its written on.  Refer to my last post for details..
> 
> Protection for all the various sexual orientations, of which your LGBT groups represents but a few of those kinks, don't have US Constitutional protection that allows them to trump the 1st Amendment.. In fact there's nothing at all mentioned about limited behavioral groups that the majority objects to in the US Constitution as having any protection from majority regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL-how hilarious coming from the person who thinks that State laws over-rule the Constitutional!
> 
> The basis of that law goes back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and has been successfully defended in court multiple times.
> 
> But anyone who does believe that law is unconstitutional can do what gay couples have done with the laws that they believe are unconstitutional- either change the law legislatively, or go to the courts and argue that the law is unconstitutional.
> 
> Go for it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember that you are defending two men joining up with each other as if they are man and woman, and because of this craziness you and others are trying to turn this nation over onto it's head for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians abiding the same laws as every one else isn't 'turning the nation over onto its head'.
> 
> You're demanding special treatment, exemptions from any law you don't like, and exhaled legal status.
> 
> Nope. You're just like everyone else. Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I demanding special treatment or anyone else for that matter, when we are not the ones doing things that special treatment is being called for? Be honest and do tell who are the ones demanding special treatment these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By demanding that you should be exempted from PA laws because you have a religious objection to homosexuals.
> 
> No.
Click to expand...

You say No as if you are the deciding and final vote on the matter, but I say that your attitude will soon end when people finally realize how bad they have been duped on all of this mess. Twisting the laws in order to accommodate something that these law's were not intended for, nor were they created for when created, is something that will soon be figured out by people, and then the backlash by the majority will come as a result of it all.  You know if think about it, one could fit just about anything they want under any specific law that might seemingly apply, and especially if that law is broad in it's scope by some mistaken chance, but people have better sense as to know what the laws were created for, and how they were supposed to be applied, and it didn't mean that they apply to everything and anything like some people try and say they do or try and make them do.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL-how hilarious coming from the person who thinks that State laws over-rule the Constitutional!
> 
> The basis of that law goes back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and has been successfully defended in court multiple times.
> 
> But anyone who does believe that law is unconstitutional can do what gay couples have done with the laws that they believe are unconstitutional- either change the law legislatively, or go to the courts and argue that the law is unconstitutional.
> 
> Go for it!
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that you are defending two men joining up with each other as if they are man and woman, and because of this craziness you and others are trying to turn this nation over onto it's head for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians abiding the same laws as every one else isn't 'turning the nation over onto its head'.
> 
> You're demanding special treatment, exemptions from any law you don't like, and exhaled legal status.
> 
> Nope. You're just like everyone else. Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I demanding special treatment or anyone else for that matter, when we are not the ones doing things that special treatment is being called for? Be honest and do tell who are the ones demanding special treatment these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By demanding that you should be exempted from PA laws because you have a religious objection to homosexuals.
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say No as if you are the deciding and final vote on the matter, but I say that your attitude will soon end when people finally realize how bad they have been duped on all of this mess.
Click to expand...


Holding Christians to the same laws as everyone else isn't a 'mess'. There's not a harsher law for the rest of us and a much more lenient one exclusively for Christians.

There's the same law for everyone. Get used to the idea.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that you are defending two men joining up with each other as if they are man and woman, and because of this craziness you and others are trying to turn this nation over onto it's head for that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians abiding the same laws as every one else isn't 'turning the nation over onto its head'.
> 
> You're demanding special treatment, exemptions from any law you don't like, and exhaled legal status.
> 
> Nope. You're just like everyone else. Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I demanding special treatment or anyone else for that matter, when we are not the ones doing things that special treatment is being called for? Be honest and do tell who are the ones demanding special treatment these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By demanding that you should be exempted from PA laws because you have a religious objection to homosexuals.
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say No as if you are the deciding and final vote on the matter, but I say that your attitude will soon end when people finally realize how bad they have been duped on all of this mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holding Christians to the same laws as everyone else isn't a 'mess'. There's not a harsher law for the rest of us and a much more lenient one exclusively for Christians.
> 
> There's the same law for everyone. Get used to the idea.
Click to expand...

No, because forcing Christians to abide by something that is against their beliefs and teachings is way more than what any law was supposed to be or was intended to do, because it wasn't intended to do that at all, but here we are and now what's next ? Maybe making the Christians agree to abortions at their religious hospitals and/or etc. as a result of all this ? People had best be careful of the way that a law is structured and/or is read these days, because there are some who will jump through any crack they see now, and that is what has been done in the cases that have been discussed here.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians abiding the same laws as every one else isn't 'turning the nation over onto its head'.
> 
> You're demanding special treatment, exemptions from any law you don't like, and exhaled legal status.
> 
> Nope. You're just like everyone else. Get used to the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> How am I demanding special treatment or anyone else for that matter, when we are not the ones doing things that special treatment is being called for? Be honest and do tell who are the ones demanding special treatment these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By demanding that you should be exempted from PA laws because you have a religious objection to homosexuals.
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say No as if you are the deciding and final vote on the matter, but I say that your attitude will soon end when people finally realize how bad they have been duped on all of this mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holding Christians to the same laws as everyone else isn't a 'mess'. There's not a harsher law for the rest of us and a much more lenient one exclusively for Christians.
> 
> There's the same law for everyone. Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because forcing Christians to abide by something that is against their beliefs and teachings is way more than what any law was supposed to be or was intended to do, because it wasn't intended to do that at all, but here we are and now what's next ?
Click to expand...


You do not get to ignore any law you don't like. If your job is incompatible with your religion, find another job. 

If you sell cake to the public, the only thing you're required to do is sell cake to the public. That's it. If you can't do that, find another job.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I demanding special treatment or anyone else for that matter, when we are not the ones doing things that special treatment is being called for? Be honest and do tell who are the ones demanding special treatment these days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By demanding that you should be exempted from PA laws because you have a religious objection to homosexuals.
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say No as if you are the deciding and final vote on the matter, but I say that your attitude will soon end when people finally realize how bad they have been duped on all of this mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holding Christians to the same laws as everyone else isn't a 'mess'. There's not a harsher law for the rest of us and a much more lenient one exclusively for Christians.
> 
> There's the same law for everyone. Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because forcing Christians to abide by something that is against their beliefs and teachings is way more than what any law was supposed to be or was intended to do, because it wasn't intended to do that at all, but here we are and now what's next ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not get to ignore any law you don't like. If your job is incompatible with your religion, find another job.
> 
> If you sell cake to the public, the only thing you're required to do is sell cake to the public. That's it. If you can't do that, find another job.
Click to expand...

That wasn't just it though, it was a unique situation where the two came together over the cake needing to be dressed or created for the specific occasion, and that's when the conflict came. I can't imagine the baker refusing an already prepared cake that was in the case to be sold to anyone that walked in, so the whole story I don't think is fully known here, or it isn't making a whole lot of sence to me.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> By demanding that you should be exempted from PA laws because you have a religious objection to homosexuals.
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> You say No as if you are the deciding and final vote on the matter, but I say that your attitude will soon end when people finally realize how bad they have been duped on all of this mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holding Christians to the same laws as everyone else isn't a 'mess'. There's not a harsher law for the rest of us and a much more lenient one exclusively for Christians.
> 
> There's the same law for everyone. Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because forcing Christians to abide by something that is against their beliefs and teachings is way more than what any law was supposed to be or was intended to do, because it wasn't intended to do that at all, but here we are and now what's next ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not get to ignore any law you don't like. If your job is incompatible with your religion, find another job.
> 
> If you sell cake to the public, the only thing you're required to do is sell cake to the public. That's it. If you can't do that, find another job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't just it though, it was a unique situation where the two came together over the cake needing to be dressed or created for the specific occasion, and that's when the conflict came.
Click to expand...


If as a Christian, you can't sell cake....then don't be in the cake selling business. If your religion makes it impossible to do your job, find another job.

Its not that complicated.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say No as if you are the deciding and final vote on the matter, but I say that your attitude will soon end when people finally realize how bad they have been duped on all of this mess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holding Christians to the same laws as everyone else isn't a 'mess'. There's not a harsher law for the rest of us and a much more lenient one exclusively for Christians.
> 
> There's the same law for everyone. Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because forcing Christians to abide by something that is against their beliefs and teachings is way more than what any law was supposed to be or was intended to do, because it wasn't intended to do that at all, but here we are and now what's next ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not get to ignore any law you don't like. If your job is incompatible with your religion, find another job.
> 
> If you sell cake to the public, the only thing you're required to do is sell cake to the public. That's it. If you can't do that, find another job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't just it though, it was a unique situation where the two came together over the cake needing to be dressed or created for the specific occasion, and that's when the conflict came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If as a Christian, you can't sell cake....then don't be in the cake selling business. If your religion makes it impossible to do your job, find another job.
> 
> Its not that complicated.
Click to expand...

If you are Homersexual, and you can't get a shop to bake you a wedding cake for you and who ever, then don't be in the cake seeking business for gay weddings from the Christians. If your lifestyle makes it impossible to get a cake dressed out for your event, then find another shop. See how that works ? No you don't, because you can say this to the straights who are Christian out there, but how dare reverse it the other way around like this right ?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holding Christians to the same laws as everyone else isn't a 'mess'. There's not a harsher law for the rest of us and a much more lenient one exclusively for Christians.
> 
> There's the same law for everyone. Get used to the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> No, because forcing Christians to abide by something that is against their beliefs and teachings is way more than what any law was supposed to be or was intended to do, because it wasn't intended to do that at all, but here we are and now what's next ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not get to ignore any law you don't like. If your job is incompatible with your religion, find another job.
> 
> If you sell cake to the public, the only thing you're required to do is sell cake to the public. That's it. If you can't do that, find another job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't just it though, it was a unique situation where the two came together over the cake needing to be dressed or created for the specific occasion, and that's when the conflict came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If as a Christian, you can't sell cake....then don't be in the cake selling business. If your religion makes it impossible to do your job, find another job.
> 
> Its not that complicated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are Homersexual, and you can't get a shop to bake you a wedding cake for you and who ever, then don't be in the cake seeking business for gay weddings from the Christians. If your lifestyle makes it impossible to get a cake dressed out for your event, then find another shop. See how that works ? No you don't, because you can say this to the straights who are Christian out there, but how dare reverse it the other way around like this right ?
Click to expand...


Are you really this stupid?

Skylar is actually telling you what the law is- the law you want Christians to be able to ignore- but have no problem with everyone else being required to obey.

It is called Public Accomodation laws- not consumer's need to shop elsewhere laws.

No matter how much you stomp your feet, you don't get special exemptions just because you claim to be Christian.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because forcing Christians to abide by something that is against their beliefs and teachings is way more than what any law was supposed to be or was intended to do, because it wasn't intended to do that at all, but here we are and now what's next ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not get to ignore any law you don't like. If your job is incompatible with your religion, find another job.
> 
> If you sell cake to the public, the only thing you're required to do is sell cake to the public. That's it. If you can't do that, find another job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't just it though, it was a unique situation where the two came together over the cake needing to be dressed or created for the specific occasion, and that's when the conflict came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If as a Christian, you can't sell cake....then don't be in the cake selling business. If your religion makes it impossible to do your job, find another job.
> 
> Its not that complicated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are Homersexual, and you can't get a shop to bake you a wedding cake for you and who ever, then don't be in the cake seeking business for gay weddings from the Christians. If your lifestyle makes it impossible to get a cake dressed out for your event, then find another shop. See how that works ? No you don't, because you can say this to the straights who are Christian out there, but how dare reverse it the other way around like this right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really this stupid?
> 
> Skylar is actually telling you what the law is- the law you want Christians to be able to ignore- but have no problem with everyone else being required to obey.
> 
> It is called Public Accomodation laws- not consumer's need to shop elsewhere laws.
> 
> No matter how much you stomp your feet, you don't get special exemptions just because you claim to be Christian.
Click to expand...

Do you really not see the double standard here?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not get to ignore any law you don't like. If your job is incompatible with your religion, find another job.
> 
> If you sell cake to the public, the only thing you're required to do is sell cake to the public. That's it. If you can't do that, find another job.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't just it though, it was a unique situation where the two came together over the cake needing to be dressed or created for the specific occasion, and that's when the conflict came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If as a Christian, you can't sell cake....then don't be in the cake selling business. If your religion makes it impossible to do your job, find another job.
> 
> Its not that complicated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are Homersexual, and you can't get a shop to bake you a wedding cake for you and who ever, then don't be in the cake seeking business for gay weddings from the Christians. If your lifestyle makes it impossible to get a cake dressed out for your event, then find another shop. See how that works ? No you don't, because you can say this to the straights who are Christian out there, but how dare reverse it the other way around like this right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really this stupid?
> 
> Skylar is actually telling you what the law is- the law you want Christians to be able to ignore- but have no problem with everyone else being required to obey.
> 
> It is called Public Accomodation laws- not consumer's need to shop elsewhere laws.
> 
> No matter how much you stomp your feet, you don't get special exemptions just because you claim to be Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really not see the double standard here?
Click to expand...


No.

The law protects Christians and non-Christians alike from discrimination by business's

It is just as illegal for someone to deny you service because you happen to be wearing a "Jesus is King" t-shirt as it is illegal for you to deny service to someone who is wearing a "I support gay marriage" t-shirt.


----------



## Silhouette

This poll here is running at the same percentage of outrage as this one: Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

As of this date, this poll is 81.6% outraged that gay marriage would force itself upon the faithful.  And the boy being drugged by lesbians thread is running at 81.8% outrage at the APA for condoning the use of dogma as a "scientific" stance for public consumption..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> T
> 
> As of this date, this poll is 81.6% outraged that gay marriage would force itself upon the faithful.  n..



Nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry- regardless of their race/religion or sexual orientation.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> T
> 
> As of this date, this poll is 81.6% outraged that gay marriage would force itself upon the faithful.  n..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry- regardless of their race/religion or sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

 CHURCHES ARE NOTHING MORE THAN CONGREGATIONS IF INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIANS WHICH YOU IN FACT, ALONG WITH ALL YOUR OTHER LGBT LITIGIOUS-MILITIA NOT ONLY BELIEVE IN SUING BUT IN FACT ARE ACTIVELY DOING SO AND HAVE BEEN FOR YEARS..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> T
> 
> As of this date, this poll is 81.6% outraged that gay marriage would force itself upon the faithful.  n..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry- regardless of their race/religion or sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CHURCHES ARE NOTHING MORE THAN CONGREGATIONS IF INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIANS WHICH YOU IN FACT, ALONG WITH ALL YOUR OTHER LGBT LITIGIOUS-MILITIA NOT ONLY BELIEVE IN SUING BUT IN FACT ARE ACTIVELY DOING SO AND HAVE BEEN FOR YEARS..
Click to expand...


Churches are churches- they are tax exempt and exempt from public accomodation laws.
Businesses are not.

Nobody is suing churches to get married in them- just a boogey man raised by bigots to scare people.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> T
> 
> As of this date, this poll is 81.6% outraged that gay marriage would force itself upon the faithful.  n..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry- regardless of their race/religion or sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CHURCHES ARE NOTHING MORE THAN CONGREGATIONS IF INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIANS WHICH YOU IN FACT, ALONG WITH ALL YOUR OTHER LGBT LITIGIOUS-MILITIA NOT ONLY BELIEVE IN SUING BUT IN FACT ARE ACTIVELY DOING SO AND HAVE BEEN FOR YEARS..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches are churches- they are tax exempt and exempt from public accomodation laws.
> Businesses are not.
> 
> Nobody is suing churches to get married in them- just a boogey man raised by bigots to scare people.
Click to expand...



OK, so what if the Churches are shrinking in the number of participants these days, and this maybe all due to the corruption that has hit that institution in which is no different than any other institution in the nation, and so the Christian individual begins operating outside of the confines of the Church walls or grounds lets say (i.e. taking his or her faith with them where ever they may go next), you see. 

Now just because a Christian is Churchless for a second or two, does this mean that he or she can be preyed upon by another who would pick them apart or would take advantage of that sort of person who is going about as an individual in society ? A group may perceive the individual as having a weakness because of a person operating by no fault of their own as an individual in society.  Don't individuals have the same rights as everyone else, and if not then please explain why that is for the audience to read in your response that you will give next. 

I think rights are agreed upon by many when making the laws, but some laws didn't ever perceive in their makings the future of things that would soon come. It's a problem. 

This is what the people need to periodically go back and do, which is to review the laws in order to shore them up (i.e. close the loop holes in them) or either just change them altogether in order to fix them. Right at this moment in time, we now have a group trying to take advantage of another group or of an individual Christian who is out there, and they are doing this because the laws didn't take into consideration the things that would soon come a knocking at the door in these ways, but it can be fixed. 

Individuals who believe in the things that which this nation has believed in for centuries, shouldn't be having to defend themselves now from a group that is using the twisting of the laws in every way possible these days.  They are doing this because the laws are vague in some areas in which didn't account for such abuses to take place against individuals in these ways when created, so the laws are running way behind the times IMHO, and it's a problem.


----------



## 2aguy

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> T
> 
> As of this date, this poll is 81.6% outraged that gay marriage would force itself upon the faithful.  n..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry- regardless of their race/religion or sexual orientation.
Click to expand...



Oh yeah.....you don't live in the real world......they are not going to let churches get away with not submitting to their agenda......give it time...they are going to move on the churches eventually.....


----------



## Syriusly

2aguy said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> T
> 
> As of this date, this poll is 81.6% outraged that gay marriage would force itself upon the faithful.  n..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry- regardless of their race/religion or sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah.....you don't live in the real world......they are not going to let churches get away with not submitting to their agenda......give it time...they are going to move on the churches eventually.....
Click to expand...


LOL....in the real world- no one is trying to force churches to do anything.

Like I said- nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry.

The only ones promoting that boogeyman are the bigots who just are upset that homosexuals are no longer in the closet.


----------



## 2aguy

Syriusly said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> T
> 
> As of this date, this poll is 81.6% outraged that gay marriage would force itself upon the faithful.  n..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry- regardless of their race/religion or sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah.....you don't live in the real world......they are not going to let churches get away with not submitting to their agenda......give it time...they are going to move on the churches eventually.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....in the real world- no one is trying to force churches to do anything.
> 
> Like I said- nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry.
> 
> The only ones promoting that boogeyman are the bigots who just are upset that homosexuals are no longer in the closet.
Click to expand...


Tell me that 5 years from now.......


----------



## Syriusly

2aguy said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> T
> 
> As of this date, this poll is 81.6% outraged that gay marriage would force itself upon the faithful.  n..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry- regardless of their race/religion or sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah.....you don't live in the real world......they are not going to let churches get away with not submitting to their agenda......give it time...they are going to move on the churches eventually.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....in the real world- no one is trying to force churches to do anything.
> 
> Like I said- nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry.
> 
> The only ones promoting that boogeyman are the bigots who just are upset that homosexuals are no longer in the closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me that 5 years from now.......
Click to expand...


I will tell you that right now- in the real world- Churches have always discriminated and will always discriminate- they are exempt from public accommodation laws and are protected by the First Amendment.

The Mormons discriminated against African Americans until rather recently- no one tried to legally force them to change. The Catholic Church discriminates against women- no one is suing.  

Just a boogeyman used by those trying to scare people about homosexuals.


----------



## beagle9

2aguy said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> T
> 
> As of this date, this poll is 81.6% outraged that gay marriage would force itself upon the faithful.  n..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry- regardless of their race/religion or sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah.....you don't live in the real world......they are not going to let churches get away with not submitting to their agenda......give it time...they are going to move on the churches eventually.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....in the real world- no one is trying to force churches to do anything.
> 
> Like I said- nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry.
> 
> The only ones promoting that boogeyman are the bigots who just are upset that homosexuals are no longer in the closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me that 5 years from now.......
Click to expand...

He just did in his response, where as just read all his words about the church, he detest them all.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> T
> 
> As of this date, this poll is 81.6% outraged that gay marriage would force itself upon the faithful.  n..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry- regardless of their race/religion or sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah.....you don't live in the real world......they are not going to let churches get away with not submitting to their agenda......give it time...they are going to move on the churches eventually.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....in the real world- no one is trying to force churches to do anything.
> 
> Like I said- nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry.
> 
> The only ones promoting that boogeyman are the bigots who just are upset that homosexuals are no longer in the closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me that 5 years from now.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He just did in his response, where as just read all his words about the church, he detest them all.
Click to expand...


Who you speaking about Beagleboy?

If you are referring to me- you are either mistaken or lying.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry- regardless of their race/religion or sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah.....you don't live in the real world......they are not going to let churches get away with not submitting to their agenda......give it time...they are going to move on the churches eventually.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....in the real world- no one is trying to force churches to do anything.
> 
> Like I said- nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry.
> 
> The only ones promoting that boogeyman are the bigots who just are upset that homosexuals are no longer in the closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me that 5 years from now.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He just did in his response, where as just read all his words about the church, he detest them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who you speaking about Beagleboy?
> 
> If you are referring to me- you are either mistaken or lying.
Click to expand...

The way you talk about God on this thread, but I'm lying eh? Whose delusional now?


----------



## Skylar

2aguy said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> T
> 
> As of this date, this poll is 81.6% outraged that gay marriage would force itself upon the faithful.  n..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry- regardless of their race/religion or sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah.....you don't live in the real world......they are not going to let churches get away with not submitting to their agenda......give it time...they are going to move on the churches eventually.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....in the real world- no one is trying to force churches to do anything.
> 
> Like I said- nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry.
> 
> The only ones promoting that boogeyman are the bigots who just are upset that homosexuals are no longer in the closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me that 5 years from now.......
Click to expand...


If churches were going to be forced to perform marriages they didn't want to, it would have happened after the 1967 ruling that overturned interracial marriage bans. It never happened. Nor was there any significant proposal even seeking it. 

Its a boogeyman backed with nothing.


----------



## 2aguy

Skylar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> T
> 
> As of this date, this poll is 81.6% outraged that gay marriage would force itself upon the faithful.  n..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry- regardless of their race/religion or sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah.....you don't live in the real world......they are not going to let churches get away with not submitting to their agenda......give it time...they are going to move on the churches eventually.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....in the real world- no one is trying to force churches to do anything.
> 
> Like I said- nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry.
> 
> The only ones promoting that boogeyman are the bigots who just are upset that homosexuals are no longer in the closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me that 5 years from now.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If churches were going to be forced to perform marriages they didn't want to, it would have happened after the 1967 ruling that overturned interracial marriage bans. It never happened. Nor was there any significant proposal even seeking it.
> 
> Its a boogeyman backed with nothing.
Click to expand...



As we see in the bakers, pizza makers, florists, and photographers who are more than happy to provide their services to gays and all others, for every aspect of their business and for all events.......

Except for a gay wedding...that's it....that is the only thing they cannot do because of their religion....

And yet the gays will not simply go to another business........they must have that business that refuses that one event, that one baked good submit to what they want.....or they will burn their lives to the ground and salt the earth.....

Now you tell me.....people with that mind set.....they are just going to stand by while a church refuses to perform their wedding....even if there are hundreds of other places to get that wedding done....

You are delusional.......

The next front......abortion....the left, fresh off this victory is gathering it's forces to go after doctors and nurses who will not kill babies on demand.......


----------



## Skylar

2aguy said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry- regardless of their race/religion or sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah.....you don't live in the real world......they are not going to let churches get away with not submitting to their agenda......give it time...they are going to move on the churches eventually.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....in the real world- no one is trying to force churches to do anything.
> 
> Like I said- nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry.
> 
> The only ones promoting that boogeyman are the bigots who just are upset that homosexuals are no longer in the closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me that 5 years from now.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If churches were going to be forced to perform marriages they didn't want to, it would have happened after the 1967 ruling that overturned interracial marriage bans. It never happened. Nor was there any significant proposal even seeking it.
> 
> Its a boogeyman backed with nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As we see in the bakers, pizza makers, florists, and photographers who are more than happy to provide their services to gays and all others, for every aspect of their business and for all events.......
Click to expand...


Businesses are subject to PA laws. Churches are explicitly exempt. 

Nuff said.


----------



## 2aguy

Skylar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah.....you don't live in the real world......they are not going to let churches get away with not submitting to their agenda......give it time...they are going to move on the churches eventually.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....in the real world- no one is trying to force churches to do anything.
> 
> Like I said- nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry.
> 
> The only ones promoting that boogeyman are the bigots who just are upset that homosexuals are no longer in the closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me that 5 years from now.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If churches were going to be forced to perform marriages they didn't want to, it would have happened after the 1967 ruling that overturned interracial marriage bans. It never happened. Nor was there any significant proposal even seeking it.
> 
> Its a boogeyman backed with nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As we see in the bakers, pizza makers, florists, and photographers who are more than happy to provide their services to gays and all others, for every aspect of their business and for all events.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Businesses are subject to PA laws. Churches are explicitly exempt.
> 
> Nuff said.
Click to expand...



Yes...you are delusional.......

There is a First Amendment protection for Freedom of Religion in the Constitution of the United States and they just walked through it to attack these businesses.........churches are not going to stand up to this....

Well.....they will probably say that the government can't mandate a church do a wedding, but a church still can't discriminate against a gay couple as individuals........and there we go......and they don't even have to win in court....they just have to bring out the lawyers........


----------



## Skylar

2aguy said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....in the real world- no one is trying to force churches to do anything.
> 
> Like I said- nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry.
> 
> The only ones promoting that boogeyman are the bigots who just are upset that homosexuals are no longer in the closet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me that 5 years from now.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If churches were going to be forced to perform marriages they didn't want to, it would have happened after the 1967 ruling that overturned interracial marriage bans. It never happened. Nor was there any significant proposal even seeking it.
> 
> Its a boogeyman backed with nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As we see in the bakers, pizza makers, florists, and photographers who are more than happy to provide their services to gays and all others, for every aspect of their business and for all events.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Businesses are subject to PA laws. Churches are explicitly exempt.
> 
> Nuff said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...you are delusional.......
> 
> There is a First Amendment protection for Freedom of Religion in the Constitution of the United States and they just walked through it to attack these businesses.........churches are not going to stand up to this....
Click to expand...


Churches aren't subject to PA laws nor ever have been. Businesses are. You may equate them. The law doesn't.


----------



## 2aguy

Skylar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me that 5 years from now.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If churches were going to be forced to perform marriages they didn't want to, it would have happened after the 1967 ruling that overturned interracial marriage bans. It never happened. Nor was there any significant proposal even seeking it.
> 
> Its a boogeyman backed with nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As we see in the bakers, pizza makers, florists, and photographers who are more than happy to provide their services to gays and all others, for every aspect of their business and for all events.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Businesses are subject to PA laws. Churches are explicitly exempt.
> 
> Nuff said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...you are delusional.......
> 
> There is a First Amendment protection for Freedom of Religion in the Constitution of the United States and they just walked through it to attack these businesses.........churches are not going to stand up to this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches aren't subject to PA laws nor ever have been. Businesses are. You may equate them. The law doesn't.
Click to expand...



You are delusional......we'll talk in a few years.....


----------



## Skylar

2aguy said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If churches were going to be forced to perform marriages they didn't want to, it would have happened after the 1967 ruling that overturned interracial marriage bans. It never happened. Nor was there any significant proposal even seeking it.
> 
> Its a boogeyman backed with nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we see in the bakers, pizza makers, florists, and photographers who are more than happy to provide their services to gays and all others, for every aspect of their business and for all events.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Businesses are subject to PA laws. Churches are explicitly exempt.
> 
> Nuff said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...you are delusional.......
> 
> There is a First Amendment protection for Freedom of Religion in the Constitution of the United States and they just walked through it to attack these businesses.........churches are not going to stand up to this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches aren't subject to PA laws nor ever have been. Businesses are. You may equate them. The law doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional......we'll talk in a few years.....
Click to expand...


I'm just informed. The best chance for what you describe came and went nearly 50 years ago. No churches were forced to perform any weddings they didn't want to when interracial marriage bans fell. There's no indication of a change in that fact.

Enjoy your slipper slope fallacy. It don't amount to much.


----------



## 2aguy

Skylar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As we see in the bakers, pizza makers, florists, and photographers who are more than happy to provide their services to gays and all others, for every aspect of their business and for all events.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses are subject to PA laws. Churches are explicitly exempt.
> 
> Nuff said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...you are delusional.......
> 
> There is a First Amendment protection for Freedom of Religion in the Constitution of the United States and they just walked through it to attack these businesses.........churches are not going to stand up to this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches aren't subject to PA laws nor ever have been. Businesses are. You may equate them. The law doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional......we'll talk in a few years.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just informed. The best chance for what you describe came and went nearly 50 years ago. No churches were forced to perform any weddings they didn't want to when interracial marriage bans fell. There's no indication of a change in that fact.
> 
> Enjoy your slipper slope fallacy. It don't amount to much.
Click to expand...



You don't study the left do you.........about 100 million people would disagree with your assessment...if they were still alive.....you do not get to disagree with the left...in any way, shape or form......churches included......they really, really hate those.....


----------



## Skylar

2aguy said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses are subject to PA laws. Churches are explicitly exempt.
> 
> Nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...you are delusional.......
> 
> There is a First Amendment protection for Freedom of Religion in the Constitution of the United States and they just walked through it to attack these businesses.........churches are not going to stand up to this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches aren't subject to PA laws nor ever have been. Businesses are. You may equate them. The law doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional......we'll talk in a few years.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just informed. The best chance for what you describe came and went nearly 50 years ago. No churches were forced to perform any weddings they didn't want to when interracial marriage bans fell. There's no indication of a change in that fact.
> 
> Enjoy your slipper slope fallacy. It don't amount to much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't study the left do you.........about 100 million people would disagree with your assessment...if they were still alive.....you do not get to disagree with the left...in any way, shape or form......churches included......they really, really hate those.....
Click to expand...


I study history. It contradicts you. PA laws don't apply to churches. They never have. And there's no indication they ever will.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah.....you don't live in the real world......they are not going to let churches get away with not submitting to their agenda......give it time...they are going to move on the churches eventually.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....in the real world- no one is trying to force churches to do anything.
> 
> Like I said- nobody believes that churches- should- would- or will be required to marry any persons that the church does not wish to marry.
> 
> The only ones promoting that boogeyman are the bigots who just are upset that homosexuals are no longer in the closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me that 5 years from now.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He just did in his response, where as just read all his words about the church, he detest them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who you speaking about Beagleboy?
> 
> If you are referring to me- you are either mistaken or lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way you talk about God on this thread, but I'm lying eh? Whose delusional now?
Click to expand...


Like I said- you were either mistaken or lying- now I am leaning more towards just outright nuts.

Feel free to show where I have said I detest all churches- you can't- and won't- you will just continue to prevaricate.


----------



## Syriusly

2aguy said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses are subject to PA laws. Churches are explicitly exempt.
> 
> Nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...you are delusional.......
> 
> There is a First Amendment protection for Freedom of Religion in the Constitution of the United States and they just walked through it to attack these businesses.........churches are not going to stand up to this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches aren't subject to PA laws nor ever have been. Businesses are. You may equate them. The law doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional......we'll talk in a few years.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just informed. The best chance for what you describe came and went nearly 50 years ago. No churches were forced to perform any weddings they didn't want to when interracial marriage bans fell. There's no indication of a change in that fact.
> 
> Enjoy your slipper slope fallacy. It don't amount to much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't study the left do you.........about 100 million people would disagree with your assessment...if they were still alive.....you do not get to disagree with the left...in any way, shape or form......churches included......they really, really hate those.....
Click to expand...


Wow- speaking of delusional- that is you. 

Churches never have- and never will be subject to public accommodation- just the usual fear mongering from bigots.


----------



## 2aguy

Syriusly said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...you are delusional.......
> 
> There is a First Amendment protection for Freedom of Religion in the Constitution of the United States and they just walked through it to attack these businesses.........churches are not going to stand up to this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches aren't subject to PA laws nor ever have been. Businesses are. You may equate them. The law doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional......we'll talk in a few years.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just informed. The best chance for what you describe came and went nearly 50 years ago. No churches were forced to perform any weddings they didn't want to when interracial marriage bans fell. There's no indication of a change in that fact.
> 
> Enjoy your slipper slope fallacy. It don't amount to much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't study the left do you.........about 100 million people would disagree with your assessment...if they were still alive.....you do not get to disagree with the left...in any way, shape or form......churches included......they really, really hate those.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- speaking of delusional- that is you.
> 
> Churches never have- and never will be subject to public accommodation- just the usual fear mongering from bigots.
Click to expand...





> Churches never have- and never will be subject to public accommodation




Fool.....


----------



## Syriusly

2aguy said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches aren't subject to PA laws nor ever have been. Businesses are. You may equate them. The law doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional......we'll talk in a few years.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just informed. The best chance for what you describe came and went nearly 50 years ago. No churches were forced to perform any weddings they didn't want to when interracial marriage bans fell. There's no indication of a change in that fact.
> 
> Enjoy your slipper slope fallacy. It don't amount to much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't study the left do you.........about 100 million people would disagree with your assessment...if they were still alive.....you do not get to disagree with the left...in any way, shape or form......churches included......they really, really hate those.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- speaking of delusional- that is you.
> 
> Churches never have- and never will be subject to public accommodation- just the usual fear mongering from bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches never have- and never will be subject to public accommodation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fool.....
Click to expand...


Being called a fool by a delusional idiot like you is great praise. 

I would have been concerned if you did anything less.


----------



## 2aguy

Syriusly said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional......we'll talk in a few years.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just informed. The best chance for what you describe came and went nearly 50 years ago. No churches were forced to perform any weddings they didn't want to when interracial marriage bans fell. There's no indication of a change in that fact.
> 
> Enjoy your slipper slope fallacy. It don't amount to much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't study the left do you.........about 100 million people would disagree with your assessment...if they were still alive.....you do not get to disagree with the left...in any way, shape or form......churches included......they really, really hate those.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- speaking of delusional- that is you.
> 
> Churches never have- and never will be subject to public accommodation- just the usual fear mongering from bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches never have- and never will be subject to public accommodation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fool.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being called a fool by a delusional idiot like you is great praise.
> 
> I would have been concerned if you did anything less.
Click to expand...



Talk to you in 5 years...if it even takes that long.....


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

2aguy said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just informed. The best chance for what you describe came and went nearly 50 years ago. No churches were forced to perform any weddings they didn't want to when interracial marriage bans fell. There's no indication of a change in that fact.
> 
> Enjoy your slipper slope fallacy. It don't amount to much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't study the left do you.........about 100 million people would disagree with your assessment...if they were still alive.....you do not get to disagree with the left...in any way, shape or form......churches included......they really, really hate those.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- speaking of delusional- that is you.
> 
> Churches never have- and never will be subject to public accommodation- just the usual fear mongering from bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches never have- and never will be subject to public accommodation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fool.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being called a fool by a delusional idiot like you is great praise.
> 
> I would have been concerned if you did anything less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to you in 5 years...if it even takes that long.....
Click to expand...



That would be a reasonable position, IF the contributor to which you responded was capable of objective reason, thus no means for _the examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes... .  
_
The Left believe what they believe because it serves THEIR OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS.  Which is why there has never been a Leftist, anywhere in the world who accepted responsibility for any consequence of their actions... or actions which result from their publicly stated policy advocacies.  

What's more, they'll actively pursue deflecting blame for the consequence of their 'feelings' onto their opposition.

Which explains why 70 years after the defeat of the attempt by Euro-peon Leftists to _*TAKE OVER THE WORLD! *... _the Left is still claiming that the Euro-peon Leftists, were actually_ "Right-Wingers"; _OKA:_ Their Opposition._


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't study the left do you.........about 100 million people would disagree with your assessment...if they were still alive.....you do not get to disagree with the left...in any way, shape or form......churches included......they really, really hate those.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow- speaking of delusional- that is you.
> 
> Churches never have- and never will be subject to public accommodation- just the usual fear mongering from bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches never have- and never will be subject to public accommodation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fool.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being called a fool by a delusional idiot like you is great praise.
> 
> I would have been concerned if you did anything less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to you in 5 years...if it even takes that long.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a reasonable position, IF the contributor to which you responded was capable of objective reason, thus no means for _the examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes... ._
Click to expand...


We've been through this, Keyes. Your 'objective reasoning' is just a run of the mill Appeal to Authority fallacy, where you desperately try and convince us that any opinion you hold must be objective fact.

And whenever I test your assumptions, they fail. And you run.

From your first mover fallacy, to cherry picking nature, to the subjective nature of religion, to you citing and ignore the dictionary.....you always fail. And yet you always reappear after your rhetorical beating, once again insisting that your subjective personal opinions must be objective truth.

Nope. Subjective is not objective. You can't get around that.


----------



## Skylar

2aguy said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just informed. The best chance for what you describe came and went nearly 50 years ago. No churches were forced to perform any weddings they didn't want to when interracial marriage bans fell. There's no indication of a change in that fact.
> 
> Enjoy your slipper slope fallacy. It don't amount to much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't study the left do you.........about 100 million people would disagree with your assessment...if they were still alive.....you do not get to disagree with the left...in any way, shape or form......churches included......they really, really hate those.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- speaking of delusional- that is you.
> 
> Churches never have- and never will be subject to public accommodation- just the usual fear mongering from bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches never have- and never will be subject to public accommodation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fool.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being called a fool by a delusional idiot like you is great praise.
> 
> I would have been concerned if you did anything less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to you in 5 years...if it even takes that long.....
Click to expand...


If it was gonna happen, it would have after 1967. It never did. 

History contradicts you. The law contradicts you. And you have nothing to back your claims but your personal opinion that you know the future.

Talk to me when you have something more than you citing you.


----------



## Syriusly

2aguy said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just informed. The best chance for what you describe came and went nearly 50 years ago. No churches were forced to perform any weddings they didn't want to when interracial marriage bans fell. There's no indication of a change in that fact.
> 
> Enjoy your slipper slope fallacy. It don't amount to much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't study the left do you.........about 100 million people would disagree with your assessment...if they were still alive.....you do not get to disagree with the left...in any way, shape or form......churches included......they really, really hate those.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- speaking of delusional- that is you.
> 
> Churches never have- and never will be subject to public accommodation- just the usual fear mongering from bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches never have- and never will be subject to public accommodation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fool.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being called a fool by a delusional idiot like you is great praise.
> 
> I would have been concerned if you did anything less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to you in 5 years...if it even takes that long.....
Click to expand...


LOL......wake me up when any church is EVER forced to marry anyone who it doesn't want to.

In 5 years you will have moved onto some other grand Konspiracy that you are infatuated with.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow- speaking of delusional- that is you.
> 
> Churches never have- and never will be subject to public accommodation- just the usual fear mongering from bigots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches never have- and never will be subject to public accommodation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fool.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being called a fool by a delusional idiot like you is great praise.
> 
> I would have been concerned if you did anything less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to you in 5 years...if it even takes that long.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a reasonable position, IF the contributor to which you responded was capable of objective reason, thus no means for _the examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes... ._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been through this, Keyes. ...
Click to expand...


See what I mean 2AG, they're helpless... . 

Skylar, _your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...you are delusional.......
> 
> There is a First Amendment protection for Freedom of Religion in the Constitution of the United States and they just walked through it to attack these businesses.........churches are not going to stand up to this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches aren't subject to PA laws nor ever have been. Businesses are. You may equate them. The law doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional......we'll talk in a few years.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just informed. The best chance for what you describe came and went nearly 50 years ago. No churches were forced to perform any weddings they didn't want to when interracial marriage bans fell. There's no indication of a change in that fact.
> 
> Enjoy your slipper slope fallacy. It don't amount to much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't study the left do you.........about 100 million people would disagree with your assessment...if they were still alive.....you do not get to disagree with the left...in any way, shape or form......churches included......they really, really hate those.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I study history. It contradicts you. PA laws don't apply to churches. They never have. And there's no indication they ever will.
Click to expand...

You keep sticking to that little piece of ground you have grabbed, because somehow the Christians will get it back (I.E. their right to believe & live what they believe in their lives once again), and not be a shamed of it.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fool.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being called a fool by a delusional idiot like you is great praise.
> 
> I would have been concerned if you did anything less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to you in 5 years...if it even takes that long.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a reasonable position, IF the contributor to which you responded was capable of objective reason, thus no means for _the examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes... ._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been through this, Keyes. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See what I mean 2AG, they're helpless... .
> 
> Skylar, _your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
Click to expand...


Laughing...as I said, you run. Whenever I challenge you assumptions.....you summarily declare victory and abandon the topic. Exactly as you just did. 

So much for your 'objective reasoning'.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches aren't subject to PA laws nor ever have been. Businesses are. You may equate them. The law doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional......we'll talk in a few years.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just informed. The best chance for what you describe came and went nearly 50 years ago. No churches were forced to perform any weddings they didn't want to when interracial marriage bans fell. There's no indication of a change in that fact.
> 
> Enjoy your slipper slope fallacy. It don't amount to much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't study the left do you.........about 100 million people would disagree with your assessment...if they were still alive.....you do not get to disagree with the left...in any way, shape or form......churches included......they really, really hate those.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I study history. It contradicts you. PA laws don't apply to churches. They never have. And there's no indication they ever will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep sticking to that little piece of ground you have grabbed, because somehow the Christians will get it back (I.E. their right to believe & live what they believe in their lives once again), and not be a shamed of it.
Click to expand...


That 'little piece of ground' being reality. Churches are exempt from PA laws. They always have been. There's no significant move to chance that, nor support for a change to that.

*You don't even disagree with me. *

You simply imagine some indefinite future where you are right. While I acknowledge the present and past where you're wrong. And the stunning lack of evidence to indicate your imagination is worth the pressure you applied to the keyboard in typing it.


----------



## Silhouette

Then you'll be happy to know  PA laws don't apply to forcing Christians to abdicate their faith.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> LOL*......wake me up when any church is EVER forced to marry anyone who it doesn't want to*.
> In 5 years you will have moved onto some other grand Konspiracy that you are infatuated with.


OK, wake up.  Because when the first lawsuit against a Christian was successfully won, forcing them to abdicate their faith or face fines or going out of business, THAT was the first time a church was successfully forced to participate in a gay wedding.

Churches are nothing more than where individual Christians (the true bulk of the faith which lies within their hearts) merely meet and congregate once or twice a week to check back in from their true mission in life.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL*......wake me up when any church is EVER forced to marry anyone who it doesn't want to*.
> 
> In 5 years you will have moved onto some other grand Konspiracy that you are infatuated with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, wake up.  Because when the first lawsuit against a Christian was successfully won, forcing them to abdicate their faith or face fines or going out of business, THAT was the first time a church was successfully forced to participate in a gay wedding.
> 
> Churches are nothing more than where individual Christians (the true bulk of the faith which lies within their hearts) merely meet and congregate once or twice a week to check back in from their true mission in life.
Click to expand...


A person and a church aren't the same thing. Your first clue would be the tax exempt status for the latter. But not the former. The law doesn't recognize a person as a church. And explicitly exempts churches from PA laws. Making your claims that a person being subject to PA laws means that churches will be mere nonsense.

Once again your entire argument is based on an absurd misunderstanding of the law. A law you are almost wholly  ignorant of.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Then you'll be happy to know  PA laws don't apply to forcing Christians to abdicate their faith.



PA laws don't force anyone to abdicate their faith. But they do fine you if you don't treat your customers fairly and equally.

Your religion is your business and your responsibility. If your faith makes doing a particular job impossible, the responsibility is yours to find a job that your religion will allow.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL*......wake me up when any church is EVER forced to marry anyone who it doesn't want to*.
> In 5 years you will have moved onto some other grand Konspiracy that you are infatuated with.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, wake up. Because when the first lawsuit against a Christian was successfully won, forcing them to abdicate their faith or face fines or going out of business, THAT was the first time a church was successfully forced to participate in a gay wedding.
> 
> Churches are nothing more than where individual Christians (the true bulk of the faith which lies within their hearts) merely meet and congregate once or twice a week to check back in from their true mission in life.
Click to expand...


There hasn't been a single church in this nation that has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Not one. You're legal gibberish doesn't not a church make. Don't believe me? Fine, don't pay your taxes and claim your a church b/c as an individual you're are actually a church. Desperation is all you have left at this point.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> A person and a church aren't the same thing. Your first clue would be the tax exempt status for the latter. But not the former. The law doesn't recognize a person as a church. And explicitly exempts churches from PA laws. Making your claims that a person being subject to PA laws means that churches will be mere nonsense.
> 
> Once again your entire argument is based on an absurd misunderstanding of the law. A law you are almost wholly  ignorant of.


 
"Tax exempt" does not define the religion each man adheres to.  It was an arrangement of convenience only to where Christians congregate.  Much like Elk Lodgers and other charity groups of individual members.  Individual Elkers pay taxes.  The group of them and the place where they merely convene to do charity do not pay taxes.

Nice try.

A church is for legal purposes as to this discussion of 1st Amendment rights, merely a place where individual Christians congregate.  The exercise of religion occurs mainly Monday through Saturday in the heart of each individual Christian.  Sunday is where the car pulls up to the service station to get its oil & tires checked.


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL*......wake me up when any church is EVER forced to marry anyone who it doesn't want to*.
> In 5 years you will have moved onto some other grand Konspiracy that you are infatuated with.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, wake up. Because when the first lawsuit against a Christian was successfully won, forcing them to abdicate their faith or face fines or going out of business, THAT was the first time a church was successfully forced to participate in a gay wedding.
> 
> Churches are nothing more than where individual Christians (the true bulk of the faith which lies within their hearts) merely meet and congregate once or twice a week to check back in from their true mission in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There hasn't been a single church in this nation that has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Not one. You're legal gibberish doesn't not a church make. Don't believe me? Fine, don't pay your taxes and claim your a church b/c as an individual you're are actually a church. Desperation is all you have left at this point.
Click to expand...


Don't expect the complete and utter failure of their panty shitting hysterics in describing the world or predicting anything to dissuade them of more of the same. You're dealing with people in the midst of an emotional tantrum. Where they are arguing what they feel rather than what the evidence actually indicates. 

Some, like Silo, are constructing elaborate lies to tell themselves in an attempt to sooth the cognitive dissonance that has arisen from the conflict between beliefs and reality. Most will settle more rationally into tacit acceptance of what they now oppose as the chicken little fears aren't justified by future outcomes. Or simply shuffle off this mortal coil and minutely bump support for gay marriage in the process.

The 5 stages of grief or the cold attrition of time....either works.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person and a church aren't the same thing. Your first clue would be the tax exempt status for the latter. But not the former. The law doesn't recognize a person as a church. And explicitly exempts churches from PA laws. Making your claims that a person being subject to PA laws means that churches will be mere nonsense.
> 
> Once again your entire argument is based on an absurd misunderstanding of the law. A law you are almost wholly  ignorant of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Tax exempt" does not define the religion each man adheres to.  It was an arrangement of convenience only to where Christians congregate.
Click to expand...


Its one of many examples of how the law recognizes that a person and a church are different. You insist they are the same. The law contradicts you. And since the application of PA laws are by definition a legal matter, the definitions recognized by law are relevant.

And the definitions that you've made up are pseudo-legal gibberish. 

A person is not a church under the law. Any argument you offer that insists that they are is irrelevant to any discuss of the law.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Don't expect the complete and utter failure of their panty shitting hysterics in describing the world or predicting anything to dissuade them of more of the same. You're dealing with people in the midst of an emotional tantrum. Where they are arguing what they feel rather than what the evidence actually indicates..


 
You don't have to self-describe Skylar.  We are perfectly aware of how you tick.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect the complete and utter failure of their panty shitting hysterics in describing the world or predicting anything to dissuade them of more of the same. You're dealing with people in the midst of an emotional tantrum. Where they are arguing what they feel rather than what the evidence actually indicates..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to self-describe Skylar.  We are perfectly aware of how you tick.
Click to expand...


PA laws don't apply to churches. My argument is that PA laws don't apply to churches.

Reality and my argument are golden.


----------



## Silhouette

Your arguments are flat.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Don't expect the complete and utter failure of their panty shitting hysterics in describing the world or predicting anything to dissuade them of more of the same. You're dealing with people in the midst of an emotional tantrum. Where they are arguing what they feel rather than what the evidence actually indicates..





Silhouette said:


> You don't have to self-describe Skylar. We are perfectly aware of how you tick.





Skylar said:


> PA laws don't apply to churches. My argument is that PA laws don't apply to churches.
> Reality and my argument are golden.


So then PA laws don't apply to Christians, because churches are nothing more than a stopping place for individual Christians who practice their faith every day, Monday through Sunday.
You know you are slipping fast on this argument Skylar. Give it up before you look like a fool.

Everyone knows the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to cement, nails, wood and linen. It applies to people, individuals.

It was a good fight you put up...handshake?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect the complete and utter failure of their panty shitting hysterics in describing the world or predicting anything to dissuade them of more of the same. You're dealing with people in the midst of an emotional tantrum. Where they are arguing what they feel rather than what the evidence actually indicates..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to self-describe Skylar. We are perfectly aware of how you tick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> PA laws don't apply to churches. My argument is that PA laws don't apply to churches.
> Reality and my argument are golden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then PA laws don't apply to Christians, because churches are nothing more than a stopping place for individual Christians who practice their faith every day, Monday through Sunday.
Click to expand...


PA Laws don't apply to churches because churches are explicitly exempted from PA laws. And the law recognizes that a person and a church are different entities. 

That's my argument. 

And you have yet to even disagree with me.....because we  both know I'm right.


----------



## Silhouette

Is a church a congregation if individual Christians?  Or did the founding fathers have in mind that wood, cement, nails and linen be given special protections?  Which do you think the Court will decide when this comes to them again and again and again until they spell it out for you in bold italics, underlined?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL*......wake me up when any church is EVER forced to marry anyone who it doesn't want to*.
> In 5 years you will have moved onto some other grand Konspiracy that you are infatuated with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are nothing more than where individual Christians (the true bulk of the faith which lies within their hearts) merely meet and congregate once or twice a week to check back in from their true mission in life.
Click to expand...


And Churches are exempt from laws that individual worshipers are not.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Is a church a congregation if individual Christians?



A church is a church.

A Congregation is a congregation.

And individuals are individuals- and individuals are subject to laws on individuals- individuals have to pay taxes- EVEN if they are Christian- and individuals who own business's have to comply with PA laws- even if they are Christian.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Is a church a congregation if individual Christians?  Or did the founding fathers have in mind that wood, cement, nails and linen be given special protections?  Which do you think the Court will decide when this comes to them again and again and again until they spell it out for you in bold italics, underlined?



Same problem as last time: your entire argument is predicated on the idea that a church is the same thing as a person under the law.

It isn't. Any argument you make on that debunked premise is already dead.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is a church a congregation if individual Christians?  Or did the founding fathers have in mind that wood, cement, nails and linen be given special protections?  Which do you think the Court will decide when this comes to them again and again and again until they spell it out for you in bold italics, underlined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same problem as last time: your entire argument is predicated on the idea that a church is the same thing as a person under the law.
> 
> It isn't. Any argument you make on that debunked premise is already dead.
Click to expand...

A church isn't what's protected.  Neither does the Elk's Club claim Constitutional protection.  they just both happen to get nice tax breaks for being charity organizations of individuals.  Mortar, cement, wood, nails and linens are not protected under the Constitution.  Only people are.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is a church a congregation if individual Christians?  Or did the founding fathers have in mind that wood, cement, nails and linen be given special protections?  Which do you think the Court will decide when this comes to them again and again and again until they spell it out for you in bold italics, underlined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same problem as last time: your entire argument is predicated on the idea that a church is the same thing as a person under the law.
> 
> It isn't. Any argument you make on that debunked premise is already dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A church isn't what's protected.
Click to expand...


A church is what is specifically exempted from PA laws. Look them up. They have explicit, articulated exemptions.....using words. Its actually written down. 

You're still proffering an argument that doesn't recognize the legal distinction in the law and in PA laws between a church and a person. The law and PA laws recognize both. 

Thus, your argument is irrelevant to any discussion of laws or PA laws.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> Your arguments are flat.



Skylar lacks the means to reason objectively... thus, truth is foreign to her.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments are flat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar lacks the means to reason objectively... thus, truth is foreign to her.
Click to expand...


Says you. And every time I challenge your 'objective reasoning', it collapses just before you run. 

Yawning....run.


----------



## Wry Catcher

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



No, but with this caveat, those who choose to discriminate need to have their non profit status revoked.  

The price of having discriminatory principles in a society which respects cultural pluralism can be high.  Since religious organizations accept the tax free services of firefighters, EMT's and Police Officers, each of whom likely has in its corp gay or lesbian employees, and many who use contraceptives, it is hypocritical to claim a faith based objection.


----------



## beagle9

Wry Catcher said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but with this caveat, those who choose to discriminate need to have their non profit status revoked.
> 
> The price of having discriminatory principles in a society which respects cultural pluralism can be high.  Since religious organizations accept the tax free services of firefighters, EMT's and Police Officers, each of whom likely has in its corp gay or lesbian employees, and many who use contraceptives, it is hypocritical to claim a faith based objection.
Click to expand...

Now wait a minute here, the gays are the ones making their moves against the Christians in this nation, so how do you speak as if all of a sudden Christians are being bad towards gay people when their not? Christians just want to keep their faith and beliefs intact, but the gays are having none of that anymore. 

Funny how this gayism is new in this nation, but the Christians who have been here forever now, are all of a sudden an enemy now in the nation, and this because a new group says so?


----------



## Wry Catcher

beagle9 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but with this caveat, those who choose to discriminate need to have their non profit status revoked.
> 
> The price of having discriminatory principles in a society which respects cultural pluralism can be high.  Since religious organizations accept the tax free services of firefighters, EMT's and Police Officers, each of whom likely has in its corp gay or lesbian employees, and many who use contraceptives, it is hypocritical to claim a faith based objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now wait a minute here, the gays are the ones making their moves against the Christians in this nation, so how do you speak as if all of a sudden Christians are being bad towards gay people when their not? Christians just want to keep their faith and beliefs intact, but the gays are having none of that anymore.
> 
> Funny how this gayism is new in this nation, but the Christians who have been here forever now, are all of a sudden an enemy now in the nation, and this because a new group says so?
Click to expand...


A church or a religious sect may keep their faith and belief intact, the issue is quite simple.  If they value their principles, that's fine, but if they allow gay or lesbians to perform their duties, then they ought to pay for the service as do all secular citizens and businesses when they pay their taxes.


----------



## Silhouette

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?


 


Wry Catcher said:


> No, but with this caveat, those who choose to discriminate need to have their non profit status revoked.
> 
> The price of having discriminatory principles in a society which respects cultural pluralism can be high.  Since religious organizations accept the tax free services of firefighters, EMT's and Police Officers, each of whom likely has in its corp gay or lesbian employees, and many who use contraceptives, it is hypocritical to claim a faith based objection.


 
Yes, because butt sex is more important that encouraging religious charity to the public; made possible by tax-exempt status.

I think the US Supreme Court will get it right on this one.  I think they'll weigh the public good and make a decision..

Behaviors don't have rights.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but with this caveat, those who choose to discriminate need to have their non profit status revoked.
> 
> The price of having discriminatory principles in a society which respects cultural pluralism can be high.  Since religious organizations accept the tax free services of firefighters, EMT's and Police Officers, each of whom likely has in its corp gay or lesbian employees, and many who use contraceptives, it is hypocritical to claim a faith based objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because butt sex is more important that encouraging religious charity to the public; made possible by tax-exempt status.
> 
> I think the US Supreme Court will get it right on this one.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but you thought the US Supreme Court was going to overturn gay marriage with their temporary stay for Utah. Your ability to read the Court's intent or predict its action is quite awful. As you keep projecting what you want onto the court. Rather than taking notice of what the evidence suggests. 

I'd say its highly unlikely that the courts are going to kick down all anti-discrimination law by giving a broad religious exemption for any form of discrimination.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but with this caveat, those who choose to discriminate need to have their non profit status revoked.
> 
> The price of having discriminatory principles in a society which respects cultural pluralism can be high.  Since religious organizations accept the tax free services of firefighters, EMT's and Police Officers, each of whom likely has in its corp gay or lesbian employees, and many who use contraceptives, it is hypocritical to claim a faith based objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because butt sex is more important that encouraging religious charity to the public; made possible by tax-exempt status.
> 
> I think the US Supreme Court will get it right on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you thought the US Supreme Court was going to overturn gay marriage with their temporary stay for Utah. Your ability to read the Court's intent or predict its action is quite awful. As you keep projecting what you want onto the court. Rather than taking notice of what the evidence suggests.
> 
> I'd say its highly unlikely that the courts are going to kick down all anti-discrimination law by giving a broad religious exemption for any form of discrimination.
Click to expand...

No one wants to have a broad exemption for all forms of discrimination, and that is just what you try and say it is when it is absolutely not and you know it... All the Christians want is to *not *have to be involved with the sin of homosexuality, nor to support the sin of homosexuality by their actions in doing so. The issue is between the Christians having the right to *not be involved* in something they see as very Sinful, and it is not about blacks or any other desperate attempt by the left to say it is or to add that to it in order to just continually distract with.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but with this caveat, those who choose to discriminate need to have their non profit status revoked.
> 
> The price of having discriminatory principles in a society which respects cultural pluralism can be high.  Since religious organizations accept the tax free services of firefighters, EMT's and Police Officers, each of whom likely has in its corp gay or lesbian employees, and many who use contraceptives, it is hypocritical to claim a faith based objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now wait a minute here, the gays are the ones making their moves against the Christians in this nation, so how do you speak as if all of a sudden Christians are being bad towards gay people when their not? Christians just want to keep their faith and beliefs intact, but the gays are having none of that anymore.
Click to expand...


Christians have actively passed laws to prevent gays from marrying. Every single 'anti-gay' marriage law that passed in the last 20 years was passed with the active support of Christian groups and Churches. 

Christians haven't just wanted to 'keep their faith and beliefs' intact- before any 'homosexuals' sued any Christians for breaking the laws, Christians were busy discriminating against homosexuals. 

Only now- when Christians discover that the law applies to them also do they suddenly cry 'discrimination'.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but with this caveat, those who choose to discriminate need to have their non profit status revoked.
> 
> The price of having discriminatory principles in a society which respects cultural pluralism can be high.  Since religious organizations accept the tax free services of firefighters, EMT's and Police Officers, each of whom likely has in its corp gay or lesbian employees, and many who use contraceptives, it is hypocritical to claim a faith based objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because butt sex is more important that encouraging religious charity to the public; made possible by tax-exempt status.
> 
> I think the US Supreme Court will get it right on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you thought the US Supreme Court was going to overturn gay marriage with their temporary stay for Utah. Your ability to read the Court's intent or predict its action is quite awful. As you keep projecting what you want onto the court. Rather than taking notice of what the evidence suggests.
> 
> I'd say its highly unlikely that the courts are going to kick down all anti-discrimination law by giving a broad religious exemption for any form of discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one wants to have a broad exemption for all forms of discrimination, and that is just what you try and say it is when it is absolutely not and you know it... All the Christians want is to *not *have to be involved with the sin of homosexuality, nor to support the sin of homosexuality by their actions in doing so. The issue is between the Christians having the right to *not be involved* in something they see as very Sinful, and it is not about blacks or any other desperate attempt by the left to say it is or to add that to it in order to just continually distract with.
Click to expand...


Christians just want exemptions from PA laws so that can discriminate against homosexuals. But they promise they only want to be able to discriminate against homosexuals......

What could be wrong with that?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but with this caveat, those who choose to discriminate need to have their non profit status revoked.
> 
> The price of having discriminatory principles in a society which respects cultural pluralism can be high.  Since religious organizations accept the tax free services of firefighters, EMT's and Police Officers, each of whom likely has in its corp gay or lesbian employees, and many who use contraceptives, it is hypocritical to claim a faith based objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the US Supreme Court will get it right on this one.  I think they'll weigh the public good and make a decision...
Click to expand...


Oh I think that the Supreme Court will get it right- and you will are going to be screaming 'dictators in black!"


----------



## Wry Catcher

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but with this caveat, those who choose to discriminate need to have their non profit status revoked.
> 
> The price of having discriminatory principles in a society which respects cultural pluralism can be high.  Since religious organizations accept the tax free services of firefighters, EMT's and Police Officers, each of whom likely has in its corp gay or lesbian employees, and many who use contraceptives, it is hypocritical to claim a faith based objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because butt sex is more important that encouraging religious charity to the public; made possible by tax-exempt status.
> 
> I think the US Supreme Court will get it right on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you thought the US Supreme Court was going to overturn gay marriage with their temporary stay for Utah. Your ability to read the Court's intent or predict its action is quite awful. As you keep projecting what you want onto the court. Rather than taking notice of what the evidence suggests.
> 
> I'd say its highly unlikely that the courts are going to kick down all anti-discrimination law by giving a broad religious exemption for any form of discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one wants to have a broad exemption for all forms of discrimination, and that is just what you try and say it is when it is absolutely not and you know it... All the Christians want is to *not *have to be involved with the sin of homosexuality, nor to support the sin of homosexuality by their actions in doing so. The issue is between the Christians having the right to *not be involved* in something they see as very Sinful, and it is not about blacks or any other desperate attempt by the left to say it is or to add that to it in order to just continually distract with.
Click to expand...


Interesting that you claim homosexuality is a sin, and yet claim Christians see it as "very sinful".  Who determines what is and what is not a sin?  Is it up to the individual Christian or Muslim or Jew or etc.?  Or is there a natural law, and if so, are animals who engage in same sex behavior sinners?

If you claim God Himself has expressed homosexuality is a sin, in what manner did He make such a proclamation?  

But even if God did have an 11th Commandment (thou shall not ......!) did he believe in organized religious institutions (could they be a form of idolatry?)? 

So explain to me why homosexuality is a sin, when the evidence suggests such behavior exists throughout the animal kingdom?

See:

Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality Yale Scientific Magazine

homosexual behavior in animals - Google Scholar


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but with this caveat, those who choose to discriminate need to have their non profit status revoked.
> 
> The price of having discriminatory principles in a society which respects cultural pluralism can be high.  Since religious organizations accept the tax free services of firefighters, EMT's and Police Officers, each of whom likely has in its corp gay or lesbian employees, and many who use contraceptives, it is hypocritical to claim a faith based objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because butt sex is more important that encouraging religious charity to the public; made possible by tax-exempt status.
> 
> I think the US Supreme Court will get it right on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you thought the US Supreme Court was going to overturn gay marriage with their temporary stay for Utah. Your ability to read the Court's intent or predict its action is quite awful. As you keep projecting what you want onto the court. Rather than taking notice of what the evidence suggests.
> 
> I'd say its highly unlikely that the courts are going to kick down all anti-discrimination law by giving a broad religious exemption for any form of discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one wants to have a broad exemption for all forms of discrimination, and that is just what you try and say it is when it is absolutely not and you know it... All the Christians want is to *not *have to be involved with the sin of homosexuality, nor to support the sin of homosexuality by their actions in doing so.
Click to expand...


You seem confused. A baker making a cake doesn't have to suck a dick. Or engage in sodomy. Or have any same sex intercourse at all.
*
They merely make cake. *

All the other 'implications' are your imagination. And its that imagination, where a Christian can discriminate based on nothing more than their _perception of belief_, that is the very wholesale  dismantling of all discrimination law that you say you're not looking for. But actively call for.....with the applicability of law being based solely on any given Christian's perception of their own faith.

*Nope. We're not doing that. *

If a Christian's faith makes their profession impossible, find a new profession. As your faith is yours.* And its your responsibility to find a job that matches your faith. *Not our job to change our laws to match your religion.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but with this caveat, those who choose to discriminate need to have their non profit status revoked.
> 
> The price of having discriminatory principles in a society which respects cultural pluralism can be high.  Since religious organizations accept the tax free services of firefighters, EMT's and Police Officers, each of whom likely has in its corp gay or lesbian employees, and many who use contraceptives, it is hypocritical to claim a faith based objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because butt sex is more important that encouraging religious charity to the public; made possible by tax-exempt status.
> 
> I think the US Supreme Court will get it right on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you thought the US Supreme Court was going to overturn gay marriage with their temporary stay for Utah. Your ability to read the Court's intent or predict its action is quite awful. As you keep projecting what you want onto the court. Rather than taking notice of what the evidence suggests.
> 
> I'd say its highly unlikely that the courts are going to kick down all anti-discrimination law by giving a broad religious exemption for any form of discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one wants to have a broad exemption for all forms of discrimination, and that is just what you try and say it is when it is absolutely not and you know it... All the Christians want is to *not *have to be involved with the sin of homosexuality, nor to support the sin of homosexuality by their actions in doing so. The issue is between the Christians having the right to *not be involved* in something they see as very Sinful, and it is not about blacks or any other desperate attempt by the left to say it is or to add that to it in order to just continually distract with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians just want exemptions from PA laws so that can discriminate against homosexuals. But they promise they only want to be able to discriminate against homosexuals......
> 
> What could be wrong with that?
Click to expand...


I mean, its not like religion has been used to justify OTHER heinous shit in history. 



> "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
> 
> Judge Leon Bazile ruling against Richard and Mildred Loving



We should just trust them. As they promise not to abuse the sweeping authority to invalidate any law on any religious basis they wish.

Honest.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Wry Catcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but with this caveat, those who choose to discriminate need to have their non profit status revoked.
> 
> The price of having discriminatory principles in a society which respects cultural pluralism can be high.  Since religious organizations accept the tax free services of firefighters, EMT's and Police Officers, each of whom likely has in its corp gay or lesbian employees, and many who use contraceptives, it is hypocritical to claim a faith based objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because butt sex is more important that encouraging religious charity to the public; made possible by tax-exempt status.
> 
> I think the US Supreme Court will get it right on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you thought the US Supreme Court was going to overturn gay marriage with their temporary stay for Utah. Your ability to read the Court's intent or predict its action is quite awful. As you keep projecting what you want onto the court. Rather than taking notice of what the evidence suggests.
> 
> I'd say its highly unlikely that the courts are going to kick down all anti-discrimination law by giving a broad religious exemption for any form of discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one wants to have a broad exemption for all forms of discrimination, and that is just what you try and say it is when it is absolutely not and you know it... All the Christians want is to *not *have to be involved with the sin of homosexuality, nor to support the sin of homosexuality by their actions in doing so. The issue is between the Christians having the right to *not be involved* in something they see as very Sinful, and it is not about blacks or any other desperate attempt by the left to say it is or to add that to it in order to just continually distract with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting that you claim homosexuality is a sin, and yet claim Christians see it as "very sinful".  Who determines what is and what is not a sin?  Is it up to the individual Christian or Muslim or Jew or etc.?  Or is there a natural law, and if so, are animals who engage in same sex behavior sinners?
> 
> If you claim God Himself has expressed homosexuality is a sin, in what manner did He make such a proclamation?
> 
> But even if God did have an 11th Commandment (thou shall not ......!) did he believe in organized religious institutions (could they be a form of idolatry?)?
> 
> So explain to me why homosexuality is a sin, when the evidence suggests such behavior exists throughout the animal kingdom?
> 
> See:
> 
> Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality Yale Scientific Magazine
> 
> homosexual behavior in animals - Google Scholar
Click to expand...

From what I believe, any sin is a sin, from a lie about Santa Clause to homosexual acts, to adultery, and even murder, I believe God sees them all as the same.

It is debatable, to whether homosexuality, by itself, is a sin, for The Bible does say effeminate men, but It does specifically say, im paraphrasing, homosexual acts are a sin.

And God gave man dominion over the animals, comparing how a human being acts to an animal is really grasping at straws, because dogs will eat their own feces on a regular basis, and they will eat each other, does this make it right for a human to eat other humans?


----------



## beagle9

Wry Catcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but with this caveat, those who choose to discriminate need to have their non profit status revoked.
> 
> The price of having discriminatory principles in a society which respects cultural pluralism can be high.  Since religious organizations accept the tax free services of firefighters, EMT's and Police Officers, each of whom likely has in its corp gay or lesbian employees, and many who use contraceptives, it is hypocritical to claim a faith based objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because butt sex is more important that encouraging religious charity to the public; made possible by tax-exempt status.
> 
> I think the US Supreme Court will get it right on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you thought the US Supreme Court was going to overturn gay marriage with their temporary stay for Utah. Your ability to read the Court's intent or predict its action is quite awful. As you keep projecting what you want onto the court. Rather than taking notice of what the evidence suggests.
> 
> I'd say its highly unlikely that the courts are going to kick down all anti-discrimination law by giving a broad religious exemption for any form of discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one wants to have a broad exemption for all forms of discrimination, and that is just what you try and say it is when it is absolutely not and you know it... All the Christians want is to *not *have to be involved with the sin of homosexuality, nor to support the sin of homosexuality by their actions in doing so. The issue is between the Christians having the right to *not be involved* in something they see as very Sinful, and it is not about blacks or any other desperate attempt by the left to say it is or to add that to it in order to just continually distract with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting that you claim homosexuality is a sin, and yet claim Christians see it as "very sinful".  Who determines what is and what is not a sin?  Is it up to the individual Christian or Muslim or Jew or etc.?  Or is there a natural law, and if so, are animals who engage in same sex behavior sinners?
> 
> If you claim God Himself has expressed homosexuality is a sin, in what manner did He make such a proclamation?
> 
> But even if God did have an 11th Commandment (thou shall not ......!) did he believe in organized religious institutions (could they be a form of idolatry?)?
> 
> So explain to me why homosexuality is a sin, when the evidence suggests such behavior exists throughout the animal kingdom?
> 
> See:
> 
> Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality Yale Scientific Magazine
> 
> homosexual behavior in animals - Google Scholar
Click to expand...

Are you an animal ? If not then act like a human being and quit comparing your life as a human to an animal or is this what homosexuality does to human beings ?


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> If a Christian's faith makes their profession impossible, find a new profession. As your faith is yours.* And its your responsibility to find a job that matches your faith. *Not our job to change our laws to match your religion.


 
Nope, it's your job to shop around and find someone who is cool with depicting two men on a cake "getting married".  Not for a pork eater to sue a kosher deli to serve him pork.  Actually it's not a fair comparison.  A jew serving pork is a venial sin.  Enabling the homosexual culture to take over and redact the word "marriage" is a mortal sin that carries eternity in the pit of fire as the punishment.

No secular law can require a Christian to do that.  Think Hobby Lobby.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a Christian's faith makes their profession impossible, find a new profession. As your faith is yours.* And its your responsibility to find a job that matches your faith. *Not our job to change our laws to match your religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's your job to shop around and find someone who is cool with depicting two men on a cake "getting married". Not for a pork eater to sue a kosher deli to serve him pork.
Click to expand...


Nope. A cake baker bakes cake. And sells it to customers. A Kosher deli doesn't carry pork. And doesn't sell it to anyone. 

Killing your false analogy. As no one is asking a cake baker to do anything beyond the services they advertise: baking cakes.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a Christian's faith makes their profession impossible, find a new profession. As your faith is yours.* And its your responsibility to find a job that matches your faith. *Not our job to change our laws to match your religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's your job to shop around and find someone who is cool with depicting two men on a cake "getting married". Not for a pork eater to sue a kosher deli to serve him pork.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. A cake baker bakes cake. And sells it to customers. A Kosher deli doesn't carry pork. And doesn't sell it to anyone.
> 
> Killing your false analogy. As no one is asking a cake baker to do anything beyond the services they advertise: baking cakes.
Click to expand...

 They are if they ask them to put two groomsmen on the cake holding hands with a wedding arbor over them  and a "bless Adam and Steve's wedding" icing on it. 

I say a blank cake fine, as long as the person ordering it doesn't mention that it's for a gay wedding.  If they say that, the Christian baker has a right to refuse even then.  It's a matter of faith and scripture.  They simply CANNOT do such a thing and remain a Christian.  It is a de facto forced abdication of their faith at one of its most cherished cores: marriage and family....and by extension...society (Jude 1)


----------



## Wry Catcher

beagle9 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but with this caveat, those who choose to discriminate need to have their non profit status revoked.
> 
> The price of having discriminatory principles in a society which respects cultural pluralism can be high.  Since religious organizations accept the tax free services of firefighters, EMT's and Police Officers, each of whom likely has in its corp gay or lesbian employees, and many who use contraceptives, it is hypocritical to claim a faith based objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because butt sex is more important that encouraging religious charity to the public; made possible by tax-exempt status.
> 
> I think the US Supreme Court will get it right on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you thought the US Supreme Court was going to overturn gay marriage with their temporary stay for Utah. Your ability to read the Court's intent or predict its action is quite awful. As you keep projecting what you want onto the court. Rather than taking notice of what the evidence suggests.
> 
> I'd say its highly unlikely that the courts are going to kick down all anti-discrimination law by giving a broad religious exemption for any form of discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one wants to have a broad exemption for all forms of discrimination, and that is just what you try and say it is when it is absolutely not and you know it... All the Christians want is to *not *have to be involved with the sin of homosexuality, nor to support the sin of homosexuality by their actions in doing so. The issue is between the Christians having the right to *not be involved* in something they see as very Sinful, and it is not about blacks or any other desperate attempt by the left to say it is or to add that to it in order to just continually distract with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting that you claim homosexuality is a sin, and yet claim Christians see it as "very sinful".  Who determines what is and what is not a sin?  Is it up to the individual Christian or Muslim or Jew or etc.?  Or is there a natural law, and if so, are animals who engage in same sex behavior sinners?
> 
> If you claim God Himself has expressed homosexuality is a sin, in what manner did He make such a proclamation?
> 
> But even if God did have an 11th Commandment (thou shall not ......!) did he believe in organized religious institutions (could they be a form of idolatry?)?
> 
> So explain to me why homosexuality is a sin, when the evidence suggests such behavior exists throughout the animal kingdom?
> 
> See:
> 
> Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality Yale Scientific Magazine
> 
> homosexual behavior in animals - Google Scholar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you an animal ? If not then act like a human being and quit comparing your life as a human to an animal or is this what homosexuality does to human beings ?
Click to expand...


I'm am an animal, though I've never ever offered my life as anything other than an intelligent, educated, human being.  Do you have any intelligent and non biased questions to ask?  Or are you as stupid as your posts suggest?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a Christian's faith makes their profession impossible, find a new profession. As your faith is yours.* And its your responsibility to find a job that matches your faith. *Not our job to change our laws to match your religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's your job to shop around and find someone who is cool with depicting two men on a cake "getting married". Not for a pork eater to sue a kosher deli to serve him pork.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. A cake baker bakes cake. And sells it to customers. A Kosher deli doesn't carry pork. And doesn't sell it to anyone.
> 
> Killing your false analogy. As no one is asking a cake baker to do anything beyond the services they advertise: baking cakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are if they ask them to put two groomsmen on the cake holding hands with a wedding arbor over them  and a "bless Adam and Steve's wedding" icing on it.
Click to expand...


Given that the baker refused to bake any cake, the icing is irrelevant*. Cake bakers bake cakes.* Ordering a cake from a cake baker isn't unreasonable, extreme, 'cultish' or any of the bizarre words you've awkwardly tried to apply. 

PA laws apply to everyone. Including Christians. They don't get to ignore any law they don't like. 



> They simply CANNOT do such a thing and remain a Christian.  It is a de facto forced abdication of their faith at one of its most cherished cores: marriage and family....and by extension...society (Jude 1)



Jude 1 makes no mention of gay marriage, cakes, or any of the other nonsense you've just made up for it. Nor have you once been able to cite any part of Jude 1 that says what you do.  You're hallucinating.

Second, if your religion makes it impossible for you to do you job...

*....get another job. *Matching your profession to your faith is your responsibility. Not ours.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a Christian's faith makes their profession impossible, find a new profession. As your faith is yours.* And its your responsibility to find a job that matches your faith. *Not our job to change our laws to match your religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's your job to shop around and find someone who is cool with depicting two men on a cake "getting married". Not for a pork eater to sue a kosher deli to serve him pork.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. A cake baker bakes cake. And sells it to customers. A Kosher deli doesn't carry pork. And doesn't sell it to anyone.
> 
> Killing your false analogy. As no one is asking a cake baker to do anything beyond the services they advertise: baking cakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are if they ask them to put two groomsmen on the cake holding hands with a wedding arbor over them  and a "bless Adam and Steve's wedding" icing on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that the baker refused to bake any cake, the icing is irrelevant*. Cake bakers bake cakes.* Ordering a cake from a cake baker isn't unreasonable, extreme, 'cultish' or any of the bizarre words you've awkwardly tried to apply.
> 
> PA laws apply to everyone. Including Christians. They don't get to ignore any law they don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They simply CANNOT do such a thing and remain a Christian.  It is a de facto forced abdication of their faith at one of its most cherished cores: marriage and family....and by extension...society (Jude 1)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jude 1 makes no mention of gay marriage, cakes, or any of the other nonsense you've just made up for it. Nor have you once been able to cite any part of Jude 1 that says what you do.  You're hallucinating.
> 
> Second, if your religion makes it impossible for you to do you job...
> 
> *....get another job. *Matching your profession to your faith is your responsibility. Not ours.
Click to expand...

There's a law that specifically says that Christians have to bake & dress gay wedding cakes for gays now? Is that what PA laws say or mean, and this when people get right down to it ? What were such laws created for again, I mean before the gays adopted them?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a Christian's faith makes their profession impossible, find a new profession. As your faith is yours.* And its your responsibility to find a job that matches your faith. *Not our job to change our laws to match your religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's your job to shop around and find someone who is cool with depicting two men on a cake "getting married". Not for a pork eater to sue a kosher deli to serve him pork.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. A cake baker bakes cake. And sells it to customers. A Kosher deli doesn't carry pork. And doesn't sell it to anyone.
> 
> Killing your false analogy. As no one is asking a cake baker to do anything beyond the services they advertise: baking cakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are if they ask them to put two groomsmen on the cake holding hands with a wedding arbor over them  and a "bless Adam and Steve's wedding" icing on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that the baker refused to bake any cake, the icing is irrelevant*. Cake bakers bake cakes.* Ordering a cake from a cake baker isn't unreasonable, extreme, 'cultish' or any of the bizarre words you've awkwardly tried to apply.
> 
> PA laws apply to everyone. Including Christians. They don't get to ignore any law they don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They simply CANNOT do such a thing and remain a Christian.  It is a de facto forced abdication of their faith at one of its most cherished cores: marriage and family....and by extension...society (Jude 1)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jude 1 makes no mention of gay marriage, cakes, or any of the other nonsense you've just made up for it. Nor have you once been able to cite any part of Jude 1 that says what you do.  You're hallucinating.
> 
> Second, if your religion makes it impossible for you to do you job...
> 
> *....get another job. *Matching your profession to your faith is your responsibility. Not ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a law that specifically says that Christians have to bake & dress gay wedding cakes for gays now? Is that what PA laws say or mean, and this when people get right down to it ? What were such laws created for again, I mean before the gays adopted them?
Click to expand...


There's a law that says you can't discriminate in public business based on sexual orientation. 

If your religious beliefs make this impossible, find a job where your religion is compatible. Your religion is yours. Finding a profession that matches your religious beliefs is your responsibility. Instead, you're passing the buck to the rest of society. It would have been like Steve Young insisting that the Superbowl be played on a Saturday as his religious beliefs forbid him from working on Sunday. 

Um, no.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> There's a law that says you can't discriminate in public business based on sexual orientation.
> 
> If your religious beliefs make this impossible, find a job where your religion is compatible. Your religion is yours. Finding a profession that matches your religious beliefs is your responsibility. Instead, you're passing the buck to the rest of society. It would have been like Steve Young insisting that the Superbowl be played on a Saturday as his religious beliefs forbid him from working on Sunday.
> 
> Um, no.


 
Sexual orientation is about behavior.  If those behaviors conflict with other people's faith, then people can reject them.  You just cannot hurt gay people.  But you do not have to enable their behaviors by participating in the defilement of the word "marriage".  There are kids involved in this.  And when children being deprived of either a mother or a father "as an incentivized institution" becomes "normal", society's future is doomed.  We already have data on children raised without their own gender present in the home:

Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's your job to shop around and find someone who is cool with depicting two men on a cake "getting married". Not for a pork eater to sue a kosher deli to serve him pork.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. A cake baker bakes cake. And sells it to customers. A Kosher deli doesn't carry pork. And doesn't sell it to anyone.
> 
> Killing your false analogy. As no one is asking a cake baker to do anything beyond the services they advertise: baking cakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are if they ask them to put two groomsmen on the cake holding hands with a wedding arbor over them  and a "bless Adam and Steve's wedding" icing on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that the baker refused to bake any cake, the icing is irrelevant*. Cake bakers bake cakes.* Ordering a cake from a cake baker isn't unreasonable, extreme, 'cultish' or any of the bizarre words you've awkwardly tried to apply.
> 
> PA laws apply to everyone. Including Christians. They don't get to ignore any law they don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They simply CANNOT do such a thing and remain a Christian.  It is a de facto forced abdication of their faith at one of its most cherished cores: marriage and family....and by extension...society (Jude 1)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jude 1 makes no mention of gay marriage, cakes, or any of the other nonsense you've just made up for it. Nor have you once been able to cite any part of Jude 1 that says what you do.  You're hallucinating.
> 
> Second, if your religion makes it impossible for you to do you job...
> 
> *....get another job. *Matching your profession to your faith is your responsibility. Not ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a law that specifically says that Christians have to bake & dress gay wedding cakes for gays now? Is that what PA laws say or mean, and this when people get right down to it ? What were such laws created for again, I mean before the gays adopted them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a law that says you can't discriminate in public business based on sexual orientation.
> 
> If your religious beliefs make this impossible, find a job where your religion is compatible. Your religion is yours. Finding a profession that matches your religious beliefs is your responsibility. Instead, you're passing the buck to the rest of society. It would have been like Steve Young insisting that the Superbowl be played on a Saturday as his religious beliefs forbid him from working on Sunday.
> 
> Um, no.
Click to expand...

I agree, Christians should only work for Christians, Muslims for Muslims, Jews for Jews, and homosexuals for homosexuals.

Let a business proclaim what denomination of people they wish to serve, and only those types are able to be served at that business. No non Christian should be allowed to go to a Christian run food pantry(uh, oh, you are gonna starve), and non Christians should not be allowed in a Christian run halfway house, or a Christian run mission. They should reserve those beds for only down on their luck Christians.

Since crab fishermen are predominately Christian, then only Christians should be able to buy crab legs, and any other seafood that is caught in that area. Let the heathen catch their own fish. Since most cattle farmers are Christian, no non Christian shall be able to buy beef. Except from those who proclaim to be non Christian, and no Christian shall be able to buy beef from them.

All Christian truck drivers may only haul to Christian run businesses, and deliver their load. No non Christian business can do any business, in any way with a Christian.

Now, if all this actually took affect, who is going to be paying more for meat, and their products? Well, there are a lot more of us, than there are of you, and I am pretty sure, any business wanting to stay in business, will proclaim to be a Christian business, so you are going to starve. But, you can always go to a Christian run food pantry, oh, no you cant.

But, that's your problem, not ours.

Have a nice day
USA


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> I agree, Christians should only work for Christians, Muslims for Muslims, Jews for Jews, and homosexuals for homosexuals.
> 
> Let a business proclaim what denomination of people they wish to serve, and only those types are able to be served at that business. No non Christian should be allowed to go to a Christian run food pantry(uh, oh, you are gonna starve), and non Christians should not be allowed in a Christian run halfway house, or a Christian run mission. They should reserve those beds for only down on their luck Christians.
> 
> Since crab fishermen are predominately Christian, then only Christians should be able to buy crab legs, and any other seafood that is caught in that area. Let the heathen catch their own fish. Since most cattle farmers are Christian, no non Christian shall be able to buy beef. Except from those who proclaim to be non Christian, and no Christian shall be able to buy beef from them.
> 
> All Christian truck drivers may only haul to Christian run businesses, and deliver their load. No non Christian business can do any business, in any way with a Christian.
> 
> Now, if all this actually took affect, who is going to be paying more for meat, and their products? Well, there are a lot more of us, than there are of you, and I am pretty sure, any business wanting to stay in business, will proclaim to be a Christian business, so you are going to starve. But, you can always go to a Christian run food pantry, oh, no you cant.
> 
> But, that's your problem, not ours.
> 
> Have a nice day
> USA



'Cause that's what Christ would do, right? 

Ya'll make the baby Jesus cry...


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, Christians should only work for Christians, Muslims for Muslims, Jews for Jews, and homosexuals for homosexuals.
> 
> Let a business proclaim what denomination of people they wish to serve, and only those types are able to be served at that business. No non Christian should be allowed to go to a Christian run food pantry(uh, oh, you are gonna starve), and non Christians should not be allowed in a Christian run halfway house, or a Christian run mission. They should reserve those beds for only down on their luck Christians.
> 
> Since crab fishermen are predominately Christian, then only Christians should be able to buy crab legs, and any other seafood that is caught in that area. Let the heathen catch their own fish. Since most cattle farmers are Christian, no non Christian shall be able to buy beef. Except from those who proclaim to be non Christian, and no Christian shall be able to buy beef from them.
> 
> All Christian truck drivers may only haul to Christian run businesses, and deliver their load. No non Christian business can do any business, in any way with a Christian.
> 
> Now, if all this actually took affect, who is going to be paying more for meat, and their products? Well, there are a lot more of us, than there are of you, and I am pretty sure, any business wanting to stay in business, will proclaim to be a Christian business, so you are going to starve. But, you can always go to a Christian run food pantry, oh, no you cant.
> 
> But, that's your problem, not ours.
> 
> Have a nice day
> USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Cause that's what Christ would do, right?
> 
> Ya'll make the baby Jesus cry...
Click to expand...

They baby Jesus grew up.

And Christ does not want us serving homosexual weddings. Try again.


----------



## Silhouette

UllysesS.Archer said:


> They baby Jesus grew up.
> 
> And Christ does not want us serving homosexual weddings. Try again.


Technically, God was the one that destroyed Sodom, not Jesus.  Jude was just telling people not to forget the lesson that Jesus reminded had happened.  And why...

Christians are supposed to be compassionate towards gays in every day life, selling them food, shelter, clothing etc.  They're just forbidden from enabling the group of them trying to take over cultural values within a core of any society.  There's the difference.  And that is because humans learn socially.  If you disrupt the matrix, then not even decent sane souls can thrive, because "monkey see, monkey do" dominates sublime spiritual goals if a child learns depravity in their formative years "as normal"..the souls have ZERO chance....none of them...That's why also in that account of Sodom, it was pointed out that the entire civilization, every man, woman and child had become sexually and morally depraved by rote.  And as such, none of them were salvagable because there was no majority voice at all, not even a whisper that spoke of sanity at that point.

So the slate had to be wiped clean.  Pretty simple logic if you back up into space and look at the world as a petri dish, a place where souls are tested.  If you foul the petri dish to such a point that it is laden with bad bacteria, your good culture, not even one cell of it, has a chance.

Enabling the spread of rogue bateria across the petri dish is not allowed to Christians.


----------



## rdean

If churches are going to discriminate, they should pay taxes.  Period.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, Christians should only work for Christians, Muslims for Muslims, Jews for Jews, and homosexuals for homosexuals.
> 
> Let a business proclaim what denomination of people they wish to serve, and only those types are able to be served at that business. No non Christian should be allowed to go to a Christian run food pantry(uh, oh, you are gonna starve), and non Christians should not be allowed in a Christian run halfway house, or a Christian run mission. They should reserve those beds for only down on their luck Christians.
> 
> Since crab fishermen are predominately Christian, then only Christians should be able to buy crab legs, and any other seafood that is caught in that area. Let the heathen catch their own fish. Since most cattle farmers are Christian, no non Christian shall be able to buy beef. Except from those who proclaim to be non Christian, and no Christian shall be able to buy beef from them.
> 
> All Christian truck drivers may only haul to Christian run businesses, and deliver their load. No non Christian business can do any business, in any way with a Christian.
> 
> Now, if all this actually took affect, who is going to be paying more for meat, and their products? Well, there are a lot more of us, than there are of you, and I am pretty sure, any business wanting to stay in business, will proclaim to be a Christian business, so you are going to starve. But, you can always go to a Christian run food pantry, oh, no you cant.
> 
> But, that's your problem, not ours.
> 
> Have a nice day
> USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Cause that's what Christ would do, right?
> 
> Ya'll make the baby Jesus cry...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They baby Jesus grew up.
> 
> And Christ does not want us serving homosexual weddings. Try again.
Click to expand...


Really? In what passage or verse did Jesus say that? Have you actually read what Jesus said? If so, I can't see how you can imagine the man who turned water into wine would refuse to serve anyone. 

Do you know what is a New Testament sin? Debating religion on a message board. Have fun in hell with the gays and adulterers.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They baby Jesus grew up.
> 
> And Christ does not want us serving homosexual weddings. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians are supposed to be compassionate towards gays in every day life, selling them food, shelter, clothing etc.  They're just forbidden from enabling the group of them trying to take over cultural values within a core of any society.  There's the difference.
Click to expand...


I'm guessing that the difference is that the BIble doesn't say any of that and you're pulling it sidways out of your ass. You do realize that we can actually read Jude 1 and quite easily see that you're making this up as you go along.

Right?


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, Christians should only work for Christians, Muslims for Muslims, Jews for Jews, and homosexuals for homosexuals.
> 
> Let a business proclaim what denomination of people they wish to serve, and only those types are able to be served at that business. No non Christian should be allowed to go to a Christian run food pantry(uh, oh, you are gonna starve), and non Christians should not be allowed in a Christian run halfway house, or a Christian run mission. They should reserve those beds for only down on their luck Christians.
> 
> Since crab fishermen are predominately Christian, then only Christians should be able to buy crab legs, and any other seafood that is caught in that area. Let the heathen catch their own fish. Since most cattle farmers are Christian, no non Christian shall be able to buy beef. Except from those who proclaim to be non Christian, and no Christian shall be able to buy beef from them.
> 
> All Christian truck drivers may only haul to Christian run businesses, and deliver their load. No non Christian business can do any business, in any way with a Christian.
> 
> Now, if all this actually took affect, who is going to be paying more for meat, and their products? Well, there are a lot more of us, than there are of you, and I am pretty sure, any business wanting to stay in business, will proclaim to be a Christian business, so you are going to starve. But, you can always go to a Christian run food pantry, oh, no you cant.
> 
> But, that's your problem, not ours.
> 
> Have a nice day
> USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Cause that's what Christ would do, right?
> 
> Ya'll make the baby Jesus cry...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They baby Jesus grew up.
> 
> And Christ does not want us serving homosexual weddings. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? In what passage or verse did Jesus say that? Have you actually read what Jesus said? If so, I can't see how you can imagine the man who turned water into wine would refuse to serve anyone.
> 
> Do you know what is a New Testament sin? Debating religion on a message board. Have fun in hell with the gays and adulterers.
Click to expand...


You're getting hung up on Biblical Jesus v. Imaginary Silo Jesus. They really don't have much to do with each other. 

Silo Jesus is rabidly anti-gay and has counciled Christians to oppose selling gay wedding cake. Biblical Jesus never even mentions gays.


----------



## Silhouette

rdean said:


> If churches are going to discriminate, they should pay taxes.  Period.


So gay butt sex addiction can force churches into bankruptcy, preventing them from doing the charity work they're famous for?

Nah.  I know which one has legal dominance between the cult of deviant butt sex and the Christian church.  Check the 1st Amendment for details.

Where were we...oh...right...here...



UllysesS.Archer said:


> They baby Jesus grew up.
> And Christ does not want us serving homosexual weddings. Try again.


Technically, God was the one that destroyed Sodom, not Jesus. Jude was just telling people not to forget the lesson that Jesus reminded had happened. And why...

Christians are supposed to be compassionate towards gays in every day life, selling them food, shelter, clothing etc. They're just forbidden from enabling the group of them trying to take over cultural values within a core of any society. There's the difference. And that is because humans learn socially. If you disrupt the matrix, then not even decent sane souls can thrive, because "monkey see, monkey do" dominates sublime spiritual goals if a child learns depravity in their formative years "as normal"..the souls have ZERO chance....none of them...That's why also in that account of Sodom, it was pointed out that the entire civilization, every man, woman and child had become sexually and morally depraved by rote. And as such, none of them were salvagable because there was no majority voice at all, not even a whisper that spoke of sanity at that point.

So the slate had to be wiped clean. Pretty simple logic if you back up into space and look at the world as a petri dish, a place where souls are tested. If you foul the petri dish to such a point that it is laden with bad bacteria, your good culture, not even one cell of it, has a chance.
Enabling the spread of rogue bateria across the petri dish is not allowed to Christians; under threat of eternal damnation...and for good reason as it turns out..


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> I'm guessing that the difference is that the BIble doesn't say any of that and you're pulling it sidways out of your ass. You do realize that we can actually read Jude 1 and quite easily see that you're making this up as you go along.
> 
> Right?


 
And yet while I've quoted Jude 1 verbatim from the Bible on numerous occasions, in its entirety, you have not.  Funny, that.   Jude 1 King James Version Bible.com
The part about the petri dish and "monkey see, monkey do" is what's called a perfect fit for the logic of why God forbade the enabling of homosexual culture to takeover ANY society, not just Sodom.  The stuff in the Bible is based on logic.  It's the logic of sustainable human culture for The Purpose.

That Purpose is the refining of souls and the testing of them for another more permanent life in the realm we don't all quite understand (after death) but have several tens of thousands of accounts that give us a hint at (death/revival reportage).


----------



## beagle9

rdean said:


> If churches are going to discriminate, they should pay taxes.  Period.


Tax breaks weren't given to Churches based on their religion that was taught there, but it was given to them based upon their charitable donations and helpfulness to the down and out in life, and for being there when someone needed a helping hand in life. The religious part is what keeps churches and their congregations compassionate, helpful, giving, and empathetic to sinners, and to the good people whom want to be helped in life also. Not a bad deal at all, but this gay attack on marriage is something very different now, and it has nothing to do with the government and the church's relationship in which goes back hundreds of years now.  

The thought of trying to blackmail the Church & it's Christian congregation with the government in these ways today, well is tragic, and this is all because of a certain people for whom think that they have finally gained control over the government to do it's bidding for them in this way.  Well this should be ridiculous, but look at the post above and it's inferences spoken in this way. This nation needs to look now at these things carefully, and it should see what happens when certain people think that they have gotten control over the government in some areas now, and how they try and use that control over our government to either blackmail others with it or to try and hammer everyone out there who disagrees with them with it.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a law that says you can't discriminate in public business based on sexual orientation.
> 
> If your religious beliefs make this impossible, find a job where your religion is compatible. Your religion is yours. Finding a profession that matches your religious beliefs is your responsibility. Instead, you're passing the buck to the rest of society. It would have been like Steve Young insisting that the Superbowl be played on a Saturday as his religious beliefs forbid him from working on Sunday.
> 
> Um, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual orientation is about behavior.
Click to expand...


No- I am a heterosexual regardless of whether I have sex or not, or do any other 'heterosexual behaviors'.

Sexual orientation is about who someone is attracted to. I am a heterosexual because I am attracted to the opposite gender. 

Nothing to do with behavior.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> If churches are going to discriminate, they should pay taxes.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> Tax breaks weren't given to Churches based on their religion that was taught there, but it was given to them based upon their charitable donations and helpfulness to the down and out in life, and for being there when someone needed a helping hand in life. .
Click to expand...


Says who?

Churches have a long history of being 'tax exempt' in European history and its not all pretty.  

We have chosen to make Churches tax exempt and exempt from PA laws- in part because of the long history of Churches being exempt from taxes and in part because of the First Amendment. 

Churches can and should be able to discriminate- no one can or should tell churches that women must be priests, or that African Americans must be allowed to be full members or that homosexuals must be allowed to marry in the church.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that the difference is that the BIble doesn't say any of that and you're pulling it sidways out of your ass. You do realize that we can actually read Jude 1 and quite easily see that you're making this up as you go along.
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet while I've quoted Jude 1 verbatim from the Bible on numerous occasions, in its entirety, you have not. ).
Click to expand...


Glad to quote Jude 1 again- doesn't mention homosexuality or cake at all.

3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written aboutb]">[b] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lordc]">[c] at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

8 In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. 9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”d]">[d] 10 Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them.

11 Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion.

12 These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. 13 They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”e]">[e] 16 These people are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

*A Call to Persevere*
17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18 They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” 19 These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.

20 But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

22 Be merciful to those who doubt; 23 save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.f]">[f]

*Doxology*
24 To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— 25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

Of course, I prefer Jesus's own words:

Do Not Judge Others

*37*“Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn others, or it will all come back against you. Forgive others, and you will be forgiven. *38*Give, and you will receive. Your gift will return to you in full—pressed down, shaken together to make room for more, running over, and poured into your lap. The amount you give will determine the amount you get back.c”

*39*Then Jesus gave the following illustration: “Can one blind person lead another? Won’t they both fall into a ditch? *40*Studentsd are not greater than their teacher. But the student who is fully trained will become like the teacher.

*41*“And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eyee when you have a log in your own? *42*How can you think of saying, ‘Friend,f let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.


----------



## Katzndogz

There are some Christians that think churches should give up exempt status and regain their freedom of speech.  Churches are prohibited from political speech or endorsing candidates for political office.  Give up tax exempt status and they could do both.


----------



## JFish123

If a Christian is forced to do that by the government then I guess all of these is ok too right? 






The hypocrisy of some people against Christians is astounding





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Syriusly

JFish123 said:


> View attachment 39530
> If a Christian is forced to do that by the government then I guess all of these is ok too right?
> View attachment 39531
> View attachment 39532
> The hypocrisy of some people against Christians is astounding
> View attachment 39533
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Whole lot of Christian victimhood on display.

Why is it so much more difficult for Christian business owners to follow the law than everyone else?


----------



## JFish123

Victimhood is one thing if it were here or there. But all the time? Everywhere in the country? Please...




The only people being sued left and right in America today, in schools, businesses, etc... Are not atheists, not muslims, but Christians. Open season. Look no further then American Atheists or the Freedom from Religion Foundation, who spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to threaten and sue people and businesses just because there honoring there faith. I mean what's next...



It's not that far off. These people hate religion so much that the mere thought of it cause them to get physically I'll, which ironically was in a complaint they filed against the 2 cross beams at the World Trade Center because they looked like a cross. I mean come on man, lol.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 39530
> If a Christian is forced to do that by the government then I guess all of these is ok too right?
> View attachment 39531
> View attachment 39532
> The hypocrisy of some people against Christians is astounding
> View attachment 39533
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whole lot of Christian victimhood on display.
> 
> Why is it so much more difficult for Christian business owners to follow the law than everyone else?
Click to expand...

The law needs revised then, because your perverting it along with your ilk whose number's are few in comparison to all who oppose you.


----------



## beagle9

JFish123 said:


> Victimhood is one thing if it were here or there. But all the time? Everywhere in the country? Please...
> View attachment 39554
> The only people being sued left and right in America today, in schools, businesses, etc... Are not atheists, not muslims, but Christians. Open season. Look no further then American Atheists or the Freedom from Religion Foundation, who spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to threaten and sue people and businesses just because there honoring there faith. I mean what's next...
> View attachment 39556
> It's not that far off. These people hate religion so much that the mere thought of it cause them to get physically I'll, which ironically was in a complaint they filed against the 2 cross beams at the World Trade Center because they looked like a cross. I mean come on man, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Great stuff here, especially the great commentary on that video.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, Christians should only work for Christians, Muslims for Muslims, Jews for Jews, and homosexuals for homosexuals.
> 
> Let a business proclaim what denomination of people they wish to serve, and only those types are able to be served at that business. No non Christian should be allowed to go to a Christian run food pantry(uh, oh, you are gonna starve), and non Christians should not be allowed in a Christian run halfway house, or a Christian run mission. They should reserve those beds for only down on their luck Christians.
> 
> Since crab fishermen are predominately Christian, then only Christians should be able to buy crab legs, and any other seafood that is caught in that area. Let the heathen catch their own fish. Since most cattle farmers are Christian, no non Christian shall be able to buy beef. Except from those who proclaim to be non Christian, and no Christian shall be able to buy beef from them.
> 
> All Christian truck drivers may only haul to Christian run businesses, and deliver their load. No non Christian business can do any business, in any way with a Christian.
> 
> Now, if all this actually took affect, who is going to be paying more for meat, and their products? Well, there are a lot more of us, than there are of you, and I am pretty sure, any business wanting to stay in business, will proclaim to be a Christian business, so you are going to starve. But, you can always go to a Christian run food pantry, oh, no you cant.
> 
> But, that's your problem, not ours.
> 
> Have a nice day
> USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Cause that's what Christ would do, right?
> 
> Ya'll make the baby Jesus cry...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They baby Jesus grew up.
> 
> And Christ does not want us serving homosexual weddings. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? In what passage or verse did Jesus say that? Have you actually read what Jesus said? If so, I can't see how you can imagine the man who turned water into wine would refuse to serve anyone.
> 
> Do you know what is a New Testament sin? Debating religion on a message board. Have fun in hell with the gays and adulterers.
Click to expand...

You thinking, you know what Jesus said, is funny.

You thinking you are God, and getting to judge anyone, is hilarious!


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 39530
> If a Christian is forced to do that by the government then I guess all of these is ok too right?
> View attachment 39531
> View attachment 39532
> The hypocrisy of some people against Christians is astounding
> View attachment 39533
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whole lot of Christian victimhood on display.
> 
> Why is it so much more difficult for Christian business owners to follow the law than everyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law needs revised then, because your perverting it along with your ilk whose number's are few in comparison to all who oppose you.
Click to expand...


Of course you think the law needs to be revised because it protects homosexuals from discrimination in the same way it protects Christians from discrimination.

Because you believe homosexuals should be discriminated against.


----------



## Syriusly




----------



## JFish123

Big government always wants to force things on people. And the video is funny. And no, it nor do I think gay people or the gay movement are nazis it hitlers  that's just silly. But Big Government forcing people to do things against their conscience is. I would never force a gay baker to do ANY cake they don't want if it's against theirs. Don't want to do a biblical cake? Ok, I'll go and spend my money elsewhere no prob. I'll think your wrong but won't force stuff on you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 39530
> If a Christian is forced to do that by the government then I guess all of these is ok too right?
> View attachment 39531
> View attachment 39532
> The hypocrisy of some people against Christians is astounding
> View attachment 39533
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whole lot of Christian victimhood on display.
> 
> Why is it so much more difficult for Christian business owners to follow the law than everyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law needs revised then, because your perverting it along with your ilk whose number's are few in comparison to all who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you think the law needs to be revised because it protects homosexuals from discrimination in the same way it protects Christians from discrimination.
> 
> Because you believe homosexuals should be discriminated against.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's because you think the laws mean that homosexuals can force Christians into supporting their sinfulness, and you think that it should also force the Christians to participate in the homosexual world in which the homosexuals are trying hard to force them now into partaking in that world with them.. They want the Christians to promote them or be shut down and/or run out of town on a rail like the days of the Nazi's. What are you all going to do next, put the rainbow colors on the windows of those businesses that won't partake in the homosexuals worldly activities, and this as a marking of some kind otherwise in hopes to drive people away from those businesses ?  What you all going to attempt to do next, maybe try and place a rainbow colored star on the shirts of heterosexuals who won't go along, and this in hopes to ostracize them, and/or to condemn those that just won't cave ?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 39530
> If a Christian is forced to do that by the government then I guess all of these is ok too right?
> View attachment 39531
> View attachment 39532
> The hypocrisy of some people against Christians is astounding
> View attachment 39533
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whole lot of Christian victimhood on display.
> 
> Why is it so much more difficult for Christian business owners to follow the law than everyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law needs revised then, because your perverting it along with your ilk whose number's are few in comparison to all who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you think the law needs to be revised because it protects homosexuals from discrimination in the same way it protects Christians from discrimination.
> 
> Because you believe homosexuals should be discriminated against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because you think the laws mean that homosexuals can force Christians into supporting their sinfulness,?
Click to expand...


'force Christians as in......requiring Christians to follow the same laws as everyone else.......


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> 'force Christians as in......requiring Christians to follow the same laws as everyone else.......


 
Yes, they follow the 1st Amendment just fine.  That's the law.  And it's dominant BTW to any little po-dunk "law" in your small town that the lavender mafia has rammed through in violation of THE Law.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that the difference is that the BIble doesn't say any of that and you're pulling it sidways out of your ass. You do realize that we can actually read Jude 1 and quite easily see that you're making this up as you go along.
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet while I've quoted Jude 1 verbatim from the Bible on numerous occasions, in its entirety, you have not.
Click to expand...


You've never quoted Jude 1* saying what you claimed it did. *It never so much as mentions gay marriage, cake, selling things to gays, culture, or any of what you've said.

You've quite literally hallucinated all of it. Your hallucinations are irrelevant to our laws

And should be.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'force Christians as in......requiring Christians to follow the same laws as everyone else.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they follow the 1st Amendment just fine.  That's the law.  And it's dominant BTW to any little po-dunk "law" in your small town that the lavender mafia has rammed through in violation of THE Law.
Click to expand...


Your religion is your business. If your faith makes it impossible for you to do a particular job, get another job. But demanding society to change to match your religious beliefs would be as foolish as Steve Young having demanded that the Superbowl be on Saturday since it was against his religion to work on Sunday.

That's Steve's business. Not ours.


----------



## mdk

It doesn't seem any churches were forced to marry any gays over the weekend. All this hysterics...for nothing.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, Christians should only work for Christians, Muslims for Muslims, Jews for Jews, and homosexuals for homosexuals.
> 
> Let a business proclaim what denomination of people they wish to serve, and only those types are able to be served at that business. No non Christian should be allowed to go to a Christian run food pantry(uh, oh, you are gonna starve), and non Christians should not be allowed in a Christian run halfway house, or a Christian run mission. They should reserve those beds for only down on their luck Christians.
> 
> Since crab fishermen are predominately Christian, then only Christians should be able to buy crab legs, and any other seafood that is caught in that area. Let the heathen catch their own fish. Since most cattle farmers are Christian, no non Christian shall be able to buy beef. Except from those who proclaim to be non Christian, and no Christian shall be able to buy beef from them.
> 
> All Christian truck drivers may only haul to Christian run businesses, and deliver their load. No non Christian business can do any business, in any way with a Christian.
> 
> Now, if all this actually took affect, who is going to be paying more for meat, and their products? Well, there are a lot more of us, than there are of you, and I am pretty sure, any business wanting to stay in business, will proclaim to be a Christian business, so you are going to starve. But, you can always go to a Christian run food pantry, oh, no you cant.
> 
> But, that's your problem, not ours.
> 
> Have a nice day
> USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Cause that's what Christ would do, right?
> 
> Ya'll make the baby Jesus cry...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They baby Jesus grew up.
> 
> And Christ does not want us serving homosexual weddings. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? In what passage or verse did Jesus say that? Have you actually read what Jesus said? If so, I can't see how you can imagine the man who turned water into wine would refuse to serve anyone.
> 
> Do you know what is a New Testament sin? Debating religion on a message board. Have fun in hell with the gays and adulterers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You thinking, you know what Jesus said, is funny.
> 
> You thinking you are God, and getting to judge anyone, is hilarious!
Click to expand...


You don't see any irony in your post at all? 

I'm pointing out what actually IS in the bible. New Testament and everything. Debating is a sin in the bible. Nothing in there about baking, sinner.


----------



## Skylar

See, on this specific issue I'm inclined to give folks a pass. I've had some long, detailed conversations on the issue with very principled Christian friends of mine. 'New Testament' Christians as I like to call them, whose focus is on loving God and loving their neighbor.

And I'm inclined to accept that their aversion to selling wedding goods for a gay wedding isn't motivated by homophobia or any animus toward gays. But by a genuine, abiding belief that selling these goods would constitute an offense to God. I've got no real problem with small scale, principled positions based on genuine faith. Especially when the practical effects are negligible.

My issue is with religion being used as a screen for homophobia. Sil for example isn't Christian. He just can't stand gays. And uses religion as justification for treating them like shit. And that concerns me. As given an open door where religion can be used to punish gays, people like Sil would take the loaf you offer and demand 10 more. As we've seen with Judge Bazile and his use of God to justify interracial marriage bans.

Sigh....but alas, that may be a tad too close to a slippery slope fallacy. True it has vast historical precedent. But it was during an era when religion held much more more secular power than it does now. So the effects may be much less pronounced today. Its hard to say.

On the issue that is, I'm inclined to accept genuine faith and religious belief as a basis for not providing wedding specific goods, and those alone.  As the practical effect is so minor, amounting to a few dozen instances in the entire country. While orders and orders and orders of magnitude more folks will eagerly market to gays.

Those who have principled, heart felt moral positions on the matter are worth allowing folks like Keyes and Sil using their the smoke screen of faith to justify hate.


----------



## Seawytch

Skylar said:


> See, on this specific issue I'm inclined to give folks a pass. I've had some long, detailed conversations on the issue with very principled Christian friends of mine. 'New Testament' Christians as I like to call them, whose focus is on loving God and loving their neighbor.
> 
> And I'm inclined to accept that their aversion to selling wedding goods for a gay wedding isn't motivated by homophobia or any animus toward gays. But by a genuine, abiding belief that selling these goods would constitute an offense to God. I've got no real problem with small scale, principled positions based on genuine faith. Especially when the practical effects are negligible.
> 
> My issue is with religion being used as a screen for homophobia. Sil for example isn't Christian. He just can't stand gays. And uses religion as justification for treating them like shit. And that concerns me. As given an open door where religion can be used to punish gays, people like Sil would take the loaf you offer and demand 10 more. As we've seen with Judge Bazile and his use of God to justify interracial marriage bans.
> 
> Sigh....but alas, that may be a tad too close to a slippery slope fallacy. True it has vast historical precedent. But it was during an era when religion held much more more secular power than it does now. So the effects may be much less pronounced today. Its hard to say.
> 
> On the issue that is, I'm inclined to accept genuine faith and religious belief as a basis for not providing wedding specific goods, and those alone.  As the practical effect is so minor, amounting to a few dozen instances in the entire country. While orders and orders and orders of magnitude more folks will eagerly market to gays.
> 
> Those who have principled, heart felt moral positions on the matter are worth allowing folks like Keyes and Sil using their the smoke screen of faith to justify hate.



I've yet to see one of these "principled" Christians deny service to ANY other sinners.


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, on this specific issue I'm inclined to give folks a pass. I've had some long, detailed conversations on the issue with very principled Christian friends of mine. 'New Testament' Christians as I like to call them, whose focus is on loving God and loving their neighbor.
> 
> And I'm inclined to accept that their aversion to selling wedding goods for a gay wedding isn't motivated by homophobia or any animus toward gays. But by a genuine, abiding belief that selling these goods would constitute an offense to God. I've got no real problem with small scale, principled positions based on genuine faith. Especially when the practical effects are negligible.
> 
> My issue is with religion being used as a screen for homophobia. Sil for example isn't Christian. He just can't stand gays. And uses religion as justification for treating them like shit. And that concerns me. As given an open door where religion can be used to punish gays, people like Sil would take the loaf you offer and demand 10 more. As we've seen with Judge Bazile and his use of God to justify interracial marriage bans.
> 
> Sigh....but alas, that may be a tad too close to a slippery slope fallacy. True it has vast historical precedent. But it was during an era when religion held much more more secular power than it does now. So the effects may be much less pronounced today. Its hard to say.
> 
> On the issue that is, I'm inclined to accept genuine faith and religious belief as a basis for not providing wedding specific goods, and those alone.  As the practical effect is so minor, amounting to a few dozen instances in the entire country. While orders and orders and orders of magnitude more folks will eagerly market to gays.
> 
> Those who have principled, heart felt moral positions on the matter are worth allowing folks like Keyes and Sil using their the smoke screen of faith to justify hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see one of these "principled" Christians deny service to ANY other sinners.
Click to expand...


Sigh.....don't get me wrong, Sea. I loath discrimination against gays for being gay. Its ugly, petting shit with a brutal pedigree. But I'm not an ideologue. I'm not going to stick with a position I think deserves compromise in order to stay ideologically consistent. 

And in this specific instance, I think its possible for principled people to have an aversion to the issue that isn't based on animus to gays. But instead, fear of offending God. And even that alone isn't enough for me to be swayed on the issue. The kicker for me the tiny practical effect. I weight the imposition on gays denied service perhaps a few dozen times in the country vs. the imposition on the religious beliefs of principled individuals trying to devoutly follow what they believe is right.

On the balance, I'm inclined to side with the imposition against genuine religious belief. As there are *so* many folks in the wedding industry that are competing for gay clients. So the practical imposition of one or two that won't is minimal. And likely wouldn't effect the outcome of any wedding. 

I think there is room enough for both. I like the approach that Utah is taking for example. And I appreciate the thought and desire for genuine compromise that the Mormons have taken on the issue. This may be an instance where its better to give a little rather than hold the line on strict ideological grounds.


----------



## Seawytch

Skylar said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, on this specific issue I'm inclined to give folks a pass. I've had some long, detailed conversations on the issue with very principled Christian friends of mine. 'New Testament' Christians as I like to call them, whose focus is on loving God and loving their neighbor.
> 
> And I'm inclined to accept that their aversion to selling wedding goods for a gay wedding isn't motivated by homophobia or any animus toward gays. But by a genuine, abiding belief that selling these goods would constitute an offense to God. I've got no real problem with small scale, principled positions based on genuine faith. Especially when the practical effects are negligible.
> 
> My issue is with religion being used as a screen for homophobia. Sil for example isn't Christian. He just can't stand gays. And uses religion as justification for treating them like shit. And that concerns me. As given an open door where religion can be used to punish gays, people like Sil would take the loaf you offer and demand 10 more. As we've seen with Judge Bazile and his use of God to justify interracial marriage bans.
> 
> Sigh....but alas, that may be a tad too close to a slippery slope fallacy. True it has vast historical precedent. But it was during an era when religion held much more more secular power than it does now. So the effects may be much less pronounced today. Its hard to say.
> 
> On the issue that is, I'm inclined to accept genuine faith and religious belief as a basis for not providing wedding specific goods, and those alone.  As the practical effect is so minor, amounting to a few dozen instances in the entire country. While orders and orders and orders of magnitude more folks will eagerly market to gays.
> 
> Those who have principled, heart felt moral positions on the matter are worth allowing folks like Keyes and Sil using their the smoke screen of faith to justify hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see one of these "principled" Christians deny service to ANY other sinners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.....don't get me wrong, Sea. I loath discrimination against gays for being gay. Its ugly, petting shit with a brutal pedigree. But I'm not an ideologue. I'm not going to stick with a position I think deserves compromise in order to stay ideologically consistent.
> 
> And in this specific instance, I think its possible for principled people to have an aversion to the issue that isn't based on animus to gays. But instead, fear of offending God. And even that alone isn't enough for me to be swayed on the issue. The kicker for me the tiny practical effect. I weight the imposition on gays denied service perhaps a few dozen times in the country vs. the imposition on the religious beliefs of principled individuals trying to devoutly follow what they believe is right.
> 
> On the balance, I'm inclined to side with the imposition against genuine religious belief. As there are *so* many folks in the wedding industry that are competing for gay clients. So the practical imposition of one or two that won't is minimal. And likely wouldn't effect the outcome of any wedding.
> 
> I think there is room enough for both. I like the approach that Utah is taking for example. And I appreciate the thought and desire for genuine compromise that the Mormons have taken on the issue. This may be an instance where its better to give a little rather than hold the line on strict ideological grounds.
Click to expand...


I don't see allowing certain anti gay bigots a special exemption from following laws as a compromise. Where were these compromises for the racist bigots?


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, on this specific issue I'm inclined to give folks a pass. I've had some long, detailed conversations on the issue with very principled Christian friends of mine. 'New Testament' Christians as I like to call them, whose focus is on loving God and loving their neighbor.
> 
> And I'm inclined to accept that their aversion to selling wedding goods for a gay wedding isn't motivated by homophobia or any animus toward gays. But by a genuine, abiding belief that selling these goods would constitute an offense to God. I've got no real problem with small scale, principled positions based on genuine faith. Especially when the practical effects are negligible.
> 
> My issue is with religion being used as a screen for homophobia. Sil for example isn't Christian. He just can't stand gays. And uses religion as justification for treating them like shit. And that concerns me. As given an open door where religion can be used to punish gays, people like Sil would take the loaf you offer and demand 10 more. As we've seen with Judge Bazile and his use of God to justify interracial marriage bans.
> 
> Sigh....but alas, that may be a tad too close to a slippery slope fallacy. True it has vast historical precedent. But it was during an era when religion held much more more secular power than it does now. So the effects may be much less pronounced today. Its hard to say.
> 
> On the issue that is, I'm inclined to accept genuine faith and religious belief as a basis for not providing wedding specific goods, and those alone.  As the practical effect is so minor, amounting to a few dozen instances in the entire country. While orders and orders and orders of magnitude more folks will eagerly market to gays.
> 
> Those who have principled, heart felt moral positions on the matter are worth allowing folks like Keyes and Sil using their the smoke screen of faith to justify hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see one of these "principled" Christians deny service to ANY other sinners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.....don't get me wrong, Sea. I loath discrimination against gays for being gay. Its ugly, petting shit with a brutal pedigree. But I'm not an ideologue. I'm not going to stick with a position I think deserves compromise in order to stay ideologically consistent.
> 
> And in this specific instance, I think its possible for principled people to have an aversion to the issue that isn't based on animus to gays. But instead, fear of offending God. And even that alone isn't enough for me to be swayed on the issue. The kicker for me the tiny practical effect. I weight the imposition on gays denied service perhaps a few dozen times in the country vs. the imposition on the religious beliefs of principled individuals trying to devoutly follow what they believe is right.
> 
> On the balance, I'm inclined to side with the imposition against genuine religious belief. As there are *so* many folks in the wedding industry that are competing for gay clients. So the practical imposition of one or two that won't is minimal. And likely wouldn't effect the outcome of any wedding.
> 
> I think there is room enough for both. I like the approach that Utah is taking for example. And I appreciate the thought and desire for genuine compromise that the Mormons have taken on the issue. This may be an instance where its better to give a little rather than hold the line on strict ideological grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see allowing certain anti gay bigots a special exemption from following laws as a compromise. Where were these compromises for the racist bigots?
Click to expand...


Because they aren't necessarily anti-gay bigots. The bigots can go fuck themselves on this issue. Those who genuinely don't want to offend god are more worthy of consideration.

I think its a mistake to not recognize that we're talking about at least two groups here: bigots using religion as a mask to treat gays like shit.....and genuinely and devoutly faithful who don't want to offend God.


----------



## Seawytch

Skylar said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, on this specific issue I'm inclined to give folks a pass. I've had some long, detailed conversations on the issue with very principled Christian friends of mine. 'New Testament' Christians as I like to call them, whose focus is on loving God and loving their neighbor.
> 
> And I'm inclined to accept that their aversion to selling wedding goods for a gay wedding isn't motivated by homophobia or any animus toward gays. But by a genuine, abiding belief that selling these goods would constitute an offense to God. I've got no real problem with small scale, principled positions based on genuine faith. Especially when the practical effects are negligible.
> 
> My issue is with religion being used as a screen for homophobia. Sil for example isn't Christian. He just can't stand gays. And uses religion as justification for treating them like shit. And that concerns me. As given an open door where religion can be used to punish gays, people like Sil would take the loaf you offer and demand 10 more. As we've seen with Judge Bazile and his use of God to justify interracial marriage bans.
> 
> Sigh....but alas, that may be a tad too close to a slippery slope fallacy. True it has vast historical precedent. But it was during an era when religion held much more more secular power than it does now. So the effects may be much less pronounced today. Its hard to say.
> 
> On the issue that is, I'm inclined to accept genuine faith and religious belief as a basis for not providing wedding specific goods, and those alone.  As the practical effect is so minor, amounting to a few dozen instances in the entire country. While orders and orders and orders of magnitude more folks will eagerly market to gays.
> 
> Those who have principled, heart felt moral positions on the matter are worth allowing folks like Keyes and Sil using their the smoke screen of faith to justify hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see one of these "principled" Christians deny service to ANY other sinners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.....don't get me wrong, Sea. I loath discrimination against gays for being gay. Its ugly, petting shit with a brutal pedigree. But I'm not an ideologue. I'm not going to stick with a position I think deserves compromise in order to stay ideologically consistent.
> 
> And in this specific instance, I think its possible for principled people to have an aversion to the issue that isn't based on animus to gays. But instead, fear of offending God. And even that alone isn't enough for me to be swayed on the issue. The kicker for me the tiny practical effect. I weight the imposition on gays denied service perhaps a few dozen times in the country vs. the imposition on the religious beliefs of principled individuals trying to devoutly follow what they believe is right.
> 
> On the balance, I'm inclined to side with the imposition against genuine religious belief. As there are *so* many folks in the wedding industry that are competing for gay clients. So the practical imposition of one or two that won't is minimal. And likely wouldn't effect the outcome of any wedding.
> 
> I think there is room enough for both. I like the approach that Utah is taking for example. And I appreciate the thought and desire for genuine compromise that the Mormons have taken on the issue. This may be an instance where its better to give a little rather than hold the line on strict ideological grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see allowing certain anti gay bigots a special exemption from following laws as a compromise. Where were these compromises for the racist bigots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they aren't necessarily anti-gay bigots. The bigots can go fuck themselves on this issue. Those who genuinely don't want to offend god are more worthy of consideration.
Click to expand...


Okay, where were the exemptions for those with "deeply held religious beliefs" against desegregation and interracial marriage? They didn't get a carve out.


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, on this specific issue I'm inclined to give folks a pass. I've had some long, detailed conversations on the issue with very principled Christian friends of mine. 'New Testament' Christians as I like to call them, whose focus is on loving God and loving their neighbor.
> 
> And I'm inclined to accept that their aversion to selling wedding goods for a gay wedding isn't motivated by homophobia or any animus toward gays. But by a genuine, abiding belief that selling these goods would constitute an offense to God. I've got no real problem with small scale, principled positions based on genuine faith. Especially when the practical effects are negligible.
> 
> My issue is with religion being used as a screen for homophobia. Sil for example isn't Christian. He just can't stand gays. And uses religion as justification for treating them like shit. And that concerns me. As given an open door where religion can be used to punish gays, people like Sil would take the loaf you offer and demand 10 more. As we've seen with Judge Bazile and his use of God to justify interracial marriage bans.
> 
> Sigh....but alas, that may be a tad too close to a slippery slope fallacy. True it has vast historical precedent. But it was during an era when religion held much more more secular power than it does now. So the effects may be much less pronounced today. Its hard to say.
> 
> On the issue that is, I'm inclined to accept genuine faith and religious belief as a basis for not providing wedding specific goods, and those alone.  As the practical effect is so minor, amounting to a few dozen instances in the entire country. While orders and orders and orders of magnitude more folks will eagerly market to gays.
> 
> Those who have principled, heart felt moral positions on the matter are worth allowing folks like Keyes and Sil using their the smoke screen of faith to justify hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see one of these "principled" Christians deny service to ANY other sinners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.....don't get me wrong, Sea. I loath discrimination against gays for being gay. Its ugly, petting shit with a brutal pedigree. But I'm not an ideologue. I'm not going to stick with a position I think deserves compromise in order to stay ideologically consistent.
> 
> And in this specific instance, I think its possible for principled people to have an aversion to the issue that isn't based on animus to gays. But instead, fear of offending God. And even that alone isn't enough for me to be swayed on the issue. The kicker for me the tiny practical effect. I weight the imposition on gays denied service perhaps a few dozen times in the country vs. the imposition on the religious beliefs of principled individuals trying to devoutly follow what they believe is right.
> 
> On the balance, I'm inclined to side with the imposition against genuine religious belief. As there are *so* many folks in the wedding industry that are competing for gay clients. So the practical imposition of one or two that won't is minimal. And likely wouldn't effect the outcome of any wedding.
> 
> I think there is room enough for both. I like the approach that Utah is taking for example. And I appreciate the thought and desire for genuine compromise that the Mormons have taken on the issue. This may be an instance where its better to give a little rather than hold the line on strict ideological grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see allowing certain anti gay bigots a special exemption from following laws as a compromise. Where were these compromises for the racist bigots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they aren't necessarily anti-gay bigots. The bigots can go fuck themselves on this issue. Those who genuinely don't want to offend god are more worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, where were the exemptions for those with "deeply held religious beliefs" against desegregation and interracial marriage? They didn't get a carve out.
Click to expand...


Segregation and interracial marriage had a much, much greater practical effect. And involved State laws that mandated both. And were enforced by criminal law. We don't have either with PA law violations related specifically to the sale of wedding products. 

That's an enormous difference.

Its the combination of genuine religious faith in some with an aversion to the issue combined with the comparatively minor practical effects on this issue that lead me to be inclined to consider an exemption.


----------



## Seawytch

Skylar said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see one of these "principled" Christians deny service to ANY other sinners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.....don't get me wrong, Sea. I loath discrimination against gays for being gay. Its ugly, petting shit with a brutal pedigree. But I'm not an ideologue. I'm not going to stick with a position I think deserves compromise in order to stay ideologically consistent.
> 
> And in this specific instance, I think its possible for principled people to have an aversion to the issue that isn't based on animus to gays. But instead, fear of offending God. And even that alone isn't enough for me to be swayed on the issue. The kicker for me the tiny practical effect. I weight the imposition on gays denied service perhaps a few dozen times in the country vs. the imposition on the religious beliefs of principled individuals trying to devoutly follow what they believe is right.
> 
> On the balance, I'm inclined to side with the imposition against genuine religious belief. As there are *so* many folks in the wedding industry that are competing for gay clients. So the practical imposition of one or two that won't is minimal. And likely wouldn't effect the outcome of any wedding.
> 
> I think there is room enough for both. I like the approach that Utah is taking for example. And I appreciate the thought and desire for genuine compromise that the Mormons have taken on the issue. This may be an instance where its better to give a little rather than hold the line on strict ideological grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see allowing certain anti gay bigots a special exemption from following laws as a compromise. Where were these compromises for the racist bigots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they aren't necessarily anti-gay bigots. The bigots can go fuck themselves on this issue. Those who genuinely don't want to offend god are more worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, where were the exemptions for those with "deeply held religious beliefs" against desegregation and interracial marriage? They didn't get a carve out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Segregation and interracial marriage had a much, much greater practical effect. And involved State laws that mandated both. And were enforced by criminal law. We don't have either with PA law violations related specifically to the sale of wedding products.
> 
> That's an enormous difference.
> 
> Its the combination of genuine religious faith in some with an aversion to the issue combined with the comparatively minor practical effects on this issue that lead me to be inclined to consider an exemption.
Click to expand...


Bovine feces. Anti segregationist have just as much biblical justification as those opposed to gays marrying. (Which is little to nothing)

Sorry but you can get rid of all PA laws, but the anti gay folks don't get special exemptions...and which businesses get these carve outs? Doctors? Police? EMTs?


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:
			
		

> Bovine feces. Anti segregationist have just as much biblical justification as those opposed to gays marrying. (Which is little to nothing)



Again, the practical effects are vastly different. A gay person is denied a wedding cake by one baker, there are dozens more than are willing to sell to them. Compare that with segregation which made the violation of sweeping 'separate but equal' laws a criminal offense. Or interracial marriage laws that had law enforcement breaking into the home of interracial couples in the middle of the night to arrest them.

There's no state involvement in the violation of PA laws. Its a lone and errant baker. Or the occasional photographer. Related specifically and exclusively to issues of weddings. That on a good day, will happen only once in a person's entire life. And involve only one day.

Compared to interracial marriage bans or segregation. Which would effect a person every day, backed by prison time if they resisted it. These are orders and orders and orders of magnitude different in terms of practical effects.

Given the issue of genuine religious faith among *some* of those that are adverse to selling for weddings goods to gay, with their refusal motivated by a desire not to offend God rather than any animus toward gays......I'm inclined to give them a pass given the tiny practical effect of denying the baking of a wedding cake.



> Sorry but you can get rid of all PA laws, but the anti gay folks don't get special exemptions...and which businesses get these carve outs? Doctors? Police? EMTs?



Wedding services and wedding goods. Specifically.

And when you ask why, its the practical effects   A comparison of imposition v imposition. With the practical effects being far greater on the baker than on the occasional gay couple that has to buy their wedding cake elsewhere. Well that and the basis of the discrimination, with the plausible possibility of a genuine  lack of animus toward gays. But an aversion to offending God.


----------



## Seawytch

Seawytch said:


> Wedding services and wedding goods. Specifically.
> 
> And when you ask why, its the practical effects   A comparison of imposition v imposition. With the practical effects being far greater on the baker than on the occasional gay couple that has to buy their wedding cake elsewhere. Well that and the basis of the discrimination, with the plausible possibility of a genuine  lack of animus toward gays. But an aversion to offending God.



So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?

Fuck the humiliation suffered by the gay couple because they can go somewhere else?

It Was Never About the Cake American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois

Again, the first time one of these "Christians" refuses to bake a cake for a straight couple on biblical grounds, I'll buy your "it's not because they don't like gays" story...until then, they're asking for cover for anti gay bigotry.


----------



## Mr.Right

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?


There is simply no good excuse to do so. Churches are not the only place one can tie the knot. To force churches to do so would be a direct violation of the first amendment. But then that never seems to bother progressives in their never ending battle to subdue any and all opposition on the road to absolute power.


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:


> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?



I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._

As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.

I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.

And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'force Christians as in......requiring Christians to follow the same laws as everyone else.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they follow the 1st Amendment just fine.  That's the law.  And it's dominant BTW to any little po-dunk "law" in your small town that the lavender mafia has rammed through in violation of THE Law.
Click to expand...


'po-dunk'? The grandaddy of all public accommodation laws is the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Of course the Christian mafia objects to legislation that is against discrimination towards Homosexuals- but fine with legislation that is against discrimination towards Christians. 

Once again- here is Colorado's language:

_It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of *disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry,*_

Why am I not surprised that the anti-gay mafia only objects to the part of the law that refers to 'sexual orientation'?


----------



## Seawytch

Skylar said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
Click to expand...


And the first time one of these wedding businesses refuses to bake a cake or arrange flowers for a divorced and remarrying couple, I'll believe it's not about being anti gay and only about being religious.


----------



## Syriusly

Mr.Right said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> There is simply no good excuse to do so. Churches are not the only place one can tie the knot. To force churches to do so would be a direct violation of the first amendment. But then that never seems to bother progressives in their never ending battle to subdue any and all opposition on the road to absolute power.
Click to expand...


Pretty much every 'progressive' in this thread- myself included- say that churches should not- and will not- be forced to marry anyone that they dont' want to marry- regardless of the reason. 

In the progressive never ending battle against Conservative discrimination- we say- Churches by nature are discriminatory and while we may not agree with the discrimination- they have every right to discriminate.


----------



## Syriusly

Seawytch said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the first time one of these wedding businesses refuses to bake a cake or arrange flowers for a divorced and remarrying couple, I'll believe it's not about being anti gay and only about being religious.
Click to expand...


Or a woman wearing pants.......


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
Click to expand...


In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.

I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, Christians should only work for Christians, Muslims for Muslims, Jews for Jews, and homosexuals for homosexuals.
> 
> Let a business proclaim what denomination of people they wish to serve, and only those types are able to be served at that business. No non Christian should be allowed to go to a Christian run food pantry(uh, oh, you are gonna starve), and non Christians should not be allowed in a Christian run halfway house, or a Christian run mission. They should reserve those beds for only down on their luck Christians.
> 
> Since crab fishermen are predominately Christian, then only Christians should be able to buy crab legs, and any other seafood that is caught in that area. Let the heathen catch their own fish. Since most cattle farmers are Christian, no non Christian shall be able to buy beef. Except from those who proclaim to be non Christian, and no Christian shall be able to buy beef from them.
> 
> All Christian truck drivers may only haul to Christian run businesses, and deliver their load. No non Christian business can do any business, in any way with a Christian.
> 
> Now, if all this actually took affect, who is going to be paying more for meat, and their products? Well, there are a lot more of us, than there are of you, and I am pretty sure, any business wanting to stay in business, will proclaim to be a Christian business, so you are going to starve. But, you can always go to a Christian run food pantry, oh, no you cant.
> 
> But, that's your problem, not ours.
> 
> Have a nice day
> USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Cause that's what Christ would do, right?
> 
> Ya'll make the baby Jesus cry...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They baby Jesus grew up.
> 
> And Christ does not want us serving homosexual weddings. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? In what passage or verse did Jesus say that? Have you actually read what Jesus said? If so, I can't see how you can imagine the man who turned water into wine would refuse to serve anyone.
> 
> Do you know what is a New Testament sin? Debating religion on a message board. Have fun in hell with the gays and adulterers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You thinking, you know what Jesus said, is funny.
> 
> You thinking you are God, and getting to judge anyone, is hilarious!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't see any irony in your post at all?
> 
> I'm pointing out what actually IS in the bible. New Testament and everything. Debating is a sin in the bible. Nothing in there about baking, sinner.
Click to expand...


Don't tell me, show me, what chapter and verse, that way I can educate you.


----------



## Mr.Right

Seawytch said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the first time one of these wedding businesses refuses to bake a cake or arrange flowers for a divorced and remarrying couple, I'll believe it's not about being anti gay and only about being religious.
Click to expand...

Just so you know. How would they know a person was divorced, unless they were told? If gays would simply learn to keep their mouths shut and just order a damn cake, no one would even know. Would they?


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Cause that's what Christ would do, right?
> 
> Ya'll make the baby Jesus cry...
> 
> 
> 
> They baby Jesus grew up.
> 
> And Christ does not want us serving homosexual weddings. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? In what passage or verse did Jesus say that? Have you actually read what Jesus said? If so, I can't see how you can imagine the man who turned water into wine would refuse to serve anyone.
> 
> Do you know what is a New Testament sin? Debating religion on a message board. Have fun in hell with the gays and adulterers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You thinking, you know what Jesus said, is funny.
> 
> You thinking you are God, and getting to judge anyone, is hilarious!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't see any irony in your post at all?
> 
> I'm pointing out what actually IS in the bible. New Testament and everything. Debating is a sin in the bible. Nothing in there about baking, sinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't tell me, show me, what chapter and verse, that way I can educate you.
Click to expand...


I already provided you the link...it's right in the post you responded to, sinner.

Debating


----------



## Seawytch

Mr.Right said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the first time one of these wedding businesses refuses to bake a cake or arrange flowers for a divorced and remarrying couple, I'll believe it's not about being anti gay and only about being religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just so you know. How would they know a person was divorced, unless they were told? If gays would simply learn to keep their mouths shut and just order a damn cake, no one would even know. Would they?
Click to expand...


Right...no wedding businesses have ever known they were providing a service to a divorced couple...or a non religious couple (that's a HUGE sin) or a fat couple (one of the deadly sins)...

Provide the advertised service, period.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, on this specific issue I'm inclined to give folks a pass. I've had some long, detailed conversations on the issue with very principled Christian friends of mine. 'New Testament' Christians as I like to call them, whose focus is on loving God and loving their neighbor.
> 
> And I'm inclined to accept that their aversion to selling wedding goods for a gay wedding isn't motivated by homophobia or any animus toward gays. But by a genuine, abiding belief that selling these goods would constitute an offense to God. I've got no real problem with small scale, principled positions based on genuine faith. Especially when the practical effects are negligible.
> 
> My issue is with religion being used as a screen for homophobia. Sil for example isn't Christian. He just can't stand gays. And uses religion as justification for treating them like shit. And that concerns me. As given an open door where religion can be used to punish gays, people like Sil would take the loaf you offer and demand 10 more. As we've seen with Judge Bazile and his use of God to justify interracial marriage bans.
> 
> Sigh....but alas, that may be a tad too close to a slippery slope fallacy. True it has vast historical precedent. But it was during an era when religion held much more more secular power than it does now. So the effects may be much less pronounced today. Its hard to say.
> 
> On the issue that is, I'm inclined to accept genuine faith and religious belief as a basis for not providing wedding specific goods, and those alone.  As the practical effect is so minor, amounting to a few dozen instances in the entire country. While orders and orders and orders of magnitude more folks will eagerly market to gays.
> 
> Those who have principled, heart felt moral positions on the matter are worth allowing folks like Keyes and Sil using their the smoke screen of faith to justify hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see one of these "principled" Christians deny service to ANY other sinners.
Click to expand...

It would depend on the service and/or goods offered, and if the 'sinners' decided to share what they were going to be doing.

If a man came into a store, owned and operated by a Christian, and tried to buy some condoms, then told the owner, he had a hot date, but not with his wife. It wouldn't surprise me any if the owner told him to get his 'merchandise' elsewhere.

If a man of 30 or so, walked into a bakery, and ordered a wedding cake for his wedding, and told the owner that his bride to be was a whopping 15 years old, the owner of that bakery might refuse to make that cake.

If a sinner wants to declare their sins, then the owner has a right not to serve that person, and help that person to revel in their sin.


----------



## Seawytch

Syriusly said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
Click to expand...


We wouldn't accept it for any other discrimination against a minority group. Only those that hate the gays get the "special" exemptions and only wedding planners.

What if a furniture store doesn't want to sell a gay marriage bed?


----------



## Mr.Right

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They baby Jesus grew up.
> 
> And Christ does not want us serving homosexual weddings. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? In what passage or verse did Jesus say that? Have you actually read what Jesus said? If so, I can't see how you can imagine the man who turned water into wine would refuse to serve anyone.
> 
> Do you know what is a New Testament sin? Debating religion on a message board. Have fun in hell with the gays and adulterers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You thinking, you know what Jesus said, is funny.
> 
> You thinking you are God, and getting to judge anyone, is hilarious!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't see any irony in your post at all?
> 
> I'm pointing out what actually IS in the bible. New Testament and everything. Debating is a sin in the bible. Nothing in there about baking, sinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't tell me, show me, what chapter and verse, that way I can educate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already provided you the link...it's right in the post you responded to, sinner.
> 
> Debating
Click to expand...

I didn't see anything saying it was a sin. And what are you doing here, arguing Scripture? Doesn't that also make you a sinner, not to mention a hypocrite?


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, on this specific issue I'm inclined to give folks a pass. I've had some long, detailed conversations on the issue with very principled Christian friends of mine. 'New Testament' Christians as I like to call them, whose focus is on loving God and loving their neighbor.
> 
> And I'm inclined to accept that their aversion to selling wedding goods for a gay wedding isn't motivated by homophobia or any animus toward gays. But by a genuine, abiding belief that selling these goods would constitute an offense to God. I've got no real problem with small scale, principled positions based on genuine faith. Especially when the practical effects are negligible.
> 
> My issue is with religion being used as a screen for homophobia. Sil for example isn't Christian. He just can't stand gays. And uses religion as justification for treating them like shit. And that concerns me. As given an open door where religion can be used to punish gays, people like Sil would take the loaf you offer and demand 10 more. As we've seen with Judge Bazile and his use of God to justify interracial marriage bans.
> 
> Sigh....but alas, that may be a tad too close to a slippery slope fallacy. True it has vast historical precedent. But it was during an era when religion held much more more secular power than it does now. So the effects may be much less pronounced today. Its hard to say.
> 
> On the issue that is, I'm inclined to accept genuine faith and religious belief as a basis for not providing wedding specific goods, and those alone.  As the practical effect is so minor, amounting to a few dozen instances in the entire country. While orders and orders and orders of magnitude more folks will eagerly market to gays.
> 
> Those who have principled, heart felt moral positions on the matter are worth allowing folks like Keyes and Sil using their the smoke screen of faith to justify hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see one of these "principled" Christians deny service to ANY other sinners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.....don't get me wrong, Sea. I loath discrimination against gays for being gay. Its ugly, petting shit with a brutal pedigree. But I'm not an ideologue. I'm not going to stick with a position I think deserves compromise in order to stay ideologically consistent.
> 
> And in this specific instance, I think its possible for principled people to have an aversion to the issue that isn't based on animus to gays. But instead, fear of offending God. And even that alone isn't enough for me to be swayed on the issue. The kicker for me the tiny practical effect. I weight the imposition on gays denied service perhaps a few dozen times in the country vs. the imposition on the religious beliefs of principled individuals trying to devoutly follow what they believe is right.
> 
> On the balance, I'm inclined to side with the imposition against genuine religious belief. As there are *so* many folks in the wedding industry that are competing for gay clients. So the practical imposition of one or two that won't is minimal. And likely wouldn't effect the outcome of any wedding.
> 
> I think there is room enough for both. I like the approach that Utah is taking for example. And I appreciate the thought and desire for genuine compromise that the Mormons have taken on the issue. This may be an instance where its better to give a little rather than hold the line on strict ideological grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see allowing certain anti gay bigots a special exemption from following laws as a compromise. Where were these compromises for the racist bigots?
Click to expand...

No one chooses their race.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
Click to expand...


I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.

I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.

These folks are worthy of some consideration.



> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.



I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

Seawytch said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They baby Jesus grew up.
> 
> And Christ does not want us serving homosexual weddings. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? In what passage or verse did Jesus say that? Have you actually read what Jesus said? If so, I can't see how you can imagine the man who turned water into wine would refuse to serve anyone.
> 
> Do you know what is a New Testament sin? Debating religion on a message board. Have fun in hell with the gays and adulterers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You thinking, you know what Jesus said, is funny.
> 
> You thinking you are God, and getting to judge anyone, is hilarious!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't see any irony in your post at all?
> 
> I'm pointing out what actually IS in the bible. New Testament and everything. Debating is a sin in the bible. Nothing in there about baking, sinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't tell me, show me, what chapter and verse, that way I can educate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already provided you the link...it's right in the post you responded to, sinner.
> 
> Debating
Click to expand...

Not a link, a chapter and verse. Unless of coarse you cant, but don't have the guts to admit that.


----------



## Seawytch

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? In what passage or verse did Jesus say that? Have you actually read what Jesus said? If so, I can't see how you can imagine the man who turned water into wine would refuse to serve anyone.
> 
> Do you know what is a New Testament sin? Debating religion on a message board. Have fun in hell with the gays and adulterers.
> 
> 
> 
> You thinking, you know what Jesus said, is funny.
> 
> You thinking you are God, and getting to judge anyone, is hilarious!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't see any irony in your post at all?
> 
> I'm pointing out what actually IS in the bible. New Testament and everything. Debating is a sin in the bible. Nothing in there about baking, sinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't tell me, show me, what chapter and verse, that way I can educate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already provided you the link...it's right in the post you responded to, sinner.
> 
> Debating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a link, a chapter and verse. Unless of coarse you cant, but don't have the guts to admit that.
Click to expand...


The chapters and verses were at the link. Stop being lazy...that's a sin.


----------



## Seawytch

Mr.Right said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? In what passage or verse did Jesus say that? Have you actually read what Jesus said? If so, I can't see how you can imagine the man who turned water into wine would refuse to serve anyone.
> 
> Do you know what is a New Testament sin? Debating religion on a message board. Have fun in hell with the gays and adulterers.
> 
> 
> 
> You thinking, you know what Jesus said, is funny.
> 
> You thinking you are God, and getting to judge anyone, is hilarious!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't see any irony in your post at all?
> 
> I'm pointing out what actually IS in the bible. New Testament and everything. Debating is a sin in the bible. Nothing in there about baking, sinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't tell me, show me, what chapter and verse, that way I can educate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already provided you the link...it's right in the post you responded to, sinner.
> 
> Debating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't see anything saying it was a sin. And what are you doing here, arguing Scripture? Doesn't that also make you a sinner, not to mention a hypocrite?
Click to expand...


Of course you don't...you're sinning and in denial. 

(Pssst, I'm not a Christian and don't adhere to the silly concept of sin)


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.



I assume you're trying to be magnanimous here, but I really find the point of view offensive. Why should a person's right to discriminate depend on their reasons for doing so? In your example, why should a person who discriminates against gays because the great spirit in the sky told them to enjoy any more consideration than someone with a secular conviction that homosexuality is damaging to society?


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
Click to expand...


Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.

Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.


----------



## Seawytch

Syriusly said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.
> 
> Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.
Click to expand...


How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding? 

And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?


----------



## Mr.Right

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
Click to expand...




Seawytch said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.
> 
> Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?
> 
> And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?
Click to expand...

How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.
> 
> Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.
Click to expand...


The gays and the mormons have kinda 'broken bread' in Utah and come to some compromises. The State is moving forward on anti-gay discrimination legislation and religion-protection legislation. It seemed reasonable to me. Like people trying to understand and accommodate each other. 

And it inspired me to clear the mental deck and have some pretty honest conversations with Christian friends of mine. The 'Love they Neighbor' Christians, not the 'God Hates Fags' Christians.

And I'm convinced at least some of these folks are genuinely motivated by sincere faith and no by any hostility toward gays. That their aversion to selling wedding products has to do with their relationship with God and not their relationship with gays.

I think there is some middle ground to be found on this specific and singular issue.


----------



## Syriusly

Mr.Right said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.
> 
> Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?
> 
> And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.
Click to expand...


No.

For about the hundredth time in this thread.

Churches have every right to discriminate however they want. Churches should not and will not be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.
It hasn't happened in the 50 years since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.
> 
> Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?
> 
> And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> For about the hundredth time in this thread.
> 
> Churches have every right to discriminate however they want. Churches should not and will not be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.
> It hasn't happened in the 50 years since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.
Click to expand...


Why should they get a pass when no one else does?


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.
> 
> Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?
> 
> And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> For about the hundredth time in this thread.
> 
> Churches have every right to discriminate however they want. Churches should not and will not be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.
> It hasn't happened in the 50 years since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and it won't happen in the next 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should they get a pass when no one else does?
Click to expand...


As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory. 

Want to be a Jew- you need to either be born into it- or jump through the proper hoops and meet all the requirements.
Want to be a Catholic- you need to go through the whole process- and if you are not Catholic the church discriminates against you.
And if you are a Catholic- and a woman- the church discriminates against you. 

'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.

No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.
> 
> Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?
> 
> And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?
Click to expand...


Its a pickle. Because there are going to be a lot of assholes who use this as a way of excusing their own personal bigotry. I'm not pleased with the folks that are sending me their agreement in PM or thanking me for my posts.

But with the bigots there are people of sincere faith and genuine moral conviction who are following what they believe in the context of their faith. I find it ....distasteful.....to penalize someone or dismantle their business because they are doing what they genuinely feel is right. Especially when its a sincere and closely held religious belief.

Yet even that alone is not enough. The practical imposition to gays is also a factor. And an occasional baker or photographer refusing to provide goods and services to a wedding is a relatively minor imposition given the vast array of alternatives available. With the overwhelming majority of businesses either willing to or compete for the chance to bake that wedding cake. While the imposition to the baker penalized tens of thousands of dollars for sincere religious belief is quite severe. 

Which is why on this one issue, I'm inclined to give the bakers and photographers a pass on providing wedding products. Even though it casts shade for the bigots and assholes out there.


----------



## Syriusly

Mr.Right said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.
> 
> Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?
> 
> And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.
Click to expand...


I noticed you started a topic with a link to Prison Planet.

Is that the source of your 'knowledge?


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.
> 
> ...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.



Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?

What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?



> No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's



Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.
> 
> ...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?
Click to expand...


Because we've decided they don't. 

And yup, we prioritize one form of discrimination over another. 

And?


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.
> 
> ...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?
> 
> What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.
Click to expand...


Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.
> 
> ...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?
> 
> What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?
Click to expand...


To target unpopular biases for suppression.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.
> 
> ...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we've decided they don't.
> 
> And yup, we prioritize one form of discrimination over another.
> 
> And?
Click to expand...


Does that seem anything at all like equal rights to you? We might agree with what government is telling people to think now, but what about when we don't? Will you still support the power of government to target minority opinions for special penalties? How will you feel when your opinions are in the minority?


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.
> 
> ...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we've decided they don't.
> 
> And yup, we prioritize one form of discrimination over another.
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that seem anything at all like equal rights to you? We might agree with what government is telling people to think now, but what about when we don't? Will you still support the power of government to target minority opinions for special penalties? How will you feel when your opinions are in the minority?
Click to expand...

If you want government free marriage, you've got it. Just have a ceremony without any government involvement.

For those who do want the protection of legally recognized marriage, that option is available to them.

Seems like a win-win to me.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.
> 
> ...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we've decided they don't.
> 
> And yup, we prioritize one form of discrimination over another.
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that seem anything at all like equal rights to you? We might agree with what government is telling people to think now, but what about when we don't? Will you still support the power of government to target minority opinions for special penalties? How will you feel when your opinions are in the minority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want government free marriage, you've got it. Just have a ceremony without any government involvement.
> 
> For those who do want the protection of legally recognized marriage, that option is available to them.
> 
> Seems like a win-win to me.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you're talking about. Were you responding to someone else's post perhaps?


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.
> 
> ...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?
> 
> What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To target unpopular biases for suppression.
Click to expand...


Pretty much. We decide we don't like racism, so we protect people based on race. We decide we don't like sexism, so we protect people based on sex. 

There's almost always context to these decisions. Nor do they typically occur in a vaccum. 

We've had this discussion, Dblack. We're not adopting libertarianism because you have a problem with PA laws or gay marriage bans.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.
> 
> ...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we've decided they don't.
> 
> And yup, we prioritize one form of discrimination over another.
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that seem anything at all like equal rights to you? We might agree with what government is telling people to think now, but what about when we don't? Will you still support the power of government to target minority opinions for special penalties? How will you feel when your opinions are in the minority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want government free marriage, you've got it. Just have a ceremony without any government involvement.
> 
> For those who do want the protection of legally recognized marriage, that option is available to them.
> 
> Seems like a win-win to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you're talking about. Were you responding to someone else's post perhaps?
Click to expand...


We're talking about marriage, rights and the 'what the government is telling people to think'. If you want the government out of marriage entirely for your union, you have that option. The government doesn't define the rules of your union, you can. Just don't involve the government.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.
> 
> ...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?
> 
> What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To target unpopular biases for suppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much. We decide we don't like racism, so we protect people based on race. We decide we don't like sexism, so we protect people based on sex.
> 
> There's almost always context to these decisions. Nor do they typically occur in a vaccum.
> 
> We've had this discussion, Dblack. We're not adopting libertarianism because you have a problem with PA laws or gay marriage bans.
Click to expand...


Yeah. I know. But I'm just wondering if you've considered the possibility that your views won't always be held by the majority - that society might someday decide your biases and values are no longer acceptable.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.
> 
> ...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?
> 
> What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To target unpopular biases for suppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much. We decide we don't like racism, so we protect people based on race. We decide we don't like sexism, so we protect people based on sex.
> 
> There's almost always context to these decisions. Nor do they typically occur in a vaccum.
> 
> We've had this discussion, Dblack. We're not adopting libertarianism because you have a problem with PA laws or gay marriage bans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I know. But I'm just wondering if you've considered the possibility that your views won't always be held by the majority - that society might someday decide your biases and values are no longer acceptable.
Click to expand...


I held my views on gay marriage before the majority joined me. Not long before, but long enough.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because we've decided they don't.
> 
> And yup, we prioritize one form of discrimination over another.
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that seem anything at all like equal rights to you? We might agree with what government is telling people to think now, but what about when we don't? Will you still support the power of government to target minority opinions for special penalties? How will you feel when your opinions are in the minority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want government free marriage, you've got it. Just have a ceremony without any government involvement.
> 
> For those who do want the protection of legally recognized marriage, that option is available to them.
> 
> Seems like a win-win to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you're talking about. Were you responding to someone else's post perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about marriage, rights and the 'what the government is telling people to think'. If you want the government out of marriage entirely for your union, you have that option. The government doesn't define the rules of your union, you can. Just don't involve the government.
Click to expand...


Gay marriage rights are a done deal. As they should be. I'm talking about the right to discriminate.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?
> 
> What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?
> 
> Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To target unpopular biases for suppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much. We decide we don't like racism, so we protect people based on race. We decide we don't like sexism, so we protect people based on sex.
> 
> There's almost always context to these decisions. Nor do they typically occur in a vaccum.
> 
> We've had this discussion, Dblack. We're not adopting libertarianism because you have a problem with PA laws or gay marriage bans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I know. But I'm just wondering if you've considered the possibility that your views won't always be held by the majority - that society might someday decide your biases and values are no longer acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I held my views on gay marriage before the majority joined me. Not long before, but long enough.
Click to expand...


Don't just steer around my point. Have the courage to address it head on. Have you considered that giving government the power to target unpopular opinions might someday prove to be a mistake?


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we've decided they don't.
> 
> And yup, we prioritize one form of discrimination over another.
> 
> And?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that seem anything at all like equal rights to you? We might agree with what government is telling people to think now, but what about when we don't? Will you still support the power of government to target minority opinions for special penalties? How will you feel when your opinions are in the minority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want government free marriage, you've got it. Just have a ceremony without any government involvement.
> 
> For those who do want the protection of legally recognized marriage, that option is available to them.
> 
> Seems like a win-win to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you're talking about. Were you responding to someone else's post perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about marriage, rights and the 'what the government is telling people to think'. If you want the government out of marriage entirely for your union, you have that option. The government doesn't define the rules of your union, you can. Just don't involve the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay marriage rights are a done deal. As they should be. I'm talking about the right to discriminate.
Click to expand...


So PA laws? We've had this discussion at least half a dozen times already. Do we really need to go through the motions again? We always end up in the same place: you using PA laws to forward libertarianism.

And me rejecting libertarianism as a system that costs more than it benefits. 

Do we really need to do this dance again?


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.
> 
> ...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?
> 
> What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To target unpopular biases for suppression.
Click to expand...


Not quite- to target historic discrimination of unpopular minority groups for suppression. 

Do you know why women are included in the classes referred to in the 1964 Civil Rights Act?


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To target unpopular biases for suppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much. We decide we don't like racism, so we protect people based on race. We decide we don't like sexism, so we protect people based on sex.
> 
> There's almost always context to these decisions. Nor do they typically occur in a vaccum.
> 
> We've had this discussion, Dblack. We're not adopting libertarianism because you have a problem with PA laws or gay marriage bans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I know. But I'm just wondering if you've considered the possibility that your views won't always be held by the majority - that society might someday decide your biases and values are no longer acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I held my views on gay marriage before the majority joined me. Not long before, but long enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't just steer around my point. Have the courage to address it head on. Have you considered that giving government the power to target unpopular opinions might someday prove to be a mistake?
Click to expand...


Feel free to push for the repeal of public accommodation laws. 

They were passed- as Skylar pointed out context is important- because of historic incidents of discrimination. Maybe its time for them to be repealed. Maybe there is no more justification for them. 

But for the last 50 years they have worked pretty much as designed, and we no longer see business's as routinely discriminating against people in housing or employment because they are black or Chinese or women or Jewish.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.
> 
> ...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?
> 
> What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To target unpopular biases for suppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite- to target historic discrimination of unpopular minority groups for suppression.
> 
> Do you know why women are included in the classes referred to in the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Click to expand...


Because they finally won majority support for the idea that they should be treated equally. What I find fucked up about this approach to civil rights is that real unpopular minorities will never get protected until they can get popular consensus on their side. At which point, they'll no longer be unpopular minorities. The cruel irony of PA laws, and protected classes logic, is that it actually contributes to the persecution of minorities.


----------



## Seawytch

Mr.Right said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.
> 
> Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?
> 
> And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.
Click to expand...


Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now. 

Gay Friendly Churches Growing​
Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.

The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​
How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage

In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]

This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]

Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.

For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​


----------



## Seawytch

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.
> 
> Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gays and the mormons have kinda 'broken bread' in Utah and come to some compromises. The State is moving forward on anti-gay discrimination legislation and religion-protection legislation. It seemed reasonable to me. Like people trying to understand and accommodate each other.
> 
> And it inspired me to clear the mental deck and have some pretty honest conversations with Christian friends of mine. The 'Love they Neighbor' Christians, not the 'God Hates Fags' Christians.
> 
> And I'm convinced at least some of these folks are genuinely motivated by sincere faith and no by any hostility toward gays. That their aversion to selling wedding products has to do with their relationship with God and not their relationship with gays.
> 
> I think there is some middle ground to be found on this specific and singular issue.
Click to expand...


Yes, the middle ground is don't go into the wedding business if "some people's" weddings cause you consternation. As Syriusly pointed out, we would not allow these religious exemptions for any other minority group. It would be unthinkable to allow someone to use their religion to not serve an interracial couple.


----------



## Mr.Right

Seawytch said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.
> 
> Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?
> 
> And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.
> 
> Gay Friendly Churches Growing​
> Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.
> 
> The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​
> How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage
> 
> In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]
> 
> This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]
> 
> Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.
> 
> For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​
Click to expand...

Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only wedding businesses should get a special carve out? The deeply held beliefs of other businesses don't matter, just weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.
> 
> Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?
> 
> And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...but not by the government ...
Click to expand...


That sums the whole issue up nicely


----------



## Seawytch

Mr.Right said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.
> 
> Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?
> 
> And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.
> 
> Gay Friendly Churches Growing​
> Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.
> 
> The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​
> How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage
> 
> In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]
> 
> This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]
> 
> Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.
> 
> For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.
Click to expand...


That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.


----------



## Mr.Right

Seawytch said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.
> 
> Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?
> 
> And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.
> 
> Gay Friendly Churches Growing​
> Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.
> 
> The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​
> How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage
> 
> In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]
> 
> This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]
> 
> Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.
> 
> For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.
Click to expand...

Homosexual behavior is prohibited in Scripture (Leviticus 20:13) and was a major cause of the divine judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:4-5, 12-13). The apostle Paul listed homosexuals among “the unrighteous” who would not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9), and declared that God’s wrath stands against such behavior, whether practiced by men or women (Romans 1:26-27).


----------



## Seawytch

Mr.Right said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?
> 
> And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.
> 
> Gay Friendly Churches Growing​
> Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.
> 
> The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​
> How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage
> 
> In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]
> 
> This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]
> 
> Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.
> 
> For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexual behavior is prohibited in Scripture (Leviticus 20:13) and was a major cause of the divine judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:4-5, 12-13). The apostle Paul listed homosexuals among “the unrighteous” who would not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9), and declared that God’s wrath stands against such behavior, whether practiced by men or women (Romans 1:26-27).
Click to expand...


Old Testament? You really want to delve into OT stuff? 

And the sexually repressed (and probably closeted gay man) Paul? Puhleese. That's the same guy that says it's better to marry than to burn? The same guy who says women should be seen and not  heard? That Paul? 

What did Jesus say on the subject? What's that? Nothing you say? Well, golly...


----------



## Mr.Right

Seawytch said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.
> 
> Gay Friendly Churches Growing​
> Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.
> 
> The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​
> How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage
> 
> In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]
> 
> This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]
> 
> Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.
> 
> For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexual behavior is prohibited in Scripture (Leviticus 20:13) and was a major cause of the divine judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:4-5, 12-13). The apostle Paul listed homosexuals among “the unrighteous” who would not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9), and declared that God’s wrath stands against such behavior, whether practiced by men or women (Romans 1:26-27).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Old Testament? You really want to delve into OT stuff?
> 
> And the sexually repressed (and probably closeted gay man) Paul? Puhleese. That's the same guy that says it's better to marry than to burn? The same guy who says women should be seen and not  heard? That Paul?
> 
> What did Jesus say on the subject? What's that? Nothing you say? Well, golly...
Click to expand...

You're a fool.


----------



## Seawytch

Mr.Right said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.
> 
> Gay Friendly Churches Growing​
> Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.
> 
> The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​
> How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage
> 
> In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]
> 
> This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]
> 
> Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.
> 
> For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexual behavior is prohibited in Scripture (Leviticus 20:13) and was a major cause of the divine judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:4-5, 12-13). The apostle Paul listed homosexuals among “the unrighteous” who would not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9), and declared that God’s wrath stands against such behavior, whether practiced by men or women (Romans 1:26-27).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Old Testament? You really want to delve into OT stuff?
> 
> And the sexually repressed (and probably closeted gay man) Paul? Puhleese. That's the same guy that says it's better to marry than to burn? The same guy who says women should be seen and not  heard? That Paul?
> 
> What did Jesus say on the subject? What's that? Nothing you say? Well, golly...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a fool.
Click to expand...


Gosh, what a stunning comeback. Not sure I'll ever recover from that one.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.



Jesus didn't write any of the Gospels.  They were eyewitness accounts.  Jude was Jesus's friend and personal servant.  Read Jude 1 and get back to me.


----------



## Mr.Right

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus didn't write any of the Gospels.  They were eyewitness accounts.  Jude was Jesus's friend and personal servant.  Read Jude 1 and get back to me.
Click to expand...

Jesus is God. God used men to write the Bible. Therefore, Jesus DID write the Bible.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.
> 
> Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gays and the mormons have kinda 'broken bread' in Utah and come to some compromises. The State is moving forward on anti-gay discrimination legislation and religion-protection legislation. It seemed reasonable to me. Like people trying to understand and accommodate each other.
> 
> And it inspired me to clear the mental deck and have some pretty honest conversations with Christian friends of mine. The 'Love they Neighbor' Christians, not the 'God Hates Fags' Christians.
> 
> And I'm convinced at least some of these folks are genuinely motivated by sincere faith and no by any hostility toward gays. That their aversion to selling wedding products has to do with their relationship with God and not their relationship with gays.
> 
> I think there is some middle ground to be found on this specific and singular issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the middle ground is don't go into the wedding business if "some people's" weddings cause you consternation. As Syriusly pointed out, we would not allow these religious exemptions for any other minority group. It would be unthinkable to allow someone to use their religion to not serve an interracial couple.
Click to expand...


So you're saying that one should not go into a business, if they're not prepared to tolerate every conceivable form of behavior?

ROFLMNAO... I tell ya friends, its getting harder and harder to not wish ill on these people.  But, this is how ALL WARS start.  So we shouldn't be surprised that our war will have begun through the same construct as every other war in the history of civilization.


----------



## JFish123

Next will be Christian pastors who refuse to perform a gay wedding will be sued for discrimination and more. Then welcome to Nazi Germany everybody 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.
> 
> Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?
> 
> And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.
> 
> Gay Friendly Churches Growing​
> Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.
> 
> The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​
> How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage
> 
> In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]
> 
> This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]
> 
> Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.
> 
> For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.
Click to expand...


So you feel that Jesus, who said that those who harm children...  would be better off to tie a millstone around their neck and toss into the sea, than to die and report to him in heaven, after having done so... you feel that Jesus would have no problem with a cult whose basis for existence is licensing adult/child sex?

ROFLMNAO!

The coolest part of all this is that Jesus is planning on coming back and you'll get to 'experience' this tolerance of evil, first hand.

And I should warn ya, the rumors that Christ is basically a door mat; quick with a handshake and all chuckles and grins... have PROBABLY been over-sold.  

I mean this is a guy who allowed himself to LITERALLY be NAILED TO A CROSS to pay off YOUR TAB... and through your behavior, you're effectively telling him to FUCK OFF!

I get the impression that he's more of a 'hold 'em accountable kinda guy.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Skylar has pointed out before- Churches are by nature discriminatory.
> 
> ...'no one else does' - public accommodation laws only apply to business's- not to individuals not engaged in business, not to Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?
> 
> What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No business gets a pass- but churches are not business's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To target unpopular biases for suppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite- to target historic discrimination of unpopular minority groups for suppression.
> 
> Do you know why women are included in the classes referred to in the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cruel irony of PA laws, and protected classes logic, is that it actually contributes to the persecution of minorities.
Click to expand...


All evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Syriusly

Mr.Right said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the imposition to gay couples is small enough while the imposition to the baker (if they are working in good faith with genuine religious conviction and trying to do what they feel is right and in accordance with their religion....which I argue some are) is great enough that I'm inclined on giving a the baker a pass _on this one issue._
> 
> As the degree of practical effect on a gay couple that will have to go to another baker doesn't come anywhere within several orders of magnitude of the practical effect of segregation or interracial marriage bans.
> 
> I think its a mistake to dismiss anyone who is adverse to making wedding products for gays as an 'anti-gay bigot'. While there are certainly many, I'd argue that there are some that genuinely have no animus toward gays, but are instead motivated by sincere religious belief and an aversion to offending God.
> 
> And that their needs are distinct from the bigots....and worthy of consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In general I agree with you. Though I am not certain that we would excuse 'sincere religious belief' much in context of many other discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fine with a solution that did not require any financial penalties for a first incident- but would require business's to change their business model in the future- either sell their products to everyone without discrimination or stop selling whatever products that they think would be a religious dilemma for them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slippery slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an interesting differentiation- the florist in Washington for example- she seems to have a sincerely held religious belief, and doesn't appear to have any animus against homosexuals.
> 
> Of course most of the people arguing on her 'behalf' here- start from a position of animus against homosexuals and try to use the bible to rationalize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?
> 
> And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.
> 
> Gay Friendly Churches Growing​
> Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.
> 
> The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​
> How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage
> 
> In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]
> 
> This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]
> 
> Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.
> 
> For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.
Click to expand...


Anyone who says that is not a Christian.


----------



## Seawytch

JFish123 said:


> Next will be Christian pastors who refuse to perform a gay wedding will be sued for discrimination and more. Then welcome to Nazi Germany everybody
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



As evidenced by all the churches that have been sued to perform interracial or interfaith marriages, right?


----------



## Mr.Right

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?
> 
> And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.
> 
> Gay Friendly Churches Growing​
> Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.
> 
> The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​
> How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage
> 
> In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]
> 
> This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]
> 
> Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.
> 
> For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you feel that Jesus, who said that those who harm children...  would be better off to tie a millstone around their neck and toss into the sea, than to die and report to him in heaven, after having done so... you feel that Jesus would have no problem with a cult whose basis for existence is licensing adult/child sex?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> The coolest part of all this is that Jesus is planning on coming back and you'll get to 'experience' this tolerance of evil, first hand.
> 
> And I should warn ya, the rumors that Christ is basically a door mat; quick with a handshake and all chuckles and grins... have PROBABLY been over-sold.
> 
> I mean this is a guy who allowed himself to LITERALLY be NAILED TO A CROSS to pay off YOUR TAB... and through your behavior, you're effectively telling him to FUCK OFF!
> 
> I get the impression that he's more of a 'hold 'em accountable kinda guy.
Click to expand...

That last sentence explains it all. People reject Christ because they do not want to be accountable to anyone. Maybe that explains why most liberals aren't Christians.


----------



## Syriusly

Mr.Right said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?
> 
> And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.
> 
> Gay Friendly Churches Growing​
> Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.
> 
> The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​
> How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage
> 
> In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]
> 
> This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]
> 
> Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.
> 
> For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexual behavior is prohibited in Scripture (Leviticus 20:13) and was a major cause of the divine judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:4-5, 12-13). The apostle Paul listed homosexuals among “the unrighteous” who would not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9), and declared that God’s wrath stands against such behavior, whether practiced by men or women (Romans 1:26-27).
Click to expand...


Oh I love this subject. 


Male homosexual sex is prohibited in Leviticus- but so is:
*Mixing fabrics in clothing* (19:19)
*Cursing your father or mother* (punishable by death) (20:9)
*Trimming your beard* (19:27)
But what was most important to Jesus? Well Jesus was pretty clear:

*“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”*

*So tell me- do you love all of your neighbors? Even your homosexual neighbors? *


----------



## Syriusly

JFish123 said:


> Next will be Christian pastors who refuse to perform a gay wedding will be sued for discrimination and more. Then welcome to Nazi Germany everybody



Yeah- not so much. 

Nazi Germany marched homosexuals into concentration camps to be murdered. 

Meanwhile- any idiot can sue anyone for any reason- an idiot bigot could sue a homosexual for being a homosexual, or an idiot could sue a pastor for refusing to marry them- both would be idiotic lawsuits that would be thrown out- but any idiot can file a lawsuit.  Even you.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why 'sincere religious belief' is one of two criteria I'm using. The other is practical effect. The imposition on the gay couple is quite small. Instances of this are rare, and available alternatives are vast.
> 
> I'm aware of the potential for a slipper slope. And it concerns me. But I've met people of good character and genuine principles that oppose providing wedding products to gays that I believe have no animus toward gays. But are instead motivated by what they feel is right, moral and in accordance with their faith.
> 
> These folks are worthy of some consideration.
> 
> I'd be open a full exemption on this one issue. Or at least a discussion of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we know she doesn't? Because she sold them flowers before? Do we know for certain she knew they were gay before their wedding?
> 
> And can't anyone who wanted to discriminate simply say it's because of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.
> 
> Gay Friendly Churches Growing​
> Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.
> 
> The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​
> How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage
> 
> In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]
> 
> This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]
> 
> Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.
> 
> For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you feel that Jesus, who said that those who harm children...  would be better off to tie a millstone around their neck and toss into the sea, than to die and report to him in heaven, after having done so... you feel that Jesus would have no problem with a cult whose basis for existence is licensing adult/child sex?.
Click to expand...


Lets look at Jesus's supposed actual instructions:

*“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”*


----------



## Syriusly

Mr.Right said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.
> 
> Gay Friendly Churches Growing​
> Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.
> 
> The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​
> How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage
> 
> In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]
> 
> This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]
> 
> Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.
> 
> For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you feel that Jesus, who said that those who harm children...  would be better off to tie a millstone around their neck and toss into the sea, than to die and report to him in heaven, after having done so... you feel that Jesus would have no problem with a cult whose basis for existence is licensing adult/child sex?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> The coolest part of all this is that Jesus is planning on coming back and you'll get to 'experience' this tolerance of evil, first hand.
> 
> And I should warn ya, the rumors that Christ is basically a door mat; quick with a handshake and all chuckles and grins... have PROBABLY been over-sold.
> 
> I mean this is a guy who allowed himself to LITERALLY be NAILED TO A CROSS to pay off YOUR TAB... and through your behavior, you're effectively telling him to FUCK OFF!
> 
> I get the impression that he's more of a 'hold 'em accountable kinda guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That last sentence explains it all. People reject Christ because they do not want to be accountable to anyone. Maybe that explains why most liberals aren't Christians.
Click to expand...


I am not certain- are you a liar? 

Or just an ignorant idiot?

More Than 9 in 10 Americans Continue to Believe in God





The majority of Democrats- and liberals- re Christians. 




Of course you are the kind of 'Christian' who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with you is not a 'real Christian'......


----------



## JFish123

Seawytch said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next will be Christian pastors who refuse to perform a gay wedding will be sued for discrimination and more. Then welcome to Nazi Germany everybody
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by all the churches that have been sued to perform interracial or interfaith marriages, right?
Click to expand...



COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.
The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity. 
That's just one example recently. So yeah. And to equate homosexual behavior with having black skin is an affront to the civil rights movement. Were gay people barred from restaurants? Did people force gays to the back of the bus? Did they have to go to desperate schools? Did they have to drink out of the gay water fountain? Did they endure hundreds of years in slavery? I must have slept through that part if history class. I always miss something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JFish123

Syriusly said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we stay on topic. Do you believe that Christian churches should be forced to marry gays? Give me a simple yes or no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...but not by the government. They are being "forced" now.
> 
> Gay Friendly Churches Growing​
> Nearly half of houses of worship in the United States now allow gay and lesbian members who are in long-term relationships to be members, while close to one in three now let gay and lesbian members hold voluntary leadership posts, according to a new study of more than a thousand American congregations.
> 
> The statistics, which represent a sharp uptick in acceptance of gay and lesbians in religious communities, are part of Duke University's latest National Congregations Study.​
> How Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage
> 
> In public, so many churches and pastors are afraid to talk about the generational and societal shifts happening. But behind the scenes, it’s a whole different game. Support for gay marriage across all age groups of white evangelicals has increased by double digits over the past decade, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, and the fastest change can be found among younger evangelicals—their support for gay marriage jumped from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014.[...]
> 
> This winter, EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of this move. EastLake is in many ways the quintessential evangelical megachurch–thousands-strong attendance, rock-music worship, Bible-preaching sermons. But pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks tells me. “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.”[...]
> 
> Brandan Robertson, 22, is the national spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, an effort started by millennials to help evangelicals support civil gay marriages, if not marriages in churches. Justin Lee, 37, of the Gay Christian Network hosted his 11th annual conference last week in Portland, Ore., and 1,400 people attended, double the number who came last year. Lee’s friendship with Alan Chambers, the former head of the ex-gay organization Exodus International, was one of the key factors that led Chambers to apologize for the hurt his organization caused, and the organization shut down.
> 
> For everyone on all sides, the Bible itself is at stake. And, religious change takes decades, centuries even, when it happens at all. But with each passing day it is becoming harder and harder to deny that change is indeed coming. Meeks put it this way: “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who is pro gay, and allows them in their Church is not a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion. I believe Jesus would be of a different one...but I've actually read what Jesus had to say about stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexual behavior is prohibited in Scripture (Leviticus 20:13) and was a major cause of the divine judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:4-5, 12-13). The apostle Paul listed homosexuals among “the unrighteous” who would not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9), and declared that God’s wrath stands against such behavior, whether practiced by men or women (Romans 1:26-27).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I love this subject.
> 
> 
> Male homosexual sex is prohibited in Leviticus- but so is:
> *Mixing fabrics in clothing* (19:19)
> *Cursing your father or mother* (punishable by death) (20:9)
> *Trimming your beard* (19:27)
> But what was most important to Jesus? Well Jesus was pretty clear:
> 
> *“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
> 
> Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”*
> 
> *So tell me- do you love all of your neighbors? Even your homosexual neighbors? *
Click to expand...

Love yes. Does that mean we have to approve of a lifestyle, no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr.Right

JFish123 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next will be Christian pastors who refuse to perform a gay wedding will be sued for discrimination and more. Then welcome to Nazi Germany everybody
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by all the churches that have been sued to perform interracial or interfaith marriages, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
> City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
> Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.
> The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.
> That's just one example recently. So yeah. And to equate homosexual behavior with having black skin is an affront to the civil rights movement. Were gay people barred from restaurants? Did people force gays to the back of the bus? Did they have to go to desperate schools? Did they have to drink out of the gay water fountain? Did they endure hundreds of years in slavery? I must have slept through that part if history class. I always miss something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And there are people on this site, who have the nerve to say Christians aren't being persecuted.


----------



## Seawytch

JFish123 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next will be Christian pastors who refuse to perform a gay wedding will be sued for discrimination and more. Then welcome to Nazi Germany everybody
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by all the churches that have been sued to perform interracial or interfaith marriages, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
> City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
> Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.
> The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.
> That's just one example recently. So yeah. And to equate homosexual behavior with having black skin is an affront to the civil rights movement. Were gay people barred from restaurants? Did people force gays to the back of the bus? Did they have to go to desperate schools? Did they have to drink out of the gay water fountain? Did they endure hundreds of years in slavery? I must have slept through that part if history class. I always miss something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Not a church. A for profit chapel is not a tax exempt church. Fail.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Bigots are by nature discriminatory too. Why to business owned by bigots get targeted but churches do not?
> 
> What about individuals engaged in business? (aka 'customers') Are they allowed to discriminate?
> 
> Churches are very definitely businesses. Sometimes highly profitable businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To target unpopular biases for suppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite- to target historic discrimination of unpopular minority groups for suppression.
> 
> Do you know why women are included in the classes referred to in the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cruel irony of PA laws, and protected classes logic, is that it actually contributes to the persecution of minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...


Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next will be Christian pastors who refuse to perform a gay wedding will be sued for discrimination and more. Then welcome to Nazi Germany everybody
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by all the churches that have been sued to perform interracial or interfaith marriages, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
> City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
> Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.
> The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.
> That's just one example recently. So yeah. And to equate homosexual behavior with having black skin is an affront to the civil rights movement. Were gay people barred from restaurants? Did people force gays to the back of the bus? Did they have to go to desperate schools? Did they have to drink out of the gay water fountain? Did they endure hundreds of years in slavery? I must have slept through that part if history class. I always miss something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a church. A for profit chapel is not a tax exempt church. Fail.
Click to expand...


RELATIVISM ON PARADE!

LOL!  I say it here... and it comes out THERE!  (Be _AMAAaaazed._  Be VERY _amaaaazed._)


----------



## Syriusly

Mr.Right said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next will be Christian pastors who refuse to perform a gay wedding will be sued for discrimination and more. Then welcome to Nazi Germany everybody
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by all the churches that have been sued to perform interracial or interfaith marriages, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
> City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
> Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.
> The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.
> That's just one example recently. So yeah. And to equate homosexual behavior with having black skin is an affront to the civil rights movement. Were gay people barred from restaurants? Did people force gays to the back of the bus? Did they have to go to desperate schools? Did they have to drink out of the gay water fountain? Did they endure hundreds of years in slavery? I must have slept through that part if history class. I always miss something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there are people on this site, who have the nerve to say Christians aren't being persecuted.
Click to expand...


Christians aren't being persecuted when they are being told to follow the same law as non-Christians.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the reason why we have public accommodation laws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To target unpopular biases for suppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite- to target historic discrimination of unpopular minority groups for suppression.
> 
> Do you know why women are included in the classes referred to in the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cruel irony of PA laws, and protected classes logic, is that it actually contributes to the persecution of minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.
Click to expand...


The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.


----------



## Syriusly

JFish123 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next will be Christian pastors who refuse to perform a gay wedding will be sued for discrimination and more. Then welcome to Nazi Germany everybody
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by all the churches that have been sued to perform interracial or interfaith marriages, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
> City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
> Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.
> The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.
> That's just one example recently. So yeah. And to equate homosexual behavior with having black skin is an affront to the civil rights movement. Were gay people barred from restaurants? Did people force gays to the back of the bus? Did they have to go to desperate schools? Did they have to drink out of the gay water fountain? Did they endure hundreds of years in slavery? I must have slept through that part if history class. I always miss something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


'just one example'- except its totally bogus- and old news. Reality is that the officials in Coeur d'Alene never threatened these two and specifically told them that they believed that they were exempt from the law. 

And yes apparently you did sleep through history class- different groups in the United States have been discriminated in different ways- not much argument that African Americans were the most openly and heavily discirminated against- but that doesn't mean that other groups- from American Indians to Jews to women to homosexuals were also discriminated against.

How were homosexuals discriminated against?

Until the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional, there were specific laws which forbade homosexual sodomy- exclusive from heterosexuals sodomy.
The State Department for years had an official policy to refuse to hire homosexuals, and fire them when they were discovered.
Many states passed laws (remember Anita Bryant) forbidding homosexuals to teach in public schools.
Police in NY, San Francisco and other cities routinely harassed homosexuals- as in arresting everyone in a gay bar, parading them through reporters, not filing charges- but calling their employers to let them know that they had homosexuals working for them.
For me, one of the most egregious examples was shown in the recent movie- Alan Turing in WW2 saved thousands of Allied lives by his code breaking work- yet a few years later he was arrested for consensual homosexual sex, and forced to undergo chemical castration. 
We have come a long way baby- it is no longer acceptable to beat up and murder homosexuals, it is no longer legal to pass laws specifically to discriminate against homosexuals, and in some places homosexuals have the same legal protections as other groups that have faced historical discrimination.

We are really doing pretty well- Americans- homosexuals and Christians- all protected by the law from discrimination by business's.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> To target unpopular biases for suppression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite- to target historic discrimination of unpopular minority groups for suppression.
> 
> Do you know why women are included in the classes referred to in the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cruel irony of PA laws, and protected classes logic, is that it actually contributes to the persecution of minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.
Click to expand...


Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.

There's still plenty of discrimination against minorities. You probably don't even think of it as "discrimination" because you think it's "for a good reason". And it's that's last bit that bothers me about these laws. They're not telling businesses they can't discriminate. They're telling them what reasons they can and can't use for discriminating. They're setting up special classes for special protection which is an affront to equal protection.


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite- to target historic discrimination of unpopular minority groups for suppression.
> 
> Do you know why women are included in the classes referred to in the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
> 
> 
> 
> The cruel irony of PA laws, and protected classes logic, is that it actually contributes to the persecution of minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.
Click to expand...


Yeah, who? Who are these "unpopular minorities" that will never get protected status and provide instances of when they needed it.


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cruel irony of PA laws, and protected classes logic, is that it actually contributes to the persecution of minorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, who? Who are these "unpopular minorities" that will never get protected status and provide instances of when they needed it.
Click to expand...


Ugly people. Poor people. Fat people. Dumb people. etc, etc...

But what you're not hearing me on here is that the really dangerous kind of discrimination is when society vilifies certain populations - like people with unpopular religions convictions, for example - and targets them with the law. It's really re-introducing the concept of Jim Crowe, albeit turned on its head. Instead of making sure government treats everyone equally, we now have government providing special protections in a vain attempt to get businesses to treat everyone equally.


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> All evidence to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, who? Who are these "unpopular minorities" that will never get protected status and provide instances of when they needed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ugly people. Poor people. Fat people. Dumb people. etc, etc...
> 
> But what you're not hearing me on here is that the really dangerous kind of discrimination is when society vilifies certain populations - like people with unpopular religions convictions, for example - and targets them with the law. It's really re-introducing the concept of Jim Crowe, albeit turned on its head. Instead of making sure government treats everyone equally, we now have government providing special protections in a vain attempt to get businesses to treat everyone equally.
Click to expand...


No examples of them being discriminated against in Public Accommodation I noticed. A lot of ugly fat people being denied service? Not in any establishment I've been in recently. 

Oh, and some state laws DO protect all the things you mentioned...


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, who? Who are these "unpopular minorities" that will never get protected status and provide instances of when they needed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ugly people. Poor people. Fat people. Dumb people. etc, etc...
> 
> But what you're not hearing me on here is that the really dangerous kind of discrimination is when society vilifies certain populations - like people with unpopular religions convictions, for example - and targets them with the law. It's really re-introducing the concept of Jim Crowe, albeit turned on its head. Instead of making sure government treats everyone equally, we now have government providing special protections in a vain attempt to get businesses to treat everyone equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No examples of them being discriminated against in Public Accommodation I noticed. A lot of ugly fat people being denied service? Not in any establishment I've been in recently.
> 
> Oh, and some state laws DO protect all the things you mentioned...
Click to expand...


Did you see the point of my post as you steered around it?


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite- to target historic discrimination of unpopular minority groups for suppression.
> 
> Do you know why women are included in the classes referred to in the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
> 
> 
> 
> The cruel irony of PA laws, and protected classes logic, is that it actually contributes to the persecution of minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.
> 
> There's still plenty of discrimination against minorities. You probably don't even think of it as "discrimination" because you think it's "for a good reason". And it's that's last bit that bothers me about these laws. They're not telling businesses they can't discriminate. They're telling them what reasons they can and can't use for discriminating. They're setting up special classes for special protection which is an affront to equal protection.
Click to expand...


Whatever- I think you are just arguing to argue. 

PA laws were established to address historic instances of blatant discrimination against people because of how they were identified by some people.

The laws have worked well- the discrimination in business that existed previously towards those groups has been largely curtailed. 

Are the laws now outdated? Perhaps- perhaps we don't need them anymore- and if you want to work to repeal them- go for it.


----------



## Silhouette

PA laws were established by some, but not all states, AFTER the 1st Amendment was established in the Constitution.  Long, loooonnnng after...

I think we all know how this is going to play out.    You cannot force someone to abandon key edicts of their faith.  Mortal sin isn't something you can bargain around with at Saturday confessional with your local priest.  Enabling the spread of a homosexual cultural takeover is a mortal sin.  You cannot let this cult make inroads into God's sacred covenant between a man and a woman.  Or you go to hell forever.  Not 20 Hail Marys.  Not a 50 lashings.  Hell, forever.  That is non-negotiable.

1st Amendment trumps.  Jude 1.  Read it.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> PA laws were established by some, but not all states, AFTER the 1st Amendment was established in the Constitution.  Long, loooonnnng after...
> 
> I think we all know how this is going to play out.



PA laws have already been ruled by the courts to be legit. 



> You cannot force someone to abandon key edicts of their faith.



Employment Division v. Smith seems to take a very different view on the matter than you do. 



> The government's ability to enforce generally applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct, like its ability to carry out other aspects of public policy, "cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector's spiritual development." _Lyng, supra,_ 485 U.S. at 451. To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling" -- permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself," _Reynolds v. United States,_ 98 U.S. at 167 -- contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.



Now what religion hating, lily livered liberal wrote this piece of binding precedent?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cruel irony of PA laws, and protected classes logic, is that it actually contributes to the persecution of minorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, who? Who are these "unpopular minorities" that will never get protected status and provide instances of when they needed it.
Click to expand...


They're people who are physically different, due to genetic distinctions, which preclude them from being anything else.

Compare that to say... the mentally disordered who demand to be 'protected' because they can't control their behavior.

See the difference?


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cruel irony of PA laws, and protected classes logic, is that it actually contributes to the persecution of minorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.
> 
> There's still plenty of discrimination against minorities. You probably don't even think of it as "discrimination" because you think it's "for a good reason". And it's that's last bit that bothers me about these laws. They're not telling businesses they can't discriminate. They're telling them what reasons they can and can't use for discriminating. They're setting up special classes for special protection which is an affront to equal protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever- I think you are just arguing to argue.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you see it that way. I assure you, it's more than that.


> PA laws were established to address historic instances of blatant discrimination against people because of how they were identified by some people.
> 
> The laws have worked well- the discrimination in business that existed previously towards those groups has been largely curtailed.



How well they've worked is debatable, at best. History is full of solutions that "worked", even when they were later recognized as malignant.



> Are the laws now outdated? Perhaps- perhaps we don't need them anymore- and if you want to work to repeal them- go for it.



That's the point in my posting here. We won't get any real momentum for repeal until people are alerted to the insidious nature of "thought crimes" legislation.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> *Are the laws now outdated*? Perhaps- perhaps we don't need them anymore- and if you want to work to repeal them- go for it.





dblack said:


> That's the point in my posting here. We won't get any real momentum for repeal until people are alerted to the insidious nature of "thought crimes" legislation.


 
With respect to this topic, the PA laws were outdated in 1776.  1st Amendment trumps.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Are the laws now outdated*? Perhaps- perhaps we don't need them anymore- and if you want to work to repeal them- go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point in my posting here. We won't get any real momentum for repeal until people are alerted to the insidious nature of "thought crimes" legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With respect to this topic, the PA laws were outdated in 1776.  1st Amendment trumps.
Click to expand...


If your religion precludes you from being able to do your job, get another job.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Are the laws now outdated*? Perhaps- perhaps we don't need them anymore- and if you want to work to repeal them- go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point in my posting here. We won't get any real momentum for repeal until people are alerted to the insidious nature of "thought crimes" legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With respect to this topic, the PA laws were outdated in 1776.  1st Amendment trumps.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are perfectly Constitutional and in no way violate religious expression.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> If your religion precludes you from being able to do your job, get another job.



And if your job duties are redefined by intrusive special interest legislation?


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your religion precludes you from being able to do your job, get another job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if your job duties are redefined by intrusive special interest legislation?
Click to expand...


PA laws aren't new. They've been around for quite a while.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your religion precludes you from being able to do your job, get another job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if your job duties are redefined by intrusive special interest legislation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws aren't new. They've been around for quite a while.
Click to expand...


Not sure how that answers the question.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your religion precludes you from being able to do your job, get another job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if your job duties are redefined by intrusive special interest legislation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws aren't new. They've been around for quite a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure how that answers the question.
Click to expand...


Most of the folks who are facing PA law violations aren't facing a change of PA laws that resulted in their behavior creating a violation.

But instead a change in their behavior that has created a violation.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your religion precludes you from being able to do your job, get another job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if your job duties are redefined by intrusive special interest legislation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws aren't new. They've been around for quite a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure how that answers the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of the folks who are facing PA law violations aren't facing a change of PA laws that resulted in their behavior creating a violation.
> 
> But instead a change in their behavior that has created a violation.
Click to expand...


Well, no, they are. That's why they're being newly challenged. This will happened everytime they expand the scope by adding new protected classes.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> All evidence to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, who? Who are these "unpopular minorities" that will never get protected status and provide instances of when they needed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compare that to say... the mentally disordered who demand to be 'protected' because they can't control their behavior.
Click to expand...


Okay- so you have described Christians like yourself- but even you are protected by public accommodation laws- it is against the law for a shop to deny you service just because you are a Christian.

Not certain if denying service to you because you are batshit crazy is protected or not.


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your religion precludes you from being able to do your job, get another job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if your job duties are redefined by intrusive special interest legislation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws aren't new. They've been around for quite a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure how that answers the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of the folks who are facing PA law violations aren't facing a change of PA laws that resulted in their behavior creating a violation.
> 
> But instead a change in their behavior that has created a violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, they are. That's why they're being newly challenged. This will happened everytime they expand the scope by adding new protected classes.
Click to expand...


Because bigots use the same playbook every time? That doesn't seem like a good reason to get rid of them.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your religion precludes you from being able to do your job, get another job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if your job duties are redefined by intrusive special interest legislation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws aren't new. They've been around for quite a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure how that answers the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of the folks who are facing PA law violations aren't facing a change of PA laws that resulted in their behavior creating a violation.
> 
> But instead a change in their behavior that has created a violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, they are. That's why they're being newly challenged. This will happened everytime they expand the scope by adding new protected classes.
Click to expand...


And they have every right to challenge those laws if they want to- just as gay couples who felt anti-gay marriage laws were unconstitutional did.

They can either try to change the legislation- or they can go to court and argue that it is unconstitutional. 

Worked fine for gay couples- feel free to pursue the changes you want either way.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> All evidence to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unpopular minorities are the only groups who will ever be targeted by such laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claim was that PA contribute to the persecution of minorities- yet the actual evidence is that 50 years after the granddaddy of PA laws we see less persecution of minorities not more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the "minorities" who have won approval from the majority. That's what you're not getting. Real unpopular minorities will never get "protected class" status.
> 
> There's still plenty of discrimination against minorities. You probably don't even think of it as "discrimination" because you think it's "for a good reason". And it's that's last bit that bothers me about these laws. They're not telling businesses they can't discriminate. They're telling them what reasons they can and can't use for discriminating. They're setting up special classes for special protection which is an affront to equal protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point in my posting here. We won't get any real momentum for repeal until people are alerted to the insidious nature of "thought crimes" legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you are welcome to your opinion.
> 
> I look forward to your campaign to repeal the 1964 Civil Right Act- it will be fun to watch.
Click to expand...


----------



## beagle9

Seawytch said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next will be Christian pastors who refuse to perform a gay wedding will be sued for discrimination and more. Then welcome to Nazi Germany everybody
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by all the churches that have been sued to perform interracial or interfaith marriages, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
> City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
> Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.
> The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.
> That's just one example recently. So yeah. And to equate homosexual behavior with having black skin is an affront to the civil rights movement. Were gay people barred from restaurants? Did people force gays to the back of the bus? Did they have to go to desperate schools? Did they have to drink out of the gay water fountain? Did they endure hundreds of years in slavery? I must have slept through that part if history class. I always miss something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a church. A for profit chapel is not a tax exempt church. Fail.
Click to expand...

The wolf will keep blowing and huffing and puffing until he tries to blow all our houses down. Just you all wait and see.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next will be Christian pastors who refuse to perform a gay wedding will be sued for discrimination and more. Then welcome to Nazi Germany everybody
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by all the churches that have been sued to perform interracial or interfaith marriages, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
> City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
> Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.
> The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.
> That's just one example recently. So yeah. And to equate homosexual behavior with having black skin is an affront to the civil rights movement. Were gay people barred from restaurants? Did people force gays to the back of the bus? Did they have to go to desperate schools? Did they have to drink out of the gay water fountain? Did they endure hundreds of years in slavery? I must have slept through that part if history class. I always miss something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'just one example'- except its totally bogus- and old news. Reality is that the officials in Coeur d'Alene never threatened these two and specifically told them that they believed that they were exempt from the law.
> 
> And yes apparently you did sleep through history class- different groups in the United States have been discriminated in different ways- not much argument that African Americans were the most openly and heavily discirminated against- but that doesn't mean that other groups- from American Indians to Jews to women to homosexuals were also discriminated against.
> 
> How were homosexuals discriminated against?
> 
> Until the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional, there were specific laws which forbade homosexual sodomy- exclusive from heterosexuals sodomy.
> The State Department for years had an official policy to refuse to hire homosexuals, and fire them when they were discovered.
> Many states passed laws (remember Anita Bryant) forbidding homosexuals to teach in public schools.
> Police in NY, San Francisco and other cities routinely harassed homosexuals- as in arresting everyone in a gay bar, parading them through reporters, not filing charges- but calling their employers to let them know that they had homosexuals working for them.
> For me, one of the most egregious examples was shown in the recent movie- Alan Turing in WW2 saved thousands of Allied lives by his code breaking work- yet a few years later he was arrested for consensual homosexual sex, and forced to undergo chemical castration.
> We have come a long way baby- it is no longer acceptable to beat up and murder homosexuals, it is no longer legal to pass laws specifically to discriminate against homosexuals, and in some places homosexuals have the same legal protections as other groups that have faced historical discrimination.
> 
> We are really doing pretty well- Americans- homosexuals and Christians- all protected by the law from discrimination by business's.
Click to expand...

Empowering and/or building up the homosexual culture around marriage now, and through the use of marriage as it was always understood to be something that is between a man and a woman, will be a huge mistake in the future I believe.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next will be Christian pastors who refuse to perform a gay wedding will be sued for discrimination and more. Then welcome to Nazi Germany everybody
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by all the churches that have been sued to perform interracial or interfaith marriages, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
> City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
> Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.
> The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.
> That's just one example recently. So yeah. And to equate homosexual behavior with having black skin is an affront to the civil rights movement. Were gay people barred from restaurants? Did people force gays to the back of the bus? Did they have to go to desperate schools? Did they have to drink out of the gay water fountain? Did they endure hundreds of years in slavery? I must have slept through that part if history class. I always miss something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'just one example'- except its totally bogus- and old news. Reality is that the officials in Coeur d'Alene never threatened these two and specifically told them that they believed that they were exempt from the law.
> 
> And yes apparently you did sleep through history class- different groups in the United States have been discriminated in different ways- not much argument that African Americans were the most openly and heavily discirminated against- but that doesn't mean that other groups- from American Indians to Jews to women to homosexuals were also discriminated against.
> 
> How were homosexuals discriminated against?
> 
> Until the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional, there were specific laws which forbade homosexual sodomy- exclusive from heterosexuals sodomy.
> The State Department for years had an official policy to refuse to hire homosexuals, and fire them when they were discovered.
> Many states passed laws (remember Anita Bryant) forbidding homosexuals to teach in public schools.
> Police in NY, San Francisco and other cities routinely harassed homosexuals- as in arresting everyone in a gay bar, parading them through reporters, not filing charges- but calling their employers to let them know that they had homosexuals working for them.
> For me, one of the most egregious examples was shown in the recent movie- Alan Turing in WW2 saved thousands of Allied lives by his code breaking work- yet a few years later he was arrested for consensual homosexual sex, and forced to undergo chemical castration.
> We have come a long way baby- it is no longer acceptable to beat up and murder homosexuals, it is no longer legal to pass laws specifically to discriminate against homosexuals, and in some places homosexuals have the same legal protections as other groups that have faced historical discrimination.
> 
> We are really doing pretty well- Americans- homosexuals and Christians- all protected by the law from discrimination by business's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Empowering and/or building up the homosexual culture around marriage now, and through the use of marriage as it was always understood to be something that is between a man and a woman, will be a huge mistake in the future I believe.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

There is no such thing as 'homosexual culture.'

Your fear and hatred of gay Americans is unwarranted and ridiculous.


----------



## Mr.Right

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next will be Christian pastors who refuse to perform a gay wedding will be sued for discrimination and more. Then welcome to Nazi Germany everybody
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by all the churches that have been sued to perform interracial or interfaith marriages, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
> City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
> Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.
> The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.
> That's just one example recently. So yeah. And to equate homosexual behavior with having black skin is an affront to the civil rights movement. Were gay people barred from restaurants? Did people force gays to the back of the bus? Did they have to go to desperate schools? Did they have to drink out of the gay water fountain? Did they endure hundreds of years in slavery? I must have slept through that part if history class. I always miss something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'just one example'- except its totally bogus- and old news. Reality is that the officials in Coeur d'Alene never threatened these two and specifically told them that they believed that they were exempt from the law.
> 
> And yes apparently you did sleep through history class- different groups in the United States have been discriminated in different ways- not much argument that African Americans were the most openly and heavily discirminated against- but that doesn't mean that other groups- from American Indians to Jews to women to homosexuals were also discriminated against.
> 
> How were homosexuals discriminated against?
> 
> Until the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional, there were specific laws which forbade homosexual sodomy- exclusive from heterosexuals sodomy.
> The State Department for years had an official policy to refuse to hire homosexuals, and fire them when they were discovered.
> Many states passed laws (remember Anita Bryant) forbidding homosexuals to teach in public schools.
> Police in NY, San Francisco and other cities routinely harassed homosexuals- as in arresting everyone in a gay bar, parading them through reporters, not filing charges- but calling their employers to let them know that they had homosexuals working for them.
> For me, one of the most egregious examples was shown in the recent movie- Alan Turing in WW2 saved thousands of Allied lives by his code breaking work- yet a few years later he was arrested for consensual homosexual sex, and forced to undergo chemical castration.
> We have come a long way baby- it is no longer acceptable to beat up and murder homosexuals, it is no longer legal to pass laws specifically to discriminate against homosexuals, and in some places homosexuals have the same legal protections as other groups that have faced historical discrimination.
> 
> We are really doing pretty well- Americans- homosexuals and Christians- all protected by the law from discrimination by business's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Empowering and/or building up the homosexual culture around marriage now, and through the use of marriage as it was always understood to be something that is between a man and a woman, will be a huge mistake in the future I believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> There is no such thing as 'homosexual culture.'
> 
> Your fear and hatred of gay Americans is unwarranted and ridiculous.
Click to expand...

And your love and support of them is disgusting.your kind will lead us all to destruction.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next will be Christian pastors who refuse to perform a gay wedding will be sued for discrimination and more. Then welcome to Nazi Germany everybody
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by all the churches that have been sued to perform interracial or interfaith marriages, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
> City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
> Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.
> The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.
> That's just one example recently. So yeah. And to equate homosexual behavior with having black skin is an affront to the civil rights movement. Were gay people barred from restaurants? Did people force gays to the back of the bus? Did they have to go to desperate schools? Did they have to drink out of the gay water fountain? Did they endure hundreds of years in slavery? I must have slept through that part if history class. I always miss something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'just one example'- except its totally bogus- and old news. Reality is that the officials in Coeur d'Alene never threatened these two and specifically told them that they believed that they were exempt from the law.
> 
> And yes apparently you did sleep through history class- different groups in the United States have been discriminated in different ways- not much argument that African Americans were the most openly and heavily discirminated against- but that doesn't mean that other groups- from American Indians to Jews to women to homosexuals were also discriminated against.
> 
> How were homosexuals discriminated against?
> 
> Until the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional, there were specific laws which forbade homosexual sodomy- exclusive from heterosexuals sodomy.
> The State Department for years had an official policy to refuse to hire homosexuals, and fire them when they were discovered.
> Many states passed laws (remember Anita Bryant) forbidding homosexuals to teach in public schools.
> Police in NY, San Francisco and other cities routinely harassed homosexuals- as in arresting everyone in a gay bar, parading them through reporters, not filing charges- but calling their employers to let them know that they had homosexuals working for them.
> For me, one of the most egregious examples was shown in the recent movie- Alan Turing in WW2 saved thousands of Allied lives by his code breaking work- yet a few years later he was arrested for consensual homosexual sex, and forced to undergo chemical castration.
> We have come a long way baby- it is no longer acceptable to beat up and murder homosexuals, it is no longer legal to pass laws specifically to discriminate against homosexuals, and in some places homosexuals have the same legal protections as other groups that have faced historical discrimination.
> 
> We are really doing pretty well- Americans- homosexuals and Christians- all protected by the law from discrimination by business's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Empowering and/or building up the homosexual culture around marriage now, and through the use of marriage as it was always understood to be something that is between a man and a woman, will be a huge mistake in the future I believe.
Click to expand...


You are welcome to your opinion. 

Meanwhile, I look forward to the children of gay couples being able to have married parents in all 50 states.


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next will be Christian pastors who refuse to perform a gay wedding will be sued for discrimination and more. Then welcome to Nazi Germany everybody
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by all the churches that have been sued to perform interracial or interfaith marriages, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
> City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
> Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.
> The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.
> That's just one example recently. So yeah. And to equate homosexual behavior with having black skin is an affront to the civil rights movement. Were gay people barred from restaurants? Did people force gays to the back of the bus? Did they have to go to desperate schools? Did they have to drink out of the gay water fountain? Did they endure hundreds of years in slavery? I must have slept through that part if history class. I always miss something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'just one example'- except its totally bogus- and old news. Reality is that the officials in Coeur d'Alene never threatened these two and specifically told them that they believed that they were exempt from the law.
> 
> And yes apparently you did sleep through history class- different groups in the United States have been discriminated in different ways- not much argument that African Americans were the most openly and heavily discirminated against- but that doesn't mean that other groups- from American Indians to Jews to women to homosexuals were also discriminated against.
> 
> How were homosexuals discriminated against?
> 
> Until the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional, there were specific laws which forbade homosexual sodomy- exclusive from heterosexuals sodomy.
> The State Department for years had an official policy to refuse to hire homosexuals, and fire them when they were discovered.
> Many states passed laws (remember Anita Bryant) forbidding homosexuals to teach in public schools.
> Police in NY, San Francisco and other cities routinely harassed homosexuals- as in arresting everyone in a gay bar, parading them through reporters, not filing charges- but calling their employers to let them know that they had homosexuals working for them.
> For me, one of the most egregious examples was shown in the recent movie- Alan Turing in WW2 saved thousands of Allied lives by his code breaking work- yet a few years later he was arrested for consensual homosexual sex, and forced to undergo chemical castration.
> We have come a long way baby- it is no longer acceptable to beat up and murder homosexuals, it is no longer legal to pass laws specifically to discriminate against homosexuals, and in some places homosexuals have the same legal protections as other groups that have faced historical discrimination.
> 
> We are really doing pretty well- Americans- homosexuals and Christians- all protected by the law from discrimination by business's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Empowering and/or building up the homosexual culture around marriage now, and through the use of marriage as it was always understood to be something that is between a man and a woman, will be a huge mistake in the future I believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> There is no such thing as 'homosexual culture.'
> 
> Your fear and hatred of gay Americans is unwarranted and ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No fear and no hatred here, just concern about how people are choosing to act and/or to live their lives these days, and what it is doing to them along with our society at large. Hey it's always been "Love the sinner, but not the sin" right ? What's changed on that ? I think that the (sinner / human being) has got to somehow try and do better in life against sin, and this instead of expecting everyone to come to them just like it is getting more and more to be in all of this mess.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by all the churches that have been sued to perform interracial or interfaith marriages, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
> City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
> Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.
> The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.
> That's just one example recently. So yeah. And to equate homosexual behavior with having black skin is an affront to the civil rights movement. Were gay people barred from restaurants? Did people force gays to the back of the bus? Did they have to go to desperate schools? Did they have to drink out of the gay water fountain? Did they endure hundreds of years in slavery? I must have slept through that part if history class. I always miss something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'just one example'- except its totally bogus- and old news. Reality is that the officials in Coeur d'Alene never threatened these two and specifically told them that they believed that they were exempt from the law.
> 
> And yes apparently you did sleep through history class- different groups in the United States have been discriminated in different ways- not much argument that African Americans were the most openly and heavily discirminated against- but that doesn't mean that other groups- from American Indians to Jews to women to homosexuals were also discriminated against.
> 
> How were homosexuals discriminated against?
> 
> Until the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional, there were specific laws which forbade homosexual sodomy- exclusive from heterosexuals sodomy.
> The State Department for years had an official policy to refuse to hire homosexuals, and fire them when they were discovered.
> Many states passed laws (remember Anita Bryant) forbidding homosexuals to teach in public schools.
> Police in NY, San Francisco and other cities routinely harassed homosexuals- as in arresting everyone in a gay bar, parading them through reporters, not filing charges- but calling their employers to let them know that they had homosexuals working for them.
> For me, one of the most egregious examples was shown in the recent movie- Alan Turing in WW2 saved thousands of Allied lives by his code breaking work- yet a few years later he was arrested for consensual homosexual sex, and forced to undergo chemical castration.
> We have come a long way baby- it is no longer acceptable to beat up and murder homosexuals, it is no longer legal to pass laws specifically to discriminate against homosexuals, and in some places homosexuals have the same legal protections as other groups that have faced historical discrimination.
> 
> We are really doing pretty well- Americans- homosexuals and Christians- all protected by the law from discrimination by business's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Empowering and/or building up the homosexual culture around marriage now, and through the use of marriage as it was always understood to be something that is between a man and a woman, will be a huge mistake in the future I believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> There is no such thing as 'homosexual culture.'
> 
> Your fear and hatred of gay Americans is unwarranted and ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fear and no hatred here, just concern about how people are choosing to act and/or to live their lives these days, and what it is doing to them along with our society at large. Hey it's always been "Love the sinner, but not the sin" right ? What's changed on that ? I think that the (sinner / human being) has got to somehow try and do better in life against sin, and this instead of expecting everyone to come to them just like it is getting more and more to be in all of this mess.
Click to expand...


Focus on your own sinning and don't get your panties in a twist about someone else's. That's between them and God. Your responsibility is to Love God and to Love your neighbor. 

Not to punish your neighbor because you don't think he's doing what God told him to do. If there's punishment to met out, God will do it. Take the beam out of your own eye.


----------



## JFish123

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
> City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
> Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.
> The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.
> That's just one example recently. So yeah. And to equate homosexual behavior with having black skin is an affront to the civil rights movement. Were gay people barred from restaurants? Did people force gays to the back of the bus? Did they have to go to desperate schools? Did they have to drink out of the gay water fountain? Did they endure hundreds of years in slavery? I must have slept through that part if history class. I always miss something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'just one example'- except its totally bogus- and old news. Reality is that the officials in Coeur d'Alene never threatened these two and specifically told them that they believed that they were exempt from the law.
> 
> And yes apparently you did sleep through history class- different groups in the United States have been discriminated in different ways- not much argument that African Americans were the most openly and heavily discirminated against- but that doesn't mean that other groups- from American Indians to Jews to women to homosexuals were also discriminated against.
> 
> How were homosexuals discriminated against?
> 
> Until the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional, there were specific laws which forbade homosexual sodomy- exclusive from heterosexuals sodomy.
> The State Department for years had an official policy to refuse to hire homosexuals, and fire them when they were discovered.
> Many states passed laws (remember Anita Bryant) forbidding homosexuals to teach in public schools.
> Police in NY, San Francisco and other cities routinely harassed homosexuals- as in arresting everyone in a gay bar, parading them through reporters, not filing charges- but calling their employers to let them know that they had homosexuals working for them.
> For me, one of the most egregious examples was shown in the recent movie- Alan Turing in WW2 saved thousands of Allied lives by his code breaking work- yet a few years later he was arrested for consensual homosexual sex, and forced to undergo chemical castration.
> We have come a long way baby- it is no longer acceptable to beat up and murder homosexuals, it is no longer legal to pass laws specifically to discriminate against homosexuals, and in some places homosexuals have the same legal protections as other groups that have faced historical discrimination.
> 
> We are really doing pretty well- Americans- homosexuals and Christians- all protected by the law from discrimination by business's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Empowering and/or building up the homosexual culture around marriage now, and through the use of marriage as it was always understood to be something that is between a man and a woman, will be a huge mistake in the future I believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> There is no such thing as 'homosexual culture.'
> 
> Your fear and hatred of gay Americans is unwarranted and ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fear and no hatred here, just concern about how people are choosing to act and/or to live their lives these days, and what it is doing to them along with our society at large. Hey it's always been "Love the sinner, but not the sin" right ? What's changed on that ? I think that the (sinner / human being) has got to somehow try and do better in life against sin, and this instead of expecting everyone to come to them just like it is getting more and more to be in all of this mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Focus on your own sinning and don't get your panties in a twist about someone else's. That's between them and God. Your responsibility is to Love God and to Love your neighbor.
> 
> Not to punish your neighbor because you don't think he's doing what God told him to do. If there's punishment to met out, God will do it. Take the beam out of your own eye.
Click to expand...

And if we don't have a beam we then can and should point out what's not Godly so maybe they can get gelp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Focus on your own sinning and don't get your panties in a twist about someone else's. That's between them and God. Your responsibility is to Love God and to Love your neighbor.
> 
> *Not to punish your neighbor* because you don't think he's doing what God told him to do. If there's punishment to met out, God will do it. Take the beam out of your own eye.


 
Your false angst is equivalent to a child trying to burn himself on a hot stove, just as his mother catches him and swats his hand away.  You cry "You evil woman!  How dare you punish me for exercising my rights!"

You aren't well enough to make the call of whether or not society as a whole should be forced to indulge your delusions that two men or two women are acceptable subsitutes for the world's most important social institution for the future of mankind: IT'S CHILDREN in their formative years.  So we who are still playing with a full deck make that call for you.  Your behaviors are unacceptable to be modeled "as normal" for kids in this formative mileu.  Your gay male ranks cannot provide a mother or a sense of belonging in a functioning adult world to a young girl growing up.  Your lesbian ranks cannot provide a father or a sense of belonging in a functioning adult world to a young boy growing up.  You FAIL at the baseline physical test to be parents to children in the way that is best for them.  I'm not even talking about religion here.  It's a simple physical failure.  No emotion attached.  It just IS.

That being said, there are quite a few nuggets of wisdom and plain old common sense in the old Bible in just day to day humans getting along in the world.  One of those nuggets is Jude 1.  It says to extend compassion to INDIVIDUAL gays, "making a difference".  Note: it does not say "leaving them as they are to suffer".  Nor does it say "telling them that what they're doing is just fine".  Condoning "gay marriage" is a Christian violating Jude 1.  It says that a Christian must never promote a GROUP of gays in their subculture in TAKING OVER a normal human society where men and women are spouses, fathers and mothers.  So, you cannot force a Christian to participate in another religion that defies the Christian one.  And that is, of course, precisely what you are doing with PA laws.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Focus on your own sinning and don't get your panties in a twist about someone else's. That's between them and God. Your responsibility is to Love God and to Love your neighbor.
> 
> *Not to punish your neighbor* because you don't think he's doing what God told him to do. If there's punishment to met out, God will do it. Take the beam out of your own eye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your false angst is equivalent to a child trying to burn himself on a hot stove, just as his mother catches him and swats his hand away.  You cry "You evil woman!  How dare you punish me for exercising my rights!"
Click to expand...


Here's the problem with your analogy: the people you're trying to punish* aren't your children.* *You're not their parent. God is the parent. You are the child. *And he's told you to love your neighbor. He's never told you to punish your neighbor.

That's not your role. You're trying to take God's place by inflicting God's punishment for the violation of God's rules. And you're not God. Any issues an individual has with God are between that person and God. Not you. the only relationship with God that you should be concerend with is your own.

Instead of lamenting about the mote in someone else's eyes, work on getting the beam out of your own.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
> City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
> Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.
> The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.
> That's just one example recently. So yeah. And to equate homosexual behavior with having black skin is an affront to the civil rights movement. Were gay people barred from restaurants? Did people force gays to the back of the bus? Did they have to go to desperate schools? Did they have to drink out of the gay water fountain? Did they endure hundreds of years in slavery? I must have slept through that part if history class. I always miss something.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'just one example'- except its totally bogus- and old news. Reality is that the officials in Coeur d'Alene never threatened these two and specifically told them that they believed that they were exempt from the law.
> 
> And yes apparently you did sleep through history class- different groups in the United States have been discriminated in different ways- not much argument that African Americans were the most openly and heavily discirminated against- but that doesn't mean that other groups- from American Indians to Jews to women to homosexuals were also discriminated against.
> 
> How were homosexuals discriminated against?
> 
> Until the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional, there were specific laws which forbade homosexual sodomy- exclusive from heterosexuals sodomy.
> The State Department for years had an official policy to refuse to hire homosexuals, and fire them when they were discovered.
> Many states passed laws (remember Anita Bryant) forbidding homosexuals to teach in public schools.
> Police in NY, San Francisco and other cities routinely harassed homosexuals- as in arresting everyone in a gay bar, parading them through reporters, not filing charges- but calling their employers to let them know that they had homosexuals working for them.
> For me, one of the most egregious examples was shown in the recent movie- Alan Turing in WW2 saved thousands of Allied lives by his code breaking work- yet a few years later he was arrested for consensual homosexual sex, and forced to undergo chemical castration.
> We have come a long way baby- it is no longer acceptable to beat up and murder homosexuals, it is no longer legal to pass laws specifically to discriminate against homosexuals, and in some places homosexuals have the same legal protections as other groups that have faced historical discrimination.
> 
> We are really doing pretty well- Americans- homosexuals and Christians- all protected by the law from discrimination by business's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Empowering and/or building up the homosexual culture around marriage now, and through the use of marriage as it was always understood to be something that is between a man and a woman, will be a huge mistake in the future I believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> There is no such thing as 'homosexual culture.'
> 
> Your fear and hatred of gay Americans is unwarranted and ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fear and no hatred here, just concern about how people are choosing to act and/or to live their lives these days, and what it is doing to them along with our society at large. Hey it's always been "Love the sinner, but not the sin" right ? What's changed on that ? I think that the (sinner / human being) has got to somehow try and do better in life against sin, and this instead of expecting everyone to come to them just like it is getting more and more to be in all of this mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Focus on your own sinning and don't get your panties in a twist about someone else's. That's between them and God. Your responsibility is to Love God and to Love your neighbor.
> 
> Not to punish your neighbor because you don't think he's doing what God told him to do. If there's punishment to met out, God will do it. Take the beam out of your own eye.
Click to expand...

Focus on your own cake making and etc. then, and don't get your panties in a twist when a Christian doesn't want to allow you to make them bake a cake for your gay wedding & etc. The Christian choices (yes) is between them and God just as well the same, and so yes of course it is, and your responsibility is to honor their choice in life just as you expect to be honored in your lifestyle choices as well. However, you are not to force your lifestyle on to them in these ways in which it has been done by you all now in some strange and certain ways, because it is just wrong and you all know it, just like they (the Christians) are not to force you to come to church with them or to pray with them either. It is high time people begin to respect each others space and each others faith (as long as they are peaceful in doing so once again in life).


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Focus on your own sinning and don't get your panties in a twist about someone else's. That's between them and God. Your responsibility is to Love God and to Love your neighbor.
> 
> *Not to punish your neighbor* because you don't think he's doing what God told him to do. If there's punishment to met out, God will do it. Take the beam out of your own eye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your false angst is equivalent to a child trying to burn himself on a hot stove, just as his mother catches him and swats his hand away.  You cry "You evil woman!  How dare you punish me for exercising my rights!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with your analogy: the people you're trying to punish* aren't your children.* *You're not their parent. God is the parent. You are the child. *And he's told you to love your neighbor. He's never told you to punish your neighbor.
> 
> That's not your role. You're trying to take God's place by inflicting God's punishment for the violation of God's rules. And you're not God. Any issues an individual has with God are between that person and God. Not you. the only relationship with God that you should be concerend with is your own.
> 
> Instead of lamenting about the mote in someone else's eyes, work on getting the beam out of your own.
Click to expand...

Whose punishing who here ?


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Focus on your own sinning and don't get your panties in a twist about someone else's. That's between them and God. Your responsibility is to Love God and to Love your neighbor.
> 
> *Not to punish your neighbor* because you don't think he's doing what God told him to do. If there's punishment to met out, God will do it. Take the beam out of your own eye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your false angst is equivalent to a child trying to burn himself on a hot stove, just as his mother catches him and swats his hand away.  You cry "You evil woman!  How dare you punish me for exercising my rights!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with your analogy: the people you're trying to punish* aren't your children.* *You're not their parent. God is the parent. You are the child. *And he's told you to love your neighbor. He's never told you to punish your neighbor.
> 
> That's not your role. You're trying to take God's place by inflicting God's punishment for the violation of God's rules. And you're not God. Any issues an individual has with God are between that person and God. Not you. the only relationship with God that you should be concerend with is your own.
> 
> Instead of lamenting about the mote in someone else's eyes, work on getting the beam out of your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whose punishing who here ?
Click to expand...


Its not your role to punish _anyone _for what you believe is a violation of God's moral rules. Its your role to Love God and Love your Neighbor. 

If you have to fixate on someone's relationship with God, make it your own.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'just one example'- except its totally bogus- and old news. Reality is that the officials in Coeur d'Alene never threatened these two and specifically told them that they believed that they were exempt from the law.
> 
> And yes apparently you did sleep through history class- different groups in the United States have been discriminated in different ways- not much argument that African Americans were the most openly and heavily discirminated against- but that doesn't mean that other groups- from American Indians to Jews to women to homosexuals were also discriminated against.
> 
> How were homosexuals discriminated against?
> 
> Until the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional, there were specific laws which forbade homosexual sodomy- exclusive from heterosexuals sodomy.
> The State Department for years had an official policy to refuse to hire homosexuals, and fire them when they were discovered.
> Many states passed laws (remember Anita Bryant) forbidding homosexuals to teach in public schools.
> Police in NY, San Francisco and other cities routinely harassed homosexuals- as in arresting everyone in a gay bar, parading them through reporters, not filing charges- but calling their employers to let them know that they had homosexuals working for them.
> For me, one of the most egregious examples was shown in the recent movie- Alan Turing in WW2 saved thousands of Allied lives by his code breaking work- yet a few years later he was arrested for consensual homosexual sex, and forced to undergo chemical castration.
> We have come a long way baby- it is no longer acceptable to beat up and murder homosexuals, it is no longer legal to pass laws specifically to discriminate against homosexuals, and in some places homosexuals have the same legal protections as other groups that have faced historical discrimination.
> 
> We are really doing pretty well- Americans- homosexuals and Christians- all protected by the law from discrimination by business's.
> 
> 
> 
> Empowering and/or building up the homosexual culture around marriage now, and through the use of marriage as it was always understood to be something that is between a man and a woman, will be a huge mistake in the future I believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> There is no such thing as 'homosexual culture.'
> 
> Your fear and hatred of gay Americans is unwarranted and ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fear and no hatred here, just concern about how people are choosing to act and/or to live their lives these days, and what it is doing to them along with our society at large. Hey it's always been "Love the sinner, but not the sin" right ? What's changed on that ? I think that the (sinner / human being) has got to somehow try and do better in life against sin, and this instead of expecting everyone to come to them just like it is getting more and more to be in all of this mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Focus on your own sinning and don't get your panties in a twist about someone else's. That's between them and God. Your responsibility is to Love God and to Love your neighbor.
> 
> Not to punish your neighbor because you don't think he's doing what God told him to do. If there's punishment to met out, God will do it. Take the beam out of your own eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Focus on your own cake making and etc. then, and don't get your panties in a twist when a Christian doesn't want to allow you to make them bake a cake for your gay wedding & etc.
Click to expand...


If your religion makes it impossible for you to do your job, find another job. Its not our responsibility to adapt society to match your religion. Its your responsibility to match your job to your religion. 

Take some personal responsibility for your own faith.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Empowering and/or building up the homosexual culture around marriage now, and through the use of marriage as it was always understood to be something that is between a man and a woman, will be a huge mistake in the future I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> There is no such thing as 'homosexual culture.'
> 
> Your fear and hatred of gay Americans is unwarranted and ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fear and no hatred here, just concern about how people are choosing to act and/or to live their lives these days, and what it is doing to them along with our society at large. Hey it's always been "Love the sinner, but not the sin" right ? What's changed on that ? I think that the (sinner / human being) has got to somehow try and do better in life against sin, and this instead of expecting everyone to come to them just like it is getting more and more to be in all of this mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Focus on your own sinning and don't get your panties in a twist about someone else's. That's between them and God. Your responsibility is to Love God and to Love your neighbor.
> 
> Not to punish your neighbor because you don't think he's doing what God told him to do. If there's punishment to met out, God will do it. Take the beam out of your own eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Focus on your own cake making and etc. then, and don't get your panties in a twist when a Christian doesn't want to allow you to make them bake a cake for your gay wedding & etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your religion makes it impossible for you to do your job, find another job. Its not our responsibility to adapt society to match your religion. Its your responsibility to match your job to your religion.
> 
> Take some personal responsibility for your own faith.
Click to expand...


But that's not really what PA laws require, is it? They're demanding that he adapt his job to the mandates of government.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> There is no such thing as 'homosexual culture.'
> 
> Your fear and hatred of gay Americans is unwarranted and ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> No fear and no hatred here, just concern about how people are choosing to act and/or to live their lives these days, and what it is doing to them along with our society at large. Hey it's always been "Love the sinner, but not the sin" right ? What's changed on that ? I think that the (sinner / human being) has got to somehow try and do better in life against sin, and this instead of expecting everyone to come to them just like it is getting more and more to be in all of this mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Focus on your own sinning and don't get your panties in a twist about someone else's. That's between them and God. Your responsibility is to Love God and to Love your neighbor.
> 
> Not to punish your neighbor because you don't think he's doing what God told him to do. If there's punishment to met out, God will do it. Take the beam out of your own eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Focus on your own cake making and etc. then, and don't get your panties in a twist when a Christian doesn't want to allow you to make them bake a cake for your gay wedding & etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your religion makes it impossible for you to do your job, find another job. Its not our responsibility to adapt society to match your religion. Its your responsibility to match your job to your religion.
> 
> Take some personal responsibility for your own faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not really what PA laws require, is it? They're demanding that he adapt his job to the mandates of government.
Click to expand...


We've done this dance before, Dblack. You're trying to riding the issue to push libertarianism. You don't debate the authority of the States to regulate commerce in this fashion. Only any application of constitutionally granted authority that contradicts your libertarian beliefs.

And I've already given you my opinion on why libertarianism is an awful idea. And you've accepted it as legitimate political advocacy. I'm not interested in playing the proxy game again where you try to make this issue about your favored political ideology.

If you want to discuss libertarianism, start a thread on the topic.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No fear and no hatred here, just concern about how people are choosing to act and/or to live their lives these days, and what it is doing to them along with our society at large. Hey it's always been "Love the sinner, but not the sin" right ? What's changed on that ? I think that the (sinner / human being) has got to somehow try and do better in life against sin, and this instead of expecting everyone to come to them just like it is getting more and more to be in all of this mess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Focus on your own sinning and don't get your panties in a twist about someone else's. That's between them and God. Your responsibility is to Love God and to Love your neighbor.
> 
> Not to punish your neighbor because you don't think he's doing what God told him to do. If there's punishment to met out, God will do it. Take the beam out of your own eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Focus on your own cake making and etc. then, and don't get your panties in a twist when a Christian doesn't want to allow you to make them bake a cake for your gay wedding & etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your religion makes it impossible for you to do your job, find another job. Its not our responsibility to adapt society to match your religion. Its your responsibility to match your job to your religion.
> 
> Take some personal responsibility for your own faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not really what PA laws require, is it? They're demanding that he adapt his job to the mandates of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've done this dance before, Dblack. You're trying to riding the issue to push libertarianism. You don't debate the authority of the States to regulate commerce in this fashion. Only any application of constitutionally granted authority that contradicts your libertarian beliefs.
> 
> And I've already given you my opinion on why libertarianism is an awful idea. And you've accepted it as legitimate political advocacy. I'm not interested in playing the proxy game again where you try to make this issue about your favored political ideology.
> 
> If you want to discuss libertarianism, start a thread on the topic.
Click to expand...


I don't care about your opinion of libertarianism. I'm calling you out an inconsistent claim. You're saying that their religion makes it impossible for them to do their job and that's simply not the case. The demands of new laws are what's interfering. They were doing their jobs before government got involved.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Focus on your own sinning and don't get your panties in a twist about someone else's. That's between them and God. Your responsibility is to Love God and to Love your neighbor.
> 
> Not to punish your neighbor because you don't think he's doing what God told him to do. If there's punishment to met out, God will do it. Take the beam out of your own eye.
> 
> 
> 
> Focus on your own cake making and etc. then, and don't get your panties in a twist when a Christian doesn't want to allow you to make them bake a cake for your gay wedding & etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your religion makes it impossible for you to do your job, find another job. Its not our responsibility to adapt society to match your religion. Its your responsibility to match your job to your religion.
> 
> Take some personal responsibility for your own faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not really what PA laws require, is it? They're demanding that he adapt his job to the mandates of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've done this dance before, Dblack. You're trying to riding the issue to push libertarianism. You don't debate the authority of the States to regulate commerce in this fashion. Only any application of constitutionally granted authority that contradicts your libertarian beliefs.
> 
> And I've already given you my opinion on why libertarianism is an awful idea. And you've accepted it as legitimate political advocacy. I'm not interested in playing the proxy game again where you try to make this issue about your favored political ideology.
> 
> If you want to discuss libertarianism, start a thread on the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care about your opinion of libertarianism. I'm calling you out an inconsistent claim. You're saying that their religion makes it impossible for them to do their job and that's simply not the case. The demands of new laws are what's interfering. They were doing their jobs before government got involved.
Click to expand...


Its relevant when you're once again using the issue as a proxy for libertarianism.

And we've done this exact dance.

* You question the legitimacy of PA laws.

* I demonstrate their authority through intrastate commerce.

* You insist that they're invalid because they could be abused (your 'what if you don't agree with the majority' position).

* I argue for how PA laws are rational and reasonable as they facilitate commerce an practical freedom.

* You insist that they're invalid because they protect only certain groups and insist that there should be no such restrictions against discrimination. And then expand to how libertarianism insists there should be no such restrictions across the board.

* And then I tell you why libertarianism is a horrible idea.

This issue is nothing but a horse for you to ride. How do I know? I've ridden with you. *We've done this entire dance before. On this exact issue. *I'm literally describing our previous conversations. I'm not interested in turning every conversation and every topic into a proxy for your libertarian narrative.

If you want to talk libertarianism, start a thread. But we're not dismantling all discrimination laws and all PA laws because you think libertarianism is the way to go.


----------



## HUGGY

*Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?*

*YES! Furthermore the church members must participate in homosexual acts after the ceremonies.  With no Vaseline!  Till their butt holes run with blood and turd chunks.  Then lick each others dicks clean.  


IMHO

Fair is fair!*


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Focus on your own cake making and etc. then, and don't get your panties in a twist when a Christian doesn't want to allow you to make them bake a cake for your gay wedding & etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your religion makes it impossible for you to do your job, find another job. Its not our responsibility to adapt society to match your religion. Its your responsibility to match your job to your religion.
> 
> Take some personal responsibility for your own faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not really what PA laws require, is it? They're demanding that he adapt his job to the mandates of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've done this dance before, Dblack. You're trying to riding the issue to push libertarianism. You don't debate the authority of the States to regulate commerce in this fashion. Only any application of constitutionally granted authority that contradicts your libertarian beliefs.
> 
> And I've already given you my opinion on why libertarianism is an awful idea. And you've accepted it as legitimate political advocacy. I'm not interested in playing the proxy game again where you try to make this issue about your favored political ideology.
> 
> If you want to discuss libertarianism, start a thread on the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care about your opinion of libertarianism. I'm calling you out an inconsistent claim. You're saying that their religion makes it impossible for them to do their job and that's simply not the case. The demands of new laws are what's interfering. They were doing their jobs before government got involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its relevant when you're once again using the issue as a proxy for libertarianism.
> 
> And we've done this exact dance.
> 
> * You question the legitimacy of PA laws.
> 
> * I demonstrate their authority through intrastate commerce.
> 
> * You insist that they're invalid because they could be abused (your 'what if you don't agree with the majority' position).
> 
> * I argue for how PA laws are rational and reasonable as they facilitate commerce an practical freedom.
> 
> * You insist that they're invalid because they protect only certain groups and insist that there should be no such restrictions against discrimination. And then expand to how libertarianism insists there should be no such restrictions across the board.
> 
> * And then I tell you why libertarianism is a horrible idea.
> 
> This issue is nothing but a horse for you to ride. How do I know? I've ridden with you. *We've done this entire dance before. On this exact issue. *I'm literally describing our previous conversations. I'm not interested in turning every conversation and every topic into a proxy for your libertarian narrative.
> 
> If you want to talk libertarianism, start a thread. But we're not dismantling all discrimination laws and all PA laws because you think libertarianism is the way to go.
Click to expand...

Care to address my point?


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your religion makes it impossible for you to do your job, find another job. Its not our responsibility to adapt society to match your religion. Its your responsibility to match your job to your religion.
> 
> Take some personal responsibility for your own faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not really what PA laws require, is it? They're demanding that he adapt his job to the mandates of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've done this dance before, Dblack. You're trying to riding the issue to push libertarianism. You don't debate the authority of the States to regulate commerce in this fashion. Only any application of constitutionally granted authority that contradicts your libertarian beliefs.
> 
> And I've already given you my opinion on why libertarianism is an awful idea. And you've accepted it as legitimate political advocacy. I'm not interested in playing the proxy game again where you try to make this issue about your favored political ideology.
> 
> If you want to discuss libertarianism, start a thread on the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care about your opinion of libertarianism. I'm calling you out an inconsistent claim. You're saying that their religion makes it impossible for them to do their job and that's simply not the case. The demands of new laws are what's interfering. They were doing their jobs before government got involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its relevant when you're once again using the issue as a proxy for libertarianism.
> 
> And we've done this exact dance.
> 
> * You question the legitimacy of PA laws.
> 
> * I demonstrate their authority through intrastate commerce.
> 
> * You insist that they're invalid because they could be abused (your 'what if you don't agree with the majority' position).
> 
> * I argue for how PA laws are rational and reasonable as they facilitate commerce an practical freedom.
> 
> * You insist that they're invalid because they protect only certain groups and insist that there should be no such restrictions against discrimination. And then expand to how libertarianism insists there should be no such restrictions across the board.
> 
> * And then I tell you why libertarianism is a horrible idea.
> 
> This issue is nothing but a horse for you to ride. How do I know? I've ridden with you. *We've done this entire dance before. On this exact issue. *I'm literally describing our previous conversations. I'm not interested in turning every conversation and every topic into a proxy for your libertarian narrative.
> 
> If you want to talk libertarianism, start a thread. But we're not dismantling all discrimination laws and all PA laws because you think libertarianism is the way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to address my point?
Click to expand...


We've already discussed a half dozen variants of the same point. Refer to any of my answers on the same topic. I'm not interested in having yet another proxy conversation with you about libertarianism.

At least not in this thread.


----------



## MaryL

Forcing people  to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to address my point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've already discussed a half dozen variants of the same point. Refer to any of my answers on the same topic. I'm not interested in having yet another proxy conversation with you about libertarianism.
> 
> At least not in this thread.
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about libertarianism, you are.

I'm making a specific comment about this post: 



Skylar said:


> If your religion makes it impossible for you to do your job, find another job. Its not our responsibility to adapt society to match your religion. Its your responsibility to match your job to your religion.
> 
> Take some personal responsibility for your own faith.



I don't think this point of view is defensible. Frankly, I find it offensive. This is not a question of society adapting to a baker's values. It's society forcing the baker to adapt to theirs.


----------



## Skylar

MaryL said:


> Forcing people  to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.



If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.

When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to address my point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've already discussed a half dozen variants of the same point. Refer to any of my answers on the same topic. I'm not interested in having yet another proxy conversation with you about libertarianism.
> 
> At least not in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about libertarianism, you are.
Click to expand...


We've had this discussion. I've actually answered this exact question. And yes, you're doing your libertarianism by proxy schtick again. How do I know? 

*I've had this conversation with you repeatedly on the issue of PA laws. Almost word for word. *

I'm not interested in another 'let me promote libertarianism by proxy' argument with you. We're not dismantling all PA laws nor getting rid of all discrimination laws because you're fixated on libertarianism. 

And that's my final answer.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing people  to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.
> 
> When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.
Click to expand...


If your religion and the store you want to shop at don't mesh, find another store.


----------



## MaryL

Skylar said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing people  to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.
> 
> When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.
Click to expand...

I am agnostic, my job requires me to sell boring stuff to stuffed shirts that don't give a damn about anything accept their own narrow  focused world they live in. Wow, Gays might spruce up the place. But, no. This is such a pathetic exaggerated topic.  Homosexuals are just losers  having a temper tantrum. They might not get over it,  little matter. They are living a narrow focused world, too, and not all the world finds a sexual dysfunction to the same status as race, sex or religion. Nope. Poor deluded souls, they need a life and get on with it.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing people  to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.
> 
> When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your religion and the store you want shop at don't mesh, find another store.
Click to expand...


Um, gays aren't being rejected from a store because of their religion. 

Try again.


----------



## Skylar

MaryL said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing people  to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.
> 
> When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am agnostic, my job requires me to sell boring stuff to stuffed shirts that don't give a damn about anything accept their own narrow  focused world they live in. Wow, Gays might spruce up the place. But, no. This is such a pathetic exaggerated topic.  Homosexuals are just losers  having a temper tantrum. They might not get over it,  little matter. They are living a narrow focused world, too, and not all the world finds a sexual dysfunction to the same status as race, sex or religion. Nope. Poor deluded souls, they need a life and get on with it.
Click to expand...


Gays are just people. And there's nothing 'pathetic' or 'narrowly focused' *about trying to buy cake. *

Its just cake.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing people  to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.
> 
> When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your religion and the store you want shop at don't mesh, find another store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, gays aren't being rejected from a store because of their religion.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


If someone doesn't want to abide by a store owner's religious values, it's more defensible (and more humane, in my view) to ask that person to shop at another store than to force the store owner to find another job (or another religion).


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Gays are just people.



Sexual Deviants are people who suffer from mental disorder.  And they may be many other things as well, but "gay" is not one of 'em.


----------



## MaryL

Good god, another flash in the pan know it all that won't be here in ten minutes noobie want to lecture me. Sigh...


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays are just people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual Deviants are people who suffer from mental disorder.  And they may be many other things as well, but "gay" is not one of 'em.
Click to expand...


Says you. And I don't base the rights and protections under the law of any person on your personal opinion.

Nor does the law. Nor does the court.


----------



## Skylar

MaryL said:


> Good god, another flash in the pan know it all that won't be here in ten minutes noobie want to lecture me. Sigh...



Yawning.....that's it?

Sorry, Mary but you're not offering me a reasoned argument. You're offering me a series of nested assumptions based on your personal opinion. And I genuinely don't care what your opinion is.

If you're gonna do business, make sure its a business that's compatible with your religion. But your religion is on you. Its not our responsibility to adapt society to match your beliefs.

It may have been against Steve Young's religious beliefs to work on Sunday. But we're not changing when the Superbowl is played, even when he's playing in it.


----------



## MaryL

Skylar said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing people  to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.
> 
> When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am agnostic, my job requires me to sell boring stuff to stuffed shirts that don't give a damn about anything accept their own narrow  focused world they live in. Wow, Gays might spruce up the place. But, no. This is such a pathetic exaggerated topic.  Homosexuals are just losers  having a temper tantrum. They might not get over it,  little matter. They are living a narrow focused world, too, and not all the world finds a sexual dysfunction to the same status as race, sex or religion. Nope. Poor deluded souls, they need a life and get on with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays are just people. And there's nothing 'pathetic' or 'narrowly focused' *about trying to buy cake. *
> 
> Its just cake.
Click to expand...

Gays are people? I thought they were giraffes. Glad you clarified that little ditty. I can't have a cake. Weddings or otherwise, gluten will make me ill and stuff you don't  want  to know. This just isn't just about confections, and you damned well know it.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> If you're gonna do business, make sure its a business that's compatible with your religion. But your religion is on you. Its not our responsibility to adapt society to match your beliefs.



Not if they opened their business before the law was in authorized. In that case, it's the opposite. This is society forcing the baker to adapt their views.


----------



## Skylar

MaryL said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing people  to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.
> 
> When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am agnostic, my job requires me to sell boring stuff to stuffed shirts that don't give a damn about anything accept their own narrow  focused world they live in. Wow, Gays might spruce up the place. But, no. This is such a pathetic exaggerated topic.  Homosexuals are just losers  having a temper tantrum. They might not get over it,  little matter. They are living a narrow focused world, too, and not all the world finds a sexual dysfunction to the same status as race, sex or religion. Nope. Poor deluded souls, they need a life and get on with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays are just people. And there's nothing 'pathetic' or 'narrowly focused' *about trying to buy cake. *
> 
> Its just cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gays are people? I thought they were giraffes. Glad you clarified that little ditty. I can't have a cake. Weddings or otherwise, gluten will make me ill and stuff you don't  want  to know. This just isn't just about confections, and you damned well know it.
Click to expand...


Their just folks, Mary. And when they go to buy cake, what they're ordering is cake.

Its not that complicated. All the drama, all the complication, all the angst and excuses.....are on the side of those breaking PA laws and refusing to treat gays with the same fairness and equality they would any other customer.


----------



## MaryL

I don't need to offer YOU a damned thing, condescending jerk. Homosexuality (in my humble opinion) isn't a class of people like race, religion or sex. Sexual preference isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, if I got my facts straight. I like things straight. Not twisted around and perverted and mixed up.  Prove to ME gays  some how  are being harmed  by NOT getting  a bloody cake, I will buy you a cake myself.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're gonna do business, make sure its a business that's compatible with your religion. But your religion is on you. Its not our responsibility to adapt society to match your beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if they opened their business before the law was in authorized. In that case, it's the opposite. This is society forcing the baker to adapt their views.
Click to expand...


Do you have evidence that the baker in say, Colorado was refusing to sell wedding cake to gays before the PA laws were enacted?

If so, share it with us.


----------



## Skylar

MaryL said:


> I don't need to offer YOU a damned thing, condescending jerk. Homosexuality (in my humble opinion) isn't a class of people like race, religion or sex.



I totally get that you have a personal opinion. What you don't seem to get is that I couldn't care less what it is. Nor does the law. We don't base the rights of anyone one on what you think the 'class' of a person is. 

The protections granted under the law are defined by the law. And in the States in question, they require anyone who is conducting business publicly to treat their customers fairly and equally. If a baker can't do that, find a job where they don't need to. 



> Sexual preference isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, if I got my facts straight.



The PA laws in question are state laws.



> Prove to ME gays how homosexuals are being harmed  by NOT getting  a bloody cake, I will buy you a cake myself.



I genuinely don't care if you're convinced or what you believe. As your beliefs are spectacularly irrelevant to the issue at hand. The definitions of relevant are the legal ones.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're gonna do business, make sure its a business that's compatible with your religion. But your religion is on you. Its not our responsibility to adapt society to match your beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not *if* they opened their business before the law was in authorized. In that case, it's the opposite. This is society forcing the baker to adapt their views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have evidence that the baker in say, Colorado was refusing to sell wedding cake to gays before the PA laws were enacted?
> 
> If so, share it with us.
Click to expand...


Well, the question isn't when the PA laws were enacted, but when sexual orientation was added to the list of protected classes. And no, I don't have any info regarding the specific cases in question - which is why I said "if". Do you have any?


----------



## MaryL

It's just a cake. Bake it your self. There is a whole wide world, open a business selling mock  wedding cakes to mock brides/grooms with little pink triangles all over them. And when this craze is over, you will go belly up because  gays are like a pitiful  small minority even with the big bang of money they pack,  that wont level out the playing field here. Nope. And, beside, some of us find homosexuality despicable and vile. Not from a religious standpoint, just a human one. Get over it. Since it isn't a class of people but  trivial sexual dysfunction, I don't care who won't sell you lemonade or whatever.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're gonna do business, make sure its a business that's compatible with your religion. But your religion is on you. Its not our responsibility to adapt society to match your beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not *if* they opened their business before the law was in authorized. In that case, it's the opposite. This is society forcing the baker to adapt their views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have evidence that the baker in say, Colorado was refusing to sell wedding cake to gays before the PA laws were enacted?
> 
> If so, share it with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the question isn't when the PA laws were enacted, but when sexual orientation was added to the list of protected classes. And no, I don't have any info regarding the specific cases in question - which is why I said "if". Do you have any?
Click to expand...


So what relevance does your remarkably specific hypothetical have with the real life cases we're actually talking about?


----------



## Skylar

MaryL said:


> It's just a cake. Bake it your self.



Its just cake. Asking a cake baker to sell cake is neither egregious nor unreasonable. Especially when they're engaged in public commerce *selling cake. *

All of the drama is caused by the baker who insists on trying to impose their religious beliefs on people who don't share them. Which is the baker's mistake and the baker's problem. Its an individuals responsibility to find a profession that matches their religion.

Not the law and society's responsibility to adapt to whatever they choose to believe.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're gonna do business, make sure its a business that's compatible with your religion. But your religion is on you. Its not our responsibility to adapt society to match your beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not *if* they opened their business before the law was in authorized. In that case, it's the opposite. This is society forcing the baker to adapt their views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have evidence that the baker in say, Colorado was refusing to sell wedding cake to gays before the PA laws were enacted?
> 
> If so, share it with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the question isn't when the PA laws were enacted, but when sexual orientation was added to the list of protected classes. And no, I don't have any info regarding the specific cases in question - which is why I said "if". Do you have any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what relevance does your remarkably specific hypothetical have with the real life cases we're actually talking about?
Click to expand...


Let's see. I checked into this case in Colorado: Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple - ACLU - Colorado

Sexual orientation was added to the state's discrimination laws in 2008 (LGBT rights in Colorado - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia The bakery in question was opened in 1993 (MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP great cakes since 1993 303.763.5754 So in that case, at least, I assume you'd agree that it's society imposing its values on the baker, and not the other way around.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're gonna do business, make sure its a business that's compatible with your religion. But your religion is on you. Its not our responsibility to adapt society to match your beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not *if* they opened their business before the law was in authorized. In that case, it's the opposite. This is society forcing the baker to adapt their views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have evidence that the baker in say, Colorado was refusing to sell wedding cake to gays before the PA laws were enacted?
> 
> If so, share it with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the question isn't when the PA laws were enacted, but when sexual orientation was added to the list of protected classes. And no, I don't have any info regarding the specific cases in question - which is why I said "if". Do you have any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what relevance does your remarkably specific hypothetical have with the real life cases we're actually talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see. I checked into this case in Colorado: Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple - ACLU - Colorado
> 
> Sexual orientation was added to the state's discrimination laws in 2008 (LGBT rights in Colorado - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia The bakery in question was opened in 1993 (MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP great cakes since 1993 303.763.5754 So in that case, at least, I assume you'd agree that it's society imposing its values on the baker, and not the other way around.
Click to expand...


And did he refuse to sell gays wedding cake before 2008?


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not *if* they opened their business before the law was in authorized. In that case, it's the opposite. This is society forcing the baker to adapt their views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have evidence that the baker in say, Colorado was refusing to sell wedding cake to gays before the PA laws were enacted?
> 
> If so, share it with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the question isn't when the PA laws were enacted, but when sexual orientation was added to the list of protected classes. And no, I don't have any info regarding the specific cases in question - which is why I said "if". Do you have any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what relevance does your remarkably specific hypothetical have with the real life cases we're actually talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see. I checked into this case in Colorado: Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple - ACLU - Colorado
> 
> Sexual orientation was added to the state's discrimination laws in 2008 (LGBT rights in Colorado - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia The bakery in question was opened in 1993 (MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP great cakes since 1993 303.763.5754 So in that case, at least, I assume you'd agree that it's society imposing its values on the baker, and not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And did he refuse to sell gays wedding cake before 2008?
Click to expand...


That wasn't legal until 2014 (same wikipedia article).


----------



## MaryL

A video gamer cousin  of mine used to say, "The Cake is a lie". Sorry, different meme, different topic. Close. Misleading promises based on a lies. Gays don't need a cake , if they truly love each other, fine. Just don't pretend its normal and deserves  societal recognition...or a cake.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have evidence that the baker in say, Colorado was refusing to sell wedding cake to gays before the PA laws were enacted?
> 
> If so, share it with us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the question isn't when the PA laws were enacted, but when sexual orientation was added to the list of protected classes. And no, I don't have any info regarding the specific cases in question - which is why I said "if". Do you have any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what relevance does your remarkably specific hypothetical have with the real life cases we're actually talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see. I checked into this case in Colorado: Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple - ACLU - Colorado
> 
> Sexual orientation was added to the state's discrimination laws in 2008 (LGBT rights in Colorado - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia The bakery in question was opened in 1993 (MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP great cakes since 1993 303.763.5754 So in that case, at least, I assume you'd agree that it's society imposing its values on the baker, and not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And did he refuse to sell gays wedding cake before 2008?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't legal until 2014 (same wikipedia article).
Click to expand...


Then it wasn't any change in the law that made this man's religion incompatible with his job. It was a change in the way he treated gay customers when they ordered cake. 

That's on him.


----------



## Skylar

MaryL said:


> A video gamer cousin  of mine used to say, "The Cake is a lie". Sorry, different meme, different topic. Close. Misleading promises based on a lies. Gays don't need a cake , if they truly love each other, fine. Just don't pretend its normal and deserves  societal recognition...or a cake.



I don't base the rights and protections under the law on your gamer cousin either. Nor on your assessment of the 'need' of someone to buy cake.

If a baker is going to do business publicly, he needs to treat his customers fairly and equally. If he can't, he needs to find another job.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the question isn't when the PA laws were enacted, but when sexual orientation was added to the list of protected classes. And no, I don't have any info regarding the specific cases in question - which is why I said "if". Do you have any?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what relevance does your remarkably specific hypothetical have with the real life cases we're actually talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see. I checked into this case in Colorado: Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple - ACLU - Colorado
> 
> Sexual orientation was added to the state's discrimination laws in 2008 (LGBT rights in Colorado - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia The bakery in question was opened in 1993 (MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP great cakes since 1993 303.763.5754 So in that case, at least, I assume you'd agree that it's society imposing its values on the baker, and not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And did he refuse to sell gays wedding cake before 2008?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't legal until 2014 (same wikipedia article).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it wasn't any change in the law that made this man's religion incompatible with his job. It was a change in the way he treated gay customers when they ordered cake.
> 
> That's on him.
Click to expand...


You're going to throw your back out, twisting yourself up like that.

Good night.


----------



## MaryL

Ok, NOW we have to accept gays as normal, because (ever read catch 22) it's the new norm? Crazy town. Drink the Kool aid.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what relevance does your remarkably specific hypothetical have with the real life cases we're actually talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see. I checked into this case in Colorado: Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple - ACLU - Colorado
> 
> Sexual orientation was added to the state's discrimination laws in 2008 (LGBT rights in Colorado - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia The bakery in question was opened in 1993 (MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP great cakes since 1993 303.763.5754 So in that case, at least, I assume you'd agree that it's society imposing its values on the baker, and not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And did he refuse to sell gays wedding cake before 2008?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't legal until 2014 (same wikipedia article).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it wasn't any change in the law that made this man's religion incompatible with his job. It was a change in the way he treated gay customers when they ordered cake.
> 
> That's on him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're going to throw your back out, twisting yourself up like that.
> 
> Good night.
Click to expand...


Good night.


----------



## Skylar

MaryL said:


> Ok, NOW we have to accept gays as normal, because (ever read catch 22) it's the new norm? Crazy town. Drink the Kool aid.



You're free to believe whatever you want. Really, no one gives a shit. But if you're going to do business with the public, you are subject to minimum codes of conduct in business. Including treating your customers fairly and equally.

PA laws don't regulate belief. They regulate actions.


----------



## MaryL

But  wait a minute, panda express has  a new post expressing the same old  crap-ola... I like that, the cake is a lie.  Let's back up here, besides  all the bullsh*t, what makes homosexual equitable to heterosexuality besides your propaganda groupthink spiel?


----------



## Skylar

MaryL said:


> But  wait a minute, panda express has  a new post expressing the same old  crap-ola... I like that, the cake is a lie.  Let's back up here, besides  all the bullsh*t, what makes homosexual equitable to heterosexuality besides your propaganda groupthink spiel?



Cake is cake. Ordering a cake from a cake baker is neither unreasonable nor onerous. Its just ordering a cake. 

And as a cake baker if your religion makes it impossible for you to sell cake....maybe another profession is in order.


----------



## MaryL

Heterosexuals made you, panda boy, Number uno,  gays can't make babies. Number two, Marriage isn't  a tacky  little sign  of recognition handed out like a  gold star those that ..cant. And it shouldn't be treated like some meaningless medal you won in kindergarten for the best drawn  hand turkeys covered in macaroni and gold sprinkles. Marriage   is strictly a man-woman thing.  Not a free for all, shame on you, you know that. This isn't a game.


----------



## MaryL

What? Did mommy just remind you it's past your bedtime? What NOW?


----------



## MaryL

Let them eat cake, isn't that Mary Antoinette once said?


----------



## MaryL

I wish I could eat cake right now. Chocolate, Strawberry, vanilla . Gluten. Damn it, doesn't care if you are gay or straight or a bloody mass murderer head hunting cannibal. You people debate away, I wish I could just have a slice of that.....


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing people  to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.
> 
> When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.
Click to expand...

And what will be the next attack to come, otherwise when the barn door is flung wide open in these new ways ?


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing people  to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.
> 
> When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your religion and the store you want shop at don't mesh, find another store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, gays aren't being rejected from a store because of their religion.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...

Could their choices made in life, be the same thing as a person making a religious choice in life ? If so then why does it only work in one way for you, but not in the other for another ? The gay figures his or her choice made for themselves in life is right, and that their choice should be honored, but they are not affording that same right to another who has decided that their choice to be Christian in life is also right, and that it should be also honored in life. The thing is, how does America fix this situation ? The government attacking and trampling on the rights of Christianity is not the solution at all. What a mess!


----------



## MaryL

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing people  to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.
> 
> When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what will be the next attack to come, otherwise when the barn door is flung wide open in these new ways ?
Click to expand...

Attacking? Isn't that a tad...hysterical?  Nobody is attacking anyone here, last time I checked.  I am an atheist. I just can't stand  men butt screwing each other and whatnot pretending that somehow, magically, you get enough lawyers  and bitch and whine loud long and hard, people are just going to accept THAT it's  the same as man and woman making love and having children, and need marriage and respect. Nope. Dream on, dream on.


----------



## Syriusly

MaryL said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing people  to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.
> 
> When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . I just can't stand  men butt screwing each other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that explains you entirely.
> 
> Why you would care how anyone  else is having sex- or why you would wonder how people getting married have sex just explains who you are.
Click to expand...


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing people  to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.
> 
> When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what will be the next attack to come, otherwise when the barn door is flung wide open in these new ways ?
Click to expand...


Holding Christians to the same standards that everyone else is held to isn't an 'attack'. 

Nixing your entire premise.


----------



## Silhouette

MaryL said:


> Forcing people  to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.


 


Skylar said:


> If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.
> 
> When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.





beagle9 said:


> And what will be the next attack to come, otherwise when the barn door is flung wide open in these new ways ?





MaryL said:


> Attacking? Isn't that a tad...hysterical?  Nobody is attacking anyone here, last time I checked.  I am an atheist. I just can't stand  men butt screwing each other and whatnot pretending that somehow, magically, you get enough lawyers  and bitch and whine loud long and hard, people are just going to accept THAT it's  the same as man and woman making love and having children, and need marriage and respect. Nope. Dream on, dream on.


 
What Mary said ^^


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> [So your conclusion is then that the argument is straw reasoning: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage', pulled sideways out of your ass, based on your own relativistic assumptions. And you've offered us nothing but your own relativistic assumptions to back up your made up 'natural law of marriage'.
> 
> With your assumption debunked by one simple fact:* there is no marriage in nature.*
Click to expand...


So for there to be _'no natural laws governing marriage... that you can't get around.'_, all Relativism needs is for* Humanity to NOT BE affiliated with NATURE... .
*
Let's review:

Just take a moment to examine this exchange, wherein a degenerate claimed that the Natural Standard of Marriage is false; meaning that as demonstrated above, the Homo-cult is wholly denying that nature has any laws governing human behavior and that such includes human physiology and the extension of such which we express through the word Marriage.

They claim that assigning Marriage as  governed by Natural Law... is a function of pretense designed to distract you, the observer or "Reader" from reality or the issue at hand.  This they advise you is an invalid logical construct known as "straw reasoning".

To which I simply replied by breaking the respective elements of Reality down into their respective components, which requires the opposition to either accept the existence of such, or to deny reality...

For your convenience, I repeat the exercise, below:



			
				 The 1st Element of Reality said:
			
		

> So the reasoning is that of straw?
> 
> Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?





			
				 The 2nd Element or Reality said:
			
		

> The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?





			
				 The 3rd Element of Reality said:
			
		

> The reasoning further asserts the the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?





			
				 The 4th Element of Reality said:
			
		

> The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.
> 
> Now... are you coming to reject that fact?



So... the question now becomes, 'what was the response?'

The first Militant simply conceded to the argument by refusing to even acknowledge the Argument and hasn't been seen in the Thread since.

The Second Militant, desperately wanted to ignore it, but its inability to deny its subjective need, precluded it from being able to ignore it and folded through the following *EPIC FAILURE!:
*


Skylar said:


> W.R.McKeys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh!  So Natural Law is straw reasoning.  Wouldn't Locke be shocked to learn that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no 'natural law of marriage'. You made that up.
Click to expand...


So your conclusion is then, that the argument is straw reasoning, which is to say: _"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched._

I'll take that concession; _noted and accepted.
_


Skylar said:


> Well ok... Let's you and I break it down, shall we... (Reader you can go on to bed, as Skylar will now become OBSESSED with something else... ANYTHING ELSE, except this discussion.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. ...
Click to expand...


WOW~  So you're going to invoke straw reasoning, after just lamenting straw reasoning?

Wherein you're literally claiming that there are no "readers" observing this discussion through the processing of the written word?
_
Such is as Delusional as it is... HYSTERICAL!   (In every sense of the WORD!)

Love the irony.

I'll take THAT concession; which is now formally noted and accepted._


So you've agreed that you conclude that the reasoning at issue is that of straw; a pretense which I conjured to escape the reality that is your need for sexual deviancy to be sexual normality?



			
				W.R. McKeys said:
			
		

> Now, the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?



(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest.  Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.



			
				W.R. McKeys said:
			
		

> The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?



(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest.  Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.



			
				W.R. McKeys said:
			
		

> The reasoning further asserts that the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?



(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest.  Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.



Skylar said:


> W.R. McKeys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no marriage in nature.
Click to expand...


Given that Reality requires that Humanity does in fact exist in nature... this is _incontestable_, thus Skylar's only contest is *refuted*_ in undeniable terms._

Thus demonstrating Skylar, Faun and by extension, the homo-cult's in its entirety, must inevitably concede to the reality that in point of unassailable fact:

Marriage *IS*, _the Joining of One Man and One Woman._
_
And by virtue of that, there is no potential for a claim of inequity for those seeking to join with people of the same gender, who come to claim that their being disqualified from marriage, sets them inequitable.

And with that said, Skylar, Faun and the entirely of the Homo-Cult's 6th Concession... *in a single post*; a post wherein she lost the ENTIRETY of this debate... is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

*UPDATE!*​


Skylar has trotted out a NEW RESPONSE: 



Skylar said:


> *The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage'*



Let's review to recall how she got there: 



Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> [So your conclusion is then that the argument is straw reasoning: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage', pulled sideways out of your ass, based on your own relativistic assumptions. And you've offered us nothing but your own relativistic assumptions to back up your made up 'natural law of marriage'.
> 
> With your assumption debunked by one simple fact:* there is no marriage in nature.*
Click to expand...


So for there to be _'no natural laws governing marriage... that you can't get around.'_, all Relativism needs is for* Humanity to NOT BE affiliated with NATURE... .
*
Let's review:

Just take a moment to examine this exchange, wherein a degenerate claimed that the Natural Standard of Marriage is false; meaning that as demonstrated above, the Homo-cult is wholly denying that nature has any laws governing human behavior and that such includes human physiology and the extension of such which we express through the word Marriage.

They claim that assigning Marriage as  governed by Natural Law... is a function of pretense designed to distract you, the observer or "Reader" from reality or the issue at hand.  This they advise you is an invalid logical construct known as "straw reasoning".

To which I simply replied by breaking the respective elements of Reality down into their respective components, which requires the opposition to either accept the existence of such, or to deny reality...

For your convenience, I repeat the exercise, below:



			
				 The 1st Element of Reality said:
			
		

> So the reasoning is that of straw?
> 
> Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?





			
				 The 2nd Element or Reality said:
			
		

> The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?





			
				 The 3rd Element of Reality said:
			
		

> The reasoning further asserts the the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?





			
				 The 4th Element of Reality said:
			
		

> The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.
> 
> Now... are you coming to reject that fact?



So... the question now becomes, 'what was the response?'

The first Militant simply conceded to the argument by refusing to even acknowledge the Argument and hasn't been seen in the Thread since.

The Second Militant, desperately wanted to ignore it, but its inability to deny its subjective need, precluded it from being able to ignore it and folded through the following *EPIC FAILURE!:
*


Skylar said:


> W.R.McKeys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh!  So Natural Law is straw reasoning.  Wouldn't Locke be shocked to learn that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no 'natural law of marriage'. You made that up.
Click to expand...


So your conclusion is then, that the argument is straw reasoning, which is to say: _"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched._

I'll take that concession; _noted and accepted.
_


Skylar said:


> Well ok... Let's you and I break it down, shall we... (Reader you can go on to bed, as Skylar will now become OBSESSED with something else... ANYTHING ELSE, except this discussion.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. ...
Click to expand...


WOW~  So you're going to invoke straw reasoning, after just lamenting straw reasoning?

Wherein you're literally claiming that there are no "readers" observing this discussion through the processing of the written word?
_
Such is as Delusional as it is... HYSTERICAL!   (In every sense of the WORD!)

Love the irony.

I'll take THAT concession; which is now formally noted and accepted._


So you've agreed that you conclude that the reasoning at issue is that of straw; a pretense which I conjured to escape the reality that is your need for sexual deviancy to be sexual normality?



			
				W.R. McKeys said:
			
		

> Now, the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?



(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest.  Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.



			
				W.R. McKeys said:
			
		

> The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?



(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest.  Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.



			
				W.R. McKeys said:
			
		

> The reasoning further asserts that the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?



(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest.  Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.



Skylar said:


> W.R. McKeys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no marriage in nature.
Click to expand...


Given that Reality requires that Humanity does in fact exist in nature... this is _incontestable_, thus Skylar's only contest is *refuted*_ in undeniable terms._

Thus demonstrating Skylar, Faun and by extension, the homo-cult's in its entirety, must inevitably concede to the reality that in point of unassailable fact:

Marriage *IS*, _the Joining of One Man and One Woman._
_
And by virtue of that, there is no potential for a claim of inequity for those seeking to join with people of the same gender, who come to claim that their being disqualified from marriage, sets them inequitable.

And with that said, Skylar, Faun and the entirely of the Homo-Cult's 6th Concession... *in a single post*; a post wherein she lost the ENTIRETY of this debate... is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## JakeStarkey

Keys, _adorably_, believes he is an authority.  Next.  No church in its private capacity will be forced to marry folks.  The cult of hetero-fascism fails yet again.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Keys, _adorably_, believes he is an authority.  Next.  No church in its private capacity will be forced to marry folks.  The cult of hetero-fascism fails yet again.


 But a church is nothing more than the sum of its parts: individual Christians.  And they have ALREADY BEEN forced to accomodate "gay weddings". 

What you're trying to sell is similar to saying this: "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for America, but just not individual America_ns_.."


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keys, _adorably_, believes he is an authority.  Next.  No church in its private capacity will be forced to marry folks.  The cult of hetero-fascism fails yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> But a church is nothing more than the sum of its parts: individual Christians.  And they have ALREADY BEEN forced to accomodate "gay weddings".
> 
> What you're trying to sell is similar to saying this: "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for America, but just not individual America_ns_.."
Click to expand...


I couldn't help but to see, when I pulled back the ignore curtain, that _the idiot whose name will go unmentioned,_ claimed that I declared myself as an _'AUTHORITY!', _which it implies is impossible... .

THEN!  LOL!  _in its next breath_... it declares itself an authority, on nothing other than the same principle that it just rejected as being *so much as EVEN POSSIBLE!*

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT hide the idiots... but Ignore _really does help_.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keys, _adorably_, believes he is an authority.  Next.  No church in its private capacity will be forced to marry folks.  The cult of hetero-fascism fails yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> But a church is nothing more than the sum of its parts: individual Christians.  And they have ALREADY BEEN forced to accomodate "gay weddings".
> 
> What you're trying to sell is similar to saying this: "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for America, but just not individual America_ns_.."
Click to expand...

You only are saying that, and you are wrong as usual, Sil.  No, no church has been forced to hold a wedding.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keys, _adorably_, believes he is an authority.  Next.  No church in its private capacity will be forced to marry folks.  The cult of hetero-fascism fails yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> But a church is nothing more than the sum of its parts: individual Christians.  And they have ALREADY BEEN forced to accomodate "gay weddings".
> 
> What you're trying to sell is similar to saying this: "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for America, but just not individual America_ns_.."
Click to expand...


_And ONLY when hey keep it to themselves!_

Sadly, for the would-be opposition... The Right to exercise one's religion does not rest upon the right to privacy.  As was the case for the irrational decision to lift the Sodomy Laws.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Keys, who is absolutely illiterate on this subject, has always claimed to an authority on natural law.  In fact, he is an oaf.

The right has every to its beliefs, but it will not be allowed to force its beliefs on others in the private realm of other religious organizations or in the public square.

Their day of power is over.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> You only are saying that, and you are wrong as usual, Sil.  No, no church has been forced to hold a wedding.


 
I'm sorry, does the Constitution discuss freedom of religion or freedom of "church"?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only are saying that, and you are wrong as usual, Sil.  No, no church has been forced to hold a wedding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, does the Constitution discuss freedom of religion or freedom of "church"?
Click to expand...

Deflection does not help.  No church has been forced to marry anyone.  Show us one, please.  Also post on CDZ.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only are saying that, and you are wrong as usual, Sil.  No, no church has been forced to hold a wedding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, does the Constitution discuss freedom of religion or freedom of "church"?
Click to expand...

One implies the other, since lots of religion happens,.....................................................wait for it,.................................................in churches.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keys, _adorably_, believes he is an authority.  Next.  No church in its private capacity will be forced to marry folks.  The cult of hetero-fascism fails yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> But a church is nothing more than the sum of its parts: individual Christians.  And they have ALREADY BEEN forced to accomodate "gay weddings".
> 
> What you're trying to sell is similar to saying this: "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for America, but just not individual America_ns_.."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _And ONLY when hey keep it to themselves!_
> 
> Sadly, for the would-be opposition... The Right to exercise one's religion does not rest upon the right to privacy.  As was the case for the irrational decision to lift the Sodomy Laws.
Click to expand...

ISIS has your back there Keys...


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only are saying that, and you are wrong as usual, Sil.  No, no church has been forced to hold a wedding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, does the Constitution discuss freedom of religion or freedom of "church"?
Click to expand...




PaintMyHouse said:


> One implies the other, since lots of religion happens,.....................................................wait for it,.................................................in churches.


No........................wait for it....religion happens in churches to remind people in daily life how to conduct themselves...

THAT is what happens in churches.  And since individual Christians who go to church have been forced in daily life to abdicate their faith, then freedom of religion/church (take your pick) has been violated.

Refusing to enable so-called "gay weddings" is not an act of violence, like some Sharia laws are.   And this refusing is mandatory under promise of etnernal damnation for failing to do so (Jude 1 of the New Testament).  So this isn't some "don't eat pork on Fridays" Old Testament historical bylaw with a few Hail Marys to remedy it.  It is a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies.  Ergo, forcing an individual Christian to enable a "gay wedding" is a violation of that person's civil rights.  And if I was a Christian so violated, I would sue whoever violated me for violating my civil rights.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it. Or your facts. You are not an authority on this. If you are, show me your credentials..

Keys, adorably, above, claims I am claim myself as an authority when I wrote "Keys, _adorably_, believes he is an authority. Next. No church in its private capacity will be forced to marry folks. The cult of hetero-fascism fails yet again."

One, no church has been forced to do so.

Two, marriage equality probably will be the law of the land in three weeks.

Where are the errors, Keys?


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it....


 
Jude 1 of the New Testament.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 of the New Testament.
Click to expand...

Thank you.  Jude 1 is not the law of the land.  Human societies are not built on Jude.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 of the New Testament.
Click to expand...




JakeStarkey said:


> Thank you.  Jude 1 is not the law of the land.  Human societies are not built on Jude.


But America was built on the Constitution and the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to daily practice of their faith, so long as it doesn't cause violence to another (Sharia law).  Jude 1 mandates that Christians (each and every one, not just a gathering of them in a building) not enable the spread of homosexuality through a society; under promise of eternal damnation for failing to do so, which is what's called a "mortal sin".  And since marriage is the ultimate stamp of legitimacy, requiring Christians to enable "gay weddings" is one and the same with requiring them to abdicate the daily practice of their religion.  It is requiring them to subject their immortal soul to eternal damnation in the name of a neo-political trend they were told to anticipate and to not allow (Jude 1, New Testament)


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, you have told us on more than one occasion you are not much of a Christian, so you using the Bible as some sort of "evidence" is hypocritical.

No, our Constitution and our society is not decided by the Bible.

No, no one in private religious practice is going to be forced to marry someone of the same same sex or be married to such a person.

To suggest otherwise is to lie.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 of the New Testament.
Click to expand...


...is, entirely, irrelevant to the conversation.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 of the New Testament.
Click to expand...




JakeStarkey said:


> Thank you.  Jude 1 is not the law of the land.  Human societies are not built on Jude.


But America was built on the Constitution and the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to daily practice of their faith, so long as it doesn't cause violence to another (Sharia law).  Jude 1 mandates that Christians (each and every one, not just a gathering of them in a building) not enable the spread of homosexuality through a society; under promise of eternal damnation for failing to do so, which is what's called a "mortal sin".  And since marriage is the ultimate stamp of legitimacy, requiring Christians to enable "gay weddings" is one and the same with requiring them to abdicate the daily practice of their religion.  It is requiring them to subject their immortal soul to eternal damnation in the name of a neo-political trend they were told to anticipate and to not allow (Jude 1, New Testament).

The suggestion that I'm "not much of a Christian" is irrelevant to guarantees for practicing Christians in the Constitution.  Pretend if you must that I'm an agnostic or atheist lawyer representing a Christian in court, if this didactic device helps you understand the base logic of my argument here.


----------



## JakeStarkey

But . . . nothing, as you well know.  Our Constitution and our culture is not based on Jude.  And you seem t be of the opinion that cultures don't change.

Ours is changing,and it is not going backwards.


----------



## Skylar

W'


Silhouette said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing people  to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.
> 
> When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what will be the next attack to come, otherwise when the barn door is flung wide open in these new ways ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking? Isn't that a tad...hysterical?  Nobody is attacking anyone here, last time I checked.  I am an atheist. I just can't stand  men butt screwing each other and whatnot pretending that somehow, magically, you get enough lawyers  and bitch and whine loud long and hard, people are just going to accept THAT it's  the same as man and woman making love and having children, and need marriage and respect. Nope. Dream on, dream on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Mary said ^^
Click to expand...


You're reviving a thread from APRIL?

How many active gay marriage threads are you going to be juggling?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Skylar said:


> W'
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing people  to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.
> 
> When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what will be the next attack to come, otherwise when the barn door is flung wide open in these new ways ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking? Isn't that a tad...hysterical?  Nobody is attacking anyone here, last time I checked.  I am an atheist. I just can't stand  men butt screwing each other and whatnot pretending that somehow, magically, you get enough lawyers  and bitch and whine loud long and hard, people are just going to accept THAT it's  the same as man and woman making love and having children, and need marriage and respect. Nope. Dream on, dream on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Mary said ^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're reviving a thread from APRIL?
> 
> How many active gay marriage threads are you going to be juggling?
Click to expand...

In three weeks poor Sil is fucked.  She's getting her digs in while she still can I guess.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 of the New Testament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  Jude 1 is not the law of the land.  Human societies are not built on Jude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But America was built on the Constitution and the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to daily practice of their faith, so long as it doesn't cause violence to another (Sharia law).
Click to expand...


Then per that logic, wouldn't any non-violent aspect of Sharia trump US law? Like say....polygamy? If civil law is subordinate to religious belief.....why would it be limited only to Christian beliefs? 



> Jude 1 mandates that Christians (each and every one, not just a gathering of them in a building) not enable the spread of homosexuality through a society; under promise of eternal damnation for failing to do so, which is what's called a "mortal sin".



Jude 1 never mentions gay marriage. Or cake. You've hallucinated all of it.

Even your logic s blithering nonsense. As selling cake doesn't promote homosexuality. It promotes cake. 



> And since marriage is the ultimate stamp of legitimacy, requiring Christians to enable "gay weddings" is one and the same with requiring them to abdicate the daily practice of their religion.  It is requiring them to subject their immortal soul to eternal damnation in the name of a neo-political trend they were told to anticipate and to not allow (Jude 1, New Testament).



There are already Christians insisting they shouldn't have to serve gays in any capacity, regardless of connection to weddings. Would their personal religious conviction trump PA laws as well? So that a gay person couldn't at a Christian owned resteraunt, or couldn't get their car serviced at a Christian mechanics shop?

If no, why not?


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it....


 


Silhouette said:


> Jude 1 of the New Testament.





JakeStarkey said:


> Thank you.  Jude 1 is not the law of the land.  Human societies are not built on Jude.


But America was built on the Constitution and the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to daily practice of their faith, so long as it doesn't cause violence to another (Sharia law).  Jude 1 mandates that Christians (each and every one, not just a gathering of them in a building) not enable the spread of homosexuality through a society; under promise of eternal damnation for failing to do so, which is what's called a "mortal sin".  And since marriage is the ultimate stamp of legitimacy, requiring Christians to enable "gay weddings" is one and the same with requiring them to abdicate the daily practice of their religion.  It is requiring them to subject their immortal soul to eternal damnation in the name of a neo-political trend they were told to anticipate and to not allow (Jude 1, New Testament).

The suggestion that I'm "not much of a Christian" is irrelevant to guarantees for practicing Christians in the Constitution.  Pretend if you must that I'm an agnostic or atheist lawyer representing a Christian in court, if this didactic device helps you understand the base logic of my argument here.



Skylar said:


> You're reviving a thread from APRIL?
> How many active gay marriage threads are you going to be juggling?


 
The same number of gay agenda threads you and your payroll pals are juggling.  Does that answer your question?

Thought you'd get to #10 and then quote an older conversation eh?  I copied the one we were on before you buried the last page...


----------



## mdk

Update: Churches still have not been forced to marry anyone against their wishes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thank you for acknowledging that you are not much of a Christian, which does undermine your citation of Jude.

Jude does not govern or bedrock the Constitution.

Any argument based on the Bible is simply irrelevant.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

mdk said:


> Update: Churches still have not been forced to marry anyone against their wishes.


And never will be here...


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> So for there to be _'no natural laws governing marriage... that you can't get around.'_, all Relativism needs is for* Humanity to NOT BE affiliated with NATURE... .*



Marriage a social construct. We invented it to meet the needs of society. Some societies used romantic love as their basis of marriage. Others arranged marriages with the participants not even meeting until the wedding. Some had two participants. Others had polygamy. Some recognized marriage as a joining of equals. Some recognized marriage as an inherently dominant and subbordinate relationship.

*And each of them was marriage.* Marriage is our invention. And it is whatever we say it is. You've concluded that marriage is whatever YOU say it is, and that all law, culture, and civilization is bound to abide your assumptions.

Laughing......um, no. They're not. As all the same sex marriage in 37 of 50 states demonstrates. You are gloriously irrelevant to this process. 



> Given that Reality requires that Humanity does in fact exist in nature... this is incontestable, thus Skylar's only contest is *refuted* in undeniable terms.



Again, just because humanity exists in nature doesn't mean that any batshit you make up is 'natural law'. You're running into the same simple problem with your every argument:

*Rejecting your subjective opinion isn't rejecting natural law. As your opinion isn't natural law*. Its just your personal opinion. Which defines nothing objectively.

Back in reality, marriage is our invention. We made it up to serve our needs. And we define it. Not you.



> Marriage IS, the Joining of One Man and One Woman.



Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman. As same sex marriage in 37 of 50 States demonstrates. You insist none of it happening.

Shrugs...ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.


----------



## mdk

PaintMyHouse said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Update: Churches still have not been forced to marry anyone against their wishes.
> 
> 
> 
> And never will be here...
Click to expand...


That won't stop the drama queens from soiling their knickers though.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 of the New Testament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  Jude 1 is not the law of the land.  Human societies are not built on Jude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But America was built on the Constitution and the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to daily practice of their faith, so long as it doesn't cause violence to another (Sharia law).  Jude 1 mandates that Christians (each and every one, not just a gathering of them in a building) not enable the spread of homosexuality through a society; under promise of eternal damnation for failing to do so, which is what's called a "mortal sin".  And since marriage is the ultimate stamp of legitimacy, requiring Christians to enable "gay weddings" is one and the same with requiring them to abdicate the daily practice of their religion.  It is requiring them to subject their immortal soul to eternal damnation in the name of a neo-political trend they were told to anticipate and to not allow (Jude 1, New Testament).
> 
> The suggestion that I'm "not much of a Christian" is irrelevant to guarantees for practicing Christians in the Constitution.  Pretend if you must that I'm an agnostic or atheist lawyer representing a Christian in court, if this didactic device helps you understand the base logic of my argument here.
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're reviving a thread from APRIL?
> How many active gay marriage threads are you going to be juggling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same number of gay agenda threads you and your payroll pals are juggling.  Does that answer your question?
> 
> Thought you'd get to #10 and then quote an older conversation eh?  I copied the one we were on before you buried the last page...
Click to expand...


We didn't revive this one, Sil. You did. 

You've started at least 10 threads on same sex marriage. And you keep reviving them to feed your personal obsession. You've already told us how much damage and personal harm posting here does to you. How it harms your mental and physical health to such an extent that you're forced to give it up.

Yet you are, sacrificing your health to feed your obsession. Worse, you're escalating, reviving dormant threads from over a month ago, while adding nothing of substance. You literally revived this thread to say 'ditto'. 

You're not well, Sil.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, if you are suffering physical and mental health issues because of the Board, please stop.  Your family and friends need you.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, if you are suffering physical and mental health issues because of the Board, please stop.  Your family and friends need you.



Sil has already doubled down on flat out insanity....insisting that the gays have inflitrated all polling agencies that show support for same sex marriage. And insisting that Gallup is now falsifying its polling results as part of a vast international conspiracy dating back to the 1960s. 

And no, I'm not joking. 

Sil's way past batshit. This issue is literally driving him insane.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

*UPDATE!*​


Skylar has trotted out another pre-refuted RESPONSE: 



Skylar said:


> *Rejecting your subjective opinion isn't rejecting natural law. As your opinion isn't natural law*. Its just your personal opinion. Which defines nothing objectively.





Skylar said:


> *The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage'*



In effect that is Skylar informing you that: 

*Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works. ...*

Let's review to recall how she got there: 



Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> [So your conclusion is then that the argument is straw reasoning: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage', pulled sideways out of your ass, based on your own relativistic assumptions. And you've offered us nothing but your own relativistic assumptions to back up your made up 'natural law of marriage'.
> 
> With your assumption debunked by one simple fact:* there is no marriage in nature.*
Click to expand...


So for there to be _'no natural laws governing marriage... that you can't get around.'_, all Relativism needs is for* Humanity to NOT BE affiliated with NATURE... .
*
Let's review:

Just take a moment to examine this exchange, wherein a degenerate claimed that the Natural Standard of Marriage is false; meaning that as demonstrated above, the Homo-cult is wholly denying that nature has any laws governing human behavior and that such includes human physiology and the extension of such which we express through the word Marriage.

They claim that assigning Marriage as  governed by Natural Law... is a function of pretense designed to distract you, the observer or "Reader" from reality or the issue at hand.  This they advise you is an invalid logical construct known as "straw reasoning".

To which I simply replied by breaking the respective elements of Reality down into their respective components, which requires the opposition to either accept the existence of such, or to deny reality...

For your convenience, I repeat the exercise, below:



			
				 The 1st Element of Reality said:
			
		

> So the reasoning is that of straw?
> 
> Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?





			
				 The 2nd Element or Reality said:
			
		

> The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?





			
				 The 3rd Element of Reality said:
			
		

> The reasoning further asserts the the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?





			
				 The 4th Element of Reality said:
			
		

> The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.
> 
> Now... are you coming to reject that fact?



So... the question now becomes, 'what was the response?'

The first Militant simply conceded to the argument by refusing to even acknowledge the Argument and hasn't been seen in the Thread since.

The Second Militant, desperately wanted to ignore it, but its inability to deny its subjective need, precluded it from being able to ignore it and folded through the following *EPIC FAILURE!:
*


Skylar said:


> W.R.McKeys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh!  So Natural Law is straw reasoning.  Wouldn't Locke be shocked to learn that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no 'natural law of marriage'. You made that up.
Click to expand...


So your conclusion is then, that the argument is straw reasoning, which is to say: _"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched._

I'll take that concession; _noted and accepted.
_


Skylar said:


> Well ok... Let's you and I break it down, shall we... (Reader you can go on to bed, as Skylar will now become OBSESSED with something else... ANYTHING ELSE, except this discussion.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. ...
Click to expand...


WOW~  So you're going to invoke straw reasoning, after just lamenting straw reasoning?

Wherein you're literally claiming that there are no "readers" observing this discussion through the processing of the written word?
_
Such is as Delusional as it is... HYSTERICAL!   (In every sense of the WORD!)

Love the irony.

I'll take THAT concession; which is now formally noted and accepted._


So you've agreed that you conclude that the reasoning at issue is that of straw; a pretense which I conjured to escape the reality that is your need for sexual deviancy to be sexual normality?



			
				W.R. McKeys said:
			
		

> Now, the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?



(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest.  Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.



			
				W.R. McKeys said:
			
		

> The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?



(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest.  Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.



			
				W.R. McKeys said:
			
		

> The reasoning further asserts that the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?



(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest.  Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.



Skylar said:


> W.R. McKeys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no marriage in nature.
Click to expand...


Given that Reality requires that Humanity does in fact exist in nature... this is _incontestable_, thus Skylar's only contest is *refuted*_ in undeniable terms._

Thus demonstrating Skylar, Faun and by extension, the homo-cult's in its entirety, must inevitably concede to the reality that in point of unassailable fact:

Marriage *IS*, _the Joining of One Man and One Woman._
_
And by virtue of that, there is no potential for a claim of inequity for those seeking to join with people of the same gender, who come to claim that their being disqualified from marriage, sets them inequitable.

And with that said, Skylar, Faun and the entirely of the Homo-Cult's 6th Concession... *in a single post*; a post wherein she lost the ENTIRETY of this debate... is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## JakeStarkey

*UPDATE!*  Keys got his head handed to him above, and his regurgitated relativistic responses are only reflective of his narrow world view.  He is entitled to it, of course, but it has no meaning to anyone else.  Marriage is what the various cultures throughout history of man say it is, not what says Keys.


----------



## dblack

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack said:


> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.


Marriage is not subject to public accommodation.


----------



## mdk

dblack said:


> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.



No, they shouldn't. Churches should not be subject to public accommodation laws at all. They are free to allow or disallow any person as they see fit.


----------



## dblack

mdk said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they shouldn't. Churches should not be subject to public accommodation laws at all. They are free to allow or disallow any person as they see fit.
Click to expand...


Why not?


----------



## dblack

JakeStarkey said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is not subject to public accommodation.
Click to expand...


Why not?


----------



## mdk

dblack said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they shouldn't. Churches should not be subject to public accommodation laws at all. They are free to allow or disallow any person as they see fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?
Click to expand...


I don't want the state interfering in matters of the church. Perhaps you do but I certainly do not.


----------



## dblack

mdk said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they shouldn't. Churches should not be subject to public accommodation laws at all. They are free to allow or disallow any person as they see fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want the state interfering in matters of the church. Perhaps you do but I certainly do not.
Click to expand...


I don't want the state interfering any of these kinds of matters, but our laws should apply equally to everyone.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

dblack said:


> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.


Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.  

What evidence do you have that such is not the case?


----------



## dblack

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.
> 
> What evidence do you have that such is not the case?
Click to expand...


If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

dblack said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.
> 
> What evidence do you have that such is not the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.
Click to expand...


Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.

We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.

We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.

For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.

Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.

Churches are places of Religion.  They do not offer a service, beyond providing a place where people of a common set of beliefs can come to worship and fellowship with one another.

To the best of my knowledge, Churches encourage all people to come and fellowship with the Father, particularly deviants.  

All they ask is that people come with a civil demeanor and an open heart... .   

Are you suggesting that Churches are turning away homosexuals?  

I'd love to get the address of such a Church.  I've got a few thoughts I'd like to share with the Pastor.


----------



## dblack

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.
> 
> What evidence do you have that such is not the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.
> 
> We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.
> 
> We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.
> 
> For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.
> 
> Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're going on about. To be clear, I'm adamantly opposed to PA laws.  But just governed demands equal protection. If anyone has to obey a shitty law, everyone should.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

dblack said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.
> 
> What evidence do you have that such is not the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.
Click to expand...

Churches are exempt, dumbass.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

dblack said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.
> 
> What evidence do you have that such is not the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.
> 
> We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.
> 
> We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.
> 
> For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.
> 
> Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what you're going on about. To be clear, I'm adamantly opposed to PA laws.  But just governed demands equal protection. If anyone has to obey a shitty law, everyone should.
Click to expand...


No American is obligated to obey unjust law.   

Churches are no exception to that.  

The PA Laws were not written to protect poor behavior and the 'interpretation' of such for the purposes of protecting sexual deviancy is simply evidence of a growing mass-delusion by a group pf people who clearly have nefarious intent.

I didn't get your original point.  Please pardon the passion... .


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.
> 
> What evidence do you have that such is not the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.
> 
> We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.
> 
> We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.
> 
> For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.
> 
> Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.
> 
> Churches are places of Religion.  They do not offer a service, beyond providing a place where people of a common set of beliefs can come to worship and fellowship with one another.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, Churches encourage all people to come and fellowship with the Father, particularly deviants.
> 
> All they ask is that people come with a civil demeanor and an open heart... .
> 
> Are you suggesting that Churches are turning away homosexuals?
> 
> I'd love to get the address of such a Church.  I've got a few thoughts I'd like to share with the Pastor.
Click to expand...

Simple Google search.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.
> 
> What evidence do you have that such is not the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are exempt, dumbass.
Click to expand...


He's asking WHY.

And he's doing so to point out the illegitimate nature of the PA laws.

Churches can't refuse to do a black wedding... and if the SCOTUS were to decide to normalize sexual deviancy, Churches would not be exempt.

So stop playing coy and man up with your desire to see churches forced into that which the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is designed to do.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.
> 
> What evidence do you have that such is not the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.
> 
> We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.
> 
> We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.
> 
> For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.
> 
> Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.
> 
> Churches are places of Religion.  They do not offer a service, beyond providing a place where people of a common set of beliefs can come to worship and fellowship with one another.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, Churches encourage all people to come and fellowship with the Father, particularly deviants.
> 
> All they ask is that people come with a civil demeanor and an open heart... .
> 
> Are you suggesting that Churches are turning away homosexuals?
> 
> I'd love to get the address of such a Church.  I've got a few thoughts I'd like to share with the Pastor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple Google search.
Click to expand...


Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?

LOL!  It's as classic as it is pitiful.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> The PA Laws were not written to protect poor behavior and the 'interpretation' of such for the purposes of protecting sexual deviancy is simply evidence of a growing mass-delusion by a group pf people who clearly have nefarious intent.



What?

So when Public Accommodation laws specifically say businesses can discriminate based on sexual orientation, they don't really mean businesses can't discriminate based on sexual orientation and it's just a judge "interpreting" the law to include sexual orientation?


>>>>


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.
> 
> What evidence do you have that such is not the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are exempt, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's asking WHY.
> 
> And he's doing so to point out the illegitimate nature of the PA laws.
> 
> Churches can't refuse to do a black wedding... and if the SCOTUS were to decide to normalize sexual deviancy, Churches would not be exempt.
> 
> So stop playing coy and man up with your desire to see churches forced into that which the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is designed to do.
Click to expand...

Churches can turn down any wedding they disapprove of, for any damn reason under God.  They are exempt.

Fuck, you people are just goddamned stupid...


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Churches can't refuse to do a black wedding... and if the SCOTUS were to decide to normalize sexual deviancy, Churches would not be exempt.




Churches can refuse to form a religious ceremony for a black wedding.

Hell just this year a Church refused to perform a wedding for a black couple -->> Church refuses to marry black couple


>>>>


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA Laws were not written to protect poor behavior and the 'interpretation' of such for the purposes of protecting sexual deviancy is simply evidence of a growing mass-delusion by a group pf people who clearly have nefarious intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> So when Public Accommodation laws specifically say businesses can discriminate based on sexual orientation, they don't really mean businesses can't discriminate based on sexual orientation and it's just a judge "interpreting" the law to include sexual orientation?
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


How about businesses that discriminate against those who choose not to bathe?  Or those who choose only to speak through unhinged profane demands?  Or just who choose to only use money they get through physical domination of their clients and staff?

If The Law protects sexual deviancy, which is purely a behavior... given that sexual orientation has been established to have absolutely NO genetic component, thus such is by a complete lack of options A CHOICE... then on what basis would the law not provide equal protection to the other deviants?

Take all the time ya need...


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.
> 
> What evidence do you have that such is not the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.
> 
> We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.
> 
> We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.
> 
> For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.
> 
> Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.
> 
> Churches are places of Religion.  They do not offer a service, beyond providing a place where people of a common set of beliefs can come to worship and fellowship with one another.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, Churches encourage all people to come and fellowship with the Father, particularly deviants.
> 
> All they ask is that people come with a civil demeanor and an open heart... .
> 
> Are you suggesting that Churches are turning away homosexuals?
> 
> I'd love to get the address of such a Church.  I've got a few thoughts I'd like to share with the Pastor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple Google search.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?
> 
> LOL!  It's as classic as it is pitiful.
Click to expand...

Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA Laws were not written to protect poor behavior and the 'interpretation' of such for the purposes of protecting sexual deviancy is simply evidence of a growing mass-delusion by a group pf people who clearly have nefarious intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> So when Public Accommodation laws specifically say businesses can discriminate based on sexual orientation, they don't really mean businesses can't discriminate based on sexual orientation and it's just a judge "interpreting" the law to include sexual orientation?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about businesses that discriminate against those who choose not to bathe?  Or those who choose only to speak through unhinged profane demands?  Or just who choose to only use money they get through physical domination of their clients and staff?
> 
> If The Law protects sexual deviancy, which is purely a behavior... given that sexual orientation has been established to have absolutely NO genetic component, thus such is by a complete lack of options A CHOICE... then on what basis would the law not provide equal protection to the other deviants?
> 
> Take all the time ya need...
Click to expand...

Learn how PA laws actually work, which you have no clue about.
Public accommodations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches can't refuse to do a black wedding... and if the SCOTUS were to decide to normalize sexual deviancy, Churches would not be exempt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches can refuse to form a religious ceremony for a black wedding.
> 
> Hell just this year a Church refused to perform a wedding for a black couple -->> Church refuses to marry black couple
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


LOL!  So they did.

 I gotta say that I'm truly shocked.  I don't think that the Church would stand much of a chance of defending that, but I can't find anything that shows that their decision was even challenged.  And I expect that such is because those folks likely decided that they didn't want to be married in a church loaded with racists and who can blame 'em.

Shame on 'em.

There's no scriptural basis for not marrying black folks or any other folks who come within the scope of scripture and the specific tenets of that church.   And there's no end to the Scripture noting the untenable nature of sexual deviancy.  

So ... bad example perhaps, but the point stands; their decision was irrational.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PA Laws were not written to protect poor behavior and the 'interpretation' of such for the purposes of protecting sexual deviancy is simply evidence of a growing mass-delusion by a group pf people who clearly have nefarious intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> So when Public Accommodation laws specifically say businesses can discriminate based on sexual orientation, they don't really mean businesses can't discriminate based on sexual orientation and it's just a judge "interpreting" the law to include sexual orientation?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about businesses that discriminate against those who choose not to bathe?  Or those who choose only to speak through unhinged profane demands?  Or just who choose to only use money they get through physical domination of their clients and staff?
> 
> If The Law protects sexual deviancy, which is purely a behavior... given that sexual orientation has been established to have absolutely NO genetic component, thus such is by a complete lack of options A CHOICE... then on what basis would the law not provide equal protection to the other deviants?
> 
> Take all the time ya need...
Click to expand...



Deflection and moving the goal posts.  You said laws don't protect sexual orientation and that they were "interpreted" to include sexual orientation.

Flat out wrong.

There are, IIRC, 21 states that specifically include sexual orientation.

Here are a few examples:

Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, *sexual orientation*, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, al status, national origin, or ancestry.
COCODE

Oregon Revised Statutes
§ 659A.403¹
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, *sexual orientation*, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.
ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

New Mexico
28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice.  
It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for:
F. any person in any to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, *sexual orientation*, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing;
New Mexico One Source of Law ​


Where_r_my_Keys said:


> The PA Laws were not written to protect poor behavior and the 'interpretation' of such for the purposes of protecting sexual deviancy is simply evidence of a growing mass-delusion by a group pf people who clearly have nefarious intent.



Secondly, refusing service to an interracial couple is illegal.

Choosing to date or marry someone from a different race, under your "logic", wouldn't fall under Public Accommodation laws since choosing to date or marry someone of a different race is a behavior since there is no genetic component to being attracted to someone of a different race.


>>>>


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

9 topics on the first page about queers.

What does that tell you all?


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> *UPDATE!*  Keys got his head handed to him above, and his regurgitated relativistic responses are only reflective of his narrow world view.  He is entitled to it, of course, but it has no meaning to anyone else.  Marriage is what the various cultures throughout history of man say it is, not what says Keys.



Smiling.....yup. I broke him. And the shocking part is....how little effort it took. 

Keys uses the same silly Appeal to Authority fallacy with every post. The only thing that changes is the Authority he claims to be appealing to. He claims to speak for nature, or God, or objectrive truth, or universal morality, or immutable law, or whatever.

And in every case...its just Keys citing his personal opinion. With his sources being himself. His audience (aka the mythic 'reader' he keeps talking to), himself. The 'concessions' he accepts from himself.

Its the most relativistic argument on this board. And that's what broke him.


----------



## Skylar

Grampa Murked U said:


> 9 topics on the first page about queers.
> 
> What does that tell you all?



That your ilk keep reviving old dead threads. Sil revived this thread after 6 weeks of dormancy this morning.....to say 'ditto'. 

Your ilk are obsessed. And a tad desperate. I think they can sense what is coming the same way the conservatives in Ireland could.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> So ... bad example perhaps, but the point stands; their decision was irrational.


It doesn't fucking matter, it's legal, which makes you dead wrong.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches can't refuse to do a black wedding... and if the SCOTUS were to decide to normalize sexual deviancy, Churches would not be exempt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Churches can refuse to form a religious ceremony for a black wedding.
> 
> Hell just this year a Church refused to perform a wedding for a black couple -->> Church refuses to marry black couple
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  So they did.
> 
> I gotta say that I'm truly shocked.  I don't think that the Church would stand much of a chance of defending that, but I can't find anything that shows that their decision was even challenged.  And I expect that such is because those folks likely decided that they didn't want to be married in a church loaded with racists and who can blame 'em.
Click to expand...


Thats probably because you don't know what you're talking about, aren't clear on what PA laws are, and have no idea what they cover. PA laws explicitly and specifically exempt churches.

Which makes this thread an exercise in conservative preemtive panty shitting over an issue that isn't.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.
> 
> What evidence do you have that such is not the case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.
> 
> We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.
> 
> We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.
> 
> For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.
> 
> Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.
> 
> Churches are places of Religion.  They do not offer a service, beyond providing a place where people of a common set of beliefs can come to worship and fellowship with one another.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, Churches encourage all people to come and fellowship with the Father, particularly deviants.
> 
> All they ask is that people come with a civil demeanor and an open heart... .
> 
> Are you suggesting that Churches are turning away homosexuals?
> 
> I'd love to get the address of such a Church.  I've got a few thoughts I'd like to share with the Pastor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple Google search.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?
> 
> LOL!  It's as classic as it is pitiful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty
Click to expand...


Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law?  Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?

I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.

Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.  

Welcoming sinners is welcoming sinners... to hear the good news.   There's no such welcome implied to allow the sinner to remain in sin and in so doing influence others... . 

But I gotta say, if someone had claimed that Churches were obligated to tolerate deviancy... that would have been a marvelous point.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.
> 
> We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.
> 
> We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.
> 
> For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.
> 
> Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.
> 
> Churches are places of Religion.  They do not offer a service, beyond providing a place where people of a common set of beliefs can come to worship and fellowship with one another.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, Churches encourage all people to come and fellowship with the Father, particularly deviants.
> 
> All they ask is that people come with a civil demeanor and an open heart... .
> 
> Are you suggesting that Churches are turning away homosexuals?
> 
> I'd love to get the address of such a Church.  I've got a few thoughts I'd like to share with the Pastor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple Google search.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?
> 
> LOL!  It's as classic as it is pitiful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law?  Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?
> 
> I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.
> 
> Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.
Click to expand...


That's an opinion. Many other Christians would disagree with you. That's the beauty of religion: its so subjective and interpretive


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.
> 
> We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.
> 
> We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.
> 
> For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.
> 
> Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.
> 
> Churches are places of Religion.  They do not offer a service, beyond providing a place where people of a common set of beliefs can come to worship and fellowship with one another.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, Churches encourage all people to come and fellowship with the Father, particularly deviants.
> 
> All they ask is that people come with a civil demeanor and an open heart... .
> 
> Are you suggesting that Churches are turning away homosexuals?
> 
> I'd love to get the address of such a Church.  I've got a few thoughts I'd like to share with the Pastor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple Google search.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?
> 
> LOL!  It's as classic as it is pitiful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law?  Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?
> 
> I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.
> 
> Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.
> 
> Welcoming sinners is welcoming sinners... to hear the good news.   There's no such welcome implied to allow the sinner to remain in sin and in so doing influence others... .
> 
> But I gotta say, if someone had claimed that Churches were obligated to tolerate deviancy... that would have been a marvelous point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Jesus was big on kicking out the faithful.  And we show you that they can kick them out but you still say they are forced to hold black weddings, which they aren't, so they will have to hold gay weddings even as they kick the faggots out for being fags.  You are a fucking idiot loon, fit only for the loony bin...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Thats probably because you don't know what you're talking about, aren't clear on what PA laws are, and have no idea what they cover. PA laws explicitly and specifically exempt churches.
> 
> Which makes this thread an exercise in conservative preemtive panty shitting over an issue that isn't.[sic]



No church or anyone else should be allowed to discriminate against anyone over the color of their skin.

That this church embarrassed itself is not evidence that churches are entitled to engage in bad behavior... nor does it mean that churches should be forced to participate in the normalization of deviant behavior.

But hey... in your defense, as a Relativist, _there is NO WAY you could have known that._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.
> 
> We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.
> 
> We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.
> 
> For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.
> 
> Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.
> 
> Churches are places of Religion.  They do not offer a service, beyond providing a place where people of a common set of beliefs can come to worship and fellowship with one another.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, Churches encourage all people to come and fellowship with the Father, particularly deviants.
> 
> All they ask is that people come with a civil demeanor and an open heart... .
> 
> Are you suggesting that Churches are turning away homosexuals?
> 
> I'd love to get the address of such a Church.  I've got a few thoughts I'd like to share with the Pastor.
> 
> 
> 
> Simple Google search.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?
> 
> LOL!  It's as classic as it is pitiful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law?  Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?
> 
> I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.
> 
> Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.
> 
> Welcoming sinners is welcoming sinners... to hear the good news.   There's no such welcome implied to allow the sinner to remain in sin and in so doing influence others... .
> 
> But I gotta say, if someone had claimed that Churches were obligated to tolerate deviancy... that would have been a marvelous point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, Jesus was big on kicking out the faithful.  And we show you that they can kick them out but you still say they are forced to hold black weddings so they will have to hold gay weddings even as they kick the faggots out for being fags.  You are a fucking idiot loon, fit only for the loony bin...
Click to expand...



Can't be among the faithful and deny God's law.    No sir... that can NOT be done.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple Google search.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?
> 
> LOL!  It's as classic as it is pitiful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law?  Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?
> 
> I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.
> 
> Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.
> 
> Welcoming sinners is welcoming sinners... to hear the good news.   There's no such welcome implied to allow the sinner to remain in sin and in so doing influence others... .
> 
> But I gotta say, if someone had claimed that Churches were obligated to tolerate deviancy... that would have been a marvelous point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, Jesus was big on kicking out the faithful.  And we show you that they can kick them out but you still say they are forced to hold black weddings so they will have to hold gay weddings even as they kick the faggots out for being fags.  You are a fucking idiot loon, fit only for the loony bin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be among the faithful and deny God's law.    No sir... that can NOT be done.
Click to expand...

Then the church doesn't welcome people since all people are sinners and will continue to sin until the day they die, dumbass, which makes you, yet again, dead wrong.

And, a church for the sinless always has plenty of seating, no one is ever there.  Fuck you are an utter MORON!!! even about your own goddamned faith.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.
> 
> We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.
> 
> We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.
> 
> For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.
> 
> Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.
> 
> Churches are places of Religion.  They do not offer a service, beyond providing a place where people of a common set of beliefs can come to worship and fellowship with one another.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, Churches encourage all people to come and fellowship with the Father, particularly deviants.
> 
> All they ask is that people come with a civil demeanor and an open heart... .
> 
> Are you suggesting that Churches are turning away homosexuals?
> 
> I'd love to get the address of such a Church.  I've got a few thoughts I'd like to share with the Pastor.
> 
> 
> 
> Simple Google search.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?
> 
> LOL!  It's as classic as it is pitiful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law?  Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?
> 
> I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.
> 
> Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an opinion. Many other Christians would disagree with you. That's the beauty of religion: its so subjective and interpretive
Click to expand...


The Religion is objective, the religious are subjective.  

Such is the purpose of Religion, to help people rise above the lower-nature of subjectivism.

But hey... again, in your defense, as a Relativist, _there is NO WAY you could have known that._


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats probably because you don't know what you're talking about, aren't clear on what PA laws are, and have no idea what they cover. PA laws explicitly and specifically exempt churches.
> 
> Which makes this thread an exercise in conservative preemtive panty shitting over an issue that isn't.[sic]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No church or anyone else should be allowed to discriminate against anyone over the color of their skin.
Click to expand...


That's outside the scope of the law. As PA laws don't have a thing to do with churches, exempting them explicitly and specifically. 

No church is required to admit anyone. Debunking the very topic of the thread. Like 6 months ago.



> But hey... in your defense, as a Relativist, _there is NO WAY you could have known that._



Keyes, you're well known as the most relativist poster on this board. Citing your opinion as 'universal, infallible law', while you talk to yourself in the form of your imaginary 'reader', while giving yourself 'concessions', with all of your sources being yourself.

You're the avatar of relativism.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple Google search.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?
> 
> LOL!  It's as classic as it is pitiful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law?  Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?
> 
> I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.
> 
> Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an opinion. Many other Christians would disagree with you. That's the beauty of religion: its so subjective and interpretive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Religion is objective, the religious are subjective.
Click to expand...


Nope. Religion is hopelessly subjective. As its gloriously interpretive. Even within the same faith, the same general culture, over time. Take....the puritans, the founders, and modern Christians.

The Puritans executed gays and adulterers.

The founders just gays.

Modern Christians, neither.

Did god 'change his mind'......or did the Christian faith change and adapt with the times, subject to culture, history, society and the personal context of any given Christian?

Pick which. Either God is inconsistent.....or Christianity is relativistic and subjective. Either proves my point.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?
> 
> LOL!  It's as classic as it is pitiful.
> 
> 
> 
> Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law?  Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?
> 
> I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.
> 
> Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.
> 
> Welcoming sinners is welcoming sinners... to hear the good news.   There's no such welcome implied to allow the sinner to remain in sin and in so doing influence others... .
> 
> But I gotta say, if someone had claimed that Churches were obligated to tolerate deviancy... that would have been a marvelous point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, Jesus was big on kicking out the faithful.  And we show you that they can kick them out but you still say they are forced to hold black weddings so they will have to hold gay weddings even as they kick the faggots out for being fags.  You are a fucking idiot loon, fit only for the loony bin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be among the faithful and deny God's law.    No sir... that can NOT be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the church doesn't welcome people since all people are sinners and will continue to sin until the day they die, dumbass, which makes you, yet again, dead wrong.
> 
> And, a church for the sinless always has plenty of seating, no one is ever there.  Fuck you are an utter MORON!!! even about your own goddamned faith.
Click to expand...


Well let's see... 

You're pushing the assumption that the homosexual had admitted that homosexuality is a sin and the Church kicked it out.

When in reality, the Church kicked it out because it refused to admit that its deviancy was a sin.  Try walking into church drunk and disorderly.  You'll be shown the door el pronto.

Ya see scamp, at some point, such individuals are recognized as no longer being reasonably seen as being among those who come to the church to find fellowship with God.    But who are instead are individuals who come to mislead others away from God.

I hope the child finds the objectivity required to help it rise above it's deviant needs... because eternity is a LONG TIME and having to spend it in eternal anguish has GOT to be an infinite bummer.

But at the end of the day it's not the church's job to make someone turn from their sin... its the church's job to provide a place for people who believe in God, thus who respect God's law, to come to fellowship together.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*Where_r_my_Keys:*  Can't be among the faithful and deny God's law. No sir... that can NOT be done.

*JakeStarkey*: So says St. Keys the Relativist.  And as fact, as opposed to Keys' relativism, it is immaterial to American jurisprudence.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law?  Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?
> 
> I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.
> 
> Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.
> 
> Welcoming sinners is welcoming sinners... to hear the good news.   There's no such welcome implied to allow the sinner to remain in sin and in so doing influence others... .
> 
> But I gotta say, if someone had claimed that Churches were obligated to tolerate deviancy... that would have been a marvelous point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, Jesus was big on kicking out the faithful.  And we show you that they can kick them out but you still say they are forced to hold black weddings so they will have to hold gay weddings even as they kick the faggots out for being fags.  You are a fucking idiot loon, fit only for the loony bin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be among the faithful and deny God's law.    No sir... that can NOT be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the church doesn't welcome people since all people are sinners and will continue to sin until the day they die, dumbass, which makes you, yet again, dead wrong.
> 
> And, a church for the sinless always has plenty of seating, no one is ever there.  Fuck you are an utter MORON!!! even about your own goddamned faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well let's see...
> 
> You're pushing the assumption that the homosexual had admitted that homosexuality is a sin and the Church kicked it out.
> 
> When in reality, the Church kicked it out because it refused to admit that its deviancy was a sin.  Try walking into church drunk and disorderly.  You'll be shown the door el pronto.
> 
> Ya see scamp, at some point, such individuals are recognized as no longer being reasonably seen as being among those who come to the church to find fellowship with God.    But who are instead are individuals who come to mislead others away from God.
> 
> I hope the child finds the objectivity required to help it rise above it's deviant needs... because eternity is a LONG TIME and having to spend it in eternal anguish has GOT to be an infinite bummer.
Click to expand...


The obvious problem with that reasoning being....religion isn't objective. Its hopelessly interpretive and subjective. Changing with the times, with history, with society, with the personal context of any given Christian.

Many Christian faiths are embracing gays. Some are making them pastors. And that's perfectly fine. As there is no Leviathan to tell them which interpretation is right and which is wrong. That's for the individual to decide. Which is how there are so many religions, so many sects, so many interpretations within each sect.

With nothing mandating that any of them got it right.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

JakeStarkey said:


> *Where_r_my_Keys:*  Can't be among the faithful and deny God's law. No sir... that can NOT be done.
> 
> *JakeStarkey*: So says St. Keys the Relativist.  And as fact, as opposed to Keys' relativism, it is immaterial to American jurisprudence.


Well that fucks Jesus big time, he hung out with every sinner around plus his own sins.  He wouldn't be at Key's Church of the Sinless either, blocked at the door.

Found a church for Keys, no drunks: Fearing Same-Sex Marriage Louisiana Church Kicks Out Alcoholics Anonymous Group ThinkProgress

Didn't say if they kicked out the other sinners yet, like divorced people and other God's Law breakers...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Nope. Religion is hopelessly subjective.



ROFL!  Skylar you're so pitifully subjective, you can't find a distinction from the religious and the religion.

That such is subject to interpretation is IRRELEVANT... . 

Your own favorite example, wherein Christians once executed homosexuals... and do not today, only shows that the subjective nature of the RELIGIOUS... has caused a EXPLOSION in sexual deviancy.  

You want to claim that executing the homosexual was wrong... but to do so you have to ignore that homosexuals have for the entirety of human history come out of the closest right on the heels of cultural collapse, whereupon they've run right back into the closet.

There's a reason that they executed homosexuals and the Supreme Court being weeks away from DECIDING if two men can marry one another... is the best example that comes to mind at this late hour.

Without regard to what the SCOTUS decides, history tells us all that its only a matter of time before you're back int he closet and having allowed you out of the cloest has given us all a chance to re-learn WHY you were in there, in the first place.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, dumbass: Pennsylvania Church Kicks Out Gay Kid Queerty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the homosexual kid recognize that his sexual choices deviated from God's law?  Did the Homosexual kid admit such and turn from his defiance of God's law?
> 
> I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess that he missed on all three counts.
> 
> Thus, the Church is right in removing him from attendance.
> 
> Welcoming sinners is welcoming sinners... to hear the good news.   There's no such welcome implied to allow the sinner to remain in sin and in so doing influence others... .
> 
> But I gotta say, if someone had claimed that Churches were obligated to tolerate deviancy... that would have been a marvelous point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, Jesus was big on kicking out the faithful.  And we show you that they can kick them out but you still say they are forced to hold black weddings so they will have to hold gay weddings even as they kick the faggots out for being fags.  You are a fucking idiot loon, fit only for the loony bin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be among the faithful and deny God's law.    No sir... that can NOT be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the church doesn't welcome people since all people are sinners and will continue to sin until the day they die, dumbass, which makes you, yet again, dead wrong.
> 
> And, a church for the sinless always has plenty of seating, no one is ever there.  Fuck you are an utter MORON!!! even about your own goddamned faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well let's see...
> 
> You're pushing the assumption that the homosexual had admitted that homosexuality is a sin and the Church kicked it out.
> 
> When in reality, the Church kicked it out because it refused to admit that its deviancy was a sin.  Try walking into church drunk and disorderly.  You'll be shown the door el pronto.
> 
> Ya see scamp, at some point, such individuals are recognized as no longer being reasonably seen as being among those who come to the church to find fellowship with God.    But who are instead are individuals who come to mislead others away from God.
> 
> I hope the child finds the objectivity required to help it rise above it's deviant needs... because eternity is a LONG TIME and having to spend it in eternal anguish has GOT to be an infinite bummer.
> 
> But at the end of the day it's not the church's job to make someone turn from their sin... its the church's job to provide a place for people who believe in God, thus who respect God's law, to come to fellowship together.
Click to expand...

A church with no sinners is a,..............................................wait for it,...............................................storage unit.  Learn your own damn faith.  Jesus walked away from asswipes, not sinners.

"Jesus often ate at the same table with “sinners”, and when he did, the Pharisees questioned why He did so. Jesus responded by saying _“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.”_ (Matthew 9:12)"
The Church is for Sinners not Saints Power to Change


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Religion is hopelessly subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Skylar you're so pitifully subjective, you can't find a distinction from the religious and the religion.
Click to expand...


The religion is whatever the religious say it is. Note how Christianity has changed so dramatically over the years. You can't argue that Christiainty is 'objective' when its that inconsistent and malleable. Christianity is clearly subjective and relativistic.

Remember, there's no Leviathan to break ties. If you declare you have the God given right to 'eradicate homosexuals' while another Christian faith makes a lesbian their pastor.....God doesn't come down to break the tie. Its all just subjective, interpretative relativism. 

*Its how every faith is practiced. How ever religion exists: in a state of perpetual interpretative relativism. *Changing as the times change, changing as society changes, changing as history changes, changing with the personal context of any given Christian. 



> That such is subject to interpretation is IRRELEVANT... .



Its obviously relevant, as it defines how every faith is practiced. 



> Your own favorite example, wherein Christians once executed homosexuals... and do not today, only shows that the subjective nature of the RELIGIOUS... has caused a EXPLOSION in sexual deviancy.



It shows that Christianity changes over time. Making any claim that religion is 'objective' obvious nonsense. 

You can't get around that. All you can try to do is excuse the subjective, interpretative , changing and relativistic nature of religion. With every excuse being an admission of that subjective, relativistic nature.

See how that works?


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats probably because you don't know what you're talking about, aren't clear on what PA laws are, and have no idea what they cover. PA laws explicitly and specifically exempt churches.
> 
> Which makes this thread an exercise in conservative preemtive panty shitting over an issue that isn't.[sic]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No church or anyone else should be allowed to discriminate against anyone over the color of their skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's outside the scope of the law. As PA laws don't have a thing to do with churches, exempting them explicitly and specifically.
> 
> No church is required to admit anyone. Debunking the very topic of the thread. Like 6 months ago.
Click to expand...

How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches _should_  be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats probably because you don't know what you're talking about, aren't clear on what PA laws are, and have no idea what they cover. PA laws explicitly and specifically exempt churches.
> 
> Which makes this thread an exercise in conservative preemtive panty shitting over an issue that isn't.[sic]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No church or anyone else should be allowed to discriminate against anyone over the color of their skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's outside the scope of the law. As PA laws don't have a thing to do with churches, exempting them explicitly and specifically.
> 
> No church is required to admit anyone. Debunking the very topic of the thread. Like 6 months ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches _should_  be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

Well, next time don't think, you're a moron.


----------



## JakeStarkey

St Keys the Relativist meanders along.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats probably because you don't know what you're talking about, aren't clear on what PA laws are, and have no idea what they cover. PA laws explicitly and specifically exempt churches.
> 
> Which makes this thread an exercise in conservative preemtive panty shitting over an issue that isn't.[sic]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No church or anyone else should be allowed to discriminate against anyone over the color of their skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's outside the scope of the law. As PA laws don't have a thing to do with churches, exempting them explicitly and specifically.
> 
> No church is required to admit anyone. Debunking the very topic of the thread. Like 6 months ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches _should_  be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...


Do we really need to do the libertarian 2 step again? Or can we just cut through all the pretenses and get right to the part where you think that the government shouldn't try to prevent any kind of discrimination and all PA laws should be eliminated?


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack said:


> How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches _should_  be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.


If you are aware of the 1st Amendment and the jurisprudence of it that answers this question, then you are being obstructionist.  If not, you are being ignorant and need to do some study before returning to this thread.  Your opinion means nothing.  St. Keys the Relativist is having the same problem.  No church has ever been forced to accommodate for a marriage it did not want, and nothing is on the horizon to change that.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches _should_  be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are aware of the 1st Amendment and the jurisprudence of it that answers this question, then you are being obstructionist.  If not, you are being ignorant and need to do some study before returning to this thread.  Your opinion means nothing.  St. Keys the Relativist is having the same problem.  No church has ever been forced to accommodate for a marriage it did not want, and nothing is on the horizon to change that.
Click to expand...


Nah, he's just a libertarian. Trying to use this issue as a vehicle for elminating any law that his libertarian values find inconsistent with the constitution. Including all PA laws.

You just have to push him a little before he'll get to the fucking point.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats probably because you don't know what you're talking about, aren't clear on what PA laws are, and have no idea what they cover. PA laws explicitly and specifically exempt churches.
> 
> Which makes this thread an exercise in conservative preemtive panty shitting over an issue that isn't.[sic]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No church or anyone else should be allowed to discriminate against anyone over the color of their skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's outside the scope of the law. As PA laws don't have a thing to do with churches, exempting them explicitly and specifically.
> 
> No church is required to admit anyone. Debunking the very topic of the thread. Like 6 months ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches _should_  be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we really need to do the libertarian 2 step again? Or can we just cut through all the pretenses and get right to the part where you think that the government shouldn't try to prevent any kind of discrimination and all PA laws should be eliminated?
Click to expand...

I've been very clear about that. No "cutting through" required. But that's not the topic of the thread. The issue is whether churches should be exempt from the law.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches _should_  be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are aware of the 1st Amendment and the jurisprudence of it that answers this question, then you are being obstructionist.  If not, you are being ignorant and need to do some study before returning to this thread.  Your opinion means nothing.  St. Keys the Relativist is having the same problem.  No church has ever been forced to accommodate for a marriage it did not want, and nothing is on the horizon to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, he's just a libertarian. Trying to use this issue as a vehicle for elminating any law that his libertarian values find inconsistent with the constitution. Including all PA laws.
> 
> You just have to push him a little before he'll get to the fucking point.
Click to expand...

No, you're letting your bias against libertarian views run amok. The point I'm making here is that it was a mistake to interpret the first amendment as an excuse for religious people to ignore laws they don't like.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats probably because you don't know what you're talking about, aren't clear on what PA laws are, and have no idea what they cover. PA laws explicitly and specifically exempt churches.
> 
> Which makes this thread an exercise in conservative preemtive panty shitting over an issue that isn't.[sic]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No church or anyone else should be allowed to discriminate against anyone over the color of their skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's outside the scope of the law. As PA laws don't have a thing to do with churches, exempting them explicitly and specifically.
> 
> No church is required to admit anyone. Debunking the very topic of the thread. Like 6 months ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches _should_  be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we really need to do the libertarian 2 step again? Or can we just cut through all the pretenses and get right to the part where you think that the government shouldn't try to prevent any kind of discrimination and all PA laws should be eliminated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've been very clear about that. No "cutting through" required. But that's not the topic of the thread. The issue is whether churches should be exempt from the law.
Click to expand...


You've very clear about it....20 posts in. I prefer to get the dithering out of the way early. Just give us your libertarian schpiel about PA laws and be done with it. We don't need the pretense about how churches 'shoudn't be exempted'. As you don't think the law should exist. 

That's the bullshit I'm cutting through.


----------



## rcfieldz

I googled _gay church_ and got this:
Google
Which led me to this:
Florida Church Opposes Gay Scout Leaders Equates Them To Pedophiles VIDEO Gay News Towleroad 
And here's the real link and video:
Nokomis pastor s anti-gay messsage sparks anger


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches _should_  be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are aware of the 1st Amendment and the jurisprudence of it that answers this question, then you are being obstructionist.  If not, you are being ignorant and need to do some study before returning to this thread.  Your opinion means nothing.  St. Keys the Relativist is having the same problem.  No church has ever been forced to accommodate for a marriage it did not want, and nothing is on the horizon to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, he's just a libertarian. Trying to use this issue as a vehicle for elminating any law that his libertarian values find inconsistent with the constitution. Including all PA laws.
> 
> You just have to push him a little before he'll get to the fucking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're letting your bias against libertarian views run amok. The point I'm making here is that it was a mistake to interpret the first amendment as an excuse for religious people to ignore laws they don't like.
Click to expand...


Yet you've argued that the PA laws shouldn't exist. Can you get to the fucking point please. 

Its not libertarianism I have an issue with. Its bullshit proxy issues I have a problem with. We've already debated this. You're wasting my time. Get to the point please.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?




Depends on if they are open to the public for marriages or not. If only members are allowed to marry - then they are fine. If they make the church available to the public for weddings, for profit or not for profit, they should not be allowed to discriminate.

Its just like anything else. If you have a private bar that you aren't holding out as open to the public - no unlocked door that says "open" for instance - you can discriminate all you want. As soon as you open your doors to the business of the general public, you are required to serve the general public.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No church or anyone else should be allowed to discriminate against anyone over the color of their skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's outside the scope of the law. As PA laws don't have a thing to do with churches, exempting them explicitly and specifically.
> 
> No church is required to admit anyone. Debunking the very topic of the thread. Like 6 months ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches _should_  be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we really need to do the libertarian 2 step again? Or can we just cut through all the pretenses and get right to the part where you think that the government shouldn't try to prevent any kind of discrimination and all PA laws should be eliminated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've been very clear about that. No "cutting through" required. But that's not the topic of the thread. The issue is whether churches should be exempt from the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've very clear about it....20 posts in. I prefer to get the dithering out of the way early. Just give us your libertarian schpiel about PA laws and be done with it. We don't need the pretense about how churches 'shoudn't be exempted'. As you don't think the law should exist.
> 
> That's the bullshit I'm cutting through.
Click to expand...

Well, alrighty then. 

Regarding the topic, I don't think the First should be taken as a special privilege for followers of state approved religions. It should serve as the opposite: a protection that prohibits the state from targeting religions for special treatment, positive or negative.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

OohPooPahDoo said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on if they are open to the public for marriages or not. If only members are allowed to marry - then they are fine. If they make the church available to the public for weddings, for profit or not for profit, they should not be allowed to discriminate.
> 
> Its just like anything else. If you have a private bar that you aren't holding out as open to the public - no unlocked door that says "open" for instance - you can discriminate all you want. As soon as you open your doors to the business of the general public, you are required to serve the general public.
Click to expand...

Noted, but that's not how it works.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's outside the scope of the law. As PA laws don't have a thing to do with churches, exempting them explicitly and specifically.
> 
> No church is required to admit anyone. Debunking the very topic of the thread. Like 6 months ago.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches _should_  be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we really need to do the libertarian 2 step again? Or can we just cut through all the pretenses and get right to the part where you think that the government shouldn't try to prevent any kind of discrimination and all PA laws should be eliminated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've been very clear about that. No "cutting through" required. But that's not the topic of the thread. The issue is whether churches should be exempt from the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've very clear about it....20 posts in. I prefer to get the dithering out of the way early. Just give us your libertarian schpiel about PA laws and be done with it. We don't need the pretense about how churches 'shoudn't be exempted'. As you don't think the law should exist.
> 
> That's the bullshit I'm cutting through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, alrighty then.
> 
> Regarding the topic, I don't think the First should be taken as special privilege for followers of state approved religions. It should serve as the opposite: a protection that prohibits the state from targeting religions for special treatment, positive our negative.
Click to expand...


And PA laws....do you think they should exist? We're already counting down those 20 posts.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches _should_  be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we really need to do the libertarian 2 step again? Or can we just cut through all the pretenses and get right to the part where you think that the government shouldn't try to prevent any kind of discrimination and all PA laws should be eliminated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've been very clear about that. No "cutting through" required. But that's not the topic of the thread. The issue is whether churches should be exempt from the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've very clear about it....20 posts in. I prefer to get the dithering out of the way early. Just give us your libertarian schpiel about PA laws and be done with it. We don't need the pretense about how churches 'shoudn't be exempted'. As you don't think the law should exist.
> 
> That's the bullshit I'm cutting through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, alrighty then.
> 
> Regarding the topic, I don't think the First should be taken as special privilege for followers of state approved religions. It should serve as the opposite: a protection that prohibits the state from targeting religions for special treatment, positive our negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And PA laws....do you think they should exist? We're already counting down those 20 posts.
Click to expand...

As I've said previously, no. But again, that's not the topic of the thread. I don't think churches should be exempted from any laws. Whether I agree with the law is irrelevant.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we really need to do the libertarian 2 step again? Or can we just cut through all the pretenses and get right to the part where you think that the government shouldn't try to prevent any kind of discrimination and all PA laws should be eliminated?
> 
> 
> 
> I've been very clear about that. No "cutting through" required. But that's not the topic of the thread. The issue is whether churches should be exempt from the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've very clear about it....20 posts in. I prefer to get the dithering out of the way early. Just give us your libertarian schpiel about PA laws and be done with it. We don't need the pretense about how churches 'shoudn't be exempted'. As you don't think the law should exist.
> 
> That's the bullshit I'm cutting through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, alrighty then.
> 
> Regarding the topic, I don't think the First should be taken as special privilege for followers of state approved religions. It should serve as the opposite: a protection that prohibits the state from targeting religions for special treatment, positive our negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And PA laws....do you think they should exist? We're already counting down those 20 posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I've said previously, no. But again, that's not the topic of the thread. I don't think churches should be exempted from any laws. Whether I agree with the law is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


So you believe that churches should be subject to laws that you don't think should exist?


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been very clear about that. No "cutting through" required. But that's not the topic of the thread. The issue is whether churches should be exempt from the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've very clear about it....20 posts in. I prefer to get the dithering out of the way early. Just give us your libertarian schpiel about PA laws and be done with it. We don't need the pretense about how churches 'shoudn't be exempted'. As you don't think the law should exist.
> 
> That's the bullshit I'm cutting through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, alrighty then.
> 
> Regarding the topic, I don't think the First should be taken as special privilege for followers of state approved religions. It should serve as the opposite: a protection that prohibits the state from targeting religions for special treatment, positive our negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And PA laws....do you think they should exist? We're already counting down those 20 posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I've said previously, no. But again, that's not the topic of the thread. I don't think churches should be exempted from any laws. Whether I agree with the law is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that churches should be subject to laws that you don't think should exist?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've very clear about it....20 posts in. I prefer to get the dithering out of the way early. Just give us your libertarian schpiel about PA laws and be done with it. We don't need the pretense about how churches 'shoudn't be exempted'. As you don't think the law should exist.
> 
> That's the bullshit I'm cutting through.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, alrighty then.
> 
> Regarding the topic, I don't think the First should be taken as special privilege for followers of state approved religions. It should serve as the opposite: a protection that prohibits the state from targeting religions for special treatment, positive our negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And PA laws....do you think they should exist? We're already counting down those 20 posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I've said previously, no. But again, that's not the topic of the thread. I don't think churches should be exempted from any laws. Whether I agree with the law is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that churches should be subject to laws that you don't think should exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.
Click to expand...


PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, alrighty then.
> 
> Regarding the topic, I don't think the First should be taken as special privilege for followers of state approved religions. It should serve as the opposite: a protection that prohibits the state from targeting religions for special treatment, positive our negative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And PA laws....do you think they should exist? We're already counting down those 20 posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I've said previously, no. But again, that's not the topic of the thread. I don't think churches should be exempted from any laws. Whether I agree with the law is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that churches should be subject to laws that you don't think should exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.
Click to expand...

Other than what I consider a misapplication of the First Amendment, I don't see how they aren't treated the same as other businesses. They provide public accommodations in a similar manner and make money by providing a service.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And PA laws....do you think they should exist? We're already counting down those 20 posts.
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said previously, no. But again, that's not the topic of the thread. I don't think churches should be exempted from any laws. Whether I agree with the law is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that churches should be subject to laws that you don't think should exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other than what I consider a misapplication of the First Amendment, I don't see how they aren't treated the same as other businesses. They provide public accommodations in a similar manner and make money by providing a service.
Click to expand...


Because they aren't public businesses.

Sigh....we've done this before, Dblack. Where you think that all discrimination laws should be disbanded because they prioritize one form of discrimination while not prioritizing the other. Thus, you argue that everyone should be unable to discriminate against anyone for any reason......or that all discrimination laws should be eliminated entirely, and anyone can discriminate against anyone.

Do we just skip the back and forth on what constitutes a business, and why you think churches should be included.....and instead get to the fucking point. 

You are the avatar of bullshit proxy issues. And I'd appreciate just skipping the bullshit.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said previously, no. But again, that's not the topic of the thread. I don't think churches should be exempted from any laws. Whether I agree with the law is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that churches should be subject to laws that you don't think should exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other than what I consider a misapplication of the First Amendment, I don't see how they aren't treated the same as other businesses. They provide public accommodations in a similar manner and make money by providing a service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they aren't public businesses.
> 
> Sigh....we've done this before, Dblack. Where you think that all discrimination laws should be disbanded because they prioritize one form of discrimination while not prioritizing the other. Thus, you argue that everyone should be unable to discriminate against anyone for any reason......or that all discrimination laws should be eliminated entirely, and anyone can discriminate against anyone.
> 
> Do we just skip the back and forth on what constitutes a business, and why you think churches should be included.....and instead get to the fucking point.
> 
> You are the avatar of bullshit proxy issues. And I'd appreciate just skipping the bullshit.
Click to expand...


The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that churches should be subject to laws that you don't think should exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other than what I consider a misapplication of the First Amendment, I don't see how they aren't treated the same as other businesses. They provide public accommodations in a similar manner and make money by providing a service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they aren't public businesses.
> 
> Sigh....we've done this before, Dblack. Where you think that all discrimination laws should be disbanded because they prioritize one form of discrimination while not prioritizing the other. Thus, you argue that everyone should be unable to discriminate against anyone for any reason......or that all discrimination laws should be eliminated entirely, and anyone can discriminate against anyone.
> 
> Do we just skip the back and forth on what constitutes a business, and why you think churches should be included.....and instead get to the fucking point.
> 
> You are the avatar of bullshit proxy issues. And I'd appreciate just skipping the bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
Click to expand...

Each poster has the right to tell another poster, within the rules of that forum, just how much nonsense is the other poster's comments.

You are a libertarian.  Your opinion is yours, not incumbent on anyone else, and many of us think you are flat wrong about PA and churches exemptions.  You get irky when told that.  I doubt the reaction is going to change.  Tough, dblack.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that churches should be subject to laws that you don't think should exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other than what I consider a misapplication of the First Amendment, I don't see how they aren't treated the same as other businesses. They provide public accommodations in a similar manner and make money by providing a service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they aren't public businesses.
> 
> Sigh....we've done this before, Dblack. Where you think that all discrimination laws should be disbanded because they prioritize one form of discrimination while not prioritizing the other. Thus, you argue that everyone should be unable to discriminate against anyone for any reason......or that all discrimination laws should be eliminated entirely, and anyone can discriminate against anyone.
> 
> Do we just skip the back and forth on what constitutes a business, and why you think churches should be included.....and instead get to the fucking point.
> 
> You are the avatar of bullshit proxy issues. And I'd appreciate just skipping the bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
Click to expand...



​


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that churches should be subject to laws that you don't think should exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other than what I consider a misapplication of the First Amendment, I don't see how they aren't treated the same as other businesses. They provide public accommodations in a similar manner and make money by providing a service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they aren't public businesses.
> 
> Sigh....we've done this before, Dblack. Where you think that all discrimination laws should be disbanded because they prioritize one form of discrimination while not prioritizing the other. Thus, you argue that everyone should be unable to discriminate against anyone for any reason......or that all discrimination laws should be eliminated entirely, and anyone can discriminate against anyone.
> 
> Do we just skip the back and forth on what constitutes a business, and why you think churches should be included.....and instead get to the fucking point.
> 
> You are the avatar of bullshit proxy issues. And I'd appreciate just skipping the bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
Click to expand...


That only took 18 posts. We're improving.



> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?



You're confused. Its not your position I think is bullshit. I disagree with you on your perspective on discrimination. But your position is principled and thought through. In comparison to most of the nonsense posted here, I actually kind of admire that.

*Its the proxy issues one has to wade through for you to get to the fucking point that I think is bullshit*. Where instead of simply making your argument on discrimination, one has to meander pointlessly through whatever proxy you're using as a screen for your argument.

In this case, religion as a 'business'. How many posts would have been wasted in debating that proxy issue before we *finally* got to your point about how you don't believe laws should regulate any form of discrimination? That's what I get sick of; wasting my time with pointless proxies just to get to the same destination you *always* end up at.

That you're libertarian. And you're pimping libertarian values.


----------



## Silhouette

dblack said:


> The "fucking point" is that *laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government*. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?


 
In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all, yet) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point the LGBT blogger to the fact that they're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda.  Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...

This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..  Regulation of behaviors has always been at local levels in the penal, civil and family codes of each state, enacted and maintained by the push and pull of progressive vs conservative values.  Progressives are like the unbrindled think-tank of "what if we try this?".  Conservatives are the brakes on that system.  You take the brakes off a vehicle like this rainbow-progressivism, for example, and you might as well hang it up.  Majority rule preserves both the new ideas and the brakes on those new ideas.  What LGBTs are asking the Court to do is nothing less than removing the braking system for that vehicle .  These questions belong to the states' majorities.  And that is where they must remain or we will have no democracy.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches _should_  be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are aware of the 1st Amendment and the jurisprudence of it that answers this question, then you are being obstructionist.  If not, you are being ignorant and need to do some study before returning to this thread.  Your opinion means nothing.  St. Keys the Relativist is having the same problem.  No church has ever been forced to accommodate for a marriage it did not want, and nothing is on the horizon to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, he's just a libertarian. Trying to use this issue as a vehicle for elminating any law that his libertarian values find inconsistent with the constitution. Including all PA laws.
> 
> You just have to push him a little before he'll get to the fucking point.
Click to expand...




Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other than what I consider a misapplication of the First Amendment, I don't see how they aren't treated the same as other businesses. They provide public accommodations in a similar manner and make money by providing a service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they aren't public businesses.
> 
> Sigh....we've done this before, Dblack. Where you think that all discrimination laws should be disbanded because they prioritize one form of discrimination while not prioritizing the other. Thus, you argue that everyone should be unable to discriminate against anyone for any reason......or that all discrimination laws should be eliminated entirely, and anyone can discriminate against anyone.
> 
> Do we just skip the back and forth on what constitutes a business, and why you think churches should be included.....and instead get to the fucking point.
> 
> You are the avatar of bullshit proxy issues. And I'd appreciate just skipping the bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only took 18 posts. We're improving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're confused. Its not your position I think is bullshit. I disagree with you on your perspective on discrimination. But your position is principled and thought through. In comparison to most of the nonsense posted here, I actually kind of admire that.
> 
> *Its the proxy issues one has to wade through for you to get to the fucking point that I think is bullshit*. Where instead of simply making your argument on discrimination, one has to meander pointlessly through whatever proxy you're using as a screen for your argument.
> 
> In this case, religion as a 'business'. How many posts would have been wasted in debating that proxy issue before we *finally* got to your point about how you don't believe laws should regulate any form of discrimination? That's what I get sick of; wasting my time with pointless proxies just to get to the same destination you *always* end up at.
> 
> That you're libertarian. And you're pimping libertarian values.
Click to expand...


Gotcha, only pimps think we should be able to make our own decisions.  Pure folly more advanced thinkers like you have long since moved past


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...
Click to expand...


The issue of whether or not gays are protected was decided nearly 20 years ago in Romer v. Evans. They are. The question of whether the USSC can overturn unconstitutional standards of State marriage was decided nearly 50 years ago in Loving V. Virginia.  The issue of whether gay marriage is constitutionally permissible was decided 2 years ago with Windsor v. US.

These aren't new issues. These are the logical application of existing precedent. That you insist they are 'behavior' based is irrelevant. Religion is a behavior. And yet the religious are protected. Speech is a behavior. Yet speech is protected. 

Your 'behavior' standard....isn't.


----------



## kaz

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...
> 
> We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda.  Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...
> 
> This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..
Click to expand...


I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't deviant. I just oppose the courts legislating


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches _should_  be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are aware of the 1st Amendment and the jurisprudence of it that answers this question, then you are being obstructionist.  If not, you are being ignorant and need to do some study before returning to this thread.  Your opinion means nothing.  St. Keys the Relativist is having the same problem.  No church has ever been forced to accommodate for a marriage it did not want, and nothing is on the horizon to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, he's just a libertarian. Trying to use this issue as a vehicle for elminating any law that his libertarian values find inconsistent with the constitution. Including all PA laws.
> 
> You just have to push him a little before he'll get to the fucking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other than what I consider a misapplication of the First Amendment, I don't see how they aren't treated the same as other businesses. They provide public accommodations in a similar manner and make money by providing a service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they aren't public businesses.
> 
> Sigh....we've done this before, Dblack. Where you think that all discrimination laws should be disbanded because they prioritize one form of discrimination while not prioritizing the other. Thus, you argue that everyone should be unable to discriminate against anyone for any reason......or that all discrimination laws should be eliminated entirely, and anyone can discriminate against anyone.
> 
> Do we just skip the back and forth on what constitutes a business, and why you think churches should be included.....and instead get to the fucking point.
> 
> You are the avatar of bullshit proxy issues. And I'd appreciate just skipping the bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only took 18 posts. We're improving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're confused. Its not your position I think is bullshit. I disagree with you on your perspective on discrimination. But your position is principled and thought through. In comparison to most of the nonsense posted here, I actually kind of admire that.
> 
> *Its the proxy issues one has to wade through for you to get to the fucking point that I think is bullshit*. Where instead of simply making your argument on discrimination, one has to meander pointlessly through whatever proxy you're using as a screen for your argument.
> 
> In this case, religion as a 'business'. How many posts would have been wasted in debating that proxy issue before we *finally* got to your point about how you don't believe laws should regulate any form of discrimination? That's what I get sick of; wasting my time with pointless proxies just to get to the same destination you *always* end up at.
> 
> That you're libertarian. And you're pimping libertarian values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gotcha, only pimps think we should be able to make our own decisions.  Pure folly more advanced thinkers like you have long since moved past
Click to expand...


You can decide whatever you like. But if you're going to waste my time with proxy issues used as a screen for a completely different argument, I'm going to call you on it.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue of whether or not gays are protected was decided nearly 20 years ago in Romer v. Evans. They are. The question of whether the USSC can overturn unconstitutional standards of State marriage was decided nearly 50 years ago in Loving V. Virginia.  The issue of whether gay marriage is constitutionally permissible was decided 2 years ago with Windsor v. US.
> 
> These aren't new issues. These are the logical application of existing precedent. That you insist they are 'behavior' based is irrelevant. Religion is a behavior. And yet the religious are protected. Speech is a behavior. Yet speech is protected.
> 
> Your 'behavior' standard....isn't.
Click to expand...


Loving isn't a precedent in any way for gay marriage. Being black changed who you could marry, that has nothing to do with gay marriage


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...
> 
> We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda.  Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...
> 
> This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't deviant. I just oppose the courts legislating
Click to expand...


The courts aren't 'legislating'. They're deciding if the States can deny a marriage certificate to a same sex couple under the 14th amendment. 

Which is exactly what they are supposed to do.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...
> 
> We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda.  Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...
> 
> This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't deviant. I just oppose the courts legislating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts aren't 'legislating'. They're deciding if the States can deny a marriage certificate to a same sex couple under the 14th amendment.
> 
> Which is exactly what they are supposed to do.
Click to expand...


And they are legislating when they decide that same sex marriage can be decreed based on the 14th because it can't.  Being black changed who you could marry for every black, that is a valid use of the 14th.  Being gay changes who you can marry for zero gays.  Actually read the 14th, it is very clear on that.  That makes it a job for the courts to punt it to the legislature to do something about it ... or not ...


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue of whether or not gays are protected was decided nearly 20 years ago in Romer v. Evans. They are. The question of whether the USSC can overturn unconstitutional standards of State marriage was decided nearly 50 years ago in Loving V. Virginia.  The issue of whether gay marriage is constitutionally permissible was decided 2 years ago with Windsor v. US.
> 
> These aren't new issues. These are the logical application of existing precedent. That you insist they are 'behavior' based is irrelevant. Religion is a behavior. And yet the religious are protected. Speech is a behavior. Yet speech is protected.
> 
> Your 'behavior' standard....isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loving isn't a precedent in any way for gay marriage. Being black changed who you could marry, that has nothing to do with gay marriage
Click to expand...


And yet the Courts have cited 4 different race based discrimination cases when describing why discrimination against gays is invalid. And they even cited Loving while doing it. You can claim that race discrimation cases are irrelevant to gay discrimination cases. But the Court clearly disagrees.

And to be clear, the precedent that I claim that Loving established was the Court's ability to overturn unconstitutional state marriage laws. Removing any argument that the Court lacks the authority to rule on State marriage laws. Loving establishes jurisdiction.

It also establishes that the standards of State marriage law themselves must meet constitutional muster. Applying an unconstitutionally discriminatory standard to everyone doesn't work. 

Whether or not State marriage laws and their standards are indeed unconstitutional is the question before the court.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...
> 
> We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda.  Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...
> 
> This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't deviant. I just oppose the courts legislating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts aren't 'legislating'. They're deciding if the States can deny a marriage certificate to a same sex couple under the 14th amendment.
> 
> Which is exactly what they are supposed to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they are legislating when they decide that same sex marriage can be decreed based on the 14th because it can't.
Click to expand...


Nope. They're deciding if the state marriage laws violate the 14th amendment. If they do, those laws invalid. If they don't, they're not.

Deciding if a given law is consistent with the constitution is exactly what the court is supposed to do.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No one really cares what the libertarians think because they are too few in number and almost no influence on anything other than our patience.

Sil wants to make the US, on the other hand, create a morality police for personal reasons he won't share.  Tough.  Won't happen.

SCOTUS will make marriage equality within three weeks.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> No one really cares what the libertarians think because they are too few in number and almost no influence on anything other than our patience.



The issues of libertarianism aren't my major concern in this thread. This thread being used as a proxy for libertarianism is.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skylar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one really cares what the libertarians think because they are too few in number and almost no influence on anything other than our patience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issues of libertarianism aren't my major concern in this thread. This thread being used as a proxy for libertarianism is.
Click to expand...

That's what libertarians do.  They are guerrilla warriors with almost no fire power.  So they may be fun to play with but easily dismissed.

St. Keys the Relativist offers a dangerous interpretation of religion and state.  He would have made a terrifying Inquisitor.

Silhouette wants to create a morality state based on his strange fear of Marriage Equality.  He has never shared his real reasons but they are obvious, I believe.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other than what I consider a misapplication of the First Amendment, I don't see how they aren't treated the same as other businesses. They provide public accommodations in a similar manner and make money by providing a service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they aren't public businesses.
> 
> Sigh....we've done this before, Dblack. Where you think that all discrimination laws should be disbanded because they prioritize one form of discrimination while not prioritizing the other. Thus, you argue that everyone should be unable to discriminate against anyone for any reason......or that all discrimination laws should be eliminated entirely, and anyone can discriminate against anyone.
> 
> Do we just skip the back and forth on what constitutes a business, and why you think churches should be included.....and instead get to the fucking point.
> 
> You are the avatar of bullshit proxy issues. And I'd appreciate just skipping the bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only took 18 posts. We're improving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're confused. Its not your position I think is bullshit. I disagree with you on your perspective on discrimination. But your position is principled and thought through. In comparison to most of the nonsense posted here, I actually kind of admire that.
> 
> *Its the proxy issues one has to wade through for you to get to the fucking point that I think is bullshit*. Where instead of simply making your argument on discrimination, one has to meander pointlessly through whatever proxy you're using as a screen for your argument.
> 
> In this case, religion as a 'business'. How many posts would have been wasted in debating that proxy issue before we *finally* got to your point about how you don't believe laws should regulate any form of discrimination? That's what I get sick of; wasting my time with pointless proxies just to get to the same destination you *always* end up at.
> 
> That you're libertarian. And you're pimping libertarian values.
Click to expand...


The only proxying going on here is you using this thread as an excuse to dig up previous arguments that apparently frustrated you. You don't like libertarianism - I get it! I'm even trying to respect that, and focus squarely on the topic - whether churches should be exempt from discrimination laws protecting gay marriage.

Equal protection is not a uniquely libertarian value. Believe it or not, some liberals and conservatives find it worthwhile as well. If you'd rather ignore that and pick your scabs, it's your call. But please stop whining about it. If you don't like my posts, don't read them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack, you are the one who is complaining.  You simply don't like how the Constitution protects religion in its private capacity.  That is not going change, and I suspect your complaining is not going to stop.  The OP's question is a red herring.  No church has ever had to accommodate homosexual weddings.


----------



## Silhouette

dblack said:


> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?


 


Silhouette said:


> In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...


 


Skylar said:


> *The issue of whether or not gays are protected was decided nearly 20 years ago in Romer v. Evans. They are. The question of whether the USSC can overturn unconstitutional standards of State marriage was decided nearly 50 years ago in Loving V. Virginia.*  The issue of whether gay marriage is constitutionally permissible was decided 2 years ago with Windsor v. US.
> 
> These aren't new issues. These are the logical application of existing precedent. That you insist they are 'behavior' based is irrelevant. Religion is a behavior. And yet the religious are protected. Speech is a behavior. Yet speech is protected.
> 
> Your 'behavior' standard....isn't.


 
Romer can be revisited and Loving was about race.  The key part of this situation is a Decision by the Court that doesn't...well..for lack of a better phrase "fuck up" the concept of self-rule by a majority.  To put it simply.  The Court needs to very carefully parse out and sift defintions of what is an innate state of being and what instead is merely a cult of behaviors.  For the difference between the two from the standpoint of the Constitution, is as wide as the Grand Canyon. 

If any previous law supports minority behaviors dictating to the majority (you would call it "being protected from the tyranny of the majority), then that law must be re-examined and overturned if necessary to preserve the fundamentals of our democracy.  The Court MUST be very forward-looking on this and be considering the snowball-effect of how behaviors claiming static "race" status can be very damaging to us all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, no, it does not.  Your reasoning is bogus, not set in law.  Democratic majorities do not rule on these matters.  Only amendments and courts make the final decisions on these issues.  Your cult of hetero-fascism is being stopped in its tracks, and that is very good for America.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, no, it does not.  Your reasoning is bogus, not set in law.  Democratic majorities do not rule on these matters.  Only amendments and courts make the final decisions on these issues.  Your cult of hetero-fascism is being stopped in its tracks, and that is very good for America.


 Majorities ABSOLUTELY regulate behaviors at a local level.  What poli-sci class did you take in high school?  What other minority behavior will use your precedent in the future, should it be mistakenly set today?  Answer: any of them.

Remember, your'e the ones advocating blind justice on this one.  "Put your blinders on Justices!  Only look at Romer and Loving!!"  Would you insist the Justices take off their blinders at a future date when a group of minority behaviors you don't approve of wants special protection from your ability to regulate them?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, you have failed as a philosopher and a lawyer, so now you will as a high school teacher.  SCOTUS has jurisdiction over these matters, period.  That you don't like it does not matter, period.  I am not thrilled with this SCOTUS about a number of things, but American grown ups accept that the constitutional buck stops there.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, you have failed as a philosopher and a lawyer, so now you will as a high school teacher.  SCOTUS has jurisdiction over these matters, period.  That you don't like it does not matter, period.  I am not thrilled with this SCOTUS about a number of things, but American grown ups accept that the constitutional buck stops there.


 
One man's "American grown ups" is another man's "poly-sci failures".  We'll let the Court be the judge of what's what on that question for sure.  That's why they're required to be so familiar with the system of government they were appointed to represent with complete and utter longterm wisdom for the country.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, you have failed as a philosopher and a lawyer, so now you will as a high school teacher.  SCOTUS has jurisdiction over these matters, period.  That you don't like it does not matter, period.  I am not thrilled with this SCOTUS about a number of things, but American grown ups accept that the constitutional buck stops there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One man's "American grown ups" is another man's "poly-sci failures".  We'll let the Court be the judge of what's what on that question for sure.  That's why they're required to be so familiar with the system of government they were appointed to represent with complete and utter longterm wisdom for the country.
Click to expand...

Just so.  You will lose on this decision, I think, but I hope you will support it fairly, as I will if it rules against my beliefs.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Just so.  You will lose on this decision, I think, but I hope you will support it fairly, as I will if it rules against my beliefs.


 
The question isn't if I will support a decision to erode democracy at its foundation "fairly".  The quesiton is if the mob who enjoys democratic rule on questions of objectionable minority behaviors will support it "fairly".  My thoughts are that Americans get a bit hot under the collar when someone holds a lit match up to the US Constitution.

They won't just go quietly into the night.  They are Americans, first and foremost.  I believe England referred to us in the 1700s as "a most unruly bunch".  And for good reason.  The world shoved West the most headstrong and stubborn of their ranks until the Western shores of the Pacific could push them no further into the margins..  Enjoy any "victory" you might have because I get the feeling it's going to be very short lived..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The issue of whether or not gays are protected was decided nearly 20 years ago in Romer v. Evans. They are. The question of whether the USSC can overturn unconstitutional standards of State marriage was decided nearly 50 years ago in Loving V. Virginia.*  The issue of whether gay marriage is constitutionally permissible was decided 2 years ago with Windsor v. US.
> 
> These aren't new issues. These are the logical application of existing precedent. That you insist they are 'behavior' based is irrelevant. Religion is a behavior. And yet the religious are protected. Speech is a behavior. Yet speech is protected.
> 
> Your 'behavior' standard....isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Romer can be revisited and Loving was about race.
Click to expand...


Romer establishes that gays are protected. An explicit contradiction to your entire premise. Declaring that it can be 'revisited' changes nothing of its contradiction of your claims. Its already precedent that gays are protected.

As for Loving, it was about race. And yet between Romer and Windsor, the court cited 4 different race based discrimination cases when describing why discrimination against gays was invalid. You may insist that race discrimination has nothing to do with discrimination against gays. But the court clearly disagrees.



> The key part of this situation is a Decision by the Court that doesn't...well..for lack of a better phrase "fuck up" the concept of self-rule by a majority.



Loving already decided this issue 50 years ago. If the majority votes in a marriage law that is constitutionally invalid, the law is invalid. This isn't a new issue. Its nearly half a century old.



> To put it simply.  The Court needs to very carefully parse out and sift defintions of what is an innate state of being and what instead is merely a cult of behaviors.  For the difference between the two from the standpoint of the Constitution, is as wide as the Grand Canyon.



The 'cult of behaviors' schtick is yours. The court has never found this to be true. You keep projecting your beliefs onto the court. Your feelings are irrelevant to their decisions. Nor do they 'need' to accept your personal obsessions, prejudices and biases.

They need to decide if States must issue marriage licenses to same sex couples under the 14th amendment. As that's the question before it. Everything else you've imagined is just you citing yourself.

And as your 'Gallup has been infiltrated by homosexuals as part of an international conspiracy dating back to the 60' batshit conspiracy, you're effectively insane. Rendering your perspective less than valuable.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just so.  You will lose on this decision, I think, but I hope you will support it fairly, as I will if it rules against my beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question isn't if I will support a decision to erode democracy at its foundation "fairly".  The quesiton is if the mob who enjoys democratic rule on questions of objectionable minority behaviors will support it "fairly".  My thoughts are that Americans get a bit hot under the collar when someone holds a lit match up to the US Constitution.
Click to expand...


And your thoughts are that all polling agencies that show majority support for gay marriage have been infiltrated by homosexuals, are falsifying polling results, and participating in a vast intentional conspiracy dating back to the 60s.

So your thoughts are quite mad. And don't reflect any semblance of reality. You are projecting your own beliefs, your own feelings. The majority of the nation simply doesn't share them. 



> They won't just go quietly into the night.  They are Americans, first and foremost.  I believe England referred to us in the 1700s as "a most unruly bunch".  And for good reason.  The world shoved West the most headstrong and stubborn of their ranks until the Western shores of the Pacific could push them no further into the margins..  Enjoy any "victory" you might have because I get the feeling it's going to be very short lived..



Vague thuggish threats to go along with a batshit conspiracy theory? 

Who da thunk. 

What a perfect closing argument.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Tell you now, Sil, and any who think like you, thuggish behavior from your ilk after the ruling will be met with immediate, swift LEO, court action, as well as your condemnation in the eye of the great majority of the public, many of whom will be those who don't like the ruling.

Don't be thugs, please.  You will only do damage to yourself and your cause.


----------



## dblack

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that *laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government*. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all, yet) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point the LGBT blogger to the fact that they're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...
> 
> We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda.  Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...
> 
> This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..  Regulation of behaviors has always been at local levels in the penal, civil and family codes of each state, enacted and maintained by the push and pull of progressive vs conservative values.  Progressives are like the unbrindled think-tank of "what if we try this?".  Conservatives are the brakes on that system.  You take the brakes off a vehicle like this rainbow-progressivism, for example, and you might as well hang it up.  Majority rule preserves both the new ideas and the brakes on those new ideas.  What LGBTs are asking the Court to do is nothing less than removing the braking system for that vehicle .  These questions belong to the states' majorities.  And that is where they must remain or we will have no democracy.
Click to expand...


Uh. No. You're missing the point entirely. "*Laws that target specific group for special penalties, benefits or exemptions*" refers to giving giving certain religions groups exemptions from following the laws the rest of us are saddled with.


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that *laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government*. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all, yet) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point the LGBT blogger to the fact that they're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...
> 
> We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda.  Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...
> 
> This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..  Regulation of behaviors has always been at local levels in the penal, civil and family codes of each state, enacted and maintained by the push and pull of progressive vs conservative values.  Progressives are like the unbrindled think-tank of "what if we try this?".  Conservatives are the brakes on that system.  You take the brakes off a vehicle like this rainbow-progressivism, for example, and you might as well hang it up.  Majority rule preserves both the new ideas and the brakes on those new ideas.  What LGBTs are asking the Court to do is nothing less than removing the braking system for that vehicle .  These questions belong to the states' majorities.  And that is where they must remain or we will have no democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh. No. You're missing the point entirely. "*Laws that target specific group for special penalties, benefits or exemptions*" refers to giving giving certain religions groups exemptions from following the laws the rest of us are saddled with.
Click to expand...

That won't change.  Start a church.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

kaz said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...
> 
> We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda.  Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...
> 
> This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't deviant. I just oppose the courts legislating
Click to expand...


Then you don't trust yourself to decide on what is and is not deviancy.

There's nothing complex about it.


----------



## dblack

kaz said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...
> 
> We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda.  Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...
> 
> This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't deviant. I just oppose the courts legislating
Click to expand...


Exactly. Live and let live isn't such a bad way to go.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue of whether or not gays are protected was decided nearly 20 years ago in Romer v. Evans. They are. The question of whether the USSC can overturn unconstitutional standards of State marriage was decided nearly 50 years ago in Loving V. Virginia.  The issue of whether gay marriage is constitutionally permissible was decided 2 years ago with Windsor v. US.
> 
> These aren't new issues. These are the logical application of existing precedent. That you insist they are 'behavior' based is irrelevant. Religion is a behavior. And yet the religious are protected. Speech is a behavior. Yet speech is protected.
> 
> Your 'behavior' standard....isn't.
Click to expand...

Elmer is every bit the equal of Roe... Wherein reality was suspended for delusion.  

There was no right to injure homosexuals 20, 40 or 1000 years ago.

Just as there is no right on the part of homosexuals to demand that someone hire them, sell the property or do business with people of low moral character.  There is no right on the part of the mentally disordered to demand anything from anyone.

Homosexuals are both... Law forcing people to accept them by forcing them to do business with degenerates and moral reprobates is illegitimate law which obligates no free individual.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...
> 
> We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda.  Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...
> 
> This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't deviant. I just oppose the courts legislating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you don't trust yourself to decide on what is and is not deviancy.
> 
> There's nothing complex about it.
Click to expand...

That is a false conclusion fallacy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

_Homosexuals are both_... 

Merely a silly assertion by a silly relativist.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue of whether or not gays are protected was decided nearly 20 years ago in Romer v. Evans. They are. The question of whether the USSC can overturn unconstitutional standards of State marriage was decided nearly 50 years ago in Loving V. Virginia.  The issue of whether gay marriage is constitutionally permissible was decided 2 years ago with Windsor v. US.
> 
> These aren't new issues. These are the logical application of existing precedent. That you insist they are 'behavior' based is irrelevant. Religion is a behavior. And yet the religious are protected. Speech is a behavior. Yet speech is protected.
> 
> Your 'behavior' standard....isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elmer is every bit the equal of Roe... Wherein reality was suspended for delusion.
> 
> There was no right to injure homosexuals 20, 40 or 1000 years ago.
Click to expand...


You were the inventor of the imaginary 'right to eradicate homosexuals'. Your conception of rights changes with each post. And in each conception is gloriously irrelevant as the last. As we don't base on our laws on what you imagine. 

You're irrelevant to any court ruling, any law, or any legal definition.


----------



## JakeStarkey

St. Keys the Irrelevant Relativist!

Show us a church that has had to marry homosexuals.


----------



## kaz

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...
> 
> We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda.  Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...
> 
> This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't deviant. I just oppose the courts legislating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you don't trust yourself to decide on what is and is not deviancy.
> 
> There's nothing complex about it.
Click to expand...


Now that's a bizarre argument.  I don't trust government to decide, so that means I don't trust myself to decide?  How is that even supposed to make sense?  It clearly implies the opposite, that I think it's for me to decide what I think is deviancy, not government.

As for government, I don't think they are to take a position on it.  They are only to intervene when the actions of one person remove the choices of another.  Whether it's "deviancy" that causes that or not is irrelevant.


----------



## kaz

dblack said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.
> 
> If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that.  We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant *behaviors* as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution.  If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...
> 
> We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda.  Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...
> 
> This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't deviant. I just oppose the courts legislating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. Live and let live isn't such a bad way to go.
Click to expand...


Yes, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, it's not government's business.  Government is far more advancing harm than good in this area already, let's remove their capability to do so to the greatest extend possible


----------



## Silhouette

kaz said:


> Yes, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, it's not government's business.  *Government is far more advancing harm than good in this area* already, *let's remove their capability to do so to the greatest extend possible*


 
I believe that the US Supreme Court will wisely return this question to the states to answer.

The BS in North Carolina will be seen for what it is.


----------



## JakeStarkey

It's not very likely SCOTUS is going to adopt a libertarian point of view.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> It's not very likely SCOTUS is going to adopt a libertarian point of view.


 It is very likely that SCOTUS will discern that Freedom of Religion means not a building with wood, brick and mortar, but instead for each individual Christian via the mandate of Jude 1 on this specific question of law.

With your lipstick lesbians expressing their hidden fantasies for all things male and turning up pregnant, it's time we understand exactly what makes "LGBT"s tick.  If they themselves don't even understand their own closeted fantasies and true orientations, I now pronounce you a hot mess Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum  how are we supposed to rely on their word that what they are is a "static class, deserving of protection"???

Every time someone tries to delve into glaring issues with the LGBT cult like people amputating healthy organs in order to play-act at the opposite gender or why lipstick lesbians want their partners to dress, talk, act like and walk like men...the reaction from LGBTs is the same, "Don't go there!".  We should go there.  We should know exactly what it is we are calling static and a class before we go on to weigh whether or not they qualify for protection under the US Constitution that would be dominant to people's 1st Amendment rights.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not very likely SCOTUS is going to adopt a libertarian point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> It is very likely that SCOTUS will discern that Freedom of Religion means not a building with wood, brick and mortar, but instead for each individual Christian via the mandate of Jude 1 on this specific question of law.
Click to expand...


No, you're projecting again. You have a belief. You have a desire. And you assume that the USSC must think just like you do.

But that silliness has never worked out for you. Remember when the USSC temporarily granted a stay to Utah on the implementation of same sex marriage? Remember how you waxed eloquent on how you now knew the USSC's views, what the USSC really believed, and gave us elaborate predictions on how what the uSSC was going to do?

And then the courts lifted the stay a few days later. And rejected every other stay while preserving every lower court ruling overturning same sex marriage bans.

Exactly opposite of what you predicted. And demonstrating elegantly for us how worthless your projection upon the courts actually is.



> With your lipstick lesbians expressing their hidden fantasies for all things male and turning up pregnant, it's time we understand exactly what makes "LGBT"s tick.



These are your hidden fantasies. As you're citing yourself. All you're revealing is yourself.

You're breaking down, Sil.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, don't cite yourself as an authority: you are not one on this issue.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, don't cite yourself as an authority: you are not one on this issue.


 Neither are you.  We are both equals, equally hashing out the Constitution as it applies to a shifting-demographic claiming a "static status" in order to shoehorn the legal system into access to adoptable orphans..er..I mean "gay marriage"..  And then, on to forcing Christianity's doctrines to redact Jude 1 in order to completely turn that Devine Mandate upside down.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are not my equal in argumentation at all.

Your analysis has failed.  I have used unimpeachable evidence; you have not.

That's the end of it.

Marriage Equality is going to happen.  If not right now (though it probably will), certainly shortly in the near future.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, don't cite yourself as an authority: you are not one on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither are you.  We are both equals, equally hashing out the Constitution as it applies to a shifting-demographic claiming a "static status" in order to shoehorn the legal system into access to adoptable orphans..er..I mean "gay marriage"..  And then, on to forcing Christianity's doctrines to redact Jude 1 in order to completely turn that Devine Mandate upside down.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but you're quoting yourself on the 'hidden fantasies' of people you don't know nor have ever met. You have no idea of what you're talking about. You're revealing yourself with these extremely specific 'fantasies' you claim to share. Not anyone else.

And you are not equal with the court. Nor are you equal with many here in predicting the actions of the court. You consistently make the same mistake, projecting your beliefs and assumptions onto the court. And then sit dumbfounded when the members of the court follow their OWN beliefs and interpretations rather than yours.

With dumbfounded rapidly devolving into hysterical rage......with you shrilly screaming that the Courts are committing 'treason' and 'tyranny' because they didn't do what you imagined they would.

Um, no.


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> You are not my equal in argumentation at all.
> 
> Your analysis has failed.  I have used unimpeachable evidence; you have not.
> 
> That's the end of it.
> 
> Marriage Equality is going to happen.  If not right now (though it probably will), certainly shortly in the near future.


Jake - I honestly have to agree with you . You and Silhouette are certainly not equals in debate. You are not even in the same ball park my friend.  It's akin to watching a 3 year old argue with his mom - you -  needless to say are the 3 year old.


----------



## Skylar

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not my equal in argumentation at all.
> 
> Your analysis has failed.  I have used unimpeachable evidence; you have not.
> 
> That's the end of it.
> 
> Marriage Equality is going to happen.  If not right now (though it probably will), certainly shortly in the near future.
> 
> 
> 
> Jake - I honestly have to agree with you . You and Silhouette are certainly not equals in debate. You are not even in the same ball park my friend.  It's akin to watching a 3 year old argue with his mom - you -  needless to say are the 3 year old.
Click to expand...


Sil's arguments are fundamentally broken as they're based on a series of false assumptions. The factors that he insists the courts 'must' answer, the courts aren't even addressing. The legal standards he holds gays to in marriage don't actually exist. 

And the series of batshit conspiracies that Sil clings to as part of his belief system border on the mentally ill. He literally believes that all polling agencies that show majority support for gay marriage have been infiltrated by homosexuals to produce false poll numbers as part of an international conspiracy spanning half a century. 

That's only a strong argument for medication. Not the prohibition of same sex marriage.


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not my equal in argumentation at all.
> 
> Your analysis has failed.  I have used unimpeachable evidence; you have not.
> 
> That's the end of it.
> 
> Marriage Equality is going to happen.  If not right now (though it probably will), certainly shortly in the near future.
> 
> 
> 
> Jake - I honestly have to agree with you . You and Silhouette are certainly not equals in debate. You are not even in the same ball park my friend.  It's akin to watching a 3 year old argue with his mom - you -  needless to say are the 3 year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sil's arguments are fundamentally broken as they're based on a series of false assumptions. The factors that he insists the courts 'must' answer, the courts aren't even addressing. The legal standards he holds gays to in marriage don't actually exist.
> 
> And the series of batshit conspiracies that Sil clings to as part of his belief system border on the mentally ill. He literally believes that all polling agencies that show majority support for gay marriage have been infiltrated by homosexuals to produce false poll numbers as part of an international conspiracy spanning half a century.
> 
> That's only a strong argument for medication. Not the prohibition of same sex marriage.
Click to expand...


"The factors that he insists the courts 'must' answer, the courts aren't even addressing."  *Such As ?*
*
*
"And the series of batshit conspiracies that Sil clings to as part of his belief system border on the mentally ill."
*Such As ?  ... *


"He literally believes that all polling agencies that show majority support for gay marriage have been infiltrated by homosexuals to produce false poll numbers as part of an international conspiracy spanning half a century."

Here's a few for you in the Media Realm ... pick one any one see if you can refute it.....


1970  New York Post columnist Pete Hamill refers to gays as â€œslim-waisted freakcreepsâ€  Gay activists picketed the Post and demanded Hamill be fired. The editor apologized, but defended the editorial freedom of his writers.



1970 Gay activists occupied the offices of Harpers Magazine after the magazine ran a cover story â€œHomo/Hetero: The Struggle for Sexual Identity.â€ that described homosexuality as "an affront to our rationality living evidence of our despair of ever finding a sensible, an explainable design to the world."





1972 - The Gay Media Task Force is created by the National Gay Task Force to be an organization to manipulate and control network television programming, theoretically as it addressed gay issues.



1972 ..... the networks tilted against the guardians of morality. They began to send scripts to gay Gay consultants routinely. "Anything that crops up in a script that is even remotely gay"  said the writer Allan Burns , "They get it and they really make themselves heard"  **Inside Prime Time






 ** by Todd Gitlin

1972 Gay activist, turned journalist Mark Segal feigns disdain that he couldnâ€™t dance with a gay partner on a dance show, infiltrates an ABC affiliate in Philadelphia and interrupts the news broadcast. He later pulled similar charades against the Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show when he stormed out of the Audience during a live show, on the Mike Douglas show and Today shows. Variety claimed that the activities of Segal alone, not to mention other gay activities had cost the entertainment industry $750,000 in costs including lost advertising revenue.

1973 - Gay propagandist/activist invades CBS News with Walter Cronkite.

1974  A popular and long-running medical drama on ABC - Marcus Welby MD tells the story of a teen boy who is sexually molested by his gay science teacher. The episode, â€œThe Outrageâ€ aired October 8, 1974. Gays squawked immediately - a campaign against the network ensued, gays bombarded over 200 organizations with hate mail and lobbied vigorously. Many major sponsors pulled out ,17 affiliates dropped the program. Some of the affiliates dropping the program were coerced by threats of reprisal if they failed to pull it from their stations .  ..._Like other media activists Loretta Lotman already had established ties with the management of ... local ABC Affiliate.... she warned that if something were not done about the program they would be hit with protests the likes of which thaye had never  seen before.._  **Target: Prime Time: Advocacy Groups and the Struggle Over Entertainment Television (Communication and Society)





 ** 

1977 Florida gay rights/privileges ordinance sparks strong opposition .  Former Miss Oklahoma beauty pageant winner, and outspoken critic of homosexuality Anita Bryant led the campaign that successfully had the law repealed and she paid dearly. Her career came to a screeching halt, her credibility and reputation was viciously assaulted . She was at one point physically assaulted with a pie while attempting to exercise her right to Free Speech. *Beware all those who oppose the Gay Agenda  Anita Bryant's career was destroyed by her campaign against "militant homosexuality"  She ultimately suffered a divorce, needed counseling, and was bankrupted.*

**The Anita Bryant Story





 **

Anita Bryant assaulted - YouTube

Like Satan, Anita Bryant keeps coming back.  2009

Uma Thurman to Play Notorious Anti-Gay Activist in â€˜Anitaâ€™   2013



1978 - A Question of Love, ABC TV movie airs based on a lesbian mother and her struggle for custody of her children. Part of manipulated trend to positive TV images of gays , acknowledged as a result of gay activists.



1980 - CBS Reports Episode â€œGay Power, Gay Politicsâ€  draws strong criticism for what the gay camp referred to as malicious inaccuracies and slanting of the news. The program did heavily focus on the sexual practices of gay males , in particular sadomasochism. The National News Council, stated that CBS had violated journalistic standards through misrepresentation as well as through deceptive editing.  I find it curious that the National News Council never says anything when CBS manipulates in favor of the Left leaning liberals and democrats which it has consistently for decades. **See Dan Rather**



1983  NY Times did not cover a fundraiser for Gay Menâ€™s Health Crisis in Madison Square Garden - leads to protests and eventual apology from the Times for not helping in promoting the Gay Agenda



1985  "....You can handle homosexuality - as long as you handle it a lovely, tolerant fashion that will not upset the gay liberation lobby" - Earnest Kinov writer, screenwriter and playwright.



1987  Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill wrote a strategy series of articles entitled "The Overhauling of Straight America" which appeared in Guide Magazine. They wrote ...  "In the early states of any campaign to reach straight America, the *masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself.* Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. *First let the camel get his nose inside the tent -- and only later his unsightly derriere! "*



1987 A study by The Center for Media and Public Affairs reported that only 9% of the characters depicted on TV with AIDS are identified as homosexual ,while in actuality, over 70 percent of such persons have AIDS or HIV. This is in accordance with the unwritten homosexual lobby's demand to define AIDS as non-gay disease.



1988, a conference of 175 gay activist leaders  convened near Washington, D.C. to establish an agenda.  After that meeting, Harvard-trained social scientists and homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen wrote the Gay manifesto After The Ball



1988 episode of NBC's "Midnight Caller" originally portrayed a homosexual as an AIDS carrier who deliberately infects straight woman, a gaggle of gays gathered and more rapidly flocked to NBC Studios and vigorously protested loudly outside the set. The script was changed to appease the pervs, and the program executives humbly kissed their royal infected derrieres while apologizing profusely.



1988, Cosmopolitan magazine published an article  "Reassuring News About AIDS: A Doctor Tells Why You May Not Be At Risk." which attempted to inform the public that in unprotected vaginal sex between a man and a woman , the risk of HIV transmission was basically nonexistant, even if the man was infected. This did not fit within the narrow confines of the warped reality that the Homosexual agenda was attempting to ram down societies throat. When lobbying and coercion against the Author and Cosmopolitan failed, the gay agendaites decided they "had to shut down Cosmo." They produced a video entitled, "Doctor, Liars, and Women: AIDS Activists Say No To Cosmo." Activists protested vigorously at the Hearst building (parent company of Cosmopolitan) chanting "Say no to Cosmo!"



1989 Andy Rooney states on air that the year had brought recognition â€œ_of the fact that many of the ills which kill us are self-induced: too much alcohol, too much food, drugs, homosexual unions, cigarettes. Theyâ€™re all known to lead quite often to premature death_.â€  shortly thereafter Rooney made a racial comment  â€œ_Iâ€™ve believed all along that most people are born with equal intelligence, but blacks have watered down their genes because the less intelligent ones are the ones that have the most children. They drop out of school early, do drugs, and get pregnant_.â€  he is suspended for the racial comment , a Gay uproar follows because he was not disciplined for the Gay comment.


1990 The Sacramento Union publishes several editorials against pro-homosexual activities. Vandals quickly destroyed over a hundred of the newspaper's vending machines. The vandalized machines were plastered with stickers from the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power / ACT UP .

1990  The Wall Street Journal editorialized that it seems to be *entirely permissible to discuss homosexuality.....only if you maintain "the approved point of view."*



1991 During the height of Operation Desert Storm, ACT UP activist John Weir and two other activists entered the studio of the CBS Evening News at the beginning of the broadcast. They shouted "AIDS is news. Fight AIDS, not Arabs!" Even anchorman Dan Rather, that befuddled bastion of left wing lunacy was not immune to the Gay onslaught. . The same night ACT UP demonstrated at the studios of the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour. The next day activists displayed banners in Grand Central Terminal that said "Money for AIDS, not for war" and "One AIDS death every 8 minutes." One of the banners was handheld and displayed across the train timetable and the other attached to bundles of balloons that lifted it up to the ceiling of the station's enormous main room. These actions were part of a coordinated protest called "Day of Desperation."[Wikipedia]

1992  Marketing reports indicate that gays have more expendable income than normal people, mainstream advertisers began pouring money into gay publications. Some advertising revenues nearly double.



1994  Roseanne TV episode features a kiss between two females.

1997  Lesbian Television personality Ellen Degenerate .... uh I mean Degeneres, has her TV character also come out, ratings climb.

1996 Los Angeles magazine cover story by gay journalist David Ehrenstein,, argued that gay material was more persuasive than the average viewer might have thought. "*You may not have noticed, but your favorite sitcoms are written by gays and lesbians*." informed readers with a tongue in cheek nod to the idea of a gay sitcom writer mafia." {Gay TV and Straight America





 Pg. 163}



2012 DC Comics relaunches its Green Lantern character as Gay, the original character was a married father of two who first appeared in 1940



2011 - Gallup poll shows that U.S. adults estimate that 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian.

  52% of American Adults estimate that at least one in five Americans are gay or lesbian

  35% estimate that more than one in four are.

  Few put the figure at less than 15%.



The actual number ???  .... drum roll .... envelope please ..... and the answer is ....... LESS THAN 4%  are Gay !!!!! 

That's correct only 1 - 4% of the U.S. population is Gay or Lesbian.  Why in Gods name would so many allegedly educated {or indoctrinated as the case may be} and supposedly informed  American Adults believe that so very many of their countrymen are  homosexuals ?  .... drum roll ..... the answer is ....*Gross over representation and coverage by the Media*, both in Entertainment Fiction {Soaps, Sitcoms, Movies..} as well as News coverage.



Almost any show currently airing on television features at least one homosexual. Daytime talk shows, Soaps, and comedies are rampant with out of closet card carrying homosexual characters.  In addition, all these characters are not permitted to display character flaws,  they are either wealthy, educated,  and happy OR depressed and oppressed by perceived mistreatment from normal people.



2013 FemTechNet - A feminist internet group is organizing a program entitled "Storming Wikipedia," and are calling for women to edit the site and add  feminist stories .  Now I see nothing wrong with giving equal representation to the contributions of  Women to science , history, the arts and so on, the problem lies in the adverse and perverted agenda which the controlling agents for this organization espouse. A warped world view, generally completely out of context is what they envision and will attempt to implant within the pages of the most trafficked reference site available.



Yale University, Brown University, Pennsylvania State University  and many others will offer college credits to students who help to impose the feminist view on wikipedia readers. â€˜Storming Wikipediaâ€™: Colleges offer credit to students who enter â€˜feminist thinkingâ€™ into Wikipedia



2014  A Religious group known as Focus on the Family is trying to release a movie in theaters entitled â€œIrreplaceableâ€ which presents their views of the value of the traditional family, and dares to suggest the importance of fathers being involved in the lives of their children. I can't comment reliably on the entertainment value or worthiness of the film , as I haven't seen it, and if the Gay Mafia has their way I will never have the opportunity - nor will you.

LGBT advocates, pawns of the Gay Mafia, have launched an intensive campaign to discredit the movie online. The Campaign to shut the Movie Down are being coordinated on Facebook, Twitter and a Change.org petition begun by a gay teacher from California. They have petitioned against it and are working vigorously to ensure that â€œIrreplaceableâ€ is never seen in local theaters. The President of Focus on Family, Jim Daly reported that some of the more than 700 theaters nationwide scheduled to show the film are backing out under pressure from the Gay Mafia. [See Gay mafia' attacks Focus on the Family movie]

Where was all the righteous indignation when the gay propaganda film broke back mountain came out, Or when pedophile Bryan Singer and his co-conspirators blasted his self admitted subliminal gay propaganda at kids via XMen ? [See : Comic Books and the Gay Agenda] 

Gay and Lesbian Media influences


----------



## GreenBean

GreenBean said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not my equal in argumentation at all.
> 
> Your analysis has failed.  I have used unimpeachable evidence; you have not.
> 
> That's the end of it.
> 
> Marriage Equality is going to happen.  If not right now (though it probably will), certainly shortly in the near future.
> 
> 
> 
> Jake - I honestly have to agree with you . You and Silhouette are certainly not equals in debate. You are not even in the same ball park my friend.  It's akin to watching a 3 year old argue with his mom - you -  needless to say are the 3 year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sil's arguments are fundamentally broken as they're based on a series of false assumptions. The factors that he insists the courts 'must' answer, the courts aren't even addressing. The legal standards he holds gays to in marriage don't actually exist.
> 
> And the series of batshit conspiracies that Sil clings to as part of his belief system border on the mentally ill. He literally believes that all polling agencies that show majority support for gay marriage have been infiltrated by homosexuals to produce false poll numbers as part of an international conspiracy spanning half a century.
> 
> That's only a strong argument for medication. Not the prohibition of same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The factors that he insists the courts 'must' answer, the courts aren't even addressing."  *Such As ?
> 
> *
> "And the series of batshit conspiracies that Sil clings to as part of his belief system border on the mentally ill."
> *Such As ?  ... *
> 
> 
> "He literally believes that all polling agencies that show majority support for gay marriage have been infiltrated by homosexuals to produce false poll numbers as part of an international conspiracy spanning half a century."
> 
> Here's a few for you in the Media Realm ... pick one any one see if you can refute it.....
> 
> 
> 1970  New York Post columnist Pete Hamill refers to gays as â€œslim-waisted freakcreepsâ€  Gay activists picketed the Post and demanded Hamill be fired. The editor apologized, but defended the editorial freedom of his writers.
> 
> 
> 
> 1970 Gay activists occupied the offices of Harpers Magazine after the magazine ran a cover story â€œHomo/Hetero: The Struggle for Sexual Identity.â€ that described homosexuality as "an affront to our rationality living evidence of our despair of ever finding a sensible, an explainable design to the world."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1972 - The Gay Media Task Force is created by the National Gay Task Force to be an organization to manipulate and control network television programming, theoretically as it addressed gay issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 1972 ..... the networks tilted against the guardians of morality. They began to send scripts to gay Gay consultants routinely. "Anything that crops up in a script that is even remotely gay"  said the writer Allan Burns , "They get it and they really make themselves heard"  **Inside Prime Time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ** by Todd Gitlin
> 
> 1972 Gay activist, turned journalist Mark Segal feigns disdain that he couldnâ€™t dance with a gay partner on a dance show, infiltrates an ABC affiliate in Philadelphia and interrupts the news broadcast. He later pulled similar charades against the Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show when he stormed out of the Audience during a live show, on the Mike Douglas show and Today shows. Variety claimed that the activities of Segal alone, not to mention other gay activities had cost the entertainment industry $750,000 in costs including lost advertising revenue.
> 
> 1973 - Gay propagandist/activist invades CBS News with Walter Cronkite.
> 
> 1974  A popular and long-running medical drama on ABC - Marcus Welby MD tells the story of a teen boy who is sexually molested by his gay science teacher. The episode, â€œThe Outrageâ€ aired October 8, 1974. Gays squawked immediately - a campaign against the network ensued, gays bombarded over 200 organizations with hate mail and lobbied vigorously. Many major sponsors pulled out ,17 affiliates dropped the program. Some of the affiliates dropping the program were coerced by threats of reprisal if they failed to pull it from their stations .  ..._Like other media activists Loretta Lotman already had established ties with the management of ... local ABC Affiliate.... she warned that if something were not done about the program they would be hit with protests the likes of which thaye had never  seen before.._  **Target: Prime Time: Advocacy Groups and the Struggle Over Entertainment Television (Communication and Society)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **
> 
> 1977 Florida gay rights/privileges ordinance sparks strong opposition .  Former Miss Oklahoma beauty pageant winner, and outspoken critic of homosexuality Anita Bryant led the campaign that successfully had the law repealed and she paid dearly. Her career came to a screeching halt, her credibility and reputation was viciously assaulted . She was at one point physically assaulted with a pie while attempting to exercise her right to Free Speech. *Beware all those who oppose the Gay Agenda  Anita Bryant's career was destroyed by her campaign against "militant homosexuality"  She ultimately suffered a divorce, needed counseling, and was bankrupted.*
> 
> **The Anita Bryant Story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **
> 
> Anita Bryant assaulted - YouTube
> 
> Like Satan, Anita Bryant keeps coming back.  2009
> 
> Uma Thurman to Play Notorious Anti-Gay Activist in â€˜Anitaâ€™   2013
> 
> 
> 
> 1978 - A Question of Love, ABC TV movie airs based on a lesbian mother and her struggle for custody of her children. Part of manipulated trend to positive TV images of gays , acknowledged as a result of gay activists.
> 
> 
> 
> 1980 - CBS Reports Episode â€œGay Power, Gay Politicsâ€  draws strong criticism for what the gay camp referred to as malicious inaccuracies and slanting of the news. The program did heavily focus on the sexual practices of gay males , in particular sadomasochism. The National News Council, stated that CBS had violated journalistic standards through misrepresentation as well as through deceptive editing.  I find it curious that the National News Council never says anything when CBS manipulates in favor of the Left leaning liberals and democrats which it has consistently for decades. **See Dan Rather**
> 
> 
> 
> 1983  NY Times did not cover a fundraiser for Gay Menâ€™s Health Crisis in Madison Square Garden - leads to protests and eventual apology from the Times for not helping in promoting the Gay Agenda
> 
> 
> 
> 1985  "....You can handle homosexuality - as long as you handle it a lovely, tolerant fashion that will not upset the gay liberation lobby" - Earnest Kinov writer, screenwriter and playwright.
> 
> 
> 
> 1987  Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill wrote a strategy series of articles entitled "The Overhauling of Straight America" which appeared in Guide Magazine. They wrote ...  "In the early states of any campaign to reach straight America, the *masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself.* Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. *First let the camel get his nose inside the tent -- and only later his unsightly derriere! "*
> 
> 
> 
> 1987 A study by The Center for Media and Public Affairs reported that only 9% of the characters depicted on TV with AIDS are identified as homosexual ,while in actuality, over 70 percent of such persons have AIDS or HIV. This is in accordance with the unwritten homosexual lobby's demand to define AIDS as non-gay disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 1988, a conference of 175 gay activist leaders  convened near Washington, D.C. to establish an agenda.  After that meeting, Harvard-trained social scientists and homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen wrote the Gay manifesto After The Ball
> 
> 
> 
> 1988 episode of NBC's "Midnight Caller" originally portrayed a homosexual as an AIDS carrier who deliberately infects straight woman, a gaggle of gays gathered and more rapidly flocked to NBC Studios and vigorously protested loudly outside the set. The script was changed to appease the pervs, and the program executives humbly kissed their royal infected derrieres while apologizing profusely.
> 
> 
> 
> 1988, Cosmopolitan magazine published an article  "Reassuring News About AIDS: A Doctor Tells Why You May Not Be At Risk." which attempted to inform the public that in unprotected vaginal sex between a man and a woman , the risk of HIV transmission was basically nonexistant, even if the man was infected. This did not fit within the narrow confines of the warped reality that the Homosexual agenda was attempting to ram down societies throat. When lobbying and coercion against the Author and Cosmopolitan failed, the gay agendaites decided they "had to shut down Cosmo." They produced a video entitled, "Doctor, Liars, and Women: AIDS Activists Say No To Cosmo." Activists protested vigorously at the Hearst building (parent company of Cosmopolitan) chanting "Say no to Cosmo!"
> 
> 
> 
> 1989 Andy Rooney states on air that the year had brought recognition â€œ_of the fact that many of the ills which kill us are self-induced: too much alcohol, too much food, drugs, homosexual unions, cigarettes. Theyâ€™re all known to lead quite often to premature death_.â€  shortly thereafter Rooney made a racial comment  â€œ_Iâ€™ve believed all along that most people are born with equal intelligence, but blacks have watered down their genes because the less intelligent ones are the ones that have the most children. They drop out of school early, do drugs, and get pregnant_.â€  he is suspended for the racial comment , a Gay uproar follows because he was not disciplined for the Gay comment.
> 
> 
> 1990 The Sacramento Union publishes several editorials against pro-homosexual activities. Vandals quickly destroyed over a hundred of the newspaper's vending machines. The vandalized machines were plastered with stickers from the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power / ACT UP .
> 
> 1990  The Wall Street Journal editorialized that it seems to be *entirely permissible to discuss homosexuality.....only if you maintain "the approved point of view."*
> 
> 
> 
> 1991 During the height of Operation Desert Storm, ACT UP activist John Weir and two other activists entered the studio of the CBS Evening News at the beginning of the broadcast. They shouted "AIDS is news. Fight AIDS, not Arabs!" Even anchorman Dan Rather, that befuddled bastion of left wing lunacy was not immune to the Gay onslaught. . The same night ACT UP demonstrated at the studios of the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour. The next day activists displayed banners in Grand Central Terminal that said "Money for AIDS, not for war" and "One AIDS death every 8 minutes." One of the banners was handheld and displayed across the train timetable and the other attached to bundles of balloons that lifted it up to the ceiling of the station's enormous main room. These actions were part of a coordinated protest called "Day of Desperation."[Wikipedia]
> 
> 1992  Marketing reports indicate that gays have more expendable income than normal people, mainstream advertisers began pouring money into gay publications. Some advertising revenues nearly double.
> 
> 
> 
> 1994  Roseanne TV episode features a kiss between two females.
> 
> 1997  Lesbian Television personality Ellen Degenerate .... uh I mean Degeneres, has her TV character also come out, ratings climb.
> 
> 1996 Los Angeles magazine cover story by gay journalist David Ehrenstein,, argued that gay material was more persuasive than the average viewer might have thought. "*You may not have noticed, but your favorite sitcoms are written by gays and lesbians*." informed readers with a tongue in cheek nod to the idea of a gay sitcom writer mafia." {Gay TV and Straight America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pg. 163}
> 
> 
> 
> 2012 DC Comics relaunches its Green Lantern character as Gay, the original character was a married father of two who first appeared in 1940
> 
> 
> 
> 2011 - Gallup poll shows that U.S. adults estimate that 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian.
> 
> 52% of American Adults estimate that at least one in five Americans are gay or lesbian
> 
> 35% estimate that more than one in four are.
> 
> Few put the figure at less than 15%.
> 
> 
> 
> The actual number ???  .... drum roll .... envelope please ..... and the answer is ....... LESS THAN 4%  are Gay !!!!!
> 
> That's correct only 1 - 4% of the U.S. population is Gay or Lesbian.  Why in Gods name would so many allegedly educated {or indoctrinated as the case may be} and supposedly informed  American Adults believe that so very many of their countrymen are  homosexuals ?  .... drum roll ..... the answer is ....*Gross over representation and coverage by the Media*, both in Entertainment Fiction {Soaps, Sitcoms, Movies..} as well as News coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost any show currently airing on television features at least one homosexual. Daytime talk shows, Soaps, and comedies are rampant with out of closet card carrying homosexual characters.  In addition, all these characters are not permitted to display character flaws,  they are either wealthy, educated,  and happy OR depressed and oppressed by perceived mistreatment from normal people.
> 
> 
> 
> 2013 FemTechNet - A feminist internet group is organizing a program entitled "Storming Wikipedia," and are calling for women to edit the site and add  feminist stories .  Now I see nothing wrong with giving equal representation to the contributions of  Women to science , history, the arts and so on, the problem lies in the adverse and perverted agenda which the controlling agents for this organization espouse. A warped world view, generally completely out of context is what they envision and will attempt to implant within the pages of the most trafficked reference site available.
> 
> 
> 
> Yale University, Brown University, Pennsylvania State University  and many others will offer college credits to students who help to impose the feminist view on wikipedia readers. â€˜Storming Wikipediaâ€™: Colleges offer credit to students who enter â€˜feminist thinkingâ€™ into Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 2014  A Religious group known as Focus on the Family is trying to release a movie in theaters entitled â€œIrreplaceableâ€ which presents their views of the value of the traditional family, and dares to suggest the importance of fathers being involved in the lives of their children. I can't comment reliably on the entertainment value or worthiness of the film , as I haven't seen it, and if the Gay Mafia has their way I will never have the opportunity - nor will you.
> 
> LGBT advocates, pawns of the Gay Mafia, have launched an intensive campaign to discredit the movie online. The Campaign to shut the Movie Down are being coordinated on Facebook, Twitter and a Change.org petition begun by a gay teacher from California. They have petitioned against it and are working vigorously to ensure that â€œIrreplaceableâ€ is never seen in local theaters. The President of Focus on Family, Jim Daly reported that some of the more than 700 theaters nationwide scheduled to show the film are backing out under pressure from the Gay Mafia. [See Gay mafia' attacks Focus on the Family movie]
> 
> Where was all the righteous indignation when the gay propaganda film broke back mountain came out, Or when pedophile Bryan Singer and his co-conspirators blasted his self admitted subliminal gay propaganda at kids via XMen ? [See : Comic Books and the Gay Agenda]
> 
> Gay and Lesbian Media influences
Click to expand...


Or perhaps you are referring to the shit sucking queers at the  American Psych. Association ....LOL    American Psychological Association. Owned by the Gays


----------



## Skylar

> "The factors that he insists the courts 'must' answer, the courts aren't even addressing." *Such As ?*



He's argued that the court had to take the 2011 version of the Prince Trust study into account when making their ruling this month.

They don't.

He's also insisted that gays should be excluded from marriage because they can't have kids. Yet no one is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. So the basis of exclusion he's using isn't part of any law. And doesn't apply to anyone.



> "He literally believes that all polling agencies that show majority support for gay marriage have been infiltrated by homosexuals to produce false poll numbers as part of an international conspiracy spanning half a century."
> 
> Here's a few for you in the Media Realm ... pick one any one see if you can refute it.....



Since none of what you posted support or even allege that all polling agencies that show majority support for same sex marriage have been 'infiltrated by homosexuals' and now produce false polling numbers as part of a vast international conspiracy dating back to the 60s....

......what is there to refute?  If you have evidence that Gallup is lying about same sex marriage support, feel free to present it. That's not it.


----------



## Skylar

GreenBean said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not my equal in argumentation at all.
> 
> Your analysis has failed.  I have used unimpeachable evidence; you have not.
> 
> That's the end of it.
> 
> Marriage Equality is going to happen.  If not right now (though it probably will), certainly shortly in the near future.
> 
> 
> 
> Jake - I honestly have to agree with you . You and Silhouette are certainly not equals in debate. You are not even in the same ball park my friend.  It's akin to watching a 3 year old argue with his mom - you -  needless to say are the 3 year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sil's arguments are fundamentally broken as they're based on a series of false assumptions. The factors that he insists the courts 'must' answer, the courts aren't even addressing. The legal standards he holds gays to in marriage don't actually exist.
> 
> And the series of batshit conspiracies that Sil clings to as part of his belief system border on the mentally ill. He literally believes that all polling agencies that show majority support for gay marriage have been infiltrated by homosexuals to produce false poll numbers as part of an international conspiracy spanning half a century.
> 
> That's only a strong argument for medication. Not the prohibition of same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The factors that he insists the courts 'must' answer, the courts aren't even addressing."  *Such As ?
> 
> *
> "And the series of batshit conspiracies that Sil clings to as part of his belief system border on the mentally ill."
> *Such As ?  ... *
> 
> 
> "He literally believes that all polling agencies that show majority support for gay marriage have been infiltrated by homosexuals to produce false poll numbers as part of an international conspiracy spanning half a century."
> 
> Here's a few for you in the Media Realm ... pick one any one see if you can refute it.....
> 
> 
> 1970  New York Post columnist Pete Hamill refers to gays as â€œslim-waisted freakcreepsâ€  Gay activists picketed the Post and demanded Hamill be fired. The editor apologized, but defended the editorial freedom of his writers.
> 
> 
> 
> 1970 Gay activists occupied the offices of Harpers Magazine after the magazine ran a cover story â€œHomo/Hetero: The Struggle for Sexual Identity.â€ that described homosexuality as "an affront to our rationality living evidence of our despair of ever finding a sensible, an explainable design to the world."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1972 - The Gay Media Task Force is created by the National Gay Task Force to be an organization to manipulate and control network television programming, theoretically as it addressed gay issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 1972 ..... the networks tilted against the guardians of morality. They began to send scripts to gay Gay consultants routinely. "Anything that crops up in a script that is even remotely gay"  said the writer Allan Burns , "They get it and they really make themselves heard"  **Inside Prime Time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ** by Todd Gitlin
> 
> 1972 Gay activist, turned journalist Mark Segal feigns disdain that he couldnâ€™t dance with a gay partner on a dance show, infiltrates an ABC affiliate in Philadelphia and interrupts the news broadcast. He later pulled similar charades against the Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show when he stormed out of the Audience during a live show, on the Mike Douglas show and Today shows. Variety claimed that the activities of Segal alone, not to mention other gay activities had cost the entertainment industry $750,000 in costs including lost advertising revenue.
> 
> 1973 - Gay propagandist/activist invades CBS News with Walter Cronkite.
> 
> 1974  A popular and long-running medical drama on ABC - Marcus Welby MD tells the story of a teen boy who is sexually molested by his gay science teacher. The episode, â€œThe Outrageâ€ aired October 8, 1974. Gays squawked immediately - a campaign against the network ensued, gays bombarded over 200 organizations with hate mail and lobbied vigorously. Many major sponsors pulled out ,17 affiliates dropped the program. Some of the affiliates dropping the program were coerced by threats of reprisal if they failed to pull it from their stations .  ..._Like other media activists Loretta Lotman already had established ties with the management of ... local ABC Affiliate.... she warned that if something were not done about the program they would be hit with protests the likes of which thaye had never  seen before.._  **Target: Prime Time: Advocacy Groups and the Struggle Over Entertainment Television (Communication and Society)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **
> 
> 1977 Florida gay rights/privileges ordinance sparks strong opposition .  Former Miss Oklahoma beauty pageant winner, and outspoken critic of homosexuality Anita Bryant led the campaign that successfully had the law repealed and she paid dearly. Her career came to a screeching halt, her credibility and reputation was viciously assaulted . She was at one point physically assaulted with a pie while attempting to exercise her right to Free Speech. *Beware all those who oppose the Gay Agenda  Anita Bryant's career was destroyed by her campaign against "militant homosexuality"  She ultimately suffered a divorce, needed counseling, and was bankrupted.*
> 
> **The Anita Bryant Story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **
> 
> Anita Bryant assaulted - YouTube
> 
> Like Satan, Anita Bryant keeps coming back.  2009
> 
> Uma Thurman to Play Notorious Anti-Gay Activist in â€˜Anitaâ€™   2013
> 
> 
> 
> 1978 - A Question of Love, ABC TV movie airs based on a lesbian mother and her struggle for custody of her children. Part of manipulated trend to positive TV images of gays , acknowledged as a result of gay activists.
> 
> 
> 
> 1980 - CBS Reports Episode â€œGay Power, Gay Politicsâ€  draws strong criticism for what the gay camp referred to as malicious inaccuracies and slanting of the news. The program did heavily focus on the sexual practices of gay males , in particular sadomasochism. The National News Council, stated that CBS had violated journalistic standards through misrepresentation as well as through deceptive editing.  I find it curious that the National News Council never says anything when CBS manipulates in favor of the Left leaning liberals and democrats which it has consistently for decades. **See Dan Rather**
> 
> 
> 
> 1983  NY Times did not cover a fundraiser for Gay Menâ€™s Health Crisis in Madison Square Garden - leads to protests and eventual apology from the Times for not helping in promoting the Gay Agenda
> 
> 
> 
> 1985  "....You can handle homosexuality - as long as you handle it a lovely, tolerant fashion that will not upset the gay liberation lobby" - Earnest Kinov writer, screenwriter and playwright.
> 
> 
> 
> 1987  Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill wrote a strategy series of articles entitled "The Overhauling of Straight America" which appeared in Guide Magazine. They wrote ...  "In the early states of any campaign to reach straight America, the *masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself.* Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. *First let the camel get his nose inside the tent -- and only later his unsightly derriere! "*
> 
> 
> 
> 1987 A study by The Center for Media and Public Affairs reported that only 9% of the characters depicted on TV with AIDS are identified as homosexual ,while in actuality, over 70 percent of such persons have AIDS or HIV. This is in accordance with the unwritten homosexual lobby's demand to define AIDS as non-gay disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 1988, a conference of 175 gay activist leaders  convened near Washington, D.C. to establish an agenda.  After that meeting, Harvard-trained social scientists and homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen wrote the Gay manifesto After The Ball
> 
> 
> 
> 1988 episode of NBC's "Midnight Caller" originally portrayed a homosexual as an AIDS carrier who deliberately infects straight woman, a gaggle of gays gathered and more rapidly flocked to NBC Studios and vigorously protested loudly outside the set. The script was changed to appease the pervs, and the program executives humbly kissed their royal infected derrieres while apologizing profusely.
> 
> 
> 
> 1988, Cosmopolitan magazine published an article  "Reassuring News About AIDS: A Doctor Tells Why You May Not Be At Risk." which attempted to inform the public that in unprotected vaginal sex between a man and a woman , the risk of HIV transmission was basically nonexistant, even if the man was infected. This did not fit within the narrow confines of the warped reality that the Homosexual agenda was attempting to ram down societies throat. When lobbying and coercion against the Author and Cosmopolitan failed, the gay agendaites decided they "had to shut down Cosmo." They produced a video entitled, "Doctor, Liars, and Women: AIDS Activists Say No To Cosmo." Activists protested vigorously at the Hearst building (parent company of Cosmopolitan) chanting "Say no to Cosmo!"
> 
> 
> 
> 1989 Andy Rooney states on air that the year had brought recognition â€œ_of the fact that many of the ills which kill us are self-induced: too much alcohol, too much food, drugs, homosexual unions, cigarettes. Theyâ€™re all known to lead quite often to premature death_.â€  shortly thereafter Rooney made a racial comment  â€œ_Iâ€™ve believed all along that most people are born with equal intelligence, but blacks have watered down their genes because the less intelligent ones are the ones that have the most children. They drop out of school early, do drugs, and get pregnant_.â€  he is suspended for the racial comment , a Gay uproar follows because he was not disciplined for the Gay comment.
> 
> 
> 1990 The Sacramento Union publishes several editorials against pro-homosexual activities. Vandals quickly destroyed over a hundred of the newspaper's vending machines. The vandalized machines were plastered with stickers from the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power / ACT UP .
> 
> 1990  The Wall Street Journal editorialized that it seems to be *entirely permissible to discuss homosexuality.....only if you maintain "the approved point of view."*
> 
> 
> 
> 1991 During the height of Operation Desert Storm, ACT UP activist John Weir and two other activists entered the studio of the CBS Evening News at the beginning of the broadcast. They shouted "AIDS is news. Fight AIDS, not Arabs!" Even anchorman Dan Rather, that befuddled bastion of left wing lunacy was not immune to the Gay onslaught. . The same night ACT UP demonstrated at the studios of the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour. The next day activists displayed banners in Grand Central Terminal that said "Money for AIDS, not for war" and "One AIDS death every 8 minutes." One of the banners was handheld and displayed across the train timetable and the other attached to bundles of balloons that lifted it up to the ceiling of the station's enormous main room. These actions were part of a coordinated protest called "Day of Desperation."[Wikipedia]
> 
> 1992  Marketing reports indicate that gays have more expendable income than normal people, mainstream advertisers began pouring money into gay publications. Some advertising revenues nearly double.
> 
> 
> 
> 1994  Roseanne TV episode features a kiss between two females.
> 
> 1997  Lesbian Television personality Ellen Degenerate .... uh I mean Degeneres, has her TV character also come out, ratings climb.
> 
> 1996 Los Angeles magazine cover story by gay journalist David Ehrenstein,, argued that gay material was more persuasive than the average viewer might have thought. "*You may not have noticed, but your favorite sitcoms are written by gays and lesbians*." informed readers with a tongue in cheek nod to the idea of a gay sitcom writer mafia." {Gay TV and Straight America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pg. 163}
> 
> 
> 
> 2012 DC Comics relaunches its Green Lantern character as Gay, the original character was a married father of two who first appeared in 1940
> 
> 
> 
> 2011 - Gallup poll shows that U.S. adults estimate that 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian.
> 
> 52% of American Adults estimate that at least one in five Americans are gay or lesbian
> 
> 35% estimate that more than one in four are.
> 
> Few put the figure at less than 15%.
> 
> 
> 
> The actual number ???  .... drum roll .... envelope please ..... and the answer is ....... LESS THAN 4%  are Gay !!!!!
> 
> That's correct only 1 - 4% of the U.S. population is Gay or Lesbian.  Why in Gods name would so many allegedly educated {or indoctrinated as the case may be} and supposedly informed  American Adults believe that so very many of their countrymen are  homosexuals ?  .... drum roll ..... the answer is ....*Gross over representation and coverage by the Media*, both in Entertainment Fiction {Soaps, Sitcoms, Movies..} as well as News coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost any show currently airing on television features at least one homosexual. Daytime talk shows, Soaps, and comedies are rampant with out of closet card carrying homosexual characters.  In addition, all these characters are not permitted to display character flaws,  they are either wealthy, educated,  and happy OR depressed and oppressed by perceived mistreatment from normal people.
> 
> 
> 
> 2013 FemTechNet - A feminist internet group is organizing a program entitled "Storming Wikipedia," and are calling for women to edit the site and add  feminist stories .  Now I see nothing wrong with giving equal representation to the contributions of  Women to science , history, the arts and so on, the problem lies in the adverse and perverted agenda which the controlling agents for this organization espouse. A warped world view, generally completely out of context is what they envision and will attempt to implant within the pages of the most trafficked reference site available.
> 
> 
> 
> Yale University, Brown University, Pennsylvania State University  and many others will offer college credits to students who help to impose the feminist view on wikipedia readers. â€˜Storming Wikipediaâ€™: Colleges offer credit to students who enter â€˜feminist thinkingâ€™ into Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 2014  A Religious group known as Focus on the Family is trying to release a movie in theaters entitled â€œIrreplaceableâ€ which presents their views of the value of the traditional family, and dares to suggest the importance of fathers being involved in the lives of their children. I can't comment reliably on the entertainment value or worthiness of the film , as I haven't seen it, and if the Gay Mafia has their way I will never have the opportunity - nor will you.
> 
> LGBT advocates, pawns of the Gay Mafia, have launched an intensive campaign to discredit the movie online. The Campaign to shut the Movie Down are being coordinated on Facebook, Twitter and a Change.org petition begun by a gay teacher from California. They have petitioned against it and are working vigorously to ensure that â€œIrreplaceableâ€ is never seen in local theaters. The President of Focus on Family, Jim Daly reported that some of the more than 700 theaters nationwide scheduled to show the film are backing out under pressure from the Gay Mafia. [See Gay mafia' attacks Focus on the Family movie]
> 
> Where was all the righteous indignation when the gay propaganda film broke back mountain came out, Or when pedophile Bryan Singer and his co-conspirators blasted his self admitted subliminal gay propaganda at kids via XMen ? [See : Comic Books and the Gay Agenda]
> 
> Gay and Lesbian Media influences
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or perhaps you are referring to the shit sucking queers at the  American Psych. Association ....LOL    American Psychological Association. Owned by the Gays
Click to expand...


Shit sucking queers, huh? Oddly, that kind of rhetoric doesn't go over well in court.

Do you think that might be one of the reasons things have gone so badly for your side?


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> He's argued that the court had to take the 2011 version of the Prince Trust study into account when making their ruling this month.
> 
> They don't.



Perhaps he was in error perhaps not - ..people who live in glass houses ......   

"2011 version of the Prince Trust study"  - I am not 100% familiar with - but to my recollection it is a UK group -  so I'll give you a brownie point on that ....  only because I don't have the time nor inclination to research it. 

If it's anything like most other Gay Studies - I'm sure it's full of holes ... [No pun intended]


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> Shit sucking queers


Ever heard of Shigellosis ?    It's a very common disease among "shit sucking queers"   as per the Center for Disease Control -  Shigella Infections among Gay Bisexual Men Shigella Shigellosis CDC


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> Since none of what you posted support or even allege that all polling agencies that show majority support for same sex marriage have been 'infiltrated by homosexuals' and now produce false polling numbers as part of a vast international conspiracy dating back to the 60s....


It's a bothersome path of logic -I doubt that he said ALL relative polls - however my take on the issue , one which I'd hoped you'd have been able to grasp from of the data I posted  is that mass media manipulation and circumvention of free speech have lead to the results in these polls ....  the masses are sheeple and you are among the sheep


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Jarlaxle said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 of the New Testament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...is, entirely, irrelevant to the conversation.
Click to expand...

Well sure, to the Relativists objectivity must be irrelevant.

(Ya see scamp, that's what makes Ya Relativist)


----------



## Skylar

GreenBean said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit sucking queers
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of Shigellosis ?    It's a very common disease among "shit sucking queers"   as per the Center for Disease Control -  Shigella Infections among Gay Bisexual Men Shigella Shigellosis CDC
Click to expand...


Notice you don't even attempt to answer my question. That kind of hateful vitriol generally doesn't endear your ilk with the general public. There's a reason why support for gay marriage is approaching 2 to 1. 

And folks like you are part of it. There's same sex couples getting married and celebrating with family on one side. And your ilk screaming 'shit sucking queers!' on the other. You've helped push gay marriage support to all time highs. Even a third of republicans are embracing it. With support among liberals and independants in the high 70s and high 60s respectively. 

Though among bigots, hatemongers and hard right fundamentalist Christians.....I'm sure you're a hoot.


----------



## Skylar

GreenBean said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of what you posted support or even allege that all polling agencies that show majority support for same sex marriage have been 'infiltrated by homosexuals' and now produce false polling numbers as part of a vast international conspiracy dating back to the 60s....
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bothersome path of logic -I doubt that he said ALL relative polls - however my take on the issue , one which I'd hoped you'd have been able to grasp from of the data I posted  is that mass media manipulation and circumvention of free speech have lead to the results in these polls ....  the masses are sheeple and you are among the sheep
Click to expand...


He cited polls that show support for same sex marriage. The defining characteristic of his 'infiltrated by homosexuals and reporting false data' conspiracy....was the polling results. Any that contradicted him on support for same sex marriage got rolled into that steaming pile of batshit.

Which is what conspiracy theorists do. Well, them and the mentally ill. That's a pair of Venn diagrams that's far closer to a circle than either group would like to admit. As he can't factually support his claim. Nor can you.

As I said....that's only a strong argument for medication. Not for the abolishment of same sex marriage.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your opinion "a violation of the core of the construct of God in human societies" is simply false. I would like to see your evidence for it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jude 1 of the New Testament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...is, entirely, irrelevant to the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well sure, to the Relativists objectivity must be irrelevant.
> 
> (Ya see scamp, that's what makes Ya Relativist)
Click to expand...


Keyes we've been through this. All you do is label your subjective personal opinion....and then insist that the label makes your opinion 'objectivity'. 

Um, nope. Its still just your subjective opinion. Subjective is not objective. You can't get around that.

 Your sources are you citing yourself. Your appeals to authority are you citing you. Even your audience the mythic 'reader'...is you talking to yourself. Your entire argument is your opinion, your personal context, your subjective beliefs.

Which is about as relativistic as it gets. And has nothing to do with 'objectivity'.


----------



## JakeStarkey

ROTFLMAO.  St. Keys the Irrelevant is talking about objectivity.

Keys, show me which church has has to marry homosexuals.


----------



## dblack

JakeStarkey said:


> ROTFLMAO.  St. Keys the Irrelevant is talking about objectivity.
> 
> Keys, show me which church has has to marry homosexuals.


Show us why they shouldn't.


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO.  St. Keys the Irrelevant is talking about objectivity.
> 
> Keys, show me which church has has to marry homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Show us why they shouldn't.
Click to expand...

Libertarian gobbledy gook is not spoken here.


----------



## dblack

JakeStarkey said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO.  St. Keys the Irrelevant is talking about objectivity.
> 
> Keys, show me which church has has to marry homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Show us why they shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Libertarian gobbledy gook is not spoken here.
Click to expand...

'Spose that's fakey for "I got nuthin'".


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO.  St. Keys the Irrelevant is talking about objectivity.
> 
> Keys, show me which church has has to marry homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Show us why they shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Libertarian gobbledy gook is not spoken here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'Spose that's fakey for "I got nuthin'".
Click to expand...

You have nothing worthy to discuss.

Really, libertarianism is nothing more than gooberism.

The USA is not going to change the 1st Amendment interpretations for your ilk.

No church has been forced to marry homosexuals: none ever will.


----------



## dblack

JakeStarkey said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO.  St. Keys the Irrelevant is talking about objectivity.
> 
> Keys, show me which church has has to marry homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Show us why they shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Libertarian gobbledy gook is not spoken here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'Spose that's fakey for "I got nuthin'".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing worthy to discuss.
> 
> Really, libertarianism is nothing more than gooberism.
> 
> The USA is not going to change the 1st Amendment interpretations for your ilk.
> 
> No church has been forced to marry homosexuals: none ever will.
Click to expand...

Anything but answer the question. All the deflection just screams "fail". I'm sorry.


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO.  St. Keys the Irrelevant is talking about objectivity.
> 
> Keys, show me which church has has to marry homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Show us why they shouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Libertarian gobbledy gook is not spoken here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'Spose that's fakey for "I got nuthin'".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing worthy to discuss.
> 
> Really, libertarianism is nothing more than gooberism.
> 
> The USA is not going to change the 1st Amendment interpretations for your ilk.
> 
> No church has been forced to marry homosexuals: none ever will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything but answer the question. All the deflection just screams "fail". I'm sorry.
Click to expand...

No question worth answering.  Libertarianism is the answer to nothing.


----------



## dblack

JakeStarkey said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us why they shouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarian gobbledy gook is not spoken here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'Spose that's fakey for "I got nuthin'".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing worthy to discuss.
> 
> Really, libertarianism is nothing more than gooberism.
> 
> The USA is not going to change the 1st Amendment interpretations for your ilk.
> 
> No church has been forced to marry homosexuals: none ever will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything but answer the question. All the deflection just screams "fail". I'm sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No question worth answering.  Libertarianism is the answer to nothing.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about that? If bakers should be forced to serve gays, why shouldn't churches? Ahh.  Nevermind. I know you're a fraud. Live it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarian gobbledy gook is not spoken here.
> 
> 
> 
> 'Spose that's fakey for "I got nuthin'".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing worthy to discuss.
> 
> Really, libertarianism is nothing more than gooberism.
> 
> The USA is not going to change the 1st Amendment interpretations for your ilk.
> 
> No church has been forced to marry homosexuals: none ever will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything but answer the question. All the deflection just screams "fail". I'm sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No question worth answering.  Libertarianism is the answer to nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about that? If bakers should be forced to serve gays, why shouldn't churches? Ahh.  Nevermind. I know you're a fraud. Live it.
Click to expand...

You are the fraud, little one.  No one discusses a nothing, which is libertarianism on this subject.


----------



## LittleNipper

First off Denmark has a "NATIONALCHURCH" under the thumb of that government. So much for "modern," "sophistication," and "Godly". Secondly, I guess that American churches will not have to insure or hire practicing sinners.


----------



## dblack

JakeStarkey said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Spose that's fakey for "I got nuthin'".
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing worthy to discuss.
> 
> Really, libertarianism is nothing more than gooberism.
> 
> The USA is not going to change the 1st Amendment interpretations for your ilk.
> 
> No church has been forced to marry homosexuals: none ever will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything but answer the question. All the deflection just screams "fail". I'm sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No question worth answering.  Libertarianism is the answer to nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about that? If bakers should be forced to serve gays, why shouldn't churches? Ahh.  Nevermind. I know you're a fraud. Live it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the fraud, little one.  No one discusses a nothing, which is libertarianism on this subject.
Click to expand...

It's ok. You have no answer. I get that. Keep dancing. It's funny!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

dblack said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing worthy to discuss.
> 
> Really, libertarianism is nothing more than gooberism.
> 
> The USA is not going to change the 1st Amendment interpretations for your ilk.
> 
> No church has been forced to marry homosexuals: none ever will.
> 
> 
> 
> Anything but answer the question. All the deflection just screams "fail". I'm sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No question worth answering.  Libertarianism is the answer to nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about that? If bakers should be forced to serve gays, why shouldn't churches? Ahh.  Nevermind. I know you're a fraud. Live it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the fraud, little one.  No one discusses a nothing, which is libertarianism on this subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok. You have no answer. I get that. Keep dancing. It's funny!
Click to expand...


That idiot was the very first person that I sentenced to ignore.  And not for even one second have I regretted that action.


----------



## dblack

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything but answer the question. All the deflection just screams "fail". I'm sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> No question worth answering.  Libertarianism is the answer to nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about that? If bakers should be forced to serve gays, why shouldn't churches? Ahh.  Nevermind. I know you're a fraud. Live it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the fraud, little one.  No one discusses a nothing, which is libertarianism on this subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok. You have no answer. I get that. Keep dancing. It's funny!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That idiot was the very first person that I sentenced to ignore.  And not for even one second have I regretted that action.
Click to expand...

You were the second, bigot.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

dblack said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No question worth answering.  Libertarianism is the answer to nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about that? If bakers should be forced to serve gays, why shouldn't churches? Ahh.  Nevermind. I know you're a fraud. Live it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the fraud, little one.  No one discusses a nothing, which is libertarianism on this subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok. You have no answer. I get that. Keep dancing. It's funny!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That idiot was the very first person that I sentenced to ignore.  And not for even one second have I regretted that action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were the second, bigot.
Click to expand...


if you've some idea of what you were trying to say, please try to explain it.  

Starkey is an imbecile.  How that makes me a bigot is known only to you.

But I'd love to see your math... 'cause it sounds _fascinatin'._

Also... FYI: using the word 'bigot' is, by definition, _a demonstration of bigotry._


----------



## dblack

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about that? If bakers should be forced to serve gays, why shouldn't churches? Ahh.  Nevermind. I know you're a fraud. Live it.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the fraud, little one.  No one discusses a nothing, which is libertarianism on this subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok. You have no answer. I get that. Keep dancing. It's funny!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That idiot was the very first person that I sentenced to ignore.  And not for even one second have I regretted that action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were the second, bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you've some idea of what you were trying to say, please try to explain it.
> 
> Starkey is an imbecile.  How that makes me a bigot is known only to you.
> 
> But I'd love to see your math... 'cause it sounds _fascinatin'._
> 
> Also... FYI: using the word 'bigot' is, by definition, _a demonstration of bigotry._
Click to expand...

Truth has no allies.


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No question worth answering.  Libertarianism is the answer to nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about that? If bakers should be forced to serve gays, why shouldn't churches? Ahh.  Nevermind. I know you're a fraud. Live it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the fraud, little one.  No one discusses a nothing, which is libertarianism on this subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok. You have no answer. I get that. Keep dancing. It's funny!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That idiot was the very first person that I sentenced to ignore.  And not for even one second have I regretted that action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were the second, bigot.
Click to expand...




> Keys: if you've some idea of what you were trying to say, please try to explain it.   Starkey is an imbecile. How that makes me a bigot is known only to you.  But I'd love to see your math... 'cause it sounds _fascinatin'.  _Also... FYI: using the word 'bigot' is, by definition, _a demonstration of bigotry._


I keep running Keys off.  His favorite word is "imbecile" when I show just how worthless are his comments.  He was corrected elsewhere, and he is so _adorable _in his resentment

Tough.

He always keeps coming back though for more shaming and naming.

St. Keys the Irrelevant is fun to toy with.  dblack is a libertarian, which makes him a box of rocks.


----------



## Seawytch

Churches are not businesses and businesses are not churches. The rules are different. Don't like it, get a large enough coalition to change the rules.


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> Churches are not businesses and businesses are not churches. The rules are different. Don't like it, get a large enough coalition to change the rules.


Not a matter of "liking" it. It's just pure bullshit. Religion was the first business. Silly rules notwithstanding.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> Churches are not businesses and businesses are not churches. The rules are different. Don't like it, get a large enough coalition to change the rules.


Christians cannot be hamstrung in the free market by a competing cult seeking to force them to abdicate their faith in order to enable the church of butt-sex "getting married"...(instituting a brand new and majority-repugnant idea of fatherless or motherless "marriages").  To do so is a pure violation of individual Christians' 1st Amendment rights.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are not businesses and businesses are not churches. The rules are different. Don't like it, get a large enough coalition to change the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> Christians cannot be hamstrung in the free market by a competing cult seeking to force them to abdicate their faith in order to enable the church of butt-sex "getting married"...(instituting a brand new and majority-repugnant idea of fatherless or motherless "marriages").  To do so is a pure violation of individual Christians' 1st Amendment rights.
Click to expand...


The 'cult' you've imagined doesn't exist. There is no 'church of buttsex'. And Christians are held to the same laws as everyone else. If they can arbitrarily ignore any law that they don't like, then we have a religiously based sovereign citizen argument.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are not businesses and businesses are not churches. The rules are different. *Don't like it, get a large enough coalition to change the rules*.
> 
> 
> 
> Christians cannot be hamstrung in the free market by a competing cult seeking to force them to abdicate their faith in order to enable the church of butt-sex "getting married"...(instituting a brand new and majority-repugnant idea of fatherless or motherless "marriages").  To do so is a pure violation of individual Christians' 1st Amendment rights.
Click to expand...

 


Skylar said:


> *The 'cult' you've imagined doesn't exist*. There is no 'church of buttsex'. And Christians are held to the same laws as everyone else. If they can arbitrarily ignore any law that they don't like, then we have a religiously based sovereign citizen argument.


 
That is open for debate: 



















No need for a "coalition".  The 1st Amendment already exists for 300 million people.


----------



## mdk

Wow, it has been a while since Sil has broken out those pictures. It's true what they say, the classics never die.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are not businesses and businesses are not churches. The rules are different. Don't like it, get a large enough coalition to change the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> Christians cannot be hamstrung in the free market by a competing cult seeking to force them to abdicate their faith in order to enable the church of butt-sex "getting married"...(instituting a brand new and majority-repugnant idea of fatherless or motherless "marriages").  To do so is a pure violation of individual Christians' 1st Amendment rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The 'cult' you've imagined doesn't exist*. There is no 'church of buttsex'. And Christians are held to the same laws as everyone else. If they can arbitrarily ignore any law that they don't like, then we have a religiously based sovereign citizen argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is open for debate:
Click to expand...


Given that you're folding in millions and millions of gay folks, no...its really not.

You're just making up conspiracy batshit as the ruling that you know will contradict you comes closer. And the closer it gets, the deeper you will decent into frantic propaganda. 

I genuinely worry for you when the ruling actually comes down. As loathsome as some of the batshit you spew is, I don't want you to actually hurt yourself.


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Wow, it has been a while since Sil has broken out those pictures. It's true what they say, the classics never die.



He's working himself up into a frothing lather. I told you this was gonna happen before the ruling.


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, it has been a while since Sil has broken out those pictures. It's true what they say, the classics never die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's working himself up into a frothing lather. I told you this was gonna happen before the ruling.
Click to expand...


We knew it was going to occur but I didn't even dream it would reach this type of silliness. Now the Duggars and Tar Heel Republicans are being folded into conspiracy batter.


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, it has been a while since Sil has broken out those pictures. It's true what they say, the classics never die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's working himself up into a frothing lather. I told you this was gonna happen before the ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We knew it was going to occur but I didn't even dream it would reach this type of silliness. Now the Duggars and Tar Heel Republicans are being folded into conspiracy batter.
Click to expand...


Don't forget the US Postal service, Gallup polling and InTouch magazine.


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, it has been a while since Sil has broken out those pictures. It's true what they say, the classics never die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's working himself up into a frothing lather. I told you this was gonna happen before the ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We knew it was going to occur but I didn't even dream it would reach this type of silliness. Now the Duggars and Tar Heel Republicans are being folded into conspiracy batter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't forget the US Postal service, Gallup polling and InTouch magazine.
Click to expand...


And Oprah, the APA, the Ferguson Riots...

The list of batshit seems to be endless.


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of what you posted support or even allege that all polling agencies that show majority support for same sex marriage have been 'infiltrated by homosexuals' and now produce false polling numbers as part of a vast international conspiracy dating back to the 60s....
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bothersome path of logic -I doubt that he said ALL relative polls - however my take on the issue , one which I'd hoped you'd have been able to grasp from of the data I posted  is that mass media manipulation and circumvention of free speech have lead to the results in these polls ....  the masses are sheeple and you are among the sheep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He cited polls that show support for same sex marriage. The defining characteristic of his 'infiltrated by homosexuals and reporting false data' conspiracy....was the polling results. Any that contradicted him on support for same sex marriage got rolled into that steaming pile of batshit.
> 
> Which is what conspiracy theorists do. Well, them and the mentally ill. That's a pair of Venn diagrams that's far closer to a circle than either group would like to admit. As he can't factually support his claim. Nor can you.
> 
> As I said....that's only a strong argument for medication. Not for the abolishment of same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

If you'd care to post a link to the post in question I'd be glad to offer my opinion, in the interim  I'll with hold judgement being that only one side of the argument is being presented.

Now so far as Opinion Polls are concerned in general - I personally do not have much respect for them - as different organizations or groups can ask the same questions to roughly the same demographic and quite frequently deliver results that are far apart.

There's a Gallup Poll from 2011 that  produced the following results.

U.S. adults estimated that 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian.

52% of American Adults estimate that at least one in five Americans are gay or lesbian

  35% estimate that more than one in four are.

  Few put the figure at less than 15%.

The factual reality based statistics are that no more than  4% of the U.S. population is Gay or Lesbian.

Gross over representation and coverage by the Media, both in Entertainment Fiction {Soaps, Sitcoms, Movies..} as well as massive propaganda and slanted News coverage leaves the sheeple with a distorted World View.


----------



## Skylar

GreenBean said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of what you posted support or even allege that all polling agencies that show majority support for same sex marriage have been 'infiltrated by homosexuals' and now produce false polling numbers as part of a vast international conspiracy dating back to the 60s....
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bothersome path of logic -I doubt that he said ALL relative polls - however my take on the issue , one which I'd hoped you'd have been able to grasp from of the data I posted  is that mass media manipulation and circumvention of free speech have lead to the results in these polls ....  the masses are sheeple and you are among the sheep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He cited polls that show support for same sex marriage. The defining characteristic of his 'infiltrated by homosexuals and reporting false data' conspiracy....was the polling results. Any that contradicted him on support for same sex marriage got rolled into that steaming pile of batshit.
> 
> Which is what conspiracy theorists do. Well, them and the mentally ill. That's a pair of Venn diagrams that's far closer to a circle than either group would like to admit. As he can't factually support his claim. Nor can you.
> 
> As I said....that's only a strong argument for medication. Not for the abolishment of same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you'd care to post a link to the post in question I'd be glad to offer my opinion, in the interim  I'll with hold judgement being that only one side of the argument is being presented.
Click to expand...


Your opinion simply isn't that valuable to me.


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, it has been a while since Sil has broken out those pictures. It's true what they say, the classics never die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's working himself up into a frothing lather. I told you this was gonna happen before the ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We knew it was going to occur but I didn't even dream it would reach this type of silliness. Now the Duggars and Tar Heel Republicans are being folded into conspiracy batter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't forget the US Postal service, Gallup polling and InTouch magazine.
Click to expand...



Links Please.   Me thinks your distorting , slanting and taking out of context.  I do of course realize you are Liberal Sheeple and can't help yourself - the Truth is your enemy - But I would like to see where you're taking all this from,  being that the person in question is not around to defend themselves.


----------



## Skylar

GreenBean said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, it has been a while since Sil has broken out those pictures. It's true what they say, the classics never die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's working himself up into a frothing lather. I told you this was gonna happen before the ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We knew it was going to occur but I didn't even dream it would reach this type of silliness. Now the Duggars and Tar Heel Republicans are being folded into conspiracy batter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't forget the US Postal service, Gallup polling and InTouch magazine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Links Please.   Me thinks your distorting , slanting and taking out of context.  I do of course realize you are Liberal Sheeple and can't help yourself - the Truth is your enemy - But I would like to see where you're taking all this from,  being that the person in question is not around to defend themselves.
Click to expand...


Nope. If you want to see Sil's posts, look them up. I genuinely don't care what you think on the issue. As nothing you've posted has any relevance to what we're discussing.


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of what you posted support or even allege that all polling agencies that show majority support for same sex marriage have been 'infiltrated by homosexuals' and now produce false polling numbers as part of a vast international conspiracy dating back to the 60s....
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bothersome path of logic -I doubt that he said ALL relative polls - however my take on the issue , one which I'd hoped you'd have been able to grasp from of the data I posted  is that mass media manipulation and circumvention of free speech have lead to the results in these polls ....  the masses are sheeple and you are among the sheep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He cited polls that show support for same sex marriage. The defining characteristic of his 'infiltrated by homosexuals and reporting false data' conspiracy....was the polling results. Any that contradicted him on support for same sex marriage got rolled into that steaming pile of batshit.
> 
> Which is what conspiracy theorists do. Well, them and the mentally ill. That's a pair of Venn diagrams that's far closer to a circle than either group would like to admit. As he can't factually support his claim. Nor can you.
> 
> As I said....that's only a strong argument for medication. Not for the abolishment of same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you'd care to post a link to the post in question I'd be glad to offer my opinion, in the interim  I'll with hold judgement being that only one side of the argument is being presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion simply isn't that valuable to me.
Click to expand...

TRANSLATED - You're lying *AGAIN* - {Just as I thought} and are unable to back up your befuddled banter.


----------



## Skylar

GreenBean said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of what you posted support or even allege that all polling agencies that show majority support for same sex marriage have been 'infiltrated by homosexuals' and now produce false polling numbers as part of a vast international conspiracy dating back to the 60s....
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bothersome path of logic -I doubt that he said ALL relative polls - however my take on the issue , one which I'd hoped you'd have been able to grasp from of the data I posted  is that mass media manipulation and circumvention of free speech have lead to the results in these polls ....  the masses are sheeple and you are among the sheep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He cited polls that show support for same sex marriage. The defining characteristic of his 'infiltrated by homosexuals and reporting false data' conspiracy....was the polling results. Any that contradicted him on support for same sex marriage got rolled into that steaming pile of batshit.
> 
> Which is what conspiracy theorists do. Well, them and the mentally ill. That's a pair of Venn diagrams that's far closer to a circle than either group would like to admit. As he can't factually support his claim. Nor can you.
> 
> As I said....that's only a strong argument for medication. Not for the abolishment of same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you'd care to post a link to the post in question I'd be glad to offer my opinion, in the interim  I'll with hold judgement being that only one side of the argument is being presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion simply isn't that valuable to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TRANSLATED - You're lying *AGAIN* - {Just as I thought} and are unable to back up your befuddled banter.
Click to expand...


Nope. I just don't care what you think on the matter. And I have no interest in looking up anything to get your take on it. As you have yet to post once in a manner relevant to what we're discussing.


----------



## GreenBean

If you want to discuss polls -here's one for you 

*Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings  -    82.1% Say NO *

*, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA*


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bothersome path of logic -I doubt that he said ALL relative polls - however my take on the issue , one which I'd hoped you'd have been able to grasp from of the data I posted  is that mass media manipulation and circumvention of free speech have lead to the results in these polls ....  the masses are sheeple and you are among the sheep
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He cited polls that show support for same sex marriage. The defining characteristic of his 'infiltrated by homosexuals and reporting false data' conspiracy....was the polling results. Any that contradicted him on support for same sex marriage got rolled into that steaming pile of batshit.
> 
> Which is what conspiracy theorists do. Well, them and the mentally ill. That's a pair of Venn diagrams that's far closer to a circle than either group would like to admit. As he can't factually support his claim. Nor can you.
> 
> As I said....that's only a strong argument for medication. Not for the abolishment of same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you'd care to post a link to the post in question I'd be glad to offer my opinion, in the interim  I'll with hold judgement being that only one side of the argument is being presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion simply isn't that valuable to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TRANSLATED - You're lying *AGAIN* - {Just as I thought} and are unable to back up your befuddled banter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. I just don't care what you think on the matter. And I have no interest in looking up anything to get your take on it. As you have yet to post once in a manner relevant to what we're discussing.
Click to expand...

TRANSLATED - You're lying *AGAIN*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

GreenBean said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, it has been a while since Sil has broken out those pictures. It's true what they say, the classics never die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's working himself up into a frothing lather. I told you this was gonna happen before the ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We knew it was going to occur but I didn't even dream it would reach this type of silliness. Now the Duggars and Tar Heel Republicans are being folded into conspiracy batter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't forget the US Postal service, Gallup polling and InTouch magazine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Links Please.   Me thinks your distorting , slanting and taking out of context.  I do of course realize you are Liberal Sheeple and can't help yourself - the Truth is your enemy - But I would like to see where you're taking all this from,  being that the person in question is not around to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Conservatives have zero sense of humor.


----------



## Skylar

GreenBean said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> He cited polls that show support for same sex marriage. The defining characteristic of his 'infiltrated by homosexuals and reporting false data' conspiracy....was the polling results. Any that contradicted him on support for same sex marriage got rolled into that steaming pile of batshit.
> 
> Which is what conspiracy theorists do. Well, them and the mentally ill. That's a pair of Venn diagrams that's far closer to a circle than either group would like to admit. As he can't factually support his claim. Nor can you.
> 
> As I said....that's only a strong argument for medication. Not for the abolishment of same sex marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd care to post a link to the post in question I'd be glad to offer my opinion, in the interim  I'll with hold judgement being that only one side of the argument is being presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion simply isn't that valuable to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TRANSLATED - You're lying *AGAIN* - {Just as I thought} and are unable to back up your befuddled banter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. I just don't care what you think on the matter. And I have no interest in looking up anything to get your take on it. As you have yet to post once in a manner relevant to what we're discussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TRANSLATED - You're lying *AGAIN*
Click to expand...


Nope. You're jumping into the middle of a long conversation. The folks who have been part of the conversation know what's been said. Its not my responsibility to bring you up to speed on it. Go back and read if you want. Don't read if you don't want. 

No one really gives a shit as you have nothing relevant to offer on the topic.


----------



## GreenBean

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> zero sense of humor.


Thank You Clayton :>  I'm glad to see that you agree with me - The Panda Bear is a Liar.

Just curious why you are not quoting constitutional Law in this instance, being that you try to present yourself as being some type of authority - could it possibly be because the Constitution can not be miscontrued and discombobulated to support the Liberal Narrative on this matter ?


----------



## Skylar

GreenBean said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> zero sense of humor.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You Clayton :>  I'm glad to see that you agree with me - The Panda Bear is a Liar.
> 
> Just curious why you are not quoting constitutional Law in this instance, being that you try to present yourself as being some type of authority - could it possibly be because the Constitution can not be miscontrued and discombobulated to support the Liberal Narrative on this matter ?
Click to expand...


Whatever. You know where to find the conversation if you want to read it. And how few fucks there are to give if you don't. 

Ignore as you will. No one really cares.


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> Its not my responsibility to bring you up to speed on it.


Beg to differ Slick - you made an accusation against my Allie - *the Burden of proof lies with you * - put up or shut up pal-e-boy. .


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> No one really cares.


Speak for yourself numb nutz


----------



## dblack

GreenBean said:


> If you want to discuss polls -here's one for you
> 
> *Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings  -    82.1% Say NO *
> 
> *, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA*


You clearly haven't been paying attention.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are not businesses and businesses are not churches. The rules are different. Don't like it, get a large enough coalition to change the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> Christians cannot be hamstrung in the free market by a competing cult seeking to force them to abdicate their faith in order to enable the church of butt-sex "getting married"...(instituting a brand new and majority-repugnant idea of fatherless or motherless "marriages").  To do so is a pure violation of individual Christians' 1st Amendment rights.
Click to expand...

No such cultural situation exists.  No, there is no violation of any Christian's constitutional rights.


----------



## JakeStarkey

mdk said:


> Wow, it has been a while since Sil has broken out those pictures. It's true what they say, the classics never die.


I attended the SLC gay pride parade on Sunday.  Very respectful and respectable. Sil must live in a hell hole in South America or Indiana.


----------



## mdk

JakeStarkey said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, it has been a while since Sil has broken out those pictures. It's true what they say, the classics never die.
> 
> 
> 
> I attended the SLC gay pride parade on Sunday.  Very respectful and respectable. Sil must live in a hell hole in South America or Indiana.
Click to expand...


Sil lives in a world of her pure imagination.


----------



## JakeStarkey

mdk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, it has been a while since Sil has broken out those pictures. It's true what they say, the classics never die.
> 
> 
> 
> I attended the SLC gay pride parade on Sunday.  Very respectful and respectable. Sil must live in a hell hole in South America or Indiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sil lives in a world of her pure imagination.
Click to expand...

He is attempting to console himself but is failing.  The epic meltdown is not far off.


----------



## mdk

JakeStarkey said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, it has been a while since Sil has broken out those pictures. It's true what they say, the classics never die.
> 
> 
> 
> I attended the SLC gay pride parade on Sunday.  Very respectful and respectable. Sil must live in a hell hole in South America or Indiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sil lives in a world of her pure imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is attempting to console himself but is failing.  The epic meltdown is not far off.
Click to expand...


I truly hope it just an internet meltdown.


----------



## Silhouette

Are you guys bleeding out pages because of this point I made?  Gotta bury this one good.



Skylar said:


> *The 'cult' you've imagined doesn't exist*. There is no 'church of buttsex'. And Christians are held to the same laws as everyone else. If they can arbitrarily ignore any law that they don't like, then we have a religiously based sovereign citizen argument.


 
That is open for debate:


















No need for a "coalition".  The 1st Amendment already exists for 300 million people.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Are you guys bleeding out pages because of this point I made?  Gotta bury this one good.
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The 'cult' you've imagined doesn't exist*. There is no 'church of buttsex'. And Christians are held to the same laws as everyone else. If they can arbitrarily ignore any law that they don't like, then we have a religiously based sovereign citizen argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is open for debate:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need for a "coalition".  The 1st Amendment already exists for 300 million people.
Click to expand...


'Burying it good', huh? Yet another conspiracy. You're just the center of a vast web of intrigue, Sil. 

And since you're lumping millions of gays, yes your 'cult' is quite imaginary.


----------



## mdk

I see Sil is back to the old "you're trying to bury all my pride pictures" shtick again. Too funny.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> I see Sil is back to the old "you're trying to bury all my pride pictures" shtick again. Too funny.


Well just look at the number of ad hominems spamming two pages after I posted it.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> *The 'cult' you've imagined doesn't exist*. There is no 'church of buttsex'. And Christians are held to the same laws as everyone else. If they can arbitrarily ignore any law that they don't like, then we have a religiously based sovereign citizen argument.


That is open for debate.  (Sure, no cult qualities here...nothing to see...move along..  )
















No need for a "coalition" to resist this cult's inroads. The 1st Amendment already exists for 300 million people.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see Sil is back to the old "you're trying to bury all my pride pictures" shtick again. Too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Well just look at the number of ad hominems spamming two pages after I posted it.
Click to expand...


You're offering us a variety of conspiracy theories that you can't possibly back up.  Really batshit stuff.

All while spamming the board with enormous block posts of pictures. What would you expect us to discuss?

Even your reasoning in the pictures is ludicrious: a guy wears rainbow colored underwear......so gays must be a 'cult'? That makes no sense. Nor can you explain it. So you just keep spamming.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Poor Sil, using images that have no mean in the marriage discussion.

He is ignoring all of the genitalia flashing during carnival season.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see Sil is back to the old "you're trying to bury all my pride pictures" shtick again. Too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Well just look at the number of ad hominems spamming two pages after I posted it.
Click to expand...


Your spamming of these photos has nothing to do with churches being forced to marry gays against their wishes. Any churches forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, today? Yeah, didn't think so. I am sure the next response will be some legal poppycock about how individual are actually churches themselves. Which is nothing more than pseudo-legal bullshit you've pulled entirely out of thin air.


----------



## JakeStarkey

. . . out of his butt.

No church has or will be forced to marry homosexuals.


----------



## mdk

JakeStarkey said:


> Poor Sil, using images that have no mean in the marriage discussion.
> 
> He is ignoring all of the genitalia flashing during carnival season.



In the past Sil has marginalized those acts as folks merely celebrating a bacchanal. Sort of like how she tried to marginalize Josh Duggars's sexual assaults as mere "sexual experimentations" between children.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil is inconsistent in equal application of standards.

Of course, she wants to apply unconstitutional standards.


----------



## Silhouette

You're almost there, one more post to go and then I'll copy and paste the pictures onto another post.


----------



## Silhouette

Either the pictures depict cult-like behavior or they don't.  A poster was claiming that LGBT isn't a cult.  Complete with its Messiah, Harvey Milk and guys from NAMBLA like Harry Hay (in the last picture) marching along with them, signs, slogans, certain colors, dogma and heavy evangelizing in public schools and courts, I'd say the LGBT movement is nothing but a cult.  L. Ron Hubbard would be mighty proud.

Trouble is, a cult doesn't get to dictate to the 1st Amendment.


----------



## Silhouette

Either the pictures depict cult-like behavior or they don't. A poster was claiming that LGBT isn't a cult. Complete with its Messiah, Harvey Milk and guys from NAMBLA like Harry Hay (in the last picture) marching along with them, signs, slogans, certain colors, dogma and heavy evangelizing in public schools and courts, I'd say the LGBT movement is nothing but a cult. L. Ron Hubbard would be mighty proud.  You don't want to talk about the pictures because they successfully rebut your claim that LGBT isn't a cult, Skylar.  So (shocker!) you and your work crew heap on the ad hominems as a diversion.  New page.  Get to to work!

Trouble is, a cult doesn't get to dictate to the 1st Amendment.



Skylar said:


> *The 'cult' you've imagined doesn't exist*. There is no 'church of buttsex'. And Christians are held to the same laws as everyone else. If they can arbitrarily ignore any law that they don't like, then we have a religiously based sovereign citizen argument.


That is open for debate. (Sure, no cult qualities here...nothing to see...move along..  )
















No need for a "coalition" to resist this cult's inroads. The 1st Amendment already exists for 300 million people.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Reported for spamming and trolling.  Sil, you have been confounded and astounded by the easy refutation of your nonsense.

Stop spamming.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Reported for spamming and trolling.  Sil, you have been confounded and astounded by the easy refutation of your nonsense.
> 
> Stop spamming.


I think the moderators, like the SCOTUS, can see what's what.  They'll see my pictures posted a couple of pages back.  Then the couple dozen ad hominems you and your sock puppets posted one right after another (they can read the time stamps too you know), in order to bury them.  Then they'll see that I reposted them with fresh text and viola!  They'll act to protect true decorum and free speech here at USMB.  After all, they know who butters their bread.  There is no quicker death at a forum than to ban free speech.  Your form of banning my speech is orchestrated spamming using multiple sock puppets acting 'as one'.  You think it's a loophole.  I think the moderators have see through your loophole.  Proof of the pudding is that the pictures and my post are still loaded on this page.

I know you hate the pictures.  They so clearly show that your movement is, in fact, a CULT.  And it's really, really hard to argue that a cult "has rights" to force Christians to violate their own faith in order to bow to your demigod.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Either the pictures depict cult-like behavior or they don't.



The pictures show at most, 5 people. You imagine they are a 'cult', citing yourself. You imagine all gay people are part of this 'cult', citing a handful of pictures.

Um, no. Being gay is simply a sexual orientation. All the 'cult' nonsense is just you citing you, projecting an imaginary and elaborate set of attributes upon people you don't know nor have ever met.

And failing.



> A poster was claiming that LGBT isn't a cult. Complete with its Messiah, Harvey Milk and guys from NAMBLA like Harry Hay (in the last picture) marching along with them, signs, slogans, certain colors, dogma and heavy evangelizing in public schools and courts, I'd say the LGBT movement is nothing but a cult. L. Ron Hubbard would be mighty proud.



The only one calling Harvey Milk a Messiah...is you. Citing you. Demonstrating the gloriously imaginary nature of your claims, invented by you, citing you, and spammed by you.

And lumping any gay person in with NAMBLA is the height of intellectual dishonesty. As homosexuality and pedophilia have nothing in particular to do with each other. Most pedophiles are straight men.

You're getting desperate, Sil. Your spamming is your tell.



> You don't want to talk about the pictures because they successfully rebut your claim that LGBT isn't a cult, Skylar.  So (shocker!) you and your work crew heap on the ad hominems as a diversion.  New page.  Get to to work!



Save that nothing you posted affirms any 'cult'. You've imagined it as an excuse to spam. A guy in rainbow underwear doesn't prove a 'cult'. And it certainly doesn't prove that all gays are part of it.

Your claims fail a test of both logic and evidence. But in terms of baseless imagination, you hit it right out of the park.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reported for spamming and trolling.  Sil, you have been confounded and astounded by the easy refutation of your nonsense.
> 
> Stop spamming.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the moderators, like the SCOTUS, can see what's what.  They'll see my pictures posted a couple of pages back.
Click to expand...


Sil.....the SCOTUS isn't following your posts. They don't know you exist. You're deluding yourself.



> Then the couple dozen ad hominems you and your sock puppets posted one right after another (they can read the time stamps too you know), in order to bury them.



Sock pupppets? 

ANOTHER conspiracy? You're currently running about a half dozen of them right now. Here's a much simpler explanation than your vast gay conspiracy involving Gallup polling, this message board, InTouch maganzine, the US postal service and Oprah Winfrey:

You're just  wrong.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either the pictures depict cult-like behavior or they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The pictures show at most, 5 people.* You imagine they are a 'cult', citing yourself. You imagine all gay people are part of this 'cult', *citing a handful of pictures*...
Click to expand...

 
Of all the hands, feet, heads and torsos visible whole or in part in those pictures, you see only 5 people?  Either a new pair of glasses or your smoke and mirrors fog machine is malfunctioning...again...  Here's how delusional YOU are (while insisting it is I who is delusional).  You, with the pictures clearly visible at the top of this page (and the next if you spam again) insist there are only "tops" 5 people in all of them.  So you think that even though people can clearly see dozens, if not hundreds of heads, arms, feet torsos etc., you can somehow convince them via repetition of your illusionism that "there are only 5...repeat to yourself.."there...are...only..5..people".

Meanwhile anyone with a search engine can enter in the "images" category, the keywords "gay" "pride" and "parade", hit "enter" on their keyboard and verify independently that there are definitely more than just 5 people involved in promoting the LGBT cult values "on parade" down mainstreet USA.

Would you like me to post more to show I'm telling the truth?  I mean, I've got a limitless supply of them right at my fingertips....oh...wait...right...well, at least "5" of them anyway.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, SCOTUS is not listening to you.  Does not know, and does not care, that you exist.  Admin and mods do know you exist.  You are a cult of 1, and SCOTUS is about to slam break your hopes.  I hope those care about you have intervention planned for  you when you go nuts.

Stop spamming.  Follow the rules.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either the pictures depict cult-like behavior or they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The pictures show at most, 5 people.* You imagine they are a 'cult', citing yourself. You imagine all gay people are part of this 'cult', *citing a handful of pictures*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of all the hands, feet, heads and torsos visible whole or in part in those pictures, you see only 5 people?
Click to expand...


And you assume that a viewer of a parade is a 'cult member'? That's just more imaginary nonsense. Again, your entire conspiracy addled argument is merely your imagination backed by nothing.

You can't establish anything you've said. A guy in rainbow underwear doesn't factually establish a 'cult'. It factually establishes a guy in rainbow underwear. Everything else you've invented.

And you have no idea what you're talking about.



> Either a new pair of glasses or your smoke and mirrors fog machine is malfunctioning...again...  Here's how delusional YOU are (while insisting it is I who is delusional).



Oh, you're batshit crazy. You have about half a dozen absolutely absurd conspiracies running, the nuttiest as follows:

1) That the Supreme Court is following your posts and threads on this board.

2) That the North Carolina GOP is trying to get gay marriage legalized nation wide by scaring the Supreme Court

3) That Gallup and every other polling that shows support for same sex marriage has been 'infiltrated by homosexuals' and is now actively falsifying its polling data. 

4) That the posters that are contradicting you on this board are all 'paid gay bloggers'.

5) That a guy in rainbow underwear demonstrates a 'cult' that all gay people are a part of. 

6) That Oprah Winfrey is part of a vast international gay conspiracy that dates back to the 1960s, and that she intentionally outed the Duggar's oldest a child molester to influence the Supreme Court. 

And you can't factually back any of it. Not even a little. And yet you believe. 

That's crazy.


----------



## Silhouette

You buried the last page before I could answer Skylar..

Had you read this, you wouldn't need to ask how this photo represents a cult.

For instance...the cult sports more than 5 people in this shot of a gay pride parade.  Oh, look, the boyscouts are just behind that nearly naked gay guy wearing the bright red banana-hammock.

Let's see:

1. Cults have certain banners...check.

2. They like to recruit youngsters....check..

3. They seek to normalize their deviant mindset in the eyes of society....check.

4. They persecute defectors....check (thread title)






Imagine coming from just a 100 years ago, or even 25 years ago forward into present time and seeing this display.

There is such a thing as too much change in human societies.  When a trend takes off like wildfire with a few fanning the flames vigorously, while others are trying to resist it, you'd better examine it under the lense of it being a cult, before you write it off as "normal evolution of society"...


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> For instance...the cult sports more than 5 people in this shot of a gay pride parade.  Oh, look, the boyscouts are just behind that nearly naked gay guy wearing the bright red banana-hammock.



And how does that establish a 'cult'? The only thing the picture demonstrates is a a guy in socks and red underwear.


----------



## mdk




----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> You buried the last page before I could answer Skylar..



And by 'buried' you mean simply replying to your posts?

Dude, when even replying to your posts is folded into your conspiracy, you're just drowning in batshit.



> Had you read this, you wouldn't need to ask how this photo represents a cult.
> For instance...the cult sports more than 5 people in this shot of a gay pride parade. Oh, look, the boyscouts are just behind that nearly naked gay guy wearing the bright red banana-hammock.
> 
> Let's see:
> 
> 1. Cults have certain banners...check.
> 
> 2. They like to recruit youngsters....check..
> 
> 3. They seek to normalize their deviant mindset in the eyes of society....check.
> 
> 4. They persecute defectors....check (thread title)



You do realize that you made that entire list up, right? You're literally offering your imagination as evidence of your imagination. 

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail.


----------



## Silhouette

Pictures are worth 1,000 words.  That's why you hate them so much.  There's nothing left to the imagination.  It's all there on its face: De facto, a CULT.

There's just no way around it.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Pictures are worth 1,000 words.



You still run into the same conspiracy killing problem you always do: a picture of a guy in rainbow underwear doesn't factually establish a 'cult'. It factually establish a guy in rainbow underwear.

All the rest, including your list of what a cult is.....is just your imagination. Citing you.

And you're nobody. Well, you're a serial spammer. But beyond that, not much.


----------



## Silhouette

The legal quesiton of this thread is "should a cult be able to squelch people's freedom of religion that requires them to resist that cult's behavioral values".  I assert the answer is no, and I cite the 1st Amendment.  You insisted my premise was "wrong"...that LGBT isn't a cult.  And I just schooled you with pictures, proving I'm right.  And now you're mad about that and resorting to ad hominems.

That's the essence of what's going on here.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> The legal quesiton of this thread is "should a cult be able to squelch people's freedom of religion that requires them to resist that cult's behavioral values".



Which might have some relevance if we were discussing a cult or the violation of religious freedoms. Alas, neither is true. No church is required to perform any wedding they don't want to.



> I assert the answer is no, and I cite the 1st Amendment.  You insisted my premise was "wrong"...that LGBT isn't a cult.  And I just schooled you with pictures, proving I'm right.  And now you're mad about that and resorting to ad hominems.



Your only source for your claims is you. I'm simply demonstrating that your source is insuffecient to carry your argument. As you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Seawytch

mdk said:


>



I'll eat your SPAM, I love it!


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Silhouette We don't need the same photographs posted over and over.  Everyone gets the point.


----------



## Silhouette

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Silhouette We don't need the same photographs posted over and over.  Everyone gets the point.


They aren't the same pictures.   I'll post different ones each time then.  That will drive the point home even harder.

And BTW, Skylar and all the rest have not "gotten the point" because they're still insisting LGBT isn't a cult.  When they challenge me, the pictures go back up.  There's no nudity so unless you're going to squelch free speech and insist that people's pictures in their signatures, for example, that pop up on every post they make "have to go because people got the point already" you're going to have to allow mine every once in awhile..

Not having free speech here "for just some" might look like the conservatives have a point about the lack of equality in Constitutional free speech the left is insisting on...with an iron fist.  I mean do you realize your post could actually be a thread topic in itself?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette We don't need the same photographs posted over and over.  Everyone gets the point.
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't the same pictures.   I'll post different ones each time then.  That will drive the point home even harder.
> 
> And BTW, Skylar and all the rest have not "gotten the point" because they're still insisting LGBT isn't a cult.
Click to expand...


How does a picture of a guy in rainbow underwear establish a 'cult'? All it factually establishes is a guy in rainbow underwear.

Your 'cult' is merely your imagination.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Silhouette said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette We don't need the same photographs posted over and over.  Everyone gets the point.
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't the same pictures.
Click to expand...


Really?  Because over the last six pages I've counted five posts of your with the exact same photographs.  That constitutes spamming, so you can stop now.


----------



## Seawytch

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette We don't need the same photographs posted over and over.  Everyone gets the point.
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't the same pictures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Because over the last six pages I've counted five posts of your with the exact same photographs.  That constitutes spamming, so you can stop now.
Click to expand...


And there's never any girl on girl in any of them!


----------



## Silhouette

How is it that a cult gets to dictate to the rest of America if they can have freedom of religion or not?   The burden is upon the gay pride paraders to prove to the world they are not a collection of deviant behaviors.  There's the lipstick lesbian problem too.  That is to say, the problem of closeted heterosexuality under the LGBT umbrella. 

How can an incomplete grouping of shifting and misunderstood behaviors get special legal protection as a static "class" and use that protection to force Christians to abdicate the mandate, the mortal sins described in Jude 1 of the New Testament?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> How is it that a cult gets to dictate to the rest of America if they can have freedom of religion or not?



What 'cult'? Remember, you simply calling gays names doesn't actually translate into a 'cult'. It merely reveals your mindset. 

And you're confused. Its the State PA laws which define what actions are permissible in business. Not any imaginary 'cult'. 



> The burden is upon the gay pride paraders to prove to the world they are not a collection of deviant behaviors.  There's the lipstick lesbian problem too.  That is to say, the problem of closeted heterosexuality under the LGBT umbrella.



They're under no obligation to do such thing. You've imagined it.


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette We don't need the same photographs posted over and over.  Everyone gets the point.
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't the same pictures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Because over the last six pages I've counted five posts of your with the exact same photographs.  That constitutes spamming, so you can stop now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there's never any girl on girl in any of them!
Click to expand...


The best girl on girl is probably not suitable for the Pride Parade. I've seen some things at the Folsom St. leather fair that I'd like to unsee.


----------



## Seawytch

Skylar said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette We don't need the same photographs posted over and over.  Everyone gets the point.
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't the same pictures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Because over the last six pages I've counted five posts of your with the exact same photographs.  That constitutes spamming, so you can stop now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there's never any girl on girl in any of them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The best girl on girl is probably not suitable for the Pride Parade. I've seen some things at the Folsom St. leather fair that I'd like to unsee.
Click to expand...


As have I. Some people simply should not wear assless chaps. 

And yes, the BEST girl on girl is appropriate for, well no where if you're doing it right, but Sil never posts pics of the chicks just the dudes.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> How is it that a cult gets to dictate to the rest of America if they can have freedom of religion or not?


 


> The burden is upon the gay pride paraders to prove to the world they are not a collection of deviant behaviors. There's the lipstick lesbian problem too. That is to say, the problem of closeted heterosexuality under the LGBT umbrella.





Skylar said:


> They're under no obligation to do such thing. You've imagined it...  What 'cult'? Remember, you simply calling gays names doesn't actually translate into a 'cult'. It merely reveals your mindset.
> 
> And you're confused. Its the State PA laws which define what actions are permissible in business. Not any imaginary 'cult'.


 
All people have to do is google "gay pride parade" in "images" to see exactly, without a single word needed, what cult I'm talking about.

And yes, anyone who seeks to dictate to states that their majorities have to accept the repugnant idea of redacting the word "marriage" to newly mean "fatherless or motherless society-sanctioned/incentivized formative environment" to kids, bears the burden of proof.  Prove up or shut up.  Either show how the thousands of gay pride parade pictures do not depict a de facto cult or go home.  Cults don't get special class status and they certainly don't get to tell 300 million Americans that they no longer enjoy the 1st Amendment protection they always have; that millions of men and women spilled their blood dying to defend and uphold since our nation's birth.

The burden is upon you my friend...oh, yes it is!

Show me how vv THIS vv has a "right" to tell Christians to violate their faith.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that a cult gets to dictate to the rest of America if they can have freedom of religion or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The burden is upon the gay pride paraders to prove to the world they are not a collection of deviant behaviors. There's the lipstick lesbian problem too. That is to say, the problem of closeted heterosexuality under the LGBT umbrella.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're under no obligation to do such thing. You've imagined it...  What 'cult'? Remember, you simply calling gays names doesn't actually translate into a 'cult'. It merely reveals your mindset.
> 
> And you're confused. Its the State PA laws which define what actions are permissible in business. Not any imaginary 'cult'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All people have to do is google "gay pride parade" in "images" to see exactly, without a single word needed, what cult I'm talking about.
Click to expand...


And how does a picture of a guy in rainbow underwear demonstrate a 'cult'? It obviously doesn't. Its evidence of nothing more than a guy in rainbow underwear.

You've imagined your cult, you've imagined your 'they have banners!' definition of a cult, just like you've imagined a litany of batshit conspiracies regarding gays.

And your imagination is meaningless.

Try again.


----------



## Seawytch

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that a cult gets to dictate to the rest of America if they can have freedom of religion or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The burden is upon the gay pride paraders to prove to the world they are not a collection of deviant behaviors. There's the lipstick lesbian problem too. That is to say, the problem of closeted heterosexuality under the LGBT umbrella.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're under no obligation to do such thing. You've imagined it...  What 'cult'? Remember, you simply calling gays names doesn't actually translate into a 'cult'. It merely reveals your mindset.
> 
> And you're confused. Its the State PA laws which define what actions are permissible in business. Not any imaginary 'cult'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All people have to do is google "gay pride parade" in "images" to see exactly, without a single word needed, what cult I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how does a picture of a guy in rainbow underwear demonstrate a 'cult'? It obviously doesn't. Its evidence of nothing more than a guy in rainbow underwear.
> 
> You've imagined your cult, you've imagined your 'they have banners!' definition of a cult, just like you've imagined a litany of batshit conspiracies regarding gays.
> 
> And your imagination is meaningless.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


Banners define a cult? I guess I'm retired from the military cult?


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that a cult gets to dictate to the rest of America if they can have freedom of religion or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The burden is upon the gay pride paraders to prove to the world they are not a collection of deviant behaviors. There's the lipstick lesbian problem too. That is to say, the problem of closeted heterosexuality under the LGBT umbrella.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're under no obligation to do such thing. You've imagined it...  What 'cult'? Remember, you simply calling gays names doesn't actually translate into a 'cult'. It merely reveals your mindset.
> 
> And you're confused. Its the State PA laws which define what actions are permissible in business. Not any imaginary 'cult'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All people have to do is google "gay pride parade" in "images" to see exactly, without a single word needed, what cult I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how does a picture of a guy in rainbow underwear demonstrate a 'cult'? It obviously doesn't. Its evidence of nothing more than a guy in rainbow underwear.
> 
> You've imagined your cult, you've imagined your 'they have banners!' definition of a cult, just like you've imagined a litany of batshit conspiracies regarding gays.
> 
> And your imagination is meaningless.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Banners define a cult? I guess I'm retired from the military cult?
Click to expand...


Who knew, right?


----------



## Silhouette

Gonna address this post or keep spamming?



Silhouette said:


> How is it that a cult gets to dictate to the rest of America if they can have freedom of religion or not?





> The burden is upon the gay pride paraders to prove to the world they are not a collection of deviant behaviors. There's the lipstick lesbian problem too. That is to say, the problem of closeted heterosexuality under the LGBT umbrella.





Skylar said:


> They're under no obligation to do such thing. You've imagined it... What 'cult'? Remember, you simply calling gays names doesn't actually translate into a 'cult'. It merely reveals your mindset.
> And you're confused. Its the State PA laws which define what actions are permissible in business. Not any imaginary 'cult'.


All people have to do is google "gay pride parade" in "images" to see exactly, without a single word needed, what cult I'm talking about.

And yes, anyone who seeks to dictate to states that their majorities have to accept the repugnant idea of redacting the word "marriage" to newly mean "fatherless or motherless society-sanctioned/incentivized formative environment" to kids, bears the burden of proof. Prove up or shut up. *Either show how the thousands of gay pride parade pictures do not depict a de facto cult or go home. Cults don't get special class status and they certainly don't get to tell 300 million Americans that they no longer enjoy the 1st Amendment protection they always have*; that millions of men and women spilled their blood dying to defend and uphold since our nation's birth.

The burden is upon you my friend...oh, yes it is!

*Show me how vv THIS vv has a "right" to tell Christians to violate their faith*.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No one has been able to show that churches have to celebrate gay marriages.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ROFLMNAO!

The problem the Cult has with the Photos of the Cult being the Cult, is THAT it is simply NOT "FAIR" TO THE CULT!

If they are judged by what they are... how will anyone ever be able to accept them for what they are?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

SnakeJarkey said:


> No one has been able to show that churches have to celebrate gay marriages.



Well that's true and just because this thread was started when the Homo-Cult was testing the waters threatening a Chapel, is no reason to believe that any Church was actually forced into doing what they Church recognizes as  an abomination.

Of course, now that North Carolina has passed a law which informs Magistrates that they do not have to perform a ceremony joining to people of the same gender, we see that the momentum has faded and the pendulum is headed back ... with the Left having missed with yet ANOTHER lunge at the heart of America.


----------



## Silhouette

Make that the FAR left.  Most "middles" I know may not voice opposition to gay marriage openly, but they certainly do at the polls. 

November 2014.  'Nuff said.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SnakeJarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has been able to show that churches have to celebrate gay marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's true and just because this thread was started when the Homo-Cult was testing the waters threatening a Chapel, is no reason to believe that any Church was actually forced into doing what they Church recognizes as  an abomination.
> 
> Of course, now that North Carolina has passed a law which informs Magistrates that they do not have to perform a ceremony joining to people of the same gender, we see that the momentum has faded and the pendulum is headed back ... with the Left having missed with yet ANOTHER lunge at the heart of America.
Click to expand...

Thank you for pointing out the law is unnecessary.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette, that was a political election that had little to do with marriage eqaulity.

The real polls say differently as you well know.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> Make that the FAR left.  Most "middles" I know may not voice opposition to gay marriage openly, but they certainly do at the polls.
> 
> November 2014.  'Nuff said.



There's literally no such thing as a moderate Leftist.... one either recognizes, respects, defends and adheres to the principles in nature that govern human behavior, or one does not.

A Moderate, is merely a Leftist, who lacks the courage to commit.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

JakeStarkey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SnakeJarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has been able to show that churches have to celebrate gay marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's true and just because this thread was started when the Homo-Cult was testing the waters threatening a Chapel, is no reason to believe that any Church was actually forced into doing what they Church recognizes as  an abomination.
> 
> Of course, now that North Carolina has passed a law which informs Magistrates that they do not have to perform a ceremony joining to people of the same gender, we see that the momentum has faded and the pendulum is headed back ... with the Left having missed with yet ANOTHER lunge at the heart of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for pointing out the law is unnecessary.
Click to expand...


Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And Thanks again for attempting to force people to accept your deviant behavior... because it gave Americans the third escalating LAND SLIDE ELECTION VICTORY over the forces of Evil.

_Which was nice... . _


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> All people have to do is google "gay pride parade" in "images" to see exactly, without a single word needed, what cult I'm talking about.



The obvious problem with your reasoning being.....a picture of a guy in rainbow underwear doesn't factually establish a 'cult'. It factually establishes a guy in rainbow underwear.

All the 'cult' babble is just your imagination, made up by you quoting yourself.



> And yes, anyone who seeks to dictate to states that their majorities have to accept the repugnant idea of redacting the word "marriage" to newly mean "fatherless or motherless society-sanctioned/incentivized formative environment" to kids, bears the burden of proof.



Nope. No one need do a thing. You're imagining a 'burden' that no one possesses, obligations that no one is obligated to.

If you want to deny rights to gays and lesbians, then the burden of proof is on you. As their rights already exist. They need to do nothing to 'prove' them. As the courts have already long established marriage as a civil right. You'll need a valid reason, a compelling state interest and a valid legislative end to withhold rights. As reaffirmed by the Romer decision.

And your ilk don't have even one of the three. Which might explain why you've lost 44 of 46 federal rulings.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> The problem the Cult has with the Photos of the Cult being the Cult, is THAT it is simply NOT "FAIR" TO THE CULT!
> 
> If they are judged by what they are... how will anyone ever be able to accept them for what they are?



Nope. A picture of a guy in rainbow underwear doesn't factually establish anything but that there was a guy with rainbow underwear. 

All the 'cult' gibberish is your and Sil's made up narrative, citing yourself. Which doesn't define any cult, nor objectively establishes anything.


----------



## Rexx Taylor

Fine, then lets force all Churches to perform marriages between regular white americans and animals. and white hispanics! oh, and aliens from Mars.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette, that was a political election that had little to do with marriage eqaulity.
> 
> The real polls say differently as you well know.



Ah, but you forget........Sil's conspiracy that Gallup and all other polling agencies have been infiltrated by homosexuals to falsify their polling data as part of a vast, international gay conspiracy dating back to the 60s.

Sil can't actually back up any of that batshit. But he clings to his imaginary narraritive when ignoring any polling results that contradict you.

You can't fix stupid.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil has become mentally damaged by this issue.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil has become mentally damaged by this issue.



Big time. Read Sil's goodbye to the board. Look at the litanny of harm his posting obsession about gays costs him. The physical toll. The emotional damage. The damage to his heath.

And then realize that he's more interested in feeding his addiction of attacking gay people than he is his own heath. 

The batshit conspiracy gibberish pale in comparison.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> The problem the Cult has with the Photos of the Cult being the Cult, is THAT it is simply NOT "FAIR" TO THE CULT!
> 
> If they are judged by what they are... how will anyone ever be able to accept them for what they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. A picture of a guy in rainbow underwear doesn't factually establish anything but that there was a guy with rainbow underwear.
Click to expand...


FALSE!  

As it quite literally does establish something beyond what you assert. 

What it factually establishes is the observed disregard for social norms across a much broader scope than just 'adults engaging in private consensual sex'... as do the thousands of other photos referenced in the Sil's citation, which depict the same thing.

And THAT is why the Photos are being so hotly contested.  After all... 

Picture = 1000 words.​


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> ... Look at the litanny of harm his posting obsession about gays costs him. The physical toll. The emotional damage. The damage to his heath.
> 
> And then realize that he's more interested in feeding his addiction of attacking gay people than he is his own heath.
> 
> The batshit conspiracy gibberish pale in comparison.



Yes, because combatting bad ideas equals obsession and obsession equals nefarious intent.

ROFLMNAO!  _You people are helpless._


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> The problem the Cult has with the Photos of the Cult being the Cult, is THAT it is simply NOT "FAIR" TO THE CULT!
> 
> If they are judged by what they are... how will anyone ever be able to accept them for what they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. A picture of a guy in rainbow underwear doesn't factually establish anything but that there was a guy with rainbow underwear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FALSE!
> 
> As it quite literally does establish something beyond what you assert.
> 
> What it factually establishes is the observed disregard for social norms across a much broader scope than just 'adults engaging in private consensual sex'... as do the thousands of other photos referenced in the Sil's citation, which depict the same thing.
Click to expand...


Says you. And nothing you just cited is a 'cult'. You're making this shit up as you go along, citing yourself.

Back in reality, a picture of a guy in rainbow underwear factually establishes a guy in rainbow underwear. All the 'cult' babble is homophobe fan fiction.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Look at the litanny of harm his posting obsession about gays costs him. The physical toll. The emotional damage. The damage to his heath.
> 
> And then realize that he's more interested in feeding his addiction of attacking gay people than he is his own heath.
> 
> The batshit conspiracy gibberish pale in comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because combatting bad ideas equals obsession and obsession equals nefarious intent.
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  _You people are helpless._
Click to expand...


When it costs you your health and damages you personally so much, the physical and emotional toll are too much to bear?

But you are compelled to do it *anyway* even after acknowledging you should stop and recognizing the severe and negative consequences of continuing?

That's at least obsession. And probably a hopeless compulsion.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Says you.



ROFLMNAO!  Oh that is mighty impressive!  

Few adults would attempt the "SAYS YOU!" defense...  and for good reason.  

Most adults are not mentally disturbed.


JakeStarkey said:


> The Cult of Hetero-fascism has Duggar as a poster boy, yet nothing is said to condemn this evil.



LMAO!  Now how precious is _THAT?_

Imagine the unforgivable temerity of a people who would defend viability at the risk of hurting the feelings of the mentally disordered!  And the irony wherein they run to mimic that which they claim is LOSING!

It is sorta _flattering...   
_
Even if it is just some idiotic algorithm running on some 40 year old kid's Dell laptop, in some mom's basement.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> When it costs you your health and damages you personally so much, the physical and emotional toll are too much to bear?



Yeah... fighting evil do take its toll. 

The good news is that Sil is not alone, as God does all the heavy lifting.

It would be nice if even MOST people would pick up the Cross... as that would shut it down pretty quick.

But we are not to question why... our's is but to DO.



Skylar said:


> But you are compelled to do it *anyway*



"Compelled to _Do it Anyway, _despite the cost"... that is the definition of _"Duty"_.  And it's what Americans... DO.

But hey...  In fairness to you, as a Relativist of the Mouthy British Socialist variety, you lack the strength of character to understand anything about Honor... because to understand honor, one must have a sense of objective truth; what it is, where it comes from and the essential nature of such, so there's no way you could  ever possibly come to understand that.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Oh that is mighty impressive!
> 
> Few adults would attempt the "SAYS YOU!" defense...  and for good reason.
Click to expand...


Again, if that's all I'd said, you might have a point. Alas, your omissions don't make all the other refutations of your silly subjective opinnion 



			
				Skylar said:
			
		

> Says you. And nothing you just cited is a 'cult'. You're making this shit up as you go along, citing yourself.
> 
> Back in reality, a picture of a guy in rainbow underwear factually establishes a guy in rainbow underwear. All the 'cult' babble is homophobe fan fiction.



Given that you can't factually establish any of your 'cult' babble, I can understand why you'd omit any mention of it. 

Keep running, Keys. Ignoring what you can't rationally argue against is pretty much all you have left.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Cult of Hetero-fascism has Duggar as a saint with Keys and Sil as high priests; it must be so, for nothing is said to condemn this evil.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it costs you your health and damages you personally so much, the physical and emotional toll are too much to bear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... fighting evil do take its toll.
Click to expand...


Then you're arguing WHY there's a compulsive obsession rather than if there is one.

That's progress of a sort, I suppose.



> The good news is that Sil is not alone, as God does all the heavy lifting.



Whose God? Remember, your conception of God is hopelessly interpretive and inescapably culturally relativistic. There's nothing that mandates that you got it right. In fact, since most religions are mutually exclusive, that means that if any one religion got it right all the others had to be wrong. IWith their followers being little more than self deluded believers in fantasy and fallacy.

*Using the logic of religion, in all likelihood...... you're among the self deluded. *As the odds that of all the conceptions of god in all of history in all the world that YOU happened to get it right are astonishingly slim. Worse......there's no mandate that anyone got it right. Its entirely possible that you all got it wrong. In fact, given that the self deluded are using the *exact* same process of faith and belief that you are now...

...it _probable _that everyone got it wrong. 

So with the overwhelming probability that your idea of 'god' is merely your own self delusion......what 'heavy lifting' could your self delusion do?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> "Compelled to _Do it Anyway, _despite the cost"... that is the definition of _"Duty"_.  And it's what Americans... DO.



Is this anything like your imaginary 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals'? 



> But hey...  In fairness to you, as a Relativist of the Mouthy British Socialist variety, you lack the strength of character to understand anything about Honor... because to understand honor, one must have a sense of objective truth; what it is, where it comes from and the essential nature of such, so there's no way you could  ever possibly come to understand that.



I just don't consider attacking gays to be honorable. Nor do I put much weight in your 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals'.

That's just you wanting to hurt people. And there's nothing honorable in that.

And 'British socialist'? That's remarkably specific. Can you back that up with anything but more of the same imaginary babble that you base all your other subjective assumptions on?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Again, if that's all I'd said



LOL!  That is the preface, thus the foundation of your point, it is invalid... and absurdly, HYSTERICALLY so.  Thus it invalidating ANYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IT.

Have you EVER cracked so much as a Reader's Digest Article on Reason, Logic or the Art of Debate?

The evidence of your would be 'effort' says otherwise.  For instance, it is a mathematical certainty that you've never once stood up in formal debate. 

Understand this: Words mean things.   And when you assert a principle which invalidates opinion, you have just invalidated what it is you're about to do, including any reference you're about to cite. 

See how that works?

But IF you ever DO decide to stand up and assert that drivel in formal debate, PLEASE, PLEASE let me know as I would pay good money to hear that entire hall break out in open laughter. 

And it would serve a valuable purpose, educating at least two generations on what happens when you forget the fundamentals of reason and attempt to engage in an exercise of such.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Whose God?



Does it matter?  

If so, how so?

If not, why not?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whose God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter?
Click to expand...


Well, if your conception of God is inaccurate and there's nothing about a 'first mover' that mandates intentionality, sentience, intelligence, design, uniqueness, goodness, awareness that we exist, or even current existence....

......then your entire basis of reasoning regarding 'god's law' would be meaningless babble. Would it not?

I'd say that's pretty relevant.


----------



## dblack

I realize this thread is just a proxy for homophobes and gay rights activists to duke it out, but that's unfortunate. The actual question raised by the OP - whether churches should be required to follow the law, is worth discussing.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> I realize this thread is just a proxy for homophobes and gay rights activists to duke it out, but that's unfortunate. The actual question raised by the OP - whether churches should be required to follow the law, is worth discussing.



its been discussed. The overwhelmingly consensus is that no, they shouldn't be.


----------



## mdk

It seems Keys isn't finished with his crybaby meltdown yet. What a delight to behold!


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize this thread is just a proxy for homophobes and gay rights activists to duke it out, but that's unfortunate. The actual question raised by the OP - whether churches should be required to follow the law, is worth discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> its been discussed. The overwhelmingly consensus is that no, they shouldn't be.
Click to expand...


It hasn't really. Mostly, this thread has just been you and other gay-rights supporters squaring off agains Keys and other nitwits. No one really talks much about the real issue of first amendment rights and how it fits in with anti-discrimination laws. 

Listen, I'm actually sympathetic to your cause. I have gay friends and I support gay marriage rights. But corporatism is a subtle and corrosive trend. If we don't wake up and fight it, we'll be regretting it soon.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> I just don't consider attacking gays to be honorable.



So what?  You're brain is dysfunctional, disordered.  You suffer a mental disorder which precludes you from being capable of objective reason.

For Pete's sake... you can't even distinguish between a debate of sound public policy and an attack... .

Sil and everyone else here contesting the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, is doing everything we possibly can to PREVENT attacks upon homosexuals.

Yet despite your spending A WEEK DENYING that Normalizing Sexual Abnormality would NEVER affect the means to speak out freely against such, in the US, there you are DEMANDING that speaking out against such IS AN ATTACK UPON SUCH.

Do you realize that there is not a single lucid, coherent, logically valid tenet within the scope of your cult?  That every single point you people stand upon is a LIE. 

And a lie which you defend as CONCRETE TRUTH.  Which... do you further understand that THAT is "Delusion"... and that "Delusion" is that mental disorder that your sexual deviancy presents?

Thus do you further realize, that everything you have said here, DEMONSTRATES that you people are not only NOT NORMAL... but that you're dangerously abnormal?

And do you realize that political cults have historically used dangerously abnormal people to gain power... and no cult has ever used such more prolifically than the Ideological Left... and DO you have any idea what happens to the dangerously abnormal, once the Left finds the power that it craves?

Ya see scamp... people with the power to CHOOSE, aren't known for their acceptance of _inconvenience_... and what do you suppose dangerously abnormal people do best?

That's a lot for you to think about.  Catch up and we'll continue after you embarrass yourself sufficiently with this...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whose God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if your conception of God is inaccurate and there's nothing about a 'first mover' that mandates intentionality, sentience, intelligence, design, uniqueness, goodness, awareness that we exist, or even current existence....
> 
> ......then your entire basis of reasoning regarding 'god's law' would be meaningless babble. Would it not?
> 
> I'd say that's pretty relevant.
Click to expand...


No... it's not.

My conception of God is irrelevant... as God is what God is, without regard to my perspective of God, or anyone else's.

You're the one that is getting caught up in the notion that because different people have different perspective of God that this in some way has a bearing on what or who God is.

Th fact is that God is the answer.  And this is never MORE so, than where the problem is Evil.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> I just don't consider attacking gays to be honorable.


Neo gay dictionary defines "attacking" as: lucid and thoughtful rebuttal to any advancements the cult of LGBT wants to make legal shoehorn inroads into the heart of the majority who find their cult repugnant.

See my signature for details.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

dblack said:


> It hasn't really. Mostly, this thread has just been you and other gay-rights supporters squaring off agains Keys and other nitwits.



Ahhh... How positively sweet!  (Envy is so flattering.)


----------



## JakeStarkey

All the Board is witnessing the death throes of the Cult of Hetero-Fascism with its cult icon, Saint Duggar.  Not one person has condemned his behavior or the overwhelming problem of heteros attacking children.

On this and several other threads, Keys and Sil have been whipped in debate.  Sil becomes every more emotionally fragile and Keys more shrill and verbose.  The latter has trouble following the rules of the CDZ.  He has trouble being civil when he is easily refuted.

That is not going to change.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whose God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if your conception of God is inaccurate and there's nothing about a 'first mover' that mandates intentionality, sentience, intelligence, design, uniqueness, goodness, awareness that we exist, or even current existence....
> 
> ......then your entire basis of reasoning regarding 'god's law' would be meaningless babble. Would it not?
> 
> I'd say that's pretty relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... it's not.
> 
> My conception of God is irrelevant... as God is what God is, without regard to my perspective of God, or anyone else's.
Click to expand...


Yet if God is different than you suppose, and you've been making judgments based on fallacious assumptions....that would have a dramatic impact on the accuracy your perception and the validity of your judgment.

Your assumptions and your conclusions if founded in fallacies, would lack objective validity. As they would be inconsistent with god's *actual* law. Rather than the fallacies that you mistakenly assumed are god's law.

And in all probability, you're following fallacious assumptions and false conceptions. Meaning that that any conclusions you draw from those fallacious assumptoins would in all likelyhood be fallacious.

In which case your entire argument would be wrong. 



> You're the one that is getting caught up in the notion that because different people have different perspective of God that this in some way has a bearing on what or who God is.



Tell us about the Muslims. The validity of their view. And the validity of their judgments. Remembering of course that you've already condemned them as evil.

And demonstrated my point about mutual exclusivity. And just how wrong false assumptions about god can be and how utterly they can invalidate one's conclusions....using your own logic.

Recognizing that you are most likely just as self deluded and just as wrong as they are.



> Th fact is that God is the answer.  And this is never MORE so, than where the problem is Evil.



You can't even definitively describe the attributes of god or establish that that god is good. Or aware of us. Or sentient.

Remember, your logical basis of assumption of god is the first mover argument. And the first mover needs no sentience, no intelligence, no goodness, no intention, no design, not even continued existence. It merely moved first.

You assume design. You assume sentience. You assume goodness, intent, awareness, and continued existence. But in all likelihood.....you're self deluded.  And this using the logic of religion


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't consider attacking gays to be honorable.
> 
> 
> 
> Neo gay dictionary defines "attacking" as: lucid and thoughtful rebuttal to any advancements the cult of LGBT wants to make legal shoehorn inroads into the heart of the majority who find their cult repugnant.
> 
> See my signature for details.
Click to expand...


'Eradicating' homosexuals would be considered an attack by any sense of the word. And you've already described the eradication of homosexuals as a 'responsibility'. 

That's not a 'gay dictionary'. That's just your desire to hurt people. And there's nothing honorable about that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't consider attacking gays to be honorable.
> 
> 
> 
> Neo gay dictionary defines "attacking" as: lucid and thoughtful rebuttal to any advancements the cult of LGBT wants to make legal shoehorn inroads into the heart of the majority who find their cult repugnant.
> 
> See my signature for details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Eradicating' homosexuals would be considered an attack by any sense of the word. And you've already described the eradication of homosexuals as a 'responsibility'.
> 
> That's not a 'gay dictionary'. That's just your desire to hurt people. And there's nothing honorable about that.
Click to expand...

I believe Keys, among others, would happily become an inquisitor in such an eradication program.  Those of that ilk are nothing more than cultural fascists.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if that's all I'd said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  That is the preface, thus the foundation of your point, it is invalid... and absurdly, HYSTERICALLY so.  Thus it invalidating ANYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IT.
Click to expand...


Nope. As you have yet to factually establish any of your 'cult' nonsense. You merely allege it. That's known as 'begging the question' in terms of logical fallacies. Or a baseless expression of subjective personal opinion anywhere else.

You subjective opinion establishes nothing objectively. Remember, you omitting any mention of the truck sized holes in your reasoning doesn't magically make those holes vanish. While you can close your eyes and ignore any mention of the failures of your argument......you can't make anyone else ignore them. 

Worse, you highlight and underline where you know your argument is weakest by what you ignore. You can neither factually establish your own claims, nor refute my dismissal of your personal opinion as establishing anything objective.

All you can do is ignore. Which is why you failed. 



> Have you EVER cracked so much as a Reader's Digest Article on Reason, Logic or the Art of Debate?



Readers Dgest is where you learned to debate? That might explain your over reliance on Appeal to Authority fallacies, Cherry Picking fallacies, Confirmation Bias fallacies, and most recently....the Begging the Question fallacy.

Where you make up babble about 'cults', backed by nothing but your assertion. 

There's no objectively valid standard that is based in logical fallacies. And your standard is based in 4 of them.

No thank you.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't consider attacking gays to be honorable.
> 
> 
> 
> Neo gay dictionary defines "attacking" as: lucid and thoughtful rebuttal to any advancements the cult of LGBT wants to make legal shoehorn inroads into the heart of the majority who find their cult repugnant.
> 
> See my signature for details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Eradicating' homosexuals would be considered an attack by any sense of the word. And you've already described the eradication of homosexuals as a 'responsibility'.
> 
> That's not a 'gay dictionary'. That's just your desire to hurt people. And there's nothing honorable about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe Keys, among others, would happily become an inquisitor in such an eradication program.  Those of that ilk are nothing more than cultural fascists.
Click to expand...


Only if the people he was going to hurt were helpless, defenseless and unprepared. If it required he actually bleed to meet his goals, then nothing would happen save talk. 

Which is exactly what we get now. Its one of the reasons Keys is gloriously irrelevant to this entire process. His subjective opinion has no objective value. And his own moral cowardice and inability to act in accordance with his own beliefs render him practically impotent as well. The results are predictably.....

.....nothing.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize this thread is just a proxy for homophobes and gay rights activists to duke it out, but that's unfortunate. The actual question raised by the OP - whether churches should be required to follow the law, is worth discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> its been discussed. The overwhelmingly consensus is that no, they shouldn't be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It hasn't really. Mostly, this thread has just been you and other gay-rights supporters squaring off agains Keys and other nitwits. No one really talks much about the real issue of first amendment rights and how it fits in with anti-discrimination laws.
Click to expand...


This thread is several hundred pages long. Check again. Its been discussed.


----------



## TemplarKormac

In all the 8,800+ posts on this thread, not one person has made a compelling case for making churches or any other religious institution hold gay weddings. Or are the liberal pols and pundits too afraid of the backlash they would receive? You'll keep poking that sleeping giant, and one day, he'll wake up.


----------



## NYcarbineer

TemplarKormac said:


> In all the 8,800+ posts on this thread, not one person has made a compelling case for making churches or any other religious institution hold gay weddings. Or are the liberal pols and pundits too afraid of the backlash they would receive? You'll keep poking that sleeping giant, and one day, he'll wake up.



There's no great movement to force churches to hold gay weddings.

Churches themselves get religion exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.  That is well established.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> In all the 8,800+ posts on this thread, not one person has made a compelling case for making churches or any other religious institution hold gay weddings. Or are the liberal pols and pundits too afraid of the backlash they would receive? You'll keep poking that sleeping giant, and one day, he'll wake up.



There is a compelling case for making churches accept their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters...but not for the government to do it. Churches will accept gays and lesbians the same way they've accepted interracial marriage, divorce, interfaith marriage, etc...through public opinion. 

It's already happening. *U.S. congregations report major gains in accepting gays and lesbians, racial, ethnic diversity*


----------



## beagle9

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all the 8,800+ posts on this thread, not one person has made a compelling case for making churches or any other religious institution hold gay weddings. Or are the liberal pols and pundits too afraid of the backlash they would receive? You'll keep poking that sleeping giant, and one day, he'll wake up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a compelling case for making churches accept their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters...but not for the government to do it. Churches will accept gays and lesbians the same way they've accepted interracial marriage, divorce, interfaith marriage, etc...through public opinion.
> 
> It's already happening. *U.S. congregations report major gains in accepting gays and lesbians, racial, ethnic diversity*
Click to expand...

Got to throw that racial, ethnic, diversity in there don't ya, because that is the doorway y'all have latched onto isn't it ?


----------



## mdk

TemplarKormac said:


> In all the 8,800+ posts on this thread, not one person has made a compelling case for making churches or any other religious institution hold gay weddings. Or are the liberal pols and pundits too afraid of the backlash they would receive? You'll keep poking that sleeping giant, and one day, he'll wake up.



That is b/c the vast and overwhelming majority of people in this thread do not support churches marrying any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes. Don't let that stop you from nailing yourself to the cross though.


----------



## WorldWatcher

TemplarKormac said:


> In all the 8,800+ posts on this thread, not one person has made a compelling case for making churches or any other religious institution hold gay weddings. Or are the liberal pols and pundits too afraid of the backlash they would receive? You'll keep poking that sleeping giant, and one day, he'll wake up.



Religious Houses of Worship (not just Churches as there are other religions) are not forced by the law to perform interfaith marriages.

Religious Houses of Worship (not just Churches as there are other religions) are not forced by the law to perform interracial marriages.

Religious Houses of Worship (not just Churches as there are other religions) are not forced by the law to perform marriages where one (or both) of the participants are divorced against the dogma of that House of Workship.


Why would it any different?

The pressure to change will come internally, not externally.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> Religious Houses of Worship (not just Churches as there are other religions) are not forced by the law to perform marriages where one (or both) of the participants are divorced against the dogma of that House of Workship.....Why would it any different?...The pressure to change will come internally, not externally....


 
OK, then let's say gay litigants decide to sue each individual member of an entire church for their forced-consent on making that church marry them.  What is a church if membership to it doesn't protect the individual parishoner's right to expression of freedom to religion?  A church without parishoners is merely a building of brick, wood, steel or stone.  The 1st Amendment doesn't say "freedom of church".  It says there's freedom of the practice of one's faith.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> OK, then let's say gay litigants decide to sue each individual member of an entire church for their forced-consent on making that church marry them.



OK, let's say that grasshoppers carried shotguns, then toads wouldn't fuck with them.

Same relevance.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

1. Please don't quote me with your name and

2. Describe for me how individual Christians aren't covered by the 1st Amendment in freedom of daily practice of their faith?


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious Houses of Worship (not just Churches as there are other religions) are not forced by the law to perform marriages where one (or both) of the participants are divorced against the dogma of that House of Workship.....Why would it any different?...The pressure to change will come internally, not externally....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, then let's say gay litigants decide to sue each individual member of an entire church for their forced-consent on making that church marry them.  What is a church if membership to it doesn't protect the individual parishoner's right to expression of freedom to religion?  A church without parishoners is merely a building of brick, wood, steel or stone.  The 1st Amendment doesn't say "freedom of church".  It says there's freedom of the practice of one's faith.
Click to expand...


Individual members of a congregation are not churches themselves. If you don't believe me, stop paying your taxes citing churches are exempt and see how fast you get thrown in jail.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> 1. Please don't quote me with your name and



Typo fixed.



Silhouette said:


> 2. Describe for me how individual Christians aren't covered by the 1st Amendment in freedom of daily practice of their faith?



Not my job.

They are covered, however when that practice (i.e. action) conflicts with a generally applicable law, that does not automatically mean they are exempt from the law.  See Employment Division v. Smith for a more detailed analysis by the SCOTUS.

However a Church (or other Religious House of Worship) as a legal entity is a non-profit corporate entity (see IRS code concerning 503(c) corporations).  As a self-contained legal entity the House of Worship could be sued, that does not mean individual members of the congregation can be sued.  (Whether the would win or loose any given lawsuit depends on the particulars of the case.)

For example my wife owns some Verizon Communications, Inc. stock.  Verizon can be sued as legal entity, however the individual stock holders of the corporation cannot be sued simply because they are shareholders.



>>>>


----------



## TemplarKormac

WorldWatcher said:


> The pressure to change will come internally, not externally.



Then the change will never come. Count on it.


----------



## WorldWatcher

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pressure to change will come internally, not externally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the change will never come. Count on it.
Click to expand...



Never say never, it's a long time.

Presbyterian Church U.S.A. - News Announcements - Presbyterian Church U.S.A. approves marriage amendment

United Methodist Body Votes to Change the Church s Position on Homosexuality by Allowing Clergy to Be Practicing Homosexuals Perform Gay Weddings


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Individual members of a congregation are not churches themselves. If you don't believe me, stop paying your taxes citing churches are exempt and see how fast you get thrown in jail.


  Organizations of people get tax exempt status.  It isn't limited just to churches.

And again, the Constitution says freedom of the exercise of one's faith in religion.  Not "freedom of church".  A church is inseperable from its individual parishoners and vice versa.  Tax status wasn't mentioned in the 1st Amendment.  I think that came later in a federal bylaw.

Just as you cannot legally force a Jew, for any reason whatsoever, to eat pork on a Friday; likewise you cannot force a Christian to enable a "gay wedding".


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individual members of a congregation are not churches themselves. If you don't believe me, stop paying your taxes citing churches are exempt and see how fast you get thrown in jail.
> 
> 
> 
> Organizations of people get tax exempt status.  It isn't limited just to churches.
> 
> And again, the Constitution says freedom of the exercise of one's faith in religion.  Not "freedom of church".  A church is inseperable from its individual parishoners and vice versa.  Tax status wasn't mentioned in the 1st Amendment.  I think that came later in a federal bylaw.
> 
> Just as you cannot legally force a Jew, for any reason whatsoever, to eat pork on a Friday; likewise you cannot force a Christian to enable a "gay wedding".
Click to expand...


Thank goodness their hasn't been a single church forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes. Not one. Individual members are still not churches. Save your imagination, there isn't a single law that recognizes individual people as churches.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Thank goodness *their hasn't been a single church forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes. Not one. Individual members are still not churches*. Save your imagination, there isn't a single law that recognizes individual people as churches.


 
That is the essence of the legal question that will, very soon, becoming before the US Supreme Court.  "Do individual Christians enjoy the rights of the 1st Amendment or do they not".  I'll probably be expecting a lot of Hobby Lobby citations in that one.


----------



## TemplarKormac

WorldWatcher said:


> Never say never, it's a long time.



I'm a Protestant (Southern Baptist). So, like I said. Never. 

Good day, sir.


----------



## WorldWatcher

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never say never, it's a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a Protestant (Southern Baptist). So, like I said. Never.
> 
> Good day, sir.
Click to expand...



I didn't mention a specific religous organization.

Just pressure will come from internally for reform.  You said never.  It may be 50, 75, 100 years but down the road it will be fine.  You many not have to worry about it, but your opinion and "never" are two different things.


>>>>


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness *their hasn't been a single church forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes. Not one. Individual members are still not churches*. Save your imagination, there isn't a single law that recognizes individual people as churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the essence of the legal question that will, very soon, becoming before the US Supreme Court.  "Do individual Christians enjoy the rights of the 1st Amendment or do they not".  I'll probably be expecting a lot of Hobby Lobby citations in that one.
Click to expand...


Where has a church been forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes in the nation? There isn't one. 

Very soon you say? What's the case name?


----------



## TemplarKormac

WorldWatcher said:


> It may be 50, 75, 100 years but down the road it will be fine.



Well, we'll both be dead in 50 or 100 years, so we will never know, will we?


----------



## WorldWatcher

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may be 50, 75, 100 years but down the road it will be fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we'll both be dead in 50 or 100 years, so we will never know, will we?
Click to expand...


Religious organizations are already changing under internal pressure, I already posted links to two mainstream denominations showing that.

You used "never" not I, I already know I'm correct and provided examples.  Kind of hard for you to provide and example of "never".  All  you can express is an opinion and one not based on fact at that.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Thank goodness *their hasn't been a single church forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes. Not one. Individual members are still not churches*. Save your imagination, there isn't a single law that recognizes individual people as churches.





Silhouette said:


> That is the essence of the legal question that will, very soon, becoming before the US Supreme Court. "Do individual Christians enjoy the rights of the 1st Amendment or do they not". I'll probably be expecting a lot of Hobby Lobby citations in that one.





mdk said:


> Where has a church been forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes in the nation? There isn't one.
> 
> Very soon you say? What's the case name?


 
How can you or I either one cite a case name that will be brought in the future?  Christian buildings haven't been sued.  But Christians have, succesfully...so far..


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness *their hasn't been a single church forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes. Not one. Individual members are still not churches*. Save your imagination, there isn't a single law that recognizes individual people as churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the essence of the legal question that will, very soon, becoming before the US Supreme Court. "Do individual Christians enjoy the rights of the 1st Amendment or do they not". I'll probably be expecting a lot of Hobby Lobby citations in that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where has a church been forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes in the nation? There isn't one.
> 
> Very soon you say? What's the case name?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you or I either one cite a case name that will be brought in the future?  Christian buildings haven't been sued.  But Christians have, succesfully...so far..
Click to expand...


Pardon me if I take your predictions with a very small grain of salt. Almost everything you have predicted concerning the courts has been laughably wrong.


----------



## WorldWatcher

mdk said:


> Pardon me if I take your predictions with a very small grain of salt. Almost everything you have predicted concerning the courts has been laughably wrong.




Actually there has been a pretty high correlation to the idea that whatever Sil predicts a court will do, they do the opposite.


>>>>


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness *their hasn't been a single church forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes. Not one. Individual members are still not churches*. Save your imagination, there isn't a single law that recognizes individual people as churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the essence of the legal question that will, very soon, becoming before the US Supreme Court. "Do individual Christians enjoy the rights of the 1st Amendment or do they not". I'll probably be expecting a lot of Hobby Lobby citations in that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where has a church been forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes in the nation? There isn't one.
> 
> Very soon you say? What's the case name?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you or I either one cite a case name that will be brought in the future?  Christian buildings haven't been sued.  But Christians have, succesfully...so far..
Click to expand...


An individual christian isn't a church. You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status. I know you don't recognize a distinction. But the law does. And any rational person could.

You insist they are the same thing. The law doesn't.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> An individual christian isn't a church. You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status. I know you don't recognize a distinction. But the law does. And any rational person could.
> 
> You insist they are the same thing. The law doesn't.


 
I'm thumbing through the Constitution just now and I can't find the part in the 1st Amendment that says "only groups naming a religion with tax exempt status have the right to freedom of religion; individuals practing their faith don't count".  Can you point me to the text you're citing to exempt individuals from the protection of the 1st Amendment?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> An individual christian isn't a church. You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status. I know you don't recognize a distinction. But the law does. And any rational person could.
> 
> You insist they are the same thing. The law doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thumbing through the Constitution just now and I can't find the part in the 1st Amendment that says "only groups naming a religion with tax exempt status have the right to freedom of religion; individuals practing their faith don't count".  Can you point me to the text you're citing to exempt individuals from the protection of the 1st Amendment?
Click to expand...


Can you quote me claiming that individuals are exempt from protection from the 1st amendment? 

Because I'm pretty sure you hallucinated that like you did your batshit conspiracy theory about Gallup polling being 'infiltrated by homosexuals' as part of vast international conspiracy dating back to the 60s.


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pardon me if I take your predictions with a very small grain of salt. Almost everything you have predicted concerning the courts has been laughably wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there has been a pretty high correlation to the idea that whatever Sil predicts a court will do, they do the opposite.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

Maybe then we should say that it's what I predict a court SHOULD do.  I realize pockets get padded and blackmail gets done behind the scenes and overt bias clouds judgment in a way that thwarts the logical process and weight of wisdom in binding and important legal decisions.

In this case I do have Hobby Lobby to point to.  What have you got to point to that outranks Hobby Lobby in the federal appeals system?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pardon me if I take your predictions with a very small grain of salt. Almost everything you have predicted concerning the courts has been laughably wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there has been a pretty high correlation to the idea that whatever Sil predicts a court will do, they do the opposite.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe then we should say that it's what I predict a court SHOULD do. I realize pockets get padded and blackmail gets done behind the scenes and overt bias clouds judgment in a way that thwarts the logical process and weight of wisdom in binding and important legal decisions.
Click to expand...


Can you realize that you've just made up another batshit conspiracy theory that you can't possibly back up?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> An individual christian isn't a church. You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status. I know you don't recognize a distinction. But the law does. And any rational person could.
> 
> You insist they are the same thing. The law doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thumbing through the Constitution just now and I can't find the part in the 1st Amendment that says "only groups naming a religion with tax exempt status have the right to freedom of religion; individuals practing their faith don't count".  Can you point me to the text you're citing to exempt individuals from the protection of the 1st Amendment?
Click to expand...

At least you're consistent in your ignorance of the law.

The First Amendment concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and organizations.

Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.

Absent such legislation, there is no First Amendment 'issue,' there is no controversy for a court to consider, no potential 'violation' of the Free Exercise Clause.

Indeed, this goes directly to the comprehensive idiocy of the thread premise – where it is legally and Constitutionally impossible for government to compel churches through force of law to afford same-sex couples religious marriage rituals, save that of amending the Constitution to repeal the First Amendment; no lawmaker would propose such a ridiculous measure, and no such measure could pass Constitutional muster.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JakeStarkey said:


> Poor Sil, using images that have no mean in the marriage discussion.
> 
> He is ignoring all of the genitalia flashing during carnival season.



Note: Silly is a woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> An individual christian isn't a church. You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status. I know you don't recognize a distinction. But the law does. And any rational person could.
> 
> You insist they are the same thing. The law doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thumbing through the Constitution just now and I can't find the part in the 1st Amendment that says "only groups naming a religion with tax exempt status have the right to freedom of religion; individuals practing their faith don't count".  Can you point me to the text you're citing to exempt individuals from the protection of the 1st Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least you're consistent in your ignorance of the law.
> 
> The First Amendment concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and organizations.
> 
> Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
Click to expand...


No where in the United States was there a jurisdiction seeking to compel Christian bakers to bake cakes; the purpose of which is to celebrate sin... until the Federal Judiciary overturned duly passed legislation signed into law by duly elected chief executives, which forced states into recognizing contracts which the people of those states had vehemently rejected through sound legislative means.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Absent such legislation, ...



There is NO LEGISLATION in: 

Alabama* (Feb. 9, 2015)
Alaska (Oct. 17, 2014)
Arizona (Oct. 17, 2014)
California (June 28, 2013)
Colorado (Oct. 7, 2014)
Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008)
Florida (Jan. 6, 2015)
Idaho (Oct. 13, 2014)
Indiana (Oct. 6, 2014)
Iowa (Apr. 24, 2009)
Kansas (Nov. 12, 2014)
Massachusetts (May 17, 2004)
Montana (Nov. 19, 2014)
Nevada (Oct. 9, 2014)
New Jersey (Oct. 21, 2013)
New Mexico (Dec. 19, 2013)
North Carolina (Oct. 10, 2014)
Oklahoma (Oct. 6, 2014)
Oregon (May 19, 2014)
Pennsylvania (May 20, 2014)
South Carolina (Nov. 20, 2014)
Utah (Oct. 6, 2014)
Virginia (Oct. 6, 2014)
West Virginia (Oct. 9, 2014)
Wisconsin (Oct. 6, 2014)
Wyoming (Oct. 21, 2014)

that allows for anyone to apply to marry a person of their same gender...  So, your argument is a profound deceit.

This entire 900 page thread is prefaced upon the attempt to force a Christian Chapel to marry people of the same gender.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Jarlaxle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Sil, using images that have no mean in the marriage discussion.
> 
> He is ignoring all of the genitalia flashing during carnival season.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: Silly is a woman.
Click to expand...



ROFLMNAO!

*IRONY!  *... _you gotta love it._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pardon me if I take your predictions with a very small grain of salt. Almost everything you have predicted concerning the courts has been laughably wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there has been a pretty high correlation to the idea that whatever Sil predicts a court will do, they do the opposite.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe then we should say that it's what I predict a court SHOULD do.  I realize pockets get padded and blackmail gets done behind the scenes and overt bias clouds judgment in a way that thwarts the logical process and weight of wisdom in binding and important legal decisions.
> 
> In this case I do have Hobby Lobby to point to.  What have you got to point to that outranks Hobby Lobby in the federal appeals system?
Click to expand...


Fantastic point.   

I can't help but to notice that no response has resulted from that point, beyond the usual obscurant deflection... by _the usual suspects_.

Hmm... I wonder what we should make of _THAT?_


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are whipping the dead horse of homo-fascism, guys.

Keys is ignoring both Abraham and Isaac giving their wives to other women in polyandrous situations so they don't get their asses capped.

Gotta love it.


----------



## Silhouette

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> There is NO LEGISLATION in:


 
Alabama* (Feb. 9, 2015)
Alaska (Oct. 17, 2014)
Arizona (Oct. 17, 2014)
California (June 28, 2013)
Colorado (Oct. 7, 2014)
Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008)
Florida (Jan. 6, 2015)
Idaho (Oct. 13, 2014)
Indiana (Oct. 6, 2014)
Iowa (Apr. 24, 2009)
Kansas (Nov. 12, 2014)
Massachusetts (May 17, 2004)
Montana (Nov. 19, 2014)
Nevada (Oct. 9, 2014)
New Jersey (Oct. 21, 2013)
New Mexico (Dec. 19, 2013)
North Carolina (Oct. 10, 2014)
Oklahoma (Oct. 6, 2014)
Oregon (May 19, 2014)
Pennsylvania (May 20, 2014)
South Carolina (Nov. 20, 2014)
Utah (Oct. 6, 2014)
Virginia (Oct. 6, 2014)
West Virginia (Oct. 9, 2014)
Wisconsin (Oct. 6, 2014)
Wyoming (Oct. 21, 2014)



> that allows for anyone to apply to marry a person of their same gender...  So, your argument is a profound deceit.
> 
> This entire 900 page thread is prefaced upon the attempt to force a Christian Chapel to marry people of the same gender.


 
There are but some 12-15 states (lost track awhile ago) that have legal gay marriage.  All the rest do not.  Windsor 2013 awarded E. Windsor money on the premise that states are the only entity allowed to regulate on the specific question of gay marriage.  That was avered 56 times in 26 pages in the Windsor Opinion.  And Windsor said that responsibility and power has existed since the start of our country.

Subsequent lower federal circuit courts who changed that without SCOTUS' permission are in violation of due process of the federal appeals system.  Lower courts are not permitted to overturn a specific finding of law by the SCOTUS...not even in hopeful anticipation that "soon surely SCOTUS will come to its senses!".

All other states have viable bans on any marriage not man/woman.  And for good reasons.  States want homes for kids with both (just) a mother and a father.  So they entice this by tax breaks granted to those applicants who qualify.  No "gay marriage" performed in those states in the interim is legal.  Any gay person having wanted a legal marriage should have moved to a state where it was legal for them to marry.  SCOTUS even named at the end of Windsor 2013's Opinion that gay marriage was/is "only legal in 11 states" as of that writing.  That means, for those slow on the uptake, that by the end of Windsor 2013, the states still had the power.  All of them, on the question of gay marriage or no gay marriage.  And that condition persists until today.

A lower circuit court may not overturn from underneath, erring on the side of stripping states of their democratic rule.  The burden was and is upon the applicants seeking to redact the fundamental meaning of the word "marriage" as it has existed for millenia to mean a bond between a man and woman with the expected result of children who will benefit from that bond.  The burden is not upon society to prove that a word it has understood for thousands of years "has to be changed unless you can otherwise prove it shouldn't be".  Fatherless or motherless children as a sanctioned-institution is all the proof you need to see that the word "marriage' cannot be redacted without harming a very important demographic: children.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Only in your mind, Sil.


----------



## Silhouette

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> There is NO LEGISLATION in:


Alabama* (Feb. 9, 2015)
Alaska (Oct. 17, 2014)
Arizona (Oct. 17, 2014)
California (June 28, 2013)
Colorado (Oct. 7, 2014)
Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008)
Florida (Jan. 6, 2015)
Idaho (Oct. 13, 2014)
Indiana (Oct. 6, 2014)
Iowa (Apr. 24, 2009)
Kansas (Nov. 12, 2014)
Massachusetts (May 17, 2004)
Montana (Nov. 19, 2014)
Nevada (Oct. 9, 2014)
New Jersey (Oct. 21, 2013)
New Mexico (Dec. 19, 2013)
North Carolina (Oct. 10, 2014)
Oklahoma (Oct. 6, 2014)
Oregon (May 19, 2014)
Pennsylvania (May 20, 2014)
South Carolina (Nov. 20, 2014)
Utah (Oct. 6, 2014)
Virginia (Oct. 6, 2014)
West Virginia (Oct. 9, 2014)
Wisconsin (Oct. 6, 2014)
Wyoming (Oct. 21, 2014)


> that allows for anyone to apply to marry a person of their same gender... So, your argument is a profound deceit.
> This entire 900 page thread is prefaced upon the attempt to force a Christian Chapel to marry people of the same gender.


There are but some 12-15 states (lost track awhile ago) that have legal gay marriage. All the rest do not. Windsor 2013 awarded E. Windsor money on the premise that states are the only entity allowed to regulate on the specific question of gay marriage. That was avered 56 times in 26 pages in the Windsor Opinion. And Windsor said that responsibility and power has existed since the start of our country.

Subsequent lower federal circuit courts who changed that without SCOTUS' permission are in violation of due process of the federal appeals system. Lower courts are not permitted to overturn a specific finding of law by the SCOTUS...not even in hopeful anticipation that "soon surely SCOTUS will come to its senses!".

All other states have viable bans on any marriage not man/woman. And for good reasons. States want homes for kids with both (just) a mother and a father. So they entice this by tax breaks granted to those applicants who qualify. No "gay marriage" performed in those states in the interim is legal. Any gay person having wanted a legal marriage should have moved to a state where it was legal for them to marry. SCOTUS even named at the end of Windsor 2013's Opinion that gay marriage was/is "only legal in 11 states" as of that writing. That means, for those slow on the uptake, that by the end of Windsor 2013, the states still had the power. All of them, on the question of gay marriage or no gay marriage. And that condition persists until today.

A lower circuit court may not overturn from underneath, erring on the side of stripping states of their democratic rule. The burden was and is upon the applicants seeking to redact the fundamental meaning of the word "marriage" as it has existed for millenia to mean a bond between a man and woman with the expected result of children who will benefit from that bond. The burden is not upon society to prove that a word it has understood for thousands of years "has to be changed unless you can otherwise prove it shouldn't be". Fatherless or motherless children as a sanctioned-institution is all the proof you need to see that the word "marriage' cannot be redacted without harming a very important demographic: children.


JakeStarkey said:


> Only in your mind, Sil.


 
No, that's how the US federal circuit of appeals actually works Jakey.  SCOTUS is the King Kahuna.  All the other lower courts bow to their precedent.  They all must err on the side of SCOTUS's last spoken word on any specific question of law.  As recent as mere months before the SCOTUS passed its Word on who decides "yes" or "no" on gay marriage.  They said it was the states.  They even used that conclusion to award someone money.  And they reaffirmed at the end of that Saying that "only 11 states" had legal "gay marriage".  That's it.  That's the law.

That may change in a week or two.  But for right now and since the dawn of our country, states have had the say on the actual definition of marriage  (man/woman...& more importantly..father/mother).


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> An individual christian isn't a church. You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status. I know you don't recognize a distinction. But the law does. And any rational person could.
> 
> You insist they are the same thing. The law doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thumbing through the Constitution just now and I can't find the part in the 1st Amendment that says "only groups naming a religion with tax exempt status have the right to freedom of religion; individuals practing their faith don't count".  Can you point me to the text you're citing to exempt individuals from the protection of the 1st Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least you're consistent in your ignorance of the law.
> 
> The First Amendment concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private persons and organizations.
> 
> Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No where in the United States was there a jurisdiction seeking to compel Christian bakers to bake cakes; the purpose of which is to celebrate sin... until the Federal Judiciary overturned duly passed legislation signed into law by duly elected chief executives, which forced states into recognizing contracts which the people of those states had vehemently rejected through sound legislative means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absent such legislation, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is NO LEGISLATION in:
> 
> Alabama* (Feb. 9, 2015)
> Alaska (Oct. 17, 2014)
> Arizona (Oct. 17, 2014)
> California (June 28, 2013)
> Colorado (Oct. 7, 2014)
> Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008)
> Florida (Jan. 6, 2015)
> Idaho (Oct. 13, 2014)
> Indiana (Oct. 6, 2014)
> Iowa (Apr. 24, 2009)
> Kansas (Nov. 12, 2014)
> Massachusetts (May 17, 2004)
> Montana (Nov. 19, 2014)
> Nevada (Oct. 9, 2014)
> New Jersey (Oct. 21, 2013)
> New Mexico (Dec. 19, 2013)
> North Carolina (Oct. 10, 2014)
> Oklahoma (Oct. 6, 2014)
> Oregon (May 19, 2014)
> Pennsylvania (May 20, 2014)
> South Carolina (Nov. 20, 2014)
> Utah (Oct. 6, 2014)
> Virginia (Oct. 6, 2014)
> West Virginia (Oct. 9, 2014)
> Wisconsin (Oct. 6, 2014)
> Wyoming (Oct. 21, 2014)
> 
> that allows for anyone to apply to marry a person of their same gender...  So, your argument is a profound deceit.
Click to expand...


Save of course that that applying to marry someone of the same gender wasn't the legislation that he was referring to. This was:



> Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.



Which you knew when intentionally misrepresented his argument.  As it was the sentence that immediately preceded the one you you cited, so there's no chance of you misunderstanding. And of course when fled from his actual argument which you could neither refute nor even address.

His point that nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples remains uncontested. ANd you won't touch it as we both know he's right.



> This entire 900 page thread is prefaced upon the attempt to force a Christian Chapel to marry people of the same gender.



No, its not. To quote the argument that you ran screaming from and even now refuse to address:

"Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples".

Keep running.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> There are but some 12-15 states (lost track awhile ago) that have legal gay marriage. All the rest do not.



Says you, citing yourself. The Federal Judiciary says otherwise, having overturned state same sex marraige bans in 44 of 46 rulings. Gay marriages were performed in 37 of 50 States, an explicit contradiction of your pseudo-legal gibberish.

Remember, you have no idea what you're talking about.



> Windsor 2013 awarded E. Windsor money on the premise that states are the only entity allowed to regulate on the specific question of gay marriage. That was avered 56 times in 26 pages in the Windsor Opinion. And Windsor said that responsibility and power has existed since the start of our country.



Windsor won her money when the court's found that that state law's affirmation of same sex marriage trumped the federal law's prohibition of same sex marriage. The Windsor court never once found that same sex marriage bans were constitutional. Nor even mentioned them. Which you know. But hope we don't.

The Windsor court found that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.



			
				Windsor v. US said:
			
		

> Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see_, e.g., Loving_ v. _Virginia_, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” _Sosna_ v. _Iowa_, 419 U. S. 393.



*This is a finding from the Windsor ruling that you ignore every time and pretend doesn't exist *as it places constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws. Your willful ignorance doesn't change the Windsor ruling nor the hierarchy of authority established within it:

1) Constitutional Guarantees
2) State Marriage Laws
3) Federal Marriage Laws.

*And every single lower court ruling that overturned state same sex marriage bans did so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.* Making every such ruling perfectly aligned with the Windsor ruling. As no where in the Windsor ruling did it place state marriage laws above judicial review. Or exempt them from constitutional guarantees.

All of which you already know. But again, hope we don't.



> Subsequent lower federal circuit courts who changed that without SCOTUS' permission are in violation of due process of the federal appeals system. Lower courts are not permitted to overturn a specific finding of law by the SCOTUS...not even in hopeful anticipation that "soon surely SCOTUS will come to its senses!".



Obvious nonsense. Again, you simply ignored the passage in the Windsor ruling that placed constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws. And then assume that because ignored that finding of the Windsor court, all lower federal courts are similarly obligated to pretend it doesn't exist.

The Federal courts have no such obligation. *The Windsor ruling places constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws. *And they have since at least 1967. And every lower court ruling overturning state same sex marriage bans was on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.

*Obliterating your argument. *You simply  don't know what you're talking about. While you can choose to ignore any portion of Windsor that you don't like, your willful ignorance has no relevance to the lower courts or the validity of any ruling.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, and Keys, have lost on "Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples".  The judges are the authority to say what states have marriage equality, not the keys or the sils or anybody else.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, and Keys, have lost on "Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples".  The judges are the authority to say what states have marriage equality, not the keys or the sils or anybody else.



Of course they have. Sil refuses to address it. And Keyes intentionally misrepresented Clayton's argument in an attempt to flee from it.

Its an argument that's really difficult to debate....as Clayton is obviously right.

So what else could they do but ignore, lie or flee? Or in Keys case, all three.


----------



## dblack

I'm not interested in the current legal status quo. The operative word here is "should". How do you YOU think the Court should interpret the Constitution. If we're going to have laws forcing merchants or services providers to serve protected classes, why should Churches get a pass? Is the purpose of the First Amendment to give religions special exemptions from laws the rest of us must follow?


----------



## hjmick

No.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Places of worship get a pass.  Businesses are not places of worship.  Next.


----------



## Bleipriester

This would violate the freedom of religion.


----------



## dblack

hjmick said:


> No.


 
a or c?


----------



## dblack

TheOldSchool said:


> Places of worship get a pass.  Businesses are not places of worship.  Next.



Wow, really? Does that go for all laws? Or are we just picking and choosing for convenience sake?


----------



## ABikerSailor

No, churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages if they are against them.

Why?

There are plenty of other churches who will be more than happy to marry them (and get the fee for the wedding).


----------



## dblack

Bleipriester said:


> This would violate the freedom of religion.



I agree. If government approved churches were exempted from the law, it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.


----------



## hjmick

Keeping in mind that I do not consider establishments such as Wedding Chapel Las Vegas Wee Kirk o the Heather to be churches...

These are businesses whose only purpose is to generate revenue and in no way should they fall under the category of churches, mosques or temples...


----------



## hjmick

dblack said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a or c?
Click to expand...


I'll go with "A."


----------



## TheOldSchool

dblack said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Places of worship get a pass.  Businesses are not places of worship.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, really? Does that go for all laws? Or are we just picking and choosing for convenience sake?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting we should remove the protected and tax-exempt status of churches and force them to perform gay weddings?


----------



## dblack

ABikerSailor said:


> No, churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages if they are against them.
> 
> Why?
> 
> There are plenty of other churches who will be more than happy to marry them (and get the fee for the wedding).



Should bakers be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings if they are against them? Why should churches get a pass? If you think that's how the First Amendment should be applied, do you see the problems that introduces? Should churches that believe in human sacrifice get to skip the laws against murder?


----------



## dblack

TheOldSchool said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Places of worship get a pass.  Businesses are not places of worship.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, really? Does that go for all laws? Or are we just picking and choosing for convenience sake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting we should remove the protected and tax-exempt status of churches and force them to perform gay weddings?
Click to expand...


Yep. Anything less amounts to offering special privileges to government-approved religions, which is a direct violation of the First Amendment.


----------



## TheOldSchool

dblack said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Places of worship get a pass.  Businesses are not places of worship.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, really? Does that go for all laws? Or are we just picking and choosing for convenience sake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting we should remove the protected and tax-exempt status of churches and force them to perform gay weddings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Anything less amounts to offering special privileges to government-approved religions, which is a direct violation of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

Okay crazy person.  Good luck with that.


----------



## dblack

TheOldSchool said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Places of worship get a pass.  Businesses are not places of worship.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, really? Does that go for all laws? Or are we just picking and choosing for convenience sake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting we should remove the protected and tax-exempt status of churches and force them to perform gay weddings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Anything less amounts to offering special privileges to government-approved religions, which is a direct violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay crazy person.  Good luck with that.
Click to expand...


Easier than thinking about it. I get it.


----------



## Anathema

Nobody should be forced to associate with anyone they don't want to. No church. No business. No private educational institution. No individual.


----------



## Bleipriester

dblack said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> This would violate the freedom of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. If government approved churches were exempted from the law, it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, they can establish their own religion. Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible.


----------



## ABikerSailor

dblack said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages if they are against them.
> 
> Why?
> 
> There are plenty of other churches who will be more than happy to marry them (and get the fee for the wedding).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should bakers be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings if they are against them? Why should churches get a pass? If you think that's how the First Amendment should be applied, do you see the problems that introduces? Should churches that believe in human sacrifice get to skip the laws against murder?
Click to expand...


Hyperbole much?

And, like I said...............there are plenty of churches who actually have gay ministers and pastors (some of them are even female), I can think of a couple of Episcopalian churches that made the news a couple of years ago over this, and I'm pretty sure they would love to participate in a gay wedding.

BTW dblack..............care to share what churches currently endorse human sacrifice in the United States?

And................fwiw.....................churches have different rules than businesses do, due to their tax exempt and non profit status.


----------



## Derideo_Te

dblack said:


> I'm not interested in the current legal status quo. The operative word here is "should". How do you YOU think the Court should interpret the Constitution. If we're going to have laws forcing merchants or services providers to serve protected classes, why should Churches get a pass? Is the purpose of the First Amendment to give religions special exemptions from laws the rest of us must follow?



Under current law here is where the line is drawn.

1. No, the church cannot be compelled to provide a wedding service for a gay marriage because that would violate the 1st Amendment.

2. If the same church was in the business of renting out their facilities to the public for birthdays, weddings, parties, anniversaries, etc then they would be violating PA laws by refusing to rent it out for a gay wedding.​
That is current law and as it stands I believe that is sufficient for now.

In the future I foresee that many churches will come around to conducting gay weddings and it will be a non-issue for them.

For those churches that don't they will get out of the business of renting out their facilities to the public. 

Finally the world won't come to end because gays can now get legally married.

Much ado about nothing. 

Next?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in the current legal status quo. The operative word here is "should". How do you YOU think the Court should interpret the Constitution. If we're going to have laws forcing merchants or services providers to serve protected classes, why should Churches get a pass? Is the purpose of the First Amendment to give religions special exemptions from laws the rest of us must follow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under current law here is where the line is drawn.
> 
> 1. No, the church cannot be compelled to provide a wedding service for a gay marriage because that would violate the 1st Amendment.
> 
> 2. If the same church was in the business of renting out their facilities to the public for birthdays, weddings, parties, anniversaries, etc then they would be violating PA laws by refusing to rent it out for a gay wedding.​
> That is current law and as it stands I believe that is sufficient for now.
> 
> In the future I foresee that many churches will come around to conducting gay weddings and it will be a non-issue for them.
> 
> For those churches that don't they will get out of the business of renting out their facilities to the public.
> 
> Finally the world won't come to end because gays can now get legally married.
> 
> Much ado about nothing.
> 
> Next?
Click to expand...


Not so fast, the church can ensure that the party they are renting the facility out to is consistent with that particular church's religious faith and mission and they have every right to do so. The moment the homos push this issue the fur will fly, bank it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack put up one of his libertarian screeds on this last week.

Libertarianism is the flip side of communism: neither are American and neither respect the Constitution.


----------



## JakeStarkey

SassyIrishLass said:


> Not so fast, the church can ensure that the party they are renting the facility out to is consistent with that particular church's religious faith and mission and they have every right to do so. The moment the homos push this issue the fur will fly, bank it.


If the state has strong PA law, that will not fly - if it is a marriage hall for profit business, then all have access to it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.


----------



## daws101

TheOldSchool said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Places of worship get a pass.  Businesses are not places of worship.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, really? Does that go for all laws? Or are we just picking and choosing for convenience sake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting we should remove the protected and tax-exempt status of churches and force them to perform gay weddings?
Click to expand...

No matter what churches claim they are businesses and should be taxed. 
Nowhere in the bible does god say thou shall not pay taxes. 
It does say rendered unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.


----------



## daws101

Bleipriester said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> This would violate the freedom of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. If government approved churches were exempted from the law, it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, they can establish their own religion. Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible.
Click to expand...

Absolute bullshit.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> I'm not interested in the current legal status quo. The operative word here is "should". How do you YOU think the Court should interpret the Constitution. If we're going to have laws forcing merchants or services providers to serve protected classes, why should Churches get a pass? Is the purpose of the First Amendment to give religions special exemptions from laws the rest of us must follow?



No.


----------



## Derideo_Te

M14 Shooter said:


> It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.



Assumes facts not in evidence


----------



## daws101

M14 Shooter said:


> It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.


Extremists already keep them from marring.
so WTF are you yammering about?


----------



## PratchettFan

M14 Shooter said:


> It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.



No, it isn't.  It's not going to happen.  And even if some people were silly enough to scream for it, screaming is all that is going to happen.  The courts won't go for it.  Churches are not businesses open to the general public.  They are, in essence, private clubs.


----------



## Ernie S.

dblack said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Places of worship get a pass.  Businesses are not places of worship.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, really? Does that go for all laws? Or are we just picking and choosing for convenience sake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting we should remove the protected and tax-exempt status of churches and force them to perform gay weddings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Anything less amounts to offering special privileges to government-approved religions, which is a direct violation of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

The first amendment is very clear. First the government cannot establish a state religion. Secondly, they cannot enact any legislation that denies anyone the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs.

Government should remain silent on matters of religion.


----------



## daws101

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  It's not going to happen.  And even if some people were silly enough to scream for it, screaming is all that is going to happen.  The courts won't go for it.  Churches are not businesses open to the general public.  They are, in essence, private clubs.
Click to expand...

If that's true then they should stop saying everyone is welcome. 
It implies it's public.


----------



## PratchettFan

daws101 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  It's not going to happen.  And even if some people were silly enough to scream for it, screaming is all that is going to happen.  The courts won't go for it.  Churches are not businesses open to the general public.  They are, in essence, private clubs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's true then they should stop saying everyone is welcome.
> It implies it's public.
Click to expand...


If you want to receive communion in a Catholic church, you have to be a Catholic.  If you want to be baptized in a Lutheran church, you have to be a Lutheran.  Sure, you can come in and watch, but to really take part you have to join.


----------



## Bleipriester

daws101 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> This would violate the freedom of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. If government approved churches were exempted from the law, it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, they can establish their own religion. Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolute bullshit.
Click to expand...

Why?


----------



## daws101

PratchettFan said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  It's not going to happen.  And even if some people were silly enough to scream for it, screaming is all that is going to happen.  The courts won't go for it.  Churches are not businesses open to the general public.  They are, in essence, private clubs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's true then they should stop saying everyone is welcome.
> It implies it's public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to receive communion in a Catholic church, you have to be a Catholic.  If you want to be baptized in a Lutheran church, you have to be a Lutheran.  Sure, you can come in and watch, but to really take part you have to join.
Click to expand...

Really I've taken communion on several occasions and I'm an atheist.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DBLACK SAID:

“I'm not interested in the current legal status quo.”

One of the many failings of 'libertarianism.'

DBLACK SAID:

“If we're going to have laws forcing merchants or services providers to serve protected classes, why should Churches get a pass?”

Because churches are non-profit entities that are not considered part of the local marketplace, consequently they don't meet the criteria of a business subject to public accommodations laws.

DBLACK SAID:

“Is the purpose of the First Amendment to give religions special exemptions from laws the rest of us must follow?”

The issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, regulatory policy that comports with the Free Exercise Clause.

The purpose of the First Amendment is to address the relationship of government with those governed, to protect citizens from being compelled to obey religious dogma through force of law (Establishment Clause), and to allow citizens to engage in religious expression – or to be free from faith altogether – absent unwarranted interference by the state (Free Exercise Clause).

Consequently, churches are not 'getting a pass' with regard to accommodating same-sex couples, as the two situations are completed unrelated, one having nothing to do with the other.


----------



## daws101

Bleipriester said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> This would violate the freedom of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. If government approved churches were exempted from the law, it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, they can establish their own religion. Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolute bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

Why not.


----------



## PratchettFan

daws101 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  It's not going to happen.  And even if some people were silly enough to scream for it, screaming is all that is going to happen.  The courts won't go for it.  Churches are not businesses open to the general public.  They are, in essence, private clubs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's true then they should stop saying everyone is welcome.
> It implies it's public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to receive communion in a Catholic church, you have to be a Catholic.  If you want to be baptized in a Lutheran church, you have to be a Lutheran.  Sure, you can come in and watch, but to really take part you have to join.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really I've taken communion on several occasions and I'm an atheist.
Click to expand...



Are you a member of the Catholic church?


----------



## daws101

PratchettFan said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  It's not going to happen.  And even if some people were silly enough to scream for it, screaming is all that is going to happen.  The courts won't go for it.  Churches are not businesses open to the general public.  They are, in essence, private clubs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's true then they should stop saying everyone is welcome.
> It implies it's public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to receive communion in a Catholic church, you have to be a Catholic.  If you want to be baptized in a Lutheran church, you have to be a Lutheran.  Sure, you can come in and watch, but to really take part you have to join.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really I've taken communion on several occasions and I'm an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a member of the Catholic church?
Click to expand...

Can you read? 
I was a Mormon 
I gave up religion for reality.


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  It's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Guaranteed, it will, if it hasn't already.


> And even if some people were silly enough to scream for it, screaming is all that is going to happen.


Irrelevant to my point.


----------



## Ernie S.

daws101 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  It's not going to happen.  And even if some people were silly enough to scream for it, screaming is all that is going to happen.  The courts won't go for it.  Churches are not businesses open to the general public.  They are, in essence, private clubs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's true then they should stop saying everyone is welcome.
> It implies it's public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to receive communion in a Catholic church, you have to be a Catholic.  If you want to be baptized in a Lutheran church, you have to be a Lutheran.  Sure, you can come in and watch, but to really take part you have to join.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really I've taken communion on several occasions and I'm an atheist.
Click to expand...

So you took part in the sacrament under false pretenses. How very..... Democrat of you. hillary would be so proud.


----------



## daws101

M14 Shooter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guaranteed, it will, if it hasn't already.
> 
> 
> 
> And even if some people were silly enough to scream for it, screaming is all that is going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to my point.
Click to expand...

It hasn't and it won't. See I can make shit up too.


----------



## daws101

Ernie S. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  It's not going to happen.  And even if some people were silly enough to scream for it, screaming is all that is going to happen.  The courts won't go for it.  Churches are not businesses open to the general public.  They are, in essence, private clubs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's true then they should stop saying everyone is welcome.
> It implies it's public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to receive communion in a Catholic church, you have to be a Catholic.  If you want to be baptized in a Lutheran church, you have to be a Lutheran.  Sure, you can come in and watch, but to really take part you have to join.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really I've taken communion on several occasions and I'm an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you took part in the sacrament under false pretenses. How very..... Democrat of you. hillary would be so proud.
Click to expand...

No more false than the pretenses it was given under.
btw there are as many religious democrats as religious republicans. 
Fun fact more republicans  have been convicted of criminal activity than democrats.


----------



## Ernie S.

You you think your lack of belief justifies your violation of mine?


----------



## Unkotare

daws101 said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Places of worship get a pass.  Businesses are not places of worship.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, really? Does that go for all laws? Or are we just picking and choosing for convenience sake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting we should remove the protected and tax-exempt status of churches and force them to perform gay weddings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter what churches claim they are businesses and should be taxed.
> Nowhere in the bible does god say thou shall not pay taxes.
> It does say rendered unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.
Click to expand...



You cite the Bible when you should be reading the Constitution.


----------



## Unkotare

daws101 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  It's not going to happen.  And even if some people were silly enough to scream for it, screaming is all that is going to happen.  The courts won't go for it.  Churches are not businesses open to the general public.  They are, in essence, private clubs.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's true then they should stop saying everyone is welcome.
> It implies it's public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to receive communion in a Catholic church, you have to be a Catholic.  If you want to be baptized in a Lutheran church, you have to be a Lutheran.  Sure, you can come in and watch, but to really take part you have to join.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really I've taken communion on several occasions and I'm an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you took part in the sacrament under false pretenses. How very..... Democrat of you. hillary would be so proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fun fact more republicans  have been convicted of criminal activity than democrats.
Click to expand...



Link?


----------



## daws101

Ernie S. said:


> You you think your lack of belief justifies your violation of mine?


Why not you faux Christians seem duty bound to violate everybody else's rights and beliefs.


----------



## daws101

Unkotare said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Places of worship get a pass.  Businesses are not places of worship.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, really? Does that go for all laws? Or are we just picking and choosing for convenience sake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting we should remove the protected and tax-exempt status of churches and force them to perform gay weddings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter what churches claim they are businesses and should be taxed.
> Nowhere in the bible does god say thou shall not pay taxes.
> It does say rendered unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cite the Bible when you should be reading the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Done both frequently.  You finished ?


----------



## PratchettFan

daws101 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  It's not going to happen.  And even if some people were silly enough to scream for it, screaming is all that is going to happen.  The courts won't go for it.  Churches are not businesses open to the general public.  They are, in essence, private clubs.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's true then they should stop saying everyone is welcome.
> It implies it's public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to receive communion in a Catholic church, you have to be a Catholic.  If you want to be baptized in a Lutheran church, you have to be a Lutheran.  Sure, you can come in and watch, but to really take part you have to join.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really I've taken communion on several occasions and I'm an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a member of the Catholic church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you read?
> I was a Mormon
> I gave up religion for reality.
Click to expand...


 Can I read?  Yes.  But I can't read minds.  If you took communion in a Catholic church then you misrepresented yourself to the priest.  They took you at your word.  It's not their fault you lied.  Of course, if the communion was in a Mormon church then the problem was just that you took part in a ritual you didn't believe in.  But the reason you could take part was not that you believed, it was that you were a member of the club.


----------



## daws101

daws101 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Places of worship get a pass.  Businesses are not places of worship.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, really? Does that go for all laws? Or are we just picking and choosing for convenience sake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting we should remove the protected and tax-exempt status of churches and force them to perform gay weddings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter what churches claim they are businesses and should be taxed.
> Nowhere in the bible does god say thou shall not pay taxes.
> It does say rendered unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cite the Bible when you should be reading the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Done both frequently.  You finished ?
Click to expand...

Btw should is relative and subjective.


----------



## PratchettFan

M14 Shooter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guaranteed, it will, if it hasn't already.
> 
> 
> 
> And even if some people were silly enough to scream for it, screaming is all that is going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to my point.
Click to expand...


Your point is that some idiot with no authority at all might express an opinion no one will bother listening to?  Am I supposed to be concerned about that?


----------



## daws101

Unkotare said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's true then they should stop saying everyone is welcome.
> It implies it's public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to receive communion in a Catholic church, you have to be a Catholic.  If you want to be baptized in a Lutheran church, you have to be a Lutheran.  Sure, you can come in and watch, but to really take part you have to join.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really I've taken communion on several occasions and I'm an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you took part in the sacrament under false pretenses. How very..... Democrat of you. hillary would be so proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fun fact more republicans  have been convicted of criminal activity than democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

Look it up yourself.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

M14 Shooter said:


> It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.


This fails as a straw man fallacy.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to government, not private persons or organizations such as churches.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, some states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment, where same-sex couples filed suit to seek relief from state measures intended to disadvantage gay Americans.

No such conflict exists with regard to churches that refuse to perform religious marriage rituals for same-sex couples, as churches are not public sector lawmaking entities subject to Constitutional case law.

Moreover, no lawmaker would propose such a measure, compelling churches to accommodate same-sex couples; such a measure would clearly violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, it would gain no support from other lawmakers, and be invalidated by the courts should such a measure become law.

Indeed, liberals have consistently been fierce advocates, defenders, and champions of First Amendment jurisprudence, opposing any and all measures seeking to conjoin church and state, and measures intended to violate religious liberty, rendering your 'prediction' that much more ridiculous and idiotic.


----------



## daws101

PratchettFan said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's true then they should stop saying everyone is welcome.
> It implies it's public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to receive communion in a Catholic church, you have to be a Catholic.  If you want to be baptized in a Lutheran church, you have to be a Lutheran.  Sure, you can come in and watch, but to really take part you have to join.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really I've taken communion on several occasions and I'm an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a member of the Catholic church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you read?
> I was a Mormon
> I gave up religion for reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can I read?  Yes.  But I can't read minds.  If you took communion in a Catholic church then you misrepresented yourself to the priest.  They took you at your word.  It's not their fault you lied.  Of course, if the communion was in a Mormon church then the problem was just that you took part in a ritual you didn't believe in.  But the reason you could take part was not that you believed, it was that you were a member of the club.
Click to expand...

False it was offered and I took it.


----------



## dblack

ABikerSailor said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages if they are against them.
> 
> Why?
> 
> There are plenty of other churches who will be more than happy to marry them (and get the fee for the wedding).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should bakers be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings if they are against them? Why should churches get a pass? If you think that's how the First Amendment should be applied, do you see the problems that introduces? Should churches that believe in human sacrifice get to skip the laws against murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbole much?
Click to expand...


Not at at all. It's a legitimate question about the principles we're dealing with. It's a hypothetical to test the soundness of the premise. If a there was a church, of let's say - four people - who were into human sacrifice. Would they be able to ignore laws against murder? Of course we would not (or at least I'd hope you'd agree with that assumption) allow them to do that.

The bottom line here is that the point of the First Amendment's religion clause is not there to exempt religions from the law. It's there to prevent government from enforcing laws that target religions for special treatment (either for, or against). Our founders had seen the problems with letting religious power and government power join forces. It gets ugly quick. So the included a "wall of separation" to prevent it. But the intent was never to give religions a 'get out of jail free' card.


----------



## dblack

Ernie S. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Places of worship get a pass.  Businesses are not places of worship.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, really? Does that go for all laws? Or are we just picking and choosing for convenience sake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting we should remove the protected and tax-exempt status of churches and force them to perform gay weddings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Anything less amounts to offering special privileges to government-approved religions, which is a direct violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first amendment is very clear. First the government cannot establish a state religion. Secondly, *they cannot enact any legislation that denies anyone the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs.*
Click to expand...


It doesn't say that at all. And the idea is demonstrably ridiculous. Some religious beliefs aren't compatible with free society and should not be allowed. Period.


----------



## dblack

Anathema said:


> Nobody should be forced to associate with anyone they don't want to. No church. No business. No private educational institution. No individual.



That's the only valid answer, in my view.


----------



## dblack

Anathema said:


> Nobody should be forced to associate with anyone they don't want to. No church. No business. No private educational institution. No individual.



That's the only valid answer, in my view.


----------



## Synthaholic

dblack said:


> *Should churches be forced to provide services for gay weddings?*


No, and no one has ever suggested that they should.

*STRAWMAN FAIL.*


----------



## PratchettFan

daws101 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to receive communion in a Catholic church, you have to be a Catholic.  If you want to be baptized in a Lutheran church, you have to be a Lutheran.  Sure, you can come in and watch, but to really take part you have to join.
> 
> 
> 
> Really I've taken communion on several occasions and I'm an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a member of the Catholic church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you read?
> I was a Mormon
> I gave up religion for reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can I read?  Yes.  But I can't read minds.  If you took communion in a Catholic church then you misrepresented yourself to the priest.  They took you at your word.  It's not their fault you lied.  Of course, if the communion was in a Mormon church then the problem was just that you took part in a ritual you didn't believe in.  But the reason you could take part was not that you believed, it was that you were a member of the club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False it was offered and I took it.
Click to expand...


Not false at all.  It was offered to Catholics.  You have to be a Catholic to receive communion in a Catholic church.  If you just get in line, they will assume you are a Catholic.  If you inform the priest you aren't a Catholic before he places the wafer on your tongue, he won't do it.  Either you were misrepresenting yourself or you just didn't have a clue what you were doing.  And I do have to wonder why an Atheist would get in line at all.  Wanted a snack and a quick drink?


----------



## dblack

Synthaholic said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Should churches be forced to provide services for gay weddings?*
> 
> 
> 
> No, and no one has ever suggested that they should.
> 
> *STRAWMAN FAIL.*
Click to expand...


How's it a strawman?


----------



## dblack

Derideo_Te said:


> Next?



First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?


----------



## Mac1958

dblack said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody should be forced to associate with anyone they don't want to. No church. No business. No private educational institution. No individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the only valid answer, in my view.
Click to expand...

Yep.

I can see legitimate exceptions in certain cases.  For example, if you're the only provider of an important service within an X-mile diameter, I can see zoning laws that say you have to provide that service.  

But for the most part, this isn't about laws.  This is about intimidation, control, submission.

.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?
Click to expand...


Because they are a private organization based upon membership and protected under the first amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?
Click to expand...

Your question doesn't merit response because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Your question also doesn't merit response because it is in fact legal in nature and context, you can't remove that legal context simply because you're not interested in – or more likely opposed to – current Commerce Clause jurisprudence.


----------



## Synthaholic

dblack said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Should churches be forced to provide services for gay weddings?*
> 
> 
> 
> No, and no one has ever suggested that they should.
> 
> *STRAWMAN FAIL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's it a strawman?
Click to expand...

Because no one has ever suggested that churches should be forced to marry anyone.


----------



## Ernie S.

daws101 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You you think your lack of belief justifies your violation of mine?
> 
> 
> 
> Why not you faux Christians seem duty bound to violate everybody else's rights and beliefs.
Click to expand...

Where, exactly, have I violated your rights?


----------



## Derideo_Te

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?
Click to expand...


I answered by saying that the current status quo is fine by me. 

They get a pass because they are primarily religions and not businesses. 

The distinction exists between for profit and non profit businesses. Do you want to eliminate that too?

If yes then on what basis?


----------



## Synthaholic

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?
Click to expand...

The rest of us?  No one is forcing me to preside over or host a marriage ceremony for  any couple.  No one is forcing me to attend any wedding.  No one is forcing me to pay for a gay wedding with my tax dollars.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Bleipriester said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> This would violate the freedom of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. If government approved churches were exempted from the law, it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, they can establish their own religion. Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible.
Click to expand...

This is unsurprisingly ignorant.

The vast majority of gay Americans are Christian, and you're in no position to determine if gay Christians are in compliance with their faith.


----------



## LindaVance826

Christian churches use the messages in the Bible as the foundation of their faith.  It is one thing to force a bakery to make a gay cake.  It's another to perform a marriage between same-sex people, when the Christian church does not recognize same sex marriage.  I will not be surprised when some of the small, eccentric churches choose to perform the marriage service for gays/lesbians.  I don't see that happening with Catholic churches, or the huge protestant churches.  Being politically correct isn't compatible with Christian scripture when the issue is same sex marriage.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> No where in the United States was there a jurisdiction seeking to compel Christian bakers to bake cakes; the purpose of which is to celebrate sin...



True, however there are Public Accommodation laws which of course do not mention the religion of a business owner or anything about a business transaction being a sin.

Those are not functions or classifications under civil law.



Where_r_my_Keys said:


> until the Federal Judiciary overturned duly passed legislation signed into law by duly elected chief executives, which forced...



The Federal judiciary has not overturned Public Accommodation laws passed by State legislatures and signed into law by duly elected chief executives.



Where_r_my_Keys said:


> There is NO LEGISLATION in:
> 
> <<SNIP>>
> 
> Oregon (May 19, 2014)



A Business refusing to provide full and equal service to customers isn't a function of Civil Marriage law, it's a function of Public Accommodation law.

Below is the Oregon law that was last revised by the State legislature and signed into law by the duly elected chief executive and includes sexual orientation as a covered class.

*​Oregon Revised Statutes
§ 659A.403¹ 
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited​*

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.​

ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes


>>>>


----------



## Bleipriester

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> This would violate the freedom of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. If government approved churches were exempted from the law, it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, they can establish their own religion. Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is unsurprisingly ignorant.
> 
> The vast majority of gay Americans are Christian, and you're in no position to determine if gay Christians are in compliance with their faith.
Click to expand...

You cannot pound a butt and be a Christian. You cannot have sex without marriage in Christianity. Homosexuals cannot marry in Christianity. If you are tolerant, you tolerate Christianity as it is.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages if they are against them.
> 
> Why?
> 
> There are plenty of other churches who will be more than happy to marry them (and get the fee for the wedding).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should bakers be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings if they are against them? Why should churches get a pass? If you think that's how the First Amendment should be applied, do you see the problems that introduces? Should churches that believe in human sacrifice get to skip the laws against murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbole much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at at all. It's a legitimate question about the principles we're dealing with. It's a hypothetical to test the soundness of the premise. If a there was a church, of let's say - four people - who were into human sacrifice. Would they be able to ignore laws against murder? Of course we would not (or at least I'd hope you'd agree with that assumption) allow them to do that.
> 
> The bottom line here is that the point of the First Amendment's religion clause is not there to exempt religions from the law. It's there to prevent government from enforcing laws that target religions for special treatment (either for, or against). Our founders had seen the problems with letting religious power and government power join forces. It gets ugly quick. So the included a "wall of separation" to prevent it. But the intent was never to give religions a 'get out of jail free' card.
Click to expand...

It's not a 'legitimate question,' you're confusing to separate and distinct issues: the First Amendment right of churches to practice their rituals absent unwarranted government interference, with that of necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws authorized by the Commerce Clause applied to businesses open to the general public, laws that in no way 'violate' religious liberty.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No where in the United States was there a jurisdiction seeking to compel Christian bakers to bake cakes; the purpose of which is to celebrate sin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, however there are Public Accommodation laws which of course do not mention the religion of a business owner or anything about a business transaction being a sin.
> 
> Those are not functions or classifications under civil law.
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> until the Federal Judiciary overturned duly passed legislation signed into law by duly elected chief executives, which forced...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Federal judiciary has not overturned Public Accommodation laws passed by State legislatures and signed into law by duly elected chief executives.
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO LEGISLATION in:
> 
> <<SNIP>>
> 
> Oregon (May 19, 2014)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Business refusing to provide full and equal service to customers isn't a function of Civil Marriage law, it's a function of Public Accommodation law.
> 
> Below is the Oregon law that was last revised by the State legislature and signed into law by the duly elected chief executive and includes sexual orientation as a covered class.
> 
> 
> *Oregon Revised Statutes
> § 659A.403¹
> Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited*
> 
> (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.​
> 
> ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

PA laws were designed to protect genetic minorities... not degenerates who willfully choose to engage in deviant behavior.

Declaring deviants a protected class is laughably absurd.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, and Keys, have lost on "Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples".  The judges are the authority to say what states have marriage equality, not the keys or the sils or anybody else.



ROFLMNAO!

Yes, because judicial authority is supreme and their judgement infallible.

LOL!  You can NOT make this crap up.

The Idiocracy LIVES!


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PA laws were designed to protect genetic minorities... not degenerates who willfully choose to engage in deviant behavior.



Depends on the PA law. Many include explicit protection based on sexual orientation. Explicitly contradicting your assumptions.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, and Keys, have lost on "Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples".  The judges are the authority to say what states have marriage equality, not the keys or the sils or anybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Yes, because judicial authority is supreme and their judgement infallible.
> 
> LOL!  You can NOT make this crap up.
> 
> The Idiocracy LIVES!
Click to expand...


You're still not gonna touch Clayton's argument, are you? You're still running from it, refusing to address it. 

"Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples

He's right of course.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Keys and Sil cannot show this statement to false: Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> Keys and Sil cannot show this statement to false: Nowhere in the United States is there any jurisdiction seeking to compel churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples



Nope. Not one example anywhere in our nation. Which answers the OP soundly.

No.


----------



## Unkotare

daws101 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Places of worship get a pass.  Businesses are not places of worship.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, really? Does that go for all laws? Or are we just picking and choosing for convenience sake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting we should remove the protected and tax-exempt status of churches and force them to perform gay weddings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter what churches claim they are businesses and should be taxed.
> Nowhere in the bible does god say thou shall not pay taxes.
> It does say rendered unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cite the Bible when you should be reading the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Done both frequently.
Click to expand...



Apparently not at the appropriate time.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No where in the United States was there a jurisdiction seeking to compel Christian bakers to bake cakes; the purpose of which is to celebrate sin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, however there are Public Accommodation laws which of course do not mention the religion of a business owner or anything about a business transaction being a sin.
> 
> Those are not functions or classifications under civil law.
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> until the Federal Judiciary overturned duly passed legislation signed into law by duly elected chief executives, which forced...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Federal judiciary has not overturned Public Accommodation laws passed by State legislatures and signed into law by duly elected chief executives.
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO LEGISLATION in:
> 
> <<SNIP>>
> 
> Oregon (May 19, 2014)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Business refusing to provide full and equal service to customers isn't a function of Civil Marriage law, it's a function of Public Accommodation law.
> 
> Below is the Oregon law that was last revised by the State legislature and signed into law by the duly elected chief executive and includes sexual orientation as a covered class.
> 
> *Oregon Revised Statutes
> § 659A.403¹
> Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited*
> 
> (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.​
> 
> ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PA laws were designed to protect genetic minorities... not degenerates who willfully choose to engage in deviant behavior.
> 
> Declaring deviants a protected class is laughably absurd.
Click to expand...


Oregon Public Accommodation law:  (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, *religion*, sex, *sexual orientation*, national origin, *marital status* or *age* if the individual is 18 years of age or older.


Religion isn't a "genetic minority".

Sexual Orientation isn't a "genetic minority" (since heterosexual and homosexual are both sexual orientations) it includes 100% of the population.

Marital Status isn't a "genetic minority", last I checked there was no known "marriage gene".

Age isn't a "genetic minority" since all adults have an age.


>>>>


----------



## Unkotare

daws101 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to receive communion in a Catholic church, you have to be a Catholic.  If you want to be baptized in a Lutheran church, you have to be a Lutheran.  Sure, you can come in and watch, but to really take part you have to join.
> 
> 
> 
> Really I've taken communion on several occasions and I'm an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you took part in the sacrament under false pretenses. How very..... Democrat of you. hillary would be so proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fun fact more republicans  have been convicted of criminal activity than democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up yourself.
Click to expand...




= you're full of shit and you know it


----------



## PratchettFan

LindaVance826 said:


> Christian churches use the messages in the Bible as the foundation of their faith.  It is one thing to force a bakery to make a gay cake.  It's another to perform a marriage between same-sex people, when the Christian church does not recognize same sex marriage.  I will not be surprised when some of the small, eccentric churches choose to perform the marriage service for gays/lesbians.  I don't see that happening with Catholic churches, or the huge protestant churches.  Being politically correct isn't compatible with Christian scripture when the issue is same sex marriage.



There are already churches doing it.  But just as no one is demanding a Catholic church perform Jewish weddings, there are not going to require any church to perform a wedding in opposition to it's tenets.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Should churches be forced to provide services for gay weddings?*
> 
> 
> 
> No, and no one has ever suggested that they should.
> 
> *STRAWMAN FAIL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's it a strawman?
Click to expand...

It's a straw man fallacy because no one has ever suggested they should, nor will they.

A straw man fallacy is the effort to misrepresent your opponent's position by contriving an 'argument' your opponent would never make, and by 'attacking' that 'argument' (straw man) you claim 'victory.'

In your case you're attempting – and failing – to make the 'argument' that it's 'inconsistent' to require business owners who serve the general public to accommodate gay patrons, while not requiring the same of churches with regard to marriage and same-sex couples.

Indeed, your 'argument' fails as both a straw man and false comparison fallacy, where the case law that applies to public accommodations laws has no bearing whatsoever on the First Amendment rights of churches.

In order for a policy to be inconsistent, it must be applied differently to two similar situations, which is not the case concerning public accommodations laws and the religious liberties of churches, one having nothing to do with the other.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No where in the United States was there a jurisdiction seeking to compel Christian bakers to bake cakes; the purpose of which is to celebrate sin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, however there are Public Accommodation laws which of course do not mention the religion of a business owner or anything about a business transaction being a sin.
> 
> Those are not functions or classifications under civil law.
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> until the Federal Judiciary overturned duly passed legislation signed into law by duly elected chief executives, which forced...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Federal judiciary has not overturned Public Accommodation laws passed by State legislatures and signed into law by duly elected chief executives.
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO LEGISLATION in:
> 
> <<SNIP>>
> 
> Oregon (May 19, 2014)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Business refusing to provide full and equal service to customers isn't a function of Civil Marriage law, it's a function of Public Accommodation law.
> 
> Below is the Oregon law that was last revised by the State legislature and signed into law by the duly elected chief executive and includes sexual orientation as a covered class.
> 
> *Oregon Revised Statutes
> § 659A.403¹
> Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited*
> 
> (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.​
> 
> ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PA laws were designed to protect genetic minorities... not degenerates who willfully choose to engage in deviant behavior.
> 
> Declaring deviants a protected class is laughably absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oregon Public Accommodation law:  (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, *religion*, sex, *sexual orientation*, national origin, *marital status* or *age* if the individual is 18 years of age or older.
> 
> 
> Religion isn't a "genetic minority".
> 
> Sexual Orientation isn't a "genetic minority" (since heterosexual and homosexual are both sexual orientations) it includes 100% of the population.
> 
> Marital Status isn't a "genetic minority", last I checked there was no known "marriage gene".
> 
> Age isn't a "genetic minority" since all adults have an age.
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Neither is sexual orientation... 

But unlike sexual orientation...  But the freedom to practice one's religion was accommodated publicly in the 1789.


----------



## Skylar

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Should churches be forced to provide services for gay weddings?*
> 
> 
> 
> No, and no one has ever suggested that they should.
> 
> *STRAWMAN FAIL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's it a strawman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a straw man fallacy because no one has ever suggested they should, nor will they.
Click to expand...


I don't think he's attributing this particular argument to anyone in particular. But rather positing is as a general question. Its an exploration of the nature of religion in the constitution and its status under generally applicable law. At least as I read it.

I wouldn't consider it a strawman fallacy. As he's asking a general question rather than framing anyone's argument. He's even started a thread on the topic to severe any direct connection to any previous thread or argument.


----------



## WorldWatcher

dblack said:


> I'm not interested in the current legal status quo. The operative word here is "should". How do you YOU think the Court should interpret the Constitution. If we're going to have laws forcing merchants or services providers to serve protected classes, why should Churches get a pass? Is the purpose of the First Amendment to give religions special exemptions from laws the rest of us must follow?



The third option isn't applicable to the question being asked.  The 3rd answer includes Churches nad every privately owned business.

>>>>


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No where in the United States was there a jurisdiction seeking to compel Christian bakers to bake cakes; the purpose of which is to celebrate sin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, however there are Public Accommodation laws which of course do not mention the religion of a business owner or anything about a business transaction being a sin.
> 
> Those are not functions or classifications under civil law.
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> until the Federal Judiciary overturned duly passed legislation signed into law by duly elected chief executives, which forced...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Federal judiciary has not overturned Public Accommodation laws passed by State legislatures and signed into law by duly elected chief executives.
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO LEGISLATION in:
> 
> <<SNIP>>
> 
> Oregon (May 19, 2014)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Business refusing to provide full and equal service to customers isn't a function of Civil Marriage law, it's a function of Public Accommodation law.
> 
> Below is the Oregon law that was last revised by the State legislature and signed into law by the duly elected chief executive and includes sexual orientation as a covered class.
> 
> *Oregon Revised Statutes
> § 659A.403¹
> Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited*
> 
> (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.​
> 
> ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PA laws were designed to protect genetic minorities... not degenerates who willfully choose to engage in deviant behavior.
> 
> Declaring deviants a protected class is laughably absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oregon Public Accommodation law:  (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, *religion*, sex, *sexual orientation*, national origin, *marital status* or *age* if the individual is 18 years of age or older.
> 
> 
> Religion isn't a "genetic minority".
> 
> Sexual Orientation isn't a "genetic minority" (since heterosexual and homosexual are both sexual orientations) it includes 100% of the population.
> 
> Marital Status isn't a "genetic minority", last I checked there was no known "marriage gene".
> 
> Age isn't a "genetic minority" since all adults have an age.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is sexual orientation...
> 
> But unlike sexual orientation...  But the freedom to practice one's religion was accommodated publicly in the 1789.
Click to expand...


Then you acknowledge that your 'genetic minority' claim isn't accurate. As there are numerous non 'genetic minorities' that protected by PA laws. Including all heterosexuals, at least in those states that protect sexual orientation.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody should be forced to associate with anyone they don't want to. No church. No business. No private educational institution. No individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the only valid answer, in my view.
Click to expand...

Actually not, in fact it's an invalid answer because it simply follows the same fallacy you attempt to propagate.

No one seeks to 'force' anyone to associate in any manner he doesn't wish to, where public accommodations laws in no way 'violate' freedom of association.


----------



## daws101

PratchettFan said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really I've taken communion on several occasions and I'm an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a member of the Catholic church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you read?
> I was a Mormon
> I gave up religion for reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can I read?  Yes.  But I can't read minds.  If you took communion in a Catholic church then you misrepresented yourself to the priest.  They took you at your word.  It's not their fault you lied.  Of course, if the communion was in a Mormon church then the problem was just that you took part in a ritual you didn't believe in.  But the reason you could take part was not that you believed, it was that you were a member of the club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False it was offered and I took it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not false at all.  It was offered to Catholics.  You have to be a Catholic to receive communion in a Catholic church.  If you just get in line, they will assume you are a Catholic.  If you inform the priest you aren't a Catholic before he places the wafer on your tongue, he won't do it.  Either you were misrepresenting yourself or you just didn't have a clue what you were doing.  And I do have to wonder why an Atheist would get in line at all.  Wanted a snack and a quick drink?
Click to expand...

Still false  to be misrepresentation there must be a concious effort to do so .
there was none. 
Besides nowhere in the bible does it say you must be a member. 
That's just one of countless arbitrary rules of religion.


----------



## daws101

Ernie S. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You you think your lack of belief justifies your violation of mine?
> 
> 
> 
> Why not you faux Christians seem duty bound to violate everybody else's rights and beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where, exactly, have I violated your rights?
Click to expand...

Asked and answerd.


----------



## jillian

dblack said:


> I'm not interested in the current legal status quo. The operative word here is "should". How do you YOU think the Court should interpret the Constitution. If we're going to have laws forcing merchants or services providers to serve protected classes, why should Churches get a pass? Is the purpose of the First Amendment to give religions special exemptions from laws the rest of us must follow?



no one is suggesting they should. why did you start yet another thread with this question


----------



## daws101

Bleipriester said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> This would violate the freedom of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. If government approved churches were exempted from the law, it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, they can establish their own religion. Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is unsurprisingly ignorant.
> 
> The vast majority of gay Americans are Christian, and you're in no position to determine if gay Christians are in compliance with their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot pound a butt and be a Christian. You cannot have sex without marriage in Christianity. Homosexuals cannot marry in Christianity. If you are tolerant, you tolerate Christianity as it is.
Click to expand...

Bullshit there have been gay Christians since the religion was invented.  Christianity is not tolerant or accepting. 
I should say faux Christianity isn't.


----------



## daws101

Unkotare said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, really? Does that go for all laws? Or are we just picking and choosing for convenience sake?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting we should remove the protected and tax-exempt status of churches and force them to perform gay weddings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No matter what churches claim they are businesses and should be taxed.
> Nowhere in the bible does god say thou shall not pay taxes.
> It does say rendered unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cite the Bible when you should be reading the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Done both frequently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently not at the appropriate time.
Click to expand...

More subjective faux reasoning


----------



## daws101

Unkotare said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really I've taken communion on several occasions and I'm an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> So you took part in the sacrament under false pretenses. How very..... Democrat of you. hillary would be so proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fun fact more republicans  have been convicted of criminal activity than democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> = you're full of shit and you know it
Click to expand...

False =you are too lazy to look.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Skylar said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Should churches be forced to provide services for gay weddings?*
> 
> 
> 
> No, and no one has ever suggested that they should.
> 
> *STRAWMAN FAIL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's it a strawman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a straw man fallacy because no one has ever suggested they should, nor will they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think he's attributing this particular argument to anyone in particular. But rather positing is as a general question. Its an exploration of the nature of religion in the constitution and its status under generally applicable law. At least as I read it.
> 
> I wouldn't consider it a strawman fallacy. As he's asking a general question rather than framing anyone's argument. He's even started a thread on the topic to severe any direct connection to any previous thread or argument.
Click to expand...

Disagree.

The argument is the OP's, his hostility toward public accommodations laws are well established by his own admission.

It's a straw man fallacy because he seeks to propagate the argument that it's inconsistent to support public accommodations laws while at the same time not applying the same policy to churches, where no one who supports public accommodations laws would ever advocate churches be compelled to do the same through force of law.


----------



## Skylar

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Should churches be forced to provide services for gay weddings?*
> 
> 
> 
> No, and no one has ever suggested that they should.
> 
> *STRAWMAN FAIL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's it a strawman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a straw man fallacy because no one has ever suggested they should, nor will they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think he's attributing this particular argument to anyone in particular. But rather positing is as a general question. Its an exploration of the nature of religion in the constitution and its status under generally applicable law. At least as I read it.
> 
> I wouldn't consider it a strawman fallacy. As he's asking a general question rather than framing anyone's argument. He's even started a thread on the topic to severe any direct connection to any previous thread or argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disagree.
> 
> The argument is the OP's, his hostility toward public accommodations laws are well established by his own admission.
> 
> It's a straw man fallacy because he seeks to propagate the argument that it's inconsistent to support public accommodations laws while at the same time not applying the same policy to churches, where no one who supports public accommodations laws would ever advocate churches be compelled to do the same through force of law.
Click to expand...


True about his own hostility toward PA laws. But he's not characterizing anyone else's argument nor hijacking an unrelated thread. He's merely positing a question in a thread of his own creation. That's seems about as intellectually viable as I can imagine.

A known bias doesn't make a question a 'strawman'. He clearly has an agenda. And by participating in his thread, its implied that you accept that


----------



## Unkotare

daws101 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you took part in the sacrament under false pretenses. How very..... Democrat of you. hillary would be so proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fun fact more republicans  have been convicted of criminal activity than democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> = you're full of shit and you know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False =you are too lazy to look.
Click to expand...




You ARE full of shit.


----------



## dblack

jillian said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in the current legal status quo. The operative word here is "should". How do you YOU think the Court should interpret the Constitution. If we're going to have laws forcing merchants or services providers to serve protected classes, why should Churches get a pass? Is the purpose of the First Amendment to give religions special exemptions from laws the rest of us must follow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no one is suggesting they should. why did you start yet another thread with this question
Click to expand...


Wrong. I am suggesting they should.


----------



## dblack

Synthaholic said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Should churches be forced to provide services for gay weddings?*
> 
> 
> 
> No, and no one has ever suggested that they should.
> 
> *STRAWMAN FAIL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's it a strawman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because no one has ever suggested that churches should be forced to marry anyone.
Click to expand...


Wanna bet?


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are a private organization based upon membership and protected under the first amendment.
Click to expand...


I don't see anything in the first amendment constraining it to private organizations or 'membership'.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
Click to expand...

Like many other things, you clearly do not understand what a straw man is.
Aside form that you clearly chose to not understand my point.   Well done.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your question doesn't merit response because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.
Click to expand...


Then I suppose you've failed outright by responding, eh?



> Your question also doesn't merit response because it is in fact legal in nature and context, you can't remove that legal context simply because you're not interested in – or more likely opposed to – current Commerce Clause jurisprudence.



In  other words, you have only an appeal to authority to offer. No judgement of your own. Fine. You have no opinion. Next.


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guaranteed, it will, if it hasn't already.
> 
> 
> 
> And even if some people were silly enough to scream for it, screaming is all that is going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point is that some idiot with no authority at all might express an opinion no one will bother listening to?  Am I supposed to be concerned about that?
Click to expand...


My point is that when it does happen, I hope that the moderate liberals will oppose the idea.
I will not,. however, bet the farm on it.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Should churches be forced to provide services for gay weddings?*
> 
> 
> 
> No, and no one has ever suggested that they should.
> 
> *STRAWMAN FAIL.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's it a strawman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a straw man fallacy because no one has ever suggested they should, nor will they.
> 
> A straw man fallacy is the effort to misrepresent your opponent's position by contriving an 'argument' your opponent would never make, and by 'attacking' that 'argument' (straw man) you claim 'victory.'
Click to expand...


My "opponent"? Who would that be, in your view? I suspect you're making some really off-based assumptions here.



> Indeed, your 'argument' fails as both a straw man and false comparison fallacy, where the case law that applies to public accommodations laws has no bearing whatsoever on the First Amendment rights of churches.



Only if you assume churches are not public accommodations. Which is nothing more than a baseless assumption.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, churches should not be forced to perform gay marriages if they are against them.
> 
> Why?
> 
> There are plenty of other churches who will be more than happy to marry them (and get the fee for the wedding).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should bakers be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings if they are against them? Why should churches get a pass? If you think that's how the First Amendment should be applied, do you see the problems that introduces? Should churches that believe in human sacrifice get to skip the laws against murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbole much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at at all. It's a legitimate question about the principles we're dealing with. It's a hypothetical to test the soundness of the premise. If a there was a church, of let's say - four people - who were into human sacrifice. Would they be able to ignore laws against murder? Of course we would not (or at least I'd hope you'd agree with that assumption) allow them to do that.
> 
> The bottom line here is that the point of the First Amendment's religion clause is not there to exempt religions from the law. It's there to prevent government from enforcing laws that target religions for special treatment (either for, or against). Our founders had seen the problems with letting religious power and government power join forces. It gets ugly quick. So the included a "wall of separation" to prevent it. But the intent was never to give religions a 'get out of jail free' card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a 'legitimate question,' you're confusing to separate and distinct issues: the First Amendment right of churches to practice their rituals absent unwarranted government interference, with that of necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws authorized by the Commerce Clause applied to businesses open to the general public, laws that in no way 'violate' religious liberty.
Click to expand...


No. You're failing to recognize the conflict between the two. Contrary to the paranoid subtext of your post, this thread is _not_ based on my admitted opposition to PA laws. Instead, it's a direct criticism of what I consider to be to contradictory interpretation of the First Amendment. 

I've long felt this way. The First was never meant to be an excuse for people, or businesses, or churches, to refuse to follow a law because "it goes against my religion". That's ridiculous on the face of it, because many religions throughout history have maintained practices that we would not tolerate as a free society.

Instead, the religious clause of the First Amendment, was meant to prevent collusion of religious and political power. It's purpose is to prevent the state from co-opting religion as a means of controlling people.


----------



## OKTexas

dblack said:


> I'm not interested in the current legal status quo. The operative word here is "should". How do you YOU think the Court should interpret the Constitution. If we're going to have laws forcing merchants or services providers to serve protected classes, why should Churches get a pass? Is the purpose of the First Amendment to give religions special exemptions from laws the rest of us must follow?



There are no laws and there will be no laws that will compel a church to provide any service they object to. Period end of story.


----------



## dblack

OKTexas said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in the current legal status quo. The operative word here is "should". How do you YOU think the Court should interpret the Constitution. If we're going to have laws forcing merchants or services providers to serve protected classes, why should Churches get a pass? Is the purpose of the First Amendment to give religions special exemptions from laws the rest of us must follow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no laws and there will be no laws that will compel a church to provide any service they object to. Period end of story.
Click to expand...


That's only the end of the story if you insist on completely missing the point.


----------



## Muhammed

dblack said:


> I'm not interested in the current legal status quo. The operative word here is "should". How do you YOU think the Court should interpret the Constitution. If we're going to have laws forcing merchants or services providers to serve protected classes, why should Churches get a pass? Is the purpose of the First Amendment to give religions special exemptions from laws the rest of us must follow?


Serve my cock.


----------



## OKTexas

dblack said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in the current legal status quo. The operative word here is "should". How do you YOU think the Court should interpret the Constitution. If we're going to have laws forcing merchants or services providers to serve protected classes, why should Churches get a pass? Is the purpose of the First Amendment to give religions special exemptions from laws the rest of us must follow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no laws and there will be no laws that will compel a church to provide any service they object to. Period end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only the end of the story if you insist on completely missing the point.
Click to expand...


There is no point, a pastor cannot be compelled to perform a service, whether it be a wedding or a funeral, that they have religious objections to and no law to the contrary would be upheld even in the most liberal court.


----------



## dblack

OKTexas said:


> There is no point, a pastor cannot be compelled to perform a service, whether it be a wedding or a funeral, that they have religious objections to and no law to the contrary would be upheld even in the most liberal court.



Why not? If a law exists compelling service providers to provide services to specific protected classes, why should churches excluded?


----------



## OKTexas

dblack said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no point, a pastor cannot be compelled to perform a service, whether it be a wedding or a funeral, that they have religious objections to and no law to the contrary would be upheld even in the most liberal court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? If a law exists compelling service providers to provide services to specific protected classes, why should churches excluded?
Click to expand...


How many churches have you been in that has a business license framed on the sanctuary wall?


----------



## Unkotare

daws101 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting we should remove the protected and tax-exempt status of churches and force them to perform gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what churches claim they are businesses and should be taxed.
> Nowhere in the bible does god say thou shall not pay taxes.
> It does say rendered unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cite the Bible when you should be reading the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Done both frequently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently not at the appropriate time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More subjective faux reasoning
Click to expand...



You waste no time going to the white flag. Try thinking more carefully in the first place.


----------



## Synthaholic

Muhammed said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in the current legal status quo. The operative word here is "should". How do you YOU think the Court should interpret the Constitution. If we're going to have laws forcing merchants or services providers to serve protected classes, why should Churches get a pass? Is the purpose of the First Amendment to give religions special exemptions from laws the rest of us must follow?
> 
> 
> 
> Serve my cock.
Click to expand...

^^^ Molecular Gastronomy.  Emphasis on molecular.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no point, a pastor cannot be compelled to perform a service, whether it be a wedding or a funeral, that they have religious objections to and no law to the contrary would be upheld even in the most liberal court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? If a law exists compelling service providers to provide services to specific protected classes, why should churches excluded?
Click to expand...

Because public accommodations laws requiring service providers to provide services to protected classes of persons are Constitutional (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US, Employment Division v. Smith, City of Boerne v. Flores_); seeking to compel churches to afford same-sex couples religious marriage rituals through force of law is not.

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to regulate markets, both the local market and all other interrelated markets (_Wickard v. Filburn_), where to allow business owners to refuse to accommodate patrons based on religion, race, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the local market government is charged to safeguard.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are a private organization based upon membership and protected under the first amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see anything in the first amendment constraining it to private organizations or 'membership'.
Click to expand...

That's because you're making the mistake of perceiving the issue of public accommodations laws as a First Amendment issue, it's not.

Public accommodations laws are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DBLACK SAID:

“The First Amendment means people can disobey the law if it conflicts with their religion.”

It does not.

One may not use 'religious liberty' as 'justification' to disobey a just, proper, and Constitutional law, such as public accommodations laws, as the sole intent of these laws is regulatory, not to disadvantage religious practice.

DBLACK SAID:

“Churches should be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us.”

False comparison fallacy.

Churches and businesses open to the general public – where such businesses are subject to the provisions of state and local public accommodations laws – are not the same thing, where the former does not meet the criteria of a private, for-profit business.

DBLACK SAID:

“No one should be compelled to serve anyone else against their will.”

Business owners are subject to all manner of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policies – from paying employees a minimum wage, to ensuring safe conditions for workers, to environmental regulations – where public accommodations laws are also regulatory policy and part of what it means to do business in jurisdictions with such laws.


----------



## Bleipriester

daws101 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> This would violate the freedom of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. If government approved churches were exempted from the law, it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, they can establish their own religion. Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is unsurprisingly ignorant.
> 
> The vast majority of gay Americans are Christian, and you're in no position to determine if gay Christians are in compliance with their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot pound a butt and be a Christian. You cannot have sex without marriage in Christianity. Homosexuals cannot marry in Christianity. If you are tolerant, you tolerate Christianity as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit there have been gay Christians since the religion was invented.  Christianity is not tolerant or accepting.
> I should say faux Christianity isn't.
Click to expand...

"Christianity is not tolerant"
You cannot change the terms of a religion. Once the gays have created their "Christian" gay sect, they can marry in the name of that sect.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are a private organization based upon membership and protected under the first amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see anything in the first amendment constraining it to private organizations or 'membership'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you're making the mistake of perceiving the issue of public accommodations laws as a First Amendment issue, it's not.
> 
> Public accommodations laws are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
Click to expand...


No, I'm doing exactly the opposite. I'm rejecting the argument that churches should be exempted on First Amendment grounds.  The issue should be resolved based soley on whether we consider churches to be businesses or public accommodations.


----------



## PratchettFan

daws101 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a member of the Catholic church?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you read?
> I was a Mormon
> I gave up religion for reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can I read?  Yes.  But I can't read minds.  If you took communion in a Catholic church then you misrepresented yourself to the priest.  They took you at your word.  It's not their fault you lied.  Of course, if the communion was in a Mormon church then the problem was just that you took part in a ritual you didn't believe in.  But the reason you could take part was not that you believed, it was that you were a member of the club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False it was offered and I took it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not false at all.  It was offered to Catholics.  You have to be a Catholic to receive communion in a Catholic church.  If you just get in line, they will assume you are a Catholic.  If you inform the priest you aren't a Catholic before he places the wafer on your tongue, he won't do it.  Either you were misrepresenting yourself or you just didn't have a clue what you were doing.  And I do have to wonder why an Atheist would get in line at all.  Wanted a snack and a quick drink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still false  to be misrepresentation there must be a concious effort to do so .
> there was none.
> Besides nowhere in the bible does it say you must be a member.
> That's just one of countless arbitrary rules of religion.
Click to expand...


As I said, either you were misrepresenting yourself or you didn't know what you were doing.  What was false was the implication just because you were able to do it meant that they allowed it.  They don't.  What is in the bible is irrelevant.  To be married in a Catholic church, take communion, give confession, you have to be a Catholic.  It's a membership organization.  As a membership organization, they can set whatever arbitrary rules they like.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are a private organization based upon membership and protected under the first amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see anything in the first amendment constraining it to private organizations or 'membership'.
Click to expand...


I said it was a private organization and protected by the first amendment, not that the two were connected.  A private club can exclude anyone they like.  It can be men only, women only, whites or blacks only.  That is the nature of being private.  You have to join. It is not just open to whoever walks in the door.  In addition to that, church's are specifically protected under the first amendment.  This is why a church is not the same thing as a gas station.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That's where you lose, dblack.

You simply reject the law's explanation.  So we simply reject your unwillingness to be educated.


----------



## PratchettFan

M14 Shooter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  It's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guaranteed, it will, if it hasn't already.
> 
> 
> 
> And even if some people were silly enough to scream for it, screaming is all that is going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point is that some idiot with no authority at all might express an opinion no one will bother listening to?  Am I supposed to be concerned about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that when it does happen, I hope that the moderate liberals will oppose the idea.
> I will not,. however, bet the farm on it.
Click to expand...


If it happens, it will be opposed by just about everyone except the idiot who expressed the opinion.  There are probably more people who want to hand over our government to the alien overlords they believe actually run everything.


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you have to answer the question asked. I specifically said I'm not interested in the current legal status quo - which is all you recited. Do you think churches SHOULD be required to follow the same laws as the rest of us? If not, why do they get a pass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are a private organization based upon membership and protected under the first amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see anything in the first amendment constraining it to private organizations or 'membership'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said it was a private organization and protected by the first amendment, not that the two were connected.
Click to expand...


Ok, I see what you're saying now. I misread it initially.



> A private club can exclude anyone they like.  It can be men only, women only, whites or blacks only.  That is the nature of being private.  You have to join. It is not just open to whoever walks in the door.  In addition to that, church's are specifically protected under the first amendment.  This is why a church is not the same thing as a gas station.



And that gets the heart of the matter. How should churches, and religious practice in general, be protected by the first amendment? I don't think it should be an excuse for them to ignore laws they don't like, or otherwise get a pass on following the same rules as everyone else. We can argue about whether churches are public or private, or whether they are businesses or not, but it's beside the point I'm trying to make.

I saw the Hobby Lobby decision as wrong on the same grounds. Or any of the other decisions by the Court where the First is used to offer special exemptions or privileges, including tax exemption. And the irony is that those kinds of decisions actually violate the intent of the first amendment by setting government up to decide which religions deserve these perks and which don't.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Then you acknowledge that your 'genetic minority' claim isn't accurate. As *there are numerous non 'genetic minorities' that protected by PA laws*. Including all heterosexuals, at least in those states that protect sexual orientation.


 
I've been wondering how long you were going to take to get the church of LGBT tax-exempt status.  Can't claim nation of origin.  The other two are gender (can't nail that down with you) and race (LGBT has no specific race either).  All that's left is declaring what you factually are, a cult, and then seeing if Uncle Sam will recognize you as a religion....which is how you operate.   Dogma, evangelism and very immediate punishment of heretics.


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack, your libertarianism is a bankrupt system.

The 1st Amendment was created to clearly provided for special treatment of religious believers.  Start "The Church of Dblack Sectarianism and Oil Changes" and you, too, can participate.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you acknowledge that your 'genetic minority' claim isn't accurate. As *there are numerous non 'genetic minorities' that protected by PA laws*. Including all heterosexuals, at least in those states that protect sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been wondering how long you were going to take to get the church of LGBT tax-exempt status.
Click to expand...


Two problems. 

One......there is no 'church of LGBT'. You're hallucinating again. Please take your medication.

Two......that's an absolute non-sequitur. Having nothing to do with what you're replying to.


----------



## daws101

M14 Shooter said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a matter of time before the extremist left starts screaming for the state to force churches to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
> Hopefully, those moderates on the left will stand up and disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like many other things, you clearly do not understand what a straw man is.
> Aside form that you clearly chose to not understand my point.   Well done.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Muhammed said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in the current legal status quo. The operative word here is "should". How do you YOU think the Court should interpret the Constitution. If we're going to have laws forcing merchants or services providers to serve protected classes, why should Churches get a pass? Is the purpose of the First Amendment to give religions special exemptions from laws the rest of us must follow?
> 
> 
> 
> Serve my cock.
Click to expand...

even the tiniest deserve fairyness.


----------



## daws101

Unkotare said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what churches claim they are businesses and should be taxed.
> Nowhere in the bible does god say thou shall not pay taxes.
> It does say rendered unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cite the Bible when you should be reading the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Done both frequently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently not at the appropriate time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More subjective faux reasoning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You waste no time going to the white flag. Try thinking more carefully in the first place.
Click to expand...

what imaginary white flag would that be?
what and when something is appropriate is completely subjective.
end of story.


----------



## daws101

Bleipriester said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. If government approved churches were exempted from the law, it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, they can establish their own religion. Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is unsurprisingly ignorant.
> 
> The vast majority of gay Americans are Christian, and you're in no position to determine if gay Christians are in compliance with their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot pound a butt and be a Christian. You cannot have sex without marriage in Christianity. Homosexuals cannot marry in Christianity. If you are tolerant, you tolerate Christianity as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit there have been gay Christians since the religion was invented.  Christianity is not tolerant or accepting.
> I should say faux Christianity isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Christianity is not tolerant"
> You cannot change the terms of a religion. Once the gays have created their "Christian" gay sect, they can marry in the name of that sect.
Click to expand...

again why not you asshats do it constantly. *argumentum ad populum*  does not fly.


----------



## Unkotare

daws101 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cite the Bible when you should be reading the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Done both frequently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently not at the appropriate time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More subjective faux reasoning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You waste no time going to the white flag. Try thinking more carefully in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what and when something is appropriate is completely subjective.
> end of story.
Click to expand...



Wrong.


----------



## daws101

PratchettFan said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you read?
> I was a Mormon
> I gave up religion for reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I read?  Yes.  But I can't read minds.  If you took communion in a Catholic church then you misrepresented yourself to the priest.  They took you at your word.  It's not their fault you lied.  Of course, if the communion was in a Mormon church then the problem was just that you took part in a ritual you didn't believe in.  But the reason you could take part was not that you believed, it was that you were a member of the club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False it was offered and I took it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not false at all.  It was offered to Catholics.  You have to be a Catholic to receive communion in a Catholic church.  If you just get in line, they will assume you are a Catholic.  If you inform the priest you aren't a Catholic before he places the wafer on your tongue, he won't do it.  Either you were misrepresenting yourself or you just didn't have a clue what you were doing.  And I do have to wonder why an Atheist would get in line at all.  Wanted a snack and a quick drink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still false
> Besides nowhere in the bible does it say you must be a member.
> That's just one of countless arbitrary rules of religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, either you were misrepresenting yourself or you didn't know what you were doing.  What was false was the implication just because you were able to do it meant that they allowed it.  They don't.  What is in the bible is irrelevant.  To be married in a Catholic church, take communion, give confession, you have to be a Catholic.  It's a membership organization.  As a membership organization, they can set whatever arbitrary rules they like.
Click to expand...

still false
to be misrepresentation there must be a conscious effort to do so .
there was none.
I knew exactly what I was doing.
*Secundum Quid*


----------



## daws101

Unkotare said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Done both frequently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently not at the appropriate time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More subjective faux reasoning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You waste no time going to the white flag. Try thinking more carefully in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what and when something is appropriate is completely subjective.
> end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...

correct ..your opining is not fact.


----------



## Bleipriester

daws101 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, they can establish their own religion. Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible.
> 
> 
> 
> This is unsurprisingly ignorant.
> 
> The vast majority of gay Americans are Christian, and you're in no position to determine if gay Christians are in compliance with their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot pound a butt and be a Christian. You cannot have sex without marriage in Christianity. Homosexuals cannot marry in Christianity. If you are tolerant, you tolerate Christianity as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit there have been gay Christians since the religion was invented.  Christianity is not tolerant or accepting.
> I should say faux Christianity isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Christianity is not tolerant"
> You cannot change the terms of a religion. Once the gays have created their "Christian" gay sect, they can marry in the name of that sect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again why not you asshats do it constantly. *argumentum ad populum*  does not fly.
Click to expand...

?


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you acknowledge that your 'genetic minority' claim isn't accurate. As *there are numerous non 'genetic minorities' that protected by PA laws*. Including all heterosexuals, at least in those states that protect sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been wondering how long you were going to take to get the church of LGBT tax-exempt status.
Click to expand...

 


Skylar said:


> Two problems.
> 
> One......there is no 'church of LGBT'. You're hallucinating again. Please take your medication.
> 
> Two......that's an absolute non-sequitur. Having nothing to do with what you're replying to.


 
Your claim was that "non-genetic minorities" (LGBT..etc. behaviors) are deserving to be protected by PA laws.  My response was that the only way a behavior can be a protected class is if it's a recognized religion.  It was spot on point.  So the next question that begged was "when will the cult of LGBT be applying for tax-exempt status; given that they have a dogma, they evangelize to the young, and they swiftly punish heretics"?

Spot on topic Skylar.


----------



## Silhouette

I submit this thread is a duplicate of the other one exactly like it, only with a poll worded so it makes it look like one is assenting to "Christians are breaking the law if they refuse to accomodate gay weddings".  That law has not been decided yet and in 35 some states, a Christian refusing to accomodate a gay wedding IS legal...since gay marriage is not.  Check back with me on that one in a couple weeks here..


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SILHOUETTE SAID:

"I submit this thread is a duplicate of the other one exactly like it, only with a poll worded so it makes it look like one is assenting to "Christians are breaking the law if they refuse to accomodate gay weddings". That law has not been decided yet and in 35 some states, a Christian refusing to accomodate a gay wedding IS legal...since gay marriage is not. Check back with me on that one in a couple weeks here.".

Wrong.

If a business owner in a state or jurisdiction subject to a public accommodations law that has a provision prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation indeed discriminates against a gay patron, that business owner can be subject to a civil suit to enjoin him from engaging in such discrimination, whether or not the business owner's state is in compliance with the 14th Amendment allowing same-sex couples to marry.


----------



## Silhouette

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SILHOUETTE SAID:
> 
> "I submit this thread is a duplicate of the other one exactly like it, only with a poll worded so it makes it look like one is assenting to "Christians are breaking the law if they refuse to accomodate gay weddings". That law has not been decided yet and in 35 some states, a Christian refusing to accomodate a gay wedding IS legal...since gay marriage is not. Check back with me on that one in a couple weeks here.".
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> If a business owner in a state or jurisdiction subject to a public accommodations law that has a provision prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation indeed discriminates against a gay patron, that business owner can be subject to a civil suit to enjoin him from engaging in such discrimination, whether or not the business owner's state is in compliance with the 14th Amendment allowing same-sex couples to marry.


 1. Race: a static state of being.  2. Gender: a static state of being.  3. Country/ethnicity of origin: a static state of being  4. Religion: a post-natal belief system: not a static state of being.

LGBT: not a static state of being.  So, either you are saying LGBT is religion-like (a cult) and I would agree.   Or you are saying that a brand new category of "some minor deviant sex behaviors that change back and forth and are fluid with time" to the 14th Amendment.  So which is it?  Tax exempt as a quasi-religion or a new category for the 14th (that would be then poised to unravel local governance at its core when a minority gets to deny the majority the ability to regulate behaviors locally)?


----------



## Unkotare

daws101 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cite the Bible when you should be reading the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Done both frequently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently not at the appropriate time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More subjective faux reasoning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You waste no time going to the white flag. Try thinking more carefully in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what imaginary white flag would that be?
> what and when something is appropriate is completely subjective.
> end of story.
Click to expand...




You mention the Bible when the operative document is the Constitution in a laughably obvious attempt at obfuscation.


----------



## daws101

Bleipriester said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is unsurprisingly ignorant.
> 
> The vast majority of gay Americans are Christian, and you're in no position to determine if gay Christians are in compliance with their faith.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pound a butt and be a Christian. You cannot have sex without marriage in Christianity. Homosexuals cannot marry in Christianity. If you are tolerant, you tolerate Christianity as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit there have been gay Christians since the religion was invented.  Christianity is not tolerant or accepting.
> I should say faux Christianity isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Christianity is not tolerant"
> You cannot change the terms of a religion. Once the gays have created their "Christian" gay sect, they can marry in the name of that sect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again why not you asshats do it constantly. *argumentum ad populum*  does not fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?
Click to expand...

ignorant as well as homophobic ..


----------



## daws101

Unkotare said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Done both frequently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently not at the appropriate time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More subjective faux reasoning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You waste no time going to the white flag. Try thinking more carefully in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what imaginary white flag would that be?
> what and when something is appropriate is completely subjective.
> end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mention the Bible when the operative document is the Constitution in a laughably obvious attempt at obfuscation.
Click to expand...

false!


----------



## daws101

Silhouette said:


> I submit this thread is a duplicate of the other one exactly like it, only with a poll worded so it makes it look like one is assenting to "Christians are breaking the law if they refuse to accomodate gay weddings".  That law has not been decided yet and in 35 some states, a Christian refusing to accomodate a gay wedding IS legal...since gay marriage is not.  Check back with me on that one in a couple weeks here..


----------



## daws101

Silhouette said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SILHOUETTE SAID:
> 
> "I submit this thread is a duplicate of the other one exactly like it, only with a poll worded so it makes it look like one is assenting to "Christians are breaking the law if they refuse to accomodate gay weddings". That law has not been decided yet and in 35 some states, a Christian refusing to accomodate a gay wedding IS legal...since gay marriage is not. Check back with me on that one in a couple weeks here.".
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> If a business owner in a state or jurisdiction subject to a public accommodations law that has a provision prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation indeed discriminates against a gay patron, that business owner can be subject to a civil suit to enjoin him from engaging in such discrimination, whether or not the business owner's state is in compliance with the 14th Amendment allowing same-sex couples to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Race: a static state of being.  2. Gender: a static state of being.  3. Country/ethnicity of origin: a static state of being  4. Religion: a post-natal belief system: not a static state of being.
> 
> LGBT: not a static state of being.  So, either you are saying LGBT is religion-like (a cult) and I would agree.   Or you are saying that a brand new category of "some minor deviant sex behaviors that change back and forth and are fluid with time" to the 14th Amendment.  So which is it?  Tax exempt as a quasi-religion or a new category for the 14th (that would be then poised to unravel local governance at its core when a minority gets to deny the majority the ability to regulate behaviors locally)?
Click to expand...




Silhouette said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SILHOUETTE SAID:
> 
> "I submit this thread is a duplicate of the other one exactly like it, only with a poll worded so it makes it look like one is assenting to "Christians are breaking the law if they refuse to accomodate gay weddings". That law has not been decided yet and in 35 some states, a Christian refusing to accomodate a gay wedding IS legal...since gay marriage is not. Check back with me on that one in a couple weeks here.".
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> If a business owner in a state or jurisdiction subject to a public accommodations law that has a provision prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation indeed discriminates against a gay patron, that business owner can be subject to a civil suit to enjoin him from engaging in such discrimination, whether or not the business owner's state is in compliance with the 14th Amendment allowing same-sex couples to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Race: a static state of being.  2. Gender: a static state of being.  3. Country/ethnicity of origin: a static state of being  4. Religion: a post-natal belief system: not a static state of being.
> 
> LGBT: not a static state of being.  So, either you are saying LGBT is religion-like (a cult) and I would agree.   Or you are saying that a brand new category of "some minor deviant sex behaviors that change back and forth and are fluid with time" to the 14th Amendment.  So which is it?  Tax exempt as a quasi-religion or a new category for the 14th (that would be then poised to unravel local governance at its core when a minority gets to deny the majority the ability to regulate behaviors locally)?
Click to expand...


----------



## Silhouette

daws101 said:


>


 
Did you get that?  If you have an opposing view to Hitler, you're actually "a closet Nazi".  Didn't realize logic worked that way.  But hey, coming from the cult that believes "it's normal and sane" to amputate your genitals to play-act the opposite gender...well...it all sort of fits really..


----------



## JakeStarkey

LGBT is as wired as straight sexual orientation.


----------



## Bleipriester

daws101 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pound a butt and be a Christian. You cannot have sex without marriage in Christianity. Homosexuals cannot marry in Christianity. If you are tolerant, you tolerate Christianity as it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit there have been gay Christians since the religion was invented.  Christianity is not tolerant or accepting.
> I should say faux Christianity isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Christianity is not tolerant"
> You cannot change the terms of a religion. Once the gays have created their "Christian" gay sect, they can marry in the name of that sect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again why not you asshats do it constantly. *argumentum ad populum*  does not fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ignorant as well as homophobic ..
Click to expand...

When it comes to gays that want to impose their worldview onto others, I may be "ignorant as well as homophobic". On the other hand, I am not telling you what to do.


----------



## Syriusly

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



No church or other place of worship should be forced to accommodate for weddings of any kind.


----------



## Unkotare

daws101 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently not at the appropriate time.
> 
> 
> 
> More subjective faux reasoning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You waste no time going to the white flag. Try thinking more carefully in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what imaginary white flag would that be?
> what and when something is appropriate is completely subjective.
> end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mention the Bible when the operative document is the Constitution in a laughably obvious attempt at obfuscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false!
Click to expand...




Laughably obvious.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get that?  If you have an opposing view to Hitler, you're actually "a closet Nazi".  Didn't realize logic worked that way.  But hey, coming from the cult that believes "it's normal and sane" to amputate your genitals to play-act the opposite gender...well...it all sort of fits really..
Click to expand...


You are a homophobic bigot.

You constantly post with the sole purpose of attacking homosexuals.

You aren't a closet anything- you are just an open homophobic bigot.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you acknowledge that your 'genetic minority' claim isn't accurate. As *there are numerous non 'genetic minorities' that protected by PA laws*. Including all heterosexuals, at least in those states that protect sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been wondering how long you were going to take to get the church of LGBT tax-exempt status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two problems.
> 
> One......there is no 'church of LGBT'. You're hallucinating again. Please take your medication.
> 
> Two......that's an absolute non-sequitur. Having nothing to do with what you're replying to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claim was that "non-genetic minorities" (LGBT..etc. behaviors) are deserving to be protected by PA laws.  My response was that the only way a behavior can be a protected class is if it's a recognized religion.
Click to expand...


Then again your responses are complete whack.

We protect minority groups who have been attacked in the past for who they are- whether or not who they are is genetic, or passed on by parentage or by choice is immaterial. 

You only object when homosexuals are protected. 

Because- and only because they are homosexuals- and you want to encourage attacks on homosexuals.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Long gay thread here! 

Check this out. 

Charity and Sylvia The Remarkable Story of How Two Women Married Each Other in Early America Brain Pickings

It seems gay Americans have been getting married since the beginning. 

Freak out, nutters.


----------



## Derideo_Te

LoneLaugher said:


> Long gay thread here!
> 
> Check this out.
> 
> Charity and Sylvia The Remarkable Story of How Two Women Married Each Other in Early America Brain Pickings
> 
> It seems gay Americans have been getting married since the beginning.
> 
> Freak out, nutters.



Thank you. 

That was quite touching and a part of history that should be documented.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Derideo_Te said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Long gay thread here!
> 
> Check this out.
> 
> Charity and Sylvia The Remarkable Story of How Two Women Married Each Other in Early America Brain Pickings
> 
> It seems gay Americans have been getting married since the beginning.
> 
> Freak out, nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> That was quite touching and a part of history that should be documented.
Click to expand...


Learned about it from a great podcast. "Ben Franklin's World". It offers a very in depth look at early American history. The kind of shit liberals like to listen to.

Ben Franklin s World - A Podcast About Early American History

Enjoy.


----------



## dblack

Would the mod who merged my thread with this one please unmerge it. I'd like to discuss the original topic, and this thread has developed into something else. I started the new thread to avoid interfering with the discussion here.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you acknowledge that your 'genetic minority' claim isn't accurate. As *there are numerous non 'genetic minorities' that protected by PA laws*. Including all heterosexuals, at least in those states that protect sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been wondering how long you were going to take to get the church of LGBT tax-exempt status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two problems.
> 
> One......there is no 'church of LGBT'. You're hallucinating again. Please take your medication.
> 
> Two......that's an absolute non-sequitur. Having nothing to do with what you're replying to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claim was that "non-genetic minorities" (LGBT..etc. behaviors) are deserving to be protected by PA laws.  My response was that the only way a behavior can be a protected class is if it's a recognized religion.  It was spot on point.
Click to expand...


No, its not. As there's no such requirement. Like most of your pseudo-legal gibberish, you've made up the requirement. None actually exists.

Next fallacy, please.



> So the next question that begged was "when will the cult of LGBT be applying for tax-exempt status; given that they have a dogma, they evangelize to the young, and they swiftly punish heretics"?



First, there is no 'church of LGBT'. You've hallucinated it.

Second....your comments have nothing to do with what is being discussed. As one need not be a 'genetic minority' or in possession of an 'innate trait' in order to be protected. Disproving your entire thesis.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> I submit this thread is a duplicate of the other one exactly like it, only with a poll worded so it makes it look like one is assenting to "Christians are breaking the law if they refuse to accomodate gay weddings".  That law has not been decided yet and in 35 some states, a Christian refusing to accomodate a gay wedding IS legal...since gay marriage is not.  Check back with me on that one in a couple weeks here..



I submit that in 37 of 50 States, the gay marriage is legal. And the legality of gay marriage is irrelevant to a church being forced to perform one, as no church is nor has ever been forced to perform a marriage ceremony against their will.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SILHOUETTE SAID:
> 
> "I submit this thread is a duplicate of the other one exactly like it, only with a poll worded so it makes it look like one is assenting to "Christians are breaking the law if they refuse to accomodate gay weddings". That law has not been decided yet and in 35 some states, a Christian refusing to accomodate a gay wedding IS legal...since gay marriage is not. Check back with me on that one in a couple weeks here.".
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> If a business owner in a state or jurisdiction subject to a public accommodations law that has a provision prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation indeed discriminates against a gay patron, that business owner can be subject to a civil suit to enjoin him from engaging in such discrimination, whether or not the business owner's state is in compliance with the 14th Amendment allowing same-sex couples to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Race: a static state of being.  2. Gender: a static state of being.  3. Country/ethnicity of origin: a static state of being  4. Religion: a post-natal belief system: not a static state of being.
> 
> LGBT: not a static state of being.  So, either you are saying LGBT is religion-like (a cult) and I would agree.
Click to expand...


The premise of your argument is that LGBT must be 'race' or 'gender' or 'country of origin' or 'religion' in order to be protected. There is no such requirement. Your entire argument based on the fallacy that these 4 classes of people are listed in the 14th amendment. And you're quite simply wrong:



> Or you are saying that a brand new category of "some minor deviant sex behaviors that change back and forth and are fluid with time" to the 14th Amendment.



The 14th amendment does not include the word 'race'. The 14th amendment does not include the word 'gender'. The 14th amendment does not include the words 'country of origin'. The 14th amendment does not include the word 'religion'. 

You've quite literally hallucinated the entire thing, inventing your own 14th amendment. Not only disproving your entire argument that LGBT must be one of your 4 arbitrary 'categories'. But also disproving the idea that you have the slightest idea what you're talking about. 

You're literally arguing your own hallucinations.

Back in reality, a trait need not be innate or genetic in order to be protected. Nor must a trait fall within the 4 arbitrary categories of your hallucinations about the 14th amendment. As Romer v. Evans and Lawerence v. Texas demonstrate elegantly.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> The premise of your argument is that LGBT must be 'race' or 'gender' or 'country of origin' or 'religion' in order to be protected. There is no such requirement. Your entire argument based on the fallacy that these 4 classes of people are listed in the 14th amendment. And you're quite simply wrong.


 
Are you saying that a group can just make up a classification, like "bulimic-Americans for vomit urns at restaurants" and they can use the 14th any way they like to get themselves special legal protections and shoehorns? 

Innateness, as dcraelin said, is a qualifier for the 14th.  The only exception to that is freedom of religion.  Got your tax exempt status yet?  Youv'e nailed down your dogma, evangelizing to kids and swift punishment for heretics.  Got those in the bag.


----------



## Silhouette

dblack said:


> Would the mod who merged my thread with this one please unmerge it. I'd like to discuss the original topic, and this thread has developed into something else. I started the new thread to avoid interfering with the discussion here.


 
Or you started your exact same thread topic to pull readers away from the poll results in this thread.

Just start a new thread with your "brand new theme of discussion" title on it and don't make your poll look nearly identical to this one.


----------



## mdk

It looks like another week has passed and not a single church in this nation has been forced to marry *any *couple against their wishes. How many weeks in a row has it been now? lol.

Incoming legal gibberish on how individual members of a congregations are churches themselves in 3...2...1...


----------



## Ernie S.

dblack said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.
> 
> What evidence do you have that such is not the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.
Click to expand...

Bakers are not protected by a Constitutional amendment. We could argue whether or not individuals engaged in baking cakes should be allowed to opt out based on the first amendment, but churches are very clearly protected.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would the mod who merged my thread with this one please unmerge it. I'd like to discuss the original topic, and this thread has developed into something else. I started the new thread to avoid interfering with the discussion here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you started your exact same thread topic to pull readers away from the poll results in this thread.
> 
> Just start a new thread with your "brand new theme of discussion" title on it and don't make your poll look nearly identical to this one.
Click to expand...


And the results state that churches should not be forced to marry gay couples against their wishes. Many of the people that support gay marriage have also voted that they shouldn't be forced to marry gays. I was one of them. Of course, you take the results of this poll and lie about how those people actually don't support gays getting married at all. All you have Sil is misrepresentations, outright lies, and, your hysterical imagination. Is it any wonder you and you ilk have such a shitty track record in the courthouse?


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> It looks like another week has passed and not a single church in this nation has been forced to marry *any *couple against their wishes. How many weeks in a row has been now? lol.
> 
> Incoming legal gibberish on how individual members of a congregations are churches themselves in 3...2...1...


That depends on how you define the word "church".  Individual Christians have been forced to participate in "gay weddings" under threat of litigation and fines.  How is a church different from its individual members, specifically.  And saying anything about "tax exempt" doesn't address the philosophical question I just asked.  Defined EXACTLY how a "church" is protected but what makes up a church isn't?


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like another week has passed and not a single church in this nation has been forced to marry *any *couple against their wishes. How many weeks in a row has been now? lol.
> 
> Incoming legal gibberish on how individual members of a congregations are churches themselves in 3...2...1...
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on how you define the word "church".  Individual Christians have been forced to participate in "gay weddings" under threat of litigation and fines.  How is a church different from its individual members, specifically.  And saying anything about "tax exempt" doesn't address the philosophical question I just asked.  Defined EXACTLY how a "church" is protected but what makes up a church isn't?
Click to expand...


As I predicted you show up with legal gibberish on how individual members of a congregations are churches themselves. They are not. I am going with how the law defines a church and not what your imagination believes is a church.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> As I predicted you show up with legal gibberish on how individual members of a congregations are churches themselves. They are not. I am going with how the law defines a church and not what your imagination believes is a church.



ROFLMNAO!

In 1995, not a single homosexual had demanded to be accepted for marriage, while applying for marriage with a person of their own gender.

So, using your reasoning, there's no reason for homosexuals to be demanding such.  Despite their chronic demand for such... even as we speak.

_What's more, using your reasoning, there was no reason for people in 1995, to see "Don't Ask Don't Tell" as a Slippery Slope, setting up the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, tearing down essential cultural standards, which guard societal viability.  Yet, Don't Ask, Don't Tell did in fact lead the culture down the slippery slope to the irrational precipice, where men claim 'the right' to interject themselves into an institution essential to civilization, despite their being wholly unsuited for such._

Again Reader, another member of the Homo-Cult to foment irrational notions, defying reality in their on-going battle with *D E L U S I O N . . .*


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I predicted you show up with legal gibberish on how individual members of a congregations are churches themselves. They are not. I am going with how the law defines a church and not what your imagination believes is a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> In 1995, not a single homosexual had demanded to be accepted for marriage, while applying for marriage with a person of their own gender.
> 
> So, using your reasoning, there's no reason for homosexuals to be demanding such.  Despite their chronic demand for such... even as we speak.
> 
> What's more, using your reasoning, there was no reason for people in 1995, seeing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" as a Slippery Slope, setting up the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, tearing down essential cultural standards, which guard societal viability.
> 
> Again Reader, another member of the Homo-Cult to foment irrational notions, defying reality in their on-going battle with *D E L U S I O N . . .*
Click to expand...


You calling anyone delusional is as rich as Croesus. You insist that your opinion on every matter is fact when in reality it is nothing more then your subjective opinion. You gas on endlessly about relativism while simultaneously being the biggest relativist on this site. Pretend all you wish but not a single church has been forced to marry *any* couple against their wishes. *Not one!* Stomping your feet harder isn't going to change the fact that gays are getting married and their isn't a single fucking thing you can do about it. Cue your tell in 3...2...1...


----------



## Silhouette

It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings".  I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings".  I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?



You're asking those incapable of objective thought to find truth, which can only be accessed through objective reason.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> ... the fact that gays are getting married and their isn't a single fucking thing you can do about it.



Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the fact that gays are getting married and their isn't a single fucking thing you can do about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
Click to expand...


Gays are presently getting married in 37 states despite all your hand wringing and crying. Likely all 50 by the month's end. You can pretend all you wish that they can't but nobody really gives a shit b/c your imagination has zero effect on reality or law.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Again Reader, the key to defeating Leftists in debate, rests upon two fundamentals: 

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to speak.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the fact that gays are getting married and their isn't a single fucking thing you can do about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
Click to expand...


Which is true in all 50 states.  In addition it is the joining of one man/one man, and one woman/one woman in 37 of those 50.


>>>>


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the fact that gays are getting married and their isn't a single fucking thing you can do about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays are presently getting married in 37 states ...
Click to expand...


Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the fact that gays are getting married and their isn't a single fucking thing you can do about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is true in all 50 states.  In addition it is the joining of one man/one man, and one woman/one woman in 37 of those 50.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

 Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> You calling anyone delusional is as rich as Croesus. You insist that your opinion on every matter is fact when in reality it is nothing more then your subjective opinion. You gas on endlessly about relativism while simultaneously being the biggest relativist on this site. Pretend all you wish but not a single church has been forced to marry *any* couple against their wishes. *Not one!* Stomping your feet harder isn't going to change the fact that gays are getting married and their isn't a single fucking thing you can do about it. Cue your tell in 3...2...1...



Would someone else go through the above drivel and find, then highlight any aspect of it that in ANY WAY engages the argument?

For your edification I will repost the argument below:

_"In 1995, not a single homosexual had demanded to be accepted for marriage, while applying for marriage with a person of their own gender.

So, using your reasoning, there's no reason for homosexuals to be demanding such.  Despite their chronic demand for such... even as we speak.

What's more, using your reasoning, there was no reason for people in 1995, to see "Don't Ask Don't Tell" as a Slippery Slope, setting up the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, tearing down essential cultural standards, which guard societal viability.  Yet, Don't Ask, Don't Tell did in fact lead the culture down the slippery slope to the irrational precipice, where men claim 'the right' to interject themselves into an institution essential to civilization, despite their being wholly unsuited for such.

Again Reader, another member of the Homo-Cult comes to foment irrational notions, defying reality in their on-going battle with *D E L U S I O N . . ."*_


----------



## mdk

Keys thinks spamming will somehow bend reality to his will. Too funny.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the fact that gays are getting married and their isn't a single fucking thing you can do about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays are presently getting married in 37 states ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
Click to expand...


Marriage, as defined and used by religion, is the giving to a man a woman from another family to cement a relationship bond. Had nothing to do with love, and even in the Bible with Adam and Eve was not about mutual desire or love but the woman being given to the man as a kind of servant or gift. 

Marriage as an expression of love did not come from religion.


----------



## daws101

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the fact that gays are getting married and their isn't a single fucking thing you can do about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
Click to expand...

not always another arbitrary rule by religion.


----------



## daws101

Delta4Embassy said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the fact that gays are getting married and their isn't a single fucking thing you can do about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays are presently getting married in 37 states ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage, as defined and used by religion, is the giving to a man a woman from another family to cement a relationship bond. Had nothing to do with love, and even in the Bible with Adam and Eve was not about mutual desire or love but the woman being given to the man as a kind of servant or gift.
> 
> Marriage as an expression of love did not come from religion.
Click to expand...

adam and eve were never married ....adam had another girl friend before eve her name was  Lillith.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

daws101 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the fact that gays are getting married and their isn't a single fucking thing you can do about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays are presently getting married in 37 states ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage, as defined and used by religion, is the giving to a man a woman from another family to cement a relationship bond. Had nothing to do with love, and even in the Bible with Adam and Eve was not about mutual desire or love but the woman being given to the man as a kind of servant or gift.
> 
> Marriage as an expression of love did not come from religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> adam and eve were never married ....adam had another girl friend before eve her name was  Lillith.
Click to expand...


Lilith and Eve were indeed best described as Adam's concubines, 'someone kept around to provide sexual gratification.'


----------



## daws101

Delta4Embassy said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays are presently getting married in 37 states ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage, as defined and used by religion, is the giving to a man a woman from another family to cement a relationship bond. Had nothing to do with love, and even in the Bible with Adam and Eve was not about mutual desire or love but the woman being given to the man as a kind of servant or gift.
> 
> Marriage as an expression of love did not come from religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> adam and eve were never married ....adam had another girl friend before eve her name was  Lillith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lilith and Eve were indeed best described as Adam's concubines, 'someone kept around to provide sexual gratification.'
Click to expand...

doing sheep and goats would get old after awhile!


----------



## Silhouette

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings".  *I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking those incapable of objective thought to find truth, which can only be accessed through objective reason.
Click to expand...

..lol... good point.  But the question remains unanswered.  I'd like the LGBT faithful here to answer the question in bold above.

According to Windsor 2013 which awarded E. Windsor money based on the Finding that was avered 56 times in their 26 page Opinion that said "the power on this question of gay marriage law rests with the states and always has since our nation's founding", only 11 states had legal gay marriage according to state-enacted laws as of Windsor 2013's publication.

No lower court may usurp SCOTUS's finding from underneath on a specific Finding of law.  Therefore, the only states where gay marriage is legal is in those states who themselves enacted it by due process.  I think that number hovers around 15 in present time.  That means 35 states do not have legal gay marriage; and never have.  Lower federal circuit judges aren't allowed to "make up the law on the fly" in defiance of SCOTUS.


----------



## daws101

Silhouette said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings".  *I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking those incapable of objective thought to find truth, which can only be accessed through objective reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..lol... good point.  But the question remains unanswered.  I'd like the LGBT faithful here to answer the question in bold above.
Click to expand...

why? that's a meaningless question.


----------



## Silhouette

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings". *I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?*
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking those incapable of objective thought to find truth, which can only be accessed through objective reason.
Click to expand...

..lol... good point. But the question remains unanswered. I'd like the LGBT faithful here to answer the question in bold above.



daws101 said:


> why? that's a meaningless question.


 
No daws, the question is the crux of everything we're debating here.  You're refusal to answer it does have meaning however....

To correct a falsehood posted earlier:

According to Windsor 2013 which awarded E. Windsor money based on the Finding that was avered 56 times in their 26 page Opinion that said "the power on this question of gay marriage law rests with the states and always has since our nation's founding", only 11 states had legal gay marriage according to state-enacted laws as of Windsor 2013's publication.

No lower court may usurp SCOTUS's finding from underneath on a specific Finding of law. Therefore, the only states where gay marriage is legal is in those states who themselves enacted it by due process. I think that number hovers around 15 in present time. That means 35 states do not have legal gay marriage; and never have.

Lower federal circuit judges aren't allowed to "make up the law on the fly" in defiance of SCOTUS.


----------



## mdk

Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country. Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard. You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.


----------



## daws101

the 2 previous post are mutual masturbation by to raging homophobes


----------



## daws101

Nature s Homosexuality - Softpedia

*Homosexuality, as natural as heterosexual sex*
When we say homosexuality is against nature, this is the biggest nonsense.

If we peek on nature, we'll see animal gays arising from any corner...

Homosexuality as an unnatural phenomenon can now be rejected scientifically.

From male killer whales that ride the dorsal fin of another male to female bonobos (dwarf chimpanzee) that rub their genitals together, the animal kingdom tolerates all kinds of lifestyles.

With more than 1,500 species displaying homosexuality, you can really have a chance to visualize the phenomenon!

And it has been confirmed from invertebrates (like crayfish and beetles) till the anthropoid (man like) apes.

The idea, however, is rarely discussed in the scientific community and is often dismissed as unnatural because it doesn't appear to benefit the larger cause of species continuation.

"I think to some extent people don't think it's important because we went through all this time period in sociobiology where everything had to be tied to reproduction and reproductive success," said Linda Wolfe, who heads the Department of Anthropology at East Carolina University.

"If it doesn't have [something to do] with reproduction it's not important."

However, species continuation may not always be the ultimate goal, as many animals, including humans, engage in sexual activities more than it's necessary for reproduction.

And as has been observed for tens of years that animals take drugs (see article bellow) and look for pleasure, why sex for pure pleasure would be so unnatural?

"You can make up all kinds of stories: Oh it's for dominance, it's for this, it's for that, but when it comes down to the bottom I think it's just for sexual pleasure," Wolfe told.

Conversely, some argue that homosexual sex could have a bigger natural cause than just pure ecstasy: namely evolutionary benefits.

Copulation could be used for alliance and protection among animals of the same sex.

In situations when a species is mostly bisexual, homosexual relationships permit an easier way to join a pack.

"In bonobos for instance, strict heterosexual individuals would not be able to make friends in the flock and thus never be able to breed," said Petter Bockman from University of Oslo.

"In some bird species that bond for life, homosexual pairs raise young. If they are females, a male may fertilize their eggs. If they are males, a solitary female may mate with them and deposit her eggs in their nest."

In Australian black swan, almost 25 % of the families are homosexual couples


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country.* Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard.* You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.


 What is a church then mdk?  Define it for me.


----------



## daws101

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country.* Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard.* You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church then mdk?  Define it for me.
Click to expand...

a church is a place people go to worship god all other consideration are self-serving


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

daws101 said:


> the 2 previous post are mutual masturbation by to raging homophobes



Absolutely _Fascinating._

Pure, unadulterated, unbridled,* D E L U S I O N . . .*


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country.* Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard.* You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church then mdk?  Define it for me.
Click to expand...


The law already defines what is a church Sil. Your imagination...not so much. The only definition you'll accept is one that supports your anti-gay narrative and your definition doesn't have any legal support. Get over it, people are not churches in this country. You can pretend they are all you wish but the rest of us are under no obligation to do so.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

daws101 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country.* Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard.* You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church then mdk?  Define it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a church is a place people go to worship god all other consideration are self-serving
Click to expand...


LOL!  

So the argument is regarding a building?

ROFLMNAO!  

The delusion is _STUNNING..._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country.* Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard.* You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church then mdk?  Define it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law already defines what is a church ...
Click to expand...


OH!  That's great.  Please cite the legal definition of the Church.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

daws101 said:


> Nature s Homosexuality - Softpedia
> 
> *Homosexuality, as natural as heterosexual sex*



*HEY!  Syphilis and the HIV... as natural as homosexuals who are Sexual MAGNETS FOR BOTH!

*


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country.* Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard.* You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church then mdk?  Define it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law already defines what is a church ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  That's great.  Please cite the legal definition of the Church.
Click to expand...


Did your Google break? Go look it up yourself. I am not going to play fetch for a deluded clown like you. People are not churches in this country. Get over it. Or don't.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country.* Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard.* You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church then mdk?  Define it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law already defines what is a church ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  That's great.  Please cite the legal definition of the Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did your Google break?
Click to expand...


Meaning... that despite declaring that "The Church" was designed by Law... that when you said that, you did _not _actually have anything in mind, which could _at this point_ be used to demonstrate that you were _not_ LYING OUT YOUR ASS... in an attempt to *DECEIVE THE READERS OF THIS BOARD... . *

I understand and I feel for ya.  

Because it looks like that really _SUCKS _for ya.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country.* Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard.* You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.





Silhouette said:


> What is a church then mdk?  Define it for me.


 


mdk said:


> The law already defines what is a church ...


 


Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Please cite the legal definition of the Church.


 
Yes, I for one am done with you making a claim and not supporting it with evidence.  Define the word "church" legally.  Now.

Or shall I do it for you?   _Church: A congregation of individual worshippers_.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Delta4Embassy said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the fact that gays are getting married and their isn't a single fucking thing you can do about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays are presently getting married in 37 states ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage, as defined and used by religion, is the giving to a man a woman from another family to cement a relationship bond. Had nothing to do with love, and even in the Bible with Adam and Eve was not about mutual desire or love but the woman being given to the man as a kind of servant or gift.
> 
> Marriage as an expression of love did not come from religion.
Click to expand...


Yet, nature designed human physiology providing two distinct but complementing genders, each respectively designed to join with the other... wherein two bodies form one sustainable entity. 

And this without regard to who did what and when... or what culture embraced what deviancy in its decay into its final days.  

Now, you'll notice that there is not one note of religiosity in those medical facts.  

That is science... wherein innees are scientifically established to be conducive to joining with outees...  which encourages conception, which leaves the female with the burden of gestation, her physical circumstances severely compromised, except where she is sustained by another... which nature's design calls to be the one who's seed is reproducing inside her, forming a new human being, who will be nurtured and trained through their union of complementing traits... .  

These are the self-evident truths of humanity.

Now, let's revisit your own interpretation that such reflects religious principle.

You see these scientific facts as religious principle, because they are truth.  And from your perspective truth, is the enemy.  

Which means that you're animated by deceit.  Which is a function of decadence.  

And toward the demonstration of the nature of deceit and the inevitable decay that comes from it, you who otherwise raise SCIENCE! up to something akin to sanctity... now find yourselves DENYING otherwise undeniable scientific fact and the rich history of humanity that was provided by and through the reality which establishes those facts.

Thus Truth is your enemy, Reality is your enemy... *Religion,* is your enemy. 

.

.

.

You are, therefore:* E V I L *_. . ._


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country.* Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard.* You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church then mdk?  Define it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law already defines what is a church ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please cite the legal definition of the Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I for one am done with you making a claim and not supporting it with evidence.  Define the word "church" legally.  Now.
Click to expand...


Go look it up yourself. Now.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> Go look it up yourself. Now.



But wait... you said that 'the Church' was defined by law.  And when you're asked to show what that definition is, ya can't inform the Readers of what it was YOU HAD IN MIND WHEN YOU ADVISED THEM THAT THE LAW DEFINES THE CHURCH.

But hey... all that means is that you WERE SURE YOU KNEW SOMETHING, which in TRUTH: _YOU DID NOT KNOW._

Which is to say that despite, having NOTHING IN MIND WHICH COULD HAVE INFORMED YOU THAT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING WAS TRUE... YOU ADVISED THE READER THAT SUCH WAS TRUE.

Thus... you LIED.

You knowingly advanced DECEIT AS TRUTH and despite having demonstrated that you have no knowledge that would sustain such, you maintain that such is true.

Now... Reader, what does that mean?

It means that MDK, is mired in _an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder... OKA: *D E L U S I O N . . . *_


----------



## Seawytch

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country.* Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard.* You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church then mdk?  Define it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law already defines what is a church ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please cite the legal definition of the Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I for one am done with you making a claim and not supporting it with evidence.  Define the word "church" legally.  Now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go look it up yourself. Now.
Click to expand...


It's already been posted here.

What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country.* Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard.* You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church then mdk?  Define it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law already defines what is a church ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please cite the legal definition of the Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I for one am done with you making a claim and not supporting it with evidence.  Define the word "church" legally.  Now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go look it up yourself. Now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's already been posted here.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
Click to expand...


Not the point Gladys...

To help ya through this, THE POINT is that IT DID NOT KNOW... and it DEMONSTRATED THAT IT DID NOT KNOW.

And what's more, THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT DEFINITION WHICH DEFINES *THE CHURCH *AS *"A BUILDING!"*.

Because, _"The Church" _is the body of individuals who CONGREGATE in fellowship with one another, in devotion and worship of: The Father; which is to say:* GOD.*

By forcing A CONGREGANT one forces THE CONGREGATION, OKA: THE CHURCH.

Now let's run down the information from your reference:

"Common definitions of the word "church" refer to the religious entity or organization, not just the building itself.

To define churches and other religious entities, some of the IRS guidelines consider whether or not an institution has:


a distinct legal existence and religious history,
a recognized creed and form of worship,
established places of worship
a regular congregation and regular religious services, and
an organization of ordained ministers"
No where does the Federal Law define 'The Church' as "A building".

Anyone else want to argue that?


----------



## mdk

Seawytch said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country.* Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard.* You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church then mdk?  Define it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law already defines what is a church ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please cite the legal definition of the Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I for one am done with you making a claim and not supporting it with evidence.  Define the word "church" legally.  Now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go look it up yourself. Now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's already been posted here.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
Click to expand...


I know it has and they know it has but since it doesn't fit thier narrative they ignore it and insist it doesn't exist. They are trying terribly hard to convince others that churches are being forced to marry gays. The only people they're fooling is themselves.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> I know it had and they know it has but since it doesn't fit your narrative they ignore it and insists  it doesn't exist.



ROFLMNAO!

No one was contesting that The Law defined what a church was...

Not a single individual ...

What we DID contest is that YOU HAD SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THAT DEFINITION... and that the definition in ANY WAY served to sustain your position... which you've clearly demonstrated _ya did NOT have any knowledge of the legal definition and that legal definition in NO WAY favored your now thoroughly discredited argument.

See how that works?_


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it had and they know it has but since it doesn't fit your narrative they ignore it and insists  it doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> No one was contesting that The Law defined what a church was...
> 
> Not a single individual ...
> 
> What we DID contest is that YOU HAD SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THAT DEFINITION... and that the definition in ANY WAY served to sustain your position... which you've clearly demonstrated _ya did NOT have any knowledge of the legal definition and that legal definition in NO WAY favored your now thoroughly discredited argument.
> 
> See how that works?_
Click to expand...


What a crock of shit! My argument still stands and the legal definition doesn't support your poppycock of individual members of church are in fact churches. Something we already knew but were hoping no one else did. Poor delusional Keys.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it had and they know it has but since it doesn't fit your narrative they ignore it and insists  it doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> No one was contesting that The Law defined what a church was...
> 
> Not a single individual ...
> 
> What we DID contest is that YOU HAD SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THAT DEFINITION... and that the definition in ANY WAY served to sustain your position... which you've clearly demonstrated _ya did NOT have any knowledge of the legal definition and that legal definition in NO WAY favored your now thoroughly discredited argument.
> 
> See how that works?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a crock of shit! My argument still stands and the legal definition doesn't support your poppycock of individual members of church are in fact churches. Something we already knew but were no one else did. Poor delusional Keys.
Click to expand...


Your argument is delusional.

You can't force something upon a congregant and claim that you're not forcing it upon the congregation.


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it had and they know it has but since it doesn't fit your narrative they ignore it and insists  it doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> No one was contesting that The Law defined what a church was...
> 
> Not a single individual ...
> 
> What we DID contest is that YOU HAD SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THAT DEFINITION... and that the definition in ANY WAY served to sustain your position... which you've clearly demonstrated _ya did NOT have any knowledge of the legal definition and that legal definition in NO WAY favored your now thoroughly discredited argument.
> 
> See how that works?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a crock of shit! My argument still stands and the legal definition doesn't support your poppycock of individual members of church are in fact churches. Something we already knew but were no one else did. Poor delusional Keys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument is delusional.
> 
> You can't force something upon a congregant and claim that you're not forcing it upon the congregation.
Click to expand...


What am I forcing on a congregant again?


----------



## dblack

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would the mod who merged my thread with this one please unmerge it. I'd like to discuss the original topic, and this thread has developed into something else. I started the new thread to avoid interfering with the discussion here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you started your exact same thread topic to pull readers away from the poll results in this thread.
> 
> Just start a new thread with your "brand new theme of discussion" title on it and don't make your poll look nearly identical to this one.
Click to expand...


But I'm actually interested in the nominal topic of this thread, and most of you all have moved on to something else. When I brought up the original question I was told, in so many words, that it was a dead horse in this thread. So I thought it might be more considerate to reboot the discussion in another. I don't quite get why that was wrong or a problem.


----------



## dblack

Ernie S. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.
> 
> What evidence do you have that such is not the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bakers are not protected by a Constitutional amendment. We could argue whether or not individuals engaged in baking cakes should be allowed to opt out based on the first amendment, but churches are very clearly protected.
Click to expand...


How so? Are public accommodations laws "regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Because that's all the First Amendment has to say about religious protection. Ironically, public accommodations laws to violate the First Amendment, but not in the way that you seem to think. They violate it by offering special protections for religions - which is pretty clearly "law regarding the establishment of religion".

The intent of the religious rights guaranteed by the Constitution is to keep government out of telling people which religions they can and can't practice, not to give members of officially recognized religions special privileges.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The premise of your argument is that LGBT must be 'race' or 'gender' or 'country of origin' or 'religion' in order to be protected. There is no such requirement. Your entire argument based on the fallacy that these 4 classes of people are listed in the 14th amendment. And you're quite simply wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that a group can just make up a classification, like "bulimic-Americans for vomit urns at restaurants" and they can use the 14th any way they like to get themselves special legal protections and shoehorns?
Click to expand...


I'm saying exactly what I've said. That the 14th amendment doens't contain the words 'gender', 'race', 'country of origin', or 'religion'. That you hallucinated it all, making up your own 14th amendment. And that your hallucinations don't mandate that gays be a 'gender', 'race', 'country of origin', or 'religion' in order to be protected.

Your entire argument is pseudo-legal gibberish backed by delusion. Both of which are irrelevant to the outcome of any court case.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings".  I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?



An individual Christian isn't a church. 

You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings".  I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An individual Christian isn't a church.
> 
> You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status.
Click to expand...


Is that how government declares which religions are 'real'?


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings".  I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An individual Christian isn't a church.
> 
> You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that how government declares which religions are 'real'?
Click to expand...


I'm not having this debate with you. As its all merely a long, tedious round about way back to your libertarian argument. Which we've already had.

You've got your own thread for this. Don't shit on this one.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings".  I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An individual Christian isn't a church.
> 
> You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that how government declares which religions are 'real'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not having this debate with you. As its all merely a long, tedious round about way back to your libertarian argument. Which we've already had.
> 
> You've got your own thread for this. Don't shit on this one.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, I don't. Someone decided it should be merged with this one.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings".  I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An individual Christian isn't a church.
> 
> You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that how government declares which religions are 'real'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not having this debate with you. As its all merely a long, tedious round about way back to your libertarian argument. Which we've already had.
> 
> You've got your own thread for this. Don't shit on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't. Someone decided it should be merged with this one.
Click to expand...


Well then rename it or something. You're begging for a merger if you pick the exact same name. I've got your back in terms of you debating whatever you'd like in your own thread.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings".  I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An individual Christian isn't a church.
> 
> You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that how government declares which religions are 'real'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not having this debate with you. As its all merely a long, tedious round about way back to your libertarian argument. Which we've already had.
> 
> You've got your own thread for this. Don't shit on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't. Someone decided it should be merged with this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then rename it or something. You're begging for a merger if you pick the exact same name. I've got your back in terms of you debating whatever you'd like in your own thread.
Click to expand...


Well, I'm on topic. If anything, your flamewar with the homophobes is the threadcrap. Feel free to ignore my posts.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> An individual Christian isn't a church.
> 
> You can tell by the lack of tax exempt status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that how government declares which religions are 'real'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not having this debate with you. As its all merely a long, tedious round about way back to your libertarian argument. Which we've already had.
> 
> You've got your own thread for this. Don't shit on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't. Someone decided it should be merged with this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then rename it or something. You're begging for a merger if you pick the exact same name. I've got your back in terms of you debating whatever you'd like in your own thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm on topic. If anything, your flamewar with the homophobes is the threadcrap. Feel free to ignore my posts.
Click to expand...


Or you could do us both a favor and stop trying to draw me into a conversation we've already had and I already told you I'm not interested in having again.

Either works.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that how government declares which religions are 'real'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not having this debate with you. As its all merely a long, tedious round about way back to your libertarian argument. Which we've already had.
> 
> You've got your own thread for this. Don't shit on this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't. Someone decided it should be merged with this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then rename it or something. You're begging for a merger if you pick the exact same name. I've got your back in terms of you debating whatever you'd like in your own thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm on topic. If anything, your flamewar with the homophobes is the threadcrap. Feel free to ignore my posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or you could do us both a favor and stop trying to draw me into a conversation we've already had and I already told you I'm not interested in having again.
> 
> Either works.
Click to expand...


I'm not trying to do anything other than discuss the topic. If you don't want to talk about it, don't respond. Is it that hard?


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not having this debate with you. As its all merely a long, tedious round about way back to your libertarian argument. Which we've already had.
> 
> You've got your own thread for this. Don't shit on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't. Someone decided it should be merged with this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then rename it or something. You're begging for a merger if you pick the exact same name. I've got your back in terms of you debating whatever you'd like in your own thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm on topic. If anything, your flamewar with the homophobes is the threadcrap. Feel free to ignore my posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or you could do us both a favor and stop trying to draw me into a conversation we've already had and I already told you I'm not interested in having again.
> 
> Either works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to do anything other than discuss the topic. If you don't want to talk about it, don't respond. Is it that hard?
Click to expand...


You're trying to bring us back to your libertarian argument that there shouldn't be any protected classes. We've had this discussion already. I'm not going to waste hours of my life debating 'how religions are chosen' or 'why religions aren't businesses' or any of your other bullshit proxy issues just to get back to the same libertarian argument.

I already know the destination. We've both been there together. I have a T-shirt even. I'm not interested.

Take no for an answer.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't. Someone decided it should be merged with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then rename it or something. You're begging for a merger if you pick the exact same name. I've got your back in terms of you debating whatever you'd like in your own thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm on topic. If anything, your flamewar with the homophobes is the threadcrap. Feel free to ignore my posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or you could do us both a favor and stop trying to draw me into a conversation we've already had and I already told you I'm not interested in having again.
> 
> Either works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to do anything other than discuss the topic. If you don't want to talk about it, don't respond. Is it that hard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're trying to bring us back to your libertarian argument that there shouldn't be any protected classes.
Click to expand...


That's your paranoid delusion. Just like the homophobes have the paranoid delusion that gays are trying to force churches to perform their weddings.

Believe it or not, I'm trying to talk about the way our Court has interpreted the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment. In particular, whether it should be used as an excuse for religious people to get a "waiver" on public accommodations laws.



> We've had this discussion already. *I'm not going to waste hours of my life debating* 'how religions are chosen' or 'why religions aren't businesses' or any of your other bullshit proxy issues just to get back to the same libertarian argument.



Then for fuck's sake don't. But stop telling me I have to sit down and shut up. Because I don't. And I won't.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then rename it or something. You're begging for a merger if you pick the exact same name. I've got your back in terms of you debating whatever you'd like in your own thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm on topic. If anything, your flamewar with the homophobes is the threadcrap. Feel free to ignore my posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or you could do us both a favor and stop trying to draw me into a conversation we've already had and I already told you I'm not interested in having again.
> 
> Either works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to do anything other than discuss the topic. If you don't want to talk about it, don't respond. Is it that hard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're trying to bring us back to your libertarian argument that there shouldn't be any protected classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your paranoid delusion.
Click to expand...


No, that's my experience. And I'm hardly the only one who has made the same observation. You hijack other threads to pimp your libertarian argument. Steering them toward the same destination with bullshit proxy issues that you don't give a shit about ....and that waste enormous quantities of my time.

Especially since I've already had the libertarian argument with you. Why would I go through an endless procession of bullshit proxy issues to get to the same argument we've already had?

No means no. And yes Regis, that is my final answer.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm on topic. If anything, your flamewar with the homophobes is the threadcrap. Feel free to ignore my posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you could do us both a favor and stop trying to draw me into a conversation we've already had and I already told you I'm not interested in having again.
> 
> Either works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to do anything other than discuss the topic. If you don't want to talk about it, don't respond. Is it that hard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're trying to bring us back to your libertarian argument that there shouldn't be any protected classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your paranoid delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's my experience. And I'm hardly the only one who has made the same observation. You hijack other threads to pimp your libertarian argument. Steering them toward the same destination with bullshit proxy issues that you don't give a shit about ....and that waste enormous quantities of my time.
> 
> Especially since I've already had the libertarian argument with you. Why would I go through an endless procession of bullshit proxy issues to get to the same argument we've already had?
> 
> No means no. And yes Regis, that is my final answer.
Click to expand...


Ahh... good.


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country.* Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard.* You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church then mdk?  Define it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law already defines what is a church ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please cite the legal definition of the Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I for one am done with you making a claim and not supporting it with evidence.  Define the word "church" legally.  Now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go look it up yourself. Now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's already been posted here.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
Click to expand...

This article points out, in spades, the way the federal status quo regarding religious freedom a complete perversion. Rather than prohibiting government from playing favorites with religions, it does the opposite, defining a privileged set of religious beliefs, and offering them special perks and exemptions.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country.* Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard.* You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.





Silhouette said:


> What is a church then mdk?  Define it for me.


 


mdk said:


> The law already defines what is a church ...


 


Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Please cite the legal definition of the Church.


 


Silhouette said:


> Yes, I for one am done with you making a claim and not supporting it with evidence.  Define the word "church" legally.  Now.


 


mdk said:


> Go look it up yourself. Now.


 


Seawytch said:


> It's already been posted here.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com





dblack said:


> This article points out, in spades, the way the federal status quo regarding religious freedom a complete perversion. Rather than prohibiting government from playing favorites with religions, it does the opposite, defining a privileged set of religious beliefs, and offering them special perks and exemptions.


 
So, you're saying LGBT is a religion and thereby could use that to get special perks and exemptions?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country.* Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard.* You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church then mdk?  Define it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law already defines what is a church ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please cite the legal definition of the Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I for one am done with you making a claim and not supporting it with evidence.  Define the word "church" legally.  Now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go look it up yourself. Now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already been posted here.
> 
> What Constitutes a Church Under Federal Laws legalzoom.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This article points out, in spades, the way the federal status quo regarding religious freedom a complete perversion. Rather than prohibiting government from playing favorites with religions, it does the opposite, defining a privileged set of religious beliefs, and offering them special perks and exemptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you're saying LGBT is a religion and thereby could use that to get special perks and exemptions?
Click to expand...


The only one saying that LGBT is a religion is you. But then, you also insisted that the 14th amendment included the protected 'categories' of race, gender, nation of origin and religion. So clearly you citing yourself doesn't amount to much.


----------



## Ernie S.

dblack said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.
> 
> What evidence do you have that such is not the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bakers are not protected by a Constitutional amendment. We could argue whether or not individuals engaged in baking cakes should be allowed to opt out based on the first amendment, but churches are very clearly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so? Are public accommodations laws "regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Because that's all the First Amendment has to say about religious protection. Ironically, public accommodations laws to violate the First Amendment, but not in the way that you seem to think. They violate it by offering special protections for religions - which is pretty clearly "law regarding the establishment of religion".
> 
> The intent of the religious rights guaranteed by the Constitution is to keep government out of telling people which religions they can and can't practice, not to give members of officially recognized religions special privileges.
Click to expand...

Reread the First Amendment.

_*Congress shall make no law*_ respecting an establishment of _religion_, or _*prohibiting the free exercise thereof*_.

It is very plain and first in order for a reason.


----------



## Jackson

Why do gays insist that all churches be same and allow their marriages?  Just find a preacher who will do the job.  It probably isn't that hard.  Or shack up and perform your own vows privately.  Stop the fighting.


----------



## Skylar

Jackson said:


> Why do gays insist that all churches be same and allow their marriages?  Just find a preacher who will do the job.  It probably isn't that hard.  Or shack up and perform your own vows privately.  Stop the fighting.



Which gays are you referring to?


----------



## Jackson

Skylar said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays insist that all churches be same and allow their marriages?  Just find a preacher who will do the job.  It probably isn't that hard.  Or shack up and perform your own vows privately.  Stop the fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which gays are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Any of them.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“So, you're saying LGBT is a religion and thereby could use that to get special perks and exemptions?”

No one is saying any such thing.

This ridiculous straw man fallacy you've contrived was eviscerated long ago.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Jackson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays insist that all churches be same and allow their marriages?  Just find a preacher who will do the job.  It probably isn't that hard.  Or shack up and perform your own vows privately.  Stop the fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which gays are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any of them.
Click to expand...

Who are 'them' – what are their names, how many of 'them' are there, and what proof do you have that 'them' are representative of all gay Americans, or even exist, for that matter.


----------



## Jackson

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays insist that all churches be same and allow their marriages?  Just find a preacher who will do the job.  It probably isn't that hard.  Or shack up and perform your own vows privately.  Stop the fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which gays are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are 'them' – what are their names, how many of 'them' are there, and what proof do you have that 'them' are representative of all gay Americans, or even exist, for that matter.
Click to expand...


Dear Clayton, I am referring to anyone of what is considered their homosexual persuasion.  If they want to be married by a preacher, pastor or rabbi do some searching and find one that will do the job.  If a person is religious, they should be happy with the presence of God in any ritual they find.  Or Buddah, Mohammad, etc.


----------



## Skylar

Jackson said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays insist that all churches be same and allow their marriages?  Just find a preacher who will do the job.  It probably isn't that hard.  Or shack up and perform your own vows privately.  Stop the fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which gays are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any of them.
Click to expand...


Who says any gay insists that all churches allow their marriages?

Your premise seems a little.....undeveloped.


----------



## dblack

Ernie S. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.
> 
> What evidence do you have that such is not the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bakers are not protected by a Constitutional amendment. We could argue whether or not individuals engaged in baking cakes should be allowed to opt out based on the first amendment, but churches are very clearly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so? Are public accommodations laws "regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Because that's all the First Amendment has to say about religious protection. Ironically, public accommodations laws to violate the First Amendment, but not in the way that you seem to think. They violate it by offering special protections for religions - which is pretty clearly "law regarding the establishment of religion".
> 
> The intent of the religious rights guaranteed by the Constitution is to keep government out of telling people which religions they can and can't practice, not to give members of officially recognized religions special privileges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reread the First Amendment.
> 
> _*Congress shall make no law*_ respecting an establishment of _religion_, or _*prohibiting the free exercise thereof*_.
> 
> It is very plain and first in order for a reason.
Click to expand...


We're not talking about laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. They prohibit, or mandate in the case of PA laws, specific acts. Are you really suggesting that the first amendment should be interpreted to allow religious people to ignore any law that conflicts with their religion?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

dblack said:


> We're not talking about laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. They prohibit, or mandate in the case of PA laws, specific acts. ...



Whoa... 

So you're NOT talking about laws that prohibit the free exercise of Religion.  They're talking about laws that prohibit the specific acts which define, the free exercise of Religion.

Everyone clear on that?


----------



## Seawytch

Jackson said:


> Why do gays insist that all churches be same and allow their marriages?  Just find a preacher who will do the job.  It probably isn't that hard.  Or shack up and perform your own vows privately.  Stop the fighting.



Why did interracial couples insist that "all churches be the same and allow their marriages"? Why did blacks insist that the Mormon church accept them as full members? Why couldn't they just find a different church that did accept them? Why did women insist on having leadership positions in churches? Why couldn't they just start their own churches?


----------



## dblack

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. They prohibit, or mandate in the case of PA laws, specific acts. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa...
> 
> So you're NOT talking about laws that prohibit the free exercise of Religion.  They're talking about laws that prohibit the specific acts which define, the free exercise of Religion.
> 
> Everyone clear on that?
Click to expand...


You're apparently not. The religion clause of the first amendment is a protection from government persecution, not a get out of jail free card. Free exercise of a religion doesn't include the freedom to break laws that your religion doesn't agree with. If you don't buy that, let me ask you this - is a Muslim man's free exercise of religion violated by laws prohibiting wife-beating if he devoutly believes it's his religious duty to do so?


----------



## paddymurphy

" Individual Christians have been forced to participate in "gay weddings" under threat of litigation and fines."  That is an absolute and complete lie.  The only example was a story out of Idaho that turned out to be completely made up.  Some guy who claimed to be a minister owned a wedding hall that hosted all kind of weddings and other events, including civil wedding ceremonies.  In a total set up, someone from an organization opposing gay marriage called the city to ask whether this hall's refusal to allow a gay marriage to use their facilities would violate an anti-discrimination ordinance.  When they were correctly told that it would, this group recruited the owner and threatened to sue.  The owner, however, also changed the ownership of the hall so that it was a religious, non-profit, and, therefore, specifically exempt from the anti-discrimination ordinance.  The city never threatened anyone with fines or imprisonment and no one actually tried to use the hall for a gay wedding.  And baking a cake in your bakery that someone will pick up and take to the wedding reception is not participating in the wedding ceremony.


----------



## paddymurphy

Silhouette said:


> It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings".  I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?


It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings" .  And, here you are, still lying.


----------



## paddymurphy

Silhouette said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is real that actual Christians have been "legally" forced to participate enabling "gay weddings".  *I'll ask again, specifically how are individual Christians different from a congregation of them?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking those incapable of objective thought to find truth, which can only be accessed through objective reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..lol... good point.  But the question remains unanswered.  I'd like the LGBT faithful here to answer the question in bold above.
> 
> According to Windsor 2013 which awarded E. Windsor money based on the Finding that was avered 56 times in their 26 page Opinion that said "the power on this question of gay marriage law rests with the states and always has since our nation's founding", only 11 states had legal gay marriage according to state-enacted laws as of Windsor 2013's publication.
> 
> No lower court may usurp SCOTUS's finding from underneath on a specific Finding of law.  Therefore, the only states where gay marriage is legal is in those states who themselves enacted it by due process.  I think that number hovers around 15 in present time.  That means 35 states do not have legal gay marriage; and never have.  Lower federal circuit judges aren't allowed to "make up the law on the fly" in defiance of SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Have someone explain to you the difference between a state's power to legislate on a topic and the requirement that when they do, they not violate the constitutional requirements that they not deny equal protection of the law to any particular group when doing so or they not deny to anyone the substantive due process that guarantees them the liberty to make important decisions about their lives from from government intrusion.  Saying the states have the power to regulate marriage is stating the obvious and something that no one disputes.  They have the power to do many things.  They don't have the power, however, to do any of those things in a way that violates the Constitution.


----------



## paddymurphy

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country.* Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard.* You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church then mdk?  Define it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law already defines what is a church ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  That's great.  Please cite the legal definition of the Church.
Click to expand...

Like - Click this link to Add this page to your bookmarks Share - Click this link to Share this page through email or social media Print - Click this link to Print this page

*"Churches" Defined*
The term _church_ is found, but not specifically defined, in the Internal Revenue Code. With the exception of the special rules for church audits, the use of the term _church_ also includes conventions and associations of churches as well as integrated auxiliaries of a church.

Certain characteristics are generally attributed to churches.  These attributes of a church have been developed by the IRS and by court decisions.  They include:


Distinct legal existence
Recognized creed and form of worship
Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
Formal code of doctrine and discipline
Distinct religious history
Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
Organization of ordained ministers
Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study
Literature of its own
Established places of worship
Regular congregations
Regular religious services
Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young
Schools for the preparation of its members
The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics, together with other facts and circumstances, to determine whether an organization is considered a church for federal tax purposes.


----------



## paddymurphy

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, your question was already answered. You didn't like the answer so your ignored it entirely. Your idea of what constitutes a church isn't supported by a law in this country.* Individual members of a church are not churches themselves. Not by any legal definition or standard.* You only what that to be the standard so you can lie about how churches are being forced to marry gay couples. They are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a church then mdk?  Define it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law already defines what is a church ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please cite the legal definition of the Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I for one am done with you making a claim and not supporting it with evidence.  Define the word "church" legally.  Now.
> 
> Or shall I do it for you?   _Church: A congregation of individual worshippers_.
Click to expand...

Like - Click this link to Add this page to your bookmarks Share - Click this link to Share this page through email or social media Print - Click this link to Print this page

*"Churches" Defined*
The term _church_ is found, but not specifically defined, in the Internal Revenue Code. With the exception of the special rules for church audits, the use of the term _church_ also includes conventions and associations of churches as well as integrated auxiliaries of a church.

Certain characteristics are generally attributed to churches.  These attributes of a church have been developed by the IRS and by court decisions.  They include:


Distinct legal existence
Recognized creed and form of worship
Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
Formal code of doctrine and discipline
Distinct religious history
Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
Organization of ordained ministers
Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study
Literature of its own
Established places of worship
Regular congregations
Regular religious services
Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young
Schools for the preparation of its members
The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics, together with other facts and circumstances, to determine whether an organization is considered a church for federal tax purposes.


----------



## Ernie S.

dblack said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.
> 
> What evidence do you have that such is not the case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bakers are not protected by a Constitutional amendment. We could argue whether or not individuals engaged in baking cakes should be allowed to opt out based on the first amendment, but churches are very clearly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so? Are public accommodations laws "regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Because that's all the First Amendment has to say about religious protection. Ironically, public accommodations laws to violate the First Amendment, but not in the way that you seem to think. They violate it by offering special protections for religions - which is pretty clearly "law regarding the establishment of religion".
> 
> The intent of the religious rights guaranteed by the Constitution is to keep government out of telling people which religions they can and can't practice, not to give members of officially recognized religions special privileges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reread the First Amendment.
> 
> _*Congress shall make no law*_ respecting an establishment of _religion_, or _*prohibiting the free exercise thereof*_.
> 
> It is very plain and first in order for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. They prohibit, or mandate in the case of PA laws, specific acts. Are you really suggesting that the first amendment should be interpreted to allow religious people to ignore any law that conflicts with their religion?
Click to expand...

Not at all. What I'm saying is that no law that hinders my right to practice my religion how I choose can pass Constitutional muster.
Now, if I decided to start a religion that demanded its adherents sacrifice virgins, you have a point, but forcing a church to marry gays?

No one is harmed. The couple may have to find another church or a justice of the peace.
Forcing a church to perform a rite that violates their values and beliefs does them harm.


----------



## dblack

Ernie S. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.
> 
> 
> 
> Bakers are not protected by a Constitutional amendment. We could argue whether or not individuals engaged in baking cakes should be allowed to opt out based on the first amendment, but churches are very clearly protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so? Are public accommodations laws "regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Because that's all the First Amendment has to say about religious protection. Ironically, public accommodations laws to violate the First Amendment, but not in the way that you seem to think. They violate it by offering special protections for religions - which is pretty clearly "law regarding the establishment of religion".
> 
> The intent of the religious rights guaranteed by the Constitution is to keep government out of telling people which religions they can and can't practice, not to give members of officially recognized religions special privileges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reread the First Amendment.
> 
> _*Congress shall make no law*_ respecting an establishment of _religion_, or _*prohibiting the free exercise thereof*_.
> 
> It is very plain and first in order for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. They prohibit, or mandate in the case of PA laws, specific acts. Are you really suggesting that the first amendment should be interpreted to allow religious people to ignore any law that conflicts with their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. What I'm saying is that no law that hinders my right to practice my religion how I choose can pass Constitutional muster.
> Now, if I decided to start a religion that demanded its adherents sacrifice virgins, you have a point, but forcing a church to marry gays?
> 
> No one is harmed. The couple may have to find another church or a justice of the peace.
> Forcing a church to perform a rite that violates their values and beliefs does them harm.
Click to expand...


Agreed. You won't get any argument from me that PA laws are wrong. But the question is whether religion should be grounds for an exemption. And that is a different argument.


----------



## Silhouette

dblack said:


> Agreed. You won't get any argument from me that PA laws are wrong. But the question is whether religion should be grounds for an exemption. And that is a different argument.


 
Let's see...  1st Amendment vs local PA laws.  Which will win?  That's like pitting Nicolai Valuev against Pippy Longstockings.  I think I know where I'll put my money.


----------



## Ernie S.

dblack said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bakers are not protected by a Constitutional amendment. We could argue whether or not individuals engaged in baking cakes should be allowed to opt out based on the first amendment, but churches are very clearly protected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so? Are public accommodations laws "regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Because that's all the First Amendment has to say about religious protection. Ironically, public accommodations laws to violate the First Amendment, but not in the way that you seem to think. They violate it by offering special protections for religions - which is pretty clearly "law regarding the establishment of religion".
> 
> The intent of the religious rights guaranteed by the Constitution is to keep government out of telling people which religions they can and can't practice, not to give members of officially recognized religions special privileges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reread the First Amendment.
> 
> _*Congress shall make no law*_ respecting an establishment of _religion_, or _*prohibiting the free exercise thereof*_.
> 
> It is very plain and first in order for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. They prohibit, or mandate in the case of PA laws, specific acts. Are you really suggesting that the first amendment should be interpreted to allow religious people to ignore any law that conflicts with their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. What I'm saying is that no law that hinders my right to practice my religion how I choose can pass Constitutional muster.
> Now, if I decided to start a religion that demanded its adherents sacrifice virgins, you have a point, but forcing a church to marry gays?
> 
> No one is harmed. The couple may have to find another church or a justice of the peace.
> Forcing a church to perform a rite that violates their values and beliefs does them harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. You won't get any argument from me that PA laws are wrong. But the question is whether religion should be grounds for an exemption. And that is a different argument.
Click to expand...

There is no argument until the 1st Amendment is repealed.


----------



## Silhouette

Ernie S. said:


> There is no argument until the 1st Amendment is repealed.


 
Yeah "until"...give 'em enough time.  A cult always guts the core of its opposition and then replaces it with their own Constitution...


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no argument until the 1st Amendment is repealed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah "until"...give 'em enough time.  A cult always guts the core of its opposition and then replaces it with their own Constitution...
Click to expand...


Which might make some sense...if LGBT were a 'cult'. Or a 'religion'. Or any of the other nonsense you've made up.

Alas, its not.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Which might make some sense...if LGBT were a 'cult'. Or a 'religion'. Or any of the other nonsense you've made up.
> 
> Alas, its not.


 
You've read the OP of this thread I trust?  A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which might make some sense...if LGBT were a 'cult'. Or a 'religion'. Or any of the other nonsense you've made up.
> 
> Alas, its not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've read the OP of this thread I trust?  A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...

Yes, it's ignorant, ridiculous, and idiotic.


----------



## Silhouette

You've read the OP of this thread I trust?  A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Yes, it's ignorant, ridiculous, and idiotic.


You're calling the leader of the Northwest Chapter of LGBT "ignorant, ridiculous and idiotic"?  She's a lesbian.  Think carefully before you hurl insults at her..


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“This presents a problem.” 

Ignorant, ridiculous, and idiotic.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> You've read the OP of this thread I trust?  A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's ignorant, ridiculous, and idiotic.
> 
> 
> 
> You're calling the leader of the Northwest Chapter of LGBT "ignorant, ridiculous and idiotic"?  She's a lesbian.  Think carefully before you hurl insults at her..
Click to expand...


You're still quoting yourself as a legal authority? Sil....your imaginary 'static status' bullshit has nothing to do with the law. No LGBT person has to establish your imaginary status. Nor do anything you insist they must do. 

As none of the categories you insist are in the 14th amendment are even mentioned. Nor has the Supreme Court ever found that protection of gays is based on your imaginary 'static status' babble.

You making up a pseudo-legal 'standard' doesn't actually obligate anyone to do anything.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which might make some sense...if LGBT were a 'cult'. Or a 'religion'. Or any of the other nonsense you've made up.
> 
> Alas, its not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've read the OP of this thread I trust?  A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


Yup. And you citing you isn't a legal standard.  As you're nobody. 

Remember, you made up your own 14th amendment in the thread you just cited. The Supreme Court uses the real one.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which might make some sense...if LGBT were a 'cult'. Or a 'religion'. Or any of the other nonsense you've made up.
> 
> Alas, its not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've read the OP of this thread I trust?  A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...

 


Skylar said:


> Yup. *And you citing you isn't a legal standard*.  As you're nobody.
> 
> Remember, you made up your own 14th amendment in the thread you just cited. The Supreme Court uses the real one.


 
Let's look at the quote from the OP then, to see if it's "me citing me".  Let's take a listen straight from the horse's mouth on the group that's claiming a legal static status in order to force Christians to their knees:

(Remember, this passage is a quote from a person heading up the Northwest chapter of LGBT, not "me")

What the future of the LGBTQ movement holds Portland Pride 2015 OregonLive.com


> Debra Porta, president of Pride Northwest – the nonprofit that organized this weekend's Portland Pride festivities – said the LGBTQ movement has a very strong future ahead, but it hinges on the community all sticking together...."Gay" became LGB to recognize lesbians and bisexuals. It grew into LGBT with the addition of the trans community, then to LGBTQ with those who identify as queer or questioning. Some intersex people have even pushed for an extension to LGBTIQ....It's a mouthful, to say the least....


 


> *The "alphabet soup" as some in the community call it, is consistently under discussion*, Porta said, leading to alternative catchall terms for the diverse group. Some have suggested GSRM – Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities – or the increasingly popular description "gender non-conforming."...The word "queer" has gained a lot of steam lately, but older people in the movement bristle at a word that was once thrown so commonly as a slur...."*The phrasing that someone chooses to use is very sort of individual, and a lot of it is very generational*," Porta said.


----------



## Silhouette

Well Skylar?  Do you agree with Ms. Porta?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Well Skylar?  Do you agree with Ms. Porta?



What relevance does 'Ms. Porta' have with you making up an imaginary 'Viable Static Class' requirement.....a requirement that has no basis in law nor is used by the court?

And also, what does 'Ms. Porta' have to do with you making up 'categories of the 14th amendment' that the 14th amendment* never mentions*?

Again, your standard of 'static class' is pseudo-legal gibberish. No such requirement exists.  And your 'categories of the 14th amendment' is just delusion.  Neither are relevant to the law nor the outcome of any case.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Skylar?  Do you agree with Ms. Porta?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What relevance does 'Ms. Porta' have with you making up an imaginary 'Viable Static Class' requirement.....a requirement that has no basis in law nor is used by the court?
> 
> And also, what does 'Ms. Porta' have to do with you making up 'categories of the 14th amendment' that the 14th amendment* never mentions*?
> 
> Again, your standard of 'static class' is pseudo-legal gibberish. No such requirement exists.  And your 'categories of the 14th amendment' is just delusion.  Neither are relevant to the law nor the outcome of any case.
Click to expand...

OK, so as a hypothetical example of your position, your stance is that, say,  "Bulimic Americans" can sue all the way to the Supreme Court and win to have vomit urns placed on restaurant tables so their eating-orientation-identity isn't discriminated against?

That would be an example of another minority behavioral-group claiming a static identity on their behavior, and then using that false premise to launch a "rights campaign" that, even if repugnant to the majority, would trump the majority.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> you made up your own 14th amendment in the thread you just cited. The Supreme Court uses the real one.


 
...and if your false premise succeeds, the "real one" will have to accomodate the example I just gave in my last post.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> you made up your own 14th amendment in the thread you just cited. The Supreme Court uses the real one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and if your false premise succeeds, the "real one" will have to accomodate the example I just gave in my last post.
Click to expand...


The premise isn't 'false'. Your made up 14th amendment is. You cited 'race', 'country of origin', 'religion' and 'gender' as the categories in the 14th amendment. But 14th makes no mention of any of them. It has no such categories. You made that up.

And when the Supreme Court reads the 14th amendment they're going to read the one that actually exists. Not the made up 'categorical' 14th that you imagined.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Skylar?  Do you agree with Ms. Porta?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What relevance does 'Ms. Porta' have with you making up an imaginary 'Viable Static Class' requirement.....a requirement that has no basis in law nor is used by the court?
> 
> And also, what does 'Ms. Porta' have to do with you making up 'categories of the 14th amendment' that the 14th amendment* never mentions*?
> 
> Again, your standard of 'static class' is pseudo-legal gibberish. No such requirement exists.  And your 'categories of the 14th amendment' is just delusion.  Neither are relevant to the law nor the outcome of any case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, so as a hypothetical example of your position, your stance is that, say,  "Bulimic Americans" can sue all the way to the Supreme Court and win to have vomit urns placed on restaurant tables so their eating-orientation-identity isn't discriminated against?
Click to expand...


There's no 'hypothetical'. The court has never used your 'static class' babble in any case involving gays. Nor have they ever based a ruling that protected gays on gays being a 'static class'.

You made all that up.

And your made up pseudo-legal gibberish has no relevance to the law or the outcome of any case. And in case there was any confusion, I'm referring to the actual law and the outcomes of actual cases. Not the hypothetical nonsense you imagine.

You can make up whatever you'd like. But it obligates no one to do anything.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> There's no 'hypothetical'. The court has never used your 'static class' babble in any case involving gays. Nor have they ever based a ruling that protected gays on gays being a 'static class'..


 
The question really isn't whether or not they HAVE used the static consideration when weighing these cases.  It's whether or not they SHOULD.  Given that precedent paves the way for others to follow, setting a precident where people who don't even understand who they themselves are, or who shift around and are too fluid to nail down, based on behaviors, the Court should be thinking ahead to the future who will be citing the "Gay 2015" case as a wedge to gain access to the same "rights and protections"...  So far behaviors have never gotten special protection outside religion.  This would be a first.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no 'hypothetical'. The court has never used your 'static class' babble in any case involving gays. Nor have they ever based a ruling that protected gays on gays being a 'static class'..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question really isn't whether or not they HAVE used the static consideration when weighing these cases.  It's whether or not they SHOULD.
Click to expand...


Nope. As its irrelevant to the questions the court is answering:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

There's no significant legal question as to what 'same sex' is. Rendering your entire argument more pseudo-legal gibberish.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> There's no 'hypothetical'. The court has never used your 'static class' babble in any case involving gays. Nor have they ever based a ruling that protected gays on gays being a 'static class'..


 


Silhouette said:


> The question really isn't whether or not they HAVE used the static consideration when weighing these cases.  It's whether or not they SHOULD.


 


Skylar said:


> Nope. As its irrelevant to the questions the court is answering:
> 
> 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
> 
> 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
> 
> There's no significant legal question as to what 'same sex' is. Rendering your entire argument more pseudo-legal gibberish.


 There isn't much I can really guarantee you about this case Skylar.  But one thing I can guarantee you at least.  The Court isn't going to be putting on blinders and taking a dissective myopic view of forcing gay marriage on the states whose majority does not want it...or at least wants to debate it a bit longer.

You can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on the fact that the Court is really deliberating this one.  Hence the reason we haven't heard anything yet.  The reason they are is because children are not only involved in marriage, but are the main characters in it and the reason marriage was created in the first place.  People knew that when men and women got together, babies come along.  Marriage is a union to bind those babies parents together to make sure they have both a mother and a father to best grow up and meet the world under the daily mentoring thereby.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no 'hypothetical'. The court has never used your 'static class' babble in any case involving gays. Nor have they ever based a ruling that protected gays on gays being a 'static class'..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question really isn't whether or not they HAVE used the static consideration when weighing these cases.  It's whether or not they SHOULD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. As its irrelevant to the questions the court is answering:
> 
> 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
> 
> 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
> 
> There's no significant legal question as to what 'same sex' is. Rendering your entire argument more pseudo-legal gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There isn't much I can really guarantee you about this case Skylar.  But one thing I can guarantee you at least.  The Court isn't going to be putting on blinders and taking a dissective myopic view of forcing gay marriage on the states whose majority does not want it...or at least wants to debate it a bit longer.
Click to expand...


And wow, did you ever move your goal posts. As you abandoned your 'static class' gibberish entirely. 

Is there any claim I can't run you off of?


----------



## Silhouette

I said the question wasn't whether or not they HAVE.  I didn't say they had.  Can you read english?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> I said the question wasn't whether or not they HAVE.  I didn't say they had.  Can you read english?



More accurately, none of your imaginary 'static class' requirements actually exist. Nor have any relevance to the rulings affirming the rights of gays or that protect them.

Remember.....you making up a 'legal requirement' for gays is meaningless. And obligates no one to do anything.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> More accurately, *none of your imaginary 'static class' requirements actually exist. Nor have any relevance* to the rulings affirming the rights of gays or that protect them.
> 
> Remember.....you making up a 'legal requirement' for gays is meaningless. And obligates no one to do anything.


They do seem to exist and have relevance when LGBTs use that (false) premise as if they were a static class in order to force Christians to bend/abdicate their faith in order to accomodate their de facto waffling deviant sex cult.  Then all of a sudden we're supposed to assume they have a static/identifiable identity.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> More accurately, *none of your imaginary 'static class' requirements actually exist. Nor have any relevance* to the rulings affirming the rights of gays or that protect them.
> 
> Remember.....you making up a 'legal requirement' for gays is meaningless. And obligates no one to do anything.
> 
> 
> 
> They do seem to exist when LGBTs use that premise as if they were a static class in order to force Christians to bend/abdicate their faith in order to accomodate their de facto waffling deviant sex cult.  Then all of a sudden we're supposed to assume they have a static/identifiable identity.
Click to expand...


Its the bakers who made that determination when they denied them service. And it doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is.....only that they were denied serviced based on it.

Someone denied because they are heterosexual would be just as protected.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> More accurately, *none of your imaginary 'static class' requirements actually exist. Nor have any relevance* to the rulings affirming the rights of gays or that protect them.
> 
> Remember.....you making up a 'legal requirement' for gays is meaningless. And obligates no one to do anything.





Silhouette said:


> They do seem to exist when LGBTs use that premise as if they were a static class in order to force Christians to bend/abdicate their faith in order to accomodate their de facto waffling deviant sex cult.  Then all of a sudden we're supposed to assume they have a static/identifiable identity.


 


Skylar said:


> Its the bakers who made that determination when they denied *them* service. And it doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is.....only that they were denied serviced based on it.
> 
> Someone denied because they are heterosexual would be just as protected.


 
But who are "them"?  Exactly?  It's the act, not the person that is being denied.  If they were people who like to publicly flaunt their homosexual preferences in public ("gays") getting a birthday cake or a graduation cake, no problem.  Everyone has a birthday and everyone graduates from something.  Just not everyone may marry.  That includes polygamists and others; not JUST "gays".  Christians however have to draw the line at "gay marriage" because marriage is the hub of society.  It is the attempt at defilement of an institution for the most pure raising of children: father & mother.  Christians cannot be a part of that....under threat of their eternal damnation. (Jude 1)


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> But who are "them"?  Exactly?  It's the act, not the person that is being denied.


An 'act' doesn't order a cake. People do. And its the people that were turned down.



> It is the attempt at defilement of an institution for the most pure raising of children: father & mother.  Christians cannot be a part of that....under threat of their eternal damnation. (Jude 1)



Jude 1 never mentions cake. Or gay weddings. Or anything we're discussing.

If you believe that your religion makes your job impossible....get another job. Its your responsibility to find a profession that matches your faith. Not the job of the world to adapt to whatever you choose to believe.

It would be like Steve Young demanding that the Superbowl had to have been played on a Saturday....since he didn't work on Sunday. Or a Buddhist insisting that the slaughterhouse he worked at stop killing animals because it violates his religious beliefs.

Nope. That dog won't hunt


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> But who are "them"?  Exactly?  It's the act, not the person that is being denied.





Skylar said:


> An 'act' doesn't order a cake. People do. And its the people that were turned down.


 
Those people want other people (Christians) to participate in the act that the other people don't want to participate in from religious convictions.  The mandate in Jude 1 includes any act a Christian might do that would not be "earnestly contending" the spread of a homosexual culture throughout any society, not just Sodom.  Marriage is the nucleus, ground zero, the hub of any culture.  Enabling homosexuals to use the word "marriage" (by baking a "wedding" cake or taking "wedding" photos or catering a "wedding" etc.) is a direct violation of Jude 1's mandate.  And Christians cannot do that.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Its the bakers who made that determination when they denied them service.




And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.

There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.


----------



## Silhouette

Well on Tuesday, the Southern Baptists announced that no matter what law was passed, they will not be performing gay weddings or having anything to do with them.

I think that's called "throwing down the gauntlet"..

And you have to wonder if the LGBTs will do some type of kneejerk act in kind?


----------



## Silhouette

Just sayin'...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

THE LGBT Cult is entirely reactive. "Knee-Jerk" defined them and their vacuous cause.


----------



## Silhouette

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> THE LGBT Cult is entirely reactive. "Knee-Jerk" defined them and their vacuous cause.


I take it you've seen the killer's social media photos beginning to circulate from the S. Carolina incident at the church there?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Silhouette said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE LGBT Cult is entirely reactive. "Knee-Jerk" defined them and their vacuous cause.
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you've seen the killer's social media photos beginning to circulate from the S. Carolina incident at the church there?
Click to expand...


Well I saw a pencil neck oddball squatting in a God's Gym wifebeater... with a ' _I'm crazy as a shit-house rat_' expression glued to his mug.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?


Of course not! I voted NO, this is America. Having said that  though, let me be clear about the fact that I am a staunch supporter of marriage equality. However to impose that on  religion is a violation of the first amendment's prohibition on "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" when it comes to religion. The moment we do that, we can no longer complain about religion's attempts at imposing itself on secular  society and government.

I find it hard to believe that this question keeps coming up.  Aside from the first amendment issue, who in their right mind would want to get married in a place that is hostile to them and does not think that they should be married? Ya think that it might jinx the marriage or at best be unpleasant?

This issue is used, all too often, as an appeal to fear and ignorance and to frame the same sex marriage debate as some sort of epic battle between gays and religion-most often Christians which is ridiculous.


----------



## Silhouette

TheProgressivePartiot said:


> Of course not! I voted NO, this is America. Having said that  though, let me be clear about the fact that I am a staunch supporter of marriage equality. However to impose that on  religion is a violation of the first amendment's prohibition on "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" when it comes to religion. The moment we do that, we can no longer complain about religion's attempts at imposing itself on secular  society and government.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that this question keeps coming up..


The discussion keeps coming up because LGBTs keep suing Christians and punishing them for not abdicating their faith in order to cater to "gay weddings".

You'd better run over the LGBT lawyer-pool who is suing individual Christians as fast as their paralegals can file the suits.  Tell them how you feel about the individual components of "church" being brought down one by one by the LGBT litigation machine..


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePartiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not! I voted NO, this is America. Having said that  though, let me be clear about the fact that I am a staunch supporter of marriage equality. However to impose that on  religion is a violation of the first amendment's prohibition on "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" when it comes to religion. The moment we do that, we can no longer complain about religion's attempts at imposing itself on secular  society and government.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that this question keeps coming up..
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion keeps coming up because LGBTs keep suing Christians and punishing them for not abdicating their faith in order to cater to "gay weddings".
> 
> You'd better run over the LGBT lawyer-pool who is suing individual Christians as fast as their paralegals can file the suits.  Tell them how you feel about the individual components of "church" being brought down one by one by the LGBT litigation machine..
Click to expand...

Oh common! You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom.


----------



## Rozman

Why would any couple want their wedding performed by a Church that was forced to do it....


----------



## Silhouette

TheProgressivePartiot said:


> Oh common! *You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment*, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption *to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom*.


 
Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePartiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh common! *You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment*, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption *to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.
Click to expand...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION   An individual,  a baker , photographer, proprietor of a for profit wedding mill is not an establishment of religion.


_1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers, 
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship. _

_2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.

The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."

*One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6*. _

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm


----------



## Silhouette

TheProgressivePartiot said:


> Oh common! *You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment*, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption *to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom*.


 


Silhouette said:


> Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.





TheProgressivePartiot said:


> _* One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6*. ..._Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm


 
Your last post didn't address the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.  Was the 1st Amendment about a building, wood, nails, pews and an altar, bathroom and adjacent kitchen for gatherings to practice its religion?  Or was it about the individuals who ascribe to the formless faith of the religious doctrines?

Speaking of those doctrines I notice you mentioned a few.  But you forgot Jude 1.  Might want to look that one up with respect to this discussion.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePartiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh common! *You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment*, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption *to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePartiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> _* One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6*. ..._Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your last post didn't address the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.  Was the 1st Amendment about a building, wood, nails, pews and an altar, bathroom and adjacent kitchen for gatherings to practice its religion?  Or was it about the individuals who ascribe to the formless faith of the religious doctrines?
> 
> Speaking of those doctrines I notice you mentioned a few.  But you forgot Jude 1.  Might want to look that one up with respect to this discussion.
Click to expand...



The free exercise of religion does not extend to the right of individuals to discriminate against others in the name of their religion. To do so is in effect imposing their religion on others, thereby depriving those others of their religious freedom. Religious freedom is not just about practicing one’s own religion but also being free from the religion of others.

The right to religious freedom, like all rights is not absolute. When the exercise of any right bumps up against the rights of others, those limitations apply. I documented how the concept of religious freedom as changed and has exceeded the intent of the first amendment. We cannot have each and every individual deciding for his or her self what is a permissible practice in the name of religion. Anyone who wants to do that should start a religion that incorporates those practices and then maybe they can get away with it. While religions as a whole, and religious individuals enjoy the right to religious freedom, religious exemptions apply only to religious groups and not to individuals.


----------



## Silhouette

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The free exercise of religion does not extend to the right of individuals to discriminate against others in the name of their religion. To do so is in effect imposing their religion on others, thereby depriving those others of their religious freedom. Religious freedom is not just about practicing one’s own religion but also being free from the religion of others....*The right to religious freedom, like all rights is not absolute. When the exercise of any right bumps up against the rights of others, those limitations apply*...


 
Thank you for pointing that out.  A child's right to a father and mother in marriage DOES trump the wishes of people who want to dismantle that right in order to favor a non-qualifying and deviant "parenting" situation forcing states to incentivize this sub-par situation with tax breaks "as married".

A state doesn't care about marriage only but to stimulate fathers and mothers (grandfathers/grandmothers) for children in a stable setting for them.

So, in full agreement with your conclusion, yes, when a quest for rights bumps up against the rights of other, those limitations apply.  I think you just summed up a perfect paragraph to include in the SCOTUS' Opinion soon to be released.  States and childrens' rights trump the LGBT cult.  Thanks for pointing that out. 

*waits for the "No!...I mean those rights can only be smashed BY gays OF others!"..*


----------



## BULLDOG

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The free exercise of religion does not extend to the right of individuals to discriminate against others in the name of their religion. To do so is in effect imposing their religion on others, thereby depriving those others of their religious freedom. Religious freedom is not just about practicing one’s own religion but also being free from the religion of others....*The right to religious freedom, like all rights is not absolute. When the exercise of any right bumps up against the rights of others, those limitations apply*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for pointing that out.  A child's right to a father and mother in marriage DOES trump the wishes of people who want to dismantle that right in order to favor a non-qualifying and deviant "parenting" situation forcing states to incentivize this sub-par situation with tax breaks "as married".
> 
> A state doesn't care about marriage only but to stimulate fathers and mothers (grandfathers/grandmothers) for children in a stable setting for them.
> 
> So, in full agreement with your conclusion, yes, when a quest for rights bumps up against the rights of other, those limitations apply.  I think you just summed up a perfect paragraph to include in the SCOTUS' Opinion soon to be released.  States and childrens' rights trump the LGBT cult.  Thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> *waits for the "No!...I mean those rights can only be smashed BY gays OF others!"..*
Click to expand...



Your post makes perfect sense if you can answer just one question. Gay marriage has only recently been legalized in a few places, but lots of kids didn't have a stable home with a mother and father before legalization. How exactly is the gay marriage of such a small percentage of the population going to change that?


----------



## Ernie S.

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePartiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh common! *You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment*, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption *to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION   An individual,  a baker , photographer, proprietor of a for profit wedding mill is not an establishment of religion.
> 
> 
> _1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:
> 
> This term relates to the personal freedom:
> •Of religious belief,
> •Of religious speech,
> •Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
> •Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
> •To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.
> 
> 
> The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship. _
> 
> _2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:
> 
> In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.
> 
> Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:
> 
> •The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
> •The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
> •The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.
> 
> The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."
> 
> *One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6*. _
> 
> Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm
Click to expand...

Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

You'll notice that there is no qualifier. One can take that to apply to either a member of an organized of individual.

Nice try, but you're wrong, as usual.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BULLDOG said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The free exercise of religion does not extend to the right of individuals to discriminate against others in the name of their religion. To do so is in effect imposing their religion on others, thereby depriving those others of their religious freedom. Religious freedom is not just about practicing one’s own religion but also being free from the religion of others....*The right to religious freedom, like all rights is not absolute. When the exercise of any right bumps up against the rights of others, those limitations apply*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for pointing that out.  A child's right to a father and mother in marriage DOES trump the wishes of people who want to dismantle that right in order to favor a non-qualifying and deviant "parenting" situation forcing states to incentivize this sub-par situation with tax breaks "as married".
> 
> A state doesn't care about marriage only but to stimulate fathers and mothers (grandfathers/grandmothers) for children in a stable setting for them.
> 
> So, in full agreement with your conclusion, yes, when a quest for rights bumps up against the rights of other, those limitations apply.  I think you just summed up a perfect paragraph to include in the SCOTUS' Opinion soon to be released.  States and childrens' rights trump the LGBT cult.  Thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> *waits for the "No!...I mean those rights can only be smashed BY gays OF others!"..*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your post makes perfect sense if you can answer just one question. Gay marriage has only recently been legalized in a few places, but lots of kids didn't have a stable home with a mother and father before legalization. How exactly is the gay marriage of such a small percentage of the population going to change that?
Click to expand...


You might want to review post #178 on this thread in order to get a better handle on the issue Michigan Allows Adoption Agents to Opt-Out of Adoption to Gay Couples Page 18 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I did not say that same sex marriage is going to result in more children having a mother and a father. I said that it will result in more children having married parents who are both the legal guardian, and that is far more important than having opposite sex parents. Gays may be a small percentage of the population, but there are an estimated 2 million kids with a gay parent.


----------



## dblack

Ernie S. said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePartiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh common! *You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment*, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption *to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION   An individual,  a baker , photographer, proprietor of a for profit wedding mill is not an establishment of religion.
> 
> 
> _1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:
> 
> This term relates to the personal freedom:
> •Of religious belief,
> •Of religious speech,
> •Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
> •Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
> •To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.
> 
> 
> The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship. _
> 
> _2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:
> 
> In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.
> 
> Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:
> 
> •The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
> •The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
> •The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.
> 
> The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."
> 
> *One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6*. _
> 
> Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
> 
> You'll notice that there is no qualifier. One can take that to apply to either a member of an organized of individual.
> 
> Nice try, but you're wrong, as usual.
Click to expand...


And in neither case should the First Amendment be construed as an exemption from the law. Equal protection means everyone follows the same laws, no exemptions or special privileges.

The irony of misinterpreting the First Amendment in this way is that it actually undermines religious freedom. By granting exemptions to religions, we set government up as the authority to decide which religions are valid and which aren't. And it gives government leverage over churches with the power to revoke their privileges and exemptions if they step out of line.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The free exercise of religion does not extend to the right of individuals to discriminate against others in the name of their religion. To do so is in effect imposing their religion on others, thereby depriving those others of their religious freedom. Religious freedom is not just about practicing one’s own religion but also being free from the religion of others....*The right to religious freedom, like all rights is not absolute. When the exercise of any right bumps up against the rights of others, those limitations apply*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for pointing that out.  A child's right to a father and mother in marriage DOES trump the wishes of people who want to dismantle that right in order to favor a non-qualifying and deviant "parenting" situation forcing states to incentivize this sub-par situation with tax breaks "as married".
> 
> A state doesn't care about marriage only but to stimulate fathers and mothers (grandfathers/grandmothers) for children in a stable setting for them.
> 
> So, in full agreement with your conclusion, yes, when a quest for rights bumps up against the rights of other, those limitations apply.  I think you just summed up a perfect paragraph to include in the SCOTUS' Opinion soon to be released.  States and childrens' rights trump the LGBT cult.  Thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> *waits for the "No!...I mean those rights can only be smashed BY gays OF others!"..*
Click to expand...


It's apparent that you have not been able to absorb a single thing that I tried to get across to you about adoption and children on the Michigan thread. http://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...t-out-of-adoption-to-gay-couples.423887/    There  is no conflict between gay rights and children's rights. That is just ignorant equine excrement. Congratulations. You are the first to be condemned to the bowels of my ignore list


----------



## Seawytch

Ernie S. said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePartiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh common! *You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment*, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption *to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION   An individual,  a baker , photographer, proprietor of a for profit wedding mill is not an establishment of religion.
> 
> 
> _1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:
> 
> This term relates to the personal freedom:
> •Of religious belief,
> •Of religious speech,
> •Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
> •Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
> •To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.
> 
> 
> The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship. _
> 
> _2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:
> 
> In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.
> 
> Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:
> 
> •The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
> •The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
> •The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.
> 
> The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."
> 
> *One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6*. _
> 
> Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
> 
> You'll notice that there is no qualifier. One can take that to apply to either a member of an organized of individual.
> 
> Nice try, but you're wrong, as usual.
Click to expand...


One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid. 

The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.
> 
> The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.


 
So you're saying a church isn't the individual Christians who practice the faith?  I think that SCOTUS might disagree with you.  See "Hobby Lobby" for details..


----------



## Ernie S.

Seawytch said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePartiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh common! *You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment*, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption *to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION   An individual,  a baker , photographer, proprietor of a for profit wedding mill is not an establishment of religion.
> 
> 
> _1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:
> 
> This term relates to the personal freedom:
> •Of religious belief,
> •Of religious speech,
> •Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
> •Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
> •To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.
> 
> 
> The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship. _
> 
> _2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:
> 
> In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.
> 
> Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:
> 
> •The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
> •The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
> •The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.
> 
> The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."
> 
> *One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6*. _
> 
> Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
> 
> You'll notice that there is no qualifier. One can take that to apply to either a member of an organized of individual.
> 
> Nice try, but you're wrong, as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.
> 
> The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.
Click to expand...

It is but where in the first amendment is freedom of religion restricted to churches?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.
> 
> The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying a church isn't the individual Christians who practice the faith?  I think that SCOTUS might disagree with you.  See "Hobby Lobby" for details..
Click to expand...


The Hobby Lobby decision didn't say that individual Christians are a church.

Once again:
Christians pay taxes
Churches do not pay taxes

The IRS can distinguish between a church and a individual- but apparently you cannot.

No church is going to be forced to marry anyone- gay- Jewish- black- Mormon- Hindu- handicapped- veterans- anyone.


----------



## Ernie S.

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.
> 
> The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying a church isn't the individual Christians who practice the faith?  I think that SCOTUS might disagree with you.  See "Hobby Lobby" for details..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Hobby Lobby decision didn't say that individual Christians are a church.
> 
> Once again:
> Christians pay taxes
> Churches do not pay taxes
> 
> The IRS can distinguish between a church and a individual- but apparently you cannot.
> 
> No church is going to be forced to marry anyone- gay- Jewish- black- Mormon- Hindu- handicapped- veterans- anyone.
Click to expand...

Where does the 1st Amendment restrict religious freedom to churches?


----------



## Syriusly

Ernie S. said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.
> 
> The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying a church isn't the individual Christians who practice the faith?  I think that SCOTUS might disagree with you.  See "Hobby Lobby" for details..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Hobby Lobby decision didn't say that individual Christians are a church.
> 
> Once again:
> Christians pay taxes
> Churches do not pay taxes
> 
> The IRS can distinguish between a church and a individual- but apparently you cannot.
> 
> No church is going to be forced to marry anyone- gay- Jewish- black- Mormon- Hindu- handicapped- veterans- anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does the 1st Amendment restrict religious freedom to churches?
Click to expand...


I don't know- where did I say that it did?


----------



## Ernie S.

Not on so many words, but you imply that by demanding individuals provide services that conflict with personal beliefs.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ernie S. said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePartiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh common! *You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment*, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption *to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION   An individual,  a baker , photographer, proprietor of a for profit wedding mill is not an establishment of religion.
> 
> 
> _1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:
> 
> This term relates to the personal freedom:
> •Of religious belief,
> •Of religious speech,
> •Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
> •Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
> •To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.
> 
> 
> The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship. _
> 
> _2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:
> 
> In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.
> 
> Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:
> 
> •The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
> •The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
> •The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.
> 
> The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."
> 
> *One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6*. _
> 
> Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
> 
> You'll notice that there is no qualifier. One can take that to apply to either a member of an organized of individual.
> 
> Nice try, but you're wrong, as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.
> 
> The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is but where in the first amendment is freedom of religion restricted to churches?
Click to expand...


I never said that it was. There is no distinction in the first amendment in the way that religious freedom is guaranteed to churches  vs. individuals. I did however make a distinction between those who understand that religious freedom is about how they live their lives and not about controlling how other people live or discriminating against them.

We cannot let each and every individual decide that  they can discriminate against anybody that they like in the name of their religion, even when their religion may not agree with them or may be divided on an issue. That is lawlessness. Who would be next? Maybe a restaurant will decide that they don't want to serve fat people because gluttony  is condemned in the bible. Non discrimination laws make this clear and I don't know of any that have been tossed out on constitutional grounds

Now churches get away with a hell of a lot. Maybe they should be held to the same standard but we know that wont happen.


----------



## Syriusly

Ernie S. said:


> Not on so many words, but you imply that by demanding individuals provide services that conflict with personal beliefs.



Nope.


----------



## Seawytch

Ernie S. said:


> Not on so many words, but you imply that by demanding individuals provide services that conflict with personal beliefs.



Public Accommodation laws have withstood Constitutional scrutiny at the Federal level.  Your right to *practice your religion* is not infringed upon by having to follow the law.


----------



## Ernie S.

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION   An individual,  a baker , photographer, proprietor of a for profit wedding mill is not an establishment of religion.
> 
> 
> _1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:
> 
> This term relates to the personal freedom:
> •Of religious belief,
> •Of religious speech,
> •Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
> •Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
> •To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.
> 
> 
> The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship. _
> 
> _2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:
> 
> In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.
> 
> Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:
> 
> •The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
> •The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
> •The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.
> 
> The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."
> 
> *One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6*. _
> 
> Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
> 
> You'll notice that there is no qualifier. One can take that to apply to either a member of an organized of individual.
> 
> Nice try, but you're wrong, as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.
> 
> The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is but where in the first amendment is freedom of religion restricted to churches?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that it was. There is no distinction in the first amendment in the way that religious freedom is guaranteed to churches  vs. individuals. I did however make a distinction between those who understand that religious freedom is about how they live their lives and not about controlling how other people live or discriminating against them.
> 
> We cannot let each and every individual decide that  they can discriminate against anybody that they like in the name of their religion, even when their religion may not agree with them or may be divided on an issue. That is lawlessness. Who would be next? Maybe a restaurant will decide that they don't want to serve fat people because gluttony  is condemned in the bible. Non discrimination laws make this clear and I don't know of any that have been tossed out on constitutional grounds
> 
> Now churches get away with a hell of a lot. Maybe they should be held to the same standard but we know that wont happen.
Click to expand...

Forcing an individual to participate in an event that is forbidden by one's religion may be discrimination, but it is permitted by the first amendment.
You can't force a baker to make a cake.

That would be passing a law prohibiting free exercise.


----------



## Ernie S.

Seawytch said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not on so many words, but you imply that by demanding individuals provide services that conflict with personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public Accommodation laws have withstood Constitutional scrutiny at the Federal level.  Your right to *practice your religion* is not infringed upon by having to follow the law.
Click to expand...

We shall see


----------



## Seawytch

Ernie S. said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not on so many words, but you imply that by demanding individuals provide services that conflict with personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public Accommodation laws have withstood Constitutional scrutiny at the Federal level.  Your right to *practice your religion* is not infringed upon by having to follow the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We shall see
Click to expand...


Where? Where will we "see"?

Supreme Court declines case of photographer who denied service to gay couple - The Washington Post


----------



## Seawytch

Ernie S. said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION   An individual,  a baker , photographer, proprietor of a for profit wedding mill is not an establishment of religion.
> 
> 
> _1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:
> 
> This term relates to the personal freedom:
> •Of religious belief,
> •Of religious speech,
> •Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
> •Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
> •To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.
> 
> 
> The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship. _
> 
> _2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:
> 
> In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.
> 
> Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:
> 
> •The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
> •The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
> •The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.
> 
> The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."
> 
> *One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6*. _
> 
> Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
> 
> You'll notice that there is no qualifier. One can take that to apply to either a member of an organized of individual.
> 
> Nice try, but you're wrong, as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.
> 
> The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is but where in the first amendment is freedom of religion restricted to churches?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that it was. There is no distinction in the first amendment in the way that religious freedom is guaranteed to churches  vs. individuals. I did however make a distinction between those who understand that religious freedom is about how they live their lives and not about controlling how other people live or discriminating against them.
> 
> We cannot let each and every individual decide that  they can discriminate against anybody that they like in the name of their religion, even when their religion may not agree with them or may be divided on an issue. That is lawlessness. Who would be next? Maybe a restaurant will decide that they don't want to serve fat people because gluttony  is condemned in the bible. Non discrimination laws make this clear and I don't know of any that have been tossed out on constitutional grounds
> 
> Now churches get away with a hell of a lot. Maybe they should be held to the same standard but we know that wont happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forcing an individual to participate in an event that is forbidden by one's religion may be discrimination, but it is permitted by the first amendment.
> You can't force a baker to make a cake.
> 
> That would be passing a law prohibiting free exercise.
Click to expand...


No, it isn't. Nothing requires you to own a business, but if you do, you must follow the laws of the locality.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.
> 
> The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying a church isn't the individual Christians who practice the faith?  I think that SCOTUS might disagree with you.  See "Hobby Lobby" for details..
Click to expand...


A church and a person are different entities. You insist they are the same. The law doesn't recogize your claim as legally valid.

If it were so, they anyone molested by a catholic priest could sue ANY catholic personally. Alas the Catholic Church and individual Catholics are not the same.


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not on so many words, but you imply that by demanding individuals provide services that conflict with personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public Accommodation laws have withstood Constitutional scrutiny at the Federal level.  Your right to *practice your religion* is not infringed upon by having to follow the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We shall see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where? Where will we "see"?
> 
> Supreme Court declines case of photographer who denied service to gay couple - The Washington Post
Click to expand...


Oh snap!


----------



## beagle9

Rozman said:


> Why would any couple want their wedding performed by a Church that was forced to do it....


Or why would they want a Christian to photograph them or bake them a wedding cake if an agenda isn't on their mind? They would'nt, so why are they doing it, and then acting as if they are surprised when the resistance comes?

They aren't surprised, and everyone including them knows this, but they got to play it out.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any couple want their wedding performed by a Church that was forced to do it....
> 
> 
> 
> Or why would they want a Christian to photograph them or bake them a wedding cake if an agenda isn't on their mind? They would'nt, so why are they doing it, and then acting as if they are surprised when the resistance comes?
> 
> They aren't surprised, and everyone including them knows this, but they got to play it out.
Click to expand...


And by 'agenda' you mean being treated like everyone else?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Ernie S. said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION   An individual,  a baker , photographer, proprietor of a for profit wedding mill is not an establishment of religion.
> 
> 
> _1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:
> 
> This term relates to the personal freedom:
> •Of religious belief,
> •Of religious speech,
> •Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
> •Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
> •To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.
> 
> 
> The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship. _
> 
> _2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:
> 
> In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.
> 
> Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:
> 
> •The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
> •The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
> •The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.
> 
> The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."
> 
> *One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6*. _
> 
> Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
> 
> You'll notice that there is no qualifier. One can take that to apply to either a member of an organized of individual.
> 
> Nice try, but you're wrong, as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.
> 
> The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is but where in the first amendment is freedom of religion restricted to churches?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that it was. There is no distinction in the first amendment in the way that religious freedom is guaranteed to churches  vs. individuals. I did however make a distinction between those who understand that religious freedom is about how they live their lives and not about controlling how other people live or discriminating against them.
> 
> We cannot let each and every individual decide that  they can discriminate against anybody that they like in the name of their religion, even when their religion may not agree with them or may be divided on an issue. That is lawlessness. Who would be next? Maybe a restaurant will decide that they don't want to serve fat people because gluttony  is condemned in the bible. Non discrimination laws make this clear and I don't know of any that have been tossed out on constitutional grounds
> 
> Now churches get away with a hell of a lot. Maybe they should be held to the same standard but we know that wont happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forcing an individual to participate in an event that is forbidden by one's religion may be discrimination, but it is permitted by the first amendment.
> You can't force a baker to make a cake.
> 
> That would be passing a law prohibiting free exercise.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

State and local public accommodations laws do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.
[…]
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”

Employment Division v. Smith US Law LII Legal Information Institute


----------



## Ernie S.

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any couple want their wedding performed by a Church that was forced to do it....
> 
> 
> 
> Or why would they want a Christian to photograph them or bake them a wedding cake if an agenda isn't on their mind? They would'nt, so why are they doing it, and then acting as if they are surprised when the resistance comes?
> 
> They aren't surprised, and everyone including them knows this, but they got to play it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'agenda' you mean being treated like everyone else?
Click to expand...

I believe he means a lawsuit, or at least a big stink.
Damn son! Why would anyone demand a photographer or bake provide a service under duress?

Force me to do something against my will and you sure as hell aren't getting my best effort.
_*Why not find someone that has no such religious conviction?*_


----------



## Ernie S.

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
> 
> You'll notice that there is no qualifier. One can take that to apply to either a member of an organized of individual.
> 
> Nice try, but you're wrong, as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.
> 
> The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is but where in the first amendment is freedom of religion restricted to churches?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that it was. There is no distinction in the first amendment in the way that religious freedom is guaranteed to churches  vs. individuals. I did however make a distinction between those who understand that religious freedom is about how they live their lives and not about controlling how other people live or discriminating against them.
> 
> We cannot let each and every individual decide that  they can discriminate against anybody that they like in the name of their religion, even when their religion may not agree with them or may be divided on an issue. That is lawlessness. Who would be next? Maybe a restaurant will decide that they don't want to serve fat people because gluttony  is condemned in the bible. Non discrimination laws make this clear and I don't know of any that have been tossed out on constitutional grounds
> 
> Now churches get away with a hell of a lot. Maybe they should be held to the same standard but we know that wont happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forcing an individual to participate in an event that is forbidden by one's religion may be discrimination, but it is permitted by the first amendment.
> You can't force a baker to make a cake.
> 
> That would be passing a law prohibiting free exercise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> State and local public accommodations laws do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment:
> 
> “We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.
> […]
> Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”
> 
> Employment Division v. Smith US Law LII Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...

Quite a stretch even for you!

_*Held: The Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use, and thus to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use.*_ Pp. 876-890.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
*Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings? *
*
Lets ask this guy......

'We Will Burn:' Texas Pastor to Set Himself Aflame if Marriage Equality Wins
The architect of a massive effort to challenge a pro-LGBT ruling by the Supreme Court has also offered to be shot.    We Will Burn Texas Pastor to Set Himself Aflame if Marriage Equality Wins Advocate.com

This is the kind of over the top hysterical equine excrement that is tearing the country apart and encouraging these bakers and photographers to act stupid.*


----------



## Seawytch

Ernie S. said:


> Force me to do something against my will and you sure as hell aren't getting my best effort.



You mean like this? Which one is you?


----------



## Silhouette

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> * 'We Will Burn:' Texas Pastor to Set Himself Aflame if Marriage Equality Wins
> The architect of a massive effort to challenge a pro-LGBT ruling by the Supreme Court has also offered to be shot.    We Will Burn Texas Pastor to Set Himself Aflame if Marriage Equality Wins Advocate.com
> 
> This is the kind of over the top hysterical equine excrement that is tearing the country apart and encouraging these bakers and photographers to act stupid.*


What, you wanted a monopoly with the threats/use of "gay teen suicides" and your media outlet fanning racial tensions in Missouri and other places in order to attach your cause onto that wave of momentum/sympathy play?


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any couple want their wedding performed by a Church that was forced to do it....
> 
> 
> 
> Or why would they want a Christian to photograph them or bake them a wedding cake if an agenda isn't on their mind? They would'nt, so why are they doing it, and then acting as if they are surprised when the resistance comes?
> 
> They aren't surprised, and everyone including them knows this, but they got to play it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'agenda' you mean being treated like everyone else?
Click to expand...


But that's not really what they're asking for. 'Everyone else' risks being discriminated against every day. Instead of being treated like everyone else, they're asking to be added to the list of groups covered by 'protected classes' legislation. They're asking for the special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their sexuality to server them regardless.


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not on so many words, but you imply that by demanding individuals provide services that conflict with personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public Accommodation laws have withstood Constitutional scrutiny at the Federal level.  Your right to *practice your religion* is not infringed upon by having to follow the law.
Click to expand...


Depending on the dictates of a given religion, any law potentially violates a person's freedom to practice their religion. The question is whether that's justified or not. If a religious practice violates the rights of others, it isn't protected. Which is why a religion that practiced ritual human sacrifice wouldn't get a pass on murder laws.

The real question is whether an individual who discriminates against others is violating their rights. I don't see how a 'right to not be discriminated against' makes much sense. Or how we can protect it without trampling more fundamental individual rights like freedom of expression and freedom of association, and yes, freedom of religion.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any couple want their wedding performed by a Church that was forced to do it....
> 
> 
> 
> Or why would they want a Christian to photograph them or bake them a wedding cake if an agenda isn't on their mind? They would'nt, so why are they doing it, and then acting as if they are surprised when the resistance comes?
> 
> They aren't surprised, and everyone including them knows this, but they got to play it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'agenda' you mean being treated like everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're asking for the special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their sexuality to server them regardless.
Click to expand...


You mean like how others asked for the 'special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their" color, religion, national origin, or gender to serve them regardless?


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any couple want their wedding performed by a Church that was forced to do it....
> 
> 
> 
> Or why would they want a Christian to photograph them or bake them a wedding cake if an agenda isn't on their mind? They would'nt, so why are they doing it, and then acting as if they are surprised when the resistance comes?
> 
> They aren't surprised, and everyone including them knows this, but they got to play it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'agenda' you mean being treated like everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not really what they're asking for. 'Everyone else' risks being discriminated against every day. Instead of being treated like everyone else, they're asking to be added to the list of groups covered by 'protected classes' legislation. They're asking for the special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their sexuality to server them regardless.
Click to expand...


In the States where this is an issue, they're not asking to be added to anything. They're already protected. And we have protected classes because of histories of discrimination.

Which the denials of service because of sexual orientation demonstrates.


----------



## Ernie S.

Seawytch said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Force me to do something against my will and you sure as hell aren't getting my best effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
Click to expand...

I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any couple want their wedding performed by a Church that was forced to do it....
> 
> 
> 
> Or why would they want a Christian to photograph them or bake them a wedding cake if an agenda isn't on their mind? They would'nt, so why are they doing it, and then acting as if they are surprised when the resistance comes?
> 
> They aren't surprised, and everyone including them knows this, but they got to play it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'agenda' you mean being treated like everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're asking for the special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their sexuality to server them regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like how others asked for the 'special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their" color, religion, national origin, or gender to serve them regardless?
Click to expand...


Exactly like that, yes. And why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't everyone be protected from discrimination? Why just select groups?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any couple want their wedding performed by a Church that was forced to do it....
> 
> 
> 
> Or why would they want a Christian to photograph them or bake them a wedding cake if an agenda isn't on their mind? They would'nt, so why are they doing it, and then acting as if they are surprised when the resistance comes?
> 
> They aren't surprised, and everyone including them knows this, but they got to play it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'agenda' you mean being treated like everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not really what they're asking for. 'Everyone else' risks being discriminated against every day. Instead of being treated like everyone else, they're asking to be added to the list of groups covered by 'protected classes' legislation. They're asking for the special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their sexuality to server them regardless.
Click to expand...


They most certainly do want to be treated like everyone else. They just want to be able to go into a place of business and not have to think about or worry about whether or not they will be served. JUST LIKE YOU

 It is those who believe that they have the right to discriminate in the name of god who want a special privilege to do so.


----------



## Syriusly

Ernie S. said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Force me to do something against my will and you sure as hell aren't getting my best effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
Click to expand...


And many Christians see nothing in their religious beliefs that says selling a wedding cake is sinful.


----------



## Skylar

Ernie S. said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Force me to do something against my will and you sure as hell aren't getting my best effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
Click to expand...


That's the beauty of religion:. Its so subjectively interpretative. As religion has most definitely been used to justify segregation:

 Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh


----------



## Ernie S.

Syriusly said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Force me to do something against my will and you sure as hell aren't getting my best effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many Christians see nothing in their religious beliefs that says selling a wedding cake is sinful.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.


----------



## Syriusly

Ernie S. said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Force me to do something against my will and you sure as hell aren't getting my best effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many Christians see nothing in their religious beliefs that says selling a wedding cake is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.
Click to expand...


And Negroes should seek out and buy their lunch from places that don't object to serving Negroes.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any couple want their wedding performed by a Church that was forced to do it....
> 
> 
> 
> Or why would they want a Christian to photograph them or bake them a wedding cake if an agenda isn't on their mind? They would'nt, so why are they doing it, and then acting as if they are surprised when the resistance comes?
> 
> They aren't surprised, and everyone including them knows this, but they got to play it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'agenda' you mean being treated like everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not really what they're asking for. 'Everyone else' risks being discriminated against every day. Instead of being treated like everyone else, they're asking to be added to the list of groups covered by 'protected classes' legislation. They're asking for the special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their sexuality to server them regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They most certainly do want to be treated like everyone else. They just want to be able to go into a place of business and not have to think about or worry about whether or not they will be served. JUST LIKE YOU
> 
> It is those who believe that they have the right to discriminate in the name of god who want a special privilege to do so.
Click to expand...


And they can do so anywhere, with very few, if _any_ exceptions.

What they can NOT do, is to demand that people accept their behavior, where that behavior sets out to codify deviancy, through the public celebration of such, wherein they set themselves within institutions which are by natural design the exclusive domain of the HETERO-SEXUAL.

See how that works?

See, I can go into the Miami Football Stadium and be treated just like everyone else.  What I can't do is to expect that I should be welcomed into the locker room, to suit up as a starting linebacker.

And this is because I am not qualified to BE a starting Linebacker.  I don't have the skills, the speed, or _a *contract*_.

Ya see, to get a contract, ya have to have the qualifications... and since I'm not qualified for a contract, it's not reasonable for me to expect that I'll be allowed to get one.

Anything getttin' through here?


----------



## dblack

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any couple want their wedding performed by a Church that was forced to do it....
> 
> 
> 
> Or why would they want a Christian to photograph them or bake them a wedding cake if an agenda isn't on their mind? They would'nt, so why are they doing it, and then acting as if they are surprised when the resistance comes?
> 
> They aren't surprised, and everyone including them knows this, but they got to play it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'agenda' you mean being treated like everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not really what they're asking for. 'Everyone else' risks being discriminated against every day. Instead of being treated like everyone else, they're asking to be added to the list of groups covered by 'protected classes' legislation. They're asking for the special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their sexuality to server them regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They most certainly do want to be treated like everyone else. They just want to be able to go into a place of business and not have to think about or worry about whether or not they will be served. JUST LIKE YOU
> 
> It is those who believe that they have the right to discriminate in the name of god who want a special privilege to do so.
Click to expand...


Most kinds of discrimination aren't illegal. People are discriminated against every day because they're ugly, poor, fat, stupid, etc.... Should those traits also be added to the protected classes list?


----------



## Skylar

where_r_my_keys said:


> What they can NOT do, is to demand that people accept their behavior, where that behavior sets out to codify deviancy, through the public celebration of such, wherein they set themselves within institutions which are by natural design the exclusive domain of the HETERO-SEXUAL.



Natural design according to you, pretending to be 'nature'. But there are clearly valid bases of marriage that have nothing to do with procreation or the ability to have kids. As all the infertile or childless couples marrying or allowed to stay married demonstrates. Eliminating 'heterosexuality' as an exclusive requirement of marriage.

See how that works?


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Force me to do something against my will and you sure as hell aren't getting my best effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My Lord...
> 
> The poor Negro...
> 
> Man!  They can NOT catch a BREAK!
> 
> The First Black President is a dead center RINGER for the absolute WORST of every racial stereotype... fast talkin', shiftless individual of low character, of who there is NO potential for any reasonable person to trust.
> 
> And NOW... the Degenerates are glomming on..., claiming their twisted kinks to be the sexual expression of _'being *black*.'
> 
> MERCY ALREADY!
> 
> Whatta shame... ._
Click to expand...


Keyes is such a loon.


----------



## Ernie S.

Syriusly said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Force me to do something against my will and you sure as hell aren't getting my best effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many Christians see nothing in their religious beliefs that says selling a wedding cake is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Negroes should seek out and buy their lunch from places that don't object to serving Negroes.
Click to expand...

It makes sense.
Would you rather eat at a place that welcomes you with open arms, or one that throws food at you?
Or do you just want to sue someone?


----------



## Skylar

Ernie S. said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Force me to do something against my will and you sure as hell aren't getting my best effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many Christians see nothing in their religious beliefs that says selling a wedding cake is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.
Click to expand...


Gays should be able to buy from anyone doing business with the public. As ordering a cake from a person who sells cake is a reasonable act. Denying cake because of the sexual orientation of the person ordering it isn't.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any couple want their wedding performed by a Church that was forced to do it....
> 
> 
> 
> Or why would they want a Christian to photograph them or bake them a wedding cake if an agenda isn't on their mind? They would'nt, so why are they doing it, and then acting as if they are surprised when the resistance comes?
> 
> They aren't surprised, and everyone including them knows this, but they got to play it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'agenda' you mean being treated like everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not really what they're asking for. 'Everyone else' risks being discriminated against every day. Instead of being treated like everyone else, they're asking to be added to the list of groups covered by 'protected classes' legislation. They're asking for the special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their sexuality to server them regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They most certainly do want to be treated like everyone else. They just want to be able to go into a place of business and not have to think about or worry about whether or not they will be served. JUST LIKE YOU
> 
> It is those who believe that they have the right to discriminate in the name of god who want a special privilege to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they can do so anywhere, with very few, if _any_ exceptions.
> 
> What they can NOT do, is to demand that people accept their behavior, where that behavior sets out to codify deviancy, through the public celebration of such, wherein they set themselves within institutions which are by natural design the exclusive domain of the HETERO-SEXUAL.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> See, I can go into the Miami Football Stadium and be treated just like everyone else.  What I can't do is to expect that I should be welcomed into the locker room, to suit up as a starting linebacker.
> 
> And this is because I am not qualified to BE a starting Linebacker.  I don't have the skills, the speed, or _a *contract*_.
> 
> Ya see, to get a contract, ya have to have the qualifications... and since I'm not qualified for a contract, it's not reasonable for me to expect that I'll be allowed to get one.
> 
> Anything getttin' through here?
Click to expand...


I think that bigotry, and praying to an imaginary friend in the sky is deviant behavior.

And, gay people are human beings and should be treated as such. You are not a freakin football player, so that is a false  analogy........a logical fallacy

 Anything getting through there?


----------



## Syriusly

Ernie S. said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many Christians see nothing in their religious beliefs that says selling a wedding cake is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Negroes should seek out and buy their lunch from places that don't object to serving Negroes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes sense.
> Would you rather eat at a place that welcomes you with open arms, or one that throws food at you?
> Or do you just want to sue someone?
Click to expand...


Yep- those blacks at the lunch counter were just being offensive......


----------



## Skylar

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or why would they want a Christian to photograph them or bake them a wedding cake if an agenda isn't on their mind? They would'nt, so why are they doing it, and then acting as if they are surprised when the resistance comes?
> 
> They aren't surprised, and everyone including them knows this, but they got to play it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And by 'agenda' you mean being treated like everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not really what they're asking for. 'Everyone else' risks being discriminated against every day. Instead of being treated like everyone else, they're asking to be added to the list of groups covered by 'protected classes' legislation. They're asking for the special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their sexuality to server them regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They most certainly do want to be treated like everyone else. They just want to be able to go into a place of business and not have to think about or worry about whether or not they will be served. JUST LIKE YOU
> 
> It is those who believe that they have the right to discriminate in the name of god who want a special privilege to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they can do so anywhere, with very few, if _any_ exceptions.
> 
> What they can NOT do, is to demand that people accept their behavior, where that behavior sets out to codify deviancy, through the public celebration of such, wherein they set themselves within institutions which are by natural design the exclusive domain of the HETERO-SEXUAL.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> See, I can go into the Miami Football Stadium and be treated just like everyone else.  What I can't do is to expect that I should be welcomed into the locker room, to suit up as a starting linebacker.
> 
> And this is because I am not qualified to BE a starting Linebacker.  I don't have the skills, the speed, or _a *contract*_.
> 
> Ya see, to get a contract, ya have to have the qualifications... and since I'm not qualified for a contract, it's not reasonable for me to expect that I'll be allowed to get one.
> 
> Anything getttin' through here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that bigotry, and praying to an imaginary friend in the sky is deviant behavior.
> 
> And, gay people are human beings and should be treated as such. You are not a freakin football player, so that is a false  analogy........a logical fallacy
Click to expand...


If you're chatting with Keyes.....get used to those.


----------



## Ernie S.

Skylar said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Force me to do something against my will and you sure as hell aren't getting my best effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many Christians see nothing in their religious beliefs that says selling a wedding cake is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays should be able to buy from anyone doing business with the public. As ordering a cake from a person who sells cake is a reasonable act. Denying cake because of the sexual orientation of the person ordering it isn't.
Click to expand...

Why the hell not just go to a different bakery that would be happy to serve you?
Why would you want to force someone who is not motivated to do his best work to serve you?
It makes no sense.


----------



## Ernie S.

Syriusly said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And many Christians see nothing in their religious beliefs that says selling a wedding cake is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Negroes should seek out and buy their lunch from places that don't object to serving Negroes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes sense.
> Would you rather eat at a place that welcomes you with open arms, or one that throws food at you?
> Or do you just want to sue someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- those blacks at the lunch counter were just being offensive......
Click to expand...

So you refuse to answer a direct question. OK. Fine.


----------



## Syriusly

Ernie S. said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And many Christians see nothing in their religious beliefs that says selling a wedding cake is sinful.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Negroes should seek out and buy their lunch from places that don't object to serving Negroes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes sense.
> Would you rather eat at a place that welcomes you with open arms, or one that throws food at you?
> Or do you just want to sue someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- those blacks at the lunch counter were just being offensive......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you refuse to answer a direct question. OK. Fine.
Click to expand...


Here is the thing.

If a shop refused to do business with me- say because I was Jewish or because I was gay or because I was a veteran- I would probably do what you say- because I am generally an easy going kind of guy.

If a shop refused to do business with my wife or daughter- say because they were Jewish or gay or veterans- I would gladly sue the hell out the business. Because that would piss me off enough to take action.


----------



## Skylar

Ernie S. said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many Christians see nothing in their religious beliefs that says selling a wedding cake is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays should be able to buy from anyone doing business with the public. As ordering a cake from a person who sells cake is a reasonable act. Denying cake because of the sexual orientation of the person ordering it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why the hell not just go to a different bakery that would be happy to serve you?
Click to expand...


Why should they have to hunt for a baker that isn't going to project his religious bigotry upon them? Again, the actions of the gays and lesbians in question are completely reasonable: order a cake from a person that sells cake. The response they face isn't reasonable. 

You're insisting its the responsibility of the gays and lesbians to remedy someone *else's* religiously motivated bigotry. I disagree. Gays and lesbians are not responsible for the bigotry they face. And Its not their responsibility to remedy it. 

Not rationally, and not under the law.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Force me to do something against my will and you sure as hell aren't getting my best effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
Click to expand...


My Lord...

The poor Negro... 

Man!  They can NOT catch a BREAK!

The First Black President is a dead center RINGER for the absolute WORST of every racial stereotype... fast talkin', shiftless individual of low character, of who there is NO potential for any reasonable person to trust.

And NOW... the Degenerates are glomming on..., claiming their twisted kinks to be the sexual expression of _'being *black*.'
_



Syriusly said:


> Yep- those blacks at the lunch counter were just being offensive......



_MERCY ALREADY! 

Whatta shame... ._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Negroes should seek out and buy their lunch from places that don't object to serving Negroes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes sense.
> Would you rather eat at a place that welcomes you with open arms, or one that throws food at you?
> Or do you just want to sue someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- those blacks at the lunch counter were just being offensive......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you refuse to answer a direct question. OK. Fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the thing.
> 
> If a shop refused to do business with me- say because I was Jewish or because I was gay or because I was a veteran- I would probably do what you say- because I am generally an easy going kind of guy.
> 
> If a shop refused to do business with my wife or daughter- say because they were Jewish or gay or veterans- I would gladly sue the hell out the business. Because that would piss me off enough to take action.
Click to expand...


Send your homosexual wife into my shop... I'll give ya something to sue over.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Ernie S. said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And many Christians see nothing in their religious beliefs that says selling a wedding cake is sinful.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Negroes should seek out and buy their lunch from places that don't object to serving Negroes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes sense.
> Would you rather eat at a place that welcomes you with open arms, or one that throws food at you?
> Or do you just want to sue someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- those blacks at the lunch counter were just being offensive......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you refuse to answer a direct question. OK. Fine.
Click to expand...


They can't answer directly... because to do so is to expose the deceit inherent in their position.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I think that bigotry, and praying to an imaginary friend in the sky is deviant behavior.



The absolutely COOLEST thing about the word "Bigotry", is that the very application OF the word is, by definition: A demonstration _*of* Bigotry._

And I do not seem to be able to get my fill of watching people here, fall victim to that delightful little trap, BY THE GROSS!

LOL!  _CLASSIC!_



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> And, gay people are human beings and should be treated as such. You are not a freakin football player, so that is a false  analogy........a logical fallacy
> 
> Anything getting through there?



Football players are human beings and I am a human being and I don't GET to BE a Football Player just because I 'identify' as a FOOTBALL PLAYER.  But that is only because I DO NOT QUALIFY TO BE A FOOTBALL PLAYER.  Because I don't practice, I don't want to put in the time or expose myself to the pain of BEING such.

It's true tho', that I'm NOT a football player.  Of course in my defense I never claimed TO BE ONE. 

And still I do not demand that I should be accepted as one, despite that I think it would be cool to be a super celebrity with loads of cash and flash... and all the trappings that come with it... .

But I don't pretend to BE a Football player, BECAUSE I AM NOT DELUDED! 

Such is the case for Homosexuals who do not pretend to be NORMAL... thus they do not demand to be provided access to institutions which nature designed exclusively AROUND NORMALITY.

No one here has a beef with those people... Come, shop, spend your money... we're happy to have you in our store... because you're people who behave within the scope of normality, you're not creating a scene or embarrassing other people through deviant, abnormal behavior, so... why would there be a reason to discriminate against you?

However for those of you sexual deviants looking to get into the heterosexual locker room... who expect to be starters within the heterosexual team... we're going to have to ask you to shut the fuck up, get back to your seat and sit down, or... _if need be_, we'll happily show you through the door.

And FYI: we're good _either way... ._


----------



## WorldWatcher

Ernie S. said:


> Why the hell not just go to a different bakery that would be happy to serve you?



They did, then filed a complaint with the appropriate state agency.  You know it takes months and sometimes years for complaints to be investigated and resolved right?

>>>>


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ernie S. said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many Christians see nothing in their religious beliefs that says selling a wedding cake is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays should be able to buy from anyone doing business with the public. As ordering a cake from a person who sells cake is a reasonable act. Denying cake because of the sexual orientation of the person ordering it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why the hell not just go to a different bakery that would be happy to serve you?
> Why would you want to force someone who is not motivated to do his best work to serve you?
> It makes no sense.
Click to expand...




Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that bigotry, and praying to an imaginary friend in the sky is deviant behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The absolutely COOLEST thing about the word "Bigotry", is that the very application OF the word is, by definition: A demonstration of Bigotry.
> 
> And I do not seem to be able to get my fill of watching people here, fall victim to that delightful little trap, BY THE GROSS!
> 
> LOL!  _CLASSIC!_
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, gay people are human beings and should be treated as such. You are not a freakin football player, so that is a false  analogy........a logical fallacy
> 
> Anything getting through there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Football players are human beings and I am a human being and I don't GET to BE a Football Player just because I 'identify' as a FOOTBALL PLAYER.  But that is only because I DO NOT QUALIFY TO BE A FOOTBALL PLAYER.  Because I don't practice, I don't want to put in the time or expose myself to the pain of BEING such.
> 
> It's true tho', that I'm NOT a football player.  Of course in my defense I never claimed TO BE ONE.
> 
> And still I do not demand that I should be accepted as one, despite that I think it would be cool to be a super celebrity with loads of cash and flash... and all the trappings that come with it... .
> 
> But I don't pretend to BE a Football player, BECAUSE I AM NOT DELUDED!
> 
> Such is the case for Homosexuals who do not pretend to be NORMAL... thus they do not demand to be provided access to institutions which nature designed exclusively AROUND NORMALITY.
> 
> No one here has a beef with those people... Come, shop, spend your money... we're happy to have you in our store... because you're people who behave within the scope of normality, you're not creating a scene or embarrassing other people through deviant, abnormal behavior, so... why would there be a reason to discriminate against you?
> 
> However for those of you sexual deviants looking to get into the heterosexual locker room... who expect to be starters within the heterosexual team... we're going to have to ask you to shut the fuck up and sit down, or... if need be, we'll happily show you through the door.
> 
> And FYI: we're good _either way... ._
Click to expand...


Well it's pretty apparent that you are anything but normal unless being a pig headed bigot is what you call normal.  It apparent that you have no intention of having a rational discussion of the issue so you will now be ignored


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that bigotry, and praying to an imaginary friend in the sky is deviant behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The absolutely COOLEST thing about the word "Bigotry", is that the very application OF the word is, by definition: A demonstration of Bigotry.
Click to expand...


We've been through this. Your definitions of bigotry don't match the actual definitions. Which is very typically the case when you start trying to argue definitions.

Remember that little piece of hopeless relativism in demanding that 'homo' meant 'self', and homophobic meant 'fear of self'? You citing yourself on the meaning of words has no objective meaning.



> Such is the case for Homosexuals who do not pretend to be NORMAL... thus they do not demand to be provided access to institutions which nature designed exclusively AROUND NORMALITY.



Nature didn't design marriage. We did. Marriage doesn't exist outside human societies for exactly that reason. And marriage means whatever we say it does. 

We clearly recognized a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation or children. As all the infertile and childless couples being married or being allowed to stay married demonstrates. If procreation was the sole valid basis of marriage, this wouldn't be possible. Worse, your marriage would disolve the moment you stopped having kids.

Back in reality, no one is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to marry. Eliminating procreation as a requirement of any marriage. And eliminating it as the sole valid basis of marriage.


----------



## Ernie S.

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And many Christians see nothing in their religious beliefs that says selling a wedding cake is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays should be able to buy from anyone doing business with the public. As ordering a cake from a person who sells cake is a reasonable act. Denying cake because of the sexual orientation of the person ordering it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why the hell not just go to a different bakery that would be happy to serve you?
> Why would you want to force someone who is not motivated to do his best work to serve you?
> It makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that bigotry, and praying to an imaginary friend in the sky is deviant behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The absolutely COOLEST thing about the word "Bigotry", is that the very application OF the word is, by definition: A demonstration of Bigotry.
> 
> And I do not seem to be able to get my fill of watching people here, fall victim to that delightful little trap, BY THE GROSS!
> 
> LOL!  _CLASSIC!_
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, gay people are human beings and should be treated as such. You are not a freakin football player, so that is a false  analogy........a logical fallacy
> 
> Anything getting through there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Football players are human beings and I am a human being and I don't GET to BE a Football Player just because I 'identify' as a FOOTBALL PLAYER.  But that is only because I DO NOT QUALIFY TO BE A FOOTBALL PLAYER.  Because I don't practice, I don't want to put in the time or expose myself to the pain of BEING such.
> 
> It's true tho', that I'm NOT a football player.  Of course in my defense I never claimed TO BE ONE.
> 
> And still I do not demand that I should be accepted as one, despite that I think it would be cool to be a super celebrity with loads of cash and flash... and all the trappings that come with it... .
> 
> But I don't pretend to BE a Football player, BECAUSE I AM NOT DELUDED!
> 
> Such is the case for Homosexuals who do not pretend to be NORMAL... thus they do not demand to be provided access to institutions which nature designed exclusively AROUND NORMALITY.
> 
> No one here has a beef with those people... Come, shop, spend your money... we're happy to have you in our store... because you're people who behave within the scope of normality, you're not creating a scene or embarrassing other people through deviant, abnormal behavior, so... why would there be a reason to discriminate against you?
> 
> However for those of you sexual deviants looking to get into the heterosexual locker room... who expect to be starters within the heterosexual team... we're going to have to ask you to shut the fuck up and sit down, or... if need be, we'll happily show you through the door.
> 
> And FYI: we're good _either way... ._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's pretty apparent that you are anything but normal unless being a pig headed bigot is what you call normal.  It apparent that you have no intention of having a rational discussion of the issue so you will now be ignored
Click to expand...

Who are you talking to?


----------



## Seawytch

Ernie S. said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Force me to do something against my will and you sure as hell aren't getting my best effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
Click to expand...


But they DID. Why do your beliefs trump theirs?


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Negroes should seek out and buy their lunch from places that don't object to serving Negroes.
> 
> 
> 
> It makes sense.
> Would you rather eat at a place that welcomes you with open arms, or one that throws food at you?
> Or do you just want to sue someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- those blacks at the lunch counter were just being offensive......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you refuse to answer a direct question. OK. Fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the thing.
> 
> If a shop refused to do business with me- say because I was Jewish or because I was gay or because I was a veteran- I would probably do what you say- because I am generally an easy going kind of guy.
> 
> If a shop refused to do business with my wife or daughter- say because they were Jewish or gay or veterans- I would gladly sue the hell out the business. Because that would piss me off enough to take action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Send your homosexual wife into my shop... I'll give ya something to sue over.
Click to expand...


Oh I am sure in your imagination you would be all over hitting her with your walker.


----------



## Ernie S.

Skylar said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And many Christians see nothing in their religious beliefs that says selling a wedding cake is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays should be able to buy from anyone doing business with the public. As ordering a cake from a person who sells cake is a reasonable act. Denying cake because of the sexual orientation of the person ordering it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why the hell not just go to a different bakery that would be happy to serve you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should they have to hunt for a baker that isn't going to project his religious bigotry upon them? Again, the actions of the gays and lesbians in question are completely reasonable: order a cake from a person that sells cake. The response they face isn't reasonable.
> 
> You're insisting its the responsibility of the gays and lesbians to remedy someone *else's* religiously motivated bigotry. I disagree. Gays and lesbians are not responsible for the bigotry they face. And Its not their responsibility to remedy it.
> 
> Not rationally, and not under the law.
Click to expand...

You can't answer a direct question......
You asses try to boycott some businesses that don't support your cause. Why not boycott those that would rather you did? if it's not about your pocketbook?


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that bigotry, and praying to an imaginary friend in the sky is deviant behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The absolutely COOLEST thing about the word "Bigotry", is that the very application OF the word is, by definition: A demonstration _*of* Bigotry._
> 
> And I do not seem to be able to get my fill of watching people here, fall victim to that delightful little trap, BY THE GROSS!
> 
> LOL!  _CLASSIC!_
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, gay people are human beings and should be treated as such. You are not a freakin football player, so that is a false  analogy........a logical fallacy
> 
> Anything getting through there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I don't pretend to BE a Football player, BECAUSE I AM NOT DELUDED!
> _ ._
Click to expand...


LOL........

The irony is hilarious.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ernie S. said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And many Christians see nothing in their religious beliefs that says selling a wedding cake is sinful.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays should be able to buy from anyone doing business with the public. As ordering a cake from a person who sells cake is a reasonable act. Denying cake because of the sexual orientation of the person ordering it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why the hell not just go to a different bakery that would be happy to serve you?
> Why would you want to force someone who is not motivated to do his best work to serve you?
> It makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that bigotry, and praying to an imaginary friend in the sky is deviant behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The absolutely COOLEST thing about the word "Bigotry", is that the very application OF the word is, by definition: A demonstration of Bigotry.
> 
> And I do not seem to be able to get my fill of watching people here, fall victim to that delightful little trap, BY THE GROSS!
> 
> LOL!  _CLASSIC!_
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, gay people are human beings and should be treated as such. You are not a freakin football player, so that is a false  analogy........a logical fallacy
> 
> Anything getting through there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Football players are human beings and I am a human being and I don't GET to BE a Football Player just because I 'identify' as a FOOTBALL PLAYER.  But that is only because I DO NOT QUALIFY TO BE A FOOTBALL PLAYER.  Because I don't practice, I don't want to put in the time or expose myself to the pain of BEING such.
> 
> It's true tho', that I'm NOT a football player.  Of course in my defense I never claimed TO BE ONE.
> 
> And still I do not demand that I should be accepted as one, despite that I think it would be cool to be a super celebrity with loads of cash and flash... and all the trappings that come with it... .
> 
> But I don't pretend to BE a Football player, BECAUSE I AM NOT DELUDED!
> 
> Such is the case for Homosexuals who do not pretend to be NORMAL... thus they do not demand to be provided access to institutions which nature designed exclusively AROUND NORMALITY.
> 
> No one here has a beef with those people... Come, shop, spend your money... we're happy to have you in our store... because you're people who behave within the scope of normality, you're not creating a scene or embarrassing other people through deviant, abnormal behavior, so... why would there be a reason to discriminate against you?
> 
> However for those of you sexual deviants looking to get into the heterosexual locker room... who expect to be starters within the heterosexual team... we're going to have to ask you to shut the fuck up and sit down, or... if need be, we'll happily show you through the door.
> 
> And FYI: we're good _either way... ._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's pretty apparent that you are anything but normal unless being a pig headed bigot is what you call normal.  It apparent that you have no intention of having a rational discussion of the issue so you will now be ignored
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you talking to?
Click to expand...


Keys. Did something go wrong there?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> You're insisting its the responsibility of the gays and lesbians to remedy someone *else's* religiously motivated bigotry.



LOL!  See what I mean?

What does it mean when a person seeks out a bakery that is WELL ESTABLISHED AS A CHRISTIAN BAKERY, so that you can order something that directly opposes their well established religious principles, so that you can then SUE THEM and subject them to serious financial injury?

Reason dictates that such is a demonstration of sadism... a form of sexual deviancy, which demonstrates that a sexual deviant is a deviant.  And a deviant is one who rejects the standard of normality.  That they are a homosexual merely defines them as a person who has no regard for ANY STANDARD... as homosexuality deviates as FAR FROM the human physiological sexual standard as can be achieved, where the subjects at issue REMAIN HUMAN!

Reason further and axiomatically demonstrates intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself; which is to say that such behavior is a demonstration of bigotry.

While it is true that homosexuals are human beings, as was previously noted, it is also true that homosexuals are human beings presenting with severe mental disorder, who should be treated as such.


----------



## Ernie S.

Seawytch said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Force me to do something against my will and you sure as hell aren't getting my best effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they DID. Why do your beliefs trump theirs?
Click to expand...

I don't feel they do and I wouldn't patronize a place that held those beliefs. I would simply visit a lunch counter where I felt welcome. I would expect more care that I would be treated as a valuable customer.


----------



## Ernie S.

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays should be able to buy from anyone doing business with the public. As ordering a cake from a person who sells cake is a reasonable act. Denying cake because of the sexual orientation of the person ordering it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why the hell not just go to a different bakery that would be happy to serve you?
> Why would you want to force someone who is not motivated to do his best work to serve you?
> It makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that bigotry, and praying to an imaginary friend in the sky is deviant behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The absolutely COOLEST thing about the word "Bigotry", is that the very application OF the word is, by definition: A demonstration of Bigotry.
> 
> And I do not seem to be able to get my fill of watching people here, fall victim to that delightful little trap, BY THE GROSS!
> 
> LOL!  _CLASSIC!_
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, gay people are human beings and should be treated as such. You are not a freakin football player, so that is a false  analogy........a logical fallacy
> 
> Anything getting through there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Football players are human beings and I am a human being and I don't GET to BE a Football Player just because I 'identify' as a FOOTBALL PLAYER.  But that is only because I DO NOT QUALIFY TO BE A FOOTBALL PLAYER.  Because I don't practice, I don't want to put in the time or expose myself to the pain of BEING such.
> 
> It's true tho', that I'm NOT a football player.  Of course in my defense I never claimed TO BE ONE.
> 
> And still I do not demand that I should be accepted as one, despite that I think it would be cool to be a super celebrity with loads of cash and flash... and all the trappings that come with it... .
> 
> But I don't pretend to BE a Football player, BECAUSE I AM NOT DELUDED!
> 
> Such is the case for Homosexuals who do not pretend to be NORMAL... thus they do not demand to be provided access to institutions which nature designed exclusively AROUND NORMALITY.
> 
> No one here has a beef with those people... Come, shop, spend your money... we're happy to have you in our store... because you're people who behave within the scope of normality, you're not creating a scene or embarrassing other people through deviant, abnormal behavior, so... why would there be a reason to discriminate against you?
> 
> However for those of you sexual deviants looking to get into the heterosexual locker room... who expect to be starters within the heterosexual team... we're going to have to ask you to shut the fuck up and sit down, or... if need be, we'll happily show you through the door.
> 
> And FYI: we're good _either way... ._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's pretty apparent that you are anything but normal unless being a pig headed bigot is what you call normal.  It apparent that you have no intention of having a rational discussion of the issue so you will now be ignored
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you talking to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keys. Did something go wrong there?
Click to expand...

My name was at the top, but my post was missing.


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any couple want their wedding performed by a Church that was forced to do it....
> 
> 
> 
> Or why would they want a Christian to photograph them or bake them a wedding cake if an agenda isn't on their mind? They would'nt, so why are they doing it, and then acting as if they are surprised when the resistance comes?
> 
> They aren't surprised, and everyone including them knows this, but they got to play it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'agenda' you mean being treated like everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not really what they're asking for. 'Everyone else' risks being discriminated against every day. Instead of being treated like everyone else, they're asking to be added to the list of groups covered by 'protected classes' legislation. They're asking for the special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their sexuality to server them regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They most certainly do want to be treated like everyone else. They just want to be able to go into a place of business and not have to think about or worry about whether or not they will be served. JUST LIKE YOU
> 
> It is those who believe that they have the right to discriminate in the name of god who want a special privilege to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most kinds of discrimination aren't illegal. People are discriminated against every day because they're ugly, poor, fat, stupid, etc.... Should those traits also be added to the protected classes list?
Click to expand...


In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that bigotry, and praying to an imaginary friend in the sky is deviant behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The absolutely COOLEST thing about the word "Bigotry", is that the very application OF the word is, by definition: A demonstration _*of* Bigotry._
> 
> And I do not seem to be able to get my fill of watching people here, fall victim to that delightful little trap, BY THE GROSS!
> 
> LOL!  _CLASSIC!_
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, gay people are human beings and should be treated as such. You are not a freakin football player, so that is a false  analogy........a logical fallacy
> 
> Anything getting through there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I don't pretend to BE a Football player, BECAUSE I AM NOT DELUDED!
> _ ._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL........
> 
> The irony is hilarious.
Click to expand...


So you're still struggling to understand what Irony means?

(Again Reader, this is what 'mental disorder' means.  They lack the means to negotiate otherwise common, unambiguous terms and standards.)


----------



## Seawytch

Ernie S. said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Force me to do something against my will and you sure as hell aren't getting my best effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they DID. Why do your beliefs trump theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't feel they do and I wouldn't patronize a place that held those beliefs. I would simply visit a lunch counter where I felt welcome. I would expect more care that I would be treated as a valuable customer.
Click to expand...


Good for YOU, but that doesn't change the FACT that we did not give religious exemptions to racist bigots. Why do anti gay bigots deserve them?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're insisting its the responsibility of the gays and lesbians to remedy someone *else's* religiously motivated bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  See what I mean?
> 
> What does it mean when a person seeks out a bakery that is WELL ESTABLISHED AS A CHRISTIAN BAKERY, so that you can order something that directly opposes their well established religious principles, so that you can then SUE THEM and subject them to serious financial injury?
Click to expand...


There's no 'well establish religious principle' to deny cake to gays. That's quite new. 

And in many states, quite a civil infraction with quite a fine. 



> Reason dictates that such is a demonstration of sadism... a form of sexual deviancy, which demonstrates that a sexual deviant is a deviant.  And a deviant is one who rejects the standard of normality.  That they are a homosexual merely defines them as a person who has no regard for ANY STANDARD... as homosexuality deviates as FAR FROM the human physiological sexual standard as can be achieved, where the subjects at issue REMAIN HUMAN!



Ordering a cake is a form of sexual sadism? I don't think you have the slightest clue what you're talking about, buddy.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're insisting its the responsibility of the gays and lesbians to remedy someone *else's* religiously motivated bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is true that homosexuals are human beings, as was previously noted,.
Click to expand...


Well that is progress- Keys now recognizes homosexuals as human beings.


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or why would they want a Christian to photograph them or bake them a wedding cake if an agenda isn't on their mind? They would'nt, so why are they doing it, and then acting as if they are surprised when the resistance comes?
> 
> They aren't surprised, and everyone including them knows this, but they got to play it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And by 'agenda' you mean being treated like everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not really what they're asking for. 'Everyone else' risks being discriminated against every day. Instead of being treated like everyone else, they're asking to be added to the list of groups covered by 'protected classes' legislation. They're asking for the special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their sexuality to server them regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They most certainly do want to be treated like everyone else. They just want to be able to go into a place of business and not have to think about or worry about whether or not they will be served. JUST LIKE YOU
> 
> It is those who believe that they have the right to discriminate in the name of god who want a special privilege to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most kinds of discrimination aren't illegal. People are discriminated against every day because they're ugly, poor, fat, stupid, etc.... Should those traits also be added to the protected classes list?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.
Click to expand...


Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?


----------



## Ernie S.

Seawytch said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Force me to do something against my will and you sure as hell aren't getting my best effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they DID. Why do your beliefs trump theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't feel they do and I wouldn't patronize a place that held those beliefs. I would simply visit a lunch counter where I felt welcome. I would expect more care that I would be treated as a valuable customer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for YOU, but that doesn't change the FACT that we did not give religious exemptions to racist bigots. Why do anti gay bigots deserve them?
Click to expand...

*Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or *prohibiting the free exercise thereof;*

It's all very simple.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that bigotry, and praying to an imaginary friend in the sky is deviant behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The absolutely COOLEST thing about the word "Bigotry", is that the very application OF the word is, by definition: A demonstration _*of* Bigotry._
> 
> And I do not seem to be able to get my fill of watching people here, fall victim to that delightful little trap, BY THE GROSS!
> 
> LOL!  _CLASSIC!_
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, gay people are human beings and should be treated as such. You are not a freakin football player, so that is a false  analogy........a logical fallacy
> 
> Anything getting through there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I don't pretend to BE a Football player, BECAUSE I AM NOT DELUDED!
> _ ._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL........
> 
> The irony is hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're still struggling to understand what Irony means?
> 
> (Again Reader, this is what 'mental disorder' means.  They lack the means to negotiate otherwise common, unambiguous terms and standards.)
Click to expand...


LOL.......Keys: "BECAUSE I AM NOT DELUDED!"


----------



## Skylar

Ernie S. said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And many Christians see nothing in their religious beliefs that says selling a wedding cake is sinful.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays should be able to buy from anyone doing business with the public. As ordering a cake from a person who sells cake is a reasonable act. Denying cake because of the sexual orientation of the person ordering it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why the hell not just go to a different bakery that would be happy to serve you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should they have to hunt for a baker that isn't going to project his religious bigotry upon them? Again, the actions of the gays and lesbians in question are completely reasonable: order a cake from a person that sells cake. The response they face isn't reasonable.
> 
> You're insisting its the responsibility of the gays and lesbians to remedy someone *else's* religiously motivated bigotry. I disagree. Gays and lesbians are not responsible for the bigotry they face. And Its not their responsibility to remedy it.
> 
> Not rationally, and not under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't answer a direct question......
Click to expand...


I did: because they shouldn't have to. They have no responsibility to remedy someone else's religiously motivated bigotry.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.



Of course it is... because those making the law are Relativists, who lack the objectivity to understand that discrimination is a trait essential to human viability.

Such is evil... and set upon the Godless by God.

I doubt anyone has better framed the issue than Linda kimball, who noted such as follows:

"_"And I will give children to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over them_." Isaiah 3:4

In turning away from the Spirit of God and the truth He has given, 'wise' males will become effeminate cowards and females mannish. They will be adolescent emotional-tyrants in adult-size bodies: sinister, greedy, spiteful, vindictive, treacherous, back-stabbing sophists. They will celebrate Lucifer (the devil) and in their madness actively seek the way of Luciferian initiation because they will be spiritually blind in regard to total reality. Like demons they will flee from the cross of Jesus but exalt the devil as the first free thinker, the genetic creator of man, the seething energy and angel of evolution. Truth will be lies, evil will be good, unfaithfulness will be faith and the 'wise' will preach and blaspheme from pulpits, exercise political power, enact legislation, and wield broken law to plunder, punish, and ruin.

Zarathustra has been right on both counts. First, apostatizing W. Europe and America, though dotted here and there by small islands of Light, decency and sanity, are becoming darkened, satanically inverted places ruled by the 'wise,' hence boiling over with madness, particularly Hollywood, academia, mainstream media and the highest, most powerful political offices in the land. Second, Nietzsche was made to show the 'wise' what is in store for them by spending the last eleven years of his life _insane_."


----------



## Skylar

Ernie S. said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they DID. Why do your beliefs trump theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't feel they do and I wouldn't patronize a place that held those beliefs. I would simply visit a lunch counter where I felt welcome. I would expect more care that I would be treated as a valuable customer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for YOU, but that doesn't change the FACT that we did not give religious exemptions to racist bigots. Why do anti gay bigots deserve them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or *prohibiting the free exercise thereof;*
> 
> It's all very simple.
Click to expand...


So what laws couldn't a christian ignore if they claim it 'prohibits the free exercise of religion'. Remembering of course that religious is spectacularly subjective and interpretative. And can mean pretty much whatever the adherent of the faith says it means.


----------



## Ernie S.

Off to work. Have fun, y'all.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is... because those making the law are Relativists, who lack the objectivity to understand that discrimination is a trait essential to human viability.
Click to expand...


How is say, denying service at a lunch counter to a black person 'essential to human viability'. I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. 



> Such is evil... and set upon the Godless by God.



Which 'god'? Remember, you're offering us your subjective interpreation of 'god', backed by nothing more than your subjective faith. There's nothing logical or rational that supports your interpretation. Its an interpretation of faith supported by an interpretation of faith. With the evidence and the conclusion being the exact same thing. 

Also known as circular reasoning. Which is a known fallacy of logic.

And there's no objectively valid system of truth that is based on logical fallacies. While yours most certainly is.


----------



## Skylar

Ernie S. said:


> Off to work. Have fun, y'all.



Bye Ernie. Drive safe.


----------



## Seawytch

Ernie S. said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Which one is you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing in my religious beliefs that says a negro sitting at a lunch counter is sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they DID. Why do your beliefs trump theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't feel they do and I wouldn't patronize a place that held those beliefs. I would simply visit a lunch counter where I felt welcome. I would expect more care that I would be treated as a valuable customer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for YOU, but that doesn't change the FACT that we did not give religious exemptions to racist bigots. Why do anti gay bigots deserve them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or *prohibiting the free exercise thereof;*
> 
> It's all very simple.
Click to expand...


It is simple. We did not allow religious exemptions for racist bigots. PA laws were found Constitutional at the FEDERAL level. 

Why do you believe anti gay bigots should be given considerations NOT given racist bigots?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

The Sound Of Silence: Fundamentalist DJ Company In Md. Refuses To Work Gay Man’s Birthday Party  The Sound Of Silence Fundamentalist DJ Company In Md. Refuses To Work Gay Man s Birthday Party Americans United

Here  is an excellent illustration of why we cannot allow individuals who are providing a service in a public accommodation to decide who they are going to provide that service to on the basis of their religion:

Selected excerpts:


[How far does the Religious Right intend to go with its argument that “religious freedom” shields Christians who refuse to serve entire groups of people? The recent case of a Maryland disc jockey who declined to provide his services for a gay man’s birthday party may offer some insight.

Tom Tsakounis, who is gay, wanted to throw a birthday party for his roommate, another gay man. Tsakounis’ sister contacted Ultrasound Deejays to see if they would provide music for the party. But Michael Lampiris, who co-owns Ultrasound, refused to take the job after learning the details of the event.]

[Lampiris also offered some pretty extensive disclaimers (again, emphasis is his, as is the haphazard capitalization): “We will *not* play music that contains profanity or vulgarity; We will *not* support a new teen dance style called ‘freaking’; We will *not* tolerate provocative dancing or actions; We will *not* participate with strippers or be involved in any event with strippers; We will *not* be involved in any event with fortune tellers, psychics, or magicians; We will *not* be involved in any event that celebrates Halloween; We will *not* be involved in any event involving homosexual celebration or activity. We follow biblical morality; and We *do not *work on Sundays.”]

[Would he work an atheist wedding? Would he turn away an opposite-sex couple if he suspected the bride was not a virgin? There seems to be almost no limit to Lampiris’ religious-based refusals.

And what if Lampiris learned, during a party, that a single gay guest was in attendance? Would he instruct his DJ to pack up his equipment and go home? Would he issue a refund?]

[But the most important question of all is, *what does any of this have to do with religious beliefs*? It’s hard to say, and that’s the problem. *Anyone could claim a religious objection to almost any activity, and if the Religious Right gets its way and discrimination is protected by the states, there could be dozens of Lampirises coming out of the woodwork.*

This case is an extreme one. Most fundamentalists have only refused to provide services for same-sex weddings, but Lampiris is simply taking those objections to their logical conclusion. He thinks his beliefs give him a right to serve – or turn away – anyone he wants whether or not it has anything to do with actual religion.]


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> There's no 'well establish religious principle' to deny cake to gays. That's quite new.



There's no one "denying cakes to sexual deviants".

There are only people refusing to create custom decorated cakes which are to be used in celebrations codifying perversion.

And that's a long established scriptural no, no. But for obvious reasons.

Where on participates in the celebration of evil, one joins with evil and that's death... .

FYI: "DEATH" is _BAD!  Therefore... 'evil' is *BAD!  
*_
Now, to help you through this, I want you to recall your lessons with regard to Fire... remember that FIRE is "HOT!" and that because fire is HOT, you were taught that you needed to be VERY CAREFUL with FIRE!

"Death", "Evil" and "BAD!" is very similar, only* "HOTTER!"

Do you understand?*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The Sound Of Silence: Fundamentalist DJ Company In Md. Refuses To Work Gay Man’s Birthday Party



Yes... Imagine if EVERY DJ were to deny homosexuals the RIGHT TO _BUGGER DOWN!_...  The next thing you'd know, there'd be no homosexuals throwing birthday parties and what a sad little world that would be.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no 'well establish religious principle' to deny cake to gays. That's quite new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no one denying cakes to sexual deviants.
> 
> There is only people refusing to provide cakes which are to be used in celebrations codifying perversion.
Click to expand...


There's nothing perverse about marriage. And denying cakes to gays is quite new. Nixing your entire 'well established religious principle' gibberish. 



> And that's a long established scriptural no, no. But for obvious reasons.
> 
> Where on participates in the celebration of evil, one joins with evil and that's death... .
> 
> FYI: "DEATH" is _BAD!  Therefore... 'evil' is *BAD!
> *_
> Now, to help you through this, I want you to recall your lessons with regard to Fire... remember that FIRE is "HOT!" and that because fire is HOT, you were taught that you needed to be VERY CAREFUL with FIRE!
> 
> "Death", "Evil" and "BAD!" is very similar, only* "HOTTER!"
> 
> Do you understand?*



I understand that you're using your subjective interpretation of god as the basis of your claims. And that your subjective interpretation is based on subjective religious faith. But void of logic, reason, or objective evidence. 

Making your claims more subjective opinion, my little relativist. 

And we're not denying anyone the right to marry based on your personal opinion.


----------



## LOki

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?


No.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no 'well establish religious principle' to deny cake to gays. That's quite new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no one denying cakes to sexual deviants.
> 
> There is only people refusing to provide cakes which are to be used in celebrations codifying perversion.
> 
> And that's a long established scriptural no, no. But for obvious reasons.
> 
> Where on participates in the celebration of evil, one joins with evil and that's death... .
> 
> FYI: "DEATH" is _BAD!  Therefore... 'evil' is *BAD!
> *_
> Now, to help you through this, I want you to recall your lessons with regard to Fire... remember that FIRE is "HOT!" and that because fire is HOT, you were taught that you needed to be VERY CAREFUL with FIRE!
> 
> "Death", "Evil" and "BAD!" is very similar, only* "HOTTER!"
> 
> Do you understand?*
Click to expand...


----------



## Skylar

LOki said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


Which is the general consensus, even among supporters of gay marriage. And no church is required to. 

There is some debate about non-denominational for profit 'chapels' that are just regular corporations. Where you are being married by a guy who is dressed as Elvis for example. But not actual churches.


----------



## LOki

RWHeathenGamer said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
Click to expand...

Yes.



RWHeathenGamer said:


> How about against racial minorities as well?


Yes.


----------



## LOki

Skylar said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is the general consensus, even among supporters of gay marriage. And no church is required to.
> 
> There is some debate about non-denominational for profit 'chapels' that are just regular corporations. Where you are being married by a guy who is dressed as Elvis for example. But not actual churches.
Click to expand...

Freedom of association.


----------



## Skylar

LOki said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about against racial minorities as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


Yup. Pretty much anyone. Religion is inherently discriminatory. Its the nature of the beast.


----------



## Skylar

LOki said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is the general consensus, even among supporters of gay marriage. And no church is required to.
> 
> There is some debate about non-denominational for profit 'chapels' that are just regular corporations. Where you are being married by a guy who is dressed as Elvis for example. But not actual churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Freedom of association.
Click to expand...


The 'freedom of association' argument was already tried with racial segregation. It didn't hold up in regards to business. As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.

Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws. 

For profit 'chapels' maybe. But I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where you are being married by a guy who is dressed as Elvis for example. But not actual churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should ANYONE who does not accept sexual deviancy, be forced to accommodate sexual deviancy?
Click to expand...


Some have argued that for profit chapels which are not religious corporations.....but regular ones....would be subject to PA laws. I wouldn't be one of those arguing this. 

I don't think any church or chapel should be forced to perform any wedding they don't want to. And our law agrees.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> The 'freedom of association' argument was already tried with racial segregation.



Yet... Race is a function of genetics, while sexuality is a function of _BEHAVIOR!

Thus the two issues are not even comparable, let alone equitable, as your argument requires must be the case._


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'freedom of association' argument was already tried with racial segregation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet... Race is a function of genetics, while sexuality is a function of _BEHAVIOR!_
Click to expand...


Irrelevant. Religion is a behavior too. And denying service because of religion is also forbidden by most PA laws. Including every state where discrimination against gays is prohibited.

The distinction you're drawing is irrelevant to the discussion.



> Thus the two issues are not even comparable, let alone equitable, as your argument requires must be the case.



And yet between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, the court cited 4 different cases involving racial discrimination when describing why discrimination against gays was constitutionally invalid.

I'm gonna go with the USSC on this one. As does legal precedent.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where you are being married by a guy who is dressed as Elvis for example. But not actual churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should ANYONE who does not accept sexual deviancy, be forced to accommodate sexual deviancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some have argued that for profit chapels which are not religious corporations.....but regular ones....would be subject to PA laws. I wouldn't be one of those arguing this.
> 
> I don't think any church or chapel should be forced to perform any wedding they don't want to. And our law agrees.
Click to expand...


Well, that says more about the danger of allowing subjective cults get anywhere NEAR interpreting LAW.

Subjective Law, is invalid law.

PA Laws are not designed to protect deviant BEHAVIOR.  Because deviant behavior is unacceptable, unsustainable, counter productive, irrational: BEHAVIOR, thus viable cultures discourage such, decidedly NOT encouraging such.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'freedom of association' argument was already tried with racial segregation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet... Race is a function of genetics, while sexuality is a function of _BEHAVIOR!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO! 

Ladies and Gentlemen of the USMB ... I present you: 

*D E L U S I O N:  . . .  P E R S O N I F I E D ! ! ! *​


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where you are being married by a guy who is dressed as Elvis for example. But not actual churches.



Why should ANYONE who does not accept sexual deviancy, be forced to accommodate sexual deviancy?

If Preacher Elvis doesn't want to participate in your celebration of deviancy, who the fuck are you to demand that they must?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where you are being married by a guy who is dressed as Elvis for example. But not actual churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should ANYONE who does not accept sexual deviancy, be forced to accommodate sexual deviancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some have argued that for profit chapels which are not religious corporations.....but regular ones....would be subject to PA laws. I wouldn't be one of those arguing this.
> 
> I don't think any church or chapel should be forced to perform any wedding they don't want to. And our law agrees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that says more about the danger of allowing subjective cults get anywhere NEAR interpreting LAW.
Click to expand...


Given that all religion is spectacularly subjective and interpretative, its probably a good idea to keep it away from our law as well. 



> Subjective Law, is invalid law.



Given that your idea of god is subjective, backed by subjective belief and the basis of 'god's law' per you, wouldn't that mean that your version of 'god's law' was invalid? 

Following your own logic, of course.


----------



## dblack

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The Sound Of Silence: Fundamentalist DJ Company In Md. Refuses To Work Gay Man’s Birthday Party  The Sound Of Silence Fundamentalist DJ Company In Md. Refuses To Work Gay Man s Birthday Party Americans United
> 
> Here  is an excellent illustration of why we cannot allow individuals who are providing a service in a public accommodation to decide who they are going to provide that service to on the basis of their religion...



Why can't we? I didn't see the "whys" in your post.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'freedom of association' argument was already tried with racial segregation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet... Race is a function of genetics, while sexuality is a function of _BEHAVIOR!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Ladies and Gentlemen of the USMB ... I present you:
> 
> *D E L U S I O N:  . . .  P E R S O N I F I E D ! ! ! *​
Click to expand...


Odd, you completely ignored all mention of religion as a behavior. And it being protected as well.



			
				skylar said:
			
		

> Irrelevant.* Religion is a behavior too. And denying service because of religion is also forbidden by most PA laws. Including every state where discrimination against gays is prohibited.
> 
> The distinction you're drawing is irrelevant to the discussion.*



You always show us where you know your argument is weakest by what you omit, ignore, and refuse to discuss. And you just put a big neon arrow on the bolded portions above by running from it.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to run.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where you are being married by a guy who is dressed as Elvis for example. But not actual churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should ANYONE who does not accept sexual deviancy, be forced to accommodate sexual deviancy?
> 
> If Preacher Elvis doesn't want to participate in your celebration of deviancy, who the fuck are you to demand that they must?
Click to expand...


Asked and answered:



			
				skylar said:
			
		

> Some have argued that for profit chapels which are not religious corporations.....but regular ones....would be subject to PA laws. I wouldn't be one of those arguing this.
> 
> I don't think any church or chapel should be forced to perform any wedding they don't want to. And our law agrees.



Just because you close your eyes and pretend the reply never happened doesn't mean that reality magically changes to match, my little relativist.


----------



## LOki

Skylar said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is the general consensus, even among supporters of gay marriage. And no church is required to.
> 
> There is some debate about non-denominational for profit 'chapels' that are just regular corporations. Where you are being married by a guy who is dressed as Elvis for example. But not actual churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Freedom of association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'freedom of association' argument was already tried with racial segregation. It didn't hold up in regards to business.
Click to expand...

Changes nothing, as this is an "ought" question, not an "is" question.



Skylar said:


> As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.


Authority constrained by rights.



Skylar said:


> Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.


Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.



Skylar said:


> For profit 'chapels' maybe. But I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.


"I'd pay them more to walk on water, than to wear a crown of thorns."


----------



## Skylar

LOki said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> Authority constrained by rights.
Click to expand...


Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.
Click to expand...


They aren't. And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.


----------



## LOki

Skylar said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> Authority constrained by rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
> "Is/ ought" again.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they are.



Skylar said:


> And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.


"Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".


----------



## Skylar

LOki said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> Authority constrained by rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
> "Is/ ought" again.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, they are.
Click to expand...


Not under our system of law.



> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> "Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".
Click to expand...


I'm taking into account our actual laws when coming to my conclusions. Mainly because they're relevant to likely outcomes.


----------



## LOki

Skylar said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> Authority constrained by rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
> "Is/ ought" again.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not under our system of law.
Click to expand...




> Whatever.  They're still businesses whether the law says so or not.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.
> 
> 
> 
> "Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm taking into account our actual laws when coming to my conclusions. Mainly because they're relevant to likely outcomes.
Click to expand...

I'm not contesting what "is".


----------



## dblack

LOki said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> Authority constrained by rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
> "Is/ ought" again.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".
Click to expand...


Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, _including tax exemptions_, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".


----------



## LOki

dblack said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> Authority constrained by rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
> "Is/ ought" again.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, _including tax exemptions_, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".
Click to expand...

Nice!


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> Authority constrained by rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
> "Is/ ought" again.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, _including tax exemptions_, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".
Click to expand...


its a simple recognition that churches aren't businesses nor commerce. Neither of which has ever been a recognized designation for the entire history of our nation.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> Authority constrained by rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
> "Is/ ought" again.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, _including tax exemptions_, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> its a simple recognition that churches aren't businesses nor commerce. Neither of which has ever been a recognized designation for the entire history of our nation.
Click to expand...


As well as a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Extending that precedent, by granting religious institutions exemptions to other laws the rest of us are obliged to follow, drives the point home. This remains one of the worst unresolved blunders of the SC.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Authority constrained by rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
> "Is/ ought" again.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, _including tax exemptions_, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> its a simple recognition that churches aren't businesses nor commerce. Neither of which has ever been a recognized designation for the entire history of our nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As well as a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...


Says you. No one, from the founders to the present day supreme court has ever found this to be true. I'm gonna have to go with the founders and 2 centuries of jurisprudence over you typing 10 words.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
> "Is/ ought" again.
> They aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, _including tax exemptions_, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> its a simple recognition that churches aren't businesses nor commerce. Neither of which has ever been a recognized designation for the entire history of our nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As well as a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. No one, from the founders to the present day supreme court has ever found this to be true. I'm gonna have to go with the founders and 2 centuries of jurisprudence over you typing 10 words.
Click to expand...


That's fine. But I'd hope you'd at least give it some thought yourself before going with the flow.


----------



## Silhouette

dblack said:


> As well as a blatant violation of the First Amendment.


 


Skylar said:


> Says you. No one, from the founders to the present day supreme court has ever found this to be true. I'm gonna have to go with the founders and 2 centuries of jurisprudence over you typing 10 words.


 


dblack said:


> That's fine. But I'd hope you'd at least give it some thought yourself before going with the flow.


 
The "flow" in this debate, if anything could be an indication, is the Hobby Lobby Decision.


----------



## dblack

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> As well as a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. No one, from the founders to the present day supreme court has ever found this to be true. I'm gonna have to go with the founders and 2 centuries of jurisprudence over you typing 10 words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. But I'd hope you'd at least give it some thought yourself before going with the flow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "flow" in this debate, if anything could be an indication, is the Hobby Lobby Decision.
Click to expand...


Absolutely. It's what first got me thinking about the issue.


----------



## Ernie S.

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by 'agenda' you mean being treated like everyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not really what they're asking for. 'Everyone else' risks being discriminated against every day. Instead of being treated like everyone else, they're asking to be added to the list of groups covered by 'protected classes' legislation. They're asking for the special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their sexuality to server them regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They most certainly do want to be treated like everyone else. They just want to be able to go into a place of business and not have to think about or worry about whether or not they will be served. JUST LIKE YOU
> 
> It is those who believe that they have the right to discriminate in the name of god who want a special privilege to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most kinds of discrimination aren't illegal. People are discriminated against every day because they're ugly, poor, fat, stupid, etc.... Should those traits also be added to the protected classes list?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?
Click to expand...

Seawytch doesn't answer questions.


----------



## dblack

Ernie S. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not really what they're asking for. 'Everyone else' risks being discriminated against every day. Instead of being treated like everyone else, they're asking to be added to the list of groups covered by 'protected classes' legislation. They're asking for the special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their sexuality to server them regardless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They most certainly do want to be treated like everyone else. They just want to be able to go into a place of business and not have to think about or worry about whether or not they will be served. JUST LIKE YOU
> 
> It is those who believe that they have the right to discriminate in the name of god who want a special privilege to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most kinds of discrimination aren't illegal. People are discriminated against every day because they're ugly, poor, fat, stupid, etc.... Should those traits also be added to the protected classes list?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seawytch doesn't answer questions.
Click to expand...


Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.


----------



## Ernie S.

Skylar said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays should be able to buy from anyone doing business with the public. As ordering a cake from a person who sells cake is a reasonable act. Denying cake because of the sexual orientation of the person ordering it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why the hell not just go to a different bakery that would be happy to serve you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should they have to hunt for a baker that isn't going to project his religious bigotry upon them? Again, the actions of the gays and lesbians in question are completely reasonable: order a cake from a person that sells cake. The response they face isn't reasonable.
> 
> You're insisting its the responsibility of the gays and lesbians to remedy someone *else's* religiously motivated bigotry. I disagree. Gays and lesbians are not responsible for the bigotry they face. And Its not their responsibility to remedy it.
> 
> Not rationally, and not under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't answer a direct question......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did: because they shouldn't have to. They have no responsibility to remedy someone else's religiously motivated bigotry.
Click to expand...

So they would rather risk sub standard service?

Suppose you wanted to buy a house and the owner of your first choice refused to sell it to you. Would you look for another house of cry that you were discriminated against because an owner refused to put his house on the market at your preferred price?

Look! I'm not arguing that a baker refusing to bake a cake is right or wrong, just that it should be his choice to exercise his right to refuse to provide service and thus participate in something that goes against his religious beliefs.

Let the market judge him. They did that with Chic-fil-A.

How'd that work out for you?


----------



## Ernie S.

dblack said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They most certainly do want to be treated like everyone else. They just want to be able to go into a place of business and not have to think about or worry about whether or not they will be served. JUST LIKE YOU
> 
> It is those who believe that they have the right to discriminate in the name of god who want a special privilege to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most kinds of discrimination aren't illegal. People are discriminated against every day because they're ugly, poor, fat, stupid, etc.... Should those traits also be added to the protected classes list?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seawytch doesn't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.
Click to expand...

OK, I guess gays ARE discriminating against those holding strong religious values....


----------



## Ernie S.

dblack said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> Authority constrained by rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
> "Is/ ought" again.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, _including tax exemptions_, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".
Click to expand...

Did you read the next phrase?


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They most certainly do want to be treated like everyone else. They just want to be able to go into a place of business and not have to think about or worry about whether or not they will be served. JUST LIKE YOU
> 
> It is those who believe that they have the right to discriminate in the name of god who want a special privilege to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most kinds of discrimination aren't illegal. People are discriminated against every day because they're ugly, poor, fat, stupid, etc.... Should those traits also be added to the protected classes list?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seawytch doesn't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.
Click to expand...


I will give it a shot.

There have been multiple examples of historic discrimination by the majority against a minority(blacks, Jewish, native American, Catholics, etc, etc). 

Looking back on history, some of that discrimination was truly repellant- and often widespread- widespread enough that African Americans from the North travelling to the south used maps to mark the gas stations and hotels that would serve them because most wouldn't. 

There were three choices:
a) leave as is- let business's discriminate as they wish, often to the detriment of entire minority groups(property codiciles excluding certain races from subdivisions come to mind)- i.e. the status quo of 1960 or
b) mandate that all business's never discriminate against anyone for any reason or
c) address the actual issue- which is discrimination by the majority against specific minority groups that have suffered historic and widespread discrimination.

I suggest that c was and is the most reasonable solution to address persistent, historic and specific discrimination.


----------



## dblack

Ernie S. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> Authority constrained by rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
> "Is/ ought" again.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, _including tax exemptions_, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you read the next phrase?
Click to expand...

 
I did. You're proving my point. Do you realize that?


----------



## Syriusly

Ernie S. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most kinds of discrimination aren't illegal. People are discriminated against every day because they're ugly, poor, fat, stupid, etc.... Should those traits also be added to the protected classes list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seawytch doesn't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, I guess gays ARE discriminating against those holding strong religious values....
Click to expand...


Yes- gays surely are discriminating by asking a business to sell them a cake......like they sell cakes to everyone else.


----------



## Seawytch

Ernie S. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not really what they're asking for. 'Everyone else' risks being discriminated against every day. Instead of being treated like everyone else, they're asking to be added to the list of groups covered by 'protected classes' legislation. They're asking for the special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their sexuality to server them regardless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They most certainly do want to be treated like everyone else. They just want to be able to go into a place of business and not have to think about or worry about whether or not they will be served. JUST LIKE YOU
> 
> It is those who believe that they have the right to discriminate in the name of god who want a special privilege to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most kinds of discrimination aren't illegal. People are discriminated against every day because they're ugly, poor, fat, stupid, etc.... Should those traits also be added to the protected classes list?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seawytch doesn't answer questions.
Click to expand...


What question have I not answered?


----------



## Syriusly

Ernie S. said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays should be able to buy from anyone doing business with the public. As ordering a cake from a person who sells cake is a reasonable act. Denying cake because of the sexual orientation of the person ordering it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell not just go to a different bakery that would be happy to serve you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should they have to hunt for a baker that isn't going to project his religious bigotry upon them? Again, the actions of the gays and lesbians in question are completely reasonable: order a cake from a person that sells cake. The response they face isn't reasonable.
> 
> You're insisting its the responsibility of the gays and lesbians to remedy someone *else's* religiously motivated bigotry. I disagree. Gays and lesbians are not responsible for the bigotry they face. And Its not their responsibility to remedy it.
> 
> Not rationally, and not under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't answer a direct question......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did: because they shouldn't have to. They have no responsibility to remedy someone else's religiously motivated bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So they would rather risk sub standard service?
> 
> Suppose you wanted to buy a house and the owner of your first choice refused to sell it to you. Would you look for another house of cry that you were discriminated against because an owner refused to put his house on the market at your preferred price?
> 
> Look! I'm not arguing that a baker refusing to bake a cake is right or wrong, just that it should be his choice to exercise his right to refuse to provide service and thus participate in something that goes against his religious beliefs.
> 
> Let the market judge him. They did that with Chic-fil-A.
> 
> How'd that work out for you?
Click to expand...


Not well- still no Chic fil-A within a reasonable distance of where I live. 

Every business person has to deal with business regulations- and among the regulations are those dealing with discrimination- you may or may not agree with them, but the regulations are on the books- and Christian business people do not get special exemptions because they really, really don't think that they should serve someone because they are gay or Jewish or black or Muslim or Mormons or whatever.


----------



## Staidhup

Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.


----------



## Syriusly

Staidhup said:


> Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.



I don't know of anyone who thinks Churches should be forced to marry anyone.

Business's however are obligated to follow the law, and don't get special exemptions from the law because they really, really don't like it.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most kinds of discrimination aren't illegal. People are discriminated against every day because they're ugly, poor, fat, stupid, etc.... Should those traits also be added to the protected classes list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seawytch doesn't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will give it a shot.
> 
> There have been multiple examples of historic discrimination by the majority against a minority(blacks, Jewish, native American, Catholics, etc, etc).
> 
> Looking back on history, some of that discrimination was truly repellant- and often widespread- widespread enough that African Americans from the North travelling to the south used maps to mark the gas stations and hotels that would serve them because most wouldn't.
> 
> There were three choices:
> a) leave as is- let business's discriminate as they wish, often to the detriment of entire minority groups(property codiciles excluding certain races from subdivisions come to mind)- i.e. the status quo of 1960 or
> b) mandate that all business's never discriminate against anyone for any reason or
> c) address the actual issue- which is discrimination by the majority against specific minority groups that have suffered historic and widespread discrimination.
> 
> I suggest that c was and is the most reasonable solution to address persistent, historic and specific discrimination.
Click to expand...


Do you understand how "c" will never happen? If the goal is to target repellant biases for suppression, it will only ever happen when those biases are in the minority. To wit, gay rights has only, finally, come to the fore because the majority has concluded they're decent people like the rest of us. Such an approach can never address a situation where the majority is discriminating against a real disadvantaged minority.


----------



## Seawytch

Ernie S. said:


> Look! I'm not arguing that a baker refusing to bake a cake is right or wrong, just that it should be his choice to exercise his right to refuse to provide service and thus participate in something that goes against his religious beliefs.



And naturally you've called your legislators and demanded a repeal of Title II of the Civil Rights Act that REQUIRES the gay person to serve the Christian but not vice versa? 

No...you bitch on a message board about LOCAL (state's rights) laws.


----------



## Seawytch

Staidhup said:


> Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.



Those that conflate churches with businesses needs some remedial education.


----------



## Seawytch

The Chick Fil A boycott worked fine. From wiki;

In September 2012, The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA) announced that Chick-fil-A has "ceased donating to organizations that promote discrimination, specifically against LGBT civil rights." According to the TCRA, Chick-fil-A officials stated in an internal document that they "will treat every person equally, regardless of sexual orientation", although there had never been any accusations of discrimination against the company, only against the company and its foundations' contributions.[68]

In a letter from Chick-fil-A's Senior Director of Real Estate, the company stated: "The WinShape Foundations is now taking a much closer look at the organizations it considers helping, and in that process will remain true to its stated philosophy of not supporting organizations with political agendas."[69]


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those that conflate churches with businesses needs some remedial education.
Click to expand...


Why? It's a technical distinction at best. The goal of anti-discrimination laws is to eradicate bigotry, and has no relevant connection with the difference between business and churches.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seawytch doesn't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will give it a shot.
> 
> There have been multiple examples of historic discrimination by the majority against a minority(blacks, Jewish, native American, Catholics, etc, etc).
> 
> Looking back on history, some of that discrimination was truly repellant- and often widespread- widespread enough that African Americans from the North travelling to the south used maps to mark the gas stations and hotels that would serve them because most wouldn't.
> 
> There were three choices:
> a) leave as is- let business's discriminate as they wish, often to the detriment of entire minority groups(property codiciles excluding certain races from subdivisions come to mind)- i.e. the status quo of 1960 or
> b) mandate that all business's never discriminate against anyone for any reason or
> c) address the actual issue- which is discrimination by the majority against specific minority groups that have suffered historic and widespread discrimination.
> 
> I suggest that c was and is the most reasonable solution to address persistent, historic and specific discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand how "c" will never happen? If the goal is to target repellant biases for suppression, it will only ever happen when those biases are in the minority. To wit, gay rights has only, finally, come to the fore because the majority has concluded they're decent people like the rest of us. Such an approach can never address a situation where the majority is discriminating against a real disadvantaged minority.
Click to expand...


C has happened. To wit- starting in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act business's have been required to serve specific minorities which had a pattern of historic discrimination- and now those minority groups can be assured (for the most part) that they will be served all over the United States. 

And when they are not served there is an enforcement mechanism which 'encourages' business's to comply with the law.

The law works just fine.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those that conflate churches with businesses needs some remedial education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? It's a technical distinction at best. The goal of anti-discrimination laws is to eradicate bigotry, and has no relevant connection with the difference between business and churches.
Click to expand...


The goal of anti-discrimination laws in business is to ensure that minority groups will be served by business's.

They have nothing to do with eradicating bigotry.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch doesn't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will give it a shot.
> 
> There have been multiple examples of historic discrimination by the majority against a minority(blacks, Jewish, native American, Catholics, etc, etc).
> 
> Looking back on history, some of that discrimination was truly repellant- and often widespread- widespread enough that African Americans from the North travelling to the south used maps to mark the gas stations and hotels that would serve them because most wouldn't.
> 
> There were three choices:
> a) leave as is- let business's discriminate as they wish, often to the detriment of entire minority groups(property codiciles excluding certain races from subdivisions come to mind)- i.e. the status quo of 1960 or
> b) mandate that all business's never discriminate against anyone for any reason or
> c) address the actual issue- which is discrimination by the majority against specific minority groups that have suffered historic and widespread discrimination.
> 
> I suggest that c was and is the most reasonable solution to address persistent, historic and specific discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand how "c" will never happen? If the goal is to target repellant biases for suppression, it will only ever happen when those biases are in the minority. To wit, gay rights has only, finally, come to the fore because the majority has concluded they're decent people like the rest of us. Such an approach can never address a situation where the majority is discriminating against a real disadvantaged minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C has happened. To wit- starting in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act business's have been required to serve specific minorities which had a pattern of historic discrimination- and now those minority groups can be assured (for the most part) that they will be served all over the United States.
> 
> And when they are not served there is an enforcement mechanism which 'encourages' business's to comply with the law.
> 
> The law works just fine.
Click to expand...


You're missing the point. Real minorities, people the majority really has a bias against, aren't going to ride the "protected classes" gravy train. The only people who get on the list will be those who can win majority support - who can leverage enough political influence to get their interests represented. 

"Protected classes" legislation reeks of corporatism. It's antithetical to equal protection and free society. I think we'll figure that out eventually. The only question is, how far down the drain will we go before we figure it out.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch doesn't answer questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will give it a shot.
> 
> There have been multiple examples of historic discrimination by the majority against a minority(blacks, Jewish, native American, Catholics, etc, etc).
> 
> Looking back on history, some of that discrimination was truly repellant- and often widespread- widespread enough that African Americans from the North travelling to the south used maps to mark the gas stations and hotels that would serve them because most wouldn't.
> 
> There were three choices:
> a) leave as is- let business's discriminate as they wish, often to the detriment of entire minority groups(property codiciles excluding certain races from subdivisions come to mind)- i.e. the status quo of 1960 or
> b) mandate that all business's never discriminate against anyone for any reason or
> c) address the actual issue- which is discrimination by the majority against specific minority groups that have suffered historic and widespread discrimination.
> 
> I suggest that c was and is the most reasonable solution to address persistent, historic and specific discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand how "c" will never happen? If the goal is to target repellant biases for suppression, it will only ever happen when those biases are in the minority. To wit, gay rights has only, finally, come to the fore because the majority has concluded they're decent people like the rest of us. Such an approach can never address a situation where the majority is discriminating against a real disadvantaged minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C has happened. To wit- starting in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act business's have been required to serve specific minorities which had a pattern of historic discrimination- and now those minority groups can be assured (for the most part) that they will be served all over the United States.
> 
> And when they are not served there is an enforcement mechanism which 'encourages' business's to comply with the law.
> 
> The law works just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. Real minorities, people the majority really has a bias against, aren't going to ride the "protected classes" gravy train. The only people who get on the list will be those who can win majority support - who can leverage enough political influence to get their interests represented.
> 
> "Protected classes" legislation reeks of corporatism. It's antithetical to equal protection and free society. I think we'll figure that out eventually. The only question is, how far down the drain will we go before we figure it out.
Click to expand...


I think it is clear that you are missing the point.


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those that conflate churches with businesses needs some remedial education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? It's a technical distinction at best. The goal of anti-discrimination laws is to eradicate bigotry, and has no relevant connection with the difference between business and churches.
Click to expand...


No, it's long established precedent.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will give it a shot.
> 
> There have been multiple examples of historic discrimination by the majority against a minority(blacks, Jewish, native American, Catholics, etc, etc).
> 
> Looking back on history, some of that discrimination was truly repellant- and often widespread- widespread enough that African Americans from the North travelling to the south used maps to mark the gas stations and hotels that would serve them because most wouldn't.
> 
> There were three choices:
> a) leave as is- let business's discriminate as they wish, often to the detriment of entire minority groups(property codiciles excluding certain races from subdivisions come to mind)- i.e. the status quo of 1960 or
> b) mandate that all business's never discriminate against anyone for any reason or
> c) address the actual issue- which is discrimination by the majority against specific minority groups that have suffered historic and widespread discrimination.
> 
> I suggest that c was and is the most reasonable solution to address persistent, historic and specific discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand how "c" will never happen? If the goal is to target repellant biases for suppression, it will only ever happen when those biases are in the minority. To wit, gay rights has only, finally, come to the fore because the majority has concluded they're decent people like the rest of us. Such an approach can never address a situation where the majority is discriminating against a real disadvantaged minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C has happened. To wit- starting in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act business's have been required to serve specific minorities which had a pattern of historic discrimination- and now those minority groups can be assured (for the most part) that they will be served all over the United States.
> 
> And when they are not served there is an enforcement mechanism which 'encourages' business's to comply with the law.
> 
> The law works just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. Real minorities, people the majority really has a bias against, aren't going to ride the "protected classes" gravy train. The only people who get on the list will be those who can win majority support - who can leverage enough political influence to get their interests represented.
> 
> "Protected classes" legislation reeks of corporatism. It's antithetical to equal protection and free society. I think we'll figure that out eventually. The only question is, how far down the drain will we go before we figure it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is clear that you are missing the point.
Click to expand...


Which is what? That government should decide which biases are valid and which aren't?


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those that conflate churches with businesses needs some remedial education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? It's a technical distinction at best. The goal of anti-discrimination laws is to eradicate bigotry, and has no relevant connection with the difference between business and churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's long established precedent.
Click to expand...


I get that. Doesn't make it right.


----------



## dblack

Best not to think about it.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will give it a shot.
> 
> There have been multiple examples of historic discrimination by the majority against a minority(blacks, Jewish, native American, Catholics, etc, etc).
> 
> Looking back on history, some of that discrimination was truly repellant- and often widespread- widespread enough that African Americans from the North travelling to the south used maps to mark the gas stations and hotels that would serve them because most wouldn't.
> 
> There were three choices:
> a) leave as is- let business's discriminate as they wish, often to the detriment of entire minority groups(property codiciles excluding certain races from subdivisions come to mind)- i.e. the status quo of 1960 or
> b) mandate that all business's never discriminate against anyone for any reason or
> c) address the actual issue- which is discrimination by the majority against specific minority groups that have suffered historic and widespread discrimination.
> 
> I suggest that c was and is the most reasonable solution to address persistent, historic and specific discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand how "c" will never happen? If the goal is to target repellant biases for suppression, it will only ever happen when those biases are in the minority. To wit, gay rights has only, finally, come to the fore because the majority has concluded they're decent people like the rest of us. Such an approach can never address a situation where the majority is discriminating against a real disadvantaged minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C has happened. To wit- starting in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act business's have been required to serve specific minorities which had a pattern of historic discrimination- and now those minority groups can be assured (for the most part) that they will be served all over the United States.
> 
> And when they are not served there is an enforcement mechanism which 'encourages' business's to comply with the law.
> 
> The law works just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. Real minorities, people the majority really has a bias against, aren't going to ride the "protected classes" gravy train. The only people who get on the list will be those who can win majority support - who can leverage enough political influence to get their interests represented.
> 
> "Protected classes" legislation reeks of corporatism. It's antithetical to equal protection and free society. I think we'll figure that out eventually. The only question is, how far down the drain will we go before we figure it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is clear that you are missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is what? That government should decide which biases are valid and which aren't?
Click to expand...


I will give it a shot.

There have been multiple examples of historic discrimination by the majority against a minority(blacks, Jewish, native American, Catholics, etc, etc).

Looking back on history, some of that discrimination was truly repellant- and often widespread- widespread enough that African Americans from the North travelling to the south used maps to mark the gas stations and hotels that would serve them because most wouldn't.

There were three choices:
a) leave as is- let business's discriminate as they wish, often to the detriment of entire minority groups(property codiciles excluding certain races from subdivisions come to mind)- i.e. the status quo of 1960 or
b) mandate that all business's never discriminate against anyone for any reason or
c) address the actual issue- which is discrimination by the majority against specific minority groups that have suffered historic and widespread discrimination.

I suggest that c was and is the most reasonable solution to address persistent, historic and specific discrimination.


----------



## dblack

Real minorities, people the majority really has a bias against, aren't going to ride the "protected classes" gravy train. The only people who get on the list will be those who can win majority support - who can leverage enough political influence to get their interests represented. 

"Protected classes" legislation reeks of corporatism. It's antithetical to equal protection and free society. I think we'll figure that out eventually. The only question is, how far down the drain will we go before we figure it out.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Real minorities, people the majority really has a bias against, aren't going to ride the "protected classes" gravy train. .



Real minorities have never ridden any gravy train- they just want to be served like anyone.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real minorities, people the majority really has a bias against, aren't going to ride the "protected classes" gravy train. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real minorities have never ridden any gravy train- they just want to be served like anyone.
Click to expand...


And they never will be. At least not by "protected classes" nonsense. You don't really get the point I'm making, do you? Under corporatism, you only get rights if you have significant political influence. Otherwise, you're fucked. Real minorities won't ever get PC status. That privilege is reserved for those who can lobby Congress effectively.


----------



## Skylar

Staidhup said:


> Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.



Following that logic, what law couldn't a person ignore on the basis of religious belief? And since the courts have already found that there need be no rational basis for a religious belief, what couldn't a person classify as a religious belief? 

And finally, if your religion makes it impossible to do your job....wouldn't it your responsibility to find a job that is consistent with your religious beliefs? And not society to change to meet whatever you choose to believe?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Following that logic, what law couldn't a person ignore on the basis of religious belief?
Click to expand...


Any law that infringes upon the means of the innocent to exercise their God-given rights.  And that's because the first responsibility of anyone claiming any right, is to not exercise that right to the detriment of another to exercise their own right(s).


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those that agree with forcing Church's, bakers, and anyone else to compromise their beliefs in accommodating a life style choice they view as immoral is the underlying basis as to the opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Following that logic, what law couldn't a person ignore on the basis of religious belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any law that infringes upon the means of the innocent to exercise their God-given rights.
Click to expand...


Infringes according to who? God given according to who?

The courts have never found that PA laws infringe on any right. With the USSC having rejected requests for a writ of cert for cases involving Christians refusing services to gays and being fined for it under PA laws. 

So I assume at this point you're gonna start quoting yourself as God again. As you're clearly not finding support for your interpretations of which rights have been violated in the law.



> And that's because the first responsibility of anyone claiming any right, is to not exercise that right to the detriment of another to exercise their own right(s).




Requesting a cake from a cake baker isn't an unreasonable act. Nor does it violate anyone's rights. Nixing your entire argument.


----------



## Ernie S.

dblack said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Authority constrained by rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
> "Is/ ought" again.
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, _including tax exemptions_, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you read the next phrase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. You're proving my point. Do you realize that?
Click to expand...

No, perhaps because following the second phrase does nothing to establish a state religion. I have no problem with Muslims and Jews who refuse to cook me a BLT, a Jehovah's Witness refusing a blood transfusion, an atheist omitting the words "under God" when pledging allegiance to the Flag or a Buddhist refusing to serve in the military.
That in no way sanctions one religion; what the First Amendment prohibits.


----------



## Ernie S.

Syriusly said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seawytch doesn't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, I guess gays ARE discriminating against those holding strong religious values....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes- gays surely are discriminating by asking a business to sell them a cake......like they sell cakes to everyone else.
Click to expand...

If it is against their beliefs to participate in something their religion condemns, yes. It sure as hell is.

Discriminating me for my beliefs is no more just than me discriminating against you for your lack of a belief.

You fucking socialists are going after these people because of their convictions. You could care less about the cake.


----------



## Ernie S.

Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are persecuted throughout America. They get sued, they get fined, they get death threats, and they lose their businesses. So we at Shoebat.com called some 13 prominent bakers who are either gay or pro-gay and requested that they make a pro-traditional marriage cake with the words "Gay marriage is wrong" placed on the cake. Each one denied us service, and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. One baker even said that she would make me a cookie with a large phallus on it. We recorded all of this in a video that will stun the American people as to how militant and intolerant the homosexual agenda is: 
Read more at 13 Gay Bakeries Deny Christian s Request for Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake - Freedom Outpost


----------



## Skylar

Ernie S. said:


> Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are persecuted throughout America.



They are held to the same law as everyone else is held to. What you're demanding is that there be two sets of laws. A more lenient set of laws exclusively for Christians. And a much harsher law for everyone else.

Um, no. There's the same law for everyone. That's not 'persecution' That's due process.


----------



## Ernie S.

No. I'm just demanding that the 1st Amendment be followed.


----------



## Skylar

Ernie S. said:


> No. I'm just demanding that the 1st Amendment be followed.



The 1st amendment doesn't exempt you from any law you don't like. It never has.


----------



## dblack

Ernie S. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
> "Is/ ought" again.
> They aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, _including tax exemptions_, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you read the next phrase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. You're proving my point. Do you realize that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, perhaps because following the second phrase does nothing to establish a state religion. I have no problem with Muslims and Jews who refuse to cook me a BLT, a Jehovah's Witness refusing a blood transfusion, an atheist omitting the words "under God" when pledging allegiance to the Flag or a Buddhist refusing to serve in the military.
> That in no way sanctions one religion; what the First Amendment prohibits.
Click to expand...


You're not reading the "second phrase". The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say that laws can be selectively ignored for religious reasons. If a law is found to unjustly prohibit religious freedom it should be declared unconstitutional and invalidated - for everyone.

"Legislative accommodation", the idea that such laws can be maintained by offering carveouts or exemptions, turns the purpose of the First Amendment inside out. It creates direct and meddlesome state authority over religious belief by putting the state in the position of deciding which beliefs are genuinely religious and which aren't.


----------



## Ernie S.

dblack said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they are.
> 
> "Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, _including tax exemptions_, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you read the next phrase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. You're proving my point. Do you realize that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, perhaps because following the second phrase does nothing to establish a state religion. I have no problem with Muslims and Jews who refuse to cook me a BLT, a Jehovah's Witness refusing a blood transfusion, an atheist omitting the words "under God" when pledging allegiance to the Flag or a Buddhist refusing to serve in the military.
> That in no way sanctions one religion; what the First Amendment prohibits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not reading the "second phrase". The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say that laws can be selectively ignored for religious reasons. If a law is found to unjustly prohibit religious freedom it should be declared unconstitutional and invalidated - for everyone.
> 
> "Legislative accommodation", the idea that such laws can be maintained by offering carveouts or exemptions, turns the purpose of the First Amendment inside out. It creates direct and meddlesome state authority over religious belief by putting the state in the position of deciding which beliefs are genuinely religious and which aren't.
Click to expand...

*It doesn't say that laws can be selectively ignored for religious reasons.*

Absolutely! It says laws can't be *passed* that passed that interfere with religious freedoms.

And I would ask you, whodafuck is the state to decide what personally held beliefs are? The free exercise clause expressly forbids that.


----------



## dblack

Ernie S. said:


> *It doesn't say that laws can be selectively ignored for religious reasons.*
> 
> Absolutely! It says laws can't be *passed* that passed that interfere with religious freedoms.
> 
> And I would ask you, whodafuck is the state to decide what personally held beliefs are? The free exercise clause expressly forbids that.



That's my point in a nutshell. That's exactly what they're doing by including exemptions.


----------



## Seawytch

Ernie S. said:


> Absolutely! It says laws can't be *passed* that passed that interfere with religious freedoms.
> 
> And I would ask you, whodafuck is the state to decide what personally held beliefs are? The free exercise clause expressly forbids that.



Laws against murder infringe upon someone's religious right to human sacrifice.


----------



## Seawytch

Ernie S. said:


> Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are persecuted throughout America. They get sued, they get fined, they get death threats, and they lose their businesses. So we at Shoebat.com called some 13 prominent bakers who are either gay or pro-gay and requested that they make a pro-traditional marriage cake with the words "Gay marriage is wrong" placed on the cake. Each one denied us service, and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. One baker even said that she would make me a cookie with a large phallus on it. We recorded all of this in a video that will stun the American people as to how militant and intolerant the homosexual agenda is:
> Read more at 13 Gay Bakeries Deny Christian s Request for Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake - Freedom Outpost



You guys just really don't understand this issue at all do you? Straight Couple A walks in asks for a cake from the catalogue of wedding cakes. Gay Couple B walks in and asks for the same cake Straight Couple A asked for. It is considered discrimination in some places to refuse Couple B the same cake you baked Couple A. 

In the instances described in your link, the order was not for a cake from the catalogue, it was for a special order that included hate speech. The bakers did not make the cake for someone and then refuse these Christians because they were Christian. The gay bakers, in fact, offered to make the cake and provide the icing for the customer to make a custom message. 

I suppose as a Christian wedding photographer, I should have the right to refuse to photograph:

1) a marriage between people of different races

Daniel 2:43 
"As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay."

2) a marriage between a Christian and someone of another faith

2 Corinthians 6:14
"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers."

3) a marriage between a man who divorces his wife and marries another.

Matthew 19:9
"And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,
and marries another, commits adultery.”

4) a marriage between a couple who have had sex before marriage

I Corinthians 6:9-11,

"Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God".

5) a marriage between people who want to be rich

1 Timothy 6:9
"But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare,
into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin 
and destruction."


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are persecuted throughout America. They get sued, they get fined, they get death threats, and they lose their businesses. So we at Shoebat.com called some 13 prominent bakers who are either gay or pro-gay and requested that they make a pro-traditional marriage cake with the words "Gay marriage is wrong" placed on the cake. Each one denied us service, and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. One baker even said that she would make me a cookie with a large phallus on it. We recorded all of this in a video that will stun the American people as to how militant and intolerant the homosexual agenda is:
> Read more at 13 Gay Bakeries Deny Christian s Request for Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake - Freedom Outpost
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys just really don't understand this issue at all do you? Straight Couple A walks in asks for a cake from the catalogue of wedding cakes. Gay Couple B walks in and asks for the same cake Straight Couple A asked for. It is considered discrimination in some places to refuse Couple B the same cake you baked Couple A.
Click to expand...


No. It's not. It's only considered illegal discrimination if it's done for one of the reasons on that state's protected classes list. The baker can refuse service to Couple B and simply not divulge the reason. That's why this is more correctly debated as a freedom of speech issue, rather than a freedom of religion issue. It's not the discrimination that's illegal - it's the act of refusing service as an expression of disapproval.



> I suppose as a Christian wedding photographer, I should have the right to refuse to photograph:
> 
> 1) a marriage between people of different races
> 
> 2) a marriage between a Christian and someone of another faith
> 
> 3) a marriage between a man who divorces his wife and marries another.
> 
> 4) a marriage between a couple who have had sex before marriage
> 
> 5) a marriage between people who want to be rich



As a wedding photographer, you should have the right to refuse to photograph anything for any reason you might dream up.


----------



## Syriusly

Ernie S. said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch doesn't answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, I guess gays ARE discriminating against those holding strong religious values....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes- gays surely are discriminating by asking a business to sell them a cake......like they sell cakes to everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is against their beliefs to participate in something their religion condemns, yes. It sure as hell is.
> 
> Discriminating me for my beliefs is no more just than me discriminating against you for your lack of a belief.
> 
> You fucking socialists are going after these people because of their convictions. You could care less about the cake.
Click to expand...


LOL.

For the record:
a) I am not 'socialist'- you just display your ignorance by calling me one. 
b) I am not going after anyone. I am pointing out that the law applies to everyone- there is no special exemption for Christians because they really don't want to serve someone. 
c) If a homosexual refused to sell a cake to a Christian- because the homosexual believed based upon his own values that Christians offended him, the homosexual would be violating the law in exactly the same way.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Syriusly said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch doesn't answer questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, I guess gays ARE discriminating against those holding strong religious values....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes- gays surely are discriminating by asking a business to sell them a cake......like they sell cakes to everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is against their beliefs to participate in something their religion condemns, yes. It sure as hell is.
> 
> Discriminating me for my beliefs is no more just than me discriminating against you for your lack of a belief.
> 
> You fucking socialists are going after these people because of their convictions. You could care less about the cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> For the record:
> a) I am not 'socialist'- you just display your ignorance by calling me one.
> b) I am not going after anyone. I am pointing out that the law applies to everyone- there is no special exemption for Christians because they really don't want to serve someone.
> c) If a homosexual refused to sell a cake to a Christian- because the homosexual believed based upon his own values that Christians offended him, the homosexual would be violating the law in exactly the same way.
Click to expand...

Spot-on.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Ernie S.

A person with no religious values can't possibly understand the 1st Amendment. Y'all think it's about freedom FROM religion.


----------



## Ernie S.

Statistikhengst said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I guess gays ARE discriminating against those holding strong religious values....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes- gays surely are discriminating by asking a business to sell them a cake......like they sell cakes to everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is against their beliefs to participate in something their religion condemns, yes. It sure as hell is.
> 
> Discriminating me for my beliefs is no more just than me discriminating against you for your lack of a belief.
> 
> You fucking socialists are going after these people because of their convictions. You could care less about the cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> For the record:
> a) I am not 'socialist'- you just display your ignorance by calling me one.
> b) I am not going after anyone. I am pointing out that the law applies to everyone- there is no special exemption for Christians because they really don't want to serve someone.
> c) If a homosexual refused to sell a cake to a Christian- because the homosexual believed based upon his own values that Christians offended him, the homosexual would be violating the law in exactly the same way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spot-on.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Shut up and make me a ham sandwich!


----------



## Syriusly

Ernie S. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, _including tax exemptions_, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the next phrase?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. You're proving my point. Do you realize that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, perhaps because following the second phrase does nothing to establish a state religion. I have no problem with Muslims and Jews who refuse to cook me a BLT, a Jehovah's Witness refusing a blood transfusion, an atheist omitting the words "under God" when pledging allegiance to the Flag or a Buddhist refusing to serve in the military.
> That in no way sanctions one religion; what the First Amendment prohibits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not reading the "second phrase". The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say that laws can be selectively ignored for religious reasons. If a law is found to unjustly prohibit religious freedom it should be declared unconstitutional and invalidated - for everyone.
> 
> "Legislative accommodation", the idea that such laws can be maintained by offering carveouts or exemptions, turns the purpose of the First Amendment inside out. It creates direct and meddlesome state authority over religious belief by putting the state in the position of deciding which beliefs are genuinely religious and which aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It doesn't say that laws can be selectively ignored for religious reasons.*
> 
> Absolutely! It says laws can't be *passed* that passed that interfere with religious freedoms.
> 
> And I would ask you, whodafuck is the state to decide what personally held beliefs are? The free exercise clause expressly forbids that.
Click to expand...


The free exercise of religion is not absolute- and has never been absolute. No matter if your religion calls for the ritual sacrifice of goats in your backyard or not, if local zoning laws forbid the killing and butchering of goats in backyards, you don't get a pass because you are doing it for religious purposes.

The First Amendment says that Congress shall not make any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion.

Public Accommodation laws are not laws to impede the free exercise of religion- no more than zoning laws are. That some people may believe that following the law is a violation of their religion doesn't mean that the law violates the First Amendment.


----------



## Syriusly

Ernie S. said:


> A person with no religious values can't possibly understand the 1st Amendment. Y'all think it's about freedom FROM religion.



A person who believes in religion can't possibly understand the 1st Amendment. Y'all think it means that you get to ignore any law you don't like.


----------



## Ernie S.

I didn't expect any more....


----------



## Syriusly

Ernie S. said:


> Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are persecuted throughout America. They get sued, they get fined, they get death threats, and they lose their businesses



What Christian bakeries?

I know of exactly one which has been told to follow the law. 

Compare that now to the decades of Christians specifically targeting homosexuals to prosecution, passing laws specifically to persecute homosexuals, pushing to pass laws to forbid employment to homosexuals.

That Christians are crying about persecution by being asked to follow the same law that actually protects them for being discriminated against because of their relgion- after decades of calling for homosexuals to be imprisoned- is laughably ironic.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real minorities, people the majority really has a bias against, aren't going to ride the "protected classes" gravy train. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real minorities have never ridden any gravy train- they just want to be served like anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they never will be. At least not by "protected classes" nonsense. You don't really get the point I'm making, do you?.
Click to expand...


I have yet to see you make a rational point.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Ernie S. said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I guess gays ARE discriminating against those holding strong religious values....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes- gays surely are discriminating by asking a business to sell them a cake......like they sell cakes to everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is against their beliefs to participate in something their religion condemns, yes. It sure as hell is.
> 
> Discriminating me for my beliefs is no more just than me discriminating against you for your lack of a belief.
> 
> You fucking socialists are going after these people because of their convictions. You could care less about the cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> For the record:
> a) I am not 'socialist'- you just display your ignorance by calling me one.
> b) I am not going after anyone. I am pointing out that the law applies to everyone- there is no special exemption for Christians because they really don't want to serve someone.
> c) If a homosexual refused to sell a cake to a Christian- because the homosexual believed based upon his own values that Christians offended him, the homosexual would be violating the law in exactly the same way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spot-on.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shut up and make me a ham sandwich!
Click to expand...

Well, ok, shabbos bitch.

But if you were smart you would know that kashrut only forbids me from eating the flesh of a swine. Preparing or selling pig is not forbidden.

And now that you just shot yourself in the ass, as usual, go see your proctologist.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Syriusly

Ernie S. said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I guess gays ARE discriminating against those holding strong religious values....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes- gays surely are discriminating by asking a business to sell them a cake......like they sell cakes to everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is against their beliefs to participate in something their religion condemns, yes. It sure as hell is.
> 
> Discriminating me for my beliefs is no more just than me discriminating against you for your lack of a belief.
> 
> You fucking socialists are going after these people because of their convictions. You could care less about the cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> For the record:
> a) I am not 'socialist'- you just display your ignorance by calling me one.
> b) I am not going after anyone. I am pointing out that the law applies to everyone- there is no special exemption for Christians because they really don't want to serve someone.
> c) If a homosexual refused to sell a cake to a Christian- because the homosexual believed based upon his own values that Christians offended him, the homosexual would be violating the law in exactly the same way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spot-on.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shut up and make me a ham sandwich!
Click to expand...


If a business sells ham sandwiches- it would be violating the law if it refused to make you a ham sandwich because you are a Christian.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Ernie S. said:


> A person with no religious values can't possibly understand the 1st Amendment. Y'all think it's about freedom FROM religion.



Interesting, I don't seem to remember a great call based on "religous values" for religious same-sex marriages (which have been performed for a long time going back to the MC Church in the 1960's) to be equally recognized by the government.

When a different sex couple is married in a Church their marriage is recognized, yet when a same-sex couple was married in a Church their marriage was not recognized.


>>>>


----------



## Syriusly

WorldWatcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person with no religious values can't possibly understand the 1st Amendment. Y'all think it's about freedom FROM religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, I don't seem to remember a great call based on "religous values" for religious same-sex marriages (which have been performed for a long time going back to the MC Church in the 1960's) to be equally recognized by the government.
> 
> When a different sex couple is married in a Church their marriage is recognized, yet when a same-sex couple was married in a Church their marriage was not recognized.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


LOL....I look forward to the response on that.


----------



## Seawytch

Syriusly said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the next phrase?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did. You're proving my point. Do you realize that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, perhaps because following the second phrase does nothing to establish a state religion. I have no problem with Muslims and Jews who refuse to cook me a BLT, a Jehovah's Witness refusing a blood transfusion, an atheist omitting the words "under God" when pledging allegiance to the Flag or a Buddhist refusing to serve in the military.
> That in no way sanctions one religion; what the First Amendment prohibits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not reading the "second phrase". The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say that laws can be selectively ignored for religious reasons. If a law is found to unjustly prohibit religious freedom it should be declared unconstitutional and invalidated - for everyone.
> 
> "Legislative accommodation", the idea that such laws can be maintained by offering carveouts or exemptions, turns the purpose of the First Amendment inside out. It creates direct and meddlesome state authority over religious belief by putting the state in the position of deciding which beliefs are genuinely religious and which aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It doesn't say that laws can be selectively ignored for religious reasons.*
> 
> Absolutely! It says laws can't be *passed* that passed that interfere with religious freedoms.
> 
> And I would ask you, whodafuck is the state to decide what personally held beliefs are? The free exercise clause expressly forbids that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The free exercise of religion is not absolute- and has never been absolute. No matter if your religion calls for the ritual sacrifice of goats in your backyard or not, if local zoning laws forbid the killing and butchering of goats in backyards, you don't get a pass because you are doing it for religious purposes.
> 
> The First Amendment says that Congress shall not make any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion.
> 
> Public Accommodation laws are not laws to impede the free exercise of religion- no more than zoning laws are. That some people may believe that following the law is a violation of their religion doesn't mean that the law violates the First Amendment.
Click to expand...


And I guarantee you that Ernie will ignore your point. 

Apparently only some Christians get to ignore some laws.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> And I guarantee you that Ernie will ignore your point.
> 
> Apparently only some Christians get to ignore some laws.


 
Just not the Christian bakers, photographers, caterers and florists your group has successfully beaten up in court though..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I guarantee you that Ernie will ignore your point.
> 
> Apparently only some Christians get to ignore some laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just not the Christian bakers, photographers, caterers and florists your group has successfully beaten up in court though..
Click to expand...


Again- according to homophobes like you- only 'special' Christians get to ignore the law claiming they get to do so because they are Christians.

But when a gay couple gets married in a church- suddenly their religious beliefs aren't protected by the First Amendment.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Again- according to homophobes like you- only 'special' Christians get to ignore the law claiming they get to do so because they are Christians.
> 
> But when a gay couple gets married in a church- suddenly their religious beliefs aren't protected by the First Amendment.


 
We differ in that I am of the opinion that minority behaviors do not get to tell the majority that the majority doesn't have a right to regulate behaviors. 

Otherwise, you know, in the name of equal application of the law: goodbye to all local penal and civil codes..and, thereby, self-governance.

So, that's how we differ on this, ultimately.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again- according to homophobes like you- only 'special' Christians get to ignore the law claiming they get to do so because they are Christians.
> 
> But when a gay couple gets married in a church- suddenly their religious beliefs aren't protected by the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We differ in that I am of the opinion that minority behaviors do not get to tell the majority that the majority doesn't have a right to regulate behaviors.
Click to expand...


The obvious problem with that reasoning being the rights of the individual. Which you predictably ignore....but only if the individual is gay.


----------



## dblack

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again- according to homophobes like you- only 'special' Christians get to ignore the law claiming they get to do so because they are Christians.
> 
> But when a gay couple gets married in a church- suddenly their religious beliefs aren't protected by the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We differ in that I am of the opinion that minority behaviors do not get to tell the majority that the majority doesn't have a right to regulate behaviors.
Click to expand...

Then you don't understand the role of constitutional limits on democratic power. The entire point of such limits is to protect individuals, and minorities, from majority "regulation".


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Again- according to homophobes like you- only 'special' Christians get to ignore the law claiming they get to do so because they are Christians.
> 
> But when a gay couple gets married in a church- suddenly their religious beliefs aren't protected by the First Amendment.


We differ in that I am of the opinion that minority behaviors do not get to tell the majority that the majority doesn't have a right to regulate behaviors....Otherwise, you know, in the name of equal application of the law: goodbye to all local penal and civil codes..and, thereby, self-governance....So, that's how we differ on this, ultimately.




Skylar said:


> The obvious problem with that reasoning being the rights of the individual. Which you predictably ignore....*but only if the individual is gay.*


 
Not necessarily.  We could be talking about Bulimic Americans wanting the right to all aspects of their eating-orientation at restaurant tables.  We could be talking about Addicted Americans wanting the right to needle dispensers on every street corner.  We could be talking about Pedophile Americans demanding that porn from countries that decriminalized child prostitution be readily accessible to them instead of them having to duck the law and hide in the closet with their orientation. 

Europe seems to always be struggling with this incremental legal progression once they kick a barn door open without thinking about it.

And this is the problem with the equal-application of the spirit of law to other cases in the future..  Or, as was the case with the father adopting a son and then getting a divorce from that son so he could marry him, we would have him arguing his rights to "love" his son in marriage were being suppressed "by the tyranny of the majority".  Where does it end when we're talking about minority objectionable behaviors?

 Father To Marry Son In Bucks County PA -- With Court s Blessing US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again- according to homophobes like you- only 'special' Christians get to ignore the law claiming they get to do so because they are Christians.
> 
> But when a gay couple gets married in a church- suddenly their religious beliefs aren't protected by the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> We differ in that I am of the opinion that minority behaviors do not get to tell the majority that the majority doesn't have a right to regulate behaviors....Otherwise, you know, in the name of equal application of the law: goodbye to all local penal and civil codes..and, thereby, self-governance....So, that's how we differ on this, ultimately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious problem with that reasoning being the rights of the individual. Which you predictably ignore....*but only if the individual is gay.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  We could be talking about Bulimic Americans
Click to expand...


But you only talk about gay Americans- and only attack Gay Americans.

For being Gay.

Because that is what you do.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> We differ in that I am of the opinion that minority behaviors do not get to tell the majority that the majority doesn't have a right to regulate behaviors....Otherwise, you know, in the name of equal application of the law: goodbye to all local penal and civil codes..and, thereby, self-governance....So, that's how we differ on this, ultimately.



The part of the equation that you keep missing is rights. You always, always omit individual rights from your conception of American law. The majority does get to regulate behavior......within the bounds of individual rights. And marriage is fundamental right.

You can't get around that. No matter how hard you pretend that individual rights don't exist.



> Not necessarily.  We could be talking about Bulimic Americans wanting the right to all aspects of their eating-orientation at restaurant tables.  We could be talking about Addicted Americans wanting the right to needle dispensers on every street corner.  We could be talking about Pedophile Americans demanding that porn from countries that decriminalized child prostitution be readily accessible to them instead of them having to duck the law and hide in the closet with their orientation.



Save of course that Homosexuality is neither bulimia nor pedophilia. Nor are gays and lesbians wolves. Nor have they infiltrated Gallup to compel the polling agency to lie. Nor is there the slightest evidence that the USSC is being 'blackmailed' by homosexuals.

Are there any other hair brained pieces of batshit you'd like to toss our way?


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again- according to homophobes like you- only 'special' Christians get to ignore the law claiming they get to do so because they are Christians.
> 
> But when a gay couple gets married in a church- suddenly their religious beliefs aren't protected by the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> We differ in that I am of the opinion that minority behaviors do not get to tell the majority that the majority doesn't have a right to regulate behaviors....Otherwise, you know, in the name of equal application of the law: goodbye to all local penal and civil codes..and, thereby, self-governance....So, that's how we differ on this, ultimately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious problem with that reasoning being the rights of the individual. Which you predictably ignore....*but only if the individual is gay.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  We could be talking about Bulimic Americans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you only talk about gay Americans- and only attack Gay Americans.
> 
> For being Gay.
> 
> Because that is what you do.
Click to expand...


Sil also accuses the Supreme Court of treason and makes up insane conspiracy theories. 

Give him his due. He's a multi-format purveyor of batshit.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Sorry about the loss nutters!


----------



## Skylar

TheOldSchool said:


> Sorry about the loss nutters!



And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.

Good ruling. And predictable.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about the loss nutters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.
> 
> Good ruling. And predictable.
Click to expand...

 So I guess the question of this thread has been answered.  Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about the loss nutters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.
> 
> Good ruling. And predictable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I guess the question of this thread has been answered.  Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.
Click to expand...


Nope. The question of this thread was never even addressed by the court. Nor likely ever will be. As the lower courts would shut down attempts to make churches perform weddings they don't want to. At most, the court will deny cert.


----------



## dblack

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about the loss nutters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.
> 
> Good ruling. And predictable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I guess the question of this thread has been answered.  Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.
Click to expand...


The decision of the thread has nothing to do with the legality of gay marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about the loss nutters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.
> 
> Good ruling. And predictable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I guess the question of this thread has been answered.  Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.
Click to expand...


The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.

This decision changes nothing in that regard.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about the loss nutters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.
> 
> Good ruling. And predictable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I guess the question of this thread has been answered.  Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.
> 
> This decision changes nothing in that regard.
Click to expand...


The question was, and still is, _should _they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?

The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about the loss nutters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.
> 
> Good ruling. And predictable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I guess the question of this thread has been answered.  Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.
> 
> This decision changes nothing in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question was, and still is, _should _they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?
> 
> The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.
Click to expand...


And we've already discussed that extensively. For literally hundreds of pages. There's no argument to be made that hasn't been made.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about the loss nutters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.
> 
> Good ruling. And predictable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I guess the question of this thread has been answered.  Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.
> 
> This decision changes nothing in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question was, and still is, _should _they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?
> 
> The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.
Click to expand...


No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church. 

Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about the loss nutters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.
> 
> Good ruling. And predictable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I guess the question of this thread has been answered.  Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.
> 
> This decision changes nothing in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question was, and still is, _should _they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?
> 
> The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we've already discussed that extensively. For literally hundreds of pages. There's no argument to be made that hasn't been made.
Click to expand...


Disappointingly, especially in light of the number of posts in the thread, that's not true. The vast bulk of the argument on this thread has been over the strawman arguments I reference above.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about the loss nutters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.
> 
> Good ruling. And predictable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I guess the question of this thread has been answered.  Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.
> 
> This decision changes nothing in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question was, and still is, _should _they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?
> 
> The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.
> 
> Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.
Click to expand...


What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.
> 
> Good ruling. And predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess the question of this thread has been answered.  Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.
> 
> This decision changes nothing in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question was, and still is, _should _they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?
> 
> The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.
> 
> Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?
Click to expand...


I think the Hobby Lobby has absolutely no relationship to forcing churches to marry anyone.

No one is going to force any church to marry anyone the church does not want to marry.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess the question of this thread has been answered.  Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.
> 
> This decision changes nothing in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question was, and still is, _should _they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?
> 
> The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.
> 
> Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the Hobby Lobby has absolutely no relationship to forcing churches to marry anyone.
> 
> No one is going to force any church to marry anyone the church does not want to marry.
Click to expand...


Probably not. But why not? Why should churches be exempted from following the law? I know the case law on the subject, more or less, but I question it. It seems to pervert freedom of religion and, perhaps counter-intuitively, tear down Jefferson's "wall of separation".


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.
> 
> Good ruling. And predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess the question of this thread has been answered.  Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.
> 
> This decision changes nothing in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question was, and still is, _should _they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?
> 
> The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.
> 
> Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?
Click to expand...


It doesn't. Churches are already exempt from PA laws. There's no legal question regarding the issue that hasn't already been answered. Making the Hobby Lobby decision irrelevant.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.
> 
> This decision changes nothing in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question was, and still is, _should _they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?
> 
> The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.
> 
> Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the Hobby Lobby has absolutely no relationship to forcing churches to marry anyone.
> 
> No one is going to force any church to marry anyone the church does not want to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably not. But why not? Why should churches be exempted from following the law? I know the case law on the subject, more or less, but I question it. It seems to pervert freedom of religion and, perhaps counter-intuitively, tear down Jefferson's "wall of separation".
Click to expand...


The law does not apply to churches. 

Personally, as a liberal, that makes sense to me. 

Churches are by design for their members, and whatever rules they want- whether I agree with the rules or not.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess the question of this thread has been answered.  Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.
> 
> This decision changes nothing in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question was, and still is, _should _they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?
> 
> The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.
> 
> Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't. Churches are already exempt from PA laws. There's no legal question regarding the issue that hasn't already been answered. Making the Hobby Lobby decision irrelevant.
Click to expand...


While I agree the legal status quo is pretty cut and dried, we're talking about what should be, not what is. And in that, I think the issues raised by the Hobby Lobby decision are quite relevant. I fail to see why large companies, or churches, should be exempted from laws the rest of us have to follow.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.
> 
> This decision changes nothing in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question was, and still is, _should _they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?
> 
> The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.
> 
> Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't. Churches are already exempt from PA laws. There's no legal question regarding the issue that hasn't already been answered. Making the Hobby Lobby decision irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I agree the legal status quo is pretty cut and dried, we're talking about what should be, not what is. And in that, I think the issues raised by the Hobby Lobby decision are quite relevant. I fail to see why large companies, or churches, should be exempted from laws the rest of us have to follow.
Click to expand...


We've been through this a dozen times. Churches aren't businesses. PA laws apply only to businesses. You think Churches should be considered commerce and businesses. They never have been in the history of our nation. 

Which essentially exhausts the possibilities of 'is' and 'should be'.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was, and still is, _should _they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?
> 
> The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.
> 
> Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't. Churches are already exempt from PA laws. There's no legal question regarding the issue that hasn't already been answered. Making the Hobby Lobby decision irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I agree the legal status quo is pretty cut and dried, we're talking about what should be, not what is. And in that, I think the issues raised by the Hobby Lobby decision are quite relevant. I fail to see why large companies, or churches, should be exempted from laws the rest of us have to follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been through this a dozen times. Churches aren't businesses. PA laws apply only to businesses. You think Churches should be considered commerce and businesses. They never have been in the history of our nation.
> 
> Which essentially exhausts the possibilities of 'is' and 'should be'.
Click to expand...


'Should be' is still wide open. I think legislative accommodation is a mistake regarding first amendment jurisprudence. At the very least, I there's a good argument to be had there. You don't want to have it, yet you can't seem to help yourself chiming in. I don't disrespect someone for having a different opinion from mine, but please don't try to silence debate just because you don't want to hear about it.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was, and still is, _should _they be? i.e. Why should baker's be force to accommodate gay weddings? Is it a correct application of the first amendment to simply grant exemptions to laws that are inconvenient to some religions? Is equal protection served by granting such exemptions?
> 
> The question isn't "Will they be?" or "Is it part of the gay rights agenda?" - both of which I'd answer in the negative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.
> 
> Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the Hobby Lobby has absolutely no relationship to forcing churches to marry anyone.
> 
> No one is going to force any church to marry anyone the church does not want to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably not. But why not? Why should churches be exempted from following the law? I know the case law on the subject, more or less, but I question it. It seems to pervert freedom of religion and, perhaps counter-intuitively, tear down Jefferson's "wall of separation".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law does not apply to churches.
> 
> Personally, as a liberal, that makes sense to me.
> 
> Churches are by design for their members, and whatever rules they want- whether I agree with the rules or not.
Click to expand...


Couldn't it also be said the businesses are designed for their customers?


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.
> 
> Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't. Churches are already exempt from PA laws. There's no legal question regarding the issue that hasn't already been answered. Making the Hobby Lobby decision irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I agree the legal status quo is pretty cut and dried, we're talking about what should be, not what is. And in that, I think the issues raised by the Hobby Lobby decision are quite relevant. I fail to see why large companies, or churches, should be exempted from laws the rest of us have to follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been through this a dozen times. Churches aren't businesses. PA laws apply only to businesses. You think Churches should be considered commerce and businesses. They never have been in the history of our nation.
> 
> Which essentially exhausts the possibilities of 'is' and 'should be'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Should be' is still wide open. I think legislative accommodation is a mistake regarding first amendment jurisprudence. At the very least, I there's a good argument to be had there. You don't want to have it, yet you can't seem to help yourself chiming in. I don't disrespect someone for having a different opinion from mine, but please don't try to silence debate just because you don't want to hear about it.
Click to expand...


You are free to express your opinion.

Not free from criticism of your opinion.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- churches should not be- any more than churches should be forced to have women priests, or forced allow Africans full membership in the church.
> 
> Churches are not business's- and are by intent allowed to discriminate as they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the Hobby Lobby has absolutely no relationship to forcing churches to marry anyone.
> 
> No one is going to force any church to marry anyone the church does not want to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably not. But why not? Why should churches be exempted from following the law? I know the case law on the subject, more or less, but I question it. It seems to pervert freedom of religion and, perhaps counter-intuitively, tear down Jefferson's "wall of separation".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law does not apply to churches.
> 
> Personally, as a liberal, that makes sense to me.
> 
> Churches are by design for their members, and whatever rules they want- whether I agree with the rules or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couldn't it also be said the businesses are designed for their customers?
Click to expand...


Many things could be said- but since the topic is 'churches' that is what I am addressing.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Hobby Lobby has absolutely no relationship to forcing churches to marry anyone.
> 
> No one is going to force any church to marry anyone the church does not want to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably not. But why not? Why should churches be exempted from following the law? I know the case law on the subject, more or less, but I question it. It seems to pervert freedom of religion and, perhaps counter-intuitively, tear down Jefferson's "wall of separation".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law does not apply to churches.
> 
> Personally, as a liberal, that makes sense to me.
> 
> Churches are by design for their members, and whatever rules they want- whether I agree with the rules or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couldn't it also be said the businesses are designed for their customers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many things could be said- but since the topic is 'churches' that is what I am addressing.
Click to expand...


Right. And we're asking, why should the be exempted from laws that other public services are obliged to follow. Which raises the more general question of why they should be exempted from any laws. That's certainly not part of the First Amendment. It's something we made up after the fact.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your opinion no the Hobby Lobby decision, and how do you think it relates to the question of the thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't. Churches are already exempt from PA laws. There's no legal question regarding the issue that hasn't already been answered. Making the Hobby Lobby decision irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I agree the legal status quo is pretty cut and dried, we're talking about what should be, not what is. And in that, I think the issues raised by the Hobby Lobby decision are quite relevant. I fail to see why large companies, or churches, should be exempted from laws the rest of us have to follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been through this a dozen times. Churches aren't businesses. PA laws apply only to businesses. You think Churches should be considered commerce and businesses. They never have been in the history of our nation.
> 
> Which essentially exhausts the possibilities of 'is' and 'should be'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Should be' is still wide open. I think legislative accommodation is a mistake regarding first amendment jurisprudence. At the very least, I there's a good argument to be had there. You don't want to have it, yet you can't seem to help yourself chiming in. I don't disrespect someone for having a different opinion from mine, but please don't try to silence debate just because you don't want to hear about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are free to express your opinion.
> 
> Not free from criticism of your opinion.
Click to expand...


I welcome criticism of my opinion. That's what I'm here for, in fact.


----------



## mdk

Were any churches forced to marry gays yesterday? Yeah, I didnt think so.


----------



## Michelle420

No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.


----------



## Silhouette

drifter said:


> No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.


The title of this thread must now be changed to
*"How Long Until Churches Are Forced To Accomodate For Homosexual Weddings?"*

I can hear the Rainbow-Reicht's lawyers sharpening their knives as we speak..


----------



## Michelle420

Silhouette said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.
> 
> 
> 
> The title of this thread must now be changed to
> *"How Long Until Churches Are Forced To Accomodate For Homosexual Weddings?"*
> 
> I can hear the Rainbow-Reicht's lawyers sharpening their knives as we speak..
Click to expand...


Or A new title to talk about the churches and religions that are accepting of gay couples wanting to celebrate nuptials in front of God .


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.
> 
> 
> 
> The title of this thread must now be changed to
> *"How Long Until Churches Are Forced To Accomodate For Homosexual Weddings?"*
> 
> I can hear the Rainbow-Reicht's lawyers sharpening their knives as we speak..
Click to expand...


PA laws don't apply to churches. There's not a single example of a church being forced to perform a wedding it didn't want to.

You're literally arguing your imagination.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Hobby Lobby has absolutely no relationship to forcing churches to marry anyone.
> 
> No one is going to force any church to marry anyone the church does not want to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not. But why not? Why should churches be exempted from following the law? I know the case law on the subject, more or less, but I question it. It seems to pervert freedom of religion and, perhaps counter-intuitively, tear down Jefferson's "wall of separation".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law does not apply to churches.
> 
> Personally, as a liberal, that makes sense to me.
> 
> Churches are by design for their members, and whatever rules they want- whether I agree with the rules or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couldn't it also be said the businesses are designed for their customers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many things could be said- but since the topic is 'churches' that is what I am addressing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. And we're asking, why should the be exempted from laws that other public services are obliged to follow. Which raises the more general question of why they should be exempted from any laws. That's certainly not part of the First Amendment. It's something we made up after the fact.
Click to expand...


And for at least the 10th time, churches aren't businesses nor is religion commerce. And PA laws apply to businesses and commerce. You feel that churches are businesses and commerce. Our law doesn't recognize them as such, nor ever has.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.
> 
> 
> 
> The title of this thread must now be changed to
> *"How Long Until Churches Are Forced To Accomodate For Homosexual Weddings?"*
> 
> I can hear the Rainbow-Reicht's lawyers sharpening their knives as we speak..
Click to expand...


How long until churches are forced to accommodate Jewish weddings? Or Hindu weddings? Or interracial marriages? My guess is never but whatever.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Silhouette said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.
> 
> 
> 
> The title of this thread must now be changed to
> *"How Long Until Churches Are Forced To Accomodate For Homosexual Weddings?"*
> 
> I can hear the Rainbow-Reicht's lawyers sharpening their knives as we speak..
Click to expand...

That's because you're a delusional, paranoid loon.

Churches will never be 'forced' to afford same-sex couples religious marriage rituals.

Indeed, should a given jurisdiction attempt to do so through force of law, those who fought to protect the right of same-sex couples to due process and equal protection of the law would work to defend the right of religious institutions to reject same-sex couples.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about the loss nutters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.
> 
> Good ruling. And predictable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I guess the question of this thread has been answered.  Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.
> 
> This decision changes nothing in that regard.
Click to expand...

No, but it forces individuals who are part of a church and belief system in the nation, to now have to participate in something that is totally against their belief system or religion in the nation, and in which these things that they have believed in were well established by this nation prior to as being good within the nation by a majority who saw it as being good in that to have a religious belief system that is honored and respected within the nation. It's only that when the gay's began the attempt to highjack and force individual Christians to participate in their situation, is when what was once regarded as something good and well respected in the nation (religious beliefs), has now since become bad in the nation yet all according. Now where does it all end I wonder ? What else that is considered to be good in the nation right now, but only maybe within a few days or weeks from now, will of course become bad because of a group who will say that it is bad in their opinion of, and so they will get the government to say also that it is bad in order to abolish it or ban the use of it ? Just take your pick on the issues, because everything will be up for grabs now.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about the loss nutters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And shocker......they cited Loving as relevant precedent on why same sex marriage was legal.
> 
> Good ruling. And predictable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I guess the question of this thread has been answered.  Their decision was like pouring gasoline on a fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question of the thread was answered from the very beginning- no churches in the United States will ever be forced to marry any couple the church does not want to marry.
> 
> This decision changes nothing in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but it forces individuals who are part of a church and belief system in the nation, to now have to participate in something that is totally against their belief system or religion in the nation, and in which these things that they have believed in were well established by this nation prior to as being good within the nation by a majority who saw it as being good in that to have a religious belief system that is honored and respected within the nation. It's only that when the gay's began the attempt to highjack and force individual Christians to participate in their situation, is when what was once regarded as something good and well respected in the nation (religious beliefs), has now since become bad in the nation yet all according. Now where does it all end I wonder ? What else that is considered to be good in the nation right now, but only maybe within a few days or weeks from now, will of course become bad because of a group who will say that it is bad in their opinion of, and so they will get the government to say also that it is bad in order to abolish it or ban the use of it ? Just take your pick on the issues, because everything will be up for grabs now.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

The ruling does no such thing.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its the bakers who made that determination when they denied them service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
Click to expand...


Are you sure about that?


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The title of this thread must now be changed to
> *"How Long Until Churches Are Forced To Accomodate For Homosexual Weddings?"*
> 
> I can hear the Rainbow-Reicht's lawyers sharpening their knives as we speak..
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you're a delusional, paranoid loon.
> 
> Churches will never be 'forced' to afford same-sex couples religious marriage rituals.
> 
> Indeed, should a given jurisdiction attempt to do so through force of law, *those who fought to protect the right of same-sex couples to due process and equal protection of the law would work to defend the right of religious institutions to reject same-sex couples.*
Click to expand...


Maybe some of them. But those who don't understand how PA laws actually violate these principles aren't likely to.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not. But why not? Why should churches be exempted from following the law? I know the case law on the subject, more or less, but I question it. It seems to pervert freedom of religion and, perhaps counter-intuitively, tear down Jefferson's "wall of separation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law does not apply to churches.
> 
> Personally, as a liberal, that makes sense to me.
> 
> Churches are by design for their members, and whatever rules they want- whether I agree with the rules or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couldn't it also be said the businesses are designed for their customers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many things could be said- but since the topic is 'churches' that is what I am addressing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. And we're asking, why should the be exempted from laws that other public services are obliged to follow. Which raises the more general question of why they should be exempted from any laws. That's certainly not part of the First Amendment. It's something we made up after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And for at least the 10th time, churches aren't businesses nor is religion commerce. And PA laws apply to businesses and commerce. You feel that churches are businesses and commerce. Our law doesn't recognize them as such, nor ever has.
Click to expand...


For at least the 9th time, the question is - _should_ they? Why should churches be excluded from laws government other public accommodations?

I'm not disagreeing with what you state. You've correctly captured the current legal statute. But it has no relevance to the question, and I'm honestly not sure why you keep repeating it.


----------



## dblack

drifter said:


> No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.



Should it be any different for anyone else? Bakers, photographers, etc?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

For at least the 9th time, the question is - should they? 

And for at least the 9th time, it's a meaningless, ridiculous, inane question that doesn't warrant a response.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> For at least the 9th time, the question is - should they?
> 
> And for at least the 9th time, it's a meaningless, ridiculous, inane question that doesn't warrant a response.



Then don't respond. But please stop trying to derail the thread.


----------



## beagle9

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its the bakers who made that determination when they denied them service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
Click to expand...

Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.


----------



## Michelle420

dblack said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should it be any different for anyone else? Bakers, photographers, etc?
Click to expand...


Are bakers and photographers tax exempt religions, can they refuse to serve people of color, women or disabled people based on their tax exempt religious status ?


----------



## Lilah

beagle9 said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its the bakers who made that determination when they denied them service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
Click to expand...




beagle9 said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its the bakers who made that determination when they denied them service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place.  Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists.  Doors to colleges were blocked.
How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?


----------



## dblack

drifter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should it be any different for anyone else? Bakers, photographers, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are bakers and photographers tax exempt religions, can they refuse to serve people of color, women or disabled people based on their tax exempt religious status ?
Click to expand...


No, and that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why should churches get to skip out on taxes, or not have to follow the laws the rest of us have to follow. How is that equal protection?


----------



## Michelle420

dblack said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should it be any different for anyone else? Bakers, photographers, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are bakers and photographers tax exempt religions, can they refuse to serve people of color, women or disabled people based on their tax exempt religious status ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, and that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why should churches get to skip out on taxes, or not have to follow the laws the rest of us have to follow. How is that equal protection?
Click to expand...


I think it's because they are not considered a business. There a plenty of churches and religions who willingly embrace same-sex couples, the one that don't show themselves for who they are and what their true beliefs about love are. I'd rather the transparency.


----------



## dblack

drifter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should it be any different for anyone else? Bakers, photographers, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are bakers and photographers tax exempt religions, can they refuse to serve people of color, women or disabled people based on their tax exempt religious status ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, and that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why should churches get to skip out on taxes, or not have to follow the laws the rest of us have to follow. How is that equal protection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's because they are not considered a business. There a plenty of churches and religions who willingly embrace same-sex couples, the one that don't show themselves for who they are and what their true beliefs about love are. I'd rather the transparency.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the same could be said of bakers and photographers, eh?


----------



## Yarddog

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?




We have the freedom to practice religion in the way we choose, forcing churches or mosques to accomodate gay weddings would be equal to the state telling people What they should believe. and not acceptable

People who are gay and wish to be married also have freedom of religion,  but are not free to force
their beliefs on others,  just as muslims and christians do not have a right to force aspects of their beliefs on each other.  

If gays also have freedom to practice religion in the way they want, then lets not take it away from them, the solution is simple and obvious. It doesn't need to be spelled out


----------



## Judgetk

Clergy, ships captains, mayors are all permitted to perform marriages, but they are not required to do so.  Why would it be any different for same sex marriage?


----------



## Michelle420

dblack said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should it be any different for anyone else? Bakers, photographers, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are bakers and photographers tax exempt religions, can they refuse to serve people of color, women or disabled people based on their tax exempt religious status ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, and that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why should churches get to skip out on taxes, or not have to follow the laws the rest of us have to follow. How is that equal protection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's because they are not considered a business. There a plenty of churches and religions who willingly embrace same-sex couples, the one that don't show themselves for who they are and what their true beliefs about love are. I'd rather the transparency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed, but the same could be said of bakers and photographers, eh?
Click to expand...


I don't think they are tax exempt and I don't think the service they are offering is salvation.


----------



## Silhouette

Judgetk said:


> Clergy, ships captains, mayors are all permitted to perform marriages, but they are not required to do so.  Why would it be any different for same sex marriage?


 Because people are already being forced by lawsuits to assit gay weddings even when their faith tells them not to.  In Britain (always a harbinger for American laws in the area of progressivism), two gay dudes are suing to force the church there to perform their "wedding".  Pity their "sharp" barristers couldn't have predicted that with their crystal ball..

More on that here:  Legal Quagmire Hobby Lobby v Gay Marriage Showdown at the SCOTUS Corral Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## dblack

drifter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should it be any different for anyone else? Bakers, photographers, etc?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are bakers and photographers tax exempt religions, can they refuse to serve people of color, women or disabled people based on their tax exempt religious status ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, and that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why should churches get to skip out on taxes, or not have to follow the laws the rest of us have to follow. How is that equal protection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's because they are not considered a business. There a plenty of churches and religions who willingly embrace same-sex couples, the one that don't show themselves for who they are and what their true beliefs about love are. I'd rather the transparency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed, but the same could be said of bakers and photographers, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they are tax exempt and I don't think the service they are offering is salvation.
Click to expand...


Well, the offering in question is marriage. But you're not answering the question.


----------



## Michelle420

dblack said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are bakers and photographers tax exempt religions, can they refuse to serve people of color, women or disabled people based on their tax exempt religious status ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, and that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why should churches get to skip out on taxes, or not have to follow the laws the rest of us have to follow. How is that equal protection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's because they are not considered a business. There a plenty of churches and religions who willingly embrace same-sex couples, the one that don't show themselves for who they are and what their true beliefs about love are. I'd rather the transparency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed, but the same could be said of bakers and photographers, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they are tax exempt and I don't think the service they are offering is salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the offering in question is marriage. But you're not answering the question.
Click to expand...

My is no can't be said the same.


----------



## dblack

drifter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, and that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why should churches get to skip out on taxes, or not have to follow the laws the rest of us have to follow. How is that equal protection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's because they are not considered a business. There a plenty of churches and religions who willingly embrace same-sex couples, the one that don't show themselves for who they are and what their true beliefs about love are. I'd rather the transparency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed, but the same could be said of bakers and photographers, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they are tax exempt and I don't think the service they are offering is salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the offering in question is marriage. But you're not answering the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My is no can't be said the same.
Click to expand...

Why not? I'd wager there are plenty of bakers and photographers sympathetic to gay marriage. Do you have data to the contrary?


----------



## Michelle420

dblack said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's because they are not considered a business. There a plenty of churches and religions who willingly embrace same-sex couples, the one that don't show themselves for who they are and what their true beliefs about love are. I'd rather the transparency.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but the same could be said of bakers and photographers, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they are tax exempt and I don't think the service they are offering is salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the offering in question is marriage. But you're not answering the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My is no can't be said the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not? I'd wager there are plenty of bakers and photographers sympathetic to gay marriage. Do you have data to the contrary?
Click to expand...


Well read all  my previous posts, that's my reason why.


----------



## dblack

drifter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but the same could be said of bakers and photographers, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they are tax exempt and I don't think the service they are offering is salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the offering in question is marriage. But you're not answering the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My is no can't be said the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not? I'd wager there are plenty of bakers and photographers sympathetic to gay marriage. Do you have data to the contrary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well read all  my previous posts, that's my reason why.
Click to expand...

Heh... No thanks. I haven't seen any posts here, including mine, worth reading for posterity. If you aren't willing to defend your views, I'll take it for what it's worth.


----------



## Michelle420

dblack said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they are tax exempt and I don't think the service they are offering is salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the offering in question is marriage. But you're not answering the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My is no can't be said the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not? I'd wager there are plenty of bakers and photographers sympathetic to gay marriage. Do you have data to the contrary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well read all  my previous posts, that's my reason why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heh... No thanks. I haven't seen any posts here, including mine, worth reading for posterity. If you aren't willing to defend your views, I'll take it for what it's worth.
Click to expand...


Ok. shrug.


----------



## beagle9

Lilah said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its the bakers who made that determination when they denied them service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its the bakers who made that determination when they denied them service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place.  Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists.  Doors to colleges were blocked.
> How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?
Click to expand...

It's not the same issue, and being gay is not being disenfranchised from society, but rather it is a choice that is being made by the individuals involved where as in that choosing they choose to go in that direction freely, and to accept the consequences of it freely (where as all do not accept that lifestyle and they know it). Now unless someone is manipulated by another to make bad choices in life, it is a choice that is being made freely, and it should not be that everyone must be forced to be involved in that choice per government say so. There is no choice as to ones color in life, so that issue had to be settled and set right finally. Tying the issues together is a ploy to gain the power of the other issue, and to take that power to empower something that is altogether different. This can just keep rolling on today, and so where does it stop if the people have no say in any of these things any longer ? The fear is that if you allow one baker to refuse, then how many more will follow right ? So instead of taking that chance, it is that the government must absolutely force compliance now.


----------



## Lilah

beagle9 said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its the bakers who made that determination when they denied them service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its the bakers who made that determination when they denied them service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place.  Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists.  Doors to colleges were blocked.
> How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not the same issue, and being gay is not being disenfranchised from society, but rather it is a choice that is being made by the individuals involved where as in that choosing they choose to go in that direction freely, and to accept the consequences of it freely (where as all do not accept that lifestyle and they know it). Now unless someone is manipulated by another to make bad choices in life, it is a choice that is being made freely, and it should not be that everyone must be forced to be involved in that choice per government say so. There is no choice as to ones color in life, so that issue had to be settled and set right finally. Tying the issues together is a ploy to gain the power of the other issue, and to take that power to empower something that is altogether different. This can just keep rolling on today, and so where does it stop if the people have no say in any of these things any longer ? The fear is that if you allow one baker to refuse, then how many more will follow right ? So instead of taking that chance, it is that the government must absolutely force compliance now.
Click to expand...


Since you speak as an authority figure, I'm assuming you have scientific proof that being gay is a choice.
If being gay is not a disenfranchisement, explain why gays are having to fight for equality.  Why, until June 26th, 2015, were gays not allowed to marry in all 50 states?  Why were gay couples not allowed to be listed on each other's insurance policies as dependents?  Why were gays not allowed to be the beneficiaries of their partners social security benefits, etc. 
I hope you will be gracious enough to explain why your rights and freedoms should be superior.


----------



## beagle9

Lilah said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place.  Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists.  Doors to colleges were blocked.
> How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not the same issue, and being gay is not being disenfranchised from society, but rather it is a choice that is being made by the individuals involved where as in that choosing they choose to go in that direction freely, and to accept the consequences of it freely (where as all do not accept that lifestyle and they know it). Now unless someone is manipulated by another to make bad choices in life, it is a choice that is being made freely, and it should not be that everyone must be forced to be involved in that choice per government say so. There is no choice as to ones color in life, so that issue had to be settled and set right finally. Tying the issues together is a ploy to gain the power of the other issue, and to take that power to empower something that is altogether different. This can just keep rolling on today, and so where does it stop if the people have no say in any of these things any longer ? The fear is that if you allow one baker to refuse, then how many more will follow right ? So instead of taking that chance, it is that the government must absolutely force compliance now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you speak as an authority figure, I'm assuming you have scientific proof that being gay is a choice.
> If being gay is not a disenfranchisement, explain why gays are having to fight for equality.  Why, until June 26th, 2015, were gays not allowed to marry in all 50 states?  Why were gay couples not allowed to be listed on each other's insurance policies as dependents?  Why were gays not allowed to be the beneficiaries of their partners social security benefits, etc.
> I hope you will be gracious enough to explain why your rights and freedoms should be superior.
Click to expand...


Why did Gay's not worry about all that to the end, and instead go after Marriage as the most important to them ? Civil unions was addressing all the other stuff, but that wasn't good enough for the broader agenda was it ?

I think it's because there is an agenda far greater than those things involved, and so it really doesn't involve those other things as being the utmost important to the group must be, but Marriage is eh ?


----------



## beagle9

Lilah said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place.  Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists.  Doors to colleges were blocked.
> How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not the same issue, and being gay is not being disenfranchised from society, but rather it is a choice that is being made by the individuals involved where as in that choosing they choose to go in that direction freely, and to accept the consequences of it freely (where as all do not accept that lifestyle and they know it). Now unless someone is manipulated by another to make bad choices in life, it is a choice that is being made freely, and it should not be that everyone must be forced to be involved in that choice per government say so. There is no choice as to ones color in life, so that issue had to be settled and set right finally. Tying the issues together is a ploy to gain the power of the other issue, and to take that power to empower something that is altogether different. This can just keep rolling on today, and so where does it stop if the people have no say in any of these things any longer ? The fear is that if you allow one baker to refuse, then how many more will follow right ? So instead of taking that chance, it is that the government must absolutely force compliance now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you speak as an authority figure, I'm assuming you have scientific proof that being gay is a choice.
> If being gay is not a disenfranchisement, explain why gays are having to fight for equality.  Why, until June 26th, 2015, were gays not allowed to marry in all 50 states?  Why were gay couples not allowed to be listed on each other's insurance policies as dependents?  Why were gays not allowed to be the beneficiaries of their partners social security benefits, etc.
> I hope you will be gracious enough to explain why your rights and freedoms should be superior.
Click to expand...

So your saying that a man cannot choose to be a man or follow a man's hetero lifestyle and path if he has fem qualities about himself ? What if he has fem qualities about himself, but he chooses to be a hetero sexual male who wants women and not men ? Is this not a choice he would make, even though others may suggest differently to him along his path in life ? What if he made the choice to go after men instead, is that not also the other choice to make in life, even though others would suggest to him otherwise ? At some point a person must become responsible for the choices they make in their life, so isn't that right ?


----------



## Lilah

beagle9 said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place.  Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists.  Doors to colleges were blocked.
> How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not the same issue, and being gay is not being disenfranchised from society, but rather it is a choice that is being made by the individuals involved where as in that choosing they choose to go in that direction freely, and to accept the consequences of it freely (where as all do not accept that lifestyle and they know it). Now unless someone is manipulated by another to make bad choices in life, it is a choice that is being made freely, and it should not be that everyone must be forced to be involved in that choice per government say so. There is no choice as to ones color in life, so that issue had to be settled and set right finally. Tying the issues together is a ploy to gain the power of the other issue, and to take that power to empower something that is altogether different. This can just keep rolling on today, and so where does it stop if the people have no say in any of these things any longer ? The fear is that if you allow one baker to refuse, then how many more will follow right ? So instead of taking that chance, it is that the government must absolutely force compliance now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you speak as an authority figure, I'm assuming you have scientific proof that being gay is a choice.
> If being gay is not a disenfranchisement, explain why gays are having to fight for equality.  Why, until June 26th, 2015, were gays not allowed to marry in all 50 states?  Why were gay couples not allowed to be listed on each other's insurance policies as dependents?  Why were gays not allowed to be the beneficiaries of their partners social security benefits, etc.
> I hope you will be gracious enough to explain why your rights and freedoms should be superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did Gay's not worry about all that to the end, and instead go after Marriage as the most important to them ? Civil unions was addressing all the other stuff, but that wasn't good enough for the broader agenda was it ?
> 
> I think it's because there is an agenda far greater than those things involved, and so it really doesn't involve those other things as being the utmost important to the group must be, but Marriage is eh ?
Click to expand...


Civil marriage is the only way to make sure gay & lesbian couples have the same legal protections as other married couples.  Blacks wanted to be treated like first-class citizens.  Are you a first-class citizen?


----------



## beagle9

Lilah said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place.  Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists.  Doors to colleges were blocked.
> How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not the same issue, and being gay is not being disenfranchised from society, but rather it is a choice that is being made by the individuals involved where as in that choosing they choose to go in that direction freely, and to accept the consequences of it freely (where as all do not accept that lifestyle and they know it). Now unless someone is manipulated by another to make bad choices in life, it is a choice that is being made freely, and it should not be that everyone must be forced to be involved in that choice per government say so. There is no choice as to ones color in life, so that issue had to be settled and set right finally. Tying the issues together is a ploy to gain the power of the other issue, and to take that power to empower something that is altogether different. This can just keep rolling on today, and so where does it stop if the people have no say in any of these things any longer ? The fear is that if you allow one baker to refuse, then how many more will follow right ? So instead of taking that chance, it is that the government must absolutely force compliance now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you speak as an authority figure, I'm assuming you have scientific proof that being gay is a choice.
> If being gay is not a disenfranchisement, explain why gays are having to fight for equality.  Why, until June 26th, 2015, were gays not allowed to marry in all 50 states?  Why were gay couples not allowed to be listed on each other's insurance policies as dependents?  Why were gays not allowed to be the beneficiaries of their partners social security benefits, etc.
> *I hope you will be gracious enough to explain why your rights and freedoms should be superior.*
Click to expand...


Not superior, but equally respected and honored right ?


----------



## Lilah

beagle9 said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place.  Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists.  Doors to colleges were blocked.
> How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not the same issue, and being gay is not being disenfranchised from society, but rather it is a choice that is being made by the individuals involved where as in that choosing they choose to go in that direction freely, and to accept the consequences of it freely (where as all do not accept that lifestyle and they know it). Now unless someone is manipulated by another to make bad choices in life, it is a choice that is being made freely, and it should not be that everyone must be forced to be involved in that choice per government say so. There is no choice as to ones color in life, so that issue had to be settled and set right finally. Tying the issues together is a ploy to gain the power of the other issue, and to take that power to empower something that is altogether different. This can just keep rolling on today, and so where does it stop if the people have no say in any of these things any longer ? The fear is that if you allow one baker to refuse, then how many more will follow right ? So instead of taking that chance, it is that the government must absolutely force compliance now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you speak as an authority figure, I'm assuming you have scientific proof that being gay is a choice.
> If being gay is not a disenfranchisement, explain why gays are having to fight for equality.  Why, until June 26th, 2015, were gays not allowed to marry in all 50 states?  Why were gay couples not allowed to be listed on each other's insurance policies as dependents?  Why were gays not allowed to be the beneficiaries of their partners social security benefits, etc.
> I hope you will be gracious enough to explain why your rights and freedoms should be superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your saying that a man cannot choose to be a man or follow a man's hetero lifestyle and path if he has fem qualities about himself ? What if he has fem qualities about himself, but he chooses to be a hetero sexual male who wants women and not men ? Is this not a choice he would make, even though others may suggest differently to him along his path in life ? What if he made the choice to go after men instead, is that not also the other choice to make in life, even though others would suggest to him otherwise ? At some point a person must become responsible for the choices they make in their life, so isn't that right ?
Click to expand...


I'm not a man, therefore, I can only answer by what I've been told by my friends.  They knew at an early age that they were different.  They have followed their hearts, and I'm assuming someone like you doesn't know that love knows no boundaries.  My friends are very intelligent, kind, compassionate, and most importantly, they stand behind their decisions and are responsible citizens.
Your repeated hateful vitriol only serves to make them stronger and more determined than ever to rise above your smut-filled air.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



No, a church or any place of worship should bot be forced to do anything when it come to weddings. A Church can refuse to wed someone if they are not from the same religion, so they can not be forced to perform a wedding if it is against the Preacher wishes.

Now if it is a Justice of the Peace then they will have to perform the wedding because they're a government official and not allow to object because of religious conviction...


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, churches that don't want to shouldn't have to. There are plenty of churches that don't mind at all.
> 
> 
> 
> The title of this thread must now be changed to
> *"How Long Until Churches Are Forced To Accomodate For Homosexual Weddings?"*
> 
> I can hear the Rainbow-Reicht's lawyers sharpening their knives as we speak..
Click to expand...


When you hear hoofbeats, you hear gay zebra's sharpening their knives.....


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its the bakers who made that determination when they denied them service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its the bakers who made that determination when they denied them service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place.  Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists.  Doors to colleges were blocked.
> How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not the same issue, and being gay is not being disenfranchised from society, but rather it is a choice that is being made by the individuals involved where as in that choosing they choose to go in that direction freely, and to accept the consequences of it freely .
Click to expand...


There is less evidence that being a homosexual is a choice (as in being attracted to the same gender) than being a Christian or a Buddhist is a choice. 

We do not tell people who have religious faith that they must accept the consequences of their decision. Why would you tell homosexuals that?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place.  Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists.  Doors to colleges were blocked.
> How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not the same issue, and being gay is not being disenfranchised from society, but rather it is a choice that is being made by the individuals involved where as in that choosing they choose to go in that direction freely, and to accept the consequences of it freely (where as all do not accept that lifestyle and they know it). Now unless someone is manipulated by another to make bad choices in life, it is a choice that is being made freely, and it should not be that everyone must be forced to be involved in that choice per government say so. There is no choice as to ones color in life, so that issue had to be settled and set right finally. Tying the issues together is a ploy to gain the power of the other issue, and to take that power to empower something that is altogether different. This can just keep rolling on today, and so where does it stop if the people have no say in any of these things any longer ? The fear is that if you allow one baker to refuse, then how many more will follow right ? So instead of taking that chance, it is that the government must absolutely force compliance now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you speak as an authority figure, I'm assuming you have scientific proof that being gay is a choice.
> If being gay is not a disenfranchisement, explain why gays are having to fight for equality.  Why, until June 26th, 2015, were gays not allowed to marry in all 50 states?  Why were gay couples not allowed to be listed on each other's insurance policies as dependents?  Why were gays not allowed to be the beneficiaries of their partners social security benefits, etc.
> I hope you will be gracious enough to explain why your rights and freedoms should be superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did Gay's not worry about all that to the end, and instead go after Marriage as the most important to them ? Civil unions was addressing all the other stuff, but that wasn't good enough for the broader agenda was it ?
Click to expand...


Really that crap claim again?

Are you really this stupid or really this ignorant?

Marriage is but one equal right that homosexuals have been pursuing for years- like the right not to get arrested for having sex. 

Bigots like yourself fought Civil Unions tooth and nail- states like Georgia who banned gay marriage- also banned Civil Unions and recognition of Civil Unions. Why didn't the bigots accept Civil Unions? 

Because the bigots thought that they would win and would be able to continue to discriminate.

There was no recourse through the courts to fight for Civil Unions- because there is no right to a Civil Union- but we all have the right to marriage. Which is why love won, and the bigots lost.


----------



## Lilah

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place.  Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists.  Doors to colleges were blocked.
> How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not the same issue, and being gay is not being disenfranchised from society, but rather it is a choice that is being made by the individuals involved where as in that choosing they choose to go in that direction freely, and to accept the consequences of it freely .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is less evidence that being a homosexual is a choice (as in being attracted to the same gender) than being a Christian or a Buddhist is a choice.
> 
> We do not tell people who have religious faith that they must accept the consequences of their decision. Why would you tell homosexuals that?
Click to expand...


W-what?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.
> 
> There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior.  What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Separate issue, and it was settled where millions upon millions of Americans agreed that this was wrong and that was that. Not the case in other issues we are seeing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain the marches, protests and riots that took place.  Not to mention, that in 965 a plurality of Americans believed the civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists.  Doors to colleges were blocked.
> How is it a separate issue when disenfranchised/minorities are still being discriminated against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not the same issue, and being gay is not being disenfranchised from society, but rather it is a choice that is being made by the individuals involved where as in that choosing they choose to go in that direction freely, and to accept the consequences of it freely .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is less evidence that being a homosexual is a choice (as in being attracted to the same gender) than being a Christian or a Buddhist is a choice.
> 
> We do not tell people who have religious faith that they must accept the consequences of their decision. Why would you tell homosexuals that?
Click to expand...

You told the cake Baker, photographer, Phil of duck dynasty, the former Mrs. America contestant etc. that they must all face the consequences of their choices in life, and so you were saying?


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> You told the cake Baker, photographer, Phil of duck dynasty, the former Mrs. America contestant etc. that they must all face the consequences of their choices in life, and so you were saying?


 
But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs.  Only gatherings of them in a building do.  Just like the Constitution says.  And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...

BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue.  LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings.  They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs.  Only gatherings of them in a building do.  Just like the Constitution says.  And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...
> 
> BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue.  LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings.  They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.


 And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.

Remember this thread folks?  Last post in it was just two months ago.  My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..


----------



## JakeStarkey

One woman refuses to follow the law and is in contempt of court.

She is the one with problems, not the system.


----------



## Silhouette

A Christian woman sitting in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding pretty much settles the question of this thread, doesn't it? 

With 80% still opposed. 

The new question is how do you think this is going to pan out for democrats in election 2016?


----------



## kaz

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs.  Only gatherings of them in a building do.  Just like the Constitution says.  And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...
> 
> BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue.  LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings.  They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.
> 
> 
> 
> And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.
> 
> Remember this thread folks?  Last post in it was just two months ago.  My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..
Click to expand...


I"m not sure I see a connection between a government employee refusing to do their job and a private church being forced by government to conduct a gay wedding.

I respect her views, but your alternative for an employer you don't want to support is to quit, not to take the money and refuse to do your job.

There is no doubt the Supreme Court ruling is a Constitutional abomination, so I agreed with your post on that point.  But she needs to quit and then protest, she's going about it the wrong way


----------



## JakeStarkey

The majority racially, ethnically, by education, by age, etc., all support Marriage Equality.

Sil, you lose.


----------



## Silhouette

The problem dear kaz, is the mistaken premise.  Since homosexuality is about ...hmm..here, let me emphasize this... *BEHAVIORS*...and not race, the whole mechanism for arriving at the mistaken law derived therefrom is flawed.  The 5 people in DC who unilaterally rewrote the US Constitution to make behaviors = race and then went from there to jail a Christian for refusing to play along with those behaviors, are in violation of their duty of Office.  A US Supreme Court Justice can not rewrite the Constitution.   Only Congress can create a brand new class of people to be protected.  This is the first time in US history where a waffling group of deviant sex practitioners rose to the level of race and religion in protections without the consent of the governed.

So behaviors = race = a Christian sitting in jail because she doesn't want her immortal soul to be condemned to Hell for eternity for bowing to the altar of a cult.



JakeStarkey said:


> The majority racially, ethnically, by education, by age, etc., all support Marriage Equality.
> Sil, you lose.


The majority, 80% of them here of 200-something voters patently disagree that a woman should be sitting in jail as a Christian for refusing to participate in a "gay wedding".

You lose.  And just wait for November 2016 to see how big it is that you lose (hint, look at the results in the poll at the top of this page)


----------



## kaz

Silhouette said:


> The problem dear kaz, is the mistaken premise.  Since homosexuality is about ...hmm..here, let me emphasize this... *BEHAVIORS*...and not race, the whole mechanism for arriving at the mistaken law derived therefrom is flawed.  The 5 people in DC who unilaterally rewrote the US Constitution to make behaviors = race and then went from there to jail a Christian for refusing to play along with those behaviors, are in violation of their duty of Office.  A US Supreme Court Justice can not rewrite the Constitution.   Only Congress can create a brand new class of people to be protected.  This is the first time in US history where a waffling group of deviant sex practitioners rose to the level of race and religion in protections without the consent of the governed.
> 
> So behaviors = race = a Christian sitting in jail because she doesn't want her immortal soul to be condemned to Hell for eternity for bowing to the altar of a cult.



You realize I agreed the ruling was a Constitutional abomination, no?  What you just said doesn't address my point.  As a private citizen, fighting for the Constitution is totally our jobs.  When you work for an employer, you do as they ask or you quit.  Even when you work for government.  We can't have employees deciding what laws they will follow and what they won't ... as employees ...  Whether she's in the right as a citizen, she is in the wrong in terms of disobeying the policies of her employer


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil's preise has been rejected at all levels.

Let's move on.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> The problem dear kaz, is the mistaken premise.  Since homosexuality is about ...hmm..here, let me emphasize this... *BEHAVIORS*...and not race, the whole mechanism for arriving at the mistaken law derived therefrom is flawed.  The 5 people in DC who unilaterally rewrote the US Constitution to make behaviors = race and then went from there to jail a Christian for refusing to play along with those behaviors, are in violation of their duty of Office.  A US Supreme Court Justice can not rewrite the Constitution.   Only Congress can create a brand new class of people to be protected.  This is the first time in US history where a waffling group of deviant sex practitioners rose to the level of race and religion in protections without the consent of the governed.
> 
> So behaviors = race = a Christian sitting in jail because she doesn't want her immortal soul to be condemned to Hell for eternity for bowing to the altar of a cult.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority racially, ethnically, by education, by age, etc., all support Marriage Equality.
> Sil, you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> The majority, 80% of them here of 200-something voters patently disagree that a woman should be sitting in jail as a Christian for refusing to participate in a "gay wedding".
> 
> You lose.  And just wait for November 2016 to see how big it is that you lose (hint, look at the results in the poll at the top of this page)
Click to expand...




80% of the people polled support Kim Davis!? The last post before you bumped this dead horse was in July. Why do you have to lie all the time about shit?


----------



## daws101

Church and state are separate.


----------



## JakeStarkey

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem dear kaz, is the mistaken premise.  Since homosexuality is about ...hmm..here, let me emphasize this... *BEHAVIORS*...and not race, the whole mechanism for arriving at the mistaken law derived therefrom is flawed.  The 5 people in DC who unilaterally rewrote the US Constitution to make behaviors = race and then went from there to jail a Christian for refusing to play along with those behaviors, are in violation of their duty of Office.  A US Supreme Court Justice can not rewrite the Constitution.   Only Congress can create a brand new class of people to be protected.  This is the first time in US history where a waffling group of deviant sex practitioners rose to the level of race and religion in protections without the consent of the governed.
> 
> So behaviors = race = a Christian sitting in jail because she doesn't want her immortal soul to be condemned to Hell for eternity for bowing to the altar of a cult.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority racially, ethnically, by education, by age, etc., all support Marriage Equality.
> Sil, you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> The majority, 80% of them here of 200-something voters patently disagree that a woman should be sitting in jail as a Christian for refusing to participate in a "gay wedding".
> 
> You lose.  And just wait for November 2016 to see how big it is that you lose (hint, look at the results in the poll at the top of this page)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of the people polled support Kim Davis!? The last post before you bumped this dead horse was in July. Why do you have to lie all the time about shit?
Click to expand...

POLL: Should Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis be forced to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

Across the river in WV, the poll is 3 to 1 to issue the licenses, Kim Davis.


----------



## Political Junky

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs.  Only gatherings of them in a building do.  Just like the Constitution says.  And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...
> 
> BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue.  LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings.  They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.
> 
> 
> 
> And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.
> 
> Remember this thread folks?  Last post in it was just two months ago.  My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..
Click to expand...

The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Has anyone found a church forced to perform marriages for homosexuals.


----------



## Debra K

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

Places of worship are not places of public accommodation.  Laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations do not apply to churches, et al.


----------



## NYcarbineer

A preacher who has been given the power to do civil marriages is a civil servant.  He should be held to exactly the same rules any other civil servant in that capacity must abide by.


----------



## Political Junky

JakeStarkey said:


> Has anyone found a church forced to perform marriages for homosexuals.


No


----------



## JakeStarkey

NYcarbineer said:


> A preacher who has been given the power to do civil marriages is a civil servant.  He should be held to exactly the same rules any other civil servant in that capacity must abide by.


But the 1st Amendment and private association laws do not agree with you.


----------



## Derideo_Te

FYI!







Where Christian churches, other religions stand on gay marriage

The Episcopal Church approves religious weddings for gay couples after controversial debate

3 Other Christian Denominations That Allow Gay Marriage


----------



## Geaux4it

Do you take this woman, to......um.... Jake, do you take this man, to honor....

What a cluster.

Fags should get married at fag kind of places. That tends to narrow it down to the seedy side of town. Right next to Mr. B's Book Store selling 8mm videos in 20 second intervals.

-Geaux


----------



## daws101

Debra K said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> Places of worship are not places of public accommodation.  Laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations do not apply to churches, et al.
Click to expand...

Really?  So if as part of their worship child rape and ritual sacrifice were practiced. It would be ok with you. 
Religion is subject to the same laws as the public .


----------



## daws101

Geaux4it said:


> Do you take this woman, to......um.... Jake, do you take this man, to honor....
> 
> What a cluster.
> 
> Fags should get married at fag kind of places. That tends to narrow it down to the seedy side of town. Right next to Mr. B's Book Store selling 8mm videos in 20 second intervals.
> 
> -Geaux


Thanks captain ignorance!


----------



## oreo

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs.  Only gatherings of them in a building do.  Just like the Constitution says.  And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...
> 
> BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue.  LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings.  They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.
> 
> 
> 
> And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.
> 
> Remember this thread folks?  Last post in it was just two months ago.  My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..
Click to expand...



She's a GOVERNMENT clerk receiving a taxpayer funded check. * If she's allowed to choose what marriage license's she wants to issue,  a CATHOLIC clerk can refuse a marriage license to a divorcee.  *

*Then another clerk can issue a license to an old man and young girl based on his/her religious beliefs, and then one man could get several licenses for marriage based upon another clerks religion.*

*AND ALL OF THIS PUTS THE TAXPAYERS AT RISK FOR CLASS ACTION LAW SUITS THAT THEY WOULD LOSE.
*
Yet Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are defending this--and because they are defending this clerk they too are putting the taxpayers at risk, because of their ignorance. THEY TOO ARE GOING AGAINST THE LAW.

_If you don't like it--quit your job--or do your job._


----------



## Derideo_Te

Geaux4it said:


> Do you take this woman, to......um.... Jake, do you take this man, to honor....
> 
> What a cluster.
> 
> Fags should get married at fag kind of places. That tends to narrow it down to the seedy side of town. Right next to Mr. B's Book Store selling 8mm videos in 20 second intervals.
> 
> -Geaux



Sounds like someone who knows the seedy side of town from personal experience.


----------



## daws101

Derideo_Te said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you take this woman, to......um.... Jake, do you take this man, to honor....
> 
> What a cluster.
> 
> Fags should get married at fag kind of places. That tends to narrow it down to the seedy side of town. Right next to Mr. B's Book Store selling 8mm videos in 20 second intervals.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like someone who knows the seedy side of town from personal experience.
Click to expand...

And spent a fortune getting it.


----------



## Derideo_Te

daws101 said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> Places of worship are not places of public accommodation.  Laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations do not apply to churches, et al.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  So if as part of their worship child rape and ritual sacrifice were practiced. It would be ok with you.
> Religion is subject to the same laws as the public .
Click to expand...


Religions are allowed discriminate on the basis of their beliefs as long as what they are doing is a legitimate religious function.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JakeStarkey said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A preacher who has been given the power to do civil marriages is a civil servant.  He should be held to exactly the same rules any other civil servant in that capacity must abide by.
> 
> 
> 
> But the 1st Amendment and private association laws do not agree with you.
Click to expand...


Yes they do.  Civil marriage has no religious attachment to it whatsoever.  No preacher who performs a civil marriage is performing a religious function,

even if the ceremony includes a religion based component.


----------



## Geaux4it

Derideo_Te said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you take this woman, to......um.... Jake, do you take this man, to honor....
> 
> What a cluster.
> 
> Fags should get married at fag kind of places. That tends to narrow it down to the seedy side of town. Right next to Mr. B's Book Store selling 8mm videos in 20 second intervals.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like someone who knows the seedy side of town from personal experience.
Click to expand...


Reading is knowledge

I do. Unfortunately I have to drive through it on the way to the dump.

-Geaux


----------



## mdk

So how many churches have been forced to marry anyone any couple against their wishes in this nation? Still none you say? Boy that was close!


----------



## JakeStarkey

daws101 said:


> Religion is subject to the same laws as the public .


No, it's not. You were taught better.  In matters religious, in private, folks can believe whatever they want and generally practice their religious principles as they wish.


----------



## JakeStarkey

NYcarbineer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A preacher who has been given the power to do civil marriages is a civil servant.  He should be held to exactly the same rules any other civil servant in that capacity must abide by.
> 
> 
> 
> But the 1st Amendment and private association laws do not agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they do.  Civil marriage has no religious attachment to it whatsoever.  No preacher who performs a civil marriage is performing a religious function, even if the ceremony includes a religion based component.
Click to expand...

Nope.   A religious wedding is a marriage if recognized by the state as such.  But the state can never regulate a church's performance of it.   As long as the partners are consenting age, it's fine.  The priest could lead an orgy on the alter, and as long as the celebrants are of consenting age, it's fine.


----------



## Derideo_Te

JakeStarkey said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A preacher who has been given the power to do civil marriages is a civil servant.  He should be held to exactly the same rules any other civil servant in that capacity must abide by.
> 
> 
> 
> But the 1st Amendment and private association laws do not agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they do.  Civil marriage has no religious attachment to it whatsoever.  No preacher who performs a civil marriage is performing a religious function, even if the ceremony includes a religion based component.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.   A religious wedding is a marriage if recognized by the state as such.  But the state can never regulate a church's performance of it.
Click to expand...


Not completely accurate!

Peyote was considered to be part of a native American religious ritual but the Federal government stepped in and banned it as part of the phony war on drugs.

So yes, the state can regulate a part of the church's performance of a religious ritual if it deems fit. 

Personally I think they overreached but I can understand why they did in that instance. Hopefully they will get around to scrapping the phony war on drugs and butting out of religious ceremonies too.


----------



## Debra K

daws101 said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> Places of worship are not places of public accommodation.  Laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations do not apply to churches, et al.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  So if as part of their worship child rape and ritual sacrifice were practiced. It would be ok with you.
> Religion is subject to the same laws as the public .
Click to expand...


What the heck are you talking about?  

The question is whether places of worship (e.g., churches) should be forced to accommodate gay weddings.   This is similar to asking whether bakeries should be forced to accommodate gay weddings.  For example, a complaint was made against "Sweetcakes by Melissa" (a bakery) because the business owner refused to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple. 

The bakery in the example above was a business, which offered goods and services to the public.  In other words, the bakery was a place of public accommodation.   The state had a law that prohibited businesses from discriminating against members of the public because of race, gender, and sexual orientation.  The bakery was not forced to bake the cake, but it was adjudicated to be liable for damages to the victims of its discrimination. 

On the other hand, places of worship are not places of public accommodation.  Churches are not businesses offering goods and/or services to members of the public.   Accordingly, churches and other places of worship are not subject to laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations.  A church may lawfully refuse to conduct marriage ceremonies.

The above has nothing to do with "child rape" or "ritual sacrifice".   The right to practice one's religion secured by the First Amendment does not exempt people from complying with generally applicable laws, which make it unlawful to rape and murder, etc.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Remember that Daws101 is very sensitive.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> Remember that Daws101 is very sensitive.


 I'm devastated!..


----------



## koshergrl

How odd...the black lez judge in Texas who refused to marry anyone until she could marry fags...she didn't get slammed in jail. She refused for three years.


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> How odd...the black lez judge in Texas who refused to marry anyone until she could marry fags...she didn't get slammed in jail. She refused for three years.


If that were the case, she should be in jail still.  Get elected or appointed, do the job, hey.


----------



## sealybobo

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs.  Only gatherings of them in a building do.  Just like the Constitution says.  And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...
> 
> BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue.  LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings.  They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.
> 
> 
> 
> And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.
> 
> Remember this thread folks?  Last post in it was just two months ago.  My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..
Click to expand...

They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.


----------



## sealybobo

JakeStarkey said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> How odd...the black lez judge in Texas who refused to marry anyone until she could marry fags...she didn't get slammed in jail. She refused for three years.
> 
> 
> 
> If that were the case, she should be in jail still.  Get elected or appointed, do the job, hey.
Click to expand...

I'm more OK with a judge pushing the envelope than I am a county clerk.


----------



## WorldWatcher

sealybobo said:


> They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.



You can't "just fire" an elected official.  She must be impeached by the legislature to be removed from office.


>>>>


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> How odd...the black lez judge in Texas who refused to marry anyone until she could marry fags...she didn't get slammed in jail. She refused for three years.


I


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs.  Only gatherings of them in a building do.  Just like the Constitution says.  And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...
> 
> BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue.  LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings.  They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.





Silhouette said:


> And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.
> 
> Remember this thread folks?  Last post in it was just two months ago.  My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..





sealybobo said:


> They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.


 
Fire her?  For her religious convictions?  They don't want a lawsuit for violation of civil rights.

We aren't talking about race here.  We're talking about a waffling cult of deviant sex behaviors.


----------



## sealybobo

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs.  Only gatherings of them in a building do.  Just like the Constitution says.  And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...
> 
> BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue.  LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings.  They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.
> 
> Remember this thread folks?  Last post in it was just two months ago.  My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fire her?  For her religious convictions?  They don't want a lawsuit for violation of civil rights.
> 
> We aren't talking about race here.  We're talking about a waffling cult of deviant sex behaviors.
Click to expand...

Gay isn't a sin or perversion anymore. It's not wrong.


----------



## dblack

Unless there is a contractual obligation, no one should be required to "accommodate" anyone else for any reason. But equal protection is a crucial requirement for a healthy democracy. Laws - bad or otherwise - should be enforced equally or not at all.


----------



## Silhouette

Political Junky said:


> The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.


 
I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights.   I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion.  So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not.  I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.


----------



## dblack

WorldWatcher said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't "just fire" an elected official.  She must be impeached by the legislature to be removed from office.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Right. That's the problem here. It's analogous to a police officer making up their own laws. It really can't be tolerated in any way.


----------



## dblack

sealybobo said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs.  Only gatherings of them in a building do.  Just like the Constitution says.  And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...
> 
> BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue.  LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings.  They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.
> 
> Remember this thread folks?  Last post in it was just two months ago.  My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fire her?  For her religious convictions?  They don't want a lawsuit for violation of civil rights.
> 
> We aren't talking about race here.  We're talking about a waffling cult of deviant sex behaviors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay isn't a sin or perversion anymore. It's not wrong.
Click to expand...


Clearly, some people believe it is. Do they have a right to their beliefs? Do they have a right to live their lives by those beliefs?


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> Unless there is a contractual obligation, no one should be required to "accommodate" anyone else for any reason. But equal protection is a crucial requirement for a healthy democracy. Laws - bad or otherwise - should be enforced equally or not at all.


Bad laws should not be obeyed or enforced period. The people should finally decide what they are gonna do, and not let a rogue judiciary decide it for them.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless there is a contractual obligation, no one should be required to "accommodate" anyone else for any reason. But equal protection is a crucial requirement for a healthy democracy. Laws - bad or otherwise - should be enforced equally or not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Bad laws should not be obeyed or enforced period.
Click to expand...


I tend to agree. But if they are enforced, we shouldn't allow government officials the power to pick and choose who has to follow them and who gets special permission not to.


----------



## skye

if people live in a tyranny of political correctness they have no choice ...otherwise they might be sent to the "gulag" so to speak...and that is coming to USA....

Nobody should be forced to do such a thing..

but  ...things are about to change in USA ....in fact are changing right now...for the worst

get ready ...that's all


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless there is a contractual obligation, no one should be required to "accommodate" anyone else for any reason. But equal protection is a crucial requirement for a healthy democracy. Laws - bad or otherwise - should be enforced equally or not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Bad laws should not be obeyed or enforced period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tend to agree. But if they are enforced, we shouldn't allow government officials the power to pick and choose who has to follow them and who gets special permission not to.
Click to expand...

The people should rebel against a government gone rogue, and it trying to force bad law or it's will upon them if it is bad. Period.


----------



## Freewill

sealybobo said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs.  Only gatherings of them in a building do.  Just like the Constitution says.  And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...
> 
> BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue.  LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings.  They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.
> 
> Remember this thread folks?  Last post in it was just two months ago.  My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fire her?  For her religious convictions?  They don't want a lawsuit for violation of civil rights.
> 
> We aren't talking about race here.  We're talking about a waffling cult of deviant sex behaviors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay isn't a sin or perversion anymore. It's not wrong.
Click to expand...


Depends on definitions doesn't it?  Sodomizing someone in any book is perverse in comparison to heterosexual sex.  I can't imagine one person thinking otherwise.  But then again the SCOTUS can change the definition of marriage why not the defintion of perversion?  Besides, the gay marriage didn't make sodomy not illegal that happen way before the SCOTUS ruling.


----------



## Bonzi

I would say NO because it is against their beliefs.
Has nothing to do with AMERICA - but with the beliefs of the Church.
A Minister/Pastor etc. that has made a vow to honor God and keep his commands should not be forced to break that vow.


----------



## amrchaos

No, the church is owned by the clergy, not the congregation.  It is a private institution dedicated to the programmig of the public to their brand of propaganda.

If Homosexual marriage is in contradiction t their programming, then the church need not accommodate the marriage.  If you do not like it, then maybe you should change your religion.


----------



## sealybobo

Freewill said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs.  Only gatherings of them in a building do.  Just like the Constitution says.  And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...
> 
> BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue.  LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings.  They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.
> 
> Remember this thread folks?  Last post in it was just two months ago.  My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fire her?  For her religious convictions?  They don't want a lawsuit for violation of civil rights.
> 
> We aren't talking about race here.  We're talking about a waffling cult of deviant sex behaviors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay isn't a sin or perversion anymore. It's not wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on definitions doesn't it?  Sodomizing someone in any book is perverse in comparison to heterosexual sex.  I can't imagine one person thinking otherwise.  But then again the SCOTUS can change the definition of marriage why not the defintion of perversion?  Besides, the gay marriage didn't make sodomy not illegal that happen way before the SCOTUS ruling.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with sodomy


----------



## dblack

Bonzi said:


> I would say NO because it is against their beliefs.
> Has nothing to do with AMERICA - but with the beliefs of the Church.
> A Minister/Pastor etc. that has made a vow to honor God and keep his commands should not be forced to break that vow.



Unless he also bakes cakes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bonzi said:


> I would say NO because it is against their beliefs.
> Has nothing to do with AMERICA - but with the beliefs of the Church.
> A Minister/Pastor etc. that has made a vow to honor God and keep his commands should not be forced to break that vow.


No minister or pastor in is private capacity can be made to marry people.

If he is a judge or jp or whatever working for government, he should proved for accomodation with other public officials who will marry others in his place.


----------



## JakeStarkey

amrchaos said:


> No, the church is owned by the clergy, not the congregation.  It is a private institution dedicated to the programmig of the public to their brand of propaganda.
> 
> If Homosexual marriage is in contradiction t their programming, then the church need not accommodate the marriage.  If you do not like it, then maybe you should change your religion.


The church, the body of Christ, is always owned by the Congregation.

If the ministers are out of step with the Congregation, the Congregation needs to take a new road and let the ministers slide along their own zip line.


----------



## mdk

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless there is a contractual obligation, no one should be required to "accommodate" anyone else for any reason. But equal protection is a crucial requirement for a healthy democracy. Laws - bad or otherwise - should be enforced equally or not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Bad laws should not be obeyed or enforced period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tend to agree. But if they are enforced, we shouldn't allow government officials the power to pick and choose who has to follow them and who gets special permission not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people should rebel against a government gone rogue, and it trying to force bad law or it's will upon them if it is bad. Period.
Click to expand...


Hope to it then. Enough talk.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I want to see beagle9 hop, hop, hop along.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights.   I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion.  So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not.  I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can fuck children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?


----------



## Bonzi

JakeStarkey said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say NO because it is against their beliefs.
> Has nothing to do with AMERICA - but with the beliefs of the Church.
> A Minister/Pastor etc. that has made a vow to honor God and keep his commands should not be forced to break that vow.
> 
> 
> 
> No minister or pastor in is private capacity can be made to marry people.
> 
> If he is a judge or jp or whatever working for government, he should proved for accomodation with other public officials who will marry others in his place.
Click to expand...

 
Maybe not but I bet there will be law suits...

How about allowing a gay couple to use your Church building?


----------



## mdk

JakeStarkey said:


> I want to see beagle9 hop, hop, hop along.



Foot-stomping bluster from folks far too old to fight in this war is just that...foot-stomping bluster. People my age and younger, the ones whom would do the fighting, don't give a shit about gays getting married. We are not willing to die in a war just so fogies can oppress queers.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bonzi said:


> How about allowing a gay couple to use your Church building?


If the public accomodations law in that state reads that a building publicly held out for a rental hall must accomodate all, sure.


----------



## Bonzi

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights.   I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion.  So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not.  I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can fuck children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?
Click to expand...

 
There is a difference between child abuse (breaking a law) and not marrying homosexuals (not breaking a law).
There is a difference between not selling a car to a homosexual (discrimination) and not marrying a homosexual couple in your church because it goes against you religious beliefs (not discrimination)


----------



## mdk

80% of the people in this poll support the recriminalization of sexual acts between homosexuals. lol


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bonzi, it is discrimintion, yes, but it is religously exempted discrimination.  No one can force a pastor or a minister in his private capacity to marry anyone.


----------



## Bonzi

JakeStarkey said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about allowing a gay couple to use your Church building?
> 
> 
> 
> If the public accomodations law in that state reads that a building publicly held out for a rental hall must accomodate all, sure.
Click to expand...

 
Even if not, if you refuse, I think the homosexual couple will have a case.
Do you think the Church bylaws and constitution would protect them in a case like this?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bonzi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about allowing a gay couple to use your Church building?
> 
> 
> 
> If the public accomodations law in that state reads that a building publicly held out for a rental hall must accomodate all, sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if not, if you refuse, I think the homosexual couple will have a case.
> Do you think the Church bylaws and constitution would protect them in a case like this?
Click to expand...

Church by laws and constitution mean nothing in terms of public law concerning accomodation.  The state determines that if a church or congregation hold out one of their venues for public use then all groups should be accomodated.

FUMC of Jasper, KY, for instance, can offer its hall for public use.  If KY has public accomodations laws, then it should hire Kim Davis to stand in the door to block homosexual meetings there.  One, she is a jail bird anyway, so it does not matter, and two, she is big enough to block the door.


----------



## mdk

Bonzi said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights.   I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion.  So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not.  I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can fuck children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between child abuse (breaking a law) and not marrying homosexuals (not breaking a law).
> There is a difference between not selling a car to a homosexual (discrimination) and not marrying a homosexual couple in your church because it goes against you religious beliefs (not discrimination)
Click to expand...


 I have stated about 4,000 times in this dead horse of a thread that churches are free to marry, or not marry, _any _couple as they see fit. Not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes. Sil only bumped this thread so she can falsely claim that the poll respondents don't support gay marriage (a lie) and support Kim Davis. (also a lie). She does this shit every couples months.


----------



## Bonzi

JakeStarkey said:


> Church by laws and constitution mean nothing in terms of public law concerning accomodation. The state determines that if a church or congregation hold out one of their venues for public use then all groups should be accomodated


 
... I'm not touching the Kim Davis stuff... anyway....

I'm not sure of our State laws, but, if we have let others marry in the church building (heterosexual, non-members) does that open the church up for a law suit if they then reject a homosexual couple to marry in the same church/building?


----------



## mdk

Bonzi, Why should Warren Jeffs follow a law that runs against this deeply held religious beliefs? It is being presented that people do not have to follow laws they feel are unjust to their faith. Why should he?


----------



## Bonzi

mdk said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights.   I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion.  So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not.  I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can fuck children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between child abuse (breaking a law) and not marrying homosexuals (not breaking a law).
> There is a difference between not selling a car to a homosexual (discrimination) and not marrying a homosexual couple in your church because it goes against you religious beliefs (not discrimination)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have stated about 4,000 times in this dead horse of a thread that churches are free to marry, or not marry, _any _couple as they see fit. Not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes. Sil only bumped this thread so she can falsely claim that the poll respondents don't support gay marriage (a lie) and support Kim Davis. (also a lie). She does this shit every couples months.
Click to expand...

 
I triggered it so you can blame me.
If it leads to otherwise good discuss however, it's worth it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bonzi, it depends on your state's accomodation laws.


----------



## mdk

Bonzi said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights.   I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion.  So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not.  I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can fuck children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between child abuse (breaking a law) and not marrying homosexuals (not breaking a law).
> There is a difference between not selling a car to a homosexual (discrimination) and not marrying a homosexual couple in your church because it goes against you religious beliefs (not discrimination)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have stated about 4,000 times in this dead horse of a thread that churches are free to marry, or not marry, _any _couple as they see fit. Not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes. Sil only bumped this thread so she can falsely claim that the poll respondents don't support gay marriage (a lie) and support Kim Davis. (also a lie). She does this shit every couples months.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I triggered it so you can blame me.
> If it leads to otherwise good discuss however, it's worth it.
Click to expand...


No, Sil bumped this thread after it died for about two months. This is her _go-to_ thread b/c the ones she starts are miserable failures. They are always riddled with idiotic legal gibberish and wild predictions that never come to pass.


----------



## Bonzi

JakeStarkey said:


> Bonzi, it depends on your state's accomodation laws.


 
will check them out... thanks

If anyone else is interested, here is a link to find out what your State accommodation laws are:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-public-accommodation-laws.aspx


----------



## daws101

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs.  Only gatherings of them in a building do.  Just like the Constitution says.  And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...
> 
> BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue.  LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings.  They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.
> 
> Remember this thread folks?  Last post in it was just two months ago.  My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fire her?  For her religious convictions?  They don't want a lawsuit for violation of civil rights.
> 
> We aren't talking about race here.  We're talking about a waffling cult of deviant sex behaviors.
Click to expand...

No slap dick for not doing her job .


----------



## daws101

Freewill said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs.  Only gatherings of them in a building do.  Just like the Constitution says.  And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...
> 
> BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue.  LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings.  They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.
> 
> Remember this thread folks?  Last post in it was just two months ago.  My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fire her?  For her religious convictions?  They don't want a lawsuit for violation of civil rights.
> 
> We aren't talking about race here.  We're talking about a waffling cult of deviant sex behaviors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay isn't a sin or perversion anymore. It's not wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on definitions doesn't it?  Sodomizing someone in any book is perverse in comparison to heterosexual sex.  I can't imagine one person thinking otherwise.  But then again the SCOTUS can change the definition of marriage why not the defintion of perversion?  Besides, the gay marriage didn't make sodomy not illegal that happen way before the SCOTUS ruling.
Click to expand...

really? lot's of heterosexuals  either do or have tried anal sex.
so there goes your false comparison.


----------



## daws101

Bonzi said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights.   I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion.  So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not.  I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can fuck children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between child abuse (breaking a law) and not marrying homosexuals (not breaking a law).
> There is a difference between not selling a car to a homosexual (discrimination) and not marrying a homosexual couple in your church because it goes against you religious beliefs (not discrimination)
Click to expand...

it is against the law of the land.


----------



## sealybobo

Freewill said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs.  Only gatherings of them in a building do.  Just like the Constitution says.  And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...
> 
> BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue.  LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings.  They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.
> 
> Remember this thread folks?  Last post in it was just two months ago.  My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should have just fired her. Can't do your government job? She'll do better in the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fire her?  For her religious convictions?  They don't want a lawsuit for violation of civil rights.
> 
> We aren't talking about race here.  We're talking about a waffling cult of deviant sex behaviors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay isn't a sin or perversion anymore. It's not wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on definitions doesn't it?  Sodomizing someone in any book is perverse in comparison to heterosexual sex.  I can't imagine one person thinking otherwise.  But then again the SCOTUS can change the definition of marriage why not the defintion of perversion?  Besides, the gay marriage didn't make sodomy not illegal that happen way before the SCOTUS ruling.
Click to expand...

Oh?  YOU can't imagine ANYONE thinking otherwise?  How about an atheist or a gay person?  Because to a gay person I'm sure they realize, if they haven't been brainwashed with religion, their behavior is completely natural and normal to them.  If I'm a guy and I like dudes I have two places to show my affection.  The hip and the lip.  With a woman you have the vajayjay.  And if you are having sex for the sake of having a baby, I strongly recommend it.  But if you are looking for sexual healing and you don't have a vajayjay, the butt will do just fine.  

And to us atheists, we just don't see what's wrong with two consenting adults doing whatever they want to do.

Now what I will agree with you on is both gay and straights sleeping around and not having protected sex.  This is a problem in our society and there are consequences for your actions.  Aids for example.  But no hell for homos.  That's just stupid ancient religions.  And this is why the Catholic church is lightening up.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs.  Only gatherings of them in a building do.  Just like the Constitution says.  And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...
> 
> BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue.  LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings.  They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.
> 
> 
> 
> And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.
> 
> Remember this thread folks?  Last post in it was just two months ago.  My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..
Click to expand...


For 'passively' refusing to obey the law- and the judge.

And what does the New Testament say about obeying the law- and authority? That by refusing to obey authority- she is disobeying God. 


"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.  Therefore, he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves, for rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.  Do you want to have no fear of authority?  Do what is good and you will have praise from the same, for it is a minister of God to you for good.  But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.  Wherefore, it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience's sake."


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> The problem dear kaz, is the mistaken premise.  Since homosexuality is about ...hmm..here, let me emphasize this... *BEHAVIORS*...and not race,)


That is what you keep telling us- or I should say- it is the lie you keep making.

Homosexuality is about the attraction of a person to another person of the same gender- not about behavior.

Behavior would be choosing to believe in a god, or behaving illegally because of your belief in god.


----------



## Syriusly

Political Junky said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs.  Only gatherings of them in a building do.  Just like the Constitution says.  And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...
> 
> BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue.  LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings.  They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.
> 
> 
> 
> And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.
> 
> Remember this thread folks?  Last post in it was just two months ago.  My how much changes in just a matter of a handful of weeks..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.
Click to expand...


Well Silhouette lies a lot.

No churches being forced to do anything. 

Government officials are being forced to do their job.


----------



## Syriusly

Bonzi said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights.   I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion.  So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not.  I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can fuck children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between child abuse (breaking a law) and not marrying homosexuals (not breaking a law).
> There is a difference between not selling a car to a homosexual (discrimination) and not marrying a homosexual couple in your church because it goes against you religious beliefs (not discrimination)
Click to expand...


Not marrying homosexuals(or anyone) when a judge has specifically ordered that the marriages be performed- is breaking the law. 

Churches have every right to discriminate within their church- but if they are renting out their facility for public accommodations, depending upon the state law they may be subject to the public accommodation laws. Religious institutions are normally specifically excluded.


----------



## Clementine

Freedom of religion, or any other freedom, seems to mean you are allowed to do whatever the tyrants say you can do these days.    If they want you to have a freedom, they will give it to you.   Gone are the days when government was sworn to protect our freedoms.   Now they think they are in charge of doling out rights, and not evenly among all groups.

If you are a Christian business owner, you are a target.    I suspect there is an effort underway by the fringe on the left to seek out and destroy all who refuse to obey the liberal rules.    

When the bias and/or racism originates on the left, it's quickly dismissed.

In 2012, a judge refused to marry straight couples. I don't recall any fuss over this. People went elsewhere instead of protesting and filing lawsuits.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-texas-judge-tonya-parker-won-perform-marriages-straight-couples-article-1.1027709


Just so judges didn't try to refuse gay couples. Funny how it's only an issue when gays are refused.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2015/08/11/Judges-can-t-refuse-to-wed-gay-couples.html


Judge investigated for refusing to marry gay couples.   In Oregon, judges are not required to do wedding ceremonies and he opted to stop them altogether. Still being investigated.   

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/oregon-judge-investigated-for-refusing-to-marry-gay-couples/


At least for now, churches still have the right to refuse people. I suspect some are already working to change that since it's been stated that Christians need to change or let go of their beliefs to go along with the liberal views.    If you want religious freedom with no criticism or lawsuits, covert to Islam and you will be untouchable.    Otherwise, prepare for a battle with the PC crowd.


----------



## easyt65

The Constitutional specifically provides for the protection of religious freedom and the EXERCSING of that religion.

Homosexuality and same-sex weddings are specifically against the christian religion, and the attempt to FORCE Christians to perform ceremonies in direct opposition to their faith is a violation of the Constitution.  This isn't even a legitimate issue...it has been resolved.

It is the Liberal intent to force its will on everyone.
It is the Socialist intent to destroy everything people rely on and follow EXCEPT for the Federal Government

'Civil Unions' is the answer that would end all of this. A Civil Union, a non-religious union, between 2 people, recognized by a government for the purpose of receiving equal government-provided benefits. That is not good enough for the LGBT Liberal Socialists, though...they want to impose their will in regards to gay marriage as they have regarding abortions.

Liberals declare Christians / pro-lifers have no right to impose their values on THEM but then turn around and do the same thing to Christians / pro-lifers by making them pay for THEIR abortions!  Abortions, except for life-threatening cases, is an ELECTIVE SUGERY. Have as many abortions as you want, but YOU PAY FOR IT!


----------



## JakeStarkey

easyt65 makes no sense.  No one is forcing anyone to perform same sex weddings.  But when a clerk denies licenses to certain people because she disagrees with their life styles, she is wrong.  Period.


----------



## easyt65

JakeStarkey said:


> easyt65 makes no sense.  No one is forcing anyone to perform same sex weddings.  But when a clerk denies licenses to certain people because she disagrees with their life styles, she is wrong.  Period.



Correct me if I am wrong but the topic is "Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"
I pointed out that the question is a non-issue because churches / Christians are already protected from having to do so by the Constitution. I never said churches WERE being forced to perform such ceremonies.

I agree with you that Davis is wrong by not doing her job according to the law. I simply pointed out the FACT that she is doing nothing Obama has not done or is continuing to do.


----------



## JakeStarkey

A false equivalency comparison, easy.  Tell us to whom is Obama denying marriage licenses.


----------



## Campbell

Clementine said:


> Freedom of religion, or any other freedom, seems to mean you are allowed to do whatever the tyrants say you can do these days.    If they want you to have a freedom, they will give it to you.   Gone are the days when government was sworn to protect our freedoms.   Now they think they are in charge of doling out rights, and not evenly among all groups.
> 
> If you are a Christian business owner, you are a target.    I suspect there is an effort underway by the fringe on the left to seek out and destroy all who refuse to obey the liberal rules.
> 
> When the bias and/or racism originates on the left, it's quickly dismissed.
> 
> In 2012, a judge refused to marry straight couples. I don't recall any fuss over this. People went elsewhere instead of protesting and filing lawsuits.
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-texas-judge-tonya-parker-won-perform-marriages-straight-couples-article-1.1027709
> 
> 
> Just so judges didn't try to refuse gay couples. Funny how it's only an issue when gays are refused.
> 
> http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2015/08/11/Judges-can-t-refuse-to-wed-gay-couples.html
> 
> 
> Judge investigated for refusing to marry gay couples.   In Oregon, judges are not required to do wedding ceremonies and he opted to stop them altogether. Still being investigated.
> 
> http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/oregon-judge-investigated-for-refusing-to-marry-gay-couples/
> 
> 
> At least for now, churches still have the right to refuse people. I suspect some are already working to change that since it's been stated that Christians need to change or let go of their beliefs to go along with the liberal views.    If you want religious freedom with no criticism or lawsuits, covert to Islam and you will be untouchable.    Otherwise, prepare for a battle with the PC crowd.




Gays don't have to be wed in a church....nobody else does either. *A minister, a judge, a court clerk, or justices of the peace have authority to perform a marriage in most states and the wedding does not have to be held in a church.*


----------



## JakeStarkey

But a church has every right to be the place of wedding.


----------



## sealybobo

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?


They should not only be forced to accomodate gay weddings the members of the church should be forced to watch the honeymoon.


----------



## WorldWatcher

easyt65 said:


> 'Civil Unions' is the answer that would end all of this. A Civil Union, a non-religious union, between 2 people, recognized by a government for the purpose of receiving equal government-provided benefits. That is not good enough for the LGBT Liberal Socialists, though...they want to impose their will in regards to gay marriage as they have regarding abortions.



Actually it was the anti-LGBT crowd that was against Civil Unions.  A decade ago they were passing State Constitutional Amendments to ban not only Civil Marriage for same-sex couples but Civil Unions also.

It's only that now that same-sex Civil Marriage is a reality are suddenly "Civil Unions" suddenly an acceptable alternative.


Funny that...


>>>>


----------



## Syriusly

Clementine said:


> I suspect there is an effort underway by the fringe on the left to seek out and destroy all who refuse to obey the liberal rules..



I suspect that whacky far right Christians really, really believe that they are victims....when told they have to obey the same law as everyone else.


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> The Constitutional specifically provides for the protection of religious freedom and the EXERCSING of that religion.
> 
> Homosexuality and same-sex weddings are specifically against the christian religion, and the attempt to FORCE Christians to perform ceremonies in direct opposition to their faith is a violation of the Constitution.!



Well lets talk about that.

Divorce- and remarriage is specifically condemned by Christianity- unlike say homosexuality(Jesus never says a word about it) or 'same sex weddings'(not one word in the NT condemning them).

_And he said unto them, ‘Whoever shall put away hiswife, and marry another,commits adultery against her.’ Mk 10:11 _

Can Christians be 'forced' to allow non-Christians to divorce? Can a Christian judge deny a divorce to a Jewish couple- because it is against his own personal beliefs?


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> 'Civil Unions' is the answer that would end all of this. A Civil Union, a non-religious union, between 2 people, recognized by a government for the purpose of receiving equal government-provided benefits. That is not good enough for the LGBT Liberal Socialists, though...they want to impose their will in regards to gay marriage as they have regarding abortions.
> !



Gay Christian couples wanted to be able to be legally married- but Right Wing Conservatives acted to deny them their religious freedom to legally marry- because allowing Christians to legally marry according to their own religious values was not enough for the anti-LGBT Conservative Fascists- they went around passing laws to prevent both the legal marriage between Christian gay couples- but also 'civil unions' between Christian gay couples.

Because you wanted to deny them their religious freedom to marry.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And the millennials, all of whom can vote for the first time as a complete generation next year, are looking at the far right and thinking WTF?


----------



## Clementine

Syriusly said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect there is an effort underway by the fringe on the left to seek out and destroy all who refuse to obey the liberal rules..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that whacky far right Christians really, really believe that they are victims....when told they have to obey the same law as everyone else.
Click to expand...


Obama has set the precedent that no one should follow a law that they don't like.   He hates immigration laws and states get punished for following them.    If you want to preach about everyone following the same laws, talk to your idol.


----------



## Syriusly

Clementine said:


> At least for now, churches still have the right to refuse people. I suspect some are already working to change that since it's been stated that Christians need to change or let go of their beliefs to go along with the liberal views.    If you want religious freedom with no criticism or lawsuits, covert to Islam and you will be untouchable.    Otherwise, prepare for a battle with the PC crowd.



LOL.....what bullshit.

Muslims get protested against all of the time- far from Christians being the 'victims' in the United States- they are the ones most loudly trying to deny Muslims equal rights to religion. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?pagewanted=all

While a high-profile battle rages over a mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, heated confrontations have also broken out in communities across the country where mosques are proposed for far less hallowed locations.

In Murfreesboro, Tenn., arguments broke out over a planned Muslim center.

In Murfreesboro, Tenn., Republican candidates have denounced plans for a large Muslim center proposed near a subdivision, and hundreds of protesters have turned out for a march and a county meeting.

In late June, in Temecula, Calif., members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a vacant lot nearby.

In Sheboygan, Wis., a few Christian ministers led a noisy fight against a Muslim group that sought permission to open a mosque in a former health food store bought by a Muslim doctor.

At one time, neighbors who did not want mosques in their backyards said their concerns were over traffic, parking and noise — the same reasons they might object to a church or a synagogue. But now the gloves are off.

In all of the recent conflicts, opponents have said their problem is Islam itself. They quote passages from the Koran and argue that even the most Americanized Muslim secretly wants to replace the Constitution with Islamic Shariah law.

These local skirmishes make clear that there is now widespread debate about whether the best way to uphold America’s democratic values is to allow Muslims the same religious freedom enjoyed by other Americans, or to pull away the welcome mat from a faith seen as a singular threat.

“What’s different is the heat, the volume, the level of hostility,” said Ihsan Bagby, associate professor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky. “It’s one thing to oppose a mosque because traffic might increase, but it’s different when you say these mosques are going to be nurturing terrorist bombers, that Islam is invading, that civilization is being undermined by Muslims.”


----------



## Syriusly

Clementine said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect there is an effort underway by the fringe on the left to seek out and destroy all who refuse to obey the liberal rules..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that whacky far right Christians really, really believe that they are victims....when told they have to obey the same law as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama has set the precedent that no one should follow a law that they don't like.   He hates immigration laws and states get punished for following them.    If you want to preach about everyone following the same laws, talk to your idol.
Click to expand...


I suspect that whacky far right Christians really, really believe that they are victims....when told they have to obey the same law as everyone else


----------



## JakeStarkey

Clementine said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect there is an effort underway by the fringe on the left to seek out and destroy all who refuse to obey the liberal rules..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that whacky far right Christians really, really believe that they are victims....when told they have to obey the same law as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama has set the precedent that no one should follow a law that they don't like.   He hates immigration laws and states get punished for following them.    If you want to preach about everyone following the same laws, talk to your idol.
Click to expand...

You did not pass logic, obviously.


----------



## Campbell

Syriusly said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect there is an effort underway by the fringe on the left to seek out and destroy all who refuse to obey the liberal rules..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that whacky far right Christians really, really believe that they are victims....when told they have to obey the same law as everyone else.
Click to expand...


They never have been required to obey the same laws as everyone else. Think about it.....everything the church(a small business) costs is tax deductible from the time the land is purchased until the building is completed. Then every bit of maintenance or normal upkeep is tax deductible. Stained glass...tall steeples, oak and mahogany pews,  expensive musical instruments and sound systems....all tax deductible. Then....each penny which a member contributes is a tax write-off and basically anything coming or going is done tax free. The entire organization pays no local or national taxes. The members, less than half of them, show up on Sunday morning, listen to an hour of the preacher's personal selections then stop at the local Cracker Barrel for an hour and go home to feel good about themselves for another week.

The churches own more real property than anyone or anything except the government itself. *795 million people* in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That's about one in nine people on earth. For at least 15 years I was a member of the building committee, the budget committee and worked with several other church functions in a legitimate member of the Southern Baptist Convention. The world's churches....what a bloated, self indulging, conceited bunch of arrogant, egotistical humans.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The churchs' tax exemption should be ended.


----------



## dblack

JakeStarkey said:


> The churchs' tax exemption should be ended.



Agreed. And some religious leaders agree. They recognize the insidious nature of these kinds of "perks".


----------



## Campbell

dblack said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The churchs' tax exemption should be ended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. And some religious leaders agree. They recognize the insidious nature of these kinds of "perks".
Click to expand...


Yep....like religious retreats for pastors. The church pays for the preacher and his family and they pay for it with tax free contributions to the church. Actually....once you've been on the inside looking at records many of the things are nothing short of atrocious. The bottom line could easily be labeled corruption!


----------



## Freewill

JakeStarkey said:


> Bonzi, it depends on your state's accomodation laws.



WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  You are now going to pretend this is a state's rights issue after all the states were told to go to hell by the SCOTUS.  Really RW, come on.


----------



## Freewill

dblack said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The churchs' tax exemption should be ended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. And some religious leaders agree. They recognize the insidious nature of these kinds of "perks".
Click to expand...


Yeah, insidious "perks" that are in compliance with the COTUS.

But if you were able to it would mostly effect black churches so we can see the reasoning.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Freewill said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi, it depends on your state's accomodation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  You are now going to pretend this is a state's rights issue after all the states were told to go to hell by the SCOTUS.  Really RW, come on.
Click to expand...

Two different issues, kid.  You know that, Kush.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Freewill said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The churchs' tax exemption should be ended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. And some religious leaders agree. They recognize the insidious nature of these kinds of "perks".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, insidious "perks" that are in compliance with the COTUS.
> 
> But if you were able to it would mostly *effect *black churches so we can see the reasoning.
Click to expand...

At least their pastors write grammatically much better than you.  All churches should give up tax exempt status.  The pastors would cry a Nile.


----------



## Silhouette

Freewill said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi, it depends on your state's accomodation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  You are now going to pretend this is a state's rights issue after all the states were told to go to hell by the SCOTUS.  Really RW, come on.
Click to expand...

 Yes, this Kim Davis thing is going to SCOTUS.  And you'd better bet the Fumbling Five are squirming in their seats about it, while the other four are grinning ear to ear.


----------



## JakeStarkey

It's been to SCOTUS, Sil: they won't hear it.

Any appeal will be upheld by the CCA, appealed to SCOTUS, who again will let the ruling stand.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi, it depends on your state's accomodation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  You are now going to pretend this is a state's rights issue after all the states were told to go to hell by the SCOTUS.  Really RW, come on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, this Kim Davis thing is going to SCOTUS.  And you'd better bet the Fumbling Five are squirming in their seats about it, while the other four are grinning ear to ear.
Click to expand...


Her appeal for a stay request already went to the 6th Circuit Court, the source court that had upheld SSCM bans resulting in the SCOTUS Obergefell ruling.

Then she appeal for a stay from the SCOTUS itself.

In both cases she was denied.


>>>>


----------



## dblack

Campbell said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The churchs' tax exemption should be ended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. And some religious leaders agree. They recognize the insidious nature of these kinds of "perks".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep....like religious retreats for pastors. The church pays for the preacher and his family and they pay for it with tax free contributions to the church. Actually....once you've been on the inside looking at records many of the things are nothing short of atrocious. The bottom line could easily be labeled corruption!
Click to expand...


I was actually referring to the insidious nature of accepting perks from the government. There are strings attached, strings we see every time religious leaders step out of line and the government threatens to revoke their tax exempt status.

The First Amendment was ratified to keep government from having power over religion. By turning it inside out, and using it as an excuse to grant religions special perks and exemptions, federal and state governments have achieved the opposite effect.


----------



## JakeStarkey

People with religious values, like those with secular values, are always going to lobby the government.


----------



## Wildman

*just looking at the latest insanity from the libertards.., nothing has changed, if qweers want a church wedding let them build their own churches with SATAN...., their god as high priest!! *


----------



## dblack

Wildman said:


> *just looking at the latest insanity from the libertards.., nothing has changed, if qweers want a church wedding let them build their own churches with SATAN...., their god as high priest!! *



Those are bold words. Or bold text, anyway.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> But individuals don't enjoy the right to exercise freedom of religious beliefs.  Only gatherings of them in a building do.  Just like the Constitution says.  And if it doesn't say that, don't worry, Justice Kennedy and pals are getting their quills sharpened to make the necessary changes, just like is their charge to do as the Judicial branch of government...
> 
> BTW, a fundamental structural change to marriage rendering kids in it fatherless or motherless IS NOT the same as the interracial marriage issue.  LGBTs are now striving to make it the same as a defensive move and framing their argument for why Christians "must be forced" to participate in gay sex weddings.  They're calling sex (a verb) a noun and passing it off that way, hoping nobody will notice.
> 
> 
> 
> And now a woman sits in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.
Click to expand...


She's in jail because she used State power to force people to obey her religion. That's a strict 1st amendment violation as its State establishment of religion. 

And no church is required to perform any wedding. Remember, words have meanings. People aren't churches. And county clerk's office isn't a church. 

Very little has changed. You're still just making up pseudo-legal gibberish as it suits your argument. And its still just as irrelevant to the law as it always was.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Let's be very clear.

Kim Davis is the victimizer.

The gay couples are her victims.


----------



## Syriusly

Freewill said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi, it depends on your state's accomodation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  You are now going to pretend this is a state's rights issue after all the states were told to go to hell by the SCOTUS.  Really RW, come on.
Click to expand...


You really don't have any idea what Public Accomodation laws are- do you?


----------



## Syriusly

Wildman said:


> *just looking at the latest insanity from the libertards.., nothing has changed, if qweers want a church wedding let them build their own churches with SATAN...., their god as high priest!! *



Tell us more about your close and personal friend Satan.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi, it depends on your state's accomodation laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  You are now going to pretend this is a state's rights issue after all the states were told to go to hell by the SCOTUS.  Really RW, come on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, this Kim Davis thing is going to SCOTUS.  And you'd better bet the Fumbling Five are squirming in their seats about it, while the other four are grinning ear to ear.
Click to expand...


Silhouette manages to make a prediction about something that has already happened.....and she even gets predictions about past events wrong.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Wildman said:


> *just looking at the latest insanity from the libertards.., nothing has changed, if qweers want a church wedding let them build their own churches with SATAN...., their god as high priest!! *



Why would they need to build there own Churches there are plenty of Christian Churches at accept gay people and will perform same-sex weddings?


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

Safety in numbers and denial isn't going to change that she was jailed for her religious convictions.  Take comfort while you can...


----------



## Jarlaxle

mdk said:


> 80% of the people in this poll support the recriminalization of sexual acts between homosexuals. lol



No, that's a lie.


----------



## mdk

Jarlaxle said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of the people in this poll support the recriminalization of sexual acts between homosexuals. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's a lie.
Click to expand...


Of course it is a lie. Sil makes all sorts of findings up for this poll so I thought I would join in on the madness.


----------



## JakeStarkey

90% of the Board believes that Sil's writings should be prosecuted under liberl law.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> 90% of the Board believes that Sil's writings should be prosecuted under liberl law.


 That's not how they're voting on the polls though, is it?


----------



## Jarlaxle

JakeStarkey said:


> 90% of the Board believes that Sil's writings should be prosecuted under liberl law.



No, that's another lie!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jarlaxle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 90% of the Board believes that Sil's writings should be prosecuted under libel law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's another lie!
Click to expand...

No, it's not!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 90% of the Board believes that Sil's writings should be prosecuted under liberl law.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not how they're voting on the polls though, is it?
Click to expand...

They agree with the law, as it is, that churches should not have to marriages they don't want to do.  Almost all of us agree on that.  You, on the other hand, are in the shrinking minority of those who want to prevent Marriage Equality, and you will lie about it to get your way.  And you will continue to fail.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> *They agree with the law, as it is, that churches should not have to marriages they don't want to do*.  Almost all of us agree on that.  You, on the other hand, are in the shrinking minority of those who want to prevent Marriage Equality, and you will lie about it to get your way.  And you will continue to fail.


 What are churches made up of?  They're made up of people like Kim Davis.

Oopsies...

How may of the 82% here that are adamantly opposed to gays forcing "churches" (buildings, parking lot, pavement, pews, stained glass) to accomodate gay marriage would you suppose are IN favor of Kim Davis going to jail for not wanting to accomodate gay weddings? 

Would you say half of them?  3/4s?  11/12ths?


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have no idea, Sil, as usual.  3/4 of folks polled in KY said she should have issued the licenses.  I don't think she shold have been in jail.  She should have been fined and all donations for her financial relief confiscated.


----------



## Geaux4it

Why confiscate donations made to her?

-Geaux


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> You have no idea, Sil, as usual. 3/4 of folks polled in KY said she should have issued the licenses. I don't think she shold have been in jail. She should have been fined and all donations for her financial relief confiscated.





Geaux4it said:


> Why confiscate donations made to her?
> 
> -Geaux


 
Because that's what gestapos do.  Then they infiltrate the youth to groom a new generation utterly loyal to the cause.  We've seen this all before  *yawn*...

The only thing the guy in my signature is missing is a swastika.  He's already got the podium, the lunatic ranting and the jackboots down to a science..  The shit stains between his legs is a new twist.   Nice to see that sort of "pride" floating down main street where kids and old people are walking by..


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil will not be allowed to succeed in grooming the unwary to her pernicious ways.  Siloser, just a fact.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil will not be allowed to succeed in grooming the unwary to her pernicious ways.  Siloser, just a fact.


 
Grooming the unwary?  You mean the majority who disagrees with what SCOTUS did June 2015?


----------



## Debra K

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil will not be allowed to succeed in grooming the unwary to her pernicious ways.  Siloser, just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grooming the unwary?  You mean the majority who disagrees with what SCOTUS did June 2015?
Click to expand...


You mean a small vocal minority who do not understand the meaning of a constitutional republic and the rule of law.


----------



## Silhouette

Debra K said:


> You mean a small vocal minority who do not understand the meaning of a constitutional republic and the rule of law.


 
A constitutional republic abides by the Constitution.  When you get a minute, read the 1st and 9th Amendments...


----------



## Derideo_Te

Silhouette said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a small vocal minority who do not understand the meaning of a constitutional republic and the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A constitutional republic abides by the Constitution.  When you get a minute, read the 1st and 9th Amendments...
Click to expand...


The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Debra K said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil will not be allowed to succeed in grooming the unwary to her pernicious ways.  Siloser, just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grooming the unwary?  You mean the majority who disagrees with what SCOTUS did June 2015?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean a small vocal minority who do not understand the meaning of a constitutional republic and the rule of law.
Click to expand...

Sil is trying to use that "smal vocal minority" to groom the unwary to not understand and to despise constiutional process.


----------



## Silhouette

Derideo_Te said:


> The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.


 Behaviors aren't a minority.  Try again.


----------



## dblack

Derideo_Te said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a small vocal minority who do not understand the meaning of a constitutional republic and the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A constitutional republic abides by the Constitution.  When you get a minute, read the 1st and 9th Amendments...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.
Click to expand...


By most surveys, homophobes are a minority. Hmmm.


----------



## kaz

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a small vocal minority who do not understand the meaning of a constitutional republic and the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A constitutional republic abides by the Constitution.  When you get a minute, read the 1st and 9th Amendments...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By most surveys, homophobes are a minority. Hmmm.
Click to expand...


yes, there are far more Democrats who exploit bigotry at this point then there are bigots, and the bigots are pretty evenly distributed in the parties.

Democrats actually revel in their economic bigotry and wealth envy


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> Behaviors aren't a minority.  Try again.


That was not the argument.  That was only your mischaracterization of the argument.


----------



## mdk

Days Since a U.S. Church was Forced to Marry Any Couple Against Their Wishes:


----------



## JakeStarkey

Almost all folks believe that government should tell churches who can be married by their officials.

The great majority of people believe that marriage equality should be the law of the land.

Time to take this thread down.


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a small vocal minority who do not understand the meaning of a constitutional republic and the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A constitutional republic abides by the Constitution.  When you get a minute, read the 1st and 9th Amendments...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By most surveys, homophobes are a minority. Hmmm.
Click to expand...


By most surveys, all bigots are a minority (except in the south). Some, like bigoted Christians, are even a protected minority...


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a small vocal minority who do not understand the meaning of a constitutional republic and the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A constitutional republic abides by the Constitution.  When you get a minute, read the 1st and 9th Amendments...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By most surveys, homophobes are a minority. Hmmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By most surveys, all bigots are a minority (except in the south). Some, like bigoted Christians, are even a protected minority...
Click to expand...


That's where we are. Special protections trumping equal rights.


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a small vocal minority who do not understand the meaning of a constitutional republic and the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A constitutional republic abides by the Constitution.  When you get a minute, read the 1st and 9th Amendments...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By most surveys, homophobes are a minority. Hmmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By most surveys, all bigots are a minority (except in the south). Some, like bigoted Christians, are even a protected minority...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where we are. Special protections trumping equal rights.
Click to expand...


Yes, we know how you feel about PA laws...what are you DOING about them?


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> A constitutional republic abides by the Constitution.  When you get a minute, read the 1st and 9th Amendments...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By most surveys, homophobes are a minority. Hmmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By most surveys, all bigots are a minority (except in the south). Some, like bigoted Christians, are even a protected minority...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where we are. Special protections trumping equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we know how you feel about PA laws...what are you DOING about them?
Click to expand...


Try to raise awareness among people who think about such things.


----------



## dblack

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By most surveys, homophobes are a minority. Hmmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By most surveys, all bigots are a minority (except in the south). Some, like bigoted Christians, are even a protected minority...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where we are. Special protections trumping equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we know how you feel about PA laws...what are you DOING about them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to raise awareness among people who think about such things.
Click to expand...


BTW, you always ask that question as though it's some kind of trump card. What is it that you think it implies or proves?


----------



## Seawytch

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> By most surveys, homophobes are a minority. Hmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By most surveys, all bigots are a minority (except in the south). Some, like bigoted Christians, are even a protected minority...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where we are. Special protections trumping equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we know how you feel about PA laws...what are you DOING about them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to raise awareness among people who think about such things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, you always ask that question as though it's some kind of trump card. What is it that you think it implies or proves?
Click to expand...


It proves that a lot of people bitch about the PA laws but NOBODY is doing a damn thing about them...except trying to get carve outs for anti gay bigotry. 

It's also really easy to say we don't need anti discrimination laws when you're not being discriminated against.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Days Since a U.S. Church was Forced to Marry Any Couple Against Their Wishes:
> 
> View attachment 50182


 
I've been to a few weddings in my day, but I've never seen one where a building presided over them.  I have seen individual Christians performing them though.  Is that what you mean by "church"?

If that's the case, we just had a "church" jailed the other day for refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Days Since a U.S. Church was Forced to Marry Any Couple Against Their Wishes:
> 
> View attachment 50182
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been to a few weddings in my day, but I've never seen one where a building presided over them.  I have seen individual Christians performing them though.  Is that what you mean by "church"?
> 
> If that's the case, we just had a "church" jailed the other day for refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.
Click to expand...


No, that is what _you_ mean by church. How many times to do you have to make this foolish argument despite its obvious flaws? People are not churches. Don't believe me? Stop paying taxes and claim that as a church you are exempt. When you get jailed for tax evasion be sure claim your religious freedoms are being violated, idiots gobble that shit up.  All the best.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> No, that is what _you_ mean by church. How many times to do you have to make this foolish argument despite its obvious flaws? People are not churches. Don't believe me? Stop paying taxes and claim that as a church you are exempt. When you get jailed for tax evasion be sure claim your religious freedoms are being violated, idiots gobble that shit up.  All the best.


 
Oh, you mean tax breaks...for the organization of individual Christians.  Or a building?  What is an organization of individual Christians made up of again?

Will your "tax break status" be the litmus test of whether or not individual Christians enjoy 1st Amendment protections to be able to passively not participated in committing a mortal sin?

"Your honors, Christians only enjoy 1st Amendment protections when assembled in a group. Outside that we can require them to abdicate their mortal mandates to passively resist us if we want to force them to defy the warnings of mortal sin."


...which is the same thing as saying PA laws now dominate the 1st Amendment...then along came the 9th Amendment and rained on your little gay pride cult parade...


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is what _you_ mean by church. How many times to do you have to make this foolish argument despite its obvious flaws? People are not churches. Don't believe me? Stop paying taxes and claim that as a church you are exempt. When you get jailed for tax evasion be sure claim your religious freedoms are being violated, idiots gobble that shit up.  All the best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean tax breaks...for the organization of individual Christians.  Or a building?  What is an organization of individual Christians made up of again?
> 
> Will your "tax break status" be the litmus test of whether or not individual Christians enjoy 1st Amendment protections to be able to passively not participated in committing a mortal sin?
> 
> "Your honors, Christians only enjoy 1st Amendment protections when assembled in a group. Outside that we can require them to abdicate their mortal mandates to passively resist us if we want to force them to defy the warnings of mortal sin."
Click to expand...


"Your honor, if it pleases the court, I get to pick and choose whatever law I wish to follow on the basis of my faith. I don't even recognize this court as I only answer to God's authority. Your honor, please also take into account that I don't know what the fuck I am talking about" 

Let me make this very plain, not a single church has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes in this nation. Not one. My litmus test is the law not whatever legal gibberish and bullshit you make up as you go along.


----------



## Arizona Willie

Churches --- NO

State clerks --- YES


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Let me make this very plain, not a single church has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes in this nation. Not one. My litmus test is the law not whatever legal gibberish and bullshit you make up as you go along.


 
Let me make this very plain, a Christian, who makes up a church, was JUST JAILED A FEW DAYS AGO for not accomodating a "gay marraige".

Your freaky-fuck cult didn't waste even a quarter of a year before they pressured a judge into jailing a Christian for failing to bow properly at their rainbow altar.  Hitler did similar things in the early days.

Do you suppose the SCOTUS would've ruled differently if it had known in June that before the leaves fell off the trees of the SAME YEAR, that your cult would be throwing a Christian in jail for passively refusing to bow at your altar?


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make this very plain, not a single church has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes in this nation. Not one. My litmus test is the law not whatever legal gibberish and bullshit you make up as you go along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make this very plain, a Christian, who makes up a church, was JUST JAILED A FEW DAYS AGO for not accomodating a "gay marraige".
Click to expand...


Cute story, individual people are still not churches. This is the same sovereign citizen nonsense you trot out every couple months but with a religious twist. All she had to do was allow a deputy in her office to issue the license and she would have been accommodated. Davis believes her name on the paper, whether she signs it or not, is tantamount to an endorsement. Using that stupid logic she endorsed every single marriage and divorce that came through her office whether it was Biblically sanction or not. Either way, gays and straights are presently getting married Rowan County.


Remember, humanity depends on Kim Davis' case.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Behaviors aren't a minority.  Try again.
Click to expand...


Sure they are. Religion is behavior...and the basis of being a minority. Political advocacy is a behavior....and the basis of being a minority. 

Your argument that behaviors can't be the basis of rights is steaming horseshit. Assembly is a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior. Speech is a behavior. And they're all protected. 

Obliterating your latest piece of pseudo-legal nonsense.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make this very plain, not a single church has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes in this nation. Not one. My litmus test is the law not whatever legal gibberish and bullshit you make up as you go along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make this very plain, a Christian, who makes up a church, was JUST JAILED A FEW DAYS AGO for not accomodating a "gay marraige".
Click to expand...


Kim Davis is not a church.

Ending your entire argument.


----------



## WorldWatcher

>

White men can marry.

Black women can marry.


White man wants to marry a black woman, that is a behavior.  Yep, behaviors are covered.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> >
> 
> White men can marry.
> 
> Black women can marry.
> 
> 
> White man wants to marry a black woman, that is a behavior.  Yep, behaviors are covered


 Nope, men and women aren't behaviors.  Gay sex is though.  And gay sex isn't "a racial issue".


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> >
> 
> White men can marry.
> 
> Black women can marry.
> 
> 
> White man wants to marry a black woman, that is a behavior.  Yep, behaviors are covered
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, men and women aren't behaviors.  Gay sex is though.  And gay sex isn't "a racial issue".
Click to expand...


A white men wanting to marry a black woman, sure are behaviors.

As such white men can be limited to marrying white woman and black men to marrying black women.


Ohhh - wait a minute that behavior is protected.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> A white men wanting to marry a black woman, sure are behaviors.
> 
> As such white men can be limited to marrying white woman and black men to marrying black women.


 
OK, I'll dance with your strawman for awhile...

..So you say a white man wanting to marry a black woman is a behavior.  Would you also say a brother wanting to marry a sister is a behavior?  Also, how about a man wanting to marry 6 wives...is that a behavior also according to your tangent?

Then how would you deny brothers marrying sisters or a man marrying 6 wives?  And please refrain from using the words "icky" or "socially unacceptable" or "just plain wrong"...words to that effect.  Because those same phrases could be used to describe ass-sex marrying and playing "mom and dad" to kids who ultimately know better.

So, why do just "gay" special deviant behaviors get the legal red carpet while the others are locked out?

Let me speed this up a bit.  I'll answer for you using the only possible answer after logical deduction:  According to the very loopholes you cite in the 14th to declare "gay marriage is legal in all 50 states" is the very same argument any incest or polygamy marriage could argue.

Ergo, polygamy and incest marriage...and any other conceivable behavior marriage is NOW ALREADY LEGAL.  I cite the word "equality" in emphatically declaring this is so.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A white men wanting to marry a black woman, sure are behaviors.
> 
> As such white men can be limited to marrying white woman and black men to marrying black women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I'll dance with your strawman for awhile...
> 
> ..So you say a white man wanting to marry a black woman is a behavior.  Would you also say a brother wanting to marry a sister is a behavior?  Also, how about a man wanting to marry 6 wives...is that a behavior also according to your tangent?
Click to expand...


Would you say that speech is a behavior? That practicing religion is a behavior? That bearing arms is a behavior?

Your entire premise that 'behaviors' aren't protected under the constitution is obviously wrong. Remember, Sil.....you simply don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Would you say that speech is a behavior? That practicing religion is a behavior? That bearing arms is a behavior?
> 
> Your entire premise that 'behaviors' aren't protected under the constitution is obviously wrong. Remember, Sil.....you simply don't know what you're talking about.


That wasn't the question oh artful dodger...

...the question was: which behaviors would you or could you, or anyone else exclude from marriage now legally?

And it's even more important twin question:

"Who would decide that and why?"


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say that speech is a behavior? That practicing religion is a behavior? That bearing arms is a behavior?
> 
> Your entire premise that 'behaviors' aren't protected under the constitution is obviously wrong. Remember, Sil.....you simply don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question oh artful dodger...
Click to expand...


That behaviors aren't constitutionaly protected was the basis of your silly argument.

Its nonsense. There are a litany of behaviors that are protected. You simply don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> That behaviors aren't constitutionaly protected was the basis of your silly argument.
> 
> Its nonsense. There are a litany of behaviors that are protected. You simply don't know what you're talking about.


Are polygamy and incest marriage legal now Skylar, if "equality" was the basis for mandating gay marriage?  (remember, we are talking about behaviors getting rights here)

Take your time...it's OK, we all know the answer to the question because there is only one answer possible.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Silhouette said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Behaviors aren't a minority.  Try again.
Click to expand...


The SCOTUS proved you wrong.


----------



## Derideo_Te

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a small vocal minority who do not understand the meaning of a constitutional republic and the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A constitutional republic abides by the Constitution.  When you get a minute, read the 1st and 9th Amendments...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By most surveys, homophobes are a minority. Hmmm.
Click to expand...


Who is denying homophobes their right to express their anger, hatred and bigotry?


----------



## dblack

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> By most surveys, all bigots are a minority (except in the south). Some, like bigoted Christians, are even a protected minority...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's where we are. Special protections trumping equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we know how you feel about PA laws...what are you DOING about them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to raise awareness among people who think about such things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, you always ask that question as though it's some kind of trump card. What is it that you think it implies or proves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves that a lot of people bitch about the PA laws but NOBODY is doing a damn thing about them...except trying to get carve outs for anti gay bigotry.
Click to expand...


Special carve outs follow the same corporatist principles that PA laws are based on, and they're just as wrong.

"Bitching" about things that we think are wrong, or rather discussing them with others and building consensus, is the first step in solving any societal problem. Right now, there is very little awareness or understanding of the problems I'm pointing out. Most people have a hard time seeing beyond personal circumstance and the daily headlines. Pretty much any important social change starts with people bitching about something.


----------



## dblack

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a small vocal minority who do not understand the meaning of a constitutional republic and the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A constitutional republic abides by the Constitution.  When you get a minute, read the 1st and 9th Amendments...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By most surveys, homophobes are a minority. Hmmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is denying homophobes their right to express their anger, hatred and bigotry?
Click to expand...


Do you care? I mean, does it really matter _who_ is suppressing their rights? Or are you just trying to suggest that people shouldn't have the right to express anger, hatred and bigotry?


----------



## Silhouette

*Notices Skylar didn't respond*



Skylar said:


> That behaviors aren't constitutionaly protected was the basis of your silly argument.
> 
> Its nonsense. There are a litany of behaviors that are protected. You simply don't know what you're talking about.





Silhouette said:


> Are polygamy and incest marriage legal now Skylar, if "equality" was the basis for mandating gay marriage?  (remember, we are talking about behaviors getting rights here)
> 
> Take your time...it's OK, we all know the answer to the question because there is only one answer possible.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> *Notices Skylar didn't respond*
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> That behaviors aren't constitutionaly protected was the basis of your silly argument.
> 
> Its nonsense. There are a litany of behaviors that are protected. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are polygamy and incest marriage legal now Skylar, if "equality" was the basis for mandating gay marriage?  (remember, we are talking about behaviors getting rights here)
> 
> Take your time...it's OK, we all know the answer to the question because there is only one answer possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Who says that polygamy and incest are legal? You do, citing yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about. 

Remember, all the pseudo-legal gibberish that you insist all of these cases hinge on.....is never even mentioned in court. As your gibberish has nothing to do with the law.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They agree with the law, as it is, that churches should not have to marriages they don't want to do*.  Almost all of us agree on that.  You, on the other hand, are in the shrinking minority of those who want to prevent Marriage Equality, and you will lie about it to get your way.  And you will continue to fail.
> 
> 
> 
> What are churches made up of?  They're made up of people like Kim Davis.
Click to expand...


Why do you think that churches are made up of people like Kim Davis who refuse to follow the New Testaments clear instructions to follow the law- and obey authority?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say that speech is a behavior? That practicing religion is a behavior? That bearing arms is a behavior?
> 
> Your entire premise that 'behaviors' aren't protected under the constitution is obviously wrong. Remember, Sil.....you simply don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question oh artful dodger...
> 
> ...the question was: which behaviors would you or could you, or anyone else exclude from marriage now legally?
> 
> And it's even more important twin question:
> 
> "Who would decide that and why?"
Click to expand...


Behaviors are not included or excluded from marriage- people are.

You are the one who keeps arguing about marriage and behavior- not the courts. 

The courts have said that States cannot deny a mixed race couple marriage. And the courts have said that the States cannot deny a same gender couple marriage.

And the courts explained why- and it had nothing to do with 'behavior'.

And why you insist on taking your own thread off topic- again- I don't know.

No one is forcing any church to marry anyone.

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 11 years now- still no churches being forced to marry anyone.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> That behaviors aren't constitutionaly protected was the basis of your silly argument.
> 
> Its nonsense. There are a litany of behaviors that are protected. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Are polygamy and incest marriage legal now Skylar,
Click to expand...


No.

How do we know this?

Because 
a) There are laws against polygamous and incestuous marriages on the books and
b) No court has overturned such laws.

If you believe that you have the right to now marry your sister- you can pursue that claim.

You have to convince a court to take your case- and then the State has to make a convincing argument as to why the State prevents you from marrying your sister. 

IF you cannot think of a valid reason why the State would prevent you from marrying your sister- then your problem is that you can't think of any reason why siblings should not marry- not with gays being able to marry.


----------



## kaz

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> >
> 
> White men can marry.
> 
> Black women can marry.
> 
> 
> White man wants to marry a black woman, that is a behavior.  Yep, behaviors are covered
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, men and women aren't behaviors.  Gay sex is though.  And gay sex isn't "a racial issue".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A white men wanting to marry a black woman, sure are behaviors.
> 
> As such white men can be limited to marrying white woman and black men to marrying black women.
> 
> 
> Ohhh - wait a minute that behavior is protected.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Yes, being black changed who you could marry for all blacks.  Being gay changed who you could marry for zero gays.  That's why race rules actually violated the Constitution and gay don't.  Buy hey, getting judges to be dictators is easy, they love doing that


----------



## JakeStarkey

Syriusly said:


> Why do you think that churches are made up of people like Kim Davis who refuse to follow the New Testaments clear instructions to follow the law- and obey authority?


Kim was a serial monogamist and an adulteress as well, I suspect.  She was not following NT instruction on those either.


----------



## JakeStarkey

This is the stupidest statement of the days so far: "Being gay changed who you could marry for zero gays."  Is is also a lie.


----------



## Derideo_Te

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a small vocal minority who do not understand the meaning of a constitutional republic and the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A constitutional republic abides by the Constitution.  When you get a minute, read the 1st and 9th Amendments...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By most surveys, homophobes are a minority. Hmmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is denying homophobes their right to express their anger, hatred and bigotry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you care? I mean, does it really matter _who_ is suppressing their rights? Or are you just trying to suggest that people shouldn't have the right to express anger, hatred and bigotry?
Click to expand...


Since my superpowers don't include mind reading why don't you get back to us when you have figured out what it is you are trying to communicate?


----------



## Syriusly

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> >
> 
> White men can marry.
> 
> Black women can marry.
> 
> 
> White man wants to marry a black woman, that is a behavior.  Yep, behaviors are covered
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, men and women aren't behaviors.  Gay sex is though.  And gay sex isn't "a racial issue".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A white men wanting to marry a black woman, sure are behaviors.
> 
> As such white men can be limited to marrying white woman and black men to marrying black women.
> 
> 
> Ohhh - wait a minute that behavior is protected.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, being black changed who you could marry for all blacks.  Being gay changed who you could marry for zero gays.  That's why race rules actually violated the Constitution and gay don't.  Buy hey, getting judges to be dictators is easy, they love doing that
Click to expand...


Kaz changes the subject at will. 

Silhouette was arguing that 'behavior' cannot be protected- and it was pointed out that marriage is a behavior.

Meanwhile- the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for States to prevent same gender couples from marrying- just as the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for States to prevent opposite race couples from marrying.

Same rational- different circumstances.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> >
> 
> White men can marry.
> 
> Black women can marry.
> 
> 
> White man wants to marry a black woman, that is a behavior.  Yep, behaviors are covered
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, men and women aren't behaviors.  Gay sex is though.  And gay sex isn't "a racial issue".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A white men wanting to marry a black woman, sure are behaviors.
> 
> As such white men can be limited to marrying white woman and black men to marrying black women.
> 
> 
> Ohhh - wait a minute that behavior is protected.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, being black changed who you could marry for all blacks.  Being gay changed who you could marry for zero gays.  That's why race rules actually violated the Constitution and gay don't.  Buy hey, getting judges to be dictators is easy, they love doing that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kaz changes the subject at will.
> 
> Silhouette was arguing that 'behavior' cannot be protected- and it was pointed out that marriage is a behavior.
> 
> Meanwhile- the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for States to prevent same gender couples from marrying- just as the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for States to prevent opposite race couples from marrying.
> 
> Same rational- different circumstances.
Click to expand...

Yepp.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## JakeStarkey

"A Christian woman sitting in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding" is a mischaracterization.

She actively refused to offer her government services to all who qualified.

She can be charged with theft of services.


----------



## Statistikhengst

JakeStarkey said:


> "A Christian woman sitting in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding" is a mischaracterization.
> 
> She actively refused to offer her government services to all who qualified.
> 
> She can be charged with theft of services.


Yepp.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> "A Christian woman sitting in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding" is a mischaracterization.
> 
> She actively refused to offer her government services to all who qualified.
> 
> She can be charged with theft of services.


Did she beat anyone up?  Did she chop off any hands?  Did she scream "Get out of my office you f-ing DYKES!"?  No?

Then her refusal was passive and her 1st Amendment right.  Public accomodation vs the 1st Amendment and the 9th Amendment.  It's like getting ready to watch a boxing match between a little preschool girl and Nicolai Valuev...she may be able to run around and nibble on his kneecaps at first, but when the real punching starts and the dancing ends it's going to be a bloodbath.


----------



## Derideo_Te

JakeStarkey said:


> "A Christian woman sitting in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding" is a mischaracterization.
> 
> She actively refused to offer her government services to all who qualified.
> 
> She can be charged with theft of services.



Technically she can be charged with failure to provide services for which she was responsible and accountable to provide.


----------



## kaz

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean a small vocal minority who do not understand the meaning of a constitutional republic and the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A constitutional republic abides by the Constitution.  When you get a minute, read the 1st and 9th Amendments...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By most surveys, homophobes are a minority. Hmmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is denying homophobes their right to express their anger, hatred and bigotry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you care? I mean, does it really matter _who_ is suppressing their rights? Or are you just trying to suggest that people shouldn't have the right to express anger, hatred and bigotry?
Click to expand...


Speaking against liberalism is anger, hatred and bigotry, it should be illegal


----------



## Silhouette

kaz said:


> Speaking against liberalism is anger, hatred and bigotry, it should be illegal


 You're being sarcastic, right?


----------



## kaz

Silhouette said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking against liberalism is anger, hatred and bigotry, it should be illegal
> 
> 
> 
> You're being sarcastic, right?
Click to expand...


yes


----------



## beagle9

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights.   I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion.  So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not.  I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can fuck children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?
Click to expand...

You used Warren Jeff's molesting of children in an argument that your losing and have now resorted to desperation on ? How low can you go ??? So sad, but it is a tactic that to many fools have since fallen for, and that is even more sadder than them all.


----------



## mdk

beagle9 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights.   I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion.  So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not.  I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can fuck children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You used Warren Jeff's molesting of children in an argument that your losing and have now resorted to desperation on ? How low can you go ??? So sad, but it is a tactic that to many fools have since fallen for, and that is even more sadder than them all.
Click to expand...


Oh cry me a river. It was used as an example of the silliness of claiming to be above the law and having to answer only to one's deeply held religious beliefs. An argument I am losing!? Too funny. Not a single church has been forced to marry any couple and gays are marrying Rowan County. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word _losing_.


----------



## beagle9

Derideo_Te said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A Christian woman sitting in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding" is a mischaracterization.
> 
> She actively refused to offer her government services to all who qualified.
> 
> She can be charged with theft of services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically she can be charged with failure to provide services for which she was responsible and accountable to provide.
Click to expand...

The government changing up the game after 100's of years, and therefore making the good citizens as criminals today is what has gone bad now, but I say enjoy it while it last, because it won't last much longer I don't think.. People will get a belly full of this bull, and they will see that it was foolishness that they have been led into believing now.


----------



## beagle9

mdk said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights.   I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion.  So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not.  I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can fuck children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You used Warren Jeff's molesting of children in an argument that your losing and have now resorted to desperation on ? How low can you go ??? So sad, but it is a tactic that to many fools have since fallen for, and that is even more sadder than them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh cry me a river. It was used as an example of the silliness of claiming to be above the law and having to answer only to one's deeply held religious beliefs. An argument I am losing!? Too funny. Not a single church has been forced to marry any couple and gays are marrying Rowan County. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word _losing_.
Click to expand...

The definition of losing is when you resort to such that your resorted to, and that my friend is the purest definition of the word losing..


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A Christian woman sitting in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding" is a mischaracterization.
> 
> She actively refused to offer her government services to all who qualified.
> 
> She can be charged with theft of services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically she can be charged with failure to provide services for which she was responsible and accountable to provide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government changing up the game after 100's of years, and therefore making the good citizens as criminals today is what has gone bad now, but I say enjoy it while it last, because it won't last much longer I don't think.. People will get a belly full of this bull, and they will see that it was foolishness that they have been led into believing now.
Click to expand...

America supports equal access and due process to government services.

America does not support servants using the Bible rather than the law in figuring out the performance of their duties.


----------



## mdk

beagle9 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights.   I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion.  So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not.  I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can fuck children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You used Warren Jeff's molesting of children in an argument that your losing and have now resorted to desperation on ? How low can you go ??? So sad, but it is a tactic that to many fools have since fallen for, and that is even more sadder than them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh cry me a river. It was used as an example of the silliness of claiming to be above the law and having to answer only to one's deeply held religious beliefs. An argument I am losing!? Too funny. Not a single church has been forced to marry any couple and gays are marrying Rowan County. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word _losing_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition of losing is when you resort to such that your resorted to, and that my friend is the purest definition of the word losing..
Click to expand...


Whatever dude. Save the haughty outrage for someone that gives a shit.

I notice you don't cry and whine about the constant lies of Sil in this thread. Making a point using an extreme example is out of bounds but lying through your teeth isn't worthy of mention. Spare me.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say that speech is a behavior? That practicing religion is a behavior? That bearing arms is a behavior?
> 
> Your entire premise that 'behaviors' aren't protected under the constitution is obviously wrong. Remember, Sil.....you simply don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question oh artful dodger...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That behaviors aren't constitutionaly protected was the basis of your silly argument.
> 
> Its nonsense. There are a litany of behaviors that are protected. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


No, she DOES...she is simply dishonest about it.


----------



## Silhouette

beagle9 said:


> People will get a belly full of this bull, and they will see that it was foolishness that they have been led into believing now.


 

You mean these guys weren't "born that way" as a race of people?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil keeps insisting that LGBT is a race of people?

The issue is about the right to marriage, nothing else.  That is how the courts see it.


----------



## Geaux4it

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil keeps insisting that LGBT is a race of people?
> 
> The issue is about the right to marriage, nothing else.  That is how the courts see it.



The courts are not being debated here.

The difference between right and wrong is

The courts are far from perfect

-Geaux


----------



## JakeStarkey

Geaux4it said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil keeps insisting that LGBT is a race of people?
> 
> The issue is about the right to marriage, nothing else.  That is how the courts see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts are not being debated here.
> 
> The difference between right and wrong is
> 
> The courts are far from perfect
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

You are wrong, as usual, if that is the issue.  And the OP is about whether churches should forced to accomodate LGBT marriage.


----------



## Derideo_Te

beagle9 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A Christian woman sitting in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding" is a mischaracterization.
> 
> She actively refused to offer her government services to all who qualified.
> 
> She can be charged with theft of services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically she can be charged with failure to provide services for which she was responsible and accountable to provide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government changing up the game after 100's of years, and therefore making the good citizens as criminals today is what has gone bad now, but I say enjoy it while it last, because it won't last much longer I don't think.. People will get a belly full of this bull, and they will see that it was foolishness that they have been led into believing now.
Click to expand...


Throughout the entire course of history there has been a constant move away from oppression of majorities and towards greater liberty, freedom and rights of individuals.

Any religion that attempts to deny individual rights will find itself sidelined while those that embrace the reality of life will evolve and adapt.

Your choice as to whether you want to be a theist dinosaur or not.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Geaux4it said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil keeps insisting that LGBT is a race of people?
> 
> The issue is about the right to marriage, nothing else.  That is how the courts see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts are not being debated here.
> 
> The difference between right and wrong is
> 
> The courts are far from perfect
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


It is wrong to deny equal rights to individuals.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Theism helped produce to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so anti-theists can climb down off your high horses.


----------



## Derideo_Te

JakeStarkey said:


> Theism helped produce to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so anti-theists can climb down off your high horses.



Which verses of the bible are incorporated into the Constitution?


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Which verses of the bible are incorporated into the Constitution?"  Silly suggest by you as you well know.  Two deists, one polytheist, one agnostic, and fifty one Christians at the Convention.  The Congress of 1789 was made up overwhelmingly of orthodox Christians.  The values of theism overwhelmingly fashioned the documents.


----------



## Silhouette

Remember how this thread started, asking people if they felt or believed that Christians should be forced to accommodate homosexual "weddings"?  Remember how the LGBT cultees here ranted and assured that this would never happen?  Remember how that was the mantra right up to the date of June 2015.  And now they're openly celebrating a Christian in jail for refusing to accommodate the spread of the homosexual culture through the vehicle of marriage?  ...in less than 3 months after they got their way?

This is how the Nazi party made inroads into Germany.  Sociologists are still arguing about how it was that a good nation of people could all fall into line with a cult so rapidly and so completely when on its face from the outside looking it, it was as insane as it gets.  The Nazis has a propaganda machine that pales in comparison to the church of LGBT's.  It's time to wake up and face the cult folks.  It's now or never.


----------



## JakeStarkey

This > "And now they're openly celebrating a Christian in jail for refusing to accommodate the spread of the homosexual culture through the vehicle of marriage?" is exactly how the Nazi Party worked, telling out right Big Lies.

Davis went to jail because she would not do her job.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> This > "And now they're openly celebrating a Christian in jail for refusing to accommodate the spread of the homosexual culture through the vehicle of marriage?" is exactly how the Nazi Party worked, telling out right Big Lies.
> 
> Davis went to jail because she would not do her job.


Thank you for the bold, underscore italics to my points.


----------



## Derideo_Te

JakeStarkey said:


> "Which verses of the bible are incorporated into the Constitution?"  Silly suggest by you as you well know.  Two deists, one polytheist, one agnostic, and fifty one Christians at the Convention.  The Congress of 1789 was made up overwhelmingly of orthodox Christians.  The values of theism overwhelmingly fashioned the documents.



Thank you for confirming that theism did not help produce the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thank you De for admitting that theism was the foundation of the Constitution and thank you Sil for admitting the OP has no basis.


----------



## Silhouette

Except that a Christian went to jail a week or so ago for sticking to her faith.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> Except that a Christian went to jail a week or so ago for sticking to her faith.


She went to jail for not doing her job, and is now facing the possibility of being charged with theft for services.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that a Christian went to jail a week or so ago for sticking to her faith.
> 
> 
> 
> She went to jail for not doing her job, and is now facing the possibility of being charged with theft for services.
Click to expand...


So if new laws are passed that everyone has a right to an abortion, will catholic nuns go to jail for refusing to accommodate all of the public at catholic hospitals?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Are catholic hospitals state institutions?

Are county court houses catholic centers?

You made a great teaching example of fallacy of false equivalency.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Are catholic hospitals state institutions?
> 
> Are county court houses catholic centers?
> 
> You made a great teaching example of fallacy of false equivalency.




You do it all the time Jakey.  Is that only allowed to the rainbow cult?  

OK, let's say there's a law passed where all public schools have to teach fisting to 1st graders.  Would a teacher who refuses to do so face being fired, reprimanded or jail time if she kept refusing?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nope, I don't, but you do.

As a government employee she has to serve all equally.  She has no 1st Amendment protection of free speech or religious establishment.

She is to provide all with due process and equal access.


----------



## Political Junky

Silhouette said:


> Except that a Christian went to jail a week or so ago for sticking to her faith.


She should have quit her job.


----------



## Silhouette

Political Junky said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that a Christian went to jail a week or so ago for sticking to her faith.
> 
> 
> 
> She should have quit her job.
Click to expand...

Nah, that would be a violation of her civil rights.  You can't discriminate against someone at a job for their religion.  That's solidly in the 14th.  You remember the 14th Amendment, right?


----------



## LittleNipper

KNB said:


> Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.


If presenting the Gospel Message, Christians are trying to inform you how you can be freed from the eternal penalty of sin. You seem rather content to send people you disagree with to hell to make yourself feel content!


----------



## Geaux4it

Derideo_Te said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil keeps insisting that LGBT is a race of people?
> 
> The issue is about the right to marriage, nothing else.  That is how the courts see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts are not being debated here.
> 
> The difference between right and wrong is
> 
> The courts are far from perfect
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is wrong to deny equal rights to individuals.
Click to expand...


Marriage isn't a right

-Geaux


----------



## JakeStarkey

SCOTUS say it is.


----------



## Geaux4it

JakeStarkey said:


> This > "And now they're openly celebrating a Christian in jail for refusing to accommodate the spread of the homosexual culture through the vehicle of marriage?" is exactly how the Nazi Party worked, telling out right Big Lies.
> 
> Davis went to jail because she would not do her job.



No Fakey. She went to jail for the bigger good. She went to jail as a lesson to Christians. 

The persecution is playing out just as the bible says.

Waiting for Israel to snap to it and build that temple already

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

JakeStarkey said:


> SCOTUS say it is.



And again, they're not perfect. And in this case like Obamacare.....

SCOTUS wrote the laws instead of interpreting them.

You know it, and I know it

-Geaux


----------



## JakeStarkey

Geaux4it said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This > "And now they're openly celebrating a Christian in jail for refusing to accommodate the spread of the homosexual culture through the vehicle of marriage?" is exactly how the Nazi Party worked, telling out right Big Lies.
> 
> Davis went to jail because she would not do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Fakey. She went to jail for the bigger good. She went to jail as a lesson to Christians.  The persecution is playing out just as the bible says.  Waiting for Israel to snap to it and build that temple already  -Geaux
Click to expand...

The perversion and heresies of the far right evangelicals are not law in America, and you folks are not His people.  She failed to do her job.  Jesus would have told her to quit her job.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Geaux4it said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS say it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, they're not perfect. And in this case like Obamacare.....
> SCOTUS wrote the laws instead of interpreting them.  You know it, and I know it  -Geaux
Click to expand...

I know you are a loony follower of a peverted heresy in far right American Christendom.  Bible is very clear: render unto Caesar; be subject to authority.


----------



## Silhouette

I'm not a Christian but I can see that this is a cult attempting to overthrow them.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A Christian woman sitting in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding" is a mischaracterization.
> 
> She actively refused to offer her government services to all who qualified.
> 
> She can be charged with theft of services.
> 
> 
> 
> Did she beat anyone up?  Did she chop off any hands?  Did she scream "Get out of my office you f-ing DYKES!"?  No?
> 
> Then her refusal was passive and her 1st Amendment right.  Public accomodation vs the 1st Amendment and the 9th Amendment.  It's like getting ready to watch a boxing match between a little preschool girl and Nicolai Valuev...she may be able to run around and nibble on his kneecaps at first, but when the real punching starts and the dancing ends it's going to be a bloodbath.
Click to expand...


Why do you think that the law doesn't apply to Christians?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> I'm not a Christian but I can see that this is a cult attempting to overthrow them.



Overthrow them?

So you think Christians are a cult that currently controls us?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking against liberalism is anger, hatred and bigotry, it should be illegal
> 
> 
> 
> You're being sarcastic, right?
Click to expand...


Kaz says yes- but he means no.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> I'm not a Christian but I can see that this is a cult attempting to overthrow them.



You're such a liar. I've been to your home website when you posted it on your announcements and feedback thread back in April. Your site is covered in crosses, mentions bible verses, has a picture of a church, and you call yourself a 'rouge Christian.'  Whatever the hell that means.

Why are you so embarrassed to admit you're a Christian? You pretend not to be so you can claim your arguments are not based on your faith but you are full of shit.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> I'm not a Christian but I can see that this is a cult attempting to overthrow them.





mdk said:


> You're a such a liar. I've been to your home website when you posted it on your announcements and feedback thread back in April. Your site is covered in crosses, mentions bible verses, has a picture of a church, and you call yourself a 'rouge Christian.'  Whatever the hell that means.
> 
> Why are you so embarrassed to admit you're a Christian? You pretend not to be so you can claim your arguments are not based on your faith but you are full of shit.




I take it you mean this one which Silhouette's site -->>  HOME

"Greetings.  Welcome to Effort Matters!  A site for Christian warriors.  A place of free exchange of ideas without abuse.  All are welcome but beware, Christians cannot be abused here.  Use articles here as a reference for your debates elsewhere.  To show support for my decades-long effort if you like, donate to my fund.  It helps keep milk on the table and the sheep in hay while I type my fingers off.

This is a meeting place created for Christians to discuss and brainstorm together on all matters of the Christian faith.  Members of all sects welcome.  Quotes from the Bible are encouraged; especially the New Testament."


>>>


----------



## mdk

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian but I can see that this is a cult attempting to overthrow them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a such a liar. I've been to your home website when you posted it on your announcements and feedback thread back in April. Your site is covered in crosses, mentions bible verses, has a picture of a church, and you call yourself a 'rouge Christian.'  Whatever the hell that means.
> 
> Why are you so embarrassed to admit you're a Christian? You pretend not to be so you can claim your arguments are not based on your faith but you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you mean this one which Silhouette's site -->>  HOME
> 
> "Greetings.  Welcome to Effort Matters!  A site for Christian warriors.  A place of free exchange of ideas without abuse.  All are welcome but beware, Christians cannot be abused here.  Use articles here as a reference for your debates elsewhere.  To show support for my decades-long effort if you like, donate to my fund.  It helps keep milk on the table and the sheep in hay while I type my fingers off.
> 
> This is a meeting place created for Christians to discuss and brainstorm together on all matters of the Christian faith.  Members of all sects welcome.  Quotes from the Bible are encouraged; especially the New Testament."
> 
> 
> >>>
Click to expand...


That is the one. I have it saved and was just about to link to the thread. lol. I break it out every time  Sil claims not to be a Christian.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> That is the one. I have it saved and was just about to link to the thread. lol. I break it out every time  Sil claims not to be a Christian.


 
Oh, we're doing internet stalking again.  Hmm..  I can be about promoting Chrisitanity without being a Christian.  Just like a boxing promoter doesn't necessarily have to be a boxer.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, you posted you own website, so, no, it is not stalking, but just another lie of yours.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the one. I have it saved and was just about to link to the thread. lol. I break it out every time  Sil claims not to be a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, we're doing internet stalking again.  Hmm..  I can be about promoting Chrisitanity without being a Christian.  Just like a boxing promoter doesn't necessarily have to be a boxer.
Click to expand...



Um, you posted the site to this forum. Stalking!? lol. Don't flatter yourself.

Even you call yourself a Christian on your site.

Why are you embarrassed of admitting your faith? You only pretend not to be to Christian so you can claim your beef with gays isn't based on The Bible which is a crock of shit.

Perhaps you should read Proverbs 12:22


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Why are you embarrassed of admitting your faith? You only pretend not to be to Christian so you can claim your beef with gays isn't based on The Bible which is a crock of shit.
> 
> Perhaps you should read Proverbs 12:22


 
I tell you what.  Start a thread about it.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette: "I am not a Christian"

Silhouette's website:_ I'm sort of a rogue Christian, as I hardly darken the door of a church these days, having been raised and confirmed Christian many years ago. I think I was called to be in a foxhole instead of an easy-chair._

Which claim of Silhouette's is a lie?

Who knows- but one of them has to be a lie.


----------



## Silhouette

Yes, I guess that's accurate.  A rogue-Christian.  Yes, that's right.  But not a Christian in the conventional sense at all.  And if you'd done your internet stalking well enough, you'd know that.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you embarrassed of admitting your faith? You only pretend not to be to Christian so you can claim your beef with gays isn't based on The Bible which is a crock of shit.
> 
> Perhaps you should read Proverbs 12:22
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tell you what.  Start a thread about it.
Click to expand...


No, thanks. This thread is as good as any for exposing your lies and hypocrisy.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Yes, I guess that's accurate.  A rogue-Christian.  Yes, that's right.  But not a Christian in the conventional sense at all.  And if you'd done your internet stalking well enough, you'd know that.



Links to home web site on the open forums. Bitches and calls it stalking when you visit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, no one has stalked you.  That is a lie.  I would not keep that up if I were you.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil, no one has stalked you.  That is a lie.  I would not keep that up if I were you.


Let's see, we have a couple of posters on the last page announcing they are going around to sites I started and using information there to harass me on another site.  I'll have to check with my lawyer.  You could be right, or you could be wrong.  He'll know.

Like I said, start another thread about it.  This one is about Christians of all walks being able to say "no" to accomodating gay marriage.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, no one has stalked you.  That is a lie.  I would not keep that up if I were you.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, we have a couple of posters on the last page announcing they are going around to sites I started and using information there to harass me on another site.  I'll have to check with my lawyer.  You could be right, or you could be wrong.  He'll know.
Click to expand...

You are threatening us because your material you posted was used?    Your lawyer will tell you to quit wasting time and pay the consultation and get lost.


----------



## Silhouette

Great, then start a separate thread about it or stick to the topic.  Otherwise I'll be reporting you soon.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, no one has stalked you.  That is a lie.  I would not keep that up if I were you.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, we have a couple of posters on the last page announcing they are going around to sites I started and using information there to harass me on another site.  I'll have to check with my lawyer.  You could be right, or you could be wrong.  He'll know.
> 
> Like I said, start another thread about it.  This one is about Christians of all walks being able to say "no" to accomodating gay marriage.
Click to expand...


You posted the link to this very forum. Sorry if I busted you again in your "I am not a Christian' lie. Go check with your lawyer that I doubt you have or can even afford. If he is the one giving you the legal views for basis of your threads than you may want to fire his dumb and fictitious ass immediately. 

This thread is about should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings, not this 'all walks of life' nonsense you've conjured. The exposing your lie part was just a bonus.

For the recorded: As it turns still not a single church as been forced to marry any couple against their wishes.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Great, then start a separate thread about it or stick to the topic.  Otherwise I'll be reporting you soon.



Be sure and report yourself every time you mentioned, The Prince's Trust, Kim Davis, and motherless/fatherless marriages as none of that has to do with the topic of this dead horse thread.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> Great, then start a separate thread about it or stick to the topic.  Otherwise I'll be reporting you soon.


You have already been reported.  You said you were not religious, opening up the right to post your material that says you are religious.

Can't have it both ways.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, no one has stalked you.  That is a lie.  I would not keep that up if I were you.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see, we have a couple of posters on the last page announcing they are going around to sites I started and using information there to harass me on another site.  I'll have to check with my lawyer.  You could be right, or you could be wrong.  He'll know.
> 
> Like I said, start another thread about it.  This one is about Christians of all walks being able to say "no" to accomodating gay marriage.
Click to expand...


LOL.....or you know you could just use Google to find out what an idiot you are.

Hint: If you don't want people reading your website- don't have a website.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Great, then start a separate thread about it or stick to the topic.  Otherwise I'll be reporting you soon.



Name a church that has been forced to marry any couple against its will.

Any church.


----------



## koshergrl

Every time I look at this thread I am struck again by the ungrammatical and retarded thread title. And I'm struck by the fact that the morons who support state control of religion absolutely never have commented on it or even noticed it.

Yet another bit of proof that they really are imbeciles.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Geaux4it said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil keeps insisting that LGBT is a race of people?
> 
> The issue is about the right to marriage, nothing else.  That is how the courts see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts are not being debated here.
> 
> The difference between right and wrong is
> 
> The courts are far from perfect
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is wrong to deny equal rights to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't a right
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Actually it is a right but you aren't paying me to remediate the failings of your home schooling.


----------



## Derideo_Te

WorldWatcher said:


> This is a meeting place created for Christians to discuss and brainstorm together on all matters of the Christian faith.



Except that there is only one poster who creates threads and responds to them. There is no "discussion" and zero "brainstorming" but the latter has the prerequisite of a brain so that explains why that isn't happening.


----------



## Silhouette

Derideo_Te said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a meeting place created for Christians to discuss and brainstorm together on all matters of the Christian faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that *there is only one poster who creates threads* and responds to them. There is no "discussion" and zero "brainstorming" but the latter has the prerequisite of a brain so that explains why that isn't happening.
Click to expand...

What do you have against RWHeathenGamer?  Go back to page one and see who started this...nearly 1,000 page thread now.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Silhouette said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a meeting place created for Christians to discuss and brainstorm together on all matters of the Christian faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that *there is only one poster who creates threads* and responds to them. There is no "discussion" and zero "brainstorming" but the latter has the prerequisite of a brain so that explains why that isn't happening.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you have against RWHeathenGamer?  Go back to page one and see who started this...nearly 1,000 page thread now.
Click to expand...


I was referring to your website where you are the one and only poster. Apparently you are shunned by everyone which accounts for why you hang around here instead.

The terms sad and pathetic come to mind.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Derideo_Te said:


> I was referring to your website where you are the one and only poster. Apparently you are shunned by everyone which accounts for why you hang around here instead.
> 
> The terms sad and pathetic come to mind.




It is pretty sad when you create a site to be an echo chamber...


.............................. and not even the echo's will come.



>>>>


----------



## Seawytch

Stop feeding Sil's sick fantasy life y'all. Let her troll farmers only or something.


----------



## dblack

Equal protection demands that churches be bound to the same laws as the rest of us.


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack said:


> Equal protection demands that churches be bound to the same laws as the rest of us.


Explain, please.


----------



## Silhouette

dblack said:


> Equal protection demands that churches be bound to the same laws as the rest of us.


No, religion is given its own special Amendment in the Constitution.  And the 9th says it can't be watered down by other Amendments.  Sorry.  The founding fathers saw the persecution by various secular entities of people of faith and took special pains to see that secular tyranny didn't hurt religion in this country.  You will remember the pilgrims and why they settled here?  Expedient ceaseless tyranny from King George and his fancies of the day forced them to flee here.  The "one size religion fits all" from old England caused the 1st Amendment to be written as it was.  Now instead of the Church of England using secular laws to force itself upon the People, it's the church of LGBT doing the same thing.  Only the 1st won't let them.

Try again..


----------



## JakeStarkey

Religion does not have special protection when it comes to marriage and adoption because believers can marry and adopt.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection demands that churches be bound to the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> No, religion is given its own special Amendment in the Constitution.  And the 9th says it can't be watered down by other Amendments.  ..
Click to expand...


LOL.....as usual Silhouette is just making crap up

The text of the 9th Amendment

_The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people._

Americans do have freedom of religion- that doesn't mean that Christians suddenly become exempt from law because they are Christians.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection demands that churches be bound to the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> You will remember the pilgrims and why they settled here? .
Click to expand...


The Pilgrims came here so they could worship their brand of Christianity. 

And almost immediately created rules and laws forbidding other types of worship.

Not particularly relevant- but as relevant as your ignorance of history.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> [it's the church of LGBT doing the same thing.  Only the 1st won't let them.
> 
> Try again..



Once again Silhouette is making crap up.

The First Amendment doesn't mean that Christians get to chose which laws to obey.


----------



## dblack

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection demands that churches be bound to the same laws as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> No, religion is given its own special Amendment in the Constitution.  And the 9th says it can't be watered down by other Amendments.  Sorry.  The founding fathers saw the persecution by various secular entities of people of faith and took special pains to see that secular tyranny didn't hurt religion in this country.  You will remember the pilgrims and why they settled here?  Expedient ceaseless tyranny from King George and his fancies of the day forced them to flee here.  The "one size religion fits all" from old England caused the 1st Amendment to be written as it was.  Now instead of the Church of England using secular laws to force itself upon the People, it's the church of LGBT doing the same thing.  Only the 1st won't let them.
> 
> Try again..
Click to expand...


Legislative accommodation, the practice of providing special exemptions to laws that would otherwise violate religious freedom, has been a mistake. It turns the intent of the First Amendment inside out and, counter-intuitively, diminishes religious freedom. The intended purpose of the religious protection clause of the First Amendment was to ensure that people aren't targeted for persecution because of their religious views, not to provide religious people with an excuse to evade the law.

Regardless of the legalese to the contrary, churches are public accommodations; they sell a service and their doors are open to the public. And as such, they should be held to the same legal requirements imposed on other establishments. If that violates their religious freedom (and I agree that it does), the law should be struck down for everyone, not simply written with exemptions and carve-outs for protected classes.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> This > "And now they're openly celebrating a Christian in jail for refusing to accommodate the spread of the homosexual culture through the vehicle of marriage?" is exactly how the Nazi Party worked, telling out right Big Lies.
> 
> Davis went to jail because she would not do her job.


You go to jail for not doing your job? I thought you just got wrote up or fired... No there is no write up's and such, because at this time no paper trail is wanted just encase, but the judge just went on and stepped in it any way. 

I guess the activist judges these days are feeling quite comfortable about what they do or how they rule on different cases these days, even though a majority of the nation is against their actions still. The LIB media tries to show it differently in the aftermath. But the citizens are now seeing what's been going on against them now.

I guess her going to jail was the huge statement that had to be made in the case by the judge and by the state/gov.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9, she went to jail because she did not do her job.  She was violating the court's order.  She cannot prevent citizen for equally accessing her office's services.


----------



## Arizona Willie

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9, she went to jail because she did not do her job.  She was violating the court's order.  She cannot prevent citizen for equally accessing her office's services.


========

Correct. She went to jail for defying the court order ... not for not doing her job.

Of course, the court order was to do her job so we're picking at technicalities but technicalities matter.


----------



## JakeStarkey

What matters is she refused to do her job and in doing so metaphorically spit on her fellow citizens.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Arizona Willie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9, she went to jail because she did not do her job.  She was violating the court's order.  She cannot prevent citizen for equally accessing her office's services.
> 
> 
> 
> ========
> 
> Correct. She went to jail for defying the court order ... not for not doing her job.
> 
> Of course, the court order was to do her job so we're picking at technicalities but technicalities matter.
Click to expand...


Actually it was more than that.

Not only did she refuse to do her job, she ordered her subordinates not to do their jobs either.


>>>>


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This > "And now they're openly celebrating a Christian in jail for refusing to accommodate the spread of the homosexual culture through the vehicle of marriage?" is exactly how the Nazi Party worked, telling out right Big Lies.
> 
> Davis went to jail because she would not do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> You go to jail for not doing your job? I thought you just got wrote up or fired... No there is no write up's and such, because at this time no paper trail is wanted just encase, but the judge just went on and stepped in it any way.
> 
> I guess the activist judges these days are feeling quite comfortable about what they do or how they rule on different cases these days, even though a majority of the nation is against their actions still. The LIB media tries to show it differently in the aftermath. But the citizens are now seeing what's been going on against them now.
> 
> I guess her going to jail was the huge statement that had to be made in the case by the judge and by the state/gov.
Click to expand...


Judges have ordered workers- ordered entire Unions to go back to work- and have jailed union leaders- and workers for contempt of court when they failed to do so.

Why do Christians believe that they are above the law?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This > "And now they're openly celebrating a Christian in jail for refusing to accommodate the spread of the homosexual culture through the vehicle of marriage?" is exactly how the Nazi Party worked, telling out right Big Lies.
> 
> Davis went to jail because she would not do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> You go to jail for not doing your job? I thought you just got wrote up or fired... No there is no write up's and such, because at this time no paper trail is wanted just encase, but the judge just went on and stepped in it any way.
> 
> I guess the activist judges these days are feeling quite comfortable about what they do or how they rule on different cases these days, even though a majority of the nation is against their actions still. The LIB media tries to show it differently in the aftermath. But the citizens are now seeing what's been going on against them now.
> 
> I guess her going to jail was the huge statement that had to be made in the case by the judge and by the state/gov.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges have ordered workers- ordered entire Unions to go back to work- and have jailed union leaders- and workers for contempt of court when they failed to do so.
> 
> Why do Christians believe that they are above the law?
Click to expand...

Why are Christians even encountering the law these days for being Christian ? Think about that for a second or two.. This is unheard of in the history of this nation where as a Christian is now under attack for holding up Christian values in this nation. The government has chosen or has been duped into following a small group down the wrong path in history, but time will have to bear all that out as time goes by.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagleboy, we Christians are not interferred with being Christian in our private lives and worship.  In the public forum, we cannot use our Christian values to punish others in commerce by denying services to some and not to others.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This > "And now they're openly celebrating a Christian in jail for refusing to accommodate the spread of the homosexual culture through the vehicle of marriage?" is exactly how the Nazi Party worked, telling out right Big Lies.
> 
> Davis went to jail because she would not do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> You go to jail for not doing your job? I thought you just got wrote up or fired... No there is no write up's and such, because at this time no paper trail is wanted just encase, but the judge just went on and stepped in it any way.
> 
> I guess the activist judges these days are feeling quite comfortable about what they do or how they rule on different cases these days, even though a majority of the nation is against their actions still. The LIB media tries to show it differently in the aftermath. But the citizens are now seeing what's been going on against them now.
> 
> I guess her going to jail was the huge statement that had to be made in the case by the judge and by the state/gov.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges have ordered workers- ordered entire Unions to go back to work- and have jailed union leaders- and workers for contempt of court when they failed to do so.
> 
> Why do Christians believe that they are above the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are Christians even encountering the law these days for being Christian ? Think about that for a second or two.. This is unheard of in the history of this nation where as a Christian is now under attack for holding up Christian values in this nation. The government has chosen or has been duped into following a small group down the wrong path in history, but time will have to bear all that out as time goes by.
Click to expand...


Are you really that ignorant? 

Are you completely unaware of the many times Christians- and other people of faith have been told that they too have to obey the law- despite whatever they believe the law says?

So tell me- why do you think that Christians don't have to follow the law, if they just feel really strongly about it?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This > "And now they're openly celebrating a Christian in jail for refusing to accommodate the spread of the homosexual culture through the vehicle of marriage?" is exactly how the Nazi Party worked, telling out right Big Lies.
> 
> Davis went to jail because she would not do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> You go to jail for not doing your job? I thought you just got wrote up or fired... No there is no write up's and such, because at this time no paper trail is wanted just encase, but the judge just went on and stepped in it any way.
> 
> I guess the activist judges these days are feeling quite comfortable about what they do or how they rule on different cases these days, even though a majority of the nation is against their actions still. The LIB media tries to show it differently in the aftermath. But the citizens are now seeing what's been going on against them now.
> 
> I guess her going to jail was the huge statement that had to be made in the case by the judge and by the state/gov.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges have ordered workers- ordered entire Unions to go back to work- and have jailed union leaders- and workers for contempt of court when they failed to do so.
> 
> Why do Christians believe that they are above the law?
Click to expand...

Be careful now how you talk about those conservative judges slamming the unions, because you might get people to thinking that you are either anti-union or you are grabbing at straws for support of your position, and therefore you are using any excuse you can find in order to justify your temporary position in which you might have on a subject in life..


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> Why do Christians believe that they are above the law?


Because the Court handed down a series of ill-considered decisions that have promoted that view.


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Christians believe that they are above the law?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Court handed down a series of ill-considered decisions that have promoted that view.
Click to expand...

We our secular nation governed by secular law not religious law.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This > "And now they're openly celebrating a Christian in jail for refusing to accommodate the spread of the homosexual culture through the vehicle of marriage?" is exactly how the Nazi Party worked, telling out right Big Lies.
> 
> Davis went to jail because she would not do her job.
> 
> 
> 
> You go to jail for not doing your job? I thought you just got wrote up or fired... No there is no write up's and such, because at this time no paper trail is wanted just encase, but the judge just went on and stepped in it any way.
> 
> I guess the activist judges these days are feeling quite comfortable about what they do or how they rule on different cases these days, even though a majority of the nation is against their actions still. The LIB media tries to show it differently in the aftermath. But the citizens are now seeing what's been going on against them now.
> 
> I guess her going to jail was the huge statement that had to be made in the case by the judge and by the state/gov.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges have ordered workers- ordered entire Unions to go back to work- and have jailed union leaders- and workers for contempt of court when they failed to do so.
> 
> Why do Christians believe that they are above the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be careful now how you talk about those conservative judges slamming the unions, because you might get people to thinking that you are either anti-union or you are grabbing at straws for support of your position, and therefore you are using any excuse you can find in order to justify your temporary position in which you might have on a subject in life..
Click to expand...


LOL- Unions- Christians- none of them are above the law.

If a judge orders union members or Christians to go back to work- and they refuse to do so- then they face the consequences.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> beagleboy, we Christians are not interferred with being Christian in our private lives and worship.  In the public forum, we cannot use our Christian values to punish others in commerce by denying services to some and not to others.


Change Christian to American values in your statement, and then tell me what's the difference to all in the world in which we live.. Both are deeply held belifs and positions in the world, and if one is challenged an aircraft carrier might be sent your way, but if the other is challenged the Christian goes to jail ? There is no difference in the two, other than the government deciding when going rouge, that it won't support that wing any longer, but it will now create a new wing that has been lifted up against the old wing now ?


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> beagleboy, we Christians are not interferred with being Christian in our private lives and worship.  In the public forum, we cannot use our Christian values to punish others in commerce by denying services to some and not to others.
> 
> 
> 
> Change Christian to American values in your statement, and then tell me what's the difference to all in the world in which we live.. Both are deeply held belifs and positions in the world, and if one is challenged an aircraft carrier might be sent your way, but if the other is challenged the Christian goes to jail ? There is no difference in the two, other than the government deciding when going rouge, that it won't support that wing any longer, but it will now create a new wing that has been lifted up against the old wing now ?
Click to expand...


I have to admit. 

None of what you posted makes any sense to me at all.

Simple enough: Americans are obligated to follow the law or they may go face punishment.

This applies to Christians just as equally as anyone else.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> beagleboy, we Christians are not interferred with being Christian in our private lives and worship.  In the public forum, we cannot use our Christian values to punish others in commerce by denying services to some and not to others.
> 
> 
> 
> Change Christian to American values in your statement, and then tell me what's the difference to all in the world in which we live.. Both are deeply held belifs and positions in the world, and if one is challenged an aircraft carrier might be sent your way, but if the other is challenged the Christian goes to jail ? There is no difference in the two, other than the government deciding when going rouge, that it won't support that wing any longer, but it will now create a new wing that has been lifted up against the old wing now ?
Click to expand...

I am Christian and you are going rogue.  You want to change secular to religous.  That is not going to happen.  We all have to obey the law.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Christians believe that they are above the law?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Court handed down a series of ill-considered decisions that have promoted that view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We our secular nation governed by secular law not religious law.
Click to expand...

How do you claim that our laws have been somehow separated from our spiritual and religious beliefs in which was the very instruments used to create this nation and our laws?

If you didn't have some sort of belief system that was created within you by the creator who is Holy and good, then you would be lawless just like we see in those who have lost their knowledge of this, and their spiritual compass in life.

Are you an advocate for all things evil in the world? I mean it's because your attitude is what leads up to all things evil in the world eventually. The evidence is there to review, it just depends on how lost you have become in this life.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You, old duffer, mischaracterize what I say.  Our religious and secular values indeed underwrite our legal system.  But organized religion, the Bible, or atheist writings do not.  The Constitution rules, and that means your organized religion does not.  LGBT marriage does not affect me in the slightest or you for that matter.  You need to grow up.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> beagleboy, we Christians are not interferred with being Christian in our private lives and worship.  In the public forum, we cannot use our Christian values to punish others in commerce by denying services to some and not to others.
> 
> 
> 
> Change Christian to American values in your statement, and then tell me what's the difference to all in the world in which we live.. Both are deeply held belifs and positions in the world, and if one is challenged an aircraft carrier might be sent your way, but if the other is challenged the Christian goes to jail ? There is no difference in the two, other than the government deciding when going rouge, that it won't support that wing any longer, but it will now create a new wing that has been lifted up against the old wing now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to admit.
> 
> None of what you posted makes any sense to me at all.
> 
> Simple enough: Americans are obligated to follow the law or they may go face punishment.
> 
> This applies to Christians just as equally as anyone else.
Click to expand...

If you strain at a knat and yet swallow a camel, then that's your problem in life, but why cast your problems upon everyone else ?  I mean it's as easy as can be to understand these things in life, unless one has an alternate agenda a foot that is being promoted now, where as up becomes the new down & down becomes the new up. Soon people will step back and say WAIT one minute here, we have all been duped. Then it will turn back, but hopefully the world doesn't capitalize on our weakened morals in order to convince their allies to take us down... This is how important it is that we hold onto our morals and decency in which we once projected around the world. Weakness is always exploited, and we have been made ripe for the taking.

If we could fend off our enemies that's great, but why did we bring about war through our idiocy to begin with ?

Think about where all this leads to in the end, but wait we might think but the whole world will follow our lead so it will be OK right ? No it don't work that way anymore, because duping the world is the worst situation we could end up doing, but that may be what's been happening in which gives Puten his new energy he is now enjoying and exploiting from our weakness he see's within us now... Not everyone in this world are buying what we are selling anymore, and the leverage we enjoy may start slipping also because of all that is involved.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> You, old duffer, mischaracterize what I say.  Our religious and secular values indeed underwrite our legal system.  But organized religion, the Bible, or atheist writings do not.  *The Constitution rules*, and that means your organized religion does not.  LGBT marriage does not affect me in the slightest or you for that matter.  You need to grow up.


Indeed, the Constitution DOES rule.  Have you ever actually read the 1st Amendment? 

"Your religion" is a CIVIL RIGHT you cannot disenfranchise someone from.  I know you don't need to be schooled on how wrong it is to disenfranchise someone from a civil right, right?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, old duffer, mischaracterize what I say.  Our religious and secular values indeed underwrite our legal system.  But organized religion, the Bible, or atheist writings do not.  *The Constitution rules*, and that means your organized religion does not.  LGBT marriage does not affect me in the slightest or you for that matter.  You need to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Constitution DOES rule.  Have you ever actually read the 1st Amendment?
> 
> "Your religion" is a CIVIL RIGHT you cannot disenfranchise someone from.  I know you don't need to be schooled on how wrong it is to disenfranchise someone from a civil right, right?
Click to expand...

Which means you cannot use your religious values to disenfranchise someone's civil right.  You have no civil right to prevent LGBT.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, old duffer, mischaracterize what I say.  Our religious and secular values indeed underwrite our legal system.  But organized religion, the Bible, or atheist writings do not.  *The Constitution rules*, and that means your organized religion does not.  LGBT marriage does not affect me in the slightest or you for that matter.  You need to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Constitution DOES rule.  Have you ever actually read the 1st Amendment?
> 
> "Your religion" is a CIVIL RIGHT you cannot disenfranchise someone from.  I know you don't need to be schooled on how wrong it is to disenfranchise someone from a civil right, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means you cannot use your religious values to disenfranchise someone's civil right.  You have no civil right to prevent LGBT.
Click to expand...

And LGBT has no right denying Christians of their civil rights either, so there. But the government has become the strong arm of extremist groups who wish to deny Christians of their rights in this nation now, and the world is watching the action with bated breath.


----------



## beagle9

To go to jail like that lady was ordered to by a judge, says it all doesn't it. Kidding me right ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, old duffer, mischaracterize what I say.  Our religious and secular values indeed underwrite our legal system.  But organized religion, the Bible, or atheist writings do not.  *The Constitution rules*, and that means your organized religion does not.  LGBT marriage does not affect me in the slightest or you for that matter.  You need to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Constitution DOES rule.  Have you ever actually read the 1st Amendment?
> 
> "Your religion" is a CIVIL RIGHT you cannot disenfranchise someone from.  I know you don't need to be schooled on how wrong it is to disenfranchise someone from a civil right, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means you cannot use your religious values to disenfranchise someone's civil right.  You have no civil right to prevent LGBT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And LGBT has no right denying Christians of their civil rights either, so there. But the government has become the strong arm of extremist groups who wish to deny Christians of their rights in this nation now, and the world is watching the action with bated breath.
Click to expand...

The LGBT are not denying straights their rights in marriage or in belief or in worship.  The PA laws, of course, are another thing altogether.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> To go to jail like that lady was ordered to by a judge, says it all doesn't it. Kidding me right ?


No, it doesn't.  She was denying services of her office to citizens.  Her religious belief has nothing to do with her duties.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To go to jail like that lady was ordered to by a judge, says it all doesn't it. Kidding me right ?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  She was denying services of her office to citizens.  Her religious belief has nothing to do with her duties.
Click to expand...

So your ordered to jail instead of being fired ?????? What was the government afraid of here ? I mean having to make a statement like that instead of just firing the lady says it all to me.... It is agenda driven is what it is, and that agenda will fail us all eventually, just wait and see.


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To go to jail like that lady was ordered to by a judge, says it all doesn't it. Kidding me right ?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  She was denying services of her office to citizens.  Her religious belief has nothing to do with her duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your ordered to jail instead of being fired ?????? What was the government afraid of here ? I mean having to make a statement like that instead of just firing the lady says it all to me.... It is agenda driven is what it is, and that agenda will fail us all eventually, just wait and see.
Click to expand...


What do you think happens when you're held in contempt of court? 

She can't be fired, you realize that, right?


----------



## beagle9

It appears to me that the government was unsure of itself in these new troubled waters that it has been treading around in now, so it figured to throw a big knock out punch on this defenseless little lady that everyone seems to love, and all in hopes that it would fool the people enough about the broader agenda that it is representing now against the majority of citizens in this nation. They did this for the distraction and/or end that it hoped the punch would somehow represent to everyone afterwards..


----------



## beagle9

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To go to jail like that lady was ordered to by a judge, says it all doesn't it. Kidding me right ?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  She was denying services of her office to citizens.  Her religious belief has nothing to do with her duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your ordered to jail instead of being fired ?????? What was the government afraid of here ? I mean having to make a statement like that instead of just firing the lady says it all to me.... It is agenda driven is what it is, and that agenda will fail us all eventually, just wait and see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think happens when you're held in contempt of court?
> 
> She can't be fired, you realize that, right?
Click to expand...

Never should have went to court period... Like I said the government feared this lady or it wouldn't have been so heavy handed upon her.


----------



## beagle9

That's the problem in this nation, where as no one can be fired anymore, and that is what has set all the corruption up over time. Fire people, and then let them defend themselves afterwards is what I say, and that goes for everyone who works any kind of job in this nation all the way up to the President.. PERIOD!


----------



## beagle9

The Pope cowering about his visit with this woman was pathetic.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To go to jail like that lady was ordered to by a judge, says it all doesn't it. Kidding me right ?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  She was denying services of her office to citizens.  Her religious belief has nothing to do with her duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your ordered to jail instead of being fired ?????? What was the government afraid of here ? I mean having to make a statement like that instead of just firing the lady says it all to me.... It is agenda driven is what it is, and that agenda will fail us all eventually, just wait and see.
Click to expand...

Where have you been, for this has all been covered in detail on the Board.  The judge could not fire her.  No one could fire her.  The state Senate would have to impeach, try, and convict her to remove her.  The governor and the legislative body had no desire to be called back into session.

You are correct that it was agenda-driven, her agenda.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To go to jail like that lady was ordered to by a judge, says it all doesn't it. Kidding me right ?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  She was denying services of her office to citizens.  Her religious belief has nothing to do with her duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your ordered to jail instead of being fired ?????? What was the government afraid of here ? I mean having to make a statement like that instead of just firing the lady says it all to me.... It is agenda driven is what it is, and that agenda will fail us all eventually, just wait and see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think happens when you're held in contempt of court?
> 
> She can't be fired, you realize that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never should have went to court period... Like I said the government feared this lady or it wouldn't have been so heavy handed upon her.
Click to expand...

She indeed was heavy handed, in that she denied services to citizens qualified for them.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To go to jail like that lady was ordered to by a judge, says it all doesn't it. Kidding me right ?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  She was denying services of her office to citizens.  Her religious belief has nothing to do with her duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your ordered to jail instead of being fired ?????? What was the government afraid of here ? I mean having to make a statement like that instead of just firing the lady says it all to me.... It is agenda driven is what it is, and that agenda will fail us all eventually, just wait and see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think happens when you're held in contempt of court?
> 
> She can't be fired, you realize that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never should have went to court period... Like I said the government feared this lady or it wouldn't have been so heavy handed upon her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She indeed was heavy handed, in that she denied services to citizens qualified for them.
Click to expand...

How long was she in that job before she was demanded to do something that was a shock to most people in this nation ? She was doing her job until the government came along and changed the game on her, then it got real complicated after that didn't it ? In fact it is getting real complicated for the Christians in this nation, but that is all part of the new game now isn't it ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> How long was she in that job before she was demanded to do something that was a shock to most people in this nation ? She was doing her job until the government came along and changed the game on her, then it got real complicated after that didn't it ? In fact it is getting real complicated for the Christians in this nation, but that is all part of the new game now isn't it ?


Beagle, as good Christians we are subject to the law.  Her two alternatives were to obey the law or resign.  She took the coward's way out.  She refused services to those qualified and committed theft of service by not doing her job.


----------



## beagle9

The Bible is fulfilling itself now, yet no man knows the day nor the hour, so choose where you will be come judgement day, and I do hope you choose well oh boy, I really hope you do. Only you know what you are advocating and doing, and only you know the truth about what it is that you are protecting and doing in here, but do you also know what the results will be in the end ? I think you do, but you don't care like so many others now, and that is a shame really.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long was she in that job before she was demanded to do something that was a shock to most people in this nation ? She was doing her job until the government came along and changed the game on her, then it got real complicated after that didn't it ? In fact it is getting real complicated for the Christians in this nation, but that is all part of the new game now isn't it ?
> 
> 
> 
> Beagle, as good Christians we are subject to the law.  Her two alternatives were to obey the law or resign.  She took the coward's way out.  She refused services to those qualified and committed theft of service by not doing her job.
Click to expand...

She chose to obey God's law, and you have chosen to obey man's law in which is created daily from the waves that are tossed through and fro in a sea of great confusion for which man now rides upon, and only in the end will her justice be known, but her patience is to be as a farmer waits on the latter rains to rain upon his fields, and she is to have long patience for that justice. It will result in great things to come for surely if you lose your life upon this earth, then so shall she gain eternal life in heaven. Amen.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are far from the Lord, Beagle. Turn to Him, trust Him not yourself, love your Lord, love your neighbor, and be not proud. Amen.


----------



## beagle9

You speak as if you know me and my relationship with the Lord Christ, when in fact you know nothing of the sort... How do you make such a bold statement as that or is it for the consumption of the readers here in which you want to try and impress ? You fool no one here I hope you know that, because people aren't that dumb, but at least your trying I'll give you that much. Are you satan, and therefore you figure you know my relationship somehow with Christ ? What would Christ say or rather what would satan say concerning your words spoken ? Who would honor those words you just spoke, Christ or satan ? Who would wish those words were true that you just spoke, Christ or satan ?


----------



## beagle9

Satan would honor and wish that those words were true that you just spoke concerning my relationship with Christ.  I hope you own up to that. So you are a voice for satan in this world ? I mean he tells people that all the time when they stand up for Christ in the world... Satan would say as a voice in ones head if allowed " You are far from Christ", just go on and admit it and join me that is what he is all about.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Beagle, you do more damage than twenty devils when you speak for that which you have not the knowledge and not the understanding.  You condemn me for treating you as you were treating me, oh, hypocritical man? Turn to the Lord, beagle, for you are placing yourself where you have no authority, no understanding, no grace, and no anointing to be. Abandon your pride and flee to the Lord. Amen.


----------



## Mac1958




----------



## beagle9

OK and your the authority on what ? You are advocating and defending what in here, and so I ask is your advocacy supported by Christ and his teachings in the word ? Don't parse it now, because some things are just cut and dry.


----------



## JakeStarkey

This reply amazed Beagle.  

"Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them."  Mark 12: 17

And yet again, Beagle was amazed.  

"13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."
Romans 13: 1-7

Beagle, I counsel you to try to not counsel scripture, which is clear and to the salvation of the soul.


----------



## beagle9

Wait I thought you were all secular, and now you are all Christian (all of a sudden) in your words in which earlier excluded Christians when it comes to their rights and beliefs in this nation ? You are a scary man, but not in a scary way.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> Beagle, I counsel you to try to not counsel scripture, which is clear and to the salvation of the soul.



My take..

*13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.*

*Couldn't it also be said that "SHE is also a minister of God" in that to councel thee for good, and so she is issueing marriage liscenses to that which God does approve of in her understanding of that which God would approve of ? Now if thou doest that which is evil unto her (PLACE HER IN CHAINS AND in BONDAGE), and to do this for her belief in that which in her understanding was good, and in that which was legal until she was brought before the unjust judge, then be afraid; for she beareth not the sword in vain; for she is the minister of God in her life, who is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil against her.*

*Would this apply in her case maybe ?*

*If not then why not ?*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your problem is that you thought instead of understanding. You mischaracterized my words and my person by your prejudice and lack of awareness.

I am Christian, born again for a very, very long time.

Do not think to counsel scripture, do not think to counsel Paul or the writer of Mark, who says he reports Jesus' word.

Render unto the state that which is of the state, and to God that which is due God.


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To go to jail like that lady was ordered to by a judge, says it all doesn't it. Kidding me right ?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  She was denying services of her office to citizens.  Her religious belief has nothing to do with her duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your ordered to jail instead of being fired ?????? What was the government afraid of here ? I mean having to make a statement like that instead of just firing the lady says it all to me.... It is agenda driven is what it is, and that agenda will fail us all eventually, just wait and see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think happens when you're held in contempt of court?
> 
> She can't be fired, you realize that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never should have went to court period... Like I said the government feared this lady or it wouldn't have been so heavy handed upon her.
Click to expand...



Heavy handed? Do you have any idea how it all went down? Davis brought it all upon herself. There were people in her office willing to issue marriage licenses and she would not have had to do a thing. She decided that instead of just letting them accommodate her religious belief, she would impose her beliefs on her entire county and ordered her clerks not to issue ANY licenses. Naturally she was sued (just like a vegetarian clerk who refused to issue hunting licenses would be) and she lost. She appealed, she lost, she appealed, she lost. She continued to go against the judges orders and was held in contempt. She wasn't targeted or picked on. She picked this fight, lost and now wants to play the victim.


----------



## Silhouette

Seawytch said:


> Heavy handed? Do you have any idea how it all went down? Davis brought it all upon herself. There were people in her office willing to issue marriage licenses and she would not have had to do a thing. She decided that instead of just letting them accommodate her religious belief, *she would impose her beliefs on her entire county and ordered her clerks not to issue ANY licenses.* Naturally she was sued (just like a vegetarian clerk who refused to issue hunting licenses would be) and she lost. She appealed, she lost, she appealed, she lost. She continued to go against the judges orders and was held in contempt. She wasn't targeted or picked on. She picked this fight, lost and now wants to play the victim.


 
Well, that's PART of the story.

The other part is that any license issued by any of her understaff would have had "Kim Davis, County Clerk" written on them.  And since she's a Christian she can't take any part whatsoever in normalizing homosexuality; especially abusing God's sublime social contract with her name printed on it!

You believe in people's constitutional civil rights, right?   If you don't and your argument is "not when they impinge on others", then how to you feel about gay marriage impinging on children forced into an institution guaranteed to provide them no mother or father for life?

If my memory is clear of your ilk's rebuttal to this question I'll answer for you...

..."Children aren't part of the marriage contract!"...."Marriage isn't about children!"...."Children will just have to adapt!"..."Marriage is only about consenting adults!"...

..and my all time favorite..."children aren't fledged citizens and they can't vote or affect their world as viable citizens so they have no voice here!"  Which, if you examine the civil rights movements throughout time, you find that those in them are precisely those most disenfranchised as to that exact description..

...Hypocrites...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette is a nominal Christian, she is unqualified to elucidate on Kim's religious motivations, and religious motivations and beliefs do not shield a public official from doing her or his job.

Kim's duty is to serve all of the public, not just the public whose behavior she approves.

The law is clear on this issue.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette is a nominal Christian, she is unqualified to elucidate on Kim's religious motivations, and religious motivations and beliefs do not shield a public official from doing her or his job.
> 
> Kim's duty is to serve all of the public, not just the public whose behavior she approves.
> 
> The law is clear on this issue.


The law is purely promoting sin in the eyes of millions of Americans, and that Law is something that has been pushed down their throats against their will.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette is a nominal Christian, she is unqualified to elucidate on Kim's religious motivations, and religious motivations and beliefs do not shield a public official from doing her or his job.
> 
> Kim's duty is to serve all of the public, not just the public whose behavior she approves.
> 
> The law is clear on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> The law is purely promoting sin in the eyes of millions of Americans, and that Law is something that has been pushed down their throats against their will.
Click to expand...

The Klan certainly thought so.  The Muslims certainly think that we sin in giving our women the same amount of freedom in our law as we males.

Paul's and St. Mark's comments are so wise, reminding us to leave morality to God and to live our lives the best we can daily.

I am not going to marry a man.  I counsel you that you do not, either.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette is a nominal Christian, she is unqualified to elucidate on Kim's religious motivations, and religious motivations and beliefs do not shield a public official from doing her or his job.
> 
> Kim's duty is to serve all of the public, not just the public whose behavior she approves.
> 
> The law is clear on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> The law is purely promoting sin in the eyes of millions of Americans, and that Law is something that has been pushed down their throats against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Klan certainly thought so.  The Muslims certainly think that we sin in giving our women the same amount of freedom in our law as we males.
> 
> Paul's and St. Mark's comments are so wise, reminding us to leave morality to God and to live our lives the best we can daily.
> 
> I am not going to marry a man.  I counsel you that you do not, either.
Click to expand...

How about you talking with some sort of decency about yourself. Instead of pulling every excuse or trick that you have in that little bag of bad that you carry around with you in these conversations. I mean come on you got to use the clan now ? How desperate are you that you try and gain support by pushing the buttons (trying to combine the issues), on seperate issues in which you are doing in order to try and gain or keep your support you may or may not have here.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette is a nominal Christian, she is unqualified to elucidate on Kim's religious motivations, and religious motivations and beliefs do not shield a public official from doing her or his job.
> 
> Kim's duty is to serve all of the public, not just the public whose behavior she approves.
> 
> The law is clear on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> The law is purely promoting sin in the eyes of millions of Americans, and that Law is something that has been pushed down their throats against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Klan certainly thought so.  The Muslims certainly think that we sin in giving our women the same amount of freedom in our law as we males.
> 
> Paul's and St. Mark's comments are so wise, reminding us to leave morality to God and to live our lives the best we can daily.
> 
> I am not going to marry a man.  I counsel you that you do not, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about you talking with some sort of decency about yourself. Instead of pulling every excuse or trick that you have in that little bag of bad that you carry around with you in these conversations. I mean come on you got to use the clan now ? How desperate are you that you try and gain support by pushing the buttons (trying to combine the issues), on seperate issues in which you are doing in order to try and gain or keep your support you may or may not have here.
Click to expand...

You once again talk like a doosh.  I counsel to you to follow Paul and St. Mark instead of your old dark fears of whatever.  LGBT marriage does not harm you.  It does not harm me.  That is between them and God.  You don't have a thing to do with it or say about it legally.  You need not worry about me, but rather you should ponder scripture and not try to counsel the Lord.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette is a nominal Christian, she is unqualified to elucidate on Kim's religious motivations, and religious motivations and beliefs do not shield a public official from doing her or his job.
> 
> Kim's duty is to serve all of the public, not just the public whose behavior she approves.
> 
> The law is clear on this issue.



Yeah, but the law is subbordinate to religion.....if you're a Christian. And if you're discriminating against gays. At least in Silo's mind.

Back in reality, Kim Davis was offered a perfectly reasonably accommodation: allow another clerk to issue the licenses. She refused, insisting she would do everything in her power to prevent the issuance of such licenses. 

Using the power of the State to force people to obey your religion is a violation of the 1st amendment's establishment clause. And Kim Davis did exactly that. Which is why she lost. And will continue to lose.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette is a nominal Christian, she is unqualified to elucidate on Kim's religious motivations, and religious motivations and beliefs do not shield a public official from doing her or his job.
> 
> Kim's duty is to serve all of the public, not just the public whose behavior she approves.
> 
> The law is clear on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but the law is subbordinate to religion.....if you're a Christian. And if you're discriminating against gays. At least in Silo's mind.
> 
> Back in reality, Kim Davis was offered a perfectly reasonably accommodation: allow another clerk to issue the licenses. She refused, insisting she would do everything in her power to prevent the issuance of such licenses.
> 
> Using the power of the State to force people to obey your religion is a violation of the 1st amendment's establishment clause. And Kim Davis did exactly that. Which is why she lost. And will continue to lose.
Click to expand...


The state should have relieved her of her position then, therefore taking full responsibility for their stance on the new issue, but the state must have been unsure of the backlash, so it hoped that Kim would make it easy for them on the matter. Now it still doesn't mean that the state is right for what it's defending now. In fact the state has been placed into a hec of a situation by a few who have bullied their way into forcing the state or feds by way of activist judges to go along with something that a majority of the nation is not for.

You used the term USING the state to force your religion upon, but I say to you what is the difference then in either of these fights taking place in this nation ? Both have or need the state to protect there beliefs, there culture and/or etc. OK so who is more right and who could be most wrong in what they expect the state to do for them? The state isn't supposed to be used you say, so how does it get out of these delema's? I'll tell you how it does... It listens to the people is what it does, but then it can't do that because the devils will resort to the black struggle by tapping into that time period in order to shield their issue from the state for whom may be thinking that it could get out of the situation by listening to the people on this issue. The devils will tell the state that it was wrong to do it back then, so of course it would be wrong to listen to the people now.  Now even though the issues and causes are completely different, the devils are tying them together for a shield and usery to push the state to stand against the majority on this issue even though there is no relation between the two.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle, only the state Senate, which did not want to be called into session (and made the Governor well aware of that sentiment), can remove Davis by impeachment, trial, and conviction.  The judge was very lenient in permitting her to have her name removed from the certificates.

A majority of the nation does favor LGBT marriage, but that is immaterial.  What is material is that marriage equality is the law of the land.  Christians can disagree, they can try to get the law overturned, but until that time, the people must obey the law./


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette is a nominal Christian, she is unqualified to elucidate on Kim's religious motivations, and religious motivations and beliefs do not shield a public official from doing her or his job.
> 
> Kim's duty is to serve all of the public, not just the public whose behavior she approves.
> 
> The law is clear on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but the law is subbordinate to religion.....if you're a Christian. And if you're discriminating against gays. At least in Silo's mind.
> 
> Back in reality, Kim Davis was offered a perfectly reasonably accommodation: allow another clerk to issue the licenses. She refused, insisting she would do everything in her power to prevent the issuance of such licenses.
> 
> Using the power of the State to force people to obey your religion is a violation of the 1st amendment's establishment clause. And Kim Davis did exactly that. Which is why she lost. And will continue to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state should have relieved her of her position then, therefore taking full responsibility for their stance on the new issue, but the state must have been unsure of the backlash, so it hoped that Kim would make it easy for them on the matter. Now it still doesn't mean that the state is right for what it's defending now. In fact the state has been placed into a hec of a situation by a few who have bullied their way into forcing the state or feds by way of activist judges to go along with something that a majority of the nation is not for.
Click to expand...


And by 'activist judges', you mean any ruling you disagree with. Yeah, the validity of a court ruling isn't defined by your agreement with it. And with 47 of 49 federal courts ruling with the USSC....its clearly not 'activist judges'. Its the overwhelming weight of legal judgment of the federal judiciary.

2 of 49? That would more closely match your 'judicial activist model'.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle, only the state Senate, which did not want to be called into session (and made the Governor well aware of that sentiment), can remove Davis by impeachment, trial, and conviction.  The judge was very lenient in permitting her to have her name removed from the certificates.
> 
> A majority of the nation does favor LGBT marriage, but that is immaterial.  What is material is that marriage equality is the law of the land.  Christians can disagree, they can try to get the law overturned, but until that time, the people must obey the law./



And this gets right to the heart of the matter: many Christians don't believe that the same rules apply to them that apply to everyone else. They believe that they are better, that they are special, and that they should be able to ignore any law they wish.

The courts are rather elegantly disabusing them of this sordid misconception.


----------



## Rustic

Hell no, I don't want force some poor pastor towards hell...


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle, only the state Senate, which did not want to be called into session (and made the Governor well aware of that sentiment), can remove Davis by impeachment, trial, and conviction.  The judge was very lenient in permitting her to have her name removed from the certificates.



To the best of my knowledge, the judge didn't allow her to remove her names from the licenses. Kim Davis did that on her own. And then declared that because they lack her name, they are invalid and void. 

The judge asked the 6 deputy clerks if they would issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. All but Davis' son agreed. With 5 of 6 clerks willing to do their job, the judge offered Kim Davis a comprimise: don't interfere with these clerks issuing the licenses instead of you....and you won't be in contempt.

Davis refused, insisting that she would do everything in her power to prevent any clerk from issuing those licenses.


----------



## Skylar

Rustic said:


> Hell no, I don't want force some poor pastor towards hell...



If your choice is hell or a job, the choice seems pretty obvious.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skylar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> beagle, only the state Senate, which did not want to be called into session (and made the Governor well aware of that sentiment), can remove Davis by impeachment, trial, and conviction.  The judge was very lenient in permitting her to have her name removed from the certificates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, the judge didn't allow her to remove her names from the licenses. Kim Davis did that on her own. And then declared that because they lack her name, they are invalid and void.
> 
> The judge asked the 6 deputy clerks if they would issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. All but Davis' son agreed. With 5 of 6 clerks willing to do their job, the judge offered Kim Davis a comprimise: don't interfere with these clerks issuing the licenses instead of you....and you won't be in contempt.
> 
> Davis refused, insisting that she would do everything in her power to prevent any clerk from issuing those licenses.
Click to expand...

She is allowing, as I understand it, the clerks to issue the certificates, but her name and office are not on them.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Christians believe that they are above the law?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Court handed down a series of ill-considered decisions that have promoted that view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We our secular nation governed by secular law not religious law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you claim that our laws have been somehow separated from our spiritual and religious beliefs in which was the very instruments used to create this nation and our laws?
> 
> If you didn't have some sort of belief system that was created within you by the creator who is Holy and good, then you would be lawless just like we see in those who have lost their knowledge of this, and their spiritual compass in life.
> 
> Are you an advocate for all things evil in the world? I mean it's because your attitude is what leads up to all things evil in the world eventually. The evidence is there to review, it just depends on how lost you have become in this life.
Click to expand...


_How do you claim that our laws have been somehow separated from our spiritual and religious beliefs in which was the very instruments used to create this nation and our laws?_

Because our laws- starting with the Constitution- were established from the beginning to be separate from our religious beliefs- of course those passing laws often had strong religious beliefs and those laws often sought to impose those moral/religious beliefs on Americans who did not share those same beliefs. 

_If you didn't have some sort of belief system that was created within you by the creator who is Holy and good, then you would be lawless just like we see in those who have lost their knowledge of this, and their spiritual compass in life._

Rather a circular argument. Essentially you are claiming if it wasn't for your religion you wouldn't know right from wrong. Which is rather sad. 

_Are you an advocate for all things evil in the world? I mean it's because your attitude is what leads up to all things evil in the world eventually. The evidence is there to review, it just depends on how lost you have become in this life_

Are you an advocate for all things evil in the world? Some of the greatest evil in history has wrapped itself in the flag of religion and morality- just like you are doing. 

You confuse 'evidence' with your biased opinion_. _


----------



## WorldWatcher

Skylar said:


> To the best of my knowledge, the judge didn't allow her to remove her names from the licenses. Kim Davis did that on her own. And then declared that because they lack her name, they are invalid and void.
> 
> The judge asked the 6 deputy clerks if they would issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. All but Davis' son agreed. With 5 of 6 clerks willing to do their job, the judge offered Kim Davis a comprimise: don't interfere with these clerks issuing the licenses instead of you....and you won't be in contempt.
> 
> Davis refused, insisting that she would do everything in her power to prevent any clerk from issuing those licenses.








This is the license that was issued during her confinement.  Her name isn't on it.

It was signed by a Deputy Clerk functioning in that capacity which is authorized under Kentucky law.


>>>>


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, old duffer, mischaracterize what I say.  Our religious and secular values indeed underwrite our legal system.  But organized religion, the Bible, or atheist writings do not.  *The Constitution rules*, and that means your organized religion does not.  LGBT marriage does not affect me in the slightest or you for that matter.  You need to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Constitution DOES rule.  Have you ever actually read the 1st Amendment?
> 
> "Your religion" is a CIVIL RIGHT you cannot disenfranchise someone from.  I know you don't need to be schooled on how wrong it is to disenfranchise someone from a civil right, right?
Click to expand...


Christians have to follow the law also.

Christians are not exempt from the law just because they claim it violates their religion.


----------



## Skylar

WorldWatcher said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, the judge didn't allow her to remove her names from the licenses. Kim Davis did that on her own. And then declared that because they lack her name, they are invalid and void.
> 
> The judge asked the 6 deputy clerks if they would issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. All but Davis' son agreed. With 5 of 6 clerks willing to do their job, the judge offered Kim Davis a comprimise: don't interfere with these clerks issuing the licenses instead of you....and you won't be in contempt.
> 
> Davis refused, insisting that she would do everything in her power to prevent any clerk from issuing those licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the license that was issued during her confinement.  Her name isn't on it.
> 
> It was signed by a Deputy Clerk functioning in that capacity which is authorized under Kentucky law.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


I hear you. But the judge didn't allow this, or order it. Kim Davis did. The issue is already being litigated.



> According to court documents filed by the American Civil Liberties Union Monday, Davis confiscated licenses issued to gay couples during her short stay in jail and distributed new ones that removed all mention of the county clerk’s office. Instead, the documents include what the ACLU lawyers viewed as a churlish note that they were issued “pursuant to Federal Court Order.”
> 
> ACLU: Kentucky clerk Kim Davis is meddling with county’s marriage licenses



This was about 2 weeks ago. What she did was far more than merely remove her name. She removed all mention of the county, all mention of clerks, and wouldn't even allow her clerks to sign the forms.



> “Rather than standing aside while Deputy Clerk Mason issued the same marriage licenses upon which this Court relied in its September 8 Order lifting the civil contempt finding and releasing her from custody, Davis “confiscated all the original forms, and provided a changed form which deletes all mentions of the County, fills in one of the blanks that would otherwise be the County with the Court’s styling, deletes her name, deletes all of the deputy clerk references, and in place of deputy clerk types in the name of Brian Mason, and has him initial rather than sign,” Mason said in his notice filed with Bunning.



The licenses issued without her name, but with all County authority while she was in jail aren't what we're discussing.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> *Christians have to follow the law* also.
> 
> Christians are not exempt from the law just because they claim it violates their religion.


 
Yes, and the highest law of the land is the 1st Amendment guarantee.  No local ordinance may be passed that disenfranchises a person from their Constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights.  You know that.  Do I have to walk you through poly sci?

I love the evolution of this thread BTW.  It started out in 80% shock at "oh my God the cult of LGBT would/must NEVER be suppressing Christian's faith......to...."here's why and how the cult of LGBT will legally dominate Christians into submission to the Church of LGBT'...

This thread wasn't started that long ago either.  I think their cult is actually moving faster than the Nazi Party did through German government...


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beagle, I counsel you to try to not counsel scripture, which is clear and to the salvation of the soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My take..
> 
> *13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.*
> 
> *Couldn't it also be said that "SHE is also a minister of God" in that to councel thee for good, and so she is issueing marriage liscenses to that which God does approve of in her understanding of that which God would approve of ? Now if thou doest that which is evil unto her (PLACE HER IN CHAINS AND in BONDAGE), and to do this for her belief in that which in her understanding was good, and in that which was legal until she was brought before the unjust judge, then be afraid; for she beareth not the sword in vain; for she is the minister of God in her life, who is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil against her.*
> 
> *Would this apply in her case maybe ?*
> 
> *If not then why not ?*
Click to expand...


Oh are we going to be quoting the Bible in debating Ms. Davis?

Romans is very clear that Christians are supposed to obey authority- there is no 'wiggle' room here- 'authority'- which the New Testament says God has appointed- told Ms. Davis to issue marriage licenses. 

Ms. Davis is cherry picking from the NT about what she wants to obey. 

*Romans 13:1-5 *
 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*. 
*Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment*.
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? 
*Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good*. 
*But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. *
For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 
Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

You feel compelled to alter the words of Roman 13 in order to justify her defiance of authority. Like all those who cherry pick from the Bible.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Christians have to follow the law* also.
> 
> Christians are not exempt from the law just because they claim it violates their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the highest law of the land is the 1st Amendment guarantee.  No local ordinance may be passed that disenfranchises a person from their Constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights.  You know that.  Do I have to walk you through poly sci?
Click to expand...


No court has ever found that requiring Kim Davis to do her job violates the 1st amendment.

So you're left without a constitutional infringement. While Kim is left with a violation of a court order.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Christians believe that they are above the law?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Court handed down a series of ill-considered decisions that have promoted that view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We our secular nation governed by secular law not religious law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you claim that our laws have been somehow separated from our spiritual and religious beliefs in which was the very instruments used to create this nation and our laws?
> 
> If you didn't have some sort of belief system that was created within you by the creator who is Holy and good, then you would be lawless just like we see in those who have lost their knowledge of this, and their spiritual compass in life.
> 
> Are you an advocate for all things evil in the world? I mean it's because your attitude is what leads up to all things evil in the world eventually. The evidence is there to review, it just depends on how lost you have become in this life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _How do you claim that our laws have been somehow separated from our spiritual and religious beliefs in which was the very instruments used to create this nation and our laws?_
> 
> Because our laws- starting with the Constitution- were established from the beginning to be separate from our religious beliefs- of course those passing laws often had strong religious beliefs and those laws often sought to impose those moral/religious beliefs on Americans who did not share those same beliefs.
> 
> _If you didn't have some sort of belief system that was created within you by the creator who is Holy and good, then you would be lawless just like we see in those who have lost their knowledge of this, and their spiritual compass in life._
> 
> Rather a circular argument. Essentially you are claiming if it wasn't for your religion you wouldn't know right from wrong. Which is rather sad.
> 
> _Are you an advocate for all things evil in the world? I mean it's because your attitude is what leads up to all things evil in the world eventually. The evidence is there to review, it just depends on how lost you have become in this life_
> 
> Are you an advocate for all things evil in the world? Some of the greatest evil in history has wrapped itself in the flag of religion and morality- just like you are doing.
> 
> You confuse 'evidence' with your biased opinion_. _
Click to expand...

beagle is trying to reconcile a secular Constitution with his authoritative relgious belief system.  That he is thinking is good.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Christians have to follow the law* also.
> 
> Christians are not exempt from the law just because they claim it violates their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the highest law of the land is the 1st Amendment guarantee.  No local ordinance may be passed that disenfranchises a person from their Constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights.  You know that.  Do I have to walk you through poly sci?
Click to expand...


Yes- the Constitution is the highest law of the land.

That doesn't make Christians exempt from the law.

Just because a Christian claims his religion commands him to not spare the rod on his child, that doesn't mean a Christian is exempt from child abuse laws.


_This week CNN reported that Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz, a white couple from Paradise, California beat their seven-year-old black daughter Lydia because they believed God wanted them to.  The couple tortured the child for seven consecutive hours, taking breaks for prayer.  When police arrived at the Schatz residence, Lydia was still alive.  An officer administered CPR, but it was too late.


“We have heard the phrase ‘death by a thousand lashes,’” Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey told CNN.  “That’s basically what this was.”


The Schatzes, who had eight other children, didn’t only beat Lydia.  All of their children were regularly tortured in the name of God.  Lydia’s sister, eleven-year-old Zariah was beaten so severely that she almost died.


CNN reported that the couple was heavily influenced by a Christian child-rearing book titled To Train Up a Child by Michael and Debi Pearl of Tennessee-based No Greater Joy Ministries.


“If you spare the rod, you hate your child,” author Michael Pearl told CNN.  “But if you love him, you chasten him timely.  God would not have commanded parents to use the rod if it were not good for the child,” the book states.


Umph.  A lot of good the rod did for little Lydia.  Her skin was so badly battered that the medical examiner said her injuries looked like those seen on earthquake or bombing victims.


The Schatz’s pleaded guilty to torture and murder.  The husband will spend 22 years behind bars and his wife will be locked away for at least 12 years.  At Kevin’s trial Lydia’s sister Zariah faced her tormentor and asked: “Why did you adopt her (Lydia)?  To kill her?”  Lydia and her seven other surviving siblings are now in foster care._


----------



## JakeStarkey

A couple like that once lived in a neighborhood close to ours.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..and my all time favorite..."children aren't fledged citizens and they can't vote or affect their world as viable citizens so they have no voice here!"  Which, if you examine the civil rights movements throughout time, you find that those in them are precisely those most disenfranchised as to that exact description..
> 
> ...Hypocrites...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about hypocrites- you are the one who keeps telling us that- we are not the ones making that idiotic claim.
> 
> Children do not have a vote- and law makers never ask children their opinion about divorce laws, or marriage laws. Of course none of that offends you until homosexuals can marry.
> 
> Then all you care about is denying the children of homosexuals the protection of having married parents.
> 
> Once again- denying marriage to homosexuals helps not a single child.
> But denying marriage to homosexuals does deny their children the legal protections of marriage.
> 
> You don't give a damn about children.
> 
> You are the lying hypocrite here.
Click to expand...



Talk about hypocrites- you are the one who keeps telling us that- we are not the ones making that idiotic claim.

Children do not have a vote- and law makers never ask children their opinion about divorce laws, or marriage laws. Of course none of that offends you until homosexuals can marry.

Then all you care about is denying the children of homosexuals the protection of having married parents.

Once again- denying marriage to homosexuals helps not a single child.
But denying marriage to homosexuals does deny their children the legal protections of marriage.

You don't give a damn about children.

You are the lying hypocrite here.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sil, yes, is indeed the lying hypocrite.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beagle, I counsel you to try to not counsel scripture, which is clear and to the salvation of the soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My take..
> 
> *13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.*
> 
> *Couldn't it also be said that "SHE is also a minister of God" in that to councel thee for good, and so she is issueing marriage liscenses to that which God does approve of in her understanding of that which God would approve of ? Now if thou doest that which is evil unto her (PLACE HER IN CHAINS AND in BONDAGE), and to do this for her belief in that which in her understanding was good, and in that which was legal until she was brought before the unjust judge, then be afraid; for she beareth not the sword in vain; for she is the minister of God in her life, who is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil against her.*
> 
> *Would this apply in her case maybe ?*
> 
> *If not then why not ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh are we going to be quoting the Bible in debating Ms. Davis?
> 
> Romans is very clear that Christians are supposed to obey authority- there is no 'wiggle' room here- 'authority'- which the New Testament says God has appointed- told Ms. Davis to issue marriage licenses.
> 
> Ms. Davis is cherry picking from the NT about what she wants to obey.
> 
> *Romans 13:1-5 *
> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*.
> *Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment*.
> For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
> *Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good*.
> *But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. *
> For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
> Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
> 
> You feel compelled to alter the words of Roman 13 in order to justify her defiance of authority. Like all those who cherry pick from the Bible.
Click to expand...


Do you not know the true meanings of what you have used above ? The above condems that which is bad, and lifts up that which is good. There is no authority recognized other than and/or except for that which God does approve of in order to be recognized as such. Now in that authority approved of we are to obey if it is Godly and good. For the rulers who are appointed for good, are not to be a terror to that which is good, but instead of that which is bad. Now as far as being under the yoke of a ruler or rulers of that which is bad, then it is that we as Christians are to trust in God that his words and works will be revealed unto them, and are that which is just and holy.  He shall deal with those who choose to abuse and place his children into bondage for they belong to him for whom is God the almighty. Jesus comands that we obey in so that his works are just and are complete in our sight, and his words are to be made true unto us. Glory to him who is on high, and praise his name for he is our king. Amen.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beagle, I counsel you to try to not counsel scripture, which is clear and to the salvation of the soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My take..
> 
> *13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.*
> 
> *Couldn't it also be said that "SHE is also a minister of God" in that to councel thee for good, and so she is issueing marriage liscenses to that which God does approve of in her understanding of that which God would approve of ? Now if thou doest that which is evil unto her (PLACE HER IN CHAINS AND in BONDAGE), and to do this for her belief in that which in her understanding was good, and in that which was legal until she was brought before the unjust judge, then be afraid; for she beareth not the sword in vain; for she is the minister of God in her life, who is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil against her.*
> 
> *Would this apply in her case maybe ?*
> 
> *If not then why not ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh are we going to be quoting the Bible in debating Ms. Davis?
> 
> Romans is very clear that Christians are supposed to obey authority- there is no 'wiggle' room here- 'authority'- which the New Testament says God has appointed- told Ms. Davis to issue marriage licenses.
> 
> Ms. Davis is cherry picking from the NT about what she wants to obey.
> 
> *Romans 13:1-5 *
> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*.
> *Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment*.
> For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
> *Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good*.
> *But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. *
> For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
> Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
> 
> You feel compelled to alter the words of Roman 13 in order to justify her defiance of authority. Like all those who cherry pick from the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not know the true meanings of what you have used above ? The above condems that which is bad, and lifts up that which is good. There is no authority recognized other than and/or except for that which God does approve of in order to be recognized as such. Now in that authority approved of we are to obey if it is Godly and good. For the rulers who are appointed for good, are not to be a terror to that which is good, but instead of that which is bad. Now as far as being under the yoke of a ruler or rulers of that which is bad, then it is that we as Christians are to trust in God that his words and works will be revealed unto them, and are that which is just and holy.  He shall deal with those who choose to abuse and place his children into bondage for they belong to him for whom is God the almighty. Jesus comands that we obey in so that his works are just and are complete in our sight, and his words are to be made true unto us. Glory to him who is on high, and praise his name for he is our king. Amen.
Click to expand...

Excellent.  Thus Kim Davis can issue certificates and leave the judging to God or she can resign.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beagle, I counsel you to try to not counsel scripture, which is clear and to the salvation of the soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My take..
> 
> *13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.*
> 
> *Couldn't it also be said that "SHE is also a minister of God" in that to councel thee for good, and so she is issueing marriage liscenses to that which God does approve of in her understanding of that which God would approve of ? Now if thou doest that which is evil unto her (PLACE HER IN CHAINS AND in BONDAGE), and to do this for her belief in that which in her understanding was good, and in that which was legal until she was brought before the unjust judge, then be afraid; for she beareth not the sword in vain; for she is the minister of God in her life, who is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil against her.*
> 
> *Would this apply in her case maybe ?*
> 
> *If not then why not ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh are we going to be quoting the Bible in debating Ms. Davis?
> 
> Romans is very clear that Christians are supposed to obey authority- there is no 'wiggle' room here- 'authority'- which the New Testament says God has appointed- told Ms. Davis to issue marriage licenses.
> 
> Ms. Davis is cherry picking from the NT about what she wants to obey.
> 
> *Romans 13:1-5 *
> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*.
> *Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment*.
> For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
> *Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good*.
> *But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. *
> For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
> Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
> 
> You feel compelled to alter the words of Roman 13 in order to justify her defiance of authority. Like all those who cherry pick from the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not know the true meanings of what you have used above ? The above condems that which is bad, and lifts up that which is good. There is no authority recognized other than and/or except for that which God does approve of in order to be recognized as such..
Click to expand...


The words are about as specific as Paul has ever gotten. Paul for instance never said "Do not engage in homosexuals relationships"- but Paul very specifically said to obey authority.

Why obey authority?

Because all authority comes from God. Why do you resist listening to Paul- for these specific instructions?

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*.
*
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment*.
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
*Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good*.
*But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. *
For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

Nowhere does Paul say "Obey authority- if you agree with authority"


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beagle, I counsel you to try to not counsel scripture, which is clear and to the salvation of the soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My take..
> 
> *13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.*
> 
> *Couldn't it also be said that "SHE is also a minister of God" in that to councel thee for good, and so she is issueing marriage liscenses to that which God does approve of in her understanding of that which God would approve of ? Now if thou doest that which is evil unto her (PLACE HER IN CHAINS AND in BONDAGE), and to do this for her belief in that which in her understanding was good, and in that which was legal until she was brought before the unjust judge, then be afraid; for she beareth not the sword in vain; for she is the minister of God in her life, who is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil against her.*
> 
> *Would this apply in her case maybe ?*
> 
> *If not then why not ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh are we going to be quoting the Bible in debating Ms. Davis?
> 
> Romans is very clear that Christians are supposed to obey authority- there is no 'wiggle' room here- 'authority'- which the New Testament says God has appointed- told Ms. Davis to issue marriage licenses.
> 
> Ms. Davis is cherry picking from the NT about what she wants to obey.
> 
> *Romans 13:1-5 *
> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*.
> *Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment*.
> For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
> *Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good*.
> *But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. *
> For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
> Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
> 
> You feel compelled to alter the words of Roman 13 in order to justify her defiance of authority. Like all those who cherry pick from the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not know the true meanings of what you have used above ? The above condems that which is bad, and lifts up that which is good. There is no authority recognized other than and/or except for that which God does approve of in order to be recognized as such. Now in that authority approved of we are to obey if it is Godly and good. For the rulers who are appointed for good, are not to be a terror to that which is good, but instead of that which is bad. Now as far as being under the yoke of a ruler or rulers of that which is bad, then it is that we as Christians are to trust in God that his words and works will be revealed unto them, and are that which is just and holy.  He shall deal with those who choose to abuse and place his children into bondage for they belong to him for whom is God the almighty. Jesus comands that we obey in so that his works are just and are complete in our sight, and his words are to be made true unto us. Glory to him who is on high, and praise his name for he is our king. Amen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent.  Thus Kim Davis can issue certificates and leave the judging to God or she can resign.
Click to expand...

Her rulers have become a terror onto her, for she is expected by them to do that which is unGodly.


----------



## IvantheGreat

Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriages. Should gays be allowed to marry? Yes. 
Should churches have the right to decide whether or not to marry them? Also yes.


----------



## playtime

religious Institutions will not be required to perform same sex marriages if it's against their doctrine.  There are plenty of them that will, however.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beagle, I counsel you to try to not counsel scripture, which is clear and to the salvation of the soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My take..
> 
> *13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.*
> 
> *Couldn't it also be said that "SHE is also a minister of God" in that to councel thee for good, and so she is issueing marriage liscenses to that which God does approve of in her understanding of that which God would approve of ? Now if thou doest that which is evil unto her (PLACE HER IN CHAINS AND in BONDAGE), and to do this for her belief in that which in her understanding was good, and in that which was legal until she was brought before the unjust judge, then be afraid; for she beareth not the sword in vain; for she is the minister of God in her life, who is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil against her.*
> 
> *Would this apply in her case maybe ?*
> 
> *If not then why not ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh are we going to be quoting the Bible in debating Ms. Davis?
> 
> Romans is very clear that Christians are supposed to obey authority- there is no 'wiggle' room here- 'authority'- which the New Testament says God has appointed- told Ms. Davis to issue marriage licenses.
> 
> Ms. Davis is cherry picking from the NT about what she wants to obey.
> 
> *Romans 13:1-5 *
> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*.
> *Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment*.
> For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
> *Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good*.
> *But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. *
> For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
> Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
> 
> You feel compelled to alter the words of Roman 13 in order to justify her defiance of authority. Like all those who cherry pick from the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not know the true meanings of what you have used above ? The above condems that which is bad, and lifts up that which is good. There is no authority recognized other than and/or except for that which God does approve of in order to be recognized as such..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The words are about as specific as Paul has ever gotten. Paul for instance never said "Do not engage in homosexuals relationships"- but Paul very specifically said to obey authority.
> 
> Why obey authority?
> 
> Because all authority comes from God. Why do you resist listening to Paul- for these specific instructions?
> 
> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*.
> *
> Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment*.
> For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
> *Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good*.
> *But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. *
> For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
> Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
> 
> Nowhere does Paul say "Obey authority- if you agree with authority"
Click to expand...

For rulers are not a TERROR to good, so now that good is being redefined by man, then justifications begin to justify just about anything anymore these days. People speak about these things as if they are living for the moment now, but after the moment has passed, then comes the judgement.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> or rulers are not a TERROR to good, so now that good is being redefined by man, then justifications begin to justify just about anything anymore these days. People speak about these things as if they are living for the moment now, but after the moment has passed, then comes the judgement.


I am glad you had a good talk with your pastor. Now leave Kim's rulers to the Lord, as will I, and let's move on to other matters.


----------



## Skylar

IvantheGreat said:


> Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriages. Should gays be allowed to marry? Yes.
> Should churches have the right to decide whether or not to marry them? Also yes.



Pretty much everyone agrees on the latter. Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriage.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriages. Should gays be allowed to marry? Yes.
> Should churches have the right to decide whether or not to marry them? Also yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees on the latter. Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriage.
Click to expand...


Then why should businesses? Should Churches get special privilege? Is THAT the point of the First Amendment???


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriages. Should gays be allowed to marry? Yes.
> Should churches have the right to decide whether or not to marry them? Also yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees on the latter. Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why should businesses? Should Churches get special privilege? Is THAT the point of the First Amendment???
Click to expand...


Because business is commerce. And falls right under the State's authority to regulate. Religion isn't. And falls outside it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriages. Should gays be allowed to marry? Yes.
> Should churches have the right to decide whether or not to marry them? Also yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees on the latter. Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why should businesses? Should Churches get special privilege? Is THAT the point of the First Amendment???
Click to expand...

Fuck, yeah, little doosh.  As long as they are involved in private association, unlike the doosh bakers, they don't have to marry anyone they don't want.  Yeah.


----------



## dblack

Good to see all the corporatists lining up together.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Good to see all the corporatists lining up together.



Is this where we get the standard libertariaism 'we shouldn't have any anti-discrimination laws' schtick again?

Its not the schtick that bugs me. Its all the time of mine you waste pretending its something other than your schtick....before coming to the same tired talking points.

Speed it up a little.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see all the corporatists lining up together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this where we get the standard libertariaism 'we shouldn't have any anti-discrimination laws' schtick again?
> 
> Its not the schtick that bugs me. Its all the time of mine you waste pretending its something other than your schtick....before coming to the same tired talking points.
> 
> Speed it up a little.
Click to expand...


I don't waste any of your time. You do that yourself.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see all the corporatists lining up together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this where we get the standard libertariaism 'we shouldn't have any anti-discrimination laws' schtick again?
> 
> Its not the schtick that bugs me. Its all the time of mine you waste pretending its something other than your schtick....before coming to the same tired talking points.
> 
> Speed it up a little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't waste any of your time. You do.
Click to expand...


Well I am talking to you. And I already know your entire script. So.....you may have a point.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see all the corporatists lining up together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this where we get the standard libertariaism 'we shouldn't have any anti-discrimination laws' schtick again?
> 
> Its not the schtick that bugs me. Its all the time of mine you waste pretending its something other than your schtick....before coming to the same tired talking points.
> 
> Speed it up a little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't waste any of your time. You do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am talking to you. And I already know your entire script. So.....you may have a point.
Click to expand...


Yet you can't resist. Why is that?


----------



## IvantheGreat

dblack said:


> Good to see all the corporatists lining up together.


Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship. 
Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda. 

The two clearly aren't the same.


----------



## Skylar

IvantheGreat said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see all the corporatists lining up together.
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
> Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.
> 
> The two clearly aren't the same.
Click to expand...


Churches are inherently discriminatory. Its the nature of religion. Businesses, not so much. 

Plus, from a practical perspective racial discrimination and the like is just bad for the economy. In our society, commerce is how goods and services are distributed. Racial discrimination and the like limit access to those goods and services, make them less efficient to distribute, and limit entrepreneurial opportunities. 

Its just bad business. 

Plus States have the implicit authority over intrastate commerce. And absolutely have the authority to establish minimum codes of conduct for those who wish to do business within their jurisdiction.


----------



## Silhouette

IvantheGreat said:


> Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
> Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.
> 
> *The two clearly aren't the same*.


 Yes, they aren't.  A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.  The right to do trade with this or that person isn't.  And neither is the "right" to force a Christian to abdicate their faith to passively refuse to accomodate anyone's behavior that is forbidden under penalty of eternal soul death in the Bible.  (see Jude 1 for details)


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
> Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.
> 
> *The two clearly aren't the same*.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they aren't.  A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.
Click to expand...


Not to the extent that they can ignore any law they wish. Take Kim Davis. No court has found that there have been any violations of her rights in requiring her to do her job.

So....you've got no constitutional violation. You do however have a violated court order. 



> The right to do trade with this or that person isn't.  And neither is the "right" to force a Christian to abdicate their faith to passively refuse to accomodate anyone's behavior that is forbidden under penalty of eternal soul death in the Bible.  (see Jude 1 for details)



Jude 1 never makes the slightest mention of gay marriage or weddings cakes. 

But you do demonstrate how uselessly subjective religion is. And how you can quite literally make up anything you'd like, on any basis, pulled sideways out of your ass. And hallucinate entire passages that don't exist, as you've done with Jude 1.

And per your view on the constitution, *should be able to use that made up justification to ignore any law.*

What you're demanding is a religiously based sovereign citizen argument. Where all laws are voluntary and subordinate to religion. That's not our system nor ever has been.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
> Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.
> 
> *The two clearly aren't the same*.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they aren't.  A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to the extent that they can ignore any law they wish. Take Kim Davis. No court has found that there have been any violations of her rights in requiring her to do her job.
> 
> So....you've got no constitutional violation. You do however have a violated court order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to do trade with this or that person isn't.  And neither is the "right" to force a Christian to abdicate their faith to passively refuse to accomodate anyone's behavior that is forbidden under penalty of eternal soul death in the Bible.  (see Jude 1 for details)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jude 1 never makes the slightest mention of gay marriage or weddings cakes.
> 
> But you do demonstrate how uselessly subjective religion is. And how you can quite literally make up anything you'd like, on any basis, pulled sideways out of your ass. And hallucinate entire passages that don't exist, as you've done with Jude 1.
> 
> And per your view on the constitution, *should be able to use that made up justification to ignore any law.*
> 
> What you're demanding is a religiously based sovereign citizen argument. Where all laws are voluntary and subordinate to religion. That's not our system nor ever has been.
Click to expand...


Hehe.... backpedalling for the win!


----------



## Silhouette

IvantheGreat said:


> Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
> Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.
> 
> *The two clearly aren't the same*.





Silhouette said:


> Yes, they aren't.  A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.  A person's faith is protected Constitutionally. The right to do trade with this or that person isn't. And neither is the "right" to force a Christian to abdicate their faith to passively refuse to accomodate anyone's behavior that is forbidden under penalty of eternal soul death in the Bible. (see Jude 1 for details)


 


Skylar said:


> Not to the extent that they can ignore any law they wish..


 
Passively refusing to promote homosexuality is Kim Davis' right as a Christian who knows the dire warnings of Jude 1 and what the Pope just re-asserted late September...  You may have forgotten so I'll remind you once again of the false premise.  Homosexuals aren't a race of people.  They are just people doing aberrent things strictly forbidden in the Bible.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
> Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.
> 
> *The two clearly aren't the same*.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they aren't.  A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to the extent that they can ignore any law they wish. Take Kim Davis. No court has found that there have been any violations of her rights in requiring her to do her job.
> 
> So....you've got no constitutional violation. You do however have a violated court order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to do trade with this or that person isn't.  And neither is the "right" to force a Christian to abdicate their faith to passively refuse to accomodate anyone's behavior that is forbidden under penalty of eternal soul death in the Bible.  (see Jude 1 for details)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jude 1 never makes the slightest mention of gay marriage or weddings cakes.
> 
> But you do demonstrate how uselessly subjective religion is. And how you can quite literally make up anything you'd like, on any basis, pulled sideways out of your ass. And hallucinate entire passages that don't exist, as you've done with Jude 1.
> 
> And per your view on the constitution, *should be able to use that made up justification to ignore any law.*
> 
> What you're demanding is a religiously based sovereign citizen argument. Where all laws are voluntary and subordinate to religion. That's not our system nor ever has been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hehe.... backpedalling for the win!
Click to expand...


Churches don't have to accommodate gay marriage. But people aren't churches. I would think this was obvious. But clearly I have to reiterate this fact for you.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Churches don't have to accommodate gay marriage. But people aren't churches. I would think this was obvious. But clearly I have to reiterate this fact for you.


 
The 1st Amendment doesn't say "freedom of church"...it says "freedom of religion"


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
> Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.
> 
> *The two clearly aren't the same*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they aren't.  A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to the extent that they can ignore any law they wish..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Passively refusing to promote homosexuality is Kim Davis' right as a Christian who knows the dire warnings of Jude 1 and what the Pope just re-asserted late September...
Click to expand...



No court has ever found that Kim Davis has the right to use the State to impose her religious views on people who don't share them. Every court to hear her case has found that she is in violation of the constitution. 

So you're stuck with no constitutional violation of Kim's rights. While Kim violates other people's rights. Are you starting to see why your pseudo-legal claims have nothing to do with any legal outcome.

Um, ever?



> You may have forgotten so I'll remind you once again of the false premise.  Homosexuals aren't a race of people.  They are just people doing aberrent things strictly forbidden in the Bible.



A strawman that might have some relevance if I'd argued that gays are a race. Which I never did.

Try again. This time without the fallacies of logic.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches don't have to accommodate gay marriage. But people aren't churches. I would think this was obvious. But clearly I have to reiterate this fact for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1st Amendment doesn't say "freedom of church"...it says "freedom of religion"
Click to expand...


So...churchs are tax exempt. Does that mean that people are too?

If they are the same, why is one tax exempt but the other not? Is it possible that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about....and are instead offering us your imagination in place of actual legal precedent?


----------



## IvantheGreat

Silhouette said:


> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
> Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.
> 
> *The two clearly aren't the same*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they aren't.  A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.  A person's faith is protected Constitutionally. The right to do trade with this or that person isn't. And neither is the "right" to force a Christian to abdicate their faith to passively refuse to accomodate anyone's behavior that is forbidden under penalty of eternal soul death in the Bible. (see Jude 1 for details)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to the extent that they can ignore any law they wish..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Passively refusing to promote homosexuality is Kim Davis' right as a Christian who knows the dire warnings of Jude 1 and what the Pope just re-asserted late September...  You may have forgotten so I'll remind you once again of the false premise.  Homosexuals aren't a race of people.  They are just people doing aberrent things strictly forbidden in the Bible.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean that the God of "love and mercy" would damn anyone to hell for acknowledging two people's right to love each other? If God hates gays so much, why did He create people with the ability to love homosexually?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Read St. Mark's words of Jesus and St. Paul's counsel.  We are to obey authority, and the sin if any rests on the authorities not the Christian.  Sil is only a nominal Christian if that, so understand she does not grasp Christian teaching.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> Read St. Mark's words of Jesus and St. Paul's counsel.  We are to obey authority, and the sin if any rests on the authorities not the Christian.  Sil is only a nominal Christian if that, so understand she does not grasp Christian teaching.



And unburdened by reality, just makes scriptures up. You know the passage in Jude 1 that condemns gay marriage and relegates any cake maker to hell if they bake for one?

Yeah, me neither. But Sil's read it anyway.


----------



## Silhouette

IvantheGreat said:


> Oh, you mean that the God of "love and mercy" would damn anyone to hell for acknowledging two people's right to love each other? If God hates gays so much, why did He create people with the ability to love homosexually?


 
God doesn't hate homosexuals since there is no such thing anyway.  God hates the sin, not the sinner.  Read Jude 1 when you get a minute.


----------



## IvantheGreat

Silhouette said:


> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean that the God of "love and mercy" would damn anyone to hell for acknowledging two people's right to love each other? If God hates gays so much, why did He create people with the ability to love homosexually?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't hate homosexuals since there is no such thing anyway.  God hates the sin, not the sinner.  Read Jude 1 when you get a minute.
Click to expand...

Oh, so what you're saying is that you don't have to hate someone to banish them to eternal suffering? Humans, as flawed as we are, don't even wish that on people who cross us on minor things, and usually not when someone majorly offends us. Yet God, a being of infinite love, would damn someone without a second thought because of love?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean that the God of "love and mercy" would damn anyone to hell for acknowledging two people's right to love each other? If God hates gays so much, why did He create people with the ability to love homosexually?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't hate homosexuals since there is no such thing anyway.  God hates the sin, not the sinner.  Read Jude 1 when you get a minute.
Click to expand...


I have. It makes no mention of gay weddings, cake, clerks, licenses, or any of the other silly shit you claim it does.

You realize that we can't actually read the hallucinated version of Jude 1 that you've made up, right?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean that the God of "love and mercy" would damn anyone to hell for acknowledging two people's right to love each other? If God hates gays so much, why did He create people with the ability to love homosexually?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't hate homosexuals since there is no such thing anyway.  God hates the sin, not the sinner.  Read Jude 1 when you get a minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. It makes no mention of gay weddings, cake, clerks, licenses, or any of the other silly shit you claim it does.
> 
> You realize that we can't actually read the hallucinated version of Jude 1 that you've made up, right?
Click to expand...

Jude 1 is a writing against false teachers who teach a form of Gnosticism (spirit is good, flesh is evil) so that whatever is done in the body does not matter.  They teach that Jesus was spirit not body.  Jude warns the people to avoid these false teachers.

Jude 1 is an applicable condemnation of Silhouette who is a false teacher, both about scripture, the Gospel's meaning, and about homosexuals.  She only condemns herself.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriages. Should gays be allowed to marry? Yes.
> Should churches have the right to decide whether or not to marry them? Also yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everyone agrees on the latter. Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why should businesses? Should Churches get special privilege? Is THAT the point of the First Amendment???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because business is commerce. And falls right under the State's authority to regulate. Religion isn't. And falls outside it.
Click to expand...

How did marriage become a part of commerce, because that is a problem it seems. Being a part of commerce in some way, and in which has allowed government to strong arm it, and to have dominion over it somehow, has now become a huge mistake. Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in the eyes of God. Period.


----------



## beagle9

IvantheGreat said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see all the corporatists lining up together.
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
> Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.
> 
> The two clearly aren't the same.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a business ?


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
> Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.
> 
> *The two clearly aren't the same*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they aren't.  A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to the extent that they can ignore any law they wish..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Passively refusing to promote homosexuality is Kim Davis' right as a Christian who knows the dire warnings of Jude 1 and what the Pope just re-asserted late September...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No court has ever found that Kim Davis has the right to use the State to impose her religious views on people who don't share them. Every court to hear her case has found that she is in violation of the constitution.
> 
> So you're stuck with no constitutional violation of Kim's rights. While Kim violates other people's rights. Are you starting to see why your pseudo-legal claims have nothing to do with any legal outcome.
> 
> Um, ever?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may have forgotten so I'll remind you once again of the false premise.  Homosexuals aren't a race of people.  They are just people doing aberrent things strictly forbidden in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A strawman that might have some relevance if I'd argued that gays are a race. Which I never did.
> 
> Try again. This time without the fallacies of logic.
Click to expand...

Marriage should immediately be separated from the state.. Period.


----------



## beagle9

Any type of religious ceremony or traditional religious ceremony as with the uniting of one man and one woman in marriage, should immediately be separated from state control, and placed back in it's rightful place to represent that which is good in the eyes of God, because it has been highjacked while it was under (what use to be a trusted state control) where it was adopted somehow by the state for various reasons in which once was good. The state being seized by various forces now, has made that a mistake to give the state control over some institutions in these ways.


----------



## playtime

beagle9 said:


> How did marriage become a part of commerce, because that is a problem it seems. Being a part of commerce in some way, and in which has allowed government to strong arm it, and to have dominion over it somehow, has now become a huge mistake. *Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in the eyes of God. Period.*



Umm, no.  Not here in the US.  This is a secular nation & unlike religious States - no RELIGIOUS ceremony is valid nor legal without a marriage license issued by the State.

A civil marriage performed without benefit of religion is legal where as a religious marriage performed without a civil license is not.


----------



## playtime

beagle9 said:


> Any type of religious ceremony or traditional religious ceremony as with the uniting of one man and one woman in marriage, should immediately be separated from state control, and placed back in it's rightful place to represent that which is good in the eyes of God, because it has been highjacked while it was under (what use to be a trusted state control) where it was adopted somehow by the state for various reasons in which once was good. The state being seized by various forces now, has made that a mistake to give the state control over some institutions in these ways.



Ah, now you enter the territory of which religious doctrine should be adhered to.  Many religions allow multiple spouses (according to THEIR God).  Why does your God get to take precedence?


----------



## RodISHI

JakeStarkey said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean that the God of "love and mercy" would damn anyone to hell for acknowledging two people's right to love each other? If God hates gays so much, why did He create people with the ability to love homosexually?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't hate homosexuals since there is no such thing anyway.  God hates the sin, not the sinner.  Read Jude 1 when you get a minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. It makes no mention of gay weddings, cake, clerks, licenses, or any of the other silly shit you claim it does.
> 
> You realize that we can't actually read the hallucinated version of Jude 1 that you've made up, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jude 1 is a writing against false teachers who teach a form of Gnosticism (spirit is good, flesh is evil) so that whatever is done in the body does not matter.  They teach that Jesus was spirit not body.  Jude warns the people to avoid these false teachers.
> 
> Jude 1 is an applicable condemnation of Silhouette who is a false teacher, both about scripture, the Gospel's meaning, and about homosexuals.  She only condemns herself.
Click to expand...

The false teacher here is you Jake. I know you would like to ignore this part of Jude but it still remain; "How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts." That is also talking about anyone who walks after their own lusts and attempts to condemn or chastise those who tell the truth of the matter. Sodom and Gomorrah were never found righteous in God's eyes and neither are those who follow in their footsteps. Quit trying to twist God's grace into something that allows anyone to try to justify their own lack of self control. Grace does not extend to those who willingly give themselves over and falsely accuse another. The Lord's mercy does endure but if you chose that path of sin you are given over to your own sin and you live in bondage to that sin when you do that, grace no longer applies. 
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2pe/2/19/s_1158019

2Peter  2:17-20 
*These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.

While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption*: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 

For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, *the latter end is worse with them than the beginning*.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> Any type of religious ceremony or traditional religious ceremony as with the uniting of one man and one woman in marriage, should immediately be separated from state control, and placed back in it's rightful place to represent that which is good in the eyes of God, because it has been highjacked while it was under (what use to be a trusted state control) where it was adopted somehow by the state for various reasons in which once was good. The state being seized by various forces now, has made that a mistake to give the state control over some institutions in these ways.


Marriage is not a state function.

No church has to register a marriage with the state.  The FLDS, as an example, marry all the time without the state being involved.

If the couple want the governmental perks and reciprocaties and obligations that go with state-recognized marriage, then it must be registered.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Rodishi continues to speak of things she understandeth not.  She is like those who listen to Jesus below and amazed

*Mark 12: 17* Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.

*Romans 13: 1* Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 
*2* Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 
*3* For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 
*4* For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 
*5* Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 
*6* This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 
*7* Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.


----------



## RodISHI

JakeStarkey said:


> Rodishi continues to speak of things she understandeth not.  She is like those who listen to Jesus below and amazed
> 
> *Mark 12: 17* Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.
> 
> *Romans 13: 1* Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
> *2* Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
> *3* For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
> *4* For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
> *5* Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
> *6* This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.
> *7* Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.


You are not my governing authority God is. Now where in the constitution of this great country says you have a right to lie and not be called on it.

I already told you God created a Rod of destruction and a Rod of correction. You seem to like the Rod of destruction better so go for it but do not include me in.

You serve your own not Jehovah as you try to twist the Word to fit your own desires.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches don't have to accommodate gay marriage. But people aren't churches. I would think this was obvious. But clearly I have to reiterate this fact for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1st Amendment doesn't say "freedom of church"...it says "freedom of religion"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...churchs are tax exempt. Does that mean that people are too?
Click to expand...


It should. If churches are exempt, so should other businesses, so should everyone. The First Amendment shouldn't be interpreted as special rights for special people. Interpreting it that way puts government in charge of deciding which religions are authorized and which aren't.


----------



## JakeStarkey

RodISHI said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rodishi continues to speak of things she understandeth not.  She is like those who listen to Jesus below and amazed
> 
> *Mark 12: 17* Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.
> 
> *Romans 13: 1* Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
> *2* Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
> *3* For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
> *4* For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
> *5* Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
> *6* This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.
> *7* Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not my governing authority God is. Now where in the constitution of this great country says you have a right to lie and not be called on it.  I already told you God created a Rod of destruction and a Rod of correction. You seem to like the Rod of destruction better so go for it but do not include me in.  You serve your own not Jehovah as you try to twist the Word to fit your own desires.
Click to expand...

Seek not to counsel St. Mark, who writes the words of Jesus, or St. Paul.  The words of the Lord and the apostles are clear and correct.  Submit to authority, for authority is of God.  If authority is evil, then the judgement is from God, not Rodishi.


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches don't have to accommodate gay marriage. But people aren't churches. I would think this was obvious. But clearly I have to reiterate this fact for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1st Amendment doesn't say "freedom of church"...it says "freedom of religion"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...churchs are tax exempt. Does that mean that people are too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should. If churches are exempt, so should other businesses, so should everyone. The First Amendment shouldn't be interpreted as special rights for special people. Interpreting it that way puts government in charge of deciding which religions are authorized and which aren't.
Click to expand...

I agree whole heartedly that churches should not be tax exempt.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beagle, I counsel you to try to not counsel scripture, which is clear and to the salvation of the soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My take..
> 
> *13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.*
> 
> *Couldn't it also be said that "SHE is also a minister of God" in that to councel thee for good, and so she is issueing marriage liscenses to that which God does approve of in her understanding of that which God would approve of ? Now if thou doest that which is evil unto her (PLACE HER IN CHAINS AND in BONDAGE), and to do this for her belief in that which in her understanding was good, and in that which was legal until she was brought before the unjust judge, then be afraid; for she beareth not the sword in vain; for she is the minister of God in her life, who is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil against her.*
> 
> *Would this apply in her case maybe ?*
> 
> *If not then why not ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh are we going to be quoting the Bible in debating Ms. Davis?
> 
> Romans is very clear that Christians are supposed to obey authority- there is no 'wiggle' room here- 'authority'- which the New Testament says God has appointed- told Ms. Davis to issue marriage licenses.
> 
> Ms. Davis is cherry picking from the NT about what she wants to obey.
> 
> *Romans 13:1-5 *
> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*.
> *Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment*.
> For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
> *Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good*.
> *But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. *
> For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
> Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
> 
> You feel compelled to alter the words of Roman 13 in order to justify her defiance of authority. Like all those who cherry pick from the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not know the true meanings of what you have used above ? The above condems that which is bad, and lifts up that which is good. There is no authority recognized other than and/or except for that which God does approve of in order to be recognized as such..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The words are about as specific as Paul has ever gotten. Paul for instance never said "Do not engage in homosexuals relationships"- but Paul very specifically said to obey authority.
> 
> Why obey authority?
> 
> Because all authority comes from God. Why do you resist listening to Paul- for these specific instructions?
> 
> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*.
> *
> Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment*.
> For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
> *Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good*.
> *But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. *
> For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
> Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
> 
> Nowhere does Paul say "Obey authority- if you agree with authority"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For rulers are not a TERROR to good, so now that good is being redefined by man, then justifications begin to justify just about anything anymore these days. People speak about these things as if they are living for the moment now, but after the moment has passed, then comes the judgement.
Click to expand...


Still waiting for you to explain why the explicit words of Paul are not important to you. Do you also ignore what Paul says about male homosexuals- or do you use Paul's words then as a rational to discriminate against homosexuals?

Here again.

The words are about as specific as Paul has ever gotten. Paul for instance never said "Do not engage in homosexuals relationships"- but Paul very specifically said to obey authority.

Why obey authority?

Because all authority comes from God. Why do you resist listening to Paul- for these specific instructions?

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*.
*
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment*.
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
*Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good*.
*But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. *
For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

Nowhere does Paul say "Obey authority- if you agree with authority"


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
> Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.
> 
> *The two clearly aren't the same*.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they aren't.  A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.  The right to do trade with this or that person isn't.  And neither is the "right" to force a Christian to abdicate their faith to passively refuse to accomodate anyone's behavior that is forbidden under penalty of eternal soul death in the Bible.  (see Jude 1 for details)
Click to expand...


Jude says no such thing.

But Paul says that Christians- including if she is one- Ms. Davis- should obey authority- because all authority comes from God.

The words are about as specific as Paul has ever gotten. Paul for instance never said "Do not engage in homosexuals relationships"- but Paul very specifically said to obey authority.

Why obey authority?

Because all authority comes from God. Why do you resist listening to Paul- for these specific instructions?

_Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*.
*
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment*.
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
*Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good*.
*But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. *
For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience._

Nowhere does Paul say "Christians don't have to obey authority"- Paul says 'Christians who disobey authority disobey God'


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean that the God of "love and mercy" would damn anyone to hell for acknowledging two people's right to love each other? If God hates gays so much, why did He create people with the ability to love homosexually?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't hate homosexuals since there is no such thing anyway.  God hates the sin, not the sinner.  Read Jude 1 when you get a minute.
Click to expand...


God says Christians should obey authority- read Romans 13 sometime in between your anti-gay tirades.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any type of religious ceremony or traditional religious ceremony as with the uniting of one man and one woman in marriage, should immediately be separated from state control, and placed back in it's rightful place to represent that which is good in the eyes of God, because it has been highjacked while it was under (what use to be a trusted state control) where it was adopted somehow by the state for various reasons in which once was good. The state being seized by various forces now, has made that a mistake to give the state control over some institutions in these ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is not a state function.
> 
> No church has to register a marriage with the state.  The FLDS, as an example, marry all the time without the state being involved.
> 
> If the couple want the governmental perks and reciprocaties and obligations that go with state-recognized marriage, then it must be registered.
Click to expand...

So the state uses bribery to draw people in or to force people to come through it in order to make the rules apply to it, and that it so wants to in regards to it eh ?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches don't have to accommodate gay marriage. But people aren't churches. I would think this was obvious. But clearly I have to reiterate this fact for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1st Amendment doesn't say "freedom of church"...it says "freedom of religion"
Click to expand...


Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from the law.

Christians have to obey the law- even if their religion tells them otherwise. Of course Paul tells Christians to obey the law- but some people who call themselves Christians ignore the law- and just do what they believe the Bible tells them to do.

So Silhouette- what about the First Amendment rights of these parents to beat their kids to death- because of their interpretation of the bible?

_This week CNN reported that Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz,  beat their seven-year-old  daughter Lydia because they believed God wanted them to.  The couple tortured the child for seven consecutive hours, taking breaks for prayer.  When police arrived at the Schatz residence, Lydia was still alive.  An officer administered CPR, but it was too late.

“We have heard the phrase ‘death by a thousand lashes,’” Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey told CNN.  “That’s basically what this was.”

The Schatzes, who had eight other children, didn’t only beat Lydia.  All of their children were regularly tortured in the name of God.  Lydia’s sister, eleven-year-old Zariah was beaten so severely that she almost died.

CNN reported that the couple was heavily influenced by a Christian child-rearing book titled To Train Up a Child by Michael and Debi Pearl of Tennessee-based No Greater Joy Ministries.

“If you spare the rod, you hate your child,” author Michael Pearl told CNN.  “But if you love him, you chasten him timely.  God would not have commanded parents to use the rod if it were not good for the child,” the book states._


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
> Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.
> 
> *The two clearly aren't the same*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they aren't.  A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to the extent that they can ignore any law they wish..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Passively refusing to promote homosexuality is Kim Davis' right as a Christian who knows the dire warnings of Jude 1 and what the Pope just re-asserted late September...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No court has ever found that Kim Davis has the right to use the State to impose her religious views on people who don't share them. Every court to hear her case has found that she is in violation of the constitution.
> 
> So you're stuck with no constitutional violation of Kim's rights. While Kim violates other people's rights. Are you starting to see why your pseudo-legal claims have nothing to do with any legal outcome.
> 
> Um, ever?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may have forgotten so I'll remind you once again of the false premise.  Homosexuals aren't a race of people.  They are just people doing aberrent things strictly forbidden in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A strawman that might have some relevance if I'd argued that gays are a race. Which I never did.
> 
> Try again. This time without the fallacies of logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage should immediately be separated from the state.. Period.
Click to expand...


Well good luck with that. 

No indication that Americans want to do that. 

Especially the millions of Americans who marry through civil ceremonies.


----------



## Syriusly

RodISHI said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rodishi continues to speak of things she understandeth not.  She is like those who listen to Jesus below and amazed
> 
> *Mark 12: 17* Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.
> 
> *Romans 13: 1* Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
> *2* Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
> *3* For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
> *4* For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
> *5* Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
> *6* This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.
> *7* Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not my governing authority God is. Now where in the constitution of this great country says you have a right to lie and not be called on it.
> 
> I already told you God created a Rod of destruction and a Rod of correction. You seem to like the Rod of destruction better so go for it but do not include me in.
> 
> You serve your own not Jehovah as you try to twist the Word to fit your own desires.
Click to expand...


You ignore Romans- because you don't actually believe the words of the Bible. 

Because if you believed the actual words of the Bible- then you would not advocate disobeying authority any more than you would advocate disobeying God- because according to Romans- they are the same thing.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Any type of religious ceremony or traditional religious ceremony as with the uniting of one man and one woman in marriage, should immediately be separated from state control, and placed back in it's rightful place to represent that which is good in the eyes of God, because it has been highjacked while it was under (what use to be a trusted state control) where it was adopted somehow by the state for various reasons in which once was good. The state being seized by various forces now, has made that a mistake to give the state control over some institutions in these ways.



So you are okay with polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage- so long as it is part of a religious ceremony?


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
> Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.
> 
> *The two clearly aren't the same*.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they aren't.  A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.  The right to do trade with this or that person isn't.  And neither is the "right" to force a Christian to abdicate their faith to passively refuse to accomodate anyone's behavior that is forbidden under penalty of eternal soul death in the Bible.  (see Jude 1 for details)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jude says no such thing.
> 
> But Paul says that Christians- including if she is one- Ms. Davis- should obey authority- because all authority comes from God.
> 
> The words are about as specific as Paul has ever gotten. Paul for instance never said "Do not engage in homosexuals relationships"- but Paul very specifically said to obey authority.
> 
> Why obey authority?
> 
> Because all authority comes from God. Why do you resist listening to Paul- for these specific instructions?
> 
> _Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*.
> *
> Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment*.
> For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
> *Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good*.
> *But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. *
> For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
> Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience._
> 
> Nowhere does Paul say "Christians don't have to obey authority"- Paul says 'Christians who disobey authority disobey God'
Click to expand...

Authority is either sanctioned by God or it is not... There will be false prophets and teachers who will mislead the people, and Christians are under no illusions upon whom these people are when they reveal themselves.

Being stuck in this idea that people should be placed into bondage by authority, and then God therefore is somehow blanketly sanctioning this is wrong. The word is clear on these things, but the word will be added to or taken from in order to try and fool the people with, and I think that is what is taking place in here big time regarding this issue.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rodishi continues to speak of things she understandeth not.  She is like those who listen to Jesus below and amazed
> 
> *Mark 12: 17* Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.
> 
> *Romans 13: 1* Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
> *2* Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
> *3* For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
> *4* For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
> *5* Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
> *6* This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.
> *7* Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not my governing authority God is. Now where in the constitution of this great country says you have a right to lie and not be called on it.
> 
> I already told you God created a Rod of destruction and a Rod of correction. You seem to like the Rod of destruction better so go for it but do not include me in.
> 
> You serve your own not Jehovah as you try to twist the Word to fit your own desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ignore Romans- because you don't actually believe the words of the Bible.
> 
> Because if you believed the actual words of the Bible- then you would not advocate disobeying authority any more than you would advocate disobeying God- because according to Romans- they are the same thing.
Click to expand...

You leave out the full interpretation of these words written, but of course you do.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any type of religious ceremony or traditional religious ceremony as with the uniting of one man and one woman in marriage, should immediately be separated from state control, and placed back in it's rightful place to represent that which is good in the eyes of God, because it has been highjacked while it was under (what use to be a trusted state control) where it was adopted somehow by the state for various reasons in which once was good. The state being seized by various forces now, has made that a mistake to give the state control over some institutions in these ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are okay with polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage- so long as it is part of a religious ceremony?
Click to expand...

People can call anything a religious ceremony, but there are only those that truly represent the true God that should be honored and recognized. The state once had this ability until it was taken over by devils. There was no problem until that happened.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rodishi continues to speak of things she understandeth not.  She is like those who listen to Jesus below and amazed
> 
> *Mark 12: 17* Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.
> 
> *Romans 13: 1* Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
> *2* Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
> *3* For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
> *4* For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
> *5* Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
> *6* This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.
> *7* Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not my governing authority God is. Now where in the constitution of this great country says you have a right to lie and not be called on it.  I already told you God created a Rod of destruction and a Rod of correction. You seem to like the Rod of destruction better so go for it but do not include me in.  You serve your own not Jehovah as you try to twist the Word to fit your own desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seek not to counsel St. Mark, who writes the words of Jesus, or St. Paul.  The words of the Lord and the apostles are clear and correct.  Submit to authority, for authority is of God.  If authority is evil, then the judgement is from God, not Rodishi.
Click to expand...

You are not an authority on the interpretation of the word as it is written, so you are speaking only to those who may be fooled by you, and you may be speaking only onto yourself.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any type of religious ceremony or traditional religious ceremony as with the uniting of one man and one woman in marriage, should immediately be separated from state control, and placed back in it's rightful place to represent that which is good in the eyes of God, because it has been highjacked while it was under (what use to be a trusted state control) where it was adopted somehow by the state for various reasons in which once was good. The state being seized by various forces now, has made that a mistake to give the state control over some institutions in these ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are okay with polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage- so long as it is part of a religious ceremony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People can call anything a religious ceremony, but there are only those that truly represent the true God that should be honored and recognized. The state once had this ability until it was taken over by devils. There was no problem until that happened.
Click to expand...


LOL- and when did the state get taken over by 'devils'? 

A specific date would be apreciated- because I want to see exactly what you consider to be 'no problem' before that point in time.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rodishi continues to speak of things she understandeth not.  She is like those who listen to Jesus below and amazed
> 
> *Mark 12: 17* Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.
> 
> *Romans 13: 1* Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
> *2* Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
> *3* For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
> *4* For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
> *5* Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
> *6* This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.
> *7* Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not my governing authority God is. Now where in the constitution of this great country says you have a right to lie and not be called on it.
> 
> I already told you God created a Rod of destruction and a Rod of correction. You seem to like the Rod of destruction better so go for it but do not include me in.
> 
> You serve your own not Jehovah as you try to twist the Word to fit your own desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ignore Romans- because you don't actually believe the words of the Bible.
> 
> Because if you believed the actual words of the Bible- then you would not advocate disobeying authority any more than you would advocate disobeying God- because according to Romans- they are the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You leave out the full interpretation of these words written, but of course you do.
Click to expand...


"interpretation'?

You mean men twisting the words of God to suit their agenda?

I have had enough homophobes pretending to be Christians twist the words of Paul when it comes to homosexuals- are you also going to ignore the clear- and unequivocal words of Paul when it comes to obeying authority?

If you can ignore those words- 'i.e. interpret' their true meaning- well then the words in the Bible are virtually just babble for you to interpret anyway you want. You can interpret Jesus as saying he blesses corporations and owning Browning .50 calibers, or stealing from the poor to give to the rich. 

Anyway- I am used to faux Christians 'cherry picking' from the Bible- ignoring the clear instructions of the New Testament is not big surprise.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
> Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.
> 
> *The two clearly aren't the same*.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they aren't.  A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.  The right to do trade with this or that person isn't.  And neither is the "right" to force a Christian to abdicate their faith to passively refuse to accomodate anyone's behavior that is forbidden under penalty of eternal soul death in the Bible.  (see Jude 1 for details)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jude says no such thing.
> 
> But Paul says that Christians- including if she is one- Ms. Davis- should obey authority- because all authority comes from God.
> 
> The words are about as specific as Paul has ever gotten. Paul for instance never said "Do not engage in homosexuals relationships"- but Paul very specifically said to obey authority.
> 
> Why obey authority?
> 
> Because all authority comes from God. Why do you resist listening to Paul- for these specific instructions?
> 
> _Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*.
> *
> Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment*.
> For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
> *Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good*.
> *But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. *
> For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
> Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience._
> 
> Nowhere does Paul say "Christians don't have to obey authority"- Paul says 'Christians who disobey authority disobey God'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Authority is either sanctioned by God or it is not...
Click to expand...


Paul doesn't say 'or it is not'

_Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*._

Paul says all authority comes from God. 

You just want to ignore authority when you disagree with it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any type of religious ceremony or traditional religious ceremony as with the uniting of one man and one woman in marriage, should immediately be separated from state control, and placed back in it's rightful place to represent that which is good in the eyes of God, because it has been highjacked while it was under (what use to be a trusted state control) where it was adopted somehow by the state for various reasons in which once was good. The state being seized by various forces now, has made that a mistake to give the state control over some institutions in these ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is not a state function.
> 
> No church has to register a marriage with the state.  The FLDS, as an example, marry all the time without the state being involved.
> 
> If the couple want the governmental perks and reciprocaties and obligations that go with state-recognized marriage, then it must be registered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the state uses bribery to draw people in or to force people to come through it in order to make the rules apply to it, and that it so wants to in regards to it eh ?
Click to expand...

I don't think the states are engaged in a plot to make you marry a male, Beagle.

You can register with your wife as a civil union if you want to keep marriage out of it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
> Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.
> 
> *The two clearly aren't the same*.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they aren't.  A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.  The right to do trade with this or that person isn't.  And neither is the "right" to force a Christian to abdicate their faith to passively refuse to accomodate anyone's behavior that is forbidden under penalty of eternal soul death in the Bible.  (see Jude 1 for details)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jude says no such thing.
> 
> But Paul says that Christians- including if she is one- Ms. Davis- should obey authority- because all authority comes from God.
> 
> The words are about as specific as Paul has ever gotten. Paul for instance never said "Do not engage in homosexuals relationships"- but Paul very specifically said to obey authority.
> 
> Why obey authority?
> 
> Because all authority comes from God. Why do you resist listening to Paul- for these specific instructions?
> 
> _Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*.
> *
> Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment*.
> For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
> *Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good*.
> *But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. *
> For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
> Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience._
> 
> Nowhere does Paul say "Christians don't have to obey authority"- Paul says 'Christians who disobey authority disobey God'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Authority is either sanctioned by God or it is not... There will be false prophets and teachers who will mislead the people, and Christians are under no illusions upon whom these people are when they reveal themselves.
> 
> Being stuck in this idea that people should be placed into bondage by authority, and then God therefore is somehow blanketly sanctioning this is wrong. The word is clear on these things, but the word will be added to or taken from in order to try and fool the people with, and I think that is what is taking place in here big time regarding this issue.
Click to expand...

No one thinks God "is blanketly sanctioning" sin, beagle.  God is ordering society so that more evil does not take place, and if those in authority do evil, the blame is on them.  So you can say that SCOTUS is under blame by God.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rodishi continues to speak of things she understandeth not.  She is like those who listen to Jesus below and amazed
> 
> *Mark 12: 17* Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.
> 
> *Romans 13: 1* Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
> *2* Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
> *3* For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
> *4* For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
> *5* Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
> *6* This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.
> *7* Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not my governing authority God is. Now where in the constitution of this great country says you have a right to lie and not be called on it.  I already told you God created a Rod of destruction and a Rod of correction. You seem to like the Rod of destruction better so go for it but do not include me in.  You serve your own not Jehovah as you try to twist the Word to fit your own desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seek not to counsel St. Mark, who writes the words of Jesus, or St. Paul.  The words of the Lord and the apostles are clear and correct.  Submit to authority, for authority is of God.  If authority is evil, then the judgement is from God, not Rodishi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not an authority on the interpretation of the word as it is written, so you are speaking only to those who may be fooled by you, and you may be speaking only onto yourself.
Click to expand...

I am in line with the great majority of religious commentaries on these scriptures.

You simply don't like them and place yourself about Mark and Paul, wishing to counsel God.

Not wise.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any type of religious ceremony or traditional religious ceremony as with the uniting of one man and one woman in marriage, should immediately be separated from state control, and placed back in it's rightful place to represent that which is good in the eyes of God, because it has been highjacked while it was under (what use to be a trusted state control) where it was adopted somehow by the state for various reasons in which once was good. The state being seized by various forces now, has made that a mistake to give the state control over some institutions in these ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is not a state function.
> 
> No church has to register a marriage with the state.  The FLDS, as an example, marry all the time without the state being involved.
> 
> If the couple want the governmental perks and reciprocaties and obligations that go with state-recognized marriage, then it must be registered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the state uses bribery to draw people in or to force people to come through it in order to make the rules apply to it, and that it so wants to in regards to it eh ?
Click to expand...

I don't think the states are engaged in a plot to make you marry a male, Beagle.

You can register with your wife as a civil union if you want to keep marriage out of it.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any type of religious ceremony or traditional religious ceremony as with the uniting of one man and one woman in marriage, should immediately be separated from state control, and placed back in it's rightful place to represent that which is good in the eyes of God, because it has been highjacked while it was under (what use to be a trusted state control) where it was adopted somehow by the state for various reasons in which once was good. The state being seized by various forces now, has made that a mistake to give the state control over some institutions in these ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are okay with polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage- so long as it is part of a religious ceremony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People can call anything a religious ceremony, but there are only those that truly represent the true God that should be honored and recognized. The state once had this ability until it was taken over by devils. There was no problem until that happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- and when did the state get taken over by 'devils'?
> 
> A specific date would be apreciated- because I want to see exactly what you consider to be 'no problem' before that point in time.
Click to expand...

No specific date can be alluded to, because it has been an eroding of the state and mans mind over a long period of time now, but it is following exactly the words that were written over 2000 years ago to the T.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any type of religious ceremony or traditional religious ceremony as with the uniting of one man and one woman in marriage, should immediately be separated from state control, and placed back in it's rightful place to represent that which is good in the eyes of God, because it has been highjacked while it was under (what use to be a trusted state control) where it was adopted somehow by the state for various reasons in which once was good. The state being seized by various forces now, has made that a mistake to give the state control over some institutions in these ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are okay with polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage- so long as it is part of a religious ceremony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People can call anything a religious ceremony, but there are only those that truly represent the true God that should be honored and recognized. The state once had this ability until it was taken over by devils. There was no problem until that happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- and when did the state get taken over by 'devils'?
> 
> A specific date would be apreciated- because I want to see exactly what you consider to be 'no problem' before that point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No specific date can be alluded to, because it has been an eroding of the state and mans mind over a long period of time now, but it is following exactly the words that were written over 2000 years ago to the T.
Click to expand...

Your comment is far too general to be useful at all other than as a statement of your opinion.  The corollary to your statement is that you want your religion to run the state.  That is a violation of the Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any type of religious ceremony or traditional religious ceremony as with the uniting of one man and one woman in marriage, should immediately be separated from state control, and placed back in it's rightful place to represent that which is good in the eyes of God, because it has been highjacked while it was under (what use to be a trusted state control) where it was adopted somehow by the state for various reasons in which once was good. The state being seized by various forces now, has made that a mistake to give the state control over some institutions in these ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are okay with polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage- so long as it is part of a religious ceremony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People can call anything a religious ceremony, but there are only those that truly represent the true God that should be honored and recognized. The state once had this ability until it was taken over by devils. There was no problem until that happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- and when did the state get taken over by 'devils'?
> 
> A specific date would be apreciated- because I want to see exactly what you consider to be 'no problem' before that point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No specific date can be alluded to, because it has been an eroding of the state and mans mind over a long period of time now, but it is following exactly the words that were written over 2000 years ago to the T.
Click to expand...


Ah yes- the prophecies.

Believed by every generation to represent their current generation. 

Going all the way back to Roman Christians.


----------



## beagle9

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
> Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.
> 
> *The two clearly aren't the same*.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they aren't.  A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.  The right to do trade with this or that person isn't.  And neither is the "right" to force a Christian to abdicate their faith to passively refuse to accomodate anyone's behavior that is forbidden under penalty of eternal soul death in the Bible.  (see Jude 1 for details)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jude says no such thing.
> 
> But Paul says that Christians- including if she is one- Ms. Davis- should obey authority- because all authority comes from God.
> 
> The words are about as specific as Paul has ever gotten. Paul for instance never said "Do not engage in homosexuals relationships"- but Paul very specifically said to obey authority.
> 
> Why obey authority?
> 
> Because all authority comes from God. Why do you resist listening to Paul- for these specific instructions?
> 
> _Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*.
> *
> Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment*.
> For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
> *Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good*.
> *But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. *
> For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
> Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience._
> 
> Nowhere does Paul say "Christians don't have to obey authority"- Paul says 'Christians who disobey authority disobey God'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Authority is either sanctioned by God or it is not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paul doesn't say 'or it is not'
> 
> _Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*._
> 
> Paul says all authority comes from God.
> 
> You just want to ignore authority when you disagree with it.
Click to expand...

For there is no authority except by God in which he approves of, but there are those who will highjack the authority positions in which God had approved of, and therefore they become the rulers of terror upon that which is good, instead being a terror upon that which is bad. God warns stearnly about these rulers, and he warns them of their bad deeds in which they so choose to use against the people who are in subjection to authority.


----------



## beagle9

JakeStarkey said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any type of religious ceremony or traditional religious ceremony as with the uniting of one man and one woman in marriage, should immediately be separated from state control, and placed back in it's rightful place to represent that which is good in the eyes of God, because it has been highjacked while it was under (what use to be a trusted state control) where it was adopted somehow by the state for various reasons in which once was good. The state being seized by various forces now, has made that a mistake to give the state control over some institutions in these ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are okay with polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage- so long as it is part of a religious ceremony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People can call anything a religious ceremony, but there are only those that truly represent the true God that should be honored and recognized. The state once had this ability until it was taken over by devils. There was no problem until that happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- and when did the state get taken over by 'devils'?
> 
> A specific date would be apreciated- because I want to see exactly what you consider to be 'no problem' before that point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No specific date can be alluded to, because it has been an eroding of the state and mans mind over a long period of time now, but it is following exactly the words that were written over 2000 years ago to the T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comment is far too general to be useful at all other than as a statement of your opinion.  The corollary to your statement is that you want your religion to run the state.  That is a violation of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

No it's just that the state should not be placing demands on the citizens in which robs them of their freedoms to be in compliance to that which they believe. This can be done differently, but their are those who want God to be derailed in this nation now, and they are using the state as a strong arm to erode those things that were, and all in order to get a broader agenda in place and finally done.


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle9 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are okay with polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage- so long as it is part of a religious ceremony?
> 
> 
> 
> People can call anything a religious ceremony, but there are only those that truly represent the true God that should be honored and recognized. The state once had this ability until it was taken over by devils. There was no problem until that happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- and when did the state get taken over by 'devils'?
> 
> A specific date would be apreciated- because I want to see exactly what you consider to be 'no problem' before that point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No specific date can be alluded to, because it has been an eroding of the state and mans mind over a long period of time now, but it is following exactly the words that were written over 2000 years ago to the T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comment is far too general to be useful at all other than as a statement of your opinion.  The corollary to your statement is that you want your religion to run the state.  That is a violation of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's just that the state should not be placing demands on the citizens in which robs them of their freedoms to be in compliance to that which they believe. This can be done differently, but their are those who want God to be derailed in this nation now, and they are using the state as a strong arm to erode those things that were, and all in order to get a broader agenda in place and finally done.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion, and I am sure the anti-Godists are attempting to do that as are the Sovereignists attempting to instill a Christian state.

Both are on the wrong track.


----------



## RodISHI

*"Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?" No never.*

The Gay Pride has no respect for the law of world or the law of God nor even the world authority of God's Word.
*


 *
Concerning those such as Jake and the others who would attempt to twist the Word here is the Word they recieve;
Deuteronomy 18:20 But *the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
*
*I will again repeat the Word that was given to me to give to the Lord's people in His community; "Do not go into their camp for if you do you will be subjected to whatever goes on in their camp".*


Ephesians 5:6-17  Let no man deceive you with vain words: *for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.*
*Be not ye therefore partakers with them.*
For ye were sometimes darkness, but now _are ye_ light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
(For the fruit of the Spirit _is_ in all goodness and righteousness and truth)
*Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.*
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove _them_.

The following is not what the Word is speaking about as being righteousness;


 

For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
Not evil;


 

Wherefore he saith, *Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.*
See then that ye *walk circumspectly, not as fools,* but as wise,
Redeeming the time, *because the days are evil.*
*

 *
Wherefore *be ye not unwise,* *but understanding what the will of the Lord is.*

Those who follow this creed and deny even their own consciences remain as the dead;

1John 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin _which is_ not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death.* There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it*.

Following the desires of your own carnal desires is not denying yourself;

Mark 8:34 And when he had called the people _unto him_ with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him *deny himself*, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Psalms 5:9 For* there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre*; they flatter with their tongue.


----------



## dblack

RodISHI said:


> *"Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?" No never.*
> 
> The Gay Pride has no respect for the law of world or the law of God nor even the world authority of God's Word.
> *View attachment 51695 *
> Concerning those such as Jake and the others who would attempt to twist the Word here is the Word they recieve;
> Deuteronomy 18:20 But *the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
> *
> *I will again repeat the Word that was given to me to give to the Lord's people in His community; "Do not go into their camp for if you do you will be subjected to whatever goes on in their camp".*
> 
> 
> Ephesians 5:6-17  Let no man deceive you with vain words: *for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.*
> *Be not ye therefore partakers with them.*
> For ye were sometimes darkness, but now _are ye_ light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
> (For the fruit of the Spirit _is_ in all goodness and righteousness and truth
> *Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.*
> And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove _them_.
> 
> The following is not what the Word is speaking about as being righteousness;
> View attachment 51691
> 
> For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
> But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
> Not evil;
> View attachment 51693
> 
> Wherefore he saith, *Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.*
> See then that ye *walk circumspectly, not as fools,* but as wise,
> Redeeming the time, *because the days are evil.*
> *View attachment 51692 *
> Wherefore *be ye not unwise,* *but understanding what the will of the Lord is.*
> 
> Those who follow this creed and deny even their own consciences remain as the dead;
> 
> 1John 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin _which is_ not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death.* There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it*.
> 
> Following the desires of your own carnal desires is not denying yourself;
> 
> Mark 8:34 And when he had called the people _unto him_ with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him *deny himself*, and take up his cross, and follow me.
> 
> Psalms 5:9 For* there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre*; they flatter with their tongue.



Are those pics from your personal collection?


----------



## Baron

God created Adam and Eva, not Adam and Steve. It can be not any gay 'marriage' due to impossibility of it to produce children. If a crazy leftist 'government' force churches to worship gay 'weddings' it violates lot of humanity standards established since five thousands years.No one church shall worship 'wedding' of sodomites, it is a sin against God and his Commandments.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Pop23 is back.  Here is the stupidest post this morning "It can be not any gay 'marriage' due to impossibility of it to produce children"

Infertile heterosexual couples marry all the time.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any type of religious ceremony or traditional religious ceremony as with the uniting of one man and one woman in marriage, should immediately be separated from state control, and placed back in it's rightful place to represent that which is good in the eyes of God, because it has been highjacked while it was under (what use to be a trusted state control) where it was adopted somehow by the state for various reasons in which once was good. The state being seized by various forces now, has made that a mistake to give the state control over some institutions in these ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are okay with polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage- so long as it is part of a religious ceremony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People can call anything a religious ceremony, but there are only those that truly represent the true God that should be honored and recognized. The state once had this ability until it was taken over by devils. There was no problem until that happened.
Click to expand...


'Truly' represent the 'true' god....according to who? See, that's the rub. Your standard is hopelessly subjective. And makes a genuinely awful standard for defining the law.


----------



## Seawytch

Baron said:


> God created Adam and Eva, not Adam and Steve. It can be not any gay 'marriage' due to impossibility of it to produce children. If a crazy leftist 'government' force churches to worship gay 'weddings' it violates lot of humanity standards established since five thousands years.No one church shall worship 'wedding' of sodomites, it is a sin against God and his Commandments.



Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.

God has nothing to do with civil marriage.


----------



## beagle9

Seawytch said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created Adam and Eva, not Adam and Steve. It can be not any gay 'marriage' due to impossibility of it to produce children. If a crazy leftist 'government' force churches to worship gay 'weddings' it violates lot of humanity standards established since five thousands years.No one church shall worship 'wedding' of sodomites, it is a sin against God and his Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
Click to expand...

Why call it marriage ? It is nothing of the sort, but it had to be that the word was adopted in order to destroy the sanctity of the word, and also to destroy what it was suppose to mean.


----------



## amrchaos

JakeStarkey said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the church is owned by the clergy, not the congregation.  It is a private institution dedicated to the programmig of the public to their brand of propaganda.
> 
> If Homosexual marriage is in contradiction t their programming, then the church need not accommodate the marriage.  If you do not like it, then maybe you should change your religion.
> 
> 
> 
> The church, the body of Christ, is always owned by the Congregation.
> 
> If the ministers are out of step with the Congregation, the Congregation needs to take a new road and let the ministers slide along their own zip line.
Click to expand...


No--it is not.

Members of the congregation are free to leave, can be random, and has no control over the property or personnel of the church.

Many Catholics found this during the child rape scandals in the past.  The same is true for other churches and my family church which is solely owned by a distant cousin.

The congregation has no control over the church.  They may call you _'Family_', but you are really a visitor and no more.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created Adam and Eva, not Adam and Steve. It can be not any gay 'marriage' due to impossibility of it to produce children. If a crazy leftist 'government' force churches to worship gay 'weddings' it violates lot of humanity standards established since five thousands years.No one church shall worship 'wedding' of sodomites, it is a sin against God and his Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why call it marriage ? It is nothing of the sort, but it had to be that the word was adopted in order to destroy the sanctity of the word, and also to destroy what it was suppose to mean.
Click to expand...


Because under the law, it is. If you disagree, feel free. The law however is bound to constitutional guarantees. Not your personal opinion.


----------



## beagle9

The two should be separated, where as there is marriage for the traditional man and woman, and then there would be the civil unions for the gays if the state so chooses to recognize such a thing.

The high jacking of marriage was on purpose, and it is agenda driven to go after the institution of what marriage had stood for in all the generations that have viewed it as such. It is a breaking down of the meaning in order to change the meaning of it forever.


----------



## beagle9

The unGodly are trying to seperate the Christians from their God, because they  the unGodly have now occupied the state, and they have fooled it into making war with the Christians in their name sake.


----------



## mdk

Days since a church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes.


----------



## Baron

'Because under the law, it is. If you disagree, feel free. The law however is bound to constitutional guarantees. Not your personal opinion.'


God who created us and the Holy Bible are about all written by man 'laws".


----------



## Baron

beagle9 said:


> Why call it marriage ? .



Lefts give any stupid thing always nice names e.g. 'Obamacare', 'We can' etc.


----------



## Skylar

Baron said:


> 'Because under the law, it is. If you disagree, feel free. The law however is bound to constitutional guarantees. Not your personal opinion.'
> 
> 
> God who created us and the Holy Bible are about all written by man 'laws".



Unless he didn't.


----------



## Baron

Skylar said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Because under the law, it is. If you disagree, feel free. The law however is bound to constitutional guarantees. Not your personal opinion.'
> 
> 
> God who created us and the Holy Bible are about all written by man 'laws".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless he didn't.
Click to expand...


God has created anything, He was, He is and He will be for ever!


----------



## Skylar

Baron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Because under the law, it is. If you disagree, feel free. The law however is bound to constitutional guarantees. Not your personal opinion.'
> 
> 
> God who created us and the Holy Bible are about all written by man 'laws".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless he didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God has created anything, He was, He is and He will be for ever!
Click to expand...


Unless he didn't, isn't, and never was.


----------



## Baron

Seawytch said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created Adam and Eva, not Adam and Steve. It can be not any gay 'marriage' due to impossibility of it to produce children. If a crazy leftist 'government' force churches to worship gay 'weddings' it violates lot of humanity standards established since five thousands years.No one church shall worship 'wedding' of sodomites, it is a sin against God and his Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
Click to expand...


A family is an union between a man and a woman.Period.

_Matthew 19:4-5, "He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?"_


----------



## Skylar

Baron said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created Adam and Eva, not Adam and Steve. It can be not any gay 'marriage' due to impossibility of it to produce children. If a crazy leftist 'government' force churches to worship gay 'weddings' it violates lot of humanity standards established since five thousands years.No one church shall worship 'wedding' of sodomites, it is a sin against God and his Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A family is an union between a man and a woman.Period.
> 
> _Matthew 19:4-5, "He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?"_
Click to expand...


I'll take Sea's take on her own family over you insisting you know better. As she actually knows what she's talking about. While you don't know anyone involved.


----------



## Baron

Skylar said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Because under the law, it is. If you disagree, feel free. The law however is bound to constitutional guarantees. Not your personal opinion.'
> 
> 
> God who created us and the Holy Bible are about all written by man 'laws".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless he didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God has created anything, He was, He is and He will be for ever!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless he didn't, isn't, and never was.
Click to expand...


Do not forget to repeat it in your afterlife.


----------



## Skylar

Baron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Because under the law, it is. If you disagree, feel free. The law however is bound to constitutional guarantees. Not your personal opinion.'
> 
> 
> God who created us and the Holy Bible are about all written by man 'laws".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless he didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God has created anything, He was, He is and He will be for ever!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless he didn't, isn't, and never was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do not forget to repeat this in your afterlife.
Click to expand...


Unless we're reincarnated. Then perhaps we'll have this conversation again later. 

Much later.


----------



## Baron

Skylar said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created Adam and Eva, not Adam and Steve. It can be not any gay 'marriage' due to impossibility of it to produce children. If a crazy leftist 'government' force churches to worship gay 'weddings' it violates lot of humanity standards established since five thousands years.No one church shall worship 'wedding' of sodomites, it is a sin against God and his Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A family is an union between a man and a woman.Period.
> 
> _Matthew 19:4-5, "He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?"_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take Sea's take on her own family over you insisting you know better. As she actually knows what she's talking about. While you don't know anyone involved.
Click to expand...


Only God knows better!


----------



## Baron

Skylar said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Because under the law, it is. If you disagree, feel free. The law however is bound to constitutional guarantees. Not your personal opinion.'
> 
> 
> God who created us and the Holy Bible are about all written by man 'laws".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless he didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God has created anything, He was, He is and He will be for ever!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless he didn't, isn't, and never was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do not forget to repeat this in your afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless we're reincarnated. Then perhaps we'll have this conversation again later.
> 
> Much later.
Click to expand...


So-called reincarnation is a proved lie.


----------



## Skylar

Baron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created Adam and Eva, not Adam and Steve. It can be not any gay 'marriage' due to impossibility of it to produce children. If a crazy leftist 'government' force churches to worship gay 'weddings' it violates lot of humanity standards established since five thousands years.No one church shall worship 'wedding' of sodomites, it is a sin against God and his Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A family is an union between a man and a woman.Period.
> 
> _Matthew 19:4-5, "He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?"_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take Sea's take on her own family over you insisting you know better. As she actually knows what she's talking about. While you don't know anyone involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only God knows better!
Click to expand...


Unless he doesn't exist. In which case he doesn't.


----------



## Skylar

Baron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless he didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God has created anything, He was, He is and He will be for ever!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless he didn't, isn't, and never was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do not forget to repeat this in your afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless we're reincarnated. Then perhaps we'll have this conversation again later.
> 
> Much later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So-called reincarnation is a proved lie.
Click to expand...


Proven according to who? Remember, you can't use religion to disprove religion. They're both hopelessly subjective.


----------



## Seawytch

beagle9 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created Adam and Eva, not Adam and Steve. It can be not any gay 'marriage' due to impossibility of it to produce children. If a crazy leftist 'government' force churches to worship gay 'weddings' it violates lot of humanity standards established since five thousands years.No one church shall worship 'wedding' of sodomites, it is a sin against God and his Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why call it marriage ? It is nothing of the sort, but it had to be that the word was adopted in order to destroy the sanctity of the word, and also to destroy what it was suppose to mean.
Click to expand...


Because that is what the civil institution is called. You go to the clerk and get a MARRIAGE license. 

Who are you that you get to decide who has a marriage and who does not? Oh, nobody? Okay then...guess my license is still good. Our kids will be relieved.


----------



## JakeStarkey

amrchaos said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the church is owned by the clergy, not the congregation.  It is a private institution dedicated to the programmig of the public to their brand of propaganda.
> 
> If Homosexual marriage is in contradiction t their programming, then the church need not accommodate the marriage.  If you do not like it, then maybe you should change your religion.
> 
> 
> 
> The church, the body of Christ, is always owned by the Congregation.
> 
> If the ministers are out of step with the Congregation, the Congregation needs to take a new road and let the ministers slide along their own zip line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No--it is not.
> 
> Members of the congregation are free to leave, can be random, and has no control over the property or personnel of the church.
> 
> Many Catholics found this during the child rape scandals in the past.  The same is true for other churches and my family church which is solely owned by a distant cousin.
> 
> The congregation has no control over the church.  They may call you _'Family_', but you are really a visitor and no more.
Click to expand...

So you don't belong to a congregational church, so I suggest you change.  Ministers can always be dismissed by such a congregation.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Who is the clown above who believes he is speaking for God?


----------



## Seawytch

Baron said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created Adam and Eva, not Adam and Steve. It can be not any gay 'marriage' due to impossibility of it to produce children. If a crazy leftist 'government' force churches to worship gay 'weddings' it violates lot of humanity standards established since five thousands years.No one church shall worship 'wedding' of sodomites, it is a sin against God and his Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A family is an union between a man and a woman.Period.
> 
> _Matthew 19:4-5, "He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?"_
Click to expand...


Your opinion and $3.25 will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Despite your opinion, I'm still married. It makes our kids happy.


----------



## Syriusly

beagle9 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IvantheGreat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churches are religious institutions that exist to spread the word of whatever God they worship.
> Businesses exist to make money and get rich, not promote some spiritual and moral agenda.
> 
> *The two clearly aren't the same*.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they aren't.  A person's faith is protected Constitutionally.  The right to do trade with this or that person isn't.  And neither is the "right" to force a Christian to abdicate their faith to passively refuse to accomodate anyone's behavior that is forbidden under penalty of eternal soul death in the Bible.  (see Jude 1 for details)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jude says no such thing.
> 
> But Paul says that Christians- including if she is one- Ms. Davis- should obey authority- because all authority comes from God.
> 
> The words are about as specific as Paul has ever gotten. Paul for instance never said "Do not engage in homosexuals relationships"- but Paul very specifically said to obey authority.
> 
> Why obey authority?
> 
> Because all authority comes from God. Why do you resist listening to Paul- for these specific instructions?
> 
> _Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*.
> *
> Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment*.
> For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
> *Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good*.
> *But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. *
> For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
> Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience._
> 
> Nowhere does Paul say "Christians don't have to obey authority"- Paul says 'Christians who disobey authority disobey God'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Authority is either sanctioned by God or it is not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paul doesn't say 'or it is not'
> 
> _Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*._
> 
> Paul says all authority comes from God.
> 
> You just want to ignore authority when you disagree with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For there is no authority except by God in which he approves of, but there are those who will highjack the authority positions in which God had approved of, and therefore they become the rulers of terror upon that which is good, instead being a terror upon that which is bad. God warns stearnly about these rulers, and he warns them of their bad deeds in which they so choose to use against the people who are in subjection to authority.
Click to expand...


So clearly you believe that you can interpret any words in the Bible to whatever you believe?

Because Paul doesn't say 'except those who will highjack'- Paul says 'there is no authority except from God'. 

And specifically:

_*those(authorities) that exist have been instituted by God*._


_Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.* For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God*._

Paul says all authority comes from God. 

You just want to ignore authority when you disagree with it.


----------



## Syriusly

Baron said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created Adam and Eva, not Adam and Steve. It can be not any gay 'marriage' due to impossibility of it to produce children. If a crazy leftist 'government' force churches to worship gay 'weddings' it violates lot of humanity standards established since five thousands years.No one church shall worship 'wedding' of sodomites, it is a sin against God and his Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A family is an union between a man and a woman.Period.
> 
> _Matthew 19:4-5, "He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?"_
Click to expand...


So a woman raising her 5 kids on her own- they are not a family? 

Just a collection of closely related human beings?


----------



## JakeStarkey

beagle is no Bible scholar, believe m.

I think he has been conference with his pastor to reconcile Mark and Romans on this issue.

He is struggling.


----------



## Baron

Seawytch said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created Adam and Eva, not Adam and Steve. It can be not any gay 'marriage' due to impossibility of it to produce children. If a crazy leftist 'government' force churches to worship gay 'weddings' it violates lot of humanity standards established since five thousands years.No one church shall worship 'wedding' of sodomites, it is a sin against God and his Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why call it marriage ? It is nothing of the sort, but it had to be that the word was adopted in order to destroy the sanctity of the word, and also to destroy what it was suppose to mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you that you get to decide who has a marriage and who does not? O.
Click to expand...


I'm a Bible-reading church going born again Christian right winger who follow the Commandments of God:

_Matthew 28:_

_19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:_

_ 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen

_


----------



## Baron

Seawytch said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created Adam and Eva, not Adam and Steve. It can be not any gay 'marriage' due to impossibility of it to produce children. If a crazy leftist 'government' force churches to worship gay 'weddings' it violates lot of humanity standards established since five thousands years.No one church shall worship 'wedding' of sodomites, it is a sin against God and his Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A family is an union between a man and a woman.Period.
> 
> _Matthew 19:4-5, "He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?"_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion and $3.25 will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Despite your opinion, I'm still married. It makes our kids happy.
Click to expand...


Your private life isn't interesting for me, I'm just reciting the Holy Bible.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Baron said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created Adam and Eva, not Adam and Steve. It can be not any gay 'marriage' due to impossibility of it to produce children. If a crazy leftist 'government' force churches to worship gay 'weddings' it violates lot of humanity standards established since five thousands years.No one church shall worship 'wedding' of sodomites, it is a sin against God and his Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why call it marriage ? It is nothing of the sort, but it had to be that the word was adopted in order to destroy the sanctity of the word, and also to destroy what it was suppose to mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you that you get to decide who has a marriage and who does not? O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a Bible-reading church going born again Christian right winger who follow the Commandments of God:
> 
> _Matthew 28:_
> 
> _19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:_
> 
> _ 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen_
Click to expand...

Then you are subject to authority as Mark tells us is the will of the Lord, and Paul counsels to our duty.

I don't see the Book of Baron.


----------



## Skylar

Baron said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created Adam and Eva, not Adam and Steve. It can be not any gay 'marriage' due to impossibility of it to produce children. If a crazy leftist 'government' force churches to worship gay 'weddings' it violates lot of humanity standards established since five thousands years.No one church shall worship 'wedding' of sodomites, it is a sin against God and his Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why call it marriage ? It is nothing of the sort, but it had to be that the word was adopted in order to destroy the sanctity of the word, and also to destroy what it was suppose to mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you that you get to decide who has a marriage and who does not? O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a Bible-reading church going born again Christian right winger who follow the Commandments of God:
> 
> _Matthew 28:_
> 
> _19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:_
> 
> _ 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen_
Click to expand...


I'm starting to get a trollish vibe. Like a lefty who is pretending to be a righty to play into all the worst stereotypes of right wing christian conservatives.

I don't quite call bullshit yet. But its close.


----------



## Syriusly

Baron said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why call it marriage ? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefts give any stupid thing always nice names e.g. 'Obamacare', 'We can' etc.
Click to expand...


The term Obamacare was a perjorative term coined by Conservatives.

God some Christian Conservatives are ignorant. 


RodISHI said:


> *"Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?" No never.*.



And no one is saying that Churches should.

Just hyperbolic homophobes trying to scare feeble minded Christians.


----------



## Seawytch

Baron said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created Adam and Eva, not Adam and Steve. It can be not any gay 'marriage' due to impossibility of it to produce children. If a crazy leftist 'government' force churches to worship gay 'weddings' it violates lot of humanity standards established since five thousands years.No one church shall worship 'wedding' of sodomites, it is a sin against God and his Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why call it marriage ? It is nothing of the sort, but it had to be that the word was adopted in order to destroy the sanctity of the word, and also to destroy what it was suppose to mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you that you get to decide who has a marriage and who does not? O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a Bible-reading church going born again Christian right winger who follow the Commandments of God:
> 
> _Matthew 28:_
> 
> _19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:_
> 
> _ 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen
> 
> _
Click to expand...


Ah...you're confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. Why didn't you just say so?


----------



## Baron

Seawytch said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created Adam and Eva, not Adam and Steve. It can be not any gay 'marriage' due to impossibility of it to produce children. If a crazy leftist 'government' force churches to worship gay 'weddings' it violates lot of humanity standards established since five thousands years.No one church shall worship 'wedding' of sodomites, it is a sin against God and his Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why call it marriage ? It is nothing of the sort, but it had to be that the word was adopted in order to destroy the sanctity of the word, and also to destroy what it was suppose to mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you that you get to decide who has a marriage and who does not? O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a Bible-reading church going born again Christian right winger who follow the Commandments of God:
> 
> _Matthew 28:_
> 
> _19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:_
> 
> _ 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen_
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah...you're confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. Why didn't you just say so?
Click to expand...


We shall follow only Laws created by God and written in the Holy Bible.And God stipulated clearly what a true marriage is.


----------



## Baron

Syriusly said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why call it marriage ? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefts give any stupid thing always nice names e.g. 'Obamacare', 'We can' etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term Obamacare was a perjorative term coined by Conservatives.
> 
> God some Christian Conservatives are ignorant.
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?" No never.*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And no one is saying that Churches should.
> 
> Just hyperbolic homophobes trying to scare feeble minded Christians.
Click to expand...


LOL,

all leftist presstitude mainstream 'medias' non-stop 24/7 repeated till now this term.


----------



## Skylar

Baron said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Why call it marriage ? It is nothing of the sort, but it had to be that the word was adopted in order to destroy the sanctity of the word, and also to destroy what it was suppose to mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you that you get to decide who has a marriage and who does not? O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a Bible-reading church going born again Christian right winger who follow the Commandments of God:
> 
> _Matthew 28:_
> 
> _19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:_
> 
> _ 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen_
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah...you're confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. Why didn't you just say so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We shall follow only Laws created by God and written in the Holy Bible.And God stipulated clearly what a true marriage is.
Click to expand...


So no same sex marriage for you. Check.


----------



## Syriusly

Baron said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Why call it marriage ? It is nothing of the sort, but it had to be that the word was adopted in order to destroy the sanctity of the word, and also to destroy what it was suppose to mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you that you get to decide who has a marriage and who does not? O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a Bible-reading church going born again Christian right winger who follow the Commandments of God:
> 
> _Matthew 28:_
> 
> _19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:_
> 
> _ 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen_
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah...you're confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. Why didn't you just say so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We shall follow only Laws created by God and written in the Holy Bible.And God stipulated clearly what a true marriage is.
Click to expand...


Really?

So you don't follow laws passed by Congress? Your state legislature? City Council?


----------



## Syriusly

Baron said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why call it marriage ? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefts give any stupid thing always nice names e.g. 'Obamacare', 'We can' etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term Obamacare was a perjorative term coined by Conservatives.
> 
> God some Christian Conservatives are ignorant.
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?" No never.*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And no one is saying that Churches should.
> 
> Just hyperbolic homophobes trying to scare feeble minded Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL,
> 
> all leftist presstitude mainstream 'medias' non-stop 24/7 repeated till now this term.
Click to expand...


Look- you can speak in tongues too!


----------



## Seawytch

Baron said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Why call it marriage ? It is nothing of the sort, but it had to be that the word was adopted in order to destroy the sanctity of the word, and also to destroy what it was suppose to mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you that you get to decide who has a marriage and who does not? O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a Bible-reading church going born again Christian right winger who follow the Commandments of God:
> 
> _Matthew 28:_
> 
> _19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:_
> 
> _ 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen_
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah...you're confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. Why didn't you just say so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We shall follow only Laws created by God and written in the Holy Bible.And God stipulated clearly what a true marriage is.
Click to expand...


Okay...this guy is from the Landover Baptist Church. 

Landover Baptist Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JakeStarkey

OK, Baron is not real.  He is a fraud.

The *Landover Baptist Church* is a fake, nonexistent Baptistchurch based in the (fictional) town of Freehold, Iowa. The Landover Baptist web-site and its associated _Landoverbaptist.net Forum_ are a satire of fundamentalist Christianity and theReligious Right in the United States[_citation needed_].

It only took us seven years and three weeks to catch him.


----------



## playtime

Baron said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays aren't sterile, fool. We produce children all the time. I'm a lesbian who has had five children.
> 
> God has nothing to do with civil marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Why call it marriage ? It is nothing of the sort, but it had to be that the word was adopted in order to destroy the sanctity of the word, and also to destroy what it was suppose to mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you that you get to decide who has a marriage and who does not? O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a Bible-reading church going born again Christian right winger who follow the Commandments of God:
> 
> _Matthew 28:_
> 
> _19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:_
> 
> _ 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen_
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah...you're confused about the difference between civil and religious marriage. Why didn't you just say so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We shall follow only Laws created by God and written in the Holy Bible.And God stipulated clearly what a true marriage is.
Click to expand...


So then you go ahead & do so.  But everyone is not a Christian. And this is a secular nation. 

BTW, how is someone who's been married multiple times & the latest being married only 1 day more 'true'  than a same sex couple who's been together exclusively for decades & legally married for a year?


----------



## OnePercenter

Any business that directly or indirectly takes taxpayer funds, or operates under a business license/permit that requires it, should. Period.


----------



## dblack

OnePercenter said:


> Any business that directly or indirectly takes taxpayer funds, or operates under a business license/permit that requires it, should. Period.



Sure. Anyone who accepts government "benefits" is on the hook. That the why they hand 'em out.


----------



## OnePercenter

dblack said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any business that directly or indirectly takes taxpayer funds, or operates under a business license/permit that requires it, should. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Anyone who accepts government "benefits" is on the hook. That the why they hand 'em out.
Click to expand...


No. Tax-exempt status is an IRS rule, NOT a benefit.


----------



## dblack

OnePercenter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any business that directly or indirectly takes taxpayer funds, or operates under a business license/permit that requires it, should. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Anyone who accepts government "benefits" is on the hook. That the why they hand 'em out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Tax-exempt status is an IRS rule, NOT a benefit.
Click to expand...


Benefit, schmenefit. Call it what you like. Getting perks from government means they own you.


----------



## Syriusly

Meanwhile- no Church is being forced to marry anyone- gay or straight.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Meanwhile- no Church is being forced to marry anyone- gay or straight.



True enough. But it doesn't feel that way for some conservatives. And many of them only speak 'Feels'.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> Meanwhile- no Church is being forced to marry anyone- gay or straight.



Other businesses are being forced to serve though. There's no good reason Churches should have special exemption.


----------



## OnePercenter

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile- no Church is being forced to marry anyone- gay or straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other businesses are being forced to serve though. There's no good reason Churches should have special exemption.
Click to expand...


The 'other businesses' are being force without payment for services?


----------



## dblack

OnePercenter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile- no Church is being forced to marry anyone- gay or straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other businesses are being forced to serve though. There's no good reason Churches should have special exemption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'other businesses' are being force without payment for services?
Click to expand...


? Did I say that?


----------



## WorldWatcher

OnePercenter said:


> No. Tax-exempt status is an IRS rule, NOT a benefit.



Just a technical correction...

Actually it's a law, specifically United States Code Title 26 Section 501, that establishes the tax exempt status of certain types of organizations and religious organizations are included in that law.


26 U.S. Code § 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute


>>>>


----------



## OnePercenter

WorldWatcher said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Tax-exempt status is an IRS rule, NOT a benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a technical correction...
> 
> Actually it's a law, specifically United States Code Title 26 Section 501, that establishes the tax exempt status of certain types of organizations and religious organizations are included in that law.
> 
> 
> 26 U.S. Code § 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


And who enforces that?


----------



## WorldWatcher

OnePercenter said:


> And who enforces that?



The IRS of course.

????

I was pointing out that tax exempt status is not just a "rule", it exists in the United States Code which is law.


>>>>


----------



## dblack

WorldWatcher said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who enforces that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The IRS of course.
> 
> ????
> 
> I was pointing out that tax exempt status is not just a "rule", it exists in the United States Code which is law.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

He seems to think he's making a point.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Anybody you work for or take benefits from 'owns' one.  Who owns you, dblack?


----------



## OnePercenter

dblack said:


> He seems to think he's making a point.



I did. The IRS enforces.


----------



## Silhouette

Well I'll just roll out the elephant in the living room which is the Pope was clear that gay marriage is not allowed for Christians at all.  And that the Bible of which the Pope is the messenger boy, strictly forbids any Christian from participation in anything which normalizes homosexuality in a culture.

(Jude 1)


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Well I'll just roll out the elephant in the living room which is the Pope was clear that gay marriage is not allowed for Christians at all.  And that the Bible of which the Pope is the messenger boy, strictly forbids any Christian from participation in anything which normalizes homosexuality in a culture.
> 
> (Jude 1)


Where did the Pope say that?

What Pope Francis Really Said About (Gay) Marriage -- and What He Did Not
_The United States this past June did something that the Catholic Church and the Vatican have for years railed against: granted marriage equality to its gay and lesbian citizens.

Yet, Pope Francis had nothing to say about it. Not then and not now. 

Considering that Pope Benedict often vocally expressed harsh condemnation of marriage equality -- even traveling to Spain to speak out against it when that country was among the first to legalize marriage for gays and lesbians and called it a "threat to the future of humanity"-- it's astonishing how silent Francis is on the issue. I've noted in the past how he had no comment as country after country in Europe legalized marriage for gays and lesbians. And then this past June, he had no comment after the U.S. Supreme Court decision. 

And yet, while some of the American media noted the significance of his non-mention of the issue during his address to Congress, others were determined to read into his comments something that simply was not there._

And of course Jude 1 says nothing of the sort- as usual- you are just making crap up.

Romans of course tells Christians to obey the law and authority_- _something homophobes ignore when they wrap their homophobia in a cross.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Well I'll just roll out the elephant in the living room which is the Pope was clear that gay marriage is not allowed for Christians at all.  And that the Bible of which the Pope is the messenger boy, strictly forbids any Christian from participation in anything which normalizes homosexuality in a culture.
> 
> (Jude 1)





Syriusly said:


> Where did the Pope say that?



The film that was shown at the event he was speaking at the town meeting in Philly.  The one that even Fox News stopped showing and moved just to the Pope's face and started rattling off hasty statistics filling the time while the film was shown.  They did not however cut off in time before they aired on the film the picture of the traditional marriage march in 2013 in Paris France with the pink and blue balloons.  Just a snippet of that and wham! their producer intervened and forced the cameras only on the Pope sitting there silently and the commentators rushing weird irrelevant statistics talking over the sound even on the film being shown of traditional marriage only footage the Vatican had approved for the big screen there.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'll just roll out the elephant in the living room which is the Pope was clear that gay marriage is not allowed for Christians at all.  And that the Bible of which the Pope is the messenger boy, strictly forbids any Christian from participation in anything which normalizes homosexuality in a culture.
> 
> (Jude 1)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the Pope say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The film that was shown at the event he was speaking at the town meeting in Philly.  The one that even Fox News stopped showing and moved just to the Pope's face and started rattling off hasty statistics filling the time while the film was shown.  They did not however cut off in time before they aired on the film the picture of the traditional marriage march in 2013 in Paris France with the pink and blue balloons.  Just a snippet of that and wham! their producer intervened and forced the cameras only on the Pope sitting there silently and the commentators rushing weird irrelevant statistics talking over the sound even on the film being shown of traditional marriage only footage the Vatican had approved for the big screen there.
Click to expand...


So just the voices in your head telling you that. 

LIke pretty much every post you make.


----------



## dblack

JakeStarkey said:


> Anybody you work for or take benefits from 'owns' one.  Who owns you, dblack?



Not at all. I can quit a job. Can't quit a government.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody you work for or take benefits from 'owns' one.  Who owns you, dblack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. I can quit a job. Can't quit a government.
Click to expand...


Sure you can- immigration is always an option.


----------



## dblack

Syriusly said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody you work for or take benefits from 'owns' one.  Who owns you, dblack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. I can quit a job. Can't quit a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you can- immigration is always an option.
Click to expand...


No it's not. Not without the permission of government. 

It's exactly this - _the boneheaded inability to recognize the fundamental difference between voluntary exchange, and coerced compliance _- that most threatens liberty in the US.


----------



## dblack

OnePercenter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> He seems to think he's making a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did. The IRS enforces.
Click to expand...


So what?


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody you work for or take benefits from 'owns' one.  Who owns you, dblack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. I can quit a job. Can't quit a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you can- immigration is always an option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not. Not without the permission of government.
> 
> It's exactly this - _the boneheaded inability to recognize the fundamental difference between voluntary exchange, and coerced compliance _- that most threatens liberty in the US.
Click to expand...

Libertarianism is for the stupid.


----------



## Syriusly

dblack said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody you work for or take benefits from 'owns' one.  Who owns you, dblack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. I can quit a job. Can't quit a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you can- immigration is always an option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not. Not without the permission of government.
> 
> It's exactly this - _the boneheaded inability to recognize the fundamental difference between voluntary exchange, and coerced compliance _- that most threatens liberty in the US.
Click to expand...


Millions have immigrated into this country and into other countries without permission of any government.

It is an option- not a good option- but an option.


----------



## dblack

JakeStarkey said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody you work for or take benefits from 'owns' one.  Who owns you, dblack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. I can quit a job. Can't quit a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you can- immigration is always an option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not. Not without the permission of government.
> 
> It's exactly this - _the boneheaded inability to recognize the fundamental difference between voluntary exchange, and coerced compliance _- that most threatens liberty in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Libertarianism is for the stupid.
Click to expand...

If that's all ya got, well, thanks for the nod.


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody you work for or take benefits from 'owns' one.  Who owns you, dblack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. I can quit a job. Can't quit a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you can- immigration is always an option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not. Not without the permission of government.
> 
> It's exactly this - _the boneheaded inability to recognize the fundamental difference between voluntary exchange, and coerced compliance _- that most threatens liberty in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Libertarianism is for the stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's all ya got, well, thanks for the nod.
Click to expand...

All that is needed: it is not a viable ideology.


----------



## dblack

JakeStarkey said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. I can quit a job. Can't quit a government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you can- immigration is always an option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not. Not without the permission of government.
> 
> It's exactly this - _the boneheaded inability to recognize the fundamental difference between voluntary exchange, and coerced compliance _- that most threatens liberty in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Libertarianism is for the stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's all ya got, well, thanks for the nod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All that is needed: it is not a viable ideology.
Click to expand...

You have no response to my post, just pretty insults. That's all you ever have fakey. Suck a tailpipe.


----------



## JakeStarkey

dblack said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you can- immigration is always an option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. Not without the permission of government.
> 
> It's exactly this - _the boneheaded inability to recognize the fundamental difference between voluntary exchange, and coerced compliance _- that most threatens liberty in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Libertarianism is for the stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's all ya got, well, thanks for the nod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All that is needed: it is not a viable ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no response to my post, just pretty insults. That's all you ever have fakey. Suck a tailpipe.
Click to expand...

No need exists to reply to your post other than note you are a libertarian.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wow... just the sheer length of this thread. If this doesn't exemplify the colossal divide between Americans on the issue of gay marriage, I don't know what does.


----------



## dblack

TemplarKormac said:


> Wow... just the sheer length of this thread. If this doesn't exemplify the colossal divide between Americans on the issue of gay marriage, I don't know what does.


 
Mostly this thread exemplifies the inability of USMBers to stay on topic.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Wow... just the sheer length of this thread. If this doesn't exemplify the colossal divide between Americans on the issue of gay marriage, I don't know what does.


Except this "colossal divide" only exists for a very small minority of Americans. The majority of Americans are in full agreement.


----------



## Silhouette

TemplarKormac said:


> Wow... just the sheer length of this thread. If this doesn't exemplify the colossal divide between Americans on the issue of gay marriage, I don't know what does.


 
Yes, running 80% against.  And you can bet the GOP has noticed that for 2016.  Meanwhile Hillary and pals still think they have a chance.  Poor democratic party and its otherwise good platforms.  When you are forced to scrap your electric or hybrid car in 2017 from a "mandatory recall" like the Volt in 2000 and buy a gas guzzler, you can thank the Church of LGBT.



TemplarKormac said:


> Wow... just the sheer length of this thread. If this doesn't exemplify the colossal divide between Americans on the issue of gay marriage, I don't know what does.





Seawytch said:


> Except this "colossal divide" only exists for a very small minority of Americans. The majority of Americans are in full agreement.


Not according to the poll here.  The poll here shows of the largest and most popular topic ever at USMB, and the largest poll response ever at USMB, of 233 votes cast, over 80% of them are AT LEAST not supportive of gay marriage if it means making Christians play along.  That is to say, they really don't favor gay marriage as "a civil right"...


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... just the sheer length of this thread. If this doesn't exemplify the colossal divide between Americans on the issue of gay marriage, I don't know what does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, running 80% against.
Click to expand...


Except that it isn't. 








> *Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage*
> 
> Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage



Once again, reality and your imagination have nothing to do with each other. 



> Not according to the poll here.  The poll here shows of the largest and most popular topic ever at USMB, and the largest poll response ever at USMB, of 233 votes cast, over 80% of them are AT LEAST not supportive of gay marriage if it means making Christians play along.  That is to say, they really don't favor gay marriage as "a civil right"...



This poll doesn't ask if gay marriage should be legal. As usual, you're hallucinating.


----------



## Silhouette

JakeStarkey said:


> You have no idea, Sil, as usual.  3/4 of folks polled in KY said she should have issued the licenses.  I don't think she shold have been in jail.  She should have been fined and all donations for her financial relief confiscated.


And yet KY just separated the two types of marriage licenses precisely because a man using the word "wife" or a woman "husband" are offensive to Christians and flat out lies.


----------



## Skylar

Holy Zombie Thread, batman!

And KY did no such thing. As anyone can use any form.

Honestly, Sil.......lie to yourself if you must. But why bother lying to us? We know better. And you know we know better.


----------



## mdk

"No, Gandalf, 'tis not. A dark power dwells in there. Such as I have never felt before. It is the shadow of an ancient horror. One that can summon the spirits of the dead. I saw him, Gandalf, from out of the darkness. A Necromancer has come!" Radgast the Brown


----------



## MaryL

The church can't force their ideals on anyone. But Gays CAN. Explain that to me, the disconnect here?


----------



## Silhouette

MaryL said:


> The church can't force their ideals on anyone. But Gays CAN. Explain that to me, the disconnect here?


Well they can so long as a democrat or "gay marriage is beautiful" Trump aren't in the Whitehouse.  Obergefell can and will get revisited.  The children having no say about being separated as a matter of binding contract from either a mother or father for life thing...that's not going away.  Neither is the Kim Davis issue.  

The premise the Court started with was false.  Behavior is not = to race.  That's where the problem began.. You can't use PA laws to force upon Christians that which is nothing other than Rainbow Cult dogma..


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> "No, Gandalf, 'tis not. A dark power dwells in there. Such as I have never felt before. It is the shadow of an ancient horror. One that can summon the spirits of the dead. I saw him, Gandalf, from out of the darkness. A Necromancer has come!" Radgast the Brown


Yeah, I dug up a statistic you don't want voters to see right about now...  poor mdk  ...he forgot about this thread with the largest poll ever at USMB...and one of the most popular threads too...look at that  view count ...


----------



## sealybobo

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea, Sil, as usual.  3/4 of folks polled in KY said she should have issued the licenses.  I don't think she shold have been in jail.  She should have been fined and all donations for her financial relief confiscated.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet KY just separated the two types of marriage licenses precisely because a man using the word "wife" or a woman "husband" are offensive to Christians and flat out lies.
Click to expand...

Like the n word. Only blacks can say it. Or faggot. Only queers can use that term.

Only heteros should be able to use the word marriage. Anyone else using it is offensive to you.

Everyone should get one word.


----------



## Political Junky

No one has ever suggested that churches should be forced to perform same sex marriages. Marriage is a legal thing that must be licensed by the government, before anyone can perform the ceremony.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea, Sil, as usual.  3/4 of folks polled in KY said she should have issued the licenses.  I don't think she shold have been in jail.  She should have been fined and all donations for her financial relief confiscated.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet KY just separated the two types of marriage licenses precisely because a man using the word "wife" or a woman "husband" are offensive to Christians and flat out lies.
Click to expand...


Kentucky is subordinate to the Constitution of the United States of America.


----------



## Silhouette

Political Junky said:


> No one has ever suggested that churches should be forced to perform same sex marriages. Marriage is a legal thing that must be licensed by the government, before anyone can perform the ceremony.


Does the Constitution say "freedom of exercise of church"?  Or "freedom of exercise of religion"?

It's OK, we both know the answer...


----------



## Wry Catcher

MaryL said:


> The church can't force their ideals on anyone. But Gays CAN. Explain that to me, the disconnect here?



Gays have the same rights as straights, the ideals of a church run the deck from human sacrifice, to snake charming and dancing, to protesting at the funeral of a member of our military killed in action, to providing for the needs of the poor and feeding the hungry.  In words even you may understand, you've tried to equate human rights (apples) with a wide range of "ideals" (alligators).


----------



## Hossfly

NYcarbineer said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea, Sil, as usual.  3/4 of folks polled in KY said she should have issued the licenses.  I don't think she shold have been in jail.  She should have been fined and all donations for her financial relief confiscated.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet KY just separated the two types of marriage licenses precisely because a man using the word "wife" or a woman "husband" are offensive to Christians and flat out lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kentucky is subordinate to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Texas ain't.


----------



## NYcarbineer

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



1.  NO

2. But...if the pastor of a church chooses to be a government official, i.e., because he wants the legal authority to conduct civil marriages,

then he needs to obey the law.


----------



## Political Junky

Silhouette said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever suggested that churches should be forced to perform same sex marriages. Marriage is a legal thing that must be licensed by the government, before anyone can perform the ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution say "freedom of exercise of church"?  Or "freedom of exercise of religion"?
> 
> It's OK, we both know the answer...
Click to expand...

Again, marriage is a legal thing which can be blessed by a church, or not.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea, Sil, as usual.  3/4 of folks polled in KY said she should have issued the licenses.  I don't think she shold have been in jail.  She should have been fined and all donations for her financial relief confiscated.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet KY just separated the two types of marriage licenses precisely because a man using the word "wife" or a woman "husband" are offensive to Christians and flat out lies.
Click to expand...

The marriage license is used the same for hetero or LGBT in one county in one state in the Union.  She is not forced to sign.  Someone else can.  And when she is defeated for re-election this fall, the forms will go back to the previous ones.  The "lies" is yours, Sil: marriage is marriage.  Mainstream protestant religious favor LGBT marriage by 56% and evangelical by 27%, so your comment is a lie as well.

If Cruz were elected, Obergefell would be safe.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> "No, Gandalf, 'tis not. A dark power dwells in there. Such as I have never felt before. It is the shadow of an ancient horror. One that can summon the spirits of the dead. I saw him, Gandalf, from out of the darkness. A Necromancer has come!" Radgast the Brown
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I dug up a statistic you don't want voters to see right about now...  poor mdk  ...he forgot about this thread with the largest poll ever at USMB...and one of the most popular threads too...look at that  view count ...
Click to expand...


This poll isn't that all compelling. You will not find many people in this tome of a thread that supports churches being forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise. And no...Kim Davis isn't a church. People are not churches, dipshit. We've heard this tune before.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kim has the religious right to believe as she wishes.

That belief is not protected in the Constitution to the extent she does not have to perform her job according to the law.


----------



## MaryL

I am not fond of religion. I am totally opposed to gay marriage. It's unnecessary and silly. I don't like being dictated to by holier than thou groups with less than pure agendas. Religious or otherwise.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea, Sil, as usual.  3/4 of folks polled in KY said she should have issued the licenses.  I don't think she shold have been in jail.  She should have been fined and all donations for her financial relief confiscated.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet KY just separated the two types of marriage licenses precisely because a man using the word "wife" or a woman "husband" are offensive to Christians and flat out lies.
Click to expand...


And yet Silhouette would force the children of homosexuals to be harmed- just so she can cause harm to homosexuals.


----------



## Political Junky

MaryL said:


> I am not fond of religion. I am totally opposed to gay marriage. It's unnecessary and silly. I don't like being dictated to by holier than thou groups with less than pure agendas. Religious or otherwise.


Thanks for your opinion, that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The church can't force their ideals on anyone. But Gays CAN. Explain that to me, the disconnect here?
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell can and will get revisited. a..
Click to expand...


No.

Despite your desire to harm homosexuals- Obergefell is not being revisted.


----------



## Syriusly

As pointed out- no church has yet been forced to accomodate homosexual or mixed race weddings- and no church will be.

The only ones who are making the claim are those who are fear mongering.


----------



## Syriusly

This thread started almost 2 years ago.

In the almost 2 years- still not a single church has been required to marry anyone that it doesn't want to marry.


----------



## MaryL

Gays  demand marriage as a right. I don't hate gays, but they don't NEED marriage  and if they do have children it wasn't through their same sex partner. Take it up with the biological parent, marry THAT person. 'Cause, might as well as marry your pet or a cloud. Hypotheticals. I like clouds and dogs, too.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The church can't force their ideals on anyone. But Gays CAN. Explain that to me, the disconnect here?
> 
> 
> 
> Well they can so long as a democrat or "gay marriage is beautiful" Trump aren't in the Whitehouse.   Obergefell can and will get revisited.  The children having no say about being separated as a matter of binding contract from either a mother or father for life thing...that's not going away.  Neither is the Kim Davis issue.
Click to expand...


Says you. And every time you've given us a legal prediction, you've been wrong.

*Every. Single. Time.*

How perfect does your record of failure have to be before even you'll admit that you have no idea what you're talking about?



> The premise the Court started with was false.  Behavior is not = to race.  That's where the problem began.. You can't use PA laws to force upon Christians that which is nothing other than Rainbow Cult dogma..



And who says that is the premise that the court started with? Remember, you've never actually read the Obergefell decision nor have the slightest clue what its premise is. 

And of course, you ignoring the Supreme Court isn't a legal argument. As your pseudo-legal gibberish has no impact on the outcome of any case. While the rulings of the supreme court do. 

See how that works?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever suggested that churches should be forced to perform same sex marriages. Marriage is a legal thing that must be licensed by the government, before anyone can perform the ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution say "freedom of exercise of church"?  Or "freedom of exercise of religion"?
> 
> It's OK, we both know the answer...
Click to expand...


Sil....people aren't churches. 

Any argument you want to make on that pseudo-legal horseshit of an argument is already dead.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever suggested that churches should be forced to perform same sex marriages. Marriage is a legal thing that must be licensed by the government, before anyone can perform the ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution say "freedom of exercise of church"?  Or "freedom of exercise of religion"?
> 
> It's OK, we both know the answer...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sil....people aren't churches.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Churches don't have rights. People do.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> "No, Gandalf, 'tis not. A dark power dwells in there. Such as I have never felt before. It is the shadow of an ancient horror. One that can summon the spirits of the dead. I saw him, Gandalf, from out of the darkness. A Necromancer has come!" Radgast the Brown
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I dug up a statistic you don't want voters to see right about now...  poor mdk  ...he forgot about this thread with the largest poll ever at USMB...and one of the most popular threads too...look at that  view count ...
Click to expand...


A poll that never said what you claimed it did. You've cited it as support for the legality of same sex marriage.

Which, of course, it isn't. 

Does it ever occur to you that you have to lie constantly to hold the position that you do? If your claims had merit, why would you have to?


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever suggested that churches should be forced to perform same sex marriages. Marriage is a legal thing that must be licensed by the government, before anyone can perform the ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution say "freedom of exercise of church"?  Or "freedom of exercise of religion"?
> 
> It's OK, we both know the answer...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sil....people aren't churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. Churches don't have rights. People do.
Click to expand...


Sil has literally argued that people are churches. In this thread. At least a dozen times.

Its all blithering nonsense.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever suggested that churches should be forced to perform same sex marriages. Marriage is a legal thing that must be licensed by the government, before anyone can perform the ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution say "freedom of exercise of church"?  Or "freedom of exercise of religion"?
> 
> It's OK, we both know the answer...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sil....people aren't churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. Churches don't have rights. People do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sil has literally argued that people are churches. In this thread. At least a dozen times.
> 
> Its all blithering nonsense.
Click to expand...


I don't usually read Sil's posts. Sorry for the 'drive-by'.


----------



## Skylar

MaryL said:


> Gays  demand marriage as a right. I don't hate gays, but they don't NEED marriage  and if they do have children it wasn't through their same sex partner. Take it up with the biological parent, marry THAT person. 'Cause, might as well as marry your pet or a cloud. Hypotheticals. I like clouds and dogs, too.



The right to marry isn't predicated on children. Nixing that entire argument.


----------



## Rustic

It should be a nonissue to the federal government...


----------



## Skylar

Rustic said:


> It should be a nonissue to the federal government...



What is 'it'?


----------



## Rustic

Skylar said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be a nonissue to the federal government...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is 'it'?
Click to expand...

Marriage of any sort, if someone wants to marry a fence post. It should be none of the federal governments business...


----------



## ChrisL

Wouldn't you think that most homosexuals would rather stay away from those who would condemn them anyways?  If I was a homosexual, no way would I want anything to do with the church that condemns me, my partner, and my relationship.  I would just go to a justice of the peace or something.  You can still have a very nice ceremony if that's what you want.


----------



## Rustic

ChrisL said:


> Wouldn't you think that most homosexuals would rather stay away from those who would condemn them anyways?  If I was a homosexual, no way would I want anything to do with the church that condemns me, my partner, and my relationship.  I would just go to a justice of the peace or something.  You can still have a very nice ceremony if that's what you want.


...not to a control freak 
See: progressives


----------



## ChrisL

Rustic said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't you think that most homosexuals would rather stay away from those who would condemn them anyways?  If I was a homosexual, no way would I want anything to do with the church that condemns me, my partner, and my relationship.  I would just go to a justice of the peace or something.  You can still have a very nice ceremony if that's what you want.
> 
> 
> 
> ...not to a control freak
> See: progressives
Click to expand...


Well, I suppose every group has their activists.


----------



## Skylar

Rustic said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be a nonissue to the federal government...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is 'it'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage of any sort, if someone wants to marry a fence post. It should be none of the federal governments business...
Click to expand...


The Federal government gets involved when the States violate the equal protection clause. Say, when the States forbid black people from marrying white people. Or don't recognize same sex marriage. 

As long as the States don't violate any rights, the Federal Government doesn't get involved in marriage.


----------



## Skylar

ChrisL said:


> Wouldn't you think that most homosexuals would rather stay away from those who would condemn them anyways?  If I was a homosexual, no way would I want anything to do with the church that condemns me, my partner, and my relationship.  I would just go to a justice of the peace or something.  You can still have a very nice ceremony if that's what you want.



This entire thread is a vast strawman. As so far I've seen only one person who has argued that churches should be forced to accommodate gay weddings.

Religion is, by its very nature, exclusionary. With sin as its bifurcation. Leave religion to the religious, and the law for everyone.


----------



## Syriusly

MaryL said:


> Gays  demand marriage as a right. I don't hate gays, but they don't NEED marriage  and if they do have children it wasn't through their same sex partner. Take it up with the biological parent, marry THAT person. 'Cause, might as well as marry your pet or a cloud. Hypotheticals. I like clouds and dogs, too.



Americans have the right to marriage- that has been long established. "Gay" Americans demanded the same right as every other American couple. 

You don't need marriage either- but you have the right to it. 

Gay couples do have children- children they have born themselves, children they have created through artificial insemination, and children, abandoned by their biological, heterosexual parents, that they have adopted. 

Why do you want to harm those children by denying them the same protections of marriage that my daughter has because my wife and I are married?


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Why do you want to harm those children by denying them the *same protections of marriage that my daughter has because my wife and I are married*?


Children have the right to a mother and father in marriage.  They always have.  That was changed for them last Summer without their permission.  It is YOU who hate children so much that you would use them in a social experiment which deprives them of a contractual necessity all so you can play out your deviant lifestyles and sooth yourself that you are "normal".

What about your son?  Where is his father?  He can never have one because you have legally stripped him of that vital need because of your lifestyle choices...turned into "law" which harms kids... Is Gay Marriage Void?  New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to harm those children by denying them the *same protections of marriage that my daughter has because my wife and I are married*?
> 
> 
> 
> Children have the right to a mother and father in marriage.  They always have.  That was changed for them last Summer without their permission.  It is YOU who hate children so much that you would use them in a social experiment which deprives them of a contractual necessity all so you can play out your deviant lifestyles and sooth yourself that you are "normal".
> 
> What about your son?  Where is his father?  He can never have one because you have legally stripped him of that vital need because of your lifestyle choices...turned into "law" which harms kids... Is Gay Marriage Void?  New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.
Click to expand...


You care about children so much that you set these high standards and only apply to them gay people. It is okay if children are raised in a single parent home b/c there is _hope. _Sorry, gays do not have to live by your standards, Mrs. Kravitz.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to harm those children by denying them the *same protections of marriage that my daughter has because my wife and I are married*?
> 
> 
> 
> Children have the right to a mother and father in marriage.  They always have..
Click to expand...


Despite you continuing to say that- the evidence shows otherwise.


Parents can legally divorce with 'no fault'- i.e. no explanation given- leaving their children without a mother and father in marriage- if Children had such a 'right'- married parents would not be allowed to divorce.
Single parents can raise children by themselves- if 'children had a right to a mother and father in marriage'- then the state would be required to require that single parent to marry again to someone of the opposite gender.
As a matter of fact- the only time you claim this 'right' is when it comes to gay parents. 

And the only reason why you do so is because you want to harm homosexuals- and by extension- their children.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> You care about children so much that you set these high standards and only apply to them gay people. It is okay if children are raised in a single parent home b/c there is _hope. _Sorry, gays do not have to live by your standards, Mrs. Kravitz.



Where in a single parent home is there a contract that says "you will never have the missing gender in this house"?  That's right, nowhere.  Because the hope still exists.  You know the forced abdication via contract is the issue at hand here.  And that onerous imposition is foisted on children by the gay marriage contract...


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about your son?  Where is his father?  He can never have one because you have legally stripped him of that vital need because of your lifestyle choices...turned into "law" which harms kids...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if I had a son- he would have a father.
> 
> If my wife and I had a son- he would have both a mother and father.
> 
> If I was gay, and my partner and I had a son- he would have two fathers.
> 
> If we married, then that son would have two married fathers- which would be better for our son than having two unmarried fathers.
> 
> Why exactly do you want to harm the children of gay parents?
> 
> Is your hatred of gays so strong you are willing to harm children in order to harm their parents?
Click to expand...


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You care about children so much that you set these high standards and only apply to them gay people. It is okay if children are raised in a single parent home b/c there is _hope. _Sorry, gays do not have to live by your standards, Mrs. Kravitz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in a single parent home is there a contract that ...
Click to expand...


There is no 'contract' in a single parent home- or a two parent home- ensuring children of anything.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You care about children so much that you set these high standards and only apply to them gay people. It is okay if children are raised in a single parent home b/c there is _hope. _Sorry, gays do not have to live by your standards, Mrs. Kravitz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in a single parent home is there a contract that says "you will never have the missing gender in this house"?  That's right, nowhere.  Because the hope still exists.  You know the forced abdication via contract is the issue at hand here.  And that onerous imposition is foisted on children by the gay marriage contract...
Click to expand...


Single parents get an exemption from your standards b/c...well...um..._hope_ or something. By the way, there isn't any contract for kids in a single parent home that ensures a damn thing. Nobody has to follow the hapless bullshit you make to harm gay people and their families.


----------



## daws101

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to harm those children by denying them the *same protections of marriage that my daughter has because my wife and I are married*?
> 
> 
> 
> Children have the right to a mother and father in marriage.  They always have.  That was changed for them last Summer without their permission.  It is YOU who hate children so much that you would use them in a social experiment which deprives them of a contractual necessity all so you can play out your deviant lifestyles and sooth yourself that you are "normal".
> 
> What about your son?  Where is his father?  He can never have one because you have legally stripped him of that vital need because of your lifestyle choices...turned into "law" which harms kids... Is Gay Marriage Void?  New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.
Click to expand...

A 34 year old article. .


----------



## mdk

Syriusly said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  demand marriage as a right. I don't hate gays, but they don't NEED marriage  and if they do have children it wasn't through their same sex partner. Take it up with the biological parent, marry THAT person. 'Cause, might as well as marry your pet or a cloud. Hypotheticals. I like clouds and dogs, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Americans have the right to marriage- that has been long established. "Gay" Americans demanded the same right as every other American couple.
> 
> You don't need marriage either- but you have the right to it.
> 
> Gay couples do have children- children they have born themselves, children they have created through artificial insemination, and children, abandoned by their biological, heterosexual parents, that they have adopted.
> 
> Why do you want to harm those children by denying them the same protections of marriage that my daughter has because my wife and I are married?
Click to expand...


Congratulations, Seriously! You are the 10,000th post in this thread!






You have won a Years Supply of Turtle Wax!


----------



## Syriusly

mdk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  demand marriage as a right. I don't hate gays, but they don't NEED marriage  and if they do have children it wasn't through their same sex partner. Take it up with the biological parent, marry THAT person. 'Cause, might as well as marry your pet or a cloud. Hypotheticals. I like clouds and dogs, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Americans have the right to marriage- that has been long established. "Gay" Americans demanded the same right as every other American couple.
> 
> You don't need marriage either- but you have the right to it.
> 
> Gay couples do have children- children they have born themselves, children they have created through artificial insemination, and children, abandoned by their biological, heterosexual parents, that they have adopted.
> 
> Why do you want to harm those children by denying them the same protections of marriage that my daughter has because my wife and I are married?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congratulations, Seriously! You are the 10,000th post in this thread!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have won a Years Supply of Turtle Wax!
Click to expand...


Thank you, thank you

To be honest with you- that is about a 10 year supply for how I wax my car.......


----------



## daws101

mdk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays  demand marriage as a right. I don't hate gays, but they don't NEED marriage  and if they do have children it wasn't through their same sex partner. Take it up with the biological parent, marry THAT person. 'Cause, might as well as marry your pet or a cloud. Hypotheticals. I like clouds and dogs, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Americans have the right to marriage- that has been long established. "Gay" Americans demanded the same right as every other American couple.
> 
> You don't need marriage either- but you have the right to it.
> 
> Gay couples do have children- children they have born themselves, children they have created through artificial insemination, and children, abandoned by their biological, heterosexual parents, that they have adopted.
> 
> Why do you want to harm those children by denying them the same protections of marriage that my daughter has because my wife and I are married?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congratulations, Seriously! You are the 10,000th post in this thread!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have won a Years Supply of Turtle Wax!
Click to expand...

That's a lot wasted time on a dead issue.


----------



## mdk

Syriusly said:


> Thank you, thank you
> 
> To be honest with you- that is about a 10 year supply for how I wax my car.......



That is a shit ton of Turtle Wax.


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You care about children so much that you set these high standards and only apply to them gay people. It is okay if children are raised in a single parent home b/c there is _hope. _Sorry, gays do not have to live by your standards, Mrs. Kravitz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in a single parent home is there a contract that says "you will never have the missing gender in this house"?  That's right, nowhere.  Because the hope still exists.  You know the forced abdication via contract is the issue at hand here.  And that onerous imposition is foisted on children by the gay marriage contract...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Single parents get an exemption from your standards b/c...well...um..._hope_ or something. By the way, there isn't any contract for kids in a single parent home that ensures a damn thing. Nobody has to follow the hapless bullshit you make to harm gay people and their families.
Click to expand...


No, Single parents are exempt from her standards because Sil was a single parent. And doesn't think that she should be held to the same standard raising her daughter as she holds gays to.

Which is ironic, given that every example given of a child without a good same sex role model in the Prince's Trust study she cites......was a single parent.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar, what part of single parenthood  holds contractual terms like "you will never have a mother or father for life"?  We're talking about the terms of a contract to which children share implicitly.  As you know, their rights to necessities in contracts are dominant to adult's whims.  This is hinge of law that makes this issue quite live.

The 1st Amendment Kim Davis, bakers, photographers thing also will be livened up..


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Skylar, what part of single parenthood  holds contractual terms like "you will never have a mother or father for life"?  We're talking about the terms of a contract to which children share implicitly.  As you know, their rights to necessities in contracts are dominant to adult's whims.  This is hinge of law that makes this issue quite live.
> 
> The 1st Amendment Kim Davis, bakers, photographers thing also will be livened up..



There isn't a contract for single parenthood. Not a single state recognizes that children are an implicit part of a marriage contract. Not one. The law doesn't hinge on your imagination.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar, what part of single parenthood  holds contractual terms..



Silhouette- why did you deny your children their right to have a married mother and father?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar, what part of single parenthood  holds contractual terms like "you will never have a mother or father for life"?



So a child of a single parent has both a mother and father taking care of her? Your daughter didn't. Visits to see your parents aren't the same thing as a father being in her life. Though your parents seem to be pretty awesome people.

You're equating possibility with actuality. They're obviously not the same thing. And its the lack of  actuality causes the harm by your own argument.


----------



## Debra K

Silhouette said:


> Skylar, what part of single parenthood  holds contractual terms like "you will never have a mother or father for life"?  We're talking about the terms of a contract to which children share implicitly.  As you know, their rights to necessities in contracts are dominant to adult's whims.  This is hinge of law that makes this issue quite live.
> 
> The 1st Amendment Kim Davis, bakers, photographers thing also will be livened up..



The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law.   Your entire argument is bogus.


----------



## Silhouette

Debra K said:


> The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law.   Your entire argument is bogus.


We'll see if it is or not.  Time will tell.  No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law.   Your entire argument is bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see if it is or not.  Time will tell.
Click to expand...


History hasn't been kind to your predictions about the law, Sil. Your record of failure in making legal predictions can be summed up in one word:

Perfect.


----------



## Debra K

Silhouette said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law.   Your entire argument is bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see if it is or not.  Time will tell.  No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?
Click to expand...


And where's that test case?   Do you have a citation?  The Ferber case that you cite all the time holds that child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment.  That's not a contract law case.  You're wasting hours of your life and investing emotional energy into a non-existent cause.   I understand that you once had a friend who was allegedly molested as a child and grew up to be a molester.  If that is true, that is a tragedy.  But it has nothing to do with the institution of marriage.  The class of people whom you seek to harm are not responsible for your friend's tragic life.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law.   Your entire argument is bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see if it is or not.  Time will tell.  No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?
Click to expand...




Debra K said:


> And where's that test case?   Do you have a citation?  The Ferber case that you cite all the time holds that child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment.  That's not a contract law case.  You're wasting hours of your life and investing emotional energy into a non-existent cause.   .



We'll see... The case will probably be between a catholic adoption agency on behalf of the children vs whatever gay duo is trying to force them to disgorge orphans to them because they are "married"..  That's the most likely scenario.


----------



## Skylar

Debra K said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law.   Your entire argument is bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see if it is or not.  Time will tell.  No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where's that test case?   Do you have a citation?  The Ferber case that you cite all the time holds that child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment.  That's not a contract law case.  You're wasting hours of your life and investing emotional energy into a non-existent cause.   I understand that you once had a friend who was allegedly molested as a child and grew up to be a molester.  If that is true, that is a tragedy.  But it has nothing to do with the institution of marriage.  The class of people whom you seek to harm are not responsible for your friend's tragic life.
Click to expand...


Sil has her imagination. Look through this thread. Read all of her predictions on what the Windsor ruling 'really meant' and how the Obergefell decision was going to back the States in banning same sex marriage.

Her imagination is an absolutely awful source on legal issues.

As for wasting her life, she currently has 51 threads on this topic. Each with dozens if not hundreds of pages of Sil's bizarre pseudo-legal rants. She's created an entire website dedicated to this topic where she begs for donations to fight same sex marriage. She's even created her own message board on yuku where she is the only member and the only participant. Where she's created 29 additional threads on this same topic, talking only to herself.

Sil has even posted how she has to stop, how this obsession is damaging her physical and emotional health. How its damaging her personal life.

But she can't stop. Her obsession has only gotten much, much worse.


----------



## mdk

Another day, another church not being forced to marry any couple against their wishes.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law.   Your entire argument is bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see if it is or not.  Time will tell.  No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where's that test case?   Do you have a citation?  The Ferber case that you cite all the time holds that child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment.  That's not a contract law case.  You're wasting hours of your life and investing emotional energy into a non-existent cause.   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see... The case will probably be between a catholic adoption agency on behalf of the children vs whatever gay duo is trying to force them to disgorge orphans to them because they are "married"..  That's the most likely scenario.
Click to expand...


You said the same thing about Windsor. The same thing on the relationship of the Loving decision with same sex marriage. The same thing with the stays granted Utah on federal court rulings overturning same sex marriage laws. The same thing about Obergefell. The same thing about Kim Davis' appeal.

*You're always wrong when predicting legal outcomes, Sil.* Your record of failure in making legal predictions is absolutely and pristinely perfect.

But using the exact same debunked process of citing your imagination that has failed you every time you've used it..... is somehow going to produce different results this time?

You may want to look at Einstein's definition of 'insanity'.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Sil has even posted how she has to stop, how this obsession is damaging her physical and emotional health. How its damaging her personal life.
> 
> But she can't stop. Her obsession has only gotten much, much worse.



I'm not the one with 21,000+ posts pal...lol...

And Skylar, if you can apply Loving v Virginia which was about race, to your deviant sex cult, which is about behavior, then lawyers can apply New York vs Ferber 1982 to Obergefell and the lingering question of "is it a protected civil right for any adult to contractually deprive a child of either a mother or father for life?"  New York vs Ferber says "NO"..


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil has even posted how she has to stop, how this obsession is damaging her physical and emotional health. How its damaging her personal life.
> 
> But she can't stop. Her obsession has only gotten much, much worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one with 21,000+ posts pal...lol...
> 
> And Skylar, if you can apply Loving v Virginia which was about race, to your deviant sex cult, which is about behavior, then lawyers can apply New York vs Ferber 1982 to Obergefell and the lingering question of "is it a protected civil right for any adult to contractually deprive a child of either a mother or father for life?"  New York vs Ferber says "NO"..
Click to expand...


Unless you're a single parent and than you're allowed ignore that standard. Where does Ferber mention _hope_? Or marriage for that matter? It doesn't. That is why your legal prediction record is such shit. You invite laws and findings then demand everyone is bound by them. No, we're not. Sorry.

You have 12,600ish posts. I bet 12,300 of those posts are you smearing and whining about queers. lol


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil has even posted how she has to stop, how this obsession is damaging her physical and emotional health. How its damaging her personal life.
> 
> But she can't stop. Her obsession has only gotten much, much worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one with 21,000+ posts pal...lol...
Click to expand...


Smiling....are you including your posts on the other message board that you created and dedicated solely to your obsession on gays....you know, the one where *you are the only participant and have started 29 threads on gays where you talk to yourself?*

And are you including your website you dedicated to the topic of gays where you offer disjointed, confused rants about homosexuals before begging for donations?



> And Skylar, if you can apply Loving v Virginia which was about race, to your deviant sex cult, which is about behavior, then lawyers can apply New York vs Ferber 1982 to Obergefell and the lingering question of "is it a protected civil right for any adult to contractually deprive a child of either a mother or father for life?"  New York vs Ferber says "NO"..



Show us anywhere in Ferber where gay marriage is even mentioned. I'll make it easy for you: where _marriage _is even mentioned. Or contracts. Or any of your inane babble. 

Remember, Sil.....just because you imagine nonsense doesn't mean reality changes to match. Its the reason why every legal prediction you've ever made has been wrong; you can't distinguish between your imagination and the law. The courts use the actual law. Not your imagination.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Unless you're a single parent and than you're allowed ignore that standard.



Single parents aren't contractually binding their children away from either a father or mother for life.  In fact, the incentives states give to marrieds entices single parents to find the missing mother or father for the sake of children within their borders.

Gay marriage, in contrast, binds away as a matter of law either a mother or father for life in any children implicitly involved in the contractual situation.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you're a single parent and than you're allowed ignore that standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Single parents aren't contractually binding their children away from either a father or mother for life.
Click to expand...


Neither are same sex parents. Remember, your babble about the marriage of parents creating a minor contract for their children....is pseudo-legal gibberish. No law nor court recognizes any of what you made up.

You making up pseudo-legal nonsense that the law doesn't recognize.....that isn't a legal argument.

By your own standards, single parenthood creates every 'ill' that insist same sex marriage does. Worse, single parenthood is far, far more common...by orders of magnitude. Creating a much larger problem for society by your own argument.

But since you *were* a single mother, you give them a pass. Bizarrely imagining that 'hope' of a mother and a father is the same thing as a mother and a father.

Um, no. Its not. You fail even your own standards.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Unless you're a single parent and than you're allowed ignore that standard.





Silhouette said:


> Single parents aren't contractually binding their children away from either a father or mother for life.





Skylar said:


> Neither are same sex parents.
> .



Uh, yeah....they are actually.  Do you think you can now remake language and physical reality with your payroll LGBT gaslighting online?

Even if gays were WHOLLY UNAWARE that their physical makeup deprives a child of either a mother or father for life, any contract they draw up which OTHERS discover deprives a child of either a mother or father for life, as a legal bind, is void.  If anyone notices mental abuse states are obligated by law to investigate and rule out this mental harm without prejudice to any expectations of the outcome of such an investigation.  In other words "frivolous" child abuse accusations don't exist.  They are all serious and legally requiring of an investigation.  It isn't optional:

Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)?  Silhouette vs the 50 States.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you're a single parent and than you're allowed ignore that standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Single parents aren't contractually binding their children away from either a father or mother for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither are same sex parents.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah....they are actually.
Click to expand...


They really aren't. Remember, your babble about the marriage of parents creating a minor contract for their children....is pseudo-legal gibberish. *No law nor court recognizes any of what you made up.*

And you know it. Which is why you carefully omitted the fact that no law nor court has ever backed your pseudo-legal gibberish from your reply.



> Do you think you can now remake language and physical reality with your payroll LGBT gaslighting online?



If you're interested in 'definitions', show us any law or court recognizing a marriage of parents as a minor contract for their children.

You can't. As you are literally making that up. ANd your imagination has no legal relevance.



> Even if gays were WHOLLY UNAWARE that their physical makeup deprives a child of either a mother or father for life, any contract they draw up which OTHERS discover deprives a child of either a mother or father for life, as a legal bind, is OBLIGATED to have states investigate this mental harm:
> 
> Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)?  Silhouette vs the 50 States.



Save of course that none of your pseudo-legal 'obligations' exist either.

Remember, Sil....you making shit up isn't a legal argument. Nor is anyone bound to the crazy shit you imagine. As same sex marriage being recognized in 50 of 50 States demonstrates. 

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Debra K

Skylar said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law.   Your entire argument is bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see if it is or not.  Time will tell.  No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where's that test case?   Do you have a citation?  The Ferber case that you cite all the time holds that child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment.  That's not a contract law case.  You're wasting hours of your life and investing emotional energy into a non-existent cause.   I understand that you once had a friend who was allegedly molested as a child and grew up to be a molester.  If that is true, that is a tragedy.  But it has nothing to do with the institution of marriage.  The class of people whom you seek to harm are not responsible for your friend's tragic life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sil has her imagination. Look through this thread. Read all of her predictions on what the Windsor ruling 'really meant' and how the Obergefell decision was going to back the States in banning same sex marriage.
> 
> Her imagination is an absolutely awful source on legal issues.
> 
> As for wasting her life, she currently has 51 threads on this topic. Each with dozens if not hundreds of pages of Sil's bizarre pseudo-legal rants. She's created an entire website dedicated to this topic where she begs for donations to fight same sex marriage. She's even created her own message board on yuku where she is the only member and the only participant. Where she's created 29 additional threads on this same topic, talking only to herself.
> 
> Sil has even posted how she has to stop, how this obsession is damaging her physical and emotional health. How its damaging her personal life.
> 
> But she can't stop. Her obsession has only gotten much, much worse.
Click to expand...


I saw a previous thread where you linked to Sil's website and/or message board.  I took a few moments and browsed and she told about her friend and her dire need for money because she spends most of her day on this single issue.   I believe it's an unhealthy obsession and an unjustifiable desire to harm people she doesn't even know, apparently to avenge the death of someone she once loved (or probably still loves).  The people she seeks to harm weren't even responsible for her "friend's" purported tragic life and death.  And her legal theory has no basis in law, it's entirely frivolous.  But that doesn't stop her from deluding herself that she alone has stumbled upon the "magic bullet" that will deprive an entire class of people of a fundamental right.  Personally, I think her life's ambitions and emotional energy would be better spent elsewhere.  Perhaps she likes the attention she gets from posting the same deluded message 51 times on this board.  Don't know, but I think she would be making progress if she started a thread in another forum asking knowledgeable members to educate her on basic contract law.   The study of real law (not the stuff she conjures up in her imagination) might be something she finds fulfilling.


----------



## Inevitable

Silhouette said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The church can't force their ideals on anyone. But Gays CAN. Explain that to me, the disconnect here?
> 
> 
> 
> Well they can so long as a democrat or "gay marriage is beautiful" Trump aren't in the Whitehouse.  Obergefell can and will get revisited.  The children having no say about being separated as a matter of binding contract from either a mother or father for life thing...that's not going away.  Neither is the Kim Davis issue.
> 
> The premise the Court started with was false.  Behavior is not = to race.  That's where the problem began.. You can't use PA laws to force upon Christians that which is nothing other than Rainbow Cult dogma..
Click to expand...

Kim's issue was resolved. Government cannot respect religion. The issue was she just didn't like her job any more.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law.   Your entire argument is bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see if it is or not.  Time will tell.  No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?
Click to expand...


"Time will tell"

This thread started almost 2 years  ago- and still not a single church has been forced to marry anyone it doesn't want to marry.

No one has even tried to force a church to do so.

Time is telling- and it is telling us this is just another stupid homophobic claim.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> [
> We'll see... The case will probably be between a catholic adoption agency on behalf of the children vs whatever gay duo is trying to force them to disgorge orphans to them because they are "married"..  That's the most likely scenario.



Yet since 'gay marriage' was legalized in Massachusetts over 10 years ago- that scenario has not happened.

Apparently it is not a very likely scenario.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you're a single parent and than you're allowed ignore that standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Single parents aren't contractually binding their children away from either a father or mother for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither are same sex parents.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah....they are actually. .
Click to expand...


No- they actually aren't.

Just because you keep repeating that BS doesn't make it true.

This is all about "Gay" to you.

The children of single parents are deprived of an opposite gender parent exactly the same as the children of two gay parents.

Yet all you care about is denying the children of gay parents- married parents.

Where are your threads suggesting solutions for the millions- millions of children of single parents who are lacking that opposite gender parent in their lives?

Not one thread.

You don't give a damn about kids- and never have.


----------



## Skylar

Debra K said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law.   Your entire argument is bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see if it is or not.  Time will tell.  No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where's that test case?   Do you have a citation?  The Ferber case that you cite all the time holds that child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment.  That's not a contract law case.  You're wasting hours of your life and investing emotional energy into a non-existent cause.   I understand that you once had a friend who was allegedly molested as a child and grew up to be a molester.  If that is true, that is a tragedy.  But it has nothing to do with the institution of marriage.  The class of people whom you seek to harm are not responsible for your friend's tragic life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sil has her imagination. Look through this thread. Read all of her predictions on what the Windsor ruling 'really meant' and how the Obergefell decision was going to back the States in banning same sex marriage.
> 
> Her imagination is an absolutely awful source on legal issues.
> 
> As for wasting her life, she currently has 51 threads on this topic. Each with dozens if not hundreds of pages of Sil's bizarre pseudo-legal rants. She's created an entire website dedicated to this topic where she begs for donations to fight same sex marriage. She's even created her own message board on yuku where she is the only member and the only participant. Where she's created 29 additional threads on this same topic, talking only to herself.
> 
> Sil has even posted how she has to stop, how this obsession is damaging her physical and emotional health. How its damaging her personal life.
> 
> But she can't stop. Her obsession has only gotten much, much worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw a previous thread where you linked to Sil's website and/or message board.  I took a few moments and browsed and she told about her friend and her dire need for money because she spends most of her day on this single issue.   I believe it's an unhealthy obsession and an unjustifiable desire to harm people she doesn't even know, apparently to avenge the death of someone she once loved (or probably still loves).
Click to expand...


Sil herself has made the best argument that her obsession is unhealthy. Telling us that she needs to quit, that its hurting her physically and emotionally. That its damaging her personal life.

Yet here she is. Not only present....but vastly expanding her service to her addiction. 

In her defense, she's recently disabled and had a recent death in her family. The two tend to push idiosyncracies to full on obsessive compulsions. 



> The people she seeks to harm weren't even responsible for her "friend's" purported tragic life and death.  And her legal theory has no basis in law, it's entirely frivolous.\



Completely. But she knows that. And she know we know that. 

The entire purpose of these threads are for Sil to suck a thumb. Its soothing to her to repeat the same comfortable lies, over and over. The fact that everyone knows she's completely full of shit has no bearing on repetition soothing the dissonance caused by reality not matching her assumptions.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Debra K said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law.   Your entire argument is bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see if it is or not.  Time will tell.  No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where's that test case?   Do you have a citation?  The Ferber case that you cite all the time holds that child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment.  That's not a contract law case.  You're wasting hours of your life and investing emotional energy into a non-existent cause.   I understand that you once had a friend who was allegedly molested as a child and grew up to be a molester.  If that is true, that is a tragedy.  But it has nothing to do with the institution of marriage.  The class of people whom you seek to harm are not responsible for your friend's tragic life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sil has her imagination. Look through this thread. Read all of her predictions on what the Windsor ruling 'really meant' and how the Obergefell decision was going to back the States in banning same sex marriage.
> 
> Her imagination is an absolutely awful source on legal issues.
> 
> As for wasting her life, she currently has 51 threads on this topic. Each with dozens if not hundreds of pages of Sil's bizarre pseudo-legal rants. She's created an entire website dedicated to this topic where she begs for donations to fight same sex marriage. She's even created her own message board on yuku where she is the only member and the only participant. Where she's created 29 additional threads on this same topic, talking only to herself.
> 
> Sil has even posted how she has to stop, how this obsession is damaging her physical and emotional health. How its damaging her personal life.
> 
> But she can't stop. Her obsession has only gotten much, much worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw a previous thread where you linked to Sil's website and/or message board.  I took a few moments and browsed and she told about her friend and her dire need for money because she spends most of her day on this single issue.   I believe it's an unhealthy obsession and an unjustifiable desire to harm people she doesn't even know, apparently to avenge the death of someone she once loved (or probably still loves).  The people she seeks to harm weren't even responsible for her "friend's" purported tragic life and death.  And her legal theory has no basis in law, it's entirely frivolous.  But that doesn't stop her from deluding herself that she alone has stumbled upon the "magic bullet" that will deprive an entire class of people of a fundamental right.  Personally, I think her life's ambitions and emotional energy would be better spent elsewhere.  Perhaps she likes the attention she gets from posting the same deluded message 51 times on this board.  Don't know, but I think she would be making progress if she started a thread in another forum asking knowledgeable members to educate her on basic contract law.   The study of real law (not the stuff she conjures up in her imagination) might be something she finds fulfilling.
Click to expand...


Silly should probably be involuntarily committed to a secure mental health facility for her own safety.


----------



## Skylar

Jarlaxle said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law.   Your entire argument is bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see if it is or not.  Time will tell.  No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where's that test case?   Do you have a citation?  The Ferber case that you cite all the time holds that child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment.  That's not a contract law case.  You're wasting hours of your life and investing emotional energy into a non-existent cause.   I understand that you once had a friend who was allegedly molested as a child and grew up to be a molester.  If that is true, that is a tragedy.  But it has nothing to do with the institution of marriage.  The class of people whom you seek to harm are not responsible for your friend's tragic life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sil has her imagination. Look through this thread. Read all of her predictions on what the Windsor ruling 'really meant' and how the Obergefell decision was going to back the States in banning same sex marriage.
> 
> Her imagination is an absolutely awful source on legal issues.
> 
> As for wasting her life, she currently has 51 threads on this topic. Each with dozens if not hundreds of pages of Sil's bizarre pseudo-legal rants. She's created an entire website dedicated to this topic where she begs for donations to fight same sex marriage. She's even created her own message board on yuku where she is the only member and the only participant. Where she's created 29 additional threads on this same topic, talking only to herself.
> 
> Sil has even posted how she has to stop, how this obsession is damaging her physical and emotional health. How its damaging her personal life.
> 
> But she can't stop. Her obsession has only gotten much, much worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw a previous thread where you linked to Sil's website and/or message board.  I took a few moments and browsed and she told about her friend and her dire need for money because she spends most of her day on this single issue.   I believe it's an unhealthy obsession and an unjustifiable desire to harm people she doesn't even know, apparently to avenge the death of someone she once loved (or probably still loves).  The people she seeks to harm weren't even responsible for her "friend's" purported tragic life and death.  And her legal theory has no basis in law, it's entirely frivolous.  But that doesn't stop her from deluding herself that she alone has stumbled upon the "magic bullet" that will deprive an entire class of people of a fundamental right.  Personally, I think her life's ambitions and emotional energy would be better spent elsewhere.  Perhaps she likes the attention she gets from posting the same deluded message 51 times on this board.  Don't know, but I think she would be making progress if she started a thread in another forum asking knowledgeable members to educate her on basic contract law.   The study of real law (not the stuff she conjures up in her imagination) might be something she finds fulfilling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly should probably be involuntarily committed to a secure mental health facility for her own safety.
Click to expand...


Its been a while since you joined us on one of Sil's batshit threads. Since then, its gotten so much worse.

She's created her own website on the topic where she begs for donations for her fight against gays. 

She created her own messageboard on yuku where she currently has 29 active threads on gays and sam sex marriage......where she is the only participant,* talking to and responding to herself. *

Along with 52 threads on this board with dozens if not hundreds of pages of Sil's elaborate pseudo-legal gibberish.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Skylar said:


> Its been a while since you joined us on one of Sil's batshit threads. Since then, its gotten so much worse.
> 
> She's created her own website on the topic where she begs for donations for her fight against gays.
> 
> She created her own messageboard on yuku where she currently has 29 active threads on gays and sam sex marriage......where she is the only participant,* talking to and responding to herself. *
> 
> Along with 52 threads on this board with dozens if not hundreds of pages of Sil's elaborate pseudo-legal gibberish.



I don't post in her threads much...basically, I read, point, and laugh.


----------



## Skylar

Jarlaxle said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its been a while since you joined us on one of Sil's batshit threads. Since then, its gotten so much worse.
> 
> She's created her own website on the topic where she begs for donations for her fight against gays.
> 
> She created her own messageboard on yuku where she currently has 29 active threads on gays and sam sex marriage......where she is the only participant,* talking to and responding to herself. *
> 
> Along with 52 threads on this board with dozens if not hundreds of pages of Sil's elaborate pseudo-legal gibberish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't post in her threads much...basically, I read, point, and laugh.
Click to expand...


Well, there's a lot more to point and laugh at.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its been a while since you joined us on one of Sil's batshit threads. Since then, its gotten so much worse.
> 
> She's created her own website on the topic where she begs for donations for her fight against gays.
> 
> She created her own messageboard on yuku where she currently has 29 active threads on gays and sam sex marriage......where she is the only participant,* talking to and responding to herself. *
> 
> Along with 52 threads on this board with dozens if not hundreds of pages of Sil's elaborate pseudo-legal gibberish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't post in her threads much...basically, I read, point, and laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there's a lot more to point and laugh at.
Click to expand...


USMB's own Bedlam.


----------



## Silhouette

Hey look!  Jar Jar, Skylar and, Syriusly are following each other around the boards stomping out opposition to gay marriage by spamming ad hominems together. 

Wow, and I thought I'd seen it all...oh...wait...I have seen this quite a bit.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Hey look!  Jar Jar, Skylar and, Syriusly are following each other around the boards stomping out opposition to gay marriage by spamming ad hominems together.
> 
> Wow, and I thought I'd seen it all...oh...wait...I have seen this quite a bit.



Says the poor hapless soul that has 52 threads on the same topic each with dozens if not hundreds of pages of the same pseudo-legal gibberish, has created a website where she begs for donations to fight gays and created her own yuku messageboard where she has 29 more threads about gays and same sex marriage....where you are the only participant, talking to yourself.

But you were saying about 'spamming'?


----------



## Silhouette

Jarlaxle said:


> I don't post in her threads much...basically, I read, point, and laugh.



1. This isn't my thread, check the author in the OP.  (now I'm laughing at you)

2. So you think the poll results above are "funny"?  In what way?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't post in her threads much...basically, I read, point, and laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This isn't my thread, check the author in the OP.  (now I'm laughing at you)
> 
> 2. So you think the poll results above are "funny"?  In what way?
Click to expand...


What's funny.....is you desperately trying to misrepresent the poll as indicating opposition to same sex marriage. 

Or you insisting that a straw poll on some random message board represented American opposition to same sex marriage while Gallup was lying because it had been 'infiltrated by homosexuals'. 

That was hilarious! I actually bookmarked it and sent a link to friends so they could laugh too.


----------



## Silhouette

Yes, voters weighed in on the same-sex marriage party this year, didn't they Skylar?  I think Hillary feels like the numbers were misrepresented.  Too bad she didn't visit the poll above before she hired her gay campaign manager who told her, like you tell us "the gay marriage issue just really isn't that important to voters".

The GOP could've run a stale cheese sandwich on the numbers in the poll above and won the election on all fronts, up and down ticket.


----------



## easyt65

'No'


----------



## easyt65

Perhaps churches should create and publicize that all weddings they do, especially same-sex-marriage ceremonies,  come with a mandatory sermon about how homosexuality is an 'abomination' according to the Bible.

That would put a damper on interest in forcing churches to perform ceremonies htat is against their Constitutional right of religion and 'the practice thereof'.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Silhouette said:


> Yes, voters weighed in on the same-sex marriage party this year, didn't they Skylar?  I think Hillary feels like the numbers were misrepresented.  Too bad she didn't visit the poll above before she hired her gay campaign manager who told her, like you tell us "the gay marriage issue just really isn't that important to voters".
> 
> The GOP could've run a stale cheese sandwich on the numbers in the poll above and won the election on all fronts, up and down ticket.


Not true, but regardless fighting for what's right is more important than winning an election


----------



## easyt65

Libs pushed their transgender agenda on America, and the courts have now begun to reject it.

Libs pushed their agenda on churches by demanding religious institution-run medial facilities had to hand out abortion pills and perform abortions, and the courts struck that one down.

The Constitution guarantees religious freedom and the 'practice thereof', and libs have now attacked in to push their agenda.

Notice the trend...

To hell with the Constitution - Libs want what they want, the power to force their agenda onto others - CONTROL!

The country / government, under liberal leadership / influence, is shaping up to be the type of country / government the original settlers fled to America to escape.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Yes, voters weighed in on the same-sex marriage party this year, didn't they Skylar?  I think Hillary feels like the numbers were misrepresented.  Too bad she didn't visit the poll above before she hired her gay campaign manager who told her, like you tell us "the gay marriage issue just really isn't that important to voters".
> 
> The GOP could've run a stale cheese sandwich on the numbers in the poll above and won the election on all fronts, up and down ticket.





TheOldSchool said:


> Not true, but regardless fighting for what's right is more important than winning an election



Yes, because it's "right" to throw Christians in jail and legally strip children, via contract, of either a mother or father for life, and amputate healthy genitalia in a halfling attempt to play "pretend I'm the stereotypical extreme of the opposite gender"....after the MDs make you sign a waiver that says "you know you'll never actually be the other gender, even after surgery".

You got a hard sell there pal.  Good luck to you.  You're going to need it.  Might want to look at the poll above and the number of pages in this thread to gauge how difficult that fight is going to be.  Better to just go see a therapist; much less of a fight that way.  Though I do understand that those in deep deep denial fight viciously to preserve it.  The fight is with yourself though: society has planted its heels.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, voters weighed in on the same-sex marriage party this year, didn't they Skylar?  I think Hillary feels like the numbers were misrepresented.  Too bad she didn't visit the poll above before she hired her gay campaign manager who told her, like you tell us "the gay marriage issue just really isn't that important to voters".
> 
> The GOP could've run a stale cheese sandwich on the numbers in the poll above and won the election on all fronts, up and down ticket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, but regardless fighting for what's right is more important than winning an election
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because it's "right" to throw Christians in jail and legally strip children, via contract, of either a mother or father for life, and amputate healthy genitalia in a halfling attempt to play "pretend I'm the stereotypical extreme of the opposite gender"....after the MDs make you sign a waiver that says "you know you'll never actually be the other gender, even after surgery".
> 
> You got a hard sell there pal.  Good luck to you.  You're going to need it.  Might want to look at the poll above and the number of pages in this thread to gauge how difficult that fight is going to be.  Better to just go see a therapist; much less of a fight that way.  Though I do understand that those in deep deep denial fight viciously to preserve it.  The fight is with yourself though: society has planted its heels.
Click to expand...

^ weird shit that's typically said by screeching loons on the wrong side of history


----------



## mdk

Here is the extensive list of churches that have been forced to marry *anyone* against their wishes:

1.

Poor Sil is so desperate to keep this tired thread alive. lol


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Yes, voters weighed in on the same-sex marriage party this year, didn't they Skylar?  I think Hillary feels like the numbers were misrepresented.  Too bad she didn't visit the poll above before she hired her gay campaign manager who told her, like you tell us "the gay marriage issue just really isn't that important to voters".
> 
> The GOP could've run a stale cheese sandwich on the numbers in the poll above and won the election on all fronts, up and down ticket.



You voted for Hillary b/c you felt Trump was too pro-gay for your liking. Jobs, economy, and, Hillary being an uncommonly poor candidate is what cost her the election, not gay marriage. This issue may be the moon that revolves  around your world, but most people don't care or have moved on.


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> Perhaps churches should create and publicize that all weddings they do, especially same-sex-marriage ceremonies,  come with a mandatory sermon about how homosexuality is an 'abomination' according to the Bible.
> 
> That would put a damper on interest in forcing churches to perform ceremonies htat is against their Constitutional right of religion and 'the practice thereof'.



Now easy wants the state to force churches to make mandatory sermons.

No one is forcing any churches to marry anyone they don't want to- but easy wants to mandate churches make mandatory sermons if the church dare marry a gay couple.

Do you think Easy also will make it mandatory for Churches to come with a mandatory sermon about how marrying for the second or third time is an abomination?


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> Notice the trend...
> .



Yep- the trend is that Conservative Christians want to mandate what kind of sex Americans can have in the privacy of their bedroom, and want to mandate which Americans can get married.

Liberals however support the Constitution- and support the Courts decisions overturning unconstitutional laws passed by Conservative Christians.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, voters weighed in on the same-sex marriage party this year, didn't they Skylar?  I think Hillary feels like the numbers were misrepresented.  Too bad she didn't visit the poll above before she hired her gay campaign manager who told her, like you tell us "the gay marriage issue just really isn't that important to voters".
> 
> The GOP could've run a stale cheese sandwich on the numbers in the poll above and won the election on all fronts, up and down ticket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, but regardless fighting for what's right is more important than winning an election
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because it's "right" to throw Christians in jail .
Click to expand...


Why do you believe Christians should be exempt from the law, unlike Jews and Muslims and atheists?


----------



## easyt65

Syriusly said:


> Yep- the trend is that Conservative Christians want to mandate what kind of sex Americans can have in the privacy of their bedroom, and want to mandate which Americans can get married.


FALSE NARRATIVE / OUT-RIGHT LIE.

1. We don't care what you do in your own bedroom.

2. We don't care who gets married - just like with abortions, don't force those who do not believe in it participate.

*FACT:* Same Sex Couples are *not* being denied the right to marry!
There are more than enough judges, notary publics, and even church leaders 'pastors, reverends, etc) that will be / are glad to accommodate same-sex couples by marrying them.

*What is being denied is the Liberals' ability to CONTROL EVERYONE, control everyone's lives, to force compliance with how Liberals intolerantly believe the world should be run and work!*

So a church's beliefs prohibit participating in a same-sex union. As pointed out - there are many other churches that will, many judges that will, notary publics who will...so why focus on this one church that won't. BECAUSE A 'POCKET OF RESISTANCE' HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AND RESISTANCE TO COMPLY WITH LIBERAL MANDATES BY ANYONE MUST BE SNUFFED OUT., CONSTITUION BE DAMNED. 

That's the bottom line.


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- the trend is that Conservative Christians want to mandate what kind of sex Americans can have in the privacy of their bedroom, and want to mandate which Americans can get married.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE NARRATIVE / OUT-RIGHT LIE.
> 
> 1. We don't care what you do in your own bedroom.
Click to expand...


Really? 

Then why did you pass sodomy laws telling Americans what kind of sex that Americans could have in their bedroom?

Conservative Christians for years passed sex laws that not only told Americans the kind of sex that we were allowed to have- you also passed laws prohibiting birth control devices- and even information on birth control.

It took the Supreme Court to overturn the unconstitutional actions of Conservative Christians so that your legislation to prevent Americans from having access to birth control or to criminalize private consensual sex became null and void.

But that is the m.o. of you Conservative Christians- use Big Brother to mandate your 'morals' on others.


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> [
> 2. We don't care who gets married - just like with abortions, don't force those who do not believe in it participate.



Then why did you specifically pass laws against same gender couples from marrying? 

Clearly you do care, which is why you spent so much time trying to prevent Americans from marrying.

Now you want to mandate that Churches make sermons if they marry same gender couples.

Just another big government Christian Conservative.


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> [
> So a church's beliefs prohibit participating in a same-sex union.



And no church is being forced to participate in same sex unions.

Churches absolutely control who is allowed to marry in their church.

Your church can prevent same gender couples from marrying in your church, or Jews from marrying your church, or divorced people from marrying in your church- you can prevent fat people from marrying your church- you can discriminate however you want to.

But business's have to follow the law. If you can't tell the difference between a church and a business, well you have other problems.


----------



## easyt65

Syriusly said:


> Really? Then why did you pass sodomy laws telling Americans what kind of sex that Americans could have in their bedroom?


It's called 'immorality', something that has been agreed on by everyone. Given time Liberals will push for sodomy, pedophilia...perhaps even necrophilia to be legalized.

Homosexuality / same-sex-marriage, again, is not illegal. The only thing Liberals have shown they are against is anyone exercising their Constitutional rights and defying the Liberal mandates / edicts - their ability to control everyone.


----------



## BrokeLoser

RWHeathenGamer said:


> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



NEGATIVE!
Now for the cliche...Adam and Eve...NOT...Adam and Steve!


----------



## easyt65

Syriusly said:


> And no church is being forced to participate in same sex unions.


NOT YET...but the Liberal war against that has already started.


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then why did you pass sodomy laws telling Americans what kind of sex that Americans could have in their bedroom?
> 
> 
> 
> It's called 'immorality', something that has been agreed on by everyone..
Click to expand...


So you are admitting you were lying before when you said:

1. We don't care what you do in your own bedroom.


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Given time Liberals will push for sodomy, pedophilia...perhaps even necrophilia to be legalized..
Click to expand...


Given time Christians Conservatives will push to criminalize any sex outside of marriage, any sex other than sex in the missionary position with a penis inserted into a vagina.

Given time Christian Conservatives will push to criminalize oral sex and anal sex between consenting married adults.

Oh wait- you already did that.

Yes- I will agree- we liberals did push against the unconstitutional laws pushed through by the Christian Conservatives that made it illegal to buy birth control, or to have oral sex between a husband and wife.


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And no church is being forced to participate in same sex unions.
> 
> 
> 
> NOT YET...but the Liberal war against that has already started.
Click to expand...


Feel free to show us that 'war'.

The Catholic Church doesn't allow divorced couples to marry in the church-  liberals are not going to war for that.
The Mormon Church doesn't allow anyone other than Mormons to marry in their church- liberals are not going to war over that.

Your churches can discriminate anyway you want- you can refuse to marry black couples, you can refuse to marry mixed race couples, you can refuse to marry Mexican couples, or blind couples or Catholic couples.

And no law tells you otherwise.

And liberals aren't out there promoting laws that would force you- you know unlike how Conservatives actually passed laws against same gender marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then why did you pass sodomy laws telling Americans what kind of sex that Americans could have in their bedroom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality / same-sex-marriage, again, is not illegal..
Click to expand...


Only because the Supreme Court overturned the laws making them illegal- the laws passed by you Conservative Christians.


----------



## easyt65

Syriusly said:


> Here are the facts:



...er, OPINION. It is funny how you keep insisting Christians (and only Christians) dictated / imposed these laws - ethics and morality - onto the entire United States.

This might be the largest case of Liberal 'blame-shifting' in the recorded history of the DNC's existence.

At the same time, watching a snowflake fight and argue that they had no part in existing decency and morality in this country is funny as hell!

If your piss-poor opinion is in any way close to being factual, it is also true then that liberals have continuously worked to undermine the decency, morality, and ethics in this country....as you are arguing now.

Thank you.


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the facts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...er, OPINION. It is funny how you keep insisting Christians (and only Christians) dictated / imposed these laws - ethics and morality - onto the entire United States..
Click to expand...


Here was part of your original claim
_
Libs want what they want, the power to force their agenda onto others - CONTROL!
_
I have accurately pointed out that Christian Conservatives have been the ones who have been forcing your agenda on America for decades- Control!

You have been the one dodging the issue and fantasizing about my sex life-_(why is it Conservatives are so obsessed with sex?)


_


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> [it is also true then that liberals have continuously worked to undermine the decency, morality, and ethics in this country....as you are arguing now.
> .



And by undermining decency and morality you mean I oppose the agenda of the Right wing to impose your 'morality' by telling Americans what private consensual sex they are allowed to have, and to prevent Americans from having access to birth control- guilty.


----------



## easyt65

Syriusly said:


> And by undermining decency and morality you mean I oppose the agenda of the Right wing to impose your 'morality' by telling Americans what private consensual sex they are allowed to have, and to prevent Americans from having access to birth control- guilty.


No one is telling anyone same-sex-marriage is illegal. You continue to lie. But you go on and tell yourself whatever you need to, snowflake.


----------



## TNHarley

fuuuuuuuuuuuck no


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by undermining decency and morality you mean I oppose the agenda of the Right wing to impose your 'morality' by telling Americans what private consensual sex they are allowed to have, and to prevent Americans from having access to birth control- guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is telling anyone same-sex-marriage is illegal. You continue to lie. But you go on and tell yourself whatever you need to, snowflake.
Click to expand...


The only reason why same sex marriage is legal in many states is because the Supreme Court overturned your efforts to make it illegal.

Just as the Supreme Court overturned your efforts to criminalize sex between consenting adults and deny Americans birth control.

Meanwhile- no one is telling any Church that they have to marry anyone- except the Church hierarchy and rules.


----------



## easyt65

Syriusly said:


> The only reason why same sex marriage is legal in many states is because the Supreme Court overturned *your* efforts to make it illegal.


You are misinformed - I have made no effort to make homosexuality / same-sex marriage illegal.



Syriusly said:


> Just as the Supreme Court overturned your efforts to criminalize sex between consenting adults and deny Americans birth control.


If you will remember, Barry tried to force medical facilities run by religious institutions provide abortion-inducing drugs....which did not stand. 'Religious freedom and the practice thereof'



Syriusly said:


> Meanwhile- no one is telling any Church that they have to marry anyone- except the Church hierarchy and rules.


And no one is saying same-sex marriage or being married by judges, notary publics, and churches who don't mid doing it is illegal.


----------



## easyt65

So again, why would you FORCE a minority of churches who oppose same-sex marriage to perform such a marriage when their NOT doing so does not deny same-sex couple of anything?

Again, there are many churches who will do so, judges who will do so, notary publics who will do so....

So why - other than complete control - are liberals out for 100% compliance with their demands, even when it is against the Constitutional Right of Freedom of Religion and the PRACTICE THEREOF?


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason why same sex marriage is legal in many states is because the Supreme Court overturned *your* efforts to make it illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> You are misinformed - I have made no effort to make homosexuality / same-sex marriage illegal.
> .
Click to expand...


I was addressing the 'we' you referred to yourself belonging to:

1._ We don't care what you do in your own bedroom.

2. We don't care who gets married - just like with abortions, don't force those who do not believe in it participate._

'Your' group did exactly that- far from  you not caring what Americans do in our Bedrooms- your group actively legislated private consensual sex between adults.


----------



## WorldWatcher

easyt65 said:


> No one is telling anyone same-sex-marriage is illegal. You continue to lie. But you go on and tell yourself whatever you need to, snowflake.



See you haven't been in the plethora of Silhouette threads stating exactly that SSCM is still illegal and the Windsor and Obergefell decisions are invalid.


>>>>


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> So again, why would you FORCE a minority of churches who oppose same-sex marriage t



Why would you lie and say I do want to force churches to marry anyone?

Since I said:

_Your churches can discriminate anyway you want- you can refuse to marry black couples, you can refuse to marry mixed race couples, you can refuse to marry Mexican couples, or blind couples or Catholic couples.

And no law tells you otherwise.

And liberals aren't out there promoting laws that would force you_


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason why same sex marriage is legal in many states is because the Supreme Court overturned *your* efforts to make it illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> You are misinformed - I have made no effort to make homosexuality / same-sex marriage illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the Supreme Court overturned your efforts to criminalize sex between consenting adults and deny Americans birth control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you will remember, Barry tried to force medical facilities run by religious institutions provide abortion-inducing drugs....which did not stand. 'Religious freedom and the practice thereof'l.
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with Conservatives pushing your legislation through to criminalize sex between adults and outlaw birth control.?

I mean other than trying to change the subject from churches to something else.


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> [
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile- no one is telling any Church that they have to marry anyone- except the Church hierarchy and rules.
> 
> 
> 
> And no one is saying same-sex marriage or being married by judges, notary publics, and churches who don't mid doing it is illegal.
Click to expand...


It is legal only because of the efforts of liberals to overturn the unconstitutional laws passed by your Conservative Christians. 

But yes- Silhouette- the OP- says that such marriages are indeed illegal.


----------



## easyt65

Syriusly said:


> _Your churches can discriminate anyway you want- you can refuse to marry black couples, you can refuse to marry mixed race couples, you can refuse to marry Mexican couples, or blind couples or Catholic couples._



Being black, mixed races, being Mexican, blind or catholic is not called an 'abomination' in the Bible and is not against religious beliefs.

But I love continuing to read the steady flow of your false narratives and BS....please continue.


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Your churches can discriminate anyway you want- you can refuse to marry black couples, you can refuse to marry mixed race couples, you can refuse to marry Mexican couples, or blind couples or Catholic couples._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being black, mixed races, being Mexican, blind or catholic is not called an 'abomination' in the Bible and is not against religious beliefs..
Click to expand...


Nor did I say that they were called an abomination in the Bible.

I was pointing out that your church can discriminate anyway it wants to- _you can refuse to marry black couples, you can refuse to marry mixed race couples, you can refuse to marry Mexican couples, or blind couples or Catholic couples.
_
And that is absolutely true- no law prevents you from preventing anyone from marrying in your church. 

And no one is trying to change that- despite what you snowflakes claim.


----------



## Syriusly

And just to go back to the OP.

No one is trying to force churches to marry anyone that they don't want to marry. 

The OP itself is just a dog whistle for the gullible who believe the headlines without any facts.


----------



## Kondor3

Perhaps we need to start rounding up people who would force churches to embrace such filth, and start burning the little wankers at the stake.

We could outsource the _American Fruitcake Inquisition_ to the Jesuits of Spain...

After all, igniting the woodpile is historically known as '_lighting the faggots_', isn't it?


----------



## Syriusly

Kondor3 said:


> Perhaps we need to start rounding up people who would force churches to embrace such filth, and burn the little wankers at the stake.



Perhaps you should find anyone who wants to force churches to do anything.

So far no one has come up with anyone.


----------



## Kondor3

Syriusly said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need to start rounding up people who would force churches to embrace such filth, and burn the little wankers at the stake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should find anyone who wants to force churches to do anything.
> 
> So far no one has come up with anyone.
Click to expand...

Yeah? 17 people who voted 'Yes' in the poll say otherwise.


----------



## Syriusly

Kondor3 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need to start rounding up people who would force churches to embrace such filth, and burn the little wankers at the stake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should find anyone who wants to force churches to do anything.
> 
> So far no one has come up with anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah? 17 people who voted 'Yes' in the poll say otherwise.
Click to expand...


LOL- apparently the only 17 people in America.

Since no one is out there trying to do any such thing.

Unlike Christians who actually did ban certain types of sex and banned birth control.


----------



## mdk

Syriusly said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need to start rounding up people who would force churches to embrace such filth, and burn the little wankers at the stake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should find anyone who wants to force churches to do anything.
> 
> So far no one has come up with anyone.
Click to expand...


Anyone to be taken _serious_ that is. There isn't any real push anywhere to force churches to marry anyone against their wishes. It's just a lame scare tactic. Nothing more.


----------



## Syriusly

mdk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need to start rounding up people who would force churches to embrace such filth, and burn the little wankers at the stake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should find anyone who wants to force churches to do anything.
> 
> So far no one has come up with anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone to be taken _serious_ that is. There isn't any real push anywhere to force churches to marry anyone against their wishes. It's just a lame scare tactic. Nothing more.
Click to expand...


There are more people who are seriously trying to make it illegal for Americans to have sex, or to have access to birth control. 
'Christian' Pastor Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Imprison Gays for 'Ten Years Hard Labor' (Video)
*‘Christian’ Pastor Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Imprison Gays for ‘Ten Years Hard Labor’*


----------



## mdk

Syriusly said:


> There are more people who are seriously trying to make it illegal for Americans to have sex, or to have access to birth control.
> 'Christian' Pastor Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Imprison Gays for 'Ten Years Hard Labor' (Video)
> *‘Christian’ Pastor Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Imprison Gays for ‘Ten Years Hard Labor’*



He can 'call' for whatever he wishes, but such a move isn't seriously being considered anywhere. You could likely fit all of his supporters in a small Winnebago. lol


----------



## Syriusly

mdk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are more people who are seriously trying to make it illegal for Americans to have sex, or to have access to birth control.
> 'Christian' Pastor Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Imprison Gays for 'Ten Years Hard Labor' (Video)
> *‘Christian’ Pastor Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Imprison Gays for ‘Ten Years Hard Labor’*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He can 'call' for whatever he wishes, but such a move isn't seriously being considered anywhere. You could likely fit all of his supporters in a small Winnebago. lol
Click to expand...


Silhouette would be driving the Winnebago.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> _Your churches can discriminate anyway you want- you can refuse to marry black couples, you can refuse to marry mixed race couples, you can refuse to marry Mexican couples, or blind couples or Catholic couples._





easyt65 said:


> Being black, mixed races, being Mexican, blind or catholic is not called an 'abomination' in the Bible and is not against religious beliefs..





Syriusly said:


> Nor did I say that they were called an abomination in the Bible.
> 
> *I was pointing out that your church can discriminate anyway it wants to- you can refuse to marry black couples, you can refuse to marry mixed race couples, you can refuse to marry Mexican couples, or blind couples or Catholic couples.*
> 
> And that is absolutely true- no law prevents you from preventing anyone from marrying in your church.
> 
> And no one is trying to change that- despite what you snowflakes claim.



There is a specific reference to how Christians must handle homosexuals if they want to escape the eternal pit of fire for failing the warning.  That's Jude 1 of the New Testament.


----------



## emilynghiem

easyt65 said:


> Perhaps churches should create and publicize that all weddings they do, especially same-sex-marriage ceremonies,  come with a mandatory sermon about how homosexuality is an 'abomination' according to the Bible.
> 
> That would put a damper on interest in forcing churches to perform ceremonies htat is against their Constitutional right of religion and 'the practice thereof'.



Dear easyt65 
Since terms on marriage are relative, and open to people's beliefs,
why not let taxpayers choose what policies they want to fund, enforce and distribute benefits under?

It's totally possible for groups to establish an agreed policy for their members that any couples who plan to
get married, have sex, and/or have children go through screening for for any
addiction or abuse issues that could otherwise endanger healthy relationships.

And set up methods of "spiritual healing and counseling" to diagnose patterns of
addiction or abuse, so that people can get help, similar to medical diagnoses.
These same methods, which cure spiritual causes and cycles of abuse and addiction,
are the same ones that people use to heal from unnatural/unwanted homosexual attractions
caused by abuse ie are not their natural status.

Since people don't agree on terms of marriage, why not split into separate tracks with
separate rules for marriage and benefits, etc:
1. so the liberal public option track through govt can include same sex marriage and benefits
(while requiring insurance or enrollment in exchanges to manage health benefits through govt
which conservatives don't believe in mandating)
2. while the conservative free market track can require spiritual healing (where this applies to
ALL couples not just homosexual) and no drugs/addiction in order to reduce costs of health care 
without requiring insurance

Unless the state ALLOWS for free exercise of people's beliefs, to fund or not to fund marriage
and benefits policies, then taxpayers can argue it is unconstitutional to impose biases they don't believe in.
Thus, why not organize tracks per state, such as managing taxes and benefit per PARTY,
and let citizens CHOOSE their membership and democratically vote on terms and elect representatives
to manage their health care, welfare benefits and marriage policies?


----------



## emilynghiem

Silhouette said:


> There is a specific reference to how Christians must handle homosexuals if they want to escape the eternal pit of fire for failing the warning.  That's Jude 1 of the New Testament.



Dear Silhouette
Christians should treat homosexual people the same as any other fallible human being or sinner:
People should handle relations with each other with forgiveness, offer help with healing and correction of anything
causing wrong, ill, harm or abuse that is otherwise detrimental to health of body mind spirit relations and community/society/humanity as a whole.

And let God's will work through our relations as neighbors to make things right.
Whatever ill karma is manifesting in relationships, whether homosexual or whatever else you find unnatural and/or disordered, that takes the same forgiveness and correction process as healing any conflicted relationship.

Disturbing as it may seem at first, the same forgiveness process that heals people of unwanted homosexual attractions caused by unnatural abuse, also heals people of other physical mental emotional spiritual and social ills.

The first step is always forgiving and letting go, if things are going to change.
That's true in any situation, not just with the homosexuality you seek to address as a problem.

So whatever you find wrong and in need of correction and healing, in cases of homosexual people and relationships,
you will also find similar roots of problems with dysfunction and disorder
to be healed in all people, all relations and in society in general.

We all have different problems, but the common solution is
forgiveness that allows healing, recovery, and restoration of health of individuals, relations and collective society
instead of repeating ills from the past by not forgiving and continuing to project negative patterns from generation to generation.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Kondor3

mdk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need to start rounding up people who would force churches to embrace such filth, and burn the little wankers at the stake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should find anyone who wants to force churches to do anything.
> 
> So far no one has come up with anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone to be taken _serious_ that is. There isn't any real push anywhere to force churches to marry anyone against their wishes. It's just a lame scare tactic. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

Given how far you Lefties have gone already with forcing exposure to homosexuality (in all its perverse forms) onto the American Public... see how easy it is to believe such a thing?

It's part of the reason why you feebs just lost the White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court (for a generation or more), and so many State mansions and legislatures, and why you're now on the sidelines.

You've let that filth encroach so far into American Public life that folks are ready to believe that you're capable of such fascist tactics.

Way to shoot yourselves in the foot.


----------



## Bush92

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?


Nope.


----------



## Rustic

Progressives are always control freaks, the snowflake wants what the snowflake wants...


----------



## Kondor3

Syriusly said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need to start rounding up people who would force churches to embrace such filth, and burn the little wankers at the stake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should find anyone who wants to force churches to do anything.
> 
> So far no one has come up with anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone to be taken _serious_ that is. There isn't any real push anywhere to force churches to marry anyone against their wishes. It's just a lame scare tactic. Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are more people who are seriously trying to make it illegal for Americans to have sex, or to have access to birth control.
> 'Christian' Pastor Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Imprison Gays for 'Ten Years Hard Labor' (Video)
> *‘Christian’ Pastor Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Imprison Gays for ‘Ten Years Hard Labor’*
Click to expand...

When you (_Leftist-Progressive-Democrats, collectively_) take sides with 3% of the population against the interests of the other 97%...

Under circumstances wherein 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition teaches us that the lifestyle and sexual practices of that 3% represent degeneracy and licentiousness and wickedness and weakness and filth...

When you take sides with sexual deviancy and perversion (a.k.a. homosexuality) against normal, decent people...

When you let _*AquaLung*_ go into little girls' bathrooms, and force us to go along with it...

When you make it impossible to voice opposition to such filth without publicly being labeled a bigot and phobe...

You've got to expect to get your head handed to you in the polling booth - where folks can express their _*true*_ feelings in private, rather than your delusional polls...

For every action (_like you've shoved down America's throat for the past several years)_ there is an equal (_or greater_) and opposite *RE*action...

You've gone too far, you've ignored and lost your base, and you've pissed off America good-and-proper...

To the point where they'd rather have _Attila the Hun_ at the wheel, than risk even *more* perversion encroaching upon American Public Life...

To the point where they're looking to roll back much of what you've shoved in our faces in recent years...

That's the *TRUE* size and depth of the opposition to the filth you've been pushing...

Get it, _*now*_, retards?

Now that you've lost political power, and subjected America to _Attila_, in part, as a reaction to your _Filth Advocacy_ and related forcible social engineering of recent years?

Your actions had consequences...

These are yours....

Enjoy...

Goddamned, stupid assholes...


----------



## mdk

Kondor3 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need to start rounding up people who would force churches to embrace such filth, and burn the little wankers at the stake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should find anyone who wants to force churches to do anything.
> 
> So far no one has come up with anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone to be taken _serious_ that is. There isn't any real push anywhere to force churches to marry anyone against their wishes. It's just a lame scare tactic. Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given how far you Lefties have gone already with forcing exposure to homosexuality (in all its perverse forms) onto the American Public... see how easy it is to believe such a thing?
> 
> It's part of the reason why you feebs just lost the White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court (for a generation or more), and so many State mansions and legislatures, and why you're now on the sidelines.
> 
> You've let that filth encroach so far into American Public life that folks are ready to believe that you're capable of such fascist tactics.
> 
> Way to shoot yourselves in the foot.
Click to expand...


Oh, please. Your eagerness to feel victimized is the reason why it's so easy for you to believe such nonsense. The fact remain, not a single church has been forced to marry anyone in this nation despite all your pussy aching...as it should be.


----------



## Kondor3

mdk said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need to start rounding up people who would force churches to embrace such filth, and burn the little wankers at the stake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should find anyone who wants to force churches to do anything.
> 
> So far no one has come up with anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone to be taken _serious_ that is. There isn't any real push anywhere to force churches to marry anyone against their wishes. It's just a lame scare tactic. Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given how far you Lefties have gone already with forcing exposure to homosexuality (in all its perverse forms) onto the American Public... see how easy it is to believe such a thing?
> 
> It's part of the reason why you feebs just lost the White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court (for a generation or more), and so many State mansions and legislatures, and why you're now on the sidelines.
> 
> You've let that filth encroach so far into American Public life that folks are ready to believe that you're capable of such fascist tactics.
> 
> Way to shoot yourselves in the foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please. Your eagerness to feel victimized is the reason why it's so easy for you to believe such nonsense. The fact remain, not a single church has been forced to marry anyone in this nation despite all your pussy aching...as it should be.
Click to expand...

Your choices are...

1. learn from your mistakes

2. continue blindly down the same delusional path that led to your removal from political power

The choice is yours.


----------



## mdk

Kondor3 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need to start rounding up people who would force churches to embrace such filth, and burn the little wankers at the stake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should find anyone who wants to force churches to do anything.
> 
> So far no one has come up with anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone to be taken _serious_ that is. There isn't any real push anywhere to force churches to marry anyone against their wishes. It's just a lame scare tactic. Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given how far you Lefties have gone already with forcing exposure to homosexuality (in all its perverse forms) onto the American Public... see how easy it is to believe such a thing?
> 
> It's part of the reason why you feebs just lost the White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court (for a generation or more), and so many State mansions and legislatures, and why you're now on the sidelines.
> 
> You've let that filth encroach so far into American Public life that folks are ready to believe that you're capable of such fascist tactics.
> 
> Way to shoot yourselves in the foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please. Your eagerness to feel victimized is the reason why it's so easy for you to believe such nonsense. The fact remain, not a single church has been forced to marry anyone in this nation despite all your pussy aching...as it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your choices are...
> 
> 1. learn from your mistakes
> 
> 2. continue blindly down the same path that led to your removal from political power
> 
> The choice is yours.
Click to expand...


I am a libertarian. We've never had much political power to begin. 

Even with all the power the GOP has it is comical watching you play the victimized wallflower.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Syriusly said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need to start rounding up people who would force churches to embrace such filth, and burn the little wankers at the stake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should find anyone who wants to force churches to do anything.
> 
> So far no one has come up with anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone to be taken _serious_ that is. There isn't any real push anywhere to force churches to marry anyone against their wishes. It's just a lame scare tactic. Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are more people who are seriously trying to make it illegal for Americans to have sex, or to have access to birth control.
> 'Christian' Pastor Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Imprison Gays for 'Ten Years Hard Labor' (Video)
> *‘Christian’ Pastor Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Imprison Gays for ‘Ten Years Hard Labor’*
Click to expand...

Americans Against the Tea Party hired an actor.   Is there anything else?


----------



## Silhouette

Kondor3 said:


> When you (_Leftist-Progressive-Democrats, collectively_) take sides with 3% of the population against the interests of the other 97%...
> 
> Under circumstances wherein 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition teaches us that the lifestyle and sexual practices of that 3% represent degeneracy and licentiousness and wickedness and weakness and filth.......When you take sides with sexual deviancy and perversion (a.k.a. homosexuality) against normal, decent people.......When you let _*AquaLung*_ go into little girls' bathrooms, and force us to go along with it...Your actions had consequences...
> 
> These are yours....Enjoy...  Goddamned, stupid assholes...



Yes.  Political strategists are charged with one thing and one thing only: noticing how the voters feel.  This poll was well known.  It has almost 200,000 views and it consists now of well over 1,000 pages.  My poll on the other thread here.  It ran for some time on current events, but was subsequently dungeoned to "health & lifestyle".  I presume when a democrat here didn't like the results of the large-response poll: Poll.  Please Vote.  Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

The thing is, when you bury the truth, it has funny ways of popping up.  But the dems were screwed either way.  They had so long been in bed with the cult of LGBT that the two were nearly synonymous.  And they still are.  Just last night I saw Sen. Chuck Schumer as the new king of democrats on the Maddow Show.  Also Bernie Sanders, the Fresh Prince of Public outreach for the dems.  They deftly left out mention of gay & lesbian stuff; but then one of them brought it up full frontal; I forget which one.  They declared it as a worthy cause to fight for.  I face-palmed. 

They had just got done making an impressive show of bravado, saying they were going to fight for healthcare, jobs etc. and hold Trump's feet to the fire.  It's hard to save good, decent, drowning platforms by throwing a cinder block on top of them as they struggle to keep their noses above the water line.

Long story short, the LGBT cult is still whispering to them that "voters don't care about motherless/fatherless marriage, or guys cutting their dicks off, or sexually deranged males sharing girls showers & bathrooms, or Christians being jailed for resisting all the above.

And UNBELIEVABLY, democratic leaders are STILL believing the UNBELIEVABLE.  I don't care how many coats of whitewash you put on that pig; the results of the poll in this thread, it's popularity and the results of the poll on my thread, and its popularity SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.  If you are stupid enough to ignore them, you are committing the democratic party to extinction.

The dems will NEVER sell the middle bloc on the depravity I've just mentioned.  And if they do, God help us all, because jobs and such will pale in comparison to the anarchy those depravities will effect in the warring factions of what's left of sanity, vs just pure mental disassociation.


----------



## Silhouette

What I think is hilarious is how the new King of Democrats, Chuckee, feels strongly that if they pitch the jobs thing to the middle bloc, they'll get more voters.  Here's a hint Chuck: It ain't gonna work as long as the GOP chirps the same message.  All things being equal, the working class VALUE SYSTEM is what you actually were up against in 2016.  It just so happens to include the want for jobs; but not at the expense of their little girls sharing their showers & bathrooms with sexually deranged males; or seeing their Christian neighbor go to jail &/or be fined because s/he refused to promote motherless/fatherless marriages..

Good luck King Chuck.  Your strategy isn't going to work without cleaving the albatross from around the neck of the democratic party.  IT JUST PLAIN ISN'T GOING TO WORK.  And the criminal part of your strategy is you are simultaneously condemning healthcare & jobs & the environment TO DEATH because of the cult of LGBT's value system...a system which a VAST MAJORITY OF SANE PEOPLE will ALWAYS REJECT. 

Check out the results of this poll and the other I mentioned, put those results in your pipe and smoke on that sonofabitch for minute or two.  It's not an exaggeration to say that the very first and most potent thing the dems could do to restore their popularity is to have people pitching hard for the parasitic public display FIRED.


----------



## Syriusly

Tipsycatlover said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need to start rounding up people who would force churches to embrace such filth, and burn the little wankers at the stake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should find anyone who wants to force churches to do anything.
> 
> So far no one has come up with anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone to be taken _serious_ that is. There isn't any real push anywhere to force churches to marry anyone against their wishes. It's just a lame scare tactic. Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are more people who are seriously trying to make it illegal for Americans to have sex, or to have access to birth control.
> 'Christian' Pastor Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Imprison Gays for 'Ten Years Hard Labor' (Video)
> *‘Christian’ Pastor Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Imprison Gays for ‘Ten Years Hard Labor’*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Americans Against the Tea Party hired an actor.   Is there anything else?
Click to expand...

Tipsy is lying again- that is nothing new.
PreachingPolitics.com

Christian Pastor- check
Big time Conservative- check
Big Trump supporter- check
Trump Campaign invited Dr. Mark Creech to give the invocation at the Trump rally in Selma, North Carolina.- check
Calling for the imprisonment of homosexuals- check

Outlawing Homosexuality - v20140724a
_1. The United States of America is a Christian nation with Judeo-Christian ethics, morals, principles and values. 

2. The practice of homosexuality in the United States of America and in all its territories and possessions, and in all its States, Counties and Cities shall be a felony punishable by ten years in prison at hard labor. 

3. This Amendment shall take effect on the first Sunday after ratification. _


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Your churches can discriminate anyway you want- you can refuse to marry black couples, you can refuse to marry mixed race couples, you can refuse to marry Mexican couples, or blind couples or Catholic couples._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being black, mixed races, being Mexican, blind or catholic is not called an 'abomination' in the Bible and is not against religious beliefs..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did I say that they were called an abomination in the Bible.
> 
> *I was pointing out that your church can discriminate anyway it wants to- you can refuse to marry black couples, you can refuse to marry mixed race couples, you can refuse to marry Mexican couples, or blind couples or Catholic couples.*
> 
> And that is absolutely true- no law prevents you from preventing anyone from marrying in your church.
> 
> And no one is trying to change that- despite what you snowflakes claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a specific reference to how Christians must handle homosexuals if they want to escape the eternal pit of fire for failing the warning.  That's Jude 1 of the New Testament.
Click to expand...


Jude 1 doesn't even mention homosexuals. 

There is a specific reference by Jesus on how Christians are supposed to treat their fellow human beings

* Matthew 5:43-48New International Version (NIV)*
*Love for Enemies*
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbora]">[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


----------



## easyt65

Way to 'cherry-pick' the passages of the Bible. 

As PREVIOUSLY pointed out:

*Leviticus 20:13*
New International Version
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

English Standard Version
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

NET Bible
If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

New Heart English Bible
"'If a man has sexual relations with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


----------



## Syriusly

Kondor3 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need to start rounding up people who would force churches to embrace such filth, and burn the little wankers at the stake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should find anyone who wants to force churches to do anything.
> 
> So far no one has come up with anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've let that filth encroach so far into American Public life that folks are ready to believe that you're capable of such fascist tactics..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'fascist tactics' you mean you still can't find anyone who is actually trying to force you to do anything.
Click to expand...


----------



## Silhouette

The Kleins in Oregon most definitely are feeling forced to promote the LGBT cult.  They were fined huge money for refusing to promote it in their business.  The problem with that is, PA laws don't trump their 1st Amendment rights.  And more importantly as to the rebutting argument, the 1st Amendment rights don't come with a compass or a time clock.  You will find words to that effect when the Klein case or another like it makes its way to the new SCOTUS.


----------



## Syriusly

easyt65 said:


> Way to 'cherry-pick' the passages of the Bible.



What part of Jesus's words do you disagree with?

* Matthew 5:43-48New International Version (NIV)*
*Love for Enemies*
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbora]">[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Mark 12
Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
*30*And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

*31*The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”


----------



## Syriusly

Kondor3 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need to start rounding up people who would force churches to embrace such filth, and burn the little wankers at the stake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should find anyone who wants to force churches to do anything.
> 
> So far no one has come up with anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone to be taken _serious_ that is. There isn't any real push anywhere to force churches to marry anyone against their wishes. It's just a lame scare tactic. Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given how far you Lefties have gone already with forcing exposure to homosexuality (in all its perverse forms) onto the American Public... see how easy it is to believe such a thing?
> 
> It's part of the reason why you feebs just lost the White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court (for a generation or more), and so many State mansions and legislatures, and why you're now on the sidelines.
> 
> You've let that filth encroach so far into American Public life that folks are ready to believe that you're capable of such fascist tactics.
> 
> Way to shoot yourselves in the foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please. Your eagerness to feel victimized is the reason why it's so easy for you to believe such nonsense. The fact remain, not a single church has been forced to marry anyone in this nation despite all your pussy aching...as it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your choices are...
> 
> 1. learn from your mistakes
> 
> 2. continue blindly down the same delusional path that led to your removal from political power
> 
> The choice is yours.
Click to expand...


And once again, despite the whining of you snowflakes, not a single church has been forced to marry anyone.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> The Kleins in Oregon most definitely are feeling forced to promote the LGBT cult.  They were fined huge money for refusing to promote it in their business.  .



If  the Kleins had just followed what the Bible instructs them to do- which is follow the law- they would never have been fined.

Romans 13
*1* Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.
*2* So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished.
*3* For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you.
*4* *The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong.

Why do you think that Christians shouldn't have to obey the law?*


----------



## Silhouette

Jude 1, New Testament.  Why have you left that out of your quotations Syriusly?


----------



## Kondor3

Syriusly said:


> ...And once again, despite the whining of you snowflakes, not a single church has been forced to marry anyone.


You tell 'em, little Internet Tough Guy...

Nobody said that any such thing had occurred (past tense)...

The premise of this thread is the question; _should_ such a thing occur? (_future_ tense)...

It's also a great way to vent against The Gay Agenda, and LibTard mistakes in pushing it so far in recent years...

Which is especially delightful, now that _The Tinkerbelle Supremacy Era_ is drawing to a close...

Try to keep up, eh?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> The Kleins in Oregon most definitely are feeling forced to promote the LGBT cult.  They were fined huge money for refusing to promote it in their business.  The problem with that is, PA laws don't trump their 1st Amendment rights.  And more importantly as to the rebutting argument, the 1st Amendment rights don't come with a compass or a time clock.  You will find words to that effect when the Klein case or another like it makes its way to the new SCOTUS.



The fine was 135K, they made 500K.  That's 365K profit on the deal.

They Klein's were crying all the way to the bank.  They've also been doing appearances at conservative events, wonder what their speaking fees are.



>>>>


----------



## Syriusly

Kondor3 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And once again, despite the whining of you snowflakes, not a single church has been forced to marry anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> You tell 'em, little Internet Tough Guy...
> 
> Nobody said that any such thing had occurred (past tense)...
> 
> The premise of this thread is the question; _should_ such a thing occur? (_future_ tense)...
Click to expand...


The premise of this thread is that snowflakes like yourself keep promoting the idea that you are being persecuted by forcing churches to do anything.

No one is.

No one here has actually suggested forcing churches to do anything. 

But you snowflakes fall for the fear mongering every time.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Jude 1, New Testament.  Why have you left that out of your quotations Syriusly?



Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuals. Note you don't quote the Bible- I do. 

Romans 13
*1* Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.
*2* So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished.
*3* For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you.
*4* *The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong.

Why do you think that Christians shouldn't have to obey the law?*


----------



## Kondor3

Syriusly said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And once again, despite the whining of you snowflakes, not a single church has been forced to marry anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> You tell 'em, little Internet Tough Guy...
> 
> Nobody said that any such thing had occurred (past tense)...
> 
> The premise of this thread is the question; _should_ such a thing occur? (_future_ tense)...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The premise of this thread is that snowflakes like yourself keep promoting the idea that you are being persecuted by forcing churches to do anything.
> 
> No one is.
> 
> No one here has actually suggested forcing churches to do anything.
> 
> But you snowflakes fall for the fear mongering every time.
Click to expand...

Oooooohhh, you *like* that word "snowflake", that Righties have been throwing at you Leftist trash in recent months, don't you?

The title of the thread defines its premise.

It has nothing to do with past activity.

It has everything to do with future prospects.

You don't get to change the English language to suit your idiotic agenda.

Not anymore, anyhow, little Princess...

Besides... you're out of political power - entirely - in 16 days... who gives a rat's ass what you think anymore?


----------



## Silhouette

The new SCOTUS will find in favor of people's 1st Amendment rights.  The new Court will find that the 1st Amendment rights 1. Are always dominant to local PA laws (the Constitutional protections always trump local ordinances) and 2. That the 1st Amendment doesn't come with GPS coordinates or a time clock.

The only way for the cult of LGBT to escape these finding is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to the Court that theirs are not behaviors, but instead an innate state of being at birth.  And, good luck with that.  Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit 2016) has found that deviant sex behaviors are not the same as the static classes of race or gender.  Also, lipstick lesbians attracted to all things male in their partners betrays HUGE closeted BEHAVIORAL and mental issues. 

The LGBT cult would have a better sell convincing the Court that theirs is a mental disability.  But that is a double-edged sword too.  A hopeless alcoholic could likewise convince a Court, but that doesn't mean the Court must then grant him the "right to drive".  There are others that share the road of marriage with two adults involved.  Those people are called children.  And up until 2015, children had benefits of the marriage contract to both a mother and father.  Said benefits were ripped away and dissolved without their even having as much as simple representation, much less a unique voice at the contract-revision Hearing known as "Obergefell"..


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> The fine was 135K, they made 500K.  That's 365K profit on the deal.
> 
> They Klein's were crying all the way to the bank.  They've also been doing appearances at conservative events, wonder what their speaking fees are.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>



The Klein's 1st Amendment protections don't come with GPS coordinates or a time clock Worldy.  Hey Worldy, quick poli-sci question for you.  If a question of a local law faces off with a Constitutional Right; particularly one clearly delineated in the Constitution and there's a direct conflict, which side is the USSC mandated to find for?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fine was 135K, they made 500K.  That's 365K profit on the deal.
> 
> They Klein's were crying all the way to the bank.  They've also been doing appearances at conservative events, wonder what their speaking fees are.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Klein's 1st Amendment protections don't come with GPS coordinates or a time clock Worldy.  Hey Worldy, quick poli-sci question for you.  If a question of a local law faces off with a Constitutional Right; particularly one clearly delineated in the Constitution and there's a direct conflict, which side is the USSC mandated to find for?
Click to expand...


#1 Where did I say that 1st Amendment protections come with GPS coordinates?  Oh I didn't.  I pointed out that the Klein's made a profit on the issue of $365,000 and they didn't have to pay a dime of the fine.

#2 PoliSci Question - Depends.  If a law is general in nature and exists within the context of a compelling government interest, then such a law can survive constitutional review.  Regulation of commerce, within a State (intrastate commerce) have typically be considered to be a valid government interest and valid at the Federal level when interstate commerce is involved.  Take the case of Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises.  A restaurant tried to claim a religious exemption (1st Amendment) so as not to have to serve black people.  They lost.  Then there is Bob Jones University that attempted to discriminate against black (race) and interracial couples (a behavior) based on sincerely held religious beliefs.  They lost also.  Then there is the case of Elane Photography and their violation of the New Mexico Public Accommodation law.  They attempted to claim 1st Amendment protections against serving the lesbian couple.  They lost also.  They lost at the State court level, then lost at the State Supreme Court level, then  the United States Supreme Court refused to accept the writ of certiorari for appeal (meaning they lost their also).

So while you may think that an appeal to the SCOTUS is a slam dunk, know that it ain't.  Even when Trump get's his nomination confirmed it simply restores the court to 4-1-4 (Liberal - Moderate - Conservative) which is how it was before the death of Scalia.  And Kennedy was the swing vote and authored every major LBGT case in the last 20 years (Romer, Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefel).

There is your PoliSci lesson for the day, which you will ignore.


>>>>


----------



## yiostheoy

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?


Spam bot.

Ignore list.


----------



## yiostheoy

Silhouette said:


> Yes, voters weighed in on the same-sex marriage party this year, didn't they Skylar?  I think Hillary feels like the numbers were misrepresented.  Too bad she didn't visit the poll above before she hired her gay campaign manager who told her, like you tell us "the gay marriage issue just really isn't that important to voters".
> 
> The GOP could've run a stale cheese sandwich on the numbers in the poll above and won the election on all fronts, up and down ticket.


Spam bot.

Ignore list.


----------



## yiostheoy

If your church has queer priests and queer priestesses then a queer wedding should not be any problem for them.


----------



## yiostheoy

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, voters weighed in on the same-sex marriage party this year, didn't they Skylar?  I think Hillary feels like the numbers were misrepresented.  Too bad she didn't visit the poll above before she hired her gay campaign manager who told her, like you tell us "the gay marriage issue just really isn't that important to voters".
> 
> The GOP could've run a stale cheese sandwich on the numbers in the poll above and won the election on all fronts, up and down ticket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You voted for Hillary b/c you felt Trump was too pro-gay for your liking. Jobs, economy, and, Hillary being an uncommonly poor candidate is what cost her the election, not gay marriage. This issue may be the moon that revolves  around your world, but most people don't care or have moved on.
Click to expand...

So you mdk got sucked (no pun intended) into this thread huh?

I should put you on the ignore list too then.

The Anglicans have queer priests and queer priestesses don't they ?!

I'm pretty sure I read something in the news about that.

They can be in charge of all queer weddings then.

I believe they are the 5th largest in the world so they can take charge of all queer weddings.


----------



## Silhouette

Who are you to determine what thread is worthy of discussing or not?  yiostheoy?  I guess the over 1,000 pages here means it's an unpopular topic eh?


----------



## Syriusly

Kondor3 said:


> [
> Besides... you're out of political power - entirely - in 16 days... who gives a rat's ass what you think anymore?



Well that is how conservative fascists think right.

If they control the government- they can ignore what the rest of America thinks.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> The new SCOTUS will find in favor of people's 1st Amendment rights.  ..



Considering Silhouette's perfect record of failure in making predictions, this pretty much ensures that the Supreme Court will not be changing anything regarding gay marriage


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fine was 135K, they made 500K.  That's 365K profit on the deal.
> 
> They Klein's were crying all the way to the bank.  They've also been doing appearances at conservative events, wonder what their speaking fees are.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Klein's 1st Amendment protections don't come with GPS coordinates or a time clock Worldy.  Hey Worldy, quick poli-sci question for you.  If a question of a local law faces off with a Constitutional Right; particularly one clearly delineated in the Constitution and there's a direct conflict, which side is the USSC mandated to find for?
Click to expand...


If the Klein's had just followed what the New Testament said they would never have broken the law and gotten fined

Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuals. Note you don't quote the Bible- I do. 

Romans 13
*1* Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.
*2* So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished.
*3* For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you.
*4* *The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong.*


----------



## mdk

yiostheoy said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, voters weighed in on the same-sex marriage party this year, didn't they Skylar?  I think Hillary feels like the numbers were misrepresented.  Too bad she didn't visit the poll above before she hired her gay campaign manager who told her, like you tell us "the gay marriage issue just really isn't that important to voters".
> 
> The GOP could've run a stale cheese sandwich on the numbers in the poll above and won the election on all fronts, up and down ticket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You voted for Hillary b/c you felt Trump was too pro-gay for your liking. Jobs, economy, and, Hillary being an uncommonly poor candidate is what cost her the election, not gay marriage. This issue may be the moon that revolves  around your world, but most people don't care or have moved on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you mdk got sucked (no pun intended) into this thread huh?
> 
> I should put you on the ignore list too then.
> 
> The Anglicans have queer priests and queer priestesses don't they ?!
> 
> I'm pretty sure I read something in the news about that.
> 
> They can be in charge of all queer weddings then.
> 
> I believe they are the 5th largest in the world so they can take charge of all queer weddings.
Click to expand...


Yes, there are quite a few churches that are willing to gay marry people. Even if there was zero, I still wouldn't support a church being forced to marry anyone against their wishes.

Put me on me ignore. Or don't. Either way, I _really_ don't care.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Who are you to determine what thread is worthy of discussing or not?  yiostheoy?  I guess the over 1,000 pages here means it's an unpopular topic eh?



It was so popular you had to raise it from the dead after an eleven month dirt nap. lol. Besides, you only keep this thread alive so you can claim that 82% of people oppose gay marriage when in fact they oppose *churches* being *forced* to marry gay people.


----------



## Silhouette

The poll speaks for itself. You can either ignore the poll and lose another election or pay attention to it and win one.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> The poll speaks for itself. You can either ignore the poll and lose another election or pay attention to it and win one.



It does. The poll says the vast and overwhelming majority do not support churches being forced to marry gay couples if they do not wish to do so. You like to pretend this poll states that 82% oppose gay marriage in its entirety b/c you're a shameless liar.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll speaks for itself. You can either ignore the poll and lose another election or pay attention to it and win one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does. The poll says the vast and overwhelming majority do not support churches being forced to marry gay couples if they do not wish to do so. You like to pretend this poll states that 82% oppose gay marriage in its entirety b/c you're a shameless liar.
Click to expand...

So your official position is that the poll at the top of the page and election 2016 had nothing whatsoever to do with one another eh?    Once again, your credibility sinks into the toilet.  2016 was a mandate on the USSC to stop your insane social causes from destroying the fabric of working class values.  You can either wise up to that or play pretend and lose 2018 as the GOP strategists sharpen their tools for a "if you don't vote republican, deranged males will use the same restroom as your daughter" mantra leading up to November 2018.  Do you REALLY want a GOP supermajority in Congress?  Or would you like to at least hold onto a smidgen of power in the next 4-8 years?

As long as the dems cling to the LGBT or refuse to scrape those cult values off their hull, they're going to remain scuttled at the bottom of the bay.  Adding more barnacles to the hull or painting them a different color (or in your case, denying they exist at all) isn't going to bring that ship back to the surface.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> So your official position is that the poll at the top of the page and election 2016 had nothing whatsoever to do with one another eh?



No, this thread's poll had a major impact on the  election. You couldn't swing a dead cat by its tail and not hit a story covering this thread's poll. All those stories of churches being forced to marry couples dominated the airwaves for months. lol



Silhouette said:


> Once again, your credibility sinks into the toilet.



Cura te ipsum


----------



## federalist50

RWHeathenGamer said:


> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?



Absolutely not! Religious freedom is a bedrock principle of the U.S. Every religion you mention believes marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm pretty sure that there will be more than enough wedding chapels, gay ministers, etc. willing to perform the service.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> The poll speaks for itself..



The poll indeed speaks for itself.

So why do you keep lying about what it says?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll speaks for itself. You can either ignore the poll and lose another election or pay attention to it and win one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does. The poll says the vast and overwhelming majority do not support churches being forced to marry gay couples if they do not wish to do so. You like to pretend this poll states that 82% oppose gay marriage in its entirety b/c you're a shameless liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your official position is that the poll at the top of the page and election 2016 had nothing whatsoever to do with one another eh?
Click to expand...


The 200 or so people who participated in your poll had no statistically relevant impact on the 2016 election.


----------



## Syriusly

federalist50 said:


> RWHeathenGamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.
> 
> Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not! Religious freedom is a bedrock principle of the U.S. Every religion you mention believes marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm pretty sure that there will be more than enough wedding chapels, gay ministers, etc. willing to perform the service.
Click to expand...


Of course no church should be forced to marry anyone that they don't want to- regardless of the reason.

No one is saying otherwise.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Of course no church should be forced to marry anyone that they don't want to- regardless of the reason.
> 
> No one is saying otherwise.



The 1st Amendment doesn't say "freedom of church" though Syriusly.  That little snag is going to come up in argument.  And, the 1st Amendment doesn't come with GPS coordinates or a time clock.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course no church should be forced to marry anyone that they don't want to- regardless of the reason.
> 
> No one is saying otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1st Amendment doesn't say "freedom of church" though Syriusly.  That little snag is going to come up in argument.  And, the 1st Amendment doesn't come with GPS coordinates or a time clock.
Click to expand...


Christians have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

Now if they just read their Bible they would know that is what God told them to do.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Christians have to follow the same laws as everyone else.


Quick poli-sci question for you Syriusly;

Which law is dominant?  Clearly delineated Constitutional law or muddy, recent local law in direct conflict with Constitutional protections?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians have to follow the same laws as everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which law is dominant?  Clearly delineated Constitutional law or muddy, recent local law in direct conflict with Constitutional protections?
Click to expand...


The law is the law.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States.

And who interprets Constitutional law?

The Supreme Court.

Meanwhile- Christians don't get special exemptions from obeying the law.

They should follow what the New Testament says and follow the law.


----------



## Kondor3

Syriusly said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Besides... you're out of political power - entirely - in 16 days... who gives a rat's ass what you think anymore?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is how conservative fascists think right.
> 
> If they control the government- they can ignore what the rest of America thinks.
Click to expand...

Not the rest of America, pissant... just whiny LibTards...


----------



## Syriusly

Kondor3 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Besides... you're out of political power - entirely - in 16 days... who gives a rat's ass what you think anymore?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is how conservative fascists think right.
> 
> If they control the government- they can ignore what the rest of America thinks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the rest of America, pissant... just whiny LibTards...
Click to expand...


You are a true fascist- you think that once your party gains power you can ignore what Americans think.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> You are a true fascist- you think that once your party gains power you can ignore what Americans think.



that's called "projection".  When your fascist party got power YOU ignored the majority in most of the states and forced them to incorporate motherless/fatherless marriage...for which there was ZERO constitutional protections (of deviant sex behaviors) against the will of majorities.  And, you did it with 5 in-pocket Justices who of which one at least advertised how she would weigh in before the Hearing even came into her Courtroom.  AND as if that wasn't fascist enough, your in-pocket conspirator lit up the Executive branch THE SAME DAY your fascist pre-determined decision came down with a rainbow light display in a giant "fuck you" to the majority...and the way our country runs.

Yes, you would know what fascism is.  And, you celebrated the jailing of a Christian and fined other Christians for refusing to promote your motherless/fatherless new contractual terms that are onerous to children; binding them for life.


----------



## Kondor3

Syriusly said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Besides... you're out of political power - entirely - in 16 days... who gives a rat's ass what you think anymore?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is how conservative fascists think right.
> 
> If they control the government- they can ignore what the rest of America thinks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the rest of America, pissant... just whiny LibTards...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a true fascist- you think that once your party gains power you can ignore what Americans think.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot.

I voted for Bubba Clinton in 1992.

I voted for Bubba Clinton in 1996.

I voted for Shrub in 2000.

I voted for Shrub in 2004.

I voted for Obumble in 2008.

I voted for Obumble in 2012.

I voted for Bernie Sanders in the Illinois Democratic Primary in Spring 2016.

I voted for Hillary Clinton on November 8, 2016.

And then I came home and took a shower, feeling as dirty as I did.

I'm a Centrist, my little butt-floss... I just enjoy baiting you emotional little Hyper-Leftie LibTards... although it's oftentimes like shooting fish in a barrel.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a true fascist- you think that once your party gains power you can ignore what Americans think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's called "projection". .
Click to expand...


Nope- just calling it like it is.


----------



## Syriusly

Kondor3 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Besides... you're out of political power - entirely - in 16 days... who gives a rat's ass what you think anymore?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is how conservative fascists think right.
> 
> If they control the government- they can ignore what the rest of America thinks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the rest of America, pissant... just whiny LibTards...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a true fascist- you think that once your party gains power you can ignore what Americans think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> I voted for Bubba Clinton in 1992.l.
Click to expand...


And now you are a true fascist who thinks that once your side gets into power you can ignore Americans that you disagree with.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Nope- just calling it like it is.


Me too, let's review what was said in context.  You'll have to spam another 5 or 6 posts to bleed out another page.  



Syriusly said:


> You are a true fascist- you think that once your party gains power you can ignore what Americans think.



that's called "projection".  When your fascist party got power YOU ignored the majority in most of the states and forced them to incorporate motherless/fatherless marriage...for which there was ZERO constitutional protections (of deviant sex behaviors) against the will of majorities.  And, you did it with 5 in-pocket Justices who of which one at least advertised how she would weigh in before the Hearing even came into her Courtroom.  AND as if that wasn't fascist enough, your in-pocket conspirator lit up the Executive branch THE SAME DAY your fascist pre-determined decision came down with a rainbow light display in a giant "fuck you" to the majority...and the way our country runs.

Yes, you would know what fascism is.  And, you celebrated the jailing of a Christian and fined other Christians for refusing to promote your motherless/fatherless new contractual terms that are onerous to children; binding them for life.


----------



## Kondor3

Syriusly said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Besides... you're out of political power - entirely - in 16 days... who gives a rat's ass what you think anymore?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is how conservative fascists think right.
> 
> If they control the government- they can ignore what the rest of America thinks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the rest of America, pissant... just whiny LibTards...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a true fascist- you think that once your party gains power you can ignore what Americans think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> I voted for Bubba Clinton in 1992.l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now you are a true fascist who thinks that once your side gets into power you can ignore Americans that you disagree with.
Click to expand...

Oh, dearie-me, the little snowflake is emoting again... my, my, my... what to do?...  God, it's going to be fun, watching you twits melt-down time and again...

Off to the peanut gallery with you, after January 20th, along with the rest of the politically impotent losers... whine for us some more, Princess... whine...


----------



## WillReadmore

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope- just calling it like it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Me too, let's review what was said in context.  You'll have to spam another 5 or 6 posts to bleed out another page.
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a true fascist- you think that once your party gains power you can ignore what Americans think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's called "projection".  When your fascist party got power YOU ignored the majority in most of the states and forced them to incorporate motherless/fatherless marriage...for which there was ZERO constitutional protections (of deviant sex behaviors) against the will of majorities.  And, you did it with 5 in-pocket Justices who of which one at least advertised how she would weigh in before the Hearing even came into her Courtroom.  AND as if that wasn't fascist enough, your in-pocket conspirator lit up the Executive branch THE SAME DAY your fascist pre-determined decision came down with a rainbow light display in a giant "fuck you" to the majority...and the way our country runs.
> 
> Yes, you would know what fascism is.  And, you celebrated the jailing of a Christian and fined other Christians for refusing to promote your motherless/fatherless new contractual terms that are onerous to children; binding them for life.
Click to expand...

The majority of the US is in favor of same sex marriage.

Your concern about "protections" is totally ridiculous.  It isn't even on topic.  Maybe you should read Lawrence v Texas, where your concern about sexual freedom of consensual adults was addressed.

I mean, marriage causes LESS promiscuity and MORE fidelity.  You should LIKE that.

Also, "motherless fatherless marriage"???  What the heck is THAT?  Are you asking that those who marry already have children?  Are you unaware that marriage and children are two separate issues, with pretty much anyone who wants children can have them?

Are you unaware that same sex female companions can easily outpace heteros in the the baby department?

And, yes, if you have a public accommodation you have to follow public accommodation law.  Duh!


----------



## WillReadmore

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course no church should be forced to marry anyone that they don't want to- regardless of the reason.
> 
> No one is saying otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1st Amendment doesn't say "freedom of church" though Syriusly.  That little snag is going to come up in argument.  And, the 1st Amendment doesn't come with GPS coordinates or a time clock.
Click to expand...

No, churches in America are not required by government to marry those they don't want to marry.  That's never even been a question.

Prelates can be total a-holes if they feel that's what Jesus calls them to be.

Well, they aren't really supposed to rape children, but that's a different thread, I guess.


----------



## Silhouette

The 1st Amendment doesn't say "freedom of church"... Might want to give it a read when you get a minute..



WillReadmore said:


> The majority of the US is in favor of same sex marriage.



The poll at the top of the page and this poll suggest otherwise: Poll.  Please Vote.  Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

Have fun losing 2018 & 2020.  Being an ostrich and ignoring working class values just isn't a winning strategy I guess.  Do you need a brick with the stats I just mentioned, wrapped around it, hurled at your head in order for the situation to finally sink in?


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> The poll at the top of the page and this poll suggest otherwise: Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?



Two polls that don't even ask about gay marriage is your _compelling_ evidence. How sad for you. Silly Sil is upset she can't force people to give a shit about queers getting married as much as she does.


----------



## WillReadmore

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll at the top of the page and this poll suggest otherwise: Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two polls that don't even ask about gay marriage is your _compelling_ evidence. How sad for you. Silly Sil is upset she can't force people to give a shit about queers getting married as much as she does.
Click to expand...

It's you who wants to take action on this issue.

You've been on here for a long time now, whining that you can't stop people from getting married.

How about keeping your OWN life in order and letting other people live theirs? 

Would that just be to sad for you?


----------



## mdk

WillReadmore said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll at the top of the page and this poll suggest otherwise: Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two polls that don't even ask about gay marriage is your _compelling_ evidence. How sad for you. Silly Sil is upset she can't force people to give a shit about queers getting married as much as she does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's you who wants to take action on this issue.
> 
> You've been on here for a long time now, whining that you can't stop people from getting married.
> 
> How about keeping your OWN life in order and letting other people live theirs?
> 
> Would that just be to sad for you?
Click to expand...


I think you have me confused with someone else. lol


----------



## WillReadmore

mdk said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll at the top of the page and this poll suggest otherwise: Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two polls that don't even ask about gay marriage is your _compelling_ evidence. How sad for you. Silly Sil is upset she can't force people to give a shit about queers getting married as much as she does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's you who wants to take action on this issue.
> 
> You've been on here for a long time now, whining that you can't stop people from getting married.
> 
> How about keeping your OWN life in order and letting other people live theirs?
> 
> Would that just be to sad for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you have me confused with someone else. lol
Click to expand...

Damn it!  I seriously apologize.

Somehow I out-edited myself when I should have just started over with a clean "reply" button.

I'll watch that more carefully.


----------



## mdk

WillReadmore said:


> Damn it! I seriously apologize.
> 
> Somehow I out-edited myself when I should have just started over with a clean "reply" button.
> 
> I'll watch that more carefully.



No need to apologize. We all make mistakes. Cheers.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope- just calling it like it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Me too, let's review what was said in context.  You'll have to spam another 5 or 6 posts to bleed out another page.
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a true fascist- you think that once your party gains power you can ignore what Americans think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's called "projection".  When your fascist party got power YOU ignored the majority in most of the states and forced them to.
Click to expand...


And by 'fascist' you mean asking the courts to protect the Constitutional rights of Americans.


----------



## Syriusly

Kondor3 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is how conservative fascists think right.
> 
> If they control the government- they can ignore what the rest of America thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Not the rest of America, pissant... just whiny LibTards...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a true fascist- you think that once your party gains power you can ignore what Americans think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> I voted for Bubba Clinton in 1992.l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now you are a true fascist who thinks that once your side gets into power you can ignore Americans that you disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, dearie-me, the little snowflake is emoting again... my, my, my... what to do?...  God, it's going to be fun, watching you twits melt-down time and again...
> 
> Off to the peanut gallery with you, after January 20th, along with the rest of the politically impotent losers... whine for us some more, Princess... whine...
Click to expand...


LOL- poor little snowflake- who doesn't want the American government to listen to any Americans he doesn't approve of.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> T
> The poll at the top of the page and this poll suggest otherwise: ?



The poll at the top of the page isn't about whether people approve of same gender marriage. 

You just lie. 

Always.


----------



## Kondor3

Syriusly said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the rest of America, pissant... just whiny LibTards...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a true fascist- you think that once your party gains power you can ignore what Americans think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> I voted for Bubba Clinton in 1992.l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now you are a true fascist who thinks that once your side gets into power you can ignore Americans that you disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, dearie-me, the little snowflake is emoting again... my, my, my... what to do?...  God, it's going to be fun, watching you twits melt-down time and again...
> 
> Off to the peanut gallery with you, after January 20th, along with the rest of the politically impotent losers... whine for us some more, Princess... whine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- poor little snowflake- who doesn't want the American government to listen to any Americans he doesn't approve of.
Click to expand...

Ho-hum... somebody say sumfin'?... nahhhhhh... thought not...


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll at the top of the page and this poll suggest otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poll at the top of the page isn't about whether people approve of same gender marriage.
Click to expand...

Yes, and election 2016 wasn't a mandate to have conservative Justices appointed due to the fascism 5 of them have been practicing of late.  Working class values came out in the poll above.  Ignore it at your own peril all the way to 2018 & beyond..


----------



## ScienceRocks

I think Churches should only not pay taxes if they do. Pay taxes = do as you please.


----------



## Silhouette

Matthew said:


> I think Churches should only not pay taxes if they do. Pay taxes = do as you please.


Well the 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about freedom of church so?  That's another topic for another thread.


----------



## Silhouette

WillReadmore said:


> No, churches in America are not required by government to marry those they don't want to marry.  That's never even been a question.
> 
> Prelates can be total a-holes if they feel that's what Jesus calls them to be.
> 
> Well, they aren't really supposed to rape children, but that's a different thread, I guess.



But again, where does it say "freedom of church" in the Constitution?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll at the top of the page and this poll suggest otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poll at the top of the page isn't about whether people approve of same gender marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and election 2016 wasn't a mandate to have conservative Justices appointed due to the fascism 5 of them have been practicing of late.  Working class values came out in the poll above.  Ignore it at your own peril all the way to 2018 & beyond..
Click to expand...


Why do you believe the Constitution is fascism?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, churches in America are not required by government to marry those they don't want to marry.  That's never even been a question.
> 
> Prelates can be total a-holes if they feel that's what Jesus calls them to be.
> 
> Well, they aren't really supposed to rape children, but that's a different thread, I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But again, where does it say "freedom of church" in the Constitution?
Click to expand...


But again where does it say that Christians are exempt from the law?

No churches are required to marry anyone they don't want to- this is just Silhouettes straw horse she trots out.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> But again where does it say that Christians are exempt from the law?



Any law that is designed or otherwise seeks to cleave an individual practicing (not perfect, but striving...as all Christians are) their faith passively, is not dominant to the 1st Amendment.  In the end, since LGBT is about behaviors, it will be found in the new SCOTUS that local recent PA laws forcing people to promote another behavior they disagree with will falter in the face of their 1st Amendment dominant protections to passively refuse to promote other behaviors.

At the end of the day, requiring Christians to promote homosexuality as a societal norm will be seen equal as if you were trying to force them to light a candle in worship of Satan.  If a behavior is forbidden to promote in the Bible, it's forbidden to promote.  The Justices won't give this a light look.  After all, local recent PA laws regarding BEHAVIORS (See Hively v Ivy Tech 2016 for the distinction re: the 1964 Civil Rights Act) are asking nothing less than SCOTUS to dismantle the 1st Amendment.  And that's something only Congress can do.  So, good luck with that.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> But again where does it say that Christians are exempt from the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any law that is designed or otherwise seeks to .
Click to expand...


There is no law that is designed to harm people of faith.

There are laws that prevent business's from discriminating against people of faith, and people of color and people due to their sexual orientation.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> There is no law that is designed to harm people of faith.
> 
> There are laws that prevent business's from discriminating against people of faith, and people of color and people due to their sexual orientation.



When you require a Christian to promote butt sex as a social norm (acme of that promotion is marriage), you require them to abdicate their faith.  Jude 1 of the New Testament is very plain and clear on their God's position on the normalizing of homosexuality.  It actually discusses it in those precise terms and what the penalty is for assisting: eternal damnation in the pit of fire.  That passage is so forward looking, perhaps from the old lessons of what was going on in Sodom just before God smacked the whole society down for disobedience.  It speaks of how your kind and cult speaks with smooth tongues to try to persuade others to normalize your deviances.  It tells of customs (laws) that urge this peculiar disobedience to God's law.  There is no way to read Jude 1 for a Christian and to deduce that they should have ANYTHING to do with promoting homosexuality as a human value, much less the epitome of that promotion in marriage.

So, local, recent PA laws are in DIRECT defiance of the 1st Amendment.  It's not like Christians are asking permission to actively persecute individual homosexuals; because that also is forbidden in Jude 1.  It's that they are exercising their right to passively refuse to promote what constitutes another faith (cult of deviant sex) so they won't defile their own faith and risk eternal damnation for the mortal sin outlined clearly and concisely in Jude 1 of the New Testament of Jesus Christ's teachings.


----------



## WillReadmore

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no law that is designed to harm people of faith.
> 
> There are laws that prevent business's from discriminating against people of faith, and people of color and people due to their sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you require a Christian to promote butt sex as a social norm (acme of that promotion is marriage), you require them to abdicate their faith.  Jude 1 of the New Testament is very plain and clear on their God's position on the normalizing of homosexuality.  It actually discusses it in those precise terms and what the penalty is for assisting: eternal damnation in the pit of fire.  That passage is so forward looking, perhaps from the old lessons of what was going on in Sodom just before God smacked the whole society down for disobedience.  It speaks of how your kind and cult speaks with smooth tongues to try to persuade others to normalize your deviances.  It tells of customs (laws) that urge this peculiar disobedience to God's law.  There is no way to read Jude 1 for a Christian and to deduce that they should have ANYTHING to do with promoting homosexuality as a human value, much less the epitome of that promotion in marriage.
> 
> So, local, recent PA laws are in DIRECT defiance of the 1st Amendment.  It's not like Christians are asking permission to actively persecute individual homosexuals; because that also is forbidden in Jude 1.  It's that they are exercising their right to passively refuse to promote what constitutes another faith (cult of deviant sex) so they won't defile their own faith and risk eternal damnation for the mortal sin outlined clearly and concisely in Jude 1 of the New Testament of Jesus Christ's teachings.
Click to expand...

You should sort through your pile of BS and try to identify one or two short points worth discussing.

OK?


----------



## Silhouette

WillReadmore said:


> You should sort through your pile of BS and try to identify one or two short points worth discussing.
> 
> OK?



You should sort through your brief ad hominem and identify any point you're trying to make.

OK?


----------



## WillReadmore

Silhouette said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should sort through your pile of BS and try to identify one or two short points worth discussing.
> 
> OK?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should sort through your brief ad hominem and identify any point you're trying to make.
> 
> OK?
Click to expand...

I read your post all the way to "butt sex".

And, you give me a problem for stopping at that in a thread about religion?


----------



## esthermoon

Why should they be forced to do that? If their religious opinions say that homosexuality is not right they shouldn't be forced to perform homosexual weddings.
I think forcing them to do that would be a violation of religious freedom


----------



## Silhouette

esthermoon said:


> Why should they be forced to do that? If their religious opinions say that homosexuality is not right they shouldn't be forced to perform homosexual weddings.
> I think forcing them to do that would be a violation of religious freedom


See ^^ even a kid can see how evident the rights of Christians are.  She intuits that homosexuality is a behavior, not a race.  As such she knows the difference between saying "no" to perform an interracial man/woman marriage is in no way the same as saying "no" to helping/performing a marriage between people of any race or gender doing weird sex behaviors with each other...

I'll bet if this millennial thought more about how two of the same gender "marrying" deprives children involved legally, of a mother or father for life, she'd double-down on her objections to forcing Christians to participate.


----------



## WillReadmore

esthermoon said:


> Why should they be forced to do that? If their religious opinions say that homosexuality is not right they shouldn't be forced to perform homosexual weddings.
> I think forcing them to do that would be a violation of religious freedom


No religious organization is required to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry REGARDLESS of the reason.  Also, churches may refuse anyone who requests use or services of the church, it's officials and employees or its property.

They can refuse to let blonds enter their building if they want to. 

More frequently (obviously) they can test those who want to marry to see if they share the religious conviction espoused by the church and refuse to marry them if they don't pass the test.

The title of this thread is just plain stupid, because it has NEVER been an issue in the USA.


----------



## easyt65

Sorry - UNCONSTITUTIONAL


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they be forced to do that? If their religious opinions say that homosexuality is not right they shouldn't be forced to perform homosexual weddings.
> I think forcing them to do that would be a violation of religious freedom
> 
> 
> 
> See ^^ even a kid can see how evident the rights of Christians are.  She intuits that homosexuality is a behavior, not a race.  As such she knows the difference between saying "no" to perform an interracial man/woman marriage is in no way the same as saying "no" to helping/performing a marriage between people of any race or gender doing weird sex behaviors with each other...
> 
> I'll bet if this millennial thought more about how two of the same gender "marrying" deprives children involved legally, of a mother or father for life, she'd double-down on her objections to forcing Christians to participate.
Click to expand...



Let's ask.

ESTHERMOON,

#1  Do you think religious organizations that have no problems with same-sex couples should be allowed to perform Religious Marriages for these couples?

#2  DO you think that same-sex couple should be allowed to civilly marry under the law (which has nothing to do with religious marriage as civil marriage a function of law)?


Thank you in advance.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

WillReadmore said:


> No religious organization is required to marry ANYONE they don't want to marry REGARDLESS of the reason.  Also, churches may refuse anyone who requests use or services of the church, it's officials and employees or its property.
> 
> They can refuse to let blonds enter their building if they want to.
> 
> More frequently (obviously) they can test those who want to marry to see if they share the religious conviction espoused by the church and refuse to marry them if they don't pass the test.
> 
> The title of this thread is just plain stupid, because it has NEVER been an issue in the USA.



Um...except the 1st Amendment doesn't say "freedom of church".  It speaks about individuals.  So, a church is merely a gathering of individual Christians; where they congregate.  You may have heard the term "congregation"?  

A person's faith doesn't end when they leave the congregation and go out in the world.  A person's faith doesn't have a time clock or GPS coordinates.  This will come out in the final SCOTUS decision on the various challenges making their way up.  The state of Oregon will be forced to pay handsome restitution to the Kleins, for example.


----------



## jc456

well if the left can boycott and have you fired for voting for trump, the rule of law has precedence for religion to stand on their own with their own beliefs.


----------



## jc456

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they be forced to do that? If their religious opinions say that homosexuality is not right they shouldn't be forced to perform homosexual weddings.
> I think forcing them to do that would be a violation of religious freedom
> 
> 
> 
> See ^^ even a kid can see how evident the rights of Christians are.  She intuits that homosexuality is a behavior, not a race.  As such she knows the difference between saying "no" to perform an interracial man/woman marriage is in no way the same as saying "no" to helping/performing a marriage between people of any race or gender doing weird sex behaviors with each other...
> 
> I'll bet if this millennial thought more about how two of the same gender "marrying" deprives children involved legally, of a mother or father for life, she'd double-down on her objections to forcing Christians to participate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask.
> 
> ESTHERMOON,
> 
> #1  Do you think religious organizations that have no problems with same-sex couples should be allowed to perform Religious Marriages for these couples?
> 
> #2  DO you think that same-sex couple should be allowed to civilly marry under the law (which has nothing to do with religious marriage as civil marriage a function of law)?
> 
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

why do you feel you get to mandate your beliefs?


----------



## mdk

Days since a church has been forced to marry *any* couple aganist their wishes:


----------



## WorldWatcher

WorldWatcher said:


> Let's ask.
> 
> ESTHERMOON,
> 
> #1  Do you think religious organizations that have no problems with same-sex couples should be allowed to perform Religious Marriages for these couples?
> 
> #2  DO you think that same-sex couple should be allowed to civilly marry under the law (which has nothing to do with religious marriage as civil marriage a function of law)?
> 
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> 
> >>>>





jc456 said:


> why do you feel you get to mandate your beliefs?




I have no desire to "mandate" my beliefs.

#1  I don't think non-profit religious entities should be required under the law to religiously marry anyone they don't want to - whether that be based on race, religion, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or previous marital status.

#2  I think private for profit business should be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to any customer they want - whether that be based on race, religion, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or previous marital status. 

#3  I think persons of the same-sex should be allowed to legally marry under civil law, but that no person should be forced to marry someone of the same sex (or opposite sex for that matter) against their will.

#4  I think public accommodation laws should be repealed as they apply to private business entities and only apply to government entities.  Such laws would limite the ability of government entities and their agents from discriminating against taxpaying members of the public and would limit their ability to purchase goods and services and enter into contracts from/with private businesses that operate on a discriminatory business model.




So what beliefs and I trying to "mandate"?


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Days since a church has been forced to marry *any* couple aganist their wishes:



Days since individual Christians have been forced to accommodate gay weddings....  many many months now..


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Days since a church has been forced to marry *any* couple aganist their wishes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Days since individual Christians have been forced to accommodate gay weddings....  many many months now..
Click to expand...


That's great news. Too bad they, and others, are still forced to accommodate weddings they disagree with.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Days since a church has been forced to marry *any* couple aganist their wishes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Days since individual Christians have been forced to accommodate gay weddings....  many many months now..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's great news. Too bad they, and others, are still forced to accommodate weddings they disagree with.
Click to expand...

You think it's "great news" that Christians are forced to accommodate "gay weddings"?


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Days since a church has been forced to marry *any* couple aganist their wishes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Days since individual Christians have been forced to accommodate gay weddings....  many many months now..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's great news. Too bad they, and others, are still forced to accommodate weddings they disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think it's "great news" that Christians are forced to accommodate "gay weddings"?
Click to expand...


No. I don't think any business should be forced to acccomadate any weddings they disagree with.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no law that is designed to harm people of faith.
> 
> There are laws that prevent business's from discriminating against people of faith, and people of color and people due to their sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you require a Christian to promote butt sex .
Click to expand...


I don't. Nor does the law.

Christians are just supposed to follow the same law as anyone else- and that means that in some states they can't discriminate against people because of their color, their religion or their gender preference.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Days since a church has been forced to marry *any* couple aganist their wishes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Days since individual Christians have been forced to accommodate gay weddings....  many many months now..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's great news. Too bad they, and others, are still forced to accommodate weddings they disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think it's "great news" that Christians are forced to accommodate "gay weddings"?
Click to expand...


Christians don't have to accommodate anything.

Business's do have to follow the law.


----------



## Syriusly

jc456 said:


> well if the left can boycott and have you fired for voting for trump, the rule of law has precedence for religion to stand on their own with their own beliefs.



Anyone can boycott anyone for anything. 

Christians have been boycotting in order to discriminate against gays for years and years.


----------



## Syriusly

esthermoon said:


> Why should they be forced to do that? If their religious opinions say that homosexuality is not right they shouldn't be forced to perform homosexual weddings.
> I think forcing them to do that would be a violation of religious freedom



No church is forced to perform any marriage that they don't want to.

A Catholic church wont' marry a Jewish couple. 

And some churches won't marry mixed race couples. 

And some churches will not marry gay couples.

And that is fine- churches have every right to discriminate however they want to.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> No *church* is forced to perform any marriage that they don't want to.....A Catholic *church* wont' marry a Jewish couple.....And some *churches* won't marry mixed race couples.....And some *churches* will not marry gay couples.
> 
> And that is fine- *churches* have every right to discriminate however they want to.


Again, where in the Constitution does it say "freedom of church"?  Do you want readers to believe that the folks that voted "hell no" above would be at the same time instead in favor of forcing individual Christians to perform or promote a wedding of two people of the same gender who would deprive children involved legally, via contract, of either a mother or father for life?  I think not.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No *church* is forced to perform any marriage that they don't want to.....A Catholic *church* wont' marry a Jewish couple.....And some *churches* won't marry mixed race couples.....And some *churches* will not marry gay couples.
> 
> And that is fine- *churches* have every right to discriminate however they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, where in the Constitution does it say "freedom of church"? t.
Click to expand...


It doesn't- nor does the Constitution say that business's can ignore the law.

Meanwhile- churches can discriminate however they want- no one is forcing any church to marry anyone they don't want to.


----------



## esthermoon

Syriusly said:


> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they be forced to do that? If their religious opinions say that homosexuality is not right they shouldn't be forced to perform homosexual weddings.
> I think forcing them to do that would be a violation of religious freedom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No church is forced to perform any marriage that they don't want to.
> 
> A Catholic church wont' marry a Jewish couple.
> 
> And some churches won't marry mixed race couples.
> 
> And some churches will not marry gay couples.
> 
> And that is fine- churches have every right to discriminate however they want to.
Click to expand...

I didn't know some churches don't want to marry mixed race couples
Where is this happening in America? Maybe in the South?


----------



## Silhouette

esthermoon said:


> I didn't know some churches don't want to marry mixed race couples
> Where is this happening in America? Maybe in the South?



Nowhere I know of.  And, race is an inborn trait.  Wanting to pretend another guy's anus is an artificial vagina is an acquired behavior.  Christians can't be required to abet behaviors strictly forbidden in the Bible's New Testament.


----------



## esthermoon

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they be forced to do that? If their religious opinions say that homosexuality is not right they shouldn't be forced to perform homosexual weddings.
> I think forcing them to do that would be a violation of religious freedom
> 
> 
> 
> See ^^ even a kid can see how evident the rights of Christians are.  She intuits that homosexuality is a behavior, not a race.  As such she knows the difference between saying "no" to perform an interracial man/woman marriage is in no way the same as saying "no" to helping/performing a marriage between people of any race or gender doing weird sex behaviors with each other...
> 
> I'll bet if this millennial thought more about how two of the same gender "marrying" deprives children involved legally, of a mother or father for life, she'd double-down on her objections to forcing Christians to participate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask.
> 
> ESTHERMOON,
> 
> #1  Do you think religious organizations that have no problems with same-sex couples should be allowed to perform Religious Marriages for these couples?
> 
> #2  DO you think that same-sex couple should be allowed to civilly marry under the law (which has nothing to do with religious marriage as civil marriage a function of law)?
> 
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

Hi WorldWatcher 
Thanks for your questions and sorry if I couldn't answer sooner! 

1) If their doctrine says there is no problem with homosexuality I think that religious organizations can be allowed to perform marriages for gay or lesbian couples;

2) I think it depends. In some countries same sex marriage is ok, in other countries (due to their culture) is not possible and maybe could be dangerous for society. For example here in Vietnam there's neither same sex marriage nor civil union. And maybe it's a good decision because Vietnamese culture thinks homosexuality is not good at all.


----------



## WorldWatcher

esthermoon said:


> Where is this happening in America? Maybe in the South?



Not common but here are three stories one each from Ohio, Kentucky, and Louisiana.

"A southern Ohio pastor has refused to allow his church to be used for an interracial wedding, forcing the couple to move the ceremony."  (Interracial Couple Spurned)

"A small Appalachian church in Kentucky is being called racist for passing a vote that banned interracial couples from the church." (Church Bans Interracial Couples)

"Because of the fact that we were black, some of the members of the congregation had got upset and decided that no black couple would ever be married at that church," Charles Wilson told CNN on Sunday night. (Church refuses to marry black couple in Mississippi - CNN.com)​

>>>>


----------



## kaz

Matthew said:


> I think Churches should only not pay taxes if they do. Pay taxes = do as you please.



So churches should be instruments of government policy.  That is while you want businesses to implement government social policy.  And the word "Marxist" bothers you again ... why ???


----------



## Silhouette

esthermoon said:


> Where is this happening in America? Maybe in the South?





WorldWatcher said:


> Not common but here are three stories one each from Ohio, Kentucky, and Louisiana.
> 
> "A southern Ohio pastor has refused to allow his church to be used for an interracial wedding, forcing the couple to move the ceremony."  (Interracial Couple Spurned)​


What does the race someone was born as have to do with the topic of this thread?  Homosexuality is a behavior, not part of the DNA.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> What does the race someone was born as have to do with the topic of this thread? Homosexuality is a behavior, not part of the DNA.



The topic of this thread this: should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings? Just like yesterday, the day before, and the day before that, not one church has been forced to marry _any_ couple aganist their wishes. As it should be.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does the race someone was born as have to do with the topic of this thread? Homosexuality is a behavior, not part of the DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of this thread this: should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings? Just like yesterday, the day before, and the day before that, not one church has been forced to marry _any_ couple aganist their wishes. As it should be.
Click to expand...

We all know the premise behind this thread mdk.  Play dumb as you like.  The real question of this thread is "should the individuals who make up churches be forced to accomodate homosexual weddings?"

See the 1st Amendment for details.  The 14th Amendment says NOTHING about sexual behaviors being protected.  And now we have a case where a court has said that homosexual behaviors are not anticipated by nor insinuated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act: Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit fed. 2016)


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does the race someone was born as have to do with the topic of this thread? Homosexuality is a behavior, not part of the DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of this thread this: should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings? Just like yesterday, the day before, and the day before that, not one church has been forced to marry _any_ couple aganist their wishes. As it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all know the premise behind this thread mdk.  Play dumb as you like.  The real question of this thread is "should the individuals who make up churches be forced to accomodate homosexual weddings?"
> 
> See the 1st Amendment for details.  The 14th Amendment says NOTHING about sexual behaviors being protected.  And now we have a case where a court has said that homosexual behaviors are not anticipated by nor insinuated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act: Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit fed. 2016)
Click to expand...


And by _real question _you mean the one you pulled sideways out of ass. Keep lying to yourself, though. It's funny watching you still fall apart over queers getting married.


----------



## WillReadmore

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does the race someone was born as have to do with the topic of this thread? Homosexuality is a behavior, not part of the DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of this thread this: should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings? Just like yesterday, the day before, and the day before that, not one church has been forced to marry _any_ couple aganist their wishes. As it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all know the premise behind this thread mdk.  Play dumb as you like.  The real question of this thread is "should the individuals who make up churches be forced to accomodate homosexual weddings?"
> 
> See the 1st Amendment for details.  The 14th Amendment says NOTHING about sexual behaviors being protected.  And now we have a case where a court has said that homosexual behaviors are not anticipated by nor insinuated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act: Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit fed. 2016)
Click to expand...

There is an issue, but that is not it.

The issue is whether public accommodation businesses should be required to serve all customers.

Can I open a business and refuse to serve people who don't look like me or don't share my beliefs?


----------



## basquebromance

i will marry Milo wherever I want, i don't need to do it in a church.


----------



## WillReadmore

basquebromance said:


> i will marry Milo wherever I want, i don't need to do it in a church.


There certainly are many churches that will marry couples who happen to be of the same gender.

On the other hand ...

My daughter asked my brother to officiate her marriage.  He filed the state papers that allow anyone to do so, and the wedding was really terrific, with continuing meaning added by my brother's contribution.


----------



## Silhouette

WillReadmore said:


> There is an issue, but that is not it.
> 
> The issue is whether public accommodation businesses should be required to serve all customers.
> 
> Can I open a business and refuse to serve people who don't look like me or don't share my beliefs?



PA laws cannot interfere with US Constitutional protections.  Or, put another way, state laws are not dominant to federal protections.  Since the question of LGBT is really one of Obergefell vs the 1st Amendment, I can't wait to see the dissection in legal argument of whether or not the cult of LGBT has expressed protection in the 14th Amendment when it's behaviors that are the core of the discussion...not race.  Hively v Ivy Tech (2016)


----------



## WillReadmore

Silhouette said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an issue, but that is not it.
> 
> The issue is whether public accommodation businesses should be required to serve all customers.
> 
> Can I open a business and refuse to serve people who don't look like me or don't share my beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PA laws cannot interfere with US Constitutional protections.  Or, put another way, state laws are not dominant to federal protections.  Since the question of LGBT is really one of Obergefell vs the 1st Amendment, I can't wait to see the dissection in legal argument of whether or not the cult of LGBT has expressed protection in the 14th Amendment when it's behaviors that are the core of the discussion...not race.  Hively v Ivy Tech (2016)
Click to expand...

I don't know why it would get that far.

For one thing, it's already been found that states can not rule against same sex behavior. 

For another, your argument is going to amount to allowing discrimination for any reason you want.  

And, claiming you are a representative of Jesus hits me as total nonsense.   You can not tell me that Jesus would refuse to serve a married couple on the grounds of them both being of one gender.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Alright motherfuckers time for a change of pace.

I say fuck it.  Force churches to perform gay weddings, and ONLY gay weddings!!!  It's time!


----------



## Silhouette

WillReadmore said:


> There is an issue, but that is not it.
> 
> The issue is whether public accommodation businesses should be required to serve all customers.
> 
> Can I open a business and refuse to serve people who don't look like me or don't share my beliefs?





Silhouette said:


> PA laws cannot interfere with US Constitutional protections.  Or, put another way, state laws are not dominant to federal protections.  Since the question of LGBT is really one of Obergefell vs the 1st Amendment, I can't wait to see the dissection in legal argument of whether or not the cult of LGBT has expressed protection in the 14th Amendment when it's behaviors that are the core of the discussion...not race.  Hively v Ivy Tech (2016)





WillReadmore said:


> I don't know why it would get that far.
> 
> *For one thing, it's already been found that states can not rule against same sex behavior.
> 
> For another, your argument is going to amount to allowing discrimination for any reason you want.*
> 
> And, claiming you are a representative of Jesus hits me as total nonsense.   You can not tell me that Jesus would refuse to serve a married couple on the grounds of them both being of one gender.



Actually Hively v Ivy Tech found just the opposite of that.  It found in favor of Ivy Tech.  You might want to read that when you get a minute.  And, "not ruling against homosexual behavior" isn't the same as "mandated to promote it to the very core of society".  Some states decriminalized smoking weed. That doesn't mean all 50 states have to incorporate weed-smoking dens in public places or have non-druggie businesses promote the smoking of weed.

And yes, we have laws concerning BEHAVIORS that allow discrimination for any reason.  But not for race (inborn) or gender (inborn) or SPECIFICALLY religion (specified protection).  There is NO, ZERO, NONE specified protection for homosexual behavior in the US Constitution.  Not even remotely insinuated.  Behaviors have to be specified as to protections.  Otherwise in the interest of equality, ALL AND ANY behaviors would have to have protections.  I think you can see where this would lead to problems..

And so it was found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016).  Learn the difference.  Discrimination of behaviors is called "democratic rule of the sovereign states" (penal and civil codes).  The other is called "The US Constitution".  Anal sex is not "a special behavior, elevated above all others".  It is a behavior and subject to state regulations; except ONLY as to not criminalize it (Lawrence v Texas).  Like weed.  In fact, in Lawrence, the opinions of the Justices were that it was NOT to lead to the idea that gay sex means that gays can marry.

Just like decriminalizing weed doesn't mean all 50 states have to promote it.  That's right.  Because it's a behavior that individual states can accept or reject.  The shoehorn of "once legal in one state, legal in all" isn't going to apply to marriage either.  Some states allow marriage at 16.  Does that mean all states must allow marriage at 16?  No.  They have to recognize those marriages, but they're seen as "weird conventions of other states" instead of "the social norm".


----------



## WillReadmore

Silhouette said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an issue, but that is not it.
> 
> The issue is whether public accommodation businesses should be required to serve all customers.
> 
> Can I open a business and refuse to serve people who don't look like me or don't share my beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> PA laws cannot interfere with US Constitutional protections.  Or, put another way, state laws are not dominant to federal protections.  Since the question of LGBT is really one of Obergefell vs the 1st Amendment, I can't wait to see the dissection in legal argument of whether or not the cult of LGBT has expressed protection in the 14th Amendment when it's behaviors that are the core of the discussion...not race.  Hively v Ivy Tech (2016)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why it would get that far.
> 
> *For one thing, it's already been found that states can not rule against same sex behavior.
> 
> For another, your argument is going to amount to allowing discrimination for any reason you want.*
> 
> And, claiming you are a representative of Jesus hits me as total nonsense.   You can not tell me that Jesus would refuse to serve a married couple on the grounds of them both being of one gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Hively v Ivy Tech found just the opposite of that.  It found in favor of Ivy Tech.  You might want to read that when you get a minute.  And, "not ruling against homosexual behavior" isn't the same as "mandated to promote it to the very core of society".  Some states decriminalized smoking weed. That doesn't mean all 50 states have to incorporate weed-smoking dens in public places or have non-druggie businesses promote the smoking of weed.
> 
> And yes, we have laws concerning BEHAVIORS that allow discrimination for any reason.  But not for race (inborn) or gender (inborn) or SPECIFICALLY religion (specified protection).  There is NO, ZERO, NONE specified protection for homosexual behavior in the US Constitution.  Not even remotely insinuated.  Behaviors have to be specified as to protections.  Otherwise in the interest of equality, ALL AND ANY behaviors would have to have protections.  I think you can see where this would lead to problems..
> 
> And so it was found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016).  Learn the difference.  Discrimination of behaviors is called "democratic rule of the sovereign states" (penal and civil codes).  The other is called "The US Constitution".  Anal sex is not "a special behavior, elevated above all others".  It is a behavior and subject to state regulations; except ONLY as to not criminalize it (Lawrence v Texas).  Like weed.  In fact, in Lawrence, the opinions of the Justices were that it was NOT to lead to the idea that gay sex means that gays can marry.
> 
> Just like decriminalizing weed doesn't mean all 50 states have to promote it.  That's right.  Because it's a behavior that individual states can accept or reject.  The shoehorn of "once legal in one state, legal in all" isn't going to apply to marriage either.  Some states allow marriage at 16.  Does that mean all states must allow marriage at 16?  No.  They have to recognize those marriages, but they're seen as "weird conventions of other states" instead of "the social norm".
Click to expand...

That is a lower court employment case, not a public accommodation case.  And, it is being challenged.

Do you really think you can fire people for being same sex oriented?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> PA laws cannot interfere with US Constitutional protections.



So how'd that work for Newman v. Piggie Park claiming First amendment not to serve black people.

Or Elane Photography claiming First Amendment protections for not having to serve gays.


>>>>


----------



## WillReadmore

Silhouette said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an issue, but that is not it.
> 
> The issue is whether public accommodation businesses should be required to serve all customers.
> 
> Can I open a business and refuse to serve people who don't look like me or don't share my beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> PA laws cannot interfere with US Constitutional protections.  Or, put another way, state laws are not dominant to federal protections.  Since the question of LGBT is really one of Obergefell vs the 1st Amendment, I can't wait to see the dissection in legal argument of whether or not the cult of LGBT has expressed protection in the 14th Amendment when it's behaviors that are the core of the discussion...not race.  Hively v Ivy Tech (2016)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why it would get that far.
> 
> *For one thing, it's already been found that states can not rule against same sex behavior.
> 
> For another, your argument is going to amount to allowing discrimination for any reason you want.*
> 
> And, claiming you are a representative of Jesus hits me as total nonsense.   You can not tell me that Jesus would refuse to serve a married couple on the grounds of them both being of one gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Hively v Ivy Tech found just the opposite of that.  It found in favor of Ivy Tech.  You might want to read that when you get a minute.  And, "not ruling against homosexual behavior" isn't the same as "mandated to promote it to the very core of society".  Some states decriminalized smoking weed. That doesn't mean all 50 states have to incorporate weed-smoking dens in public places or have non-druggie businesses promote the smoking of weed.
> 
> And yes, we have laws concerning BEHAVIORS that allow discrimination for any reason.  But not for race (inborn) or gender (inborn) or SPECIFICALLY religion (specified protection).  There is NO, ZERO, NONE specified protection for homosexual behavior in the US Constitution.  Not even remotely insinuated.  Behaviors have to be specified as to protections.  Otherwise in the interest of equality, ALL AND ANY behaviors would have to have protections.  I think you can see where this would lead to problems..
> 
> And so it was found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016).  Learn the difference.  Discrimination of behaviors is called "democratic rule of the sovereign states" (penal and civil codes).  The other is called "The US Constitution".  Anal sex is not "a special behavior, elevated above all others".  It is a behavior and subject to state regulations; except ONLY as to not criminalize it (Lawrence v Texas).  Like weed.  In fact, in Lawrence, the opinions of the Justices were that it was NOT to lead to the idea that gay sex means that gays can marry.
> 
> Just like decriminalizing weed doesn't mean all 50 states have to promote it.  That's right.  Because it's a behavior that individual states can accept or reject.  The shoehorn of "once legal in one state, legal in all" isn't going to apply to marriage either.  Some states allow marriage at 16.  Does that mean all states must allow marriage at 16?  No.  They have to recognize those marriages, but they're seen as "weird conventions of other states" instead of "the social norm".
Click to expand...

Read Scalia's dissent in Lawrence.  He states that it ends the last justificatiin for denying marriage equality.

And, your "behavior" stuff is total nonsense.  First of all, sexual orientation is not a "behavior".  Nobody chooses to be same sex oriented any more than anyone chose to be attracted to the oposite sex.

Beyond that, the behaviors that scare you are not limited to same sex couples.  

Also, serving someone in your business is not a promotion of anything.

And, no, it is not anything at all like weed.  Using weed is a choice.  And, weed is totally illegal by US law regardless of what any state says.


----------



## Silhouette

Scalia was wrong about that.  Marriage providing a vital mother and father for children is the last legitimate objection to gay marriage.  



WillReadmore said:


> That is a lower court employment case, not a public accommodation case.  And, it is being challenged.
> 
> Do you really think you can fire people for being same sex oriented?



No.  Not unless they're making sexual advances on any of their coworkers.  But marriage involves other people.  Specifically the people it was created for over 1,000 years ago: children.  Until 2015, enticement to marriage (state benefits) served as a remedy to motherless or fatherless children.  Now it's a free for all with no meaning for children as to that guarantee.  States are now forced to entice people to legally bind children away from either a mother or father for life.

Speaking of pending challenges...

Feel free to start a thread on employment law and homosexuals.  Hively v Ivy Tech is important not for what spurred it, but instead for what it found: that the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not and did not imply sexual behaviors had special rights.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know some churches don't want to marry mixed race couples
> Where is this happening in America? Maybe in the South?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere I know of.  And, race is an inborn trait. .
Click to expand...


And 'an inborn' trait is makes it not okay for a Church to discriminate?

LOL.

Churches can and do discriminate against couples for all sorts of reasons- because they are the wrong faith(Catholics will not marry Jews), because they are the wrong color Church refuses to marry black couple in Mississippi - CNN.com
because they are inter-racial Interracial Couple Banned From Kentucky Church | The Huffington Post

Or because they are the wrong sexual gender combination. 

And its perfectly legal for churches to discriminate against any of them.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know some churches don't want to marry mixed race couples
> Where is this happening in America? Maybe in the South?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians can't be required to abet behaviors strictly forbidden in the Bible's New Testament.
Click to expand...


The New Testament tells Christians to obey the law- it never tells Christians that they can't sell a cake to gays.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Scalia was wrong about that.  Marriage providing a vital mother and father for children is the last legitimate objection to gay marriage. .



LOL- so even you acknowledge that all of the other crap is just crap.

No- that isn't legitimate either. 

For all of the reasons you know and ignore. 

Preventing a gay couple from marrying doesn't provide a mother and father to a singe child. Not one.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does the race someone was born as have to do with the topic of this thread? Homosexuality is a behavior, not part of the DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of this thread this: should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings? Just like yesterday, the day before, and the day before that, not one church has been forced to marry _any_ couple aganist their wishes. As it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all know the premise behind this thread mdk.)
Click to expand...


We all know that that your premise is always "how to harm gays"

Meanwhile- no church is being forced to marry gay couples- and won't be.

No more than the Catholic Church is forced to marry Jewish couples.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia was wrong about that.  Marriage providing a vital mother and father for children is the last legitimate objection to gay marriage. .
> 
> 
> 
> ...Preventing a gay couple from marrying doesn't provide a mother and father to a singe child. Not one.
Click to expand...


Bastardizing marriage to force states to drop incentivizing both a vital mother and father to both female and male children is the crime here.  Your type of "marriage" legally binds children involved away from the hope of a mother or father...for life.  That's a problem.

It was the cult of LGBT itself that insisted to the Court that "marriage benefits children".  Now suddenly you want to insist it didn't/doesn't by claiming "marriage isn't about children".  Either it is or it isn't.  And if it is, it USED TO BE that marriage remedied for them the lack of either vital mother or father.  Without that unique benefit weighed, argued or defended on behalf of children, *poof*, it disappeared with Obergefell.

Usually when age-old contracts are revised, all parties must have unique representation at the Table... State AGs can argue on behalf of their states that a vital bond of both mother and father, incentivized by the lure of marriage benefits is essential to the other parties to the marriage contract.  I'll provide again the link to the 2010 Prince's Trust survey (the largest of its kind) for consideration when discussing this problem: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

And the quote from that page that leads you to the full article:



> _"Young people with no role models of the same gender in their lives score a total of 65 in the well-being index compared with a score of 74 for young people with these role models ....                                                                            ....... young people’s happiness and confidence both seem to be affected by the addition of a role model of the same gender."_



The quintessential role model in any boy or girl's life is a mother or father.  States know that.  And so, disincluding this information at the Obergefell Hearing is/was a problem.


----------



## Silhouette

Well Syriusly, is marriage about children getting benefits or isn't it?


----------



## WillReadmore

Silhouette said:


> Well Syriusly, is marriage about children getting benefits or isn't it?


Marriage means greater stability.

A married couple can work as a team in facing problems that are medical, financial, etc.  If they have kids, it's a little more likely that they can face those challenges more easily than can a single parent.  Of course, we have a lot of sucessful single parent families and we have kids without parents who face a lot of instability and are especially in need of our support.

I am not sure what you are asking, though.  We aren't going to have the state getting into the yentle business.  So, I think we're stuck with letting individuals decide if they want to get married - right?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia was wrong about that.  Marriage providing a vital mother and father for children is the last legitimate objection to gay marriage. .
> 
> 
> 
> ...Preventing a gay couple from marrying doesn't provide a mother and father to a singe child. Not one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bastardizing marriage to force states to drop incentivizing both a vital mother and father to both female and male children is the crime here. .
Click to expand...


LOL

States 'incentivize' parenting by giving tax breaks to parents who have children. Whether they are married or not. 

They don't 'incentivize' marriage with kids- states incentivize marriage regardless of children.

Meanwhile 

..Preventing a gay couple from marrying doesn't provide a mother and father to a single child. Not one

but it does hurt children.

And you know that.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Well Syriusly, is marriage about children getting benefits or isn't it?



I like this quote from a Supreme Court Justice:

_Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions
_
My wife and I have been married for over 20 years- and our marriage is not about children getting benefits- was yours? Our marriage is a 'coming together for better or worse- and enduring and intimate. 

My 80 year old uncle married last year- his marriage certainly is not about children getting benefits.

So the answer to that is- as you know it- no.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q  I'll provide again the link to the 2010 Prince's Trust survey (the largest of its kind) for consideration when discussing this problem: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY
> 
> And the quote from that page that leads you to the full article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Young people with no role models of the same gender in their lives score a total of 65 in the well-being index compared with a score of 74 for young people with these role models ....                                                                            ....... young people’s happiness and confidence both seem to be affected by the addition of a role model of the same gender."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The quintessential role model in any boy or girl's life is a mother or father.  States know that.  And so, disincluding this information at the Obergefell Hearing is/was a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Prince's Survey doesn't even mention marriage- let alone gay marriage.
> Nor does it say who those role models need to be- coaches, pastors, youth leaders.
> 
> The main cause for children being raised without a gender role model is when straight people divorce.
> 
> As you well know.
Click to expand...


The Prince's Survey doesn't even mention marriage- let alone gay marriage.
Nor does it say who those role models need to be- coaches, pastors, youth leaders.

The main cause for children being raised without a gender role model is when straight people divorce.

As you well know


----------



## HenryBHough

Yup.

Churches ought to be forced to marry queers. 

Starting the very same day mosques are forced to marry queers - and refrain from stoning them in lieu of confetti.


----------



## Syriusly

HenryBHough said:


> Yup.
> 
> Churches ought to be forced to marry queers.
> 
> Starting the very same day mosques are forced to marry queers - and refrain from stoning them in lieu of confetti.



Thanks for the right wing nut job viewpoint as always Henry.


----------



## HenryBHough

Syriusly said:


> Thanks for the right wing nut job viewpoint as always Henry.



I'm saddened to see you no longer believe in equality.


----------



## Syriusly

HenryBHough said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the right wing nut job viewpoint as always Henry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saddened to see you no longer believe in equality.
Click to expand...


I am not surprised that you applaud murder.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

*Eunuch Horn*

Sex is between a man and a woman, so there is no such thing as "homosexuality."  No church has to cater to play-actors.  Like _unicorn, _just because there is a word for it doesn't mean it actually exists.


----------



## HenryBHough

Syriusly said:


> I am not surprised that you applaud murder.



There you go, projecting your love for parting out babies onto innocent bystanders.

There IS help available but, in a few more days it won't be free.  You'll have to pay for it unless you have really excellent state Medicaid bennies.


----------



## Syriusly

HenryBHough said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you applaud murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go, projecting your love for parting out babies onto innocent bystanders.
> 
> There IS help available but, in a few more days it won't be free.  You'll have to pay for it unless you have really excellent state Medicaid bennies.
Click to expand...


I am not interested in any babies you are trying to 'part out'


----------



## Syriusly

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *Eunuch Horn*
> 
> Sex is between a man and a woman, so there is no such thing as "homosexuality."



Ignore the dictionary at your own peril.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Eunuch Horn*
> 
> Sex is between a man and a woman, so there is no such thing as "homosexuality."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignore the dictionary at your own peril.
Click to expand...

Hitler created a new dictionary for his New Reicht too.  Doesn't mean sane folks are required to reference it when describing reality...


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Hitler created a new dictionary for his New Reicht too. Doesn't mean sane folks are required to reference it when describing reality...



If homosexuality doesn't exist then what have you pissing and moaning about for the last decade? Seems odd you would dedicate so much time and effort to something that doesn't exist.


----------



## skye

No

Churches should not be forced to accommodate those weddings.

Those homosexuals weddings.

Why should they?


----------



## mdk

skye said:


> No
> 
> Churches should not be forced to accommodate those weddings.



Of course not. There are a few fools that have suggested otherwise, but they are fools. lol


----------



## Silhouette

skye said:


> No
> 
> Churches should not be forced to accommodate those weddings.
> 
> Those homosexuals weddings.
> 
> Why should they?


Should individual Christians be forced to accommodate those weddings?


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Churches should not be forced to accommodate those weddings.
> 
> Those homosexuals weddings.
> 
> Why should they?
> 
> 
> 
> Should individual Christians be forced to accommodate those weddings?
Click to expand...


No, should an Evangelical Baptist be forced to accommodate a Catholic wedding?


----------



## Silhouette

skye said:


> No
> 
> Churches should not be forced to accommodate those weddings.
> 
> Those homosexuals weddings.
> 
> Why should they?





Silhouette said:


> Should individual Christians be forced to accommodate those weddings?





mdk said:


> No, should an Evangelical Baptist be forced to accommodate a Catholic wedding?


I'm glad you finally made the comparison of LGBT to a religion/behavioral cult.  Finally.

Now that you've done that, please point to the Constitution where Obergefell is legitimate.  And then show me where the Court cited that passage in the Obergefell Opinion.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> I'm glad you finally made the comparison of LGBT to a religion/behavioral cult. Finally.



Hardly. You didn't answer my question?


----------



## HenryBHough

Save your bacon fat.  You'll need it to grease your ammo when Muslims figure out that forcing churches to perform queer weddings also requires mosques perform them too AND host ham 'n bean reception feasts in their community halls after each wedding.  Force one religion to do stuff and you force ALL religions to do stuff.  Right now, were that to come to The Supreme Court, it's a tossup as to how it would come down. But in a very few short weeks.......

Suck it up buttercups and grease up 'cause it's coming and it's coming hard and fast.


----------



## Silhouette

HenryBHough said:


> Save your bacon fat.  You'll need it to grease your ammo when Muslims figure out that forcing churches to perform queer weddings also requires mosques perform them too AND host ham 'n bean reception feasts in their community halls after each wedding.  Force one religion to do stuff and you force ALL religions to do stuff.  Right now, were that to come to The Supreme Court, it's a tossup as to how it would come down. But in a very few short weeks.......
> 
> Suck it up buttercups and grease up 'cause it's coming and it's coming hard and fast.


What it amounts to is forcing one religion to practice another religion against their faith.  Since LGBT is a cult of deviant sex behaviors and not "race" or "gender". (See Hively v Ivy Tech 2016)

And BTW, this applies also to individual Christians and PA laws because the 1st Amendment doesn't come with GPS coordinations or a time clock.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> What it amounts to is forcing one religion to practice another religion against their faith. Since LGBT is a cult of deviant sex behaviors and not "race" or "gender". (See Hively v Ivy Tech 2016)
> 
> And BTW, this applies also to individual Christians and PA laws because the 1st Amendment doesn't come with GPS coordinations or a time clock.



No, should an Evangelical Baptist be forced to accommodate a Catholic wedding? Keep running...


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> What it amounts to is forcing one religion to practice another religion against their faith. Since LGBT is a cult of deviant sex behaviors and not "race" or "gender". (See Hively v Ivy Tech 2016)
> 
> And BTW, this applies also to individual Christians and PA laws because the 1st Amendment doesn't come with GPS coordinations or a time clock.





mdk said:


> No, should an Evangelical Baptist be forced to accommodate a Catholic wedding? Keep running...



1. You made no point with your post and 2. You supported my contention that the same outrage that applies to forcing one religion to practice another's faith (or in the case of LGBT, a cult-faith of deviant sex), should apply to forcing individual Christians to do the same.  Again, the 1st Amendment doesn't come with GPS coordinates or a time clock.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> What it amounts to is forcing one religion to practice another religion against their faith. Since LGBT is a cult of deviant sex behaviors and not "race" or "gender". (See Hively v Ivy Tech 2016)
> 
> And BTW, this applies also to individual Christians and PA laws because the 1st Amendment doesn't come with GPS coordinations or a time clock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, should an Evangelical Baptist be forced to accommodate a Catholic wedding? Keep running...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You made no point with your post and 2. You supported my contention that the same outrage that applies to forcing one religion to practice another's faith (or in the case of LGBT, a cult-faith of deviant sex), should apply to forcing individual Christians to do the same.  Again, the 1st Amendment doesn't come with GPS coordinates or a time clock.
Click to expand...


Can't answer the question can you? We both know. Should a Baptist be forced to accommodate a Catholic wedding?


----------



## Silhouette

Nobody should be forced to practice the faith of any other religion or cult.  Hence why Christians cannot be forced to promote Obergefell's illegal "gay marriage" mandate.  Thankfully it will be overturned in the next 4 years.  So..can't wait for that.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Nobody should be forced to practice the faith of any other religion or cult.  Hence why Christians cannot be forced to promote Obergefell's illegal "gay marriage" mandate.  Thankfully it will be overturned in the next 4 years.  So..can't wait for that.



With the your going prediction rate the exact opposite will likely occur.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody should be forced to practice the faith of any other religion or cult.  Hence why Christians cannot be forced to promote Obergefell's illegal "gay marriage" mandate.  Thankfully it will be overturned in the next 4 years.  So..can't wait for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the your going prediction rate the exact opposite will likely occur.
Click to expand...

You think now that Pence/Trump are in power?  You think less rights for Christians will be upheld?  You are optimistic aren't you?  lol..


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody should be forced to practice the faith of any other religion or cult.  Hence why Christians cannot be forced to promote Obergefell's illegal "gay marriage" mandate.  Thankfully it will be overturned in the next 4 years.  So..can't wait for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the your going prediction rate the exact opposite will likely occur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think now that Pence/Trump are in power?  You think less rights for Christians will be upheld?  You are optimistic aren't you?  lol..
Click to expand...


You voted for Hillary b/c Trump was too pro-gay. lol


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler created a new dictionary for his New Reicht too. Doesn't mean sane folks are required to reference it when describing reality...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If homosexuality doesn't exist then what have you pissing and moaning about for the last decade? Seems odd you would dedicate so much time and effort to something that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

*Next Unicorn Word:  "Pedosexuality"*

It doesn't exist as a sexuality.  Instead, homo "sexuality" is a dangerous and self-destructive mental disease.


----------



## Silhouette

"Next"?  I think Keven Jennings, Obama's education czar got some serious inroads going when he set out to approve teaching "anal fisting" to boys in public schools.  Gotta loosen up those peg boys for adult-sized sexual organs!


----------



## WillReadmore

Silhouette said:


> "Next"?  I think Keven Jennings, Obama's education czar got some serious inroads going when he set out to approve teaching "anal fisting" to boys in public schools.  Gotta loosen up those peg boys for adult-sized sexual organs!


You are a liar and a pervert.

'Nough said.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Eunuch Horn*
> 
> Sex is between a man and a woman, so there is no such thing as "homosexuality."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignore the dictionary at your own peril.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hitler ...
Click to expand...


Automatic fail from the homophobic bigot.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Nobody should be forced to practice the faith of any other religion or cult. t.



And no one is.

Despite all of your efforts to require religious obediance


----------



## Syriusly

The Sage of Main Street said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler created a new dictionary for his New Reicht too. Doesn't mean sane folks are required to reference it when describing reality...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If homosexuality doesn't exist then what have you pissing and moaning about for the last decade? Seems odd you would dedicate so much time and effort to something that doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Next Unicorn Word:  "Pedosexuality"*
> 
> It doesn't exist as a sexuality.  Instead, homo "sexuality" is a dangerous and self-destructive mental disease.
Click to expand...


And this is based upon your expertise as a doctor and your intensive research into making up new words.


----------



## Silhouette

I see Syriusly is back to spamming pages into oblivion again when points are made she doesn't like.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Nobody should be forced to practice the faith of any other religion or cult. t.





Syriusly said:


> And no one is.
> 
> Despite all of your efforts to require religious obediance


The Kleins?

Given: LGBT is about people addicted to deviant sex BEHAVIORS.  That's a cult.  So...yeah... Gonna all get sorted out in court soon.  I wouldn't put my money on PA laws forcing Christians to practice another behavioral set (faith).


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> I see Syriusly is back to spamming pages into oblivion again when points are made she doesn't like.



I see Silhouette is back to whining about people responding to her posts.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody should be forced to practice the faith of any other religion or cult. t.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And no one is.
> 
> Despite all of your efforts to require religious obediance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Kleins?).
Click to expand...


The Klein's haven't been forced to go to a Bar Mitzvah, or attend a mass.

Their business has been required to follow the law. 

Christians don't get special exemptions from the law that Jews and Atheists have to follow.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> The Klein's haven't been forced to go to a Bar Mitzvah, or attend a mass.
> 
> Their business has been required to follow the law.
> 
> Christians don't get special exemptions from the law that Jews and Atheists have to follow.


No, they've just been fined and had their business die from having to promote anal/lesbian sex "as married".  A bastardization which leaves "marriage" without either a mother or father for offspring statistically likely to arrive.  What's the difference from one ritual to another, cult to sect? 

Remember, (because you constantly "forget"), deviant sex addictions ARE NOT LEGAL EQUIVALENTS TO RACE OR GENDER.  Hively v Ivy Tech (2016).


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klein's haven't been forced to go to a Bar Mitzvah, or attend a mass.
> 
> Their business has been required to follow the law.
> 
> Christians don't get special exemptions from the law that Jews and Atheists have to follow.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they've just been fined and had their business die from having to promote anal/lesbian sex).
Click to expand...


Nope- nothing to do with sex at all. 

Other than your obsession with it.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klein's haven't been forced to go to a Bar Mitzvah, or attend a mass.
> 
> Their business has been required to follow the law.
> 
> Christians don't get special exemptions from the law that Jews and Atheists have to follow.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they've just been fined and had their business die from having to promote anal/lesbian sex).
Click to expand...




Syriusly said:


> Nope- nothing to do with sex at all.
> 
> Other than your obsession with it.


Well the Kleins aren't obsessed with sex it seems...yet this thread is about the deviant sex addicts' cult values they're being forced by Oregon to promote.  Behaviors, not race.  Hively v Ivy Tech (2016)


----------



## Silhouette

You do believe that the results in this poll apply also to individual Christians, right Syriusly?


----------

